The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-12-02
The Fanny Kemble Butler Divorce Case.

was concluded this merning. The court room was
quite full on any previous day
Mr. DALLAS said IL left Off yesterday at the position
that Mrs Butler went her house on the
and said II not unkindy- do say that such was the
spirit that dictated her from the beginning to
the end But on the Sd Of March there scene
"a scene OF reunion. The family under roof
and the circumstances gave promise-s glorious pro-
mise for the future But Mrs Butler did not avail her
self of In all the little circumstances Of domestic
life she exhibited pertnacious disposition dspo-
sition to thwart and cross her husband in all his
os by Ss sS
not and embter her husband In reference to the
education aud management Of her children There is
evdspce perfectly clear that in London, in 1S43in
the lodging house In this cty-in the agreement
brought about by DR. Furness-it was UNDERSTOOD nay
IL necessary, it was firmly contracted that the
pagemen otbe children should be left with her hus-
band ask that 1t be looked to; for 1t
by Mrs. Butler character of Mr. Butler 1t
Is impossible to that from it, his charact father
was not unmpeachable, 1t was the strongest admis.
sion by the wife herself when she yielded up their
to him that in consequence Of his character and dis
position, 1t was proper that be should have them
Why, they were females; and IL Mr. B. had not been
mother could have had their charge yielded to her by
any court in christendom. There is no court
that would not have said that girls young must be
placed Ia the charge of their own mother. But the
mother knew that in his relations character none
at to have the charge of them their father
Now in relation to sending them to the farm which Is
charged to be great q cruelty why did he send the
children out of town In the summer but for their
country with delight, and were happy as
when there And the circumstance that they were
placed at what Mrs Butler calls wretched road side
school, did not seem la the least to their enjoy.
ment. Now, take another circumstance set out here
as cruelty. Mrs Butler with of the children
the presence of that child "Mr Butler, did YOU
order, so aud So Tin regard to this child.n Well
What did Mr. Butler do? why, he hid hmselfn silence
behind the columns Of newspaper. Well, that is
circumstance-and yet, 1t is a circumsta nee would
sincerely nd nationally to every nd
When the wife is in danger losing her TEMPER and
getting up scene the best thing the husband can do
Is to catch the first newspaper he nd in order to
enable him to maintain proper equauimity Then
there lie another occurreDcea slight matter about
pair of shoes-a pair Of shoes for the children She
did not like one of the shoes, it pinched; and that
part OF the child and the fact that Mr. Butler was
not disposed to interfere exhibited in this answer
IN bold relief as matter great ndgnity Then,
to the governess. Her presence is made a cause of
complaint Why, is practice to employ them wher.
ever families are possessed of the means 1t is a
custom in her own country-it is the custom on
the Continent. Wherever the family has means
to employ these useful, intelligent. and ire.
highest responsibility, who. In consequence of mis-
fortunes have been necestated to seek support for
themselves, have resorted to this employment, one
OF the greatest responsibility and highest character
Now as to the circumstance Of refusing to sign the
deed extipguishipg the ground rent-it was a matter
does she assign her reason Look at it, 1t Is temper
only The governors assailedthe right of her hus-
there is universal spirt Of disoontent and
She says" declined signing the deed, stating NV
Willingness to do so when should be restored to my
natural right over my children''-rights which she
had qualified In London rights which she had gual
fed here-rights which she had agreed to qualify by
coming into the house. There no other reason
than her to preserve permanent strue
gle with her husband and put him ntly ct de-
Sns sirs the caa,dIon every day There may
bling cauldron-there may have been-but there was
one thing constantly to excite it. and that IT, the fire
the temper which keeps this oauldron bubbling from
day to day. Mr.. Butler retires from the scene-he
stays away; but nothing win qusnch it-she is perpet
ualy induing billet dour, or making entries in her
journal. which show that she constantly keeps up a
spirit contrary to the arrangements and authority
her husband She works herself into parcxysms"
irritation n-Tbat's her own phrase. She is
victim to such physical and mental excitement that
writes the letter Of September l. 1s45 which contains
notice of her intention to withdraw the house.
Read it through it is impossible to put such CON
snuction upon it. Then there Is another wrong
Mr. Butler tyrsnnicaly required his wife to pro
mice that hat. she would make no reference to the
siton to forget all that past first from her.
As TO furnishing her with the means to go abroad,
thing in that because Mr. Buffers statement that he
would reduce her yearly allowance from $2500 TO
s.s the SUsSsDa aa hsi
the dessrtion of the wife, by giving her money Why,
Mrs. Butler begged, in her letter from Sandersons
HOTEL that she should not be left to and destu-
ton. 1t was offer of his-he velu nicer in
furnishing it; and he only yielded it, to keep from
restitution whom he once loved In fact, tn APP
pears to have been struggle to mastery-the ques-
lion Is are the breeches to yield to the pettcoat
Mr. Butler to say to his wife, Are you to wear the
bieeches!-are we to change characters!-are you to
unsex yourself aud become dowdling woman?-can
you find ythng in Shakespeare like this! Yes, you
Who Ii to yield when we have thus equal and
temporary difficulty as to the management of chill
shend remain in this Souss but saws Mr. Cboate
she did desert his habitation she had his license and
subsequent approval and he POUNDS this the posi-
ton that in 1S43 the parties not and wife
she might indeed be mother but she not a wife
the mother, quoai mother, must remain with her chill
drep in Walnut street. but the wife quoad wife could
20 where che peased-the wife could the Allan
tic but the mother must remain in the city Of Phila-
delphs Now have before alluded to this; but there
Is consistent answer-that the agree mt could be
revoked at any time by the will Of the husband II he
chose, he could follow her, and say she should
her whenever he should see proper; and he did
rscla m her, when she came back In 1885, and
current Of rebellion but the claim to exercise authority
Was acquieeced in occasionally But, further there
agreement then that all the occurrences Of the
past should be anuled-every previous agreement
ade null and void and there utter revocation
OF them But the great principle that put 1t upon
lie, that all such agreements are in violation of law
The law the great father and mother Of a-the great
guardian Of all-the law put an end to the imaginary
license the moment she returned to her husband
great principle that she cannot plead any cruel treat
ment to bar this decree which Is not adequate by law
vie, it is saying that party may divorce herself for
which the law does not allow; she must PROVE
in the words of the act Of Assembly, "such cruel and
harbarous treatment, endangering her life, aud such
render her condition ntoer be and bur-
thensome to force her to withdraw from his habta
ttn"- she must prove danger to life and limb Tt
will not do to relax the Import Of these words to
suit all the discontented wives in the country
1t will not do to say that because a little acid ha.
been thrown into the matrimonial cup, the wife
may depait-tbat those grievances, which do
not affect the character Ct the man--that which his
neighborc might see, without right to interfere
that these circumstances would be a sufficient justia
cation for divorce. The moral condition OF the
immunity depends on this decision IL the respon-
dents positions mantainedt will open your doors
20 the pressure of flood of divorces equal to those Of
che days Of revolutionary France you will give this
act legislative, and not judicial construction You
cannot make distinction between the law as applied
to John Doe vs. Richard Roe, and Clarssa Harlow vs.
Cherubina. But, says Mr.. Meredith, what might not
be dsagreeable to Polly Smith, might be disagreeable
TO Mrs Butler. But the court cannot put con-
struction upon tho law for Polly Smith, and another
for Caroline Amelia Wihemna Skeggs. Let IL be I'M
der stood that the court is going to settle law the
rich which they will not settle for the that there