Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/636

the respondent, the Earl, also presented his petition to his Majesty; but by the distressed circumstances of the appellant, not being able to bear the expence of such rehearing, no proceedings were had upon her petition.

In further performance of the agreement which Baker had been prevailed upon to come into as aforesaid, by indentures of lease and release, dated the 7th and 8th of March 1748, between the said James Baker of the first part, the respondent the Earl of Powis of the second part, and Francis Herbert, esq. of the third part; the said James Baker conveyed to the said Francis Herbert, and his heirs, the castles, manors, and hereditaments, devised to him by the Marquis the father, to hold to the said Francis Herbert and his heirs, subject to the trusts contained in the will and codicils of the said Marquis the father; and the respondent, the Earl, at the same time declared a legacy of £1000 left by one of the codicils, with interest for the same, to be in trust for Baker, his executors, administrators, and assigns; and he thereupon delivered up to the Earl all the deeds, writings, and accounts relating to the real and personal estates of the Marquis, and also all his personal estate.

The appellant residing in France, and being in distressed circumstances, applied for and was promised to be made a Dame d'Honneure to the Queen of France; which the respondent the Earl being made acquainted with by the Lord Albemarle, applied to the appellant's agent John Pritchard, in England, to dissuade her from accepting the same; and declared to him,

That he, the Earl, had too much pride in his breast to suffer the appellant to accept a place, for that it was in fact receiving charity; and that the appellant should not want, and directed Pritchard to write her word so, and to desire her not to accept such place;

which he accordingly did: and the appellant relying upon such promises, and the honour of the Earl, refused to accept of that place; but afterwards receiving no advantage from the Earl's promises, she again applied for some preferment from the Queen of France, but was told, that by reason of the former refusal, she could not have any provision of that kind.

In 1749, the respondent the Earl intending to marry the appellant's niece, who was sixteen years of age, and heir at law to the appellant's father and brother, and had very considerable demands upon the said estates, sent his particular friend and acquaintance Corbyn Morris, esq. to Mr. Pritchard, the appellant's agent, to inform him, that now was the time to serve the appellant; that she might have of Lord Powis every thing she could desire, or that was in his Lordship's power to give her, and advised the appellant's agent to ask largely or enough, for that his Lordship proposed to unite the families by a marriage, which would be a great happiness to them all; and the appellant and her family would secure the alliance and friendship of Lord Powis, [359] who then represented the head of the family, by having the estate; and his ambition was to be married to the appellant's niece, and if the appellant would approve of and assist such union, his Lordship would not only punctually pay her annuity of £200 and all the arrears, but would give her an additional one of the same value, or more if she desired it; and Mr. Morris declared, he had authority from the Earl to make such offers to the appellant's agent, and would undertake for his Lordship's performance of them; to all which transactions the Earl was privy.

In July 1749, the appellant's niece arrived in England, and being under the care of Lord Montague, by the appointment of the Court of Chancery, and the respondent the Earl finding it impracticable to accomplish his marriage while she continued under such guardianship, prevailed on Travers, Pusey, and Goostrey, the executors of the Marquis the son, to apply to the court to appoint a proper person to be guardian to the appellant's niece, and they accordingly made many applications for that purpose; but being opposed therein by Lady Henrietta Beard, the young lady's mother, the appellant, and her sisters Lady Arundell and Lady Charlotte Williams, and by other relations, who did not conceive that the executors were proper persons, or authorised by the laws of this kingdom to nominate a guardian to the appellant's niece, and the Earl and executors finding they were not likely to succeed without the consent of the relations, the Earl by himself, and others on his behalf, particularly Mr. Corbyn Morris, applied to Lady Henrietta Beard, and to the appellant, and to her sisters Lady Arundell and Lady Charlotte Williams, requesting them to approve