The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-05-11 00:00:00

THE GORDON PEERAGE.

The cam of the Gordon Peerage, on behalf of the
Eight Hon. John Campbell, Earl of Aberdeen in the
peerage of Scotland, claiming a writ of summons to
Parliament as Viscount Gordon of Aberdeen In the

peerage of the United Kingdom, again came on for
hearing, in the House of Lords on Friday in last week,
when their lordships assembled as a Committee for
Privileges; Lord Itedesdale in the chair. The noble
and learned lords present were the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Colonsay.
Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., Mr. E. Gordon, Q.C.
and Mr. Hugh Cowie appeared for the claimant; and
the Attorney-General and Mr. Charles Clark watched
the case on behalf of the Crown.

The case was opened by Sir Roundel! Palmer, and a
portion of the evidence on behalf of the claimant heard
about a month ago. It will be recolle led that the ease
turns principally on the supposed death by drowning
at sea of the late Earl of Aberdeen. who, being I f
romantic tm n of mind, adopte 1 a sea Laing life under
the name if Gtorge o,h.inle, and is said to have been
washed overboard in 1870 when serving as first mate on
board the Hera, of Poston, then on a voyage to
Austialia and China. The next brother of the late
Earl having also met with his death by accident, the
claimant, the youngest of the three butters, preferred
the present claim to the title, after having established
his nght to the family estates before the Court of Sus-
aion in Scotland.

The Counts of Aberdeen, with her two daughters,
was present ill the peeresoes' gallery at the sitting of
the House, but in giving her evidence she occupied a '
seat in the body of the House.
Her ladyship having been sworn, said—l am a daughter of
the late Mr. George Bailie of Jerviswoode, and I was married
at Taymouth Castle, in the county of Perth, to George John
James, the fifth Earl of Aberdeen and s.,e ald Vir.c mot
Gordon, on the sth of November, 1850. I bail three sons—
George. born on the 10th of December, 1811 : Jaime -Item'.
born on the 11th of October, 1815; and John Campbell,
born on the 3rd of August, 1847. The youngest
alone is now surviving. The two elder died un-
married. lily husband died on the 22nd of March, 1564,
My eldest on George left us on the 2nd et .1311.17,15011.
and sailed from Liverpool about a fortnight afterwards. I
have never even him since. Alter he left England I received
letters from him from time to time, the last of which is
dated tee 24th of April, 104). I produce the letters I so
received, and I also produce a letter received Gain George
by my second son, which has since come into my pessession.
That letter Is dated the 15th of March, 1857. I should be
clad to be allowed to retain imssession of the letters. I have
allowed copies of them to be printed, with the exception of
certain paragraphs which relate to strictly private family
-"--

matters..
The Attorney General So far as lam concerned, my lords.
I am satisfied with the copies of the letters as verified by
her ladyship.
Watkin, photographer of Regent.street, identified
several photographs as being those which he hail taken of
the late Eail before he left England. One was a very large
one taken in July, 1365, aid others had been taken at
Wimbledon when his lordship was in the Sottish Eight.
He had known his lordship previously very well. lie also
identified the American photographs as being those of the
late Earl.
Lord Chelmsford: If there were any opposition to this
claim we should not receive that evidehce. We should look
at the photographs and judge 1 v ourselves.
The C nntiess of Aberdeen: These phi-doers:lls taken by
Mr. Watkin are those of my son George. The Ammican
photog, dis ircduced are also likenesses of him. They are
bad photographs, anal there is see.. ehsege in the face, but
not more than I should have expected ta find after a lapse
of three yams. The upper part of the face is unchanged,
but the lower part is altered, principally in consequence et
his having gr wn a board Her ladyship then itlentilied
the hande riting in salons books and papers forwarded
from America as being that other eldest son, and recognised
issveral articles found in the sea che t of George Osborne
as heal-Lig the name of tradesmen with whom her sou f r-
mtrly dealt. Her ladyship then proceeded to say—Sly s-n
Geo.ge was a tad loner man, lie was eft. before he
left Eng'atel, and he informed nic some time aiterwarilouihlo
letters that le had crown another half inch. His cetepl skin
was fair. Ills eyelashes were dark. He sin ped a little. He w..s
very fond athletic exercises from his boyhood, and he was
of an enthusiastic turn in everything he undertook. He was
apt to persevere, and not to give anything up when he had
once commenced it. lie was a very good shot. From his
earliest life he was fond of the sea, and he wished tomato
it his profession. His father once applied to get him ad-
mitted into the Navy, but being over 14 he was too old to be
eilmitted. He afterwards engaged in a remarkable adven-
ture, that of going over to France inn small skiff. It was a
most dangerous feat. He started from St Leenards and
went over to Boulogne, and afterwards returned from that
place to Folkeetone in the same manner, lie was accus-
tomed to carpenter's work, anal once made himself a sea
chest. Ile was very fond of children, and was in the Wot of
talking t, them and of telling them stories. He was a pro-
ficient in music and was fond et drawing.
The Attorney-General having intimated that he
had no questions to put in the way of cross-examina-
tion, her ladyship withdrew.
Sir Roundel] Palmer proceeded to argue in favour of
the admission air Cote case of the evidence taken in
America and elsewhere under the Commission ap-
pointed by the Sheriff depute in the Court of Session.
He adverted to the difficulty if not impossibility, of
collecting again such a body of evidence se had been
given before that Commission, owing to the fact that
the witnesses then examined, being principally sea-
faring men, were now dispersed over the four quarters
of the globe. The inconvenience and expense to which
the claimant would be put in sending out fresh Com-
niieeionere to America, China, Japan, and other
parts of the world, would be enormous. He sub-
mitted that the evidence should be received on
three grounds :—ln the first place, it would be impos-
sible for their lordships to require the personal attend-
ance of witnesses who were American subjects,
anal who resided out of their jurisdiction ; secondly,
the reteur service of heir general or special in the
Courts of Scotland was constantly received by their
lorilehipe as conclusive evidence; thirdly, the ci same
of pro cesling preecribed by 3L and 32 Victc.ria,
chap. 101, directing the procedure for the service of
heir, had been strictly followed in this ease. In issu-
ing the Commiesion the Sheriff had diecharged a
judicial duty under an Act of Parliament which re-
quired him to take every care that the evidenee -re-
ceived should be properly sifted. Their lordships
hail adinitted evidence taken by Commission in tie
Borthwick perage claim, audit was a common practice
to saltait such evidence in the courts of law. At all
events, this wag good hearsay evidence to show when
the party wag last heard of. Under these circumstances
lie respeetfully submitted that their lordships would
receive the evidence de bole (sae.
The Attorney-General, in offering his opinien to
their lordships, said this was not a question of the
weieht, but of the admieeibility of evidence. Their
10rd.44, wese the sole judges what es ideuee they
should altuit or reject, although they hal frequently
stated that they desired to be guided in the matter by
the usual principles of legal practice. Their lordships
were asked to receive in a peerage claim evidence taken
for another purpose by a Commission of the apniiint-
ruent of which the Crown had had no notice and to
it was not a party. The admission of such eviiienLe,
would, in his opinion, be contrary to principle. How-
ever great the inconveniences of requiring a fresh ( !ion-
iniesiou to be issued might be to the claimant their lord-
ships could not be expected to set aside their usual prac-
tice in order to snit the convenience to those who pre-
ferred claims of this character, which, if held to be estab-
tidied, would bind all the world for all future time. The
learned connsel on the other tide was wrong in assert-
ing that thi ir lordship's were in the habit of receiving
the Shin dß* retour as conclusive evidence, it being
received ooly for what it Wail worth, ant even In the
Court of Session it might be gubeequently challenged.
The question of hearsay, evidence as to when the late
Earl was last heard of did not arise, inasinoch as the
presumptiim of death having been put fcrward, evi-
dence of death must be given in the usual manner. If
their lordships received this sort of evidence, although
in the present MO they would, perhaps be advancing
the interests of justice, they would be establishing a
most inconvenient precedent. which it would be most
injudicious to follow in other cases. Under these cir-
cumstances he submitted that their lordships would

not receive the evidence now tendered on behalf of the
claimant.
After some consultation,
The Lord Chancellor, in advising their lordships to
receive the evidence, said that they were sitting as a
sort of grand inquest to determine whether the late
Earl WM dead, and whether the present claimant had
shown that he was entitled to a seat in their Lord-
ships House. The evidence in question bad been
taken in a judicial proceeding instituted with the view
of ascertaining the same facts that their lordships bad
to ascertain, and if they were to reject it they would
deprive the claimant of the means of establishing his
right and themselves of the most valuable evidence
that coul Ibe procursd in relation to the claim, lie
trusted that it was not a part of their duty to shut
their eyes to evidenees.of this character. and therefore
be should advise their lordships to admit the evidence,
leaving it to a subsequent stage to determine whether
any and what further evidence might be rcquired to
support and corroborate it..
Lord Chelmsford thought it would be a denial of
justice for their lordships to reject this evidence.
Lord Colonsay concurred.
The evidence was then received. Some further evi-
dence having been given,
On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, it was re-
solved that the claim had been established.
Claim allowed accordingly.