HUSBANDS AND WIVES

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 124, 26 May 1923, Page 21

HUSBANDS AND WIVES

THE QUESTION OF INCOME INDIGNITIES TO WOMEN AND T.O " .-. MEN. An assertion that husbands and wives should each legally have a right to a certain proportion of the other's'income is one that calls forth for lively argument against it—-and sometimes, I find, even ! shocked invective, writes Helen Fraser in the 'Manchester Guardian." But nothing is clearer than the fact that th-a position of women in marriage in relation, to,money .must be radically changed from ths' leg-.il point of view if wt are going to express our changed attitudes and our growing sense of justice, and get legislation in line with common sense. We have given women the right to vote, to enter the professions, and to participate in the administration of the law. We extend the boundaries ,of women's rights all the time in these days, and it is essential that we should not only continue to recognise and extend their rights, but it is equally essential that we.shall see to it that women shoulder their responsiblities as well as get thair rights. The House of Lords recently passed a measure removing "presumption of coercion" on the. part of a married woman, a.nd making her responsible for. crimes committed with her connivance or in her presence, as any other, citizen is. It j is also time that a married woman should be made responsible for her own personally contracted debts and that we stopped naving cases brought into our Courts because women possessing large incomes of their own, after having ruined their husbands, .refused to pay the debts they have contracted. A married woman must be made personally responsible for the debts she contracts, and she must ako, if there is to be any sanity and common sense in the marriage contract, be required, if she has means of her'own, to contribute to the joint expenses of the household a certain proportion of her income.

•Some years ago a husband used to take o& marriage the control of the whole of his wife's income, a state of affairs that every person to-day'■ would agree to be unjust. We changed that position into one giving the wife entire control of her own income. Now we ask that the marriage contract shall legally recognise the partnership implied in marriage, and that men and women shall be treated alike on "the, question of the right to a proportion of the other's income. Now we come to the contention that the legal right of a wife to a certain proportion of her husband's income should be embodied in our laws, so that all married women may be made responsible persons in regard to contracts and debts. This can only be done if t-1 y are ensured the right to some proportion of the husband's income. Ido not think anyone will be found who will deny that a wife (who is doing- her duty in that relationship) has a moral right to the use? of a proportion of her husband's income, and that it is desirable she should have such a share and the responsibility accruing to the spending of it, as most wives have.

As a matter of fact, we do recognise th» right of a wife to a share now by custom and by law. The marriage settlement is simply the recognition of. this claim. In our law now we lay..down that "•wife ig entitled to food/ clothing, and shelter; that she can pledge-her husband's • credit for necessaries , (necessaries to be interpreted according to his position). The husand now, if he has a wife who is not content' with spending a proportion of his income, can announce that he will not be, responsible for debts contracted by her. He can also announce this for no just reason at all. Let us remember that such legislation will- affect only those husbands and wives who do not act fairly to each other. The. majority of married people do a.ct fairly and reasonably, but the wife, who cannot get the use of any fair share of her husband's income, and there are such wives, is in a position that is unjust and intolerable. Only too often deep in human nature we find that people like to make others feel always that they'are dependent on the giver's bounty, that there seems to be a subtle'joy for some people in.making others feel their complete and absolute dependence. There are men who like to feel it is a grace on their, part and a rather noble thing to hand over the housekeeping money, who like to make their' wives ask for things that they know they should give witjiout such asking. There are Women who want to be allowed to keep all their own money, and to spend! all they can get otherwise and more, women who are as _ unscrupulous and.as selfish as the worst of men could ever be in this relationship, and we feel we might quite fittingly pas a law to-day which will show these people what really civilised people think and help them to "double Cape Turk." Do not let us forget that many "women ' have to "double CapeTurk as well as a good number'of men. . Those of us who ask that our laws shall embody this definite recognition of the partnership of marriage, of the dignity and_ rights the marriage position should give, of the responsibility that husbands and wiyes take in entering into marriage feel that such a law would be not only just and moral and in accord with all that is best in us, but that it will help to right some deep, . profoundly felt indignities to women and to men.