The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-01 00:00:00

HOPE v. HOPE.

The Tribunal of the First Instance of the department
of the Seine, under the presidency of M. DebeHerne,
has lately been occupied by a suit brought by Mr.
Adrian Hope against Mrs. Adrian Hope, calling upon
her to give up to him the custody of his two sons, in
conformity with the two orders of the Lord Chancellor
made during last year.
M. Duyergler, Mr. Hope's advocate, opened the pre-1
ceedings on the 20th ult. The court, after hearing his
argument, and the reply of M. Herbert, Hrs. Hope's
advocate, as well as M. Duvergier's rejoiner, adjourned
the summing up of the Procurour-General and the
judgment of the court till that day week.
On Wednesday, the 27th, M. Moignon, substitute for
the Procureur-General, made his conclusions in the
following terms :

"You are aware of the situation of the parties in this
cause. It is, in fact, most simple. Mrs. Hope is the
(laughter of General Rapp. She has instituted against her
husband a divorce suit before the English Ecclesiastical
Court. Before this court has pronounced judgment, Mrs.
Hope'has further desired to determine the position of two
of her children who are under her care : she has chosen
to have his position decided by the French tribunals.
The French tribunals have pronounced on her demand.
They have declared that the mother shall retain the cus-
atoevd
eyr
aolf d he
cerre
etwof
thec h i ledoruernt, h bute
ctohne
fiy r Imi asvde
tandi
sd edde--c
sai
nond
--that the custody of the children, thus confided to the
mother, should be maintained only until the competent
tribunals should have pronounced. What are the com-
petent tribunals ? In what character, and to what ex-
tent have the French tribunals decided ? In the first
place the French tribunal has not pronounced as admi
nistrator of the French Jaw. It has decided between
foreigners who were not subject to its jurisdiction, and
who could not become so. It has, therefore, confined
itself within the narrowest limits of the narrowest con-
ception relating to foreigners residing in France, and
with reference to whom measures of protection are neces-
sary. Suck is the character which decisions of the
French tribunal must necessarily have in the case of a
foreigner. As he is not under our jurisdiction, we can-
• not impose a judgment upon him ; the measures which
we take with reference to him can only be taken.
for the purpose of protection. This is so true,
especially in the matter now before you, that the
tribunal and the court have repeatedly said, ' Our
decision will only remain valid until the day when
the competent tribunals have decided.' What are
the competent tribunals ? Mr. Hope has taken pro-
ceedings before the Lord Chancellor of England. The
Lord Chancellor has decided that the children ought to
be given up to Mielr father, because, according to the
English law, it is the father who is the guardian, it is
the father who is the protector of the children ; and,
said the Lard Chancellor in stating the reasons of his
decision, there must be very strong grounds before they
can be withdraws from this guardianship and protection.
The Lord Chancellor, I repeat, has decided that the
children should be restored to their Either. This first
decision required to be rendered executory, and it was
indispensable, then, to submit it to you. You have bees
called upon to give your opinion, and you have refused to
order the execution of the sentence of the Lord Chancellor,
because it has appeared to you open to appeal, and be-
cause you were not aware whether in this ease an appeal
is or is net suspensive. Reference has bees made to
the Lord Chancellor. He has fully explained the juris-
prudence of his country, and its mode of regarding such
questions. He definitively declared that appeal to
the House of Lords was net suspensive, and his decison
was sovereign and executory, appeal notwithstand-
ing. Moreover, turning to the bar, he said, ' Speak-
ing before an English bar, I need not enter further into
the question, because every one knows here that my
decision is sovereign, and that appeal to the House of
Lords does not suspend its execution.' After having
'wide thiseleclaration, the Lord Chancellor confirmed his
first sentence, namely, that according to the English
law the custody of children belongs to the father,' unless
there are some grounds for excluding him—that, as no
grounds exist against Mr. Hope for depriving him of
the exeteise of his paternal authority, the children
ought to be restored to him. You are now again called
upon to carry into effect the decision of the Lord Chan-
cellor. For our part we do not hesitate to say that we
think the execution of the sentence ought to be immedi-
ately ordered. What is the question for the judge who
is called upon to decide on the present application ? He
has to consider whether the decision was pronounced
by the competent tribunal, whether there is anything
in it contrary to the French law, or to public order
in France ; finally, whether the judgment referred to
him has, in truth, the charaCter of a judgment. As
for the competence of the tribunal whicn has
pronounced, it is incontestible. The English law
declares the Lord Chancellor the protector of all
minors. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor points out in
his decision that the ecclesiastical court is Rot in this
matter disqualified to decide, because—unlike the rule
which prevails in our country--that court, called upon
to deal with the question of divorce, cannot pronounce
on that of the custody of the children. It must confine
itself exclusively to the rules and principles which regd.
late the special matter submitted to it, namely, the sepa-
ration de corp., or divorce. There is no room, then,
for doubt or dispute. As regards the disposal of the
children, it is the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chan-
cellor alone, who represents in England the competent
jurisdiction. Has the decision of the Lord Chancellor
the character and force of a judgment ? Clearly, yes,
since the Lord Chancellor, with the law of his country
before him, declares his decision paramount. Finally,
is this judgment contrary to the French law? Clearly,
no. We have no enactment to the effect that, in a
suit of separation de corps, the children shall neces-
sarily be given up to the party who institutes the
suit. Consequently, there is no obstacle to your im-
mediately declaring the sentence of the Lord Chan-
cellor executory. It has, it is true, been said,
' You are not a registry office ; you do not merely
register the decisions of foreign tribunals which are
submitted to you ; you pronounce in some sort a new
decision, and it is this which ought to prevail.' When
the question is of property situated in France, I can
understand this; but in a case of two foreigners over
whom we have no jurisdiction, are we to criticise the
judgment which has been pronounced, and to say that
the judge has decided wrongly? Are we to enter into
all the details of English law, with which we are unac
quaiuted ? Are we, a Paris tribunal, sitting in Paris, to
amend a decision emanating from an English judge, re-
siding is England ? When the parties have appeared
before the Lord Chancellor, when he has heard both
sides fully, when he has been able to appreciate, with a
knowledge of the facts, the arguments which each has
put forward, are we, a French judge, going to hear the
parties anew ? Are we to give a hearing, on the oke
hand, to Mrs. Hope, who states that her two children
are ill, that one is weakly, and that the health of the
i t o this
nother is very delicate; or, on the other, to-Mr. Hope,
who states, en the contrary, that his children are in good
health, and that he will place them in a house where
they will be perfectly well oared for ? Are we going to
listed
sdisputetat s
i whensimts of m
the
rL or do
ps and Chancellor
his
wifeh e la?
e a rd
the oppositelt
is impossible. Each has his
Gi He
his mission, to per-
form. The English judges decide in
j England; we French
judges may be
contented to decide in France. To the
English authorities
belong
contrary disputielesr btoettwheeelnawEs nogrlistho
subjects, and when they have pronounced, it is the
French authorities to
order
the eixne c onm
ao
tf
ttehr e
br esf
oe
rn
tences, if they are not
the public order of oar country. .
the court the principles have been recognised
rig
thhtesrea is
nothing here contrary to our legislation
respected ; we think, thee, that tho court wifideclarree
executory the sentence of the Lord Chancellor. In the
name of Mr. Hope, it is asked that, pending the suit of
separation de corps, the children may be placed in a I
school where they may receive all the care which
they may require. For our part, we see no inconve-
nience in this arrangement, and we cannot doubt
that the court will give effect to the conclusions of Mr.
Hope.

The President subsequently pronounced judgment to
the following einet :—The order of the Lord Chancellor
of the th of August, last year, is declared executory in
France. The boys are to be placed in some neutral
domicile until the definitive decision (viz., in case of ap-
peal to the Cour Imperiale) to prevent their being with-
drawn from France or Paris. Articles belonging to Mrs.
Hope in the house at the Quai d'Orsay are to bo returned
to her. The school in which the boys are to be tem-
porarily placed net defined.

EEPRESENTATION OP SUNDERLAND.--111 r. Fenwick
has taken the field in opposition to Mr. Seynaour, In
a brief address to the electors, he says •—".A.t the lir-
gent request of a large number of the electors of the
borough, I have consented to come forward as a
candidate to supply the vacancy created by 'William
Rigby Seymour becoming a placeman. My political
opinions arc well known to the electors of Sunderland.
They are essentially liberal, and such as aIL sections of
the liberal party may honestly support,"—Sunderland
Tinter.