ey could in
the little capital. They occasionally went into society, and received a
certain amount of attention from that portion of it which had been
favourable to Judge Willis, as well as from some of the military
officers stationed there. Among others whose acquaintance they formed
was a certain Lieutenant Bernard, an officer of the 68th Light Infantry,
whose regiment was then in Canada. He occasionally rode out with Miss
Willis, who was an accomplished equestrienne, but he did not appear to
be on specially intimate terms with Lady Mary. On the 16th of May, 1829,
Lady Mary set out for England by way of Montreal, Miss Willis remaining
behind for a week to make a final disposition of the house. On reaching
Kingston, Lady Mary was met by Lieutenant Bernard, who accompanied her
to Montreal, whence the pair several months afterwards fled together to
England, Lady Mary leaving her child behind her in the care of one of
her maids. Mr. Willis brought an action against Bernard, who had by that
time succeeded to a Captaincy. The case was tried in the Court of Common
Pleas at Westminster on Thursday, the 9th of February, 1832, when the
plaintiff recovered L1000 by way of damages. A report of the proceedings
will be found in _The Times_ of the following day.[116]

[Sidenote: 1832.]

It may be of interest to Canadian readers to learn that Mr. Willis was
some years afterwards appointed to a seat on the bench of the Supreme
Court of New South Wales. On the 8th of February, 1841, he was under a
local statute appointed resident Judge for the District of Port Philip.
While officiating in that capacity he came into conflict with Sir
George Gipps, Governor of the Colony, and the Executive Council, by whom
he was once more "amoved" from office. The order of amotion, which was
made on the 17th of June, 1843, was however reversed by the Imperial
Privy Council for irregularity. The Lords of the Judicial Committee,
before whom the case was heard in June and July, 1846, reported that in
their opinion the Governor-in-Council had power in law to amove Mr.
Willis, and that the facts were sufficient to justify his amoval, but
that an opportunity ought to have been afforded him of being previously
heard. The requisite notice not having been given, the omission was held
to vacate the order of amotion, and judgment was rendered
accordingly.[117]

FOOTNOTES:

[96] See his "Narrative of Occurrences in Upper Canada," written from
Bath to the Secre