LITTELL'S LIVING AGE.-No. 598.-10 NOVEMBER 1855. From the North British Review. Letter to the Queen on Lord Chancellor Cranworth's Marriage and Divorce Bill. By the Hon. Mrs. NORTON. London, 1855. Ir is, doubtless, less known in our own, than in the great southern capital, that, in the course of last year, Mrs. Norton privately circulated among her friends what may be called a thin volume, or a bulky pamphlet, entitled "English Laws for Women in the Nineteenth Century." as, indeed, it often is said, "All you say may be very true in theory-but the system of which you complain works well. The evils are possible evils, but in fact they do not arise." To show that they have arisen, and that they do arise, is to show that they may and will again arise; and to demonstrate that they are not possibilities but actualities is to enlist the sympathies of many who would turn aside with indifference from the theoretical question, and remain content with things as they are. It is an illustration rather than a disquisition; To talk about the "bad taste" of obtruding a moving example rather than a chapter of matrimonial quarrels upon the public is simply formal argumentation—a painful episode of to talk as a dolt or a petit maitre. As if such personal history more weighty and pregnant questions as these could be settled by an apin its simple details of much wrong and mighty peal to taste. It is not to be supposed that suffering, than sheaves of subtle controversy or Mrs. Norton-a woman, with all the generous swelling declamation. And it is one of those impulses and fine sensibilities of genius, has "over-true tales," the pathos of which goes any personal gratification in telling the world straight to the heart. how her domestic life has been one long scene Into the minuter circumstances of the sad of conflict and humiliation-how the sweetest story it is not necessary to enter. It is enough of human faces has been clouded with sorrow, that we should express our faith in Mrs. Nor- and the kindliest of human hearts filled with ton's statements, and our sympathy with her bitterness, by a process too certain in its operasufferings. If we speak incidentally of her tion for humanity to resist. As well might you trials, in the course of this article, it will not suppose that when "Scævola's right hand be because we have been made acquainted hissed in the Tuscan fire," there was personal with them through the medium of an unpub- gratification in the self-torture. For our own lished pamphlet, but because they have become parts, knowing well what it must have cost sufficiently matters of notoriety to render all her, we admire the courage, and applaud the reservation unnecessary and inexpedient. Our martyrdom of the English lady who, sustained business is with the subject itself, not with the by her strong conviction of the justice of a case which illustrates it. In the volume which great cause, can thus tread down all the delithe injured lady circulated last year, she de- cate instincts of womanhood-ay, even those clared that she would not write again, except of much-bearing and much-forbearing motherupon this subject; and so far she has kept her hood-whilst she pleads the common cause of word. Within the last few weeks she has pre- her sister-sufferers, the highest and the lowest sented to the outside public a letter to the alike. Queen on the Laws of Marriage and Divorce. There is the less necessity, therefore, that we should dwell upon the contents of the work which has not come formally before our literary tribunal. And, in truth, the published pamphlet very closely resembles that written for private distribution. It is the same with a differencethe difference principally consisting in the omission of the extracts from Lord Melbourne's letters, which have, doubtless, been read with curiosity in the first instance, and admiration in the second. That the published work deals largely in private matters we do not complain. The redress of many great public wrongs has been brought about by the exposure of private grievances. But for such reference to individual cases it would be said, DXCVIII. LIVING AGE. VOL. XI. 21 There will, doubtless, be among Mrs. Norton's readers many women, prosperous in their love, or believing themselves to be thus prosperous, who will say that they deplore her revelations, and repudiate her doctrines. They are in health-or their disease is latent and unsuspected - and they need not the Physician. Happy are they in their security or their delusion. That Mrs. Norton's case is an exceptional one in degree, we believe, but only in degree. Even in degree, though exceptional, it is not solitary; and in kind we are afraid it is common. It so happens that in this unhappy instance all the evils of the existing laws, as they affect women, find apt illustration, meeting together and being massed into a strange congeries of multitudinous wrong. But any one of these evils, taken separately, is sufficient to call attention to the existing state of the law, and to clamor loudly for the most earnest consideration that can be given to the great question of human justice which it involves. It is no reason, because there are happy homes in England, and honored and cherished wives, that those who are wronged and outraged, should not be protected by the law. And ought not the thank-offering of the prosperous to be boundless sympathy with those poor bankrupts in domestic love, whose cause Mrs. Norton is so eloquently pleading? As briefly as we can, and as much as possible in Mrs. Norton's own words, we propose to state at the outset what are the individual wrongs grouped together in her unhappy case: "I wrote," says Mrs. Norton, two "pamphlets; one on 'The Separation of Mother and Child, and the other, 'A Plain Letter to the Lord Chancellor, by Pierce Stevenson, Esquire.' The 'British and Foreign Quarterly Review' attributed to me a paper I did not write, and never saw, On the Grievances of Woman; and boldly setting my name in the index as the author proceeded, in language strange, rapid, and virulent, to abuse the writer, calling her a she-devil and a she-beast. No less than 142 pages were devoted to the nominal task of opposing the infant Custody Bill, and in reality of abusing me. Not being the author of the paper criticised, I requested my solicitor to prosecute the Review for libel. He informed me that, being a married woman, I could not prosecute of myself-that my husband must prosecute-my husband who had assailed me with every libel in his power. There could "I cannot," she writes in the published pam-be no prosecution; and I was left to study the phlet, "divorce my husband either for adultery, grotesque anomaly in law, of having my defence desertion, or cruelty. I must remain married to made necessary, and made impossible, by the same his name. I am, as regards my hus- person.” band, in a worse position than if I had been divorced by him. In that case Englishmen are so generous that some chivalrous-hearted Culled from different parts of Mrs. Norton's might perhaps have married and trusted me, "Letter to the Queen," these facts may be supin spite of the unjust cloud upon my name. I posed to represent the sum and substance of the am not divorced, and I cannot divorce my hus-plaint against that state of the law which deband; yet I can establish no legal claim upon clares the "non-existence" of married women. him, nor upon any living human being." "I do not receive," says Mrs. Norton, "and circumstances, cannot divorce her husband. A woman, except under very extraordinary have not received for the last three years a farthing from my husband. He retains, and always She cannot hold property; she cannot earn has retained, property that was left in my home money for herself; she cannot enter into legal -gifts made to me by my own family on contracts; she cannot defend herself against my marriage, and to my mother articles libel. Is it right that her identity should be bought from my literary earnings, etc. He thus merged into her husband's — that legally receives from my trustees the interest of the por- she should be "non-existent "-a nominal aption bequeathed me by my father, who died in pendage or "chattel" of one who has practithe public service. I have also (ascally cast her off, and ceased to be her pro man Mr. Norton impressed upon me by sub-poenaing tector or provider? We may admit, at the outset, that there is ven, not the legacy of earth, is no more legally some difficulty in arguing such a question as mine than my family property. When this in a perfectly unprejudiced and dispasThe man will take the man's we first separated, he offered me as sole provi- sionate manner. sion, a small pension paid by Government to view of the question; the woman will take the each of my father's children; reckoning that woman's. Reviewers, however, are of no sex. pension as his." They are collective and epicæne; of many "In order to raise money on our marriage set-sided vision and catholic sympathies - judges, tlements," says Mrs. Norton, in another place, and not advocates. If our summing up, as we "my signature was necessary. To obtain my signature Mr. Norton drew up a contract. He anticipate, is satisfactory to neither party, we dictated the terms himself, and I signed it. The shall rest assured that it is not much wanting effect of my signature was that Mr. Norton im-, in justice and truth. mediately raised the loan. The effect of his signature was absolutely nil. In 1851 my mother died. She left me (through my brother to guard it from my husband) a small annuity, as an addition to my income. Mr. Norton first endeavored to claim her legacy, and then balanced the first payment under her will, by arbitrarily stopping my allowance. I insisted that the allowance was secured by her own signature, and other signatures, to a formal deed. He defied me to prove it as by law man and wife were one, and could not contract with each other; and the deed was therefore good for nothing."' As long as there are men and women in the world, there will be bad husbands and bad wives. As long as there are human laws, there will be defects and insufficiencies in them. Let us legislate as we may, there will still be cases which our laws will not reach-still cases of individual hardship very painful to contemplate. If the laws were made by mixed assemblies of men and women, there would still be cases in which they would bear hardly on one sex more than on the other. All that we can do is to approximate to a just striking of the balance in the aggregate, compounding for an instance of individual injustice. are all judged according to our opportunities, and that where there has been much temptation there will be much mercy. The crime may be the same in the eyes of God, whether committed by man or by woman; but it does not therefore follow that by whichsoever sex it may be committed, the offence against the other is the same. In the conjugal contract the antecedent chastity of the man is not pretended by one party or expected by the other. Unfortunately, in this Christian country, where early marriages are rare, and early depravity is not - where our youths in all ranks of society are cast, with their strong passions and weak pria It need not be said that the practical equality of the sexes is contended for by very few, or that those few know not what they are asking. To demand equal privileges is at the same time to demand equal responsibilities. Every rational woman knows that, if she is to be exempted from certain responsibilities, she must forego certain privileges in return for the exemption. Every rational man acknowledges that, inasmuch as he enjoys greater privileges, it is just that he should be subject to greater responsibilities. The question is, whether, in the present state of the law, and present tem-ciples, into a vortex of temptation from which per of society, the woman does not purchase her exemption from certain responsibilities by too large a sacrifice of certain privileges or rights. not one in a hundred struggles unpolluted there must be a tacit understanding that, whatever may be the conditions imposed upon the future, the conditions with respect to the past required of the woman are not to be required of the man. Now one crime cannot justify or mitigate another. But, doubtless, the notorious fact of the general incontinence of men before marriage, diminishes the horror with which subsequent infidelities are regarded, and therefore the amount of injury inflicted upon the wife. The desecration in one case seems less than in the other. The offence of the wife changes purity into impurity; the offence of the husband makes impurity more im but this is the rule. In the woman's case there is the loss of a priceless jewel, which the man is not expected to carry with him to his new conjugal home. We incline to think that she does. We make the concession more sparingly than may perhaps be appreciated by the more vehement advocates of the Rights of Women; but we yield to none in our delicate regard for the dignity of the sex, or our earnest consideration for their happiness. The question is one not to be regarded with what Mrs. N. calls the eye of the Cyclops. It may be true that men regard it in this one-eyed manner; but it is not less true that women take an equally contracted view of the subject. Not contented with moderate pure. There may be exceptions on both sides; admissions and concessions, the latter frequently weaken their argument and injure their cause by contending for more than can be fairly granted to them either in theory or in practice. And in no instance is this more no- That bravery is to Man what chastity is to ticeable than in the manner in which the ques- Woman-that society expects all its men to tion of Divorce is argued. It is not sufficient be brave and all its women to be chaste-may in many cases to concede that the difficulties not be, in theory or in practice, good Chriswhich lie in the way of the wife, who would tian morality. But arguing the case as beobtain an absolute release from her conjugal tween Man and Woman, it would seem to be obligations, ought to be mitigated by the law. not otherwise than just to indicate that if there It is contended by many a fair controversialist are qualities of which the world takes less acthat a breach of conjugal fidelity, whether on count in men than in women, there are others the one side or the other, should be visited by of which less account is taken in women than the same consequences, as an offence with in men. The want of courage, which diswhich the sex of the delinquent has nothing to graces a man, is no slur upon the reputation > do. "We are bound,” it is said, "by the same of a woman. That very contact with the divine laws. We have made the same vows to world-that very exposure to its indurating cling to each other, in loyalty and truth; and and invigorating influences which make strong there are no conceivable grounds upon which nerves, and steady pulses, and steadfast hearts, one of the contracting parties can claim ex- also brings its temptations and contaminations emption more than the other from obligations to pollute the minds and defile the bodies of clearly defined and voluntarily undertaken." men, making them strong to do and weak to It must be understood that we are arguing resist. Woman may put forth the plea of cirthe case, as between man and woman-not cumstances; may not man also advance it? between the human creature and the Divine If the weakness and helplessness of the one Lawgiver. It is not for us to say more in re- sex may be asserted in extenuation of certain ply to an assertion of the eternal truth that deficiencies of character and conduct, may not God's commandments are issued to all man- the temptations to which the other sex is exkind--to man and to woman alike than posed, be also pleaded in mitigation of their that we humbly and hopefully believe that we short-comings? It were clearly unreasonable to expect men to be both as though they were, and as though they were not, exposed to the indurating environments of the world. about "cornutus" is, and has been for ages, an object of popular derision. It is, perhaps, and not unjustly supposed-to the honor of women be it spoken-that few good husbands and worthy honorable men are thus disgraced by the wickedness of their wives. When a woman argues it is hard that that which is expected from her sex is not also expected from the other, she should consider how much is expected from men which is not That we have left unnoticed one important expected from women. Assuredly if she yields element in the consideration of this question much she receives much in return. That chiv- of conjugal fidelity, as between the man and alrous acknowledgment of her weakness, which woman, will suggest itself to the majority of in civilized states of society, induces a man to our readers. The infidelity of the husband inpostpone his own safety to that of a woman-flicts no spurious children upon his wife.* If in small cases as in great to sacrifice every- a woman has no other privilege, she has that thing, from the ease of the moment to his very of knowing her own children. The weakness life, for the sake of one whom he may love of Mrs. Norton's reply to this argument would with his whole soul, or may not know even by seem to establish its validity. She says, that name is in itself no small exchange for the if the husband's infidelity does not inflict spurequirements of which we have spoken. It is rious children on his wife, it may inflict them not a matter of complaint with men, that if a on his neighbor. But that is a matter between ship is going to pieces on a rock, or is on fire man and man-not between man and woman. in the midst of the wide ocean, every woman And it is as between man and woman, that on board will be seen safely over the side of Mrs. Norton discusses, and we now discuss, the the doomed vessel before a single man takes subject. It is very true, that a man may to the boats. This may be regarded as an ex- squander what ought to be devoted to his wife treme illustration: but in a lesser degree such and legitimate offspring, upon spurious chilsacrifices are being continually made, and dren born out of his house; but if spurious there are few men who have not at some time children are born in his house, and regarded or other risked their own safety to secure that as his own, he lavishes both his money and his of a woman. If she, in the hour of danger, be affections upon them, and what is more, the incapacitated by fear-if her heart stand still law gives them his property - perhaps his and her limbs fail her, and she betray every whole property-at his death. There is no symptom of helpless terror, it is no disgrace confusion, as regards the woman's knowledge, to her to be thus affected. It is "natural" of the true and false. Whether her offspring "womanly"—we love and admire her all the be legitimate or illegitimate, she knows it to same, and perhaps are the more tender and be her own. But a man, in this the tenderest assiduous in our ministrations from the very relation which humanity recognizes, may be knowledge of this infirmity. But one such the prey of a miserable delusion all his life. failure on the part of a man, and he is dis- The victim of injustice himself, he may ungraced for ever in the eyes of the world. Yet consciously be unjust to others, and hereditary he does not complain of the unfairness of his honors and property, or wealth acquired by destiny. He knows that being a man, he must years of self-denying industry, may be transsuffer as a man. He does not claim the privi-mitted to the offspring of a wanton and the lege of ranking with women. living evidence of his own dishonor. Now all or very much of this is practically From these considerations, it would appear that, viewing the question by the light of simple justice, as between the woman and the man, the latter may not unfairly lay claim to wherein the "great moralist" delivers his opinion There is a passage in Boswell's Life of Johnson, a larger amount of toleration, than he can ac- on this subject, which will recall itself to the recolcord to his wife, on the score of those particu-lection of some of our readers, "I (Boswell loquitur) lar offences which give the death-blow to the mentioned a dispute between a friend of mine and character of the latter. And in the very cir- his lady, concerning conjugal infidelity, which my cumstance of this destructiveness there resides friend had maintained was by no means so bad in the husband as in the wife. Johnson. Your friend another and a weighty argument which ought was in the right, sir. Between a man and his not to be forgotten in any candid discussion Maker, it is a different question. But between a of the subject. The reputation of a man re-man and his wife, a husband's infidelity is nothing. ceives a greater blow from the infidelity of his They are connected by children, by fortune, by wife than the fair fame of the wife receives ried women don't trouble themselves about infidelserious considerations of community. Wise marfrom the depravity of the husband. The wo-ity in their husbands.' Boswell.-To be sure, man thus sinned against may be pitied, if any- there is a great difference between the offence of thing so common be regarded as fit subject of infidelity in a man and that of his wife.' Johnson. -The difference is boundless. The man imposes pity: but the man is commonly sneered at and no bastards on his wife.'" We cannot add that we despised. Society is less tolerant of the victim adopt, without reservation, Johnson's idea of a than of the victimizer. The man who goes "wise married woman." admitted, even by women who in theory pro- see what evil, which cannot practically be test against it. The Johnsonian doctrine, held in check, can result from the legal equalthat wise married women "will not trouble ization for which Mrs. Norton contends.themselves" about the infidelity of their husbands, may not be admissible without some qualification. But truly says Mrs. Norton, that a wise woman will forgive much, and that chastity is not the only virtue : "A man," she writes, "may yield to the temptation of passion, who yet at heart loves and respects his wife, and feels, after his delusion is over, a real shame and repentance. Nor is want of chastity the only sin in the world. A woman who is a chaste wife may fill her husband's days with unendurable bitterness; and a man who has lapsed in the observance of the marriage vows may, nevertheless, be a kindly husband and father, with whom reconcilement would be a safe and blessed generosity. If we add to these admissions woman's natural lingering love for her companion-love undeniable, indisputable-love evidenced each day even among the poor crea tures who come bruised and bleeding before the police courts, refusing to give evidence in a calmer hour against the man, such evidence would condemn to punishment; if we add the love of children, the dread of breaking the bond which shall perhaps help a step-mother into the mother's vacated place; if we add the obvious interest, in almost every instance, which the woman has to remain in her home; and the horror most women must feel at the public exposure and discussion of such wrongs, it is evident they would not be so very eager to avail themselves, in usual cases, of the extreme remedy." And when we bear in mind what has been written above about the willingness of the wife to "condone"-the natural tendency that there is to forgive inconstancy, when not attended with brutal violence and insult-we need not be under, much apprehension that women, under any state of the law, will endeavor to divorce their husbands, except in cases of unendurable wrong. "If an English wife," says Mrs. Norton, "be guilty of infidelity, her husband can divorce her so as to marry again; but she cannot divorce the husband, a vinculo, however profligate he may be." This, however, is not exactly the state of the case, as she presently "No law-court," she continues, "can shows. divorce in England. A special Act of Parliament annulling the marriage, is passed for each case. The House of Lords grants this almost as a matter of course to the husband, but not to the wife. In only four instances (two of which were cases of incest) has the wife obtained a divorce to marry again. "In Scotland," on the other hand, "the law has power to divorce a vinculo, so as to enable either party to marry again; and the right of the wife to apply for such divorce is equal to the right of the husband; that license for inconstancy, taken out under the English law by the English husband-as one of the masculine gender, being utterly unknown to the Scottish Courts." "But," adds Mrs. Norton, in this eloquent In England, the first step towards a divorce, letter to the Queen, “in unusual cases, in is an action for damages, on the part of the cases of the dreary, stormy, deserted life, husband, against the supposed paramour of when profligacy, personal violence, insult, and the wife. As in these proceedings, the wife oppression, fill up the measure of that wrong is "non-existent," and cannot appear by counwhich pardon cannot reach-why is there to sel to defend herself, the chances are that the be no rescue for the woman? why is such a whole case is prejudged against her, before man to be sheltered under the Lord Chancel- she has the power of saying a word in her lor's term of only a little profligate,' and own defence. It is true that her paramour 'condonation' supposed to be the only proper may defend her; but it is not his interest to notice of his conduct?" In other words, why do so, except by showing that the husband are the laws of Divorce in England such as has offended against his wife, and does not they are? Why is the dissolution of the enter Court "with clean hands." But so long vinculum matrimonii so much more difficult on as a money-value is set upon the love and the plea of the wife than on the plea of the fidelity of the woman, it is rather the policy husband? In Scotland we know that the of the defendant's counsel to make it appear distinction is not maintained. Why does jus- that she was a bad than that she was a good tice assume such different guises on the oppo- wife. The tariff of damages is of course regusite sides of the Tweed? lated in accordance with the supposed value The English law assumes that the two cases of the chattel of which the husband is deare not equal,—that the infidelity of the wife prived, and it is the professional duty of the is a greater offence than the infidelity of the defendant's, counsel to make this chattel aphusband, both against the other consort and against society at large. And we think we have shown that it is so. But as sentence of divorce can only be pronounced by a competent tribunal, and that tribunal, whatever the law may be, will, consist of men, we do not pear as valueless as he can. Now this, which is, we believe, peculiar to the English law, is an injustice at the very outset to the woman. Her character, her position, her very means of subsistence are at stake. She is virtually, though non-existent and unrecognized, on her |
