Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-10-08
ENGLISH WOMEN
Emancipated from the Most Brutal Sys.
TEN or Slavery-They are Now Mis-
tresses Der Themselves,
Can Keep Their Earnings and Their Prop.
erty, and Do with Both as Seems
Best to Them-A Good Act.

LoNDoN, September 24.-The Poll Mall |
Gaelic says that among the acts which have
just received royal assent perhaps none is OF
more importance than the married Homan's
property act. This act marks the end OF a
long series of statutes, legal decisions and
equitable devices. Ii is the last turn of the
wheel in a great Social revolution. "The
wheel has come full circle" According 10
the ancient common law sf England q woman
on marriage merged not only her personality
in that OF her husband when they twain be-
came one flesh, but also her property. If
she possessed land he became owner of the
land, not only Tor her life but for his; If she
possessed goods and chattels he became their
absolute owner. Instead of the husband en-
dowing the wife with all his worldly goods,
as the church service has il, she endowed him
with hers; or, as 1t has been put instead of
"mine il thine" the adage should have run
"thine is mine, but miRes my own" Long ago
inroads were made on this rule. The chan
cellors placed restrictions upon it, and, when
convey ancing grew into a science, lawyers
invented methods of evading it. By giving
the intended wife's property 10 trustees, and
NJ 3king them trustees of the property of the
wife slone, the husband it was found could
be 80 efectually deprived of any control
over the 'dowried maiden's" dover as if she
still remained in her fathers house. The
settlement to a wonan's separate use made
married woman absolutely owner of her
property as her husband of his; indeed,
when the restriction on anticipation was
adopted, more so; for while ne could not
keep his property out of the hands of his
creditors If he became insolvent, her property
could be kept out of the hands not only of
his creditors, but OF her own. The practice
OF settlement became SO confirmed that for
many years past no well-to-do or prudent
father allowed his daughter to marry with
out one, or left money by will TO a married
woman without providing that it was to be
for her separate use. But though the prac-
tics was thus brought into harmony with the
sentiments Of society, which had long out
grown the notion that the wife was to be en-
tirely in the hands of her husband, the law
still remained, broadly speaking, in its
original rigidness.
Consequent the poor wife, who, in many
respec'P, wanted more protection thar a rich
one, had still TO give up her scanty savings
at the bidding of drunken husband; aud
the clever wife who made money by writing
or painting had still to resign it 10 an idle
scapegrace, who spent 1t soon az won.
There were many cases, too, in which
from want OF time or care, money WAS left
TO married woman by will without the
mystic words, "to her separate use" and it
went TO the husband as his own Many hard
cases, which showed the badness of the law,
resulted. Sometimes a husband left money
brought by one wife to the children of an
other, leaving the children of the first penni-
less. Sometimes, as happened year or TWO
back in one notorious cnse, "a husband took his
wlfe's property and spent it on mistress, and
finally lett the vile to starve, while the mis-
tress was by his viii endowed with his wife's
money. The married WON ans property act
passed in 1870 endeavored TO remedy
the worst of the evils. But like many
half hearted measures, it created a vast
number of hard cases, and proved more
beneficial to lawyers than those it was in
tended 10 relieve. 1t drew hard and fast
lines as TO the amount of property that was
to be considered as settled without express
words, and introduced many fine and unsub-
stantial distinctions. The present act has
adopted plain general rule. All property
of whatever kind and 10 whatever amount,
which is inherited by or bequeathed to, or
gained by married woman is to belong to
her, just as if she were single, apart from all
control of her husband. The act is retro
spectlve-that liz, it applies TO woman mar
ried before the act, but only as to property
which comes over to her after the act. In
compensation the wife is 10 be responsible
for her own debts incurred before marriage
and sfterwsrd; she is liable to support her
own children if the husband cannot, and
even to support her husband if he would
otherwise go upon the rates and she has
money.
The law has thus, for all sorts and condi-
tons of women, been brought into accord
ance with public sentiment. We have Jagged
behind not only other nations in doing
SO, but behind our own kith and kin in the
United States and in many of the colonies.
The reason, no doubt, was that the richer
classes-those who had the of PArlia-
ment-were practically satisfied with the
system OF settlements. All women are now
brought within the pale. 1t is to be hoped
that the knowledge among even the lowest
and roughest, that a woman is no longer
poor wretch, with no rights and nothing she
can call her own, though it is earned by the
sweat OF her brow, will tend TO give her in
crossed protection. Seeing how many
women among the poor are bread-winners
and money-spinners, the chances of their
bread being changed to gin and the money
spent by the mar on himself alone may be
considerably diminished. The most lawless
domestic tyrant ought to be Influenced by
the fact that his victim is under the protec-
ton of the law.