fectly clear. Supposing a Vote of £70,000 was proposed. It was competent for any hon. Gentleman to move its reduction by £30,000, and if this were negatived Members might move Amendments on the ten separate items of £7,000 of which the Vote was made up. But after these items had all been disposed of it was not competent to go back upon the whole Vote, and move a reduction upon it. The Amendment might be taken in the first instance against the total amount of the Vote, or against any portion of it, and if it were negatived it was still open to move a reduction in a particular item; but after the items were passed a Member could not move a reduction upon the whole Vote. of the Chairman was correct. Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—put, and negatived. Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; BOUNDARY BILL.-[BILL 78] (Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in mov COLONEL FRENCH held that the rulinging that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that as any discussion of the measure would probably be on details, such discussion could best take place in Com MR. HEADLAM said, the practice of setting forth a great number of items in a Vote had grown up since the Resolutions were adopted, and therefore it might be wise for the House to consider whether some alteration might not be made in the Resolutions. But he did not see what good could be gained by prolonging the present discussion, since they had no power in Committee to alter the Resolutions. mittee. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.) MR. HEADLAM did not wish to oppose the second reading, but thought it right to tell Her Majesty's Government that in some parts of the North of England MR. SANDFORD said, he had never strong objections were entertained to the listened to a more monstrous argument machinery of the Bill, especially so far as than that of the Chancellor of the Exche-it related to North and South Shields. quer. Different sections of the House MR. SERJEANT GASELEE objected to might be defeated in turn upon special Motions, and yet they might concur in thinking that the Estimates as a whole had not been framed with a due regard to economy. He thought some alteration of the rule was necessary. MR. AYRTON said, that when the House next went into Committee of Supply he should move a Resolution to amend the Resolution read from the Chair, and to the effect that any hon. Member should have the power of moving the reduction of the whole Vote, notwithstanding that a Member might previously have moved the reduction of a particular item. MR. SERGEANT GASELEE entered his strong protest against the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since he had had the honour of a seat in the House he had never heard from a Member of the Government such astounding language. Question put and negatived. MR. AYRTON moved that the Chairman report Progress. the principle of the Bill, which was to take away voters from the country and place them in the towns, thus eliminating the town voters, who were really the Liberal voters. Without going the length of moving the rejection of the Bill, he thought there should be further discussion on this stage, and therefore moved that the House do now adjourn. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.' (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.) MR. CANDLISH did not think any one could object to the principle of the Bill, which was simply that boundaries should be altered. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE said, he would withdraw his Amendment. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, April 21, 1868. Hundreds. MINUTES.]-NEW WRIT ISSUED-For Grant- Confirmation.* Married Women's Property Capital Punishment within Prisons [36]; Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites) [18]; amending this law. The House rejected the claims of the hon. Member, and women would be no better represented in the new House than in the present. It would not therefore be unreasonable that they should take an opportunity of considering the grievances complained of. The Bill which he proposed with this object was almost identical with one which was brought into this House in 1857 by Sir Erskine Perry. That Bill had been prepared, after a long inquiry, by a committee of the Law Amendment Society, of which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was a member, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War an active supporter. The Bill was read a second time late in the Session by a majority of 120 to 65; but, notwithstanding this favourable start, nothing more had been done in the matter since that time. It happened that in the same year the Divorce Act was passed; and in the course of it a clause was inserted which, by giving magistrates power to make orders protecting married women from claims on their prodeserted them, remedied to a small degree perty and earnings by husbands who had the evils then complained of. It was thought, he presumed, that, as something had been done, it was not desirable to renew the discussion on the broader question. In the course, however, of the last autumn a very numerous petition was presented to the Law Amendment Society, to bring in; but, as there was nothing of this question, and in consequence another Praying them again to exert themselves on importance, he hoped he might be permit-committee was appointed by that learned ted to take this opportunity of explaining its object. In the able speech of last year Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [1]. Report Capital Punishment within Prisons [36]; Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites) [18]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [1-88]. Third Reading-Petty Sessions and Lock-up Houses [75]; Prisons (Compensation to Officers) [80], and passed. MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE, in rising to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Property of Married Women, said that had there been any important Government Bill in the Paper for that evening he should have hesitated, in the present state of the business of the House, to detain it with any statement at the present stage of the Bill which he should ask the leave of the House in which his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) advocated the claims of female ratepayers to the suffrage the argument which had most weight with himself, and he believed with many others who voted with him, was that in which he pointed out the grievances resulting to large numbers of married women from the present state of the law relating to their property. He stated that, as a rule, the wealthy classes escape from the operation of the Common Law by means of marriage settlements; but that this course not being open to the poorer classes, they come under the full force of its severity. He said that if women had a share in the return of Members to this House there could not be a doubt that one of the first measures that would be forced upon our attention would be one for Be society, composed of able lawyers and "Myself, and what is mine, to you and yours That, which was then a true description of not have described the high-spirited, noble, the Common Law, was true to this day. Mar- and wealthy Portia as so completely handriage, in fact, operated as an absolute gift ing over herself and her property to her to the husband of all that the wife had or husband; she would have made favourable which would come to her during marriage. arrangements for herself, and by means of It was true that in the case of real pro- marriage settlements and trustees have perty the husband could not dispose of it provided for a separate estate during marwithout the wife's consent; but he received ringe, free from her husband's control. It the rents during their joint lives, and might would not be uninteresting if he were to dispose of this interest. With respect to point out the various stages by which the her leasehold and personal property, it Courts of Equity have advanced towards was absolutely at her husband's disposal, carrying out a more just policy to married and if he was reckless or extravagant she women. They began by recognizing the had no means whatever of restraining his fact that through trustees a separate estate expenditure. If, in order to provide against could be secured to the wife free from the penury, she earned any money by her control of the husband; they then went labour, all she earned became the property a little further, and conceded to her what of her husband, and all her savings be- was called an equity to a settlement-that longed to her husband. It would be found, was, in the case of any money coming to on looking at the depositors' books of the her after marriage, they recognized that Post Office Savings Banks that a notice in certain cases the wife was entitled to a was attached to them stating that, although portion of this to her separate use, so as to money would be received from married secure her against her husband's improviwomen, it would be paid over to their dence. At the same time, they had prohusbands on application. The husband did ceeded very timidly and cautiously, not as he thought fit with her property, as, liking to give her all. By way of illustraindeed, with his own; he was subject to no tion he gave two cases; in one, a married control on her part; if he was unfortu- woman, whose husband had become insolnate it went to his creditors; if he was vent, and who was utterly unprovided for, reckless she could not restrain him. In- became entitled as next of kin to £1,000. deed, at Common Law the wife had no sepa- She applied to the Court of Chancery to rate existence from that of her husband. have it settled to her separate use, free She could not contract, or sue or be sued. from her husband's creditors. Lord St. She and her husband were considered as Leonards would not give her the whole of one person; but that person was not a it; he directed £600 to be given to the combination of the two, but was repre- wife and £400 to the creditors, who, he sented by the husband alone. Blackstone, said, with curious logic, were entitled also after stating the effect of the Common to some compassion for their wives and Law, remarked that the very disabilities to children. In another case a husband had which women were subjected showed how deserted his wife, leaving her unprovided great favourites they were to the law. for; he was living with another woman, No women, he thought, would agree to under circumstances which made it imposthat. Nor, in fact, did the Court of Equity. sible to suppose that he could ever return It would be easy out of the practice and to his wife. The wife became entitled to judgments of the Judges in Equity to pro- £6,000, and applied to have the whole nounce the condemnation of the Common settled upon herself; the Court would not Law which it deserved. At what time the give her the whole, but directed one-fourth Equity Judges first introduced these excep- of the sum to be paid to the scoundrel who tions it was now difficult to trace; whether was her husband. Lord Cottenham in a it was due to the old ecclesiastical Chancel- case before him stated the grounds for lors or to the earlier lay Chancellors, like giving a wife what is called her equity Lord Ellesmere and Lord Nottingham, who to a settlement in a way which clearly first transplanted some of the more equit- showed how inadequate the process of able doctrines of the Civil Law, we could equity is for really dealing with the case. not now tell. All that we could say was, Lord Cottenham said— that from a very early date equity had re"The Common Law gives to the husband the procognized the separate existence of the married woman and the possibility of her hav-perty of the wife, upon the ground that he is liable to maintain her, and makes no provision for the ing a separate estate. If Shakespeare had event of his failing or becoming unable to perform lived in the present day he would probably that duty. If the property be attainable at law ance of both." by the husband or his assignee at law, the severity no harm resulted; but if he proved reckof this law must prevail; but if it cannot be less, improvident, vicious, self-indulgent, reached otherwise than by the interposition of this Court, equity, though it follows the law, and there- drunken, or even only unfortunaté, everyfore gives to the husband or his assignee the life thing the wife had would be swallowed up, estate of the wife, yet withholds its assistance for and her position would become one of great that purpose, until it has secured to the wife the hardship. The fact that the husband had means of subsistence; it refuses to hand over to uncontrolled property in his wife's savings the assignees of the husband the income of the property which the law intended for the mainten- and earnings was then the fruitful source of wretchedness. It often acted as an inducement to the husband to become idle or drunken; it prevented the wife having that moral control over him which she might otherwise have; it sometimes took from the wife the motive for exertion, and urged the family downward in its career of misery. The Census showed that out of 3,200,000 wives in this country upwards of 800,000 were employed in professions and trades of various kinds. Almost without exception these persons were without the protection from the Common Law which the wealthy had found so necessary; their earnings belonged to their husbands and not to themselves. Yet it seemed that what a woman earned by her own exertions ought to be far better secured to her than anything even which comes to her by bequest or descent. If we reflected for a moment upon the number of those women who, having made an unfortunate choice, found themselves bound for life to bad husbands, some idea might be gained of the amount of unhappiness and wretchedness resulting from the operation of the Common Law, unhappiness which might be greatly alleviated, though not perhaps removed, by its change. There was, perhaps, no one in the House who had not become acquainted with some case of peculiar hardship. He could mention many, but would refer only to two. In one case a wife who earned money by her own work had, unknown to her husband, put by a little store in the savings bank against a bad day; her husband, a dissipated, improvident man, suspecting the fact, tested his wife by suddenly saying to her, "Do you know the savings bank has failed?" The poor woman fainted from the shock, and her husband immediately went off and drew out her money. In another case, which he had been told was very common, a married woman, who was clever and industrious and could easily earn money, had for a a husband an engineer on board a man-ofwar, whose practice it was to come back to his wife after his cruize, and in a few weeks to clear his wife out by living upon her savings and the proceeds of a sale of her small stock in trade. As he was not cruel The Courts of Equity had not only given to the wife her equity to a settlement, and recognized the possibility of her having a separate estate; but they had given her in respect of her separate estate all the incidents attaching to property, the right to contract with respect to it, and to sue and be sued in the Courts of Equity. A woman in equity could be a separate trader; she could also sue her husband in equity; and the Court would in some cases hold him to be a trustee for her, and compel him to do what was right. Through these decisions of Chancery a system had grown up, under which, by virtue of marriage settlements, the wealthy classes, almost without exception, escaped from the operation of the Common Law. No man of position or wealth would dream of allowing his daughter to marry under the simple condition of the Common Law, no matter how favourable appearances might be. He would very properly insist upon a marriage settlement, to secure her against the husband's misfortune or neglect. If the lady were wealthy a portion of her fortune would be settled on her to her separate use. It rarely happened in the upper classes, therefore, that a wife found herself under the provision of the Common Law only; but exceptional cases were sufficient to condemn that law, and he presumed few persons would fail to recollect some case of hardship to married women, even among the wealthy. The very fact that the wealthy as a rule set aside the law was the best evidence that they were not satisfied with it. But if this were so with the wealthy, far more so was it with the humbler classes. It was universally admitted that marriage settlements and trusteeships were quite inapplicable to the case of very small fortunes, or to cases where women were earning small incomes by professions or by wages. The result was that these people were left without any protection from the effect of the Common Law, and the consequences were often disastrous. If the marriage turned out well, if the husband were prudent, trustworthy, sober and kind, to her within the meaning of the law, and as his absence on a cruize could not be deemed desertion, she could get no reparation; she had no resource but to submit to his periodical visitation. He would not multiply cases; they were matter of common knowledge, and he was certain there was no statesman, philosopher, or lawyer who, after a candid consideration, would not admit the Common Law of this country was unjust in its operation upon large classes of people. The only question was whether to proceed further in the direction of the exceptional provisions of equity, eating into the principle of the Common Law, but leaving that law still in the fundamental groundwork of the system, or whether to make a change in the Common Law itself, and to give to the married woman an absolute property in her own fortune, earnings, and savings. He believed the latter was the true course to take. The whole process of equity was really inapplicable to the great bulk of the people; the law itself should deal equitably with the case of married women. It was not sufficient to meet the case by expedients, which could only be brought into operation by ante-nuptial arrangements or by special applications. It was often too late already when these applications were made; and the great bulk of people did not understand or could not get the legal advice to enable them to take advantage of them. The Bill, therefore, which he ventured to introduce proposed to make a change in the Common Law itself, so as to prevent in the future marriage operating as a transfer of the wife's fortune to the husband. In the case of existing marriages it would secure to the wife any future earnings which she might make or any property which she might hereafter become entitled to, and in respect of such separate property the wife would be able to contract and to sue and be sued in the Law Courts as if she were a single woman. The change might seem a startling one, but it would not really be very great. He believed it would make very little difference with the wealthy; it was not proposed to interfere with the power to make marriage settlements, but in those exceptional cases where no settlement was made the wife would have there her own fortune, just as if it had been settled to her separate use under a marriage settlement. It was with the humbler classes that the change would be the greatest, and it was there the change was most needed. He would not on the present occasion deal with all the objections which would probably be raised. There were two points, however, on which it was advisable to say a few words. It would be urged that, as the husband was responsible for the maintenance of his wife and children, it was only right that he should have his wife's fortune. He had already shown that there was no legal means of enforcing this obligation of preventing him from disposing of the means of fulfilling it, and that equity gave this reason for its interference; but even where the husband did not part with his wife's money, but retained it in his hands, his legal obligation to maintain her was of the most shadowy character. It had sometimes been thought that the wife, when living with her husband, had a right to pledge his credit with tradesmen for the supply of necessaries according to her station in life, but a recent decision had shown that even this was not so. The wife was now held to be only his agent for ordering goods of tradesmen as long as he pleased; and if he withdrew his authority, even without public notice, if he only forbade her to order goods or to pledge his credit, she had no right to do so. The ground on which this was held was that the husband ought to be absolute master of his own style of living, and that it ought not to be left to a jury to say how his wife should dress. The husband might treat her, in fact, as Petruchio did Katherine. William Erle said Sir "If the wife, taking up goods from a tradesman, can make her husband's liability depend on the estimate by a jury of his estate and degree, the law would practically compel him to regulate his expense by a standard to be set up by that jury." The reasoning seemed sound, but the result was that the husband's legal liability to maintain his wife was reduced to the merest shadow; if she lived apart from him, without any fault of her own, then it seemed that he was liable to tradesmen who supplied her with necessaries; but she had no direct remedy against him, and this circuitous process was of very little value to the woman. He had received information from two of the leading magistrates in London, showing what hardship often resulted to women who had been deserted by their husbands and who refused to support them. There was no means of getting at them, even though they might be making good wages in the same parish in which their wives were receiving parochial relief. If the legal responsibility for the |