The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-05 00:00:00

[SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY 'E VENI N Gt, M ARCH 5, 1862.

THE ITALIAN QUESTION.

M. Billault spoke as follows in the French Senate
yesterday
:—The
Government can very well ender-
stand that a question, intimately connected with
religion and politics, should greatly occupy the
public mind, but it can hardly conceive that reflect-
ing statesmen, in judging the present and anticipat-
ing what is to come, should not feel that the past
engages the present and foreshadows the future.
(Movement.) I will abstain from superfluous de-
tails, but will state what the Government thinks
possible under present circumstances, and first, I
-will remark that the great Powers in the beginning
of last year recognised that, while opinions were so
divided, and the public mind under such opposite
influences, negotiations would be useless; they also
agreed that the employment of force was impossible.
Now, a few words as to what has since occurred. I
often see the intention of the Government calum-
niated by attributing to it designs it never enter-
tained : not to change its principles or aims for ex-
ternal clamoar is the characteristic of a strong
Government. It advances or halts as eventualities
may require. I only ask that the policy of the Go-
vernment may be judged by facts. It had resolved
to wait, while things remained unchanged, that is
the independence of Italy on the one hand, and the
independence and dignity of the Holy See on the
other. What had it done in these three great cir-
cumstances ? The first must be viewed in connection
with our engagements to the Holy Father. The
Emperor had said that the Pope might safely await,
at Rome, the issue of the crisis, and that France
would protect him there. The Emperor's intentions
are still the same. He has entered into no engage-
ments with any one, and the Pope is still defended
by the French flag. I now come to the first fact con-
nected with this subject; two Catholic Powers sug-
gested to the French Government the possibility
of an understanding and of common action to solve
the question. The Government took the proposition
into consideration, and did not, like an honourable
senator who alluded to the subject, see anything in
this simultaneous and identical communication at
all offensive to its dignity. I must add that, in all
her relations with us, Austria has acted in the most
straightforward manner, and that the offensive lan-
guage of a foreign journalist which had been quoted
cannot be imputed to the Austrian Government.
It is not the first time that the Emperor has been
fiercely attacked by Austrian journals, but the Aus-
trian Government and the Emperor himself have
always spontaneously offered reparation for such
insults. The proposition made by the two Govern-
ments was seriously considered, and our reply was
that we could not possibly take any part in the
creation of a sort of Catholic international law,
that in treaties the temporal power only could be
mentioned, and that, if a Congress should meet to
examine the question, all the Powers, even those
not Catholic, would have a right to be present. We
then appealed to the principle of non-intervention,
which, applied to Italy, is the guarantee of the
peace of Europe; and lastly, we requested the two
Powers to consider whether their traditions and
their relationship to the exiled Italian sovereigns
were not hurrying them on, in spite of themselves,
towards ideas which might be antagonistic to our
principles. But, with these reservations, we agreed
with the two Powers on one point, that the senti-
ment of the Emperor's Government was the main-
tenance of the actual situation of the Papacy, and
that it could not adhere to any combination which
should not guarantee the independence of the Holy
See. (Hear.) The Powers admitted the force of
our arguments, and the Cabinet of Vienna declared
that it left the matter, with all confidence, in the
hands of France, and was ready to take part with
her in maintaining principles which were the safe-
guard of all civilisation. As to the recognition of
the Kingdom of Italy, it was brought about by
necessities of the highest order. We had blamed
several acts of the Piedmontese Government ; but
important interests induced us to take a resolution.
1 do not mean material interests, such as treaties of
commerce or navigation. I allude to the situation
of Italy, then exposed to all the efforts of demagogy,
which monarchical Governments find so difficult to
restrain ; I speak of the immense void left by that
great, resolute, and able minister who had presided
at the birth of Italian liberty; I speak of the em-
barrassments to which the death of Count Cavour
left royalty exposed; in fine, I speak of great poli-
tical and social interests. Italy was recognised, but
the French Government explained itself frankly. It
did not approve of what had taken place, and gave
no encouragement to any undertaking contrary to
European rights. In the event of aggression on the
part of Italy, the Government promised neither
support nor co-operation. I will add that the ques-
tion of Rome was reserved. Italy herself under-
stood that state of things, and accepted it with
gratitude. Here is a third circumstance :—The
Italian Government sought for a combination to
escape from its embarrassments ; it desired that
Rome should become the capital of Italy in order to
disengage the word of the King and the votes of the
assemblies. I shall not revert to that proposition,
the terms of which are known to you; I shall merely
observe that the French Government had no direct
knowledge of it. It was afterwards communicated
to ns non-officially, and the French Government
refused to make itself the intermediary of a pro-
position which it regarded as neither opportune nor
acceptable. (Hear, hear.) The Emperor has not
abandoned any of the principles which he has
hitherto defended; he still wishes for the indepen-
dence of Italy, and for that of the Holy See. (Ap-
probation.) lam well aware that the solution of
the problem is difficult, and at the present time
almost impossible. It cannot be concealed that the
situation is full of peril. At Rome two days ago
there was in presence of French soldiers a silent but
important manifestation. I need not point out to the
Senate that a crisis exists there from which the most
regrettable and most formidable eventualities may
result. ln Italy there is a subterranean and subver-
sive agitation which may ono day break out in to a ter-
rible commotion. The mad hopes of the senseless
men who, but for the Emperor's assistance, would
have been annihilated by the Austrian armies, are
connected with the famous principle of " Italy doing
all by her herself.' They forget that they could
have done nothing except under the forward move-
ment of the French eagles. The Piedmontese are
doubtless brave, for they have proved themselves
so, but how could that army, even united to the
crowds, without organisation, whom many now
wish to bring on the field of battle, resist the regu-
lar taetics of a great army ? We are well aware of
the dangers which threaten Italy; we know that a
senseless man may embark in an expedition still
more senseless, and cause a conflagration which will
brad over Europe. We also know that in France
Public mind is excited, and that agitations of
as this kind are particularly dangerous in a country
impressionable as ours. The question is to know
how we mail
wish this
ward off so many perils. We did not
Court of Tlltln•delicate negotiation to begin with the
tion and deference were anxious to use considera-
eetowards the Holy Father. We
have not, therefore, as regards Rome, drawn up a
system, but have
6, things cannot remoeir plied ourselves to saying
in the state they now are.
The greatest dangers
threaten tho Pontifical Go-
vernment ; we are free
from n!' engagement ;what
we a
do you wish us to do.
ceived an absolute
re,rusa 1• We are, therefore, in
he word of
Presence on one side
of the Pontifical Government absolutel refusing,
and
00by th the other of a power which,
its King, by the promise of its Ministers
,and by
the vote of its assemblies, has pledged
itself to
Rome to Italy as her capital. This •
givesituation
us between the most extreme
placesresolutions.
What is to be do .
De P There are three plans :
reaction for the restitution to the Holy
Violent reac
See of all the territory of which it has been dis.
possessed;
to all the eventualities which might result from
si'Aing of neither being alarmed
it ; an attitude con
or imoderte petensions,
at blind resistance
nor
reasonm a
fromr time, and
and of waiting from pit- ,
from Providence, who watches over human affairs,
for a solution which, be assured, will one day come,
(Marks of assent.) As to reaction, which would
consist in violently restoring to the Holy See the
territory of which' it has been deprived, it needs
no discussion. After the Address of last year, and

the sanction given to the principle of non-interven-
tion, I think it would be a useless task. While
studying the past of the Roman question the other
day, I found that the doctrine of intervention was
proclaimed by Austria in a celebrated Congress, in
1821, and formally condemned and rejected by
France, by a minister of the elder branch, M. Pas-
quier, who characterised it as " not the childhood,
but the dotage of statesmanship." I will not insist
on this point, but if the solution which should con-
sist in forcibly restoring to the Holy Father the
whole of his territories is not practicable, do you
think that the other, which consists in the evacua-
tion of Rome, would be easier ? To -evacuate Rome
would be abandoning our principles, and would lead
to events which might draw Europe to a forced in-
tervention in Italy. (Movement.) I listened most
attentively to the powerful arguments of the illus-
trious speaker who, on Saturday, advocated the
evacuation of Rome. The Prince said that the
Government of the Emperor would soon rally to
that idea. In spite of the contradiction of the
ministers without portfolio, he had a presentiment
that such was the Emperor's thought. But it is
we who express the Emperor's thought, and defend
it within these walls. (Movement.) I have this
day received a special commission so to do. (Hear,
hear.) It is needless for me to remind you of
all the antecedents which prove that the two
lines of policy bear no resemblance. (Loud ap-
probation.) The illustrious senator said that
the unity of Italy had always been the Empe-
ror's thought. Certainly, the Emperor is now
opposed to any reversal of what has been done
in Italy in the sense of unity—for the question
has become quite different ; but it cannot be
truly asserted that at first he wished for Italian
unity as now understood by some persons. The
Emperor wished to see Italy free; he desired an
Italian Confederation under the presidentship of
the Holy Father. He wanted to see a great
nation, formed under the mg,is of national indepen-
dence. In a proclamation, dated from Valeggio, he
said to his soldiers :—" A Confederation will join
lin one common bond all the children of the same
family." That is the Emperor's real thought !
When the Emperor carried his standards into Italy,
it was not to raise the difficult problem of Italian
unity, but to deliver Italy from the Austrian yoke.
(Hear, hear.) The Emperor did not fully attain
his object, but, on his return from his victories, I
heard him say, in melancholy accents :—" Do you
think that I feel no regret at having stopped at the
Mincio ?" There was no question at that time of
Southern Italy : deliverance from Austrian domi-
nation, and federation of the Sovereigns in accord
with the with of the populations, was then the
whole Imperial thought. (Hear, hear.) If the Em-
peror did not succeed, it was because neither the
people nor the Sovereigns understood him. The
war in Italy must not be regarded as an enterprise
of which all the consequences had not been calcu-
lated. History will proclaim the civilising thought
which inspired it, which was, to join the Italian
peninsula in a unity of liberty far easier to realise
than the unity now desired. (Prolonged approba-
tion.) But, to return to the speech of the illustri-
ous senator whom we heard in our last sitting. He
said :—" What ought my Government to do?"
A voice—" My Government !"
M. Billault—Yes ; I remember the Prince said :
"What ought my Government (or else, the Govern-
ment of my country) to do ?"
Numerous voices—That was it.
Prince Napoleon—You will note the interruptian-
M. Billault, resuming his quotation :—" What
ought my Government to do ? To stipulate, in
the first place, so as to place it beyond debate,
everything necessary for the spiritual indepen-
dence of the Holy Father, for his honour, for his
financial and general independence. This done,
and these bases, I will not indicate here,
but leave them for statesmen to devise." I say,
for my part, that knowing the basis is not indif-
ferent, but the most essential point of the debate,
for the independence of the Holy Father is what
most occupies men's minds, this was not a case to
stop at generalities. The bases must be stated, and
I can affirm that they will not be those of M.
Ricasoli. I need not explain myself farther on that
point. (Hear, hear.) Let us now see what was.
said by the Prince :—" The Pope will then find
himself before his people ; we shall evacuate Rome,
and if, which God forbid, anarchical passions should
break out in the Eternal City—if any danger should
result to the person of the Pope, he will have the
assurance that Italian soldiers would know how to
afford him assistance when he asks for it." What
does that mean ? Are they Italian soldiers who
will defend the Pope and his situation, or will those
soldiers represent the Government of Victor Em-
manuel ? It is necessary to know that. If the
Pope is placed in the face of his people, insurrection
is certain in the state of agitation which now pre-
vails in Italy and at Rome. Some persons may
deny that, but there are facts which a fallen Govern-
ment cannot see. For a Government which knows
how to foresee the future, the tiara is only protected
at Rome by the flag of France; if Rome were eva-
cuated the temporal Government would fall, and
the spiritual would follow at the same time. The
Pope will then quit Rome. It is true that the
Prince adds, " if he quits Rome, it will be, I admit,
a cause of great trouble for certain Catholic minds.
it will be a great misfortune, but the unity of Italy
will come out of it triumphant." For my part I
doubt it. (You are right ! Hear, hear.) Suppose
that we quit Rome iu a few days, or in a month,
without adopting proper precautions ; the
revolution will break out with its courages, but
with its violences, and perhaps with its virtues,
but also with its crimes. I suppose, as the beau
ideal of that revolution, that the Holy Father and
his suite will escape without receiving any in-
jury; but if those criminals who take part in all
popular movements were to strike the prelates of
the Roman Court, and if their hands were not to
stop before his Holiness himself, do you think
France and the Emperor would not incur the re-
sponsibility ? (Hear, hear, and loud applause.) Can
we, therefore, forget that we have replaced the
Pope on his throne; that for the last 10 years-10
years of ingratitude, it is true, on the part of the
Roman Court, but 10 years of grandeur for the
Sovereign of France—the Pope has been protected
only by our flag ? Suppose, moreover, that the
Papacy were in exile, do you think that it will re-
main inactive? that it will not excite disturbances
in Europe, of which other people will endeavour to
take advantage of ? You will have thrown down
the brand of discord for perhaps a century. You
who think to have peace, you deceive yourselves,
for there are forces which you do not take into ac-
count. (Hear, hear.) I nevertheless, admit that
the Pope in exile would be powerless, be insensi-
ble to his own sufferings, and have no temptation
to disturb the peace of Europe. Will the Catholic
Powers, who have proposed to us to protect the
Pope, have abjured their convictions ? By what
right, after all, are we at Rome ? We are there in
violation of the principle of non-intervention. With
what grace could we therefore say to the other
Powers, " I no longer protect the Papacy, but I for-
bid you to do it." (Hear, hear.) Tb Emperor's
Government does not that-awe think it so easy to
adapt ...iution. It is liberal, but it is prudent;
it wishes for modifications, but it cannot precipitate
parties, and says to them, "A compromise must be
come to even if it be necessary to wait for it." Is a
compromise impossible ? As to Piedmont she de-
clares formally that she will do nothing except in
accord with France, and she accepts all the nego-
tiations which shall be carried on under our influ- 1
ence. The obstacles which stand in the way of a
solution are certainly great ; but nevertheless, if
statesmen should find a reasonable combination, I
do not hesitate to think that the Italian Govern-
ment would accept it from the Emperor. The
People, in fact, are not ungrateful to those to whom
itse
they owe theiropiedmnt,if
liberty. I think, therefore, that,
as to
tenacity of thatan acceptable combination pre-
sented if,
not bethe difficulty would be soon solved,
but it must
.
concealed that the great obstacle
is at Rome. All
nrletters point out the invincible
Holy Father, andof his Government. I do not speak of the
dogma, but of the temporal infallibility in matters of
e
of
fallibilty. This na
ixturinfallibilityeni for what
is spiritual and fallibility fortporalgives to the
government and its
a rigidity
statesmen of the Roman Government

which it is difficult to bend ; but for that, will they
always be, more than the statesmen of other coun-
tries, deaf to the lessons of experience when we say
to them, see what your obstinacy has done for you!
The day after Solferino, a project of federation was
put forward, with the Pope for honorary President.
The offer was made to his Holiness with one single
condition, that of giving a lay administration to
the Legations wearied by fifty years of foreign occu-
pation, and wherein Count Rossi said that the Pon-
tifical sceptre should not be masked by Austrian
bayonets from the liberal populations. Is there not
reason to ask, why have you refused ? Events
marched on, and a second offer was made. If, said
we, you will abandon that portion of your States
which has thrown off your rule, the rest shall be
secured to you, Another refusal. Then came a
third proposition—that of the Vicariate, which is
not without analogy with the past. Still a refusal.
At last it was said—You cannot subdue the popu-
lations yourselves ; accept this arrangement, Aus-
tria and France will retire; the other Powers will
guarantee the independence of the Holy See ; a
civil list, furnished by Catholic Powers, will secure
to the Father of the faithful a situation conforma-
ble to his dignity and mission. Accept this com-
bination. No, was again the reply. Is not this a
resistance obstinate, blind (if I may be allowed the
word) to generous, loyal, disinterested, and prac-
tical offers made by the French Government, end
made to statesmen whom it would be wrong to re-
gard as of only moderate ability ? But a retro-
spect on the relations of the Court of Rome
with France should inspire them with serious reflec-
tions, for since 1830 no Ministers of France at Borne
have differed in their appreciations of the Roman
Government. All have signalised, in the Papal
Government, the absolute immobility which is very
suitable to religious, but much less so to worldly
affairs; for the latter are by no means immoveable.
On July 28, 1847, Count Rossi wrote to M. Guizot
a despatch, in which he sketched the leading
features of the situation of the Roman States.
"Before 10, or perhaps 20 years," said be, "there
will not be a man, not a priest, not a woman that
is not animated with the national sentiment, and
he concluded by insisting on the necessity, for the
Holy See, of giving satisfaction for this sentiment.
The Minister said that he could cite 20 passages of
the correspondence of M. de Rayneval, wherein
that diplomatist made melancholy prophecies. In
one notable despatch, that of May, 14, 1856, he con-
cluded by saying that a catastrophe was inevitable,
that the temporal power was condemned—
Prince NAPOLEON—Very good.
M. BILLATJLT (continuing the phrase)—And that
the peril might be postponed, but not avoided.
Well then, continued the Minister, when we shall
say to these statesmen, " Look at the consequences
of this obstinacy, of this refusal, of this closing the
eyes to what is traced out for them by Providence,
do you think that our counsels will always be mis-
construed and rejected ??' I should understand this
resistance were it sought to impose conditions on
the spiritual Power, but such is not the case. The
oath of enthronisation has been cited as justifying
the refusals of the Holy Father. People forget
under what circumstances the oath was first re-
quired. It was not fear of war; the evil for which
a remedy was sought was altogether different. The
patrimony had no need of being guaranteed against
the eventualities of war, but against the allure-
ments of nepotism. (Sensation.) The Holy
Father can have no serious doubt as to the real
meaning of his oath of investiture. The Venerable
Pins VI, and Pius VII after him have ceded to poli-
tical necessities portions of their terrritory without
any revolt of conscience against this pretended viola-
tion of an oath. If this oath indeed had the effect
of putting a weapon of any sort in the hand of the
Holy Father, one might perhaps understand the
stress laid on this argument by the Roman Govern-
ment. But it is far otherwise, What has happened
since the beginning of the movement P At first
complete inertia prevailed at Rome; then a certain
alarm was instilled into consciences; then the Holy
Father asked to be allowed to maintain himself by
means of his own troops combined with those of
Naples—with that army that so basely turned
its back on the troops of the Revolution some
little time after. Lastly, the Holy Father wished
to protect himself with his own army ; how he suc-
ceeded, and how the predictions of M. de Rayneval
were realised, is well known. In September, 1860,
the Father launched an encyclic to claim armed
assistance from the Catholic world, but no succour
was forthcoming. Since that time he is resigned,
and waits for events. It is very well to wait when
spiritual matters are in suspense; they can afford
to wait, as religion is eternal, Patiens quia
eeternus ! But it is bad to wait in temporal affairs ;
it is a great imprudence, because there is nothing
immutable in them ; temporal interests must be
defended by worldly means. (Applause.) I affirm,
then, that we cannot renounce the hope of seeing
the Pontifical Government yield to circumstances.
On this day the Senate is invited to make its senti-
ments known ; but it is necessary that these senti-
ments should tend to level, not to augment, the
difficulties of negotiation. Below the elevated
region where the Holy Father is placed, there is
the region of temporal Government, and it must be
confessed that in this region there is no sympathy
for France. Our influence has need of being forti-
fied and sustained. The reports of all our am-
bassadors have made us acquainted with the secret
winding passages of this subterraneous Rome, and
with the difficulties we should find therein. (Here
the 11Iinister cited a despatch from the French
Ambassador at Rome relative to the effect pro•
duced in that city by the announcement of an
approaching French intervention in 1849. The
intelligence had. not caused much pleasure ; there
was submission to an unsolicited co-operation,
but the succour of Naples and Austria would have
been preferred.) It is certain, added the honour-
able speaker, that the Camarilla, as it is called, was
not then well disposed towards France; a second
despatch, in 1851, showed the clerical party and
the Ultras counting in their number the majority
of cardinals and prelates. Certainly the Holy
Father is exalted above these regions, but he is
nevertheless subject to the influence of his entourage,
and of the Minister whose has been through•
out conspicuous. Well, then, in presence of these
sentiments, is not your duty traced out ? It must
not be said at Rome that the great bodies of the
State in France are divided. It would be dange-
rous, and the result would be the maintenance of
the statu quo, It is the statu quo that is so easy
and so convenient ; it is so pleasant to repose even
in the midst of danger when there is some one
watching over you. Before the union of the great
bodies in France, it will be doubtless thought that
it is well to:yield to counsels which are given, not
only to protect the great Catholic interests, but to
maintain the Government of the Holy See. France
will perhaps again meet with ingratitude as the
reward of her devotedness. Did not Count de Ray-
neval write in 1849, "We shed our blood, and we
shall have no thanks for it ?" That must not dis-
courage us. We also know that we have many
ob-
atacles to overcome. The Prince said the other day
that nothing could be obtained from the Court of
Rome unless their determination was shown. I will
not go so far as that ; but I will say that in the
diplomatic correspondence, I have found a proof of
the necessity of beiug rather sharp in order to obtain
anything. I have found more particularly in the
words of a Roman Cardinal—a good judge of the
policy of his Government—a passage which is
worthy of our attention. It is given in a despatch
of the Marquis de Sainte Aulaire of the 20th Decem-
ber, 1832, and makes known the opinion of Cardinal
Bernetti, then directing Minister at Rome. It
says :—" Secularisation is inevitable; it will come
sooner or later, but the Pope will never with a
good will decree a measure which will be ruin
and humiliation for the Cardinals. Rather than
give such a proof of weakness he will prefer to re-
sist." In other words, the policy of Cardinal
Bernetti, in speaking of inevitable necessities, was
not to offer but to submit. The assent of a great
body like the Senate, whose sentiments are known,
will be a considerable fact. When it shall be
understood that the Senate, like the Emperor, sees
things more clearly than the temporal power at
Rome, and begs the Holy Father to compromise, it
will be of immense importance. The question, it
has been said, must be settled, but the Emperor

knows what he wishes. He will not have the Pon-

tifical provinces overrun by reaction ; neither will
he allow the avacuation of Rome to deliver up the

Pope to Revolution. (Approbation.) He wishes
to compromise between two principles ; that Italy,
which owes him all, that the Pope, who owes him
much ; and that the Catholic Church shall under-
stand this state of things. He desires that facts
shall act on the reason of all, so as to lead Italy,
France, and Europe to comprehend all the necessi-
ties. Reason must make its way. (Hear, hear.)
Be convinced that the calmness and sagacity of the
Emperor will carry the day. Do not hesitate to say
what you think, and do not consider a frank ex-
pression of your sentiments as an indication of want
of respect. The Minister reminded the house that
it would not be for the first time that a great coun-
try held plain language to the Holy Father, without
any dereliction of respect. Had not Louis XIV.
spoken with firmness, and before him had aot St.
Louis, with his profound piety, caused him to lend
an ear to the voice of reason ? Do not coafound,

liberty with respect; do not flatter princes, who,
ever they may be, if you wish to support them, and
render them a service. (Applause.) The Emperor
holds with firmness the standard of conciliation,
and more firmness is required for a long state of
expectancy than for hasty solutions. (Renewed
applause.) Let there be no division among you,
there is nothing disrespectful in the lan-
guage which you hold—language which is of
such importance to the peace of the world.
Let there be no division or separation ; vote for
the paragraph in its entirety—vote it unani-
mously, and believe that this vote will have an effi-
cacious action on temporal difficulties. (Loud ap-

planse.)
Voices from all parts—The vote ! The vote !
The speaker was, in concluding,
much congratu
lated.

The paragraph was then agreed to.
Par. 11 and last is thus worded :
" Sire,—Your Majesty, who fills so nobly abroad the part
of a mediatior, is entitled to invoke at home the conciliation
of men's minds. Let the clamours of parties, therefore,
hold their peace before the confidence of the nation ; let the
policy of legitimate interests remain victorious over what
still remains the policy of passions. The first, which is
yours, causes the country to advance from progress to pro-
gress; whilst the second, which has prevailed only too
much in the past, could but weaken and retard us. It is not
that which the Senate will take for guide, and we shall not
forget that, if liberty is serious only by, independence, it is
durable only by moderation."
Agreed to without observation.
A division was then proceeded to on the ensemble
of the Address, when the numbers were found to
be—
For •• 123

Against • • • • • • • • • • 6
In consequence, the Address was declared to be
adcpted.
The announcement of the numbers was hailed
with loud cries of Vive Empereur !

The deputation to present the document to the
Emperor was then drawn by lot, and the proceed-
ings terminated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—Ohrch 4.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
THE QUEEN'S PROCTOR V. WALLIS.
In this case a will of the late Sophia Bellis, or
Capel, had been propounded by Dr. Griffith Jones.
Probate was opposed by the Queen's Proctor, and
after a trial in this court the will waE pronounced
against as a forgery. The Queen's Proctor then
applied for administration to the estate and effects
of the deceased as a bastard and intestate, and the
present suit was instituted by the defendant, who
claimed to be the cousin-german of the deceased, to
try the right of the Queen's Proctor to the grant.
A fortnight ago a motion was made by Dr. Spinks
on behalf of the Queen's Proctor that the defendant
might be ordered to amend the plea by setting out
the pedigree of the deceased. The motion was op-
posed by Dr. Swabey for the defendant, and judg-
ment was deferred.
His Lordship now said that the Queen's Proctor
had found a precedent exactly in point, and, in ac-
cordance with that prececent, he shoald order the
plea to be amended by setting out the pedigree.
THWAITES V. THWAITES-JUDGMENT.
His Lordship said he would state the result of his
examination of the evidence in this case. The petition
was by a wife for a judicial separation on the ground
of cruelty. The parties were married in 1849, and
the petition, which was filed in Dec., 1860, contained
allegations of a series of acts of cruelty extending
over a period of about 9 years. It was manifest that
in a case of this description there must always be a
great deal cf difficulty in ascertaining where the
exact truth lay. Where there had been incessant
quarrels between husband and wife, and they had
led each other an unhappy life for a number of years,
there were generally faults on both sides ; but when
they came to give evidence in this court, and looked
back upon a long series of transactions, each of which
had increased the intensity of their dislike to each
other, they regarded those transactions through a
medium which distorted every object and disturbed
the vision and perverted the judgment. If, there-
fore, the Court did not place implicit confidence
in such evidence, it was not because it imputed
wilful misrepresentation to the persons who gave
it, but because they had, from a misconception of
the truth, formed an exaggerated idea of the trans-
actions of which they spoke. In addition to the dif-
ficulty of dealing with the statements of the parties
themselves, there was also a grea*:llfficulty in test-
ing the evidence given by others. Friends and ser-
vants were notoriously favourable to those who
called them, and were in truth, as Lord Stowell ob-
served many years ago, partisans in almost every
case. Such being the nature of the case he had
examined the evidence more than once with the
view of putting a just value upon the facts con-
tained in it, and he proceeded to deal with it, bear-
ing in mind always the principles applicable to
these cases as they had been admirably laid down
by Lord Stowell in " Evans v. Evans," and " War-
ing v. Waring." His lordship then went through
the evidence on both sides in detail. With respect
to many of the acts charged he came to the conclu-
sion, without imputing wilful falsehood to the wife,
that the husband's account explaining some of them
and denying others was more consistent with pro-
bability than hers, and he said that it was for the
party complaining to establish the wrong
of which she complained to the satisfac-
tion of the Court. He recta a very affectionate
letter written by Mrs. Thwaites to her husband
when she was on a visit to London in
December, 1856, and said that although he con-
curred in the argument of Dr. Twiss that affec-
tionate letters by the wife were not absolutely
inconsistent with cruelty by the husband, yet the
effect to be given to them must depend very much
upon the circumstances under which they were
written. He could well understand that when a
husband had behaved ill, and an unhappy estrange-
ment had taken place, and the husband was about
to enter upon a career which would involve him in
dangers and difficulties, the wife's affection might
return, and she might discard her injuries from
her recollection, and write her husband an affec-
tionate letter. But what was there in this case to
call for a great demonstration of affection if in truth
the husband was the cruel man that she had de-
scribed him ? It appeared that at one period Mrs.
Thwaites refused to hold any communication with
her husband for at least nine months. She
kept in her own room with two, of her
children, and without any occasion or necessity
whatever used that room for all purposes. Yet this
was the woman who complained that her husband
had taken from her the management of her house
and had given it to the servants. She would not
speak to her husband during the whole time, and
there was nothing to account for the abominable
manner in which she chose to live. He could
hardly fancy that she was perfectly sane. His lord-
ship referred to several of the quarrels of which evi-
dence had been given, and said that with regard to
some of them, for instance, the one which arose
from helping one of the children to apple sauce, it
was difficult to maintain perfect gravity in dealing
with them. He then passed to the charge of
cruelty in itself, but the cruelty was said to con-
sist in Mr. Thwaites's neglect to provide his
wife with proper food when her gums were
tender, and his refusal to allow her artifi-
cial teeth. The teeth were extracted with
the sanction of a surgeon in 1857, and she
continued to dine with him until 1858. He could
not therefore have sent her hard pieces of meat from
his table immediately after the teeth were taken out.
He had refused to have a new set made for some
time because her gums were too tender to bear the
pressure. When they were made he paid for Viem,
but they soon had to be taken out for the reason he
had given.
With regard to the purcbase'by her of
a diamond ring for £l3 out of the legacy of £2O or
£3O left her by her father, he observed that no
doubt Dr. Twin was
quite right in saying that a
diamond ring bought for that price would not be a
very magnificent one; but here was a struggling
professional man with several children,
wishing to
save money for his children's education, who
found that out of the small sum intended to buy
mourning for her and the children hie wife

had spent £l3 upon an ornament for her-
self. He could easily imagine that Mr.
Thwaites felt rather angry and disappointed
with the purchase. As to the charge
founded upon his bringing the eminent physician,
Dr. Davies, to examine the state of her mind, he
could find nothing in Mr. Thwaites's conduct to
indicate a desire to shut his wife up in a lunatic
asylum. That these parties by mutual want of
conciliation had made each other extremely miser-
able might be granted, but that was not the ques-
tion he had to decide. That the wife had on some
occasions sustained some slight bodily injury might
also be granted, but he had to say whether the con-
duct of the husband had manifested that degree of
savitia which rendered cohabitation unsafe. The
forgetfulness of the wife of certain circumstances—
for instance, the letters she had written to her hus-
band, her total omission to mention her having
withdrawn from cohabitation for several months,
her denial of having used abusive language to her
servants when there could be no doubt that
she had used it—showed that she had allowed
her mind to be so obscured by prejudice that
he could not rely upon her statements. He was
not, therefore, satisfied that she had established her
case, and he should dismiss the petition.
Dr. Twiss, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey were counsel
for the petitioner ; Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Dr.
Spinks for the respondent.

ASSIZE IN TEL LIG.EIV CE•

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—OXFORD, March 4.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
MURDER OF A GAMEKEEPER.
John Hall, labourer, aged 33, was charged with
the wilful murder of Stephen Moulder, gamekeeper
to Lord Dillon, on the 20th Dc..,ember last.
The case commenced at 9 o'clock in the morning,
and occupied the whole of the day, and was not
brought to a termination before 7 o'clock in the
evening. A great number of witnesses were exa-
mined, and several of them were subjected to a long
cross-examination, but the facts themselves lay in
a very small compass.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Sawyer conducted
the case for the crown, and Mr. Staveley Hill and
Mr. Harrington for the prisoner.
On the night of the 19th of Decembei last, two
gamekeepers of Lord Dillon's, named Stephen Moul-
der and Thomas Curcis, were watching a coppice
known as Shears coppice, part of Lord Dillon's
estate at Ditchley. They commenced between 10
and 11, and remained there till between 12 and 1,
when they heard some one in the coppice. They
proceeded there, and saw two men coming across
the ride. They followed them along the ride, and
when within ten or twelve yards of them one of
the men turned round and deliberately fired at the
keepers, the result of which was that Moulder re-
ceived almost the entire contents, and fell to the
ground, dying instantly. Some of the shots also
struck the other keeper, Curtis, but did not injure
him. The man who fired the gun ran off imme-
diately he had done so, and Curtis, believing it to
be Hall, called ont, " Jack, Jack, I know thee."
The man swung himself over a gate and got away.
The other man who was in company with him
was a labourer named John Tuckey, who was
captured by Curtis, after a scuffle, Tuckey
calling out to his mate to come to his assistance.
Tuckey was taken into custody, when he gave up a
ramrod which Hall had dropped and he picked up.
It was proved in evidence Hall and Tuckey had
been together on the 19th of December drinking at
various public-houses, and about 11 o'clock at night
went to the house of John Maycock, brother-in-law
to Hall, where the latter asked Maycock for his
short gun which he had to repair. The gun was
fetched, and loaded, and Hall and Tuckey went
away in the direction of Shearscopse, where the
unfortunate occurrence took place. At a public
house where Hall, Tuckey and others had been
drinking on the night of the murder, Hall used some
angry language towards the keepers, and said he
should not mind shooting a man. Certain footmarks
were traced from the gate, where the man who fired
the gun had made his escape, to the turnpike road,
and these being compared with the boots taken off
Hall's feet, corresponded most minutely.
The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder, but
recommended the prisoner to mercy on the ground
that they believed his firing the gun was a momen-
tary act, and that he only meant to disable the
keeper, but not to kill him.
The Judge said he quite concurred in the ver-
dict, and could not see how the jury could safely
have come to any other conclusion. His lordship
then passed sentence of death in the usual form,
and said that the recommendation of the jury should
be forwarded to the proper channel.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—NoRTHAmPToN,'March 4.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)
ATTEMPTED MURDER OF A GAMEKEEPER.
William Patrick, 24, labourer, Arthur Artheston,
48, weaver, and Henry Clarke, 35, weaver, were
indicted for the attempted murder of William Issitt,
a gamekeeper, in the employ of Viscountess Hood,
at Barton Seagrave, on the 30th of January last.
All the prisoners pleaded not guilty.
The jury convicted all the prisoners, and they
were each sentenced to ten years' penal servitude.