The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. SATURDAY, AUGUST 11 1883. The Married Woman’s Property Bill.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1019, 11 August 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. SATURDAY, AUGUST 11 1883. The Married Woman’s Property Bill.

We have got into a vicious system of over-legislation. Unless the Statute Book of the colony is loaded with new Acts, some of which are, but most of which are not at all wanted, a session of the General Assembly is dubbed a barren one and lamentations arise from all quarters about the sad waste of time which has taken place. Now, we hold that the principle of “ litde, but good” is extremely applicable to the work of legislation. It is neither necessary nor desirable to legislate for legislating sake. It is impossible for a new law to be well framed unless its makers not only possess the necessary skill, but are also allowed sufficient time to mould its provisions into proper shape. It is likewise undesirable that new laws dealing with important matters should be enacted before public opinion has expressed itself in their favor. Yet, year after year, bills dealing with vital subjects are passed through the General Assembly without the public being afforded a reasonable opportunity of saying yea or nay to their principles. There is now before the General Assembly a measure called “ The Married Woman’s Property Bill,” which,

if it becomes law, is likely to produce the most far-reaching effects upon our social organisation. Yet the public voice has never been heard in its favor : and only those who attentively watch the proceedings of the Legislature are fully aware that such a measure is now pending. The Bill, as it stands, simply overturns the existing relations between husband and wife in respect of property. The scope of the Bill may be gathered from the 4th clause, which declares that

“ Every woman who marries after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to have and to hold as her separate property and to dispose of in manner aforesaid ail real and personal property which shall belong to her at the time of marnage or shall be acquired by or devolve upon her after marriage, including any wages, earnings, money, and property gained or acquired by her in any employment, trade, or occupation in which she is engaged or which she carries on separately from her husband or by the exercise of any literary, artistic, or scientific skill.” Another clause confers similar rights upon women already married. The effect of these provisions would be to dissolve that community of goods which now prevails between married persons ; and to enable the wife, whenever she thought fit, with or without reason, to set up a separate establishment for herself, while still leaving her husband to bear the entire expense of maintaining the family. For, unjust as it appears, the Bill, while enabling the wife to keep for herself every penny of her own earnings or property, nevertheless leaves it the duty of the husband to. provide for her maintenance, as well as for all additional expenses to which he may be put by her abandoning her natural duties for the purpose of gaining money. The wife mayopen a shop and she is expressly empowered to sue her husband, and yet she need not contribute one penny towards the support of her family, unless, indeed, they are in absolutely indigent circumstances. Now, if the marriage bond is to be reduced to a strictly commercial partnership, let it be put on an equitable footing. Formerly married women were deprived of all rights of property under any circnmstances, and there undoubtedly a grave wrong existed; but our legislation is now travelling too far in the opposite direction, and it would be wise to consider to what goal it is likely to lead us. No doubt, the tendency ot late years has been to lessen the sanctity of the marriage tie. The large and increasing number of marriages before the Registrar indicates a change of public sentiment, which formerly viewed a marriage as no marriage at all unless the ceremony were performed by a clergyman. Still public feeling is very far indeed from regarding marriage in the light of a civil contract only; and it clings even more strongly to the idea which has always formed the basis of our home life, that husband and wife are essentially one. The unity of the family is powerfully aided by the law recognising the husband alone in money matters; and the inevitable effect of making husband and wife co-equals in this respect will be to create disunion in numbers of families. We should imagine, too, that it would foster that growing disinclination to marriage which is manifesting itself amongst young men, particularly those of the upper classes; and whatever the views of the woman of the future may be, the young woman of the present undoubtedly regards the prospect of a husband as the most pleasing of all visions. Nor can it be alleged that the Bill is wanted to meet the case of women with dissolute husbands; for all such cases are met by the statute already in force, under which a protection order can, wherever real hardship is shown, be procured by a married woman with the greatest ease. From whatever standpoint it be regarded, the Bill is needless and unwise; and if there be one subject more than another in which the Legislature should move cautiously, and in the rear of public opinion, it is the subject of the marriage relation.