er, a
king's defender. Women were valuable only because defenders of kings
had to have mothers.

English common law provided that every married woman must be supported
in as much comfort as her husband's estate warranted. The mothers of the
nation must be fed, clothed, and sheltered. What more could they
possibly ask? In return for permanent board and clothes, the woman was
required to give her husband all of her property, real and personal.
What use had she for property? Did she need it to support herself? In
case of war and pillage could she defend it?

Husband and wife were one--and that one was the man. He was so much the
one that the woman had literally no existence in the eyes of the law.
She not only did not possess any property; she could possess none. Her
husband could not give her any, because there could be no contract
between a married pair. A contract implies at least two people, and
husband and wife were one. The husband could, if he chose, establish a
trusteeship, and thus give his wife the free use of her own. But you can
easily imagine that he did not very often do it.

A man could, also, devise property to his wife by will. Often this was
done, but too often the sons were made heirs, and the wife was left to
what tender mercies they owned. If a man died intestate the wife merely
shared with other heirs. She had no preference.

Under the old English common law, moreover, not only the property, but
also the services of a married woman belonged to her husband. If he
chose to rent out her services, or if she offered to work outside the
home, it followed logically that her wages belonged to him. What use had
she for wages?

On the other hand, every man was held responsible for the support of his
wife. He was responsible for her debts, as long as they were the
necessities of life. He was also responsible for her conduct. Being
propertyless, she could not be held to account for wrongs committed. If
she stole, or destroyed property, or injured the person of another, if
she committed any kind of a misdemeanor in the presence of her husband,
and that also meant if he were in her neighborhood at the time, the law
held him responsible. He should have restrained her.

This was supposed to be a decided advantage to the woman. Whenever a
rebellious woman or group of women voiced their objection to the system
which robbed them of every shred of independence they were always
reminded that the system at the same