Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/172

160 proceeded in language strange, rabid, and virulent, to abuse the writer; calling her a "" and a "," speaking of her "non-convicted gallantries," and pouring out vials of wrath in words of excessive coarseness. No less than one hundred and forty-two pages were devoted to the nominal task of opposing the Infant Custody Bill, and in reality to abusing me. I read the article with amazement; with curiosity; and finally with exultation. I thought I saw at last, a chance of triumphantly justifying myself. I sent for my solicitor. I said—"You have told me that I cannot plead for a divorce by reason of cruelty, having condoned all I complained of: that I cannot sue for alimony, because that must arise out of a suit for divorce: that there was no possibility, on the trial, of saying more in my defence than was said,—because I was no party to that suit. Now, thank Heaven, here is a fair opportunity of making my story clear to the world. I did not write the "Grievances of Woman" which is thus insolently attributed to me, and indecently reviewed; and as for all the circumstances in the previous portion of the article, you yourself know that they are a series of mis-statements. I request, therefore, that you will instantly commence a prosecution for libel at my suit against the editor, and in the course of that suit, and the proving all his attack upon me unjustifiable, I shall obtain a complete acquittal in public opinion, and clear up all that was left doubtful and untouched in the trial, where I personally could have no defence."

My solicitor answered this eager and hopeful oration, in a few brief words. He informed me that being a married woman and therefore "non-existent" in law, I could not prosecute of myself; that my husband must prosecute: my husband—who had himself assailed me with every libel in his power—who, for ought I knew, might himself have furnished to the editor, the extraordinary version of his affairs which appeared in the review! Certainly my husband would be too glad of this powerful and rancorous abuse of me: certainly he