The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-15 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.--The story of Miss Crosse, who ran away
with her father's groom, has been terminated dra-
matically by the marriage of the parties with Mr.
Crosse's consent. This event, which has excited
the greatest interest and sensation among the good
people of Wandsworth, seems to have taken every
one by surprise. After the first inquiry before Mr.
Ingham the young lady had returned to her father's
house' and was said to have bidden an eternal fare-
well to her lover. The romance was thought to be
at an end, especially when the father withdrew from
the prosecution, and George Smith, the object of
Miss Crosse's misplaced affection, was discharged
from custody amid the cheers of a sympathising
crowd. The finale, however, was yet to come. Find-
ing his daughter really attached to Smith, and de-
termined to marry him as soon as she might come
of age, Mr. Crosse wisely relented, the marriage
ceremony was performed yesterday, and the scene
ended by Mr. Smith addressing his admiring friends
from a first-floor window. The charge of abduction
having thus fallen to the ground, we are at liberty
to consider the circumstances under which it was
preferred and entertained, without any fear of pre-
judicing the case. The heroine, Miss Crosse, is
between 20 and 21 years of age, and her father is
the rector of Ockham, in Surrey. The young man,
George Smith, of whose wicked arts she is alleged
to be the victim, is 18 years of age, and had lived
nearly two :years with Air. Crosse as groom and
general servant. About Christmas last an intimacy
sprang up between him and his young mistress, with
whom he used to ride—a fact which will probably
tend to revive the panic that spread through Bel-
gravia' two or three seasons ago. That he did
not make the first advances may be inferred with
tolerable certainty from the young lady's reply to
a question from the magistrate—." I think we
were about equal." That he was not the first
to propose an elopement we know on the posi-
tive testimony of the same witness. Her visits
to the stable had been discovered by, her parents,
" there had been a great row," she became very un-
happy, and made up her mind to leave the house,
and protests that she would have done so even " if
George had died." At all 'events she " arranged"
the whole plan, and on her lover being dismissed at
a moment's notice, told him to come the next night,
August 25, to her bedroom window. She made the
usual signal by lighting paper, and he appeared ;
Miss Crosse let herself down with some little assist-
ance from him, and begged him to accompany her
to Weybridge station. Hitherto it does not appear
that such an idea had occurred to his mind, and he
actually asked her then and there whether she had
not better stay. Miss Crosse, however, was re-
solved, and they went up, to London by a night
train, Smith paying the fare out of their common,
purse, and proceeded straight to Doctor's-commons.
Smith applied for a marriage licence, but learnt that
it could not be granted to a lady under age without
her father's consent, whereupon, at Miss Crosse's
suggestion, they took lodgings together at Wands-
worth.' There they were found by Mr. Crosse and
an Inspector of Police on the sth of September ;'but
it is right to state that, although they had occupied
the same room, proof has since been given that they
had never cohabited as man and wife. Anything
less like abduction, according to the popular notion
of that crime, it would not be easy to imagine. The
prisoner was a mere boy, 'and two years younger
than the lady ; he was not shown to have plotted or
even to have contemplated the elopement, but rather
endeavoured to dissuade her from it at first ; he had
carried off none of his master's property, and upon
Miss Constance proposing that they should buy a
business with the money to :which she was entitled
on coming of age, he urged that. it.should be left
untouched; he did not even propose-the going up
to London, or take the initiative in engaging the
lodgings, or avail diShonourably of
her confidence in any- way_whatever. :gal there
are strange things in -English law, and it is just
possible that an act 'that' • wears no 'very serious
aspect may amount to a legal felony. In-this -case,
however, there is no coleus' for any such paradox.
Our criminal law, with its wonted excess of particu-
larity and neglect of symmetry, defines four offences
in the nature of abduction, and provides for their
punishment in three distinct sections. The first of
these makes it felony to take away or detain any
woman, of any age, who may have auy interest in
property, against her will, with intent-to marry or
seduce her. It also makes it felony "fraudulently
to allure, take away, or detain such woman, being
under the age of 21 years, . . . against the
will of her father." Now, there was not, the shadow
of a pretence for saying that Miss Crosse was taken
away against her own will. Still less could the
young lady's evidence be 'reconciled with the theory
of any fraudulent allurement or detention. The next
section is directed exclusively against the abduction
or detention of women by force, a supposition which
was not even suggested. The last is confined to the
case of girls under 16 years. With the words of the
act before us, therefore, we are somewhat at a less
to understand upon what' precise charge Smith was
remanded, and upon what point the magistrate
desired to have 'further evidence. " The question,"
said Mr. Ingham, " was_ whether she had been
fraudulently taken away," and he thre.w.osit. a doubC
whether it might not be fraudulent to take away a
young *roman. without her father's • knowledge. If
so, every runaway match would render one of the
parties liable to 14 years' penal servitude ; but we
may safely say that few runaway matches take place
with so hale^ solicitation on the part of the bride
groom. If young men could be subjects of abduction,
it would have been at least as reasonable to accuse
Miss Crosse of " taking away" the groom, as the groom
of " taking away" Miss Crosse, for it is quite evident
throughout the whole affair that she played the
part of a principal, and he of a timid accessory. Mr.
Crosse himself at lastsaw the matter in this light,
though he pleaded in his own defence that he was
led, " by his servants and other persons," to believe
that his daughter had been duped by the prisoner.
What opened his eyes was her own story as told in
Court, and Ale wonder is that it did not open the
eyes of ithe magistrate too. It may be an indelicate
question to raise, but one cannot help asking celeielf
what was really the head and front of poor-Smith's
offending, upon the -worst supposition, and in what
respecti its enormity was greater than enormities
which 'are daily condoned. ,Possibly a chivalrous
groom,' conscious of his own unworthiness to be hus-
band of a young lady, would have held back when
she_flung herself into his arms, firmly refused to aid
her-in an enterprise which might bring her-into dis-
grace, andstUrn himself away to save her from her
own infatuatibn. Chivalry, however,- is rare now-
a-days and we are not at all sure that an average
young = gentleman in Smith's position would have
behaved, with greater propriety. But let us take
the converse case, and suppose the young gentleman
to have fallen in love with a housemaid, a contin-
' gency for which precedents are to be found,—on
what principle, should greater allowances be made
for him than for this youth? The difference is
really altogether in favour of the latter, for here the
courting -began on the wrong side, and 'the groom
seems to have known his place until the young lady
began paying her addresses to him. Of course it
was-all very wrong, little less than domestic treason,
and Mr. Crosse, on discovering it naturally expe-
rienced the same feeling as Brabantio when he first
learnt that Desdemona was 'enamoured of the Moor.
He, like Mr. Crosse, horrified by his daughter's taste,'
jumped to. the conclusion that some illicit means
must have been employed to win her heart ; but he
was soon convinced out of her own mouth, that she
was " half the wooer." It was surely a great pity
that Mr. Crosse, instead of proceeding hastily
against ,the culprit, did not make such inquiries as
would have satisfied him of the true state of the
matter. He would thus have saved himself and his
family the pain of a public seandal, which has greatly
shocked well-regulated minds in the genteel classes
of society, but which, after this brilliant sequel, will
doubtless he • the theme of admiring and envious
comment impany a Servants' Hall.
HERALDs--We have already commented on some
of the opinions expressed, by Professor Rogers, 'when
discussing the expediency of patents before the
members of the British Association. We were in-
duced to take. so much notice of what Mr. Rogers
had said, rather by the importance of the subject
than by the novelty of the sentiments advanced or
the ability with which they were brought forward.
There was nothing in the views the professor enun-.
ciated which had not been said by Sir Wm. Arm-
strong at an earlier date, and in a more effective
manner, when the great gunsmith was first ad-
vocating a limited adoption of communistic theories
by a population not generally favourable to their
reception. But the -woposal certainly looks better
in the hands of the V:orthern baronet than in those
of the Oxonian professor. On the question of public
morality there is not much difference between them,
but as a matter of taste we prefer the master of the
school of spoliation to his lastest follower and imi-
tator. When Sir William has anything to say he
says it in language which a plain man can easily
understand, and to which a critic cannot seriously
object. The views may be unsound, but the words
are not inelegant ; the policy suggested may be
unjust, but the sentences indicating it are not
ungrammatical. Far different is our fate when
doomed to hear or to read the vapourings of
Professor' Rogers on the same subject. Quite
apart from deficient logic do we complain of faulty
composition. We do not ask a patent law
abolitionist to reasun conclusively, but we do
expect him to write and speak grammatically.
It would be too much to require him to be so
skilful in wordy :warfare as to conceal the in his theory involves, but he
.ought to have
sufficient knowledge of English to save him from
flagrant offences against Lindley Murray. We

-
Can conceive of persons- not unmulng to be satis-
fied with Mr. Rogers' reasoning, bui we cannot
imagine one who would be pleased with his diction.
His theories about inventors' interests may or
may not have been drawn from the fount of wisdom
unpolluted, but his manner of expressing them
never came from the well of English undefiled.
The professor's errors have not even the redeeming
qualities of Irish bulls, Scottish singularities, or
Yankee vulgarisms. They are not racy of the soil,
nor of anything else, except perhaps of their author.
They neither show Yankee smartness, Irish geniality,
nor Scotch wit. Mr. Rogers may take as much
pride in his parts of speech as Mrs. Malaprop, but
he has no more reason for pride than the good lady
herself had. Mr. Rogers was not very long in
giving his audience a taste of his quality. Plunging
at once in medias res he began with a violation of
the first rule of syntax, by talking about " what is
called patent rights." A little later, and he was
speaking of " many cases in which inventions as
laborious as any which is devoted to patented pro-
cesses ;" and again, of " reasoning and method as
cautious and precise as any which is exhibited." In
equal contempt of temporal concord, he remarks,
' the public are certainly anxious to procure the
best examples of the works they had ;" and, with a
finish as remarkable as the commencement was
singular, he ended his sentence by telling his
auditors that, " if they put up with a transparint
imitation, it means that, except under such circum-
stances, they would not have bought the work at
all." We do not know whether our readers can
understand this. We confess we do not, even with
the added light afforded by picking out sundry gems
of the same order from other parts of the essay.
The professor evidently has his own notions about
the graces of composition, which make his willing-
ness to abolish copyright the more praiseworthy.
The Rogerian style is probably the correct one,
but it is certainlyvery different from that to which
we are accustomed. We say nothing about in-
volved and clumsily constructed sentences, in which
the sense has to be picked out from the midst of
half a dozen parenthetical intercalations ; but we
should like to know what is meant by " some na-
tural power or force, the process or possible value
of which has not been, infringed before." Nor is the
professor less incomprehensible when he reproaches
patentees with asserting " a title to the qualities of
matter," and with " laying out their money in draw-,
ing blanks." Words in common use may be diffe-
rently understood on the Isis and on the Thames,
but for the life of us we cannot conceive how an
inventor " wins his labour," though he may certainly
win the fruit of it. Nor do we clearly see how a
capitalist can " drive hard terms." Bargains may
be driven, terms may be exacted, or in a technical
sense may be eaten, but never till now did we hear
of their being driven by anybody. We admire me-
taphor, and set a proper value on periphrasis, but
we fail to understand how " simultaneous inventions
can be mythical personages ;" or how " litigation,
laid on a colourable imitation, is law." We have
always thought that law is a rule of action, pre-
scribed by competent authority, and that litigation
is the recognised means for enforcing the rule, so
that we have yet to discover how the one can be-
cOme the other. We have not space to go through
the whole of Professor Rogers' offences. He behaves
very badly to the prepositiong, putting them without
stint or scruple into places for which they were
never intended. Hence we read of a " hindrance
upon the powers of other men's minds," and " a
remedy to high prices." With equal carelessness
he confounds the province of the indicative and
subjunctive, speaking in the same breath of a
principle, which first " is not incompatible with
public policy, and next that it. be of certain ob-
jects." He seems to think well `of trade marks,
because the public have a right to know that the
thing they.buy is (not what it professes) but what
it proposes to be. An unreliable prophecy with
him is not unverified, but unfounded, and the
machinery of the law is not put in motion, but
is paid by litigating patentees. He does not
doubt whether the effect of copyright is beneficial
or injurious, but he does doubt " that a single copy
more is sold" through its existence. Mr. Rogers
tells us that "to constitute a right it must be cap-
able of intelligible defence." We hope he has suffi-
cient fairness to admit, as a corollary to this pro-
position, that a theory when advanced against a
right ought to be capable of intelligible statement.
In that case he will agree that the patent law is in
no danger from his efforts, for we question whether
he could understand or explain his own blunders.
We should recommend him to read his paper once
more with not less care than an averagely careful
schoolmaster would bestow upon his own pupil's
exercises. To borrow his own expressions, " be-
cause in case," he should do so, he will probably
feel convinced that not only inventors but professors
may be among the " many men who receive more
from social order than they render, to it ;" who,
with -no special aptitude for the task .come forward
to demand that their neighbours shall make " a
concession to their vanity and selfishness," by listen-
ing to their windy harangues and empty platitudes.
Before the professor, ventures again to .theorise about
law we advise him to, master its first principles, and
not to pronounce dogmatically. against giving an
inventor legal. rights-until -he has taken some pains
to understand the .-tibjebt on' 'which he speaks.
Finally, let us advise hii, wlien not engaged in
teaching the elements of political economy to in-
genuous youth at the University of Oxford, to em-
ploy his time in acquiring at least a-rudimentary
acquaintance with the languag. of educated
Eng-
lishmen.