On this page

• Text (2)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    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 such .- -a desire : Florida , Louisiana , Texas , have all shown in the development of their commercial as well as their political prosperity—in . the material comfort 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 ?—• that is the question for Cuba ; as it was 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 join in a declaration of all three , that they would not coxintenance 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 Seiior 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 itspil f .

    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 it should come to them legitimately , cannot be expected to disclaim it for ever . In the second place 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 the friendly occupation of Cuba . And in the fourth place , that very Marquis do Miraflorcs who was inviting the French and . Mnglish Governments to guarantee Cuba even against cession , received with satisfaction certain overtures from

    the- American representative at Madrid , Mr . . " Romulus M . SaunderH , towards a possible sale of Cuba to the United States for a sum of money . Under those circumstances it would be impossible for the United States to make the negative pledgedemanded of it ; and Mr . Cramp ton , in a communication to the Karl of Clarendon on the ISMi Ap ril , states , as the result of an interview with Mr . Marcy , the new Secretary of State under President Pierce , thai the question is now definitively closed .

    But in expounding ( ho reasons why the- United States could not ; join in the tripartite disclaimer , Mr . l <] verot ; t , to repeat tho wohIh of Lord . John Russell , did hIiow " that the United States have an interest in Cuba to which France and Great Britain cannot protend . " In reply , Lord John . Russell , with an air of simple astonishment , represents that , Franco and lOngland , " the only Powers who could Im . i rivals with tho United

    States for tho possession ol Cuba , " were willing to disclaim it , for theniBolvea ; but all the reasons for a superior interest which we have explained , mh possessing so much force with tho United States , are destitute of force as applied either to France or England . There haa " bcou no

    progressive annexation ; . there is no desire in 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 St . Lawrence . Lord John E-ussell appears to think that lie meets this part of the subject by a measurement of distances . "The distance of Cuba from the nearest part of the

    territory of the United States , viz ., from the southernmost part of Florida , is 110 miles . " An island at an equal distance from the mouth of the Thames would be placed about tenmiles north of Antwerp , in Belgium ; while an island at the same distance from Jamaica would be placed at Manzanilla , a town in Cuba . " Thus there are no grounds for saying that tho possession of Cuba by Great Britain or France would be menacing 1 to the United 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 onlyunfoundedbut 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 co » duct of the President in disavowing and discouraging the lawless attempts here referred to . The character of 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 tho 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 groat State . Without disputing its truth , her Majesty ' s Government may express a hope that this state of things will not endure . "

    And then Lord John Russell 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 the republic . President Pierce was chosen , not by some exclusive body to coerce his fellow-countrymen , but because he was supposed

    to share the feelings and convictions which they already owned ; that he was willing to lead them , in short , according to their own convictions ; and these convictions arc ifliown , of course , in the spontaneous , not less than in tho formal , efforts of the people . If annexation be shocking to . English ideas , the Americana may point to tho result in the happy citizens of great and flourishing states , which would have been misorublo as Cuba or Mexico to this day , if they had remained unannexed .

    Untitled Article

    THE NORTON CASK AND TIIK LAW QV DIVORCE . Wi ! allude to tho case of Thrupp versus Norton on public grounds . Much might ; be made of it , as one of those instances which come to the surface , and which more than justify statements that have been advanced in this journal as to tho condition of society in the relation of man and woman ; and wo believe that if this case were investigated , more deeply , it would show something further than is proved , by tho bare facts ; it would show tho sort of opinion which may prevail amongst people of the upper olasaeH — the kind of toleration which may be shown in * ' tho best ; society . " lint , let us take it , for tho moment , on the ground where Mrs . Norton puts it .

    The case interests tho public * , because it a . HBumos a commercial form . " Heeauso I . am Mr . . Norton ' s wife , " Hiiyn tho lady , "ho « ., duiat me ; and becuuso X am Mr . Norton ' s wife , 1 can choat

    others . " This appears to be literally tho /> Qn and it is grounded on the circumstance that b the law of England a woman is supposed to have no substantial existence . Thus , de facto , the Ho Mrs . Norton has been maintaining a separat 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 carrying on her affairs independently . While Mrs . Norton was still young , her husband brought an action , on the ground of " criminal conversation , " for damages , against

    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 . Mr ! Norton still holds the post given to him by Lord Melbourne , and when he and his wife separated , with some form , he entered into an agreement to allow her 500 ? . a year . Her

    mother left her a bequest , for 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 3000 Z . a year . Mrs . Norton had her allowance from her husband , her mother ' bequest , which would perhaps be another 500 £ . 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 doea not appear that her income nearly equalled his .

    Other pleas , however , are advanced to account for the retractation . Gne is , that Mrs . Norton had received an allowance under a bequest from Lord Melbourne , which she denies . Axid " 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 tq _ do , but the circumstance that both sides have made a public appeal , authorizes us to deal with the facts .

    In the first place , then , we find tho 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 , but 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 homo 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 he knows how she stands in her domestic relations . She may cheat him , as Mrs . Norton says ; her husband may cheat her ; and there appears to be no redress . But there is yet a further moral . It perplexes us to know what can bo the state of opinion aud 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 to suffer ,

    without either boldly raising their voices to declare tho evil , or without making any attemp t at concerted action , to procure redress . Wo can understand , indeed , tho behaviour of persons who admit tho evils , but think tho endurance a lesser ill than the consequences of altering existing lawfl . There are many who , on grounds not without their force , believe tho indissoluble naturo of our marriage law to be . in itself , so good ,

    bo productive of domestic happiness and morality , in the majority of instances , that their own Bufferings are not ' too great a sacrifice for tho genera ' good . Although we have never ttcen reasons advanced in support of such a conviction , wlnoU appeared to us to bo complete , yet , as tho conviction in entertained with a / show of reason , aa it |« honestly obeyed , and , most especially , as it w obeyed at a wicrifiec , we cannot help , respecting

    auch persons . But there are still greater numbers , wo beliov < % who derive from the practical evils oftho proscn Jaw a conviction , that , in part , at least , it ' « *" Bontially erroneous . These people , occasion "' /' bring their own " wrongs" boforo the P ul ) l 1 . ' ' mulco much outcry , but do not steadily ftppy themselvcH to the ' work of procuring nn ftn » . " incut . JMU-s . Norton has placed herself »•

    Untitled Article

    826 THE LEADER . [ Saturday ,

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 27, 1853, page 826, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2001/page/10/