The Express.
London, England, 1864-07-18 00:00:00

Ehe erpreoss.

PRINCE'S'S.
Tins trams. BORN TO GOOD LUCK- Mr. D. Murray.
—Aad THE MONASTERY OF T. lIIRT. Mama
Manton. Nelson. Ray. and Mallon NM*. &ARA Colas and
Mrs. Manton.

itayTAHNIA..

THis IMMO. THE DYiNG FTOWEIL—The C! CI C!
CHRISTY'S CM/AIRED OOMEDlANS.—blesdases Losellnl
sad Congas:mi.—And THE DOWNFALL OF PRIDE.

NIGH WATII AT LONDON BIM=
THIS DAT Womb& Oh. 4 Alftraosa.
To-moutow Morally/. 111. Afterseog 21a.

LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 18.

THE story of Mr. and Mrs. Honor is melan-
choly but instructive. If Mrs. HOPIZY had known
what she would have to endure from her husband
she would probably have recoiled from entrusting
herself for life to his control ; and if Mr. HOPLEY
had foreseen the doom which has befallen him he
would have exercised more caution in putting into
practice those singular theories of which he seems
to be the victim. In 1854 Mr. HOPLEY was
living at Eaatbourne with some resident pupils.
He there made the acquaintance of a young lady,
Miss COBB. Mr. HOPLEY was a man of 36, Bliss
Cosa was a girl of 18. Being a person of education
and refinement, the lady was not unnaturally at-
tracted by the tutor—an affection sprang up between
them, and on the 24th of July, 1855, they were
married. But unfortunately Mr. Horny had his
theories on education, and for the purpose of testing
those theories by experiment he proposed to set up
a model educational establishment. Not satisfied
with experimenting upon the pupils who
might be committed to his care, he determined
to experiment upon the girl whom he had just mar-
ried, and to secure a model family by carefully
training the stock from which he destined it to
spring. In short, he informed his wife that he
desired to make her " a model wife," and that he
should put her through a course of instruction,
which in five or six years time might make her a
proper companion for himself and a fit person to
take part in his plans. Indeed, in his extrava-
gance, he proposed on the first day of the mar-
riage that this unfortunate lady should go through
a course of probation before being admitted to the
full rights of a wife. So far, however, he soon
relented. But on his return from his marriage
tour he began to put his educational theory into
practice. He looked upon his wife as a pupil, made
her learn lessons, practise music and writing, and,
in fact, treated her as a child. He drew up a
written code of rules for her conduct, which Mrs.
HOPLEY had to learn and study every day. Nor
did he stop here. For at times he seems to have
actually struck her, and even spat in her face—
his excuse being that this was part of his practical
theory for making her a model wife, and for enabling
her to become the mother of " second Christs."
The barbarities perpetrated by Mr. HOPLEY upon
his wife are so revolting and so incredible that
they must be detailed in Mrs. HOPLEY'S words—
" In my first confinement I had no nurse or me•
"diced man to attend me. My husband said a
" nurse was not necessary and a medical man
" would be indelicate." Mrs. HOPLEY was obliged
to attend upon herself. " Five days after my con-
" finement I went out in a fly by his desire, and
" the child went with me. It was placed in a fish
" basket. When the child was not more than a
" fortnight oldhe beat it with his hand. He often
"best it and shook it when it was crying for food.
" He has put the child into a hot-bath and poured
" cold water on its bead." It is needless to mul-
tiply details But it is not surprising to find that
" the eldest child was an idiot," and that " the
" symptoms of idiotcy began to appear about a
" fortnight after its birth."
It might seem that after such usage as this a
woman would have little hesitation in getting quit
of her husband at the earliest opportunity. But who
shall fathom the mysteries of woman 1 In April,
1860, one of Mr. HOPLEY'S pupils—possibly the
victim of his master's educational theories—was
found dead in his bed, and Mr. HOPLEY was ar-
rested. What then wee Mrs. HOPLEY'S conduct ?
Did she denounce him as a tyrant t Did she shun
his society f 012 the contrary, when Mr. HOPLZY
was released on bail, he lived with his wife in the
cottage which Mrs. HOPLEY'S mother bad provided
for the family. After the trial, and when Mr.
HOPLEY was in Lewes Gaol, his wife constantly
visited him—looked after his affairs—auperin-
tended the publication of a pamphlet in his de-
fence—exerted herself to procure his release, and
during the whole time of his imprisonment
wrote to him the most affectionate letters. She
addressed him as, "My own most dearly loved and
" loving husband," and called herself " Your own
" devoted little wifey." The letters contained
such expressions as, " We are and ever shall be
" one, thank Con," and, " Nothing has ever been
" a secret between us, and, GOD helping, nothing
" ever shall." From 1860 until the 14th of
August, 18G3, this course of conduct continued.
About that time he obtained his release on a ticket-
of-leave from his imprisonment in consequence of
the boy CANLELLOR'S death. After that Mrs.
HOPLEY seems to have determined, upon the advice
of her friends, to take proceedings for the purpose
of obtaining a judicial separation, and it is the dis-
cussion of this question which has occupied Sir
JAMES WILDE and nine special jurymen (according
to arrangement) since Wednesday last.
It is not surprising that the jury should have
found considerable difficulty in coming to a con-
clusion. That there was cruelty neither the Judge
nor the jury seem to have entertained any doubt ;
nor, indeed, would it be possible, after the details
of Mr. HOPLEY'S conduct, to entertain any ques-
tion on the subject. But there is such a thing in
law as condonation. There is such s thing as for-
giveness. A married woman may be ill-treated by
her husband, but she may forgive him. And

if she does forget and fo .4 is
the duty of a court of justiojap revive par
offences. To the kw, as to the soleled woe.
bygones should be bygones. The question, ther►
fore, which Sir Jim= WILDE and the jury had to
decide was whether Mrs. HOPLEY had con-
doned or forgiven her husbapd's cruelties.
Women are proverbially eccentric fn their feelings
towards a husband. They may fall out with him
for a time ; but if there seems any chance of a
permanent separation, or if after long separation
there is the prospect of again meeting him, their
indignation at his conduct disappears, and they
are suddenly transformed from bitter enemies to
passionate lovers. In this case it seems difficult to
avoid the conclusion that Mrs. HOPLEY is still
animated with the warmest affection for her hus-
band. Most certainly if she is not, it is impossible
to account for her conduct and her letters except
upon the theory of " justifiable hypocrisy."
For, as the Judge said, after Mr. HOPLEY bad
been taken into custody in the boy CA/remake's
case, " Mrs. HOPLEY procured bail for him, re-
" oeived him back, and lived with him for a
" month. Nor did the matter stop there. In
" her letters the Court had a perfect photograph of
" her mind for more than three years. They
" showed that she had forgiven and forgotten
" everything, and that ahe was still devoted to
" him, and was longing above all things to receive
" him back again." The true explanation of the
startling contradiction between the evidence deli-
vered by Mrs. HorLzY in court and her conduct and
letters is probably to be found in the fact that,
whilst her secret feelings of love for her husband
are still unchanged, the influence of her
family and the kindness which they
have exhibited towards her and her children
during her husband's imprisonment have con-
strained her to institute this suit for judicial
separation. It is true that only seven out of nine
of the jury have pronounced in favour of condona-
tion, and this verdict has been accepted by both
parties. The result of this verdict is that Mrs.
HOPLEY will return to her husband. But it is
not improbable that, unless some arrangement is
made between the parties, the ruling of the Judge
and the verdict of the jury will be discussed
before a higher tribunal.

A Cabinet Council was held on Saturday at the
official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury,
in Downing-street The ministers present were
Viscount Palmerston, the Lord Chancellor, Earl
Granville, the Duke of Arull, Sir George Grey,
Earl Russell, the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell,
Sir Charles Wood, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, the Duke of Somerset, the Right Hon. T.
Miner Gibson, the Earl of Clarendon, Lord
Stanley of Alderley, and the Right Hon. C. P.
Villiers.