Helena weekly herald., 1875-05-06
THE TICHRORNE CASE IN PARIIA.
MENT.

Cable dispatches from London of April 233,
give an interesting account OF DIR. kenea'ly
motion impugning the verdict Of tho Jury in
the Tichborne trial An immense concourse
OF people, greatly excited, assembled IN and
about the House of Commons. kencA!ly ar
rived at the Parliament House at o'clock r.
m., and was greeted with enthusiastic cheers
Soon after taking his seat he rose and moved
that q Royal Commission be appointed TO In
vestigate the circumstances attending the
Tichborne trials, and in apowerful speech in
support of his resolution, he alluded to the
growing dissatisfaction at the result of the
trials and the manner in which they had been
conducted by the bench. Nothing short of
royal commission of inquiry would content
the people of England, who were convinced
that Justice had not been done. He stated
that he had received many letters from Amer
leans TO the same effect. The discomfort had
grown into a torrent which was pouring over
the land The late Ministry partly owed its
downfall 70 its conduct in regard to the Itch
borne case. lie asserted that he had positive
proof that Chief Justice Sir Alexander Cock
burn, in society, while the trial was in pro-
gross, said he would give the claimant fifteen
years imprisonment He spoke severely Of
the Pittcndreigh forgeries, and stated that
the claimant was unable to call moro witness
cs for lack Of the necessary funds. Penal
ties for contempt had been directed against
one side only. Witnesses were browbeaten,
and the par,ialty Of the bench was patent
throughout the proceedings. Kcncally de-
carcd he had sacrificed himself to his sense
of honor and had been irretricvably ruined
in his profession. lie believed the motion
before the House would never be renewed in
It's present form. 1t was impossible to pre-
dict the result if commission should be re-
fused. The defeat of the motion would spread
,lismay in the country.
He spoke three hours, and was followed by |
Whalley, who seconded the motion.
Sir Richard Bagallay opposed the appoint !
mcnt of commission for which there was |
not the slightest grounds to justify it. The !
observations alleged to have been made by |
the Chief Justice were grossly misunderstood |
and misrcpresentea.
Wballcy remarked that the House seemed |
TO he interested in the suppression of oil in
qury which would lead to the exposure Of
Catholic conspiracy in favor Of the Ticlbornc
claimant.
Sir Henry James, who was Attorncy-Gen- |
cral under the last Gladstone administration, |
denounced the motion as an attack ON the |
jury system, and declared the commission
asked for was unprecedented.
Disrael said Keneally's speech was thrice |
told tale. The charge of misconduct against |
the Chief Justice was entirely unsupported. |
Abiding to Kcneally, he regretted that the |
talented man, under an hallucination, had de- |
stroycd his reputation.
John Bright reviewed the evidence in the |
Tichborne trials, and declared that he could |
not but agree With the jury in the verdict |
they rendered.
The motion of keneally was then rejected |
by vote of 233 noes to aye.
The defeat Of the motion thust recorded, is |
so overwhelming that the Claimant cannot |
entertain any further hopes of Parliamentary
interference in his case. Clearly, it is Arthur |
Orton, the Mapping butcher, and not Sir
Roger Tichbornc, the righttul ewncr of the
Tichborne estates, that the British Commons
estimate they arc dealing with. The Claim |
ant will remain in his prison cell instead of
occupying an English manor house.