peace and honor of respectable families. The noble Lord proceeded to the completion of his diabolical project, not with the rash precipitancy of youth, but with the cool and deliberate consideration of age. 4. DEFENDANT'S CRIME COMPARED TO THE TREACHERY OF PIRATE WRECKERS.-A STRIKING SIMILE. The Cornish plunderer, intent on the spoil, callous to every touch of humanity, shrouded in darkness, holds out false lights to the tempest-tost vessel, and lures her and her pilot to that shore upon which she must be lost forever the rock unseen, the ruffian invisible, and nothing apparent but the treacherous signal of security and repose. So, this prop of the throne, this pillar of the State, this stay of religion, the ornament of the Peerage, this common protector of the people's privileges and of the crown's prerogatives, descends from these high grounds of character to muffle himself in the gloom of his own base and dark designs; to play before the eyes of the deluded wife and the deceived husband the falsest lights of love to the one, and of friendly and hospitable regards to the other, until she is at length dashed upon that hard bosom where her honor and happiness are wrecked and lost forever. The agonized husband beholds the ruin with those sensations of horror which you can better feel than I can describe. Her upon whom he had embarked all his hopes and all his happiness in this life, the treasure of all his earthly felicities, the rich fund of all his hoarded joys, sunk before his eyes into an abyss of infamy, or if any fragment escape, escaping to solace, to gratify, and to enrich her vile destroyer. Such, gentlemen, is the act upon which you are to pass your judgment; such is the injury upon which you are to set a price, and I lament that the moderation of the pleader has circumscribed within such narrow limits the discretion you are to exercise upon the damages. You cannot exceed the damages laid in the declaration. I lament, and so I hope do you, that you cannot, for the damages laid do not exceed one year's income of the noble Lord's estates. The life of the adulterer is in some degree in the power of the injured husband. If the husband kill the adulterer caught in the act, the killing is not murder: what, according to the noble Lord's own estimate, would be the value of the noble Lord's life? In mine, and perhaps in your estimation, the value of the noble Lord's life would not be very high; but take it according to his own, and it is invaluable. The ransom of his life ought to be the measure of your damages. What can he plead? Is it that he too has a wife and children? Is it that as a double adulterer he comes into this court of justice and interposes the innocence of his family between his crime and your justice? Are his titles and honors, as they are vulgarly called, to dazzle your eyes and blind you to the demerits of his conduct? No, no. What are titles con. ferred by kings if the souls of those who wear them be not ennobled by the king of kings. These badges of distinction, these splendid emblems of shining merit; these rewards conferred by grateful sovereigns on eminent attainments in science, or achievements in war, may be well allowed to adorn wisdom and virtue, but cannot make the fool wise, the coward brave, or the knave honest. 5. GROUNDS OF THE DEFENSE ANTICIPATED AND DISCUSsed. There are two grounds of defense upon which I hear that the noble Lord means to submit his case to the jury. The connivance of the husband, the notorious general misconduct of the wife; both, if I am rightly instructed, unfounded in fact and not to be supported by any credible testimony. Witnesses to these, or to any other facts, may be procured, but the jury is to determine on their credit. But who is the man who will have the hardihood to come forward and tell you that Mr. Massy, or any gentleman of his family, rank, character, education or profession, could stoop to a conduct so uniformly mean, so scandalously dishonorable; and if such a witness can be found, who is the juror will believe him? Can any gentleman believe that a gentleman could be willfully instrumental to his own disgrace, the promoter of his own dishonor, a pander to the prostitution of an adored wife, the stigmatizer of his idolized offspring? Such a tale (let the relator be who he may) is in itself utterly improbable. The proud mind of my client cannot condescend to contradict it; but let the tenor of his whole life, his character yet unaspersed and unblemished, his generous sacrifices to this very woman before her honor became his honor, and her character the object of his protection, his exemplary conduct as an husband, a father, a pastor of our church, a member of society, give the lie to a story which cannot be told by any man of honor, or be believed by any man of sense. It is not impossible, however, gentlemen, that the Marquis of Headfort may attempt to cover his retreat from the pursuit of justice by some contrivance of this kind, nor is it quite impossible, however improbable, that he may find some plausible instrument, hard of forehead and flip pant of tongue, ready from the motives which generally actuate such instruments, to devote himself to the perilous service. If such a witness should appear before you, I will give you a clue to his character, I will describe to you what he is, and I much mistake if by these marks and tokens you can fail to know him if he shall appear. He is not like those whom I have the honor to address, a gentleman who has a character to stake upon the testimony he will give. He is not a gentleman whose intercourse with the world has fashioned him to courtesy without wearing out and defacing those sharp, prominent features of oldfashioned probity, undeceiving truth, and unbending pride, which characterize the Irish gentleman. Let me now touch the second ground of what I understand is to be the noble Lord's defense, the general misconduct of Mrs. Massy before her elopement with him. It well becomes the Marquis of Headfort to cover with additional disgraces the unfortunate victim of his delusions. Is it that in the struggle between his avarice and his vanity the former has conquered, or is it so ordered by the wise and just dispensations of Providence that the best boons successful vice bestows upon subdued chastity are private contempt and public infamy? But though the noble Marquis may not hesitate to sink still lower and lower the degraded object of his guilty passion, yet there are other considerations which might hold back from such an attempt, a man not inaccessible to the feelings of humanity. Mr. Massy has a son still living. Why should this innocent be more involved than he already is in his mother's dishonor? Why should this half-orphaned child, robbed of one parent by the noble Marquis, become, by the deliberate act of his and his family's enemy, the sad remembrancer of the other, of a father's doubt and a mother's dishonor? Is this additional pang to be inflicted on the lacerated bosom? Is this new wound to be opened in a bleeding and exhausted heart? Why will the noble Marquis endeavor to infuse this horrid suspicion into Mr. Massy's mind that the offspring of his marriage bed is spurious; that though the father of a living son, he is perhaps childless, his affections lavished upon, his name borne by, his fortune destined for, perhaps an impostor? This attempt the noble Marquis will make, I am told, to mitigate the injury and diminish the damages. If such an endeavor be made, you, gentlemen, will appreciate such an attempt according to its real worth and true value. This attempt can only be supported by such a witness as I have already described to you, and from whom your honorable hearts will recoil with scorn and abhorrence. We are prepared to show you, by the testimony of most respectable person. ages, that the fame of this now unhappy woman had never been sullied by the slightest imputation until her connection with the Marquis of Headfort. 6. THE RULE OF DAMAGES. I feel, gentlemen, I have been honored with your attention too long. I shall detain it but a very little longer. In this action the plaintiff is entitled either to the largest or the smallest damages. If connivance be proved to your satisfaction, a single shilling would be too much; if not, I know not what measure of damages, under all the circumstances of the case, would be too large. It will be proved to you how he received the first news of her flight. The first intimation was like the stroke of death. His portion for several weeks after, agony and distraction. Happy would it have been for him if death had followed the shock, or madness relieved him from misery. It now rests with you to compensate the sufferings of this deeply injured individual. It is with you to determine whether the penalty you inflict on lawless lust shall operate as a protection to legitimate happiness; whether your ample verdict shall not, like a shield, cover domestic peace and social order from brutal insult and dishonest violation. If the "compunctious visitings" of conscience and duty cannot dissuade the black adulterer from his de signs upon the quiet of others, let the example you make drive him from your doors, and deter him from the spoil of your dearest and most invaluable possessions, your happiness and your honor. And may that God, under whose eye and in whose presence we act, when his hand shall hold the balance of divine justice, when those transgressions from which the errors and infirmities of our nature exempt no human creature, shall be put into one scale, may the weighty and exemplary verdict of this day accompany your merits into the other, and make it preponderate. SPEECH OF THOMAS QUIN OPENING FOR DEFENDANT IN MASSY V. THE MARQUIS OF HEADFORT. DAMAGES FOR CRIMINAL CONVERSATION. AT ENNIS ASSIZES, COUNTY CLARE, BEFORE BARON SMITH AND A SPECIAL JURY, FRIDAY, JULY 27th, 1804. Damages claimed, £40,000.-Amount recovered, £10,000. ANALYSIS OF MR. QUIN'S SPEECH. 1. The rule of law in relation to the injury and claim in this class of actions. 2. The defense of connivance goes to the foundation of the action.-Connivance may be actual or constructive. 4. 3. Character and conduct of Mrs. Massy. In view of the fact that the speeches on both sides are published, we shall give a synopsis of the evidence in the case, which was very brief.' But six witnesses were called, four for plaintiff, two for defendant. The Rev. Dr. Parker proved the marriage; Mr. Stackpole stated, that if plaintiff had married according to the wishes of his father, he would have received a large fortune. His crossexamination elicited the fact that plaintiff's brother had separated from his wife, and was living with a Mrs. Harvey; the defendant's object being to show that plaintiff, by allowing his wife to visit at his brother's, was careless of her moral character. Patrick Dunn proved the elopement, and Jane Apjohn, a chambermaid, swore that defendant and Mrs. Massy occupied the same room that night at the inn where she was employed. Colonel Pepper was called by the defendant, and testified that he had often seen the Marquis pay marked attention to Mrs. Massy, who seemed flattered thereby. He was corroborated by George E. Bruce, who testified also that he had seen defendant at the races with Mrs. Massy; that about six weeks before the elopement, he noticed she was extravagantly dressed, and wore expensive jewelry and ornaments; that on one occasion, defendant accompanied her from Limerick to Summer Hill in his carriage tête-à-tête. On his cross-examination he testified that Mrs. Harvey, the lady who lived with plaintiff's brother, was a gentlewoman of refined manners, and very fond of childMr. Curran, who cross-examined, put the following question to the witness: "Do you believe on your oath, as a man of honor, and in the presence of your country and your God, that plaintiff connived at the conduct of his wife?" He answered: "I believe not. I am sure he was incapable of it. His fault was ren. more of the head than of the heart." Mr. Quin's opening was very adroit. He pursued the same line of argument afterwards taken by his associate, Mr. Ponsonby, and without attempting 1 For a statement of the facts in the case, see ante, pages 667, 669. |