Sheriff's Court, Red Lion...
The Times, 1824-07-12T00:00:00

-an inqoisition was talken on Saturday, before Mlr. BiucYrxT.T, the Secondary, at the Offlce of the Sheriff of Mfiddlesex, in Red ]AsL sure ndaspecial Jurv, to assess damages in the cause in which enry anns,EsI.l. P., was plaintiff. anid Captain WVeb- ster efenant, or t eseution of the wife of die forMe-.. The de.. fenantsufere jugmet by default. The damages were laid at 10,001. he ourtwascrowvded by persons of rank, who were frindsof he sariesin hecause. Mr. TaSnAL red the declaration. Mr. BRO'GIrAM tatedl the plaintiff's case. He said that the yssymustbe fmilir wth the name of the plaintiff in this unfortu- nate itsquiaition ; hsname -was thiat of a family which stood hnighnly respectable sad respected amonzst all classes of the subjects of this empire, buxt highest of all in the mercantile world. It wvas universally known, that the Blarings were the very highest of that mnost luseful and resnectable class of theo British community, whose intelligence and honesty, and upright dealings throughout the world, 'had affixed upon them a st'ation and character whichl constituted one of the main pillars that upheld this great and oros- Perous country. Mfr. Henry Baring, whose namne they had lieard as the plaintiff in this cause, was the third brother of that family. IHe enijoyed, by thesecidente of inheritanice, a large fortune, but be- ing disposed very earlyin life tofollow the example of his family, and to earn ani addi~iiutal provision by hiis intelligence and industry, he repaired fVrom his native home to a verv dis,tant settlement he went, inl fact, to the Eait India Companv'i factory in China, where he resided for several years, andl cmplloy6l to advantage the energies whic he ossesedfor commercial business. After several years' resienc inChia, he rcturned home, still not more than 25 or ~i~ yers f ae.He found, upon his return to his family, that ~lii eler bothr, r. Alexander Baring, a gentleman not only wel knwiito llthe mercantile characters of lila country, but als tothestaesmn wo governedi it, had just returned from Amrc,where hehdsojogurned for some years, and brought wihhma lady ofoeo h first fa milies in Pennsylvania, whom hehad shortly before married. This lady (Mlrs. Alexander Baring) was accomnpanied to this country by a younger sister, who was the unfortu'nate subject of the pres'ent inquiry. Air. Henry Baring, of course, became acquainted with the siste-r throughi his brother's 'wife. He soon felt the powerful fascination of her charms; he tendered his affections, and she made a reciprocal return of hers. Sir Franicis Baring was not, however, at the! moment, favourable to the match - he wished his son to reside abroadi a little longer, in the pursuit of commercial afrairs: the lady's father was equally indtsposed to promote the marriage at the time ; but the jury, as mien of experience in the world, must know that these parental obstacles, so far from operating to damp the affection Of the youlng lovers, had a conitrary effect, and rather rivetted more firml their mnutual attachmenit. The ultimate consequence w&q that Mr. Henry Baring married the lady in the year 1802. He would brinig before them personages of rank, who would prove how affec- tionate andI endearing was the married condition of these partiest for Years after the solemnization of the ceremony. Their mutual at- tachment was eveti, uninterrupted, and singularly warm in its con- tinuance; that endearing affection which some married people inca- sure by monthg, 5Mr. and Mrs. Henry Baring upheld for 20 years, un- til the defendant violated the sanctuary of friendship and love. MAr. Baring, as they all knew, was a memnber of Pa-rliamnent ; his duties in the Senate neessarily abridged a portion of the domestic society 'which he owed his wife; he was necessarily often absent fromi her some hours in the evening, a-nd at the beginning of the Session of Parliament she sormetimes took a trip for a week or ten days, never "'Ore, either to Brighton or to Paris, or to the wntering-palces, ,without being accompanied by her hus9band, whose avocations, on these occasions, of rare occurrence, dig net permit of his at- tending her. They never were separated from each other for any greater length of time until this unfortunate occurrence, which destroyed the domestic comfort of the plaintiff. The catastrophe was here carried to ils bitterest extent upona the happiness o' Mir. .Henry Baring's family. The offspring ofthis marriage were five in 'number;z the eldest was a dauRhter, recently married ; another dasughter thirteen years of age;, a son nearly twenty ; another son lifteen, and the last Child, an infant, not vet two years of age. To this very lest birth he would prove the tenderest affection. It would be his mnost painful duty to call before the jury several mem. hers of the Ba-ring family who would prove the affectionate in- tercourse which, up to the iast moment ot this seduction, suabsisted between Mfr. Henry Baring and his wife. Painful indeed miust it be for these witnesses to remember what had, for twenty years, been the fidelity and affbction of this lMy, andl to COnite55 it -i.jh her prestent unhappy fall, as the victim of a wrietched seduction. During the lastt year, or so, Captain Webster became an acquaint.. ance of MrI. Henry Baring, and a visiter in his family. He was the son of the late, and brother of the preent Sir Godfrey Webster, and held a military situation on the home staff of the Ntiarqujs 'tVellesley, the present Viceroy of Ireland. Captain Webster used to visit Mr. Henry Baring in town, and also in the srt.. ing season at his hospitable mansion in Hampshire. I ndTed, he was the only stranger, except his Royal Highness the Duke of Glocester, who met the family at the christening of M'vr. Baring's last child. Captan Webster wascertainly five or six years younger than Mrs. Baring; her attractions were, however, great and appa-. rent, notwithsttanding her advance in life, and they bad been evi- dently weaned from her htisband by Captain W~ebster. The Cap tain, as a man of honour, should have shunned the chtarms of the wife of his frierd; he should have rememnberedI that thiese, Charms formed no excuse for his unlawful attachmnent, and could not be pleaded as any pallation of his critne. Ife sltould have remem- bered what he owea to the sanctuary of a husband's house, that hus- band being his host and frend;, but he had violated those sacred obligations, and for that violation the jury were now called upon to assess a pecuniaryv penalty. He ought to have remembere-d that this lady a the wife of hist friend, and the mother of that friend's chil- dren. lafsher age could bepleaded by the defendant in any attempt at palliation, it shouild be recollected how that veyage augmented the sufferings which the plaintiff must now endure. He had lost, not the 1ociety of a Wife recently acquired, but of a lady whose intercourie with him had been hallowed by the enIdearing recollection, now turned into gall and bitterness, of more than 20 Years of ardent attachment. See the dreadful feelings with which this i'milv were now visited; the chil- dren atea timne of life when they were entering into aociety,and capable of feeling keenly the act of their mother. There was, besides, anin- fant child, now bereft of a mother's care at the age wvhich so pecu. liarlv called for its fostering influence; and another child, a daugh- cC,13yars of age, who nmust also be deprived of all those advan- taesof ntoiQuction into life which a mother could alone ade- quately confer. If he were to be told by his learned friend that Captain Webster was not in the same flourishing pecuniary cir- cumstances which Mir. Baring enjoyed, and coutld net, the'refore, pa =ev damages on this occasion, he wouldsy nrpy thatbfr the jury could look at that side, they, must first con- sider what had b'ee'n the plaintiff's loss, and what was the accu- rnulated nature of his injury. The law of the land was, that if a man bound himself by his COntract to perforni a certain oblige. tion,bhecould not escape from hi.spledge, bypleading the excuse of hist poverty. He mutst have known his means hefore he framed the c-ontract, and must be bound by his own act. So here, they could not Afllow the defendanit to say he was unable to pay heavy damages. That would be to allow him to address them in such language as this.-)'1 I did the mischief-I inflicted the wrong upon my friend- but I enm incapable of redressing it: I cannot afford you compen- sation in money, and thierefore it is in vain to ask it at'my hands." midjUTY ouaei not listen to such language. They must bear in rnn,ta twas the established usaeisoet to~ awa-rd ample ,compensation in suchi cases, and thaifte failedi estimating that award Upon SUCh a scale, aninencwol arise that thce conduct of the plaintiff lhad not been what it ought, which in this case would he in direct variAnce with the pos,itive evidence which he would Place Isefore them, from esure of the higzhest members of the tamily., To vindicate, then, the plaintiff from suich An inference as be lhad just glanced at-to prevent its going Out to the world what he was not, he entreated them to weigh well ~the extent Of damages with which they would visit thle aOmitted guilt of the defesidant. They would hear much better than he could describe it, from the witnesses, what were the terms of affection in which Mr. and Mrs. Henry Baring had lived. Better, far better, even than the most eloquent speech was t1.e plaini and slimple evidence of the witnesses of truth desribing the domestic facts which fell underb ~ir constant observation. They would fromn this evidence estie'l0what mnustbhavebee-n theacts o)f the seducer; they would re- mL~ the home which he had mnade deAolate, the chiildren he basprived of a mother, andi the friend' from whiom he had torm a wife. They would show by their vierdict thie sense they -entertained of such conduct, and the protection whichi they were -prepa-redl to shed around the sanctuiary of domestic life. The defendant was a military man, andi they were members of a civil community ; and they mnust tell mil'itary meon, by their verdict this day, that at the coneltision ot' a war they must not brii'g into the domestic Society of peaceable men tlhe maniner.s end hsabits fhich they may have uaeqored in countries where, unfortu-. niately, less rigid morals prevailedi, and where they mnight have in- dulged, in the course of servrice, in arts whichl are itot to be endured in the domestic circle of private life. He concluided by en treating the jury to awvard such a compensation in damages whlich, though no pecuniary- redress could assuage the feelings, or mitigate the -sense of loss to which the plaintiff was doomed, would neverthle.. les show the defendant that he could not escape with impunity-, and set an examnple which mlight dete-r others from pursuing the Hame arts and accomplishing the same ruin. The first witness was Msrs. Wall, an elderly lady of elegant ap. pearance She stated Otat she was the eldes9t sister of Mlr. Baring; recollects his marriage to his lay ; hier christian namnes were Mlaria Matilda, whose sister had previously mnarried Mfr. Alexander Ba- -ring ; they were American ladlies. Mlr. Henry Baring's first house in Loindon wa-s in York-place, and occasionally at F"arndown, in Surrey, anti afterwards at Sominmerby, in Ilampshilre, which was sitill his residence. Shechad constant opportunities of witnessingtlie con- jugal tenderness of the family, and always observed the greatest ten. demesn on both sidesbetween Mr. and Mrs. Henry Baritii,In whiose houise she had passed weeks together and n"eve sav; between %hem t'he slight altercation. There mnay hiave iseen differencesg of niere opinion, they must occur everywhere. The eldest dAughterof MIr. fl. Baring was lately nmarried ; thec eldeist Bon is at Oxford; the secondi son in thie navy; the younger children are at hiome. Cross-examined by the COMM iON SZItGEAMT,-She visiteti at Somnierville last September, but not for a visit of "n duraio sithin the last three years. Tealyspeare to her Ito live af- fectionately together. Slite did not rCcollect (~F'as rveh aos shie retuem. baeEd) that BMrs.Renry Baring had been married before she sawAlr. Baring; she heard something from others. lIast August the eldest daughter was married. Mlrs. Kempt, another sister of Mr. Baring, gave precisely similar testimony of the affectionate intercourse which she always saw sub- sistingr between Mfr. and Mrs. Henry Baring. She did not know the defendant. Cross-examined by Afr. PAiuK.-.Her general residence was a day's journey from Mlr. Henry Baring's house. Last autumn twelvemontlh she spent three weeks at his house in the country, and Raw them re- peatedly in London after. Shc never heard from MIr. Bating of any former marriage of his wife's. This lady's husband merely confirmed the evidence of his wife. M1rs. Dent, another sister-in-law, had only to repeat that she had uniformly witnessed the same affectionate conducton the part of air. and Mrs. fTenry Baring towards each other. She was at the christen- ing of the last child in 1822. She saw Captain Webster, wbo was the bwother of Sir Godfrey Webster, on that eccasion. The Duke of Glocester vas there. I\lr. John Mlansfield, son of the late Chief Justice, married an American lady, and soon after his return to Englantl in the year 1810, became an acquaintance of Alr. and MIrs. Henrv Baring, who always appeared to him (and he spoke of his knowledige four years ago) very affectionately engaged to each other. He had been mostly abroad within a year or two, and had not seen so muclh of them * but he always thought they vwere a most indulgent couple to each other. Cross-examined by the Commeov-SEaRGEAT.-He always visit- ed IMr. Henry Barine in town anti cointrv, but not so much within the last three years, having been mostly abroad. He cou7d not tell how iMlr. Baring spent his eveninL.s; he knew nothinz of any former marriage or Sirs. b5aring. 6he was uindter 17 years old when sne came to Engla-nd. AMr. Blazden attended MrTS. Baying on the loth of' Augut, 1822, at her accouchement. It was in Lo'ndon, and Mlr. Henry Baring evineced at the time thc most tender solicitudec. Some of the Iadies who -were alreadyv examined were recalled, merely to prove that Mrs. Henry Bayin~ was at Brighton withi a French femnale attendlant last November. Fouir letters were then put in evidencep, from Captain Wvlebster to Mrs. Baring. The one was diated Dublin Castle, thte othiers Brigh- ton; all breathied the warmest love, and indicated an intimacy be- tewe en the parties of the closest nature. This was the case on behalf' of'the plaintiff. Mlr. Dsr-,tNA-z theni said, it became his dluty to address the jury on behalf of' his client, Captain Webster, who hiad suffered judg- ment to go by default, anid thereby prevenrteti disclositres which must have bcen painfuil to all parties, and clisg-racefuli to some. But lie could not help remarking, that it never was suppo~sed that so little information would have been produced to the jury. as a foundation for those heavy darnages which his learned friend had anticipated. Ile owned that it diti appear to himn that there never wvas a case which presented so very few features to warrant such a calculation. It was truie that som-e respectable ladies had been called, and who hatl given some evidence, but so verv im- material as to leadi one to stuppoiie that they hiad 6een produced for no other reason than to give ornament and dignity to the cause ;for it was quite impossible that thiey, frors their rank andI station, and connexion with parties, couldI have been in possession of' the secrets of Mlrs. Baring, or qualifiedl to speak as to iter conducet and principles. They are the sisters of' the husband-unquestionably, the si.fter of' the wife couldI not have been brought forward, but w'ere there not many othiers that mighit? There was aL grown-up daughiter, had slhe no governess? WVhy was not the French waiting-maid called, who had consented to act oni some occasions as the "1 go-between." She might, perhaps, have told the jury something of' the uninterrupted hiap- giness, as it was called, of'the husband, but which the Jusry muist have seen hand arrivedi at its concluision long before Captain Webster had become acquainted with this lady. The lady's charms, whith hacl won her husband's affections twenty years before, had vanishedl, and misery, andt distress, ancd alienation had been planted in their place. Hlow fallacious was all the evidlence-how little uipon whichi the jury could rely. The re- laspectable ladies whio had been called all sta'ted that even in autumn lat te appearances of Mrs. Bariag to her husband were the samne as usual : aUl was tranquillity, and happiness, and love, andI vet she permittedl a gross assignation with the defendant a month -before. Whiat right, then, has anv man to infer that his client was the se- ducer? The lady wa4 matriecdin t809 ; she wasitheni at least eigbteen years Of age; she is now on the verge of 40, if, indeeg, she has not passed that matured period of life. The gentleman was con- si(terably under SO, tise younger brothier of' Sir Godfrey Webster, a Captain in the army;- and was his guilt so great, or dlid, the cir- cumstances of the case warrant thiat he should be subjected to heavy d1am.ages, which would place his personal liberty for life at the seoyo a man whom hie was supposed to have injuiredl? He was anxous to find out whilt were the feelinigs of' the husband, and with that view he asked MVr. Mlansfield, not witether thsey ob- served the comimon intercourse of' life--not the accidental circtum- stances of' domestic life but-what, in fact, was the coniduct of the plaintiff towards his wife-how he spent hii evenings; whether his .Rtrong affection hiad lasted uip to the perioti of thie sedluction (for thien, indeed, the loss would hnave been irreparable)-whethter Iiis attachnient had not beeni abatedI by formeT seducers ; or whether, ~n fact, when lie hiad been released from the e1mbrace3s Of hig Wife he had lost any thing mare than the name. No opportitiitvy bat ieen afforded of any examination as to the situation 'of the !ady before marriage, or any of' those circumnstances to point outt the extent of the loss whiceh the plaintiff had sustained. No such tvidence hatl been tendered ; and from its having been withheld, [he was sure the jury would draw the proper inferences. The last persons in The world li'kely to hiear what Was goinig forwarti, wvere the sisters of the injured husband ; and yet they were the only persons called to describe the domnestic happiness of the achies, which is nowsaid to have been destro-vedhby Captain Webster. ,tasainiul to that gentleman to be driven to this line of' de- renCe ; it was distressing to himr to come here at all; but it be- 2ame the dluty of hiis advocate to suiggest those topics in reply :o a ease whiceh had been left so singularly bare of' circumstances if elucidation. No proof whiatever had been adduced as to the werod is'c, the al;snaiors or' rsFctlci,ios bad taken place ; the Inly tieeven suggested wvas when Mr. Baring had becomec 'nembr fr Colchester; and then it was stated by his lea-rned ?riend. ha his Parliamnentary duties had occasione'd him to he ibsent from home sometimes for a week, somnetimes a fortnight )ut what evidence was there to show whe-n it was that Mfr. Web- ;ter had become acquanted with the lady ? iNone whatever. Rsven the French maadid was9 not called to prove it : ali was left to murmise and conjectuire. The letter-s unquestionably " defiote a 'oregone concliusion," that the partics must have frequzently met : 2ut under all the probabilities of' the case, he would ask, w'ho was :he seducer ? flis learned friend had made use of'aa expression not iLnfrequently introdlucd into c-ases of this dlescription-namely, :hat the lady had been "rmore sinned against than sinning ;" but if he could horrow the quotation, he would venture to apply it and with much miore reason, to hiis client, Captain WVebster. All Midence Thad been most judiciously kept back, except those who were more able to speak to the superficial appearances of thne irawing-room ; not one word as to the "' secrets of the levee," )r the "1 mysteries of the boudoir," or what was going forward rn those evenings when thie hiusband hadl absented htimself from jome. WVas this, then, a case from whlich a jury could say that monsiderable damages shouldI arise? His learned friend( (M1r. Broughamn) hiad spoken of' Captain Webister as if lie lhad imported rrotn foreign countries some secret spell to dlebauch the morals )f the couintry: it wouldl seem as if he bad wishied to de.- riounce this genitleman, not merely as the first seduicer of Mrs., Baring, but as the first transgressor of this sort in Bnglanid; and ~ie called uponi the jury with an energy as if' they were assembled to avenge Ithe first inroad unoon the national moralz. It was quite true diat Captain WVeb-ter hiad passed much of his life abroad: he weut earlv in youth to the dea-th of the war in Spain;, he was after- wards engaged in the French war, and nobly earnedl those laurels which he now wore ; but was it not a little hard that when a soldier wvas sent into foreign climes4 in the service of his country, that circumstance shouxld be cast against him as'a matter Df reproach ? But, let the jurTY ask themrselves this question- IVas it probable that a young man, introduced into a family Of the very highest respectability, would have dared to make advances to the head of that respectable family, if' he had not received some encouragement, to which he was not now allowed to allude, but wh'ich thejury, could hiave no difficulty to guess ? Thle difference of aLge was nothing...the difference of' the circumstances of the parties was every thiing. His learnedI friend had said, that Captain Web- ster shouild have previously conisidered his ability to pay diamages, and,in fact,seemed to look at the c-ase entirelv as if it were a commer. rial contract. Had lie been content with stating it was this yon man's; duty to have resisted anv advances that could have a10rcted the honour of the wife of his friend, and the mother of his friende's children, that would indeed have been the strong groundi to have rested the charge upon. These were conisiderations which the crimi- nal ambition of any man couild not ha've overcome, Who ever daresi to commit suich an outrage on society ; such attempts are out of the reach of' Youthi and passion itself, unless the wife and the mo- ther forgets the husband and the children, and mnakes overtures, to whlich the impudence of ambition would never have aspired. It wvas true she was the mothier of five children, buit were not those subjectsi for her reflection ? Ought she not to have remem. bereri that she hiad a grown-up dlaughter, who haa since been married, and who is now, perhaps, herself' the miothner of chil- diren-that she hadl a son oP an age himself to be madle the subject of' a charge of this natuire ? These tire thjings whiceh must all hiave been forgotten by the wife before any man would dare to enter, the sanctuary (if doniestic happiness. No matter on what terms he mighit he in the family, or how- hiigh a. place hie might hold in the catalogue of visiters, he would never have as- pired to suich an intimnacy unless the ladly's embraces hiad been pre pared for his happiness. Hlewould tellthie juryflairly,antlhe told it with pain, Captain WVebster was not in a situantion to pay heavy damages; and if' it was merely the object of Mlr. Baring to rtender his character clear and spotless, nothing should be left to suirmise or conjecture. It hias been stated thait the injury wvas greater, because it was the breaking up of an old friend(ship; he was ready to admit, tbat if his client lhad seducedi the lady fromn thle armns of' a long conlidioig husband, the eae woulti have bren mitch worse, as read h usbandl, not better as regards the wife;, buit the rir- culmitnces of the case clearly demonstrated that the whole loss the husbandi had sustained wvas tIme being rieprived of the app'earances of love by whliich he badl been deceived. His learned friend hiad said it was the duty.of tire jury to give a lesson to others-that thecy kept a schiool for the purpose of teaching parties flow to conduct themselves. But let it be rememibered, that it was not m erely, the school for wives anid lovers, but for husbands also mid when they comie before a jury, they shiould be prepared to give a fuill statement of their own coniduct, and not rest their cae upon the eloquence of themr counsel, however ptowerful it may be. Let the jury considjer thie situation in which tile defend. lnut wasm placed. Somfething was due to hist charactor as well as to) others : let him not be brandedu as a profligate sedtucer. Ile would remind them of a scene in the most popular of all our comedies, which was not inapplicable to thte p-resent ease: it was in Tile .S'Cloolfour S'candal, where a conversation takes place between the two brothere, whilst Lady Teazi'e is placed behiind the screen. The deliber-te and hy,ocritical proflicate asks hlis brothier how he should act in a case of such dlifficulty ; to which Charles S,sr- fiee rePlies. " Whly, brother, I hlope I shall never bec such a v illa in aus dibrtlto attemipt the honour of a virtuouis woman; but be dcan,deith Wa~ith You, I confess if a pretty woiaan were to thirow hierself inm waY, Why, thlen I fear I shlould be oblieed to eorwaltf of Youir niorality." Under all the circumstances, he c-ould nouthelp th'inking that the jury would be of' opiniion, that thle conduct of tIme defenidanit did riot deserve that lie sHiould be con- signed to tite Pains and mfise ties of'a protracted imprisonment; but that very mnoderate diamages wvould amplI satisfy thie jusitice of' the case. The UN DEsstSmsEt.Fry then tr)ifld tlejry,iltat thefrequcncyofeascs of'thi kid rndeedit nneessry orhim to makce any observations on te naureof te qestin. Tey ad hardthe evidence, and it woud b fo thm t sa, uderalldiecicumstalnces, what sierunt The Jry rturnd a vrdic for teplaintiff-..Damsges 1,01101. SHERIFP'S COUR7, RED LI0N-SQUARE. tSEN?lY BARING, ESQ. MS.P. V. CAPTAINl WEBSVER.