FULL REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.L E T T E R S F RO M T H E P R IN C E O F W A L E S .

H I S R O Y AL H I G H N E S S IN T HE WIT N E S S -BO".

EVIDENCE O F THE N URSE AND THE DO CTORS .

T H E T E M P L E E D I T I O N .

p n xc n T n n n n pn m c n .

TEMP LE P U BLISH IN G O F F IC E S , F LE E T STR EET , LO N D O N .

R

GREAT S CAN DAL IN HIGH LIFE .

MORDAU NT v. MORDAU NT, JOHNSTON E , AN D COLE .

ABO U T a year ago, a faint whisper of a great scandal, implicating som e of thehighest and noblest in the land, ran through society, in creasing into a r um our of avery decided character when certain organ s of the press, possessed of authen ticinform ation , ventured to nam e som e of the great persons who would figure in it ina very un enviable mann er. But rum our

,like m ist upon a glass, i s fleeti ng and.

the case faded away from al l those but whower e personally concern ed, un ti l themorn ing of Wednesday, F ebruary 16, when a crowded cour t listened eagerly to theopen ing details of the story destined to run like wildfire throughout the lengthand breadth of the land. The followin g car eful r epor t of this cm rses cclébre hasbeen com piled from the pages of the 1 573 93, S tandard , D ai ly Telegr aph, and otherpaper s of ackn owledged high position ; and in additi on to the trus tworthy inform ation derived from these sour ces

,the repor t will be in terspersed with a few

rem arks from our own commission er who attended durin g the tr ial.This m ueh-talked-of and now celebrate d case came on for trial this m orn ing

,F eb .

16, on:the issue of the san ity or insan ity of therespondent, LadyMordaun t. The suit

was instituted by S ir Charles Mordaun t, on the ground of his wife’

s adultery withthe cc-respondents, S ir F reder ick John stone and Viscoun t Cole. Lady Mordaun ten ter ed no plea, and in consequence of her all e ed madness the Judge Ordi narydirected a jury to try the special issue—viz . , w ether she was sane or in sane at

the tim e and since the citation on the petition was served upon her . A s n eitherof the cc-respondents were involved in this issue, they did not en ter an appearan ce.The in terest taken in the case was fully dem onstrated by the num bers of people

anxious to gain admission into the cour t. In an ticipati on of the expected crowd,

addi tional policemen were placed on duty at the various approaches to the court,

so as to give access and egress to the counsel, attorn eys, witnesses, and othersinteres ted in and connected with the case.Mr . Serjean t Ballantin e, D r . Spinks, Q.C .

,and Mr . I nderwick, were coun sel for

the petiti on er , S ir Charles Mordaun t ; D r . Dean e, Q.C ., Mr. Archibald, an d Mr .

Searle for the responden t, Lady Mordaun t. Mr . Lord held a watching brief forcc-responden t, Viscount Cole, but not for the purpose of taking any par t in the

case.D r . Dean e, Q.C ., opened the case on the part of Mr. Robert Moncreifie, Lady

Mordaunt ’s guardian , and said that the issue to be tried was whether on a certainday, and at the present time, Lady Mordaun t was of soundmind . Ther e were twotheories , upon one of which he would have to speak, the other would be taken upby Mr . Serjean t Ballan tin e. The theory of the other side, he apprehended, wouldbe to the following effect—viz, that although there were certain sym ptom s whichwoul d lead casual observers to the conclusion that Lady Mordaun t was in san e, yetthose appeara nces were all feign ed, and on ly put on for a pur pose—that thosesym ptom s on ly appeared before cer tain per sons—that they only appeared befor eher relations and friends, but not before others . The answer to that would be thatit was very strange that a person chargedwith such a cr ime as LadyMordaun twasin this case, should put on these appearan ces for the purpose of deceivin g thosewhower e m ost interested in her innocence, and in having her innocence establi shed .

If she had deceived other persons gen erally , it coul d be understood but itappear ed to him a strange thin g that before her father, for instan ce, she shouldseem to be out of her mind, and that before com parative strangers , and others, sheshould appear quite san e. H is theory would be that Lady Mordaunt was in truthand. fact sufferin g from a disease which

,whether it had prim ar ily affected her

blood, or her brain or nerves through the spinal cord, had gradually proceeded from

4

a given tim e,was ex isting from the 3oth ofApr il lastyear , and had, down to Saturdaylast, the 12th . O n the 6th ofMay shewas seen by D r . Priestly, D r . T uke, and S ir J.

Alderson,at Walton .

Between the l 6th and the 18th of May, whil st she was inLondon , she:was seen by D r . Priestly and by D r . Tuke . F rom the 17th of May downto the 18th of August, when she rem oved from Worth ing, she was con stantlyattended by a local m edical gen tlem an of the nam e of Harris . The 5th of Augustlast was a very m aterial date. O n that day, or shortly after , Lord Pen zance,before whom the m atter had been brought in var ious shapes, was pleased to di rectthat D r . Wood should s ee this unfortun ate lady, and accordin gly this was donenot at the in stance of interested parties on either side, but by order of the Court.F rom the 2sth of August down to this date, a gentlem an nam ed Hughes, of B rom ley,had paid her no less than fifty-on e visits and on Saturday last, he 12t h instan t,she was seen by S ir Jam es Simpson , of Edinburgh, a gen tleman whose reputationreached far beyond the U n ited Kin gdom . O n one occasion she was asked by D r .

Wood to sing a ballad,en titled, Strangers yet,

”the words of which were by Mr .

Monckton Milnes, now Lord Houghton , and the first verse of which ran as

011ow sS trangers yet, after years of l ife togetherAfter fair and storm yweather ;A fte r travel in far landsA fter touch ofwedded hands .Why thus join ed Why ever m et,I f they must be strangers yet;After chi ldhood’s winn ingways,After care and blam e and praise ?

She had been in the habit of singing that ballad before al l these troubles cam eupon her , and on that occasion the words eviden tly struck som e chord in her

heart ; she burst into a flood of tear s, and said she could not sin g it. Sheshowed extraordi nary docility in anything she was asked to do by D r . Wood ;for in stance , such as h i s asking her to take a piece of chin a off the m an telpiece, and to hold it first in on e position and then an other ; and yet when shewas asked to sing a song she utterly broke down . Subsequen tly, however , whenD r . Wood asked her to sing this sam e song, she sat down to the piano andsang it right oif. These symptom s showed the utter vacuity of her m ind

, andthe absence of anythin g like sani ty. He should also call before them those ofher relations who were con stan tly with her , and had the fullest opportun itiesof observing her , and whose testim ony would be entir ely to the sam e effect ;am ongst them S ir Thom as Moncrei ife, her father . It was utterly incredible thata young wom an of twenty-two years of age could have had sufficien t strengthof will and m in d to keep up a settled plan of deceit, im postur e, an d delusionfor such a length of tim e. By what stratagem could such a person succeed inim posing upon the m edical m en ? By what cunni n g artifice could she so m odifythe temperature of her body that the perspiration of di sease should stand uponher skin—her head hot, and her feet cold ? The question for them was to trywhether Lady Mordaun t had been carryin g on a system of delusion so artful as totake in eight or ten of the wisest and m ost experien ced m edical m en in the U n i teeKingdom , or whether she was real ly suffer ing, as he had described, from th reffects of this direful m alady. He was satisfied he had said enough to en sure theiatten tive and im partial consideration of the questi on .

The learn ed counsel ceas ed, and a hushed whisper passed through the Court,and Jan e Lan g was imm ediately called, who deposed - In May, 1869, I becam elady

’s companion to Lady Mordaun t. She was then in Belgrave-square. I aecom

pan ied her from Belgrave-square to Worthing . I have gon e out walkin g withher . When wewere out she was in the habit of

,

'

picking up dirty articles b orn thestreet—m ud and such like . She woul d carry it in her hand, and would not put itdown . She had also a. total want of m odesty. She would go about the housewithout anything on her . She was also often dirty in her habits . S he was so inbed and about the house. In the m orn in g we took her up and washed her like a

child. Som etim es she would not speak for days . She was also in the habit ofwander ing about the house at n ight, and wen t in to the servan ts’ bed-room s . T hebed-room doors were locked day and n ight , and she would call for a hammer tobreak them open , as she believed S ir Charles Mordaun t was in the room . O n one

occasion she cam e down’

with n othin g on but her stockings and an old cloak, andwalked about the house . When out in the carriage drivin g she would try to throwherself out, and I had to watch her . She often complain ed of pain in her head,and I applied eau-de-Cologn e to it. When she got hold of the bottle she wouldplace it at her feet. She was som etim es very ir ritable in her tem per, andwas

0

m uch ann oyed by any noise. Even people talking on the road opposite the houseannoyed her . She often spoke about her dress, and said it was con tem ptible .

She also complain ed of i ts bein g dirty. She destroyed her hat in consequen ce.S he would also pick up penn ies if she could get them and hide them . I haddifficulty in getting her to take her food , and I had to feed her . She was alwaysexcited after seein g strangers . She told m e that she had discovered a plotagain st her , and that she had don e so in a m iraculous m ann er. Lady Mordaun tl eft Worthing two days after I left her , and wen t to Brom ley. I have seen heronce there . She was then stronger and stouter . She threw herself about ther oom , and ate coals and cinders .

In cross-exam ination by Mr . Serjean t Ballan tine,The witness said : Dur in g the tim e I was with Lady Mordaun t her mother

v isited her twice . It was Lady Mordaunt’

s wish that I should attend her .

D r . Tuke, exam in ed by Mr . Archibald O n the 4th May I accom pan ied D r .

Priestley to Walton Hall. I have heard the exam ination of that gen tlem an . Im ade an exam in ation of Lady Mordaun t . I had seen Lady Mordaunt before. andi t was from the two visits I form ed m y certificate. I had no doubt that LadyMordaun t was snfier ing from a species of insani ty and catalepsy.

Cross-exam ined My Opin ion i s that from the confinem ent up to the tim e I sawh er she was suffering from in san ity. I inquired what the cir cum stances of herconfin em en t were. I heard the whole of the statem euts she had m ade. I wen tfully in to her history. I n ever heard that she had m ade any statem en t to LadyMoncreiflz

'

e. I n ever had any comm un ication with Lady Louisa . The statem en tsshe m ade I thought were delusions . If Lady Mordaun t had acted in that waywith on e person , it seem ed .to m e incredible that she could have done sowith half

.a dozen within so short a period of her confin em en t. I had eviden ce of severa ldelusion s , and thinkin g the lady in san e, I thought it better to om it that particulardelusion , because it involved third person s . She had delusion s about dead bodies .

I asked her ,“ H ad you not som e al arm about dead bodies being in the room here ?

a nd she asked whether there were not dead bodies there. An other delusion wasthat she had been poisoned and when I asked her about it, she said she had been

poisoned by laudanum . I was first told about this by Mrs . F orbes . The delusionabout the poi son existed when I last saw her . The delusion with referen ce to thedead bodiesh ad gon e on the 6th of May.

D r .Wood exam in ed byMr . Searle I exam ined LadyMordaunt, and found thatshe was of un sound m ind. I saw her again on the 3rd of July last, when she wasa t Wor thing, and I was of the sam e opin ion then . The bodily symptom s werestronger m arked than on the form er occasion . S he had a vacant look, cold, dam ph ands , and feeble pulse, a white tongue, and the gen eral atm osphere about herwas exceedingly character istic of in san ity. She always had fixed attitudes .

I could not get a single rational an swer out of her , although I tried to conversewith her , and asked her m any questions . She attempted to speak, but appearedto lose the thread, and ended in a silly laugh . I saw several scraps of her writing,but I n ever actually saw her wr ite. I last saw her at Worthing.

Cross-exam ined : My exper ience is that there is a peculiar atm osphere aboutl un atics—a peculiar odour .

Mr. Ser jean t Ballan tine Y ou n ever acted upon it, I hope ?Witn ess N 0 , n ever (a laugh).By his Lordship In ordinary cas es the species of in san ity com es shortly after

confinem ent.H i s Lordship I s it a fact that wom en suffering fr om this peculiar insan ity do

a ccuse them selves ?Witn ess I have no experience in the matter .

D r . Gull deposed : In May I was called in to see Lady Mordaun t, and I sawher on the 18th and 24th May. I wen t again toWorthing in the beginn ing of

Jun e, and a third tim e in July. I have subsequently seen her on several occasion s, and I do not think she h as any m en tal com prehen sion at all in the ordi narysen se. I questioned her in every way . She rarely used m ore than two wordscon secutively . I rem em ber on one occasion questionin g her as to her unfortunateposition , and asked her what could be don e, and she replied that a dose of castoroil would put it al l right. I saw no delusion , but there was a general absen ce ofm ind. I exam ined her on m ore than one occasion as to her physical state, andI found she had feeble pulse and clam my hands . I have question ed her , and

instead of. answer in g she would burst out in a m ean ingless laugh . I think she i s

.now incapable of m ind. I saw her last about three weeks sin ce . I have heardhe evidence of one of her attendan ts, the nurse .

6

Cross-exam in ed Som etim es she would sit whilst I was talking to her ; som etimes jum p up, and som etim es si t down upon the floor . I shoul d not think she

could draw a cheque properly.

Three cheques drawn by Lady Mordaunt were produced, and the witness sai dthat they appeared to be properly drawn .

Mr . Ser j ean t Ballan tin e I ask you whether they are n ot rather incon sisten twith the state of m ind in which she appeared ; in fact, whether theywere notconsistent with sham .

Witn ess I was called on to ascertain whether there was any shamming, andmy m ind was specially drawn to the m atter .

By hi s Lordship The greatest proof that she was not shamm ing was the rem arkable un iform ity of her m in d. I felt her pulse m ost accurately, and then putthe m ost searchin g questions, which I ought not, perhaps, to have put, but therewas not the slightest n ervous action . I spoke of her child, of her husband, and ofher

’

posi tion before the world but I m ight as well have spoken to a piece of wood,for it had no effect upon her whatever .

The fir st day’

s proceedings closed, and an in tim ation was given that, althoughD r . F orbes Winslow and D r . Tyler Sm ith had exam in ed Lady Mordaun t onbehalf of her husband, and visited her upon several occasions, they would n ot

be called upon to give eviden ce, bein g probably reserved to give eviden ce whenthe case becom es a questi on of divorce.

SECOND D AY .

A s on the previous day, the body of the court was exceedi ngly crowded, andhe visitors in the gallery wer e very num erous .

Mr . Serjean t Ballan tin e, on the sitting of the Cour t, applied that the evidenceof Mr . Hayn es, a witness for the petition er , m ight be forthwith taken by com

m ission . He was ih London at the Brun swick Hotel,Han over -squar e, but was

so il l as to render it im probable that he could atten d for exam in ation in Cour t.It was arranged that the eviden ce of Mr . Hayn es should be taken before a com

m ission at half-past four o’

clock .

The forthcom ing witn esses were then called and exam in ed on behalf of ther esponden t.Mr . Harr is : I am a surgeon practising at Worthing . O n the 22nd of May,

however , I was called in to attend Lady Mordaun t. I con tinued to atten d herwhile she was at Worthin g, about twice a week. I was in Court yesterday, andagree with the other m edical witn esses as to the state of her m ind .

Cross-exam in ed : There i s no doubt that her disease i s puerperal in san ity,comm encin g shortly after the bir th of her child . I don ’t think the disease canbe m istaken . It com es on wi th perfectly recogn ised signs . The patien ts suffer ingunder it are frequen tly delir ious and violent. I kn ow n othing about Lady Mordaun t ’s delusion s. If I heard statem en ts by a wom an in a course zof puerperalm ani a, I should attach very little im portan ce to them . After the birth of the childthe first indication s of the disease would be a hot and pain ful head

, and m uttering

” delir ium . I n ever knew a case in which there were not these sym ptom s .

There would also be a feverish pulse, and the patient woul d

‘

go on in that stateor days .

R e-examin ed : The symptom s vary m uch in differen t cases , bu t not the un iversaor perm an ent sym ptom s . I n ever m et with a case of what i s called hysterica lcatalepsy.

D r . Wm . Wood O n the 5th of ‘August I was n am ed referee by the Court, withD rs . Gull and Reyn olds , and have seen Lady Mordaun t five tim es .

D r . Deane proposed to put the witn ess’

s r eport in evidence, D r . Wood havi ngbeen appoin ted by the Court ; but hi s Lordship explain ed that he had sim plyn am ed him , having heard him give eviden ce in other cases, and kn owin g him to ,

be a m ost com petent person , and Mr . Serj ean t Ballan tin e objected to the reportbeing put in .

Exam in ation resum ed : The first visit was on the 18th of Septem b er, at Page

Heath , near Brom ley, with Mr . Hughes. She cam e down dressed as i f for a walk.

I had never seen her before . O n Mr . Hughes in troducin g m e, she said, som ewhatsharply,

“ I am very well ,”as if there was no occasion for m y v isit. I asked how

long she had been there, and she at last said,

“ I don ‘t know exactly.

” O n pressingher, I coul d not get any intelligen t an swer . I felt her pulse, and found it veryweak, suggestive of a feeble circulation . H er hand was cold and clammy ; also

7

her feet. I got replies with difficulty as to her health. I asked her to sing a song,and

.

I selected a song from a ile of m usic. She played imperfectly, but after correcti ng her m istakes, start fairly with her

‘

song, which was“ Strangers yet."

It was m ani festly applicable to her position , and, after singing the fir st ver ses, sheburst in to tear s . I pressed her to continue, and she did so, though her tears werefalling so. She broke down again . O n my asking what distr essed her , she said,Oh, i t

’s al l n onsense, h sterical. She began a ain, but her feelings quite over

cam e her . I . pressed or again , however , an she conti nued . She obeyedunhesitati ngly anythi ng I told her to do, however unmeaning.I proposed to her to give m e a cheque, having arranged that a cheque-book

should be brought in . O n my suggesti on , she asked the butler to brin g i t, and itwas put before her. She filled on e up in the usual way, drawing it on hersel f, theam oun t (3ol .) being suggested to her . I suggested that it requir ed endorsing, butshe only added two letters, and on my tel lin g her this was insufii cien t she inser tedher in itials . 1 had to tell her how to en dorse it, and she did so.

Cross-exam i ned : The witness said he thought Lady Mordaun t could not have"spon tan eously drawn cheques corr ectly. He should think it im probable for her tod raw cheques without bein g roused, but if she had don e so that would not shakehi s opin ion . She “ revoked” at whist in a way no san e person would have done.He had him self sometim es revoked. (Mr . Serj eant Ballantin e rem arked, am idlaughter , that he hoped this was not an indication of insan ity.) I did not take anysingle cir cum stance as proof of in san ity. H er bursting into tear s at the song was,as far as it went, an indi cation of san ity, and, ther efore, in consisten t with thetheory of shammin g. It was her docili ty in the matter which was mostr em arkable.S ir Thom as Moncreifie : I am the father of Lady Mordaun t. O n the loth of May

I saw her alon e at Walton . I found her in the lun cheon -room . I stayed all n ight,and left the next afternoon . I was with her most of the tim e. I have oftenattem pted to converse with her without succeeding som etim es she answeredquestion s briefly, sometimes not at al l , and som etimes did not seem to understandthem . She often seemed indifferen t to m y visits, and when I asked whether she

wished to see her m other or sisters , would som etim m reply in the affirm ative, atothers in the n egative, and at others seem ed indifierent. O n the i 5th of May Irem oved her . After staying a few days at Belgrave-square she was taken toWor thing

,and afterwards to Bickley. I frequently vi sited her . At tim es she

showed gleam s of understanding, but usually appeared imbecile. O n the 9th ofFebruary she appeared in the sam e m ental state, but her bodily health has

im proved . D r . Gull recommended Worthing as a quiet place, and said her m indrequired rest.Cross-exam in ed Lady Louisa Moncreiife went to Walton the second day after

h er daughter ’s confinemen t, and after leavin g went again . I heard from LadyLouisa and _Mrs. Forbes of statemen ts made by Lady Mordaun t ; also partiallyfr om S ir Char les I heard that Lady Mordaun t had told her m other that the child

‘was not S ir Charles ’. She also said it was not hers indeed, she m ade a l l kin ds ofstatem en ts. I think she told me Lady Mordaun t had told her the child was not

her husband's,and that she had men tioned a gen tlem an as the father . The witn ess

was here question ed respecting a letter written by Lady Mordaunt on the 9th ofOctober , 1869, to her mother , and the production of which had been called for bythe other side. It was accordingly produced and read, being as follows

Optober 3.

My dear Mother,—I am at last able towri te a line, to tell you that I am at li berty towr ite toyou,and say I am qui tewel l. Bird has taken a journey hom e to-day ; has become very cockey of late.I hOpe Bunchey was not any theworse for her vi si t. She seem ed in good spirits, but did not divu lgemuch home news . I should be much surprised at a frost if i t came. G ood bye—Y ours affecti onately,

H . MO R D AU N L .

"

Bunchey m ean s my daughter Blan che, and Bir d is S ir C. Mordaun t’s butler .

Blan che had been on a vis it to her si ster for a month. Lady Louisa is in

town . Mrs. Forbes was confin ed about three weeks ago, and cann ot yet leave the‘h ouse.This closed the case on the part of L ady Mordaunt

’s guardians.

Mr . Serjeant Ballan tin e then opened the case on the ocher side. After remarki ngon the gravity and novelty of the case, and on the compassion whi ch could not butbe felt for a lady, whether culpable or inn ocen t, of whom such harrowin g detailshad been told, he remarked that, on the other hand, there were heavy interestsat. stake. S ir C. Mordaunt was a m an

l

of hon ourable nam e, belonged to an honour.able fami ly, had represented his county in Parliam en t, andwas looked up to with

8

r espect by all acquain ted with h im ; and this in quiry was an attem pt, by precl udi ngan investigation , to em bitt er his whole life, by bin ding him to a wom an .

whom he believed to be un faithful, and requir ing h im to recognis e a child whichhe believed not to be his own . Proceeding to open hi s own case , the learned coun selstated that S ir C. Mordaun t was 32 or 33 years of age, Lady Mordaun t at thetim e of the marri age bein g 19 or 20, and possessing great person al attractions .

H er parents qui te approved the match , the settlem en t was a very liberal one, andun til these unhappy occurr ences burst upon him , S ir Charles believed h is wife

’

s

vi rtue to be un spotted. Hysteria not un commonly afli icted her, and she had two

m iscarriages. In June, 1868, S ir Charles resolved to spen d a fewweeks in Norway,fishin g, and was anxious for his wife to accompany him , but she refusedto do so. The keystone of the inquiry would be the statem ents m ade by LadyMordaun t to the nurse who attended her dur in g her confin emen t, to

her husband, to the wife of the rector , to her m other , and other person sAt one or two in terviews with her husband, Lady Mordaunt had m ade statem entswhich he at fir st looked upon as the effect of some str an ge delusion , and which he,ther efore, disregarded, un til , by repeti tion and the apparent confirmation of

circum stances, the belief was at length forced upon hi m in al l its crushing weight.When he entered the room ,

she burst in to tears, and said,“ Charli e, I have been

very wicked ; I have done very wr ong.

” He asked her who with ? She replied, .“With A

,and B , and C, and with others, and in open day.

” Taking in to cous ideration what she said on other occasion s, there was a m aterial dis tin ction to beobserved between the first three and the fourth person m ention ed. The wordswere,

“ I have been very wicked, and don e very wrfi i'

g.

” These words don e verywron g might im ply great im propr iety without actual crim inali ty . He woul dshow that they were erfectly true as regarded her conduct with that gentlem an .

The next person to W cm he proposed to call atten tion had been m ade a party tothe suit—he m ean t Lord Cole. It would be sufi cient to say that either in that ora subsequen t conversation she im puted to Lord Cole the patern ity of the child,and he would show that they were togeth er under circum stan ces which gave them .

abun dant opportun ity for comm ittin g adultery. Lord Cole would be shown to

have stayed in the same house with her un til the very day her husband wasexpected to return , and then to have left. An other piece of very extraordinaryeviden ce was in the handwr itin g of the youn g lady. In her diary of 1869was an

entry as follows 3d April—280 days from the 27th June.

” That was exactlythe day on which Lord Cole had last seen her , and it would be proved that he wason that occasi on alon e with her un ti l one o‘clock in the m orn ing, and S ir Charles.did not return until the 15th of July. With regard to S ir Frederick Johnstone,there was no doubt that she was with him in Novem ber , and under cir cumstanceswhich tended to confirm the truth of her statement.The following eviden ce was cal ledElizabeth Hancox : O n the n ight of the 27th of F ebruary I was sen t for to

attend Lady Mordaunt as nurse . She was confined on the followin g afternoon . Itook charge of the baby. T he child was very small, and weighed scarcely 3 lb s.I shoul d say itwas nearer an eight than a seven mon ths’ child . I sat upwith her .

Before she wen t to sleep she said,‘f I wan t to ask one questi on—Is the chi ld

diseas ed 7” I said, “My lady, you m ust m ean deform ed.” She said, No, you

kn ow what I m ean . I s it born with the complain t 7” I said, “ No, I don

’t seeanything the m atter with it, except that it is very tiny.

” She went to sleep .

There wa s no excitemen t about her . She was very com fortable during the day.

At n ight she spoke again to m e. She said,“ Now, are you sur e there i s no di sease ?

Did Mr s. Cadogan or Mrs . Caborn see anythi ng of it ? I sai d there was n othin gm ore to see than in a comm on birth . Mrs. Cadogan i s the vicar ’swife. Mrs.

Cabornwas the housekeeper . I said, It looks n early an eight mon ths

’chi ld, although

you told me it was seven m on ths .” H ow do you know 7

"she said . I gave her

m y reasons. I slept in her room that n ight. She wen t to sleep, andwas verycomfortable—not at al l excited. Mrs . F orbes, her sister, came on the Monday.

O n the Tuesday even ing Lady Mordaun t talked a good deal on the sam e subject.I begged her to be quiet, tellin g her it would make her il l . She said,

“ If you don ’tlet m e talk, I shall go m ad. I have somethi ng I mus t say, and I will tell it youto-n ight.” I asked her if I should fetch S ir Charles, and let her tell him .

She said,“ Not to-n ight. I will tell him another tim e. She then said

“ This child is not S ir Charles’s at al l, but Lord Cole

’

s .” I said

,“ For good.

n ess ’ sake, be quiet, and say no more . She said, It took place the lastweek

.

in Jun e. When Sir Charles was in Korwa Lord Cole visitedme, i n the very last week in

“

June.” I said,“ It i s ahnost an impossibility

9

for you to say it was the last week in Jun e. She said, I do knowit is Lord Cole's." She was then quiet for the night. O n Friday, the sth , she

"spoke to m e Lady Louisa.was there then , and rem ain ed till Saturday. The baby’s

eyes began to be bad on Wednesday. Lady Louisa said she was afraid the chil dwould be blind. Lad

'

y Mordaun t said she should l ike to have the chil d bapti zed .

She said to m e on the F riday,“ I know S ir Frederick Johnston e is a fearfully

diseased m an .

” She first m entioned hi s n ame in referen ce to the disease. Shea sked why I did not tell her the child was likely to be blind. I said I thought i tcould be cured . She said to m e,

“ F rom the chi ld’s eyes being bad I m ust dosom ething.

” Lady Louisa was not present. Mr . Solomon , the oculist, cam e andexamin ed the child. Mr . Orford was also presen t. O n the Saturday after LadyL ouisa left, I sen t for S ir Charles, and he cam e to her bedr oom . I left them together . After he had left I again wen t up to her room . I asked whether she hadt old S ir Charles, She said that she could not .tell him that she had tr ied to do so,but the words seem ed as though they would choke her . She pretended to nursethe child before S ir Charles, but not at other tim es . She did not really nurse it .She asked m e to let noone see the child, as it was not fit to be seen . She said, I

am sorry I have brought such a poor,miserable, little, horr id thing in to the

h ouse.” There was no wet nurse for the first few days . O n the even ing ofSun day, S i r Charles went up to see her , and I left the room . When I

r eturn ed she was excited. She said , “ I have not been able to say m uch ,but the tim e is com e when he m ust kn ow, and I m ust and will tell him . O n

Monday, the 8th, she was rather poorly. Towards seven o‘clock she got excited,

and asked m e to fetch S ir Charles upstairs . He cam e up. O n the Tuesday even ingI was in the room with her and S ir Charles . She took hold of my hand and sai d,Charl ie, this child is not your s at al l . I have been wicked, and done very wron g

with m ore than one person .

”I sl ipped m y hand out of hers, and left the room .

S he told him in my presen ce that it was Lord Cole’s child . He said,

“ Nonsense,n on sense. After S ir Charles left she told m e what she had told S ir Charles. O n

the m orni ng of Saturday, the 13th, S ir Charles was with her . They were togethers om e tim e . O n leaving the room , S ir Charles said to m e,

“ Why, nurs e, her ladyship tells m e just the sam e as before. What am I to believe ?” When I wen t intoher room she said,

“ I m ade him understand at last. I said,“ Suppose he m akes

in quir ies 7" She said,

“Why there will be an awful row.

"I said,

“ Whatever youdo, speak to him again don 't let him go fur ther if you can stop him .

” She said,I s hal l hum ble myself to no m an .

”O n the F riday even ing I suggested to her

that I should ask Lady Louisa. to stay a few days longer if she was going to bei ll . I said, May I give her a hin t to stay a few days longer She said, Nol et her go, by al l m ean s I am better without her. I said,

“What do you in tendto do 7” She said,

“ I have not made up m y m ind just yet .

" At two o’

clock”

in

the m orn ing she awoke, and she said,“ I can see it al l quite plain now ; I have

quite made up m y m ind as to what I shal l do . I am going to be poorly, or som ething else. S ir Char les and my father wil l m ake it al l right, and I shall goa broad as soon as I can get away. She cried som etM es when she looked at theb aby

’s eyes .

”

Cross-exam ined She always appeared excited before S ir C har les. I n ever sawher before I was called in to attend her . She spoke freely to m e at in tervals duringthe day on the l st , 2nd, and 3rd of March . I am qui te sur e she m ade use of the ex

pression , the com plain t." The witn ess was then cross-examin ed as to Lady Mor

daunt’s bodily condition after the confinem en t, but her recollection was uncertain .

S he said that her ladyship had on ly attem pted to suckle the child when S ir Charlesand Mr. Orford were presen t and

, on being caution ed by the Court to be carefu li n her an swers, she at last asserted that her ladyship n ever suckled the child .

She used to tell m e to bring the child in to the room five m inutes before S ir

C harles cam e, and to ask m e to say she had been nursing it. When I brought it,s he put her hand to her eyes, and said,

“ Horr id little thing ; I can’

t bear it totouch m e.

” O n the 1st of March she again used the word com plain t .” I am

qui te sure the twowords com plain t and disease,”were used at the sam e timfi

NVhen I m ade my affidavit I did not m en tion the word com plaint.O n the 7th she asked m e . to give the child laudanum before Solom ons saw it.

I rem oved the laudanum , and locked it up, as I was afraid she m ight take it .After the interview on the

‘

13th, S ir Charles said to m e, I find her"much betterth is m orn in g—she is quite herself, still she says the sam e things to m e.

"O n the

s am e day she wished to take a cold bath . She said, I will do anything ratherthan be exposed to the world—a cold bath

, or anything. She was rather

excited, because S ir Charles had then realized what she had said. She begged

1 0

me to ive her laudanum m ore than once. Mrs . Cabor n was a good dealwith he"?She hags said to S ir Char les, Char lie, you are not the father of the chi ld ;

.

1t i s .

Lord Cole‘s , and I am the cause of its bl in dn ess”

.

I told pr . Wood that attimfis

she appeared not to be herself. I dare say I told him I beli eved shewould ki ll t 8

child.R e-examined Lady Louisa had said to LadyMordaun t that i twould most li kelycome to a divorce.To the Court When she had the con versation with m e whi ch I have

_

stated,.

at

two in the morn ing, I understood her to m ean that she hoped to make i t upW i thS ir Charles. She hoped S ir Charles would forgive her i f she was poorly, that hewould “ take it better ” if she was ill . H er m ean ing , I thought , was to pretendto be worse than she reallywas, in order to soften h is heart. Therewas

no appear "

an ce of putting on un til the hysteria .

Lord Penzance : But‘

that was not in S ir Charles’ presen ce.

The Witness‘

Perhaps you don't un derstand m e.

Lord Penzance I do not.The Witness I understood her to m ean that by bein g hyster l ca-l , and pretending

to be ill , Sir Charles’ heart m ight be softened towards her . I thought she did

O

not

in tend to m ake him di sbeli eve her statem en ts , but to in duce h im to take a leni entvi ew of her offen ce.The Cour t adjourn ed at the close of this wi tn ess

’s eviden ce.

T H IRD DAY.

The public in terest in these unhappy disclosur es appeared to incr ease as theevidence wen t on

, and the cour t was m ore crowded than on the previ ous days .

S ir Charles Mordaunt I am the petition er and husban d of Lady Mordaun t. Ihad known her a considerable tim e before the m arr iage, which was celebrated onthe 6th of December , 1866, at Perth, with the con sent of both fam i li es . I m ade aliberal settlem ent on her. I had previously gon e eight tim es to Norway for fishi ng, .as Lady Mordaun t knew. I believed m y happin ess to be perfect up to the veryhour when it was ruined. I n ever den ied her anythin g in reason , and con sultedher wishes in every way, especially as to the visits of friends and relati ons . I hadheard her speak of Captain F arquhar , Lord Cole , and S ir F . Johnstone as fr iendsof her own and of her fam ily. I received them after m arriage i ntomyown cir cle.I had a slight acquain tance with Lord Cole and S ir F . Johnstone. S i r F . Johnstone, at the suggestion of Lady Mordaun t , was invited to lValton . I was alsoaware that the Prin ce of Wales

'

had an acquain tan cewith m y wife . I had spokento his Royal Highness, but was n ever in tim ate with him . I was aware that

_

he

was on visiting term s with her fam ily. He n ever cam e tom y house at mym vi tation . I warned my W ife again st con tin uing the acquain tan ce W i th 1113 RoyalHighn es s for reasons which govern ed m y own m i nd. I told her I had heard i n

various quarters certain cir cum stances conn ected with the Prin ce‘

s characterwhi ch caused m e to m ake that rem ark. I di d not en ter in to particulars . At thattim e I had seen the Prin ce on ce a t m y house. I was M.P . for SouthWarwickshirefor n ine years and until the last dissoluti on , in 1868 . I was not aware ti ll aftermy wife

’

s confin em en t that the Prin ce had been a constan t visitor at m y house,nor that any correspondence existed between them . I n ever kn ew at that time ofany correspondence in dicatin gMr. Serjeant Ballan tin e That i s not answering m y question . Were you awarebefore the confinem ent that any corrrespondence had passed between them ?Witness I was not aware before her confin em en t of any corresponden ce whatever between Lady Mordaun t and the Prince.Mr . Serj ean t Ballantine Supposin g the Pri n ce of Wales had visited your wifeduring your absen ce in Parliam en t and elsewhere, you were not aware of the fact ?Witness No. I knewfrom no source at that tim e of the frequent visits he paid .

O n the 8th of Novem ber , 1867 , Lady Mordaun t wen t to Lond on with her maid,Jessie Clarke. I wished to accompany her, but she said she was going to shop,and I should be rather in her way than otherwise. While she was in London Ireceived a letter from her . (The letter , which was read, was as follows)

“ Palace Hotel, Birm ingham-gate, F riday, N ow 8

“My darling C harlie,~—0nol ine in great haste to say that I shal l not be able to leave here by the12 o

'clock train to-m orrow, but will com e by the one that leaves Paddington at if youwi ll send

the brougham tom eet m e. I felt horridly dull al l by myself yesterday even ing, but have not had somuch t ime as yet to-day, as I have had such lots todo. I have seen Pr iestley, andwill tell you abouti t when I come home—Ever yours affectionately, H xnm ar r MOR DAU N T.

"

1 1

At that time Captain Farquhar had paid m e several visits. I had no notion tillafterwards that she m et the captain while in London . She never said a word tome about it. She returned the day after the letter was written . O n the 1sth ofJun e, 1858 , I left London for Norway. I was anxious for her to accom pany me.I went in a chartered steamboat, and she would have had every accommodation .

She seem ed indi sposed to go, and Sir T. Moncreifie objected to our going, butultimately consen ted to my going. I arran ged with her that she should go downto Walton within a. week after I left. H er relatives wer e then in London . Ir eturn ed on the 15th of July. I heard three tim es from her dur ing my absence,and wrote to her . I first learnt that she was in the fam ily-way in the first weekof August. That excited no suspici on in m y m ind.

’

We returned to Walton inthe beginning of September . The Novem ber following S ir F . John ston e visitedm e. Previously to that my wife asked m e why a m an in his position had not yetmarri ed . My an swer was I had heard there was a reason . She pressed me to tellher the reason . I showed great reluctan ce to do so, but I -ultim ately told her Ihad heard he had a d isease, which he had frequently had, and that if he marr iedit was possible such a disease m ight be conveyed to h is children . O n severaloccasions I asked what caused her to be distressed. She m ade a similarstatement, without en tering in to particulars. O n the 8th , the nurse sen t for mea gain . I waited for my wife to begin the conver sation . She appear ed di str essed,b ut com posed. She said, 1

‘Charlie, you are not the father of that chil d ; LordCele is the fath er of it, and I am the cause of its blindness . She was silent aq uarter of an hour , and then burst in to tears, and said,

“ Char lie , I have beenvery wicked ; I have done very wrong .

” I said,“Who with ? She said,

“ With Lord Cole, S ir F . Johnstone, the Prince of Wales, and others, often , and inopen day.

” Therewas nothing to indicate insan ity she spoke as though sufferin gfrom remorse. I m ade no reply, being m uch distressed . I cann ot say I thoroughlybehaved, even then , butmy suspicions were ar oused.

Cross-exam in ed : I did not go to Norway in the summ er of 1867 . We spen t iti n Switzerland ; partly on account of Lady Mordaun t

'

s health, and by the adviceof D r . Priestley. F rom the m arriage down to Novem ber , 1869, she oftenconsulted him . I had heard it was for ulceration of the wom b. S ir Thom as didnot object to m y going to Norway on account of her health , but becausehe thought the accomm odation would not be good. Heultim ately consented tomygoingwithout her . I understood mywife wen t back to Walton ten days after I left.I believe her sister F rances and Miss Scott, an in timate frien d of hers, stayedwith her . Lord Cole, I understood fr om my wife, was condi tionally en gaged toMiss Fran ces Moncreiife, but that hi s father would not consen t. There was greatin timacy between Lord Cole and hi s wife

’s fam i ly. The Pr in ce of Wales cam e to

my house in London in the summ er of 1868 , three weeks before I started toNorway. I had return ed from shootin g, and was lying down when Bird came andtold me the Prince was in the house, and I wen t down and saw h im . It was afterthat I told m y wife not to receive visits from him . I also found in the deskletters from Lord Newport, Mr . George F orbes, and a few others . H er bodilyhealth was satisfactory, but D r . Jones was not called in on accoun t of the state ofher mind . I understood she was hyster ical at times . I rem arked on her silen ceto D r. Jones, and he said that was a state best described as m en tal or hystericalcatalepsy .

The witn ess then adm itted several letters, of whi ch the foll owin g are the mostimportant.

Walton Hal l, Warwick, Wednesday.

My dear Lady Louisa—Harriett had a very good n ight, having slept for eigh t hours ; but she

stil l has those nervous a ttacks , duringwhich her m ind wander s very m uch . A ltogeth er she is m uchbetter than yesterday. and O riord thinks her strong enough toget up but at present i t is difficult toget her to understand what i s said toher , and she appears tohave forgotten about the baby. P erha

that is as well , as the poor li ttle thing, though sti ll alive, is near ly blind ; and should that be t 0case, we cannot, of course, Wish that it should live in such m isery.

I am writing toHelen.

"

Walton , Fr iday.

My dear L ady Lonisa,—My dar ling Harriett remains much the Same. She hm taken more food,sleeps verywell. but remains quite sti ll, wi thout ever speaking, andwi thout un derstanding anything.S he is out of bed and in the si tting-room , and we have done al l that is possi ble to rouse Her from thi sapathetic state. T he doctors say it is enti rely hysterical, and not in the least dangerous , but verydistressing to see. T he baby gets better and worse alternately, and I am afraid the improvem entwhich took pl ace is not decided. A wet-nur se is regularly with it. Ever yours affectionately

C . Monm ux'r .

1 2

Walton Hall, Warwick, F riday.

My dear Helen—‘Harriett remains i n just the sam e state. T he doctors sti ll say that it ishysteri cal. and that there is nodanger , although it is m ore dmtreesmg to her , poor darling, day afterday. T hey call it cataleptic hysteria. S he eats and

_

sleeps well, but never speaks, and understands

nothing. S he has been m oved to-day into the si tt ing-

room . D r. Jones says that if it would beposs ible for you tocome it might have the effect of reston ng her, as she has not seen you qui te late ly,but we whohave been soregularlywith her she scarcely knows, and cannot understand a word wesay. I hardly like to ask you to com e, as it is so inconven ient for you to travel all theway again so

soon , but it woul d be a great bless ing to m y poor dar ling. If C har leywould not like you to com e

without him ,I should, of course, be deli ghted to see him . Ever your affectionate brother ,

M ai . L“ C . MOR DAU N T.

”

The witness was cross-exam ined as to the m eaning of the statem ents con tain edin these letters as to hi s wife ’s condition . He said I wrote them under theimpression that my wife

,had som e guilt on her m ind . I believed that her state

m ents wer e not true, and I clun g to that belief as long as I could, in the hopethat the ruin which threatened m y hom e m ight be averted.R e-exam in ati on con tin ued : The com m uni cati on s she had made caused m e tofeel very unhappy, and I did not en ter into full particulars on the subject withthe doctors. I told D r . Orford that I was afraid, on accoun t of LadyMordaunt

’

s

long silence at twee, and owin g to her havin g said these things, that there m us tbe something on her mind which was giving her great distr ess, and I fear ed thatit m ight cause her health to becom e worse . I m erely said she had m ade statem en ts which had caused m e great un easin ess . I treated them to the doctors asstatemen ts which I utterly disbelieved . They were called in upon that informain

'

on,and attended her upon that assum ption .

The court then adjourn ed.

F OU RTH DAY.

S ir C . Mordaunt was recalled, and, in reply to questions, said I m ention ed then am e of Captain F arquhar, am ong others, to m y wife in relation to the questionwhether or not there was any guilt between them . She gave no answer

,even

when I repeated the question , but appeared so con scien ce-str icken that I drew m yown con clusion . She m en tion ed in her fir st adm ission on ly the names of thePr ince of Wales, Lord Cole, and S ir F . John stone.

Jessie Clarke was then called, and deposed : I was lady's maid to Lady Mor

daunt from her marriage till she left Walton . In the autumn of 1867 CaptainF arquhar cam e on a visit, and stayed about a week. He and Lady Mordaun twere very much together , and the day befor e he left I n oticed som ethin g suspicious on her day lin en on two subsequen t visits of Captain Farquhar I n oticedthe sam e m arks, which were not observable at any other tim e. In arran ging hertoilet table I found a letter , not in an envelope, under a pin cushion .

I read it.(Noti ce to produce the letter was her e pr oved, D r . Dean e statin g that he kn ewn othing of it) . I replaced it, and a few days afterwards showed it to the butlerthen puttin g it back again . I afterwards saw her ladyship take it and put it inn;the fire. It was dated from “ The Tower , Saturday,

”and said Dar lin g

, I arrived .

here this morn ing about a quar ter to n in e, very tired and sleepy as you m aysuppose.” It added that he had seen hi s n am e in serted in the P ost as Farm erin stead of Farquhar , and said, So i t ’s al l r ight

,dar ling

, as I was afraid Charliewould be suspicious if he saw my n am e in the arr ivals at the hotel with y

ours .

”

The letter was signed “ Yours, Arthur .

” The P rin ce'

cam e about on ce a week.

In Mar ch, 1868, I attended Lady Mordaun t while on a visit to Lady Kinnoul inBelgrave-square, S ir Charles bein g then at Walton . The Prin ce came there on eSunday, for I met him leaving as I was com in g in . Lady Mordaunt showed me'a letter from the Prince before she was m arried, and I have deli vered letters toher in the sam e handwriting ; six or seven , perhaps, in 1868.

I also received twoor three letters from her addressed to - the Prince, which , I gave the footman '

(Johnson ) to post.Cross-exam ined I first spoke of Captain Farquha r in the autumn of 1867 tothe housekeeper and butler, and it was often a subject of conversation .

Im en

t ioned it to nobody else but Lady Louisa. un til Mr . Hayn es, S ir Charles’law er

questioned me, the third or fourth week in March, 1869. I told him al l theyar i

t icul ars I have now stated, and al so as to Lord Cole and the Pr in ce of Walesp

Henry Bird : I am butler to S ir C. Mordaun t, and have been in the service ofthe fam ily nearly 30 years . Lord Cole, Captain F arquh ar , and S ir F.

JOhnstonevisited Walton -hall. In the autumn of 1867 I accom pan ied S ir Char les and Lady

1 3

Mordaunt to Scotl and. Captain Farquhar was staying at the sam e place, and I

noticed that he and her ladyship were very often together . Lady Mordaunt wasmore frequently with him than with other people. A few days after we return edto Walton he cam e on a visit. He was often in her sittin g-room , generally alon ewith her . S ir Charles was fr equen tly out shootin g at the tim e. Jessie Clarkemade a comm unication to m e, and showed m e a letter . That was about ten daysafter Lady Mordaunt

’

s return from London . In Jannary,‘

1868, Captain Farquharvisited Walton , and stayed about a week. There were other vis itors, and therewas not so m uch opportun ity for him and Lady Mordaunt to be together . I on cefound them together in the bil liard-room , standing close together near thebilliard-table they seemed startled, and I apologized and left. I n 1867 and 1868the Pr ince of Wales called at S ir Charles ’s London house—in 1868 about once a

week, but one week twice. He cam e about 4 p.m ., and stayed from one to twoours.Cross-exam in ed I wen t with Lady Mordaunt to Bickley, and remained there

six weeks . She then appeared more absen t, and conversed less than before herconfinemen t. O ne n ight, between 10 and 11 , she cam e into m y bed-room. I wassitting ther e writing. S hewas in her n ight-dress . She was taken away. I askedthe n extmornin g whether she recollected it, and she said, Y es, it was a mistake .I shoul d say n o person in her right min d would do so, and I do not think she wasthen in her r ight m ind.R e-examined : I m ention ed the letter to

“

,Mr. Hayn es after wr iting to Clarke

upon it and getting an answer . I wished to copy the letter , but Clarke would not

let me . When Lady Mordaunt came in to my room I asked her the reason, andwhy she was not in bed. She only laughed, and the maid led her away. If heracts were don e without a motive I should judge her insane . I had now fully m adeupmy m ind before I left Bickley whether she was shamm ing or not . She didnothin g of the kind before leaving Walton .

The further hear ing of the case was then adj ourned.

The following letters wer e then put in , but not read until a later stage in the

Sandringham , King'

s L ynn , January 13, 1867.“My dear L ady Mordaunt,—I am quite shocked never to have answered your kin d letter, wri tten

some time ago, and for the very pretty muffetees, which are very useful th is cold weather. I had noidea where on had been stayi ng since your m arriage, but F rancis Knollys told m e that you are inWarwioksh re. I suppose you wi ll be up in London for the O pening of Parliam ent, when I hope Im ay perhaps have the pleasure of seeing you, and of m aking the acquaintance of S ir C harles . I wasin L ondon for only two n ights , and returned here S aturday. T he rails were so s lippery thatwethought we should never arrive here. There has been a heavy fa ll of snow here , and we are able touse our sledges, which is capital tum—Bel ieve m e, yours ever sincerely, A LBE R T EDWAR D."

Monday.

Myfiear L ady Mordaunt—I am sure you will be glad tohear that the Princess was safely delivered ofa little gir l this morn ing, and that both are doing very well. I hope you wi ll come to theO swald and S t. Jam es ’s Hall, this week. There would, I am sure, be no harm your remaining ti llS aturday in town . I shall like tosee you again—E ver yours most sincerely, AL BE R T EDWA RD .

"

Marlborough -house, May 7, 1967 .

My dear L ady Mordaunt,—Many thanks for your letter , and I am very sorry that I should havegiven you so much trouble looking for the ladies

’umbrel la for me at Paris . I am very glad to hear

that you enjoyed your stay there. I shall be going there qn F ri day nest,and. as the Pr incess is so

much better , shall h0pe to remain aweek there. If there 15 any comm i s sion I can do for you there,i t wi ll give me the greatestpleasure tocarry it out. I regret very much not to have been able tocall upon you since your return , and b Ope todo sowhen I come back from Paris, and have an oppor

tun ity of making the acquaintance of your husband—Believe me yours very sincerely,"A LBE R T EDWAR D.

Thursday.

My dear L ady Mordaunt,—I amsorry tofind by the letter that I received from you this morn ingthat you are unwell, and that 1 shall not be able topay you a visit to-day, towhich I had been looking forward with so much pleasure. T o-morrow and Saturday I shall be hunting in N ottinghamshire ; but if you are sti ll in toh n, may I come to see you about 5 on Sunday afternoon and hepingyouwill soon be yourself again, believeme, yours ever sincerely, A LBE R T EDWAR D.

”

S unday.

My dear L ady Mordaunt - I cannot tell you how distressed I am to hear from your letter thatyou have got the m ax im , and that I shall in consequence not have thepleasur e of seeing you. I havehad the m easles myself a long tim e ago, and I knowwhat a tiresom e complaint i t is. I trust youwi ll take great care of yourself, and have a good doctor with you. A bove all , I should not read at

all , as i t is very bad for the eyes , and I suppose you wi ll be forced to lay up a tim e. T heweatheris very favonrable for yaur i llness andwishing you a very speedy recovery, believe me, yours mostsincerely, A LBE R T EDWAR D.

"

1 4

Sunday.

My dear Lady Mordaunt,—Many thanks for your kind letter. I ain so glad to hear that you havemade sogood a recovery, and tobe able soon to go to Has tings, wh ich 18 sure to do you a great dealof good. I hope that perhaps on your return to London , I may have the pleasure of seei ngyo

u.

Believe m e, yours very sincerely,_

ALBE R T ED WAR D.

F IF T H DAY.

A s on previous days, the proceedin gs created great interest, and by half-pastnin e o’clock—one hour and a half befor e the court open ed—a large crowd had

gather ed roun d the doors. Several ladies and gen tlemen occupi ed s eats in the

gallery of the cour t, which was in conven ien tly crowded. Just before the Judgetook his seat, S ir Charles Mordaun t, Gen eral Arbuthn ot, the Rev. Mr. Cadogan ,and several m em bers of the aristocracy, took their seats in the gallery.The first witn ess called was Mrs . Charlotte Murray, whowas exam i n ed by Mr

Inderwick. She said I am the wife of Mr . Herbert Murray, and my husband 18a. relation of the Moncriefie fam ily. My husband i s also conn ected W i th theMordaun t fam ily. O n the 17th November Iwen t to Bickley to see LadyMordaunt,and stayed there till December 28 . Lady Mordaun t received m e very well . Ispen t the whole of the day with her, and I had conversation s with her . I wentwith her to the Crystal Palace on Decem ber z1st. I said to her , I h0pe you wi l lcom e to London in the winter, that I m ay be able to see m ore of you , you W i llbe so dull .” Lady Mordaun t repl ied ,

“ I hope I shall ; I do not wan t tobe dull." Witn ess further detailed a con versati on , but her replies to the

learned coun sel was quite inaudible. O ne part of the conversation was that LadyMordaun t said to her , What business had Char ley to go jabber ing about to otherladies l—do you call yourself a Indy 7" Witn ess replied,

“ I hope so,”an d th en h er

ladyship accused her of com ing ferretting about here,”and she (witn ess) repli ed ,

“ I do not com e ‘ferretting’about here.” She said toLady Mordaun t, H ow cam e

you to do such a foolish thing ? Surelyyou could not have cared for all those m en 2”

Lady Mordaunt m ade no reply.

Cross-exam ined by D r . Dean e While at the Crystal Palace Lady Mordaun tbehaved rationally, except that she sat on a weighin g chair . She (LadyMordaun t)afterwards sat down on the groun d in the garden , and she remonstrated wi th her ,and she arose when Bird (the butler) told her to get up. This was on the 21513ofOctober . F rom the 17th of September to the 28th I do not think Lady Mordauntwas insan e. I think she m ight have been shamm ing” to a certain degree. H erm ind was not fully capable as it would be if she had been in perfect heal th . Ithink she was shamming” to a certain degree on accoun t of those conversation sI had with her . H er acts were always sen sible

, but her m anner was not. LadyMordaun t som etim es m ade long pauses , and her laugh was som etim es pecul iar andhysterical. She would laugh very wildly.

Cross-exam in ed by D r . Dean e Y ou say you wen t to the Crystal Palace withLady Mordaun t did any one else go with you ?Witn ess Y es,her maid wen t.H ow lon g were you at the Crystal Palace with her —I should say about two orthree hours .

Did she behave rationally whilst you were there -Perfectly.Did you think from the 17th Septem ber down to the 28th, that Lady Mordaunt

was perfectly in her sen ses —I did not think she was insan e .Lord Pen zan ce Y ou are asked if you thin k Lady Mordaunt, from the l 7thSeptember to the 28th, was generally in her sen ses 7Witn ess I di d not think she was in san e.Lord Pen zance That is your an swer l—Y es .

Cross-exam ination con tinued Y ou thin k she was not shammin g ‘I—To a. certaindegree she m ight have been but I think her m in d was not so capable as m y own .

Lord Penzan ce You mean her m ind was not so ful ly capable as if she was in '

perfect health ?Witn ess : Y es .Cross-exam inati on con tinued Y ou have said you think she was shamm in g to a

cert

hai

l

r

l

i degree. Why do you think so l—O n accoun t of the conversation I hadwit er .

Did she do anythin g which led you to think she was shamm in g ‘

I—Nothing.

H er acts were as natural as my own .

If her acts and conversation were sen sible, what made you say she wasshamm ingl—H er m anner was not sen sible . H er m ann er was altered

, but heronversation was rational, and her a cts wer e always so.

1 5

Lord Penzan ce Do you cal l si tting down on the ground a sensible act ?Witness Y es, if you are tired .

Were there not other seats to be had —No, nothing except the weighing chair .

Was she m uch amused —She was not so m uch amused . She said it was not so

good as she had seen at the Alham bra the rope was too close tothe ground. Shewore a hat, and was much annoyed because she was the only lady with a hat on .

We afterwards went into the china and glass court .Mr . Frederick James Orford, was called andexamined byMr . S erj eantBallantine—You are in practi ce at Walton ?Witn ess I am in the vicin ity of Walton . I have been in practi ce 13 years .

And you have been in attendan ce on S ir Charles Mordaunt’s fam il y —Y es . Iknew Lady Mordaunt immediately after her m arriage.Did you ever attend her prev ious to her confin emen t - Y es . F or tri fling

m atters . I believe I attended her on ce for a m iscarr iage.Was she a person of hysterical tem peram en t i—She might be but I cann ot say.

I considered her so.

H ad she any sym ptoms of fever —Certainly not.No sym ptom s of any kind l—No . Certain ly not .H ad she any symptoms of m an ia —I should say certainly not . She did not

show any signs of delusipn .

Did she require any unusual quan tity of m edicine —Rather less than usual .What was the state of her pulse —I had no reason to pay par ticular atten tion

to it ; I cannot speak positively.

Were there any signs of fever , burn ing, or anythin g of the sort —Not to m y

knowledge.Were there any indications which are to be found in cases of fever —C er

tain ly not .

Lady Mordaunt’

s mother cam e shor tly after the confinemen t —Y es .

And r em ained how long —I can n ot say. I should think about a week .

When you left, was the daughter , as far as you could observe, in a satisfactorystate —Y es. A s regards confinem en t she was .

Cross -exam in ed by D r . D eane When did you last see Lady MordauntW 1tness O n Thursday.

In what state did you find her —In such a state that I consider her m in d gone .Lord Penzance Incurably so?Witness No, my lord.D r . Dean e : Have you seen her betweenjthe l oth of July and last Thursday ?Witness I have not. O n the loth July I saw her on three occasions, twice of

about five m inutes each , and on the third occasion the interview extended fromten m inutes to a quarter of an hour . D rs . Reyn olds, Burroughes , and Jones werether e.O n the loth Jul y was Lady Mordaun t in her sen s es —Perfectly.

Nothin g wron g with her m ind at all —No.‘

H ow lon g were you there altogether—I do not mean with Lady Mordaun t, butat Worthing7—About two hours .H ow cam e you to visit her last week —I went by Mr . Serjean t Ballan tin e

’

s

re uest .c

You stated you could not tell the age of the chi ld —I could not.A re there not in the profession generally received and scientific ideas as to theweight of a child —I believe there are.

According to your experience is it n ot so-I could form no idea from m y own

exper i ence.Did you tel l S ir Charles that her state was entir ely hysterical, andnot the least

dangerous —I did not.Did you not tell Si r Charles so on the 12th March —I did not.N ow, what is catalepti c hysteria —I should say it was a

_ form of hysteri aresem blin g catalepsy.

What is catalepsy —I t is a condition to which"the patien t is conscious , butunable to m ove or speak.

Would imm oderate laughing be a form of catal eptic hyster ia —N o.

Did Lady Mordaunt suffer un der cataleptic hysteria —She did not.Did you tell S ir Char les it was cataleptic hysteria —I did not .Did you ever m ention the term cataleptic hysteria to him —N ot in recording

my own opin ion but in reference to the opin ion of D r. Jones, with whi ch I didnot agree.Did you tell S ir C harles that you did not agree with D r . Jones —I di d.

1 6

N ow, as regards the child’s eyes, did they not get perfectly well —They di d.

In no very long tim e —I Con sidered it a long tim e.Wh at was the tim e i—Twen ty-four days.I suppose you arewell acquain ted with purulen t ophthalm i a —Y es .

H ow m any cases i—Two.

And you form ed your opini on in thi s in stan ce on the two precedin g cases and

your reading i—Y es .

N ow, you visited Lady Mordaun t up till the 18th March—did you di scon tinue

your vi sits then i No, not altogether ; but up to that tim e I vis i ted her dai ly.

(The details here given of m edical exam inati on are quite unfit for publicati on .)Mr . Robert Jones, exam in ed by Mr . S erj ean t Ballan tin e : I am a m em ber of the

Royal College of Surgeons . I have practised at Leam in gton forty years . I wascalled in to see Lady Mordaun t . I kn owwhat cataleptic hyster ia i s, and think iti s easily distinguishable. Lady Mordaun t was not snfiering from thi s when I sawher , which was on the l oth and l 1th of March . She was not sufiering from puerperal m an ia . I saw her again on the 26th March , and con sidered that she wasthen better than on the two form er days . I wen t in to the sick room , and foun dLady Mordaunt without the least sign of fever . I felt her pulse and skin , andthought she was getting on in a very satisfactory way . I question ed her , andfound she had taken no food. I desired som e beef-tea to be m ade and brought toher . I thought my visit altogether highly satisfactory . Therewas no appearanceeither of fever or puerperal m ani a .

Cross-exam ined by D r . Dean e I have n ever seen a deranged person exhibitsym ptom s such as those shown by her ladyship. H er state was quite incon sisten twith any m an ia I ever saw. She did al l sorts of strange things . H er ladyship,when I conversed, gave rational repl ies to m y question s . H er state on the 10th of

July, at Worthing, was in con sisten t with any form of m an ia con sider in g the an teceden t circum stances . She was suffering from cataleptic hysteria in March. WhenI first attended her I did not find her n ervous system prostrated . I con sidered m yvisit to her at Worthin g very unsatisfactory, so far as it en abled m e to ascertainthe state of her m ind.

It is understood that S ir F rederick John stone’s evidence was given in con se

quence of the following dem and on the part of hi s soli citorsH is Royal Highness the Prince ofWales then entered the court and wen t intothe witn ess-box . After he had been sworn

,

Lord Pen zance said : Before D r . Deane asks hi s Royal Highn ess any question s,it i s m y duty topoin t out to h is Royal Highness hi s position under the A ct ofParliam en t passed last Session . It provides that no witn ess in any proceedin g,whether a par ty to the suit or not, shall be liable to be asked, or be boun d toan swer , any question tending to show that he or she has been guilty of adultery.

N ow, from the course which the case has taken I think it r ight to poin t this out tohi s Royal Highn ess, and to tell him that he is not bound or required by law to subm i t to any in terrogation s on that subject.H i s Royal Highn ess was then exam in ed by D r . Dean e as followsI believe your Royal Highness has for som e time been acquain ted with the

Moncreiffe fam ily —I have .Were you acquain ted with Lady Mordaun t before her m arr iage —~I was .

O n her m arriage did your Royal Highn ess wr ite to her and m ake her som e wedding presen t —I did .

Previous to her m arriage had she visited atMar lborough House when your RoyalHighn ess and the Princess of Wales were there —She had.

A nd has she gon e to the theatr e with both your Royal Highn esses —She has .

We are told that she was m arried at the end of 1866. In 1867 did you see m uchof her i—I did.

And in the year 1868 —I did also.Were you acquain ted with S ir Char les Mordaunt i—I was.Have you frequen tly m et h im —I have.And with Lady Mordaun t 7—With LadyMordaun t.Your Royal Highness knows Hurlin

‘

gham —I do.

Have you been in the habit of m eetin g S ir Char les there —I have.O n one occasion , I think in Jun e , 1868 , ther e was a pigeon m atch there betweenWarwickshire and Norfolk —There was.I believe your Royal Highness and S ir Charles were captains for each county

I believe so.

W as Lady Mordaun t there —Shewas.With her husband —With her husband.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 8

SI"TH DAY.

Thepublic in terest in the progress of this case, although unabated, was _

notsoespecially m an ifest to-day as it was yesterday, when the an ti ci pated exam i n ati onof the Pr ince ofWales attracted hundreds to the vici ni ty of the court whowereunable to gain adm ission . To-day a large crowd gathered roun d the doors of thecourt as early as hal f-past nin e, and when the doors were opened . just befor eeleven

,that portion of the cour t set apart for the publi c was speedi ly fill ed to over

flowing.The gallery was occupied by a party of ladi es and gentlem en , i ncluding

S ir Char les Mordaun t, Lord Cole, Gen eral Arbuthnot, Mr . Herbert Murray, the

Rev. Mr . Cadogan , and an aristocratic com pany.

The evidence on both sides having been com pleted on the previ ous day,At the comm en cemen t of the proceedings,A Jurym an wished D r . Jon es recalled, in order to ask h im to explai n what he

m ean t by stating that Lady Mordaunt was“ gen erally san e .”

Lord Pen zance referred to the short-hand writer ’s n otes, from whi ch i t appearedthat in reply to the question ,

“What do you m ean by generally san e 7”D r . Jon es

said,“ That al l the peculiar ities which she exhibited were produced by that crush

i ng weight upon her m ind which the circum stances would produce . D r . Joneswas then further asked, Except the trying circum stances alluded to, wasthere anythingwhich could lead you to con sider her in san e the replywas , C er

tainl y not.

The Jurym an said it would be unn ecessary, after the explan ation gi ven , to callMr . Jon es .

Mr . Serjeant Ballan tin e com plain ed of the publication of a l etter in the papersfrom an em in en t firm of attorn eys , havi ng referen ce to S ir F rederick John ston c.

That letter,in comm on decency, should not have been published un til the tri al

was over .

Lord Penzance I en tirely agree with you.

Mr . Serj ean t Ball an tin e comm enced his address to the jury on behalf of thepetition er

, by statin g that the case had been correctly described as a m ost painfulon e. He was certain that in conductin g it both hi s learned friend on the otherside and him self had endeavoured to render it as little painful as possible.In terests so importan t were very seldom at stake in any cour t of justice, and, asfar as his clien twas concern ed, on the issue of that inquiry depended the happin ess, the com fort, and the respectability of the rem ainder of h is days . AlthoughD r . Dean e did not at an ear lier period of the case appear to adopt the suggestionm ade as to the jury finding a verdict with reference to the san ity of LadyMordaun t at the tim e that certain statem en ts were m ade by her , no doubt theywould arr ive at a conclusion after a careful con sideration of the case. He thoughtthat this would be the last opportun ity that S ir Charles would have of appealin gto a jury of h is fellow-coun trym en , and he (Serjean t Ballantin e) believed that ifhe was not successful in conductin g the case to a favour able issue, a great an dter ri ble evil m i ght befal hi s cli ent. He, therefore, felt the great responsibili ty of

the'

case, but he also felt solaced by the conviction that he shoul d be assisted bythe judgm en t of the jury, and that any m atter which m ight by any m ischan ce onhis part be imperfectly described or dwelt upon , would, n evertheless, receive theircon sideration and judgm en t, which would be form ed on data un influenced by anym otives except a desire to do their duty in com ing to a con clusion on the m eritsof the adver se parties before them . With these rem arks he would proceed to placethe issue before them in a clear m ann er ; and he should m ore particularly askthem to dwell upon the events happen ing i n the m onths ofMarch, Apr il, and May,

“

and what was the state of the lady’

s m ind durin g that per iod. He shouldSubsequently call their attention to other m atters of m ore or less im

portance, and calculated to throw m ore or less light upon the circumstances of the case. He hoped to be able to convin ce their m in ds of theen tir e truth of S ir Charles’s story, and of hi s r ight to be redeem ed from theposition in which he had been placed by the m isconduct of h is wife. It was forthe Moncreifie fam ily to prove the affirm ative to the issue—to prove that the ladywas innocent. They had un dertaken that affirm ative position , and they m ustassure the jury, either by evidence or reason , that at the tim e Lady Mordaun tm ade the statem en ts, and that, at a subsequen t tim e

, she was not fully enabled togive in struction s to her sol icitor for her defen ce. That was the question whichthey were now called upon to try, and to which he should direct h is argum en ts .

Let them con sider for a m om en t the m ode in which the case had been presented

19

before them . He afli rm ed that, on the part of Sir Charles, every single atom of

evidence that it was possible to produce—although he had onl y been called uponas it were to prove a negative —every single person that i t was possible to cal l, orwho could by any possibility have any knowledge of this unfortunate affair, hadbeen placed before the jury, who had thus an O pportunity of judging of the valueof their testimony. But on the other side this remarkable difierence occurredand he characterized it as havin g been done deliberately—that valuable witnesseshad been kept back, and materials most calculated to enable them to com e to aconclusion had not been brought forward. He advanced that proposition aftergrave consideration and in the broadest terms he could use. They had confinedtheir case in which they had to prove insanity at a particular period to the evidenceof four women servants

,whose testim ony in many respects was utterly incredible,

and whose evidence, as he thought he should be able to show by argument, if notby direct contradiction

,was utterly untrue. They had striven to overwhelm the

jury with a swarm of medical men, who had come forward with theoreticalopinions ; m en who knewnothing of the case with reference to which they had beencalled upon to give an opinion, but Whose scientific testimony had been given witha view of overwhelming the minds of the jury and influencing them to sacrificetheir own judgm ent on the merits of the case. Where was Lady L ouisaMoncreifi

'

e

She was in London,and had been in court durin g the trial. Where was Mrs.

Forbes Where was Miss-Blanche Mon ereifie Where was Mr . Fiennes, by whomLady Mordaunt was advised for the purposes of this suit ? Where were they ?Would his learned friend tell the jury why they were not called ? Dr. Deanehad been invited as plainly as possible to call Lady Louisa, and nothing couldexcuse her absence nor dissipate the fact. They were trying the in san ity of ayoung woman of one or two and twenty years of age, who had been brought up inher father ’s house

,and under her mother's care, andwho had such an influence on

her former l ife, habits , tastes, and demeanour, who could know them so well asher mother ? Who could give them so clear an idea as to whether she was saneor not at a particular time as her mother ? T he mother’s evidence was needed toenable them to come to an effective conclus ion. I f in this case the mother hadbeen a mechanic’s wife would not the jury have expected her to be present to giveevidence as to her daughter’s condition before and after her confinement ? Wouldthey not also have expected the other relatives to be present ? His learned friendknew very well that there was a reason in the background that made hi m afraidto cal l Lady Louisa—a reason which would upset the whole case. There was nosolution to the mystery except that something might have been obtained fromLady Louisawhich would destroy the case. Mrs . Forbes would also have been animportant witness—almost as important as Lady Louisa. E xcept the mother,who could knowbetter the conditi on of LadyMordaunt than her married sister ? Itwas said that she had been recentlyconfined, but ,

‘

he had failed to extract the exactdate. When D rs . Tuke and Priestley went down, they did not see O rford, Simpson , or the nurse ; and, oddly enough , they seemed to have gone to the person thatknew nothing about the matter

, and who carefully avoided communication withthose who could have told them anything about it. They saw Sir Thomas , whokn ew nothing about it ; but never saw Lady Moncreifie. They confined themselves to an examination of the delusions, and there could be no doubt that theyi ntended to imply that these delusions were the confessions, and that they arosefrom the puerperal mania from which she was suffering. Dr. Priestley, a lady

’sdoctor in a lady’s case

,would

,he should have thought, have gone to a lady. But,

no he learned what he did learn from Sir Thom as Moncreifle, and therefore hea cted undoubtedl y upon an imperfect knowledge of what had taken place.Priestley ignored most of the delusions he had taken originally in his report, andrelied upon two only

,both of which could have been very easily shamm ed by a

lady, and he conveyed to the jury that those were what governed his mind . Dr.Priestley was asked whether

, if he had heard of her havin g made other statem entswhich were true, that would have had any effect on his min d. He said, N o,certain ly not and yet he had based his report in the first ins tance upon thosestatements which he said were delusions . When pressed further, and asked whathe would think if it were proved that what she said was true, he said,

“ He woulds till thi nk that she was suffering from puerperal insanity , and that which was truewas a delusion l” He said she had been suffering from great excitement. Whotold him ? The delusions he referred to were that she still believed herself to bemistress in her own house, and that she had been poisoned. He would not, however

,go through that testimony furt her, believing that the illusory report whi ch

those doctors made would not have any great effect on the minds of the jury. He

2 0

would refer now to Dr. Tuke, who went down on his knees before Lady Mordaunt,and said, “What can we do for you ? Y ou would not like to go to a lunatic asylum,

would you ?” What could they make of that ? What did they think of it ?

He had pressed attention to the evidence of these three, and he did not think itunimportant to call attention to other evidence given at or about

.

that period .

Time passed,Sir Charles left the house , she was visited by few medical men , but

she was visited by one lady,whose evidence was, he ventur ed to say, as clear ly

and fairly given as any evidence ever given in a court of justice. He referred tothe evi dence of the Dowager Lady Mordaunt. She gave evidence to severalinterviews—the last on the 13th of May ; and unless that evidence showed LadyMordaunt was insane on that day, the verdict m ust be for him. Lady Mordauntsat on a coal-box but when told by the Dowager Lady Mordaunt that woul d notdo with her

,she rose and gave upwhat he could not help thinkin g was a pueri le

attempt at sham by that poor girl. Her evidence in that respect was a te rriblecontrast to the certificate of the three medical men . O ne could not reconcilethe two things ; but, under every cir cumstan ce, the evidence of the DowagerLady Mordaunt was worthy of the gravest attention . It was unnecessary todwell further on that period. He called their attention to the general tenor ofthe letter of Sir Charles, whom he described as a country baronet probably not soover familiar with fashionable life, a gentleman of very considerable fortune,who had passed more of hi s existence in country than in town, who appeared tobe thoroughly simple-min ded, devotedly attached to his lady, and who, in writingthe letters in question to Lady Louisa, exhibited in every line his disbeli ef thatanythi ng of blame could attach to her, exhibited that kin d of clin ging hope thatone dear to him had not been guilty of grave cr im g was wil ling in fact tobelieve that the wife of hi s bosom and heart was a true one, hoping and bel ievingprobably against conviction , taki ng signs exhibited by her from time to timewith a kind of hopefulness, writing to her mother that she was poorly, thatshe was disturbed in her mind, and appearin g to believe up ti ll the 13thof March, at all events, that she was not guilty. Probably not wri tin g very logically

,nor very truly, probably having a joint action existing mentall y, endeavourin g

to bel ieve on the one hand that his wife was innocent, and at the same time notendeavouring to convey any of the agony which his suffering would give rise toamong the expressions in those letters. His learn ed friend obtained the lettersfrom Lady Louisa

,who dared not show herself, and who now han ded them over

to him for the purpose, if possible, of damnin g Sir Charles in this suit. Returnin gto the peri od of the confinement, he said that nothing had occurre l up to the 3rdof March

,except the inquiri es as to the state of the child, to indicate the circum

stances which subsequently came out. Lady Louisa was there from the 3rd to the6th of March, and whatever statements were made by the daughter to the motherthose who had charge of the case had taken care the jury should not know . H e

could not ask a single witness what Lady Moncrieffe had said. She could tellthem exactly what was her daughter

'

s state and circumstances on the 3rd ofMarchand succeedin g days . Was Lady Mordaunt then a maniac ? If so

,was it credible

that a mother could have left her child under such circumstances ? Mania was astate easily discernible by any ordi nary person, as they had heard from thedoctors . Could there have been any mistake in the mother ’s mind as to the realstate of her child at that time ? Was her daughter a maniac on the 6th of March

,

when she left the house ? Did they think that if such had been the case them other would have left her child, with her husband , no doubt , but otherwise inthe hands of comparative strangers ? Did Lady Louisa believe her a maniac ?Were there any signs of insanity ? If so, she could have told them .

She couldhave stated whether Lady Mordaunt was feverish, whether her pulse was rapid,or her tongue dry. Lady Louisa was the mother of many children

,and therefore

could have no delicacy in taking of m atters of that description.The ordinary

sense of an ordinary indivi dual would enable them to say whether a personwas suffering from mania or not, and he sincerely hoped that theremight be those upon the jury who would bring to bear in the consideration of the subject now before them their own kn owledge upon ordinarymatters. Puerperal mania meant violent madness

,and was not a disease onl y

di scoverable by occult science, but any one who attended upon her could easilydiscover it. There could be no mistake about it . Was it tr ue or not ? I f it weretrue, how easy to prove it. If true, why not have called Lady Louisa, and askedher the question ? Why was she not there to prove it ? Instead of that

,they

were left to the rambli n g evidence of a monthly nurse,who would

,no doubt

, beaccused by the other side of perjury, while they kept back the very witness who

2 1

could have given the most full and sati sfactory evidence, if the nurse was notspeaking the whole and exact tr uth . When an opportunity occurred of callingtwo witnesses who could depose to the same circumstances, and thus enable thejury to judge between them as to the facts, if the other side refused to call LadyLouisa the jury must look upon it with the gravest suspicion. Before he wentfur ther, he might observe that the name of his Royal Highness the Prince of

W ales was mentioned in th e first confession, but not in the second, and he shouldby

-and-by point out the difference between his Royal Highness’s position and

that of the other persons whose names had been implicated. A large number ofguests had been stopping at Walton Hall and enjoying the hospitality of Sir '

Charles—friends of his wife, in whom he trusted and who were beloved by himand he naturally wished to know who were guilty and who were inn ocent. H e

said to his wife,“ T ell m e, are there any others ?

” Now,with regard to two

names she declined to give any answer—one was Captain Farquhar,the

other Lord Newport. A bout the latter no evidence had been offered. Thejury would remember the reply she made to the observation of Mrs. HerbertMurray . That lady said to her,

“ But, my dear, you could not have caredfor all these men . The reply was, “No, only for one —the inference probably being that that one might not be one that she chose to mention. Theywould compare that theory with their own knowledge of human nature. If

,

then,she had mentioned others, there was nothing inconsistent in the two

con fessions . She had not mentioned that name ; but still she had neverdirectly excused him. What could Sir Charles Mordaunt do under thesecircumstances ? Could he any longer doubt

,after the result of those inquir ies ?

There is another part of the case, continued the learned counsel, to which I mustnow refer. His Royal Highness the Prince ofWales appeared in court yesterday,and denied in the only way that any subject of this realm,

however exalted hisposition may be

,can deny a fact . His Royal Highness appeared in court, and

denied that he had ever committed adultery with Lady Mordaunt. G entlemen, Ihad no reason whatever to cross-examine his Royal Highness . I never assumedthat he had done any such thing . I opened an entirely different state of facts . Icompared his position with others who had been n amed, and I pointed out thatwhile

,in this particular instance, Lady Mordaunt

‘

s disobedience to her husband’scommands or wishes was consistent with propriety it was al so consistent with thecase which I was endeavouring to establi sh . G entlemen

,I think it is desirable not

to discuss further the question in relation to his Royal Highness . I do not thinkthat in anywaywhatever, assuming theposition that origin al ly, upon deliberation, andwith the sanction of my learned friends, I took up—that Lady Mordaunt was moreintimate with his Royal Highness than her husbandwished—I do not think that Iconveyed any other idea . That idea I suggested, and it was that which LadyMordaunt intended herself to convey, and, after hearing his Royal Highn ess onthe subject

,I leave it. Mind you, however, it must have no operation on your

minds unfavourable to m y client. I f I thought it necessary to point out thatwhich would be criminal in the highest in the land, I hope I have firmness andhonour enough to do it. I hope at the same time that in the conduct of m y profession I have sufficient feeling for those whom I am obliged to speak of, to causeno needless or unnecessary pain . I f you are forced to the conclusion that thislady m eant someth ing that I have not put upon her words , that must be yourconstruction ; but I invite you to consider that my construction of them is alsoconsistent with a case which I present to you on the part of Sir Charles Mordaunt .The learned Serj eant continued : O ther parties were named besides his Royal Highness and Sir Frederick John stone. Lord Cole, again st whom there was strong evidence, was also named . Captain Farquhar—againstwhom, if uncontradicted, theevidence was conclusive, was also named. Why were not they called My learnedfriend, continued Serjeant Bal lantine , elects to call one againstiwhom no accusationof adul tery i s made. A nother is

‘

called to deny it. It was perfectly clear that S irFrederi ck John stone was more concerned in denyi ng that which was deemed ungentlemanly than in denying the adultery. Whatever Sir Charles Mordaunt hassaid from the beginnin g to the end S ir Charles Mordaunt was believed.

~ He neversaid anything to his wife which he intended to be conveyed to the public, but thatwhich ‘he did say to her he had heard from the public. They had heard the indignation expressed by this young m an

,who does an act which destroys the

character of Lady Mordaun t , and casts a reflection upon the honour ofher husband .

It is all very well to talk about it ; but Sir Frederick Johnstone, a guest of S irCharles’

,received at hi s table, received wi th hospitality and consideration , either

i nNovember or December, meets with th is unhappy girl, and dines with her in a

2 2

private room at a fashionable hotel . I t is all very well to come here and saythere if no criminality. What busines s had he to meet her—dinin g there alonefrom eight o ’clock to twelve at night—a young man di ningwith a beautiful youn gwoman at a fashi onable hotel ? Let us bring it home to ourselves. Bring it hom e

to yourselves. But, forsooth, the waiter coul d come in . I dar e say he did some

t imes. If this had occurred in a bed-room it would have been conclusive. Whatbusiness had be there ? Was it known to S ir Charles Mordaunt, her husband ?Little did he know what was goin g

'

on . There was a young man with her in anh otel three or four hours, and I say there is nothing in the n ature of the caseto lead you to believe that when she mentioned the name of

_

S ir Frederick thelady was not speaking the truth . After noticing the manner in which the lady

’

smaid referred to the letter which she foun d, the learned counsel proceeded .

A ll that Sir Charles wanted was a divorce, and there was quitesufficient for that with Lord Cole but they had heard also thatCaptain Farquhar was at the same hotel, and seen on the same landing wi th her,and yet Captai n Farquhar was not called. Lord Cole was not called. Wh ere isLord Cole

, and :what is he doing now ? Her e is a child expected to bear SirCharles Mordaun t’s name and inherit hi s property. Lord Cole is the father of

that child, and Lady Moncreiife is seeking to prevent the divorce which SirCharl es Mordaunt is aski ng. Wh en we get to the plain E ngli sh of it, how foul itis I Lady Mordaunt makes a memorandum in her pocket-book, and the very dayon which the child is born accords with the night that Lord Cole slept with her .

Neither Lord Cole nor Captain Farquhar is called to contradict the adultery, andyet my learned friend is here to ask you to shut out Sir Char les from a court ofjusti ce, and oblige him,

by the law of the land, to maintain the infant of LordCole

, to give it his name, and to al l ow it to inherit his property. They are nevercalled

,and with that I have concluded nearly all that it is necessary to say on this

painful case . Was she insane at the time of her interview with Mr. HerbertMurray ? I f, however, you are of opinion that the insanity is n ot proved down tothemi ddle or end, that is all I shall require you to find. If they were satisfied orbel ieved she was insane even in O ctober, why had they not call ed her un cle ? Shewent for the purpose of consul ting him— why is he not called ? G entlemen, saidthe learned coun sel in concluding, in this case there is no need for a peroration. Ihave seen my client, and have described his pos ition . I can understand that therepresentative of an old house, in a county where he is loved and looked up to, h asgone thr ough a bitter trial and has endured bitter agony. He has been libel led,he has been slandered

,and it has been sought to fix upon hi m the i llegitimate

child of another by a mother who has betrayed him and this inquiry is to determine what shall happen upon these subjects . I can only say that I trust in dealin g with them you will be gui ded to a right conclusion by your honest hearts andm inds, and by a sound and impar tial judgm ent. (Subdued applause.)Dr. Deane G entlemen ofthe jury—I n this case Serj eant Ball antin e has so m ixed

up the issue you have to try with another issue which may or may not be triedhere

,and so descanted upon the attractions of Lady Mordaunt and the affecti on

which exi sted between her and her husband, of the handsome settlements whi chshe received at his hands

,that many persons who heardmy learned friend dwell on

these topics might believe the question here is or is not whether Lady Mordauntcommitted adul te ry, and what damages you have to assess. That is not the question. The question is simply that of the sani ty of Lady Mordaunt at a given time.H ow long of the three hours during which my learned friend has been addr essingyou has he been pointin g out to you the absence of certain witnesses, who, he says,it would have been sati sfactory to him to cross-exam ine . There is a very simpleanswer to that, and the answer is this . In the view which my learned friends whoare with me and myself took of th is case, we thought we ought to confine our selvesto that which is the issue raised before you

,to that which takes place fr om the

3oth April down to the present time, and when I al luded to the fact of Mrs.Forbes not being here, I did so because she was with Lady Mordaunt when thecitati on was served, and no other. In the view we took of the case, it would havebeen utterly outside to cal l any one who was present at the first illness—the puerperal ill ness. The view whi ch we take of the case is stil l the same but thematerials upon which I have to address you are, thanks to the course which hasbeen taken by my learned friend, very differ en z. There has been given me links ofsuch perfect workmanship, so well welded, so perfectly j oined together, that I willlay before you a chai n of evidence without flaw,

without break, ex tending from the2 8th of February down to the very hour in which I have the honour to address you .

In thi s case I feel very deeply for the position in which Sir Charles Mor

23

daunt is placed. I feel deeply for the family to whi ch L ady Mordauntbelon gs. I feel deeply for all those whose names have been mentioned inthi s case. But there are, perhaps, three or four epi sodes in these lamentabletransactions in which one wil l have some difficul ty in res training language whi chought to be appli ed. I shal l endeavour to speak as calmly as I can of what I believeto be the hideous origin of al l the trouble which this unfortunate famil y is nowbrought to. Some time in November there is that str ange conversati on betweenS i r Charles and L ady Mordaunt in respect to S ir Frederi ck Johnstone, and S irCharles tolls Lady Mordaunt that Sir Frederick was suffering under a complaintwhi ch might bring disease upon any child he had. We know from Mr s . Cadoganthat previous to her confinement, L ady :Mordaunt was extremely anx ious andnervous about that confinement. She was delivered prematurely on the 28th ofFebruary . N ow, S ir Charles Mordaun t told you, perhaps inadvertently, that therewere two or three days after that conver sation before his wife went to London.

My learned friend told you she came the very next day. What is the evidence ?Y ou have i t from Clarke and the hotel bills that she came up on the 3oth and lefton the l et. She came upwi th the Duke and Duchess of A thole and stayed at thathotel. The impression of that conversati on remained on her mind . When she wasconfined, she asked within five hours if the child was diseased. The conversationwi th Hancocks was not lim ite d to the eyes of the ch ild, but the words used were,H as the child got the complai nt ?” In the mind of Lady Mordaunt was dwellin gat the time of her confinement that conversation with S ir Charles, which he wouldrecollect to his dying day. I asked Sir Charles whether, on hi s return fromNorway, he slept with hi s wife up to the time of herconfinement ? He said. Y es.

"

If L ady Mordaunt had been affected with all this di sease, how came it Sir Charlesnever got the complaint ? Y ou wi ll see that in the first confession she spoke ofherself as the cause of the child's blindness. Y ou have heard that impressionsmay be produced on the mind of a wom an durin g her pregnan cy so strongas to affect her at her confinement. O n the Saturday followin g her con .

finement she was found exhibiting one of the very symptoms of puerperalmani a which had been spoken of. When her moth er wi shed to see her,the very person whom Serjeant Ballantin e said ought to have been withher was, through her puerperal mania, forbidden tobe with her. That was according to the doctors, one of the signs of puerperal mania—a dislike of intimate relations. What were the symptoms, according to Doctor Tyler Smith,

who was

called to rebut Si lence, taci turnity, and di slike of intimate relations.” Mrs .

Cadogan came to see her,and

,according to Hancox, there seemed little to be

learnt from Mrs. Cadogan . Lady Mordaunt said She had had a strange dream.

”

IVhen the nurse immediately said,“Lady Mordaunt, Mrs. Cadogan knows every

thing —stoppin g one train of thought, and suggesting the other, which had beenuppermost. A t the same time she was putting the laudanum away, at the same timeL ady Mordaunt was ur ging that the child should be put away. Were not theseevidences that at al l events the mind was somewhat off its poise. But was thenurse

’

s eviden ce got elsewhere at this time. Was it consis tent with that of S irCharles and Dr. O rford ? It was not . His lordship had read yesterday symptomswhich it was said had been stated by the doctors. Dr. O rford took from the first a.favourable view. He saw neither hysteria nor catal epsy. But where did S ir Charlesget those terms. He mus t have heard them fr om the doctors. The argument presented to them was that Lady Mordaunt made admissions whi ch were true , andthat, therefore, she knew what she said when she made those admissions. Whatshould t": ey say as to the accusation against the P rince ofWales ? The words sheused were precisely the same as to other persons. He agreed his learned friendwould proceed against the highest as well as the lowest, if it became his duty . Inthe evidence of Sir Charles Mordaunt

, it was stated that the Prin ce of Waleswas fr equently there. Now, I don

't know whether you are aware, but it is perfectlywel l known to a great m any people that when the Royal famil y are visi tin gat a house, no other vi sitors are admitted. That is a rule of society ;otherwi se persons more or less vul gar might take that opportun ity to intrudeon the Royal fam i ly . It is a rule perfectly well known . But we gobeyond that, and Sir Ch arles says that he had cautioned hi s wife agai nstreceiving the vi si ts of the ; Prince ofWales, and when she said she did wrong, thelearn ed counsel had remarked that she meant she kept up the acquaintance afterher husband had forbidden it. Then there was the shooting match in June. L adyMordaun t was down markin g. They were in constant communication wi th her,each of them, and afterwards subsequently to that Sir Charles Mordaunt acceptedan invitation to a ball at the house of the Prince ofWales. S ir Charles Mordaunt

24

was, therefore , eviden tly m istaken . Ther e was not a tittle of evidence in this case

to show that, after Lady Mordaun t was told not to renew her acquain tance W l ththe Prince ofWales she ever set eyes on him . She said in her con fession ,

“ I havebeen very wicked with the Prin ce ofWales , Lord Cole, S ir Frederick Johnston e,and others, and in open slay.

” Sever the accusation (cont in ued the . learn edcoun sel), if you can , m ade by Lady Mordaunt against the Pri n ce of Wales fromthat m ade again st the others, and if there is a delusion i n one case, I defy anybodyto say it is not a delusion in the other cases . We heard yesterday about these letters of the Pr ince of Wal es . There were som e lettersfoun d in her desk—six or seven . They were, perhaps, :the m ost i nnocentletters that ever a gen tlem an wrote to a lady. Com ing to S ir Frederi ck Johnstone,Mr. Serjean t Ballan tin e professed him self ready to believe his evidence in respectof his health but if he believed S ir Frederick Johnstone

'

s eviden ce in that part icular , what r ight had he to disbelieve his eviden ce as to the charge of adulteryIt was urged that he din ed alone wi th Lady Mordaun t at the Al exandra Hotel.N o doubt he did. But had it com e to this that a gentlem an could not accept ani nvitation to dinewith a lady whom he had kn own from childhood, and withwhose fam il y he was in tim ate

,without subjectin g him self to the im putation of

abusin g the opportun ity ? He believed, no m atte r what hi s learn ed friend m ightsay, that there were people—m en and wom an , young and handsome—who coul dmeet under such circum stances and spend the even in g together, and yet bev irtuous. T he fact of his being with Lady Mordaun t was the only particle ofe viden ce again st S ir Frederick John stone but no one in his sen ses would drawfrom it the con clusion of guilt. It was then said, but why not cal l Lord Cole ? Heexplain ed yesterday why it was that he had determined to call hi s Royal Highn essthe Pr in ce ofWales and S i r Frederick John stone. In one case the exalted positionof his Royal Highn ess called for it in the other, a charge than which n one couldbe more odious was m ade against S ir F reder ick Johnstone. Itwas due to them thatthey should be called, but there existed no such n ecessity in the case of Lord Cole.Lord Cole rem ained with Lady Mordaunt somewhat late . O n the loth July, LordCole wen t to Walton , where he remain ed until the 14th. That was the on lyeviden ce again st Lord Cole, and there appeared to have been no secrecy about hisvisits. The learned coun sel then referred to the diary in which the en try 280

days from the 27th June" was made again st the date of the 3rd April, and argued

that it was quite in con si sten t with the evidence of the nurse that Lady Mordaun thad said that the chi ld was begotten on the 27th of Jun e, because the per iod fromwhich wom en calculated for their confinem ent was well kn own , and it m ust, therefor e, be paten t to everybodywhat the 280 days from the 27th June

”m ean t. That

was al l the evidence aginst Lord Cole, and they could place no m ore relian ceupon the adm ission with regard to him than they did with regard to the Prince ofWales and S ir F rederick Johnstone. He now cam e to Captain F arquh ar

’s case,

and he confessed it was to him a m atter of som e difficulty, not in explai nin g it,but from the m ann er in which it had been dealt wi th on the other side. JessieClarke told them that in Novem ber . 1847, her m istress came to London andwen t tothe Pal ace Hotel, and was there with Captain F arquhar , and that ten days afterthat she foun d, under a pin cushion in Lady Mordauut

’s room , a letter from Captain

Farquhar . She said that she m en ti oned the fact to Mrs Caborn and to Bird,the

butler, and put it back : after which she saw her mistress destroy it. She saidthat she did not m ention the letter to anybody else because she was afraid ofcom promisin g her m istr ess ; yet, although she m ention ed the other circumstan cesbefore the petition was served, Captain F arquh ar

’s nam e did not find a place in

the petition , and that was obviously because those to whom she told the story didnot choose to believe it. ;What evidence was there again st Lord Cole and S irFrederick Johnstone ? Was it not weak as com pared with that agai n st CaptainFarquhar ? Then , again , with regard to the notice of arrivals at the Pal ace Hotel

,

he argued that the alteration in the n am e in the hotel books from F arm er to F arquharcould not have been m ade on the n ight of the 7th, as stated by the hote l porter because theMorn ing P ost of the 9th gave the name as F arm er , together with the entriesof the arr ivals on the following day, the 8th. F or what purpose could those n ewspapers havebeen setasideby Bird ? for he did so four days befor e he saw the letter .

That was a m atter which he thought might have been explain ed by the other side .H e now cam e to Mr . Orford

’

s evidence . F rom the fir st to the last that gentlemansaid she was not the least unwell, and differed from D r . Jon es as to her beingekcitab le or hysterical . He also refused to see D r . Tuke and D r . Alderson , or togi ve them any in form ation . This country doctor thought that three or four ofthe m ost em i n ent physicians in this country had entered in to a con spiracy to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 6

upon her m ind, and that upon his secon d vi si t her ladySh-ipshowed an utter forget

fuln ess ofwhat had occurred on the form er occasion , except W i th reference to sometrifling circum stance which was passing thr ough her m i nd at the m om en t. Hed irected the attention of the jury to the circum stances i n conn exi on W i th thedrawing of the cheque by Lady Mordaun t, and her asking Mrs. C

aborn to cash i t.

Theywould rem em ber that Mrs. Caborn could not cash i t, but oifered to len d her

ladyship £20—five sovereign s and three £5 notes, and that she expressed an

aversion to take the notes. He asked them ,could she have had any san e reason

for refusing the n otes ? The cheque was sen t to Mr . Cobb, the steward, who hadthe m on ey, and could therefore have cashed it, but who returned

i t to Mrs . Caborn ,

an d she u ltim ately gave it to S ir Charles' br other Osbert. It

.

was then lost si ghtof. He would like to know whether that was the way i n whi ch a lady of soun dm ind would gen erally be treated by those about her ? Referrin g to the evi den cegiven by the differen t m edi cal gen tlem en , he asked the jury to apply thel r m m dsto it

, and say whether the statem en ts m ade by those gentlem en wer e founded onfact, an d to com pare them with that of D r . Orford. He referred to the dem ean ourof Lady Mordaunt when the C opy of the peti tion in the Divorce Cour t was dehvered to her . She sat with her hands before her , kept her eyes fixed on her lap,m ade no respon se when the petiti on was handed to her, but subsequen tlywhen Mrs . F orbes came in to the room she sudden ly appeared cheerful .Was that, he asked, the conduct of a wom an in her right sen ses ? H is

learn ed fr iend the serjeant had said that the witnesses from Worthi ng had not beencorroborated in their eviden ce regarding the dem eanour of Lady Mordaun t whi l ethere. That he had no right to say, as ther e wer e other person s who wer econ stan tly about the person of Lady Mordaun t at that time whom Mr . Serj ean tBall an tin e could have interr ogated as to the truth of that evidence. He thencomm en ted upon the many eccen tr ic acts of Lady Mordaunt, and specially calledthe atten tion of the jury to the fact that upon no occasion would the nurseHancox trust the child with her ladyship, sim ply, he con tended, because she didnot con sider her in her right m in d. He had now brought them down to the 15thMay, when Lady Mordaun t cam e to London , and wen t to the r esidence of LadyKin noul , in Belgrave-square, where she was twice seen by D r . Gull. That gen tlem an had stated that he had question ed her very closely, keeping his eyes upon her ,and hi s hand upon her pulse dur ing the tim e, yet he could make no im pressionwhatever upon her . Was D r . Gull a m an likely to be deceived or im posed upon ?He con sidered his eviden ce of great val ue in itself but it becam e m ore sowhencom pared with that which had been given by other witnesses . The argum en tpresen ted to them was this—Lady Mordaun t m ade certain adm issi ons thoseadm ission s were found to be true in poin t of fact ; therefore, when Lady Mordaun tm ade these statem ents she was perfectly san e

, and that in order to get r id of themhe was now shamming ; but he urged that if such was the true theory, shewould be m ore in terested in shamm ing to her husband than to anybody else . Ifthat, however , were the case, how coul d they r econ ci le it with the facts

,when

taking in to cons ideration the letter which shewrote to him on the l 6th May, whi chhe had previous ly alluded to ? After comm en ting upon the irr egular ities ofLady Mordaun t

’

s cheque-book, he passed on to the eviden ce of D r . Wood,who had deposed to her bavin drawn a cheque with great difficulty on blankpaper for £500, and then 0 ered it to him for half a crown . This wasone of m any simi lar acts, al l of which , he contended, were unm i stakeableproofs of her insan ity. Suspicion , as a rule

,characterised al l the acts of

Lady Mordaunt, which, the jury m ight be awar e, was peculiar to that speci es ofin san ity. D r . Wood’s evidence was of great im portan ce. He said he saw her on

five or six differ en t occasions, and that she was extremely doci le, and he could gether to do any m echan i cal act. He drew a distinction so far as m echan ical actswere con cern ed. She would do anythin g he asked her ; but when she cam e to a

m atter which requir ed r eflection ther e was som e difficulty but she would succeedsom etim es . With respect to her mechan ical acts he was corroborated by D r .

Gull .He il lustrated her want of power by showing her two

'

florins and a shill ing. Shenam ed the coins properly, but she coul d not tell what they amoun ted to together .

In al l these things D r . Wood was corroborated by D r . Hughes, who attended hersom e fifty or sixty tim es but against this they had the eviden ce of Mrs . Caborn

,but in tha t he could not see the sli ghtest con tradiction of thewitnesses Kettle andBarker . The learn ed counsel proceeded to call attention to the eviden ce of thefour fem ale attendants of Lady Mordaun t, alluding to it very m inutely, anddrawing from it the inference of her “ in con sisten t consistency.

" He did notthink the eviden ce of General Arbuthnot had m aterially advan ced the case of the

27

san ity of the lady, because it was consisten t with the evidence of D r . Wood thatfor a quarter of an hour or more she could con tr ol herself, but that when she didso she suffered afterwards. He then came to the evidenceofMr . and Mrs . HerbertMurray and their visit with Lady Mordaun t to the Crystal Palace, alluding to thecircum stan ce of her ladyship seating hersel f in the cen tre of one of the br oadgravel walks in the gardens of the Palace . If that had been an isolated in stan ce,he should not have thought it wor th m uch, but it accorded with sim ilar actsdeposed to by other wi tn esses as to her habits at Bickley. Referring to the evidence of D r . Tyler Sm ith, the learn ed counsel urged that the symptomspresen ted by her ladyship were perfectly con sistent with those indicationsof puerperal man ia whi ch he had said existed in rare cases , nam ely, sulkytaciturn ity. D r . Wood had also stated that at the very tim e he visitedher ladyship he had a fem ale patient un der h is charge who presented exactlythe sam e symptoms. He com plain ed of the system of espionage to whichher ladyship had been subjected at the hands of certain persons about her , andr eferred to the letter which she wrote to Lady Louisa from Bickley, andwhichhad been brought forward by the other side as a proof of her san ity. That letterwas Opened and copied by Miss Parsons, and then forwarded to its desti nation .

He wan ted to know how it was this letter was written whether Miss Parsons didnot sit at the shoulder of L ady Mordaun t when it was written , as Mrs. Caborn had

don e when the cheque was written . He was approaching to the end of th ism elan choly case. He admitted that Lady Mordaunt had the strongest possiblem otives for feigning, and he had told them that the argument of feign ing was adangerous one b ut could it be argued that every person who had a m otive forinsan ity—who was beyond al l doubt insan e—was feignin g for the mot ive. It wasadm itted that Lady Mordaun t was of unsound m ind at the present tim e, and itwas not a question whether the lady was in a position to say she was gui lty or notguilty m erely, but she m ust be capable of m aking those other defen ces whi ch wer eava ilable in law. It was a. question whether she could instruct those who advisedher as to incidents and excuses, which she m ight m ake if the facts were proved.

H i s learned friend said they m ust consider the position in which S ir CharlesMordaunt was placed. He adm itted that ; but he asked them , in their anxietyfor S ir Charles Mordaunt, not to forget the honour of the fam ily of Lady Mordaunt. All sorts of imputation s and charges, extending over he knew not howlong, had been introduced by his learned fr iend, and in h is speech he had endeavoured to prejudice fL ady Louisa and other m em bers of the family. With regardto not callingLady Louisa, hewould take the blam e upon him self . He had thoughtthe m atter over very dispassionately. He could call no witnesses to con tradictthe statem en ts which had been m ade on the part of the petitioner un til his casewas closed, and he was not aware until Tuesday last that S ir F reder ick John stonewas about to give eviden ce, nor did he know un til yesterday (Wedn esday) whatthe Prin ce of Wales was goin g to say. They cam e forward voluntari ly, and werenot hi s wi tn esses . In con cluding a speech of three hour s ’ duration , he said thatthey m ust not, in order to free the husban d fr om those painful circum stances underwhich he was Sufferin g, inflict an irr eparable in jury upon the wife. They m ustnot suppose that in com in g forward to defend the honour and rights of h is child,S ir Thom as Moncreifie had done m ore than hi s duty, and in doing that he hadthrown no un just impediment in the way of S ir Char les claiming hi s rights .

Lord Penzance said h e should sum upthe case to-m orrow, when he should ask

the jury to take into their con sideration whether Lady Mordaunt was on the 3rdof April in such a state of m ind as to be able to instruct her attorney, and if so, onwhat date did she cease to be so.

SEVENTH DAY.

The courtwas filled as on previous days, and long before the doors were opened,a crowd surrounded the entrance from Westm in ster Hall. It bein g gen erallysupposed that the case would term in ate this aftern oon , the public in terest m an i~

festly increased as the judge’s summ in g up proceeded. The gallery was occupiedby several interested in the issue, and also by an aristocratic com pany of ladies andgen tlem en . The issues stated by the Judge Ordinary yesterday to be decided bythe jury wer e—Firstly, whether Lady Mordaun t was on the 3oth of April in such

a condition of mental disorder as to be un fit to answer the petiti on and dulyin struct her attorn ey for the defen ce ? Secondly, if she was in such a condition ,did she at any or at what tim e afterwards cease to be so?

2 8

The counsel on both sides having agreed as to the issue to be put to the juryWas Lady Mordaun t fit and able to in struct her attorney on the 3oth of Apr il,

a nd has she sin ce becom e un fit, and when 7”

The Judge Ordin ary, in summ ing up, said they were approaching the end of theinquiry, and they were agreed as to the question for their decision . He asked fora continuan ce of that patien ce they had exercised hitherto, and he doubte d notthey would com e to a just conclusion . N 0 case for som e years had occupied so

much public attention as that case had. Those whostood in high places were m oreparticularly objects of public atten tion . Inquir ies such as that affected otherparties besides those whowere parties to the suit, butwhose names were intr oducedi nto it. That alm ost savoured of in justice in i ts secondary effect, and it aim ed a

serious blow at the character of others whose nam es were not m entioned in thec ause, andwho were not parties to the suit. Those persons affected in a secondarydegreewere not in a position to instruct coun sel, and so far as the interest of eitherparty to the suit was concerned they had no place in the witn ess-box. He repeatedthat alm ost savoured of in justice, but i t should be r emem bered that it was a

n ecessary in justi ce, and there were correspondi n g advantages and ben efits. T he

petition for a divorce was filed in that cour t in Jun e last, and the papers cal led thecase “ T he Warwickshi re Scandal Case.” The case was no longer a private matterbetween fam ilies, and he asked whether it could be regarded as altogether an evilthat these matters should be in vestigated, to discover the len gth and

breadth of the wrong it was all eged she had comm itted . They wer e notcall ed that day to give a verdict in respect to third persons but theyhad to consider the question s at issue as agreed on by the parti es. Allthat was to be said and proved on the subj ect shoul d be said and proved inOpen court they had heard a ll that could be sai d about the m atter without let orh indran ce, and without fear or favour . He com plim ented Serjeant Ballan tin e andal l the learn ed counsel on the m ann er in which the case had been conducted, andcould not help thinking that n othin g would be lost by the public investigation ofthe case. In reference to the Prin ce of Wales, the learned coun sel for the petition erhad hon estly and fairly said,

“ This i s al l I can put before you to jus tify LadyMordaunt’s statemen t. I do not now im pute to you that he was guil ty of adultery.

T he learned counsel stated that, and he said the sam e thin g substan tiall y in his

open ing. The Prince of Wales, bein g outside the case, had been examined, and thelearn ed coun sel for the petition er m ade no imputetion on his Royal Highn ess .

The petition was filed on the soth of April, and Lady Mordaun t was all owed threeweeks to answer it. The case stood over from tim e to time. O n the loth of Julyfour m edical m en wen t down toWorthi ng, in order that the questi on as to thestate of her m ind m ight be brought to a poin t: The case cam e befor e him again

i n July, and he felt un certain whether he ought again to defer the matter but aftercon sideration he cam e to a con clusion that it should be tried by a jury, to ascertainthe state of her m ind. What effect, he asked, would the fin ding have ? It had beena str ong topic of conversation as to what that effect woul d be. Suppose they cam eto a conclusion that shewas not san e, it had been said, m ost untruly, that that woul dstop S ir Charles Mordaunt

’

s cause in the divorce sui t. But if Lady Mordaun twas out of her m i nd now, and in the course of one, two, three, four , or five yearsshe ceased to be out of her m in d, S ir Char les would have as good a right to a

divor ce as if she never were out of her m in d. There was a question whi ch wouldh ave to be decided, and that was whether the case could go on if she is out of herm in d. They had been asked by the learn ed counsel i f the i l legitimate child ofLadyMordauntwas to succeed to S ir Char les

’

s proper ty, and theyhad been appealedto whether S ir Charles

’

s life was to be blighted and blasted by the acts of a womanwho had abused his bed. Thesewere strong topics, and they had been for cibly putby the coun sel. The adul tery was in troduced to prove the san ity of the personwho made the statem ent in fact, the usual order of things was reversed .

They were asked,“ Are or are not those facts true 7

” If she did makethese statem ents was she san e at the tim e ? In applying their minds tothe question they had to ascertain how far the san ity of her statem en tswas supported by facts, and they m ust look at the truth that supportedthose facts. They had to ascertain how far they had eviden ce upon whi chthey could rely to establish the truth of the facts . If the fact was trueit went som e way towards showing she was san e when she recovered .

They must consider the question how far Lady Mordaun t had committedadultery independen t of the statem en ts m ade by her . First, with regardto Lord Cole. The lady h ad an alm an ack, and in that she markeddays from the 27th of Jun e. No doubt Lady Mordaun t expected to be con .

2 9

fined at the end of March or the beginn ing of Apr il. What was the m ean ing ofthe entry in the almanack

, un less it m ean t,“ I shall be confined on the 3rd of

April, because it i s 287 days from the 27th of Jun e when m y childwas con ceived.

”

That was the m ean ing. She stated the child was Lord Cole’s. H is lordship din edwith her on the 27th of Jun e, S ir Char les bein g in Norway, and was with LadyMordaun t a con siderable time. He (Lord Cole) was the sole visitor at Waltonfrom the l 0th to the 14th .

D r . Dean e It was stated that there were two other person s there.The Judge continued by referr ing to the case as it affected Captain Farquhar,

which, he said, would not be very stron g and if it were not for one piece ofevi dence he dared say they would think it would not justify any one in com ing toan adverse conclusion he alluded to the letter found by Jessie Clarke under thepincushion . Then , as regarded S ir F rederick John stone, if they looked at thecase concerning that gentleman , independent of the lady

’

s adm ission , what did itamount to What was the evidence of adulte ry ? He could not find any fact inthe evidence establishin g adultery, independent of Lady Mordaunt

’s adm ission .

S ir Freder ick wen t to the Alexandra Hotel and dined alon e with Lady Mordaunt.He hoped they had not arr ived at such a pass that a jury would be asked to find,because a lady and gentl eman dined together , that they necessarily comm ittedadultery. Then as to H is Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It had been saidthat letters had been bfought from Marlborough House to Lady Mordaunt fromH is Royal Highn ess, and that the Prince was a frequent vi sitor , and that when hecam e orders were given to adm it no on e else. He felt bound to tell them thatthere was not the slightest eviden ce of adultery in those facts. It was said thatH is Royal Highn ess stayed an hour and som etim es m ore. A s to no one else beingadm itted , it was in conformity with established etiquette in this and al l otherEuropean coun tries that when ever a Royal personage m ade a call others were notadm itted . Setting the adm ission of Lady Mordaunt on one side, he should havebeen bound to withdraw the n am e of H is Royal Highn ess fr om the case . Therewas no evidence of adultery as far as H is Royal Highn ess was concern ed. Thequestion was, whether they thought Lady Mordaun t was in such a. condition of

m en tal disorder as to be unfit or unable to an swer the petition or to instruct hera ttorney for her defence. He m uch preferred usin g those words to apply the term“ in san e,

”m ad

,

"or out of her m ind.

” He asked them to con sider the twoperiods at which Lady Mordaun t m ade confessions of her guilt in determ in in g hers tate of m ind . T wo tests had been resor ted to by the petition er in order to establish her m en tal condition . O ne was, that the lady m ade certain confessions, andwere those con fession s true ? If they were, there was an end to the question , andthat carried the petition er a long way. The second test was , what reasonablethings did she say or do ? She did a num ber of ordinary acts, and by reason ofthat it was said that she was as san e as other people. He did not know, however ,whether either of those tests were correct. Supposin g Lady Mordaunt did comm itadultery, supposin g it was true she dishonoured her husband , was it quite certainthat when she was confin ed shewas in a sound state ofm ind at the tim e she did confess Did people n ever refer to things that di d not really take place ? Was a wom an

at the tim e ofher confinem en t likely or apt to refer toanything that had never takenplace ? Was it not possible that a wom an in that condition of m ind m ight not—inher m ental disorder—m ake untrue statem en ts ? Was it not within the range oftheir experien ce that a person m ight state that which was true, and add to thatstatem en t that which was false ? Might not a guilty wom an

’

s m ind be workedupon by a con sciousness of that guilt to add other things that were not true, tofacts that were true ? She first said the child was Lord Cole

’

s, and she asked thenurse if it was diseased, or if anythin g was the m atter with it. Was she, actingas shedid, in the full possession of her faculties , or were those faculties disordered ?It was not somuch what reason able thing shem ight sayor do, as what un reasonablething she m ight say or do . It had been said that she was generally cheerful .

”

The jury would hear in m i nd that, for was it likely that if she had thoroughly

appreciated her position she would be cheerful. The nurse, too, had stated thatLady Mordaun t at on e tim e threaten ed to take the child

’s life, and would not in

consequen ce allow her to have it. That, too, was a. fact to which the jury shouldgive their atten tion . O n Saturday, the 6th, two days before she m ade the confession ,

she expressed awish to try andnurse the baby. Shedid try, but soon got tired . O n theTuesday m orn ing after that she appeared well, and then said ,

“ I shal l con fess al l toCharley, for he is so good.

” O n the Saturday following she seem ed full of trouble,and when asked by Mrs. Cadogan why shedid not say to her husband that shewas “

sorry, she replied, But I am not sorry.

” T his was a strange reply,

30

especially after her previ ous depression . Afte r viewin g the evidenceof D r . Orfordand the Dowager Lady Mordaun t, h is lordship passed on to the evi den ce

.

of S i r

Charles Mordaun t. He had in al l his letters expr essed hi s belief that his W ife wasnot in her r ight m ind, whi l e, on the other hand, he had stated that he foun dn othing peculi ar in her dem ean our . H i s letters also wen t

.

to show Lady Mordaun tslept well every ni ght. He had written that she

.

slept eight hours every ni ght.A l l he (the learn ed judge) coul d say was, that i f she were suffering fi om the

rem orse of conscien ce, whi ch had been deposed to, it was surpri sing that she couldsleepat al l . He th en read thedi fferen t letters , andcall ed the attention ofthe juryto thefact that they had all been wr itten after the confession ,

and that i twas not un ti l afterhe foun d the letter in her desk that S ir C harles began to believe in her con fession . A s

regards the rem arks of Serj ean t Ballan tin e about certain_ persons not bein g call ed,

his lordshi pwas boun d to say tha t it was a very extraordinary ci r cum stan ce thatLady Moncreiff and her daughter Lady Louisa were not placed in the witnessbox

,for if the statem en t regardi ng the con dition of Lady Mordaun t were true,

he could but think that there were no person s who could have spoken m oreposi tively to her con di tion than her m other and sister . The question of shamm in g was one that had been m uch di scussed but if the youn g lady wer e reallyshamm in g, what did she prepose to herself ? If her object was to preven t thedivorce she would have to pretend to be m ad all the rest of her li fe, because them om en t she began to assum e her n atural dem ean our that m om en t S ir Charles'ssuit would go on , whereas , if she m et these char ges , and they were found true,it would be better for her than if she was r eal ly m ad . Hi s Lordship said hewould go further in to this m atter after the adjournm en t, when he would speak of

the m edical evidence that had been given in thi s case.

The Cour t then adjourn ed for ten m inutes.O n re - as sem blin g,Lord Pen zance r em arked that, perhaps, it would be better that he should now

speak of the opposite dir ection to that whi ch he had just previously referr ed, andask why Lady Mordaun t should assum em adn ess , andwhat she woul d gain thereby.

The lady left her husban d’s house on the 15th of May, and cam e up to London ,

where she rem a in ed a short tim e, about a fortn ight, and was then taken to

Wor thin g,un der the guardian ship of her father , S ir Thom as Moncreifie . In

A ugust she was rem oved to Bickley , for the purpose of takin g her away fromunder the con trol of her father . At Worthin g,witnesses stated that Lady Mordaun t’s m em ory was gon e, and that she would not speak for days together . Atone tim e she would eat li ttle, and another raven ously she would laugh and spit,was dir ty in her habits, and refused to go in to her bath . When the subject of herchild was m entioned , she said sh e should li ke to kil l it. “rhil s t at W

'

orthi ng re

peated applications were being m ade to this Court as to what steps should be takento show the tr ue state of Lady Mordaun t

’

s m in d,and D rs . Burrowsand R ennolls

were,by S ir Char les , own request allowed to exam in e her . D r . Burrows said he came

to the conclusion that Lady Mordaun twas totally in competen t to give advi ce to a

legal advi ser . This gen tlem an said he exam ined Lady Mordaun t for the purposeof findin g out whether she was suffering from extrem e disease, or , on the otherhand, extrem e sham m ing . D r . R ennoll s gave evi den ce in a som ewhat sim il arstrain , and it was rem arkable that those two independen t m edical gentlem enshould have sent such a repor t as they had don e.The Judge, in conclusion , left it to the jury whether Lady Mordaun t was on the

3rd of Apr il in such a state of m in d as to be able to in struct her attorn ey, and,if

so, on what date did she cease to be so.

T H E V E R D I C T.

T he Jury, with reference to the first poin t, found that Lady Mordaunt was not

san e on the 3rd of Apr il , and that she has been insan e ever since .

The verdi ct i s thus in favour of Lady Mordaun t on both points .

Lady Mordaun t’

s fri ends have thus gain ed the first poin t in this im portantcause . Perhaps n ever before has the coun try taken so m uch in ter est in a m atterstrictly social, probably owing to the various rum our s that ever Royalty wasim plicated . We are, however , pleased to observe that the dem ean our andas sertion s of H is Royal Highn ess the Prin ce of Wales ful ly warran ts us to believehim en tir ely inn ocen t of the foul charge.There are, of course, thousands who are but too ready to look upon the black

3 1

side of the question , shutting their eyes and ears to any proofs of excul pationwhich may be produced. To these we can say nothing, no amount of appealwould turn their thoughts aside h om their dismal groove ; but to the mass of thepublic we leave the task of giving a verdict according to the evi dence in preferenceto rumour or hearsay.

It is an unhappy case. Misery will be in the homes of those who are more or lessconn

plcted with i t—the insane wife, the unfortun ate husband, and their respective

fami‘

es .O f Lord C ole and the other gentlemen over whom the charge of adultery is

hanging, we say nothing, as further proceedings may possibly be taken by S irC harles Mordaunt

,and their guilt or innocence be made clear.

The learned counsel engaged betrayed the usual rem arkable ability for which ourbar is so famous, and the Judge (Lord Penzance) summed up wi th u. concisenessonly to be met with in the courts of our country.

A ll the details of this remarkable trial have been carefully culled from the bestsources

,and presented to our readers not a point has been omitted—thus affording

to thousands upon thousands the opportunity of possessing a complete record of thewhole sad story from beginni ng to end .

With regard to the appearance of the Prince of Wales in the case, the G la sgowH era ld

’

s London correspondent writes The public mind in the metropolis nowseems to be relieved as far as the Prince is concern ed. I am informed H er Majestythe Queen has interested Herself very much in the case, and that it was a deferenceto her expressed wish that Hi s Royal H ighness offered"his evidence. It will berecollected that Mr. Ballantine, the counsel for S ir C harles Mordaunt, distinctlystated that H is R oyal H ighness should not be served with a subpoena to appear. Iam further informed that the Royal C ouncil at W indsor on Tuesday had referenceto this great Warwickshire scandal. The Premier has been very anxious

, too, asto the issue of the examination of the Prince of Wales, the publication of thePrince’s letters on S aturday hav ing led to much alarm in high places. I understandthe man who

,gave publicity to the documents was present during a portion of the

hearing,but that

,fearing the lash of the law, he wisely decamped, and instructed

a barrister, should necessity require, to act for him .

”

The following article on lunacy, from the E 0710, is worthy the attention of ourreaders

“ LU N A C Y AN D LU '

N A C Y .—An undergraduate , who was reading for his degree

at C ambridge, and who had long feared that he would be plucked in mathematics,fell asleep the night before his examination, but soon started wildly from hishaunted pillow . H e had dreamt that he was a quadratic equation , and couldnot solve himself I In sleep, not only does the mind lose its balance , and we aresurprised into the fancied committal of actions the very memory of whichstrikes terror through us as soon as we awake, but different subjects of thoughtbecome hopelessly mixed together. If in sleep some one asked us If twopegtops cost three pints of monkeys, how many British Museums could you buyfor six Lord Mayors ? ’ we should probably begin the calculation quite seriously.

But even in our wakin g moments Shakspere has confessed that

We are such stuff as dream s are made of,

and,indeed, lunacy seems little more than a sort of wakin g dream , inwhich certain

powers of comparison are dormant,whilst the energy which should be diffused

throughout the whole mental mechanism , is concentrated in one or two parts, oroverflows i ts appointed channels , and mixes all the faculties together, sometimesin the most capricious and arbitrary combinations .We have all read in Mr. Warren’s D iary of a Late Physician the accoun t of

a man who fancied his head was turned round, and insi sted upon tying his cravatbehind hi s back, and we believe that it is not very uncommon for persons affectedby a peculiar form of insanity to imagine themselves metamorphosed into anythingel se

,such as a tea-pot, a pump, or a steam engine . Such persons will often be sane

upon all other questions, and there will be no reason to doubt their word when

given upon any subject, except, for instance , making tea, or working a pump.

T he‘

C ourts of Law are often placed in the position of havi ng to say what valuecan be attached to the assertion of a person alleged to be in an unsound stateof mind

,simply because it was thought difficul t to say whether or not that person

was insane. N ow most people have a dim notion that there i s a kind of insani tywhich leaves very nearly free the moral responsibility of the subject, and is, atall events

,not sufficient to in vali date his testimony . We strongly doubt

whether many people, who are commonly"

called z insane, have a right

32

to all the sheltering privil eges of insanity. When a person is constitutionall yprone to drink, and gives way to his natural foible, hiswill at last loses all controlover his actions—he becomes in sane, if you will , in his immoder ate indulgence, andprobably dies of del i r im u. trem ns . But in any stage short of this last he must beheld responsible for his actions, although the feebleness of his W i ll is such that hecannot control himself. The common sense and common experience of mankin drefuse to let him off under the plea of insani ty, because in such cases a man

’s sanityis considered to be in his own hands. Probably everyone is bpm wi th a pronenessto some foible

,which if immoderately and systemati cally indulged wil l destroy the

balan ce of the whole nature, but society demands that in such cas es a person shal lei ther control him self

'

or give himself up to be controlled by others.The in san ity of very many persons seems to us to be of this descr iption. They

permit a certain pronen ess to irregul arity to grow into a kind of man ia. S omepeople have an in veterate habit of dissipati on which is cl aimed as insani ty. Butthis seems to us to be distinct from that kin d of lunacy which we are glad toregard

,

as releasing the individual from moral responsibil ity, nor do we beli eve thatthe

‘

words of such a person, dropped‘

in unguarded moments, even when crim inatinghim self, can be lightly di smissed a s untrustworthy, on the general grounds thatthe extraordin ary and licentious irregularity of hi s life and the capricious wayWardn ess of hi s manners have previously proved him to be insane. We leave toexperts the physical causes of insanity but the public will not fail to form roughjudgments on

'

the mental condition and moral responsibil i ty of crimin al s inhighand low life,which, after all,will probably be, not, far fr om the hu th. O ne

,thing

seems to us tolerably clear, that if some unhappy persons are insane against theirwil l, a good man y more are quite willin g to be in san e, and these latter ought ,notto be allowed to make capital out of a kind of which, if not whollyassumed, is only another name for deplorable or criminal selfindulgence.”

r m xr zn Br r un: N A T I O N A L S T E AM rm x r rxo comr ax r

1 1, C RAN E counr , F L E E T sr amc'r,