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

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1557.

Sir ERSKINE PERRY has boldly come forward
as the champion, in the representative branch of
the Legislature, of those whose intolerable griev-
ances have formed the grounds of numerous and,
unfortunately, too well-founded complaints. He
has entered on the path, some time since, indi-
cated to him by Lord BROUGHAM, and most sin-
cerely we wish him success in the noble under-
t tking. He will have to encounter opposition in
every form. Sneers and ridicule will not be
wanting. Indeed, "the rather extravagant de•
mands of the large and manly body of strong-
minded women, whose advocate the honourable
and learned gentleman had constituted himself,"
was alluded to in that vein of banter which too
frequently passes for legitimate argument ; and
that too by one who, as happily remarked by the
honourable member for Pontefract, " was more
indebted, than any member of the House, for the
honourable position he now occupied, to the in-
fluence of the sex, whose interests the bill would
protec►." Sir ERSKINE PERRY, however, is not
the man to be deterred by such paltry missiles,
and we are truly rejoiced to find that so worthy
a Champion has been found to vindicate the
wrongs, under which the fairer portion of huma-
nity has so long and so undeservedly been suf-
fering.

Mr. HOPE also attempted to raise what may
truly be termed "a feigned issue," so as to divest
attention from the real point in dispute.. He
said, " hitherto there had been free trade' in the
pecuniary relations of husband and wife, and to
resort to a system of protection' required rather
delicate handling." Why, the point is altogether
the other way ! It would be a strange system of
"free trade" where there was no reciprocity, and
one party had it all his own way. It was P•e
school-boy principle—possibly founded on the law
What's yours is mine,
of " Baron and Feine”—"
what's mine is my own." Now, this is the flag-
rant grievance so justly impugned. Why should
the woman be made the slave, in place of being
the helpmate of man ? Why should she be &-
barred from possessing property for her own use,
unless it has been duly transferred to true-
tees by a pre-nuptial settlement ? Why
should she not be permitted to en-
je the fruits of he own industry

without being liable to seizure by an idle or pro-
fligate spouse, who would deprive herself and her
children of the means of independent existence,
to squander them in selfish, possibly vicious,

pursuits ? None can defend the gross anomaly.
None can vindicate the existing state of the
English law, which differes materially from that
of almost every other civilised country ! The
remedy is plain and simple, but in place
of meeting the case on the broad grounds

of national justice, its opponents are con-

ented. with uttering a variety of twaddle

respecting " the breaking up of the sanctity of
English homes," and that the alterations wonld

" involve a material change in the social institu-
tions of the nation." The same argument applies
with equal force to the "domestic institution" of

the Southern States of America ; and, we need

not say, cannot carry with it much weight to

Englishmen or Englishwomen.
No alteration may be required in well ordered
households. But laws'are not made for the good,

but for the bad. They are required to correct
abuses, and to afford, so far as practicable, equal
justice and equal protection to all, so far as their
persons, properties, or earnings, are concerned.
As was happily remarked by Mr. D. DUDLEY
FIELD, a gentleman well known in this country,
" whatever law is passed must be general, re-
lating to all wives, and all husbands, and

securing to all wives the rights which only
the happy need assert." It is absurd
to say that elevating the position of the wife can
be injurious to any well-disposed and meritorious
husband. His strongest desire would be to ensure
the independence of his cherished partner. But
it is not because there may be an amiable despot
under whose mild and benignant government the
yoke would sit lightly on his s3rfs that despotic
authority should be maintained, and that
tyrants should be authorised to domineer over
their unhappy victims. Where the law sanc-
tions the enjoyment of separate property it
does not practically effect the happiness of
the marriage state. Amongst the wealthy classes
provision is generally made for the wife, in the
shape of pin money, or by conveying property to
trustees to be held for her own sole and separate
use and interest, free from the debts, control, or
interference of her husband, and her receipts to be
alone valid discharges for payments on account
thereof. This is a prudent precaution, which few
wealthy parents will dispense with. Now, all that
Sir ERSKINE PEnnY requires is, that where there
has been no pre-nuptial settlement, the property
of married women may be protected for their
own use in the same mode as if such a settlement
had been duly executed, and it is impossible to
say that such a demand is unreasonable, or op-
posed either to natural justice or public policy.
But there is a more pressing grievance that
applies to a much larger proportion of our coun-
trywomen. It is, that they should receive pro-
tection for their own earnings from improvident
or ill-disposed husbands. That, after all, is the
chief evil ! When we find drunken and
profligate husbands flocking to the pay-tables
to receive the hardly-earned wages of their
unfortunate wives, struggling to snatch the few
pence that might provide a scanty meal for their
children and keep a roof over their heads—when
we find the stock-in-trade or furniture of a de-
serted wife sold by a wretch who has abandoned her
to her fate, or seized to pay his debts, it is surely
time to interfere. We trust, then, that Sir ERSKINE
PERRY may completely succeed in removing the
stain from the national Statute-book, and render-
' ing the nuptial contract what it ought to be, one
perfectly fair and equitable on both sides, and of
which neither party can have reasonable grounds
of complaint.

A golden opportunity is now offered to us for the
introduction of some better system of government
into our vast oriental possessions. It would come
with peculiargrace just now from the imperial source
of justice over all the gigantic and scattered terri-
tories constituting the aggregate of the British
Empire. It would come, we say, with peculiar
grace at the present moment—a boon not extorted
but volunteered. Justice for the natives of India
—amelioration in the general administration of
the affairs of Hindostan : at the very time when
war is being waged against the Chinese, and when
insurrectionary outbreaks are being repressed in
Borneo ! It were a magnificent spectacle to pre-
sent to the Aeiatic imagination—a spectacle worthy
of the Great Power whose truest,glory it would
serve most effectually to illustrate.
It was only last evening in the House of Lords
that the harshness of the present system of judi-
cial administration in the three Presidencies was
most strikingly and most painfully demonstrated
by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE. It was illus-
trated by the Noble Lord in the case of one BHA-
WANNY LALLIII, a man of great wealth and position
in Madras, who, at the instance of an English
civilian, one THOMAS, was taken into custody ;
marched through the public streets ; confined in '
prison for a whole fortnight ; threatened with
deprivation of food for twenty hours ; constrained,
under the influence of that threat, into signing,
against his will, a paper, which he declared to the
last to be an untrue record of his examination ;
required to furnish seourity for 1,000 rupees, and
then, because of some informality about a trum-
pery bail of 101., or thereabouts, kept in durance
vile for seventeen days additional ! And all upon
the simple charge preferred against him by this
THOMAS, that he, BHAWANNT LALLAH, had col-
lected a mob together upon the occasion of some
religious ceremony upon some festival-day, sacred
in the eyes of Mahommedans ! Out of these in-
iquitous'i proceedings, according to the very suc-
cinct account given to the Peers yesterday by the
Marquis of CLANRICARDE, sprang—very naturally
sprang—an action between the parties—BuA-
WANNT LALLAH versus THOMAS. An action
resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff
a verdict mulcting the defendant to the
tune of 1,000 rupees ! But that verdict, Lord
CLANRICARDE observed, the Supreme Council over-
ruled ! Another, and a very deplorable irst ince
of the systematic exemption of the Civil Sarvants
of the Company from the jurisdiction of the ordi-
nary Courts of Hindostan. Well might the Noble
Lord ask, at the close of his harangue, whether
that exemption were not really and truly mon-
strous ? No wonder the President of the Council
immediately afterwards, while acknowledging that
" the statement of the Noble Marquis certainly
did show that there was great incompetence, if
not something worse," in the conduct of the par-
ticular Civilian referred to—no wonder Lord
GRANVILLE thereupon added that the whole of
these lamentable transactions should be subjected,
at the earliest possible moment, to the most parch-
ing scrutiny by her MAJESTY'S Government, Nor
can it be any matter of surprise that a great legal
authority like the Lord Chief Justice of England
should have eagerly availed himself of the occasi( n
last evening of inveighing against the confused and
disordered system of the Administration of Jus-
tice in India—inakting upon the urgent need of
some speedy and comprehensive improvements
with a view to the iust tut and effectual ameliora-
tion of the social scale of the native population.

At tha Tau Vilna when then bardtrutbz aro