Radcliffe – Weld 1893

Page 25, 4th February 1893


On February 1 the marriage took place of MR. PHILIP RADCLIFFE, Royal Engineers, son of Sir J. Percival Radcliffe, Bart., of Rudding Park, Yorkshire, with Miss MAUD WELD, daughter of the late Sir Frederick A. Weld, K.C.M.G., of Chideock Manor, Dorset. Long before the hour fixed for the wedding, the church which had been beautifully decorated for the occasion with choice white hot-house flowers, ferns and palm trees, was crowded as well as the aisle and transepts, many being unable to obtain seats. The church bells rang gaily from an early hour ; triumphal arches had been erected in great numbers bearing appropriate mottos and good wishes to the bride and bridegroom, and flags were everywhere to be seen. The bridegroom arrived a few minutes before 10, accompanied by his best man Mr. Bernard Radcliffe ; and soon afterwards the young bride entered the church leaning on the arm of her eldest brother, Mr. Humphrey F. J. Weld, who gave her away. She looked lovely in a gown of rich ivory duchesse satin with court train, the only trimming consisting of lappels of satin, richly embroidered in pearls falling partly down the front and over the sleeves. A long Honiton lace veil was worn over a coronet of real orange blossoms and myrtle. She carried a magnificent bouquet composed of rare exotics. She wore a diamond ” sun” and a diamond star the gift of the bridegroom, a diamond star, the gift of Sir P. Radcliffe, and a diamond heart the gift of her brother-in-law, Captain Edward Druitt. She was accompanied by her bridesmaids, Miss Angela Weld (sister of the bride) and Miss Laura Talbot (cousin of the bride and bridegroom). Their costumes were of the palest blue merveilleux silk, the bodices being draped with deep lace frills falling over voluminous puff sleeves of cream velvet. The skirts were made with trains, and edged with feather trimmings. They wore large picture hats of cream velvet, with ruches of pale blue and ostrich feathers, and each carried a satin shoe filled with Marechal Niel roses and lilies of the valley. They wore pearl and turquoise initial bangles, the gift of the bridegroom. Her train was carried by two little pages, Master Rudolph Graham Mayne (nephew of the bride), and Master Frank Talbot (cousin of the bride and bridegroom). They wore pale blue ” Little Lord Fauntleroy ” plush suits, and caps with ostrich feathers. Each wore a pearl and turquoise pin, the gift of the bridegroom. The Nuptial Mass was celebrated at 10 o’clock, the marriage ceremony being performed by the Right Rev. Dr. Virtue, Bishop of Portsmouth, assisted by Mgr. D. B. Bickerstaff Drew, the Very Rev. Canon Mansfield (chaplain of Chideock Manor), the Rev. F. G. Wood (chaplain of Rudding Park), and the Very Rev. Canon Debbaudt. After the marriage service a reception was held at Chideock Manor, during which the tenants presented the bride with a beautiful Queen Anne silver tea-tray and urn. The wedding breakfast took place at 12 o’clock. Owing to recent mourning in the bride’s family, the guests consisted of only near relations of both families. Later in the afternoon the happy pair left for London, en route for the continent, where the honeymoon will be spent. The bride’s travelling costume consisted of a soft shade of electric blue Amazon cloth, trimmed with a deep shade of velvet, the front of the skirt being slightly draped ; the full corsage was confined at the waist by a deep Empire belt of velvet, the large puff sleeves being finished at the elbow with folds of velvet. She wore a large felt hat of the deepest shade of electric blue, which had a quaint little crown of pale blue velvet, with sable tips. His Holiness the Pope sent a special blessing to the newly-married pair.


Lady Weld, turquoise necklace, pendant, bracelet, hair ornament, brooch, Honiton lace, Blonde lace, turquoise ring ; Sir J. P. Radcliffe, canteen of silver, pearl bangle, oak case of cutlery, cheque ; Lady Radcliffe, diamond and ruby bangle, house and table linen, hair bracelet, crown Derby writing set ; Miss Radcliffe’ old silver fruit spoon, Japanese embroidered cushion ; Miss F. Radcliffe, old silver tongs, six old silver apostle spoons ; Mrs. de Lisle, silver salt cellars ; Mrs. Brown, Queen Anne silver coffee-pot, tea-pot, cream jug, sugar basin ; Miss Brown, silver fruit spoons ; Mr. Humphrey F. J. Weld, pony carriage cob and harness ; Miss Angela Weld, standard lamp, Japanese embroidery, screen, silver soup-tureen ; Mr. R. and 0. Weld, travelling clock in silver case; • Mr. Henry Radcliffe, lacquer tea-table, silver mounted tantalus ; Mr. Bernard Radcliffe, silver egg-boiler, silver revolving entree dish, two silver lamps ; Mr. Roger Radcliffe, six silver hand-candlesticks ; Lord Arundel of Wardour, cheque ; Mr. and Mrs. Radcliffe, cheque silver sugar castor ; Captain Graham Mayne, pearl bracelet; • Mrs. Mayne, cheque, Indian embroidered silk shawl ; Mrs. Charles Weld, cheque ; the Hon. Mrs. A. Strutt, pearl necklace and pendant • Mr. Edward Strutt, ivory and silver-handled fish carver ; Miss Lisle Strutt, Wedgewood breakfast service ; Mrs. Blount, brass writing set ; Mr. Edwin de Lisle, Tennyson’s Maud; Mrs. Edwin de Lisle, opera cloak ; Major and Mrs. Frederick Bland, silver-mounted claret jug ; Mr. Reginald Talbot, set of Queen Anne silver salt cellars ; the Misses Talbot, silver-mounted carvers ; Mrs. Reynolds, Royal Worcester vase ; Mr. J. G. Duplesis, silver cigar box ; Messrs. J. and J. Weld and the Misses Weld, silver fish carvers ; Mr. and Mrs. C Radcliffe, old silver apostle spoon ; the Rev. F. G. Wood, brass revolving book stand ; Miss W. O’Connor, silver-mounted tortoiseshell paperknife • Mr. de Lisle, silver sugar basin ; Sir Charles and Lady Clifford, Dresden china tea-service ; Mr. and Mrs. Scrope, glass casquet ; Miss Radclifle, silver embossed cream jug, sugar basin and tongs ; Mr. and Mrs. C. Brown, Louis XVI. clock ; the Rev. Mother, New Hall, handsomely •illuminated Agnus Dei ; Mrs. Arthur, standard kettle, tray, and Japanese tea service ; the Countess de Torre Diaz, pearl crescent, turquoise stars brooch ; Mr. Perry, drawing. room standard vase ; Captain Edward Druitt, diamond heart pendant ; Mrs. Edward Druitt, pearl ring, silver box • Miss Mary Druitt, handpainted fan ; the Rev. and Mrs. Goddard, silver muffineers ; Sir P. and Lady Mostyn, standard kettle ; Mr. Algernon C. Bowring, diamond and sapphire pin ; Sir W. and Lady Vavasour, silver mirror ;, Mr. and Mrs. Ulric Charlton, six silver coffee spoons ; Miss R. Brown, old silver mustard-pot ; Miss F. G. Brown, silver muffineers ; Lady Armytage, silver egg cups, spoons and stand ; Sister M. Gertrude, leather workcase ; Sister M. Gertrude, picture ; Colonel and Mrs. Lloyd Evans, silver fish knives ; Mr. and Mrs. J. McDonald, two silver scollop. shell butter dishes and knives ; Mr. F. J. Radcliffe, Miss and Mr. F. Radcliffe, six silver spoons ; Winifred Lady Howard of Glossop, pearl crescent, pearl and coral pendant ; Mr. and Mrs. John Talbot, silver fruit dish ; Mr. and Mrs. Edward Mostyn, brass inkstand ; Dr. and Mrs. Barry Ball, silver-mounted ivory paper-knife ; Mr. and Mrs. Snead Cox, gold-mounted scent bottle ; Miss G. Coventry, silver button-hook ; Sir Hugh and Lady Low, old French silver buckle ; Mrs. Bidulph, Mont Barow vase ; the Hon. Lady Clifford, glove box ; Mrs. D’Arcy Hartley, carriage clock ; Mr. Charles Radcliffe, silver toast rack ; Mr. and Mrs. Kitson, Queen Ann silver cream jug ; Lady Lovat, pair of vases ; Colonel and Mrs. H. P. Knocker, silver embossed sugar basin and tongs ; Miss B. Roope, folding photograph frame ; Mrs. Hibbert, brass-mounted paper case ; the Misses Hibbert, brass-mounted blotting book ; Sir Molyneux and Lady Nepean, travelling clock; the Very Rev. Canon Mansfield, silver-mounted carriage whip ; Major-General and Mrs. Hales, china lamp ; the Misses Weld, lace handkerchief ; Mr. and Mrs. Morragh Bernard, silver shoe horn, button hook, and glove hook ; Mr. Manley, walking stick and telescope ; Mr. Whitgreave, ivory-handled fish carvers ; Mr. and Mrs. J. Coventry, silver sugar castors ; Mrs. D’Arcy, silver butter dish and knife ; Mr. and Mrs. H. Weld, brass kettle and stand ; the Right Rev. Abbet Leo Linse, 0.S.B. sacred picture ; Mr. and Mrs. Wilfred Weld, gold curb bangle ; Master Everard J. Radcliffe, pair of silver candlesticks ; Miss Freda Radcliffe, silver tray ; the Misses Prince, silver scent bottle ; the tenants and inhabitants on the Chideock Manor, Queen Ann silver tea tray and urn ; the household servants and employed on the Rudding estate, two pairs of silver candlesticks ; household servants of Chideock Manor, pair of candelabra ; bride to bridegroom, set of pearl studs, gold watch ; bridegroom to bride, diamond ring, diamond and ruby butterfly, ostrich feather fan, diamond “sun,” and diamond star.

O’More of Laois

There is a two volume set of books titled, History of the Queens County, written by V. Rev. John Canon O’Hanlon and Rev. Edward O’Leary, Volume one was published in 1907 and Volume two in 1914 in Dublin, Ireland by Sealy, Bryers & Walker.

Appendix I to Volume two was copied from Notes on the O’Mores as they were published in the Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society, Volume VI . The  edited papers were published in Dublin in 1911. The papers, and appendix were written by Lord Walter Fitzgerald, who was a younger son of the 3rd Duke of Leinster. To be more precise, he was the fourth of eight sons, and the tenth of fifteen children. He was a noted Irish antiquarian, and to quote from the Kildare Observer, form the 24th October 1898

“Lord Walter Fitzgerald resides at Kilkea Castle Co Kildare, a charming old residence which has been for centuries one of the family places of the Earls of Kildare…..Lord Walter takes a keen interest in the life and times of Lord Edward (Fitzgerald – 1763 – 1798, a United Irishman), for he is a thorough Irishman, and delights to dwell upon the glorious traditions of the House of Geraldine. He is a well known archaeologist and is an authority upon Celtic nomenclature.”

So he is a fairly reputable source, and historian, of wider family history.

This appendix includes the following subjects, and for the ease of reading, I have split them into three separate posts

The Times, has a go at Sir Joshua Walmsley in 1839

It’s great to see that the press hasn’t changed much in 175 years. This is a report from The Times in 1839, having a go at Sir Josh.

Sneaking Visit Of The Sneaking President Of The Board Of Trade To The Sneaking Mayor Of Liverpool

The Right Hon. Henry Labouchere (1798 – 1869) later 1st Baron Taunton

The Right Hon. Henry Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, was entertained at the Town-hall, Liverpool by the Whig Mayor, on Friday last. He arrived from Manchester, where it is said he has been sounding the leading Whigs as to his chances of being returned for that borough in the ever of the anticipated retirement of Mr. Greg. The hon. gentleman was sojourning in Manchester with Mr. Mark Philips M.P., Mr. Greg’s brother-in-law. Your reporter having been given to understand that Mr..Labouchere’s visit to Liverpool was of a public nature, made application to the mayor for admission to report the proceedings, the answer to which was, ” That the mayor had. not yet determined on the course to be pursued with respect to reporters at the dinner.”

No further notice having been taken of the application up to the day of the ” banquet”  the reporter to “ The Times ” again wrote to his worship for a decided answer, stating that he did not presume to dictate what course the Mayor ought to pursue, but reminding him that the last time when the Mayor of Liverpool entertained a public character (Lord J. Russell) his Lordship was misreported by an amateur reporter. To this application the Mayor returned the following answer-:

“ The Mayor has now given the fullest consideration to the application of the reporter of The Times, and, with every disposition at all times to accede to any request from. the press, so far as may be properly within his power, he is obliged to decline the present application on the ground that the dinner to which Mr. Labouchere is invited is not public, but private.

Town-hall, Dec 20 ”

It was subsequently ascertained, that the liberal Mayor  “with every disposition to accommodate the press,” admitted some of his own creatures, who of course would report nothing more than was suited to his worship’s views.

The following brief account of the proceedings is from one of them, published in a Liverpool paper of Saturday :-

“Visit To Liverpool Of The President Of The Board Of Trade.

“Yesterday, Mr. Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade paid a visit to Liverpool, as the invited guest of our worthy chief magistrate. The right hon. gentleman received during tho day, a number of deputations from the several commercial associations of the town, at the Town -hall, at intervals (on each introduction) of half an hour.

He was waited upon on the part of the following bodies successively,

The American Chamber of Commerce.

Deputations from the Associated Bodies, Mr. W. M. Duncan, secretary.

The Anti-Corn-law Association, Mr. H.T. Atkinson, Honorary Secretary.

Duty on Slave-grown Sugar Association, represented by, Messrs, Sandbach and Tinne.

These occupied the attention of the right hon. gentleman from half-past 1 to half-past 3 o’clock.

Liverpool Town Hall

At the latter hour Mr. Labouchere, accompanied by the Mayor, appeared on ‘Change, where he was warmly received. He then visited the News-room, where, as well as on ‘Change, the concourse of merchants and others was unusually dense. On his entering the News-room, the rush at the door was more than inconvenient to those who fell within its vortex.

The right hon. gentleman, on reaching the centre of the room, was received with loud and repeated cheers. Before these had subsided, a few foolish and fashionably-dressed young men, near the door, set up a sort of ass, demonstrative at once of their want of courtesy to a stranger and a highly- respectable and able gentleman, and of their own close affinity to the animal whose cry they imitated. These very partial and contemptible tokens of disapprobation were speedily drowned amidst renewed cheers, clapping of hands, and other demonstrations of welcome to the distinguished visitor. Three cheers were then proposed for the mayor, and the call was heartily responded to. Three cheers were next proposed for ” Sir Robert, “ and the response was most vehement and enthusiastic. Some one rather faintly, and not generally heard in the room, then proposed ” three cheers for the Queen “ ;  but the respectable parties present, considering the place and the occasion altogether unsuitable for a demonstration of political feeling (which it was sought to exhibit in a sort of ‘pothouse’ sort of fashion, that might not have concluded till midnight.) very properly refrained from a response. Mr. Labouchere met with the kindest reception from numbers of our most respectable citizens ; and, when he left the room, many of them accompanied him back to the town-hall.

At 4 o’clock he there met a deputation on the trade with the Royal and Brazilian Association, headed by Mr. Alderman Moon.

At 5 o’clock he met a deputation of the Hayti [sic, Haiti] trade, consisting of Mr. Alderman Sheil, Mr. Killock, Mr. Greenshiel, Mr. Maunder, and Mr. Mocatta, who, we learn, represented to the right hon. gentleman the impolicy of forcing coffee produced in foreign colonies to be sent to the Cape of Good Hope and brought back, in order that it might be introduced into this country at the lower duty of 9d. per pound.

We are unable to give the replies of Mr. Labouchere to the several deputations, but are informed that he did not enter into lengthened arguments on each particular topic, but stated that he felt assured the important representations made, when laid before Government, would receive the most anxious and careful consideration, with a view to meet the wishes of the parties, and thereby promote tho commercial welfare of the community.

Dining Room, Liverpool Town Hall

At 6 o’clock, the right hon. gentleman and the other guests of the Mayor, to the number of 80, principally merchants, sat down to a most splendid dinner in the banquet- room of the Town-hall. After the toasts of ‘ the Queen’ and ‘the Queen Dowager,’ the Mayor gave the health of their distinguished visiter, Mr. Labouchere, and the other members of Her Majesty’s Ministry.

Mr. Labouchere in a feeling reply, said that he was proud to address so large an assemblage of commercial gentlemen, who, though necessarily entertaining different shades of political opinion, were all united in the great common object, the happiness and prosperity of their native country. He was aware that in the office which he had the honour to fill he had succeeded a gentleman of great ability and practical knowledge, and that he must necessarily appear to disadvantage; but he hoped, by imitating the example of his predecessor, and availing himself of tho suggestions of such able individuals as he had that day met, to conduce to the commercial advancement of this great empire. From an early period in life his interests and his hopes had been bound up with its trading prosperity and welfare. He had visited several of the manufacturing towns, and regretted that he could but stay one day longer in this second city of the kingdom. He had that day received a number of deputations, and during the remainder of his stay he should be glad to communicate with others, and to avail himself of any information from them or from individuals in any way connected with the objects and duties of his office. He concluded by proposing ‘ Prosperity to the town and commerce of Liverpool,’ and sat down amidst much cheering.

Sir J. Tobin  acknowledged the toast in a very feeling and appropriate manner.

The health of the Mayor was afterwards drunk, to which he made a suitable and eloquent response.

Several other appropriate toasts were given,and replied to. Not the slightest feeling of political dissension was manifested, and the meeting separated highly gratified by the splendid hospitality of the evening, and the sentiments of universal good-will so eloquently expressed.”

It will be seen, from the above account, that at ” the private” visit of the President of the Board of Trade to the Mayor of Liverpool, public business was transacted with deputations from no less than six associated public bodies representing the interests of an immense number of the mercantile community. Such is the anxiety evinced by the Whigs to afford facilities to the press in their arduous duties of furnishing information to the public.

The following is another account of Mr. Labouchere’s visit published in a Liverpool paper to-day:-

“This gentleman, who has lately been at Manchester, it is supposed on an electioneering expedition, and whose intention to visit Liverpool had been rather pompously notified in the Radical prints, received some addresses and deputations yesterday morning at the Town-hall.

Precisely at half-past 3 o’clock,according to an announcement which had been pretty extensively circulated – (not publicly, of course), the right hon. gentleman, accompanied by, or rather walking side by side with, his worship, the Mayor of Liverpool, Mr. Joshua Walmsley, and followed by a rush of gentlemen, most of them excited by curiosity, entered the Exchange news-room, which, as is usual at that hour, was already pretty well thronged. The right hon.- gentleman and his worship (the latter of whom, by the by, looked magnificently humble, or humbly magnificent-which you like) having entered at the centre door, walked up the room for a few yards amidst complete silence.

Then the presence of the distinguished guest or visitant having become known, there was  – what do you think ?  Oh, such a feeble war !  –   nine persons and a half squeaking out, as if they were ashamed of themselves, ‘ Hurrah !’  whilst a strong bass of hisses accompanied the treble of applause. ( You had better not say, however, a ‘bass of hisses,’ or Parson Aspinall may perhaps pun upon it on Monday, and say it was very base.)  Well, that ‘ hurrah,’ like a still-born child, or a bubble, or a tobacco-puff, or some other thing equally evanescent, having passed away, and without the slightest attempt at repetition, there was about three seconds of dead silence, during which, as I suppose, the ‘ worthy gentlemen’ were still progressing upwards-not towards heaven, I don’t mean, but towards the top of the room. I followed, as fast as I could push myself through the crowd, but at last got to a standstill, and then the three seconds of dead silence having expired –  that is gone dead  –  there arose a shout from some person whom I could not see- (I don’t -say it was from Charles Jackall Atkinson or whatever that renowned would-be town-councillor calls himself – he has so many names, I quite forget his present one-but I do know that the jackall was loitering about the room to wait upon the ‘lion,’ or ‘ lions’) – well, there was a shout, from some one, of. ‘ Three cheers for the Mayor‘  and the order was obeyed to the very letter. There were three cheers –  that is, three persons (calculating nine tailors-to make a man) shouted out ‘hurrah,’ and, as before, the hisses  –  though hisses are not such telling things as shouts   –   preponderated.

In plain words, and with very tittle exaggeration  -I own to a very little    27 persons responded to the shout of   ‘ Three cheers for the Mayor !’   27 persons, out of a body of gentlemen amounting probably to    how many do you think the room would hold    –  say 700, and that’s a low estimate, I think     cheered the Mayor of Liverpool ! I  was going to say it was a radical shame, and isn’t it ?

Well, I -can’t help it;  it was not my province to shout, or ,I would have shouted; for I felt humiliated, somehow, at the fact of there being a mayor of Liverpool who had descended to such a level that, after it had been bruited abroad that he was about to visit the Exchange news-room with a ‘ lion’ of such dimensions as Labouchere, he could raise only 27 persons to shout for him., Why, a common ass  –  a very common, twopence a-mile wench-carrying ass, such as you see over at Cheshire on holydays –  it went out in company with such a noble creature as a  lion  – could raise 35 tailors to applaud, and 35, multiplied by 9 would make 315.

Well, the “ immense applause ‘ having subsided, a gentleman called out ironically or sarcastically ‘Three cheers for the French Navy !’. which excited some laughter amongst those who were up to snuff, but many seemed to think it mal apropos  and accordingly, another gentleman followed it up by a much better aimed shot. He called out ‘Three cheers for Sir  Robert Peel’ , and the applause which followed was most hearty, enthusiastic, and general. I heard a Radical afterwards characterize it as tremendous, but a reporter would hardly go as far as that.

I then looked for the Right Hon. Mr. Labouchere and his satellite, but I could nowhere behold them; I suppose they must have slunk out of the room at an upper door; for in an instant the crowd began to slacken, and laughing groups were seen in every direction, some of whom I heard make use of such expressions as, ‘Well, I think they have got enough of it’ and “They didn’t seem to like it’.

Liverpool Town Hall

It was very funny altogether, – very funny – I wish you had been there. And what is perhaps as funny as all, the whole scene did not occupy above a minute or two; it was over in less than no time; the infusion of Conservatism in the dose seemed to be too strong for the stomach of the lions, and they went away. There is one consolation, however, if the Ministerial visitor was deprived of his expected portion of applause and adulation, and congratulation, and he would in the evening, have a dinner, which would satisfy his physical appetite, if appetite he had any, after what had occurred. The Town-hall was, at all events, lighted up.

“ This is all I know. I intended to have told you the whole in one slip and a quarter, but I have made a slip in my calculation – a good many slips, I think.”

The Times, December 23, 1839

The Working Man’s Monument to Sir Robert Peel – 1850


A public meeting was held yesterday evening, at 6 o’clock, in the grounds of the Belvedere Hotel, Pentonville, in aid of the national subscription fund for this purpose. It was announced that Mr. Hume would preside, and that Mr.Cobden would also be present. Both these gentlemen were detained by their public duties in the House of Commons, and the chair was taken by Sir Joshua Walmsley, who, at some length, explained the objects of the meeting, and paid his tribute of admiration to the memory of Sir Robert Peel. Sir Joshua alluded to the various great measures carried by the departed statesman, and dwelt with especial praise upon the sacrifices which he had made for the public good, and to secure untaxed food for the millions. The first resolution was moved by Mr. George Thompson, M.P., and seconded by Dr. Brownless, and was as follows:-

” That this meeting is of opinion] that the British nation has sustained a great loss in the premature death of the late Sir Robert Peel, and desires to offer to the afflicted family of the departed statesman an expression of their sympathy and condolence in the bereavement they have sustained.”

The motion was, of course, carried unanimously, the meeting testifying their approbation of it by uncovering while the show of hands was taken by the Chairman. The second resolution was moved by Mr. G. Harris, and seconded by Mr. P. P. James, and was

” That it is the opinion of this meeting that the nation at large in the lamented death of Sir Robert Peel has lost one of the first statesmen of the age, and the man above all others who, at the personal sacrifice of the support and esteem of many of his friends and associates, was nevertheless able and willing to carry out large measures for the practical good and relief of the masses in this country.”

Mr. Alexander Macphail and Mr. John Layton proposed and seconded the next resolution, which expressed the opinion of the meeting,

“That Sir Robert Peel had left a name which would long be remembered in the hearts and the homes of the working-classes of this empire, and that his memory should be deservedly cherished by those who earn their bread by their daily labour, as well as by those who desire the welfare and comfort of their poorer fellow-men.”

Another resolution, proposed by Mr. Wakeling, and seconded by Mr. James Yates, was to the effect, that a lasting testimonial of the gratitude of the working men of this country should be erected to the memory of Sir Robert Peel; that the subscription list for this purpose be open till the 1st of January, 18al, and that all sums be received from 1d. upwards. An almost perfect unanimity prevailed with reference to these resolutions, for two persons who endevoured to express views more or less directly opposed to them were summarily put down by the meeting, which was numerously attended. The secretary in the course of the proceedings announced that he had received letters from Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, Viscount Hardinge, the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. Gladstone, and other distinguished persons, expressing their approbation of the working- mans’ monument to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, and offering their assistance and co-operation.

The Times, July 13, 1850

Sir Josh has an accident 1841

We regret to have to announce that Sir Joshua Walmsley is at present confined to Wavertree-hall by an accident of rather a peculiar character. We understand that he had been travelling for some considerable distance on Sunday last, by railway to Liverpool, and that on getting out of the carriage, after it had arrived at its destination he found his right leg much stiffened by the length of time he had been sitting. Almost immediately after he had placed it on the ground, two of the muscles close to the knee suddenly broke, and rendered him unable to walk home. Medical assistance was speedily rendered, and the necessary remedies applied, but, up to the present time, he is obliged to have the leg in a sling, and to be assisted in moving about the house. It will surprise many of our readers to learn that Sir Joshua is about to leave Liverpool almost immediately, and to take up his permanent residence in Staffordshire. We understand he has come to this determination within the last few days. He will, however, still continue to carry on his mercantile business in Liverpool as usual, and will occasionally return to superintend the concerns of the house with which he is connected.-

from the Liverpool Mail, reprinted in The Times, September 11, 1841

Affidavit of Eugene Plummer McCarthy, July 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



Affidavit of Eugene Plummer McCarthy in support of an answer

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Emily McCarthy formely Verling petitioner

Eugene Plummer McCarthy respondent

Affidavit of respondent verifying and supporting answer

Wm F Morris

13 Beaufort Buildings


In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Emily McCarthy formely Verling petitioner

Eugene Plummer McCarthy respondent

I, Eugene Plummer McCarthy of thirteen Beaufort Buildings Strand in the county of Middlesex, Attorney at law and Notary Public, the above named respondent make oath and say

  1. That I was not upon the occasion of my first marriage married at at Cullenswood, Ranelagh in the county of Dublin as alleged by petitioner, and that it is untrue that I deserted my first wife.
  2. That if it be the fact that my first wife be still alive I humbly submit that some more authentic and reliable evidence thereof should be offered than the unsupported and interested averment of the petitioner herself.
  3. That in the event of any such evidence being procurable, a prosecution for bigamy should be instituted against me which I am ready and desirous of defending.
  4. That I never before heard her death questioned or disputed until it was done so by the petitioner, being instigated thereto, as I fully believe, by one George Wilson Grove, and it is scarcely consistent with the fact of the existence of my first wife that although I resided nearly continuously for fourteen years in the vicinity of the city of Cork practising as a solicitor and Notary, no single claim or demand for or in respect of any such alleged existing wife was ever made on me directly or indirectly although the woman now alleged and set up by petitioner as my first wife was during the whole of said time, as I am informed and believe a native and resident in the city of Cork, where she was a common prostitute several years previous to my first marriage and still continues so.
  5. That I was unfortunately married to petitioner at the time and place alleged by her when it was unnecessary to have done so as she had been cohabiting with me previous to marriage without any scruple or compunction, and it was petitioner herself who allured me into a connection with her and planned and suggested the various places of meeting, and also took the various lodgings where I cohabited with her before marriage, the two last of said places being at Brompton and Holloway, at Brompton 24 Pelham Road, at Holloway, St Alban’s Cottage in the vicinity of St James’ church.
  6. That although such cohabitation was and is well known to several persons, petitioner made oath previous to her marriage before William Moore Drew esquire, a Justice of the Peace at Queenstown in Ireland that she had not cohabited with me nor had ever seen me in London.
  7. That petitioner having so sworn falsely and denied upon her oath a fact capable of easy proof is unworthy of any credit and the more so as she has been declared by the Reverend Mr Eyre now of Northampton who was sometime her spiritual advisor to be an Atheist and utterly destitute of all moral or religious principles, her mind having been depraved and demoralised by a Roman Catholic Priest, the Reverend Patrick O’Dwyer with whom she had had an intrigue previous to the misfortune of my marriage with her, which I did not then know. Cardinal Wiseman and several of his clergy are perfectly acquainted with what I state about petitioner and said O’Dwyer.
  8. That by my marriage with petitioner I fell from a position of independence and respectability as petitioner was not associated with by even the members of her own family, her two brothers, one a clergyman, the other a surgeon in the Navy passing her unnoticed, which I subsequently learnt was in consequence of her intrigue with O’Dwyer.
  9. That I lived with petitioner subsequent to my marriage until the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty five in which year I became acquainted with George Wilson Grove who had been a solicitor and was then keeping terms for the Bar at Middle temple, he was then also a second time a widower with one son, and three daughters, the eldest of whom was nearly as old as petitioner and said Grove himself nearly fifty years of age, which facts with all the plausible professions of interest and friendship made by him for petitioner’s and my welfare disarmed all suspicion I’m my mind particularly when he seemed so attentive to his religious duties, having his prayer-book and Bible upon his table at his chambers.
  10. That upon one occasion, a Sunday, I went accompanied by petitioner, to call upon said Grove at his chambers, and found said Grove apparently very devotionally engaged with his prayer-book, whereupon petitioner observed to me “that man can not be a bad man”, but before we left said chambers a prostitute knocked at his door and enquired for him of me who opened the door for her, I then began to know the man’s true character and that he was a hypocrite masking infamy and profligacy under the guise of sanctity, he made a bungling apology and said the woman came to enquire for the gentleman on the upper floor, however  peremptorily cautioned petitioner against ever trusting herself alone with him as I believed him to be a base and treacherous hypocrite.
  11. That in Trinity term one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight Grove was refused his call to the Bar and in the ensuing November he left England pretending he was going to Italy for his health-sake, I did not know he was refused his call for fraud and misappropriation of trust funds, and that he was nearly dependent upon his father’s means for his support.
  12. That within a month after said Grove’s leaving England petitioner left me to proceed to Paris for the avowed purpose of perfecting herself as a singer said Grove having forwarded thirty pounds to her and having also agreed to allow her a hundred and twenty pounds a year until she would be ultimately able to repay him upon her success as a singer, and never supposing said Grove would pursue petitioner to Paris and always hearing her speaking the most contemptuous terms of the intellect of said Grove, designating him “ a poor trifling animal”. I permitted her to go, and it was also arranged by said Reverend Mr Eyre she should reside with some friends of his while in Paris
  13. That on the day of departure from London, petitioner was accompanied by a Mrs Thomas who was proceeding to Brussels and I subsequently discovered petitioner left Mrs Thomas at Folkestone and went to Amiens in France which is a junction of the railway to Brussels although Mrs Thomas was travelling to the same destination and would have accompanied petitioner to Amiens where petitioner remained three days, and I am now thoroughly convinced petitioner spent said three days there with said Grove.
  14. That on her arrival at Paris she wrote to me she could not reside with the family intended for her by the Reverend Mr Eyre, and about the same time I received a letter from said Grove dated at Brussels that “ poor little Mrs Mac Carthy must feel sadly at a loss in such a queer place as Paris,” and as if it was immaterial to him where he resided if I desired it he would at once go to Paris and asking of me to conceal his going there “to prevent tongues babbling about it” to which letter I replied the next post promptly and positively interdicting his going, and that ill-nature had while he was in England been busy connecting my wife’s name with his, and also telling him I was daily becoming better informed of the libertinism of his character from the number of unfortunate women coming to enquire for him and that I would sooner put a stone around my wife’s neck and fling her into the Thames than to have him about her.
  15. That I the same post informed petitioner of said Grove’s request and of my reply to it, to which petitioner wrote a letter now in my possession highly approving of my reply and indignantly censuring said Grove, and that if he attempted going to Paris she would not remain there to be spoken of as she could not be too particular as she was away from her husband, and also wishing “may the Devil take him the brainless jack-ass” meaning said Grove.
  16. That paying no attention either to my entreaties or interdiction nor to the injury which he confessed must ensue if his going was known said Grove went to Paris and positively refused to leave it again and although I used every effort to induce petitioner to act upon her declaration of leaving if he remained she persisted in remaining there and thenceforward to defend said Grove and to calumniate me.
  17. That I wrote and asked said Grove why and for what did he go to Paris? when he confessed the injury certain to arise from his act to which inquiry he wrote to me replying “ I will not condescend to answer you.”
  18. That I then wrote to said Grove’s father detailing his son’s conduct and the profligacy of his character and asking his interposition and also writing that even had his character been ever so moral and spotless he would still be compromising the reputation of petitioner and be inflicting an injury upon her character.
  19. That I being still unwilling to believe petitioner actually criminal and that the acquisition of the object ostensively in view by her made her submit to the infliction of said Grove’s presence, in which opinion I was further fortified by her indignant reprehension of his conduct and character and ridicule of his mental acquirements and personal appearance but when I saw she altered her demeanour and language, still believing her not unfaithful, I went to Paris at much inconvenience upon two occasions to try and induce petitioner to give up any intimacy with said grove or to leave Paris and return with me to London if said Grove’s persecution of her and me was not to cease.
  20. That upon the last occasion of my going to Paris I arrived early in the morning and as I was proceeding towards where petitioner was residing I saw said Grove loitering and waiting in the vicinity of her lodgings, I was naturally highly incensed and upon seeing petitioner I found her dressing to go out. I told her her persecutor was lying in wait for her, when she retorted upon me the most virulent invective and abuse, and declared that she would not leave Paris with me  and was thenceforward done with me, and that she had never read one of my letters but burned them as they reached her though all of said letters were written to her in the most agonising terms depicting the misery and disgrace she was ensuring to herself as well as to me.
  21. That I had not sufficient means to permit me to remain in Paris the better to detect and procure evidence of petitioner’s criminality, and as I saw the utter uselessness of striving to restrain a woman intent on her own ruin and who evinced such a complete disregard to her self-respect or to public opinion. I again returned to London wretched and heartbroken at finding her so shameless and worthless and at being so duped and deceived by her.
  22. That upon my return to London I communicated with the Revered Mr Eyre and put before him all the correspondence between petitioner and myself with said Grove’s letters. Mr Eyre wrote to petitioner several letters, and said Grove without being in the first instance addressed wrote to Mr Eyre an attempted vindication of his conduct, and there can be no doubt said Grove’s addressing Mr Eyre was suggested by petitioner as said Grove was entirely a stranger to him and was done in the hope of defeating the purpose for which I sought Mr Eyre’s interposition.
  23. That Mr Eyre in nearly all his letters to petitioner and to said Grove that petitioner was placed in a false position by said Grove in my absence and against my explicit wishes and insisting upon either petitioner or said Grove leaving Paris, all of which letters and the replies thereto were read to me by said Mr Eyre, and are I believe yet in his possession.
  24. That said Grove evaded leaving Paris but in each of said letters intimated an intention of leaving by a certain time “ if then necessary” which conditional expression was repeated in all his letters to Mr Eyre, and which expression was subsequently explained by said Grove transmitting to Mr Eyre a declaration made by an inmate of the workhouse in the city of Cork that she was my first wife, whereupon Mr Eyre addressed to said Grove the following letter, the original of which is now in my possession;

Cadogan Terrace, Chelsea

May 12 1856


Your last letter which was composed with a good deal of caution, you did not give me the shock you anticipated. My sole and entire object has been for and on behalf of Mrs Mac Carthy. To my mind the course I have to pursue is a clear and unmistakeable as any one street in a town. I have mad my propositions. I gave it as my final decision, and I have no change to make in it yet. I have succeeded in keeping Mr Mac Carthy quiet, but delays, accidents, etc, are rousing him and shaking my confidence, and if I feel I can no longer reasonably withstand his appeals and consent to let him loose woe betide the party he first runs at! After all that has been said and written by you and by Emily, is it, sir your place to take up the case you put? Are you in a position decently to interest yourself in proving Emily a single woman? Is the step likely to justify the past? Has Emily chosen you out as the man to take up her cause at the very moment she consented to escape from you by changing her abode and is professedly  insisting on your leaving Paris? Did you or did you not get the first history of this state of things from Emily herself? You will excuse me, Sir as I know nothing of you, except through this unfortunate business, if I say that nothing I have heard of you has damaged you so much as your own last letter now before me! Only think too what a position you put me in. You ask me to keep Mr Mac Carthy here. I am hesitating as to whether I am not bound in honour, as a gentleman, and in conscience as a Christian to tell him all and send him over instantly to Paris. He already knows you have tried to prove his marriage null. Am I then who has acted all along as his friend and his wife’s to tie his hands here, and let you plot at ease? I presume he has his tale to tell. Are you acting for Emily without her knowledge? Will she take it as a kindness to be proved a ruined woman? Are you acting a gentleman’s part? A gentleman in your position would at least for the sake of appearances employ another and satisfy himself with aiding and obtaining proofs, if even that much. Every time you speak of leaving Paris you add “should it then be necessary.” Now Sir, what has occurred to affect the previous position of things? You ask me for advice, my only advice to you is to act upon what I have already dictated as imperative. I have already told you my mind is clear upon the case. Leave Emily – Leave Paris! It is needless now to comment on the details of your composition. Ah, it is palpably insincere to use no stronger term. I return to the point with which I started. I have advised Emily. I have advised you. If my advice be not acted upon, I shall have no alternative. I must hand the whole matter over to Mr Mac Carthy to deal with as he thinks best. Unless I hear from you immediately in reply to this I shall act on my own discretion.

Meanwhile I am Sir yours etc.

V. Eyre.

25. That I am unacquainted with the reply given by the said Grove to said letter but that unsatisfactory and not calculated to raise him in Mr Eyre’s opinion can be readily inferred from Mr Eyre’s letter in reply to him dated May seventeenth one thousand eight hundred and fifty six, the original of which is also in my possession, and which is as follows:

“Sir, I have to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 15th instant. The nature of that document leaves no other course open to me, but at once to decline all further communication with you”

I am Sir yours etc.

V. Eyre.

26. That I upon enquiry ascertained that the woman who had been induced by said Grove at the suggestion of the petitioner to make such declaration and to falsely represent herself as my first wife had been a prostitute in the city of Cork several years previous to my first marriage and that she continued and continues to be so still.

27. That Mr Eyre insisted on petitioner’s immediate return to London which she did in the month of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty six and was several days in London before I learned it, when I did so I went to her lodgings in Walton Street, Chelsea when I believed her absent and there I found several letters, some addressed to said Grove, amongst them the before mentioned two, and also some written by him all having reference to the concerted attempt to set up a prostitute as my first wife, all of which letters are in my possession.

28. That I was then further convinced with her complicity with Grove’s baseness, and as I was leaving her lodgings I met her at the door returning, when I asked whether she had brought any papers with her from Paris relating to Grove’s attempt, she replied she had not brought any, not knowing they were then in my possession.

29. That petitioner returned at said time to London without any luggage or property whatever, having left it all in Paris as a surety of her return there again.

30. That Mr Eyre was still desirous of believing petitioner did not participate in Grove’s plotting and that she had but acted with greta imprudence, at least he tried to persuade me so, he seemingly being led away by her solemn protestations and her repeatedly saying in his and my presence that if she “ wanted to be bad, it would not be such a worn out old rouè as Grove she would select.”

31. That I then replied to her in Mr Eyre’s presence “prove to me that Grove was not with you at Amiens, I shall try your fidelity by that single test, produce his passport, let me see its visées, if you be innocent, bad as he is I think he will not refuse, if he can, to take such a taint from you, and when you satisfy me, I shall then produce certificates of my first wife’s death and burial.”

32. That she faithfully promised that said passport should be produced, and Mr Eyre at her suggestion but against my express wishes wrote again to said Grove, that if he left Paris and permitted her to pursue her studies unmolested by him, she would return there, and she professed extreme anxiety to return in order to vindicate her reputation for me, when I replied “for heaven’s sake do so, and do not you too be added to your mother and aunt and be like them separated from their husbands.”

33. That she did return to Paris and Grove went to Rouen but she did not produce said passport or any evidence of her innocence for me although I wrote several letters earnestly urging her to do so, all of which letters she left unanswered.

34.  That I put before petitioner, and Mr Eyre, previous to her going as forcibly as I could the additional humiliation i would be subjected to, and petitioner also, if really innocent, by continuing to accept of Grove’s money after our knowledge of his baseness, but no arguments could restrain her, she would  “go to justify herself for me,”  I could not and would not receive her until she was fully disinfected from all the pestilence said Grove had in all his unfaltering heartlessness had heaped upon her.

35. That I said to Mr Eyre in her presence, having a conviction that she was deceiving both him and me, and was not sincere in her desire for vindication, “ Mark me Sir, you will find she is deceiving you and will deceive you as well as me.” I then pressed upon Mr Eyre his writing to some clergyman to visit her and awaken in her some religious convictions as she never said one prayer and never attended any religious services.

36. That I heard nothing of petitioner or of said Grove until the month of May in the present year, when I was informed by a relative who was and is one of the ex officio Guardians of the City of Cork Poor Law Union that said Grove had been writing to the Master and Clerk at the Cork Work-House to try and induce the Guardians to transfer the woman he had suborned, to London to try and me liable for her support (sic) and also asking said Master and Clerk to conceal his name, I was also informed she had left the workhouse and again returned to her former life of prostitution in the city of Cork.

37. That I was urged by any friends and relatives to prosecute said Grove criminally for a conspiracy but consideration for my immediate family withheld my exposure of said Grove’s turpitude so largely blended too with petitioner’s worthlessness.

38. That I have been for a long time convinced, and now fully believe, said Grove had from the first deliberately designed the compromising and degradation of petitioner’s character, and separating and stealing her away from me for his own support by her professional engagements as he was nearly dependant upon his father who is approaching eighty years of age holding the office of Collector of Customs in the City of Gloucester.

39. That in the month of June last past I saw petitioner with another female riding up Regent’s Street in a Hansom Cab, and  I also saw petitioner point me out to her companion, but I made no effort to ascertain her address, but I did endeavour to get up from her through Mr Eyre and Cardinal Wiseman some personal property of mine which I highly value, and I was not then aware of her having presented her petition against me.

40. That I believe she was fulfilling some engagement in London and then and now supporting said Grove, whom I saw on the fifth of July instant in the Haymarket and being persuaded he was going to visit petitioner, I followed him to Manchester Square, where he met a woman, by appearance a prostitute who seemed to be waiting for him, and after nearly an hour’s interview with her he went to number fifty-five Manchester Street, but as he got to the door he caught sight of me and left immediately without knocking.

41. That I was then convinced that petitioner was residing there, and I went towards the door before grove could communicate with her and as I stood by it I distinctly heard her voice as she was practising singing.

42. That the citation served upon me bore date the fifth instant and I believe was directed to be issued by said Grove directly after he had seen me and the Solicitor employed by petitioner is also the Solicitor of said Grove.

43. That I again upon the eighth instant was in the vicinity of her residence, when a person having entered said house and remained some time came from it towards me and served upon me said citation and petition, and I fully believe I was pointed out by petitioner for him.

44. That there is  not any collusion or connivance between me and the said petitioner to annul the marriage.

Sworn in Her Majesty’s

Court for Divorce and Matrimonial

Causes at Westminster Hall

the twenty-ninth day of July 1858

Emily Verling Affidavit May 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court of Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



Affidavit of petitioner

filed 20th May 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



I Emily Verling commonly called Emily McCarthy of Hotel des trois Empereux, Rue de Rivoli Paris make oath and say

First.  That on the twenty second day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty two your I was in fact married to Eugene Plummer McCarthy then representing himself to be a Bachelor at St James church in the parish of Islington in the county of Middlesex England.

Second.  That I have since been informed and believe that at such time the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy had a lawful wife then living and that she is still living.

Third.  That no collusion or connivance exists between myself and the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy.

Sworn in Her Majesty’s

Court for Divorce & Matrimonial

Causes at Westminster Hall

this 20th day of May 1858

Emily Verling Petition for divorce 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court of Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy




filed 20th May 1858

To the judges of Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes

the twentieth day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight

The petition of Emily Verling spinster falsely called Emily McCarthy wife of Eugene Plummer McCarthy now residing at Hotel des trois Empereux, Rue de Rivoli Paris


  1. That on the twenty eight day of January One thousand eight hundred and thirty nine Eugene Plummer McCarthy Bachelor was lawfully married to Catherine McCarthy then Catherine Cree otherwise Creagh spinster at Cullens Wood Ranelagh in the county of Dublin in Ireland.
  2. That after his said Marriage the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy lived and cohabited with his said wife in Wicklow Street in the City of Dublin until about the eighth day of March in the said year one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine when the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy deserted his said wife Catherine McCarthy.
  3. That on the twenty second day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty two your petitioner was in fact though not lawfully married to the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy then falsely representing himself to be a Bachelor at St James church in the parish of Islington in the county of Middlesex England.
  4. That on and after the twenty second day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty two the said Catherine McCarthy the lawful wife of the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy was still living and is yet living.

Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Lordships will that the said pretended marriage so in fact solemnized between the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy and your petitioner the said Emily Verling to have been and to be null and void from the beginning and also that the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy and your petitioner the said Emily Verling spinster falsely called Emily McCarthy were and are free from all bond of marriage to each other.

And that your petitioner may have such further and other relief in the premises as to your lordships shall seem moot

And your Petitioner will ever pray so.

O’Bryen v. Giddy November 1862.

The Times, November 6, 1862

Bail Court

(Sittings at Nisi Prius [to determine the facts] before Mr Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)


Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Mr. Mathew were counsel for the pIaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Murphy for the defendant.

This was an interpleader issue to determine whether certain goods which had been seized by the sheriff were the goods of the plaintiff The question was whether the plaintiff was the wife of Eugene Plummer Macarty. The plaintiff was an Irish lady, and she contracted a marriage with Macarty in 1844, at Cork. They lived together for eight years, but in 1852 Macarty eloped. with Emily Verling. That caused inquiries to be made, and then it turned out that in 1839 Macarty had married Kate Creagh, near Dublin; that marriage had taken place in a private house, in the presence of a Lutheran clergyman named Schultz. Mr. Serjeant Shee interposed, stating that the question would be whether that marriage was a valid marriage. He submitted that it was not a valid marriage, as it was only performed in the presence of a Dissenting minister, whereas to make it valid it must have been in the presence of a clergyman of the Church of England or a Roman Catholic priest.

Mr. Justice Crompton said that from a decision of the House of Lords the law would be that it must be before a priest in orders It might be better to turn it into a case ; the parties might go to the Queen’s Bench, then to the Exchequer Chamber, and then to the House of Lords.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott said the 5th and 6th of Victoria, cap. 113, made the marriage good, as that provided that a marriage solemnized by a Dissenting minister would be valid.

Mr. Justice Crompton thought that would make the first marriage valid

Mr. Serjeant Shee said the marriage must be proved.

Evidence was then given, showing that Macarty married Miss O’Brien in 1844. They lived together until he eloped with Emily Verling in 1852. He then said he had been previously married to Kate Creagh. They lived together for some time, and then Miss O’Brien was persuaded that the marriage with Kate Creagh in 1839 was invalid and she took Macarty back again. He again eloped with Emily Verling, and married her, and they lived together until she ran away with some one else. The marriage of Kate Creagh was then sworn to as having taken place before Mr. Schultz in 1839. .Macarty was an attorney in Dublin. Kate Creagh in her interrogatory stated that she was the daughter of a gentleman’s servant. She was married to Macarty in 1839. Macarty left her in six months, and she was in the poor- house. She had left off her previous calling of receiving gentlemen for the last seven years, and was now living a respectable life with her brother.

The plaintiff was examined, and stated that she was married to Macarty in 1844. She now lived in Westbourne- place, Eaton-square. She was entitled to 1,500I.(£1,500) under her mother’s marriage settlement. She had, a settlement in 1852, after which Macarty left her with Emily Verling, who was a visitor in her house. He afterwards returned and lived with witness in Warwick-place, Pimlico; and afterwards in Upper Belgrave-place, of which the defendant was the landlord. She left that house in June, 1860. On the 25th of July, 1861, she had a sum of money put into her hands under a decree of the Court, and she furnished the house in Westbourne-place. That furniture was seized by the sheriff. Macarty had not lived with her in that house.

Cross-examined.-Macarty on the first occasion stayed away three weeks. She brought him back. He went away again in May, and returned in July, 1852, and went away again in 1855, but returned and remained till 1858. None of the furniture seized was in her possession in 1858. When she took the house of the defendant she represented herself to be the wife of Macarty, because she believed herself to be so until the Lord Chancellor’s decree in 1861. Macarty had dined with her twice in Westbourne-terrace. He was uninvited. He was in a wretched state of poverty, and any one would have given him a dinner out of pity. He had been prosecuted for bigamy.

A copy of a certificate of the Archbishop of Ireland was put in, authorizing Schultz to preach and administer the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of Ireland.

The learned Judge had great doubt about this document.

Mr. Isaac Butt, Q.C., had seen this document. According to the law of Ireland such a document could only be given to a priest in holy orders. In Ireland every curate received such a licence. In substance, this was the ordinary licence to a curate.

Cross-examined.-He meant holy orders by episcopal ordination, which the Established Church would recognize. A bishop would grossly violate his duty if he granted such a document to a man not in holy orders; that is, because no one could administer the sacrament in the Church of England who was not in holy orders.

Re-examined.-There was no objection to a marriage in a room before the Act of 1844. Did not consider this a German licence, but one to a curate of the Church of England.

Frederick Wisely, a policeman, and a native of Ireland recollected Schultz. Saw him perform a marriage ceremony at a private residence.

Cross-examined.-Was a witness on the occasion. It was about three years before 1847.

Serjeant Shee.-It is rather strange that he was buried in 1839.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott said that was his brother.

Cross-examined. -Did not know Schultz at the time of the marriage, but heard afterwards that a Mr. Schultz was living there. He was a dark-complexioned, old man. Took Macarty into custody in July last for bigamy, and then he heard of this marriage in 1839 by Schultz.

The learned Judge said there were great doubts about the case, but he thought it would be better to let the plaintiff have the goods without costs on either side.

Mr. Serjeant Shee said it was a hard case, but he should defer to his Lordship’s suggestion.

The Judge said, if they had proved that Schultz had officiated in any way there would have been no doubt. No action must be brought against any one.

Verdict for plaintiff without costs.

The Judge said this was the best arrangement, as parties now might have the pleasure of going from Nisi Prius to the full Court, then to the Court of Error, and then to the House of Lords, but at an enormous expense.

Eugene Macarthy, second indictment for bigamy – 24 July 1862

Dublin Evening Mail – Thursday 24 July 1862


Mr. Eugene Plumber McCarthy, described as a solicitor and notary public in Ireland, has undergone a lengthened examination, on two charges of bigamy and one of perjury, at Westminster Police-office, London.

Mr. Lewis, sen., was engaged for the prosecution.

Dr. John O’Bryan, of 17, Thistle-grove, Brompton, produced a certificate from the registry of the Rev. J. G. F. Shultz, in the Consistorial Court, Dublin. The prisoner was there described as Eugene M’Carthy, and the marriage which took place on the 28th of January, 1839, was between Catherine Creagh and Eugene M’Carthy. Witness also produced certificate the marriage of Mary Anne O’Bryan, in the parish church of St. Peter’s, in the county of Cork, to Eugene M’Carthy, on the 29th of June, 1844,

The first marriage was also proved by a witness who was present the ceremony. It was here explained that the clergyman question was what is called ” a couple beggar.”

Mr. Lewis pointed out that his marriages were valid, or they would not be registered in the Consistory Court

Mr. Ingleby Thomas Miller, solicitor, George-yard, Lombard-street, produced two letters from the prisoner, which were proved to be in his handwriting, dated the 5th and 9th of September, 1860, in which, in allusion to his first marriage, the prisoner urged that he was very young at the time; that Catherine Creagh had lived with him previously; that neither of them ever considered it as a valid marriage; that she left him shortly afterwards, considering that there were no marital obligations; that after he was married in 1844, at St Peter’s, to Miss O’Bryan, repeatedly saw Catherine Creagh in the streets, and, attaching no value to her marriage, she never sought him, or required anything of him, although his marriage with Miss O’Bryan had been published in the newspapers, and must have been well known to her. The question having been tried one of the courts of law, it had been determined by the authorities that marriages like the one spoken of were valid. The writer said he had seen Catherine Creagh in Cork as late as 1855.

Prisoner said that these letters were dated from Woolwich, and he never was there.

Mr. Lewis intimated that Catherine Creagh was alive now, and had given evidence a few days ago in the Court of Chancery respecting some property transactions.

Prisoner said that a woman had been brought from Ireland certainly.

Mr. Miller, on being cross-examined by the prisoner, said that about the time the letters were received there was some treaty about the raising of some money; the object was that the settlement should be set aside. He was about to lend Miss O’Bryan some money, and he wanted to be satisfied on some points relating to the prisoner.

A passage in one of the letters purporting be written by the prisoner was pointed out as showing that he well knew his first wife to be alive at the time of his marriage with Miss O’Bryan. It stated that Catherine Creagh resided at Cork in 1844; that she continued to live there, and that he repeatedly saw her.

Miss Mary Ann O’Bryan, who described herself as single woman, said that she was married on the 29th June, 1844, to the prisoner.

This was the evidence in support of the first bigamy, and the second was not proceeded with.

Mr. Lewis proposed that the evidence of the first marriage should copied upon the depositions in this case, and called

The Rev. W. Bell Mackenzie, incumbent of St James’, Hollowav, who stated that on the 22nd of May, 1852, performed the marriage ceremony with Eugene M’Carthy and Emily Verling. They signed the register, which produced.

Dr. John O’Bryan proved that the name of M’Carthy was in prisoner’s handwriting. Miss O’Bryan said that Emily Verling, unfortunately, resided in the same house with herself and husband; prisoner and Miss Verling left the house together.

It was stated that Miss Verling, finding she had been deceived, left the prisoner and went abroad. Mr. Arnold asked what evidence there was to show that in 1852 prisoner knew his first wife was alive?

Mr. Lewis said that the letter proved that he knew she was alive after 1854.

Mr. Arnold pointed out that he might have become acquainted with that fact in 1854, but might have been ignorant of it 1852.

A certificate was now produced in the third case against the prisoner, in which he had sworn, on his application for a licence to be married to Miss Verling, on the 19th May, 1862, that he was a bachelor.

Mr. Arnold observed that the question in this case would again arise, whether in 1852 the prisoner knew that his first wife was alive.

Miss O’Bryan was again called to supply the proof required, and her brother was also put into the witness-box to give secondary evidence of the contents of a letter written by the prisoner, which had been destroyed. It was addressed to Dr. O’Bryan, and was written after his connexion with Miss Verling, and stated that he had left his (Dr. O’Bryan’s)  sister because she was not his wife; that in 1839 he was married to Catherine Creagh, who died in 1851, and was buried at a cemetery described. At first he stated that he was married to Miss Verling, as he was at that time an unmarried man.

Mr. Arnold said that this evidence was not against the prisoner, but in his favour.

Mr. Lewis applied to have the depositions copied up for prisoner’s committal on all the charges, and asked for remand for witnesses from Ireland.

Mr. Arnold remanded the prisoner for a week, but said that at present he could only commit upon the first charge, as the others were not proved.