is error seems to have
been founded on a misconception of the law, as it is laid down 'the
husband is liable for the wife's debts, because he acquires an absolute
interest in the personal estate of his wife.' An unlearned person from
this might conclude, and not unreasonably, that if his wife had no
estate whatever he could not incur any liability."]

"VI. During the marriage the wife cannot contract on her own behalf. She
can contract as her husband's agent and has a certain power of pledging
his credit in the purchase of necessaries. At the end of the Middle Ages
it is very doubtful how far this power is to be explained by an 'implied
agency.' The tendency of more recent times has been to allow her no
power that cannot be thus explained, except in the exceptional case of
desertion."

A perusal of these laws shows that they are immensely inferior to the
Roman law, which not only gave the wife full control of her property,
but protected her from coercion and bullying on the part of the husband.
The amendment of these injustices has been very recent indeed.
Successive statutes in 1870, 1874, and 1882[399] finally abrogated the
law which gave the husband full ownership of his wife's property by the
mere act of marriage. Beginning with the year 1857, too, enlightenment
in England had progressed to such a remarkable degree that certain acts
were passed forbidding a husband to seize his wife's earnings and
neglect her[400]; and she was actually allowed to keep her own wages
after the desertion of her lord. Before that time he might desert his
wife repeatedly, and return from time to time to take away her earnings
and sell everything she had acquired. An act in 1886 (_49 and 50 Vict.,
c. 52_) gave magistrates the power to order a husband to pay his wife a
weekly sum, not exceeding two pounds, for her support and that of the
children if it appeared to the magistrates that the deserting husband
had the means of maintaining her, but was unwilling to do so. Still,
the husband can at any time terminate his desertion and force his wife
to take him back on penalty of losing all rights to such maintenance.
There was frantic opposition to all of these revolutionary enactments
and many prophets arose crying woe; but the acts finally passed and
England still lives.

[Sidenote: Divorce. Authorities as above; and Howard, ii, 3-117.]

Until the Reformation divorce was regulated by the canon law in
accordance with the principles which I