The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-16 00:00:00

TILE PRESS.

The operation of the law was, however, absurd. If a
woman when she married had a real estate of 5001. a year,
this did not necessarily go to the husband, but if she had
0,000/. in the funds, the stock was transferred to him.
He should, therefore, by no means be indisposed to let the
dividends from stock be settled by the marriage contrict
on the wife, and to apply to that case the same safeguards
that applied to real property, unless, indeed, the wife
should, after marriage, consent to the transfer of her per-
sonal property to her husband. He would make the gift
to the husband, as was now the case in law. a gift subject
to the condition of maintaining, protecting, and guarding
the wife, and would provide that it that duty were not
discharged, and the property remained intact and un-
alienated, the life interest should revert to the wife who
had been deserted or treated brutally by her husband.
With regard to the earnings of a married woman during
coverture from any trade, avocation, or pursuit, the courts
of equity were in the habit of recognising a separate
interest on the part of the wife ; and he concurred with
the hon. and learned member that what the wife earned
during coverture should remain her separate property.
There remained a third subject to be dealt with—
namely, acquisitions made after coverture ; the three kinds
of property under consideration being the property which
the wife fiad at the time of her marriage ; the property
which she acquired after her marriage and during coverture
by her own industry; and the acquisitions she made by
her own industry, gift, or otherwise, after coverture. The
law was at variance with equity on this subject. if a mar-
ried woman who had no settlement had a sum of money
bequeathed tc her after coverture, she had a right to go
into equity and require a settlement to be made, and a
portion of the principal of the property was taken away
and locked up in settlement for the benefit of the wife,
with remainder to the children. But this could only be
obtained through the interposition of a court of equity, and
that interposition was limited by the amount of the pro-
perty. He thought that such property should be given to
the wife without the interposition of a court of justice ;
and that it was inexpedient to make her go to any tri•
bunal, and much more to so costly a tribunal as a modern
court of equity. It must be remembered that the law
gave absolute ownership of all the wile's property in pos-
session to the husband, and if they altered that law they
would take away the necessity for the interposition of a
court of equity. He should propose that the law should
give to the husband only a life interest, subject to the
duty of maintaining and protecting the wife. The mode
of compelling a husband to perform his obligations was
most weak and inefficient, but they would make it efficient
if they enacted that a husband ilbtreating his wife should
lose his interest in the property of the wife, which should
revert to her. He made these observations to inform the
hon. member how far some members of the Government,
who have considered this matter already, were prepared to
go in the matter.
MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND).

Mr. FAGAN, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Act 17th and 18th Vic., c. 11, with a
view to the abolition of ministers' money in Ireland,
said that, as be understood no opposition would be
offered to his present motion, he should defer the
observations be might have to make to another
occasion.

The question was about to be put, when
Mr. STAFFORD, without resisting the introduction
of the bill, called upon the Government to declare
their opinions upon it.
Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, said :

Sir, I took the opportunity last session, when my hon.
friend brought this subject before the house, to state that
the Government, after full consideration of the matter,
were prepared to concur with his motion. Some of the
details of the bill may possibly require alteration, but its
principle we are ready to support.
Mr. DISRAELI rose and said

I understand the principle of the bill is the abolition cf
ministers' money. and it has always been opposed by every
Government within my recollection. Lord John Russell's
Government opposed it ; the Aberdeen Ministry opposed
it ; as did also the noble lord himself, who even called it a
principle of confiscation. (Hear.) However, this is not
a fitting opportunity to enter into the discussion of the
principle of this bill. The best time for doing that is
when we are prepared to divide ; for when leave is asked
to introduce a measure, and the required permission is
conceded by the Government, the period is not a conve•
nient one for canvassing its merits.
But there is one observation on a bill of this kind which
I cannot now refrain from making. The importance of
its principle cannot be exaggerated ; in fact, if sanctioned,
it will strike at the very root of all Church property.
(Hear, hear:)

The bin, it seems, is approved and will be supported by
the Government. Under these circumstances is it not
much better, when a measure involving a principle of such
gravity is to be brought in, that it should be introduced by
the Government itselt? (Hear, hear.) And if her Ma-
jesty's Ministers have deemed it consistent with their duty
to permit a private member to bring forward a bill on a
subject of this magnitude, they are bound in fairness to
this house and the country to take care that, its principle
having been approved by them as Ministers, this house
should have an early opportunity of expressing its opinion
upon it. (Hear.) If a measure of this kind be left to a
private member of this house, the chances, as we have
been told by the hon. member for Surrey. are greatly
against it ever being brought before the house for a deft.
nitive decision.

I think, therefore, after the frank acknowledgment of
the noble lord that be approves the principle of the mea-
sure of the hon. member for Cork, and that his Govern.
ment intends to support it, the noble lord is bound to
make such arrangements that it should be brought speedily

SATURDAY,

to a second reading, in order that the house may have en
opportunity of expressing itself upon its policy. I myself
shall certainly give to it au earnest opposition. (Beta,
hear.)

Sir GEORGE GREY stated that the Government
simply intended to act in accordance with the recoil).
mendrtion of the committee of 1847, which, said
Sir George, reported " that the collection of these
funds from house to house in the towns in which it
is levied is so difficult that it would be prmient to
discontinue it." Sir George, in conclusion, recom-
mended that the bill be taken on a Wednesday.
Mr. NAPIER observed that the right hon. baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department
upon two occasions, and while he held under Lord
John Russell the office which he now holds, opposed
the abolition of ministers' money :
The committee of 1847 did not report in favour of its
abolition. It reported that a substitute should be pro.
vided when the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
should have so increased as to produce a margin applicable
for the liquidation of this demand. The whole question
is of Jeep importance. It involves a deep principle. It
affects the Church of Ireland, and consequently the United
Church of England and Ireland; but I shall reserve
observations till the second reading, on which occasion I
think I shall be able to show a sufficient case for its entire
rejection.
Leave was given.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for and obtained leave
to bring in a bill to amend the law for the registra-
tion of persons entitled to vote in the election of
members to ben() in Parliament for counties in
Scotland.

Mr. MASSEY obtained leave to bring in a bil; lo
amend the Burial Acts, anti Lord litctio a bill to
alter and amend the laws regulating the medical
profession.
Captain MAGAN moved and obtained the second
reading of the Grand Juries (Ireland) Act
Amendment Bill.

NOTICES OF NOTION.
moN DAY.

Mr. SCAOLEFIELD —that %shell Mr. Spooner'a motion came on
he would move an addition. directing that the general question
of religi(.na grants in Ireland should be considered together
with the Ma)nooth grant.

TUESDAY.
(For Tuesday, the 26th !nstent.)

Mr. Avtrroisfor a select committee to inquire Into the causes
of the inequality of the poor rates in the metropolitan districts,
with a view 1.,) the adoption of a remedy for such inequality.
Sir J. TRELAWNI—for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition
of church rates.

Mr. HORSFALL—fur a select committee to inquire into the
origin, the past and present oonstitutiun. and the powers and.
dillies of the Board of Trade, with the view t. its better adap
union to the requirements of the country.
Lord HAYNHAM —for a committee to inquire into the condition
and management of the metropolitan workhouses.
Sir J. THELAWNI (on behalf of Mr. Ilardeastle)—for leave to
bring in a bill to regulate burials iu consecrated and unconse-
crated places.
Mr. G. H. MoottE—for a bill to give compensation for tenant-
right in Ireland.