The Hastings Standard Published Daily. THURSDAY, APRIL1, 1897. HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Hastings Standard, Issue 286, 1 April 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

THURSDAY, APRILI, 1897. HUSBAND AND WIFE.

For the cause that lacks assistance,] For the wrongs that need resistance. For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

In one of Moliere's plays there is a clever entrrwettrHiw who bonsts that so great is her skill that she could arrange a marriage between the Grand Turk and the Republic of Venice. The match-making mammas of this colony are perhaps less ambitious ; they would no doubt all like to see their sons or their daughters comfortably settled, but the trouble now a days is that great accomplishments are demanded on the one side and a long purse need on the other before the altar looms in sight. There is no doubt that there slumbers somewhere in the cells of every feminine brain the vision of an Ideal Husband ; au impossible He who never existed in aetua] tlesh and blood or who dissolves into thin air under the tests of practical matrimony. The steps of a dreamy maiden may be attended by this vision, splendid for a short time, but soon, alas ! it fades into the light of common day. What is the ideal husband of wiser womanhood ? This question is answered in the series of resolutions submitted to the Women's Council in

Christchuroh by Mrs Sievwright and

J carried unanimously. The i«l*al basband as pictuml by tht>s<» resolutions jis a bc-ii-peeked. shrivel led-up man,, existing by leave of bi* wife, slaving and toiling for her without a right or privilege of hi- own.

I We hope- Mr< Sievwris.'ht has given weighty consideration to the busbaad-

enslaving resolutions which she was courageous enough to submit to the Women's Council. While we express a hope, we are at the same time certain that Mrs Sievwright judges the matrimonial state and its requirement from her own limited circle of observation. She has probably had brought under her notice one or two distressing cases of matrimonial infelicity, and on the strength of this limited and wholly unreliable information she seriously proposes to upset the existing relations between man and wife, and is supported in her agitation by apparently level-headed and happy matrons. Marriage is at best a lottery, it is one of the most hazardous speculations, and it often happens that the man who enters upon matrimony, after a careful and close study of the faults and weaknesses of his partner, finds that he has made a huge mistake ; while another, careless of the future, conscious only of a blind infatuation for the "sweetyoung thing," marries and makes a good deal. While there is this great element of chance, and while human nature remains as it is, there is bound to be a fair proportion of unhappy marriages. Will Mrs Sievwright's resolutions, even if given all the force of law, make the slighest alteration in the annual average of unhappy marriages ? We think not. On the contrary, to loosen the marriage bonds or to make divorce easy will tend to increase the number of foolish marriages ,of ill-matched couples. But this is of less importance than the third and fourth resolution's, which bear upon the economic relations between the husband and the wife. Women are to have at call the right to a separate bank account, or if she prefers it a common account jointly with her husband. She is to share and share alike in the " old man's" earnings, and anything she may earn is to go into the common treasury. Manumitted woman in New Zealand has a wonderful power of making herself ridiculous, and here we hav« the very essence of ridiculousness and feminine nonsense. Perhaps it is woman's foolish belief in the power of Parliament that has led Mrs Sievwright to propound such homedisturbing resolutions. Is it not the height of folly to suppose that the relations between husband and wife can be regulated or controlled by an Act of Parliament ? Supposing under Mrs Sievwright's resolution that a man declines to accord his wife the privilege of a separate banking account, what is to befall him ? Is he to be put in gaol, or is he to be whipped ? To fine him would be to rob the wife of a certain portion of her property, and that would be intensely stupid where the object is to conserve her interests. Then, again, suppose a woman is desirous of keeping a separate account, but is afraid to ask for the privilege for fear of offending a pugnacious husband, how is she to secure her rights ? Will she be able to call in the services of an inspector of domestic relationships to set the business right ? If there is to be a law on the subject it is only proper that there should be duly qualified officers appointed to carry out the law, and we can fancy that even Mrs Sievwright would resent the inquisitiveness of a Government inspector on the relationship between husbands and wives. There is a blind faith in the magic power of Acts of Parliament, and we are somewhat surprised that Parliament has not been asked to legislate in the direction of compelling all married couples to avoid producing twins, or say brick-headed bairns. Mrs Sievwright's resolutions are astonishingly foolish.