Only Connect...

Home  Search  Print  Login

• Title	The Times
  Publisher	London
  Source ID	S244
  Text	The Times, Thursday, May 31, 1849; pg. 7; Issue 20190; col B CONSISTORY COURT, WEDNESDAY, MAY 30. (Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.) FORSAITH V. FORSAITH This was a suit promoted by the Rev. B. Forsaith against his wife for a divorce, by reason of adultery. The marriage, which took place on the 4th of October, 1837, was succeeded by the birth of two children. The cohabitation continued until 1846, when from some circumstances which transpired, Mr. Forsaith suspected the fidelity of his wife. On being solemnly assured by her that his fears were groundless, he advised her to visit the continent for a short time, but after her return she gave birth to a child, of which it was said that it was impossible he could be the father. A separation took place between the parties, and after considerable delay, accounted for by the inability of Mr. Forsaith to sustain the expense of an ecclesiastical suit until furnished with the means by his father, the present proceedings were instituted. Dr. PHILLIMORE (with whom was Dr. R. Phillimore) submitted that the evidence adduced completely substantiated the charge. The alleged paramour was Mr. Walter Trevillian, a relative of Mrs. Forsaith. Acts of familiarity were proved to have taken place between them from which the Court could have no difficulty in inferring that adultery had been committed. Such were the attentions paid to her by Mr. Trevillian that some of the witnesses conceived in the first instance that they were lovers. He was in her company within half an hour of the birth of her last child, and repeatedly visited her afterwards. Mrs. Forsaith was desirous of having the child baptized by an Episcopal minister in Edinburgh, in the vicinity of which she then resided, and for that purpose went to the church accompanied by Mr. Trevillian's mother. On the minister inquiring who was the father, Mrs. Trevillian, as the agent of Mrs. Forsaith, acknowledged that it was illegitimate. The learned JUDGE intimated that the evidence on the latter point was inadmissible. Dr. ROBERTSON, on the part of Mrs. Forsaith, said that is would be his duty to maintain that the case against Mrs. Forsaith had not been fully established, supposing it were necessary to eke it out by what took place at Edinburgh. Looking, however, at all the facts which were proved, it would be vain for him to attempt to resist the prayer of the husband. The learned JUDGE said that there were circumstances in the case which required to be examined with great care; he would therefore reserve his judgment. ======================= The Times, Monday, Jun 18, 1849; pg. 7; Issue 20205; col B CONSISTORY COURT, SATURDAY, JUNE 16. (Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.) FAUSSETT V. FAUSSETT. Dr. LUSHINGTON delivered judgment in this case, which was argued on the 30th ult., and reported in The Times of the following day. The question, said the learned judge, for the Court to determine was, whether there was sufficient legal evidence to establish the guilt of the party against whom the suit was brought. Had the evidence been clear and adequate for that purpose he would have followed his customary course of pronouncing for the separation without going into the particulars of the evidence, or offering any comment upon it. But where the conclusion to be drawn, whether of guilt or of innocence, was not beyond all controversy clear - where the result to be arrived at depended upon a combination of all the facts produced in evidence, and not on some prominent facts necessarily leading to adultery, and indisputably proved, then it would be a dereliction of his duty if he did not publicly state the grounds upon which the decree of the Court was founded. That duty was more imperative where evidence had been offered of no small importance, if admissible, but the admissibility of which was in the judgment of the Court very questionable. Mr. Faussett was a clergyman of the church of England, and was married on the 4th of October, 1837, to Miss Trevelyan. There were issue of that marriage two children; the ordinary residence of the parties was at Cropthorn, in the county of Worcester, of which parish Mr. Faussett was the curate. During the first nine years that the marriage subsisted nothing was alleged to have occurred which could in any degree require the notice of the Court. The adultery with which Mrs. Faussett was charged was stated to have been committed with Mr. Walter Blackett Trevelyan, second cousin of Mrs. Faussett. It was pleaded that on the 5th of August, 1846, Mrs. Faussett left Cropthorn, and proceeded on a visit to her brother, Mr. E. S. Trevelyan, at Long Witton, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, accompanied by her husband, who remained there until September, when he went to visit Lady Trevelyan at Harrogate, and afterwards his own father. During Mrs. Faussett's residence with her brother that undue intimacy with Mr. W. B. Trevelyan was alleged to have been formed which laid the foundation for all that followed. One witness only had been examined on that article, Jane Rochester, the maid servant of Mrs. Faussett - a servant with whom it appeared she had at one time quarrelled, though the whole tenor of her evidence showed that she was a fair and upright witness. It was somewhat singular that an article of that kind, which might have been supported by other testimony, was left to depend on her evidence alone, and which did not prove any essential part of the article. The Court was left to infer the intimacy; direct proof of it there was none. The sixth article pleaded certain transactions which took place at Seaton Carew from the 22d of September to the 13th of October, but it did not charge adultery, or any act of indecent familiarity; it merely pleaded great intimacy, which might give rise to strong suspicion. Mrs. Faussett was lodging at the house of Mr. Dixon, and three witnesses proved that Mr. W. B. Trevelyan was there backwards and forwards, and the last time had stopped there for a week, having gone away at intervals; that he took all his meals with Mrs. Faussett, was there until a late hour at night, and there was an extreme degree of intimacy subsisting between the parties. Mr. Dixon deposed that they lived on the same terms of intimacy as husband and wife. The witness, however, did not state anything that occurred; he gave the Court no means whatsoever of forming an opinion, but simply gave his own conclusion. It was quite clear that the Court never could be justified in considering that as any proof whatever of an adulterous connexion subsisting between the parties. Independently, however, of the observations he had made, more than enough was proved by the evidence given on the article to excite the vigilance and suspicion of the Court. So far it was possible, though not probable, that the intercourse might be innocent, but such an unrestricted intimacy between a married lady in the absence of her husband with a gentleman so distantly allied to her might very easily, by other evidence, be converted into a connexion of a very different and a very culpable kind. The sixth article pleaded that the parties remained in the drawing-room with the door locked, and charged the commission of adultery there. Certainly, if the parties did so fasten the door in the evening, and remained with it so fastened without any assignable reason for it, such circumstances would lead the Court strongly to the conclusion of an adulterous intercourse. But it was necessary to consider to what the proof amounted. The only witness to the article was Jane Rochester; for the Dixons could say nothing upon it. Rochester deposed that while she was down in the kitchen she heard the door bolted. If she did she must be blessed with the peculiar faculty of hearing, unless there was something peculiar in the bolt, making more than an ordinary noise; and if that was the case the fact ought to have been pleaded. She stated that there was a considerable interval between the time of the door being bolted and unbolted, and when she was asked what inference she drew from it she replied that she was writing at the time, and drew no conclusion either one way or the other, and that she had never been able to detect anything improper in the conduct of the parties towards each other. He had very great difficulty in coming to a satisfactory determination as to the effect of the evidence. It was quite true that the Court was not bound by the conclusion of the witness. The Court drew its own conclusion from the facts; but the opinion of the witness was of no small importance with reference to the establishment of the facts themselves. The circumstance must be duly weighed in the progress of the cause; but standing alone, the Court could not safely found a sentence upon it. The seventh article pleaded the return of Mrs. Faussett to Cropthorn on the 13th of October, 1846, and that she and her husband never cohabited afterwards. The eighth article pleaded the visits of Mr. W. B. Trevelyan to Cropthorn at the suggestion of Mrs. Faussett, in November, 1846, and January, 1847, and that on such visits adultery was committed. Rochester, with the exception of two facts pleaded in a subsequent article, merely proved that Mr. Trevelyan was on intimate terms with Mr. and Mrs. Faussett. Charlotte Burton deposed that the parties charged conducted themselves towards each other with unbecoming familiarity, and stated that she witnessed it both in language and manner. The words had not been stated, nor had the manner been described, except that upon one occassion the witness said that she saw Mr. Trevelyan put his arm round Mrs. Faussett and kiss her. The ninth article pleaded that Mr. Trevelyan went into the bedroom of Mrs. Faussett. The Court saw no reason to doubt the intentional veracity of Rochester, but her evidence on that article was not of a satisfactory character, and Burton did not assist the case - rather the contrary. It was rather a remarkable feature in the case that there did not appear any evidence of the slightest concealment towards Mr. Faussett himself. The parties were all living together in the parsonage-house - probably a small one - and, without attributing in any degree any moral culpability to Mr. Faussett, it was difficult to understand how his eyes could be shut if the course of circumstances was such as had been represented in the pleadings and argument. The 10th article charged the parties with having kissed each other. Rochester stated that she believed she heard it, but that was weak evidence of the fact per se. Burton, however, strongly corroborated her evidence, and also deposed to the use of expressions of a loving character. The 12th article was of an historical nature, and referred to the fact of Mrs. Faussett becoming pregnant, and her removal to Frankfort on the 11th of March, 1847. That article was proved by Dr. Faussett, who was confirmed by Rochester. The 13th article pleaded a clandestine correspondence and interview between Mrs. Faussett and Mr. Trevelyan while she was in London, on her way to Frankfort. That article so far as it went, was proved. The 14th article pleaded the renewal of the report of Mrs. Faussett's pregnancy; that suspicion was then excited in the mind of her husband, who went to Frankfort and accused her of having committed adultery. The result of that accusation the Court was not able distinctly to arrive at. Mrs. Faussett returned with her children, and went to the house of her mother, Lady Trevelyan, at Wallington, in the county of Northumberland. The adultery could not be established by reason of the cessation of cohabitation, for the libel was not very consistent as to the period when the latter event occurred. The 15th and 16th articles pleaded and exhibited a letter sent by Mrs. Faussett to her husband's sister. It was very difficult to reconcile all the statements contained in that letter, but the Court could not come to the conclusion that it was a confession of absolute guilt. The terms in which it was couched were not sufficiently specific to bring him to that conviction; at the same time its terms deserved very great weight and very great consideration in guiding the Court to its ultimate decision. The 17th article pleaded that in May, 1847, Mrs. Faussett left the house of her mother, and went to Edinburgh, where the child was born on the 6th of July. The scene was now entirely changed, and, if the facts pleaded in the article were established, the Court might very easily arrive at its decision. It alleged that Mr. Trevelyan, having gone to Edinburgh, was in the habit of frequently calling on Mrs. Faussett, that he remained alone with her in the house, pretended that he was her brother, and that he was with her very shortly before her confinement, and visited her almost daily afterwards. In the evidence adduced on that article, he (the learned judge) found, to his great astonishment and surprise, that Mr. Arthur Trevelyan, the brother of the lady in question, and his wife, were living in the same house, and must have been cognizant of all the facts. No notice was taken of that in the plea, as if it were intended to conceal so important a fact from the mind of the Court. Very different would be the impression produced upon it by the lady lodging in the house alone, and living under the same roof and in the constant company of her own brother, who he (Dr. Lushington) could not suppose, without strong evidence, would abandon to dishonour his own sister. The husband and the wife were separated on account of her supposed connexion with Mr. W. B. Trevelyan, but it appeared from the evidence that her brother and his wife were on terms of great intimacy with the person charged with adultery, and Mrs. Arthur Trevelyan actually went and fetched Mrs. Faussett to their apartments, when Mr. W. B. Trevelyan paid a visit there. There might be some explanation of it, but he (Dr. Lushington) was quite sure that he should have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty if he had not commented on that circumstance, and shown that it had not escaped the vigilance of the Court itself. If the evidence given by one of the witnesses was true, it was neither more nor less than an actual introduction of the paramour to the lady with whom he had committed adultery. It was giving him access in the greatest degree. Although there was no evidence which would enable the Court to say that adultery was actually committed at Edinburgh, yet the facts were of very great weight in the due and just consideration of the case, because it was scarcely possible to suppose that such intimacy would be continued at Edinburgh, and at such a period, unless adultery had at some time or other been committed. He was not justified in rejecting the evidence of the two witnesses as to the circumstances which took place at Edinburgh, because its reception might tend to reflect on the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Trevelyan. It was surprising to the Court that they had not been made witnesses in the cause. The only question that remained had reference to what took place at the christening of the child in Edinburgh. Mrs. Faussett applied to Mrs. Eliza Trevelyan to superintend the christening. That lady had an interview with the Rev. J. Alexander upon it, and stated that the child was not Mr. Faussett's, consequently that his wife had committed adultery. It was argued that evidence of those circumstances was to be assimilated to the declarations of an agent made by him when acting within the scope of his authority. He (Dr. Lushington) admitted the general principle, that a party employing an agent to buy or sell for him was responsible for the acts of that agent, but he totally denied its applicability to the present case. Here the inquiry had no reference to pecuniary responsibility, - it was one of a totally different kind. It was true it was not a criminal proceeding, which was to lead to punishment in the nature of fine or imprisonment; nevertheless, in every suit for a divorce by reason of cruelty or adultery, or both, it was a question of guilty or not guilty of a crime. Pecuniary responsibility might attach to a principal for the declarations of his agent, whether those declarations were true or false; this Court, however, did not look to the fact of declarations, but to their truth. If Mrs. Faussett had instructed Mrs. Trevelyan to tell Mr. Alexander that it was not the child of Mr. Faussett, but that she had been guilty of adultery, it might have been so pleaded, and that would have been the best evidence against Mrs. Faussett. Looking at the principles which guided that court, it was impossible to take the declarations of Mrs. Eliza Trevelyan as any evidence at all against the party in the cause; and he felt bound to reject it. There had been no verdict in this case, nor was it necessary. Dr. PHILLIMORE interposed, and said, that since the proceedings had been instituted judgment had gone by default. The learned JUDGE resumed. - The question was, whether upon the whole of this evidence, he could pronounce the adultery to be proved. He could not conscientiously say that any act of adultery was proved with reference to any particular time or place, but he could say that there were very ample opportunities for its commission, if the parties were so disposed. Great and most undue familiarity, totally incapable of being justifiably accounted for, was established by the evidence. Taking all the facts together, he had come to the conclusion, though he admitted with great difficulty, that he was justified in pronouncing for the separation. It might be that this case would travel further, and that Mr. Faussett would endevour to seek a more adequate remedy than this Court could confer, namely, by a bill presented to the House of Lords. If that were so, Mr. Faussett would have no reason to regret the pains which he (Dr. Lushington) had bestowed upon it, endeavouring to show that the moral conviction to which a person might hastily arrive was adequately supported by legal evidence, and on which if he had relied, the whole case might have been seriously prejudiced elsewhere. He pronounced for the divorce. ======================= The Times, Wednesday, Jul 18, 1849; pg. 7; Issue 20231; col D THE REV. BRYAN FAUSSETT'S DIVORCE BILL HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, JULY 17. The House, after the adjournment of the appeal case "Smyth v. Darley," proceeded to hear counsel and witnesses in support of "Faussett's Divorce Bill." The Lords present were - Lord Brougham (Deputy Speaker), Lord Campbell, the Earl of Darnley, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Minto, Lord Camoys, Lord Stanley, Lord Beaumont, Lord Redesdale, &c. Mr. ALEXANDER said he had the honour to appear before their Lordships as counsel for the petitioner, the Rev. Bryan Faussett, and to produce evidence in support of the second reading of the bill to dissolve the marriage of that gentleman with Helena Caroline, his wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes. He should have many witnesses to call, and therefore he would not trouble their Lordships with any statement beyond such as was necessary to supply an outline of the case it was his duty to prove at the bar of their Lordships' house. It would appear that the Rev. Bryan Faussett had been married to this lady at the parish church of Nettlecombe, in the county of Somerset, on the 4th of October, 1837. The lady is the daughter of Sir John Trevelyan, of Wallington, in the county of Northumberland, and of Nettlecombe-court, in the county of Somerset, and the husband, at the time of the marriage, was the curate of the parish of Cropthorne, in the county of Worcester. Lord BROUGHAM. - Has there been an action for damages, Mr. Alexander? Mr. ALEXANDER replied that a verdict had been taken by consent in the Sheriffs' Court for 200l. damages. Lord BROUGHAM. - By consent? What use is that to that House? What use is a verdict taken by consent as a means of showing to their Lordships that the circumstances of the case has been properly sifted? A verdict by consent is no proof to their Lordships that the matter has been sufficiently or properly inquired into. Mr. ALEXANDER replied that the matter was not gone into before the Sheriff certainly, but then there had been the fullest inquiry gone into in the Consistory Court. Lord BROUGHAM. - Yes, no doubt that was so, and that their Lordships had before them. Go on. Mr. ALEXANDER then said that after the parties had been married they had proceeded to Cropthorne, in the County of Worcester, where they had resided in the greatest state of married happiness that could be well supposed. Here the birth of two children had increased their happiness - the one having been born on 13th of July, 1838; the other, a boy, being born on the 28th of February, 1840. Thus their life of mutual happiness continued until the month of August in 1846, when Mrs. Faussett went to pay a visit to her borther, Mr. Spencer Trevelyan, at Long Witton, her husband, the petitioner, availing himself of the opportunity to pay a visit to Lady Trevelyan. It was during the sojourn of Mrs. Faussett at her brother's, in this month of August, 1846, that Mr. Walter Trevelyan commenced his visits to her. They were second cousins. At this period Mr. Walter Trevelyan was residing at his father's rectory at Nether Witton, in the county of Northumberland, no great distance from Long Witton, where Mrs. Faussett was stopping. The visits were somewhat frequent, and subsequently, when, in the September following, she proceeded to Seaton Carew, near Hartlepool, a sea-bathing place, with her two children, Mr. Walter Trevelyan soon resumed his visits. All this time the Rev. Mr. Faussett, the husband, was not only absent, but altogether ignorant of what was going on. At Seaton Carew Mrs. Faussett took lodgings at the house of a person name Dixon, and here Mr. Walter Trevelyan not only visited her, but, in truth, spent nearly the whole of his time, taking his meals regularly with her, stopping with her every night as late as 10, 11, and even 12 o'clock. These attentions, with certain familiarities, not only continued for some time, but attracted the observation of Mr. Dixon, the landlord of the house, who, upon watching more closely, saw and heard sufficient to awaken his suspicions that the intimacy which was going on between the parties was not such as ought to exist except in the case of a man and his wife. Mr. Dixon, therefore, availed himself of an opportunity to follow Mrs. Faussett one afternoon when she went out to take a walk with Mr. Walter Trevelyan, and on that occasion he saw them in such a position on a bench near the sea-shore as to convince him that an act of adultery had been committed; indeed, he had been a witness to the act itself. Upon this point it was necessary that he should explain to their Lordships why it was that this piece of evidence did not appear upon the evidence which had been taken in the Consistory Court whilst the case had been in progress in Doctors-commons. That fact had arisen from the form in which the libel had been framed, under which, according to the rules of the court, the testimony as to this fact could not be received. So long as Mrs. Faussett remained at Seaton Carew the visits of Mr. Walter Trevelyan were continued. On the 12th of October Mrs. Faussett returned to Cropthorne, and four days afterwards she was joined by her husband. The latter arrived at a late hour, when his wife told him that the children were occupying the bed in which they (the husband and wife) had been accustomed to sleep, and therefore that he had better select another room for that night. This was accordingly done, as Mr. Faussett did not like to disturb his children. But from that night the husband and wife had never cohabited. During the succeeding month Mr. Walter Trevelyan paid a visit to Cropthorne, and whilst there he asked Mrs. Faussett to accompany him to his bedroom. She did so, and there she remained for upward of 20 minutes. The evidence would go to show various acts of familiarity between the parties. These were in 1847. Of these familiarities the rumours in course of time reached the ears of Mr. Faussett, whereupon he mentioned them to his wife, upon which she expressed a wish to go abroad. They accordingly went to Frankfort, but on their way remained two days in London. During those two days Mrs. Faussett, however, contrived to hold interviews with Mr. Walter Trevelyan upon the stairs of the hotel at which she and her husband were stopping, and evidence would likewise be given to show that whilst there she had written letters to him. After this they went to Frankfort, but they had not been there long before Mr. Faussett had been compelled to return to Cropthorne to make arrangements in reference to his duties. In the month of April he went back to Frankfort, and having whilst in England heard some further rumours against the character of his wife he again mentioned their purport to her. Mrs. Faussett offered no denial to the reports, nor did she make any admission as to their truth, but the result was that the parties returned to England, and on their way further into the country left the two children at Oxford, and then he went on and left his wife at her mother's, in Northumberland. Lord BROUGHAM inquired what ages the parties were. Mr. ALEXANDER said that at the time in question the lady was about 29 and the gentleman about 30. Mr. Walter Trevelyan was the son of Mr. Raleigh Trevelyan. On the 19th August Mrs. Faussett quitted her mother's roof, and went to Edinburgh, where she was delivered of a male childe, on the 7th October, 1847, and a few minutes after the birth of the child the evidence would go to prove that Mr. Walter Trevelyan had called at the house to inquire after her, and that on the third day he had been admitted into her bedroom. From that moment he had been a constant visitor so long as Mrs. Faussett had remained in Edinburgh. Lord BROUGHAM here said, if the evidence of Dixon came up at all to the mark, so as to support the statement which the learned counsel had made, all other matters would be like pouring wine and water into wine, for he was said to have witnessed an act of adultery. Mr. ALEXANDER thought so too, and therefore would at once call his witnesses. Several witnesses were then examined, whose testimony bore out that which ad been stated by the learned counsel. Lord BROUGHAM, at the conclusion, moved that, the case of adultery having been so clearly made out, their Lordships ought to read this bill a second time. Lord CAMPBELL concurred. Mrs. Faussett appeared to have been a very abandoned woman, and the husband was very much to be pitied. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. ======================= The Times, Thursday, Jul 19, 1849; pg. 7; Issue 20232; col C THE REV. BRYAN FAUSSETT'S DIVORCE BILL. HOUSE OF LORDS. The following are the leading portions of the evidence which was given in support of the second reading of the above Divorce Bill on Tuesday. Lord BROUGHAM sat as Deputy Speaker. Several witnesses were called to prove the marriage, and the terms upon which Mr. and Mrs. Faussett had lived prior to the conduct which had led to their separation. The Rev. Godfrey Faussett, a brother of the petitioner, stated that they had lived on the most affectionate and amicable terms. Lord BROUGHAM. - A quarrel now and then, eh? The witness said they lived amicably together. Lord BROUGHAM. - What, no quarrels, then? - not some of those quarrels that are in most cases usual between man and wife, eh? Nothing of that sort, now and then? The Witness. - Perhaps there might have been some slight differences between them sometimes. Lord BROUGHAM. - No doubt there were - I should think there had been. Jane Rochester stated that she had gone into the service of Mrs. Faussett on the 9th of September, 1846, at Long Witton. Mr. Walter Trevelyan was in the habit of visiting at the house. He was living with his father at that time, at Nether Witton, no great distance from Long Witton. She accompanied her mistress and the children to Seaton Carew in the same month, namely, September, 1846; but her master did not go with them. Lodgings were taken at the house of a Mr. Dixon, at Seaton Carew. Two bedrooms, a sitting-room, and a kitchen were the apartments they occupied. In a day or two after their arrival Mr. Walter Trevelyan made his appearance at Seaton Carew, and remained there for two or three days. Upon that occasion he took up his quarters at the hotel, but he soon afterwards came a second time, and then he had a bed in a house adjoining that in which Mrs. Faussett had lodgings. He spent all his days and took all his meals with Mrs. Faussett, and sometimes he remained with her as late as 11 and 12 o'clock at night. He also took walks with her mistress unaccompanied by any one else, whilst at other times the children went with them. Lord BROUGHAM. - Were there any woods near Seaton Carew? The Witness. - Was not aware. Lord BROUGHAM - Was there any sofa in Mrs. Fausset's sitting-room? The witness replied in the affirmative. She then proceeded - I remember one evening about 8 o'clock hearing the door of the drawing-room locked. Mr. Walter Trevelyan and Mrs. Faussett were then in the room by themselves. The door was continued locked until about 11 o'clock, when Mr. Walter Trevelyan left. Lord CAMPBELL. - Did you not suspect when the door had been locked that something improper was going on between Mr. Trevelyan and your mistress? The Witness. - No, I did not. Lord BROUGHAM. - What! not suspect? Why what did you suppose it was likely was going on when the door was locked? What did you suppose the door was locked for, when only your mistress and this gentleman were in the room? Did you not think it was very strange? Now tell us what did you suppose was going on? The Witness. - I did not suppose at all, my Lord. Lord CAMPBELL. - Did you not think it very strange - did you not think that it was very wrong and improper that your mistress should be locked up in a room alone with a single man - did you not think that wrong? The Witness. - No; I did not think about it. I heard the door locked, and that was the way I knew it was done. I did not talk about this proceeding to any one of the other servants in the house, because I was the only one there. Lord CAMPBELL. - And you say that you did not think it wrong that a married woman should lock herself in a room and a single man only with her? The Witness. - No, I did not, in truth, think at all about it. Lord BROUGHAM. - Here, pray have you been in the habit of living in the service of ladies - of married ladies - who have been accustomed to lock themselves in a room alone with a single man? The Witness. - No; I have never lived with any other lady than Mrs. Faussett. Lord BROUGHAM. - Did you ever see any familiarities pass between your mistress and this young gentleman? The Witness. - No; not any. Not any more familiarity took place between them that I noticed when my master was absent than when he was present. Lord CAMPBELL. - Was your mistress's dress in a disordered stated after this interview? The Witness. - No; I did not notice that it was. Lord BROUGHAM. - Did your mistress order any wine-and-water on the occasion? The Witness. - No; not any. The counsel then proceeded with her examination in chief. We returned to Cropthorne about the 12th of October; and about five days afterwards my master came home too. He returned rather late, and my mistress then told him that one of the children was in his bed, and suggested that he should go to another room. My master assented, rather, as he said, than disturb the child. This was about the middle of October, and in November Mr. Walter Trevelyan came to Cropthorne, on a visit. He came again in the month of January, 1847; that was his second visit. During his stay on this latter occasion he asked Mrs. Faussett one night as he was going to bed to come to his room to see how the fire was burning. Her mistress did so, and remained with Mr. Trevelyan in his room for 20 minutes. Lord BROUGHAM. - Were there any quarrels between Mr. and Mrs. Faussett? The Witness. - I have heard words pass between them at times. Lord BROUGHAM. - Did he charge his wife with improper conduct? Did he charge her with anything that was wrong? The Witness. - Yes; when we were at Frankfort. That was after we had left England of course. I had never seen greater familiarities pass between my mistress and Mr. Trevelyan in the absence of my master than in his presence. George Dixon was the next witness. He said, it was in my house at Seaton Carew that Mrs. Faussett and her children had lodgings in the month of September, 1846, and the last witness was the servant of that lady. After they had been at my house a short time I recollect Mr. Walter Trevelyan coming to visit Mrs. Faussett, and on the occasion of his second coming to Seaton Carew he took a bed in the house adjoining mine. I remember one evening following Mrs. Faussett and Mr. Trevelyan when they went to take a walk. Lord CAMPBELL. - Before that evening had you seen anything pass between the parties which had created a suspicion in your mind as to the propriety of their conduct? The Witness. - No, my Lord, I had not seen anything. It was between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening, in the month of September. It was in consequence of what I had heard that I was induced to follow them on this evening, and, what is more, I thought that it was not exactly prudent that, being a married woman, Mrs. Faussett should walk out alone and be so much with a single gentleman. I followed them so as they should not remark that I was watching them. The witness then went on to prove that he had seen an act of adultery committed on a seat by the sea-side. Lord CAMPBELL. - Was it broad daylight then? The Witness. - Yes, my Lord. The seat is upon the bank where the promenade is during high water; but when it is low water then the company walk down on the sands nearer to the sea, and upon this occasion it was low-water, so that there were no other persons on the promenade except Mrs. Faussett and Mr. Trevelyan and myself, who was hidden from their view by a small hillock. I saw the act of adultery committed; that is, he treated her as a man treats his wife. Lord BROUGHAM. - Are you a married man, and experienced so as to be capable of understanding these things? The witness said that he was a married man. (The witness then described in detail what he had seen.) Lord BROUGHAM. - Then, from what you saw on that occasion, you, as a married man, have no doubt but that Mrs. Faussett had carnal connexion with this gentleman. The Witness. - Oh, not the least doubt. After this proceeding had terminated the parties made the best of their way home. I told my wife what I had seen when I returned. Lord CAMPBELL. - Are you a member of the Established Church? The Witness. - Yes. Lord BROUGHAM. - You are not a Methodist, then? The Witness. - No, but I am in the habit of attending their chapel. Lord BROUGHAM. - I thought so. After this evidence, Mr. Alexander, we need no other. But there is a question which I must put to this witness, and it is upon a point upon which alone I have any doubt left. It appears that when this witness was examined on the 20th of April last on the proceedings in Doctors'-commons, he did not say one word about what he has now just told us as to what he saw took place. I want to know how he accounts for not having made this most important statement then. Now, witness, how was it that you did not tell this circumstance to the examiner in Doctors'-commons? The Witness. - I did tell it, my Lord. Mr. ALEXANDER said, the reason this statement did not appear upon the proceedings in Doctors'-commons was that there was no article in the libel to support such a question. Lord BROUGHAM. - What! I never heard such nonsense in all my life. What! here was a man whose evidence went to prove the actual act of adultery, and yet there is no article in the libel under which his proof could be received. How was this? This was afterwards explained by Mr. Loveday, the proctor, who stated that he had not seen Dixon until a few minutes prior to his going before the examiner of the court. The truth was that when he had gone to Seaton Carew, he had only seen Mrs. Dixon, and was therefore not aware of the extent to which the evidence of her husband would go. Thus it was that the article which would have let in this evidence had not been set out in the libel. Lord BROUGHAM. - But do you not introduce a general article in the libel so as to let in such a proof? Mr. Loveday. - No, there is no such article in our proceedings. Lord BROUGHAM. - Then let me recommend you, in your future proceedings in Doctors'-commons, to put in a general article, like a general plea, which will admit such evidence as that of this witness, which has unexpectedly come upon you. Mr. Loveday. - If I had pleaded an article charging general adultery, and had brought forward George Dixon in support of that article, the Court would not have received his evidence, because the precise act to which he would have spoken had not been specifically alleged in any article in the libel. When this witness was before the examiner of the court, he made the same statement as he has upon the present occasion, but the examiner said that he could not take it down, because there was no article in the libel under which it could be received. Evidence was then given to show that when the action for crim. con. came before the Sheriff a verdict was taken by consent for 200l., and that that money had not yet been paid; but that the writ for that sum and the costs, 294l. in the whole, had been that morning placed in the hands of the officer for execution against Mr. Trevelyan. As our report of yesterday informed the reader, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
  Linked to	Bryan Faussett Maria Helena Faussett Godfrey Trevelyan Godfrey-Faussett Herbert Trevelyan Family: Faussett/Trevelyan (F958)

This site powered by The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding ©, written by Darrin Lythgoe 2001-2005.