The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-20 00:00:00

41041 returning in the coach in which she came,
and the Dc•tendant mounting• his horse. In esti-
inlvinr• the damages the Jury would take into their .
conF.id'eration the high rank, situation, honour,
.and
.fortune 01 the patties. Tbe Lea filed Counsel (Id
not ask, that the Jury should punish Sir Arthur for
his•ebnduct, that was noLwithin their power by the
lay,. of England.-,--But still he called on them, as
men of honour, to grata io Lord Loringdon ample -
reparation for the injury he had sustained. The
Defendant had had honours ceilterred on him by his
The Learned'Counsel did not say they
ere not 2,•stly'conferred.. He had, however, twice
been the . representative of his SoVereign---a Sove-
reign the most.viirtuous that could Well be imagined,
and, - he ,snbmitted to the -Jury, that at the age of
• as, the Detetulant, as the representative of a vir-;
thous Sovereign, should havi set a very different
example. He:hoped the Jury would make him, and
others in a siMilar situition, follow a different line
of cotidud ; and that their verdict to-day would not
be in.vain,- but such as justice, reason, religion, antl
.virtue demanded. "

Lord Amherst was the first witness examined.
He deposed that he had been acquainted with the
Plaintiff for the last nineteen years. He had lived
on habits of intimacy with him, and- continued to
do so since his. marriage. The Plaintiff married
Lady Augusta Fane, *the second daughter of Earl
Westmorland, in June or July 1804, and by her he
had one child. The witness had frequently been ht
the -house of the Plaintiff when he and his wife
were without any other company than. the witness'
and a:few private friends. He had also seen them
often' in private, and his observations on the Nidiele
was, that the Plaintiff and his Lady lived on the most
terms,eetionate and thatethe Plaintiff uniformly
• treated Lady B. with the utmost kindness. He did.
not recoiled a single instance to the contrary:—On
his, cross-examination by Mr. GAattow for the De-
fendant, the witness said, the, last time he saw Lord
Boringdou and his pady together was the early
- part of April- last. •
The Honourable George Villiers said, be had
married the Plaintiff's sister, and lived with*Lord
and Lady Boringdon, both in town and country,,
on the most intimate terms. They visited at their
respe6tive houses, and, on all occasions, the.conduat
of, the Plaintiff and his Lady to each other was kind,
affeCtionate, and familiar. They went regularly to
church on Sunday, and partook of the sacrament to-
gether once or twice a year. He proved the letters
produced to be Lady B.'s hand-writing.
Mr. Vaughan, Surgeo'n, proved that_ he had at-
tended Lady B. in sickness, and that Lord B. was a
kind, careful,
,and atiettionate
.husband, both in
sickness and in health. He never saw more polite
and affeelionate attention in any person::
Sir W. Elford, who lived within six miles of Lord
B.'s country seat, in Devonshire, gave a similar tes-
mony. He had lived in the:Plaintiff's house, and
never saw an instance in which be and ins Lady did
not behave towards each other with the utmost at-
tention and aflection. .
On this part of 'the case Mr. PARKE. proposed to
give in evidence twodsetters, to which he had referred
in the course.ot his speech, written by Lady Boring-
don to her hUsband during temporary absences.
This species of 'evidence was objected to by Mr.
Gmtkow, and the Under Sheriff sustained the ob-
jeelion, on the ground that as the Lady was not here
a Defendant, and her parole testimony could not be
received for her Lord en this case, ueither could any
§tatement of her's in writing be deemendiresdble.
Elizabeth Croft had been nurse to the Piaintiff's
child two years. The family came to town in Janu-
.atv, 1808. 'Lord B. was in the habit of going every
evening to the House of Lords. The Defendant often
cattle to the house always in the absence of the Plain-
tiff. The witness used to go with her lady and the
child to Kensington Gardens. They went in by
sßqswater Gate. The Defendant was always there
when.her ladyship Went. She and the Defendant-
walked one way, and the witness and child, the other
way. .They walked about Sometimes an hour and a
half, sometimes for three quarters of an hour. This
,happened- very' frequently, particMarly within the
eight days previous to the time of her ladyship's
quitting the house, which she , did on the 18th.of
May. The Plaintiff was always very attentive to
his Lady and child. Cross-examined by Mr. GAR-
How.—The witness said,. that Lady B. and the De-
fendant never quie:ed Kensington Gardens during
their meetings there, but that they returned, as they
had come, different ways. „
Sarah Potter said, she had been,. Lady Boring-
don's maid for four years, Sir A. P. often called, but
she never saw him in, a room -witls. her
.mistress.
She has, however, seen him going-out, but never
saw him come in. Cross-examined by Mr. GAR--
now—There were two beds in the room in which
the Plaintiff and his Lady slept; they were 'bOth
used, but were close together.
_William Rodman, the porter, said, that the De-
fendant often came to the Plaintiff's house from the
time of the family's 'coming to town till that of her
Ladyship's leaving her home. The Defendant at
first came when Lord B. wits at home, but; latterly,
only when was out. He seldom asked for any
person, but immediately when the door was opened
went up stairs, and remained with Lady B. in the
back drawing room, sometimes for 'an hour or.an
hour and a half. From- the loth May,-eight days
previous
.to Lady B.'s leaving her husband's house,
the Defendant's visits were continued almost etery
day-.
. 'Arthur Pastan, -a 'footman, gave similar evidence.
Mr. GARRoW., for the Defendanterigreed with hiS
Learned Friend that the Jury were nor, in a case of
this kind, called on to punish. They were not to
correct the manners of the age, or to suppose that it
was their province to make things as well as they,
possibly could be: Their functions were greatly
circumscribed in this respect. All the length they
could go was, to make pecuniary compensation
to - Lord Boringden, as far as- his case could
admit of compensation. As to paragraphs stated
by the Learned Counsel to have appeared in 'the
newspapers, there was not a domestic occurrence
of however delicate -and distressing a kind, which
did not find its way thither, with numberless addi-
tions destitute even of a particle of truth. He stood
there, however, to protect Sir A. Paget.? not to Ebel
Lord Bpriogdon: He proceek', d to contrast the
present cast: with one lately before the same Court,

and spewed that the verdi& in tbe one, even sup-
posing it to be any rule for the decision of the
Jury in the present trial, had no analogy what-
ever to the case under consideration. An at-
tempt had been made to represent the Defendant
as an Ambassador, for no purpose which he could
figure, but to introduce a panegyric, in w hich he
most cordially agreed with, on our most worthy and
excellent King. The Defendant, however, at the
period in question, was no Ambassador but the
Ambassador of alltnighry•Love. He was a' brave
soldier, and as such had purehaged honours ; but his
fortune was yet to be acquired, for of that he had
none. There was in this case DV detach of friend-
, ship or of hospitality, which the Defendint had vio-
lated. The witnesses bad not been able -even to
bring him to the table of the Noble Plaintiff; they
not even been seen together. Was this, then,
a casein which it could be:alleged the Defendant
had broken in on the domestic comforts of the
Plaintiff ? He submitted it was not. The Jury were
rather called on to inquire if, instead of being an ag-
gravated case, thiS was not 'a. case of compassion—
ono attributable tb the state of manners among the
higher circles, rather than arising from any peculiar
blame on the part of she present Defendant. Fashion
would here be found to be the bitter enemy of both
parties. Fashion teaches that at the age of Ia or
i 6, a young Lady, who, if she be known to pos.-
sess a fortune, has only hitherto experienced the
flattery of her servants, accotding to whose account
she is all perfection, should ,be brought out or
intrydaced, as it is called. It then follows, as a matter
of coarse, that a suitable match shoUld be Imiked out
for her,: mid if a person of corresponding rank and
fortune be fe *ad, his wife she, with all necessary ex-
pedition, becomes. Fashion leads the husband one
way and the wife another. Fashion prescribes, even,
that though the parties lie in the same room, they
should sleep in separate beds. Fashion, or be 'it
the more imperious duty of attending in the House
of •Lord, draws the 'husband ,from home, and
an agreeable saunterer steps in. The visit is
repeated again and again. But, if either the one party
or the other could invert the glass, and seehow
the prosped would end, the first visit of the kind
would, in most instances, be the last. Such was the
situation of Lady 13. She imprudently admitted the
visits of Sir Arthur Paget,'and he, as imprudently,
made them. These visits came to the knowledge
of Lord .Boringdon, and his Lady was questioned.
No criminality bad then taken place—no prying
waiting_ woman had here been adduced to prove
her hair being disordered—that she had been found
locked up in the room with a paramour—bht
she is questioned by her husband as to the vi-
sits ,she had received. How the question had
been administered to her Vas not. -known ; but
her inborn sense of honour taught her, that,. after
such a suspicion, she could no. longer remain in her
husband's house. She probably had a partiality
which she condemned ; that she had not now that
undivided affedion she ought to Lave felt for her
husband,whose abode she must therefore quit. What,
in mach a situation, ought to have been the condu& of
the Defendant ? That • which it had been—that,
he would venture to say, which would have been
the' conduct of any of the gentlemen of the Jury.
in similar circumstances. Atter telling him that
Lord B. snspeeted that there was something impro-
per-in their visits ; that she was rtained past redemp-
tion ; that she could not look her husband In the
race; that the world viewed their conduet with a
eittletenf eye from what they themseltes had re-
crarded it•• that she had left her husband and could .L
r
nut return ;—what could his condud be, assufning,.
as the Learned Counsel felt hio,sell warranted in
doing, that there had hitherto been no crimina-
lity other than him elf. becoming her protedor ?
Had his conduct been otherwise, he would• not have
merited the cliaacter be 1141 already given him, but
would have deserved greater damages to have been
inflicted on' hint than any which the the Jury, in
the present circumstances, could possibly award.—
This, the Learned Counsel condemned, was nut the
case of a common seducer. There was here no vio-
lation of hospitality, but a sudden ruin, as it were,
had come upon the parties. He was confident in
the whole circumstances of the case the :Jury would
be satisfied it was not an aggravated case, but an un-
fortunate one.'
Mr. BuncuneL, the Under-Sheriff, summed up
the case in a very distind and ',impartial manner ;
and, after deliberating for a short time, the Jury
found verdict—Damages 10,0001.

OLD BAlLEY.—Yesterday John Smith and Charles
illeyrick were capitally indicted for burglariously en-
tering'the house of T. Davis, at Bagnigge Wells, on:
the 20th June last, and stealing theretr9m six bottles
of wine, a gun and blunderbuss, and several other
articles. The burglary was clearly brought home to
the prisoners, and the Jury brought them in
Death.
. Same day the Sessions ended, when sentence of
death
.was passed on Joseph West, for a burglary in
the dwelling-house of John Hanson.---4ohn Smith
and Charles Meyrick, for a burglary in the dwelling-
house of john Davis.—Wm. kazakerly, for stealing
goods in the dwelling-house• of Thomas Eddes.—
Win. Bumstead, for stealing monies in the dwelling
house of Timothy Peter Artis.—Robert Whitting-
ham ancl Levy Lyon, for stealing.goods in the dwell-
ing-house of George Hatton.—Edward, alias George
Rouse, for stealing goods in the dwelling-house of
Ric'hard Millman.—William Bowen, for stealing
go: Ids in the dwelling-house of Robert Shuffle-
wortn.—Thomas Monday, for stealing a 501. Bank
note,. of Benjamin Parkhurst, in the dwelling-hou,4
of Thomas Scott.
Edward Churchill, alias Roach, Mary Jennings,
Charles James, Win. Taylor, Donald Rob.iison,
Cripps, Catherine Perry, Charlotte Wood, hose Kite,
Ann Finland, James Henley, and Thomas Dijen-
port, to be tranportedyor seven years.
Elizabeth Waters to,be confined two fears in the
Houz,e ofCorreetion, Cold-Bath-Fields ; three to be
imprisoned therein for 12 calendar' months each ;
nineteen fot 6 calendar months, four of whom to be
privately Whipped; two to be imprisoned' in New-
gate for one year, two for lesser periods, one to be
publicly and two privately whipped and discharged,
two judgments respited, three tined •is. each and
discharged, and twehty were discharged by procla-,
mation.;—Sessions adjyurned to the 1411 i September.