THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1175, 4 May 1872, Page 4

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

THE PERORATION. On the 21st February, immediately after the opening of the court, every available seat was occupied^ and all the side passages were densely ornwded by persons who were anxious to hear the peroration of the Attorney-General's speech. Amongst those present on the bench were the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan), Mr Justice Bury, of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland; Lord Henry Lennox, and Sir J.: Heron Maxwell Premising that he was approaching the conclusion of his lengthened address, be proceeded to bring into one view the whole conduct of the cose as put forward by the claimant's advisers, taking that opportunity to dissipate the impression which might exist in any quarter that he had made any accusation of personal dishonor against anyone engaged on the other side. But speci6c charges, made or specific passages given in counsel's addresses or in evidence he could not recall. He dwelt thus impressively on the manner in vrhizb. the claim had been promoted in order to show that it was by the mode of advancing it that the imposture was able to drag its life along to the length it had now. attained. Indicating his belief that there was no necessity to appeal to the feelings of che jury to do justice to Lady Tiohborne and the infant baronet, he would ask them, who were partita at the other side 1 The claimant's ease did not depend for its result on a fair conflict of evidence ; it was backed up by a Bet of money-lenders. One of the most telling arguments against its truth wps that, not one of the attorneys, employed in it had been called. Holmes had separated himself from it at the time of the Chili commission ; Mootjen had followed his example ; and Mr Rose, of the firm of Baxter, Rose, and Norton, with his son, had threatened, on account of it, to dissolve one of the most lucrative firms in London ; and when, by reason of the consequences, that could not be done, that gentleman had taken the unprecedented step of withdrawing himself altogether from the conduct of the case. How, he continued, had the case been .promoted outside the court ? Vituperative attacks, which it was refused to withdraw-, even on appeal, bad, he added, been made on the Tichborne family and its connections, and charges of conspiracy bad been hurled at them wholesale. Mr Furcell, who went out to assist at the Chili Commission, had been charged with ■aborning witnesses. Where, asked the Attorney-General, was the justification of the attacks on Mr Gibbes, who made the Wagga Wagga will— oh M. Chatillon, against whom even. the claimant dared not say a word— against Jules Berrant, who was called a thief, at a time when it was uncertain that he was alive ? Attention was also directed to the assertion chat all the knowledge claimant bad obtained about Roger Tiohborne had been gathered from documents and other sonrces of information placed at his disposal during the past four or five years. The jury .was reminded of the plea of privilege .put forward on all occasions by claimant's counsel, and his own refusal in the ftoxto answer any questions which might criminate him. The attempts to test the condition of the claimant's memory, it was held, were constantly interrupted, with the effect of giving the witness un opportunity of saving himself from a hopeless break-down. Letters were systematically kept back, or only supplied piecemeal. The Australian correspondence was only presented in its mutilated form ; but even in that shape it threw a light on the claimant's career. Why was not, Mr Sofforth examined regarding Carter's affidavit? .The only possible objection to that could be that if Mr Spofforth were oalled into the box to prove anything he knew, he would be compelled to reveal aIL Noone wasproducedfromFrance where jaßocpr bad spent sixteen years of his life. ,Qf hit old fellow-collegians at Stonyhurst, of the servants, of the tutor, not one was forthcoming. The whole force of the ■testimony given before the Chili and Australian commissions was against him. In contradistinction with the witnewes for the claimant, the defendants would produce either relatives of Roger Tichborne, pr. persons intimately, acquainted with him, to whose words, unless, as - alleged, they were corrupt, no suspicion could attach, A laugh was caused by the Attorney-General pointing to Mr Bowker, then sitting under him, as the culprit who, according to allegations made, had offered his servant LIOOO to poison the claimant. But, said the AttorneyGeneral, the man who had been moßt cruelly calumniated was ,Roger Charles Tichborne, a young , man whose life was ■ melarcholy and ill-starred, whose only ' love' hid been unrequited, and whose body now lay in the waters of the Atlantic. It had been , put . forward >by the claimant's ..advisers that the Dowager Lady. Tiohborne had been hunted to death. . Would it not, suggested the At-torney-General, be a more, adequate account of her • death, .that, . living for months under the . contaminating influences of a ruffian, doubts, arose in her mind and weighed upon it,' until- she succumbed under their pressure? Paris, Stony burst, and its associations ; Roger Tichbyrne's life in the army, the events in bis domestic life, the names and resi- . dences of. his. connection? — places where Roger had spent months at a time— all were said to be blanks in the memory of .. the .claimant. Of the one romance and passion of Roger's life— his love; for his cousin — claimant knew nothing ; his seduction of his cousin was fixed by the .claimant, at a date when it was impossible that it could take place; and that,' too, it was urged, not at haphazard, but to make his foul story hang together. , After the adjournment the court was/ even more .crowded that it had been earlier in the day, und the anxiety to hear every word in the concluding sentences of the At- - torney-General > was manifestly intense. It was shown by conclusive evidence, urged the learned gentleman in resuming, his address, that in everything that conr stituted the personnel and character of a man the claimant and Roger Tichborne were dissimilar; Then came the closing ..wordsf which, uttered as they were wjth cairn earnestness, were heard in rapt at- < tehtion; In this case, he said, though „ there was no necessity for exhortation, .the consideration, might be urged that never in a private cause .did & more solemn duty devolve on a jury of Englishmen, for the isaue they had to try \yus -whether a youvg chili was to be csfa- . blished in his property— whether the character of a stainless laay was to be restored, or whether theTfistatoii am old

aud noble family should be wasted upon a map whom he had before now charac teriaetl, in words of which he did not repent, as a conspirator, a perjurer, a forger, a slanderer, and a villain. Another Tichborne, in thereijn of Elizabeth, had boasted tfaiat his family, which had been \n Buace the Conquest, bad never been branded with disgrace, Three hundred years hack.aince that rolled away, and the hope&of- the family which still remained were centered in a little child. He sued for no indulgence, only for English justice, in whose equal scales truth would alwayß weigh down falsehood. He appealed to the jury confidently, for his cause was truth and they were just. So ended a speech which had lasted for twenty* six days.

After the murthuw of applause which, ensued had subsided, an animated conversation took place between the judge and the counsel for the claimant about putting in certain letters of witnesses who, having been previously examined, had s^nce expressed a wish to withdraw Borne of -their statements. It. was ultima-' tely decided that the witnesses, should be recalled. LORD BELLEW'S EVIDENCE. Lord jßellew, who was then. examined by Mr Hawkins, said that Roger Charles Tichborne and he were both "philosophers" at Stonyhurst in 1847 and 1848. He tattooed the letters " R.C.T." ; on young Tichborne's arm, under tattoo marks previously under it, representing a heart across an anchor. Roger had tattooed a mark on witness's arm the same day with the same ink .and instruments, namely, needles fitted in a deal handle. The mark was then shown by Lord Bellew to the judge, tie counse 1 , and the jury. In cross-examination ,v was elicited that Lord Bellow had seen young Tichborne for the last time in Dublin in 1849. Attention. was drawn to the ' tattooing, and, in . replying to questions, witness stated that tbe first time he had spoken, definitively of the tattooing .was. to, Mr John Wolsey some time last spring ; he had written last June to Mr Bowker a letter ' in which he said he was doubtful whether he had tattooed the emblems of "Faith, Hope, and Charity," or the initials "R. 0. T," but he had perfectly made up his mind since that it was the initials he had assisted in making .in Indian ink. Mr Seymour's evidence. • On the 22nd February Mr Alfred Seymour, member of Parliament for Salisbury, gave evidence directly contradicting the claimant in several -particulars. He said it was arranged by the Seymour family that no information of the tattoo marks should be- given to the dowager, lest she might convey it to the claimant, who might have tattooed himself. This remark elicited a burst of laughter. The Attorney-General then, called Mrs Radcliffe. Mr Serjeant Ballantine said that he had intimated to the, learned counsel on the other side . his willingness to postppne the cross-examination of Mrs Rtidcliffe, considering her present condition, that she was about to become a mother. Dr. Arthur Farr, he understood, however, had given it as his opiuion that it would be more dangerous to postpone the ordeal, and the responsibility of the procedure must therefore rest on the medical adviser he had mentioned and not on. himself. " MRS RADCLIFFE's EVIDENCE.

Mrs Radcliffe, assisted by her hußband, then made way to the. witness-box. The Attorney-General (exhibiting to the witness the rosary said by claimant to have been given by witness to him) : The claimant says y« i v gave him that. If he swore that, is it untrue? — Mrs Radcliffe : It is untrue. It never belonged to you ? *— Never. I know, nothing about it. I never saw it until I saw it in court. I was at home during 1850. Miss Brain left in November, 1850,. and after that I went to school at Newhall, in Essex,, and I was there until July, 1851, during which time I did not see Roger. After coming back from Newhall I went to Upton, and Roger joined us there. He came from Ireland, and stayed about a week. I remember -a pleasure expedition in the harbor to Branksea, a few days after which Roger went away. I saw him again on the 24th December, 3851. On that occasion; he stayed until the : 12th vof January. He had at that time. a groom named Maguire, who, being ill, Was left behind. During the time Roger Tichborne was there several ladies and gentlemen were also there. Mr and Mrs Humphrey . Well, Miss Mostyn, , Mr ; William Mostyn, Colonel and Mrs M 'Donald, and others. All joined in planting some trees. On the sth January, Roger Tichborne's birthday, I gave him a copy of Father Facer's hymns, and I wrote with it a little note, which I have now. (Witness produced the note which was read by the Attorney T General. Itwas to the effect,— "My dear "Roger,— Pray accept this book from me with the very sincere wish you may have many happy returns of your birthday, and I hope these hymns may direct ypu to what alone cao make you happy.— -Your affectionate cousin, Eaxb DouohtYv") Mrs Gosfortn returned the note to me with some other things after-Jthe death of Sir Rogerj in 1869. On the 11th January I learned from Sir Roger something had passed between Sir Edward and himself. My father wished him to leave on the following day. My mother told me first, and then I had it from Sir Roger himself. The reason was, that my father saw there was an attachment going on between us,, and he did not wish it. . No explanation had been, come-, to between, myself . and. and Roger before that day. , We then came to an understanding. "We exchanged' locks of hair: I have his yet. (Two locks of hair were then produced by the witness.) There are two, but both of them were given to me within a few days. I now ask you , whether all ., .these letters; (hamliiv/ them totho witness) are in Roger Tic' - I home's handwriting J— All,' except Uuit envelope, are in his handwriting. I shall not pro further into this series of question^ [but I want to ask you one. other question/ You were •in court; :Mrs RadoHffe, when the plaintiff was crpsß-examin,ed. with respect to his intimacy with you ?— lwas. Were you aware of the charge to be made against you before that? — Yes, I was. Was it by your own desire thafc yon were present? — It was. You heard what he said ? — Yes. Is there-one word of truth - in what he said as to his relations to you ? — Certainly not — not* single word. Was Roger Charles Tichborne ever guilty of taking any liberties with you?— Never. Did anything, ever, pass -between you that yon did kpep,o;r wished; to keep from |be knowledge of your mother?— Never;

curtail. iy nut. Was everything the plaiui\S said on the subject absolutely and completely false ?— Completely and entirely false. Now, you know him well, Mrs Radcliffe ; waa there anything that ever passed from him to you in act or word(but that an honorable and delickte.nund^ed man might. say' to a pure "and innocent «irl ?— Certainly nbt. v The Court then adjourned unLil 28rd February. !