The Waterford Peerage Claim

The Petitioner in the Box

Beresford v Attorney General and others

 (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge)

The hearing of the claim to the Waterford peerage was continued in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division today. The claim is made in the form of a petition by ‘George Beresford', sometimes known as George Tooth, of 8 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham in Surrey, a gardener, for a declaration under the Legitimacy Declaration Act that he is the lawful son of John Henry De la Poer, fifth Marquess of Waterford. The respondent, the present holder of the title, an infant, by his mother as guardian ad litem denies that the petitioner is the legitimate son of the fifth marquess. He alleges that the petitioner is the natural son of Georgina Tooth, the sister of a cook in the service of Mrs. Vivian, who became the first wife of the fifth marquess and that he was born in a workhouse in the Holborn Union.

Mr. Alexander Cairns and Mr. Towers Settle appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Gill K. C. and Mr. Ashworth James for the trustees of the Waterford estates Mr. Hume-Williams K. C. and Mr. Bayford for the present Lord Waterford; and Mr. J. H. Pilcher for the Attorney General.

Evidence in support of the petition was again given.

Mr. William Brownhill of Fulham a retired builder said that he was married in 1866. Sometime later he went to live at 11, Seymour Place, Chelsea. In July 1872 his son William George was born there. Mrs. Duncan attended his wife during her confinement and stayed in the house for about a fortnight. He saw no sign of any child that Mrs. Duncan was taking care of. Afterwards, when he moved to 42, Seymour Place, he saw Mrs. Duncan with a baby in her arms. He had often seen the child since, and had watched him grow up. The child was known as Tooth. Sometimes he was called ‘Toothy’ or ‘the boy that nobody owned’ (Laughter.)

Mr. William Bell of Leeds said that in 1869 he went to be foreman to Messrs Malcolmson’s foundry at Portlaw. He remained there for four years. The place where he worked was within ten minutes walk of Curraghmore. He often went into the grounds of Curraghmore. There was then great agitation with the Fenians, and he had permission to go there at night for safety. He attended Trinity Church which was outside the Waterford demesne. The private chapel of the family was within the grounds but the members of the family went to Trinity Church sometimes. He knew them by sight, and he remembered the fifth Marquess well. He had seen him in the courtyard exercising his hunters. He had also seen him in church. He (the witness) had boxed with Lord William Beresford.

The witness said that he remembered the marriage of the fifth marquess to Mrs. Vivian. He heard of her death before it was announced in church. He understood that she had died in childbirth. Nothing was said about a child at that time, although everyone at Curraghmore was anxious to know if there was an heir to the title alive.

The Family Vault

Mr. Cairns – Do you know the family vault? – Yes.

Was it opened soon after the announcement of the death of the marchioness? – Yes

Did you go and see the vault while it was open? – Yes; when I went past I looked in. There were 10 coffins in it.

At what time of day did you look in? – In the evening, after work.

Was it light? – Oh yes.

Some days later could you see the funeral procession from where you were working? – We were on a scaffold and I saw a party of people coming up from the courtyard and going to the vault.

After that did you go to look at the vault again? – Yes

Had the coffin of the marchioness been placed in the vault by that time? – Yes.

Was there any inscription on the coffin? – I think there was.

 Was it a new coffin? – Yes

Was there any other change made in the vault? – There were 10 coffins in before. I remember noticing that the roots of the trees had grown round them.

Did you see the coffin of a child? – No

In cross examination by Mr. Gill, the witness said that he never saw any monument in the church yard.

Did you see the inscription: - ‘Here lie the bodies of Florence Grosvenor, wife of the fifth Marquess of Waterford, and her stillborn son, who departed this life April 4, 1873’? – I do remember it.

Mr. Gill, - I suggest that Lady Waterford was buried in a new grave, and that anyone who looked into it could not fail to see the coffin of the child? – No. it was not a grave. It was a vault.

Who got into touch with you about this case? – The editor of the Daily News got into communication with me about it.

Did you see anyone else connected with the Press – No.

When were you first spoken to about it? – Close on five years ago.

Have you been in communication with her since that time? – I have occasionally.

Have you seen her? – Yes

And written letters to her? Yes, but not very often. I got someone else to write to her, as my writing was not good enough.

When did you first see the petitioner? – About three years ago.

Was he sent to see you? – Yes

By whom? – Mrs. Torr, I think

Where was he sent? – To Leeds, where I live.

Did he stay with you? – Yes he stayed the night.

Was he by himself? – Yes

You had never seen him before? – No

When did all this occur? – About three years ago. It was on Saturday night.

Did you know that he was coming? – Yes; I went to meet him.

Did you address him as ‘George’? – He came along the railway platform at Leeds, and I saw him. I followed him, and I convinced that he was the claimant. I put my hand on his shoulder, and said ‘George’ He turned round very much surprised, and said, ‘Are you Mr. Bell?’ I aid Yes, You are like your uncle William.’

So you identified him at once? – Yes

In re-examination by Mr. Cairns, the witness explained how he got into touch with the editor of the Daily News. He said - I was in the library at Leeds with the newspapers all round me. I came across the Daily News. I saw the words:- ‘There is a man walking about London in a tall hat and frock coat with a board on his back and before him saying ‘I am the Marquess of Waterford and I am doing this to get money to claim my title’.

When I read that I said, ‘That clears up the mystery of Curraghmore.’ I wrote to the editor saying that if he could put me into communication with the claimant. I could give him very valuable information. The editor of the Daily News put me in touch with the claimant. I then got a letter from the claimant and one from a lawyer.

Mr. Jesse Bailey, whose evidence had been taken on commission, said that he had lived in Seymour Place and he remembered having seen Mrs. Duncan with a baby in arms. He watched the child grow up to manhood. He was known by the name of George Tooth.

In cross examination the witness said that he thought that inquiries about his memory of the matter had originated with Mrs. Torr went to see him about two years ago.

Mrs. Annie Crowe, of Tyrone Road, Thorpe Bay whose evidence had also been taken on commission, said that her mother, who used to live in Fulham know Mrs. Duncan, Mrs. Duncan used to bring a little boy known as George Tooth for her mother to see. He was in long clothes when he was first brought.

Mr. James Nye said that he had lived in Seymour Place all his life. He was a little older than the petitioner, whom he had known since he was a small boy. They went to the same school. He had gone with the petitioner to Piccadilly when the petitioner turned up a side street and went to a house. He (the witness) used to wait for the petitioner, who had money when he returned.

Mr. Bertram Turner, a boot maker, of Cremorne Road Chelsea, said that he formerly lived in Seymour place. He was born on April 9 1873 and he thought that the petitioner was about the same age. They had grown up together. He had seen the petitioner with a good deal of money, and the petitioner, had told him that he ‘used to get money somewhere’

A Visit to Curraghmore

Mr. Charles Joseph Emmet, examined by Mr. Cairns, said that in November 1913 he went on a visit to Curraghmore with the petitioner. They stayed in the district for a few days and they attended service in Holy Trinity Church, Portlaw.  In the afternoon they drove through the grounds and through Clonegan burial ground. They went to see the family vault and the grave of the fifth Marquess of Waterford, and also the graves of Florence his wife and her still born child.  The monument to Lady Waterford was very conspicuous, and on it was her name, but there was no reference to the still born child. He (the witness) saw the grave of the still born son with a cross over it. Someone from the house was their guide.

Mrs. Sarah Jane Simmons, examined by Mr. Cairns said that her maiden name was Hudgell. Her sister, Ada Gertrude, was the wife of the petitioner.  She knew the petitioner some time before his marriage in October 1899 as George Tooth.  After the ceremony Mrs. Godfrey attended in the vestry to sign her name and she gave the petitioners name as George Godfrey. She did not know who gave the age of the petitioner. She had never known him called Godfrey before.  The certificate was made out in the name of George Godfrey.

Cross examined by Mr. Gill – She had known the petitioner for three years, and he always gave his name as George Tooth.  Her sister was born in 1871. She could not say if both gave their ages as 28.  The petitioner had signed his name as George Tooth Godfrey.  The petitioner in the vestry told the clergyman that he preferred to be married in the name that he was always know by – George Tooth.

Cross examined by Mr. Hume-Williams – She had not asked Mrs. Godfrey who she was or why she was there. She was the petitioner sign ‘George Tooth Godfrey’.

The Petitioner's Evidence

The petitioner, commonly known as George Tooth, examined by Mr. Cairns, said that he did not know his actual age. He had celebrated his birthday on March 29 for the last seven or eight years.  His first recollections were of living at 28 Seymour Place with Mrs. Duncan and her daughter, Mrs. Godfrey. He went to Clock House school and to a school in Park Walk. Two boys named Bye and Turner were his schoolmates. They also lived in Seymour place. From his earliest recollections he was occasionally dressed up both by Mrs. Duncan and Mrs. Godfrey, and was taken to see Mr. Pitney, an undertaker, in South Audley Street.  On each occasion a payment was made by Mr. Pitney to Mrs. Duncan for his support. After her death the payment was made to Mrs. Godfrey. The money was paid in cash. He had to be show to Mr. Pitney before the money was paid.

He was always known by the name of George Tooth. He remembered when Mrs. Godfrey came to fetch him from the school in Park Walk. He was then about 12 years old. She had a telegram, which he saw, and she told him that it was from the fifth Marquess of Waterford.  He was released from school and went with her to 30 Charles Street, Pall Mall. He went up into Lord Waterford’s room, Lord Waterford was lying on a couch. He had injured his spine, and was not expected to live. He (the witness) had seen Lord Waterford several times before and several times afterwards and he had had conversations with him.  Lord Waterford said that he must look on him as a father and on Mrs. Godfrey as a friend should he (Lord Waterford) not recover. Lord Waterford told him to go to see him if he was in want. He had often been to see him, and Lord Waterford would give him £5 in gold. He went on visiting Lord Waterford up to his death in 1895.

He also wrote to Lord Waterford, and received answers. He had only kept one letter dated July 3 1895. That stated that Lord Waterford had started him in life, and he must do for himself in future. Lord Waterford knew that he was working as a gardener, and approved of that occupation. In 1896 he (the petitioner) became engaged to be married.  He gave instructions for the banns and gave his name as George Tooth; he did not mention the name of Godfrey. After the marriage he saw Mrs. Godfrey in the vestry. She wanted him to put down his name as George Tooth; he did not mention the name of Godfrey. After the marriage he saw Mrs. Godfrey and that name was written down by the vicar at her dictation. She also gave his age. He made no objection, as he did not then know his age. He had tried to bring an action against the sixth marquess for calling him an impostor, and also against Mrs. White, but his action against her was struck out by the Court of Appeal.

Cross Examination

In cross examination by Mr. Gill, the petitioner said that he had no birth certificate, and, so far as he knew he had never been christened. He agreed that his case was the child born to Mrs. Vivian when she was the Marchioness of Waterford was a living child; that there was a conspiracy to get rid of it; and that the announcement of the birth of a stillborn child in The Times and the Morning Post and the doctors certificate that the child was still born were shams.  He knew that an undertaker had sworn that he had been sent for to bury a still born child, and that he had placed it in the coffin.  He (the witness) suggested that the dead body of a child was procured for the purpose. He knew that the dead child was buried and that the doctor’s certificate was lodged with the cemetery authorities. He also knew that the child was buried at Brompton and then taken to Ireland, but the witnesses who had given evidence of those events had all joined in the conspiracy.

Mr. Gill – All of that you found out after you were married? – Yes.

From time to time you have had a good many solicitors? – Yes

How many? – Probably a dozen.

And later you have had the assistance of Mrs. Torr? – Yes, and that of Mr. Torr, her husband.

The witness added that he had never wanted a great position, but he had pointed out in his letters that advantage it would be to the family if he gave up the documents which he possessed in return for a money payment.

A Letter from Lord William Berresford

Counsel read a letter from Lord William Beresford to Mrs. Duncan, dated April 8 1873 which was as follows:-

My poor brother, Lord Waterford wishes me to write to you to say that he will be answerable for the maintenance of the child George Tooth which the poor late Lady Waterford placed in your car.

Mr. Gill – In the course of your communications with Mrs. Torr did she not tell you that she had been to find out at what age you went to the infant school? – Certainly.

And did she tell you that she found that you went there in 1875, when you were three years old? – Yes

And that the date of your birth was recorded there and was that of the death of Georgina Tooth? – I suppose it would be.

The witness, continuing, said that when he left school he went to work with Messrs. Veitch, the nurserymen.  He signed his name when he was married. He might have put the name ‘Godfrey’ to satisfy Mrs. Godfrey.

Mrs. Godfrey had made a note of an interview with Lord Waterford at which he told the petitioner, when he stopped the maintenance, ‘Now; George this will be the last money you will have. I hope you will be steady.’ There was another note of an interview in which Lord Waterford told George Tooth in Mrs. Geoffrey’s presence that he (George Tooth) was the son of Mrs. Vivian’s cook and was born in the workhouse. The petitioner said that he remembered the interviews, but Lord Waterford never said all that.

Mrs. Torr had consistently supported him throughout.  She had all along impressed on him the importance of having his hair cut, of having his moustache trimmed, and of looking as much like a marquess as possible. (Laughter) He did not remember her impressing upon him the importance of having the horoscope of his son cast, so as to see if his son was going to occupy a great position. He remembered that his wife was told by palmist that she would go across the water and obtain a large sum of money. That was before he know his wife, and it did not suggest the Waterford estates.

Cross examined by Mr. Hume-Williams – He had claimed £5,000 against Mrs. White and thought that he was worthy of it. (Laughter) That case had been dismissed. Mrs. White had given her evidence against him in the suit to perpetuate testimony, so he wanted to get her in the box if possible. On the day when the Court of Appeal dismissed the action he sent three post cards to Mrs. White. In the first he wrote: - You wicked liar and murderess’ by murderess he meant protector (Laughter) ‘Look at the morning papers; they will protect you for a little while’ He meant that she prevented him from getting his rights by receiving money from the Waterford family.

Mr. Hulme Williams – Do you mean to suggest that this lady was in a conspiracy against you and that she was being paid by the Waterford family not to tell the truth?

The petitioner – Of course I do.

In a letter to Mrs. Whites husband the petitioner wrote; - I charge you with with the murder of my mother and kidnapping me, then an infant, Earl of Tyrone, out to nurse as George Tooth. If your wife or you dare to take legal action against me you can do so promptly and if you don’t I intend making the enclosed letter public.

In the enclosed letter, which was addressed to the solicitors of the marquess the petitioner wrote: -

My friends have shown that part of the evidence to several doctors and they say that arsenic was undoubtedly given to Lady Waterford to produce bilious diarrhoea which was the certified cause of her death….I am also told that Lady Waterford’s own mother, Mrs. Rowley when she saw the awful expression on the face of her dear daughter called out ‘She has been poisoned’.

Mr. Hume Williams -  Is it part of your case that Mrs. White murdered your mother? – There is no doubt that my mother died an unnatural death.

Is it part of your case or not? – Yes it is

Mr. Gill said that he did not intend to take the course of submitting that there was no case here, as the annoyance had gone on so long. The burden of proving that he was the child born on March 29 1873 was on the petitioner.

Mr. Justice Eve had ordered that the evidence of Mrs. White and evidence as to the burial should be given in a suit to perpetuate testimony. Lady Waterford had given birth to a still born child on March 29 1873. Lord Waterford was very much affected, and two of his brothers stayed with him for two nights.  The child was buried on April 1 in Brompton Cemetery. Lady Waterford gradually sank and died on April 4. She desired that her child should be buried with her, and by leave of the Home Office the body of the child was exhumed and was buried with Lady Waterford at Curraghmore.

In the early part of 1872 Lady Waterford was for a few weeks at the Franciscan Covent. She heard from her maid and companion, Mrs. White that the cook’s sister had given birth to a child in a workhouse and the mother had been deserted and had died. Out of kindness she had had this child taken out of the workhouse, with the result of all they annoyance to the family. All the records of the occurrence were at the workhouse. The child was taken to the convent for a dew days and then arrangements were made for it to be taken care of by Mrs. Duncan.

The Court adjourned.

Solicitors – Mr. F H Adams for petitioner Messrs Farrer and Co for Lord Waterford and the trustees: the Treasury Solicitor.

News of the World March 3rd 1915 

The Times November 13th 1917 

The Times 30th January 1918 

The Times 1st February 1918 

Times Editorial February 2nd 1918 

The Times February 2nd 1918 

The Times Law Report February 26th 1919 

The Times A Solicitors Bill February 27th 1919 

Ada Gertrude Hudgell 

George Tooth