year. A travelling pedlar, who had no
doubt studied the law, bethought himself
that he should like this agreeable little
property. As he probably doubted his
powers of fascination, or thought that the
wealthy widow's lawyers might be unpleasantly
careful of their client's interests,
he adopted the ingenious device of making
the object of his mercenary affections intoxicated,
and of inducing her, when in
that condition, to become his wife.
Fortunately for the unhappy woman, her
property was principally real estate, and a bill
in Chancery to enforce the equity of her
settlement, led to a compromise with the
pedlar. Had the property been in any other
form, the husband in this case might have
put it in his pocket and have deserted his wife
as soon as he pleased, leaving her entirely
without remedy. Two cases are quoted by
a witness who had been secretary to the
Law Amendment Society, when this question
was brought before it as far back
as '56. In the one case, a lady possessed
of property worth two thousand a year,
had been married, either through ignorance
or carelessness, without settlements. Her
husband converted the whole of this
property into money, spent the proceeds, and
having got probably all he ever married
the unfortunate lady for, deserted her. At
the time this case was before the Law
Amendment Society, the poor lady was
getting a precarious living by flower-
making, and was, of course, always liable
to the return of her husband and the loss
of anything she might be able to save. In
the second case, the wife had been a widow,
and had been left by her first husband, a
wine merchant, a considerable amount of
property in stock, &c. Being entirely
ignorant of law, she married her second
husband without thought of settlements,
and was horrified to find, after it was too
late, that she had entirely made away with
the interests of her children by the first
marriage. It does not appear that in this
case the behaviour of the second husband
was at all bad, or that the wife and children
suffered. But that was no fault of the
legal state of matters. Another legal
witness cites a case of peculiar hardship. A
married woman, who was in service, was
afflicted with an idle and dissipated
husband. He did not absolutely ill treat her,
and, as she was in service, could not be
said to have deserted her. But his practice
was periodically to swoop down upon
her and to carry off every farthing that
she had saved, reducing her on such
occasions to utter poverty. It is difficult to
imagine a more heart-breaking, hopeless
life than this poor woman, who was
perfectly  industrious, respectable, and careful,
must have led. In such a case as this, the
law offered her a direct premium to fall
into careless, thriftless habits. Why toil
and save, if a worthless scamp such as this
is to reap the advantage? And yet she did,
again and again, and thousands like her
are doing it every day with similar results.
The evidence of the Reverend Septimus
Hansard, the rector of Bethnal Green, who
has probably as much experience among
working people as most men, speaks with
no uncertain sound as to this point. He
has known many cases of hardship arising
from the present state of the law, and cites
one of singular brutality. A woman had
saved a little money with a view to her
confinement. The husband, becoming
aware that the poor creature had a little
store somewhere, insisted upon its production,
spent it, and left her to get through
her trouble as best she might. That such
a monstrous proceeding as this should be
legally possible is of itself enough to
condemn the present system at once and for
ever. Mr. Mansfield, again, who has been
from eight to ten years the magistrate at
the Marylebone Police Court, in London,
and who was previously for some eight years
and a half in a similar position in Liverpool,
may be expected to know something about
the matter. "Numerous cases," says Mr.
Mansfield, "have been mentioned to me by
women, where a woman having made herself
a fresh home, either with or without
her children, has had the home pillaged
and upset, by the husband coming to her
and taking possession of the whole of her
property, and even destroying it, in virtue
of his conjugal power." Mr. Mansfield
has met with many cases of hard-working
women who continued to live with drunken
husbands by whom their earnings have
been systematically spent, and thinks that
the proper cure for this miserable state of
things lies not in an extension of the
protection-order system, but in a change in
the law, whereby the wife's earnings would
be hers, and hers alone, without its being
necessary for her to take public steps to
secure them. The Rev. T. W. Fowle,
rector of Hoxton, adds to the list of cases
brought before the committee. He has
had cases before his notice where the
husband has actually broken open drawers and
taken away and sold children's clothes,
bought with the wife's own money. No
wonder the poor women say to Mr. Fowle,
"what is the use of a body striving?"