The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-05-03
women's Nights - The Question
Abroad--ParIiame ntary Discussion
In England OF the Marrled We.
mems Property nil.


Abroad--PsrIiam entary Discussion
In England OF the MsrrIed ws-
mems Property niil.
The British House Of Commons, on April
IA, devoted the greater part Of Its sitting to
a redlscusslon Of the married women's prop
erty bill, which was brought In last year by
Mr.. Shaw Lefevre, and afterward referred
to a select committee. The second reading
was now moved by the recorder, (Mr. Rus
sell Gurney,) aud he put 1t forward chiefly
as measure for the protection of the $780,
900 wage-earning married women In the
country, and Of the considerable class with
| fortunes too small 10 justify application 10 q
| court Of equity. The recorder maintained
that no other remedy but this would enable
the wife to retain her own earnings, subject
TO the same liabilities as husband. or the
extent and intensity Of the evil he gave some
distressing instances from his own judicial
experience, and no showed that the bill was
not only In accordance with the law Of the
principal nations OF Europe, and Of the
United States, but 1t was an extension OF our
own everyday practice Of settlements. He
offered to refer the bill to a select committee
If II were read second time.
Mr.. Jessel supported the bill, arguing, In
one Of his antiquarian speeches, that our
present law was the relic Of time when q
wife was considered the slave Of the hus-
band. He advocated the change because,
among other things, 1t would raise the stdt,I,
of married women, and would thus ulti'
mately benent the husband.
The measure was also supported by Mr.
Shaw Lefeyre, who referred at length to the
example Of the United States; by Mr.. o.
Morgan, Sir =. Goldsmid and the Solicitor
General, who declined to treat 1t simply as a
| -. k,,t H.
that the property OF wife, rich or poor,
ought to be protected as much as hus-
bands.
The rejection of the bill, on the other hand,
was again moved by Mr.. Lopes, who pro-
fessed his readiness to concur 10 measure
for the protection OF the earnings Of married
women, but held that this bill went further
than was necessary for that purpose. The ad.
vantages given to the husband by the present
law were more than compensated by the liza.
| blllty OF paying the wife's debts and main
tanning her children. He dwelt on the license
which the bill would give to married women
| with independent incomes, and as to settle
ments, they were intended not so much for
: the protection Of the wife as Of the children.
Mr.. s. Hill, who seconded the amendment,
suggested that an extension Of the divorce
act would do all that was necessary.
| Mr.. Beresford Hope sympathlzed with the
! grievance OF tue uccuy Clubb WHICH tue VII
sought TO remedy, but objected 10 the wanton
interference with the married relations Of the
easy class which II threatened. Tho free
trade in divorce prevailing In the United
States vitiated any parallel with them and
in what country, he asked, under this state
of law were the marriage relations 80 pure
as in England The bill would revelation
ize the whole system Of credit, aud he drew
an amusing picture Of which o married
couple living under the new dlspensatlon
would resort to keep their creditors at arm .
length-"the husband walking abroad In his
wife's coat, and the wife In her husband's
gown.n
Mr.. Henley also opposed the bill as going
far beyond the grievance which he admitted.
There was no mutuality In the arrangement,
and II the bill passed, tho wlfe's earnings
must be liable for the husband's debts.
Mr.. Lopes did not press his opposition to a
division, aud the bill having boon read q Sec
ond time 1t was ordered to be referred 10 O
reject committee.