958 Transactions.— Miscellaneous. 
cannot, even though a widow. She only has the custody of the child's 
person, if her husband has appointed no one else. But in no ease does the 
tutorship, that is the direction of the child's education and property, devolve 
upon her, but on the next male agnate who is over twenty-five. In France 
the law is that the right of guardianship goes first and indefeasibly to either 
survivor of the marriage, and then, in default of his or her appointment, to 
their parents in turn. It is impossible for the father to defeat by his will 
his wife's right in this respect. The utmost he can do is to limit her 
power by nominating an adviser whom she must consult. As legal guardian 
a widow has full control over her children’s education. She alone can 
oppose or consent to their marriage. She has the usufruct of their pro- 
perty, and can appoint a guardian by her will. Similarly the code pub- 
lished for the State of New York in 1866 has so far departed from the 
conditions of the common law that, though the father remains the legitimate 
guardian of his children, and entitled to their custody, service, and earnings, 
yet he cannot transfer the guardianship to any person other than the mother, 
without her written consent ; and if he is dead, or unable or unwilling to act, 
the right devolves unconditionally upon her." From these remarks it is 
evident that, in relation to mothers and the guardianship of children, the 
barbarie survivals are fewer, or less outrageously unjust in France and 
New York than in Great Britain ; and it is to be hoped that the after dis- 
cussion of this subject will show that the New Zealand law is as civilized 
as that of the State of New York. 
4. Another relie (and this is our last,) of barbarism and savagery, is 
the relation in which women, especially married women, still stand to pro- 
perty. In those old times when a woman's social position, especially a 
wife's, was quite undistinguishable from that of a slave, her not being 
allowed to own or hold property was consistent with the then existing state 
of things. Her position, however, improved, in certain respects, during the 
world's progress; but in respect of property, it is scarcely as good as it was, 
in heathen Rome, fifteen or seventeen centuries ago ; and much worse than 
it was in Hindustan according to the laws of Manu. According to those 
laws, all property given to a wife by her own parents or kindred, or given 
by her husband, remained inalienably the wife's, even though it consisted 
of lands or houses, inalienably hers during the husband's life, and after his 
death. In strange contrast with this is English law.  Hitherto the tend- 
ency both of English opinion and English law has leaned towards the 
disinheriting and stripping of women of whatever was righteously theirs. 
In the testamentary disposition, whether of property or money, they are 
seldom dealt with fairly or equitably. A late iron-master, of enormous 
wealth, and whose wealth was entirely at his own disposal, left all his 
