The Scheme of Things

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 134, 8 June 1935, Page 19

The Scheme of Things

' By M.H.C. .

For-a long time back a large number of women have been of opinion that an unwise protection has been given by law to married women under certain circumstances. These embrace making a husband liable for a wifes debts, no matter how unjustifiably contracted. Notwithstanding ridiculous extravagance .in dress and personal adornment, in gambling, and in other still less creditable ways, women have been protected from their own folly and worse by making the husband liable, and it has been considered by many that women would be far better citizens in. many instances it each had to bear the burden of her own misdeeds instead of piling them upon an unhappy husband. , Because men choose so unwisely at times, marrying girl* from extravagant and foolish families whom they must know have been badly brought up and who show before-marriage their utter selfishness, does not alter the fact that they are still due for protection from the law in spite of their folly.

, It'has been the aim of women of many countries to get better laws controlling both matrimony and women's financial affairs, but they do not'include, making women irresponsible creatures. Mrs. Hubback, president of the British National Council for Equal Citizenship, ' wrote to the Law Revision Committee recently as follows: "May I, on behalf of the National Council for Equal Citizenship, express our appreciation of the interim report of the Law Revision Committee which" recommends the abolition of special privileges with regards to torts and contracts of married'women —changes which my council has been advocating for years. Many of these privileges are unfair to husbands and creditors. , What is not always realised is that they are unfair on married women, themselves in business—that many people are unwilling to enter into a contract with a married woman when there are so many methods legally open to her to escape her obligations." •! The National Union •of Women Teachers and other women's societies in England deputationised the Lx>rd Chancellor on the same subject.. Miss Chrystal Macmillan, in speaking, welcomed the recommendation, of. the committee "placing a married, .woman in the same position, in many respects, as a man." But she specially urged that the restraint on anticipation which the committee had proposed to preserve in existing settle- • ments should be abolished from such settlements as well as from future settlements. • A point brought forward by Lady"Emmott was that the assessment of both husband and wife for purposes of income tax and surtax was an injustice and a penalisation of,- marriage. Mrs. Laughton Moore asked that all the remaining disabilities, and .incapacities which, resulted to married women from the doctrine that the legal existence of a wife, is: merged-in that of her husband should be abolished.

The substance of the Law Revision's findings was/ as follows:—"(a) That a

husband-shall no longer be liable to be sued or made, responsible for his wife's' ante-nuptial debts, or contracts, or wrongs,,or for any wrongs .committed'by his wife during marriage; (b) that the peculiar characteristics and consequences of the institution of the married woman's 'separate property' shall be eliminated 'from the law so that in the ownership' and enjoyment of her property she shall be in the same position as an unmarried woman or a man; (c) that with regard to Her capacity to contract, to her right to sue, .to her liability to be sued in. any, civil proceedings, whether* in contract, or in tort, or otherwise (including liability for costs), or to be made bankrupt, and to the enforcement of judgment against her, a married woman shall be in all respects in the same position as an unmarried woman or a man; and (d) that in any future' settlement it will be illegal to create 'a restraint upon anticipation."

The Lord Chancellor promised ,that he would bring to the attention of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer the observations made with regard to the position of married women for the purpose of income and sur-taxes. ■ On the other matters, he said, he would consider'carefully the views put forward by the deputation. He drew attention to the desire of the committee that any, recommendations should be non-controversial and command universal consent. This seems rather poor comfort, in that all matters dealing with the freedom of women from restraints,. which have been age-long and are separate from those imposed by law upon men, are bound to be controversial, and though some might obtain a majority vote, they would not be likely, in the present state of very elderly opinion, to be universally accepted.

However,.younger people are coming forward, in .the. .management of things, and so reforms, of this kind have at least a sporting chance. It is possible that objections may be brought forward by those who will see sufficiently far ahead to realise that the economic independence of women must follow such reforms as those indicated. It will not be possible for married women to have no share in their husband's finance if they are made responsible for the payment for goods they have ordered. People must be clothed and fed and households kept going, and so a definite sum will, in the course of time, be at the disposal of the wife, according to the means of the hus-1 band. In this Way no wife will be ignorant of her husband's monetary position, and the extravagance which went on at times when women thought their husband's purse was an inexhaustible one will be checked; and, on the other hand, the kind of husband whose pleasure it is to affect extreme poverty when he is really well off, and in doing so deprives his wife and family of almost the necessities of life, will be unable to carry on such cruel treatment when his means are known, and a definite moiety will be allocated for wife and children.

Of course, in the case of a woman entering into business for herself and making contracts for work or goods, it will be an advantage for her to have 'her means at her disposal.if she is , successful, for the extension of business or anything else she likes; while the husband will be free of anxiety on account of Her possible failure, which at present means that he is liable, and his means are subject to depletion, possibly so as to ruin his own prospects and those of his family. Both husband and wife will be freer agents, and the responsibilities of life will be more equally distributed from the monetary point of view. But, there is no .doubt that the "fly in the amber will be the fact that women will have to be made economically sound in the home as they would be in business. The sentiment that a 1 man must be the only' wagerearher, no matter how unfitted he is by- health or inclination, will have to go, and, if he cannot provide for the family, the wife (as hns often been done before) will have to come to the rescue, but with the difference that the money she earns will be hers only, and the responsibility shared more evenly. It will be interesting to follow up this matter, which is being fully reported in the London "Times."