The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-17 00:00:00

LONDON ~DAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1862.
THE f:SITN, , Tiiti f.,

world on the question of the treaty and the subject
of free trade in general, and there never had been
an opportunity of doing justice to his eminent ser-
vices in that case. He had taken a more enlightened
view of the interests of France than most of his
countrymen had hitherto done. M. Rouher had
spoken of the Emperor as having originated the
treaty, and he (Mr. Cobden) could bear witness to
the fact that the Emperor initiated the treaty, and
he believed that the Emperor had the sincerest
desire to unite not merely the governments, bat the
people of the two countries. (Cheers.) He (Mr.
Cobden) had had better opportunities perhaps of
observing than most Englishmen, and he was con-
vinced that the Emperor in all his acts had been
actuated by a desire to unite these two great
nations. That, indeed, had been the corner stone
of his policy. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Cobden)
would go further, and express his belief, founded
also upon some opportunity of judging,
that
there was nothing that he could imagine
that would induce that potentate to be a party to a
rupture with this country short of an attempt by
any Government or any minister of this country to
inflict a humiliation on his country. (Cheers.) Their
guest of that evening had done a great work, which
would live in history, and he had done it under a
more powerful sovereign than Louis XVI. If the
aristocracy of France had eighty years ago allowed
Turgot, as he desired, to do the same thing, there
would probably have been no revolution, and the
dynasty of that day would have remained to this.
Unfortunately, the inauguration of free trade in
France had been attended by deplorable convulsions,
with regard to the manufacturing interests, arising
from causes entirely unconnected with free trade ;
and the opponents of free trade would no doubt at-
tempt to fasten those effects upon the commercial
treaty. The great reforms of Mr. Huskisson in 1825
were followed by a commercial crisis, and the Spital-
fields weavers of those days, if they could have had
their will, would probably have hung Mr. Huskis-
son as an example. His memory was now honoured
throughout the land, and the manufacturers of
France would yet do justice to the guest of that even-
ing. They were that evening celebrating the cause
of free trade. The refrain of one of Beranger's
songs advocating the alliance of nations was " Don-
nez-vous les mains." Free trade said " Shake hands ;
give each other the hand and something in the hand."
(Cheers.) That something meant the superfluity of
the giver and the necessity of the receiver. (Cheers.)
Such a meeting as the present had never been held
before, and he had never sat down with so many
Members of Parliament at such a meeting, and he
had never yet sat down with Members of Parliament
of a different varty from his own. He saw in that
reunion a proof of the universality of the senti-
ments to which they had been listening on that
occasion. They were doing honour to a man whose
merits were not sufficiently known ; but under their
auspices their guest had had an opportunity of de-
livering a speech which would be circulated through
Earope and the world.
Sir G. C. LEWIS proposed " The Health of M.
Chevalier and M. Dufour," and in doing so said
there never was a time when the prospects of peace
were so solid as now. He believed that the Emperor
of the French entertained the most cordial and ear-
nest desire to maintain pacific relations with this
country. (Cheers.)
Several other toasts and speeches followed, and
the company did not separate until a late hour.

'—ilenge from
, --,A

dent that he would not accept any ewe._
" him." Respondent beat the servant's flee_
against the ground. He was moaning and walking
about the room all night. Petitioner could get no
sleep from that time till she left. He dragged her
bed into the middle of the room, and threatened to
shoot her. There were no servants as they went
home at night. Petitioner left her husband on the
22d February. Captain Arthur Lowe, a cousin of
her mother's, had been sent by her father to take
her away. Petitioner was very ill at the time.
She was in a weak and nervous state. A child was
born on the sth August,
Cross-examined by Sir F. Slade—Petitioner did
not believe the rumours. Capt. Lowe came because
her father was ill.
Sir F. Slade—This was a love match; was it not?
Witness—l believe I married as most other
people do.
Sir F. Slade—Did
you not live upon him ?
Witness—No ; my mamma received some money
from Cardinal Antonelli. My mamma never re-
ceived any money from respondent. The respondent
was moving in good society, possessing means, hav-
ing money, and in every way as a baron and noble-
man.
11 Sir C. Cresswell—Supposed to be so.
Witness—Mamma received a thousand scudi
(£220) from Cardinal Antonelli. M. Zychlinski
was very kind to mamma, who was in Rome with-
out money. Zychlinski pretended to lend the
money, but it was really given by Cardinal Ante-
nelli. Mamma was a convert to Roman Catholicism.
Zychiinski was employed in procuring the money,
because papa would not repay Cardinal Antonelli.
It was made to appear that Zychlinski lent the
money. It was agreed that Zychlinski should go to
England, to papa, and represent that he had paid
£4OO for her. Did not recollect that the respondent
ever said he did not marry the mother and sister,
and that he would not keep them. The respon-
dent represented himself, when I became ac-
quainted with him, as a Russian baron. He said he
was acquainted with several distinguished people,
and that the Princess of Galitzin, wife of the Rus-
sian ambassador at Madrid, was his cousin. After
the separation the petitioner applied to Baron Mar-
tin for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted,
and he was very anxious to get his wife back again.
Mary F. Maltby, sister of the petitioner, corro-
borated the above statement. She further stated
that several Russian friends had stated that the re-
spondent was not a Russian baron, and the papers
which he was sent to Marseilles to procure were
vouchers from his ambassador as to his respectabi-
lity, but he returned without them. Lord Henry
Kerr told Mrs. Maltby that the respondent was not
what he represented himself. M. Pallatin, a Rus-
sian gentleman, also reported that he was not a
baron of the Russian empire, but a deserter from the
Prussian army. She also remembered his having
written 11 challenges.
Sir F. Slade—Then he had plenty of people to
shoot.
Sir C. Cresswell—No, Sir Frederick ; they would
not be shot. (Laughter.)
SirF. Slade—Was it when he ceased to be a baron
that you ceased to call him mon cher Louis ?
Witness—Not for that particularly. Had he re-
mained amiable—
Sir C. Cresswell—Having discovered the wolf, as
long as the wolf remained quiet—
, Sir F. Slade—Or retained his sheep's clothing.
Capt. Arthur Lowe said he received a letter and
subsequently a telegram, requesting him to take
Mrs. Zychlinski away from her husband's cruelty.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Slade—lt was one of
the charges against the respondent that he was an
impostor. Witness did not go to the respondent,
because it would have been useless. The French
authorities were not applied to, because the con-
sul represented that several things had happened
to English residents which were treated in such a
manner that the consul recommended the wife
to be removed. Lord Kerr also advised the
proceeding. The respondent followed his wife
to witness's house, at Nottingham, where his wife
was. Witness gave the respondent in charge of the
police for threats.
Mrs. James said she kept lodgings in Talbot-
street, Nottingham. Respondent brought a lady
there other than his wife. She noticed on several
occasions the impression of two persons in the bed.
The respondent had had a bad throat, which wit-
ness poulticed with linseed, a portion of which was
afterwards found in the lady's bed. This person's
linen was marked "Adeline Baroness Zychlinski."
She also left behind a pair of boots, which hed in-
side the name of '° Maltby." The petitioner was not
the person who resided with Zychlinski. Heard
the respondent say that he was charged with ob-
taining money under false pretences, or something
to that effect.
Mary Arne James, daughter of the last witness,
proved having heard the respondent go into the
bed-room of the woman who came to him at her
mother's house and remain there.
This concluded the case for the petitioner.
Mr. Macaulay addressed the jury. He contended
that the case was clear, and lest it should be said
that he was afraid to put Mrs. Maltby in the box,
he would simply state that he did not desire she
should be tortured in cross-examination. She had
acted perhaps unwisely, and had been grossly de-
ceived, but that was all that could be said.
Sir Frederick Slade said she was the only person
who could tell the jury the relations which subsisted
between these people, and the circumstances under
which the money was obtained from Cardinal An-
tonelli, or whether the respondent had obtained it
for the lady. He sympathised with the young lady,
but the jury had to discharge a public duty and do
justice between the parties. He could not deny the
adultery, but he would deny that any cruelty had
been committed.
His Lordship said that a great deal was made of
the mother of the petitioner not being called. But
why was not the respondent called to give evidence ?
He was equally able to speak to these matters, and
he had an obvious interest in the issue. Lord
Stowell had said it was not easy to define what
was cruelty. It was to be constructed out of all
the circumstances surrounding each particular case.
The Jury having deliberated, found that the re-
spondent had been guilty of cruelty and adultery.
Sir C. Cresswell granted the decree, and the costs
of the suit as against the respondent followed as a
matter of course in cases of judicial separation.

if they had any doubt the high character the defen-
dant had received.7,eught certainly to have consi-
'oe weight.
derae e
__
ur qfter deliberating a short time, re-
y
Th j,
euilt
turned a verdict of noi, „,
'V. Brown, 25, pleaded gue. ty to three charges of
arson.
It appeared that the prisoner on !lame all
and within a very short period, had committe;.`
the offences to which he had pleaded guilty. In the
first place, he set fire to a barn in which there was
a quantity of wheat ; he then set fire to a stack of
straw, and afterwards to a stack of hay, the whole
of which were destroyed.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in passing sentence, said
he was of opinion that no crime was more hateful or
detestable than the crime of arson. ID ordinary
offences the person who committed them had some
advantage, because he obtained possession of the
money or property of another ; but when property
was destroyed wilfully by fire it was of no benefit
to the person committing the act, but was an injury
'to mankind at large. It appeared by a report that
I had been made to him, that the prisoner had several
times enlisted as a soldier and that he deserted, and
then re-enlisted and obtained the bounty, and he
appeared to be an incorrigibly bad fellow. On the
present occasion he appeared to have committed the
crime of arson three times in one day, and it also
appeared that he stated when he was apprehended
that he should have done more mischief of the same
description if his lucifer matches had not gone out.
It was necessary under these circumstances to pass
a sentence that would prevent him from doing any
more mischief for a long time to come, and he should
therefore order him to be kept in penal servitude
for 20 years.
Simon Child, a little urchin, stated in the calendar
to be 11 years old, was charged with feloniously
placing some stones upon the London and North-
Western Railway, with intent to obstruct the en-
gines and carriages passing along the line, and to
endanger the safety of the passengers.
Mr. Clark prosecuted, and the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Codd.
It appeared that on the evening of May 27th the
down train to St. Albans, upon arriving near Wat-
ford, ran over two stones that were placed upon the
rails, and the driver giving information of the cir-
cumstance upon arriving at the Watford station, the
signalman at the spot was directed to keep a strict
watch. He did so, and on the following day the
primoner and two other boys were seen to go up the
line, and the prisoner was observed to stoop and
place something upon the rails, and it turned out
that two stones were placed there. It also appeared
that at the time the engine ran over the stones on
the previous evening a search was made, and it was
discovered that atones of a similar kind had been
placed upon both the up lines of rails. When the
prisoner was apprehended it appeared that he denied
having placed the stones upon the rails, and said
that one of the other boys had done it.
Mr. Codd made an earnest appeal to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner, and, while admitting the
act imputed to him was one very likely to be at-
tended with the most serious consequences, and
which meritedsevere punishment when it was clearly
established, he submitted that in the first place it
had not been proved beyond doubt that the prisoner
placed the stones upon the railway ; and, secondly,
that, supposing the jury should consider that this
fact was proved, there was nothing to show that he
did so with any of the intents charged in the indict.
ment. He then called the attention of the jury to
the law regarding offences committed by persons of
tender age, and said that in the case of any one
under 14 years of age they were not responsible for
en offence of this description, or any other, unless it
was shown they were aware of the probable conse-
quences of their acts, and were at the same time ac-
tuated by a malicious intention to do mischief.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said he did
not think there could be any doubt that the prisoner
did place the stones upon the railway, but the next
important question was, to consider with what
intent the prisoner had so placed them. In the case
of a grown-up person the law considered him re-
sponsible for the probable consequences of his acts,
but this was not so in the case of a child under 14
years of age. In the present case therefore, if they
should be of opinion that the prisoner was merely
actuated by a feeling of mischief, or to see the effect
of a train going over the stones, that would not be
sufficient ; it was absolutely necessary that they
should be satisfied that he was actuated by one of
the intents imputed by the indictment before they
could convict him.
The jury, after some deliberation, returned a
verdict of not guilty.
Mr. Baron Bramwell told the prisoner that,
although he had escaped upon the present charge,
he was still liable to be proceeded against under
another section of the act of Parliament. He might
have caused serious mischief and loss of life or
broken limb by his act, and he hoped that he would
be punished.
The criminal business was brought to a close in
the afternoon, and both courts will be engaged to-
day in trying causes.