The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-26 00:00:00

HER MAJESTY.

WINDSOR. CASTLE, Nov. 25.
The Queen, accompanied by Princess Beatrice, walked
in the grounds this morning.
Prince Leopold also walked out.
Earl Granville arrived at the Castle, and had an audi-
ence of the Queen.

It is rumoured that next session the Lord Ch
calor will again introduce a bill appointing a paid ;per-
manent Pre-oident of the Judicial committee,

THE IRISH CAUSE CELEBRE.
The Taylor divorce suit was proceeded with in the
Dublin Court of Probate on Thursday, when a, large nut
bar of persons, as on previous days, assembled to hear the
evidence of a Dr. O'Hare, of Belfast, who refused abso
lutely to identify Mrs. Taylor—but "in all human
~cerci
tainty had no doubt"—as the person who had apPlie
to him in August, 1868, to discover whether
r„
she was enceinte, stating that she was the 1.171
of a solicitor practising in York, and that "she 113,,
e been once unfortunate with a member of the police force'A
a_ Mr. Samuel Trant M`Carthy, one of the persons oxen
at
and the police-officer in the case, was next examined, 311,
denied that there was " the shadow of a shade of truth
in the statement of his criminal familiarity with Affs:
Tay:or. He denied the allegations of Jane Doherty, the
servant, as to his having been 'seen in an equicoo'.
position; but was unable to say whether Mrs. TIVI°I
might not have entered his bedroom without his know:
ledge, as he was in the habit of locking up the decanter,
when he and Mr. Taylor had sat up drinking and takins,
the keys with him. In the morning Mrs. Taylor used t_
bring soda-water and brandy into his room when he
vor
in bed, by Mr. Taylor's request, who sat on the bed in
ls
dressing-grown, and drank it with him. The case is 11°
finished.

THE LEDBURY SCANDAL.

The hearing of the case "Jackson v. Martin" was re,:.
slimed yesterday before the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council. Dr. Twiss concluded his arguments e._ll
behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Charles addressed theo
lordships in reply. After a short adjournment, the emir/
was reopened, and the Lord Chancellor said they Ow
sidered it better that judgment in this case should be givenat once. The case had been fully and ably argleci
by the learned counsel on both sides, and they bad 515.:
the judgment before them of the learned judge of the
Court of Arches, and they regretted that they Wert
compelled to differ from him in some of the conclusions
a';
which he had arrived. No doubt it was to be deplore°
that their lordships had not had the same opportun"
that he had of observing the demeanour of the witness'
but they thought regret on this point might 0111/
be indulged in in reference to one or trvo
witnesses. In the first place they .would observe that 1
was easy for a woman, an inmate of a household, to inak,e
.
a charge of this kind against her master, while on th
other hand it was extremely difficult for the master ..
I rebut the charge. It was therefore necessary in cases °I
this kind to look at all the surrounding circumstaneesd
and see what was and what was not beVe
dispute. As regarded the two principal persons,
here was a clergymen in priest's orders, who had bel
living up to 1868 with an irreproachable character, and 1
was their duty to see how far the balance of truth 'll
against him in this fearful charge, for it was In°s,
shocking thing to morality and religion if
maid
servant. 'were guilty of adultery with his into
servant. His Lordship then went fully
the evidence, commenting especially on that of thc
woman Parry, and observing that the reticence she
exhibited made her story extremely improbable. She had
her mother, her sister, Mrs. Jackson, and other women. to
whom she could have complained of the manner in wine"
she had been treated, but instead of this she Per
slated up to an unreasonable time in her statement
that Jay was the father of her child. The evidence of
Jay was also most unsatisfactory, and there,
remained really nothing but her own unsupporte°
testimony against that of Mr. Jackson. Mei
Lord Chancellor after commenting on other portions °
the evidence, said their judgment must be for the appel-
lant. With regard to the costs, they did not think 1".
right that an innocent man should have the burden thrown
upon him. In the first instance Mr. Martin was instil'
mental in prosecuting Mr. Jackson before the magistrates,
which perhaps he would not have done had further inquiries
been made into the case. Then, again, Mr. Martin
acknowledged that a quarrel existed between himself and
Mr. Jacks-m, so that he could not say the scandal in
question was the cause of his being driven from the
church. Under all the circumstances their lordships CO""
sidered that the costs of this appeal should fall upon the
respondent.