DHSS TAYLOR VERSUS THE PALL MALL GAZETTE ON MARRIAGE.
ISS HELEN TAYLOR has encountered the able jurist and In politician who has thrown so much force into our contem- porary the Pall Mall Gazette, not without credit to herself, and, on some points at least, not without defeat to that "physically and in- tellectually and morally superior being" with whom she has engaged. To the first position, indeed, of the Pall Mall writer on the gene- ral inferiority of women in physical, intellectual, and moral force, —say, of three married women out of every four, to the husbands they have chosen,—as proved by the fact that on all important points at issue men do in fact take the lead, Miss Taylor, we think, has not made any sufficient reply. She admits the physical inferiority, and asserts that this alone would, in the absence of any moral scruple in men's consciences, turn the balance against women, if they were in other respects the equals of men ; in other words, she hints that physical inferiority is a sufficient explanation of the actually inferior privileges of women, without assuming their inferiority in intellectual and moral force. To this the Pall Mall rejoins that little men, who are, as a class, physically inferior to their fellows, do not suffer on that account, because, being morally and intellectually their equals, the physical inferiority makes too little difference to be of any account. Both the argu- ment and the reply seem to us on the verge of special pleading, if not mere special pleading. The reply is bad, because little men are not sufficiently distinct to form a class by themselves, so as even to suggest a separate kind of treatment. The argument is worthless, because every one knows that as a matter of fact three out of four men do get through more active work, show a higher capacity of organization, attain a higher point in the pursuits to which they apply their minds, and generally make themselves more felt both in society and in life, than the women with whom it is most natural to compare them,—say, their wives, if they have any. Education may account for a good deal, but even in music, which all women have learnt more habitually and thoroaghly than men, have we had any women composers who can match the men? It seems to us clear that, apart from special pleas, not more than (say) a quarter of the women are, in general force of character, the equals or superiors of average men. They have qualities of their own in which three out of every four women are superior to men, but they are not the qualities which would come under the general expression, 'force of character.'
On the other hand, under the second head of the controversy, as to the monarchical character of the family, we think Miss Taylor has gained a decided triumph over her forcible antagonist ; not that we understand, or, if we understand, in the least agree with, the assertion that "the two benefits men gain by marriage are confidence in women's fidelity and the certainty of paternity ;" for we do not see that they gain either by marriage in any sense in which they do nasals° gain other benefits far nearer to the heart of the matter. If Miss Taylor is speaking of the mere legal tie, they gain neither ; if she is speaking of more than this, they gain infinitely more, the identification of interests, the community of joys and sorrows, the common moral and spiritual life, in a word, all that constitutes unity, and alone could constitute it. But apart
from this astounding assertion of Miss Taylor's, which was quite ' unnecessary for her argument, and seems to us put forth as a piece of moral bravado, she has surely vastly the better of her antagonist in this branch of the argument. She contends that the family is not a monarchy, that there is no need and no room for an absolute authority in it, and that if the absence of any such authority leads to constant quarrelling, it will only lead to constant quarrelling in the case of the minority who are unfit for mar- riage (or at least for their own marriage), and who show them- selves as unfit for it now under the doctrine of the legal subordination of women as they would under the doctrine of equal rights. To this the Pall Mall replies that the logical consequence of admitting the doctrine of equal rights, is, to permit divorce for incompatibility of temper, "and that unless the right of the hus- band to be master in his own house is recognized by law, this is what you must of necessity come to." The Pall Mall believes that Miss Taylor would admit and accept this consequence of her view. We do not in the least know whether she would or not, but we utterly deny that it is in any sense a consequence of her view, or has any connection with it. Her view seems to be,—such, at all events, is the natural and fair statement of it,—that the political analogy of ' monarchy ' is a wholly false one. The true analogy for illustrating the nature of family government is rather, as it seems to us, the well known doctrine that in the case of double stars or the sun and its planets, the centre round which each moves is the centre of gravity of the system,—neither star moving round the other, but both around a point which is nearer to the greater than to the leas in proportion to its greater weight. So we should say, and we think Miss Taylor would say, that the centre of authority in the family is some variable point which depends on the way in which the husband's and the wife's influ- ences variously work into each other, —and which is often materi- ally altered by the appearance on the scene of children. If the husband has, as he usually, perhaps, has, the greater influence on all matters of general regulation and finance, and the wife more
on all matters of domestic arrangement and society, it soon becomes understood to whom the casting-vote on either set of questions really belongs. If the husband, as he sometimes does if he is a finnikin man, absorbs authority in all things, great and
small, the wife dwindles into a cypher; and if the wife does the same, as also sometimes happens, the husband disappears in like
manner,—drops, as it were, into the sun, and merely swells the moral influence of the central power. But as a rule, life is soon organized into departments, in some of which, generally the more externally important, the wife yields to the husband ; in others of which, probably of most importance to the internal happiness of the household, the husband yields to the wife, in either case, usually, the wishes of the one modifying those of the other,—this seems to us the true account of the centre of authority ie family life. But is it true, as the Pall Mall asserts, that hi the final resort a legal authority must be reserved to some one at the cost of allowing divorce for incompatibility of temper, if it be not? We do not hesitate to say that the legal authority now reserved to husbands is absolutely a dead letter, and exercises no more control over the institution of marriage than the doctrine of scintilla jails.
If it were totally abolished it would be neither more nor less reasonable to allow divorce for incompatibility of temper than it now
is. The great reason for refusing divorce on this ground alone, is very well stated by the writer in the Pall Mall himself, but how it applies more to the present condition of things than to that which would exist if the legal authority given to the husband were to disappear, we are wholly unable to say. This is what be
says :—
" As for what the writer cf the article in question thinks, lie thinks that one of the largest classes of human bAugs is composed of peaple who, having little original power, are very much what law and custom make them. As to its members, he thinks with Lord Stowell that in innumerable cases the legal necessity of being husbands and wives makes them good husbands and wives, :mil that the knowledge that the relation between husband and wife is practically indissoluble [and that the husband lets a legal right, if need be, to the wife's ob.slience], settles innumerable questions which might and would ripen into serious quarrels, and possibly into divorces, if the 'Simile intervened to settle' them."
Omit the few words which we have put in brackets, and how is the force of this consideration in the least lessened? If the husband cannot enforce his moral authority, does any one suppose that in one family out of ten thousand the possibility of resort to the law by a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights is a consideration which ever enters into the matter at all ? Now and then, in the rarest possible cases, a husband has resort to that humiliating expedient, which a wife can almost always practically avoid by running away. But, in point of fact, does not every one know that a separation would be acceded to by 099 men out of 1,900, rather than ask the Court to enforce what they had been unable, and knew themselves to be unable, by their own moral influence, to bring about ? We do not believe that the mere legal right of the husband to govern the family has the smallest possible influence
on the question, or that if it were abolished, there would be any more reason for allowing divorce for mere incompatibility of temper than there is now. In point of fact, the practical indissolubility of marriage probably leads to concessions on the husband's part fully as often as on the wife's,—and that in cases, too, where he is really the stronger in character, and yields because he is so, and can therefore see better the folly of bickerings and pertinacity in small things. But if this "practical indiasolubility " produces as much concession on one side as the other, why should the abolition of the husband's final legal authority lead to any relaxation in the rule of practical indissolubility ? All, in fact, that the practical indissolubility of marriage effects, is, to make husbands and wives
alike feel that it is all but a moral necessity for them to live in peace
somehow; and we rather think they are full as likely to live in peace, to effect practical compromises, and find a common mean between the two divergent wills, if neither has legal authority over the other, as if the law authoritatively decides which of the two is to be over the other. Wherever the real centre of gravity of the family is, whether in the husband or the wife, or (as usually) between the two but nearer perhaps to the former, it needs no law to discover it. Wherever the law is called into operation, the family is already practically ruptured, and is not likely to be re-knit by any law. And in the case of the not very few families where the wife is virtually the head, the legal condition of the matter at present probably only serves to make her assert her superior moral force more openly and ostentatiously, because she remembers that in the eye of the law she is subordinated to the man whom she rules. It seems to us that the Pall Mall's assumption that, if ordinary mar- riages are to be indissoluble, the law must insist on the obedience of the wife as the only mode of solving the questions which will arise between the parties, is a purely technical view of the matter. What such a condition of the law does necessitate is, that unless some compromise shall be arrived at, both parties know they will be under the legal restrictions of the law of marriage without enjoying any of its moral and social advantages, and that is a consideration which will weigh with each in proportion to his or her reasonable- ness, and not weigh a tittle the less or the more because the law has taken occasion to state in which party it considers that the final authority ought in the abstract to be vested. On the whole, Miss Helen Taylor has, we think, the advantage of her able opponent, though she has needlessly diminished the extent of that advantage by throwing out one or two rash, unpleasant, and, as it seems to us, utterly irrational, challenges to those who hold with us that marriage involves obligations of the highest and most spiritual kind, compared with which the benefits on which she lays stress are but as the body to the soul.
Previous page
