The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-20 00:00:00

HANDCOCK v. DELACOUR.

TO TILT TIMOR OP TEI DAILY XXVI.
8111,—I hare seen the article in your impression
of Tuesday Let upon a late trial in the Irish Court of
Chancery, profaning to give " • plain unvarnished tale
of the Handeock family." The substance of it, so far as
it concerns me, is almost entirely untrue; and when you
say the statentsat you give has not been contradicted,
you ought to know and to add that es I was not made a
party in the cause, I owed not, even if I would, have
anticipated each calumnies, or have appeared by counsel to
refute them. Neither was I, nor could Ibe any party to
the compromise by which the snit is ended.
The main allegation, upon which the story you relate
upon the authority of the Irish Attorney-General seems to
rest, is that is the year 1841, "in consequence of a
impicion of tee great intimacy between Lord Cianricarde
eel Mrs. Basilisk, a separation took place, and Mr.
Ifforeinfeeh esentleltaram." This is wholly andnotorionsly
Mts, sai I sousstlsout that any attempt was made to sustain
soh a statement by a particle of evidence. In fact, it is per-
featly well known that Mrs. Handcock left her husband on
melount of his conduct with her French maid, who theses-
leeward lived openly with him until his death. This wig
happily concealed from the daughters, and Miss Handsel
in her diary attributes the separation to the machinatieml
of persons in her father's employment. My affidavit wee
not, as you say it was, inaccurate in dates upon this matter.
It states that I saw Mr. and Mrs. Handoock in the autumn of
1840, and, " having passed the winter of 11340 in Russia," I
did not see either of them again until after their separation,
which took place in the spring of 1841, while I was still
abroad. All this is indisputable out of the Irish Court of
Chimney. My affidavit, however, was not made to explain
or defend my conduct in any respect, but it was made upon
the application of one of the litigants, that I should bear
testimony to feats within my own knowledge, to contradict
statements sworn to by the opposite party as having been
"heard and believed." If no other evidence existed to
tabus that Mr. Handoock entertained no such suspicion as is
*Abated to kiss, his own conduct when I net him in Paris
sans blebs% illness affords good proof of it.
TIM sam when told that an old acquaintance, of
sebsso bespitality he had frequently partaken, and with
'ism ho had enjoyed field sports, was dying without decent
@Mention or companions, should visit that person, and
should advise him to remove to the best air within remelt, to
emmult an eminent physician, to all in the clergyman of the
wish, and to see his child—that a man should do this
without a bus design, seems beyond the comprehension of
the hi* Attorney-General, and not to have occurred to the
writer et your article.
I, however, do not wonder that when I had acted thus to
Mr. Handoock, his daughters, who bad known me from
their childhood, should recur to me for aid and advice.
And orb I was so called upon, my interference was
uniformly not in furtherance of, but in opposition to the
views of Mrs. Handcock, who was determined to secure for
herself, in any way she could,the fortune of each of her daugh-
ters after their deaths. Persons who knew her well are aware,
that she was highly incensed against me for aiding Miss
Random/4 to make a will, whereby she left to her mother,
in pursuance of her own and her deceased sister's wishes,
10,0001., instead of her entire property. When the youngest
daughter communicated to me her intention to convey her
estate to her mother, I prevented her executing any deed
to that effect which should not contain the power of revoca-
tion thereupon inserted, and I delayed the execution of any
such deed for some months. Mr. Blakeney, Mrs. Hand-
cock's late solicitor, was thoroughly aware of this. These
seem to be the main points upon which I have been falsely
accused and vilified. There are other minor points, quite
unfounded, which yen re:ate upon the authority of the
Attorney-General ; yet no man ought to be more cautious
than ought to be the Irish Attorney-General in uttering and
circulating scandals and calumnies " heard and believed,"
or founded upon inferences wrongly deduced from tote-
=eatery disposition of property.
I have to request you to give the sense publicity to this
letter which you gave to your article.
I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Loughrea, Feb.lB, 1865. CLANRICARDE.