The CASE of EDWARD WILLIAMS, Esq Against a Bill caused to be brought to the House of Peers by Mr. George Weld, a Member of the House of Commons, relating to the Custody, Tuition, and Marriage of Sir Paul Pindar, Baronet, an Infant of the Age of Thirteen Years and Ten Months.  
SIR Peter Pindar, Baronet, had Issue Thomas Pindar, Esq Charles Pindar, and three Daughters, whereof one married Mr. George Weld without her Father's consent.  
Robert Wynne, Esq seized of an Estate of Inheritance, had Issue three Daughters, Ann, Mary, and Jane.  
Thomas Pindar, Eldest Son of Sir Peter Pindar, married Ann, the Eldest Daughter and sole Heir to the Inheritance of Robert Wynne, and by her had Issue Paul Pindar, and one Daughter.  
Thomas Pindar in 1687. died in the Life-time of his Father.  
In July 1689. Ann Pindar, the Widow of Thomas Pindar, by her Will named and appointed Edward Williams, Esq (married to her Sister Jane) Roger Mostyn, and Ambrose Thelwal, Esquires trusties of her Estate, and Guardians to her Son Sir Paul Pindar (than an Infant about Nine Years old) for his Benefit, and conmitted the Care of him to her said Brother Edward Williams in her Life-time, and left the Infant in his actual Custody at her Death in June 1690.  
Mr. Edward Williams her Brother took care of, and provided for her Funeral, Sir Paul Pindar the Infant continuing in his actual Custody with the consent of the other trusties and Guardians; and having Interred the Mother, he Peaceably without any Force or Violence brought the Infant with him from the Funeral of his Mother in the Presence, and with the Approbation of his Co-Trustees and Guardians, to Place Ward, the late House of William Williams, Esq in his way to Mr. Edward Williams his House, and within two days brought the Infant to his own House, where he hath continued in good Health, and Educated agreeable to his Mother's Appointment, and his own Quality.  
In Michaelmas Term 1690. Mr. Weld exhibited a Bill into the Court of Chancery against Mr. Edward Williams in the Name of Sir Paul Pindar the Infant, naming himself his Prochein Am, untruly suggesting that Mr. Edward Williams had by Violence seized the Infant, and detained him with an intent to dispose of him in Marriage.  
Mr. Edward Williams answered that Bill, denying the Force and Violence, setting forth his Custody of the Infant and Trust under his said Mother's Will and Appointment, showing also than he was Guardian in Soccage to the Infant.  
The Commissioners of the Great Seal in February 1690. Assuming the Jurisdiction of the Court of Wards over the Estate and Person of this Infant, Ordered, That Mr. Edward Williams should Receive the Rents of the Infant's Maternal Estate, and Mr. Charles Pindar (the Infant's Uncle of the Father's side) should Receive the Rents of the Infant's Paternal Estate.  
Soon afterward upon the Death of Mr. Charles Pindar, the Commissioners Appointed Mr. Weld Receiver of the Infant's Paternal Estate, and Mr. Thomas Jones to be Receiver of the Infant's Maternal Estate; and other Orders were made by the Commissioners in Relation to the Person and Education of the Infant.  
Mr. Edward Williams Humbly conceiving that the Court of Chancery had no Jurisdiction of the Person of the Infant, or Power over his Estate in this Case to control the Mother's Will and Dsposition therein, and his Guardianship in Soccage, did in pursuance of the Trust in him reposed and Guardianship, take care of the Person of the Infant, and of his Education.  
Mr. Weld having received the Profits of his Estate all this tine without Account or Security for the Benefit of the Infant, or any Maintenance allowed him, though there's a Bill filled for  purpose in the Infant's Name, Mr. Weld insisting upon his Privilege.  
Now the Infant drawing near the Age of Fourteen, enabling him to choose a Guardian, Mr. Weld fearing he may be compelled to Account for what he hath Received out of the Infant's Estate, hath caused this Bill to be brought to the House of Peers, Complaining that Mr. Edward Williams and Mr. William Williams by Force and Violence seized and carried away the Infant, and that he hath been detained by them ever since, in order to Marry him to a Daughter of the said Edward Williams.  
All which Suggestions are notoriously untrue.  

I. It cannot be pretended that Mr. William Williams was concerned, or intermeddled in any taking or detaining of the Infant, otherwise than that Mr. Edward Williams and the Infant lay at his House a Night or two in their way from Mrs. Pindar's Funeral to Mr. Edward Williams his House. Mr. William Williams is a stranger to the Infant, and was so in June 1690. and hath so continued ever since without intermeddling in any thing that concerns his Person, Estate, Custody, or Marriage; he hath no Power over the Infant, neither hath he seen him since he was at his House in June 1690.  
II. Mr. Edward Williams had the actual Care and Custody of the Infant's Person in the Life-time of his Mother, and hath continued so ever since, and doth Humbly insist upon it, that he is Entitled to the Custody of his Person, and Management of his Estate with the other Co-Trustees, by the Appointment of his Mother's Will.  
III. He is also Entitled to the Custody of the Infant as Guardian in Soccage, having married the Infant's Mother's Sister.  
iv The Infant is very well pleased with his being under the Management of Mr. Edward Williams, and has been very well Educated, and desires to continue under the Care and Management of his Guardians appointed by his Mother's Will.  
V. There's no Ground for the Presumption of his being married to Mr. Edward Williams his Daughter, it's rather to be suspected and feared, that the Person who married his own Wife without her Father's Consent, and Solicits this Bill, would Marry this Infant to one of his Daughters, if he could get him into his Power, having already made a Marriage for one of his Daughters to an Infant Baronet, unequal in all respects, except the Infancy of the Persons.   
Wherefore it is Humbly hoped this Bill will be rejected.