Star.
London, England, 1826-02-06 00:00:00

THE. LORD CHANCELLOR.

We art happy to say that his Lordship itif continues to improve
in health. He now only experiences a slight pain in the foot but
.s his Lordship has been so kink confined to his room, he is, of
:nurse, obliged to be cautious how he leives It is expected,
however, that his Lordship will bialsle to come &ion tomorrow
or Wednesday. His MAJRSTY has shewn the "Oast anxious soli-
:nude during the whole of his Lordship's indisposition, and an
sccoultt of the progress of his health is regularly transmitted to
W indsur with the public dispatches.

LAW HERM 1.

• HOME CIRCUIT.
Iltfore Mr. Baron A LILIANDCR and Mr. Baron GRAHAM.
I.lt-rtford.hire—Wednesday, March 1, at Hertford.
I:Nies—Monday, March 6, at Chelmsford.

S:rrry—Monci;i March 13, at Yingston•upon-Thanes.
Sus+rx—Monday, March 20, at Horsham.
'Kcnt—Aloriday, March 27, at Mahhtoue.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FIZILOARY 4.
WRIT OF RIGHT.—ANGEL V. ANGEL.

This was a proceeding in a writ of right, brought to
r cover some lands in Yorkshire. The Sheriff had been
commanded to summon " flu- lawful Knights of his
county, girt with swords," to cr•me into Court, and
make election of the Grand Assize, in pursuance of
which, four Gentlemen (who were in reality Esquires),
girt with sword., entered the Jury box.
' Mr. Seijeant VAUGHAN said, it was his duty to take
what might appear a chivalrous course, for notwith-
standing the Gentlemen summoned were armed with
swords, he should challege all of them—(. loud laugh).
The Learned Gentleman then read his plea, which
stated that the defendant challenged the said Edward
Place (the first of the four Gentlemen), because he was
nit a lawful Kn;ght ; and proceeded to argue that the
Gentlemen returned were not eligible, nor possessing
tLc title cf Knight : and cited a case in the reign of
:.1v and 111. where the Court refused to allow the re-
tirn because they were not Knights.
The LORD CHIEF Jusvcn said, there the Sheriff had
tt.e persons returned Gentlemen, here he has
called them Knights. The word, Sir, was merely a
term of respect, and not confined in ancient usage to
Nn;ghts, but employed in addressing all persons of
high rank, except Bishops." Sir Duke' was then a corn.
mon expression : " My Lord" is comparatively recent.

Mr. S;rjeant Ilosamluirr argued that in this case the Sheriff's
return was conclusive, and could not be traversed.

The LORD CHlst JUSTICE said it had been decided
that Esquires were Knights in law for the present pur•
pose. Almost all the County Members in the present
Pull +meta, though called Knights in the writ, wtre, in
tact, Esquires. In the present•day, no one would pre-
•uine to say that the untitled Gen ry of England were
less respectable than those who had received the order of
knighthood. The rest of the Court concurred with his
I,u,dship.
_ _ _

The Knights were then sworn, and retired for half an hour, when
the). returned with a list of the Jury they had elected.
Mr. Serjeant VA UGHAN afterwards moved, ex-parte,
that this c..se should be tried at the bar of this Court.—
He stated that this action was brought in respect
of three•lourth parts of certain light-houses, si-
tuated at .the mouth of the Humber, the tolls of which
ainour.ted to 6,0001. per annum. The stake was, there•
tote, large, and the question would involve the con-
struction of two Acts of Parliament, and might deter-
mine matters relating to the interest of the Crown, or
the grantee of the Crow n, besides which, the terms of a
will, drawn in a very ambiguous manner, must come
under discussion. On these grouads, he submitted the
Court would be induced to grant a tri 11 at bar.

The COURT said, as he had not given notice of this motion, he
could only ask for a rule to shew cause why the trial should nut take
place at bar, and the rule was accordingly granted on those terms.
CONSLSTORY COURT, FasatrA KY 4.

WESTMEATH AND WESTIMATH.

Dr. JENNER was heard this day on behalf of the
Nlai psis of Westmeath, in support of his Lordship's
suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, and against
that of the Marchioness for a divorce. The Learned
Advocate's speech lasted exactly five hours, until the
rising of the Court. This subject has been so often be.
fore r;ae public, that it is unnecessary to detail minutely
the to,.ics of the speech.. The Learned Advocate con-
tended, that unless the facts of cruelty or adultery were
clearly proved, the Conic could not gran: a sentence of
divorce. Th:.) e had been no case in which cruelty was
held to be established, unless there had been danger to the
Le or health of the party. Quarrels arising from excess
of temper on one side, and aggravat' on the other,
afforded no ground for the Gem is sentence unless dan-
ger had teen threatened to life, li:nb, or health. It
had been held in this Court, that such danger was
essential to establish ctueity••••-3 ground from which the
Court had never been driven. There had been no case
an which sentence wps pronounced, but where there was
reason for the apprehension of hurt. Petty vexations,
it was held, were not grounds for asking legal relief—
people must relieve themselves as well as they could by
proper assistance. This Court had a duty to perform
to the public, in preventing an impression that people
w:io had contracted to live together could be relieved
;ions their contract on slight grounds. After going
'i.rough the evidence, the Learned Doctor maintained,
horn the letters taken altogether, that no violence was
!eferred to ; but altercations, arising from the provoking
t,ndtict of L +sly Westmeath; and the Learned Gentle-
man read a solemn written promise of her Ladyship,
it, ISIS, that she would abstain from troabling the
-ce of her husband by allusions to Margaret West
!the mother of the illegitimate children) or her affairs."
The mode in which they lived together after their no-
minal separation was likely to produce squabbles. Lady
Westmeath was living with a splendid establishment of
eleven servants, totally independent o: Lord Westmeath,
who was merely ass inmate in her house, with a single
groom; yet the world believed them to -be living as
man and %Ile, and they mixed in the same parties.
It,e total separation occurred through a quarrel between
rd the housekeeper, who admitted
longing to his Lordship, yet she re-
',tiers and give theirs up. He did
the presses and take them, and
Led upon the conduct of Mr. Wood)
;hale was the violence to Lady West-
.niatkable, that no one witness from
ip's I!tnily was brought to prove the
;band. On the contrary, the family
A to her; and in 1816 and 1817 she
;rounds 4 her tipeiscation to her
. of Salisbury, fur an advance of
'estmeatl), " his uniform kindness."
latent Oak tie (Dr. Jeamer) read the
. Lady Westmeath had put to her
bury—>nantely, whether Lord West;
!celled to publish some secrets which
,ovieJge respecting her (LAO, Sails.
ing .he last 40 years of her tile?—

This was done li order to diseredit the testimony of thel
Marchidness of S4lisbury; and it shew•ed the spirit
which actuated L,dy Westmeath, with respect to the
removal of Lady foci from her mother, after the sepa•
ration, which Dr. Lashington had reprobated, and had
stigmatized as base those who assisted his Lordship in
the object. Lord Westm ath Was pefectly jiptified in
•the act. The reflection of the Learned Advocate vas

0 erefore unwarranted. It was, besides, his own com-
plaint, not his client's ; for Lady Westmeath had not
alleged it as an act of cruelty. But there was another
ground for the snit. A charge of adultery had been
brought against Lord Westnteath with five persons,
from which her Ladyship's Counsel had selected two,
Jane Smith and Mary Brennan. The previous ac-
quaintance of his Lordship with Smith had been com-
pletely disproved, and the statements of Mrs. Windsor
were improbable. Did she remonstrate with Smith or
'with his Lcodship on the scenes of familiarity she spoke
of ? No; she was silent until called to Lady West-
meath. As to the other case, the witnesses examined
were three in number, one of whom had been convicted
of a conspiracy to charge Lord Westmeath with adul-
tery with another person. The facts stated by the otter
two were neither specific nor probable. The Learned
Gentleman concluded by denying that any evidence of
legal cruelty had been 'famished againt his client, ar.d
that there was not a shadow of proof-as to the adultery.
There was abundant testimony that Lord Westmeath
was kind and affectionate. He therefore contended
that the Marchioness could not have the sentence she
prayed for, but that his Lordship was entitled to claim
the restitution of his marital lights.
Dr. JOINZII.I argument, which our limits have obliged us to
abridge, occupied the Court until its rliing.

Lord Weltineath an(
I ,:.e I ihi pipers beim
fused to obey his on
1
S L. icioie break open
e might have 'Ames
4 the trinket,. But whe
• 14.itli ? It wits rem
• ErHong her Lad ship
R cisehy of her husba
rf spoke :4 his kisidnem
1.1. ed, as the gr
t. :it. er, the Marquis
le "' ney to Lot (I We
a ;', .t.t, with Astonisht
is 17Citr.gatory which
g "I' ih r, L.dy S.ili,b
h. ...I/Ith had 110 t tilleia
us • 44i come to hi, knfi,
`4').5) -ua.luct dori
......