A ROMANCE OF REAL LIFE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 566, 4 January 1851, Page 4

A ROMANCE OF REAL LIFE.

[From the Times, August 3.J It is a common complaint with authors in embryo that they are in want of a suoject. Give them but a subject and a few genera, hints for their dramatis persona’., and they are ready to take the public by storm. Now this is a great mistake. Every house in every street in London might furnish a subject for a romance or a comedy if Scotts and Sheridans and Jane Austens were forthcoming io take advantage of the ripe occasion. Should the ordinary occurrences of domestic life, however, not satisfy the aspirations of our would be literati, in the records of the Assizes, whether on the Crown or Civil side, subjects might be found so full of stirring adventure and startling situations that an unpractised author might well hesitate before casting them into the form of a comedy or tale. For example, in our impression of yesterday we printed the report of a trial which recently took place before the Chief Justice Campbell, which occupied no less than seven closely printed columns of this journal. We know not if many of our readers have had the perseverance to read through the narrative of this extraordinary case, but such as have done so will have been amply rewarded for their pains. The story is in the spirit of Caleb Williams —it treats of the same period—it relates in part to the same class of characters, and might readily be cast into the same mould by a competent writer. It is doubtful, however, if even Godwin could have done justice to the subject. The rustic “ low life” that must be depicted in the course of the narrative would seem to require the same master hand which sketched the Trullibers and Molly Seagrims. Perhaps a union of Fielding and Godwin would be necessary to do justice to the subject, which was taken in hand at Stafford the other day by Mr. Keating and the SolicitorGeneral. We cannot pretend to do more in our limited space than to give the faintest and driest outline of a trial the report of which ran to such a length. To omit a paragraph of the report, in our sketch is to pass over a point of interest, possibly one which may be necessary to give consistency to the whole tale.

There was a gentleman of good family possessed of considerable property in three or four English counties, who before the French revolution was well known in the best circles in London. His name was Thomas Bainbrigge. He became attached io a young lady, but his father crossed him in his affections, and broke off the intended marriage on a difficulty which arose with respect to the settlements, and soon after the young lady died. Mr. Bainbrigge retired immediately to the country and sank down into the condition of a mere squire—his temper was soured for ever; he seemed to have taken a final farewell of all ambitious hopes, of all the refined pleasures of social life. He lived well nigh thirty years after the event we have spoken of, but in such a manner as may be inferred from the present narrative. His father died about the year 1787, and left him in possession of the family estate. He betook himself to one of his seats near Sherwood Forest, and found a young woman named Elizabeth Parker engaged there in his service. By this woman— Mrs. Betsey as she was called—he had a daughter in or about the year 1790, and the child received the name of Betsey Bainbrigge. Mrs. Betsey the mother became pregnant a second time, but by another man, and she was summarily dismissed from Mr, Bainbrigge’s service. The child was educated as though she had been his legitimate offspring ; no pains nor expense were spared to fit her for occupying a distinguished position in society, and when she was about 13 years of age her father brought her to his seat at Woodseat, and introduced her as his acknowledged daughter. In the year 1803, when she was only 13 years of age, he made his will, leaving her all his estates for life, with remainder to issue in tail, with remainders over. However, when the young lady was 17 years of age she became pregnant by his coachman. Hereupon he made another will, in which he left his property away from her, bequeathing to her only a small annuity, but still he retained her in his house, and even took a fancy to the child. About this time there was a farmer in the neighbourhood named Arnold, who was on bad terms with Mr. Bainbrigge on account oi the usual rustic grievance—a misunderstanding about game. By this man’s son Betsy Bainbrigge became pregnant a second time, and finally eloped with and married him. Mr. Bainbrigge was furious, and on the 4th of Augvjt, 1812, he made a third will, in which the name of his daughter, now Mrs. Arnold, was altogether omitted, but to his granddaughter he left an estate in his property for life, remainder to her issue in tail, with remainder over amongst his own family.’ His daughter’s name was never again mentioned in his house. The name of the granddaughter, the offspring of Betsey Bainbrigge and the coachman, was Marianne. In the year 1815, in the month of August, Mr Bainbrigge was thrown from bis horse at the

Derby races, and was supposed to be at the point of death. When he had partially recovered from his injuries ho sent for a solid, tor. a Mr. Blair, and directed him to make certain alterations in his will, which finally stood as follows : —His estates for life were left to his granddaughter, with remainder in tail to her issue, and in default of such issue to Thomas Parker Bainbrigge, the eldest son of his second brother, and his heir-at-law, f Or ever. By this will a legacy was left to his daughter, Mrs. Arnold, but with certain restrictions, clearly indicating the deep resentment he cherished against the family. Mari, anne, the granddaughter, died, and the last of her children also died in 1845, so that by the will of 1815 Mr. Thomas Parker Bain, brigge became entitled to the possession of his uncle’s property. Upon this will he took his stand, and upon it the action was brought at Stafford the other day. Now there was no question as to the sanity of the testator in the year 1815, but from this period until a few days before his death, which occurred June 13, 1818, he seems to ha^ 1 acted in a manner which can leave little doubt of his insanity, although of course, as in all such cases, there is much conflicting testimony. What one witness asserts another denies, hut there is little room for doubting that Mr. Bainbrigge’s faculties were injured partly from the result of his accident on the Derby racecourse, partly from his extreme intemperance. Just before his death, however, Mr. Bainbrigge made another will, by which should Marianne and her issue fail, remaind. ers over were limited to his daughter’s (Mrs. Arnold’s) sons in succession, with £l,OOO each to the younger children ; and in case all should die without issue, then to his right heirs for ever. His granddaughter Marianne was by this will intrusted to the care of Mr. Blair, the solicitor who drew up the instrument. During her minority Mr. Blair was to have the exclusive right of sporting over all the estates and the exclusive management of the property. The question tried the other day at Stafford was whether this will or the will of 1815 should stand. The endeavour was to set aside the second will on the ground oi the testator’s general insanity for some time previous to his final illness, as also because at the time of signing it he was utterly incapable of knowing what be was about. It is as well to say at once that almost without hesitation the Stafford Jury decided against the validity of the second™-, strument and in favour of the substantial plaintiff in the action. Not only was there a a doubt cast on the testator’s competency at the time of making the second will, but it was even endeavoured by the evidence of General Bainbrigge, the nephew of the deceased, to show that certain sheets had been interpolated in the will actually executed by the dying old man. Immediately after his death certain members of his family, and, amongst others, General Bainbrigge, were present to hear the will read. He placed himself near Mr. Blair the solictor, before whom the will was spread out on the table. As he was looking over Mr. Blair’s shoulder this gentleman shifted his place, and in every way endeavoured to prevent him from getting a sight of the documents ; but he saw enough to convince himself that there were large gaps aud chasms, which must have been afterwards filled up, as they were not to be found in the will which he subsequently examined in Doctor’s-comnaons. We cannot say whether or no this point was made out to the satisfaction of the jury, but at any rate enough was shown to induce them to set aside the will almost without deliberation.

The report of the case is on? of the most interesting which has for a long time appeared in our columns, and will repay the labour of perusal. There is no point in it certainly which is of public importance, but the narrative possesses a strong dramatic interest which cannot but captivate the reader’s attention. It is sad enough to watch the gradual fall of 3 gentleman of cultivated mind, refined tastes, and strong affections, from the bright expectations of his youth to the bed on which be lay dying— a drunken and insane dotaftt How miserably, at the best, was that long period of thirty years spent by a man who entered on life with every advantage on his side, until we see him duped by his mercenary attendants into signing away his property from his own family, and so in the midst of rag 3 and filth—no friend or relative to console bis last moments—breathing out his life with a groan.