The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-10 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JULY 10, 1858.

ROBINSON v. ROBINSON—THE " TIMES"
v. TIIE BENCII.
Jr is always annoying to be reminded that we
have wasted our pains. An amateur gardener
who does three hours heavy watering just before
a thunder-shower—a pamphleteer just forestalled
by an elaborate essay in the Quarterly—a Radi-
cal M.P. who has "gotten up" his pet grievance
well, and sees it swept away by a Government
measure before he has even delivered himself of
an indignant harangue, are but half-consoled by
the knowledge that their several objects have
been obtained. Like Sir Anthony, they have
their own way, but not their own way of having
it. The result may be well enough, but alas !
for the lost labour !

Very sore, no doubt, were those Members of
our Legislature who read the astounding article
in last Tuesday's Times of which we have ven-
tured to borrow the heading. There had been
a general feeling that our new Court for Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes had supplied a great de-
sideratum. Some, indeed, might grieve to see so
many unions, supposed to be for life, on the verge
of dissolution ; or might sigh over an arithmeti-
cal calculation as to the possible results of a year's
decisions at the rate of one divorce in eleven
minutes. But all felt that a great evil was miti-
gated—a great scandal abated :we had a good
presiding Judge, and a competent Court, and
might hope to see much necessary work well
done at a moderate cost.

Oh! miseras homirmm mentes ! oh, peetora caeca!
It was all a mistake. Legislators, jurists, the
public, were all as blind as beetles. There was
no need of any court, any judge. A few affida-
vits filed at Printing-house-square were all the
machinery required. The Times would have
done the judicial work gratis ! would have arrived
at infallible conclusions on the slenderest data,
without the trifling inconvenience, which now
attends on its ex-cathedra decisions, of appear-
ing to contemn or supersede the constituted tri-
bunal ! So compendious a blessing have we lost
by hasty legislation! There is now a fresh in-
stance of " double government." The Judges
are still in default, perplexed, it may be, by the
evidence, or doubting (poor creatures!) as to the
law ; but the Times has already pronounced.
Sir C. CRESSWELL may be " King of the
Island," but "our legal contributor" is " Vice-
roy over him." In short, the inspiration of the
Times is to the superfluous " Court for Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes " what " clairvoyance "
would be to the detective police, were it only
organized and believed !
To uninspired mortals the case of " Robinson
v. Robinson" seemed fraught with difficulty.
Mrs. ROBINSON.S diary was a novelty in evidence
of the most perplexing kind. The unhappy
husband who petitioned for a divorce from her
on grounds disclosed by her ()mil written confes-
sion, had a strong prima-facie case to show.
Mrs. ROBINSON might have been sane when she
penned that shameless record, and so the circum-
stances recorded might be true. Or she might
have been of questionable sanity, and yet have
been quite sane ad hoc—might have been ren-
dered the slave of sense by uncontrollable
physical impulse, and at the same time have been
quite trustworthy in her sensual reminiscences.
Or, lastly, her's may have been one of those
mysterious cases where not the thought only but
the fancy is diseased—where

Vitiis carentem
Ludit imago
Vans, gale porta fugiens eburna
Somnium ducit.
We do not say that the last of these hypotheses—
the one fatal to the petitioner's hopes—may not
be the true one. We only say, that ordinary
minds might well shrink from the responsibility
of pronouncing it so ; that even a judge as able
as Sir C. CRESSWELL might well hesitate to dis-
miss, on a mere psychological theory, statements
as clear and as coherent as those entered in Mrs.
RoBINSON'S journal. But the Times " never

653

hesitates." Bolder than the " Hermit of
Vauxhall" (now, we trust, restored to his old
domain), wiser than the wisest prophet of the

Omnia novit
Qua' sint, (lute fuerint, (lute mos veutura trahantur—

it clears up the mysterious past, expounds the
perplexing present, and, with a voice potential
as the State's, dictates the future. " Mrs.
ROBINSON," so runs the oracle, "lived in an
" inner world of her own. She held prurient
" dialogue with vacancy, made assignations with
" herself, and was undone in vision or metaphor."
She lost herself in a dream—not precisely
RorssEAr's dream, but a dream to a most im-
pure melody—and the honour of tracing her
wanderings was reserved for Printing-house-
square. Dr. I,AxE, again (who may probably
yet be examined in the case), "is substantially
" acquitted from all charges of impropriety "—in
fact, " has been an innocent and injured man
" throughout." Argal, the only conclusion yet
arrived at by the Court is wrong—doubt is
wrong—the adjournment of the case is wrong—
Mr. ROBINSON cannot have the relief he prays,
and the sooner he is told so the better !

We must protest emphatically against this
usurpation of the judicial functions by a not
very scrupulous journal. For the perpetra-
tion of one kind of wrong the Times already
enjoys a sort of prescription. Working on
the system of which one portion was ably
exposed in an article in last week's Satur-
day Review, it begins by publishing an
anonymous letter containing grievous charges
against some persons more or less eminent. If
the accused refuses to plead, his guilt is taken for
granted, and the allegations of " Publicola's"
letter are reproduced in a "leader," with rhetorical
amplification and ornament. If he replies by a
denial, his fate is no milder.

Dicer*, gen tentee nlignid,tecitueve recedes
Tantundem est—feriunt periter.
The denial is incomplete or ambiguous, or too
general, or too minute, or ill-worded, or some
way assailable, and the comment thereon is a
beautiful combination of the libellous and the
critical element.

This sort of despotism is bad enough, and
works much cruel injustice. But the remedy is
in the hands of the public. Let it once be an
understood rule that individuals are not expected
to answer attacks by " unknown correspondents,"
and the libels will lose their sting. But if the
decisions of our courts of law are to be
forestalled by newspaper articles, a heavy
blow is dealt to the one power which can
maintain its independence in spite of the
irresponsible influence of the press. There
should be some check on those indecent and
mischievous comments, "pendente lite," which,
though they fail to bias the judge, may at least
prejudice the public. Thirty years since it
would have been a contempt of court even to
report proceedings before the evidence was con-
cluded. We have outgrown that restriction, and
judges are now content to let the public see the
pleadings and the evidence on which their own
decrees or the verdict of a jury are yet to be
founded. This is a great privilege ; but it con-
cerns the honour of the Bench to guard against
its abuse. The Press may report, but the Bar
must plead, and the Judge pass sentence. And
we do earnestly trust that on the next repetition
of the offence which we have now done our duty
in denouncing, the dignity of the Bench and the
independence of our Courts will be asserted with
a vigour proportionate to the impudence of the
assailant.

TIIE ATLANTIC

.The Niagara and

Gorgon arrived at Queenstown on Monday morning
with the news that the cable had parted on board
the Agamemnon when about 1,000 miles from the
coast of Ireland, after paying out 250 miles. The
steamers bad experienced bad weather, and would
proceed after receiving a supply of coals. The Aga.
memnon had not arrived at Queenstown, but she was
expected. This information was received with uni-
versal regret on the Liverpool Exchange, bnt owing
to the uncertain nature of the intelligence, it had
little or no effect on the Stock Exchange. The
weather in the Atlantic and Irish Channel has this
year, most unfortunately, been the roughest ever
known in June, and for some time past fears have
been entertained that the squadron would meet with
disasters.

1
~.

THE MEMBER'S DIARY.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
MONDAY.

Tu Indian revolt is scotched, though not killed,
and Noble Lords are impatient to see due honour
bestowed upon the heroes who have saved for
England her empire in the East. The Duke of
NEWCASTLE asked when the Indian medals would
be ready for distribution ? Lord DERBY eaid
that the dies were engraving, but he hoped to
find the work finished and the medals struck by
the time the nominal list of recipients, which
Lord CANNING had been intrusted to supply,
arrived at home. The medals, he added, would
be awarded for general service in India during
the war, with special clasps for the siege of Delhi,
and the defence and relief of Lucknow. Lord
CAMPBELL, wishing to know why Sir COLIN was
not yet a Peer, the Premier informed him that
the patent waited until that gallant officer had
selected his title—a point, as Lord DERBY slily
added, of the more importance, seeing that there
was already one Lord Campbell in the House.
What about Tenant-right ? asked the Marquis
of CLANRICARDE afterwards, in the course of a
rambling speech, wherein copious references
were made to the attempts of sundry Govern-
ments and sundry Irish Brigadiers to settle the
thorny question. He was assured by the
Premier that nothing like a compulsory transfer
of the landlords' property to their tenants was
dreamt of, but during the recess earnest efforts
would be made to frame a Bill removing some
admitted blemishes and anomalies in the law.
No sincere Tenant-righter will of course think
any such measure worth having. To be fobbed
off with justice, when contemplating plunder, is
an outrage which no true Celt can patiently
endure.

When the House was required to pass the
Jew Bill through committee, Lord REDKIDALE
again urged his objection to the mode of pro-
cedure. In allowing the Commons to decide
a great constitutional question by mere resolu-
tion, established, in his apprehension, a fatal
precedent. When the Legislature, as a whole,
pretermits its authority, and consigns to a single
branch full jurisdiction over one important ques-
tion, how can a like privilege be refused in
the case of others ? Lord REDESDALE is right.
By dint of sheer pertinacity, the Commons have
extorted permission to settle for themselves
whether a Jew shall sit in Parliament. When,
in some future session, they claim also to decide,
by their own resolution, whether votes shall be
taken by ballot, whether certain towns should
return members, or the electoral franchise be
given upon the most liberal principle of uni-
versal suffrage, how can the Peers refuse to
follow their own precedent? Lord BROUGHAM,
in attempting to reply, seemed anxious to prove
that he has succeeded in learning a little law, as
well as of everything else, but accomplished his
end very indifferently. Lord LYNDHURST then
took the Bill in hand, showing that the clause
purporting to amend the Abjuration Oath must
have been framed by some one who never
read it; and very amusingly pointed out the
dense jungle of verbiage through which students
of the Bill were forced to cut their way to its
meaning. In the end it was admitted that the
measure was terribly cracked; but, instead of
condemning it altogether, their Lordships agreed
to have it broken up and recast, like Big Ben,
in time for recommittal on Thursday.

TUF.SDAY.

The Ecclesiastical Commission Bill having
been reported, Lord RAvENswouTu raised the
often debated question touching the distribution
of episcopal patronage. Ills special objection was
to the arrangements under which many valuable
benefices. heretofore in the gift of the Bishop of
DURHAM, were to be transferred to the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, with the view of their

being utilized for the behoof of the new dioceses of
Ripon and Manchester. Ills Lordship was carried
away by his zeal so far as to assert roundly that
Durham was " robbed " of preferments worth
16,0001. per annum. To stop the robbeiy, he
moved a clause providing that the Commissioners
should not appoint anywhere to any benefice,

lIE PRtSS, JULY 10, 1858.

without first obtaining the sanction in writing of
the diocesan in whose see it lay. Lord CHI-
CHESTER, speaking in the name of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, argued that as new
dioceses had been created, and the boundaries of
nearly all the rest readjusted, so was it necessary
that the patronage should be rearranged. Lord
DERBY substantiated the argument by an appeal
to facts. Durham diocese contained '242 bene-
fices, with a population of 700,000; Ripon con-
tained 373 benefices, and a population of 1,000,000;
and Manchester 315 benefices, with 1,400,000
population. Thus much for the number of
incumbents and parishioners, with regard to both
of which Durham held the lowest place. But in
point of value the proportions were reversed,
taking into account the preferments in the gift of
the diocesan. The Bishop of DURHAM held the
patronage of livings to the aggregate value of
39,1401. a year, while those in the gift of the
Bishop of RIPON were only worth 10,000/. ; and
the Bishop of MANCHESTER, with a population
nearly double that of Durham, enjoyed patron-
age to the value of only 9,0001. What Lord
RAVENSWORTII called robbery, the Prime
Minister considered only a fair adjustment. The
House entertained the same opinion, which was
enforced, upon a division, by 38 votes against
the clause to 12 recorded in its favour.

THURSDAY.

The Jew Bill, as recast, was rung and de-
clared fit for hoisting—that operation, under the
name of third reading, being fixed for Monday.
Before leaving the Committee, his Grace of
MARLBOROUGH attached to the measure a pre-
cautionary clause, prohibiting all non-Christians,
who, under the new version of the oaths, might
haply obtain some official appointment, from
exercising, in consequence thereof, any eccle-
siastical patronage, or advising the Crown touch-
ing the disposal of preferments in the Church.
By this restriction, Baron ROTHSCHILD, even if
made Privy Councillor or Cabinet Minister,
must not interfere in the selection of a new
Archbishop of Canterbury. Will the day arrive
when this restraint, in due course, is to be de-
nounced and repealed, as being the " last rag of
intolerance" ?

The " beginning of the end " of the Session
was foreshadowed by the production of a large
batch of bills, just sent up from the Commons,
and which my Lords were respectfully requested
to dispose of with the least possible delay.

FRIDAY.

As one outsider has settled (perhaps) the Jew
question, Lord PORTMAN thinks it possible that
another may settle the Church-rate question.
He promised accordingly to introduce a scheme—
or, as he modestly called it, the outline of a
scheme—for that purpose, before the session ends.
The India Government Bill, emancipated
from its long detention in the Lower House,
came up just before the House rose, and was
read a first time. The second reading was fixed
for Thursday, and—so confident: are Ministers of
its success—the committee for Friday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MONDAY.

Three adjourned debates, on the three best-de-
bated hills of the session, were resumed and
finished. The Indian Government Bill was got
through committee ; ditto the Sale and Transfer
of Land (Ireland) Bill ; while the Scotch lJni-
versities having been " considered as amended"
was ordered for third reading on the morrow.
On the India Bill the Government, as usual, had
it all their own way. Before the stage was
passed, Mr. FAGAN, alluding to the various
Oudian controversies, suggested that some
tribunal should be constituted to examine and
decide all claims urged by, or on, the Native
Princes of India. As matters stood, such con-
troversies were determined either by fiat of the
East India Board, which was unjust, or upon
appeal to the British Parliament, which was in-
convenient, or worse. Lord STANLEY recog-
nized the expediency, and even necessity, of estab-
fishing tribunals for the purpose indicated, but
successfully argued that their establishment could
be contrived in some much better way than by
patching a clause upon the India Government
Bill.