I am afraid I could not accept the amendment. If this amendment were accepted—certainly, in respect of the smaller estates—it would make the widow's position much worse than it is even under the existing law. Under the existing law, where the estate is valued at £500 or less, the widow is entitled to it in full. Where the estate exceeds £500, the widow is entitled to £500 absolutely plus half the remainder. The Senator's amendment would worsen the position there. That is one objection. Another objection to the amendment—there are several—is that, in my opinion, it would involve a great deal of hardship. It would involve a very considerable amount of expense and it is quite likely that the whole of the estate—particularly if it were a small estate—would be eaten up in legal expenses, expenses in regard to searches and, perhaps, litigation expenses. It is bad enough at the moment, when searches have to be made and there is litigation often to establish the rights of the next-of-kin or the relatives of the husband. But if you have to look for the relatives of the husband and of the widow, Senators who know the position in the country will have some idea of what that might mean.
I think that this Bill is not too drastic. Senators must always remember that this Bill does not in any way deprive the husband of disposing of his property as he so desires. All he has to do is to make a will, just like any other citizen in the country. He can dispose of his property legally in any way he so desires. In the Bill, we say that if he fails to make a will, then the widow ought not to be handicapped, as has been the case up to this, and that she should be given the property.
Another point in connection with the amendment is, as the Senator will remember, that personal estate includes land for this purpose. A life interest in it may be of practically no value to her. The farm may be poor. In so far as the other assets are concerned, even money in the bank, they are of very little help to her. She cannot touch the money in the bank and is entitled only to whatever interest is there. The farm may be run down and it might require a certain amount of, shall I say, liquid capital. For that reason, she may not be able to carry on in any sort of an economic way at all. If she has only a life interest in it—and the money or other assets are not available, to her in a realisable way—I doubt if, having only a life interest, she would be able to raise any money to improve or even to maintain the farm. I do not think we are doing anything revolutionary. I think that it was agreed, the last time this Bill was before this House, that we were doing justice, and no more.
There are Senators here from rural Ireland who know, as well as I do, that there have been cases of extreme hardship. I suppose that we can all quote cases of a young girl or a young woman who marries into a place and has brought money into it. Perhaps the place was badly in need of money or certainly badly in need of an industrious woman, prepared to work hard, and, with her own hard work, plus whatever money she brought in, to make the farm something which it had not been before. It would be a grave injustice to her, and it would be a very poor return for the capital and labour she put into the farm—apart altogether from the natural affection which she gave to her husband during his lifetime—to accept the Senator's amendment. I think the amendment goes much too far and I cannot accept it.
