Married Woman

has long been a blot on the English law. Except in cases where the husband is legally dead or the wife has obtained a protection order she has in a Court of law really no legal position. During marriage her legal existence is suspended. Efforts have been made for many years in Courts of Equity to extend her rights in regard to property held to her separate use, as will be seen on reference to the important judgments of Lord Westbury (in Taylor v. Mead, 34 L. J. Chancery, 203) and Lord Hatherley (in Pride v. Bubb, L. R. 7, ch. 64). These cases, however, decide no more than that she may dispose of her equitable estate in such property without her husband's consent.

It may be doubtful whether the Married Women's Property Protection Act, 1860, and the Amendment Act of 1870, were ever intended to apply to persons likely to become possessed of valuable property. The primary object of these Acts was probably to protect the earnings of married women in indifferent circumstances who had to page 22 support themselves. The property of a married woman should be placed more directly under her own control, irrespective of the circumstance of having a drunken or cruel husband.

The American law on this subject is entitled to serious consideration. The policy of that law in nearly all the States is to place married women in the position of a femme sole, in regard to all property belonging to her at the date of her marriage or acquired by her during coverture. As a corollary to this position she is entitled to sue and is liable to be sued in all matters relating to such property as if she were unmarried. As a set-off against this the husband is not liable for the debts owing by her at the time of the marriage. These general remarks are subject to many qualifications; for example, in Oregon it would appear that property acquired by gift, devise, or inheritance only is free from the husband's debts; and in Columbia property given by a husband to his wife remains liable for his debts. In California all property acquired during marriage by either party is common property, with absolute power in him to dispose of it during his life, but on his death she succeeds to the half of it. In Michigan a wife can contract with her husband in the same manner as she may do with a stranger, and she is under no disability in regard to such contracts. In Indiana a widow who is entitled to property by virtue of her first marriage ceases to have any claim to it on being married again, and it thereupon belongs to her children by the first husband. The law in New York places the wife practically in the position of a femme sole. Moreover, in the Province of Ontario (Statute 35 Vic., ch. 16, s. 2), a married woman may carry on business alone, and all profits, earnings, and property derived there from may be disposed of without her husband's consent. By section 3 she may insure her own life for the benefit of herself and children, and the life of her husband with his consent. By section 8 he is not liable for the debts owing by her at the date of marriage, or incurred by her in carrying on business separately.

This branch of law has been very much altered in England within the last few years. The Married Women's Property Act, 187o, and Amendment Act of 1874, doubtless page 23 give substantial effect to the principle of the American law, to part of which I have briefly alluded, but these Acts are not in force in the colony, although it is to be hoped that the Colonial Legislature will without delay pass them in an amended form. In our law the power to sell the lands of