Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1840-04-28

received with the guaranty Of the attorney there
were question as to the responsibility OF the nus
band. This is the law of the case-what is its
rslity? His said that We seek for scandal Scandal,
indeed the scandal is in the offence not In the com
plants; the scandal is in the protection wsish is
given to the guilty"
NJ. Berryer's speech produced great impression.
M Odilon Barrot-Gentlemen you have seen with
what impotence Lady Bulwer has rushed into a
career which she found opened TO her, Inc only
question was discussion upon general public law,
and yet yeu told about private facts and VIOLA
tion Of domicile.
M. Berger, nterrupting, observed that thsse were
the sole objects of the complaint.
nj. Odilon Barrot-These are the merits OF the
case; we have not come TO them yet; but II we do
come to them you will find that the pretended viola
tions will assume different character. For the
manner in which the husband exercises his rights
am responsible to him and TO Justice. His refusal
shall be justified to the Court II tho client OF the
honou rabe ad vocate YOU have Just heard had been
less impatient, and, conforming to the laws of her
country, had come with her husband before the ma.
gistrates, it would have been easily ascertaincd
whether there was anything serious IN tine complaints
but if all the public papers have anticipated this
cruel trial, making an accusation against one who
bears an honoured name, your complaint is thereby
proclaimed not to be scrous In reality, 1t is only an
appeal to the public, and Announces a desire 10 make
a French tribunal the arena of scandal, while the
parties themselves, in conscience, know that II can
not come to any decision. These avowals are to be
found in all the public papers the country and can
you question whether Sir Edward Bulwer, who is
the guardian of the honour and welfare Of his child
rem should come forward and perform sacred duty
The question of right alone remains to be diseased
What strange authorities have been quoted to prove
by the common law that woman can dispense with
the authority of her husband and drag him before
the Tribunals without even giving him notice Call
YOU this common law! Such law never existed IN
any country where the slightest regard to public de-
cency and the reciprocal duties OF husband and wife
are respected. Even under the Roman law woman
could not plead without having the authority OF her
father or her husband By our customary law the
authority Of the husband was carried to an extent
which we now cons iscr extreme In France the COM
mon la makes the wife subordinate to her husband,
and she is under his guardianship; this
is our law, and not that liceBtious freedom which
you wish to introduce. You have cited authorities,
and am ong hem an actisn against the Court Journal
ia which Lady Buwer,a as you stated appeared alone
and obtained dgment. This, however, was not so.
The fact was that Lady Bulwer was specially au-
thorsed by her husband and the counsel or solicitor
of adv Bulwer expressly declared this. Thus the
example quoted is the strongest evidence that the
common law of Eng land comedies with that of all
other civilized countries, and thai vile in England
cannot make an appeal to Justice without the express
drawn from the separation serious! and how can
voluntary separation he aaduced us valid argument
before tribunal, which acknowledges only the ac-
ton OF the law! The English law, lake that OF
France, recognises only two situations, marriage
divorce. There is no intermediate situation. The
necessities of society, the exgencies of private life,
NAV warrant separation, but the law will not permit
that any deed if this kind shall violate the obliga
tions Of the marriage state BY legal fiction trus-
tee is appointed towards whom the husband con-
tracts certain obligations bat the rights of the has
band and wife, the mari al authority, and all that at
taches to social law respected. private act
canRet overthrow the martial authority The Eng
sh law is not less prudent IN this respect than that
Of France 1t will not permit that authority TO be
destroyed which has been conferred upon the hus-
band as regards the Tribunals The quostion before
the Court is one of public morsty-of public right
We ask of you, in the name of that right in the Rame
of that morality, of you who consider marriage to be
the most holy Of all ties not 10 declare that Eng
lsh woman may, by the mere fact of residence in
France, get rid Of all the duties and all the obliga
lions which she ewes to her husbsnd, and perform
the most important acts Of life without the authority
of her hus band or the authority Of justice.
NJ Berryer-I will not reply TO what has been said,
of desire to produce scandal have already suff-
GENTLY explained myself on this subject Neither
will reply to the singular reproach that has been
made te us, Of not having brought our complaint
der the notice II an English tribunal Is it to be
said that for violation OF domicile in Paris and
libel in the same capital, 10 plead before the
English tribunals! do not comprehend this invita-
tion.
NJ. Oion Barrot-We understand you perfectly.
Nj. Berryer-Jf understand you, il is because
you compel me TO penetrate your thoughts; but you
are far from cemprehending mine and still further,
l think, from what | expect from the tribunal
When we claim the intervention Of French justice,
we rely with confidence that French justice will
make itself respected. II Lady Bulwer or her
counsel were to fall into diva cations in the expla-
nation Of facts of which French Judges ought not
TO have cognizance, they would impose silence
upon us. Do not, therefore, be alarmed; nothing
will be said beyond the facts OF the cause with
which the Judges ought TO ba we'll acquainted,
and OF the effence imputed TO Messrs. Lawson and
Thackeray Do not, therefore, send my client before
English judges to obtain reparatisn for the wrong
which she has suffered in Paris, and which they can
not appreciate. You should rather assist in redress
ing that wrong, than in nterdct ng an action which
can elsewhere exercise without your occurrence.
(The Learned Counsel here cited case in which
IL was decided that married woman could sue in.
dependently OF the authority Of her husband and
then, addres sing himself TO the Tribunal, said)-I
have explained the nature Of the facts, and the me-
cessity OF granting protection to Lady Bulwer who
now resides in France. / maintain that com
plant against Messrs Lawson and Thackeray osght
to be received, notwithstanding the Intervention OF
Sir Edward Bulver.
NJ. Ternaux, substitute OF the -Roi-
The affair before the Tribunal may be brought with
in very simple limits; you have not to appreciate
the fac's connected with the complaint Of Lady Bull
wer you simply called upon 20 decide question
OF law Lady Bulwer has cited before you Messrs
Lawson and Thackery on three different charges
She accuses them, first, with having invaded her
dwelling secondly with having attic mpted fraudulent
ly TO carry of her papers; thirdly, with having at
tempted TO suborn evidence. You will, at a later
period, have to inquire into this last charge, IL this
fact, which is Of pature, If established, TO bring
heavy penalties upon its authors be within your
petence. You will also have TO decide whether the
two first charges, which within the Jurisdiction
Of the Correctional Police, TO be visited with
punishment But, in the FIRST instance, Won have to
decide on the objection raised by Messrs. Lawson
and Thaekery. Lady Bulwer is a married woman,
and is acting without the concurrence OF her hus.
band. The two defendants demand that she should
have the authority Of her husband in the prosecution
II has been urged that Sir v. Buwer had given his
nowers 70 Messrs Lawson and Thackeray. The