The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-10 00:00:00

PRICE ...... ...4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

with the time when Richard Cobden first appeared
on the Stockport hustings. (Cheers.) Since then
our imports and exports had so increased, that
the profit had grown from 35 to 102 mil-
lions. The increase also of consumable commodi-
ties was astonishing, and the food had been con-
surned by what were termed the lower orders of
society, who did not previously get enough. It was
by such comparisons as those that people could Esti-
mate the great and blessed results achieved by those
free trade measures. (Applause.) If there was one
thing in this country of which we had more reason
to be proud then another it was that glorious,
healthy, and manly public opittion which,whenever
it was aroused, could carry everything before it.
That opinion was founded upon the honesty, truth-
fulness, and love of fir play of the English people at
large. It was improved and strengthened and puri-
fied by teachings from the thousands of free pulpits
which distinguished and illustrated the religious
freedom of this land; it was nerved, guided, and in-
structed by a free press, and whenever it chose to
rouse itself in its might, there was no question of
difficulty it could not disentangle, no wrong it could
not redress. (Cheers.) It forced Catholic Emanci-
pation from the Duke of Wellington, it compelled
reform from the Parliament of borough-mongers, it
extracted free trade from the Protectionist Govern.
ment of Sir Robert Peel, and it had yet to make and
would make many changes beneficent and blessed,
which would increase the power and glory and
strength of this country. (Cheers.)
The proceedings concluded with a vote of thanks
to the Mayor.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(May 9.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The noble and learned lords present were the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord Chelmsford.

THE BREADAEBA.NE PEERAGE.-CAMPBELL V. CAMPBELL.

The question in this appeal from the Court of Session is
whether that Court was right in refusing to al point a judi-
cial factor, or receiver, to receive the rents and administer

the estates of the earldom of Breadalbane until it be ascer-
tained by the proceedings now pending who is the true heir
entitled to succeed to the estates and earldom, The points
immediately before the house were of a technical character,
and involved a great deal of dry legal argument. They
were, first, whether the Court of Session were or were not
bound in case of a disputed succession to appoint a receiver
of the rents where a prima facie case had been made out on
both sides; secondly, whether the appellant had made out a
prima facie case ; and, thirdly, whether or not the respon-
dent was entitled, as heir apparent, to keep the possession
he alleged ha had acquired during the proceedings at law,
The facts of the case as stated during the course of the
arguments were of considerable interest, bearing as they do
upon the succession to the earldom and to the estates at-
tached to the title, the value of the latter being more than
£50.000 per annum. These facts are as follow :—The second
Marquis and fifth Earl of Breadalbane died Nov. 8, 1862,
without issue, being at the time possessed under deeds cf
ental of very large estates. On his death the title of mar-
quis became extinct, and two claimants appeared, each of
whom contended that he was the sixth Earl of Breadalbane,
and as such entitled to possession of the estates. The first
of these claimants, John Alexander Gavin Campbell,
alleged that he was the heir male of his great grandfather,
William of Glenfalloch, , who was the substitute in the
deeds of entail under which the late marquis held the estates
and was related to that nobleman in a Sootch cousinship
of 10 removes. William of Glenfalloch died in 1791,
leaving seven sons-1, Colin, whose issue became extinct
in the person of John Breadalbane in 1812 ; 2, James,
who left one son, William John Lambe, the father of the
first claimant ; 3, Duncan, who died unmarried in 1810 ; 4,
Archibald, who died without leaving heir male in 1806; 5,
William, who died unmarried in 1791 ; 0, John of Boreland,
who left a son Charles, the father of Lieut. Chas. William,
the second claimant; and 7, Alexander, whose issue, if any,
would not afiect the present claims. The first claimant
therefore is the eldest in the succession, and were his legi-
timacy unquestioned he would undoubtedly be the rightful
Earl and the owner of the estates. Charles Wm. Campbell,
the adverse claimant, now a lieutenant in the 19th Bengal
Cavalry, however, contends that John is illegitimate, on the
ground that his grandmother, Mrs Elizabeth Maria
chard, at the time she married his grandfath,r, Capt. Jas.
Campbell, in 1782, was a married woman, and that her hus-
band, one Christopher Ludlow, was then alive, and that
therefore, such second marriage being void, their son Wil-
liam, the tallier of the claimant, was illegitimate. In order
to make out this case Lieut. Charles Campbell states that
be has discovered in the marriage registry of Chipping
Sudbury. in Glocestershire, the following entry:—
" Christopher Ludlow, of ys parish, and Elizabeth Maria
Blanchard, of ye same parish, were married in this church
by licence this fifth day of Juno, in the year one thousand
seven hundred and seventy-six, by me,

. prish is an
COATES,a C Curate."
t entrye. '
--Agister of baptisms in the" same R
In thal;iith
,2f a son Daniel, the issue of Christopher and
of the
Rliza Ludlow, in :777. Lieut. Campbell proposes to prove
arch of this child this Mrs Ludlow
that shortly after the
Nchich event caused the latter so
eloped from her husband,
much distress that he gave u; his practice as a medical
man in Sudbury, and went to Ames:ea' where he was for,
some time garrison surgeon in New Yorb.• He e returned to
this country some time in 1783, and died in ~:nutirY, 178 i,
as proved by an obituary notice in the Bristol n.:waPaPer
of Saturday, the 31st of January, 1784. In addition to this
evidence of his existence at that date, his will is produced,
dated June 24, 1784, which was proved in the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury, and probate granted in 1784. Captain
James Campbell, the grandfather of John, is stated to have
married a Mrs Eliza or Elizabeth Maria Blanchard, the
only evidence of such marriage being the following letter,
written in June,lBo7, by the lady, seeking pecuniary assist-
ance, to the War-office, after her alleged husband's death,
which occurred in October, 1806:
" I am the widow of Captain James Campbell, late quar-
termaster in the Ist battalion of the Breadalbane Fencibles,
at the reduction of which he got a company in the Cam-
brian Rangers; and when that regiment was reduced, from
ill health he was rendered unfit to enter again in his Ma-
jesty's service, and on the 24th of October, 1806, my kills-
band died insolvent, and left me with three children with-
out the smallest means of support. I apply'd to the half-
pay agent respecting the widow's pension, and have made
oath before a magistrate, but as I unfortunately lost my
marriage lines in America I am enformed it cannot be pro-
cured. My husband was Insign and Lieutenant in the 40th
Regiment of Foot during the war with that country. At
the end of the year 1780 he came to England to recruit, and
in September, 1782, I was married to Mr Campbell in Edin-
burgh by Mr Macgregor, the Galic minister, who is also
dead, as is Insign William Willox, of the 40th, who was the
witness to our marriage, and the June following we went to
America in the fleet that took out the preliminary's of peace
25 years ago. The present. Gallic minister have been wrote
to, and he says that he got no register from any of his pre-
decessors. I have administered at Doctors' Commons for
four months' pay due to my husband at his death, and I
have a power of attorney, which he sent from Gibraltar at
the time he was in the Cambrian Rangers. 1 beg, Sir, you
will excuse my being thus particular, as my motive is to ob-
viate any doubts of my being Mr Campbell's lawful wife."
The two Elizabeth Maria Blanchards being assumed to
be the same person, it is alleged that, even admitting that
the latter marriage took place as stated in the letter, her first
husband was alive at the time, and it was therefore void.
Under these circumstances, it was contended that John
Campbell, as the descendant of the invalid marriage, was
illegitimate, which would leave Lieutenant Charles Camp-
bell the eldest male heir in the succession and the rightful
successor to the title and estates. On the other hand, John
Campbell shows that for upwards of 50 years he and his
father havo been in undisputed possession of the estate of
Glenfalloch in the character of the nearest heirs male of
William of Glenfalloch. He and his father have always
been recognized as legitimate by the family, and it is only
now, 80 years after the disputed marriage took place, that
any question as to its validity has been raised, In various
deeds of entail executed by members of the family the
respondent's father has been always named as entitled to
succeed before the appellant's father. The appellant has to
make out that the person who married Christopher Ludlow
was the same who married the respondent's grandfather,
and then that the respondent's father, whose legitireaLcyts.
questioned, was born before the death of Christophe rud
parents
to
justice
low, otherwise the subsequent cohabitation of his
for seven years would render him legitimate according
between them could be established.
the Scotch laws, even if no proof of a subsequent marriage
),
.
The Lord Advocate (with wt hhton:
a ppellanZ, now contended tha
ute and regarding
which
wi
natse
rMe
srt.s Roofl
for the
re-
quiredi
that the subject in dispute,
competition had arisen, should be preserved until the rights
of the contending parties were determined, the present
disputed question of succession, and until
case there was a a , p
d there was no .
this point was determine reason for preferring
one claimant over the other, and therefore it would be ex
ceedingly unfair to afford one the immense advantage over
the other which the possession of an income of £50,000 per
annum would give him. It had always been the practice of
the Court of Session to appoint factors in such cases, and it
was especially necessary in this case, where neither party
bad as yet obtained any possession of the estates. The ap-
pellant had established a prima facie case, which enabled
him to support his claim, and against which the respondent