The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-11 00:00:00

THE ST3II, LONDOI%

of the sanctity of the Constituent National Assembly 1
I in May, when BARnES proposed from the tribune of
the desecrated Parliament of Republicanism, the tax i
of fifteens milliard upon the rich ! 0 yes ! M. Louis 1
BLANC is the upholder of the rights of Property, as
was evinced by his sympathy with the rebels ofJune—
those aspirants for anarchy and worshippers of ter-
rorism who inscribed " Pilage 1" upon the blood-red
flag reared upon the summit of the barricades. In
regard to this sympathy of his with those insurgents,
bear what is said by Mr. CoxxtAN in his " History
of the Constituent National Assembly,"—
" Proceeding," says he, "to a restaurant for dinner, I
found myself in close neighbourhood with Louis Blanc,
and I confess that I felt my attention rivetted to him.
That he was deeply compromised in this terrible Corn-
munist insurrection was, at least, generally suspected;
that his doctrines and his intrigues had much to do with
it, no one doubted; that he fully sympathised with the in-
surrection was undeniable. How far guilty or innocent,
it was at least certain that, standing in the position he
did, it required some hardihood on his part to sit down
surrounded by National Guards whose comrades were
lying wounded and dying in all directions, and make a
hearty dinner, not without a fair share of good wine.
The deep, concentrated look which he gave from time to
time out of doors, when anything attracted attention
might not have been easily interpreted; but the absence of
sympathy with the defenders (gr or der was marked enough."
—Hist. Constit. Assembly, Vol. 11., pp. 43 and 44.
And the writer might have said, too, that his sym-
pathy failed in like manner to extend to the defenders
of Property—for Property as well as Order was placed
in jeopardy by that insurrection.
Now henceforth we would recommend M. TEE-
HONNAIS to be more guarded in the manner of his ac-
cusations. For, when he asserts that the remarks
made by an English journalist upon the periodical
in question have been founded on " those abominable
calumnies industriously circulated by M. Louis
BLANC'S unrelenting enemies," he asserts what is
altogether an impossibility. Our inductions are
drawn from the writings of M. Louis BLANC himself,
and we can assure that gentleman's translator that
we are not accustomed in this country to draw
our conclusions of any man's character, or of any
man's principles, especially supposing that man to be 1
a refugee, from the panegyric of a toadeater, or from
the slanders c.f an antagonist. As to our feelings in
reference to M. Louts BLANC, we need only remind
his apologist that we have already spoken (in the
paragraph which has excited his ire) with befitting
respect of the very great abilities of the historian cf
the " Ten Years." Again, we would remind M.
TREHONNAIS that, as English journalists, we are not
accustomed to calumniate the writings of a foreigner,
I and we may perhaps be permitted to add that The
Sun is not generally known as a journal accustomed
to assail the character, or to depreciate the interests
of any refugee who is the recipient of the hospitable
shelter afforded by our institutions. What we have
said in regard to M. Louis BLANC we have proved to
be justifiably said by words transcribed from his
new periodical a publication which those
very excerpts demonstrate to contain "a
ferocious onslaught on Order, Family, and
Property." Such, however, was what might
have been anticipated by any one, and what was
actually anticipated by ourselves. One thing, and
one thing alone, has been to us matter of astonishment
in regard to " LOUIS BLANC'S Monthly Review," and
that is the circumstance that M. F. R. TREHONNAIS
has been appointed its editor. Tbat M. LOUIS BLANC
might require the services of a translator is but natural ;
but that a man of such eminence in the world of letters
shoukl condescend to allow any other man to edit
his writings, more especially a man hitherto un-
known, like M. TREHONNAIS—is certainly a mat
ter sufficient to excite our amazement. Of the
evil effects of such an arrangement, however, or of
the pernicious influence of the doctrines advanced in
the pages of the "New World," we are not disposed
to think with anything like feelings of trepidation—
discrediting, as we do, the possibility of the journal
getting in this country into
-any circulation.

The decision of Mr. BINGHAM, at Marlborough-
street, on Monday last, by which the Countess of
LANSFELDT was ordered to find bail to the extent of
1,0001. sterling for her appearance on a future day to
answer the charge of bigamy preferred against her,
may, if permitted to pass unnoticed, establish a very
dangerous preceaent. It is the especial duty of the
metropolitan magistrates to protect her MAJESTY'S
subjects against the unpleasant consequences arising
from frivolous or vexatious accusations. Police
magistrates have powers in some degree analogous
to, although more extensive than those exercised by
grand juries. They hold preliminary investigations,
and unless the evidence adduced before them on the
part of the prosecution be such as to establish a
prima facie case of guilt, such as if unrebutted would
justify a conviction, the party should be forthwitl,
discharged from custody. They also possess an im-
portant privilege not conceded to grand juries. They
are authorised to hear explanations given by, or evi
dence on behalf of, the accused respecting the
transaction, and, if such evidence should be
satisfactory, to dismiss the charge, although a case
of presumptive guilt had been established.
These extensive powers are bestowed, and we
are happy to say, are generally exercised in favorem
libertatis, and the instances are of comparatively rare
occurrence where persons have been committed for
trial by experienced and duly qualified paid magis-
trates, without reasonable grounds being assigned for
requiring them to answer for the alleged offences be-
fore juries of their countrymen.
It is in consequence of the protection thus afforded
that inquiries before grand juries in the metropolitan
districts have been regarded as useless forms, and that
a strong feeling has arisen in favour of their abolition.
A. Bill will probably be introduced next session for
that purpose, m hich should never be sanctioned unless
it was ascertained that a more effectual safeguard
would be afforded against vindictive prcceedings, by the
inquiries before police magistrates, than exists under
the present defective and objectionable system. It is,
therefore, of paramount importance that magistrates
' should distinctly and positively discountenance specu-
lative proceedings, and refuse to grant warrants
to arrest or to detain parties where sufficient evidence
of legal guilt is not produced before them.
Cases may undoubtedly arise where the presiding
justice would be authorised to remand the parties for
a reasonable time, when it had been distinctly and
positively proved that a grave violation of the law had
taken place, and that there were strong grounds for
believing that the offence could be brought home to
the accused by the testimony of witnesses who might
be forthcoming within a brief period. But the
power should be sparingly exercised, and never unless
the commission of the offence had been clearly esta-
blished, and there were probable grounds for supposing,
from the magnitude of the offence, the severity of the
punishment that would attend a conviction, and the
position of the accused, that justice might be defeated
by his or her departure from the British dominions.
But the general rule should be that no detention or
remand should take place unless a grand jury would
find a true bill on the evidence.
No such bill could, however, be found in the
present instance. In the first place, the evidence on
behalf of the prosecution failed to show that there had
been any violation of the law. It was not, nor could
it be proved that Captain JAMES was living on the
17th day of July. The appearance of his name in
the Army List, even after the marriage, would be
insufficient. He might have been absent from his
regiment for many months without any intelligence
having been received respecting him ; he might have
died long before his name would be erased from the
effective list of the army. To justify even a remand,
it should be proved that the former husband of the
Countess was living on the 17th of July, and not
that a person of the same name appeared in the
Army List five weeks before the marriage. To require
bail on such meagre and unsatisfactory evidence was
to reverse the usual course, and to compel parties
against whom no case had been established to pro-
duce evidence of their innocence, a proceeding preg-
nant with the most dangerous and pernicious conse-
\
L quences.

But we contend that evcn if there had been the most
satisfactory evidence of the existence of the former
husband of this lady on the day of her subsequent
marriage, no conviction could possibly take place.
By the statute relating to bigamy (9 George IV., c.
31, s. 22) it is expressly provided, " that nothing
herein contained shall extend to any person marrying
a second time, whose husband or wife shall have
been continually absent from such person for the
space of seven years then last past, and shall not have
been known by such person to have been living within
that time, or shall extend to any person who, at the

time of such second marriage, shall have been
divorced from the bond of the first marriage." Now,
it was proved by Captain INGRAM, on the part of the
prosecution, that he had brought the lady home from
India in the year 1841, nearly eight years previous
to her recent marriage. During that long interval
Captain JAMES had been " continually absent from
her," and there was not a particle of proof, not even
a suggestion, that there had been any communication
whatsoever between them, or that she was aware of
his existence from the period of their separation. On
that ground, therefore, if the case were established in
every other particular, an acquittal should necessarily
take place, and the magistrate would, consequently,
not be warranted in subjecting the lady to the expo-
sure and inconvenience of a public trial, or even of
holding her to bail, when there could be no reasonable
doubt of the result.

Again a sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro, pro-
nounced by the Ecclesiastical Court in the year 1842,
was produced on the part of the prosecution. Could
a conviction be anticipated in the face of such evidence?
How could a person totally ignorant of law be sup.
posed to understand the nice distinction between a
divorce a vinczdo matrimonio and one a mensa ct thoro
She knew that the divorce was pronounced by a court
of competent jurisdiction, that from that period every
tie between her quondam partner and herself had
been rent asunder—that they possessed no further
claims upon each other. Could she then suppose
that she was not perfectly free to enter into a second
connexion ; or that, by so doing, she would trangress
the law in any particular ? The felonious in-
tention a necessary ingredient in the offence—
was altogether wanting, and, as according to the well-
known legal maxim recently quoted by a respected
correspondent on this subject, intentzo facit reum,
she should be acquitted on this ground also ; and,
therefore, she should not have been held to bail where
she gould bring forward so valid and satisfactory a
defence.
Mr. BINGHAM should have dismissed the charge
then on three distinct grounds :-Ist, Because no
evidence was adduced that her former husband was
living at the time of the second marriage ; 2dly, Be-
cause it was proved that she had been continually
absent from him for nearly eight years previous to the
second marriage, and that there was not even a sug-
gestion that she had any communication with him,
or knew him to be living within that time ; 3dly,
That she had been divorced by a court of competent
jurisdiction seven years previously, and could not
have supposed that she was guilty of any crime in
entering into a second marriage.
One excuse, and one only, can be offered for Mr.
BINGHAM (to whose general ability and efficiency in
the discharge of his important duties we are happy to
be enabled tolbear our testimony). The counsel for the
f e fen dant actually requested that "his client should
be admitted to bail," which he declared her readiness
to perfect, in place of insisting upon her right to an im-
mediate and unconditional discharge. Mr. BINGHAM,

therefore, perhaps felt himself justified in requiring
the bail which he would not otherwise have thought
of demanding. We feel, however, that notwithstand-
ing that extenuating circumstance, a dangerous pre-
cedent has been established, against which it is our
duty to enter our earnest protest, especially as it is
the more pernicious when created by so efficient a
magistrate and sound a lawyer as Mr. BINGHAM.
We trust, therefore, that Mr. HEALD and the
Countess of LANSFELDT may appear within a brief
space before the magistrate, and insist upon the case
being either summarily dismissed or rent fur trial.
Such a charge should not be permitted to remain sus-
pended over the parties for an indefinite period, or,
according to the modest application of the counsel for
the prosecution, " until the prosecutor can get the
proper witnesses from India to come forward." Such
a restriction upon the lady's freedom, prohibiting her
from travelling or leaving the country, is mcst im-
proper, and should be resisted not only on private
but on public grounds. If she comes forward an
acquittal must take place; and she will thus be for
ever freed from all annoyance on the subject.
We cannot conclude without briefly noticing the
rumour that the Marquis of LONDONDERRY has taken
steps to recommend to her MAJESTY that Mr.
E ,k 1,131 S resignation of his commission should be
insisted on. We know not what may be the portion
of the military code against which Mr. HEALD has
offended. We could scarcely have suppo,ed that
officers in her MAJESTY'S service were living under
uch a despotism that they should be compelled to
,olicit permission to get married, or their colonel's
approbation of their choice. We confess that the
result of the recent court-martial on Captain
DOUGLAS, to which we have repeatedly alluded,
struck us with some astonish►uent, as show-
ing how precarious the position in which the
most meritorious officer is placed, and how great
are the facilities for bringing forward frivolous
and vexatious charges ; but we could scarcely have
imagined that tyranny could be carried to such an
extent as to compel the resignation, and thus to inflict
an indelible stain on the character of a young officer,
without even the shadow of a charge being preferred
against him. Such tyrannical and unconstitutional
proceedings have the effect of bringing an honourable
service into discredit and disrespute; they cannot,
however, be tolerated much longer, and an obstinate
persistance therein will excite the public indignation,
and lead to the speedy establishment of a more judi-
cious and equitable system.