The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-13 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 13 1844,

LITERATURE.
LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.
Murray, London, 1844.
This biographical memoir of Sir Francis Drake
which is from the pen of Mr. Barrow, of the Admi-
ralty, forms the fourteenth Number of Murray's Co-
lonial Library—a cheap miscellany, published monthly,
and containing an immense variety of information of
the most popular and entertaining character. The
memoir before us is the most circumstantial that has
yet appeared on the subject of Drake's achievements,
and though penned in a eulogistic spirit, does no more
than justice to the memory of a brave, skilful, and
adventurous navigator, whose character has been
greatly misrepresented, and stood in need of such a
discriminating biographer as Mr. Barrow. The me-
moir abounds in incidents of the most stirring nature
more especially those portions of it which relate to the
Spanish Armada, and the share which Drake took in
defeating that "Invincible" fleet, as it was presump-
tuously called by the Spaniards.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. •
FROM THE EVENTI.G PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
STANDARD.—The position of the affairs of
Spain is most melancholy, and presents no immediate
prospect of improvement. The fault is, however, as
much that of the Spanish people as of their law-
givers, for where there is not the strong temptation to
despotism which exists in that miserable country, the
chances are undoubtedly in favour of rational
liberty. For their present degraded condition, the
Spanish people are clearly indebted to themselves
alone. They have created the Frankenstein which
now follows and torments them. Whenever they have
exhibited firmness and decision of purpose they have
invariably selected the wrong time for its display.
They were pretty unanimous in driving Espartero
from his place among them; although they had no
grave accusations to allege against him. His govern-
ment was mild, and in the fullest sense of the term,
constitutional. He gave peace to the country
from the incessant intrigues of the Carlist faction,
and had scarcely had time to settle down in
his government, ere he discovered the imprac-
ticable elements with which he had to deal. Having
achieved all that military daring and foresight could
be expected to accomplish for Spain, he had hardly
time to turn his attention to the internal condition
of the country ere he was driven from it a fugitive
and an exile. Had he exhibited those qualities
which have invested Narvaez with almost su-
preme power; had he established a reign of terror,
which forbad all political discussion, and planned
opportunities of rendering his enemies amenable
to his vengeance by originating, through his
agents, conspiracies for the express purpose of afford-
ing him an excuse for punishing the parties they were
intended to compromise; had he appropriated the
scanty resources of the nation to the conciliation of
the army, or the corruption of the priesthood,
he would have been Resent of Spain at the pre-
sent moment. But he thought proper to despise
those extraneous aids to power of which other
less honourable and far less able aspirants
have made such abundant use. If we except a
single abuse of his power—only more conspi-
cuous, because of the usually moderate character of
his government, an act forced upon him by the vin-
dictive disposition of the ex-Queen—his regency was
characterised, not merely by a just, but by a humane,
regard to the errors of the people over whom he was
called upon to preside. Had he been better ac-
quainted with their character, he might possibly have
acted with more promptitude and decision in his diffi-
culties than he did. But the Spanish people are
rotten to the core. Even the army, which
he had fostered, and which had earned glory
under his command, deserted his cause the instant
it began to fail, almost en masse; and that, too,
under circumstances of meaner infamy than has
characterised the defection of any similar body in the
whole range of modern history. Officers and men
alike sold themselves to the highest bidder. A small
sum down, and promises which have never been re-
deemed, induced soldiers who had fought under his
banners, and achieved on such occasions considerable
military glory, to turn their arms against their bene-
factor, and they were among the first to join the
movement against him. A brave man, and with
ample means at his command, could he have re-
conciled the conduct of his successors to his
conscience, he contented himself with remaining
on the defensive, and thus lost not only the
military advantages which were within his
reach, but disgusted such of his followers as were
unable to appreciate the motives of his forbearance.
His successor, Narvaez, has been far less scrupulous,
and consequently far more successful. He found a
people wearied out with agitation, in the collapse,
physical and moral, which sometimes succeeds
powerful excitement. He took advantage of this
prostration of spirit to place his iron heel upon their
necks, and after innumerable acts of severity, better
suited to the leader of a tribe of savages than the
servant of a constitutional monarch, he is about
to consummate the treachery and cruelty which
have marked his entire career by sacrificing the life
of a man who was one of his most zealous coadjutors
against Espartero. By the sheer force of military
despotism, he has contrived to assemble a Chamber of
Deputies, capable of any degree of submission, how-
ever degrading, he may think proper to propose.
Hence their acceptance of his late audacious articles
for the reform of the Constitution. Hence the Spanish
people are willing to revert to a state of despotism
greater than has existed among them for more than a
century. The trial of General Prim is proceeding with
little chance of an equitable decision in his favour.
The witnesses against him have been suborned ; the
tribunal to which he is committed is evidently one
which will have little scruple in condemning to death
a man who has been guilty of the enormous offence of
disputing unconstitutional mandates. Here, how-
ever, is once more a tolerably striking example of
" poetical justice." General Prim was one of the
most bitter and successful enemies of the Duke
of Victory. He has even been charged with
having endeavoured to assassinate him. His claim
to public sympathy is therefore wholly unte-
nable. In either case he is a traitor and deserves
to be tried as such. If the farciful account given in
the Paris papers of Saturday of the intended scene
between Narvaez and himself be correct, he will, it is
possible, be a traitor again. He is, however, too able
a man to be agreeable to Narvaez, and the great pro-
bability therefore is, that the proposed visit and re-
prieve will arrive too late. The conduct of Narvaez
and that of the wretched victims of hi 3 tyranny, of
whom the Chamber of Deputies is composed, are
worthy of each other, and have given rise to the
fullest belief that it would be imprudent in the ex-
treme to interfere with their concerns.
GLOBE.—The selection of Mr. Erie, the eminent
Whig barrister, to supply the vacancy on the Bench
of the Common Pleas, has been the subject of varied
comment by the public journals of this country. By
the Tories it has been regarded with surprise, if not
alarm. Still the acknowledged personal and professional
merits of the new judge have deprived party attacks of
their accustomed virulence. Though the policy which
dictated the selection has been assailed, the unexception-
able qualifications of the gentleman selected, apart from
apdarmtyisscioonnssi,detrahetioonbsj,echtaivoensheaegnaaindmstitthted. eaplpVoiitnhtmaueenht
are rather creditable than otherwise to the Govern-
mh
aevnet .b l i Exceptnde orwtihthe few whom poarftpyerpsroejnualdiecxe!
mpeecatadtaitoinesne.has
Tihrreitbateeadt, a nn
to
itchi ipnagt i 0 isn s haeraerd
ebhuetricsohmed-
from an act which implies that, wherever else the
claims of party shall be recognised, the judgment-
seat shall be kept free from their presence and influ-
ence. Not so, however, in Ireland. There the Orange
journals are venting the virulence of party on the
pGroovs
pe relic mt
oefnt,
one,
iwhomf notthtewyea s, seaairl w 4. ivtaheraenncei
ewee di a ftuhr
ey . T he
Irish
Courts may have some affect in pointing the earnest ex-
postulations and reproaches with which the Orange
journals are filled on this subject. This " latest in-
stance of the Peel policy," is dilated upon in every
imaginable form of exaggerated complaint and con-
dseermvantaitvieo,niir.John Thehapaßsseinaguyovvvereat tehlaaitmsstatuanachjaCdgone:
ship the elevation of Mr. Sergeant Howley, a
Roman Catholic and a Whig—with other instances
of Sir Robert Peel's ingratitude to those to whom he
owed his recal to power—these are recapitulated and
dwelt upon in illustration of the policy of which Mr.
Erie's elevation to the Bench is only one among many
instances.
" It would be affectation in us," says the Dublin Mail,
" to say that we regret that this instance of the Peel
policy has occurred. It is not impossible that it may
have a beneficial effect, by explaining to English capa-
cities somewhat of the nature of the feelings of Jrish
Protestants, when they saw a premature grave closing
over Mr. West, and when they witnessed the eleva-
tion of Mr. Sergeant Howley into the number of those
whom the Conservative Sir Robert Peel delighted to
honour."
In yet more indignant phrase the Mail proceeds :
" Is is not preposterous that, as the head of a Conser-
vative opposition, he should turn out of office the Whig
administration ; and that succeeding to their places, in
himself and his colleagues, he should, as the head of a
Conservative administration, fill up the vacancies in his
own ranks, and in the several executive departments
Wider him, by recruits selected from the ranks of his op-
ponents ? If the Whigs, as a whole, should not be al-
lowed to administer the government, why should they be
preferred in detail for those offices, the aggregate of
which finally constitute the administration of the
country. ?"
As though the worst forebodings beclouded the
future, the Mail goes on :—" Conservatism hangs
down its hands, and exclaims—What principle stands
in the way of Mr. Pigot's [the Whig Solicitor-Gene-
ral] elevation to the Irish bench, on the next vacancy?"
With such retrospects and prospects, no wonder that
the conclusion to which the contemplation of such
things conducts the Orange journalist should be--
" All men must be sensible that no party can con-
tinue to hold together in opposition to strenuous exer-
tions made by its leaders for its dissolution. The Con-
servative party in Ireland is already dissolved into its
elements—the cohesion of the same party in England is
rapidly loosening. It becomes wise men to inquire and
the considerlhdoela eu
rlinsetodsyshetahel
ataaveri
nsdet:nm. t oeeaoi n
itirTfehei
on
elements
31: i
uegesrmnrl.is
eitnesaEngr
int
emoluments combinations
ssiaeceyoi
honours
inet thein:
of truen eftstnh hosteleue
consolation
sunshine,
visituoohnodnrhi
ainwit
Judicial
ohae: , lopcots:ahnbhreeeeiet
Bench."
shedding
countrynia.
n,probable
drawn
o from
andthe
g desponding light
spirits of the Irish Conservatives. Mr. Napier has
been honoured with notice by the Government; and,
iswwne
whicharotvrr Dublinl
dati
worthy
st iy so Estimationmtfiol
his,
hlleNorlrh.daso Nu
pbaut pl
tei es
upon
' ps
co
onmu
him—inile rt
ei merits—for
—h fi omar
the
Irish
Monitorprofession
ir.
esnNufhealscppsfniihl
ooetaahurncn, eres
Chancellor
extremeclaimsereofn
ot
to
sectionotr hdeinhaor
ordinary
of
kulirrnsi
ds
ah. n d
C The
Con-
servatism,
e:
stronghh:..i,ivv4a e point;9eite juiys of viewfh
im
slandered ( M r. Napier) of
ale
srtaynkthdeisl
Queen—ofoyalty—of
basely tipsgertpd that her youthful mind was

poisoned by contact—by personal association and in-
tercourse with the gambler, the seducer, and the adul-
terer. This is the charge we bring against Mr. Napier ;
and we ask any loyal man, whether the party making
such a foul and scandalous accusation against the Queen,
should have been selected for the honour of a silk gown
—for the honour of representing her Majesty at the
inner bar, as her counsel-at-law."

A speech delivered by lift. Napier in 1841 is then
cited, in proof of these allegations :
"Let us now turn to the Palace, and observe the
sort of people who have been selected as the advisers of
our youthful Queen. By whom do we find her sur-
rounded ? By the gambler, the seducer, the adulterer—
individuals whom no virtuous man would permit to enter
his house. These are the advisers of our Queen--
these are the men by whom she is surrounded. It is
no wonder, therefore, that her youthful mind is poisoned
—it is no wonder that her opinions received a tinge from
such a contact. However, we are not without hope—her
Majesty is not too old to learn."
When Mr. Napier's good fortune was first an-
nounced, we were at a loss to discover the reasons
which induced the Standard to devote an article to
praising the discernment of the Irish Government in
selecting Mr. Napier for the distinction.. The reason
is now explained. The Standard treasured up
in its memory Mr. Napier's claims. Visited
by one of its former inspirations, when the
Sovereign and her Court were the standing
themes of its invectives, the Standard rejoiced
at finding the merits of one of its familiars recog-
nized by the Government, and his shoulders arrayed
by it with the pledge and earnest of future honours.
We concur with the Dublin journalist from whom we
have quoted :—" We ask, is it creditable to any go-
vernment to select for honour the man, no matter
how great may be his professional claims, who spoke
that speech--who strove to defile the character of our
Sovereign Lady by such base and scandalous slander
—who, even if it were spoken in a moment of dis-
loyal forgetfulness and factious excitement, has never
had the grace to make atonement for that speech ?"
At all events the Irish Tories may take courage.
There is no reason to fear that an Erle will be se-
lected to fill a seat on the Bench by the Chancellor
who deemed Mr. Napier a fit subject for special favour.

DIVIDENDS.

At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
T. Alford, licensed victualler, Harrow. road, Dec. 3, at
half-past eleven—E. Conden, builder, Milton-street,
Dorset-square, Dec. 5, at half-past eleven-r-J. Gale, sen.,
and J. Gale, jun rope-makers, Love-lane, Shadwell,
Dee. 5, at eleven.-2C. Williamson, hosier, Regent-street,
Dec. 5, at twelve—R. Musgrove, woollen draper, Bir-
mingham, Dec. 3, at eleven—F. T. Trivett, draper,
Northumberland-street, Commercial road East, Dec. 3,
at half-past eleven—W. Oliver, upholsterer, Maidstone,
Dec. 3, at one.

In the Country.

S. Price, machine maker, Blackburn, Lancashire, Dec.

0, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—J.

Haddock, bookseller, Warrington, Dec. 10, at twelve, at
the Liverpool District Court—R. Younghusband, brick
maker,-Cheltenham, Dec. 10, at one, at the Bristol Dis
trict Court—W. Perkins, ship builder, St. Wollos, Mon-
mouthshire, Dec. 6, at twelve, at the Bristol District
Court—J. Wicks, clothier, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Dec.
6, at one, at the Bristol District Court—J. Courtney,
hanker, Bristol, Dec. 6, at twelve, at the Bristol District
Court—J. B. Pow, ship broker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Dec. 10, at one, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District
Court—R. Currie, bookseller, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Dec. 4, at twelve, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District
Court—M. Atkinson and J. Laidman, sen., bankers,
Penrith, Cumberland, Dec. 11, at one, at the Newcastle-
upon-Tyne District Court—C. J. Cay, coal fitter, Bishop
Wearmouth, Dec. 4, at half-past one, at the Newcastle-
upon-Tyne District Court—l. Bell and J. Davison,
earthenware manufacturers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Dcc.
5, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court
—W. and It Heslewood and J. Skitt, oil and colour mer-
chants, Kingston-upon-Hull, Dec. 19, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court. _ _

CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown
to the contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.

H. Walker, cordwainer, Luton, Bedfordshire, Dec. 6

. ,
—E. M. Good, farmer, Rye-lane, Peckham, Dec. 6—R.
Currie, bookseller, Newcastle-upon-T3 ne, Dec. 3 E.
M•Loughlin, hair and glue mercnant, Long-lane, Ber-
mondsey, Dec. 6—J. Grover, stone merchant, Regent-
street, Lambeth, Dec. 3—J. and J. Woodhead, worsted
manufacturers, Bradford, Dec. 4—W. Trutnble licensed
victualler, Liverpool, Dec. 4—G. Croxton, glass and
china dealer, Manchester, Dec. 5—R. Crowder, iron-

founder, West Auckland, Durham, Dec. 3—J. Kitchen,
corn dealer, Stockport, Dec. 3—W. Tt utch, china clay
merchant, Barkham-terrace, Southwark, Dec. 3—W.
Payne, builder, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Dec. 3—R. Lloyd,
licensed victualler, Liverpool, Dec. 3—J. C. and G. H.
White, music sellers, Bath, Dec. 3—W. C. Clough, apo-
thecary, Eye, Suffolk, Dec. 3.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

T., D., and J. Thwaites, brewers, Blackburn, Lan-
cashire (so far as regards T. Thwaites)—T. Parker, A.
Scrutton, and C. Andrews, stockbrokers, Old Broad-
street, City (so far as regards C. Andrews)—W. Fugler
and R. T. Fry, Manchester warehousemen, Lawrence-
lane, Cheapside—A. Bradbury, J. Clifton, and J. Brad
ley, stone dealers, Mottram-in-Longdendale, Cheshire—
J., J., and W. Cox, coal masters, Kingswinford, Stafford-
shire (so far as regards W. Cox)—F. Ward and A. Ross,
Commission agents, Kingston-upon-Hull—M. and J.
Jones, cabinet makers, Aberystwith—J. Hipkins, S.
Round, and E. Caddick, soap makers, Tipton, Stafford-
shire (so far as regards S. Round)—T. Bignold and E.
Field, attorneys—W. Taylor, and W. Bannister, cotton
dyers, Northowram, Yorkshire—J. and J. Aspdin, ce-
ment manufacturers, Wakefield—T. Southworth and D.
Simpson, tailors, Rochdale.
SCOTCII SEQUESTRATIONS.

APLEOD and CO., merchants, Portmahomack, Ross-
shire, Nov. 18 and Dec. 9, at one, at the Sheriff-clerk's
Office, Tain.

THOMAS LYELL, manufacturer, Newburgh, Nov.
15 and Dec. 12, at one, at M'Nab's Hotel, Cupar-Fife.
JAMES WILSON, general agent, Edinburgh, Nov.
18 and Dec. 9, at two, at Alexander's chambers,
Edinburgh.

was wrapped in consisting of an old piece of black stuff
gown. There were no marks of violence upon the body,
and the medical gentleman who saw it was of opinion
that the child had not been born many hours. A ver-
dict of "Found dead" was recorded.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY.—Nou.I‘).
VERNON V. THELLUSON-JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was argued some time since before his Lord-
ship, upon an application to discharge an order pro-
nounced by his Honour the Vice- Chancellor of England.
The following are the short facts upon which the case
caine before the Court :—On the death of the late Sir
Bethel! Codrington, a judgment creditor for the sum of
4.000 L brought an action of ;Lire facies against his ex-
ecutors. To that action the executors pleaded plena
administravit, and then filed their bill in this Court for
the purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the
proceedings in the action. A motion was made for that
purpose, and an injunction was granted by the
Vice-Chancellor. Upon this the defendant applied to
this branch of the Court to discharge that order. his
Lordship was clearly of opinion that there had been no
ladies or delay on the part of the executors, and such
being the case, he felt bound to dismiss the motion for
the discharge of the Vice-Chancellor's order, with costs.
His LORDSHIP then proceeded to hear appeals ; but
nothing of any importance came before the Court during
the morning.

~r
~_"

- -.:,.;

...<_-
:

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov.-ii.
STONE AGAINST STONE.
Dr. LESIIINGTON gave sentence in thlitCase, which
was argued in Trinity Term last. It wp originally
suit commenced by Mrs. Harriet Stork-against. Mr.
George Stone, her husband, for a diviice by reason
of cruelty and adultery. Mr. Stone denied both
charges, and in return accused Mrs. Stone of adultery
with Lord Sussex Lennox, and her adultery with
Air. Thomas Knox Holmes was incidentally pleaded.
Mrs. Stone, in a third plea, charged her husband
with connivance at her adultery %A ith Mr. Holmes.
The parties were married on the 23d of February,
1835, Mr. Stone being then a bachelor, and Mrs.
Stone a widow, of the name of Hawkins. They had
one child, and on the 24th of August, 1841, they
separated. Mr. Stone is the partner of a well-known
banking firm in the City. The adultery of Mrs.
Stone with Lord Sussex Lennox, the Learned Judge
observed, was proved to demonstration ; indeed, it
could not be denied. Mr. Stone, therefore, would be
entitled to the separation he prayed for unless barred
by his own misconduct. To be deprived of remedy,
he must himself have committed adultery, or have
connived at his own dishonour, or have condoned the
adultery of his wife after it had taken place. These,
therefore, were the only questions he had to try. A
great many circumstances might arise in matrimonial
intercourse deserving of severe reprobation; but
unless they bore upon the questions of adultery,
connivance, or condonation, they were not properly
within the cognizance of this Court. In consider-

ing the charge of adultery brought against Mr.
Stone, it was a great relief to his (the Learned
Judge's) mind, to be able to dismiss altogether
the allegation of a connexion with the sister
of Mrs. Stone, which had been abandoned, and
of which, in his opinion, there was not the slightest
evidence. The first charge of adultery against
Mr. Stone respecting which evidence had been offered
was, that in 1839 he had gone to the Lyceum Theatre,
and accompanied a woman to her apartments, where
he left his banking-book keys, and a sum of money.
No direct evidence of this charge was produced, but
it was stated to be proved by the admission of Mr.
Stone himself—a species of evidence of the highest
kind, provided always that it was accompanied by
certain requisites, namely, that the party reporting
the admission was credible, that the expressions were
clear and distinct, and that the admission was sincere.
Only one witness was produced to prove this chain se,
Ann Knowles. What had she been brought to prove?
Why, that Mr. Stone at a subsequent time (about a
twelvemonth after) acknowledged the fact in her
hearing and in the presence of his wife and of Mr.
Holmes. (The Learned Judge here read the deposi-
tion of Ann Knowles upon this article of the allega-
tion.) Now, laying out of consideration for the pre-
sent the degree of credit due to Ann Knowles, was
the statement quite consistent with probability and
with all the other facts of the case? Assuming that
Mr. Stone had been guilty 'of the fact imputed to
him, was it very probable that he should have ad-
mitted it in the presence of three persons, one
his wife, another the person with whom his wife
is accused of having committed adultery, and
the third the nurse of his child ? If he had
clone so, he would have been guilty of the grossest
imprudence, unless it could be supposed that
it took place with the knowledge and acquiescence of
the wife, and that this was a habit of the: husband,
for had this been an isolated transaction, in all human
probability it must have been concealed by him. But
the charge was highly improbable, from the statement
of the witness not relating all that passed, for nothing
was said as to any observation from Mrs. Stone. It
was impossible for the Court on such evidence as this,
so inconsistent with probability, to hold that the •
offence was established. If such a charge could be
established upon the testimony of a single wit-
ness, the circumstances must be probable, and the
witness omni exceptione major, and this, lookins to
the testimony of Ann Knowles upon other points,
could not, with propriety be maintained. Consider-
ing, therefore, this charge as not sufficiently estab-
lished, he procceLd to the next charge,—that Mr.
Stone had been infected with a certain disease. Of

this charge there appeared to be an ample field for
evidence, inasmuch as several men were vouched.
But the testimony of Mr. Liston, the surgeon, who.
attended Mr. Stone professionally, pronounced the
symptoms to be equivocal ; and when a professional
gentleman of eminence and of great medical
skill declared the point to be doubtful, it would not
become him (the Learned Judge), who had no
medical skill and none of the opportunities afforded
to Mr. Liston, to come to a different conclusion. Mrs.
Knowles spoke to the same point; but it would not
be safe to credit her, even if her evidence were not
opposed to that of the medical witness. The
evidence of Mr. Scanlan to an alleged concession of Mr.
Stone showed that it wanted one of the requisites,
namely, sincerity, and that of Mr. Martindale did
not go to convict Mr. Stone of matrimonial infidelity.
Upon this point, therefore, the proof was not suffi-
cient to satisfy the Court, The only remaining
charge of adultery was that alleged to have taken
place with Mrs. Cole, his housemaid and housekeeper,
at Mr. Stone's house at Fulham, in 1842, which
rested upon the evidence of the gardener, Maxwell,
and his wife, the only other servants in the house.
The Learned Judge went into a very minute exami-
nation of the details of their evidence, commenting
upon the inconsistencies and improbabilities in their
statements, and upon the fact that Mary Maxwell did
not believe that adultery had taken place at the time,
though she had come to that conclusion since. 'Whilst
there was no proof of any improper familiarities be-
tween Mr. Stone and Mrs. Cole, still less of any act of
adultery, the circumstances stated by the witnesses as
affording an inference of guilt were consistent with
innocence. It turned out likewise that the facts al-
leged in three articles- lea, which ap-
peared to be separate and diitinct7ElT occurred on the
same day. The two most essential circumstancer were
Cole's being alone with Mr. Stone in his bedroom,
and her being outside Ms door in her night clothes, in-
toxicated ; the door, however, being locked. The
latter circumstance could not be taken as evidence
against Mr. Stone, and it was admitted by Mary
Maxwell that Mrs. Cole had occasion to go into Mr.
Stone's room in the ordinary fulfilment of her house-
hold duties. Under such circumstances the Court
could not infer guilt ; it could not give way to sus-
picion ; it must be governed by the legitimate results
of legal evidence. There was not a single act of
indecent familiarity directly proved ; and, had there
been a criminal intercourse carried on between the
parties, he (the Learned Judgo) could not conceive
that there would not have been more direct evidence.
He must, under these circumstances, pronounce the,
charge of adultery against Mr. Stone not proved. He
had now arrived at a stage of the investigatiois
which entitled him to say that the adultery of Mrs.
Stone with Lord Sussex Lennox being proved,.§,nd
no charge of adultery against Mr. Stone being estab-
lished, it followed that he was entitled to a sentence
of separation from his wife, unless he had condoned
her offence, or had forfeited his claim to relief by
connivance. It was unnecessary to define what in
legal parlance was meant by the term " connivance ;
it might be sufficient to say, that the conduct of
the husband might be most reprehensible and yet
not connivance, He knew no authority for holding
that coarse and brutal words, obscene and disgusting
language, and an entire disregard of decorum, would
alone constitute connivance. Such conduct, though
most derogatory to a gentleman, and offensive to good
feeling, even though accompanied by cruelty, and
even the desertion of a wife, would not amount in the
eye of the law to connivance, though it might have
a direct and necessary tendency to lead her into a
course which would expose her to the commission of
adultery. The Learned Judge then stated briefly the
facts upon which the charge of connivance was
founded. An extract of a letter from a lady named
Price, was communicated to Mr. Stone, wherein the
intimacy of Mrs. Stone with Mr. Holmes was repre-
sented as the subject of observation, and it was alleged
that notwithstanding this warning, he promoted their
intimacy. But there was no proof of adultery be-
tween Mrs. Stone and Mr. Holmes, and could the
Court act without evidence, and assume a fact which
was essential to establish the: charge of connivance ?
The letters discovered by Mr. Stone in his wife's re-
positories were not produced, and their contents were
not known to the court. There had been no case in
which connivance had been establish where the adul-
tery was not clearly proved. Evan though the husband
might be supposed in foro coliseientm to be guilty of
connivance, in the eye of ,the law there could not be
connivance without prod of the adultery and of the
conduct of the party- with relation to it; and there
thet
was not a shadow of proof in thisere. case. The
one last
topic in the case was the conduct of
M
24th of August, 1841, on the discovery of the letters
from Mr. Holmes to his wife. The facts alleged
against Mr. Stone were, that he r khis wifeand
child on that day, after the discovery, in the carriage
to Fulham, and treated her with great kindness and
attention. The evidence of Ann Knowles upon this
point was highly improbable, and was inconsistent
with the fact of the separation on that day, and with
the letter of Mrs. Stone. Upon the whole case, he
acquitted Mr. Stone of all legal culpability which
would bar him from obtaining a separation. He (Dr.
Lushington) was not called upon to give any opinion
how far Mr. Stone's gross and offensive conversation
and demeanour, and his permitting his wife to asso-
ciate with persons not of the best or purest character,
might have led to her abandonment of all delicacy of
feeling, and so have paved the way for her violation
of the marriage bed. Such matters were not within
the cognisance of this Court; and he rejoiced, in this
case, to be relieved from the responsibility of passing
his judgment upon them. He pronounced for the
divorce.

ARCHES' COURT; Nov. 12.
CLOWES V. CLOWES.
This case has occupied the attention of the Court dnr•
ing a very lengthened period, and presented perhaps
the most singular features ever witnessed in any suit us
tho Ecclesiastical Courts.