Q. Were you in the East Indies in the year 1818?—A. I was. Q. Did you know Captain Mildmay?-A. Yes.

Q. In what regiment was he then?-A. The 22nd Dragoons. Q. Did you know Marianne Catherine Sherson?-A. I did not know her till the day of the marriage.

Q. Were you present at Capt. Mildmay's marriage?—A. I was. Q. Where did it take place?-A. At a place called Palmanarry. (By a Lord.) Did you know the Lady before the marriage? A. No, I had never seen her before.

Q. Did you hear what her name was at that time?-A. Catherine, I believe.

Q. What else?-A. Sherson.

(By Counsel.) Did you become acquainted with her afterwards! -A. No, I did not.

Q. Have you ever seen her since ?-A. Never.

(By a Lord.) Did you know Lieutenant Mildmay before?-A. No. Q. Have you known him since?-A. I did not see him till within these few days.

Q. What was he then?-A. He was an officer in the 22nd Dragoons.

Q. How did you know it was Lieutenant Mildmay if you had never seen him before, and have never seen him since?-A. I have seen him once or twice since.

(By Counsel.) Have you seen him to-day?-A. Yes.

Q. You are perfectly certain that it is the same person?-A. Yes. Q. Did you know Mr. Sherson, the father of the lady?—A. I had a slight acquaintance with Mr. Sherson.

Q. Who were present at the marriage?-A. Mr. Roberts and myself, and my wife; and there were two or three other persons whose names I do not recollect at this period.-Witness withdrew. Then a witness was called who produced an examined copy of an entry in the original return of marriages from the East Indies; and which was lodged in the India House. Counsel was informed that the House required the original to be produced.

On a subsequent day, a clerk from the India House produced the original return of marriages by the Madras Government; the original register remaining in India, containing an entry of the marriage of Lieutenant and Mrs. Mildmay.

A witness was called to prove service of the order for the second reading.

Q. Did you serve upon Mrs. Mildmay any copy of the bill

signed, and a copy of the order of the House?-A. I have; and I examined the copy of the bill I served with the original roll. Q. Was the bill signed by anybody?-It was; by Mr. Courtenay (k).

Q. Did you see Mrs. Mildmay?-A. I did.

Q. Where?-A. I do not know the name of the street.

a street out of High-street, Marylebone.

It was

(By a Lord.)-Q. How did you know it was Mrs. Mildmay?— A. I produced it to her by a Mr. Whately, who had acted as her friend in this matter.

Q. Is Mr. Whately here?-A. No, he is not.

Q. You did not know Mrs. Mildmay yourself?—A. No, I did not otherwise know her. I asked her if she was Mrs. Mildmay, and she told me that she was.

(By Counsel.)--Q. Had you ever seen her before?-A. No, I had not seen her.

Q. Have you ever seen her since ?-A. No.

The counsel was informed that that was not sufficient evidence of the identity of the lady, without the evidence of Mr. Whately. Q. Where is Mr. Whately now? Is he in London?-A. Yes, he is a barrister.

(By a Lord.)-Q. Were you the solicitor in the cause?-A. I was. Q. Did you conduct the suit in the Common Pleas ?-A. I did. Q. How soon, after the judgment obtained, did you sue out the writ of execution?-A. We have not sued out the writ of execution at present; we cannot find any property.

Q. Though you could not find any property, you might sue out execution against the person.-A. Mr. Knapp is abroad.

Q. How do you know that?—A. His solicitor, who is here, will prove that.

Q. Was he abroad at that time?-A. He was.

Q. Has he never been in England since?-A. Never that I could ascertain.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, that he was abroad at that time?-A. I knew from the information of his solicitor, that he was abroad.

Q. Is he here ?-A. He is here.

Q. Is that the reason why you did not sue out execution?A. Yes, and understanding that the damages would be paid immediately.

(*) The Clerk of Parliament.

Q. Have the damages been paid?—A. No, they are to be paid immediately, which his solicitors will speak to.

Q. What is the name of the gentleman who was attorney for the defendant?-A. Messrs. Hughes and Henslow.

Counsel was informed, "that as the evidence was defective, it was desirable that the whole case should be adjourned; and that it would be proper that the solicitor for the defendant should attend, for the purpose of verifying the fact of Mr. Knapp being abroad, at the time of the verdict being obtained."

The necessary evidence afterwards procured, and the bill passed.

MR. DOYLY'S CASE.-SESSION 1830.

Marriage abroad being proved by a Witness,-Production of the Certificate unnecessary. Circumstances under which a Letter by the Wife, confessing adultery, was received in evidence.-Bill passed.

AFTER proof of the marriage in India by a witness who was present at the ceremony, and who stated that the parties afterwards lived together as married persons, Mr. Serjeant Spankie said that he had a copy of the certificate of the marriage, but that being out of the jurisdiction of the marriage, he presumed it was not

necessary.

The counsel was informed that it was not necessary to give further evidence of the marriage.

It appeared that Mrs. Doyly came home from India in 1826, with her children, for the benefit of her own health, and of their education. Her husband, who was in the East India Company's Service, did not accompany her; being prevented from doing so by his official duty; but he allowed her 1000l. a year for her expenditure in this country. After having resided for some time in London, she proceeded to Gloucester, and there formed a connexion with Lieutenant Beville, of the 5th Dragoons; which connexion, being reported to Mr. Doyly in India, became the foundation of an action at law against Beville, upon which a verdict was returned for 10007. damages. Mr. Doyly's brother-in-law was called and examined as follows:

Q. Did you, in consequence of any circumstance which came to your knowledge, go to Gloucester at any time for the purpose of seeing Mrs. Doyly?-Witness answered in the affirmative; and

stated that he followed her to Leeds, where he found her great with child; adding, that she acknowledged her situation.

Q. Did you receive from Mr. Doyly in India, a letter inclosing in it a letter in the handwriting of Mrs. Doyly?-A. Yes.

Look at that letter (a letter being shown to the witness)—is that the letter?-A. Yes.

This letter being proved by the witness, was given in and read; containing a confession of adultery very elegantly expressed; and entreating that the care of the children might still be confided to her. The bill, on this evidence, passed without hesitation.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S CASE.-SESSION 1830. Testimony by a Witness of the Wife's oral confession of adultery received in Evidence.

MISS STEELE was called in and examined. On being asked whether she had ever heard Lady Ellenborough mention her having been at Brighton in February 1829?—A. I did.

Q. Did you hear who was with her at that time?—A. The Prince of Schwartzenberg.

Q. Have the goodness to state what Lady Ellenborough mentioned to you as having taken place between herself and the Prince on that occasion. Did she state that they occupied the same apartment?-A. Yes.

Q. For how long?-A. One day and a night, I think.

Q. The same bedchamber?-A. Yes.

Mr. Dampier objected to this evidence. Counsel were informed that evidence of a similar nature had been received in other cases. Examination resumed.

Q. Did she at any time, speaking of her pregnancy, say who was the father of the child of which she was at that time pregnant?A. She always said it was the Prince.

MR. CALCRAFT'S CASE.-SESSION 1830-1.

Marriage Clandestine.-Unsatisfactory conduct of Husband.-No Verdict at Law.-Bill to be read a second time that day six months.

THIS bill did not pass, although the adultery with Lord Harborough was completely established. In the first place, the marriage

was clandestine; 2dly, the parties on both sides acted as if it was at least doubtful whether they could consider themselves as effectually married; 3rdly, it appeared that Mr. Calcraft was perfectly aware of Mrs. Calcraft's intercourse with Lord Harborough; and 4thly, there was no verdict at law. The last order made by the House, was an order that Mrs. Love (mother of Mrs. Calcraft), should attend; but no further proceeding appears to have been had on the bill.

In the following session (1831), the application was renewed. The evidence in the former session was (on petition) ordered to be received; and Mrs. Love was again summoned. After repeated postponements, it was at last ordered that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. TROWER'S CASE.-SESSION 1830-1.

Marriage abroad being proved by a Witness,-Production of the Certificate unnecessary.-Bill framed on the Minutes of preceding Session.

In this case the marriage took place in India in 1810, and was proved by the officiating clergyman. Mr. Serjeant Spankie stated, that a clerk from the India House was in attendance to produce the certificate of the marriage, if it was desired. Counsel were informed that that was not necessary, the marriage being proved.

On the petition of the agent, the attendance of the husband (who was an officer on duty in India) was dispensed with.

The evidence was complete, and the bill passed the Lords, and was sent to the Commons; but proceeded no further in the Session 1830-1; but in the ensuing Session (1831) it passed both Houses, and received the Royal Assent on the minutes and proofs of the former session, no new evidence being adduced or required.

MR. KINNAIRD'S CASE.-SESSION 1831.

Damages not recovered nor even applied for,-Seducer being a Serjeant in the Guards, with but 14s. 7d. per week.-Inquiry as to Wife's ante-nuptial incontinence.-Husband examined.-Bill passed.

In this case the proof against the wife was complete. The husband, one of the king's pages, was required, by the duties of his