ARE MARRIED WOMEN COERCED?

Dunstan Times, Issue 3220, 19 May 1924, Page 2

ARE MARRIED WOMEN COERCED?

(By “Spectator,” in the Daily Chronicle.)

Willi the. irony that human affairs so often display, it has been left to a bachelor Lord Chancellor to continue (under less assailable forms') the greatest privilege married women have enjoyed under our criminal law.

II is also appropriate that changes in the law should be carried out with a. becoming ambiguity. The practice of the law is a craft and its secrets are sacrosanct to Lord- Haldane. Hence, ihe Supposed abolition of the plea of coercion by married women is a supposition. It is not a fact. All that is abolished is a presumption of law. The Government's Criminal Justice Bill continues the ancient protection of married women (•barged with offences committed in the presence of their husbands. The provision is specific and clear: “ . . .it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband.”

Such is the longevity of an approved law and the privilege of mat l ied women.

Tli e social question, remains while the presumption of law disappears. Are married women coerced? The answer can be supplied only by experience. The unmarried will rely upon powers of observation. For the influence under which married women act is not always detected with ease. The go ft ot acting', said to he possessed by women, is not ordinarily withdrawn or abandoned on marriage. The married will judge this question of coercion according to experience and the propriety of their answer will be determined by temperament. It is not always expedient to speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” The law. with its ancient wisdom, has made special arrangements to obtain a full avowal of ihe truth. And there is high ecclesiastical authority for what is called “a white lie.” Since the present writer possesses a reckless temperament in scorn of consequence, the. question as to the coercion of married women is answered without reservation.

In my opinion married women art in the presence of tlieir husbands tinder a compulsion of circumstances they cannot frequently escape. The coniinguity of Ihe husband sets up a psychical “response” that in many cases is invariable. The practice of saying “ditto” to the husband is so ingrained that it has become instinctive. This feeling, that cannot be resisted, compels a woman to make bei- conduct accord with that of her husband. Such is my observation and experience in numerous cases. The action of man and wife is so coupled that the wife becomes an automatic register of the husband’s conduct. On this view the old law rester. The new law enables the married woman to plead the old defence. And the defence is continued by statute as “good.” You do not change a human being's nature by clothes or privileges. You may give a woman a vole, or a new hat; you may put her in the jury box or under an advocate’s wig. She remains (in many cases) the replica in action of her man-mate.