Page images
PDF
EPUB

age of a due proportion of first commissions should remain with the Council, and all else be vested in the authorities in India. The Horse Guards must by all means be prevented from seizing the Indian commands and staff situations for their own favourites. Neither must it be left in their power to withdraw the European troops at pleasure. With all dutiful respect for H. R. H. the Duke of Cambridge, we cannot be satisfied to leave the safety of India to the discretion of the Commanderin-Chief and the two Secretaries of State. We know how much heavier the nearer alarms of this country would weigh in their counsels than the distant and ill-understood necessities of India. The very anxiety which the illustrious Duke displays not to " cripple the imperial resources" by locking up a portion of the army in India, satisfies us that a legislative provision is indispensable. It ought to be enacted, at the very least, that no regiment should be withdrawn from any Presidency in India without the written consent of the local government.

[ocr errors]

Another question requiring to be arranged by Parliament, is the relation between the Calcutta Govern ment and those of the other Presidencies. We can see no necessity for the stringent supremacy now exercised by the Governor-General and his Council over every detail of administration. There is no greater fallacy than to talk of India as a whole. There is no such country in existence ;-no region where the natives call their laud 'India," or themselves "Indians." It is a term of western geography, like "America," or "Europe," or Australia" - and indicates no greater necessity or feasibility of a central administration. The Punjab, the North-Western Provinces, Bengal, Madras, Bombay, and Pegu, are regions as distinct as Brazil and the United States in America, or as Norway, Prussia, and Italy in Europe. The soil, the produce, the traditions of government, the commerce, social habits, religion, race, and very colour of the people, are

[ocr errors]

different. They never owned a common sovereign till now, and they have no natural, political, or administrative unity. Steam communication brings them all near enough for instructions from home, and some distinct responsibility in the local governments would both avoid such disputes as have just arrested the progress of improvement in Madras, and promote a noble emulation among the rulers. At all events, each Presidency should be at liberty to develop its own resources, and the Crown would derive more information and assistance from the unshackled intelligence of the several Governments, than from melting all thought and action down in the Calcutta crucible. It would be sufficient to retain the supremacy of the Viceroy in matters of war and general politics, and let the internal administration and finance be restored to the local government. Such a division of responsibility would tend to augment the native influence in the councils of their rulers. We cannot imagine the conditions under which a Legislative Council at Calcutta could ever enjoy the confidence of the heterogeneous populations of all India: in the several Presidencies they would have more chance of securing attention to their respective wants and capabilities. We have experienced the advantage of their want of cohesion in putting down the Bengal mutiny, and it seems only fair to make it reciprocal. We cannot but sympathise with the objection made by the people of Malabar and Madura to be taxed for the costs of a mutiny in Oude and the NorthWestern Provinces, which they not only never encouraged, but shed their blood to put down.

In any case, we repeat, let us have an Indian policy, and adhere to it. Let our foremost men be entrusted with its administration. After displacing the Company which won and kept our Eastern empire, we must not let the Imperial Crown drift into its loss, through the incapacity, the neglect, or the wilfulness, of the new administrators.

JUDICIAL PUZZLES.-THE ANNESLEY CASE.

WHEN the Captain of the Great Britain ran that unfortunate vessel on to the sands of Dundrum Bay, it was urged in his excuse, that so many marvellous tales are told about Ireland, that he was justified in concluding that no obstacle lay in his road from the Isle of Man to New York; that Dublin was as fabulous as Blefuscu; and that the Mourn mountains had no more real existence than the loadstone hill which proved fatal to the ship of Sindbad. The story we are about to tell, might almost justify such incredulity; yet it is only one of many equally strange and equally well authenticated.

In the year 1706, Arthur Lord Altham, a needy and dissolute Irish peer, married Mary Sheffield, an illegitimate daughter of the Duke of Buckingham. They lived together for three years; but in 1709 Lord Altham went to Ireland, leaving his wife in England, where she remained until 1713, when she joined her husband in Dublin. From that time until 1716, they resided together, principally at Dunmaine, in the neighbourhood of Ross, in the county of Wexford. In 1716 they separated, under circumstances which we shall presently have occasion to notice more minutely, and never met again. In 1727 Lord Altham died, and was succeeded in his title and estates by his brother Richard Annesley, who remained in undisturbed possession of both for a period of thirteen years. Lady Altham survived her husband for about two years, which were passed in sickness and poverty, but does not appear ever to have taken any step to prevent Richard Annesley's assumption of the character of heir to her husband, to which, of course, he would have had no title if she had a son living at the time of Lord Altham's death. In the year 1739, however, a young man of about four-and-twenty years of age made his appearance in the fleet which, under the command of Admiral Vernon, was lying off Porto-Bello. He called himself James Annesley, stated that he was the son of Lord Altham,

that he had been educated and acknowledged as such son until he was nine or ten years of age; that upon the death of his father he had been kidnapped and sold for a slave in America; that he had passed thirteen years in servitude, and at last (after a series of romantic and not very credible adventures, which have nothing to do with our present subject) had effected his escape. Admiral Vernon furnished him with the means of proceeding to England, where he arrived shortly afterwards.

On his arrival in England he went to lodge at Staines, in the neighbourhood of Windsor, and here a circumstance occurred which had no doubt a considerable effect on the subsequent proceedings. One of his associates, a man of the name of Redding, was gamekeeper to Sir John Dolbin, the Lord of the Manor. One morning James Annesley was out with a gun shooting small birds, when Redding called him to assist in capturing a net with which a man of the name of Egglestone was fishing in the river; Annesley's gun unfortunately went off in the scuffle, and mortally wounded Egglestone. There could be little doubt that the discharge of the gun was purely accidental; but Lord Anglesea (for Richard, Lord Altham, had in the meantime succeeded to that title also) seized the opportunity to destroy, as he thought, the claimant of his title and estates. He instituted a prosecution against James Annesley for murder; he was prodigal of money and promises amongst the witnesses; and he declared that he would willingly give ten thousand pounds to get him hanged. The jury at the Old Bailey acquitted Annesley, and Lord Anglesea's machinations recoiled upon himself; for there can be no doubt that they greatly influenced both the court and jury against him on the subsequent trial.

On the 11th of November 1743 the trial for the recovery of the estates came on in the Court of Exchequer in Dublin. It lasted fifteen days, and above ninety witnesses

were examined. The issue between the parties was of the simplest and boldest character. On the one hand, it was asserted that, in the spring of the year 1715, Lady Altham had been delivered at Dunmaine of a son and heir; that all the customary_solemnities and rejoicings, had taken place; that the child was uniformly acknowledged and treated both by Lord and Lady Altham as their son; that he was shown and spoken of as such to visitors and friends; that when the separation between his parents took place, the mother passionately entreated that she might be permitted to take the child with her, which the father refused, keeping the boy and educating him as the heir to his title and estates. On the other hand, it was denied that Lady Altham ever had a child at all. It was asserted that the very ground of the separation between herself and her husband was the discomfort and disappointment occasioned by her bearing no heir; that it was known to every relation and visitor, to every servant in the house, that Lady Altham never had a child; that the servant who had attended her from her arrival in Dublin to the hour of her death, who had dressed and undressed her every morning and evening, and had never been absent for more than one single week during the whole of that period, was living, and would prove, not only that no child ever was born, but that there never was the slightest chance or probability that Lady Altham would have a child. It is impossible to conceive a simpler issue or one which might be supposed to be easier for conclusive proof one way or the other; yet two juries came to diametrically opposite conclusions, and so positive is the testimony on each side, that it seems even now, after carefully reading the contradictory evidence which is preserved in upwards of five hundred columns of the State Trials, to be impossible to arrive at any satisfactory result.

It is to be observed that the question raised in this case was not one of personation or disputed identity. If Lady Altham ever had a son, it was admitted that James Annesley was that son. Nor was the case one

of concealed or doubtful marriage, or obscure birth, such as have frequently occupied the courts. From the arrival of Lady Altham in Ireland until her separation from her husband, a period of about three years, they resided publicly together; kept a large establishment of servants, and visited and associated with persons of the most various rank and position in the neighbourhood. It seems incredible that any dispute should ever have arisen upon a point so easy of proof as whether persons of their rank, and so circumstanced, had or had not a child; and as we read the evidence adduced, the testimony on the one side seems absolutely conclusive, until it is met by contradictory evidence, to all appearance equally conclusive, on the other.

The household at Dunmaine was large and disorderly, consisting of sixteen or seventeen servants, from the English housekeeper, who was

66

sent over by my lady," and who rejoiced in the appropriate name of "Mrs Settright," down to "Smutty the dog-boy, who was very ugly. Poor Smutty! immortalised by his ugliness. He shows his ill-favoured countenance for a moment, and disappears into utter obscurity. Lord Altham had about him also a number of hangers-on, and humble companions; but besides these he associated with gentlemen of his own rank and position; and one of the first witnesses called on behalf of the claimant was a Major Richard Fitzgerald.

The Major deposed that in the year 1715 he was in the town of Ross, having had occasion to go there on account of some business, arising from the death of his uncle, a Mr Pigott, who lived in the county of Wexford. In Ross he met Lord Altham, who invited him to dinner. The Major excused himself, as he was engaged to dine with some brother officers

dine with him, and come to drink some "But Lord Altham said deponent must

groaning drink, for that his wife was in labour. Deponent told him that was a tham would not take an excuse, and reason he ought not go; but Lord Alsent the deponent word the next day to Ross, that his wife was brought to bed of a son; and the deponent went to Dun

maine and dined there, and had some discourse about the child, and Lord Altham swore that the deponent should see his son, and accordingly the nurse brought the child to deponent, and deponent kissed the child, and gave half-aguinea to the nurse; and some of the company toasted the heir-apparent to Lord Anglesea at dinner. That this was the day after the child was born and deponent says that he left the country the next day, and went to the county of Waterford, to his own house at Prospect Hall. Says deponent saw the woman to whom he gave the half-guinea, this day of his examination; that he remembers her well, because he took notice of her when he gave her the half-guinea, that she was very handsome; that he did not stay at Dunmaine that night, but came to Ross at nightfall, and was attacked in the road by robbers; that he crossed the ferry on his return homeremembers that Lord Altham was in high spirits with the thoughts of having a son and heir."*

It seems impossible to add to the force of this testimony. No attempt was made to impeach the character or credibility of the witness. Everything concurred to fix the time and circumstances in his mind; mistake appears impossible; and no motive is assignable for wilful falsehood. Nor is the evidence given by the next witness less conclusive. John Turner was seneschal to Lord Anglesea. He had lived at Dunmaine for ten years; he had visited Lord Altham; and soon after his own marriage, which took place in December 1714, he observed appearance of pregnancy in Lady Altham. He says, that the next time he saw Lady Altham she told him she had a son; that he afterwards saw the boy, and had him in his arms at Dunmaine when he was about a year and half old; that Lady Altham led the child across the parlour, and Lord Altham kissed him and called him "Jemmy;" that he saw the child subsequently at Ross, and afterwards at Kinnay and Carrickduff, after the separation between Lord and Lady Altham, when he was treated by his father in all respects as his legitimate son; that in the year 1722, meeting Lord Al

* State Trials, vol. xvii. 1153.

tham at a tavern in Dublin, the boy was sent for, and Lord Altham said to deponent, "You were seneschal to Earl Arthur and Earl John, and you may be seneschal to the child." t

During the eight-and-twenty years that had elapsed between the birth of the child in 1715 and the trial

in 1743, it was to be expected that many of those whose evidence would have been most valuable should have died; amongst them were those who stood sponsors for the child at its baptism; Mr Colclough, Mr Cliff, and Mrs Pigott, members of families still holding high positions in the county of Wexford; but the fact of the christening, the rejoicings that took place, the bonfires and festivities, were proved by servants who lived in the house at the time, and proved repeatedly and consistently.

It is impossible within the narrow limits of an article to give even an outline of the evidence of the fifty witnesses who were called to substantiate the claimant's case. It would seem almost needless to strengthen the evidence of Major Fitzgerald and John Turner. Every conceivable confirmation, however, was given. Friends of Lord Altham swore to conversations with him, in which he had spoken in the most open manner of his son, and of the disappointment of his brother's expectations of being his heir. Witnesses were produced who had been present and assisting at the very birth of the child; and it is very remarkable that, although these witnesses were drawn from every rank of life, no successful attempt was made to impeach the credibility of any of them, nor was any inconsistency to be discovered in their testimony further than might be satisfactorily accounted for by the long period that had elapsed betwen the events to which they spoke and the time when they gave their evidence. We now come, however, to the most remarkable conflict of testimony which occurs in the whole case. woman of the name of Joan Laffan was called. She deposed that she entered Lord Altham's service in

+Ib., vol. xvii. 1154.

A

1715; that she was employed as nursemaid to attend on the child as soon as he came from the wet-nurse; that he was at that time three or four months old, and was in her charge for about a year and a half; that he was treated in all respects as their child by both Lord and Lady Altham, who showed great fondness for him, and into whose bedroom she was in the habit of bringing the child in the morning.

66

on

She then gave an account of the separation between Lord and Lady Altham. "It was," she said, account of Tom Palliser." 66 My Lord had laid a plot against him, and on one Sunday morning pretended to my lady that he was obliged to go out to dinner. That Mr Palliser breakfasted with my lord, and they had a bottle of mulled wine for breakfast. As soon as my lord was gone out, Mr Palliser went into my lady's room, and, the plot having been laid before, a signal was made that brought my lord back; that my lord ran up with his sword, and had him brought out of the room, and the groom came to Palliser and said to him, 'Is this the way you keep my lady company?' and took out a caseknife in order to cut his nose, but he was ordered only to cut his ear. That deponent was standing by in the room, and she had the child in her hand, and he showed her the blood out of Palliser's ear; it was the soft part of the ear that was cut, and the chill pointed at the blood that came out of the ear." The same witness deposed that "she was present when my lord and lady parted; that she saw my lady at the door with the child in her arms; that my lord came out of the house in a great rage, and asked where his child was, and upon being told that he was with his mother, he ran up to her and snatched the child out of her arms; that my lady begged very hard she might take the child along with her, but my lord swore he would not part with the child upon any consideration; that my lady, finding she could not prevail, burst out a-crying, and begged she might at least give the child one parting kiss; that my

lord, with some difficulty, consented, and then my lady drove away to Ross."+

Such is Joan Laffan's story, and we must keep in mind that at a subsequent period it was confirmed by another witness; but in the mean time, let us turn to Palliser's account of the same transaction.

He stated that when he was very young, he spent much of his time at Dunmaine, which was within about three miles of his father's residence, and used to ride Lord Altham's horses hunting. That one day as they were returning home, Lord Altham told him that he was determined to part with his lady; and upon deponent's asking him his reasons, my lord replied, "I find Lord Anglesea will not be in friendship with me while I live with this woman, and since I have no child by her, I will part with her." Palliser then gives an account, in all material circumstances the same as Joan Laffan's, of his being entrapped by Lord Altham into his wife's room, and falsely accused of being there for an improper purpose; he takes off his wig and shows the jury where his ear was cut, solemnly asseverates the innocence of Lady Altham, and declares not only that no child was present upon that occasion, but that he "never saw a child in the house." Upon this the Court,

[ocr errors]

We

apprehending that there was some contradiction between the evidence of Palliser and that of Joan Laffan," as indeed they well might, ordered Laffan to be recalled, and the two witnesses to be confronted. Each repeated the story, each was equally clear, distinct, and positive. have said that Joan Laffan's evidence was subsequently confirmed by another witness, who deponed to having been present at the parting of Lady Altham and her child. The same is, however, the case with the testimony of Palliser, which was confirmed by Mary Heath, Lady Altham's woman, who went with her in the carriage to Ross, and who swore, most positively, that no such child ever was in existence. It is to be observed that Palliser and

* State Trials, vol. xvii. 1280. + Ib., vol. xvii. 1168, 1170.

Ib., 94.

« PreviousContinue »