Between William Richard Pole Tylney Long Wellesley, James Fitzroy Henry William Pole Tylney long Wellesley, and Victoria Catherine Mary Pole Tylney Long Wellesley, Infants, under the Age of Twenty-one Years, by the Honourable Philip Pusey, their next Friend, plaintiffs, and Charles Henry Duke of Beaufort and Others, Defendants. Nov. 5, 7, 9, 1825; Feb. 21, 24, Mar. 17, 18, 21, April 18, 1826; Jan. 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29, Feb. 1, 1827
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 236
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. in H. L. 2 Bli. N. S. 124; 1 Dow. & Cl. 152. For subsequent proceedings see 2 Russ. & My. 639. Commented on. In re Goldsworthy, 1876, 2 Q. B. D. 82; See In re Agar-Ellis, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 57; 1883, 24 Ch. D. 323; Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. e. 27); Custody of Children Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 3); In re Newton (Infants), [1896] 1 Ch. 740; In re A. & B. (Infants), [1897] 1 Ch. 786; In re X., [1899] 1 Ch. 526.
Reports of OASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY, during the Time of LORD CHANCELLOR ELDON, 1826, 1827. By JAMES RUSSELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Vol. II. 1829. [1] Between william richard pole tylney long wellesley, james fitzroy henry william pole tylney long wellesley, and victoria catherine mary pole tylney long wellesley, Infants, under the Age of Twenty-one, Years, by the Honourable philip pusey, their next Friend, Plaintiffs, and charles henry Duke of Beaufort and others, Defendants. Nov. 5, 7, 9, 1825; Feb. 21, 24, Mar. 17, 18, 21, April 18, 182(5; Jan. 1G, 17, 18,22, 25, 27, 29, Feb. 1, 1827. [S. C. in H. L. 2 Bli. N. S. 124 ; 1 Dow. & Cl. 152. For subsequent proceedings see 2 Russ. & My. 639. Commented on. In re Golds-worthy, 187(5, 2 Q. B. D. 82 ; See In re Agar-Ellis, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 57 ; 1883, 24 Oh.' D. 323 ; Guardianship of Infanta Act, 188(5 (49 & 50 Viet. c. 27) ; Custody of Children Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Viet. c. 3) ; In re Newton (Infants), [189G] i Ch. 740 ; In re A. it B. (Infanta), [1897] 1 Ch. 786 ; In re X., [1899] 1 Ch. 526.] Jurisdiction of the Court to control the legal rights of a father over his children, on the ground of his immoral conduct. Catherine Pole Tylney Long, being entitled, in fee-simple, to certain estates, and tenant for life of other estates, with remainder to her first and other sons in tail male, the whole producing an income of about 40,000 a-year, intermarried, in March 1812, with William Wellesley Pole. By her marriage-settlement, an income of 13,000 a-year was secured io her as pin-money. Subject to the payment of that annuity and of certain other sums, a life-interest in those, estates of [2] which she had the fee, was given to her husband, a power being reserved to him and her to charge them by way of mortgage with the sum of 100,000 ; and the entailed estates were settled on him during the joint lives of himself and his wife. The three infant plaintiffs were the only issue of the marriage. Though the 100,000 had been raised, Mr. Wellesley became so embarrassed in his pecuniary circumstances, that, in 1821, he was compelled to take refuge from his creditors by withdrawing to the continent, where he lived on the separate property of his wife. He and his family, after spending some time in France, took up their abode at Naples, in 1822 ; and, about the end of May 1823, they renewed their acquaintance with a Mrs. Bligh, who had been formerly known to them, and who, along with her husband, had just arrived in that city. On the 31st f f July following, Mrs. Bligh quitted her husband's house, in consequence (at least such was the general rumour) of an illicit intercourse which had commenced between her and Mr. Wellesley. To contradict this report, Mr. Wellesley made an affidavit before the British Vice Consul, denying that any such intercourse had taken place, or that he had ever visited Mrs. Bligh, except in an open manner ; and he prevailed upon his wife to give countenance and protection to that lady, and to admit her into her house. In the following October, Mrs. Bligh travelled, with the family, from Navies .7M.I ' ^ 2 kuss. 3. wellesley v. beaufort (the duke of) 237 to Albano ; and, joining them at Florence a few days afterwards, continued to reside with them ; but, after some time, the circumstances, which occurred there, induced Mrr. Wellesley tc communicate to Mrs. Bligh, that it was necessary for her to quit thfiir house, and to seek the protection of her own friends in England. [3] Accordingly, in December 1823, Mrs. Bligh quitted, in appearance, Mr. Wellesley's family. In fact, however, she remained in an apartment in the same hotel till the April following, when the fact came accidently to Mrs. Wellesley's knowledge ; and, during the whole of that interval, Mrs. Bligh was in constant intercourse with Mr. Wellesley. In May 1824, Mr. and Mrs. Wellesley arrived in Paris, whither Mrs. Bligh had gone before them. Mrs. Wellesley immediately wrote to her husband's father, Lord Maryborough,' requesting him and Lady Maryborough to come to her assistance ; expressing ct the same time her readiness to continue her affection to her husband, notwithstanding what she called " his profligate and unprincipled conduct," and even to sacrifice part of her own fortune, in order to make a provision for Mrs. Bligh, if he would separate himself from that woman, and never visit her more. Lord and Lady Maryborough hastened to Paris, but were unable to detach their son from the connection he had formed. His wife then wrote to him, declaring, that the treatment she had for many months endured from him, had been such as she could no longer submit to, and that she was resolved to separate from a husband " who, in conduct, had already abandoned her." Shortly afterwards, she returned to England, with the purpose of living separate from him. He consented that the children should go with her ; and wrote her a letter, in which he observed, that, " having, with a deep infliction of suffering to liis feelings, assented to a separation from his children, he considered it was not much to request and hope, that she would attentively follow his wishes with regard to their treatment." Mrs. Wellesley, in her answer, expressed the great satisfaction she felt at her children being allowed to accompany her; and assured him that, as far as should lie in her power, she should be happy to attend strictly [4] to the wishes he had expressed, and to the instructions he had given for their management. Mr. Wellesley remained on the continent; residing with Mrs. Bligh at Paris, Dieppe, the Hague, and other places. Early in June 182G, his wife resolved to institute proceedings for a divorce in the ecclesiastical court, and this her resolution was made known to him. About the 25th of that month, he and Mrs. Bligh came to England ; but his return was not known to his family or to his wife, till the evening of the 7th of July, when he went to the house in London where his wife was residing. Mrs. Wellesley, alarmed and surprised at hearing his voice, escaped with her daughter from the house without seeing him, and took refuge with her uncle. On the following day she caused a bill to be filed in Chancery, with a view to make the infants wards of court, and to protect them against the attempts, which, it was apprehended, the father might make to obtain possession of their persons, and to remove them abroad. On the same day, he was served with a citation for a divorce at her suit. Mr. Wellesley and Mrs. Bligh returned immediately to the continent; and Mrs. Wellesley gave notice to the trustees of her marriage-settlement to discontinue the annual payment which she had hitherto caused to be made to him out of her pin-money. On the 12th of September, she died ; having, five days before, enjoined her sisters, the Misses -Long, to resist every attempt which Mr. Wellesley might make to remove the children. After her death, the infants remained under the care of their aunts ; Mr. Pitman, a tutor selected for them by their father, who had been with them during the whole of the time they had spent [5] abroad, and ever since their return to England, continuing to reside with them. On the 30th of September, a bill was filed in their name, by their next friend, against the persons in whom the legal interest in their mother's estates was vested, praying that the usual accounts might be taken ; that the portions of the two younger plaintiffs might be raised ; that a proper person might be appointed to have the care of the persons of the three infants during their minorities ; and that an allowance might be made for their maintenance. The bill was afterwards amended, for the purpose of adding formal parties. In the mean time, Mr. Wellesley was residing in France with Mrs. Bligh, who had there given birth to a child, the offspring of their illicit connection. After the 238 wellesley v. beaufort (the duke of) 2 buss. e. death of his wife, he made repeated applications to the Misses Long for the custody of his children; directing at first that they should be sent abroad to him, but subsequently stating that he was only desirous that they should be taken to the family-seat in Wiltshire. With these applications the Misses Long refused to comply ; and in their refusal they were sanctioned, as they alleged, by the approbation of the nearest relations of the infants, as well on the father's as on the mother's side. In October 1825, Mr. Wellesley caused a writ of habeas corpora to be issued from the Court of King's Bench, and served on the solicitor of the Misses Long, for the purpose of obtaining possession of the persons of the infants. On the 3d of November, and before the return of the writ, a petition in the cause was presented to the Lord Chancellor, in the names of the infants, alleging that Mr. Wellesley, who was then resident in France, intended to remove them out of England, and praying [6] that he might be ordered to desist from prosecuting the writ of fiabeas corpora, and from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt,
...388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [paras. 22, 16]. Wellesley v. Duke of Bedford (1827), 2 Russ. 1; 38 E.R. 236, refd to. [para. Wellesley v. Wellesley (1828), 2 Bli. N.S. 124; 4 E.R. 1078, refd to. [para. 24]. X (a minor), Re, [1975] 1 All E.R. 697 (C.A.)......
-
Re B (Children: Care Proceedings: Jurisdiction: Transfer of Proceedings)
...I do so. And in exercising the jurisdiction, I sought to apply the well known words of Lord Eldon LC in Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (1827) 2 Russ 1, at 18: “it has always been the principle of this court, not to risk the incurring of damage to children which it cannot repair, but rather to......
-
Aamir Mazhar v The Lord Chancellor
...to risk the incurring of damage … which it cannot repair, but rather to prevent the damage being done": Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (1827) 2 Russ 1 at 18 as applied to vulnerable adults in In re SA [2006] 1 FLR 867 at [103]. Whether that is what was done in this case and, if so, whether th......
-
Local Authority v Health Authority and another (disclosure: restriction on publication)
...1 FCR 333, [2001] 1 All ER 908, [2001] Fam 430, [2001] 2 WLR 1038, [2001] 1 FLR 791. Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (1827) 2 Russ 1, 38 ER 236, LC; affd sub nom Wellesley v Wellesley (1828) 2 Bli NS 124, [1824–34] All ER Rep 189, X (a woman formerly known as Mary Bell) v O’Brien[2003] EWHC 11......
-
Table of Cases
...[2003] 2 A.C. 366, [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1913, [2002] UKHL 48........................................... 525 Duke of Beaufort (1827), 2 Russ. 1, 38 E.R. 236 ....................................................... 126 Duke of Bedford v. Ellis, [1901] A.C. 1 (H.L.) .......................................
-
The Role of the Children's Lawyer in Judicial Approval of Minor Settlements
...public rights can only be asserted by the Attorney-General as representing the public.” 22 It is 15 Ibid. at 408. 16 (1827), 2 Russ. 1, 38 E.R. 236, cited in Re Eve , supra note 14 at 410–11. 17 Ibid. 18 Supra note 6, s. 89(3). 19 J. Ll. J. Edwards, The Law Officers of the Crown (London: Sw......
-
The ‘Best Interests of the Child’ and Parental Separation: on the ‘Civilizing of Parents’
...child’s welfare, the conduct of the parents, and ‘thewishesas well of the mother as of the father’.2717 Wel l e s l e y vBeaufort (1827) 38 ER 236, 243(Eldon LC).18 Blackstone, n 10 above,446.19 S. Maidment, Child Custodyand Divorce:The Law in Social Context (London: Croom Helm, 1984)124.20......