WATERFORD PEERAGE ROMANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 107, 6 May 1913, Page 11

WATERFORD PEERAGE ROMANCE.

WOSKMAK CLAIMS TITLE. LONDON, March 22. T/Sat autumn Fleet Street was graced by the presence, of a healthy-looking man, apparenty somewhere about 40 years of a£e, who paraded up and down the gutters with sandwich hoards hearing; the words: '"I am the sixth Marquis of Waterford. I do this to forward my case and obtain justice." Now, this man, who has been working a3 a gardener in Norwood, is prosecuting his claim in earnest, and a more remarkable romance of the peerage has seldom been presented than this question, whether the Norwood gardener is the son of a Marquis, or merely the offspring of a cook. Kis claim to bo the former is based on the first marriage ni the fifth Marquis of Watorford, who died in 1805. The lady who the claimant says is his mother wae a Miss Rowley, who married in IS6I Captain the Hon. John Vivian. In 1569 she eloped to Paris with the fifth Marquis of Waterford, .and in August of that year Captain Vivian obtained a decree nisi, which was m:tde absolute in May, 1870. and in Anpust, 137-4 * !l ° Marquis and Mrs. Vivian were quietly married at the Bcgistrar , * Office of >St. George's, Hanover Square.

On March 20, 1573, the Marchioness became the mother of a child, which was reported still-born, and on April 4 Lady Wnterford died. The Norwood claimant's story is that he was the child born on March 29, 1873, and that the news of his birth was concealed because the Beresford family objected to the new Mnrchione.-s

But havi- -i-en out to the world that there was ;, .-till-born child, the Waterford family—if this stnry be true—had to dispose of the living child. The claimant's friends say they did so by merging his identity with that of

"John" Tooth, the son of Georgina Tooth, who had been a cook in the service of Mrs. Vivian. Georgina Tooth, a single woman, became a mother in Holborn Workhouse Infirmary, Gray's Inn, on January 2-x 1572, and died there a few days later.

Mrs. Vivian, her mistress, it in said, had the motherless infant removed to the Franciscan Convent, Notting Hill. The boy, whose name was then given as '•George" Tooth, was cared for by the nuns (one of whom still survived) for a few days, and then was removed by Mrs. Vivian's lruaid to the care of a Mrs- Jones. There the history of "John" Tooth ends. But at a date, alleged to be April S, 1573. a newly-born, undersized male infant called "George" Tooih was entrusted to the care of Mrs. Duncan, an old woman lodging with her daughter in Seymour Place, Fulham. Their landlady's daughter, who is still alive, states that a carriage, which she was told was Lord Waterford's, drove up about 7.30 one evening, and a woman ■brought in a bundle of wraps containing a boy—evidently newly born. That was the claimant to the Waterford Marquisate.

Mrs. Duncan took charge of the child, i and she, after the death of her daughter, i received from the Beresford family £23 i a year for hie maintenance until he was 16. During the time the boy was in •his teens it is stated that the "fifth Marquk required him to be produced quarterly before he paid ovpr the allowance. George Tooth used to be dressed 1 in his best clothes and taken to a bi<* I house in Chpeham Place, where the Marquis used to pat jiirn on the head. It was these visits that seem to have inspired the Norwood claimant with the "Japhet in scare]}, of. a father? enthusiasm'that now possesses iim. " ! The statement of the Beresford family solicitors is that the claimant is the child of Georgina Tooth, born in Hoi- ! born Workhouse, confided to lira. .Tones I and afterwards to Mrs. Duncan. In this matter the dates are vital. There is no doubt that Mohn" Tooth was born on January 25, 1572, and the question is, when was "George" Tooth broun-ht to Armour Place? The landlady's daughter is sure it was in April, 1873 in which case it could not have been "John" Tooth. Bnt Mrs. Duncans daughter is sure it wae in 1872, and Mrs. Vivian's majd is certain that it was in February. ]572, and this lady's testimony will be a very awkward' one for the claimant to overcome. Phe not only declares tha,t he is the boy who was born in 1572, and that she took him to the convent, but she also declares from personal knowledge that Lady "Waterford's child in IS72'was etill-born. On the other hand, the partisans of thr claimant insist that the infant left ■with Mrs. Duncan could not be Georgina Tooth's child, because it was a newlyborn infant, while Georgina Tooth's child. John Tooth, would liavc been sixweeks old on the date when it is suggested Mrs. Duncan received the baby." Meanwhile they are trying to find John Tooth, the baby who "was taken in 3872 to Mrs.. Jone<=. for if he cannot be ■traced, then, of course it will at least Slave been proved that the Norwood gardener i= not the cook's sop. There arp several documents in the possession of Mrs. Duncan's daughter .whi.-Ii throw light on the question. The first i<, a letter, as follows:— "Mrs Vivian would be glad if Mrs Duncan would call at above address about' the child Mrs Jones saw her about yesterdar."

The awkward thing about this letter for the jrardener-raarquis i 6 that it appears that before Mrs Vivian's marriage to the Marquis she was interesting- herself in a child which had been in the care of a Mrs Jones and was destined for Mrs Duncan. From the recollection of •the Franciscan Sisters, it appears c!eir ■that the son of Georgina Tooth wart taken to a Mrs Jones by Mrs Vivians maid, and we know' that the Norwood claimant was taken to the same person, so the conclusion that they are one and the same infant is difficult'to avoid. Another document on the case is a letter from the late Lord William Beresford to Mrs Duncan, written in April, 1873. in which he says that Lord Waterford asks him to say that he will br* rrepensible for the maintenance of ■the child George Tooth, -'which the poor Lady Waterford placed in your-care,"' and Will continue to pay her the same sa:n for its maintenance. These two letters—unless they can be proved to be forgeries—will render it very difficult for the Norwood claimant to convince any jury that he is the rightful Marquis or'Waterford.