Responsibility of Wives in England.

Southland Times, Issue 4493, 4 December 1882, Page 4

Responsibility of Wives in England.

-..-Xyy- . . . ♦ ■ ■_-;-.- -■ The reoAflegi«lMi¥fty6nflctmentg which have to a considerable extent altered the relations pi^bb«lyV6xiating between hosbandsi and tbeir wives, giving-to-the latter an »mouftl*l6>leptodence and authority over, their owtt pK^irty attdiearning* that; they did not befoie possess, has,as might bjmjbgm expected, raised a call for .anequalisation of MtposaibOiWSiaiiw^^ sapplwd by .Mffl^SS^i. a__i^tgg t ,«ii«a 7 l«at«» ther inf^t .children m -T.'wOfr. JWWM? __•- V •**. t»il _« V *'' i At-i?___ M___.u___.i__ *■ unattended, or even, deserts them entirely, is uaderßftlegtiLpenalty lot her,oftacfc--&£ to^'ttl^ aßhe huabind*,tumve»f|Dn^ the otber band, a matt wboftßsefrtitiis family* and throws their midntentace on "the parish, is liaW#tci iniwitooment asm punishment |pr. Ida negl^«fcbhpebaltyai Tery constantly •niortiid: ; P^A'strikinf example ;of> tbe inequality bf-%orkinK of the law in the case o husbiiaand Vwife occurred »t theSontbwark Poli<^^nHsdiMi_gtbepait«eek.; A respectable man witb six children, the eldeet.ionly setei. 'yeaie^oldi «nd the yonngesti* sickly baby^iftta, applied ,to the sitting; magis- , tiate for advice. Huswife had. taken* to; drinkiffgindidtocrtea the family ; the: man, who wis obliged to go to hisdaily occupation, was tniabl»t»'atte-d^to~the-children^jrhe. workhonseauthorities refused to receive thenr,* even though the f*tbet|oMrecs'tq jwntribute to their-support tot_ebest"of fiis ability. At the recommjeidationC'oft the::magistrate the baby, being ill, was receivedat the workhouse infirmary ;;bttt [as £he -man had no{female ; relative to look after his family, the fate of the Others— the eldesftgirlbping only/ seven— can fee bettei imagined than,desciioed. Had the Bexes,p£'the{ parents been reversed, and the". wif e .jgjtii jpxjsmali children applied for aid, j a wMW^.Woß^d'.^ve,beenJissued for the ap-' prehension of tiie man, wh<? iwtibr&hSvssgfent i the next few months at'haft. iaboringadl ; j -tnt.'ffl&ib^ifi'^fieo cohductTdf fclfe? wi|6^ould hardly be worse than it was described} Jl&she. had left her husband, children, and sick in. t&ntiWip aWay-witß aiiothicr'manj she is' not, as ttiSlaw^ow T "esisfev-liable : tb iany'punishmeift4shl.ever '$ ' Thetoah/ can, if he has sufficient fnndßj_sue fot a divorce and by her con-~ duct he^free from Sny liability to contribute tolierVanppT)rtie\:eßShftiild;hen9t)ds>:Bo; bnt she cannot be punished for deserting her family. Similasicades not uncommonly come before "tiie magistrates, who are loud in their denunciation oj. the inequality of a3aw. which punishes a man severely -for a crime which ft woman'may cbmrnit- with dmpunity.-^The Queen.^sr_ji._.T ,;iKA'i;v.y vzz "J a