TICHBORNE VERSUS TICHBORNE

Hawke's Bay Weekly Times, Volume 1, Issue 45, 4 November 1867, Page 272

TICHBORNE VERSUS TICHBORNE

(Prom the Pall Mall Gazette.) We have been favored with a perusal of the affidavits put in on the plaintiff’s behalf in this extraordinary case. They consist of the affi Javits of the claimant to the succession, of the claimant’s mother, arid of thirty-four persons who have seen the claimant, and who believe him to be person he represents himself to be. The story told by the claimant is, that he em barked at Ilio on board the Bella, of Liverpool, bound for N ew York, on the 20th of April, 1851; that four days afterwards the Bella sprang a leak and foundered at sea—her crew, consisting of seventeen persons and himself, having previously left her in two boats; thnt the boat in which he was separated from the other by a storm ; and tint, on the fourth day after leaving the Bella he and eight of his com panions were picked up by a ship bound for Melbourne, in Australia, where they were landed about the end of July, having been on board of the vessel that picked them, up nearly three months. Neither the names of the vessel that thus saved the claimant’s life, not of her captain, nor of any of her rescued shipmates are given in the claimant’s affidavit. On reaching Melbourne the claimant states that he was utterly destitute, and that, being a good rider he obtained employment on the stock farm of a Mr William Foster, having assumed, for family Reasons not explained in the affidavit, the name of Thomas Castro In 1865, the claimant, being a Roman Catholic, intermarried with Mary Ann Bryant, Spinster, also a Roman Catholic; but for the better maintenance of his incognito they elec'ed to be married by a Wesleyan minister. After remaining in Australia from 1851 till 1855 without communicating with any member of his family or with any other person in England, the claimant heard for the first time, in the latter year, of the death of his father, and early in 1866 he wrote to his mother, informing her that he was alive and about to return home, and asking for a remittance to enable him to do so. Before receiving any such remittance the claimant, his wife, and their infant daughter left Sydney, and returned to England via Panama and New York. And now comes the strangest part of the story. The claimant, on landing in England, did not present himself to any member of his numerous family, from all of whom he had parted on excellent terms in 1854), nor did he present himself to any of the officers of his regiment, in whose society- he had passed the last four years of his sojourn in England, and who are of course the most competent persons to establish his identity. After a hasty visit incognito to Tichborne Park, and an inter view with Messrs G-osford and Cullington, of the Tichborne family, and aMr P.owdeu, a distant relative—none of whose names appear affixed to any of the affidavits in support of the claimant’s identity the claimant joined his mother in Paris, and was at once recognised by that lady as her son. The affidavit of Dame Henriette Felicite Tichborne, widow of the late Sir James Francis Doughty Tichborne, Baronet follows that of the claimant. Lady Tichborne, whose maiden name was Seymour, is a half-sister of Mr Henry Danby Seymour, M P., and of Mr Alfred Seymour, M.P.; her mother was a Frenchwoman, and she herself was born and educated in France. Her Affidavit states that her eldest son was born in 1829. a.nd was educated in France until he was. sixteen years of age, when he was sent to stonyhurst College,Jn Lancashire; that in October, 1849, he joined her Majesty’s 6th Dragoon (3-uards ' (Carabineers) : r -in. Dublin;'that he served.with that corps until February, 1853, when he left the regiment for the purpose of travelling in South America; . that in the year 1854 news reached' England that the claimant had embarked on board the Bella, and that vessel had never since been heard of; and that, after the customary inquiries and the usual lapse of time, ahe had been dealt with the ; underwriters at Llyod’s . as a total loss. ( Lady Tichr borne's : affidavit goes bn to state that she never could 1 bring' herself to ' believe that her son had perished in the. Bella; that she entertained from the .yery a presentiment that he might have ' been picked up at sea, which she freely expressed ; that she once obtained: some faint coroboration that her presentiment, .-might possibly ..be well; founded from : a-strange sailor on the tramp, who solicited alms at Tichborne Park;aadfchatml

the year 1863 she caused offering a reward to anybody who shoutd find her son for her, to be inserted in The Tithes in the English, French, and Spanish languages, and that she communicated at the same time with Mr Arthur Cubitt of the “ Missing Friends’ Office,” in, Sydney, authorising him to announce the death of her-.husband in the Australian papers and to offer, a reward for, the discovery of her son. In 1866, according to her ladyship’s affidavit, she first received a letter from the claimant, announcing his existence, and liir resolve to return home, and askin <,■ for ’money to enable him to do so; and on Thursday, the 10th of January, 1867, the claimant arrived in Paris, and put up with his wife and child, at the Hotel de Lille et d’Albion, in the Rue St. Honore, where she first saw him ill in bed overwhelmed with emotion, recognised him as her son, and thenceforward allowed him £IOOO a year. From that day Lady fich’oorne and the claimant have constantly lived together. She declares that his features, disposition, and voice are unmistakable, arid must in her judgment, ho recognised by any impartial and unprejudiced persons who knew him before ho left England, and that his memory as to everything which occurred to him up to the time of his leaving Englaud is perfect. We have not space to enter into detail as to the statements of the 34 persons whoso affidavits follow those of the claimant and JLadv Tichborne. Many of them areimporTant enough, if the deponents can endure cross-examination iu the witnessbox ; many of them are obviously false, absurd, aud worthless, being those of persons wiio never having seen complainant before he left Engiand, are nevertheless convinced that he is the person he claim* to be. One is made by a blind man, woo once heard Mr Roger Tichborne speak before he left England in 1803,' and having heard .the claimant speak in 18 >7 is convinced of his identity, because he has “a Tichborne voice.” Perhaps, the most important of all is the affidavit of Major Haywood, late of the Carabineers, who served with Mr Roger Tichborne in that regiment for nearly two years. Major Haywood says, “ I have this day, July 1, 1867, seen and had a conversation with the claimant, and~l state my full belief that he is the Mr Roger Charles Tichborne, my brother offi :er, whom T formerly knew, and I have no doubt whatever as to his dentity.” There are also the affidavits of two or tnreo persons, formerly' noncommissioned officers, privates, arid Aervunta in the Carabineers, who also bear witness that the claimant is co-identical with the Cornet Tichborne who formerly served with them in that regiment. No single member of either the Seymour or the Tichborne families, nor any of tliß numerous" officers with whom he served in the Carabineers, with the single exception of Major Heyvvood, have made any affidavits of their belief in the claimant’s identity. As, according to the Dowager Lady Tiohborne’s affidavit, the claimant’s person and manner are little changed, and as his memory is perfect, there can be no doubt that when the case comes to be tried the claimant will readily obtain justice. The name of a vessel in the Australian trade which in 1854 picked up at sea nine shipwrecked persons, maintained them ou board for three months, and landed them at Melbourne, can easily be ascertained. It is more than probably that some of the other survivors of the wreck of the Bella may be in existence; the gentlemen by whom Mr Roger Tichborne was educated at Stonyhurst and the Roman Catholio priests by whom liis religious oxercise were directed must be accessiole, and at least a score of his brother officers in the Carabineers will all be available and unbiassed witnesses as to ’ his identy. We happen to know as a fact that Mr Danby Seymour, M.P., the claimaat’s uncle, Mr M'Evoy, M.P., and Major Phillips, aunt, Mrs Nagle, and his cousin, Mrs John Towneley, and Mrs Radcliff have had an interviews with him ; and as we do not find any affidavits from them in corroboration of his identity among the documents included in the volume now before us, we presume that they failed to recognise in the claimant their long-lost relative.