REVOLUTION IN FAMILY LIFE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3145, 27 November 1922, Page 8

REVOLUTION IN FAMILY LIFE.

(By Catherine Carswell, the wellknown Novelist, author of "Open the Door!") hither the husband or wife must I'.avo the deciding voice (in exercising rights oyer the training of a child) I think ,t should be the husband, who has greater experience of the world. Otherwise the whole marriage service would have to be altered. There must bo a head ol the family, and I think hir Uiartrcs Biron, giving evidence borpro a Parliamentary Committee on the husband is the proper person.— the Guardianship of Infants. \\ hat are a mother's rights over lier children? Is there anything wrong with the English law in this respect? Before examining the new Guardianship of Infants Bill, which is now before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, it is well to understand just how things are at present. Broadly speaking, a father to-day is compelled to pay the piper, and consequently he has the right to call the tune. At Common Law—that is to say, the ancient customary law of the land—the father was the natural guardian of the children. If he died the mother did not necessarily succeed him unless the children were of tender years, beyond which her guardianship did not extend. By the Guardianship of Infants Act, lS8(i, however, this rule was ameliorated. Now a woman on the death of her husband automatically becomes her children's guardian,-and if by his will another guardian Ims been appointed the two act jointly. There is no obvious cause for shrieking here. The old law with its alleviation works out not so badly in the majority of cases. Sir Chartres Biron, who gave evidence before the Joint Committee strongly adverse to the new Bill, is not the only one who holds—in theory at least—that there must he hut one ultimate authority in each household, and that the father. It is held most firmly of all, and! most rigorously enforced —when it suits her—by the mother who controls every m.ul in the house from her husband downwards? She knows just how use'ful the existing arrangement can be as an instrument in her hands. If she is: tine, she uses it responsively and fairly. If she is base, she indulges her caprice. and when failure follows she wriggles out of all blame. No number of Bills will make any difference here. And even in the case of less efficient or less masterful or less cajoling women, it is as often as not a real <|o.n>venienee that all rcsponsiblity, apart from sheer physical welfare .should be borne by the father. \ Differences of opinion as to the upbringing of young people when thev crop up are not invariably between husband and wife. Quite 'often they occur between mother and child. But® I rem whatever reason, there arc thous<ands of good and busy, if not perhaps ideal, mothers who are positively relived that no serious responsibility rests with them in the matter of their children s schooling and vocations. And the larger the family the more is this a likely state of affairs. But now to look at the weak points. As tilings are. the unhappily married woman, whether living with or apart Irom her husband, may undoubtedly be at a grave disadvantage Wry often, it is true, the father in such a, case is simply indifferent, and his leal responsibility sits lightlv on him so king as the mother undertakes everything. But there do exist fathers, who !'•«'» spite or bullying or mere stupidity, use their legal power to defeat the truest interests of their children Such a man can deny his children Hie education and the chances in life tt> which they are clearly entitled her by gifts or by station or both. He can compel early wage-earning •an forcibly separate'them from their Mother at an age when humanity vould side with Iter in keeping them onger, can send them to live in sur■oundings which are contrary to every nstinct or belief she has. And so long as he has committed 10 matrimonial offence she has no ■einetly whatsoever. What is perhaps as bad, where the ather defaults the mother at present s under no legal obligation whatso'ver, unless she has separate property. Such possibilities have no doubt niluenced those who are promoting the ueseut bill. For it is now proposed o make both parents joint guardians if their children,"with joint rights and oint and several responsibilities for ducation and maintenance, whether bey are living together or separately. Tiie important thing to observe in his is that; in any event the welfare f the child is legally secured. No :>nger will a wife who.can earn money e able to leave; the sole responsibility 0 a delinquent husband. No longer ill she he allowed to feel that.she has In- right any more than has the ather of be.r children to spend as iucli of her own as she chooses outide oi their strict welfare. for the first time she will, like the lan, be made publicly and legally, as i.'ll as privately and morally, sThai is to say, the provisions of this il do most emphatically cut both ays. Revolutionary-—as Sir Chartres iron says—they may be. But only i a legal sense. In happy families icy would not cause any disturbance. here they are already in force, or one irent is tacitly admitted as head in 1 such matters. In unhappy families it would ceii.inlv provide a new opportunity for ( ljustment of differences. The mere ct that the mother had a legal statue , ould place her in a different position, ' itl this even if the conflict remained 1 , •ivate and the t.dvice of the court ?re never sought. At present in the case of a dispute ] ic casting vote lies with the father. iv Bill would transfer the deciding ] >iee to the court. The objection to this., and it is at ( lions one. which has been raised by j. r Chartres Biron is that it involves t igation between husband and wife. w i:s is admittedly undesirable. But, v iv should recourse to the court ne- j -sarily be contentious? hj On the other hand, where one of b e disputants was acting in bad faith, k .vard the children, would it not inifestly be in the children's into- K it that the whole matter should be a cashed out, before an outside and p al authority? tl A more curious objection of Sir ai art res Biron is that 'boys brought w by widows are not successful in tl I. is a very great misfortune for a re Id to lack" a. father. It is also a, <'<' y great, misfortune, for a child to la motherless. If the 'former, as Sir ec art res Biron reminds us, is unruly A 1 ripe for juvenile offences, the hitonly too often is neglected and (,J ' •itlesis. Two effective parents—this ty. vhai nature dictates. Would it not sl .< well then that the law of the land I'" uld rellect the law of nature? \ w -,...■,. t u 'urther extensive irrigation works projected in the Nile Valley. Acling to a London cable a contract "'' four in iIJ ion pounds has been let to ' id a dam of two miles across the >■ e Nile and construct Go miles of