The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-05 00:00:00

TEE YELVERTON MARRIAGE CASE,

In our yesterday's impression we brought the
proceedings in this extraordinary and protracted
case down to the commencement of Mr. Whiteside's
reply, on Saturday afternoon, on behalf of the
plaintiff. The learned gentleman, in conclusion,
said,—The sacred privacy of the confessional was
never violated by any counsel until it was on this
trial violated by the counsel for the defendant. Not
satisfied with torturing that witness for three days
on the history bf her life, she answering with the
dignity of a virtuous woman, and the ease of an
accomplished gentlewoman, he suddenly demands
of her whether in the confessional she told Mooney
that this gentleman was a Protestant. There was
that expression of feeling in court which always
follows such an extraordinary question; your lord-
ship refused to rule the objection with me, and she
told to the court what she told to her God, that she
never did tell him so either in the confessional or
elsewhere. (Cheers.) She declared that Yelverton
stated what she had sworn—what he was at War-
renpoint, at Edinburgh, at Bordeaux, and what she
believed him to be from his conversation. There
is no proof that he ever took the sacrament in the
Protestant Church. Four or five soldiers were

called up in row to prove nothing that they were
required to prove. Mooney was told by this lady
that her husband was a Roman Catholic before her
marriage, and by himself that he was a Protestant
Catholic at the marriage, and he told me that he
did not marry them at all. I don't say there is
evidence in this certificate, but to estimate the value
of the evidence of Father Mooney, and to assist,
you, gentlemen, in deciding the question, whether`
S ou will believe the evidence of Teresa Longworth,
corroborated as it is by all the facts and circum-
stances of the case, I shall refer to this document
which I hold in my hand. [Reads letter from Mrs
Yelverton to Mr. Mooney.] He undertook to make
the whole business certain. Whether Biddy
Brennan, who was actually in the vestry, heard
and knew what was going on we don't know.
There is nothing in that letter to touch her crodit.
As to the observation as to her desire to obtain the
coronet of the house of Avonmore, in order that
it might encircle her brow, why an elder brother
was then living, married to a young, amiable,
accomplished, and pious person. There was every
hope of a long and happy life, but he was taken
away from the evil to come suddenly when Teresa
Longworth gave her heart, her love, her affections,
and all she had in the world, to the younger son
of an Irish Viscount, without any great prospects
in the world. That is my answer to the observation.
Father Mooney could not be influenced by the
" syren" at a distance. He had an opportunity to
think and act. He writes her a letter [reads letter
from Mr. Mooney to Mrs. Yelverton, enclosing the
certificate of marriage, signed by Richard Sloane,
Elizabeth Brennan, and himself.] This is a certifi-
cate of marriage, which any divine in the country
or all of them in solemn conclave, will tell you is a
certificate of a proper marriage according to the
Church of Rome. How was this to be met ? By
an act of Parliament passed in the reiga of George
11., forbidding a priest to marry any one who had
professed the Protestant religion twelve months
before. Now what they want yOu to believe is that
Yelverton was a Protestant twelve months before
the service. They lay great stress on " professing,"
because it is one thing to profess and another thing
to be. That must have come from Scotland.
(Laughter.) If a man declares to a lady, "I am a
Roman Catholic," if he repeatedly attends mass, if
he reasons and argues with her upon the doctrines
of the Church, if he accompanies her to Roman
Catholic churches at home and abroad, if he enters
for the purpose of marriage a church of that faith,
and says there—" I am a Roman Catholic" for the
purpose of making his marriage good, he is a
Roman Catholic; and furthermore if there is no satis-
factory evidence that for twelve months before that
time he was a Protestant—

Chief Justice—Within twelve months.
Mr. Whiteside—Do you remember the letter
written to him by his sister while at Thelwall's
house, asking "is it true you have turned a Roman
Catholic ?" He was not asked a single question on
that; nor was Mr. Thelwall or Mrs. Yelverton.
Half his family wereßoman Catholics; therefore you
have a family in which some members are of one
Church, some of another, and not one member of
that family is produced. Miss M'Farlane said he
always leaned to the Roman Catholic side. Mrs.
Yelverton swears he went to Warrenpoint Chapel
with her, and that she went to confession after-
wards; and it is an extraordinary fact that there
was no evidence that he had taken the sacrament
in the Protestant Church. He went when he could
not help it to hear a sermon in Alderney, in 1856,
and when on his way out in the Transit he heard
the prayers on deck, and read the service once,
which must have been very edifying to the flock.
(Laughter.) Therefore, I say, even on that penal
and pernicious statute—even in reference to the
question of religion, there is a balance of evidence
at the one side and the other, and the weight of
that evidence is in favour of his being a Catholic
for twelve months before that marriage. Counsel
then proceeded to refer to marriage law cases, which
he said he had very great pleasure in doing before
his lordship. In 9 Carrington and Payne, a case
was reported of a trial for bigamy, before Chief
Baron O'Grady. In 1806 the man was married to
his first wife by a Roman Catholic priest, who was
a Roman Catholic ; in 1815 he married another wife,
he professing to be a Protestant ; and the prisoner's
counsel contended that as the first wife was not a
Protestant the marriage was null and void; wit-
nesses were called to prove that up to the time of
the first marriage the prisoner went to church. His
lordship ruled that the law was right, but left the
question of religion to the jury, who found that he
was a Roman Catholic at the period of his first
marriage, and the prisoner was convicted. The
second case was one in which a similar trick was
Endeavoured to have been played on an English
jury, and the same rule of law was held. Bruce v.
Burke, 2 Adams, 471. My lord, do you remember
the evidence of Mrs. Yelverton, that after the mar-
riage he did read with her the prayers of the
Church ?

The Chief Justice—Oh, I have no doubt at all
that at the time of the marriage there is evidence
he was a Roman Catholic ; but the part of the case
I shall require some assistance in is as to whether
he was so for twelve months previously.
Mr. Whiteside—Your lordship will find what
you require particularly at page 421 of the very
voluminous judgment ywhich I have mentioned.
Your lordship will be sure to ask the opinion of
the jury on the Scotch marriage, and then their
opinion upon that other question, which, if it be
put to you, gentlemen, separately, will, I trust, be
decided in our favour, and that question is—what
religion do you believe this gentleman to have been
for twelve months past. I wish I could bring you
into the solitary chamber of Teresa Longworth,
where he was impressing upon her mind that he
sympathised with her in her faith—when he argued
with her as to the nature of the sacrament that
parties can confer on themselves—when he went
with her to chapel at Warrenpoint—when he
prayed with her in the ritual of the chapel—when
he had gained her by this marriage at Rostrevor.
Lastly, I would call your attention to that letter in
which the fact of his having embraced the Roman
Catholic religion was distinctly stated in his pre-
sence and admitted by himself ; and to this, the
crowning fact, that when he entered the chapel to
be married by a Roman Catholic priest he
answered the question of that priest in a shuffling
prevaricating way, stating that he was a Protes-
tant Catholic, and, according to the evidence of the
lady herself, stating that he was a Catholic, and,
again, that he was no Protestant. Unite all those
facts. I submit that they are not countervailed by
the doubtful evidence of regiments who go to
church to sleep—of men who are seen within the
walls of a church once in a year—unaccompanied
by any one solemn act of religion, such as the ac•
ceptauce of a sacrament. Look, then, to the ques-
tion of marriage that his lordship shall put to you.
I submit if you come to the conclusion that he did,
on the day that he knelt down before priest
Mooney, and clasped the hand of the woman that
was by his side—if he did then represent, by his
conduct, by his language, by his actions, that he
was of the Roman Catholic religion, law, reason,
justice, morality—that religion which had been
the argument on the part of the defendant—all
that induces you to find your verdict for the
plaintiff. He will be bound by this marriage,
which is good according to the argument of
his counsel, as good as it had been performed by
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Good in
conscience, good in the sight of God, and. good in
the face of the church and of the world if it were
not for the penal statue of the time of George 11.,
which was never passed to meet such a case as this
(applause). The great question in the case is,
whether you believe Miss Teresa Longworth ? In
order to rob her of that which alone she prizes—
that which is dearer to her than life itself—they
say that she parted with the rich jewel of virtue.
How was it proved ? Look to the reasons first,
and the facts afterwards. He says he admired her
—he says she is agreeable, and that in the convent

at Galata he formed the idea of making her his
mistress. If this was his design, it Was not her
design that it should be so. Look to his conduct
subsequently. He wishes still to obtain her. He
is found with her at Edinburgh—he is found with
her in Rostrevor Church. I ask you do you believe
he obtained the grand object of his desire—that he
gained possession of her person, the mystery and
great secret of her life ?—that he became her
tyrant? Do you believe if he had that he would
then have gone to that church and put himself into
the predicament in which he stands to-day by
becoming her wedded husband ! Do you believe
this man, who has been represented to you by his
counsel as from the first a skilful seducer ? Do
you believe that man who planned her ruin, who
pursued it earnestly for a long period of time ?
tgaiety, who looks upon
seduction as one of various oh thee great man
o crime
r ifmasehmfn and
de-
grees, holding that nobility stands high, that
intellect and education is to be only in the middle
rank, and that in the latter case the offence is
very venial ? Do you believe that this man, if he
could have gained his object with the woman he
admired, that he would ever have married her in
the church at Rostrevor? Impossible. But, in
order to show the- value of her testimony, I pass
over what he says happened in Edinburgh and in
the Leith steamer. The one statement is con-
tradicted by his own affidavit ; the other by
decency and all that has happened in the
case. Do you believe a word of that state-
ment ?
,What do they prove about Waterford ?
Nothing. They get a copy oils bill at Cummins's
Hotel. The proprietor was 'liere, and we were
prevented from going into that matter. We know
the defendant did everything he could to get
proof of what he wanted, and has failed. He failed
in Thomastown—he failed in Newry, and he failed
in Malahide. They produced a bill from Rostre-
vor, dated the 15th, of a party.leaving on the 15th,
whereas they were only married on the 15th, and
did not quit the hotel until the 18th. There is not
a solitary fact in the case established against her.
" But," says the defendant, "you artful woman,
you temptress, you enchantress, why did you dare
to send anybody round to the different hotels to
ascertain what could be proved against you ?" Who
is it that puts that question ? The defendant. And
what is he detected in having done ? He cut off a
lock of hair from the head of a child seven years
old that he_thought was like the hair of the head
of the woman he had deserted, and that he intended
to marry and not- to marry—that he marries and
tries to unmarry. He gets a piece of a gown that
she had once upon her, as he represents in Thomas-
town, and armed with a lock of hair and a piece of
that gown, he procures a witness, and shows them
to her. It was not the hair of his wife. The piece
of dress may, or may not, have been the dress of
this injured woman, and he ventures to fabricate
evidence to destroy her character as he had
destroyed her happiness. This was discovered by
accident. We knew it not. Until the lady started
up in the witness-box and told the story of the lock
of hair her counsel had not heard it. Then we
ascertained the history of the transaction. The
woman was telegraphed for who could prove it.
She came, and now that she has arrived you are
asked not to believe her. What would be your
feelings if, sitting on a case of the life or death of
a feliow•creature, Sergeant Armstrong spoke of
murder and trials for murder, what would be your
feelings of any party sentencing to death a fellow-
creature on the evidence of Bridget Cole and the
other witnesses ? And in like manner I put
it to you, honour and virtue are as dear as liberty
and life. Honour to a woman is dearer than life.
Why should you rob her of that which is all that
is left to her, upon the rotten testimony which has
been concocted against her ? (Applause.) When
they ask why we ventured to do what we have done,
I say because we found what was fabricating against
us ; and that young woman that gave that evidence
told you the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
and she has demonstrated that what was sworn by
Biddy Cole, and that other woman, was entirely
and absolutely false. What, therefore, becomes of
that portion of the case ? It's vanished, it's gone.
What's the remainder of this case, or this corres-
pondence—l mean, my lord, and I pray your at-
tention to it—the correspondence read by my
learned friend, Sergeant Sullivan,vvho, like a lawyer,
commenced where he ought to commence, and gave
the correspondence from the day of the marriage to
the cloying scene that took place in Leith. What
is it ? Every line of it the correspondence of mar-
ried people. Love and anxiety on his part ;on her
part a statement of all the difficulties and embar-
rassments to which, as his wife, she was subject in
that distant country. Letters addressed to her as
his wife—letters addressed by her to him as her
husband. The thing is clear, intelligible, distinct ;
until at last there is one letter glided over by Ser-
geant Armstrong, which I shall call the Christmas-
day letter, in which I beseech you, if there be any
of you that has a doubt on your mind that there
was a secret lawful marriage, to hear what Major
Yelverton has written upon the subject himself. In
a previous letter he has said—" You must not be so
low-spirited. What is the necessity for letting it
explode. Can you go abroad ? I have every reason
to believe that next June will see you through the
scrape; but more when we meet." Nobody can deny
that that exactly tallies with the date of the mar-
riage. Then the letter of Christmas-day, 1857 :
" Carissima mia—l fear it is not reservation of bon-
bons that have caused my silence this time,but what
you wrote in your• last letter bat one." Not pro-
duced. Where is that letter ? " You say—' I
told you my resolution in case certain events did
occur. You were very angry, but it would be
my duty, and if I live I must do it.' "
That's a quotation from her letter—l wish we had
the whole of it. " I told you," she wrote, " it would
be my duty, and I must do it." He then resumes
—" Now, the fact is, that it is not a question of
mere anger on my part, but your resolution is
founded on false views, Where is your duty of
keeping faith with me ? I have never intentionally
deceived you, and have done more than I promised,
at great risk." That is the ceremony, I call on you
to believe, performed within the walls of that chapel
at Rostrevor. " I told you the event we fear could
be avoided"—that's a very ugly allusion—" and you
certainly cannot doubt that it is equally unwelcome
to me as it can be to you ; but if the future proves
that I have been deceived by others that will not
absolve you from your faith, the which if you break
with me, you will never from that moment have
one of even tolerable content during the rest of your
life. If you do feel any love for me you must change
that resolution. If I depart this life you may speak ;
or if you do you may leave a legacy of the facts ;
but whilst we both live you must trust me, and I
must trust you. If I feel my trust misplaced, if you
have any affection for me, I do not envy you the
future. Your duty lies this way, not that." What
does that letter mean ? I usk you, gentlemen, what
does it mean ? It means this :—" I, your inexor-
able master, warn you that you must not disclose
that marriage. I care not for the birth of the child.
Secrecy is the bond, no matter how you are exposed.
I have made a sacrifice for you, and whatever may
be your feelings as a gentlewoman and as a mother,
you must endure the disgrace, or else I threaten
you—l terrify you by the denunciation that you
shall never have one happy hour for the rest of your
life." What's the argument made by his counsel ?
That from the day he was at Galata he was her de-
liberate, skilful, and scientific seducer. Thus, says
the defendant, I have added hypocrisy to profanity,
to deception blasphemy; If am not bound to pay
for the sustenance of this woman ; I am not her
wedded husband; I stand before you her profli-
gate and unprincipled seducer. I found her young,
I found her virtuous. Where is she now ? Her
innocence changed—her virtue lost—her beauty
spoiled—the hopes of her life fled for ever ! Better
the hand of death had swept her into an early
grave ; it would have been consecrated by the tears
of maternal affection—gentle tears, recalling happy
memories of the past, sweetened by blessed hopes
of a bright immortal future. He has blasted her
happiness in this life—he has endangered it in the
life to come, according to his argument. Save him
from the consequences of that argument, and do not
brand him as his counsel did, as a scientific, delibe-
rate, unprincipled seducer. How stands the ques-
tion now with the whole of thi▪ s great trial before
you ?—now that you have all the facts ; and I
cannot dwell at this hour mi▪
nutely upon t hose
particular circumstances that I might, if I had
gained you at an earlier hour of the day, have
endeavoured to reason upon step by step ? I ask
you to judge of that woman as she has appeared
before you, and then to say do you believe her.
Trace her life up from the first hour spent within
the walls of the convent until that terrible day
when she stood in that box to tell the story of her
multitudinous sorrows. Ask yourselves what fact
has been proved against her with any living man
save this defendant. Her crime is, she loved him
too dearly %nd too well. If she had millions she
would have flung them at his feet. Had she a
throne to give, she would have placed him on:that
throne. All she had to give was her heart—she
made' him the sovereign of her affections—and
there he reigned with undisputed sway. What are
those affections ? They have been planted in our

nature by the Almighty. They have survived the
fall, to repair the ravages of sin and death. They
dignify, exalt, and inspire our existence here
below, which else is cold, monotonous, and dark.
Nor may we believe their use terminates by the
dissolution of that mysterious union between soul
and body. Here may we hope that the soul's
high affections, purified, spiritualised, immorta-
lised, become a portion of the bliss unspeakable
reserved for the spirit of the' just made perfect
through the countless ages of eternity. (Cheers.)
She gave him her affections. She gave
him that love—a woman's love. Who can fathom
its depths—who can measure its intensity—who
can describe its devotion ? She tells you herself
what that love was—" If you were to be executed
as a convict I would stand beneath the gallows."
And if he had taken that woman for his wife misery
would have endeared him to her. In poverty she
would have served him—from sickness and misfor-
tune she would never have fled—she would have
been his constant companion, his guide, his friend
—his polluted mistress, never ! Therefore, now I
call on you to do justice to that injured woman.
You cannot restore her to the husband she adored,
or the happiness she enjoyed—you cannot give
colour to that faded cheek, or lustre to the eye that
has been dimmed by many a tear—you cannot re-
lieve the sorrows of her bursting heart, but you
may restore her to her place in society. You may,
by your verdict, enable her say—" Rash I have
been, indiscreet I may have been through the ex-
cess of my affection for you, but guilty never."
You may replace her in the ranks which she would
never disgrace; you may restore her to that
society in which she was qualified to shine and has
ever adorned. To you I commit this great case.
Would to God I had talents or physical energy to
exert either or both longer on the part of thisin-
jured and insulted woman. She finds an advocate
in you. She finds it in the respected judge on the
bench. She finds it in every heart that beats
within this court and in every honest man through-
out the country: (Loud cheering, and waving of
hats in the gallery, which lasted several minutes,
and could not be repressed notwithstanding the in.
terposition of the Chief Justice.)
The court was then adjourned.
DUBLIN, MONDAY, 5 p.m.
The case was resumed this morning. The Lord
Chief Justice took his seat at 10 o'clock, and imme-
diately commenced his charge to the jury. He has
read a great deal of the correspondence tending to
show that the lady never contemplated any other
relationship with the defendant than that of mar-
riage. His lordship is still proceeding, but is ex-
pected to conclude shortly.