know.
Now and again cases of rape on girls and women occur in railway trains.
Most people now living, who have passed life's meridian, will recall the famous case of Colonel Baker and the Fascinating, Finely-made, Talkative, Coaxing, Venturesome, Frightened, Inquisitive, Warm-blooded, Voluptuous, Cock-teasing, Young lady, whom, it is reported, he attempted to ravish. The gallant Colonel, no doubt liked, what is called, “a bit of skirt,” or in other words, was, an ardent woman-hunter, and took his pleasure wherever he could find it. But many men, who knew Baker intimately, did not believe in his guilt. There are many girls, especially those of a fashionable, know-all kind, whom a little healthy slapping on their lovely, plump buttocks, would do infinite good; who delight in working a man up to a pitch of erotic paroxysm, and when he draws his sword to strike, shrink back in terror at the sight of the gleaming blade. Be all this as it may, we are happy to record that other cases have come before the Courts, where the woman was a willing, consenting, and most delighted victim.
But the two actors have nevertheless been held up before the Law to answer a charge of “public Immorality.”
In a curious little pamphlet printed on very thin paper, we remember to have read “a most scandalous case” which took place in a Railway carriage between a strongly-built Jesuit Priest, and a live, lovely, fornication-loving, pretty little Viscountess.
The persons implicated were the Rev. Father J. Dufour d'Astafford, boasting the vigorous age of 44 years, and living in the seaport-town of Brest, and Louise-Marie-Gabrielle Carpentier, widow of the Viscount of Valmont, who had arrived at the charming and tantalizing age of 22 years. This coition-loving little lady was described in the charge sheet as “small, of lively manner, displaying in her physiognomy a great freshness of colour and, besides her youth, a certain diabolical beauty”. The worthy Jesuit was her spiritual director.
On the 11th of July 1872, on his return from Quimperle, where he had been preaching, he met Mme de Valmont at Chateaulin, where they took the train together for Brest. Familiarities in their conduct being observed at the station, the guard of the train, Kergroen, was directed by the station-master to keep an eye upon them. This he did; and passing along the train whilst it was in motion, he surprised them in the following equivocal positions. I quote Kergroen's deposition.
I recognised the priest; he was on the left in a corner and the lady was in front of him, in the opposite corner. The lady had taken off her hat, the shade had been drawn over the lamp. The priest had his legs stretched out on the seat in front of the lady. When, later, I passed again before the carriage, the positions were changed, the lady holding the priest round the neck and kissing him. The priest no longer had his legs stretched out, the lady was seated on his knees, and was kissing him continually, whilst he was holding her round the waist.”
It seemed to me that it was time to interfere, and, I therefore entered the carriage, and told them they should not behave like that on the railway. The lady turned quite pale, but the priest replied: “We beg to offer you our excuses, we certainly are like children; after all, it is quite permissible for a brother and sister to kiss each other.”
“Yes,” I answered, “but even between brother and sister it is hardly correct to kiss each other like that.”
Kergroen demanded the priest's card, which was refused, so he laid the matter before the station-masters of the two next stations at which the train stopped. This apparently plain statement of the case did not satisfy the president; he required more details, and the following dialogue took place:
The Judge: “You said at Quimerch and Landerneau that the lady was seated upon the knees of the priest. Before the examining magistrate, you made this statement far more grave by modifying it. You assert that she was seated astride, that is to say with her legs wide apart, and in a most improper position. These variations are of importance, with regard to the category of the offence, because in your statement you declared that you had witnessed an act of public immorality.”
The Witness: “Yes, and I maintain, that in my view there really was an act of public indecency, if a woman is seated on a clergyman's knees, and when I was obliged to warn them by tapping the naked thighs of the lady.”
The Judge: “Such an act on your part was very reprehensible, and in itself an offence against modesty. It would have been sufficient to warn them by the voice alone, and your voice is loud enough to do that.
The Witness: “I beg your pardun, the train was in motion and the evidence of the fact was more than complete when I was thus able to verify the lady's nakedness.”
In answer to questions put to him by the station-master of Landerneau and others, the Rev. Father Dufour replied in a strain worthy of his order.
After haying given his name, this gentleman stated that he had not persisted in affirming that his travelling- companion was his sister; he had simply said that he had known her for a long time, that she had rendered him certain services and that, out of gratitude, he had kissed her.
“Where is the evil?” added the priest, “If we had been brother and sister, we could have done so. Suppose,” said he again to the Police-Inspector, “ two young married people who are travelling by rail, can they not kiss each other and even do something else? We had not done any evil. Every day people newly married allow themselves certain liberties while they are travelling; where is the wrong?”
At his trial Father Dufour excused himself in the following unmanly, hypocritical manner:
“If I have once on the railway drawn the curtain over the lamp, — which I do not believe I did, — it would be only because I am a great sleeper when travelling on the line.
“I was wrong to stretch myself out upon the seat, although in travelling, one is permitted to enjoy this license. Madame de Valmont, seated at first at the other end of the compartment, drew nearer to me, because the noise of the train prevented us from hearing each other. She thanked me for having stopped for her at Chateaulin; and in the expression of her gratitude, she approached her head near to my breast to such an extent, that her face may have touched my chin.
The case was tried on the 4th and judgment given on September 10th 1872. The Judge, a liberal broad- minded Man of the World, evidently considered that, law or no law, a dainty lady with burning thighs, and separated momentarily from her husband, might very well be allowed to give refuge to the flaming priapus of a vigorous celibate priest. It must also be born in mind that the Messalinie tendencies of many a high-born voluptuous lady are satisfied by the kind priests, who think that while working for God, they may also do a little on their own account.
Again, many a lady of high society is wedded to an old and impotent husband who is not able to do more than tickle and tease, or rub and poke them about, until they succeed in rousing the woman's passionate Nature to an extent they are themselves unable to cope with it. In such cases, if the lady does not take the footman or a strong-backed coachman or some lecherous friend of her husband, she has recourse to her spiritual adviser.
Think of the consequences, if this lady were to take some man in the street. She would be liable to catch some hideous disease or, apart from that, be subject perhaps to blackmail by her Paramour, whose honesty might prove to be less strong than his tool.
We are happy to record that the Priest and the Viscountess were acquitted, and we can only hope that this skirt-loving priest, threw his to the winds, and married the charming little lady whose white thighs had been made a public spectacle for the sake of his love.
Other men, before now, have honourably espoused women they have been the cause of bringing into public shame. Some scoundrels, we know, have deserted the sweetheart whom they had gotten with child, or abandoned the woman who has been divorced for having yielded herself to her lover's lust. But this does not prove they were right. Of course, we do not say that a man is bound to marry every woman he gets down upon her back, but there are cases where he is obliged and in duty bound to do so. The following instance, recorded by some unknown Byron, illustrates our point:
THE VIOLATED NYMPH, (1)
(1) The date of this charming little poem is about 1707.
