his fingers. She must will it to him, for him to
be safe and sure. The profits arising from the
industry of the husband and the wife, and the
savings they may be able to put by, form a common
stock, to the half of which the wife is
entitled. The law places such confidence in her,
that, in the event of her widowhood, she, by
right, is the guardian of her children. The
whole situation is completely superior to that
of woman in England, and even in America.
Between brothers and sisters there exists a perfect
equality as to their rights of inheritance
from their father and mother. If the parents
are inclined to disturb this equality, or to favour
a third person to the prejudice of their children,
the law fixes limits to the power of bequeathing.
A Frenchman cannot cut off an offending son
or daughter with a shilling, nor can he
impoverish his neglected family by leaving large sums
to charitable institutions.

But the prerogatives of the Frenchwoman
are not confined to her family and social
privileges; she may enter the same spheres of
activity as her husband; the career of business
and manufactures is open to her; and she has
proved under every circumstance that she is
equally capable with her male companion. Compare
this condition with that of the women of
ancient Rome, who were kept in a perpetual
minority, on account of their levity of
character. In England, and also in America, women
are treated perhaps too much after the Roman
fashion, so entirely are they kept in the
background, as far as business is concerned.

In England, we have a foretaste of marriage
as practised in the United States, in respect
to the great liberty allowed to girls to select
the object of their choice. Nevertheless, there
are very marked differences; one of the first
points which is striking in England, is the
paternal authority which usually reigns predominant
in family affairs. Still, the English girl is
allowed to make her choice uncontrolled,
although generally under the mother's eye, who
does not interfere with her daughter's growing
affection, unless grave objections present themselves.
In a great commercial and manufacturing
country, where a man by industry and
intelligence may arrive at a certain position of
fortune, the young lady's dowry is less an object
than her personal qualities and the consideration
enjoyed by her family; unlike France,
where a great number of functionaries and
military men, with fixed and scanty emoluments,
are too often tempted by the exigencies
of their position to yield to pecuniary considerations.

America is the land of liberty—for whites.
American girls enjoy greater freedom than English;
they are independence itself. But it is
fair to allow that this liberty and independence
are not exposed to the same inconveniences
there as elsewhere; for, in America, woman is
placed under the shield of public opinion. However
young and inexperienced she may be, she
can travel alone throughout the United States.

In the United States, according to the old
Common Law of England, the minimum of age
for marriage is fourteen years for men, and twelve
for women: after which, young people may
dispense with the consent of father, mother,
or guardian. Moreover, the Common Law
enacts neither the publication of banns, nor
witnesses, not even the signature of the parties,
and the marriage may be celebrated by a justice
of the peace or a minister of religion, no matter
where resident, even beyond the circumspection
of the residence of the bride and bridegroom, at
any hour and place whatever.

In the United States, as in England, it
suffices that cohabitation should have taken
place to render judges very indulgent, and
to validate an imperfect marriage. This probably
was the reason which induced the Court
of Queen's Bench, in 1855, to decide that a
Protestant minister might himself celebrate his
own marriage ceremony, asking himself the
required questions, and then returning his own
answers. The example has not found many
imitators. Accomplished facts would have no
influence whatever on the decision of a French
judge respecting a doubtful marriage. Circumstances
sometimes unite to give an extraordinary
aspect to certain unions. Thus, it is related
that, in the State of Maine, the driver of a
railway train—too busy, no doubt, to be able to
devote a whole day to his wedding—made his
bride and a minister start in one of the carriages,
and had the ceremony performed while the train
was running.

A still more original occurrence is the marriage
of a young Virginian couple, in 1855,
who had to cross a river to reach the minister
who was to unite them. But a flood had
converted the river into a torrent; it was neither
fordable nor ferryable; and they could not
expect that, to crown their happiness, the minister
would brave Leander's fate. They, therefore,
shouted to the people on the opposite bank,
explaining what they wanted. The pastor appeared:
they folded the paper containing the necessary
authorisation, tied it to a stone, and threw it to
the minister, who, after reading it and exchanging
the usual questions and answers, married
the adventurous couple across the river according
to the rites of the Church. These marriages,
singular as they appear in form, are not the
less in earnest for that, and are followed by every
civil consequence required.

Other eccentric weddings, not in earnest, are
a serious blow to the respect due to matrimony,
and to the law which sanctions it. Among
other follies, certain young Americans have
amused themselves by contracting mock
marriages, or rather by getting married in joke. If
two persons, with no serious intention of marrying,
nevertheless go through all the formalities
thereof, by way of pastime, they are well and
effectually married by a legal bond. A case of
the kind occurred in Pennsylvania, in 1857.
Miss J. met Mr. B. at a party; they
exchanged pleasantries on the subject of marriage;
Mr. B. asked Miss J.'s hand, which was given.
To continue the joke, they went to the house of