Star.
London, England, 1827-02-02 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

• . ....•••••111,•••..

•

~.:

COURT OF CHANCERY, Fss. 1.-
DI TSB Katt.l or L WILLMILZT CIVILIIMOL •

Such was the anxiety to bear the judgment in this
cause, that long before the doors of the Court, were
opened, a crowd of persons assembled before them; and
on their admission, the Court was filled in such a man-

ner that caused the greatest inconvenience to al, who
were compelled to stand during the whole time the
judgment was delivering, i■ a state of pressure so great
as sometimes to cause complaints so audible as to in-
iterrupt the Lord Chancellor, and without the possibility
to many of them of being able to effect a retreat from
their state of suffering.

Several Counsel front dm other dons came in to hear the judg-
ment, sow of wham weft obliged to stand the whole thus it was

The LORD CRANCRLLOR entered the Court about
20 minutes before eleven, accompanied by Maters
Stephens and Dowdeswall. ' He immediately proceeded
to give judgment. After adverting to the circumstances
under which this cue had come before the Court, he
said

thy it appeared to him quite clear, that about the
28th May, 1825, Mrs. Wellesley had determined to
seek a separation from her husband, by a sentence of

the Ecclesiastical Court. Whether that determination
was taken before this period had net been ascertained,
but that it was then taken, he thought could admit of
no doubt. It appeared, from a letter of Mrs. Welles-
ley's, of the 20th August, 1825, that she had learned
from Lord Marlborough, that Mr. Wellesley had &-
elated (and the declaration was of considerable import-
ance) that if he could not get his children by 1a%,. be
would have theta by rratagesn. This declaration kola
lowed very shortly after a later to. Mr. Pitman, in
which Mr. Wellesley had stated, that " a man and his

children ought to go to the devil in their own way if he
pleased,' and in which he afterwards stated, " that
neither GOD nor devil should interpose between him
and his children." It would seen► that Mrs. Wellesley
had given directions, immediately after that communi-
cation by Lord Mary borough, to apply to the Cowl
of Chancery, and, accordingly, a bill was 6:ed to place
the children under the protection of this Court. In
consequence of that application. Mr. Wellisley, who
had been re.iding abroad, CAMe over to England on
the 14th of December, 1825, and presented a petition,
in wilich he alleged, " that he had resin ned to England,
that he was residing in a suitable mansion (Hall-place,
Regent's Palk. his Lordship supposed was meant) that
it was I,is intention to remain in England, and praying
the Court to make an order on the Misses L•mg to re-

store the children to their, father."— Ibis -Petition
brought on the painful discussion, which then lasted
several.days, and which had been ui.often• before the
•Court since. ,Whether it was a discretion properly
exercised to heat this case in public, he.would not take
upon himself to say. II palates. chose that minters of
at delicate,- 0-character. anti of such salt importance,.
**aid .be heard in public. ,this Was unquestionably the
strongest guard villich.could be thrown round the due
exerthe of judicial discretion. Whether it was fit that
a jurisdiction, such as the present case implied, should
erne. he 'did not know; but this .he would say, than
mien pace its oistence was clearlysettjed, Counsel did
not act ac.corsing to a right view of their duty, when
they sought to disturb the settled course of practice.
On the othei hand, the Judge was bound to follow the
law, when so settled. omen at the rig of expoiing
'GeV: eyes to the hazard of those it/3014ov; winch the
Attorney General had so justly stated. His Lordship
this went into a long discus-ion ni the jorisdictioo of
this Coon between parent aiid child.. He shewed,•bath
from the law of the land,.aod the necessity of the case,
that as authority over the actions of a father should
exist somewhere. and that power had never been eser.r,
need •ins ear other place. than this-Court. Such &power-
undoubtedly existed is this Court. Lord Hardwicke,
in:Powell a. Cleaver, • bad asserted this power in the
most distinct and uisequiioc,alterms, and bad declared
that '.4e-would see that children ivies educated accord-
ing to their especiatiens.": It hid 'bent observed .by
Mr. Beams, and very justly observed, that this juris-
diction could not be exercised, unless there was pro-
perty of the child in Court. If any one would turn
his consideration to this pout; for one moment, be must
perceive, that without property it was impoisible for
this Court to interpose. It did not want jurisdiction, but
property. The Court could not take on itself the main-
tenance and support of all the children in the world, and
therefore it appeared to him quite clear that he could
only exercise this jurisdiction safely, and with practical
good; when it had property. That this had been the doc-
trine of the Court for a long serves of years no one could
deny. la most of the cases of the same sort as that which
was then under the consideration of theCourt,it had been
enlightened (if he mien use dit term) by the evidence
of near relations. In the present instance, however, that
,had not been the case ; there had been Suitor no family
evidence brought forward. Such evidence was generally
of the greatest importance, because it was mostly given
with great pain and reluctance, and therefore the more
valuable. Unquestionably a relation could not be called
epos to give evidence on a more distressing subject, but
'their evidence was always an assistance to the Coat and
highly desirable. Of the truth of this remark M. W.
Himself seemed to be perfectly swore, from the teal
with which he had sought to procure from his friends a
contradiction of the allegation which had come from the
ether side, stating that all the members Of his family were
desirous that the children should remain in their present
custody, and that they should not fall into his hands.—
In an affidavit sworn in May, 1826, Mr: Wellesley de.
posed that be had wined his utmost endeavours to di:.
cover the truth or falsity of the allegation contained ins
**concluding paragraph of Mr. Hutchinson's affidavit,
asintly, that all his relations were desirous that the
children should remain where they then were, and that 1
tech allegation was false." I. another part of 'the same
affidavit, Mr. Wellesley stated that he had received a
letter from the Duke of Wellington which contradicted'
the report, and which was in answer to one written 4,
Mr. Wellesley to the Duke, requesting to know if he''
bad authorised any person, to use his name as evidence
against him in this case. But, before he (the Lord
Chancellor) would read the letter from the Duke of
Wellington, he would refer to the conduct of Lord
Maryburough, as that Nobleman had had to do with
the gentian. Mr. Wellesley stated in his affidavit of
Jose 8, that Sir Cohn Campbell bad informed him, that
Lord and Lady Maryhorough assured Sir. Colin Camp-
bell, in a conversatiou, that they had taken no pan what-
ever in the proceedings in opposition to Mr.W.'s claim,
and that they were tar from desirous that he should not
have the custody of his children. Twat put of Ku
W.gi affidavit, however, was Met by 'an affidavit**
by Sir C. Campbell, who, it appeared,