The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-17 00:00:00

TELLERS.

BANK OF FRANCE.

(REUTER'S TELEGRAM.)
PARIS, June 16.

The following is the return of the Bank of France
for the week ending to-day, together with the cor-
responding figures of the previous account :

1 - JUNE 16. JUNE 9.
DR. f, c. f. c.
Capital of the Bank 182,500,000 182,500,000
Profits in addition toCapital
(Art. 8 law June 9, 1857) 4,980,655 90 4,963,380 42
Reserve in the Bank and
its branches
Reserve in landed property 4,000,000 4.000,009
Notes in circulation 720,289,175 725,381,925
Bank notes to order and re-
ceipts payable at sight 5,667,926 39 6,629,370 53
Treasury ac,, cur. creditor 70.655,2(17 51 60,841,441 72
Current accounts—Paris 123,2.8 407 12 130,065,501 13
Do. branch-banks
Dividends payhblo
Disc junta and sundry
interests 22,323,908 55 21,708,976 81
Re-discounts of the last
six montba..
Sundries 12,923,9.8 13 11,880,987 95

1,196,636,365 10 1,205,541,762 05

Cit.
Cash in hand and branch-

banks
959,072,734 64 291,892,295 40
Commercial bills ov-rdue 8,611,524 64 517,457 63
Commercial bills discouL tel

not yet due .... 291,93 ',195 29 305,907,852 60
Do. branch-banks.... 279,674,226 —371,391,67 Z
Advances on deposits of
bullion • .
Do. branch- banks 2,985,900 2,929,500
Advances on French public
securities
Do, branch-banks 9,095,8:0 10,178,510
Advances on railway shares
and debentures
Do. branch-banks 19,670,744 20,125,344
Advances on Credit Fon-
cier Bonds 343,100 354.400
Do. branch-banks.... 409 900 417,000
Advances to the State
(Cony( n. June 10, 1857) 60,000,000 60,000,000
Govt. Stock Reserve 12,980,750 14 12,980,750 14
Do. disposable
Rentes iintnobilisees (Law
June 9, 1557) 100,000,000 100,000,000
Hotel and furniture of the

---
Bank
Landed property, branches } 9,177,720 -- 9,177,688
Expenses of management 1,890,804 91 1,464,062 S 1
Sundries

1,196,636,365 10 1,205,541,762 05
Certified by the Honorary Vice-President of the Council
of State, Governor of the Bank,
AD. VITITRY.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
YELVERTON V. LONGWORTH (OR YELVERTON).

(Present the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord
Chelmsford, Lord Kingsdown, and Lord Wensleydale.)
This morning their lordships resumed the inquiry into
this case. _ _ _

The Attorney-General continued his address. He said
that when their lordships rose yesterday he was adverting
to two letters, one by the appellant, and one by the re-
spondent, These two letters were very strong, especially
that of the lady, and in it were contained expressions in
which she intimated that she considered herself irrevocably
bound to Major Yelverton. The explanation he (the
Attorney- General) offered about this, meant either that she
did not hold him to his bargain if he did not care for her,
which a lady labouring under strong feelings might say
without any reference to law at all, an irregular secret
marriage having taken place without consummation. He
thought that was the natural and just interpretation of,the
passage. But if that interpretation were rejected he con-
tended that the idea in her mind might have been that they
were not irrevocably united, no religious ceremony having
taken place, and 83 that if they liked they might part.
The Lord Chancellor—What ere the last words of the
lady's letter on that occasion ?

The Attorney-General--The last words were " write to
me immediately, or I will come and find you. It is too late
to take you at your cruel word." He relied very much
upon these words, for he thought it was plain from them
that the lady considered they were irrevocably bound, for
she had said that she would be a most degraded person, the
most sensual wanton, if she thought of any body else, for
in the sight of God she was his. Simply, then, he con-
tended that what she meant was, that if , Major Yelvarton
did not care fel• her, she would make him as free as he
ever was. She said—" You know there is a refuge for the
broken in spirit," and the only interpretation he could put
upon that was that she meant that the refuge was in
heaven. The only other interpretation that could be put
upon it was that having been recently married, and he
thought it might not be binding ; but if that were the view
of the case, it only put it in the same category with the
cases of Dalrymple and others, which he had already cited,
in which doubts, hesitations, and uncertainties in the minds
of the parties did not stand in the way of the operation of
the facts.

Lord Brougham—Do you say that the letters contain a
plain promise of marriage previous to all this?
The Attorney-General said—Yes, clearly. He said ho
had promised to do more than he could perform when the
time came. That could not mean anything short of a pro-
mise of marriage—marriage alone it was and must be. No-
thing could be clearer than this interpretation of the case.
The learned gentleman proceeded to read from letters with
a view to show that the lady resisted a consummation of the
marriage until a religious ceremony should have taken place.
She appeared to magnify this point very much, and he con-
tended that there was nothing to show that she was not as
pure, as scrupulous, and as virtuous as she stated herself to
be, and as he (the Attorney-General) contended her letters
proved. Other portions of the respondent's letters pointed
as clearly and as explicitly to marriage as though she had
called him husband in so many words. She spoke of her
sister loving her husband better than herself, and said that
was natural, drawing at the same time a parallel between
the two cases. In fact there were so many allusions to the
relations between husband and wife as to show that she had
their relation to each other as husband and wife continually
on her mind, and they were irrevocably bound together in
that relatiowlip. He now brought the parties to Ireland, and
the first thing he wished to speak of was the question which
had been controverted whether she allowed her scruples
to be overcome in the period which elapsed between their
arrival in Ireland on the 29th or 30th of July, and the 15th
of August,when the religious ceremony was performed by
Father Mooney at Rostrevor. A ring had been bought by
Major Yelverton, and it was urged that this was necessary
in order that they might go about together.
_ .

Lord Brougham—ls there any evidence when that ring
was bought ?
The Attorney-General said there was. It was bought
on the 25th of July, in Dublin, of a tradesman named
Martin, and it was absurd to urge that i t was necessary to
enable the parties to go about together in Dublin. It
appeared that they lived together in Ireland, and occupied ,
the same roum at nights. That was proved by
a variety of witnesses, but it had not been proved
that actual intercourse had taken place between them.
The appellant swore that that was the case, and it was not
unlikely that persons who had contracted a marriage, f
ac-
cording to the Scottish law might live together, but that if
the man respected the religious scruples of the lady, and
possessed sufficient self-control, the actual consummation of
the marriage might be deferred until after the performance
of the religious ceremony. In another letter the lady said
she would do all he wished, and that she would trust him,
Lord Chelmsford said it was very unpleasant to reason
about such matters, as it was very evident other persons
might put a different interpretation upon them.
The Attorney General said he was quite sensible of
that, and he did not wish unduly to press that portion of
the case. All he wanted to urge was that if their lord-
ships should find themselves called upon to deal with
that part of the case, they would take into consideration
the general nature of the evidence and the character of the
parties, to show that there was nothing; improbable is the
circumstance if the parties exercised sufficient self-con-
trol. He now came to the proceedings which took place
before Father Mooney and the Bishop, which was very
important, as bearing upon the question whether the Irish
marriage was a good or bad marriage in itself. Father
Mooney stated in his evidence that he received the
bishop's certificate, and that when the lady and gentle-
men came into the chapel the gentleman came to him and
said, " Mr Mooney, there is no occasion for this, it has all
been previously settled and arranged, but I will do it to
satisfy the lady's conscience." Mr Mooney said he was
aware of the circumstances, and that they came before him
as man and wife in consequence of a marriage contracted in
Scotland. He (the Attorney General) contended that the
words used by Major Yelverton were susceptible of no just,
honest, or natural meaning except that which Father
Mooney put upon them, namely, that a legal marriage had
taken place, but that a religious ceremony was required to
satisfy the lady's conscience.
At this point their lordships assembled round the table at
which the Lord Chancellor sat, and held a lengthened con-
sultation. At its close,
Lord Brougham said—lt is clear that Mooney believed
what was stated to him, but the question was, had he
ground for believing it by the admission of both parties,
The Attorney- General said that it was clear that the lady
acknowledged the marriage, and it was equally clear that
Major Yelverton did when he told Father Mohoney that it
had all been previously arranged, and that he merely did it
to satisfy the lady's conscience. That could mean nothing
else than tho admission that there had been a legal mar-
riage, and that he went through the religious ceremony to
satisfy the lady's conscience.
Lord Brougham thought that if Major Yelverton used
these words, he could have meant nothing else than that
there had been marriage without a religious ceremony, and
that as they were man and wife the lady Wished for a reli-
gious ceremony.
The Attorney-General having commented on some of
the circumstances he had already stated, said he thought
their lordships would agree that sufficient had been made
out to show the correctness of the views of Lords Currie-