The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-08 00:00:00

OUR CONTEMPORARIES•

Mrs. YELVERTON was naturally recommended to
the protection of the jury by the fact that she
was in no respect a public character. She was not
a holder of any public office, whose actions in a
public capacity are the proper theme of public
criticism. She was not a candidate for any public
office, whose private character might be a fit sub-
ject of investigation by the authorities with
whom the appointment lay. She was merely a
private person resorting to the law courts of the
country because they were the sole means through
which she could vindicate what she believed to be
her private rights. Under ordinary circumstances
we should say that persons so appealing to the
courts of law are entitled to be protected from any
further discussion of their character than is neces-
sary to secure the public from positive harm. The
publicity of our judicial proceedings is an im-
mense advantage, for it secures justice, im-
parti►lity, care, and honour in the administration
of the law. Like all advantages, however,
it has some counterbalancing evils. It tears rudely
open domestic wounds; it invites aimless and boot-
less scandalmongering ; and these evils are inten-
sified when they infect the public press.
There were, however, circumstances in the his-
tory of this case which took it out of the class of
strictly private actions. The lady had challenged
the opinion of the public, and appealed to its sym-
pathy by extraordinary means. It was not through the
law courts that she was first beard of, and through-
out the progress of her case she has addressed the
public on the circumstances of her wrongs,
even to the extent of publishing a novel, of which
they form the groundwork. And it must be conceded
that morality may in some instances demand obser-
vations on the conduct of even private persons. It
is right and necessary that opinion, the great safe-
guard of morality, should be aided in
coming to a just judgment on facts on
which it cannot help passing some judgment
because they have become subjects of general dis-
cussion.
In considering the duty of a journalist with
regard to this cue we are bound to bear in mind
the great danger there was of the growth of
a false public sentiment under the influence of the
sympathy excited by Mrs. YELVERTON'S wrongs.
An impulse as true as it was generous c►rried the
great body of the public over to the side of thst
lady in her contest with Major YE.LVERTON, but it
was necessary that girls of ardent yearning nature,
strong passions, and undisciplined heart and brain,
should be taught that Englishmen do not pardon,
even in one whom they pity, conduct such as that
of Mrs. YELvEltroN, as described in her own highly
sensational letters. There was real danger that
in proportion aa Major YELVERTON was con-
demned for his baseness his wife would be-
come a heroine. The Saturday Rt rietc,
in
common with other journals, opposed this false
tendency of thought, and we must presume that
it was on this account that the Scottish jury gave
their verdict in its favour. In looking at the
question as one of public service, and allowing that
consideration to prevail, we think the j ury did right.
Had they been trying a question of taste, or even of
strict justice, the result might have been different.
We can by no means associate ourselves with the con-
gratulations with which au evening contemporary
has hastened to meet the Sat', rday Rcrictr. If
the view of Mrs. YILVEItioN'S conduct taken by
the weekly writer was correct, as in the main we
believe it was, the style in which the whole
question was treated was " simply loath-
-44 some." We may be told, indeed, that if
our weekly J CNENAL only lashes vice, it is
" a matter of small consequence" that he depicts it
with " vigour and warmth of colouring." This we
emphatically deny. To dabble in indecency, while
professing to castigate sinners, is to offend against
public morality, and this is not the first time that
public attention has been called to the mischievous
tone in which questions ariring out of the relations
of the sexes are treated. We are quite prepared
for the usual cant about the advantage of being

(THIS DAY.)

TUI ROYAL AGRICULTURALAW SOCIIIT AND THZ CATTLI
MR
The Times cannot but think that the Royal A.grienitural I
Society is justified in its alarm and its remedies, and that
it is a fair subject of oonsidaratiou for the government
whether more might not be done. The returns to the 2ad
of December show the plain fact that the number of deaths
is greater than ever, and in dealing with such a soourge it is
hard to say that any measures would be despotic.
Thar really is no valid reason why the greater part,
if not the whole, of the animals destined to supply London
with food should not be slaughtered at a distance, and we
might be almost resigned to the loss the plague has
yet occasioned if it led to the abolition of the live cattle-
markets in great towns. London does not want the whole
animal ; it wants only the meat ; but, under the present sys-
tem, hides, entrails, and horns are brought up to iOllO, only
to be taken away again, or to be disposed of so as least to
pollute the city to which they have been needlessly carried.
The foreign cattle might be for the most part slaughtered
at the ports of disembutation, which would leave room
for those brought to London itself to be slaughtered in the
neighbourhood of the cattle market, without needier
driving through the streets. As for the Irish and Sootoh
beasts, we see no reason why they should sot be killed in
their respective districts, and the meat sent up to London,
as it is now in some oases sent up from the remotest parts
of Scotland. All that is wanted is a change in the manner
in which the carcass butchers who supply the retail butchers
carry on their trade, and there is reason to believe that
snub a change might be made with profit to themselves and
advantage to the country.

THE OW:MOMENT OF THY UKTROPOLIS.
The Times describes the chief features of Mr. Bears scheme
for metropolitan municipal reform, which is based on the
proposition that each parliarnentert borough shall have a
municipality to do the local huslueos, the new municipali-
ties to elect delegates to form a metropolitan oouncil to do
all that pertains to the collective metropolis—makig a
perfectly elm sweep of all the existing load institutions,
including the City of London, in the area in question,—and
proceeds to observe that if Mr. Beal @wooed/ In doing this,
he would be but ill rewarded with • baronetcy. But
the Times must frankly own its want of the courage or
the self -confideace requisite for the enterprise. We should
be obliged to watch the fight at a safe and humble dis-
tance, as the Romeo ladies yaw gladiators fighting lions and
tigers. If we saw Mr. Beal carried about the arena,
bleeding and paralysed, in the month of a furious alder-
man or indignant county msgistrate, or in the grip of a
Lord Mayor, or the coils of a vestry clerk, we should
comment upon his fate with philosophic equani-
mity. We have not the magic sward or the Ithuriers
spear that wiU dispose of such antagonists. They
are too many and too strong for us. We are not sure
that parliament itself. if it set to work with the
best possible intentions, would find itself equal to the task.
Meanwhile it ie clear enough that the existing authorities
should do all they properly can do, and aa all mankind have
• way of looking up to somebody, or some class, expecting
its aid in all their difficulties, so have we a right to expect
mach from the newest of the metropolitan authorities, the
Metropolitan Board, as the moat likely to remedy the many
nuisances around us. It must either do more, or let other
bodies rise in its place, or see the first session of a reformed
parliament occupying itself with a metropolitan revolution
of equal magnitude. At all events, it ought to clear
half, and let us ksow who is to blame for the uni-
versal mismanagement around us. The railways, of coarse,
we shall be told, are answerable for a good deal. That is
true ; but the Metropolitan Board might have done more
to save us from this chaos of bricks, mortar, iron, and wood
that we find all round us, over us, and ander us, continually
threatening the very ground that we stand upon. It might
have put a little more system into the business, and taken
it out of the province of mere luck end rude violence. But,
we repeat, it must show more signs for evil or for good, or
find itself treated as a dumb idol and hurled from its
pedestal.

MISS LONGWORTH T. THE " BETTIRDAT REVIEW."
Though the verdict in the case of " Lengworth v. Hope
and Cook" is merely the expression of an opinion formed
by a certain number of individuals on disputed facts in a
particular cue, it nevertheless, sus the Pont, well merits
attention ; because, without affirming any novel principle,
it furnishes a standard which, consciously or unconeciesuly,
journalists and jurors may afterwards apply. The jury
have affirmed the doctrine that a journalist who infers from
certain published proceedings that a woman is unchaste, •
perjurer, and a forger, in justified in publiehieg his
opinion to the world without being put to the
proof that his opinion is correct. As well I.
the interests of journalism as of the public, the Post
proteins against this interpretation of the law of libel.
Surely in &civilised state a woman has a right to complain
if She is publicly charged with offence, of which she has
not only not been convicted, but for which she has never
been tried. Bat what the Post protests most warmly
' against is the monstrous pretence that the adoption of
such a course is justifiable in the interests of public
, morality.
"Clever, but cruel"—the Herald says, was the verdict
of those who read the article and had roistered the
facts of Mies Longworth's history. As the Lord
Advocate said the other day, the Saturday
Review might have let this stricken deer go weep,
or, in any case, hue been merciful to an unhappy woman
paying the penalty of one early error by a life of litigation 1
and remorse. Nevertheless, the Herald considers Miss
Loogworth tohave been ill advised in her action. It would
be better for her to leave ber case to the quiet judgment of
a generous people. If it is any satisfaction to her to know
that the general verdict of those who are acquainted with
her story is not the verdict of the Saturday Review, the
Herald is glad to assure her of the fact.
In the view of the Advertiser the Saturday Review
stands condemned in the eyes of the world as the gross and
gratuitous inaulterof &helpless woman, and will act prudently
in not just yet raising • shout of exultation. A notice of
appeal easiest the verdict of the jury has already been
given by the legel advisees of Mrs. Yelvertoo, on the
ground that the verdict was at variant* alike with the law
•ad the evidence ad lueed at the trial. The Advertiser
will be sa redly surprised as it will bs disappointed if
the whet be not set side by another and higher tribunal.