The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CH4NCERY, Nov. 5.
WELLESLEY V. DUKE OF BEAUFORT.

This case stood peremptorily for hearing the first thing this
morning. A considerable interest seems to have been excited
by the crowd which was gathered in the Court. A great deal
of cross-conversation passed between the Counsel on each side,
as to the propriety. of bringing it on, or of arguing it publicly.
Mr. HART, pointedly addressing the Court, said that there
was little to .discuss. . The qttestion was, whether or no the
Court would interpose a power, which it possessed under very
considerable limitations, of taking children from under the care
of their father, who was their natural guardian.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it was a matter beyond
doubt that the Court ought only in cases of extreme necessity
to exercise the power of withdrawing children from the guar-
dianship ot' their parents, and that it did so in most cases only
with extreme reluctance: but it was equally beyond dispute
that it had such a power.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL pressed for an immediate hear-
ing, according to the order of the Court.

`Mr. HART objected strongly to laying open the interior of
any man's domestic economy by a public hearing of such a
matter as this. No reason could he shewn against the propriety
of his Lordship hearing the arguments of Counsel in his private
room.

The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that if they (speaking to
Mr. Hart, his client, and the other Counsel) would suspend
their Habeas Corpus (which is returnable in the King's Bench
on Monday), there could be no objection to delay the hearing,
and to hear it in private.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not wish either for delay or
for a private hearing.
Mr. HART consented to suspend the Habeas Corpus; but
he wished that the other side should be compelled to abide a
reference to the Master to report what ought to be done for
the care of the children. (We understood the Learned Coun-
sel to claim this delay on the ground of their right to stay pro-
ceedings during a reference to the Master to report upon the
scandal and impertinence of the pleadings and affidavits.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked how it was possible forliim
to compel the other side to consent to that reference : and how
was the Court to know whether or no it ought to be made before
hearing the case ? If the other side consented to the delay now
asked, and upon the grounds upon which it was asked, undoubt-
edly there would be no necessity for a public hearing. With
regard to scandal and impertinence, he admitted that a party
would have good reason to complain if his character suffered
from any improper reflections of the Judge upon the allegatienis
of other parties offered to the consideration of the Court in. the
course of the proceedings. But if the Court and the bar should
be ever so cautious, still there was danger to the character' and
feelings of parties connected with the proceedings, which arose
elsewhere, and for which the Court would not be responsible.
Upon this last subject of danger, the law of the land had been
considerably altered within his memory ; how it came to suffer
that alteration, he did not know.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he did not choose to
have this matter heard in private. In this he might be opposed
to his learned friends who were on the same side with him, as
he had been in the celebrated lunacy case of Lord Portsmouth.
He then resisted the inclination of his learned friends for a
private hearing. He did so at that time upon mature tlelibera-
don ; and he did so now upon much clearer conviction, because
he was now quite certain of the fact that the publicity of those
proceedings did materially advance the interests of piblic
justice.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that there could be no objec- 1
tion to postponing the case for the present--only let it be under-
stood that the Court of King's Bench was not to forestal them.
Mr. HART said, it was clear that the children must be edu-
cated and supported out of their own property : what objection
could there be to an immediate reference to the Master, to settle
a proper plan for that purpose?
The SOLICITOR-CENERA3. objected to this partial by-play
of Mr. Hart's. The discussion must go upon the general merits.
Air. KNIGHT, seeing that there was so little spirit of accom-
modation on the other side, felt himself justified in availing
himself of all the forms of proceedings, and moved an imme-
diate reference to the Master for scandal and impertinence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked how this was to avail them,
since that was not a motion of course; and the other side, at all
events, must be heard against that motion.
Mr. KNIGHT said, with due submission to the authority of
the Court, that was a motion of course, and that they could not
be heard against it : he admitted that they might by another
motion resist the order.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in whatever way Mr.
Knight might choose to put it, the other side could secure
themselves a hearing against the reference. But how could
that do to prevent the immediate hearing of the cause, since
the Solicitor-General was now in possession of the Court, and
it was at his option whether the case should come on or not
directly ? • -
Mr. HART then urged for the reference to the Master, to
settle a plan of maintenance and education.
The LORD CHANCELLOR again asked Mr. Hart to consider
of what use that would be, unless he could procure the consent
of the other side ! He himself could point out to them, in one
moment, the means by which they
,might overthrow all the in-
tent and purposes of that reference.
Mr. HEALD made some remarks upon the danger of extend-
ing the effects of impertinence and scandal, without first refer-
ring it to the Master for his abridgement and correction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in questions affecting
the necessity of interposing the jurisdiction for the purpose of
protecting children, reference would not stop the proceedings
on the motion. His Lordship observed, upon the general sub-
ject of impertinence and scandal, that the old rule was, that
Counsel were to pay the expences incurred by the insertion of
matters reported by the Master to be scandalous
.and imperti-
nent, but to his certain knowledge that rule was never ob-
served. .

Mr. HEALD said, that in consonance with his Lordship's
declared opinion, the impertinence and scandal of affidavits
could not be in any way attributed to Counsel.
The Lo RD CHAN C ELLOR said, that much scandal and im-
pertinence was found in the petitions occasionally.
Mr. HEALD said Counsel could not answer for that any more
than the other. In Lord Portsmouth's case the Court had felt
the difficulty of this point, and his Lordship had kindly under-
taken to look over the papers and judge himself whether they
contained impertinence and scandal or not.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he never declined any
trouble to prevent'the injury of character in questions of lunacy,
or infancy, or any others which required the speedy interference
of the Court, more especially as character now-a-days was
likely to be affected in a manner by which it could not be
affected when he first trod Westminster Hall. If the Counsel
thought fit, he would take home the papers and give them
his opinion of so much of the matter on Monday morning.
Meantime, it must be understood that there should be no
application to the Cburt of King's Renck, and all other
things must remain in statu quo until the hearing, which was
fixed for the second day of petitions in term,- unless his Lord-
ship's opinion on the question of scandal and impertinence
should give rise to further postponement.

The RECORDER, it is understood, will make
his Report this week of the convicts who were tried during the
two last Sessions at the Old Bailey, to the King in Council, at
Carlton Palace.