SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 July 1890)

§ *LORD BRAMWELL

I think the proposal in this Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time is a right one. It applies to the case of a man dying without issue, child, grandchild, or other descendent, intestate, and leaving a widow, and to no other case. If he leaves a will of course the Bill has no: application, if he leaves a descendant the Bill has no application, and if he does not leave a widow the Bill does not come into operation. Your Lordships know, I dare say, that at present in such a case as the Bill applies to the widow has half the personal estate, and the next-of-kin, however remote they may be, have the other half of the personal estate. In reference to real property the widow is also entitled to dower, unless the conveyance has been to her husband, and the dower is: barred, as it usually is; but practically, I should say that people who die worth no more than this Bill supposes very seldom leave any real property. Substantially, the result is that the widow has half the personalty and the next-of-kin, however remote they may be, get the other half. Of course, the next-of-kin may be the father or the mother of the intestate, but I suppose that is comparatively a rare case, because parents generally die before those of their children as have attained such an age as to leave a widow. Practically, therefore, I believe the Bill will very rarely come into operation except in cases where the competition is between the widow and the collaterals. Now the Bill proposes that in such a case as I have supposed the widow should have a minimum interest in the intestate's property to the amount of £500, which would make some sort of a provision for her. That is the substance of the proposal that is now before your Lordships. If the man dies worth more than £500 up to £1,000, why then his widow gets the £500 only, and the residue is divisible amongst the next of kin. If he dies worth more than £1,000 then the intention of the Bill is that it should not apply that she should have half of the entire sum whatever it 1046 may be. Now this is a small matter, I confess, and I cannot see that there is any particular principle in it beyond this, that it is reasonable that the widow should be preferred practically to collaterals. If I am asked why £500 should be named I cannot give any particular reason for it. It might be that £1,000 would be better; it might be that £600 would be better; it might be that £400 would be better; I cannot say. But those who have brought forward the Bill (and your Lordships know, I suppose, that it has passed the Second Reading in the House of Commons) have thought that £500 is a reasonable amount to put in the Bill. I think so too. I do not think it is giving the widow too much, and I do not think it is taking anything unreasonable away from those who would otherwise get the property. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ *LORD MORRIS

Before the Bill is read a second time, as I see it applies to Ireland, where it would make an enormous difference as regards the present state of the law, I should like to say a few words. In Ireland the peasantry and small farmers make some sort of division of their property when in extremis, which is carried out, generally speaking, with a good deal of strictness by their relatives, though it may not be very legal. They are fond of obeying the exhortations and directions of the death-bed. This Bill would have a large effect in Ireland, because £500 there would be a large estate among the class of persons to whom it would apply, and it would lead, in my opinion, not only to a good deal of difference in the state of the law but very often to riots and possibly to murders. We know from what has occurred in Ireland the tenacity with which they hold by their land; and if a man dies and leaves a young widow, and she becomes under this Bill the holder of his land, which might be personal property, and under £500 in value, if she marries and carries off that property to her second husband, the father and mother, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, as the case might be, of that man would look upon that personal property 1047 as really their own, and according to modern legislation they would, be very right in looking at it from that point of view, and, in my opinion, that might lead to roost disastrous results. At all events, I do not think it is a matter that ought to be hurriedly run through.