The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-17 00:00:00

THE PROPERTY OF MARRIED WOMEN.

The Act to amend the law relating to the property
of married women passed in the recent session, al-
though much altered in the House of Lords, con-
tains some clauses of an important character, and
will materially affect the status of those women who
come under its provisions. Earnings acquired after
the passing of the Act are to be declared their own,
and deposits in savings banks are to be
deemed their separate property. Property in the
funds or in a joint stock company or society is pro-
vided for, and it is laid down that deposits of money
in favour of creditors are to be invalid. Not only
is property coming to a married woman her own,
but this right is also extended to freeholds. One of
the most important clauses provides that in
any question between husband and wife as to pro-
perty declared by this Act to be the separate pro-
perty of the wife, either party may apply by sum-
mons or motion in a summary way either in the
Court of Chancery, or, in England, to the judge of a
County Court. There may be an appeal, and the
judge may, it either party so require, hear the appli-
cation in his private room. A married woman can
insure her own life or the life of her husband
for her own separate use, and a policy of insurance
effected by the husband on his own life and expressed
upon the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife, or
his wife and children, shall be deemed a trust for the
benefit of the wife for her separate use. Further, a
married woman may maintain an action. But if the
new Act has defined the rights of wives, it also re-
leases the husband of certain liabilities which have
frequently been held up as unjust. For the future
husbands are not to be liable for the debts of their
wives contracted before marriage, a provision that may
have some effect on the matrimonial market. It is also
provided that a married woman having separate pro-
perty is to be liable to a parish on her husband be-
coming chargeable.

WIFE BEATING.

Not many days ago a man named Mahoney was
tried at Guildford for feloniously killing his wife,
and the evidence being as clear as day, he was found
guilty. It was proved that on the 6th of June
Mahoney dragged his wife by the hair of her head,
beating and kicking her violently. She was on her
hands and knees moaning fearfully, bleeding from
the mouth and eyes, and frightfully swollen and
bruised, with two wounds on the left temple, which
were both bleeding. She was helped by a neigh-
bour into her house and there vomited blood. As
she was in that condition the prisoner seized her by
the hair and shook her violently. She lay there for
days very ill, her lett eye, especially, being in a shocking
state. She became worse, began to complain of her
throat, was taken to the workhouse, and there died
of lockjaw. As already" stated, the scoundrel was
found guilty, and the judge had it in his power not
only to send him to penal servitude, but to order
him to be flogged at intervals. Instead of this, how-
ever, this fellow was sentenced to eight months' im-
prisonment with hard labour, a punishment almost
absurd in its leniency, when the offence is taken into
consideration. A correspondent of the Times draws
attention to a case tried at the same place, in which
a wretched drunken woman was sentenced to fifteen
months imprisonment for causing the death of her
infant by neglect. The contrast is glaring, and
worthy of consideration.

BABY-FARMING.

Is baby-farming an institution peculiar to England,
or is it in consequence of the persistent publicity
given to cases of this inhuman description, that no
sooner has one trader in helpless innocence been run
to earth than another makes her appearance to shame
the morality of English motherhood P It is a re-
markable fact that Ireland and Scotland are almost
free from this disgraceful crime, and this, too, in the
face of the returns of the registrar, who periodically
informs the public that the latter country is more
prolific than the southern part of the island in the
causes that are popularly believed to lead to this crime.
At the same time that the crimes of the two miser-
able creatures from Brixton were being commented
upon at the Central Criminal Court, the deputy-coroner
for Central Middlesex was making inquiries into a case
which had all the well-known characteristics. The
unfortunate subject of the inquest had been placed
in the care of a Mrs. Parks, of Whitfield-street,
Tottenham Court Road, and the mother agreed to
pay 4s. a week for the support of the child. After a
time the payments ceased, and when the infant was
taken to the workhouse it was, as may be expected, in
a sad condition. But death was kinder to the child
than either mother or " farmer." The frequent oc-
currence of these barbarities—for they de-
serve no other name—is enough -to detract from
womanhood all that is holiest And purest.

ME LAST MONT BLANC ACCIDENT.

It seems that a second life, that of the guide who
was leading Mrs. Marke, was lost in the late accident
on Mont Blanc. From a full narrative of the dis-
aster, we learn that Mr. Marke's party, on leaving
Chamonix on August Ist, consisted of his wife
(the lady who was killed), another young lady, and
three guides, one of whom, a Savoyard, named
Guy Crozier Ozyme, was directed to take
the arm of Mrs. Marke. When the explorers
had successfully traversed the great and the little
plateau so familiar to all. Alpine climbers, and had
arrived at Le Corridor, they noticed that a strong
breeze was blowing, and Mr. Marko with two guides
advanced before the ladies to see if the weather was
likely seriously to interfere with an onward course.
While they were away the ladies complained of cold,
and the guide Ozyme, on his own responsibility,
appears to hive counselled and undertaken a