^^' fK r i^ /6. LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE WITH REMARKS Errieir Women's foperij %i\ OF 1874. ADDRESSED TO ALL HUSBANDS AND FATHERS OF FAMILIES, BY PHILO-FAMILIAS. AUDI ALTeRAM PARTEM. iixtl] (lEHition. LONDON : E. W. ALLEN, 11, AYE MARIA LANE, E.G., and n, STATIONERS' HALL COURT, E.O, Frioe Sixpence. ADVERTISEMENT. The chief objects of this Pamphlet are to show — Firstly : The great amount of injustice which Husbands in the main, more particularly among the poorer classes, suffer from the partial decisions of Magistrates, County Court and other Judges, &c., &c. Secondly : The spurious nature of the outcry on property grie- vances raised by the Married Women's Rights' agitators. Thirdly : The substantial nature of the grievances of Husbands regarding their property— all liable to have it stolen from them by their Wives ; and, in point of fact, liable for all the debts the Wives may please to contract. Fourthly : Other grievances of married men as fathers of families, such as the ability of their Wives to thwart them in their plans of giving the children suitable education, &c., &c. Fifthly : That, as a rule, women are not held responsible for any offences they may commit ; consequently, the married state is now made so intolerable for Husbands, that single men, who reflect upon the subject, must increasingly be deterred from contracting matrimony. The door is, therefore, left open for vice, immorality, and improvidence. Sixthly : The necessity of the appointment of some tribunal, such as a Royal Commission, to revise the entire system of Law of Husband and Wife. Numerous examples are adduced, with the object of bringing the hitherto-unsuspected facts and novel views herein enunciated before the public, who are now thoroughly deceived upon these points in the most important social question of the day.-^See Appendix. LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. REMARKS WITH REFERENCE TO THE BlarmtJ Wiomtns "jgrnpxrtji Bills AND ACT OF 1874. Circumstances have rendered it necessary that the public attention should be steadily directed to one of the most important questions of the day. The promoters of this Act have not yet arrived at the elementary principle, that married women, if they are allowed increased privileges at the expense of their husbands, should be made subjject to corresponding liabilities. The Act does not simply make them ill law femmes soles-, but it makes them femmes soles and married wom^n cnmbined—i.e., to have the privileges of both and the liabi- lities of neither. Its promoters are ignorant of, or they choose to ignore, the iniquitous effects of the separate use to tHvest" system, which is liable to act as a direct incentive to wives to incur debts on the strength of their income, which debts the husbands are called on to pay, in very many cases; the wife being always able to spend her separate income on her private pleasures, luxury, and extrava- gance, without any necessity of contributing to the support of husband or family, or to hoard up her money. The wife, secure of her maintenance for life, has every inducement to set her husband at defiance. It is well known to married men, although not generally acknowledged, that in many cases, this system acts as an encourage- ment to adultery on the part of the wife, and, at the very least, puts into her hands the means of injuring and insulting her husband, lowering his position and authority in the eyes ot his children, his household, and society. She can always withhold any contribution she may have promised towards the expenses of the family, or keep a threat of ^o doing over the husband's head. These evils, hitherto partial, will, by recent legislation, be spread universally over the land. The only remedy for the evils covijylained of, seems to be the adoption of such Jer/isldtion as vn'r/ht he suggested hy a Royal Commission to he afij^ohitedto invedigute the entire Law of Husband and Wife, as re- coviwended hy thij " Westminster Revktv.'^ It is submitted that no wife ought to be allowed to enjoy any income imlependently of her husband's participation; any such income ought to be expended only by the joint, action of husband and wife on the household, on the education of the children, &c., &c., in the same manner as tlie husband's income is now liable. So far from this being the tendency of legislation, there is an ever-active agitation to prevent the husband, altho.ugh liable for his wife's debts, from receiving any money or personal property coming to the wife. The foregoing is worthy of the consideration of those who are under the impression that married women require more protection lor their property, from their husbands, than at present. The public do not pay sufficient attention to the fact that, in nine cases out of ten, or rather 10,000 cases to one of the population, it is the husband whose labour and exertions support* the family ; at any rate in middle life. The occupations of the wife are generally of an easy character: at least, they employ themselves in "spending," with more or less economy (or it may be with extravagance), the hard- earned wages of the husband, be he professional or workiiig man. It is absolutely impossible for any bequest or gift to render a husband independent of liabihty for his wife's debts ; is it then too much to expect that a wife should contribute part of any money accruing to her to the support of the lamily and the husband? Is it just that a wife should enjoy the benefit of all her husband's income, and at the same time should be the sole pos- nossor of her own property? Are there not perils and miseries enough in the married state already ? Is it worth while to cause every husband in the land to look upon his wife as his rival and enemy ? The Times has truly said that many a father has had cause to rue the strict settlement of money upon a daughter on her marriage — the most common cause of adultery on the part of the wife, as it is of domestic unhappiness. For every single case of a wiie ruined and outraged by her husband, there wouhl be found thousands of cases of husbands ruined and outraged by their wives. At present, it is a common practice of wives, in the middle and lov\er ranks of liie, to involve their husbands in debt and difficulty, through recklessness, proneness to vice, and the determination to vex and injure their husbands, by taking advantage of an unjust condition of the law. Legislators are apt to expatiate upon the wrongs of wives ; many of them littlf know the wrongs of husbands, olten tied for life to partners devoid of all principle, of all ^shame, whose interest the law makts it to render theniselves torniidable by keeping up a constant irritation in the minds of their husbands, with the view of getting favourable teims of separation ; making use unscrupu- lously .of that dreadful weapon — the longne ; often carrying on aAlely criminal intrigues, vhile their husbands are away, wearing inemselves out in labour lor the support of their wives and iamilies. ;t is well known that v\ives will provoke their husbands to commit acts of violence upon them in order that they may procure their incarceration, with a view to their enjoying adulterous inter- course witiiout molestation ; for, in all cases, the vicious wife feels that she can count on the active sympathy and co-operation of the magistrates and other administrators of the law, also of the associations for enforcing the Laws for the Protection of Married Women, &c., &c. : the Divorce Court, the Press, the Public, all, in compliance with the fashion of the day, eager to assist in the oppression of the injured husband. Thus, already, marriage in England is capable of being a curse to the man, and any alteration in the proposed direction will drive men more and more to avoid it. It is well known that there are many cases of wives in possession of considerable incomes who have allowed their husbands to be in receipt of parish relief. What man of sound mind would venture to marry at all under the proposed regime? What minister of religion would venture to recommend a man to marry ? Marriages throughout the land would become, ae in the cases alluded to, simply legal concubinage. It is to be feared that such schemes as this — that for the enfranchisement of w^omen, &c. — would, if carried out, destroy altogether the family in England. There are so many points to be considered into which the main subject branches: — the apparent repudiation by the advocates of Women's Rights (chiefly single women) of all duties of obedience and subordination on the part of the income-spending partner towards him, whom the oldfashioned ceremony or sacrament caused her to vow before God and the world to obey ; the dead set made against husbands by magistrates and others, who ignore the bad conduct, the violence, dissipation, extravagance, treachery, and even adultery of depraved wives; proposals made that men maddened by their wives' conduct, to the extent of committing violence upon them, should be punished with flogging, &c.; the entire ignormg of the same offences of violence being committed ofteti by wives aoainst their husbands — this state of things being aggravated by the incomparably more serious effects of the wife's adultery, by the wife's unscrupulous use of the tongue, &c. It is a common custom for wives disagreeing with their husbands, even when living apart (in adultery or otherwise), to go to the husband's house for the evident purpose of laying a trap for them — that the husband may commit violence, such as turning the wife out- of-doors, or assaulting her: as in a case betbre the police-court lately. The husband was living with a mistress, alleging that his wife had left him, and had committed adultery. The magistrate (Hammersmith), said he nmst imprison the husband for turning the wife out-of-doors, in presence of his mistress; the couple at the same time were willing to come to terms. Very lately, a wife avowedly living in ^Hultery, went to her husband's house to annoy him; he assaulted her, the magistrate knew of the wife's living in adultery, but he said that was no business of his ; he punished the husband by imprisonment with hard labour. Thus we see the gross inequality of the justice (! ) admitiistered by magistrates; io one case the magistrate takes upon himself to 6 aggravate the husband's ofJence and increase his punishment, apparently on account of his living in adultery ; in the other, when a wile aaniittedly living in adultery makes a complaint, the magis- trate says her dis-solute conduct is no business of his, and practically renders himself the accomplice of the wife to outrage the husband : the wives never punished, the husbands severely, for the same offences. It is not uncommon for magistrates and others to proclaim aloud that a maw niu>t be a brute to touch a woman in anger. Although this to a certain extent may be true, when constantly dinned in the ears of women it is enough to embolden them to commit any excesses they please in aggravating conduct which their husbands dare not resent ; the magistrates >j'ould certainly punish the husbands in case they commit any violence, without paying any regard to the provoking and intolerable conduct of the wife which naturally, if not justifiably, led to the husband's violence. Formerly, at any rate, if not now, at the instance of the Poor Law authorities, husbands were compelled to support their wives while livit.g away from them in open adultery, and the children of their wives by other men, born in adultery. These facts alone give us an idea of the infamous abuses caused by our over-refined legal system, enough to account for, if not justify, the husband sometimes taking away the life of the guilty parties. The reprehensible partiality of the Divorce Court is to be noted in cases in which the wife brings charges of cruelty against her husband. The judge has stated that he does not believe the wife's statement ; yet he has decided in her favour, in consequence of some want of temper shown by the husband, and made over the custody of the children to the wife. He says the wife is, no doubt, of a violent temper, yet that is no reason why she should be ill-treated — I.e., women with violent tempers are told, in effect, that they may do anything they like. If they are interfered with, the husband will be ctiarged with cruelty; his income and children made over to the wife, as a reward for her bad temper and her treachery. When the grossest acts of treachery and violence are committed upon husbands by their wives, no sympathy is expressed by the public, the press, or the magistrates ; on the contrary, the husband is found a good butt for ribald jokes. — Witness the Daily Telegraph Article referred to (Extract from the Law Times, 2nd Edition), and the Press, jpnrssmi. A man, bedridden from rheumatism, was almost starved by his wife, who spent day and night away from him, returning once a day to give him a little food. She was living in aduliery and debauchery <>f all kinds. ISome time after his partial recovery, he tried to shoot his wile, probably to maim her. He was-brought up for trial. The bench of magistrates was indignant at his conduct. It does not seem to have occurred to anyone to feel or express any indignation ag;iinst the conduct of the wife. Put who would have been surprised if the husband had beat the wife, or maimed her to within an mch of her i«te ? A man was pursuaded by his wife to go to Australia, to find em- ployment and a location. She went to live in adultery with a trades- man. The husband, on his return, sought an interview with his wife. He could not obtain this. He tried to shoot the tradesman — to injure him in some way. The magistrates seemed to be shocked at his con- duct. Neither they nor anyone else seemed to be shocked at the conduct of the wife, nor that of the paramour. On another point, the injustice and partiality of the Divorce Court are to be observed. In almost all cases in which the husband brings a charge against the wife of adultery, the reply is pat forward that the husband connived at it, or condoned it. This is the most odious accusation that could be brought against a man. Every one knows that, in the great majority of cases, this is a mere lawj'er's device to frighten and bring disgrace upon the husband. The judges of the Divorce Court have never expressed any sense of the discreditable and scandalous nature of this method of defence on the part of the wife; but not long ago, in a case in which the hus- band adduced an instance of the wife's undoubted adultery, it was stated that he had condoned it previously. The Judge now volun- teered his opinion that this method of defence was discreditable to the husband. So, in the matter of expenses, the affair is made as expensive as possible to the husband, who has to pay for the false charges of cruelty, for the perjury of witnesses, and for the manoeuvres of lawyers determined to advance any charge, however unfounded, against him. On the second reading, in the House of Commons, of the Married Women's Property Bill, in 1869, there were some very singular arguments put forth, as for instance : Mr. Jessel gave a kind of paraphrase of the dictum of the American lady, "Women have* as much right to keep paramours as men to keep mistresses." He said he knew cases of a wife's income being spent upon an adulterer, and that there was no more reason for her being in that case deprived of her income, than there would be for deprivmg a husband of his income if he kept a mistress — a sentiment which drew down loud applause from the Liberal benches. Are we to conclude then that one violation of the moral law justifies another? Here may be noted the great difference, in point of fatal conse- quences, between the infidelity of the husband and of the wife. The wife has the tremendous power (Rights of Women) of imposing upon her husband, as his legal progeny, the offspring of any other roan, from the peer to the footman. The knowled:j;e of this, or even the grave suspicion of this infi- delity, together with the tongue of the wife, is quite enough to account for the violence often shown by husbands towards their wives. The moment an unfaithful wife forms a penchant for ?inym2Ln but her husband, there is danger that the husband's whole resources will be used against him by the wife, in order that she may annoy or ruin him — with these purposes particularly, or in addition, with the view of provoking him to commit acts of violence, so-called " cruelty," for the purpose of her living in adultery without molestation, or getting a divorce, and forming herself a new connection. 8 It becomes a question whether a wife shouhl be able to acquire riffhts of property, independent of her husband's control, from any third party whatever. It is evident that some one may make pre- sents to a wife, or make settlements upon her, with the most neflirious intentions — of annoying or injuring the husband, of obtain- ing control over the wife, possession of her person, &c. In all cases such rights are liable to be attended by fatal consequences to the husband and iamily ; as was noted in a case where property came to the wife, as a result of the combined treachery of wife and accom- plices, from the father of the husband, who was thus robbed of his rightful inheritance ; the same being given over to his most deadly enemy, with the immediate effect of ruining the husband's prospects of keeping out of debt, of educating the children, &c. ; lawyers, trustees, and other third parties comirg forward at the hus- band's expense, to assist the wife to ruin him by setting him at defiance, &c. Similar results may happen in the case of property or income left to the wife by her father or relations. By the Married Women's Property Act, as amended, the wife and any third party may im- mediately begin to remove the husband's property, furniture, &c. ; set up a house with it — a hotel, a shop of any kind, &c. Another question arises : — How can a wife do her duty to her husband if she be allowed by law to set up any business, to carry on correspondence, to pay visits, to make money arrangements with third parties — perhaps rivals of her husband in business or his sworn enemies ; still more, if she be allowed to enter into partner- ship-agreements, such as entering another man's house, and residing as housekeeper, &c. ? Many cases are known of wives — even those v^ith ample means — who incur debts with tradesmen for their hus- bands to pay; simply often to annoy their husbands; often also to save their own money lor purposes of extravagance, or vicious indulgences. In almost all such cases, it is believed that Juries, County Court Judges, and the Superior Courts, compel the husbands to pay ; and yet the advocates of the Married Women's Property Bill assert that the obligations of a husband to support his wife are not stringent enough. In estimating the amount of property, income, &c. of the husband, with refierence to alimony to the wife, the Divorce Court constantly acts upon the evidence of the husband's sworn foes, and those who have a direct pecuniary interest in giving false evidence — namely, the wife and the wife's relations. IVlr. Mill, in his " Subjection of Women," makes a statement quite contrary to the truth, when he says' that if a wife leaves her husband she can take nothing with her (this is adduced as a hard- ship); the fact being that she cannot be punished if she takes away all her husband's property with her, even in company with a paramour. It may be said that matrimonial infidelity is generally the result of passion among men, and calculation among women. Witness the experience of the Divorce Court and common life, which shows us constantly wives leaving husbands and children in order to rise in the social scale, or to enjoy the benefits of comparative! v oreater wealth and luxury ; to become, after marriage, peeresses, or even as Honourable Mrs. * * * * *^ when, after the divorce, the paramour shall have married the wi^'e : so, in marriage, the man generally marries from affection, the T^oman is more apt to marry from calculation, to make a good match. It is submitted that no wife ought to be able to incur debts with a tradesman, or any other party, without the express authorisation given by tbe husbatid to that person. From want of such a law, monstrous tyranny is sometimes practised. A wife takes goods from a seller, viz., a tallyman, draper, &c., or, as in certain cases, a wife refuses to take goods from him, and he forces them into the house and leaves tbem. The County Court Judges, or other legal authorities, will comptl tl'.e husband to pay, &c., and will commit him to prison in default. In a large proportion of cases of complaint by wives against husbands, the wife is often more deservini; of punishment than the husband, whom the magistrate punishes without fairly investigating the whole case, hurriedly acting upon the unsupported statement of the husband's sworn foe — the vindictive wi'e. If an injured husband were to try and regain possession by force of a wife who had left him, he would also for that be punished for an assault. In very many cases the wrong party is punished — the husband instead of the wife. Lord St. Leonards (Ex Chancellor Sugden), in a letter to the Times, denounced the Married Women's Property Bill as the General Divorce Bill, and intimated that all that is required to remedy the special grievance complained of is a judicious extension of the " pro- tection order" system, such orders to be granted after proved crimmality of the husband. The agitation in favour of ]Vl,arried Women's Property Rights is carried on chiefly by maiden ladies, who cannot know what are the relations between man and wife — what their relative liabilities, pecuniary, moral, and social, are and ought to be. It is difficult, with due regard to decency, to put the true facts of the case before them. Neither they nor the male advocates of the change have yet grasped the principle that, if women have increased property rights granted to them, justice demands that they should be made to assume increased liabilities. In the history of mankind we may observe that the ag-grieved or enslaved nations or parties have almost invariably endeavoured to enslave or degrade other nations or parties, as soon as they had shaken the yoke off their own shoulder — as the Normans ; in later periods the United States slaveholders ; recently the Prussians, &c. In like manner women having, in reality, some grievances, and in lancy more, and having obtained certain redress, their advocates are now doing their utmost to degrade men in their capacity as husbands and fathers. History shows us that men in certain countries and ages have discontinued marriage to a great extent. Here the same might occur, and women would then have to lament a deeper degradation. The doctrinaires, the philanthropists, the benevolent clergy and social reformers, the single ladies, are in effect fighting the battles of 10 the married wanton, the adulteress, and the termagant. It may be confidently stated that now the tendency of legislation, of the action of the Police Courts, Divorce Court, the County Courts, &c., is to press hardly upon the husband. The worst construction is put upon his actions and motives ; he is punished capriciously and excessively for such offences of violence, of neglect to support his family, &c., as he may commit; while the wife, who may lead the most abandoned life^ and may commit the most atrocious acts of violence towards him, is rarely^ probably never, punished. Magistrates and Judges do not take into consideration that it is the wife's infidelity, or dissolute life, or aggravating conduct, that is, in very many cases, the cause of the husband's violence. The suffer- ings of aggrieved husbands are not unfrequently treated with insulting scorn or unconcern by the magistrates, and with jeering and ridicule by the press and the public. The complaining wives, often the most depraved of their sex, are urged on by interested third parties — lawyers and others, &c. — as the various associations for enforcing the ' ' Laws for the Protection of Women and Children," who take no pains to ascertain the real facts of the case between man and wife, and are always ready to take the part of depraved women. Also they are abetted by the parochial authorities, whose action is to oppress husbands among the lower classes most iniquitously. Not long ago a wife eloped with her paramour, taking away the children of herself and her 'husband. The parish prosecuted the husband for neglecting to provide for the children, although it was proved that he had no means of procuring access to them. The authorities were inexorable. The reader is referred to the daily police reports for examples of the great hardships to which husbands are liable under the present administration of the law. ' The Divorce Court is another engine for their oppression. They have to bear the expenses of any complaint or defence that the wife or her advisers may set up. They are hardly dealt with as regards costs. Facts and law are wrested to their prejudice ; the worst con- structions are put upon the actions and defence of husbands. Women found guilty of adultery, allowed by the judge alimony (and access to the children), when the husband is already almost ruined by law expenses. Thus we find a dead set made against all hus- bands by the various authorities, who, virtually, treat all wives as if they were immaculate, and husbands as necessarily in the wrong. On such principles the Married Women^s Pi-operty Bill was promoted, its advocates being ignorant, or choosing to ignore the fact, that for one case in whicli a wife is ruined by her husband, ten thousand cases occur in which the huJsbands are ruined^ by their wives. It was promoted by a noisy but importunate and important body of agitators, faintly opposed in Parliament by a few only of those who loudly denounce its principles in private; while the main body of society — including the lawyers, and notably the clergy — look un- concernedly on, as if it can be a matter of indifference to them whether measures are carried out or not, which would subvert n all authority erf husbands and fathers, and annihilate the married fitate. It may be confidently asserted that, unless a check be put to the present system of oppression of husbands, and to the designs of the doctrinaires, men will avoid altogether the state of matrimony ; they will see that the only function open to them as married men will be that of bread-winners, i.e., Beasts »/ Burden : to have all the labour, 'all the responsibility ; the wife all the enjoyment, all the privileges; to be kept in idleness upon the proceeds of the sweat of the husband's brow, to be endowed by law with irresponsible power, and to be absolved from all duties. It is interesting to note the revolutionary, or rather anarchical, doctrines put forth by the doctrinaire advocates of Women's Rights : — Mr. Mill has given his opinion that a man who produces a large family, with the chance of their not being all provided for, should be treated by society with the same rigour as the dipsomaniac, and portions of the Liberal press are constantly making suggestions for the limitation of families: all this, with the view of obstructing the procreation of the human race, ordained by nature and religion. They do not regard the objections made, that any such obstruction to propagation of the species by marriage, must necessarily lead to indiscriminate intercourse and prostitution. In vain are they warned that the highest interest of the species, sexual morality, the public health, &c., require a contrary system to be pursued ; that to counteract the evil consequences of prostitution, and particularly its blasting effects in spreading contagious disease, a system of early marriages would be the best safeguard ; but the doctrinaires intiotiate that they will initiate legislative measures, by which not only pros- titution shall give way, but the number of the population shall be prevented from increasing to an inconvenient extent. They will put in force some preventive checks ; and to commence their plan of reform, they would put every married man at the mercy of his wife, making the married state so detestable, so onerous to the husband, that in a short time no man of sound mind could venture upon marriage at all. About January, 1870, the records of the Police Courts showed many most glaring instances of the injustice of the administration of the law in the case of assaults of husband and wife, all decisions conducing to the oppression of husbands. Two cases of wives who had lived apart from their husbands many months or years, returned to their husbands — hardworking quiet men — and committed, with heavy weapons, such assaults upon them as rendered surgical treat- ment for some time necessary. One woman was slightly punished ; the other was let off altogether, because the police constable had not witnessed the assault ; this being on the face of it impossible, as it was committed at the husband's own house. From this instance we may calculate the degree of fitness for their posts most of the police magistrates possess. It may be confidently asserted that in these cases, if the husbands had been the defendants, the magistrates would have awarded them several months' imprisonment with hard labour 12 On the 3r(l January, 1870, is reported the case " Alexander and Wife,'' before Mr. Partridge, Southwark Court. The wife havino^ lived for years away from her husband in open adultery, returned one eveninof on purpose to annoy and insult her husband, a hard- working respectable tradesman. He assaulted her, and was com- mitted for trial, having against him, in addition to the usual authorities, the prosecuting officer of " The Associate Institute for Enforcing the Laws for the Protection of Women and Children." Mr. Alexander ■was tried at the Central Criminal Court, and let off with a nominal punishment, chiefly through the action of the Judge, who said it would not be for tbe interests of morality to imprison a man who was doing his duty as guardian of his children, &c. Thus, of all the administra- tors of the law, the Judge aloue seemed to be actuated by feelings of justice, morality, and decency. On the 11th December, 1869, is reported, at Guildhall, the case of " Hale." The husband had been imprisoned for two months upon the complaint of his wife. He was a iu£.n working hard at the docks from morning to night. On his return he found no fire, and his wife absent. He lighted a fire. His wife returning prevented him from cooking his supper, and threw his hat and coat (his working implements) into the fire. The husband assaulted her. The magistrate punished the husband, taking no account of the provo- cation given by the wife. It is submitted that if homicide should be the result of such decisions, the parties whose misconduct most contributed to such result, would be not the husband, but the police magistrate, and the grandiloquent busy-bodies, the "Associate Institute," &c., &c. The chief promoters of the Married Women's Property Bills have the shameless effrontery to assert, even in the House of Parliament,, that the liability of husbands for debts contracted by their wives is merely nominal; that it amounts to nothing more than that the husband is bound to keep his wife above the need of seeking parish maintenance. As a comment upon this assertion, we may refer to the Law Intelligence, as reported the 1st February, 1870, in the Court of Comujon Pleas case, "Philipson v. Hayter." The husband had been adjudged by the Kingston County Court to pay for many non-necessaries, including about £20 for smoking luxuries, ordered by the wife for the use of her paramour, she being on the eve of her elopement. At the same time she had a separate income. We may unhesitatmgly assert, that depraved wives in their efforts to annoy, to injure, to disgrace, and to ruin their husbands, have abundant cause for feeling that ^hey may count o.n the active sympathy and co-operation of the Divorce Court, the Police Magis- trates, and other administrators of the law, and various bodies of philanthropists, like the "Associated Institute," the mass of Liberal legislators, the Press, &c., &c. No organ of public opinion has yet ventured to denounce the mockery of justice and morality which is being enacted on all hands in this particular. The police report, 7th September, 1870, contained a case, " Extra- ordinary Elopement," before Mr. Cooke, Clerkenwell. The wife, 13 having an intrigue with another man, helps bim to carry off the husband's property. The magistrate rules that th^re was no felony, and throws all the blame upon the husband. " Mr. Cooke remarked that it was strange that the applicant did not find out that his wife was keeping up an illicit intercourse with the defendant, so as to prevent his taking his goods away." Does Mr. Cooke not know that an adulteress makes use of all her husband'^ resources to hood- wink and rob him ? Does he not know that husbands have occupa- tions, which take up their time and attention away from home ? What would be thought of a magistrate who should say, "It is strange that the complainant did not know that the defeadant in- tended to garotte him or rob him ; it is the man's own fault that he did not prevent the other garotting or robbing him ?" In this, as in other cases, the magistrate showed enmity against the unfortunate husband, and active sympathy and co-operation with the adulteress and her paramour. The police report of 16th September last contained a case in which, under the newly- passed Married Women's Property Act, 1870, the Guardians of the Poor applied to Mr. Ellison, Worship Street, for an order on a wife, who has money, to support her husband, and keej) him off the parish relief. '"Three years ago her husband consented to a deed of trust for his wife's property, and since then she has turned him out." A gentleman, retired from a public office in which he attained great distinction, was induced to marry. Very soon after his mar- riage he found that the wife was insane, and had been insane habitually, and that he has no alternative except to allow her a third of his income to live apart from him. He was duped by the Mate's mother and relatives. A surgeon, a widower, with a family, in full practice, marries again. His wife persi>ts in staying out until the morning, at parties, &c. The husband objects to this ; high words ensue ; the wife leaves him, and he finds himself compelled to pay her bills. He has no alternative except to separate, allowing her £400 a-year, he all the time working himself to death to maintain his family. When the Christian philanthropist urges upon the public the necessity of an authoritative reconsideration of the law and mutual relation of husband and wile, an objection is sometimes made, that men olten choose their wives without due consideration or judg- ment, and that if they meet with unhappiness the fault is their own. Those who make use ot this fact as an argument why nothing should be attempted to improve the Law of Husband and Wife, have not duly considered how seldom men have the opportunity of meeting with suitable mates. By the very nature of thing* the dispositions of the parties must be often found incompatible. How often a man or woman's calculations must be found falsified in the result ! The fact of a good match being so very difficult to attain is rather an argument for very careful legislation, to ensure the least misery and the greatest dej^ree of happiness to the parents and children of all marriages. The fact that a man or woman must find it impossible to determine beforehand what the mate's disposition may really become 14 after marriage, would be found a valid reason for men declining mar- riage altogether. Should this occur, even to the extent of only one marriage occurring to every ten which takes place now, what would be the consequences to society ? Let the philanthropist and divine and man of the world declare ! It is well known that irresponsible power has turned the head of the wisest of m^n. What effect must it not have upon women ? Can it be said that any woman is fitted to endure the strain of irresponsible power r-— and vet this is what is being conferred upon her by the agency of the " Women's Rights'" agitators and the administrators of the law ; power to outrage an^ ruin their husbands and families, with perfect impunity to them- selves : every encouragement given to them by law and custom to mi?iuse their own property and that of their husbands, while they are themselves by law protected from the consequences of their own misconduct. By the very nature of society, women haVe more opportunity, more necessity for reserve, for concealing their real sentiments, their real dispositions, than men, before marriage. They are generally under the control of relatives or of public opinion. After marriage they are at once let loose from all control whatever. With men marriage is rather a matter of affection than of calcula- tion. The imagination has much sway in these engagements. What wonder then that men are so often disappointed, without any blame rightly accruing to them for rashness or want of fore- thought ? It is probable that not one man or one woman in a hundred have the opportunity of marrying the person who would be the one most suited to the co-partnership in the voyage of life. In numerous instances, in which circumspection and caution have not been want- ing, and in which most estimable qualities may have existed in one or in both parties, fatal divisions occur, oVving to some incompatibility of temper or cast of mind. The aims of the one partner may be too elevated for the appreciation of the other partner. The mutual affections of parents for their children, when not supplemented by extreme prudence on both sides, often, too, lead to fatal divisions in families. But in a great number of cases, the division of opinion and practice with the parents would not have led to results so destructive of the interest of families, but for the state of the law, which, increasingly in compliance with the fashionable notions of the day, practically urges the wife to set her husband at defiance. The happiest marriages may be said to be, not those in which the highest qualities of mind and moral sense may be found on both sides, but those in which, both parties possessing the quality of common-sense and moderation, the wife is content to act in subor- dination in all important respects to her^ husband's wishes. Men often find their best helpmates m those women who are docile, but whose real strength of mind and whose moral faculties are, before marriage, latent, and even unsuspected, by themselves, their parents, and instructors. All pious parents of a youth would declare their earnest desire that he should put forth his best faculties early in life to secure a !5 happy home ; and, doubtless, that is found in practice the chief mundane end kept in view by the pious, ardent, and ambitious youth of all ranks of life. Thwart that aim by immoral laws, by immoral customs of the leaders ot society — what aim worthy of a rational being do you leave to the young man of ordinary capacity and ten iencie« ? None whatever ; the great majority will choose a career of self-indulgence. Indolence, and vice, its invariable concomitant, will replace happy labour and soul -strengthening self-denial. From the majority of mankind we must not expect virtue when all pro- spects of reward are denied them. The industrious man would look forward to married life with the object of his choice as a haven of rest after his weary toil. But the law reformers say in effect, " We will inflict penalties, if possible, upon you if you do not marry ; and if you do marry, we will give your wife every encouragement, every facility, to hold the rod over your head, to make your life uneasy.'' It is sometimes said by tho-e anxious to laud the good qualities and mental quahfications of women, that they are more persevering and more determinea than men: that when they have set their hearts upon an object, they will leave no stone unturned until that object is achieved. This laudation, as far as it may refer to married women, would be just, supposing that the objects they have in view are in themselves laudable. But if the objects and aims sought to be attained by the witig are the reverse of laudable, the statement, if true, offers the greatest condemnation of her conduct, and of the principles which regulate the conduct of a great proportion of married women. This point will be best illustrated by reference to a case well known to the writer. A married woman, lor a course of twenty years of married life, omitted no opportunity of opposing her hus|?and and thwarting him in all his designs. Without rendering herself the subject of an action for divorce she carried on flirtations on all possible occasions, brought the husband frequently into positions (with reference to military dissipline) from which he could not emerge without discredit, nor scarcel} without datiger or ruin. She had plausible manners, and ingratiated herself successfully with n^embers of the husband's family, and with society generally. A separation took place between the couple. The wife, having inde- pendent means, contributed nothing for some years to the family expenses. After a time she entered into a formal agreement to take charge of and educate the eldest of two. daughters. 8he made no attempt to educate the child, but made excuses to demand money for that purpose from the father, who then offered to pay the entire expenses of a suitable education. The mother and child objected to this, but the father prevailed upon the child to go to a school. A month afterwards she ran away to go to join her mother in lodgings, and refused to return to school. In her eighteenth year she has not a decent knowledge of English, and there is every prospect of her moral ruin from ignorance and total want of training. The lather has attentpted to get the child again under his care, but he is com- pletely powerless. Any attempt to put the law in motion would be attended with ruinous expense, and it has been decided that no Court will support the authority of the fatlier effectively. T'he eftect of 16 one child's setting the lather at defiance will be likely to be disas- trous with the other, who will be encouraged by the example and aided by the mother to follow in the same course. The wifie expends all her energies in corrupting the minds of the children, and turning them against their father ; in instilling into their minds the notion that education and training are scarcely, if at all, necessary for women ; in intrigues, with a view of sowing dissension between the husband and his friends, and in various ways trjing to injure him. He can only anticipate the moral ruin of both children, and appears to be totally powerless to prevent it. The state of the law and of public opinion seems to require that the wives should be supported in all their designs, and that all attempts of fathers to protect their children should be rendered nugatory. In such cases the fathers have to encounter the statement that fathers in general do not insist upon the proper education of their daughters, and with the additional significant reproof from the " Women's Eights" advocates that women are more persevering and more resolute in attaining their object than men. How resolute and persevering they are in plans lor setting the husband's paternal authority at defiance, and engrossing, by seductive arts, the affec- tions of the children, may be often seen ; but it remains for their advocates to show that they are more resolute and persevering as regards legitimate objects than men, and to give reasons why they (these advocates) would take away from huslDands what little power the law and custom still allow them, of promoting the due training and future welfare of their children. The police report, 25th January, 1871, at Hammersmith Court, before Mr. Ingham, contained a case ot accusation of assault against a husband by the wile. There was evidence to prove that he was a sober man, that the wile was a dissipated character, in the habit of assaulting him, and that the charge was made with a view of the wife and her family abstracting the husband's property. The ma- gistrate punished the husband, and stated that he would only retrain from giving him six months' imprisonment. This is one instance, among the hundreds and thousands occurring throughout the country, in which it is really the wife who deserved punishment; and the ?k]agistrate practically renders himself the tool of the depraved wife, who, as in this case, with her own family, lays her plans to ruin her husband. 17 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. The Daily Telegraph, June 12th, 1868, writing of the Married Women's Proper'y Bill ol' that year, says " that it does not secure the property from the wife's folly, and might tend to introduce into humble homes a source of perpetual contention. In fact, Mr. Lefevre's Bill may be quite right in principle, and even right in detail, if it formed part of a code reconstructing the whole Law of Husband and Wife ; but, standing by itself, it is like a proposal to knock down two or three pillars of a large building, and insert some of another order forming part of an alien design." The Standrird, June 13th, 1868, says: — "No alteration of the franchise, no revision of boundaries, no Church confiscation, could work one-tenth part of the confusion, mischief, and demoralization which would inevitably follow the passaj^e of such a measure as that pro nosed by Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and advocated by Mr. John Stuart Mill, . . . Mr. Mill defies alike the instinct given by nafure, and the law promulgated by Him whose voice speaks in natural instincts as weil as in revealed truth ; and Mr. Mill is consistent in advocating a change in the law, which strikes at the root of mar- riKge as we understand it, and aims at establishing an equality which Nature and God have forbidden. . . . We may add that the wife's piivileges are almost as often abused as the husband's. Nearly as much wrong is doue through the husband's liability for the debts of an extravagant, drunken, or runaway wife, as by the tvife's liability to have the propeity taken from her by a worthless husband. We might dilate on the consequences to the children of a divided control over their inheritance, on the difl[iculties of settling the incidence of domestic expenses, and so forth." The Tit/ifs, in a leading article, 12th of June, 1868, speaks of the Bill as condemned by its opponents, as " a piece of purely class legislation — a law, in short, subverting the established rela- tions of man and wife for the benefit of a limited number of women." The Times, 15th April, 1869, speaking of the Bill, says : — "The married state, therefore, becomes a contract between two equal partners, irresponsible to each other, and neither wholly responsible for the family. It is, in point of fact, to abolish fauiilies in the old sense, and to break up society again into men and women. Is it fair to deprive the husband of all control over the expenditure of the wife? Is it right that she should be told by the law that she may act in complete disregard of his wishes ? We are invited, ibr instance, to follow the example of the United States. Bur it is notorious that in that country the normal relations of the sexes are for the time reversed. Mr. Russell Gurney was still more unfor- tunate in quoting the example of Jamaica." . . . And, advo- cating an extension of the system of protection orders, continues : "The question is whether it woull not be practicable to apply this remed} further by admitting other grounds for the issue of such 18 orders. No sufficient argument has yet been adduced to the contrary, and, if it he practicable, most persons would prefer such a reform to a total subversion of our present law." Again, in an article, 22nd July, 1869, the Times says : *^ The truth is, as we must now be per- mitted to say frankly, that it is very questionable whether the hard- ships inflicted by unprincipled husbands upon their wives, or the ruin brought by ill-conditioned wives upon their husbands, occasions the greatest trouble among the poor. We are much inclined to think that the husband's responsibility acts at present as a very effectual check upon him, and that more homes are made unhappy by careless wives than by inconsiderate husbands. ... If the women fully performed their part, they would enjoy more power and independence than either this or any other Bill could give them. But the general exemption of the wife's property from liability for her husband's debts appears something more than strict equity sanctions. *If women claim equal rights they must accept equal duties;' they cannot have at the same moment all the advantages of independence, and all the privileges of protection." The Pall Mall Gazette of the 29th July, 1868, says that "the whole subject would have appeared to us better suited for a Com- mission than for a Select Comm.ittee. . . . Surely it is not ex- pedient that a married woman should be at liberty to neglect the care of her family, make a purse for herself, and throw the whole burden of her own and her children's support upon her husband. If magistrates in petty sessions had power to make an order, giving a wife absolute right to her earnings for a term of months or years, if they were satisfied of the husband's misconduct, drunkenness, ex- travagance, or the like, every real grievance would be remedied, and the general theory as to the normal relations would be denied." The same paper also of the 15th April, 1869, says : — " Mr. Russell Gurney said that the system was found to work well in America. It gives one a hopeless feeling when great changes are recommended on such grounds as these. To use the experience of one country for the guidance of another in this summary manner is simply idle. The Committee was accordingly reduced to hearing generalities from Mr. Dudley Field about the state of feeling prevalent on the subject in America, which is not unlike taking eviflence from eminent divines of different persuasions as to the moral effects ot the extension of their own views. If we look at the matter from the children's point of view, it surely cannot be doubted that it is to their interest that their father should in all common cases be the master of the house, the .s(»vpreien in the last resort. . . . The French law on the subject appears to us to rest in many respects on sounder principles than either our common law, or the systehi which it is proposed to substitute for it. In a few words, the connnon-law of France is that the act of marriage constitutes a partnership, of which the husband is the managing partner. ... It recognises the superiority of the husband, but it does not confer upon him harsh and absolute rights which are conferred by our common-law, and which are no doubt liable to great abuse." 19 The Blue Budget (weekly Conservative paper) of the 17th April, 1869, says : — " If we could conceive a man who, finding his tea un- pleasantly sweet, immediately determined to substitute salt for sugar in the future, or imagine the victim of a tight boot resolved to go about barefooted, a parallel would be found to the proposal now before the House of Commons with respect to the property of mar- ried women. "The oneness and identity of interest between husband and wife is destroyed, and the headship of a family entirely annihilated. If we make marriage nothing but an equal bargain, its present indisso- lubility will not last long. Nothing but fashion will cause marriages. And should ever, by one of those freaks by which the world is led to adopt a peculiar mode, any person whose acts were imi- tated set the example of substituting a liaison for a marriage, and boldly face the matter through, the temporary contract would become common, and would possibly supersede matrimony." .... No man felt more keenly the necessity of maintaining inviolable the relationship which is constituted by the marriage act than Jeremy Bentham, who said that *' the wife should submit to the laws of the husband, Siiving recourse to justice. And the administration shall belong to the husband alone. And between two persons who pass their life together, there may at every moment be a contradiction. " The benefit of peace requires us to place one in authority to pre- vent or end disputes. But why is the man to govern ? Because he is the stronger. In his hands power sustains itself. Give authority to the woman, every moment will be marked by revolt on the part of the husband. But this reason is noi all. It is probable the man, by his mode of life, acquires more experience — a greater fitness for lousi- ness — greater power of application." Extract from an Article in the Times, 2\st February^ 1873. In this country, at least, the lessons of experience preponderate against the state of things which these reformers of the marriage contract wish to make the rule rather than the exception. It certainly does not generally answer for the wile to hive the leading place, and the greater legal right, in the expenditure. In that case it too often happens that husband and wife change sides, and if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that a woman does not make a good man, or a man a good woman. The family and estate prosper best under a good man and a good woman, both enjoying and using all the rights and all the intlueiice proper to their position. Even when it is remarked, as, indeed, there is sometimes occasion to remark, that the masculine qualities of the woman make up lor the shortcomings of the husband, it will always be lound that the results are effected by what really is an abnormal state of things. The husband ought to have a preponderance ot power in all things out- side the mere domestic circle — in commercial and political matters, and in all that relates to the affairs of the great outer world. Of course, he may be unfit for it. He may have forfeited the right by his folly. He may be utterly without economical power. He 20 may be indolent or eccentric, or be otherwise incapable. But it is his nature to lead and to rule ; and it is far the best he should have the means and appliances for carrying out his natural tendency and power. That is the order of nature. We have soinetimea to supply the defects of Nature, but we cannot improve upon her, for she is the best of teachers. We cannot safely reverse her order, and turn her own labric upside down. The {London) Snhmhan. Pr(ss (-a high-cla«s we^^kly Conservative paper) of llth April, in an article, says: — "The woman whom God has created to be *he helpmate of man, to be subject in all affec- tion and duty to his superior judgment and prowess in the career of human life, after the bond of saered matrimony is contracted, this same is to be at liberty to raivse her anchor and escape, should she be be so determined under the v^^inds of temptation, from all the most sacred obligations, and she is to carry with her everything that can support her upon the licentious sea in which she may embark, to the ruin of the happiness and hope of her family." . . . Again : " Look into the records of the Divorce Court. Ever}' nine cases out often, where a divorce has been granted or sought for, will be found to have originated in the weaknesses, petty jealousies, positive infi- delities of the woman." Again : " Nothmg more absurd has been addressed to the attention oi the enlightened people of this country. The man is simply relieved of' a very slight and contingent evil, and, on the other hard, burdened with a permanent and intolerable wrong, and doomed to perpetual exposure to the greatest miseries that can afflict mankind on earth." Extracts from The True Rights of Woman, by Miss Aikin-Kort- right. Second Edition. S. VV. Partridge & Co. A Judge who was trying a cause of* cruelty," went so far as to remark, that the wife of a struggling professional man to incur debts, in his name, to a large amount, for superfluities of dress and ornament, might morally, if not legally, come under the head of cruelty. On the whole, there is some truth in this assertion. The married man has no pro*^ection whatever from exorbitant demands of this nature, saving the expedient, that not one in fifty thousand would resort to — advertising that he will not be answer- able for his wife's debts. He may be wealthy, but no fortune is proof against incessantly increasing luxury of dress and ornament. He may be a clerk, struggling to support a wife and family on little beyond a professed cook's wages ; but the wife must have her silk dresses, where stuff should suffice ; she rpust have her dressmaker and her milliner, where her own busy fingers should perform the labour. Believe it, a good deal of cruelty is thoughtlessly, or with reckless selfishness, exercised in these matters. A good many toil-worn men liave been consigned to the Debtors' Prison, to the Bankruptcy Court, a certain number to the cold dark river — not throush their children's 21 corr'umption of daily bread, but through the silk dresses, the rich mantles, the lace parasols, the delicate boots and gloves, the elegant bont)ets of their commercial partners who perhaps, after all, brought no capital into the business. [Page 20.] One of the most plainly expressed edicts [of the kingdom of Christ] is the obedience of the daughter, and the equally explicit command for the wife's reasonable subjection. Let no woman of heart or mind marry where she would be reluctant to obey. Let her carry with her into the marriage state that respect and love which make duty a delight, and service a glory. Among men, we always perceive that he who best and most willingly yields to just authority, in his own turn governs most reasonably and righteously. Th'' wife or daughter who has, in accordance with the laws of the kingdom of Christ, yielded obedi- ence to husband or father, can in her turn claim, and will assuredly receive, the respectful duty of children. Almost every distinguished man has —indeed, all great men have — looked up to their nn>thers . for counsel and direction; but there is no trace oC any large-minded woman among them having endeavc/ured to escape from her own duty, or to set up an unlawful, and consequently a weak, despotism. In the kingdom of Christ some must sit higher than others, but none are more exalted than the true hearted wife, or daughter, who serves for Christ's sake and love's sake. [Fage 24.] Is it seemly, is it decent, that while the bread-winning husband is wearing himself out rapidly at his daily toil for scanty pay, that the poor little pittance he is winning should be more than antici- pated ? — that his children should be stinted in necessaries, and he himself often come home to a cheerle-s hearth, that his so-called helpmate should flaunt in fictitious and often unpaid-for splendoiir, before the eyes of impertinent idlers or impertinent women ? Should his shabby coat, worn at wrist and elbows by constant rubbing on a desk, be flouted by her gay silken apparel ? [Page 30.] Extracts from The New York Herald^ December 19th, 1869. THE MARRIAGE VOW'— HOW THE ANCIENTS REGARDED IT — FREE LOVE AND woman's RIGHTS AN OLD EXPERIMENT — HISTORICAL LESSONS OF WEDDED LIFE — FACTS AND FIGURES. When the Puritans emigrated to this country, they brought the common law with them, and it became part i)f the law of the several States, subject to being changed by special statute. Tlie law relating to the conjugal relations remained the same among us as at comuioa law, without any complaint, until the temperance question began to •gitate the Eastern, Middle, and Western States, al)out the yenr 1843; and then the cry was, that in order to protect the estate of a wife from being squandered by an intemperate husband, and she and her children left in misery and want, that a law must be ma< e to protect her property from the control of her husband. When tho New York Constitutional Convention met to form a new Coustirution, a clause was favourably reported, allowing a wife to have and retain all the property she had at the time of her marriage, and all that she might alterward acquire, and tiie same should be her separate property. 22 Mr. Charles O'Conor, of this city, called the attention of the Con- vention to this clause, and we quote Ironi the report of the proceed- ings of the Convention : — lie said he rt^arded this section as more important than any which had been adopted, perhaps, than all the rest of the constitution. If there was anything in our institutions that ought not to be troubled by the stern hand of the reformer, it was the sacred ordinance ot marriage, and the relations arising; out of it. The difference (he said) between the law of England and that of most other nations, was that it established the most entire and absolute union, and identity of interest and persona in the matri- monial state. It recognized tiie husband as the head of the house- hold, merged in him the legal being of the wile, so thoroughly that, in contemplation of law, she could scarcely be said to exist. The common law of P'.ngland was the law of this country, and both were bMsed upon the Gospel precept, " They twain shall be one fle>h." Pure as its origin, the fountain of Holy AVrit, the common law rule upon this subject had endured ior centuries; it had passed the ocean M'ith our ancestors, and cheered their first rude cabins in the wilder- ness ; it still continued in all its original vigour and purity, and with all its originally benign tendency and influences, unimpaired by time, undiminished in its capacity to bless, by any change of climate or external circumstances, devolution after revolution had swept over the home of married love here and in the mother country. Forms of government had changed with Proteus-like versatility, but the domestic fireside had remained untouched. Woman as wifie or as mother had known no change of the law, which fix'.d her domestic character, and guided her devoted love, bhe had as yet known no debasing pecuniary intere-t apart from the prosperity of her husband. His wealth had been her ^venlth : his prosperity her pride, her only source of power or distinction. Thus had society existed hitherto. Did it need a change ? * * * No change should be made in the rules, alfecting the relation of husband and wife. The habits and manners built upon the rules, and arising out of them, could not be improved, and ought to be perpetuated. The firm union of interest in married life, as established by the common law, occasion- ally in special cases produced deplorable evils ; but its general influences upon the members of society was most benijin. This was exhibited in the past history of England and our own country — it was visible in the existing condition of our people. Why change the law, and by a rash experiment put at risk the choicest blessings we enjoy? Husbands in America are generally faithful and true pro- tectors of their wives. Wives in America are generally models of imitation. The least reflection must convince that this state of manners among us results Irom the purity oi our laws for domestic government. These law s ought not theii to be changed, le^t manners sDouid change witn them. The proposition came in an insidious and deceitiul lorm ; it came with proie^sions of regard for women, and tlius won a ready access to the favour of all good men ; but, hke the serpent's tale to the first woman, it tended, if it did not seek, to def^rade her. He thought the law w hich united in one common bond the pecuniary interests of husband and wife should rtmain. He 23 ifas no true American who desired to see it changed." * ♦ * He would leave separate settlements to take effect onl,y by the special act of the part3^ Then they would have no effect upon society at large. It is as the general law oC the State, the hnvs operating alike upon all classei=, and the law only which worked its way into the very frame of society, became a natural part of the con^^titution of the people, and permanently influenced tor good or for evil the habitus, manners, and morals of a country. The occasional acts of individuals had no general influence, but the general laws of society, if they were not the offspring, would always become the parent, of a general morality conforming to them. Married life as it was he wished to protect, homes governed by the laws of divine origin ; it was in this country as perfect as human institutions or human nature could be made, and he wished it to be left untouched in all its sacredness and simplicity. The state of society in this respect, under the existing law, was no proof that it would continue the same under a law pre- cisely the reverse; on the contrary, it was evidence in favour of the existing law. !N^o one could deny that the great fundamental laws of a community in respect of property have an essential influence even upon the working of human affections within the domestic circle. * * * If this Convention should change the laws, invade the sanctuary of domestic love, and intrench within it the fiend pecuniary self- interest, he believed it would ultimately change the whole character of the married relation in our country. He spoke for posterity, not for the present generation. If the members of the Convention and the people acted unwisely in this matter, they would go down to the grave unpunished, for the evil would not come in their day. Laws might be changed in an instant, but manners could neither be formed nor subverted suddenly. The present tone of society in this respect was too well fixed to be soon changed. It was the result of c nturies of human existence under a wise law. The husbands and the wives of the present day would retain the manners that law had created, l')ng alter the law itself was abolished. But if this new rule should be adopted, the student of history in alter times would condemn the act. From amid the less pure and incorrupt habits and manners of domestic life as then existing around him, he would look back to the present day wMth en.'Otions akin to those which affect our minds when contem- plating the first family in happy Eden before the tempter came. The usual temperance argument was urged, but of no avail, before this intelligent body — that clause was rejected. Laws had been passed in nearly all the Eastern, Middle, and Western States, the same in substance as that clause attempted to be passed in this State ; and at the legislative session in 1848 a similar law was passed for New York. This was the first law of this kind in this State. That was comparatively conservative ; but has been extended from time to time, until now the law is more in favour of the wife than the community system of .the civil law, but unfavourable to the husband than tlie civil law. 24 SEPARATE INTERESTS OF MAN AND WIFE, The wisest and best of men have from time to time friven opinions as to the effect of similar laws in society. Thomas Jefferson said that it was owing to the separate interests of man and wife in France, that about half of the annual increase of the population of Paris was illegitimate. Montesquieu, in his " Spirit of Laws," says, that as M'omen are in a state tliat iurnishes them inducements to marriage, the advantages that such a law gives them over their own and their husband's property is no advantage to society, and would be ex- tremely prejudicial in a republic, and expresses himself in favour of the wife bringing property to her husband. Chancellor Kent says, in his Commentarie<=, " I prefer the regu- lations of the common law upon the subject of the paternal and universal relations, but there are many subjects in which the civil law greatly excels." In reference to the system of marriage settle- ments by which in special cases that relation is established between man and wife which this law makes universal, Mr. Justice Piatt pays, "It tends to sever in some degree the marria