The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-10 00:00:00

• i••,'" •
. 4.1%.• , 4f%
mi.., 7,,
)

LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 10, 1854.

The irritation of the CZAR appears to be un-
doubted. Our Parisian contemporary, the Debats,
gives a minute and seemingly authentic and
reliable account of its most recent manifestation.
His Imperial MAJESTY betrays more and more,
by every additional act and word, his obstinacy
in carrying out at all hazard the insensate scheme
upon which he has adventured. The reply trans-
mitted by him to Vienna and Berlin, in answer
to the joint demand made on the 2d of June by
the Austrian and Prussian Governments for the
immediate evacuation of the Principalities—
though couched in terms of diplomatic courtesy
and affected moderation virtually amounts
to all intents and purposes to the peremptory
refusal of the last opportunity for a pacific
arrangement. The Emperor NICHOLAS still
perversely maintains that the religious part of the
Question at issue, is entirely a "private affair"
between himself and the Sultan ITL-MEDJID—a
a matter with which the rest of the great Powers
of Europe have no concern whatever. His Im-
perial MAJESTY still pertinaciously insists that as
AUTOCRAT of all the Russias, and, therefore, as
Protect.or of the Greek Church, as Head of the
Orthodox Religion, as Vicegerent of GOD, over
the only true representatives of Christianity—he
is required by HEAVEN to carry out to its utter-
most limits the policy alretuly
proclaimed by him,
distinctly and resolutely, in the face of Christen-
dom; He asserts that the
developmh ent of this
policy has nothing at all to do Wit
brium of Euro isthe equili-
pe—that it
altogether apart
from the interests of couteraporary Governments
—that it must be pursued b himy to
the end at
it matters not what sacrifices ! The -Czar. will
consent to withdraw his troops from the Danube
—but this only to the end that they may take
up
a stronger position behind the Sereth. He will
consent to a complete evacuation of Bulgaria and
Wallachia—because prudence dictates at the pre-
.

gent moment that retrograde movement but this
only in order that Moldavia may be held the
more securely as a " material guarantee," by the
concentration within its boundaries of the army
diminished by 50,000 men since the com-
mencement of the campaign, deprived by
death or wounds of its most distinguished
commanders, and signally defeated by the Turks
and Egyptians at Silistria, at Citate, and at Olte-
nitza. He will, however, order his soldiers to
recroas the river Pruth—but this not until
Austria engages not to allow her forces to ad-
vance beyond the bounds of Transylvania, and
until France and England at the same time recal
their respective contingents through the Bosphorus
and the Dardanelles, homewards through the
Mediterranean. Plainly speaking, in other words,
the Emperor NICHOLAS avows that the ultimatum
now offered by hire, in the July of 1854, is pre-
cisely, "in point of fact," the same as that an-
nounced at the very outset, in terms of such sur-
passing insolence, by the Prince MENscHiKoFF.

Stripped of all disguise, that is literally the
meaning of the answer vouchsafed by the CZAR
to the final appeal submitted to his Imperial MA-
JESTY by the German Governments.

Wherefore, it becomes Quite manifest, of course,

upon the instant that a craven and infamous
peace, or the prompt and vigorous prosecution of
the war—remains at length to the Allied Powers
as the only possible alternative.

Either we must consent to the terms still obdu-
rately proposed by the AUTOCRAT—or we must
bring him as quickly as we can contrive to do so
to our own terms instead, by a resolute and
vigorous series of warlike operations—ope-
rations both by sea and by land—operations
carried out simultaneously on the Baltic
coast of Russia, and on the shores of that empire
in the Euxine, before Cronstadt and before Sebas-
topol. There is no other path to be followed.
We must necessarily either make a desperate war,
or consent to a disgraceful peace. The CZAR, we
repeat, leaves to Europe no other alternative.
England or France alone, by bringing to bear
against Russia all-the resources of a mighty em-
pire, peopled by a brave and chivalrous race, fore-
most in the ranks of civilisation—England or
France alone, we say, might by a proper display
of energy bring the Russian AUTOCRAT to
the unwelcome but unavoidable necessity
of submission. United, they may command
the despots of Europe at their pleasure.
What in truth upon this point is told us by the
records of modern history? It is there shown
by the annalist that when unaided by England,
nay, more than that, when actually opposed by
England, France was of herself enabled to over-
run the whole face of the Continent, taking the
capitals of the different countries of Europe in
succession, by a series of brilliant victories, won
under the walls of Vienna, Berlin, Milan, Rome,
Naples, Madrid, Lisbon, and Moscow—so that
one after another Austria, Prussia, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, and Russia, were brought to the feet of
NAPOLEON the Great—Czar and Kaiser, Kings
and Emperors being chained to the triumphal car
of the modern SESOSTRIS. This—when France
was unaided—was not only unaided, but was
actually opposed by England. United with Eng-
land by a cordial alliance, Franco may surely
compete with the Russian AUTOCRAT. United, in
fact, we believe, that England and France may
dictate terms not only to Russia but to Europe.
Their combined fleets and their blended armies are
now to this end most happily disposed along the
Russian frontiers. If Germany consent not at
once to join the Allies in their onslaught upon the
common enemy—let England and France, looking
only, under HEAVEN, to their mutual co-operation,
befittingly pronounce the signal of battle : and,
through the horrors of the war, a permanent and
satisfactory peace will be insured to the nations of
Christendom.

We have repeatedly pointed out the total in-
adequacy of the existing laws for the protection
of women. It is certain that imprisonment, even
though attended with hard labour, is not sufficient
to check the brutal propensities of cowardly
ruffians, who feel disposed to vent their ill-
humour on their unfortunate wives, and also,
that in many instances, it operates more severely
on the miserable victim than on her unmanly
assailant. The first point is proved by the nu-
merous cases which, we regret to say, are of
almost daily occurrence, in which parties are
brought before the presiding magistrates for the
most wanton and aggravated assaults—the latter
by the unwillingness of the sufferer to prosecute
the scoundrel, going at times even to the length
of perjury to screen him from the penal conse-
quences of his crime, stating, untruly, that she
" had aggravated him," that "he was a good
husband when not vexed," and "when he had
not taken a drop to drink," or other excuses of
a similar character ; and with the generous for-
getfulness of self—so conspicuous in the sex—
taking to herself the blame of a transaction in
which she had given no real provocation.
The fact is that those who, by their labour,
provide the means of support for the family,
know too well that their wives cannot afford to
complain against " the bread-winner" for any
misconduct, however indefensible. While they
are undergoing their three or six months' impri-
sonment, their wives and children may be starving
or obliged to submit to the tender mercies of the
union workhouse. All the money or property of
any kind belongs to the aggressor, and he may so
dispose of it as to prevent his victim from obtain-
ing the price of a single loaf without his concur-
rence. A pecuniary penalty has been shown by
experience to be worse than useless—for the bur-
den has invariably fallen on the wife herself.
And we may say the same of imprisonment, now
that the experiment has been fully and fairly
tested. The punishment to be effectual should be
" short, sharp, and decisive." Not keeping the man
for any considerable period from his daily labours ;
but still so severe as to inflict a salutary terror
even on the most reckless scoundrels, and there-
by to prevent any reasonable prospect of a repe-
tition of the offence ; and until some such
remedy is provided by Parliament, it is vain to
anticipate the abatement of the grievance, or the
removal of the unsightly blot from the national
escutcheon.

As an illustration of the matters above alluded
to, we may refer to one of four cases heard on
Thursday last before Mr. INGHAM, at the Thames
Police Court, in which the accused were sen-
tenced to different terms of imprisonment, with
hard labour, for exceedingly aggravated assaults
on females, three on wives and one on a sister-in-law.
WM. THOMPSON, described as a well-dressed man,
40 years of age, residing at No. 15, Cotton-street,
Poplar, a storekeeeper to Mr. GREENE, the emi-
nent shipowner at Blackwall, was brought up,
charged with a violent and unprovoked assault on
ANNE THOMPSON, his wife, who was in an advanced
state of pregnancy at the time, and who, on a pre-
vious occasion, had miscarried, owing to the ill-
treatment of her husband. After investigating
the details of the outrage, the worthy magistrate
felt that it was a case demanding the utmost
stringency of the law. He accordingly sentenced
the prisoner to six months' imprisonment, with
hard labour, at the same time stating that " there
was no question that he had pursued a long ca-
reer of cruelty towards his wife !" So far the
majesty of the law was vindicated, and the public
in general might consider that a wholesome
example had been exhibited that might deter
others from offending in like manner, and that
ANNE THOMPSON might consider herself well off
in. having her grievous wrongs so promptly and
decisively avenged !
But
.
mark the sequel ! On the following clay
the same ANNE TiromrsoN appeared, but with no
marks.uf triumph
at the vindication of her wrongs.
Her care-worn aspect, and bruised and wounded
Ilfa counteuanc©, s •
CICIAIy
pointed out the suffer-
ing she had uncle
" the remedy had rgone. But,
She was more severprovedely punished than her op-
, pressor. Previously, though
enduring constant
ill-treatment, she
had enough to eat for herself
and family—that is to say,
children of her husband f°2.
the four illegimate
born before her •
WILLIA3I THO marriage.
[ MPSON, though a cross-grained, ill-
conditioned brute, still r ea ued sufficient to b •
"poortith cauld" from beneath his banish
had oven a sum f
°- money in his pocket and ho
.pocket when
carried from the Police Court to the House of
Correction. Poor ANNE THOMPSON, when she
returned home, found that she was without
the
means of procuring a single meal for herself or
the hungry children of her husband. All her
means were at onoe cut off, and she was reduced
at once from comparative comfort, so far as pecu-
niary matters were concerned, to absolute want.
Such was the triumph which the judicious policy
of the law gave to the sufferer.
The following day (Friday) she again appeared
at the Police Court, but on a very different
errand. She came humbly to solicit his assist-
ance, either by ordering that a portion of the
money in her husband's possession at the time of
his committal should be given to her for the sup- ,I

port of his children, or for assistance from the
Poor-box of the Court for the family, sud-
denly plunged from comparative affluence into
the depth of poverty and distress. The Ma-
gistrate found himself unable to make any order
affecting the money secured by the husband, and
now doubtless in the hands of the authorities of
the House of Correction. Although an order may
be made in favour of the overseers for money
expended by them, nothing can be given to avert
the necessity of obtaining poor relief ! The
wretched applicant was a dressmaker, and could
earn sufficient for her own support, although not
for the wants of the four illegitimate children of
her husband, but the law in its wisdom declared,
that notwithstanding the ill treatment she had
sustained, notwithstanding that her oppressor
sullenly refused to allow one shilling of the money
held for him by the prison authorities to be
applied for the maintenance of his children—she
was still bound to look after them, and protect,
and support them. This is certainly a very one-
sided law, very unfair to the sufferer. Why should
she not be entitled to a divorce a mensa et thoro,
to support out of his funds, and to the removal of
any responsibility ? Simply because she is poor,
and cannot set the legal machinery in motion !
Surely the Session is not too far advanced even
yet to introduce a measure calculated greatly to
reduce, if not altogether to abolish, the practice of
wife-beating, and to give cheap, expeditious, and
adequate relief to sufferers like poor unfortuate
ANNE THOMPSON.