HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20448, 30 June 1928, Page 26

HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

QUESTION OF WILL. VISCOUNT ASTOR’S MOTION. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, May 19. The motion by Viscount Astor in the House of Lords in favour of setting, up a select conunitttee to see whether a change is necessary in the laws governing testamentary provision for wives, husbands, and children, led to an interesting debate. The Lord Chancellor threw cold water on the proposal, and Lord Astor withdrew his motion. But the House listened to some admirable speeches, discursiye, witty, and illuminating. < The time, indeed, was not ill-spent if for no other reason than that it served to throw into relief the greatly changed position of women that has come about in recent years. Basing his motion on the experience of Scotland, some of the dominions, and some foreign countries, Lord Astor said there were two sets of hardships—-the case of the surviving spouse, who might find himself or herself badly treated, and the case of other dependents of the deceased. Most owners of property treated their relatives properly, but there were undoubtedly cases of hardship. There had been cases of men leaving their estates to their mistresses. He knew of a case of a man who left a million and a-half to his illegitimate children and their mother, and only £30,000 to his legitimate children and their mother. There were instances ■where widows had to be supported by the guardians out of the rate. He knew of another case in which a man who died ■ worth half a million left 35s a week to his wife and the residue to charity. His idea was that they should pass legislation based on the experience of some of the dominions, and extend the existing powers of British courts. In other words, the new Prayer Book injunction, “All my worldly goods with thee I share,” should be made a binding marital obligation. THE FORCE OF PUBLIC OPINION. Viscount Haldane, while sympathising with Lord Astor’s feelings in the matter, regarded the proposal as unworkable. There weye only two ways in which to deal with this matter. Either one left people to, make their wills and trusted to their sense of justice, or else one should establish some State authority to make their wills for them. He was not averse to the intervention of the State in many cases, but when it intervened in the matter of wills, he had seen too much of what went on in the murts to think that the judges were able to do it wisely. They knew the circumstances. They knew only of the abstract thing stated in a document. Tl there was to be a tribunal for the purpose he would much rather set it up from among the Bench of Bishops—(laughter)—who would do the work better and more humanely. He pitied the Select Committee which Lord Astor proposed to set up. It would have to sit for years and years if it was to examine what had been the experience in other countries. It would find a multitude of cases in which people had complained that the decisions of the tribunals had been given without sufficient knowledge of the facts. The only force which could compel in these matters was the force of public opinion—a force ■ which almost compelled a man to do what he ought to do, and to do what he did do in the vast majority of cases. Still more emphatically Lord Buckmaster declared the proposal to be impracticable. He agreed that there should be a definite fraction of the estate to which the woman should be entitled, with the children; and if Lord Astor had shaped his motion to secure that object he would have voted for it. He scoffed at Lord Haldane’s confidence in the influence of public opinion to influence the testator. " One of the advantages of being dead was that public opinion ceased to operate upon you.” What should be done was to strengthen the individual, independent and economic position of women, and then it would not matter whether a husband left his widow money any more than if she left him money. Lord Buekmaster was clearly convinced that the modern women is able to look after herself. The only - way was to strengthen in every way the independent economic position of the woman. If there was to be an inquiry it must also include an inquiry into the desirability of a husband having a share in his wife’s property. HARD CASES AND BAD LAW. The Lord Chancellor, who remarked that Lord Astor had initiated a very instructive debate, objected that it would be undesirable in the public interest to set up a tribunal which ■would be mainly engaged in the unpleasant duty of supervising the washing of family linen in public. The Married Woman’s Property Act was a necessary piece of legislation for the protection of heiresses from the evil designs of fascinating adventures. But, though a married woman has now the complete control of her income, she is not liable for the payment of income tax. That is her husband’s responsibility, even if he has not the means of discharging it. This is but one instance of the legal anomalies which remain in the law affecting married people. Hard cases there will always be, but on the whole it may be said that marriage today is much more a partnership than ever it was before. Family life also has changed its economic character. The father is no longer the sole support of his unmarried daughter, and often enough his wife makes her contribution to the common stock. As there was no prospect of legislation the Lord Chancellor saw no good in setting up a committee of inquiry. Viscount Cecil considered that there was a case for inquiry. He instanced the case of a woman well able to earn a living before marriage finding when her husband died that the whole of the property had been given to someone who had no claim on Him. Lord Merrivale described Lord Astor’s proposal as revolutionary. If there were these numerous cases—about which his experience left him suspicious—they were matter for the Home Secretary. They could be no good ground for a roving inquiry into a subject of such tremendous consequence.