The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MOR IN G, JUNE 6, 1870.

the petition, it ought to do so after hearing all the

not the places usually frequented by our
patricians. It needs other measures to eave
our golden youth from their own folly. What is to
be done ? The Jockey Club is asked to interfere.
This, is very like asking pavinbrokers to put down
pickpockets. Then Mr. HUGHES brings in a bill,
but the bill meets with small favour from
statesmen of the Lord ROYSTON stamp, who
claimed the votes of the electors of Cambridgeshire,
because a vixen fox had littered on his father's
estate. The bill does not prosper, and is supposed to
be withdrawn. At the same time there comes a
rumour—a rumour terrible to the hawks—that
Ministers are going to take the matter up and
bring in a measure of their own. People fond of
putting two and two together point to Mr.
GLADSTONE'S appearance on the Grand Stand on
Wednesday—his first appearance on any Grand Stand,
some persons say—and they infer that he went down
in order to spy out the wickedness of the land.
They are confirmed in their opinion by the
strong and unusually censorious tone adopted towards
the national holiday and all its surroundings by
journals that hitherto have always sung its praises.
We trust that these clever inductive philosophers may
be right. We are not democratic enough to rejoice
in the spectacle of Dukes in the ignoble arena of
Basinghall-street. We have no desire to see the oldest
nobility in Europe fall victims one by one to the
Affable Hawks who frequent the region about
Berkeley-square.

facts and deciding upon them as, a whole, not to
stop the proceedings on the threshold simply because

of the accident of insanity.

Such are the opposing arguments, and the task of
striking a balance between them is not easy. Never-

,heless the emleavoup must be made.

Either

decision carries with it a certain amount of disad-

vantage; the question to be decided is on which side

does the balance of utility fall. There is, as Mr.
Justice KEATING points out, a danger lest
judgments in divorce cases pending the
insanity of one of the parties may frequently prove
erroneous. The insane person may possibly be in

possession of evidence which no one else can furnish,
and which may quite alter the bearings of the case.
The formation of conspftacies to get rid of insane wives
is a contingency which it is needful to provide against.
There would be every inducement to such conspira-
cies. It is, unfortunately, indisputable that some men
would so far forget their duty as to regard a demented
partner as a burden awl a restraint, to be cheerfully
got rid of, if her defenceless condition permitted the
secure perpetration of such a fraud. This iniquity
would, however, be beset by great difficulties in practice.
The experiment would be, to say the least, extremely
hazardous. And if such fraud is possible on the one
side, the principle that insanity is a bar to a divorce
suit opens the door to evil practices on the other.

The successful simulation of insanity is not an impos•

sibility. In high life especially the penalty attach-
ing to the offence in question is so dreadfully severe
that any resource would be welcomed, any attempt
would be made, in order to escape it. Still more probable
is the danger of insanity really resulting from the agony

Crourt

•,, 11.4:441 •

of exposure and disgrace. In such a case the offence
may be notorious, the right of the injured person to

redress unquestionable, but accident throws him
beyond the pale of the law, and whilst others secure
the liberty which is legally their due, he, suffers, the
double injury of bondage to an insane person
who has injured him. This danger may
not be great ; but it cannot well be less than the
probability that one party to a marriage would invent
a fictitious charge under cover of the other's insanity.
In discussing the chance of injustice to the insane
person, Mr. Justice KEATING seems to have over-
looked one important consideration—the co-respon-
dent. This personage figures in most divorce
suits, and so long as he is a party there can be little
fear of conspiracy. He has as much interest in pro-
tecting himself as the respondent, and most means
of defence will be at his command. If strict condi-
tions of proof be insisted on, it is not easy
to conceive of justice failing. In former times
the action (for damages) was brought solely against
the co-respondent, and the position of the wife.
whether sane or otherwise. mattered nothing. A
divorce is even now granted against a person who is
absent, and who refuses to appear; and although Mr.
Justice KEATING draws a distinction hetween the
two cases, the fact remains that the suit proceeds, and
terminates without ,any consultation of one of the
chief parties.
The argument's on the question whether a divorce
suit partakes more of the nature of a civil or a cri-
minal 40tion, are in favour of the CHIEB BiknoN.
A civil acticlu is an s'etion for *dress ; 4he chief
dbject of criminal proceedings is to punish.
It rarely happens, indeed, that any redress for crimes
can be obtained. ganging does not compensate the
victim of a murder. The property taken in
robberies is frequently lost beyond recovery.
In these cases the sole mission of the law
is to administer punishment to the offender
and thereby terrify other evil-doers. A petition for
dissolution of marriage does not partake of this
nature. Its primary object is, as in any- ordinary
civil case, redress. It is to relieve the petitioner of
the burden of a wife or husband who is not worthy
of the trust reposed in them, to guard
against imposing spurious issue on the husband,
to give the innocent party the chance of enjoying
the domestic happiness of which they have been
robbed. It is true that severe punishment to the
offender is involved in securing this re-
dress to the offended. But it is involved only
as an accident. It is not the primary
object; and, indeed, had punishment only been
in contemplation, the divorce law would have
remained unaltered. The court might, in case of
insanity, take special precautions against miscarriage
of justice ; for instance, it might insist that in all
cases of insanity the suit should take the form
of a specific charge against some corespondent,
thus debarring general plaints of bad conduct, and
bringing in, as it were, some defendant to represent
the insane person. Stricter conditions of proof should
be required. In short, the law directs that the court
should " satisfy itself "on all the matters concern-
ing which the Act provides ; and if it cannot
so satisfy itself without the evidence of the
wife, the simple remedy is to suspend the suit. The
whole case should be put before the court, and its
decision should give full weight to the consideration
that the wife cannot appear. This seems a prefer-
able course to arbitrarily staying the proceedings.
On the whole, the balance of argument rests in
favour of the single judge,

Two years ago the Derby was witnessed by a
young marquis who had been compelled to sell one
after another of his ancestral estates, and who
hoped to retrieve his fortunes by a tardy
success. Another disappointment, further disasters
awaited him, and a little later he lay dead,
worn out in less than five and twenty years. A year
later it was a duke whose losses were the theme of
every gossip. He bore an honoured name—a name
associated with statesmanship and philanthropy.
But the Duke of NEWCASTLE had turned his back
upon the path which his father had taken—
. had chosen a path of his own, the path
of pleasure, the path of ruin. He is not dead but he
is a bankrupt, and is serf banished from his own
country. A. bankrupt duke—that is a new
thing ; but before we have had time to get
accustomed to it we have had the spectacle of
a bankrupt viscount. As the Derby of 1868 had
its Marquis of HASTINGS, and the Derby of
1869, its Duke of NEWCASTLE, SO the Derby of
' 1870, has had itsVistount COUBTENAY. Not that the
71.944 of these noblemen was present at Itsore en
Wednqtlay. Enghtn4 is not kir Ogre 'Aare lie cum
cemvectiently remain ituit now. 13ett the lilt Vtiy week
has seen him before the Registrar. He tab, like his
friend, the ex-lord of °lumber, is going 151arough the
Bankruptey Court, and a melancholy balance-sheet,
it is which he has to send in. Seven hundred thou-
sand pounds gone—gone to the Jews, gone to Gentile
blacklegs, spent on the Epsom Downs, spent
in the chaste regions of Panton-street ; due
to horsey friends of his own rank in life ;
due to his own relatives, who can scarcely
hope to see their money again ; due to creditors
who have taken care to obtain good security in the
estates held by his ancient family for many a
century—the estates which the present owner has
been toiling hard all through his life to relieve ftom
the heavy burdens laid upon them by a former pos-
sessor, only to find that he has laboured in vain and
spent his strength for naught.
Surely, then, it is no wonder that both the Press
and Parliament are beginning to cry out, and to take
. vigorous measures. The raids upon the betting-
'' houses were the first step ; but betting-
blouses of the kind put down by the police are

SPIRIT OF THE PRESS.

LONDON PAUPERISM.

The Times, in discussing Sir C. 3'revelyan's letter on
pauperism, says there is something better than organising
large charitable societies, and that is to limit their
action as much as possible. A large society is
apt to become a large carcass, and to be a
mere bait to our social vultures. By passing through
official hands the gift loses the redeeming influence
of personal kindness, and the recipient regards it,
not as charity, but as a largess to which he has a right.
Some of the most experienced and most sorely burdened
clergy at the East-end have begun to ask to be left alone,
as a less evil than being recklessly assistei by the West.
If, instead of grumbling, or instead of rushing off into
a district three miles off in the romantic pursuit of
heartrending destitution, such people would interest
themselves in the poor with whom they come in
contact, or would work patiently on Relief Committees in
their own parishes, the chief difficulties of this question
would be solved. In the long run, nothing but steady
personal labour in the discharge of personal responsibility,
will distribute charity in fruitful channels, or heal the
divisions of modern society.