The Sun.
London, England, 1852-10-18 00:00:00

IMPUNITY OF OUTRAGES UPON
WOMEN.

(From the Sunday Times.)
If there be any circumstance in our social life at
variance with every tneory of civilization, it is the im-
punity with which men can commit outrages upon
women. Great efforts, we allow, are Making to
effect the reform of our laws ; but these reforms are
rather with reference to property than to the protec-
tion of the lives and persons of the people—at least
of the female part of the population. Almost every
day supplies some new example of ruffianism, and
women are almost constantly the victims. If we
were a more passionate and violent people this would
lead to a fearful multiplication of crimes, for men,
seeing the injuries inflicted on the opposite sex, would
take, perhaps, to rather startling means of protecting
them, and where their fists or sticks would not su 'nee,
might have recourse to other instruments that wou!d.
But we are a calm and sedate people, and, very ra-
tionally, look to the law for defence against outrage
and injury. The law, however, is unequal to the
task. Atrocities the most revolting are coinreitted
daily against women, young and old, and when the
offences are brought before the magistrates, these
functionaries confess their inability to deal properly
with the perpetrators of them. Sometimes their oss u
views of their duty appear to enhance the feebleness
and inefficiency of the law. Thus, in the case of the
scoundrel Donovan, who cracked his aunt's skull, by
dashing her against a counter, a compromise was suf-
fered to be entered into which placed the offender alto-
gether out of the reach of the law. The affections of
the aged relative were permitted to be appealed to in
order to defeat the ends of justice, and the payment
probably of a few shillings may have screened the
offender from twelve months' imprisonment with hard
labour. Yet the magistrate who pursued this course
expressed with becoming warmth his determination
to check as far as possible the growing tendency
among ruffianly men basely and cruelly to maltreat
the weaker sex.
John Sally, who knocked down and kicked the
young woman in Gray's-inn-lane, was sentenced to
a fine of three pounds, or, in default of payment, to
six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour ! Why not
five pounds, or the longest term of imprisonment
which our laws, lenient to all kinds of male-factors, al-
lows ? It could not surely be because the young wo-
man was what is called "an unfortunate girl ;"
since, being more exposed to outrage, she should,
for that very reason, enjoy the greater protection
from the law. Who creates the class of unfortunate
women ? Who supports them ? Who condemns
them to lead a life of shame and infamy ? They are
not without accomplices. Society fosters the habits
which occasion their ruin, and then all but abandons
them to the ruffianism and ferocity of the dastai'ds
who frequent their company. With regard to there
unhappy persons, therefore, the law requires amend-
ment, and if, as a people, we possessed half the I
humanity we take credit for, the Legislature would I
not be slow to accomplish what is necessary.
The next culprit whose achievements we have to
notice is John Davis, who cut open the lip and loos-
ened the teeth of Mary Lynch. His excuse was that
he had been drinking. As the habit of intoxication
is common, therefore women must not venture into
the streets after dark, because young men, the mo-
ment they become exhilarated, are addicted to cut
open the lips and knock down tbeir throats the teeth
of the first females they meet. Mr. Bingham, of
Marlborough-street, went as far as the law allowed
towards putting a stop to this kind of brutality. He
condemned the offender to a fine of five pounds, or
two months' imprisonment. But is this sufficient ?
Are women to be disfigured for life by any one who
is capable of paying five pounds ? Ought any dis-
cretion to be left to magistrates ? Should not the
offender ba condemned to six months' imprison-
ment at least ? While the law shows so much
reluctance to punish offences against the person,
it is fierce and almost furious against any inva-
sion of property. While these discussions are
in progress—while a man who splits his aunt's
skull is allowed to compromise the matter by an
apology at his pleasure—while the wretch who half
kicked a girl to death is fined three pounds or sent to
prison for six weeks—George Burton, for stealing
three bushels and a half of chaff is condemned to
twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour! Now
would not Mary Lynch have given three bushels and
a half of chaff to preserve her teeth or her lips from
being split open ? A man for stealing a silver pencil-
case was recently transported for ten years. The
same culprit might have half murdered a woman and
escaped with a few weeks' imprisonment !
But the worst case of all remains yet to be men-
tioned, that of henry Hale, a civil engineer, who
commenced his outrages by beating a defenceless old
woman, and, after exhibiting towards all who ap•
proached him a ferocity and brutality almost unexam•
pled, consummated his ruffianism by cutting open the
head of a woman who rushed for ward to protect her
husband from violence. According to the accounts
published, the life of this woman is in danger, and the
prisoner has been remanded for a week, till it shall be
seen whether she dies or not. We are, consequently,
unable to foresee what is to be this person's punish-
ment. Probably'some short term of imprisonment,
or some fine, or he may be allowed to compromise
with Mr. Higgins for his wife's mutilation, if Mr.
Higgins can be persuaded to agree to any compromise,
which we by no means anticipate. This is not a
wholesome state of the law. We do not desire to
legislate through sentimentality, but we maintain
that as women require more protection, on account of
their being less able to defend themselves, the law
should grant it to them, and prove its sincerity by
punishing with double severity all offences against
them.
The police, it appears, are subjected continually to
be maimed and mutilated while defending women in
the streets—very frequently by soldiers, who, when
detected in their offences, are either punished very
slightly, or let off without any punishment at all.
The police-constables are reluctant to interfere with
them ; whether they have received orders to be
lenient towards these red-coated vagabonds, or are
deterred by apprehensions of their vindictiveness—
this is a point that deserves to be inquired into. We
suspect it would be found, if the police were ques-
tioned, that they have received orders not to be too
hard towards the strutting pretorians who offend the
eye in our streets. At any rate, they are constantly
engaged in acts of brutality, and yet are seldom
brought up for punishment. We shall see what be-
comes of Francis Tripp, who knocked the woman
down in Chapel-street, Belgrave-square, and then
exercised his brutality towards the police-constable.
However, the worst case now before the public is
that of Henry Hale, who made so brutal an attack on
Mrs. Higgins, at Hoxton. The law must make some
examples, or else the relatives of women who are thus
assaulted in the streets must take the matter into
their own hands, and inflict such punishment as they
may consider calculated to deter the offenders from a
repetition of their crimes. What this will lead to it
is not difficult to foresee.