THE CASH VALUE OF A WIFE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suit-We length is that oi one of our "News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference • over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In a divorce case at Birmingham Mr. Justice Swift is reported to have made to the jury the remarkable observation : "What does a man lose when a miserable woman goes off with someone else—nothing. No; I will not say nothing—a little." Later on he suggested the sum of half a crown.
The suggestion appears to be that, ipso facto, a wife who elopes with a paramour is a worthless woman, and either nothing or derisory compensation should suffice to compensate her husband for her loss. With the respect clue to a judge of the High Court, one may point out that, if Parliament had been of that view in 1857, and again in 1925 when re-enacting the original Matrimonial Causes Act, it would have omitted the provision that a husband can claim damages from an adulterer. The fact that Parliament has so provided casts a duty on judge or jury as the case may be to assess damages for the loss of a wife, although proved to be unfaithful. As a matter of common knowledge, the case of a faithful wife being seduced by some man in whose absence she would have remained a faithful wife is recurrent, and is one where the payment of damages may be regarded as a minimum penalty. In other times, and, even now in other climes, such an offender runs the risk of imprison ment on a criminal charge. TWo hUndred years ago he might have had to risk his life in a duel, but in this gentler age a cheque suffices—or is' deeined to suffice. For certain wealthy men who have broken up more than one happy home, it hardly appears adequate: Damages used to be assessed by juries exclusively, and they were bound by no precedents. After the Juries Act of 1918, however, judges also assessed them in certain cases, and Mr. Justice McCardie, than whom no judge has taken more pains with his cases, considered the principles on which they should act in doing so. The Act of 1857 explicitly referred to the procedure in the " crim. con. "cases, in which, before divorce was possible (except by private Act of Parliament), husbands could recover damages against men who committed adultery with their wives—in fact, the Commons required that a husband should have successfully brought such an action before they
would pass a divorce Bill. .
Enticing away or harbouring a wife were matters aggravating damages, but they were payable for the mere dishonour of adultery. A rich co-respondent must not necessarily be penalised, but his wealth and position are factors in assessment. Damages assessable in any such sum as half a crown could and can only be given when a woman is so worthless as wife and housekeeper that her husband should be relieved to be rid of her. As a possible example, if Dr. Crippen had divorced his wife instead of murdering her, her value to him, having regard to the infidelities of which she boasted, and her neglected housekeeping, might have been assessed on such a basis.—
I am, Sir, &c., ALFRED FELLOWS. 5. New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C. 2.
Previous page
