, 1877-09-07
Marital Right, in Scotland

hdIll"l Rights ~ scotland.
y bill TcCdtly hruuybt lin. ~
BRITISH House q Commoa,. prlvidipg n,
change IN the law, of scotland h -
gard 10 the property rights ui women \.
ui general interest. These laa. sr. ,,
deniaoly viciouN subiectiug W.,rts,
women IN Scotlpd a. an uup.,, ...,..,
amount OF imposition and iuiu.ilr- t-
scotland, 50 long a. Woman Ii. .rs,
stcr she l. capable uf aimiBi.,,ri,,, +.
ueallng "iih her property; but the Tpo.
uien' sue oeSoHies wife, she j. incapable
oi doing 50. Again, shcu she t.,-rprg,..
Widow, she Is legally able L. de.l vitb
IT, The results ate, tint al present ,bs
Scottish law offers grea, induc,y,,,, -
unprincipled men tu eadeayor ., %,
wealthy young women To run AWAY Ui,b
them; wnen, If they can eet then, a. an
TINS, as there are no marriage ,ettlemept.
'he husband OF the indiscr,et lady can
deal as he likes with her property lie
may dlssipate 1t or gamble ii away. ar
spcnd II upon his mistrcsses, andit wnuId
undoubtedly appear that there would me
a remarkable increase of widows in 500,
land, but that it comes up that "A man
may vii his witc's property as he chooses
even to his mistress; when the wife an
becoming widow, may discover that
which was her own is thus unjustly con-
veyed.
The law is acknowledged by British
Legislators to be very unjust to married
women and would be absolutely intoler-
able, but that bad husbands are the ey-
ception and not the rule in Scotland.
There is, however, something which
savors Of seltishness in the arguments
used in opposition to this bill. 1t is
urged by certain British legislators that
the passage of such law would subvert
the ordinary relations of the sexes.
Whereas, instead Of as now, is emperor
and slave" there would be Empress and
slave" and that there would be constant.
squabbling and going to law" upon the
"mine and thine" in such relations.
A leading member from the Govern
ment benches trom which the opposition
to this bill chiefly comes), said that "the
proposed law was simply the Mohamme-
dan law" and "as he had seen a great
deal Of the operation of that law in India,
he was bound to say it worked ill.," The
provisions of the bill, briefly, are as fol-
lows After the passage of the act, mar
rled women are to possess the control
over movable property and real estate
the same as if unmarried. The earnings
OF married women are protected. There
is also clause which provides that in
case of the wife's death the rights of the
husband and of the children shall be the
same in regard to the separate estate Of
the wife, as they would have been if the.
estate had not been taken away from the
husband. Also, that the husband will
no longer be liable for the ante-nuptial
debts Of his wife, except as far as he has
received property from her. The wife's
estate will be liable to household ex-
penses, but there will be no interference
with ante-nuptial contracts, except to
give to those who are SO imprudent as to
marry without such contracts something
of the same protection as if such con-
tracts had been made.
1t seems little singular that these
legislators should turn as examples of
the workings of such law to Moham-
mechanism. A better example might have
been afforded in our country, where the
property rights of women are largely
protected by law, and where it has not
as yet been observed that Americans have
suffered under the empress and saye"'
system to any serious extent. The same
property laws, under the social codes,
existing among Mohammedans and Chris
tians, would be very aptto produce differ
ent results, and could only have served
as an argument to an intensely prejudiced
mind.