wife were small, it was still less in the case | setts in 1855; and the experience every- "However plain the moral obligation" (said Mr. Justice Blackstone) "that every man shall provide for those descended from his loins, it is one which the Common Law seems to have given ne means of enforcing." The Statute Law had done no more except to provide against the case of the father allowing his children to fall upon the parish; if he did this, he was liable to be punished criminally. Short of this, he might do as he liked with his children; he was not bound to educate them, or feed, or dress them after any style appropriate to his own or his wife's fortune. Where the law had been content with the moral obligation, it was obvious that the children would be as well off where the mother shared that moral obligation as where it fell only on the father, and therefore, on the one hand, no argument could be founded on this in support of the present law; and, on the other hand, it was not necessary in any change that was made to provide specially that the wife should be liable to contribute; it might be properly left to moral obligations. Then, again, it would be said that it would be fraught with danger to teach married couples that there might be a separation of interests, and that to introduce into any home the principle of separate rights, interests, and a separate legal existence would detract from the sacredness of marriage. That argument, if good at all, was good against the whole doctrine of separate estate as now allowed by Chancery under marriage settlements. It did not seem that in the case of the wealthy they attached much importance to this argument; nor could he ascertain that any real harm resulted from those cases within his knowledge where the wife has a separate estate; but we had a far wider experience to draw upon than the comparatively few such cases in this country. In the United States for the last twenty-five years the various States had been legislating in the direction which he advocated. They inherited from us our Common Law, but they had not respected it as we had. Some of the States at once went the full length of the present Bill; others proceeded by slow degrees, but now, almost without exception, married women had their separate property throughout the States. Vermont adopted this in 1847; New York made a step to wards it in 1840, and completed it in 1860; Pennsylvania in 1848; Massachu The change had given great satisfaction. An eminent lawyer, Mr. Dudley Field, who was mainly concerned in drawing up the Code of New York, speaking on this point in public, said he did not believe there was a single person in his State who wished to return to the Common Law; every change had been in the direction of carrying out the new principle still further. It had not been found that any evil had resulted; the sanctity of marriage had not been impaired; the homes of New England were as happy as they were before, while cases of great hardship had been redressed, and the status of women, particularly in the lower classes, had been greatly improved. If he wanted further authority, he could quote from the recent Reports of the Indian Law Commission, composed of the most able lawyers in the country, Lord Romilly, Sir William Erle, Mr. Justice Willes, Sir Edward Ryan, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and others. They were instructed to frame a code of Civil Law framed on English principles, but with such alterations as they thought fita code which would form the general law of all classes in India, subject to the special customs of certain sects. [Mr. Lowe: Not of the Hindoos and Mahommedans; to the Europeans and Eurasians it will apply.] These Commissioners, after careful discussion, rejected the Common Law of England, and had given to married women their separate property and a right to contract. These recommendations had already passed into law. Could any one doubt if it were referred to the same Commissioners what ought to be the Law of England that they would report to the same effect? In conclusion, he would only add that just as there was no civilized country in the world where the law was so unfavourable to married women in respect of their property as in England, so he believed that there was no country where so much good was to be achieved in raising the status of women of the lower classes by giving to them their earnings and their savings. He did not take any sentimental view of this question; he refrained from expressing his opinion whether women were or were not the equals of men. He put the question upon expediency and experience. Let them have as far as possible fair play, remove unequal legislation, and women would then speedily find their true level, whatever that might be, for which by nature they were intended. ment." and it was competent for any Member to move to reduce the amounts. A few of the items of the great services of the country came before the Committee, and the miscellaneous Estimates in larger amounts. When the spirit of reform and retrenchment began to prevail, a new system was introduced that of having each Vote divided into a number of items. In fact, each Vote came to be accompanied with a Schedule of explanatory statements. In 1857, when that practice had grown to a considerable extent, difficulties arose in Committee of Supply with respect to the expenditure for palaces and public build MR. AYRTON rose to move the followings in the occupation of the Crown; and ing Resolution: "That_the_Resolution of the House on the 9th day of February, 1858, That when it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote the Question shall be afterwards put upon the original Vote or upon the reduced Vote, as the case may be, without amendment," be rescinded; and that, instead thereof, it be resolved "That when it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote the Question shall be afterwards put upon the original Vote or upon the reduced Vote, as the case may be, unless an Amendment be moved for a reduction of the whole Vote." He had been induced to bring forward this Resolution in consequence of what occurred last night in Committee of Supply with regard to the Vote for Palaces, &c. In former times it was the practice of the Crown to make a general demand upon the House for certain sums which were considered necessary for the public service; and it was the practice of the Committee to express its opinion by granting the whole of the sums so demanded, or by diminishing it, leaving to the Crown the responsibility of applying the money to the necessities of the country. It was found that the Crown, instead of appropriating the public money in the manner suggested when the Supplies were asked, sometimes, by the ill advice of the Ministers of the day, appropriated the money for other and different purposes, and it was found necessary to provide means for more specifically applying them, and then the practice grew up of having the Votes divided under separate heads. But such was the disinclination of the House to any very minute investigation of the details of Supply, that the Government was permitted to apply any savings which might be made under one particular Vote to the purposes of any other Vote. That went on for some years, VOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.] the confusion became so great that he (Mr. Ayrton) ventured to suggest that, when a question was raised as to a particular item, the discussion should for the time be taken on that item, and questions with respect to it should, at the close of such discussion, be put from the Chair. The subject was afterwards brought under the consideration of the House, and a Resolution was moved by Sir Denham Norreys, that if any question was raised in Committee of Supply respecting a particular explanatory item, that the Vote of that item should be debated, and the sense of the Committee taken upon it; but the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister and other experienced Members of the House pointed out the great dangers that might arise from altering a proceeding that had prevailed for upwards of 200 years, and a Select Committee was appointed in consequence to consider what was the best mode of taking Votes in Committee of Supply. That Committee agreed to certain Resolutions, one of which stated that, when the question had been taken on a particular item, no question should subsequently be put on a preceding item; but, when any reduction occurred, the next question to be put was that on the Motion that the Vote should pass. The Committee reported at the end of the Session of 1857, and in 1858 a proposal was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to give effect to the Report. With this object certain Resolutions were moved at two o'clock in the morning, without any serious consideration or discussion. Now, the point to which he had to call the particular attention of the House was that the most important of those Resolutions, instead of being identical with the Resolution to which he had just referred as having been adopted by the Select Committee, was not in ac2 L "That when it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote the Question shall afterwards be put on the original Vote or on the reduced Vote, as the case may be, without amend ment." cordance with that Resolution. This Re- | very proper proceeding. But, if the Chairsolution was passed by the House- man put this Motion to the Committee, the Committee were thereby debarred from afterwards voting on the question of policy. Could it have entered into the contemplation of the House, when it passed that Resolution at two o'clock in the morning, that He thought the real signification of that it had adopted a proper mode for conductResolution had not been brought under the ing the Business of the House? It had notice of the House. It amounted to this been suggested by the Chancellor of the -that if any Member in Committee of Exchequer that, if Members were at liberty Supply submitted for the consideration of to move the reduction of a whole Vote the Committee the omission or reduction after a particular item had been canvassed, of an item, however small, from the ex- the same matter might possibly be displanatory statement of a Vote, after that cussed twice over. In point of fact, howproposition had been put from the Chair, ever, the particular and general questiona it should not be competent to any Member were separate and distinct from each other, to move the reduction of the whole Vote. although they perhaps might, to a certain The practical result was that if, on any extent, go over the same ground; whereas, great Vote, a Member proposed that an in order to uphold the Resolution, it must item in it, however trivial, should be con- be shown that the two questions would nesidered, every hon. Member would be pre- cessarily and invariably go over the same cluded from canvassing the expediency of ground. Again, the reason assigned by the whole Vote and its general effects. In the right hon. Gentleman did not hold the Navy Estimates the first item was good; because, since these Resolutions were "Payment of Officers and Men." Supposing passed, it had actually been ruled by the an hon. Member questioned the policy of Chairman, in Committee of Supply, that maintaining the Navy on its present footing if an hon. Member moved the general rein time of peace, the proper mode of pro- duction of a Vote, and if that Motion were ceeding was to move the reduction of the carried against him, another Member might number of officers and men. His objec start up and propose a reduction of the tion was to the general policy of the Go- items in detail. It so happened that the vernment. He objected to the policy of Resolutions did not prevent this from being maintaining so large a force; and his mode done. But his difficulty was this: the of getting an expression of the opinion of Resolution expressly proclaimed that, if a the House was, to move that the Navy Member discussed a particular item, it was ought to be reduced one-fourth or one- the duty of the Chairman to put the Vote fifth of its present number; but to cast on from the Chair; and then it could not be the Government the duty and the respon- brought forward again. So that a Memsibility of determining, if the House decided ber had the power of preventing a general in favour of the reduction, how the reduc- discussion of a question of policy. He (Mr. tion should be carried into effect. His was Ayrton) would amend the Resolution in a question, not of detail, but of policy. this way that, after a particular item had The item for wages was £3,036,000. He been the subject of discussion, any Memhad a right to propose to reduce the number should be at liberty to exercise his ber by 4,000 or 5,000 men. But, accord-constitutional right of moving a general ing to the decision of the Chairman last reduction of the whole Vote. Was it deevening upon the Resolution inconsiderately adopted by the House, if an hon. Gentleman got up and said he observed that we employed 195 flag officers, which he thought was a monstrous number, and that they cost £49,000, and he desired to take the sense of the House whether there ought to be so many flag officers, and he proposed that the sum of £49,000 for 195 officers should be reduced by £10,000; this was a proper Resolution; but then the discussion must be confined to that item. This was a very reasonable and a sirable to have such a proceeding? He had heard the opinion of many Members of that House, and he believed that hon. Members would agree with him that nothing was more expedient, nothing more desirable, if they wished to enforce retrenchment and economy. He thought it most desirable to uphold that principle, and not endeavour to take out of the hands of the Ministers of the Crown the details of administration, but confine themselves to expressing an opinion that the expenditure was too large, and leave the Govern ment to go into the details and ascertain | ral reduction of the Vote. For instance, in what way the retrenchment could be if in Committee on the Navy Estimates it best carried into effect. He thought that was affirmed that 195 flag officers were both modes ought to be preserved. They necessary, and the whole Vote was afterought not to allow any individual Member wards reduced, the Government would have to deprive another Member of the opportu- considerable difficulty in saying how the nity of bringing any business of this kind reduction should be apportioned. He quite before the House. The question was one agreed that in all cases the better and more of such grave importance that he had felt constitutional way was to move the general it his duty to bring it formally under the reduction of a Vote; but if the Committee notice of the House. took on itself to discriminate and to affirm rather hard on the Government that they an item which had been objected to, it was Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be rescinded." -(Mr. Ayrton.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that this was a matter of considerable importance, and he was not at all surprised that the hon. and learned Member who took objection to the proceedings of last evening had brought it before the House; but he thought it was not desirable to decide at once a point only just raised upon a Notice given at an early hour that morning, and of which many Members were not aware until breakfast time. It was desirable that hon. Members should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the Estimates in detail, and moving Amendments; but he did not think that practically the Committee were deprived of that privilege. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets thought that every Member should have the opportunity of moving, not only the rejection of an item in the Vote, but the general reduction of the Vote itself. He concurred in this; but he reminded the hon. and learned Member that it was still open to a Member to move the general reduction of the Vote, notwithstanding that another Member had previously moved the rejection of a particular item. That being so, a Member must make up his mind in time whether he would move the reduction of an item or the rejection of a Vote, and would wait until he saw whether an objection to a particular item would succeed. If no such rule were adopted, they might have two decisions on a Vote, placing the Government in a position of considerable difficulty; because it might happen that the Committee would not entertain Amendments for the rejection of a particular item, and adopt that for a general reduction of the Vote, the consequence of which would be that the House having affirmed the item to which objection had been taken, the other items which had not been objected to would suffer in consequence of the gene were to be called on to reduce others in the Vote. He admitted that there was considerable force in the objection of the hon. and learned Member; but, at the same time, he should be sorry to see the existing rule rescinded. MR. J. STUART MILL said, that as it appeared likely that this matter would go back for re-consideration, he might be permitted to suggest a further point. The Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was on a very important and very valuable subject, and formed part of the largest questions. The rules which, in the course of centuries, had been elaborated in this House for the conduct of the Business had been most deservedly admired. But difficulties might arise when the House could only have one Amendment on the same point; because, as soon as one Amendment had been rejected, it had resolved that the original Motion should be put unamended. It might be well for the House to examine this point. According to the rule of the French Chamber, whatever number of Amendments there might be moved, the question of precedency was decided in this way: The Amendment which was farthest from the original Motion was put first, and if this were lost, the others were put in succession. Might it not be as well to adopt the plan here? MR. CHILDERS said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had concluded his speech without making any recommendation to the House. In fact, the matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and he wished to know if his right hon. Friend had any objection to the adoption of that course; or did he merely propose the adjournment of the subject to a future day? He understood his right hon. Friend to say that if a particular item was objected to and discussed, the decision on that item must be conclusive as to the judgment of the Committee on the whole Vote. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-1 the extra discussion would be for the beneQUER: The rule laid down by the Chair- fit of the public service. man last night was, that after the decision of the Committee had been taken on a particular item in the Vote, it was not competent to an hon. Member to move the rejection of the whole Vote. MR. GOLDNEY said, he could not understand how the ruling of the Chairman last night interfered in any way with the privileges or powers of hon. Members in criticizing the Votes. He believed he was right in saying that the effect of the present rules was this, that when the Vote was read from the Chair, any hon. Member might move that it be reduced. If that opportunity were not taken advantage of, and the items of which the Vote con This and passed, it was not then in the power COLONEL FRENCH said, he could see no good cause of complaint against the course pursued. He did not see that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) had made out the slightest case; but if the House thought differently, he suggested that the question should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. MR. CHILDERS was quite aware of the fact, but he also understood the right hon. Gentleman to contend that that rule was quite right; because if it was afterwards competent to the Committee to reduce the whole Vote, the Government would be in a difficulty with respect to its distri-sisted had been gone through and discussed bution among items unobjected to; but he thought this hardly a conclusive objection. It often happened that while some hon. Member who objected to the whole Vote on general grounds of economy, not possessing the necessary information, which was in possession of the Government, to enable him to point out objections to particular items, adopted the plan of moving the general reduction of the Vote, there were others who, from having filled official positions, or having devoted themselves very sedulously to the study of successive Estimates, were enabled to point out the objectionable increase of particular items, and who therefore moved their rejection or reduction. He certainly did not think that those who wished to move a general reduction, ought to be precluded from doing so by the rejection of an Amendment reducing an item; and he suspected his right hon. Friend was in error in supposing that after an hon. Member had moved the general reduction of a Vote, a particular item could be discussed. The form of the Amendment to the whole Vote precluded such a course. But he would take higher ground. It was for the interest of the Government, and every Member of the House, to whatever party they might belong, to give the fullest and freest discussion to any criticism of the Estimates. The present process did preclude the House from criticising the Votes in the way which they wished. The present course might be convenient to the Government at the time; but he ventured to say that it would be more to their interest, and that of the public service if a fuller and better criticism of the Estimates could be obtained. If the adoption of the present rule precluded hon. Members from dealing with the Votes in the way which they desired, there would be always complaints till it was altered. The new arrangement might involve more time than was at present occupied ; but he was sure MR. DISRAELI said, he was a Member of the Committee of 1858, and very much approved of the Resolutions then arrived at. With regard to the point now under discussion, his impression was not in favour of the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton); but he admitted the gravity of the point, and should like a longer time for its consideration. After what occurred last night, he had no idea that they would be called on to decide the point to-day. It did not appear to him to be a point which should be submitted to a Select Committee. It was a question which would be best discussed in open Chamber, and he thought they would be most likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion in that way. He would therefore suggest the adjournment of the debate, so that they might come to some decision after due consideration. He wished it to be understood that he was not pledged to anything, and should be ready to listen to any suggestion that should be made. If, however, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets did not |