The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-03-21 00:00:00

SEPARATION IN HIGH LIFE.

THE FAR!. Or Wk%IIIIEATII F. THE COUNTED OF
‘VF.STNEATII. VISCOUNT CRAN BORN E, AN D
ANOTHER.

The ATTORNEY GIMBAL stated, this was :t
motion toe an injunction to restrain the Deferidaws,
'Vacuum Craoborne and another person, the trots.
tees of the Countess of Westmeath, from levying
ors certain lands of the Noble Defendant's in Ire-
land, to raise 1,3001. to be paid to the Countess es
au annuity. If there ever was • case snore thin
another which required to be heard privately by his
Lordship, this was that case; it arose out of differ-
ences which had arisen between the Noble Plain-
tiff anti his wife, the Countess of Westmeath—
d.fferettees of a private nature, in which the pub-
lic could be its no way interested. He had •p.
plied to Imre had it heard in private, but the De-
reorients thought proper not to consent. He would,
its stating the case, refrain from touching on throe
d:firrerices, with the hope that his Learned Friends
who were .bpirwsed to him would follow his example.
he Noble Plaint', was married to the Countess
of Wetarneath in the year ; in the year 1817,
some difference, having amen between thesis, they
intended to separate, but by the intervention of
some mutual friends, the Countess agreed to co-
habit again with him on his executing a deed, vest-
ing certain lauds in Ireland in trustees, for the
purpose of sectoring to her • certain annual sum
for ha separate use, in case of there being a
recurrence of the same improper conduct on
she part of the Noble nautili. The specific
sum was not mentioned in the deed which was
to be paid to her, as the amount was to be
settled by friends when they ceased to cohabit
together ; and he undertook to execute an instru-
ment to that effect whenever k separation should
take place; and that Lady Rosa Nugent, their in-
fant daughter and only child, then shoot(' live with
the mother. and be under her sole control, the
Noble Plaintiff making an allowance for her main-
fro:nice and education; and dust in case of • se-
paration, and afterwards a reconciliation took
',Lee. that the separate allowance of the Countess
ells not to cease. but to be only suspended, and
renewed on any future misconduct on the part of
the Noble Plaiutitf. Afterwards, in the year IBM
there was 'Maher deed executed, which although
(feed in May, was not executed until the month
of August in that year, the parties to which
were the Noble Plaintiff. the Countess, Viscount
Cranborne, mud a Mr. Wood, as trustees for the
Countess, by which the Noble Plaintiff in consi-
deration of 101. paid to him by the trustees, and
also in consideration of his being about to sepa-
rate from the Countess, vested certain lands in
Ireland in the trustees for ninety-niae years, to
levy on them the manual rum of 1,3001. as a sepa-
rate allowance for the Countess, tend after the rX.
piretiou of six years to levy for the further sum of
3tlo/. per annum, to be paid to the Countess for
ol.e man.teiesoce end education of the children of
the marriage. He el s° covenanted that he would
slot in any way interfere with the Countess, but that
she .hould live to all intents and purposes as if she
was unmarried. and he also covenanted t hat lie would
rut sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the restora-
tion of his conjugal rights. There was not. bow-
e.er, any covenant in this deed on the part of the
trustees to indemnify the Noble Plaintiff from the
drlas of the Countess, and so far it differed from
all the deeds of the same nature that he, the
Leartred Counsel, had ever seen. After the exe-
t talon of this deed the parties lived together for
teethe months.

Mr. YBLAxx, junior Counsel for the Noble
Countess, mid it was not the case; it wss true that
ths Eirl of Westmeath was in the house, but they
41:4 not lire together as man and wife; it was also
a fact that Lord Delcin was born in the month of
November, afire the execution of the deed is
AsiguA, but the Countess was pregnant with him
at that time.

The Arroax Eir-GusaAL, in continuation,
said, that the Cowden had withdrawn herfelf from
tire protection of the Noble Plaintiff, and her trus-
tees had threatened to levy on the lands of the No-
We Plaintiff, to raise the 1,300/. per annum for her
u.e. It was his intention to enter as little as possi-
ble into the disputes and altercations between the
Noble parties; but all that was sworn on that
subject by the Countess was anterior to the 'w-
asting of the deed, and by their having after-
wards cohabited together, it did away with the
effect. of the deed, which was decided in the
cue of Lady St. John, and it was held in the came
way in the Ecclesiastical Court, where a suit
was instituted for a divorce, that if fresh cohabita-
tion took place there was an end of the suit. The
deed was a contract without a consideration,
therefore the posters ought not to be allowed to
enforce it, as the deed was in itself vicious, as it
covenanted for the payment of 1,3001. a-year, in
contemplation of a future separation to dissolve a
solemn contract at the desire of only one of the
p,rtits. He therefore bad no doubt but his Lord-
ship would grant the injunction, as he nova he of
opinion that it was the interest of the parties to
bury their disputes in oblivion.
Mr. HART, leading Counsel for the Noble
Counters, said he would have waited until all the
Counsel were heard on the same side as the Attor-
ney-General (Ira war usual) before he attempted to
address his Lordship, if it were not that he wished
to know what was the ground that his Learned
Friend built his motion on. If it was necessary to
raise an inquiry, he would be obliged to go into all
the facts of the case. If his Learned Friend meant
that the covenants of the deeds were not good at
law, his motion was unnecessary, for whet► they
came to be enforced in a Court of Law, the pro-
per tribunal would determine that point.
Mr. HORN Eg on the same side as the Attorney.
General. said that this was a question which in-
volved points of the highest importance, as it related
to public policy. Marriage was one of the most
sacred contracts, and could not be dissolved by the

consent of the parties, much .less at the whim or
caprice of one of them. Panties, after 'win., enter.
ed into such a solemn contract were disabled by
the public, law from snaking it a nullity. by the
virtue of deeds, creatitig private divorces. When the
deed of 1817 was executed, the noble portie‘ were
living together, and they considered it of such little
importance that there was no specific sum mentioned
in it as the allowance of the Countess, in the event
of a separation, and it was impossible to separate
the two deeds from each other. The Coolness by
her marriage settlement was entitled to 5001. pre
a:inuai as pin money. Ile therefore was convinced
ou the ground of public policy alone his Lordship
would see the necessity of granting the injunction,
for if he did slat it would tend to encourage private
divorc.a of the same kind. .

Nlr. II A N9Oll firiiovlrd On the same side.
Mr. BLAKE, Counsel with Mr. Mort, stated,
that his Learned Leader was unavoidably absent,
but he desired him to go on, and he could assure
his Lordship, at no time that he ever had the ho-
nour of addressing him, that he felt himself la-
bouring under so much difficulty. Ills Learned
Friends could not he more anxious than lie was, to
exclude from the public the facts and circum-
stances of this case, hut leis duty to his noble
client, the Countess of Westmeath, would compel
him to state them, and he would say witl t the
fear of contradiction, that the facts •nd cir-
cumstances warranted, anti bore her Ladyship
out in every part of her conduct. Ile went
with his Learned Friends in holding, that the
ceremony of marriage was indissoluble; they
had, however, tried to connect the two deeds
gether; lie would shew that they were quite di►-
tinct. It had beets said, that the first deed was
executed for the purpose of allowing the Countess
to make use of whim and caprice ; butt what would
his Lordship think when lie was informtd of the
fact, that it emanated from the Noble Plaintiff
himself, and this he would prove by the lettrir
of (lie Noble Earl, set out in the answer of the

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL put it to his Lord-
ship, whether he thought there was a necessity for
the private letters which passed between parties so
nearly connected, to be read in public.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that perhaps
it might be useful for him to state then what was
his opinion of the first deed, which wits, that it was
good for nothing. He would, however, give Mr.
Blake the benefit of this, which would make the
reading of the letters unnecessary, that the conduct
of the Noble Plaintiff was as bad as could be, and
sufficient to entitle the Countess to a divorce, and
when he done this it was sufficient for him to ground
his argument on. The notion he had always enter-
tained of these kind of deeds was, that the Court
had nothing to do with adultery, or any other
ground that would be sufficient to entitle the ag-
grieved party to a divorce in the Ecclesiastical
Court. Ile understood that this was a bill alleging,
that on the groomd of public policy the deed ought
to be ordered by the Court to be delivered up.
Mr. BLAKE, to conti 111 l ation, paid, that the deed
of 1817 was just as had been stated by his Lord-
ship, and lie would not waste the time of the Court
by arguing that it bore any other character ; but
subsequent to that deed, the Countess was going to
institute a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, for
the purpose of obtaining a divorce, to prevent
which the Noble Plaintiff executed the second
deed, and although it was dated in May it
was rot executed until August, and lie would
explain to his Lordship the reason :—The Noble
Plaintiff, to prevent the suit being commenced in
Doctors' Commons, executed u similar deed in
May, but protested against his own act on the fol-
lowing day, and wrote to the trustees, requesting
that they would furnish him with a copy of the
deed, they sent it in a law stationer's to have
it copied for him ; and he went there and asked
to see the deed, which on bring put into his
hands, he destroyed, and went to Ireland, where
he remained for three months, and on bring re-
tuonstrated with on his return on the impropriety
of his conduct, he executed the present deed in
August, and the parties never cohabited together
after it was execnted, and the trustees received the
annuity of 1,3001. for the use of the Countess for a
considerable time after it was executed. Ile there-
fore contendid that the deed was not bad in law,
and that it was not against public policy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" The difficulty I
always find in there kind of cases is, how a wife
can be entitled to live separate front her husband
without a divorce being declared by the Ecclesi-
astical Court. I believe there never was a case
where this Conrt granted an injunction to prevent
proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court but one,
that was die case, I believe, of Cuffe and some-
body, whose name I do not remember."
Mr. BLAKE said, that case, with all deference to
his Lordship, was not in point, and it could not be
so without the Countess was applying to die Court
for an injunction to restrain the Noble Earl front suing
for the restoration of his conjugal rights. Suppose,
for instance, he had given the Countess out of his
bounty an addition to her pin motley of i,3030/. per an-
num, the Court would not allow him, by his own
net, afterwards, to take it away from her ; then if lie
injured her, and gave her 1,3001. as a separate
maintenance, by the way of compensation for that
injury, would the Court listen to him, when he
tried, as lie did by this motion. to make that com-
pensation null and void ? The omission of the
covenant in the deed for securing the Noble Plain-
tiff against die debts which the Countess might
incur was caused by himself; it was about to be
inaerted, when he said it was unnecessary, as he had,
even after all tint had passed, too much confidence
in the honour of the Countess to suppose that she
ever would make him liable for them. Yet, in the
face of his own declaration, he came into Court to
take advantage of au omission in the deed usigi.
tinting with himself. By the answer of the 13e-
fendatit, Viscount Cratiborile, the brother of the
Countess, and one of her trustees, lie offered to
give loin security against his being liable for the
Countess's debts. Under all these circumstances
lie trusted his Lordship would dismiss the motion
with costs.

Mr. WETHERELL rose to address his Lordship
ar Couto,el for the trustee..

Thr LORD CHANCLI.I.OR (it being four o'clock)
obrerved, hr was under the necriirity of rising, but
lie would beer llr. Wetherell in tile tuurnlng wt
the sitting of the Court.