The sentiments of affection and kindness, which the letters exhibit, are not more at variance with the supposition of disagreements of one kind than of the other. I think, therefore, that this charge is by no means effectually repelled.

The next act of cruelty is that alleged to have been committed at Granvilliers, on the journey to Paris in December 1815. The thirteenth article of the allegation charges, very summarily, that on that occasion "he abused the Marchioness and swore at her in a most outrageous manner, and then struck her a most violent blow with his fist, pushing her at the same time with much force, so that she would have fallen on her head in the fire-place, if she had not been caught and prevented by Miss Wood." The witnesses who speak to this fact are Miss Wood, and the servant maid, Janet Service, who were the only persons present. They differ a little in circumstances. Miss Wood says, "that Lady Westmeath, herself, and the servant, were in the bed-room, and that the door was not opened immediately for five minutes, to Lord Westmeath, but that the delay was unavoidable." The servant says, "she came up stairs with Lord Westmeath, and the door was opened immediately on his knocking." Miss Wood says the blow was on the upper part of her breast near the shoulder. The servant says it was on the lower part of the back. They both agree that they came late to a bad inn at Granvilliers, and Lady Westmeath complained, in the hearing of Lord Westmeath, though not to him, that it was more like a brothel than an hotel. The expressions used to him were only "What a place is this you have brought us to." Miss Wood does not even speak to any conversation, but she says, "that Lord Westmeath came into the room with wood for the fire: that her back being turned, she did not see what passed, but heard a blow given by Lord Westmeath, which would have knocked Lady Westmeath down, if she had not caught her: that he exclaimed at the same time, 'Go to hell, I wish I had never seen you.'" Service says, "the blow was struck in consequence of the question asked by Lady Westmeath-What place is this you have brought us to?' It was about the small of the back that he struck her, and the blow seemed for a time to take away her Ladyship's breath." No further account is given of what passed afterwards, except that Lady Westmeath retired into the inner room, in which Miss Wood slept, and staid there till five or six o'clock in the morning, when by the persuasion of Miss Wood she returned to her own room, and it appears they went on to Paris the next day.

It is not denied in argument that something of this kind occurred, but no satisfactory explanation is given on the part of Lord Westmeath, of what actually passed. From the different accounts given of the part of the body on which the blow was struck, by Miss Wood and Service, I may infer that it was not so violent as to occasion bruises, or to leave any visible marks; but I think I am bound to conclude from the evidence, that violence was used on that occasion, and that a blow was given, either with the fist, or with the open hand, as seems to be suggested, which was unjustifiable. Miss Wood and Service say they did not witness any other act of violence, nor any other instance of gross or abusive language in France, though they describe the general temper of Lord Westmeath to be very irritating and blameable in their opinion. They, attribute the illness of Lady Westmeath at Paris, to the effect of this conduct. In this, however, I think they betray a little of the exaggeration which

usually accompanies the testimony of partial witnesses: for they admit particular instances of great attention and kindness in the behaviour of Lord Westmeath to his wife during her illness, and witnesses examined, on the part of Lord Westmeath, as to the manner in which they lived in Paris, describe Lady Westmeath to have been much in society, and in general good health and spirits, taking the diversion of hunting, and partaking of all other amusements.

On this review of the evidence respecting the scene at Granvilliers, I should be glad enough to make any deduction in the evidence of the two witnesses, on the score of partiality, if I knew where I was to stop; but being furnished with no explanation that appears to me more satisfactory, than the account given by these witnesses, I think I am not warranted entirely to disbelieve them. Lord Westmeath himself admits, in one of his letters, occasional intemperance of speech on other occasions, and particularly that he had threatened to turn Lady Westmeath out of doors." The same threat is complained of by her in her letter marked thirty, though I do not perceive that, in that letter, she adverts to his behaviour at Granvilliers. The expression is not, therefore, so incredible, or irreconcileable to the habits of Lord Westmeath, as I might have expected. On the whole of the evidence applicable to this part of the case, I do not feel myself at liberty to disbelieve the account given by Lady Westmeath's witnesses, and if that is believed, there can be but one opinion of the impropriety, and, I think, of the legal character of the act of violence described to have been committed, on this occasion. They staid about nine months in Paris, and afterwards went to Spa, and returned to Ireland about the end of 1816. Nothing particular occurred during that period. The fourteenth article charges "violent conduct and gross and opprobrious language, on an occasion happening in December of that year, when they were proceeding to embark for England." Janet Service is the only witness examined on it. She says, "they came down in the carriage to embark; Lord Westmeath being on the box: he was for going back as it was too rough: Lady Westmeath said it would be better to inquire if there was any danger; he would not attend to her, but put himself in a great passion, and ordered the coachman to drive back. Lady Westmeath said, 'Will you just hear me for a moment-only just hear me,' on which he became quite furious, and ordered the footman, who was down waiting at the door, to get up again, and pay no attention to her, saying, 'he was master and would be obeyed.' He was much vexed, and seemed as if he would have struck her, or pushed her down in the carriage; deponent was alarmed for the child and cried out. Lady Westmeath sat down, and the carriage drove back to Dublin." On this statement, which has the appearance of being rather inflamed, it was an accidental occurrence growing out of his axiety for their safety, according to the judgment which he had a right to form of the danger of embarking at that time. There was no actual violence, nor any threat or opprobrious language which the witness is able to describe. The witness says, "it was bad enough at other times, when the witness only was present, but she thought it much worse on this occasion, because the men-servants were witnesses to it, and it was insulting and degrading Lady Westmeath before them." Her comments on this occurrence bear the appearance of being overcharged; and however much the description may keep up the colouring as to the hasty and intempeVOL. IV.

33

rate habits and manners of Lord Westmeath, it states no acts of personal violence, and adds very little to charges of actual cruelty.

I now come to a part of the case, which is rather of a novel kind. The fifteenth and following articles relate to a series of negociations, and acts done, in effecting a voluntary separation between these parties, which exhibit rather an extraordinary specimen of matrimonial law. There is a continual charge of frequent quarrelling and abusive language, but the specific acts that are pleaded are very few, and of those some are not proved. They plead "That in consequence of the aforesaid ill treatment, Lady Westmeath in the summer of 1817 again declared her intention of applying to the laws of her country for protection, but agreed to abandon such intention, on his proposing to execute a deed of separation; and instructions for such an instrument were accordingly given to Mr. Sheldon; that in October in that year, Lord Westmeath, being in Ireland, expressed his contrition for the cruelty of his aforesaid conduct towards her, in sundry letters," that are exhibited: "that Lady Westmeath being moved by such letters expressed a disposition to forgive him, and he promised to execute a deed to provide against any recurrence of his ill-treatment." A deed was accordingly executed in December, 1817, for a separate maintenance, and which is also exhibited. "That they thereon lived and cohabited together: that about Easter, 1818, he renewed his ill-treatment; she complained to her friends, and implored their interference that legal measures might be adopted on her behalf to obtain a separation: that a meeting took place between Mr. Sheldon, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Wood. The draft of articles of separation was prepared in May 1818, it was delivered to a stationer to copy; Lord Westmeath obtained possession of, and destroyed it." The conduct of Lord Westmeath in attempting to destroy that agreement has been the subject of strong and severe animadversion in the argument, but that is not strictly a point in the case which I have to determine, and therefore I shall not advert to it further than as it is an incident in the general history of the parties. It has not been the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts to consider such agreements as affecting in any way the legal relation of the parties:(a) and therefore, a breach of such an engagement can hardly enter into the strict and accurate examination which I am bound to take of the evidence, as it may support the charge of cruelty. Another draft, however, was prepared and executed in August following, making a separate provision of 1300l. per annum for Lady Westmeath, and containing the usual engagements not to require cohabitation, or to resort to the process of the law for that purpose. During the whole of this time, from the summer of 1817 to August 1818, no specific act of cruelty is pleaded, except one about Easter, 1818, occurring at Hatfield, in which Lord Westmeath is described to have seized a poker and to have brandished it over her head threatening to kill

(a) In Smith v. Smith (Consistory, 1781,) in a suit by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife pleaded articles of separation with a clause that the husband should not proceed in the Ecclesiastical Court. This plea however was overruled, and the Court (Dr. Wynne) observed, "that it believed it was the first time the question had come directly before it, and was surprised that it should be brought forward." That case was cited by the same learned Judge in Fletcher v. Fletcher (Consistory, 1786,) where, on a suit for restitution by the husband, the same point was raised, and decided on the authority of the former case. And the principle of those decisions has been acted upon in subsequent cases. See further upon this subject, Roper on the Law of Husband and Wife, vol 2. c. 22. 2nd edition.

her." But on this charge no witness is produced. Sarah Johnson lived with Lady Westmeath from June 1817; but she speaks to no specific act at the time. The Marchioness of Salisbury expressly denies that Lady Westmeath made any complaint to her of the violence described in this article.

The letters of Lord Westmeath, which form the introduction to this part of the case, are seven in number, written from Ireland in the months of September and October, 1817. They are written in a very impressive strain of the deepest and most intense self-humiliation, to an offended and injured woman. They ascribe to Lady Westmeath the character of an affectionate wife, and many excellent qualities, and, in so doing, remove from her much of the blame of this unhappy quarrel. The terms are general, however, in most parts, and for that reason not very distinct in their application; No. 5, acknowledges that he threatened to disinherit Lady Rosa, and turn Lady Westmeath herself out of doors; which seems to refer to the acts of violence charged to have been committed in April 1814, during the confinement of Lady Westmeath, and afterwards acknowledged, in the conference with Mr. Wood, at the Waterford Hotel, as spoken to by that witness. It implores compassion and pardon for the brutality which he had shown to her in individual instances; and expresses "an earnest anxiety that arrangements might be made to secure her in case of any unfortunate recurrence. These are his own expressions. He adverts to the suspicion entertained of his continued intimacy with the mother of two natural children, which he had had before marriage, and admits that appearances might justify the supposition that it was the cause of such threats. He disavows the fact however, and it is strongly disclaimed by Counsel, and there is nothing before the Court that shows any such intimacy was continued. The tenor of these letters does, I think, very much confirm the account, given by Mr. Wood, of similar confessions at the meeting at the Waterford Hotel in Dublin, in September 1815. The result of this correspondence, however, leads to a reconciliation which was granted in Lady Westmeath's letter of the 18th October 1817, and was most gratefully acknowledged in Lord Westmeath's answer of the 26th.

He returns to England and cohabits with Lady Westmeath; and in November 1818, Lord Delvin was born. In the meantime it appears that Mr. Sheldon was employed in preparing the deed of reconciliation, as it is termed, to which I have before adverted. That instrument recites the marriage settlement by which Lady Westmeath was to have a jointure of 3000l. per annum, and that no provision had been made for the issue: It then recites, "that whereas disputes and differences had existed and arisen to such a height that they were on the point of separating and living apart, but by the intervention of friends she had consented to live and cohabit with him after he had executed these deeds, and thereby made provision for their issue." It then covenants, that "in consideration of such consent he settles his estates as is therein described, with a proviso that in case it shall happen, that by a renewal of such disputes and differences as had already caused their separation, she should find herself compelled to cease to cohabit, she shall receive yearly such sums as by their mutual friends shall be agreed to be a proper and sufficient maintenance, with a further proviso that the payment should be suspended during any subsequent reconciliation, and be resumed on any future separation to take place in consequence of ill usage, and gross

abuse." All that is specific is the arrangement for a separate maintenance. The sum of money, and the nature of the ill usage which is to give effect to it, are left to the arbitration of friends. Lord Westmeath covenants that in any separation he will execute the usual articles; and such an instrument was prepared in May 1818, which contains articles to that effect, and assigns to Lady Westmeath a specific sum of 13007. per annum.

The depositions of Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Stephens relate principally to the execution of these deeds. Mr. Sheldon was the confidential agent of Lord Salisbury and of Lady Westmeath, and was adopted also as a common friend by Lord Westmeath, notwithstanding Mr. Sheldon's request that he would employ some other professional person. He speaks to the acknowledgment on the part of Lord Westmeath, in the summer of 1817, of his own ill-treatment of Lady Westmeath, as the cause of the separation which Lord Westmeath had prevailed on Lady Westmeath to abandon, by the most humiliating concessions and promises of amendment. The depositions of these gentlemen, however, relate principally to the execution of the deeds, and to the admissions of the Marquess as to past misconduct. They did not see Lord Westmeath use or threaten to use any personal violence to Lady Westmeath; and it is not an insignificant circumstance in this case, that Lord and Lady Salisbury have not appeared as the natural protectors of their daughter in these disputes; as it is said, "Lord Salisbury would have nothing to do with them." The present Marquess, then Lord Cranborne, was named trustee in the settlement, but without his consent; and he says he was not privy to the arrangements. He speaks, but very generally, as to his knowledge of the conduct of the parties. He says, "he was in the habit of going to their house in Bolton Street, and so far as he saw of the conduct of Lord Westmeath, during Lady Westmeath's pregnancy in 1818, he did not actually see anything amiss, but he does not mean to depose that there was nothing amiss in it."

The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth articles relate to the manner in which they lived in separate apartments in Stratford Place. The twenty-ninth pleads, an attempt to compel her to give up the deeds, with a declaration that he would force her to give them up, and threats to challenge Mr. Wood, who was a trustee. The thirtieth pleads the last act of violence in his conduct towards Mrs. Wetherly the housekeeper, and towards Lady Westmeath, on the 20th of June 1819. These latter instances may be classed together, as they constitute the principal or only charge of personal violence in the latter part of the case, as they happened about the same time, and proceeded from the same cause, from an impatience of the state in which he had placed himself, and from a desire to reclaim and assert his marital authority. The account which is given of them by the witnesses, Johnson and Wetherly, is very similar, and there is no reason to question the truth of their evidence. Sarah Johnson says, "She lived as lady's maid with the Marchioness from April 1817 to 1821. She went with her to Hatfield in July 1817, where they staid seven months. She then removed to Stratford Place, and in January 1819 to a house in Bolton Street. During the first part of the time Lord Westmeath and the Marchioness slept in adjoining rooms, and communicating with each other; and they held intercourse, for Lady Westmeath became pregnant. It was on the 18th of May 1818 that they separated, and the door of communication was fastened.