The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-03-12 00:00:00

THE WICKLOW PEERAGE CLAIM.

The hearing of this extraordinary case was resumed
on Monday morning, before the Committee of Privi-
leges in the House of Lords—Lord Hedesdale in the
chair.

Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., Sir J. B. Kars lake, Q.C.,
and Mr. if. Fox Bristowe, Q.C., (instructed by Mr.
Edward Walmisley) appeared for the original claimant,
Mr. Charles Arnold Howard; the Sohcitor-General,
Mr. Charles Clark, and Mr. Herbert Smith (instructed
by Mr. Lewin) appeared for Mrs. Ellen Howard on
behalf of her infant eon; and the Attorney• General
and Mr. Archibald on behalf of the Crown.

When this claim was before their lorthibipe on Tues-
day last, Sir Bounden Palmer proposed to call Mrs.
}Edward as a witness again, and further crosenexantine
her, stating that he was now in a position to prove that
the child soil to be Mr. and Mrs. Howard's (and if so,
the Earl id Wicklow) was in truth the son of a pauper,
named Mary Best, and was born in Liverpool Work-
house, and obtained from there in 1864. That the
person who took the child asked for and selected One
"with blue eyes and light hair," and that one of the
persons would be positively identified as Mrs. Howard.
The learned coitus,' further stated that in 1864 it was
the practice at the Liverpool Workhouse to allow
children to be takin for adoption. When Mrs.
Howard was called, however, as a witness on the last
occasion she did not appear. An order was thereupon
made by their lordships for her attendance on Monday,
which was subsequently served upon her at her re-
sidence.

On the assembling of their lordships, the counsel
and parties having been called in,

Sir Roundell Palmer stated to their lordships that under-
standing Mrs. Howard was now in attendance pursuant to
their lordships' order he proposed to call her in order to
cross-esamine her, but before doing so he wished to take
their lorddlips' judgment as to whether this was the proper
course to pursue. This was a case which had been presented
to their lordships in chief when a charge of the gravest pos-
sible kind was brought against Mrs. Howard—a charge of
perjury and conspiracy, in fact, every sort of crime, which
such a practice, as had been imputed, could give rise to; and
before the parties had laid any foundation for making this
new attack upon her, he the learned counsel; wished to cross-
examine her without letting her know what was to follow, or
the new evidence to be adduced.

The Solicitor-General objected to Mrs. Howard
being now cross examined, it being underatood that
her examination was concluded.

Thrir lordships having deliberated, it was decided
that Mrs. Howard should be cross.examined.
Mrs Howard was then called in but refused to be sworn,
observirg that many charges had already been brought
against her, and that this was an entirely view charge. she
begged tomato a statement.
The Lord Chancellor At present you must be sworn.
Mrs. Howard But these are new charges.
The Lord Chancellor No, the charge all through has been
that you are not the mother of this child. Do I understand
that you positively decline to he sworn?
Mrs. Howard I do, my lord.
The Lord Chancellor Pray consider the consequences of
the course you are taking.
Lord Redesdale: This is no new case. You are already
charged with conspiracy and perjury.
The Lord Chancellor: You had better retire and advise
with your counsel.... . . .

Mr;. Howard : I have made up my mind, my lorda.
Sirs. Howard then retired with her solicitor and counsel.
After a short time she again appeared at the bar, but re-
fused to he sworn.
_

The inrd Chancellor then put the question from the wool.
suck that Mrs. lloward be committed to the custody of the
Usher of the Black Rod for contempt, which was carried
nem. e,

_
Mre. Howard then retired In the custody of Col. Clifford,
the Deputy l'iher of the Black Rod.

- -
Mary Best was then sworn and examined by Sir J. B.
Kerslake : lam about twenty-eight years of age. I have been
in service at Liverpool. I became acquainted • ith • man
named Jores in 1864, and found myself in the family way by
him. In July of that year I went into the Liverpool Work-
house, and was confined On the 16th of August following.
The child was a boy. I was in the lying-la ward. I know
Mrs. Iligginson—she was the officer of the ward. I also know
• nurse named Stewart. Nly child was registered as William.
A abort time after my confinement, on the 22nd of August, I
saw a lady in the ward. She came about noon with another
lady. Mrs. Iligginson was with them. They went all round
the ward to see if there was a child they should like. They
came to me, and Mrs. Illgginson endeavoured to induce me
to give up my child. I saw the lady last week in this house.

_
The witneu was then confronted with Mrs. Howard, and
Identified her as the person who came to her at the work-
house).

Examination continued : The lady was with me about
half an hour at the Interview In the workhouse. She said
she would call again on the Friday, and I agreed to con-
sider about giving up my child. On the Friday she came
alone. The lady said I wag not to own the child after she
had taken It. I don't remember whether I saw the child
after It was taken away to be dressed. The lady promised
I should have some money, but I never got any. I never saw
the lady till team her here. I have been in service ever since
I left the workhouse. I think the child wee inclined to have

Irma-examined by Sir J. Kerslake: It was lest summer,
at Liverpool, when I first heard anything about this matter.
Mrs. Oster, an officer of the workhouse, mentioned it to me.
I saw Mr. O'Brien in October last. lie showed me several
photngmplm, and I picked out the one which repre,ented
the lady who had taken away my child. I will swear that
the child taken from me was not taken t be sent to New
Zealand. I don't remember what sort of pen m it was that
was with the lady. I don't recollect whether the ladies spoke
with an Irish accent. I did not hear their names. The
father of the child did not know about the matter. I never
apphed to the magistrates upon tho subject. If there Is an
entry In the workhouse hook that I and my child went out
of the "House" together, It Is a mistake. I don't know
where The father of the child now is
. .

ke-examined I have never been in the workhouse since I
left. There were five or six photographe. out of which
I selected the bay. They are the photographs now pro-
duced.

Mrs. Illieginson examined I am a monthly none. In
18021 hi reiue sutieiinteedent of the iyingin ward at the
Liverpool Workhouse. I left in lan& I remember Mary
Best being there. I superintended the ward in which she
was confined. I perfectly well recollect two ladies coming.
In my hook for 1064 there la the data 16th August, and the
name of " Mary Bert, 24th class," put down. That refers to
the date of the birth of the child, on or about the 22nd of
Au.iust two ladies came to my room. The person who I have
since rec gcisosl as Mrs. lloward came and another lady
csinii with her. 'The wanes. then Identified Mrs Howard
as the person who hail a convenatton with her In the work.
house ) The lady said she wished to select a child with
" blue eyes and fair halr." She walked round the ward, and
remained about half an hour, and then returned to my private
room, and told me she had fixed upon a child, and it would
be well cared for. She said she would call again in s few
days. riri the Friday /allowing she called atone. Iliad spoken
to Mary Best on the subject, and she agreed to part with her
child. The nurse, Mary Stewart, dressed the baby with
clothes brought by Mn, Howard. She took the child away,
cot it was never brought back again I had noticed the
cubit ; it was fair and its eyes appeared ti, be light blue.
I left in le6B In consequence of some alteratiomi in the
workhouse.

Cross,xamined: I left In conscimence of the " Nighting.
gale a)item " being Introduced. .No charge whatever was
made against rue. I was not charged with taking brandy
from one of the patients There was a mistake about some
brandy. hot th 4 Owl nothing to do with niy le ivito, I sent
• '• • . • •

one previously to my time. There, a visitors' book kept by
the porter at the gate. I cannot say how many persons
called on me on the 22nd of August. The book will show
if Mrs. Howard gave her right name. Whatever name she
gave would be Inserted. The other lady who called with
her was rather sallow. She WILB tall and thin. I was shown
the photograph, produced last slimmer. I Was shown a
person who I said I believed was not the woman I had seen
at Liverpool. lin the 26th I saw my cousin, Mrs. Jones. It
is my impression she was with vie the second time the lady
came. I have looked at the entry books, but it le my im-
pression I did not look at the entriee of the 22nd and 26th.
I know the matter occurred at the latter end of August. I
looked at the book several times. I will not swear I .lid not
leok at the dates. I knew that the important date was the
latter end"( August. Mr. O'Brien asked me to look at the
bmds, but he did not tell site the precise date, only the
year.
lie-ex:indeed: While I was up in town I WBS mobbed in
the street. Perhaps there were a dozen cases el children
being taken away from the workhouse during the six years I
, was there. The Workhouse Committee prevented me from
searching the books. Mr. Carr, the late governor of the
workhouse, gave me a note to the present governor to search
the hooks. When a person lett the ward I had to Rive a
discharge tick. 1. The number I entered was the number of
the pauper click was given to nie.
By Lord Chilinsfcrd: When vidtors called at the work-
house they were obliged to give names It Is the duty of
the porter to Insist upon having a name given to him.
Ily Lord 11.-deid de: During the time I was in the work-
house I always entered the child as going away with the
mother when it bed been taken away by other persons.
lip the Lori Chancellor The practice of allowing people
to lii, away the thildren of paupers was not unknown to
the governor of the win khonee, but I Cannot nay whether
the committee were aware of it.
_

Mao, Stewart, examined by Sir J. Karelake I Was at one
time a nurse in the lynx in ward at Liverpool workhouse.
I was there between four and five yeara I left five or six
yeare ago last January. I reeoll.ct Mary Best being there.
I attended her. Mrs. Iligginsois VIM the superintendent of
the word at the thile, I recollect two ladles coming into ,
the lying in ward. They were shown into Mrs. illgainson's
department, and they came into the ward. Tile younger of
the two asked me ill knew of a young women who would
part with her baby. I saw her last Tuesday. (Mrs. Howard
was identified I.y the witness. ) She said she wasted a little
Imy with lair hair and complexion and blue ryes. I tole
her to walk rmind the room and see If she saw one she
would like. She walked round the room and then she spoke
to Mary Best, and I left Per speaking to her. She remained
for MMe time on the occasion. She said she would come
sit du with clothes for the baby. She came on the following
Friday. She came into the ward with a parcel with the
clothes In it. She said the young woman had consented,
anti asked me to dress the baby. I washed and dressed it.
Mary was fretting anent parting wills the baby, and I car-
ried the child to Mrs. !fluidram.% room. I taw the lady and
Mrs. iiigginsoo there. I gave It to her dressed as it waa I
new them go out through a private (loon (In the second
occasion the lady was alone. Mary Best left two or three
days afterwards. There was a Woall4l named O'Hara, resis-
tant in the ward, at the time.
Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General: I am married to
a ship's carpenter at Liverpool Mr. Carr, the late governor
of the world louse, brought me up to London. I don't know
who paid my expense.. I got no money before I came up. I
got a little clothing, just what I was short of. I was not up
in the summer. I have been up to London for a week. I
have not stayed here all the time. I went to Brighton with
Mrs Meal, eon, Mrs. Cater, Slits O'Hara, and the child's
mother. I like Brighton very much. (A laugh We were in
private lodgings. I did not hear much of the talk between,
Mrs. !toward and Mary Best. I walked away. I always
did so on such occasions. These transactions frequently
occurred. The other lady who was with her was neither
short nor tall, nor stout nor thin. %Laughter.; She did
not tell me where the baby was going. She told me it
would be brought up a gentleman and that it would be very
rich. They did not speak like Irish people. This occurred
soon after dinner. They might have stayed twenty minutes.
I ain certain I saw Mrs. Higginson going out with Sirs.
Howard and the baby. I first heard aisout this flatter six or
eight months ago, in August or September last, I was brought
tato the matter by Mr. Carr. I never heard of any application
being made to the niagistratre about the matter, the ladies
gave neither name nor address. They would not have any
name known.
. . . . .

Re-emmined : They refused to give any name, because
they did not want the mother to know who they were.
'rho Lord Chancellor I never heard that any child that
was taken away was to go to New Zealand.
The Lord Chancellor: Wo understand that Mrs. Howard
has expressed a wish to see the counsel. We shall, of course
not refuse to grant her request, but he had better finish
the evidence first.

Eliza i(tiara, examined by Sir J. Karslake I was in the
workhouse in Liverpool for sometime as an asslitant nurse.
I think is was in 18tl4. 1 recollect Mary Best. I never saw
a lady come about a baby. I saw Mary Stewart wash a baby
and carry it to Mrs. lligginson's room. 1 never saw the
baby after that.
The certificate of the birth of a child named ,William, son
of Mary Best, was then put in.
The solicitor-General then withdrew to consult with Mrs.
lloward.

The Solicttor-General, on his return, applied for an ad-
journment in order that inquiries might be made into a
matter that had only recently come to the knowledge of Mrs.
Howard's advisers. They had received a letter front a person
at Boulogne, who stated that he had formerly been in the
police, and that he knew that in August, Istl, two Irish
ladies went to the Liverpool workhouse and obtained a
child, which had since diet, which child was the eon of
Mary Best.
Alter considerable discussion,
. . . . ..

Their Loraships directed the 'clerk of Ileum. Kimber and
FJp.s, the.s.ollFtt.?rs,for Mrs. Howard, to be culled.
' ' "

,
Henry Maskell: I am managing clerk to Messrs. Kimber
and Ellis. On Saturday last u letter was placed in my ennuis.
I went to Boulogne on Saturday night. I ascertained that a
person resided there who was the writer of that letter, and
he detailed a sate of facts which impressed me in some
degree as true. (The letter was put in and read. It stated
that the child of Mary Best had been taken away from the
Liverpool workhouse in August, 1864, by two Irish ladies of
good position.) He did not wish to come to London because
he wished to make some monetary arrangements before he
could come.

By Lord Redesdale : The advertlsement In the newspapers
for the ladies who had taken the child of Mary Best aKeared
first In the morning papers of Thursday. The letter is dated
the.2nd.of March.

_
Mr. Higginson recalled, and cross-examined by the Lord
Chancellor: The last care before that of Mary Best of a
child being iteloptni was early In the year. I cannot tell
whether there was another In the same year afterward.. I
nlll prepared to say that there was MA auotner child taken
away in the month of August, leol.
ley Lord Colousay There Is only one workhouse In Liver-
After. considerable discusalnn, the further hearing was ad-
journed until Monday next, In order to give Mrs. Howard's
advisers time to make further iniiniries
their Lordahip then dh eeteil Mrs Howard to be brought
to the her, and when she appeared they Informed her that
she would be discharged on nay merit of fees.
Mrs. Howard My Lords, I have no money. lam suing in
f.r014 prstrwrie.
Thelr Lordships then directed Mrs Howard to be removed,
and she left the florae in custody of Black Itod.