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

at the hands of Lady Bulwer, as husband and IA
Their. must now put in my Introduction against my
wife bringing snch an action before fors'gn trion-
nal.
s'In all countries the married woman even if sepa-
rate from her husband by legal means, cannot bring
any action without his legal consent, or that Of the
law. The English courts OF justice WIN appear 10
you to me, more capable OF apprec ating and Jadg
ing the discussions (dftats) the publicity OF which
is provoked and which interest the honor Of Whoie
family, as well as the fu,ure welfare of my children
have the honor, &c.
Sir Edward Belwer, continued M. Odiion Barrot
is now in Paris, at the disposal OF the Tribunal and
ready verbally repeat his refusal The refusal is
formal and we have only to discuss a question Of
law which is at the same time one OF public deco
rum. Ii remains to be decided whether ma: ried
woman can appear in court oi justice without the
authority of her husband, or the public prosecutors
and merely because she has put her foot upon for
eiga SOIL throw aside all respect for herself and for
his authority, Let il not he SAID that Lady Buwer
Is foreigner, and that she therefore entitled to
avail herself of the laws Of France. The question
is one of personal law, and she is under the laws OF
her country 1t is strange mistake to suppose that
the laws of England sanction what those OF France
refuse. They positive in all that regards pub
lie decorum as own; and 1t Is not true that IN
England married woman can plead without the au
thority of her husband; and Lady Bulwer, yielding
10 a sentiment Of decorum which hoaor, has refus.
ed 10 appear court before pabic assembly, thus
admitting in spite of herself, the irregularity and
lille gality of the prosecution. now proouee to the
performing high functions in England, which must,
think be conelus We. (Here the learned counsel
read a paper signed by the Attorney and Solicitor
Generals, TO the effect, that according to English
law \ married woman cannot sue or prosecute with
out the consent Of her husband). 1t is no more
permitted in England than in France. to has
band to abuse the right which he possesses. The
English jurisprudence, like that of France, has
provided a remedy in where the husband
should attempt to prevent the exercise Of legiti-
mate right In such the tribunal comes TO the
assistance of the wife, and substitutes authority
for that os the husband; but this be done
til the hu sband has been first called upon ccordng
10 the forms of law, to give his consent, and has
fused TO do so. Had this been dene by Lady Bulwer
in the present case, and authority had been denied
to her, she could have made application to the Pre-
sident Of the Tribunal, who would have heard the
parties, and decided as to whether a prosecution
should be instituted. The investigation would have
taken place in the Council Chamber, and in pre-
sence Of a public assembly, which is not the place
for a husband to reveal his domestic feelings, and
state the causes which induce him TO become party
TO prosecution of this nature. Such is tho
rescribed by the laws of Fran and such is the
course which Lady Bulwer ought to have adopted.
But Lady Buwer, acting under the influence Of i'm.
prudent counsel, has taken a different course Act
ing as if she were unmarried woman, and, as if
the mere fact of being in France absolved her from
all the duties of the marriage state, she has
menced prosecution ia her own name for pretend
ed outrage. A great and important lesson must now
be given. The principle which protects the wife
against herself must be established. The law which
has given to her legal guardian must be respected
II must rot be said, that because female is for
eigner she can absolve herself frsm her duties to
her husband. OF the motives which have induced
Sir f. l.. Bulwer to refuse his consent, can only
saw that f Lady Bulwer should call upon him in a
legal form, he will not be embarrassed at confdng
them to the bosom of the tribunal.
NJ Berryer-I do not comprehend the language
which has lust been uttered to the circumstances
of the case, and still less understand the appeal
ance of Sir l.. Bulwer: do not under stand how
a Member of the British Parliament can come for
ward with doctrine so contrary to the common law
of England. 1t has been said that Lady Buwer aim
ed at public scandal, and that il necessary to
prevent bold and rash woman from revealing the
crets of the domestic Lille Of Sir Edward Bulwer
and herself before audience Of foreigners. There
was such danger to be feared. Sir Eiward Ba!-
wer had no reason fear that his wife would violate
public decorum. Lady Bulwer Complains that her
dwelling has been violated, and that her name has
been outraged in public journal This is her CON-
plant. There is no scandal in this She has de
handed reparation for the outrage upon her name
under sense of the respect due 10 her honour, and
even TO that Of her husband Yet that husband, who
had consented to ard authorised the residence of
his wife, under the protect Of the laws Of France
where she resides in honor, when he heard that she
had been exposed 10 insult and outrage and demand
ed reparation has fastened to snatch from her the
means Of obtaining it, Is this the protection due 10
wifel Is this the way Of showing regard for pub
lie decoruml But this is not all. We complain Of
two offences against Lady Bulwer; and, by an I'M
guarded admission, the offenders have denounced
the husband the insigator. was astonished that
a hus band should have denied TO his wife the means
of obtaining eparation for offence of which she
has been the victim bat am now more astonshed
that il sheuld be said in the name Of Messrs Lawson
and Thackerv that they acted upto the offence itself
by the order of the husband Let us now examine
the law Of the case. The wife, in England, has al
ways the right ef complaining, and is supposed TO
have the authority Of the husband. In England
there is never asy judicial authorization the alb
sence Of that Of the husband As all that can be de-
manded is set to be made responsible fer the con-
sequences OF the suit is sufficient for the attorney
Of the wife to declare himself responsible to enable
her to carry on the proceedings. This is the law
stone. This was ence the case in France, aad the
law Of En- gland is but the old French law. After the
Norman Conquest the common law Of the Saxons and
the Norman Law became the common law OF Eng land.
BY art. 5i3 Of the Norman law, the wife had power
90 plead in her own name, without the authority Of
her husbsnd for offences against her person. provided
they were atrocious; and this has been the law in
England for centuries. Is the offence now charged
upos the defendants atrocous within the meaning Of
the lawl Is sot the violation Of the dwelling an act
Of atroctyl IL then, the wife be denied the protec
ton and authority Of her husband, will she not find
protection from you when she demands PREPARATION
for the outrage Of which she has been the victiul
Independently of the strict law Of the case we mus,
look at the circumstances. do not pretend to en-
ter into the domestic dissensions Of man and wife,
but must not lose sight Of the mporaRt fact that
there has been in this an act Of separation.
(Iere the learned Counsel read the deed OF separa
tion between Sir Edward aud Lady Bulwer, and con-
tended that from its character gave the wife the
power Of sueing in her own name before the Tribu-
nal) Bot Is not the nature Of the cause itself such
AZ TO render the authority of the husband unneces-
Norman law, and OF the deed Of separation, which
takes adv Bulwer out of the authoritv eomm..