The Sun.
London, England, 1826-02-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FED. 24.
WELLESLEY V. DUNE OF BEAUFORT.
This was an application by the Honourable William Long
Wellesley, to have the custody of his children, who, since the
death of the late Mrs. Long Wellesley, have been under the
care of her sisters, the Miss Longs, delivered up to him.

The application was opposed by Mr. SUADWELL, Mr.
TitEsr.ovE, and Mr. PEPYS, who read a long series of afficla=
vits as to the private life and conversation of llfr. Wellesley, to
shew how unfit it was to the moral and pecuniary interest
of the infants, that he should be permitted to exercise any in-
fluence over them. The scenes detailed in these affidavits
were often to' gross to allow of any abstract of them
being given. The principal evidenee was that of Doc-
tor Bulkeley, the domestic physician, who proved the
commencement of an adulterous intercourse betkreen Mr.
Wellesley and a Mrs. Bligh, the wife of Captain Illigh,
while Mr. and Mrs. Wellealey were at Naples—an inter-
course carried on in the same house with his wife, to
whom Mrs. Bligh was brought home 33 a companion; the in-
decent and profane language commonly used by Mr. Wa to his
wife, in one instance calling her a d u fool for her in-
terference;--.the fact of Mrs. Bhigh's becoming pregnant by
Mr. Wellesley, and her application to him (Dr. Bulkeley) to
procure abortion, and her referring him to Mr. Wellesley to
remove his scruples when he refused to supply her with
poison for that purpose, the domestic affliction of Mrs. Wel-
leaky, in consequence of her husband's infidelity and mal-
treatment; the habit in which Mr. W. indulged of teaching
his own children to swear, especially his little daughter—the
only part of her education, as the Counsel remarked, that he
ever took the trouble to superintend. Dr. Balkeley's evidence
went on to state, that when returned to Paris, Mrs. Wellesley,
unable longer to endure her misery had written to Lord Mary-
borough, her father-in-law, who came with his lady to Paris, to
effect a dissolution of the scandalous connexion between their
son and Mrs. Bligh :—that Mr. Wellesley's abuse of his wife,
when he discovered what she hail done, was so furious and out-
rageous, as to be audible all over the Place Vendome. She hod
soon afterwards fled to England, and taken refuge with her sis-
ters in Clarges-street, determining to take measures to elket
divorce. A beautiful and affecting letter, written by
Mrs. Wel
leaky at this time to Lord Maryborough, in which she elo-
quently set forth her past wrongs, and declared her future in'
tentions, was read. In this letter she asserted, that "she li3,d
been more than once the victim of infamous women." The evt'
dence went further to prove that the subsequent conduct of Mr.
Wellesley to his wife was such, as, in her then state of health'
an inference might be drawn that Mr. Wellesley: was the nte.ra
murderer of his wife. Acts of specific adultery with Mr.
lt ,ti
were deposed to within a few days of the present time. Many
were
very edifying letters, written by Mrs. Wellesley,
read, especially one to Mr. Bligh, and some to his sons well
embellished with,oaths, in which, after recommending hint to
take pains with his handwriting, he gives him some advice
for the formation of an English Gentleman. Above all, he •
urges him, as a main ingredient in that character, not to
check his spirit for hunting (in which it seems some obstacle
had been thrown in his way) and instances Sir Francis Bur;
dett, who was a mighty hunter, and, barring his Peliticsisell
perfect gentleman. In short, he advises him "top iny
every animal upon the estate, from the elephant ' and Tommy—to catch all the cats he can la hold of—to ltuni
to the fleas in the blanket." The Counsel, after reading
_.volu-
minous statements,. of which the foregoing are a few, eon-
tended tended that the whole evidence exhibited such a series of prv..
fligacy, that connected with his pecuniary embarrassment te
dente of which was also given), the Court would not he
war
ranted in giving up to his power thee infants, and cite large sow
which were settled upon them for their education. the
Mr. fimrr, in reply, reprobated the expressions used in e
evidence on the other side in which all the powers of
Fnglish language had been
ut in requisition for terms tO
villify Mr. Wellesley's character, He had been accused of
the
the grosseet.profligacy of life—of deliberately corrupting
morals of his children—of maltreating his wife, in a mannrr
in the forest
world as resting upon the testimony of
so horrible, as to accelerate her death—in short, of being "
hte
moral murderer." And this charge would go abroad to t
tens were unimpeached. He was prepared, however, to eg`',l.
bit the persons making these affidavits in their true light. lie
would pass over the subordinate witnesso,, sonic of wile.°
were discarded servants, and begin with Dr. littlkeitY,
whom he should shew .to be a base betrayer of Pr.11,3t,c
confidence, and a pander to the vices of others. no Cr.!:
mented in severe terms upon the Doctor's evidence, 11
it seemed that notwitwithstanding the brutal scenes wltie°
described as daily passing before him, he never left the house
of Air. Wellesley, nor gave the least intimation of his conu,u,;(l
till now. He ad described the horrid insult which 111",,
been offered to his character by an application to assist in
eK•
persons whose clairst.e.
murder of an unborn child
et n indignation had been
pressed on his part ; hehadmerely,according to his own word''
refused, with the observation that it was his duty to be the pre'
server of life and not the destroyer.
Before Mr. HART could finish his reply, the Lord Chancellor
left the Court.—The argument will proceed on a future der.

PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. 24.
WULLESLEY 5. LORD MARYBOBOUtiII• Pole
Sit C. ROBINSON, on the part of Mr. Wellefdol 14',71,g
cu
ted by the deceased Mrs.Vlrellesley Long
Wellesley, moved that probatelshould be granted on a wie",
be-
-1815. this ituotrument Mrs. W. Long Pole Welielley y!:
queathed to her husband 504 W/. • but by a subselpient wthe
executed in Sept., 1025, she revoked her femur will, leftvinglir.
above-mentioned sum in trust:to Lord Al aryborough and .wos‘
Windsor, for her children. The will of September/ 1826'
per-
not formally executed, having been Witnessed only by two
sons ; it was therefore invalid, and the trustee were now citet,
s
to show cause why probate should not be granted on the
of 1015.
xi cites
lies. JENNEB and LUSHINOTORappeared for Mr.ill ley. The CounT orderedprobate
an
to be grant
Pole Virellesley Juiy,
1815.