The Sun. — London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

itißy by Lally Portsmouth and her paramour. Now he was fond of singing at funerals , delighte d i n the ringing of bells, and ran about whipping his servants with nettles. The pre sent application had another. feature of novelty and of the highest criminality. His Lordship was now to consider whether Lady Mary Ann Wallop was the legitimate daughter of the I Earl of Portsmouth, or the adulterous child of his lady. When Mr. Birnie went into the garden at Fairlawn, in consequence of the complaint of Lord Portsmouth, Lady Portsmouth asked }IOW he dared to enter without leave ? and said she was stir prised he should attend to any thing Lord Portsmouth said, and that he was not aware of his situation. The peculiar cir .cumstances, then, in the present application, which formed no part or the ground of the former, were—fiord Portsmouth's being unconscious of the adultery, and his inability to resist whipping. The Learned Counsel entered next into a minute .examination of the evidence from Scotland. Here wai a Noble Earl, who had the' utmost difficulty in procuring lodgings in Edinburgh. Be supposed that as muaention was paid to rank in Scotland as elsewhere, yet her w a s a Noble Earl who was.refused, and driven from one place to another. FRIDAY, Nov. 8. Mr. WETHEIrELT. proceeded.--:The conduct of Lord Ports mouth clearly proved the consummation of insanity, or'an in teption tf depravity. The case was not unprecedented in the - detatlences of the human mind, though it possesses features of singularity. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it appeared, that although Lord Portsmouth tnought himself in such a state that he could not have a-child,'yet thatpe thought the child his, and said Mr. Alder was ruptured, and could not have a child. He did not observe that Dr. Bankhead asked one question respecting the matters in the affidavits of which a list had been given to him. Mr. PEPYS said Dr. Bankhead stated that he was not aware of the affidavits. The LORD CHANCELLOR, thought it singular that nothing passed respecting the four medical men ; or, if any thing pass ed, that Dr. Bankhead did not mention it in his affidavit. Lord Portsmouth's complaint that Lady Portsmouth would not come without bringing about him those persons whom he mentioned, looked very like a suspicion of adultery, at least that she had persons about her whom she ought not. Mr. WETHERELL then entered into details to chew that Mr. Hanson, father of the Countess, was convinced, during the lifetime of Miss Grace Norton, the former'Countess, that Lord Portsmouth could not be a father. Ile next commented with great earnestness on the use of the tape and lancet, and stated in proof of the other evidence to the fact, that he flinched when Mr. Newton Fellowes pressed his arm. Mr. Combe had been , with Lord Portsmouth during the former lady's life, but he seemed to have been an adviser, friend, and protector of a very different description from Mr. Alder. Mr. Alder had been instructed by Sir Samuel Romilly, and was not un known at that bar, or on the northern circuit. At Edinburgh Lord Portsmouth was quite willing to go with Mr. Norton and Mr. Combe. Once on the journey he expressed a-wish to return, which they made no objection to : but afterwards he said, no, lie would not return. It was alleged that labourers with sticks had been stationed in the shrubbery at Hurs born ; but was it not a duty to prevent a rescue, pending this application ? Lady Portsmouth had threatened to release him. It was not an idle threat, for down she came. He thought it was quite evident that Lord Portsmouth was not of sound mind. The whole moral man was extinct. But in proceedings of this nature, which were only inchoate, his Lordship's part was as similated to that of a Grand Jury, and he would therefore send it into a course of inquiry. The LORD CHANCELLOR did not think the duties were similar ; for a Grand. Jury had to consider whether the case was sufficiently clear ; his business was to consider whether it was sufficiently doubtful. Mr. SHADWELL was also on the same side. If his Lordship was perfectly satisfied that no,injury would arise to Lord Ports mouth from refusing the inquiry, then he would grant no in quiry : but if Lord Portsmouth's case required inquiry, his Lordship would grant. it. There was an affidavit by Miss .Eliza . Hanson to the character of Lord Portsmouth. She thought him very uncertain in his temper, very ready to get into a passion without cause, and both cunning and revengeful. The LORD CHANCELLOR again asked if Dr. Bankhead had heard him say any thing of those points to which the me dical men made affidavit. Mr. TRESLOVE said he had not. The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that Dr. Powell would not have heard one word on those subjects, if he had told him that physicians were to visit him for the purpose of obtaining a 'Commission of Lunacy. Mr. TnEsEoyE said that Dr. -Bankhead's object was to converse on subjects indifferent. The LORD CHANCELLOR had no doubt that Dr. Bankhead had- wished honourably to do what was right, but his views were disappointed. According to his experience, a different mode ought to have been taken. Mr. TRESLOVE said it would have been different if Lord Portsmouth had been in town. The LORD CHANCELLOR—CouId it be doubted that Lord Portsmouth's attention ought to have been called to the topics alluded to, without any mention of a Commission ? The cir cumstances might be 'false, and Lord Portsmouth knew them to be so without any delusion. But it was important to ascer- Aain that. Mr. SHADWELL proceeded.:—An additional reason for the 'commission was the rank of the party. Had it ever been heard of that a Peer in sound mind should say that he excited his -passions by tine abominable means mentioned ir‘ the affidavits by way of joke ? But the facts before the Court could not be rejected as false. Although there were contradictory circum -• stances, yet there was enough uncontradicted to give conviction of the truth. Little circumstances were of great importance in such an inquiry. Capy, Mr. Hanson, and the repeated narra tions of Lord Portsmouth to different persons, proved the truth of the facts in which they all agreed. It was of public interest that a Peer of the realm should not be suffered to remain in this state without inquiry.. It was a duty which his Lordship owed to the public, as Speaker of the House of Peers, to send this case to a jury, who might return a satisfactory answer. Mr. BELT followed also for th&petition. Lord Portsmouth signed bills in duresce. He might be fit to do many things like a sane man, and yet be insane. They had his Lordship's • testimony to his skill in arithmetic. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this was true, and the other side ought to have the benefit of it. In multiplying -with several figures, he multipled right, and I was wrong. At least he satisfied me of that, and the Lord Chancellor requires a com mission of lunacy. SATURDAY, Nov. 9. Mr. BELT concluded his arguments. Mr. PEPYS addressed his Lordship on the satne side. Nothing could be purer than the soUrce of this petition. Mr. Skirrow, in fact, gave it origin, who was well known to he a relation of the Countess. It was in evidence, that Lord Portsmouth was so attached to his tape and lancet, that he returned for them from a house to which he had gone to dinner, so addicted was he to that polution. Capy saw Lord and Lady Portsmouth in bed asleep, and Mr. 'Alder with them awake. Sarah Laing saw Mr. Alder asleep on her Ladyship's lap in the inn at Jetiburgh, and Lord Portsmouth present. Lord P ortsmouth, when driven from his bed at night, applied to Capy for a blanket to cover hituself with on a sofa, Lord Portsmouth called his lady Mrs. Alder. When Dr. l3ankhead first addressed Lord Portsmouth, his Lordship ordered him to be turned out of the park; but upon the Doctor mentioning an acquaintance , of Ids, he said— " Won't you stay and dine with me ?" He said then he would never live' with his lady, for he had affidavits of her guilt. The Lord CHANCELLOR said be would never send him back to live with Lady Portsmouth or Mr. Alder, because he had no, right to do it. To do it by violence or force would be highly criminal. Her way was to sue for a restitution of conjugal rights. :r11:. PEPYS continued.—Lady Portsmouth had said that she would not wait the law's delay ; she would take a shorter way. Mr. Hon - NE—No such thing. Mr. PEPYS—Whoever had the care of him might do with him what they pleased. The Lord CHANCELLOR—It was his duty, representing his Majesty, as parens paitiCr, to consider whether there were trrounds for issuing a commission . ; and if there were, whether it was expedient to issue one. - Mr. HART—I appear as Lord Portsmouth's counsel, but I have nothing to address to your Lordship. The evidence is before you. It is for your Lordship to protect Lord Portsmouth in the way he wants : if he is insane, he wants a commision,— if he is not, lie wants none. Mr. HORNE rose to address his Lordship at half-past twelve. He appeared for Lady Portsmouth, not in the character in which she had been cruelly dragged before his • Lord ship—that • of a culprit, to answer those foul and those most calumnious accusations and attacks which had been made upon-her character and upon her honour, and upon the legitimacy of, her child, under the mask of their being necessary to prove the insanity of her husband; but he ap peared+ for her in the character which she had a right, if there was justice in this country, to sustain in a court of law, and to assert the character of the virtuous wife of the Earl of Ports mouth, and the virtuous mother of his child—to state for her in that character such reasons as he could, why his Lordship should not grant a commission in the nature of a writ de lunatic° inquirendo against her husband, Lord Portsmouth. If it had been possible that this proceeding, or any other in quiry which his Lordship could direct, could by any possibi lity, even upon the clearest proof of the innocence of this op pressed and unfortunate lady, enable his Lordship judicially to pronounce the sentence of acquittal, which her honour, and. .her character, and her innocence, entitled her to ; or to pro nounce the judicial sentence which would protect, not only her character and her }amour, but the interests of her child, as the legitimate offspring of her marriage, she would not do what her Counsel had now advised her to do—viz. re frain altogether sflom making an affidavit ; but she would, by her own; and the affidavits of others, 'and by most credible and undoubted testimony, be able to refute those false and wicked charges made against her. `Still_, as she knew that neither 'in the inquiry now pending, nor by issuing the commission, nor by any 'other course of proceed ing, could his Lordship do her justice, even if her innocence were to be proved, she had thought it right rather to rest con tent at present, under the aspersions thrown upon her, than to enter the lists with the affidavits now made against her ; know ing she would only subject herself to further calumny, without the possibility of his Lordship 'doing her justice. He (Mr. Horne) therefore appeared for her only in the character of Lady Portsmouth, to argue as well as he could, :not only upon the evidence now before the Court, but upon the further evidence which his Lordship's justice and known indulgence in matters of this sort might enable her hereafter td produce, that this commission ought not to issue. With respect to whom he was council against ; he was not council against Lord Portsmouth ; he was not instructed by Lady Portsmouth to be council agaisnt her husband ; but he could not but express his surprise, that, in a matter of such momentous consequence to the property of the noble lord, and to every thing a man even in humble situ ation held to be most valuable, and infinitely more so to a per son in his exalted situation, his counsel, taking briefs from him, and therefore to a certain extent acknowledging him a sane man, shouldinot think it right to offer the slightest resistance to the issu ing of the commission, which would end in depriving him of his personal liberty, of the management and control of his property, of his rights as an individual, a private citizen, or a peer of the realm, for the remainder of his life. He (Mr. Horne) was Counsel against the ; petitioners, the said petitioners, because the case of the young gentleman who presented this petition could not be separated from his father's, who presented the former petition. These were the parties against whom, he was Coun sel ; but he should not follow the example set by the other sidF, of using the language which them instructions used against his clients. 'The petitioners were persons having the greatest; pos.: sible interest in the question ; because, if this commission did notissue, the great possessions of the family might descend to the legitimate children of the Earl of Portsmouth, instead of them. So that- .they had the strongest interest in interrupting the .natural course of succession—taking it out of the lineal, and carrying it to the collateral, line, viz., themdelves ; and, therefore, if he could state condUct on the part of these ,per sons as to getting up evidence, which laid them open to strong suspicion, he should not be accused of injustice, however strongly, it_ might bear against them. With .kspect to the law upon 'these subjects, he conceived the modern doctrine to be, that a man must be non compos mentis, to be within his Lordship's jurisdictions or of unsound mind. No weakness of mind short of • that—no capriciousness or absurdities were es ground of a commission ; and therefore he requested his Lord ship to pause, and in this case.more than in others, not only on account of the dignity of the person, but the important conse quences resulting to hirn and the public, , but because this was a second experiment. upon the same subject, and on grounds not distinguishable in quality or. principle, arid :be hoped lie would satisfy his Lordship . that it was , the same in degree. Without referring to the consistency of,his Lordship's decisions, he would here only ask him to agree himself, though the phy sicians did not agree with themselves, on the ground that his former decision was the best decision on the law, and the best authority on the case. Mr. Wetherell bad contended that the evidence proved the moral man did . not feel flagellations, and was therefore extinguished. The former application was sup ported by evidence of flogging servants, and the brute creation, too. Such acts were most disgraceful, but did not prove an un sound mind. But Mr. Wetherell argued that the intellectual man was extinct, because the Earl submitted to- be whipped again. He (Mr. Horne) differed.. It rather proved that the intellectual man was improved—that he was sensible at the mo ment of his misconduct, and that he had the sense and discre - don to submit to the punishment which his intellect and his understanding told him he so richly merited. He thought this circumstance made the present case infinitely less aggravated and more favourable. As to no money being trusted to him, that also had formerly been stated, and most distinctly proved, yet it was not thought a sufficient ground, nay, added to others for a commission. A great deal of control, too, which was the pavement of this case, had been proved in the former instance. Mr. Combe had actually been engaged for years in taking care of him, and it had been admitted that it was only by terror and punishment. The late Countess had told Lord Portsmouth that Mr. Combe was a bruiser, and had killed, or would kill a man, in order to terrify. It had formerly been proved, too, that a carter had returned blow for blow, and, beaten his Lord ship till he cried like a child. His tolling of bells, his talking about funerals, his reading prayers, and on one occasion, after having read the morning - service, saying, " Well, now stop, though it is not evening, I think we may as well go through the evening service;" these were stated in the former petition, yet his Lordship did not think it right to grant the commission. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the last instance of insanity did not much affect his mind, as he had to undergo the same infliction once - from a Gentleman whom Mr. Wetherell remem bered very well, not 40 miles from Oxford. Mr. HoRNE.—The most eminent Counsel had been engaged on the former occasion, and his Lordship began his decision by saying that he had considered the case with the greatest care. The Loan Crrasicimeons—There was no doubt that his attention was called properly to that case. He had a general recollection of it, and might trust his recollection, butlie did not think it right in such an important case. He wished, therefore, a copy of the petition and affidavits, anti the short hand writer's note of what lie had said on that subject to be handed to him. Mr. HORNE.—What then was the new case which supported this petition ? He would not follow exactly the order of time which the other side had pursued. In the month of February; 1822, a circumstance of great importance as applicable to the petitioners took place, and proved that in their most deliberate judgment Lord Portsmouth was not then insane. Of this be lief they gave the most solemn pledge which could' be given. It was a deed executed in Edinburgh by Lord Portsmouth, and referring certain questions and suits of great importance to Mr. Skirrow, to whose honour lie (Mr. Home) bore testimony, though he did not think be had exercised a right judg ment in this case. Mr. Newton Fellowes was a party'to this deed. The effect of it was, to withdraw from the protection of the Courts certain property, and to convey it to arbitration. He would not insult any of the parties by supposing that they thought him then insane. If 'they should say that circumstances had since come to their knowledge, he had a right to charge Upon them what they had means of knowing, and not what they were pleased to say. So early as December, 1821, Mr. Newton Fellowes had received information of the conduct of Lord Portsmouth ; and therefore it was clear, that not only he, but all the parties to the deed, were put upon their guard, and ac tually kneW the state of his mind. The letter, hich was written by a Mrs. Evans, 'a virtuous lady of Edinburgh, should be read; because, on comparing it with her affidavit, his Lordship would see how the groSs and wicked calumnies which he (51r. Home) believed originated with that Woman, had grown, and the different shapes they had assumed. , This letter, if it had been written by a person who meant to state the truth, would have stated all the most material facts when her recollection of them was fresh, and they would not have been kept back till the time this woman made her affidavit. — .The letter stated, that the family of Lord Portsmouth had re sided in the writer's house, and described his Lordship as hav ing been beaten and ill-used by Mr. Alder, which was the sea= son of Mrs. Evans writing it. Was it credible, if , the,woman believed the direct charge of adultery, which she swore to in her affidavit, that she should have kept totally silent respecting it, and only stated circumstances of ill usage ? No person could for a moment believe what she had sworn to. Her affidavit was, that she kept a lodging-house in Edinburgh ; that in November last, the family of Lord Portsmouth came to her lodgings ; and observing him to ba a man of very odd appear anc,e,_who stared about strangely, and seemed to take hardly any interest in what was doing, she asked Miss Miller, Lady Portsmouth's maid, if all was right, and she said all was not right; that afterwards Miss- Miller told the deponent his Lord ship was often beaten, and especially when Mr. Alder was pre sent, and they always shut the door when they had occasion to beat his Lordship. The affidavit then went on to state, that Mr. Alder's intimacy with Lady Portsmouth seemed to be of an im proper description ; and he appeared to be on an equal footing of familiarity with her Ladyship's sister, and attracted the notice of the neighbours by carrying one of them in his arms.— Did this woman mean to be believed according to' the tenure of her letter or not ? If she did, here was a distinct charge made, for the first time in July, 1822, of the most shocking conduct that could be imputed 'to man or woman—not of adul tery, aggravated at it was, but of an incestuous intercourse, which must have taken place with the perfect privity, know ledge, and consent of the two sisters. Such a statement, if it had come from the most respectable and credible person living, could hardly be credited ; but having come from such a woman as this, no one would be surprised this n t oble lady had been ad vised not to meet such an antagonist in a proceeding which was carant non judice. No man living would have wished this lady should commit her honour, her innocence, and her character, to the chance of a contest on affidavits with such a woman. -The LOUD CHANCELLOR said he would throw one obser vation' out, that the Learned Council and those with him might consider it. This woman pledged herself to certain things which had passed between her, Miss Miller, and Mr. Alder.— Mr. Alder had made no affidavit, and Miss Miller did not con tradict her in any one thing. Mr. HOItNE.—His Lordship would allow him to proceed by steps. Ile could not well see his way through the inventions and misrepresentations of this case; and he was sure his Lord ship did not see it. Where no defence could entitle his noble client to protection : and would only lay her open to further calumny, further wickedness, and further perjury, she was properly advised to make no affidavit. He then proceeded with the affidavit, which stated that the family , having gone out, Lady Portsmouth attempted to retire to her bed-room, fol lowed by Mr. Alder ; but being interrupted, she pushed him away, and afterwards walked out accompanied by Mr. Alder ; that her conduct was such as to attract the notice, not only of the neighbours, but of a fishwoman, wild called to some per sons to see Mr. Alder carrying Lady Portsmouth up the steps. He (Mr. Horne) did not know the habits of Edinburgh—it might ,be a most virtuous and most moral place ; there, however delicate a female might .be--however she might want assistance, no man was to presume to carry her up the steps; that was to be evidence of adultery, improper fami liarity : instead of the circumstance being the strongest pos sible proof all was innocent, it was to amount to the ag gravated case of adultery and incest; that was the reason of Edinburgh : he trusted no people in England or any where else had such feelings. The affidavit then stated that Mrs. Evans desired them to quit her house. Mrs. Evans described Miss Miller as a person who was anxious to make a communication to her, and was afraid she should be detected by Lonsdale the footman. If she was really anxious, could any one believe she would have confined her information to the beating ? Would she not have communicated the rest? If this woman could draw the inferenCea she did—if the fish-woman could draw such inferences,.must not Miss Miller, the confidential maid, have more much ore ? And if sh e was ready to communicate, would she not communicate one of the first things every babbling lady's maid told, if• there was the least truth in it? They then left Mrs. Evan's house, and she had the curiosity to see where they went, and ascertained they got into M‘Gregor's house in St. Andrew's-square. If all these circumstances took place, how happened it that the parties to the deed were perfectly satisfied there was no founda tion for the charge ? If they were then satisfied there was no foundation for it, why do they think it more credible now ? The next evidence was ill'Gregor's : he said Lady Portsmouth and Mr. Alder, whom he took for Lord Ports mouth, came to his house ; and having occasion to carry in tea, &c. saw the person embracing and comforting the Lady. What was meant by that ? If it meant any thing improper, it ought to have been expressed in different terms : he ought to have stated his testimony in language so explicit that the Judge should at least understand it. He then stated that there were two beds in the room, one complete, the other not; the person he took for Lord Portsmouth was sitting on the incomplete bed or sofa. What inference would any one draw from that ? If he (Mr. Horne) had seen a Gentleman, very far advanced in life, and a Lady, undoubtedly very unwell,-in his arms, where there were two beds, the one complete and the other incomplete, he would have drawn quite a dif ferent inference from what this man had done ; and that it was rather evidence fn favour of innocence than guilt. About seven o'clock in the evening, upon entering the room he found both parties had retired into the incomplete bed. He could not help making an observation here of the utter impro bability of this. If it was true, it amounted to nothing less than an act of adultery. According to the man's confes sion, Mr. Alder and Lady Portsmouth had, not come as two strangers, to take a lodging at which other parties were not to. be introduced ; but --they took ft for themselves, Lord Portsmouth, and the rest of the family, who were in a short time to follow. No one could believe that Mr. Alder meant to impose upon the-landlord its Lord Portsmouth, and, after being detected in an indecent and improper situation, to leave himself at his mercy. The next was the affidavit of Mrs. Sutherland, who said, that on the 20th of November, Lady Portsmouth came to look at her house, and was shown up stairs, and seemed inclined to take the house. The de ponent asked for how long a time they were likely to want 'the house.. Mr. Alder replied, looking at Lady Portsmouth and the ''young lady who was with her_ in a significant sort of man ner, " perhaps nine months:" The deponent did not approve of the appearance and conduct of the ladies, or the delicacy of - Mr. Alder's insinuation. Surely that mind must be grossly and wickedly polluted, which, from the circumstance of a look, which, in all probability, was misconstrued, could draw an in ference against the character of the parties. When was it ever said to amount to a crime, that in the presence 'of a mar ried woman, going for her health to. Edinburgh, in order that she might be there for the purpose of being . safely carried throug h her pregnancy, attended " by a most eminent man, he should sayin her presence, in answer to, how long they meant to stay ?' in all probability nine months; or, as the Attorney- General more properly put it, 'eight or nine months ? Then came the winks. This lady . seemed very much to understand winks. If there was any thing imPortantin it, it was certainly oni)t in the Mind of the person who put that construction. He recollected in' a comedy a young "person who was called Ann Lovely, who is drawn.as a,, very sprightly girl, and is in conver sation with an old lady, her guardian, a Puritan— ' The AvronsrEst-GENEnaa.—A Quaker. Mr. H ou.srEs---There was not much difference, except that the Quaker was a great deal bettor .than the other. The old lady'reasons with her on her dress, arid \Speaking of her neck being uncovered, at last, - with perfect lidivete, lets .out— " You should dress as 1. do, for it is the only may of leaving any thing to the imagination of the men." That -was ,cer tainly very much the character of Mrs. Sutherland. After they left Mrs. Evans's house, she said they were -refused admittance at several places, and ,in consequence the carriage 'remained laden with luggage several hours in the street. By whom was this woman So informed ? for that the information was false; nobody doubted. There was no impediment at all to their next lodging, they were instantly admitted. Then for what purpose was this introduced ? For the malignant purpose of adding, o the prejudice which it was intended by other parts of this affidavit to excite against the character and' conduct of these persons. Here was a woman having a charitable nio tive, and being so credulous as to believe any thing that was tad het:though wholly untrue. She was so wicked as, under the pretence of hearsay, to state that which she never did hear ; but to state it in that shape which must • convey the impression that it was a fact to which she did not dare to speak positively, because she knew the time would come when she would be de tected. To what could not be contradicted, she boldly swore ; what would be capable of Contradiction ' she put into the 'form of hearsay and information. The day after, 111‘Gregor came to the house, and she agreed to take them -on condition of their granting a declaration to leave the house at the end of a week. —Little circumstances, Mr. Shadwell said, were frequently important ; they were a test by Which best to try the truth of ji general statement. Where was now the written declara tion ? Was -it forthcoming ? It being produced would con firm the fact deposed to; but the non-production spoke for it self. She then said M‘Gregor came-to the house to induce her to take them in. What, was the purity of the public hotels at Edinburgh such that Lord and Lady Portsmouth and, their family were not fit guests—that a publican would dare to turn them out ? And . would any one believe that the same man would go the next day to procure lodgings for those guests, whose reputation was such, that for them to stay longer in his house was pollution, and would deetroy the character of himself and his' house for ever ? No one could believe it—it Was incredible. The witness went on to say, nothing further took place till Monday afternoon, when she and her maid were alarmed at violent screams, thinking her child had fallen down, but found they proceeded from Lord Portsmouth. This was impossible. Was it possible that this woman should mis take the screams of Lord P f ortsmouth,, a stout over-grown man of fifty-five, for the screams of an infant child? He would leave his Lordship to decide whether she was likely or not to be correct.' She then said, that on the second Sunday the family were in deponent's house, she wai given to understand they had gone to church, with the exception of Lady Portsmouth.; and the deponent was directed to prepare, among other things for dinner, a plum-pudding, the fruit of which was always kept `by La dy Portsmouth herself. Could his Lordship believe that Lady Portsmouth, 'moving about as she did, with all the per sonal inconveniences that attended her in these daily re movals from one house to another, would order a plum pudding, and keep the plums ? his was fabulous ; but the introduction of these little collateral incidents spoke volumes, and gave a credibility, as Mr. Shadwell said, to other parts of the affidavits, which, taken by themselves, deservtd none ; that was the only way of accounting for the episode of the plum-pudding. Then she said, as the after noon was advancing, she repeatedly requested the maid of Lady. Portsmouth to go to her mistress for the fruits, which she declined saying she was not permitted unless rung for; that it now became necessary to have the fruit ; and she ques tioned the maid as to her reason for using so much ceremony ; and the deponent's suspicions were excited, and she went up stairs herself. The Scotch landlady'had no such delicacy as the tnaiti—go she would. Was it to be believed, that her Ladyship ordered a plum-pudding, and laid herself so open to detection in her guilty amours, that instead of sending the plums down stairs, she would invite the woman to be upon the watch, for the sole purpose of being detected in that in which the most impudent would wish to avoid detection ? She stated that on getting to the drawing-room door, she tapped, and instantly took hold of the handle to open it, when she found the door fastened inside.. She made a noise ; when, to her astonishment, the door was opened by Mr. Alder, who desired her to make less noise, and Lady Portsmouth called out to shut the door. No one could account for this woman's suspicions., . One should ,suppose, that if any thing guilty had been going on in the contemplation of either of these parties, that either the door would not be opened at all, or that Mr. Alder would not be the person to come and open it. She then said, that in consequence she became alarmed for the cha racter of her houSe, and on the Thursday following they, re- Moved. •If the character of any woman was to be whispered away in • the manner in which this woman had attempted to whisper away the character of Lady, Portsmouth, nobody was safe. The fact Was, that Lady Portsmouth was in an ex tremely delicate state of health. The affidavit proceeded by stating, that on leaving her lodgings they did not pay ; but she and her husband having detained a portmanteau and bag, they clubbed their money and paid the bill. Could any body believe him ? One gravamen was that not a, shilling was left at Lord Portsmouth's disposal ; that Lady Portsmouth re ceived all the money, and yet it ' was supposed she could not pay for a week's lodging. Her alleged paramour, tco, was not only respectable but wealthy : yet they were such mumpers they must leave 'their - lodgings Without paying their bill. Was it possible to believe this woman ? The incredibility of the whole of the evidence from Edinburgh was thns contradictory in itself, and had been discredited by the parties on the other side. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his Learned Friend always supposed that they had known this evidence before the 'month of February. Mr. HoRNE was content to take it either way. They had their information in December ; if they believed it, they must have made inquiry. Eut at any rate if was not to be believed now, since it made no allusion to the monstrous 'insinuations and calumnies which were sworn more than six months after wards. He would now proceed to other points of the case. The LORD CHANCELLOR—I am afraid you must reserve these points till Monday. • Mr. HORNE' was sorry to be tedious. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Not at all; I hear you, as always, with great pleasure ; but the students must have the Hall at half past two. If you choose, I will attend here on Mon day at 9 o'clock. Mr. HowNE , —lf your Lordship pleases. The late BISHOP of CLOGHER'S CASE. ( Continued from the Freeman's Journal of Tuesday last.) METROPOLITAN COURT OF ARMAGH, OCT• 21 Sir HENRY- MEIIEDYTH in continuation.—The offences over which this Court has cognizance are not of a temporal ml ture. This Court does not affect to exercise any jurisdiction over these offences for the purpose of corporal punishment. Its authority and jurisdiction are to inquire into anti reform the I evil habits and propensities, and in the quaint but terse lan guage. of my Lord Coke—" It is to reform the inward man." The jurisdictions are altogether distinct and different, and there are many instances to be found of cases of crime which, for these different purposes, have been made the subject of the jurisdiction and authority of the Temporal and Ecclesiasti cal Courts. These offences were all committed in England, and in a country foreign in respect of its criminal law and jurisdiction. They could not be inquired into or punished by the municipal law of this land; and melapcholy and abortive would be the law of the. Church and its authorities, if crimes such as these, and committed by - a Prelate of Ireland, " who should excel all others in purity, and be an example to others to live well and christianly,' should pass 'unnoticed and unpunished, because that he had committed these offences in a foreign country, ," to the scandal of himself and his Church;" and in a country where they might be committed with impunity; and that his wilful absence from this country, and neglect of his epiScopal duties, and contempt of his supe rior, his Court, andits laws, should protect him from the punish ment dUe to his crimes, and removal from his sacred office. But the Ecclesiasti.2al Court is not so weak and incompetent, nor are its authorities so insufficient and abortive in the enforce ment of its laws and ordinances. This case affords abundant evidence to the contrary. The law can be applied, and fully enforced against the wilful, disobedient, . and absent man ; and it is right and necessary for the maintenance of the true, reli gion, and the discipline of the Church, that its law can be thus administered and enforced. . . It will not be necessary to make separate and distinct obser vations upon the evidence, as it is' to be applied to the case or identity. The facts herein detailed all of them contribute their due proportion to the establishment of this material . fact. But if further observation be necessary, be it remembered that the Bishop has been for the last three months wilfully absent from his Palace and his Bishoprick, and has thoroughly neglected and deserted the great and important duties of his station, and that this has been a period of time ashen his presence and attendance were more than necessary anti anxiously expected. This absence and neglect of duty is in itself a canonical offence, and punishable by its law. It is in respect of the offences im puted to the Bishop of small account. But it is a fact that is of some importance in the ascertainment of his crime and identity. His absence commenced immediately before the commission of his crime, and has since continued. It has co ' vered the period of the proceedings in this cause, their com mencement and approaching termination.. It cannot be now presumed 'that he is ignorant of their nature and purpose: One other circumstance, and decisive on this part of the case remains to be stated. Since the institution of this suit, and the notifi cation of its commencement anti purpose, a public sale by auction has been held of all the Bishop's property at the Palace of Clogher. The entire stock and furniture have been sold, and the,Palace which should be the place of his constant residence and hospitality, is now bereft of every _article that could con iribute to its-comfort or convenience. He had to ask pardon for having dwelt so long in the state ment of this case. But its importance was great. The duty imposed on his Grace and his brethren was painful, but it was necessary and unavoidable. The act required of them was the exercise of a duty which his Grace and his brethren owed to themselves and their successors, to their God and their country. The evidence was then read in open Court. It was full and satisfactory, in the-proof' of the facts adverted to by the Learned 'Advocate, in his opening speech, and particularly the commis sion of those acts which formed. the foundation of, and consti tuted the necessity for the proceedings. The same reason which was assigned by the Learned Advocate for not detailing those facts in his seech will influence our determination, and justify us in withholding ' from the public eye a statement of facts so truly . disgracefuland degrading to the person accused, and now convicted, and afflicting to his much-respected family and friends. The testamentary evidence was read by the Proctor of Office, as called for by Dr. Staples, commencing with the Bishop of Clogher's admission into Holy Orders, and terminating in the sale of his property in Clogher, and pretty nearly in the order and to the purport following : The Ist Document—That the Bishop of Clogher was in Holy Orders, and had Iseen held and reputed to be so for 20 years past ; and that 20 years ago be held a Rectory, and per formed the duties thereof in this Archdiocese; and was proved by the Rev. John Benjamin Story, and John Patrickson, Esq. Register. 2d Document, was the attested copy of Impugnant's pro ' motion to the See of Ferns, bearing date the 26th Aug. 1809. 3d Document, was the evidence of his consecration to that See, in Christ Church, Dublin, by the then Metropolitan of that Archdiocese. 4th Document, was the evidence of his installation and en thronement in the Cathedral of Ferns, in Sept. 1809. sth Document, was the attested copy of his translation to the See of Clogher. 6th Document, was his installation and enthronement in the Cathedral of Clogher. 7th Document, was the attested copy of the late Primate's Patent. • 'Bth Document, was the Impugnant's admission of canonical .obedience to the late Primate, as his Metropolitan, bearing date October 1820. 9th Document, afforded proofs that the late Primate stated as such. 10th. Document, was the oath of canonical obedience sworn by Impugnant to the late Primate as his Metropolitan. 11th Document; was the proof of the' late primate's triennial visitation at Monaghan, in and for the Diocese of Clogher, in August, 1820, and of the Bishop of Clogher having attended there as the Suffragan Bishop of that Diocese. 12th Document, afforded proof of the Impugnant having left the palace of Clogher, in July last, and never since returned there. 13th Document, was of considerable length; and went to esta blish the criminality of the Impugnant when in London, on the 19th of last July, in association with John Moverly, a private soldier in the Ist Regiment of Guards, in the public house of . Edward Lee, situate in St. Alban's-place, in the city of Westminster,* and county of Middlesex ; and the arti cles contained were supported by testimony of James Clarke watchman ; John Plant, shoemaker, Robert Gleeson, and Robert Glegg, watchmen. 14th Document, was the evidence of John Latchford, the constable of the watch, to prove the note written by the Bishop of Clogher, in the watch-house cell : and the proof of,the hand writing to be that of the Impugnant, was testified by the Rev. Mr. Story, and Mr. Patrick Son. 15th Document, proved that the Earl of Roden is-nephew to the Hon. Percy Jocelyn. 16th Document, proved by Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to the Sitting Magistrate Mr. Dyer, was the arrest and bailing of the Impugnant, and his acknowledgment at that time of his name and dignity, and place of residence in London. 17th Document, 'proved the auction of furniture, &c. at Clog her, on the 16th of last September, and subsequent days. 18th Document, proved by Hugh Lyle, of Oaks, in the county of Londonderry, Esq. that the person arrested in Lon don was the then Lord Bishop of Clogher. Other documents were also read as to identity, and to shew that the libel charged occurred in the County of Middlesex.— The libel contained 54 Articles. When these several documents were all'read and entered, Sir Henry, Meredyth stated to the Court that the evidence had closed. The evidence being thus closed, Doctor Staples, on the part of the Office, observed upon it, and particularly upon the lain which regulated the proceeding, and established its prop nets and necessity, nearly in the following terms : in out this We have now, my Lords, gone through the evidence ne very distressing case, and as we conceive have fully bor t. c by proof, the offences charged by the articles against 3h_ bee, fortunate person accused. Some increased difficulty h. S n , u g. imposed upon us by the peculiar circumstance of the l l ' as r l ops nant not having appeared. He is not before y9 lll l' ° ! oe ces . either in person or by proctor, and thence has arisen the sity of much evidence to identify Percy, Bishop of Clogn er eta pa t fq l et i wi e es p ot e bio rs: sieedrv n ; guilty of the enormities alleged. That sorn e E a no committed these offences at the time and place stated.g.l by 0 son was Percy, rtoy li sß i o s ins n ht o hap w e omefvyiedieoungtehyeeltrao. laid before w .. youro you, ordshit t yet . First, it appears by the evidence, that'the perstobnatwt:.;lo; minted these offences on the evening of the 19th July IT 0 1' habited like a Dignitary of the' Church. His figure, e li s ell appearance is particularly described, and accords Pr j ot with the testimony of other witnesses - personally acclZ , o with the Bishop of Clogher. 'When called on, in eg st . to tion inert, give his name, he, with a feeling very natural in the st ~s 1 it in which he was placed, delined to give it, and it was n e ot i u str becamethiantdliisepaetniseiniaglethfoarcktnhoewpliedirpgoesdeboifsprerococpuring his the name and title of Percy, Bishop of Clogher. li'zahenticeao:PirPo°el evidence to.which I would point the attention of the Court,_'o, letter found upon the .person, of this individual in the wr e jta • house. This document, it will be recollected, he endeavow 01. destroy, and for that purpose tore it into small Pie ee t a tcly threw it into the fire-place. This act being observed by , s bie ford, the constable of the watch, he with very Commp'uottcl diligence picked up the awayg of the paper awl l't. them together, in such as to render the contents esanest ly legible. The paper thus re-united was produced di f the morning in the office of the Magistrate, in the presen ce : : : irbe prisoners, and appeared to be a letter addressed to 100 1 Bishop of Clogher," and signed "Roden." It ` vas dit } 42 to the Magistrate and read by hi m , and he foun he 0 :e be conversant on private business. Th e individua l 0 ;10 say was the Bishop of Clogher, thereupon claimed it bo ld Own, and as addressed to him, and the Magistrate pow!o of opinion (whether right or wrong it is not fleet-oaq at ay discuss,) that he had no authority to detain the doctun,,,eoiX rected.it to be returned to the individual so calling hillis e " f of Cdogher, who immediately, a second time, tore the par e d i . O totally destroyed it. The document being thus annilidaA'pO' proof could be given of the hand-writing, but we have r e 7,,,it o dence toshew that Lord Roden, whose signature was sub os this letter is the nephew of Percy, Bishop of Clogher, as ubt oit in the habit of corresponding with him, all 'which ROO afford strong evidence of the individual th' s being the person who filled that station. the I The next piece of evidence is the note written hY se, person during the night, in the cell at the Watch-hti ..lok now before the Court. It appears to be addressed to ,u r es w ar' , 'Waring, 21, Montague-street, Portman-square,a nd the initial 'letters " P.C." representing the name a nd tide bog% it Bishop of Clogher. We have proved that a person c alling . ng t he Bishop of Clogher lodged at that house and that J. s i r ,' o f his servant ; and we have further proved i that the wl"? t T ar e 11 e contents of that note, and the direction on .the back of the handwriting of the Bishop of Clogher. This fac t !so rt established by the testimony of four or five witnesses,.*.'ag, been acquainted with the character of his hand-wriu coresned with him for manears. ' . es That a d person detected in .th y e commission of enorniritiooia, as are here imputed, should resort to the expedient oi a fictitious name among persons to whom he was un. "i v icl o , l not an improbable supposition ;_ but that the same i o e he V, should on the day before, and during t h e whole tinino Pc previously occupied the lodgings in Montague-stre et ,' e is offence was imputed to him, have gone by a false consistent with any assignable motive, and yet we "„.. 3- iy, g" that the same person who, on the night of the Rith July, himself out in the watch-house as Bishop of Cloghe r, uf ed,as forjiis name the initials P. C. had lodged at , nic hop m house Montague-street for many days before AS v o ,abt r Clogher. This circumstance, we conceive, has gre at establishing identity. essa r isit The next material fact is, _that when it became ne e ~„ce give ball, the person charged with these enormities -;`', t i t i/ e name as Percy, Bishop of Clogher, by which name tin",, is acknowledged his recognizance, which was so reconle office of the Magistrate. O jai we eThese submitar a e bu a n fi da th nt e ly fa s e t t i s bs w ta h n ic t h iat t e oo , t k ha P t la ti c i e e in 14 0--11 1 sea °.° f the person he represented himself to be nans p :l7, o g c , cl3 . i o sil f °3? ; * Clogher. Yet add to this, that the regular procepta ) j Lordship's Court has been duly served upon the re 3l a sh, sn s t that See, at his Episcopal Palace, his Cathedral Chi 0 0, 4 all other places from whence the service of such proc e e e o esP 5, be concluded to reach his knowledge—that that 11 doll: 0 'upon him to defend himself against these di s grace J1;0 upon pain of deprivation, That the charges agai n , s o reg, t be notorious to the empire and the world, and that no sl io i cg of has been entered for him, no defence made, notatetiptisha charge attempted : can a doubt remain as to p tst e ,Clogher being the real guilty individual ? • n h as of 1 14 - 5 But we have further proved that a Sale by Atter w d o ge owe place at the Episcopal Palace,. that splendid apPell nest dignity has been left as a naked ruin—that all this os ca 0 , been done by the authority of the Bishop, that he went to,e4 himself from his See' and his duty, ever since lie w e ' co crtn` o f don, a short time previous to the commission of tilF a i,len ee charged against him, altogether forming a mass T bie , ;pg identity, which we conceive to be perfectly irresis t ' L i s eti b e t s lest offence and the identity of the person ae c tro uble ,a thus ablished, I 'do not think it necessary t^, d i c tion Court at much length in older to prove their jur's dept authority to puinsh such offences, even to the este ° v iuc• vation. has P ro Wh ere It is quite settled law that every Archbi sho p power over all his Bishops, and may hold hi. by e he pleases in his Province, and officiate as Jtidb'e . P ac t; laid down in Lord Chief Baron's Comyn's diges t c o t he ' e l i 5 sons, c. 1., and it is stated that he may deprive. I ,, e t debated case of Lucy v. Watson, Rishop of St.'" s tbat e be laid down by Lord Holt, 'one o the ablest J . n ( . l ti gl e i c tionnat sat in England, that " admitting the point of stiri i - von tss ,- 0/ 0 disputed would be to admit the disputing of fun ( _!'''ai c tion la ce the Archbishop has without doubt, provincial l ost P, f te all his Suffragan Bishops,•which he may exercise in 16 7,..-' r j, of the Province he pleases," 1, Burn's Lccl. Law, tunes ag°ol• history of our church, also, from the most ancientp", o is a so b nt u il i e l i d rne a f n ioi t irse in gi s ,,t ta lieirt n eg c y c ci s lne o aa f rn. t , h s e L ex w e , rcise of his jurisdictitar action ber of those instances will be found collected by P.' l o ` _4lc:sir Objections, p. gested, that this juriOiction is confined to 'ter , ty , s offences, and cannot extend to crimes at,Common ' e " ar aot si I answer, it is admitted the Ecclesiastical Court _ i itteLla,e mull cony. mere temporal offence, , for instance—a murt girder, or e 4o t an Ecclesiastic ;. for that Court cannot try m 57.—holwIteavege.r.,n1:aeraiccoeseliaysitirilf what is murder. .In such case, in order to 'P ol ,! l e ritual Court must wait for conviction by build coo sentenceCourts,‘v Ie where e a temporal(uor outlawryn sucoffence fFe n e w hichaio co nviction.n ies htaalstihtabisienennoitiLnet,toeltiltacdtee:c.altiaboi:lol:rpro,4ib: clesiastic. But where a-Clergyman is guilty ot a pato ire fligate life, of lewdness, drunkenness,. gross sen 1 1 1 ;bl:e ll to s . immorality, and the like, such conduct is. Pin b_oontiog ot Ecclesiastical Courts, and, in that case, facts rdeo:fillip, temporal offence,' may be charged as evidence ( sir the guilt imputed. The law is thus laid doyn u• Y finch c Scott, po s n , t p h C i c 4 a o s . e of Nash v. Nash, Ist vol. a r' 1100 1 5 In ihat case, which was a suit for a divorce; the to e ntl ,t, that the party impugmant was married before, to ai r° , s objected that such a charge was inadmissible, :I t, sir ~ 0 0 to felony. In giving his judgment on this l'_" ; `„„ t iire: 00 Liam Scott says, " Certainly this Court fi!. co r a felony directly, even where a clergyman sas 0 5 ; purpose of deprivation. - But it is very freq - ue r t i t ' , " L the ';• red in practice to admit a fact in itself crhnina tit the c factatunceycesys.ary Watson,o tbheefoerveidhenoctieceind,a i c t iv ir il as su a l t f ers ' oe 0 1,ectc a n s' tener,„pviL,' mostwhich o L f or a d te Holt j e o c b t o e n r v s e s i ,s this,T h nwwhien will a-- many of the charges against the Bio .d p dh7t,sri,e. secaerto may deprive hith, but not punish for a o k .c :! e ' office of Bishop and is against Itclilitisnstintdauestt:yti•°°, t:h'cheinaSpPorietrisi3tltuoipoeic:e:tetif: His Lordship also cited .Cawdry'.s cave in '..0; page 1, in which the same law is clesiastical law, and the temporal te ne r- h o ceedings, and ' to several ends. The " r n „. oo ,is • r . ".. o tst i ": eto o b tb e e d r flict punishment on the body, lanai, the ou t , s t ‘ . man.—theconcei v Spiritual, pro salute anima';' the one W r g eso a uthor:ls til t ! , ectaisriefveo.rmßtahte further it is 0 4, , ,, osii ts c e e r d 'h' , 0 b u it ' ll ' i; in the case before your Lordships no temP rai amounting to felonies, but clearly cognizapty' to deg cha,.. * oo ing to felony, is charged. The articles tra - to the canons, and subjecting the PF be d tali on 01 is Having now, As we conceive, estab _ " teAC C. against the individual accused, and also t a le d ug s sen, eo Court, it only remains to pray for your l' ° ' to the & lin 'tOraci'cli gross and scandalous practices and iminor-rliii_tfie:st,iebniFceoutiaroftiLilli; is a duty I am aware must be mostpainfuln,,,tit ystir__ee ,a ever distressing the act may be, 1 ars . co e n" that s eat e c t ; bo s, 0P ° a t ?: conf ere c le c ari: brace will conscientiously and boldly pronou n° „,, t iient his the law demands.—You will cut off thiSP" ut God. o %VP sir di,SHChisarogeraycoeutrhdeuhotyrtdo Primate, a co te u , n a tr it y ex Henry Aleredith, before he retired,,, s pPr u cso se a written sentence, for his perwat in the Brethren, requested that the Court ring to, and founded upon the evide r ' c ' ssOli te aulceirle Ifllf k ui ll ~ ea Polit a 'lllstzian fS l'ani%ll Ch 4144 C o l oratil Peru vian At4ricar 1 4 1 0 4 , 11 W, flit So t ,