The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

LOLA IVIONTES.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE S£72l:
SIB,--I take the liberty of writing two or three
lines respecting the decision of -Mr. Bingham in the
case of Lola Montes (Countess of Lansfeldt), a de-
cision violently attacked in your leading article, but
which I, nevertheless, consider strictly constitutional
and correct.

You oppose the decision on three grounds, and I
will reply categorically to each.
The first objection is—absence for more than seven
years, without a knowledge of the existence of the
former husband, Mr. James, during that time; 2d,
there being no positive proof of Mr. James being
alive at the time of contracting the marriage with Mr.
Heald; and, id, the divorce from bed and board by
the Ecclesiastical Court, which you think justificatory
of the second marriage.
Ist. It appears to me that she had every oppor-
tunity of ascertaining that Mr. James was alive by
making application at the India House, where there is
a list periodically published of the British army in
India. But there is a better answer than this—the
decree of the Ecclesiastical Court is within the seven
years ; this, therefore, is a conclusive answer.
2d. The investigation before a magistrate has no
analogy to that before a grand jury, as you assume—
none. In the latter case the evidence must be in
every respect sufficient to produce a conviction before
the public jury, or the bill should be rejected ;
whereas the inquiry before the magistrate is only
preliminary. A magistrate should only require rea•
sortable prima facie evidence to warrant a remand, or
to hold to bail. That evidence was given by the proof
from the India House to the latest date antecedent to
the marriage ; and if this were not sufficient, we have
the lady's own statement. She did not pretend in
her statement to the officer that Mr. James was dead,
but that the marriage with him was in a false name,
and therefore illegal (quite an error by the way) ; that
she did not know where he was, and that a divorce
had been granted in the presence of Lord Brougham,
which, if true, must have been an actual dissolution
of the marriage by Act of Parliament, as Lord
Brougham never sat in the Ecclesiastical Court.
3d. That a divorce from bed and board would jus-
tify a second marriage. This you will see in one
moment is quite an error. To abolish an English
Marriage there must be an Act of Parliament. There
isjno other means of annulling such a marriage, except
by death. But if there were the least doubt on the
subject, we have only to look at the decree of the
Ecclesiastical Court, which expressly states that the
separation is from bed and board only, and that neither
party shall have the power of contracting marriage
dOring the existence of the other.
Ton assume that the lady is a foreigner, and might
think that after a decree of the Ecclesiastical Court
she could contract a second marriage, the former
Ming actually annulled. But, in reply to this, you
have only to read the terms of the decree above
quoted ; and; in addition to this conclusive proof, you
are in error in supposing the lady to be a foreigner.
The lovely Dona Lola, I understand, is a native of
Ireland, and therefore thoroughly versed in our
institutions.

It, therefore, seems to me that Mr. Bingham acted
with humanity in holding to bail, as he might in
strictness have remanded until the evidence was com-
plete ; and you observe that his judgment was coin-
cided in by Mr. Hardwick, who was on the bench,
and whom he consulted.
I On th• demand of the retirement of Mr. Heald
from his regiment by the commanding officer, I am
in accordance with you. It was harsh, and in my
opinion contrary to all precedent.
Apologising for addressing you at such length,
elthough in correction of your own errors,
I have the honour to remain,
Your most obedient servant,
EDWARD B. SINGLEY.
Brussels, Aug. 12, 1849.