MR. WILMOT'S CASE.-SESSION 1792.

Not only the Sentence, but the Libel and Pleadings in the Ecclesiastical Court, must be produced and proved.

THE definitive sentence of the Spiritual Court was produced and proved; but the witness being asked if he had not brought the libel and pleadings in the suit, answered that he had brought the original sentence only. On the following day the original pleadings were proved and produced (0).

THE REV. MR. TWISSLETON'S CASE.-SESSION 1798. Deed of Separation.—Wife's subsequent Adultery.—No action against Adulterer. Petitioner examined.-Bill passed.

THE petitioner was a clergyman of irreproachable character, and a husband of regular and domestic habits. His wife, gay and extravagant, had a strong predilection for theatrical amusements, and a passionate desire to become an actress; a step vehemently opposed by Mr. Twissleton. Disagreeing on this point, they, in 1794, executed a deed of separation, and parted from each other. The criminal connexion which formed the groundwork of the bill did not appear to have commenced till after the separation, and was not discovered by the petitioner till 1796. He did not resort to any action at law against the paramour; but the evidence left no room to doubt the fact of his wife's adultery. At the close of the case, the petitioner was called to the bar and examined as to the causes which had occasioned the separation. These, he said, were, in the first place, his wife's great extravagance; and, secondly, her ungovernable predilection for the stage. "He had," he said, "the strongest aversion to her taking such a step. She, however, insisted on it; and then the deed of separation was executed; after which he never saw her again. The separation," he continued, "took place chiefly in consequence of the acting, of her extravagance, her ill temper, and all together; but chiefly on account of the acting." The bill passed without objection or difficulty.

(") See case of Mr. Green, supra, p. 500.

MR. ESTEN'S CASE.-SESSION 1798.

Deed of Separation, whereby Husband renounced all control over his Wife, and barred himself from instituting any Suit for restitution of conjugal rights.— Adultery committed by the Wife thereafter.-Action against Paramour.— Husband non-suited.-Bill rejected.

A DEED of separation was produced, containing the following clause-"He, the said James Esten, doth hereby covenant and agree to and with the said Anna Maria Bennet (the mother of his wife), her executors and administrators, and to and with the said Harriet Esten, his wife, in manner following; that is to say, that the said Harriet Esten shall, and lawfully may at all times hereafter, live separate and apart from him, the said James Esten; and that he shall and will permit and suffer the said Harriet Esten from time to time, and at all times hereafter, during their joint natural lives, to live separate, distinct, and apart from him, the said James Esten, in such dwelling-house, lodgings, or apartments, and with such relations and friends, in such family or families, and with such person or persons, in such manner as she in her own free will and discretion shall think fit, and shall be agreeable to herself; and in like manner to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as if she were sole and unmarried; and further, that he, the said James Esten, or any other person or persons, by his authority, order, and direction, shall not, nor will at any time or times hereafter, institute or commence any action or suit against the said Harriet Esten, his wife, in the Ecclesiastical or any other courts, for living separate and apart from him; nor for compelling her to cohabit, live, or reside with him; nor shall nor will himself disturb or interrupt her, or any other person or persons whatsoever, for receiving, residing with, or accommodating her, either in public or private, in any manner, or by any means whatsoever.”

The husband in this case was a purser in the navy; his wife, an actress. After the separation she placed herself under the protection of the Duke of Hamilton, to whom she bore a child. Esten brought an action against the duke, but was nonsuited. He, however, obtained a decree of separation in the Court Spiritual, and followed up this proceeding by applying for a divorce in Parliament. The case presented strong indications of collusion. But it is probable, that the complete surrender by the husband, of all authority and control over his wife, under the deed of separation, would of itself have

been sufficient to exclude him from his remedy. The bill was rejected. This case appears to have led to the passing of the Standing Orders, Nos. 141, 142. (1)

MR. BARTELOTT'S CASE.-SESSION 1799.

Deed of Separation.-Subsequent Adultery.-Damages recovered at Law.-Bill nevertheless rejected.

66

A SIMILAR result attended the case of Mr. Bartelott, an officer in the army, whose bill of divorce came before the Lords in the Session of 1799. The guilt of the wife was clearly established; but a prior deed of separation was produced, reciting, that Whereas divers differences and disputes had arisen between the said Hooker Bartelott and Amelia, his wife, and there not being any probability of the same being happily settled, they had mutually agreed to part with and live separate from each other in future; and whereas, in order to secure some provision for her maintenance and support during their joint lives, from thenceforth during their said separation, it was mutually agreed and determined upon by the said Hooker Bartelott, and the said Amelia his wife, and also Thomas Oston, father of the said Amelia, that he the said Hooker Bartelott should pay and allow, and also secure to and for her during their joint natural lives, an annuity of 801.; and he the said Thomas Oston agreed to indemnify and save harmless him the said Hooker Bartelott of and from all debts she might contract." Then followed a clause providing that the parties should live separate and apart from each other during their joint natural lives, unless by mutual consent they should thereafter agree to live together; and another clause providing that the said agreement should operate as a bar to all legal proceedings between the parties, and to all suits for the restoration of conjugal rights.

Upon consideration of this deed, and upon proof of the introduction of improper society by the petitioner to his wife, as well as of the general irregularity of his habits and conduct as a husband, the bill, though supported by clear proof of adultery, by the usual ecclesiastical sentence, and by a verdict against the paramour for 7007. damages, was rejected.

(P) See Appendix, No. 6.

SIR HYDE PARKER'S CASE.-SESSION 1799.

Bastardising Clause inserted in the Act as passed.

THE petitioner, in May 1793, having been ordered on H. M's. service to the Mediterranean, proceeded thither accordingly, and did not return to this country till June 1796; during this period his wife remained in England.

It appeared that, in 1795, Mrs. Parker had formed a criminal connexion with a Captain Baillie, and, in July 1796, was delivered of a base-born child.

The bill passed, containing the following clause: "And be it further enacted, that all and every the child and children, as well male as female, which at any time, between the 1st day of May 1794 and the 1st day of January 1797, hath or have been born of the body of the said Anne, the wife of the said Sir Hyde Parker, is and are, and shall be deemed and taken to be, a bastard and bastards, and a spurious issue, and not the lawful issue of the said Sir Hyde Parker on the body of the said Anne, his wife, begotten; and that no child or children who shall hereafter be born of the body of the said Anne shall be deemed, taken, or reputed to be the lawful issue of the said Sir Hyde Parker, on the body of the said Anne begotten.”

MAJOR CAMPBELL'S CASE.-SESSION 1799.

Marriage in Scotland.-Adultery by the Wife with her Uncle.-Recriminatory matter subsequent to the Wife's adultery rejected.-Voluntary appearance and examination of the Uncle.-His denial of the charge.-Letter tendered to prove recriminatory matter anterior to Wife's adultery rejected.—Bill passed.

16 April.-THE Rev. Alexander Cleeve was examined, and stated that he married the parties in Edinburgh, at the residence of the lady's mother, according to the ceremonies of the Church of England. Being asked what he meant by the ceremonies of the Church of England, he answered, that the service of the Church of England was performed, but that it was performed in a house, and not in a church; adding, that in Scotland parties were not married in a church, but in a private house. The witness stated that Mrs. Campbell constantly attended his chapel, but that he scarcely ever saw her after she was married. No difficulty arose on this point;

but the case was, in another respect, singular, the adulterer (against whom the petitioner had obtained a verdict for 3000Z. damages) being uncle to Mrs. Campbell, the adultress.

18 April.-Mr. Adam, of counsel for Mrs. Campbell, proposed to open matter of recrimination against the petitioner, alleging that he had been living in a state of incontinence, although not prior in date to the adultery charged against Mrs. Campbell. Mr. Mingay, the counsel for the bill, observed that the same matter had been offered by way of plea in the last appeal before the delegates, but not in the former stage of the proceeding; and that such plea had been rejected by the delegates.

The counsel for Mrs. Campbell were informed that they could not be permitted to enter into such matter.

The evidence adduced against Mrs. Campbell was held conclusive; but, on the 23d April, her uncle appears to have come voluntarily forward as a witness on her behalf. He began by giving a general contradiction to the evidence which had been taken, and then proceeded as follows:-"As I understand the evidence, it went to show that I was criminally connected with Mrs. Campbell.— I solemnly declare, before Almighty God, that then nor at any period of my lifetime have I been criminally connected with Mrs. Campbell. It never entered my imagination; and never, in any one act of my life, have I deviated from the duty of an affectionate father for an unfortunate daughter-of an uncle to a niece-of a parent to a child."

25 April.-Mr. Adam offered recriminatory matter, and tendered, in evidence, a letter of the petitioner to Mrs. Campbell, written before the commencement of her misconduct; but, under the circumstances of the case, this letter was rejected by the House, and the bill passed.

LIEUTENANT HAYES' CASE.-SESSION 1801.

Petitioner an Officer in the Navy on actual service. His attendance dispensed with; but afterwards a Deed of Separation appearing to have been executed, his attendance declared indispensable, to explain the circumstances.-Attends accordingly, and is examined.-House satisfied.-Bill passed.

THE bill was brought in on the 8th May, 1801. A petition was presented by Lieutenant Hayes' agent, praying that the House "would dispense with the attendance of the petitioner, as he was