,,marriage1 ,,as ,,it ,,was1 ,,as ,,it ,,is1 ,,and ,,as ,,it ,,should ,,be ,a ,,plea ,,for ,,reform ,by ,annie ,besant ,second ,edition ,london3 ,freethought ,publishing ,company #ahhb4 ,,marriage3 ,,as ,,it ,,was1 ,,as ,,it ,,is1 ,,and ,,as ,,it ,,should ,,be4 ,either all human beings have equal rights1 or none have any4 --,condorcet4 ,i4 ,,marriage ,the recognition of human rights may be said to be of modern growth1 and even yet they are but very imperfectly understood4 ,liberty used to be regarded as a privilege bestowed1 instead of as an inherent right2 rights of classes have often been claimed3 right to rule1 right to tax1 right to punish1 all these have been argued for and maintained by force2 but these are not rights1 they are only wrongs veiled as legal rights4 ,jean ,jacques ,rousseau struck a new note when he cried3 ,men are born free2 free by birthright was a new thought1 when declared as a universal inheritance1 and this gospel of ,jean ,jacques ,rousseau dawned on the world as the sun-rising of a glorious day--a day of human liberty1 unrestrained by class4 ,in #aghi the doctrine of the ,rights of ,man received its first ,european sanction by law2 in the ,august of that year the ,national ,assembly of ,france proclaimed3 ,men are born1 and remain1 free and equal in rights4444 ,the aim of political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man2 these rights are--liberty1 property1 safety1 and resistance of tyranny4 ,during savage and semi-civilised ages these imprescriptible rights are never dreamed of as existing2 brute force is king2 might is the only right1 and the strong arm is the only argument whose logic meets with general recognition4 ,in warlike tribes fair equality is found1 and the chief is only primus inter pares2 but when the nomadic tribe settles down into an agricultural community1 when the habit of bearing arms ceases to be universal1 when wealth begins to accumulate1 and the village or town offers attractions for pillage1 then strength becomes at once a terror and a possible defence4 ,the weak obey some powerful neighbour partly because they cannot resist1 and partly because they desire1 by their submission1 to gain a strong protection against their enemies4 ,they submit to the exactions of one that they may be shielded from the tyranny of many1 and yield up their natural liberty to some extent to preserve themselves from being entirely enslaved4 ,very slowly do they learn that the union of many individually feeble is stronger than a few powerful1 isolated tyrants1 and gradually law takes the place of despotic will2 gradually the feeling of self-respect1 of independence1 of love of liberty1 grows1 until at last man claims freedom as of right1 and denies the authority of any to rule him without his own consent4 ,thus the ,rights of ,man have become an accepted doctrine1 but1 unfortunately1 they are only rights of man1 in the exclusive sense of the word4 ,they are sexual1 and not human rights1 and until they become human rights1 society will never rest on a sure1 because just1 foundation4 ,women1 as well as men1 are born and remain free and equal in rights2 women1 as well as men1 have natural and imprescriptible rights2 for women1 as well as for men1 these rights are--liberty1 property1 safety1 and resistance of tyranny4 ,of these rights only crime should deprive them1 just as by crime men also are deprived of them2 to deny these rights to women1 is either to deny them to humanity qua humanity1 or to deny that women form a part of humanity2 if women's rights are denied1 men's rights have no logical basis1 no claim to respect2 then tyranny ceases to be a crime1 slavery is no longer a scandal2 either all human beings have equal rights1 or none have any4 ,naturally1 in the savage state1 women shared the fate of the physically weak1 not only because1 as a rule1 they are smaller-framed and less muscular than their male comrades1 but also because the bearing and suckling of children is a drain on their physical resources from which men are exempt4 ,hence she has suffered from the right of the strongest1 even more than has man1 and her exclusion from all political life has prevented the redressal which man has wrought out for himself2 while claiming freedom for himself he has not loosened her chains1 and while striking down his own tyrants1 he has maintained his personal tyranny in the home4 ,nor has this generally been done by deliberate intention3 it is rather the survival of the old system1 which has only been abolished so slowly as regards men4 ,mrs4 ,mill writes3 ,that those who were physically weaker should have been made legally inferior1 is quite conformable to the mode in which the world has been governed4 ,until very lately1 the rule of physical strength was the general law of human affairs4 ,throughout history1 the nations1 races1 classes1 which found themselves strongest1 either in muscles1 in riches1 or in military discipline1 have conquered and held in subjection the rest4 ,if1 even in the most improved nations1 the law of the sword is at last discountenanced as unworthy1 it is only since the calumniated eighteenth century4 ,wars of conquest have only ceased since democratic revolutions began4 ,the world is very young1 and has only just begun to cast off injustice4 ,it is only now getting rid of negro slavery4 ,it is only now getting rid of monarchical despotism4 ,it is only now getting rid of hereditary feudal nobility4 ,it is only now getting rid of disabilities on the ground of religion4 ,it is only beginning to treat any men as citizens1 except the rich and a favoured portion of the middle class4 ,can we wonder that it has not yet done as much for women8 7,enfranchisement of ,women1 ,mrs4 ,mill4 ,in ,j4 ,s4 ,mill's ,discussions and ,dissertations1 ,vol4 ,,ii41 page #dba47 ,the difference between men and women in all civil rights is1 however1 with few1 although important1 exceptions1 confined to married women2 i4e41 women in relation with men4 ,unmarried women of all ages suffer under comparatively few disabilities2 it is marriage which brings with it the weight of injustice and of legal degradation4 ,in savage times marriage was a matter either of force1 fraud1 or purchase4 ,women were merchandise1 by the sale of whom their male relatives profited1 or they were captives in war1 the spoil of the conqueror1 or they were stolen away from the paternal home4 ,in all cases1 however1 the possession once obtained1 they became the property of the men who married them1 and the husband was their lord1 their master4 ,in the old ,hebrew books--still accounted sacred by ,jews and ,christians--the wife is regarded as the property of her husband4 ,a man may sell his daughter to be a maidservant i4e41 a concubine1 as is shown by the following verse 7,ex4 xxi4 #g71 and ,jacob served seven years for each of his wives1 ,leah and ,rachel2 his other two wives were his by gift1 and were rather concubines than recognised wives1 their children counting to their mistresses4 ,if a ,hebrew conquered his enemies1 and saw among the captives a beautiful woman1 and hast a desire unto her1 that thou wouldst have her to thy wife1 he might take her home1 and become her husband1 and she shall be thy wife 7,deut4 xxi #aj-ad74 ,after the destruction of ,benjamin1 as related in ,judges xx41 it was arranged that the survivors should possess themselves of women as wives by force and fraud3 ,life in wait in the vineyards1 and see and behold if the daughters of ,shiloh come out to dance in dances1 then come ye out of the vineyards1 and catch you every man his wife4444 ,and the children of ,benjamin did so1 and took their wives according to their number1 of them that danced1 whom they caught 7,judges xxi4 #bj1 #ba1 #bc74 ,the same plan was adopted by the ,romans in their earliest days1 when they needed wives4 ,romulus invited the people of the ,sabines and the neighbouring towns to see some public games1 and in the midst of the show the ,romans rushed in and carried off all the marriageable maidens they could lay hands on 7,liddell's ,history of ,rome1 p4 #bj74 ,these instances may be objected to as legendary1 but they are faithful pictures of the rough wooing of early times4 ,among some barbarous nations the winning of a bride is still harsher3 the bridegroom rushes into the father's house knocks the maiden down1 picks up her senseless body1 flings it over his shoulder1 and runs for his life2 he is pursued by the youth of the village1 pelted with stones1 sticks1 c41 and has to win his wife by sheer strength and swiftness4 ,in some tribes this is a mere marriage ceremony1 a survival from the time when the fight was a real one1 and amongst ourselves the slipper thrown after the departing bridegroom and bride is a direct descendant of the heavier missiles thrown with deadly intent thousands of years ago by our remote ancestors4 ,amongst many semi-barbarous nations the wives are still bought2 in some parts of ,africa the wooer pays a certain number of cows for his bride2 in other places1 money or goods are given in exchange4 ,the point to be noted is that the wife is literally taken by force1 or bought2 she is not free to choose her husband2 she does not give herself to him2 she is a piece of property1 handed over by her original owner--her father--to her new owner--her husband--in exchange for certain solid money or money's worth2 hence she becomes the property of the man who has paid for her4 ,in an admirable article in the ,westminster ,review for ,april1 #ahgf1 the following striking passage is to be found3 ,as ,aristotle long since remarked1 among savages women and slaves hold the same rank4 ,women are bought primarily as slaves1 to drudge and toil for their masters1 whilst their function as wives is secondary and subordinate4 ,it is more right to say of polygamous people that their slaves are also their wives1 than to say that their wives are slaves4 ,they are purchased as slaves1 they work as slaves1 and they live as slaves4 ',the history of uncultivated nations1' it has been said1 'uniformly represents the women as in-a state of abject slavery1 from which they slowly emerge as civilisation advances4' ,in ,canada a strap1 a kettle1 and a faggot are placed in the new bride's cabin1 to indicate that it will be henceforth her duty to carry burdens1 dress food1 and procure wood for her husband4 ,in ,circassia it is the women who till and manure the ground1 and in parts of ,china they follow the plough4 ,a ,moorish wife digs and sows and reaps the corn1 and an ,arabian wife feeds and cleans and saddles her master's horse4 ,indeed1 the sole business of ,bedouin wives is to cook and work1 and perform all the menial offices connected with tent-life4444 ,from the absolute power of a savage over his slaves flow all those rights over a woman from which the marital rights of our own time are the genealogical descendants4444 ,a trace of it purchase is found in the following customs of old ,english law3--',the woman at the church-door was given of her father1 or some other man of the next of her kin1 into the hands of her husband1 and he laid down gold and silver for her upon the book1 as though he did buy her4' ,this custom is still maintained in the ,church ritual2 the priest asks3 ,who giveth this woman to be married to this man8 and when the man gives the ring to the priest1 he gives money with it1 receiving back the ring to give the woman1 but the money remaining1 a survival of the time when wives were literally bought4 ,by the old ,roman laws1 the married woman had no personal rights2 she was but the head slave in her husband's house1 absolutely subject in all things to her lord4 ,as the ,romans became civilised1 these disabilities were gradually removed4 ,it is important to remember these facts1 as these are the origin of our own marriage laws1 and our common law really grows out of them4 ,one other point must be noticed1 before dealing immediately with the ,english marriage laws1 and that is the influence exerted over them by ecclesiastical ,christianity4 ,the ,old ,testament expressly sanctions polygamy2 but while the ,new ,testament does not proscribe it--except in the case of bishops and deacons--ecclesiastical ,christianity has generally been in favour of monogamy2 at the same time1 both the ,new ,testament and the ,church have insisted on the inferiority of the female sex2 the husband is the head of the wife 7,eph4 v4 #bc72 wives1 submit yourselves unto your own husbands 7,col4 iii4 #ah72 your women444 are commanded to be under obedience 7#a ,cor4 xiv4 #cd72 ye wives1 be in subjection to your own husbands444 even as ,sara obeyed ,abraham1 calling him lord1 whose daughters ye are as long as ye do well 7#a ,pet4 iii4 #a1 #f74 ,the common law of ,england is quite in accordance with this ancient ,eastern teaching1 and regards men as superior to women2 ,among the children of the purchaser1 males take before females1 or1 as our male lawgivers1 have expressed it1 the worthiest of blood shall be preferred 7,comm1 on the ,laws of ,england1 ,j4 ,stephen1 #gth ed4 vol4 i4 p4 #djb74 ,the feudal system did much1 of course1 to perpetuate the subjection of women1 it being to the interest of the lord paramount that the fiefs should descend in the male line in those rough ages1 when wars and civil feuds were almost perpetual1 it was inevitable that the sex with the biggest body and strongest sinews should have the upper hand2 the pity is that ,english gentlemen to-day are content to allow the law to remain unaltered1 when the whole face of society has changed4 ,let us now turn to the disabilities imposed upon women by marriage4 ,blackstone lays down1 in his world-famous ,commentaries on the ,laws of ,england1 that the first of the absolute rights of every ,englishman is the legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life1 his limbs1 his body1 his health1 and his reputation 7#ith ed41 bk4 #a1 p4 #abi74 ,the second right is personal liberty1 and he says3 the confinement of a person in anywise is an imprisonment4 ,so that the keeping2 a man against his will in a private house4444 is an imprisonment 7,ibid1 #acf73 ,the third is property1 which consists in the free use and enjoyment of all his acquisitions1 without any control or diminution1 save only by the laws of the land 7,ibid1 #ach74 ,a subordinate right1 necessary for the enforcement of the others1 is that of applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries4 ,i shall proceed to show that a married woman is deprived of these rights by the mere fact of her marriage4 ,in the first place1 by marriage a woman loses her legal existence2 the law does not recognize her1 excepting in some few cases1 when it becomes conscious of her existence in order to punish her for some crime or misdemeanour4 ,black-stone says--and no subsequent legislation has in any way modified his dictum3 ,by marriage the husband and wife are one person in law2 that is1 the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage1 or at least is incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband2 under whose wing1 protection1 and cover1 she performs every thing2 and is therefore called in our law-,french a feme covert 7p4 #ddb74 ,husband and wife are one person in law 7,comyn's ,digest1 #eth ed41 vol4 ii41 p4 #bjh71 and from this it follows that by no conveyance at the common law could the husband give an estate to his wife2 that a4 husband cannot covenant or contract with his wife1 even for her own advantage1 and that any prenuptial contract made with her as to money she shall enjoy for her separate use after marriage1 becomes void as soon as she is married4 ,all covenants for the wife's benefit must be made with some one else1 and the husband must covenant with some other man or unmarried woman who acts as trustee for the wife4 ,this is the fundamental wrong from which all the others flow3 ',husband and wife are one person1' and that one is the husband4 ,the wife's body1 her reputation1 are no longer her own4 ,she can gain no legal redress for injury1 for the law does1 not recognize her existence except under cover of her husband's suit4 ,in4 some cases more modern legislation has so far become conscious of her1 as to protect her against her husband1 and if this protection separates her from him1 it leaves her the more utterly at the mercy of the world4 ,various curious results flow1 in criminal law1 from this supposition that husband and wife are only one person4 ,they are incompetent--except in a few special instances--to give evidence for or against each other in criminal cases2 if a woman's husband be one of several defendants indicted together1 the woman cannot give evidence either for or against any of them4 ,where the wife of an accomplice is the only person to confirm her husband's statement1 the statement falls to the ground1 as1 in practice1 confirmation thereof is required2 in the case of ,rex v4 ,neal 7#g ,c4 and ,p #afh71 ,justice ,park said3 ,confirmation by the wife is1 in this case1 really no confirmation at all4 ,the wife and the accomplice must be taken as one for this purpose4 ,the prisoners must be acquitted4 ,they may1 however1 be severally called as witnesses by the prosecution and the defence1 in order that they may contradict each other4 ,where the wife has suffered personal violence from her husband she is permitted to swear the peace against him1 and in divorce suits husband and wife are both admissible as witnesses4 ,a wife who sets fire to her husband's house may escape punishment1 as in the case of ,rex4 v4 ,march3 ,march and his wife had lived separate for about two years2 and1 previous to the act1 when she applied for the candle with which it was done1 she said it was to set her husband's house on fire1 because she wanted to burn him to death4 ,upon a case reserved upon the question whether it was an offence within the #g and #h ,george ,,iv41 cap4 #cj1 sec4 #b1 for a wife to set fire to her husband's house for the purpose of doing him a personal injury1 the conviction was held wrong1 the learned judges thinking that to constitute the offence1 it was essential that there should be an intent to injure or defraud some third person1 not one identified with herself 7,ibid1 p4 #hii74 ,identification with one's beloved may be delightful in theory1 but when1 in practice1 it comes to being burned at pleasure1 surely the greatest stickler for the twain being one must feel some twinges of doubt4 ,the identity of husband and wife is often by no means advantageous to the husband1 for he thereby becomes responsible1 to a great extent1 for his wife's misdoings4 ,for slanderous words spoken by the wife1 libel published by her alone1 trespass1 assault and battery1 c41 he is liable to be so sued1 whether the act was committed with or without his sanction or knowledge4444 ,and wherever the action is grounded on a tort1 committed by the wife1 it no way affects the necessity of joining the husband1 that the parties are living apart1 nor even that they are divorced a mens et thoro1 or that the wife is living in adultery 7,lush's ,common ,law ,practice1 #bnded4 p4 #aef74 ,pleasant position for a man whose wife may have left him1 to be suddenly dragged before a court of justice for some misdeed of hers1 of which he may never have heard until he finds himself summoned to answer for it6 ,a large amount of injustice arises from this absurd1 fiction that two are one2 it sometimes injures1 sometimes protects the married woman1 and it often shields those who have wronged her2 but whether it injure or whether it protect1 it is equally vicious2 it is unjust1 and injustice is a radical injury to a community1 and by destroying the reasonableness and the certainty of the law1 it saps that reverence for it which is one of the safeguards of society4 ,let us now take ,blackstone's rights of every ,englishman1 and see what rights the common law allowed to a married ,englishwoman4 ,a married woman is not protected by the law in the uninterrupted enjoyment of her limbs1 her body1 or her reputation4 ,on the contrary3 ,if a wife be injured in her person1 or her property1 she can bring no action for redress without her husband's concurrence1 and in his name as well as her own 7,blackstone1 p4 #ddc74 ,if in a railway accident a married woman has her leg broken1 she cannot sue the railway company for damages2 she is not a damaged person2 in the eye of the law1 she is a piece of damaged property1 and the compensation is to be made to her owner4 ,if she is attacked and beaten she cannot at law sue her assailant2 her master suffers loss and inconvenience by the assault on his housekeeper1 and his action is necessary to obtain redress4 ,if she is libelled1 she cannot protect her good name1 for she is incapable by herself of maintaining an action4 ,in fact1 it is not even needful that her name should appear at all in the matter3 the husband may sue alone for loss of his wife's society by injury done to her1 or for damage to her reputation 7,comyn's ,digest1 under ,baron and ,feme74 ,the following curious statement of the law on this head is given in ,broom's ,commentaries3 ,injuries which may be offered to a person1 considered as a husband1 and which are cognizable in a court of common law1 are principally three3 #a1 abduction1 or taking away a man's wife2 #b1 beating her2 #c1 indirectly causing her some personal hurt1 by negligence or otherwise4 #a4 ,as to the first sort1 abduction1 or taking her away1 this may either be by fraud and persuasion1 or open violence2 though the law in both cases supposes force and constraint1 the wife having no power to consent1 and therefore gives a remedy by action of trespass2 and the husband is also entitled to recover damages in an action on the case against such as persuade and entice the wife to live separate from him without a sufficient cause4444 #b1 #c4 ,the second and third injuries above mentioned are constituted by beating a man's wife1 or otherwise ill-using her2 or causing hurt to her by negligence4 ,for a common assault upon1 or battery1 or imprisonment1 of the wife1 the law gives the usual remedy to recover damages1 by action of trespass1 which must be brought in the names of the husband and wife jointly3 but if the beating or other maltreatment be so enormous1 that thereby the husband is deprived for any time of the company and assistance of his wife1 the law then gives him a separate remedy by action for this ill-usage1 per quod consortium amisit1 in which he may recover a satisfaction in damages4 ,by a provision of the ,c4 ,l4 ,proc4 ,act1 #aheb1 s4 #dj1 in an action by husband and wife jointly for an injury to the wife1 the husband is now allowed to add a claim in his own right--as for the loss of the wife's society--or where a joint trespass and assault have been committed on the husband and his wife 7vol4 iii41 pp4 #adi1 #aej74 ,so far is recognised the husband's complete claim over his wife's person1 that anyone who receives a married woman into his house and gives her shelter there after having received notice from her husband that he is not to permit her to remain under his roof1 actually becomes liable in damages to the husband4 ,the husband cannot sue for damages if he has turned his wife out of doors1 or if he has lost his right of control by cruelty or adultery2 short of this1 he may obtain damages against any friend or relative of the woman who gives her shelter4 ,the wife has no such remedy against anyone who may induce the husband to live apart1 or who may give him house-room at his own wish4 ,the reason for the law being as we find it1 is stated by ,broom without the smallest compunction3 ,we may observe that in these relative injuries notice is only taken of the wrong done to the superior of the parties related1 by the breach and dissolution of either the relation itself1 or at least the advantage accruing therefrom2 while the loss of the inferior by such injuries is1 except where the death of a parent has been caused by negligence1 unregarded4 ,one reason for which may be1 that the inferior has no kind of property in the company1 care1 or assistance of the superior1 as the superior is held to have in that of the inferior2 and therefore the inferior can1 in contemplation of law1 suffer no loss consequential on a wrongful act done to his superior4 ,the wife cannot recover damages for the beating of her husband4 ,the child has no property in his father or guardian4 ,and the servant1 whose master is disabled1 does not thereby lose his maintenance or wages 7,ibid1 p4 #aec74 ,a man may recover damages equally for the injury done to his servant or to his wife2 in both cases he loses their services1 and the law recompenses him4 ,a peculiarly disgusting phase of this claim is where a husband claims damages against a co-respondent in the divorce court2 if a wife be unfaithful1 the husband can not only get a divorce1 but can also claim a money payment from the seducer to make up for the damage he has sustained by losing his wife's services4 ,an unmarried girl1 under age1 is regarded as the property of her father1 and the father may bring an action against her seducer for the loss of his daughter's services4 ,it is not the woman who is injured1 or who has any redress2 it is her male owner who can recover damages for the injury done to his property4 ,if a wife be separated from her husband1 either by deed or by judicial decree1 she has no remedy for injury or for libel1 unless by the doubtful plan of using her husband's name without his consent4 ,on this injustice ,lord ,lyndhurst1 speaking in the ,house of ,lords in #ahef1 said3 ,a wife is separated from her husband by a decree of the ,ecclesiastical ,court1 the reason for that decree being the husband's misconduct--his cruelty1 it may be1 or his adultery4 ,from that moment the wife is almost in a state of outlawry4 ,she may not enter into a contract1 or if she do1 she has no means of enforcing it4 ,the law1 so far from protecting1 oppresses her4 ,she is homeless1 helpless1 hopeless1 and almost wholly destitute of civil rights4 ,she is liable to all manner of injustice1 whether by plot or by violence4 ,she may be wronged in all possible ways1 and her character may be mercilessly defamed2 yet she has no redress4 ,she is at the mercy of her enemies4 ,is that fair8 ,is that honest8 ,can it be vindicated upon any principle of justice1 of mercy or of common humanity8 ,a married woman loses control over her own body2 it belongs to her owner1 not to herself2 no force1 no violence1 on the husband's part in conjugal relations is regarded as possible by the law2 she may be suffering1 ill1 it matters not2 force or constraint is recognised by the law as rape1 in all cases save that of marriage2 the law holds1 it to be felony to force even a concubine or harlot 7,broom's ,commentaries1 vol4 iv41 p4 #bee71 but no rape can be committed by a husband on a wife2 the consent given in marriage is held to cover the life1 and if--as sometimes occurs--a miscarriage or premature confinement be brought on by the husband's selfish passions1 no offence is committed in the eye of the law1 for the wife is the husband's property1 and by marriage she has lost the right of control over her own body4 ,the ,english marriage law sweeps away all the tenderness1 all the grace1 all the generosity of love1 and transforms conjugal affection into a hard and brutal legal right4 ,by the common law the husband has a right to inflict corporal punishment on his wife1 and although this right is now much restricted1 the effect of the law is seen in the brutal treatment of wives among the rougher classes1 and the light--sometimes no--punishment inflicted on wife-beaters4 ,the common law is thus given by ,blackstone3 ,the husband also 7by the old law7 might give his wife moderate correction4 ,for as he is to answer for her misbehaviour1 the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her1 by domestic chastisement1 in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children4 ,the lower rank of people1 who were always fond of the old common law1 still claim and exert their ancient privilege4 ,blackstone grimly adds1 after saying this is all for woman's protection3 ,so great a favourite is the female sex of the laws of ,england 7#ddd and #dde74 ,this ancient privilege is very commonly exercised at the present time4 ,a man who dragged his wife out of bed 7#ahgg71 and1 pulling off her nightdress1 roasted her in front of the fire1 was punished 787 by being bound over to keep the peace for a short period4 ,men who knock their wives down1 who dance on them1 who drag them about by the hair1 c41 are condemned to brief terms of imprisonment1 and are then allowed to resume their marital authority1 and commence a new course of ill-treatment4 ,in dealing later with the changes ,i shall recommend in the marriage laws1 this point will come under discussion4 ,coming to the second right1 of personal liberty1 we find that a married woman has no such right4 ,blackstone says1 as we have seen3 the confinement of a person in any wise is an imprisonment ,so that the keeping a man against his will in a private house444 is an imprisonment 7p4 #acf74 ,but a husband may legally act as his wife's gaoler2 the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain his wife of her liberty1 in case of any gross misbehaviour 7,blackstone1 p4 #dde74 ,if the wife squanders his estate1 or goes into lewd company1 he may deprive her of liberty 7,comyn's ,digest1 under ,baron and ,feme74 ,broom says that at the present time there can be no question respecting the common-law right of a husband to restrain his wife of her personal liberty1 with a view to prevent her going into society of which he disapproves1 or otherwise disobeying his rightful authority2 such right must not1 however1 be exercised unnecessarily1 or with undue severity3 and the moment that the wife by returning to her conjugal duties1 makes restraint of her person unnecessary1 such restraint becomes unlawful 7vol4 i1 p4 #edg74 ,in the year #ahgg a publican at ,spilsby chained up his wife to the wall from one day to the afternoon of the following one1 in order1 he said1 to keep her from drink2 the magistrates dismissed him without punishment4 ,it may be argued that a woman should not get drunk1 go into bad company1 c4 ,quite so2 neither should a man4 ,but would men admit1 that under similar circumstances1 a wife should have legal power to deprive her husband of liberty8 ,if not1 there is no reason in justice why the husband should be permitted to exercise it4 ,offences known to the law should be punished by the law1 and by the law alone2 offences which the law cannot touch should entail no punishment on an adult at the hands of a private individual4 ,public disapproval may brand them1 but no personal chastisement should be inflicted by arbitrary and irresponsible power4 ,the third right1 of property1 has also no existence for married women4 ,unmarried women have here no ground for complaint3 ,a feme sole1 before her marriage1 may do all acts for disposition1 etc41 of her lands or goods which any man in the same circumstances may do 7,comyn's ,digest1 under ,baron and ,feme74 ,the disabilities which affect women as women do not touch property2 a feme sole may own real or personal estate1 buy1 sell1 give1 contract1 sue1 and be sued1 just as though she were of the worthier blood2 it is marriage that1 like felony and insanity1 destroys her capability as proprietor4 ,according to the common law--with which we will deal first--the following results accrued from marriage3-- ,whatever personal property belonged to the wife before marriage1 is by marriage absolutely vested in the husband444 in chattel interests1 the sole and absolute property vests in the husband1 to be disposed of at his pleasure1 if he chooses to take possession of them 7,blackstone1 book ii4 #ddc74 ,if he takes possession1 they do not1 at his death1 revert to the wife1 but go to his heirs or to anyone he chooses by will4 ,if a woman be seized of an estate of inheritance1 and marries1 her husband shall be seized of in her right 7,comyn's ,digest1 under ,baron and ,feme74 ,if a woman own land in her own right1 all rents and profits are not hers1 but her husband's2 even arrears of rents due before coverture become his2 he may make a lease of her land1 commencing after his own death1 and she is barred1 although she survive him2 he may dispose of his wife's interest2 it may be forfeited by his crime1 seized for his debt2 she only regains it if she survives him and he has not disposed of it4 ,if a woman1 before marriage1 lets her land on a lease1 the rental1 after marriage1 becomes her husband's1 and her receipt is not a good discharge4 ,if a wife grants a rent-charge out of her own lands 7or1 rather1 what should be her own7 without the husband's consent1 it is void4 ,all personal goods that the wife has in possession in her own right1 are vested in her husband by the marriage 7,ibid72 gifts to her become his2 if he sues for a debt due to his wife1 and recovers it1 it is his2 if a legacy be left her1 it goes to him2 after his death1 all that was her personal property originally1 goes to his executors and administrators1 and does not revert to her2 so absolutely is all she may become possessed of his by law that if1 after a divorce a mens et thoro1 the wife should sue another woman for adultery with her husband1 and should be awarded her costs1 the husband can release the woman from payment4 ,if a woman own land and lease it1 then if1 during marriage1 the husband reduce it into possession1 as where rent accruing on a lease granted by the wife dum sola is received by a person appointed for that purpose during the husband's life1 under such circumstances the husband's executors1 not his widow1 must sue the agent 7,lush's ,common ,law ,practice1 #bnd4 ed41 p4 #bg74 ,in a case where certain leasehold property was conveyed to trustees upon trust to permit the wife to receive the rents thereof to her sole and separate use1 and she after marriage deposited with her trustees part of such rents and died2 it was held that her husband might recover the same in an action in his own right4 ,such money1 so deposited1 was not a chose in action belonging to the wife1 but money belonging to the husband1 the trust having been discharged in the payment of the rents to the wife 7,ibid1 p4 #i #g 74 ,marriage1 to a man1 is regarded as a kind of lucrative business3 ,the next method of acquiring property in goods and chattels is by marriage2 whereby those chattels1 which belonged formerly to the wife1 are by act of law vested in the husband1 with the same degree of property1 and with the same powers1 as the wife1 when sole1 had over them444 ,a distinction is taken between chattels real and chattels personal1 and of chattels personal1 whether in possession or reversion1 or in action4 ,a chattel real vests in the husband1 not absolutely1 but sub modo4 ,as1 in case of a lease for years1 the husband shall receive all the rents and profits of it1 and nay1 if he pleases1 sell1 surrender1 or dispose of it during the coverture2 if he be outlawed or attainted1 it shall be forfeited to the king2 it is liable to execution for his debts2 and if he survives his wife1 it is to all intents and purposes his own4 ,yet1 if he has made no disposition thereof in his lifetime1 and dies before his wife1 he cannot dispose of it by will3 for1 the husband having made no alteration in the property during his life1 it never was transferred from the wife2 but after his death she shall remain in her ancient possession1 and it shall not go to his executors4 ,if1 however1 the wife die in the husband's lifetime1 the chattel real survives to him4 ,as to chattels personal 7or choses7 in action1 as debts upon bonds1 contracts1 and the like1 these the husband may have if he pleases2 that is1 if he reduces them into possession by receiving or recovering them at law4 ,and upon such receipt or recovery they are absolutely and entirely his own2 and shall go to his executors or administrators1 or as he shall bequeath them by will1 and shall not revest in the wife4 ,but1 if he dies before he has recovered or reduced them into possession1 so that1 at his death1 they still continue choses in action1 they shall survive to the wife2 for the husband never exerted the power he had of obtaining an exclusive property in them4 ,if the wife die before the husband has reduced choses in action into possession1 he does not become entitled by survivorship2 nevertheless1 he may1 by becoming her administrator1 gain a title4 ,chattels in possession1 such as ready money and the like1 vest absolutely in the husband1 and he may deal with them1 either whilst living1 or by his will1 as he pleases4 ,where the interest of the wife is reversionary1 the husband's power is but small2 unless it falls into possession during the marriage1 his contracts or engagements do not bind it 7,comm1 on the ,laws of ,england1 ,broom and ,hadley1 vol4 ii41 pp4 #fah1 #fai74 ,so highly does the law value the claims of a husband that it recognizes them as existing even before marriage2 for if a woman who has contracted an engagement to marry dispose of her property privately1 settle it on herself1 or on her children1 without the cognizance of the man to whom she is engaged1 such settlement or disposition may be set aside by the husband as a fraud4 ,so cruel1 as regards1 property1 was felt to be the action of the common law1 that the wealthy devised means to escape from it1 and women of property were protected on their marriage by marriage settlements1 whereby they were contracted out of the law4 ,a woman's property was by this means1 settled on herself2 it was necessary to treat her as incapable1 so her property was not in her own power but was vested in trustees for her separate use2 thus che principal1 or the estate1 was protected1 but the whole interest or rental1 as before1 could be taken by the husband the moment it was received by the wife2 her signature became necessary to draw it1 but the moment it came into her possession it ceased to be hers4 ,the next step was an attempt to protect women's money in their own hands2 terrible cases of wrong were continually arising3 men who deserted their wives1 and left them to maintain the burden of a family1 came back after the wife had accumulated a little property1 sold the furniture1 pocketed the proceeds1 and departed1 leaving the wife to recommence her labours4 ,orders of protection were given by magistrates1 but these were not found sufficient4 ,at last1 parliamentary interference was called for with an urgency that could no longer be resisted1 and a ,bill to amend the laws relating to married women's property was introduced into the ,house of ,commons4 ,how sore was the need of such amendment may be seen from the following extracts3-- ,mr4 ,russell ,gurney1 in moving 7,april #ad1 #ahfi7 the second reading of the ,bill1 observed3 ,it is now proposed that1 for the first time in our history1 the property of one half of the married people of this country should receive the protection of the law4 ,up to this time the property of a wife has had no protection from the law1 or rather1 he should say1 in the eye of the law it has had no existence4 ,from the moment of her marriage the wife1 in fact1 possesses no property2 whatever she may up to that time have possessed1 by the very act of marriage passes from her1 and any gift or bequest made to her becomes at once the property of the husband4 ,nay1 ,even that which one might suppose to be her inalienable right1 the fruit of her mental or bodily toil1 is denied her4 ,she may be gifted with powers which enable her to earn an ample fortune1 but the moment it is earned1 it is not hers1' it is her husband's4 ,in fact1 from the time of her entering into what is described as an honourable estate1 the law pronounces her unfit to hold any property whatever4 ,mr4 ,jessel 7now ,master of the ,rolls7 in seconding the motion1 in the course of an able and impassioned speech1 said3 ,the existing law is a relic of slavery1 and the ,house is now asked to abolish the last remains of slavery in ,england4 ,in considering what ought to be the nature of the law1 we cannot deny that no one should be deprived of the power of disposition1 unless on proof of unfitness to exercise that power2 and it is not intelligible on what principle a woman should be considered incapable of contracting immediately after she has1 with the sanction of the law1 entered into the most important contract conceivable4 ,the slavery laws of antiquity are the origin of the common law on this subject4 ,the ,roman law originally regarded the position of a wife as similar to that of a daughter who had no property1 and might be sold into slavery at the will of her father4 ,when the ,roman law became that of a civilised people1 the position of the wife was altogether changed4444 ,the ancient ,germans--from whom our law is derived--put the woman into the power of her husband in the same sense as the ancient ,roman law did4 ,she became his slave4 ,the law of slavery--whether ,roman or ,english--for we once had slaves and slave-laws in ,england--gave to the master of a slave the two important rights of flogging and imprisoning him4 ,a slave could not possess property of his own1 and could not make contracts except for his master's benefit1 and the master alone could sue for an injury to the slave2 while the only liability of the master was that he must not let his slave starve4 ,this is exactly the position of the wife under the ,english law2 the husband has the right of flogging and imprisoning her1 as may be seen by those who read ,blackstone's chapter on the relations of husband and wife4 ,she cannot possess property--she cannot contract1 except it is as his agent2 and he alone can sue if she is libelled or suffers a personal injury2 while all the husband is compellable to do for her is to pay for necessaries4 ,it is astonishing that a law founded on such principles should have survived to the nineteenth century4 ,a quotation from a later debate finds its fit place here3 ,mr4 ,hinde ,palmer1 in moving 7,february #ai1 #ahgc7 the second reading of the ,married ,woman's ,property ,act 7#ahgj7 ,amendment ,bill1 pointed out that the common law was1 that by marriage the whole of a woman's personal property was immediately vested in her husband1 and placed entirely at his disposal4 ,by contracting marriage1 a woman forfeited all her property4 ,in #ahfh1 the ,chancellor of the ,exchequer1 ,mr4 ,lowe1 said3 ',show me what crime there is in matrimony that it should be visited by the same punishment as high treason--namely1 confiscation1 for that is really the fact4' ,mr4 ,mill1 too1 speaking on that question1 said that a large portion of the inhabitants of this country were in the anomalous position of having imposed on them1 without having done anything to deserve it1 what we inflicted on the worst criminals as a penalty3 like felons1 they were incapable of holding property4 ,some great and beneficial changes were made by the ,acts of #ahgj and #ahgc1 although much yet remains to be done4 ,by the ,act of #ahgj1 the wages and earnings of married women were protected2 they were made capable of depositing money in the savings' banks in their own names2 they might hold property in the ,funds in their own names1 and have the dividends paid to them2 they might hold fully-paid up shares1 or stock1 to which no liability was attached2 property in societies might be retained by them2 money coming to a married woman as the next-of-kin1 or one of the next-of-kin to an intestate1 or by deed or will1 was made her own1 provided that such money did not exceed #bjj2 the rents and profits of freehold1 copyhold1 or customary-hold property inherited by a married woman were to be her own2 a married woman might insure her own or her husband's life2 might1 under some circumstances1 maintain an action in her own name2 married women were made liable for the maintenance of their husbands and children4 ,the ,act of #ahgc relates entirely to the recovery of debts contracted by the woman before marriage4 ,it will be perceived that these ,acts are very inadequate as regards placing married women in a just position towards their property1 but they are certainly a step in the right direction4 ,the ,acts only apply to those women who have been married subsequently to their passing4 ,one great omission in them will have to be promptly remedied1 both for the sake of married women and for the sake of their creditors3 while a married woman now may1 under some circumstances1 sue1 no machinery is provided whereby she may be sued--without joining her husband4 ,in an admirable letter to the ,times of ,march #ad1 #ahgh1 ,mrs4 ,ursule ,bright1 alluding to the obscurity and uncertainty of the law1 points out ,the effect of that obscurity upon the credit of respectable married women earning their own and their children's bread1 in any employment or business carried on separately from their husband2 the inconvenience and risk to their creditors is1 as you have most ably pointed out1 great2 but the injury to honest wives is far greater4 ,it puts them at a considerable disadvantage in the labour market and in business4 ,a married woman1 for instance1 keeping a little shop1 may sue for debts due to her1 but has no corresponding liability to be sued4 ,if the whereabouts of the husband is not very clearly defined1 it is evident she may have some difficulty in obtaining credit4 ,again1 what employer of labour can with any security engage the services of a married woman8 ,she may leave her work at the mill at an hour's notice unfinished1 and her employer has no remedy against her for breach of contract1 as a married woman can make no contract which is legally binding4 ,there is no question that such a state of the law must operate as a restriction upon her power to support herself and family4 ,the state of muddle of the present law is almost inconceivable4 ,even now a woman need not pay her debts contracted before marriage out of earnings made after marriage4 ,suppos an artist or a literary woman to marry when burdened with debts and having no property2 should she be earning #a1jjj or #aj1jjj a year by her profession after marriage1 these earnings could not be made liable for her debts contracted before marriage4 ,it cannot too plainly be repeated that non-liability to be sued means non-existence of credit4 ,the law1 as it stands at present1 is the old ,common ,law1 modified by the ,acts of #ahgj and #ahgc4 ,archbold says--dealing with indictments for theft--,where the person named as owner appears to be a married woman1 the defendant must1 unless the indictment is amended1 be acquitted444 because in law the goods are the property of the husband2 even though she be living apart from her husband upon an income arising from property vested in trustees for her separate use1 because the goods cannot be the property of the trustees2 and1 in law1 a married woman has no property 7,archbold's ,criminal ,cases1 p4 #dc74 ,archbold gives as exceptions to this general rule1 where a judicial separation has taken place1 where the wife has obtained a protection order1 or where the property is such as is covered by the ,married ,women's ,property ,act1 #ahgj4 ,where a married woman lived apart from her husband1 upon an income arising from property vested in trustees for her separate use1 the judges held that a house which she lived in was properly described as her husband's dwelling-house1 though she paid the rent out of her separate property1 and the husband had never been in it4 ,r4 v4 ,french1 ,r4 v4 ,r41 #dia 7,ibid1 p4 #eba74 ,if a burglary be committed in a house belonging to a married woman1 the house must be said to be the dwelling-house of her husband1 or the burglar will be acquitted2 if she be living separate from her husband1 paying her own rent out of money secured for her separate use1 it makes no difference2 it was decided1 in the case of ,rex v4 ,french1 that a married woman could own no property1 and that the house must1 therefore1 belong to the husband4 ,if a married woman picks up a purse in the road and is robbed of it1 the property vests in the husband3 ,where goods are in the possession of the wife1 they must be laid as the goods of her husband2 thus1 if ,a is indicted for stealing the goods of ,b1 and it appears that ,b was a feme covert at the time1 ,a must be acquitted4 ,and even if the wife have only received money as the agent of another person1 and she is robbed of that money before her husband receives it into his possession1 still it is well laid as his money in an indictment for larceny4 ,an indictment charging the stealing of a #e ,bank of ,england note1 the property of ,e4 ,wall1 averring1 in the usual way1 that the money secured by the note was due and payable to ,e4 ,wall2 it appeared that ,e4 ,wall's wife had been employed to sell sheep belonging to her father1 of or in which her husband never had either possession or any interest1 and she received the note in payment for the sheep1 and it was stolen from her before she left the place where she received it4 ,it was objected that the note never was the property of ,e4 ,wall1 either actually or constructively2 the money secured by it was not his1 and he had no qualified property in it1 as it never was in his possession2 but it was held that the property was properly laid 7,russell on ,crimes1 #eth ed41 vol4 ii41 pp4 #bdc1 #bdd74 ,yet even a child1 in the eye of the law1 has property1 and if his clothes are stolen1 it is safer to allege them to be the child's property4 ,the main principle of ,english law remains unaltered by recent legislation1 that a married woman has no property4 ,married women share incapacity to manage property with minors and lunatics2 minors1 lunatics1 and married women are taken care of by trustees2 minors become of age1 lunatics often recover1 married women remain incapable during the whole of their married life4 ,being incapable of holding property1 a married woman is of course1 incapable of making a will4 ,here1 also1 the ,common ,law may be checkmated4 ,she may make a will by virtue of a power reserved to her1 or of a marriage settlement1 or with her husband's assent1 or it may be made by her to carry her separate estate2 and the court in determining whether or not such will is entitled to probate1 will not go minutely into the question1 but will only require that the testatrix had a power reserved to her1 or was entitled to separate estate1 and will1 if so satisfied1 grant probate to her executor1 leaving it to the ,court of ,chancery1 as the court of construction1 to say what portion of her estate1 if any1 will pass under such will4 ,in this case the husband1 though he may not be entitled to take probate of his wife's will1 may administer to such of her effects as do not pass under the will 7,comm1 on the ,laws of ,england1 ,broom and ,hadley1 vol4 iii41 pp4 #dbg1 #dbh74 ,thus we see that a husband may will away from his wife her own original property1 but a wife may not even will away her own1 unless the right be specially reserved to her before marriage4 ,and yet it is urged that women have no need of votes1 their interests being so well looked after by their fathers1 husbands1 and brothers6 ,we have thus seen that the rights of every ,englishman are destroyed in women by marriage2 one would imagine that matrimony was a crime for which a woman deserved punishment1 and that confiscation and outlawry were the fit rewards of her misdeed4 ,from these three great fundamental wrongs flow a large number of legal disabilities4 ,take the case of a prisoner accused of misdemeanour2 he is often set free on his own recognizances2 but a married woman cannot be so released1 for she is incapable of becoming bail or of giving her own recognizances2 she is here again placed in bad company3 no person who has been convicted of any crime by which he has become infamous is allowed to be surety for any person charged or suspected of an indictable offence4 ,nor can a married woman1 or an infant1 or a prisoner in custody1 be bail 7,archbold1 p4 #hh74 ,let us now suppose that a woman be accused of some misdemeanour1 and be committed for trial3 she desires to have her case tried by a higher court than the usual one1 and wishes to remove the indictment by writ of certiorari3 she finds that the advantage is denied her1 because1 as a married woman1 she has no property1 and she cannot therefore enter into the necessary recognizances to pay costs in the case of a conviction4 ,thus a married woman finds herself placed at a cruel disadvantage as compared with an unmarried woman or with men4 ,in matters of business1 difficulties arise on every hand3 a married woman is incapable of making a contract2 if she takes a house without her husband's knowledge and without stating that she is married1 the landlord may repudiate the contract2 if she states that she is married1 the landlord knows that she is unable to make a legal contract1 and refuses to let or lease to her1 without heavy security4 ,if she buys things she cannot be sued for non-payment without making the husband a defendant1 and she consequently finds that she has no credit4 ,if she is cheated1 she cannot sue1 except in cases covered by the recent ,acts1 without joining her husband1 and so she has often to submit to be wronged4 ,a feme covert cannot sue without her husband being joined as co-plaintiff1 so long as the relation of marriage subsists4 ,it matters not that he is an alien1 and has left the country2 or that1 being a subject1 he has absconded from the realm as a bankrupt or for other purpose2 or that he has become permanently resident abroad2 or that they are living apart under a deed of separation2 or have been divorced a mens et thoro2 for none of these events dissolve or work a suspension of the marriage contract1 and so long as that endures1 the wife is unable to sue alone1 whatever the cause of action may be4 ,this disability results from the rule of law which vests in the husband not only all the goods and chattels which belonged to the wife at the time of the marriage1 but also all which she acquires afterwards 7,lush's ,common ,law ,practice1 #bnd ed41 pp4 #cc1 #cd74 ,the same principle governs all suits against a married woman2 the husband must be sued with her3 ,in all actions brought against a feme covert while the relation of marriage subsists1 the husband must be joined for conformity1 it being an inflexible rule of law that a wife shall not be sued without her husband4444 ,if therefore a wife enters into a bond jointly with her husband1 or makes a bill of exchange1 promissory note1 or any other contract1 she cannot be sued thereon1 but the action should be brought against1 and the bond1 bill1 alleged to have been made by1 the husband 7,ibid1 p4 #ge74 ,the thoughtful author of the ,rights of ,women remarks that the incapacity to sue is traceable to the time when disputes were settled by the judgment of arms4 ,a man represents his wife at law now1 because in the days of the judicial combat he was her champion-at-arms1 and she is unable to sue now1 because she was unable to fight then 7p4 #bb74 ,the explanation is a very reasonable one1 and is only an additional proof of the need of alteration in the law2 our marriage laws are1 as has been shown above1 the survival of barbarism1 and we only ask that modern civilisation will alter and improve them as it does everything else3 trial by combat has been destroyed2 ought not its remains to be buried out of sight8 ,the consequence of these business disabilities is that a married woman finds herself thwarted at every turn1 and if she be trying to gain a livelihood1 and be separated from her husband1 she is constantly pained and annoyed by the marriage-fetter1 which hinders her activity and checks her efforts to make her way4 ,the notion that irresponsibility is an advantage is an entirely mistaken one2 an irresponsible person cannot be dealt with in business matters1 and is shut out of all the usual independent ways of obtaining a livelihood4 ,authorship and servitude are the only paths really open to married women2 in every other career they find humiliating obstacles which it needs both courage and perseverance to surmount4 ,married women rank among the persons in subjection to the power of others2 they thus come among those who in many cases are not criminally liable2 infants under the age of discretion1 persons who are non compotes mentis 7not of sound mind71 and persons acting under coercion1 are not criminally liable for their misdeeds4 ,a married woman is presumed to act under her husband's coercion1 unless the contrary be proved1 and she may thus escape punishment for her wrongdoings3 ,constraint of a superior is sometimes allowed as an excuse for criminal misconduct1 by reason of the matrimonial subjection of the wife to her husband2 but neither a son1 nor a servant is excused for the commission of any crime by the command or coercion of the parent or master4 ,thus1 if a woman commit theft1 or burglary1 by the coercion of her husband1 or even in his company1 which the law prim facie construes a coercion1 she is dispunishable1 being considered to have acted by compulsion1 and not of her own will 7,comm1 on the ,laws of ,england1 ,broom and ,hadley1 vol4 iv41 p4 #bg74 ,a feme covert is so much favoured in respect of that power and authority which her husband has over her1 that she shall not suffer any punishment for committing a bare theft1 or even a burglary1 by the coercion of her husband1 or in his company1 which the law construes a coercion 7,russell ,on ,crimes1 vol4 i41 p4 #aci74 ,where the wife is to be considered merely as the servant of the husband1 she will not be answerable for the consequences of his breach of duty1 however fatal1 though she may be privy to his conduct4 ,c4 ,squire and his wife were indicted for the murder of a boy2 he had been cruelly treated by both1 and died from debility and want of proper food and nourishment2 ,lawrence1 ,j41 directed the jury1 that as the wife was the servant of the husband1 it was not her duty to provide the apprentice with sufficient food and nourishment1 and that she was not guilty of any breach of duty in neglecting to do so2 though1 if the husband had allowed her sufficient food for the apprentice1 and she had wilfully withholden it from him1 then she would have been guilty4 ,but that here the fact was otherwise2 and therefore1 though in foro conscienti the wife was equally guilty with the husband1 yet in point of law she could not be said to be guilty of not providing the apprentice with sufficient food and nourishment 7,ibid41 pp4 #add1 #ade74 ,it is hard to see what advantage society gains by this curious fashion of reckoning married women as children or lunatics4 ,some advantages1 however1 flow to a criminal husband3 a wife is not punishable for concealing her husband from justice1 knowing that he has committed felony2 a husband may not conceal his wife under analogous circumstances3 ,so strict is the law where a felony is actually complete1 in order to do effectual justice1 that the nearest relations are not suffered to aid or receive one another4 ,if the parent assists his child1 or the child his parent1 if the brother receives the brother1 the master his servant1 or the servant his master1 or even if the husband receives his wife1 having any of them committed a felony1 the receiver becomes an accessory ex post facto4 ,but a feme covert cannot become an accessory by the receipt and concealment of her husband2 for she is presumed to act under his coercion1 and therefore she is not bound1 neither ought she1 to discover her lord 7,ibid41 p4 #ch74 ,the wife of a blind husband must not1 however1 regard her coverture as in all cases a protection1 for it has been held that if stolen goods were in her possession1 her husband's blindness preventing him from knowing of them1 her coverture did not avail to shelter her4 ,any advantage which married women may possess through the supposition that they are acting under the coercion of their husbands ought to be summarily taken away from them4 ,it is not for the safety of society that criminals should escape punishment simply because they happen to be married women2 a criminal husband becomes much more dangerous to the community if he is to have an irresponsible fellow-conspirator beside him2 two people--although the law regards them as one--can often commit a crime that a single person could not accomplish1 and it is not even impossible that an unscrupulous woman1 desiring to get rid easily for awhile of an unpleasant husband1 might actually be the secret prompter of an offence1 in the commission of which she might share1 but in the punishment of which she would have no part4 ,for the sake of wives1 as well as of husbands1 this irresponsibility should be put an end to1 for if a husband is to be held accountable for his wife's misdeeds and debts1 it is impossible for the law to refuse him control over her actions2 freedom and responsibility must go hand in hand1 and women who obtain the rights of freedom must accept the duties of responsibility4 ,a woman has a legal claim on her husband for the necessaries of life1 and a man may be compelled to support his wife4 ,but her claim is a very narrow one1 as may be seen by the following case3--,a man named ,plummer was indicted for the manslaughter of his wife2 he had been separated from her for several years1 and paid her an allowance of #bs4 #f;d4 a week2 the last payment was made on a ,sunday1 and she was turned out of her lodgings on the ,tuesday following2 she was suffering from diarrhoea1 and on the ,wednesday was very ill4 ,plummer was told of her condition1 but refused to give her shelter2 the evening was wet1 and a constable meeting her wandering about took her to her husband's lodgings1 but he would not admit her2 on ,thursday he paid for a bed for her at a public-house1 and on ,friday she died4 ,baron ,gurney told the jury that the prisoner could not be charged with having caused her death from want of food1 since he made her an allowance1 and under ordinary circumstances he might have refused to do anything more2 the only question was whether the refusal as to shelter had hastened her death4 ,the man was acquitted4 ,a wife has also some limited rights over her husband's property after his death2 she may claim dower1 her wearing apparel1 a bed1 and some few other things1 including her personal jewellery4 ,her husband's power to deprive her of her personal ornaments ceases with his life4 ,to redress the whole of the wrongs as to property1 and to enable justice to be done1 it is only necessary to pass a short ,act of ,parliament1 ordaining that marriage shall in no fashion alter the civil status of a woman1 that she shall have over property the same rights as though she were unmarried1 and shall1 in all civil and criminal matters1 be held as responsible as though she were a feme sole4 ,in short1 marriage2 ought no more to affect a woman's position than it does a man's1 and should carry with it no kind of legal disability2 marital control should cease to exist1 and marriage should be regarded as a contract between equals1 and not as a bond between master and servant4 ,those who are entirely opposed to the idea that a woman should not forfeit her property on marriage1 raise a number of theoretical difficulties as to household expenses1 ownership of furniture1 c41 c4 ,practically these would very seldom occur1 if we may judge by the experience of countries whose marriage laws do not entail forfeiture on the woman who becomes a wife4 ,in the ,rights of ,women1 quoted from above1 a very useful summary is given of the laws as to property in various countries2 in ,germany these laws vary considerably in the different states2 one system1 known as ,gutergemeinschaft 7community of goods7 is a great advance towards equality1 although it is not by any means the best resolution of the problem2 under this system there is no separate property1 it is all merged in the common stock1 and the husband1 as such1 has no more right over the common 'fund than the wife1 nor the wife than the husband 7p4 #bf72 the husband administers as representative of the community1 and not as husband4 ,he is merely head partner1 as it were1 and has no personal rights beyond that2 he may be dispossessed of even this limited authority if he is wasteful2 he cannot alienate or mortgage any of the common lands or rights without her consent--a privilege1 it must be remembered1 which belongs to her1 not only over lands brought by herself1 but also over those brought by her husband to the marriage4 ,and this control of the wife over the immovables has1 for parts of ,prussia1 been extended by a law of ,april #afth1 #ahej1 over movables as well2 for the husband has been forbidden to dispose not only of immovables1 but of the whole or part of the movable property1 without the consent of his wife4 ,nor can the husband by himself make donations mortis causa2 such arrangements take the form of mutual agreements between the two respecting their claims of inheritance to one another 7p4 #bg74 ,in ,austria1 married couples are more independent of each other2 the wives retain their rights over their own property1 and can dispose of it as they like1 and sue or be sued in respect of it1 without marital authorisation or control2 and just as they have the free disposition of their property1 so they can contract with others as they please4 ,a husband is unable to alienate any of his wife's property in her name1 or to lend or mortgage it1 or to receive any money1 institute any law-suits1 or make any arrangements in respect of it unless he has her special mandate4444 ,if no stipulation is made at the marriage1 each spouse retains his or her separate property1 and neither has a claim to anything gained or in any way received by the other during the marriage 7p4 #ej74 ,in the ,new ,york code 7,u4,s4,a471 beyond the claim of mutual support1 neither husband nor wife has any interest whatever in the property of the other4 ,hence either may into any enter engagement or transaction with the other or with a stranger with respect to property1 just as they might do if they continued unmarried 7p4 #ie74 ,the apportionment of household expenses must necessarily be left for the private arrangement of the married pair2 where the woman has property1 or where she earns her livelihood it would be her duty to contribute to the support of the common home2 where the couple are poor1 and the care of the house falls directly on the shoulders of the wife1 her personal toil would be her fair contribution2 this matter should be arranged in the marriage contract1 just as similar matters are now dealt with in the marriage settlements of the wealthy4 ,as means of livelihood become more accessible to women the question will be more and more easily arranged2 it will no longer be the fashion in homes of professional men that the husband shall over-work himself in earning the means of support1 while the wife over rests herself in spending them1 but a more evenly-divided duty shall strengthen the husband's health by more leisure1 and the wife's by more work4 ,recovery of debts incurred for household expenses should be by suit against husband and wife jointly1 just as in a partnership the firm may now be sued2 recovery of personal debts should be by suits against the person who had contracted them4 ,many a man's life is now rendered harder than it ought to be1 by the waste and extravagance of a wife who can pledge his name and his credit1 and even ruin him before he knows his danger3 would not the lives of such men be the happier and the less toilsome if their wives were responsible for their own debts1 and limited by their own means8 ,many a woman's home is broken up1 and her children beggared1 by the reckless spendthrift who wastes her fortune or her earnings3 would not the lives of such women be less hopeless1 if marriage left their property in their own hands1 and did not give them a master as well as a husband8 ,women1 under these circumstances1 would1 of course1 become liable for the support of their children1 equally with their husbands--a liability which is1 indeed1 recognized by the ,married ,women's ,property ,act 7#ahgj71 s4 #ad4 ,it is sometimes further urged by those who like a man to be master in his own house1 that unless women forfeited their property in marriage1 there would be constant discord in the home4 ,surely the contrary effect would be produced4 ,mrs4 ,mill well says1 in the ,essay before quoted from3 ,the highest order of durable and happy attachments would be a hundred times more frequent than they are1 if the affection which the two sexes sought from one another were that genuine friendship which only exists between equals in privileges as in faculties4 ,nothing is so likely to cause unhappiness as the tendency to tyrannize1 generated in the man by authority1 and the tendency to rebel1 generated in the woman by enforced submission4 ,no grown person should be under the arbitrary power of another2 dependence is touching in the infant because of its helplessness2 it is revolting in the grown man or woman because with maturity of power should come dignity of self-support4 ,in a brilliant article in the ,westminster ,review 7,july1 #ahgd7 the writer well says3 ,would it not1 to begin with1 be well to instruct girls that weakness1 cowardice1 and ignorance1 cannot constitute at once the perfection of womankind and the imperfection of mankind8 ,it is time to do away with the oak and ivy ideal1 and to teach each plant to grow strong and self-supporting4 ,perfect equality would1 under this system1 be found in the home1 and mutual respect and deference would replace the alternate coaxing and commandment now too often seen4 ,equal rights would abolish both tyranny and rebellion2 there would be more courtesy in the husband1 more straightforwardness in the wife4 ,then1 indeed1 would there be some hope of generally happy marriages1 but1 as has been eloquently said by the writer just quoted1 till absolute social and legal equality is the basis of the sacred partnership of marriage 7the division of labours and duties in the family1 by free agreement1 implying no sort of inequality71 till no superiority is recognized on either side but that of individual character and capacity1 till marriage is no longer legally surrounded with penalties on the woman who enters into it as though she were a criminal--till then the truest love1 the truest sympathy1 the truest happiness in it1 will be the exception rather than the rule1 and the real value of this relation1 domestic and social1 will be fatally missed4 ,that some marriages are happy1 in spite of the evil law1 no one will deny2 but these are the exception1 not the rule4 ,the law1 as it is1 directly tends to promote unhappiness1 and its whole influence on the relations of the sexes is injurious4 ,to quote ,mrs4 ,mill once more3 ,the influence of the position tends eminently to promote selfishness4 ,the most insignificant of men1 the man who can obtain influence or consideration nowhere else1 finds one place where he is chief and head4 ,there is one person1 often greatly his superior in understanding1 who is obliged to consult him1 and whom he is not obliged to consult4 ,he is judge1 magistrate1 ruler1 over their joint concerns2 arbiter of all differences between them4444 ,his is now the only tribunal1 in civilized life1 in which the same person is judge and party4 ,a generous mind in such a situation makes the balance incline against its own side1 and gives the other not less1 but more1 than a fair equality1 and thus the weaker side may be enabled to turn the very fact of dependence into an instrument of power1 and in default of justice1 take an ungenerous advantage of generosity2 rendering the unjust power1 to those who make an unselfish use of it1 a torment and a burthen4 ,but how is it when average men are invested with this power1 without reciprocity and without responsibility8 ,give such a man the idea that he is first in law and in opinion--that to will is his part1 and hers to submit--it is absurd to suppose that this idea merely glides over his mind1 without sinking into it1 or having any effect on his feelings and practice4 ,if there is any self-will in the man1 he becomes either the conscious or unconscious despot of his household4 ,the wife1 indeed1 often succeeds in gaining her objects1 but it is by some of the many various forms of indirectness and management4 ,when marriage is as it should be1 there will be no superior and inferior by right of position2 but men and women1 whether married or unmarried1 will retain intact the natural rights belonging to every ,englishman4 ,in dealing with the wrongs of the wife1 according to the present ,english marriage laws1 the wrongs of the mother must not be omitted4 ,the unmarried mother has a right to her child2 the married mother has none3 ,a father is entitled to the custody of his child until it attains the age of sixteen1 unless there be some sufficient reason to the contrary 7,russell ,on ,crimes1 vol4 i41 p4 #hih74 ,the sufficient reason is hard to find in most cases1 as the inclination of the ,courts is to make excuses for male delinquencies1 and to uphold every privilege which male ,parliaments have conferred on husbands and fathers4 ,in ,shelley's case the father was deprived of the custody of his children1 but here religious and political heresy caused a strong bias against the poet4 ,the father's right to the custody of legitimate children is complete2 the mother has no right over them as against his2 he may take them away from her1 and place them in the care of another woman1 and she has no redress2 she may apply to ,chancery for access to them at stated times1 but even this is matter of favour1 not of right4 ,the father may appoint a guardian in his will1 and the mother1 although the sole surviving parent1 has no right over her children as against the stranger appointed by the dead father4 ,if the parents differ in religion1 the children are to be brought up in that of the father1 whatever agreement may have been made respecting them before marriage2 if the father dies without leaving any directions1 the children will be educated in his religion2 he can1 if he chooses1 allow his wife to bring them up in her creed1 but she can only do so by virtue of his permission4 ,thus the married mother has no rights over her own children2 she bears them1 nurses them1 toils for them1 watches over them1 and may then have them torn from her by no fault of her own1 and given into the care of a stranger4 ,people talk of maternal love1 and of woman's sphere1 of her duty in the home1 of her work for her babes1 but the law has no reverence for the tie between mother and child1 and ignores every claim of the mother who is also a4 wife4 ,the unmarried mother is far better off2 she has an absolute right to the custody of her own children2 none can step in and deprive her of her little ones1 for the law respects the maternal tie when no marriage ceremony has legitimated it4 ,motherhood is only sacred in the eye of the law when no legal contract exists between the parents of the child4 ,looking at a woman's position both as wife and mother1 it is impossible not to recognise the fact that marriage is a direct disadvantage to her4 ,in an unlegalised union the woman retains possession of all her natural rights2 she is mistress of her own actions1 of her body1 of her property2 she is able to legally defend herself against attack2 all the ,courts are open to protect her2 she forfeits none of her rights as an ,englishwoman2 she keeps intact her liberty and her independence2 she has no master2 she owes obedience to the laws alone4 ,if she have a child1 the law acknowledges her rights over it1 and no man can use her love for it as an engine of torture to force her into compliance with his will4 ,two disadvantages1 however1 attach to unlegalised unions2 first1 the woman has to face social disapprobation1 although of late years1 as women have been coming more to the front1 this difficulty has been very much decreased1 for women have begun to recognise the extreme injustice of the laws1 and both men and women of advanced views have advocated great changes in the marriage contract4 ,the second disadvantage is of a more serious character3 the children proceeding from an unlegalised union have not the same rights as those born in legal wedlock1 do not inherit as of right1 and have no legal name4 ,these injustices can be prevented by care in making testamentary dispositions protecting them1 and by registering the surname1 but the fact of the original unfairness still remains1 and any carelessness on the parents' part will result in real injury to the child4 ,it must also be remembered that the father1 in such a case1 has no rights over his children1 and this is as unfair to him as the reverse is to the mother4 ,as the law now is1 both legal and illegal unions have disadvantages connected with them1 and there is only a choice between evils2 these evils are however1 overwhelmingly greater on the side of legal unions as may be seen by the foregoing sketch of the disabilities imposed on women by marriage4 ,so great are these that a wise and self-respecting woman may well hesitate to enter into a contract of marriage while the laws remain as they are1 and a man who really honours a woman must reluctantly subject her to the disadvantages imposed on the ,english wife1 when he asks her to take him as literally her master and1 owner4 ,the relative position is as dishonouring to the man as it is insulting to the woman1 and good men revolt against it as hotly as do the most high-spirited women4 ,in happy marriages all these laws are ignored1 and it is only at rare intervals that the married pair become conscious of their existence4 ,some argue that this being so1 small practical harm results from the legal injustice2 it would be as sensible to argue that as honest people do not want to thieve1 it would not be injurious to public morality to have laws on the statute book legalising garotting4 ,laws are made to prevent injustice being committed with impunity1 and it is a curious reversal of every principle of legislation to make laws which protect wrongdoing1 and which can only be defended on the ground that they are not generally enforced4 ,if the ,english marriage laws were universally carried out1 marriage would not last for a month in ,england2 as it is1 vast numbers of women suffer in silence1 thousands rebel and break their chains1 and on every side men and women settle down into a mutual tolerance which is simply an easy-going indifference1 accepted as the only possible substitute for the wedded happiness which they once dreamed of in youth1 but have failed to realise in their maturity4 ,things being as they are1 what is the best action for those to take who desire to see a healthier and purer sexual morality--a morality founded upon equal rights and diverse duties harmoniously discharged8 ,the first step is to agitate for a reform of the marriage laws by the passing of such an ,act of ,parliament as is alluded to above4 ,it would be well for some of those who desire to see such a legislative change to meet and confer together on the steps to be taken to introduce such a ,bill into the ,house of ,commons4 ,if thought necessary1 a ,marriage ,reform ,league might be established1 to organize the agitation and petitioning which are de rigueur1 in endeavouring to get a bill passed through the popular ,house4 ,side by side with this effort to reform marriage abuses1 should go the determination not to contract a legal marriage while the laws remain as immoral as they are4 ,it is well known that the ,quakers persistently refused to go through the legal ,english form of marriage1 and quietly made their declarations according to their own conscience1 submitting to the disadvantages entailed on them by the illegality1 until the legislature formally recognised the ,quaker declaration as a legal form of marriage4 ,why should not we take a leaf out of the ,quakers' book1 and substitute for the present legal forms of marriage a simple declaration publicly made8 ,we should differ from the ,quakers in this1 that we should not desire that such declaration should be legalised while the marriage laws remain as they are2 but as soon as the laws are moralised1 and wives are regarded as self-possessing human beings1 instead of as property1 then the declaration may1 with advantage1 seek the sanction of the law4 ,it is not necessary that the declaration should be couched in any special form of words2 the conditions of the contract ought to be left to the contracting parties4 ,what is necessary is that it should be a definite contract1 and it is highly advisable that it should be a contract in writing--a deed of partnership1 in fact1 which should--when the law permits--be duly stamped and registered4 ,the law1 while it does not dictate the conditions of the contract1 should enforce those conditions so long as the contract exists2 that is1 it should interfere just as far as it does in other contracts1 and no further2 the law has no right to dictate the terms of the marriage contract2 it is for the contracting parties to arrange their own affairs as they will4 ,while1 however1 the province of the law should be thus limited in respect to the contracting parties1 it has a clear right to interfere in defence of the interests of any children who may be born of the marriage1 and to compel the parents to clothe1 feed1 house1 and educate them properly3 this duty should1 if need be1 be enforced on both parents alike1 and the law should recognise and impose the full discharge of the responsibilities of parents towards those to whom they have given life4 ,no marriage contract should be recognised by the law which is entered into by minors2 in this1 as in other legal deeds1 there should be no capability to contract until the contracting parties are of full age4 ,a marriage is a partnership1 and should be so regarded by the law1 and it should be the aim of those who are endeavouring to reform marriage1 to substitute for the present semi-barbarous laws a scheme which shall be sober1 dignified1 and practicable1 and which shall recognise the vital interest of the community in the union of those who are to be the parents of the next generation4 ,such a deed as ,i propose would have no legal force at the present time2 and here arises a difficulty3 might not a libertine take advantage of this fact to desert his wife and possibly leave her with a child1 or children1 on her hands2 to the cold mercy of society which would not even recognize her as a married woman8 ,men who1 under the present state of the law1 seduce women and then desert them1 would probably do the same if they had gone through a form of marriage which had no legally binding force2 but such men are1 fortunately1 the exception1 not the rule1 and there is no-reason to apprehend an increase of their number1 owing to the proposed action on the part of a number of thoughtful men and women who are dissatisfied with the present state of the law1 but who have no wish to plunge into debauchery4 ,i freely acknowledge that it is to be desired that marriage should be legally binding1 and that a father should be compelled to do his share towards supporting his children2 but while ,english law imposes such a weight of disability on a married woman1 and leaves her utterly in the power of her husband1 however unprincipled1 oppressive1 and wicked he may be--short of legal crime--,i take leave to think that women have a fairer chance of happiness and comfort in an unlegalised than in a legal marriage4 ,there is many an unhappy woman who would be only too glad if the libertine who has legally married her would desert her1 and leave her1 even with the burden of a family1 to make for herself and her children1 by her own toil1 a home which should at least be pure1 peaceful1 and respectable4 ,let me1 in concluding this branch of the subject1 say a word to those who1 agreeing with ,marriage ,reform in principle1 fear to openly put their theory into practice4 ,some of these earnestly hope for change1 but do not dare to advocate it openly4 ,reforms have never been accomplished by ,reformers who had not the courage of their opinions4 ,if all the men and women who disapprove of the present immoral laws would sturdily and openly oppose them2 if those who desire to unite their lives1 but are determined not to submit to the ,english marriage laws1 would publicly join hands1 making such a declaration as is here suggested1 the social odium would soon pass away1 and the unlegalised marriage would be recognised as a dignified and civilized substitute for the old brutal and savage traditions4 ,most valuable work might here be done by men and women who--happy in their own marriages--yet feel the immorality of the law1 and desire to see it changed4 ,such married people might support and strengthen by their open countenance and friendship those who enter into the unlegalised public unions here advocated2 and they can do what no one else can do so well3 they can prove to ,english society--the most bigoted and conservative society in the world--that advocacy of change in the marriage laws does not mean the abolition of the home4 ,the value of such co-operation will be simply inestimable1 and will do more than anything else to render the reform practicable4 ,courage and quiet resolution are needed1 but1 with these1 this great social change may safely and speedily be accomplished4 ,,ii4 ,,divorce4 ,any proposed reforms in the marriage laws of ,england would be extremely imperfect1 unless they dealt with the question of divorce4 ,marriage differs from all ordinary contracts in the extreme difficulty of dissolving it--a difficulty arising from the ecclesiastical character which has been imposed upon it1 and from the fact that it has been looked upon as a religious bond instead of as a civil contract4 ,until the time of the ,reformation1 marriage was regarded as a sacrament by all ,christian people1 and it is so regarded by the majority of them up to the present day4 ,when the ,reformers advocated divorce1 it was considered as part of their general heresy1 and as proof of the immoral tendency of their doctrines4 ,among ,roman ,catholics the sacramental--and therefore the indissoluble--character of marriage is still maintained1 but among ,protestants divorce is admitted1 the laws regulating it varying much in different countries4 ,in ,england--owing to the extreme conservatism of the ,english in all domestic matters--the ,protestant view of marriage made its way very slowly4 ,divorce remained within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts1 and these granted only divorces a mens et thoro in cases where cruelty or adultery was pleaded as rendering conjugal life impossible4 ,these courts never granted divorces a vinculo matrimonii1 which permit either--or both--of the divorced persons to contract a fresh marriage1 except in cases where the marriage was annulled as having been void from the beginning2 they would only grant a separation from bed and board1 and imposed celibacy on the divorced couple until one of them died1 and so set the other free4 ,there was indeed a report drawn up by a commission1 under the authority of #c and #d ,edward ,,vi41 c4 ii41 which was intended as a basis for the re-modelling of the marriage laws1 but the death of the king prevented the proposed reform2 the ecclesiastical courts remained as they were1 and absolute divorce was unattainable4 ,natural impatience of a law which separated unhappy married people only to impose celibacy on them1 caused occasional applications to be made to ,parliament for relief1 and a few marriages were thus dissolved under exceptional circumstances4 ,in #agja1 a bill was obtained1 enabling a petitioner to re-marry1 and in #agih1 ,lord ,loughborough's ,orders were passed4 ,by these orders1 no petition could be presented to the ,house1 unless an official copy of the proceedings1 and of a definitive sentence of divorce1 a mens et thoro1 in the ecclesiastical courts1 was delivered on oath at the bar of the ,house at the same time 7,broom's ,comm41 vol4 iii4 p4 #cif74 ,after explaining the procedure of the ecclesiastical court1 ,broom goes on3 ,a definitive sentence of divorce a mens et thoro being thus obtained1 the petitioner proceeded to lay his case before the ,house of ,lords in accordance with the ,standing ,orders before adverted to1 and1 subject to his proving the case1 he obtained a bill divorcing him from the bonds of matrimony1 and allowing him to marry again4 ,the provisions of the bill1 which was very short1 were generally these3--#a4 ,the marriage was dissolved4 #b4 ,the husband was empowered to marry again4 #c4 ,he was given the rights of a husband as to any property of an after-taken wife4 #d4 ,the divorced wife was deprived of any right she might have as his widow4 #e4 ,her after-acquired property was secured to her as against the husband from whom she was divorced4 ,in the case of the wife obtaining the bill1 similar provisions were made in her favour 7p4 #cih74 ,in #aheg1 an ,act was passed establishing a ,court for ,divorce and ,matrimonial ,causes1 and thus a great step forward was taken3 this court was empowered to grant a judicial separation--equivalent to the old divorce a mens et thoro--in cases of cruelty1 desertion for two years and upwards1 or adultery on the part of the husband2 it was further empowered to grant an absolute divorce with right of re-marriage--equivalent to the old divorce a vinculo matrimonii--in cases of adultery on the part of the wife1 or of1 on the part of the husband1 incestuous adultery1 or of bigamy with adultery1 or of rape1 or an unnatural crime1 or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as would formerly have entitled her to a divorce a mens et thoro1 or of adultery coupled with desertion1 without reasonable excuse1 for two years or upwards 7,broom1 vol4 i41 p4 #edb74 ,the other powers held by the court need not now be specially dwelt upon4 ,the first reform here needed is that husband and wife should be placed on a perfect equality in asking for a divorce3 at present if husband and wife be living apart1 no amount of adultery on the husband's part can release the wife2 if they be living together1 a husband may keep as many mistresses as he will1 and1 provided that he carefully avoid any roughness which can be construed into legal cruelty1 he is perfectly safe from any suit for dissolution of marriage4 ,adultery alone1 when committed by the husband1 is not ground for a dissolution of marriage2 it must be coupled with some additional offence before the wife can obtain her freedom4 ,but the husband can obtain a dissolution of marriage for adultery committed by the wife1 and he can further obtain money damages from the co-respondent1 as a solatium to his wounded feelings4 ,divorce should be absolutely equal as between husband and wife3 adultery on either side should be sufficient1 and if it be thought necessary to join a male co-respondent when the husband is the injured party1 then it should also be necessary to join a female co-respondent where the wife brings the suit4 ,the principle1 then1 which should be laid down as governing all cases of divorce1 is that no difference should be made in favour of either side2 whatever is sufficient to break the marriage in the one case should be sufficient to break it in the other4 ,next1 the system of judicial separation should be entirely swept away4 ,wherever divorce is granted at all1 the divorce should be absolute4 ,no useful end is gained by divorcing people practically and regarding them as married legally4 ,a technical tie is kept up1 which retains on the wife the mass of disabilities which flow from marriage1 while depriving her of all the privileges1 and which widows both man and woman1 exiling them from home-life and debarring them from love4 ,judicial separation is a direct incentive to licentiousness and secret sexual intercourse2 the partially divorced husband1 refused any recognised companion1 either indulges in promiscuous lust1 to the ruin of his body and mind1 or privately lives with some woman whom the law forbids him to marry and whom he is ashamed to openly acknowledge4 ,meanwhile the semi-divorced wife can obtain no relief1 and is compelled to live on1 without the freedom of the spinster or the widow1 or the social consideration of the married woman4 ,she can only obtain freedom by committing what the law and society brand as adultery2 if she has any scruples on this head1 she must remain alone1 unloved and without home1 living a sad1 solitary life until death1 more merciful than the law1 sets her free4 ,it is hard to see what object there can be in separating a married couple1 in breaking up the home1 dividing the children1 and yet maintaining the fact of marriage just so far as shall prevent the separated couple from forming new ties2 the position of those who regard divorce as altogether sinful1 is intelligible1 however mistaken2 but the position of those who advocate divorce1 but object to the divorced couple having the right of contracting a new marriage1 is wholly incomprehensible4 ,no one profits by such divorce1 while the separated couple are left in a dubious and most unsatisfactory condition2 they are neither married nor unmarried2 they can never shake themselves free from the links of the broken chain2 they carry about with them the perpetual mark of their misfortune1 and can never escape from the blunder committed in their youth4 ,they would be the happier1 and society would be the healthier1 if the divorce of life and of interests were also a divorce which should set them free to seek happiness1 if they will1 in other unions--free technically as well as really1 free in law as well as in fact4 ,if it be admitted that all divorce should be absolute1 the question arises3 ,what should be the ground of divorce8 ,first1 adultery1 because breach of faith on either side should void the contract which implies loyalty to each other2 the legal costs of both should fall on the breaker of the contract1 but no damages should be recoverable against a third party4 ,next1 cruelty1 because where the weaker party suffers from the abuse of power of the stronger1 there the law should1 when appealed to1 step in to annul the contract1 which is thus a source of injury to one of the contracting parties2 if a man be brought up before the magistrate charged with wife-beating or violence of any kind towards his wife1 and be convicted and sentenced1 the ,divorce ,court should1 on the demand of the wife1 the record being submitted to it1 pronounce a sentence of divorce2 in the rare case of violence committed by a wife on her husband1 the same result should accrue2 the custody of the children should be awarded to the innocent party1 since neither a man nor a woman convicted of doing bodily harm to another is fit to be trusted with the guardianship of a child4 99 ,the next distinct ground of divorce should be habitual drunkenness2 drunkenness causes misery to the sober partner1 and is ruinous in its effect1 both on the physique and on the character of the children proceeding from the marriage4 ,here1 of course1 the custody of the children should be committed entirely to the innocent parent4 99 ,since these lines were published in the ,national ,reformer1 a clause has been inserted in a bill now before ,parliament1 empowering magistrates to grant an order of separation to a wife8 if it is proved that she has been cruelly ill-used by her husband1 and further compelling the husband1 in such a case1 to contribute a weekly sum towards her maintenance4 ,this will be a great improvement on the present state of things1 but absolute divorce would be better than mere separation4 ,at present1 the usual unfairness presides over the arrangements as to access to the children by the parents3 ,in the case of a mother who is proved guilty of adultery1 she is usually debarred from such access1 though it has not been the practice to treat the offending father with the same rigour 7,broom's ,comm41 vol4 iii41 p4 #djd74 ,in all cases of divorce the interests of the children should be carefully guarded2 both parents should be compelled to contribute to their support1 whether the guardianship be confided to the father or to the mother4 ,these glaring reasons for granting a divorce will be admitted by everyone who recognises the reasonableness of divorce at all1 but there will be more diversity of opinion as to the advisability of making divorce far more easily attainable4 ,the ,french ,convention of #agib set an example that has been only too little followed2 for the first time in ,french history divorce was legalised in ,france4 ,it was obtainable on the application of either party to the marriage alleging simply as a cause1 incompatibility of humour or character4 ,the female children were to be entirely confided to the care of the mother1 as well as the males1 to the age of seven years1 when the latter were again to be re-committed to the superintendence of the father2 provided only1 that by mutual agreement any other arrangement might take place with respect to the disposal of the children2 or arbitrators might be chosen by the nearest of kin to determine on the subject4 ,the parents were to contribute equally to the maintenance of the children1 in proportion to their property1 whether under the care of the father or mother4 ,family arbitrators were to be chosen to direct with respect to the partition of the property1 or the alimentary pension to be allowed to the party divorced4 ,neither of the parties could contract a new marriage for the space of one year 7,impartial ,history of the ,late ,revolution1 vol4 ii41 pp4 #agi1 #ahj74 ,this beneficial law was swept away1 with many other useful changes1 when tyranny came back to ,france4 ,at the present time the only countries where divorce is easily obtainable are some of the states of ,germany and of ,america4 ,it has been held in at least one ,american state that proved incompatibility of temper was sufficient ground for separation4 ,and reasonably so2 if two people enter into a contract for their mutual comfort and advantage1 and the contract issues in mutual misery and loss1 why should not the contract be dissolved8 ,it is urged that marriage would be dishonoured if divorce were easily attainable2 surely marriage is far more dishonoured by making it a chain to tie together two people who have for each other neither affection nor respect4 ,for the sake of everyone concerned an unhappy marriage should be easily dissoluble2 the married couple would be the happier and the better for the separation2 their children--if they have any--would be saved from the evil effect of continual family jars1 and from the loss of respect for their parents caused by the spectacle of constant bickering2 the household would be spared the evil example of the quarrels of its heads2 society would see less vice and fewer scandalous divorce suits4 ,in all cases of contract1 save that of marriage1 those who make can1 by mutual consent1 unmake2 why should those who make the most important contract of all be deprived of the same right8 ,mr4 ,john ,stuart ,mill1 dealing very briefly with the marriage contract in his essay ,on ,liberty1 points out that the fulfilment of obligations incurred by marriage must not be forgotten when the contract is dissolved1 since these must be greatly affected by the continuance or disruption of the relation between the original parties to the contract4 ,but he goes on to say3 ,it does not follow1 nor can ,i admit1 that these obligations extend to requiring the fulfilment of the contract at all costs to the happiness of the reluctant party2 but they are a necessary element in the question2 and even if1 as ,von ,humboldt maintains1 they ought to make no difference in the legal freedom of the parties to release themselves from the engagement 7and ,i also hold that they ought not to make much difference71 they necessarily make a great difference in the moral freedom4 ,a person is bound to take all these circumstances into account before resolving on a step which may affect such important interests of others2 and if he does not allow proper weight to those interests1 he is morally responsible for the wrong4 ,i have made these obvious remarks for the better illustration of the general principle of liberty1 and not because they are at all needed on the particular question1 which1 on the contrary1 is usually discussed as if the interest of children was everything1 and that of grown persons nothing 7p4 #fa74 ,the essay of ,von ,humboldt1 referred to by ,mr4 ,mill1 is that on the ,sphere and ,duties of ,government2 ,von ,humboldt argues that even where there is nothing to be objected to the validity of a contract1 the ,state should have the power of lessening the restrictions which men impose on one another1 even with their own consent1 and by facilitating the release from such engagements of preventing a moment's decision from hindering their freedom of action for too long a period of life 7p4 #acd1 of ,coulthard's translation74 ,after pointing out that contracts relating to the transfer of things should be binding1 ,von ,humboldt proceeds3 ,with contracts which render personal performance a duty1 or still more with those which produce proper personal relations1 the case is wholly different4 ,with these coercion operates hurtfully on man's noblest powers2 and since the success of the pursuit itself which is to be conducted in accordance with the contract1 is more or less dependent on the continuing consent of the parties1 a limitation of such a kind is in them productive of less serious injury4 ,when1 therefore1 such a personal relation arises from the contract as not only to require certain single actions1 but1 in the strictest sense1 to affect the person1 and influence the whole manner of his existence2 where that which is done1 or left undone1 is in the closest dependence on internal sensations1 the option of separation should always remain open1 and the step itself should not require any extenuating reasons4 ,thus it is with matrimony 7pp4 #acd-ace74 ,robert ,dale ,owen--the virtuous and justly revered author of ,moral ,physiology2 a man so respected in his adopted country1 the ,united ,states of ,america1 that he was elected as one of its senators1 and was appointed ,american ambassador at the ,court of ,naples--,robert ,dale ,owen1 in a letter to ,thomas ,whittemore1 editor of the ,boston ,trumpet1 ,may1 #ahca1 deals as follows with the contract of marriage3-- ,i do not think it virtuous or rational in a man and woman solemnly to swear that they will love and honour each other until death part them4 ,first1 because if affection or esteem on either side should afterwards cease 7as1 alas6 we often see it cease71 the person who took the marriage-oath has perjured himself2 secondly1 because ,i have observed that such an oath1 being substituted for the noble and elevating principle of moral obligation1 has a tendency to weaken that principle4 ,you will probably ask me whether ,i should equally object to a solemn promise to live together during life whatever happens4 ,i do not think this equally objectionable1 because it is an explicit promise possible to be kept2 whereas the oath to love until death1 may become impossible of fulfilment4 ,but still ,i do not approve even this possible promise2 and ,i will give you the reasons why ,i do not4 ,that a man and woman should occupy the same house1 and daily enjoy each other's society1 so long as such an association gives birth to virtuous feelings1 to kindness1 to mutual forbearance1 to courtesy1 to disinterested affection1 ,i consider right and proper4 ,that they should continue to inhabit the same house and to meet daily1 in case such intercourse should give birth to vicious feelings1 to dislike1 to ill temper1 to scolding1 to a carelessness of each other's comfort and a want of respect for each other's feelings1--this ,i consider1 when the two individuals alone are concerned1 neither right nor proper2 neither conducive to good order nor to virtue4 ,i do not think it well1 therefore1 to promise1 at all hazards1 to live together for life4 ,such a view may be offensive to orthodoxy1 but surely1 surely it is approved by common sense4 ,ask yourself1 sir1 who is--who can be the gainer--the man1 the woman1 or society at large--by two persons living in discord rather than parting in peace1 as ,abram and ,lot did when their herdsmen could not agree4 ,we have temptations enough already to ill humour in the world1 without expressly creating them for ourselves2 and of all temptations to that worst of petty vices1 domestic bickering1 can we suppose one more strong or more continually active than a forced association in which the heart has no share8 ,do not the interests of virtue and good order1 then1 imperiously demand 7as the immortal author of ',paradise ,lost' argued1 in his celebrated work ',on ,divorce1'7 that the law should abstain from perpetuating any association1 after it has become a daily source of vice8 ,if children's welfare is concerned1 and that they will be injured by a separation1 the case is different4 ,those who impart existence to sentient beings are1 in my view1 responsible to them for as much happiness as it is in their power to bestow4 ,the parent voluntarily assumes this greatest of responsibilities2 and he who1 having so assumed it1 trifles with his child's best interests for his own selfish gratification1 is1 in my eyes1 utterly devoid of moral principle2 or1 at the least1 utterly blind to the most sacred duty which a human being can be called to perform4 ,if1 therefore1 the well-being and future prosperity of the children are to be sacrificed by a separation of the parents1 then ,i would positively object to the separation1 however grievous the evil effects of a continued connection might be to the dissentient couple4 ,whether the welfare of children is ever promoted by the continuation of an ill-assorted union1 is another question2 as also in what way they ought to be provided for1 where a separation actually takes place4 ,but to regard1 for the moment1 the case of the adults alone4 ,you will remark1 that it is no question for us to determine whether it is better or more proper that affection1 once conceived1 should last through life4 ,we might as well sit down to decree whether the sun should shine or be hid under a cloud1 or whether the wind should blow a storm or a gentle breeze4 ,we may rejoice when it does so last1 and grieve when it does not2 but as to legislating about the matter1 it is the idlest of absurdities4 ,but we can determine by law the matter of living together4 ,we may compel a man and woman1 though they hate each other as cordially as any of ,byron's heroes1 to have one common name1 one common interest1 and 7nominally7 one common bed and board4 ,we may invest them with the legal appearance of the closest friends while they are the bitterest enemies4 ,it seems to me that mankind have seldom considered what are the actual advantages of such a proceeding to the individuals and to society4 ,i confess that ,i do not see what is gained in so unfortunate a situation1 by keeping up the appearance when the reality is gone4 ,i do see the necessity1 in such a case1 if the man and woman separate1 of dividing what property they may possess equally between them2 and 7while the present monopoly of profitable occupations by men lasts7 ,i also see the expediency1 in case the property so divided be not sufficient for the woman's comfortable support1 of causing the man to continue to contribute a fair proportion of his earnings towards it4 ,i also see the impropriety1 as ,i said before1 that the children1 if any there be1 should suffer4 ,but ,i cannot see who is the gainer by obliging two persons to continue in each other's society1 when heart-burnings1 bickerings1 and other vicious results1 are to be the consequence4 ,there are cases when affection ceases on one side and remains on the other4 ,no one can deny that this is an evil1 often a grievous one2 but ,i cannot perceive how the law can remedy it1 or soften its bitterness1 any more than it can legislate away the pain caused by unreturned friendship between persons of the same sex4 ,you will ask me1 perhaps1 whether ,i do not believe that1 but for the law1 there would be a continual and selfish change indulged1 without regard to the feelings or welfare of others4 ,what there might be in the world1 viciously trained and circumstanced as so many human beings now are1 ,i know not1 though ,i doubt whether things could be much worse than they are now2 besides that no human power can legislate for the heart4 ,but if men and women were trained 7as they so easily might67 to be even decently regardful of each other's feelings1 may we not assert positively1 that no such result could1 possibly happen8 ,let me ask each one of your readers1 and let each answer to his or her own heart3 ',are you indeed bound to those you profess to love and honour by the law alone8 ,alas6 for your chance of happiness1 if the answer be ',yes6' ,the fact is1 as ,mr4 ,owen justly says1 that a promise to love444 until death us do part is an immoral promise1 because its performance is beyond the power of those who give the promise4 ,to love1 or not to love1 is not a matter of the will2 ,love in chains loses his life1 and only leaves a corpse in his captive's hand4 ,love is1 of its very nature1 voluntary1 freely given1 drawing together by an irresistible sympathy those whose natures are adapted to each other4 ,shelley well says1 in one of the notes on ,queen ,mab3 ,love is inevitably consequent on the perception of loveliness4 ,love withers under constraint2 its very essence is liberty2 it is compatible neither with obedience1 jealousy1 nor fear2 it is there most pure1 perfect and unlimited1 where its votaries live in confidence1 equality1 and unreserve4 ,to say this1 is not to say that higher duty may not come between the lovers1 may not1 for a time1 keep them apart1 may not even render their union impossible2 it is only to recognize a fact that no thoughtful person can deny1 and to show how utterly wrong and foolish it is to promise for life1 that which can never be controlled by the will4 ,but marriage1 it is said1 would be too lightly entered into if it were so easily dissoluble4 ,why8 ,people do not rush into endless partnerships because they are dissoluble at pleasure2 on the contrary1 such partnerships last just so long as they are beneficial to the contracting parties4 ,in the same way1 marriage would last exactly so long as its continuance was beneficial1 and no longer3 when it became hurtful1 it would be dissolved4 ,how long then1 asks ,shelley1 ought the sexual connection to last8 what law ought to specify the extent of the grievances which should limit its duration8 ,a husband and wife ought to continue so long united as they love each other2 any law which should bind them to cohabitation for one moment after the decay of their affection1 would be a most intolerable tyranny1 and the most unworthy of toleration4 ,how odious a usurpation of the right of private judgment should that law be considered which should make the ties of friendship indissoluble1 in spite of the caprices1 the inconstancy1 the fallibility and capacity for improvement of the human mind4 ,and by so much would the fetters of love be heavier and more unendurable than those of friendship1 as love is more vehement and capricious1 more dependent on those delicate peculiarities of imagination1 and less capable of reduction to the ostensible merits of the object4444 ,the connection of the sexes is so long sacred as it contributes to the comfort of the parties1 and is naturally dissolved when its evils are greater than its benefits4 ,there is nothing immoral in this separation 7,notes on ,queen ,mab74 ,in spite of this facility of divorce1 marriage would be the most enduring of all partnerships2 not only is there between married couples the tie of sexual affection1 but around them grows up a hedge of common thoughts1 common interests1 common memories1 that1 as years go on1 makes the idea of separation more and more repulsive4 ,it would only be where the distaste had grown strong enough to break through all these1 that divorce would take place1 and in such cases the misery of the enforced common life would be removed without harm to any one4 ,of course1 this facility of divorce will entirely sweep away those odious suits for restitution of conjugal rights which occasionally disgrace our courts4 ,if a husband and wife are living apart1 without legal sanction1 it is now open to either of them to bring a suit for restitution of conjugal rights4 ,the decree of restitution pronounces for the marriage1 admonishes the respondent to take the petitioner home and treat him or her as husband or wife1 and to render him or her conjugal rights2 and1 further1 to certify to the court1 within a certain time1 that he or she had done so2 in default of which1 an attachment for contempt of court will be issued against the offending party 7,broom's ,comm41 vol4 iii41 p4 #djj74 ,it is difficult to understand how any man or woman1 endued with the most rudimentary sense of decency1 can bring such a suit1 and1 after having succeeded1 can enforce the decision4 ,we may hope that1 as sexual morality becomes more generally recognised1 it will be seen that the essence of prostitution lies in the union of the sexes without mutual love2 when a woman marries for rank1 for title1 for wealth1 she sells herself as veritably as her poorer and more unfortunate sister2 love alone makes the true marriage1 love which is loyal to the beloved1 and is swayed by no baser motive than passionate devotion to its object4 ,when no such love exists the union which is marriage by law is nothing higher than legalised prostitution3 the enforcement on an unwilling man or woman of conjugal rights is something even still lower1 it is legalised rape4 ,it may be hoped that when divorce is more easily obtainable1 the majority of marriages will be far happier than they are now4 ,half the unhappiness of married life arises from the too great feeling of security which grows out of the indissoluble character of the tie4 ,the husband is very different from the lover2 the wife from the betrothed2 the ready attention1 the desire to please1 the eager courtesy1 which characterised the lover disappear when possession has become certain2 the daintiness1 the gaiety1 the attractiveness which marked the betrothed1 are no longer to be seen in the wife whose position is secure2 in society a lover may be known by his attention to his betrothed1 a husband by his indifference to his wife4 ,if divorce were the result of jarring at home1 married life would very rapidly change2 hard words1 harshness1 petulance1 would be checked where those who had won the love desired to keep it1 and attractiveness would no longer be dropped on the threshold of the home4 ,here1 too1 ,shelley's words are well worth weighing3 ,the present system of restraint does no more1 in the majority of instances1 than make hypocrites or open enemies4 ,persons of delicacy and virtue1 unhappily united to those whom they find it impossible to love1 spend the loveliest season of their life in unproductive efforts to appear otherwise than they are1 for the sake of the feelings of their partner1 or the welfare of their mutual offspring2 those of less generosity and refinement openly avow their disappointment1 and linger out the remnant of that union1 which only death can dissolve1 in a state of incurable bickering and hostility4 ,the early education of the children takes its colour from the squabbles of the parents2 they are nursed in a systematic school of ill-humour1 violence and falsehood4 ,had they been suffered to part at the moment when indifference rendered their union irksome1 they would have been spared many years of misery3 they would have connected themselves more suitably1 and would have found that happiness in the society of more congenial partners which is for ever denied them by the despotism of marriage4 ,they would have been separately useful and happy members of society1 who1 whilst united1 were miserable1 and rendered misanthropical by misery4 ,the conviction that wedlock is indissoluble1 holds out the strongest of all temptations to the perverse2 they indulge without restraint in acrimony1 and all the little tyrannies of domestic life1 when they know that their victim is without appeal4 ,if this conviction were put on a rational basis1 each would be assured that habitual ill-temper would terminate in separation1 and would check this vicious and dangerous propensity 7,notes on ,queen ,mab74 ,to those who had thought over the subject carefully1 it was no surprise to hear ,mr4 ,moncure ,conway say--in a debate on marriage at the ,dialectical ,society--that in ,illinois1 ,u4,s4,a41 where there is great facility of divorce1 the marriages were exceptionally happy4 ,the reason was not far to seek4 ,dealing elsewhere with this same injurious effect of overcertainty on the relations of married people to each other1 ,mr4 ,moncure ,conway writes as follows3--,in ,england we smilingly walk our halls of ,eblis1 covering the fatal wound2 but our neighbours across the ,channel are frank4 ,their moralists cannot blot out the proverb that ',marriage is the suicide of love4' ,is it any truer here than there that1 as a general thing1 the courtesies of the courtship survive in the marriage8 ',who is that domino walking with ,george8' asks ,grisette ,no4 #a1 as1 reported by ,charivari4 ',why1' returns ,grisette ,no4 #b1 'do you not walk behind them1 and listen to what they say8' ',i have done so1 and they do not say a word4' ',ah1 it is his wife4' ,but what might be ,george's feeling if he knew his wife might leave him some morning8 ',if conserve of roses be frequently eaten4' they say in ,persia1 'it will produce a surfeit4' ,the thousands of husbands and wives yawning in each other's faces at this moment need not go so far for their proverb4 ,if it be well1 as it seems to me to be1 that this most intimate relation between man and woman should be made as durable as the object for which it is formed will admit1 surely the bond should be real to the last1 a bond of kindliness1 thoughtfulness1 actual helpfulness4 ,so long as the strength of the bond lies simply in the disagreeable concomitants of breaking it1 so long as it is protected by the very iron hardness which makes it gall and oppress1 what need is there of the reinforcement of it by the cultivation of minds1 the preservation of good temper1 and considerate behaviour8 ,love is not quite willing to accept the judge's mace for his arrow4 ,when the law no longer supplies husband or wife with a cage1 each must look to find and make available what resources he or she has for holding what has been won4 ,we may then look for sober second thoughts both before and after marriage4 ,love1 from so long having bandaged eyes1 will be all eye4 ,every real attraction will be stimulated when all depends upon real attraction4 ,when the conserve becomes fatiguing1 it will be refreshed by a new flavour1 not by a certificate4 ,from the hour when a thought of obligation influences either party to it1 the marriage becomes a prostitution4 7,the ,earthward ,pilgrimage1 pp4 #bhi1 #bij1 #bia74 ,a remarkable instance of the permanence of unions dissoluble at pleasure is to be found related by ,robert ,dale ,owen1 in an article entitled ,marriage and ,placement1 which appeared in the ,free ,inquirer of ,may #bh1 #ahca4 ,it deals with the unions between the sexes in the ,haytian ,republic1 and the facts therein related are well worthy of serious attention4 ,mr4 ,owen writes3-- ,legal marriage is common in ,st4 ,domingo as elsewhere4 ,prostitution1 too1 exists there as in other countries4 ,but this institution of placement is found nowhere1 that ,i know of1 but among the ,haytians4 ,those who choose to marry1 are united1 as in other countries1 by a priest or magistrate4 ,those who do not choose to marry1 and who equally shrink from the mercenary embrace of prostitution1 are 7in the phraseology of the island7 placs3 that is1 literally translated1 placed4 ,the difference between placement and marriage is1 that the former is entered into without any prescribed form1 the latter with the usual ceremonies3 the former is dissoluble at a day's warning1 the latter is indissoluble except by the vexatious and degrading formalities of divorce2 the former is a tacit social compact1 the latter a legal compulsory one2 in the former the woman gives up her name and her property2 in the latter1 she retains both4 ,marriage and placement are1 in ,hayti1 equally respectable1 or1 if there be a difference1 it is in favour of placement2 and in effect ten placements take place in the island for one marriage4 ,ption1 the ,jefferson of ,hayti1 99 sanctioned the custom by his approval and example4 ,boyer1 his successor1 the president1 did the same2 9999 and by far the largest portion of the respectable inhabitants have imitated their presidents1 and are placed1 not married4 ,the children of the placed have1 in every particular1 the same legal rights and the same standing as those born in wedlock4 99 ,it may suffice1 in illustration of ,ption's character1 to quote the touching inscription found on his tomb--',here lies ,ption1 who enjoyed for twelve years absolute power1 and during that period never caused one tear to flow4' 9999 ,boyer's resolution in this matter is the more remarkable1 as he has been urged and pestered to submit to the forms of marriage4 ,grgoire1 archbishop of ,blois1 and who is well known for the perseverance and benevolence with which he has1 for a long series of years1 advocated the cause of the ,african race1 wrote to the president of ,hayti in the most urgent terms1 pressing upon him the virtue--the necessity1 for his salvation--of conforming to the sacrament of marriage4 ,to such a degree did the good old archbishop carry his intermeddling officiousness1 that when ,boyer mildly but firmly declined availing himself of his grace's advice1 a rupture was the consequence1 greatly to the sorrow of the president1 who had ever entertained the greatest respect and affection for his ecclesiastical friend4 ,i imagine ,i hear from the clerical supporters of orthodoxy one general burst of indignation at this sample of national profligacy2 at this contemning of the laws of ,god and man2 at this escape from the ,church's ceremonies and the ecclesiastical blessing4 ,i imagine ,i hear the question sneeringly put1 how long these same respectable connections commonly last1 and how many dozen times they are changed in the course of a year4 ,gently1 my reverend friends6 it is natural you should find it wrong that men and women dispense with your services and curtail your fees in this matter4 ,but it is neither just nor proper1 that because no prayers are said1 and no fees paid1 you should denounce the custom as a profligate one4 ,learn 7as ,i did the other day from an intelligent ,french gentleman who had remained some time on the island7--learn1 that although there are ten times as many placed as married1 yet there are actually fewer separations among the former than divorces among the latter4 ,if constancy1 then1 is to be the criterion of morality1 these same profligate unions--that is1 unions unprayed-for by the priest and unpaid for to him--are ten times as moral as the religion-sanctioned institution of marriage4 ,but this is not all4 ,it is a fact notorious in ,hayti1 that libertinism is far more common among the married than among the placed4 ,the explanatory cause is easily found4 ,a placement secures to the consenting couple no legal right over one another4 ,they remain together1 as it were1 on good behaviour4 ,not only positive tyranny or downright viragoism1 but petulant peevishness or selfish ill humour1 are sufficient causes of separation4 ,as such1 they are avoided with sedulous care4 ,the natural consequence is1 that the unions are usually happy1 and that each being comfortable at home1 is not on the search for excitement abroad4 ,in indissoluble marriage1 on the contrary1 if the parties should happen to disagree1 their first jarrings are unchecked by considerations of consequences4 ,a husband may be as tyrannical as to him seems good2 he remains a lord and master still2 a wife may be as pettish as she pleases2 she does not thereby forfeit the rights and privileges of a wife4 ,thus1 ill humour is encouraged by being legalized1 and the natural results ensue1 alienation of the heart1 and sundering of the affections4 ,the wife seeks relief in fashionable dissipation2 the husband1 perhaps1 in the brutalities of a brothel4 ,but1 aside from all explanatory theories1 the fact is1 as ,i have stated it1 viz43 that 7taking the proportion of each into account7 there are ten legal separations of the married1 for one voluntary separation of the placed4 ,if anyone doubts it1 let him inquire for himself1 and he will doubt no longer4 ,what say you to that fact1 my reverend friends8 ,how consorts it with your favourite theory1 that man is a profligate animal1 a desperately wicked creature8 that1 but for your prayers and blessings1 the earth would be a scene of licentiousness and excess8 that human beings remain together1 only because you have helped to tie them8 that there is no medium between priestly marriage and unseemly prostitution8 ,does this fact open your eyes a little on the real state of things to which we heterodox spirits venture to look forward8 ,does it assist in explaining to you how it is that we are so much more willing than you to entrust the most sacred duties to moral rather than legal keeping8 ,you cannot imagine that a man and a woman1 finding themselves suited to each other1 should agree1 without your interference1 to become companions2 that he should remove to her plantation1 or she to his1 as they found it most convenient2 that the connection should become known to their friends without the agency of banns1 and be respected1 even though not ostentatiously announced in a newspaper4 ,yet all this happens in ,hayti1 without any breach of propriety1 without any increase of vice2 but1 on the contrary1 much to the benefit of morality1 and the discouragement of prostitution4 ,it happens among the white as well as the coloured population2 and the president of the country gives it his sanction1 in his own person4 ,do you still ask me--accustomed as you are to consider virtue the offspring of restrictions--do you still ask me1 what the checks are that produce and preserve such a state of things8 ,i reply1 good feeling and public opinion4 ,continual change is held to be disreputable2 where sincere and well-founded affection exists1 it is not desired2 and as there is no pecuniary inducement in forming a placement1 these voluntary unions are seldom ill-assorted4 ,where social anarchy is feared1 facts like these are worth pages of argument4 ,if the ,haytians are civilised enough for this more moral kind of marriage1 why should ,europeans be on a lower level8 ,for it should not be forgotten that the experiment was tried in ,st4 ,domingo under great disadvantages1 and these unlegalised unions have yet proved more permanent than those tied with all due formality and tightness4 ,it may be urged3 if divorce is to be so easily attainable1 why should there be a marriage contract at all8 ,both as regards the pair immediately concerned1 and as regards the children who may result from the union1 a clear and definite contract seems to me to be eminently desirable4 ,it is not to be wished that the union of those on whom depends the next generation should be carelessly and lightly entered into2 the dignity and self-recollection which a definite compact implies are by no means to be despised1 when it is remembered how grave and weighty are the responsibilities assumed by those who are to give to the ,state new citizens1 and to ,humanity new lives1 which must be either a blessing or a curse4 ,but the dignity of such a course is not its only1 nor1 indeed1 its main1 recommendation4 ,more important is the absolute necessity that the conditions of the union of the two adult lives should be clearly and thoroughly understood between them4 ,no wise people enter into engagements of an important and durable character without a written agreement2 a definite contract excludes all chance of disagreement as to the arrangements made1 and prevents misunderstandings from arising4 ,a verbal contract may be misunderstood by either party2 lapse of time may bring about partial forgetfulness2 slight disagreements may result in grave quarrels4 ,if the contract be a written one1 it speaks for itself1 and no doubt can arise which cannot be reasonably settled4 ,all this is readily seen where ordinary business partnerships are concerned1 but some--unconsciously rebounding from the present immoral system1 and plunging into the opposite extreme--consider that the union in marriage of man and woman is too tender and sacred a thing to be thus dealt with as from a business point of view4 ,but it must be remembered that while love is essential to true and holy marriage1 marriage implies more than love2 it implies also a number of new relations to the outside world which--while men and women live in the world--cannot be wholly disregarded4 ,questions of house1 of money1 of credit1 c41 necessarily arise in connection with the dual home1 and these cannot be ignored by sensible men and women4 ,the contract does not touch with rude hands the sensitive plant of love2 it concerns itself only with the garden in which the plant grows1 and two people can no more live on love alone than a plant can grow without earth around its roots4 ,a contract which removes occasions of disagreement in business matters shelters and protects the love from receiving many a rude shock4 ,society will ere long1 said ,mr4 ,conway1 be glad enough to assimilate contracts between man and woman to contracts between partners in business4 ,then love will dispense alike with the bandage on its eyes and the constable's aid4 ,some pre-nuptial arrangement seems necessary which shall decide as to the right of inheritance of the survivor of the married pair4 ,as common property will grow up during the union1 such property should pass to the survivor and the children1 and until some law be made which shall prevent parents from alienating from their children the whole of their property1 a provision guarding their inheritance should find its place in the proposed deed4 ,a definite marriage contract is also desirable for the sake of the children who may proceed from the union4 ,society has a right to demand from those who bring new members into it1 some contract which shall enable it to compel them to discharge their responsibilities1 if they endeavour to avoid them4 ,if all men and women were perfect1 no contract would be necessary1 any more than it would be necessary to have laws against murder and theft2 but while men and women are as they are1 some compulsive power against evil-doers must be held in reserve by the law4 ,society is bound to guard the interests of the helpless children1 and this can only be done by a clear and definite arrangement which makes both father and mother responsible for the lives they have brought into existence1 and which shows the parentage in a fashion which could go into a law-court should any dispute arise4 ,again1 if there were no contract1 in whom would the guardianship of the children be vested1 in case of wrongdoing of either parent1 of death1 or of separation8 ,suppose a brutal father3 his wife leaves him and takes the children with her2 how is she to keep them if he claims and takes them8 ,if she has the legal remedy of divorce1 the ,court awards her the guardianship and she is safe from molestation4 ,if a wife elope1 taking the children with her1 is the father to have no right to the guardianship of his sons and daughters1 but to remain passive while they pass under the authority of another man8 ,application for divorce would guard him from such a wrong4 ,if the parents separate1 and both desire to have the children1 how can such contest be decided1 save by appeal to an impartial law8 ,marriage1 as before urged1 is a partnership1 and where common duties1 common interests1 and common responsibilities grow up1 there it is necessary that either party shall have some legal means of redress in case of the wrongdoing of the other4 ,to those who1 on the other hand1 object to facility of divorce being granted at all1 it may fairly be asked that they should not forget that to place divorce within the reach of people1 is not the same as compelling them to submit to it4 ,those who prefer to regard marriage as indissoluble could as readily maintain the indissolubility of their own wedded tie under a law which permitted divorce1 as they can do at the present time4 ,but those who think otherwise1 and are unhappy in their marriages1 would then be able to set themselves free4 ,no happy marriage would be affected by the change1 for the attainability of divorce would only be welcomed by those whose marriage was a source of misery and of discord2 the contented would be no less content1 while the unhappy would be relieved of their unhappiness2 thus the change would injure no one1 while it would benefit many4 ,it is a pity that there is no way of obtaining the general feminine view of the subject of marriage and divorce2 women who study1 who form independent opinions are--so far as my experience goes--unanimous in their desire to see the ,english laws altered2 advanced thinkers of both sexes are generally1 one might say universally1 in favour of change4 ,to those who think that women1 if polled to-morrow1 would vote for a continuance of the present state of things1 may be recommended the following passage from ,mrs4 ,mill3 ,women1 it is said1 do not desire1 do not seek what is called their emancipation4 ,on the contrary1 they generally disown such claims when made in their behalf1 and fall with acharnement upon any one of themselves who identifies herself with their common cause4 ,supposing the fact to be true in the fullest extent ever asserted1 if it proves that ,european women ought to remain as they are1 it proves exactly the same with respect to ,asiatic women2 for they too1 instead of murmuring at their seclusion1 and at the restraint imposed upon them1 pride themselves on it1 and are astonished at the effrontery of women who receive visits from male acquaintances1 and are seen in the streets unveiled4 ,habits of submission make men as well as women servile-minded4 ,the vast population of ,asia do not desire or value1 probably would not accept1 political liberty1 nor the savages of the forest1 civilization2 which does not prove that either of those things is undesirable for them1 or that they will not1 at some future time1 enjoy it4 ,custom hardens human beings to any kind of degradation1 by deadening the part of their nature which would resist it4 ,and the case of women is1 in this respect1 even a peculiar one1 for no other inferior caste that we have heard of have been taught to regard their degradation as their honour4 ,mr4 ,conway considers that changed circumstances would rapidly cause women to be favourable to the proposed alteration3 ,am ,i told1 he remarks1 that woman dreads the easy divorce8 ,naturally1 for the prejudices and arrangements of society have not been adapted to the easy divorce4 ,let her know that1 under the changed sentiment which shall follow changed law1 she will meet with sympathy where now she would encounter suspicion2 let her know that she will1 if divorced from one she loves not1 have only her fair share of the burdens entailed by the original mistake2 and she who of all persons suffers most if the home be false will welcome the freer marriage 7,the ,earthward ,pilgrimage1 p4 #bhi74 ,both in theory and in practice advanced thinkers have claimed facility of divorce4 ,john ,milton1 in his essay on ,divorce1 complains that the misinterpreting of ,scripture444 hath changed the blessing of matrimony not seldom into a familiar and co-inhabiting mischiefe2 at least into a drooping and disconsolate household captivitie1 without refuge or redemption 7p4 #b71 and in his ,puritan fashion he remarks that because of this doubtles by the policy of the devill that gracious ordinance becomes insupportable1 so that men avoid it and plunge into debauchery4 ,arguing that marriage is not to be regarded merely as a legitimate kind of sexual intercourse1 but rather as a union of mind and feeling1 ,milton says3 ,that indisposition1 unfitness1 or contrariety of mind1 arising from a cause in nature unchangable1 hindring and ever likely to hinder the main benefits of conjugall society1 which are solace and peace1 is a greater reason of divorce than natural frigidity1 especially if there be no children1 and that there be mutual consent 7p4 #e74 ,luther1 before ,milton1 held the same liberal views4 ,mary ,wolstonecraft acted on the same theory in her own life1 and her daughter was united to the poet ,shelley while ,shelley's first wife was living1 no legal divorce having severed the original marriage4 ,richard ,carlile's second marriage was equally illegal4 ,in our own days the union of ,george ,henry ,lewes and ,george ,eliot has struck the key-note of the really moral marriage4 ,mary ,wolstonecraft was unhappy in her choice1 but in all the other cases the happiest results accrued4 ,it needs considerable assurance to brand these great names with immorality1 as all those must do who denounce as immoral unions which are at present illegal4 ,in the whole of the arguments put forward in the above pages there is not one word which is aimed at real marriage1 at the faithful and durable union of two individuals of opposite sexes--a union originated in and maintained by love alone4 ,rather1 to quote ,milton once more1 is reverence for marriage the root of the reform ,i urge3 he who thinks it better to part than to live sadly and injuriously to that cherfull covnant 7for not to be belov'd and yet retain'd1 is the greatest injury to a gentle spirit71 he ,i say who therefore seeks to part1 is one who highly honours the married life1 and would not stain it2 and the reasons which now move him to divorce1 are equal to the best of those that could first warrant him to marry 7p4 #aj74 ,in the advocacy of such views marriage is elevated1 not degraded2 no countenance is given to those who would fain destroy the idea of the durable union between one man and one woman4 ,monogamy appears to me to be the result of civilization1 of personal dignity1 of cultured feeling2 loyalty of one man to one woman is1 to me1 the highest sexual ideal4 ,the more civilized the nature the more durable and exclusive does the marriage union become2 in the lower ranges of animal life difference of sex is enough to excite passion3 there is no individuality of of choice4 ,among savages it is much the same3 it is the female1 not the woman1 who is loved1 although the savage rises higher than the lower brutes1 and is attracted by individual beauty4 ,the civilised man and woman need more than sex-difference and beauty of form2 they seek satisfaction for mind1 heart1 and tastes as well as for body2 each portion the complex nature requires its answer in its mate4 ,hence it arises that true marriage is exclusive1 and that prostitution is revolting to the noble of both sexes1 since in prostitution love is shorn of his fairest attributes1 and passion1 which is only his wings1 is made the sole representative of the divinity4 ,the fleeting connections supposed by some ,free ,love theorists are steps backward and not forward2 they offer no possibility of home1 no education of the character1 no guarantee for the training of the children4 ,the culture both of father and of mother1 of the two natures of which its own is the resultant1 is necessary to the healthy development of the child2 it cannot be deprived of either without injury to its full and perfect growth4 ,but just as true marriage is invaluable1 so is unreal marriage deteriorating in its effects on all concerned3 therefore1 where mistake has been made1 it is important to the gravest interests of society that such mistake should be readily remediable1 without injury to the character of either of those concerned in it4 ,freed from the union which injures both1 the man and woman may seek for their fit helpmeets1 and in happy marriages may become joyful servants of humanity1 worthy parents of the citizens of to-morrow4 ,men and women must know conjugal1 before they can know true parental1 love2 each must see in the child the features of the beloved ere the perfect circle of love can be complete4 ,husband and wife bound in closest1 most durable and yet most eager union1 children springing as flowers from the dual stem of love1 home where the creators train the lives they have given--such will be the marriage of the future4 ,the loathsome details of the ,divorce ,court will no longer pollute our papers2 the public will no longer be called in to gloat over the ruins of desecrated love2 society will be purified from sexual vice2 men and women will rise to the full royalty of their humanity1 and hand in hand tread life's pathways1 trustful instead of suspicious1 free instead of enslaved1 bound by love instead of by law4 ,printed by ,annie ,besant and ,charles ,bradlaugh1 #bh1 ,stone-cutter ,street1 ,london1 ,e4,c4