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

nant Gmetral in the &my, in which that Gentlensan•
states, that be 'having • seen.a lope .ofl an afficlivlt
(sworn by Mr: Wellesley, ou.Jusse 8..1828, stating, alai
L the deponent had in(otmed. him (Mr ;W.) that Lord and
Lady Marlborough' bud assured him, (Sir C. Cr) that
Ithey had taken no part in this case, that thiy were far
from desiroui that Mr; Wellesley should native the
custody of his children, and that they had given diree.
tions to contradict the report; he, the deponent, felt ii
incumbent op him to deny that he did make such a
communication to Mr. Wellesley. He had never any
conversation with Lord Maryborough on the subject ;
Lady Maryborough did inform the deponent that she
had not interfered, and that information the deponent
gave to Mr. Wellesley. Then Mr. Wellesley deposed, that
the Marquis of Wellesley was against his having the chit.
dren taken from under his custody; but what did the fact
turn out to be ? On this subject Mr. Lightfoot had made
lap affidavit. by which it appeared that that Gentleman,
awns as an egent to the Marquis of Wellesley, having
alluded to Mr. Wellesley's affiiavit, sworn on the
Bth of June, forwarded a copy of that part of the affi
davit to Colonel Shaw, togsther with a letter which
Colonel Shaw laid before the Marquis of _Wellesley. In
reply, the Marquis of Wellesley wrote a letter to the de-
ponent (Mr. Lightfoot), in which he said, that he had
never goren his. opinion on the subject, and he desired to
know from what quarter Mr. W. had received his in
formation. And he added, that he wished it positively
to be understood, that be had never expressed or enter.
tained the opinion attributed to him by Mr. W. The
letter alio stated, that Mr. Lightfoot was at liberty to
produce it Witte the Court, it it was thought such a
.step would all the march of jostice. The next affidavit
to which he would rerer was that of Lord Maryborough.
His L,rdship stated, that his name had been brought
before the Couat without his authority ; but as such was
the fact, he thought it necessary to state, that soon after
the death of Mrs. Wellesley the Misses Long applied
to him to accept theoffice of guardian to the children--
they being aaxious to comply with the dying request Of,
Mrs.VVellesley, and to continue the children wards of the
Court. The Lord Chancellor remarked, that Mrs.
Wellesley had expressed such a wish' was beyond a

_ .
doubt; although at the time when she paned from
her husband in France she said that they might re-
side together again i`l he would quit his abandoned,
course...meaning, no doubt, if be would no longer
pursue his conuexion with Mrs. Bligh. Although,
therefore, such was the dying request of Mrs. Welles-
ley, still it should nevertheless be remembered that se
late as June, 1825, she had expressed her readiness is
again live with Mr. Wellesley, and consequently that
,he should live with her children, if he would comply
with the condition offered.—Loral Marlborough's aßel
davit then went on to state, that the Misses Long res.,
quested he would allow himself to be appointed yerr
41111., and that be shortly afterwards received a
from Mr. Hutchinson, informiqg hies of the proceedings
which had been commenced. Thai he,.in consequence,
wrote an answer, perfectly approving of citify step.
which had been taken by the Misses Long since Mrs.
Wellesley's death, and entirely disapproving\of Mr.
Long Wellesley's conduct. That he was .destroot to
have nothing to do with Air. Wellesley or his affairs;
but. if the• Lord Chancellor those to appoint him sole
guardian over the children, he would undertake the
loffice, as he felt himself bound to do, however disagree-
' able and painful from the cousideratiou that be was
their
_greadtather. Lord Maryboroulls also stated,
that thete.wars •no breach of the family irejth, whom be
had communicated whq did not fully canes* with the
Mibi4llLoog, in their views with respect to the children,
and in reprobation of the conduct of Mr. Wellesley—
that is. his own sqn. Lord Maryborough further stated
that he afterwards heard of an order made by the Court,
which determined bins in refusing so become theguat-
diark of the children, in order to avoid conflicting surget;l
ment,intercourse and misunderstandjog with Mr.Wellie•-
ley.The deponent also denied that any such conversaticia
bad passed between him and Sir Colin Campbell as bid
Men skid so have taken place His Lordship then Toy:,
Marked that the letter of the Duke of Wellington waif,,
not a little singular, not a little at variance with
Mr..Wellesler's statement made in this affidavit. The
letter was dated May 19,1828, and in itlhe Duke of
Wellington stated, that although Mr. Wellesley had,
been in tows from the December previous,. he had
beard of bur being there only by report. That he bad',
, nothing whatever to say with reference to the proceed-
L ings that were going on its Chancery; that he had never
rmo an opinion On the subject, and that if more than
such a decimation was required from him, be must loci
!the affidavits, and become better acquainted with the
case. He also added, that he thought he could venture
io.say, that a similar feeling was entertained by the
rust of the family; but on that subject he would not
speak positively, but would content himielf with an-
swering for himself. His Lordship then remarked, that
be bad gone through the whole of the family evidence,
as far as be could remember, which had been adduced;
and be would ask—did be go too far when he stated, I
that nano( the nearest connexions and relatives of Mr.
Wellesley would even suggest to the Lord Chancellor
that Mr. W. was a fit portion to have the custody of his
children? It would be too much perhaps, to say, that I
the three leading members of his family, his own fathers'.
Lord Maryborough, and his uncles, the Marquis of Wel-
lesley, and the Duke of Wellington, had said that he
ought not tie have such a trust reposed in him, but surely.,
r evidence, as far as it did go, was of that character.
Having thus looked into the part which the family bad,
taken in the question—or lather, found, that they hadl
taken no part at all, be next came to the history of the
proceedings which commenced from the time Mr. L,
Wellesley was obliged to go abroad, and went on until
the filing of the petition. His Lordship had been most',
anxious to know what were the circumstances of Mr.
Wel'esley, for if they had not been materially sliced
since he we: compelled to. leave England at the time
alluded to, he should have been spared the pang of en-
tering into the examination it was then his duty to make.
The insolvency in the father was undoubtedly a suffi-
tient ground to deprive him of the custody of his chil-
dren; but the authority of: that Court would not only
protect the property of the children from misuse, when's
the father was insolvent, bat alto compel a father to
maintain his children out of his own property, if he had
property, according to their just expectattonsand rink in
life. No other Court could do what the Court of Chancey I
could. Where an eldest son was a ward of the Court, not
spay would it provide for his education out of the funds,
but also provide for that of his brothers and sisters: it
would see that they were suitably brought up, from the
supposition that he would be benefiited by those with
whom he was to associate Agin,/ properly educated. So
was it with respect to Wards of that Court in case of mar.
tiage.TheCourt went beyond all otherCoutts. A contrite*,
which was valid in common law, was not allowed by'