Star.
London, England, 1830-06-24 00:00:00

frt asees.
-.c
:*7l*e.7.ol'r :,A.:•*k!"
- , -
last of them, which was the Earl of Roscommon, but Ilflsi 1(. • 0.
claim for that peerage under the consideration of the Louie at the
time of the creation tst the Bloomfield peerage, and that claim had
been since estabßefied. Now it was a matter of doubt, whether the
creation ofthe title of Bloomfield was legal or not. As it was the
fiat time that such a case had come under the consideration of the
house, he (the Lord Chancellor) tMuOtthat it should be submitted
for the opinions of the Attorneys and Sackers General for England
and Ireland, and that the further consideration of the case should
be adjourned for that purpose.
The limber consideration was accordingly adjourned.
Some evidence was then given in the Netterville peerage, and tl:e
further consideration of it adjourned until Wednesday next.
lIAIRET'S DIVORCE BILL.
The following are the circumstances of this case :—Major Haft y,
the petitioner, married a Miss Rickets, at Madras, in 1823. ;
parties lived happily together in that country until 1827, when thy
came to England ; and having resided for sorce time in London,
they set out on a tour to the continent, and became acquainted with
the Rev. Edward Gardiner, at Geneva, who, it appeared, becatmi
the seducer of Mrs. Bailey. From Geneva the parties went to
Paris, where, on account of a disagreement which arose beilifell/
Major and Mrs. Bailey, they separated,— the Major having come to
England, and Mrs. Bailey having taken up her quarters with her
mother at Paris. About this time Mr. Gardiner also came to Part.,
and having renewed his acquaintance with Mrs. Bailey, a criminal
intercourse between them was detected, and communicated to Major
Bailey, who shortly after commenced legal proceedings against
Mr. Gardiner, and got 1001. damages. After the verdict had been
given against Mr. Gardiner, Mrs. Bailey, imagining thst such a
verdict amounted to a divorce. married a dr. Smith, with whom she
now lives. Evidence of the marriage at Madras, and of the affec-
tionate terms on which the parties had lived up to 1828, baring been
given on a former occasion.
Ann Matheson examined—Hail been a servant to Mrs. Ricketts.
and accompanied her to Havre along with Mrs. Bailey. She knew
Mr. Gardiner at Paris : he followed them to Havre, and took up his
abode in the same hotel with them. In consequence of something
which witness had heard, she and Charlotte Remondez(Mn. Bailey's
maid) watched Mrs. Bailey and blr. Gardiner; they saw Mrs. Balky
going into Mr. Gardiner's room one evening, and after having stopped
with Mr. Gardiner there about a quarter of an hour, come out again.
Witness saw Mrs. Bailey come out of Mr. Clardiner's room on an.
other occasion.

Charlotte Remondea examined, through an interpreter, corrobo-
rated the testimony of the last witness, and gave evidence of much
intercourse of a suspicious nature between Mrs. Bailey and Mr.
Gardiner.
Major Bailey's solicitor proved the payment of the damages and
costs by Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. ADAM submitted that lie bud sufficiently established the art
of adultery, to entitle Major Bailey to the dispensation which he
sought for.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the evidence was v
confused, that it was better to get it printed, that their lordships
might clearly understand it.
The further consideration was then adjourned until the eviderm
should be printed.