The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-15 00:00:00

wife's separate earnings during coverture, but not where
the parties were living separate.

The ATTORNEY:GENERAL—A fortiori du►ing
separation.

-Sir J. PAKINGTON—Tbe other question, as to the
wife's earnings during coverture, might lead to some
difference of opinion. He had only made this statement
that he might express his strong opinion that, so far as
the bill applied to proved evils, the hon. and learned gen-
tleman bad taken a course that deserved the thanks of
the house, and he hoped he would follow the very judi-
cious advice given by the Attorney-General.
Mr. B. HOPE thought that this matter was not so
clear as the right hon. member for Droitwich (Sir J.
Pakingtou) assumed it to be. Hitherto there bad been
free trade in the property of husba.,cl and wife, and to
resort to protection in these days was rather a strong
proposition. Ttis was a very delicate state of things.
(A laugh.) He was glad to say that all the husbands
thought so ; it was a delicate thing to interfere between
man and wife. The hon, gentleman would no doubt
next session bring in a bill to protect fathers against
spendthrift sons, and also a not less necessary law to
protect sons against curmudgeon fathers. The measure
had two sides, One object being to protect the rich, and
the other the poor. No doubt the hardest case was
where a profligate husband wrested from the wife the
few pence which she had earned by the sweat of her
brow. That was an undoubted hardship, but how was
the Legislature to interfere ? Let the Legislature declare
that the earnings of the wife should not belong to the
husband, but how could acts of Parliament protect her
when the drunken brute came home and wrested the
money from her. She might go to a magstrate, and he
might order him to refund what had been already spent,
or send him to the treadmill, and leave her a beggar in
the streets. With respect to the rich, in matters of
marriage settlements and other cases, he thought that
the doctrine of careat emptor was a very good law. Se-
riously, he doubted, when the whole matter had been
fully discussed, as it would be in another place, bow far
it would be found right to meddle with one branch of it.

Mr. M. MILNES said they had been reproached upon
this subject in the public prints, and it had been said
that there were no persons who owed more to the ladies
than they did, in reference to their assistance in placing
them in the high position which they occupied. (A.
laugh.) He did hope that they would come to the col,
sideration of this question in a very serious, and not in
a jesting spirit. It was only at the eleventh hour that
they had come to consider the matter at all. He thought
that his hon. friend who had brought forward this mea-
sure deserved the thanks of Parliament for having bro•
ken the ground. The hon. member for Maidstone (Mr.
B. Hope) might be assured that the house would do no-
thing that would attack the sanctity of those institutions
which he so revered, for those institutions were fixed too
deep in the hearts of the people to be altered by any act
of Parliament whatever. What they had to do was to
remedy patent and admitted evils. He did not think that
the question was so difficuE in that part of it which re-
ferred to the protection of the poorer classes, but when
they came to the upper classes, no doubt the question
did mix itself up with questions of separation and di-
vorce in a manner that made it very difficult to deal with.
There were cases of desertion of wives and also cases of
desertion of husbands by wives, and this was not solely
a woman's question.
Mr. MALINS thought it was farbetter to reserve any-
thing he had to say until a future stage of the measure.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
ARMY nurs.

Capt. BOLDER() moved an address for returns of the
number of huts supplied to the Ordnance or War De-
partments during the years 1854-5 and 1855-6 ; the ap-
propriation of the same ; together with the stations, and
quantities sent to each. Aud of the names of the several
contractors, amount of each contract, and price per hut,
with dimensions ; the present extent of hut accommoda-
tion in England and Ireland, and the number of troops
butted on the Ist day of April. 1857. Agreed to.