The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-28 00:00:00

43 30
28 30

/7 38
9 10
15 17
210 220
8711 24
27 29

1i 2
13 15
225 230
19 21
1i 2

PREFERENCE SHARES.
Great Northern, 5 per cent.. 113}
Great Western, 5 per cent. rd. pref., 1001 11
Gt. Western, South Wales, gua. 5 per cent., 1021
PREFERENCE SHARES AND STOCKS:
Great Northern, 51
Midland New £5 shares, 3
Ditto, £3, 3
LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS.
Chester and Holyhead, ,
Ditto, 5 per cent., 114 i
Shrewsbury and Hereford, 131

FOREIGN RAILWAYS:
San Paulo (lim.), gua. 7 per cent., loi

FOREIGN MINER,
Cape Copper, Rm., 11
Yudanamotana of S. Australia, lira., 21

BANKS.

Agra and Masterman's (lim.),
Ditto (L 5), 2,
Anglo Austrian, 7
Bank of British Columbia, 11
British and Californian, lim,, 5
East London, lim., 81
European Bank, lim.,
Imperial Bank (lim.). 3d
Imperial Bank of India, aina, and Japan, lim., 7 Of
Imperial Ottoman, 17
London and Colonial (lira.), 21
London Joint Stock, 51
London and Northern, lim., 22
London and 11 estminster,
Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi, lim., I 3&
Union of London, 53), 41 4

MISCELLANEOUS.
Berlin Water Works, lira., 9 • Contract corporation, lira., 4
Credit Fonder or 3lauritius, lira., 4
English and Scottish Marine, lira., 51
Financial Corporation, it
Gen. Credit and Finance of London, llm., 63 7
Hudson's Bay, 17
Imperia Mercantile Credit Asso., lira., 9
Joint Stock Discount, lira.. 7f ff
M ,dras Irrigation and Canal, 1
Royal Mail Steam, 94
Upper Assam Tea, bra., 4}

A DELIGHTFUL STORY TOLD BY CHARLES LAMB
ABOUT COLERIDGE (now delightfully told by the
Spectator).—Chas. Lamb paid a visit to the philosopher at
Highgate, and, as usual, was detained in the garden by an
eloquent peroration on some obscure point in metaphysics.
To make sure of his friend, Coleridge seized him by the
coat button, delivering his grand monologue with closed
eyes, legs firmly set, and his head thrown backwards as if
addressing the clouds, There seemed no escaping the
terrible flow of eloquence, but Charles Lamb's ready wit
suggested a means. He quietly took a penknife from his
pocket, cut the fatal button, and then made off in great
haste to visit another friend at Highgate. Returning the
same way, some hours after, he peeped in at Coleridge's
gate, and—there stood the great metaphysician, exactly as
he had kit him, the button between his fingers, and the
head thi own up into the sky. The soft flow of his silvery
speech was pouring forth as melodiously as ever, without
stop and without break, Si non e voro, e beri frOVON.

THE YELVERTON MAIRIAGE CASE,

JUDGMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(THIS DAY).
YELVERTON V. YELVERTON (OR LONG-WORTH).

This morning their lordships assembled to deliver judg-
ment in the long litigated case of Yelverton v. Yelverton
(or Longworth). It was an appeal against the decision of
the Courts below that the marriage of the Hon. Major
Yelverton with Miss Teresa Longworth was a valid one,
The case was so regularly reported in this journal during
its progress that no abstract of the proceedings is necessary.
There were present this morning the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Kingsdown, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord Chelms •
tord. Lord Brougham was absent. Mr Rolt, Q.C., the
Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, Sir H. Cairns, Q.C.,
Mr Whiteside, Q.C., and the other counsel in the case,

were present.
The Lord Chancellor first delivered his judgment, Ile
said that on this painful case he desired to make no obser-1
vation which was not absolutely necessary to define the legs
position of the parties to the suit. The respondent sought
in the court below to establish the fact of a marriage be-
tween herself and the appellant, first, on the ground of a
mutual promise made when in Scotland, and, secondly, on
the alternative of the evidence not being sufficient to prove
an immediate contract; the respondent pleaded that there
was a performance of marriage followed by cohabitation on
the faith of that promise. The respondent affirmed on
the record that a i cligious ceremony took place between the
parties in Ireland which amounted to a marriage if there
had been none before, but she was content in the Court be-
low to say that this ceremony did not constitute a valid
marriage, and having submitted so far it was not compe-
tent for her to take a different view of the case in thai,
Court of Appeal. He should therefore give no opinion
of what passed between the parties in Ireland, or whether
that was sufficient to constitute marriage, it being
plain that that point had been withdrawn. The case
of the respondent is reduced to the two proposi-
tions, the first being that there was an immediate present
contract of marriage by the exchange of mutual consent
made at Edinburgh, on the 20th April, 1857. As to the

nature of the consent which io to constitute marriage, I
accept the observations of the Lord President, that it must
be given mutually with a view and for the yurpose of creat-
ing henceforth the relations of husband and wife. It is
not necessary that the contract made should be followed by
cohabitation. With respect to the evidence which shall be
sufficient to prove that a marriage was so constituted great
latitude is allowed by the law of Scotland. But I cannot
agree with the Lord President in what seems to have been
his opinion that if the respondent fail to substantiate an
exchange of present consent at the particular time and
place which are assigned, the Court is not warranted in
declaring that a marriage was contracted between the
parties. In my judgment, when the marriage is pleaded
as having been contracted by parties in Scotland by
means of an interchange of duller* consent, it is not
necessary to prove the particular place in Scotland, or the
exact date when and where such consent was exchanged.
The case of the respondent is that on Sunday, April 27,
1857, at a house in Scotland, a form of marriage was
gone through, the form being the reading aloud by the
appellant from the Prayer-book of the marriage service
used by the Church of England. The Lord President
insists that persons in a humble sphere of life, when
contracting marriage in such a manner, seek to pre-
serve evidence of it by interchange of writings or by the
presence and confirmation of witnesses. The respondent's
case rests upon her statement, because it is neither said nor
proved by the respondent that there was any writing inter-
changed or that there was any person present at this
alleged interchange of consent. It is true that this
admission has very much weakened the respondent's
power and means of proving her case. But the omission

itself is entirely in accordance with the truth and con-
sistency of that case. Hot case is, and it is proved by
various parts of tha correspondence, that the marriage took
place between herself and the appellant, was to be kept

secret, and not even answered in their mutuallettors for fear
of question, a caution which seems to have been observed
until 1853, when we find the appellant for the first time
writing to the respondent as "Madame Yelverton." But
this occurs in the subsequent correspondence, and is a re-

markable confirmation of the respondent's statement that
some engagement or promise relative to marriage took place
upon the 13th of April. In a letter written on the 12th
of July, ths respondent reminds the appellant that his right,
to call her his own commenced exactly three months ago,
namely, on the 12th of April. Her words are, "My ears
ache to hear the mit; though I am convinced you might say
it with perfect truth now and for exactly three months
past," I regard this letter of the 12th July as a full proof

of the truth of the respondent's chief allegation, namely,
that there had been a marriage by mutual consent entered
into at Edinburgh on the 12th April, 1857, but that there
had not been cohabitation in consequence of the refusal of
the respondent to consent to cohabitation until a religious
ceremonyhadbeen performed. The appellant indeed affirmed
that there was sexual intercourse between himself and the
respondent before in Edinburgh, 's7—an allegation which
the judges in the court below refuse to give credence to, and
contains to me a strong proof of the truth and honour of the
respondent that she has denied that which the appellant
affirms, for it was plainly her interest in one view or the case
to have admitted that cohabitation did take place before
she left Scotland in April, 1857, inasmuch as it appears
to me, and such I infer from his judgment would have been
the opinion of the Lord President, that there would then
have been no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion upon
the evidence of the appellant subsequent that there had
been a promise to marry given in Scotland, on the faith of
which cohabitation, also, in Scotland had taken place be-
tween the parties. But before proceeding further respect-
ing the evidence, it is necessary to advert to the arguments
so much pressed on the part of the appellant that it is in
the highest degree improbable that any matrimonial con-

nection would be followed between the respondent and
the appellant, inasmuch as there is evidence from the corre-
spondence which took place between himself and the respon-
dent for three or four years previous to the respondent's
arrival in Edinburgh, that the respondent had made the
most indelicate advances to the appellant and was willing
to be his mistress without a promise or ceremony of mar-
riage. Many hours were spent by the appellant's counsel
in the attempt to give this colour to the correspondence. I
abstain from making any other observation upon this most
laboured part of the appellant's contention, than that it is
in lily deliberate judgment most unwarranted and unjust.
An amatory character is first given to the correspondence
by the appellant. He addresses her as dear Teresa. When
the lady proposes that the correspondence should terminate
the appellant insists that it should be continued. The noble
and learned lord here read several extracts from the corre-
spondence to show that the respondent's view of the posi-
tion was other than that alleged by the appellant in the part
of his counsel's argument. He proceeded thereupon to say
--I concur with the judgment of Lord Curriehill that it was
at the request or from the encouragement of the appellant
that the respondent came to Edinburgh in Feb., 1857; that
there had not then been any promise to marry, but that there
had been pending for years an honourable courtship. There-

fore in my judgment there is nothing in the case to render
it impossible ; but, on the contrary, much to render possible
the allegation of a secret marriage having taken place, or at

all events that the promise to marry had been mutually

given. I return to the inquiry whether the respondent has
given sufficient legal evidence of the marriage in Scotland

by the exchange of present consent. The version of the
appellant is that an illicit intercourse took place shortly
after her arrival in Edinburgh in February. The appellant
has not even attempted to sustain his charge. It was,
as I have already stated, disbelieved by the judges,

and it appears to me to be wholly unjustified. The
evidenc3 showed that the appellant was a constant visitor in

the house where the respondent resided, and he was regarded

by the persons who lived there as the respondent's accepted

suitor. Evidence of a marriage must, therefore, be looked

for subsequent to this, and must, if it exists, be found in
the subsequent acts and correspondence between the time
the respondent was in Edinburgh about the 15th or 16th of

April, 1857, and her joining the appellant in the month
following. In considering these letters it is most important
to bear in mind the fact of which I am fully convinced in

common with the judges of the Court below, namely, that
no sexual intercourse had taken place between the

appellant and the respondent during the residence
of the respondent in Edinburgh. She left E iinburgh to

avoid the importunities of the appellant to acc3de -to a
consummation of the marriage. She appears to have
been resolved that this should not take place until they
had gone through come religious ceremony in a

Roman Catholic place of worship, which was to be satin •

factory to her conscience. This, With the fact, that there

had hitherto been no consummation appear to me to in-

terpret the whole of the subsequent correspondence up

to the time of their meetitg in Ireland in accordance -With
the version of the respondent, it is difficult rightly to draw
conclusions from the correspondence subsequent to this,
because many letters have been destroyed or at least have
not been produced ; and also the letters being expressed in
general terms, it is difficult to say that particular
expressions indicate more than a solemn engage-
, rnent or a promise to marry. In reference to the
letter written by the appellant on the subject of
the respondent's supposed marriage with Mr. Shears, the
noble lord said I consider the words indicate that a promise
had been given in relation to marriage, and that it must
have been either a promise of marriage or else a promise
to meet the wishes of the respondent by consenting to a re-
ligious ceremony in a Roman Catholic place of worship. It
is argued by the appellant that the answer to this letter is
not such as would have been written by the respondent if
there had been a marriage. I cannot concur in that re-
mark. Remembering that the respondent had refused co-
habitation, that in'the language of one of her letters she was
shrinking from the end she yearns for, it may well be thought
she did not know or believe that what had passed was in
law a binding final marriage. The same thing has occurred
in several important cases. From the subsequent acts of the
parties Ihave drawn this conclusion that the respondent after
a struggle consented to cohabit with the appellant as his
wife and to meet him in Ireland for that purpose, depending
upon the promise of the appellant that the religious cere-
mony should be had in a Roman Catholic chapel. In con-
firmation of this I may refer to the fact that the appellant
purchased a wedding ring at Dublin when on his way to
meet her. This brings us to the most important part of the
case—namely, as to what was said and done at Rostrevor,in
Ireland. I cannot give credit to the respondent when she
affirms that no intercourse took place between them pre-
viously to this, because, I think, the result of the evidence
is that immediately on their meeting at Rostrevor they
cohabited as man and wife. In my judgment the ceremony
should be bad in a Roman Catholic chapel. In confirma-
tion of this I may refer to the fact that the appellant pur -
chased a wedding ring at Dublin when on his way to meet
bringsher. This
to
whatus:ad done at Rostrevor, in
t
as
important part of the case
to
—namely,
wasthe most
Ireland. I cannot give credit to the respondent when she
affirms that no intercourse took place between them previ-
ously to this, because, I think; the result of the evidence is
that immediately on their meeting at Rostrevor they co•
habited as man and wife. In my judgment the respondent,
instead of denying the fact, had a right to say y she had con-
sented to their cohabitation on the faith of the contract in
promise of marriage that took place in Edinburgh, and of the
appellant's assurance that he would no longer object to a cere-
mony in the Roman Catholic place of worship. On the in-
quiry whether the respondent in cohabiting with the appel-
lant relied on the Scotch contract or promise or on the Irish
ceremony, the respondent is entitled to the effect of this fact,
that she stated to the bishop what had passed between her
and the appellant in Scotland, and was told by the bishop
that this was a valid marriage in the sight of the Catholic
Church, and he saw no advantage in any other marriage
ceremony. But on being pressed by the lady, the bishop
consented that a religious ceremony should be gone through,
considering it would be a renewal of the marriage consul

The evidence of Mr Mooney corroborates this. At this
point the noble and learned lord condemned the practices of
the priest Mooney in sending a copy of a supposed entry on
the registry of marriages, and for this reason unless he were
corroborated no dependence could be placed upon his evi-
dence. In the caso referred to, the bishop and ho confirmed
each other, The marriage had been contracted, and to satisfy
the lady's conscience the ceremony was proceeded with.
After this they lived openly as husband and wife. The
various acknowledgments of the appellant that the respon-
dent was his wife are carefully enumerated by Lord
Curriehill in his judgment. In reference to the
argument of the appellant that both parties knew them to
be necessary only to have an illicit intercourse, the answer
seems to be furnished by some of Major Yelverton's letters,
and it is a significant fact that the appellant has not pro-
duced a single letter of the respondent's addressed to him
since the ceremony at Rostrevor in Ireland. The noble and
learned lord was proceeding to give the opinion of an absent
peer, supposed to be Lord Brougham, who had desired
him to state that efter a voluminous examination he was
satisfied that there had been in Scotland that exchange of
consent which constituted marriage.

Lord Chelmsford objected to any reference to the opinion
of the noble and learned lord who was then absent.
The Lord Chancellor said he was not aware that he was
taking an unusual course. The noble and learned lord, to
whose opinion he had referred, had heard the whole of the
arguments, and it was in consequence of his noble and
learned friend being compelled to leave the house that had
led him to do so. Tho noble and learned lord then resumed
his judgment, and was of opinion that the consent to cohabit
in Ireland, and the respondent relied upon what had taken
place in Scotland, although it was to be followed by a reli-
gious ceremony. He believed that the Roman Catholic
ceremony was a legal solemnisation of marriage, and that
there was and is a legal marriage between the appellant and
respondent, and that they are now legally man and wife.
Lord Wensleydale, who spoke in sao low a tone of voice
as to be scarcely audible in the gallery, was understood to
say that, in order to decide whether there had been a
legal marriage, they must enquire what was neces-
sary to constitute a marriage in Scotland. He
thought it was clear that there was no marriage in
Scotland either per verba de presenti or in futuro. The
noble and learned lord then examined at some length the
evidence, and considered that the evidence of Mr Mooney
was quite insufficient to prove that Major Yelverton
acknowledged it, and that Was the
only
evidence of an
acknowledgment onhispart.T:an Scotland,wasere an evidence
he
was a
of
clearlymarriage anywhere, especially
of opinion that the propositions of the respondent
no
d had not been maintained. lie did not consider that there
had been any promise of marriage, although there wore
many ambiguous statements.
were, however, too
ambiguous to be construed into a promise of marriage. He
was of opinion that the decision of the court below ought
to be reversed.

Lord Chelmsford next delivered his judgment. The onus
of proofs he said was upon the respondent. The whole of
the voluminous evidence had been thrown loosely before
their lordships in order apparently that they might extract
from it a marriage on either one of the grounds alleged by
It appeared to him that there had been a
ma ter imported into the inquiry.
to occupy the time of
ascertaining
Fgt hreeeraritendsspetoaanlhdecefenpittr.ewl
preliminary
ihardly
n e c e s s a r y
their lordships in the position in life
of the parents cf the respondent. If the fact was
proved, the antecedent probability or improbability was
Might be set aside.
Neither was it necessary, thought, to inquire into the
gerous correspondence
these transactions.
co
cf
hndott
ct use,c of
andthe all
respondent
prior
i o n
tan
interviews at Galata and in
continuing that p to inquire what
wbl teatwewateshe clear emt an:
et
ipv thatparties,
r tnti
feh
Bet, there
enh
but
appellant
pebeelwel
ana
nuatl
didnannente
ne
corre-
spondence. The conclusion he drew. from the early corre-
po
thendeCiirciemewaas,in the mind of
the respondent that the appellant would marry
raisedthat thean
her if certain obstacles were removed, and her expectations
were no doubt heightened by what took place. Ile believed
assurance
that up to this time there had been no Promise
of marriage
between the parties. The noble and learned lord proceeded
to consider the modes in which marriages might be con-
tracted in Scotland ; Ist, by a mutual promise in presenti ;
and 2d, by a written promise of marriage, followed by a
copula as a result of the promise. lie then examined the
allegations of the respondent, in one or other of these ways
she became the wife of the respondent. It was to be ob-
served that in none of their letters they spoke of each other
as husband and wife, indeed, the whole of the correspond
ence seemed strongly opposed to any marriage or promise
of marriage. It was not necessary for him to dwell on the
remainder of this correspondence, which was not in the
usual style of epistolary intercourse between husband and
wife. -With regard to the visit to Manchester he
believed that Manchester was merely a rendezvous to
arrange their continental trip, and that the object
of the respondent in visiting the cathedral was merely to
clothe their intercourse with the appearance of a religious
ceremony, and that she had nothing in view Oi a more
binding nature. Returning to the visit to Ireland, the
noble lord contended that the respontlaithad taken everystep
to baffle and perplex the witnesses in reference to the co-
habitation, which had a most important bearing on the
respondent's case. It showed that the meeting in Ire-
land was not with a view to the celebration of a marriage,
but that the ceremony at Rostrevor was the result
of an afterthought between the parties. Ile thought it
was abundantly proved that the appellant waa a Protestant
within tho meaning of the act of Parliament, for they
proved that whenever he attended a place of religious wor-
ship it was in connection with the Protestant Church. He
looked upon Father Mooney's evidence with regard to the
declaration of the appellant as to a former marriage with
much suspicion; but, assuming its correctness, and that the .