Ann Wade, the only child and heiress of Albany Wade and his wife Jane Wooler, was orphaned in 1806. Albany, aged only 32, died in March, reputedly of consumption, and his wife followed only a few months later, apparently of the same cause.
Ann was lined up to take possession of her father’s estate when she turned 21, including real estate, mines and collieries in the North East. She was also entitled to an annual income of £5000. Until then her property was protected from predatory suitors by the Court of Chancery.
In 1814, aged 17, Ann was living in the fashionable seaside resort of Weymouth, where Charles Henry Baseley, “a man of fashion” and the impecunious son of a clergyman of dubious reputation targeted her, using her governess and servants to gain access; his sister Sophia was also involved.
Ann and Charles absconded, after which Ann’s guardian Mr Broughton went in pursuit. He caught up with them and brought Ann back. We do not know whether she consented to this apparent elopement as Ann soon afterwards said she wanted nothing more to do with Baseley, but later she denied saying this.
She was, however, following in a family tradition, as in 1793 her own parents had eloped and married at Gretna Green.
In December Ann’s friends applied for an injunction to keep Baseley away and to prevent any marriage between them. That did not stop Ann and Charles trying again – in April 1815 their banns were recorded in the records of the Church of St Marylebone, London, but they were scored through and a note added: “Forbidden by an injunction from the Court of Chancery.”
The efforts of Ann’s friends were in vain. Somehow the couple managed to escape again and on 27 May 1815 they tied the knot in Gretna Green, followed a couple of months later by a ceremony in the established church in Edinburgh.
The couple lived in Scotland while petitions on their behalf were submitted to Lord Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, who refused them all. Thomas Wade, Ann’s uncle, prosecuted Baseley, his sister and their servants; Baseley was ordered to appear in court. He held out until December, when he was promptly committed to the Fleet prison, remaining there until his wife turned 21 in 1818.
It would appear that Charles’s father Thomas may have been involved in assisting the couple in their successful flight to Scotland. Charles’s 3x great-grandson Christopher Beavis has supplied this information:
My great grandfather, R.F.C.Tear (1858-1945), in a pencilled note – in my files – wrote,
In the case of Mr Baseley’s father’s complicity in the elopement, an affidavit was put in on his own and his wife’s behalf pleading that they had no hand in the affair, nor had they made any suggestions or taken any action in that direction. It was however hinted by the other side that the Rev. Baseley was not above reproach, he having been mixed up in a notorious scandal.
This low opinion of Baseley Snr was based on a statement by a Mr Leech at a hearing of the Court of Chancery, 6 December 1815 (just over 12 months into the proceedings against Charles for contempt). As counsel for the paternal uncle (Ann Wade’s nearest relative) he sought to denigrate the defendant’s father with the comment, ‘His father was a clergyman, but not of very high reputation, his character having been tainted by some circumstance of public notoriety; and so far from being in affluent circumstances, he was now living as a dealer in pictures.’
It would appear that there were two incidents that gave the Rev Mr Baseley his notoriety and both were to do with attempts to obtain money dishonestly.
The first was when he sought to benefit from a will by falsely claiming to be an heir and beneficiary of the estate of a wealthy landowner who died in Jamaica in 1803. This ruse was unsuccessful.
The second was a fraud he tried to carry out when the daughter of the deceased came to England and Baseley persuaded her to make most of her fortune over to him. The case of Huguenin v. Baseley was heard 14-23 November 1807. The swindle was exposed and Baseley lost that case too. The report of the case runs to 11 pages and the findings were quoted in similar cases throughout the 19th century. Basically, my 4 x gt grandfather had used his influence as a clergyman to obtain control over the lady’s finances. He almost succeeded – by a deed dated 5 May 1804 Mrs Huguenin conveyed her Hampton Gay property to him, his heirs and assignees. During her lifetime she was to receive an annuity of £400 by a trust term of 500 years.
There is a lot to read about this case in the newspapers of the period, including Thomas Baseley’s 1807 petition to the House of Lords to have the decree of the Court overturned. I have not yet found out whether this was successful – but doubt it.
A few years earlier, Thomas Baseley had been rising strongly in the church. My great grandmother, Louisa Tear (his grand-daughter) wrote a note about him (which I have) claiming that he was “Chaplain to the then Duchess of York.” Around that time he was also busy giving sermons – at the Grosvenor Chapel, South Audley Street and the Percy Chapel, Fitzroy Square/Charlotte Street. Some of them were printed for sale from a place in the Stand, e.g. Sermons on various subjects (1802).
Ann gave birth to their first child, a boy called Charles Albany, at the Baseleys’ house in Dover Street, London, on 6 April 1816. Their second and third babies, Emily Ann (born 3 April 1817) and Thomas (born 4 May 1818), were born in the Fleet and were baptised at St George, Hanover Square. Ann and Charles went on to have eight more children.
In 1821 the King granted permission for the couple to use Ann Wade’s surname and to keep her coat of arms.
The matter of Wade’s inheritance from her father was referred to the House of Lords. An account appeared in Reports of Cases Heard and Decided in the House of Lords during 1836, 1837 & 1838, Volume 4
In 1861, aged 70 and 66, Ann and Charles were living at 7 Douglas Place, Walnut Tree Road, in east Greenwich, near London, with a son, two daughters and two granddaughters.
Ann died in 1863 and, aged 72, Charles Henry promptly married a 29-year-old Irishwoman called Cecilia Swayne. A son was born in 1866. In 1871 the family were living at 153 Charles Street, Tower Hamlets, east London. Charles was described as a landowner but his neighbours were greengrocers, labourers and beer-sellers.
Here again, Christopher is able to add some detail:
I have a bundle of letters from the time of Charles’s second marriage from the solicitor handling the estate and between the surviving grown-up children of the marriage after Ann’s death. In one of them the solicitor refers to Charles and writes:
The lost sheep has returned to the fold or at least your father has paid me a visit and seemed very humiliated at the position in which his conduct has placed him. He made the best case he could – stated that it was never his intention to desert you, that he had been very ill and laid up with a pain in his foot which had disabled him from getting about of which he bore strong evidence by wearing an easy shoe – and moreover had never been out of London but had been obliged to keep secret on account of the Law Proceedings going on against him. This was all very well but I asked if it prevented him from writing, to which he gave no answer…
The letter ends:
Out of evil as I said before frequently comes good and I hope all will yet end well & and that you will become good friends together – united you can withstand all evils which may befall you whilst disunited there is nothing before you but misery and strife. Excuse haste – I can say no more that I will always stick by and befriend you so long as you do your Duty as Children…
In another letter, from Charles Harrison of Bedford Row dated 3 March 1866, the solicitor writes:
Your father is apathetic & seems totally indifferent to doing anything except getting money out of my hands.
Charles Henry Wade (was Baseley) died in 1874, aged about 83.
The son of Cecilia Swayne and Charles Baseley died in 1881, aged 15. Thereafter, Cecilia is found in the census as a resident at Islington Workhouse. The last entry is on the 1911 census when she was 74. There is no record of her death.
The following are newspaper and other contemporary resources for the Wade-Baseley elopement.
The prisoners in Newgate return grateful thanks for Mr. Albany Wade, of Scot’s House, for his kind present of one guinea.
Newcastle Courant, 25 May 1793
By April 1806 Albany Wade, aged 32, a major of the loyal Usworth legion, had died. Some of his livestock was for sale, advertised in the Newcastle Courant on 5 April 1805.
Died. –On the 24th inst. at Scotch House, aged 30, Mrs. Wade, widow of Albany Wade, Esq.
Newcastle Courant, 30 August 1806
TWO HUNDRED GUINEAS REWARD — To CLERGYMEN, PARISH-CLERKS, a others. — Whereas ANN WADE, an infant Ward of the Chancery Court of Durham, was CONVEYED AWAY on Tuesday night, the 11th inst. or next morning early, from the lodgings of her Joint Guardians, at Weymouth, by CHARLES H. BASELEY, and SOPHIA BASELEY, and other accomplices, and has since been conveyed from place to place in custody, and under the constraint of the said Charles H. Baseley, and a Mrs. DUPUIS. The infant Ward is seventeen years of age, about five feet six inches high, black hair, fair brown complexion, with regular striking features, is near-sighted, and wears an eye-glass with a gold chain; was dressed when taken away in a morning bathing-dress of nankeen, a coarse straw bonnet, with green veil, apple green scarf shawl, and French green and yellow silk neck handkerchief. The said Charles H. Baseley is 24 years of age, light hair, and fresh complexion, with thin sandy whiskers, about 6 feet high; wore a blue coat with buff waistcoat, has the appearance of a man of fashion, which he assumed at Weymouth, keeping a pair of horses, a new tilbury, and the man servant as described, and pretending to be acquainted with Lord Yarmouth. The said Mrs. Dupuis is about thirty years of age, and at Gravesend addressed a letter to and passed herself off as a sister of Lord Yarmouth; the man-servant who accompanied them is upwards of 40 years of age, and was dressed in a white livery and silver lace, with a white laced hat; the parties are supposed to be without money, the said Charles H. Baseley having obtained 50l. of his landlord, on his leaving Weymouth, on a draft or bill on a banking house in London, which has since been returned dishonoured. All Clergymen and others are hereby cautioned not to publish the bans, or marry the above Ann Wade and Charles H. Baseley, but to use their best endeavours for their discovery, and give notice thereof to Robert Routledge, Esq Warwick-court, Gray’s-inn, London, solicitor to the guardian. If the infant is permitted to see this, she is earnestly requested to find the means of informing her friends where he is, as they are inconsolable for her loss. Such person or persons as shall cause the said infant ward to be restored to her guardians shall be paid the above reward by Messrs. Sikes, Snaith, and Co. bankers, London.
22 October 1814
An elopement took place on the 11th inst, from Weymouth, which has made a great noise. The young lady, Miss A- W-, is a Ward of Chancery; the gentleman, Mr C- B-ley, had appeared for some time in that town as a man of fashion.
Morning Chronicle, 24 October 1814
Monday, a considerable bustle and anxiety was created in Newcastle, from the circumstance of a keen search being made after this young lady, for whose apprehension a reward of 200 guineas has been offered. This lady, aged about seventeen, is the daughter of the late Albany Wade, Esq, of Scotch House, was a ward of the Durham Chancery Court, and was till lately residing in Weymouth, from whence she eloped on the 11st with a Mr Charles Basely, Miss Sophia Basely, and others. Since that time, it is supposed she has been married to Mr Basely, at Gretna Green; and a whisper being in circulation that she was seen a few days ago in Newcastle, must interested has in consequence been excited there from the circumstance. Miss Wade has since been returned to her friends.
York Herald, Saturday 29 October 1814
Miss Ann Wade, a young lady 17 years of age, rather handsome, and a Ward of Chancery, who resided with her uncle at Weymouth, recently eloped from that town with Mr. Charles Baseley, who appeared there as a man of fashion, and represented himself as an acquaintance of Lord Yarmouth. He drove a tilbury with two horses, was attended by two grooms, and is supposed to be in embarrassed circumstances, as on leaving Weymouth, he obtained £50 of his landlord, by a draft or bill on a banking-house in London, which has since been returned dishonoured. He is accompanied by a Mrs. Dupuis, who represented herself as a sister of Lord Yarmouth. The young lady has been taken, and restored to her friends.
Bury and Norwich Post, 2 November 1814
Court of Chancery. — In the Court of Chancery, on Wednesday, Mr. Shadwell moved, on the petition of the nearest friend Miss Ann Wade, heiress and ward of Chancery, 17 years age, but possessed of an income of £5000, year in her own right, for process of contempt against Charles 11. Baseley, son the Rev Mr. Baseley, and his associates, for breach of an order and injunction issued heretofore, to restrain the said C. H. Baseley from prosecuting his illicit courtship with the ward. There were previous and private proceedings before the Chancellor, to prevent such unlawful intended union, when the case was discovered approximating to matrimony, and the order prohibited further intercourse, either in person, or letter, but the lover had conveyed a letter through the maidservant to the Lady, and had offered a bribe of one thousand pounds to a Bow-street officer for his assistance in gaining possession of her in violation of the order of Court. The letter was produced and read; but an obstacle occurred to the motion, on want of proof of the hand-writing, which induced the Chancellor to direct inquiry to be made for the late school-fellows of Mr. B. to prove the handwriting, or among tradesmen supplying him with articles of necessaries, from whom the required evidence could easily be found, and the motion was suspended for a few days for that purpose. His Lordship regretted this defect, and added, that he should shew many their error respecting the extent of jurisdiction of this Court in such cases, since he felt inclined, on the verification of the charges, to hand over the same as sufficient for a criminal prosecution for conspiracy to the Attorney-General; the consequence of a conviction on which would subject the principal and accomplices to punishment more afflicting to the feelings of many persons than imprisonment or transportation, and ordered diligence to be used in proving the hand-writing, and the motion to [be] brought on as quickly as possible.
Southampton Mercury, 17 December 1814
MARRIED – Lately, at Gretna, and at Edinburgh on Saturday last, the 24th inst. at the Espicopal Chapel, Cowgate, by the Rev Robert Morehead, A. M. Charles Henry Baseley, of 22, Dover street, Piccadilly, to Ann, only daughter and heiress of the late Albany Wade, Esq. of Scotch House, in the county of Durham.
Morning Post, 28 July 1815
COURT OF CHANCERY, Lincoln’s Inn.
Thomas Wade, Esq. the next Friend of Anne Wade, a Minor, and a Ward of Chancery, v. Charles Henry Baseley, Esq. Simon Marie, Mary Julia Marie his Wife, Matthew Barron, and Margaret Ramsay.
An application was made, some time back to the Lord Chancellor, in his private chamber, for attachment issue against Charles Henry Baseley, for carrying off and marry ing Anne Wade, a ward Court, and also against the other defendants, for aiding assisting him. It appeared that injunction had been directed issued by the Lord Chancellor, in the month of November last, directed to the defendant restraining him from all intercourse with the young lady, who, short time before, had eloped with him, but was pursued and overtaken by her guardian, before a marriage had taken place. At that time this young lady, who is only 18 years age, and heiress to an estate of £5000 per ann. wrote to the Lord Chancellor, protesting that she had been carried off by the defendant contrary to her inclination, and that she never would have further intercourse with the defendant Baseley, and that he would never let her rest if he was allowed to be at large. The Lord Chancellor then gave her his assurance, that if Baseley could be found within his jurisdiction he should be imprisoned. The defendant Baseley, however, avoided his Lordship’s order, and on the 25th of May last carried her off from the seat of her guardian, Thomas Broughton, Esq. Woodhatch, Reigate, assisted by the other defendants, viz. Simon Marie, a Frenchman, Mary Julia Marie, his wife, native of England, and governess to Miss Wade; Margaret Ramsay, her servant, and Matthew Barton, servant to the defendant, Baseley. The marriage ceremony was performed at Gretna-green, and afterwards at Edinburgh. This day was appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the defendants appear before him, but they did not obey his order.
Sir S. Romilly, at the sitting of the Court this morning, stated, that Mr. Broughton, the guardian of the infant, had made an affidavit setting forth that he had made every inquiry into the character of Mary Julia Marie, before he employed her as governess to Miss Wade, that she had lived in the family of Peter Veere, Esq. Grosvenor-Place, in the same capacity, from whom had most excellent character of her.
Lord Chancellor. –“I never attached any blame to Mr. Broughton, but thought it was necessary that he should shew that there was not even a scintilla of negligence attached to him. I think he has now fully done that, and I conceive it be my duty thus publicly to express that such is my opinion. I see Mr. Broughton in Court, I wish to ask him a question: Do you remember attending me in the House of Lords, and receiving a letter from this young lady? I have received another letter from her, denying the contents of the first, and stating that it was dictated by you and Mrs. Broughton.”
Mr. Broughton ”On my honour it was not.”
The Lord Chancellor – “I believe you; I would not give her credit for any thing she would say.”
Mr. Shadwell — “I can bear testimony that it was not dictated by either Mr. or Mrs. Broughton, for the young lady called at my house, and declared in the most positive manner, to the same effect as the letter received by your Lordship, that the elopement had taken place against her inclination, and that she never wished to have any further correspondence with the defendant Baseley.”
The Lord Chancellor — “Take an order that the receiver shall hold the assets of this young lady until further directions; and let the papers and proceeding be laid before the Attorney-General, for the purpose of directing such prosecutions as he may think proper.”
Sir Samuel Romilly –“If the maintenance of this young lady should be suspended, how is Mr. Broughton to be paid? He has been at great expense pursuing those fugitives. He had received check on Mr.Mowbray, who has become a bankrupt, and is good for nothing.”
The Lord Chancellor — “I have no hesitation indirecting him to be paid out of the funds in Court; but no part of the funds to be paid to the husband while he keeps out of the jurisdiction of the Court. I am afraid these people have got a mistaken notion, that when this lady comes of age, it will put an end to the contempt. Let them know from me, that if the defendant Baseley should live until he was seventy years of age he would be liable for a contempt of Court.”
Mr. Bell, in the course of the day, again mentioned this case to his Lordship, and stated the contents of a petition filed by the defendant, praying for liberty to go before a Master, to have such settlement made on the young lady, as the Court might direct.
–The learned Counsel suggested, that as a great part of the property was in real estates, it was doubted whether the defendant would not able to get possession of the real property, on the infant coming of age.
The Lord Chancellor — “The defendant Baseley petitioned, but I ordered him to appear; I cannot act till he personally appears. It may be necessary to outlaw the parties. The defendant, Baseley,will find the law too strong for him, if he comes in my time; if not, I have no doubt but my successor will do ample justice. He shall never get farthing of the lady’s property.”
Northampton Mercury, 26 August 1815
LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, August 16. CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE. Thomas Wade, Esq. the next friend of Anne Wade, a minor, and a ward of Chancery, v. Charles Henry Basely, Esq. Simon Marie, Mary Julia Marie, his wife, Matthew Barron, and Margaret Ramsey. An application was made sometime back to the Lord Chancellor in his private chamber, for an attachment to issue against Charles Henry Baseley, for carrying off and marrying Anne Wade, a ward of the Court, and also against the other Defendants, for aiding and assisting him. After hearing Council at considerable length, the Lord Chancellor said, “The Defendant Baseley petitioned, but I ordered him to appear, I cannot act till he personally appears. It may be necessary to outlaw the parties. The Defendant Baseley, will find the law too strong for him, if he comes in my time; if not, I have no doubt but my successor will do him ample justice. He shall never get a farthing of the lady’s property.”
Royal Cornwall Gazette, 2 September 1815
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 25. CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE — WADE V. SCRUTON. This was a case in which a young lady named Wade, a minor, and ward of the Court, possessed of a very large fortune when she comes of age, had eloped with young man named Baseley, but was discovered, and brought back by her guardian, a Mr. Broughton. Baseley, however, succeeded again carrying off Miss Wade from her guardian’s house in Brighton, and they proceeded Scotland, where they were married. Affidavits of these facts being put in by Mr. Broughton, the Lord Chancellor ordered the personal attendance of Mr. and Mrs. Baseley, together with a Frenchman named Marie, and his wife, and two servants, who were stated in the affidavits to have assisted in carrying off Miss Wade. Baseley and the others had from time to time evaded these orders; but this day Baseley and his wife, the ward of the Court, were in attendance, pursuant his Lordship’s last order.
Mr. Horn, for Mr. Baseley, informed his Lordship that Mr. and Mrs. Baseley were in attendance.
The Lord Chancellor said, Mr. Leach was not in Court, who held the brief, in which all the affidavits were stated; and his Lordship was determined to have all the affidavits read respecting the transactions at Weymouth, as well as that which stated that a lady had offered to get possession of Miss Wade, stating, that she herself was have £2000.Several applications had been made to him by petition; and he had ordered the attendance of the parties, which orders had been disobeyed. There seemed to be a notion prevalent among persons guilty of contempt of that Court, that if they disobeyed an order for attending, that nothing more could be done against them; but it was right they should know that the very disobedience the order of the Court was sufficient ground for their being taken into custody.
Mr. Horn said that, on the part of Mr. Baseley, he had to express that gentleman’s unfeigned sorrow for having neglected or disobeyed his Lordship’s orders;and he threw himself now with entire submission on the will of the Court.
Mr. Leach said, that he was not prepared to go into this case, as there were a great many affidavits which had not been filed.
The Lord Chancellor said, they must all be filed before he could use them.
It was then agreed to take this case on the first day after the next seal.
The Lord Chancellor then enquired which of the parties were in attendance?
Mr. Horn said, Mr. and Mrs. Baseley were: but he did not know if any the rest were. The Lord Chancellor wished to know if there were any those present who had taken the young Lady from Brighton?
Mr. Horne said, he did not know.
The Lord Chancellor said, that as far as knew of this case by the affidavits had seen, it appeared that a man and his wife, whose names he had forgot, went down, to Brighton and there the wife, who, he understood, was a governess in some family in town, offered £10,000 if she would give her possession of the young lady (Miss Wade.) The lady to whom this offer was made acted very much like a woman, but very little like a person of sense; for, although she felt shocked at so scandalous a proposal, she did not order the proposer of it out of her house, which she ought to have done immediately. But this woman was suffered to visit there until Miss Wade eloped with Scotland, where they were married. Now if the affidavits in this respect were true, he thought they would agree with him in thinking, that there could not be a case more strongly calling for the animadversions the Court than this.
Mr. Horn agreed with his Lordship. He had requested to see all the affidavits, because he wished to know all the calumnies that had uttered against Mr. Baseley; half he believed that gentleman would be found not to have deserved.
The Lord Chancellor.— “Take an order for the attendance of all the parties in this case, on the first day after the next seal; and if any of them shall fail to attend on that day, I think I know what order to make with respect to them.”
Cambridge Chronicle and Journal, 1 December 1815
Sir Arthur Piggott, on behalf of Charles Baseley:
It had been said that the young lady was not well treated during the thirteen days she was away from her friends, but one general answer would refute all such representations, namely that she a second time joined his client, and eloped with him. To suppose, that if she had been treated with a want of affection, she would have joined him again, rather than remain with Mr. and Mrs.Broughton, was utterly incredible.
Yet it had been insinuated, that medicine was administered to make her ill. What possible motive could his client have to put her in a condition injurious to her health? Upon the first occasion that presents itself, she accomplishes a junction with him…
The Times, Thursday 7 December 1815
The Court of Chancery was occupied the whole of Monday se’nnight, with the case of the Rev. Mr. Baseley, who, as our readers already know, twice induced Miss Wade, a ward in Chancery, to elope with him, and upon the last elopement got married to her in Scotland. All the parties charged with aiding and abetting Mr. Baseley were present in Court, with the exception of Mr. and Mrs. Marie, and Counsel were heard for each of them in extenuation of their offence. The Chancellor ordered Mr. Baseley and Mr. Barron to be committed to the Fleet, and that all the proceedings should be laid before the Attorney-General in order to the prosecution of the parties for a conspiracy.
Leeds Intelligencer, 1 January 1816
Mrs. Baseley, late Miss Wade, a ward in Chancery, who was run away with, made application to the Court on Saturday, for money to sustain the expense of her accouchement. —-The Lord Chancellor ordered her 500l. and likewise directed the whole of her fortune to be settled on her in as strict a manner as possible, that her husband might be prevented from touching a shilling of it –This may be very proper in the Chancellor, but there it nothing to restrain the lady from handing over all or any part of the money to her husband, when she receives it. — The husband continues in durance, in the Fleet.
Lancaster Gazette, 16 March 1816
BIRTHS. In Dover-street, London, on the 21st ult. Mrs. Baseley, (formerly Miss Wade) wife of Charles Henry Baseley, Esq. of a son and heir.
Hull Packet, 9 April 1816
PURSUANT to a Decree of the High Court of Chancery, made in the causes Wade against Scruton and Baseley against Baseley, the CREDITORS of ALBANY WADE, late of Scotch House, in the County of Durham, Esq. deceased (who died in or about the month of March 1806), are, by their Solicitors, on or before the 6th day of November1817, to come in and prove their debts before William Alexander, Esq. one of the Masters of the said Court, at his Chambers, in Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London; or in default thereof they will be peremptorily excluded the benefit of the said decree.
J. DIXON, 7, Gray’s-inn-square.
PURSUANT to a Decree of the High Court of Chancery, made in the Causes of Wade against Scruton and Baseley against Baseley, the CREDITORS of JANE WADE, late of Scotch House, in the, County of Durham, deceased (widow of Albany Wade, formerly of the same place, Esq.) deceased (and who died in or about the month, of August 1806), are by their Solicitors, on or before the 6th day of November 1817, to come in and prove their Debts before William Alexander, Esq. one of the Masters of the said Court, at his Chambers in SOuthampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London; or in default thereof they will be peremptorily excluded the benefit of the said decree.
J. DIXON, 7, Gray’s-inn-square.
Morning Chronicle, 25 August 1817
MR. EDITOR – I was very much surprised on perusing the report of to-day, wherein it is stated that a settlement of Mrs. Baseley’s property has been approved of with my perfect concurrence. I beg to observe, that no settlement has been assented to by me in which Mrs. Baseley has absolutely refused to become a party, nor is there the most distant prospect of my liberation from prison. The error, therefore, I trust you will rectify, on the authority of, Sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES H. BASELEY.
Fleet Prison, August 28, 1817.
Morning Post 30 August 1817
Mr. Charles Henry Baseley, who ran away with Miss Wade, a ward in Chancery, in defiance of the Chancellor, and has been several years in the Fleet Prison, petitioned his Lordship on Saturday, for a settlement of his wife’s property, in order that he might obtain his liberation. The Lord Chancellor lent a favourable ear to the application, but insists that the lady’s property be secured to all her children, whether by Baseley, or any future husband. There are two children already by the marriage, and the prospect of a third.
Bury and Norwich Post, 18 February 1818
Whitehall, April 7.— The King has been graciously pleased to give and grant unto Charles Henry Baseley, of Scott’s House, in the parish of Boldon, in the County Palatine of Durham, Esq. and Ann, his wife, only child and heir of Albany Wade, late the same place. Esq. deceased, his Majesty’s royal license and authority, that they may, out of respect for the memory of the said Albany Wade, and towards the family of the said Ann Baseley, take and henceforth use the surname of Wade, instead of that of Baseley, and also bear the arms of Wade; and that such surname and arms may be borne by the issue their marriage; such arms being first duly exemplified, according to the laws of arms, and recorded in the Heralds’ Office, otherwise the said royal license and permission to be void and none effect:- And also to order, that this his Majesty’s commission and declaration be registered in his College of Arms.— Saturday’s Gazette.
Northampton Mercury, 21 April 1821