The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-17 00:00:00

Tab SON, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 17, 1863.

questions of the day. One of the greatest of
these was the question of Parliamentary Reform.
The men in the West Riding had already
plainly stated their opinions on this subject,
but the Liberal party had /ailed to carry a new
measure. That was in consequence of the
great middle class of this country not taking that
hearty interest in it that they should have taken.
The Reform Bill of 1832 caused,a perfect revolution
in this country. It caused a revolution bloodless
and peaceful such as was never exceeded in any
country.association,
In
thatconclusion,whenever
e rh et said,he time
should come he speaking of this
was persuaded they would show that they were
stronger than ever they were before, and more
united. (Cheers.)
at
liehoser d
for the
tt CheAel
eve Net
iNooprn;hs ire ,n
ownhe o i
division,
ft i
tsh e u
pnLrdoi e
bpr
eos
rst
aoe d w
canT idi-
hl
d
Liberal Members of the House of Commons." He
approved the course which the Government had
taken on foreign affairs,
and said that it gave him
great pleasure to think that the struggle in America
would result in the downfal: of slavery. (Cheers.)
Mr. LEATHAM, M.P., in replying to the last
toast, expressed a sincere hope that that evening's
banquet would draw closer together the various
sections of Liberals, and animate them all with
common hopes and purposes.
Sir F. CROSSLEY, M.P., proposed " The Liberal
electors of the West Riding," and in doing so said
that so much progress had been made during the
last 30 years, and so much had been done for the
advantage of the great bulk of the population, that
they must now look well at every step, lest they
made matters worse. Just let him glance at a few
of the reforms which had been accomplished during
the last 40 years. Prohibition had been removed
from the statute-book. (Hear.) Soon after that
Protection was removed—a word which General
Thompson very appropriately said ought to be
stated in the dictionary as meaning " robbing some-
body else"—(laughter)—and so it ought to be. Then
all the duties on the necessaries of life had been to-

tally removed. (A Voice—" No ; malt;') Malt
was not a necessary of life. (A Voice—" Sugar.")
(Laughter.) The duty on bread, on meat, on bricks,
on timber, on glass, and' on salt had been totally
removed, and, in fact, a working man could please
himself whether he paid any taxes to the State
or not. (A Voice—" Sugar, coffee, and tea.')
If he drank, or smoked, or snuffed, he must pay,
and so he ought. (Laughter.) He believed
these taxes did good to the buyer as well as to

;,he receiver. It was good for the State to receive
these taxes, and it was good for those who had to
pay, for if the prica of these articles were reduced
the quantity consumed would do more harm than
good. The duty on tea had been reduced from
2s. 2d. to ls., and he was not prepared to say that
they might not reduce further the duty on tea,
sugar, and coffee, provided they had the retrench-
ment which Mr. Leathern alluded to; but he thought
all those articles were articles which should pay
duty. (Voices—" No !") They were not protective
duties, but only revenue duties on articles which we
do not produce in this country, and therefore they
were articles on which we should pay a fair and
moderate duty. (Voices—" No!") As to the ques-
tion of reform, he had read with great care the two
speeches made at Rochdale by the two great autho-
rities
on
but, while giving those hon.
gentlemenr free trade
every
eedit for being earnest reformers,
f
he was of opinion that those speeches had done
more to retard reform than to advance it. (Voices
No, no.") They had frightened those who had
the power of giving reform from giving it. (A
Voice—" Why ?") They had become frightened
because these gentlemen made it out that the work-
ing men were an injured class, not because they
were without a vote, but that they were injured and
oppressed by those who had the vote ; whereas, as
he (Sir F. Crossley) had shown, the registration of
the last 30 years had tended towards the ameliora-
tion of the very class which did not possess the
franchise.
He was as earnest in favour of re-
form as any one, bat he wanted to go the right
way to get it. They would not get reform by
frightening those who had the power to give it, for
they had no very great grievance with which to
go to Parliament. They could not expect to take
reform by storm ; it must be done by persuasion.
They could only du it by persuasion, by showing
that they had an intelligent class who had no vote,
but were fully and fairly entitled to it ; and if
they possessed these qualifications, they knew that
the legislation of many years past had been in their
favour, and that, if they were allowed to enter
the lists, the state of things would not be very much
altered. His opinion was, that by going honestly,
fully, and fairly for the object they had in view,
they would accomplish it better than by trying to
make out a case which was not to be made out. The
foreign politics of the last two years had been stir-
ring matters, and he believed he was not going too
far when he said the present Government had the
confidence not only of its usual supporters, but of
the country at large. (Applause.) The policy of
non-intervention had kept us out of many and grave
difficulties. We had been a long time in learning
that it was enough for England to manage her own
immense affairs, the interests of her teeming popu-
lation, and her immense colonies ; and although it
was very flattering to be looked up to by all coun-
tries, and called in to settle their disputes, yet we
had at last learnt that we had really not time and
money, or strength, to be always engaging in other
people's battles. (Hear, hear.) The Government
had lately had a very important subject to consider
—namely, the European Congress to which they
were invited by the Emperor of the French. No
one could read carefully the reply of Earl Russell
without seeing that he gave very sufficient reasons
why England should decline to enter that Congress.
The conduct of the French Emperor had been so
straightforward towards this country that every
suggestion of his could not but be received with the
greatest courtesy and respect ; but England ex•
pected something more from her Minister than the
attempt to pleas© a foreign potentate. (Hear, hear.)
They expected their Ministers to look at all ques-
tions with a view to England's interests, and he
thought that Earl Russell showed sufficient reason
why England was not justified in going to the
Congress without knowing whether the resizlts of
that Congress were to be enforced by war. (Cheers.'
Mr. FORSTER, responded to the toast.

was tried in Cork. This had been obtained, and
the Lord Chancellor was now asked to say that the
compromise which had been made was for the benefit
of the minors, in order that an Act of Parliament
might be obtained to give effect to the arrangsment.
Under a consent-order Lord Egmont had brought
into court £125,000, which had been invested in
Consols, except a sum of £llB, which would now
be brought in. There were two estates mentioned
in the will of the late Sir Edward Tierney, and it
was necessary to determine what portion of the
money was to represent the Kanturk estate and the
Churchtown estate respectively. For this a reference
to the Master was absolutely necessary. Lord Eg-
mont is to receive the rents of the estates from
November, 1863. The Act of Parliament will direct
that the money which is entailed on the minors
shall be invested in land for their benefit. Lady
Tierney, who is no party to the compromise, has an
annuity of £5OO charged uron one of the estates.
But while Lord Egmont holds the estates, subject
to her rights, he is to be indemnified by Sir Lionel
Darell for any claim she may make.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Yesterday.

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
FITZGERALD V. FITZGERALD.

Mr. M, Chambers, Q.C., and Dr. Warabey, instructed
by Messrs. Thomas and Co., appeared for the petitioner;
and the Queen's Advocate, Mr, Huddleston, Q.C., and Dr.
Spinks, instructed by Messrs. Freshfield and Co., for the
respondent.
Mr. Chambers stated the case. The petitioner, Mrs.
Charlotte Georgiana Fitzgerald, prayed for a divorce from
her husband on the ground of cruelty and adultery, to which
the respondent pleaded denial. Major Fitzgerald was the
son of Lord 'William Fitzgerald, and the petitioner was the
daughter of a gentleman of fortune, named Bellesworth.
The marriage was solemnised at St. George's, Hanover •
square, on the 12th November, 1857, and in about a week
afterwards the ill-treatment was commenced. It appeared
that at the time of the marriage Major Fitzgerald was in
debt, and receiving only £5OO from his father-in-law, he
abused him and his wife's mother in the hearing of his
wife. After the marriage the parties went to Paris and
they returned to Dublin, where the parties resided in Hume-
street for some months. Major Fitzgerald was deputy
quartermaster. general, and in the course of his official visits
he became acquainted with a gentleman named Mallet, who
held a situation in the Castle at T ablin, and it was with the
wife of that gentleman that the adultery was alleged. The
intrigue with this lady was carried on during the honey-
moon, and the neglect and ill-treatment were alleged to
have been continued during the period of their cohabitation
which lasted until the 23d of August, 1862, and in two in-
stances his conduct produced premature confinements and
the death of the children with which she was then enciente •
Major Fitzgerald took on himself to decline invitations for
his wife while they were in Dublin, and he was in thelhabit
of leaving her alone from breakfast until the evening. It
further appeared that the respondent was entitled to be-
tween £20,000 and £30,000 in the event of surviving
his wife.
Mrs. Fitzgerald was examined by Mr. Chambers. After
the marriage, she and her husband went to Folkestone, and
then to Paris, where they stayed at the Hotel Deux Mendes
for seven or eight days. They breakfasted together at the
hotel, but Major Fitzgerald left her alone:all day, and only
took her out once, and that at the instigation of their land-
lady. He abused her parents in the most offensive man-
ner, calling her father "a scoundrel," and her mother " a
sharper," and "a designing, wicked old woman." He also
treated her very ill while they were in Paris, both by lan-
guage and contemptuous manner, and took a fan from her
stating that he was going to get it repaired ; but he did not
bring it back, and said that it had been given to her by
some " - lover of hors." On their return to London after
leaving Pads, she wanted a riding habit. He told her that
Mrs. Mallet had sent one back, and it would do for her, but
she refused it. She heard him constantly talking about Mrs.
Mallet. When he spoke of Mrs. Mallet it was in an expressive
manner. On their way to Holyhead on their return from the
Continent, he addressed her only in monosyllables. There
was something strange in his appearance, and she asked
him if he was ill. He replied, "I never did love you, and
only married you for your money," and he cursed his father
for not having prevented the marriage when he knew the
state of his feelings. When they returned to Ireland they
remained for some time at Salthill Hotel, near Dublin. He
had to attend at his office only about two hours in the day,
but he was in the habit of leaving her alone. While at
Salthill Major Fitzgerald called her "an old screw, and a
battered creature." He did not ill-treat her beforelservants,
He requested ber to visit Mrs. Mallet amongst the first
whom she west to see in Dublin. On ono occasion he said,
with reference to their having children, that if they were
like her they would be " such disgusting little imps." With
reference to taking her into society in Dublin, he said, "I
am not going about like an ass with a wife tied to my
tail." In May, 1858, they came to England and she took
up her residence at Dover for two months, but her husband
remained in London. Major Fitzgerald was in the habit of
praising women to her who possessed what she did not in

their personal appearance, such as the colour of hair and
complexion. 119 called her an old scarecrow, and he likened
her to a lump of dirt. He had conversation with her about
married women who had intrigued, and advised her if she
was not happy to do the same. She said she would not, and
that if she left him she would return to her parents, and he
replied that she had better do so as anybody else would drop
her like a lump of dirt. The witness then detailed a series of
acts of violence on the part of her husband which led to her
premature confinements, and the effects of which were visi-
ble in bruises mad marks on her person, and on one occasion
he jammed her between the door of a room. Major Fitz-
gerald said with respect to her premature confinement in
Chester-street, what a fool she must be to live with him
after that event.
The Queen's Advocate cross-examined the witness at
great length. She met her husband first at Maldon, and
she was acquainted with him about three or four months
before the marriage. Major Fitzgerald expected to have
received £l,boo from her lather at their marriage, but he only
got £5OO. It was a misunderstanding on her husband's part.
There was £B,OOO settled by her husband's father on her and
LlOO a year, which her husband received. Her husband had
about £5OO a year. She admitted that some letters produced
were in her handwriting, but denied that others were. She
said that on the occasion of one of her confinements she was
examined by Dr. Perry, who put her to pain. She denied
that she ever stated to Lady Ann Cberson that Dr. Perry
had caused the death of her child, but she believed that
when her husband said so she adopted his statement. She
did not make any suoh statement to Dr. Pettigrew or any
one else. They purchased with her money a house at Bra-
den, Malmesbury, and here they had an altercation re-
specting some trees which her husband wanted to cut
down, and he called her a viper. Some time before
that he caused her spasms at the heart by hie violence.
During two years that he absented himself from her bed
there, was no necessity ,for his doing so from the state of
her health except for about six weeks. In August, 1861, her
husband was at Cowes, not in consequence of bad health,
but for pleasure. She could not say that the letter now
produced was in her handwriting. She knew a man named
Kelly, who had been a butler in Mr. Mallett's family.
When the present proceedings were instituted he was lying
ill in the Bath Hospital, and expressed a wish to see her.
Sho went to him, and carried him what she thought from
bis state he might require. She knew a Mrs. Hopkins,
who was out of her mind in consequence of the persecution
to which she was subjected with a view to prevent her giv-
ing evidence in the suit. With respect to the child to
which she had given birth, and which died in 36 hourg
afterwards, she did not refuse to see it. When it was moan-
ing in its last crisis, she desired it to be taken upstairs that
she might not be disturbed by its cries.
Re-examined—She put the case into the hands of a soli-
citor. She never suggested to the witnesses on her behalf
what they were to state, but on the contrary she declined to
speak to them on the subject of the suit. Kelly died a month
after she saw him at Bath, and all she took to him were two
apples, a bunch of grapes,
and a biscuit. She saw him three
times while she was at Bath. Hopkins was a cook in her
family when her child died, and was a witness for her both
to the adultery and the cruelty charged. She wrote a good
many letters to the sisters of Major Fitzgerald, and she ex-
pressed herself in terms of affection towards him. Her rea-
son for doing so was that so long as they lived together she
wished that the interior of their home should not be dis-
closed, as it might have the effect of injuring her husband
with het father. The same motive influenced her with refe-
rence to other parties as regarded the alleged cause of her
child's death, she being anxious to uphold her husband's
character so long as she remained under the same roof with
him. She wrote a letter to her mother complaining of Ler
husband's conduct.

Mr. Perry, F.R.C.S., said that he had been called in t
see Mrs. Fitzgerald at Chester-street in 1859, in order to
give an opinion as to her condition. She was eight months
in pregnancy. From what she stated as to an alternation
between her and her husband some days previously, she
felt very ill, and from tha symptoms she described he felt
satisfied that she was carrying a dead child, The witness
then stated that he adopted means to ascertain the fact, of
which he was quite satisfied. The means were of the most
simple nature, and, as far as he could recollect, he did not
think that he had rec:urse to the use of an instrument. He
could not have killed the child without endangering the
life of the mother. He did not remain with Mrs. Fitzgerald
more than a quarter of an hour, and had not seen her since
except in court that day. On the day when ho was called
in to Mrs. Fitzgerald ho saw Major Fitzgerald, and he be-
lieved he made a report to him relative to his wife, and the
Major gave him his fee.

By the Queen's Advocate--Although the witnesses had
been ordered out of court he was present when Mrs. Fitz-
gerald gave that portion of her evidence which related to

him. He was told that he might come into the court,
which accounted fur his presence during the examination
of the petitioner.
At the conclusion of this witness's evidence the case,
which is likely to occupy some days, was adjourned until
to-morrow (this day).