Bicknell v. Bicknell Divorce November 1908

I think it’s time to re-post this because it’s very entertaining, but the starting point for this might well be their wedding  in 1897


The Times October 31, 1908 [Day 1]

(Before Mr. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEAN and a Special Jury.)


Divorce-Cross Charges

This was the petition of Harriet Frances Bicknell, née Bagshawe, for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell, on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. The respondent, by his answer, denied these allegations, and further pleaded that the petitioner had been guilty of such misconduct as had conduced to the said alleged adultery (if any) by a persistent course of mental cruelty and gross insults towards him, practically driving him out of the house, and by her ungovernable temper; that the petitioner connived at and condoned the acts of adultery (if any); and that the petitioner had herself been guilty of adultery with the Cav. Antonino Cariello, the party cited. The petitioner, by her reply,denied and joined issue on all the allegations contained in the respondent’s answer, and the party cited, by his answer, denied that he had committed adultery with the petitioner.

Mr. Barnard, K.C., and MIr. Lailey were for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, K.C., Mr. Haldenstein, and Mr. J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

Mr. Barnard, said that the petitioner was the daughter of a well-known member of his own Profession, his Honour Judge Bagshawe. She was married to the respondent on October 19, 1897, at the Church of Our Lady of Victories, High-street, Kensington, the parties being members of the Roman Catholic Church. They lived together first at Knapp, near Bideford, and afterwards at Sorrento, some two hours away from Naples. There were two children of the marriage, one aged nine and the other six years of age. Unfortunately for the petitioner, her husband was a man of no occupation, and at times he drank very heavily, and what became another matter of unhappiness between them was that while at Sorrento he acquired the habit of taking morphia. It was only fair to state, however, that when he was not under the influence of drink or drugs he treated her kindly and well, and at such times she wrote affectionate letters about him to her friends. The acts of violence of which she had to complain were about as cruel as any man could be guilty of towards a woman whom he had promised to love. Both children were baptized and brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. The mother was a good Catholic, and the husband, when under the influence of drugs, threatened to have the children brought up as Protestants, and perhaps it was now going to be suggested that he had changed his religion and wished to bring up his children in another faith.

In 1898, while living at Knapp, he was guilty of an assault upon her, and he used bad language, and while under the influence of drink had said:-” Smile, you devil, or I will turn you and your filthy spawn out of the house.” In January,1899, he threatened that he would not allow her to see any of her relatives, and in February, when her child was only a month old, he insisted on her leaving her baby and on her accompanying him to the United States. They went to Sorrento in March, 1904, and remained there until April, 1907, and in June of the former year they took a villa in that town. In July, 1905, the petitioner thought that she saw from a window her husband kiss a lady in the garden. She called out, and he came into the house in a very angry temper, called her a d-d liar, struck her, and gave her a black eye, which was afterwards seen by Signor Cariello. In 1900 her husband was taking a great deal of morphia as a letter of his dated September 28 of that year would show. On March 3, 1907, when under the influence of the drug, he called her a prostitute and a liar and struck her, and afterwards acknowledged that fact in the presence of her governess. She was, therefore, living a most unhappy life when her husband was under the influence of drugs.

At this time he was in a state of great nervousness, and though they occupied separate bed -rooms, yet when he was under the influence of morphia, as he was frightened of being alone, she used to sleep on a mattress in his room. That was important, as the respondent relied on this for his plea of condonation. which was no condonation at all.

On April 15, 1907, the petitioner found in a blotting-pad a hotel bill made out to the name of “Hermano Harmsleigh “ with certain words upon it. She intended to ask her husband what it meant, but owing to his state of health, she did not until April 25. That was an important date in the case. On that day the respondent suddenly decided to leave Sorrento, and, while helping him to pack, the petitioner suggested that he should not travel with the nurse, who was leaving on the same date. He insisted, and there was an end of that matter, so far as she was concerned. She, however, asked him if he had ever passed as ” Hermano Harmsleigh.” He immediately asked her if it were Antonino (Cariello) who had told her. Antonino was the respondent’s great friend. She said No, she had seen the name on a blotting-pad. He then called her a d-d [damned] spy and said that he had made the acquaintance of a girl in Naples, that lie had given her mother 200f. for her and had promised her marriage, and that he believed that the father was coming that day to the villa about the matter. That was why he was leaving, and that was all she learnt of the matter. He left, and she kissed him at parting. She remained at Sorrento until July, when she and her children returned to England, and with them on the 13th of that month called at Morle’s Hotel upon her husband. He took in the children, but refused to allow her to enter. She returned with a friend, Lady Macfarlane, but he refused to allow her to return to him and to her children.

It appeared, continued the learned counsel. that just before Christmas, 1906, on an occasion when the respondent was in Naples, he had made the acquaintance of a girl named Anita, represented to her that he was a bachelor and wished to be engaged to her, and gave her mother a sum of money. He had visited the girl and taken her to various hotels. Witnesses had been examined on commission, and the respondent’s counsel on that commission had admitted the adultery. Condonation had been pleaded, but the first that the petitioner. had heard of her husband’s misconduct was on April 25, 1907, and she had not since cohabited with him. Connivance and conduct conducing were also pleaded, and he (the learned counsel) was waiting to hear what possible evidence could be adduced to support such pleas. ThereI was also a charge made against the petitioner and Signor Cariello. and, after he had proved his case against the respondent, it would be for his learned friend to establish his case – if he had any evidence to substantiate it.

The petitioner, Mrs. Bicknell, examined by Mr. Barnard, said her married life had been most unhappy, as her husband was very cruel to her. He was addicted to both drink and drugs ever since the date of the marriage. When under the influence of either he was violent, and called her such names as ” d–d [damned]  liar, devil. and prostitute.” A week after the marriage he tore up the Marriage certificate, and told her, ” Now I can, repudiate tho marriage at any time.” In the autumn of 1898 he threw her down and pulled her by the hair, she being enciente at the time. He was very angry because the birth of her first child was inserted in the Tablet, the leading Roman Catholic newspaper, and threatened that she should not see her father, his Honour Judge Bagshawe, or her family again. On another occasion, when she was writing to a friend, he struck her on the back of the hand with a ruler. He forced her mother to write him an apology for inserting the birth in the Tablet, and then threatened to publish it.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – I do not follow. What was the apology for ?

Mr. Barnard, – Mrs. Bagshawe had inserted the notice and the respondent had chosen to take offence.

Examination continued.- In March. 1904 they went to Sorrento. In July she saw from a window her husband kissing a lady in the garden. She called to him to come in. and they both did so. He was very angry, and the next morning struck her and gave her a black eye, calling her a “ d–d [damned] liar.” During 1906 and 1907 he said the children should be brought up as Protestants, and laughed at her for having believed him when he told her they should be brought up as Roman Catholics. He also told her he had changed his religion. On September 28, 1906, he wrote:-” That dreadful morphia has affected mv heart and caused a fainting fit. I had one after lunch:  it was most tiresome. as the Duke and his manservant had to bring me home, and the Duchess had an awful fright ! I never thought the giving up of morphia would entail such disastrous consequences. Old Dr. Garquito wanted me to go into a home for inebriates, and is vastly struck by my ability to give morphia up suddenly. Fancy me in a home. It sounds comical, doesn’t it?  You may be sure I shall never be so silly as to take drugs again.” During 1907 the respondent was again taking morphia, and she had sometimes to sleep on the floor in his room to “watch” him. In March, 1907, the respondent was in a very bad state, called her terrible names and struck her with the back of his hand, his rings injuring her lip. Her child saw the marks and asked the cause, and she endeavoured to conceal the truth, whereupon the respondent said, ” You d–d [damned] liar, why don’t you speak the truth and say I did it.” The governess was also present.

In April, 1907, the respondent having invited her to take part in a bazaar at Sorrento, at the last moment forbade her to attend it. About April 15 she found an hotel bill in her husband’s blotter, made out in the name of ” Hermano Harmsleigh.” A few davs later she found some blotting- paper with the same name upon it and the words ” Poste Restante. Mata” (a neighbouring village).  She had never heard of the girl Anita Esposito until the morning of the day he suddenly left Sorrento. On April 25 lie informed her he was leaving that day, and she advised him not to travel with a nurse, who was leaving. She then asked him if he passed as Hermano Harmsleigh in Naples. He replied,” Has Antonino told you? “ She said, “No, you are wrong; but does he know your secret ?” He then asked her how she had found out, and when she showed him the blotter he called her a “d–d [damned] spy.”

He then said he had a disagreeable story to tell her, adding that, if she had been a woman of the world she would not have thought much of it. He then told her that while driving in Naples he had seen the girl in the street, had taken a fancy to her, had got out of his trap and spoke to her, and eventually gave the girl’s mother 200f. for her, saying he was going to marry her. He added, ” I told them you were my married sister: but now they are beginning to suspect, and may come here any day, and I want to know what you are going to say.” He also told her that the girl was not enecinte. At this stage the Court adjourned until Monday.

Bicknell v. Bicknell [Day 2 – Nov 3, 1908]

(Before MR. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEANE  and a Special Jury,.)


Divorce-Cross Charges.

The hearing of this matrimonial suit, which, commenced on Friday last, was resumed, the first day’s proceedings being reported in The Times on October 31, 1908.

Certain interlocutory proceedings In the Court of Appeal with regard to a commission to take evidence in Italy were reported in 1908, W.N., 97. It will be remembered that Mr. Harriet Frances Bicknell, daughter of the late Judge Bagshawe, petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. He, by his answer, denied these charges, and pleaded alternatively that if he had committed adultery the petitioner had by her mental cruelty conduced to it, had connived at it, and had condoned it. He further alleged that the petitioner had herself committed adultery with the Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, who was cited. The petitioner and the party cited denied the charges made against them

Mr. Barnard, KC. and Mr. Lailey were, for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, KC., Mr.Haldenstein, and J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

The petitioner, further examined in chief by Mr. Barnard  said that on April 25, 1907, the governess,  Miss Serek, was in the house, and she (petitioner) made a complaint to her.

Mr. Marshall-Hall – I do so object to that form of question. The proper form is, ” Did you make a statement?

Mr. Barnard –Very welL. Did you make a statement ?

The petitioner.-Yes.

Mr. Barnard .- And in what state ,were you at the time ?

The petitioner.-I was in tears.

Examination continued.-She continued to write in affectionate terms to her husband up to the time when she saw him in England on June 13, 1907. On that day she took the children to Morle’s Hotel, where her husband was then living. She was prepared at that time to resume cohabitation with him, but he refused to allow her to remain and actually threatened to summon help and have her and her luggage turned out. He, however, retained the children. The following day she called a and he then told her that as she had not apologised he should take the children away. The apology was demanded in consequence of her having told him that his uncle, Mr. Sidney Bicknell, had professed to be ashamed of his nephew’s conduct. Mr. Sidney Bicknell, writing to the respondent from Barcombe-house, near Lewes, on June 11, 1907, denied having called the respondent a scoundrel or having said that he was ashamed to bear the same name as him. She had never stated that the respondent’s uncle had called him a scoundrel; but he saying that he was ashamed of his nephew. As soon as she obtained evidence of her husband’s adultery with Anita she filed her petition for divorce. When under the influence of drink or drugs her husband used to call her terrible names which upset her greatly and made her cry. . He would then say, “Smile, you devil, or I’ll make .you come cringing to me.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall-Hall.  She denied that Morle’s Hotel was full on the occasion of her call there on July 18. She had, to use her own words, ” stolen the children away, and they had been in hiding ever since.” Her husband did not see the children from July 15, 1907, until last Saturday. She had, changed her boy’s name from Bysshe to Basil. That was not done at the instigation of Father Galton, S.J., nor of the Jesuits. That was not one more influence exercised by them over her. Bysshe may have, been the name of an agnostic and one of Shelley’s names, while Basil was that of a saint in the calendar. The boy was christened Bysshe against her wish. Her husband’s adultery and not the change of his religion was the true cause of this suit. She had consulted Roman Catholics before bringing the suit.. She had written on June 22, 1907, ” I was nearly mad, but on Monday I stole the children away from him, and have been in hiding ever since. I have brought an action for divorce against him (I found I could do so as a Catholic, and was told by the Jesuits and the Archbishop that I ought to),  and now we are waiting results. As long as he only treated me badly I could stand it, but once he touched the children it was another matter.” Bysshe was now at a Roman Catholic school at Boscombe. He had been sent there in July by her brother-in-law. She had previously had him at a Protestant school. The dispute at Morle’s Hotel had arisen because of what she asserted Mr. Sidney Bicknell had said about the respondent and the latter’s demand for an apology. Her husband had been for years a member of the Reform Club. Her husband had complained that she did not always speak the truth. Mr. Sidney Bicknell, on June 11, had written to her husband that  “the ‘trouble’ I had in my mind was the children going to the English Church and your recession from Catholicism.” She was ready to forgive her husband for the adultery he had confessed to her on April 25 when she went to call on him on July 13 at Morle’s Hotel.  On April 26, the day after her husband’s departure from Sorrento, she had written to him,  “Cheer, up; I am glad you wrote me a kind note before you left Italy. You cannot think how miserable I was, seeing you leave me in such a manner. I hope when this reaches you you will feel happier. Don’t forget that your best and truest friend has always and will always be your wife. The children send you their love.-Your affectionate wife Harriet.” 

She had not seen her husband except at Morle’s Hotel – since April 25 – the day on which he confessed his adultery with Anita. The confession was made on April 25, and not some days earlier. She had found the sheet of blotting paper containing the incriminating words, in one of her own books – a copy book she used daily for the study of German. She had not spoken to her husband the same day. He first told her of his adultery the day he left; she had not previously questioned him about it. She had never been to his bedroom or condoned his adultery after she was aware of it.

At this stage Mr. Marshall-Hall proposed to refer to the evidence taken on Italy.

Mr. Barnard objected to the evidence being used as the commission had not been returned to the Court, owing to the commissioner, Mr. Valentine Ball, barrister-at-law, not having been paid his fees.

Mr. Marshall-Hall .-It was a joint commission; my client has paid his half, but the other side refuses to do so.

Mr. Barnard – My learned friend is mistaken in describing it as a joint commission. It is his commission, and being on the spot we took the opportunity of examining certain witnesses before the commissioner.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – The commissioner is entitled to keep beck the commission until he has been paid his fees.

Mr. Marshall-Hall.  My client brought £ 20,000 into settlement, and he has now nothing. But the lady obtained leave from Mr. Justice Warrington to raise £1,000 for the purpose of this very commission.

Mr. Barnard –  The learned judge gave her power to anticipate to that extent to enable her to defend the suit.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – I have already intimated my view.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – My solicitor client – Mr. Furber – undertakes to pay the commissioner’s fees. After the adjournment,

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane said that during the adjournment the commission had been returned to the Court, and was accordingly now in.

Cross-examination continued.-Four or five days before April 25 there had been a scene between her and her husband, but that had to do with his forbidding her to take part in the bazaar. Her husband had not confessed his adultery to her on April 21, but on April 25- the day he left Sorrento. Between April 21 and April 25 she had twice slept on a mattress in her husband’s room, as was stated by two witnesses -who were examined on commission. Her letter of April 26 to her husband did not refer to his dispute with her as to what his uncle had told her about him. She had been quite ready to forgive her husband. She had been told by the Jesuits ant the Archbishop that as a Catholic she could seek the protection of the law, but that even if she were successful in her suit she could never marry again. She had asked in May, 1907, a servant named Rose Scott if she remembered.seeing her with a black eye, but she (Rose Scott) did not remember the occasion. She did not remind Rose Scott of past favours, or warn her against allowing the respondent to go out with her young daughter.. She did say that the respondent had been lunching with the child at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton. She had heard of that incident from a Mrs. Farnham. She (petitioner) did not know that Rose Cox was a witness for the respondent. She had not sought to poison her mind against him.  She told Rose Scott that her husband had stayed with Flora Cox ( a nurse) at an hotel in Naples, passing as ” Mr and Mrs. Bicknell ” She believed her statement to be true, having herself seen the names in the hotel book.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – Then why is not that charge pleaded ?

The petitioner.-I already had one charge.of adultery, which I thought sufficient.

Cross-examination continued. – She had told Rose that the respondent had accused them of impropriety together. The respondent had dared to make that suggestion. She had not accused her husband of un-natural practices, nor was she responsible for  witnesses having been cross-examined on commission in Italy to show that a certain Giuseppe was of evil habit.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – Most- of the cross- examination referred to was on behalf of your client.

Mr. Barnard – There was, no such suggestion made by my client.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – We are not trying any issue as to Giuseppe.

Before her marriage she had heard from a cousin that the respondent was addicted to morphia, and she had refused to marry-him when he first proposed to her. He was at that time a very rich man possessed of about £ 140,000, all of which was now gone! Subsequently the respondent. settled £ 20,000 upon her, and her father settled £1,000. She had been told that he had taken to morphia because she had refused him. Before her marriage she had written to her fiancé referring to her violent temper. In spite pf her, husband having struck her on the back of the hand with a ruler or paper knife and dragged her by the hair of her head, she had written to him in most affectionate terms about the times these incidents had taken-place. When her husband tore up the marriage certificate he told her that he could now repudiate the marriage..

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – Then why, Madam, if you believed your marriage was invalid did you continue to live with-your husband ? – .

The petitioner.-,He said he could repudiate it, if he liked !

Mr. Barnard –  Voidable, -not void-!

The petitioner.-I only believed his statement for two hour.

Cross-examination continued.- She had in her letters referred to the bitter expressions she had used towards her husband, and regretted that she had not first bitten her tongue out.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. –  You called him a skunk did you not? About the worst thing you can call a man; The petitioner. – That, I think, was one of his expressions.

Cross-examination continued.- He had objected before the birth of the child to that birth being announced in the Tablet, and her mother had promised not to do so, but she afterwards put the announcement in the paper. The respondent in consequence declined to allow her mother to see the baby until she had apologized, and on June 7 1900, his Honour Judge Bagshawe  wrote on his wife’s behalf.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – This is 1900 and the child was born in 1899 !  All I can say is that the respondent is a most unreasonable man. I cannot understand any man taking such a line as that.

Cross-examination continued.-In spite of her husband’s conduct, she loved him and forgave him, and she never contemplated divorce proceedings until he took away the children from her. On September 28 she wrote of the lady from whom she had heard of the incident at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton, “Mrs. F. has lied like a trooper, and will get into trouble.”

At this stage the Court adjourned.

Bicknell v. Bicknell  [Day 3, Nov 4, 1908]

(Before MR. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEANE  and a Special Jury.)


Divorce-Cross Charges.

The further hearing of this matrimonial suit, which has been reported in The Times on October 31 and November 3, was continued, and concluded, this being the third day of the trial.  It will be remembered that Mrs. Harriet Frances Bicknell, daughter of the late Judge Bagshawe, petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. He, by his answer, denied these charges, and pleaded alternatively that if he had committed adultery the petitioner had by her mental cruelty conduced to it, had connived at it, and had condoned it. He further alleged that the petitioner had herself committed adultery with the Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, who was cited. The petitioner and the party cited denied the charges made against them.

Mr. Barnard, KC. and Mr. Lailey were, for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, KC., Mr.Haldenstein, and J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

After the sitting of the Court.

Counsel having conferred together and seen the learned Judge in private for upwards of one hour and a half.

Mr. Marshall-Hall said that the respondent had never contested the adultery charged at Naples, but he did seriously deny any other charge made against him, and after the cross-examination yesterday those charges would not be persisted in, and he was quite willing that all charges made against the petitioner and the party cited should also be withdrawn and the jury discharged, and that a decree of judicial separation should be pronounced on certain conditions.

Mr. Barnard said that he was willing to withdraw all the charges made against the respondent -other than the one of adultery at Naples. The petitioner, however, was desirous of going into the box to deny the truth of the charges made against her.

The evidence of the girl Anita Esposito, taken on commission at Naples, was read, and went to show that the respondent had made her acquaintance in Naples five or six days before Christmas, 1906, and that the intrigue between them had continued for five months, during which time the respondent visited and passed the night at various hotels with her.

Further corroborative evidence, taken on commission, having been read,

The petitioner denied on oath that there was the slightest truth in the allegation made against her, and

The Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, in answer to Mr. Campbell, said that until the citation was served upon him in October he had no suspicion that the respondent had anything against him. He was a close friend of both Mr. and Mrs. Bicknell, and there was not a shadow of truth whatever in the charges made against him.

The respondent, in reply to Mr. Marshall-Hall said that he admitted his adultery at Naples with the girl Anita Esposito, but he denied the statement made as to the payment of money. That statement was not true. Ho had never struck his wife, and there was no truth in the charges of cruelty made against him. He did not drink to excess, nor was he habitually addicted to the use of drugs. There was no truth in the suggestion that he had ever committed adultery with Flora Cox.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane accordingly pronounced a decree of judicial separation with costs, and gave the custody of the elder child to the respondent, and that of the younger one to the petitioner. Questions of access to the children would be dealt with in Chambers.

Judgment accordingly.

Judge Bagshawe, K.C. November 1901



Only last week it fell to us to have to record the death of Canon Bagshawe of Richmond, and now it is our sad duty to have to announce the death of his eldest brother, Judge Bagshawe, K.C., which occurred with painful suddenness, on Monday evening, at King’s Cross Station. He is thus the third brother whose death has occurred within a period of about four months, Mr. Clement Walter Bagshawe, of Dover, having died at Chiswick in the beginning of July. According to the evidence given at the inquest on Tuesday before Dr. Danford Thomas, coroner for Central London, at the St. Pancras coroner’s-court, it appears that Judge Bagshawe, who generally enjoyed good health, attended, on Monday, the funeral of his brother, Canon Bagshawe, at Richmond Cemetery. After leaving the cemetery he returned home to South Kensington, and partook of some refreshment. With his son and a son in-law he left his residence in a cab to proceed to King’s Cross, but owing to the dense fog they had to abandon the cab and go by train to King’s Cross Station, and thence they walked through the subway to the Great Northern terminus. Judge Bagshawe, While walking along the platform, was noticed to be greatly affected by the dense fog. He staggered and fell insensible on the platform. He Was carried into an adjoining waiting-room, and medical aid was sought, but life was found to be extinct. Dr. Gilchrist deposed that in his opinion death had resulted from syncope whilst suffering from heart disease. Dr. John Anderson, of Belsize Park, Hampstead, stated that he had known Judge Bagshawe for the last 35 years, and that for the last two years he had suffered from heart affection. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence. Mr. William Henry Gunning Bagshawe, K.C., Judge of County Courts, was the eldest son of Mr. Henry Ridgard Bagshawe, Q.C., who was also a County Court Judge and a convert, and was born on August 18, 1825. He graduated at the University of London in 1843 and was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1848. Practising as a conveyancer and equity draftsman, Mr. Bagshawe acquired a reputation as an excellent pleader and a sound and accurate lawyer. He was a familiar figure in the Rolls Court in the great days when Jessel used to get through nearly as much work as all the three ViceChancellors. As a leader before that formidable Judge, who was not tolerant of either dulness or slowness, Mr. Bagshawe held his own and enjoyed a substantial practice, though far inferior to that of the late Lord justice Chitty or the present Lord Davey. They mere a distinguished body within the Bar and few of them survive. His qualities, indeed,’were those of a junior rather than of a leader, and he did not take silk until 1874, in the same year as Chitty. His manner was somewhat cold and unsympathetic, but he was always to the point and treated with respect by the Judge. One of the most famous cases in which he ;was engaged was that of “Agar-Ellis v. Lascelles,” which involved-the right of the father to bring up his children in his own faith against the wishes of the mother and in contravention of his own promise on the marriage. Mr. Agar-Ellis was a Protestant, and his wife, the Hon. Harriet Stonor, was a daughter of Lord Camoys. Mr. Bagshawe, Q.C., and his younger brother, Mr. F. G. Bagshawe, were led by the present Lord Chancellor, and appeared for Mrs. Agar-Ellis. It was a painful story and there was some conflict of evidence, but the judgment of the Court of Appeal in affirmance of that of Vice-Chancellor Malins, delivered by Lord Justice James, was based on the right of the father to direct his children’s education, though the general sympathy at the time was certainly with the mother.

The above text was found on p.29, 9th November 1901 in  “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher” The Tablet can be found at .

The Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe D.D. November 1901



We deeply regret to have to record the death of the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe, of St. Elizabeth’s, Richmond, Surrey, which occurred at Brighton on Wednesday morning, after an illness of two months. John Bernard Bagshawe was the second son of the late H. R. Bagshawe, Q.C., and Judge of County Courts in Wales, and was born in December, 1827. He was educated at University College School and at St. Mary’s College, Oscott, and was ordained priest soon after he attained the age of 23, on March 15, 1851, by Cardinal Wiseman. After his ordination he was appointed to work in a small Mission in Webb-street, Southwark. He was one of the four or five priests who were sent out, as the first Catholic Army Chaplains in modern times, to the Crimea, where he arrived soon after the battle of the Alma. In the battle of Inkarman he was, while attending wounded Royal Irish called on to lie down while cannon shots were fired over him, which he saw ploughing through Russian columns coming up on the side of the bill. His tent was blown down in a stormy night, and he, delirious, crawled out and wandered in the dark into the French lines, where he was cared for in his delirium for a week. He was afterwards in the fighting in the Redan, and in charge of the German auxiliary force. He remained some two years in the East, and returned to England in the summer of 1856. For a time after his return he was a locum tenens, but was ultimately appointed as rector of St. Elizabeth’s Church, Richmond, and there for forty-five years he has lived and laboured. The parochial district was at that time very much larger than it is now, and as it ranged from Kew to Kingston there was plenty of work for a priest to do. The school hardly deserved the name ; it was what is now the library at the back of the church. Canon Bagshawe, after Some difficulty and self-sacrifice, got the schools in Park-lane erected and opened, and these have been recently enlarged and brought up to date. Besides his unwearying labours in his parish Canon Bagshawe was the author of several works of doctrinal instruction, which are not only well known, but popular and useful. .Amongst these may be mentioned The Threshold of the Catholic Church and Credentials of the Church. In March of the present year Canon Bagshawe celebrated the golden jubilee of his priesthood, when he was presented with an address and a purse of gold by his congregation. . A Requiem Mass will be celebrated at St. Elizabeth’s, Richmond, on Monday, at half-past eleven, after which the burial will take place at Mortlake R.I.P.

The above text was found on p.19, 2nd November 1901  in  “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher” The Tablet can be found at .

Herman Bicknell and Harriet Bagshawe October 1897

This wedding has entertained me for a while, partly because it is so ludicrously grand, and also for the  guest list, and the wedding presents . It has some members of the wider family at it, though some of the relationships are wildly complicated. Mrs Herman Lescher, for example, was at this point newly widowed, and is the aunt of [Thomas] Edward, Frank Graham,  Carmela , and Adela Lescher, and the wife of Celia O’Bryen’s step-mother’s nephew.  Mrs. Kuypers, is Frank Purssell’s mother in law. Mrs. Charles Cassella, is Edward Lescher’s wife’s aunt,  and then up crop the Roper Parkingtons, though in this incarnation as plain Mrs RP because the knighthood didn’t come until five years later in 1902.

The bride’s parents Judge, and Mrs Bagshawe also crop up at a number of the other weddings, most interestingly Alfred O’Bryen’s wedding in 1900, as does his brother Bishop Bagshawe. Also at some of the other weddings are the Macfarlanes, and the Stanfields,

The other intriguing thing was the almost throwaway line at the end ” the newly married couple left for Milford Haven en-route for Rostellan Castle, County Cork, kindly lent for the honeymoon by Mr. and Mrs Thackwell.”  We’ve come across the Thackwells before; Kitty Pope-Hennessy married Edward Thackwell early in 1894 at Rostellan Castle in Cork. She was a forty-four year old widow, and he was twenty six. He was a year older than her eldest son who died young, and three, and seven, years older than his step-sons.

Rostellan Castle

Rostellan Castle had been the seat of the Marquis of Thomond for over two hundred years, and was bought by Kitty’s first husband on his retirement. It’s about five miles from Aghada House, which Edward Thackwell’s grandfather bought in 1853, about forty five years after John Roche had built it. It’s all a very small world…………

It all looks so promising, they were both twenty two. He was  born in the spring of 1875, and she was born a little later , in the summer of the same year.  But it all appears to go wrong quite fast, and culminates in a spectacular divorce in 1908.

The Tablet, Page 15, 23rd October 1897

Our Lady of Victories 1908
Our Lady of Victories 1908

The marriage of MR. HERMAN KENTIGERN BICKNELL and Miss HARRIET BAGSHAWE was solemnized at the Pro-Cathedral on Tuesday. The Bishop of Nottingham, uncle of the bride, performed the ceremony, assisted by the Abbot of St. Augustine’s Monastery, and the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe. The bride, who was given away by her father, Judge Bagshawe, wore a white satin dress with jewelled embroidered front draped with chiffon and Honiton lace. The Bridesmaids were Miss Teresa, Miss Gertrude, and Miss Nelly Bagshawe, sisters of the bride; Miss Henrietta Stanfield, cousin of the bride; Miss H. Bicknell, Miss Muriel Crook, and Miss Frost, cousins of the bridegroom. They wore rose-coloured satin dresses and white felt hats with feathers. Each carried a bouquet of Parma violets and wore a gold bangle set with diamonds, the gift of the bridegroom. The bridegroom was attended by his cousin, Mr. E. Bicknell, as best man. Owing to the large number of wedding guests the reception after the ceremony was held by Judge and Mrs. Bagshawe in the Empress Assembly-room at the Palace Hotel. In the course of the afternoon the newly married couple left for Milford Haven en-route for Rostellan Castle, County Cork, kindly lent for the honeymoon by Mr. and Mrs Thackwell.

Among the many presents were: From the Bridegroom, diamond tiara, two large diamond rings, one large diamond and sapphire ring, gold curb bracelet, gold watch bracelet. From Mrs. Bicknell, diamond crescent brooch, diamond marquise ring; Mrs. Bagshawe, gold and turquoise bracelet ; Judge Bagshawe, silver headed walking stick; Mrs. Hermann Lescher, silver dish and spoon; Mrs. Ullathorne, -silver dish and spoon; Mrs. Mort and Miss Bethell, silver dish; Mrs. Green, silver book marker; Mrs. Danvers Clarke, ivory tusk paper knife; Mrs. Pfachler, photo frame; Miss Roskell, silver frame; Miss N. Roskell, cameo chain bracelet; Miss Pickford, night dress sachet; Lady Parker, large vase; Mr. and Mrs. C. Payne, glass vases; Miss Kerwin, white china vase; Mrs. Shearman, ivory and silver paper knife; Mrs. Fuller, ostrich feather fan; Mrs. Bolton, knife and fork sets; Judge Stonor, silver mounted scent bottle; Mrs. Herbert, turquoise ring; Mr. Morton, Dresden china inkstand; Miss Fortescue, silver mounted purse; Miss N. Fortescue, tortoiseshell carriage clock; Miss Robins, screen; Miss Teresa Bagshawe, gold chain; Mrs. Roper Parkington, books; Miss Gunning, jewel case; Mrs. Cobbold, Nankin vases; Mrs. Noble, blotter; Mrs. Steward, blotter; Lady Macfarlane, antique miniature set with pearls and brilliants; Mrs. Clare, silver mounted scent bottles; Lady Knill, gold lined spoons; Mrs. Hewett, small spoons in case; Mrs. Bagshawe, of Oakes Norton, tortoiseshell and silver paper knife; Miss Eyre, Worcester china vase; Miss Hooper, large flower pot; Mr. and Mrs. Stanfield, dressing case, silver fittings; Mrs. Nettlefold, silver basket; Miss C. Shearman, cushion; Mrs. Troup, silver frame; Lady Austin, hand-painted d’oyleys; Mrs. E. Perry, silver card case; Mrs. Charles Hayes, silver bonbonniere; Mrs. Norman Uniacke, table cloth and d’oyleys; Miss Hall, sacred photos in frame; Count and Countess delle Rochetta, gold and tortoiseshell writing case; Mr. Burton, marble clock; Mrs. Fox, paper knife; Mrs. Payne, silver baskets; Mrs. Kuypers, blotter and paper case; Mrs. Sydney Peters, toast rack; General Sir Frederick Maunsell, tortoiseshell and silver frame; Mrs. D. O’Leary, ivory and silver paper knife; Miss de Freitas Bianco, silver scent bottle; Mr. Bruce, ivory mounted silver bottles; Miss Leeming, antique salt cellars; Mrs. Stafford, silver scent bottle; Mrs. de Colyar, silver bonbonniere; Mrs. Rymer, double silver frame; Miss Henrietta C. Stanfield, silver smelling salts bottle; Mrs. Dunn, frame; Mrs. Bullen, cushion; Miss M. L. Shee, antique casket; Mr. Read, silver pen and pencil; Mr. Fleming, silver frame; Mrs. Mansfield, silver mirror; Miss Allitsen, glove basket; Mademoiselle Delaware, little card case; Miss Gertrude Bagshawe, glove and handkerchief case; Miss Mary Bagshawe, rosary bracelet; Mrs. Le Begue, set of Sevres china plate; Mr. Eland, gold chain bracelet; Mrs. Pridiaux, silver-mounted bottle; Miss Nelly Bagshawe, handkerchief sachet; Miss Lowry, antique gold and silver spoons; Mrs. Semper, Imitation of Christ; Eva and Maurice Stammers, silver and glass sugar basin; Dr. and Mrs. Ball, silver-handled paper knife; Mrs. Chilton, large silver spoons; Misses Chilton, silver preserve jar; Mrs. Jenkins, silver dish; Mrs. Bicknell, cushion, embroidered Indian work; Dr. and Mrs. Bagshawe, large vase; Mrs. O’Brian, silver spoons; Lady de Gee, French clock; Mrs. Clement Bagshawe, casket; Mrs. Charles Goldie, fan; Mr. Waldron, silver tray; Mrs. Henry Slattery, silver frame; Dr. O’Connor, gold and pearl swallow brooch; Mrs. Stephens, vase lamp; Mrs. Anson Yeld, silver salt cellars; Mr. Percy Rogers, ivory and -silver paper knife; Mrs. Lane, silver scent bottle; Mrs. Charles Mathew, antique silver crucifix; Mr. J. Tomlinson, silver napkin rings; Miss Quintor,, menu cards; Miss Graham, silver sugar jar; Mr. James Macarthy, gold bangle set with pearls, emerald shirt pin; Mr. and Mrs. Snead Cox, gold sovereign-purse; Mr. and Mrs. Jessop, silver vases; Mrs. Margetts, handbag fitted; Mr. and Mrs. Pugin, glove and handkerchief bag; Mr. and Mrs. Brown, silver dish for nuts, with cracker; Miss Brown, silver fruit fork; Dr. and Mrs. Ford Anderson, fan; Mr. and Mrs. Jennings, scent bottle; Father Dewar, golden manual; Mr. Owen Lewis, large china vase; Miss C. Bagshawe, necklace of seed pearls; Mr. Nettleship, silver salt cellars; Canon Bagshawe, books; the Bishop of Nottingham, photograph book; Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Stanfield, large silver sugar sifter; Mrs. Charles Cassella, china vase; Mr. Charles Roskell, antique silver dish; Mrs. Charles Russell, silver clock; Miss Henrietta Bicknell, silver purse; Mr. and Mrs. Wood Wilson, inkstand; Mr. Charles Weld, silver horn scent bottle; Father Cox, silver hat brush; Rev. Father Stanfield, work-case; Mrs. Lamb, glass and silver sugar basin. Many other presents were given to the bride and bridegroom, including massive silver salver, silver candlesticks, &c.




The Mansion House, London

There are a number of reasons for including this. Partly it is a great article, and part of English Catholic triumphalism as the community starts to feel more secure in itself. It is also included because there are almost a dozen members of the wider family there. In no particular order:

  • Mr. W. Smith, M.P, He is Alfred O’Bryen’s father-in-law.
  • Judge Bagshawe, appears at a lot of family weddings,and his brother,the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe, D.D., the Bagshawes are referred to as “cousins” in Fr. Philip O’Bryen’s obituary. Quite what the relationship is I’m still not sure because I can find no evidence to date. 
  • Sir (George) Sherston Baker, Bart., is Irene Roper Parkington’s father in law, and she is Dorothea Bidwell (nee Roper Parkington)‘s sister.
  • Sir H(enry). W(atson). Parker, is Charlotte Purssell’s father in law.
  • Mr. F(ield). Stanfield, is the brother-in law of both the Bagshawes, and his daughter Henrietta marries Joseph Walton’s son, Joseph Arthur.
  • Mr. A(lfred). Purssell, – Alfred Purcell is already quite a major character. His daughter (Frances) Charlotte marries Wilfred Parker, Sir Henry Watson Parker’s son, and his grand-son Alan O’Bryen marries Marie Bidwell, whose mother is Dorothea Bidwell (nee Roper Parkington). 
  • Mr. H(erman). Lescher, His sister-in-law Mary O’Connor Graham Lescher (nee Grehan)  married her father’s step-mother’s nephew, Frank Harwood Lescher. She is a first cousin to the O’Bryens (Alfred, Philip,Ernest, Rex, and Mary) because her father Patrick Grehan III is Celia O’Bryen’s brother.
  • Mr. Cary-Elwes, This could be a number of people because there are quite a few Cary-Elwes. The most likely candidates are either Charles Cary-Elwes who married Edythe Roper Parkington in 1897, and  is one of John Roper Parkington’s sons in law  or possibly his uncle Arthur. If it is Charles, he would be very young, twenty four, to be attending such a grand gathering. It is unlikely to be his father, who is almost always referred to as Capt Cary-Elwes.
  • Major Roper Parkington, Good old JRP has a habit of turning up to practically anything. By this point he was a highly sucessful wine importer, and City business man. As seen from above, one of his daughters married George Sherston Baker’s son, and another married Charles Cary-Elwes, and his grand-daughter Marie married Alan O’Bryen, Ernest’s son.
  • Mr. J. Walton, Q.C.Joseph Walton’s son, Joseph Arthur marries Field Stanfield’s daughter Henrietta

What it also does is give a clear idea of a tight social circle, that is also very inter-related.

The Tablet Page 5, 15th April 1893


Banquet Mansion House
Egyptian Hall, Mansion House, London

The brilliant scene at the Mansion House on Wednesday night marked at once the crowning hour of an honourable career, and in some sort the closing of a chapter in the story of English Catholicism. A very sympathetic audience listened to the Lord Mayor, when, lapsing for a moment into a strain of personal reminiscence, he told how from earliest manhood onwards he had laboured in silence for the good of the city, and all the world has now witnessed his great reward. And when we speak of the reward which has come to him in his 70th year, for all his patient service of the City of which to-day he is the Chief Magistrate, we are thinking less of the proud position he has won than of those golden opinions which the manner of his winning it has brought to him from all sorts and conditions of men,.

If ever a man in the hour of realized hope could look back upon a stainless record, or attained the object of a long and honourable ambition with the knowledge that in the pursuit of it he had never swerved, even by the hesitation of moment, from the path of the highest right, that man is the present Lord Mayor. In his case the battle of duty was fought in the open, steadily and unflinchingly, and his conduct has earned the recognition and the gratitude of men, of whatever creed, who care to see the triumph of truth and principle over shuffling and insincerity. But it will do more than that, it will do more than add to the general esteem in which Mr. Alderman Knill is held by all who know him. His steadfast constancy to Catholic principle upon that large and public stage, where all the greatness of the City was behind him to act as a sounding-board to his words, will give new heart to many a poor co-religionist for whose obscure trial or sordid troubles the world has neither heed nor care.

Many a little hidden tragedy and loss of self-respect, away in villages and remote country towns, as well as here in London, may be averted by this one conspicuous example of Catholic faithfulness ; and long after Mr. Alderman Knill has passed away the memory of that famous day in the Guildhall when he risked the ambition of a life-time, for many a tempted man may help to dip the trembling scales on the side of fidelity and truth. But, as the Cardinal hinted the other night, the career of the Lord Mayor offers another lesson. In his case, to the tenacity and courage which make, perhaps, the groundwork of his character, have been added not only a singular simplicity and directness of purpose, but also qualities which are less often associated with that resoluteness of which he has given such signal proof.

Throughout all this quarrel Mr. Alderman Knill has borne himself not only as a fearless and honourable man, but always with the considerateness and the unvarying courtesy of a Christian gentleman. The silken glove has been oftener felt than the iron hand, he has never fought for trivialities or shown himself unbending except for essentials, and he has been ever ready to respect the scruples, and, when that was possible, even the prejudices of his opponents. It was impossible not to think of these things on Wednesday evening, and not to regard that glittering scene as in some sort the fulfilment of a career. The time of struggle and doubt, indeed, was over long ago, and for many months the Lord Mayor has held with assured ease, his office of Chief Magistrate of London. He has offered his splendid hospitality to all that is famous and distinguished in the land, and looked down upon more brilliant crowds. But the sight of the guests who had gathered at his bidding on Wednesday night to do honour to the Cardinal must have affected him in a different and a quite separate way.

In that famous banqueting hall, officially presided over by the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of the City were the representatives of all Catholic England. The Cardinal and the Bishops, Peers and Members of Parliament, the clergy, Judges and leaders of the Bar, journalists, architects, naval and military officers, country gentlemen, artists, merchants, the officers of the leading Catholic associations—all that goes to make up the world of English Catholicism was there. Never since Cardinal Pole was invited by the Mayor and citizens in the year 1554, had a Prince of the Church been thus officially received, and never assuredly for three hundred years and more had there been such an assemblage of Catholics within the walls of the city.

To many that scene seemed like a visible triumph spread out before the eyes of the man who presided there so quietly and graciously and yet had risked so much for conscience’ sake, and risking it had struck such a signal blow for religious freedom and so vindicated for Catholicism its rightful position before the people. But whether considered, as it was designed, as an opportunity for offering public welcome to the Cardinal, or as, in fact, it also became a demonstration of regard for a host whom his guests delighted to honour, this memorable banquet was an unqualified success.


Bennison, E. R.; Lady Knill, Wife of Sir Stuart Knill, Lord Mayor of London (1892-1893); City of London Corporation;
Lady Knill, Wife of Sir Stuart Knill, Lord Mayor of London (1892-1893); copyright.City of London Corporation;

The banquet accordingly took place on Wednesday evening, when Cardinal Vaughan and the Bishops of the English Catholic Hierarchy, and a large gathering of the Catholic clergy and laity, met at the Mansion House. The guests, who numbered upwards of three hundred, were received by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress in the Reception Hall. Cardinal Vaughan, on entering, was met by the City Marshal, and, preceded by two torch-bearers carrying lighted candles, was conducted into the building. Here he was received by the Lord Mayor, who, with his mace and sword-bearers, advanced to meet his Eminence. All the Bishops wore their silk robes and chains. After the greeting, the guests passed into the Egyptian Hall, where the banquet was served. On the left side of the Lord Mayor sat the Cardinal, and on the right side the Duke of Norfolk.

Besides these, the invited guests were : The Earl of Denbigh, the Bishop of Clifton, Archbishop Scarisbrick, 0.S.B., the Earl of Albemarle, K.C.M.G., the Bishop of Liverpool, the Earl of Westmeath, the Earl of Gainsborough, Lord William Nevill, the Bishop of Nottingham, Lord Braye, the Bishop of Birmingham; the Right Rev. Lord Petre, the Bishop of Newport and Menevia, Lord Norreys, Admiral Lord Walter Kerr, the Bishop of Shrewsbury, Lord Beaumont, Lord North, the Bishop of Emmaus, Lord Arundell of Wardour, the Bishop of Northampton.

Lord Herries, the Bishop of Southwark, Lord Emly, the Bishop of Leeds, Lord Morris, the Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Bishop of Middlesbrough, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, Lord Acton, the Bishop of Cisamus, the Bishop of Salford, the Right Hon. the O’Conor Don, the Bishop of Priene, Mgr. Gilbert, Mr. Justice Matthew, the Hon. Mgr. Talbot, D.D., the Very Rev. Provost Wenham, Mr. Austin, M.P., the Very Rev. Canon Bamber, Count de Torre Diaz, the Very Rev. Canon Purcell, the Hon. A. Petre, the Very Rev. Canon Keens, Mr. W. Smith, M.P., the Rev. Father Sidgreaves, F.R.A.S., Sir Walter de Souza, the Rev. Dom Gilbert Dolan, Sir G. Errington, Bart., the Very Rev. F. A. Gasquet, D.D., Sir G. Clifford, Bart., Mgr. Carroll, Sir Philip Rose, Bart., the Rev. Bernard Vaughan, S.J.

Sir W. Vavasour, Bart., Mgr. Cahill, Sir Percy Grace, Bart., Mgr. Carr, Judge Stonor, Mgr. Johnson, D.D., the Rev. G. S. Delaney (chaplain), Colonel Vaughan, Mgr. Howlett, D.D., Judge Bagshawe, Mgr. Fenton, Sir C. M. Wolseley, Bart., Mgr. Clarke, D.D., Sir W. Blount, Bart., Mgr. Motler, Sir W. Hamilton Dalrymple, Bart., Mgr. Williams, Sir Sherston Baker, Bart., Mgr. McKenna, Sir R. Bamewell, Bart., General Sir A. Herbert, K.C.B., Sir H. W. Parker, the Very Rev. G. Callaghan, the Very Rev. Canon McCave, D.D., the Very Rev. W. T. Gordon, the Very Rev. R. Butler, D.D., the Rev. F. Rymer, D. D., the Very Rev. F. M. Wyndham, Mr. R. Berkeley, the Mayor of Barnstaple, Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, the Very Rev. Canon Barry, Mr. C. A. Scott-Murray, the Very Rev. Canon Akers, the Mayor of Gravesend, the Very Rev. Canon Murnane, Mr. J. S. Croucher, Mr. Hussey Walsh, the Very Rev. Canon Bagshawe, D.D.,

Chevalier Sperati, the Very Rev. Canon Fannan, Mr. N. Synott, Mr. Britten, Mr. E. Wolseley, Mr. J. P. Wallis, the Very Rev. Canon O’Callaghan, Mr. J. Hunt Lilly, the Very Rev. Canon Moore, the Very Rev. Canon O’Halloran, the Very Canon Lalor, Captain Richey, Mr. G. W. Winzar, Mr. James Coen, Mr,. John Knill, Mr. Soulsby, Colonel E. Burnaby, Mr. R. Pargeter, Mr. S. J. Nicholls, F.S.A., Mr. B. F. Costelloe, the Very Rev. Canon Franklin, Mr. G. Whitlaw, the Very Rev. Canon Wilson, 0.S.B., Mr. J. Kenyon, Mr. J. T. Perry, the Very Rev. Canon Randerson, Mr. G. A. Bouvier, Mr. W. Farren, Mr. E. W. Beck, the Rev. G. Richardson, Mr. S. Gatti, Major Gape, Mr. F. de Bernhardt, the Rev. A. B. Gordon, Mr. J. Wallace, Mr. A. Hornyold, Mr. H. W. Bliss, Mr. J. Borrajo, Mr. F. Whitgreave, Junr., Mr. J. Dunn, the Very Rev. Canon Grady, Mr. L. T. Cave, The O’Clery, the Very Rev. M. Kearney, the Rev. C. Tochetti, Mr. Arthur A’Beckett, Mr. A. J. Blount, the Very Rev. M. Gaughren, the Rev. J. Holder, Mr. E. de Lisle, F.S.A., Mr. A. Boursot, the Very Rev. Canon Scott, D.D., the Rev. Dr. W. Barry, Mr. S. Tapprell Holland, Mr. R. A. Harting, the Very Rev. Canon Luck, the Rev. T. F. Gorman, Mr. W. Hays, Mr. P. Wittan, the Rev. G. B. Cox, the Rev. E. J. Watson, Mr. W. M. Honneybun, Mr. E. Tegart, Mr. W. Langdale, Mr. T. Rawlinson, Mr. Edward Petre, Mr. L. Eyre, the Very Rev. J. Procter, Mr. J. H. Pollen, the Rev. Bernard Ward, Mr. J. H. Powell, Mr. F. Stanfield, Mr. A. Purssell, the Very Rev. Provost Dawson, the Very Rev. M. Kelly, D.D., Mr. F. R. Ward, Mr. W. S. Lilly, the Very Rev. Canon Brownlow, the Very Rev. J. P. Bannin, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Wegg-Prosser, the Rev. J. Minnett, the Very Rev. F. Henry, Mr. J. St. Lawrence, Mr. Wilfrid Ward, the Very Rev. Canon Mackintosh, the Rev. D. E. Dewar,

Mr. H. Lescher, Mr. S. Lickorish, Mr. Fitzherbert Brockholes, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Cary-Elwes, the Rev. F. J. Sheehan, the Rev. M. Fanning, Colonel H. Walpole, the Rev. Father E. Badger, Mr. Snead Cox, Mr. H. Stourton, Mr. C. R. Parker, the Rev: E. Pennington, the Rev. Father Eyre, S.J., Mr. J. B. Hardman, Mr. W. Meynell, the Rev. F. Skrimshire, Mr. C. A. Buckler, Mr. Lister Drummond, the Rev. A. White, M.R., the Rev. Dr. W. J. B. Richards, Mr. Everard Green, the Rev. C. A. Cox, the Rev. W. Barry, Mr. Santley, the Rev. E. Buckley, Mr. A. Oates, the Rev. E. Martin, Major Roper Parkington, Mr. J. McAdam, Mr. Borff, Mr. E. Bellasis, Mr. E. D. Purcell, the Rev. W. Fleming, M.R., Colonel Tully, Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. L. C. Lindsay, the Rev. T. Graham, D.D., Mr. G. Blount, Mr. J. Walton, Q.C., Mr. W. Wilberforce, the Rev. D. Skrimshire, Mr. A. B. Glewy, the Rev. R. Buckler, Mr. E. J. Fooks, Mr. C. Gasquet, Mr. T. Meyer, Mr. A. B. Kelly, Mr. F. R. Langton, Mr. Basil Fitzherbert, the Rev Dr. Moyes, Mr. St. George Mivart, F.R.S., the Rev. R. C. Bone, the Rev. W. Ignatius Dolan, the Rev. J. S. Vaughan, Major Trevar, the Rev. Father Hayes, S.J., Mr. J. Brand, Mr. Ogilvie Forbes, Mr. S. D. Williams, Mr. J. Steuart, Mr. W. H. Bishop, Mr. J. S. Purcell, C.B., Mr. J. V. Hornyold, Mr. J. Incledon, Mr. Albert A’Beckett, Mr. W. D’Alton, Mr. C. Kegan Paul, Mr. W. H. J. Weale, Mr. A. R. Dowling, Mr. A. C. Wood, F.S.A., Mr. Hillier Gosselin, Mr. W. H. Lyall, Mr. H. D. Harrod,F.S.A., Mr. C. R. Parker, Jun., Mr. R. Cafferata, Mr. R. Woodword, Mr. W. S. Craig, Mr. Wilfrid Herbert, Mr. W. Pyke, Mr. J. Hosslacher, Dr. O’Reilly, Mr. P. P. Pugin, Mr. Washbourne, Mr. F. T. Silvertop, Mr. W. Keatinge, Mr. E. Hibbert, Mr. W. Keane, Mr. R. H. C. Nevile, Mr. Casella, Mr. W. G. Freeman, Mr. J. S. Hansom, Mr. F. M. Lonergan, Mr. J. P. Munster, Mr J. F. Caulfield, Mr. C. Kent, Mr. R. Sankey, Mr. R. W. Berkeley, Mr. J. B. Carney, Mr. R. J. Walmesley, and Mr. C. T. Layton.

After the tables were cleared, The LORD MAYOR rose to propose the first toast,—That toast, he said, always uppermost in the hearts of Englishmen, and especially citizens of London, the health of the Sovereign, under whose gentle sway the country has lived and prospered for more than fifty years—her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. Since the very commencement of her reign, said Alderman Knill, all have been fully conscious that she has entered into the griefs and joys of every one of her subjects, and that she has the desire to alleviate those sorrows, and to participate in their rejoicings. Their loyalty was almost warmed to love when they recognized her great sympathy with her Catholic subjects in all their troubles. To her all homage was due ; and their prayers were, that she who had ever been an example in the acknowledgment of her dependence upon a Higher Power, might be long spared to rule over them and see her people united and contented. Following the old tradition still retained in the great city’s walls, he prefixed the health of him, the great Head of the Church, Christ’s Vicar, who, seated on Roman Heights in incense laden atmosphere, kept an ever watchful eye on every portion of his vast flock ; to him who raises up his mighty voice to lead in all emergencies—the Holy Eather who speaks to all as children. He asked them to drink to the” Pope and the Queen.” The LORD MAYOR proposed the second toast—” The Prince of Wales, the Princess of Wales, and all the Royal Family.” We love and reverence them, he said, as our fellow-citizens. Almost every one of our Princes has connected himself with one of our Guilds, and like our much loved Queen, they are always ready and willing to do all in their power to help the needy and suffering. Whenever any dire calamity strikes the land,one of our Princes or Princesses comes forward to assuage the grief and remedy the evil. He trusted that H.R.H. the Princess of Wales might soon again be restored to health—she, our Peerless Princess whom all loved and honoured.

In rising to propose the third toast, that of “His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan,” the LORD MAYOR said that it was customary at this juncture to say something about our Defensive Forces and Legislative Houses, but their special purpose of meeting together was to do honour to Cardinal Vaughan. Let him do that. He (the Lord Mayor), had endeavoured to bring together not only representatives of one body, but representatives of trade and guilds, of art and science and literature, peers, commoners, sculptors, poets and historians, our professors and scholars —all had come to pay their tribute of love and homage to his Eminence. He (the Lord Mayor), as Chief Magistrate of the great City of London, felt unworthy in this, his 70th year, of being allowed such an honour as to entertain his Eminence, and he assured his guests that he should never forget that honour. It was with the greatest pleasure that he wished his Eminence the best of blessings and the best of health to contend with the work he had before him. He had the virtues and actions of all his predecessors, and he invited all to drink, with all sincerity of heart, the health of his Eminence Cardinal Vaughan.

CARDINAL VAUGHAN, who was warmly greeted on rising to reply, said that he heartily thanked the company for the great honour they had paid to his colleagues and himself. He felt conscious of his unfitness in many ways for the post in which he had been placed. But he could assure them that he felt in no manner discouraged, and that he should always do his very best. (Cheers.) The honour paid to him and his colleagues that night was the greater and the more acceptable when they recognized in the Lord Mayor not only a genuine Englishman but a typical Catholic layman. (Cheers.) He had upheld his great religious principles in a way that had won for him the admiration of the whole world. (Cheers.) That great municipal hall had from time to time been placed at the disposal of various religious bodies, who, by their position and by their work, had a claim to an opportunity of furthering projects which they wished to carry out for the good of their fellow creatures. He rejoiced that an opportunity had now been afforded to the religious body to which nearly all those present belonged of meeting together in the same place. They, too, had at heart the interests of the community at large. (Cheers.) Their history was bound up with the history of England ; their religion was at the basis of civilization; they represented, as strongly and as consistently as any body of men to be found in the country, the vital and noble principle of Christian education. (Cheers.) They contended not merely for the traditions of their creed, but for the great principle of natural law that parents ought to be able to educate their children in such schools as they decided upon and thought fit. (Cheers.) In doing this no one ought to be subject to any loss or deprivation. (Cheers.) They demanded a jealous watchfulness over parental liberties, and they would withstand any education system which they believed to be destructive of those liberties. In this they felt that they were acting in common with the great majority of the people of this country. (Cheers.) He was glad, in replying to the compliment which the Lord Mayor had paid them, that he should have been enabled to declare in that great hall how devotedly attached the whole Catholic body in England were to the civil institutions of the country and to the maintenance of Christian and parental liberties. (Cheers.) They all feel deeply grateful to the Lord Mayor for his kindness to them on that memorable occasion. (Cheers.)

The DUKE OF NORFOLK, in proposing ” the health of the Lord Mayor,” said all Catholics were grateful to him for the kind thought that prompted him to bring them together in that splendid hall in this Low Week. That week had, as far tack as he could remember, been the traditional week for Catholic reunions. The Bishops had always met then to take counsel with one another, and for the arrangement of their pastoral work. The Catholic School Committee, the body to whose special care had been entrusted all that concerned the vital’ work of Catholic primary education, had also chosen that week for their deliberations. So too the annual reception at Archbishop’s House had been timed to suit the convenience of the many Catholics who came to town for Low Week. In other years, however, they had done their several work and then gone their several ways without thought of any common trysting place. This year the kindness of the Lord Mayor had led him to offer them his splendid hospitality, and afford them one more common meeting ground, at the Mansion House. He eulogized the qualities of the Lord Mayor, saying that he represented— and represented well—the beating heart and centre of that vast empire to which they all belonged. He concluded with a reference to the fact that the Lord Mayor had just entered upon his 70th year, and then went on to say that his hearers might not be so well familiar with another little piece of family history. Mr. Alderman Knill had a grandson who had had the temerity to begin his seventh year precisely when the Lord Mayor was beginning his 70th. He (the Duke) thought they were well justified, therefore, in hoping that another generation of citizens might be ruled from the Mansion by a scion of the house of Knill. The LORD MAYOR, in reply, said he felt the great honour that the Duke of Norfolk had paid him. He was indeed proud to be at the head of this dear city of London, and loved his name to be connected with its name. He had endeavoured, as every one in his position would, to do his duty, and he trusted that to the last day of his life he would act on the principle of doing openly what his conscience ordered him. He loved his fellow-citizens and had endeavoured and would endeavour to put away any prejudice in favour of his co-religionists, and act justly and impartially by all.

The following was the Menu :

POTAGES. Tortue et Tortue Claire.

POISSONS. Tranches de Saumon a la Morny,Turbot. Blanchaille

RELEVES Timbale a la Bayonne, Escalopes de Cailles a la Monte Carlo.

ENTREES. Cote d’Agneau. Canetons aux Petits Pois. Jambon au Madere.

ENTREMETS. Chaudfroid a la Strasbourg. Bavarois aux Conserves. Gelees aux Pistaches.

RELEVES Fanchonettes a la Biscottini. Supremes d’Abricots a la Creme.

DESSERT.Bombe a la Francaise. Crotites a L’Indienne.

The following was the programme of music performed during dinner by the Coldstream Guards’ Band (by permission of Colonel J. B. Sterling) :

GRAND MARCH “The Silver Trumpets’ Viviani.

SELECTION “Haddon Hall” Sir A. Sullivan.

VALSE ” Serenade ” O’Meta.

SELECTION ” Cavalleria Rusticana” Mascagni.

ENTR’ ACTE “La Colombe” Gounod.


SELECTION “La Mascotte” Audran.

VALSE “Espana” Waldteuftl. PART SONG “Sweet and Low” Sir, J. Barnby.

SELECTION “II Mercante de Venezia” Pinsuti. CONDUCTOR: MR. C. THOMAS.

The following was the programme of vocal music sung after dinner by Master Ernest Howland, Master Harold Ohlson, Mr. John Bartlett, Mr. Edgar Pownall, Mr. A. Sinclair Mantell, and Mr. Charles Radburn, of the choir of the Pro-Cathedral, Kensington :



“The Crusader” ” Spring” “Sing we and chaunt it” “Village Blacksmith” “Stars of the Summer Night” “When Evening’s Twilight”  Pinsuti. Macfarren. Pearsall. Hatton. Hatton. Hatton.


At a meeting of the Court of Common Council on Thursday afternoon, Mr. W. 0. Clough, M.P., asked the Lord Mayor if he was correctly reported in that morning’s paper, as having, at a banquet at the Mansion House the previous night, placed the name of the Pope before that of the Queen in submitting the first toast to his distinguished guests. The Lord Mayor, who was cheered on rising, said he had very great pleasure in answering the question put to him. When he accepted the office of Lord Mayor he assumed that every one understood that he would not allow anything whatever to interfere with his conscientious convictions. He had taken care ever since he had been at the Mansion House to do nothing whatever to interfere with the scruples, or even the prejudices, of his fellow-citizens, and he had cordially given the use of the Mansion House to every religious body which was doing work in this great metropolis. While saying that, he believed that, as a Catholic, he had a right to receive as his own honoured guests those of his faith to whom he looked up with high reverence and respect. It was his original intention to make the banquet a private one, and not to invite the press, but it was represented to him that if that were done it might be thought that he was ashamed of what he was doing. That was certainly not the case. In regard to the particular toast, he said he was glad to follow the example of the City Guilds and others, who invariably recognized a High Power, and gave their first toast in the form of “Church and Queen.” He gloried that that was so in the City of London, and though he had not been able to take part in the spiritual devotions of his fellow-citizens, he rejoiced in their manifestations of religious devotion. Following that principle, he, addressing guests who looked upon the Holy Father in Rome as the head of their Church, as he did, coupled the name of the Pope with that of the Queen, not abating in so doing one jot of the loyalty and affection which they entertained for her gracious Majesty. The Lord Mayor was loudly cheered on resuming his seat.

Mr. Clough reserved the right to raise the question on another occasion.

Harriet Bagshawe – Obituary 1912

The Tablet Page 30, 6th January 1912

Also at a venerable age has passed away in London Mrs. Harriet Teresa Bagshawe, widow of the judge, and daughter of Clarkson Stanfield, the artist, whose conversion, preceding Herbert’s, made him the first Catholic Royal Academician. The name thus made distinguished in art has figured on our clergy list for over half a century, for on December 8 last, Father Francis Stanfield, known to many as a hymn-writer, Mrs. Bagshawe’s surviving brother, kept the fifty first anniversary of his priestly ordination. Here we feel prompted to supply a postscript to the two or three personal allusions which hastily occurred to us during our review last week of the ordinations of the past year