ASSASSINATION OF THE EARL OF NORBURY. (Hansard, 28 February 1839)

§ The Earl of Charleville

wished to call the attention of the noble Marquess opposite, to a paper which he held in his hand, and which had reference to a subject to which, hitherto, he had most anxiously avoided making any allusion. That subject was the murder of the Earl of Norbury. When it was formerly mentioned in that House, he was unwilling to touch on it; and he had carefully avoided alluding to it since that time, because he was anxious to have certain petitions in his hands before he brought the circumstance under the consideration of their Lordships. Neither was it now his intention to enter into any particulars that he could possibly avoid; but, after reading the paper to which he had adverted, he felt that he should be guilty of a great neglect, of a gross dereliction of his duty, if he were not to call the attention of the noble Marquess opposite to this subject, and to ask the noble Marquess either to confirm the statement which he was about to make, or to refute it, if he erred in any point. He was about to speak of the matter as it occurred to himself. He was the first magistrate who arrived on the spot after the foul occurrence took place, and he could state that no such information or report as that which was referred to in the paper which he held in his hand had reached him, up to the present hour, from any decent, respectable, or creditable source. He had hoped, that the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) on the first night of the Session, would have effectually put an end to the insinuations which had been thrown out about the impression of a well-formed shoe or of a neat boot being discovered at the place where the crime was perpetrated. But, notwithstanding the explanation given in another Assembly, notwithstanding what had been said in their Lordships' House, he found that a Dublin newspaper (the circulation of which might not perhaps be very extensive, but the opinions of which, from its connexion with a certain individual, were calculated to create a strong impression on the public mind in Ireland)—he found that that newspaper on Wednesday last, the 20th of February, contained a repetition of those obnoxious statements. The insinuations 947 against an individual were accompanied by some mysterious allusions, but the former reports were restated, and in a way that called for some explanation from the noble Marquess. The paper which he held in his hand, was the Pilot newspaper. The article came to his knowledge by accident; but he had been fortunate enough to procure the paper itself. The article ran thus: the noble Earl here read the article:— But there is an object at the bottom for the party. The fact of the well-made shoe goes to disprove the slander of the factious Lords on the poor people of Ireland. Its object is to intimidate the Liberal press from stating the facts by imputing to it the adhering by that statement to a libel on a nobleman. We shall not be thus intimidated. The character of that nobleman stands too high to be influenced by a statement that an assassin wore a neat shoe, or by any general statement about reports, or by the murderous commentaries. We repeat the statement, that the assassin, whoever he was, wore a well-made boot or shoe, and not a brogue. Yes, it can be proved, and will be, whenever there is a trial. The pattern of this shoe-sole was taken ten minutes after the murder by a respectable person, upon whose authority we state it. Now, in the presence of their Lordships, he decidedly contradicted the entire of that statement. But if the fact were true, he would ask, whether anything more convincing could be required to prove that a conspiracy did exist in Ireland? If this respectable person, within ten minutes, prepared with tracing paper, took a pattern of this footmark—if his ends were honest—if his intentions were just—if it were not a pre-formed and a pre-arranged plot, he would ask, why no magistrate was informed of the circumstance? Why did not that individual, whoever he was, appear at the coroner's inquest? If he was told that that inquest was not fairly chosen, he would say that several gentlemen—he was not aware of the precise number, but several gentlemen holding the strongest and most liberal opinions—were members of that jury; several leading Roman Catholic gentlemen of great respectability, were on that jury. He attended that inquest. Within the court and without it they called, and repeatedly called and inquired, if any one was there prepared to come forward with any evidence. No one, however, did appear. The paper went on to state (and he called the attention of the noble Marquess to the 948 fact), that "the policemen who visited the spot in the morning all stated in the hearing of several persons, whose testimony we can procure, that whoever did it wore a well-made shoe or boot, small at the heel."—[The Marquess of Normanby: Does it state one or more policemen?] Several. It says "the policemen." "This we state upon positive authority. It is the fact. The assassin of Lord Norbury wore, we believe, a well-formed boot or shoe, and not a brogue." This was in large Roman capital letters:— We charge no one; we insinuate nothing against any one; we cannot formally accuse any one; we only say, that there have been various reports, to some of which we have given circulation. We disclaim having directly or indirectly charged any one with the murder. The Mail threatens us with an action. We give them perfect liberty. Our reporter will be our evidence. He believed that the reporter was the informer on the occasion. The article proceeded— He can state who was and who was not called. Curious things must come out. Lords Oxmantown and Charleville may get a sifting, but we shall remain unimpeached. How stood the case? He was the first magistrate who arrived after the murder. The first words he spoke were to give an order to the chief constable of police, who was in attendance with a large force of men, to take possession of all the avenues leading to the spot. The orders were given by him in his capacity of a magistrate. Of course, as to what happened ten minutes after the murder or up to the time when he arrived he had no knowledge. But this he could aver, that, up to the present moment, he had never heard, from any authority, the least proof of that most extraordinary statement. The noble Marquess, being then Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, sent down to investigate the circumstances attending the murder the provincial inspector of police, Mr. Brownrigg, accompanied by a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Hill. It was for them to inquire whether the police knew anything of the circumstances of the case. The Irish government might have no confidence in him, but surely they must have confidence in their own officers. He knew that confidential reports were sent to the Irish Government, and the noble Marquess could correct him if his impression were erroneous. He 949 begged again to state, that he had no object in addressing their Lordships, except to give the most distinct denial to these statements, in order to tranquillize the public mind in Ireland, for he knew it had been very much excited and distracted upon the present occasion. He did not want at all to punish the newspaper, or in any way to call it to account, but he begged to set these imputations at rest, for he knew that the topics were brought forward with the sole object of diverting public attention from the real perpetrator of the crime. Having such an object in view, he thought it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the subject; and he did hope that the noble Marquess might be enabled to put an end at once, and for ever, to these, in his opinion, most false and absurd reports. He was, perhaps, the first person who visited the spot on the morning after the murder. He saw nothing to lead hire to suspect any such report to have any foundation. Later in the day he was occupied in the examination of witnesses. Other magistrates attended and ordered a plan of the spot to be taken by the clerk of the works and the surveyors in attendance. He did tell a friend of his, upon the occasion, a learned gentleman, that if any track was made by a well-made boot, it might have been made by the boot of Mr. Toler, the second son of Lord Norbury, who was then upon a visit to his father. A system of warfare now was carrying on upon all the constituted authorities of Ireland. It was not long ago that it was stated, in a newspaper of that country, that many of the outrages complained of were committed by policemen in disguise. Yet the same paper contained an admission that the policemen were generally of very good character. He wished to ask, whether any information had reached the noble Marquess, which at all inclined him to suppose that any marks which were found upon the spot correspond with the description he had alluded to.