(_AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION, BY AN EMINENT
LEGAL AUTHORITY._)
[Illustration: Summing Up.]
It may be remembered that (I trust) in deserved acknowledgment of
my professional pre-eminence, I received, some little while ago,
the appointment of a Deputy-Assistant-Revising-Barristership. In
performing the duties of this important office, I sometimes have to
incur bodily risk--the more especially when I have to distinguish
between the rival claims of the political parties that I am sorry
to say have made Lambville-cum-Minton the antithesis of heaven upon
earth. On the occasion to which I particularly wish to refer, I was
accompanied by my Wife, to my secret annoyance, as I am afraid the
Lady who does me the honour to share my name is unduly apprehensive of
my safety, and, besides this general plea, I had yet another special
reason for desiring her absence. To tell the truth, I had been greatly
moved by a decision given in the Court of Appeal, whereby it seemed to
me (and no doubt to many of my learned friends) the custody of a wife
by her husband had become an empty phrase, signifying nothing. I felt
that if, by any means, I could get this judgment set aside, I would
not only confer upon myself, as a married man, a signal benefit, but,
moreover, as a Counsel, obtain increased professional distinction.
However, I was embarrassed by the presence of my Wife, when I came
to consider the best mode in which marital authority might be
assumed to raise the question of the right of _habeas corpus_. I
had returned to my room before the opening of the Registration
Court at Lambville-cum-Minton, in rather a disturbed frame of mind.
Truth to tell, my Wife, having learned that political feeling
was rising so high in the town that it was possible that the
Deputy-Assistant-Revising-Barrister might be assaulted by either or
both of the rival factions, had done her best to dissuade me from
taking my customary seat.
"What shall I do, to say nothing of the darling children, if you are
brought home on a hurdle?" she sobbed out.
I assured her that there was a very remote risk of my succumbing to
such a fate, as the conveyance home on a hurdle raised the presumption
that the victim had been hunting, a sport in which I seldom, I may
say, never indulged. But this explanation did not reassure her,
and she left me in tears. Her emotion caused me much pain, the more
especially as my proposed task seemed to me, under the circumstances,
a species of domestic treason. However, I hardened my heart, and sat
down to consider the facts of the case. To allow the right of seizure
to be argued, it would be necessary to take my Wife out of the custody
of someone other than myself. Her mother, a most estimable old lady,
with whom I have had many a pleasant and exciting game of backgammon,
seemed a right and proper person to assist me in carrying out my
project. But the objection immediately occurred to me that it would
be an exceedingly difficult matter to induce her to hold my Wife from
me unless I desired her to take such a course. But if I made this
request, would not the proceeding savour of collusion? To meet this
obstacle I came to the conclusion that I might get my Wife to pay
a visit to her mother, and then, appropriately disguised, seize and
carry her off. By locking her in the conveyance and riding on the box,
I could preserve my incognito until reaching home, and then I might
confine her in her own room with assumed harshness, and possibly (of
this I had some doubt) get her to complain of her imprisonment. By
keeping my Wife's domicile a close secret, her mother would be induced
to visit me to ask my professional assistance in recovering her
daughter. Thus approached it would be possible to so advise the old
lady that in the result she would demand my Wife's presence in Court
under a writ of _habeas corpus_. Then would come my opportunity.
Of course I would produce my Wife, and having carefully prepared my
arguments, would deliver an oration that would fill columns of the
newspapers, and hand down my name to generations to come as _the_
authority on marital rights. I saw in the near future wealth and
restored domestic happiness. But the first thing to do was to lock
up my Wife. And at this point it occurred to me that it was time for
me to walk over to the Revision Court. I hastily gathered certain
necessary articles into my brief-bag, and putting on my hat, grasped
the handle of the door. To my surprise I found that I could obtain no
egress. I rang the bell--and instead of a servant my Wife answered the
summons. "The door is locked, dear," I observed, "and as the key seems
to be on the other side, will you kindly open it, as I am in a hurry
to be off."
"You will stay where you are," was the reply. "You are not going to
get killed by attending a nonsensical Revision Court."
"But I must go," I explained; and then assuming a tone of authority I
rarely adopt, I added, "and you will be good enough to open the door
at once."
"I shall do nothing of the sort," replied my Wife, calmly. "I locked
you in, and I shan't let you out."
"What, Madam," I exclaimed; "do you defy my authority?"
"Certainly!" was the immediate response, "You may say or think what
you like, but you don't leave this house to-day as sure as I am your
lawfully wedded Wife."
And as a matter of fact I didn't!
(_Signed._) A. BRIEFLESS, JUNIOR.
_Pump-handle Court._
* * * * *