of them can derive any advantage or happiness from quarrelling, but only misery. But if now this obligation be destroyed, as it will be by this Bill, inasmuch as a wife will thus be able, if she can only make out a strong case against her husband, to have access to her children after separation, and thus to separate with impunity; it will be no longer so im portant an interest to her to avoid dissensions. Nay, on the contrary, when she feels any inclination to separate, from a spirit of lust or discord,-for the devil of separation is very potent with such spirits,-it will become her direct interest to have dissensions in order to have an excuse, as the necessary justification of her separating herself from her husband, that they were living unhappily together! She has only therefore to play her part well, and make it appear in the eyes of the witnesses who will be called on to make the affidavits that she was an amiable and well-behaved lady, and her husband, the marital tyrant, the party quarrelsome. How easy it is for a woman, resolved on separation, to do this we need not say. The tact and self-possession of manner in most women is proverbial, and not the least so in immoral ones. A lady, who but five minutes before may have been like a fury when alone with her husband, if any one else comes in, any chance visitor, will receive him with a lady-like quiet, ease, and grace the most fascinating. From her manner you would believe she was an angel; whilst all the while at heart she may be, what St. Paul commands young wives not to be, diáßoλos, a crafty slanderous hateress of her husband, a very devil. Avoiding then any demonstrations of passion which would compromise herself, showing every form of respect to her husband before servants and strangers, she has only secretly to thwart and annoy him by a system of passive resistance and agitation, (such as has been lately recommended to her sex by a fashionable Female Emancipator), so as to render him unhappy, to disturb his general equanimity, and to make him, as he would be thus almost sure to do, express, in his unguarded and honest dissatisfaction, harsh words and gestures before witnesses; and all of these will be so many more proofs in her behalf to obtain a separation, and ultimately an order for access to her children. This Bill then will tend directly to promote dissensions. By it, in many cases, the peace of

whole families will be convulsed, and one may truly therefore describe its effect on this head in the words of that grave and experienced historian of life, Tacitus: "Sic quoque erumpere æmulationem fœminarum, eaque discordia nepotes suos convelli. Quid si intendatur certamen tali conjugio?" What indeed! In the course of our experience (and the circle of the acquaintances of any single individual, as compared with the whole community, must necessarily be very limited,) we have known instances of this.

A woman who wishes to be independent and her own mistress, (and how many women in the world are there who have not this wish?), if she do not possess an independence, uses the personal attractions and talents she does possess to get one, by persuading some amorous promesso sposo to make a good settlement upon her. This is what is done at present, and bad enough the effect of it is. In too many cases marriage has become the most mercenary of speculations; but if this Bill be passed something more and worse will be done too. Other speculations will also be made of a far deeper die of immorality.

Our readers may probably have heard of some of those cases where the daughters of noble houses had condescended to form an alliance with wealthy commoners, where they, or their parents, more eager to secure their fortune than their virtue, insisted on having introduced in the marriage settlement a clause to the effect that if a separation should take place a certain jointure should be made on the wife. They may have heard also how, in one case at least, the husband, much to his honour, broke off the match, saying that he would not even contemplate the possibility in the case of the lady he loved of any such prospective immorality, and much less degrade himself by becoming a party to guarantee its reward. What this gentleman rightly refused to do in his own case, should Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's Separation Bill pass, would henceforth soon be the common practice in all.

At present the law will not admit of prospective separations. When indeed it is calmly looked at, it does seem shocking that, from any considerations of fortune, parties should admit the possibility of a future separation in the very preliminaries to the act by which they solemnly covenant in the sight both

of God and man to live together till death. For this very sufficient reason therefore the marriage settlement, even of the titled and the wealthy, rarely admit, at present, such provisions as we have alluded to; and the legal difficulties and embarrassments which generally attend separations, arise in a great measure from the law's having refused to make any provision for so anomalous and immoral a state. And notwithstanding these embarrassments and difficulties, however much to be deprecated; nay, of injuries also which are frequently suffered by one or both of the parties so separated, the law must be felt to be consistent to its principle, and therefore in this respect just. But by this proposed Act it would become far otherwise; and the legislature having once set the example of contemplating and providing for future separation, over-wise parents and legal advisers will not be slow to follow it; and clauses and conditions and provisions, now at once so infrequent and disgraceful, will become things of course, whenever the lady brings title or fortune or personal attractions to overbear the true feeling of a husband, if it exist in the degraded suitor*.

As soon as such a settlement is made the wife will become doubly independent of her husband. Having by marriage got rid-to use the pregnant phrase of a modern fashionable and titled moral authoress, got rid of the "thraldom of demoiselle-ship"-as a wife, no longer requiring a garde de dames, and now by her prudent settlement relieved, at the first moment she may choose to separate, from the necessity of living with an odious husband in the tameness and sameness and ennuyante monotony of a conjugal unity, she will use this

* While this article has been passing through the press, we have read in the Morning Herald of July 7th the announcement of an event which is so à propos to the subject we are treating, that we here insert it:

“

"The Augsburg Gazette states, that the marriage of the Count St. Leu with the Countess de Stiozzi (Strozzi?) is broken off, the count having torn the contract at the moment he was about to sign it, in consequence of a clause stipulating a certain income to the countess in case of a separation. The countess's father intends to bring an action for damages." So, it appears, that in countries where public opinion has been vitiated by the common violation of the marriage union, and where provisions for prospective separations are introduced in marriage settlements, the betrothed bridegroom, who refuses to sign such an one, is liable to have an action brought against him for breach of promise of marriage! And this is another of the precious moral consequences we may expect to see introduced amongst ourselves, if the legislature should consent to pass Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's Separation Bill.

very settlement of prospective separation as the means to accomplish other prospective immorality; and as now immoral husbands choose sometimes to live with their wives in order to enjoy their fortunes, immoral wives may choose to separate from their husbands in order to enjoy the sweets of independence and a jointure. For, inasmuch as a married woman of independent fortune, and residing alone, to gratify her own fancies, is immeasurably more independent than one who resides with a husband, whom by her own vow she is bound to obey; it will be the material interest, in all those cases where such a woman is independent, to have a separation. And the conjugal certamen therefore will be her cue to effect one: for every additional quarrel and outbreak of passion by her husband will be another fact in her favour to lay before the Judge in the affidavits, when an application is made to him for an order of access. And this leads us to the next point of immorality in this (whose shall we call it? Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's or the Hon. Mrs. C. Norton's?) peace-making Bill!

4. Because it tends to encourage litigation after the husband and wife are separated.

If this Bill should become law, the first thing a wife, who has chosen, upon any grounds, just or unjust, to leave her husband, will say is this:-"I must have access to my children: it is necessary to me, not only for my personal comfort, but for the sake of my reputation. If I cannot get a Judge's order, it will be generally thought that I was not justified in leaving my children; and in the opinion of society I shall be ruined." (Observe how the mere private dictum of a single Judge, deciding irresponsibly in his own chambers, may thus become the test of morality to a whole society!) She goes therefore to an attorney, and instructs him,—no matter what it may cost, her husband is responsible for her debts,-never to cease until she has attained her object. If one Judge will not grant it, another may; and in the hope of this, the litigation will go on, and whole families be plunged into the deepest exasperation of distress and ruin. This part of the operation of the Bill has been so ably exposed by Sir Edward Sugden in his speech in the House of Commons upon the second reading of it, that we cannot do better than reprint his observations here. And we think such an opinion, coming as

it does from one of the most experienced lawyers and judges now living, ought to carry with it to the mind of the public, and of the House of Lords, the Conservative portion of the British Legislature, the greatest weight. The masterly exposé of the Ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland is thus reported in the Times of the 15th of Feb. ult.

"His hon. and learned friend would perhaps say that his Bill left it to the Judge to determine when the mother ought to have access to her children. Be it so. Then let the house consider what would be the consequence of giving this jurisdiction to any one of the Judges at Common Law, or to any one of the Judges in Equity. The Bill proposed that any one of these Judges should have the power to vary or repeal the order or decree of any other of their number. What would be the consequence? A wife leaves the house of her husband, after a sharp quarrel, on what she deems justifiable cause. She goes at once to an attorney, and says, 'I want, and must have, access to my children, whom I have left in the care of my husband.' He replies to her, 'Then you must make out a case.' She rejoins, I can do it readily.' He then tells her, 'You must put your facts into the shape of an affidavit.' She does so by the help of this disinterested adviser; and what will the affidavit contain? It will describe the wretchedness of her marriage life; not one incident which has occurred since her marriage to the disadvantage of her husband will be forgotten, and every accidental slight and unkindness will be magnified into an act of oppression and cruelty. A look of scorn, a word of anger, will be brought forward as a real grievance; and after all, there will be no proper issue, as the lawyers say, for any Court to decide; for it will never happen that a woman under such circumstances will rest her claim for access to her children upon any particular instance of cruelty. No woman will ever admit that she left her husband's home on account of a short quarrel of five minutes' duration. No: she will show that she has endured patiently a long course of ill usage and cruelty, and that she did not leave her home until endurance was no longer possible. The husband, exasperated by such an affidavit, will then give his explanation of everything which has occurred in his married life, and will meet her statement of grievances with a statement of her provocations, and it may be, misconduct. He will endeavour to throw the blame on his wife, just as she has endeavoured to throw it upon her husband. . . . . There would be no end to litigation, over which the Judge would have to preside. Facts would be asserted on one side, and denial would be given to them on the other. Then the friends of the two parties would take share in their quarrels, and, as usual, would embitter them more and more. . . . . The servants would be brought forward, and one half of them would swear one way, and the other half the other. Incontinence would be charged on one side, adultery on the other; and all this on affidavit; without any personal examination or cross-examination of the parties, and on all the res gesta thus brought before him, the Judge would have to decide, one