Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-12-14
ENGLISH DIVORCES.
NO RELIEF FOR THE WIFE UNLESS
THE HUSBAND BEATS HER.
u,r.,,hf,l servants and the Key-Holes-
Several Notable suits-Laxify In
Upper society-Thc Law.
unao, English law husband may OBJ.

|
Under English law husband may OBJ
tain n divorce from his wife for violation
of tho seventh commandment, but the
wife canno. obtain divorce for the
same cause, unless accompanied by
cruellv. That is, husband may In
dulge in all forms of wickedness except
one-he must not strike or starve, or
otherwise physically maltreat the wo-
man he has pledged his troth to protect.
So long as he keeps within that line she
is estopped from an absolute divorce.
lie may cause her any amount OF men
tai anguish, prosecute her with
n refinement OF barbarity more
exquisite than the infliction OF
bodily pain, but the court will
give her no relief except separation.
This has been notably illustrated in the
recent case in which Mrs. Evelyn Matilda
Georgiana de We're Beauclerk, sister Of
the Countess of Rosslyn, was a petitioner
for the dissolution OF her marriage with
aubrey de We're Beauclerk. The husband
is man Of blue blood and aristocratic
connections, as his name indicates. and
bis country seat is Ardglass Castle, IN
the County of Down, Ireland. he ap-
pears to have q confirmed contempt for
his marital obligations and is rather
promiscuous as TO his afiinties. Ills
first choice after marriage was female Of
shady repute known as "Skittles, with
whom he eloped.
A significant fact in connection with
the case is that this interesting specimen
of the We're de Veres has always been re-
ceived in the best London society, al
though his scandalous habits are and
have been notorious, and that he was
admitted on ut least one occasion to the
drawing-room of the Prince Of Wales.
and brought the beautiful Kate Tucker
with him as the Lady Evelyn de We're
Beauclerk. The affair created some
scandal at the time and was laughed at
in the clubs as good Joke on bis Royal
Highness.
THE LATEST SCANDAL.
This case, although the most recent
is not by any means the worst brought
TO the attention of the British public.
The Vetch-Stansfield trial is not yet for
gotten by many. This aged villain took
advantage Of the fact that his young and
comparatively invalid wife was unable,
owing to physical affection, to help her
self. and brought q woman to his home
whom he treated in all respects as
wife, entirely ignoring the presence of
mis- lawful spouse. But he took
care not to deny his wife either
food, medicine, or the care re-
quired by her sickness. She was
treated, in fact, like patient in hos
pital rather than in home of which she
was, or ought to be, mistress. Upon her
recovery she left the house in possession
of her husband and his chosen affinity
and sued for q divorce. This was de
MED on the ground that the husband
had not added cruelty to infdelity.
In dealing with a husbands suit, on
the other hand, English judges seem to
act on the theory that an English wife,
like CAESARS, should be above suspicion.
SERVANTS ARE NOT FAITHFUL.
Fortunately for the fair and weaker
sex, the juries are more inclined to le-
niency than the bench and require some
thing besides keyholes and conjecture to
insure verdict depriving woman Of
her husbands protection, real or nomi
nal. And this suggests, by the way, that
the key.hole business figures "a good
Zeal in the British divorce trials. There
appears to be in the average British SER
want lack of that fidelity and loyalty
which prompted Becky Jones, of New
York, to go to prison rather than disclose !
her masters secrets. Every divorce suit |
in high life witnesses a troop of servants |
marshalled in court to give each petty !
detail Of the house in which they have |
held confidential employment. The |
ady's maid lifts the veil from her lady |
ships boudoir the valet coolly and calm |
" recites bis masters adventures.
But when British wife has deter-
mined that under any circumstances she |
will have an absolute divorce the evil |
1ence presented is sometimes comical. !
All London laughed when the imperious |
and stately Mrs. Cochrane accused her |
husband OF five-feet-one, and abnormally /
thin at that. of cruelty in addition to 4
what the clergy call Scriptural cause.
IL was well for Mrs. Cochrane's case I
that her husband was complainant and did 4
not make his appearance i'll court ; other
wise the affair would have been too much
Tor the gravity even of an English judge
With wig on. This tall and queenly
woman, whose physique would have fitted
ler for "a generalship in the King of Daho-
ney's corps of Amazons, brought tcsti-
nony to show that her mite OF hus-
band had chased her about the house,
assaulted her with his fists, and meta
wiped the floor with her.
Having also proved the other and ordi-
lary charge, she got her divorce. And
low she is Mrs. Congreve-West.
TOO MUCH GRACE.
Another peculiar case of alleged cruel
V was that of Mrs. Cathrine Walters,
Shose husband is a well-kuown business
esident Of Bristol. Mr.. Walters is con-
older than his wife, and is Of
elgious turn of mind. He insisted
Ipon long family prayers in the evening
nd grace before meat, sometimes in his
eryor prolonging the grace until the
lands on the table were too cold to be
1t was testified that on one
occasion he started to say grace and drift
d into a revival exhortation addressed
o his only audience, his wife and
he servant, and when reminded that he
7as at dinner and not at church he
roke out into trade against the world
y-mindedness of his better half and her
as he called it. for the flesh
ots of Egypt. Mrs. Walters confessed
D a young woman's healthy appetite, and
lso that she wanted her food served hot.
he sued not for divorce, but for a iu-
icial separation on the ground Of intol-
rable cruelty. Mir. Walters resisted.