The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-02 00:00:00

during the Earl's lifetime, but he left four sons, three
by a first marriage, and one by a second. The first
three died, and on the supposition that they . had
no children, the fourth son, he of the
second marriage, claimed the title. Of course
there could be no disputing this pretension, if none
of the three brothers had left a son; but the wife of
the eldest, Mr: William George Howard, maintained
that she had been confined of a male child in May,
1864, whilst her husband was still living, and that
thi.3 child was the rightful heir. There could be no
question that Mr. and Mrs. W. G. Howard were
legally married; it was certain that the husband
was living in 1864, and. therefore the infant, if
born, must be held legitimate ; and it is, of
course, obvious that a child of the Rev.
Francis Howard's eldest son must be preferred
to the rev. gentleman's fourth son, Mr Charles
Francis Howard. The only point to be settled was
whether such a child had ever been born. This is
the question which the Committee have decided in
the negative.

It was maintained on the part of Mrs. Howard
that the disputed infant came into a litigious world
in the house of Mr. Bloor, residing near Eaton-square
in London. Here Mr. William George had lived for
a short time in 1863 ; and here, so it was said, he
still met his wife after they had gone to reside in a
neighbouring house. Mr. W. G. Howard, who was
in pecuniary difficulties, left his wife at the latter
end of 1863 and never lived with her again.
Mrs. Howard returned to the Bloor family,
and was confined, as it was stated, at
their residence on the 16th of May, 1864.
This part of the story is natural enough. The dates
are unimpeachable, and no improbability presents
itself. But the evidence respecting the confinement
is extremely conflicting. Mrs. Bloor deposed thitt she
rendered assistance at the critical moment ; an& Mrs.
Bloor's sister likewise in person welcomed the trouble-
some stranger. Mrs. Howard's sister swore that she
saw the child several , times within the few
months after its birth, and so did Mr. de
Bordenave, a friend of the Howards, who
resided in Bloor's house. On the other hand, how-
ever, it was shown that the pretended birth had•beon
keep a profound secret. It was not announced to
the world until several months after the event. The
child was neither baptised nor registered. Though
these three or• four persons deposed that they
had seen it, several others who were about Mrs.
Howard at the time knew nothing of the occurrence.
A dressmaker who had waited upon the lady just
previously to the confinement perceived no traces
of her condition. A servant in the house
was equally ignorant. Two medical men who
attended Mrs. Howard at this period gave
negative evidence. At the time of labour
no physician, surgeon, or regular nurse was present
—only Mrs. Bloor and her sister ; and though it was
said that a Dr. Wilkins has seen and prescribed for
the infant, this physician was dead and his doings were
attested only by the evidence of the Bloors. In brief,
none of the ordinary measures attendant upon the
birth of a child had been taken; and the only
evidence in favour of the claim was ttrat
given by the four persons who were in the house.
One of these, Mr. De Bordenave, vanished after one
appearance before the Committee.
This is what may be called the main plot of
the story. But there is also an under-plot.
The counsel for Mr. Charles Francis Howard not
only strove to prove that no birth had taken place,
but they presented evidence to show that Mrs.
Howard had actually obtained a workhouse
child and passed it as her own. In August
1804—three months after the supposed birth in
Eaton-square—Mrs. lloward visited a workhouse in
Liverpool: .xnd there obtained a newly born child from
Mary Best, a pauper woman. Not fewer than three
nurses swore more or less positively that such an
iniquitotis bargain had been made. It was on the pro-
duction of this startling evidence that Mrs. Howard
disappeared, and after wards refused to un-
dergo cross-questioning, being thereupon com-
mitted to the awful custody of Black
Rod. More complexities presented themselves.
Mary Best acknowledged under cross-exami-
nation that she had left the workhouse with a child
which she passed off as her own; and, of course,if she
retained her infant after she quitted the " house," she
could not have previously sold it to Mrs. Howard.
But the nurses who deposed to the bargain remained
unshaken in their evidence : they still held that
Maryßest's child had been taken away by a lady, that
the lady was none other than Mrs. Howard, and that
Mary Best could never have left the work-
house with ,the child, or a second child, unless
they had known it. Lastly, an attempt was made
to show on the other side that Mrs. Howard was in
another place on the day named as that on which the
workhouse bargain was struck. This mysstery has liBt
been fully cleared up. What were the real transactions
in connection with it remain mere matter of conjec-
ture.

Such is the story upon which the Committee of
Privileges have given judgment. Their lordships
leave the second part of the story, the workhouse
affair, without decision. The solution of the strange
Problem is the less needful, as the first part of tho
case—that relating to the birth of the child ill
Eaton-Square—is quite sufficient to determine
who ought to succeed to the Wicklow Peerage.
The evidence respecting Mrs. Howard's confinement
is so surrounded with improbabilities and contradic-
tions that it cannot be accepted. It is true that
three persons gave direct, and in itself unimpeach-
able, testimony touching the birth of the child; but
beyond their statements every point tells against Mrs.
Howard. She was even asked by the late earl to estab-
lish her claim, but unaccountably neglected to do so.
She destroyed all her husband's letters ; and, as we
have seen, no attention was given to the precautions
ordinarily adopted at a birth. Clearly, this has,
been an instance of attempted imposition. If
questions of such vast importance could be decided
by the bare assertion of two or three persons all in
communication with each other, withoit corrobora-
tion from surrounding circumstances, there would bo
no end to fictitious infant heirs to peerages. Such
frauds would be as common in real life as they are
in fiction. The conspiracy was undoubtedly one of
marvellous audacity. But it was marred by sheer
blundering:of the most reckless charicter: Stich pro-
ceedings as the purchase of an infant in the presence
of three nurses, sending 'for dressmakers just
before flit time of the so-called confinement, and
omitting to propitiate a servant in Bloorls house,
who afterwards gave_ damaging testimony, do not
denote very able plotting. All the better, however,
for justice. The Wicklow Peerage case will rank as
one of the strangest attempts at fraud ever perpe-
trated.