The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-21 00:00:00

PEERAGE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--IIowDAT, JUNE 20.
THE GARDNER PEERAGE.

Dr. ADAM summed up the evidence on behalf of the olairoant
in the above peerage to-day. He said the only question for
their Lordships' decision was, art to the legitimacy of Henry
Fenton Jadies : that he could be the son of the late Lord Gard-
ner (who, as appeared by evidence, had no intercourse with his
wife for ll days previous to the birth), was proved by able
practitioners in midwifery to be a physical inipossibility. They
bad all agreed that 40 weeks was the extreme point of gestation :
this, too, was the ultimum tempos kgitimum mulferibus pari-
endl constitum laid down by Lord Coke, though there was an
instance in Coke's Institutes of the legitimacy of the offspring
of 40 weeks and nine days' gestation having been established by
a verdict in the Court of King's Bench, it being the opinion of
the physicians who gave evidence on that occasion, that
the natural period might be protracted by reason of ill-usage :
yet even if this were admitted, it fell much short of the present
period, which was forty-four weeks and three days. Dr. Hun-
ter mentioned a case of a gestation having been protracted 14
days beyond nine calendar months, which was also much under
—but the chief question was, not whether by possibility, but
taking all the circumstances into consideration, their Lordships
could say that this was Lord Gardner's child. Their Lordships
had a precedent to wide them in their decision : the lianbury
peerage was exactly in point ; in that case there was no evidence
of impotency. By an inquisition after Lord Banbury's death
in 102, it was found that there was no heir ; yet it afterwards
appeared that Lady Banbury had a child, but concealed its
birth. This child subsequently claimed the peerage, but was re-
fused it, on the grounds that Lord B. was advanced in years, his
lady young, and suspected of having an illicit intercourse with
another man, whom she afterwards married. When Mr.
Norris had claimed the same peerage in 1811, it was decided
against him by a large majority, Lords Ellenborough and Re-
desdale alleging that the acknowledgment of the parents was
a necessary evidence of legitimacy. Lord Gardner never knew
of the existence of the child in question, nor had Mr. and Mrs.
Jadies ever done any thing to establish his claim. The Learn-
ed Counsel concluded by reading the preamble to the act of
divorce between Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, which contained a
clause to bastardize the child in question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of ()pinion that in point of
law, any thing in a private bill ought not to affect any person
not a party .to it—that clause ought to be struck out—it could
not be admitted in evidence.
The ATTORNEY-GINERAL, who appeared on behalf of the
Crown, being asked if he had any thing to say, replied, that
from the evidence produced he was satisfied of the legitimacy
of the claimant, and would reserve himself for a future period.
Mr. TYNDALL begged for further delay : he said his client
was only a clerk in a public office, and consequently poor : he
did not get notice of this trial till the 12th of May last, and as
some property depended on the legitimacy, and his client in-
tended to bring forward physicians from the Continent, he
hoped their Lordships would give him time till next Sessions,
particularly as the claimant was an infant, and as no inconve-
nience could arise from deferring it.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that, in point of law, it was
clearly established that an infant could apply to his Majesty to
have it ascertained whether he was entitled to a dignity or not,
and in point of importance it was necessary for his education;
he, therefore, thought they ought to go as far as possible in the
case this session. He supposed that Mr. Tyndall intended to
show that the period of gestation was as long as a Chancery
suit.
The Earl of Latifaxanatz said, that they could have as
many physicians as they pleased by steam, from Scotland or
Paris, within this session.—Further consideration was post.
poned till Thursday.
•
This was a writ of error from the Court of Exchequer. The
LORD CfsexCsr.Loa, in affirming the decree, said that there
was a mistake in drawing it up ; but as the appellant allowed
it to stand as if there was no mistake, he would only give 501.
costs.