The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-30 00:00:00

2'HE DIVORCE COURT.

Since the doors of the Star Chamber were closed
we have had no secret tribunal in this country, and
it is rather late in the day to attempt a revival in
any form of an institution so obnoxious to the
feelings and dangerous to the interests of a free
people. Lord John Manners has, however, re-
solved to make the attempt. He has given notice
that to-morrow week he will move for leave to
bring in a bill enabling the Court for Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes to hold its sittings
with closed doors. This effort of the noble lord
in favour of an obsolete and mischievous practice
is perhaps not altogether surprising. As a poli-
tical archreologist he looks with a kindly eye on
medieval institutions, while as a nobleman ho natu-
rally resents the popularising of a privilege hitherto
restricted very much to his own order. I3oth as a
high churchman and a staunch conservative, in his
sight the Divorce Court is simply an abomination,
and there being no chance of its suppression, he
would fain reduce it to silence. No doubt there are
some who will sympathise with the noble lord in
his crusade against judicial publicity. The friends
of ecclesiastical despotism, for example, are the na-
tural enemies of a lay tribunal that presumes to
decide on what they regard as a religious question.
Mr. Bowyer frankly confesses that as a Catholic he
is on principle opposed to the Divorce Court, and as
it cannot be abolished he is of course for reducing
it to silence by all means. We are far frarn main-
taining that there is nothing whatever to be said ii
favour of such a course. On the contrary, were it ever
expedient for public justice to be administered with
closed doors, the Court in question would no doubt
supply the strongest reasons for such an exceptional
practice. Its revelations are generally far more dis-
gusting than instructive. They bring into repulsive
prominence the vices and follies that in our ordinary
social life are most carefullyconcealed; they present
continually the miserable spectacle of broken faith,
bleeding hearts, and desolate homes; of fraud,
cruelty, meanness, and revenge in the most intimate
and sacred relationship of life; of union without love,
or passionate affection turned to bitterest hate. The
Court is, in fact, a living satire not only on our
vaunted domestic life but on our national civilisa-
tion, suggesting that home is a mockery, matrimo-
nial fidelity:a delusion, and mutt* it affection a dream.
No right•minded man can take any pleasure in finch
revelations, or desire them to obtain any extended
circulation. The cynic may, indeed, rejoice at the
ample material thus supplied for pointing his usual
moral ; but every generous and manly heart will
mourn at the dark side of our social life which the
Divorce Court reveals.
It must be remembered, however, that this is not
peculiar to one Court. We do not expect courts of
justice to exhibit the best side of human nature.
Laws are made for transgressors, and the whole
machinery for enforcing them presupposes offences
and offenders. Revelations quite as saddening and
repulsive as those of the Divorce Court are made
in other courts as well. But this is no sufficient
ground whatever for surrendering that publicity
which reason and experience alike prove to be one
of the most efficient safeguards for the impartial
administration of justice. There may be incidental
evils connected with this publicity, but they are as
nothing compared with the graver mischiefs and
dangers which secret tribunals directly tend to pro-
duce. Every good institution, every healthful prac-
tice is liable to abuse, and the open doors of the
court rof justice may now and then, especially
in criminal trials, be turned to injurious account.
The details of the cases are sometimes unfit for
publication, and often, when not absolutely impure,
would be much better curtailed if not altogether
suppressed. Publication in the newspapers is not a
necessary guarantee of justice, like the openness of
the Court. Wherever a responsible reporter for the
newspapers is present there is what may be called a
potential publication, which answers some of the
most important ends contemplated in the printing
of reports of courts of justice. No doubt many of
the cases reported are most unsuitable for family
reading, and if generally perused would do more
harm than good. This is peculiary the case with
the proceedings of the Divorce Court. But the evil
cannot be met by legislation ; it must be left to the
correctiue action of public opinion and the discre-
tion of the press. We cannot deny the central
principle of liberty and reverse the basis of our ad-
ministration of justice, because of the trifling
inconveniences that may attend it. Imperfections
and evils are inevitable in all human institutions,
but they are reduced to the lowest amount and are
of the least formidable kind in those of a liberal
type. Publicity does not create the evils that
shock the tender susceptibilities and offend
the refined taste of sickly moralists ; it simply
reveals them, and a full knowledge of
the disease is half the cure. Under free
institutions the vices of ou; pril ate and the abuses
of our public life, instead of being suppressed, are
brought into the light of day. But the publicity
that reveals and seems to exaggerate them supplies
also the most direct and powerful cure. The morbid
elements, being brought to the surface, are in a fair
way of being thrown off by the healthful action of
the whole system, instead of preying; in secret on
its I tal cent res. Political valetudinarians may,
indeed, prefer the fatal quietude of decay to the rude
vigour end irregular activity of popular health. But
every freeman knows that the evils complained of
are only the signs of life, and that at the worst they
arc nothing in comparison with the deadly mischiefs
that flourish within the silence of closed doors, and
grow to gigantic proportions under the dark shadow
of arbitrary power. The Pharisees of public life are
always scrupulously nice in externals, but the occa-
sional turbulence of publicans and sinners is infi-
nitely preferable to the dead calm of whited
sepulchres. In a word, the short-sighted ostrich
policy of concealment can serve no good purpose in
any department of public life, least of all in the ad-
ministration of justice. Let us know the worst by
all means, and we may then strive to mend and
gradually work towards a better state. The argu-
ments now urged against the publicity of judicial
proceedings are precisely the same as those formerly
adopted against the freedom of the press. Where
the press is free its liberty may sometimes degene-
rate into license. Where justice is administered
with open doors its proceedings may sometimes
tend rather to disgust than to edify. Who,
however, that understands the true principles of
liberty would on this account place a legislative
bar on the freedom of the one or the publicity of
she other? Such restrictions never can succeed;
and if they could, they would prove injurious
just in proportion to their success. The only ar-
guments in their favour rest on the false assump-
tion that ignorance is virtue, and childish imbeci-
lity better than manly strength. The noble words
spoken by CromwelPs Latin Secretary to the friends
of Censorship in the days of the Commonwealth
equally apply now to the enemies of publicity.
" I cannot," says Milton, " praise a fugitive and
cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed,
that never sallies out and seeks her adver,sary, but
slinks out of the race where that immortal gar-
land is to be run for, not without dust and
heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into
the world, we bring impurity much rather;
that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by
what is contrary. That virtue, therefore, which
is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil,
and knows not the utmost that vice promises t•her
followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not
a pure."
Besides, even the revelations of the Divorce
Court are by no means an unmixed evil. No doubt
they touch ns in a tender part, but it is also a vital
one, being essential to the strength and security of
the social fabric. They bring into prominence one
of the worst features of modern life—the false and
commercial estimate of the marriage relation which
has growingly prevailed of late years, especially
result reflected in the ly
res amongstl thebetter
tragic classesofm
society.irror
of
We
Court. These scandalous revelations, thesee
Divorce
which have
given it such an evil repute, aro but the inevitable
Nemesis of mercenary, profligate,and ill-assorted
unions. If they inspire horror and disgust, no
much the better. The feeling is salutary, and may
prove corrective.
Those who dread such Beetles
They will reflect before em-
ee'dfilnlogsse
of . ther ey
Court
engagements,
and display some mutual forbearance in fulfilling
blweaairldklsiobtgoe tilhni ekmel.yto avoid the way of life that
the most sacred of
N
them. The knowledge that redress is within reach,
but only to be obtained by publicity, will help to
evils
arelstlwgrecao;
due to the previous want of publicity
pplraoidnuecdeoftliinist lrieespurlote.
is crowded
u
with cases which have grown •It
p under the old
system when relief was praetie lly hopeless, and all
prospect of ruconciliat ion, therefore,
vain.'l'u those
who have dragged with frantic desperation at a
hopeless chin and lacerated each other for scare in
the struggle, the relief of the new Court is wel-
come, even at any cost of publicity and damaged
reputation. But to others surely such examples
arc likely to operate as a useful warning. On the
ground, therefore, both of principle and expediency,
we protest against Lord John Manners's attempt to
close t he doors of the Court, and we are glad to see
that Mr. Edwin James has given notice that, on
leave being asked to introduce the proposed mea-
sure, he will move the previous question.—Doily
News.

THE MURDERS ON BOARD THE AMERICAN SHIP
ANNA..—SOUTIIAMPTON, Friday.—The two mates' of the
Anna, Lano and Hires, were again brought before the
borough magistrates this morning, and further remanded
till Tuesday next, on the application of Mr. W. Thomson,
the United States Consul, who stated that he had not yet
received the requisite authority from the Secretary of State%