The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-24 00:00:00

'FIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARYI 24, 1862.

THE WIN.DRAM CASE.

This inquiry was resumed yesterday for the 30th
time, before Master Warren, at the Sessions-house,
Westminster.

Mr. Coleridge, who was instructed by Mr. Davis,
of Clifford-street, addressed the jury on behalf of
Mrs. Windham. He said that although he could
be well content himself personally to leave the
case of Mrs. Windham, as it had been put forth by
Mr. Kerslake, still as her counsel he felt bound to
address them briefly on her behalf. Ho was glad
to appear before them to hurl back at least some of
the accusations which had been brought against
Mrs. Windham, and to vindicate her couduct,
which had been cruelly aspersed in the course of
these proceedings. Her character, conduct, and
whole life had been made the chief point on which
the sanity of Mr. Windham was to depend. He
could honour and admire an inquiry of this kind,
if it prOceeded from an honest and genuine love of
purity and virtue, but it was evident from the
progress of the investigation that the object in
view was anything but a love of purity and virtue.
The marriage, position, and settlement of Mrs.
Windham, the position of her sisters, whom she
loved, depended upon the verdict which the jury
gave. No man could have watched the course of
the inquiry without perceiving that the ultimate
object of it was to set aside the marriage of Mr.
Windham with Mrs. Windham. If Gen. Windham
had obtained the resettlement of the Felbrigg
estate, which he tried to effect on the Bth and 9th of
August, they never would have heard of this case.
There was no act too coarse, no motive too bad,
which had been brought against Mrs. Windham.
He did not find fault with persons for seeking
by means of the law to set aside a settlement which
they did not believe to be right, but he did blame
them for the remorseless cruelty with which the
case was prosecuted. He blamed them for the mode
in which they sought to set aside the marriage, and
to deprive Mrs. Windham of the comfort of a family
and the hope of offspring. Let them look at the
facts of the case and the position of the parties,
and judge of this marriage from that point of view.
Here was a young man with strong passions, riot-
ous disposition, fond of field sports, neglected by
his family, and isolated in society, and a young
woman, not yet 22, beautiful and attractive, though
following a course of life which he could not approve,
but which was well known to be a part of the social
life in which they moved, and was it a wonder that
such a man should fall in love with such a woman?
Were young and foolish people to become old and
wise at once ? Was the feeling of love to be ig-
nored, and were zople who did foolish things
under its influence lo be regarded as insane? If
so, what would become of the poetry and romance
of life ? Would not a part of the occupation in
life of even the learned Master be gone if this view
of human nature was to prevail ? It was univer-
sally known that some of the wisest of men had
fallen under the influence cf the passion of love,
and that some of the highest members in the aris-
tocracy of this country had descended from persons
who had done what Mr. Windham had done. But
then it was said this was not the case of a man
infatuated by beauty—that Mrs. Windham was a
common prBstitute—that she was common to all the
world, and that she married Mr,Windham for mer-
cenary purposes. There was not a tittle of evi-
dence to prove that Mrs. Windham was the cha-
racter which Mr. Chambers had drawn her. He
was speaking to 22 gentlemen of the world, men
who knew what life, and high life, was, and they
must be aware that it was no unusual thing for men
in high position to form in substance such alli-
ances as had been contracted by Mr. Windham
and Agnes Willoughby. Were there no aged
earls who allied themselves with young girls who
never could have any affection for them ? And be-
cause this was done under a coronet and orange
blossoms, was it to be sanctioned by society, and
was Mr. Windham to be put in a lunatic asylum
and Mrs. Windham to be separated from her hus-
band because they did the same thing ? Let them
recollect that Agnes Willoughby was in receipt of
£2,000 a year at the time she contracted this mar-
riage—that she mixed in society ; and because she
had under these circumstances contracted a marriage
with Mr. Windham for the sake of giving herself a
better position and establishing her sisters in life,
was she now to bo tura-u-C. round upon and told that
she was no better than a mercenary prostitute ? If
Mr. Windham was the hopeless imbecile that he
was now represented to be, if he was a congenital
fool, why did not some member of Mr. Windham's
family warn Agnes Willoughby of what she was
going to do ? Why was she not told by the friends
of Mr. Windham that he was a fool and an imbecile,
and that if she contracted a marriage with Mr.
Windham it would not be valid and that an appli-
cation would be made to set it aside ? Was this
information not vouchsafed to her because she was
considered to be a person of immoral character ?
He had yet to learn that all the rules of honesty
and fair-play were to be set aside because a woman
was a , If that was the view taken by persons
of aristocratic lineage, he rejoiced that he was one
of the people. If that was the morality of those
with blue veins, he was glad that he had red blood.
But it was said, how can you justify the settlement
which had been made ? He did not mean to put it
forward that Mrs. Windham had any great love for
the man she was going to marry. She was proba-
bly looking for a position, and having regard to the
means she was then actually enjoying, he did not
think the settlement was so unjustifiable as had
been represented. The truth was, the sting of
the settlement which bad been made was not
in the amount which Mrs. Windham was to
have, but in the introduction of the word chil-
dren, and the clause that the offspring of the
marriage were to succeed to the estates. Then with
regard to the presents which had been made to
Mrs. W., let them consider that Mr. W. was the
owner of an estate worth nearly £15,000.a year, and
he did not think that jewelry to the amount of
£7,000 was an excessive gift under the circum-
stances. As to the presents which had been made
after the marriage, let them consider that they
were made as some propitiation for the injury
which had been done to Mrs. Windham by her hus-
band. As to Mr. Windham being the congenital
fool, that view was quite upset by the fact which
was proved before them, that he had reached the
fifth form at Eton. Even General Windham him-
self, after the marriage, treated his nephew as of
sound mind, because he negotiated with him for the
sale of land to the extent of £l.OOO. The tender
guardian and affectionate uncle did not hesitate to
go to Felbrigg, in order to make this bargain with
a congenital fool and imbecile. If the:re-phew was
what was now represented, an imbecile and a fool,
what must they think of General Windham, who
went to transact business with him ? He now
came to that Malebolgian pool of filth and nasti-
ness which had been stirred up by his learned
friend for the purpose of creating a prejudice
against his client—for its introduction was wholly
unnecessary. The suggestion of his learned friend
was that the disease of which they had heard so
much, and from which she was still suffering, had
been communicated, not from Mr. Windham to
Mrs. Windham, but from Mrs. Windham to Mr.
Windham. The learned gentleman argued from
facts and dates that this was absurdly incredible,
and that there was nothing' to justify the belief
that Mr. and Mrs. Windham were so abandoned and
horridly wicked as the one to connive at the act
which was said to have takenplace in the railway
carriage between Mrs. 'Windham and Roberts, and
the other to have been guilty of it, and that at a
time when according to the statement on the other
side she was suffering from disease. The separa-
tion which had taken place between Mr. and
Mrs. Windham was perfectly natural and intelli-
gible. The learned gentleman then proceeded to
refute the allegations of profligacy which had been
made against Mrs. Windham whilst in Dublin
and
Glargow. The question for the jury to
determine was not what the size of Mr. Windham's
capacity, but whether he was compos mentis,
whether he had discourse of reason. The case of
Mr. Windham was, that he was a man of low intel-
lectual ill educated, and ill brought up.
They , expect that such a than
w
in life, that he would be guilty oi
actso
lwould ref
u whichda wrong
could go rcio tty,
therefore,
e
neither be justified by morality