52 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



before two justices of the peace in Petty Sessions, 

 or before any police or stipendiary magistrate. 

 The penalty to be inflicted is not to exceed im- 

 prisonment for six months with or without hard 

 labor, or a fine not exceeding £20. The offender 

 may also be bound to keep the peace for any pe- 

 riod not exceeding six months from the expiration 

 of his sentence. Failing to enter into recogni- 

 zances, the offender may be kept in prison for a 

 period not exceeding twelve months. 



Since this act was passed, twenty-five years 

 ago, no further legislation has taken place on the 

 subject, except the Consolidating Act (24 and 25 

 Vict., c. 100), which simply reenacts the act as 

 above stated. 



Besides this act on their behalf, wives are able 

 to obtain relief, in certain cases, under the Divorce 

 Act. That is to say, those women who are able 

 to apply to the Divorce Court may obtain, under 

 section 16 of the act (20 and 21 Vict., c. 85), on 

 proof of cruelty, a sentence of judicial separation, 

 which shall have the effect of a divorce a mensa 

 et thoro. 



In the case of the ignorant, friendless, and 

 penniless women, who are the chief victims of 

 wife-torture, such relief as this court affords is 

 practically unattainable; but another clause of 

 the same act (the twenty-first) is of great value 

 to them. It provides that a wife deserted by her 

 husband may, at any time after such desertion, 

 apply to a police magistrate in the metropolitan 

 district, or to justices in Petty Sessions if in the 

 country, for an order to protect any money or 

 property she may acquire ; and, if any such pro- 

 tection order be made, the wife shall, during its 

 continuance, " be in all respects in the same posi- 

 tion, with regard to property and contracts, and 

 suing and being sued, as she would have been 

 under the act if she had obtained a decree of ju- 

 dicial separation." 



For reasons to be hereafter noticed, this clause 

 in the Divorce Act is of the utmost importance in 

 establishing the principle that a police magistrate, 

 or two justices of the peace in session, may pro- 

 nounce, on proof of the minor offense of desertion 

 by the husband, a sentence which is tantamount, 

 so far as property is concerned, to a judicial sepa- 

 ration. The clause is, I am informed, brought 

 very frequently indeed into action, and the magis- 

 trates not unfrequently interpret " desertion " to 

 signify an absence of three months without cause, 

 albeit in the Divorce Court such absence must 

 exceed two years to enable the wife to obtiin a 

 judicial separation. 



It was doubtless believed, by the benevolent 



promoters of these acts, that their provisions 

 would have done a good deal to check the ill- 

 usage of wives. But the offense appears to have 

 diminished very little, if at all, during the twenty 

 years which have since intervened, and at last 

 one well-meaning, though somewhat eccentric, 

 member of the House of Commons felt himself 

 moved to speak on the subject. 



On May 18, 1874, Colonel Egerton Leigh made 

 a vehement appeal for some increased punishment 

 for aggravated assaults on women. He said that 

 England had been called the paradise of women, 

 and ho brought forward his motion to prevent it 

 from becoming a hell of women. After a speech, 

 in which Colonel Leigh appeared overcome by 

 emotion, he ended by saying that he " was sure 

 the women of England would not appeal in vain 

 to the House of Commons," and Mr. Disraeli 

 answered him in the same vein of cheerful confi- 

 dence which that honorable House always ex- 

 presses in its own eagerness to do justice to 

 women. The House " must have sympathized," 

 he said, "with Colonel Leigh, for it was a subject 

 on which there could not be any differences of 

 opinion." He hoped " his honorable and gallant 

 friend would feel he has accomplished his object 

 in directing the attention of the country to the 

 subject, and that he would allow his right honor- 

 able friend, the Secretary of State for the Home 

 Department, whose mind is now occupied with 

 this and similar subjects, time to reflect as to the 

 practical mode in which the feeling of the country 

 can be carried out." Colonel Leigh was request- 

 ed to be " satisfied that, after the address he has 

 made, her Majesty's Government will bear in mind 

 what is evidently the opinion of the House ; " 

 and, of course, Colonel Leigh expressed himself 

 as perfectly satisfied, and withdrew his amend- 

 ment (authorizing flogging) with one of the jokes, 

 which are so inexpressibly sickening in connec- 

 tion with this subject, about " fair play for the 

 fairer sex." J 



On October 15, 1874, six months after Colonel 

 Leigh had thus broken a lance in defense of the 

 tortured women, the Home Office issued a circular 

 inquiring the opinion of the judges, chairmen of* 

 Quarter Sessions, recorders, stipendiary magis- 

 trates of metropolitan'police courts, and sheriffs 

 of Scotch counties, respecting five points con- 

 nected with brutal assaults, the principal being 

 whether the existing law was sufficiently strin- 

 gent, and whether flogging should bo authorized, 

 " especially in cases of assaults on women and 

 children." 



1 " Ilansard," vol. ccxix., p. 390. 



