The Tichbourne trial : the summing-up by the Lord Chief Justice of England, together with the addresses to the judges, the verdict, and the sentence; the whole accompanied by a history of the case and copious alphabetic index / [By the lord chief justice of England.].

  • Cockburn, Alexander James Edmund, Sir, 1802-1880.
Date:
1874
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Tichbourne trial : the summing-up by the Lord Chief Justice of England, together with the addresses to the judges, the verdict, and the sentence; the whole accompanied by a history of the case and copious alphabetic index / [By the lord chief justice of England.]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    266/320 (page 250)
    absence of Mr. Bulpett and the other persons and you were unable to tell him, and whether he gave you some suggestions about what the subject was, and you were still unable to tell the contents ?—I say it was not so. I never denied knowing the contents, but I refused to speak of them.’ Well, that statement is in direct opposition to the statement of Mr. Gosford, and, of course, it makes all the difference whether, when Mr. Gos- ford put the question as to the contents of the sealed packet, the defendant said he did not know or that he declined to state before others owing to the nature of the contents of the packet. If Mr, Gosford asked the defendant whether he knew the contents of the sealed packet, and if he was under the necessity of admitting that he did not remember, that would be very strong evidence in- deed against him. The defendant denies that he said he could not remember, but declares that what he said was that he would not divulge the contents in the presence of others. If it stood there between these two witnesses it would look very much as if one or the other was telling what he knew to be false, but there would remain this observation in favour of Mr. Gosford’s statement. Mr. Gosford put the question as a crucial test of the identity of the defendant. If the defendant could at once have stated the contents of the do- cument correctly, it would have gone a very long way indeed towards showing that he was Koger Tiehborne. Therefore I should have expected a man under such circumstances to say, ‘ Mr. Gos- ford, you know as well as I do that the contents of that packet ought not to be made known to any one, but should be kept between ourselves. Let these gentlemen retire, and I will tell you the con- tents.’ There would have been no difficulty in asking the gentlemen to withdraw. They had gone before to the other end of the room, and would do so again if requested. That course was certainly not pursued; and the circumstance, I think, in some degree, tells in favour of Mr. Gos- ford. The defendant's own account of the matter is that Gosford put the question, and that the de- fendant declined to answer it. Mr. Bulpett was called; and I think if the leariied counsel for the defendant had had any previous knowledge of what Mr. Bulpett would say from first to last, and of the way in which he confirmed Mr. Gosford, that gentleman would not have been called. Mr. Bulpett was called on Friday ; he remonstrated with the learned coun- sel for the defendant; he then sent a note to the Court to say that he was ill and would not be able to be examined for some days, but the learned counsel insisted on his coming forward, and a more unsatisfactory exhibition than he made as a witness I must say I never saw. Whether his memory failed him, whether it was his zeal, or what may have been the cause I do not know, but a more painful exhibition I have not often seen than was shown by Mr. Bulpett when under ex- amination. He had seen Roger Tiehborne, I think, on only three or four occasions, and then in the hunting-field, just as he saw any other gentleman; he had, never spoken a word to him, and, though a Tiehborne banker, I believe he never set foot within the walls of Tichborne- house. He goes to Holmes’s, he takes the deepest interest in the case, he places 500Z. at the dis- posal of the defendant without security, and makes himself, in short, a sort of blind j)artisan before he had an opportunity of forming any judgment at all in the matter; and I must say, from what I saw in the witness-box, that I think Mr. Bulpett took a very false idea and measure of his own capacity and intelligence to arrive at any sound and satisfactory judgment upon the sub- ject at all. We have him here equivocating, shuffling—first saying one thing and then another, and altogether making a most sorry exhibition. However, this gentleman was called to contra- dict an intelligent witness like Mr. Gosford. Ih may be, on the other hand, that Mr. Gosford is open to the observations which the learned coun- sel for the defendant made with respect to him. That is for you. You may not believe Mr. Gos- ford ; that is, of course, within the range of pos- sibility, and therefore we must see what Mr. Bulpett says. Mr. Bulpett admitted that his memory was singularly defective, and, antici- pating that Mr. Hawkins would ask him ques- tions as to what occurred on the former trial, he brought with him a newspaper report of what then passed, made up as a book, and he sought leave to use it in a manner that I wonder did not move the stern, unbending heart of Mr. Hawkins. He made piteous appeals to be allowed to use the newspaper report, but Mr. Hawkins declined te be moved by his appeals, and poor Mr. Bulpett was left to his unaided memory. Then we come to what transpired at the inter- view. I must say that I think the whole proceed- ing most indefensible; and I am surprised that, with Mi\ Locock Webb’s concurrence, such a scheme should have been concerted to get Mr. Gosford alone into the hands of these four per- sons. Mr. Hingston and Mr. White were there. They took notes. Why should they not have been called ? The defendant says that when they were present Mr. Gosford put the questions about the sealed packet, and that he declined to answer because they were present. Mr. Gosford says that was not so. You will ask yourselves whether it is likely^ if Mr. Gosford knew that the answer he might get would have impeached the honour of Lady Radcliffe, he would have put the question before third parties. Do you think that, if the contents of the sealed packet had been such as to stamp Lady Radcliffe with a brand which could never be effaced, Mr. Gosford, the steward and friend of her father, would have asked the defen- dant to state the contents of the packet—the con- tents being such as would cover her with infamy and shame—in the presence of strangers like Mr, Bulpett, Mr. Hingston, and Mr. White? Why, it speaks for itself. These gentlemen took notes. Why are they not called to support the defen- dant’s statement ? Is it that their evidence would probably be quite the other way ? Now, this is Mr. Bulpett's account of what oc- curred : He is asked whether he said he had brought the defendant and Mr. Gosford together, as he believed that doing so would lead to their understanding one another, and he says he thinks that may have fallen from him. Then he is asked whether he suggested to Mr. Gosford that he 1 should j)ut the same questions to the defendant as j he had put to him at Gravesend, and he said he | did not use the words in the manner they were J put to him; that what he said was, ‘If ymu twe 9 gentlemen talk over matters, there are many I things you must both know that happened pre- A vious to Roger Tiehborne leaving England.’ Then S Mr. Hawkins asks, ‘ Do you mean to swear there B were no questions put before you retired'?’ He® answers, * To the best of my belief, there were ®: not.’ ‘ Did Mr. Gosford say in substance, I have Sj got something I can put to him in private, before ®j no one else ?—I do not remember such an observa- S