Part 2

Upon women of the labouring classes the difficulty of keeping and using their own earnings presses most hardly. In that rank of life where the support of the family depends often on the joint earnings of husband and wife, it is indeed cruel that the earnings of both should be in the hands of one, and not even in the hands of that one who has naturally the strongest desire to promote the welfare of the children.

All who are familiar with the working classes, know how much suffering and privation is caused by the exercise of this _right_ by drunken and bad men. It is true that men are legally bound to support their wives and children, but this does not compensate women for the loss of their moral right to their own property and earnings, nor for the loss of the mental development and independence of character gained by the possession and thoughtful appropriation of money; nor, it must be remembered, can the claim to support be enforced on the part of the wife unless she appeals to a court of law. Alas, how much will not a woman endure before she will publicly plead for a maintenance!

Why, we ask, should there be this difference between the married and unmarried condition of women? And why does marriage make so little legal difference to men, and such a mighty legal difference to women? In France it is somewhat more equal; women have a choice, and can marry under the _régime de communauté_, or _régime dotal_. We quote from the recent admirable report of the Law Amendment Society:--

‘1. _Régime de Communauté_ is either _légale_ or _contractuelle_. By the first, which is by operation of law without any contract, all the _moveable_ property of the man and woman, both at marriage or acquired during marriage (except specific legacies specially tied up), and the immoveable property acquired during marriage, form one mass called _communauté_, which is administered by the husband, and may be aliened by him during marriage, but cannot be bequeathed except as to his share; and at the dissolution of the marriage, a partition takes place between husband and wife or their representatives.

‘The wife’s immoveable property belongs to the wife alone, but the rents, and profits, and administration go to the husband.

‘The _communauté_, and therefore the husband, is answerable for all the debts (except those belonging to the real estate) of the wife, both before marriage, or contracted during the marriage. The wife can obtain a _séparation des biens_, that is, a division of the moveable property, and have the administration of her share committed to her, on application to a Court of Justice, if the husband is making away with the property.

‘By the _communauté conventionelle_, any provisions modifying the community of law may be introduced in the antenuptial marriage contract. The usual modification is to give the wife a lesser share than half, according to the amount of moveable property she brings into the common stock.

‘2. _Régime dotal._ Under this system the dowry is the sum brought to the husband to sustain the charges of the marriage, and is specified in the antenuptial contract. But the contract, like English marriage settlements, may introduce any provisions whatever.’

In Turkey, daughters succeed equally with sons in houses and landed property, and always take one-third of the personal property. A widow receives one-eighth of the personal property, and must be provided for during her life by the heirs. Women control their own inheritance when married; the husband has no power over the inherited portion of his wife or wives.

In Hungary, the common law, before 1849 (the German law is now introduced), made a broad distinction between _inherited_ and _acquired_ property, whether landed or personal. Whatever was inherited went to the heirs; it could not be subject to a will.

As to _acquired_ property, the law only interfered to give half to the wife; it was her absolute property, of which she might dispose in any way during life or by will. Among the nobility this law did not obtain. In cases where inherited property had been so left by the will of the first _acquisitor_ as to exclude the female sex, the brothers were obliged to give a handsome sum if they married to their sisters, and provide for them in a becoming way if they remained single.

The rights of a widow were great; she was guardian of children, administratrix of property, and, as long as she bore the name of her husband, she could exercise all the political rights of a man; she could vote in elections of county officers, and in those of the Deputies to the Diet.

Single females, according to the Hungarian law, were considered as minors, who became of age upon marriage, and by marriage came into full control of all their estates. They were not liable for the debts of their husbands; they were not even bound to provide for the domestic expenses, the care of providing for the house and the education of the children being incumbent on the husband. Wives could make wills and sign deeds without the consent of the husbands. If a wife died intestate, her property went to her children or collaterals.

In fact, a wife was not regarded in Hungary as a minor, her husband was not her guardian, nor were there trustees appointed for her property. ‘None of my countrywomen would ever have submitted to such a marriage settlement as is usual in England,’ said a Hungarian lady, well known for her genius and reputation. With the one exception of considering all unmarried women as minors, the Hungarian law was very much in advance of ours.

In America, the great states of New York, Pennsylvania, and in New England, California, Texas, and some of the newly settled States, a married woman is allowed, with modifications differing in different places, the same rights over property as if she were single.

What changes we find in the American laws are improvements upon ours. Is there not evidence in our English laws of old opinions relating to women which are passing away with the old state of things which engendered them? In the early times, when women were obliged by the violent state of society to be always under the guardianship of father, brother, or husband, these laws might be necessary; but in our peaceful times, such guardianship is proved to be superfluous by the fact of the secure, honourable, and independent position of single women, who are sufficiently protected by the sanctuary of civilisation.

Since all the unmarried women in England are supported either by their own exertions, or by the exertions or bequests of their fathers and relations, there is no reason why upon marriage they should be thrown upon the pecuniary resources of their husbands, except in so far as the claims of a third party--children--may lessen the wife’s power of earning money, at the same time that it increases her expenses. Of course a woman may, and often does, by acting as housekeeper and manager of her husband’s concerns, earn a maintenance and a right to share in his property, independent of any children which may come of the marriage. But it is evident that daughters ought to have some sure provision--either a means of gaining their own bread, or property--as it is most undesirable that they should look upon marriage as a means of livelihood.

Fathers seldom feel inclined to trust their daughters’ fortunes in the power of a husband, and, in the appointment of trustees, partially elude the law by a legal device. Also, the much abused Court of Chancery tries to palliate the Common Law, and recognises a separate interest between husband and wife, and allows the wife alone to file a bill to recover and protect her property, and trustees are not necessary if there has been an agreement.

Why should not these legal devices be done away with, by the simple abolition of a law which we have outgrown?

We do not say that these laws of property are the only unjust laws concerning women to be found in the short summary which we have given, but they form a simple, tangible, and not offensive point of attack.

Petitions have been presented to Parliament signed by upwards of 30,000 persons, praying for the alteration of this hard law. The Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law, has taken up this crying grievance, and has published a valuable ‘Report of the Personal Laws Committee on the Law relating to the Property of Unmarried Women.’ The following are the heads of the new law of property which the committee recommends:--

1. The Common Law rules which make marriage a gift of all the woman’s personal property to the husband to be repealed.

2. Power in married women to hold separate property by law as they now may in equity.

3. A woman marrying without any antenuptial contract, to retain her property and after acquisitions and earnings as if she were a _feme sole_.

4. A married woman, having separate property, to be liable on her separate contracts, whether made before or after marriage.

5. A husband not to be liable for the antenuptial debts of his wife any further than any property brought to him by his wife under settlement extends.

6. A married woman to have the power of making a will; and on her death intestate, the principles of the Statute of Distributions as to her husband’s personalty _mutatis mutandis_ to apply to the property of the wife.

7. The rights of succession between husband and wife, whether as to real or personal estate, to courtesy or dower, to be framed on principles of equal justice to each party.

We wish all, _women_ especially, to consider this proposed law, and if they think it is a just law, let them use every means in their power to help forward the measure. Let them express themselves either by meetings or in petitions, perhaps the last is the best means. Let no one person be content to wish simply for this change, but let him or her join with others and express their wishes.

Short petitions praying that the law proposed by the Law Amendment Society should be adopted by Parliament, sent in, in large numbers, would do much to gain this reform. It depends principally on the working classes whether this great injustice is to be overthrown or not. All the best thinkers of the day have decided that women are no longer to be considered as mere appendages of men, but as independent human beings, who have a right to the produce of the labour of their hands and to freedom, to work out their lives in their own way. Philanthropists and reformers have stepped forward and are willing to give a helping hand; and such men as Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Stanley, Sir Erskine Perry, and Matthew Davenport Hill, are strong hands to help any cause.

The thoughtful women of our day, those whose names adorn the age we live in, have expressed themselves. It only remains for the working women who earn money, to say--‘This law is a great injustice to us, we wish to have our own money earnings in our own power,’ and the law will be abolished.

REMARKS ON THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS, With reference to the social, legal, and industrial position of women at the present day. BY BESSIE RAYNER PARKES. SECOND EDITION, PRICE THREEPENCE.

JOHN WATTS, PRINTER, 147, FLEET STREET.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] With regard to the property of women, there is taxation without representation, for they pay taxes without having the liberty of voting for representatives, and indeed there seems at present no reason why single women should be denied this privilege.--_Note to Christian’s Blackstone._

[4] The Lawe’s Resolutions of Women’s Rights, A.D., 1632.

* * * * *

Transcriber’s note

Minor punctuation errors have been changed without notice.

Spelling was retained as in the original except for the following changes:

Page 4 (sidenote): “but her husbands” “but her husband’s”