The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-12-06 00:00:00

A HUSBAND AND WIFE SUING FOR

DIVORCE.

The suits of " L—et-hb- Letllbridge," and
"Lethbridge v. Lethbridge and Brinquant " came be-
fore Air. Justice Butt in the Divorce Court on Mon-
day. In one suit Mrs. Eleanor Maria Lethbridge
petitioned for a divorce by reason of the alleged
cruelty, desertion, and adultery of her husband, Mr.
Walter Buckler Lethbridge, a wine merchant. The
latter denied the charges, and in a cross-suit he alleged
adultery on the part of his wife with M. George Brin-
quant, a French gentleman.
Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., who appeared for Mrs. Leth-
bridge, said that the parties were married on Dec. 19,
1864, at St. George's, Hanover-square, and they after-
wards lived together at Hans-place, and subsequently
in Paris. Mrs. Lethbridge was a Trench lady, and
before her marriage had resided with her parents in
Paris. Mr. Lethbridge had frequently quarrelled
with his wife. He had sworn at her and struck her
with his lists. The adultery charged was at River
Dene, Cookham, with a Mrs. Hamblin. In 1869 he
deserted his wife without cause.

Mrs. Lethbridge deposed that her maiden name was
Boyer. After the marriage she travelled about with
her husband on the Continent, there being one child
of the marriage. While living at Paris her husband
was constantly absent at night, returning at three
or four o'clock in the morning. There were constant
quarrels, and on one occasion he threw some plates at
her. She had about £3OO a year in her own right.
Cross-examined by Mr. Inderwick, Q.C. : Her husband
wrote to her to come over to England. She had
not refused to live in. this country, but had written
that she would not again set her foot in this country.
She took the child away from a school at Blackheath,
and took him to Paris. M. Brinquant was a single
man who was formerly in a Government office. He'-
examined: Her husband never offered her a home in
England.
Mr. Justice Butt: It is a long way from desertion.
Lady Victoria Howard, sister of the petitioner, de-
posed as to the disagreements between Mr. and Mrs.
Lethbridge, and Walter Alexander Lethbridge, son of
the parties, deposed that he was now residing with
his mother in Lowndes-street, Piccadilly. He was
studying in Germany for the English army. He
visited his father at Cookham and at Gloucester-road,
and frequently saw Mrs. Hamblin at the house. They
used to go out boating at Cookham. His father called
her "Bear Julia," and had kissed her.7-tHad seen
them together at the theatre, the Eton and Harrow
cricket match, and also in Piccadilly, and they took
no notice of witness. Further testimony to the same
effect was given, after which
Mr. Justice Butt remarked that none of the
charges brought by Mrs. Lethbridge had been estab-
lished. .

In respect of the cross-petition of Mr. Lethbridge,
evidence taken on commission of a number of wit-
nesses was read to the Court, it being to the effect
that M. Brinquant was seen with Mrs. Lethbridge at
various hotels under suspicious circumstances.
In the result both of the petitions were dismissed,
M. Brinquant,to have his costs.

"Why do you wear your beard muttonchops?"
was asked a commercial traveller by a friend.
"Because," was the philosophical answer, "in the first
place it hides my cheek, and in the second place it
gives my chin full play."

METING OF THE LIBERAL PARTY.

In response to a circular issued by the Prime
Minister, a meeting of the Liberal members of the
House of Commons was held at three o'clock on
Monday afternoon, in the large hall of the Foreign
Office. The attendance numbered 216 members.
When the Prime Minister entered the room he was
received with cheering, 2,nd at once proceeded to
make his statement, which only occupied twenty
minutes, the whole proceedings concluding in half an
hour. .

Mr. Gladstone said they would all recollect the
last occasion on which they had met in that room.
Since that time considerable progress had been made
with regard to the subject which at present so largely
absorbed public attention. He had proposed in the
House of Commons, and Lord Granville had pro-
posed in the House of Lords, three alternatives as
to the mode in which the subject of redistribution
might be approached, and if he had bee
asked which of these alternatives the Opposi-
tion would have accepted, he would not have sup-
posed that it would be the offer of confidential com-
munications; but that offer had been accepted, and
he, of course, felt bound at once to act upon the
arrangement proposed. With regard to the negotia-
tions which had taken place, he had first to express,
on his own behalf and on behalf of his colleagues, the
sincere and very hearty thanks of the united Liberal
party, not only in the House of Commons but through-
out the country, for the extraordinary and unmeasured
confidence which they had shown in the Ministry.
The matter was one which had imposed upon them
great responsibilities, for they had felt that they
were entrusted with more than ordinary powers,
and therefore they were, if possible, still
more anxious than usual in any course they
might take that they should have the support and
confidence of the Liberal party. The circumstances
had, however, been peculiar, and we do not think
such occasions or circumstances were li.kely often to
arise; but he desired to make it clear that the matter
had been treated upon its merits without regard to
party bias. Some of them in their thoughts might have
taken into account how the question which had been
discussed might possibly affect their own party, but no
such question had even arisen in the negotiations, and
indeed, to quote the words of Shakespeare, any one
who might have been concealed behind the curtains
and heard every word that was going on, would have
been at a loss to say "which was the magistrate and
which was the thief." He wished them clearly to
understand that this was not a Compromise Bill, but
one which the Government could, upon its own re-
sponsibility, recommend to the House as based upon
their own convictions of what was right. That, he con-
sidered, was the foundation of all Ministerial responsi-
bility. The whole of the conferences on the subject
had been conducted throughout with the utmost har-
mony. Proceeding briefly to sketch the main out-
lines of the Redistribution Bill, the right hon. gentle-
man said it was proposed that all boroughs of a popu-
lation under 15,000 should lose their separate repre-
sentation, and should be merged in the counties, and
that all towns with a population between 15,000 and
50,000 should have only one member. The proposals
of the bill would liberate 160 seats. It was proposed
that twelve additional seats should be given to Scot,
land, that six additional seats should be given to
England, that Wales should remain with its present
share of representation, and that Ireland should also
be left with its present number of members, viz., 103.
The total membership of the House would be increased
by twelve members, from 658 to 670. The right
lion. gentleman without entering into details said he
might merely mention that under the new scheme
Liverpool would have nine members for different
wards of that city, and the city of London would
have two. In the case of county representation all
counties would be broken up into divisions with one
member for each, and the additional members given
to large towns would also be returned singly for
separate wards of those towns, but all such towns of
over 50,000 inhabitants as had already two members
and retained two would be left undisturbed as double-
member constituencies. The Boundary Commission
had already been appointed and was about to com-
mence its work, the results of which would be incor-
porated in the bill at a later stage if necessary by re-
committal of the bill. If the House committed itself
this week to the second reading of the bill, the motion
for going into committee might bo adjourned until
after the Christmas vacation. When the House re-
sumed and took up that stage it would then be perfectly
open to members to raise any questions, as on the
second reading, but he did not anticipate that any
serious differences of opinion would arise, at all
events with reference to its main lines. The bill itself
would be in the hands of members on the following
(Tuesday) morning.
Professor Thorold Rogers asked whether the two
limits of 15,4000 and 50,000 would be taken on the
present population of the boroughs in question or
under the new boundaries.

Mr. Gladstone replied that the Boundary Commis-
sioners would not touch towns that were under 15,000
in population. They would lose their separate repre-
sentation.

The proceedings then concluded.