“I pardon my oppressor—­bitterly as I lament the loss of my child, torn from me in the most violent manner.  But nature revolts, and my soul sickens at the bare supposition, that it could ever be a duty to pretend affection, when a separation is necessary to prevent my feeling hourly aversion.

“To force me to give my fortune, I was imprisoned—­yes; in a private mad-house.—­There, in the heart of misery, I met the man charged with seducing me.  We became attached—­I deemed, and ever shall deem, myself free.  The death of my babe dissolved the only tie which subsisted between me and my, what is termed, lawful husband.

“To this person, thus encountered, I voluntarily gave myself, never considering myself as any more bound to transgress the laws of moral purity, because the will of my husband might be pleaded in my excuse, than to transgress those laws to which [the policy of artificial society has] annexed [positive] punishments.—­While no command of a husband can prevent a woman from suffering for certain crimes, she must be allowed to consult her conscience, and regulate her conduct, in some degree, by her own sense of right.  The respect I owe to myself, demanded my strict adherence to my determination of never viewing Mr. Venables in the light of a husband, nor could it forbid me from encouraging another.  If I am unfortunately united to an unprincipled man, am I for ever to be shut out from fulfilling the duties of a wife and mother?—­I wish my country to approve of my conduct; but, if laws exist, made by the strong to oppress the weak, I appeal to my own sense of justice, and declare that I will not live with the individual, who has violated every moral obligation which binds man to man.

“I protest equally against any charge being brought to criminate the man, whom I consider as my husband.  I was six-and-twenty when I left Mr. Venables’ roof; if ever I am to be supposed to arrive at an age to direct my own actions, I must by that time have arrived at it.—­I acted with deliberation.—­Mr. Darnford found me a forlorn and oppressed woman, and promised the protection women in the present state of society want.—­But the man who now claims me—­was he deprived of my society by this conduct?  The question is an insult to common sense, considering where Mr. Darnford met me.—­Mr. Venables’ door was indeed open to me—­nay, threats and intreaties were used to induce me to return; but why?  Was affection or honour the motive?—­I cannot, it is true, dive into the recesses of the human heart—­yet I presume to assert, [borne out as I am by a variety of circumstances,] that he was merely influenced by the most rapacious avarice.

“I claim then a divorce, and the liberty of enjoying, free from molestation, the fortune left to me by a relation, who was well aware of the character of the man with whom I had to contend.—­I appeal to the justice and humanity of the jury—­a body of men, whose private judgment must be allowed to modify laws, that must be unjust, because definite rules can never apply to indefinite circumstances—­and I deprecate punishment upon the man of my choice, freeing him, as I solemnly do, from the charge of seduction.