The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-08 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

statement made so recently as the 6th of
March last, in reference to the year 1853-4,
with the accounts for that year just now pub-
lished :

cording __ _ _
.ccording to accounts . 3,241,701
INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX.
According to Mr. Gladstone £5,700,000
According to accounts
POST OFFICE.
According to Mr. Gladstone
According to accounts
CROWN LANDS.
According to Mr. Gladstone 0191,000
According to accounts
MISCELLANEOUS, AND OLD STORES.
According to Mr. Gladstone
According to accounts, and including imprest 1,101,863

Total as stated by Mr. Gladstone on March 6, £54,025,000
Total as now exhibited in accounts published, £50,659,260
We are quite aware that the astute framers
of these periodical accounts take good care to
mystify and confuse, and thus to leave room
for explanation and evasion; and it may be
that this extraordinary discrepancy is suscep-
tible of explanation. We place the facts
plainly before the public. Mr. GLADSTONE told
us on the 6th March last that, whereas on the
18th April, 1853, he had estimated the income
of the country for the year ending sth April,
1854, at 52,990,0001. (leaving a surplus of
495,0001. after the estimated expenditure), it
might be assumed that on the sth April it
would be 54,025,0001. It turns out to be
50,659,260. As regards the future, he tells us
that for the year 1854-5 the income of the
country may be taken at 53,349,000/. ; the
necessary expenditure, including the war, at
56,189,0001., leaving a deficiency of 2,840,0001.
This deficiency he proposes to supply by the
additional income and property tax, which
he estimates at 3,307,0001., which would leave
a surplus of 459,000/, Now, will our readers
just ask themselves these plain questions ? If
Mr. GLADSTONE, on the 6th March, 1854, told
us we might take the income of the country
on the sth April at fifty-four millions, and if
on, the 6th April it turns out less than fifty-one
millions, what possible reason have we for sup-
posing that on the sth April, 1855, Mr. GLAD-
STONE'S estimate of fifty-three millions will be
realised, or that the income of the country,
making due allowance for the effects of the
war, will be more than it has been in the year
just ended, namely, 51,600,0001.; and, if such
should be the case, what has the country to
expect, in the shape of additional taxation,
not only to meet the enormous expenses of
the war, but to supply also the under calcu-
lations of the paragon Finance Minister!

MR. EWART AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
A VERY unreasonable complaint, as it appears
to us, has been raised against those Members
who on Wednesday last enabled the Govern-
ment to throw out Mr. EWART'S Public Libra-
ries Bill on the second reading. The cause of
such complaint is not hard to find. The
public out-of-doors knows nothing of legisla-
tive details, entertains very vague ideas of the
actual provisions of a measure pending before
Parliament, and is always apt to judge of such
measure, not with reference to its practica-
bility, but to the professed intentions of the
framer. So it is here. Public libraries are
good : the increase of public rate-supported
libraries is desirable. Mr. EWART'S bill pro-
fessed to create such increase; therefore Mr.
EWART'S bill must be good also, and those
who oppose it are obscurantists. Nothing
simpler than this logic. Its justice is another
question.
The real case stands thus. In 1850 Mr.
EWART carried through Parliament an act
thoroughly sound in principle, and which

SATURDAY,

practically has worked well. By this act the
ratepayers of a town were enabled to supply
themselves with museums and public libraries
by a moderate rating, which, however, could
not be imposed without the concurrence of
two-thirds of their number. The provision
was wise and just. It ensured unanimity, or
at least considerable preponderance of opinion,
as a necessary preliminary to action. Some
might argne, and did argue, that action was
thus rendered ittiposaible; but the result tells
a different story. Under this law nearly
every great town in the kingdom has estab-
lished, or is establishing, a rate-supported
library. There is no doubt or dispute about
the fact. The experiment has proved a suc-
cess more complete than its warmest advo-
cates anticipated. Its extension to small
towns and rural districts was suggested and
justified by the experience of those large
cities where it was already in force. To such
extension no fair objection could be urged;
for, we confess, the argument " that you have
" no right to tax those who cannot read for
" the sake of those who can," does not weigh
greatly with us. All that a reasonable man
could require was thus within Mr. EWART'S
grasp ; and he might have adorned a public
life, which, if fussy and pedantic, has been in-
dustrious and not discreditable, with a second
success founded upon and surpassing the first.
But his evil star led him astray, • Having once
done well, he aspired to do better, and failed.
His new proposition, instead of merely enlarg-
ing, went to destroy its predecessor. The power
of self-taxation, so largely and wisely used by
the ratepayers, was to be taken away, and trans-
ferred to the town council in towns, to some
local board in rural parishes, and this while
the amount of possible taxation was at the
same moment doubled. The result of these
changes, had they passed, would not be hard
to guess. Either the taxing body, afraid of
exceeding its powers, would not dare to use
them, or, using them rashly, it would dis-
credit the good cause of education. For a
library is not like a police force or a system
of drainage, both public benefits of which the
advantage is equally received, whether they
be popular or no. The majority in a borough
may be opposed to the establishment of a
police, which yet, being established, shall be
recognised by all as an advantage. The
Board of Health may be disliked, yet its in-
terference be none the less successful in
averting cholera. With a library or museum
it is otherwise. Its whole use, its whole
value, depends on popular appreciation. If
nobody cares about it, it is of no benefit to
any one. To force its foundation at a consi-
derable expense on an unwilling population is
to retard, not advance, the educational move-
ment. Mr. EWART did not see this, the House
of Commons did ; whence his defeat, involving
the loss, unfortunate but inevitable, of some
useful reforms embodied in a faulty project.

The following analysis of the division on
Mr. EWART'S motion may prove interesting,
as an illustration of the great parliamentary
following of the present Government :-
3 Ministers spoke, and the bill was rejected
by 3-85 Ayes to 88 Noes. The majority was
composed of 16 Ministers and Placemen, 19
Ministerialists, and 53 Derbyites. Thus, had
the latter voted with Mr. EWART, the Govern-
ment of All the Talents would have mustered
33, and been beaten by a majority of 107.

MR. STONOR'S CASE.
A SELECT committee to inquire into the cir-
cumstances attending the appointment of Mr.
STONOR was moved for on Thursday by Mr.
MOORE, seconded by Mr. GLADSTONE, and,
though not without much hesitation, sanctioned
by the House. The CHANcELLoa of the EXCHE
QUER, not being able to shake the facts of the
case—viz., that Mr. STONOR had been guilty of
bribery at Sligo ; that the Duke of NEWCASTLE
immediately afterwards appointed him to a
colonial judgeship, although the circumstance
was frankly stated in the testimonials sent to
the Duke, but never read by him—assumed a
tone of morel and virtuous indignation, which

usueu
CIJSTOMS.
He stated might be taken at
The accounts now published represent them as 18,871,322
EXCISE.
He stated might be taken at .., £15,170,000
The accounts represent them as
StAMPS.
According to Mr. Glidstobe oti the 6th March.. £6,266,000
According to account. ,
TWA.
According to Mr. Gladstone

APRIL 8, 1854.

he vented on those who questioned the Duke's
word ! No one does question the Duke's
word. Any man, even a Minister in his place
in Parliament, may be readily believed when
he solemnly declares, on his word of honour,
that he has been guilty of gross carelessness
in the performance of his duty, whereby the
public service has suffered. Indeed, protesta-
tions are superfluous where proofs abound ;
and, to establish his individual carelessness,
the Duke need only appeal to his series of
inaccurate statements in the case of the hay
contract. If he wishes a high precedent, he can
point to the Premier and " the clerk " in the
Foreign-office.
But on the theme of the veracity of the
Colonial Minister the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER waxed eloquent. "He was the
" Duke's intimate friend." Every one knew
that—he has üblicly proved it. " The Duke
" spoke truth." No one doubted it. But did
the Right Honourable Gentleman grapple with
the facts of the case ? He never touched
them, and we do not wonder at it ; for, when
the case was mentioned in the House of
Commons, Mr. FREDERICK PEEL admitted that
neither the Duke nor himself had read Mr.
STONOR'S testimonials, in which the conviction
for bribery is confessed ; and, now that the un
fortunate gentleman has abandoned his pro-
fession, the appointment is rescinded, and he
perhaps is ruined
Thus Mr. STONOR is to be made the scape-
goat of the carelessness of a great Duke and
of one bearing the illustrious name of PEEL.
The only person who, so far as this transac-
tion is concerned, is not blameable was to bear
the penalty, whilst the Colonial Secretary and
the Under-Secretary were to go scathless !
However, the committee is now granted;
and, when it reports to the House, we think it
will disclose a case of " poor Peter Peebles
v. Plainstanes" which it will tax the powers of
a more accomplished Scottish advocate than
ALLAN FAIRFORD to make clear.

THE ACTION OF CIUM CON.

Ott Tuesday last Mr. BOWYER moved for leave
to bring in a bill to " amend the law relating
" to actions for criminal conversation, and for
" the better protection of women in such
" cases." At present, painful and degrading
as such a process must necessarily be to every
feeling of honour, to every sentiment of deli-
cacy, an injured husband is compelled to
resort to a court of law and ask a jury to com-
pensate him in money for the disgrace he has
sustained. For, except in rare cases, such as
the impossibility of finding the defendant,
the House of Lords insists on such a prelimi-
nary investigation before it will grant a divorce ;
and the reason is, that otht.rwise the whole
proceedings may be a collusive attempt to
sever the marriage tie. The course which
this proceeding thus forced on the husband
takes is uniform. The plaintiff's counsel
comments on the absurdity of asking for
pecuniary compensation " for a wrong which
" is not susceptible of compensation ;" dis-
claims, on the part of his client, all desire
for money, but concludes by asking for
" exemplary" damages to mark the sense en-
tertained by the jury of the plaintiffs loss and
the defendant's crime. Then, except in those
rare instances in which the plaintiff's dis-
honour is denied by the defendant, follows an
attempt to mitigate damages, either by vilify-
ing the man already wronged, or, sadder still,
by " breaking the bruised reed," and blacken-
ing the fame already blighted. And really, if
the defendant is base enough to adopt the
latter course, the counsel have no alternative,
for the question at issue is, not what punish-
ment should be awarded, but what loss has
the husband sustained? Just as if he had
lost a horse by the wrongful act of the defen-
dant, and then, of course, the character it
bore must be known before its value can
be
appreciated. But, if the victim of passion and
of crime is thus to have her guilt proclaimed,
ought we in the faithless wife to forget the
helpless woman ? 'Tis true the purse of her
seducer is protected by all the trained intellect
and practised eloquence its treasure can

THE PRESS.

purchase ; but the woman is left—in her
shame defenceless!

Society closes the gate of mercy on her ; in
the court of law, which should be sacred to
justice, shame may be added to shame,
dishonour to dishonour, to deepen in dye
the guilt that was dark before ; that so being
held up to the jury as worthless and vile, the
man that perhaps made her so may
have the less to pay, and no voice is
raised in her defence. In the case of
woman in this position alone does the law
of England depart from the eternal principle
of justice, that no one shall be condemned un-
heard. We have spoken of her as erring, but
she may be innocent. Between two scoundrels
it would be perfectly easy to make a faithful
wife the victim of a conspiracy which would pass
unsuspected by the jury, and undetected even
•by the Bench. The present law undoubtedly
promotes these scandalous actions. Many a
man of base mind brings such an action, not
to dissever himself from a degraded wife, but
solely to put money in his pocket ; and a case
has been known of a man bringing such an
action where the character of the lady was
spotless, to extort money from a defendant,
whose great wealth was only exceeded by his
determination to shield innocence and resist
extortion. But it is idle to multiply proofs
when the facts are patent, and all see the
evils of the present system. The ques-
tion remains, what is the remedy pro-
posed ? First, Mr. BOWYER would change
the action at law into a criminal prosecution,
and punish the offender by fine. Next, he
would make the wife a party to the proceed-
ings, so that she may be represented by
counsel. By these means it seems to us the
requirements of the case would be met. As the
fine would go to the Crown, and not to the
injured husband, an honourable man would
not be deterred from ridding himself of the
cause of his shame by dreading imputation of
sordid motives, whilst, the base no longer
deriving profit from dishonour, our newspapers
would not be so often occupied by the dis-
gusting details of those melancholy cases.
The investigation would not be less rigorous
than now ; thus the jealousy of collusion
justly entertained by the House of Lords
would be satisfied ; and, better than all, the
wife, who may be innocent, will not be left
defenceless ; and, if guilty, her guilt will not
be taken for granted in a proceeding to which
she, the person most deeply interested, is no
party. The bill, though brought in by Mr.
BOWYER, and seconded by Mr. COBDEN, we in
the main approve ; and if those Honourable
Members turn their practical intellect to
questions like this, which they view without
prejudice, they may do the State some ser
vice; for certainly Mr. BOWYER has been more
successful in dealing with the married woman
than with the nuns who
" Live for aye in shady cloister mew'd,
Chanting faint anthems to the cold fruitless moon."