The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-11-22 00:00:00

THE LATE MADAME 111,q1.1.0..1N DE BERIOT'S

4,ENIA;Ns

The Court met •thii morning at eleven o'clock,,in the Cattle-
ral,—tbe Rev.,I34NRY ItAiKus presiding his capacity of Chti-
cellor. After the'disposal of several unimportant causes, that
of De Beriot V. SHA.RPR came' on fur hearing. At a for Mer
court day a .caveat was entered blithe Defendant, one of the
Churchwardens of the Collegiate Church of Manchester, end.
he was, now cited to shoW cause why a faculty, licence, or autho-
rity should not be granted for the yen-loyal of the corpse of Ma-
ria Felicia de. Beriot, late the wife of Charles de Beriot, from
the Collegiate Church of Manchester, in which the seine is now
deposited or interred, to the Church of Lacken, near Brussels.
in the kingdom of Belgium.
Mr. PARRY, the. Proctor, introduced the citation ,by observ-
ing that notice had not been personally served upOn, the
,defen-
dant. In his absence from home, it hid been served upon his
servant. The service of the notice had'heen announced in the.
Manchester papers, so thete could be no &nig: of the defendant
being aware, of the present proceedings.
)4r..MAunocks (of the firm, of Jones atiii .Nacidocks,) said
the defendant did not appear,. as he had pot been personally.Ser-,
ved the citation. He, (Mr. Maddock) had eipected that
the defendant would have attended the, court that.day, and *i,th..
that, view An 4fficia.vit had been prepared, and the defendant;
had he. been present, would have Sworn to the truth of its Con-
tents.
The CHANCELLOR enqnired if the citation had been serv-
al?

taxit Y
r .
Mr. MA,DDOCKS admitted that the, citation had been left at
the house of the.defemlant;. hut he contended that the adinis-
! Sion of such service would tend very much to introduce a great,
ef.presltice in, the Court.
Mr. PALMY 4;64 he had received a letter. from Monsieur Fi-
ennes, (the.deputed agent of De Beriot,) in which that gentle-
man expressed his belief that Mr. Sharpe was 9titof the way on,
purpose to prevent.apersonal service of the citation.
Mr. MAtroocits denied the insinuation. The respectability.
of Mr. Sharpe was .a sufficient answer to such an insinuation.
• The fact was, Mr.. Sharpe was on a visit to ,a persanal-frieud at,
Beaumarist ani had
.heenwritten to requesting,hini to attend.
The CHANCELLOR, thought the servicesafficient, as it was not
necessary to serve it personalty. ;A caveat was .only a notice to
the court, and,as the defendant was ,not, present, ho (the Chan-
cellor,) shook!, admit the service to be good.
,Mr. ,MADDOCKS said he shOuld'in that case appear for his
client under protest.
Mr. PARRY
.cOpS,idered i.4at after the ,public. feeling that the
hcase had excited, it was but to be expected that the parties Who
ad.heoine, parties to.the suit, and by their conduct rendered
their,is,OvA_so prominent, -would have bee;u pres'ent and fain
have met the case, instead of' keeping M. De Beriot in Such.
anxious suspense. '
.
, The CHANCELLOR next inquired when the citation was serv:.
eP. ' ' ,
. .

PARRY. said it was served on Saturday.
The CHANCEI,LOR Wished to know Whether Mr. Bagshaw
.. whohad withdrawn the caveat preiiohsly entered; was nut Mr.'
Sharpe's legal adviser?
.Mr. MADDOCKS believed lieivas, but could not.vp!a,k positi-'
vely to the fact He skid he had no to 'iiroteed aginst
the wishes of the court In taking any adisabfage orthe"ifatit
petional service. If thil court announced its intention,' he
should bow to that decision and advise his Client to Withdravv.
the caveat.

—ife, V.'.
i A Ncer.Lop observed that it was important to consider
the groundi upen Whkti the applications of this kind Were.
Made. It wag no uniisual thing,for the court occasionally to
issue its order for the exhinnation of a corpse. The power to do
so was very properly vested by the Ecclesiastical law in the Or-
dinary, who Used his discretion according to the circumstances
of'the rase, sous to meet the feelings of both parties interested.
tie was of opinion, that in the present case he should be justi-
fied in
.granting the fatuity, as the individual applying was a
. Rdmantst, and it could not be otherwise than objectionable to
'to have hii wife interred in a Protestant Church. Such
was disci the feeling of his (tinily, and they wished the body of
- their deceased relative to itsCatholia place of burial. Under
Chit impression it was that he considered he should be justified
in granting the faculty, unless some strong reason were shown
to the contrary.
' Mr. M ariooc KS in reply said, that under those circumstances
he should advise his party to withdraw the caveat, unless the
facts adduced in an affidavit, which he held in his hapd, were,
considered by the Chancellor to be sufficient grounds to induce
him to stay the issuing of the fatuity.
• The document was then handed dp to the Chancellor for his
per:ital. It purported to be an affidavit of the defendant, Mr.
. Robert Chapman Sharpe, and was to this effect: It began by •
. itating that the deceased; Madame de Beriot, was engaged as
principal female vocalist at the late Manchester Musical Festi-
val. That when she arrived at Manchester she was in deli Cate
health, and in attempting to perform the whole of the profes-
sional task allotted to her, she beeaine worse, and on the second
eVening of the festival was removed to her .hotel, where, after
increasing illness of nine days, she departed this life a little
before midttight'on Friday, the 23d day of September last. It
further Stated that her husbaud, Mons. De Beriot, was also en-
gaged professionally at the tole, festival, end was in attend-
ance upon his wife during the said illness, And that an hour or
two before her death be sent for Mr. Thomas Beale, a gentle-
man residing. in Manchester, with whom be was ,slightly,
quaihted; and requested him to superibtend her tonere.), giving.
written directions.to see her interred in such place"As he (Mr.
Beale) might. think pro Per, And to erect a tablet to her mA-
mory. During the night, and a little more than an hour after
her death, without looking at her remains, the said Charles de
Berievset off for London, in a post-chaise, taking along with
him the wearing apparel, valuables, and other property of his
said -wife; and that the said Maria de Beriot, was then
I.t without a relatiVe to direct or attend her funeral, and de-
pendant upon thehunianity ef strangers An' the perfermioce of
the last sad offices to her remains. That the committee who
conducted the Said funeral, on hearing of these circumstances,
on the following day causena letter to be addressed to the said
Charles de Beriot, at London, urging him to return to Manches-
ter, that he might attend the funeral of his departed wife, but
the Said committee found, that after remaining in London a few
hours only, the said Charles de Beriot, had embarked precipi-
tately for Belgium, where deponent is informed his said wife
had personal property to a considerable amount. That actuated
by a strong feeling of compassion for the state in which the
mortal remains of the unfortunate lady were left, and to testify
their high sense of her unrivalled professional aoquirements,
the committee co-operated with Mr. Beale in the conduct of
her funeral, and that the Warden and Fellows of the Collegiate
Church of Manchester aforesaid, also generously and gratui-
ously offered a resting place for the remains within the chancel
Of the said Collegiate Church, and the authorities of the town
of Manchester, a neighbouring nohlemen of distinction, and
a numerous assemblage of the gentry, magistrates, merchants,
and other respectable inhabitants of that town and its vicinity
paid their last sad testimony of respect to her memory, by fol-
lowing her remains to the • grave; and that on the whole of
these cirtuoutent:es becoming known, a feeling of indignation
was exhibited at the said Charles de Beriot's extraordinary con,
duct, and various observations in disapprobation thereof ap-
peared in the neWspapers of the day. And deponent isinforMed,
and, from the citation of this honourable court directed to him,
bath no dotibt that the said Charles de Beriot is now seeking to
have the body Of his Said wife disinterred, and removed to Bel-
gium;and that although the said said committee have trans-
mitted to hint resolation puled by them, remonstrating►
strongly against such a step, as repulsive to the feelings of the
inhabitants of Man Chester and its neighbourhood, the said
Charles de Berke persists in Ws detertnination to have the said
hodY removed from the 'place. That the &potent is advised
that this honourable court has no jurisdiction to order or autho-
rise the disinterment and removal of thesaid body fromßie
place where it is now deposited, the same not being ih the body
or parochial part of the said church, but in the chancel, over
Which the said Warden'and fellows have the exclusive owner-
ship and control. And deponent saith, that the. disinterment
and removal of the said corpse would be most repugnant to the
deponent and other churchwardens of the said parish, and re-
pulsive to a' great majority of the inhabitants of Manchester
and its neighbourhood; and would be consideredan ungenerolis
return for the honoir paid to her remains. And that dePonent
is adVised such faculty of license cannot be chimed as a matter
of tight; and is convinced that, under the circumstances aboie
Mentioned, the said Charles de Beriot has no claim to it as a
matter of courtesy dr tavola.

The CHANCELLOR said the affidavit appeared to assume a
great, many thirw which were completely irrelevant. Smile
allowance was to be made for the state of mind of Mons. De
Beriot under circumstances' so painful, and the habits of the
country to which he belonged, it being t!iere for parties to
leave their bouies immediately after the delitli of their rela-
tives. The strnng fact of Dr. Belluornini's having made
urgent representation to Mons. De Beriot of the necessity'for
his leaving, and hurrying him into the, carriage ought to be
considered, and the public mind disabuseil of the: erroneous
impressions that had gOne abroad: There were some
lions on the affidavit which he (the Chaiicellcir) happened to
know_ were not exactly correct.
Mr. Ma nu.ocKs said he had handed the affidavit to the Chan-
cellor with a view to shoW that Mr', Sharpe was not'actuated by
any improper motive.
' The faculty seas then granted. Mr. Marldocks dissenting
and protesting to appeal to the Metropolitan Court York.
The appeal must be 'prosecuted within 14 days ; so that unless
the appeal Is proceeded iu within that time, the betty will of
comae be removed.