The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-25 00:00:00

'IE SUN, tONDON; THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER .25, 1858.

last with reference to degreys in art. Before the
resolution was proposed,
Mr. SHEAN, the clerk, read two memorials ad-.
dressed to the Convocation with reference to the
regulations of the Senate. The first of these docu-
ments, from members of the University and the
Colleges of Cheshunt and other places, recom-
mended some changes in the period of the exami-
nation for the B.A. degree, and referred to details
connected with the course of study pursued at the
University. The second memorial was from pro-
fessors and graduates in Catholic Colleges affiliated
to the University of London, and was signed by the
President and professors of the Roman Catholic
Colleges of St. Cuthbert's, St. Mary's, Oscott, St.
Gregory's, Downside, St. Edmund's, Ware, and
Stonyhurst.
Mr. 'T. S. (ISLER moved resolutions to the fol-
lowing effect :
" That having regard to theitngth of time during which
the system of this University has been in operation, and
also to the important changes now introduced by the 36th
clause of the new Charter, the time has arrived for a search-
ing investigation as to the principles upon which this Uni-
versity ought to confer degrees in Arts. That Convoca-
tion is desirous of entering upon such investigation, and in
the meantime abstains from expressing any opinion with
respect to the propriety or adequacy of the recent
changes adopted by the Senate. That a committee be ap-
pointed to consider and report upon the principles on which
degrees in Arts ought in future to be conferred in this
University, and on the tendency and adequacy with refer-
ence thereto of the new regulations adopted by the Senate."
The Rev. A WELD, Professor at Stonyhurst Col-
lege, seconded the motion.
Some discussion ensued, and several amendments
which were proposed were withdrawn or negatived.
In the course of the debate,
The Rev. J. SWEENEY, Prior of St. Gregory's,
Downside, said that the Catholic colleges of this
country had hitherto remained true to the Univer-
sity of London, although a Catholic Universitylia
been established in Dublin, but if the regulations
recently promulgated werecarried out, they would
certainly have the effect of driving those colleges
from the London University.
The motion was agreed to nem. con., and a com-
mittee of 15 gentlemen was appointed to carry out
its objects.
On the motion of the Rev. A. CREAK it was re-
solved that, in view of the very inadequate amount
that had been appropriated hitherto for the encou-
ragement of learning in the University in the form
of scholarships, exhibitions, and prizes, the Senate
be requested to take suitable measures for increasing
the same, and that instead of awarding gold medals
to candidates in law and arts, scholarships of not
less than £lOO a-year for three years should be
awarded to every candidate whom the examiners
might deem entitled to such a distinction. Mr.
Creak said he did not propose such a prize in the
medical department, because he understood there
was a disinclination on the part of the medical
students to accept such an honour.
A member then moved that Convocation should
adjourn for three months, to which an amendment
was proposed, " that Convocation do now adjourn."
The amendment was carried, and the proceedings
terminated shortly before 11 o'clock.

LAW INTELLIG_ENCE.—iVov. 24,

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.)

MARCHMONT V. MARCHMONT.
Mr. ,
Mr.Sr
t• Dr. Deane, Q.C., Dr.
spinks
Atkinson, were counsel for the
egTeanintdalPAigtokint
petitioner, Mrs. Marchmont, who prays for ajudicial
separation on the ground of cruelty ; Mr. K. Ma-
caulay, Q.C., Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey
for the respondents, Mr. Marchmont, who pleads a
denial of the allegations of cruelty, and also con-

donation.
The case was resumed by the examination of
additional witnesses in support of the petition.
Wm. Nisbet, a policeman, stated that on the
evening of the 25th Feb. he heard violent screams
from a cab near Blackheath. The cab was being
driven at the rate of 12 miles an hour. The screams
continued all the time it was in sight.
John Bond, who was on duty at the Peckham
police-station on the 25th Feb., said that about a
quarter before 8 in the evening he heard a female
scream, and a constable came in with Mr. and Mrs.
Marchmont. She appeared agitated and he was
calm. The constable said the cab had been stopped
by a gentleman. Mrs. Marchmont said that Mr.
Marchmont had attempted to strangle her. Mr.
Marchmont said, " Oh, no, Carrie dear, no such
thing." Witness advised them to make it up and
go away. Mr. Marchmont said that if he had said
anything hurtful to her feelings he regretted it,
and he hoßed she would allow what had passed to
be buried in oblivion. Mr. Marchmont said she had
a home to go to, and she might go to any friend
she liked. She remained for along time, and at last
said she would go to her sister. He said she should
not go there, but might go to any other place.
Ultimately she went home with him.
Cross-examined—He was not present all the time
they were in the station. There were some conver-
sation about household matters, and he complained
that she eat fresh butter herself, and only allowed
him salt butter. (Laughter.) She called him a
" wretch," Witness tried to see if there was any
mark of strangling about her, but found none.
Mr. Marchniont said that if his hand had got be-
fore her mouth • it was by accident in preventing
her from leaving the cab. She said, " You wretch,
you married me for my money." He said, " No,
Carrie, dear, you know.better. You know I broke
up my home and gave up my living for you, and
if it was not for your friends I believe we should
be very comfortable." She did not ask me to assist
her to go elsewhere than with her husband.
Re-examined--Witness thought it was only a
dispute such as often occurs between man midwife,
and that it would soon be over.
James Streek, a house.painter, said that on June
4th he was at work in Percy-place, and heard
screams in a garden. He saw a lady struggling with
a maid servant. The lady was running, and he
jumped over a fence and stopped her between No.
10 and No. 11. • A gentleman took her from him.
She appeared trembling and frightened. The gentle-
man, Mr. Marchmont, took her into the house.
Mr. Mitchell, a medical man, of Percy-place, said
that on June Bthhe was calledin to see Mrs. March-
mont. He was not acquainted with them before.
Mrs. Marchmont was in a very serious state of
health. Her mind was very depressed, her pulse
was feeble, and she complained of headache. He
continued to attend her. On June 10th he was called
in and found her fainting on the sofa. Mr. March-
mont's manner was excited but not angry, quite the
contrary. He entreated his wife not to resort to the
police court. She said he had treated her unkindly,
and she was compelled to resort to it. Mrs. March-
mount went from the court to witness's house with
the approval of Mr. Marchmont.
Cross-examined—Nothing was said about her
only remaining with him until the following day.
He prescribed beef tea and a little wine when he,
was first called in. He did not advise her to get up,
take a lamb chop, and trust in the the; Lord.
(Laughter.)
Re-examined—She was in a state of inanition.
Dr. Cahill said he had known Mr. Marchmont
since 1844. He attended Mr. Locket and his wife.
He never saw any indication that Mrs. Locket took
too much stimulant. He had found it necdssary to
recommend her to take more stimulant. He saw
her frequently during Mr. Locket's illness, which
was a long one.
Cross-examined--Mr. Locket was a very good
patient. ,
This was the close of the petitioner's case.
Mr. K. Macaulay then addressed the jury for the
respondent. He was, he said, anxious to lay be-
fore them what, as he was instructed, was a com-
plete answer to his suit. The cause was one of
great social and moral importance, and a jury had,
almost for the first time, to arrive at a conclusion,
under great disadvantages, with regard to the con-
duct of a husband and a wife during many months
of married life. In order to make out a case of
cruelty it must be proved by the person seeking a
judicial separation that the cohabitation of the two
parties was personally unsafe, by means of bodily
injury and menaces of bodily injury unprovoked
by anything done by the respondent. The law did
not allow persons to separate because they lived un-
comfortably together, or because a jury might think
that a wife was, on the whole, entitled to a sepa-
ration. Upon the evidence as it now stood, he
submitted no bodily violence whatever had been
offered to this lady by the respondent, and there
was not the slightest pretence for the allegation
that money that had been extorted from her by
violence and threats. Money had been advanced
by her to enable Mr. Marchmont's father to take
the lease of a farni, but for that she might have his
note whenever she pleased. The £350 was the
money with which the wine was bought. After
the marriage she presented him with £lOO without
the slightest solicitation. Subsequently she lent
him £7O to make up a payment. The next money
matter was in February. After a violent quarrel
she gave him, without even being asked for it, the
£220 at Prescott's, and this not' being included in
her settlement was, according to law, his own pro-
perty. What extortion was there in any of these
instances ? At another time purchases were made
at a sale which amounted to L,92. He went to pay
the auctioneer, and found that she had already paid
that sum without his knowledge. There was ano-
ther sale, and he paid for the purchases, and she re-
imbursed him in the following week. In May he
certainly asked her for £lOO, and told her he
should not want any more until November.
That was the only sum she ever gave in conse-
quence of his previous request. There was another
cheque for £l5, which was given by her to pay
for the removal of wine to her house. These almost
incredible charges of extortion, therefore, disap,
peared from the case. He would now ask them to
consider the condition of the parties at the time
of their marriage. Mr. Marchmont's chapel
brought him in £3OO a-year, and of course he had
to give it up. She affected, however. not to know
that he derived an income from that source.
After her return from Blackheath she renewed her
proposition for a separation, to which he again
objected. Then they took a trip to Belgium. She
gave him the exact sums for each of the hourly
disbursements, and minutely examined the change
as it was given her. Then, on their return, there
was the purchase of the boa when he was ordered
out of the shop. He was not looked upon by the
tradespeople:who noticed her conduct as her hus-
band, but as some humble dependent who could
not call his soul his own. They then returned to
Percy-place. There was no suggestion of any vio-
lence up to that time, and yet she said she was
obliged to have a child in the bedroom with her
to protect her life. The next incident was the
quarrel of the 21st of Jan., which originated, ac •
cording to her own admission, in her aggravating
refusal to allow him a candle. She was making
memoranda in the book of the quarrel, when he
took the book and threw it into the fire. Surely
that was not cruelty. Then she snatched the book
out of the fire and struck him. She went scream-
ing down stairs, and the servants naturally tried
to prevent her from leaving the house. Expressions
which fell from a man under such strong provoca-
tion ought not to prejudice their minds against
him.' On the 28th of Jan. the Newfoundland puppy
was brought home, and she received him in a most
exasperating manner. There wereinstances of gross
conjugal misconduct on the part of the lady, who,
nevertheless, represented that she trembled before
her husband. She went away on the Ist of Feb.,
notwithstanding his attempts at reconciliation.
She stayed with Mr. Walmisley until the 25th,
when he discovered where she was and went to
fetch her. He sent in a kind note asking her to re-
turn, and entered the house of Mr. Walmisley. If
Mr. Walmisley had had any idea that Mrs. March-
mont was in danger of bodily ill-treatment from
her husband, would he have suffered him to take
her away without moving a finger in her defence ?
Mr. Marchmont put his arm round his wife and
put her into the fly. If any blows had been struck,
as Mr. Walmisley represented, would he not have
interfered ? His statement showed to what an ex-
tent witnesses in cases of this sort allowed their
imagination to overcome their memory. When she
arrived at the Peckham police station, she said
nothing about having been struck. On the road
he used violent and improper language, and she
thought, as she said, that he was beside himself.
There was much reason to believe that after what
had occurred he was almost beside himself with
excitement. He was, of course, overwhelmed with
shame and remorse for having used those express,
sions, but they would make allowance for the un-
controllable passion of an overwrought mind. After
going to the station they returned home and were
good friends. She then conceived a jealousy, and
became impressed. with an unfounded belief that he

was in the habit of impro] perly consorting with other
women. She acted on tin it belief by insisting on ac-
companying him_where3:er he went, and on seeing
his letters, and nothing that he did could dispel her
delusion. She stated that her suspicions were
aroused by a certain letter which had fallen into
her hands. That letter should be put into Mr.
Marchmont's hands; he would tell them everything
he knew about, and would not shrink from the
fullest investigation. On the 27th occurred what
she called " a dreadful quarrel," which was followed
by the gift of the £220. Tire quarrel would be de-
scribed by one of the servants who saw it. The
good-humoured letter which he wrote at Prescott's
corroborated the' view he was presenting, that his
conduct was uniformly kind and coaxing. On the
19th March she left the house again, and went to
Mrs. Mackenzie, the nurse, in consequence, as she
said, of a quarrel about the house. During her stay
with Mr. Walmisley he had received a contumelious
letter from the trustees, desiring him to leave the
house, and he desired to be made a tenant to the
trustees at a rent. The cause she assigned to
the servant for going was that he had left the
house after kissing the children without bestowing
a kind look upon her. Mrs. Mackenzie told them
that Mrs. Marchmont was very ill when she arrived,
but why was not Dr. Bird called, who would have
been able to contradict or to confirm Mrs. Mac-
kenzie ? Her own caprice was the only reason for
her visit to Mrs. Mackenzie, and her husband had
a right to insist upon her return. It was very well
to talk about his having married her for money ;
but what moral blame could attach to a man for
marrying a good-looking widow who was violently
attached to him, and who' had no claims upon her
fortune, for the purpose, not of leading a life of
luxury, but of advancing his children ? He made
heavy sacrifices for her ; he took upon himself part
of the expenses of the household and the mainten-
ance of his own children, and the whole of her pro-
perty was settled upon her. After her return from
Mrs. Mackenzie's there was the scene about the
will, in which, according to her own statement,
there was nothing improper in Mr. Marchmont's
conduct. She afterwards flounced out of the house
again without any provocation. With regard to
the language upon which so much reliance appeared
to be placed, Mr. Marchmont would never cease to
regret having used it, although under great provo-
cation, but it would be proved that Mrs. March-
mont herself used language which no woman of de-
licacy would ever have uttered. The language, too,
however improper, was not sufficient of itself to
substantiate a charge of cruelty. On the 15th May
the request was made for a loan of 145., and the
mode in which she received it was an excellent ex-
emplification of her character. She screamed and
rang for the servants.. When the scene was over
they drove into the city, and while he was in a
money-order office off she went, and he could not
find her for some hours. He saw her in Newgate-
street, and she rushed into a shop. She was so
violent that Mr. Marchmont was obliged to give
an explanation to the people in the shop, upon
which she again fired up. On the 25th May she
was at Mrs. Davis's, and as soon as that lady got
hold of her there was an end of all chance for Mr.
Marchmont. .He was anxious that she should
return, because one of the children was ill. She
was always fond of the children, and treated them
as kindly as her stingy disposition would allow.
That was the best part of her character, and al-
though she was sulking with her husband she re-
turned to him when she heard that one of the chil-
dren was ill. For a few days they appeared to be
on good terms, but her suspicions as to his moral
character influenced her whole conduct. They slept
together, but she repelled him, because, as she said,
she was afraid that he might have been with other
women. It was this charge which almost mad-
dened him, especially when she repeated it in the
presence of a servant. On the 10th June he had
been obliged to go to Hemerton to correct some
proofs for the press. She imagined he had gone to
see some woman, and althoug they were quite
friendly, she went to her lawyer. The next morn-
ing he asked whether she had been to her lawyer.
She refused to answer, and his wrath becoming
excited, he said he had a right to know. The bell
was rung, another quarrel took place, his anger was
aroused, and he no doubt used foul and improper
language. He did this because he was exasperated
by her behaviour, but he did no more, and she went
to a neighbour's house. She afterwards came out
of it ; he saw her, and lifted her over the wall into
the garden. She ran away, and was caught by her
husband and Mr. Mansfield and taken into the
house. That did not constitute cruelty. His learned
friend would have to make out not only that acts
of crueltylhad been committed in the preceding
-winter, but' also thatthose actswhich had been con-
doned by:subsequent cohabitation were revived by
another act of cruelty on this 4th of June. It would
be seen from the evidence he would lay before them
that there was no pretence for any charge of cruelty
on that clay. When she became ill her husband
attended on her, and did everything that could be
done for her : but she absolutely refused to have
either a doctor or a nurse. That was not the con-
duct of a person who was in bodily fear. Mr. Mit-
chell at last came and prescribed beef tea and wine,.
which she was fortunately induced to take. or she
might have died of inanition and sulks.
In reply to the learned judge,
Mr. Macaulay said he intended to rely upon acts
of condonation subsequent to the 4th of June. She
had voluntarily cohabited with her husband after
that date. 'With regard to the letters written after
their separation, was it not natural that, appalled
and horror-struck at the very idea of the exposures
which had now taken place, he, should be willing
to go through any amount.of humiliation in order
to avoid them ? He was content to take all the
blame of what had really occurred upon himself,
ut those letters contained not a single expression
to lead to the belief that he had been guilty of any
act of personal violence. A letter had fallen into
her hands, probably -written by some malignant
mischief-maker or designing and interested villain
for the purpose of being rseen by her, which had
raised her suspicions, and he was anxious by any
means in his power to remove them. The learned
counsel concluded, by submitting that no allegation
'of cruelty had been substantiated, even on the evi-
dence as it now stood, and that after they had
heard the evidence he was about to adduce they
would be of opinion that Mr. Marchmont had made
a complete answer to all the charges in the petition.
The first witness called was,
Mr. Henry Marchmont, who said—l had known
my wife , about ten months before our marriage.
About five days before that event I received a letter
from her, desiring me to make arrangements for
our wedding at the Roman Catholic cathedral in
the Borough. I had previously to that time been
minister of a chapel in the Lower-road, Islington.
I have received from. it as much as £350, and as
little as £290 ; but I have always stated my income
from it at £3OO. In the month of May, 185/,
which had first been fixed for our union, my wife
said she would not marry me so long as I kept the
chapel; but that if I would give it up she would, at
her own expense, build me a protestant church,
which she would attend with me and my family.
I earned with my pen as much as £1,200 in the year
1855. The year before the marriage I earned £7OO.
I have property worth £4OO ; in part of that,
however, I have only a life interest, and it
goes. to my children under the settlement
of my 'former marriage. The settlement for my
second marriage was prepared by Mr. Godwin,. of
Essex-court. At my desire all my wife's property
was settled upon her, in accordance with a wish
had expressed to her in a letter on the 22d of April.
It was written at Mrs. Lockett's house, and given
to her. I afterwards found it with some other
papers left behind by Mrs. Marchmont. (The
letter was put in and read; in it the respondent
suggested that his wife should appoint all her
trustees herself, provided that none of her relations
were selected. If she chose, however, to have re-
lations, then he submitted that he ought to be
allowed to name his father.) I wrote that letter at
the request of Mrs. Marchmont. She wished to
show it to her friends, and thus exclude the appoint-
ment of Mr. Walmisley, to whom she objected on
account of his extreme meanness. It was agreed
between us that I should keep a carriage and all
its appurtenances ; and that I should maintain my
children and defray my personal expenses myself.
Another proposal was made to the effect that I
should allow her £500; but Mrs. Marchmont
eventually preferred the terms I have stated.
When my wife was ill at Tunbridge Wells I begged
her to have a nurse, but she refused, and I attended
upon her myself. She was extremely irritable,
aggravating, suspicious, and exacting as to the at-
tentions she required. She expressed dissatisfac-
tion at eveWhing I did. On the first day after
we went to Mr. Bennett's lodgings she was offended
because there was no wine. I offered to get some,
but she would not speak to me for four or five
hours after. She said to me, " What a fool I have
been to marry. I hate the married life. There is
that in it which I hate above all things, and poor
Lockett knew it." (Roars of laughter.) The
weather was very cold, and I requested to have a
fire ; but she said it was an unnecessary expense.
She told me that the children might run in, the
streets and keep themselves warm. When she got
better I rendered to her an account of the moneys
I had disbursed, and there was a mistake of a shil-
ling. She said, " It's just like you. You married
me for my money, and here you are cheating and
robbing me." When I asked for a small sum to pay
the postage of a letter, she made a similar remark.
On my return to Tunbridge after I had been to
London, she complained of my missing the trains
She said that if she had been well enough she
would have gone away. Mrs. Davis came down to
see her on the 7th of November. She came into

my wife's room, but she took no notice of me. My
wife was very angry with me while her sister was
with me, because Mrs. Davis told her that she had
found I was only 32 years of age. I was in reality
36 ; and I never told her different. In point of fact,
she had never asked me how old I was. When
Mrs. Davis had gone away she told me her sister
had informed her that I bad been complaining in
London of having to spend my honeymoon in my
wife's sick room. I assured her that it was an un-
founded calumny. I afterwards borrowed £7O of
her to pay my attorney at Cambridge ; but a few
days after she told me !she would not trouble me
to repay her that sum. Once, when I had brought
her some East India sherry, she said, " I suppose
you intend to poison me with that filthy wine.
You suppose anything will do for me ; but I shall
teach you a different lesson before long." On the
17th of November she called me " a d—d fool." I
had only been giving my children a little wine, as
it was my birthday. I said to her, " This is a
pretty example for my children, who have never
till now heard a profane word." I said I would
take them away that very night. She said, " I
hope they will first take off the things
I bought them, and put on the rags they came
down in." She complained that Prescott's would
not cash her cheques without my order. I said the
English of that was that the money was legally
mine, but that I had not the least objection to her
having it, and I wrote the order. On our way to
Dover she spoke to me in such a manner that I was
perfectly ashamed of myself and of her. At first
we were comfortable at Dover. It had been ar-
ranged that I should take no money with me,
but when I, asked her for eightpence to post a
heavy letter for London, she said the letter
might rot for her, and I had to borrow eightpence
at a hotel. I had an Oxford cheque with me, but
I could not get it cashed at Dover. I said I would
not submit to such insult and oppression, and that
I would leave' er. She called me on that occasion a
" liar" and a " money-hunter." The next day I
begged her not to take so much wine, seeing what
a serious effect it had on our mutual happiness. She
replied, " You shall not see what I drink," and
immediately put the black bottle to her mouth.
(Laughter.) She then said she would go away. I
told her that she should not leave me without
money, and insisted on having a certain cheque for
£lOO, whieh had been drawn upon a sum of money
at Prescott's that really belonged to me. I asked
her for her keys, in order to get the cheque out of
her trunk. While I was doing so she seized me by
the hair and pulled me away. (Laughter.) She
used to scream when we were quarrelling. I re-
mehnber telling her to behave like a lady, and to
remember both that we were in a strange place,
and that it was a Sunday afternoon. I reasoned
with her on her conduct. I told her that it could
only lead to a separation. I reminded her that if
what she had told me before our marriage was true,
she could not be happy without ; and I said I would
confess that without her life would be valueless.
After this she went back to the table and finished
the wine, drinking it out of the bottle as before. She
drank three-quarters of a bottle on that occasion.
Whenever I asked• her for small sums she would
say, " You are always wanting my money." I had
occasion to speak to ' her almost daily about the
wine she drank. Ido not mean to say that she got
drunk, but she drank till her temper was disagree-
able. I drank none whatever myself, and we had
a bottle in every two days. On the 9th of Decem-
ber, after I had been remonstrating with her, she
said she would go. I asked her where ? She said
she did not know or care. I went with her, and
after walking about I said to her, " Well, at all
events, come back and pay the bill ; you know I
have no money, or very little." I did not say the
"d— bill. I never " d—n" but once in my life. I
lost sight of her, but she came back about ten. I
never said anything about throwing either myself or
her into the sea. The only thing I ever said like it
was once when I was playing with my boy Sidney, on
the pier, and when I pretended to throw him over
the balustrade. I then said, " Mamma, shall I
throw you into the sea ?" When she came back I
received her kindly. I said, "It is worth suffering
the pain your going away has caused me to have
the pleasure of receiving you again." On the fol
lowing Sunday she was angry with me because I
took my children to church. She again wanted to
go away, and I insisted again on her giving me the
cheque for £lOO or I said I should write to Pres-
cott's countermanding my order to honour her
cheques. I saw that She did not wish to go, and I
remonstrated with her on her conduct. She said,
" Then give me my cheque back." I replied, " Oh,
if that is all, here -it is," and I gave it to her. I
received £l5 from her for the cost of removing my
wine to her house. Before our marriage she had
thrust a roll of notes, amounting to £350, into my
trousers pocket, and buttoned them up. (A laugh.)
I told her she should have my cellar of wine in
return. It consisted of 200 dozen, and was worth
£6OO or £7OO, and the £l5 was for taking it from
Stoke Newington to Clapham. The dispute, which
occurred when we were out walking, arose from
her saying that she would not share my arm with
any one. I said, "What, Caroline, and with my
own child ! Pray be quiet ; people will think you
are mad." She went from me and did not come
back till Christnias-day. She wrote to me, saying
that she had left me because I preferred my child-
ren to her, and was always accusing her of taking
too much wine.. On Christmas•day I received a
note from the Lord Warden Hotel telling me that
she had left a scene of gaiety and festivity at her
sister's house in order that her sister might not
know that we had been quarrelling. That note was
destroyed by herself. She said she did not wish to
preserve a memorial of the dispute. I wrote back,
telling her that she ought not •to be jealous of my
children. When I went to the hotel she said that
if there had been a train she should have gone back
to London, because she did not like my letter. After
some hesitation she went with me to our lodgings.
Early the next morning she said, " If you had cared
for me you would have fetched me." Whill I was,
dressing she added, "If I had known how you would
have received me I would never have come back. I'll
give you £lO,OOO if you will give me a separation."
I said, " Very well ; I would rather have you than
all your property ; but still, if it is necessary
to your happiness I will yield a reluctant
assent." She wrote the letter, but I begged her to
consider well what she was doing. I told her that
if, as she said, my reception of. her on the previous
day had seemed cold, my manner was like a mantle
of snow over a coal fire—(a laugh)—and that if she
went to my heart she would find a very different
state of things. I don't recollect saying anything
about Vesuvius. When we went to Belgium she
told me not to take any money, for she would pay
all the expenses of the trip. She would never let
me have a penny in my pocket. At Dover she was
buying a boa. She was complaining of the price.
The young man appealed to me, "Don't you think
it is worth the money ?" I said, " Well, I think it
is." Whereupon she exclaimed, " You are always
interfering—walk out of the shop." I replied,
" Well, my dear, you are spending your own money,"
and went away. What she said was spoken in a
most offensive and insolent manner ; and the young
people in the shop laughed at me. "On Sunday,
when I desired her to take the children to church,
being myself detained at home with some writing,
she said I was always thrusting them on her as a
burden. She afterwards said she was going away ;
and after dinner she left the house. I followed her
about for three hours. At last I said, " This is a
;most miserable mode of going on. You make my
life a burden to me, and if you won't go home with
me I won't go at all. So here goes." I ran down
to the pier, and she followed me.
Dr. Phillimore--.:What did you mean by " Here
goes ?" Did you mean you would throw yourself
into the sea ?
Witness—Well, no. I did not mean that. (Laugh-
ter.) When she found that) did not jump into the
sea, she left me, and went to the railway station. I
went there with her, but she did not go by the
train after all. She went back with me, and we
spent the evening very comfortably. (Laughter.)
I never called her " a spit-fire, hell-fire cat. On
one occasion she called. me " a d—d liar ;" and I
said, " Oh, Caroline, what a little spitfire you are !"
She replied, " I don't mind if you call me,a hell-
' fire." I remarked, " You are an insolent little puss."
The Judge—Putting that together makes " hell-
fire cat." (Laughter.)
Witness--I never made me of such a phrase in
my life. When we got to Percy-place, I complained
o
of the want of room, and reminded her that she had
promised to take a larger house. I asked her to
mase said,f.
~Ifyexpressedu do a wish
have to
one, have
a governess.
she
hire a nurse for the children; but she said I might
,
w aillthem el
shall he old and ugly. I dare say you would like to
have a young lady to play on the piano for ou and
to flirt with ; but you'll find yourself gloriously
, anl
g y
mistaken." (Lau ht ) I *
g er. merely said, " This is
very foolish talk." On another occasion she called
me a " pig," and said I did nothing but eat, drink,
and sleep.
(Laughter.) On another occasion she
called me " a mean villain." On the 21st of
January I was writing in
my .study. It is a small
room, about six feet by five. There is a little grate
in it which would not hold a handful of fire ; and it
is a very cold room. She came and asked me how
I was getting on:? I said, "Very well, thank you,
Carry clear. Would you be good enough to tell
the servant to bring me a candle?" She said, "T
should not have one for half-an-hour." I repl4.ed_
that if I turned• to the window I should get ;;old,
and said I would fetch one of the wax-candks we
had brought from Brussels. I found the bedroom
door locked, and I asked for the key. She shook
her key-basket in my. face, and declared that I
should not have it. I said, " Why you. must be
drunk or mad. to refuse your husband a farthing.