The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-19 00:00:00

M,k.RRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL,

Mr. ItussELL G URNEY moved the second reading of this
bill. Ile said he had found a general feeling
that a change should take place in the state
of the law as it affected the husband and wife.
He instanced the evil effects which the law
had upon women, and he quoted from the
evidence of the member for Sheffield, who stated
that he knew many cases of great hardship.
Upwards of 803 women in his employ were married
women, and earned good wages. In very many instances
the husbands were idle and dissipated, and spent the
earnings of their wives. The argument as to the exten-
sion of the law of marriage settlements was
utterly inapplicable in the present case, whilst
the obtaining of a protection order from the
magistrates would be but a declaration of war between
the husband and wife, and would result in lamentable
consequences. The only remedy was the one he proposed,
namely, that a woman should not lose or forfeit her pro.
perty by the net of marriage. He noticed the objection
raised against the bill. One was that it would-introduce
discord into a family, but he reminded the House
that the rich always took care to secure the property of
their daughters. The hon. and learned gentleman then
read a variety of authorities in favour of the change in
the law proposed by the bill, and also to prove that the
fears entertained by those who oppo>ed the measure were
groundless. He hoped the House would assent to this bill,
which had been most carefully considered, but he im-
plored hon. gentlemen not to pass any half measure on
the subject. It was a matter of the most vital importance
to the working classes. They felt they were suffering a
grievous wrong, because they could not see why a poor
woman's mangle should not be just as much protected as
the rich lady's consols.
Mr. Baum felt equally.with the right hon. gentleman
that there was a great necessity for a change in the law
with respect to the property of women, but he did not
think the proposals of the bill now under the considera-
tion of the House calculated to remedy the evil. He
could not help thinking that the passing of the present
bill would increase instead of diminishing the very objec-
tionable state of thinge that at present existed. He had
a bill on the paper on the subject, which arrived at the
same result by rather different arrangement; and there-
fore, whilst he did not adopt the course he took
last year, he thought the best way of ascer-
taining the respective merits of both bills would be
to road each a second time, and then refer them to a select
committee.

Mr. JESSEL said the hon. gentleman who had just sat
down had admitted that it would be advisable to protc!ct
wives from brutal and fraudulent husbands, and
yet he objected to support a measure the
sole object of which was to arrive at the
much-desired result. The hon. member (Mr. Raikes) had
imputed latent motives to those who supported the pre-
sent measure : but he denied that such was the case.
They were actuated by but one desire, that was to give
protection to a woman, and thus enable her to defeat the
evil intentions of a man to whom she had unfortunately
linked herself for life. He hoped the House would read
the bill a second time, and not send it to a select com-
mittee.

Mr. CHARLEY objected to the bill, because if it passed
it would give a woman the right to vote in virtue of her
property.

Mr. STAVELEY HILL supported the bill, because it gave
the county court judge the power of protecting the
earnings of an industrious woman from being squandered
by a dissolute husband.

Mr. MIINDELLA hoped the House would allow the bill
to be read a second time, and mentioned cases in which
the proposed change in the law would operate most bens.
fici

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL having in a brief speech sup-
ported the principle of the measure,
pie 141 war read a soc2Ad