161
would not prosecute! Then there could be no prosecution. I could not institute a suit. I must submit; and the editor must slander me with impunity; sending out into the world, according to the circulation of the British and Foreign Quarterly, a bold falsehood, embroidered with bitter comments, invented of a woman utterly helpless, and already sorrowfully struggling against defamation undeserved.
I did submit. I had no choice. I was "non-existent," except for the purpose of suffering, as far as the law was concerned: it could oppress, but never help me. And the grotesque anomaly of being considered one with the husband whose previous libel was the cause and foundation of this subsequent libel—of having my defence made necessary, and made impossible, by the same person; that person still my nominal and legal protector, in spite of the changed circumstances of our mutual relations with each other—remained a subject for leisurely contemplation, and helpless complaint.
The law-forms respecting property, followed the same rules as the law-forms respecting prosecution for libel. Anxious to make arrangements for a future home, less expensively than in furnished houses, I propose to take a lease; and am told, that being "non-existent" in law, my signature is worthless. Anxious to recover property left at home, gifts from my mother and my family, I am informed, that being "non-existent" in law, I can claim nothing, and that my husband intends to sell them. Anxious to leave what little I have through the generosity of my family, or the gifts of friends—my furniture, trinkets, books, etc., to my two sons, I am informed, that, being "non-existent" in law, it would be a mere farce my attempting to make a will; that a married woman can bequeath nothing, as she can possess nothing; and that my property is the property of the husband with whom I am still legally "one," after seventeen years of separation! Anxious to end the apparently ceaseless disputes respecting a provision for me in this state of separation, I accept Mr.
