List of goods to be removed from 38, Kendal Green, Kendal
1 display Cabinet including china, glass and wooden utensils in it.
1 Oak Gate leg Table
1 small mahogany Bedside Table
Small table at present in cellar
1 Sinke Oak Wardrobe (property of Mr. Peter Wainwright)
1 tin bedding chest
Ornaments and collection of China and glass and wood animals
Brass Candlesticks
Washing Machine
Personal effects still at 38 Kendal Green.
[Signed R. Wainwright (Mrs)]
LETTER 143: TO HIS LAWYERS, 22 FEBRUARY 1967
38 Kendal Green, Kendal
22nd February 1967.
Dear Sirs
Thank you for your letter of the 20th instant. I note, with some disappointment, that it contains no report of progress towards completion of the maintenance agreement.
Yes, please inform Messrs. Temple and Bargh of my intention to go ahead now with my proposed covenant with the R.S.P.C.A. in view of the long delay that has taken place. I intend to sign a covenant before the end of the current tax year, but costs of erecting the proposed building have first to be worked out. It appears that the cost will be considerably less than I had originally thought, because of a restriction in layout imposed by the Society’s Headquarters, and the amount of the covenant will, therefore, probably be less than the amount I first offered. If Messrs Temple and Bargh still wish to restrain me from legitimately spending money I have legitimately earned they must be prepared to argue the point with the Society’s legal advisers in London. I think you should inform them also that when I originally offered a covenant (to be paid exclusively out of royalties on my books) my wife stated that she did not want any of this money for her own use. I doubt whether her solicitors are aware of this.
I think you should inform them also of my intention to start divorce proceedings, my wife having now informed me that she has no intention of returning to me, and that I am persuaded to this course of action in order to disprove publicly the untrue and unfounded allegations she has made to support her unjustified desertion.
You will already, no doubt, have made known to my wife’s solicitors the contents of my Will, made ten years ago, leaving everything to my wife. I can understand that this disclosure must have been disconcerting to them having regard to their insistence that I bequeath her only a part of my estate. Please return this Will in due course.
I think we have been on the defensive long enough and should take over the offensive. If you have no explanation of the delay that is occurring please seek an early acceptance of the terms offered.
Yours faithfully,
AW
Messrs Holden and Wilsons,
Lancaster
LETTER 144: TO HIS LAWYERS, 18 MARCH 1967
38 Kendal Green, Kendal
18 March 1967
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter of the 17th instant., enclosing a copy of Messrs Temple and Bargh’s letter of the 15th.
As you had previously suggested, it would now appear that the hold-up in the negotiations is due to my expressed intention of taking divorce proceedings. If this is in fact the case, I am surprised. You will recall that the draft agreement prepared by Messrs Temple and Bargh with the approval of my wife made provision for her in the event of my remarriage and therefore divorce was obviously presumed. If, now, there is objection to divorce, am I to assume the possibility that she might at some future time wish to return to live with me? The impression she has given me is that she will not. Please ask for a definite statement of her intentions.
In my view, there is clearly no possibility of reconciliation and the marriage should be ended. The question of re-marriage is not at present in my mind, but, as I have said before, I want to be in a position to re-marry if my future circumstances should make this desirable, the obvious example being some failing in health that makes it difficult for me to continue to live alone.
Please communicate my comments to Messrs Temple and Bargh, or send them a copy of this letter if you prefer. Please ask them to say definitely, yes or no, whether my offers for a private settlement are rejected, and, if they are, urge them to refer the matter to Court with as little further delay as possible. My objection hitherto to a reference to Court has been due to a reluctance to submit testimony against my wife, but I am now more inclined to the view that the matter should be brought into the open and both sides of the story heard. I question, but do not really know, whether the Court would have jurisdiction to restrain me from taking divorce action, which seems to be the object in mind.
I have no knowledge of my wife’s present state of health, which has not been good recently, and if it would cause her further distress if I were to commence proceedings in the near future I would be prepared to wait until after the end of the three-year period of desertion and then rely on the grounds of desertion only unless the petition was contested. This is the only concession I am prepared to make in the matter of divorce.
Please request an early decision, one way or the other.
Yours faithfully,
Messrs Holden and Wilsons
Lancaster
LETTER 145: TO HIS LAWYERS, 15 NOVEMBER 1967
38 Kendal Green, Kendal
15th November 1967
Your Ref: GCH/EM
Dear Sirs,
I am disappointed to learn from your letter of the 9th instant that my offer for a financial settlement arising out of the proposed divorce proceedings has been rejected. This offer, taken as a whole, was in my view generous, and it is now becoming clear from my wife’s uncompromising demands that her intention is not so much to secure an adequate allowance for herself as to deprive me, to the fullest extent she can, of the rewards earned from a working life of 47 years. I now propose to accede to her demand for an annual maintenance of 500 pounds.
I repeat the offer to pay to my wife for her own use the sum of 4000 pounds upon the divorce becoming absolute, and accept the fact that this money will be entirely at her discretion. The suggestion that she would derive no income from it is patently absurd, unless indeed she is so improvident and irresponsible as to dispose of it at once upon receipt. The object of the capital sum is obviously to ensure additional income from its investment during her lifetime, particularly in the event of my prior death. I have no doubt she will be so advised by her solicitors.
Additionally I will pay an annual maintenance allowance of 500 pounds gross, half-yearly in advance from the date the divorce becomes absolute. It will be appreciated that, as this would be in the nature of an annual payment of fixed amount, I may be required by the Inland Revenue to deduct tax at the standard rate and pay over such deductions to them, in which event my wife would need to make an annual claim for repayment.
Additionally I will provide for a weekly allowance of 2 pounds to be paid from my estate upon death and to continue thence during my wife’s remaining lifetime.
The position we have now arrived at is that my wife will have an allowance equivalent to 10 pounds weekly, plus 5 pounds interest on her capital, a total of 15 pounds, disregarding entirely her potential earning capacity, which, at this stage, I do not wish to press. (incidentally, the weekly amount agreed between the parties at the time of desertion was 7 pounds). I myself would be left with the balance of my pension, 10 pounds, which, after deduction to tax, is sufficient only to meet the cost of maintaining the house. For living expenses I would be entirely dependent upon an uncertain and variable income from royalties, and in the matter of continued publication of my books I am at the mercy of my publishers; quite clearly I must go on working as long as my health permits in order to secure a standard of living that must, at best, be inferior to that of my wife.
With regard to the deletion of certain clauses in the present petition, I am sure an acceptable compromise can be reached, but it is interesting to note the view expressed that, without their inclusion,
the petition would probably not succeed. What is being said, in effect, is that if the untruths were omitted no cause for desertion could be established. Clause 7 (e) is known by my wife’s solicitors to be untrue, and clauses (c) and (d) will also be disproved if the petition is heard. Clause (b) is so wickedly untrue that, if the truth were disclosed in Court, as it certainly would be, it is likely that the petition would be dismissed on this point alone. I appreciate that deletion of these clause would create a difficulty for my wife’s solicitors in sifting the hallucinations from the facts, but the only assurance I can give is that I would not defend any other complaints that my wife honestly believes to be true and is prepared to testify on oath, although no doubt I would probably privately disagree.
The revised proposals contained in this letter meet my wife’s demands and I expect them to be accepted, but if they are not, there will be no point in continuing negotiations out of Court. In this event I would like an assurance that she fully understands the consequences of non-acceptance.
Yours faithfully
Messrs Holden and Wilsons,
2 Castle Hill, Lancaster
In December, AW was asked to give his own account of his marital history – and also to reply to some allegations about him which Ruth had made. He let Betty read his account before he sent it off to the lawyer.
LETTER 146: TO HIS LAWYERS, DECEMBER 1967
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The marital history generally:
The marriage, contracted in Blackburn in 1931, has never been entirely happy, but was reasonably so for a few years, especially after the birth of the child. The husband was deeply involved with studies for professional examinations, which, at a cost of my years’ sacrifice of leisure time, he finally passed successfully and with distinction. Having completed his studies he found himself unable to relax and turned his attention to other pursuits, particularly writing and drawing. He advanced in his profession and was disappointed that his wife did not improve herself educationally and go forward with him. Both preferred a quiet life: the wife had her own friends but the husband made few social contacts, being of a more solitary nature. The War, however, brought changes that took him out of the house much more: overtime due to staff shortages and Home Guard duties, for example, but more particularly he became involved in the formation of the Blackburn Rovers Supporters’ Club, as Secretary and Treasurer, which not only took much of his spare time but introduced him to many friendly people with a very different way of life, these new contacts leading to many late nights out. Because of this, his wife left him for a short time in 1941 but returned.
On his transfer to Kendal in 1941, and now amongst strangers, life was very quiet and the family went out more together, then the husband was given extraneous duties in connection with the war effort, which took up much of his spare time, but as the wife was now friendly with many of the neighbours, life went on fairly smoothly. After the War the husband returned more seriously to landscape drawing, going out on the fells for his subjects with his son as constant companion. Upon appointment as Borough Treasurer in 1948 it became necessary to vacate his Council house and he had a house built in another district of the town, a change the wife was to regret. With his duties now more onerous, and the need for an ‘escape’ from them in his leisure time to occupy his mind, the husband developed an idea he had long had in view, and started to write a series of guide-books to the Lakeland Fells, devoting to the task almost every hour of his leisure. These books were successful, bringing him in due course a national repute that was finally recognized by the award of the M.B.E. in 1967. They also brought a spate of correspondence and he was kept fully occupied. In 1968 the son, having also done well in examinations, obtained a post overseas, and this undoubtedly brought an emptiness into his wife’s hitherto-active life. She had no interest at all in her husband’s leisure activity but did not appear to resent it and developed her own interests and friendships. The husband, now nearing retirement, completed his series of book in 1965 and started others. Towards the end of that year, and quite unexpectedly, he was utterly shocked to be told by his wife that she wanted a separation. She had not been well for some months, being in a mood of depression, and moved into her own bedroom, the husband raising no objection. The matter of separation was not again referred to until, several months later, the husband was distressed by a visit from a local solicitors’ agent with the news that the wife, unknown to him, had instructed them to start proceedings. Finally, against his wishes, she left the house on September 11th 1966.
The marriage has broken down for various reasons. The husband has always led a very full and active life, which the wife could not, or did not want to, share; she was, however, quite contented until the withdrawal of the son from the home, which left her lonely. She was always a devoted mother and an excellent house-keeper, but a disappointing wife. There was no true communion with the husband and they had grown away from each other. The only welcome the husband got on coming home from work was from the dog. Never did she ever say she was proud of, or even pleased with, the husband’s achievements; there was never a word of encouragement or congratulation on his efforts. There was, probably, a growing sense of frustration that he should be kept so busy while she had so few outlets and interests, and the husband’s view of her subsequent desertion is that she ran away not from his shortcomings but from her own while in a state of mental or nervous depression.
- - -
On the specific complaints:
(a) see previous comments on the marital history
(b) no further comments, but I admit to a liking for a shapely leg!
(c) The proof will be available around 1970 (probable publication year).
(d) The woman concerned is highly respected and occupies a responsible post which could be jeopardized by scandal. As a completely innocent party her name (which is known to the ‘opposition’, as she herself is) must be kept out of the proceedings. This was no secret mission! Her staff turned out to see us off.
(e) This was to have been a reward to my wife for her forbearance! Because of it she circulated stories that I did not intend to make provision for her. This is disproved by my Will of 1956, which leaves every penny to her, and by my forfeiture of part of my personal pension to provide a widow’s pension in the event of my prior death.
(f) My wife, who is terrified of cancer, had a bad scare about two years ago when she suspected a cancer in the neck which happily proved to be not a cancer at all. I date her subsequent depression from this time. It is not stated in the Petition that she ceased to live as a wife much earlier than the date of desertion.
And (g) no further comment
ALLEGATIONS
That the Respondent has, since the celebration of said marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty
(a) that the Respondent is a man of selfish, withdrawn and sullen personality and disposition who, for long periods of time, has refused to converse with the Petitioner; who has shown scant and increasingly less interest in her, her happiness and general well-being and who has regarded the Petitioner as being but a housekeeper, domestic worker and convenience.
RESPONSE: This complaint is exaggerated and misleading. Respondent agrees that he has always been pre-occupied with his own interests, which have, for the past 15 years, been confined exclusively to his work and the writing of books, but the Petitioner did not complain of this at any time although she did not, and could not, share these interests. He had never refused to converse, but agrees there has been no exchange of confidences between them for many years, partly because of the nature of his appointment as a public official. He admits to having a quiet, reserved and withdrawn manner, but is neither selfish nor sullen, being of a generous nature and of a happy disposition, as his books testify.
LETTER 147: TO HIS LAWYERS, 6 DECEMBER 1967
38 Kendal Green, Kendal
6th December 1967
Dear Sirs,
I have received your letter of the 5t
h instant, and am pleased to note that the financial arrangements for an undefended divorce petition are agreed. This I regard as the major difficulty out of the way. (Please confirm that you stated the 500 pound annual allowance as a gross payment; if, however, you forwarded a copy of my letter containing the offer, this point will be clear).
The grounds of complaint I regard only as a minor difficulty. I have already said that I will not defend any allegations my wife honestly believes to be true and is prepared to testify on oath (whether true or not), and I abide by my word. In order to secure an early divorce, and assuming it is understood that acquiescence is not necessarily an admission of guilt, I am prepared to accept the decision of Messrs Temple and Bargh in this matter.
I now trust that a final agreement can be quickly reached and that the present petition will be withdrawn and substituted by one for divorce.
Yours faithfully
LETTER 148: TO HIS LAWYERS, 12 DECEMBER 1967
Your Ref: GCH/EM
38 Kendal Green, Kendal
12th December 1967
Dear Sirs,
Now that the terms of divorce are settled, I would like an assurance from Messrs Temple and Bargh that I may enter into covenants or make donations to charities without interference on their part.
Yours faithfully
The Wainwright Letters Page 26