husband, quite apart from any economic advantage; to the affection
of her husband, analogous to the legally recognized claim of the
husband to the society and affection of the wife; and to the chastity
and constancy of the husband as involving her self-respect and
honour. These interests, however, are not yet recognized to their
full extent and are not fully secured even in legal theory. The first
and second are now protected by an action for alienating the hus-
band's affections, which has come' to be allowed by the overwhelming
weight of American authority. (Turner v. Heayrin, 182 Kentucky
Reports, 65, 1918). The third is at most but partially recognized and
indirectly secured ; but it should be said that the obvious inutility of
the husband's means of redress, which should be applied by analogy
to make the law logically complete, has had much to do with the
apparent backwardness of the law on this subject. As an interest
of substance the wife may claim to be secured in the marriage re-
lation as an economically advantageous relation, providing her with
support and shelter. Where the husband is enticed or induced to
abandon his wife or to divert earnings which should be devoted to
her support, the courts are coming to recognize this interest directly.
(The wife's action was allowed in Flandermeyer v. Cooper, 85 Ohio
State Reports, 327, 1912: it was denied in Brown v. Kistteman, 177
Indiana Reports, 692, 1912.) On the other hand in case of physical
injury to, or abduction of, the husband, the wife is still usually
denied an action, although the husband may recover in the converse
case for " loss of service." No doubt there are practical difficulties
here, arising in part from our mode of trial and of assessing damages.
Yet the present state of the law, shaped by obsolete conceptions
of the position of the wife in the household, is so out of accord with
the present-day position of married women that legislative overhaul-
ing in the near future is not unlikely. Regarding the claims of the
wife against the husband, modern law everywhere has agreed to
leave the interest of husband and wife respectively in the society and
affection of the other without effective legal sanction as between
the two. The claim of the wife to support was recognized fully and
secured adequately at common law. Recent legislation setting up
domestic relations courts and providing for criminal prosecution in
case of non-support has only put more effective administrative ma-
chinery behind existing legal duties of the husband. The most
serious inequalities in this connexion were in the procedural difficul-
ties encountered in enforcing the wife's legal rights. Domestic
relations courts, which have had a considerable development in
the U.S. in the last decade, are adapted especially to removing
these obstacles (see Smith, Justice and the Poor, chap. 1 1 .). It should
be noted also that modern legislation, although taking away from
the husband all control over the wife's property and earnings and
committing it solely to the wife, has left untouched the common-law
duty of the husband to support the wife even if she has property and
he has none. Some courts go so far as to allow a wife possessed of
means who has supported herself out of her separate estate to sue the
husband and obtain restitution of the amount thus contributed.
(De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 New York Reports, 460, 1911.)
A few western states, however, now impose upon a wife of means and
ability a duty of supporting an indigent and infirm husband, and
allow an action by the husband to enforce this duty. (Hagert v.
Hagert, 22 North Dakota Reports, 290, 1911.)

Disabilities of Married Women. Unmarried women of sound
mind and lawful age were under no common-law disabilities. On the
Other hand married women were without power to determine their
own national character or legal domicile, following their husbands
in these respects as a matter of law; were subject to serious dis-
abilities with respect to ownership, use and enjoyment of property;
were restricted in their power to sue in the courts; could not convey
property; and had no power to contract. Some of these disabilities
were rested on a fiction of the legal unity of husband and wife, de-
rived from the position of the husband as guardian of the dependent
members of the household in the old Germanic polity and reinforced
by certain texts of Scripture, whose authority was decisive in the
Middle Ages. Legislation began to abrogate these disabilities early
in the igth century. But it was often far from comprehensive in its
scope, and when sweeping provisions were enacted they were often
interpreted narrowly because of the doctrine requiring strict con-
struction of statutes in derogation of the common law. There
has been a gradual but steady progress in the direction of removing
all of these disabilities partly by legislation and partly by judicial
decision, and many anomalies which resulted from halfway legislative
measures or strict judicial interpretation were in the decade 1910-20
shaken, if not overthrown. With respect to separate domicile of
married women and actions by wives against husbands, the social
interest in the security of marriage and the family as social institu-
tions of paramount importance has necessarily given the courts
pause, since the doctrine that the wife's domicile depended on that
of the husband, and that the one might not sue the other, seemed but
corollaries of a legal recognition of the family as an entity. Yet when
that entity is de facto dissolved, these doctrines amount to serious
disabilities imposed upon one member. Accordingly in one way or
another American courts now recognized the separate domicile of
the wife substantially to the full extent of her individual interest
in free self-assertion. (Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. Reports,



619, 1914.) So also with respect to actions by the wife against the
husband. The older Married Women's Acts which in form merely
removed disabilities as to property and contract, were long con-
strued as not allowing such actions since they did not do so expressly,
and a policy against aggravation of domestic troubles by dragging
them into court was taken to be in the way. This sacrifice of the
individual interests of the wife to the supposed exigencies of a social
interest has now definitely given way, and conservative courts are
allowing such actions even under statutes in terms dealing with
property rights only. (Brown v. Brown, 88 Connecticut Reports, 42,
1914.) The more recent type of statute, providing that a married
woman shall have the same legal existence and personality after
marriage as before marriage, necessarily permits such litigation.
(Fiedler v. Fiedler, 42 Oklahoma Reports, 124, 1914.) As to capacity
to own, acquire, use and enjoy property, little remains of the old
law, and there are but few jurisdictions where legislation might still
accomplish anything. In one respect, however, improvement by
judicial decision is still going forward. A number of states, by
derivation directly or indirectly from Spanish law, have the institu-
tion of " community property," in which with respect to certain
property, and especially property acquired after marriage, husband
and wife are treated legally as a sort of properly-owning entity.
The older view was that the husband was the administering agent
of this collectivity during their joint lives, and hence could dispose
of it, alter its form and charge it with his personal debts; and that it
could even be taken in execution for his wrongful acts. Recent
decisions in some of these jurisdictions, recognizing the individual
interest of the wife, hold that the community property is not liable
for acts done by the husband outside of the reasonable scope of his
authority as agent of the community. (Schramm v. Steelc, 97
Washington Reports, 309, 1917.) Yet even there a claim for an injury
to the wife being an acquisition after marriage and community
property, she is not allowed to sue therefore if her husband refuses
to join. (Hynes v. Colman Dock Co., 108 Washington Reports, 642,
1919.) As to contractual capacity, little remains to be done any-
where in order to give married women full beneficial powers of
contracting in their own interest. Yet in more than one jurisdiction
privileges which compensated for the older disabilities still remain
in force in whole or in part and enable married women to escape from ,
contracts for which as persons of full capacity they ought to be held. ;
This is especially true of contracts of suretyship, by which married
women are very generally incapable of binding their separate property. (

Protection of Women in Industry. While American courts have
been reluctant to give over, or to construe legislation as abrogating,
common-law privileges or disabilities which protected married women
when in a condition of legal dependence, they have also been reluc-
tant to uphold legislation restricting freedom of contract on the part |
of women in industry with respect to hours and conditions of labour I
and minimum wage. When such statutes were first enacted, they >
were held unconstitutional as being arbitrary and unreasonable
interferences with liberty of contract by a court which had had no
hesitation in keeping alive common-law disabilities, that had long
ceased to secure any individual or social interest. That decision i
has been overruled (Ritchie v. Wayman, 244 Illinois Reports, 509
1910), and it seems to be settled that legislation may take account of
the facts of women's physical make-up and secure the social interest
in a healthy womanhood by regulating the hours of labour of adult
females. (Midler v. Oregon, 208 U.S. Reports, 412, 1908; Bunting v.
Oregon, 243 U.S. Reports 416, 1917.) But it is still a matter of con- ,
trpversy whether this may be carried to the extent of fixing a [
minimum wage for women employees. (Slettler v. O'llara, 243 U.S. I
Reports, 629, 1917.) Curiously enough, the political and legal eman-
cipation of women is urged as a reason against such legislation,
as if the removal of political and legal disabilities had any relation
to, or effect upon, the physical handicaps upon women in industry
which are the occasion of these statutes.

Women on Juries. In 1917 California provided for the drawing
of women upon juries. (Laws of 1917, p. 1283.) Since the adoption
of the Nineteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution provid-
ing for women suffrage, 1920, it has been assumed that women
are to sit upon juries everywhere. But in some jurisdictions, out of
caution, it is felt that the courts should await express legislation,
and in others courts have felt compelled to wait until court-houses
and jury-rooms could be adjusted to the novel situation presented:
by juries of men and women. The conditions under which juries
are kept while deliberating upon verdicts and the accommodations
for jurors in large cities, where many juries are sitting simultaneously
for a great part of the year, are not adapted to the woman juror;
and in many country court-houses things are even worse. If no
other good results from service of women upon juries, the inevitable
improvement of the physical conditions surrounding jury service
will be a gain. On the other hand, the expense involved in this
improvement and in provision for the custody of juries made up
of men and women in important cases, where juries must be guarded
closely from outside contact, leads many jurisdictions to hesitate.

(R. Po.*)

WOMEN POLICE. In Sept. 1914 two distinct bodies of women
police were formed in England, with the object of maintain-
ing order amongst girls and young women in the new and exciting



WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT



1045



conditions brought about by the formation of military camps and
the movement of troops in training (see WOMEN'S WAR WORK).

The Women Patrols were organized by a special committee of the
N.U.W.W., with Mrs. Garden as hon. sec. and chief organizer;
and the Women's Police Volunteers were formed by Miss Nina
Boyle and other members of the " militant " Women's Freedom
League, and within a few weeks were reorganized by Margaret
Darner Dawson (d. May 18 1920) as the Women Police Service.
The latter was a paid force, dressed in a uniform closely resem-
bling that of the regular male force; the former was mainly volun-
tary and wore no distinguishing mark except an armlet. The
Women Patrols were, however, from the first recognized by the
Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (Sir Edward
Henry), who signed the passes authorizing them to patrol streets
and public places, and by the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna),
who circularized the chief constables of borough and county
police throughout the United Kingdom, inviting them to do the
like in their own districts. The Women Police Service received
no direct official recognition; but in 1916 they were requested by
Sir Edward Henry to supply policewomen for the munition fac-
tories throughout the country. In Jan. 1917 the Women Police
Service received a grant from the Ministry of Munitions for the
expenses involved, and in the same year the Women Patrols
received a subsidy of 400 from the Home Office, reduced the
next year to 300. With these exceptions, both forces, which
originated in private effort, were for long supported entirely by
funds privately collected. They conducted their own training,
the Women Police Service entirely at their London centre and the
Women Patrols not only in London but also at the three schools
which they established in Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. These
combined in the autumn of 1918 to form the Federated Schools
for Policewomen and Patrols and received a grant of 1,000 from
the Carnegie U.K. Trust, followed by 250 in 1910-20.

In Oct. 1918 Gen. Sir Nevil Macready, who had become Chief
Commissioner of Metropolitan Police when Sir Edward Henry
resigned in consequence of the police strike in Aug. of that year,
decided to form a force of 100 women police for London, to be
drawn from the ranks of the Women Patrols. The force, after-
wards known as the Women's Patrol of the Metropolitan Police
Force, was organized and placed under Mrs. F. Stanley as
superintendent, with one assistant superintendent and 10 ser-
geants, and its status and duties were defined by the Police
Order of Dec. 23 1918. The women were not sworn in as con-
stables and were not given the power of arrest. Similar limita-
tions attached to most of the individual policewomen employed
by the' chief constables of boroughs or counties throughout the
United Kingdom. These, in Sept. 1920, numbered 126 for Eng-
land and Wales, of whom only 33 were appointed with the same
status as men, and 14 for Scotland, none of whom were sworn in
as constables. They were for the most part women trained by
one or other of the two voluntary organizations. In Dec. 1920
certain members of the Women Police Service were engaged by
the military authorities in Ireland to assist in searching women
suspected of complicity in conspiracy.

The Committee on -the Police Service appointed in March 1919
under the chairmanship of Lord Desborough did not deal with
policewomen, and on the request of a deputation, which attended
at the Home Office Aug. 8 1919, a Home Office departmental
committee was appointed in Feb. 1920 to inquire into " the nature
and limits of the assistance which can be given by women in the
carrying out of police duties and as to what ought to be the status,
pay and conditions of service of women employed on such duties."
The committee, which included two women, Viscountess Astor
and Dame Helen Gwynne-Vaughan, reported July 24 that " there
is not only scope but urgent need for the employment of police-
women." They enumerate as " appropriate " duties : "investiga-
tions in cases of assault on women and children ; investigations under
the Children Act 1908, the Immoral Traffic Acts 1902-1912, and
similar statutes; attendance at court when cases of female or ju-
venile offenders are being dealt with; inspection of common lodging-
houses (where this falls on the police) ; supervision of parks and open
spaces; visiting of licensed premises, cinemas, registry offices, etc.;
prevention of offences by prostitutes ; a_nd, generally speaking, any
work in connection with offences committed by and against women
and children." They recommended : (l) that all policewomen should
be sworn in, given full powers of arrest and ranked with the male



police, forming an integral part of the police force and being trained
and appointed by the chief constables ; (2) that their pay should be
standardized and approximated to that of the men (6os. minimum as
compared with the men's 70s.), and that their allowances should be
the same; (3) that their hours should be seven daily; (4) that mar-
riage should be no bar to service ; (5) that pensions should be granted
on a scale slightly lower than for men, but that gratuities for de-
pendent children should be the same for both sexes.

Up to Feb. 1921 this report had not been translated into action
except as regards the pay and allowances to Metropolitan police-
women, which were standardized from Jan. I 1921. But on Feb. 28
a deputation from the Federated Schools was assured by the Home
Secretary that he would advise chief constables throughout the
country that, where policewomen were employed, their employment
should be regulated by the terms of the departmental committee's
report. He added that it was undesirable that the work should any
longer be carried on under voluntary organizations. Under Section
10 of the Police Act 1919 the wearing of police uniform by members
of unofficial bodies is an actionable offence, and in March 1921
thirteen summonses were taken out against five executive members
of the Women Police Service, which resulted on May 4 in fines of
IDs. each and 10 los. costs against the commandant. The name
of the service was subsequently changed to the Women's Auxiliary
Service, and changes were made in the uniform differentiating it
from that of the official policewomen. Its future function was de-
fined as mainly that of training, in London and in Edinburgh.

See Report of the Committee on the Employment of Women on Police
Duties (1920, Cmd. 887) and its Minutes of Evidence (1921, Cmd.
I,I33)- See also the annual reports of the Bristol, Liverpool and
Scottish Training Schools for Policewomen and Patrols, and the
annual reports of H. M. Inspector of Constabulary for England and
Wales (1917 et reg.). (J. E. C.*)

UNITED STATES. About 300 cities in the United States
employed policewomen in 1921, either as single officers of the law
or in connexion with special women's bureaus. In many cases
positions were secured through civil-service examinations, and
promotions were made on the same basis as for men. Probably
the largest number of policewomen was found in the cities of
Chicago and New York, where the women's bureaus each em-
ployed about 30 women, usually in the capacity of police and pa-
trol officers. Their duties were varied but related largely to the
welfare of women and children. In Chicago one woman was
assigned to the Morals Court, where she assisted the woman
bailiff and the probation officers. In New York the women's
bureau had attached to its staff a number of men welfare workers.
These were usually former policemen who for some reason be-
came incapacitated for regular work and who were assigned to
assist in caring for needy cases, particularly among widows and
children of former policemen. One city in 1921 announced the
appointment of a coloured woman as police officer.

In some cases this wide field for social service attracted high-class
women; their duties included probation work, institutional com-
mitments, supervision of dance-halls and places of amusement,
juvenile court work and at times physical and psychopathic exam-
inations. This work frequently merged into expert detective work
and required a woman to be on duty almost any time of the day or
night. The minimum salary seldom fell below $ 1,000, while the
highest was not often above $2,000 a year, except by special legisla-
tion. Policewomen were eligible for the retirement pension, which
was usually about 50% of their salary. (I. O. A.)

WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT. UNITED KINGDOM. Women have
been employed outside their homes in the industries of Great
Britain from at least the days of Edward II., when they appear to
have washed ore in the Derbyshire lead mines for id. a day.
During the following six centuries they found their way into one
trade after another, until in 1914, at the outbreak of the World
War, in spite of their having been in the igth century almost
driven out from their once considerable occupations of agricul-
ture and coal-mining, the total number of women in commerce
and industry in the United Kingdom was 3! million, while
another i.\ million were earning wages as hospital nurses, do-
mestic servants, dress-makers in small workshops and outworkers
of similar kinds.

The increase that took place during the war was only a million,
and yet it probably attracted more discussion than the whole of
the steady industrial development which had made the sudden
extension possible. This was due partly to deliberate publicity
designed to attract women into the factories, partly to the inter-
esting nature of a small part of the work which they undertook;



1046



WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT



but it also arose from public ignorance of the share that women
were already taking in industry before the war. There was no
great industrial group which did not at that time already employ
thousands of women; in the building trades there were 7,000, and
in mines and quarries nearly the same number. The metal trades
held 170,000 women; there were even some hundreds in the
Admiralty dockyards. The great exceptions were the shipyards,
underground work in the mines, iron and steel foundries and
rolling-mills, various branches of engineering and whisky distill-
ing. Other important services, like the railways, used them
only for clerical work and cleaning, except of course in posts
which could only admit of women, such as those of attendants in
women's cloakrooms. Others reserved certain processes for men
and gave the rest to women: others were women's trades: others
again used men and women interchangeably.

The demarcation that existed between men's and women's
work was as a rule definite and well recognized in the trades
concerned. The very heaviest types of work were done by men,
and so in most cases was work that required any high degree of
skill. Such work, moreover, was almost certain to be the subject
of trade-union restrictions which effectively prevented employers
from using women on it. But these criteria, except at the ends
of the scale, were not absolute. Women in many occupations
for instance making chains or gramophone records were accus-
tomed to handle very heavy tools or lift very heavy weights.
Many would not trouble to acquire skill, or were denied the
opportunity; but the bad organization of women and their low
rates of pay tended to conceal the fact that they were often
employed on jobs which a man would have considered at least as
semi-skilled, while a few women up and down the country were
turning out work which required a considerable technical endow-
ment. The Ministry of Munitions, to take an extreme instance,
found optical lenses being ground by women in London which
they considered equal to the finest German lenses, and this had
been going on for a dozen years. Very few women had such an
opening, but all along the middle line, where the work was neither
too heavy nor took too long to learn, there were trades and sec-
tions of trades where the spheres of the two sexes overlapped, so
that on certain parts of the work they were either used inter-
changeably or one or the other according to district custom.

The best known examples of this are probably the cotton,
woollen and worsted weavers, and the machinists in the Birming-
ham brassware trade, clerks and shop-assistants. But in all such
border-lands, as has been said, the tendency before the war was
for the low-paid and restricted woman to replace the more
mobile and unrestricted man. In most of these cases one type
of labour or the other by no means always that actually used
was probably more suited to the work and economically pref-
erable; but even where employers were sensible of this, they
found local customs and prejudices too strong to alter, and the
problem was little thought about and never squarely faced.

During the World War. British industry, therefore, when the