CLIII. against the Chester Strange to say, he continued in the office of Lord Chan- CHAP. cellor between seven and eight years. We have a very imperfect record of his judicial performances during this Length of period. His reporters are Ambler and Dickens, and both his Chancellorship. together hardly give more space to the whole of his Chancellorship than is occupied by a single term of Lord Eldon or Lord Cottenham. He does not seem to have settled any His judg point of much importance, and I can only find one case of ments. general interest which came before him. The widow of He grants Philip Stanhope having sold to Dodsley, the bookseller, for injunction 1500l., "Lord Chesterfield's Letters to his Son," which publication were advertised for publication, the executors of Lord Ches- of Lord terfield, who was lately deceased, filed a bill for an injunction. field's The defendant first insisted that a person to whom a letter Letters. is written, or his representatives, may publish it without, or against the consent of the writer or his representatives, and then tried to make out that at any rate in this case the late Lord Chesterfield, having recovered back some papers which he wished to burn, had expressly given permission to Mrs. Stanhope to make what use she pleased of those letters written by him to her late husband, after she had observed to him that "they would make a fine system of education if published," and that the only objection he offered was, "that there was too much Latin in them." But "the LORD CHANCELLOR was very clear that an injunction ought to be granted: That the widow had no right to print the letters without the consent of Lord Chesterfield or his executors: That she had obtained neither the one nor the other: That Lord Chesterfield, when he declined taking the letters and said she might keep them, did not mean to give her leave to print and publish them. He cited the case of Mr. Pope's letters to be published by Curl, and Lord Clarendon's Life advertised by Dr. Shebbeare." Injunction ordered till hearing, but recommendation given to the executors to permit the publication in case they saw no objection to the work, on having a copy of it delivered to them.* Ambler, 737.; Thompson and others, executors of the Earl of Chesterfield, v. Stanhope and Dodsley. CHAP. In Scotch Appeals he is assisted by Lord Mansfield. The letters were published accordingly, and, upon the whole, there would have been ground for lamentation if they had been suppressed. Upon them chiefly depends the literary reputation of Lord Chesterfield, and notwithstanding the noted saying of Dr. Johnson concerning the “morals” and "manners" which they teach, and although they are disfigured by passages highly exceptionable, they contain many useful observations on life, and they may be turned to good advantage in the education of youth. Our indignation against the writer is much softened by considering the characteristic faults of his son, to whom they were addressed.* Without able assistance, Lord Bathurst would have made sad work of the appeal business in the House of Lords. He had never been engaged in a Scotch case, and was utterly ignorant of Scotch law, so as not to know the difference of a holding a me from a holding de me; and the solemn decisions of the fifteen Judges of the Court of Session were to be reviewed by him. But Lord Mansfield, taking compassion upon his destitute condition, or influenced by a regard for the credit of the Government or the interests of justice, attended the hearing of these cases, and they were very satisfactorily disposed of. The only very important English case which he had to Lest I should be supposed to give any countenance to the fashionable immorality to be found in these letters, I copy for the benefit of my young readers the epigram describing their result: "Vile Stanhope · - Demons blush to tell In twice two hundred places "But little did th' ungenerous lad He sneak'd to hell without them." And I will give as an antidote the touching exhortation of my countryman "The sacred lowe o' weel-plac'd love But never tempt th' illicit rove, "I wave the quantum of the sin, СНАР. CLIII. deal with in the House of Lords was one in which he could not conveniently lean on Lord Mansfield; as it was a writ of error from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench on the Writ of grand question of literary property. But the twelve Judges error respecting were called in, and adopting the opinion of a majority of them, copyright. "that authors have now no property in their works except what the legislature confers," the Chancellor had an easy task to perform in moving a reversal. "Having declared that he was wholly unbiassed, he entered into a very minute discussion of the several citations and precedents relied upon at the bar; and, one by one, described their complexion, their origin, and their tendency; showing that they were foreign to any constructions which would support the respondents in their argument. He then gave a history of the bill passed in Anne's reign for the protection of literary property, which, he said, was drawn up by the advice of Swift and Addison; and concluded with declaring, that he was clearly of opinion with the appellants." The reversal was carried, after a long debate, however, several lay peers and bishops taking part in it on opposite sides. 1776. sides as the trial of The only other important judicial proceeding in which April 15. Lord Bathurst was concerned is the trial of the Duchess of Lord BaKingston, before the House of Lords, for bigamy. The thurst preoffence being in point of law felony, he was, on this occasion, High created Lord High Steward, and Westminster Hall was Steward on fitted up with as much grandeur as when Charles I. was the Duchess tried there before LORD PRESIDENT BRADSHAW and the "High Court of Justice,"—although, in this instance, it was known that a conviction could only lead to an admonition, "that the lady should not do the like again." of Kings ton. When she first appeared at the bar, and courtesied to the His preliminary Peers, his Grace the Lord High Steward thus addressed address to her: "Madam, you stand indicted for having married a her. second husband, your first husband being living. A crime so destructive of the peace and happiness of private families, and so injurious in its consequences to the welfare and good order of society, that by the statute law of this kingdom it 17 Parl. Hist. 1001. 1400. CHAP. Q. as to effect of Ecclesias tical Court? was for many years (in your sex) punishable with death; the lenity, however, of later times has substituted a milder punishment in its stead.* This consideration must necessarily tend to lessen the perturbation of your spirits upon such an awful occasion. But that, Madam, which, next to the inward feelings of your own conscience, will afford you most comfort is, reflecting upon the honour, the wisdom, and the candour of this high court of criminal jurisdiction. It is, Madam, by your particular desire that you now stand at that bar. In your petition to the Lords, praying for a speedy trial, you assumed the title of Duchess Dowager of Kingston, and you likewise averred that Augustus John Hervey, whose wife the indictment charges you with being, is at this time Earl of Bristol. On examining the records, the Lords are satisfied of the truth of that averment, and have accordingly allowed you the privilege you petitioned for, of being tried by your peers in full Parliament; and from them you will be sure to meet with nothing but justice, tempered with humanity." † The great question was, whether a sentence of the Ecclesentence of siastical Court, which had been obtained, adjudging that there had been no prior marriage, was binding upon the House of Lords in this proceeding? This having been most learnedly and ably argued by Thurlow and Wedderburn on the one side, and Wallace and Dunning on the other, the Lord High Steward, by the authority of the House, submitted it to the Judges. They gave an opinion in the negative, and the trial was ordered to proceed. Evidence. It was then proved by the clearest evidence that the Duchess, when Miss Chudleigh and a maid of honour, had been secretly married to the Honourable Mr. Hervey, at that time a Lieutenant in the navy, now Earl of Bristol, and that they lived together some days and nights, although afterwards, repenting of what they had done, they collusively * Formerly women were hanged for all clergiable felonies, however trifling, because they could not plead that they were clerks. The difficulty would be to try for bigamy a lady married to a peer, whose first alleged husband was and continues a commoner. Quacumque viâ datà she must be acquitted, for if there was no prior marriage she is innocent; and if there was, the second marriage is void, so that she is no pceress, and the Lords have no jurisdiction. -- CHAP. CLIII. tried to have the marriage declared null in the Ecclesiastical Court; and that she had afterwards been married to Evelyn Pierrepont, Duke of Kingston. The Lords unanimously found her guilty -one Lord adding "erroneously, not intentionally." Lord High Steward: "Madam, the Lords have Verdict. considered the charge and evidence brought against you, and have likewise considered of every thing which you have alleged in your defence; and upon the whole matter their Lordships have found you guilty of the felony whereof you stand indicted. What have you to allege against judgment being pronounced upon you?" She, having prayed the privilege of the peerage, to be exempt from punishment, and after argument, a resolution being passed that she was entitled to it, the Lord High Steward said to her: "Madam, Sentence. the Lords have considered of the prayer you have made, and the Lords allow it. But, Madam, let me add, that although very little punishment, or none can now be inflicted, the feelings of your own conscience will supply that defect. And let me give you this information, likewise—that you can never have the like benefit a second time, but another offence of the same kind will be capital. Madam, you are discharged, paying your fees.” 16, 17. 1776. His Grace then broke his white wand, and dissolved April 15, the Commission. In this solemn farce, which amused the town for three days, he was allowed to have played the easy part of Lord High Steward very creditably.* Lord Chancellor Bathurst made no attempt to amend the Not a law law, or to reform the abuses of the Court of Chancery; but reformer. all notion of legal reform had disappeared during the last half of the eighteenth century; and it is a curious fact, that no general order was made by any Chancellor from Lord Hardwicke down to Lord Loughborough. † Lord Bathurst was a member of the cabinet which originated and carried on the most important and the most disastrous war in which this country was ever engaged the war with our American colonies, by which the empire was dismembered; but I do not believe that he was answerable for any of the imprudent measures of Lord North's ad Lord Ba thurst's po litical con duct while Chancellor. |