The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-15 00:00:00

~., kil ..-

.0 JGUENLLS,

The Times thinks that the Married Women's Property
-Bill is too extreme in its nature. Flagrant evils ensue,
under certain circumstances, from the principle of the
present law ; the bill proposes to meet the difficulty by
abolishing the principle and substituting its direct oppo-
site. In an old established society like our own, it is evi-
dently preferable, if it be possible, to provide special pro-
tection in the circumstances in point, but to leave the
main principle of the law unaltered. This view of the
case was recognised by the opponents of the mea-
sure, but justice was scarcely done to it. We
cannot conceive a more complete change of prin-
ciple than the bill contemplates. The present law
goes upon the understanding that the family is a
kind of unit, under a single head, who is solely responsible ,
for it, and who is, consequently, invested with complete
control over it. 'This bill would render a married woman
as independent in respect of property as an unmarried
woman. The married state would, therefore, become a
contract between two equal partners, irresponsible to each
other, and neither wholly responsible for the family. In
its present form, indeed, the bill would leave the husband
under his present responsibility, while depriving Lim of
the corresponding authority. It would be impossible,
however, if the bill were accepted, to maintain so unfair
an arrangement, and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre on Wednesday ex-
pressed his readiness to place husband and wife on an equal
footing in that respect. But the more completely and the more
fairly this equality is carried out the more complete
becomes the social revolution the bill proposes. As a
rule, the husband must always be the person who con-
tributes most to the family, and who is its principal
support and its chief protection. Is it fair, under such
circumstances, to deprive him of all control over the
expenditure of his wife? Is it right she should be told by
the law that she may act in complete disregard of his
wishes ? We grant it is not just that he should have abso-
lute power over his wife, but is it just that he should have
none ? Looking at the character of the relation and to
the facts of life, it appears to us that our law has followed
nature, and has laid a just foundation, in recognising the
husband's supremacy and responsibility. It is only in
conditions of society more or less unnatural that a diffe-
rent principle has been or ought to be recognised,
The amendments to the Irish Church Bill of which Mr.
Gladstone has given notice are, says the Post, distinguish.
able from those of the leader of the Opposition in this
very material respect, that their object is to extend the
application of the principles on which that bill is founded,
and not to render them completely nugatory. It is
material to observe that none of Mr. Gladstone's
proposed amendments affect the general tenour
of the bill, nor can they be construed as conces-
sions to any objections taken to it by the Opposi-
tion. That some concessions may ultimately be called
for is not impossible, and the Premier declared in the
debate on the second reading that he was prepared to
entertain any proposals honestly brought forward by the
Opposition with the view of improving the bill. But, for
the present, Mr. Gladstone's task has been confined to
making corrections which sre suggested by the additional
information he has received, and a more attentive conside-
ration of the possible operation of certain clauses of the
bill. The amendments of the leader of the Opposition,
as we have already had occasion to point out, attack the
foundations of the bill, and must be rejected without
exception by everyone who approves its principle, The
principal amendments of which the Premier has given
notice in no degree militate with the general principle of
the bill, and can scarcely challenge the hostile criticism of
any save those who are opposed to the disestablishment
and disendowment of the Irish Church.
The Standard declares that Sir Massey Lopes did good
service in calling attention to a very grave evil which for
years past has exercised a most injurious effect upon the
administrative system of the Church of England. In a
word, there is no legal provision for the voluntary or
enforced retirement of prelates who are, from age, ill-
health, or other causes, admittedly incapacitated for the
discharge of their duties. It may happen that, for one or
other of the reasons we have indicated, a bishop may for
years have been totally unable to attend to the affairs of
his diocese, even so much as to go outside the walls of his
palace, or to write a letter. We do not for a moment
assume that any member of the episcopal bench would
voluntarily consent to retain his post under circum-
stances fraught with such obvious detriment to the inte-
rests of the Church throughout his diocese ; but it is a
simple matter of fact that there is no provision known to
the law by which he can resign his office, and hand over
his trust to a competent successor. The system under
which the Established Church is at present administered
takes it for granted that under any circumstances the
bishops will die in harness. Whatever is now done in the
way of remedying this obvious anomaly is done by a side-
wind. What is wanted is an enactment by which bishops
who may be presumed to be permanently disqualified for
the discharge of their duties, may be enabled to resign
their sees with a fair provision for the remainder of their
lives. There should be no difficulty as to this latter point.
There should be but one bishop of one diocese.
Even the idea of a dual jurisdiction should be avoided,
and we doubt whether there is any case now extant in
in which the absolute avoidance of the see would not be
required by its special circumstances as well as on the
ground of the inadvisability of establishing a divided
authority. It might be fraught with hardship in some in-
stances, but we believe that on the whole the interests of
the Church would be most effectually secured by the
establishment of the rule that a prelate who requires per-
manent aid should give place to a capable successor.
The Herald asserts that Mr. Howard's petition was a
blunder. He gave the late Premier another opportunity
of showing that in the exercise of his patronage he was
guided by an undeniable zeal for the public interests.
But, from the point of view of the. Radicals, the hon.
member for East Cumberland did his party a very ill
service. If he had not provoked the discussion of
Tuesday evening, the Radical newspapers and lladical
speakers might have continued to declaim against the
shower of appointments which fell in the beginning of
last December, and instance the nomination of Mr.
Lowther to the lieutenancy of these two counties as
a flagrant illustration of their impropriety. Now,
however, even the most pertinacious of the assailants
of the late Government will be abashed and
silenced. Mr. Howard, sacrificing himself as Mr. Charles
Buxton did the other day, for the vindication of Mr.
Disraeli's reputation, elicited from the right honourable
gentlemen a statement which must satisfy everybody
that these appointments were not only in accordance with
constitutional precedent, but were the result of an earnest
desire to consult those local interests which would be
affected by the choice of a lord-lieutenant. About the
constitutional right of a Minister in Mr. Disraeli's position
to recommend such an appointment to the Queen there
can be no question. Of the perfect propriety of the arti-
cular recommendation no doubt can be entertained after
the discussion of Tuesday, and Mr. Howard may be
credited with having performed a service, which he never
intended, in the signal illustration which he was the
instrument of giving to the public of the fairness and
fitness of the appointments made by the Conservative
Government.