The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-21 00:00:00

ever since ihe 'French RevoliitiOn, which Burke
told him grew out of the-disregard of salutary
prejudices which metaphysical subtlety engenders,
he has almost been ashamed to make use of his
head. This peculiarity is admirably hit off in an
article on " George the Third, and the Catholic
Question" (the style of which sufficiently betrays
the witty author), in the forthcoming Edinburgh
Review. For the greater were the occasion to
exercise deliberate wisdom, and to argue any
point, the more prone was he to consider the
subject • as above or beyond the reach of discus-
sion ; to regard it as a matter of feeling, or con-
science, or fixed principle, and therefore to view
it as a ground from which all argument was ex-
cluded, and which was sacred to the dominion
of preconceived prejudices alone. This is a very
ordinary cast of understanding ; and they who,
from obstinacy of disposition, limited compre-
hension, or defective tuition, are the victims of
it, never fail to regard as an enemy, or a design-
ing traitor, every one who would open their eyes
to the light of the truth. Let me live and die
contented and ignorant,' says one. • None of
your refinements !' echoes another. These are
points on which I will suffer no subtleties to
raise doubts,' says this country gentleman.
Away with your special-pleading niceties,' cries
his sapient neighbour. The subject is too sa-
cred for human reason,' adds a Reverend Jus-
tice. Our.conscience, thank God, is beyond
the reach of .sophistry—of what the liberal call
reasoning,' shout the whole chorus. So, when
the late Lord Melville ventured to show his late
Majesty that there was a gross absurdity in sup-
posing the Coronation Oath could bind any one
for ever against doing his duty to the country,
with the sanction of -Parliament, or could apply
at all to a new state of the Law and the Com-
monwealth, he is said to have been met by these
memorable words, None of your Scotch meta-
physics !' The daily Press in a country like
this, where the only restraint on public writers is
that dictated by a regard for the tastes and incli-
nations of their respective readers, furnishes in
the case of Mr. Wellesley a pretty good criterion
of the mental state of "John Bull. The articles
which have been written on this case, with two
or three exceptions, have not been addressed
to the head, but to the passions or prejudices
of readers, from a consideration, no doubt, on
the part of several of the writers at least, that
the language of reason would, not be accept.
able. • The public are only interested in the case
of Mr. Wellesley, in so far as regards the prin-
ciple of the decision. That point, however,
has been almost altogether lost sight of; and
it would seem as if the only object for bringing
the case before the public was to allow them
to exhale their virtuous indignation against
Mr. Wellesley for his conduct in his late conju-
gal capacity, and in his present state of freedom.
The principle, fraught as it is with such momen-
tous consequences—that of depriving a parent of
the care of own children, on account of a cer-
tain undefined amount of vice—is passed over,
as if the whole matter were the furnishing
certain venerable spinsters with materials for
scandal over their tea potations. The law of
this country does not punish a man for his vices,
except in so far as others are affected by them.
There are some countries—as some of the States
of New England, we believe—where immorality
and extravagance are made the grounds for de-
priving a man of the management .of his pro-
perty ; but in this country every individual,
against whom insanity cannot be proved, is al.
lowed to indulge in all the vice and extravagance
that the most depraved can conceive, and to
spend the last shilling of his property. Let us
see how matters stand with Mr. Wellesley and
his children. From the two letters just published
by .Mr. Wellesley, we see that the fortunes of
both his two younger children, independent of him,
are only 6,0001. He states further—" With
the fortune which_ I must inherit from my father,
added to that which I possess at present, I shall
be able to bequeath to my younger children a
i sum of between 200 and 300,000/. ; presuming
as I do, that my, father has not over-valued his
property both to me and to the late Lady Ca-
therine Long." What is the object aimed
at in withdrawing the children from Mr.
Wellesley's care ? Is it to visit the sins of
Mr. Wellesley on his innocent children ? Is:
it to punish Mr. Wellesley ? The withdrawing
from him the care of his children can only be a
punishment on the supposition that he has a real
regard for them. If he were indifferent with
respect to them, he could not be reached through
any proceedings in Chancery. He might leave
them to their 3,000/. a-piece, and devote the
wealth, of which lie will have the distribution, to
whatever gratifications he chose to indulge in.
But we shall be told the measure has not for
object either the punishment of the children or
of Mr. Wellesley, but the well-being of the
former. But where is the power to secure the
well-being of the children ? If the Chancellor
could take from Mr. Wellesley his property as
well as the care of his children, and secure the
former for the behoof of the children, then there
would be something like a consistent proceeding.
But the Court cannot take a shilling from Mr.
Wellesley ; and thus it is in the power of any
one who settles as much money on children
as will keep them out of a workhouse, to
place them in a position which may expose
their succession to hazard. We presume
it is hardly necessary •to observe, that the
affection whiCh, in this country at least, is looked
to by the law, as the best security for children
of their receiving their due share of the property
of their parents, is more the fruit of the endear-
ing intimacy subsisting between parents and off-
spring, than of the mere relationship. We see
how little regard most men entertain for their
natural children, which is chiefly because •they
seldom see them. In proportion as principle is
weak in men, do they indulge their caprices in
the care of their children ; and nothing is so
common with weak men, as the yielding, in the
distribution of their property, to their partialities
for some child, whose endearments have given
it an advantage over the rest. If in any case
we are to look for this caprice, it would be
in that of one whom we accuse of having
given way to vicious indulgences. Now, sup-
posing all that is said of Mr. Wellesley
to be true, here the Court of Chancery, out
of its mendacious pretext of regard for a man's
children, places them in a situation, of all
others the most dangerous to their hopes. We
appeal to any man acquainted with the world, if
it is possible to conceive a more dangerous situa-
tion for two children, so miserably provided for,
than one in which they are deprived of intimacy
with the parent, or where they are dependant for
all that can raise them above the condition of an
' inferior tradesman. Mr. Wellesley is a young
man, and may have many children ; and in such
a case, who would think of running the risk of
the injury which these two children may sustain
from his natural partiality for those brought un-
der his care ? Some other kind friend may, to
be •surebY leaving a thousand pounds or two