The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-16 00:00:00

THE DUNDONLLD PEERAGE.

The hearing of this remarkable case was resumed
yesterday in the House of Lords, and occupied the
Committee of Privilege the entire day. The facts
are these: The present Earl of Dundonald presented
a petition to their lordships' house, praying that it
might be declared that he was entitled to vote for
representative peers of Scotland, and that he was
the lawful son of the late earl, the petitioner's
brother, Captain the Hon. L. Cochrane, of her Ma-
jesty's ship the 'Warrior, claimed the peerage as the
eldest son born after the marriage of his father and
mother. Captain Cochrane afterwards withdrew
the petition he presented. The claim of the present
earl was heard before their lordships on Tuesday
last, and reported in the sun. Yesterday, Sir F.
Kelly continued his arguments in favour of the
claimant, the present earl. The learned counsel
stated that no further information could be obtained,
or he, on the part of the present earl, would have
produced it, The fact was, Lord Cochrane, when
he returned from South America, and being pos-
sessed of considerable wealth, when in Scotland he
met with a gentleman who had become possessed of
the ancient estates of his family, at Culross, near
Clackmannan. He had promised to leave these
estates to his lordship—estates before possessed by
his ancestors, and at the same time insisted that Lord
Cochrane should go through an ecclesiastical mar"
riage ; and he did so to please this gentleman. On
this point Lady Dundonald had been examined, and
she gave their lordships all the information she
could. Sir Robert Preston, of Valleyfield, near
Clackmannan, the gentleman in question, who had
induced Lord Dundonald to enter into this second
marriage, was now dead, and every one else who
could have told the story was also dead. Lord
Dundonald, was also dead; the clergyman who
performed the ceremony was also dead ; the gen-
tleman in whose house the marriage took place was
also dead. Their lordships would know that shortly'
before this second marriage was performed Lord
Cochrane was going to a Roman Catholic country,
a country that required something more than a
Scotch marriage—some ecclesiastical ceremony, and
therefore he accounted in this way for the second
marriage. An action for declaritor in Scotland
would not have prevented the present Captain Coch-
rane from disputing the claim the present earl had
instituted in their lordships' house. Sir Fitzroy
then went on to say that it was impossible to ex-
press to their lordships in adequate terms the
intense pain that this unfortunate lady, the aged
Countess of Dundonald, had undergone; indeed,
their eyes must be shut and their hearts closed
against such considerations. They had a duty to
perform to their country and to their Queen; but
still he would ask them not to delay their decision
for one hour, on account of the painful anxiety
of the claimant and all the family. There was
not, he contended, a stigma of any kind
on the memory of Lord Dundonald, or on the
present Countess, who had answered most
freely all questions put to her. Sir Fitzroy
then called their lordships' attention to the certi-
ficate of birth of the present earl, who, in such cer-
tificate, was called the son of Lord Cochrane and
Catharine Corbet Barnes, but he contended that the
entry had been made by an old Scotch servant, and
this was the way a Scotch marriage would be en-
tered in the registers in Scotland. Sir Thomas
Cochrane, and all the members of the family, had
from the earliest period called the children " Vie
Hon." He contended that Jackson's evidence was
unworthy of belief. Was it to be believed that ts
lady of the position and great age of the Countess
of Dundonald, on the verge of the grave, was likely
to be a forger and a perjurer, and these foul charges
brought against her by her own sou.
The A ttorzey-General, on behalf of the Crown,
said that he had no desire to delay this important
case. The question was, did the marriage take
place at Annan between Lord Dundonald and the
present countess in 1812 ? On this fact the peti-
tioner rested his case, and no wonder, although
two other marriages had taken place; in support of
that fact, there was the evidence of the Countess of
Dundonald, in support of that marriage. With re-
gard to the journey to Annan in that short time
mentioned in the evidence, there was no impossibi-
lity in that. The handwriting of Moxon, who was
a witness to the marriage lines, has been proved—

but there was no evidence of the handwriting of tho
other witness, Carter. The Attorney-General said

that he firmly believed the evidence given by
Lady Dundonald. If their lordships believed
the evidence of the man Jackson, which
would be in the recollection of their lordships,
then they could not believe Lady Dundonald, which
was directly contradicted by her ladyship. The
motive for concealing the marriage at Annan was
clear. If Lord Cochrane had married anyone but
a lady of property and fortune, Mr. Basil Cochrane
would disinherit him.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland, on the part of
the Crown, agreed with what the Attorney-General
had stated to their lordships, and stated that he had
no evidence against the claim.

The Lord Chancellor said that the case was a
most distressing one. He believed that Lady Dun-
donzld had spoken the truth, and that the mar-
riage at Annan had taken place. She had frankly
explained the marriage at Annan. She had no
motive to make her eldest son the heir.

Lord Brougham quite agreed with what the Lord
Chancellor had stated. He considered that the
Countess of Dundonald had clearly and distinctly
given evidence on all the important facts connected
with the marriage at Annan in 1812. Minor details
she might not remember. That noble person left
their lordships' house without the slightest tarnish
on her name. The late Lord Dundonald had told
him that this noble lady—and she was worthy of
being called noble—had stood on the deck of his
lordship's ships in the most deadly fights he had
been engaged in.
Lord Cranwort h considered that Lady Dundonald
was in his opinion a witness of truth. He had
noticed that the water-mark, faint as it was, on the
marriage lines, was 1811, and he did not believe
that Lord Cochrane or ber ladyship could be guilty
of fraud, forgery, and perjury.
Lord Chelmsford said, one or two circumstances
had not been properly accounted for ; but what his
noble friend had said about the paper marks was
most important. He had examined the paper, but
he had not noticed it till mentioned by his noble
friend. His lordship concluded by stating that,
when
persons began with Scottish marriages there
WAS no knowing when they might stop. They might
take place over and over again, in England, in Scot-
land, and in It eland, to make them perfect, and then
he disputed iu their lordships' house. „;
The Chairmen then put the
question, and their
lordships declared that the Earl of Dundonald, the

petitioner, httcl made good his claim to the peerage.