In fact, a wife was not regarded in Hungary as a minor, her husband was not her guardian, nor were there trustees appointed for her property. ‘None of my countrywomen would ever have submitted to such a marriage settlement as is usual in England,’ said a Hungarian lady, well known for her genius and reputation. With the one exception of considering all unmarried women as minors, the Hungarian law was very much in advance of ours. In America, the great states of New York, Pennsylvania, and in New England, California, Texas, and some of the newly settled States, a married woman is allowed, with modifications differing in different places, the same rights over property as if she were single. What changes we find in the American laws are improvements upon ours. Is there not evidence in our English laws of old opinions relating to women which are passing away with the old state of things which engendered them? In the early times, when women were obliged by the violent state of society to be always under the guardianship of father, brother, or husband, these laws might be necessary; but in our peaceful times, such guardianship is proved to be superfluous by the fact of the secure, honourable, and independent position of single women, who are sufficiently protected by the sanctuary of civilisation. Since all the unmarried women in England are supported either by their own exertions, or by the exertions or bequests of their fathers and relations, there is no reason why upon marriage they should be thrown upon the pecuniary resources of their husbands, except in so far as the claims of a third party--children--may lessen the wife’s power of earning money, at the same time that it increases her expenses. Of course a woman may, and often does, by acting as housekeeper and manager of her husband’s concerns, earn a maintenance and a right to share in his property, independent of any children which may come of the marriage. But it is evident that daughters ought to have some sure provision--either a means of gaining their own bread, or property--as it is most undesirable that they should look upon marriage as a means of livelihood. Fathers seldom feel inclined to trust their daughters’ fortunes in the power of a husband, and, in the appointment of trustees, partially elude the law by a legal device. Also, the much abused Court of Chancery tries to palliate the Common Law, and recognises a separate interest between husband and wife, and allows the wife alone to file a bill to recover and protect her property, and trustees are not necessary if there has been an agreement. Why should not these legal devices be done away with, by the simple abolition of a law which we have outgrown? We do not say that these laws of property are the only unjust laws concerning women to be found in the short summary which we have given, but they form a simple, tangible, and not offensive point of attack.