The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-21 00:00:00

must make the application in London. I n mak,:
The proceedings then terminated.

771 E HON. HUGH ROWLEY AND HIS
LATE WIPE.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF PERJURY.
evening[The followirig appeared in our third edition of last
.]
At the Westminster Police Court, yesterday, the
late wife of the Hon. Hugh Rowley again appeared in
compliance with a summons granted on the application of
Mr. Rowley, calling upon her to answer to a charge of per-
jury alleged to have been committed by her in the recant
case in the Divorce Court,
in which she 891':,,:nt and ob-
tained a dece granting a dissolution, of
re
marriage on the
ground of cruelty
Mr. Metcalfe appeared or,
Sleigh and Mr. Orri;:, behalf of the lady, and Mr.
ge for the Hon. Hugh Rowley.
I The Hugh Rowley was then called, and further
eXamined by Mr. Orridge. He said--speaking of the
journey from Frankfort to Mayence—l never threatened
ors. Rowley, during the journey by railway, with personal
Violence. I never pinched her ; it is utterly untrue to say
I did. I never kicked her or struck her at all during the
journey. I never, while we were at Boulogne, where the
hair was.alleged to ha‘ve been cut, threw a loaf of bread at
Mrs. Rowley. During 1853 I think Mrs. Rowley was
`staying with Lady Langford. I cannot be sure of the date.
. 1 never 'used personal violence towards her. It was after
our visit to Ryde that we went to Ireland. It was in
1853. We went to Dublin, and from there to Dun-
dalk. I left Mrs. Rowley for three days with
her sister, while I went to the latter place.
I returned, and then took her with me to Dundalk. When
I took her there she Was free to go out, as my brother offi-
cers can testify.
Mr. Metcalfe—You had betternot mention theme:without
you moan to call them.
Witness-e-I mean to do so. I never beat -my wife at Dun-
dalk. It is utterly false to say I prof .
while we were at Dundalk. She libit ed
her
going out
annoyed by Col. Smythe ree:g, old me she was constantly
was much displeased'w4s. sing love to her. She said she
There was no co,- ..n him, as hewas such a gay old man.
ert-martial held on my conduct, or any
Rosa
such thing -as a sham one. I wish to explain. Miss
-Pe
ishop, my wife's sister, came over to step with us
.11 Ireland. She used to walk with one or two officers of
my regiment. Mr. Julius Sartoris was one of the gentle •
men who used to walk with her perpetually. In conse-
quence of something that occurred I became aware that
my wife had stated that I had boon in the habit of beating
her. I was afterwards called up to a room in which there
were 10 or 12 officers, and Captain Heaviside was sitting
at the head of them. Captain Heaviside said, " Rowley,
we hear that you have been beating your wife." I told him
it was untrue, and said if he did not believe it he had better
see Mrs. Rowley; he did so, and Mrs. Rowley denied it.
Magistrate-Were you present when she did ?
WitnessL-No ; Captain Heaviside told me she had denied
it. I. then remonstrated with Miss Rosa Bishop for the
rumours about my beating my wife, and she left our house
the next morning. The letter put into my hand is in Mrs.
Rowley's handwriting. [The letter was here read (with-
out date) ; it was from Mrs. Rowley to Lady Langford, and
having informed her ladyship of !several unimportant
items, went on to allude to a circumstance which " Dear
Zooy " would explain,] I did not leave the army
iu consequence of anything arising out of that
so-called court-martial. I left in consequence of pecuniary
difficulties. From Ireland I went to Rottingdean, and
from thence to the continent. Mrs. Rowley joined mo at
Brussels. I never ill-treated or beat Mrs. Rowley. I swear
I did not most decidedly. At Brussels we stayed at the
Hotel Bellevue, and wo also took a house and kept our
own servants. Mrs. Rowley had the same maid-servant
with her the whole of the time we were in Brussels. I
never confined her to her room. I never prevented her
communicating with her maid or her friends in London.
I state mast distinctly that I never dictated the letters Mrs.
Rowley wrote from Brussels. On our return from Brussels
we went to my mother's house, and from there to Torquay.
My servant had left, but Mrs. Rowley had the same maid.
We stopped at Torquay about six weeks, and from there wo
went to Dawlish. While we were at either of those places
I never beat or locked her up. I never prevented Mrs.
Rowley writing to her friends, although she has stated that
I did so. At Dawlish I had borrowed a sum of money of
one of her sisters, Miss Mary Ann Bishop, now Mrs. Turner,
and I was served with a writ for that money. I had bor-
rowed that money before I became of ago. It was to be
paid out of my money in the Court of Chancery. I came
to Lendon to attend to the writ, and was there informed that
Mrs. Rowley was packing up the whole of her things to
come to London. I wer:c to the railway station, and there
I found that she hs- come:to London from thence in tho
guard's van with ker maid. I asked her why she had come
to town, and s}:,o said she had had an invitation from her
mother. I said, "How jolly for you." I asked if she had
brought up my things ; she said yes, at the same time
shoyeing me a very small portmanteau. I asked her to call
at Lady Langford's and take tea ; sho reluctantly consented,
and I there unpacked the portmanteau, and found she had
left half my things behind. •
By the Magistrate—l hoard from a person at Dawlish
that my wife was coming to London. That was in 1855.
Witness—While we were at Dawlish wo were in lodg-
ings. There was no reason for her coming to London. I
did not leave' her without money. We lodged at Beech
House.

•
Mr. Metcalfe—Be kind enough to fix the time when
you came from Dawlish to Sloane-street.
Witness-=I can't say. I know it was cold weather. Mrs.
Rowley was at 69, Sloane-street twice, but I was there only
once I read the writ I have alluded to there, and I accused
niy wife of giving- the information where I was to be found.
Mrs. Rowley told me her mother had invited her, but—
Mr. Metealfe4-We must have the mother if you want to
know that.
Witness—When I went to Mrs. Bishop's, the servant
said, " Ler I Mr, Rowley," and my wife said " hush." I did
net, while my wife was living in Upper Berkeley-street,
push her down, when she struck her head against the fon-
der. I most distinctly say such a statement is untrue. She
was sitting at the piano playing, when I remarked, " You
are playing false," in an angry tone. An altercation arose.
Mrs. Rowley Oew, into a violent passion and struck
me with something on the arm. I cannot say whether it
was a pistol, but I perfectly recollect her saying, "T wish the
piatol was loaded that I-might shoot you, you brute."
She then went
Ic into one of her violent fits, and fell—l don't
litow where. Captain Lambert was sitting near the fen-
der, and I know ho had to walk two or three steps to pick
her up, so I can't see how she could have struck her head
against the fender.
Mr. Sleigh—Don't argue ; only answer the question.
Witness—During the whole of the time I was away from
my wife she received money—my money—from my mother
Lady Langford.
Mr. Orridge—Do'you know that she received the money P
Mr. Metcalfe--Lady Langford will be the be ,t person to
speak to that.
A receipt for £3O from Mrs. Rowley, through her solici-
tor, was then put in and read.
Witness—l never, during the quarrel I have just spoken
about, once touched or pushed her in the slightest manner.
A short time after this Mrs. Rowley came to me at my
lodgings, 42, Clarges-street. Sho used to stop two or throe
hems; I used to take her out to theatres. 1 used to take
"he; home, remain at her lodgings all night, and then re
tun to Clarges-street. In May, 1856, a deed of separation
was talked of.
A letter, dated May 22, was hero read from Mrs. Rowley,
declining the offer of £l,OOO as the terms of sepa'ration.
Witness—l had nothing to do with drawing up the deed
of Operation. It was drawn up by a solicitor, and I certainly.
;lathed the sum of £l,OOO, but Mrs. Rowley refused any-
thing under £3.000. During the whole time I was living
with. Mrs. Rowley, I state most decidedly I never beat
or ill-treated her in any way. I supplied ber with money,
through my mother, Lady Langford. After wo agreed to
separate, in 1856, I paid no more money. I know £1,400
wasp,aid to the trustees of Mrs. Rowley of money belong-
ing-:to me in January, 1855.
Mr. Metcalfe—The money she had a right to by an
arrangement, before the marriage, in consequence of your
being a minor when the wedding took place. You tried
all you could to prevent it. The money was in Chancery,
and you resorted to law proceedings to prevent her getting
it. Mrs. Rowley got tho £1,400, but you had had £2,000
of hers, which you spent; so after all, she only got £1,400
for her £2,000.
111 r. Orridge (to witness)-18 it true that you were pre-
sent in the Court of Probate, peeping through a curtain
while the proceedings relative to the petition of Mrs. Row-
ley for a dissolution of marriage were going on ?
Witness—No, certainly not. I arrived at Westminster-
hall a quarter of an hour before the decree was made in the
Divorce Court. I told Mr. Gustard I wanted to go in as I
bad heard the nature of the charges made that day by Mrs.
Rowley. I wanted to go in and deny them. Mr. Gustard
advised me not to ao So, as ho said there would be a scone
in court, as Mrs. Rowley would throw herself into hysterics,
and then there 'would be no divorce. I went into the court
eortaffily for- u short- time, but I did not remain peeping
through a C 11.7 tain.
Mr. Metcvalfo—l wish my learned friend would fix upon
the letters he intends to use in this case, and then lot me
have thorn, as it would most certainly shorten my cross-
exantination if I knew upon which of those -letters he re-

Mr. Orridgo—lt hiai already been intimated that the
letters can be read by the learned gentleman who appears
for Mrs. Rowley.
Mr., Metcalfe—Yes, quite so ; but I shpuld like to have
the originals in my possession for a short time.
Mr..Orridge—we will furnish you with copies.

Mr.;Metcalfe--I think my request for the letters ought
not to be refused, the more so as one of the reporters had
some of them in his possession to copy. There is a consi-
derable number, and it will take up a grc ,at deal of time to
do as My learned friend proposes.
Mr. f'aynter—Tt is very wrong that Aetters, after they
have been made evidence, should be her idea. over to a re-
porter. It is -irregulaA'amt I request it may not occur