, 1876-12-24

his father had made to him the flaw in the sue
| cession. The gravity OF the plaintiffs counsel,
Mr.. Glasse an1 SERGEANT Bal1antine, must hare
been severely tried BY the necessity Of deducing
jected to the marriage OF h,s son Frsnc{s, and
uniting himself to ladies' Of whom
he bad gained the affections: We
determined to perpetrate an injustice by mak-
Ing AZ illegitimate son his heir, also wished t.
lessen the wrong BY keeping Francis unmarried,
and thus leaving the reversion Of the estate to
Fl, frederick. Unfort4nately for the theory, Fran
not excessively late age Of 26 years. Even had
al! these theories been accompanied by incoptest
able proofs, the plaintiff would still have been
Ent out OF eourtby the legal fact that the de-
tnchallenged for more than twenty years. But
an attempt was made to overleap that difficulty
ny one OF tne most complicated charges OF fraud
eyer SET before court Of Justice That Sir
fraud, not once, but many times, was ASSUMED,
Of course, In the mere charge Of illegitimacv
It was equally evident that the grossest fraud
must have been committed BY the dos~
to- to- oser the ps1seas whose the 'ea sesns aas
laid before the Court Of Chancery In 1902, As
the Attorney General said, they must ali have
borne false witness with the rope round their
nccks. The same guilt must have been incurred
in every successive resettlement Of the family
estate The plaintiffs brother, Francis, was a.
cused Of fraud On the supposition that he knew
himself to be tllegitimate when he agreed to the
resettlement Of the estates. Mr. Beauclerk
%a 93 sf ,Bd Baae1n were sDd ks"s shgea
the date Of Francis Vane's birth before the
marriage. Mr.. Beauclerk, man Of high char
acter' bad, It WAS argued, sanctioned the mar
riage Of his daughter With gentleman whom
he knew to be illegitimatc and who might be
turned out OF the estate BY q younger brother.
Re had, it was assumed, looked carefully after
marriage settlements which a Worl from Sir
Frederick Vane, or Lady Vaue, or any other Of
remorse, aud therefore at tie bidding o; tncal-
culable impulses make the idlest OF for
malittes.
That was the plaintiff IS case. The vlce-chan
cellor said that it vas one Of the most hope
would have decided against the plaintiff lm-
Enediately after hearing his argument II be had
not been anxious to stop the possibility Of
dispute. The plaintiff had to prove, In
aedlock: He could not ofres M one one tit tistie l
u evidence for that cardinal assumption,
except the loose words spoken By his
mother In her dotage. But it was shown that
Hhen she denied the legitimacy Of her son
ler memory, and that abe believed herself to
1aye been unjustly dealt With 10 the settlements
II the estate. She seems to have borne soma
,rudge against her son Francis. The loose
evidence Of her old age was also
:ontradlcted by the testimony which
Ter own letter to her son. The attempt to
1se the evidence Of Diana Lady Vane against
Ter own husband must be set aside both be-
ause it Is ambiguous even as cited BY the
,laintM and because her own direct testimony
) clear denial that she knew him to be 1llegtt-
mate. What evidence remainst 4 little loose
ountry gossip. An estate worth e, 600 year
md carrying title Is, we admit, q tempting
The sense OF personal wrong is also
lif6cult to endure. II the plaintiff had
possessed absolute proof that he was
he legitimate heir, he would doubtless have
een strongly induced to urge his claims. Yet,
ven in such = case, be might also have beeu
eld back by the fact that, as bis nephew had
10 children, he himself was the presumptiya
eir; that his nephew at least was cniltless OF
ny fraud; and that the title could be made
ood only at the expense OF branding his OWL
ather and mother with fraud. Few men. va
rust, would consent to pay such price eyer
Or Baronetcy aud &c, ,000 year.