^wv 
 
 ^
 
 L I B RA RY 
 
 OF THL 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 [:'MaJ 
 
 ON THE FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 
 BY MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 ARTHUR HUBUOUSE, Q.C. 
 
 [Ri'pyintcd, by kind per misAon , from iht FoETNiGnTLY Review, for tke 
 CommiUce in support of Ma. Russell Gurnet's Makhild Wojien'.^ 
 rROPERTY Bill.] 
 
 AN APPENDIX 
 
 MANCHESTER: A. IPvELAXD .t CO, PrJNTER^, TAIL MALT 
 1S70
 
 ON THE FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 
 BY MARRIED WOMEjN". 
 
 As the session of Parliament approaches, our thoughts are Expected 
 apt to turn from the theoretical to the practical aspect of action in 
 public affairs. During the rccers numerous volunteers meet 
 in various parts of the country, write in public journals, inter- 
 change their ideas, explode many crotchets, find some that will 
 stand the wear and tear of discussion, prepare, on all tenable 
 views of a question, that mysterious and spiritual, but very 
 real, pov/er called Public Opinion, and so clear the field for 
 a "tion. And this, doubtless, is the great originating and 
 determining force of modern society. The man who has 
 carried his point through the open public arena of discussion, 
 will surely, sooner or later, carry it through the Legislature. 
 It ma}' be a long time first ; the Legislature is the last body 
 to be moved ; and quite rightly so, for laws ought not to be 
 altered lightly, nor without clear proof that mischief flows from 
 them, and that reasonable grounds exist for expecting better 
 results from the alterations propounded. It is therefore natural 
 that when Parliament meets we should look to see which of the 
 subjects that occupy the national attention will be selected for 
 actual operations, and what course the operations are likely 
 to take. 
 
 Ihe important subject indicated by the heading of this Past stages 
 paper is one on which the Legislature will certainly be asked controversy, 
 to act in the ensuing session ; possibly by the Government, 
 but, if not, then by private members of Parliament. And 
 it seems not inopportune to take a brief review of the posi- 
 tion of the case, an 1 to direct some observations to the only 
 features of it which possess any novelty or are left uncovered
 
 4 
 
 ])y argu'iLiciit. Tlio .:iul)ject is one of those wliicli li^ivc been 
 agitated for many years, and has gone through the usual 
 stages of a novel truth. It was the wildest of dreams ; it 
 was an iiiipious and unholy attempt to loosen the sacred bonds 
 of marriage ; its promoters, when not fanatics or dreamers, 
 Avere dangerous and sinister revolutionists. Then there was . 
 something in what they said ; after all, there was a good deal 
 of cruelty and hardship in the present system ; after all, the 
 law of property seemed to have very little to do with the 
 bond of marriage ; after all, the law of England was peculiar, 
 and seemed to resemble the old barbarous codes much more 
 closely than those adopted by civilised nations. Finally, a 
 large number of people found out that what the advocates of 
 a change were saying was ey.actly what they themselves had' 
 been thinking all along. 
 
 All honour to those who have fought the losing game till 
 it has become the winning one. I am not one of them. The 
 work has been done at first by the able and persevering gentle- 
 men who form the United Societies for the Amendment of the 
 Law and the Promotion of Social Science, and finally by Mr. 
 Lefevre and Mr. Kussell Gurney, who have taken up the 
 subject in Parliament. And if I recur to what I myself have 
 previously said, it is not because there was any originality in 
 it, but only because it was an attempt to put the conti-oversy 
 into a clear and compendious form, to which it may be useful 
 for any one to refer who desires to study its merits. 
 
 INIr. Lefevre's The later stages of this discussion have been on this wise. 
 
 Commission, j,^ ^jj^ session of 18C8 Mr. Lefevre introduced into the House 
 of Commons a measure which was referred to a Select Com- 
 mittee. Much evidence was taken, bearing mainly on three 
 points : — 
 
 1. The existence of hardship under the present law. 
 
 2. The avoidance of that hardship by the richer classes 
 through the aid of the Court of Chancery. 
 
 3. The practicability of altering the law, as tried in 
 America. 
 
 In July, 1838, the Committee re])orted to the efiiect that 
 the law bore very hardly on all but the richer classes ; and 
 that American experience was in favour of altering it ; but, 
 for lack of time, they did not decide in what particular mode 
 the law should be altered, ^' '"'\ 
 
 1 UiUC
 
 In the month of Seiitcmbcr, 18G8, the Social Science Con- Paper read at 
 11 i-r>-'i iT-t 1 . Birmingham, 
 
 gress took place at liirmmghani ; and I then read a paper m Social Science 
 
 which the subject was reviewed. It was then shown that the pfe^vilw°of the 
 rule of law to be altered was that of the Common Law, which, cirguments. 
 speaking broadly, takes all property from the wife and gives 
 it to the husband; that this rule had in effect been abrogated 
 by the Court of Chancery in many cases affecting those rich 
 enough to enjoy its protection, and that rich people were also 
 in the universal habit of excluding its operation by the expen- 
 sive machinery of private contract and the interposition of 
 trustees. The law, therefore, is divided against itself, and one 
 part of it must be wrong ; either that part which has been 
 established in Chancery and which affects rich people, or that 
 rule of the Common Law which affects pcor people. And it is 
 the latter rule to which mischief is traced ; against the former 
 no charge is brought. Moreover, it is the latter rule which 
 has prevailed in rude and barbarous societies, and has been 
 encroached on as civilisation has advanced.* 
 
 The objections put forward were then dealt with, most of 
 them being of a very flimsy character and admitting of obvious 
 specific answers. The most important was that which is founded 
 on the principle that the husband must, in case of dissension, 
 deteimine the general course of family affairs, e.g., the common 
 residence and perhaps the common occupations. To this it 
 was answered, that the v/ife ought to have due weight in the 
 family councils ; that there are many domestic matters in 
 which women are better judges than men ; that there are 
 many women who are wiser and stronger than their husbands; 
 and that it is a monstrous thing to assume that the husband 
 must always be right, and therefore to give him in all cases 
 the power of stopping the su[)plie3, and so starving into sub- 
 mission the Vr'ife who is not convinced by his arguments nor 
 bent by the weight of his authority. Finally it vras urged, 
 that over and above the specific answer to each objection, 
 there was one general and conclusive answer to all, i.e., the 
 
 * This idea v/as worked out v.ith great learning and force by Mr. 
 Jessel in his speech in the House of Commons. His beKef is, that the 
 marital rights conferred by the Common Law are simply i-emnants of the 
 old system of slavery, under v.'hich the women of the family "were slaves to 
 its head. Nor is it ea.^y for anybody who TsUI fairly v.-oigh hi? proofs, to 
 deny their cogency.
 
 answer from experience. For that many of tlie United States 
 and some of the British Colonies had been making experi- 
 ments in this direction, that none of them had repented or 
 drawn back from what they had done, but on the contrary, 
 all that had taken more than one step, had advanced towards 
 the complete emanci])ation of married women from the law 
 of forfeiture, and that the evils, plentifully prophesied on the 
 Western as on the Eastern seaboard of the Atlantic, had not 
 yet made their appearance. 
 Mr. Gui'iiey's In the session of 18G9, a Bill was introduced into the 
 
 House of Commons by Mr. Kussell Gurney, which embodied 
 the principle contended for. It provided in effect, that married 
 women, or at least those married subsequently to the Act, shall 
 be as capable of holding property as single ones. The Bill 
 was referred to a Select Committee, by whom the principle 
 was preserved uninjured. The third reading was carried in 
 the House of Commons by a large majority, but the measure 
 was stopped in the House of Lords, on the ground that its 
 provisions required further consideration. 
 New phase of ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^7 object now to discuss the provisions of the 
 
 the Opposition j^i^ [^^ detail. Indeed I have throughout confined myself to 
 discussing principles. It is becavise there were some, though 
 uncertain, indications in both Houses that alterations might 
 be proposed, which, though in the form of details, would really 
 defeat the whole measure, that I am anxious to recall attention 
 to the previous stages of the discussion, and to add some observa- 
 tions on the threatened danger. And I am the more anxious 
 to do this, because the alterations in question seem to find 
 favour not only with those who, consenting to change merely 
 because the advocates of change are too strong for them, really 
 hate the Bill, and will substitute a changeling for it if they can, 
 but with some who are sincerely convinced of the evils of the 
 present system, and wdsh to see a remedy applied to them. 
 Neither do I propose to amplify or add to the arguments 
 contained in the Birmingham paper. It is there stated that 
 I had not the advantage of seeing any detailed or methodical 
 statement of the objections to altering the law. Neither have 
 I now; and I may fairly assume in so contentious a matter, 
 that arguments asked for but not yet adduced do not exist; 
 and that those which have been adduced for the change, and 
 have not been answered, are unanswerable. I wish now to
 
 address myself solely to the suggestions, that the necessiiies of 
 tlie case will be met by extending the remedies of wives under 
 the Divorce Act, and that it would be for their advantage to 
 tie up their j^roperty for themselves and their children. 
 
 At the present time, if a wife is desei-ted by her husband Proiection 
 she may apply to a magistrate, who may grant her an order of Proposed 
 protection, the eflect of which, to use popular language, is to fj^^^^f^ ^^ 
 ])lace her as regards ownership of property in the position of and reasons 
 a single woman. It is suggested that these powers of magi- ° 
 strates might be largely extended, so largely in fact as to give 
 to wives all the protection they need. I have never seen any 
 statement of the mode in which it is proposed to do this, and 
 T shall be surprised if any can be put into definite words and 
 not forthwith break down by its own weakness. Eut the pro- 
 posal is so faulty in principle, that on principle it ought to be 
 decided, and we ought never to arrive at the stage of dis- 
 cussing sj)ecinc provisions for this purpose. 
 
 In the first place I would ask, For what reason is a change 
 desirable at all 1 and then would ask Whether that reason is 
 satisfied by facilitating protection orders 1 
 
 It must be remembered that I am addressing myself to 
 those who are convinced that, for some reason or other, probably 
 one or more of those contained in the Birmingham paper, a 
 change is necessary. Is it on account of the abstract justice 
 of the case "i Then what justice is there in providing that a 
 husband's property shall be secured to him by the simple opera- 
 tion of the law without any misconduct on the wife's part, 
 but that a wife's shall be taken away from her unless her 
 husband ill-treats her and she has the courage to embark in 
 a litigation and the luck to emerge successfully from it 1 
 
 Is it because goo i laws ought to harmonise with the arrange- 
 ments which people make for themselves when they have 
 knowledge and power enough to act for themselves ! Then 
 follow those arrangements, so far as they are applicable to 
 the subject matter you are handling, and make the property 
 of wives theirs by direct right, and not merely on condition 
 that a magistra-te thinks they have sufiered ill-treatment enough 
 to claim it back from their husbands. 
 
 Is it because there .ought not to be two con tradictory lavrs — 
 one for the rich and one for the poor? Why, such a measure 
 would make the contradiction more sharply defined, more
 
 glaring than ever. I v/oukl ask any advocate of such a mea- 
 sure, Would you be content to mete it out to your own 
 daughter 1 If she marries, will you consent to abstain from 
 securing to her any property of her own, in consideration of 
 her getting more favourable opportunities of appearing in a 
 police office ? 
 
 Is it on account of the lessons afforded by Transatlantic 
 experience 1 Then that experience teaches us to make married 
 v/omen owners of property, not to give them greater facili.ies 
 of prosecuting quarrels with their husbands. 
 
 Is it because you are convinced that giving one consort's 
 property to the other is no proper part of the contract of 
 marriage — is only the remnant of an old barbarous law and is 
 not necessary to preserve harmony or due subordination in 
 families ? Then such a gift should not be made by the law 
 at all, and its existence should not depend on the chance of 
 the jmrties remaining in more or less friendly relations v/itli 
 one another. 
 
 Or is it simply because you are struck with remorse at 
 hearing evidence of the shocking cruelties which spring from 
 the present law ] Then look at the evidence again, and you 
 will find that many even of the evils brought to light are such 
 as it is most difficult to remedy through a court of justice. 
 And depend upon it that where, in a delicate and painful mat- 
 ter, so much comes to light, much more remains in darkness, 
 and that for one case that could be reached by the action of a 
 magistrate, scores, or even hundreds, would be reached by a 
 .simple change of the principle of law. Those who contend 
 that the principle of the law is nob tad are bound to give 
 some satisfactory explanation of the phenomena, to tell us 
 why sufferings are so frequent among those who remain subject 
 to it, and why all who can escape from it, do so. No such 
 explanation has ever been attemjjted. The principle then is 
 bad. The particular cases that appear are only the symptoms. 
 But it is childish to treat the symptoms separately while the 
 cause remains untouched. It is about as wise as to let your 
 child go on with an unwholesome diet, but to make it very 
 Settkments : easy for him to see the doctor as each fit of sickness occurs, 
 extension of ^ ^^""^^ P^^^ ^^ ^^^^ Other Suggestion — viz., to protect wives 
 
 them, and by taking away their property from them, and putting it into 
 against it. settlement, i his is a much more serious affiiir. lo i educe
 
 the measure to a system of protection orders would probably 
 be iiothiug worse than to reduce it to a nullity. Indeed, in 
 that shape it might do a small quantity of good. But if 
 turned into a system of settlements, it would indeed be a 
 serious aggravation of existing mischief. Here again I do 
 not understand (for it has never been explained), what ma- 
 chinery is contemplated, nor whether it is proposed to make 
 a universal settlement by Act of Parliament, or only to seize 
 and settle property in those cases in v>'hich a protection order 
 has been obtained. The only difference between the tv,'o cases 
 would be that in the latter the Act would have little scope, 
 and therefore would do comparatively little harm. 
 
 The plan, doubtless, is suggested by the course usually 
 taken in marriage settlements, and would naturally be one of 
 the first things to occur to lav/yers more familiar with such 
 arrangements than vvith the short and simple annals of the 
 poor. I will not here discuss the policy of the ordinary 
 marriage settlement for the rich. T do not admire it, but it 
 {i not necessary for the argument to take so wide a range. 
 Jt is sufficient to say, that for one rich person aff^^ted by the 
 measure there will be a thousand poor ; that it is, in fact, 
 a measure for the poorer classes of society ; that it will leave 
 the power of settlement by private contract unaffected for 
 those who choose it ; thit the poorer classes do not choose it ; 
 and that to force it on them would be a great hardship. 
 
 How are such settlements to work ? In what custody is 
 the fund to be placed] Is the settlement to embrace earnings? 
 And if not earnings, then savings from earnings? Are the 
 children to have a right of calling their mother to account to 
 show what she has laid by, or what she has received by gift 
 from others, or by succession ? Whom will you get to act as 
 trustees ] 
 
 All these questions must be answered before the proposal 
 can float. The only answer I liave heard to any of them is 
 a suggestion by some gentleman that municiiml corj^orations 
 might act as trustees — a suggestion which can do little more 
 than provoke a smile. Yet without machinery the plan must 
 break down. 
 
 Supposing, however, it could be carried into effect — every 
 little gift, legacy, or windfall, would have somehow to be put 
 into settlement, unless we place a lini"t of value below v/hich
 
 10 
 
 nothing sliould be settled. Such a limit would hardly be 
 placed above say <£200, eveu that would exclude the vast 
 majority of cases. But who has watched the course of settle- 
 ments of even much larger sums, say £2,000, without observing 
 the enormous proportion which the exj^ense bears to the sum 
 settled, and the continual efforts that are made now to get a 
 little more interest, and now to encroach on the capital ? Those 
 efforts represent the uneasiness of the parties affected by the 
 settlements. The sum falling under such an Act as this would 
 in few cases exceed £300 or £400. And sums of that or of 
 much larger amount are far more beneficially applied when left 
 free to be used for the exigencies of the family, than when 
 tied up, and made available only by way of income. Rich 
 people may afford to put by a sum of money, and say that 
 there it shall lie for a term of years. The poor cannot j the 
 possession of a little capital often makes to them the who'e 
 difference betvv^een getting a start in life and losing it, between 
 moderate success and total failure ; they have no margin, and 
 no friends to faU back on for the critical occasions when money 
 is necessary. 
 
 Besides and beyond the crippling eflect of tying up money 
 comes the demoralising effect of expectations. They are pecu- 
 liarly noxious to the poor and ignorant, who always exaggerate 
 them, often relax their exertions on account of them, and not 
 seldom discount them. When Eutrapelus wished to ruin a 
 man he gave him fine clothes. If I wished to throw sore 
 tem[ tation in the way of a humble family, I would put a 
 couple of hundred pounds in strict settlement for them. 
 
 But if settlements are such good things why not extend 
 them to men 1 
 
 When women ask that marriage may not operate as a for- 
 feiture of their property, they are to be told that it must be 
 kept for their children. It is difficult to see why the same 
 principle should not be applied to men when they marry. If 
 the arrangement is based on the good of the children, it must 
 be the same to them from whichever parent the money comes. 
 If based on the good of the wife, is it not rather wiser to let 
 her be the judge, whether it is for her good or not ? The 
 argument must come ultimately to this — that women when 
 they marry are such poor weak creatures that they cannot be 
 trusted to deal with their own money ; they cannot judge
 
 11 
 
 wLeilier to keep it or spend it ; wlictber to bestow it on tlieir 
 liusban Js or themselves, or their children, or elsewhere ; there- 
 lore the law shall step in, assume in every case that a woman 
 ought to settle money on herself and her children, and make 
 that arrangement for her. 
 
 To this I answer — First, the weakness is assumed without 
 })roof, or without better proof than some coarse dictum of Lord 
 Thurlow's. Women know how to hold their own where they 
 are accustomed to act. Give them legal rights, and wait to 
 see whether or no they will use them. Secondly, that the 
 circumstances and needs of people vary infinitely, and to apply 
 one Procrustean rule of law to all will produce, first miseiy, 
 and then revolt against the law. Thirdly, that the proposed 
 legal assumption of what it is right for a woman to do with 
 a small sum of money is so unwise that the weakest woman 
 commanded by the most tyrannical husband could not do worse 
 with it. Fourthly, that it is somewhat hard measure for those 
 who come complaining of their unprotected state to be told 
 that they are quite right, tut that they want a great deal 
 more protection than they ask for, and shall for the future 
 be protected not only against their husbands, but against 
 themselves. 
 
 I will only now add that for myself I would sooner see do 
 measure at all carried than one establishing a system of settle- 
 raents ; and I believe the gentlemen who have given years of 
 labour lo the ripening of opinion for the reception of Mr. 
 Russell Gu:ney's Bill are of the same opinion. 
 
 ABTHUPv HOBHOUSE.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The contest i.g biiice the foregoing observations were penned a portion of 
 
 now between ,i ,1 r» . i ^ i . , 
 
 Mr. Gurney's ^^^^ then 111 tore has been laid open to us, and two things then 
 
 Pvailfe^U^^'' ^'''^^'''^ ^'^'^^ ^^^^^^^^ revealed. 
 
 First, it is clear that the Government are so loaded witli 
 important business that they will not find time for official 
 action in this matter. Secondly, Mr. Eaikes and others have 
 introduced into Parliament a Bill which may be taken as 
 embodying the views of those who are at length jiersuaded of 
 the necessity of a change in the law, but who cannot make up 
 their minds to accept freedom with its consequences. 
 Character of The distinctive character of this Bill is explained in the 
 
 Bill*. ^^ ^'^ '^ ^^^'^^ seven sections, of which I will endeavour to give a brief 
 exposition, without, I hope, any substantial sacrifice of accuracy, 
 though for the sake of clearness some details are omitted. 
 Wife's The main principle is that a wife shall not, irrespectively 
 
 fettered^ ^^ '"^^ *^^ ^^^^ question v/hat she earns, l^e free to own property, but 
 that her property shall, in the absence of contract, be placed 
 under strict settlement. 
 Plan for -^^^ *^^^ purpose trustees must be provided. And it is 
 
 Trustees. proposed, in the first instance, to make the husband himself the 
 
 trustee. If, however, the wife chooses she may obtain from the 
 County Court an order of the Judge making himself and a Yice- 
 chancellor the trustees. And other persons interested in the 
 property may apply to the judge to have other trustees 
 appointed ; an application v/hich is to be litigated and adjudi- 
 cated in due form. 
 The Trusts. Such being the trustees, the Bill goes on to declare the trusts. 
 
 In the first place the husband-trustee is precluded from receiving 
 any of the property without a written order by his wife, and 
 from altering any investment without a judge's order
 
 13 
 
 ITusbaud and wiio may jointly apply to tlie jiulge, and may 
 liave trusts declared by him, provided tliey fall williia tlie 
 Tivnge of thor:je usually inserted in settlements by the Court of 
 Chancery, but with a freer range of investment. In default 
 of any such declaration, the trustees may invest with the 
 written consent of the wife, and the judge's sanction, and hold 
 the funds upon strict settlement trusts ; viz., during marriage 
 for the separate use of the wife without power of anticipation, 
 ^vith remainder to the husband for his life or until he aliens or 
 becomes bankrupt, with remainder to husband and children as 
 the wife by deed or will appoints, and in default of appoint- 
 ment for the children equally, and if no children, as she appoints 
 by will, and in default of that appointment for her next of kin. 
 If she survives her husband she again becomes absolute owner 
 of her property. 
 
 Such are the provisions which are to regulate the v/ife's 
 property, " except such jiarts thereof as are transferable by 
 " mere deliveiy," and apparently without any limit of value. 
 
 The first question that occurs to one to ask is. How will Effect of the 
 this legislation affect the mass of mankind ? And it appears P^^°- 
 that we shall be legislating for the minority with a vengeance, the maj^ority 
 The present law is found to work much evil in a substantial 
 number, though still a minority, of cases. The good that 
 it works is not discoverable. '"Therefore," say reformers, 
 " the law is a bad one ; let us alter it and set people free : 
 " v/hore it now does no evil, it is because people of their own free 
 ' ' will manage their aflfairs with good sense and good feeling ; 
 " where it does evil, it is because one is unduly subjected to 
 " another. Give liberty to all, and that will be the best 
 " guarantee for the good conduct of their private affairs." 
 Upon v/hich up start a set of philanthropic gentlemen and 
 declare that the remedy is not to be sought in the spontaneous 
 action of each family, but in the extension of a paternal 
 government which shall dictate to all how an important portion 
 of their private affairs is to be managed. So because A neglects 
 and periodically plunders his wife, B, C, and the rest of the 
 alphabet and their wives, who have done no wrong, are to be 
 invaded by Mr. Eaikes at the head of a posse of County Court 
 judges. Vice-chancellors, and other trustees : and (all I presume 
 at the expense of the fund) are to have their property impounded, 
 placed in the hands of one rnan, invested at the discretion of
 
 another, made incapcable of alienation, and given over to l)o 
 
 dealt with by deeds and willa, or else to go to children or next 
 
 of kiu whom neither may wish to benefit. 
 
 I cannot now follow this into further detail ; but I will 
 
 ask ■ anybody to imagine the faces of some honest carpenter 
 
 and his wife, when a legacy of £50 has just accrued to the 
 
 latter, and when they have been discussing how pleasant it wi'l 
 
 be to buy that much-wanted stock of timber or some better 
 
 machinery and to extend their operations, or to start son John 
 
 in business, or daughter Anne in marriage, and when they 
 
 have just been told that Mr. Eaikes's Act has benignly settled 
 
 all these matters for them, and that the £50 cannot be dealt 
 
 with except by His Honour the County Court judge, and that 
 
 nothing of it except the income can be enjoyed during the 
 
 marriage, unless they can prevail upon him, after a formal 
 
 healing, to make some different arrangement in accordance 
 
 with the practice of the Court of Chancery. How grateful our 
 
 honest friends v/ould feel towards such legislators ! And how 
 
 much of the fund would remain after all the business was 
 
 settled ! That such an Act would benefit lawyers and, on a 
 
 short-si f^h ted view, the Chancellor of the Exche^pier, is not to 
 
 be doubted ; neither is it to be doubted that it would be a 
 
 frightful plague among the poorer classes. 
 
 2 Asrecrards And how would it affect the husband who swoops down 
 
 the cases of ^^p^^ ]-^[g^ -^yife periodically for supplies ] Her cash, her bed, 
 
 aarcfe ip. ^^^ chairs, her crockery, nay the very bread and butter slic 
 
 may have laid out for her meal, v/ould it seems still belong to 
 
 him; all these things being "transferable by mere delivery." 
 
 She too, has, wo will say, a legacy of £50. He is the trustee 
 
 of it until a legal proceeding is taken to displace him. Upon 
 
 her death he is her successor in the enjoyment of the income ; 
 
 and whatever her necessities may be, not a penny of the capiUil 
 
 can be employed in their relief, unless with his consent and 
 
 after fresh legal proceedings which may or may not be 
 
 successful. Such provisions appear to be as inefficient against 
 
 the evil-doer as they are oppressive ujion the innocent. 
 
 The foregoinsc provisions relate to sjross amount of property, 
 Arranpfements -^^ *= ° .„ , . ® . l i jy 
 
 when the Avife irrespective of the wiie s earnings. With respect to earning,^, 
 
 family '^^^ ^ the Bill provides that when a wife can show that for six months 
 
 expenses. ^j^^ j^.^^ earned more than half the expenses of her flimily the 
 
 jud^e of the County Court shall have ijower to grant her a
 
 15 
 
 protection order. ^Yhen the order is granted the provisions for 
 
 making her a free woman need not be excepted to. But that 
 
 she should be driven to institute a snit for an account which is 
 
 sure to be disputed in a hostile case, and may be very minute 
 
 and intricate, and after all is left to the discretion of the judge, 
 
 is no slight evil. The cost would be an effectual bar to it in 
 
 most cases. And v/hy should her freedom depend on so grotesque 
 
 and capricious a criterion as her earning half the expenses of 
 
 her family 1 The mother of a family has something to do 
 
 besides earning money. Numbers of cases might be put to show 
 
 the fallacy of such a test. I will put on'y one, which may easily 
 
 happen in factory towns. Suppose a woman with a large 
 
 family of children, doing little paid work herself, but receiving 
 
 and managing the earnings of the children, superintending the 
 
 household and keeping it together. Why should not she have 
 
 any little property of hers protected against a bad husband 1 
 
 Yet Mr. Raikes's test would leave her in the lurch. Her 
 
 property passing by mere delivery would be his, and other 
 
 property would be seized and strictly settled in the mode 
 
 before de;:'cribcd, 
 
 I will only observe on tvro other very singular effects of incidental 
 
 this Bill. One is that as protection orders may be cancelled, "^^schiefs. 
 
 outsiders would never know without searching: a remster 
 
 ^^hether a wife v/as under disability or free from it — a most 
 
 inconvenient state of things. The other is that women with 
 
 bad husbands would be better off as regards the power of 
 
 applying their money to their v/antsthan those with good ones, 
 
 for the well-conducted couples would remain under the law of 
 
 strict settlement; whereas the wife who earned half the family 
 
 expenses might dispose of her property according to her own 
 
 judgment. And so, when the wife had some capital which was 
 
 wanted for the family use, tliere would be a direct inducement 
 
 to throw on her the earning of wages. 
 
 I have confined myself in these remarks to the broad effects The Lill is 
 
 of the Bill, which appears to me only to add one instance to the f'^unJed on no 
 
 ' '■ ^ . "^ principle, and 
 
 many that are constantly appearing of the perils that environ would aggia- 
 
 those who desert the plain, broad path of simple principles to evils.^^^ ^^° 
 
 follow inventions of their own fancies. The existing law we 
 
 know, and the law of freedom we know ; but what is this Bill? 
 
 Better far the common law than these shackles of jiaternal 
 
 government in e- cry household. Mr. Eaikcs's little finger is
 
 10 
 
 thicker tiuvri tho loins of tlio common law j tliufc chastises wives 
 
 with whips, but he witli scorpions. 
 
 The true The essential distinction in all cases bctsvcen the advocates 
 
 toTxtenV"' ^^^ freedom and those of restriction is, that the one class trust 
 
 freedom of their fellow-crcatures, believe in tho capacity of mankind at 
 
 large to manage their own affairs, and disbelieve in their own 
 
 capacity to manage the affairs of others; while the other class 
 
 distrust their fellow-creatures, and think they must go wrong 
 
 unless directed by the superior wisdom of their betters. In 
 
 this case Faith, Modesty, Generosity, and Justice all lead us 
 
 in one direction. Let us trust they will prevail, and that one 
 
 more shackle on the energies of mankind will be struck 
 
 away. 
 
 A. H. 
 
 March oik 1S70. 
 
 4.. Ireland & Co., Printers, Mancliestcr
 
 ?«&