THE MORDAUNT DIVORCE CASE.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2172, 23 April 1870, Page 2

THE MORDAUNT DIVORCE CASE.

The hearing of this rauch-talked-of and long-expected case was commenced on Feb. 10, before Lord Penzance and a special jury. Mr Serjeant Ballantiue, Dr Spinks, Q.C., and Mr Invcrwick appeared for Sir Charles Mordaunt; Dr Deane, Q C., Mr Archibald, and Mr Searle for the respondent, Lady Mordaunt; and Mr Lord and Mr Jeune for the co-respondents, Viscount Cole and Sir F. Johnstone. Dr Deane, in stating the case, impressed upon the jury that their duty was not to try whether Lady Mordaunt had been guilty of adultery with certain parties named. For all the purposes of the present enquiry, it mattered nothing whether she was the most guilty woman in the world or the most loyal and true wife that man ever had. Her guilt or innocence was not the least in question; the only matter was whether on a certain day or since that day she was of sound mind. That certain day was the 30th of April last year, which was the day on which the citation and petition were served upon her. It was therefore upon and after that date that her state of mind became a subject of investigation. Then Dr Deane proceeded : —Some of Lady Mordaunt’s outward acts might be put on for the purpose of deceiving, but in her condition and in her language, is it possible that this young woman, not yet two-and-twenty years of age, has hid sufficient strength of will, through ten long months, to keep up this play ? But what shall we say if we distinguish these outward acts from what I would call inward symptoms ? Gentlemen, I ask this question—By what stratagem could this young women so govern the beat of her pnlse, or the throbbiugs of her heart, in the way in which the medical men found the action of these organs ? By what cunning device could she so regulate the action of her skin, that the clammy, cold prespiration of disease should lie upon it ? How could she modify the temperature of her body so that the head should be hot and the feet cold ? By what drug or cunning device, not knowing that would bo seen by medical men, could she bring about the peculiar failure of the brain ? These are signs that cannot fail. They speak in language that cannot be misunderstood. No art could produce those appearances. They are produced by nature alone, and by nature in her distempered, dark, and disordered condition. Why should I dwell longer before you on this story ? It is sad enough whichever way you look at it —a very, very sad story! The question for you is whether Lady Mordaunt is a well practised and artful deceiver—whether she has been able to take in no Lss than eight or ten of the wisest, most experienced, and most able men medical men the United Kingdom can produce—or whether she is in reality suffering under this severe affliction. The first witness called was Lady Mordaunt’s female companion, who attended her from May, 1869. She spoke of the extraordinary state of mind Lady Mordaunt appeared to be in during the whole of the time she stayed -with Lor. Her memory appeared to be entirely gone, and she had no notion of things that happened the same day. Her habits were most eccentric ; she showed a total want of modesty ; would go about the house with scarcely anything on; sometimes would not speak for days; walked about the house, at times threatening to break down the doors ; was only to be coaxed to bed by bribes of pence ; would attempt to fling herself out of the carriage when riding ; rested under the belief there was a plot to poison her, and betrayed other signs of madness, but never mentioned impropriety with other people. Similar evidence was given by the female attendant. Then the medical witnesses (including Dr Priestly, Sir James Alderson, President of the (Allege of Surgeons, and Sir Jas. Simpson, of Edinburgh) concurred in stating their belief in the insanity, or rather imbecil ty, of her state. Sir Thomas Moncrieffe said he believed his daughter to be imbecile. Dr Tuke made a more minute examination than any other physician, and came to the conclusion that her ladyship was suffering from puerpal iuanitv and also catalepsy. Serjeant Ballantiue opened the case on the other side. Sir C. Mordaunt was a man of honorable name, belonged to an honorable family, had represented bis county in Parliament, and was looked up with respect by all acquainted with him ; and this inquiry was an attempt, by precluding an investigation, to embitter hjs whole life by binding him to a woman whom he believed to be unfaithful, and requiring him to recogn’se a child which he believed not to be his own. Turning to the evidence of the attendants, he contended that it was extremely suspicious, owing to their manner or their dependence on the Moncreiffe family, and that it did not tally with the testimony of the professional witnesses, for not one of the latter had seen acts of uncleauliness or indelicacy. Proceeding to open his own case, the learned counsel stated that Sir C. Mordaunt was 32 or 33 years of age, Lady Mordaunt at the time of her marriage being 19 or 20, and possessing great personal attractions. Her parents quite approved the match ; the settlement was a very liberal one, and until these unhappy occurrences burst upon him, Sir Charles believed his wife’s virtue to be unspotted. Hysteria not uncommonly afflicted her, and she had two miscarriages. In June, 1866, Sir Charles resolved to spend a few weeks in Norway, fishing, and was anxious for his wife to accompany him, but she refused to do so. The keystone of the enquiry would be the statements made by Lady Mordaunt to the nurse who attended her during her confinement, to her husband, to the wife of the rector, to her mother, and other persons. At one or two interviews with her husband, Lady Mordaufit made statements which he at first looked upon as the effect of some strange delusion, and which he therefore disregarded, until, by repetition, and the apparent confirmation of circumstances, the belief was at length forced upon him in all its orushing weight. It had been a marriage of deep and devoted affection. which, on his part, had never known any diminution. For three or four days be, although very anxious aboot her state, left her, and when he next saw her she was perfectly well, although much distressed. She then proceeded to make a statement to him, which he would read iu tho very words used by her. (Here Lord Penzance suggested that until the witnesses were called it would be better not to mention names. The parties might be indicated by lesters of the alphabet.) Concurring in the propriety qf this suggestion,

the learned Serjeant went on to say that on March 8, after her confinement, she sent a message by the nurse to her husband, ex* pressing a wish to see him. When he entered the room, she burst into tears and said, “ Charlie, 1 have been very wicked ; I lave done very wrong'” He asked her, “Who with?'’ She replied, “With A., and 8., andO., and with others, and in open day.” Taking into consideration what she said on other occasions, there was a material distinction to be observed between the first three and the fourth person mentioned. ’1 he words were, “ I have been very wicked, and done very wrong.” These words, “done very wrong,” might imply great impropriety without actual criminality. He would show that they were perfectly true as regarded her conduct with that gentlemen. The next person to whom he proposed to call attention bad been made a party to the suit—he meant Lord Cole. It would be sufficient to say that either in that or a subsequent conversation she imputed to Lord Cole the paternity of the child, and he would show that they were together uuder circumstances which gave them abundant opportunity for committing adultery. Lord Cole would be shown to have staged in the same house with her until the very day when her husband was expected to return, and then to have left. Another piece of very extraordinary evidence was in the handwriting of the young lady. In her diary of 1869 was an entry as follows—“3rd April—2Bo days from the 27th June.” That was exactly the day on which Lord Cole had last seen her, and it would be proved that he was on that occasion alone with her until 1 o’clock in the morning, and Sir Charles did not return until the 15th of July. It would be for the jury to decide, when they had heard the whole case, whether or not she bad measured the time from Lord Cole’s visit, and whether this entry could have relation to any other person. With regard to Sir Frederick Johnstone, there was no doubt that she was with him in November, and under circumstances which tended to confirm the truth of her statement. Another person, who was not a co respondent, but whose name had been mentioned by her, would be proved to have had full opportunity of committing adultery with her. They had supped together at an hotel in London, and the hotel bills, which were in her possession, woidd be produced. His case was that, overcome by remorse, and repenting of her sin, she had told the truth to her husband. The interval between the 19th and 23rd was rife with gossip concerning the case. Rumors of its being withdrawn were common. The letters of the Prince of Wales were published by a country paper, but as they had no bearing on the point at issue, the breach of confidence found little favor. When it was known that the Prince would give evidence, the court was besieged with applicants for admission, but the majority were disappointed. His Royal Highness after being cautioned, said : —He knew Lady Mordaunt and the family for several years ; he frequently wrote to her ladyship, and made her presents, and visited her. There had not been any improper familiarity or criminal act between himself and her——(Cheers.) Sir F. Johnstone was then examined as follows : Examined by Mr Deane : [ have been acquainted with Lady Mordaunt for several years. I have known her from a child, and have kept up acquaintance with her and her family. Sir Charles Mordaunt was at school with me, but I did not know him afterwards before his marriage. I was a frequent visitor at Walton Hall, and kept my horses in the neighborhood. In the month of September, 1868, I dined with Lady Mordaunt at the Alexandra Hotel. I got there about eight o’clock, as far as I can remember, and left at twelve. During that time we were in the sitting-room. From first to last there has been no improper familiarity or criminal act between me and Lady Mordaunt. A more unfounded statement was never made than that I have suffered severely fr ni disease ; it is quite untrue. Cross-examined by Mr Serjeant Ballantine : I was invited to meet Lady Mordaunt at the Alexandra Hotel. I had called upon her there on the Wednesday at two o’clock, and was invited to meet her on the following day; I knew her husband was not in town. I was two or three times on a visit to Walton. I never told him of the dinner with his wife. I never saw him, and I never referred to it by letter or otherwise to him. I am not a family connection of Lady Mordaunt’s.

By Mr Deane : When I was alone with Lady Mordaunt the waiter came into the room sometimes.