LANGFORD TITLE

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 239, 6 July 1931, Page 16

LANGFORD TITLE

Story of Second Wedding RIDDLE OF THE PEERAGE The British and Australian deial authorities, according to the London' NewsChronicle,” are now taking steps to solve ■ one of the most interesting constitutional puzzles of modern times. It concerns Lord Langford, born at Tamaki. Auckland, who succeeded to the title early this year while in Australia, where be still lives—in Melbourne. • Lord Langford (then Mr. C. W. T. E. Rowlev) married Miss I>. E. Shiel an Dublin' in 1922.. Reports have been received that he married again last June in Melbourne, and that .he has said he had heard his first wife was dead. Following reports in the Australian Press of his recent marriage the Melbourne police communicated with Scotland Yard. They asked that an officer should interview Lady Langford, the young Irish peeress, now employed as waitress in. a London teashop. ... A detailed statement was - obtained from her, ...together with certified comes of her marriage record at the Church ot The Star of the Sea, Dublin. Details of these have been cabled to Melbourne. If the Australian authorities consider that further inquiries should be made the initial steps will be effected by their; law officers. Criticism in Australia. In the meantime some Australian newspapers have raised the question whether proceedings, if warranted, can be taken in that country concerning a member of the British peerage, and they ■ have been' devoting attention to the matter from the constitutional Point of view. , ~ . One newspaper argues that it is anomalous in these modern times that all persons should not be equally amenable to the law in Australia, and there is criticism of the ancient law of privileges which gives peers the right to a jury .of peers. . / , High legal authorities in London consider that no proceedings could be taken in Australia, and any inquiry would have to be - held in London. It has been ruled that the right of a peer to be tried by his peers cannot be waived, and the matter would' therefore have to go to the House of Lords, with the Lord Chancellor (appointed Lord High Steward for the occasion) presidThis procedure was last followed _ in the-case of the late Earl Russell in 1901, when 130 peers assembled to try him on a charge of bigamy. Lord Russell pleaded guilty, however, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in the first division. Lady Langford’s Views. Lady Langford, who is a dark Irish beauty, only recently returned from Dublin, where she had an interview with her solicitors. According to her own statement, she was 20 years of age when she was married, and her husband was 16 years older. After a while her husband decided to emigrate, and after being in Canada for a time went on to Australia. She received a number of letters from him. and eventually she came to London with’ her mother and brother and went to live at Chelsea. ». Interviewed, Lady Langford said: — “I know nothing of the details of the supposed marriage in 1930. I have had no official communication from Australia at all. lam in touch with my solicitors in Dublin, who have the conduct of my affairs. ’ ‘ ■ ‘‘The worry is beginning to tell on my nerves. The strangest part of the affair, from my point of view, is that I have received scores of begging letters from all parts of the country. ,As if I—who have been earning my own living for so long—had any opportunity of helping the unfortunate people who have ■written F* Among the letters received by Lady Langford was one from South Africa, addressed in the name of Mrs. Rowley, “Waitress in a cafe near the Strand, London, England.” It was from a man totally unknown to Lady Langford, asking her to buy him a ticket in the Irish sweepstake.