e whole remainder of
the day, with reference to the Lovel family, is replete with marvels
and romance. I shall tell you of great crimes and of singular
virtues, of sorrows that have been endured and conquered, and of
hopes that have been nearly realised; but the noble client on whose
behalf I am here called upon to address you, is not in any manner
the hero of this story. His heroism will be shown to consist in
this,--unless I mar the story in telling it,--that he is only anxious
to establish the truth, whether that truth be for him or against him.
We have now to deal with an ancient and noble family, of which my
client, the present Earl Lovel, is at this time the head and chief.
On the question now before us depends the possession of immense
wealth. Should this trial be carried to its natural conclusion it
will be for you to decide whether this wealth belongs to him as the
heir-at-law of the late Earl, or whether there was left some nearer
heir when that Earl died, whose rightful claim would bar that of my
client. But there is more to be tried than this,--and on that more
depends the right of two ladies to bear the name of Lovel. Such
right, or the absence of such right, would in this country of itself
be sufficient to justify, nay, to render absolutely necessary, some
trial before a jury in any case of well-founded doubt. Our titles
of honour bear so high a value among us, are so justly regarded as
the outward emblem of splendour and noble conduct, are recognised so
universally as passports to all society, that we are naturally prone
to watch their assumption with a caution most exact and scrupulous.
When the demand for such honour is made on behalf of a man it
generally includes the claim to some parliamentary privilege, the
right to which has to be decided not by a jury, but by the body to
which that privilege belongs. The claim to a peerage must be tried
before the House of Lords,--if made by a woman as by a man, because
the son of the heiress would be a peer of Parliament. In the case
with which we are now concerned no such right is in question. The
lady who claims to be the Countess Lovel, and her daughter who claims
to be Lady Anna Lovel, make no demand which renders necessary other
decision than that of a jury. It is as though any female commoner in
the land claimed to have been the wife of an alleged husband. But
not the less is the claim made to a great and a noble name; and as
a grave doubt has been thrown u