Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/140

128 best justification he could invent,—gave to the public, as the reason of this scene of uproar and assault, that his wife had bought "expensive velvets."

He then proceeded to Sir John's "charge of baseness,"—and asserted,—not that he did not so act, but that Sir John did not tell him at the time, that he was "base"; that they corresponded afterwards; and that, says Mr Norton:—

My husband is fond of paying me the melancholy compliment, that to my personal charms, and not to the justice of my cause, I owe, that all concerned in these wretched affairs take my part against him, so soon as they have any explanation with me! Now, it would certainly have been strictly probable that any man,—especially a man of Sir John Bayley's nature; blunt, kindly, and vehement;—would,—on finding instead of the painted wanton he expected to find, prepared to struggle for her "rights" and her "interests,"—a miserable, sobbing, worn-out young woman, appealing to him for nothing but the mercy of getting back her children (those dear children, the loss of whose pattering steps and sweet occasional voices made the silence of her new home intolerable as the anguish of death),—I say it is more than probable, that being but man, and not the angel of justice, he might have leaned most unfairly, unduly, and compassionately, to the person whose bitter grief, and single, simple stipulation, came upon him by surprise; and that so he might not have dealt as impartially, as good faith with Mr Norton required.

I thank heaven it was not so. This assertion must withdraw and take its rank among all my husband's other assertions. To no weak leaning of any man, but to the sympathy