of the person, under the name of paraphernalia.  The husband may sell or give these away in his lifetime, and even after his death they may be taken for his debts; but he cannot give them away by will.  If the husband dies during the wife’s life and dies intestate she is entitled to a third, or, if there be no living descendant of the husband, to one half of his personality [but see the note of Bryce, above].  But this is a case of pure intestate succession; she only has a share of what is left after payment of her husband’s debts.

“V.  During the marriage the husband is in effect liable to the whole extent of his property for debts incurred or wrongs committed by his wife before the marriage, also for wrongs committed during the marriage.  The action is against him and her as co-defendants.  If the marriage is dissolved by his death, she is liable, his estate is not.  If the marriage is dissolved by her death, he is liable as her administrator, but only to the extent of the property which he takes in that character.” [Mr. Ashton, in his very interesting book, p. 31, quotes a peculiar note from a Parish Register in the reign of Queen Anne to this effect:  “John Bridmore and Anne Sellwood, both of Chiltern all Saints, were married October 17, 1714.  The aforesaid Anne Sellwood was married in her Smock, without any clothes or headgier on.”  “This is not uncommon,” remarks Mr. Ashton, “the object being, according to a vulgar error, to exempt the husband from the payment of any debts his wife may have contracted in her ante-nuptial condition.  This 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