COERCION OF WIVES.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17750, 30 April 1923, Page 10

COERCION OF WIVES.

BUjfAMENDING AN ANCIENT * PBBSUMPTION. (nox cv» owir coM«sporomT.J LONDON, March 3; The Criminal Justice BUI discussed in the House of Lords this week proposes to abolish the-well-known presumption that an offence committed by a wife in her husband's presence was committed under his coercion. The LonF Chancellor, in moving the second reading of the All, said the presumption was very old one, and held in the case of all penalties except murder and treason. There had eral cases some in recent times, .where the Juuge had felt himself bound by that rule to direct the acquittal of the wife. It would not be right to 6ay that in all these cases the wife would have been convicted, but it was clear from the language of the Judges that they' would Have preferred to leave the matter to the unfettered, judgment of the jury. He believed this (putealuniption ought Jwi *<<me to an end for it was not in relation to conditions prevailing at present. The assumption that every husband beat his wife and that every wife went in. terror of her husband, if it was ever ■"true, was certainly not true now. Not every wife was a Lady Macbeth; but, generally speaking, wives .were free agents, and the question of Rieir guilt or innocence ought to be considered on the facts, and not under the compulsion jpf some such presumption as this. Lord Buckmaster enid he did isot agree with the Lord Chancellor in regard to the.assumption that a tvcman who committed a crime in fhe presence of her .husbaiid did so under coercion. That assumption had been held since long' before the Conquest. This law was not based on foolishness, bin. on something like eleven hundred years of wisdom, and until «i«iite recently there had not, he believed l been any objection to it. A case recently occurred which caused people ro. desire that a woman should be punished with her husband, the public believing that she had equal responsibility. He did not believe there was any case, made out for it at all. It was not physical violence but personal influence which a man exercised over his wife, and; to . deny that was to -deny the existence of one of the greatest influences ; in the world. There were to be f«iund not only women but men who were entirely, under the influence of others, and it was - difficult to say that they had any will of their own. It was perfectly ridiculous to try to consider this question from the relationship which existed between their lordships, and their wives. It was necejaaary to consider that the greatetf number of women lived in conditions in which they were in the habit of obeying their husbands and doing what he required. It had .been suggested that that had been "altered by recent legislation, but it was not possible to nature by giving, women man nature would remain ekactly.as-it was before; and if for eleveEVhuhihcd years the people of this country s had believed that a woman-wno .coimnstU'd a crime in the presence of her husband should be held to commit it under jhi3 influence he saw no reason why that should be altered.

The Jury to Decide. Viscount Haldane pointed out that it was not a question ol doing away altogether with the defence that a ciime was committed under the coercion of the husband, but of leaving it, to the jury to decide whether or notf there Had been coercion. Viscount Ullswater said that the pre-'l sumption was strongly resented' by the advocates of women's right. If they were to maintain proper and due respect for the law they must e,mbody the customs and wishes of society of the present day, and not of 1100 years ago. If a woman could prove that she acted under of her husband there was little doubt that the jury would acquit her. A great objection to the Bill was its title, for it would open /the door wide to all manner of amendments bv faddists, and they could not be ruled out. < Other clauses in the Bill deal with, the abolition of the grand jury system at quarter sesions, and provide that any person making a false statement for the purpose of procuring a passport shall be liable to imprisonment for two years or a fine of £IOO or both. I>>rd Parmoor considered this latter clause "monstrous." There, is also a pjause which enables a ntagistrate on the evidence of a. police inspector,,- to issue a warrant for search of premises for anv indecent or oT>«cene articles to sold f n r purposes of gain. * The Bill was read a second time. '