by Noel Howard
It was story that gripped the nation and the empire. Morgan v Morgan had every possible ingredient that justified the phrase, ‘truth is stranger than fiction.’ Taboos, family, class, money, power, religion and sex; all found their way into Dublin Matrimonial Court in the sweltering heat of summer 1876. The case had been flagged for several months, and the main characters were well used to courtroom battles, but this was different. As the law on divorce applied at the time, were Richard to win he would be allowed live apart from his wife but not to remarry.
Captain Richard Spread Morgan (50), of the Cork Artillery was the son of a magistrate. Giving the trial some added intrigue and contrary to the custom of a wife seeking divorce it was, in this case, the husband who
brought the petition on two grounds, that of his wife’s alleged adultery and cruelty. His wife and mother of three daughters was Lady Catherine Louisa Mount Cashell (43), the youngest daughter of Stephen Moore, 3rd Earl of Mount Cashell.; at the time of the trial, he was in his eighties and distinguished by his position as the then longest serving member of the House of Lords. He was considered an eccentric aristocrat, at the time in a most precarious financial position despite owning an eight-hundred-acre estate, Moore Park, Kilworth, Co. Cork. Were Louisa to lose she stood to lose her children and any property rights she might have had.
In earlier court appearances there had been squabbles about money and property. In the divorce case, Louisa was to sit in an all-male courtroom with her father as her support. Every shred of her personal and public life would be discussed, and she was cross examined with what her defence team called ‘a ruthless brutality. As well as all this stress was the added shadow of her mother, the Earl’s Swiss wife, facing death in the palatial family mansion at Moore Park.
So great was the interest in the case that the police were on hand to keep those at bay who sought entrance when the court had reached its capacity and only ‘gentlemen’ were allowed attend. Outside, the large crowds gathered eager to be fed snippets of information and there would be plenty to entertain them. Representing Richard and Louisa were the cream of the Irish legal profession, not bereft of egos and conscious of the eyes of the world upon their performances. This particular case allowed for the courtroom becoming theatre at times, with literary and historical references thrown about. Shakespeare, Dryden, Coleridge, among others, were regularly quoted. The presiding Judge Warren had his hands full keeping order but he did so when necessary.
Richard said in court that his wife claimed to have had ‘a hundred men’ but only four individuals were actually named in relation to the alleged adultery; two of high standing, Cork solicitor Henry Bacon Julian, Arthur Vincent a ‘gentleman’ and two commoners named Fleming and Mangan. In relation to cruelty the judge decided to dispense with this but in fact numerous exchanges, on both sides, were about that very subject.
Richard claimed Louisa had: pulled his whiskers, cut him with a whip, threw his shirts out of the window and trampled them in the mud, pointed a loaded gun at him, threw water on him and into his bed, sold his clothes, struck him with a chair and spat at him. Not to be outdone, Louisa had her own litany, including Richard having dragged her and a servant through mud, pulled her off her horse and shot her pet dog in front of her.
As the trial progressed there was a suggestion the newspapers be kept hidden from the women of rural Ireland because of the salacious nature of some of the material. A good example of the social and cultural mores of the time. One piece of evidence deemed too improper to be openly presented was written down for only jurors and judge to see.
Evidence by Richard when he took the stand was sketchy, contradictory and implausible. The witnesses called to back up his case were from what was considered the lower classes and some of their evidence was ridiculed and dismissed by Louisa’s side. In particular, James Murphy, Louisa’s lead lawyer exploited every loophole when Richard struggled to remember or when he contradicted himself.
On the contrary and despite her being the only woman in the courtroom, Louisa gave an outstanding display which greatly impressed. Her witnesses were of the upper classes, including a coup for her side, Sarah Westropp, Richard’s sister. Suitably emotional when matters relating to her children and her dying mother were brought up and feisty, when necessary (‘I am not afraid of anyone’), Louisa’s manner and evidence were specifically referred to by Judge Warren in his summing up.
After days of evidence and legal jousting the jury retired. Back after five minutes it found Louisa not guilty of adultery with any of the men named. Cheering broke out from the body of the courtroom while one paper described Louisa as having ‘wept bitterly’ as the verdict was read. There was a similar reaction from the crowd outside and when Louisa emerged the crowd tried to unyoke her horse from its carriage to bring her in triumph back to her hotel only for the police to intervene. A man in the street resembling Patrick was mistakenly attacked.
Sadly, Louisa’s great victory was bittersweet as her mother died the next day. Richard’s case had crumbled and he was also found liable for the trial’s costs. Sadly, for him too, his father died two weeks later.
Ten years later, in 1886, Louisa died from cancer. Strangely, for a woman who was in the eyes of the world in 1876 there is nothing about her death, apart from the death certificate, to be found anywhere about her.
Terror, Teras and Tragedy – The Mount Cashells and the Notorious Divorce Case of 1876, by Noel Howard. Available from Buythebok.ie
