The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-30 00:00:00

nation of " NICHOLAS the Infamous." Probably
the incident here alluded to is not known as
generally as it deserves to be—indicative as it is
of the character of the Russian Emperor, and ex-
plaining, as it does to a considerable extent, the
extraordinary change latterly observable in his po-
licy. That policy, during the principal portion of
his long and remarkable reign, though to the utter-
most degree despotic, was, nevertheless, it will be
admitted, even by its most earnest antagonists,
marked by sedate calmness, astute reserve, a
certain air of majesty, and a semblance at
least of moderation. At heart the policy was
one born of inordinate ambition, and one tending
in every way to carry out a gigantic scheme of
territorial aggrandisement. Yet until about
two years ago this sinister policy was cloaked by
the CZAR under a certain grim decorum. Sep-
tember„ 1851, was the date of its memorable
transformation. During that month occurred the
twenty-fifth anniversary of NICHOLAS'S accession
to the throne of the House of Roumanoff. It
is stated that upon that occasion, when the
whole empire was celebrating the event of the
AUTOCRAT having reigned during a quarter of a
century, his Imperial Majesty intimated his desire
that for once the Senate should forego the cus-
tomary expressions of homage used on similar
state occasions, and coming to the foot of his
throne, should hail him by the enviable title of
" The Great." Howbeit the Senate—usually so
obsequious—failed to recognise the nobility of the
suggestion. They refused. NICHOLAS was not
greeted as " The Great." Thenceforth his
disposition has been obviously changed. Ever
since he has been personally " peevish, moody,
inconsistent, capricious." It is the remark of an
authority well qualified to pronounce an opinion
upon the subject—the remark of M. LEOUZON LE
Due, Charge de Mission to the Court of Russia,
a man of observation, impartiality, and experience.
Not only has the personal bearing of the Emperor
NICHOLAS altered since his disappointment in that
memorable September, but his policy has mani-
festly and flagrantly changed in like man-
ner. It has become distinguished, not as
formerly by prudence, but by an audacity beyond
parallel in the annals of Christendom. Signalised
by the daring passage of the Pruth, it is at length,
however, we rejoice to know, answered by the
entrance of the French and British vessels of war
through the Dardanelles, and their appearance
"on the demand of the Ambassadors of France
and England, in accord with the Ottoman Govern-
ment," in the waters of Constantinople.

We have recently directed public attention to
the great increase of offences against the person,
more particularly of violent and cruel assaults by
husbands on their wives, who, generally speaking,
appeared to have been the victims of a systematic
course of habitual and brutal ill-treatment, and
who at length only appeared against their
cowardly assailants, when the nature of the in-
juries they had sustained were such as to call the
instant attention of the police to the outrages
under which they were suffering. The enact-
ments of last Session were undoubtedly of a very
stringent character, authorising the summary con-
viction of any offender before a single magistrate,
and a sentence of six months' imprisonment and
hard labour, without the intervention of a jury.
The remedy was one of a very exceptional descrip-
tion, involving a violation of the constitutional
maxim, that no man should be deemed guilty of
any offence, or deprived of his liberty, save on
the verdict of twelve of his peers. It struck a
formidable blow against that which has justly
been described as " the palladium of British
liberty," " trial by jury." But the disease had
attained such fearful magnitude that the people
freely and willingly acquiesced in the partial
invasion of their liberties. They joyfully consented
to the creation of powers which apparently insured
the punishment of offenders, who might altogether
escape, if committed for trial, through the com-
passion or fears of the sufferers. It had been as-
certained that, in all such cases, a variety of
influences were brought to bear upon the com-
plainant, which generally led to her absence on
the day of trial, and the consequent discharge if
her assailant, who was ready, on any or no provo-
cation, to repeat conduct, from the consequences
whereof, experience told him, he might feel cer-
tain of escaping with impunity. So generally
was this the case, that many efficient magistrates
refused to send such cases to sessions, inflicting a
pecuniary fine in preference. The sufferer was,
however, thus doubly victimised, for she it was
who, by extraordinary exertions, procured the
means of paying the penalty, so that the cruel in-
juries were but frequently followed by very severe
privations.

Under such circumstances the great social ex-
periment was tried, and we regret to say—and
we do so advisedly—notwithstanding the adverse
opinion of the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man the Recorder of the City of London, con-
firmed by the several officers of his Court, that it
has proved a total failure, and that the outrages
it was intended to check are notoriously mat-
ters of every-day occurrence, and that the
various cases are attended with even greater
cruelty and violence, and more serious and
permanent injuries than before the passing of
the recent act. These undoubted facts exhibit in
a strong point of view the demoralisation of the
public mind in such matters. If the unmanly
scoundrels who perpetrate such brutal acts were
punished on the spot by any persons possessed of
sufficient strength to cope with the ruffians—if
in every instance the attention of the police was
called to the subject, so as to insure a magisterial
investigation—if, above all, the contempt and in-
dignation of the neighbourhood were unequivo-
cally exhibited, and it was shown that the crimi-
nal was degraded in the public estimation, there
might be a reasonable prospect of checking such
crimes, and removing so deep a stain from the
national escutcheon. But when we find that a
drunken wretch can be permitted to pursue a help-
less woman through a crowded market, knocking
her down with his fist, kicking her violently, and
using the most horrible and threatening language,
without a single bystander interfering—nay, when
those from whom the miserable woman sought
protection and assistance, turned her off lest the
wrath of her tyrant should be directed against
them, we feel that something further must be
attempted by Parliament—that the existing re-
medies are altogether inadequate to meet the
disease.

Something must be done to change and amelio-
rate the tone of public opinion amongst the classes
where such outrages are of frequent occurrence,
something that will degrade the culprits. We
areun
if
suhn
l ay
ealize to all the objections against corporal
pment, as to its tendency to brutalise and
render reckless the man on whom it has been in-
flicted."We have, therefore, always opposed the
use ofthe Cat, both in the army and navy,
e
offences of a mean and shabby
character.
t it 'really seems as if it would be
perhaps, i: 0
impossiblept to render more reckless one who had
ce
previously been so far brutalised as to commit
these heartless and cruel injuries upon helpless
and inoffensive woman. The subject is at least
worthy of consideration, as to whether " flogging',
should not be resorted to in aggravated oases of
this description. The power should be sparingly
exercised, and with great discretion on the part
of the presiding magistrate. Never, unless there
had been a total absence of provocation on the
part of the woman, and that the circumstances
betokened habitual brutality of disposition on the
part of the culprit. It is that habitual brutality
that should be most vigilantly guarded against,
and punished in every instance with the utmost
rigour of the law. The power of sentencing to
flagellation should necessarily be surrounded with
many restrictions, and, perhaps, the sentence should
never be carried into execution without having been
previously submitted for the consideration and
approval of the Secretary of State for the Some