her liberty, in
case of any gross misbehaviour." Doubtless what Mr. Weller, Sr.,
describes as the "amiable weakness" of wife-beating was not necessarily
confined to the "lower rank." For instance, some of the courtly
gentlemen of the reign of Queen Anne were probably not averse to
exercising their old-time prerogative. Says Sir Richard Steele
(_Spectator_, 479): "I can not deny but there are Perverse Jades that
fall to Men's Lots, with whom it requires more than common Proficiency
in Philosophy to be able to live. When these are joined to men of warm
Spirits, without Temper or Learning, they are frequently corrected with
Stripes; but one of our famous Lawyers is of opinion, That this ought to
be used sparingly." The law was, indeed, even worse than might appear
from the words of Blackstone. The wife who feared unreasonable violence
could, to be sure, bind her husband to keep the peace; but she had no
action against him. A husband who killed his wife was guilty of murder,
but the wife who slew her husband was adjudged guilty of petty treason;
and whereas the man would be merely drawn and hanged, the woman, until
the reign of George III, was drawn and burnt alive.[397]

The right of a husband to restrain a wife's liberty may not be said to
have become completely obsolete until the case of _Reg. v. Jackson in
1891_.[398] Wife-beating is still a flagrantly common offence in
England.

[Sidenote: Wife's property in marriage.]

Turning now to the question of the wife's property in marriage, we shall
be forced to believe that Blackstone was an optimist of unusual
magnitude when he wrote that the female sex was "so great a favourite of
the laws of England." Not to weary the reader by minute details, I
cannot do better than give Messrs. Pollock and Maitland's excellent
summary of the final shape taken by the common law--a glaring piece of
injustice, worthy of careful reading, and in complete accord with
Apostolic injunctions: "I. In the lands of which the wife is tenant in
fee, whether they belonged to her at the date of the marriage or came to
her during the marriage, the husband has an estate which will endure
during the marriage, and this he can alienate without her concurrence.
If a child is born of the marriage, thenceforth the husband as 'tenant
by courtesy' has an estate which will endure for the whole of his life,
and this he can alienate without the wife's concurrence. The husband by
himself has no greater power of al