The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-28 00:00:00

for him. lu this matter lady Weenswith acted foe bee own
defence, and not as the aggressor ; and the Marquis mustthank himself far the consequence of his oWn sets. Lady West-
meath pleaded that the alarquis was guilty of adultery aad cruelty,
and in support of those charges, he (Dr. Inothinguen) ehould alt.
stain from offering any observations which his duty to his client did
net render imperatively necessary. He winild not endeavour to in.
flame the ease, nor represent it even to its lull extent. It was stif-
&lent if he *showed that Lady Westmeath was entitled to the
remedy she claimed, without painting his Lordship's conduct in
the strongest colours. lint if he found that the Marquises Counsel
thought proper to throw imputation upon the conduct or cha-
racter of the Slarchloness, he eheuld teke the liberty of retorting in
such a manner as he conceived would meet the justice of the ease.
The parties were married in 1812, and finally separated in 1819; he
did not deem it necessary to detail all the particulate or their coha-
bitation. It was sufficient to point out the particular circuit).
stances. The parties had cohabited at various pieces—in England,
in Ireland, at Clonyn, in France, at the Alarquis of Salisbury's
house at Hatfield, in London, at Bolton-row and Stratford-place,
and in some other places. body Westmeath complained to Mr.
Wood. Lord Westmeath's friend, of his violent conduct in 1815*
Negotiation% far a deed of separation took place in 1817. The par.
ties ceased to cohabit, though they resided in the same house from
May 1818. and in June 1819 the final separation took place, since
when the parties had never met. It was not until a year and a half
after this separation that Lord Westmeath determined upon the ex-
pediency of reorder( to the Ecclesiastical Court foe redeem. It was
not from any delicacy in instituting law proceedings, however, that
hie Lordship had delayed. He made an effort before the lewd
Chancellor to vocate the deed which he had executed, and to deprive
Lady Westmeath of the (pecuniary provision which he had made
for her. Net succeeding, however, in breaking his contract, and
finding that his objects were not attainable in a Court of law, he
at lan resorted to the •jurisdiction of that Court when everything
elm had failed. It was clear that this suit had no other
object than to reduce Lady Westmeath into hit power, and
render her dependent for support on his bounty. It was a
question whether the Court should entertain • case which was
brought forward nn no other principle but because ether Courts did
not think it justice to invalidate a legal claim. Certain it was,
Lord Westmeath did not come forward in the most auspicious
manner; there was no just motive enacted to hint. He stood upon
the extreme point of law, which allows a husband to lulu upon his
wife's cohabiting with him, and unite* he was strictly entitled to
such a decision she Court would net support lf, in the murk
of their former cohabitation, he had misconducted himself—if he
had forget to observe his part of the sacred contract, it would be is
strange 14w, or equally strange (luny, that would give him
the benefit of a contract which he had violated. If the Court'
could decide that Lady Westmeath should retnrn to cohabit
with his Lordship, she would return not to his protection but
to his violence end passion, and did not this justify her In refus.
Mg to return to 'a repetition of such ill treatment ? The only re-
medy the Court could give was the means of a final and effectual
separation ; and it was no less extranciinery than unwise of Lord
Westmeath, after violating his marriage vow, to set up the elaim
he had. If the Court considered that the deteneive charges of
cruelty and adultery were supported by the evidence, Lady VVest-
meath was strictly entitled to the relief for which slue prayed. Her
only mode of obtaining sufficient protection was to bring the cue
under the cognizance of the Court, and all the fact! and einem-
stances of it under consideration. Ac to the charge of adultery he
was only prepared to contend that it had been committed with two
persons, Sarah Smith and Mary Brennan. Sandi Smith, it ap.
peered, was in the ureice of the Marchioness in 1819. In Mush
1821, the Marquis lodged at the house of a Mrs. Windsor. where
an occurrence was proved to have taken place, which could not be
mentioned without itidignstion. Lord Weeuneath was then in the
habit of receiving hie daughter with her governess every day.
Subsequently he removed her from her ladyship's protection, and
how should he designate such conduct as the removal of a daughter
at seven years old from the cave and custody of her mother ? The
high rank and character of Lady Westmeath should have saved her
from the exercise of Ruch an authority. He who instituted a suit to
regain his wife's society, and by that suit proclaimed her as fit to
return to his roof, withdrew her infant daughter from bee peotec-
. don. However, that authority die law gave hies, and he availed
himself of it, to deposit Lady Rosa at his lodgings in Portman.
street. Sarah Smith was immediately established there as nursery
maid, end the proof of a criminal intercourse between her and Lord
%Vestmeatii depended not so much on any single transaction, but
on the strange and uneccountable familiarly which exiced
between the parties, and which was in no degree explained
Mrs. Windsor first observed the familiar intercourse which
took place In conversation between Lord Westmeath and '
Sarah Smith; and shortly after the latter came to the lodg-
ings, Mrs. Windsor was going to bed at two o'clock In
the morning, when she heard voices in Lord ti enmeath's bed-
room, and distinguished his Lordship and Sarah Smith talking
and laughing in a very familiar way. Mrs. Windsor did not hear
Sarah Smith return to her bed-room that night t and her impres-
sion was, that a criminal intercourse was carried on between his
Lordship and Sarah Smith. Had this been an insulated transnc•
tion some doubt might exist, and the Court might considet some
furtive* testimony necessary. This confirmatory testimony was
supplied by the evidence that Sarah Smith visited his Lordship at
various place; where he afterwards lodged. A circumstance which
occurred in April, 1822, left no doubt as to the nature of the con-
nexion. Lord IVestineath then lodged at the house of a person
named Wall, In Bury-street, Westminster. On one occasion his
Lordship desired that when a woman came she should he shown
up to him. In a short time afterwards Sarah Smith arrived, was
ushered up to his Lordship, and'reinained with him for more than
an hour. Looking at the relative rank of the parties, could any one
say that this was the ordinary interroerse between a Marquis
and his washerwoman? %Vas this traneaction answered because
Sarah Smith's mother haul called on his Lordship for his foul
clothed ? or could it be believed that such an intercourse was
purely platonic, and related to nothing but neckcloths and stock.
togs ? There should have been some mere rational excuse than
the washerwoman. The Learned Gentleman next adverted to the
evidence relating to Mary Brennan. A person named Bennett, a
postilion in the service of Lord Westmeath, deposed that in
March, 1112-2, his Lordship was at Clonyn, and desired the witness
to go and fetch Mary Brennan, who had a child by a man named
Wren, and that he (Lord W.) would give her a guinea. When
Bennett acipainted Mary Brennan what Lord Westmeath, wanted'
with her, she refused to come, and Bennett then suggested to his
Lordship.that be should send hetword thathe desired her to come
to him, that he might oblige Wren, who had seduced her, to merry
her. This message being delivered to Mary Brennan. she came
next morning, which chanced to he Sunday, to ("temp; had an in,
terview with lard %Veetmeath and frequently emote, his beedship'
afterwards. It was attempted to exemmt fur this transaction by the
assertion that Miry Brennan mime to consult his Lordship in his
magisterial capacity, and to get redress by law against her seducer,
Wren. The jurisdiction of compelling persona who seduced ladies
to marry them, Dr. Lushington apprehended, only belonged to
Irish Magietrates; but he understood it was as inconsistent with
Irish habitat's he knew it to be with English habits, for a Illegiti-
mate to dispense justice on Sunday morninge. The circumstances
which he had stated he conceived were sufficient proof of the ailed-
ter,. It was a crime which required no aggravation nor admitted
of no extenuation, because no aggravatine nor extenuation could
prevent the party aggrieved from getting the redress claimed. Ile
now came to the second charge, that of cruelty; and here it was
only In to look back to the manner in which the parties were edu-
cated. There was a great difference between acts of violence com-
mitted by persons moving in an inferior station and acts of violence
perpetrated by therm who had education to restrain their passions.
There was no excuse fitr personal violence offered by a nobleman to
his wife. Whatever provocation may have been given, no gentleman
could ever come 'Omani tosay that personal violence was justifiably
inflicted by him on his wife. He did not charge Lord Westmeath with
having offered malignant violence to Lady Westmeath, but his
passions were so ungoverned and ungovernable, that he could not
restrain himself even within the bounds of violent invective, but
wreaked his passion on the person of an unprotected female. The
moral guilt might he pester it' he had predestined Ruch violence,
o but the danger to the injured party was the same, and the necessity
of protection by no means diminished. As to the definition of legal
nuelty, it was well laid down by lord Stilwell, in the case of Hol.
den v. Holden. which was reported in she first vol. of Dr. Hag.
lard's Reports. p. 458. Lord Stowell defined legal cruelty to be
" any thing that leads to bodily harm ie a peril from which the wife
must be protected." The Noble and Learned Lord went on to say
that it was not necessary to determine from what the violence hail
proceeded; it may be (said he) from turbulent passion not inenin-
patible with some degree of affection. It' the Court declined to in-
terfere where violence was committed only in one instance, it was
because there was hope that such violence would not he repeated :
but no blame of the wire could justify ferocity in the husband."
Such were the doctrines laid down by Lord Stowell when presiding
in that Court, but there was not a shadow of blame attached to
Lady Westmeath. If upon several occasions roes violence had
been perpetrated, general unkindness could oot aggravate nor ge-
neral kindness excuse. This view of the case would relieve the
Court front considering many minute details. It would also relieve
him (Dr. Lushington) from commenting upon any part of the evi-
dence which he conceived did not bear on that view of the subject
he had taken. It enabled him to shut out the testimony of Lady
Salisbury, which he by no means desired to impeach. but if this
resolution was mad* use of by the Noble Marquis's Counsel to the
detriment of his client, he (Dr. Lushington) would think himself
at liberty to enter into it fully.
Dr. JEN If ER was desirous that Dr. luahington should open his
case without those frequent reservations. He should make such
use of the evidence as in his judgment was expedient fie his client.
Dr. LITIIIINOTON resumed. He would. use his own discretion
with respect to the conduct of his arse. He did not think it necee.
sary to answer objections which might not be made, and to amid
-
pate a course which the opposite Counsel perhaps did not mean to
pursue. If every word of the evitreeee produced tor Lord %Vest-
meath was taken as proved. it could not negative the charge of '
cruelty. The Counsel for the Marquis at the most multi only say
there was provocation ; thee never would contend that there was
justification. That Lord Westmeath had ea far forgot himself its
to touch with violence his young and noble wife he had himself ad-
mitted, both by hie letters and by verbal declarations. The evi-
dence of Sarah Wlienzie convicted lord IVeautieath of extreme
cruelty. He left the Marchinneas wanting money, called bar a
d— b—, and beat and kicked tier. .1)n one omission, when
Lady Westmeatb charged him with kicking her in the side, be
answered. "Emily, you provoked me to it." On another occasion,
at Leinster House, after promising not ne ben her, lie struck her
Ladyship on the breast, and hurt her to much that. he thought it
necessary to apply to Dr. Crampton, who ordered a lotion, which
was applied for several days, during which period there was consi.
derable alarm lest the hurt should terminate in emcee. blr.Wood,
the intimate friend of Lord Westmeath, who hail been callid upon
by his Idordeliip to interfere in order to procure a reconciliation, de.