The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-23 00:00:00

WEALE V. IRELAND.

Mr. WAKEFIELD and Mr. PALMER appeared for a mo-
tion to stay proceedings in a suit for the administration of
a testator's estate. The ground of the application was that
the same objects could be effected by another suit which
was being prosecuted by other plaintiffs against the same
defendants.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said it appeared that a refe-
rence had been taken under the first suit, and as there was
no objection to that, the order to stay the second suit was
a matter of course. With respect to the order to inspect
the proceedings, the Court was always open to an applica-
tion if the plaintiffs did not prosecute the suit with satis-
factor diligence in the Master's office.

The whole of the causes in the paper were disposed of at
two o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 22.
TATE V. CLARK.

The bill in this case was filed to establish the will of the
testator in the cause, for the usual accounts of the real and
personal estate, and that the rights of the several parties
might be declared.—Judgment deferred.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 22.
THE QUEEN V. D'ISRAELI,
In this case a rule had been obtained calling on the de-
fendant to show cause why 3 criminal information should
not be filed against him for publishing in the Morning
Post a libel upon Mr. Charles Austin, barrister-at-law
M. Mr.
Fector had been elected to represent the borough of aid-
stone. A petition was presented against the return of M
and
r.
Fector. Mr. Austin led the case for the petiti
in the course of his opening statement before the Com-
mittee, he described what he called the sysm prevailing
with the Tory party at Maidstone, that when a voter was
asked for his vote at one election, the promises of pecuni-
ary and other benefits made at the election last preceding
were fulfilled. The Learned Counsel spoke of the alleged
fact that some of the promises made at the election prece-
ding that which was then in contest had not been ful-
filled. Mr. D'lsraeli, who had been returned at the elec-
tion prior to that of Mr. Fector, imagined that he had
been personally charged with making promises which had
not been fulfilled, and he wrote a letter to the Morning
Post, in which he accused Mr. Austin of wilfully uttering

statements which he knew he could not prove, and im-
puted such conduct to the privileges claimed by the bar,
privileges to which he declared that he for one would never
submit. The Court had granted and made absolute a rule
for a criminal information. That information had been
filed, and the defendant had suffered judgment by default.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for judgment to
be pronounced, and in the first instance prayed that the
affidavits of Mr. Austin and of Mr. Cockburn, his junior
Counsel, before the Committee, might be read.
These affidavits were accordingly read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt the most sincere regret
to see the defendant who was a Member of the House of
Commons, before their Lordships, confessedly guilty of the
offence which had been imputed to him, and that
regret was the greater when he thought how
easily the whole proceedings might have been avoided.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to justify Mr.
Austin, and went into a lengthened statement relative to
the matter in question.

Mr. DISRAELI did not put in any affidavit, but ad-
dressed the Court 'it considerable length on the subject of
" that unfortunate letter which was sent to all the News-
papers," and out of which the present proceedings arose.
He did not defend the language of the hastily written
letter, but he must say that what Mr. Austin had stated
of him could not be passed over without notice, and he
now distinctly denied, so far as he was concerned, all
knowledge of, or participation in, the system which had
been spoken of. He assured their Lordships that such
was the fact during the year-and-a-half in which he had
been connected with the borough of Maidstone, in which
time he had known of three elections. Mr. D'lsraeli con-
cluded by expressing his regret that in a moment of ex-
citement and misconception, he should have hurt the feel-
ings of Mr. Austin by publishing the letter in question.
In the midst of a consultation on the part of their
Lordships,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the apology at the
close of Mr. D'lsraeli's address was quite satisfactory to
Mr. Austin.

Lord DENmAN—It was satisfactory that the matter
should now rest where it was.
VALIDITY OF THE MARQUIS OF BLANDFORD'S PRESENT

MARRIAGE.-THE QUEEN U. GREGORY.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT prayed that the rule in this case
might be made absolute.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said that this was
an application made by the Marquis of Blandford for a
criminal information against the Satirist weekly newspaper,
for alleged libels that had appeared in it. The Learned
Counsel said that he should discharge his duty in the case
by fully laying before the Court the state of the facts,
which he thought would require no remarks or com-
ments to be made upon them. When he read them, he
thought that their Lordships would think that the Mar-
quis of Blandford had not any right to make this appli-
cation, and that therefore the rule would be discharged.
In effect, the Marquis in his affidavit set forth that
he had never represented the lady in question, Mrs.
Law, as his wife ; and that Lord Sunderland, his eldest
son, made a similar statement, which, however, was quite
immaterial. He would also call the attention of the
Court to the supplemental affidavit made by Lord Bland-
ford, which stated that during the whole time that he co-
habited with Mrs. Law, and particularly while living with
her in Baker-street, he always passed by the name and
title of Marquis of Blandford, and that he never, during
that time, passed by any other name or title whatever ;
and, farther, he stated that during the whole of that period
the lady was known by the name of Mrs. Law ; and that
during the while he was in Scotland with her he passed by
his own title. Having stated thus much as to the affida-
vits on the other side, he (the Attorney-General) would
now proceed to those made in answer. The first was
that of Susan Adelaide Law, who was stated by Lord
Blandford to have consented to live with him as his mis-
tress, in consideration of a settlement made upon her. The
affidavit stated that she had read the affidavits made on the
other side, and went on to state the facts of the case. It
set forth that in January, 1817, she first became acquainted
with the Marquis of Blandford, who afterwards con-
stantly visited her at her father's residence ; that he ex-
pressed for deponent the most ardent affection ; and that
he promised and avowed the determination of
making her his wife, stating, however, that the marriage
ceremony must be, from family reasons, performed in pri-
vate. This produced much discussion on the part of de-
ponent's mother and the Marquis ; the latter representing
that he had a brother who was a clergyman in the country,
to whom he would write to request him to perform the ce-
remony. The deponent was then about seventeen years of
age, and gave her consent to the private celebration of the
marriage, which took place March 16, 1817 ; it took place
at the residence of her father, in Fludyer-street, in the pre-
sence of her mother, and sister Gertrude. The deponent
distinctly denied any agreement on her part to cohabit with
the said Marquis, as he had sworn, or that there was any deed
of settlement by which in case of separation she should have
400/. a year, though there was a deed executed which she
regarded as a marriage settlement. She added, that the
marriage ceremony was performed by the brother of the
Marquis according to the ritual of the Church of England,
and that her mother entered a record of the fact in a Prayer
book ; that the deponent lived with the Marquis at No. 42,
Manchester-street, Manchester-squire, where they passed
in the names of Captain and Mrs. Lawson ; that during the
whole ,time she believed herself to be the wife of the Mar-
quis ; that they lived there eight or nine months, when they
removed to Baker-street, where they resided several months;
that Martin and his wife (who had been stated as valet and
lady's maid, and who had represented that the Marquis
always went by his name and title) did not go to reside at
the house, Manchester-street for some months ; and that
neither was present at the marriage ceremony, but deponent
admitted that they having known the Marquis before, still
continued to call him by his proper name and title ; that dur-
ing the residence of deponent in Manchester-street, she dis-
covered that the brother declared by the Marquis to be a
clergyman of the Church of England was an officer in the
army ; that on finding such to be the fact she informed her
mother of it, who accused the Marquis of cruel and gross im-
position upon the deponent, which he admitted, and pro-
mised to take her into Scotland, there to acknowledge
her to be his wife, according to the law of that country ;
that the month of August was fixed as the time of de-
parture, as grouse shooting, it was alleged, would afford
the best means of going there without exciting any suspi-
cion on the part of his family ; that they accordingly
went to Scotland in August, taking their infant daughter
with them ; that she went by mail to Boroughbridge,
accompanied by Colonel James Stuart the present Earl
of Galloway, and there met the Marquis, with whom she
went in his carriage to Carlisle, thence he went to
Netherby and she on to Edinburgh ; that she first went
to M'Culloeh's hotel, and then to the lodgings taken in
the names of Mr. and Mrs. Lawson ; that on the arri-
val of the Marquis he came to those lodgings, and lived
there with deponent during the whole of his stay in
Edinburgh as her husband, and that both were considered,
looked upon, and treated as man and wife ; that on her re-
turn to London she went to her father's house because that
in Baker-street had been given up, but the Marquis stated
that she was to take another furnished house, which she
should have done but for hearing of the proposed marriage
of the Marquis ; that upon such news reaching her she
became delirious, and had never from' that time married
(although, observed the Attorney-General, their Lordships
would remember that the contrary was sworn to by the
Marquis of Blandford); that five years afterwards his Lord-
ship, upon his knees besought deponent's forgiveness, ad•
mitting the fact of his marriage with her, when she agreed
to meet him at the house of the Marquis's mother, the
Duchess of Marlborough ; she, however, did not go, but
wrote a note, declining to attend ; that for about eight or
nine years after the marriage of the Marquis with the daughter
of the late Earl of Galloway the said deponent received by
quarterly payments 4001. a-year from Messrs. Coutts and
Co. At that period the annuity fell into arrear, and depo-
nent was compelled, not only to accept the reduced sam of
200/. per annum, but also to give up many of the let-
ters of the Marquis, some concluding in the words " be-
lieve me, my dearest Susan, your affectionate husband,
Blandford ;" that she never caused to be inserted in the
Satirist, nor in any other paper, any article tending to vilify
the said Marquis ; that within the last twelve months
she was applied to by a near relation of the Marquis of
Blandford respecting her claim to the title of Marchioness,
and stating that an interview with the Duke of Marl-
borough's attorney would conduce much to her advantage ;
that deponent declined pursuing any such step, nor would
she ever have made this affidavit if it had not been for the
contents of that produced by the Marquis of Blandford, by
which premeditated immorality was imputed to her, and the
true nature of the intercourse between them was suppressed.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to say that the next
affidavit was from the mother, who set forth that she had
carefully read the statement made by her daughter (the
affidavit just described), and that the contents were true in
every particular, as far as concerned what had come under
this deponent's knowledge ; and that she believed every
other peat of the affidavit to be equally true. Now their
Lordships would recollect that the mother was privy to all
that took place before the marriage, was p
the
partiesresentattile
;
marriage, and was aware of the
manner in which
afterwards lived in Baker-street that she
to the discovery that the person
who
performedas also
the pr ivy
cere-
mony was not in holy orders, and to the subsequent arrange-
ment, that the Marquis should take her daTuthenterthteoreScot-
land, there to be acknowledged his wife
the affidavit of James Boaden, and Ann, his wife. Boaden
stated, that somewhere about 1817 he was placed in No.
42, Manchester-street, by the proprietor, to take care of
thei nhousecot
that it was let to a lady and gentelemplaonyeidvhtoo
was led to believe, were Mrs. and Captain Law-
son,
deponent
o
;—that the deponent was occasionally m