New-York tribune., 1921-02-20
By Otis Peabody Swift

by otls FeabOdy Swift
From The Trsssne's Rsropean Bureau
LONDON, February IL.
Rock-G-bge, bubgs yell till yes,r'e hoarse,
4uosher - trying o. case for dtvorce.
trccts 81 the evidence, darling, are tor-
rid,
Morals TEDDY are nost shoekingly hor-
Rock-o.bys, baby, abstain from your
fury
Aother's been su,nn,onsd TO sit o.. tho
jury.
English Folk Song.
Can women be successful jurors?
Should women be forced to listen to
evidence Of unpleasant or disgusting
nature frequently given in divorce
suits7
What about the jurywoman's child?
Inese questions are agitating all
England since the recent Inauguration
OF mixed juries here. Six men and six
women have just tried a divorce case
where the evidence submitted was de-
scribed as "abominable and beastly."
Sir Edward Marshall Hall, counsel for
the wife, says that the trial was har-
rowing experience and that he hopes
he shall never have another such case
oe1ore jury with women members.
Shaw Is Indignant
George Bernard Shaw, indignant at
the "gross absurdity" of the blushing
barristers, says that it is ridiculous
TO believe that women cannot listen to
any evidence that men can listen to.
The suit was that in which the wife
Of Major Harold Allen asked for
secree OF restitution of coniugal rights,
and the husband sought divorce, al
leglnR misconduct between his wife
and her cousin, Captain Hugh Jack
Neville. The charges were denied.
The wife, Mary Allen, said she had
been brought up with her cousin and
names of "Hughpot" and "Marypot."
They were friendly, but there had
been no close intimacy between them.
The wife, in her suit, introduced as
evidence letters written to her by her
husband while in France. The letters
are said to have contained suggestive
and disgusting" statements. MIR. Jus
tice Horridge, trying the case, said
that no language could be too strong
to refer to them. Counsel Sir Edward
Marshall Hall said that reading the
letters made him feel physically sick.
Some of these letters were read aloud
yers regretted doing this before the
lady jury members. One exhibit of the
evidence was transparency, contain
ing an alleged obscene picture, but this
was shown only to the men jurors in
the front row of the jury box. One of
their number was delegated to describe
the picture to the women jurors.
Doesn't Approve Modcsty
| G. B. Shaw doesn't approve Of this
modest attitude at all. In an open let
ter to The Daily News he says:
| "As a member of the male sex, will
| you allow me to protest Indignantly
against the proceedings reported by
you in your issue of the 26th as hav-
ing occurred in the divorce court on
Tuesday last?
"The conclusion arrived at seems to
have been that as all men are familiar
with abominable and beastly letters
and obscene picture cards, they should
examine these documents and tell the
innocent women what they thought of
them. Now, l am married man in
nay sixty-ffth year, and I solemnly
protest that / am entirely guiltless of
this alleged male habit OF reading
abominable ard beastly letters and
gloating over pornographic pictures.
"Sir Edward Marshall Halls assump-
tion that my sensibilities in this mat
ter are less delicate than those of
women is not only unfounded, but ex-
tremely offensive. 1t was part of his
case that these exhibits had passed
between n man and woman. Then
why in the name of common sense did
this blushing barrister exclude the six
Jurymen from the apology which he
thought 1t necessary to make for pre-
senting them to the six jurywomen?
Calls Woman Competent
81 need not emphasize the gross alb
surdity of referring Miss Lillian Barker
zone Of the jurywomen), whose extraor-
dinary record as welfare worker
during the war, to say nothing of her
present responsible employment, makes
her judgment more valuable in any
question of domestic morality than
that of the whole British bar and
bench, to the nearest juryman, possibly
bashful novice of twenty two, for
instruction as to what she should think
OF improper pictures. &.
'If the published letters are fair
samples Of the 'abominable and beast
ly' documents l can say without fear
Of contradiction that nothing in the
case was half so shocking to sensible
delicacy rs the unfortunate discus
sion with which 1t opened. If the lead
ers of the bar are really so sensitive
as Mr.. Silas Wegg, with his Not be-
fore Mrs. Boffin, SIR then / suggest
that it will be on the whole less
socially inconvenient for themselves to
change their professions, or confne