Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-10-24
FROM 4 LONDON PAPER.
CON-SJSTOR court.
bor7oR's COMMONS, LONDON.
Daitunille VS.. DairumAle.

This was suit at the instance Of Mrs Dali
fymple, formerly Miss Gordon, for resttu-
tion of conjugal rights, as the wife BY the law
ofScc;lantl. Of captain John William Henry
Dalrymple, son of the late general Daliym-
pie.
1t appeared that capt. d. accompanying
his regiment TO Edinburgh, was there first
introduced to Miss Gordon; they conceived
mutual regard for each other, which ended
IN matrimonial contract. Family circum-
stances however, rendering it necessary, as
he persuaded her, that the knowledge Of the
marriage should be concealed during the life
time of his father, Miss Gordon Welded to
his injuncticDs Of secrecy, and they accor-
dinghy exchanged mutual written promises,
as soon as it is in my power to marry you
and never any other person." Upon the
faith OF those promises, they conducted them
selves towards each other as a man and
wife, and at subsequent period exchanged
farther acknowledgements of the relation in
which they stood to each other to this pur-
port - hereby acknowledge John William
teEry DalryDple to be my lawful husband :"
and hereby acknowledge Johanna Gordon
% DC my lawful wife; and signed respective
~: Upon captain Dalrymple's departure
with his regiment from Scotland, he obtaiued
written promise of secrecy from Miss Cor
don, in which she declares, "that Spthing
but the strongest necessity, necessity which
circumstances alone could justify, should e.
yer force her to declare her marriage with
him" He continued earnestly his iniunc-
tons to her on this head, until almost the
very moment of his departure from England :;
constantly addressing her by letters from
portsmouth, and even when abroad and
pointing out TO her the agency of Sir Rupert
Seorge as the channel of their communica-
ton. Some time afterwards the correspon-
dence was discontinued on his part. and Miss
Sordon in consequence wrote to his father
to ascertain his address. Upon being ap-
prised of this, he directed confidential friend,
Mr. Hawkins, Of Brighton, to intercept her
letters to his father but this gentleman fin
ding considerable difficulty in such service,
wrote to her himself to discontinue the cor
dependence; and general Dalrymple dying
about this time, Miss Gordon considering
herself released from her promise Of secrecy,
Immediately made frank avowal to Mr..
Hawkins Of the nature of her situation with
captain Dalrymple. He shortly afterwards
returned very unexpectedly from Malta
and in conversation with Mr.. Hawkins,
limited at his determination of abandoning his
connection with Miss Gordon. This Cen
tiemannsed every argument to dissuade him
from such purpose, and as he had reason
from his conduct to think with succesa-; but
in day or two afterwards, lie was urprisrd
70 hear of Captain DIS marriage with Miss
Manners, sister Of the Dutchess Of St. Al
bans. This coming To the knowledge Of Miss
Gordon, she in justice to her own rights com
menced the present suit.
The validity OLA marriage ofthe descrip-
ton according to the law Of Scotland, being
the principal question in the case, the opi-
HONS and expositions Of that law, by its most
eminent professors Of the present day, form
ed the principal part ofthe evidence, accom-
panied by the production Of many Of the let
tiers that PASSED in the course Of the trans
action.
a very learned and ingenious argument
took place upon this subject. Thee counsel for
Miss Gordon commended, that from this eVi-
dcnce, it appeared the Scotch law recogniz-
ed three modes Of marriage as binding upon
the parties: the first was a consent her PER
pa dc f'rceStnG, by which The parties assume
the marriage contract between them from
that moment; the second was, a promise 10
solemnize matrimony at future period and
an intercourse between the partiesupon the
faith of that promise ; and the third was by
public acknowledgements of being man and
wife letters in the conjugsl style, &c. from
which the actual existence of a marriage
CONTRACT was by law presumed. The learn
cd advocates, from review Of all the cir
cumstsnces Of the case, then proceeded TO
contend that the Marriage in question clear
ly came within all the three modes specified.
and the court was therefore bound to give o.
peration to It.
This construction Of the law was gdenied
by the counsel on the other side. who from
Their Comments upon the evidence contended,
that would warrant no ether construction
than that Of an obligation upon capt. BAL
rymPle to perform the nupital engagement al
fnturc period, but upon condition Of Sc
cresy; that the condition nothavingbeen COM
piled with he was released.
Sir William Scott, in learned and clabo-
rate, yet perspicuous speech. rccapitulated
tho evidence, and delivered the judgment Of
the court. Hc observed that The question
must be decided by the law of England, tho
by reference to that Of Scotland il was
proposition beyond ;he reach Of argument
upon my principle oflaw in civilized states.
thath the FIRST marriage was legally good
The second was legally bad. According 10
tle Judgment ofthe eminent men examined.
Mr. Dalrynple was sufficiently domicile re-
sident in Scotland though a minor bv lie
i2ffB OF England for ttr ean,r H. -, - ~. -. |