The Washington herald., 1911-01-29
NEWS AND GOSSIP
OF OTHER LANDS

most sensational cases, not excepting
even the famous Tichborne trial, that has
ever engaged the attention Of the Brit
ish law courts.
Mrs. bruce was the original claimant
of the Portland estates. her claim resting
upon the extraordinary allegation that
her father-in-law. Mr.. T. c. bruce. did
not die. as was supposed, in 1864, but con-
tinued to live at welbeck as the Duke of
Portland until 1879. when his second"
death took place.
The origin of Mrs. Druce's belief that
her father-in-Iaw and the fifth Duke Of
Portland were one and the same person
is to be found in her statement that the
marriage, which took place in October.
1851. at New Windsor. Berkshire. between
her husbands father and mother, and in
which their names were registered as
Thomas Charles bruce and Anna May
in reality was between the Marquis of
Titchfield. afterward fifth Duke Of Port
land. and the Legitimate daughter of the
fifth Earl Of Berkeley.
After the death of w. T. bruce. In $780,
the relations of Mrs. bruce with her hus-
bands family became strained, and in
1884 she went far as to put herself
and her four children into the workhouse
From that time on Mrs. bruce was en-
gagged in the desultory litigation with her
late husbands family, and i'm 1897, when
her son Sidney became of age. she began
proceedings for the transfer, in her sons
name. of the vault in Highgate Cemetery
where, in 1864, the burial of the real or
bogus ct. c. bruce" had taken place.
Failing In this. Mrs. Druce's next move
requested the home secretary to grant
her a license to open the vault on the
ground that IT. G. Druce's'' interment
In 1864 had been a mock burial. as he
had been seen alive on that very date.
Sir Matthew White Ridley. then the
home secretary. refused the petition. CIV
ing as his reason that there were no
legal proceedings pending. Baffied in this
direction. the persistent Mrs. bruce petit
toned the chancellor of the Diocese OF
London. through the Consistory Court.
which has the custody Of bodies buried
In consecrated ground. for an order of
exhumation.
At the hearing DR. Forbes Winslow
swore TO the striking resemblance that
a photograph Of IT. &. bruce" bore to
a patient called DR.. Harmer (said to have
been another alias of the late Duke of
Portland. and whom he had had in his
professional care after 1864. the year Of
ct c. Druce's'' death. 1t was pointed
out also that the death certificate of
ct G. bruce" had not been signed by
any medical man. DR. Tristan. the chan
cellor. actually issued an order to open
the vault. but the bruce family inter-
vened and obtained a rule nisi against
such opening OF the vault
After this second failure. the case. in
an amended form. came back to the Con-
sistory Court. the name Of Mrs. bruce $
son being added to the petition. The
subsequent litigation followed many tor
tuous courses through several courts. but
in the end Mrs. bruce failed to estab-
| lish her case for the opening Of the
vault
Her action. however. brought toward
another claimant in the person Of George
Hollamby bruce. who took out a sum-
mons for alleged perjury against his
uncle, Herbert bruce. on the ground
that he swore he had seen his CHer-
htrt's) father lying dead in his coffin in
| 1854. and that il had been his father
/ body which was buried in Highgate Gem
! etery.
Tho collapse of George Hollamby
| Druce's claim. with which. however. the
/ late Mrs. bruce had nothing whatever
/ to do still is fresh in the public mind
| foI il was only three years ago. on De-
| cCnber 80 1907. that the vault in High
gate was opened at last. This was done
/ in the presence of representatives of the
| nome Office. the cemetery company. and
other interested parties on behalf of the
dCcal family. 1t WAS seen then that the
! name on the plate on the coffin was
! Thomas Charles bruce. who died OF
the 18th of December 1864. in his sew
! enty-firSt year" There were human re-
| mains Inside the coffin. and thus the the
| DRY of bogus funeral. with coffin filled
with lead. was effectually disposed Of
The Hollamby bruce claim came to an
! abrupt end. one of the claimants wit
! nesSes. Mary Ann Robinson. being SEN
| fenced to four years penal servitude for
perjury. while another witness a man
named Caldwell. saved himself by escap-
| ing to America.
! The absence Of new peers from the
! New Years honor list, when more than
: leo knights were created by the King OF
! England. is very strange. especially in
view of the fact that the King i'm the
early winter had refused to create a
; number of peers in order to save the
Parliament from being prorogued on the
lords veto issue and the country from
| the expense and turmoil Of a new general
! election.
In fact, King Georges act become:
moro conspicuous because the impression
had BEEN widespread that several poll
| ticianS. some at present members of tn.
| Commons and others ex-memberS, would
he elevated to the peerage on New
Years Day. Two prominent member:
| OF the house resigned their seats anG
| did not seek reelection last month. be
cause of what commonly was believed Il
be an understanding that they would
! find q place in the House Of Lords thi:
| year.
The absence Of peers from the New
Years honor list has come to most Eng
lishmen as a complete surprise. At th'
metropolitan clubs every one asks
VIVA. does 1t mean?"
| 1t certainly means one Of two things
Either the prospective honors are to b.
deferred until the coronation. when NJ
doubt there will be another large homo
list; or 1t may mean that the govern
ment, at this stage. is disinclined to add
new members to the House of Lords
preferring to reserve their nomination.
until an emergency arises which ma!
inecessitate a wholesale creation Of peer
eyes.
When Parliament reconvenes, the Hous
CT Lords again will receive the Parlia
ment bill. The government may not op
pose q mon possumus' TO every amend