A ROMANCE OF THE BARONETAGE.

Evening Star, Issue 3279, 23 August 1873, Page 3

A ROMANCE OF THE BARONETAGE.

{From an English Paper.)

Sir Bernard Burke will be able to add another chapter to his aristocratic “ Romances,” which are as striking as any works of fiction. The suit of “Vane v. Vane,” no ,v before the Court of Chancery, promises to be a cause rdlebre of no ordinary kind. We may be sure of lengthened litigation, and of sensational incidents enough. At present we have but one side of the question before us ; but even that ia sufficient to justify the expectations that we have before us a startling nineteenth century romance, which will furnish food in abundance for lovers of scandal. The issue raised in the cause affects the position of a gentleman who has long been recognised as the head of one of the old county families, the ownership of large estates, and the character of several deceased relatives, through whom the baronetcy comes. The case, as we heve said, is only beginning ; and therefore the rulings of the three Judges—Vice-Chancellor Malins, and Lords-Justices James and Mellish—do not settle anything one way or the other. They merely decide that the claimant has put forward statements which the present holder of the estates and title is bound to answer. The plaintiff (Mr Henry Ralph Vane) is the son, and the defendant (Sir Henry Ralph Vane, of Hutton Hall, Cumberland) is the grandson of Sir Frederick Fletcher Yane, and the question before the Court is to the legitimacy of the former,

Oa the 9fch March, 1797, Sir Frederick married Miss Bowerbank, with whom he had previously lived, and by whom he had children. It is alleged that the third chill afterwards called Sir Francis Fletcher Vane, was born before the marriage, and it is admitted that the plaintiff was the youngest child after the marriage. Under these circumstances, he claims the title and estates. If he succeeds in his endeavor to prove his older brother’s illegitimacy, time will not bar his recovery. Although it docs seem at first somewhat strange that the plaintiff should have so long remained quiescent, he certainly gives some plausible reasons why he was so. Francis Fletcher Vane, the third son of Sir Frederick, was born early in 1797, the year of his mother’s marriage-and baptized on the 19th of April in the same year. In the registrar’s book it is stated that be was born on the 29th day of March, in the year 1797, in whicn case he would be legitimate. He was always looked upon by the family as such, and during the life of the first baronet, recognised as his heir and suceessor. In 1823 he married Lady Diana Olivia Boauclerk, the estates being settled upon him, and he was allowed to assume the title of baronet in his father’s lifetime—a very singular and unusual proceeding, and one which both sides are trying to make the most of. The plaintiff, of course, contends that it was done with an evident intention to make a bad title good, while the defendant alleges that it was a proof of his father’s strong desire to assert his son’s legitimacy while he was alive. At all events, Sir Frederick allowed Lady Diana Beauclerk to marry, giving her every reason to believe that his son was his rightful heir. In 1832 Sir Francis succeeded to the estates, and remained in possession of them unchallenged to the time of his death, in 1842. His son, the present defendant, who was then about twelve years old, succeeded, and it was not, we believe until after Ids marriage in 1871, that the intimation that his father was not the rightful heir was given. We may well imagine that the surprise was anything but an agreeable one ; bat the defendant met it by submitting that if all the plaintiff alleged was true, he had made no case for relief, inasmuch as he had taken no action until long after the period at which a title orginally weak or worse than weak is cured by lapse of time and the direct action of the Legislature. Ordinarily this would bethocase, asthe'plaintiff admits ; and he contends that his delay is accounted for by special circumstances and by the frauds which for more than sixty years had been practised upon him. He had always been treated as a younger son. In 1826 ho joined the 12th Lancers, and he lived a soldiers’ life, seeing but little of his family except during occasional visits. He never beard a word as to his birth ; hut during the last illness of his mother (who died in 1866) she told him the secret of his brother’s birth. The story thus told was in some material parts confirmed by what was told him by Lady Diana Vane, his brother’s widow. Inquiries were instituted, and the plaintiff was satisfied that the entry of Sir Francis Fletcher’s birth had been tampered with in the register. Fow the correctness of this register had not been disputed for seventy years, simply because no one had made it his business to look into it, but the plaintiff claims to “have proved the falsehood of the register in questi on. He says he had no reason to suspect his father and mother of fraud, or his relatives in general of conspiring against him ; he could not be blamed for ignorance of things which occurred before he was born, nor could he be expected to hunt up parochial registers for evidence of inci dents in family history which every man takes upon trust. This view has been adopted by tbe’AVico-Cbancellor and LordsJustices, and the defendant will have to give his version of the transactions, supporting it by evidence. The plaintiff has, no doubt, a very difficult task before him ere he wins his cause. The lapse of time makes reliable evidence necessarily very scarce. He will havetoprove that his brother, who died in 1842, was born at least twenty-one days before the date entered in the baptismal register. He must show that this fact was fraudulently concealed from him, and to which both of bis parents must have been parties. He must satisfy the Court that he could not have reasonably found this out before. Beyond all this he will have to meet the difficulty which presents itself in the marriage of Lady Diana Olivia Beauclerk to bis brother, for it must be evident that everj'thing relating to the estates was then fully investigated. The plaintiff distinctly affirms that the lady’s father knew the entire account of the birth, and that was one reason why Sir Francis was put into possession of the title and estates some years before bo would have been in the ordinary course of things. So far as the case has gone, their Lordships have virtually decided that if the plaintiff proves what he declares he is able to do, then bis rights are incontestable, and his title must prevail, to the exclusion of his elder brother’s issue, who will of course lose the family sstates and title. There are, no doubt, many difficulties surrounding such an attempt as the plaintiff is making, and the progress of the case will be watched with intense interest.