Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/167

155 method of proceeding is,—that the husband shall bring an action for "damages" against the lover of his wife;—then apply to the Ecclesiastical Courts for the limited divorce in their power;—then to Parliament to break the marriage altogether. By a singular form, if the damages fall below a certain sum (forty shillings), though it does not acquit the parties, it implies so much disapproval of the circumstances of the case — where there is, for instance, proved connivance or worthlessness on the part of the husband, or known vileness in the wife—that a divorce would not be granted. It is scarcely possible to conceive a more pernicious system than these actions for "damages." That the form is not inevitable as a preliminary step, is proved by the divorce of one of our peers being lately obtained without it. That it can be no proper mode of testing the truth, is proved by Lord Brougham's history of the husband who made his compact with a supposed lover to bring such an action. That it may be a base temptation to needy and unprincipled men, has been proved by examples. That it renders the woman's chance of clearing her character more desperate, (she being already denied counsel or defence in the action, to which she is no party), is shown in the fact that it is reckoned "ungentleman-like" in the supposed lover, to cast aspersions on the husband, which would merely reduce "damages"; and the defence is therefore generally limited to disproval and denial of guilt. So that how the wife has been treated, rarely appears in evidence. In principle, the award of "damages" is absurd. If the husband be really high-minded, honorable, and injured,—it is a mockery to pay him for such injury; if he be not honorable, but base and grasping, it is a strong temptation to him to threaten such an action, or even to speculate on bringing one, without any real belief in the accusation: for a small sum may tempt some poverty-stricken wretch to tell a tale, which, if believed by the jury, would bring thousands of pounds "damages." That it is a shameful mode of assessing loss of honor, can hardly be denied.