The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1910. "THE WOMEN'S CHARTER."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 808, 4 May 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1910. "THE WOMEN'S CHARTER."

A great deal of interest was aroused in Great Britain last March by Sir Charles M'Laren's introduction into the House of Commons gf a series of nine Bills designed to revolutionise the legal position of women. These Bills are known as "The Women's Charter," and embody the ideas of the Women's Liberal Association. They propose, ol course, the granting of the Parliamentary franchise to women, the amendment of the divorce law in the direction of equalising the rights of the sexes, the opening of the Stateaided uniyersities and colleges i to women students, the amendment of the law relating to offences against the'person, and the- abolition of some of the sex distinctions in the Factory Acts. Reform in these di rections is possible, and also desirable; but the "Charter" goeia good deal further in another direction, for it is'proposed that every wife shall bo entitled to receive from, her husband a salary or wage, equal in amount to the salary or-wage, which a housekeeper "in her station of life" would receive The wife, under this "Charter," would have a legal claim upon the _ income, and estate of her husband in respect of her work as housekeeper and nurso, but only, so run the ideas of Lady M'Laren, the promoter of her. husband's Bills, so long' as she attends properly to her home and children. Although it is assured that this extraordinary proposal has not the slightest chance of receiving the serious attention of any sane Legislature, there are some aspects of it which aro worth a' little consideration.

The first thing to be said is that it is deplorable that well-intentioned people should so continue-to believe that progress can dispense with the road of fact and common-sense and fly to the goal on tho wings of fancy. A numbe* of good womon, meeting together, will discuss tho deplorable things that happen to many wives under a system that gives bad or unkind or unimaginative husbands almost perfect freedom to go on being bad, unkind, unimaginative, and unsympathetic. Nothing is clearer to the minds of these ladies than' the relief that the unhappy wives of these sorry fellows would experience if their husbands could be made to do them justice. From that thought it is a short step to the thought that the State can do for human nature what human nature will not do for itself. To leave on one side for tlie moment such trifles as love and sentiment—we dare say tho frame of mind that likes the "Womon's Charter" will not shrink, when the time comes, from asking the Legislature to enact that husbauds shall love their wives under pain of line and imprisonment—there are many practical difficulties in the way of carrying out Lady M'Laken's idea.' How can the services of_ the wife and mother lie assessed in pounds, shillings, ■ and pence 1 How can it be guaranteed that a man shall possess the very moans of paying wages to his wife t But even such difficulties as these are only secondary in the arguments against tho proposal that the State should treat the wife as her husband's servant. Their neglect to consider them is even less a reflection upon the philosophy of Lady McLaren and her friends than their failure to see how foolish it is to dare, for the sake of a problematical relief to a small percentage of wives, a denial of tho sanctity of human nature itself. For that is what this part of their "Charter" amounts to. As a proposal for making the family a Detter institution than it is, Lady M'Laeen's idea is not loss foolish than any proposal that can be devised by men for hastening the rotation of the earth. Tho vital fact of tho matter was well put by one of the English newspapers in the observation that "a j hundred Acts of Parliament will not prevent women from marrying tho wrong man or men from marrying the wrong woman; and to think of remedying the consequences of such mistakes by legislation which rigidly determines the economy of every I household is preposterous." Every

sensible .woman and every sensible man knows that, it is preposterous. If it nevertheless became law, this portion of the Charter would be smilingly ignored, in every normal household. In the rare abnormal household in which it was not ignored it would simply result in tragedy. Tho astonishing thing is that there should bo any sane person really convinced that State action can make marriage a success, or that any good of any kind can be achieved by treating marriage as a business contract. It is characteristic enough of the age, of course, although it is a more than usually bold defiance of every fact that lias been established by thb experience of, ages. There arc those who, while realising the unnaturalncss of salaried "Wifehood, yet feel vaguely that the Charter is a step forward. The London Nation, for example, thinks that "although the coercive powers of the law might seldom be brought into play, use and custom would gradually transform the whole conception of the economic and social position of woman." This vague feeling tfiat the State can transform human nature, and that Parliaments can suspend the operation of natural laws, is really more dangerous and more to be condemned than loud and positive assertions that to the State all things are possible.