The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-12 00:00:00

into hatred the love that a woman might
otherwise bear to her partner for life. What
can be more vexatious than to see the produce of
her own labour, by which she could maintain
her children in comfort and happiness, ruth-
lessly seized and squandered by one for whom,
with all his faults, she still retains lingering feel-
ings of affection ? She may feel disposed to
cling to him through good report and through
evil report—to welcome him when the world
frowns and turns its back—but that feeling
will be promoted, rather than checked, by
knowing that she can retain the means of doing so
efficiently 1 that what she realises by her own
exertions, should be employed as she thinks pro-
per, and not be liable for the consequences either
of his profligacy or his folly. Yes, his folly, for
that should be as strenuously guarded against as
deliberate crime. Men may incur debts either
through their own extravagance, or becoming
bound for others, and the aggrieved woman's
property will be seized for their liquidation, and
she and her children may be driven from the
home which she had herself formed, and of which
she was the main, if not the sole, prop and sup-
port.

It is not necessary to cite specific instances of
this nature. They are, alas ! too painfully
notorious, and must be familiar to every person of
ordinary experience. They fall, too, chiefly on
the middle and humble classes, who have not had
elaborate settlements drawn out before their union.
Woman was intended to be the helpmate, not the
slave, of man. It should be, to all intents and
purposes, a real bona fide partnership into which
she enters, not a contract that renders her merely
an upper servant, without the power of
retaining property, save through the in-
tervention of trustees. That the state of
the law on this all-important subject re-
quires immediate alteration, is admitted on every
side. No one has the hardihood to deny that
proposition. It is also generally considered that
the beat change would be t ) place a wife, where
there has been no bona fide settlement of her pro-
perty, to all intents and purposes, in the position
of a femme sole, so that what has been bequeathed
or given to her, as well as her own earnings,
may be absolutely under her own control—free
from the debts, control, or interference of her
husband, or of any person claiming under or
through him. It would also be well, as Lard
Bnouariaatoproposed, to afford a speedy remedy
by " the interposition of a court, to which her
access is rendered easy, and which may exercise a
summary jurisdiction, at all events to the extent of
keeping the disputed property safe, until the
ownership could be fairly decided.
So far as to the rights of property, which, if she
possessed it, should carry with it the duty of pro-
viding for her offspring, and guaranteeing the
husband against any debts which she might think
proper to contract, either before or after marriage.
But there are other matters which must also be
considered. Events may unhappily occur which
would render it impossible that the parties should
ever afterwards live together in amity. The re-
dress in such cases should not be exclusively given
to the man, nor should it be placed at so high a
price that none but the wealthy could aspire to it.
Why should a woman be irrevocably bound to a
heartless wretch, who treats her habitually with
brutal cruelty ? We are aware that the question
of divorce is one of a peculiarly delicate nature,
but there should be reciprocity, so that either
party might apply for relief, and that the cost of
the remedy should be suited to their position
and means, so that there may not practically
be one law for the rich and another for
the poor in England. What Lord ORAN-
WORM% proposes will not achieve this desideratum,
It will, therefore, be necessary that the subject
should be maturely and attentively considered in
all its details, and that the opinion of a Select
Committee should be obtained thereon. It will
be seen that the questions relating to property,
arid to divorce or separation, are totally distinct,
and they should be treated of in different bills,
and not jumbled or confounded together.

The formal resolution essential to the introduc-
tion of a bill for the regulation of Savings Banks
throughout the entire kingdom, was last night
carried unanimously in the House of Commons,
on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Right Hon. Gentleman explained the trifling
modifications from the measure which he intro-
duced in February, and which may be regarded
as improvements. The chief one relates to the
amount of deposits, which, by the bill of last ses-
sion, was fixed at £lOO. Sir G. C. LEWIS has
yielded to the representations of numerous trustees
and managers in various parts of the kingdom,
and consented that it should remain at J2OO, as
at present. The only other relates to the mode
in which the prices of the different investments
shall be ascertained. It was proposed in February
that the average for the preceding quarter should
be taken. It is now intended to take it at the
price of the day, on which the investment was
actually made, manifestly producing greater accu-
racy in the accounts. To our humble judg-
ment, however, it seems that the best way of any
would be to ascertain the sums actually paid or
received, without looking to averages of either
quarters, months, or days, under which system
there could be no possibility of err6r.
The great feature, however, of the bill is, that
it gives a real, bona fide national guarantee for
the money actually paid into these institutions,
and not merely for what was actually transferred
to the hands of the Government. It was shown
in too Many instances that this was completely
illusory. The unfortunate depositors were made
dependent on the integrity of those over whose
appointment they had no control, while the
trustees who appointed the defaulters avoided any
description of responsibility. This system, which
occasioned many well-founded complaints, and
which deprived many widows and orphans of the

,ears provided by the providence of husbands
and fathers, was virtually a fraud of the worst
description. It was neither more nor less
than obtaining money under false pretences !
inducing the parties to believe that they had pub-
lic security while there was really no such thing.
The natural result has followed on the exposures
that have arisen, and the am.ount of the deposits
have been reduced. Up to 1841 there had, for
several years, been a steady augmentation amount-
ing to nearly 2,000,0001. per annum. Since
that period there has been a falling off of more
than 7,500,0001,, and the working classes would
have .been altogether deprived of the benefits
arising from what, u'ader a better system, would
be really valuable e .hblishments. It was, there-
fore, iudispensabla that something should be done
to place matters (ia a more satisfactory footing,
and that, Sir Q.. C. LEWIS proposes to do, so
far as the safe'„-g of the depositors is concerned
Assuming so large a liability, it is, of course,
necessary t:aat adequate means should be adopt3d

to preser ce -more efficient 'control over the dif-
ferent banns, and to prevent the possibility of
feauds. 'This is a delicate subject, requiring very
nice handling. We cannot as yet say whether
tine provisions are such as to prevent its satisfac-
try -working. It is, however, but justice to Sir