The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THIS DAY.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at 12 o'clock.
BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MONSELL moved the second reading of this bill
the object of which was to remove certain restrictions
which at present existed in Ireland. By the law as
it at present stood a Roman Catholic priest
or Dissenting clergyman was prevented from performing
the rites of burial in parochial churchyards without the
consent of the incumbent, and it was to do away with this
practice that the bill was introduced.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the bill be read a
second time that day six months, as it was but another
step to be given to Roman Catholics to the detriment of the
members of the Church of England. It was a measure in
his opinion which was brought forward in the hop.) that
the present state of Ireland would prevent the hous3 re-
fusing its assent on the ground that if it did so it might
lead to disturbance.

Mr. O'BEIRNf supported the second reading of the
bi:l.

Mr. BRUCE said the bill, although supported by Roman
Catholics, it was not pressed forward by them, but by the
Protestant Dissenters. Ile hoped the bill would receive
the sanction of the lions••.

I LEFT SITTING.]

IIOUSE OF COMAIONS—LAsr EVENING,
A new writ was ordered to issue for Grantham in the
room of Mr. Welby.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY.
Mr. LEFEVRE moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law with respect to the property of marrie
women. According to the law as it at presen►
stood on marriage the whole of the property of the wife
reverted to the husband, with the exception of real pro-
perty, which, however, he could not dispose of without
her consent. With respect to leasehold and personal
property it was entirely at his disposal, and in the
event of his turning out a spendthrift, there
was nothing to prevent him squandering the whole
of it. Even wages that the wife might earn by the exer-
cise of professional ability were at his disposal, and even
deposits a married woman might make in a savings bank
were paid over on the demand of the husband. The
Court of Chancery had certain powers on the
subject, but circumstances had occurred even there
which showed some alteration of the law was required,
and, as a proof of this, he would mention two cases which
had occurred not a very long time ago. A husband be-
came bankrupt, and. some time after this a sum of £l,OOO
became payable to his wife, but Lord St. Leonards only al-
lowed her to take £6CO, the other £4OO he directed should
be paid to her husband's creditors ; and, in the other case,
the wife had been deserted by her husband, and
it became known that ho was living with an-
other female, but all hope of his returning
to his wife had gone before the property, £6,000, d'scended
to the wife as next of kin. In this case the judge of the
Court of Chancery directed the husband to be paid one-
third of the amount, so that the deserted wife lost £2,000,
which was doubtless spent in the most reckless manner
by her husband. By the bill he asked leave to introduce
he proposed to change the common law. In all future
marriages the property belonging to a woman before she
became a wife he proposed should remain her property
in all cases of existing marriage. The bill enacted that
all money earned as wages should be paid to the wife
and not to the husband, but a power would be
contained in the bill by which a married
woman could be sued just as a single woman. He did not
doubt but that his bill would encounter some opposition,
because it might be considered an invasion on the cere-
monyof marriage, but he hoped the subject would be calmly
discussed, and when that had been done he felt that the
justice of his proposal was so great that he confidently ex-
pected the bill would receive the sanction of Parliament.

Mr. S. MILL seconded the motion, and leave was
afterwards given to bring in the bill.

VOTING SUPPLIES.

Mr. AYRTON called attention to the manner at
present adopted of putting the question to the house
while in committee of supply, and concluded by
proposing that, instead of the present practice, when
it had been proposed to omit or reduce items in a vote, the
question should be afterwards put upon the original vote,
or upon the reduced vote as the case might be,
unless an amendment be moved for a reduction of the
whole vote. He contended that, by the course he pro-
posed, the same question would not, and could not, be dis-
cussed twice over.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho
hoped the hon. gentleman would not press the matter to a
decision at that moment. With respect to the right of any
member wishing to reduce any vote that might be pro-
posed, it was most desirable that that privilege
should be within the power of every member, and as the
difficulty had only been started last evening, some further
time should be allowed for a full consideration of the
matter before any direct alteration was decided upon by
the house.

Mr. CHILDERS said from what had taken place in the
house last evening it was absolutely necessary that some
change in the practice of the house should take place.
The resolution was postponed.
CAPITAL PUNIS LIM ENTs WITHIN PRISONS