The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-24 00:00:00

tab) intelligenct.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
le COMMITTEE OP PHITILEOES.—CLAIM TO Tilt TRACT
PIDIDAGE.—The Lord Chaacellor, the Earl of Devon, Lord
Shaftesbury, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Radnor,
Lord Sudeley, and other peers, met at 10 o'clock, and forma
& committee of privilege*, Lord Shaftesbury in the chair, to
hear evidence in support of this claim.
The claimant is Mr. James Tracy, of Oreshill, in the
Queen's County, and he claims to be admitted to the title
and dignity of Bareu and Viscount Tracy, of Rathcoole, in
the county of Dublin, by virtue of letters patent, dated 12th
Jan., 1642, conferring that dignity on Sir John Tracy, of
Toilington, in the county of Gloucester, and on the heirs
male of his body. From him the peerage descended through
five generations lineally, from father to son, to Thomas
Charles, the sixth Baron and Vincent Tracy, who died
without issue in 1792, when the said titles devolved on his
half brother, the Rev. Dr. John Tracy, the seventh peer,
on whose death without issue his only surviving brother,
Henry Leigh Tracy, became eighth and last Baron and
only child, who married Mr. Charles Banbury, now Loa
leaving a daughter, sa
claimant's father petitioned the crown for the title in 1836,
Viscount
°len; Tracy,
,paenengdeiedhasinbeel7n97dormant since 1797. The
but he died before any proceeding was had in his claim in
this house. The present claimant then petitioned the crown;
and his petition, with the Attorney-General's (Sir J.
Campbell's) report thereou, was referred to this house in 1830,
and came then before the committee of privileges, and again
in 1843, when the committee reported that be had not made
out his claim. By the es idence given in support of the
claim in 1843, it was satiefactorily shown that in 1797 the
right to succeed to these dignities was in the male descend.
iota, if any were then exiting, of Robert Tracy, an
eminent judge of the Common I'leas in England from the
year 1700 to 1726. He was the then only surviving son of
the second viscount. It was also shown that the claimant
was the descendant and heir of a William Tracy, who
married one Mary O'Brien, in Dublin, about the year
1714. The difficulty in the claimant's case was, to
show that this Wam Tracy was of the family
of the English Judge Tracy, and his statement ler that pur-
pose was, that the judge had three eons Brat, Robert, who
died without issue ; second, Richard, who left as only son,
who died without issue—all which was clearly proved—
and, third, William, who was the same William 'Tracy who
went to Ireland sod married Mary O'Brien, and was claim-
ant's ancestor. It was said that he displeased his family by
that marriage, and that he or his desceadants wennot recog-
nised by them. To show that this William wee a son of the
judge, a family prayer-book was produced, containing, among
other entries, one, of the marriage, at Dublin, of "
SOD of the Honourable Robert Tracy (late one of the
English judges) te Mary, daughter of Mr. James O'Brien,
merchant," dated 17th April, 1728; and several witnesses,
skilled in handwriting of different egos, gave their °pintos
that that entry must have been written about that date. a
further proof of the identity of the said William with Wil-
liam, third son of the judge, several witnesses swore they
remembered an inscription on a tombstone, in the
parish church of Canlebeook, in the Queen's County,
whither the said William and wife and family removed
from Dublin. The inscription was erected by Mary Tracy
to the memory of her husband, " William Tiny, Esq., late of
Ross, in the King's County, the third sop of the Hon.
Robert Tracy, late one of the judges ef the Common Plass
in England, who departed this life in 1734." The witnesses
said they did not know what became of the tombstone ; it
disappeared from the church years ago. The lords of the
committee is 1843 were not satisfied with the evidence of
the entry in the louver-book, or of the said inscription. The
claimant having since amended his case by additional evi-
dence, he presented his petition to the Queen, who referred
the same to the Attorney-General, and with his report her
nisrl'ittroaty has reyfeKelrretyth, ewith sameistmthewilere ouilMr. Fleming and
other counsel for the claimant, opened his case by stating
the former proceedings as above' and added gut the
claimant had by diligent search, since 1843, made
out the clearest proof, first, by a Mrs. Lamb,
a direct descendant from the English judge, who
would prove the reputation in the family of the judge's son,
William, having gone to Dublin on a visit to his sister, the
wife of Mr. Wilde, a commissioner of excise there, and of
his having married Mine O'Brien, a person of humble
station, and for that reason was cut off by his father and re-
lations. He said he would oleo be able to produce the frag-
ments of the tombstone, with the inscription on it, another
day ; but he would confine himself now to the evidence of
Mrs. Lamb.
Mrs. Lamb, a very respectable old lady of 76, was examined
by Mr. Fleming. She was the great-great-grandaughter of
Ann Tracy, oae of the judge's two daughten, who married,
first, Mr. Dowdeswell, of Worcester; afterwards, for her ea
mod huslund, she married Mr. Thomas Wilde (yaw, as Sir
F. Kelly said, by strange coincidence, with Sir Thomas
Wilde of the present day, represented Women,
in parliament), who was appointed a oommiasioaer
of excise in Dahlia, whither ha removed with Ana,
his wile that William Tracy went to Dublin, there
and then married Miss O'Brien, and was not after
recognised by the family. The witness spoke to the reputa-
tion in the family of William leering a family in Ireland;
to a picture of him in her brother's peteeaon, &c.
The Attorney-General, with whasa wan the Solititor-
Geueral for Ireland, to watch the awe on the part ,of the
crown, and the peers, crom-examined the witness, particularly
as to the precise time when she gave the information to the
elaialant,
Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and other lords, also
put severs; questions to the witness, to test the occutacy of
her memory as to the matters to which she spoke. Her
answers seemed to imply that she gave the information to
the claimant prior to the last hearing of his ease.
At 2 o'clock the committee was adjourned till some day,
yet to be named, after Easter, when other evidence will be
produced.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the ‘ieeXbrineellor at /Nailed.
Cul/VELD C. SUTTON.—IXJCNCTION TO hTAT PISOCEZD-
INOS AT 1./Ors—MC. Betbell and Mr. Ward moved fur ma
injunction in this cue to restrain Elizaheth Levi, who wee
the representative of a judgment creditor upon the estate
u: the late Lord. Canterbury, from proceeding with an as-
' tion at hw for the recovery of a debt from the defendant
I Sutton, who uas his lordship's el, ,ittor. It was cnntended,
in support of the motion, that a nicree having been ulready
obtained in this suit, which was instituted for thi. admirals-
Vuitton of Lord Canterbury's estate, this ... sopiald inter.
Iterl, fere no stav priceedings in an action at b a •
again-t the executor. The case of " V • • "
I Phil.. 416. was cited ill en authority.— •
.. p .
and Air. Southgate opposed the motion . .1 -..-
The Vice-Chancellor said it appeared 4/_,4.1„,....-tltiinnei-
came within the decision of '• Verson •. s •••1"" .. " jigs •
should, therefore, grant the injunction. "- '''' '..._ • ..;.i. - :.•
4 I -. ,
Bisbee Vire-Cluniestior liaipt ' • • , ' . ••• •
CUTTS V. It IDDILL.—LIABILITY OP P 0 "..
MIT/BMINS.—In September, 11445, the ..;