The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-11 00:00:00

A CLERICAL DIVORCE CASE.

In the Divorce Court in London, on Tuesday, Lord
Penzance gave judgment in the cosse it "Kelly v.
Kell)." The respondent is the incumbent of St.
George's, Liverpool and his name has been much
before the public in connec' ion with actions against
newspaper proprietors and other persons, arising out
of sermons preached by him sr Mnst the election of the
Jew mayor, and the appointment of a Roman Catholic
chaplain. The parties had been married nearly thirty
years, and they had one living son. The peculiarity of
the case was that Mr. Kale had conceived an extra-
vagant idea se to his marital prerogative, and con-
eidering that his wife was rebellious, had placed her
under &certain degree of personal restraint, the result
of which had been materially to affect her health.
Lord Penzance delivered the following important
judgment. v Itch we have slightly condensed
The peculiar and distinguishing feature of this case is the
adoption by the respondent of a Oellberate system of conduct
towards his wile, with the view of bending her to his
authority. A man who sets about to achieve this end by pur-
posely rendering a woman's daily life unhappy is in danger of
overstepping his eighth, as he is pretty sure to fall short of
his duties. The respondent lu this c ose has, in my judgment,
done both. Without disparaging the Just and paramount
authority of a husband, it may he gaiety asserted
that a wife is not a domestic slave, to be driven
at all cost, short of personal violence, into compliance
with her husband's demands. And if force, whether phy-
sical or moral, is systenuitically exerted for this purple
In such manner, to such a degree, and during such length
of time as to break down her health and render serious
malady imminent, the interference of the law cannot be
justly withheld by any Court which affects to have charge of
the wife's personal safety. Is cases of this kind every-
Harm depends on degree. Many acts, which are venial in
themselves become reprehensible when they take their places
as parte of a system. Others, justifiable on occasions,
lose their justifiaitton when conteiuously and purposely
repeated. In considering a charge of cruelty, therefore,
the conduct of the parties inculpated can only be justified,
or the reverse, as a whole ; and if, upon a general review,
the Matrimonial Court is of deliberate opinion that cohabi-
tation could not be resumed with safety to the wife, it is
bound by the dictates of common sense, as well as upon
princieles repeatedly avowed and acted upon in a long series
of ilecitions, to step in and forbid its resumption. No
doubt, in cases such as the present, where the personal vio-
lence used is of a trifling character, it behoves the Court to
be sedulous in inquiry and slow in conviction. It should be
entirely satisfied that the conclusion of the wife, ddiger is
clearly reached, and on reliable evidence. Moreover, the
decidoes of my predecessors have Imported this further pro-
position as a condition of the Court's interference, thit the
troubles of the wife are not owing to her own mi.conduct. .
There is little variance or dispute about the leading facts
Towards the close of the year 1867 II r. Kelly informed his
wife that a emu of e.. 5,000 which had been nettgeathed to
her by her slicer had been hi great part lost by the in-
vestments he had made of it. Citable to obtain from her
husband a clear idea of her rights and those of her son
under her sister's will, she wrote to her brotbewin-law,
Colonel Thornhury, to see the will for her anti explain it.
This he did, and wrote her the result, telling her that the
mo ey was in law at the entire command of her
husband, nod that her son had no lights in the mat-
ter. Some further correspondence passed between the
ropetitioner and Colonel Thornbury, and between the peti-
Ctter and her brother. These letters fal'inr into the hands
of the respondent were extremely resented by him, and
were directly or indirectly the cause of much, if not most,
that followed. Spoilt the same time the petitioner's son
quarrelled with his father and was obliged to quit the
home The petitioner, to some extent, took the son's part,
which increased the resentment of the respondent. From
these circumstances the respondent toek up the idea, which
rie afterwards allowed to fill his whole mind, that Ids wife
was plotting and einspiring against him. Ile commenced
opening her letters, and calling her a vile traitor and apos-
tate lie told her that "nd modest woman would asso-
ciate with her mote than with a prostitute," "that she
had given her confidence to soother man," etc lie
refused to sit at 110.4111 with her, he insisted on occupy'
big a separate. bedroom, he told the servants to
tune orders fr m him, and not from his wife, be forbade
her to visit the poor in the district, to which she had
been accustomed, and desired her not to atteiel the minis.
Oaten of the sacrament. :tome months passed in this way.
The respondent kept apart from his wife all day except at
family prayers. and even then he appears to have had little
or Ito communication with her except in the way of rebuke
sail reproach. At length, in the month of May, 1068, the
petitioner became ill, her appetite wholly failed, she lost the
Senses of taste and smell, and towards the end if the month
felt a sensation of numbness in her aim, which gave reason
iii fesr paralysis. She consulted Dr. Drysdale. lie advised
her to leave home. Her husband retuned, said on the 29th
of June, having become worse, she left her home without
his content I am satisfied from the medical testimony that
et this time the occurrences which had taken place, and
eha. Isolation and reproaches to which she had been subjected,
had so preyed upon her nervous system and general health
thet suttee, consequences wete to be feared, if she were not for
a dna withdrawn from the life she was leading. Mrs. Kelly
etaied away nearly four months, welch she passed with her
relations. The respondent wrote her many letters, in which
he enlarged upon her sine Ile expressed no Care for her
health, and none that she should return. In Wtober she
retuned. Between that time and the January following,
when she finally left home, she was purposely submitted to
Ike following treatment. She was entirely deposed from
her natural position as mistress of her hustiatal's house.
ahe was debarred the use of money entirely ; not only
ware the household expenses withdrawn from her con-
trol, but she was not permitted to disburse anything
for her own necessary expenses every article of dress,
every trite that she requit ed, had lobe put down on paper,
And her husband provided it if he thought proper. Having
refused on one ',coulee of going tut° the town to tell
her husband everywhere that she had been, an interdict
was placed on her going out at all. At one time the doors
were locked to keep her in, at another a man servant was
deputed to follow her at another the ream-ardent insisted
inS accompanying her himself whenever she wished to go
Meal. On these occasions he appears to have occupied
the short time they were together in what he ;called putting
her sin before her in ie retie, coarse, and abusive terms, apply-
ing to her the same ep.tliets and language as would Ise appli-
canto to a woman who had been guilty of adultery. Ile
took no meals with her; he occupied a separate bedroom
he patted no portion of the day, however small, in her
society. They met, as before, only at family prayers, and
Ii he spoke to her at all it was only to give some directiona
or to reproach her. Save on one or two occaeiops she saw
ite one. Those whom she desire ato see were forbidden the
hose.e. Slue was absolutely prohibited from Writing any
letters ualeis the husband saw them before they were posted.
She was thus, as far as the respondent could achieve it, prac-
filially isolated from her friends. Meanwhile, the care
of the household was confided to a woman, hired for the pur-
pose, Who was directed not to obey Mrs. Kelley's orders a ith•
out the respondent's directions. In sh. rt. she was treated
like a child or a luuatio, and in this light she was actually
esaarded by the woman just mentioned, when she nest came
to her place ; and thi-, lie it remembtred, though she bad
pawed the mature age of sixty and had been married to the
rtsPendeut hr twenty•seven years. With no occupation, de-
barred the sot Atty of her husband and her son at home, and
Disk of her friends abroad, withheld from the perfortnance
el her household duties, subordinated to servants, needless,
Usol, ao far as her husband could effect it, friendless, the Artily
le of this lady woo little better than an Imprisonment, the
solitary dience of which was broken only by the labguage of
harsh rebuke, foul words, and epithets of Insult, indignity
and shame. Whrt wonder thet, under PO grievous an op
• pression, het health again gave way t She could not eat,
al. hardly slept at all, she was subject to constant
trerubliog and fainting, she woke Involuntarily scream-
ing at night, arid her nervous system was so shat-
tered that the mediae' witness' xeclared paralysis or
even made., to he munineot Now, upon this testimony
It Is imvirtint to observe that there was no contradiction.
The reipondeitt did not, even Upon his owo oath, deny or
qualify the petitioner's eviderice as to her state of health.
On this bead 'the most important in the whole case, the re-
lipoutletit t online,' himself to the suggestion that her miser-
able eondition was brought about, not 14 his treatment, tint
by vexation at the discovery of -her own Heart Mil. Her
actual condition and danger he did not call in threat on, and
yet it is to a repetition of this treatment, with Its aim at
inevitable results, that the respnntlent expects this Court to
order Mrs Kelly'. return. That it should be asked to
• break in upon his rights as a hueliand by depriving him of
his wife's society, or, I should rather say, of her presence
under his roof, is to him smatter of surpeiSe end indigna-
tarn, for, as he truly says, he has not beaten tarn He
has, Indeed, on te o or three occasions made her feel that
his superior physical strength was always ready to les
exerted to constrain her movements, but he has inflicted no
bruises and done no visible bodily hurt. Such a view of
the law, if correct, would be little to its credit, and
te coincide with it would be to abrogate the arst
duty in these matters of the Matrimonial Court—the
protection of the w de's health and safety. "fhese, then, are
the things which Mr. welly nu, and these the results upon
•
lin wile's health. The rem doing question is, Why old he do
them? His answer I believe, woeld he, to bring his wife
to peniteuce and submission. nut penitence tor what?
and submission to what? Although he has 'lever in his
numerous letters, so tar as I Can discover, stated with
great clearness what lt was that he wished 'her to (14e