The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-12-25 00:00:00

(Stourbribge eberbet.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1886.

THE CAMPBELL DIVORCE SUITS.

THE consolidated Colin - Campbell cross
divorce suits, after occupying the attention
of Mr. Justice Butt and a special jury for
eighteen whole working days, and running
away with a sum stated to have exceeded
£15,000 in Court and counsels' costs alone,
has happily at length come to an end. There
has been adduced in evidence a mass of
testimony of a most disgusting nature,
reflecting not only upon the lives of the
two principals in the chse, but also involving
charges against four others who move in high
society circles. Such a• huge scandal has
not been before the public, it is satisfactory
to reflect, for a very long period, and it is to
be sincerely hoped that no similar case may
again, for years to come, have to be sifted
in the divorce court. If, unhappily, such
another set of pleadings does in the future
go into court, we most ardently trust that
it will not he found impossible to have the
case so heard that filthy details do not get
into all the newspapers, for the harm done
to the tone of public morality thereby can-
not but be serious in the extreme. The
learned judge who conducted the Campbell
cases himself gave expression to. a most
healthy opinion upon this point. The
publication of the details day by day had,
he said, in his judgement been a scandal,
calculated to work incalculable mischief,
and made one almost doubt whether the
first judge of the Divorce Court, Sir Cresswell
Cresswell, was not right when he asked the
Legislatu-e to authorise or enjoin the trial
of all divorce cases in cameed. The question
of limiting the publications of evidence in
such cases, as Justice Butt proceeded to
remark, is one beset with difficulties, but
hi experience in the Campbell suits led him
to conclude that the adoption of some means
for the mitigation of the evil was an urgent
matter. With this delivering of the judge
every right-minded man and woman will
agree. It is only the morbidly sensational
and the impure in thought who can find
entertainment in devouring the debasing
details of allegations of the sort which have
been crowded into the trial just concluded.
Unfortunately the widespread publications
of such high:y objectionable matter spreads
the appetite for obscenity, and sows, no one
can doubt, the seed of corruption in many a
hitherto innocent mind. It is useless to expect
that, so long as divorce proceedings are
conducted in full publicity, newspapers will
refrain from reporting the particulars. Held
in open court, the whole matter is public
property, and the public, or a large section
of it, demands from the chronicler a record
of what is taking place. If one newspaper
will not give a verbatim report another will,
and for the time being the sheet providing
the most glaringly full and sickening story
is the one which has the greatest demand.
If the report bf.., spiced with el.:veily written
personal descriptions and graphic word
pictures of the demeanour of the parties
_ _ . _

concerned, it is read with so much the more
avidity This is lamentable and there is,
we fear, no real remedy for it, short of
hearins in crtm-rti, whenever ale evidence
is hikly to be of zt revolting natnre. It has
been sad indeed to see the conntry floodcd
for aluaost a month with filth which any
girl or boy could buy for a copper, filth of a
privileged sort, but none the less injuriors
in tone for all that. had much of what has
been published by halfpenny and penny

journals coru.‘erning the Campb-ell cases bail
issued in any foi m but that of a record of a
current trial, those who gave it to the world
would quickly have found themselves in
prison. Yet, whether obscenity and impurity
be contained in a book, a brochure, or a bona
fide newspaper, the moral poison is just de
same, and common sense demands that tl:e
same precautions should be taken against
the evils it may work. The other day a
Vigilance Society sought to move the Queen's
Bench for a criminal intormation against
a London evening journal as to this very
matter, but the justices were unable to
interfere as prayed. It was shocking, indeed,
to know that twelve columns or so wcte

taken up with this unsavory matter, but as
the law stands, the printers and publishers
ftre safe. The right remedy is to bave an
alteration in the statute which governs the
matter to the end of forbidding publicity
where its advantages outweigh the good
accomplished and the safety ensurecl. Some
precautions could be taken to prevent
corruption arising from secret hearings, and
justice assured without such a sea of filth
flooding the country. To take the individuel
instance of the Campbell divorce snits. A
discretionary power, wisely exerted, caused
Lady Colin's p.evious suit for a judicial
separation to b 3 heard with closed doors.
The sequel has amply peovel the prop. iLty
of that areangement. Whit has happened
in the meantime to net'e Vic details more
fit for publication? All that was before
decided to be objectionable has been dragged
out to the light of day, with au added
accumulation of obscenity and coirseness
which beggars description. Son2oee is to
blame for all this, and we hold that a hard
and fast rule should be hail dewn dcciding
that in carnet,i hearings siemid be held in
every case in vol vine- the div algence of details
which might be more prcperly confined to
the ears of those in citie. It is not our
ntentien to delay for one JaJment the transit
of this painful case into oblivion by any
lengthy comment. We may say, however,
that the trial has proved two things. First,
the martiaze between the principals was a
sad mistake; and, secondly, the trials ought
never to have been brought. The jury \rem
unable to accept the evidence addnce.l by
either side. The private lives of respond •ut's
and co-respondent's have been dragged into
court, and occurrences capable of an intl. :Ity
of constructions, thrust before the eye of
thousands only too ready to spy out evil