Changes

[[[[Link title]]]]Account of the == NEED Divorce of Edward Eustace Hill & Lady Georgiana Charlotte Keppel 1849 == The following account was published in ''The Times, 27 July 1849,'General ' headed: HILL’S DIVORCE [[Samuel NeedHOUSE OF LORDS]]''', THURSDAY JULY 26. He was  This afternoon their Lordships sat at a Lt. Colonel quarter before 4 o’clock for the purpose of hearing the evidence in the East Indies with a detachment support of the army at petition for the seige second reading of the following forts: Parsnal“Hill’s Divorce Bill.” The Lords present were – Lord Brougham (?Deputy Speaker) [Bridge Ghur], Kouchounella Lord Campbell, The Duke of Wellington, Lord Langdale, Lord Leitrim, Lord Harrowby, Lord Monteagle, &c.Mr TALBOT (?with whom was Mr Parnell)appeared on behalf of the petitioner, in support of the bill. He served under said that he had the honour to appear at the personal command bar of their Lordships’ House on behalf of [[Lord LakeCaptain Eustace Edward Hill]] during , the petitioner, a gentleman who formerly had held a commission in the army, but who had subsequently been appointed a stipendiary magistrate in Longford. This gentleman on the 31st of March, in the year 1827, had been married to the whole Lady Georgiana Charlotte Keppel, one of the daughters of an hon. Member of his Lordship's campaignstheir Lordships, House. The parties had been married by special license in London.Lord BROUGHAM. During – Has there been an action in this period matter, Mr. Talbot? Mr. TALBOT replied in the affirmative. Lord BROUGHAM. – Well, where are the notes – have you the Judge’s notes? Mr. TALBOT said that he was present at had not the following sieges notes, for there had been no trial and actionsjudgment had been confessed. Lord BROUGHAM. – And you have no notes, eh? Mr TALBOT – No, my Lord. Lord BROUGHAM – What no notes, how can we possibly proceed, Mr. Talbot – how is that, Mr Talbot? Mr. TALBOT replied that the history of the matter was this: 1805 - Jan 23rd - March 29th Bhurthoor. April 2nd - March The damages had been agreed upon, and there had been not trial; there had been a plea (sicas we understood) 22nd Assul Ghurof confession, and the damages were agreed upon at 2,2000l [£].During Lord BROUGHAM. – Oh; well, have you proof of the payment of the last two campaigns damages, eh – have you got that evidence?Mr TALBOT said that he commanded was in a brigade position to give evidence as to the payment of cavalrythe damages. Total Returning to his narrative, he would remind their Lordships that the parties were married in 1827, and he was now about to tell their Lordships that from that period to some time in 1845 they had lived on the most affectionate terms. In the course of that time Lady Georgiana had given birth to 12 children, of whom 10 were yet living. He should prove by the evidence which he should offer to their Lordships that the parties had lived in various parts of Ireland. One of those places had been situated in the county of Meath. Whilst there they had become acquainted with the gentleman of whom now the petitioner had to complain – a gentleman, Captain Magan, who had succeeded to a large property at Conearl, in King’s County, and accordingly on the 4th of ServiceJanuary 1845, Twenty Six Yearsit would become his duty to prove that Lady Georgiana had eloped to that gentleman’s house, where the adultery had taken place.Lord BROUGHAM. – I notice you say Lady Georgiana. Who was she? Of what family was she?Mr. TALBOT. – Of a noble member of your Lordships’ House – the [[KarachiEarl of Albemarle]]. Since that elopement he was in a condition to prove that this lady had gone by the title of Lady Georgiana Magan. Mr Hill brought an action for criminal conversation of the 11th of January, 1845, when, as he had already stated, judgment was obtained for damages to the amount of 2,200l. Following this up, proceedings were in the year 1847 instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court, and a decree of divorce had been pronounced on the 19th of June in the present year. Having proved these facts, he apprehended that he should be entitled to ask their Lordships to read the bill, in support of which he had the honour to appear upon the present occasion, a second time. [cawnpore massacre]fibis.== Headline text ==