National Republican., 1883-03-23
WARDs 1N cnANcERY.
The Laws Against which strephon Comes
So Near TO SHINING in "Iolanthe.Y

The Laws Against Which strephon Comes
So Near TO SHINING in "IoIanthe."
"Iolantho" throws its burlesque light on
one of the odd functions of tho lord chancel-
lor, and gives us, besides, an inkliug of the
growing tendency of Englishmen to sneer at
the house of peers. Tho motive of "Ioan-
the" so far asit can be said to have one, turns
on the ancient powers of the lord chancellor
over his wards in chancory." Unreal and
extravagant as the protoctorate of the chan
cellor over Phyllis seems, as seen at the Bijou,
1t is very real thing in English law. I'm
der the supreme judiCature act of 1873 the
chancery division has complete control of
the estates of infants, /. G., persons of
both sexes under the age of twenty-one, with
out natural guardians, and to enable any
such person to marry before attaining that
age, the court must give its consent. The
penalties for contracting marriage with :" n
ward of court" are very severe and have
often been vigorously enforced. Chambers's
journal gives some interesting examples. A
celebrated case in the last century was that
of Lord Tankcrvlle's steward, who, by the
contrivance of noblcman, married ward of
chanCery In The nobleman's park, for which
grcvous contempt they, and q parson the
Fleet prison, who had been brbed by the no.
bleman with one hundred guincas to marry
them, and also maid servant, were all sent
TO and kept in Jail for u fortnight except the
husband, who was detained there for six
weeks. A very fragrant contempt of court,
under exceedingly aggrHvatng circumstances,
was committed bya Justice Of the peace, and u
barrister who was formcrlya solicitor, by con-
triving the marriage of II ward with fortune
of 100000 to q schOOlmastor in lslington. He
was for this serious oilense not only sent to
prison for five weeks, but was struck out of
the commission as justice Of the peace, and
prohibited from practiCng at the bar. In the
leading ease of Eyre vs.. Countess of Shaftes-
bury, tried in 17I0 before Lord Chancellor
Macclesfiold and Lords Commissioners Jekyll,
Gilbert, and Raymond, n sequestration was
issued against the Countess OF Gainsborough
and Lady Shaftesbury for marrying an infant,
who was II peer, to Lady Susannah Noel /;
which, though not to his disparagement, was
done without the consent of the court or his
guardian. In another case, that of Baseley
VS.. Baseley, it appears that Mrs. Baseley-
formerly Miss Anne Wade-was, on the
death of her father in 1906, heiress to
real and personal property of large amount.
She was made ward Of chancery
at an early age; in her seventeenth
year she was taken away by Mr. Baseey, u
young gentleman of no property, and who
had no previous acquaintance with her or
her family; but he obtained possession of her
by the aid of her governess and servants, and
in gross contempt of court. He and the
young lady went to Scotland and were mar
ried ut Gretna Green in 1916, and were
shortly afterwards again married in the
Episcopal church of Edinburgh. After re-
siding for some time in Scotland, petitions
were presented to the lord chancellor on their
behalf, but his lordship would not listen to
any application until the ward was brought
within the jurisdiction of his court Shortly
afterwards Mr.. Baseley presented himself in
court, when Lord Eldon committed him to
Jail, where he was kept until Mrs. Baseley
attained her age of twenty-one
In most cases. says the eminent authority
from which we quote when wards of court
have been married without its permission, the
husbands have been men of straw, who mar
ried for the sake of the fortune, and the court
has therefore generally refused to give them
any interest in the property; but If they are
of equal rank and property with their wives,
and make q corresponding provision for them
out of their own property, it does not appear
that the same rule would be adopted. In the
case of I" Bathurst VS.. Murray" in 1902 Lord
Eldon directed that the husband should have
an annuity out of the property during the
matrimonial union, as his lOTdship mentioned
that there could not be much expectation of
happiness when tho husband had moth
ing and the wife had the entire power over
the property; but this course appears
W nave DGCn IuItly tuhCus III tuO
case of "Hodgens VS.. Hodgens," tried in
1887, on appeal to the house OF lords from the
court of chancery in Ireland Lord Cottenham
gravely said, "that when men seek to get
advantages for themselves by obtaining pos
session of wards under the jurisdiction of a
court of equity, and by so doing are guilty OF
contempt against its jurisdiction, the court
will seldom if ever permit them to profit by
their misconduct, or to enjoy any part of the
property to obtain which has probably been
the motive of their proceeding, The master
Romilly, decided to the same effect in the
case of"Wade VS.. Hopl1inson" in 1856; and
Lord Justices Knight-Bruce and Turner en-
tertained the same view in the case Of "Field
vs. Moore" in the same year,
OF late years the kind Of contempt of court
of which young Strephon comes near being
guilty in "Iolanthe" has, we are told dimin-
ished, which is very gratifying to the guar
dams of British social prOpriety.