AUGUST 431 



selves in such a situation, is whether a woman with a 

 ' past ' is bound to tell it to a man who has proposed to 

 her, and whom she wishes to accept. A large proportion of 

 these people who now go in for ' equalising ' the sexes say, 

 1 No ; she is not bound to tell,' and they argue that a man 

 does not lay his past before a woman when he is engaged 

 to marry her. It may be very unjust, but I cannot see 

 that the cases are parallel. The woman fears that if she 

 tells her story to the man, he will not marry her. If this 

 is really the case, her acceptance of his offer is a species 

 of fraud. To begin a life of partnership under such cir- 

 cumstances means that the woman puts herself on the 

 level of a man who cheats his friend at cards or sells 

 him a bad horse. The reason why the position of the 

 woman differs from that of the man is due to that 

 unwritten law accepted amongst civilised nations. The 

 man who does not recognise this law will be unaffected by 

 the confession of her past ; the man who does recognise it 

 ought not to be deceived. 



I think most girls of to-day understand that there is a 

 veiled side to many men's lives, and that a man's past has 

 to be accepted, not cavilled at, by a girl who understands 

 life when she marries a man who is not very young, and 

 who has knocked about the world. She would scarcely 

 wish him to tell* her details of passing love affairs ; but I 

 would go so far, without any insult to him, as to 

 recommend that a girl who knows what she is doing 

 should solemnly, and in all tenderness and love, just 

 before marriage, put the question to the man she is 

 engaged to whether his particular past entails any serious 

 ties upon him. By this I mean that she should know 

 whether he has children whom he ought to educate and 

 look after, in order that she may not only face the fact, 

 but also help him to do his duty by them. No secret 

 should come between them, especially not one which, if 



