The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-02-11 00:00:00

T+

LA 7V

COURT OF KING'S DENCII, WESTMINSTER, Fs.. 9.
• CHAMBERS V C +VLF I ELD.
Mr. DALLAS obtained a conditional rule to set
aside the verdkt in this cause, some days ago, of
which we gave a report in our paper of the
26th auk. The Court was occupied almost the
whole of this day, in hearing the arguments of
Counsel on both sides.
Ldids F.t Erseosou en having read the whole
of the ti ial, of which we gave also a full ac-
count in our paper of the 4th of December last :
the several letters written by the Plaintiff, to his
wife, to induce her to teturn to him, were also
read by the clerk of the Court.
Mr. ERSKLN Et in chewing cause agairet this rule,
with his usual feeling and eloquence, said, he was
persuaded that no person of common honour and
honesty could listen to the letters then just read,
without the greatest indignation against the adul-
terer ; but for seduCtive arts, this unhappy woman
would have returned to the bosons of her husband
and children, and not remained in want and misery
as she nary is. lle called this application a fresh
instance of the infamous profligacy of the Defend-
ant. In adverting to the case of Weeden ii. 'l'im-
brell, upon which the application was grounded.
and by which it had been decided that a man, living
separate from his wife, could not maintain an anion
of tlis nature; he expressed his high respen for
the consemmate judgment of the Learned Judges,
who gave their opinion upon that case; but he con-
tended, that judgment was not founded upon any
precedent, and did not in any respite apply in the
preseut case. He insisted, that a man may be
separated from his wife, from temper, from policy,
front affection to their children! from various causes
and circumstances, and was it to be said this was
to dept ive a husband of his right to bring an anion
for criminal conversation? The mei tiage enropaa
was the foundation of all social life : it was so in-
dissoluble, that in the law, a man and his wife
were one person ; and though he may feel all the
dishonour and shame of an aft like this, yet be is
entitled to proten her as his own property. He
then adverted to cases of a private marriage, where
the husband and wife were obliged to conceal their
marnage ; where a man may covenant to let his wife
live with her father, that from her attentions to him
she may be benefited ; where prudential motivesrnar
regnii e it, where the husband may be ordered abroad.
These were circumstances, where the parties may be
bound to each other in the strongest ries of love and
affection. Ist the name of religion, in the name ()litto-
ral reftitude, in the name of God, he would ask,
was this to be a licence fur the adulterer ? As to
the deed, so far from being a deed of separation, it
was a deed of reconciliation entered into for the
very purpose of making her live with him ; his oh-
jen was to retain his wife, to protect her under his
own root, to induce her to resume her station of an
affenionate mother over their nine children ; this, he
contended. was the very marrow of the deed. He
further argued, that Mrs. Cirembers had quitted her
husband in the violatioo of the conditions of this
deed, mammy to the wishes, and even without the
comsat of her trustees, which she was bound by a
special covenant to obtain. But it was not the
operation of this deed which caused the separation,
it woe the arts of the adulterer which led her astray,
it was the execrable wiles of her seducer. In ad.
verting to the letters. on which the Defendant so
much relied, he said, they were more like the let-
ters of a lover than a husband ; in Jae anguish of
his mind, he told her she was necessary to him, not
in the gross acceptation of the word, as the abomin-
able adulterer would have it construed, btu neces-
sary to his happiness, to his society, to his existence :
he conjures her to return to the pledges of their for-
mer affenion to their children $ he took the blame
of their separation upon himself ; the reason was
obvious, he could not tell a high-spirited woman
that she was the cause of it. He was going on a
perilous service ; he entreated her to see him, in or-
der that he mill' t face the enemy of lus country
with spirit. '
Mr. E ase owe challenged the Counsel on the other
side, to chew whethertliere was any thinglike a rerun.
nuciation of marital rights, of all comfort and aff c-
tion ? did he renounce the duty and attention he owed
to his children ?In short, those letters, and the whole
tenor of his conduit', were that of a fond, though
jealous man, using every mains in his power to el-
fen a reconciliation with time woman he adiired, in
order to have her again under his protection, and
for the sake of their growing offspring, whose infant
wants required her maternal care. The production
of those letters, by the Defendant, was an aggrava-
tion of his crime, which crested. that, by his seduc-
tive arts alone, he destroyed the peace of a once
happy family, and prevented an unhappy woman
from returning to her once peaceful home. Upon
this pan of the case he could not but regi-er, that
such an offence was not punishable by criminal law,
and that the culprit did not atone for his infamy by
the forfeiture of his life. With respell to the re.
mai ning point, namely, that of excessive damages,
the application should have comefrom the Plaintiff,
for a new trial, not from the Defendant. The 4.14.
magee given, so far from being extravagant, were
very inadequate to the injuries of the one, and the
infamy of the other; lie ought to have had the
Whole sum laid in the declaration, namely, 10,0001.
but be WAS content with the verdict which the .Jury
had found. Upon the whole of this case, he con-
tended, there were no grounds, no pretence what-
ever, for a new trial ; hut, on the contrary, the De-
fsreclant, coming Mai Court with tHis application,
had only displayed a nest instance of that profheacy
which bad originally assisted him in destroying the
fern and the honour of an accomplished, beautiful,
And once virtuous woman—of blasting the peace and
happiness of a worthy man, and depriving a nume-
eous infant family of the comfort and attentions of
those, to whom they should look up for precept and
example.
Mr. GARROW, in a most able and impressive
speech, followed on the same side.
Lord Eta. ea soarroo it observed, that he did not
think this case could be ranged under the case of
Weeden c. Timbre% His Lordship expressed his
satisfaction, that this experiment of the Defendant's
had given rise to the discussion; as he wished that
cafe to be argued to the extremest extent, and ask-
ed if Mr. De i.L AS could chew whether there was
any renunciation of marital rights by the husband ?