The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-23 00:00:00

SUN,

29th of September any faithful adherent of King
Richard could have been attainted as a traitor.
Lord Chelmsford inquired what charge led to the
execution of the Earl of Wiltes ?
Mr. Fleming believed he should be able to satisfy
their lordships that no charge of treason—the only
one which could affect the title—had ever been
made. In the first place, against whom could the
treason have been ? Certainly not against Henry
IV., for he was not King at the time, and certainly
not againt Richard 11., because the Earl of Wiltes
was beheaded for serving him.
The Lord Chancellor inquired what would be the
result if Henry of Lancaster had chosen to charge
the Earl of Wiltes with treason, and that Parliament
had thought fit subsequently to ratify that charge?
Mr. Fleming replied, that in case Henry of Lan-
caster had made a charge of treason against the earl
there would have been some record of the fact, of
which, however, there was no evidence. There was
no evidence that the Earl of Wiltes had been tried
by his peers, which was the only tribunal by which
he Gould be legally tried for treason, or of his having
been indicted before any other regular tribunal for
any offence whatever.
The Lord Chancellor remarked that Henry IV.
had designated the adherents of Richard 11. as dis-
turbers of the realm.
chaMrgr.eFalmemouinntg onincgttoentdreeadstohna.t trhrahte doindlynoatuitmhoprliytya
by which the earl could have been tried at that
period was by martial law, which was not compe-
tent to determine charges of treason against peers
of the realm. According to Coke Littleton,
Henry had been guilty of murder, or, at all events,
of a high misdemeanour, in executing the three
peers at Bristol. The execution of the Earl of Wiltes
in accordance with the hasty decision of an impro-
per tribunal, was nothing more than a formal mur-
der, and no subsequent proceedings in Parliament
founded upon such an Act could have any weight
whatever. The Parliament of Henry IV., by an Act
of Indemnity, declared that no adherent of either
Richard or Henry should be found guilty of treason
except under the 25th of Edward 111. ; and by that
Act it was declared that no averment that a person
had been guilty of treason should be considered good
unless the record of his conviction was produced. In
this case there was no such record, and therefore the
suggestion that the earl was executed for treason
must fall to the ground. Under these circumstances,
he contended that nothing that occurred up to the
time of King Henry's accession affected the title, and
the earl being dead at the time, nothing that oc-
curred afterwards could affect the petitioner's claim.
The Act which, it was suggested, abrogated the
claim only ratified " the pursuit, arrest, judgment,
and other proceedings" against the earl, without
specifying that there had been any charge of treason
against him, or that he was thereby attainted of
treason. The only effect of that Act was to convey
his lands to the King, " conquered in his lifetime.
The Lord Chancellor suggested that the proper
translation of the words of the Act was " acquired
in his lifetime."
Mr. Fleming, in reply to his lordship's sugges-
tion, said that when the Isle of Man, which formed
part of the Earl of Wiltes' property, was given by
the Crown to the Earl of Northumberland, it was
described as property acquired by the Crown "by
conquest," and, therefore, he submitted that his ver-
sion was the correct one. It was a strong confirma-
tion of his argument that when Sir W. Bagot, who
escaped at the time, was afterwards taken, he was
tried for felony, and not for treason ; end, if the
Earl of Wiltes was beheaded for felony only, his
title could not be affected.
At the conclusion of the learned counsel's argu-
ment certain evidence was adduced in support of
claim.
Their lordships having consulted for some time,
The Lord Chancellor said,—The importance of
this matter is such that the whole subject must
receive, and will receive the careful consideration of
the house. It will be impossible for us to come to
any conclusion upon the arguments during the
present session. What that committee propose to
do is this—to fix an early day in the ensuing session
for the Committee for Privileges, when the formal
evidence will be taken, and will then fix another day
when the question can be solemnly argued by her
Majesty's Attorney-General and the counsel on the
part of the claimant. Due notice will be given to
each side to prepare their arguments, and if any
additional evidence is to be produced it must then
be given.
Further hearing adjourned sine die accordingly.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-July 22.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before C. Cresswell.)
HAWARDEN V. DUNLOP.
In this case, which has been so frequently before
the Court, the plaintiff, Lady Hawarden, had in-
stituted proceedings for the purpose of obtaining
letters of administration to the effects of her
brother, the late Lord Elphinstone, as next of kin.
The defendant, Mr. Geo. Dunlop, had propounded
a will by which he was constituted sole executor
and universal legatee. This instrument had been
duly proved before the Commissary Court of Dum-
bartonshire, but an appeal had been lodged by the
plaintiff, which is now pending before the Court of
Session. The defendant had been cited to pro-
pound the will in this Court, and he prayed that
the seal of the Court might be affixed to the confir-
mation grant by the Court in Scotland, which
would have the effect of proving the will according
to the Scotch law. Pending the proceedings an
arrangement had been come to between counsel by
which the suit should be discontinued, upon terms
to be mutually agreed to, and the Judge Ordinary
made a decree in conformity, to the effect that the
Court should affix its seal to the confirmation of the
Court in Scotland, on the understanding that the
litigants acceded to that course.
To-day the case was again brought before the
Court on a technical point, namely, as to whether
the confirmation should be delivered out of Court
with the seal affixed.
Sir C. Cresswell said he should have all the
papers before him, as well as those giving an ac-
count of what had taken place in the Court of
Chancery, and that he would give his jadgment on
Tuesday next.
JAGO V. JAGO AND GRAHAM.
Mr. Bingham Daly made an application for a new
trial in this case, on the grounds that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence, and of surprise.
The particulars, which have been recently reported,
exhibited a discrepancy between the witnesses as to
the date of circumstances material to the issue.
Sir C. Cresswell d aid that there was some ground
to suppose that there had been a failure of Justice,
and granted the rule nisi for a new trial.
HEPWORTH V. HEPWORTH.
This was an application for an allotment of ali-
mony. The petitioner had become bankrupt on
the 10th March, and the respondent had been
allowed to put in her claim as a creditor for the
amount granted by this Court. Dr. Wombey ap-
peared on behalf of the respondent.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, stated
he had been put to such expense by his wife, that
if he should be compelled to comply with the order
of the Court, he would be obliged to leave the king-
dom.
The case came before the learned judge in the
form of a motion, on the part of the respondent, for
an order directing the petitioner to secure for the
further costs in the cause.
Sir C. Cresswell said he could not help the posi-
tion of the petitioner, and orders of the Court were
made in the ordinary way, 04 should be complied
with, and acceded to the application.
•
DICKENS V. DICKENS.
In this case an attachment had been granted by
the Court against the husband, who was the respon-
dent in the suit, for costs and alimony. In the mean-
time the respondent had become bankrupt, and the
wife had been allowed to come in as a creditor to
the estate. Subsequently an application was made
for sequestration as against the estate of the respon-
dent, and the motion stood over for the considera-
tion of the Court.
Sir C. Cressweil now delivered judgment, and
having recited the several dates of the orders issued
by the Court, refused to make any decree for seques-
tration, on the ground that no such order would
have effect until the attachment was returned.