Norwich bulletin., 1914-11-18
FAMOUS TRIALS
TRIAL OF WICKLOW PRETEHDgR.


 Many interesting and extraordinary trials occurred in England during the 18th and 18th centuries of pFetenderS for titles and estates. The Tichborne ease-probabiy the most striking of all has already been discussed. Scarce ly- less so was the pretension that VII liam George Howard was the rightf1l Earl of Wicklow, and the trial in an attempt to/ establish his claims is still remembered by the older inhabitants Of the United States.
 On the 22d of March. 1869, William the fourth Earl of Wicklow, died without male issue. His next brother, the Honorable and Reverened FralI- cis Howard, had died during the late EarFs lifetime, after being twice mar ried. By his first marriage he had had three sons. none of whom had sur
 ond nuptials and he claimed the peer
 age at his uncle's death.
 A rival, however, appeared to claim
 the title in the person of William George, an infant, who was represent
 ed by his guardians as the son of Will liam George Howard. the oldest son of Rev. Francis Howard by his first marriage, and 9 Miss Ellen Richardson AS to the birth of the former claimant there could be no doubt, and it was not denied that the eldest half brother had been married as stated; but the
 bAa LII VI lIAC 44l1G11L N dS hlSDuICQ. dllu the matter was left for a trial before the House of Lords
 William George Howard was mar rfed to Miss Richardson in February. 1863. ApDreciating that his uncle was destined to die without an heir. and that it would be greatly to his advan-
 tage to have son, he arranged an intricate scheme of deception. The Towards went to live with a family Cf moderate means in Burton Street. Nothing unusual transpired for a short time. After Mrs. Howard had her plans fully made she returned sudden ly to her home one day while her hus-
 band was absent in Ireland, and an- nounced that she was i'll and that a certain doctor be sent for Mrs. Bloor, with whom she resided. was party to
 her schemes. Mrs. Howard, had secured child from its mother, Mary Best. a
 pauper then an occupant of one of the
 lying-in wards Of the workhouse hos
 pital.
 This child. when the opportune time
 came, was palned off as the heir fo
 the title and estates of the Earl of
 Wicklow: The House of Lords heard
 the evidence. Mrs. Wagner, Mrs Bloor, and her sister, Miss Rosa Day, were placed in the witness box and gave their evidence clearly and firmly, and agreed with each other in the story
 which they told. Much evidence was hLONuCS0 IO SHOW I1tdI the DlfL1 n6O not taken place. DF. Baker Brown and another medical man deposed that they had professionally attended a lad whom they Swore to as Mrs. Howard ana had found circumstances negativ- | ing the story of the confinement l the house in Burton Street, after tie birth of the infant said she had never sen or heard of its existence After tho hearing of this evidence the case l was postponed.
 1 On its resumption Mrs. Howard pro- ! In Stafrordshire during the whole o1 1 that period in August, 1864, to which the evidence of Dr. Brown and other | medical witnesses related
 At the sitting of the court on Marcl | l, 1870, Sir Roundell Palmer (Lord SeI- Francis Howard, the other claimant | produced complete evidence of how | the pauper baby was secured taker | to the Burton Street house, the head 1 nurse and two assistant nurses beins 1 produced to swear positively that Mrs 1 Howard was the lady who took away the child from the hospital.
 Then Mary Best still further star. 1 tied the court and added mystery tc 1 the case Inv affirming that the child l that was taken away was not hers ! but that 1t had been given to her while 1 in the Norkhouses and that she had fed | and clothed it at her own expense. The court delivered judgment on the 1 S1st of March 1870, when the Lord l Chancellor announced that their lord. ships had come to the conclusion that ] Charles Francis Howard had made out 1 his claim, and was entitled to vote al I the election of representative peers fol 1 Ireland as Earl of Wicklow; and thai 1 the infant claimant, the son of Mrs Howard, had failed in establishing his 1 claim to that privilege. He said the real difficulty that surrounded the case
 was in proving the birth of the chill 1 of William George Howard with out the evidence usually Forthcoming | of such an event. No dissent was afterward taken against this rule but a | persuaI Of the complete story of this | remarkable case, reads like one of the | greatest ronnances that has ever beer | u'rittau-