The Press. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1884.

Press, Volume XL, Issue 5953, 11 October 1884, Page 2

The Press. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1884.

It must of necessity often happen in the hurry-s-nrry of colonial polities, when the attention alike of legislators and electors is concentrated upon the immediate questions of the day, that many measures of vital importance to the public welfare, but which offer little prospect of political capital, will be proposed and adopted or rejected, as the case may be, with scarcely any discussion worthy ox the name. Especially is this the case with the whole class of measures which may be included under the term social legislation. Generally speaking Bills of this character .are brought forward by private members, j and the legislature is too apt to treat the Bills and their authors with a kind of benignant and non-inquisitive compassion, as being mere hobbies and hobby-riders. In fa .t, a member who bestows much thought upon the condition of society, as distinguished from the condition of parties, is regarded by his brother-members aa being a man of an eccentric turn rather than a politician. Thus it not infrequently comes about

that measures of supreme moment are passed into lave of whiefi the country bean little or nothifig"w*tU people find themefcl?j&e_, BnbJ9cS»4?toih9irj operation. E»«fi wßere a -jjSujwj&b: 'of thia class it ; seldom receives much although it may l>3 farther reaching and deeper searching in ite enVe£s upon the ordinary life of thecitizens than the whole corpus of political measures adopted in a long succession of years. The one class of laws is regarded as Twionary, unpractical, and of little importance, the other as entirely practical and worthy the deepest consideration of hard-headed bnsmess men. Thus a compara'ively trifling measure, in which some members scent official bribery, creates infinitely more excitement, and is regarded Bβ far surpassing in importaoce such a proposal, aa the Married Women's Property Bill, which has no* passed! both Houses, and which will most materially effect the present statue or future prospects of one-half the inhabitants of the colony. Although we have not on former occasions, when the last-named Bill has been before the Legislature, been silent regarding it, we are satisfied that many of oar readers have'only the vaguest ideas as to its' nature and aims. Consequently a few remarks concerning its history and scope will not be superfluous. The first measure under which it was sought 13 give married women the free control of their own property was proposed in 1870 by Mr J.O.Richmond, thenmember for Nelson. That proposal was, however, rejeoted, the only substantial instalment of it being contained in the protection given to a woman's earnings in cases where a husband was guilty of adultery, of cruelty, of halitual drunkenness, or of failure to provide for his family. For eleven years this measure of justice was 'deemed sufficient, and no further legislation was attempted. In 1881 a Bill of a more liberal character was introduced in the Council by Mr. Watebhottse and, passed, but miscarried in the House of Representatives. In 1882, and again in 1883, Bills of the earns character were introduced and passed their second reading?, bnfc on each occasion the measure was sacrificed at the annual immolation of the innocents. The measure of the present year, which was introduced by Mr. Conolly and has now got through the Honse, and through Committee of the Council, is a transcript of that proposed in 1883. The purport of the whole Act is contained in the first sub-section of clause.' 3, which enacts that" a icarried woman shall be capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing by will or otherwise of any real or personal property as her separate property, in the same manner as if she were * feme sole, without the intervention of tny trustee." The remainder of the Measure is really nothing more than the necessary development of this provision, together with the requisite safeguards against fraud of any kind. The. only limitation placed upon a woman's free action in the matter of property is found in the last clause, which provides that a married woman may not enter into or carry on a partnership with any-man other than her husband without the Litter's consent She may sueror be cued, irrespective of her "husband; ahe may take criminal proceedings against him, or he against her; and either of them is a competent witness against the other. We shall not at present further discuss the details of the measure,.aa the above description will suffice to inform our readers of its general tendency. Aβ to the history of similar legislation in other countries, an Act almost the exact counterpart of the present was passed by the British Parliament in 1882, two previous attempts having proved ineffectual. The London Times states that the Act has worked well, that the fears which had been entertained with regard to its operation have not been realised, and that it would undoubtedly be regarded as a calamity, were the Act now to be repealed. Again, as to the Continent, we may quote the following from Mr. J. C. Eichmokd's remarks.— "It has been practically the law in a large part of Europe for many years. It was part of the old civil law, and has been in operation in France and many other countries in Europe, probably since the days of Justinian. We have ample evidence that the state of society will not be materially affected by the Bill." Finally, in reference to colonial experience, it may be mentioned that the law hu now been in force in the little colony'of Tasmania for two yean past, and that nothing but good has resulted from it.

As to our own opinion of the Act, we may say that we look upon ifr as another step towards a truer civilisation. Man has long - admitted the equality of woman in all spiritual matters; he admits her equal right with himself to personal protection, and subjects her to an equal liability, whether; she be married or single, for _re_ch<of the laws. There is therefore no rational justification for refusing her equal' rights with respect to property. The refusal is in fact simply a remnant of early Asiatic civilisation, which has so long survived on no other ground than that women, being weaker, have, had ho power to enforce their right. That abuses will spring, up under the new law, and that it is only the first of a series of amending laws which will be rendered necessary as the principle comes into general applicaj tion, wa fully anticipate. But is there a law, or a series of laws, in either the political or natural world of which the same may not be said ? Shall we annul (be law of contra-ts because some contractors find f loopholes for roguery? The law of gravitation is a fairly beneficent -one for humanity; and yet people will tumble off precipices or into pits. Would the suspension of that law, therefore, be desirable; in the interests of humanity p We commend tiie Married Women's Property Act because \ it is an effort to terminate an open! and long-continued wrong, which is; none the more right on account of its j duration, or because it has so warped onehalf the human race that it will probably take generations before they generally appreciate or wisely exercise the natural right now conceded to them. We commend the Legislature because, although composed of men, it has dared to recognise and forbid one of the great sins of man against woman which has been coeval with the existence of the race.