Lola Montez: An Adventuress of the 'Forties

by Edmund B. D'Auvergne

They drove to the police-station, and thence to Marlborough Street Police Court. The rumour of the arrest had spread abroad, and the approaches to the court were thronged with people, eager to get a glimpse of the famous Countess of Landsfeld. The “respectable married women” in the crowd no doubt exulted at the anticipated downfall of the woman who could bind men’s hearts without the chains of law or Church.

“About half-past one o’clock,” says the reporter, “the Countess of Landsfeld, leaning on the arm of Mr. Heald, her present husband, came into court, and was accommodated with a seat in front of the bar. Mr. Heald was also allowed to have a chair beside her. The lady appeared quite unembarrassed, and smiled several times as she made remarks to her husband. She was stated to be 24 years of age on the police-sheet, but has the look of a woman of at least 30. [She was, in fact, 31.] She was dressed in black silk, with close fitting black velvet jacket, a plain white straw bonnet trimmed with blue, and blue veil. In figure she is rather plump, and of middle height, of pale dark complexion, the lower part of the features symmetrical, the upper part not so good, owing to rather prominent cheek bones, but set off by a pair of unusually large blue eyes with long black lashes. Her reputed husband, Mr. Heald, during the whole of the proceedings, sat with the countess’s hand clasped in both of his own, occasionally giving it a fervent squeeze, and at particular parts of the evidence whispering to her with the fondest air, and pressing her hand to his lips with juvenile warmth.”[22]

The magistrate, Mr. Peregrine Bingham, having taken his seat, Mr. Clarkson opened the case for the prosecution. “Sir,” he began, “however painful the circumstances under which the lady who sits at my left (Miss Heald) is placed, she has felt it to be a duty to her deceased brother, the father of the young gentleman now in court, to lay before you the evidence of this young gentleman’s marriage with the lady at the bar, and also other evidence which has led her to impute the offence of bigamy to that lady.” The learned counsel then went on to state that Lola had been married to Thomas James in Ireland, in July 1837, that a divorce only a toro et mensâ (i.e., a judicial separation) had been pronounced by the Consistory Court in 1842, and that Captain James was alive in India thirty-six days before the celebration of the second marriage with Heald. He deprecated any sort of allusion to the defendant’s distinction or notoriety, concluding: “I am further bound to state that this proceeding is on the part of the aunt, Miss Heald, without the consent of Mr. Heald, her nephew, who would, no doubt, if he could, prevent these proceedings from being carried on. No one, I think, will venture to impugn the motives or the purity of the intentions of Miss Heald in taking this step. My application is for the lady at the bar to be remanded till we can get the proper witnesses from India to come forward.”

Miss Heald, who went into the witness-box, explained her relationship to the accused’s second husband, said she had been his guardian, and stated she considered it was her duty to prosecute this enquiry. When old ladies do any one a bad turn or make themselves a nuisance, they always explain that they are prompted by a sense of duty. For my part, I take up the challenge thrown down sixty years ago by Mr. Clarkson, and I impugn the purity of his client’s motives. If it had been her object to prevent any family complications in the future, such as might have arisen from the birth of children to Lola and her nephew, she could have laid the facts before them in private; and if they had refused to separate, she should have remained for ever silent. I entertain no doubt whatever that Miss Susanna Heald wished to ruin the Countess of Landsfeld, and that this was at any rate one of her motives in instituting police court proceedings.

The rest of the evidence was purely formal, and included the testimony of Captain Ingram, in whose ship Lola had come to England seven years before.

Mr. Bodkin appeared on behalf of the lady, who had been dragged that morning to a station-house, to answer a charge which, in all his professional experience, was perfectly unparalleled. He never recollected a case of bigamy in which neither the first nor the second husband came forward in the character of a complaining party. The matter, would, however, undergo investigation, and if anything illegal had been done, those who had done the illegality would be held responsible for their conduct. As far as the proof had gone he was willing to admit enough had been laid before the court to justify further enquiry. At the proper time he should be prepared to show that the marriage with Mr. Heald was a lawful act. It would seem that the lady had been married when about fifteen or sixteen years old, and that a divorce had taken place. It was evident that the lady had a strong impression that a divorce bill had been obtained in the House of Lords. This, however, might be a mistake, into which the lady would be likely to fall from her ignorance of our laws. Enough had been stated to show that even had the imputed offence been committed, it had been committed in circumstances that appeared to justify the act. He asked the court to admit the lady to bail, to appear upon such a day as might be agreed upon. It was in the highest degree improbable that the parties most interested would attempt to evade an enquiry of this sort. He made no reflection on the motives of the prosecution, but it must be clear that a private and not a public object originated the proceedings.

Mr. Bodkin had not detected the flaw in his adversary’s case, and he had conceded too much to the prosecution. The magistrate’s decision must have mortified his professional feelings as much as it chagrined the amiable Miss Heald.

“Mr. Bingham, after a short consultation with Mr. Hardwick, said: ‘It is observable in the present case that the person most immediately interested (a person of full age and holding a commission in Her Majesty’s army) is not the person to institute or to countenance the prosecution. It is quite compatible with the evidence now produced that the accused may have received by the same mail from India a few hours later than the official return, a letter communicating the death of Captain James from cholera or some other casualty. The law presumes she is innocent till the usual proof of guilt is brought forward. Here that proof is wanting, and the magistrate is requested to act on a presumption of guilt. I feel great reluctance in doing so, even to the extent of a remand without an assurance on the part of the prosecutor that the evidence necessary to ensure a conviction will certainly be producible on a future occasion. No such assurance can be given in this case, because between the 13th June and the last marriage, a period of nearly six weeks, Captain James may have been snatched from life by any of those numerous casualties by which life is beset in a military profession and a tropical climate. However, upon the express admission of the advocate that in his judgment sufficient ground has been laid for further enquiry, and upon his offer to find security, I shall venture to order a remand, and to liberate the prisoner, upon finding two sureties in £500 each, and herself £1,000, for her reappearance here on a future day.’

“Bail was immediately tendered and accepted. The Countess of Landsfeld and her husband were allowed to remain some time in court in order to elude the gaze of the crowd.”

Her counsel’s blunder had cost Lola and her husband two thousand pounds.