Plymouth to Exeter by train: 1960 and 2025

The high wasteland of Dartmoor stands between Plymouth and Exeter, effectively blocking any fast transport route. There are two options: along the southern slopes and eastern slopes of Dartmoor, and along western and northern slopes.

On 2 April 1849 Plymouth Millbay station was connected to London via Bristol by the Great Western Railway and its partners. It took the easier and better populated southern and eastern route.

On 1 June 1865 the Launceston and South Devon Railway connected Plymouth to Lydford, on along the western slopes.

On 17 May 1876 Plymouth was connected to London via Salisbury - a faster route than via Bristol. The London and South Western Railway paid its rival the Great Western Railway (GWR) to use the Lydford line and then its own tracks to Exeter and beyond.

From 28 March 1877 both companies used the new North Road station in Plymouth, with London-bound trains leaving in the same direction. L&SWR trains branched off at Tavistock Junction for Exeter St Davids via Tavistock, Lydford and Okehampton. GWR trains carried straight on at Tavistock Junction for Exeter St Davids via Totnes, Newton Abbot and Dawlish. By the time trains reached Exeter, the two companies' trains were facing in opposite directions.

Hampered by having to use the slow and congested single-track line to Lydford to access its fast London route, the LSWR built its own double-track line between Lydford and Plymouth North Road and opened it on 1 June 1890. From that point, the L&SWR expresses reached London faster than the GWR expresses, still running via Bristol.

Fast forward to the rationalisation of the railway network in the 1960s. The former L&SWR line between Plymouth and Bere Alston was kept open due to poor road alternatives. But the line from Bere Alston to Tavistock and Okehampton was closed on 6 May 1968. The line between Okehampton and Crediton closed to passengers in 1972. It was reopened in November 2021. The modern Okehampton line is very much a branch, mostly single-track and with trains terminating in Exeter.

Reopening the line between Bere Alston and Tavistock has been under discussion for the last forty years and every few years an expensive feasibility study takes place. Some people assumed that reopening the entire line between Bere Alston and Okehampton would provide resilience for services from Cornwall and Plymouth, especially in the light of the closure of the former GWR line at Dawlish in 2014 due to storm damage. However, they have forgotten - or never knew - how slow the L&SWR line was from Plymouth to Exeter.

Trains between Plymouth and Exeter St Davids on weekdays in 1960 and 2025

Green cells show services via Okehampton, brown cells those via Dawlish.

Fastest train (The Cornishman) via Dawlish: 1 hour 19 minutes

Fastest train (Plymouth to Brighton) via Okehampton: 1 hour 33 minutes.

Slowest train (changing at Newton Abbot) via Dawlish: 2 hour 14 minutes

Slowest train via Okehampton: 2 hours 26 minutes.

The number of services run in 2025 is much greater than in 1960 so only services to 13:15 are shown.

Fastest train between Plymouth and Exeter in 2025: 55 minutes

Average timing in 1960: 1 hour 54 minutes

Average timing in 2025: 1 hour

Trains between Okehampton and Exeter St Davids on weekdays in 1960 and 2025

Fastest train (Plymouth to Brighton): 36 minutes; 

Slowest train (stopping service from Plymouth to Exeter St Davids): 1 hour.

The fastest train takes 34 minutes; the slowest takes 41 minutes.

Average timing between Okehampton and Exeter in 1960: 47 minutes

Average timing between Okehampton and Exeter in 2025: 36 minutes

Trains between Plymouth and Tavistock North in 1960

Fastest train (Plymouth to Brighton): 31 minutes

Slowest train (stopping service to Brentor): 55 minutes

Average timing: 44 minutes

Trains between Plymouth and Bere Alston in 1963 and 2025

Fastest train (Atlantic Coast Express): 26 minutes

Slowest train (stopping service to Brentor): 39 minutes.

Fastest train (which stops only at St Budeaux Victoria Square): 19 minutes;

Remainder (which stop at all stations): 23 minutes.

Average timing in 1960: 34 minutes

Average timing in 2025: 22 minutes

An Anglican Scandal

Faringdon Advertiser and Vale of the White Horse Gazette - Saturday 8 May 1886

THURSDAY.

The Judge took his seat at 10 o’clock.

THE SPARSHOLT CLERICAL LIBEL CASE.

Elisabeth Niblett, of 8, Ashton Road, Hotwells, Clifton, Bristol, was charged with a charge of sending threatening letters to the Rev. Oswald J Reichel, Vicar of Sparsholt, with intent to extort money from him, on 15th and 20th of July last; also with publishing a document containing libellous matter against the Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel.

Mr. Henry Matthews, Q.C. and Mr. A. Chichele Plowden, were counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. A. R. Jelf, Q.C., and Mr. Fitzroy Cowper, were counsel for the defence.

The charge of sending threatening letter with intent to extort money, was proceeded with first.

Mr. Mathews opened the case for the prosecution, briefly stated the facts of the case, and read the letters on which the charge was based, as follows:—

8, Ashton Place, Clifton. Bristol.

Sir,—Will you oblige me by not sending any more letters to my house? Let me tell you I am the holder of a respectable house, not a brothel, which you have tried to make it. The person you address as Mrs. Rice is not at my house. As soon as she returned back I turned her out. I would not keep such cattle in my place. Furthermore, I mean to take proceedings against you. You came here and called yourself Mr. Rice, a commercial traveller, well knowing you were a minister of the Church of England, and gave my house a nice name. Remember it is my living, which I have always got respectably until your companion, Miss King, came to it. There is not a common woman on the streets of Bristol more common than she has made herself to every man in the neighbourhood. If you do not come to some terms with this affair I shall go to my own minister of the parish, and state the whole case to him, for I think it right you should be found out.—Mrs. Niblett—

Awaiting your reply——.

This letter was received by Mr. Reichel on the 16th July. The other letter ran:

Sir,—As I have not heard from you I shall come to the vicarage one day this week. If you do not come to some terms, I shall then go to the gentleman who went to London to find out Mrs. Ringley. I have no doubt I shall be paid well for what I can tell him. You know well l am telling the truth, which you cannot deny. You came to my house and staid one night with the vile thing you called Mrs. Rice, who is none other than your old housemaid, who has had two children by you. This is not half I know. I found something in your writing which she left in the waste paper, which is quite enough to prove what I have told. Don't think for a moment I am going to let this drop quietly, for I will expose you if I have to do it whilst you are in the pulpit.

Mr. Matthews then called—

Jesse Moss, letter carrier, living at Wantage, deposed to delivering letters at Mr. Reichel's house on the 16th and 21st July, 1885.

Annie Heavens, housemaid to the prosecutor, said she delivered letters to Mr Reichel on the 16th and 21st July, but she could not say they were the letters produced. She remembered the 16th because the school inspector was at Childrey.

Oswald Joseph Reichel, the prosecutor, said he was a clergyman of the Church of England, and Vicar of Sparsholt in this county. On the 16th and 2lst July last year, he received the letters produced by post. He remembered the 16th July because the school inspector was at Childrey. On Sunday, the 9th August, when he came out of Church in the evening he saw a woman standing on the road over against him. There was a man with her whom he recognised as Aaron Frogley. The woman he at first thought was Aaron Frogley’s sister, Clara Stratton. They seemed to wish to speak to him, and he crossed over the road. The prisoner then addressed him.

He could not recollect all that she said, but certain things he did remember. He then said to her "Then you are the writer of those two impertinent letters?" Aaron Frogley was walking by the side of her at the time, and William Frogley, his brother, was walking behind her.

She said she was the writer of the letters. They walked by his side all the way up to his gate, when he said he had nothing more to say to her, and wished them good night. He overheard William Frogley say to his brother Aaron, "If you have proof that is enough" William Frogley was churchwarden.

Cross-examined by Mr Jelf: He had written a letter to Mrs Rice at Mrs Niblett’s house, he could not remember the precise date, It was within a few days of the 15th July. The letter did not come back to him. He did not answer the first letter, but he did the second. He had not altered the letter to his knowledge. The statement produced was the one on which he had prosecuted the prisoner before the Magistrates.

He had had respondence with the Bishop, and he said that some notice must be taken of the libel. He was not the man who on or about the 9th June, slept with Mrs Rice at Mrs Niblett’s house. He had slept in the house once, but he denied sleeping with a woman at any time. There was not a woman in the room at the time he slept there, to his knowledge (laughter). He did not sleep in the same room with Mrs Rice to his knowledge.

By the Judge:—There was one bed in the room, and he slept in it. There was no other person in the same bed to his knowledge (laughter). The letter produced was in his hand-writing.

(The letter was as follows: "A very few lines to enquire where you are. I did net get the Pall Mall; was it ever sent? With no post mark to guide me, I did not know whether you had remained in town, or gone to your late address, or gone elsewhere to the seaside. So I will say no more to-day beyond sending what I always do in greater abundance still.")

He did not remember writing the letter, but it was in his hand-writing. Mrs Rice was Caroline King. She was the person who had been housemaid in his service, in the years 1872 and 1873. She was in his service about two years. She always slept in a room with the cook, so far as he knew. She never slept in the room nearest to his, on the same floor, to his knowledge. He was a single man.

He remembered George Wise, who used to work for him He saw him in Court now. He was about 15 years of age then, and he was there when Caroline King came to his house. He would not say that no improprieties had taken place between himself and Caroline King at that time. He did not have connection with her there. He could not recollect things so far back. Nothing of that sort happened in his house. He must decline to answer when anything of the sort took place.

(The Judge: No, indeed you won't, or else you will go to prison).

Prosecutor, with great reluctance: It was at Stratford-on-Avon, as far as I can recollect; that was after she left his service. He had kissed her in his house, but not often. He might have been in her bedroom, and she had been in his bedroom constantly. Sometimes he was in the room when she came in and sometimes not. She used to bring in the water for his bath every morning. He did not think he had kissed her in his bedroom or in hers.

He did not recollect asking George Wise, when he was succeeded by a new boy not to say anything to the new boy about himself and Carry.

He seduced Caroline King at Stratford-on-Avon. He afterwards visited her at 43, Edbrook[e] Road, Westbourne Park, but he had no connection with her there. He could not say how often he had visited her there. He might have been six or seven times. She was letting lodgings there. He did not allow her £6 per week. He allowed her 10s. per week, and 5s for the use of a room when be was there. He did not allow her the burial and marriage fees.

He did not know where she was now. He last saw her in October, 1885. He had not written to her since then. She was then in London having a house of her own. She paid the rent. He was not allowing her money now. He left off allowing her money long time ago only when he had rooms there.

She was living at Edbrook[e] Road by the name of Mrs. Ringley. He did not invent that name or the name of Rice. He knew of her going from Edbrook[e] Road to Bristol. He believed he visited her times at Bristol, it might have been four. It was in May and June. He had nearly always where she was since 1873. She had not been his mistress. He could not answer the question whether she had two children by him.

(The Judge: Oh, you must answer it.)

He knew she had two children, but he didn't know whether they were his or not. He had reason to think the contrary. Their names were Emily and Maggie.

When he went to Bristol he might have taken with him a case of cider.

When he got to Mrs Niblett's house he saw her. He did not give her to understand that he was the husband of Mrs Rice. He slept in the room which Mrs Rice gave up to him. Mrs Niblett did not see him in bed with a woman. She had seen him with his coat off, and might also have seen Mrs Rice partly undressed, although he was not positive about it. He most certainly did not lead Mrs Niblett to suppose he was the husband of Mrs Rice. Mrs Rice gave up her room to him, but he did not know where she slept.

He did not tell Mrs Niblett that he could not trust is wife with very much money at the time. He did not know that she was paying 15s. per week for her lodgings. He did not say he would be answerable for the rent.

Mrs Rice got her living by letting lodgings in London. She did not let lodgings at Stratford-on-Avon; she went out with him for a day. That was some 14 years ago. Both the children died in 1878. Mrs Rice was then in London, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Westbourne Park.

He had never had any conversation with Mrs Niblett until she came to Sparsholt. She waited upon himself and Mrs Rice when he was at Bristol. He had coffee in the room, at eight o'clock one night. That was not the time when he had his coat off. If it had no been a respectable lodging-house he should not have gone there. He received the letter produced from Mrs Niblett. The letter was as follows:

The Rev Reichel is quite at liberty to punish Mrs Niblett for anything she has said in her letters to him, but as she has told the plain truth she is not afraid of him. You well know you have come to my house in the name of Mr Rice, and stayed all night with a common street woman. You have come three times to visit her. I have waited on you, and yet you say you have had no conversation with Mrs. Niblett. All you are saying, you are making the thing worse. You have come to a poor but respectable man's house, and made a brothel of it. You heap lies on it, thinking you will frighten me, but you will not. My husband and me are going to Wantage to see the churchwardens. You have the chance to do what you like with me, but you shall clear my house of any stain. It is my living, and no respectable person will come to my house if they knew I had allowed a clergyman to make the use of it you have done. If you stood with 40 others I could point you out. I have far more proof of your guilt than you think I have. You can do what you like. I shall come to Wantage on Saturday if possible.

The reason he did not take proceedings against the woman before was because he was away from home. Caroline King had been abroad when he had been abroad. It was not quite by accident that she was abroad when he was. He had been to hotels with her in Italy and Parish. She had not slept with him at those places, but stayed at a different place. He had not told her to his knowledge that when English people were about they were not to know one another, but he would not swear he had not told her so. He did not think he could have said and forgotten it.

The prisoner came over to Sparsholt and went to Church on Sunday evening the 9th August. He did not preach, but he performed the service. He saw some strangers in the Church. He did not catch sight of her and change colour to his knowledge. He went into the vestry after service. The key of the vestry was at that time lost, and the door was fastened by a piece of wood. He usually went out of the Church by the big door. He might have looked out of the vestry door on that occasion; he did not go out of the vestry door because it required to be fastened from the inside

He remembered asking Mr Jones, his assistant, who were the strangers in Church. When he looked out of the vestry door, he did not see the prisoner to his knowledge. He came out of Church after the usual interval. He could not say it was usual, or that it was not, for him to look out of the vestry door. When he got out, he saw no one to identify them. Mrs Niblett was standing outside the Churchyard gate with Aaron Frogley; he thought it was his sister.

He believed Mrs Niblett said, "Well, Mr Reichel, you know me, of course." He supposed he first said he did not know, because he took her for someone else. He did not recollect saying "Well, I might have wished you good evening." He was very careful not to say anything, because Wm. Frogley and Aaron Frogley were with her, and anything he said might have been perverted. He was not at that time wishing the people to believe he did not go to Bristol; he did not care one way or the other.

Mrs Niblett said "You know me very well, Mr Reichel." He said, "I received two impertinent letters from a Mrs Niblett, and you, I suppose are the person; I will give them to my solicitor."

He did not recollect her saying "I asked you to do that long ago," but he would not swear she did not.

He had heard that she then wrote and signed a document, which was witnessed by the churchwardens and a number of parishioners, and which was the subject matter of the libel indictment; he had not seen the document.

A correspondence had taken place between himself and the Bishop, who had declared he must do something to clear his character. He was advised to take out a summons against the prisoner for libel. He did not go into the witness box at the trial. He was not put into the witness box to prove that he was a clergyman of the Church of England. The summons was dismissed. As soon as application was made that prosecution should be open for him, he went into the witness box and entered into recognizances. He knew that Mrs Niblett was a poor woman, and got her living generally by letting lodgings.

Re-examined by Mr Matthews: Fourteen years ago he offered to educate and marry Caroline King, but she refused, as she had three other offers. He contributed to her support by engaging rooms of her in London. He in no way, directly or indirectly, represented himself as Mr Rice, or as a commercial traveller. He never had any conversation with Mrs Niblett beyond saying "Is Mrs Rice at home," until she came to Sparsholt. He slept in a bedroom at prisoner’s house, opposite the sitting room. That was on the occasion on which coffee was brought to him; it was brought into the sitting room, about eight o’clock in the evening, in the month of June, 1885.

He on that day had some friends who were going to leave him by the early morning train. They did not do So, but went by an afternoon train. Mrs Rice had written to him, asking him to advise her about taking a house in Bristol, and he had promised to go down on that day. In consequence of his friends not leaving him till the afternoon, be could not start for Bristol till that time, and did not reach Bristol until five o'clock, too late to get back that evening. Having looked at the house Mrs Rice wished him to look at, he said they would go and have some dinner and look out for a night's lodging, and Mrs Rice said to him "You may have this room if you like."

That was the bedroom opposite the sitting room. He said to her "What will you do?" and she replied as near as he could recollect—either "I will sleep on the sofa," or ‘‘ My landlady will provide for me." There was sofa in the sitting room.

He then said to her "Now you must go out and have some dinner with me." They went into the town of Bristol and had some dinner in a refreshment room. They then went back, and as his custom was to have some coffee after dinner, he asked for some coffee, and it was brought to them in the sitting room.

He remembered the day, because it was one of the hottest days of last year, and Mrs Rice was complaining very much of the heat. About half-past 10 or 11 o'clock, he asked Mrs Rice for some hot water. Mrs Rice complained very much of the heat, and she may have thrown off some part of her dress; he did not it at all. There was no truth in the statement that she was undressing to go to bed. He took off his coat, and waited for the hot water to be brought to him. He used the hot water and then went to bed. He believed Mrs Rice brought the hot water, but he was not positive about it. Mrs Niblett might have brought in the water. There was not a word of truth in the statement that Mrs Rice slept with him. He did not know where she slept.

On the 9th of June, he was not at Bristol at all, but was at home entertaining friends. He never had a cup of coffee brought to him in the bedroom, he should not think of having coffee so late as that. He did not at any of the visits which he made et Bristol do anything that could bring discredit or disrepute upon Mrs Niblett’s house.

William Frogley was Churchwarden and he had attacked him ever since he had been the Vicar of Sparsholt. He understood that the man referred to by Mrs Niblett as having been to London to find out Mrs Ringley, was Williamm Frogley. He believed he made a present to Mrs Rice of some cider.

Some discussion arose as to the substitution of the letter a for the word the in one of the letters produced, which the prosecutor said he did not alter, to his knowledge, but the judge said it was not a material point at all.

Mr Jelf asked the Judge's permission for the prisoner to make a statement, which was granted.

Mrs Niblett said it was early in last year that a lady of respectable appearance came and asked her is she could accommodate her with board and lodging for a month. She said her husband was traveller for a firm in London, and wishes her to stay at Clifton for a time. She had a house full at the time, but she made arrangements for the lady to sleep at a neighbour's for one or two night. She said she did not want the use of the sitting room until her husband came, when he would pay extra for it.

After about a week or ten days she said her husband was coming to see her. She seemed very anxious that she (Mrs Niblett) should not answer the door to him when he came, but she was in a back room when he did come and she (Mrs Niblett) answered the door. He said "Does Mrs Rice live here?" and she said "Yes, said; are you Mr Rice?" and he said "I am". He went upstairs and had dinner. He left in the afternoon.

He came again in about six or seven days. Mrs Rice told her he was going to sleep there that night; this was on the 9th of June. They went out in the afternoon and were not back again until after ten o'clock. By the order of Mrs Rice she prepared a cup of coffee and a sponge cake, which she said Mr Rice liked before going to bed. Mr Reichel and Mrs Rice were both partly undressed.

The next morning she took some hot water to the bedroom. Mrs Rice came out of Mr Reichel’s bedroom in her nightdress and took a letter. She went into the room with the water, and Mr Reichel was in bed. He went away in the afternoon. He gave Mrs Rice in her presence a £5 note and half-a-sovereign, and asked her to promise not to spent the money, because it was not due until July. He told her (Mrs Niblett) he should be constantly calling to see the money paid.

When she went away she owed 27s. for board and lodging, and that was the reasons she wrote to Mr Reichel in the way she did. During the time she was there seven or eight gentlemen called to see her, and she began to get suspicious. One gentleman told her she was only a common woman. She went to her minister and told him all about it before she wrote to Mr Reichel.

Mr Jelf, addressing the jury for the defence, in the course of an eloquent address, said the prosecutor been in the parish of Sparsholt as its Vicar and as the spiritual adviser of the parishioners since the years 1872 or 1873, He had just conducted the Easter services of the Church, and he had now come there, as he had said to vindicate his character. That was the reason why he took up that prosecution. He took the prisoner before the magistrates on the charge of liber, and the libel was the subject matter of that document which had been placed in Court before them, and which was made in order to send to the Bishop, that the parishioners of that unhappy parish might have the opportunity of enquiring and taking steps to see whether their dear old Church of England should any longer be in the hands of a pastor such as that.

The desire of Mr Reichel apparently was to come into a Court of justice to satisfy his Bishop, his parish, and the rest of the world that he was innocent of having seduced his own housemaid, and kept up a connection with her for many years. But other indictments had been preferred against the poor woman, Mrs Niblett, and she was not on her trial for sending threatening letters with intent to extort money, and were it not for the fortunate circumstances that they had a learned Judge who permitted prisoners in cases of this sort to make a statement, the woman would not have been able to say a word.

The learned gentleman reviewed the history of the case from its commencement, and contended that the letters written by Mrs Niblett were not with a view to extort money, but with the intention of claiming what was due to her. There were certain threats in the letters, but they must consider that the letters were written by a woman who felt that a great injury had been done to her by the conduct of the prosecutor.

He urged upon the jury to take into consideration the circumstances that led to the writing of the letters, and what was in the woman's mind when she wrote them. He then called:

Henry Wilton, a barrister’s clerk, who had lodged in Mrs. Niblett's house; Elizabeth Owen, formerly a district visitor at Clifton; and George Webber, a grocer at Bristol, all of whom gave the prisoner an excellent character, and spoke of the respectability of her house.

Mr Matthews, on behalf of the prosecution, made an earnest and eloquent appeal to the jury to well consider the facts that had been laid before them. His client had had one of the most cruel things done to him that could possibly be done to any man. The sins of his youth had been dangled before his eyes, as an awful spectre, and made known to the whole world. Had he not done all in his power to make reparation for those sins? He had offered to educate and marry the girl whom he had wronged 14 years ago, but she had refused.

He asked the jury to look upon the prisoner, who had a hold upon the prosecutor, through having found something in his writing, and was trying by threatening to expose him, to extort money from him, and to get a plum for her lodging house, which did not often come to her share.

After half-an-hour’s adjournment, the learned Judge summed up the case, about an hour being taken in delivery. He said the question before them for decision was a case that had been placed before them with some degree of feeling, and naturally so. The defendant was accused of having threatened to publish certain matters or things against Mr Reichel.

What they had to consider was not whether she was telling the truth, or whether Mr Reichel was telling the truth. They had to consider whether the letters were sent to him to extort money. If they thought that she wrote to him, not with the intention of extorting money, but with the intention of obtaining from him payment of money due from him, for himself or Mrs Rice, and that she believed what she wrote to be true, that she regarded as an injury what he had done to her, then they ought not to convict her upon that indictment.

Did they believe that the woman who was illiterate, wrote those letters when in a passion, believing what she wrote to be true, and that she supposed an injury bad been done to the good fame of her house? Mr Matthews we had observed that Mr Reichel was rather on his trial than the prisoner. He quite understood the position in which Mr Reichel was placed but that was not the question which they had to consider. The question was not how it would affect Mr Reichel’s character, but was the woman guilty of the crime for which she was charged? That was the point.

He thought there was no crime so fearfully cruel as that of attempting to extort money by threats of exposure, by bringing forward the early sins of a man's youth, when he had reached mature age, and had lived for many years an irreproachable life. It would be wilfully cruel, because it was true, to say to him—If you do not pay me a sum of money, I will expose the crimes or the sins which you committed 20 years ago when you were a young man.

It was true, also, that there was a great difference between an early fault which had been deeply repented of, and long since dropped, and a fault commenced in youth and carried on to middle age; and although it would be a very wicked thing to say to Mr Reichel—You seduced a woman fourteen years ago, and unless you pay me money I will expose you; but the position was somewhat different when the offence was supposed to be true and a person said—You came to use my house as a brothel, you met a woman at my house two or three months ago who had been your late servant, whom you seduced 14 years ago; who had children by you, with whom you have cohabited at various places. He did not say that Mr Reichel had done this, but he did say that the two cases differed materially.

The learned Judge then reviewed the whole of the evidence, pointing out that the prisoner was an illiterate and ignorant woman, and the letters appeared to have been written when she was very angry. It was for the jury to consider what was in her mind when she wrote those letters, He certainly should have thought that writing abusive letters was the not to extort money from a person. He was not the Judge in the case, the jury were the Judges.

He pointed out to them their duty, and he impressed upon them that the question they had to consider was not as to how it would affect Mr Reichel's character, but whether the letters were written with a bona fide intention to extort money, or were written by an angry woman claiming compensation for injury supposed to be done to her house, and for payment of money owing to her.

The Jury retired for about a quarter-of-an-hour, and on returning into Court gave a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Some discussion then arose as to the charge of libel being proceeded with.

The Judge said in the case of libel there was a matter of privilege and justification.

Mr Matthews said he was prepared to meet the plea of justification.

Eventually Mr Matthews and Mr Jelf consulted privately with his lordship and the charge of libel was afterwards withdrawn, Mr Jelf having apologised for suggesting that Mr Reichel had tried to shirk from the enquiry. He now thought he had invited the fullest inquiry into the matter.

Newcastle Evening Chronicle - Friday 7 May 1886

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A CLERGYMAN.

SINGULAR ALLEGATIONS OF IMMORALITY.

Mr. Justice Stephens was occupied at the Reading Assize Court the greater portion of yesterday in trying a singular libel cruet, brought as • criminal action against Mrs Elizabeth Niblett, the keeper of a temperance eating house at Clifton, Bristol, by the Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel, the vicar of Sparsholt, near Wantage, Berks.

Several indictments were preferred against the accused. the first investigated being an indictment under Lord Campbell's Act, in which Mrs. Niblett was accused of threatening, in July last, to publish divers matters affecting Mr. Reichel, with intent to extort money.

In the indictment tried the question of the truth of the libel was not practically involved, it being the object of the enactment, as Mr. Matthews explained, to prevent persons who might become acquainted with any indiscretion in another person's life, from extorting blackmail. Mr. Reichel himself went into the witness-box, and deposed to having received the two following letters by post on July 16 and 20 last:—

8, Ashton Place, Clifton. Bristol.

Sir,—Will you oblige me by not sending any more letters to my house? Let me tell you I am made holder of a respectable house, not a brothel, which you have tried to make it. The person you address as Mrs. Rice is not at my house. As soon as she returned back I turned her out. I would not keep such cattle in my place. Furthermore, I mean to take proceedings against you. You came here and called yourself Mr. Rice, a commercial traveller, well knowing you were a minister of the Church of England, and gave my house a nice name. Remember it is my living, which I have always got respectably until your companion, Miss King, came to it. There is not a common woman on the streets of Bristol more common than she has made herself to every man in the neighbourhood. If you do not come to some terms with this affair I shall go to my own minister of the parish, and state the whole case to him, for I think it right you should be found out.—Mrs. Niblett—Awaiting your reply——.

Sir,—As I have not heard from you I shall come to the vicarage one day this week to see if you do not come to some terms. I shall then go to the gentleman who went to London to find out Mrs. Ringley. I have no doubt I shall be paid well for what I can tell him. You know well l am telling the truth, which you cannot deny. You came to my house and staid one night with the common thing you called Mrs. Rice, who is none other than your old housemaid, who has had two children by you. This is not half I know. I found something in your writing which she left to the waste paper, which is quite enough to prove what I have told. Don't think for a moment I am going to let this drop quietly, for I will expose you if I have to do it whilst you are in the pulpit.

Mr. Reichel added that after service on Sunday evening August 29, he saw the prisoner outside his church, with the churchwarden Aaron Frogley, but he declined to discuss the matter with them.

Previously he replied to the two letters, as follows:

Perhaps it may be an undeserved kindness to point out to the sender that in writing as she has done, with the view of extorting money, she has rendered herself liable to proceedings which may result in fine and imprisonment to her. Mr. Reichel is not aware that he has had any dealings or conversation with Mr. Niblett.

In examination the rev. gentleman admitted he had written to and visited Mrs. Rice at prisoner's house, and though he denied anything improper took place on the occasion of his visits, he confessed that he had been intimate with her—that, in fact. Mrs. Rice was an assumed name, her real name was Caroline King, that she was formerly for about two years his housekeeper, that fourteen years ago he took her for a day's excursion to Stratford-upon- Avon and there seduced her. He denied any impropriety occurring between himself and the girl in his own house. He was a single man. Caroline King had had two children, but he was not sure that he was their father. They were now dead. He admitted the following letter to Mrs. Rice was in his handwriting:—

A very few lines to inquire where are you? I did not get the Pall Mall? Was it ever sent? With no postmark to guide me I did not know whether you have remained in town or gone to your late address, or gone elsewhere to the sea. So I will say no more to-day beyond sending what I always do, in greater abundance still

He had also visited her as Mrs. Ringley, 43, Edbrooke Road, Westbourne Park, occasionally. He always retained apartments for her there, for which he paid 10s. per week. He denied giving her the burial and marriage fees. He did not know of her whereabouts now. He had been on the Continent with her. After the interview in August prisoner made a declaration to some parishioners, which resulted in a correspondence between himself and his bishop, and this resulted in his taking out a summons against the defendant for libel.

In re-examination: He had offered years ago to educate Caroline King and marry her, but she declined.

The learned Judge allowed the accused to make her statement, and she reiterated the accusation contained in her letter that the reverend gentleman visited her house, passing himself off as a commercial gentleman, and that he was the husband of Mrs. Rice, and that they slept together as husband and wife. Mrs. Rice had not paid her for all her board, there being some 27s. due, and this was why she wrote.

The Judge said it was for the jury to consider from the letters, whether she was seeking to extort money. or merely seeking her own. Incidentally, the truth of her story might be of importance, as showing the cause for her anger; and, taking into account the fact that she was uneducated, it might explain the mode of composition.

The jury acquitted the accused, and, after some discussion. the libel case was not pressed.

Birmingham Mail - Friday 7 May 1886

At Reading yesterday, before Mr. Justice Stephen, Elizabeth Niblett was indicted under Lord Campbell Act, 6 and 7 Viet., c. 96, for unlawfully threatening to publish divers matters and things touching the Rev. Oswald Reichel, Vicar of Sparsholt, with intent to extort money from him.

The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner, who kept small temperance hotel in Bristol, had written two letters in July last imputing to the prosecutor that he had come to her house under an assumed name, and had passed the night there with woman who was lodging there at the time, but who had formerly been in his service a housemaid, and by whom be had had two children. The letters contained expressions that if the prosecutor did not come to terms with the writer, she would expose him, if necessary while be was in his own pulpit.

No notice having been taken the prosecutor, the prisoner on the 9th of August, which was a Sunday, went to Sparsholt and waylaid Mr. Reichel as he left the church, and answer bis enquiry admitted that she was the writer of the two letters.

Mr. Reichel was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr. Jelf, in the course of which, after explaining that the bishop of the diocese had required him publicly to clear his character, he said he had taken out summons for libel before the magistrates, which had been dismissed. He had, however, been bound over at his own request to prosecute, and true bill for libel had been found against the prisoner as well as one on the present charge.

Asked whether it was not true that he had slept with the woman named in the letter and that she was his mistress at the time, the prosecutor swore it was false; but he admitted that he had seduced her 14 years ago, and had seen her from time to time since up to last October. He also swore it was false that he represented himself as commercial traveller to Mrs. Niblett under the name of Rice, or that he had any conversation with her whatever.

In re-examination by Mr. Matthews, the witness denied positively that he had been guilty of any immorality at Mrs, Niblett’s house, and with reference to the seduction explained that he had offered to educate the woman and to marry her, but she would not consent.

The prisoner made long statement, insisting upon the truth of her charges, and adding that the prosecutor had told her she should paid all that was due to her by the woman who lodged with her, and that in fact when she wrote the letters sum of 27s. remained unpaid.

Mr. Jelf then addressed the jury. After complaining strongly of the fiction of the prosecutor in not proceeding first with the charge of libel, which alone could raise the issue properly as to the prosecutor’s conduct, so to satisfy the Bishop, he asked the jury say that the intent to extort money, which was the gist of the charge they had to try, was not made out, but that the two letters really meant no more than that the prisoner had it in view to take civil proceedings for compensation in a just claim for the injury which had been done to the reputation of her bouse.

The learned Judge said in summing up, that the sole question for the jury to consider was whether the two letters were written with intent to extort money. The truth of the accusations, though not really legal issue, was also to a certain extent relevant, and if the jury thought the letters were written with view to obtain money which was due, or money by way of compensation for the injury done to the good fame of her house, or for some wrong which she believed she had sustained, then they ought to acquit her.

The jury retired, and after a short absence came into court with a verdict of not guilty.

A discussion then took place whether the indictment for libel, to which a justification had been pleaded, should be proceeded with, and ultimately, Mr. Jelf having stated that he exonerated Mr. Reichel from any desire to shirk the enquiry, Mr. Matthews said in these circumstances he should offer no evidence.

Mr. Justice Stephen expressed an opinion that the course taken was a reasonable one, and directed a verdict of "Not guilty."

Inquiry into the lunacy, or otherwise, of Hon. William Jervis Jervis

London Evening Standard - Wednesday 30 September 1829

Writ de lunatico inquirendo.

This Day.

A jury of highly respectable gentlemen was summoned this morning to inquire whether the Hon. Wm. Jervis Jervis, of Upper Seymour-Street, Grosvenor-square, and Teddington, in the County of Kent [recte Middlesex], son of Viscount St. Vincent, was of unsound mind, and whether if so he had alienated any lands or estates of which he had been seized.

The acting commissioners were Messrs [William] Phillimore, Whitmarsh, and Jacob. Messrs. Horne and Hill appeared in support of the commission, on behalf of Lord St. Vincent; and Messrs. Knight, Wakefield, and Thessiger, for the lunatic, and his mother, the Hon. Mrs. Graves. Mr. Alderman Atkins was the foreman of the jury.

Mr. Horne said, that for the purpose of rendering the whole of this case intelligible he would trouble them with a short outline of the facts it was his intention to prove in evidence.

The gentleman who was the unfortunate subject of the inquiry was the eldest son and heir of Lord Viscount St. Vincent, a nobleman who inherits the second title of the celebrated Earl St. Vincent.

He understood that from his earliest infancy, if not from his birth, this gentleman had been of very weak and imbecile mind, and if it was necessary for the purpose of this inquiry, they might have fixed a much earlier period in his life from whence to date insanity.

That, however, was not necessary; but he should prove that circumstances having produced strong excitement upon a mind naturally so imbecile, had left it in a state of confirmed unsoundness.

It would be shown that this gentleman, it being considered prudent for him to make a choice of a profession, had in early life entered the naval service, where he had served for some years; but a few days previously to his obtaining his lieutenancy, he, from some unaccounted whim, left the naval and entered the military service.

This was in 1815. Some time after this he married a very respectable lady of the name of Barnard [recte Sophia Vincent], and during her life received those kind and judicious attentions that perhaps rendered a proceeding this sort unnecessary.

But in October, 1828, that lady died, and from that date he would prove that Mr. Jervis had been altogether incapable of managing himself or his affairs. 

When they were first married they resided with Mrs. Jervis's father, Mr. Barnard [recte George Norborne Vincent], in Berkeley-square, but a relation of Mrs. Jervis having left her some property that formed a handsome addition to their Income, they engaged a house at Teddington for their country residence.

It was in this house that the unfortunate circumstances he was about to relate occurred.

In the month of October last year Mr. Jervis found himself exceedingly unwell, and it was necessary to call medical assistance. A Mr. Roots, a surgeon of great eminence, was solicited to attend, and he found that lady in a very dangerous state, with every symptom of approaching miscarriage, under circumstances of the most alarming nature. 

Sophia was pregnant with twins, Julia and Charlotte. They were born on 23/4 October 1828 and were baptised and died on 25 October 1828. Their mother died on 2 November 1828. All three were buried at St Mary, Teddington on 8 November 1828. Someone other than William must have arranged the funeral.

That gentleman was, of course, anxious to see the master of the family. For some days he could not procure that interview, and when he did it was attended with incidents so uncommon that left no room to doubt the malady under with the gentleman was labouring.

Mr. Roots would detail all the circumstances to the jury, and he would, therefore, abstain from particularly detailing them.

On the 2d of November this lamented lady died, and Mr. Roots would also explain to them the manner in which Mr. Jervis received the intelligence of the great loss he had sustained. Mr. Roots proposed to send for him some kind friend to comfort and console him, and he replied - "Yes I do want something, a little medicine will be the best thing; sent it."

From the desolate state of the house at that period, with three children deprived of all care but what they received from the servants, Mr. Roots thought it absolutely necessary to call in some friend; and with Mr. Jervis's consent, application was made to Mr. Pallmer, the member for Surrey, for his advice and assistance.

Eventually a lady was introduced to the house to manage the domestic concerns. She was the widow of a gentleman, who, for years, had been insane, and her evidence of the conduct of Mr. Jervis the jury would have an opportunity of hearing.

The learned gentleman then detailed several other actions of decided insanity among which was the delusion of the unfortunate subject of this this enquiry entertained about marrying; and having determined to take for his second wife a lady of distinguished rank residing in the neighbourhood whom he had never seen.

He then came to the period when, if the jury should have any doubts of previous insanity, he should prove complete aberration of intellect to demonstration.

About the 3d of February in the present year he paid a visit to his father's, at his seat in Staffordshire, and on his return on the 10th of that month, he exhibited such symptoms of decided derangement that he could have no doubt as to the issue of the inquiry.

He left his house, and between four and five o'clock in the morning was found by two patrols wandering in the road near Camden Town, without shoes and stockings; and in reply to their questions why he did not wear those articles, he replied that he was so cold in bed that he was walking with bare feet in the mud, as the very best way of warming himself.

From that time he had been under the care of the first medical advice the country produced. Dr. Borland and Dr. Munro had ordered Mr. Jervis to be under the care of keepers; those gentlemen would describe the state of Mr Jervis to the jury, as would also Dr. Gooch; Sir George Tuthill, who had been sent down by the Lord Chancellor; and Dr. Haslam and Mr. King, who had been permitted to attend on the part of those who opposed these proceedings.

The learned gentleman then alluded at some length to the proceedings in Chancery in this case; and concluded by saying that it was not his wish to snatch a verdict, but that the object of all parties was the same, to afford all that sufficient and legal protection the object of the inquiry might require.

Mr. Knight objected to Mr. Horne having mentioned to the jury two dates, namely, the death of Mrs. Jervis and the 10th of Feb. That was not altogether regular; it was true that in an investigation of this kind the time occupied in the inquiry was a matter of no consideration, but if justice could be done without entering into unnecessary evidence, it might be better; he therefore submitted to his learned friends that they should confine themselves to the latter date.

Mr. Horne objected to this, and after some discussion, it was resolved to give evidence in the manner proposed.

Mr. W. Roots, a surgeon, then deposed, that he was called in to attend Mrs. Jervis, whom he found in a state threatening miscarriage. After some visits, as he was descending from that lady's chamber, the drawing room door opened, and a gentleman, whom he has since learned was Mr. Jervis, ran up to him, and in a very hurried way, called out at least 20 times, "Thank you, Mr. Roots, for your attention to Mrs. Jervis." He then ran down with equal rapidity into the library, and hastily shut to the door, so preventing any communication.

On the next day, Mrs. Jervis being in considerable danger, witness got an interview with her husband, to whom he related the circumstances of danger in which the lady lay. He received it very quietly and coolly, repeating witness's words, "Mrs. Jervis is very ill—Mrs. Jervis is very ill, in a dangerous state." He then changed the subject, and talked of a pony of which he was very fond.

I told him what orders I had given above, and he attended me to my carriage without making any further allusion to his lady. Mrs. Jervis died on the 27th of November [recte 2 November], and I communicated to Mr. Jervis that she was dead. He did not evince the slightest emotion: ten or a dozen times he repeated my words, "Mrs. Jervis is dead, Mrs. Jervis is dead."

I communicated with Mr. Pallmer, the member for Surrey, upon the state of Mr. Jervis's family that day. On the following day, I had half an hour's conversation with Mr. Jervis. He yet appeared in a perfect state of indifference, and whenever I recalled his loss to his attention, he immediately wandered off to another subject. The day previously, I told him that some confidential friend should he made acquainted with his loss; he said, "Write to Mr. Browning—Mr Browning" - repeating the name a dozen times.

I got the paper ready to do so. On asking him where Mr. Browning was, he said, "He is my best and only friend." I asked what profession he followed; he answered. "A lawyer; he is a d——d [damned] rascal," repeating that several times; "and all lawyers are rascals; I won't have him; I'll have Hartley, Hartley, Hartley—but he too is a lawyer, and 1 won't have him."

I then applied to Mr. Pallmer, with Mr. Jervis's consent. I afterwards saw him frequently in June, July, and August of the present year, and indeed up to the present time, and conversed with him. As a medical man I should pronounce Mr. Jervis to be a man of very imbecile mind, and altogether incapable of conducting his affairs or taking care of his person.

By Mr. Commissioner Phillimore.—

Mr. Jervis labours under considerable delusion; for instance, he commissioned witness to make overtures of marriage with a lady of high rank residing in the neighbourhood. I asked him if he had ever seen her; he answered, no.

I then asked how he had formed an attachment. He replied, "I fell in love with her in consequence of sitting next her mother at a public breakfast at my Lord Say [recte Saye] and Sele's."

He had communicated with Mr. Pallmer relative to this match, and he begged me to consult with Mr. Pallmer as to the best mode of carrying on the courtship. I requested him not to be too precipitate, as it required a good deal of judgment to carry on such a negociation [sic]; he said, "Yes, we must be very cautious, very cautious, Mr. Roots, Mr. Roots; Mr. Pallmer, Mr. Pallmer is my very good friend, he will give me good advice."

The next day he wrote a letter to me, and I had a communication with the member for Surrey. I humoured him telling him that whatever his future intentions might be, it was yet premature, so soon after the death of Mrs. Jervis. This was on the 10th of June; and in all my future visits he had always inquired how I and Mr. Pallmer got on, and when the match would be made.

Mr. Jervis has also a peculiar delusion in drawing cheques on bankers. ln June he said to me, that as my son, who is in partnership with me, had attended the post mortem examination of his wife and that he had met him once at Mr. Pallmer's, he ought to be feed [as in paid his fee].

I told him it was quite unnecessary, as he had feed me with a £20 draft a few days before. He said "I insist upon feeing your son," and he asked me what the sum should be. I said it was usual to leave it to the patient. He asked me whether it should be £20 or £30. I said the smaller sum was much too liberal. I have the draft in my pocket; it was drawn for £20. The draft was then produced.

Mr. Horne submitted that this examination was unnecessary. The commissioners thought differently; it appeared to them very important, as it showed the state of the mind of the prisoner.

Mr. Horne said that they would produce other facts a thousand times more strong.

Mr. Roots continued.— 

Mr. Jervis was subject to various other delusions. One day he bought a pair of slippers, and he wanted to know what the lady of rank would think of them, as they were altogether his own choice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knight.—

From my first seeing Mr. Jervis on the stairs, I thought him of unsound mind; from that isolated instance I should not, however, pronounce him incapable of taking care of himself and his property. That judgment is formed from his general conduct.

I must object to answer the speculative question of what meaning I abstractedly attach to the term unsound mind. From my general observations, and all that has occurred since the first interview in October, the impression of my mind is that he is, and from that period has been, of unsound mind.

Thomas Wallis, a patrol, deposed that early on the morning of the 9th of February, while on duty in Camden Town road, he met Mr. Jervis. He was walking without shoes or stockings. Witness asked him who he was, but he would not answer; he said if he pleased he might be walking there without being interrupted by them. He replied that he was a police officer, and if he did not tell him who he was he should take him to the watchhouse.

He then said that he came from Worrall's Hotel [19 Park Street, Mayfair]. He afterwards said that his name was Jervis, and that he was the eldest son of Lord St. Vincent. He said that on Monday he took a post chaise to go to Bath to tell his sisters [Maria Jervis and ?] that they had put a lad in the house to take care of it—a regulation he by no means approved of; he however had altered his mind when on the road, and returned.

Thomas Wilks, another patrol, corroborated most of this statement. Mr Jervis told him that he had been down into Staffordshire to his father's house, who forced him to make a will; on his return to town, his solicitor obliged him to make another quite the reverse to that, on which account he was fearful of meeting his father. He accounted for walking without shoes and stockings, by saying that he was a naval man. We took him to Teddington, and delivered him to the care of his servants.

Doctor James Borland was called in to see Mr. Jervis in the middle of the night, on the 10th of February. I found him in a state of great excitement. He was by himself, having driven all the servants out. He however knew him. He was in a dreadfully dirty state. He had been in bed, but had got up. He said he was in the hands of conspirators who had beset him. He begged my protection, and hoped I would befriend him.

I begged he would go to bed, and allow one of his servants to remain in the room with him. He did so.

He then said, "I suspect you are one of the gang also." I said "You know l am a neighbour of yours, and I will do every thing to protect you." He said, "I see by your countenance that you are one of my father's gang."

He drank some tea, but refused to tell me what had happened.

My opinion at that time was of course that he was in a paroxysm of insanity.

At eight o'clock in the morning of the 12th, a servant came for me. I went, and found him at the house of a person who keeps a school in the village; he had no coat or hat, or stockings on; he had a shawl over his shoulders. He said he had escaped out of the window.

His person was bruised and cut. I requested him to go home: he said his intention in leaving his own home was to come to mine for protection. His own carriage came to the door, and I borrowed a coat and so on for him. He was still labouring under a strong delusion of a conspiracy against him.

I continued to attend him from February to the latter end of May, part of which time he was under the care of keepers, and he was treated as an insane person. On the morning of the 12th he was very furious: he had a poker in his hand, attempting to strike every one who came near to him; it was taken from him by force.

I have heard him speak of marrying many different ladies in the neighbourhood. I saw him yesterday and the day before; his mind yet wanders about marrying a particular lady of title. He is easily persuaded. I think that I could with the greatest ease persuade him to marry any one I should name.

After attending him for 15 days, he ceased to recollect my person. He once addressed me as Dr. Bates of his Majesty's ship Fame; he did so for four days, and said he got acquainted with me at Hull. He afterwards addressed me as the Duke of Wellington (Dr. Borland's personal likeness to his grace was here particularly noticed).

He asked me to give him some good thing. He said he was lineally descended from Edward the Confessor, and heir to the crown of England.

He frequently asked my opinion of what lady he should marry. At the present time he is very quiet and peaceable, and has no other very strong delusion, except that about the lady so often alluded to.

From all these facts, l am decidedly of opinion that he is not in a sound state of mind, or capable of managing his own affairs.

This witness was cross-examined at considerable length, but nothing worthy of notice was elicited.

It is expected that the inquiry will last till a late hour in the evening. 

London Evening Standard - Thursday 1 October 1829

Writ de lunatico inquirendo.

This Day.

This inquiry, which appears to excite considerable and increased interest, was resumed this morning at Gray's Inn Coffee-house.

Mr. Knight, at very considerable length, addressed the jury, He said that he, assisted by his learned friends, appeared as counsel for Mr. Jervis, and some of his nearest relatives, on an occasion that was unquestionably the most painful that a professional man could be employed. He, however, appeared there with feelings as little oppressed as, under such circumstances, it was possible.

He had had an opportunity of perusing the written evidence that had been adduced in Chancery, of inspecting papers in the handwriting of Mr. Jervis himself, of seeing the report of the two physicians selected by the Lord Chancellor to visit this unfortunate gentleman; and under such circumstances he felt considerable relief in approaching the task that now devolved upon him.

He felt it no part of his duty to deny but that the gentleman who was the subject of this Inquiry had been affected with the malady ascribed to him—indeed he would acknowledge that his mind had been affected.

But the main question was, what was the present state of his mind? And if the jury should be of opinion that now, at this time, he was not in a state of unsound mind, then there would be an end of their labour—then they would be saved from the trouble and pain of considering the contingent and secondary questions that would grow out of their coming to an opposite conclusion—

At what time did this malady begin? He perfectly agreed with his learned friend Mr. Horne, that it was not for them to approach that question as plaintiffs and defendants; they all appeared as the friends of Mr. Jervis, having in view the single object, —the benefit of that gentleman; and if they appeared on contrary sides, it was only that that mode of conducting the investigation was the best adapted to elicit the truth.

Having made those observations, he would proceed to make some remarks upon the evidence that had been submitted before them.

He should not contend that Mr. Jervis had not been affected with this malady; but he did contend that the disease had passed away, and that this gentleman was not now in that state which the law calls unsoundness of mind. He was not incapable of scientific and rational conversation.

If however, the jury should form a contrary conclusion, then, as the learned counsel on the other side had correctly said, —although he (Mr Knight) had been represented as complaining of its being irregular,— then it would be their duty to select one of two dates as the period when this malady commenced.

Those dates were, as they would recollect, the latter end of October, nine days previous to the death of Mrs. Jervis, and the 10th or 12th of February, and he should respectfully but confidently submit that the latter day, the 12th of February, was the earliest period where anything like insanity was proved.

The fixing of this date would answer every purpose of protection that could be required, while, in the case of recovery, supposing the malady now exists—and nothing human could be calculated upon with greater certainty than a speedy recovery—this unfortunate gentleman would be spared the finding that when he committed certain acts he had been pronounced insane.

The learned gentleman, then, at very considerable length, remarked upon the evidence that had been adduced in support of the commission, which he contended was altogether insufficient to warrant the jury in finding this gentleman to be of unsound mind.

Here was a private gentleman, living upon his fortune, whose early education had not, from the peculiar circumstances in which his family was then placed, received that attention which the heir to noblemen generally did—of a mind, though certainly not too of the first order, yet sufficiently strong to enable  him to conduct his own affairs, and act as a magistrate in the county where he lived—married to a virtuous and most estimable lady, whose connexions were of rank, respectability and wealth—a most sensible and well conducted woman, whose loss in the manner they had heard, was sufficient to break down the strongest mind.

That it had that effect upon Mr. Jervis he was willing to allow. In his wife he saw every part of his earthly happiness snatched away, and his mind was unequal to the shock.

But he Mr. Knight insisted that since then, he has been gradually recovering, and had now arrived at a state, that could not be considered a legal unsoundness of mind.

Mr. Roots, who in the absence of the regular medical attendant of the family was called in to Mrs. Jervis had deposed to the state of agitation in which he found this unfortunate gentleman, and to the remarkably quick transition from one subject to another he evinced. But recollecting the nature of the communication that the gentleman had to make to Mr. Jervis, that his wife was dying or dead, was there, he would ask, anything extraordinary in whatever agitation he evinced, or his unwillingness to dwell upon such a painful topic with a total stranger?

And if a hurried delivery, and frequent repetition of the same sentences, were to be admitted as decisive evidences of insanity, many, very may sensible man would be fit objects for confinement.

The learned gentleman then remarked at very considerable length, upon the other evidence that had been adduced; all of which he contented was insufficient to warrant the conclusion that Mr. Jervis was labouring under that unsoundness of mind that would justify the jury in returning a verdict of insanity.

But if, contrary to his expectations, they should be of that opinion, then,  he was quite assured, they would fix the latest, the 12th of February, as the period when that aberration commenced.

Having made these remarks, he would leave the case in the hands of the jury. It had been their intention to have called witnesses and they were prepared with a host of gentleman who were ready to give testimony to the conduct of Mr. Jervis; but he and his learned friend, finding that such evidence would only include the intervening period between October and February, and not not after that date, had on further consideration determined not to offer any, but to leave the case as it now stood.

Mr. Horne expressed some surprise at such a resolution. It was the avowed object of the adjournment from yesterday to enable them to produce witnesses.

Mr. Hill said that he had waived his right to sum up the evidence that had been adduced, on the clear understanding that his learned friend, Mr. Horne, would be entitled to a reply; and feeling that the case would be much better in his hands. The unexpected turn the case had taken, however, obliged him now to claim that right.

Mr. Phillimore, the chief commissioner, said that they were placed in an awkward situation. It was customary to conduct these inquiries according to the practice at Nisi Prius, and there, where no evidence was offered by the defendant, the plaintiff could not reply.

Mr. Horne admitted that such was the customary mode of proceeding; but he submitted that the other dide had produced the lunatic, and put questions to him.

Mr. Knight altogether denied this. It was imperative upon those who sought a verdict of lunacy to produce the alleged lunatic before the jury. They had nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Phillimore thought if the examination of Mr. Jervis was to be called evidence, such evidence must be considered as adduced by Mr. Horne's client.

Mr. Horne was satisfied in either way. If the other side objected to his remarking upon the evidence, it could be only from the apprehension of the effect his address might have upon the minds of the jury; and that very objection would be equally serviceable to his case.

The Chief Commissioner then inquired of the jury whether they had sufficient evidence before them, to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the case, one way or the other.

After some consultation, strangers were ordered to withdraw.

Upon our re-admission, Mr. Alderman Atkins, the foreman of the jury, said that it was not their desire to have any further evidence, but they were desirous of again seeing the alleged lunatic, and retired again for that purpose.

On their return, the Chief Commissioner summed up. He asked whether the jury was satisfied that, Mr. Jervis was now of unsound mind, as in that case he would confine his remarks to the time when he was first afflicted with that malady.

Some of the counsel objected to this mode, and the Commissioner proceeded to sum up the case generally. He read over the whole of the evidence; the jury then retired, and after an absence of some time returned the following verdict:—

That the Hon. William Jervis Jervis is a person of unsound mind, and incapable of managing his own affairs; and that he has been so since the 11th day of February last." The following is the report of the physicians ap- pointed by the Lord Chancellor to examine into the state of mind of the Hon. William Jervis Jervis;— 

IN THE MATTER OF THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM JERVIS JERVIS, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC

My Lord,— ln obedience to your lordship's order of the 1st inst., we, the undersigned, have this day visited the Honourable William Jervis Jervis, at Teddington House, in the county of Middlesex, for the purpose of examining the state of his mind;

and we have now the honour of reporting to your lordship that Dr. Haslam and Mr. King, two gentlemen named in the aforesaid order, arrived at Teddington House aforesaid about 12 o'clock, this day and after seeing and conversing with the said Wm. Jervis Jervis, as long as to them the said Dr. Haslam and Mr. King seemed meet and necessary, they the said Dr. Haslam and Mr. King, stated to us that nothing had occurred to interrupt their investigation into the state of Mr. Jervis's mind, and that they had then obtained all that free access to the said Wm. Jervis Jervis, which is requisite for such an investigation.

And we beg leave further to report to your lordship, that we afterwards saw and conversed with the said William Jervis Jervis for a considerable time, during which his appearance, manners, and conversation, were in our judgment characteristic of very great imbecility of mind.

Any answer given by him to any question was repeated by him many times in the same words for no apparent reason; for example, when asked if he had proposed to proceed with a body of soldiers to take possession of Warwick Castle, and hold a court there, or to marry the lady who superintends his present establishment, he answered 'Yes, but then I had a cold in my head; yes, a cold in my head—a cold in my head—a cold in my head—a cold in my head.' His voice diminishing in force until the words became scarcely audible. 

Again, when asked what he would do if he were now at perfect liberty to act for himself? he appeared to have no plan, and to be quite incapable of forming any rational one, but said that he believed a cottage would be taken for him, although he knew not where; and then he repeated, 'A cottage, yes; a cottage, a cottage, a cottage is to be taken for me; I believe Mr. Thomas is to take a cottage for me, a cottage, yes, a cottage;' and he then added 'Perhaps I shall marry Lady ——,' a lady with whom he afterwards confessed he had no acquaintance.

Mr. Jervis recollected that in February last he was found by a watchman wandering about in the night, barefooted; at Camden Town, and the description which he himself gave us of what then happened, and of the impressions that guided him was, in our judgment, as insane as the act itself.

The mode in which Mr. Jervis spoke of his deceased wife, and of a letter written by him to break off his engagement with that lady a short time before their marriage, convinced us that he has not the affections and feelings of a person of sound mind. So that from the whole of our interview with him, we are decidedly of opinion that the mind of the said William Jervis Jervis is now unsound, so as to render him wholly unfit for the management either of himself or of his property.

We have the honour to remain, my lord,

Your lordship's most obedient humble servant,

24 Cavendish Square, Aug. 3, 1829

Geo. L. TUTHILL, M.D.

Wm. MACMICHAEL

To the Right Honourable the Lord Lyndhurst, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, &c. &c

 

Racial descriptions of Samuel Coleridge-Taylor : Hiawatha's Wedding Feast to...?

 This is a work in progress

Samuel Coleridge-Taylor
from the Sunderland Daily Echo
immediately before the first public performance of
Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, 15 November 1898

The public rehearsal and public performance of Coleridge-Taylor's Ballade in A minor at the Gloucester Three Choirs Festival brought his name into prominence. The much-heralded private performance of Hiawatha's Wedding Feast followed by its public performance in Sunderland made him almost a household name. As with any young "celebrity", people wanted to more about him, particularly when they learned he had African ancestry. The usual "coloured" was used to describe his skin, though there is one intriguing description of him as "a very dark gentleman". A gentleman who was "very dark"? Apparently so.

His ancestry caused more problems, with some partially-informed journalists calling him "West African". When his engagement to Jessie Walmisley became known in September 1899, there is at least one hint that a mixed-race marriage may not have been acceptable to some people. Very few would have been aware of her own Anglo-Indian ancestry.

1898

"THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY. TO-MORROW'S CONCERT

At a time like the present, when new musical works are eagerly sought for by conductors of choral and societies, it is most difficult to come across a composition of a high order containing ideas that are striking and good and quite away from the beaten track. The Sunderland Philharmonic Society, always to the fore in promoting the best interests of the musical public, has not been slow to take up one of the freshest and most attractive cantatas lately written. 

HIAWATHA’S WEDDING FEAST.

for tenor solo, chorus, and orchestra (words by Longfellow), will be given on the 16th inst. in the Victoria Hall under circumstances the most favourable; the composer will himself conduct the performance. Mr S. Coleridge-Taylor has, within a short period, become both prominent and eminent. Born in London on August 15th, 1875, he is quite young, and has evidently a brilliant career before him. Endowed with great musical gifts, and having had the advantage of a first-class musical training at the Royal College of Music, under the guidance of Professor Villiers Stanford, and surrounded by the best musical influences, he has worked unflaggingly and to good account. 

His father, a medical man, was born in West Africa, and his mother was English. This

ADMIXTURE OF NATIONALTIES

has, no doubt, had something to do with the distinct and characteristic flavour which gives individuality to his music. The great success of his orchestral ballade at the recent Gloucester Festival has quickly been followed by another in the work under notice, which was performed for the first time only a few days ago in London. That Hiawatha’s Wedding Feast is destined to very considerably enhance the composer’s reputation leaves little room for doubt. Indeed, the pronounced opinions of those who were fortunate enough to hear the Royal College performance the other night is a proof of the fact. 

How much Mr Coleridge-Taylor has been influenced by this or that composer is not of so much importance as that he has ideas of his own, and is sufficiently resourceful to be able to make a remarkable use of them. His quaintness of rhythmical effect, vigour of thought, and colouring of a vivid kind, and his exceedingly clever management of both vocal and orchestral material, at once arrest the attention of an audience. " - Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Tuesday 15 November 1898

"On Friday night we were all invited to the Royal College of Music to hear a promising though rather crude cantata, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, by the young West African composer, Mr. Coleridge Taylor. The place was vastly overcrowded, as is, indeed, usually the case with practically a free show. Personally, of course, I do not complain because being compelled to stand in a crush at the back of the so-called "hall," my shoulder was utilised as a convenient rest by an extremely pretty hospital nurse, who was endeavouring to balance herself on a chair. I was, at any rate, in pleasanter circumstances than my colleagues of the Daily Telegraph and the Athenaeum, who, as no chairs were reserved for them, were glad to seat themselves on the floor. Close by Mme. Liza Lehmann was in a similar predicament." - Truth - Thursday 17 November 1898

"Four valses were given for the first time as a concluding item. They were by Coleridge Taylor, who is undoubtedly coming man. His ballade, composed for the Leeds festival, gained him immediate notoriety. He is only 23 years of age, and is a West African. Me. Godfrey is endeavouring to arrange with him to conduct one of his own works later in the season, and we hope he will do so." - Bournemouth Guardian - Saturday 10 December 1898

"The cantata Hiawatha's Wedding Feast formed the concluding part of the programme. It is quite a new composition from the pen of Mr. Coleridge Taylor, a gentleman of colour, and this was but the third or fourth time that it has been performed in public. It is quaintly picturesque and decidedly original, the score being marked by much novelty of treatment. It was capitally rendered by both band and chorus, and the only solo, which partakes of the character of recitative, was sung by Mr. Branscombe. The music, as becomes the celebration of a wedding feast, is at times joyous and hilarious and throughout is quite original and withal very tuneful and entertaining." - Torquay Times, and South Devon Advertiser - Friday 16 December 1898

1899

"Two of Mr. Coleridge Taylor’s works were presented. The first-was the orchestral Ballade in A minor, which was brought out at the last Gloucester Festival, and by which the young coloured composer—who is of London birth—secured a reputation. It is strong, forceful music, fashioned economically, and endowed with an element of the barbaric that is far from unwelcome." - Batley Reporter and Guardian - Friday 17 March 1899

"There are those who ill-naturedly attribute Mr. Coleridge Taylor's success to his personal colour, but few unprejudiced persons can listen to such music  as this of Hiawatha's Wedding Feast without being struck by its absolute freshness of idiom, together with a charm of treatment that succeeds in making much out of apparently very little." - Leeds Mercury - Friday 12 May 1899

"Mr. Coleridge-Taylor, a very dark gentleman, the composer of Hiawatha Sketches, accompanied little Maudie on the piano as she gave them. These sketches were most spirited and original—a tale, a song, a dance, and delighted the audience, who would have liked to encore them all." - Wrexham Advertiser - Saturday 8 July 1899

"The second part of the concert opened with the cantata, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, by S. Coleridge Taylor, a modern rising composer. His nationality invests him with additional interest. This work has been performed only once or twice previous to its performance at Tenbury, but we understand that it is in the programme for the next Leeds Festival." - Tenbury Wells Advertiser - Tuesday 11 July 1899

"MR. COLERIDGE TAYLOR BETROTHED. It was, by the way, mentioned in Queen's Hall during the Worcester rehearsals, in which Mr. Coleridge Taylor took part, that the young West African composer is engaged married to Miss Walmesley [sic], who, the Daily News understands, was a fellow pupil of his the Royal College of Music." - Gloucester Citizen - Friday 08 September 1899

"The opening programme to-day included four works, first and foremost being a novelty in the shape of a Solemn Prelude for orchestra, composed by the young Anglo-African, S. Coleridge Taylor, to whose pen we owe Hiawatha’s Wedding [sic] and other works which are in the enjoyment of popularity. Sympathy seems to be claimed in advance of effort, and especially in the blend of the unmusical Anglo-Saxon with the passionate musical impulses of the African. What may result from such a combination we know in part, and there may be stronger evidence to come, but, though Mr. Coleridge Taylor is an interesting personality, and brings a "new" strain into English blood, he cannot be held exempt from criticism. Indeed, he is one to look after sharply, lest there be manifestations not healthy. 

At no previous time in the history of art was the nomenclature of musical compositions so vague as now. When, in past days, a musician composed a work in overture form he called it an overture as a matter of course, and everybody knew what was meant. Forms are now largely out of fashion, above all among writers for the orchestra, who decline to be fettered, and claim the full liberty enjoyed by, as said a Fourth of July orator, "the soaring and screaming eagle of our boundless prairies." The result is that we have a crowd of works which are essentially nondescript. Terms of description do not arise out of them, but are arbitrarily applied to them. Just as Chopin called his effusions preludes, ballades, and what not of ambiguous meaning, so here is Mr. Coleridge Taylor with his Solemn Prelude.

I am not going to quarrel with the name, but an innocent curiosity prompts me to ask what in the consciousness of the composer does this prelude indicate as coming after it? Has Mr. Taylor something to follow "up his sleeve"? I remember that Sir Hubert Parry once produced an overture to an unwritten tragedy. Here is an example for writers of preludes that, as far as they go, precede nothing. 

The work which has suggested these remarks is slow throughout (lento), in the key of B minor, and scored for full orchestra. Though in no recognised form, its subjects, of which there are three so dealt with, come up for treatment from time to time, and the whole piece ends with references to the matter, of its opening. It is very carefully orchestrated, and shows the knowledge and skill which are now so common in that branch of a composer's work. Some of the themes, moreover, are distinctly melodious, but their beauty is often disfigured by scrappy treatment or veiled by restless and harmonic progressions. 

This simply means that the Prelude suffered from the spirit of modern orchestral writing, an evil spirit which wars against intelligibility and beauty, which obscures the light that radiates from all true art. I honestly doubt if the Prelude left any save the very vaguest impression upon those who heard it to-day. 1t seemed, in my own case, to lack definiteness of idea and clearness of utterance. I could not discover what it was trying to say. Had it simply claimed to be a study of the dissonant the pretension would have been willingly allowed, but the music must have a purpose other that. What is it? The piece itself does not answer Call it prelude to Dante’s ‘Purgatory' and many will accept the idea as appropriate, but then the composer may not approve, and he is the arbiter. 

Mr. Taylor conducted in person with gratifying success, the fine orchestra following his indications with zeal and discretion." - Daily Telegraph - Thursday 14 September 1899

"Mr. Coleridge-Taylor, who was a student at the Royal College of Music, is about to marry an English lady was also a student at the College" - Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Friday 15 September 1899 

"There not any means such crowded congregation as the case on the Elijah day, when Mr. Coleridge-Taylor, the African genius, ascended the dais, but nevertheless, there was a most satisfactory attendance. Mr. Coleridge-Taylor’s contribution was a Solemn Prelude for full orchestra (op. 40), which he had composed specially for the Festival, and of course conducted himself. Unfortunately, the wonderful and most talented musician had only been able to devote limited time to rehearsal, and had not had any opportunity of giving much instruction to the band. It cannot, however, be said that this new work is by any means so good as his Ballad in A Minor, given for the first time at Gloucester last year, the favourable reports which had reached Worcester of the work hardly being borne out" - Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 16 September 1899

"Mr. Coleridge Taylor is also here, the guest of Mr. and Mrs. Lee Williams, who are likewise chaperoning the West-African complexioned composer's affianced bride." - Worcestershire Chronicle - Saturday 16 September 1899

1903

"Mr. Walter Crane is 58, Mr. Keir Hardie is 47, “T. Nesbit’ and Mr. Maarten Maartens are each 45; the Emperor of China is 32 and Mr. Samuel Coleridge Taylor, the Anglo-African musician, is 28." - Labour Leader - Saturday 22 August 1903