The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE--(This Day.)

COURT FO DIVORCE:

(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
CAVENDISH V. CAVENDISH AND GORDON.
This was a suit instituted by Frederick William Henry
Cavendish, Esq., against the Hon. Lady Eleanor Sophia
Diana Cavendish, for dissolution of marriage on the
ground of adultery with the Hon. Cecil Gordon, commonly
called Lord Cecil Gordon.
Mr. Hodson, for the petitioner, said Mr. Cavendish
married the respondent, who was the daughter of the
Earl of Clare, on the 27th of April, 1857; and the co-re-
spondent was the father of nine children and brother-in-
law of the respondent. Some time after the marriage Mr.
and Lady Cavendish went to reside at Pussy, in France,
and there met the co-respondent, who was living there
with his nine children in straitened circumstances. An
acquaintance sprung up between the parties, and on their
return to England the co-respondent was a frequent visi-
tor to the house of Mr. Cavendish. On one occasion Lord
Gordon visited Mr. Cavendish at his country house at
Silverlaud, with his eldest daughter, and on that occasion
he was taken ill, and for a week he was kindly treated
by Mr. Cavendish. On his recovery Lord Cecil
Gordon took a house a very short distance
from the petitioner's, and both parties were frequent
visitors. In February, 1865, Lady Eleanor's mother was
very unwell at her residence in Bryanstone-square, and on
the 2d of that month Lady Eleanor gave directions to have
some boxes packed with dresses and directed to Bryan-
stone-square,where it was represented she was going. Lady
Eleanor left by the railway for town, her return being
expected the next day. Accordingly the carriage
was sent to thp station, but as she did not return
Mr. Cavendish bicame greatly alarmed. Inquiries were
thou made, when it was discovered that Lord Gordon had
also left his wife and children, and had gone no one knew
where. From circumstances that afterwards transpired
it was suspected that Lord Gordon and Lady Eleanor had
gone to Nice, and Mr. Cavendish despatched one of his ser-
vants to the place, and it was found quite true they were liv-
ing there as Mr. and Mrs. Graham. The Earl of Clare and
Lady Clare being both dead, Lady Eleanor became pos-
sessed of the whole of the large property, and the jury
would, of 'course, draw their own conclusion as to whether
the large fortune of- the lady was not to some degree at-
tractive to one who had so grossly outraged the hospitality
and kindness of Mr. Cavendish, and one who himself was
in, difficult and straitened circumstances.
The following witnesses Were then examined :
The Earl of Cawdor—l am brother-in-law of the peti-
tioner, Mr. Cavendish. I was present at his wedding
with the petitioner in 1857. After the marriage they
stayed at my country house in Carmarthenshire, and also
at my town house. „T afterwards dined with them at their
house, Hyde-park-square. They seemed to live very
happily together.
Lieut.-General Jas. Robertson Crauford—l am brother-
in-law of the petitioner. I frequently saw petitioner and
his wife after the marriage. They have stayed with me
frequently. In 1862 and 1863 I resided near the peti-
tioner and his wife, and frequently visited them. They
appeared to live happily together. Mr. Cavendish always
appeared to me a very kind and indulgent husband.
Mr. Frederick John Howard—l reside at Eastlocuirne. I
am half-brother to the petitioner. I was formerly secretary
to the Earl of Carlisle. I saw them after their marriage,
they appeared to live very happily. Mr. Cavendish seemed
to be an indulgent husband. I recollect the sth of Feb.,
1865. On that day I went to Silverland, St. Leonards, the
residence of Mr. Cavendish. On arrival there I was in-
formed that his wife bad left him. I knew Lord Cecil
Gordon. He is about 60 years of age, and brother-in-law
to Lady Eleanor. Lord Clare died in 1864, and Lady Clare
also died three or four months ago.
►Sarah Harris—l was housemaid to the petitioner in
1864. I remained there till March, 1865. I saw Lord
Cecil Gordon in June, 1844 ; he came to visit Mr. and
Lady Cavendish with his daughter. Lord Gordon was
taken ill at Silverland and was there about a week. He
was treated most kindly. Lord Gordon afterwards went
to live a short distance from Silverland at a place called
Gray's Lodge. Lord Gordon had nine children. I recol-
lect Lady Eleanor going away onithe 2d February by rail-
way, but she did not return. A carriage was sent twice to
the station for her, but she did not come home again. Mr.
_ Cavendish by the desertion ;of his wife was thrown into
great grief. I have never seen Lady Eleanor since. She left
three children, the eldest was about seven and the youngest
two years old. Lady Eleanor was aboot 30 years of age.
Thomas Anderson —I was in the petitioner's service at
Silverland. Lord Cecil Gordon was a frequent visitor at
the house of Mr. Cavendish. I recollect Lady Eleanor
going away on the 2d Feb. It was supposed she was going
to her mother. I addressed her boxes to Lady Clare's re-
sidence in Bryanstone-square. Lord Gordon dined at Mr.
Cavendish's a few days previously. He was never seen at
Gray's Lodge after Lady Eleanor left Silverland. I went
to Nice about a fortnight after, and on inquiry I found
Lady Eleanor and Lord Gordon were living there. I saw
them walking there together arm in arm. I returned to
England, and afterwards went back to Nice in March. I
met them again in the Rue de Plants. I saw them coma
out of the house in which they were living together.
Lord Cecil Gordon spoke to me when I served the citation.
Ho said, " I'm sorry you have turned detective." Lady
Eleanor and Lord Gordon were passing iy the name of Mi.
and Mrs Graham.
Amelia Victor—l was nurse to Lady Eleanor at Silver-
land. I recollect her leaving, and I afterwards went over
to Nice, and saw Lord C. Gordon and Lady Eleanor there.
I cannot say they were living together as man and wife,
although they passed as Mr. and Mrs Graham. I returned
to England after remaining a day or two, but went to Nice
again a short time afterwards. On that occasion I remained
four months; Lady Eleanor and Lord Gordon were there
passing by the name of Graham.
This was the case for the petitioner.
The Judge Ordinary said he did not think that he need
hardly say one word to them on the case as it stood. They
would have to say whether the co-respondent was weak
enough, or bad enough, to leave her husband, who had
treated her kindly, to live with her own brother-in-law.
The co-respondent was a man 60 years of age, with a
family of nine children, and they would have to say whether
he had not taken advantage of his relationship, and thereby
ruined the home and happiness of the petitioner. They
would have to say what damages the petitioner was
entitled to, but as far as he (the learned judge) could see
there was no protection for the respondent. She had not
been treated unkindly. There was no neglect. She ap-
peared to have forgotten all her obligations to her husband
and her family, and they would by their verdict say
whether or not she was guilty of the crime imputed to her
With respect to the damages, they must also determine
that question, but the fortune of Lady Eleanor was not to
be taken as a measure in assessing them. Although the
ca-respondent was not a wealthy man, yet it was
said that if a man could not pay in purse
he must in person. Lady Eleanor's property must not
enter into their consideration, as that _matter will come
before the Court on another occasion and in another form.
They would, therefore, if they decided in favour of the pe-
titioner, give ample though not vindictive damages. _
The jury, after a brief deliberation, said they wore of
opinion that the parties were guilty of adultery.
The Chief Usher—What damages do you award the
petitioner, gentlemen?
Foreman—We award the sum of £lO,OOO ; and at the
--- same time lam directed by the jury to say that it is one
of the grossest cases that ever came under their considera-
tion.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SENDING A CHILD OUT TO BEG.--John Reynard, a little
boy about ton years old, who gave the address 26, New
Church-court, Strand, was charged before Mr. Knox with
begging.

Police-constable Cheney, 87 C, said that about one
o'clock that morning he saw the little boy begging of dif-
ferent persons in the Haymarket. He said his mother sent
him out to beg, that he had only got bd., and that he could
not go home till he got Bd.
Mr. Knox remarked that it was a cold night for a boy,
shoeless and homeless, to be out.
The Constable said the boy also told him that his mother
instructed him to tell the persons he begged of that his
father was dead, while in reality he was employed at the
Adelphi Theatre.
Mr. Knox said said he would endeavour to take the poor
little fellow off the streets, and remanded him for that
purpose, at the same time ordering him some needful re-
freshment.

CREATING A DISTURBANCE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE
PRINCESS'S THEATRE.-Henry Clark, described as a wood
chopper, was charged before Mr. Knox with being drunk
and behaving in a disorderly manner at the entrance to the
Princess's Theatre, Oxford-street.
_ _

Sergeant Peacock, .37 A, said that about 7 the previous
evening, the defendant, who was drunk, behaved in a dis-
orderly manner at the pit entrance of the theatre, and,
although the money he had paid for admission was returned
to him he refused to leave, and made use of very bad lan-
guage. He was then taken into custody.
In answer to Mr. Knox, the sergeant said the defendant
did not disturb the audience, as the curtain was not up.
The defendant said he was sorry for what he had done,
but that he had not got all the money he had paid for his
family's admission back.
Mr. Small, the treasurer of the theatre, said the whole of
the money the defendant had paid was returned to 'lim—
as. by him (Mr. Small) and 2s. by his colleague.
Mr. Knox asked the defendant why he had made such
an accusation against the persons connected with the
theatre ?

The defendant said he was told by his wife that the
money was not all returned.
Tho wife then stepped forward, as also did a friend, but
neither of them knew whether the amount returned was
correct or not.

Sergeant Peacock corroborated Mr. Small.
Mr. Knox said that but for the scandalous charge the de-
fendant had made against the persons at the theatre, he
should have thought very little of the matter. As it was
he should order the defendant to pay fine of 20s,

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING; MARCH 2, 1866.

before the election committee for that borough. It appeared
that a telegram had been sent down to the admiral super-
intendent from the Admiralty on the 20th of Feb-
ruary, directing that every facility should be given for
serving Speaker's warrants on workmen in the yard, in the
case of a petition against the sitting members for Devonport.
In consequence of the receipt of this telegram 30 or 40 men
were summoned to attend the sale-room, which was used
as a police-office, and were there subjected to examination
and cross-examination singly and separately with the view
of criminating themselves, and then served with the war-
rant. Subsequently, 15 or 20 more were summoned and
treated in the same manner, and the proceeding was re-
newed on following days. On these occasions the only
persons present besides the workmen were a policeman, the
town crier, who was a leading politician, an attorney, who
was solicitor for the petitioners, and a gentleman not known
to the parties, but who was believed to be an agent to the
• petitioners sent down from London. Such proceedings
were calculated to intimidate and alarm the men, and were
most unjustifiable. He called upon the Secretary to the
Admiralty, therefore, publicly to declare whether these
statements were correct or not, and to explain circum-
stances which, on their first aspect, had the appearance of
great impropriety and injustice.
Lord C. PAGET said that all the Admiralty had done
was, upon the application of Messrs. Travers and Co., of
43, Parliament-street, the agents for the petitioners, to give
facilities simply for the service of the Speaker's warrant,
and upon their representation that it would be an inconve-
nience and annoyance to the men to do so at their houses,
and their request that their chief clerk should see the men
during their hours of work for that purpose. A letter to
the same effect was also forwarded to the admiral superin-
tendent, signed on behalf of " their lordships," by Mr. W.
G. Romaine. The warrant of the Speaker had access to
all the public. departments, and all the admiral superin-
tendent could do was either to allow the bearer of the
warrant to visit the workshops and disturb the men in the
midst of their work, or he might order them to assemble
together to be served, and the latter was the course which
had been adopted.
Lord CRANBORNE contended that the explanation of
the noble lord was not satisfactory, and that the proceed-
ings which had been resorted to were a distinct interfer-
ence with the men with the view of upsetting the election
of the sitting members. Supposing this case had been
passed over unnoticed by the house, and a petition pre-
sented ;agaipst the return for Portsmouth, did the noble
lord imagine 'that if such a telegram were sent - down to
that borough the admiral superintendent would. -have
ordered the electors in the dockyard there to assemble in a
quiet corner of the yard, and be cross-examined by a Con-
servative attorney's clerk ?
Lord C. PAGET, amidst cries of "Oh," and loud laugh-
ter, declared upon his honour that the same course would
be adopted.
Mr. LOWE observed that the men must have necessarily
felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that they were in duress,
and therefore they ought not to have been subjected to
such an examination. It appeared to him, however, that
all that was authorised by the Admiralty was to allow the
serving of the warrant in the yard, as being more conve-
nient than serving the men at their own houses. Because
the authority given by the Admiralty had in some degree
been abused he did not see that there was any charge
against the nobleman who had presided over that depart-
ment with honour and credit for the last seven years.
Sir H. M. CAIRNS argued that all the agent need have
done was to leave the warrant at the voters' houses.
After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
Mr. WALPOLE said he admitted that no minister of the
Crown had ever conducted himself more ably or honestly
than the Duke of Somerset ; but the question at issue was
not the conduct of the Admiralty, but whether, having re-
gard to perfect freedom of election, any undue and impro-
per influence had been exercised over the electors under
the guise of the Speaker's warrant, which might have been
served at their houses, and not taken into the dockyard at
all. His opinion was that there was great impropriety in
the agent making the application in the first instance, and
that the explanation of Lord C. Paget ought not to be
satisfactory to the house.
In answer to Colonel NORTH,
The SPEAKER stated that all his warrant did was to
command the attendance of a witness before select

committee.
Mr. HORSMAN inquired whether the Admiralty had
given authority to take any proceedings whatever beyond
that of serving the warrant ?
Lord C. PAGET replied that the only authority given
by the Admiralty was to servo the Speaker's warrants, and
they knew nothing farther of what had taken place until
Sir J. Pakington's statement of that evening.
Lord HOTHAM could not believe, if the First Lord had
foreseen the use that would be made of his permission, that
he would for a single moment have listened to the appli-
cation of the agents. It did not require the present dis-
cussion to show that workmen in the Government dock-
yards ought not to have votes, and he should be surprised
after this, if the noble lord was not instructed by the Firs
Lord to declare that these pioceedings had not only been
taken without the knowledge of the Duke of Somerset,
but met his entire disapproval.
Lord R. MON TAGU thought such proceedings were no
more than might be expected from a Government that was
tottering to its fall.
Captain VIVIAN defended the admiral superintendents
from being influenced by improper motives.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
it to be the duty of every public department to give facili-
ties for serving the Speaker's warrant; but he admitted
that the assembling of the men together in this case was a
proceeding that savoured of interferende ; and he did not
hesitate to say that it was much to be lamented. He pro
mised that a strict inquiry should be instituted into the
circumstances, and orders would be given to prevent the
recurrence of such an irregularity.
Mr. DISRAELI observed that the question was whether
the house approved of these proceedings, and elicited a
hearty cheer when he added that he took it for granted
that there was not a gentleman on either side that ap-
proved of them. It was not correct to say that this was an
act of insulated indiscretion by an attorney's clerk, in a
moment of excitement, asking questions that he was not
justified in putting ; for the examination was prolonged,
the average in the case of each voter being from one and a
half to two hours. There could be no doubt that the
Speaker's warrant was issued to fish up evidence for an
election petition, and the proceeding was altogether open
to very grave suspicion.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said the Government
disapproved as much as any member of the house the abuse
which had taken place.
Lord J. MANNERS protested against converting the
Government dockyards into a" political shambles ;" and
Mr. SELWYN was of opinion that no one could read
the agent's letter without seeing that something more than
the service of a warrant was intended.
The subject then dropped.
The other questions discussed on the order for supply
were the experiments made as to the cure of the cattle
plague and the grievances of the masters of the navy ; the
former of which was raised by Mr. SANDFORD and the
latter by Si LAwnENCE PALK.
The house then went into committee of supply, and pro-
ceeded with the consideration of the navy estimates. In
the course of debate Sir M. Peto expressed a hope that the
Government would yet give Captain Cowper Coles a fair
opportunity of constructing a ship of war upon his turret
principle ; and Mr. Ferrand criticised the conduct of the
Admiralty in not accepting the apology which Capt. Coles
had offered them. This remark called up
Lord C. PAGET, who stated that as soon as Capt. C.
Coles made a proper apology the Admiralty reinstated him.
A loud and general cheer was evoked by the announce-
ment; and Mr. Ferrand, after remarking how glad he was
to hear it, expressed a hope that Mr. Reed, the Constructor
of the Navy, would also apologiselor the observations con-
tained in one of his speeches.
Various other topics affecting the naval service were
passed under review, including the building of ironclads
and Me manning' of the fleet.
Lord C. PAGET defended the policy pursued by the
Admiralty, and contended that the ships they were turning
out were in seagoing qualities, general safety, and speed,
far superior to those which were built for foreign govern-
ments in English private yards.
Lord ELCHO drew attention to a paragraph in a letter,
signed by a person with an unpronounceable name, which
had appeared lately in a morning paper, containing a charge
against 12 men of her Majesty's ship Wolverine of having
for a series of days subjected a female class leader in Ja-
maica to the most brutal outrages. He wished to know
whether the Admiralty had received any information con-
firmatory of the truth of the statement?
Lord C. PAGET replied that no information of the sort
had reached the Admiralty, and he believed it to be a base
falsehood. Full inquiry should be made, and if any such
occurrence had taken place he trusted that the guilty par--
ties would meet with condign punishment ; but if it were a
false and wicked accusation he hoped its authors would be
visited with public reprobation.
Eventually the vote of 68,450 seamen and marines for
the navy was agreed to, as were also several votes of
money for the effective and non-effective services.
On the house resuming, the Cattle Diseases (Ireland)
. Bill was read a third time and passed ; and the other busi-
• ness on the paper having been disposed Lf, the house ad-
- journed at 10 minutes past one o'clock.
re-