Radcliffe – Weld 1893

Page 25, 4th February 1893


On February 1 the marriage took place of MR. PHILIP RADCLIFFE, Royal Engineers, son of Sir J. Percival Radcliffe, Bart., of Rudding Park, Yorkshire, with Miss MAUD WELD, daughter of the late Sir Frederick A. Weld, K.C.M.G., of Chideock Manor, Dorset. Long before the hour fixed for the wedding, the church which had been beautifully decorated for the occasion with choice white hot-house flowers, ferns and palm trees, was crowded as well as the aisle and transepts, many being unable to obtain seats. The church bells rang gaily from an early hour ; triumphal arches had been erected in great numbers bearing appropriate mottos and good wishes to the bride and bridegroom, and flags were everywhere to be seen. The bridegroom arrived a few minutes before 10, accompanied by his best man Mr. Bernard Radcliffe ; and soon afterwards the young bride entered the church leaning on the arm of her eldest brother, Mr. Humphrey F. J. Weld, who gave her away. She looked lovely in a gown of rich ivory duchesse satin with court train, the only trimming consisting of lappels of satin, richly embroidered in pearls falling partly down the front and over the sleeves. A long Honiton lace veil was worn over a coronet of real orange blossoms and myrtle. She carried a magnificent bouquet composed of rare exotics. She wore a diamond ” sun” and a diamond star the gift of the bridegroom, a diamond star, the gift of Sir P. Radcliffe, and a diamond heart the gift of her brother-in-law, Captain Edward Druitt. She was accompanied by her bridesmaids, Miss Angela Weld (sister of the bride) and Miss Laura Talbot (cousin of the bride and bridegroom). Their costumes were of the palest blue merveilleux silk, the bodices being draped with deep lace frills falling over voluminous puff sleeves of cream velvet. The skirts were made with trains, and edged with feather trimmings. They wore large picture hats of cream velvet, with ruches of pale blue and ostrich feathers, and each carried a satin shoe filled with Marechal Niel roses and lilies of the valley. They wore pearl and turquoise initial bangles, the gift of the bridegroom. Her train was carried by two little pages, Master Rudolph Graham Mayne (nephew of the bride), and Master Frank Talbot (cousin of the bride and bridegroom). They wore pale blue ” Little Lord Fauntleroy ” plush suits, and caps with ostrich feathers. Each wore a pearl and turquoise pin, the gift of the bridegroom. The Nuptial Mass was celebrated at 10 o’clock, the marriage ceremony being performed by the Right Rev. Dr. Virtue, Bishop of Portsmouth, assisted by Mgr. D. B. Bickerstaff Drew, the Very Rev. Canon Mansfield (chaplain of Chideock Manor), the Rev. F. G. Wood (chaplain of Rudding Park), and the Very Rev. Canon Debbaudt. After the marriage service a reception was held at Chideock Manor, during which the tenants presented the bride with a beautiful Queen Anne silver tea-tray and urn. The wedding breakfast took place at 12 o’clock. Owing to recent mourning in the bride’s family, the guests consisted of only near relations of both families. Later in the afternoon the happy pair left for London, en route for the continent, where the honeymoon will be spent. The bride’s travelling costume consisted of a soft shade of electric blue Amazon cloth, trimmed with a deep shade of velvet, the front of the skirt being slightly draped ; the full corsage was confined at the waist by a deep Empire belt of velvet, the large puff sleeves being finished at the elbow with folds of velvet. She wore a large felt hat of the deepest shade of electric blue, which had a quaint little crown of pale blue velvet, with sable tips. His Holiness the Pope sent a special blessing to the newly-married pair.


Lady Weld, turquoise necklace, pendant, bracelet, hair ornament, brooch, Honiton lace, Blonde lace, turquoise ring ; Sir J. P. Radcliffe, canteen of silver, pearl bangle, oak case of cutlery, cheque ; Lady Radcliffe, diamond and ruby bangle, house and table linen, hair bracelet, crown Derby writing set ; Miss Radcliffe’ old silver fruit spoon, Japanese embroidered cushion ; Miss F. Radcliffe, old silver tongs, six old silver apostle spoons ; Mrs. de Lisle, silver salt cellars ; Mrs. Brown, Queen Anne silver coffee-pot, tea-pot, cream jug, sugar basin ; Miss Brown, silver fruit spoons ; Mr. Humphrey F. J. Weld, pony carriage cob and harness ; Miss Angela Weld, standard lamp, Japanese embroidery, screen, silver soup-tureen ; Mr. R. and 0. Weld, travelling clock in silver case; • Mr. Henry Radcliffe, lacquer tea-table, silver mounted tantalus ; Mr. Bernard Radcliffe, silver egg-boiler, silver revolving entree dish, two silver lamps ; Mr. Roger Radcliffe, six silver hand-candlesticks ; Lord Arundel of Wardour, cheque ; Mr. and Mrs. Radcliffe, cheque silver sugar castor ; Captain Graham Mayne, pearl bracelet; • Mrs. Mayne, cheque, Indian embroidered silk shawl ; Mrs. Charles Weld, cheque ; the Hon. Mrs. A. Strutt, pearl necklace and pendant • Mr. Edward Strutt, ivory and silver-handled fish carver ; Miss Lisle Strutt, Wedgewood breakfast service ; Mrs. Blount, brass writing set ; Mr. Edwin de Lisle, Tennyson’s Maud; Mrs. Edwin de Lisle, opera cloak ; Major and Mrs. Frederick Bland, silver-mounted claret jug ; Mr. Reginald Talbot, set of Queen Anne silver salt cellars ; the Misses Talbot, silver-mounted carvers ; Mrs. Reynolds, Royal Worcester vase ; Mr. J. G. Duplesis, silver cigar box ; Messrs. J. and J. Weld and the Misses Weld, silver fish carvers ; Mr. and Mrs. C Radcliffe, old silver apostle spoon ; the Rev. F. G. Wood, brass revolving book stand ; Miss W. O’Connor, silver-mounted tortoiseshell paperknife • Mr. de Lisle, silver sugar basin ; Sir Charles and Lady Clifford, Dresden china tea-service ; Mr. and Mrs. Scrope, glass casquet ; Miss Radclifle, silver embossed cream jug, sugar basin and tongs ; Mr. and Mrs. C. Brown, Louis XVI. clock ; the Rev. Mother, New Hall, handsomely •illuminated Agnus Dei ; Mrs. Arthur, standard kettle, tray, and Japanese tea service ; the Countess de Torre Diaz, pearl crescent, turquoise stars brooch ; Mr. Perry, drawing. room standard vase ; Captain Edward Druitt, diamond heart pendant ; Mrs. Edward Druitt, pearl ring, silver box • Miss Mary Druitt, handpainted fan ; the Rev. and Mrs. Goddard, silver muffineers ; Sir P. and Lady Mostyn, standard kettle ; Mr. Algernon C. Bowring, diamond and sapphire pin ; Sir W. and Lady Vavasour, silver mirror ;, Mr. and Mrs. Ulric Charlton, six silver coffee spoons ; Miss R. Brown, old silver mustard-pot ; Miss F. G. Brown, silver muffineers ; Lady Armytage, silver egg cups, spoons and stand ; Sister M. Gertrude, leather workcase ; Sister M. Gertrude, picture ; Colonel and Mrs. Lloyd Evans, silver fish knives ; Mr. and Mrs. J. McDonald, two silver scollop. shell butter dishes and knives ; Mr. F. J. Radcliffe, Miss and Mr. F. Radcliffe, six silver spoons ; Winifred Lady Howard of Glossop, pearl crescent, pearl and coral pendant ; Mr. and Mrs. John Talbot, silver fruit dish ; Mr. and Mrs. Edward Mostyn, brass inkstand ; Dr. and Mrs. Barry Ball, silver-mounted ivory paper-knife ; Mr. and Mrs. Snead Cox, gold-mounted scent bottle ; Miss G. Coventry, silver button-hook ; Sir Hugh and Lady Low, old French silver buckle ; Mrs. Bidulph, Mont Barow vase ; the Hon. Lady Clifford, glove box ; Mrs. D’Arcy Hartley, carriage clock ; Mr. Charles Radcliffe, silver toast rack ; Mr. and Mrs. Kitson, Queen Ann silver cream jug ; Lady Lovat, pair of vases ; Colonel and Mrs. H. P. Knocker, silver embossed sugar basin and tongs ; Miss B. Roope, folding photograph frame ; Mrs. Hibbert, brass-mounted paper case ; the Misses Hibbert, brass-mounted blotting book ; Sir Molyneux and Lady Nepean, travelling clock; the Very Rev. Canon Mansfield, silver-mounted carriage whip ; Major-General and Mrs. Hales, china lamp ; the Misses Weld, lace handkerchief ; Mr. and Mrs. Morragh Bernard, silver shoe horn, button hook, and glove hook ; Mr. Manley, walking stick and telescope ; Mr. Whitgreave, ivory-handled fish carvers ; Mr. and Mrs. J. Coventry, silver sugar castors ; Mrs. D’Arcy, silver butter dish and knife ; Mr. and Mrs. H. Weld, brass kettle and stand ; the Right Rev. Abbet Leo Linse, 0.S.B. sacred picture ; Mr. and Mrs. Wilfred Weld, gold curb bangle ; Master Everard J. Radcliffe, pair of silver candlesticks ; Miss Freda Radcliffe, silver tray ; the Misses Prince, silver scent bottle ; the tenants and inhabitants on the Chideock Manor, Queen Ann silver tea tray and urn ; the household servants and employed on the Rudding estate, two pairs of silver candlesticks ; household servants of Chideock Manor, pair of candelabra ; bride to bridegroom, set of pearl studs, gold watch ; bridegroom to bride, diamond ring, diamond and ruby butterfly, ostrich feather fan, diamond “sun,” and diamond star.


O’More of Laois

There is a two volume set of books titled, History of the Queens County, written by V. Rev. John Canon O’Hanlon and Rev. Edward O’Leary, Volume one was published in 1907 and Volume two in 1914 in Dublin, Ireland by Sealy, Bryers & Walker.

Appendix I to Volume two was copied from Notes on the O’Mores as they were published in the Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society, Volume VI . The  edited papers were published in Dublin in 1911. The papers, and appendix were written by Lord Walter Fitzgerald, who was a younger son of the 3rd Duke of Leinster. To be more precise, he was the fourth of eight sons, and the tenth of fifteen children. He was a noted Irish antiquarian, and to quote from the Kildare Observer, form the 24th October 1898

“Lord Walter Fitzgerald resides at Kilkea Castle Co Kildare, a charming old residence which has been for centuries one of the family places of the Earls of Kildare…..Lord Walter takes a keen interest in the life and times of Lord Edward (Fitzgerald – 1763 – 1798, a United Irishman), for he is a thorough Irishman, and delights to dwell upon the glorious traditions of the House of Geraldine. He is a well known archaeologist and is an authority upon Celtic nomenclature.”

So he is a fairly reputable source, and historian, of wider family history.

This appendix includes the following subjects, and for the ease of reading, I have split them into three separate posts

The Times, has a go at Sir Joshua Walmsley in 1839

It’s great to see that the press hasn’t changed much in 175 years. This is a report from The Times in 1839, having a go at Sir Josh.

Sneaking Visit Of The Sneaking President Of The Board Of Trade To The Sneaking Mayor Of Liverpool

The Right Hon. Henry Labouchere (1798 – 1869) later 1st Baron Taunton

The Right Hon. Henry Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, was entertained at the Town-hall, Liverpool by the Whig Mayor, on Friday last. He arrived from Manchester, where it is said he has been sounding the leading Whigs as to his chances of being returned for that borough in the ever of the anticipated retirement of Mr. Greg. The hon. gentleman was sojourning in Manchester with Mr. Mark Philips M.P., Mr. Greg’s brother-in-law. Your reporter having been given to understand that Mr..Labouchere’s visit to Liverpool was of a public nature, made application to the mayor for admission to report the proceedings, the answer to which was, ” That the mayor had. not yet determined on the course to be pursued with respect to reporters at the dinner.”

No further notice having been taken of the application up to the day of the ” banquet”  the reporter to “ The Times ” again wrote to his worship for a decided answer, stating that he did not presume to dictate what course the Mayor ought to pursue, but reminding him that the last time when the Mayor of Liverpool entertained a public character (Lord J. Russell) his Lordship was misreported by an amateur reporter. To this application the Mayor returned the following answer-:

“ The Mayor has now given the fullest consideration to the application of the reporter of The Times, and, with every disposition at all times to accede to any request from. the press, so far as may be properly within his power, he is obliged to decline the present application on the ground that the dinner to which Mr. Labouchere is invited is not public, but private.

Town-hall,Dec 20 ”

It was subsequently ascertained, that the liberal Mayor  “with every disposition to accommodate the press,” admitted some of his own creatures, who of course would report nothing more than was suited to his worship’s views.

The following brief account of the proceedings is from one of them, published in a Liverpool paper of Saturday :-

“Visit To Liverpool Of The President Of The Board Of Trade.

“Yesterday, Mr. Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade paid a visit to Liverpool, as the invited guest of our worthy chief magistrate. The right hon. gentleman received during tho day, a number of deputations from the several commercial associations of the town, at the Town -hall, at intervals (on each introduction) of half an hour.

He was waited upon on the part of the following bodies successively,

The American Chamber of Commerce.

Deputations from the Associated Bodies, Mr. W. M. Duncan, secretary.

The Anti-Corn-law Association, Mr. H.T. Atkinson, Honorary Secretary.

Duty on Slave-grown Sugar Association, represented by, Messrs, Sandbach and Tinne.

These occupied the attention of the right hon. gentleman from half-past 1 to half-past 3 o’clock.

Liverpool Town Hall

At the latter hour Mr. Labouchere, accompanied by the Mayor, appeared on ‘Change, where he was warmly received. He then visited the News-room, where, as well as on ‘Change, the concourse of merchants and others was unusually dense. On his entering the News-room, the rush at the door was more than inconvenient to those who fell within its vortex.

The right hon. gentleman, on reaching the centre of the room, was received with loud and repeated cheers. Before these had subsided, a few foolish and fashionably-dressed young men, near the door, set up a sort of ass, demonstrative at once of their want of courtesy to a stranger and a highly- respectable and able gentleman, and of their own close affinity to the animal whose cry they imitated. These very partial and contemptible tokens of disapprobation were speedily drowned amidst renewed cheers, clapping of hands, and other demonstrations of welcome to the distinguished visitor. Three cheers were then proposed for the mayor, and the call was heartily responded to. Three cheers were next proposed for ” Sir Robert, “ and the response was most vehement and enthusiastic. Some one rather faintly, and not generally heard in the room, then proposed ” three cheers for the Queen “ ;  but the respectable parties present, considering the place and the occasion altogether unsuitable for a demonstration of political feeling (which it was sought to exhibit in a sort of ‘pothouse’ sort of fashion, that might not have concluded till midnight.) very properly refrained from a response. Mr. Labouchere met with the kindest reception from numbers of our most respectable citizens ; and, when he left the room, many of them accompanied him back to the town-hall.

At 4 o’clock he there met a deputation on the trade with the Royal and Brazilian Association, headed by Mr. Alderman Moon.

At 5 o’clock he met a deputation of the Hayti [sic, Haiti] trade, consisting of Mr. Alderman Sheil, Mr. Killock, Mr. Greenshiel, Mr. Maunder, and Mr. Mocatta, who, we learn, represented to the right hon. gentleman the impolicy of forcing coffee produced in foreign colonies to be sent to the Cape of Good Hope and brought back, in order that it might be introduced into this country at the lower duty of 9d. per pound.

We are unable to give the replies of Mr. Labouchere to the several deputations, but are informed that he did not enter into lengthened arguments on each particular topic, but stated that he felt assured the important representations made, when laid before Government, would receive the most anxious and careful consideration, with a view to meet the wishes of the parties, and thereby promote tho commercial welfare of the community.

Dining Room, Liverpool Town Hall

At 6 o’clock, the right hon. gentleman and the other guests of the Mayor, to the number of 80, principally merchants, sat down to a most splendid dinner in the banquet- room of the Town-hall. After the toasts of ‘ the Queen’ and ‘the Queen Dowager,’ the Mayor gave the health of their distinguished visiter, Mr. Labouchere, and the other members of Her Majesty’s Ministry.

Mr. Labouchere in a feeling reply, said that he was proud to address so large an assemblage of commercial gentlemen, who, though necessarily entertaining different shades of political opinion, were all united in the great common object, the happiness and prosperity of their native country. He was aware that in the office which he had the honour to fill he had succeeded a gentleman of great ability and practical knowledge, and that he must necessarily appear to disadvantage; but he hoped, by imitating the example of his predecessor, and availing himself of tho suggestions of such able individuals as he had that day met, to conduce to the commercial advancement of this great empire. From an early period in life his interests and his hopes had been bound up with its trading prosperity and welfare. He had visited several of the manufacturing towns, and regretted that he could but stay one day longer in this second city of the kingdom. He had that day received a number of deputations, and during the remainder of his stay he should be glad to communicate with others, and to avail himself of any information from them or from individuals in any way connected with the objects and duties of his office. He concluded by proposing ‘ Prosperity to the town and commerce of Liverpool,’ and sat down amidst much cheering.

Sir J. Tobin  acknowledged the toast in a very feeling and appropriate manner.

The health of the Mayor was afterwards drunk, to which he made a suitable and eloquent response.

Several other appropriate toasts were given,and replied to. Not the slightest feeling of political dissension was manifested, and the meeting separated highly gratified by the splendid hospitality of the evening, and the sentiments of universal good-will so eloquently expressed.”

It will be seen, from the above account, that at ” the private” visit of the President of the Board of Trade to the Mayor of Liverpool, public business was transacted with deputations from no less than six associated public bodies representing the interests of an immense number of the mercantile community. Such is the anxiety evinced by the Whigs to afford facilities to the press in their arduous duties of furnishing information to the public.

The following is another account of Mr. Labouchere’s visit published in a Liverpool paper to-day:-

“This gentleman, who has lately been at Manchester, it is supposed on an electioneering expedition, and whose intention to visit Liverpool had been rather pompously notified in the Radical prints, received some addresses and deputations yesterday morning at the Town-hall.

Precisely at half-past 3 o’clock,according to an announcement which had been pretty extensively circulated – (not publicly, of course), the right hon. gentleman, accompanied by, or rather walking side by side with, his worship, the Mayor of Liverpool, Mr. Joshua Walmsley, and followed by a rush of gentlemen, most of them excited by curiosity, entered the Exchange news-room, which, as is usual at that hour, was already pretty well thronged. The right hon.- gentleman and his worship (the latter of whom, by the by, looked magnificently humble, or humbly magnificent-which you like) having entered at the centre door, walked up the room for a few yards amidst complete silence.

Then the presence of the distinguished guest or visitant having become known, there was  – what do you think ?  Oh, such a feeble war !  –   nine persons and a half squeaking out, as if they were ashamed of themselves, ‘ Hurrah !’  whilst a strong bass of hisses accompanied the treble of applause. ( You had better not say, however, a ‘bass of hisses,’ or Parson Aspinall may perhaps pun upon it on Monday, and say it was very base.)  Well, that ‘ hurrah,’ like a still-born child, or a bubble, or a tobacco-puff, or some other thing equally evanescent, having passed away, and without the slightest attempt at repetition, there was about three seconds of dead silence, during which, as I suppose, the ‘ worthy gentlemen’ were still progressing upwards-not towards heaven, I don’t mean, but towards the top of the room. I followed, as fast as I could push myself through the crowd, but at last got to a standstill, and then the three seconds of dead silence having expired –  that is gone dead  –  there arose a shout from some person whom I could not see- (I don’t -say it was from Charles Jackall Atkinson or whatever that renowned would-be town-councillor calls himself – he has so many names, I quite forget his present one-but I do know that the jackall was loitering about the room to wait upon the ‘lion,’ or ‘ lions’) – well, there was a shout, from some one, of. ‘ Three cheers for the Mayor‘  and the order was obeyed to the very letter. There were three cheers –  that is, three persons (calculating nine tailors-to make a man) shouted out ‘hurrah,’ and, as before, the hisses  –  though hisses are not such telling things as shouts   –   preponderated.

In plain words, and with very tittle exaggeration  -I own to a very little    27 persons responded to the shout of   ‘ Three cheers for the Mayor !’   27 persons, out of a body of gentlemen amounting probably to    how many do you think the room would hold    –  say 700, and that’s a low estimate, I think     cheered the Mayor of Liverpool ! I  was going to say it was a radical shame, and isn’t it ?

Well, I -can’t help it;  it was not my province to shout, or ,I would have shouted; for I felt humiliated, somehow, at the fact of there being a mayor of Liverpool who had descended to such a level that, after it had been bruited abroad that he was about to visit the Exchange news-room with a ‘ lion’ of such dimensions as Labouchere, he could raise only 27 persons to shout for him., Why, a common ass  –  a very common, twopence a-mile wench-carrying ass, such as you see over at Cheshire on holydays –  it went out in company with such a noble creature as a  lion  – could raise 35 tailors to applaud, and 35, multiplied by 9 would make 315.

Well, the “ immense applause ‘ having subsided, a gentleman called out ironically or sarcastically ‘Three cheers for the French Navy !’. which excited some laughter amongst those who were up to snuff, but many seemed to think it mal apropos  and accordingly, another gentleman followed it up by a much better aimed shot. He called out ‘Three cheers for Sir  Robert Peel’ , and the applause which followed was most hearty, enthusiastic, and general. I heard a Radical afterwards characterize it as tremendous, but a reporter would hardly go as far as that.

I then looked for the Right Hon. Mr. Labouchere and his satellite, but I could nowhere behold them; I suppose they must have slunk out of the room at an upper door; for in an instant the crowd began to slacken, and laughing groups were seen in every direction, some of whom I heard make use of such expressions as, ‘Well, I think they have got enough of it’ and “They didn’t seem to like it’.

Liverpool Town Hall

It was very funny altogether, – very funny – I wish you had been there. And what is perhaps as funny as all, the whole scene did not occupy above a minute or two; it was over in less than no time; the infusion of Conservatism in the dose seemed to be too strong for the stomach of the lions, and they went away. There is one consolation, however, if the Ministerial visitor was deprived of his expected portion of applause and adulation, and congratulation, and he would in the evening, have a dinner, which would satisfy his physical appetite, if appetite he had any, after what had occurred. The Town-hall was, at all events, lighted up.

“ This is all I know. I intended to have told you the whole in one slip and a quarter, but I have made a slip in my calculation – a good many slips, I think.”

The Times, December 23, 1839

The Working Man’s Monument to Sir Robert Peel – 1850


A public meeting was held yesterday evening, at 6 o’clock, in the grounds of the Belvedere Hotel, Pentonville, in aid of the national subscription fund for this purpose. It was announced that Mr. Hume would preside, and that Mr.Cobden would also be present. Both these gentlemen were detained by their public duties in the House of Commons, and the chair was taken by Sir Joshua Walmsley, who, at some length, explained the objects of the meeting, and paid his tribute of admiration to the memory of Sir Robert Peel. Sir Joshua alluded to the various great measures carried by the departed statesman, and dwelt with especial praise upon the sacrifices which he had made for the public good, and to secure untaxed food for the millions. The first resolution was moved by Mr. George Thompson, M.P., and seconded by Dr. Brownless, and was as follows:-

” That this meeting is of opinion] that the British nation has sustained a great loss in the premature death of the late Sir Robert Peel, and desires to offer to the afflicted family of the departed statesman an expression of their sympathy and condolence in the bereavement they have sustained.”

The motion was, of course, carried unanimously, the meeting testifying their approbation of it by uncovering while the show of hands was taken by the Chairman. The second resolution was moved by Mr. G. Harris, and seconded by Mr. P. P. James, and was

” That it is the opinion of this meeting that the nation at large in the lamented death of Sir Robert Peel has lost one of the first statesmen of the age, and the man above all others who, at the personal sacrifice of the support and esteem of many of his friends and associates, was nevertheless able and willing to carry out large measures for the practical good and relief of the masses in this country.”

Mr. Alexander Macphail and Mr. John Layton proposed and seconded the next resolution, which expressed the opinion of the meeting,

“That Sir Robert Peel had left a name which would long be remembered in the hearts and the homes of the working-classes of this empire, and that his memory should be deservedly cherished by those who earn their bread by their daily labour, as well as by those who desire the welfare and comfort of their poorer fellow-men.”

Another resolution, proposed by Mr. Wakeling, and seconded by Mr. James Yates, was to the effect, that a lasting testimonial of the gratitude of the working men of this country should be erected to the memory of Sir Robert Peel; that the subscription list for this purpose be open till the 1st of January, 18al, and that all sums be received from 1d. upwards. An almost perfect unanimity prevailed with reference to these resolutions, for two persons who endevoured to express views more or less directly opposed to them were summarily put down by the meeting, which was numerously attended. The secretary in the course of the proceedings announced that he had received letters from Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, Viscount Hardinge, the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. Gladstone, and other distinguished persons, expressing their approbation of the working- mans’ monument to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, and offering their assistance and co-operation.

The Times, July 13, 1850

Sir Josh has an accident 1841

We regret to have to announce that Sir Joshua Walmsley is at present confined to Wavertree-hall by an accident of rather a peculiar character. We understand that he had been travelling for some considerable distance on Sunday last, by railway to Liverpool, and that on getting out of the carriage, after it had arrived at its destination he found his right leg much stiffened by the length of time he had been sitting. Almost immediately after he had placed it on the ground, two of the muscles close to the knee suddenly broke, and rendered him unable to walk home. Medical assistance was speedily rendered, and the necessary remedies applied, but, up to the present time, he is obliged to have the leg in a sling, and to be assisted in moving about the house. It will surprise many of our readers to learn that Sir Joshua is about to leave Liverpool almost immediately, and to take up his permanent residence in Staffordshire. We understand he has come to this determination within the last few days. He will, however, still continue to carry on his mercantile business in Liverpool as usual, and will occasionally return to superintend the concerns of the house with which he is connected.-

from the Liverpool Mail, reprinted in The Times, September 11, 1841

Bicknell v. Bicknell Divorce November 1908

The starting point for this might well be their wedding  in 1897

The Times October 31, 1908 [Day 1]

(Before Mr. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEAN and a Special Jury.)


Divorce-Cross Charges

This was the petition of Harriet Frances Bicknell, née Bagshawe, for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell, on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. The respondent, by his answer, denied these allegations, and further pleaded that the petitioner had been guilty of such misconduct as had conduced to the said alleged adultery (if any) by a persistent course of mental cruelty and gross insults towards him, practically driving him out of the house, and by her ungovernable temper; that the petitioner connived at and condoned the acts of adultery (if any); and that the petitioner had herself been guilty of adultery with the Cav. Antonino Cariello, the party cited. The petitioner, by her reply,denied and joined issue on all the allegations contained in the respondent’s answer, and the party cited, by his answer, denied that he had committed adultery with the petitioner.

Mr. Barnard, K.C., and MIr. Lailey were for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, K.C., Mr. Haldenstein, and Mr. J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

Mr. Barnard, said that the petitioner was the daughter of a well-known member of his own Profession, his Honour Judge Bagshawe. She was married to the respondent on October 19, 1897, at the Church of Our Lady of Victories, High-street, Kensington, the parties being members of the Roman Catholic Church. They lived together first at Knapp, near Bideford, and afterwards at Sorrento, some two hours away from Naples. There were two children of the marriage, one aged nine and the other six years of age. Unfortunately for the petitioner, her husband was a man of no occupation, and at times he drank very heavily, and what became another matter of unhappiness between them was that while at Sorrento he acquired the habit of taking morphia. It was only fair to state, however, that when he was not under the influence of drink or drugs he treated her kindly and well, and at such times she wrote affectionate letters about him to her friends. The acts of violence of which she had to complain were about as cruel as any man could be guilty of towards a woman whom he had promised to love. Both children were baptized and brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. The mother was a good Catholic, and the husband, when under the influence of drugs, threatened to have the children brought up as Protestants, and perhaps it was now going to be suggested that he had changed his religion and wished to bring up his children in another faith.

In 1898, while living at Knapp, he was guilty of an assault upon her, and he used bad language, and while under the influence of drink had said:-” Smile, you devil, or I will turn you and your filthy spawn out of the house.” In January,1899, he threatened that he would not allow her to see any of her relatives, and in February, when her child was only a month old, he insisted on her leaving her baby and on her accompanying him to the United States. They went to Sorrento in March, 1904, and remained there until April, 1907, and in June of the former year they took a villa in that town. In July, 1905, the petitioner thought that she saw from a window her husband kiss a lady in the garden. She called out, and he came into the house in a very angry temper, called her a d-d liar, struck her, and gave her a black eye, which was afterwards seen by Signor Cariello. In 1900 her husband was taking a great deal of morphia as a letter of his dated September 28 of that year would show. On March 3, 1907, when under the influence of the drug, he called her a prostitute and a liar and struck her, and afterwards acknowledged that fact in the presence of her governess. She was, therefore, living a most unhappy life when her husband was under the influence of drugs.

At this time he was in a state of great nervousness, and though they occupied separate bed -rooms, yet when he was under the influence of morphia, as he was frightened of being alone, she used to sleep on a mattress in his room. That was important, as the respondent relied on this for his plea of condonation. which was no condonation at all.

On April 15, 1907, the petitioner found in a blotting-pad a hotel bill made out to the name of “Hermano Harmsleigh “ with certain words upon it. She intended to ask her husband what it meant, but owing to his state of health, she did not until April 25. That was an important date in the case. On that day the respondent suddenly decided to leave Sorrento, and, while helping him to pack, the petitioner suggested that he should not travel with the nurse, who was leaving on the same date. He insisted, and there was an end of that matter, so far as she was concerned. She, however, asked him if he had ever passed as ” Hermano Harmsleigh.” He immediately asked her if it were Antonino (Cariello) who had told her. Antonino was the respondent’s great friend. She said No, she had seen the name on a blotting-pad. He then called her a d-d [damned] spy and said that he had made the acquaintance of a girl in Naples, that lie had given her mother 200f. for her and had promised her marriage, and that he believed that the father was coming that day to the villa about the matter. That was why he was leaving, and that was all she learnt of the matter. He left, and she kissed him at parting. She remained at Sorrento until July, when she and her children returned to England, and with them on the 13th of that month called at Morle’s Hotel upon her husband. He took in the children, but refused to allow her to enter. She returned with a friend, Lady Macfarlane, but he refused to allow her to return to him and to her children.

It appeared, continued the learned counsel. that just before Christmas, 1906, on an occasion when the respondent was in Naples, he had made the acquaintance of a girl named Anita, represented to her that he was a bachelor and wished to be engaged to her, and gave her mother a sum of money. He had visited the girl and taken her to various hotels. Witnesses had been examined on commission, and the respondent’s counsel on that commission had admitted the adultery. Condonation had been pleaded, but the first that the petitioner. had heard of her husband’s misconduct was on April 25, 1907, and she had not since cohabited with him. Connivance and conduct conducing were also pleaded, and he (the learned counsel) was waiting to hear what possible evidence could be adduced to support such pleas. ThereI was also a charge made against the petitioner and Signor Cariello. and, after he had proved his case against the respondent, it would be for his learned friend to establish his case – if he had any evidence to substantiate it.

The petitioner, Mrs. Bicknell, examined by Mr. Barnard, said her married life had been most unhappy, as her husband was very cruel to her. He was addicted to both drink and drugs ever since the date of the marriage. When under the influence of either he was violent, and called her such names as ” d–d [damned]  liar, devil. and prostitute.” A week after the marriage he tore up the Marriage certificate, and told her, ” Now I can, repudiate tho marriage at any time.” In the autumn of 1898 he threw her down and pulled her by the hair, she being enciente at the time. He was very angry because the birth of her first child was inserted in the Tablet, the leading Roman Catholic newspaper, and threatened that she should not see her father, his Honour Judge Bagshawe, or her family again. On another occasion, when she was writing to a friend, he struck her on the back of the hand with a ruler. He forced her mother to write him an apology for inserting the birth in the Tablet, and then threatened to publish it.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – I do not follow. What was the apology for ?

Mr. Barnard, – Mrs. Bagshawe had inserted the notice and the respondent had chosen to take offence.

Examination continued.- In March. 1904 they went to Sorrento. In July she saw from a window her husband kissing a lady in the garden. She called to him to come in. and they both did so. He was very angry, and the next morning struck her and gave her a black eye, calling her a “ d–d [damned] liar.” During 1906 and 1907 he said the children should be brought up as Protestants, and laughed at her for having believed him when he told her they should be brought up as Roman Catholics. He also told her he had changed his religion. On September 28, 1906, he wrote:-” That dreadful morphia has affected mv heart and caused a fainting fit. I had one after lunch:  it was most tiresome. as the Duke and his manservant had to bring me home, and the Duchess had an awful fright ! I never thought the giving up of morphia would entail such disastrous consequences. Old Dr. Garquito wanted me to go into a home for inebriates, and is vastly struck by my ability to give morphia up suddenly. Fancy me in a home. It sounds comical, doesn’t it?  You may be sure I shall never be so silly as to take drugs again.” During 1907 the respondent was again taking morphia, and she had sometimes to sleep on the floor in his room to “watch” him. In March, 1907, the respondent was in a very bad state, called her terrible names and struck her with the back of his hand, his rings injuring her lip. Her child saw the marks and asked the cause, and she endeavoured to conceal the truth, whereupon the respondent said, ” You d–d [damned] liar, why don’t you speak the truth and say I did it.” The governess was also present.

In April, 1907, the respondent having invited her to take part in a bazaar at Sorrento, at the last moment forbade her to attend it. About April 15 she found an hotel bill in her husband’s blotter, made out in the name of ” Hermano Harmsleigh.” A few davs later she found some blotting- paper with the same name upon it and the words ” Poste Restante. Mata” (a neighbouring village).  She had never heard of the girl Anita Esposito until the morning of the day he suddenly left Sorrento. On April 25 lie informed her he was leaving that day, and she advised him not to travel with a nurse, who was leaving. She then asked him if he passed as Hermano Harmsleigh in Naples. He replied,” Has Antonino told you? “ She said, “No, you are wrong; but does he know your secret ?” He then asked her how she had found out, and when she showed him the blotter he called her a “d–d [damned] spy.”

He then said he had a disagreeable story to tell her, adding that, if she had been a woman of the world she would not have thought much of it. He then told her that while driving in Naples he had seen the girl in the street, had taken a fancy to her, had got out of his trap and spoke to her, and eventually gave the girl’s mother 200f. for her, saying he was going to marry her. He added, ” I told them you were my married sister: but now they are beginning to suspect, and may come here any day, and I want to know what you are going to say.” He also told her that the girl was not enecinte. At this stage the Court adjourned until Monday.

Bicknell v. Bicknell [Day 2 – Nov 3, 1908]

(Before MR. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEANE  and a Special Jury,.)


Divorce-Cross Charges.

The hearing of this matrimonial suit, which, commenced on Friday last, was resumed, the first day’s proceedings being reported in The Times on October 31, 1908.

Certain interlocutory proceedings In the Court of Appeal with regard to a commission to take evidence in Italy were reported in 1908, W.N., 97. It will be remembered that Mr. Harriet Frances Bicknell, daughter of the late Judge Bagshawe, petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. He, by his answer, denied these charges, and pleaded alternatively that if he had committed adultery the petitioner had by her mental cruelty conduced to it, had connived at it, and had condoned it. He further alleged that the petitioner had herself committed adultery with the Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, who was cited. The petitioner and the party cited denied the charges made against them

Mr. Barnard, KC. and Mr. Lailey were, for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, KC., Mr.Haldenstein, and J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

The petitioner, further examined in chief by Mr. Barnard  said that on April 25, 1907, the governess,  Miss Serek, was in the house, and she (petitioner) made a complaint to her.

Mr. Marshall-Hall – I do so object to that form of question. The proper form is, ” Did you make a statement?

Mr. Barnard –Very welL. Did you make a statement ?

The petitioner.-Yes.

Mr. Barnard .- And in what state ,were you at the time ?

The petitioner.-I was in tears.

Examination continued.-She continued to write in affectionate terms to her husband up to the time when she saw him in England on June 13, 1907. On that day she took the children to Morle’s Hotel, where her husband was then living. She was prepared at that time to resume cohabitation with him, but he refused to allow her to remain and actually threatened to summon help and have her and her luggage turned out. He, however, retained the children. The following day she called a and he then told her that as she had not apologised he should take the children away. The apology was demanded in consequence of her having told him that his uncle, Mr. Sidney Bicknell, had professed to be ashamed of his nephew’s conduct. Mr. Sidney Bicknell, writing to the respondent from Barcombe-house, near Lewes, on June 11, 1907, denied having called the respondent a scoundrel or having said that he was ashamed to bear the same name as him. She had never stated that the respondent’s uncle had called him a scoundrel; but he saying that he was ashamed of his nephew. As soon as she obtained evidence of her husband’s adultery with Anita she filed her petition for divorce. When under the influence of drink or drugs her husband used to call her terrible names which upset her greatly and made her cry. . He would then say, “Smile, you devil, or I’ll make .you come cringing to me.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall-Hall.  She denied that Morle’s Hotel was full on the occasion of her call there on July 18. She had, to use her own words, ” stolen the children away, and they had been in hiding ever since.” Her husband did not see the children from July 15, 1907, until last Saturday. She had, changed her boy’s name from Bysshe to Basil. That was not done at the instigation of Father Galton, S.J., nor of the Jesuits. That was not one more influence exercised by them over her. Bysshe may have, been the name of an agnostic and one of Shelley’s names, while Basil was that of a saint in the calendar. The boy was christened Bysshe against her wish. Her husband’s adultery and not the change of his religion was the true cause of this suit. She had consulted Roman Catholics before bringing the suit.. She had written on June 22, 1907, ” I was nearly mad, but on Monday I stole the children away from him, and have been in hiding ever since. I have brought an action for divorce against him (I found I could do so as a Catholic, and was told by the Jesuits and the Archbishop that I ought to),  and now we are waiting results. As long as he only treated me badly I could stand it, but once he touched the children it was another matter.” Bysshe was now at a Roman Catholic school at Boscombe. He had been sent there in July by her brother-in-law. She had previously had him at a Protestant school. The dispute at Morle’s Hotel had arisen because of what she asserted Mr. Sidney Bicknell had said about the respondent and the latter’s demand for an apology. Her husband had been for years a member of the Reform Club. Her husband had complained that she did not always speak the truth. Mr. Sidney Bicknell, on June 11, had written to her husband that  “the ‘trouble’ I had in my mind was the children going to the English Church and your recession from Catholicism.” She was ready to forgive her husband for the adultery he had confessed to her on April 25 when she went to call on him on July 13 at Morle’s Hotel.  On April 26, the day after her husband’s departure from Sorrento, she had written to him,  “Cheer, up; I am glad you wrote me a kind note before you left Italy. You cannot think how miserable I was, seeing you leave me in such a manner. I hope when this reaches you you will feel happier. Don’t forget that your best and truest friend has always and will always be your wife. The children send you their love.-Your affectionate wife Harriet.” 

She had not seen her husband except at Morle’s Hotel – since April 25 – the day on which he confessed his adultery with Anita. The confession was made on April 25, and not some days earlier. She had found the sheet of blotting paper containing the incriminating words, in one of her own books – a copy book she used daily for the study of German. She had not spoken to her husband the same day. He first told her of his adultery the day he left; she had not previously questioned him about it. She had never been to his bedroom or condoned his adultery after she was aware of it.

At this stage Mr. Marshall-Hall proposed to refer to the evidence taken on commission.in Italy.

Mr. Barnard objected to the evidence being used as the commission had not been returned to the Court, owing to the commissioner, Mr. Valentine Ball, barrister-at-law, not having been paid his fees.

Mr. Marshall-Hall .-It was a joint commission; my client has paid his half, but the other side refuses to do so.

Mr. Barnard – My learned friend is mistaken in describing it as a joint commission. It is his commission, and being on the spot we took the opportunity of examining certain witnesses before the commissioner.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – The commissioner is entitled to keep beck the commission until he has been paid his fees.

Mr. Marshall-Hall.  My client brought £ 20,000 into settlement, and he has now nothing. But the lady obtained leave from Mr. Justice Warrington to raise £1,000 for the purpose of this very commission.

Mr. Barnard –  The learned judge gave her power to anticipate to that extent to enable her to defend the suit.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – I have already intimated my view.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – My solicitor client – Mr. Furber – undertakes to pay the commissioner’s fees. After the adjournment,

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane said that during the adjournment the commission had been returned to the Court, and was accordingly now in.

Cross-examination continued.-Four or five days before April 25 there had been a scene between her and her husband, but that had to do with his forbidding her to take part in the bazaar. Her husband had not confessed his adultery to her on April 21, but on April 25- the day he left Sorrento. Between April 21 and April 25 she had twice slept on a mattress in her husband’s room, as was stated by two witnesses -who were examined on commission. Her letter of April 26 to her husband did not refer to his dispute with her as to what his uncle had told her about him. She had been quite ready to forgive her husband. She had been told by the Jesuits ant the Archbishop that as a Catholic she could seek the protection of the law, but that even if she were successful in her suit she could never marry again. She had asked in May, 1907, a servant named Rose Scott if she remembered.seeing her with a black eye, but she (Rose Scott) did not remember the occasion. She did not remind Rose Scott of past favours, or warn her against allowing the respondent to go out with her young daughter.. She did say that the respondent had been lunching with the child at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton. She had heard of that incident from a Mrs. Farnham. She (petitioner) did not know that Rose Cox was a witness for the respondent. She had not sought to poison her mind against him.  She told Rose Scott that her husband had stayed with Flora Cox ( a nurse) at an hotel in Naples, passing as ” Mr and Mrs. Bicknell ” She believed her statement to be true, having herself seen the names in the hotel book.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – Then why is not that charge pleaded ?

The petitioner.-I already had one charge.of adultery, which I thought sufficient.

Cross-examination continued. – She had told Rose that the respondent had accused them of impropriety together. The respondent had dared to make that suggestion. She had not accused her husband of un-natural practices, nor was she responsible for  witnesses having been cross-examined on commission in Italy to show that a certain Giuseppe was of evil habit.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – Most- of the cross- examination referred to was on behalf of your client.

Mr. Barnard – There was, no such suggestion made by my client.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – We are not trying any issue as to Giuseppe.

Before her marriage she had heard from a cousin that the respondent was addicted to morphia, and she had refused to marry-him when he first proposed to her. He was at that time a very rich man possessed of about £ 140,000, all of which was now gone! Subsequently the respondent. settled £ 20,000 upon her, and her father settled £1,000. She had been told that he had taken to morphia because she had refused him. Before her marriage she had written to her fiancé referring to her violent temper. In spite pf her, husband having struck her on the back of the hand with a ruler or paper knife and dragged her by the hair of her head, she had written to him in most affectionate terms about the times these incidents had taken-place. When her husband tore up the marriage certificate he told her that he could now repudiate the marriage..

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – Then why, Madam, if you believed your marriage was invalid did you continue to live with-your husband ? – .

The petitioner.-,He said he could repudiate it, if he liked !

Mr. Barnard –  Voidable, -not void-!

The petitioner.-I only believed his statement for two hour.

Cross-examination continued.- She had in her letters referred to the bitter expressions she had used towards her husband, and regretted that she had not first bitten her tongue out.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. –  You called him a skunk did you not? About the worst thing you can call a man; The petitioner. – That, I think, was one of his expressions.

Cross-examination continued.- He had objected before the birth of the child to that birth being announced in the Tablet, and her mother had promised not to do so, but she afterwards put the announcement in the paper. The respondent in consequence declined to allow her mother to see the baby until she had apologized, and on June 7 1900, his Honour Judge Bagshawe  wrote on his wife’s behalf.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – This is 1900 and the child was born in 1899 !  All I can say is that the respondent is a most unreasonable man. I cannot understand any man taking such a line as that.

Cross-examination continued.-In spite of her husband’s conduct, she loved him and forgave him, and she never contemplated divorce proceedings until he took away the children from her. On September 28 she wrote of the lady from whom she had heard of the incident at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton, “Mrs. F. has lied like a trooper, and will get into trouble.”

At this stage the Court adjourned.

Bicknell v. Bicknell  [Day 3, Nov 4, 1908]

(Before MR. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEANE  and a Special Jury.)


Divorce-Cross Charges.

The further hearing of this matrimonial suit, which has been reported in The Times on October 31 and November 3, was continued, and concluded, this being the third day of the trial.  It will be remembered that Mrs. Harriet Frances Bicknell, daughter of the late Judge Bagshawe, petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. He, by his answer, denied these charges, and pleaded alternatively that if he had committed adultery the petitioner had by her mental cruelty conduced to it, had connived at it, and had condoned it. He further alleged that the petitioner had herself committed adultery with the Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, who was cited. The petitioner and the party cited denied the charges made against them.

Mr. Barnard, KC. and Mr. Lailey were, for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, KC., Mr.Haldenstein, and J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

After the sitting of the Court.

Counsel having conferred together and seen the learned Judge in private for upwards of one hour and a half.

Mr. Marshall-Hall said that the respondent had never contested the adultery charged at Naples, but he did seriously deny any other charge made against him, and after the cross-examination yesterday those charges would not be persisted in, and he was quite willing that all charges made against the petitioner and the party cited should also be withdrawn and the jury discharged, and that a decree of judicial separation should be pronounced on certain conditions.

Mr. Barnard said that he was willing to withdraw all the charges made against the respondent -other than the one of adultery at Naples. The petitioner, however, was desirous of going into the box to deny the truth of the charges made against her.

The evidence of the girl Anita Esposito, taken on commission at Naples, was read, and went to show that the respondent had made her acquaintance in Naples five or six days before Christmas, 1906, and that the intrigue between them had continued for five months, during which time the respondent visited and passed the night at various hotels with her.

Further corroborative evidence, taken on commission, having been read,

The petitioner denied on oath that there was the slightest truth in the allegation made against her, and

The Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, in answer to Mr. Campbell, said that until the citation was served upon him in October he had no suspicion that the respondent had anything against him. He was a close friend of both Mr. and Mrs. Bicknell, and there was not a shadow of truth whatever in the charges made against him.

The respondent, in reply to Mr. Marshall-Hall said that he admitted his adultery at Naples with the girl Anita Esposito, but he denied the statement made as to the payment of money. That statement was not true. Ho had never struck his wife, and there was no truth in the charges of cruelty made against him. He did not drink to excess, nor was he habitually addicted to the use of drugs. There was no truth in the suggestion that he had ever committed adultery with Flora Cox.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane accordingly pronounced a decree of judicial separation with costs, and gave the custody of the elder child to the respondent, and that of the younger one to the petitioner. Questions of access to the children would be dealt with in Chambers.

Judgment accordingly.

Affidavit of Eugene Plummer McCarthy, July 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



Affidavit of Eugene Plummer McCarthy in support of an answer

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Emily McCarthy formely Verling petitioner

Eugene Plummer McCarthy respondent

Affidavit of respondent verifying and supporting answer

Wm F Morris

13 Beaufort Buildings


In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Emily McCarthy formely Verling petitioner

Eugene Plummer McCarthy respondent

I, Eugene Plummer McCarthy of thirteen Beaufort Buildings Strand in the county of Middlesex, Attorney at law and Notary Public, the above named respondent make oath and say

  1. That I was not upon the occasion of my first marriage married at at Cullenswood, Ranelagh in the county of Dublin as alleged by petitioner, and that it is untrue that I deserted my first wife.
  2. That if it be the fact that my first wife be still alive I humbly submit that some more authentic and reliable evidence thereof should be offered than the unsupported and interested averment of the petitioner herself.
  3. That in the event of any such evidence being procurable, a prosecution for bigamy should be instituted against me which I am ready and desirous of defending.
  4. That I never before heard her death questioned or disputed until it was done so by the petitioner, being instigated thereto, as I fully believe, by one George Wilson Grove, and it is scarcely consistent with the fact of the existence of my first wife that although I resided nearly continuously for fourteen years in the vicinity of the city of Cork practising as a solicitor and Notary, no single claim or demand for or in respect of any such alleged existing wife was ever made on me directly or indirectly although the woman now alleged and set up by petitioner as my first wife was during the whole of said time, as I am informed and believe a native and resident in the city of Cork, where she was a common prostitute several years previous to my first marriage and still continues so.
  5. That I was unfortunately married to petitioner at the time and place alleged by her when it was unnecessary to have done so as she had been cohabiting with me previous to marriage without any scruple or compunction, and it was petitioner herself who allured me into a connection with her and planned and suggested the various places of meeting, and also took the various lodgings where I cohabited with her before marriage, the two last of said places being at Brompton and Holloway, at Brompton 24 Pelham Road, at Holloway, St Alban’s Cottage in the vicinity of St James’ church.
  6. That although such cohabitation was and is well known to several persons, petitioner made oath previous to her marriage before William Moore Drew esquire, a Justice of the Peace at Queenstown in Ireland that she had not cohabited with me nor had ever seen me in London.
  7. That petitioner having so sworn falsely and denied upon her oath a fact capable of easy proof is unworthy of any credit and the more so as she has been declared by the Reverend Mr Eyre now of Northampton who was sometime her spiritual advisor to be an Atheist and utterly destitute of all moral or religious principles, her mind having been depraved and demoralised by a Roman Catholic Priest, the Reverend Patrick O’Dwyer with whom she had had an intrigue previous to the misfortune of my marriage with her, which I did not then know. Cardinal Wiseman and several of his clergy are perfectly acquainted with what I state about petitioner and said O’Dwyer.
  8. That by my marriage with petitioner I fell from a position of independence and respectability as petitioner was not associated with by even the members of her own family, her two brothers, one a clergyman, the other a surgeon in the Navy passing her unnoticed, which I subsequently learnt was in consequence of her intrigue with O’Dwyer.
  9. That I lived with petitioner subsequent to my marriage until the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty five in which year I became acquainted with George Wilson Grove who had been a solicitor and was then keeping terms for the Bar at Middle temple, he was then also a second time a widower with one son, and three daughters, the eldest of whom was nearly as old as petitioner and said Grove himself nearly fifty years of age, which facts with all the plausible professions of interest and friendship made by him for petitioner’s and my welfare disarmed all suspicion I’m my mind particularly when he seemed so attentive to his religious duties, having his prayer-book and Bible upon his table at his chambers.
  10. That upon one occasion, a Sunday, I went accompanied by petitioner, to call upon said Grove at his chambers, and found said Grove apparently very devotionally engaged with his prayer-book, whereupon petitioner observed to me “that man can not be a bad man”, but before we left said chambers a prostitute knocked at his door and enquired for him of me who opened the door for her, I then began to know the man’s true character and that he was a hypocrite masking infamy and profligacy under the guise of sanctity, he made a bungling apology and said the woman came to enquire for the gentleman on the upper floor, however  peremptorily cautioned petitioner against ever trusting herself alone with him as I believed him to be a base and treacherous hypocrite.
  11. That in Trinity term one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight Grove was refused his call to the Bar and in the ensuing November he left England pretending he was going to Italy for his health-sake, I did not know he was refused his call for fraud and misappropriation of trust funds, and that he was nearly dependent upon his father’s means for his support.
  12. That within a month after said Grove’s leaving England petitioner left me to proceed to Paris for the avowed purpose of perfecting herself as a singer said Grove having forwarded thirty pounds to her and having also agreed to allow her a hundred and twenty pounds a year until she would be ultimately able to repay him upon her success as a singer, and never supposing said Grove would pursue petitioner to Paris and always hearing her speaking the most contemptuous terms of the intellect of said Grove, designating him “ a poor trifling animal”. I permitted her to go, and it was also arranged by said Reverend Mr Eyre she should reside with some friends of his while in Paris
  13. That on the day of departure from London, petitioner was accompanied by a Mrs Thomas who was proceeding to Brussels and I subsequently discovered petitioner left Mrs Thomas at Folkestone and went to Amiens in France which is a junction of the railway to Brussels although Mrs Thomas was travelling to the same destination and would have accompanied petitioner to Amiens where petitioner remained three days, and I am now thoroughly convinced petitioner spent said three days there with said Grove.
  14. That on her arrival at Paris she wrote to me she could not reside with the family intended for her by the Reverend Mr Eyre, and about the same time I received a letter from said Grove dated at Brussels that “ poor little Mrs Mac Carthy must feel sadly at a loss in such a queer place as Paris,” and as if it was immaterial to him where he resided if I desired it he would at once go to Paris and asking of me to conceal his going there “to prevent tongues babbling about it” to which letter I replied the next post promptly and positively interdicting his going, and that ill-nature had while he was in England been busy connecting my wife’s name with his, and also telling him I was daily becoming better informed of the libertinism of his character from the number of unfortunate women coming to enquire for him and that I would sooner put a stone around my wife’s neck and fling her into the Thames than to have him about her.
  15. That I the same post informed petitioner of said Grove’s request and of my reply to it, to which petitioner wrote a letter now in my possession highly approving of my reply and indignantly censuring said Grove, and that if he attempted going to Paris she would not remain there to be spoken of as she could not be too particular as she was away from her husband, and also wishing “may the Devil take him the brainless jack-ass” meaning said Grove.
  16. That paying no attention either to my entreaties or interdiction nor to the injury which he confessed must ensue if his going was known said Grove went to Paris and positively refused to leave it again and although I used every effort to induce petitioner to act upon her declaration of leaving if he remained she persisted in remaining there and thenceforward to defend said Grove and to calumniate me.
  17. That I wrote and asked said Grove why and for what did he go to Paris? when he confessed the injury certain to arise from his act to which inquiry he wrote to me replying “ I will not condescend to answer you.”
  18. That I then wrote to said Grove’s father detailing his son’s conduct and the profligacy of his character and asking his interposition and also writing that even had his character been ever so moral and spotless he would still be compromising the reputation of petitioner and be inflicting an injury upon her character.
  19. That I being still unwilling to believe petitioner actually criminal and that the acquisition of the object ostensively in view by her made her submit to the infliction of said Grove’s presence, in which opinion I was further fortified by her indignant reprehension of his conduct and character and ridicule of his mental acquirements and personal appearance but when I saw she altered her demeanour and language, still believing her not unfaithful, I went to Paris at much inconvenience upon two occasions to try and induce petitioner to give up any intimacy with said grove or to leave Paris and return with me to London if said Grove’s persecution of her and me was not to cease.
  20. That upon the last occasion of my going to Paris I arrived early in the morning and as I was proceeding towards where petitioner was residing I saw said Grove loitering and waiting in the vicinity of her lodgings, I was naturally highly incensed and upon seeing petitioner I found her dressing to go out. I told her her persecutor was lying in wait for her, when she retorted upon me the most virulent invective and abuse, and declared that she would not leave Paris with me  and was thenceforward done with me, and that she had never read one of my letters but burned them as they reached her though all of said letters were written to her in the most agonising terms depicting the misery and disgrace she was ensuring to herself as well as to me.
  21. That I had not sufficient means to permit me to remain in Paris the better to detect and procure evidence of petitioner’s criminality, and as I saw the utter uselessness of striving to restrain a woman intent on her own ruin and who evinced such a complete disregard to her self-respect or to public opinion. I again returned to London wretched and heartbroken at finding her so shameless and worthless and at being so duped and deceived by her.
  22. That upon my return to London I communicated with the Revered Mr Eyre and put before him all the correspondence between petitioner and myself with said Grove’s letters. Mr Eyre wrote to petitioner several letters, and said Grove without being in the first instance addressed wrote to Mr Eyre an attempted vindication of his conduct, and there can be no doubt said Grove’s addressing Mr Eyre was suggested by petitioner as said Grove was entirely a stranger to him and was done in the hope of defeating the purpose for which I sought Mr Eyre’s interposition.
  23. That Mr Eyre in nearly all his letters to petitioner and to said Grove that petitioner was placed in a false position by said Grove in my absence and against my explicit wishes and insisting upon either petitioner or said Grove leaving Paris, all of which letters and the replies thereto were read to me by said Mr Eyre, and are I believe yet in his possession.
  24. That said Grove evaded leaving Paris but in each of said letters intimated an intention of leaving by a certain time “ if then necessary” which conditional expression was repeated in all his letters to Mr Eyre, and which expression was subsequently explained by said Grove transmitting to Mr Eyre a declaration made by an inmate of the workhouse in the city of Cork that she was my first wife, whereupon Mr Eyre addressed to said Grove the following letter, the original of which is now in my possession;

Cadogan Terrace, Chelsea

May 12 1856


Your last letter which was composed with a good deal of caution, you did not give me the shock you anticipated. My sole and entire object has been for and on behalf of Mrs Mac Carthy. To my mind the course I have to pursue is a clear and unmistakeable as any one street in a town. I have mad my propositions. I gave it as my final decision, and I have no change to make in it yet. I have succeeded in keeping Mr Mac Carthy quiet, but delays, accidents, etc, are rousing him and shaking my confidence, and if I feel I can no longer reasonably withstand his appeals and consent to let him loose woe betide the party he first runs at! After all that has been said and written by you and by Emily, is it, sir your place to take up the case you put? Are you in a position decently to interest yourself in proving Emily a single woman? Is the step likely to justify the past? Has Emily chosen you out as the man to take up her cause at the very moment she consented to escape from you by changing her abode and is professedly  insisting on your leaving Paris? Did you or did you not get the first history of this state of things from Emily herself? You will excuse me, Sir as I know nothing of you, except through this unfortunate business, if I say that nothing I have heard of you has damaged you so much as your own last letter now before me! Only think too what a position you put me in. You ask me to keep Mr Mac Carthy here. I am hesitating as to whether I am not bound in honour, as a gentleman, and in conscience as a Christian to tell him all and send him over instantly to Paris. He already knows you have tried to prove his marriage null. Am I then who has acted all along as his friend and his wife’s to tie his hands here, and let you plot at ease? I presume he has his tale to tell. Are you acting for Emily without her knowledge? Will she take it as a kindness to be proved a ruined woman? Are you acting a gentleman’s part? A gentleman in your position would at least for the sake of appearances employ another and satisfy himself with aiding and obtaining proofs, if even that much. Every time you speak of leaving Paris you add “should it then be necessary.” Now Sir, what has occurred to affect the previous position of things? You ask me for advice, my only advice to you is to act upon what I have already dictated as imperative. I have already told you my mind is clear upon the case. Leave Emily – Leave Paris! It is needless now to comment on the details of your composition. Ah, it is palpably insincere to use no stronger term. I return to the point with which I started. I have advised Emily. I have advised you. If my advice be not acted upon, I shall have no alternative. I must hand the whole matter over to Mr Mac Carthy to deal with as he thinks best. Unless I hear from you immediately in reply to this I shall act on my own discretion.

Meanwhile I am Sir yours etc.

V. Eyre.

25. That I am unacquainted with the reply given by the said Grove to said letter but that unsatisfactory and not calculated to raise him in Mr Eyre’s opinion can be readily inferred from Mr Eyre’s letter in reply to him dated May seventeenth one thousand eight hundred and fifty six, the original of which is also in my possession, and which is as follows:

“Sir, I have to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 15th instant. The nature of that document leaves no other course open to me, but at once to decline all further communication with you”

I am Sir yours etc.

V. Eyre.

26. That I upon enquiry ascertained that the woman who had been induced by said Grove at the suggestion of the petitioner to make such declaration and to falsely represent herself as my first wife had been a prostitute in the city of Cork several years previous to my first marriage and that she continued and continues to be so still.

27. That Mr Eyre insisted on petitioner’s immediate return to London which she did in the month of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty six and was several days in London before I learned it, when I did so I went to her lodgings in Walton Street, Chelsea when I believed her absent and there I found several letters, some addressed to said Grove, amongst them the before mentioned two, and also some written by him all having reference to the concerted attempt to set up a prostitute as my first wife, all of which letters are in my possession.

28. That I was then further convinced with her complicity with Grove’s baseness, and as I was leaving her lodgings I met her at the door returning, when I asked whether she had brought any papers with her from Paris relating to Grove’s attempt, she replied she had not brought any, not knowing they were then in my possession.

29. That petitioner returned at said time to London without any luggage or property whatever, having left it all in Paris as a surety of her return there again.

30. That Mr Eyre was still desirous of believing petitioner did not participate in Grove’s plotting and that she had but acted with greta imprudence, at least he tried to persuade me so, he seemingly being led away by her solemn protestations and her repeatedly saying in his and my presence that if she “ wanted to be bad, it would not be such a worn out old rouè as Grove she would select.”

31. That I then replied to her in Mr Eyre’s presence “prove to me that Grove was not with you at Amiens, I shall try your fidelity by that single test, produce his passport, let me see its visées, if you be innocent, bad as he is I think he will not refuse, if he can, to take such a taint from you, and when you satisfy me, I shall then produce certificates of my first wife’s death and burial.”

32. That she faithfully promised that said passport should be produced, and Mr Eyre at her suggestion but against my express wishes wrote again to said Grove, that if he left Paris and permitted her to pursue her studies unmolested by him, she would return there, and she professed extreme anxiety to return in order to vindicate her reputation for me, when I replied “for heaven’s sake do so, and do not you too be added to your mother and aunt and be like them separated from their husbands.”

33. That she did return to Paris and Grove went to Rouen but she did not produce said passport or any evidence of her innocence for me although I wrote several letters earnestly urging her to do so, all of which letters she left unanswered.

34.  That I put before petitioner, and Mr Eyre, previous to her going as forcibly as I could the additional humiliation i would be subjected to, and petitioner also, if really innocent, by continuing to accept of Grove’s money after our knowledge of his baseness, but no arguments could restrain her, she would  “go to justify herself for me,”  I could not and would not receive her until she was fully disinfected from all the pestilence said Grove had in all his unfaltering heartlessness had heaped upon her.

35. That I said to Mr Eyre in her presence, having a conviction that she was deceiving both him and me, and was not sincere in her desire for vindication, “ Mark me Sir, you will find she is deceiving you and will deceive you as well as me.” I then pressed upon Mr Eyre his writing to some clergyman to visit her and awaken in her some religious convictions as she never said one prayer and never attended any religious services.

36. That I heard nothing of petitioner or of said Grove until the month of May in the present year, when I was informed by a relative who was and is one of the ex officio Guardians of the City of Cork Poor Law Union that said Grove had been writing to the Master and Clerk at the Cork Work-House to try and induce the Guardians to transfer the woman he had suborned, to London to try and me liable for her support (sic) and also asking said Master and Clerk to conceal his name, I was also informed she had left the workhouse and again returned to her former life of prostitution in the city of Cork.

37. That I was urged by any friends and relatives to prosecute said Grove criminally for a conspiracy but consideration for my immediate family withheld my exposure of said Grove’s turpitude so largely blended too with petitioner’s worthlessness.

38. That I have been for a long time convinced, and now fully believe, said Grove had from the first deliberately designed the compromising and degradation of petitioner’s character, and separating and stealing her away from me for his own support by her professional engagements as he was nearly dependant upon his father who is approaching eighty years of age holding the office of Collector of Customs in the City of Gloucester.

39. That in the month of June last past I saw petitioner with another female riding up Regent’s Street in a Hansom Cab, and  I also saw petitioner point me out to her companion, but I made no effort to ascertain her address, but I did endeavour to get up from her through Mr Eyre and Cardinal Wiseman some personal property of mine which I highly value, and I was not then aware of her having presented her petition against me.

40. That I believe she was fulfilling some engagement in London and then and now supporting said Grove, whom I saw on the fifth of July instant in the Haymarket and being persuaded he was going to visit petitioner, I followed him to Manchester Square, where he met a woman, by appearance a prostitute who seemed to be waiting for him, and after nearly an hour’s interview with her he went to number fifty-five Manchester Street, but as he got to the door he caught sight of me and left immediately without knocking.

41. That I was then convinced that petitioner was residing there, and I went towards the door before grove could communicate with her and as I stood by it I distinctly heard her voice as she was practising singing.

42. That the citation served upon me bore date the fifth instant and I believe was directed to be issued by said Grove directly after he had seen me and the Solicitor employed by petitioner is also the Solicitor of said Grove.

43. That I again upon the eighth instant was in the vicinity of her residence, when a person having entered said house and remained some time came from it towards me and served upon me said citation and petition, and I fully believe I was pointed out by petitioner for him.

44. That there is  not any collusion or connivance between me and the said petitioner to annul the marriage.

Sworn in Her Majesty’s

Court for Divorce and Matrimonial

Causes at Westminster Hall

the twenty-ninth day of July 1858