The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-13 00:00:00

THE DUNDAS CASE.

(From the Examiner.)
The class of Major Dundas have shown, by their
reception of the ccmments on his conduct, that we
have not misrepresented their morality. "
Member of Broirks's" has taken the Chron.;cle to
task for its remarks upon the case. He says—
" It is not sorpri.ing that correspondents, who sub-
scribe themselves ' A F.ither,' and ' A Mother,' should
take a partial view of this case; but I confess I did hope
that the public press of this country would have guarded
itself against the enthusiasm their irritated feelings."
And he proceeds to inquire whether Major
Dundas may not have been the seduced, instead of
the seducer ? though, from the evidence of his com-
p
anion, Mr. Phillips, it is clear that he bad marked
out the girl for ruin before he had exchanged a bun
words with her, and der lared his purpose with dis-
gusting levity. The " Member of I3rookes," who
treats with such sovereign contempt the sentiments
of that insignificant portion of society coming within
the description of fullers and mothers, has yet ideas
of honour which compel him to condemn the de-
ception practised by Major Dundas—" For his false-
hood I off.,r no excuse; and for this fault I feel that
I cannot again look upon him as my friend."
And why is it, will he tell us, that falsehood does
not come within the sweeping terms of " ungentle-
manly conduct," fur which military men are amenable
to military law ? An officer who obtained goods or
money under false pretences, would be dismissed the
service for ungentlemanly conduct; and why is the
falsehood wlica defrauds a woman of her honour not
cognizable under the same clause ? Why, but
because the makers and Ministers of the law share
in the practice, and also because it would be full of
dangerous example to put a sweepingmnrk of infamy
on deceit, which is so freely used in the upper works
of our system, serial end political.

The Chronicle has drawn attention to a beautiful
moral distinction taken by the Chief Baron, in his
charge on this case.
" You have it from his brother officer, Mr. Phillips,
that !Awe the 21st of July, Dundas knew her to be the
daughter of Dean Adams. He must have made the obser-
vation the first day he saw her walking with her father,
and when, I pre,ume, he was struck with her beauty; it
must have led him to inquire into ber connexions. I
cannot but bring myself to believe that he knew whose
daughter she w is. That is a strong circumstance for an
aggravation of damages. If in watering-places, persons
pick up on the roads girls of free and liberal conduct, of
whom they know nothing, so much blame cannot be at-
tached to them, as young men, for following up the con-
nexion. But the matter is different when he knew her
tole the daughter of a dignitary of the Church—when
he must have known the injury lie must have inflicted upon
that gent'eman and his family. I think these things should
be taken into consideration in the measure of damages."
Upon this our contemporary remarks :
" The Chief Baron here indicates pretty plainly, that
the offence would have been greatly extenuated had
the party been lower in society than the daughter
of a dignitary of the church. Of course, 'Major
Dundas is not such a novice in the ways of the world as
to be unaware that the station of the party would at all
events give much more notoriety to the offence. Now it
strikes us that this disregard of the rank of the father is
indicative of a consciousness that he had little to dread
from the notoriety. It conveys the severest satire on the
laxity of principle of the clam of society, before the ti
bunal of which he would have to appear. In the case of an
humbler female, lie might mitigate the resentment of the
parents by money. In a case of this kind, he could have
no such hope. He must, therefore, have been by no
means apprehensive as to the effects on his reception in
society. No man unnecessarily commits what he sup_
poses will make him au outcast from the society in which
he moves."

There is one morality for a Dean's daughter ac-
cording to the Chef Baron, and another for a ple-
beian's child. Nay, there must be a different mo-
rality for every difference of degree in clerical rank..
Had this been poor Parson Adams', instead of Dean
Adams', daughter, the case would have been almost
venial. And when such language as thi. is held
from the seat of justice, are we to be surprised that
the hearts of the poor are rising in bitterness and
wrath against the deli ? The correspondent of the
Chronicle whom we have quoted, a member, as he
professes to be, of one of the most aristocratic clubs
in London, contends that women should have no
protection against debauchery, but that of their own
honour. He would not even give them the advan-
tages of game, which must be hunted by qualified
persons, and according to certain laws, protecting
them against surprises and ambuscades.
The law which affords to a careless, or perhaps a
base parent, a compensation in money for the loss of
a daughter's honour, is, we admit, bad in every re-
spec-, as it operates in the way of a fine on the
seducer ; but a better law would not better satisfy
the objeciers, whose real desire is to strip the weak
of the little protection that is cast around them.
It is the character of our Aristocracy to be perpe-
tually playing fast and louse with 111(x:inv. When
a moral rule interferes with their pleasures, they ask
the indulgence of liberality—the letter is too strict
—they want room for poor human frailty ; but the
next instant, for the purpose of visiting with pnai'•ll-
- offences and offenders of another order, they
will insist on the inflexibility of the moral code, and
on no score allow of exceptions to the rigour of its
law. Now while they profess the whole code, we
insist on their en:ire submission to its 'ldes. They
are bound either to obey or to improve. If seduc-
tion is a joke, a pleasantly, let them pronounce it so,
and not uphold a rule which they laugh at in their
own order, and use fee punishment when the trail--
gression is by those beneath them. In the very case
which gives occasion to these remarks, we see it
argued that the vety weakness of the ruined girl was
an excuse for her'seduction. The Chronicle remarks
upon this shameful plea—
" Upon the same principle, the imperfect vision of a
shopkeeper might be a Justification of the thief—.-the
weakness of a traveller, tl:e justification of the highwaY
robber. If we are to take it for granted that men must
always be brutes, and that it is manly and honourable to
give a restraint to (-very appetite, then we may find, in
this invincible aaecessity, a justification of Major Dundas
taking
a most unmerciful advantage of this child. But it
-appears to us that the very facility eluded to by cur corre-
spondent forms the strongest ground of accusation against