EDINBURGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SOCIETY Scottish Charity No. SC006520 News Issue 215 – Winter 2021 Society News Notes from the Chair. The Committee would like to wish a very good New Year to you all. While the start to 2021 has not bought the release from Lockdown that had been hoped for, at least the potential for that release comes a little closer. It is very bad timing for the planned 50th Anniversary celebrations. So far, the Civic Reception has been cancelled and the start of the Anniversary Exhibition in The Edinburgh Museum has receded to June (at current probabilities). Work continues on the content of the Exhibition in the hope and expectation that it will at least get an opening at some point. A 50th Anniversary Edition of the Newsletter will support and enhance the Exhibition. So, we can still take offers of articles about the EAFS in those 50years and any photographs etc that you can offer. It is hoped to start our lectures sometime during the year. The possibility of a ‘blended’ option - an “in person” talk with a dedicated YouTube channel for members who cannot attend – is being explored. The 2020 AGM The first ever EAFS AGM on-line went well. There was a good turnout and all the required work was completed timeously. Major points not covered in the Annual Report was the acceptance of DR’s offer to join the Committee to take the place made vacant by MC’s resignation. Thanks were given to Edinburgh Airport for their useful donation that M was instrumental in arranging. Thanks also were given to GB who has made a very generous offer of financial support to the Society. Thanks to everyone who took part and made it possible. The social part of the AGM was sadly missed and hopefully this will be resumed for next December. Membership Subscriptions are now due. As we did not have our usual get-together in December subscriptions not covered by Standing[1] Order have to paid by cheque or Bank Transfer. We appreciate the difficulty of accessing banks in the present lockdown travel restrictions but hope it will not be too long before we are able to meet again. Society News continued. Membership Subscriptions are now due. Subscriptions not covered by Standing Order must be paid by cheque or Bank Transfer. While the difficulty of accessing banks in the present lockdown travel restrictions is appreciated, it is hoped that you will be able to renew your subscription. EAFS polo shirts and sweatshirts with the EAFS logo. Val D is still a few short of the minimum number to get the best price. Polo shirts are 100% cotton in Royal Blue Sweatshirts are 80% cotton and 20% polyester in Navy Blue. Sizes (to fit chest): S 35/37, M 38/40, L 41/43, XL 44/46, XXL 47/49. Last year’s prices were £17 and £25 respectively but may be slightly different this year. Cammo – A Winter Wonderland Cammo: The history continues. An Edwardian Divorce Ann K continues her research into the background to the families that had owned Cammo. In the Edwardian period divorce was socially unacceptable and was widely reported in the press where no doubt readers avidly followed cases. This was one such case which ran from 1907 to 1911 with claim and counter claim. It involved the pursuer Margaret Louisa Tennent or Bennet Clark, Cammo House against her husband the defender David Bennet Clark, Portobello. Margaret and David became engaged in 1884 and during the period of their engagement he asked her to sign a will leaving everything to him. This she refused to sign. They obviously got over this disagreement and the couple were married in 1887 living initially in lodgings, then Belgrave Place before moving to Cammo House as tenants in 1891. David was a bank clerk with an income of [2] £100-£300 per annum depending on press reports. Her father Robert Tennant was an Australian sheep farmer who had made a considerable fortune. On his death in 1890 she inherited between £70,000-£80,000. In 1898 she bought Cammo House with the title in her name. David and Margaret had two sons – Robert and Percival. They were not happy and in 1907 Margaret initiated divorce proceedings, which were held in the Court of Session, based on his infidelity. He stayed out late at night and he had acted in a suspicious and embarrassed manner when they met a young lady in the street. At some point he made a confession in writing of improper conduct prior to his marriage and was extremely penitent. She had employed a private detective to follow the defendant in 1891 due to her suspicions but he had nothing to report. Information about the will was produced to blacken his character. In 1903 the couple were living apart. Margaret went on an extended foreign tour and on her return, she heard disquieting rumours as to his behaviour which led her to raise the divorce action. Cross examination by defendant’s team led to some strange questions. “Did you not object to his attending Cramond Church because of the women there?” “Did you never suggest that your husband hid women in the shrubbery at Cammo and did you never have it searched at night?” From evidence produced it transpired that in August 1904 David was staying at the Edinburgh Hydropathic (now Craiglockhart campus of Napier University) and there he met Miss Valerie Hodgson for the first time. A member of staff thought they were sweethearts or lovers as they were always together. They also stayed at the Queens Bay Hotel in Portobello. A witness from a temperance hotel in Harrogate stated that David and Miss Hodgson were there during 1905 and that “the defender’s conduct was not such as she would expect from a married man” Another witness said they were just friends. In 1906, again in Harrogate, David visited Miss Hodgson at her friend’s house bringing gifts of flowers and fruit. The friend assumed they were engaged. Another witness thought they were brother and sister. A statement from a bank colleague stated the Margaret had referred to the confession in several letters to the bank and he was of the opinion it was to discredit her husband .Other witnesses for the defence stated there were only friendship between David and Miss Hodgson. Lord Salvesen, the judge, stated that he had carefully considered the case and that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a conviction of what was quasi criminal conduct. He therefore assoilzed (absolved) the defendant and awarded him half his expenses. There was more to come. The appeal by Margaret was heard before five judges. Counsel for Margaret stated that the couple had not been happy in the years prior to 1903 when the couple separated. David and Miss Hodgson had met up frequently at various hotels in the period from August 1904-1907. He continued, stating that David and Miss Hodgson were infatuated with each other and as neither of them were young, their behaviour was inexplicable if their intentions were honourable. Council for the defence argued that it was an innocent friendship between David and Miss Hodgson, a vicar’s daughter. His wife Margaret had made him sign a confession to infidelity in 1891and this was used to portray him as having “depraved habits and morality”. During their engagement David had requested her to make a will. She refused but the information was produced to blacken his character. Margaret was extremely jealous and eccentric [3] and had made his life intolerable. Her behaviour had led him to being ostracised and made to look ridiculous. The evidence of Miss Hodgson and another witness at present in California was taken on commission. It was considered unfortunate that Miss Hodgson was not present at the court. The court proceedings adjourned and then there is seemingly a gap in reporting of the case. What happened next? In 1909 David raised an action for divorce against his wife, Margaret but by November of that year he had decided to abandon the proceedings. In December 1910, David Bennet Clark, now living in Burntisland again raised an action of divorce against his wife, now known as Margaret Louisa Maitland Tennent on the grounds of desertion. David was required to pay £250 annually for his board from his salary of £300 per annum. In June 1903 when he had not paid his dues, she put him out the house, locked the door and would not let him return. In 1904 she tried to stop his furniture being removed from the house. The case continued through the spring of 1911until 31 May when a judgement was given. Lord Dewar found desertion proved and granted a decree of divorce with expenses against Margaret. In summing up the case he went on to state that “the pursuer was considerate and affectionate, devoted to his wife and children and for years displayed remarkable forbearance in most trying circumstances……. The defender was exacting and overbearing and apparently vindictive in the manner in which she treated him.” This resume of the Cramond divorce case has been taken from the press reports in the Scotsman newspaper. Cammo: The archaeology continues. July to November 2020 Work continued with clearing the NE doorway to reveal a bitumen floor surface inside the stone doorstep and the floor surface to the North down to the level of the layer of fallen slates. [4] The finds included several metal rods, some with loops or hooks attached, a lock plate, a hasp and two metal bolts complete with nuts.