The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1877-08-30
Marital Rights in Scotland.

| Marital Rights III SCOTLAND.
A bill recently brought before the
British House of Commons, providing for
a change in the laws of Scotland in re-
gard to the property rights of women, is
of general interest. These laws are un-
deniably vicious, subjecting wealthy
women in Scotland to an uncommon
amount of imposition and injustice. In
Scotland, so long as woman is a spin
ster she is capable of administering or
dealing with her property; but the mo-
ment she becomes wife, she is incapable
OF doing so. Again, when she becomes
a widow, she is legally able to deal with
1t. The results are, that at present the
Scottish law offers great inducement to
unprlncipled men to endeavor to get
wealthy young women to run away with
them; when, if they can get them to do
this, as there are no marriage settlements,
the husband of the indiscreet lady can
deal as he likes with her property. He
may dissipate it or gamble it away, or
spend it upon his mistresses, and it would
undoubtedly appear that there would be
remarkable increase of widows in Scot
land, but that it comes up that man
may will his wife's property as he chooses,
even to his mistress; when the wife, on
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, hut that bad husbands are the ex-
nd hn In in
There is, however, something which
savors of selfshness 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 from which the opposition
to this bill chiefly comes), said that ':the
proposed law was simply the Mohamme-
dan law" and ''as he had seen 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
ried 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
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 a law to Moham-
mechanism. A better example might have
been afforded in our country, where the
property rights of women are largely
projected by law, and where it has not
as yet been observed that Americans have
suffered under the Empress and slave"
system to any serious extent. The same
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 all argument to an intensely prejudiced
mind.