The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-28 00:00:00

where the shoe pinches. Late as it is in the
season, we cannot go into winter quarters until
we have taken possession of the Crimea and ac-
counted for the arsenal and fleet at Sebastopol.
These being properly disposed of, and our forces
in the Baltic pursuing the course on which they
entered, albeit tardily, at Bomarsund, we shall
find the CZAR much more willing to listen to rea-
son, and " to abandon all claim whatever to any
right of interference between the Christian sub-
jects of the Porte and the authority of the Otto-
man Government." " Action ! Action ! ! Ac-
tion ! ! !" should be our motto, and any English
subject who endeavours to promote any other
course is the enemy of his country, and should be
brought to condign punishment."

When the accomplished author of " Ten Thou-
sand a-Year" was composing the remarkable nar-

rative which at once elevated him to a high posi-

tion amongst living authors, he little imagined
that there was then residing in Yorkshire a gen-
tleman who, under circumstances no less remark-
able than those so graphically described, would,
without any fault of his own, forfeit an estate of,
as nearly as possible, equal value to the " dear
old Gatton," and with it a peerage of more than
three centuries' antiquity—who would become
even a greater object of sympathy than CHARLES
AUBREY, inasmuch as a blight would be cast on
the character of his venerable mother, and he

himself stained with the brand of illegitimacy.
The case of Lord MOUNTGARRET is, indeed, one of
unparalleled hardship, and, should the still-
pending litigation. be eventually determined
in accordance with the first verdict, which
may well excite terror in the mind of every
family whose ancestor, through whom title or
estate has been derived, crossed the Tweed during
his bachelor days, a marriage contracted be-
tween parties of equal rank, and in every respect
suitable, which had been recognised for no less
than forty-three years, has at the end of that time
been declared to be null and void. The lady
who, during that time, maintained an irreproach-

able reputation, held to have been living in a state
of concubinage, and her only son, who, from the
time of his birth, had been recognised as the ex-
pectant heir to the ancient title and wide-spread
domains, deprived of the inheritance and honours
of which he had been eight years in the actual en-
joyment. This too has occurred, not through the
discovery of any prior right—not to the turning
up of a " lost heir," but through the alleged
illegitimacy of the possessor (!). In consequence
of a supposed prior marriage contracted by his
father. To the circumstance of that marriage it

is, therefore, necessary to direct attention.
HENRY BUTLER, third son of the Eleventh
Viscount MOUNTGARRET, by Lady HENRIETTA
BUTLER, daughter of the First Earl of CARRICK,

and Eighth Viscount SKERRIN, was born in the
year 1773. In his youth he had been very wild,
having, even before he attained his majority, oc-
casioned a divorce between a neighbouring
Baronet and his wife. For some time he oc-
casioned considerable uneasiness to his family, but
at length in 1811, when in his 38th year, he formed
an eligible alliance with ANNE, daughter and co-
heir of JOHN HARRISON, Esq., of Newton House,
in the county of York. From that time forth the
Hon. HENRY BUTLER led a very prudent
.life.

He had acquired property by his marriage,
and no longer became involved in dis-
reputable transactions. His relations hailed
with joy the reformation, which was the more im-
portant to them, inasmuch as he promised to be-
come the head of their ancient family, the eldest
brother and possessor of the title being declared a
lunatic, and the second having been long married
without issue. From that time forth the lady
whom he had publicly espoused in foro ecclesice,
with all the formalities necessary to constitute a
valid and binding marriage, was received as his
lawful wife, and the son born in 1816 recognised
as the heir presumptive. In 1842 HENRY BUTLER
died, and the son, HENRY EDMUND BUTLER, filled
his place, and on the death of his uncle, in 1846,
succeeded to the title as thirteenth Viscount
MOUNTGARRET, and the family estates. This has

at length been questioned, and at the late assizes
for the County Kilkenny, a record was tried—
BUTLER v. MOU.NTGARRET—which excited an in-
terest no less intense than that which attended
"Doe demise TITMOUSE v. JOLTER."

The claimant in the present instance was, how-
ever, no TITMOUSE. He was a country gentle-
man, popular with his friends and neighbours, and
who had for some time represented his native
county in Parliament. He was the eldest son of
the Hon. PIERCE BUTLER, youngest son of the
eleventh Viscount MOUNTOARRET, and next

brother to HENRY, and who, consequently, in the
event of his death without lawful issue, would be-

come the unquestionable inheritor of the title and
estates. There was, therefore, no complicated
questions of love that could by any possibility
arise. The simple issue was " legitimacy" or
" illegitimacy ;" and, as there was no doubt that a
marriage had been duly celebrated on the 3d Sep-
tember, 1811, between the Hon. HENRY BUTLER
and Miss A-NNEHA.RRISON, it became essential for the
claimant to prove that there was some disability
on the part of one of the parties to vitiate the
contract. This was attempted to be done by
showing an alleged previous marriage with a Mrs.
COLEBROOKE in the early part of the same year,
1811.

This Mrs. COLEBROORE, it appears, was a widow
who had been left a comfortable provision by
her husband durante viductate, but a great part of
which she would lose in the e*nt of a second
marriage. This unfair restriction led to the na-
tural result. A young and fascinating woman, de-
barred from honourable marriage by an unjust and
cruel stipulation, fell an easy victim, and Mrs.
COLEBROOKE accepted HENRY BUTLER as a lover,
when she could not take him as a husband. This

illicit connection lasted some years. A child
was born in 1809 or 'lO, in Cadogan-place, Chel-
sea ; but it died young. At the latter end of 1816
Mrs. COLEBROOKE visited Edinburgh ; but she
was not accompanied by HENRY BUTLER, whose
absence was not accounted for. The deserted
lady, however, did not prove inconfolable. A
certain Mr. TAAFFE, another Irishman, filled up
the void in het heart, and when HENRY BUTLER

at length turned up in April, 1811, Mr. TAAFFE
was not only residing with the lady, but actually
in her bedroom at the very moment. This, how-
ever, if we are to credit the extraordinary tale
(which rests only on the authority of S ARAH
STRIDE, alias BLARE, lady's-maid to Mrs. COLE-
BROOKE, and confidante in her various amours),
did not deter the eager BUTLER. When refused
admittance, he kicked up a pretty considerable
row—and ultimately forced his way in. Mrs.
COLEBROOKE left the bed of her more re-
cent admirer, TAAFFE ; and, if we are to
credit Mrs. STRIDE, the marriage was ce-
lebrated under these extraordinary cir-
cumstances. The servants were called up, and
H ENRYBUTLER and Mrs. COLEBROOKE declared that
they
were
es died,
man and wife in their presence. It
happened, however, unfortunately, that all these ,
published the staetxecme
witnesspetntSuAritheSremwransE,notpvintossilbizeiviteur
of disproving her statement, and who, also, unfor-
tunately, in 1816, while the transaction was com-
paratively recent, and the other witnesses living,
sworplace..e that no such marriage as she now alleges took
It is also remarkable that the newly-
made bridegroom, immediately on the
oi
mar-
riage, retired
andt- that
front
n the house; leaving
his loving bride
return m to
BUTLER,r. t earm s
no f
lessher
other lover,
than dix months afterwards, married Miss HA RRI-
SON, while Mrs. CO LEBROORE married TAAFFE in
1812, and brought an action against him in 1816,
to establish the validity of that marriage, on
which cccasion the faithful SARAH STRIDE made
an affidavit ignoring her supposed marriage with
BUTLER.
Such are the circumstances and the evidence
gentleman, who for eight years has
lb)eyenwii
lchrecognisedthe
eas Lord MOUNTGARRET, is to be
deprived of his title and ten thousand a year. It
is not pretended that the declaration
gnoirsedcoanuttrhacot-
wa3 made in the presence of any
rity, or that any record of it was kept.
nuSturetliyin,
then, we are justified in i
extreme danger of such a law, that dispenses not