“A WIFE” writes that she has three children; has been married eight years, and thinks it would be pleasant to be relieved from all home cares, and travel for a few months. Her mother would take her children home, so that she could feel perfectly at ease about them, but her husband objects. He cannot possibly go with her, and though it would be much pleasanter to have him accompany her, yet she could go with friends, who would give her every attention. Her husband is abundantly able to afford her this pleasure, but objects to her leaving him,--“having his home broken up, and his children separated from him” (sensible man!). “He endeavors to persuade her to be contented at home until by and by he can take wife and children on this pleasure trip.” Now she declares that she has no faith in these _by and byes_, with which husbands seek to keep their wives from enjoying the present, by promises for the future. She thinks him unreasonably selfish, and feels that she would be justified in cutting loose from such bondage occasionally, and taking her pleasure, as she constantly sees so many other ladies doing. We are pained with the whole tone of this letter, of which we give but a few lines. Notwithstanding her complaints and fault-finding, the writer cannot hide the fact that, from her own showing, she has a pleasant home, an indulgent husband, and wealth sufficient to obviate any necessity for labor or care, more than is required to superintend her domestic affairs, and look after her children, as every mother and housekeeper pledges herself to do when she enters the marriage state. It is natural that her husband should object to her leaving him for months, deprive him of his children, and disorganize his home, for her own gratification. “_Until death do us part_,” the promise reads: not simply for a few years, at the end of which time the whole domestic economy may become deranged simply for personal pleasure, apart from the family.