Star.
London, England, 1831-04-14 00:00:00

THE LATE AND PRESENT EARL OF MULORAVE.

The late Lord Mulgrave, whose dissolution at his lord-
ship's seat, Mu!grave castle, we announced on Monday, was
one of the oldest general officers in his Majesty's service,
having been promoted to the rank of full general in Oct.
1809. He was appointed to the colonelcy of the 31st, or,
Huntingdonshire regiment of foot, February 8, 1793, con-
sequently
his lordship had held the chief command of that
corps nearly forty years. He succeeded the present Earl
Chatham as master-general of the Ordnance, in 1810, and he
continued to fill that lucrative post until 1818, when his
lordship was remplac6 by the " Hero of Waterloo." In
1807, the earl was appointed lord lieutenant of the East
Riding of Yorkshire, and vice-admiral of the coasts of that
county. He was also a Grand Cross of the Bath, and Go-
vernor of Scarborough Castle. The patronage of all these
honours of course reverts to the crown by his lordship's
decease. The founder of this noble family was Sir William
Phipps, who invented the diving-bell, and recovered from the
wreck of a Spanish galleon an immense treasure which had
lain buried in the water 44 years, near the banks of Bahami,
on the north side of Hispaniola. Sir William received the
honour of knighthood from King James the Second, and was
appointed Governor of Massachussetts, where he died Feb.
18 1694.
-

The late Earl succeeded his brother, Constantine John,
second Baron Mulgrave, 10th of October, 1792, at which
period his Lordship was General Phipps. In August, 1794,
he was created Baron Mulgrave, of Mulgrave, in the county
of York ; and September, 1812, he was advanced to the dig-
nity of Viscount Normanby and Earl of Mulgrave. The Earl
married, 20th October, 1795, Miss Sophia Mailing, daughter
of Christopher Thomas Melling, of West Hennington, in the
county of Durham ; and by her Ladyship, who survives her
Noble husband, his Lordship has left a family of four sons
and thi ee daughters : namely, I. Constantine Henry, Viscount
Normanby (now Earl of Mulgrave), born 15th May, 1797:
married, 12th August, 1818, the Hon. Maria Liddell, eldest
daughter of Lord Ravensworth, by whom his lordship has
an only son and heir, born July, 1819 ; 2. Hon. Captain
Charles Beaumont Phipps, adjutant of the Ist battalion 3d
Foot Guards, born December, 1801; 3. Lady Frederica Ka-
therine Phipps, born 7th February, 1803 • 4. Lady Sophia
Phipps, born 20th May, 1804; 5. Lady Lepel Charlotte,born
28th July, 1805; 6. Hon. Edmund Phipps, born 7th Decem-
ber, 1808 ; 7. Hon. Augustus Frederick Phipps, born 18th
October, 1809. The present earl is a young nobleman of
high liberalism, and during the period he sat in the House
of Commons, represented Earl Fitzwilliam's boroughs of
Higham Ferraro and Mahon. His lordship, however, is not
a member of the present parliament, having, at the last

election, when his lordship and family were residing at Flo
rence, communicated to Lord Milton his intention of with-
drawing from parliament ; upon which Earl Fitawilliam
offered his interest in the town of Melton to Sir James Scar-
lett. The earl possesses considerable intellectual attain-
ments, and is favourably known as the author of " Matilda,
a Tale of the Day;" and " Yes and No"—publications
which, we believe, come under the denomination of fashion-
able novels. His lordship is understood to be an ardent sup-
porter of the bill ; indeed, his political principles did not, in
the slightest degree, assimilate to those of the late earl,
and of his uncle, General Phipps, member of parliament for
Scarborough.

THE WEYMOUTH AFFAIR.
TO THE EDITOR.
SlR—Having read Sir Edward Sugden's letter in the
Times of yesterday, I feel it necessary to trespass once
more upon your columns, but I will do so with as much
brevity u possible. I adhere to all the statements in my
letter of the Bth instant, and if Sir Edward Sugden will
take the trouble to peruse that letter, and my summons, be
will find that I have not shifted my ground. Sir Edward
has the advantage of me in being in possession of his pa-
pers, whilst I have been deprived of part of mine, and he
has likewise taken the precaution, before commencing his
statement, to compare notes with his allies. I will, how-
ever, answer his letter from recollection of the circumstances,

and, I trust, satisfactorily.
1. The Hat of fees given in my last proves that Sir Edward Sugden
was Mr. Gordon's counsel generally, and, in particular, that he was
counsel in a suit instituted by Mr. Gordon against Major Weyland
and Lady Johnstone, the object of which was to deprive them of their
lawful allowance out of the Johnstone estate. He was not only fully
aware of the circumstances of the ease, but concurred privately with
Mr. Gordon in the suit being instituted, for the purpose of putting it
out of Major Weyland's power to offer any further opposition in the
borough. It is true that the proceedings have not been carried on with
great vigour, as the plaintiff has latterly become ashamed of the
transaction. A short time after this special retainer was given, of
the true import of which Sir Edward Sugden professes ignorance,
the following entry occurs in the account of Colonel Gordon's
sollicitor :—" May 30, 1829.—Johnstone Trustees—Mr. Sugden
having written that a power of attorney had, he thought, best
be made out from the trustees to enable Mr. Fraser to make
votes, and I being of opinion that the power of doing so could
not be delegated, perusing and considering the will of Sir J.
L. Johnstone with relation thereto, and was confirmed in my opinion."
" Attending Colonel Gordon in Jermyn-street, Westminster, and had,
at his desire to see Mr. Sugden, to settle the point immediately—at-
tending Mr. Sugden at chambers, and afterwards at Westminster
thereon conferring, and he was to consider further." Here is direct
evidence of Sir Edward Sugden's general counsel, advising that the
Johnstone trustees should convey to me the whole of the political
power of the family at Weymcuth—for what purpose but to return him
free of expense at his election, on being appointed Solicitor-General,
and to put down a formidable opposition got up against him by the
Johnstone family P Mr. Ure, however, would not lend himself to such
a proceeding, and the matter at that time dropped, Mr. Ure remaining
faithful to the infant, as he had done on a previous occasion when be
declined acceding to the following proposal, contained in a letter from
Sir Edward Sugden to me, dated Ist December, 1828:—" I think that
it will tend materially to Col. Gordon's benefit that Mr. Ure should be
attached to us, and that with that view the proposed arrangement with
him should be carried into effect, which may without difficulty be done
through me." Upon these roceedings reaching Lady Johnstone's ears,
she expressed herself as follows:—" How plainly Colonel Gordon's
conduct has proved that he has no wish but to gratify his own ambitious
views, and cares not for so doing at the expense of the young man for
whom he has expressed that his only motive is purely to rescue him
from the hands of bad trustees !" For thus freely expressing her feel-
ings towards her son, Mr. Gordon directed me to prepare and lay
before eminent English counsel a case for their advice, as to what steps
should be taken against the real authors of such calumny." The state-
ment of Sir E. Sugden, as to his refusing a retainer and briefs, refers to
a retainer and briefs offered previous to the agreement with Mr. Gordon
of the 6th December, 1828. Since that time he has accepted all the
fees that have been ffered to him, and the statement so far as affects

me is untrue.
2. I repeat that the expenses of the purchase of the propetty at Wey.
mouth and all the expenses of Sir Edward Sugden's elections are not
paid, and if Mr. Gordon should prove successful in his defence that he
is not liable for them, I will very soon settle the point with Sir Ed.
ward Sugden, og in possession of the opinion of one of the most
eminent English barristers that Sir Edward Sugden is liable. The
8,5001. of expenses stand in the same situation as the refused retainer.
They were incurred previous to the agreement of December, 1828.--
This is admitted by his speech at the subsequent election, an extract
of which is enclosed. Re says he paid O,OOOL-2,0001. was settled in
the way mentioned in my last letter, and the remaining 5001. was made
up by subscription. Any expense incurred after December, 1828,
could only be his travelling expenses to and from Weymouth ; for al.
though a formidable opposition was threatened for a considerable time
previous, none took place. It was not, therefore, in Mr. Gordon's
power to pay any expenses for him, although Sir Edward Sugden, by
his agreement, held him bound to do so. As to my employment, 1
not only suended daily upon Sir Edward Sugden for months together,
but actually held commissions and powefs of attorney under his hand
and seal in June, 1829, to create votes for him and his friend Mr. Se-
nior of the University of Oxford, to whom were conveyed part of the

freeholds.
S. Sir Edward Sugdea stands confessed as to the important pans of
my letter, of having paid 10001. on his return hr 1829, and 10001. on
his return in 1830, and that he entered into an agreement to be returned
free of expense so long as he requires a seat, and that Mr. Gordon was
to be allowed to dispose of two of the three remaining seats. Now the
only question that can be agitated is, whether Mr. Gordon was to dis.
pose of the seats gratuitously, or for money. Sir Edward settles this
question by asking if he was to get payment of certain expences " out
of the produce of the next elections,' and by the construction which he
put upon the words " to be returned free of expense," which he says
means, that "he was not to pay for his seat." It is clear that the un-
derstanding was, that some of the honourable members for Weymouth
were to pay or why make a special agreement that Sir Edward Sugden
should be the favoured Individual who was not to pay ? Let Sir Ed-
ward Sugden produce the contracts signed by myself and him at Ti!.
gate, and the whole will appear as I have stated.
With reference to the memorandum or letter in Mr. Gordon's pos-
session, and which Sir Edward Sugden deities having seen, I have to
state that Mr. Gordon and myself arrived in London in April, 1828,
when the negotiation for the purchase of Messrs. Henning's property
for 12,0001. was resumed. NVith that view I drew up a letter, which
Alf. Gordon copied, and which was delivered to Sir Edward Sugden,
who returned it on the grcund of informality, being made out in the
Scotch form. lie was then requested to furnish a draught of the ne-
cessary letter, which he did, and that was the letter of the 20th of May.
Mr. Gordon made various alterations in this draught, which he after-
wards copied, and it was delivered to Sir Edward Sugden. Immedi-
ate!), after the delivery of this letter, Mr. Gordon obtained certain infor.
nation which induced him to come to the determination to purchase the
whole opposition interest at 21,0001. and instead of excluding klr.Ure,who
is a co-trustee in the Johnstone trust, and without whose concurrence the
political influence of the Johnstone family could not be made available,
it was considered better to exclude Major Weyland. 31r. Gordon then
thew up the memorandum or letter in dispute, which was delivered to
Sir Edward Sugden, and he was thereafter requested to furnish the
draught of another letter, which he did, and after various alterations
and delayer, that was copied by Mr. Gordon and delivered to Sir B.
Sugden, a copy of which last letter I enclose, and that was the letter
acted upon. The copies of all these letters in Mr. Gordon's possession
are in my handwriting, as I acted both as his secretary and agent--
31r. Gordon does not state in his defence, that he copied the original
letter of the 20th of May, from any copy made by me; but he admits
that Major IVeyland was the person to be excluded, as he had avowed,
" that any interest which be might have at Weymouth should be used
in opposition to the Major." As to the property purchased being
" real bona fide property, actually let to tenants," if Sir Edward
Sugden had introduced the word " political" after " bona fide," he
would have been tolerably near the mark, for 1 can affirm with con.
fidence, that the old rubbishing buildings, which cost 25,0001 will
not, if the Reform Bill passes, be worth a twentieth part of that
sum.
With respect to Mr. Gordon's peerage, in his letter to Lord Wallace
he says—" If ever I have the honour of becoming a member either of the
House of Lords or Commons, I shall undoubtedly vote against what is
called " Catholic emancipation,"—and Sir Edward Sugden well
knows, that in the year 1829 I attended two long meetings on the sub-
ject of the peerage with him, once at his own house, and once at his
chambers.
In conclusion, I have only to observe that this discussion was not of
my seeking, as will appear from my letters to Mr. Gordon of April and
July last year, which are fully set forth in my summons and Mr. Got.
don's defence.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
London, April 12. JAM ES J. FRASER.
COPT at • LUTES PROD sea. aoanow, so sera s. 1100 DEN AND 111.
111•111811.
_ _

Gentlemen—l am desirous to buy the political properties of Messrs.
John and Edmund Henning and Mr. Joseph Hereford, in Weymouth,
for a sum not exceeding 21,0001. in the name of myself and Mr. Sug.
den as tenants in common. Now I authorise Mr. Sugden to enter
into a contract accordingly, and I will find the whole of the purchase
money, and pay all the expects of every sort, and indemnify Mr.
Sugden therefore, who is to stand seised of the moiety to be conveyed

.IMMIin..R,

to him as a trustee only for me. Mr. Fraser, umy agent, will aver
into the contract on my behalf for one moiety, and Mr. Sugden is to
be considered as my agent and trustee for the other moiety. And 1
hereby also authorise Mr. Fraser, as my agent, to sign such contract for
me as the purchaser of one moiety of the estate, and 1 will furnish the
purchase money for the entirety.
I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
London, July 30, 1828. JOHN GORDON