The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-19 00:00:00

kiLAVEUT TO DIE.

In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to
the national authority on the part of the insurgents as the
only indispensable condition to ending the war on the part
of the Government, I retract nothing heretofore said as to
slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year ago; and
that while I remain in my present position I shall not at-
tempt to retract or modify the Emancipation Proclamation.
Nor shall I return to t.lavery any person who is free by
the terms of that proclamation, or by auy of the acts_of
Congress.
If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make
it an Execudve duty to re-mislay-a such persons, another,
and not I, must be their instrument to pet form it.
In stating a single condition of peace, I mean simply to
say, that the war will cease on the part of the Government
whenever it shall ha re ceased on the part of those who
began it.
(Signed) A 811.11.1.1.11 LINCOLN.

LAW INTELLIGENCE —Satur day,

COURT OF OF DIVORCE.
CIIETWYND V. CIIETWYND.

Emma Wilkins, a tamale domestic, was next examined.
Her evidence was principllly confined to proving certain
acts of adultery committed by the respondent with Thurza
Pomford and Caroline Lethbridge.

Mary Jane Smith said she entered the service of Mr
and Mrs Chetwynd at Longdon hall in March, 1862. Sue
remained there until the end of 1863. Atter she lett Long-
den Hall she received several letters trove Mr Chetwynd.
On one occasion after she had quitted Longdon
she went with Mr Chetwynd to the Rover Hotel, Black-
heath. They remained there all night, and occupied but
one room. She went back to Longdon Hall to re-enter the
service of Mr and Mrs Chetwynd, but shortly after she .
arrived she went into a room to Mr Chetwynd and had
quarrel with him, and she left immediately, While she
was living at Longdon Hall Mr Chetwynd, one morning
between 4 and 5 o'clock, came into her bedroom, but
nothing took place on that occasion, because she
resisted. On one occasion she saw Mr Chet-
wynd go upstairs to Thurza Pomford's room.
Cross-examined by Mr Hawkins—Mr Mathews was on
one occasion on a visit to Longdon. On the morning that he
went away she heard Mrs Chetwynd's voice in his bed-
room about eight o'clock. She had been up to call Mr
Mathews, and to take up his clothes. The bell rang again,
and when she went up the second time ihe heard Mrs
Chetwynd's voice. When Mr Mathews left he gave her
half a sovereign, but she would positively swear ho did not
tell her to say nothing of what she had heard. She m'ght
have told some person ho said so. He gave her the half
sovereign because he said he always gave that sum to the
person who waited on him.
Re-examined by Mr Karslake—There wore no men-ser-
vants kept at Longdon Hall. It was her duty to wait on
visitors, It was no uncumnaon thing for Mrs Chetwynd
to take her breakfast without Mr Chetwynd.
The further hearing of the oase was than adjourned until
Wednesday next.

WANTON REMOVAL OF LONDON ANTIQUITIES.--
A correspondent of the Times writes—" Ecelesi.
astical sculpture in London is so rare that we cannot afford
to lose any of what little still remains to us unless there is
absolute necessity for its removal. Among the most curi-
ous things of the kind were the representations of the
Last Judgment that were placed over the entrances to
some of the City churchyards, Not many years ago there
were three instances—namely, at St. Andrew's, Holborn,
St.Giles's-in-the-Fields, and St Stephen's Coleman-street,
which is still in sits, and appears to be valued, as it should
bp, by the authorities, as some pains have during the last
few years been expended on its repair and preservation.
That which was over the gateway of St. Andrew's, Itel-
born, was some years back taken down and erected fur a
time in Shot-lane. Ultimately it was, I belt,ve, given or
sold to a Mr Beasley, of Bangor-house, where it still re-
mains as an ornament to the chimney-piece. It is to the
second example that I especially wish to call your attention,
and through your world- wide columns to protest against its
removal. What has become of it ? Has it shared the fato of
the Lynn carv, d stallwork and been sold to some dealer or
collector ? Or is it still in the possession of the parochial
authorities ? In any case, sir, if the thing is not impossible,
it ought to be restored to its original position. As a work
of art, it is by no means to be despised ; es a London curi..
osity, and above all as an instance of post-Reformation
' sculpture, it is of the highest interest. This mania for
destr,,ying, or at best tr msferring to antiquarian c ileetions,
everything that the individual parsons, churchwardens,
Architects, or builders do not happen to understand or value
is truly distressing.