The Press. — London, England, 1858-12-25 00:00:00

1252 THE PRESS, DECEMBER 25, 1858. has been the gainer by their transfer from one court of Westminster-hall to another. It would be some consolation if we could elicit from the cases to which we have referred any traces of a definite principle. We are aware that nothing is more difficult than to lay down any general rule upon a subject, the very essence of which consists in the mutual bearing upon one another of a multiplicity ofminute circumstances. Still it would be on every ground desirable to know what, in the eye of the law, is in future to constitute such an offence for instance as that of " cruelty." At present, the term embraces, for all we know, every species of marital hostilities, from the "grave delictum " of actual assault and battery, down to the lighter but not less effectual warfare of " curtain lec tures." Mr. M.tacomosa's offences were mainly of the tongue, and the abuse of that unruly member alone has debarred the ex-Dissenting minister from the advantages of the substantial connection which he had formed. Mr. CHERRY, on the other hand, had resorted to actual force ; yet, in the opinion of a British jury, he did not exceed the bounds of legitimate marital authority. Of course we do not intend for a moment to place upon the same footing the conduct of these two model husbands. Both seem to have been un fortunate in the selection of their partners, but Mr. CHERRY'S case is happily unmarked by that coarseness of' language and offensiveness of general demeanour from which one turns with disgust in the other. Still facts are stubborn things ; and the exercise even of manual restraint is held no bar in the first instance to the restitu tion of conjugal rights, while a separation was decreed where, as in the second, words seem to have constituted the sole offence ; and even they, foul as they were, were not uttered, except under the provocation of taunts couched in kindred language. To say the least, under the old prac tice, the question of " cruelty " was one for the decision of a single mind, and that one the mind of a judge well versed in the subject, and guided by precedents which were generally known and understood. As it is now, the plaintiff is virtually at the mercy of the jury, and an unfor tunate demeanour in the witness-box may prove fatal to an application which is nevertheless substan tially founded upon right and justice. It is all very well to say that an unwilling partner will render life itself a burden, and that no real injury is sustained by the failure of such a suit. This may be so ; but meanwhile a fresh element of bitter ness is added to every altercation, and there is the danger of an utter absence of that restraint, which is exercised by the most quarrelsome, when the tie, once formed, is so for life. literature of a certain description are edified by a reperusal of facts so congenial to their taste. Details of this kind are such as to render minute criticism impossible • but we will venture to assert that, in the year which has now elapsed since the first sitting of the newly established Court, we have been favoured with a worse class of cases, backed by a more scandalous tribe of witnesses, and reported with more unblushing accuracy, than was produced in double that space of time under the old system. We are not going to enter into a disquisition upon the merits of the two modes of procedure. All we ask is that we may be spared the repeti tion of superfluous nastiness; that the issues may be clearly understood; that the rules of evidence may be laid down and adhered to ; in short, that if we must still have trials which have made our country a byword for their filthiness of detail, we may have some certainty that the dose will not be more nauseous than is absolutely re quisite for a cure—that the cautery will be ap plied by the practised skill of a surgeon, and not made an instrument of torture by the hesitating manipulation of a quack. If it be true that " vice " loses half its evils by losing all its grossness," such a result is assuredly not promoted by a state of doubt which at present renders it indispensable to prove everything, lest some material fact should have passed unnoticed. Meanwhile, the worst symptom of these proceedings is the absolute uncertainty which they involve as to the dura tion of the most sacred of human tics. What ever may be thought of the various causes which are now held to constitute a title to judicial sepa ration, or even to a divorce, the public good im peratively demands that the question should be settled one way or the other, As it is, we are running matters very fine. The Marchmont case goes far to establish mere incompatibility of temper as a valid ground for absolution from the duties of matrimony. One step farther, and we shall find ourselves in the dilemma of having opened a convenient loophole for any couple who may have their own reasons for wishing to recall that vow which once uttered has hitherto been so for ever. Mutual forbearance will have lost the incentive which was supplied by the knowledge of the impossibility of relief, and every petty squabble is raised into importance by a construction which literally puts asunder those whom GOD has united. Necessity is prover bially the mother of invention, and this incentive once removed, the field is thrown open for every species of frivolous, it may be of culpable, evasion. To take another instance. Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the present uncertainty as to admissible evidence in divorce cases. Mr. EVANS has now been permitted to reap the benefit of a species of proof, of which we will only say that the law tolerates, but does not encourage it. Mr. FIELD undoubtedly comes off triumphant ; and we suppose that " Peeping Tom" will hence forth be a necessary appurtenance to cases of this class; while the " Trous-Judas " system of detec tion will assume all the respectability of an estab lished institution. Whatever may be the de sirability of punishment for the guilty, remedies of this kind are worse than the disease itself. The private gain is bought dearly indeed at the expense of the injury to public morality, while the mode of payment introduces into domestic life all the worst features of the spy system. We can hardly recall a single instance where derelictions of this nature have not admitted of satisfactory proof, without necessitating the ad mission of testimony which would disgrace even a common informer. Rejection of it by a former tribunal has in this instance increased the objec tions to its reception. Decency and morality have been flagrantly, .it may be illegally, outraged, and the public mind is left uncertain upon a point which strikes at the root of relations at once the most sacred, and, as it would appear, the most easily dissolved. TIIE FRIENDS OF THE POOP. THERE are at present in this country a noisy set of worthless politicians, who claim to themselves the merit of being the specialfriends of the poor; but, not content with thus claiming for themselves this benevolent character, they take good care to hold up the richer classes, and their political oppo. nents, as not only not caring for the poor, but as being their active enemies—as making laws only for their own benefit, and involving the nation in ruinous wars, solely for their own aggrandize. ment. The politicians who put forward these claims for themselves, and who make these accu sations against others, entertain certainly very remarkable views as to what is good for the poor and what is bad for them. If proposals are made in the Legislature to enforce protection to the crowds of poor collected in a manufactory from being caught and crushed to death by the powerful machinery, whose deafening whirl is calculated to render dizzy the steadiest brain, these " friends of the poor " arc sure to be ranged against the proposals. If they were adopted, they say, they would interfere with free trade—they would entail unnecessary expenses on the mill owners; and, surely, the workmen, with their wives and children, ought to be able to take care of themselves. But the moment their own ob jects are to be served, they are clamorous for what they falsely denominate protection from corrupt influences ; and while they will not tolerate compulsory protection against daily and hourly danger to the limbs and the lives of the operatives, they pretend to have the most won derful anxiety lest they should chance to give a vote, once in every four or five years, under what they designate as corrupt influence. They will give no protection to the workers against machinery, but they will readily establish a system of lying and deceit in order to protect them against all such influences as are not wielded by "the friends of the poor." We really wish—although we well know how vain is the wish—that some of these gentlemen, who are certainly not deficient in ability, would put forth something like an explanation of this anomaly. It would be curious to know by what course of reasoning they can reconcile such inconsistency to their own consciences. To us, we confess, the inconsistency is beyond our comprehensi 01, nor can we wonder if the operatives exclaim, " GOD defend us from such friends!" We were not without our fears from the first for the working of a measure which, hatched by the egotism of the late Attorney-General, was forced, under the pressure of the 12th of August, down the throats of an unwilling Douse. The indecent haste with which principles so important as those contained in it were slurred over, was characteristic of a Government whose legislative powers were all but exhausted for the session in giving birth to this bantling. Like everything else, it was made a party question, and the result has been a crude, undigested bill, which has yet to be licked into shape by succes sive decisions. Every clause is a morsel for the Longrobes, and offers points of attack and defenc e of Nvliich the cunning practitioner will not fail to avail himself to the utmost. " Fiat experimentum in corpore vili " was the motto of its author. How it has been acted upon, those unfortunates best know who have been the unwilling subjects of this precious experiment, and who, in reply to their indignant remonstrance; will probably be told that they are sufferers for the public good. We are quite sure that, with some known faults in manner, a more able expositor could not have been selected than Sir C. CRESSWELL. He has the thankless office before him of acting as the scapegoat for the sins of others, and of getting into working gear an engine which, constructed originally on imperfect principles, has, in addition, all the defects ofclumsy execution. That he may ultimately be successful we rather hope than expect. At all events, matters can hardly be worse than at present The Divorce Act has already gained an unenviable pre-eminence among that heap of ill-considered enactments, which are at once the disgrace of our statute book, and the purgatory of all who are interested in the constructions put upon them, whether as members of the Bench, the Bar, or of the com munity at large. But these " friends of the poor" know as well as we do that the Ballot would be no protection whatever against corrupt influences. So long as human society lasts its component members will be subject to influences. Man must have a totally different nature before influences can be destroyed. Influences therefore will exist ; and as it is a law of our existence in this world that we shall not attain to perfection, but that good and evil shall be inextricably mingled, so is it certain that of influences all will not be good, but some will be bad, and that no human legislation can eradicate the bad ones. Not, therefore, that we would not do all in our power to encourae the good, and to put down the bad, but if we wished to give special encouragement to the bad, the first thing which we should do for that end would be to afford increased facility for the general . practice of deceit, by the establishment of the ballot box. We would discourage bribery, and prevent inti midation as far as possible, but secret voting would be no impediment to the offering . or the acceptance of a bribe ; and a voter might be equally intimidated into giving his vote in a par ticular way, whether he gave it secretly or openly. A bargain might, and assuredly would, be made with him, that in the event of success attending the candidate he should be paid his money, and not otherwise. And he might he in timidated by threats if he did not give the desired vote, and those threats might be carried ont on bare suspicion, from which, under the ballot system, It is needless to recapitulate facts which have obtained an unenviable notoriety already, or we might refer to Dr. LANE'S case as another which proves that under the present system no man is safe. Innocent by the verdict of the Jury, it does not seem to follow, as a matter of course, that he is to escape the heavier penalties involved in the payment of costs. The whole case is re argued upon this point, and the admirers of