The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-02 00:00:00

fession, no employment, no means of earninp
livelihood, except the various grades of dome tic
service, the calling of governesses, or millinery in
some form. It appears from the "petition" to
which we allude that, so far from this being the
ease, "a o lern civilisation is indefinitely extending
the sphere of occupation for women," and that thia
extended sphere is amplifying their sources of ir.-
c }me. Thus, at starting, it appears that, while
women in the lower classes of society are earning
wages as seamstresses, charwomen, cigar-moulders,
and in other vocations far too numerous to detail,
women in the higher classes are competing with
men in the field and profits of literature. This ad-
mission is a pleasant hearing for the "friends of
women," and doubtless will have its due weight
when the specific grievance of which the petitioners
complain, and which we now come to, is con-
sidered.
It amounts, in short, to this :—By the law of
the laud wives have no special property in their
own earnings, which are more the property of their
husbands than of themselves, subject to their ap-
propriation, and liable to their debts. This hard-
ship and injustice, as the fair petitioners deem it,
they call on the Hon. the Cimmons of England to
rep lir by a more just and liberal legislation.
To a petition signed as this is, and dictated by
the feelings which animate its subscribers, we
would willingly pay the utmost deference, and, if
possible, give the utmost support. But we confess
that we don't clearly see our way to the end pro.
posed by any legislative measure. Indeed, such
remedy as might be devised the petitioners have
cut away from under their own feet. They wish
to create a separate proprietorship in favour of
married women, and in the same breath denounce
the " cumbrous machinery of trusteeship," which
was intended to effect, and generally does effect,
so far as any plan can, the very result which they
wish to attain. We confess we hardly see how
they will improve upon the existing system so far
as regards the objects which it contemplates, or
how they will obtain its benefits for other objects
which it does not contemplate, save by imitating
its provisions. The fact is, disguise it how you
will, or select whatever number of exceptional cases
a diligent scrutiny will supply, the existing state
of things is the result not of human legislation, but
of nature's laws. The relations of the sexes may
be externally adorned with all the trappings. of
artificial manners and luxurious civilisation, still,
air fend they are essentially the same in all ages of
the world. Womankind in the mass are, and must
be, for all material advantages, for protection and
personal security, dependent upun men, whether
the latter be styled " lords and masters," or
" tyrants and despots ;" and in no relation is this
dependence on one side, and protection on the
other, more marked, more real, or more natural
than in that of marriage. The whole character of
this union would be lost, most of its purposes
defeated, if any law interfered to change this
mutual relation, and to substitute an express re-
cognition of theoretical independence and equality
in favour of the wife. As it is, the law, while it
confers superior authori'y on the man, attacheS to
him duties and responsibilities which insure the
tranquillity and comfort of the wife. And it is
curious to observe that the connection of the hus-
b privileges and responsibilities is so strikingly
doss 111,t these peti ieners, even when they would
enlarge the freedom of the wife's action, are forced
to admit the propriety of limiting the husband's
liability at the same time. This, in fact, illus-
trates the whole question. Marriage is a compact
of mu uality. The powers of the husband over the
wife's means are great, because his liabilities for
his wife's maintenance and credit are also great.
He is in the eye of the law the proprietor of her
income, the receiver of her rents, the controller of
her fortune, because he is accountable for the pay-
rat nt of be: inlliuer, her servants, her coach-hire,
to say nothing of her children's. keep and education.
" DJ away with this jus proprietalis," say the pe-
titiosers ; and in a spirit of fairness they add, "do
away with the unlimited liability also." This is
the ultimate solution of the question. What these
lass s would see become a fruit of statute law is
nothing el,e then the cohabitation of male and
fe nab, each with separate fortunes, separate ex-
pensrs, s •psrate bills, separate liabilities—the bus-
ban 1 going to gaol while his wife is riding in her
carriage—the wife hurried off by bailiffs while the
huAeind is eating venison and drinking champagne
Such is the theory they proro3e. But is there
the 7110,t distant prospect of its ever taking a prac-
tical shape, were its enactment provided by the
mrist sttingent of cceies ? From such an apprehen-
sien we are saved by a placid regard of what have
ver been and ever will be the conditions of
humanity. There is no uprising against the ideas
of family, home, and marriage among the majority
even of the most persecuted women. We are
saved, too, by an experience of that which has
been done in England and elsewhere to evade the
harsh injustice of the laws, not of man, but of na-
ture. If the system of trusteeship, devised to
mitigate the evils complained of, is clumsy, it is
clumsy only so far as it cannot do impossibilities.
If women have lands or moneys left for their own
use—if these are placed in the hands of trustees—
if the trustees duly receive the profits thereof—if
they acknowledge the receipt—if they then hand
over the proceeds to the wife so protected, and get
their discharge from her, they have done all that
any law can compel any honest man to do. But
if, after receiving the rents from the land or the
dividends from the Consols, the wife bands them
over to her husband, or assigns her life-interest in

either to him or his creditors, what law eat pre-
vent this ? What law can constrain the tribute of
a woman's love, or forbid the offering of a wife's
devotion ? Or, again' if, as by some foreign codes,
the wife is recognised as a sole and separate pro-
prietress of the rents or the Rentes,—if the letter
of the law gives her the absolute disposal of
them,—or if, again, the law makes her the first
mortgagee on her husband's estate or his earnings,
what can, what does, prevent her from signing
away her right and her interest to secure his
credit, his honour, his interests ? The truth is,
all laws and all schemes are clumsy when arrayed
against the instincts of conjugal affection or the
sympathies of conjugal confidence. When they
are not so it is only because brutality on the one
side, or selfishness on the other, has proceeded to
that exceptional extent which cannot be reasoned
on as a basis of general legislation.
That there are men of low and selfish tastes--
drunkards, gamblers, debauchee's—married to in-
tellectual and gifted women is probable enough.
It is not improbable that such men may pilfer the
earnings of their wives. But how many cases of
this kind do occur ? How many women, brought
up in refinement, elegance, and with literary tastes,
would unite themselves to drunkards and debau-
chees ? And is it necessary for the protect ion of
the few isolated cases that do occur to enact laws
which experience proves would generally be futile
for good, but which would invoke the certainty of
sowing jealousy and discord wherever they were
put in force ?