the authority of the statute, that a plea of recrimination must be verified by affidavit, and it is clear that no affidavit can be made by an insane respondent; and if the necessity for this affidavit had arisen from a provision in the statute it would, no doubt, have presented the argument in a much stronger form. Where, however, the statute requires the petition to be verified by affidavit (sec. 41), the petitioner is to file an affidavit verifying the same only "so far as he or she is enabled to do so." But if the statute is imperative that the Court shall pronounce for a dissolution of marriage if satisfied upon the evidence that the charge in the petition is established, I conceive that it is not competent to the Court to make an order, the indirect effect of which would be to disable itself to proceed as required by the terms of the statute. And, as before observed, "Parnell v. Parnell," 2 Consist., 169, is an authority that the committee of a lunatic husband may sue for adultery, although the wife might in such a suit plead recrimination by way of defence, thus putting the lunatic husband in the condition of a respondent. It is undoubtedly a great evil that a woman—perhaps an innocent woman- —should be made to undergo a trial in a case of this nature while labouring under a state of mind which subjects her, or those who represent her in the suit, to many and great disadvantages in making her defence, and the grievance is but partially mitigated by the consideration that a judge or jury could not fail to have regard to her unhappy condition while dealing with the evidence adduced against her. But whether the evil is so great as to overbalance the wrong done to a husband, who, with possibly conclusive evidence that his wife is an adultress, finds himself bound to her for a lifetime, by a tie that is indissoluble, and denied for ever the redress that he had been taught to believe an Act of Parliament had secured to him, is a question well worthy the serious consideration of the Legislature. But I think that the Legislature should have a voice in it, and that it is not for this Court to attempt to settle the question by a law of its own making. To the Legislature, therefore, the question should be left; and if, at last, it be its will that a husband is to be thus dealt with, it is to be hoped that the Act to be passed may contain provisions under which something like justice may be done as well to him as to all other parties to the suit. Upon all these grounds, I am of opinion that this order cannot be sustained, that the Court should stay the proceedings from time to time as long as a reasonable hope remains that the respondent may recover, but when that hope shall have ceased the petitioner should be permitted to proceed with his suit.

In accordance with the judgment of the majority of the Court, the order of the Judge Ordinary was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

II.

THE WICKLOW PEERAGE CLAIM.

THE proceedings in this curious case commenced last year before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords, and the following is a summary of the facts:

William, fourth Earl of Wicklow, died on the 22nd of March, 1869, without leaving any living male issue. His next brother, the Hon. and Rev. Francis Howard, who had died in the late Earl's lifetime, had had three sons by his first marriage, all of whom were dead. By his second marriage he had had a son,

Charles Francis Howard, one of the claimants to the earldom in the present suit. The other claimant was an infant calling himself William George Howard, and alleged to be the issue of a marriage between William George Howard, eldest son of the Hon. and Rev. Francis Howard by his first marriage, and a certain Miss Ellen Richardson, by whom as guardian the infant appeared in these proceedings. The fact of Mr. and Mrs. Howard's marriage was not questioned by the other claimant; it was the infant's birth which was disputed by him, and that chiefly on the ground of the suspicious circumstances connected with it. These circumstances were as follows:

nave.

In June, 1863, four months after the above-mentioned marriage of Mr. W. G. Howard, who was a person of dissipated habits and embarrassed circumstances, the couple went to lodge with a Mr. Bloor, an out-door officer in the Customs, at 27, Burton-street, Eaton-square. After three weeks, however, they left Burtonstreet and did not return until the latter end of the year, when Mr. Howard, being unable to obtain lodgings at Mr. Bloor's, took apartments for his wife at No. 32, in the same street. He himself did not occupy the lodgings, nor was he even in the habit of visiting his wife there, but was accustomed to meet her, by Mr Bloor's permission, in a room at No. 27. Later, Mrs. Howard returned to lodge at Mr. Bloor's, where she occupied the whole of the upper part of the house, the lower being in the occupation of a friend of the Howards, of the name of BaudeMr. Howard, from the time of Mrs. Howard's return to Burton-street, at the latter end of 1863, never lived with his wife, but remained, it was said, hiding from his creditors in Ireland. In April or May, 1864, Mr. Bloor went to Ireland at Mrs. Howard's request, and had an interview with Mr. Howard, who asked him if he would permit Mrs. Howard to be confined at his house; and Mr. Bloor consented to make the necessary arrangements. On the 16th of May, 1864, Mrs. Howard, whose confinement was not then immediately expected, expressed her intention of leaving London for a time, and accordingly left the house in a cab with one large box to go to the railway station. In a very short time she returned saying she felt very ill, and went to bed. On Mr. Bloor's returning home from business, Mrs. Bloor at once despatched him for Dr. Wilkins, a medical man whom Mrs. Howard specially requested might be sent for, though he was not the usual attendant of the house, and lived at some distance. Bloor left the house at about 8 or 8.30 p.m.; but on his return at 9.30 he heard from Mrs. Bloor that the child was born, and Mrs. Howard would not, therefore, require the attendance of Dr. Wilkins. Some weeks after, however, according to the statement of the Bloors, Dr. Wilkins did see and prescribe for the child. His evidence on the subject could not be obtained, as he died before the case came on. Mrs. Bloor, who attended Mrs. Howard during her confinement, Miss Rosa Day, sister of Mrs. Bloor, who assisted her in that attendance, Miss Jane Richardson, sister of Mrs. Howard, and Mr. Baudenave, their fellowlodger, were all alleged to have seen the child on several occasions during the next few months, but with these exceptions it was admitted that its birth had been kept a profound secret from every one. The evidence of all these witnesses, with the exception of that of Mr. Baudenave, was obtained, and agreed in all material particulars. Mrs. Bloor, who deposed to having witnessed the birth of the child, was, in particular, subjected to the most severe cross-examination, but adhered in the main to her original story. Their lordships expressed a desire to examine Mr. Baudenave, but he had disappeared shortly after the commencement of the proceedings, and it was found impossible to procure his attendance.

The case for the counter-claimant, Mr. Charles Howard, rested partly on the negative testimony afforded by the secrecy and suspicion in which his opponent's case was involved, and partly on affirmative evidence produced upon his own side. The evidence of a dressmaker of the name of Godden, who measured Mrs. Howard for a dress about the period of her alleged confinement, was adduced, and was to the effect that no traces of her condition were then visible. Dr. Baker Brown and another medical man deposed to having attended professionally a person whom they swore to as Mrs. Howard, and to having found circumstances negativing the story of the confinement. Louisa Jones, a servant, who waited in the house in Burton-street shortly after the birth of the infant, had never seen or heard of its existence.

On the 4th of August, 1869, the Solicitor-General summed up his case, and Sir John Karslake replied upon the whole evidence. He relied upon the evidence which we have summarized above; dwelt upon the connexion now shown to exist between Mrs. Howard and Mr. Baudenave, and declared that the case for the infant was the result of a conspiracy of which Mr. Baudenave was the prime agent, and in which the other witnesses were induced from motives of self-interest to become accomplices. The proceedings were then closed for the session, on the understanding that they might be reopened by either party on the pro duction of fresh evidence.

On the 25th of February, 1870, Mrs. Howard produced evidence to show that she was at Longney, in Staffordshire, during the whole of that period of the month of August, 1864, to which the evidence of Dr. Baker Brown and the other medical witness related.

On March 1st this extraordinary case took a new and completely unexpected turn. Sir R. Palmer informed the committee that he was now in a position to prove that in the month of August, 1864, Mrs. Howard and another lady visited a work house in Liverpool, and there procured a recently born child from its mother, one Mary Best, a pauper then lying in the workhouse hospital. He had obtained the attendance of Mrs. Higginson, the head-nurse, and of two of the under-nurses, Mrs. Stuart and Mrs. O'Hara, two of whom (the third being in doubt) could swear to Mrs. Howard's identity. The Solicitor-General requested an adjournment in order to meet the new case thus presented. Their lordships, however, expressed a wish to cross-examine Mrs. Howard at once; but she had suddenly disappeared from the House of Lords, and search after her at her lodgings and elsewhere proved ineffectual. The case was then adjourned. At the next sitting, a week afterwards, Mrs. Howard appeared before the Committee, but refused to be sworn, contending that the fresh witnesses who had been produced against her should be examined first. Persisting in her refusal, she was committed to the custody of the Black Rod for contempt of court, and the new witnesses were examined. They consisted of the three nurses above mentioned -Mrs. Higginson, Mrs. Stewart, and Mrs. O'Hara-and of Mary Best, the mother of the child alleged to have been procured by Mrs. Howard. They all, with the exception of one of the nurses who was doubtful, swore positively to Mrs. Howard's identity. Towards the close of the sitting fresh evidence in rebuttal of these witnesses was announced, and a clerk of Mrs. Howard's solicitors stated that he had received a telegram from Boulogne to the effect that information had been obtained as to the real purchasers of Mary Best's child. Mrs. Howard was then recalled, and ordered to pay certain fees for her discharge from custody. On non-payment, she was recommitted, but afterwards discharged.

At the next sitting the Solicitor-General effected a fresh surprise by the announcement that the former clue supplied by the Boulogne information had been abandoned, but that they were prepared with evidence completely proving the falsity of Mary Best's story. The case was then adjourned for some days to procure the attendance of Mary Best. On the resumption of the proceedings, Mary Best was subjected to a severe cross-examination at the hands of the Solicitor-General, in the course of which she admitted that she had left the workhouse with a baby, which she passed off as her own. It was given her, she alleges, while in the workhouse, but she did not know the name either of the mother or of the person who brought it to her. She paid all the expenses of the child, and when she returned to her father's in Yorkshire, she took it with her, and there exhibited it to her family as her child. She paid for its burial after it died; she had never received any money for its expenses from any one. A quantity of evidence of the friends and relatives of Mary Best was produced in confirmation of these facts. The nurses were recalled, and denied all knowledge of the second child now introduced into Mary Best's story. Not only did they not know that any other child had been brought to her, but they affirmed that it was impossible such a thing could have taken place without their knowledge. Mrs. Higginson, the head nurse, was sharply cross-examined as to the circumstances under which she identified Mrs. Howard.

In addition to the evidence to discredit Mary Best, Mrs. Howard also produced a number of witnesses who swore to facts establishing an alibi in her favour on the days upon which the child was said to have been purchased in the Liverpool workhouse. Upon this new evidence Sir R. Palmer was heard on behalf of the counter-claimant, Mr. Charles Howard, and the Solicitor-General replied. Judgment was pronounced on the 31st March, when

The Lord Chancellor proceeded to discharge the very painful duty of explaining to their lordships why he had come to the conclusion that the petitioner, Charles Francis Arnold Howard had made out his claim and was entitled to vote at the election of representative peers for Ireland as Earl of Wicklow, and why it was that he had come to the conclusion that the infant claimant, the alleged son of Mrs. Howard, had failed in establishing his claim to that privilege. The case of Charles Francis Arnold Howard was simply this. Before the case of Mrs. Howard was arrived at he established his position as claimant to the Earldom of Wicklow to this extent, that he was the nephew of the late earl, being the son by a second marriage of his younger brother, the Rev. Francis Howard. By the first marriage the Rev. Francis Howard had three sons, the eldest of whom was George William Howard, the husband of Mrs. Howard, the other two dying without issue. The question, therefore, was whether George William Howard, who died in October, 1864, had also died without issue, or whether he had left a son, the child now put forward by Mrs. Howard as the lawful issue of herself and her deceased husband. Her marriage with Mr. Howard having been undoubtedly proved, if Mrs. Howard could have established the fact of the birth of the child, that child would undoubtedly have been the rightful Earl of Wicklow. The real difficulty that surrounded the case was that put forward in the first instance by Mr. Charles Clark, the learned counsel for Mrs. Howard, who admitted that he was called upon to prove the birth of the child without the evidence usually forthcoming in proof of such an event-neither medical man nor nurse having been present at the birth, or having attended either the mother or the child subsequently. The fact that the existence of the child had been con

cealed from all the world, and that the child had neither been registered nor baptized, had also increased the difficulties in the way of Mrs. Howard's case. In arriving at a determination upon this case it was necessary that he should narrate historical facts which had been laid before their lordships in the course of this long and painful inquiry; and in the first place he should request their lordships to turn their attention to the circumstances which led up to the alleged birth, and to the number and character of the persons who were around the lady up to and at that date. It was a remarkable fact that up to that time, with the exception of three persons who had undoubtedly sworn distinctly to certain circumstances, no human being had been called who had noticed that Mrs. Howard showed signs of being in the family-way, and it was equally remarkable that those who had had ample opportunity of noticing her condition at the time, and who might have given distinct and positive evidence on the point, had either not been called or had refused to give evidence in the case. Undoubtedly, as far as words could go, their lordships had had the distinct evidence of two witnesses, who stated that they were present when the alleged birth occurred, and of another who had stated that he had gone to fetch the doctor, who was sent for not because the birth was expected to occur, but because Mrs. Howard was taken suddenly ill. Of course, if credence could be given to the statement of these witnesses, the case put forward by Mrs. Howard was established beyond a doubt, and most painful was it for him to arrive at the conclusion, as he felt bound to do, that those persons had been guilty of the great crime of not only giving false evidence by deposing to events that had never occurred, but of conspiring together to endeavour to impose upon the Wicklow family a child who was not the real heir to the title and estates attaching to the earldom. He need not dilate upon the pain and anxiety their lordships must feel in dealing with the matter when such were the circumstances of this extraordinary case. The facts which had been developed in the history of the parties up to the time of the alleged birth were these:-William George Howard, a person of unfortunate and intemperate habits, involved in serious pecuniary difficulties, having been bankrupt and insolvent, was introduced in 1862 to Miss Ellen Richardson, who subsequently, on the 23rd of February, 1863, became his wife, and became, as she alleged, the mother of the infant claimant. As it was probable that he should have to direct their lordships' attention to other parts of the case at considerable length, he did not feel himself justified at dwelling upon the details of the circumstances surrounding the marriage, further than to remark that Mrs. Howard was introduced to her husband by Mr. Baudenave, a person who had taken a very prominent part in all points of the case except one -that of giving evidence. Previous to the marriage, letters of a character highly creditable to both Mr. and Mrs. Howard passed between the former and Mrs. Butterfield, the mother of the latter, and eventually, as he had already stated, the marriage was solemnized on the 23rd of February, 1863. After that date the married couple remained for five or six weeks at an hotel in London, about which time Mr. Baudenave came upon the scene under very remarkable circumstances, because within a week after the marriage he introduced Mr. Fuller, a medical man, to Mrs. Howard, who thought from something that had occurred that she had had a miscarriage at that early period of her wedded life. The noble and learned Lord then proceeded to narrate the circumstances of the visit of Mr. and Mrs. Howard and Mr. Baudenave to Ireland, and the return to England together of the two latter. He then commented upon the extraordinary nature