, 1866-03-22
SCANDAL IN HIGH LIFE,
The Daughter OF the Earl OF Clare
Elopes with Lord Cecil Eurdun--1n-
xeres1luE Divorce Case in Iondou.


In the London Court Of Divorce, March 9,
the case Of CaTeudlsh vs. Carendish and Cor
don came up on petition by the husband Tor
dissolution Of marriage on nccount of the
wiie's adultery. He also clafmcd damages
against the correspondent. The respondent
a1peared, and traTersed the charge; the CO.
Respondent did not appear,
for Aha respondent.
The petitioner, NJ. Francis william Henry
Cavendtsh, y n gentleman of good family.
and On. this eth Of april, 1855, he married
the respondent, Indy Eleanor Sophia, Diana
and Countess Of Glare. They cohabited ut
Hyde Park street, Hyde Park square, and
other places In London, and bad three chill
dren, the youngest Of whom Is nhout three
years Of age. In 1861 the petitioner met with
severe accident, and be In consequence went
returned In the course Of 1859, and took up
his residence ut silv1lands, near St Leoa-
urd'e. The correspondent, Lord Cecil James
Gordon, married the half-6ister Of Lady CAY
endish, and IS the tather Of nine children, the
eldest being about twenty-five years of age.
Standing in the relationship OF brother.ln-
Law to the petitioner, the greatest Intimacy
1861, he went, accompanied by bis dauSh-
ter. on q Wait to Slyer1ands, and while there
he Tell III. He was uursed with erery posi-
Bile kindness and attention, aud 1t was also
stated that his circumstances were such that
In other matters also, he was under oblisa-
came TO reside With his family at place
chilled GEay's Lodge. quite close to Silver
lands. The intimacy between tho two fami-
lies became, II possible, greater; but the
close relationship and the disparity ar years
between the respondent and Correspondent,
han cfx ~ md 10 f1nf J17ot ota fhNt ..
seven or twenty eight years Of age, preclud-
ed al idea Of suspicion. On tie 3lth JAN
nary, tS65, Lord Cecil Gordon dlned as usual
At the petitioners house, and few days ut-
terHard, on the I'd February, Lady Eleanor
Cayendish left her house for London. on
the p1etencc Of visiting her mother, Lady
Clare who was then ILL., She WIS &c
companied to the station by her hus-
baud, and WAS expected to return home
the next day. On the folio wing day, accord
iDgly, the carriage was sent twice to the sta
tion to meet her; but the suspicious Of the
petitioner were not aronssa nntil q day Or
two subsequently, when letter WHICH be had
written to her to her mothers address WAS
returned. It Was then found that Lord Cecil
Gordon had also left his hotns- Inquiries
were set; on foot, and he aud Lady Eleanor
were traced to Paris and Nice, where they
ing under the name of G1ahau1. In stating
the case to the Jury, the learned counsel {3lr.
Hod1son} observed that the motive which
must have Influenced the correspondent in the
matter WAS as dfsgracetal as his conduct. In
Jannary, 1864, Lord Clare died, and by his
will sll of his property, after the death Of La
Eleanor Gayendisb. The correspondent was
| man of pleasure, and, tn endeavorfng to &C
| count for his conduct, the learned counsel
I suggested TINT he was probably anxious to
live upon the bountitul fortune into the pos,
session Of which he well knew Lady Eleanor
would soon come. Whatever his motive
dren, aud had broken up the homo Of the man
! by whom he Ind been overwhelmed With
| kindness.
TIE Earl Of Cawdor, Lieut.. Gen. J. +
Crawford, brothersin-1aw OF the petitioner:
and A1r. Frederick John Howard, his half
! brother, were called to prove tho terms on
| which be and Lady Eleanor Cayendish Ind
lived. They stated that be WIS most indul.
geEt husband, and that he and his wife had
lived on the most at}ectionate terms.
Similar testimony was given BY other Wit
ncsses who had been servants IN the house,
| and 1t was also proved that the respondent
and correspondent had lived as nun and wife
at Nee, where they passed undeE tho name o
Mir. and Mrs, Graham-
The witnesses were not cross- examined, MOI
| were any observations addressed to the jur1
by the respondents counsel. Her mother
! LAuy IiAze3 aa7'nb osen aoent ta8ee nonth'
eince, she Is now in the enjoyment Of tht
property left 10 her By her tnther. Itsamoun
was NOT stated, but it was understood that Il
| ts considerable
His Lordship, IN charging the jury, sale
that very little was to be eaid on the case
The Gacts were not numerous, and tie resul.
could hardly be doubted. The respondent
had been wicked enough, or bad enough
to leave her husbands house, who Inc
treated her with kindness and ufection, ant
had gone to I've with 3 man who was hel
brnther-fn-law. From the circumstance
under which she LETT her home, there coult
be no doubt that they we're carrying on al
tion, therefore, which remained Was rs to tn
damages. In assessing those, they shoult
look 70 Ill the circumstances Of the case, au'
say what they thought was reasonable con-
peusatlou, SO far as money could be com
Pensatlon. for the loss the petitions;
ter, a. very natural question aros
whether the husband had been at a,
to blame. They had uninpeachable evldenc
that the petitioner and respondent had live
| on the best of terms. He was described as
| kind and indulgcnt husband, and there wa
part. But II he behaved well, What wcr
they to think OF the conduct Of Lord Cecl
Gordon! It Was well said that the grayity o
IN offence might te measured BY The obltsn
tons Which were broken, or BY the conse
| QuenccAwhjch followed from lts commission
II they applied sither test 70 the gutls, o. M tns
correspondent, It Won1d not appear. me lesl
llebt or g1leTout. They could hafdIy lind an,
cnse in Thtch the obligations which we're vto
| 1ated were SO numerous md 50 strong, or II
which the consequences WefH 60 painful
Here was a man at the advanced pes1oi
man with nine children, visiting md partak
ing OF the hospitality Of tic petitioner
a1d receiving kindness from him, and thel
taking advantage Of the intimacy which be
longed to near tarn5ly ties. inducing the wifi
Of Els friend and relative to leave her hom
with him. Whether the motive was mercen
ary or not did not signify, the result was tn
saIne. 50 far as he {sr j. 2. Wilde} could se,
there was not the slightest excuse or pal
! 1iatfon for such conduct. There was no ne
g]ect On the part of the hustand--there VA
no want ofk1ndness on his part, and thera wa
not one circumstance which, so fnr as the re
epondent md correspondent were concerned
and double fnffactfon Of their marriage row
In reply to juror, who observed that the,
had evidence before them as to the means .
the correspondent,
Ills Loraship said that II a man did aot m
IN pocket he should pay In person. IN
property Of the Correspondent WAS not II
measure Of damages, The measure OF dan
The Jury, alter celebrating for short time
found that the adultery charged had bse
committed, and assessed the damages sgafns
the correspondent at 10000. They addict
that It was one of the grossest cases that eve
came before them. .r,.,
His Lofdahip granted decree "'f', WIZ.
costs against the correspondent.
~ D,visicu No. u OF tho Bfo'ne'soou s,s ua..ed
ccmotye Euotueerr Of Cenirltia, LII. - ~ w.