The Taranaki Herald. PUBLISHED ON WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 1870. THE ONE MILLION NEW ZEALAND LOAN.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 1005, 27 July 1870, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. PUBLISHED ON WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 1870.

THE ONE MILLION NEW ZEALAND LOAN.

A General Assembly which is not occupied with the urgencies of a native insurrection, nor wholly engrossed in a scramble for the political loaves and fishes, is of course bound to turn its attention from time to time to the discussion of what may be called domestic matters. Of these, the most prominent, and certainly not the least important, is the work of legislation — strictly so called ; that is, the foundation by degrees of a body of law, based on sound principles of jurisprudence, and adapted in its details to the peculiar circumstances of the Colony. A somewhat startling step has been taken in this direction by Mr. J. C. Richmond. The "Married Women's Property Bill" was introduced by that gentleman in a speech, the arguments of which are not convincing, nor its manner in good taste. The author of this important measure brought it forward in a way characteristically flippant. We are subsequently told that the Bill was draughted by Judge Richmond (possibly the only thing that can be said in its favor) ; and that it had been draughted with studious simplicity in order that the subject might develop itself by experience through the medium of the Courts of law. The meaning of which we take to be, that the Assembly was to pass the Bill in haste, and that the different parties affected by it were to repent that result at their leisure, to the enhancing of the lawyers fees. Mr. Richmond then glibly assured the House that the proposed measure would not in tbe slightest degree change the common law position of husband anu wife, beyond the points intended to be altered. Now, apart from the merits or demerits of the details of the Bill, this is a matter on which the House ought not to accept the ipsedkeit of Mr. Richmond, nor, indeed, of any single member. A capacity to reform the law is seldom found in those who have not studied it professionally aud as a science. Mr. Richmond does not at any rate possess a profound knowledge of law or of jurisprudence, and his ignorance is of that actively mischievous sort, which, never suspecting the existence of what it does not know, at once careless and supercilious makes little of, and resents the pretensions of others whose judgment is better worth attending to than its own. It is no light thing, we say, to make a capital alteration in the principle of a law so chastic as our own. It is not easy to foresee the effects it may have in its ramification, nor is it always possible to make the new law capable of fitting into a consistent whole with the previously existing law. This may not be so apparent to laymen, but, to lawyers, a hundred and one possible instances rise in their imaginations of moot points which may be raised in matters seemingly unconnected with those affected by the law in question. Hasty and ill-considered changes of the law seldom realize the promises and expectations of those promoting them, their probable consequences have not been properly appreciated, and they serve only to add to those glaring anomalies with which the statute book is already sufficiently burdened. We have, unfortunately, no epace to criticise the details of the Bill itself, except in a very general way. It is not drawn merely to protect the wife against the husband, for it supposes the most intimate business relation between husband and wife. Ignoring the fact that of all dissensions, those between near relations, regarding money and property, are the most bitter, and the most implacable j it would seem to encourage the motion that a separation of interests between husband and wife is a blessing to be conferred by legislation, not a misery which has to be alleviated. Again, what a fertile source of domestic strife and unhappiness lies in the Bth section, which provides that married women shall be capable of being the trustees of others, for, though it be enacted that the husband shall not be legally liable in respect of the wife's trusts, who can ensure him against the other painful consequences of his wife's accepting an office of this sort. We all know the messes that men, with a practical knowledge of business matters, sometimes get themselves into as executors, administrators, guardians, and the like. What may we not expect from those women who have no business habits at all ? The 2nd clause of the Bill enacts that marriage shall not entitle the husband to any estate or interest in the real or personal property of the wife ; and the 4th clause provides that husband and wife, as regards the possession of real or personal property, whether belonging to each other or to third persons, shall not be deemed to he one person in law. Here some of the practical difficulties with which these innovations are beset suggest themselves. Suppose tbe husband forcibly appropriates and disposes of any of the personal property of the wife, is he liable to a prosecution for larceny ? If so, how is the case to be proved against him ? Can the wife give evidence ? By the 4th clause it would appear that the wife might voluntarily give evidence againt her husband, though she could not be compelled to do so. If this be so, what becomes of Mr. Richmond's assertion that tbe common law position of husband and wife is not affected beyond the points intended to be altered. It is true the 18 th section provides that husband and wife shall not site or be sued by each other further or otherwise than as if the Act had

not been passed. But a suit by one private individual against another, and a prosecution for a crime at the instance and on behalf of the Crown are two different things, and therefore it, nevertheless, remains doubtful whether or no the husband could bo indicted in the case supposed. The Bill, now before the House, resembles, in many respects, Mr. Russell Gurney's Bill, to which a determined opposition was offered in the English Tlouse of Commons. To that Bill Mr. Richmond alludes in his speech, but he does not mention the Bill introduced by Mr. Raike. The Ist clause of that Bill establishes the rule that a husband married after the passing of the Act shall be, not the owner, but the trustee of his wife's property. Clause 2nd extends this rule to all property acquired by any married woman after the passing of the Bill. A woman having shares or money in the bank would, on her marriage, no longer be deprived of her property ; her husband would hold it, not in fee simple, but only as her trustee. These clauses are not innovations in principle, — they only declare what the law has all along been in intention. They do not enforce on the husband the whole of the obligations of his marriage vow. Clause 3rd enforces the previous clauses by invalidating " the payment or transfer to a husband of property accruing to him as such trustee in right of his wife, unless tbe same be paid or transferred in pursuance of an order signed by such wife." These are the only previous provisions which are to be of universal application. The status of married people living in peace and harmony is not affected by this Bill. But this Bill, besides having the merit of leaving well alone, which Mr. Russell Guruey's does not, provides for the protection of those women to whom the conjugal relation is an oppression. In this also it differs from Mr. Gurney's Bill, which gives protection only where it is not wanted, and by expensive methods. Mr. Raike's Bill does not confound in one the three conditions of maid, wife, and widow, but ci'eates a fourth class of women, who, being married, may demand and receive tbe protection of the law against their husbands.

Clause 4 entitles any woman to obtain, on an exparte application from the County Court Judge, an order divesting her husband of all property which he holds as her trustee, and vesting the same in the Vice-Chancellor and the said Judge conjointly. The County Court Judge, on the joint application of the woman and her husband, after hearing them both, may make an order, which shall have the effect of a settlement, and may allow the property, if personal, to be advanced lo the husband on his personal security, to be employed in his business. The investment of such property cannot be changed without the consent of such married woman and the County Court Judge. The annual income is to be paid to the married woman during her coverture, without power of anticipation. Tn case of the death of the husband, the trust is to be for the absolute benefit of the woman. In case the husband survive, he is to receive the annual income for his life, or till he shall become bankrupt. After either of these events the trust is to be for the benefit of her husband's children in such proportions as shall have been directed by the will of the wife. In default of such will, it is to go for the benefit of her children, equally. In default of children, the property goes according to the will. In default of children and will, the property is to go to her next of kin, according to the statute of distributions.

The next part of the Bill deals with the earnings of married women, and here, unlike Mr. Gurney's Bill, it does give substantial protection to women neglected, deserted, and now in danger of being robbed by their husbands. Clause 6 authorises the County Court Judge to grant an order of protection to any woman who can show that for the last six months she has earned more than half the expenses of the family during that period. Such order shall not be made without seven days' notice to the husband, or proof that he cannot be found ; it must at any time be cancelled on the joint application of husband and wife — 'all such orders and reversals of orders are to be registered. Clause 7 enables a married woman, holding an order of protection, to hold, acquire, alienate, devise, and bequeath real and personal property, and sue and be sued as a female. Her acts while holding 1 the order, will not involve her husband in any liabilities, unless the order should be cancelled, in which case he will resume all the liabilities incurred in the interim. By clause 9 every woman holding an order of protection shall hold all property which she may acquire afterwards, without any control from her husband, and free from any statutory settlement under the Bill exactly as if she were a feme-sole. Subsequent clauses put some limit upon this liberty, for they enact that a woman having property under the trustees appointed by the Bill or under an order of protection, may be compelled by the parish to support a destitute husband. The Bill also compels a woman having property either under trust or accruing to her after obtaining an order of protection, to maintain her children. This clause, like many others, is nearly the same as in Mr. Gurney's Bill, but the difference is contained in a very few words. In Mr. Gurney's Bill, these provisions change the status of every married couple in the country. In Mr. Raike's Bill they affect only those women who have demanded, obtained, and registered an exceptional position. The former Bill, while it confers no protection on women without a special action of law, facilitates collusion between husband and wife to the detriment of their creditors.

The latter, while it in no way facilitates such collusion, provides very substantial protection, once for all, to women against their husbands if they demand it. In short, Mr. R. Gurney proposes to change the nature of the married state, so as to throw it into confusion ; Mr. Raikes leaves tbe marriage state as it is, but provides remedies against husbands who break their marriage vows. Such is the substance of the best of the two Bills submitted to the British House of Commons.

We venture to hope that the House of Representatives will order that Mr. Richmond's Bill shall be read this day six months. In that case the Judges of tbe Supreme Court might be requested to report upon the law affecting married women, and to draught a Bill altering and improving their legal status. This could be easily accomplished when the Judges meet for the Court of Appeal in October. Then at its next sessions, the General Assembly in the place of the crude corruptions of a person unconversaut with the subject, its circumstances and conditions, the dangers to be encountered in dealing with it, and the inconveniences to be provided against, will have laid before it the carefully elaborated plan of men best fitted by their habits, acquirements, and experience to solve a problem so delicate and complex.

After a great amount of negotiation and representation, our Home Government have agreed to ask Parliament to guarantee a loan of £1,000,000 to the people of New Zealand. The New Zealand Examiner (London) Bays —" Notwithstanding all the declarations of those at present in power, that New Zealand was neither deserving of sympathy nor support in its struggles with the Maoris, it seems that not long ago, in answer to the question whether the Home Government, being firm in its refusal to let a regiment of soldiers stay in the Colony, would not guarantee the proposed loan ? it said no, but very soon after offered to recommend Parliament to give New Zealand £500,000. New Zealand not having yet arrived at the conditiou of a 'casual' pauper, even the Commissioners naturally refused such relief. The result is that an arraugement has been come to between the Government and the Delegates that Parliament shall be asked to guarantee a loan of £1,000,000, to be raised by the Colony for the purpose of employing the friendly Maoris in road making and other public works, and for the promotion of immigration. We congratulate our fellow countrymen under two heads, Ist. Those who dwell at home, that a bill has been backed upon which they will not be required to pay one penny, for should everything proceed as heretofore, New Zealand will meet its engagements as it has done on its other loans, without one hour's default. The improved prospect, too, will render, as far as such matters can be, ' assurance doubly assured.' 2nd. Those who dwell in the Colony that this dividend of justice has at last been declared, and that at all events New Zealand is not to be expelled from the British Empire just yet. But to both we should say that great care should be displayed in the outlay of the £1,000,000 sought to be placed at New Zealand's disposal; that part devoted to railways should be expended only with great thought, and avoidance of unnecessary expense ; while that set apart for emigration should be so laid out that none but the best of emigrants should be allowed to share in its privileges —people who, conferring a benefit on the Colony, shall confer a far greater ono on themselves."