The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.-it is now scarcely possible to doubt that
the triple murder in Holborn and the double mur-
der at Ramsgate were committed by one and the
same man, known alternately as Stephen Forwood
and Ernest Southey ; and the narrative of these
deeds will probably be quoted in after times as dis-
tinguishing somewhat darkly the morality of our
own generation. We can tell the story already with-
out much omission, for at Ramsgate the acts were
perpetrated almost before witnesses, and the confes-
sions of the prisoner combine with other evidence to
leave little obscurity about the proceedings in Lon-
don. On Monday, then, the 7th of this month,
Stephen Forwood engaged apartments at a coffee-
house in Red Lion-street, Holborn, and to these
rooms he brought on the evening of that day three
little boys, aged ten, nine, and eight respectively.
On the morning of the Wednesday following these
children were all found dead in their beds. The man
who brought them had taken them upstairs and put
them to bed between 8 and 9 o'clock on Tuesday
evening. Shortly afterwards he went up, as he said,
to look at them, and remained upstairs about three
quarters of an hour. Then he came down, and
went out, after which he was not seen there again.
Medical evidence now establishes the fact that these
children were killed by prussic acid, and a profes-
sional witness, propounding, of course, only a theory
of the transaction, considers that to the eldest child
about a tablespoonful, and to each of the younger
ones about a dessert spoonful, of the poison was
administered as they lay. The smallest boy had a
penny-piece in his little hand—given him, perhaps,
as an inducement to take the medicine. While the
town was horrified by the intelligence of this crime,
another of almost equal magnitude was suddenly
reported from Ramsgate. On the evening of the day
when the dead bodies were found in the Holborn
coffee-house a man arrived at Ramsgate and in-
quired for a certain woman. On the following
morning he had interview with this woman and her
child, at which he shot them one after another almost
under the eyes of the other inmates of the house.
Being taken red-handed, he volunteered a statement
identifying himself with the person who had taken
the three children to the house in Red Lion-street
on the Monday previous. Subsequent inquiries and
comparisons left little doubt about the fact. Accord-
ing to all reasonable presumption it was the same
man who had slain all these people, three with poison
and two with the bullet. Nor was he quite a com-
mon murderer, for while he made little secret about
his own agency in the matter, he charged the 'respon-
sibility upon others as principals in the guilt, and
seemed exceedingly anxious that his views should be
made public. Upon investigation it appears that the
two persons whom he killed at Ramsgate were his
lawful wife and daughter, and that the three whom
he killed in London were his children by the wife of
another man. His " defence" is that he was driven
to these acts by the criminal neglect of society and
the obduracy of those to whom he had appealed in
vain for sympathy and succour. It may possibly be
in the recollection of the public that in the month of
December last a most extraordinary application was
made to Mr. Tyrwhitt, the sitting magistrate in
Marlborough-street. A well-dressed man appeared
before the Court and requested " advice" under cir-
cumstances which he proceeded to detail. He said
that a mutual attachment existed between him-
self and a lady whose attainments were greater
than her means, that they were anxious to be
united, but that there were obstacles in the way,
one of which was the fact that the lady was married
already. They had, however, he said, formed a
determination of raising themselves in the world
together to the position they desired to oc-
cupy, or, failing that, of committing suicide.
The fatal drugs had actually been purchased for the
last resort, when better thoughts arose. They now
resolved to separate, and not commit suicide, in
proof of which amendment the applicant made a
tender to the magistrate of the bottle of poison.
When Mr. Tyrwhitt declined, very naturally,. to
take the poison into his keeping, and inquired how
the matter was supposed to fall within his depart-
ment, the applicant opened what •he called the
" second part" of his case, which comprehended a
request for public assistance. " If," said he to the
magistrate, " a gentleman of your large experience,
in concert with the Earl of Shaftesbury and Sir Ed-
ward Lytton Bulwer—men who have studied life
and are skilled in its mysteries—will join with the
all-powerful Press in this work, I cannot for a mo-
ment doubt that they will at once decide on the
value to be placed on my moral and intellectual
attributes." As Mr. Tyrwhitt still declined to inter-
fere, the applicant withdrew, and no more was
heard of him ; but it is reasonably conjectured that
he was no other than Forwood; indeed, we should
hope that there are not two men possessed with these
views of social obligations. At Ramsgate, however,
Forwood read from a written statement these words
to the magistrates--" I charge back the guilt of the
crime on those high dignitaries of the State, the
Church, and Justice, who have turned a deaf ear
to my he trtbroken appeals, who have refused fellow-
help in all my frenzied efforts and exhausted strug-
gles, and who have thereby impiously denied the
sacredness of human life, the mutual dependence of
man, and the fundamental and sacred principles on
which our social system itself is based." He then
proceeded to denounce, jointly and severally, as the
authors of his miseries and his crimes, the Earl of
Shaftesbury, Sir E. B. Lytton, Lord Palmerston,
Lord Derby, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli, and
other public characters. Such men, he seemed to
think, wore morally bound to assist a kindred
and sympathetic spirit in the accomplishment
of his destiny, and not to turn aside from an
enlightened adept in the " mysteries" of life.
This jargon appeared to open a singular view of
the case, but it now seems as if more vulgar
motives must have entered into the consideration of
the criminal. The woman with whom he hadmain-
tained an illicit connexion had withdrawn from him,
and he had threatened her with " something pore
than she could think of" in default of her return.
They were her children who were first murdered in
Holborn. The same motive would not apply to the
murder of his wife and child at Ramsgate, but he
there explained that the " contumely and frowns of
the world" would have been visited upon his repre-
sentatives on account of his misdeeds, and that he
thought the best thing he could do, therefore, was
to put them out of the world first. At the same time,
how ever, that he so readily avowed his acts it seems
as if he had entertained some instinctive design of
escaping detection, for he not only removed the
poison bottle from the bed doom in London, but left
in its place another compound, the odour of which
was strong enough to overpower even that of prussic
acid. So rests the story at this moment. It would
not be easy to match it either for horror or strange-
ness, and we have still to see what correction or de-
velopment time or investigation may bring.

POST.—The disbandment of the Federal army on
the Rio Grande is a measure of policy demanded by
circumstances. A letter, purporting to be written
by the general in command of this force, witnessed
to the expediency of avoiding explanations with
foreign Powers. It might have been more conside-
rate to execute the " mustering out" at some dis-
tance from the Mexican frontier ; but the Govern-
ment of Washington does not condescend to regard
the convenience of contiguous States, and Mr.
Seward will, of course, disclaim all responsibility if
the disbanded soldiers cross the river. That, how-
ever, is comparatively a matter of small importance.
As General Sheridan says, " It is of no use to
beat around the bush." No amount of Federal
sympathy, nor any number of Federal volunteers,
will suffice to restore the republic in Mexico.
" Beating around the bush" is, moreover,
unsafe as well as idle. It is exceedingly easy
to drift through fictitious neutrality into real
war, and if Mr. Johnson comprehends the interests
of the country he has not only to govern, but to re-
construct, he will be careful to steer clear of a coast
which is presently dangerous in more than one sense.
It is inaccurate to suppose that the French inter-
vention in Mexico was in any form a challenge to
the United States. The Monroe doctrine has not
been accepted by France, and the assumption that
one State has the right to dictate to all the States
of a great continent is clearly inadmissible. The
authority of the Government of Washington extends
not beyond the frontiers of the Republic, and pre-
tensions that go further plainly contravene the law
of nations, are in their nature subversive of national
independence, and directly calculated to provoke a
breach of the peace. By no words, quiet or offen-
sive, can the Monroe theory be established, and an
attempt to enforce it by war would raise a question
more comprehensive in its bearings than appears to
be conceived. Those who take a superficial view of
the idea may not apprehend its extreme elasticity.
It does not seem to have occurred to them that what
may be tolerated on one continent can eventually
be applied to another. The deference. to American
notions may, we take leave to think, be carried too
far. It cannot be friendly to flatter and foment
conceits which, practically, would be resisted ; and
in the presentinstance it is manifestly misleading the
Government and the people of the United States to
persuade them that, now, or hereafter, any language
they may hold would serve to set aside an accom-
plished fact. The obligation France has undertaken
she will fulfil. There is no room for doubt on the
point, and to encourage scepticism is not an act of
kindness to'the nation that, without the shadow of a
reason, choses to be discontented. The Empire in
Mexico stands upon a solid foundation, and it is for-
midably supported. Its title is incontestable, and
its power may be measured by the power of France.
As a matter of history, it is also wholly averse
from the fact to assume that the Emperor of the
French took advantage of the difficulties of the
United States to compass the overthrow of the

Mexican Republic. France does not wait for op-
portunities in the sense suggested, and the Re-
public in Mexico was banished by the Mexicans
themselves. They chose their own form of go-
vernment, and they elected their Emperor. But
this, it is said, was contrary to the Monroe doc-
trine, was all done in defiance of the United
States, and in opposition to the policy of the so-
vereign American Republic. We are not con-
cerned to dispute about anything so transparently
absurd. Still, the policy of every country must
conform to the general laws which regulate the
policy of all countries, or—for there is no alterna-
tive—the country that does purely and simply
what seems right in its own eyes must abide by
the consequences its separate action and isolated
position may entail. We do not, however, believe
that the United States will adopt the Monroe doc-
trine as its platform ; and although that which is
immediately impossible may be preserved, laid up
in lavender, and brought out periodically to make
political capital in an election, there is no real
substance in it. The Washington Government
can refuse to recognise the Mexican Empire, just
as Austria objects to acknowledge the existence of
the Kingdom of Italy, but it is by no means cer-
tain that such a state of things would conduce to
the security of the public. It must not be forgot-
ten that, if Mexico is still agitated by an orga-
nised system of brigandage, the neighbour who is
talking so loud to her across the Rio Grande has a
tremendously difficult problem to solve at home.
Only a few months ago the Southern States of the
Republic would have rallied under the French
flag, and even as it is their spirit is unbroken.
The South is defeated, but not dismayed, and
the restoration of the Union on anything like a
permanent footing depends on the will of the
conquered people. They may be coerced, and their
property may be confiscated, but tyranny only
makes men long the more for freedom, and the vi-
cinity of a well-governed Empire, protected by
France, could not fail to inspire hopes which, by
rash act, the North might confirm for ever. The
Government of the United States, if the truth must
be spoken, has failed to command the respect and
deference of the world, and it is certainly not in a
position, morally or politically, to instruct other
countries. If the Mexicans were oppressed and held
in bondage by the Freneh—if, in short, their condi-
tion was as deplorable as it actually is auspicious—
the great American Republic would not be entitled
to interfere until it had plucked the beam out of its
own eye. Invited to render homage to the majesty
of the restored Union, we must be permitted to ob-
serve that in so far as the work of restoration has
has gone there is not much calling for admiration.
We cannot find it in our hearts to admire a nation
that has taken " voe victis !" for its motto. The war
which was carried on to " plough the South with
shot and shell," and not to leave food or refuge for
the crow that flew over the once fertile plantations
of Virginia, was at least intelligible. There was hard
reason in its barbarity. But to aggravate the hor-
rors of such a contest in the persecution of a sub-
jected people is not to be justified even by the
tyrant's plea of necessity. There is not only no
need for it, but every motive, save that of revenue,
points in a diametrically opposite direction. When
the American Republic has itself admitted the equity
of things, when it has tempered justice with mercy,
when it has become a law-governed State, and when
the negro difficulty is arranged, as it must be to re-
lieve the professors of philanthropy from reproach,
then it will be time enough to prescribe the Monroe
panacea. But while constitutional liberty in the
United States exists in name only, we must think
that the Mexicans exercised a sound discretion in
discarding republican institutions. Nor is it at all
probable that their decision will be disturbed. The.
sentiments said to be expressed by Gen. Sheridan
may be popular in New York, but at Washington,
it will be remembered, that if " the advent of Maxi-
milian was a portion of the rebellion," it is quite
possible that an attempt to revive the Republic
which the Emperor superseded would eventuate in
a further departure from the doctrine expounded by
Mr. Monroe. War with Mexico means war with
France, and the Government of the United States
is not, we are satisfied, ready to take upon itself
the heavy responsibility that that proceeding would
involve.