The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-14 00:00:00

eter-hall., that if a person brought an fiction ter libel,
beim?: charged with theft or other felony, and a jus-
tifrcation was pleaded on which a verdict went for
the d.efendant, the plaintiff must be held to be con-
victed of the crime, and liable to the punishment
a:warded to it. He mentioned this circumstance, in
• 'order to show the jury that they were bound to re-
quire the most satisfactory evidence before they de-
cided in favour of the justificatory pleas. If any
doubt remained on the minds of the jury with re-
spect to the charge of theft being made out against
the plaintiff, she was entitled to have those doubts
interpreted in 'her favour as much as if she were on
her trial in a criminal court. He could not but re-
gret that die late Lord Chancellor had not carried
into execution the intention he avowed, of corn-
plittins,; the parties who had published the affidavits.
Had that been done, the jury and himself would have
been spared the present painful investigation. One be-
nefit, at least, would result from the trial of this cause.
It would clearly show, that persons of high rank and
fortune could not violate the laws without affecting
the characters of all those who were dependent upon
them—without, in fact, creating an atmosphere of
contamination around them. This was undertaking
a dreadful responsibility. It would be seen how
difficult it was for great persons, who placed them-
selves in the situation in which the individuals whosa
conduct had given rise to the present cause had
done, to get about them any people but those who
were likely to plunder them. This seemed to be a
punishment inflicted on them by Providence for the
breach of the moral laws of society. No person,
who had a character would think of- placing it in
their keeping, because he knew it could never be
restored to him unsullied. In such a house, all
kinds of irregularities were to be expected. If thefts
were committed, it was difficult to find out which
was the band that, committed them. These circum-
stances were e.-lentioned by him, because he thought
they ought to be taken into consideration in deter-
mining die question of damages. Mrs. Scott had
lived tong with Mrs. Bligh, and he could never re-
commend a jury to give large damages to a person
who had lived in that house with a full knowledge
of the conduct of its mistress. The learned judge
then pr .ceeded to read 'the evidence to the jury.—
In commenting on the note sent by Mrs. Scott to
Mrs. Bligh, along with the silk gowns which that
lady hid missed, containing the words, " I have
sent back the gowns, &c.," he observed that it had
been argued from them that Mrs. Scott had inten-
ded to steal those articles. Now Mrs. Bligh had
sworn that she had not taken any measures for
three weeks to obtain the return of those dresses,
and that at the end of that time they had been vo-
luntarily, and without any co-inpulsion, restored to
her by Mrs. Seott. Now, if Mrs. Scott had been a
thief, would she have taken the trouble of restoring
them of 'der own accord He contended, that in
the wlaole of the evidence offered to support the
libel, there was a want of proof of the animus
fur andi, which was necessary to constitute legally
the crime of theft. Adverting to the reasons given'
by Sarah Little for declining to remain any longer in
Mrs. B's. family, which were founded on her scruples
to:see such immoral conduct as was daily exhibited by
the female plaintiff and the man cook, Bergeret, lie
felf himself bound to say, that an individual who
consented to live in the house of Mrs. Bligh and
Mr. Long Wellesley, was not an individual who
Could have any particular nice feelings on,such a
subject. Her delicacy might perhaps arise, sup-
posing her testimoy to be correct, from the proceed-
ings of Mrs. Scott and Bergeret, being more openly
profligate than any of those practised by the lowest
prostitutes who walked the streets of Covent-gar-
den. He did not believe that any prostitute could
be found who would be tempted by any 'lire or re-
ward to submit to the unblushing depravity to which
Sarah Little had deposed, and perhaps that consi.
deration would 'not escape their notice, when they
were estimat;:ag the value which they ought to set
upon her 'testimony. He left it to the Jury to de-
cide, wlaether the statement which she had made in
her 'affidavit, declaring her knowledge of the exizt-i
ence of nothing more than improper conduct on the
part of Mrs. Scott and Bergeret could be reconciled
with the statement to which she had sworn yester-
day, that she had seen them on four different occa-
sions committing an act of adultery most shamelessly
together. He was sure that if that fact had been
mentioned to the intelligent gentleman who was at-
torney for Mr. Wellesley in the case in Chancery,
he would have distinctly introduced it into her affi-
davit. Supposing, however, that the facts to which
Sarah Little swore were true, a farthing's damages
would be sufficient for a woman so lost as Mrs.
Scott must' then be to all sense, he would not say
of virtuous but of female feeling. In the course of
his remarks on the evidence of Dubois, the French
valet, who had boasted, as was said,
sof receiving fa-
-yours and kisses from Mrs. Bligh, he thought it
only due to that lady to observe, that if the vanity
df the Frenchman had led him to make such a vaunt,
he did not believe it to have any foundation whatever
in truth. He would never believ, that any English-
woman,whohadbeenliving with anEnglishgentleman
would, in his absence, entertain a criminal intrigue
with an animal like that. (A laugh.) 'No one who had
seen Mrs. Bligh in Court yesterday, could have a
doubt of her bring a woman of birth, fashion, and
education. Though she had fallen in one point, it
did not, therefore, follow that she had fallen in all.
He should not, therefore, discredit her evidence, if it
were uncontradicted by that of other persons; but
if it were contradicted by that of other persons, he
should prefer the evidence of a person in a low sta-
tion in life who had not fallen, to that of a person of
the highest rank and station who had fallen in that
point which was the point of honour to all women
—he meant personal chastity% He called the atten-
tion of the Jury to the manner in which Mrs. Bligh
contradicted the evidence of Sarah Little. Sarah
Little swore, that .she had told Mrs. Bligh that she
had seen Mrs. Scott and Bergeret in a situation
which left no doubt as to their guilt. Mn'. Bligh
swore that Sarah Little never told her any such
thing. Again, Mrs. Bligh swore that she had never
been out of her own house at two o'clock in the
morning. Here he must pause, for the sake of this
unfortunate woman—unfortunate in having lost, by
_ her own admission, the protection of her husband.—
Lost, did he say ? no ; she had thrown it away
from her. She had sworn that she had never been:
out of her house at two o'clock in the morning, and'
also that she had never, upon such occasions, worn
any of Mrs. Scott's clothes. On those points the
Jury would find that she was contradicted by three,
if not five, distinct witnesses. She had likewise
sworn that she had never returned home with Mr.
Wellesley in a hackney-coach. Mr. Wellesley had
sworn that she had so returned home. Which of
the parties would the Jury believe? They would
likewise recollect that she directly admitted that she
had come into Court to justify her character, be-
cause Mrs. Scott had been held up, as she said,
very undeservedly, as a highly proper person.
—He felt himself bound to notice that observa-
tion of Mrs. Bligh, because it threw a colour over
her evidence, and showed that she had a motive for
putting down the character of the female plaintiff.
The Learned Judge, in the course of hisobserVa-
tions on the evidence offered by the plaintiff to rebut
that given by the defendant's witnesses, particularly
called the attention of the jury to the contradiction
which Catherine Nicholas had given to Mrs. Bligh's
deposition, of having packed up her own things pre-
viously to her departure from York-street to St.
John's-wood, and of having never worn Mrs. Scott's,
clothes ; and also to the assertions of Evans and'
Little regarding the notoriety of the illicit inter-
course between Mrs. Scott and Bergeret. He, ad-
mitted that in the evidence. of Deborah Gamble
there was great and inexplicable confusion. He
thought, however, that he should not be treating any
party with injustice if he struck her evidence
entirely out of his and their consideration: She
had given such contradictory statements respect-
ing the paper which she held in her hand, by
first saying
.that it was written by her son, and
then admitting that it was written by the plaintiff's
attorney, that he thought it better to omit all consi-
deration of ber cvidence; than to point out all the