The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-05 00:00:00

EDINBURGH, Monday, _,c."4:. -
In this case, in which " the Hon. Maria Theresa
Longworth or Yelverton," residing in Edinburgh, is
pursuer, and Mr. Alexander James Beresford
Beresford-Hope, of Bedgebury-park, in the county
of Kent, and Mr. John Douglas Cooke, of the
Albany, in the county of Middlesex, and both re-
siding in or. near London, or elsewhere, furth of
Scotland, are defenders, the following issue was to-
day submitted to a jury :
It being. admitted that the defenders are pro-
prietors and publishers of the Saturday Review, and
that in that paper, on the 30th of July, 18G1, an
article was published by them entitled, " The Yel-
verton Case," and expressed in the terms contained
in the schedule annexed :
" Whether the whole, or any part of the said ar-
ticle, is of and concerning the pursuer, and falsely
and calumniously represents the pursuer as being a
disreputable and immodestperson, to the loss, injury,
and damage of the pursuer ?"

Damages were laid at £3,000. Lord Jervis woode
presided.

The following is the substance of the article com-
plained of :

" THE YELVERTON CASE.

"More than three years ago we ventured on the very
first blush of the Yelverton case to hint that, what-
ever sympathies might be attracted by the romance
of Miss Theresa Longworth's love story, she was, in
something more than the Scotch legal sense, the pur-
suer. The House of Lords, as the court of final ap-
peal, decided on Thursday, bs-a majority of three to
one—or, counting Lord Brougham's opinion, of
three to two—that the alleged Scotch marriage was
not a marriage, even in the lax sense in which some
Scotch jurists understand the term. . . But if Lords
Wensleydale, Kingsdown, and Chelmsford had
shown themselves susceptible as the Chancellor and
Lord Brougham, we are not quite sure that it (the
validity of the marriage) might not have been suc-
cessfully maintained. There is no knowing what
Lor.d.Westbury might not have said or done had he,
e. the Iri4ll jury been personally under the fire of
!Miss Longworth'sdangerous eyes.. We remember in
what a practical way an Athenian lady of doubtful
fame enlisted the feelings of her judges. Lord West-
bury has shown himself to be a critic in amatory
fame
effusions, and can see nothing inconsistent with
chastity and purity in Miss Longworth's remarkable
letters. Throughout the cause he has certainly exhi-
bited a familiarity, not to say something of personal
sympathy, with very warm writing; and on the whole,
we may congratulate the British Themis that in this
case of appeal there is no personal examination of
appellant or respondent. What might have been
the consequences had Miss Longworth appeared be-
fore the woolsack like Helen among the Trojan grey-
beards it would be alike difficult and improper to
forecast [After referring to the cere-
mony at Rostrevor, and denying the pursuer's state-
ment that there was no previous intercourse, the
article proceeds]. The result seems to be this—that
as far as the events in Scotland and Ireland are in-
telligible both Major Yelverton and Miss Long-
worth managed every step with as much caution,
and careful, wary deliberation as though each had
taken counsel's opinion upon it beforehand; but that
Miss Longworth had the worse legal advice of the
two. Miss Longworth all but managed to get a legal
Scotch marriage out of it, but she did not quite suc-
ceed. Major Yelverton, on the other hand, was as
nearly as possible inextricably hung up in the very
fine meshes of a Scotch marriage, but he just man-
aged to escape. It was a very admirable piece of
finessing on both sides ; but the gentleman had the
best—that is, the legal best—in this contest of skill.
. . . . For Major Yelverton but little can be
said. . . . At any rate, he gave the lady warn-
ing. •He pointed out that her ruin could be the only
result of a renewal of their acquaintance, and he
gave her the choice of renewing it or not. That re-
newal was her act, not his. . • . He felt it to
be of no use struggling against the strong will of
Theresa Longworth ; the all along made up his
mind that, as he was to be the lady's victim, it
should,be on his own terms, not hers. . . . As to
Miss Longworth, we would now say as little as we
can. When all the world was on her side ; when she
was the triumphant object of what are called Irish
ovations—when all Scotland made her virtues as
much an article of faith as Queen Mary's innocence,
and when nearly the whole of England echoed their
salutations--we expressed ourselves intelligibly on
this lady's life and character. The highest English
tribunal has now accepted that view which four years
ago was both uncommon and popular. It were unge-
nerous to press heavily on any one who is down, doubly
ungenerous in the case of a woman of very remark-
able powers, great intellectual accomplishments,
and now labouring under the heavy burden of
failure and humiliation. To say that, in our judg-
ment, she fully deserves her fate, may sound harsh ;
but to say much less were to compromise the inte-
rests of truth and morality. She has a thorny bed
to lie on, but she has made it for herself. And if
we express ourselves strongly, it is chiefly because
the Lord High Chancellor of England has thought
proper in his judicial capacity not only to pronounce
a high eulogium on the intellectual capacity dis-
played in Miss Longworth's letters, but to declare
that their tone is consistent with ' honourable court-
ship.' The interests of morality would, we think,
be seriously comprised were this judgment to rest
on any higher grounds than Lord Westbury's
opinion of what may be the proper style of corres-
pondence between unmarried—or, for the matter of
that, between married—persons. To right-thinking
persons, there is much in these terrible letters which
is simply loathsome. We have 'to notion of making
a heroine of such a person as Miss Longworth. She
is out of keeping with society, both as it is and as
it ought to be. She is an adventuress, launched
into the world nobody knows how, with a previous
history which has never been told. She is a Sceur
de Charite, but she meets and courts adventures
little in keeping with her semi-conventual dress and
office. She sinners it and saints it by turns or at
once. She is made up of passion and prudence, of
hard intellectual vigour, and sensuous thoughts and
feelings. She writes as no modest woman writes,
and she schemes as no modest woman would scheme.
She has religious scruples, but they do not restrain
her from provoking at least to sin. The best that
can be hoped for her is, that she will abandon that
world which will act most kindly by forgetting her,
and forgiving her offence against society."
In the record the pursuer sets forth the high
character of the journal complained of, and its
large circulation among the educated classes both
at home and in the colonies, and also in foreign
countries, where it is regarded as a leading expo-
nent of British public opinion. Citing the
stronger passages of the alleged libel, she sets
forth that the article is false and calumnious, and
contains statements which are malicious and not
justifiable as fair newspaper comments on proceed-
ings taking place in a court of justice. To this the
defenders reply that the article does not exceed the
limits of fair criticism. They state their readiness
to answer in the English courts, remarking that the
Saturday Review is published in London and no-
where else, and that they have no business or agency
in Scotland. To this the pursuer responds that the
Saturday Review is extensively sold and circulated
in Scotland, and so published the slander complained
of in Scotland.
theque s
tSi Scotch
cihe
this Colurn tsr,efiet
remnaeye
bteo
ntlheentijourneisdditchtiaotn
under appeal to the House of Lords
of the First Division of the Court of Session,
fronlajudgmen
of debts owing to the de
sus-
taining its jurisdiction infvenirdteurse ofinarsreesottmlaenndt.s mTa
Thee
ee
arrestments are usedforsuimn tsidleuesabtyurpduabylßisheveiresivi.n
Edinburgh for advertising
Mr. Campbell Smith opened
pfourtliier herself,pursuer who
hdo
the only witness called was the pursuer
deponod that she claimed to be the legal wife of
Major Yelverton, and had appealed to the House of
Lords to put him to his oath, feeling certain he could
not refuse on oath to acknowledge her as his wife.
The article complained of had given her more pain
than anything that had occurred since her desertion
by Major Yelverton.
The Solicitor-General did not cross-examine.
Mr. Shand opened for the defender, but called
no witnesses, the documentary evidence in the mar-
riage case being mainly relied on on both sides.
The Lord Advocate replied for the pursuer, but
had not concluded when the Court adjourned.

THE r-
—.---
Du ' %.E, S ESTIMATE OF THE GREAT NAPOLEON.
—The Duke
[says Mr. Ward, afterwards Earl
Dudley, writing from Paris in 1814] seems quite unspoilt
by success. Ile: htia -not even contracted that habit of
silence and reserve which so often accompanies dignity
and favour, even when they produce no more unfavourable
'change. But he is just as he wasL-Lgay; frank, and ready
to converse. I counted myself lucky in'meeting him one
of the days ho was hero, at Aberdeen's, with Schwaitzen-
berg, Stadion, and Prince Maurice of • Lichtenstein.
Stadion observed that ho believed he had never been
engaged against Bonaparte in parson. The Duke of Wel-
lington answered instantly, "No, and I am very glad I
never was. I would at any time rather have heard that a
reinforcement of 40,000 men had joined the French army
than that he had arrived to take con:imand:"—Min Berry.
fautital and Correspondence.. ,
_ - -