Page:English laws for women in the nineteenth century.djvu/146

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

134

Queen's reign, the Whig government was overwhelmed with business, even more troublesome than that which the cares of office usually involve. "What was my poor destiny, in a session in which a new coinage and a coronation—^the revolts in Canada—the attempt to repeal the corn-laws—the conduct of O'Connell—the King of Hanover's claim for his English income^the Irish Church Bill—the first general arrangement of mails by railroad—the visit of Marshal Soult—the creation of a new batch of Peers—the passing of the Irish poor-law—and a hundred other subjects of varying importance, employed Lord Melbourne's attention? What could my sobbing, moaning, and complaining, be, but a bore, to this man who was not my lover? What could my passionate printed justification be, but a plague and embarrassment to him, already justified, and at the pinnacle of fortune? Let no one say Lord Melbourne's family should not hold me in kind remembrance: for then—young, childless, defamed, sorrowful, and rash,— there never was the day that I did not admit his destiny to be the one thing thought of; there never was the day that I rebelled against his advice, or gave him annoyance that I could possibly avoid. I did not even persist—" this can only be a temporary embarrassment by revival of painful gossip, to you; it is my life— my future—the strongest temptation of my heart to justify myself." I listened then, as at other times, to the ever- ready argument, that I would be justified without these means; that they would be beyond measure vexatious and embarrassing to him; that I might "rest assured," that no patience I shewed would be forgotten, either by him, or those above him. I gave up what I had prepared (though it would have been as easy for me to prove all by Sir John Bayley's and other testimony, then, as in this present year), and nothing was published but a feeble anonymous denial, in a morning paper, of the general thread of Sir Fitzroy Kelly's remarks; giving two or three letters from the solicitors on both sides, with even those names left blank.