Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/152

140 I say it was the firm trust in his honour, that alone gave Lord Melbourne's letter power: without which reliance, these acclamations of a British Parliament must be considered more senseless than the riot of schoolboy applause. Yet this minister, so trusted for wisdom and for honesty,—this authority in matters of the deepest moment to England's welfare—is the same man whom one of your metropolitan magistrates has accused of the most wondrous baseness: and the same pen that defames him, defames me. Are those slanders believed or disbelieved? If believed, where is the confidence and enthusiasm of that burst of cheering, that spoke trust in the minister, and respect for his memory? If disbelieved, where is MY shame? Why am I hunted and haunted through life, with a scandal involving two persons, but seemingly admitting of but one acquittal? If the story had been true, and palliation were possible for sin, the palliation might rather seem to be on the side of the weaker party. But it was not true. He said It was false. I say it was false. I cannot come down and read, amid cheers and acclamation, his letters for me: but what then? Am I to believe that I am too insignificant—that any one in England is too insignificant, for justice? Is it only for princes and politicians that defence can avail? Is justification an appanage of position, and endurance measured by degrees in the Herald^s office? I hope not. I think not—if this is England, as England boasts herself to be.

I say again,—I do not petition for sympathy; I claim . If even my defence offend,—blame the. If the Law of Divorce were differently constituted, the scandal never could have taken place, of a trial against the Premier of England, which that minister affirmed he believed to be brought for a pecuniary advantage, and to be supported by suborned witnesses. If the laws of protection for women were differently constituted, the struggle about a broken contract could not have taken place. If the absurd anomalies in the law which regulates claims on. the husband, did not exist,