The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-06 00:00:00

dame Wyso will certainly be able to co:roborato your de-
claration.
" I have the honour to b; sir, your vory obedient ser-
vant in J. C.

"N. CARDINAL WISEMAN.

" To the Abbe Roux."
After receiving that letter I came a third time to Lon-
don and saw his Eminence. He said he would still con-
tinue to look for the document. I went to, Mr. Hel-
der, Mr. Wyse's attorney. He showed me a register
chewing that bills for B,ooof. bad been given to him, and
a title to 25, GOOF. I afterwards saw the Cardinal and
told him what I bad seen. His Eminence was astonisbed,
and referred me to Mr. Harting,. Upon that Mr.
Harting and I went to Mr. fielder's office. The aame
entry was shown to Mr. Harting. I afterwards saw
his Eminence, and he told me Mr. Harting had told
him all about it. I begged the Cardinal to write to Mr.
Wyse to return the document, because I had given it to
him (the Cardinal) and he had given it to Mr. Wyse.
His Eminence replied it was better not to write to Mr.
Wyse, but he (the Cardinai) would write to the Empe-
ror. I bad told his Eminence that the Emperor was
paying the debts of his family. I had asked him, if the
document was not found, to write to the Emperor to
attest it. When his Eminence said he would write to
the Emperor that terminated the conversation. After
that I learnt that Prince Lucien was in London. He
was brother to Madame Wyse. I asked his Eminence
for a letter to Prince Lucien. I received this letter
from his Eminence,tdated the 19th of July.
" College of St. Cuthbert, Durham, July 19, 1854.
Monsieur L'Abbo,—l send you the letter for Prince
Lucien Bonaparte. lam here, at the extremity of Eng-
land, in a college of which I am the Apostolical Visitor,
upon an official visit. I shall return to London Monday
next.
"Your devoted servant in J. C.,
"N. CARDINAL WISEMAN."
It enclosed a letter which was sealed. I had an inter-
view with Prince Lucien, and presented the letter. The
Prince consented to present a letter to the Emperor if
the Cardinal would write one. The Prince advised that
as the only means of getting the money. I told the Car-
dinal what the Prince bad told me—that ho would de-
liver a letter to the Emperor. I learnt from them both
that they bad had an interview with one another. I
asked the Cardinal to write such a letter. He said he
was net accustomed to write to the-Emperor, but if I
would write one he would copy it, that I might give it
to the Prince. I wrote such a letter the same day, and
took it to his Eminence. He said he would copy the
letter the same evening, and I might call for it the next
day. When I called his Eminence could not receive me.
I learnt that his Eminence had gone to Yorkshire. I
received this letter about a month afterwards. I had
great difficulty in discovering his address, which was
concealed from everybody.
The Cardinal's letter was read as follows
27
Yorks
:
" Filey, , August , 1854.
" Sir,—Before my departure fromhire London it was by the
advice of medical men that you were refused admission to
any presence. Four eminent professors had been called in
to consult upon the serious state of my health, and their
opinion was unanimous—that I should as a duty withdraw
from all occupation, and even for some time receive no
more letters. To write to you to-day is positively painful
to me, and an actual suffering. Hence I have sent you
neither a reply nor a letter for the Emperor. This letter
I will force myself to write perhaps to-morrow. For the
present I restrict myself to telling you that previously to
my departure I announced my intention of placing you at
Chelsea, but at present the chapel is closed. As it was not
of urgent matter, I write by this post to M. the Vicar-
General, Dr. Whitby, at Moorfields, to whom you will
hive the kindness to prJsent yourself. A most indispene
sable thing is the progress in the English language, as
the Frenclipriest at Chelsea should at least confess and
even sermonise in English. I beg you, therefore, to apply
yourself to it.
"Permit me, Sir, to make one slight observation. Since
you have discovered that your documents were not mislaid
in my hands, it seems to me that this earnestness in your
manner of speaking and writing, as if there existed some
debts of justice upon my shoulders, arising from the painful
position in which Sou are placed, should cease. I confess
that I am sensibly affected to hear that you hold me as
under the obligation of supporting you, or to procure you
a situation, as if I bad been the depository of a certain
sum, or its equivalent, which you ought to reserve, but
which was lost through fault of mine. I fear that in Paris
I shall he held guilty of such negligence. I hope, there-
fore, that you will have made known to your friends that
your documents were found to have been placed in other
hands than in mine.—l have the honour to ba your very
obedient servaht in J. C.,
"To the Abbe Roux." "N. CARD. WISEIIAN."
On his return to town I saw his Euinerice, and asked
him to come to some conclusion, so that I might recover
my money. I could not get him to write any letter,
nor did I receive the document.
Crose-examined by Mr. Keating---The advances I
made to Madame Wyse were from my own money. I
had shares in three companies of the value of 18,000 f. I
also borroled for the Princess from one party 6,0001.,
and frotri another 5,000 f. . From these moneys I made
the advac C'o to the Princess in 1845-6 7. I sold all my
shares. My mother was living at Paris at that time.
So long as her son lived she would nut live in a state of,
great poverty. She was nut in a state of great poverty.
I know that the Princess denies that she owed me any
money. She never told me I had red-ived large sums
on her account, and appropriated them to my own
use. I bad disposed of some of her jewels and also
of some plate. I never heard that the Archbishop of
Paris had complained of my visiting the house of the
Princess. I never told the Princess so. I did not ob-
tain from the Princess any other security than the one
for 25,000 i. I did net obtain one fer 60,0001. I never
told her that I had put those securities in the fire, or
that I would do so. I could not pretend to throw them
in the fire, for it did net 'exist. The Princess did not
repay me. How could she ? She had not enough to
keep her. Madame Blanchon was present when the
document was signed, but no ono else. She is not here.
It was near the end of August, 1847, when Madame
Blanchon told me my mission was ended. I saw Dr.
Wiseman when I first came over to London. This paper
is a copy of the copy which I kept. Before I left Paris
I kept a copy of the document I was taking over, and
the copy produced is copied from the one I left at Paris.
It is a copy .I made for my solicitor. I do not know
what bas become of the original copy. This is an exact
copy of is. I think the Princess owes me some thou-
sands more, but I only claim the 25,000 f. It was in
1354 I for the first time discovered that the original was
in the hands of Mr. Wyse. I swear it. This letter is in
my handwriting, dated the 9‘ll of March, 1848.
The followina passage of the letter was then read to
the witness
I also beg Mr. Wyse to be so good as to remit to Mr.
Oppeneau the acknowledgment for 25,000 f. which Madame
Wyse gave me. If this lady came to know that this seen-
rity had gone out of my hands I believe her quite capable
of maintaining that she owes me nothing."
The witness was then asked whether he now persisted
in saying that it was in 1854 when he knew for the first
time that the document was in Mr. Wyse's hands? He an-
swered —A friend, Mr. Oppeneau, camp to London with
that letter, and on his return hetold me that the document
was still in the hands of Dr. Wiseman.. After that I
could not doubt that it was in Dr. Wiseman's bands.
But in 1854 I discovered from Mr. Helder that it was
in Mr. Wyse's hands. The first time I saw the Cardinal
I had the document and the bills, and it was on that oc-
casion I left them with him. Ido not recollect that I
asked him to obtain for me an interview with Mr.
Wyse. I afterwards saw Mr. Wyse at his house, after
the Cardinal had given ud the bills. I did not give the
Cardinal the document to give it to Mr. Wyse ; I should
have been mad to do so. When I heard Mr. Wyse had
the document I ( xpressed dissati,faction. I did so -to
the Cardinal. I asked him to got it back. I knew it
had been given utp4eby passage mistake. i
n I
letterca tno
of
f understandthe 9
h nf
what I meant by
March, 1848. Possibly a rumour.....inyay, have reached me
sa thatw Mr.the Wysedocument o n
once
e waswhen I was in Lohnwadne
in Mr. Wyse's
then onefirt
man of
bhniminfeosrs.mortyn.inklurasEteoldanddress
time. f
toI didhis notma
Mr. Wyse would not pay hie wife's debts. did
said
see the Cardinal on this business between the idlisaot
4S
and 1854. I knesr that the Archbishop of years 1845
the Cardinal, and strongly recommended me to lairs_
When I saw the Cardinal in Paris he said he recollected.
the document perfectly, without being able to state the
amount. Ile said he thought-it was arnung his papers.
He did not say be did not know what bad become of it.
I saw Mr. Ilelder in 1854, once before Mr. Harting
went with me, and once after. I asked Mr. Helder to
write to Mr. Wyse to give the document. I can't say
whether I expressed to Mr. Helder or to Mr. Harting
any dissatisfaction with the document being in the
han6 of Mr. Wyse. I did not ask Mr. Wyse to
pay me in 1854 ; I only wanted the document back.
I do not recollect that I told Prince Lucien the

the Princess repudiated the debt ; I do not be-
lieve I did. The Prince did not tell me that the
Emperor would not pay the debts if the Princess repu-
, dialed them. The Prince Lucien has been-subpoaiiaed by
my solicitor. After the correspondence with the Cardinal
about his writing the letter to the Emperor, I do not
remember tl.at he offered to sign a certificate that he
had seen the document in question. I did not prepare
such a certificate, and the Cardinal did not sign it. I
entered on my ecclesiastical duties at- Chelsea. There
were complaints made against me at Chelsea, and I
Was prepared to answer them. An inquiry was not di-
rected, but my powers were suddenly (brusquernent)
withdrawn from rue. Thai was in December, 1355.
•,...11e-ex mined by Mr. Huddle ton—With respect to
the complaints at Chelsea, I was prepared to answer, but
no opportunity wasgiven me. On being asked what the
charges were, the witness said--I reserve myself for the
ecclesiastical tribunal. The mosey which I borrowed
for the Princess is still due, and I am paying interest
for it. The Princess had the money. She also had the
proceeds of the sale of the jewels and plate. I have con-
stantly supported my mother, but she has complained of
my furnishing so much money to the Princess. The
Princess had an income of only 2001. per annum. I
have done all I could to procure the attendance of Mme.
Blanchon here. I copied the document produced from
the original copy. I also sent a copy to the Cardinal.
When I wrote the letter of the 9th March, 1843, as I
knew there was a negotiation, between the Cardinal and
Mr. Wyse, I thought the document might be in Mr
Wyse's hands, or that it might be list ai,d I might not
get it again. When I came to London in 1854 I went
to Chelsea. The Cardinal did not know exactly how
much my income would be at Chelsea, but he said it
would be about 2001. a year. It was only 301. I heard
that the Emperor was paying the debts of the Princess.
I was assured that Pricer Lucien would be here to-day ;
he promised to attend, lie has sent a certificate.
The deposition of Emanuel Laz-mis. a French avocat,
was read to show that the plaintiff bad paid a sum
of about 20,000 f. on account of the Princess, and that
M. Blot, an officer of the French Government, was pay-
ing her debts. He stated that her ackLo wledgwent of
her debts was not necessary in order to obtain payment. ,
The deposition of Theophyle Tisseron was read to
show that he received 1,8001. from the plaintiff on ac- 1
i
count of the Princess, to redeem her furniture, and also

another sum of 200 f. for hit expenses in going to London
for the Princess.
Tne deposition of Jeannette Chevallier, femme de
chambre to Madame Wyse, was also read, to show that
the Abbe paid her' 300 f, as wage., or she woul I have
left her mistress ; that he also paid a great many of
Madame Wyse's debts, and that the latter said she could
never forget his kindness.
Edward Lawrence Levi, examined by Mr. Sergeant
Pigott, said—l am the attorney - for the plaintiff in this
action. I wrote to the defendant on the subject of this
acknosidedgieent in November, 1850. I had been con-
sulted two or three months before, I went to Paris to
find all the witnesses. I searched for Madame Blanch, n,
and all I cduld hear was that she had gone to Germany.
I bad originally subpoenaed Prince Lucien for the King-
ston assizes, but we were obliged to change the venue.
I was going to subpcena him again, hut I was told by
his secretary to leave the subreaha. I have since re-
ceived a letter to say that the Prince is unwell, and not
able to bear railway travelling. At Paris I applied to
M. Blot for the amount of this debt, 25,0001., with in-
terest. He refused payment, and assigned a reason.
Cross-examined by Mr. Keating. That was after the
action was commenced, and after I saw Prince Lucien.
It was on the 7th or Bth of last month.
Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott.—l went to M.
Blot partly in consequence of something Prince Lucien
had said.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Keating, in addressing the jury for the defen-
dant, said he should call Cardinal Wiseman, who would
deny in the most positive manner that he had ever re-
ceived the document on the terms stated by the plain-
tiff. At the time the plaintiff was an entire stranger to
him. Having in vain attempted to reconcile Mr. and
Mrs. Wyse, the matter escaped his memory for several
years, until the year 1854, when the plaintiff applied to
him on the subject. The Cardinal then recollected that
he had seen the document, that it was a security for
money, and contained the expression that it was a
"sacred debt," and said it should be looked for ; but he
never told the plaintiff that he had the document. The
Cardinal was requested by the plaintiff to write a letter
to the Emperor on the subject of the document, but, on
consideration, he thought it would be indecent to do so.
He, however, consented to sign a certificate of the nature
of the document he had seen, as far as he could recollect
it, and be gave it to the Abbe. Whether or. not the
certificate had been u,ed and bad failed be (Mr. Keating)
had no means of informing the jury ; but it was very
likely that the Emperor, with that sagacity which be-
longed to him, would not be willing to pay any debt
against the wishes of his relatives, He would, therefore,
show the jury what Madame Wyse herself said about
the plaintiff's claim. He would read her deposition, in,
which she denied that she owed him anything. She
admitted that he bad undertaken as a friend to manage
her affairs, and had occasionally made partial advances,
hut upon the who le she considered that he was indebted
to her. No doubt it would bo more convenient to the
plaintiff to get the 1,0001. from the Cardinal by the ver-
dict of the jury than it would be to run the chance of
getting it from the Emperor ; but, though the Cardinal
hr.l no desire that the plaintiff should be deprived of his
rights, he felt bound to protest against the attempt now
made to fix him with an obligation to which ho was not
liable either in law or justice.
N. Cardinal Wiseman, examined by Mr. Phipson, said
—ln 1547 I had been many years acquainted with Mr.
Wyse. Mr. and Mrs. Wyse lived apart. In 1847 the
plaintiff called upon me. It was the first time I had seen
him. He came to me as a French priest who had come
on a business of charity. He stated he came to effect, if
possible, a reconciliation between Mr. and Mrs. Wyse,
that he had known Mrs. Wyse for some years; that her
conduct was then exceedingly good and virtuous ; arid
that it was his desire to make peace between her and her
husband. He asked inn to be the conciliator, and, as a
bishop, I considered it was my duty not to refuse when
one of my flock was concerned. I believe he asked me
to secure him an interview with Mr. Wyse. The Abbe
at the first, or at a subsequent interview, showed me two
sets of documents. Some were bills of exchange, signed
by Mr. Wyse's son. He also showed me an acknow-
ledgment of Madame Wyse for 25,000 f. He said he
wished to ask Mr. Wyse to pay it. All my dirty was to
put him in communication 7.,ith Mr. Wyse. Ho did not
ask me to be the intermediary between him and Mr.
Wyse, I would not have undertaken such an office. I
did not reply, " Most willingly." I never undertook to
obtain any part of it from Mr. Wyse. I simply recollect
having seen the document, and having had it in my
hands. The next time I saw the Abbe was in Paris. 1
recollect in general that the document contained some
sort of acknowledgment of a debt, and a " sacred debt."
I now recollect, on talking about it, that it was for
25,0001. After the Abbe Roux left I never again spoke
to Mr. Wyse on the subject. I never proposed to Mr.
Wyse to pay it. I spoke to him on the subject of
the reconciliation in 1847. In the last interview
with the Abbe I tsld hies he had better take his papers
hack. He said, "As Mr. Wyse has refused to pay the
debt, there is no other person on earth by whom I can
expect to be paid." I am pretty sure I saw the Abbe in
Paris in April, 1854. I cannot feel sure whether the con-
versation I had with the Abbe was in Paris or in London.
If I said I would " send the documents back," I must
have said, "It the document has been left with me, I
will find it and send it hack." On my return to London
I searched and could not find it. I afterwards saw the
Abbe in London in May. I wrote a letter also to him on
the sth of June, 1854. After that letter I saw the Abbe
frequently. The Abbe used to corns to me and ask for his
title. I referred him to Mr. Harting, my solicitor, with
instructions to trace it. When I was in Paris the Arch-
bishop spoke to me about a certain Abbe Roux. The
Abbe came over to England, and I appointed him to a
temporary employment. The Abbe applied to me to
write a letter to Prince Lucien, I believe I gave him an
introduction to the Prince. Ile also applied to me to give
him a letter to the Emperor. He sent rue a copy of the
document, which he said he wrote out from memory, and
asked me to certify that I bad seen ,uch a document. I.
believe I signed such a certificate. The Abbe came to me
and said he had been to Paris, and asked for that debt of
25,80Af. from the Government, and they had said to him,
"Produce your title." He then said, "If you will write
a declaration that yost have seen this document, your
word will be equivalent." He then wrote out the docu-
ment, and, considering it to be the substance, I signed
the certificate. I cannot give the exact date, but I be-
lieve it was in the autumn of 1854, The Abbe also asked
me to write to the Emperor to the same effect. That was
subsequent to tne certificate. I suppose because the first
was not sufficient. I promised to send such a letter, but
I afterwards declined, for valid reasons, I gave the Abbe
a shelter for a time. I appointed him first to a situation
at Islington ; then I appointed him to a French chap-
laincy at Chelsea. There were two superior chaplains.
I never told him the salary was 2031. a year. All de-
pends on the income chaffy. They all live in common,
and have everything supplied.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—l never had
bilis for 8,0001. in my possession. They went to Mr.
Wyse, but I can't tell whether I gave them to Mr. Wyse
or not. There were several interviews. When I said,
" You had better take your papers to Paris," I don't
know whether I had them. I meant the B,ooof. bills
and the 25,0001. paper. lam sure I had them not in
my possession. lam sure I had no conversation with
Mr. Wyse about the bills of exchange. lam not aware
he told me I might give anything to /dr. Wyse. lam
not a ware that I ever ssked Mr. Wyse to pay the 25,000 f.
nor to recognise the debt. lam sure the papers were
not left with we in any manner. I said, in answer to
an interrogatory, " I remember to have seen such a do-
cument as mentioned in this interrogatory under the &r-
-cutustances already stated, but whether the same was
left with me to give to Mr. Wyse, or was handed to him
by the plaintiff, I have no recollection Whatever." My
memory refreshed by documents makes me now recol-
lect that they were not left with me. By the "docu-
ments" I mean the Abbe's letter of March, 1848. I saw
Mr. 'Wyse in 1847, and spoke to him about the recon-
ciliation, but I don't think I spoke about the money.
Mr. Wyse said he would have nothing to do with the
Abbe Roux. That was about the reconciliation. When
I said in my letter of the sth June, 1854, that the do-
cument was " left rather than deposited," that does not
remind me that I saw Mr. Wyse. I knew the obliga-
tsw.i.owannss.nhoatldlaebmfetewnnoitewhiven up to Mr. Wyse. The impression
on my mind now is that it was not left with me ; indeed
alv-,:r the documents, lam sure. I am now satisfied it
a i
from was never
reconsideringef t in sayh a p
wholeosses-
Aofbptbhaees ceidretuhirn,s,tanccmeneseriand the documents—l allude to the
Roux's
ugletter,hm ew
at all,
init
wlaB:4Ba
mereto Mhra.Helder—ifhanding
over.
itma ier; W'Myyseba:lidettihse
that Abbe
thewere presentceooire
cwt
te
that
were
together
Anlibet
dhe
over at the same time. I can'
ever asked we t.W:wytrshieteeatfEboemrAwiprae.rrdoWrs:yse on the s bjec t I
feel confident he never applied to me
promised
t asked
dt in any
I
did not to
w'wralytewa
do t
it t
itlheMte
Mr..
I write to the Emperor and t' b
rr other
gracious sovereigns once a year, and I have written to
the Emperor on other occasions. I can't say it was the
day before I left London for Filey ho asked use to write
the letter. The circumstances stated in the letter of the
27th of August were reasons why I should not write
such a letter. I intended to write the letter, but I
changed my mind. I did not communicate to the Abbe
that I had changed my mind. I did not tell the Abbe
that I was not in the habit of writing to the Emperor.
I asked him to prepare a draught, but I would not write
the letter which he wrote. lam not aware that I told
the Abbe that I would not write a letter. I never have
written to the Emperor on the subject.
Re-examined by Mr. Keating—l declined to write to
the Emperor ; but it is not necessary tc say why.
William Helder, examined by Mr. Phinson—Since
the year 1847 I have been solicitor to Mr. Wyse. I saw
Mr. Oppeneau on the 4th of April, 1843. I did not tell
Oppeneau that the document had been given back to
the Cardinal. I saw it in Dec., 1847, at Mr. Wyse's,
Wilton-place. I have not seen it since, nor heard of it.
I recollect the Abbe and Mr. Harting coming to me on
the 4th of Aug., 1854. I told them I had seen the do-
cument with Mr. Wyse in Dec , 1847, and that I bad no
recollection of seeing it since. In 1847 I saw the Abbe
after I had spoken to Mr. Wyse. It was on the 25th of
Nov., 1847. I saw the plaintiff, and told him Mr.
Wyse would recognise no debt of Madame Wyse's. I
never saw the Cardinal on the subject.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—l have re-
freshed my memory by this memorandum made at the
time. I have no memorandum of what I did not tell
him. I have a memorandum that when Oppeneau
called I referred him to Mr. Wiseman. The memoran-
dum contained this note :—" N.B. He never called
again." In Dec., 1847, I saw the document at Mr.
Wyse's, for the purpose of advising whether he should
rec ignise his liability. I advised him not to do so. I
do not know whether the Abbe ever called on me alone.
Re-examined by Mr. Keating—Mr. Wyse has been in
Greece since 1849.
The deposition of Letitia Wyse was then read, She