Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/109

97 ''the law. By the law as it stands, if Mr Norton can evade his covenant (as he does, by stating that it is null because it was a contract with, and "a man cannot contract with his own wife") he can defraud the creditor, for if a creditor sues me, I have only to plead " coverture," plead that I am a married woman, and the creditor who could not recover against Mr Norton is equally unable to recover against me. Between the facts, that because I am Mr Norton's wife can cheat me, and because I am, Mr Norton's wife I can cheat others, the tradesmen who have supplied me would (by the law of England) utterly lose their money. This interest the public, and is a state of the law which certainly requires amending* The case yesterday, was technically decided on this point, viz., that at the time this particular bill was incurred, the allowance had not been stopped. The validity of the covenant Mr Norton is attempting to break was not called in question; and it does interest the public and the bar—whether it be called in question—whether, if not a contract with me, is not a contract with my creditors—a written and stamped agreement with, made by a magistrate and barrister; because, as I have stated, if it is not a valid contract, the creditor may be utterly cheated of his money—if (which God forbid), copying the example of Mr Norton, I also should fling off, by quibble of the law, my personal liability.''

Mr Norton, after a pause of a day or two, published an "answer" of extraordinary length; premising, especially, that he did so—less in his private, than his public capacity; his private character being "safe in the hands of those who knew