Such was her ſtate of mind when the dogs of law were let looſe on her. Maria took the taſk of conducting Darnford's defence upon herſelf. She inſtructed his counſel to plead guilty to the charge of adultery; but to deny that of ſeduction.
The counſel for the plaintiff opened the cauſe, by obſerving, "that his client had ever been an indulgent huſband, and had borne with ſeveral defects of temper, while he had nothing criminal to lay to the charge of his wife. But that ſhe left his houſe without aſſigning any cauſe. He could not aſſert that ſhe was then acquainted with the defendant; yet, when he was[144] once endeavouring to bring her back to her home, this man put the peace-officers to flight, and took her he knew not whither. After the birth of her child, her conduct was ſo ſtrange, and a melancholy malady having afflicted one of the family, which delicacy forbade the dwelling on, it was neceſſary to confine her. By ſome means the defendant enabled her to make her eſcape, and they had lived together, in deſpite of all ſenſe of order and decorum. The adultery was allowed, it was not neceſſary to bring any witneſſes to prove it; but the ſeduction, though highly probable from the circumſtances which he had the honour to ſtate, could not be ſo clearly proved.—It was of the moſt atrocious kind, as decency was ſet at defiance, and reſpect for reputa[145]tion, which ſhows internal compunction, utterly diſregarded."
A ſtrong ſenſe of injuſtice had ſilenced every emotion, which a mixture of true and falſe delicacy might otherwiſe have excited in Maria's boſom. She only felt in earneſt to inſiſt on the privilege of her nature. The ſarcaſms of ſociety, and the condemnation of a miſtaken world, were nothing to her, compared with acting contrary to thoſe feelings which were the foundation of her principles. [She therefore eagerly put herſelf forward, inſtead of deſiring to be abſent, on this memorable occaſion.]
Convinced that the ſubterfuges of the law were diſgraceful, ſhe wrote a paper, which ſhe expreſſly deſired might be read in court:
"Married when ſcarcely able to diſ[146]tinguiſh the nature of the engagement, I yet ſubmitted to the rigid laws which enſlave women, and obeyed the man whom I could no longer love. Whether the duties of the ſtate are reciprocal, I mean not to diſcuſs; but I can prove repeated infidelities which I overlooked or pardoned. Witneſſes are not wanting to eſtabliſh theſe facts. I at preſent maintain the child of a maid ſervant, ſworn to him, and born after our marriage. I am ready to allow, that education and circumſtances lead men to think and act with leſs delicacy, than the preſervation of order in ſociety demands from women; but ſurely I may without aſſumption declare, that, though I could excuſe the birth, I could not the deſertion of this unfortunate babe:—and, while I deſpiſed the man, it was not eaſy to ve[147]nerate the huſband. With proper reſtrictions however, I revere the inſtitution which fraternizes the world. I exclaim againſt the laws which throw the whole weight of the yoke on the weaker ſhoulders, and force women, when they claim protectorſhip as mothers, to ſign a contract, which renders them dependent on the caprice of the tyrant, whom choice or neceſſity has appointed to reign over them. Various are the caſes, in which a woman ought to ſeparate herſelf from her huſband; and mine, I may be allowed emphatically to inſiſt, comes under the deſcription of the moſt aggravated.
"I will not enlarge on thoſe provocations which only the individual can eſtimate; but will bring forward ſuch charges only, the truth of which is an inſult upon humanity. In order to[148] promote certain deſtructive ſpeculations, Mr. Venables prevailed on me to borrow certain ſums of a wealthy relation; and, when I refuſed further compliance, he thought of bartering my perſon; and not only allowed opportunities to, but urged, a friend from whom he borrowed money, to ſeduce me. On the diſcovery of this act of atrocity, I determined to leave him, and in the moſt decided manner, for ever. I conſider all obligation as made void by his conduct; and hold, that ſchiſms which proceed from want of principles, can never be healed.
"He received a fortune with me to the amount of five thouſand pounds. On the death of my uncle, convinced that I could provide for my child, I deſtroyed the ſettlement of that fortune. I required none of my property to be[149] returned to me, nor ſhall enumerate the ſums extorted from me during ſix years that we lived together.
"After leaving, what the law conſiders as my home, I was hunted like a criminal from place to place, though I contracted no debts, and demanded no maintenance—yet, as the laws ſanction ſuch proceeding, and make women the property of their huſbands, I forbear to animadvert. After the birth of my daughter, and the death of my uncle, who left a very conſiderable property to myſelf and child, I was expoſed to new perſecution; and, becauſe I had, before arriving at what is termed years of diſcretion, pledged my faith, I was treated by the world, as bound for ever to a man whoſe vices were notorious. Yet what are the vices generally known, to the various miſeries that a[150] woman may be ſubject to, which, though deeply felt, eating into the ſoul, elude deſcription, and may be gloſſed over! A falſe morality is even eſtabliſhed, which makes all the virtue of women conſiſt in chaſtity, ſubmiſſion, and the forgiveneſs of injuries.
"I pardon my oppreſſor—bitterly as I lament the loſs of my child, torn from me in the moſt violent manner. But nature revolts, and my ſoul ſickens at the bare ſuppoſition, that it could ever be a duty to pretend affection, when a ſeparation is neceſſary to prevent my feeling hourly averſion.
"To force me to give my fortune, I was impriſoned—yes; in a private mad-houſe.—There, in the heart of miſery, I met the man charged with ſeducing me. We became attached—I deemed, and ever ſhall deem, myſelf free. The[151] death of my babe diſſolved the only tie which ſubſiſted between me and my, what is termed, lawful huſband.
"To this perſon, thus encountered, I voluntarily gave myſelf, never conſidering myſelf as any more bound to tranſgreſs the laws of moral purity, becauſe the will of my huſband might be pleaded in my excuſe, than to tranſgreſs thoſe laws to which [the policy of artificial ſociety has] annexed [poſitive] puniſhments.——While no command of a huſband can prevent a woman from ſuffering for certain crimes, ſhe muſt be allowed to conſult her conſcience, and regulate her conduct, in ſome degree, by her own ſenſe of right. The reſpect I owe to myſelf, demanded my ſtrict adherence to my determination of never viewing Mr. Venables in the light of a huſband, nor could it forbid me from[152] encouraging another. If I am unfortunately united to an unprincipled man, am I for ever to be ſhut out from fulfilling the duties of a wife and mother?—I wiſh my country to approve of my conduct; but, if laws exiſt, made by the ſtrong to oppreſs the weak, I appeal to my own ſenſe of juſtice, and declare that I will not live with the individual, who has violated every moral obligation which binds man to man.
"I proteſt equally againſt any charge being brought to criminate the man, whom I conſider as my huſband. I was ſix-and-twenty when I left Mr. Venables' roof; if ever I am to be ſuppoſed to arrive at an age to direct my own actions, I muſt by that time have arrived at it.—I acted with deliberation.—Mr. Darnford found me a forlorn and oppreſſed woman, and promiſed[153] the protection women in the preſent ſtate of ſociety want.—But the man who now claims me—was he deprived of my ſociety by this conduct? The queſtion is an inſult to common ſenſe, conſidering where Mr. Darnford met me.—Mr. Venables' door was indeed open to me—nay, threats and intreaties were uſed to induce me to return; but why? Was affection or honour the motive?—I cannot, it is true, dive into the receſſes of the human heart—yet I preſume to aſſert, [borne out as I am by a variety of circumſtances,] that he was merely influenced by the moſt rapacious avarice.
"I claim then a divorce, and the liberty of enjoying, free from moleſtation, the fortune left to me by a relation, who was well aware of the character of the man with whom I had to[154] contend.—I appeal to the juſtice and humanity of the jury—a body of men, whoſe private judgment muſt be allowed to modify laws, that muſt be unjuſt, becauſe definite rules can never apply to indefinite circumſtances—and I deprecate puniſhment upon the man of my choice, freeing him, as I ſolemnly do, from the charge of ſeduction.]
"I did not put myſelf into a ſituation to juſtify a charge of adultery, till I had, from conviction, ſhaken off the fetters which bound me to Mr. Venables.—While I lived with him, I defy the voice of calumny to ſully what is termed the fair fame of woman.—Neglected by my huſband, I never encouraged a lover; and preſerved with ſcrupulous care, what is termed my honour, at the expence of my peace, till he, who ſhould have been its guar[155]dian, laid traps to enſnare me. From that moment I believed myſelf, in the ſight of heaven, free—and no power on earth ſhall force me to renounce my reſolution."
The judge, in ſumming up the evidence, alluded to "the fallacy of letting women plead their feelings, as an excuſe for the violation of the marriage-vow. For his part, he had always determined to oppoſe all innovation, and the new-fangled notions which incroached on the good old rules of conduct. We did not want French principles in public or private life—and, if women were allowed to plead their feelings, as an excuſe or palliation of infidelity, it was opening a flood-gate for immorality. What virtuous woman thought of her feelings?—It was her duty to love and obey the man[156] choſen by her parents and relations, who were qualified by their experience to judge better for her, than ſhe could for herſelf. As to the charges brought againſt the huſband, they were vague, ſupported by no witneſſes, excepting that of impriſonment in a private mad-houſe. The proofs of an inſanity in the family, might render that however a prudent meaſure; and indeed the conduct of the lady did not appear that of a perſon of ſane mind. Still ſuch a mode of proceeding could not be juſtified, and might perhaps entitle the lady [in another court] to a ſentence of ſeparation from bed and board, during the joint lives of the parties; but he hoped that no Engliſhman would legalize adultery, by enabling the adultereſs to enrich her ſeducer. Too many reſtrictions could not be thrown in the[157] way of divorces, if we wiſhed to maintain the ſanctity of marriage; and, though they might bear a little hard on a few, very few individuals, it was evidently for the good of the whole."
[158]