The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-09 00:00:00

CASE OF MR. SHEDDON.

Earl GREY presented a petition from Mr. W. P. R.
Sheddon, complaining, amongst other things, that, by a
decision of the Court of Session in Scotland in IEO3, and
of this house in 1808, obtained in his infancy, he Lad
been deprived of his estates as a natural born subject of
this realm, and as the legitimate child of his parents, and
of the means of investigating in any courts of law
the question of such statutes, and causing the same to be
recognised. The petitioner prayed for such relief and
redress as to this house might seem fit. The noble lord
called the attention of their lordships to the state-
ments contained in the petition, which he stigma-
tised as one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated.
The chief actor in the transaction was a gentle-
man named Patrick, who had arrived at a
great age, and filled a high position in society and in the
honourable profession to which be belonged. He had
carefully perused the whole facts of the case, and he
had alio read the statement of Mr. Patrick, and
having done so, he felt it his duty to bring the
subject under their lordships' consideration. The
noble lord then proceeded to give an outline of the
case; in which he entered at some length into the birth
and parentage of the petitioner, whose father, it appeared,
had the management of a mercantile business in Ame-
rica ; but on the breaking out of the American war his
estates were confiscated, in consequence of his having
espoused the royal cause. In 1778 he went to Bermuda,
and on the conclusion of peace he re-visited New York
with a view to their recovery, but was unsuccessful up to
the time of his death, which took place in 1798. Before he
died he executed a deed respecting some property,of which
he was in possession of in Scotland, which he left to his
son. This deed could not be found. Amongst other
things, the will contained an injenction that his son
should be sent to Scotland and there placed under
the care of Mr. Patrick a nephew of Mr. Sheddon,
sen. Mr. Sheddon was married in America, and the
issue of this marriage was two children—the petitioner
and a daughter. To avoid the marriage, which was per-
formed by civil declaration, being questioned, anoth, r
marriage took place in Scotland. His lordship then
entered into further details, bearing strongly on members
of the Patrick family, who, he alleged, had denied the
legitimacy of the petitioner, and withheld his property,
both Scotch and American, to which he was lawfully
entitled, and concluded by moving that it be referred to
a select cammitiee,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the question was
one cut merely personal, but invo'ving a principle. He
acknowledged tho correctness of Lord Grey's statement
in the main, but defended the Messrs. Patrick from any
suspicion of fraud, and argued upo❑ the invalidity of the
first marriage, and that the case bad been already de-
cided, and ought not to be re-opened.

Lord BROUGHAM said there were two questions—
first, bad their lordships been led into a wrong decision
by ignorance of the first marriage ; second, could they
on that fact being proved, supply a remedy by re-open-
ing the case. A similar point had been raised in Laurie's
case, where a divorce bad been obtained in Scotland and
a fresh marriage had been contracted there. In the
course of the discussion it appeared that several of their
lordships had done the same thing themselves—Lord
Erskine, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Archbishop of ,
Canterbury of that day.
Lord CA MPBELL suggested that Lord Erskine was
married by an episcopal clergyman.
Lord BROUGHAM apologised ; he had not written
Lord Erskine's life. (A laugh.) He thought, under the
circumstances, that an inquiry should take place.
Lord ST. LEONARDS had decided the original case
against the petitioner on three grounds—lsr, that the
petitioner, as an alien, had no locus ; 2d, that there
was no fraud proved against Mr. Patrick; 3d, that there
was no marriage in 1790 proved.
Lord LYNDHURST said the fact of the first mar-
riage, now first heard of, placed the case in a new light,
and opened up another question for fresh decision. Be-
sides, at the first trial, the petitioner was a boy of six,
and the present defendant was his guardian. He had
first tried to set aside the original decree for fraud, but
the Court held that no fraud was alleged. Now he came
forward with the fact of the previous marriage of his
mother and father in a valid manner, as but now first
known to him, but before known to Mr. Wm. Patrick.
He considered the first marriage as proved. His lord-
ship supported the motion for an inquiry.
Lord CAMPBELL protested against the course sug-
gested by Lord Lyndhurst. The case was one in which
if injustice had been done it could not be remedied.
They had, after 17 days' discussion, decided that there
had been no fraud, and Robert Patrick had been in
possession of the estate since 1608. It could not be
altered.
Lord EGLINTON spoke in high terms of Mr. R.
Patrick and of Dr. Patrick, the inspeccor-general of hos-
pitals. The later marriage of Mr. Shecidon would not
legitimise his children. He thought Mr. Patrick badly
treated, and that Mr. Sheddon's case was no better than
before.

The Earl of ALBEMA.R.LE thought Mr. Sheddon's
family had been shamefully ill-used. Mr. Patrick's cha-
racter in that house seemed to stand high. In New York
they called him "the biggest scoundrel that ever came
from Scotland."
The LORD CHANCELLOR, rose to order. Such
lacguage was not even legally justifiab'e.

The Rix.' of ALBENIA:Rfsg stood corrected. Their
lordships ought to grant the committee.
Lord LYTTELTON supported the motion.
Lord REDESDALE opposed the motion for a select
committee.

Earl GREY, in summing up the discussion, made
some severe remarks on the interference of the Lord
Chancellor. Mr. Patrick was represented as highly re•
spectable, but base acts were unfortunately of late not
incompatible with appearances of respectability. They
required evidence, not testimony. Mr. Patrick had
plainly concealed the evidence of the fiat marriage. He
foresaw the difficulty in re-opening a case judicially de-
cided, but even if Mr. Sheddon were to lose his property
he must not be divested of the lights of a British subject.
He would recommend a committee to examine the
petition.

After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
Their lordsh;ps divided. The numbers were—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The motion was therefore negatived.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTREDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

NEW MEMBERS.
The Earl of FIFE took the oaths and his seat for
Banffshire.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The followirpz bills were read a third time and passed :
—Cork Gas, Great Yarmouth Britannia Pier, Mayor's
Court of the City of London, North Eastern Railway
(Capital), and Traiee and Killarney Railway Bills.
The tolloviing bills were further considered and
ordered to be read a third time :—Bri,lgewater Mar-
kets and Fairs ; Burslem and Tunstall Gas ; Tyne Im-
provement ; Wycombe Railway ; and Banff, Portsoy,
and Straithisle Railway.