NEWS BY THE MAIL

Evening Star, Issue 2800, 7 February 1872, Page 3

NEWS BY THE MAIL

AN AUSTRALIAN Dl' OECE CASE. The long pending and rep atedly adjourned suit, Firebrace v Firebrace, Georges, King, Firebrace, Davenport, and Hogg, came before Lord Penzance on November 29, and excited unusual interest. The bar was a strong one on the pet tioner’s side, including throe Q.C.’s; on the defendant’s, one Q. C and four sergeants. It was a husband’s petition for dissolution of his marriage, on the ground of his wife’s adultery, which was denied by her, she in turn accusing the husband of cruelty and adultery with her maid. The petitioner was a gentleman some 43 years of age. and the son of a major in the army. In 1858, at St Kilda, he married Miss Isabella Black, the daughter of Dr Black, well known in Melbourne, the petitioner at the time being 29, and the respondent IV- The respondent is said to be a woman of great personal attractions and great accomplishments. The allegations against her were that she had committed adultery with petitioner’s brother, with a number of army officers, and that she had seduced Hogg, her nephew, then only 15 years old. ft was proved that she had strong drinking propensities ; and in his evidence petitioner admitted that his mother-in-law reproached him for not properly managing his wife, alleging as reasons that “he gave her too much money, and that he did not beat her.” The case resulted in a verdict for the respondent on all the charges; also in favor of the petitioner regarding the counter accusation. A new trial is demanded. ENGLISH REPUBLICANISM, It is at this crisis that we find ourselves in the midst of a disci ssion as to the relative value of a monarchy or a repub’ic. I mentioned in my last letter various indications of social agitation. A fresh element has been imported into politics by a speech of Sir Charles Dilke, delivered at Newcastle-on-Tyne —the seat of the last great strike—on ‘ ‘ Representation and Royalty. ” Sir Charles was exceedingly severe on the cost of a monarchy, and ventured the assertion that, including all its accessories of parks, palaces, life guards, the positive and direct cost was about a million a year. On royal yachts and yachting alone he said that LI 9,001} a yea 'i was spent; and the salaries of the feoyal he eetimatect at L 131.000. He made very merry over the long list of officials of every class, down to the “32 doctors in one family,” forgetting that many offices are but honorary—mere titles of distinction. A more personal statement was that L 172,000 a year used to be spent on tradesmen’s bills, and is now saved by the Queen, “ a diversion of public moneys almost amounting to malversation.” This speech of Sir Charles was received with loud cheers, but has brought down upon him, as might be expected, much severe and contemptuous criticism, Mr Gladstone, at the Lord M ayor’s Banquet the next day, made brief allusion to it, and spoke of the monarchy as the fountain of innumerable blessings to this country, while the experience of other nations “does not encourage us to give too ready or flattering a reception to projects of indiscriminate change.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer lias also denied that the Queen declined to contribute her share of the income tax. On the other hand, various working men’s associations have expressed by vote their approval of Sir Charles Dilke for what they deem his courageous words. He has since spoken both at Bristol and Leeds to divided and stormy audiences, not withdrawing any statement, but modifying his allusions to the Queen herself. A late telegram says, Sir Charles Dilke is Ly his Cihelsca . constituents as a Hectare <1 Republican. His N ewcastle attack on Monarchy, and his coarse abuse of the Royal household, aroused a storm of indignation. He says monarchy costs one million annually, and that it would be worth two to abolish it.