SACKVILLE PEERAGE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2928, 27 April 1910, Page 88

SACKVILLE PEERAGE.

ROMANTIC LEGITIMACY CLAIM. DIPLOMAT AND DANCING GIRL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, February 4. The romantic story of the Sackville peerage claim is again before the public, but this time the venue is not Madrid, but Loudon. Briefly, the story is this: The present petitioner, Ernest Henri Joan Baptiste Sackville-West, asks the court to declare that he is a British subject and the legitimate son of the late Lord Sackville, a diplomatist of distinction, who died two years ago. In support of this claim, he alleges that his father lawfully married the petitioner’s mother at some date between 1863 and 1867. The petitioner’s mother was a Spaniard, who went on to the stage as a dancer, and was professionally known .as Pepita. She attained great distinction as a dancer in the Continental capitals, and about 1853, when she was performing in Piaris, Lord Sackville, who was then attached to the Embassy, became acquainted with her. From 1858 Lord Sackville provided a home for her. In 1862 the lady who is now the wife of the present Lord Sackville, her cousin, was born. In June, 1865, another girl was born, and she is alleged to be the first legitimate child of the marriage. Mr Sackville-West, the petitioner, was born at Arcachon, France, on June 24, 1869. There were other children of the union, and the lady known as Pepita de Oliva lived with Lord Sackville until her death, in 1871. A CROWDED COURT. The case is being tried before Sir John Bigham, president of the Probate and Divorce Division, and without a jury. The court was crowded on Tuesday, among the audience being the claimant and his wife, as well as Lord Sackville. As the petition is brought under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, the Crown is involved, and was represented by the Attorney-general and Mr Pilcher. Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., and Mr Harold Morris appeared for the claimant, while Lord Sackville has for his counsel Sir Robert Finlay, K.C., Mr Eldpn Bankes, K.C., and Mr R. Bankes. In his opening speech Sir Edward Clarke said that he proposed to prove the marriage by “ reputation,” and also by declarations of the late Lord Sackville himself on-documents attached to certificates of birth and baptismal certificates of the children born. The oerificate of the birth of the petitioner was: ‘ ‘ Born this commune on the 24th inst., at 5 o’clock, the son of the Hon. Lionel Saokville-West, Secretary of the Embassy, aged 42, and of Josephine, his wife, no profession, both living at Arcachon.” In the baptismal certificate it appeared that the son’s godfather was H.R.H. the Duke of Saxe, and the godmother Countess de Beon. When she died in 1871 Josephine was described as the wife of the Hon. Sackville-West. Lord Sackville was afterwards British Minister at Washington, and on© of the daughters of the marriage was wedded there, many distinguished persons being present. A great deal of evidence was read from witnesses who knew Mr and Mrs Sack-ville-West when they were living at Arcachon to the effect that they were registered as husband and wife. They were known as Count and Countess West, and the latter was described by one witness as a beautiful and graceful woman, who was very popular and very kind to the poor. AN AFFECTIONATE LETTER. Among the letters which were read was one from Lord Sackville to Josephine. It was undated. “My dear little angel, well beloved of my heart,” it began, and was couched throughout in the most affectionate language, concluding “ Good-bye. my little wife, always your faithful Lionel.” “ That,” said Sir Edward, when he had finished reading the letter, “is the petitioner’s case.” Sir Robert Finlay, in presenting the case for the holder of the title, declared that a more flimsy foundation upon which to base a claim of this kind had never been laid. There was the evidence of the late Lord that he had over and over again in letters to the petitioner told him that the statements referred to were made solely with the object of saving the reputation of the lady with whom he was living. Lord Sackville had stated that there never was a marriage, and that the children were in consequence illegitimate. Petitioner had not been called to give his evidence, but it would be proved that he knew that he was illegitimate, and that he had written to his sister admitting it. SENSATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. The cross-examination on commission of the late Lord Sackville waa read yesterday by counsel for the petitioner, and in the course of the reading the judge observed

that it was perfectly obvious that Lord Sackville had held the petitioner out over and over again as his legitimate son. In Lord Sackville’e re-examination he said that Pepita had told him that she was afraid to go with him to Madrid when he was appointed there, because of her husband being there. The evidence, taken on commission, was read of a number of witnesses from France, Germany, and the United States, who stated that Lord Sackville’s children had always been considered illegitimate by them. Other evidence was proceeding, when Sir E. Clarke, leading counsel for the petitioner, road a letter he had received from his client, requesting him to ask for an adjournment of the ease in order that his (petitioner’s) letter of roquets from Spain might be brought forward in support of his case. If this request were refused the petitoiner wished his counsel to retire from the case. After conversation. Sir Edward Clarke and his junior retired from the case, as did also the petitoiner’s solicitor. The petitioner, in person, explained that ne wanted the documents in order to be able to cross-examine the witnesses about to be calledl on the other side : and his Lordship expressed his willingness to give him any assistance he might properly receive, and to adjourn the case if satisfied that the documents were necessary. NO MARRIAGE RECORD. JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER. LONDON, February 18. Th© Sackville peerage case has been decided in favour of the nephew and present holder of the title. Sir John Bigham, in his judgment, said, “ The facts satisfy me that Mr Sackville-West and Pepita were never married, and that the petitioner' is not entitled to the declaration he asks for.” The petitioner is the eon of the late Lord Sackville and Pepita, a charming Spanish danoer, and lie Drought the action, to prove his legitimacy. Had ho succeeded. he would have wrested the title from his cousin, a nephew of the late lord ; the present Lord Sackville, by the bye, is married to a sister of the petitioner. Sir John Bigham pointed out that the case was divided into two. There was, first, the alleged marriage of Pepita and Lord iSackville, who, after he became acquainted with her about 1852, made her his mistress. She told him she was a married woman, and a copy of the certificate of her marriage with Oliva was found among her papers after her death. If this part of the evidence was true, and he (the judge) believed it was, then th© late Lord Sackville from the first knew that Pepita was a married woman and that her husband was alive. The late Lord Sackville, in his evidence, said: “ I was anxious to marry Pepita if the husband was out of the way by death, but I never did marry her, nor did I ever go through a form of marriage with her.” It was true, continued the judge, that there were declarations by Lord Sackville as to his children being legitimate issue. In one birth certificate the parents were recorded as having been married at Frank-fort-on-Main. The document was undoubtedly genuine, and was the only, official document in the whole case where the fact was mentioned. In the absence of any other explanation, Mr Justice Bigham could only think that the words were inserted at the instance of the late peer to please Pepita, as at this time she was anxious to be known as the wife of Lord Sackville. At the same time no evidence had been put in that search had been made at Frankfort for a record of this marriage. The court accepted the late peer’s statement when he said he never married Pepita or went through a form of marriage with her. From Natal, on May 27, 1890, petitioner wrote to his sister Victoria:—‘‘Victoria, — When you come to think’ of it, father couldi not have done more for us. How kindl he has always been towards us. Remember we are hie illegitimate children.” The expression, “ Remember, we are his illegitimate children,” said the judge, “showed the way in which th© petitioner then regarded himself.” On the facts, he was satisfied that the late peer and Pepita were never married, and that th© petitioner was not entitled to the declaration he asked for. The evidence justified the court that Pepita and Oliva were really married, and there was no question as to their identity. Th© petition would therefore be dismissed, with costs 1 .