LOVEDEN. LOVEDEN . from what appeared upon an interrogatory, that he had had a quarrel with Mr. Loveden, on account of 13th July 1810. his having bartered some fruit for some seeds.I do not think that that can be admitted to affect the testimony of this witness in any degree: it is known that those things are on a different footing in different families; it is a confidence reposed in gardeners in some families to make exchanges; and a man acting fairly and for the advantage of his master's concerns would not be in the least degree discredited by it: and if he supposed that his authority went further than it did, that cannot be considered as a circumstance at all invalidating his testimony as a witness-least of all would it give a favourable bias to his testimony towards the person who had so resented the liberty he had taken. He says, "He observed there was a great degree of 66 intimacy between Mr. Barker and Mrs. Loveden, "for they were in the habit of walking together "and alone arm-in-arm in the flower-garden and "pleasure-grounds at Buscot Park, on every oc"casion they could find so to do: that, from the "manner in which they met at times in the planta"tions and in the garden, he had no doubt but that "they met there by appointment:"-He says, "That he remarked that when Mr. Barker was visit ing at Buscot, Mrs. Loveden used to get up in a "morning much earlier than was her usual cus"tom, and to come into the flower-garden, where "she was always met by Mr. Barker, and that 66 66 they used to walk there together and alone till "Mr. Loveden's bell was rung; and whenever the deponent was in the garden at such times, and "was near enough to hear the bell, he always ob"served that they separated, and Mrs. Loveden "went LOVEDEN V. LOVEDEN. "went into the house; for it was then known that "Mr. Loveden had got up: and he has at times "found them walking together in the planta- 13th July 1810. "tions, when it was not known in the house that "Mr. Barker had come there; and on one day in "particular he well recollects-" That goes to a fact which I shall have occasion to observe upon by and by. There are other witnesses that speak to situations exactly of the same kind, and as situations frequently occurring between these parties. Now I do confess that, upon a view of this general evidence applying to the general conduct of these parties to each other, I am very much inclined to accede to the doctrine which has been stated by the counsel for Mr. Loveden, that it would justify the legal conclusion that adultery had been committed if any situations were shown in which the fact was at all likely to have passed. It would be, I think, a doctrine extremely dangerous to the security of domestic life, if all this could pass without warranting such a conclusion. What!-when an improper attachment is admitted to have existed between the parties-when it is admitted that indelicate acts have passed between the parties when they were within the reach of observation, shall it not be concluded that those acts were carried much further when they were out of the reach of observation? I am not ignorant what allowances are to be made for the laxity of modern manners; but does it in practice or in reason extend to liberties of the kind described, without subjecting the parties to unfavourable conclusions, if they are found in situations in which they are withdrawn from the eye of an observer? I think LOVEDEN. LOVEDEN V. the law would lose sight of that justice by which it is to regulate the rights of individuals, if it were to 13th July 1810. hold that all this took place, and that nothing further passed when the parties were entirely unrestrained by the eyes of any persons whatever. However, the matter does not rest here: the evidence goes a great deal further; and is such as, I think, to leave but little doubt upon the minds of those who have to consider its effect. I mean particularly here to allude to the clandestine correspondence which has been produced. The fact that any correspondence whatever, unknown to the husband, had passed between this lady and Mr. Barker, would of itself be highly suspicious; even if its nature and its tenor were wholly unknown, it would have been open to the most unfavourable conclusions regarding that nature and tenor. But how is it conducted? Why, it appears that in the country she was in the habit of putting letters directed to this gentleman privately into the bag, -letters not directed by her husband, though a member of parliament. It appears that she was in the habit of receiving letters not addressed to her husband, but separately to herself; that she was in the habit of receiving them with great eagerness; and, in the latter period of the history, that she was in the continued practice of getting the bag before it was produced to her husband or to any body else; that in town she herself put letters directed to this gentleman into the receiving offices, or delivered them herself to the postman with her own hand; some of these letters are suf ficiently proved to have been directed to this gentleman. All these facts are established very fully by Stratton, by Chamberlain, by Hooper, by McNicol, LOVEDEN. McNicol, and by Dyke.-Now under such circum- LOVEDEN. stances as these, I think all conclusions must be unfavourable. The correspondence of a young married woman with a young man, unknown to her husband, is what I presume hardly comes within the known latitude of modern manners; but, connected with the general footing on which these parties, by all the evidence to which I have alluded, were proved to have stood, it speaks a more decisive language with respect to its nature. But, however, it does happen in this case that letters have been intercepted, and are within the view of the court; the time and the manner of their being brought to light and their authenticity are fully proved. They were taken out of the bag:-and without entering into the particulars, there is very sufficient evidence that they were written on the 26th of November 1808; that they were put into the bag by her; that Hooper, having suspicions that there were letters passing from her to Mr. Barker in this bag, contrived to get these letters out of the bag; that he communicated those letters to some others of the servants, particularly to Haynes, with whom he appears upon a footing of intimacy, and that they were afterwards delivered up to Mr. Pryse, the son-in-law, upon the discovery which took place some time afterwards. I think their identity is clearly established by this witness, and by the other witness who has proved their contents, and by Mr. Pryse himself; and I see nothing which at all shocks probability in the idea of his having kept those letters by him so long. They are letters which it might puzzle such a man as this to determine c 3 how 13th July 1810 LOVEDEN LOVEDEN V. how to produce till some opportunity offered; and he appears to have been unwilling to awaken 13th July 1910. the feelings of his master upon the subject: he waited for an opportunity of seeing Mr. Pryse, and then he took the opportunity of communicating them immediately. The handwriting of the letters is proved, and they are proved to have been written upon a frank of Mr. Loveden's. The larger letter contains two inclosures; the larger letter is itself declaratory of violent and of mutual attachment; it concludes with desiring and hoping that they may affectionately love, that their attachment may be co-eternal, and that they may affectionately live and die adoring one another it describes in terms of great lamentation the difficulty of access to the former rendezvous, for that the access and retreat were become too visible from felling the woods in the shrubbery it relates her repairing to different outbuildings in order to ascertain whether a meeting might be accomplished in them; but complains that the barn is locked, and that the other hovels are unfit for any one to enter: he is desired to devise a scheme to meet; and he is told that in the day-time there is no possibility of escaping detection, from the curiosity of servants and other prying persons; that she has a difficulty in inviting the danger of a night's attempt, but thinks that from the hall window there is no doubt of admitting him quietly for an hour or two. In this letter there is one envelope dated in May 1804, and which, she says, will speak for itself; and that I suppose it might do to persons who understood the transactions to which it alludes; but to be sure there is nothing in that letter |