Lords Sitting of 7 March 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) *; Parliamentary Declaration (32).
Second Reading—Settled Land* (19); Conveyancing * (20); Married Women's Property (13).
Committee—Report—Post Cards (Reply) * (23).

THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL (RAILWAYS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the Government did not oppose the second reading. On the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, the Board of Trade would make a Report to the Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 13.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was the result, with merely trifling alterations, of the deliberations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which sat last Session, when the Bill was referred to that Committee. It would consolidate two Acts passed in the years 1870 and 1874, and introduce some innovations and new provisions into the law. The principal new provisions were these:—The 1st clause proposed that without the intervention of any trustee a married woman should be capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing of any real or personal property as her separate property, and that she should, in respect of her separate property, be capable of entering into and rendering herself liable on any contract, and of suing and being sued, either in contract or in tort, or otherwise, in all respects as if she were a feme sole, without her husband being joined with her as plaintiff or defendant, or being made a party to any action or other legal proceeding. If a married woman carried on a separate trade, she would be subject to the Bankruptcy Laws as if she were a feme sole. The next material provision was the 2nd clause, which enlarged the provisions of the Act of 1870, but applied only to women married after the commencement of the Act, By the Act of 1870, it was provided that a woman married after that Act should be entitled for her separate use to personal property without any limitation of the amount to which she might succeed in ease of intestacy, but with a somewhat arbitrary limitation to £200 in the case of succession to personalty under a will; but by the present Bill she would be entitled to hold as her separate property all real and personal property which belonged to her at the time of marriage, or should be acquired by or devolve on her after marriage. The 3rd clause of the Bill was similar in principle—though more absolute and unconditional—to the provision of the Scotch Act, which passed last year—namely, that property ac-

317
quired after the Act by a woman married before the Act should be held by her as a feme sole. The clauses which followed related to investments in stocks and shares, and were similar to, but abridgments of, the provisions of the existing law. There were in the existing law some qualifications of these provisions which the present Bill did not repeat, but as to which he would undertake carefully to consider before the Bill went into Committee whether they ought not to be retained. The remaining clauses were, in substance, consolidation clauses and a repetition of the existing law, with this difference—that in any question between husband and wife, civil or criminal, either he or she might be a witness; but no criminal proceeding could be taken by a wife against her husband under this Bill in respect to property claimed by her while they were living together. When they got into Committee he would be glad to explain the clauses more fully, and to receive suggestions for the amendment of any of them.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a. "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he thought that the Bill was a most useful consolidation of the present law; but he pointed out that the Bill repealed the existing Statute, under which a woman was entitled to certain rights with regard to property acquired by her, whereby questions might be raised hereafter. The 3rd clause was open to considerable objection.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that this Bill went beyond the Act of 1870, in encouraging criminal proceedings between husbands and wives, and that, in order to complete Clause 11, it should provide that a conviction under it should be taken by the Divorce Court as evidence of cruelty and desertion, without that Court having to go into the whole matter again.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 21 st instant.

PARLIAMENTARY DECLARATION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): I propose to intro-
  318
  duce into your Lordships' House a Bill which, I think, is one of very great importance. The question has been discussed in the other House. It is that of the admission of Atheists into Parliament. Now, I hold, and most distinctly hold, that it would not be expedient in this country to sanction the admission of Atheists into Parliament for the purpose of legislating for the people of this country; and the alteration I propose to make is for the purpose of getting rid of the difficulty which has arisen in regard to this matter; for I maintain that it is no part of the duty of Parliament to sanction the admission of Atheists for legislation or any other purpose. The Bill I propose is a very short one, and its purport is in the Preamble. The Preamble says—
  "Whereas it is expedient that provision should he made against Atheists taking part in legislation for this country: Be it enacted as follows:—That, from and after the passing of this Act, every Peer and every Member of the House of Commons on taking his seat in Parliament shall, before making the oath of allegiance or affirming the same in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, make and subscribe the following declaration: 'I, A. B., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I believe in an Almighty God.'"
  I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who objects to making any such declaration; and I believe it is very necessary that such a declaration should be made. We all know—we know it from Scripture—that, as time goes on, in all probability infidelity to a large extent will prevail, and we ought, therefore, to be very careful that nothing shall be done in this country in any manner tending to do away with the religious feelings and character of the Parliament of this country. The declaration in the existing Parliamentary Oath is for the purpose of sustaining allegiance to the Queen, as Sovereign of this country, and it has been thought necessary that every Member should take such an Oath. What I propose is, that we should make some allegiance with regard to our reverence to our God, and that no person should be admitted to take part in the legislation of this country who does not believe and accept the doctrine of an Almighty God. The proposal I now make would relieve Parliament from the whole of the present difficulty, and not offend any man. In conclusion, I wish to say that I desire

  319
  that the question should be approached in no Party spirit, and that I have brought the Bill in from a deep sense of what is due to Almighty God.
  Bill to make provision to exclude Atheists from taking part in legislation for this country—Presented (The Earl of REDESDALE).
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Earl whether he proposed to fix a day for the second reading of the Bill?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)replied, that he would not at present fix a day for the next stage, though he should like the Bill to pass through Parliament as speedily as possible. He would not name a day now, as he might have to make a postponement; but when he did fix a day, he should like to proceed with the measure without delay.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 32.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he desired to add one word, and it was that he had not consulted any noble Lord on the one side of the House or on the other in regard to the introduction of the Bill, as he wished to keep the matter entirely free from anything of a Party character; and he believed that, on a question of this kind, every Member of their Lordships' House would take that course which he thought expedient, independently of any Party considerations. He had brought in the Bill from a deep sense of what he believed to be due to Almighty God, and he trusted it would be discussed and adopted by Parliament in the same spirit.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.