|
wishes or misgivings of Mr. Holmes, was about to be sifted at the initiative of the defendants. They had confined themselves, in Chancery, to filing purely formal affidavits denying that the claimant was Roger Tichborne, and thus forcing their adversary to seek his remedy before a jury, where the case would be fought out vivá voce instead of on affidavit, and with every scope for cross-examination. On the 23rd of June 1868 an order was obtained from Vice-Chancellor Stuart, directing an issue to be tried by the Court of Common Pleas as to whether the claimant was or was not the heir to Sir James Doughty Tichborne; and on the 29th a writ was issued by the claimant against Colonel Lushington, the friendly tenant of Tichborne House, with the nominal object of ejecting him, but the real one of establishing the claimant's title as landlord of Tichborne, and consequently of all the family estates wheresoever situated. Of course Colonel Lushington could not be expected to defend such an action, and Teresa Lady Tichborne and the Hon. William Stour- ton, the guardians of the infant baronet, were let in as defendants by order of the Court. A commission was at once applied for to take the evi- dence of important witnesses in South America and Australia, so as to save the expense of bringing them over to England. The claimant opposed the application on the ground that it was made only for purposes of vexation and delay, but the order was made, and it was thought by his advisers that, as the only question to be decided was his identity, he was bound in the interests of justice to go abroad and present himself personally to the witnesses who might be called on either side. Mr. Holmes made an affidavit to this effect, the claimant did the same, and it was ordered that, to enable it to be done, the Australian commission should be postponed until that in South America had been executed. Money was found for the voyage, Colonel Lushington generously undertook to pro- vide for the claimant's wife and children in his absence, and on the 9th of September he went on board the Oneida, accompanied by Mr. Holmes's managing clerk, Stephens by name, and by his counsel, the late Mr. W. E. Hall, of the Western Circuit. On the 12th of September the claimant wrote to Rous from off Lisbon. ` So far we have had most lovely weather, the Eyresiplas has quite disappeared. Stevens and Mr. Hall are both quite well, in fact every one on board. She a very fine ship and every comfort thats required . . . . I will write again from Rio and let you know the remainder of the journey.' Rio was reached on the 3rd of October, and passages were taken on board a steamer to convey the whole party round to Chili by the straits of Magellan, but the claimant declared he had had enough of the sea, and insisted upon following the overland route over the Cordilleras. Mr. Hall and Stephens adhered to the original arrangement, and it was agreed that they should all meet at Valparaiso. The claimant accordingly made his way by himself to Buenos Aires, and on to Monte Video. There he struck inland and reached Cordova half way across the con- tinent, where he stayed for some days. Suddenly he altered his plans, and returned to Rio, whence he sailed for England, arriving towards the end of January 1869 without having accomplished any portion of the objects for which he had started. Meanwhile Mr. Hall and Stephens had reached Val- paraiso, and ridden across to Melipilla, where they found Mr. Purcell, the defendant's counsel, with all the agents and other accessories. The claimant's representatives were in a frightful dilemma; they expected their client every day, but there came no sign or news of him, and after postponing the opening of the commission to the latest possible period, the examination of the witnesses commenced, and a strange tale was unfolded. In the account of Arthur Orton given on a previous page it was mentioned that, in the June of 1849, being a ship's apprentice of about fifteen years old, he had deserted from Valparaiso and not reappeared for more than a year. It was now established that some time in 1849 or 1850 there came to Melipilla an English sailor boy with a pitiful story of the sea and of his ill-treat- ment on board ship. The ways of South America are hospitable, there are no village inns, and the stranger within the gate is not unfrequently welcomed as a guest. An English doctor named Hayley, who had married a Chilian lady, took the lad into his house, found that his name was Arthur Orton, the son of a London butcher, and behaved to him with great kindness. He was made much of, treated as a general favourite by all the towns- people, and kept at the general expense for a period of many months till he got wearied and turned back to Val- paraiso. For a portion of this news the claimant's counsel may have been prepared through Pedro Castro's letters, though some of these had not arrived when he left Eng- land ; but what he could never have anticipated was that not only had no one bearing the name of Roger Tichborne ever been heard of at Melipilla, but that by common con- sent the only Englishman who had ever been there was the young Arthur Orton, from whose head Dona Ahumada remembered cutting the lock of hair which the claimant had so gratefully received as his own. Confronted with these startling facts, and with no instructions to assist him in coping with them, Mr. Hall could make no head- way, and though he cross-examined doggedly and with much ability, the result of the Chilian commission was the production of a very damaging set of documents. And in the claimant's absence from England his affairs had been going from bad to worse. In October 1868 Mr. Hopkins had died, and deprived him of a tower of strength, for the recognition of the claimant by Mr. Hopkins had been second only to that on the part of Lady Tichborne in guiding public opinion throughout Hampshire. Even more destructive, however, was the shape and substance which the Orton hypothesis was gradually assuming. Long before the claimant's departure for Chili, when the news of the alleged Orton relationship had first come to his knowledge, Mr. Holmes had put himself into communication with the only attainable members of that family, Mrs. Elizabeth Jury, Mrs. ` Captain' Jury, Mrs. Mary Ann Tredgett, and Mr. Charles Orton. In the course of July they were all severally confronted with the claimant at Mr. Holmes's office, in the presence of Colonel Lushington and other gentlemen, and they distinctly declared that they had never seen the claimant until a month or two previously,1 and that he was in no way connected with them, and they gave further confirmation of the fact by verifying it in affidavits. This was reassuring enough, and Mr. Holmes must have seen his party off to Chili with a light heart. Within a very few weeks, however, he learnt with con- sternation from the defendants' solicitors that Charles Orton had approached them with a totally different story, and with documentary evidence in support of it. We have seen that the first visit of the claimant on his arrival in England on Christmas Day 1866 had been to Wapping and to the Globe tavern. It now appeared that the next morning he had again gone down to the East end, and proceeded to the address of Mrs. Tredgett, given him the night before. She was out, but he introduced 1 In May 1868 a paragraph had appeared in the Hobart Town Mercury in which it was asserted that `Tom Castro' was identical with the Arthur Orton who had landed there in 1853. In answer to this the claimant filed an affidavit stating that he had known Arthur Orton in Gippsland in 1855 and in Wagga Wagga in 1865, but that he did not know any of his family until the present year, when, in consequence of reports which reached him, he called on Mrs. Tredgett and Mrs. Jury, whom he then saw for the first time. himself to a neighbour, Mrs. Pardon, by sending in a card, on which was written,1 `William H. Stephens, Australia,' the name of one of his fellow-passengers from New York. Mrs. Pardon taxed him with being an Orton himself, but he denied it, saying that he was merely a great friend of Arthur's, who was one of the wealthiest men in the colony, and that he had promised to inquire after his sister for him. In the course of conversation he exhibited a locket containing the likeness of a woman and a baby, who, he said, were Arthur's wife and child, and he handed Mrs. Pardon a letter for her to give to Mrs. Tredgett, and then departed. Mrs. Tredgett received the letter the same afternoon, and it was in these terms :- `WAGGA WAGGA,
NEW SOUTH WALES,
` MY DEAR AND BELOVED
SISTER, It many years
`June 3rd, /66. now since i heard from any of you. I have never heard a word from any one I knew since 1854. But my friend Mr. Stephens is about starting for England. And he has promised to find you all out and write and let me know all about you. Hoping my dear sister you will make him welcome has he is a dear friend of mine so goodbye. `ARTHUR ORTON.'
The signature was followed by a curious hieroglyph,
which is attached to the letters written by Arthur to Miss Loder and his sister in 1853 and 1854. The next morning Mrs. Pardon herself received a letter in apparently a different hand:- 'DEAR MADAM,- Would you kindly inform the lady for whom I left the letter with you that if she will kindly commicate with me at once she will hear something to her advantage. Please send what information she can concerning a Miss loder. And her own family. And what became of her brother Thomas chilldrene.-I remain, will be forwarded.' The answer to these communications was never forth- coming, but that there was an answer is clear from the following letter to Mrs. Tredgett,1 and it seems no extravagant hypothesis that the lost letter from the sister asserted that ` W. H. Stephens' and Arthur Orton were the same person:- 'GRAVESEND, 7 Jan. '67.
'DEAR MADAM,
-I receved your kind letter this morn-
ing. And very sorry to think you should be so much mistaken to think i am your brother. your brother is a very great friend of mine, and one whom i regard as a brother and i have likewise promised to send him all the information I can about his family. I cannot call on you at present, but will do so before long. I sent your sister a likeness of your brother wife and child this morn- ing. I should have sent you one. But i have only one left, which i require for Copying. I have likewise one of himself, which i intend to get some copy of. I will then send you some of each. My future address will be, R. C. T., Post Office, liverpool.-- Hoping to have the pleasure of making the acquaintance of my friends sisters before long, I remain, yours respectfully, ` W. H. STEPHENS.'
1 Or to one of the Mrs. Jury's, who was living with Mrs. Tredgett. The envelope was destroyed. And there for a while the matter rested. If any letters were addressed to `R. C. T., Post Offce, liverpool,' they were never claimed, and it was not until months later that the claimant reopened communications with the Orton family. From that date the circumstances of Charles Orton, the only male member of the family surviving in England, and of the sisters began gradually to improve, and gifts of money poured in from their brother Arthur's old friend. All this, however, under the cover of deepest secrecy; not a soul amongst the claimant's advisers seems to have had an idea of it; the recipients were pledged to silence. And when Mr. Holmes was driven to prosecute his inquiries, the claimant's letters to the Orton sisters, with regard to the affidavits they were making and the inter- views they were prepared to give, were ostensibly those of a man with whom they had never had any private transac- tions. Take this, for instance, of the 11th of July 1868 :-- `DEAR MADAM,-I receved a letter from your husband, Captn. Jury; but not knowing his writing I did not know if it was a Trick of my enemys or not, therefore did not answer it. I have not heard from your Brother Arthur since, but I have advertisements in the Australian papers. I had an Interview with Captn. Angell and your brother Charles the other day in presents of Col. Lushington and Mr. Holmes. It appears the solicitors of the other side got Capt. Angell to make an Affidavid that my photograph was a photo of your brother Arthur, but since he has seen me he is convinced to the contrary, and is going to make an Affidavid, as also your Brother Charles, in my favour. I shall be in town next week, and will make arrange- ments to meet you. your sisters have been very kind to me, and I am affraid have had to put up with much annoyance on my account. I have sent you by book post a portion of my Affidavids, which contains them of your sisters . . . .-- I remain, Dear Madam, truly yours, pecuniary assistance to the recipient or her family. And with Charles Orton even greater secrecy was observed, for the claimant always addressed him as Brand; and, avoid- ing the post, sent him money and parcels by hand- messenger. When, however, in September 1868 the claimant set sail for South America, he, either from accident or design, or more probably from want of money, omitted to make any provision for Arthur Orton's relatives, and, not long after his departure the titular Lady Tichbourne received a mysterious letter `MELON GROUNDS, PECKHAM.-- MADAM, -- I have taken the liberty of writing to you to ask if Sir R. C. D. Tich- borne left any letters or message for a party of the name of Brand before he went away. If he as I should feel much obliged if you would forward them to the above address, as I think it is strange he did not answer the Two letters that I wrote to him before he went. Please to burn this as soon as you have read it.' `Lady Tichborne' was unable to read, and appears not to have opened the letter, but at any rate no answer was returned, and early in October Charles Orton was in communication with the defendant's solicitors. The effect produced on Mr. Holmes by this information can be better imagined than described. On the 13th of October he wrote to Rous :- `I regret to say it is perfectly true. that Charles Orton has made an affidavit that Sir Roger is his brother. He states that he did so after seeing Whicher and Lord Arundell, because Sir Roger did not leave him anything before going abroad. Of course I complained of the deception he practised upon me, Colonel Lushington, Mr. Bulpett, and Mr. Scott, each of whom he told at different times that Sir Roger was not his relation, but he excused himself for so acting upon the ground that since May 1867 he had been acting as Sir Roger told him. He says he destroyed all the writing he received from Sir Roger, with the exception of two scraps containing promises to send him money, and which he handed over to Mr. Bowker. I learned from Charles Orton on Saturday the startling piece of news that Arthur Orton had been to Valparaiso, and remained some time in Chili, before he left England for Hobart Town, and could speak some Spanish.' Fresh revelations poured in; Mr. Holmes found only good reason to suppose that important matters were being kept back from him, and he wrote despairingly:-- 'All of us have been under the impression that Chili was a country where it would be impossible to mistake Tichborne for Orton. Now, however, we must expect from there as well as from Australia any amount of con- tradictory evidence.' Then came another shock. They had all relied greatly on Cater, the man to whom the claimant, in his Castro days, had issued the invitation for a month's pleasure at Tichborne, and who had sworn a flourishing affidavit to the effect that he had known both Orton and Castro at Wagga Wagga very well, and that they were separate persons. He was still in England, and Mr. Holmes turned to him in his extremity, only to learn that ` he had never heard Orton's name in Wagga Wagga until Sir Roger told it him last year.' On the 7th of November Mr. Holmes wrote to Baigent : `I should like to show you a likeness of old Mr. and Mrs. Orton which I have bor- rowed from Mrs. Elizabeth Jury, and also the only letter from Arthur Orton which she has preserved.' Baigent shared in the alarm, and urged the importance of not frightening Colonel Lushington, the claimant's ` best, strongest, and most telling friend,' by ' giving too dark a picture of Sir Roger's case.' The climax was reached when, in the middle of January 1869, Mr. Holmes learned of the claimant's non-arrival at Melipilla, and of the execution of the Commission in his absence. On the 20th of that month he wrote to Rous that he quite expected to see Sir Roger back in England without having dared to go out to Chili, and that he should decline to see him or have anything further to do with him. Mr. Holmes was as good as his word, and he formally threw up the case in which he had already spent over £5000 out of his own pocket for costs, in addition to the very considerable sums he had received. It was necessary, however, to wind up some outstanding matters, and early in February he attended at Judge's Chambers in connec- tion with the Australian Commission, which was now about to be executed. There he encountered Mr. Dobinson, the solicitor for the trustees. The two gentlemen were on friendly professional terms, and Holmes communicated to his antagonist his intention of retiring from the case on the ground of his client's failure to present himself before the Chilian Commission. Mr. Dobinson asked if he was now satisfied that he was an impostor. `Pretty well,' was the reply; ' shall you indict him ?' Mr. Dobinson answered that `that was for the consideration of his clients,' and followed it up by asking, `Shall you ?' Mr. Holmes said lie was considering with the two friends who had principally supported the claimant whether they should do so or not. Whether so extreme a measure was ever contemplated may be doubted; but a meeting was convened at The Swan at Alresford, which was largely attended by the country gentlemen who had espoused the claimant's cause. Mr. Scott was in the chair, and Colonel Lushington, Mr. Guild- ford Onslow, Mr. Bulpett, and many more were present, as was also the claimant. Part of the Chilian evidence was read, and Mr. Holmes produced the 'Stephens' letters to Mrs. Pardon and Mrs. Tredgett.1 They were now alleged to be in the claimant's writing, but he denied it, and said they were forgeries. A resolution, however, was passed with some dissentients that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the claimant's explanation the gentlemen present agreed to withdraw their support. The decision of the meeting was not held binding by the minority. Mr. Guildford Onslow, and Mr. Bulpett, and several others remained faithful ; and the next day Mr. Scott came to the conclusion that they had been too precipitate, and that the claimant was telling the truth in denying the authenticity of the letters. He accordingly continued to countenance and assist him. 1 The ' Orton' letter (cf. p. 256) apparently was not produced, though it appears to have reached the hands of Mr. Holmes on Jan. 16, 1869, after having been sent out by the recipient to another member of the family, Captain George Orton, then resident in Singapore. Mr. Holmes having retired, a fresh firm of solicitors, Messrs. Walter and Moojen, were instructed, but for the moment it looked as if the whole edifice must collapse. There were absolutely no funds, the claimant's indebted- ness amounted to a frightful sum, and he was on the verge of insolvency proceedings, which resulted in his being adjudicated a bankrupt. Nor were the defections in his camp at an end. Within a couple of months of the meet- ing at The Swan, its landlord, Mr. Rous, the claimant's first confidant on English soil, the companion of his progresses, the man to whom, more than to Holmes, more even than to Baigent, he had poured out his soul, had left him. The primary cause was a quarrel over the ownership of a horse and trap, but we may well believe that the Chilian Com- mission and the Wapping correspondence were at the bottom of it. The secession was the more disastrous that Rous took over with him not merely his own letters from the claimant but those from Baigent as well, the material from which deadly shafts were to be forged in the future. Had the claimant at this period been a free agent, unencumbered by pecuniary liabilities, he might well have shrunk from prosecuting any further the struggle with what now seemed insuperable odds. But he had gone too far to draw back; the enterprising moneylenders who had so largely financed him stood to lose too heavily; and there were many of them who were ignorant of the dis- couragements and difficulties that had lately overclouded the case. They were ignorant of the development of the Orton story, of the true inwardness of the Chilian Com- mission, of the total failure of all efforts to obtain confir- mation of the Osprey story, or even any reliable assurance of such a vessel's existence. They knew that `his own mother' had recognised him; that Mr. Hopkins had believed in him to his dying hour; that a respectable body of Hampshire gentlemen still supported him; and that a long array of military men, from privates up to generals, of Tichborne villagers, of Poole fishermen, and of old servants, had made affidavits in his favour, from which they gave no sign of receding. The bitter incredulity and hostility of the Tichborne family were notorious, but the grounds of such conduct were not known, nor was the fact that a large section of Roger Tichborne's old brother officers freely denounced the claimant as an impostor. So the fight went on, and the sinews of war were partly supplied by the famous Tichborne bonds, the prospectus of which consisted of a selection from the choicest of the affidavits, with an expert opinion in their favour signed by a Chancery barrister. Whether the bonds obtained a quotation on the Stock Exchange I am not aware, but they were taken up to a considerable extent; and for the benefit of company draftsmen, I subjoin one as a precedent.1 1 Tichborne Estate Mortgage Debenture. No. 364, . . . . . . . £100 0 0 In consideration of the sum of £100 advanced to me by A. B., I, the undersigned Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne, at present residing at Harley Lodge, West Brompton, in the county of Middlesex, hereby covenant with the said A. B., his executors, administrators, and assigns (all of whom are comprised in the expression the said debenture-holder) to pay or cause to be paid to the said debenture-holder the said sum of £100 on or before the 1st of October 1870 ; and in the event of the said principal sum not being paid on the said day, I covenant to pay interest on the same after the rate of £5 per cent. per annum. And for the purpose of securing the repayment of the said principal sum and interest, I hereby charge all and singular my freehold, copy hold, and leasehold estates whatsoever, and wheresoever, and all sums of money which I or any person or persons claiming by, through, or under me, may be or become entitled toin respect of rent or arrears of rent, or income thereof, and all lands, Messrs. Walter and Moojen did not long continue on the record, and in the autumn their place was taken by Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, an old-established firm of the highest standing and repute, and the claimant's affairs began to assume a rosier look. But the steps towards bringing the matter to trial were tediously slow, and the whole of the year 1869 was taken up with the execution of the Australian Commission. There was no question of the claimant's attending it in person, though Mr. Holmes' original view had been that it was absolutely necessary for him to do so, and though he had himself put on affidavit his intention of proceeding thither. The result of the evidence there taken was conflicting, and will appear in due course. At last it seemed that both sides were ready; counsel were briefed; and all preparations made befitting a battle- royal between two sets of combatants who have limitless purses and are resolved to fight to the bitter end. The case was entered for trial at the Michaelmas sittings of 1870, but was postponed till the following January. January came, but there were French witnesses essential hereditaments, property, estates, and effects of, or to which I am now or may hereafter be entitled or become possessed, whether in possession, expectancy, or reversion, or otherwise, provided that no suit or other proceedings shall be instituted or prosecuted against me by the said debenture-holder, unless and until the expiration of one calendar month after I shall have recovered possession of the said property, sums of money, estates, and effects hereinbefore mentioned, or a portion thereof respectively. And provided, further, that inasmuch as this Mortgage Debenture is one of a like series of debentures, numbered respectively 1 to 1000 inclusive, constituting in the aggregate a sum of £100,000, each of such debentures, shall (so far as concerns the charge hereinbefore granted) rank pari passu the one with the other, without any preference the one above the other, by reason of any priority of date or otherwise. In witness whereof, I, the said Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne, have hereunto set my hand and seal this day of . to the defendants who were detained in Paris, the long agony of whose siege had not yet drawn to its close. Another postponement was obtained, and it was not until the 10th of May 1871 that the case was actually called on. |
