SIR,

I have read with the utmost surprise, in several newspapers, the reports of what passed on Friday last in the Consistorial Court, in the suit which I preferred against Lady Erskine for adultery. Not having been myself present, I do not know whether they, or any of them, are correct or incorrect; but I feel myself bound, in justice to my own character, to declare through you to the public, what the case actually was :—I had prefer red (as I have just stated) a suit against Lady Erskine for adultery; but, in the course of it, circumstances having come to my knowledge which fully convinced me of her innocence, I directed my proctor, Mr Nicholl, to withdraw my suit, which was accordingly done, and afterwards delivered to him and to my senior counsel, Dr Swabey, a written paper to that effect, and entreated them that this reason might be stated in open Court, in justice to Lady Erskine.

We had also agreed on a deed of separation; but because I would not execute it until the suit had been withdrawn, that my motive for withdrawing it might not be misinterpreted, the suit was continued by Lady Erskine's proctors against me, which gave the opportunity of reading my paper in Court, or of having the effect of it stated by my counsel; but, from the reports of what passed in several newspapers, I found, to my great surprise, my counsel maintaining Lady Erskine's guilt, though the evidence still continued secret, and though I had instructed them to declare my fullest conviction of her innocence; and imputing also to me the baseness of cohabiting with her, believing her to be guilty, though no such allegation was before the Court. Being ignorant of what passed in Court, I impute neither malice nor mistake to any of the

several reporters; but knowing that my proctor and my learned counsel must confirm what I have stated, it is my intention to attend in the Court on the 5th of June, being the next Court day, to justify my conduct to the world.

In the paper above-mentioned, which I desired might either be read, or the purport of it brought before the Court, I stated, that having now a full conviction of her innocence, I should think it wicked to submit to the Court for its judgment, and to the world through the publication of the evidence, what in my conscience I believe to be unfounded.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
ERSKINE.

Sunday, May 27.

June 5.

As soon as the Court met this morning, Lord Erskine, in pursuance of the public notification which he gave in his letter in the newspapers some days ago, appeared in Court, and took his seat on the bench next Sir William Scott, the presiding Judge.

As soon as the proctor had read the names of the distinguished parties in the suit,

Dr Swabey rose and said, that he was counsel in this suit for Lord Erskine, and he was instructed to inform the Court, that the noble lord being, since the institution of these proceedings, perfectly satisfied of the innocence of Lady Erskine, had determined, in justice to her ladyship, and to his own feelings, to withdraw his suit for a divorce. Certain proceedings were now pending between the parties, which, the learned doctor said, he hoped would terminate the matter at issue, by a deed of separation, which was then drawn up. The Court was aware that Lady Erskine had also ap

plied for alimony, and a separation, and her suit was still pending. Lord Erskine was, however, anxious to state, that he meant altogether to withdraw his application, even if her ladyship were advised to continue her suit against his lordship, should the adjustment now going on out of Court, not terminate in a deed of separation between the parties; so that notwithstanding this abandonment of his lordship's suit, Lady Erskine might, if so advised by her counsel, still pursue her application to the Court, if the proceedings now carrying on between the parties did not end in a deed of separation. He therefore prayed, that the assignation granted by the Court should be allowed to stand over till the next Court day.

Dr Adams said, that, as counsel for Lady Erskine, he could of course have no objection to the application made on the part of Lord Erskine, that the assignation decreed by the Court should stand over until a future day. Upon the other matters referred to by Dr Swabey, he (Dr Adams) should perhaps better consult his duty by saying nothing upon the present occasion.

Sir W. Scott then ordered that the assignation should stand over till the next Court day.

. Lord Erskine then rose, and, with evident emotion, observed, that he attended this morning in Court, for the purpose of declaring his concurrence in what had fallen from his counsel. He was the more anxious to do so, and he made the declaration loudly and openly, because there was no person in this land, in whose good opinion he was more anxious to stand well, than in that of the learned person who presided in that Court. The noble lord then bowed to the Court, and resumed his seat.

matter now stood, he trusted the learned counsel who advised Lady Erskine, would concur as far as they could, according to their sense of the justice of the case, in recommending such a course as would spare the Court the painful necessity of deciding upon this case. He (Sir Wm. Scott) had an ancient regard and friendship for Lord Erskine, and must always feel a deep interest in whatever concerned Lord Erskine, or the peace of his family.

MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY, FOR WINDOWS BROKEN AT THE QUEEN'S ACQUITTAL.

This was an action against the Hundred of Ossulston, for damage done to the noble plaintiff's house in St James's square, upon several occasions pending the proceedings against her Majesty.

Mr Gurney stated the case. The mischief had been done upon several days-to wit, upon the 6th and 7th of June; and upon the 10th, 11th, and 13th of November, 1820. Actions like the present, the learned counsel said, became matters of public duty; for the true mode of preventing the outrages of mobs was to convince them that their attack did no real mischief to the individual against whom it might be directed.

Richard Pigott stated that he was, at the time specified in the record, in the employ of the Marquis of Londonderry. On the night of the 6th June, a mob of 150 or 200 persons assembled before his master's house. They knocked at the door and called for lights; they then threw stones, and six panes of glass were broken. On the 7th June, a mob of from 300 to 400 conducted themselves in a si

Cross-examined.-Witness had Bowstreet officers in the house; and, upon the attack being made, they sallied forth and dispersed the mob.

Charles Evans, porter to the Marquis, said, that on the 10th, 11th, and 13th November, a very numerous mob assembled before his master's house, knocking at the door, breaking the windows, and using very abusive language; 51 panes of glass (some of them plate glass) were broken; witness could not have gone into the street without endangering his life.

John Smith was in the Marquis's house on the 6th of June; as soon as the mob commenced their attack, witness sallied out with the servants and the Bow-street officers to disperse them.

Thomas Middleton was in the mob on the 10th November, in order, if possible, to mark and apprehend the assailants. The darkness of the night prevented him from distinguishing the particular persons who threw stones. Cross-examined.-Witness was sent for to the house of Lord Londonderry before the mob assembled. As soon as they appeared he went among them, because he apprehended mischief. Michael O'Bryan, a glazier, proved the repairs performed.

Mr Thomson, for the Hundred, offered no defence.

The Lord Chief Justice told the Jury that the case was proved. The amount of the claim was 291. 2s. 6d.

A Juryman wished to know whether the noble plaintiff could recover for his plate glass broken, or merely the value of an equal quantity of crown glass.

The Lord Chief Justice said, that, whatever glass a man might have in his house, if it was broken he was entitled to be paid for it.

The Jury objected to the magnitude of the panes.

The Lord Chief Justice observed,

that a man was not bound to keep small and inconvenient panes of glass in his windows.

The Jury then found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 291. 2s. 6d. After the verdict was delivered, the Jury said they had understood that if a shopkeeper had a pane of plate glass broken, he could only recover as for crown glass.

The Lord Chief Justice said, he knew nothing of what was done else. where. The law, in the case before the Court, was as he had delivered it.

MR ELLISTON FOR the RepresenTATION OF MARINO FALIero.

Court of Chancery, April 27.

The Attorney-General began by reading the bill which had been entered, calling on his lordship to prevent Mr Elliston, or any other person or persons, from performing, on the stage, the tragedy of Marino Faliero; and he then recited the affidavit of Mr Murray, on which the application was founded. The affidavit set forth, that the copy-right of the tragedy was his property; that he had not given Mr Elliston permission to perform it; and that, to the best of his belief, Lord Byron had not granted any such permission. The learned gentleman then observed, that, from the very short period during which these papers were in his hands, he had not been able to search for cases applicable to this question. There was, however, a case, in which Lord Kenyon held, that reciting a subject from memory, did not amount to a publication, under the statute of Anne.

Mr Shadwell. That was an action

lordship to consider, if the injunction were sustained in the present instance, whether the Court would not be compelled to interfere in many cases where such interference was not now thought of. It had always been understood by the managers of theatres, when an author gave a play to the public, or, in other words, when he published it, that they were at liberty to perform it. This was done every day, and injunctions might, in consequence, be applied for against different theatres, because it had been generally supposed, when a play was once given to the public, it might be recited on the stage with the same freedom that it might be recited in a private room. In an ingenious book lately published on the subject of injunctions, two par. ticular cases were mentioned-that of Morris and Harris, and that of Mathews and Taylor. With respect to the second case, he was not acquainted with its peculiar features; but there were very remarkable circumstances connected with the first case. Mr Coleman, it appeared, had agreed that all his dramatic productions should be acted at the Haymarket theatre, of which he and Mr Morris were proprietors; and that he, unknown to Mr Morris, had furnished Mr Harris, of Covent-Garden theatre, with a farce called X Y Z, in violation of that compact, which the defendant acted, knowing that the compact had been entered into. But no two cases could be more dissimilar than that and the present, since the application for the injunction, in the case of Morris and Harris, proceeded on the act of fraud.

Mr Shadwell.-The circumstances in the case of Mathews and Taylor, were these:-Mathews exhibited to the public an effusion of his fancy, which never was in writing.

Mr Elliston. That is incorrect. It

was in writing; and its composition was paid for.

Mr Shadwell.-No matter. In the course of the entertainment, he introduced to the public several jocular matters, which a person, having an extraordinary memory, got by heart, and recited after him.

Mr Elliston. In that case, the complaint was for publication, not for acting.

The Attorney-General would contend, under the novelty of this proceeding, that when Lord Byron gave this tragedy to the public, (the object of writing a tragedy being to have it performed,) the defendant, though he had no right to publish it as a book, might lawfully have it acted. Every body had a right to read the tragedy to as many friends as he pleased; and the performance, though not a reading, but a public recitation of it, was not such an invasion of property, as entitled the plaintiff to relief in that Court. What injury had the opposite party sustained? They did not state in their bill any injury. Mr Murray did not venture to say that he was injured by the performance: On the contrary, one would naturally suppose, that the success of the play would rather increase than injure its sale. If so, he submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to this equitable relief. If he called for redress, it should be in consequence of some injury done to that property, which he had acquired by assignment; and as nothing of that kind was alleged, as he merely prayed for the injunction, and such further relief as the case required, it appeared to him that there was no foundation on which his lordship could proceed. The plaintiff further declared, that "no permission or authority was given by him, or by Lord Byron, as he verily believed, to perform the tragedy." His clients did not affect to say that

such consent was given, because they never apprehended that it was necessary to ask for it. He did not mean to argue, that his lordship ought to be influenced by any injury or inconvenience that Mr Elliston might suffer, if the injunction were continued; because, if the Court had the right to interfere, he must, like all others, submit to the injury. But he might be allowed to say, that if the right did exist, the injury inflicted on him would be very considerable. He had gone to much expence to bring it forward, and it had been received with all that applause which a work of this kind was likely to excite. The performance was, in fact, more calculated to be beneficial to Mr Murray than injurious. If any apprehension had been entertained, that it would not be well received, that apprehension was now completely removed, by the favourable manner in which it had been treated by the public. Undoubtedly, his lordship had a right to restrain from publishing the tragedy; but if the Court had a right to prevent the defendant from acting it-from pursuing a course which had been followed in a great variety of cases, where persons published plays which were acted, although they gave no consent that they should be performed in any theatre, the practice, he apprehended, would be novel. Under all the circumstances, he hoped his lordship would dissolve the injunction. Mr Phillimore followed on the same side.

Mr Shadwell, on the part of the plaintiffs, said it appeared to him that Mr Elliston had, in express violation of his lordship's order, drawn up on Tuesday last, acted this tragedy. He did not, however, mean to make a complaint against him for having perform ed the play. If it were true, that for some time he had been in possession of the tragedy, and that he had gone to expence in producing it, perhaps it

would be harsh to complain against him on account of the performance. Leaving that aside, he would proceed to argue a question which certainly was of very great importance to authors. How stood the case? Lord Byron having written a work, sold it to Mr Murray. The Attorney-General said, that when a poem was written in the form of a tragedy, it necessarily implied a poem to be acted. But there was no such implication, and it did not apply to this case more particularly; because, in the bill announcing the performance, it was stated that the tragedy was written in a manner not fit for the theatre. Now it could not be supposed, that a poem, which came from the author's pen, not fit for the theatre, implied a poem that was to be performed on the stage. The play-bill of the 25th April stated.-"Those who have perused Marino Faliero,' will have anticipated the necessity of considerable curtailments, aware that conversations or soliloquies, however beautiful and interesting in the closet, will frequently tire in public recital." So, therefore, the defendant, willing to satisfy what appeared to him to be the taste of the public, did not bring the tragedy forward as the author wrote it, but used his own discretion in adapting it for the stage. And having curtailed it in many parts, having omitted many passages which he admitted to be beautiful, he performed the tragedy as the work of Lord Byron. Now, those very alterations might cause the tragedy to be censured by the public, while the work, if left as it originally stood, might add to the author's fame, although it was represented contrary to his feelings. It was, however, said, that no injury had been done; but when an individual had property, no matter of what description, it was to be used as he thought fit, and not as a third person deemed proper. His learned friends seemed to think, that no