The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-15 00:00:00

compact from being entered into. If " preven-
tion be, indeed, better than punishment," if the
object should be that of checking the crime rather
than chastising the criminal, then should the
Ballot be carried by acclamation, and the purity of
the franchise insured by its secret exercise.
For what is the object of its supporters ? Pro-
tection to the voter—protection from the tyranny
of priest, of landlord, of employer, of customer,
of creditor, of the mob—protection from
his own weak and yielding disposition.
None can coerce or frighten a man into
voting contrary to his own feelings where
none can know how he has voted—none will bribe
where implicit reliance must be placed on the
word and honour of men, who, by accepting the
infamous price, sacrifice that honour, and show
themselves to be totally unworthy of credence.
For the masterly dissertation on the various phases
of bribery, from its complete anatomisation by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark,
it will be seen that the infamous practice, if not
altogether annihilated, would be reduced to such
narrow limits as to render it practically innocu-
ous, and to put an end to those painful investiga-
tions that reflect so much disgrace on the British
character. The functions of " good and safe
men"—of "frail" individuals, would totally
cease. No persons would pay beforehand, because
they could not trust those who were giving such
practical evidence that they were not trustworthy.
No persons would pay after the vote, but before
the event was decided, because there could be no
security that they were not rewarding an oppo-
nent. And payment after the return would
be of comparatively little account, for every
bribable person should be paid, and the effect
even of that would be to make voters support
those whom they supposed to have the goodwill
of the majority. If persons chose to profess their
sentiments openly to take an active and energetic
part in favour of either side, of course they would
be at liberty to do so, and if they came forward
freely, of course reliance might be placed on their
avowals ; but if undue influence of any descrip-
tion were used, then doubts would naturally
arise. It is absurd to say that there would be a
temptation to violate a promise. The violation
of a sacred trust would be a far more heinous
offence. It is ridiculous to assert that it is an
un-English practice, when the Honourable Gen-
tleman has just come gom his Club—perhaps,
after blackballing an obnoxious candidate. Every-
thing, then, combines in its favour, and if the
people are only earnest in their demands it must
be conceded.
We cannot conclude without rendering the tri-
bute of our admiration to the Ministers who did
not suffer their views to be changed by the pos-
session of office. All honour to the Chief Com-
missioner of Woods and Forests, to the First
Naval Lord of the Admiralty, the Solicitor-
General of Ireland, and the Judge Advocate—to
Sir WM. MOLESWORTH, Rear-Admiral BERKELEY,
WM. KEOGH, and CHARLES PELHAM VILLIERS.

They have earned the gratitude of the people,
and the just reward of their conduct shall not be
wanting.

In the discussion on the Divorce and Matrimo-
nial Causes Bill it was argued by the Lord Chan-
cellor that, inasmuch as the divorce cases since the

beginning of the present century had only ave-

raged two per annum, there could be no necessity

for the establishment of a new tribunal. This

reasoning is, however, exceedingly fallacious, for

unfortunately that paucity of suits could not be

ascribed to the scanty number of evil-doers, bu'

rather to the numerous impediments and difficul-
ties interposed in the way even of parties who
were most decidedly entitled to it. It was not
that the offence was rare, but that none but the
very wealthy, who had a thousand or fifteen
hundred pounds at their disposal which could
be spared, could venture to seek a remedy. It
cannot, however, be supposed that if the proposed
enactment should work well, if cheap and expedi-
tious relief can be obtained by all who are clearly
entitled thereto, that the applications may not be
far more numerous, or that the official members
• of the new tribunal, the Lord Chancellor, Chief

Justice, and Master of the Rolls, whose duties are
already sufficiently onerous, can meet the new
demands on their time. Thechief vice in the former
system was that a remedy could only be worked
_ _

out with golden tools, that none but the wealthy,
who could best sustain the evil, could hope for

assistance, and that there was thus practically one
law for the rich and another for the poor, whose

marriages were to all intents and purposes indis-

soluble, no matter how great the misconduct of
the erring partner. We would see this altered,
without lessening the stringency of the proof de-
manded. We would, if possible, re move this reproach

to which the nation has long been justly liable. The
proposed tribunal will not, we fear, meet the exi-
_

gency of the case. It will not be easy to get the
Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the
Master of the Rolls, and two learned gentlemen
selected for the purpose—or any three of them
together—nor can the cost of a hearing before
such a body be small. The suitors will still be
of the same class as those who have hitherto applied
for private Acts, and relief will still be far beyond
the reach of the great majority of the sufferers.
In fact, as we have already stated, were it not
for the fact that the present measure may be re-
garded as the introduction of the sharp end of
the wedge we should scarcely consider it worthy
of acceptance.
The new tribunal should be one easily acces-
sible, whose portals would be opened to all classes,
and where any sufferer might, if necessary, be
enabled to apply in, forma
_pauperis. It should
have jurisdiction in all matrimonial disputes, so
as either to dissolve the marriages or pronounce
for a separation, assigning at the same time the
amount of alimony or allowance for support of the

injured party and the custody of the children—
capable, in fact, of giving a complete remedy
in every particular. The multiplicity of suits
would thus be avoided. The one application
would suffice in place of the three now required.
The Court of Chancery would be perhaps better
than any new tribunal that could be constituted
for these important purposes ; but, as its various
Judges are already fully occupied, it might be
necessary to appoint a new Vice-Chancellor, with
jurisdiction in all testamentary and matrimonial
causes. From him there might be an appeal, as
at present, to the Lords Justices, the Chancellor,
or even to the House of Lords. Surely there
could be little danger of injustice under such cir-
cumstances. There would be even greater
precautions against any improper dissolution
of the nuptial bonds than there are at
this moment for the life or liberty of
any of us. The two great questions would be
as to the fact of the criminality, and whether
there was any connivance or similar transgression
on the part of the applicant. If necessary, a
jury'might be empannelled to decide on these
matters—and facilities should be afforded of
taking evidence in every district, either by the
County Court Judges, or specially appointed Com-
missioners. Should local Crown prosecutors be
appointed, as we hope and believe will be the
case before the termination of another Session of
Parliament, those functionaries might render
valuable assistance in preventing any mistake.
The applicants should themselves invariably be
to see that they come into Court with
examinedclean hands not being fairly chargeable either
with provocation or connivance.
This plan,ieriinYtoallce
if ea operation, would, we
submit, afford every requisite guarantee against
improvident divorces ; while, on the other hand,
every reasonable facility would be afforded to
those justly entitled to relief—and that, whether
Ofh, hat wastli,e
applicant were male orcofmemplaalien,eodr w
uTryhis is what the nation
the
remedy
endyattaerebeofapit,hlieedi.nj.
requires, but which, we regret to say, is not pro
vided by the measure now under consideration,
and which has just received its second reading in
Lords
the House of .

Mr. SrooNEit has faillyn a
beaten her
house of vM
eryAJne arlESTY'y
S
Government at last.
300 members, a majority of twenty-two have de-
clared him a wiser man than the Home Secretary ;
the latter supported earnestly a vote of 550/, for