Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/168

156 We criticise the custom of Eastern nations, the wives and mothers in whose harems have been bought, perhaps, while yet pure—in the slave-market! They might, in turn, criticise our habit of taking compensation in money for the wives of English gentlemen,—when they are guilty. It is a shameless and barbarous form; revolting alike to delicacy and common sense. I know that it is in the usual spirit of the English law, as to injury sustained. If a man is falsely imprisoned—"damages"; if he is libelled—"damages"; if he breaks a limb by falling down your unprotected area—"damages"; if his daughter is seduced—"damages"; if he is deceived into buying a bad bargain—"damages"! But in many of these instances, the mercantile award seems a reasonable thing. The man whose limb is broken, has paid a surgeon's bill and been laid up helpless; the deceived speculator has suffered actual pecuniary loss; the man unjustly arrested, and incarcerated by mistake, has been injured in credit and prevented from earning his dally bread: in all these cases remuneration is both proper and satisfactory. But the English gentleman whose home is broken up, and who receives money from the other gentleman who has carried off his wife, stands in a position at once painful and ridiculous. And the Englishwoman—whose fame, happiness, and future, are at stake on the accusation on -which such an action must be based; and who is nevertheless told that "legally" she can make no defence—that she is no party to the suit—that she may not have counsel in court—that she is not permitted to state either the circumstances of her separation from her husband, or his previous treatment of her—stands in a position which would be farcical, if misery did not Invest it with a bitter solemnity! What a mockery in a case like mine—where all my family and friends could have come forward, and proved on oath the real circumstances of my story—must it have seemed to be told, that I was "no party to the cause"! That Lord Melbourne's defence, and the verdict in his favour, must content me! Leaving the whole