Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 12.djvu/416

400 400 H U R H U S ingenuity, was followed in 1749 by an edition of the Ars Poetica of Horace (Q. Iloratii Flacci Epistola ad Pisones, with an English Commentary and Notes), which, as Gibbon has remarked, fully proved the title of its author to &quot; the great but prostituted name of critic,&quot; and may still be read with interest, less, however, as an exposition of the original than as containing &quot; a more valuable and better digested collection of criticisms than Horace ever wrote or intended to write.&quot; In 1750 Hurd was, through the recommendation of his friend Warburton, appointed one of the preachers at Whitehall; and in 1751 he published Q. Horatii Flacci Epist. ad Aiifjustum, loith an English Commentary and Notes, justly held by Gibbon to be superior in merit to the edition of the Ars Poetica. In 1756 he accepted the college living of Thurcaston, Leicestershire, in the studious retirement of which he wrote and published a volume of Dissertations (&quot; On the Province of the Drama,&quot; &quot; On Poetical Imitation,&quot; and &quot; On the Marks of Imitation,&quot; 1757), and another entitled Moral and Political Dialogues (&quot; On Sincerity in the Commerce of the World,&quot; &quot; On Retirement,&quot; &quot; On the Age of Queen Elizabeth,&quot; and &quot; On the Constitution of the English Government,&quot; 1759). The latter has proved the most popular of his writings, and was chiefly instrumental in pro curing for him at a later period of his life the royal favour. In 1766 he was appointed preacher of Lincoln s Inn, and in 1767 he became archdeacon of Gloucester; his elevation to the see of Lichfield and Coventry followed in 1774, and in 1776 he was selected to be preceptor of the prince of Wales and the duke of York. In 1781 he was translated to Worcester, and in 1783, on the death of Dr Cornwallis, he was pressed to accept the primacy, but declined it as &quot; a charge not suited to his temper and talents, and much too heavy for him to sustain, especially in these times.&quot; He died May 28, 1808. Besides various sermons, charges, and other compositions of a more or less occasional character, Hard published, in addition to the works already mentioned, a Dissertation on the Delicacy of Friendship (1755), a severe attack on Jortin, by whom Warburton had been assailed ; Letters on Chivalry and Romance (1762); Dis sertation on the Idea of Universal Poetry (1762) ; Dialogues on Foreign Travel (1764); and Discourse by way of Preface to the Quarto edition of Bishop Warburton s Works, containing some Account of the Life, Writings, and Character of the Author (1794). Remarks on Hume s Natural History of Religion (1757), a controversial tract which caused considerable irritation to that philosopher, was the joint production of Hurd and Warburton. The collected works of Hurd appeared in an edition of 8 vols. 8vo, in 1811 ; his Memoirs by Kilvert, were published in 1860. HURDWAR. See HARDWAR. HURON, LAKE. See ST LAWRENCE. HURRUR. See HARAR. HUSBAND AND WIFE, LAW RELATING TO. For the modes in which the relation of husband and wife may be constituted and dissolved, see MARRIAGE and DIVORCE. The present article will deal only with the effect of marriage on the legal position of the spouses. The per son chiefly affected is the wife, who probably in all politi cal systems becomes subject, in consequence of marriage, to some kind of disability. The most favourable system scarcely leaves her as free as an unmarried woman ; and the most unfavourable subjects her absolutely to the authority of her husband. In modern times the effect of marriage on property is perhaps the most important of its conse quences, and on this point the laws of different states show wide diversity of principles. The history of Roman law exhibits a transition from an extreme theory to its opposite. The position of the wife in the earliest Roman household was regulated by the law of Manus. She fell under the &quot; hand &quot; of her husband, became one of his family, along with his sons and daughters, natural or adopted, and his slaves. The dominion which, so far as the children was concerned, was known as the patria potestas, was, with reference to the wife, called the manus. The subject members of the family, whether wife or children, had, broadly speaking, no rights of their own ; all were merged in the potestas of the husband and father. If this institution implied the complete subjection of the wife to the husband, it also implied a much closer bond of union between them than we find in the later Roman law. The wife was at least a member of the family, and on her husband s death she succeeded, like the children, to freedom and a share of the inheritance. Manus, however, was not essential to a legal marriage ; its restraints were irksome and unpopular, and in course of time it absolutely ceased to exist, leaving no equivalent protection of the stability of family life. The later Roman marriage left the spouses comparatively independent of each other. The bond was easily dissolved, and while it lasted was loose and easy. The distance between the two modes of mar riage may be estimated by the fact that, while under the former the wife was one of the husband s immediate heirs, under the latter she was called to the inheritance only after his kith and kin had been exhausted, and only in prefer ence to the treasury. It seems doubtful how far she had, during the continuance of marriage, a legal right to en force aliment from her husband, although if he neglected her she had the unsatisfactory remedy of an easy divorce. The law in fact preferred to leave the parties to arrange their mutual rights and obligations by private contracts. Hence the importance of the Law of Settlements (Dotes). The Dos and the Donatio ante nuptias were settlements by or on behalf of the husband or wife, during the continu ance of the marriage, and the law seems to have looked with some jealousy on gifts made by one to the other in any less formal way, as possibly tainted with undue influ ence. During the marriage the husband had the adminis tration of the property,. and its destination afterwards might depend on the nature of the settlement and the con duct of the parties. The manus of the Roman law appears to be only one instance of an institution common to all primitive societies, and suitable only to society in a primitive state. On the continent of Europe after many centuries, during which local usages were brought under the influence of principles derived from the Roman law, a theory of marriage became established, the leading feature of which is the community of goods between husband and wife. Describing the prin ciple as it prevails in France, Story (Conflict of Laws, 130) says &quot; This community or nuptial partnership (in the absence of any special contract) generally extends to all the movable property of the husband and wife, and to the fruits, income, and revenue thereof It extends also to all immovable property of the husband and wife ac quired during the marriage, but not to such immovable pro perty as either possessed at the time of the marriage, or which came to them afterwards by title of succession or by gift. The property thus acquired by this nuptial partnership is liable to the debts of the parties existing at the time of the marriage ; to the debts contracted by the husband during the community, or by the wife during the community with the consent of the husband ; and to debts contracted for the maintenance of the family The husband alone is entitled to administer the property of the community, and he may alien, sell, or mortgage it without the concurrence of the wife.&quot; But he cannot dispose by will of more than his share of the common property, nor can he part with it gratuitously inter vivos. The community is dissolved by death (natural or civil), divorce, separation of body, or separation of property. On separation of body or of property the wife is entitled to the full control of her movable property, but cannot alien her immovable pro-