The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-08 00:00:00

',MM'AVI3.IVV_Mti.OI .oAsn.

_
MONDAY.
'The committee of Piivliege of Lords again
4Summed this morning the consideration of the Wicklow
peerage case. It will be remembered that on the last meet-
Ong of the committee Sir Roundel' Palmerin effect charged
kin. Howard with having brought forward as her own child
totld the heir to the Wicklow peerage, the son of a pauper,
named Mary Best, of Liverpool ; and when Mrs. Howard
was called upon to give evidence, she was nowhere to be
found. This morning
.the Solicitor-General announced
that Mrs. Howard wai present, but he objected to her
being cross-examined unless some ground for doing so were
given.

The Lord Chancellor pointed out that Mrs. Howard put
forward the claimant as her own child. Having herself
brought evidence, she was subject to cross-examination.
Had the counsel opposed to the Solicitor-General been
aware of the case he would have gone into it before. It
could not be considered that the case made those charges
necessary. When the case first came forward there were
not the materials to cross-examine that there were now.
Mrs. Howard was called, and urged that she was charged
with conspiracy and perjury. She objected to be sworn
till the case was stated on the other side.
The Lord Chancellor informed her that it was not for
her to dictate the course to be taken.
Lord Chelmsford : You must be sworn.
The Lord Chancellor : Do you object to be sworn?
Consider the question, as we may have to commit you.
Mrs. Howard : It is a fresh charge.
Lord Redesdale observed that Mr. Howard would do
her case no good by refusing to be sworn.
Several of the learned lords advised her before refusing
to consult with her counsel, as the consequences would be
serious to her, and she left the House for that purpose.
After a quarter of an hour had elapsed the Solicitor-
General returned, and said Mrs. Howard refused to be
SNVOTIL
Lord Redesdale apprehended there would have to be a
report of the circumstances to the House.
Sir Roundell Palmer presumed that the refusal would
debar Mrs. Howard from speaking again. The committee
then sat as the full House, the Lord Chancellor on the
woolsack.
Lord Redesdale formally reported the circumstances
that Mrs. Howard had refused to be sworn.
The Lord Chancellor then advised that she be remitted
to the custody of the Black Rod. It. was a painful thing
to do, but he saw no help for it.
On the question being put to the House, the contents
were declared to have it, and Mrs. Howard.was removed.
. Other evidence was then called. Mary Beat was in
1863 in service at St. Anne's-street, Liverpool,
aid whilst there she became acquainted with a man
named Jones, In 1864 she was enceinte, and went to the
Liverpocl workhouse. Did not know her number in the
workhouse. She was confined on the 16th of August in
the lying-in ward. Knew a woman named Dickenson,
who was the officer over the ward, and attended witness
as did another person named Stuart. The child was
registered after it was born, and was called William.
After she bad been confined she saw a lady in the ward.
The first time was on the 23rd of the month. She came,
about noon alone. The officers of the ward came with
her, and the lady and another person looked round the
room to see if there was a child that they liked. The
lady tried to induce witness to part with her child.
Had not seen the lady lately. She last saw the
lady on Friday week in one of the outer rooms of the
House.
The Solicitor-General thought the witness ought to be
shewn Mrs. Howard, so as to see if she could identify
her.
Mrs. Howard was here called iii, and the witness said
she was the same person who came to the Liverpool
Workhouse about a child.
Witness was further examined by Sir John Kerslake,
and said that the lady said that the child should have a
first-class education, and that witness would have from
the Monday to the Friday to consider the proposition.
The witness went on to speak of her parting with the
child, said that she was promised money, and was also to
be allowed to see the child. Witness, however, had not
seen the lady till she met her in the House of Lords. She
thought that the child would have been fair. After she
left the workhouse she went into service again.
By the Solicitor-General : Was first spoken to about
parting with the child last summer. She was then at
Liverpool, and Mrs. hinter, a person connected with the
workhouse, came to her. Witness also saw Mr. O'Brien
in October, and she picked out a photograph—that of Mrs.
Howard— from a number. O'Brien did not say what he
wanted her to do so for. Never learnt from the lady where
the child was going to. Would swear that she did not
know that her child was to be taken out of the country.
It was the lady (Mrs. Howard) who had just been in that
conducted the bargain for the child. She could not
recollect if the lady or her friends spoke English in an
Irish way. She never applied for any money, or to the
magistrate for any. Rea' h' did not know that the ladies
were going abroad. Was, sure the child went out of the
workhouse on the Friday, and she on the Monday ; and if
there was an entry in the workhouse books that they went
out on the same day it was a mistake.
By Sir John Kerslake : Had never been in the work-
house since. When she came out of the workhouse she
at once got a situation, and after leaving that, went to
live in the service that she was in prior to going into the
workhouse.
Ellen Higgins, a widow and monthly nurse, was for-
merly at the lying-in ward of the Liverpool Workhouse.
She went there in 1862, and, after leaving, again became
a monthly nurse. Remembered Mary Best being in the
workhouse.
She spoke to two persons calling on the woman
that had been confined on or about the 22nd of the month.
One of the ladies was Mrs. Howard, and she came to
witness's room, and said she wanted a boy with
fair hair and blue eyes. Witness referred her
to one of the officers of the ward and left. She
rabsequently was in her private room when Mrs. Howard
81,1.1 that she had "iixed " on a child, and she would call
again in three days. 'There were a large number of women
in the ward. Witness next saw her on the Friday fol-
lowing in a private-room. She was; then alone, and said
she hoped that the mother was willing that the child
should go. In the meantime it was found that the mother
being poor, was not unwilling to part with the child.
Clothes were brought by Mrs. Howard to' dress the baby
in, and when that was done she took the child away, and
it had not been brought back to the workhouse since.
Mary Best was discharged on the Monday. The book
(producod) would show when she left ; but witness was
certain that the child did not leave with its mother.
By the Solicitor-General : Left the workhouse in IS6B
in consequence of the Nightingale system displacing her,
and she went to another part of the house, but did not
like it and left. Had been accused with others of taking
100 ounces of brandy, for a patient after she left the
house. The charge . was not investigated by the
committee. There was " a mistake " about some brandy,
but it had nothing to do with witness's leaving. Witness
made the entries in the book, but it was not true that the
mother and child left the same day. It was
repeatedly the case ' that children were taken
away. There was a visitor's book, and the
porter kept it. At the time spoken of • a man
named Whitely was in that capacity. Could not remember
how many persons visited her the day that Mrs. Howard
came to see her. Would not like to swear to the person
who accompanied Mrs. Howard. She was sallow, and a
little taller than Mrs. Howard.. Was in London last
summer, and she was shewn a person whom she said she
did not believe was the person she saw in Liverpool. It
was her inapresaion that she sew her cousin on that day ;
but would not ;swear it. Had been looking over the books
to see wile was at the house on the days in question. She
did not know what dates to look at. There was an order
issued from the committee of the workhouse that she should
not see the books. Would not swear that she did not look for
the dates of the 22nd and 26th. Mr. O'Brien asked her to go
and look at the books, was not aware, when in London
last summer, that she would have to speak as to these
books, and believed all that she would have to would be
to speak as to the identification.
By Sir John Karslake : There might be a dozen children
taken from the workhouse whilst she was there. The com-
mittee stopped.her searching the books, at least she learned
so from the papers. She left the lying-in ward in October.
By Lord Chelmsford—Did not remember whether Mrs.
Howard was introduced by name. It was the porter's
duty to take the names.
By Lord Redesdale : When a child was taken away in
the manner described it was entered as having gone away
with its mother. . .
Mary Stuart was formerly a nurse in the lying-in ward
at the Liverpool Workhouse. She left six years ago last
January. Mary Best was attended by witness. After
her confinement remembered two ladies coming into the
lying-in-ward, one of whom was Mrs. Howard, and
she said that she wanted a little . boy of fair
complexion and blue eyes. Witness saw her in the ward
where Mary Best was. Mrs. Howard left and returned
on the Friday with some clothes, and asked witness, as
the mother had consented, to dress the child. Remem-
bered Mary Best leaving two or three days after.
By tho Solicitor-General : Was not here in the summer;
was at Brighton, and Mrs. Higginson, Mrs. Cater, and
Mary Best were there. The lady wipe accompanied Mrs.
Howard did not takunfickpart in the conversation. Did
not hear that the child was to be taken to Australia or all'
other place abroad. First heard of the matter seven or
eight months ago through Mr, Carr. Did not hear the
name of the ladies who came.
By Sir John Karslake : At the second interview Mrs.
Howard said the child would be well educated, and brought
up very rich. "
Eliza O'Hana, formerly assistant nurse to the work-
house, remembered Mary Best being there. Remembered
Mary Stuart dressing and washing the baby. Never saw
the baby after that.
Sir John Coleridge said that he would not ask the wit-
ness any questions.
This was the entire evidence, and their lordships ad-
journed for quarter of anhourpriortohearing the speeches
of counsel.
After the adjournment, the Solicitor-General said they
had heard that several persons could be called who would
be in a position to give important evidence. One of them
told a story which, though he could not pledge himself to
the details—that in in 1861 a lady wanted a child, and
went to the London Workhouses to get one, but without
success, and she then gent to Liverpool, and after that period
the witness had seen her with a child. They would under-
take to get that man over there if their lordships so pleased.
After the adjournment, the Solicitor-General said that a
person named Manners, who was formerly in the ixilice,
and who had left with a certificate of good character, was
now residing at Boulogne, and, seeinn• an advertisement
in the papers, had communicated with Mrs. Howard's
solicitors, stating that lie could give important informa-
tion. In consequence of that letter the managing
clerk to the solicitors had gone over, and the man stated
that in August 1864 he was communicate with,
by a lady of position residing in London, who was desirous
of obtaining a male child. Inquhies were made for one et
the Lon"ou Workhouses, but, without effect. The TIMM
the n told the lady that a search et LivPrpool 'night not
Yid so unsuccessfully. He saw her subsequently at Ensto:
Ssation with a child, and afterwards saw it at nurse in th.
neighbourhood of Camden Town. Under these circumstances
tae Solicitor-Gencral asked their lordships .to give hirc
an opportunity of making further inquiries. The answei
t'lat he had already to the case was that in August Mrs
Howard was staying at Longley ; but he had no evidence
a; to particular dates.
Lord Chelmsford pointed out that Mrs. Howard hag
placed herself in the unfortunate position of being debarreJ
from being called as a witness.
Henry Maskell, clerk to the solicitors of Mrs. Howard,
was then sworn, and spoke to going over to Boulogne
to see the man referred to.
The Solicitor-General said she had refused to answei
elute against his wish, and also the wish of her solicitors.
Their lordships must remember that the claimant was the
son, and he ought not to suffer because of his mother
refusing to be sworn. Sir John said that comments of an
offensive naturehad appeared in some of the papers during
the case being heard.

TheSolicitor-lieneral sans that the evidence or the
Langley witne3se3 would be subsidiary and almost
ieless without that of the person at Boulogne.
After some further conversation, the hearing of tllO
ase was adjourned for a wee],:,,

THE ALLEGED MURDER AT DItUMALOR

Great interest has been manifested in Ireland in tl

Drumaloor case, as it is called. Eight Orangemen have
been tried at the Cavan Assizes for the murder of Edward
Morton at Drumaloor in November last. The facts of
the case are thus stated by the prosecution :—On the
Ist of November last a public meeting was arranged to
take place in Cavan. That was a meeting called for
the purpose of discussing the question of tenant-
right. Large numbers of the inhabitants of the district
determined to attend the meeting. They left in a
large body—some on cars and other conveyances, sonic
on horseback, and the majority walked. They wer,-.
accompanied by the Roman Catholic clergymen of the
town of Belturbet—the Rev. Mr. Dunne and his curate,
the Rev. Mr. Daly—both of whom travelled on a jaunt-
ing-car together. There were certain banners carried by
that body, and certain insignia and things worn by a large
number of the people as they went along the road. They
left Belturbet about ten o'clock in the morning. About
four o'clock in the evenin,, b, after the meeting was over,
the Belturbet party started from Cavan for the purpose of
returning to their homes. Everything seemed to have
gone on quietly until the leading portion of the returning
body came to the townland of Drumaloor. They we;:e
met by a number of persons on the road, among-i'vhoin
were identified the prisoners at the bar. They carne
together to the steps of the cutting, the priest's car being
about the centre of the party. On it was the Rev. Mr.
Dunne, his curate, the priest's servant, who was driving,
and another gentleman. Just as the priest's car came up to
the steps at Hewitt's house, a man at the end of the dwelling
cried out " Here they are, d—n their souls ; pitch into
them," or " fire into them." That was . heard distinctly
by the persons on the car. Immediately afterwards shots
were fired from the Belturbet end of Hewitt's house
towards the priest's car. There were at least four or five
shots at that time fired in rapid succession. Five at least
of the prisoners (said the counsel) were at the end of
Hewitt's house, and they were of the party from
whom those shots came. It would be proved that some of
the party, after firing the first volley, reloaded their
guns, and that there was a cry from one of them,
" Keep up the fire boys." Accordingly, they reloaded
their guns, and fired a second volley down the road. After
the first volley the priests and those who were on the car
and, of course the rest of the crowd, into which those shots
were fired, retreated in great alarm. The rev. gentleman
went towards Belturbet. Others returned and fled towards
Cavan ; but the priest's car was left, with a few persons
who were about it, at the steps, when the second discharge
took place. The-driver was with the car, which was then
unoccupied, and it would appear that he addressed Edward
Morton, and invited him to get upon it. When the de-
ceased was in the act of doing so he was struck by one of
the shots fired from Hewitt's house. Upon the occasion
of the second discharge the shot took effect upon Morton.
The evidence upon both sides having been heard, the
jury acquitted the prisoners. The verdict was received
with cheers in the Court-house, and yells by the crowd
outside.. The prisoners were publicly discharged. The
crowd paraded the streets of Cavan, but there was
no disturbance. A large police force remains in the
town.