onately attached to her husband, by whom she was treated with a
callous yet polite indifference, which, to one whose heart was as
tender as her judgment was weak, was more painful perhaps than absolute
ill-usage. Sir Philip was a voluptuary--that is, a completely selfish
egotist--whose disposition and character resembled the rapier he wore,
polished, keen, and brilliant, but inflexible and unpitying. As he
observed carefully all the usual forms towards his lady, he had the
art to deprive her even of the compassion of the world; and useless and
unavailing as that may be while actually possessed by the sufferer, it
is, to a mind like Lady Forester's, most painful to know she has it not.

The tattle of society did its best to place the peccant husband above
the suffering wife. Some called her a poor, spiritless thing, and
declared that, with a little of her sister's spirit, she might have
brought to reason any Sir Philip whatsoever, were it the termagant
Falconbridge himself. But the greater part of their acquaintance
affected candour, and saw faults on both sides--though, in fact, there
only existed the oppressor and the oppressed. The tone of such critics
was, "To be sure, no one will justify Sir Philip Forester, but then we
all know Sir Philip, and Jemmie Falconer might have known what she had
to expect from the beginning. What made her set her cap at Sir Philip?
He would never have looked at her if she had not thrown herself at his
head, with her poor ten thousand pounds. I am sure, if it is money he
wanted, she spoiled his market. I know where Sir Philip could have done
much better. And then, if she WOULD have the man, could not she try to
make him more comfortable at home, and have his friends oftener, and not
plague him with the squalling children, and take care all was handsome
and in good style about the house? I declare I think Sir Philip would
have made a very domestic man, with a woman who knew how to manage him."

Now these fair critics, in raising their profound edifice of domestic
felicity, did not recollect that the corner-stone was wanting, and that
to receive good company with good cheer, the means of the banquet ought
to have been furnished by Sir Philip, whose income (dilapidated as it
was) was not equal to the display of the hospitality required, and at
the same time to the supply of the good knight's MENUS PLAISIRS. So, in
spite of all that was so sagely suggested by female friends, Sir Philip
carried