On this page
-
Text (2)
-
826 T H E L E AJDjSJ R. [Satorday,
-
THE NORTON CASE AND THE LAW OF DIVORCE. ...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
* Those Pnporh Appear In Tho Roconuv Pub...
tobe relieved from the cruel and corrupt rule of the Spaniards , and to be annexed to the United States . The examples of benefit derived to other States by the annexation would naturally suggest stich a desire : Florida , Louisiana , Texas , have all shown in the development of their commercial as well as their political prosperity' —in the material eomfort as well as the independence and freedom of their inhabitants , how much more
beneficial is the rule of the republic than that of France or Mexico . To be a despised and enchained dependency , or to be a great state Pthat is the question for Cuba ; as it Avas for Texas . And while the Cubans may naturally desire to share in the wealth and greatness of the republic , the Americans not less naturally desire to vindicate the supremacy of their own republic by new conquests .
This desire on both sides gave rise to that movement which ultimately became embodied in the Order of the Lone Star , and which we believe will not cease even after Cuba shall have been annexed . The rumours occasioned great uneasiness to Spain , and representations were made to the Government at Washington . That Government discountenanced piratical attacks ; but inasmuch as it did not prevent the annexation of Texas or New Mexico , doubts were entertained of its good faith . Spain appealed to France and
Great Britain , and those Governments invited the United States to i oin in a declaration of all three , that they would not countenance the possession of Cuba by any other power save Spain . The United States Government declined , and pending the negotiation , before the refusal was ultimately given , the Spanish Government , through the Sefior Isturitz , asked the British Government to join with that of France in a declaration that those two Governments " would never allow any other Power , either European or American , at any time to possess itself of the island of Cuba , either by cession , alienation ,
conquest , or insurrection of the same . " Thus there was an idea in the Spanish Government of inviting the Governments of France and England to guarantee the possession of Cuba against conquest by any Power , against insurrection of the inhabitants under any Government , however bad , or even against cession—against the weakness of the Government itself ! Such an idea exhibits at once the preposterous lengths to which these contracts between royal families and bureaux may be extended , and the total want of confidence which the Spanish Government has in itself .
The United States Government naturally refused to join in the declaration . In the first place , because the Americans , having the desire to possess Cuba if ifc should come to them legitimately , cannot be expected to disclaim it for ever . In the second p lace the Government of one period cannot pledge the Government of a succeeding period . In the third place , should war happen to break out , we have already stated the grounds on which the American Government would be obliged to hold some certainty with regard to tho friendly occupation of Cuba . And in the fourth place , that very Marquis de Miraflores
who was inviting tho French and English Governments to guarantee Cuba even against cession , received with satisfaction certain overtures from the American l'cprescntativc at Madrid , Mr . Romulus M . Saundera , towards a possible sale of Cuba to tho United States for a sum of money . Under theso circumstances it would bo impossible for the United States to make the negative plcdgo demanded of it ; and Mr . Crampton , in a communication to the Karl of Clarendon on the 18 th April , states , as tho result of an interview with Mr . Marcy , the now Secretary of State under President Pierce , that tho question ia now definitively closed .
] 3 ut in expounding tho reasons why tho United States could not join in the tripartite disclaimer , Mr . Everett , to repeat ; 'tho words of Lord John " . Russell , did show " that the United States have an interest in Cuba to which France and Great Britain cannot protend . " In reply , Lord John ' . Russell , with an nil * of simple astonishment ,
represents that Franco and England , " tho only Powers avIio could bo rivuls with tho United States for tho possession of Cuba , " were willing to disclaim it for themselves ; but all the reasons for a superior interest which we havo explained , as possessing so much force with tho United States , are destitute of force as applied oither to France or England . Thoro has been no
progressive annexation ; there is no desire m Cuba to be annexed to England , still less to France ; and above all , Cuba does not stand in the midst of the Thames , or of the Seine , or of the bt . Lawrence . : . .. ¦ . kord John Russell appears to think that ne meets this part of the subject by a measurement of distances . " The distance of Cuba from the nearest part of the terr
ritory of the United States , viz ., from the southernmost part of Florida , is 110 miles . " An island at an equal distance from the mouth ot the Thames would be placed about ten miles north of Antwerp , in Belgium ; while an island at the same distance from Jamaica would be placed at M anzanilla , a town m Cuba . " Thus there are no grounds for saying that the possession of Cuba by Great Britain or France would be menacing to the U nited States , but that its possession by the United States would not be so to Great Britain . "
This is amusing . We can imagine a parallel case in England : A man , occupying a small house at the entrance of your garden gate , might claim to an equal possession of the key of that gate , because it was only forty or fifty yards from the window of his house or the cupboard of a neighbour ' s on the other side , to the lock of that gate ; whereas , from the lock to your own street door it would be sixty feet . But there is another argument employed by the United States Secretary of State " which appears to her Majesty ' s
Government not only unfounded but disquieting : " Lord Malmesbury and M . de Turgot put forward , as a reason for entering into the proposed compact , ' the attacks which have lately been made on the Island of Cuba by lawless bands of adventurers from the United States , and with the avowed design of taking possession of that island . ' To this reason , Mr . Everett replies in these terms : ' The President is convinced that the conclusion of such a treaty , instead of putting- a stop to these lawless proceedings , would give a new and powerful impulse to them . '
" The Government of Great Britain acknowledges with respect the conduct of the President in disavowing and discouraging the lawless attempts here referred to . The character qf those attempts , indeed , was such as to excite the reprobation of every civilized State . The spectacle of bands of men collected together in reckless disregard of treaties , for the purpose of making from the ports of the United States a piratical attack on the territory of a Power in amity with their own State ; and when there , endeavouring by armed invasion to excite the obedient to revolt
and the tranquil to disturbance , was a sight shocking , no doubt , to the just and honest principles of the President . But the statement made by the President , that a Convention duly signed and legally ratified , engaging to respect the present state of possession in all future time , would but excite these bands of pirates to more violent breaches of all the laws of honesty and good neighbourhood , is a melancholy avowal for the chief of a great State . Without disputing its truth , her Majesty ' s Government may express a hopo that this state of things will not endure . "
And then Lord John Hussell goes on to preach about " the law of nations" and Christianity He ought to know , however , that the Government of the United States may lead , but cannot compel , its " subjects ; " that it is not greater than the republic , but the servant of it ; and that the will of the great mass of that people is tho will of tho republic . President Pierce was chosen , not by some exclusive body to coerce his fellow-countrymen , but because he was supposed
to share tho feelings and convictions which they alrauty owned ; that he was willing to lead them , in short , according to their own convictions ; and theso convictions are shown , of course , in the spontaneous , not less than in the formal , efforts of the people . If annexation be shocking to English ideas , the Americans may point to tho result in the happy citizens of great and flourishing states , which would havo been miserable as Cuba or Mexico to this day , if they had remained unannexed .
826 T H E L E Ajdjsj R. [Satorday,
826 T H E L E AJDjSJ R . [ Satorday ,
The Norton Case And The Law Of Divorce. ...
THE NORTON CASE AND THE LAW OF DIVORCE . ~ Wr allude to tho case of Thrupp versus Norton on public grounds . Much might be made of it , us one of those instances which come to the surface , and which more than justify statements that have boon advanced in this journal us to the condition , of society in the relation of man and
woman ; and we believe that if this case were investigated more deeply , it would show soniothing further than m proved by tho bare facts ;—it would show tho « ort of opinion which may prevail nmongHt people of tho upper classes—tho kind of toleration which may bo shown in " the best society . " But let us take it , for tho moment , on the ground where Mrs . Norton puts it .
/ The case- mtcre . stn tho public beeauno it assumes a commercial form . " Because I am Mr . Norton ' s wife , " says tho lady , "ho can cheat mo ; and because 1 am Mr . ' Norton ' s wife . I can cheat
others . " This appears to be literally the caseand it is grounded on the circumstance that b ' the law of England a woman is supposed to havl no substantial existence . Thus , de facto , the Hon Mrs . Norton has been , maintaining a separatft household from her husband , but in law she is presumed still to belong to him , her property to be his property , and she incapable of carrvini * on her affairs independently . B While Mrs . Norton was still young , her husband brought an action , on the ground of " criminal conversation , " for damages , atrainsf
Lord Melbourne , and it is well remembered that notwithstanding the nefarious character of the evidence brought into court , —evidence of a kind that any true man would have been thought incapable of producing , —the verdict was against the plaintiff . Subsequently to that action— -at the instance , we believe , of her husband " —Mrs . Norton was for a time reconciled to him . Ifr ] Norton still holds the post given to him by Lord Melbourne , and when Tie and his wife separated , with some form , he entered into an
agreement to allow her 500 ? . a year . Her mother left her a bequest , ibr the purpose , Mrs . Norton says , of augmenting the small income allowed her by her husband . Mr . Norton is variously stated to make an . income of 2400 / . or 30002 . a ' year . Mrs . Norton had her allowance from her husband , her mother ' s bequest , which would perhaps be another 5002 . a , year , and what she could earn by her pen , —a varying source . Mr . Norton withholds her allowance on the plea , it is understood , that she no longer required it since her mother ' s bequest , and yet it does not appear that her income nearly equalled his .
Other pleas , however , are advanced to account for the retractation . One is , that Mrs . Norton had received an allowance under a bequest from Lord Melbourne , which she denies . And " inquiries " have been made of her publishers about her copyrights . Such are the facts which appear before the public . With the motives we can have nothing to do , but the circumstance that both sides have made a public appeal , authorizes us to deal with the facts .
In the first p lace , then , we find the wife deprived of civil rights , and enjoying , so to speak , a corresponding opportunity of swindling people , if she chooses . She may keep up the appearance of an independent establishment , bufc her husband may step in , and may meddle with her own earnings . No wonder that many women submit to intolerable slavery at home , when even the flying from home does not release them from slavery . Tradesmen , however , have some interest in this . Here is a marriage law which maintains rules in total defiance of commercial laws . No man
can be safe who trusts a lady , unless h e knows how she stands in her domestic relations . Sho may cheat him , as Mrs . Norton says ; her husband may cheat her j and there appears to bo no redress . But there is yet a further moral . It perp lexes us to know what can be the state of opinion and convictions , amongst innumerable persons who sustain injuries very much resembling those which came into court last week , who suffer from practical evils , and yet who continue t o suffer * without either boldly raising their voices to declare the evil , or without makincr any attempt
at concerted action , to procure redress . vVe can understand , indeed , the behaviour of persons who admit the evils , but think tho endurance a leaser ill than the consequences of altering existing laws . There are many who , on grounds not without their force , behove the indissoluble nature of our marriage law to be , in itself , so gop so productive of domestic happiness and morality * bui
in the majority of instances , that their own - ferings are not too groat a sacrifice for tho genera good . Although wo have never seen reasons advanced in support of such a conviction , wni / appeared to us to bo complete , yet , as the cony . 1 - ' tion is entertained with a show of reason , ns it ^ honestly obeyed , and , most especially , » s n ; obeyed at n saicrifice , wo cannot help respecting
such persons . r But thoro are still greater numb ers , wo bou _ , who derive from tho practical evils oftho prosen law a conviction , that , in part , afc least , it »» ' flontially erroneous . Theso people , occasion a j . bring their own " wrongs" before tho p « i >»^ malco much outcry , but do not steadily "IW themselves to tho work of procuring an * rj a ment . Mra . Norton hus placed herseli » i
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 27, 1853, page 10, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_27081853/page/10/
-