LOVEL V. MURRAY AND ANOTHER.
Monday, the 9th of November, was the day set down for the trial of
the case which had assumed the name of "Lovel versus Murray and
Another." This denomination had been adopted many months ago, when it
had been held to be practicable by the Lovel party to prove that the
lady who was now always called the Countess, was not entitled to bear
the name of Lovel, but was simply Josephine Murray, and her daughter
simply Anna Murray. Had there been another wife alive when the
mother was married that name and that name only could have been hers,
whether she had been the victim of the old Earl's fraud,--or had
herself been a party to it. The reader will have understood that
as the case went on the opinions of those who acted for the young
Earl, and more especially the opinion of the young Earl himself, had
been changed. Prompted to do so by various motives, they, who had
undertaken to prove that the Countess was no Countess, had freely
accorded to her her title, and had themselves entertained her
daughter with all due acknowledgment of rank and birth. Nevertheless
the name of the case remained and had become common in people's
mouths. The very persons who would always speak of the Countess Lovel
spoke also very familiarly of the coming trial in "Lovel v. Murray,"
and now the 9th of November had come round and the case of "Lovel v.
Murray and Another" was to be tried. The nature of the case was
this. The two ladies, mother and daughter, had claimed the personal
property of the late lord as his widow and daughter. Against that
claim Earl Lovel made his claim, as heir-at-law, alleging that there
was no widow, and no legitimate child. The case had become infinitely
complicated by the alleged existence of the first wife,--in which
case she as widow would have inherited. But still the case went on
as Lovel v. Murray,--the Lovel so named being the Earl, and not the
alleged Italian widow.
Such being the question presumably at issue, it became the duty of
the Solicitor-General to open the pleadings. In the ordinary course
of proceeding it would have been his task to begin by explaining
the state of the family, and by assuming that he could prove the
former marriage and the existence of the former wife at the time
of the latter marriage. His evidence would have been subject to
cross-examination, and then another counter-statement would have been
made on behalf of the Countess, and her witnesses would have been
brought forward. When all this had been done the judge would have
charged the jury, and with the jury would have rested the decision.
This would have taken many days, and all the joys and sorrows, all
the mingled hopes and anxieties of a long trial had been expected.
Bets had been freely made, odds being given at first on behalf of
Lord Lovel, and afterwards odds on behalf of the Countess. Interest
had been made to get places in the court, and the clubs had resounded
now with this fact and now with that which had just been brought home
from Sicily as certain. Then had come suddenly upon the world the
tidings that there would absolutely be no trial, that the great case
of "Lovel v. Murray and Another" was to be set at rest for ever by
the marriage of "Lovel" with "Another," and by the acceptance by
"Lovel" of "Murray" as his mother-in-law. But the quidnuncs would
not accept this solution. No doubt Lord Lovel might marry the second
party in the defence, and it was admitted on all hands that he
probably would do so;--but that would not stop the case. If there
were an Italian widow living, that widow was the heir to the
property. Another Lovel would take the place of Lord Lovel,--and the
cause of Lovel v. Murray must still be continued. The first marriage
could not be annulled, simply by the fact that it would suit the
young Earl that it should be annulled. Then, while this dispute was
in progress, it was told at all the clubs that there was to be no
marriage,--that the girl had got herself engaged to a tailor, and
that the tailor's mastery over her was so strong that she did not
dare to shake him off. Dreadful things were told about the tailor and
poor Lady Anna. There had been a secret marriage; there was going to
be a child;--the latter fact was known as a certain fact to a great
many men at the clubs;--the tailor had made everything safe in twenty
different ways. He was powerful over the girl equally by love, by
fear, and by written bond. The Countess had repelled her daughter
from her house by turning her out into the street by night, and had
threatened both murder and suicide. Half the fortune had been offered
to the tailor, in vain. The romance of the story had increased
greatly during the last few days preceding the trial,--but it was
admitted by all that the trial as a trial would be nothing. There
would probably be simply an adjournment.
It would be hard to say how the story of the tailor leaked out, and
became at last public and notorious. It had been agreed among all the
lawyers that it should be kept secret,--but it may perhaps have been
from some one attached to them that it was first told abroad. No
doubt all Norton and Flick knew it, and all Goffe and Goffe. Mr.
Mainsail and his clerk, Mr. Hardy and his clerk, Serjeant Bluestone
and his clerk, all knew it; but they had all promised secrecy. The
clerk of the Solicitor-General was of course beyond suspicion. The
two Miss Bluestones had known the story, but they had solemnly
undertaken to be silent as the grave. Mrs. Bluestone was a lady with
most intimately confidential friends,--but she was sworn to secrecy.
It might have come from Sarah, the lady's-maid, whom the Countess
had unfortunately attached to her daughter when the first gleam of
prosperity had come upon them.
Among the last who heard the story of the tailor,--the last of any
who professed the slightest interest in the events of the Lovel
family,--were the Lovels of Yoxham. The Earl had told them nothing.
In answer to his aunt's letters, and then in answer to a very urgent
appeal from his uncle, the young nobleman had sent only the most curt
and most ambiguous replies. When there was really something to tell
he would tell everything, but at present he could only say that he
hoped that everything would be well. That had been the extent of the
information given by the Earl to his relations, and the rector had
waxed wrathful. Nor was his wrath lessened, or the sorrow of the
two aunts mitigated, when the truth reached them by the mouth of
that very Lady Fitzwarren who had been made to walk out of the room
after--Anna Murray, as Lady Fitzwarren persisted in calling the
"young person" after she had heard the story of the tailor. She told
the story at Yoxham parsonage to the two aunts, and brought with her
a printed paragraph from a newspaper to prove the truth of it. As it
is necessary that we should now hurry into the court to hear what
the Solicitor-General had to say about the case, we cannot stop to
sympathize with the grief of the Lovels at Yoxham. We may, however,
pause for a moment to tell the burden of the poor rector's song for
that evening. "I knew how it would be from the beginning. I told you
so. I was sure of it. But nobody would believe me."
The Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster was crowded on the 9th of
November. The case was to be heard before the Lord Chief Justice,
and it was known that at any rate Sir William Patterson would have
something to tell. If nothing else came of it, the telling of that
story would be worth the hearing. All the preliminaries of the trial
went on, as though every one believed that it was to be carried
through to the bitter end,--as though evidence were to be adduced and
rebutted, and further contradicted by other evidence, which would
again be rebutted with that pleasing animosity between rival lawyers,
which is so gratifying to the outside world, and apparently to
themselves also. The jurors were sworn in,--a special jury,--and long
was the time taken, and many the threats made by the Chief Justice,
before twelve gentlemen would consent to go into the box. Crowds were
round the doors of the court, of which every individual man would
have paid largely for standing-room to hear the trial; but when they
were wanted for use, men would not come forward to accept a seat,
with all that honour which belongs to a special juryman. And yet it
was supposed that at last there would be no question to submit to a
jury.
About noon the Solicitor began his statement. He was full of smiles
and nods and pleasant talk, gestures indicative of a man who had
a piece of work before him in which he could take delight. It is
always satisfactory to see the assurance of a cock crowing in his own
farm-yard, and to admire his easy familiarity with things that are
awful to a stranger bird. If you, O reader, or I were bound to stand
up in that court, dressed in wig and gown, and to tell a story that
would take six hours in the telling, the one or the other of us
knowing it to be his special duty so to tell it that judge, and
counsellors, and jury, should all catch clearly every point that was
to be made,--how ill would that story be told, how would those points
escape the memory of the teller, and never come near the intellect of
the hearers! And how would the knowledge that it would be so, confuse
your tongue or mine,--and make exquisitely miserable that moment of
rising before the audience! But our Solicitor-General rose to his
legs a happy man, with all that grace of motion, that easy slowness,
that unassumed confidence which belongs to the ordinary doings of
our familiar life. Surely he must have known that he looked well
in his wig and gown, as with low voice and bent neck, with only
half-suppressed laughter, he whispered into the ears of the gentleman
who sat next to him some pleasant joke that had just occurred to him.
He could do that, though the eyes of all the court were upon him; so
great was the man! And then he began with a sweet low voice, almost
modest in its tones. For a few moments it might have been thought
that some young woman was addressing the court, so gentle, so dulcet
were the tones.
"My lord, it is my intention on this occasion to do that which an
advocate can seldom do,--to make a clean breast of it, to tell the
court and the jury all that I know of this case, all that I think of
it, and all that I believe,--and in short to state a case as much in
the interest of my opponents as of my clients. The story with which I
must occupy the time of the court, I fear, for the whole remainder of
the day, with reference to the Lovel family, is replete with marvels
and romance. I shall tell you of great crimes and of singular
virtues, of sorrows that have been endured and conquered, and of
hopes that have been nearly realised; but the noble client on whose
behalf I am here called upon to address you, is not in any manner
the hero of this story. His heroism will be shown to consist in
this,--unless I mar the story in telling it,--that he is only anxious
to establish the truth, whether that truth be for him or against him.
We have now to deal with an ancient and noble family, of which my
client, the present Earl Lovel, is at this time the head and chief.
On the question now before us depends the possession of immense
wealth. Should this trial be carried to its natural conclusion it
will be for you to decide whether this wealth belongs to him as the
heir-at-law of the late Earl, or whether there was left some nearer
heir when that Earl died, whose rightful claim would bar that of my
client. But there is more to be tried than this,--and on that more
depends the right of two ladies to bear the name of Lovel. Such
right, or the absence of such right, would in this country of itself
be sufficient to justify, nay, to render absolutely necessary, some
trial before a jury in any case of well-founded doubt. Our titles
of honour bear so high a value among us, are so justly regarded as
the outward emblem of splendour and noble conduct, are recognised so
universally as passports to all society, that we are naturally prone
to watch their assumption with a caution most exact and scrupulous.
When the demand for such honour is made on behalf of a man it
generally includes the claim to some parliamentary privilege, the
right to which has to be decided not by a jury, but by the body to
which that privilege belongs. The claim to a peerage must be tried
before the House of Lords,--if made by a woman as by a man, because
the son of the heiress would be a peer of Parliament. In the case
with which we are now concerned no such right is in question. The
lady who claims to be the Countess Lovel, and her daughter who claims
to be Lady Anna Lovel, make no demand which renders necessary other
decision than that of a jury. It is as though any female commoner in
the land claimed to have been the wife of an alleged husband. But
not the less is the claim made to a great and a noble name; and as
a grave doubt has been thrown upon the justice of the demand made
by these ladies, it has become the duty of my client as the head of
the Lovels, as being himself, without any doubt, the Earl Lovel of
the day, to investigate the claim made, and to see that no false
pretenders are allowed to wear the highly prized honours of his
family. Independently of the great property which is at stake, the
nature of which it will be my duty to explain to you, the question at
issue whether the elder lady be or be not Countess Lovel, and whether
the younger lady be or be not Lady Anna Lovel, has demanded the
investigation which could not adequately have been made without this
judicial array. I will now state frankly to you our belief that these
two ladies are fully entitled to the names which they claim to bear;
and I will add to that statement a stronger assurance of my own
personal conviction and that of my client that they themselves are
fully assured of the truth and justice of their demand. I think it
right also to let you know that since these inquiries were first
commenced, since the day for this trial was fixed, the younger of
these ladies has been residing with the uncle of my client, under
the same roof with my client, as an honoured and most welcome guest,
and there, in the face of the whole country, has received that
appellation of nobility from all the assembled members of my client's
family, to dispute which I apparently now stand before you on that
client's behalf." The rector of Yoxham, who was in court, shook
his head vehemently when the statement was made that Lady Anna had
been his welcome guest; but nobody was then regarding the rector of
Yoxham, and he shook his head in vain.
"You will at once ask why, if this be so, should the trial be
continued. 'As all is thus conceded,' you will say, 'that these two
ladies claim, whom in your indictment you have misnamed Murray, why
not, in God's name, give them their privileges, and the wealth which
should appertain to them, and release them from the persecution of
judicial proceedings?' In the first place I must answer that neither
my belief, nor that of my friends who are acting with me, nor even
that of my noble client himself, is sufficient to justify us in
abstaining from seeking a decision which shall be final as against
further claimants. If the young Earl should die, then would there be
another Earl, and that other Earl might also say, with grounds as
just as those on which we have acted, that the lady, whom I shall
henceforward call the Countess Lovel, is no Countess. We think that
she is,--but it will be for you to decide whether she is or is not,
after hearing the evidence which will, no doubt, be adduced of her
marriage,--and any evidence to the contrary which other parties may
bring before you. We shall adduce no evidence to the contrary, nor
do I think it probable that we shall ask a single question to shake
that with which my learned friend opposite is no doubt prepared. In
fact, there is no reason why my learned friend and I should not sit
together, having our briefs and our evidence in common. And then, as
the singular facts of this story become clear to you,--as I trust
that I may be able to make them clear,--you will learn that there are
other interests at stake beyond those of my client and of the two
ladies who appear here as his opponents. Two statements have been
made tending to invalidate the rights of Countess Lovel,--both having
originated with one who appears to have been the basest and blackest
human being with whose iniquities my experience as a lawyer has made
me conversant. I speak of the late Earl. It was asserted by him,
almost from the date of his marriage with the lady who is now his
widow,--falsely stated, as I myself do not doubt,--that when he
married her he had a former wife living. But it is, I understand,
capable of absolute proof that he also stated that this former wife
died soon after that second marriage,--which in such event would have
been but a mock marriage. Were such the truth,--should you come to
the belief that the late Earl spoke truth in so saying,--the whole
property at issue would become the undisputed possession of my
client. The late Earl died intestate, the will which he did leave
having been already set aside by my client as having been made when
the Earl was mad. The real wife, according to this story, would
be dead. The second wife, according to this story, would be no
wife,--and no widow. The daughter, according to this story, would
be no daughter in the eye of the law,--would, at any rate, be no
heiress. The Earl would be the undisputed heir to the personal
property, as he is to the real property and to the title. But we
disbelieve this story utterly,--we intend to offer no evidence to
show that the first wife,--for there was such a wife,--was living
when the second marriage was contracted. We have no such evidence,
and believe that none such can be found. Then that recreant nobleman,
in whose breast there was no touch of nobility, in whose heart was no
spark of mercy, made a second statement,--to this effect--that his
first wife had not died at all. His reason for this it is hardly for
us to seek. He may have done so, as affording a reason why he should
not go through a second marriage ceremony with the lady whom he had
so ill used. But that he did make this statement is certain,--and
it is also certain that he allowed an income to a certain woman as
though to a wife, that he allowed her to be called the Countess,
though he was then living with another Italian woman; and it is also
certain that this woman is still living,--or at least that she was
living some week or two ago. We believe her to have been an elder
sister of her who was the first wife, and whose death occurred before
the second marriage. Should it be proved that this living woman was
the legitimate wife of the late Earl, not only would the right be
barred of those two English ladies to whom all our sympathies are now
given, but no portion of the property in dispute would go either to
them or to my client. I am told that before his lordship, the Chief
Justice, shall have left the case in your hands, an application will
be made to the court on behalf of that living lady. I do not know how
that may be, but I am so informed. If such application be made,--if
there be any attempt to prove that she should inherit as widow,--then
will my client again contest the case. We believe that the Countess
Lovel, the English Countess, is the widow, and that Lady Anna Lovel
is Lady Anna Lovel, and is the heiress. Against them we will not
struggle. As was our bounden duty, we have sent not once only, but
twice and thrice, to Italy and to Sicily in search of evidence which,
if true, would prove that the English Countess was no Countess. We
have failed, and have no evidence which we think it right to ask a
jury to believe. We think that a mass of falsehood has been heaped
together among various persons in a remote part of a foreign country,
with the view of obtaining money, all of which was grounded on
the previous falsehoods of the late Earl. We will not use these
falsehoods with the object of disputing a right in the justice of
which we have ourselves the strongest confidence. We withdraw from
any such attempt.
"But as yet I have only given you the preliminaries of my story." He
had, in truth, told his story. He had, at least, told all of it that
it will import that the reader should hear. He, indeed,--unfortunate
one,--will have heard the most of that story twice or thrice before.
But the audience in the Court of Queen's Bench still listened with
breathless attention, while, under this new head of his story he
told every detail again with much greater length than he had done in
the prelude which has been here given. He stated the facts of the
Cumberland marriage, apologizing to his learned friend the Serjeant
for taking, as he said, the very words out of his learned friend's
mouth. He expatiated with an eloquence that was as vehement as it
was touching on the demoniacal schemes of that wicked Earl, to whom,
during the whole of his fiendish life, women had been a prey. He
repudiated, with a scorn that was almost terrible in its wrath, the
idea that Josephine Murray had gone to the Earl's house with the name
of wife, knowing that she was, in fact, but a mistress. She herself
was in court, thickly veiled, under the care of one of the Goffes,
having been summoned there as a necessary witness, and could not
control her emotion as she listened to the words of warm eulogy with
which the adverse counsel told the history of her life. It seemed
to her then that justice was at last being done to her. Then the
Solicitor-General reverted again to the two Italian women,--the
Sicilian sisters, as he called them,--and at much length gave his
reasons for discrediting the evidence which he himself had sought,
that he might use it with the object of establishing the claim of his
client. And lastly, he described the nature of the possessions which
had been amassed by the late Earl, who, black with covetousness as he
was with every other sin, had so manipulated his property that almost
the whole of it had become personal, and was thus inheritable by a
female heiress. He knew, he said, that he was somewhat irregular
in alluding to facts,--or to fiction, if any one should call it
fiction,--which he did not intend to prove, or to attempt to prove;
but there was something, he said, beyond the common in the aspect
which this case had taken, something in itself so irregular, that he
thought he might perhaps be held to be excused in what he had done.
"For the sake of the whole Lovel family, for the sake of these two
most interesting ladies, who have been subjected, during a long
period of years, to most undeserved calamities, we are anxious to
establish the truth. I have told you what we believe to be the truth,
and as that in no single detail militates against the case as it will
be put forward by my learned friends opposite, we have no evidence to
offer. We are content to accept the marriage of the widowed Countess
as a marriage in every respect legal and binding." So saying the
Solicitor-General sat down.
It was then past five o'clock, and the court, as a matter of course,
was adjourned, but it was adjourned by consent to the Wednesday,
instead of to the following day, in order that there might be due
consideration given to the nature of the proceedings that must
follow. As the thing stood at present it seemed that there need be no
further plea of "Lovel v. Murray and Another." It had been granted
that Murray was not Murray, but Lovel; yet it was thought that
something further would be done.
It had all been very pretty; but yet there had been a feeling of
disappointment throughout the audience. Not a word had been said as
to that part of the whole case which was supposed to be the most
romantic. Not a word had been said about the tailor.