The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-13 00:00:00

BPIRIT Or THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Saturday Beview, in commenting on' the Married
'Women's Property Bill, observes that the various conse-
quences of giving a married woman the rights and liabili-
ties of a femme sole have perhaps not been fully considered
by Mr. Lefevre. In many cases creditors would object
to a transfer of security from the husband to the wife ; and
it is scarcely desirable that a perverse woman should be
able to refuse her contribution to the expenses of the
household. The undoubted liability of women to become
victims of imposture is not perhaps in itself a sufficient
reason for the maintenance of an exceptional law. The
pecuniary ruin of a family is more often caused by the
husband than by the wife, but the chances of a catastrophe
will be multiplied when both parties are equally at
liberty to speculate and to spend. Marriage is a partner-
ship of a very 'peculiar kind, and it has not yet been ascer-
tained that an indissoluble firm can prosper on principles
of absolute equality. When two men ride on a horse, one
must ride behind ; nor would Mr. Mill himself reverse the
relation of the sexes, although he is prepared to remodel
it. The proposition that women are equal to men, if it
were generally accepted, would, among other results, con-
vert marriage into an absurdity. Disparity is an indis-
pensable condtion of the closest possible union ; and the
rights of the weaker sex ought to be regulated in detail, in.
stead of being defined as identical with those of men.
In the general controversy, Mr. Lefevre and his
supporters have the best of the argument, but
no sufficient answer has yet been given to the special
objections which were urged by the Attorney-General.
As a general rule, married women ought to be allowed to
leave their property by will ; but it matters comparatively
little whether a right, frequently reserved by marriage
settlement, is extended to all classes. Among the poorer
class, the only women who are likely to accumulate con-
siderable sums of money are domestic servants who have
from various causes lived apart from their husbands. If
there are children of the marriage, the mother ought to be
allowed to provide for them to the extent of her means ;
and the cases in which strangers would become the objects
of a misapplied bounty would be too rare to require legis-
lative interference. If the select committee on Mr.
Lefevre's bill proceeds with the inquiry during the
present session, it will do well to obtain, if possible, suffi-
cient evidence of the feelings of the mass of the people in
different parts of the kingdom. No Act will be operative
or advantageous unless it represents with tolerable fidelity
the opinions both of the husbands and of the wives whom
it will chiefly affect. Mr. Jacob Blight, and some of the
other speakers in the debate, may not improbably have
been accurate in their statements, but general assertions
ought to be tested by impartial investigation. In a great
majority of cases, legis7ative changes which concern
social and domestic relations are unpopular and unintel-
ligible. Whatever may be the decision of rarliament, the
husband or the wife will in the great majority of instances
keep the purse according to the former custom of the
family and the neighbourhood. When the earnings of
either or both are carried off to the public-house, the
money is taken, not by legal right, but in virtue of irre-
sistible force ; and when the law is changed, a good and
prudent woman will be slow to appeal to a magistrate for
protection. In time, perhaps, practice may more or less,
adapt itself to an improved theory ; and meanwhile gross
cases of oppression and extortion may perhaps be reached
by law. A desire to do justice to women is perfectly con-
sistent with a profound conviction that neither law nor
declamation can make them the equals of men.

The Sfectutor is very severe on Mr. Justice Blackburn
for his celebrated charge on Governor Eyre's case. He
had given the authority of Lis colleagues to three legal
doctrines which were not only not shared by his brethren
in the Queen's Bench, but either emphatically repudiated
or gravely distrusted by the most distinguished of them—
(1) that martial law in the modern meaning of the term
was ever exercised in this country with any pretence of
legality against civilians not taken in arms ; (2) that the
Jamaica statutes authorised martial law in any other
sense than by compelling the inhabitants to military ser-
vice, and subjecting them while in it to military law ;
(3) in justifying the removal of Mr. Gordon and the other
five prisoners from a region not subjected to martial law
to a proclaimed district, and there summarily trying or
imprisoning them. Moreover, on the last point, Mr.
Justice Blackburn not only misled the grand jury as to
the legal views of his colleagues, but misdirected them
in their practical conclusion. The Chief Justice and the.
majority of the court must have directed them to find e,
true bill on the count charging Mr. Eyre with illegal am'
unjustifiable conduct towards these six men—for which
conduct Mr. Eyre not only had, but claimed the sole
responsibility, not even affecting to act under legal advice
in what he did—and probably also the court would
have indicated clearly enough the Chief Justice's opinion
that a true bill should also be found on the count charging
Mr. Eyre with needlessly prolonging _the duration of
martial law after the insurrection was suppressed. On
the whole, it is impossible to conceive a greater amount of
misrepresentation, both in legal doctrine and in practical
direction, than Mr. Justice Blackburn, owing, no doubt,
to the overpowering force of his prepossessions, was guilty
of in this case. If the Chief Justice had not openly dis-
avowed his colleague and corrected the statements he had
made, he would have been not only unjust to his own
reputation, but infinitely more unjust to his country. As

it is, his authority will, we hope, do much to counteract
the mischiefs of Mr. Justice Blackburn's charge. The
Times says that the great lawyers of the country are
almost equally divided as to the legality of Mr. Eyre's

proceedings. So far is this from being true, that of the
great legal authorities who have been judicially concerned
in this case, five have been clear for the necessity of a
judicial investigation, and only one has charged in a con-
trary direction. We know that Sir Thomas Henry, Mr.
Vaughan, and three of the judges of the Queen's Bench—
the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Hannen, and Mr. Justice
Lush—all hold that there was strong prinid facie evidence
for trial. The majority of the grand juries,whounderstand,
apparently, nothing of the law, and less of justice, are on
the other side—the side of Mr. Justice Blackburn ; but
what the great majority of our great lawyers think is no
longer doubtful.

The Imperial .Review admits that, even after the evisce-
ration of its more important provisions, Conservative
interests will gain by the Boundary Bill. Whether these
would not gain even more by the postponement of the
question to another year it is not quite so easy to decide.
But as a boundary bill of some sort or other is considered
a necessary supplement to any great measure of Parlia-
mentary Reform, it is scarcely possible for the Govern-
ment to withdraw it now without laying themselves open
to a charge of procrastination as regards the coming dis-
solution. It is to be hoped that the sense of the House
may be again taken, either when the report of the
committee comes to be considered, or even when the
Lords' amendments have to be discussed, at least so far
as cases like Birmingham, Nottingham, and Portsmouth
are concerned. Ministers are indeed bound, in the
anomalous state of things which has succeeded Mr. Glad.
stone's majorities on the Irish Church question, to apply
themselves merely to concluding as quickly as may be the
public business of the session. lint there can be no reaso:
why other members of the Constitutional party should no
enter a vigorous protest against a course of proceeding
which makes the bill little better than useless. The
division list was not so low, nor the majority so over-
whelming, on Thursday, as to make all efforts to resusci-
tate the lost clauses altogether hopeless. And though it
would be too sanguine to expect that Mr. Bright will ever
tome to be ashamed of his course, tile effect of public
opinion (so long as discussion is kept up) cannot fail to
influence many members of the Opposition, who must feel
themselves rather out of their element in restricting the
franchise and maintaining the existing order of things.
fhe main share of the blame due to those who have upset
the report of the commissioners is, however, by general
s.ensent, to be assigned to one person, and that one fron.
whom the Constitutional party had certainly a right to
expect better treatment. To Mr. Walpole, beyond any
room for doubt, we owe the vote substantiating the
suggestions of the select committee. And it is to the
senior member for the University of Cambridge that the
Radical party, with charming candour, are quite willing
to ascribe their triumph. We have no wish, by any censure
of our own, to embitter a position so painful.
The London Review notes that defective as it is in
several respects, it becomes every day more apparent that
the new law on the French press, which is now just coming
into operation, marks a great advance in the progress of
Liberal ideas among the official Owes. The very general
feeling of scepticism with which the English public
several years ago received Louis Napoleon's assurance
that in the end Liberty would " crown the edifice,"
seems now not to have been so well founded as most
people at the time believed. It is true that much yet
remains to be done, but the improvement is manifest and
indisputable. Even before the Emperor's famous letter
of January 19, 1867, a gradual eoftening of the early
rigours of the Imperial Government had been going
on for some years, and the document in question
indicated a further approximation on the part of the
head of the State towards those principles of freedom
which he has never denied in words, but which he hat
often set aside in practice. Injudicious supporters, inure
Imperial than the Emperor himself, have delayed the car•
rying out of the designsshadowed forth in that manifesto
~
but the Emperor was evidently determined to have
way, and the firmness with which he has stood by his on
ginal projects is a good earnest of the sincerity of his in-
tentions. The reforms suggested in the Imperial lette;
have now become law, and there is reason to believe that
they will be frankly, and energetically carried out. What
ever he may he, Ntipoleon 111. is certainly not a fool, and
he must see that the present tendency of nations over the
whole of civilised Europe is towards a more active partici
pation of the people in the nianagement of public affairs.
Ms own system is democratic, and so far it has antici
bated, and perhaps aided, the extension of democracy into
other countries of the Eastern hemisphere. But hitherto
the NapOleonic ideas have been more in favour of equality •
than of freedom, and the ,clay is evidently coining when
the two principles must be united in all States desirous of
maintaining their place among the progressive Powers .
the world. It is a mistake to suppose that either is sufil
cleat by itself. They are not rivals, but fellow-workeri
towards one beneficent end. Each is the cora-
plement of the other ; and in the great correla-
tion of political Forces it may be said that equality
saves us from aristocratic exelitsiveness and freedom from
bureaucratic restraii t. It is but just to the Emperor
Napoleon to recollect t at from the first he contemplated
this union of these two principles in his scheme of govern-
ment, though freedom was adjourned sine die, and, in the
outset, only equality was secured. -