repeated by the infant plaintiffs in the French language, he made his boys teach those low children to swear in English: That Mr. Wellesley repeatedly observed to deponent, that it was his wish that his boys should associate with persons of the lowest description, to give them a thorough knowledge of low society; and that, if he had the government of his children, he would take care that they should be present at bull-baits, cockfights, dog-fights, and all other sports of the like nature, in order to afford them opportunities of hearing and learning to repeat vaths and blasphemous language made use of by people usually attending such sports, which were manly sports, and ought to be pursued by his children in preference to any other." Here I may observe, that it appears from one of Mr. Wellesley's letters, that he considers swearing as a remedy against lying. Dr. Southcote goes on further to say, "That Mr. Wellesley repeatedly stated to deponent, that he considered it the principal branch of his children's education, that they should know how, if necessary, to make themselves perfect blackguards; it being his wish that they should be qualified to enter into and associate with the lowest and most vulgar

• The Chancellor here alluded to a

letter from Mr. Wellesley to Mrs. Wellesley, dated "Paris, 15th July, 1824," in which, giving her directions with respect to the management of the children, he says: "The little girl's faults require to be corrected by an able hand. I would recommend you something similar to the course I adopted with William, when I found he had a slight propensity to lying, the parent of all evil. You remember, I allowed him to

swear, in order to establish in his mind a distinction between a vice and a venial fault."

society, without the persons with whom they should associate being able to discern that they were the children of a gentleman, or gentle men themselves. That, from the aforesaid repeatedly expressed and openly avowed ideas, wishes, er intentions of Mr. Wellesley, as to the management and education of his male children, deponent feels convinced, that, if the sole and uncontrolled management of their education be left to and intrusted with their father, they will be trained up in a course of conduct, and with feelings and sentiments, which must inevitably destroy their moral and civil characters, and render them unfit for the society to which their birth and station in life entitle them."

There is another witness, who gives extremely important evidence on this subject, Mr. Pitman, the tutor of the children. He swears, "That, when he first joined the family of Mr. Wellesley, at Calais in 1822, he was much surprised and shocked on hearing the eldest infant plaintiffs use some very disgusting expressions, and utter the most coarse and vulgar oaths in French; that this led to his reproving them for such language, and to his pointing out that it was very sinful and improper; that the infant plaintiff, William, informed him that his father liked it, and always allowed him to do so; that he the deponent forbade him to use such language under the pain of his severe displeasure, and that the said infant plaintiff, by degrees, ceased to be guilty of it in his hearing; that, observing that Mr. Wellesley was in the almost constant habit of swearing, and not considering himself authorised to take upon himself the office of corrector of Mr. Wellesley's morals,

deponent confined himself to admonishing and correcting the infant plaintiffs in this respect; that he has never heard Mr. Wellesley directly encourage the infant plaintiffs to swear, unless the circumstance of himself swearing in their presence, and not reproving them (except as hereinafter mentioned) when he heard them swear, can be so considered; that, having heard from others that Mr. Wellesley did encourage the infant plaintiffs to swear, and use obscene language and expressions, he is induced to believe that Mr. Wellesley abstained from so doing in the presence of deponent, out of regard and consideration for him and his office of tutor to the infant plaintiffs; that, on one occasion, during the latter part of the time of deponent's residing with Mr. Wellesley abroad, viz. either at Florence or at Paris, the eldest infant plaintiff having uttered some oath, Mr. Wellesley said, "Mind, William, I don't allow you to swear, except when you are in a passion,' or words to that effect."

With regard to the language which Mr. Wellesley is said to have used to his children, as shown in his letters, this observation is to be made that the passages, which have been most animadverted upon, and which are highly objectionable, are found intermixed in letters which contain much good moral advice. The letter of the 9th of February, 1825, addressed to his son William, is in these words, "According to my ordinary custom, I have perused your letter of the 3rd instant: I find it in every respect better written than those that have preceded it. find it with less erasures, and more correct as to spelling; so that I place the flattering unction to my

I

soul, that you have become less giddy, and more attentive to your studies. I beg of you to realise these my most anxious hopes. Rely upon it, a little attentive study now will amply repay you hereafter. Pshaw for your postscript. If the fellow be a sportsman who told you that you could not hunt your terriers till next winter, because you find an unseasonable hare with young, damn his infernal soul to hell; tell him, if the hares be unseasonably with young, that is no reason why the young squire should not take his pastimekill all the young ladies with or without young."

In another letter he says, "I have nothing to do with your mystic rites with Mr. Pitman, they are too sacred; study hard, but as soon as you have completed your tasks, go out in all weathers, and play hell and tommy; make as much riot as your tongues can

admit-chase cats, dogs, and women, old and young, but spare my game." Dr. Bulkeley* says, "That W. P. L. Wellesley said, in the presence of his children,

debauch all the women you meet with, young and old."" But it is alleged, that it is very improbable that he should have so expressed himself, when we consider that the oldest of these boys was at that time only nine years of age. I think that it is not at all improbable that a man who could write letters containing such passages as

Dr. Bulkeley was a physician, who in his medical capacity, had attended Mr. and Mrs. Wellesley's family at Naples, and who subsequently resided in the family and travelled with them. His evidence went to substantiate completely the charges against Mr. Wellesley: but many of the facts and circum. stances to which he swore, were posi

tively contradicted, particularly by the affidavits of Mr. Wellesley and Mrs. Bligh.

those I have referred to, might make such an observation as is sworn to by Dr. Bulkeley. Then, am I to pay no attention to the other witnesses who speak to the swearing? Under these circumstances, I cannot withdraw myself from the perfect conviction, that Mr. Wellesley was in the habit of constantly swearing himself, and that he encouraged his children to

swear.

As to the result of the whole case, I must now say, I have no difficulty whatever none with respect to the circumstances that took place towards the close of the business at Florence; none as to what was the nature of Mr. Wellesley's conduct to Mrs. Wellesley on their way to Paris; none with respect to what took place at Paris; nor have I any difficulty whatever in respect to any thing that took place from the time of their going to Paris to the moment when this matter was brought before me. In addition to all that belongs to the nature of the connection with Mrs. Bligh to that course of adultery between her and Mr. Wellesley, which has been carried on through all this length of time under the most disgraceful circumstances-there has been, in my judgment, most grossly improper conduct on the part of Mr. Wellesley towards his children. Under these circumstances, I can never suffer the daughter to go under the care and custody of Mr. Wellesley, so long as there is any connection between him and a woman so abandoned as Mrs. Bligh appears to be. I cannot consent to separate the boys from the daughter; and, upon this point, I have the authority of Mr. Wellesley himself to say, that that is a thing which ought not to be done. When I look at the whole

conduct of Mr. Wellesley towards Mrs. Bligh, towards his children, and with reference to other points, which shew the tenor and bent of his mind upon certain subjects, and the nature of his sentiments, I say that, if the House of Lords think proper to restore these children to Mr. Wellesley, let them do so; it shall not be done by my act. I therefore refer it to the Master to consider under whose care and custody these children should be placed. I know not whether there be any body who will accept this guardianship; but they who do accept it will deserve the thanks of this family so long as there are any members of it able to render thanks. The office which the individual may have to take is not an enviable one. Into whatsoever hands these children may fall, it will be their duty to consult the interest and happiness of the children, by allowing filial affection and duty to their father to operate to the utmost.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 1.

Beaumont v. Thwaites.

This was an action to recover damages for a libel. The declaration stated, that, before, and at the publication of, the libels, the plaintiff (J. T. Barber Beaumont) was the treasurer and director of the County Fire-office, and that the defendant published in the " Morning Herald" newspaper the libel complained of. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Mr. Brougham. The libel pretends to be extracts from the fourteenth Report of the Revenue Commissioners. It does not pretend to be the whole of the report, nar to give what it does give in regular

order: all the extracts are on one side. It is no justification of a libel that it is the print of a speech in the House of Commons, but none can deny that it is a mitigation. The defendant, however, has not pleaded that he has copied the report. There are two ways of copying a document; one is, to copy the whole of it, the good and the bad, both sides together, the antidote with the bane, the evidence of all the witnesses, the calumny with the contradiction. This the defendant has not done. The publications in the " Morning Herald" were put in and read. One of the libels consisted of a letter from a Mr. Lye.

The Attorney-general stated, that he had been considering what could have been Mr. Beaumont's object in bringing the action, for very little had been said about damages. It was not the conduct of the commissioners, nor the conduct of Mr. Beaumont, that the jury were to try; they were not now called upon to do reparation to Mr. Beaumont for any imputation that might have been made upon him in the course of that inquiry; but their business was, to see if there were any thing in the present publication, of which he had a right to complain. The proceedings in question were published by the House of Commons; would his learned friend say, that when he presented a petition to the House, containing imputations upon the conduct of some individual, an action could be maintained against the editor?

Mr. Brougham said, he conceived that the publication of a libellous proceeding would be treated as a gross breach of privilege; and referred to the cases of lord Abingdon and Mr. Creevey.

Lord Tenterden. - I am of opinion an action would lie.

The Attorney-general proceeded. The publication before the court was not intended by the defendant to cast the slightest reflection on Mr. Beaumont. Mr. Lye's letter would have been a libellous publication, if it had not been in answer to Mr. Beaumont's own letters. His three letters to the commissioners and to the lords of the Treasury appeared in the first paper - they reflected in the strongest manner upon Mr. Lye, who was justified in answering them; and the editor, who had inserted those letters, was bound to insert the answer. But that answer clearly showed, that there was a controversy depending between the writer and Mr. Beaumont t; it therefore could not do Mr. Beaumont's character any injury; as every man, who read the letter, would plainly see, there was a dispute between the parties; and therefore would not credit any thing that might appear to Mr. Beaumont's disadvantage.

Lord Tenterden said, that, when a person published any thing for his own profit, he ought first to ascertain its truth. A part of the first publication was certainly highly injurious to the plaintiff's character. His lordship was sorry that the commissioners had let it pass from them, for it was beside the subject of their inquiries. The letters that had been supposed to have been written by the plaintiff, had been published by the defendant without his consent-an answer from Lye might have been expected. In that letter the words "foul falsehoods" occurred again and again, and he advised Mr. Beaumont to behave with Christian charity, and to lay aside all malice.

The question was, whether there was any justification for publishing that letter. The defendant had, without the plaintiff's authority, published something which he took to be letters written by the plain tiff, and because he thought fit to publish those letters, he therefore published the answer. Had the plaintiff authorized the publication of the first letters, it would have been a very different thing. If the jury could say they were such publications as they would be willing themselves to have published, they would find for the defendant; but if they did not think so, then they were bound to find for the plaintiff, with such damages as they would deem to be a proper compensation.

The Jury retired for about threequarters of an hour, and then returned with a verdict for the plaintiffDamages 1s.

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH, GUILD-
HALL, FEB. 9.
East v. Chapman.

This was an action by Wm. Thos. East, a horse-dealer, to recover from the proprietor of the "Sunday Times" newspaper, a compensation in damages for a libel, which the defendant had published on him in his paper of the 22nd of October last, imputing to the plaintiff the commission of offences of the grossest nature. The defendant had originally pleaded a justification, which he had subsequently expunged from the record, and he now relied on his plea of the general issue.

Mr. Scarlett stated, that the complaint, which gave rise to the present proceedings, was occasioned by the publication of a paragraph,

professing to be a report of what it was alleged had taken place at a coroner's inquest. He (Mr. Scarlett) did not mean to discuss whether the editor of a newspaper was justified in publishing what ever might take place at coroners' inquests, because the right to pub lish such reports formed na part of the object of their present in quiry; for if a man ventured to publish that which affected the moral character and conduct of an individual, let it be in whatever form it might, he must be answerable for the consequences, even supposing it was true; but when he ventured to publish that which was false, no damages could be a sufficient compensation to the suffering party. He then read the libel complained of, which was as follows:

"Alleged Rape-Death, and Co roner's Inquest.-On Wednesday, an inquest was held before Thos Stirling, esq. one of the coroners for Middlesex, at the sign of the Sovereign, in Taunton-place, Regent's-park, on the body of Maris Webb, only sixteen years of age. The deceased was a remarkably fine and handsome girl, and to her personal attractions were added great vivacity and a good disposition. She was the daughter of very respectable persons residing in the country, and was in the service of John Henry Bucking ham, esq., of Park-street, Maryle bone. The evidence first taken was that of the brother of the deceased,

"Mr. W. Webb, a cheesemonger, residing in Boston-street, who stated that the deceased was un married. She had been in good health previous to that day week. Her mistress sent for witness—he went to Park-street, and found