The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-07 00:00:00

THE SUN,

....,..-
was pronounced in the year 1842. Since that
period no intercourse or communication of any
kind took place between the parties. The
lady entered upon a theatrical career, and
attained great influence over the then King of
BAVARIA, who conferred upon her the title and
estates of Lansfeldt. She returned to this coun-
try in the early part of the present year,
and on the 17th of July last was married
to GEORGE TRAFFORD HEALD, Esq., a gentle-
man of large fortune, who only attained his
majority in the month of January last. Yesterday
morning the lady was arrested when getting into her
carriage, and conveyed to the police station, no pre-
vious notice or intimation of the charge having been

given to her or Mr. HEALD.
The prosecution was instituted by the aunt and
former guardian of Mr. HEALD. That gentleman
not only did not complain, but, on the contrary,
appeared to be greatly annoyed at the course adopted.
During the entire investigation he exhibited the
utmost tenderness of manner and devotion to the ac-
cused party. He, at least, was not deceived in any
particular. At the time when he entered into the con-
nexion, he must have been fully cognizant of the
former marriage, and of the various incidents of the
eventful career of the lady ; indeed all the circum-
stances had long been matters of public notoriety,
and it would be difficult to find a person who could
justly plead ignorance of them.
Now, in the beginning, there are two parties in-
jured, who have a just right to claim redress—the
firs.; or the second partner. It is a formi-
dable crime, and one which the interests of
society require to be visited with severe punishment
where some artful and designing man betrays a young
and innocent female, and blights the prospects of her
future life. A female can never recover her former
position in society ; she is literally sacrificed, and if
possessed of any fortune, that also falls into the hands
of the betrayer, to whom, probably, it formed the
chief incentive ; she can scarcely hope to form an
honourable alliance, and her condition is truly
pitiable. The deserted wife, too, will have
just grounds of complaint. She may be
left in distress and poverty, unable to provide food
for the unfortunate children of the marriage. The
person, whose offence occasions so much misery, is
justly subjected to stringent penalty, and in aggravated
cases may be transported beyond the seas for seven
years. Any mitigating circumstances are, however,
invariably taken into account, and if the conduct of
the first wife deprived her of sympathy, and the
second was at all cognisant of the circumstances,
and not deceived by false pretences, the
punishment is merely nominal. The offence
however, is by no means of so heinous a character
when the alleged bigamist is a female. The injury
to the second husband is by no means so grievous as
it must necessarily be to the second wife. His future
prospects will not be in any degree damaged or im-
paired ; he can easily form another alliance, and the
former void marriage will never be regarded as a
shame or reproach. The former husband is the only
party really injured, and he must come into court
with clean hands to entitle him to public
sympathy. Now for eight years past there
has been no correspondence or connexion
of any kind between Captain JAMES and his
wife. In 1841 he relinquished her society, and
the following year he obtained a divorce in the Eccle-
siastical Court, which, although not a vinculo matri-
ntonii, or such as to warrant the parties in again en-
tering into wedlock during each other's lives, still
made them cease to have any interest in, and to be
perfectly indifferent to, the acts of each other.
Under such circumstances, when Mr. HEALD was
not deceived, and when Captain JAMES had
no /oc-us standi in court, the offence, even
on the very case made for the prosecution,
would be of the most trivial character.
The lady asserted that a full divorce was obtained, of
which Lord BROUGHAM was cognizant. If so, the
charge would of course fall to the ground, and the
parties would have just cause of complaint on the
unwarrantable proceedings that were taken. But,
were it otherwise, we venture to say that no public
prosecutor would think of sending such a case to
trial. The punishment would be merely nominal
even if a conviction could be obtained, which, in the
absence of any proof of communication for seven years,
would be more than doubtful.
When, therefore, aprivate party, influenced solely by
personal motives, chooses to step forward and to can--
cise a power which should only be permitted on public
grounds, no: extraordinary favour should be shown ;
the case should be clearly and unequivocally made out
to justify a remand, or the holding the accused to
bail. In the present instance there was no legal
evidence of the former marriage—no evidence that
the Countess was aware of the existence of Captain
JAMES, nor was it even shown that he was alive at
the time of the recent marriage. The only
scintilla of testimony on this point was, that
on the lath of June the name of a
Captain JAMES appears in the effective list of
the 25th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry. It
is ;not shown that it is the same person, and even if
it were, there is no knowing that ,be survived the
casualties to which military men in India are espe-
cially liable until the 17th of July following. The
charge, then, being of so trumpery a character, with
so many mitigating circumstances, and in the absence
of all legal proof of the commission of the offence, the
case should have been dismissed by the magistrate.
Another illustration is thus afforded of the evil
working of the'present system, and another proof of
the necessity for the appointment of a duly qualified
public officer, whose sanction should be necessary to
the institution of any criminal prosecution.

Does the stage exercise a beneficial or a pernicious
influence upon the community ? Is it an intellectual
benefactor or a perverter of public morals ? This
by no means unimportant question has this month
occupied the attention of the Eclectic Review, a
periodical generally remarkable for ability and
liberality. The result of this consideration is a
sweeping condemnation of theatres and theatricals
individually and collectively. The article in question
asserts as an established fact that " the influence of
the stage has been and is adverse to morality," and, in
cor on of this assertion, bids us " interrogate
the unfortunate outcasts that throng our streets, or
the youths that crowd our hulks and penitentiaries,
and they will tell us that their ruin was begun and
completed in the theatre." Supposing this to be a
fact, how, according to the Eclectic, is this state of
things to be remedied ?—by the total suppression of
all theatres ! "We have no hesitation in saying," ob-
serves the writer of this article, " that the licensed
theatres of London do more to deprave the popula-
tion than all its churches and chapels do to reform it.
Her MAJESTY'S Government professes to be inter-
ested in the suppression of juvenile delinquency. We
believe their professions. Why, then, are the
theatres licensed, when it is an ascertained fact that
they are the chief sources of juvenile criminality ?"
Now, while we deplore as sincerely as the most anti-
theatrical of reviewers the evils which are mixed up
with the many noble characteristics of the drama, we
differ entirely from the proposed suggestion. Ac-
cording to this theory, if every system not wholly
perfect is to be doomed to entire annihilation, what
human institution can be preserved ? It is surely a
wiser and a more Christian course to reform rather
than to destroy. Granted that some, unhappily too
many, individuals derive evil instead of good from
attendance at the theatre, because their corrupt
nature entirely perverts the purpose of the institu-
tion, is it not so with all things ? Does not the
very press itself, the noblest and most valuable of all
human contrivances, does not the printing-press, in
the hands of some depraved wretches, produce the
most pernicious effects ? But, because we have bad
books and poisonous publications, shall we put an end
for ever to types and printing-presses ? The cases
are exactly parallel. Whatever the Eclectic may
think to the contrary, the drama rightly employed
is a most effectual moral and intellectual teacher.
No lessons are so potent as those of example, and
most of our best and really popular plays enforce some
moral lesson.
Occasionally some attractive villain
may obtain a share of
most cases a strict poeticimapaptelasutshee;plboutt in
and
justice popular
animates
a
enlists the sympathies of the spectators. The true
hero, the self-conqueror, the sacrificer
of self, invari-
ably wins the hearts of the gods "of the gallery.
And is it nothing, among men like these, that their
sympathies, too much concentrated on self, and their

intellects habitually crushed by the pressure of con-
flicting circumstances, should for a brief hour be
called forth, and given a new impetus and a new vigour ?
The delicate occupants of the private boxes may look
upon a play as an amusing pastime ; to them, perhaps,
it is nothing more. Their minds and tastes are
daily feasted and refined by intellectual intercourse,
by the perusal of the thoughts of master-minds, and
by the continual enjoyment of divine sounds at the
opera-house or the concert-room. The theatre might
be for ever closed, and their intellects lose nothing.
Very different is it with that large and unhappy class
who have "the brain seared, the heart riven" by the
threefold bondage of ignorance, sorrow, and sin. And
yet these illiterate "clods of the earth" thrillingly
respond to the genius of SHAKSPERE ; these callous
hearts weep over the woes of DESDEMONA, and burn
with indignation at the iniquities of RICHARD.
Considered [thus, the stage is, and might be
yet more so, a potent helper in the regeneration,
moral and intellectual, of the multitude. Still we
confess also, and with profound sorrow, that the stric-
tures of the Eclectic are in a measure justified.
Rerome has ere now sought the stage (vide the Anti-
Corn-law meetings) to make herself heard. Let her,
then, in gratitude for the triumphs there so signally
achieved, leave behind some traces of her footsteps.
The nation has recently been agitated with the
ambition of purchasing the house of SHAME ERE.
Let us remember that our theatres are the
true house of SHARSPERE—Iet us make them
worthy of so honourable an inhabitant. Thus
shall we worthily signalise our national appre-
ciation of the greatest of Englishmen, and thus shall
we derive the fullest benefit from the rich legacy he
has bequeathed us. Reform is better any day than
destruction. We would not have the door of one
theatre closed, but we would have every theatre
worthy of its appellation—the Temple of the Muses—
the Muses whose attractions are ever worthless
when unaccompanied by the Virtues. How is this
desirable end to be attained ?

The numerous cases of alleged poisoning that have
been tried in different parts of the country during
the present assizes show the fearful extent to which
that most horrible crime has recently been carried.
The details of an ordinary murder case are sufficiently
sickening; when we find a person influenced by a
desire of vengeance, or, perhaps, by a more sordid
motive, wilfully and deliberately planning the death
of his fellow-man, and coolly watching the death-
pangs of his victim, a feeling of inexpressible horror
arises, we cannot sympathise with the blood-stained
assassin. Notwithstanding the natural repugnance
to capital punishment, we recognise the justice and
expediency of the law that declares " whoso sheddeth
man's blood by man shall his blood be shed"—that
pronounces the life of the murderer to be forfeited,
and that the extreme penalty of death can alone ex-

piate his enormous guilt. But there is something
peculiarly harrowing when poison has been selected
as the instrument of death, when the sanctity of the
domestic board is invaded, and the fatal cup adminis-
tered by one loved and cherished, in whom the utmost
confidence is necessarily reposed. There is a deep
and deadly treachery that excites the utmost loathing
and abhorrence ; we cannot adequately express our
indignation at the crime, or our detestation of the
offender ; we cannot conceive how guilt of so heinous a
character could enter into any mind, however depraved,
or by what motives the offender could be influenced.
The most sacred duty of life is violated, and the
object to be attained is generally of the most trivial
and paltry character—indeed, in the majority of in-
stances, the mere love of crime, the feeling of the
Thug, who described the intense rapture with which
he beheld the expiring struggles of his victim, can
alone be assigned as.the cause of that offence.
In the common class of cases the victim is usually
either the enemy of, or at least a stranger to, the
murderer. Some fancied wrong or indignity nerves
the arm to the fatal blow, but in cases of death by
poison, the injury is inflicted on the nearest and
dearest. The husband perishes by the hand of his
wife, of one who had sworn at the altar " to love,
honour, and obey him." The mother takes the life
of her own offspring without the slightest remorse,
and if impunity should attend the earlier offences,
the fatal practice is resorted to again and again until

detection.
Three cases have been'tried during the past weelc:of
wives for poisoning their husbands, and two convic-
tions liftva hPan nbtftined. Wo =hall not n^w awoll
on the particulars' of the evidence where the jury
felt themselves justified in giving the accused party
the benefit of the doubt. She had ever lived on the
most affectionate terms with her unfortunate husband;

the arsenic (the poison usually administered) had
been openly purchased, and the jury believed that it
was possible that the deceased might have taken the
fatal draught by accident. But the circumstances of
the other cases are worthy of notice—not for the
purpose of gratifying a morbid and depraved taste,
but of considering whether some obvious precautions
might not be adopted to check the crime that has
unhappily become so prevalent.
In the Coventry division of Warwiekshire, MARY
BALL was tried'and convicted of the murder by poison
of her husband, TaoatAs BALL. The prisoner,
it appeared, had purchased one pennyworth
of arsenic for the alleged purpose of killing
bugs. It was sold to her openly, and with-
out any difficulty or objection being made.
She bad, it appeared, acquired a dislike to her hus-
band, and an unfortunate attachment towards another
man. The means of his removal were in her hands;
the carelessness of the chemist from whom she had
purchased the arsenic, acted as a temptation, and the
wretched woman yielded thereto. The poison was
administered, but in so bungling and careless a man-
ner that the cause of death was obvious to the most
superficial observer. The husband was cut off without
time for preparation, and the still more unhappy wife
is to expiate her awful guilt upon the scaffold; and
these are the consequences of the undue facilities that
exist for any person obtaining the most subtle and
deadly poisons without check or restraint. In sen-
tencing the miserable woman, the Learned Judge
declared that " he was willing to believe that the poison
was bought innocently, and that she had suffered her mind
to become familiarized with the idea of using so deadly
an instrument." Could a stronger illustration be afforded
of the absolute necessity of some legislative enact-
ment prohibiting the sale of deadly poisons, except
on the prescription of a medical practitioner, or on the
authority of a magistrate or clergyman ?
The case of MARY ANN GEHRING, who was found
guilty at Lewes, for the Guestling poisonings, a full
report of whose trial appeared in our impression of
Thursday last, is of a still more appalling character.
In her case it was not a solitary victim, nor was there
any attachment to another party, or jealousy on the
part of her husband by which she could be actuated ;
not only did she deprive of life the father of her
children, the man to whom she had been for many
years united, but she also deliberately sacrificed two
adult sons, and attempted the life of a third. The
only motive that could even be suggested for this
manifold criminality was, that she might obtain
the insignificant sums payable by the burial club
to which her husband and children belonged, on the
death of members. A few shillings only could have
remained available after defraying the necessary ex-
penses of the funeral (al. 3s. 4d., it appeared, was
the entire sum paid on the death of each victim); and
yet for that paltry consideration she sacrificed the
lives of those by whose labour and industry
herself and family were maintained, and brought
upon herself the awful vengeance of the offended law.
In this instance also we find the same carelessness as
to the sale of poison. During the past year she
purchased arsenic on no less than seven different occa-
sions ; thrice at the shop of one chemist and four
times at another, and there
,was not the slightest
concealment or attempt to avoid notice on any

occasion.
It will, therefore, be manifest that it is not
sufficient that a chemist should personally
know the person desirous of purchasing poison,
or some party by whom he or she may be accom-
panied. Poison should not be entrusted lightly to
the hands of ignorant persons who might apply it to
an improper purpose. It should only be delivered on
the order of a physician or magistrate, and then with
such distinctive marks that its deadly nature should
in every instance be immediately perceptible that the
chances cf its being taken by mistttke might be
greatly diminished, if not altogether removed. Mea-
sures should also be adopted for regulating the prae.