Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1954

Vol. 43 No. 5

Intestates' Estates Bill, 1953—Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

In this case I do not mind how long the Seanad takes, as there is no hurry about the Bill. I have delayed it quite a long time myself. This Bill is concerned with a single type of intestacy and with no other type of case, namely, the case of a man who dies leaving a widow but no children. It is not a Bill to deal with the law of intestate succession generally. Nor does it aim at a reform of the law of property, which some people think is overdue. It is as well to say this at the outset so as to forestall suggestions which would be appropriate to a measure of a different kind but which are out of place in connection with the present Bill.

The Bill differs from the Bill that was introduced in 1951, chiefly in two respects. Under the previous Bill the widow was to take the whole of the intestate's personal estate. Thus, if the deceased's estate consisted solely of a farm of registered land (which devolves as personal estate) the widow would take the entire estate. This, we believe, would be inconsistent with the wishes of intestates generally in this country and we have, therefore, proceeded on a different principle. Secondly, the previous Bill would have given the widow a life interest in the whole of the real estate but no other interest therein. This would put the widow in a worse position than she is in at present in the case of a small estate of real property as it would deprive her of the statutory legacy and a lump sum equivalent to half the value of the residue which would be a much more valuable interest in such a case. Opinion is indeed unanimous that life interests in small estates are most undesirable. We consider, therefore, that it would be a retrograde step to make such a change in the law.

The Bill proposes to make better provision for the childless widows of intestates in three ways. In the first place it proposes to increase eight times the statutory legacy payable to such widows under the existing law; that is to say, to increase the statutory legacy from the sum of £500 to the sum of £4,000. Secondly, it provides that in the case of a partial intestacy the provisions of the Bill will apply to the intestate part. As the law stands the widow has no right to the statutory legacy in the case of a partial intestacy. And, finally, it provides that any property which, for want of an heir or next-of-kin, would pass to the State under the existing law shall in future belong to the widow absolutely and exclusively.

There was a good deal of discussion in the other House as to what the statutory legacy should be and I was asked to take into consideration not alone the fall in the value of money that has taken place since 1890 but also the fact that the sum of £500 was inadequate even at that time and represented a much less ample provision than an intestate would have wished to make for his widow before he would have wished his parents or brothers and sisters to benefit. It is clear that very different views may be taken as to what provision should be made for the widow where there is no issue surviving, but I was impressed by the argument that the widow should be provided with a competence which would be sufficient to maintain her for the rest of her life in modest comfort where the estate was large enough to permit of this. I therefore agreed that the statutory legacy should be fixed at the sum of £4,000 instead of £2,000, as I had originally intended.

There is one provision in the Bill which calls for a word of explanation and that is the provision contained in Section 7, which relates to the method of valuing real estate for the purposes of the Bill. Under the law as it stands, the value of the real estate (including registered land), for the purpose of determining the widow's rights, falls to be calculated in an artificial manner upon the basis of 20 times the rateable valuation. The effect of this artificial manner of valuing real estate under present day conditions when the price of land is high is to produce the most anomalous results. Let me give an illustration. Suppose that two persons die intestate, one possessed of a farm of registered land with a rateable valuation of £25 and the other possessed of nothing but £500 in the bank, the widow takes the entire estate in each case but the saleable value of the farm of registered land might be worth as much as £1,500 or £2,000. The anomaly is no less striking in the case of two farms of registered land the artificial valuation of which is slightly below £500 in one case and slightly above it in the other since the market value of both farms is very much in excess of the artificial valuation. In the first case the widow takes the entire farm, but in the second she gets no more than a charge for £500 on the farm and half the balance of its market value. The Bill proposes to get rid of these anomalies by providing that in future real estate is to be taken at its market or saleable value, which is what Section 7 means.

It remains for me to say that Section 1 of the Bill provides that the Act shall come into operation on the 1st June next. This is to allow persons concerned an opportunity of making their wills if they do not wish their property to be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the new legislation. We thought it only right we should give due notice.

Professor Hayes

This Bill has been substantially improved from my point of view since it was introduced in the Dáil. It aims at modifying the previous Bill introduced here in 1951. In one case, it modifies it, as the Minister points out, in favour of the widow, and, in the other, against her. I was never an ardent advocate of women's rights.

Mrs. Dowdall

Shame!

Professor Hayes

If Senator Dowdall will listen to me, she will find that I am not as bad as she thinks. I was never an ardent advocate of women's rights because, when the Minister and I were younger, we were interested in Cathlín Ní Houlihán rather than any other lady, and we were interested in her rights rather than in the rights of women generally. I should like to point out—and if Senator Dowdall will bear with me, she might get some information—that the Sinn Féin movement and the Gaelic League movement were the first in these countries and, perhaps, in Europe, to give complete equality to women. Without discussing the principle at all, or having any argument about it, they just gave it to them. They let them do jobs of work; they gave them votes and every consideration. Indeed, they married them in many cases, which was, perhaps, the best of all kinds of consideration. For that reason, I am still an advocate of rights of equality for women, and I do think that, although the Minister has made an improvement by making the sum £4,000, where a man dies intestate and leaves a widow without children, the widow should take the whole of the personal estate as was provided in the Bill of 1951. I do not see why she could not or should not.

The Minister's pretence—I do not use the word offensively—or the Minister's argument that that would not be the desire of the majority of Irish intestates just does not hold water. If a man wants to will any part of his estate away from his wife he should make a will doing that, and if he does not do it his widow should get the whole lot. That is my opinion. The Minister in the other House cited the case—it occurs frequently in this country—of an old man marrying a young woman. If she is good enough to be his wife it seems to me that she is good enough to take his whole personal estate if he does not make a will providing for other people. At this hour of the day, as things stand now, it is quite a retrograde step to provide that the widow shall not get the whole of the estate.

The Minister may very well be right that a life interest in real estate is a bad thing. I know from some examples in the country that it is very difficult to work but, while the £4,000 is an improvement on what the Minister originally had in the Bill, I see no reason—he is going to give notice now and the date in the Bill is 1st June; I would not mind the date being put back in order to give plenty of notice—why if a man dies intestate and leaving no children his widow should not get the whole of the estate. I suggest to the Minister that would be a proper thing to do in the Bill. He would then be able to say that he adopted a good part of the 1951 Bill in its entirety and amended a part which was defective. From the point of view of justice, of being up-to-date, of looking at the realities of our present situation in relation to men and women in this country and practically everywhere else, that would be the proper provision, and I suggest it should be done.

Mrs. Dowdall

As the only woman here, I might be permitted to say something about this Bill. I want to thank the Minister for it—it is a step in the right direction. I agree with Senator Hayes that limiting the amount of the intestacy to be given to the widow does not seem quite fair. Take the case of a man who dies leaving a large young family. It will be agreed by all men that in that case the widow does a very good job of work in bringing up these children under the most trying circumstances, circumstances in which she has to go out and work day by day. In fact, I suggest that she makes a better job of it than does a man who is left in charge of children, even with a large income. Where there is money and where a woman is not fortunate enough to have had children, I agree with Senator Hayes that whatever her husband dies worth, except it is a fabulous fortune, should go to her, but I suggest that in her own interest —I do not know how this could be put into an Act—she should be protected from people who might be running after her money.

Professor Hayes

The law cannot do that.

Mr. Hearne

Entirely unconstitutional.

Mrs. Dowdall

I cannot tell you a method of doing that, but it could give rise to a very dangerous situation.

The Minister, in reading out the parts of this Bill which should interest us, warned us against bringing in any irrelevant matters relating to women. I crave your indulgence, Sir, and that of the Minister in trying to do that. The Minister in this Bill has been very progressive and certainly the women of Ireland will thank him and pray for him. It will do him an awful lot of good and it will do good also in other ways. I think the attitude of married people in this country with regard to money is simply ridiculous. Husbands rarely discuss with their wives their financial situation. I learned from my friends—it did not happen to me; I was always told the ups and downs—that their husbands never discussed their financial situation with them, and I suggest that that is not intelligent, even on the man's part, because, if a woman takes on the onerous job of managing a husband, she should, in turn, be told how she stands financially.

All women are not gold diggers anxious to spend the money a man has. Most women are intelligent enough to arrange their lives according to the situation in which they find themselves and this old-fashioned idea that men have, that if women knew how much they had, they would be much more extravagant, I suggest, is not true.

I have in mind some cases of women who, when their husbands died, found themselves absolutely penniless when they had thought they were comparatively well off. I have in mind the case of a doctor's widow. That man went out every morning as if to his practice at the hospital when for years he had not been doing any business at all. She was a case for charity when he died. That is a very sad situation and I put it forward as a hint to men in general that women are more intelligent than men give them credit for. They will be glad to know the situation and to face up to it.

I come now to the part the Minister warned me of, but I am going to take a chance. There is in the neighbouring island legislation to guard against any man leaving his fortune away from his wife. That arose in recent years, but we have no such legislation here. A man may die intestate and in that case there is provision for the widow, but he make take it into his head to make a will leaving his fortune away from his wife. It is not a condition of affairs which arises very often here, but in England there was a famous case within the past 12 years of a man who left a fabulous fortune to a dog's home—it was in the region of millions —and cynically left 1/- to his wife. That may be the way he felt about it, but I do not think he ought to be allowed to make it public and to treat her in that way. She immediately became a care on public charity, and I suggest to the Minister, while he is in this good frame of mind, that he should consider legislation to prevent such a situation arising here and to provide that, in circumstances where people are found not to be competent to make a correct will, the widow will be guarded. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for this good piece of legislation and for the benefit it may be to men in general in getting them to waken up to a realisation of the ideas I have suggested to them.

Professor Jessop

I agree with Senator Hayes that this ceiling of £4,000 seems to be very artificial. There is a point in this section which I should like to have clarified. Maybe there is some simple explanation which I should see but which I cannot see at the moment. What happens to the life interest when the widow dies? As I understand a life interest, the person who has it cannot do anything about it in relation to disposing of it after he or she is dead. Here is the State compelling a widow to take a life interest in such fraction of her husband's property as exceeds £4,000. What can she do about that if she dies, and, if she cannot do anything about it, what has the Minister in mind will happen to it?

Mr. O'Dwyer

On the last occasion this Bill was before the House, I found myself in a minority of one. I cannot agree with the main objects of this Bill and a point was raised in the Dáil which I think the Minister would do well to consider. There is the question of the aged dependents of a husband. Where a man dies who had been supporting or partly supporting an aged father or a mother, provision should be made for their continued support. I think it would be worth while if some such provision were put in the Bill. I do not think I have been converted during the past three years. It seems to me that a mistake was made in dealing jointly with real and personal property. Real property I take to be land and farms. It may be all right, where a man dies possessed of a large sum of money, houses or a business, that the widow should be at no loss.

It seems wrong in the case of land. This is an agricultural country and our basic concern should be the land. There is still in this country a feeling in regard to the hereditary rights of the owners of land. There is a strong sentiment connected with the ownership of land which cannot be eradicated. That sentiment is a national asset and a very vital asset in the development of the country. It is the only thing that up to the present has kept the people on the land.

We hear of exiles in far-off countries. They always think of their own country. No matter how of a family may break up they think all the time of the home farm and always look forward to coming back. It would not be wise for the Legislature to ignore that sentiment. I pointed out before the position that may arise when a husband dies without leaving any children. His widow may be young and the probability is that there may be a father and mother in the house. The young woman may marry again with the result that the old people will have to go.

A couple may live to an old age. Then the husband dies. Is it not clearly a case as to whom the farm should go, the husband's family or the wife's family because it is only a case of a couple of years? In view of the general feeling I submit that it should go to the husband's family. I would suggest that in this Bill the Minister would separate the question of farms from all other classes of property.

I should like to point out that this provision of £4,000 covers practically all the farms in this country. Any lawyer in the House who has experience of matters of this kind, will be able to certify that the great majority of wills, where there is no family, leave the farm to the widow for her life and to the family of the husband after her death. It would be well for the Minister to follow the custom of the country and provide that the widow got all the cash, cattle and other property except the land. She had only a life interest in the land. I think that would be doing what is usually done in the country. We in the country know that feeling on this matter is deepseated. I think the Minister would do a great deal for the rural districts if he brought in the amendment I suggest. It would not deprive any woman of any rights she possesses She would be in exactly the same position after the husband's death as she was before.

Mr. Hartnett

I must say that I agree entirely with the views expressed by Senator Professor Hayes on this matter. However, I thank the Minister for the Bill on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. I must say that I admire very much the manner in which the Minister, in his customary skilful way, obviated or tried to obviate attempts which would be made by lawyers to remedy other anomalies in the law of intestacy.

There is one point—I will be very brief on it—I should like to make to the Minister. I am not altogether sure of my facts. I did not think this matter would be reached to-day and I had intended to look it up, but I remember being struck by it in the course of my practice a number of years ago.

If a man dies leaving a widow and one child or a widow and one grandchild, the widow in that case gets one-third and the child or the grandchild, as the case may be, gets two-thirds of the estate. That, I think, is a gross anomaly. I think it is a matter which the Minister could rectify by a simple section in this particular Bill. Before the Cathaoirleach rules me out of order, I will resume my seat.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I welcome this Bill. I think it is a step in the right direction to deal with the law in regard to intestacy. However, it is only a very short step in the right direction. The Minister put a certain limit on the benefit accruing to the widow. The Dáil, with the approval of the Minister, considerably improved on that. As we have the Bill at the moment, it is a good Bill and we should welcome it. As this Bill is perfectly non-controversial, we in the Seanad have an excellent opportunity of doing something really good. We have an opportunity of amending something and putting an end to what has existed for many, many centuries, a very strange anomaly. We are being given the opportunity of providing that a man who marries and dies intestate should not be prevented, by virtue of his death intestate, from leaving all his property to her whom he chose rather than to people with the choice of whom he was not concerned.

A man marries late, settles down, and, perhaps a year or longer afterwards, dies intestate and without issue. Why, in such a case, should not the widow become entitled to all the estate of the husband so dying? Who will advance a reason why the widow in such a case should not get all the property of the person who had chosen her for his wife. There can be no reason in the world why there should be any limit, £4,000 or £40,000, to the estate that a married woman should get on the death intestate of her husband, not leaving any children or grandchildren. I read the Dáil Debates in this matter. I was not surprised that they raised the amount from £2,000 to £4,000, but I was rather surprised that they did not say: "Leave the widow in such a case absolutely everything." What is the position where a widow dies intestate with or without children? In such a case, the husband becomes entitled to all the wife's estate. Why should that be the case?

A Senator

Men made the law.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

That is the answer, because men made the law. The law giving effect to all this was passed before women were allowed to sit as representatives in parliamentary assemblies. Surely things have changed since then so that women are entitled to be treated in the same way in this matter as men? Why should we refuse to alter this Bill so as to provide that a widow would get exactly what the husband would get if his wife died intestate. I see no reason why we should not alter this Bill and make it a really good Bill, by providing that on the death intestate of a man without children or issue, his widow should get all his property. I have not heard even the Minister say there is any reason why we should not do that. He may have a good reason; I do not know.

We have been told or will be told that where a Ryan man marries a Brown lady and the Brown lady, on the death intestate of Ryan, gets the Ryan farm, the Ryan family will bitterly complain—that there will never be a Ryan on that land again; it will be all the Brown's land. Of course, that will have been Mr. Ryan's fault. If he married Miss Brown surely Miss Brown is entitled to get his worldly goods as he would be entitled to get hers? In this Bill we are being afforded an opportunity of putting right a wrong and an unfairness that has existed for many, many years.

There are one or two small points in the Bill about which I would ask the Minister to tell us something. In Section 4 (2) it is provided that:

"As between the real and personal representatives of the deceased, such charge shall be borne and paid in proportion to the values of the real and personal estates."

Is that gross values or net values? That is something we must consider. Again in Section 7 it is provided that:

"The net value of real estate shall for the purposes of this Act be ascertained in the case of a free-simple by deducting from the gross value thereof the gross amount of any mortgage or other principal sum..."

I do not know what the meaning of "the gross amount of any mortgage" is. Perhaps we shall get some assistance as to that later on.

I repeat that I regard this as an important opportunity for the Seanad to do something that is really right and to do something in a matter that cannot arouse any strong feeling. Simply put, I believe that if the husband is entitled to all his wife's estate, the widow should be entitled to all the husband's estate. What injustice can be done particularly as the husband who would desire to see that his widow would not have the benefit of this Act, will have ample notice so that he may very easily provide that he does not die intestate?

I also suggest that the date of the commencement of the Act be extended far beyond June next. So that everybody would have full notice and that nobody would have any grievance, I feel the date should be 1st January next.

Mr. Yeats

I would like to join with the other Senators who have congratulated the Minister on introducing this Bill which undoubtedly is doing a great deal to remedy the position which has existed over so many years. However, I would like to urge him to make, if at all possible, some change in the Bill as it stands at present. I find myself, to my surprise, in partial agreement with Senator O'Reilly——

Professor Hayes

A catastrophe.

Mr. Yeats

——but he goes altogether too far. The problem with which this Bill deals can be divided into two parts. There are, first of all, the people who are not farmers whether they live in cities or not, and then there are farmers. In the case of widows whose husbands live in cities or in small towns and whose property consists of business, stocks and shares, and so forth, I think there is a strong case for the widow getting an order. In the case of a man who has £5,000 or £10,000 in the bank it is very difficult to see why anybody but the widow should get the whole lot on his death intestate.

In the case of farmers, the position is different. The Minister is quite correct in saying that the general feeling amongst the rural community would be, in the case of a farmer who died intestate, that the widow should not get the whole farm but that it should stay in the family. I think Senator O'Reilly is altogether too hopeful in his suggestion that there would be no difficulty in regard to his proposal that the widow should get the whole farm. There are larger numbers of difficulties, apart altogether from the feelings aroused by a breach in the tradition of land tenure. Very often, the widow comes from a different part of the country altogether and very often if she gets the farm it has to be sold.

I think the ideal solution, if the Minister could see his way to adopt it, would be that in the case of land—as was suggested by Senator O'Dwyer— the widow should get a life interest in the whole of the property concerned and that in all other cases the widow should get the entire property, stocks, shares or whatever it may happen to be. That would deal with the farmer and the non-farmer. I think it would do substantial justice and I suggest to the Minister that he might consider that possibility. Even as it stands, the Bill is a very substantial improvement on the present position and I should like, again, to congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is another important aspect and nobody has referred to it except Senator O'Dwyer. He referred to the effects of such a Bill upon the parents of a deceased farmer. The Minister is aware that, as the law stands, people of property can, three or more years before their death, sign over their property to a relative and, consequently, avoid death duty charges. I have in mind a case which occurred recently, where a father signed over his property to his son and died a fortnight later. Actually, the son treated his family very badly. Let us presuppose a family where the father is possessed of property which he signs over to his son during his lifetime. Suppose that, during the lifetime of his father, that son dies. Under this Bill, all that property which the father made over to his son goes completely and entirely to the son's widow to the extent of £4,000 or over, as was suggested by Senator O'Reilly.

It very often happens that a daughter-in-law and father-in-law are on very bad terms. Consider the position of a father-in-law who, during his lifetime, made over his property to his son. On the death of that son, according to this Bill, the daughter-in-law, who hates her father-in-law, inherits the property and probably throws her father-in-law out of the house. I am interested in protecting parents under this Bill. I can see that, as the Bill is framed at the moment, it is designed to protect the rights of the wife. But it can have a very peculiar reaction in the case of parents. Is there any other Act whereby parents who have given away their property, and who have no legal claim on the widow of their son, can be protected? There are things which override legal rights, namely, moral rights. In so far as we can, we should protect the moral claims of a parent to support by his daughter-in-law in respect of moneys earned by him during a certain part of his life. Legally, I may be all at sea about this.

Mr. Hearne

Practically.

Mr. Loughman

My view is that we are dealing with a relatively small section of people who do not make wills.

Mr. Boland

I am told that it is about 46 per cent.

Mr. Loughman

I find myself in complete agreement with Senator Hayes and Senator Mrs. Dowdall. When a man takes a woman to be his wife, and endows her with all his worldly goods in a very solemn way, I think we should stand by that arrangement. Even apart from that particular contract, I think that when a man gets married he should undertake that what he owns equally with what his wife owns shall be their joint property and shall, on the death of one partner, become the entire property of the surviving partner.

Mr. Boland

An ideal husband.

Mr. Loughman

I am glad the Minister has gone as far as he has gone in this Bill. I hope that, at some future time, a Bill will be introduced which will go the whole hog and put the wife on the same terms as the husband. If the wife dies intestate, the husband gets all her property. I see no reason why the situation should not be the same if the husband dies intestate.

Senator O'Donnell refers to parents who hand over their property to a son or a daughter when they get married. In such cases, there is usually what is termed a marriage settlement.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is done sometimes to escape death duties.

Mr. Loughman

If they do not think it worth while to make an arrangement at that particular time, the people who make over the property are the people who should be blamed.

Mr. Hearne

It is also done when the parents are looking for the old age pension.

Mr. Loughman

If they do not think it worth their while to make an arrangement at that particular time, they should be prepared to take the consequences. I think we should not give consideration to cases of that description. Take, for example, a man who dies intestate and whose widow is in a mental hospital and has no children, and let us suppose that she has no relatives within 100 miles of the place. It sounds odd that all his property should go to the widow who is in a mental hospital and who is likely to remain there. In passing a Bill of this description, I would consider making an exception in her case. I think we should take the bull by the horns and agree that if the husband is entitled to the wife's possessions if she dies intestate, the wife should equally be entitled to the husband's possessions if he dies intestate.

I welcome the Bill and hope that the Minister will act on the suggestion of Senator Hayes and Senator Mrs. Dowdall at some future date and go the whole hog.

Mr. Kissane

I have just listened to Senator Loughman. He has raised another hare—and a very important one. Let us consider the case of a person who dies intestate and whose widow is in a mental home. She would not be capable of making any decision. I have a certain amount of sympathy for Senator O'Dwyer's argument. At the same time, in any cases throughout the country where the owner of a farm gives it to his son and that son gets married and gets in a fortune with the wife, if that son feels he is under any obligation to his aged father or mother, or both, or to any relatives, he is at liberty to make whatever disposition he likes. He can make a will in their favour and if he does not make it, it is his own fault.

Mr. O'Donnell

That does not help us here. In reply to Senator Loughman, the point I was trying to make was that a transfer of property generally takes place, as the Minister knows, to escape death duties. I am speaking subject to legal correction on this. You cannot lay down conditions in the transfer of real estate on the transfer of that property and consequently the parents are entirely dependent on the goodwill of the beneficiaries. In the case of a beneficiary who is a daughter-in-law, who dislikes her parents-in-law, they are thrown on the waves.

Mr. Kissane

In any case, when a marriage takes place in the country there is generally a marriage settlement. There is nothing to prevent the person who gives over the land to his son making in that settlement whatever provision he thinks necessary for himself and any near relative he may have.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I was trying to get in earlier, but I am glad I did not. It appears now I am to have the last word.

Senators

Oh, no.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I had hoped I might have the last word—but after all it is the very powerful prerogative of the female sex. One thing struck me, as the legal gentlemen in this House said their say—I have always regarded intestacies as lawyers' dreams and I have no reason to change my mind. A lot could be said one way or another on this Bill. One man may take a very strong view on the rights of widows as Senator P.F. O'Reilly did. It is not as simple as that. I do not suggest that I am right but I am not prepared to say Senator P.F. O'Reilly is right either. This Bill should be studied carefully, as it has a lot of social implications and may mean a lot of hardship and lack of equity and human justice if we come to a hasty decision. Human law and human justice are two different things.

Quite a few hares have been slipped into the course on this measure already and it may be no harm if I slip in some more. Senator P.F. O'Reilly asks why the widow should not get the whole estate if her husband dies intestate. May I put the case where she herself, without being in a mental home, dies intestate, what then?

Mr. Hearne

She gets all.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

But she is already dead. Supposing she died intestate— she may have had a farm worth £1,000. It is not as simple as Senator O'Reilly and the other legal gentlemen suggest. I agree that better provision should be made generally for widows, where the husband dies intestate; but there is quite a lot in the view expressed by Senator O'Dwyer and the Minister should examine this more carefully.

In the case of land, the wife inheriting the personal estate of a husband who dies intestate should have a life interest in that property. I am inclined to take Senator O'Dwyer's view that in the case of land it should not be alienated from the family of the deceased husband. In 90 cases out of 100 it is the life effort of generations of the husband's family that has built up that estate and it should not be completely alienated from the family or next of kin of the deceased husband. There may be a case where the husband inherits the wife's estate. Why should not the wife inherit the husband's estate? I do not know the number of cases, but I believe that the greater bulk of real estates is vested in the male population, it is assigned from one male member of a family to another. Senator O'Reilly, without knowing it, made a case why land should not be alienated from the family of the deceased husband. There is a lot in the viewpoint expressed by Senator O'Dwyer and agreed to by Senator Yeats.

Senator O'Donnell raised another point. Supposing a man assigns a farm of 100 acres to a son. That farm may be worth £3,000, the only property that man had, and his wife may also be living. The son gets married and dies without issue. His wife then becomes the absolute owner of all the property. What is going to become of the parents? Surely in equity or in justice there should be some provision made for the father and mother in that case. I think the best approach would be that the widow should inherit a life interest. Apparently nobody thought about the fact that, even though the husband dies intestate, his wife, be she young or old, if there is no issue can inherit the estate. Suppose she dies intestate? I raise that question in the hope that there will be some consideration given to it. I still believe the Bill is not a perfect measure.

Mr. Hartney

I definitely agree with Senator O'Dwyer that a special examination is required in the case of land. Everybody from the country knows that there is a certain sentiment attached to the succession of land which no business, profession or any other calling carries with it. That will always be the case in this country and it should be borne in mind. I do not want to be in any way harsh to the widow, but while provision should be made for a life interest for the wife for such time as she is to hold on to the land, there should be some provision that the land will then go to the next of kin of the deceased husband. Everybody will agree that there is a lot of sentiment attached to this matter —so many generations of such people having been on that farm—and that even if there is not a direct relation, a nephew is deemed to be near enough. Titles long ago were always continued to the second, third and fourth cousin and whatever value they were to the different families who held them, the land, the old homestead has as great a value for the ordinary farmer, and I feel that it is a case deserving of special consideration.

In the case of a business, if a man goes in and changes the name over the door, the house has no appeal compared with the appeal of the old house on the hill. There may be an old house in the place like the house Tom Moore was born in which will carry a plaque, but all the rest are so much stones and mortar in which So-and-so carried on a good business for years or in which So-and-so went down. That is all they mean. These places do not hold the appeal for the brothers and sisters who leave that the country home holds for those who leave it, even though they go to the ends of the earth and it is the last thing they see on their death beds. They regret that they have been deprived of the opportunity of dying in the old land and priests attending them on their death beds have often stated that at such a time two considerations were uppermost in their minds—their hope of reaching Heaven and regret that they had not been enabled to die in the old homestead in the old land.

Mr. Quirke

I am amazed by most of the speeches made here to-night. I have a fairly good knowledge of the members of this House, and, so far as I know, there is only one man in the House who has not already committed himself to doing certain things; in other words, there is only one man here who has not gone to the altar and said to some woman: "With all my worldly goods I thee endow," and I should like to hear a few words on this matter from that Senator, Senator Goulding. I am inclined to be on the side of those who say that the Minister has done a reasonably good or a fairly good job, but to say that he has done a fairly good job is like saying that a man is fairly honest. I think he should have gone much further. I believe that most of us who went to the altar and made these vows were quite sincere about them and I see no reason why we should change our opinions over the years. I do not believe we have any right to do that, and, while the Bill goes a certain distance, I believe it does not go far enough. However, maybe we will go a little further at a future date.

It is very interesting and alarming to hear the speeches made by people from the various sections of society, and, while I have a lot of sympathy with the speeches made by Senator O'Dwyer and Senator Hartney, I think that if one really thought seriously on the question, one would realise that, despite all this talk of tradition and so on, it could entail a lot of hardship if a man died intestate and his wife had to get out of the place. If that happened a week after the wedding, the hardship might not be so great, but any of us who know the country know of farmers' houses which have been practically rebuilt, redecorated and modernised by the wife in many cases, against the wishes of the husband. That woman can live there for years, can cultivate a garden, have the house decorated, have gates painted and outoffices provided and insist on modern buildings being put up, but, according to some of the people here, she should not have any claim at all when the husband dies. I do not believe in that.

When Senator P.F. O'Reilly was talking I could see that he was a little excited. I can envisage the solicitors, when this Bill has passed, being very busy men for a long time and the Senator will have a good harvest. I can also see that auctioneers will have something to do making out valuations and so on, but, in any case, though the Bill is not what it ought to be, if we had the figures, we would find that it covers a very great percentage of the people of the country under this £4,000 limit. So far as the agricultural community are concerned there are not so many farms making over £4,000 even now. There are quite a few in each county making well over that figure, but the valuation of the greater percentage would not be at all in the nature of that kind of money.

Senator P.F. O'Reilly spoke of a Ryan man who married a Brown woman. I know an Irishman—I do not know whether his name was O'Reilly, Hayes or Ryan—who married a brown woman and when he died, all his property went to her. That is the kind of law I believe in. In that case there was no actual marriage, as we understand it. They were married under what is known as the common law—it was a common-law marriage— I believe that law is founded on common sense and if people live together as man and wife, even under these circumstances, the man has no right to do otherwise. Where, perhaps, there are no churches, a man has no right to enter into a contract of that kind without being prepared to accept the responsibilities, and surely we in this country who are married in the churches and make these solemn vows, have no right to change our minds because we may not happen to be blessed with children.

I believe that great injustices can be caused, and although this Bill will not go as far as some of us would like it to go, I believe it will have a good effect in so far as it will give people who would be very careless an opportunity to make their wills and do some serious thinking. The results will be far more satisfactory than they would have been if they had died intestate. I wish to move the adjournment of the debate.

Professor Hayes

I think the Minister might have moved the adjournment now.

Debate adjourned.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister will conclude to-morrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 25th February, 1954.