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

iTHE [SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY 'EVENING, MARCH 5, 1862.

knows what be 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 not St.
Louis, with his profound piety, caused him to lend
an ear to the voice of reason ? Do not confound,
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 fur 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-
plause.)
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, vihich 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
adopted.
The announcement of the numbers was hailed
with loud cries of Vive l'Empereur !

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

LAW INTELLIGENCE,--March 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 was pronounced
against as a forgery. The Queen's Proctor then
, and the
applied for administration to the estate and effects
presentof t he deceased es cuei at s
wased as i
instituted
ti bastardtu te
d band
theintestate
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 should 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 ajudicial 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 of 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 great difficulty 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
ease. 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 read a very affectionate
' letter written by Mrs. Thwaites to her husband
- when she was on a visit to London in
1 December, 1856, and said that although he con-
curred in the argument of Dr. Twiss that afiec-
' 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. Thw. aites'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 them,
but they soon had to be taken out for the reason he
had given. With regard to the purchase 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. Twiss 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 g
mourning for her and the children his wife