e last frail tie between my wife and myself had been
snapped asunder--the child, the one innocent link in the long chain of
falsehood and deception, no longer existed. Was I glad or sorry for
this? I asked myself the question a hundred times, and I admitted the
truth, though I trembled to realize it. I was GLAD--yes--GLAD! Glad
that my own child was dead! You call this inhuman perhaps? Why? She was
bound to have been miserable; she was now happy!

The tragedy of her parents' lives could be enacted without imbittering
and darkening her young days, she was out of it all, and I rejoiced to
know it. For I was absolutely relentless; had my little Stella lived,
not even for her sake would I have relaxed in one detail of my
vengeance--nothing seemed to me so paramount as the necessity for
restoring my own self-respect and damaged honor. In England I know
these things are managed by the Divorce Court. Lawyers are paid
exorbitant fees, and the names of the guilty and innocent are dragged
through the revolting slums of the low London press. It may be an
excellent method--but it does not tend to elevate a man in his own
eyes, and it certainly does not do much to restore his lost dignity. It
has one advantage--it enables the criminal parties to have their way
without further interference--the wronged husband is set free--left out
in the cold--and laughed at by those who wronged him. An admirable
arrangement no doubt--but one that would not suit me. Chacun a son
gout! It would be curious to know in matters of this kind whether
divorced persons are really satisfied when they have got their
divorce--whether the amount of red tape and parchment expended in their
interest has done them good and really relieved their feelings.
Whether, for instance, the betrayed husband is glad to have got rid of
his unfaithful wife by throwing her (with the full authority and
permission of the law) into his rival's arms? I almost doubt it! I
heard of a strange case in England once. A man, moving in good society,
having more than suspicions of his wife's fidelity, divorced her--the
law pronounced her guilty. Some years afterward, he being free, met her
again, fell in love with her for the second time and remarried her. She
was (naturally!) delighted at his making such a fool of himself--for
henceforth, whatever she chose to do, he could not reasonably complain
without running the risk of being laughed at. So now the number and
variety of her lovers is no