The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-03-14 00:00:00

THE EARL OF DURHAM'S NULLITY
SUIT.

The proceedings in connection with this case again
occupied the attention of Sir. J. Harmon in the
Divorce Court during last week. A number of
aristocratic witnesses were called, chiefly relative to
the condition of Lady Durham's mind and her general
behaviour previous to marriage.
On Thursday Lady Sheffield (wife of Sir Robert
Sheffield), the Rev. Franci!, Knollys, General Reilly, ,
Lady Cecilia Webb, and the Hon. G. Curzon, all of
whom spoke to Lady Durham's apparent soundness
of mind prior to the marriage, gave evidence.
The case for the respondent closed on Thursday,
and on Friday the Attorney-General addressed the
Court for the respondent. Had Lady Durham
'given her consent to that contract of marriage? He
had authorities to show that such was the real issue
to be determined. Sir Henry James then proceeded
to comment on the facts of the case at length. He
very much regretted having to reflect severely on
Lord Durham's conduct. But it was his duty to
do so. He (Lord Durham) having been, as he
had admitted, convinced that his wife was idiotic and
hysterical, had lived with her as his wife for nearly
three-quarters of a year after that. Did not this of
itself stop him from proceeding in the matter,
for having treated a woman to whom he considered
incapable of understanding her marriage contract.
He then proceeded to remark on the proof given as
to Lady Durham's sanity, evidence as to her manage-
ment of details before her wedding and in her corre-
spondence. Sir Henry James concluded with sub-
mitting the petitioner had failed completely in
making out his case. The Solicitor General then
proceeded to address his lordship for the petitioner.
The facts of the case pointed out clearly that the
insanity in question had come on by degrees; the
symptoms were manifest to Miss Miler's family
before the marriage, and they must have known of
them. Whatever Lord Durham and his sister may have
noticed, looked at now in the light of present experience,
a very different construction must be put on the
shyness and reticence noticeable in Miss Milner. He
(Sir Farrer Herschel) did not think that the Attorney-
General had dealt fairly with the matter altogether.
In reply to the. allegations on the other side, that
Lord Durham's evidence was that of relatives and
family servants, he would meet it with the fact that
:.hough in the whole of the respondent's case there was
ao evidence of any value at all, the best of what little
;here was was the evidence of Lady Durham's
relatives and nearest friends. Mrs. Gerard's
svidence, he would contend, was naturally biassed
when she said "shy," it meant "very shy ; " when
rather shy," it meant" excessively shy," and so on.
The further hearing was adjourned.
The Solicitor-General, on Saturday, resumed his
iddress on behalf of Lord Durham. The learned
gentleman commented upon the delusion that Lady
Durham had something dreadful and awful to tell
Lord Durham. Now what was her conduct at Cliffe
mamediately after the engagement? On the Sunday
sfternoon Miss Milner did not go to church, and
Lord Durham naturally stayed at home in order
:hat they might see something of one another. But
instead of coming downstairs glad to see the man to
whom she had just engaged herself, she remained in
ner room and did not come down until Lord Durham
went upstairs and knocked at the door of her loom,
snd asked whether she was coming down at all or
not. Then there was the visit to Buxton. Next there
PISS the journey from Buxton to Lambton. It was a
tong journey; but during it there was a difficulty in
getting Miss Milner to eat. His learned friend laid
much stress on the congratulations of Lady Catherine
Lambton on their arrival at Lambton Castle; but it
must be remarked that those congratulations were
given by Lady Catherine immediately on their arrival,
ind before she had observed the bearing of Miss
!Sinner. Then how was Lady Catherine—her old, inti-
mate friend—received by Miss Milner when she went
:o congratulate her on her engagement. Lady Cathe-
ine was received with the most extraordinary cold-
less, such as was completely unnatural. The journey
!rom Lamb ton to London displayed similar strange con-
luct ; but it was suggested that her conduct was the
!milt of a little joke with reference to Lady Lonsdale.
What was more natural than that Lord Durham should
endeavour to rouse her, to amuse or even to excite
aer resentment if only he could do anythingto get her
x) show some sort of interest? But it was in vain.
E'er manner remained the same. But her strange
;onduct on that journey was marked, so much so that
aer sister, Mrs. Gerard, asked her to account for it.
Ars. Gerard was so impressed that she asked her
iist er whether she should break off her engagement
with Lord Durham, but Miss Milner said no, she
would do that herself if necessary. There was only
me rational explanation, and that was mental disease;
er, as she afterwards herself said, that "there came
time when there seemed to be a barrier between her
Ind the world." The learned Solicitor-General then
aroceeded to discuss in detail points of the evidence,
mud contended that Lady Durham's insanity was not
)rought on immediately after the marrittge, but
,hat it existed before, the medical testimony fully
:earing this out in respect of constitutional irregu-
arities. In conclusion the learned counsel
:ontended that at the time the marriage was
:ontracted Lady Durham was of unsound mind, and
ihat her mental condition was such that she never
anderstr,od or realised the obligations of a wife. He
isked the Court to give its decision on the only
•easonable and just ground under the circumstances.
this suit cast no dishonour or discredit on the lady,
who was in a hopeless state of insanity, and to whom
;be matter, when mentioned to her, was of complete
ndifference. It was only natural that, if the law
aermitted, Lord Durham should seek to regain the
aossibility for himself of a wife who could be the
*mistress of his home and the mother of a family. It
was only human nature, and he asked the Court to
leclare this marriage null and void.
Sir James Hannen : I will give my decision on
ruesday.
The Attorney-General then put in an exact model
A the dress worn by Lady Durham at Cliffe on the
)ccasion of the burn. It had the appearance of a
lows dress.

The Court then adjourned.
Sir James Hannen gave his judgment on Tuesday
morning. His lordship said the question he had to
iecide was whether the respondent was of sound
mind at the time of the marriage, and clearly under-
;tood the contract she was entering into. Authorities
aad been cited; but he did not think there was any
ase entering into a consideration of them, as the case
must be decided on its own facts. A contract of mar-
riage did not require very high powers to understand
chat it was to love each other to the end, and he felt
pound to consider whether before marriage insanity
had reached such a stage that it rendered the re-
spondent incapable of understanding the responsi-
bilities of the marriage contract. His lord-
ship first dealt with the medical evidence given
in support of the petitioner's case. Ile referred to the
opinions given by Dr. Duncan, Dr. Playfair, and Dr.
Blandford. The argument, said his lordship, on the
part of the petitioner was that the symptoms which
were observed in April, June, and July, 1883, by these
medical authorities showed that Lady Durham was,
insane. What did these medical authorities observe?
Dr. 'Mathew Duncan says that he first saw Lady
Durham on the 22nd of April, 1883, that he was con-
sulted for certain functional derangements, that to his
questions she gave no answer, or only said Yes or
No ;' but, giving the utmost consideration to the evi-
dence, he came to the conclusion that there was
nothing to prove her imbecile at this time. Dr. Play-
fair first saw the respondent on the 30th of June,
1883, and came to the conclusion that her -symptoms
were not those of hysteria but of unsound mind; but
he added that he could not give an opinion as to its
duration. When Dr. Blandford was consulted he
came to the conclusion that she was of
unsound mind. This witness did not use the
word imbecility, and he stated generally that, after
having beard the evidence, he did not come to the con-
clusion that she first became insane after the marriage.
His lordship then proceeded to examine the evidence
to see whether her condition was the same previous to
her marriage; and he at once said that there was
nothing in the evidence to warrant the opinion which
Dr. Duncan formed that she had been imbecile from
her childhooc: andher early womanhood. He thought
it appeared from the letters of the respondent that she
was a person of low intellectual powers. She had
acquired some accomplishments and took part in
private theatricals. She seemed to have inspired
feelings of affection amongst ladies of her own age
whose acquaintance she made after entering society in
1879. She was everywhere treated and received as an
ordinary person, at any rate until her engagement.
Her grandfather, the Archbishop of Armagh, looked
upon her as the most sensible of his grand-
daughters. It was clear that she was
of a shy and nervous temperament, which
impaired her powers of expression and impeded
the flow of her ideas in the'presence of those she did
not know intimately. But it was equally clear that
she was capable of forming a judgment on her own
conduct. Shyness of the degree and kind from which
the respondent suffered existed in many perons of a
much higher intellectual capacity than Lady Durham.
Lord Durham was, no doubt, in the first instance
attracted by her beauty, and she was a persom whom
he desired to obtain for his wife. Her unfitness for
conversation did not constitute imbecility or insabity.
The Archbishop of York, after stating that during the
respondent's visits to his house in 1882, he had oppor-
tunities of observing her, and that she talked quite
freely to him, said that her manner was always per-
fectly composed and simple, and there was nothing
to mark her out from other people. Lady Carmarthen
(Lord Durham's sister), on Lady Durham's arrival at
Lambton after the engagement, said, "I am so glad.
This is what I have been hoping for for the last year."
Lord Durham's judgment may have been obscured by
his passion, but Lady Carmarthen's was free from any
such disturbing influence. It appeared to him (Sir
James) therefore impossible to contend with success
that the respondent presented up to the time of her
engagement any sign of want of sanity to those who
had the best means of judging of her mental capa-
city, and the greatest interest in estimating it cor-
rectly. With regard to the burn at Cliffe, no evi-
dence had been given to show insensibility to pain,
but the incident had been relied on to show insensi-
bility to pain. The incident had also been relied on
to show that the respondent had attempted self-
destruction by setting her dress on fire. The re-
spondent appeared to have gone upstairs on an
errand for her sister. She gave the alarm. herself,
and, on the arrival of the "(trysail she had entity

guished the flames. She at the time said she had
dropped a match which had set light to her dress;
the fire ran up, but she had extinguished the flames
with a towel before they hurt her. There was absolutely
nothing to throw a doubt on that statement as to
the accident except the subsequent statement he had
referred to. The suggestion that the burn must
have caused pain was not borne out by evidence.
The: testimony given, therefore, entirely Jailed to
support the theory that the respondent intentionally
caused injury to herself. With regard to the excla-
mation, "Oh, it is too dreadful !"—or "Oh, it ie too
awful," as other witnesses put it—it was sought to
prove that the respondent's state of mind was at this
time disordered. Lord Durham could not persuade
the respondent to say to what she referred. The un-
fortunate lady could not now give any explanation,
and they were bound not to assume on mere con-
jecture that there could not have been a reasonable
meaning in her words. The evidence satisfied him
(Sir James) that the respondent's affections had been
fixed upon a gentleman whom she knew before the
petitioner. It was clear that the person was attracted,
and that they understood one another's feelings; but
he was not considered eligible by her relations.
Believing as I do (Sir James Hannan continued) that
the respondent's affections still continued fixed
on another man, I think that she • did Lord
Durham a great wrong in becoming engaged
to him, and that she was conscious of this. Lord
Durham complains that when his proposal had been
accepted Miss Milner did not return his kiss, and
that neither then nor at any other time did any word
of endearment pass her lips. If the kiss and the
words of endearment had been given to another,
might she not feel that there was something which
she ought to disclose to Lord Durham. The word
" awful " or " dreadful " may have well have been
used by the sensitive girl whose conscience was not
easy on the subject. It was further to be observed
that it is not unusual at the present day for young
men and women to apply such terms as " dreadful '
and "awful" without any nice considexation of their
fitness. It was further said that the respondent's
coldness and reticence to Lord Durham after their
engagement were unnatural. If she had been sincerely
in love with him, such conduct would have been
unnatural, and I can only wonder that Lord Durham
could persuade himself that, the respondent cared for
him with such strong proofs to the contrary. Lord
Durham says that he was to some extent reassured
by a statement made 81,,rtly before by Mrs.
Gerard that her sister's coldness to him arose
from her love for him. It appeared to him
(Sir James Hannen) that Mrs. Gerard was certainly
to blame in stating to Mrs. Knollys, as she did in
July, 1882, that her sister was in love with Lord
Durham, and that thus Mrs. Gerard's device to bring
about a match which she thought advantageous had
assisted to wreck the happiness of two lives. (Sup-
pressed applause.) The conduct of Lady Durham
after the engagement was evidence of want of affec-
tion. If he (Sir James Hannen) was right in the
view he took of the state of her feelings, the respon-
dent did a great wrong to the petitioner in continuing
her engagement when she found that she could not
love him; but while he (Sir James Hannen) found
want of affection, he found no want of sanity. He
came to the conclusion that the respondent exhibited
every symptom of sanity down to the time of the
marriage. He regretted to be obliged to state his
opinion that Lord Durham did not on the third night
after the marriage show that tenderness and consider-
ation which the condition of his bride demanded. His
threat to leave her and tell her mother of what he
considered her waywardness was calculated in the
bighest degree to agitate her and disturb her
nervous temperament. After the marriage her
bealthbroke down, and medical men were called in. Sir
Gull, however, said that he saw no evidence of
insanity. After that they went to Cannes, and there
a change in Lady Durham was noticed by her maid.
Lady Carmarthen also gave evidence that Lady
Durham told her she was suffering from melancholia,
and that she kept on imagining things which made
her unhappy. Sir James said he attached great
importance to that statement, as showirg that she was
not able at that time to reason about her condition,
and, therefore, that though she felt that her mind had
a tendency to insanity, it had not yet given way, as it
did shortly after. It resulted from this that the
respondent's appearance, manner, and behaviour after
the visit to Cannes were essentially different from
what they were before she left England. I find it
impossible (bir James continued) to doubt the con-
current testimony of so many witnesses; and it is to
be observed that this change was in its nature such
as commonly arises from insanity. It manifested
itself in a perversion of the affections. She became
cold, distant, and unkind to those whom she had
formerly loved. Add to this that she was seen by
Sir William Gull before ehe went to Cannes, and he
observed no sign of insanity in her. I come, there-
fore, to the conclusion that the symptoms which the
three medical men who have been called for the
petitioner observed did ' not exist before the re-
spondent went to Cannes, and I draw the inference
that the change in her mental condition from sound
to unsound mind occurred at that place, and had not
arisen at the time of the marriage. I therefore find
that the petitioner's case i 3 not established, and I dis-
miss the petition with costs.
The Attorney-General, before his lordship left the
bench, said there had been no evidence that the
respondent ever actually received a proposal from
Lord Burghersh.
The President said he had cteted his views on that
part of the case on the evidence laid before him.