Rich men and fathers might still make what settlements they pleased, and appoint trustees for the protection of minors and such women as needed protection; but we imagine it well proved that the principle of protection is wrong, and that the education of freedom and responsibility will enable women to take better care of themselves and others too than can be insured to them by any legal precautions. Upon women of the labouring classes the difficulty of keeping and using their own earnings presses most hardly. In that rank of life where the support of the family depends often on the joint earnings of husband and wife, it is indeed cruel that the earnings of both should be in the hands of one, and not even in the hands of that one who has naturally the strongest desire to promote the welfare of the children. All who are familiar with the working classes, know how much suffering and privation is caused by the exercise of this _right_ by drunken and bad men. It is true that men are legally bound to support their wives and children, but this does not compensate women for the loss of their moral right to their own property and earnings, nor for the loss of the mental development and independence of character gained by the possession and thoughtful appropriation of money; nor, it must be remembered, can the claim to support be enforced on the part of the wife unless she appeals to a court of law. Alas, how much will not a woman endure before she will publicly plead for a maintenance! Why, we ask, should there be this difference between the married and unmarried condition of women? And why does marriage make so little legal difference to men, and such a mighty legal difference to women? In France it is somewhat more equal; women have a choice, and can marry under the _régime de communauté_, or _régime dotal_. We quote from the recent admirable report of the Law Amendment Society:-- ‘1. _Régime de Communauté_ is either _légale_ or _contractuelle_. By the first, which is by operation of law without any contract, all the _moveable_ property of the man and woman, both at marriage or acquired during marriage (except specific legacies specially tied up), and the immoveable property acquired during marriage, form one mass called _communauté_, which is administered by the husband, and may be aliened by him during marriage, but cannot be bequeathed except as to his share; and at the dissolution of the marriage, a partition takes place between husband and wife or their representatives. ‘The wife’s immoveable property belongs to the wife alone, but the rents, and profits, and administration go to the husband.