Lords Sitting of 3 March 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—Received the Royal Assent:— Forged Exchequer Bills; Coal Venders Penalties.
Private.—Reported.—Lady Fleetwood's Naturalization; Samwell's Name.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Bangor, from St. Leonard's (Shoreditch), Narberth, Llanllechid, st. James's (Westminster), Christchurch (St. Pancras), Llandifrydog, Llanfihangel trer beirdd, Archdudwy, Henry Harding, Rector of Aldridge, and Thomas M. Luckock, clerk, Newchurch (Ryde), Llanerchymeld, Coedana, Bagillt, Colcshill, Llanwada, and Llanfagleor, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From the Archdeaconry of Essex, Shrivenham, Kirwarter, Great Alae, and for Church Extension.—From the Archdeaconry of Essex, for an Alteration of the Assessment to the Poor Rates.

TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.
Lord Brougham, pursuant to notice, rose to present a petition, and call their Lordships' attention to a case which he believed was wholly unprecedented. He had two petitions, but as they stated the same facts, he would confine himself to that which he presented from the most hon. George Ferrars, Mar

243
quess Townshend, Earl of Leicester, &c. The other petition was from the only brother of the Marquess, and, if the latter should die without issue, of course, the heir to all his honours. When he had stated the subject matter of the petition, their Lordships would find the circumstances altogether of a most extraordinary character. It might be, that they would find no precedent to guide them in any course which it might be proper to follow; but it might be, that in order to protect the very privileges of the House, as well as to give relief to the sufferers, their Lordships would be compelled to make a precedent which might guide them in any future case of so extraordinary a nature, if any such should ever arise again. He would proceed to state the allegations of the petition; merely calling the particular attention of their Lordships to the dates, which were very material. It appeared, that on the 12th of May, 1807; the petitioner (being then commonly called "Lord Chartley") was married at the parish Church of St. George, Hanover-square, in the county of Middlesex, to Sarah Gardner Dunn Gardner, the Only child of William Dunn Gardner, of Chatteris, in the Isle of Ely, and county of Cambridge, Esq.; that soon after the marriage the petitioner found his income inadequate to his expenses, and dissensions arose between him and his wife, and on or about the 8th of May, 1808 (being within one year after their marriage), she quitted his house in Gloucester-place, without his knowledge or consent, and proceeded to the residence of her father in Lower Grosvenor-street; and further; that in May, 1809, the petitioner's wife eloped from the house of her father in Lower Grosvenor-street, with John Margetts, deceased, with whom she lived, from the time of her said elopement, until the decease of John Margetts, in June; 1842, being a period of thirty-two years, arid upwards, during the whole of of which time she openly and notoriously cohabited with the said John Margetts as his wife. After the elopement in May, 1808, it could be proved that ho inter course had taken place between the then Lord Chartley and his wife. They had never seen each other for the person now praying for relief went abroad. Upon her elopement with Mr. Margetts she immediately renounced the title of Lady Chartley, and went by and was known by no other name than Mrs. Margetts. In August, 1809, the petitioner (who then bore
244
the title of Earl of Leicester) first heard that his wife was pregnant. On the instant he wrote to his father, asking to be furnished with the means of preventing a spurious issue from transmitting the family name, but in consequence of some family disputes no answer was returned to the letter, and the petitioner went abroad. Suits were instituted in the Court of Chancery, in the course of which the petitioner on two occasions most solemnly denied that there was any issue from his marriage, and that the children then livving were his. The wife was made a party to the suits, and one would naturally have expected that if there were any truth in the frauds now attempted to be established, the first part of her answer would be to deny the truth of the statements made in the bills by her husband, in which he strongly repudiated the legitimacy of the children then living with her and Mr. Margetts. Her conduct was altogether different—in no part of her answers was one word of denial to be found —she never touched upon the subject, far less dare to deny the truth of her husband's statement and set up the legitimacy of her children. The whole of the children went by the name of Margetts until December, 1823. In that month the whole of the children were carried by their mother and Mr. Margetts to the church of St. George, Bloomsbury, where they were baptised as the lawful children of the petitioner, and their mother also assumed the title of Marchioness Townshend. The person (the noble and learned Lord added) now calling himself the Earl of Leicester was sent to Westminster school, where he remained for a length of time under the name of John Margetts; but after December, 1823, he returned to it, not assuming the title of Earl of Leicester, to which he would have been entitled had he been the son of the petitioner, but calling himself, and being called Lord John Townshend. Mr. Margetts departed this life in 1842; he had amassed very considerable property, which, most paternally, he left to be divided amongst his five children, and her who had so long passed as his wife. Now, in the will, he had very carefully provided for proving the identity of the parties to whom he bequeathed his property. He did not say "the Marchioness Towns hend" only; she was further designated "as calling herself the Marchioness Towns hen;" and so in the case of all the children, they were all designated as So-and-

245
so Margetts, now being nailed So and-so Townshend. The petitioner was now seventy years of age, he was old and feeble, and might die any day, and the marriage never having been annulled, the consequence would be that John Margetts, the son of a brewer, might become the root and very stirps of a family, by means to which he would not assign a character. The petitioner prayed to be allowed to substantiate the allegations of the petition at the Bar of the House, and that the House would take immediate and effectual measures to vindicate the privileges of the House, and uphold the dignity of the Peerage, and protect the rights of the petitioner and his family. He repeated, that their Lordships ought to lose no time in taking whatever steps the necessity of the case seemed to require; one witness, for example died very recently. He alluded to a most respectable citizen of London —of whose death it was impossible to speak, without regretting the loss of so useful and respectable a member of society —the late Mr. Ridgway, of Piccadilly. He was well acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and so likewise was the late master of Westminster School.
Lord Campbellsaid, he knew nothing of the parties alluded to in the petitions just presented, or whether the facts stated could be substantiated, but he thought it indispensably necessary that some measure should be taken to prevent the enormous fraud that would be perpetrated, and the injury that would be done to the petitioners, if the facts should be proved, by the succession of an illegitimate claimant of the honours of the Marquisate. Their Lordships ought, in some shape or other, immediately to interpose, to save the institutions of the country from the insult to which they appeared to be exposed. There was no remedy whatsoever as the law now existed. A case somewhat similar had occurred at the end of the seventeenth century, on the death of the last Earl of Northumberland, when a coach-maker in Dublin, laid claim to the title and honours. On that occasion, at the application of the Countess Dowager, an order was made by their Lordships that the claimant was a false and impudent pretender, but he apprehended, that in the present day, their Lordships would be very loath to exercise such a jurisdiction. The case detailed in the present petitions was of a most extraordinary nature, and he felt the full difficulty of establishing a precedent. It
246
would be for his noble and learned Friend to consider whether he should not introduce a bill specifically to meet the present case.
Lord Broughamsaid, the parties claiming to be children of Marquess Townshend need not object to the introduction of a measure, if they had confidence in their claims. The sooner the matter was brought to an inquiry by calling evidence on either side, in consequence of a bill or other proceeding the better. There might be a bastardizing bill, or a bill declaring the other party the legitimate heir to the Marquisate; but he thought their Lord ships would be averse to either of those methods of proceeding. A middle course might, however, be found. They might declare that the children of Lord Townshend's wife should not succeed to the honours of the late Marquess Townshehd, which would set aside their claims to the rights of Peerage, which were limited to the legitimate issue of the present Marquess Townshend. He would have no objection, in the mean time, to refer the petitions to a committee.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, noble Lords would recollect the Macclesfield case, since which period great caution had been exercised in cases of this nature. The person claiming to be Earl of Leicester had a right to be present in their Lordships' House, when her Majesty was present. The better way would be to have the bill, in this case, brought in by some member of the family.
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham moved, that the petitions be referred to a committee to consider them—the persons composing the committee to be the same as those who sat on a committee appointed last Session to consider a petition then presented, relating to this case, from Lord Charles Townshend.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.