Transcriber’s Note
Italic text displayed as: _italic_
MRS. GURNEY’S
APOLOGY.
MRS. GURNEY’S
APOLOGY.
IN JUSTIFICATION
OF
MRS. ——’S FRIENDSHIP.
[Illustration: Decoration]
PHILADELPHIA.
WILLIAM BROTHERHEAD.
No. 218 South Eighth Street.
MDCCCLX.
[_Entered, according to the Act of Congress, July 23, 1860, by_
WILLIAM BROTHERHEAD, _in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of
the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania._]
PREFACE.
In presenting to the world the extraordinary document which follows,
the Publisher deems it fit, by way of Preface, to advert briefly to
the principal circumstances and persons connected with this great
outrage, which it embodies, upon the sensibilities and morals of the
public—distinctly repudiating, himself, any endorsement of the views
of the misguided writer, and deeply regretting the scandal which has
attached in consequence of her acts to the influential Society of
Friends, and to the numerous high families, with which she is allied,
both in England and America.
The Gurney Family is known wherever on the Eastern or Western
continent, philanthropy, charity, liberality in its most
comprehensive meaning, scholarship and literary ability of the
highest order, or wealth in the most profuse exuberance, becomes
the theme of the social circle or the text of the author’s pen. It
is, moreover, one of the most notable and ancient of the English
aristocracy, dating from the time of the Conqueror, ever since when
they have held wealth and position in the County of Norfolk, where
nearly all the various members of the name still reside. In England’s
early and stormy days they rendered essential service to the State
in many famous battles both at home and abroad—for it was at a
comparatively recent date only that this till then redoubtable race
became identified, through some of its branches, with the pacific and
lowly doctrines of the Quakers.
They are closely connected with families here of the very highest
respectability of character—the celebrated John Joseph Gurney having
taken a wife from this city; and no man in the Society of Friends
ranked equal to him in his day, either in religious influence, mental
ability, or excellence of heart. His indeed gave the name to the
Gurneyite Orthodox Friends, of which branch of that sect he was the
acknowledged leader. He died about twelve years ago.
His only son, John Henry Gurney, who was the heir not merely of his
father’s wealth, and name, but of his good character, is the betrayed
husband of this story. He is the present representative in Parliament
of King’s Lynn, Norfolkshire, and is noted for his liberal political
sentiments. He is now forty years of age.
His wife, Mary Gurney, the author of this letter, was the daughter
and only child of Richard Hanbury Gurney, a first cousin of John
Joseph, and belonging to the elder, wealthier, and representative
branch of the race—he, Richard, deceased only within a few years,
having been a younger half-brother, and the only one, of the actual
head of the Family—the venerable Hudson Gurney, of Keswick, F.R.S.,
F.A.S., Ex-High Sheriff of Norfolk, etc., etc.
Whilst Hudson Gurney it is true inherited principally the patrimonial
estates, Richard, his half-brother, became the heir of his own
mother, who had been a Miss Hanbury of the wealthy family of London
brewers of that name. This fortune, over a million sterling, became
at Richard’s death the inheritance of his daughter Mary, the author
of this letter, now about twenty-eight years of age, and the mother
of two or three children.
Samuel Gurney the eminent banker and philanthropist was a brother of
John Joseph, and Mrs. Elizabeth Fry, whose labors and sacrifices to
improve the discipline of the great prisons on both continents have
won her a name to be envied, was his sister. Another sister was the
wife, and zealous assistant, of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, celebrated
in the annals of British Emancipation.
Mrs. Gurney is thus allied by descent and marriage with families of
the first note both in Europe and America, and holds in her own right
an almost princely estate. She was constantly, up to the very period
of her departure, anticipated in her lightest wish by a husband who
knew no will but her own. With such surroundings, elevating her
to the very highest sphere of English social life, with all its
splendors and attractions, and securing to her the enjoyment of
every rational pleasure, after thirteen years of married life, she
voluntarily renounced her husband, her children and family, not in
any moment of passion, but through a calm conviction of reason, as
she herself states, and left England, the mistress of a common groom
from her stables.
There can be no pardon nor extenuation for this great social crime.
But the motives which led to it are well worthy of the reader’s
patient consideration. They are stated in her letter with logical
precision, and at the same time with the apparent enthusiasm and
tenderness of a heart which had suffered and loved intensely; and
whatever the explanation, whether deducible from an exaggeration of
facts, or an artful use of language, her words really seem to be
stamped with the seal of social martyrdom.
Whilst the general tenor of the doctrines she enunciates cannot fail
to administer a shock to every healthy mind, it is not necessary for
the cause of morality, and it would be unjust indeed, to denounce her
letter _in toto_.
Every authentic history of personal experience forms a helpful
addition for the guidance and behavior of mankind.
The deplorable consequences of an early and hasty marriage, as
portrayed in her own history, may serve as a useful beacon to rash
youth in all ages to come.
Her earnest plea on behalf of Personal Merit cannot fail to win its
way to many hearts—at least in this Country, the foster-home of the
plebeiance and of democracy.
But to her concluding argument especially are attention and respect
due.
The investigations heretofore made in this Country and Europe have
developed a frightful catalogue of diseases and deaths resulting
from inter-marriages; and more recent examinations in the wards
of Hospitals, in the Asylums for Feeble-minded Children, in
Institutions for the Deaf and Dumb, and Blind, trace directly those
monstrosities and defects of organization, in a preponderating number
of cases, to marriages of this character. Whether her immediate
example furnished any confirmation on this head, the meagre details
of the whole affair, which have been permitted to be divulged, do not
afford any certain information; that it has been so in other branches
of her family, and that the dread of it was upon her own mind, is
most apparent in her letter.
Her authoritative and vehement invective against these internecine
marriages, it cannot be doubted, will draw prominent attention to the
subject; and on this account, and many others, some of which have
been indicated, Mrs. Gurney’s Letter requires at least no “apology”
for being made public.