The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-19 00:00:00

cite erpreoo.

Advertisements Wended far "Theinr;;" lambs livening
Paper, must be el the allot. la, Soavesleeks* by Two
o clock on the Ave! publkatloa.

OM= OALDI2I.

Tars ecnnia, TEI aIiaTIZZ(4 NA N'TER. Messrs.
Wows. Smiley. H. Cord, and W. Harrison ; Mimes L Pyne and
A. Niles —And BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Concluding with
the Transformation Bow—Coommiss at 7.

YMARKET.
THTaroETYMA OUHAR AMERICAN COUSIN. Mews.
&Ahern and Rockdale ; Ni. IL lltrwilllam. —MAMMAS
PBINC6 OF ABYSSINIA. Mr. Compton and Was L Leaky.
—And MAd. WRITE. Mr. Compton and MN Marfienr.

PRINCESS'S.

THU Enema, THE WV.,7i7INGI Berr. Meters. H. Marston,
Tashi, and Cathcart: Mae Amy Sedge-Mk and Mn, H. Marston.
—And RIQUhT WITH THE TUFT or, Harlequin and Mother
Minion. Messrs. Milano, Power, and Raiford, MIAs Collinson.

LYCZITY..

Tars laminte. A STiTo' IE ATTACK. Melon. Shore
and Wl•idlcomb ; Mu Heeled' and Mrs. Lee.—And THE
BURRS MOTTO. lemma Tedder, O. Vining, Brougham, and
Raymond ; lames C. Lederer& Z. Terry, and Maworthy.

_BPSl'4.2flfLi.

TIM Erratno. ABON lira 8. Lane . Mesons.
Ivens, Loan. Newham, and Mak C. Stephan; Tom Sayers
and Ms two llttlea.—THE COWL= OF GOLD. Miss Sophie
7111..—And ILUIT IDAIONSTOISK—Genmence at haltped S.

NIGH Willa AT LONDON BILIDGIL
Ms DST Nara*" 2b. 47a.....Aftesoas. ri. Bat.
Zaitossow—Maralaig. IL Ift.....Mtersoca. Stu 411 a.

LONDON, THURSDAY, YEBRUARY 19.

TRSITIC in black women is revolting enough to
most people in this country. But the deliberate
sale by an educated Englishman of his wife to a
wealthy Irishman, who happens to be a Member
of Parliament, is perhaps even more revolting.
Mr. AUGUSTUS PARIBERTON GIPPS, the Secretary
to the Patent Department in the South Kensing-
ton Museum, is the individual who, according to
Sir Casserirm, Cassawar.r., sold his wife and
his own honour. Mr. WILLIAM Wrierwoirn
lerrzerrmem Hums, M.P. for Wicklow, is
the individual who purchased the commo-
dity. The strange story has been revealed
in the Divorce Court, and inasmuch as a moderate
expenditure of money would have sufficed to keep
the matter secret, the reckless disregard of such
considerations proves both parties to be singularly
insensible to the ordinary dictates of prudence;
and delicacy.

The discussion before Sir Censer-ma. Cense/lux
arose upon a petition filed about the beginning of
the year against Mr. Hums by Mr. GIPPS for a
dissolution of marriage with his wife, which
took place in the year 1851, on the ground of
adultery. They lived with the lady's mother,
and although at first the marriage promised to be
a happy one, the prospect was soon clouded. As
early as 1852 there was a temporary separation,
although, a child was born in the month of July.
In February, 1854, another child was born, hut
soon after Mrs. Gins earnestly requested her hus-
band to arrange a permanent separation—on the
ground, as she candidly told him, that " she had
" neither love nor respect for him." This
Mr. Glen refused to do, but went to America.
On his return, however, in 1855, he found himself
the father of a third child. In the meantime
Mrs. GIPPS had made the acquaintance of
?dr. HlllOl, the Member for Wicklow. Suspi-
cions of his wife's fidelity seem to have crossed
Mr. GIPPS' mind, and these suspicions were soon
amply confirmed by a letter which Mrs. Gars
asked her husband to convey to her mother, but
which, upon being opened, was found to contain
another letter, signed, " Your poor little pet
" Haus " and addressed to Mr. Hume. This
discoveryled naturally enough to • violent scene.
'Mrs. Gun left the house, retired to the Conti-
nent, where she was joined by her paramour,
Mr. Hums, and early in 1861 Mr. Gan insti-
tuted a suit for divorce.
It is a rule of the Divorce Court that no dim-
lution of marriage shall be granted when there is
collusion between the parties. It is very right
that where a wife has violated her solemn vows
and dishonoured her husband, he should be
relieved from such a burden. But where
the husband and the wife, with or with-
out the concurrence of the paramour, mutu-
ally consent to the social sin, or make certain
arrangements for their own convenience, it is
equally right that a Court of Justice should not
lend its aid in such circumstances. Now, before
the cause came on, it seems that Mr. GIPPS
had made an arrangement with Mr. HIT/t1 (who
was then on the Continent), through his friend
Mr. Ilsxxnviii.x, which had it been known to Sir
Cansewm. Camel:Li., might poedbly have pre-
vented that learned person from decreeing a dis-
solution of the marriage. Mr. Girrs in his petition
had not claimed costa or damages. The truth was
that a sum of 3,0001. had been deposited in the hands
of Mr. liazziwria., which was to abide the event
of the triaL But the whole of this sum was paid over
to Mr.Gors before the petition came ontobehesni.
Before the trial, therefore, Mr. Orris had made
3,0001. out of his wife's infidelity, and had agreed
to consider that sum not only as an equivalent for
his dishonour, bat as a sufficient reimbursement of
the expense to which he had been put.
But the bargaining did not stop here. On the
morning of the trial Mr. Hauler= agreed with
Mr. Glen that if the record were withdrawn Mr.
Hume would pay to Mr. Gun the sum of 4,0001.
(in addition, of course, to the 3,0001.) on his
mother's death, with 5 per cent., or 2001. a year,
in the meantime. The result of this was that Mr.
GIPPS was to remain the husband of his faithless
wife, but that for the annual sum of 2001., with
the capital in reversion, he was to permit
that wife to continue the mistress of Mr. Hums
A more businesslike and shameless transaction it
is difficult to imagine. But to proceed : the
cause came on. The counsel of Mrs. GIPPS would
not, for reasons which will presently be explained,
allow the record to be withdrawn. Mr. Girrs,
however, declined to offer any evidence, era the
petition was dismissed. The only thing that
remained was for Mr. Hots to execute the bond
for 4,0001. This, however, that sharp-witted
individual refused to do, under some frivolous pre-
text. The truth is, that Mr. WILLIAM W
Firzwiraism HIMI, M.P. for Wicklow, wanted to
get " his poor little pet Ileum as cheap as possi-
ble, whilst Mr. Pemimaros Gins, the Secretary
to the Patent Department in the South Kensington
Museum, was determined to get for his faithless
spouse as large • sum as possible. Mr. Hums
insisted upon an allowance for his mistress, from
Mr. Gine, of 2501. a year sod other advantages ;
whilst Mr. Gins refined to make any such stipu-
lation. This difficulty amid not be arranged ;
and the negotiations were broken off. The only

•
thing that remained was that Mr. Gina should
get his 4,0001. This, however, Mr. Hums refused
to pay; so that Mr. Gore was in danger of getting
nothing at all. He adopted the only course open
to him. Pre brought his case before Vice-
Chancellor Noon, calling upon Mr. Hums to per-
form his agreement and to pay the 4,0001. The
Vice-Chancellor, however, held that he had
no jurisdiction—that the matter was en-
tirely for the Divorce Court. Foiled in
this attempt, Mr. Gun had his wife watched by a
detective. She had been, and still was, living
with Mr. Hums, No that there was soon ample
evidence of misconduct. Having obtained this
information, Mr. Gore filed a second petition,
claiming diasolution of the marriage, on the ground
that acts of infidelity had been committed subse-
quent to the period when the former petition was
dismissed. As to the acts of infidelity there was
no doubt. The real question which Sir CREKSWLLL

CRESBWiLL had to decide was whether the conduct
of Mr. Grrps had been such as to deprive him of
the right to the relief which he sought.
It is impossible to read the vigorous and elo-
quent judgment of Sir Citraewsm. Casaswm.
without being satisfied that Mr. GIPPS is not the
sort of person who is entitled to claim • disso-
lution of his marriage. It is abundantly clear that if
Mr. Gipps had chosen to produce evidence of his
wife's infidelity on the hearing of the first petition,
he might have obtained a divorce. Instead of
that he offered no evidence at all—and why 1 Be-
cause he had *already accepted 3,0001. to meet
his costs and to soothe his wounded honour; and
because he had, as he thought, secured an addi-
tional sum of 4,0001. The only right which Mr.
Gun at this time had was • right to a dissolution
of the marriage, and that right he had attempted to
sell for the sum of 4,0001. And what did this
attempt at a sale imply f For that sum, as Sir
CRLBSWELL Cassewam. said, this husband
covenanted to shut his eyes, and no
longer to see the infidelity of which his wife
had been guilty. Mr. Gins did not condone
his wife's sin by resuming cohabitation—he did not

bargain for ber better conduct in future—he
simply said, " Pay me 4,0001. and my wife may
"do as she pleases." It has long since been settled
that a husband cannot consent to his wife's adul-
tery with one man and refuse his consent to her
adultery with another man, so that if she commits
the crime without his consent he is entitled to a
divorce. A husband cannot say to the Ecclesias-
tical Court, " Non omnibus dormio." Is it pos-
sible, then, that a husband shall be allowed to say,
" Non sniper dormio" I How can Mr. Gars
be allowed by any court to divide his
wife's course of infidelity into two portions
How can he be allowed to say, " So much I have
" tolerated. For that I have received compensa-
" tion. I have been willing to receive 7,0001.,
" and have consented to my remedy being barred ;
" but—non scraper donnio—for the residue I will
"claim a divorce." In short, Mr. Gars ap-
praised his own and his wife's dishonour, and such
a man is not entitled to claim a divorce. No I
doubt Mr. Hume behaved as few other men would
have behaved when he refused to pay the 4,0001.,
the purchase money for Mrs. Gars. But as Sir
Cu/4mm Canswzia said, his discreditable con-
duct cannot diminish that of Mr. Gann, or entitle
him to the aid of a court of justice. The Court
of Divorce was instituted for quite other and higher
purposes than to facilitate the sale of faithless
wives by their husbands to unprincipled paramours,
and therefore the petition of Mr. Gars was very
properly dismiss&