.. •■*•*!*' 
 
 

 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lettertohisexcelOOpage 
 

 
 % :V I' tiff 
 
 TO 
 
 HIS EXCELLENCY THE 
 
 LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE JUDGMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 & 
 
 HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES 
 
 IN THE CASE OF 
 
 ■TALBOT * TALBOT. 
 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS TERTIUS PAGET, Esq. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 KID GAT AY, PICCADILLY. 
 BLENICAKN, BELL YAKD, LINCOLN’S INN. 
 
 SOI/D BY ALL BOOKSELLERS IN LUBLIN. 
 
 1S56. 
 
 
 i- 
 

 LONDON: 
 
 RAYNKR AND HOUORS, PRINTERS, 
 
 109, Fetlcr Lane, Fleet Street. 
 
TALBOT ». TALBOT. 
 
TALBOT * TALBOT 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I am a suitor for justice : not for myself, but for one 
 whose cause the laws of nature and the ties of kindred compel me 
 to plead.—For a woman, bereft of reason—a mother torn from 
 her child—a wife, slandered,—maddened by the husband who 
 swore to love and to cherish her,-—for whom I have sought 
 justice in every Court where I could seek it, and have not 
 found it. To yon, my Lord, the Vicegerent of that august 
 Queen, that tender mother, and gentle wife, who is the fountain 
 of Justice in this nation, I cry aloud against laws which obstruct, 
 and Courts which pollute, the pure streams of that fountain, and 
 against Judges who administer injustice in her desecrated name. 
 
 Wronged and aggrieved, in the person of one very near and 
 very dear to me, and in no common degree, I have for the 
 last three years devoted myself to the cause of her 1 have 
 mentioned—near to me as being my wife’s sister, dear to 
 me as one of the purest, most gentle, and most unoffending of her 
 sex. I have never for one moment been absent during the long, 
 tedious days of two lingering trials, wdiere twice has that Justice 
 which I claimed been denied to me; and so deeply do I feel the 
 wrong that, to redress it, I would gladly add to the devotion of 
 those three years that of the remainder of my life, so long as I have 
 a voice to raise, a pen to use, or a shilling to expend in a cause 
 so righteous. 
 
 The story I have to tell is strange and tragical. The charges I 
 make are grave. I know well the responsibility under which I 
 write, if that story is untrue. 
 
 I charge Judges with perversion of evidence,—with deliberately 
 citing witnesses, as asserting what they expressly deny, and as saying 
 what they have not said. 
 
 B 
 
With the rejection of evidence as manifestly perjured, and the 
 subsequent reliance on that very testimony as evidence of truth. 
 
 With the admission of hearsay evidence to prove a crime. 
 
 With the deliberate suppression or negligent omission of a fact 
 distinctly proved, the importance of which fact they subsequently 
 admit. 
 
 I say deliberate because the argument upon the case, which 
 occupied many days, terminated on the 19th of May. The Court 
 consisting of Mr. Justice Torrens, Mr. Justice Moore, Baron 
 Greene, Sir Henry Meredyth and Dr. Andrews, took nearly 
 a month for consideration and for preparation of the judgment, 
 which was delivered on the 14th of June, it passed sub¬ 
 sequently under the eye of the learned Judge who delivered it, it 
 received his final alteration and correction. He begins with the 
 following words : “ In this important and painful case, it is my duty ” 
 “as the senior member of this Court, to pronounce the judgment” 
 “ at which my brethren and myself have with unanimity arrived.” 
 “ In the discharge of that duty it is right that the reasons ” 
 “which influence the judgment of the Court should be” 
 ‘ publicly announced, and I have the satisfaction to state that ” 
 “the grounds of the judgment which I shall deliver, have” 
 “ likewise received the unanimous concurrence of each of my ” 
 “brethren,” and in concluding his judgment the same learned 
 Judge says emphatically: “This Court does not found its” 
 “judgment on any other grounds than those it has” 
 
 “ ASSIGNED.” 
 
 I am entitled, therefore, to look to that judgment for the 
 “ reasons ” and the “ grounds ” on which my sister-in-law is con¬ 
 demned. If I make good the charges I have brought the Judges 
 who delivered it are unfit to sit upon the Bench. If those charges 
 are unfounded, I incur and deserve the severest penalty of the law. 
 
 I will, therefore, as far as possible, repress all feelings of in¬ 
 dignation in my mind, tell my story as if I were narrating a 
 matter indifferent to myself, and state, coldly and simply, facts, the 
 existence of which cannot be disputed, and the perusal of which 
 will, if I am not much mistaken, send a thrill of horror through your 
 Lordship’s heart and make your blood mantle in your cheek. 
 
Mr. and Mrs. Talbot were married in the month of January 1845. 
 The only issue of the marriage is a daughter, born in October 
 1845, who was scarcely ever separated from her mother, and is 
 referred to by the Judge of the Consistory Court as “the child” 
 “ of her unbounded affection.” Shortly after the marriage Mr. 
 and Mrs. Talbot took up their residence at Summer Hill, near 
 Mallow, where they resided till the month of November 1850, when 
 they removed to Eden Hill, also in the same neighbourhood, where they 
 remained till the month of May or June 1851. About that time Mr. 
 Talbot inherited from his uncle considerable estates in Roscommon, 
 called the Mount Talbot Estates, which were so limited as to be de¬ 
 scendible onty on his male issue. He then removed from Eden Hill 
 to Mount Talbot, where he still continues to reside. 
 
 Subsequently to Mr. Talbot’s becoming acquainted with the pro¬ 
 visions of his uncle’s will he seems to have become dissatisfied at the 
 prospect of having no male issue, and is proved to have expressed 
 such dissatisfaction to his inferiors and dependants; and it is also 
 proved, by the evidence of witnesses in the cause who had ample 
 opportunities from personal observation of forming a judgment in 
 the matter, that he treated his wife with “ indifference, coldness ” 
 “ and unkindness;” and his liberality towards her may be estimated 
 by the fact of her having been necessitated to repay the small sum of 
 35. 6d., borrowed by her from one of the servants, by instalments in 
 fourpenny pieces (taken from her child) and postage stamps. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands that, up to the 19th day of 
 May 1852, Mrs. Talbot maintained a spotless reputation. She 
 visited on terms of intimacy with persons of her own rank and 
 station, who depose in the strongest manner to the purity of her 
 character, and no suspicion of any kind ever attached to her conduct; 
 her husband himself admits that, up to the last mentioned day, he 
 believed “ that a more chaste and virtuous woman did not exist, 
 and the Judges of the Court of Delegates say “ it is clear (we have ” 
 “ the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Williamson who were on terms of” 
 “ familiarity with the family) that the conduct of Mrs. Talbot was 
 “ pure and irreproachable.” 
 
 On the 19th of May 1852, Mrs. Talbot in the middle of 
 the day, in company with her child (then between six and seven 
 
 b 2 
 
years old), and proved to be c: remarkably sharp and intelligent," went 
 to a room occupied by a groom in the establishment of the name of 
 Mullane. In this room, which is in the most open and exposed 
 part of the buildings, the groom, who was an outdoor servant, 
 lived, and, as is not uncommonly the case, it contained his bed. 
 It must not be understood, however, from the circumstance of a 
 bed being in the groom’s room that it was a bedroom in the 
 ordinary sense of the term, and with the privacy associated with it 
 which usually attaches to a room of that description. There was 
 usually a fire in the room, and it was a place of common resort by 
 the servants of both sexes, and by other parties connected with the 
 house. Cecily Rogers the housekeeper, in referring to it in her 
 evidence says: “any person going to Mullane’s room must be seen” 
 “by the persons in the steward’s apartments, in the laundry, and” 
 “ other rooms and offices occupied b}' other servants and persons ” 
 “ employed on the form. It was necessary to cross a yard which ” 
 “ said several apartments faced, and which was a thoroughfare for ” 
 “ servants. I depose that the said William Mullane’s room was 
 “the very worst place, in or about the house, she could go to if” 
 “ she had any improper object, and I think it almost impossible ” 
 “she would select such a place if she had any improper object.” 
 
 It is proved that Mrs. Talbot had been in the constant habit of 
 occasionally visiting, either in company with her child or one of 
 her servants, the rooms of all the servants, to ascertain that they 
 were kept in a pure and wholesome state (a supervision which the 
 habits of domestic servants in Ireland seem to have rendered 
 necessary). This practice of hers was well known to all the 
 servants, and could not have been unknown to her husband, who 
 was scarcely ever from home. 
 
 No one acquainted with Mrs. Talbot’s character and habits 
 would feel surprise at her having entered this room with her 
 child. From having been brought up and residing almost 
 entirely in the country, it was her daily practice to walk in 
 company with her child (her constant companion) about every 
 part of the house and grounds, she had done and continued to 
 do this openly and without any reserve or secrecy, and from my 
 knowledge of her habits I cannot believe that unless the idea of 
 
impropriety had been suggested to her, she would have felt any 
 more hesitation in visiting the room in question than she would 
 the stables or the kitchen, or any other part of the house where 
 men servants are to be found.* 
 
 On the occasion in question, however, she was watched by two 
 men of the name of Halloran and Finnerty, the one the butler, 
 and the other the stewardf of the establishment: her husband seems 
 
 * There is every reason to believe that, on the occasion in question, Mrs. 
 Talbot resorted to this room as the nearest place where she could find a fire to 
 dry her child’s stockings, which had got wet whilst the child was in the yard 
 feeding the chickens. Such is the account given by the child herself, as collec¬ 
 ted from the evidence of Hester Keogh, her nurse (a witness called by Mr. 
 Talbot), who, in her cross-examination, says : “ I depose that Mrs. Talbot’s ” 
 “ child told me that Mrs. Talbot went with her into Mullane’s room to dry ” 
 “ the child’s stockings which were wet.” Such is also the account gleaned 
 by Dr. Roscoe, by my wife, and by myself, in conversations with Mrs. Talbot 
 herself. It may be objected that any account received from Mrs. Talbot is 
 tainted with her insanity, and should not be relied upon ; and such, undoubt¬ 
 edly, would be the case were it not for the confirmation derived from the 
 statement of the child above referred to, and from another circumstance 
 which, though not strictly matter of evidence, I think it but just to Mrs. 
 Talbot that I should mention. On the morning of the 14th of August 
 1852, during one of the visits which my brother and I made to Ireland, 
 previous to entering upon the defence of Mrs. Talbot, and whilst Mrs. 
 Talbot was incarcerated at Windsor, and, therefore, long before I saw her 
 on the occasion of her release, we were in conversation in the inn yard at 
 Athlone with a man who had driven us the day before. It came out in the 
 course of conversation, that this man, who could not by possibility have the 
 slightest knowledge of our errand, was acquainted with Mullane, and that on 
 the morning of the 20th of May Mullane had come into the inn yard at 
 Athlone; that he had told him of the row at Mount Talbot, that he said it was 
 “ spite and malice of the other servants,” that the little girl had been out feeding 
 the chickens, and Mr. Talbot had spoken sharply to her for getting her feet 
 wet, and that Mrs. Talbot had taken her up into that room to dry her socks at 
 the fire; that he was cleaning his things at the other end of the room; and 
 that, to use the man’s own words, he “ never thought of his mistress no ” 
 “ more than you, Sir.” 
 
 It is hardly possible that a story so simple and so probable, told by three 
 people, who must have known the facts, and who could not by possibility have 
 concerted with each other, can be otherwise than true. 
 
 t To those who are not personally acquainted with Ireland, it may be 
 necessary to explain that a “ steward ” in that country nearly corresponds to a 
 
to have been within call, and all three immediately proceed to the 
 room in question, where, according to the representation of Halloran 
 and Finnerty , they find the door bolted, and the lady and the groom 
 within, the former secreted with her child behind the curtains of 
 the bed. 
 
 Before, however, Mrs. Talbot is allowed to rest under any 
 imputation from this alleged discovery, it may 7 be well to glance at 
 the characters of Halloran and Finnerty, the witnesses upon whose 
 sole testimony the story rests, as extracted from their own admissions 
 and from the direct evidence in the cause. 
 
 Halloran entered Mr. Talbot’s service on the 12th March 1852. 
 The account he gives of himself previously to this is, that during 
 the last five years, since his return from America in 1847, he has 
 been in nine situations. Three months with Mr. Blackburn. Six 
 months with Mr. Brennan. Three months with Mr. Pollock (dis¬ 
 charged for drink.) Three months with Mr. Plulgate, (discharged 
 for drink.) Six months with Mr. Verschoyle. Six months with 
 Mr. Gabbet. Four days with Mr. Studdart. Seven days with 
 Colonel Smith, (discharged for drink.) In service twenty-seven 
 months and eleven days out of the sixty months of the five years. 
 He refuses to answer whether he obtained Mr. Gabbet’s place by a 
 forged character (or discharge as it is termed in Ireland): he knows 
 a man named Maginnis, but refuses to say whether he forged 
 discharges for him; he refuses to say whether he has forged discharges, 
 or how often he has done so; and he refuses to say whether or not 
 he obtained Mr. Studdart’s place by a forged discharge. But he 
 admits that he was confined in Richmond Bridewell for three months 
 for forgery, and he enters Mr. Talbot’s service within one month 
 from his leaving gaol. 
 
 In about a month Mr. Talbot gives him notice to quit for 
 drunkenness; and again about eight or ten day before the alleged 
 discovery, i. e. about the 10th May, he is drunk for two or three 
 days together. He is characterised by the late Attorney General for 
 
 “farm bailiff” in England: he is a sort of head labourer on the farm. 
 “Agent” is the Irish synonym for the English “steward.” Mr. Barlow 
 (whose name frequently occurs in these proceedings) was Mr. Talbot's “ agent.” 
 Finnerty was a servant of no higher class than Halloran. 
 
Ireland, the counsel for Mr. Talbot, who produces him as a witness 
 as “a very great scoundrel by Dr. Gayer (another of Mr. Talbot’s 
 counsel) as “the wretched Michael Halloran;” in the judicial 
 language of the Consistory Court, as “ an unprincipled and un- ” 
 “scrupulous manand the High Court of Delegates, after describing 
 him as “a man whose character, stamped with the features of” 
 “infamy and disgrace, renders him incredible in a court of justice, ” 
 emphatically “ puts the seal of condemnation upon his testimony.” 
 
 His ally, Finnerty, is proved to be scarcely less infamous. He admits 
 that he forged a letter for Halloran under the assumed name of Dennis 
 Delaney, and swears that he saw Mullane “ look in at a window, ” 
 the sill of which was proved to be seven feet from the ground, 
 and to patch up this perjury swears that the height of the window 
 was about four or five feet, and is proved by Hester Keogh (a 
 housemaid in Mr. Talbot’s service, and a witness produced by him) 
 to have attempted to suborn her to “ swear false” against her 
 mistress. 
 
 Upon the alleged detection of Mrs. Talbot in the room of Mullane 
 she is forthwith consigned by her husband to the charge of her two 
 brutal accusers. Her child, which she had by the hand, is torn 
 from her, and she is taken to her bedroom, where she is kept by 
 force, during the remainder of that day and the whole of the following- 
 night, and in spite of her struggles to get to her husband and child. 
 
 Mr. Talbot having first carefully “left in a piece of paper a” 
 “ very small (and insufficient for one meal) portion of tea for Mrs. ” 
 “ Talbot, and a few lumps of sugar,”* and paid Mullane’s wages to 
 the odd shilling, leaves the house, passes the night at the neighbouring 
 residence of his agent, and then goes at once to Dublin to take steps 
 for a divorce. 
 
 In the mean time Halloran and Finnerty both get drunk, and 
 repeatedly resort to Mrs. Talbot’s room, and in the dead of the night 
 Halloran offers violence to her person. 
 
 This fact is so startling, so revolting, as to be hardly 
 credible. Yet nothing is more certain—it is) established by 
 the evidence of three of Mr. Talbot’s own witnesses, the 
 Rev. Robert Gage, Hester Keogh, and at last is reluctantly ex- 
 
 * Evidence of Hester Keogh, 86th Interrogatory. 
 
traded even from Brian Finnerty himself, it is admitted by Mr. 
 Talbot’s counsel, and received and acted upon by both tribunals, 
 before which the case has come. It is proved in a similar way and 
 is equally certain, that Mr. Talbot expressed neither surprise nor 
 horror at the atrocious fact, but on the contrary retained the mis¬ 
 creant in immediate personal attendance upon ldmself and his child , 
 AND REWARDED HIM BY AN ADVANCE OF WAGES! * 
 
 * It would not be right to permit this statement to go forth without citing 
 the precise evidence on which it rests. The fact of Halloran’s assault is, as 
 we have already seen, extracted from Keogh and Finnerty, admitted by 
 Mr. Talbot’s counsel, and treated by both Dr. lladcliffe, the Judge of the 
 Consistory Court, and the Court of Delegates, as a fact unquestionably 
 proved. The mode in which it was communicated to Mr. Talbot, and his 
 conduct on receiving the information, is to be found in the cross-examination 
 of another of Mr. Talbot’s witnesses, the Rev. Robert Gage: it is in the 
 following words:—“I depose that during my visits at Rathgar to the” 
 “ impugnant (i. e., Mrs. Talbot), amongst other matters, she told me that ” 
 “ Halloran, the butler, during the night between the 19th and 20th of May, ” 
 “ went into her room and shut the door, and used very improper language to ” 
 “ her, and wanted to get into the bed with her. She told me that she said, ” 
 “ 1 Good God ! am I brought to this ! ’—that she sprang from the bed and rang ” 
 “ the bell for assistance ; and that Finnerty came to the room, and took Hal- ” 
 “ loran away out of the room. I stated what she said to me to the promovent ” 
 “ (i. e., Mr. Talbot) ; and I depose I thought he took it vert coolly, and in ” 
 “ a manner that surprised me. I stated to Mr. J. Paget that the manner the ” 
 “ promovent received such communication surprised me much , and struck me ” 
 “as vert strange.” Tills conversation between the Rev. Mr. Gage and Mi'. 
 Talbot took place in June 1852. The facts of the retention of Halloran in the 
 service of Mr. Talbot, of his being requested to return when he threatened to 
 leave, and of his wages being raised, are extracted from Halloran himself, from 
 Finnerty, from Hester Keogh, and from Mr. Barlow, Mr. Talbot’s agent. 
 
 Halloran says : “ I depose that about last Christmas (<. e., December 1852) ” 
 “ I came to Dublin for a few days, having obtained permission from the pro- ” 
 “ movent to do so. While in Dublin, I made up my mind not to return to the ’ 
 “ service. I wrote to that effect to Finnerty, and enclosed a notice to the ” 
 “ promovent. 1 received a letter from Finnerty , urging me to return , and saying ” 
 “ it was a bad time to leave pending this business. And, in consequence, ” 
 “ I did return ; and would not have done so but for Finnerty’s letter; and I ” 
 “ intend to leave him as soon as this business is over after my return. I ’ 
 
 “ REQUIRED AN ADVANCE OF WAGES, AND THE PROMOVENT DID ADVANCE THEM 
 “ TEX POUNDS. 
 
 Finnerty confirms this story, and adds this additional fact: “ He (i. e., ’ 
 
Where is Halloran now ? Is he still in Mr. Talbot’s service, or 
 have his demands for renewed advances of wages become too 
 exorbitant? Has Mr. Talbot given him a character or left him 
 again to forge one ? These are questions which may be asked when 
 Mr. Talbot comes to the bar of the House of Lords if lie ever 
 appears there ;—in the mean time we return to the night of the 19th 
 of May and to the House of Mount Talbot. 
 
 Dui'ing the whole of that night of agony and horror 
 Mrs. Talbot is proved by Hester Keogh to have vehemently 
 “ protested her innocence, and said she was belied.” She 
 is also proved to have made repeated attempts to throw 
 herself out of the window, and to have been only prevented 
 by force from carrying out her intentions. The morning of the 
 20th was doomed to afford no relief to her torments, for Mullane 
 (the person with whom she was alleged to have had guilty inter¬ 
 course) is proved by Hester Keogh to have been made drunk by 
 Halloran at a whiskey shop in the neighbourhood, and in that state 
 introduced into the house by Halloran and Finnerty, and placed 
 by them —by the very men to whose charge Mrs. Talbot was 
 consigned by her husband—in her bedroom, with what object may 
 further appear from the depositions of the same witness, who 
 swears “that on the evening of the 19th of May, after Mr. Talbot” 
 “ left Mount Talbot, I heard Halloran and Finnerty say that ” 
 “ Mr. Talbot sent £20 to either Mullane or Mrs. Talbot to bring ” 
 “ her and Mullane away from Mount Talbot.”' 
 
 This, be it remembered, is the account extracted from Mr. Tal¬ 
 bot’s own witnesses, and admitted by his own counsel. What 
 further horrors yet undisclosed may have happened during that 
 night it is impossible to know, or even to imagine. Mrs. Talbot is 
 
 “ Halloran) answered my letter, and said he would return if the promovent ” 
 “ allowed him his expenses going down ; and the promovent (Mr. Talbot) ’ ’ 
 “ having written to him to say he wodld pay his expenses, he returned ” 
 “ to the promovent’s service.” 
 
 Hester Keogh says : “ I cannot set forth whether or not Halloran left ” 
 
 “ Mount Talbot, or threatened to leave it; but I heard him say before I left ” 
 
 ‘ Mount Talbot, that if his ivages were not advanced he would leave." 
 
 Mr. Barlow says : “ Halloran’s wages have been raised since but to what ’ 
 
 “ amount I do not know.” 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 insane, and can give no distinct or connected account of them; but 
 that what I have detailed did actually occur there can be no doubt. 
 These facts are painfully dug out of the darkness, wrung from 
 the reluctant lips of adverse witnesses, admitted by adverse counsel, 
 and treated as undisputed by both the tribunals which have 
 adjudicated upon the case.* 
 
 * This mode of getting rid of a wife who had become distasteful from the fact 
 of her having no son is not new. In the early part of the last century, Lord 
 Altham desired a separation from his lady for a similar reason, and took similar 
 means to accomplish his purpose. The story is thus told in the evidence of 
 Mr. Palliser himself and the other witnesses, in the case of Annesley v. 
 Anglesea, 17 State Trials. “ My Lord said he had reason to expect he ” 
 “ would be Lord Anglesea; and then added— 1 when I shall die, as I have ” 
 11 no son of my own, I don’t care what will become of the estate, or if the” 
 “ Devil shall have it,’ &c. ......” 
 
 “ He (the witness) often heard my Lord at his own house lament he never had a ” 
 “ child by his wife.” . . . These are almost identical with many 
 
 of the expressions used by Mr. Talbot to Mr. Barlow, and other wit¬ 
 nesses, when speaking of his annoyance at the fact of Mrs. Talbot having 
 no son. Mr. Palliser proceeds thus:—“ Four or five days before the ” 
 “ separation, as my Lord, Mr. Sutton (the surgeon), Mr. Taylor (my ” 
 “ Lord’s receiver), and deponent were coming home from Burtown, my ” 
 “ Lord told deponent he was determined to part with his lady, and upon ” 
 “ deponent 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"' 
 “ ‘ 1 have no child ly her, I ivill part with her.' To which deponent made ” 
 “ answer—‘ My Lord, you may do what you please; but I would not part ’ ” 
 “ ‘ with my wife to please anybody.’ Believes that Taylor and Sutton had ” 
 “ laid a scheme against deponent, and brought my Lord into it; for deponent ” 
 “ having, a night or two before, informed my Lady that they used to drink my ” 
 “ Lord’s wine, they heard of it, and were determined to be revenged on ” 
 “ deponent; says that on the Sunday morning my Lord came to' deponent’s ” 
 
 “ bedside and waked him ;.and my Lord desired ” 
 
 “ deponent to rise, for that he was going to church ; upon which deponent ” 
 “ offered to go along with his Lordship; but he said deponent must stay at ” 
 “ home to keep my Lady company; to which deponent replied, Taylor and ” 
 “ Sutton were at home; but my Lord said they were not fit company, and ” 
 “ insisted on deponent’s staying; and told deponent that as he was to hunt ” 
 “ the next morning, if deponent rid his horse that day, he would not be able ” 
 “ to carry him, and therefore desired deponent to stay and breakfast with my ” 
 “ Lady; and then his Lordship went down stairs. This deponent accordingly ” 
 “ went down into my Lady’s room, where he had often breakfasted before. ” 
 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 In order that the diabolical plot against the honour of this unfor¬ 
 tunate lady might not fail in its accomplishment, not only was she 
 prevented by force from escaping out of the power of her ruthless 
 persecutors, but it had been resolved to deny access to the house 
 to any one likely to be the means of redeeming her from their 
 clutches. To this regulation the minister of the parish formed no 
 exception. When, therefore, on the morning of the 20th of Ma}-, 
 the Rev. Mr. McClelland, the Rector of Mount Talbot, who had 
 heard of the disturbance, presented himself at Mount Talbot House, 
 he would have been refused admission but for the instrumentality 
 of Hester Keogh, who contrived to introduce him into the house 
 unknown to her fellow servants, and for which she was severely 
 reprimanded by Finnerty.* 
 
 The particulars of the interview between Mr. McClelland and Mrs. 
 
 “ That deponent, having been, some time with my Lady, heard a noise, and ” 
 “ presently my Lord came into the room with some of the servants, and having ” 
 “ a drawn sword in his hand, made a thrust at deponent, and one Anthony ” 
 “ Dyor, his servant, took the sword out of his hand; deponent being then ” 
 “ hurried into another room, one of the servants cut a piece off deponent’s ” 
 “ ear. (And deponent took off his wig, to shew in what manner his ear was ” 
 “ cut.) That (upon the oath he had taken) he never attempted the virtue of Lady ” 
 “ Altham in any respect , and that she was entirely innocent ivitli respect to him. ” 
 “ Being asked what steps he took to resent the usage he had met with from ” 
 “ my Lord Altham, says he sent him a challenge the next morning, and ” 
 “ posted his Lordship for not meeting him; and that his father likewise ” 
 “ challenged my Lord to fight him, if his Lordship thought deponent too ” 
 “ young an antagonist; says my Lord went out of the country soon after and ” 
 “ deponent pursued him out of town with pistols.” 
 
 It does not, however, appear that Lady Altham was subjected to the bru¬ 
 tality which Halloran attempted to perpetrate upon Mrs. Talbot, nor that any 
 attempt was made to force her into the commission of the crime of which she 
 was accused. Palliser was not “ made drunk and brought back to her bed¬ 
 chamber.” It does not appear that either her reason or her relations deserted 
 her, or that she was removed from the country to be imprisoned under a false 
 name in the house of a woman who passed under an alias. These additional 
 horrors were left to be enacted in the present century. 
 
 * “ Finnerty and Halloran locked the outer doors and refused to let any ” 
 
 one see Mrs. Talbot; and I depose, that when I let in Mr. McClelland, ” 
 “ Finnerty said to me, ‘How dare you let any one in to see Mrs. Talbot!’” 
 (Evidence of Keogh, 6th Interrogatory. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 Talbot, which constitutes an important clement in the subsequent pro¬ 
 ceedings against her, are unfortunately only to be obtained through 
 the Rev. Mr. McClelland himself; and with a reservation for the 
 present of the severe animadversions which I shall feel it my duty 
 to make on his evidence and conduct when I come to comment on 
 that part of the case, and which tend seriously to impeach the 
 accuracy of his sworn testimony, 1 must be content to give the 
 result of the interview in the form in which he has thought proper 
 to depose to it, which is as follows:— 
 
 “ I went to Mount Talbot, and had a conversation with the” 
 “ impugnant, and upbraided her for such her criminal inter-” 
 “ course with the said William Mullane. She appeared much ” 
 “ confused ; but on that occasion she neither admitted nor denied ” 
 “ her guilt.” And in another part of his examination : “ 1 went” 
 “ to Mount Talbot for the purpose of reprimanding her for her” 
 “ conduct; and I depose to finding her in a very distracted state, ” 
 “ and much excited.” 
 
 That the mind of any lady suffering from unfounded 
 charges of criminality, and exposed for a period of eighteen 
 hours to wi'ongs and outrages such as Mrs. Talbot is proved 
 to have endured, should have become disordered, can hardly 
 be matter of surprise; but that the first act of a Christian minister 
 should have been to upbraid a lady in the condition in which he 
 acknowledges to have found Mrs. Talbot, whom he had previously 
 known only as a pattern of all that was pure, virtuous, and good, 
 and that without any inquiry into the charges against her, and in 
 the absence, as he himself admits, of any confession by her of her 
 guilt; and in addition to all this, with the suspicion which it is 
 proved he himself expressed, of the charges against her being 
 the result of a cruel conspiracy,* is indeed strange. What 
 
 * “ On the day I saw the impugnant (25th May 1852), I saw the Rev. Mr. ” 
 “ McClelland at Coffey’s Hotel. He then told me that the servants at Mount ” 
 “ Talbot were a very bad set, and combined he thought against the impugnant. ” 
 Evidence of the Rev. Mr. Gage, 4th Interrogatory. 
 
 “ I depose, that in some of such conversations (». e. between the 23d and ” 
 “30th of May 1852) with Mr. McClelland respecting such misconduct, he” 
 “ said, ‘ 1 hope it is not a conspiracy got up against her.’” Evidence of Arm¬ 
 strong, 10 th Interrogatory. * 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 might have been the result of more humane and considerate treat¬ 
 ment on his part on her then tottering intellect, it is impossible to 
 say, but such a course of conduct would at all events have been 
 more consistent with what may be conceived to be the duty of a 
 Christian shepherd towards a stricken and wounded sheep. 
 
 From being the upbraider of this unhappy lady the reverend 
 gentleman next assumes the office of her protector; and in the 
 course of the same day takes her to Coffey’s Hotel, in Dublin, 
 where the confusion she exhibited at Mount Talbot very rapidly 
 developes itself into unequivocal insanity. From this place, after a 
 residence for a short interval in lodgings at Rathgar, she is removed 
 to England in the care of the Rev. Mr. Kemmis (the brother-in-law 
 of her husband’s attorney), and placed at Clewer, near Windsor, 
 where she is concealed from her friends under a feigned name, in 
 the charge of a woman who passes under an alias. Her state of 
 mind at that time may be collected from the evidence of her 
 reverend conductor, from whose evidence it appears that she took 
 the abode to which she was consigned for Hell, and himself for the 
 Devil. 
 
 It will scarcely be credited that, to aggravate the wretchedness 
 of Mrs. Talbot's condition, she was permitted to become the victim 
 not only of unheard of outrage and wrong, but of heartless de¬ 
 sertion. After her expulsion from Mount Talbot, no one mem¬ 
 ber of her family went near her.* It is true that her father on 
 hearing of the sad calamity, notwithstanding the bodily infirmity 
 under which he was suffering, went to Dublin for the 
 express purpose of seeing her, but was prevented doing 
 so at the urgency of his son-in-law, Mr. Senior,f and of Mr. 
 
 * “The impugnant was not visited by any member of her family or relations ” 
 “ but me while she was in Dominie Street, or in the lodgings at Rathgar. I ” 
 “ heard and believe that the impugnant did not see iieb father, mother, ” 
 
 “ OR BROTHER, OR ANY ONE OF HER SISTERS OR BROTHERS-IN-LAW, FROM THE ” 
 “ TIME SHE LEFT MOUNT TALBOT, IN May LAST, UNTIL HER REMOVAL FROM ” 
 
 “ the house of Mrs. Tennant, near Windsor,” i.e., from May till the end of 
 November—Six months ! — Evidence of Rev. Robert Gage. 
 
 f “ Mr. Edward Senior told me he would take his wife, whom he had ” 
 “ brought from England, to Red Hall; that he would not tell his wife of the ” 
 “ charges against the impugnant until he got there, and he said to me, ‘ I’ll ” 
 
( I* ) 
 
 Adair,* Mr. Talbot’s attorney, to whose house he was taken, and 
 where he was lodged during his stay in Dublin. The infirmity 
 and weakness of the father, who was suffering under paralytic 
 seizure, may possibly furnish some excuse for a course of conduct 
 which would otherwise be inexplicable; and it may be fair to her 
 brother to state, that, though he started for a year’s residence on the 
 continent, leaving his sister he knew not where, nor with whom, and 
 without having made any inquiry into the truth or falsehood of 
 the charges against her; yet subsequently to his return, and after 
 the charges had been exposed, and her defence undertaken by others, 
 he took an oath to his belief that his sister was perfectly innocent, 
 and that the charges against her were the result of a foul con¬ 
 spiracy. 
 
 Mrs. Talbot being thus conveniently disposed of, her husband’s 
 next step is to proceed as rapidly as possible with his divorce. For 
 this purpose an action of crim. con. is brought against the groom, 
 Mullane, who absconds, and against whom Mr. Talbot obtains a 
 judgment by default for £2000 damages. 
 
 He then commences a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court in 
 Ireland for a divorce; and, in order to invest the case with the 
 mockery of a defence, a proxy is obtained from Mrs. Talbot, -whilst 
 in a state of insanity and under confinement, appointing certain 
 proctors introduced by her husband’s attorney, to act on her 
 behalf. 
 
 The original charges of adultery are exclusively grounded, first, on 
 the alleged detection of Mrs. Talbot in the room of Mullane; and 
 secondly, on certain gross and monstrous acts of adultery, stated 
 to have been witnessed by Halloran; and the truth of which was 
 
 “ now get off and not see Mr. M‘Causland again.’ He did say to me very 
 “ impressively, ‘ Now , Gage, I charge you on no account allow them (meaning ” 
 “ the impugnant and her father) to meet.' ” — Evid. of Rev. Robert Gage , 22nd 
 Interrogatory. 
 
 * “ I believe that the impugnant’s father was prevented from seeing her by ” 
 “ Mr. Adair and Mrs. Olphert, who was in Mr. Adair’s house while Mr. ” 
 “ M‘Causland was there.”— Ibid, ‘list Interrogatory. 
 
 Mrs. Olphert is mother-in-law to Mr. Adair, Mr. Talbot’s attorney, and to 
 the Rev. Robert Gage and the Rev. George Kenunis, two of his witnesses. 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 to be confirmed by Finnerty and Hester Keogh. It is unneces¬ 
 sary to enter into the particulars of these disgusting charges 
 (in the attempt to establish which Halloran and Finnerty flatly con¬ 
 tradict each other and the truth of which is denied by Keogh), 
 as they are altogether rejected by the High Court of Delegates 
 (who ultimately adjudicated on the case), as “obviously untrue,” 
 and the testimony in support of them “stamped with the seal of” 
 “ condemnation; ” but it is in the highest degree probable that 
 had not circumstances occurred to convert what was originally 
 a formal into a substantial defence, these monstrous charges, 
 now admitted to be false (which had already obtained for 
 Mr. Talbot £2000 damages against his groom), would have 
 remained uncontradicted; and the unhappy lady would have been 
 condemned to perpetual infamy, on evidence which the Court 
 rejects as gross and infamous perjury. 
 
 It may be proper however to remark that Hester Keogh, who in 
 the accusations against Mrs. Talbot, is alleged “ to have been an eye 
 “ witness on several occasions, and at different times and places,” 
 to her mistress’s criminality, and who gives her evidence whilst in 
 Mr. Talbot’s service, and before any steps had been taken for Mrs 
 Talbot’s defence, so far from establishing such allegations, positively 
 denies that she ever saw any improper conduct in Mrs. Talbot, 
 and distinctly swears to her belief in her innocence, and that 
 she was belied; and in addition to this deposes on oath, that 
 Halloran and Finnerty had attempted “ to suborn her to swear ” 
 “ false ” against her mistress.* 
 
 It appears that some time after giving her examination in 
 chief, Hester Keogh leaves Mount Talbot, her reasons for so doing 
 it may be well to give in her own words : “ I left Mount Talbot” 
 “because Halloran and Finnerty were on bad terms with me,” 
 
 * “ Finnerty and Halloran did try to induce me to swear false against Mrs. ” 
 “ Talbot.”—3d Interrogatory. 
 
 “ I did state to Mr. Talbot that Halloran and Finnerty bad belied bis wife, ” 
 “ and that I would not belie her.”—19th Interrogatory. 
 
 “I did state to Finnerty and Halloran that I would not belie my mistress as ” 
 “ they had done. Such observation of mine was in reply to efforts on their ” 
 “part to make me give evidence against Mrs. Talbot.”—21st Interrogatory. 
 
 “ I then and now believed they did belie her.”—22d Interrogatory. 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 “because I would not swear false against Mrs. Talbot, and also in ’ 
 “consequence of Halloran attempting to burst in m 3 ’ room door."* 
 
 In the month of November 1852, nearly six months after the 
 commencement of her incarceration, Mrs. Talbot, after considerable 
 trouble and difficulty, is rescued from her captivity at Clewer. 
 
 Her defence is then taken up in earnest, and with such means as 
 the liberality of the Ecclesiastical Courts places at the disposal of 
 her friends, who are compelled to conduct her defence through the 
 medium of the proctors already introduced to act on her behalf by 
 her husband’s attornej’. 
 
 Upon this change in the position of the lady, her husband, fearing 
 to trust to the substantiality of the charges on which he had origi¬ 
 nally sought to criminate his wife, brings forward a series of supple¬ 
 mental charges of the most foul, disgusting, and profligate descrip¬ 
 tion, extending over a period of two years; and seeks to support 
 the original accusations bv evidence of certain alleged confessions 
 or admissions made b} r her subsequently to her alleged criminality 
 having been discovered. 
 
 These alleged admissions, let it be remembered, were not intro¬ 
 duced into the case until the expiration of six months, and the 
 other supplemental evidence until the expiration of twelve months 
 after the original charges against Mrs. Talbot were recorded. 
 
 Three of these supplemental witnesses, named Mary Ann Benn, 
 Susan Benn, and Joseph O'Brien, swear to most gross acts of 
 criminality committed whilst Mr. and Mrs. Talbot resided at 
 Summer Hill and Eden Hill; the two former of these witnesses 
 are proved to be servants of the lowest class, and one of them 
 ascribes her not getting a situation to Mrs. Talbot’s refusal to 
 give her a character, the latter (O’Brien) is a person who lives in 
 the house of a man to whom his sister prostitutes herself. 
 
 Susan Benn admits that until she told her disgusting story to 
 Mr. Adair and the Rev. Mr. Collis in the spring of 1853, she 
 
 had never mentioned the circumstance to any one ; not only had 
 
 she preserved this strict silence, but she also admits that she 
 
 stated that “She never observed anything in the conduct of” 
 
 “Mrs. Talbot with inspect to Mullane,” and that “she was quite ” 
 
 * Hester Keogh, second interrogatory. 
 
( 1 ' ) 
 
 ‘•positive that any kindness she might have shewn Mullane was" 
 “ nothing more than might be shewn by any lady to a servant so ” 
 “ circumstanced, he having charge of her horse and living at a ” 
 “ distance from home.” 
 
 0‘Brien admits, on his cross-examination, that he stated 
 repeatedly, at several times and to several different persons, and 
 up to the time of his interview with the Rev. Mr. Collis and Mr. 
 Adair, “that he never saw anything improper on the part of” 
 “ Mrs. Talbot toward Mullane, and that he was prepared to prove " 
 •• his statements on oath.” 
 
 Mary Ann Benn seems to have been, to a certain extent, 
 conscious how incredible it would appear that such a secret should 
 have been kept so long, so she says that she thinks that three 
 years ago she told her father and mother something, but she cannot 
 now recollect what. She has, however, no difficulty in recollecting 
 and swearing positively that “about three or four months past the ” 
 “Rev. Mr. Collis, brother-in-law of Mr. Talbot, called on her” 
 “at Rock Lodge and asked her to tell him all the information” 
 “she knew about Mrs. Talbot and Mullane, which she then told” 
 “ him.” She also recollects very distinctly that “ the Rev. Mr. ” 
 £{ Collis told her that her expenses would be paid when she went” 
 “ to Dublin, and that he would see she was comfortabty provided ” 
 “ for there.” The Rev. Mr. Collis appears to have taken this 
 witness under his own especial care, without the assistance of Mr. 
 Adair, and not to have been cpiite so reserved and prudent as 
 persons more experienced in procuring testimony generally are. 
 
 The entire falsehood of all these accusations was however conclu¬ 
 sively proved by the unquestionable fact, that during the whole 
 period covered by them, Mullane was suffering from a loathsome 
 and contagious disease, which would have rendered detection certain 
 had any intercourse actually existed; and this fact the Court very 
 naturally consider as “ample ground” on which to “discard the” 
 “testimony” brought to prove Mrs. Talbot’s criminality during this 
 period as “neither truthtelling nor trustworthy.” 
 
 The only other supplemental witness to actual criminality is 
 a person of the name of Maria Mooney, (formerly a servant at 
 Mount Talbot, and who at the time of giving her testimony was 
 
 c 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 in the service of Mr. Barlow, the agent to Mr. Talbot), who deposes 
 to having been an eye-witness to a most flagrant and open act of 
 adultery committed at Mount Talbot on a particular da} T , when 
 Mr. Talbot was absent from home (for the infrequency of his 
 absence renders such days marked days in the calendar); this 
 witness, however, like her associates the Benns, admits that on the 
 report of Mrs. Talbot’s having left Mount Talbot first getting into 
 circulation she expressed to several persons her ignorance of any¬ 
 thing to Mrs. Talbot’s prejudice, and that it was not till after a year 
 had elapsed, and until a long time after the alleged detection of 
 Mrs. Talbot in Mullane’s room, that she mentioned what she 
 professes to have seen to any one. Fortunately, however, for 
 Mrs. Talbot, this witness is directly contradicted by a most 
 respectable person of the name of Margaret Hall, a lady’s 
 maid in the service of Lady Ashbrook, whose evidence the 
 Court of Delegates expressly sav the} 7 see “ no reason to doubt; ” 
 and who, at the time of the alleged accusations, was in the 
 service of Mrs. Talbot as lady’s maid, who swears that she 
 distinctly remembers the occasion to which Mooney refers; 
 that she remained with her mistress and the child the whole 
 of that evening, and that at the very time when the alleged act 
 of adultery was stated to have been committed in the bedroom, 
 “ Mrs. Talbot was in the library hearing her child say a lesson ” 
 “and repeating a hymn, as was her custom every night before” 
 “ she went to bed. ” 
 
 Both this witness and Cecily Rogers, formerly a servant at 
 Mount Talbot, as well as Hester Keogh (Mr. Talbot’s own witness), 
 thi'ee women upon whose characters there is not the shadow of an 
 imputation, and who were all in immediate personal attention on 
 Mrs. Talbot and her child, and whose evidence extends over the 
 whole period of Mrs. Talbot's residence at Mount Talbot, bear 
 the strongest testimony to her innocence, denying that they had 
 ever seen, known, or suspected any familiarity or impropriety 
 between Mrs. Talbot and Mullane, and stating their belief that it 
 would have been utterly impossible for any improper intercourse to 
 have been carried on without their knowing it. 
 
 It is also proved, by those with whom Mrs. Talbot has resided 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 subsequently to her leaving Mrs. Tennant’s (the woman who 
 resides at Clewer under the alias of Mrs. Trueman ), and who had 
 been in daily and hourly communication with her, as well as by 
 those who had been on terms of the utmost familiarity with her 
 from her cradle upwards, that they had never seen or heard the 
 slightest look, word, or action inconsistent with the most perfect 
 purity and delicacy of mind. 
 
 This (strange as it may appear) is the evidence upon which 
 Dr. Radcliffe, the Judge of the Consistory Court, condemned Mrs. 
 Talbot.* It may appear stranger still that the Court of Delegates, 
 who expressly state their utter disbelief of this evidence, should 
 have confirmed that sentence; but lest your Lordship should be 
 disposed to doubt how, in the face of the evidence, which has 
 been referred to, such decision could be possible, it is proper to 
 state that the Court of Delegates wholly reject the direct evidence 
 of criminality as insufficient to sustain the judgment, and accom¬ 
 pany that rejection by an indignant denunciation of the principal 
 witnesses as utterly unworthy of belief, and for “some motive ” 
 (the Court does not specify what) giving evidence which is “ mani- ” 
 “ festly untrue,” and rest their decision on the confessions or 
 admissions of guilt alleged to have been made by Mrs. Talbot, and 
 supposed to have been proved in evidence. 
 
 It becomes important, therefore, to ascertain what these admis¬ 
 sions really were. 
 
 They may be divided into three classes. 
 
 The first consisting of admissions stated to have been made to 
 Balloran and Finnerty on the I9th of May, 1852 (the day of Mrs. 
 Talbot’s alleged detection in the room of Mullane). 
 
 The second, of an admission alleged to have been made on the 
 
 * It is no part of my present task to comment on the judgment of Dr. 
 Radcliffe. That has already been done by my brother. I am dealing with the 
 Court of Delegates, which says, that it “ does not found its judgment on other” 
 “grounds than those it has assigned. It neither adopts nor rejects the” 
 “ reasons which appear in the judgment of the Court below and I shall only 
 allude to the judgment of Dr. Radcliffe when it is unavoidably incident to some 
 passage in that of the Delegates: to do more would occupy a far longer time 
 than I can expect your Lordship to afford for the perusal of this letter. 
 
 c 2 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 following day (i. c. the 20th of May) to the Rev. Mr. M‘(.’lellancl 
 previous to her leaving Mount Talbot for Dublin. 
 
 1 he third, of admissions made subsequent to her arrival in Dublin. 
 
 I he Court seems disposed to place peculiar reliance on the first 
 and second of these classes, in consequence of their having been 
 supposed to be made before Mrs. Talbot manifested unequivocal 
 symptoms of insanitv. 
 
 The only witnesses to the first class are Finnertv and Halloran, 
 who are assumed by the Court to have deposed that on the alleged 
 detection of Mrs. Talbot in Mullane’s room she made use of the 
 following expression: “It is not Mullane’s fault; I am only to ” 
 “ blame.” 
 
 The first and principal objection to this alleged admission is 
 that it rests exclusively on testimony which is wholly unworthy of 
 credit, and cannot therefore be received as true in fact. 
 
 H If Halloran and Finnertv are to be believed, there is no need 
 of confessions at all to prove Mrs. Talbot’s guilt. If they are to be 
 disbelieved (as the Court holds they are) as to what they swear 
 they saw Mrs. Talbot do, a, fortiori they are unworthy of belief 
 as to what they swear they heard her say. 
 
 Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the expression in 
 question had been proved by trustworthy witnesses to have been used 
 by Mrs. Talbot, it is far short of amounting to anything like evidence 
 of guilt. 
 
 But it is worse than waste of time to indulge in discussion as to 
 the construction of words which, though quoted in the judgment, 
 are nowhere to be found in the evidence ; for, strange as it may 
 appear, it is nevertheless the fact, that the Court, in this passage 
 of the judgment, puts into the mouth of the witnesses (Halloran 
 and Finnertv) words which they never use !—neither of them 
 even attempts to repeat Mrs. Talbot’s expression using the first 
 person. Both of them echo, word for word, the “article,” as 
 drawn by Mr. Talbot’s proctor, as, no doubt, they were prepared 
 to do. The words they echo so readily are those of the 12th 
 article, “that the said William Mullane was not the person to” 
 “ blame, for that it was she, the said impugnant, that made ” 
 “ or induced him to act as he had done.' This, Halloran and 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 Finnerty repeat in the words in which it was put to them, words, 
 evidently, not ot‘ Mrs. Talbot, but of the proctor or counsel who 
 drew the article. If this is evidence of a confession of guilt at all, 
 it is a confession of guilt in which Mrs. Talbot was the tempter. 
 Halloran and Finnerty no doubt were ready to swear to anything 
 that was wanted ; but it happens that Mr. Talbot’s proctor was 
 bold enough to suggest a similar statement to the Rev. Robert 
 Gage. The article to which he is vouched is as follows: “That” 
 “during the interview with said clergyman the said impugnant” 
 “ admitted that she had herself induced the said William Midlane to 
 “ commit adultery with her? 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Gage, when this monstrous suggestion is made to 
 him, does not, like Halloran and Finnerty, echo it in its words. He 
 negatives it in the strongest terms. His answer is, that “ She ” 
 “shuddered back from the idea with abhorrence!” Can there be 
 a more conclusive proof than this affords that the whole of the 
 alleged statements of Mrs. Talbot on the 19th of May are pure 
 fabrications put into the mouths of unscrupulous witnesses, and 
 willingly deposed to by them? What is a little perjury more or 
 less to such witnesses as Halloran and Finnerty ? 
 
 As to the second class of admissions, upon which the Court of 
 Delegates in the judgment place great stress, it consists exclusively 
 of an admission alleged to have been made to the Rev. Mr. 
 McClelland, the Rector of Mount Talbot, previously to Mrs. 
 Talbot’s removal to Dublin. Mr. Talbot, in his allegations, charges 
 that on the morning of the 20th of May, Mrs. Talbot “admitted” 
 “and confessed her guilt to the Rev. Mr. M‘CIelland.” Mr. 
 M‘Clelland, in his evidence, however, instead of supporting, directly 
 contradicts this allegation, for he swears that “ on that occasion,” 
 “ she neither admitted nor denied her guilt,” and that it was not 
 until “subsequently to her arrival in Dublin” (Mr. McClelland does 
 not state how long after, it may have been several days) that she 
 made any confession at all, so that instead of there being 
 any such admission as that alleged, and which the Court on 
 giving judgment assumed to have been proved, the witness called 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 to prove it, and to whose evidence the Court refers as having proved 
 it, expressly denies the fact. There this matter ought to have ended 
 leaving Mr. Talbot with the stigma of having brought a charge 
 against his wife which he could not substantiate. It appears, how¬ 
 ever, that the Court (with an amount of negligence and indifference 
 to the solemn duties it had to discharge which it is scarcely 
 possible to believe) actually quoted tiie pleading instead of 
 THE PROOF, MISTAKING THE ALLEGATION FOR THE EVIDENCE, 
 AND THUS CONDEMNED AN UNFORTUNATE LADY TO INFAMY AND 
 DISGRACE ON ASSUMED EVIDENCE WHICH NEVER WAS, IN FACT, 
 BEFORE THE COURT AT ALL. 
 
 The Allegation, Evidence, and Judgment, are as follows:— 
 
 Allegation. 
 
 “ The said clergy- ” 
 “man, i.e., Mr. M'Clel-” 
 “land, went to M*.” 
 “ Talbot house, and ” 
 “ had a conversation ” 
 “ with the said im- ” 
 “ pugnant, and the ” 
 “ said impugnant then ” 
 “ admitted and con- ” 
 “fessed to the said" 
 “ clergyman that she ” 
 “ had been guilty of" 
 “ adultery with the said” 
 “ William Mullane .”— 
 1st additional Article. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 “ I went to M*. Tal- ” 
 “hothouse, and had” 
 “ a conversation with ” 
 “ the impugnant, and ” 
 “ upbraided her for ” 
 “such her criminal” 
 “ intercourse with the” 
 “ said William Mul- ” 
 “ lane. She appeared ” 
 “ much confused; but ” 
 “ on that occasion nei-" 
 “ ther admitted nor de- ” 
 “ nied her guilty inter- ” 
 “ course with said Wil- " 
 “ Ham Mullane." — Evi¬ 
 dence of the Rev. W. 
 McClelland to 1st addi¬ 
 tional Article. 
 
 Judgment. 
 
 “ Previous to the 
 “ appellant’s depar- 
 “ ture for Dublin, on 
 “ the 20th, with Mr. 
 “ M'Clelland, we find 
 “from his testimony 
 “ her acknowledgment 
 “ of her transgression. 
 
 Mv Lord, have I not made good my first charge ? Has not the 
 Court perverted the evidence of the Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland ? Has 
 it not deliberately cited him as asserting what he expressly denies? 
 
 The two first classes of alleged admissions, therefore, entirely fall 
 to the ground. In point of fact, the only credible evidence of any 
 statements or declarations at all by Mrs. Talbot, prior to her leaving 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 Mount Talbot for Dublin, are those to which Hester Keogh (Mr. 
 Talbot’s own witness*') bears testimony, and to which the attention 
 of the Court was speciallydra wn, who deposes that, during the 
 whole of the awful night of the 19th of May, Mrs. Talbot vehe¬ 
 mently protested her innocence, and said she was belied.f So tar, 
 therefore, from there being any credible evidence of admissions 
 of guilt prior to Mrs. Talbot’s arrival in Dublin, the evidence 
 discloses the strongest possible protestations on her part of her 
 innocence. 
 
 I now come to the third class: but before I proceed to comment 
 on these, it may be as well to glance at the actual condition of 
 Mrs. Talbot at the time when the alleged admissions were made, as 
 deposed to by the Rev. Mr. Gage and Mary Armstrong, two of the 
 persons who speak to her admissions. 
 
 “ She did not know those around her ”—“ she was imbe- ” 
 “ cile, idiotic, and insanethese are the very words of the witness. 
 “ She combed her hair with her hands, and ran pins into herself, ” 
 “ and tore her flesh with her teeth and nails”—“she took Mary ” 
 “ Armstrong (a grown woman) for her child.” She was styled by 
 the servants at the hotel where she lodged “ the mad woman ; ” 
 and Mr. Gage selects, as the language most appropriate to describe 
 her condition, “ a maniac ” and “ a raving woman ; ” and whilst in 
 this wretched state she repeatedly attempted self-destruction. 
 
 During Mrs. Talbot’s stay in Dublin, and whilst she was in the 
 condition I have described, she was visited by four clergymen of the 
 Established Church—the Rev. Mr. McClelland, above alluded to; 
 the Rev. Mr. Collis (the brother-in-law of Mr. Talbot), and the 
 Rev. Mr. Kemmis and the Rev. Mr. Gage (brothers-in-law of his 
 attorney)—for the purpose, apparently, of administering to her 
 spiritual requirements, each of whom deposes to admissions of guilt 
 made by her during this period, and all of whom (unlike their more 
 
 * The Court of Delegates, with culpable carelessness, call Hester Keogh “the 
 witness for the appellant ,” i.e., for Mrs. Talbot. She was the witness for the 
 respondent , i. e., Mr. Talbot; she was called and examined on his behalf, before 
 Mrs. Talbot’s defence was undertaken, and was in his service at the time. 
 
 f “ During the entire night she kept constantly protesting her innocence, 
 and_saying that she was belied.”— Evidence of Hester Keogh. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 considerate brethren of the sister Church) afterwards appear in a 
 Court of Justice and proclaim these admissions to her condemnation. 
 
 One of her confessors, the Rev. Mr. Collis, having noted down in 
 his memory or in his book her wild wanderings, scours the country 
 far and wide for evidence to substantiate them,—writes to me—who, 
 with my brother, was taking steps for her defence—a letter, threaten¬ 
 ing to produce, as evidence of her guilt, “ parties above suspicion ”— 
 “indisputable evidence”—“persons who, from their sex and” 
 “position in society, shuddered at the thought of being brought” 
 “forward as witnesses; but who would appear if necessary;” and, 
 upon this assurance, “ implores” me not to offer any opposition to 
 Mr. Talbot’s obtaining a divorce. And these threatened witnesses 
 turn out to be the Reims and O’Brien ! 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Kemniis concludes his ministerial services by 
 taking her to Clewer, and placing her in confinement under a false 
 name, in the custody of a woman who finds it convenient^ to assume 
 an alias, and who frustrates the endeavours of her friends to obtain 
 access to her by false and deceitful representations; and locks her 
 door in the face of myself and my wife, Mrs. Talbot’s sister! 
 
 Such, then, being the circumstances under which the alleged 
 admissions were made, they turn out to be—what not unreasonably 
 might be expected—wild and incohorent in their character. In no 
 one instance does Mrs. Talbot speak to any one specific act of 
 criminality ; her statements, in fact, amounting to vague and 
 general acknowledgments of guilt, with the conviction of which 
 her mind, no doubt, during the continuance of the fits of derange¬ 
 ment, had become impressed : and accompanied, in most instances, 
 with touching and poignant expressions of contrition and sorrow, 
 which are much more easily reconeileable with the supposition of 
 imaginary than actual guilt, such as that of which she was accused; 
 for it is impossible to conceive a course of outrageous debauchery 
 and successful deceit to have been carried on for two years without the 
 conscience becoming seared and the moral sense utterly hardened and 
 depraved. There was none of that mystery and reservedness on her 
 part which might have been expected if her admissions had been 
 based on reality. She seems to have talked freely and in the most 
 unmeasured way to any one who could be brought to lead her poor 
 
( 2o ) 
 
 distracted mind to the subject ot its delusions. The only matter ot 
 surprise is, not that such admissions as those above referred to 
 should have been made by Mrs. Talbot, having regard to her con¬ 
 dition at the time, but that ever they should have been treated as 
 admissible evidence in a Court of Justice.* 
 
 It was in evidence before the Court on the depositions of Drs. 
 Conolly and Roscoe, that on Mrs. Talbot’s removal from Clewer 
 she was in a state of confirmed insanity, which must, in their 
 opinion, have been of considerable standing, and that no admissions 
 of guilt made by her in the state in which they found her would in 
 their opinion be entitled to the slightest weight except as 
 evidence of insanity. They further state that delusions as to their 
 unchastity are (as everyone knows) a common feature of insanity 
 amongst women, and would, in their judgment, be very likely to 
 result from a state of mental derangement brought on by unjust 
 accusations of the crime of adultery. 
 
 Now as the most unquestionable symptoms of insanit}'’ existed 
 at, or in close proximity to, the time when the alleged admissions 
 were made, and such symptoms continued to be manifested at the 
 time of Mrs. Talbot being removed to Clewer, it is a fair and 
 reasonable presumption that the condition in which she was found 
 by these eminent practitioners on her removal from Clewer, and 
 which they state to be confirmed insanity, was nothing more than a 
 continuation of that which pre-existed whilst she was in Dublin, and 
 consequently that although their testimony is limited to the time 
 
 * “ It is ot frequent occurrence, according to my practice and experience,” 
 “ as a feature of insanity in women, to have a thorough belief, founded on ’ ’ 
 “ delusion , in their unchastity. I have met with a great variety of cases where 
 “ women alleged or charged themselves with having been guilty of adultery 
 “ when it was perfectly well known such could not have been the case.”— 
 Evidence of J. Conolly, M.D., Physician to the Hartwell Lunatic Asylum, 14th 
 and 16th Interrogatory. 
 
 “ I have for many years been familiar with cases of insanity and conversant 
 “ with its treatment. I have known women who formed and held a thorough ” 
 “ belief, founded in delusion, in their unchastity, accompanied with an unceasing ” 
 “ and unmeasured avowal of their guilt and self-accusation.”— Evidence of 
 Robert Adams, M.D., Surgeon to the Richmond Hospital, formerly Surgeon to the 
 Richmond Lunatic Asylum. SfC, fc. 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 when they visited her, it virtually reacts upon her previous con¬ 
 dition, so as to render any admissions made by her in Dublin 
 even in her apparently lucid intervals disentitled to any weight 
 whatever. 
 
 These suggestions acquire a moral certainty when it is remem¬ 
 bered that from the time of her removal from Dublin until she was 
 visited hy Dr. Conolly and Dr. Roscoe, a period of nearly six 
 months, Mrs. Talbot was in the custody of Mrs. Tennant, a woman 
 who was in constant communication with Mr. Talbot or his agents, 
 and who, if she could have proved that Mrs. Talbot was not insane 
 during the time she resided in her house, most unquestionably 
 would have been called to do so, but whom Mr. Talbot has never 
 ventured to produce or to subject to cross-examination. 
 
 The learned Judges, however, treat the evidence of these eminent 
 persons as amounting; only to philosophical and abstract opinions, 
 and condemn Mrs. Talbot on the alleged admissions, on the ground 
 of their not being made “ under moments of raving ,” but at periods 
 when, as they appear to assume, she was in a sane state of mind. 
 
 The language of the Courtis: “Happy would this Court be if” 
 “ the sad events which it has been our duty to comment on could ” 
 “ lead us to coincide with those philosophical and abstract ” 
 “ opinions, no doubt founded on experience.” 
 
 It is difficult to conceive what the Court meant by this language. 
 
 How did the “sad events” prevent the Court from coinciding 
 with the “abstract and philosophical opinions” of the Doctors? 
 
 What the Court had to determine was whether or not Mrs. Talbot 
 was in an undoubted state of sanity when the admissions were made. 
 The Doctors prove that she was in a confirmed state of insanity when 
 they examined her, and that such insanity was of long standing.* 
 All that remained for the Court was to satisfy themselves whether, 
 with the evidence before them, there was reasonable ground for 
 
 * “ I depose that, from my examination of the impugnant, she was insane ” 
 “ for many months previous to my examination of her. ... I do not ” 
 “ and cannot swear that the impugnant was of unsound mind in the months ” 
 “of May, June, or July 1852 ; but, from my examination of her, I have no” 
 “ doubt of her insanity in said months.”— Evidence of Dr. Roscoe , 8th and 
 9th Interrogatory. 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 supposing that such condition did not, in fact, exist when the 
 admissions were made; for, if so, they would not have been justified 
 in accepting the admissions simply because they were made in an 
 interval of apparent tranquillity, it being notorious that in the case 
 of persons labouring under permanent insanity, as distinguished 
 from mere temporary delirium, the delusions are in such intervals 
 often the strongest. As pointedly remarked by the Vice Chancellor 
 Wood in a late case in which property only was concerned: “In ” 
 “permanent or proper insanity;” (which is admitted to be Mrs. 
 Talbot’s condition) “a person is just as insane in his apparently” 
 “ rational, as he is in his visible raving fits.” In the present case 
 however, in which the honour and reputation of a woman are 
 at stake, five Irish Judges appear to have taken a different view. 
 
 It may be deemed impertinent in a person like myself to insinuate 
 a doubt whether, when the Judges adjudicated in this case, they 
 had taken proper steps to inform their minds on the subject under 
 adjudication. But I cannot bring myself to think that when they 
 condemned an accused person upon admissions not actually made 
 “during moments of raving,” the}' could have been aware of the 
 definition of a lucid interval given by Lord Brougham in the case 
 of Waring v. Waring, G Moore’s Privy Council Cases, p. 341, and 
 decided in a department of Law similar to that in which they 
 were presiding, where he says, “By a lucid interval is meant a” 
 “ recovery from the disease and a subsequent relapse, ’ and in a later 
 part of the judgment the learned Lord says, “ no confidence can” 
 “ be placed in the acts, or in any act of a diseased mind, however ” 
 “ apparently rational that act may appear to be, or in reality may ” 
 “ be or of the following definition of a lucid interval given by 
 Professor Taylor, in his well known work on Medical Jurisprudence: 
 “ By a lucid interval we are to understand a temporary cessation ” 
 « of the insanity or a perfect restoration to reason : thus then it” 
 “ differs entirely from remission, in which there is a mere abatement ” 
 “ of symptoms or that the Court could have been very deeply 
 impressed with the forcible language of Lord Stoweil in the case 
 of Williams v. Williams, 1 Consist. 304 : “ Confession is a species ” 
 “ of evidence which, though not inadmissible, is to be regarded with ” 
 “ great distrust. ” 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the whole period of Mrs. Talbot’s 
 stay in Dublin and Rathgar, during which she manifested the 
 symptoms of insanity above referred to, and whilst she was treated 
 as a lunatic by those who afterwards deposed to her confessions, 
 did not exceed twenty-eight davs. 
 
 With the symptoms of insanity which have been already alluded 
 to, and the existence of which, subsequently to Mrs. Talbot’s arrival 
 in Dublin, the Court fully admits, the question will, no doubt, have 
 presented itself to your Lordship’s mind: Was no medical man 
 called in or consulted with respect to Mrs. Talbot’s state and 
 condition ? 
 
 The answer to this question is, that immediately upon the arrival 
 of Mary Armstrong* she requested that a medical man should be 
 sent for, and the introduction of Dr. Albert Walsh into the case is 
 the result. 
 
 The Court alludes to his testimony in the following words: “ He ” 
 “ attended her, I think, for four or five days, and up to the period ” 
 “at which he thought he might discontinue his visits ; and during” 
 “ the whole of that time we have the testimony of this experi-" 
 “ enced (as I must take it for granted he is) physician, testifying to " 
 “ the sanity of this lady, and not observing any symptoms of delusion ” 
 “ in her.” 
 
 Now, let us turn to the evidence and see what were the facts 
 during Dr. Walsh's attendance, which he fixes in his evidence as 
 having been on the 24th, 27tli. 30th, and 31st of May, at Coffey’s 
 Hotel. 
 
 Mrs. Talbot arrived in Dublin on tbe 20th of May with the 
 Rev. Mr. M‘Cielland, who remained with her till the 23rd. His 
 evidence is as follows:—“On more than one occasion whilst at” 
 “ Coffey’s Hotel she seemed disposed to raise the window, as I consi-” 
 “ dered, for the purpose of throwing herself out of it, which obliged ” 
 “me to remain with her. She has also said, on more than one” 
 “ occasion, ‘ Oh ! Mr. M'Clelland, I am in Ilell, and my brain is ’ ” 
 “ on fire.’ ” 
 
 * Mary Armstrong is lady’s maid to Mrs. M'Causland, Mrs. Talbot’s mother, 
 and is the person whom Mrs. Talbot requested should be sent to meet her in 
 Dublin. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 On the 23rd Armstrong arrives, and her description of Mrs. Tal¬ 
 bot s state is in the following words:—“ On Sunday, the 23rd of’’ 
 “ May, I was placed in attendance upon Mrs. Talbot. On my ” 
 “arrival she knew me. Shortly after she broke into a paroxysm ” 
 “ of violence and wildness. She repeatedly asked who I was, and” 
 “appeared not to know me at all. She had repeated renewals of” 
 “'such fits of violence and wildness during the time I remained in” 
 “ the said hotel. During the said fits of violence the impugnant ” 
 “ repeatedly attempted to commit violence on herself, and would, in ’ 
 “ my opinion, have destroyed herself, but that she was held in” 
 “restraint bv me. She frequently attempted to bite her arms and ” 
 “ used to run pins into herself and tear her flesh with her nails. On” 
 “ several occasions she attempted to snatch a knife for the purpose ” 
 “of killing herself, or inflicting wounds on herself, but was pre-” 
 “vented by me. She also repeatedly, during the period I was” 
 “with her, rushed over to the window and threw up the sash for ” 
 “the purpose, 1 believe, of throwing herself out, and I believe” 
 “she would have done so had she not been prevented by me. I” 
 , “ had to remain constantly beside the impugnant, and quite close ” 
 “ to her, for the purpose of preventing her doing violence to her- 
 “ self, and I depose that on upwards of one hundred occasions Iliad" 
 “during the nights and days to lay hold of her and hold her to" 
 “ prevent her destroying or injuring herself She repeatedly went 
 “ on her knees and entreated me to give her poison that she might ” 
 “ put an end to herself. She repeatedly caught hold of me and' 
 “ addressed, me as her child, and on said occasions she spoke and acted ” 
 “ to me as if 1 was her child. Her mind appeared completely sunk.” 
 “ She became imbecile and idiotic and insane in her conduct, though ’ 
 “she had occasional intervals of comparative tranquillity. At" 
 “ Coffey s Hotel the servants called her the mad woman .”’ 
 
 On Tuesday, the 25th of May, the Rev. Mr. Gage arrives. He 
 says: “The impugnant was in bed when I first saw her on Tues-” 
 “ day the 25th of May. I w 7 as alone with her for some time. She ” 
 “teas greatly excited, tearing her hair, and I had much difficulty" 
 “ in keeping her in bed. She was like a maniac, combing her hair 
 
 * Evidence of Mary Armstrong 15th, 17th, 18th Article, 25th Interrogatory. 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 “ with her hands like a raving woman. On two occasions she ” 
 “asked me would there be any harm in having given to her” 
 “so much opium or laudanum as to put her to sleep, so that she ” 
 “ would not ever awake. I would not have left within her control ” 
 “ or procurement poison or any other means of taking away her ” 
 “ life. I gave directions she should be treated as I should treat a 
 “ lunatic. I engaged a nurse tender. I considered it necessary ” 
 “to do so from the outrageous conduct of the impugnant. The ’ 
 “persons in charge of her told me that she made efforts to throw" 
 “ herself out of the window. I was informed by Armstrong that 
 “ the impugnant had not slept from Sunday the 23rd to Wednesday 
 “ the 2 6th of May."] 
 
 Mrs. Murray, the nurse, says, “ she was in a very excited state ” 
 “ of mind, particularly when at Coffey’s Hotel. I considered it ” 
 “ necessary to watch her, lest she should be tempted to commit ” 
 “ violence upon herself. I did consider it unsafe to leave her alone. ” 
 “ She often asked me to give her a draught that would set her ” 
 “asleep for ever; and she said it would not be a sin to take it” 
 “ from me, but that it would be a sin for her to take it.”J 
 
 This is the description of Mrs. Talbot’s state and condition, 
 from her arrival in Dublin on the 20th of Maj% to the end of that 
 month, deposed to on oath by four persons, three of whom are 
 Mr. Talbot’s own Witnesses. 
 
 Now, my Lord, the only other witness w'ho was in attendance upon 
 Mrs. Talbot during this period is the “ experienced (as the Court ” 
 “ must take it for granted he is) physician, Albert Jasper Walsh,” 
 “of No. 89, Harcourt Street, Dublin, M.D., aged about thirty-” 
 “ five years, a witness, duly produced and sworn,” who deposes on 
 his oath, as follows: “ I was called on by Mr. Adair to attend the ” 
 “ impugnant. I found her labouring under biliary obstruction, and ” 
 “ very considerable excitement and distress of mind. I prescribed ” 
 “ for her; and after having paid her four visits, to wit, on the 24th, ” 
 “ 27th, 30th, and 31st of May, 1852, and I depose that, on the ” 
 “last of said visits, I found her so much relieved, that I did not” 
 
 t Rev. R. Gage, 5th, (itli, 7th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 32nd Interrogatory. 
 
 J Murray, 8th Article, 7th, 8th, 13th Interrogatory. 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 “ consider it necessary, after said fourth visit, to continue my ” 
 “ attendance on the impugnant any longer, as T was of opinion, ” 
 “ and considered that she had not any mental or bodily ailment, ” 
 “ to require the attendance of any medical person .” 
 
 Now, my Lord, I ask this question. Suppose that any one of 
 the many attempts at suicide deposed to by the Rev. Mr. Gage, by 
 Mary Armstrong, and by Mrs. Murray during the very period of 
 Dr. Walsh’s attendance had been successful, in what position would 
 Dr. Albert Jasper Walsh have stood before a coroner’s jury, who 
 had heard the evidence of the Rev. Robert Gage, of Mary Arm¬ 
 strong, and of Mrs. Murray? 
 
 And when it came out that the very reason why Dr. Walsh was 
 sent for was because Armstrong “wished a medical man to see her ” 
 “ as to her state of mind that Mr. Adair, Mr. Talbot’s attorney, 
 consequently called in his own “friend and acquaintance,”! Dr. 
 Albert Jasper Walsh, but did not tell him “for what purpose he 
 “was brought,” or “what her complaint was;”! that the attorney 
 accompanied the doctor on his visit,§ and that Armstrong “ stated ” 
 “ to Dr. Walsh, and also to Mr. Adair, that she believed the ” 
 “impugnant WAS mad ;”|| that she made this statement “on” 
 “ several occasions, and that she would wish them to see her in ” 
 “ one of her wild fits,”** yet that Dr. Walsh took no precaution. 
 
 When it turned out that so far from having recovered, when Dr. 
 Walsh’s visits ceased on the 31st of May, Mrs. Manly, to whose 
 house at Rathgar she was then removed, immediately discovered her 
 derangement, and “ considered her to be imbecile in her mind, ” 
 “ and idiotic and insane in her conduct and manner ;”ff complained 
 to the Rev. Mr. Gage of his having “brought such a person there,!! ” 
 and requested that she should be removed,§§ and that during the 
 residence of Mrs. Talbot at Rathgar, up to the time of her removal 
 to England, the same symptoms of insanity, the same violence, the 
 
 * Armstrong, 17tli Interrogatory. 
 | Walsh, 8th Interrogatory. 
 
 || Armstrong, 17th Interrogatory, 
 ff Mrs. Manly, 14th Article. 
 
 §§ Manly, 24th Article. 
 
 f Walsh, 2nd Interrogatory. 
 
 § Armstrong, 17th Interrogatory. 
 ** Ibid. 
 
 ++ Gage, 15th Interrogatory. 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 same repeated attempts at suicide continued!—that, in short, every 
 body about her could see that she was mad —What, I ask, would a 
 coroner and a coroner’s jury have thought of the two “ friends and ” 
 
 “ acquaintances,” Dr. Albert Jasper Walsh, who only saw symptoms 
 of “biliary obstruction !” and Mr. Adair, Mr. Talbot’s attorney? 
 
 Having seen what the condition of Mrs. Talbot was during this 
 period, let us now proceed to examine what particular evidence, 
 with regard to Mrs. Talbot’s admissions, it is that has carried con¬ 
 viction of her guilt to the minds of her judges, what “ reasons they 
 “ publicly announce,” and what “ grounds they assign,” for their 
 judgment as to this part of the case. 
 
 In the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Collis, one of the alleged 
 witnesses to confessions, we do not find even so much as a general 
 declaration of guilt by Mrs. Talbot deposed to: but the utmost 
 the witness affects to prove is that she admitted her guilt “by” 
 “her manner and expressions;” in other words that the witness 
 came to the conclusion from her manner and the mode of expressing 
 herself that she was guilty. I submit to your Lordship whether a 
 more gross violation of law and justice ever was committed than 
 the reception of such a deposition as evidence of guilt ? I 
 must confess that 1 had hitherto always understood that when an 
 accused party was condemned upon his confession, the very words 
 of the accused were spoken by the party deposing to the confession, 
 who for this purpose was treated as representing the accused and 
 speaking his words, the conclusiveness of which, as amounting to a 
 confession of guilt, was determined by the tribunal before which he 
 was tried, and I certainly had no idea that the guilt of a person 
 could be proved in any Court of Justice either in this or the sister 
 country, by the effect which the manner and expressions of the 
 accused might have on the mind of an adverse witness. To hold 
 this would, as it appears to me, be in effect to substitute for a Court 
 or jury, sworn to determine according to the evidence in the case, 
 the testimony of any officious intermeddler who might think proper 
 
 t Rev. U. Gage, Armstrong, Manly, Murray, passim. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 to make the conduct of the accused the subject of comment and 
 observation. 
 
 In using the term “ officious intermeddler ” it must not be under¬ 
 stood that I had any intention to include within it. either the Rev. 
 Mr. Collis or the Rev. Mr. Kemmis, whose relation to Mr. Talbot 
 or his attorney entitles to be considered more in the light of in¬ 
 terested parties adverse to Mrs. Talbot, than mere speculative 
 observers, and I cannot but regard Mr. Adair (Mr. Talbot’s 
 attorney) and his client as fortunate in having family connections 
 in the clerical profession, so well adapted to be witnesses in a 
 country and under a judicial system, where the opinion of a witness 
 as to the guilt of an accused person is received and acted upon as 
 evidence of such guilt. 
 
 The Court, however, which states that it is right that the 
 “reasons which influence its judgment should be publicly” 
 “announced,” and which is now proceeding to condemn Mrs. 
 Talbot out of her own mouth, appears to have felt that it could 
 hardly do so on evidence so vague and general as the Rev. Mr. 
 Collis’s opinion upon “ manner and expression.” The impression 
 on his mind could hardly be “assigned” as a ground whereon to 
 “ found its judgment.” The Court feels the necessity of some 
 precise and authentic evidence of what Mrs. Talbot actually said on 
 which to condemn her, and, therefore, next refers to the evidence 
 of the Rev. Robert Gage in the following words. I copy the whole 
 passage entire, and your Lordship will find on reference to the 
 judgment, which I print at the end of this letter, that this passage 
 is the only one in which the Rev. Mr. Gage’s evidence is alluded to, 
 except incidentally:— 
 
 “It is a painful judicial task to recur minutely to the unhappy” 
 “lady’s confessions; but her interviews with Mr. Gage and his” 
 “ evidence place it beyond reasonable doubt, and impress on the ” 
 “judicial mind the conviction, that her declarations were the out-” 
 “ pourings, the conscious visitings in a mind broken down by ” 
 “ remorse, unaffected by any other feelings than those of agony ” 
 “ and remorse. I forbear to go through the sad detail—who could ” 
 “ do it unmoved? or to refer to her touching address to Mr. Gage,” 
 “ her friend, her kinsman, and her pastor, when addressing him in ” 
 “ each of these different capacities, she conjured him, as he 
 
 D 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 “states in ms evidence, in these words: £ Oh! Robert, pray”’ 
 “ £ for me and my child.’ This is one of those touching appeals ” 
 “manifesting the consciousness of transgression and the hope of” 
 “his intercession and influence for her on high to have her fault” 
 “ forgiven, and thus making a clean heart and exhibiting returning ” 
 “ symptoms of a renewed spirit.” 
 
 Now, my Lord, I will not stop to discuss whether asking Mr. 
 Gage to “pray for herself and her child” is an admission on the 
 part of Mrs. Talbot that she had been carrying on the most gross 
 and shameless adultery for two years with a groom. It is not 
 necessary that I should enter on such an argument, for this reason— 
 No SUCH WORDS ARE USED BY Mr. GaGE. No SUCH PASSAGE IS TO 
 be found anywhere in his evidence ! The words which the 
 Court selects as conclusive of Mrs. Talbot’s guilt, the only words it 
 considers worthy of citation, have no existence but in the imagina¬ 
 tion of the Court. This is a startling fact, but it is, nevertheless, 
 true; and when we see how the Court cited the Rev. Mr. M £ Clel- 
 land as asserting what he denied, it perhaps is not to be wondered at 
 that they should have quoted Mr. Gage as proving what he never 
 said at all ! So, however, it is. I have carefully read and re-read 
 every word of Mr. Gage’s evidence, I have had that evidence 
 collated with the original deposition remaining on record in the 
 Court, it has been carefully examined, not only by myself, but by 
 professional friends accustomed to the examination of such docu¬ 
 ments, and no such passage, nor anything like it, is to be found. 
 This “ touching appeal,” this “ manifestation of the consciousness of” 
 “ transgression,” this “ outpouring ” to the Rev. Robert Gage, this 
 solemn “conjuration ” of him, in his three “capacities” of “friend,” 
 “ kinsman and pastor, ” which “ impresses conviction on the judi- ” 
 “ cial mind," is a phantasm conjured up by the judicial mind itself 
 out of NOTHING ! 
 
 Now, I ask your Lordship, what is the proper language in which 
 to designate the offence of Judges who, speaking from the judgment 
 seat on earth, and with solemn allusion to the judgment seat on 
 high upon their lips, can thus quote witnesses as saying what they 
 have not said and proving what they have denied? Are such 
 Judges fit to be entrusted with the administration of the laws? Are 
 life or property, fame, character, or reputation safe in their hands? 
 
 Lest, however, your Lordship should suppose that I underrate 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 the importance of the evidence of the Rev. Robert Gage, which I 
 have read,—though it is clear the Judges who decided upon it have 
 not, I will tell your Lordship and those learned Judges what Mr. 
 Gage does say. 
 
 He says: “ When I first saw the impugnant on Tuesday the ” 
 “ 25th of May, she was greatly excited,*—tearing her hair,f—she ” 
 “ was like a maniac, tearing her hair,i—I was informed by Arm- ” 
 “ strong she had not slept from Sunday the 23rd to Wednesday ” 
 “ the 26th of May,§—she asked me would there be any harm in ” 
 “ having given to her so much opium or laudanum as to put her ” 
 ‘•'to sleep so that she should not ever awake,||—I had much” 
 “ difficulty in keeping her in bed,**—combing her hair with her ” 
 “ hands like a raving woman,-j-f—starting up in bed and shewing ” 
 “other symptoms of raving4f—The woman at the house where I” 
 “ took lodgings for the impugnant stated to me, from the im- ” 
 “pugnant’s manner, she considered she was deranged, and was” 
 “displeased with me for having brought such a person there.§§—1” 
 “engaged a nursetender to assist the other servant. I considered” 
 “it necessary from the outrageous conduct of the impugnant.||||—” 
 “ The persons in charge of the impugnant told me in Dominick ” 
 “ Street certainly, and, as well as I recollect, at the lodgings at ” 
 “ Rathgar, the impugnant made efforts to throw herself out of the” 
 “ window.IF I would not have left within her control or procure- ” 
 “ ment poison, or any other means of taking away her life.*** When ” 
 “the impugnant was in Dublin, at Coffey's Hotel, and also at” 
 “ Rathgar, I gave directions that she should be treated as I would ” 
 “ treat A lunatic, and that she should not ever be left alone. I ” 
 “ gave such directions, because 1 thought she should be treated as ” 
 “ a lunatic ; and, as a minister, I had much experience in ” 
 
 “ CASES OF THE KIND.”fff 
 
 These are Mr. Gage’s words. This is his own description of the 
 
 * 6th Interrogatory. 
 
 | 7th Interrogatory. 
 
 || 13th Interrogatory, 
 ff 14th Interrogatory. 
 
 §§ 15th Interrogatory. 
 
 T[ 17th Interrogatory. 
 
 ttt 36th 
 
 f 7th Interrogatory. 
 
 § 5th Interrogatory. 
 
 ** 6th and 14th Interrogator 
 14th Interrogatory. 
 
 1111 16th Interrogatory. 
 
 *** 32nd Interrogatory. 
 Interrogatory. 
 
 D 2 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 state and condition of Mrs. Talbot during his conversations with 
 her. These are the particulars of what the Rev. Mr. Collis desig¬ 
 nates by the general words “manner and expressions.” This is 
 the state Mrs. Talbot was in when she made what are called her 
 confessions. Now, in order to judge how far the Rev. Mr. Gage was 
 himself in a condition of mind likely to form an impartial opinion 
 of anything Mrs. Talbot might sa} r to him, let us turn to his answer 
 to the second interrogatory. 
 
 We find from that answer, that before Mr. Gage came to Dublin 
 at all, his brother-in-law, Mr. Adair (Mr. Talbot’s attorney), wrote 
 to him, and told him that Mrs. Talbot “ had been guilty of adultery. ” 
 On Mr. Gage’s arrival in Dublin, and before he sees Mrs. Talbot, he 
 falls into the hands of Mr. Adair and the Rev. Mr. Collis (the 
 same rev. gentleman who introduced O'Brien and the Benns iuto 
 the case). “ We ” (says Mr. Gage)—that is, Mr. Adair, the Rev. 
 Mr. Collis, and the Rev. Mr.* Gage)—“ We had a conversation, 
 “and we were of opinion that she had been guilty !” Now, why 
 were these three gentlemen of opinion she was guilty ? Mr. 
 Adair’s reason is evident. He is the attorney hired and paid to prove 
 Mrs. Talbot guilty, that is the ground of his “opinion.” The Rev. 
 Mr. Collis is Mr. Talbot’s brother-in-law, and, to borrow the 
 language which the Court has applied to his friend Joseph O’Brien, 
 he is for “ some motive ” the bitterest, the most active and the most 
 unscrupulous of Mrs. Talbot’s enemies. The Rev. Mr. Gage is of 
 that opinion simply because his brother-in-law Mr. Adair told him 
 so; and Mr. Gage accepted the story without inquiry or inves¬ 
 tigation ! This is an apt illustration of the truth of Lord Bacon’s 
 remark, that “it often falls out that somewhat is produced of” 
 “ nothing, for lies are sufficient to breed opinion, and opinion brings ” 
 “ on substance.” The opinion of Mrs. Talbot’s guilt bred in Mr. 
 Gage's mind, as we have seen, brought on the substance of her con¬ 
 demnation. With this poison thus ingeniously instilled into his mind 
 the Rev. Mr. Gage speeds to the bedside of the unhappy woman, 
 whom he has already prejudged and condemned, finds her in the 
 state he has described—for four days has no conversation with her, 
 except on religious subjects ; treats her during the whole of that time 
 as a sinner and a penitent, and, by that time, has prepared her 
 mind to make, and his to receive, any wild raving that suited 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 his brother-in-law, Mr. Adair, and his client, Mr. Talbot! What 
 chance Mrs. Talbot had of escape from the meshes in which she 
 was entangled your Lordship may judge from the Rev. Mr. Gage’s 
 answer to the 18th and 23rd Interrogatory. 
 
 “ The impugnant was not visited by any member of her family ” 
 “ or relations but me while she was in Dominick Street, or in the ” 
 “ lodgings at Rathgar. I heard and believe that the impugnant” 
 “ did not see her father, mother, or brother, or any one of her sisters ” 
 “ or brothers-in-law; from the time she left Mount Talbot, in May ” 
 “last, until her removal from the house of Mrs. Tennant, near” 
 “ Windsor,” i. e., six months after! 
 
 “ Edward Senior” (Mrs. Talbot’s brother-in-law) “and I both” 
 “ were of opinion that Mr. M'Causland should be consulted, or ” 
 “ requested to act, as little as possible in the matter, and we both ” 
 “ considered that the case should proceed towards the procuring a ” 
 “ divorce with as much privacy and quietness as possible.” 
 
 And this compact between the Rev. Mr. Collis, the Rev. Mr. 
 Gage, Mr. Edward Senior, and Mr. Adair, by which Mrs. Talbot 
 was prejudged and condemned unheard, by which Mr. Talbot was 
 to obtain his divorce with “privacy and quietness,” by which Mrs. 
 Talbot was to be consigned to infamy and ruin and sentenced to 
 drag out a wretched existence concealed under an alias and incar¬ 
 cerated in a madhouse, was contracted and ratified before the 
 Rev. Mr. Gage had seen Mrs. Talbot at all ! 
 
 The only other “ expression ” of Mrs. Talbot on which the 
 Court seeks to rest her condemnation is cited by them from the 
 evidence of the Rev. Mr. Kemmis, whom the Court quote as 
 deposing to the following language having been used by her in one 
 of her interviews with him, and which from its supposed im¬ 
 portance he seems somehow or other to have treasured up in 
 his mind. “ If you think me worthy of it, mention my ” 
 “ name to your wife, that she may pray for me and my child.” 
 Such is the “expression” which the Court seeks to interpret or 
 pervert into the confession of a crime. The comments of the Court 
 on this passage are as follows:—“ Surely after such testimony as” 
 “ this, the use of these words must convince any man that these ” 
 “are the outpourings of an individual who felt she had committed” 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 “ a crime, and was willing and desirous to obtain the prayers of” 
 “ those whose intercessions might be efficacious, if addressed to the ” 
 “ Throne of Heaven on her behalf.” 
 
 My Lord, there are in this case many incidents that startle—many 
 that shock the mind—hut I cannot call to my recollection any one 
 incident that startled and shocked me more than when I found that 
 the cry of anguish of a stricken and helpless woman under a pressure 
 of suffering almost unprecedented, and her agonizing appeal for the 
 prayers of others on behalf of herself and her lost child, could in a 
 Christian Court, and bv five Judges calling themselves Christians, 
 ever be tortured into evidence of guilt. 
 
 Surely there was enough in the wrongs which this unhappy lady 
 had to endure to give her “ need of blessing,” without necessarily 
 imputing her appeal to Heaven to a sense of her criminality. But if a 
 Christian minister is to be permitted to intrude himself on a deserted 
 and friendless woman, and, under the pretence of administering to her 
 spiritual wants, to take down the solemn appeals to Heaven, which the 
 weight of her troubles or his own instrumentality may have induced 
 her to offer up for succour and help in her distress, and then to 
 desecrate his high calling by dragging them into a Court of Justice 
 as evidence of her guilt of any criminal act which it maj' be to his 
 interest or that of others to establish against her, such “ outpour- ” 
 “ ings ” ought in common justice to be subjected to something like 
 the same strictness of construction which Courts of Justice are in 
 the habit of applying to the language of ordinary life. I will not, 
 however, insult your Lordship’s understanding by any attempt to 
 argue upon the conclusiveness of the expression in question as an 
 admission of guilt, further than to remark that the very fact of Mrs. 
 Talbot associating the name of her child with her own in her 
 request to the Rev. Mr. Kemmis, ought to have been satisfactory 
 prtof to the Court that the intercession she sought for w f as on 
 behalf, not of guilt, but of innocence. 
 
 But, how docs “the Christian Intercessor” himself answ r er the 
 solemn appeal of a heart-broken woman to his humanity and ten¬ 
 derness ; does he procure his wife to pray for her and her child ? We 
 know not. All we do know, is, that he takes her whilst in a state of 
 distraction, and places her in the charge of a woman with a false name, 
 and in an abode wdiich she mistakes for Hell; and w T hich, if reliance 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 is to be placed on her representations, seems to have been distinguish¬ 
 able from that “ obscure sojourn ” principally in the narrowness of 
 its confine; and that while she is there pining away her existence 
 in a state of insanity, he carries her solemn and agonising appeal 
 into a Court of Justice, to aid perjury, infamy, and villany, in their 
 attempts to sink her lower than the very lowest and most degraded 
 of her sex! 
 
 But there is one consideration of no little importance in reference 
 to the alleged admissions of Mrs. Talbot, which still remains to be 
 noticed. It will be seen that although each of the four clergymen 
 state that Mrs. Talbot admitted her guilt to them, not one of them 
 either deposes to the expressions in which such admissions were 
 made, or details any particulars relative to the intercourse which 
 they allege to have been communicated to them. Though they seem 
 to have recorded with scrupulous accuracy, and in the very language 
 in which they were uttered, trivial expressions of Mrs. Talbot, 
 having no relation whatever to her guilt of the crime of which 
 she was accused, yet when they come to the history of the crime 
 itself, which they assert to have been communicated to them, they 
 are unable to depose to anything more than either the bare statement 
 that she admitted her guilt, or the convictions of her guilt from 
 “ her manner and expressions.” Indeed, the Rev. Mr. Gage 
 expressly states that though Mrs. Talbot told him that she would 
 “candidly and faithfully answer any questions, yet when he tried” 
 “to ascertain from her the time and place of any one instance of” 
 “ criminal connexion, she never specified it.” 
 
 Had the particulars of these admissions been given, they would 
 undoubtedly have supplied inherent proof of the utter baselessness 
 ol the facts admitted, and of the insanity shewn Mrs. Talbot at the 
 time she made them. 
 
 But the question still remains, Is it proved that the admissions, 
 alleged to have been made by Mrs. Talbot subsequently to her arrival 
 in Dublin, were really so made at “ intervals ” when she clearly 
 exhibited a sane state of mind ? 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 Now, as the ’observations' I feel compelled to make on this 
 point tend to charge the Court with the most gross and un¬ 
 pardonable misrepresentation or perversion of the facts of the 
 case—I feel it my duty to set out in full the portions of the 
 judgment to which my remarks apply* After referring to, and 
 commenting on, the admissions supposed to have been made by 
 Mrs. Talbot to the Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland, prior to her arrival in 
 Dublin (which, as I have before shewn, were never made at all), 
 the Court proceeds, “But, we mean not to decide singly on the” 
 “evidence of this reverend gentleman” (which shows the import¬ 
 ance they attached to it) “ for we must combine and connect it with ” 
 “ the testimony of the other reverend gentlemen, to whom, after ” 
 “ her arrival in Dublin, and at different intervals, she made the ” 
 “ revelation of her misconduct, namely, to the Rev. Mr. Gage, ” 
 “ Rev. Mr. Collis, and Rev. Mr. Kemmis, all of whom depose to ” 
 “ her sanity at the periods to which they confine their testimony ,” 
 “although each of them deposes to her distraction at other inter-” 
 “ vals, amounting to an excitement bordering on, if not amounting ” 
 “ to, insanity.” 
 
 Now, so far from “all” the reverend gentlemen deposing 
 to the sanity of Mrs. Talbot when the admissions in question 
 were made, the Rev. Mr. Gage, one of these gentlemen 
 whose testimony the Court refers to at length, as containing 
 evidence of admissions powerfully affecting the mind of the 
 Court, distinctly swears that he “will not take upon himself to” 
 “depose that Mrs. Talbot was during the period when she made” 
 “ her admissions, or any part thereof, of perfectly sane mind.” On 
 the contrary, he expressly states that “she was in a very unsound ” 
 “ stale of mind ” during the whole of that period. So that, 
 as in the case of the Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland, the Court treats a 
 witness as deposing to admissions which he denies to have 
 been made; in the case of Mr. Gage, they treat him as affirming 
 a state of sanity in Mrs. Talbot, when she made her admissions, 
 which he expressly repudiates. 
 
 What Mr. Gage’s real impression of Mrs. Talbot’s condition 
 was may be collected from the fact that, when cross-examined 
 as to the state of her mind, lie admits that lie told Mr. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 Adair, his brother-in-law (Mr. Talbot’s attorney), “ that she ” 
 (Mrs. Talbot) “was quite incompetent to conduct her own” 
 “ defence; and that, in his opinion, he might as well bring a ” 
 “ lunatic from an asylum to direct the conducting of such a case;” 
 and still more clearly from the following extract from his depo¬ 
 sitions: “I depose that when the impugnant was in Dublin, at” 
 “ Coffey’s Hotel, and also at Ratbgar, I gave directions that she ” 
 “ should be treated as I would treat a lunatic, that she should not ” 
 “ be ever left alone. I gave such directions, because I thought she ” 
 “ should be treated as a lunatic: and, as a minister, 1 had much ” 
 “ experience in cases of this kind. ”* 
 
 Even the Rev. Mr. Collis, Mr. Talbot’s brother-in-law, Mrs. 
 Talbot’s most bitter and unscrupulous assailant, the purveyor of 
 O’Brien and the Benns, who produced those abandoned wretches 
 after threatening to bring forward “ parties above suspicion,” delicate, 
 shrinking, reluctant ladies! and after trying to frighten me from the 
 defence of my sister by that cowardly falsehood (1 have his letter 
 and will produce it if need be) —the gentle and considerate brother- 
 in-law, who speaks of this horrible tragedy as an “ affecting ” 
 “circumstance,”—that is the Rev. Mr. Collis’s euphuism!—the 
 Christian minister who bows his meek head and boasts, on his oath, 
 of his “ feelings of Christian charity ,”—closets himself alone with 
 Mary Ann Benn,—seeks the aid and fellowship of Joseph O’Brien,— 
 swears to guilt by “manner and expressions,” as Hopkins, the 
 Witchfinder, swore to sorcery by the Devil’s mark!—every word 
 of this is on the evidence, — even he admits that during his visits 
 she was “ in an extremely excited state.” f 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Kemmis, indeed, the attorney’s brother-in-law and 
 agent, is so confident that Mrs. Talbot was under no delusion, 
 that his faith is not shaken by the fact that she took him for the 
 Devil, and the house at which he left her for Hell! 
 
 Now, my Lord, if it be not a perversion of evidence, a deliberate 
 citing of a witness as asserting what he expressly denies, to say that 
 all these witnesses” (including Mr. Gage) “depose to her” 
 
 * The particular expressions of Mr. Gage will be found at p. 35. 
 
 f Evidence of Rev. M. A. Collis, passim. 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 “ sanity as to the period to which they confine their testimony,” I 
 should like to know what is ? 
 
 My Lord, have I not again made good the first count in my 
 indictment ? 
 
 The evidence, therefore, altogether fails to prove that Mrs. Talbot 
 was sane even during the “ intervals ” when her alleged admissions 
 were stated to have been made. Let us look for a moment how the 
 question of insanity is affected by probabilities. “ A weak, childish,” 
 “and innocent lady of spotless character,” and deposed to be “of” 
 “a nervous disposition,” is all at once accused of the most monstrous 
 and degrading criminalit}', her only child is wrenched from her, she 
 is for a period of eighteen hours exposed to brutality and outrage 
 which shocks belief, and then treated as a guilty person, and 
 “ upbraided ” by one whom she had every right to look up to for 
 protection and help. 
 
 Can it be matter of surprise that phantasy and delusion should 
 have usurped the seat of reason and memory, and that she should 
 herself have become the only credible tvitness* to convict herself of a 
 crime the very name of which in her sane moments she would have 
 “ shrunk from with abhorrence?” 
 
 It will be seen that the Court of Delegates, instead of resting the 
 proofs of Mrs. Talbot’s sanity (as in justice they ought to have 
 done) upon the evidence of her condition at or in close proximity 
 to the time when the alleged admissions were made, prefer rather 
 to found their convictions on the intrinsic evidence of sanity which 
 her alleged expressions and conduct appear to them to have 
 furnished. In so doing, however, they adopted a test which not 
 
 * Of course by the term “ credible witness,” I mean a witness credible in 
 point of character, for Mrs. Talbot’s representations are clearly disentitled to 
 credit, on account of her insanity, though the Court treats her as a credible 
 witness for all purposes. The expression I have used will, I think, with the above 
 qualification, be found strictly correct, for though some of the witnesses to 
 admissions may be credible in point of character, yet their testimony is vir¬ 
 tually Mrs. Talbot’s, as their evidence only tends to establish what she herself 
 admitted. 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 only the abstraot and “philosophical opinions” of the medical 
 testimony, but even judicial decision itself (which they were at all 
 events bound to recognize), has established to be inconclusive for 
 the purpose; for it is perfectly obvious, as I have before shown, that 
 if Mrs. Talbot exhibited, as she did, unquestionable proofs of her 
 insanity at the time when she is supposed to have admitted her 
 guilt, her “ expressions,” “ however rational they might appear to ” 
 “be, or in reality might be,” could have no influence whatever in 
 rebutting the presumption of her being in that condition. Con¬ 
 ceding, however, for a moment, the test adopted by the Court to be 
 legitimate, it must be admitted that the Court have been remarkably 
 unfortunate in their application of it, for of the two instances in 
 which they have rested Mrs. Talbot’s sanity on the strength of her 
 alleged expressions, in the one case (that of the expressions supposed 
 to have been deposed to by the Rev. Mr. Gage) they put language 
 into her mouth which she never used , and then seek to show that 
 such language is the product of a sane mind, whilst in the other 
 case (that of the expressions alleged to have been deposed to by the 
 Rev. Mr. Kemmis) the words in question appear to have been used 
 at the very time when she mistook the party deposing to them for 
 the Devil, and the house at which he was leaving her for Hell. It 
 remains to be considered whether the Court have been more 
 fortunate in the other instance in which they have sought to 
 establish her sanity by the evidence of her conduct. 
 
 It was distinctly proved, by the evidence in the case, that on the 
 morning of the 20th of May (the day after Mrs. Talbot's alleged 
 detection in Mullane’s room) Finnerty, by direction of Mrs. Talbot, 
 wrote a letter to Mrs. M‘Causland, the mother of Mrs. Talbot, 
 requesting her to send Mary Armstrong, “ a faithful servant in the ” 
 “ family,” to meet Mrs. Talbot in Dublin: this the Court admits 
 as an established fact and treats as evidence of Mrs. Talbot’s sanity 
 on that morning. Now, it must be remembered the Court equally 
 treats it as having been established, by the “ evidence and conduct ” 
 of the Rev. Mr. M c Clelland (who, as I before stated, is not proved 
 to have had any direct communication with Mrs. Talbot on the 
 subject), that on this very morning Mrs. Talbot had made an 
 arrangement to elope from Mount Talbot with Mullane. It follows 
 then that in the estimation of the Court a lady must be considered 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 as sane when, designing to elope with her husband’s groom, she 
 writes to her mother to send her own lady’s maid to meet her. 
 
 It is difficult to treat this judicial conclusion with the respect 
 which the deliberate opinion of five Judges ought properly to 
 command, but, to an uninstructed mind like my own, there 
 appears to have been but two modes of dealing with the evidence in 
 question. If it be held that Mrs. Talbot wrote a letter to her 
 mother to send her lady’s-maid to meet her in Dublin at the very 
 time when she contemplated an elopement with her husband’s 
 groom, it would be most decisive proof of her insanity; but if the 
 intention to elope be regarded, as it undoubtedly was, as a slanderous 
 fabrication (there not being a particle of credible evidence to substantiate 
 it), then the writing of the letter in question would furnish indis¬ 
 putable evidence of her innocence, and ought to have been treated 
 as such. To hold, however, as the Court docs, that the combination 
 of the above circumstances furnished proof of Mrs. Talbot’s sanity 
 and guilt, is so ridiculously absurd that I leave it to your Lordship 
 to determine whether the judicial mind, when it accepted such 
 proof, can be regarded as altogether free from the imputation of 
 unsoundness. 
 
 But, supposing the alleged admissions, and Mrs. Talbot’s 
 sanit} r when she made them, to be both conclusively proved, 
 they would still be insufficient in law to condemn her unless cor¬ 
 roborated by other evidence. Now, what will it be supposed is the 
 corroboratory evidence on which the Court of Delegates has relied 
 for the confirmation of the admissions? 
 
 Simply that very evidence which the Court had before 
 
 REJECTED AS UNWORTHY OF BELIEF WHEN OFFERED AS DIRECT 
 EVIDENCE OF GUILT ! 
 
 The only witnesses to direct guilt, as may be collected from my pre¬ 
 ceding remarks, are Halloran, Finnerty, O’Brien, the two Benns, 
 and Maria Mooney. The Court, in delivering judgment, states 
 “that they do not found their judgment on other grounds than” 
 “ those assigned,” and they' refer to no other evidence. 
 
 Halloran’s evidence is treated by the Court as “ obviously untrue ” 
 and his character as “stamped with the features of infamy and 
 disgrace.” 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 The character of Finnerty is, singularly enough, not commented on 
 by the Court; but as the evidence before the Court clearly proved 
 him to be a suborner, a perjurer, and a forger, as he is merely a kind 
 of second to Halloran, and as the Court wholly disregarded his 
 evidence when he affects to pi'ove the only direct admission of guilt 
 alleged to have been made by Mrs. Talbot prior to her removal to 
 Dublin, it is not to be supposed that the Court placed any depend¬ 
 ence whatever on his testimony. 
 
 As to O’Brien, the Court states that they “ find ample grounds ” 
 
 “ to discard his testimony and to pronounce that by whatever ” 
 
 “ motives he might have been induced to give his evidence, no court ” 
 “could consider him a truth-telling or trustworthy witness.” 
 
 The next in order are the two Ben ns, and here the current of 
 condemnation on which the Court had, very properly, swept off the 
 testimony of the other witnesses, unaccountably stops short with the 
 following startling expressions:—“ No act of infidelity is proved by ” 
 “ the Benns, their evidence is far short of establishing criminality.” 
 
 Now what Susan Benn swears is this,—“ I depose that on ” 
 “ another occasion, when I was on my way to my bed-room by ” 
 “myself (my sister Mary Ann being in Mallow on that night) I” 
 “ saw the impugnant (Mrs. Talbot) and the said William Mullane ” 
 “go together into the said impugnant's bed-room. When I saw” 
 “ them go into the room I went to bed and I don’t know how ” 
 “ long they remained in the said room ; ” and further, “ I have ” 
 “ frequently seen her (Mrs. Talbot) proceed to the said William ” 
 “Mnllane’s room, where she would remain an hour with the said” 
 “William Mullane alone, the door of the room being closed; and” 
 “ I have afterwards seen the said impugnant leave the said room,” 
 “the said William Mullane remaining there.” 
 
 Now it is impossible that any rational person would question 
 that if this proved anything at all it was the most conclusive 
 evidence of adultery that can be well conceived and the force 
 of this conclusion seems not to have been lost on the Court, for we 
 find the Court not only treating the alleged detection of Mrs. Talbot 
 in Mullane’s room, though in the day time and in company with her 
 child, as conclusive proof of adultery,*' but referring to the evidence 
 
 * “ The detection in the room of Mullane took place on the 19th of May,” 
 “ and it is an undisputed fact, the door bolted, admission denied, the door ” 
 
( -46 ) 
 
 of Halloran, who alleges that he saw Mrs. Talbot and Mullane go 
 together to Mr. Talbot’s bed-room at night, during his absence, and 
 remain there (a circumstance precisely similar to that deposed to by 
 Susan Benn) as “the direct and positive evidence of an eye-” 
 “ witness to the commission of the offence.” This is part of the 
 testimony which the Court reject as gross and monstrous perjury. 
 It is clear, therefore, that the Court, in stating that “no act of” 
 “ infidelity is proved ” by Susan Benn, has done one of three 
 things. Either it has disbelieved the evidence, as it has done that 
 of Halloran, and held the witness to be perjured (in which case 
 the Court has in fact placed her in the same category as O’Brien 
 and Halloran), or the Court has never read the evidence, in which 
 case it has been guilty of gross dereliction of duty, or it has 
 taken a course which 1 should hope is unexampled in judicial 
 history, namely, that of intentionally misrepresenting the testimony 
 of the witness and paring down distinct and positive evidence of 
 adultery, which, as such, would have been condemned, into simple 
 evidence of familiarity, so as to make it available in that crippled 
 form to eke out the supposed admissions of Mrs. Talbot, which, 
 without it, would have been wholly unsupported. 
 
 The last witness to corroboration is Maria Moonev, and here, if 
 possible, the conduct of the Court is more open to reprehension than 
 in the case of the Benns. This witness, as I have before stated, 
 deposes to an open and flagrant act of adultery, of which she states 
 herself to have been an eye witness, committed by her mistress 
 under circumstances which, in themselves, are so improbable as almost 
 to preclude the possibility of belief. 
 
 She swears to the fact of seeing Mullane and Mrs. Talbot on a 
 solitary occasion, on one particular day, distinctly marked by the 
 rare fact of Mr. Talbot’s absence from home, in the actual commis¬ 
 sion of adultery in Mrs. Talbot’s bed-room. On finding that she 
 was an intruder she walked quietly down stairs, and, on her return 
 up stairs, after the lapse of some time, she swears that she saw 
 Mullane walk out of the bed-room. 
 
 “ forced, the appellant found concealed behind the curtains of the bed, what ” 
 “ inference but one can be deduced from these facts ? . . . the inference ” 
 
 “ is undeniable, looking at the facts.” _ 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 During all this time the house was full of servants, one of 
 whom was in immediate personal attendance on Mrs. Talbot. The 
 witness admits that she never mentioned the matter to any of her 
 fellow-servants or to any other person, but closeted it up with the 
 most careful secrecy and at the expense even of direct statements 
 to the contrary, until some considerable time after the reports of 
 Mrs. Talbot’s alleged detection in Mullane’s. room got into circula¬ 
 tion, when, after a year had elapsed, she reveals it, for the first time, 
 to Mrs. Barlow, the wife of Mr. Talbot’s agent, in whose service she 
 was at the time when she teas examined. 
 
 Now there are few persons, I should suppose, who would not con¬ 
 sider themselves insulted if they were asked to believe such a witness. 
 The monstrous improbability of the story itself, and the fact of its 
 having been concealed under circumstances which it is next to impos¬ 
 sible to believe it could fail to have been communicated by the witness 
 to others if there had been any truth in it, are sufficient in them¬ 
 selves to stamp it with discredit in the mind of any rational person, 
 and it is not unreasonable to say that, could the contrary be sup¬ 
 posed, there is no one, be his or her position or respectability in 
 society what it may, whose character and reputation, or even life, 
 could be guaranteed as secure for twenty-four hours. 
 
 In addition, however, to the intrinsic incredibility of the story, 
 the evidence of this witness is, as I have before stated, directly con¬ 
 tradicted by that of Margaret Hall, who swears positively that when 
 this disgusting scene was stated to have been enacting, Mrs. Talbot was 
 engaged in a sacred maternal duty in conformity with her known 
 habits. There is no doubt that Mooney and Hall are speaking of 
 the same evening. “ The identity of the day,” as the Court observes, 
 “ is fixed by the illness of Mrs. Talbot, and by the absence of Mr.” 
 “Talbot at Mahon’s.” Hall goes minutely through the occur¬ 
 rences of that evening: contradicts Mooney upon every particular: 
 swears positively that at the very time when Mooney states that 
 Mrs. Talbot was committing adultery with Mullane in her bedroom, 
 she was, in fact, in the library, hearing her child repeat a hymn, 
 and swears positively to her belief that the whole of Mooney’s 
 story is false. The Court says it is impossible to reconcile the 
 accounts given by the two witnesses with each other, and states that 
 it sees “ no reason to doubt the evidence of Margaret Hall as to ” 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 “ the transaction of that night.” The conclusion is inevitable. 
 Mooney, like Halloran, is stamped with infamy and disgrace, and, 
 like O’Brien, is, for some “motive,” neither “truthtelling nor” 
 “ trustworthy.” 
 
 The Court state that the “ one fact ” of Halloran concealing the 
 circumstances he professes to prove, from May, 1852, until the 
 August following, would, “ if other facts were wanting, put the ” 
 “ seal of condemnation on his testimony.” 
 
 The Court states that “ in the evidence of Mullane’s physical ” 
 “ state of health, at the time O'Brien alleges the intercourse took ” 
 “ place, they find ample grounds to discard his testimony, and to ” 
 “ pronounce, that, by whatever motives he might have been induced ” 
 “ to give such testimony, no Court can consider him a truthtelling " 
 “ or trustworthy witness ?” 
 
 Mooney and the Benns conceal the circumstances they profess to 
 depose to, not for months but for years, and during these years 
 profess their entire ignorance of such circumstances. 
 
 Why does not the Court place the “seal of condemnation” on 
 their testimony, in the same terms as it does upon that of Halloran ? 
 
 The Benns depose to adultery, when Mullane’s physical condition 
 was the same as during the period to which O'Brien’s evidence 
 applies. 
 
 Why does not the Court denounce them, like O'Brien, as 
 “ neither truthtelling nor trustworthy ?” 
 
 With Maria Mooney terminates the whole of the evidence 
 upon which the alleged admissions of Mrs. Talbot are to be corro¬ 
 borated, and the result is that there is not one particle of credible 
 evidence to support the alleged admissions. But in the view taken 
 by the Court of Delegates it does not at all appear necessary that 
 the evidence should be credible, for the Court affects in express 
 terms to support the admissions on the evidence of persons whom 
 the Court itself has designated as “ infamous, ” and “ neither ” 
 “truthtelling nor trustworthy.” I am not at all sure that your 
 Lordship may not deem the evidence of your own senses incredible 
 when you read the following passage from the judgment:—“We” 
 “ have examined the case on the evidence submitted to ourselves,” 
 “ and in line have come to this conclusion: That, although the ” 
 “evidence of the several acts of infidelity deposed to by eye" 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 “ witnesses to the alleged facts would not be sufficiently satisfactory ” 
 “ in itself to induce the Court to pronounce a sentence of divorce, ” 
 “ still we are of opinion that, coupled with other circumstances, ” 
 “we cannot altogether discard them as unimportant or as palpably” 
 “unfounded, and it must have some weight in our arriving at the ” 
 “ conclusion we have done.” Your Lordship will remember that 
 the only persons who, in the view taken by the Court, were “ eye ” 
 “witnesses” of criminality are Halloran, O’Brien, and Mooney, who 
 are indeed expressly mentioned by name in the judgment as the 
 only eye witnesses; when, therefore, the Court speaks of “eye” 
 “witnesses” (in the plural number), it must necessarily be deemed 
 to have included the two former in the number of those whose 
 testimony could not be altogether rejected as unimportant; the 
 necessary consequence, therefore, is that in the opinion of the Court 
 the testimony of an infamous and untruthful witness is for some 
 purposes of importance, and one of those purposes appears to be 
 when it is used to corroborate wild and general admissions of guilt 
 made by a lunatic. 
 
 To a person like myself, imperfectly versed in the mysteries of legal 
 science, there appears to have been but two courses open to the 
 Court, namely, either to accept the evidence of the witnesses as 
 true, in which case the Court would have been bound to condemn 
 Mrs. Talbot on the strength of it, without the necessity of resorting 
 at all to her alleged admissions, or to have rejected it as false; in 
 which latter case, it would, as perjured testimony, have in effect been 
 wiped from the record, and disentitled to any weight ■whatever, 
 except for the purpose of throwing doubt and suspicion on the case 
 attempted to be supported by it. To hold, however, that such 
 testimony was to be rejected for the purposes of direct proof, but 
 available as not unimportant evidence for the collateral purpose of 
 corroboration, is so absurd and monstrous, that I will not insult 
 your Lordship’s understanding by supposing for a moment that you 
 can entertain or sanction it. 
 
 But not only does the Court of Delegates treat the evidence of 
 an infamous and untruthful person as not unimportant, or not 
 palpably unfounded, but as positively undoubted testimony. 
 
 Your Lordship will find, upon a reference to the judgment of the 
 
 E 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 Court of Delegates, that it contains the following passage: “ In ” 
 “ the progress of the observations I have made, I think I have ” 
 “adduced sufficient auxiliary evidence, arising from what are called” 
 “ ‘ proximate ’ acts, to sustain the truth of the confessions made by ” 
 “ the appellant, and thus satisfy the law upon this head; and ” 
 “ taking this view of the case the Court is satisfied that there are ” 
 “ sufficient corroborating facts, resting on undoubted testimony ,” 
 “to sustain the confessions of the appellant, and justify the judg-” 
 “ ment pronounced by the learned Judge of the Consistorial ” 
 « Court.” 
 
 I must be permitted then, again, even at the imputation of pro¬ 
 lixity, to place the witnesses to corroboration in review before your 
 Lordship; the charge I make is so grave that it would not be proper 
 to risk the possibility of a doubt as to the nature of their testimony. 
 
 The first is “the infamous” Halloran. His testimony surely 
 cannot be considered as undoubted. 
 
 The next is the “untruthful and untrustworthy” O’Brien. We 
 may at once safely dismiss him. 
 
 The next is Finnerty, the perjurer, the suborner, and the forger. 
 Can his testimony be regarded as undoubted? 
 
 The next we will take is Mooney; but as the Court themselves 
 expressly state that “grave doubts exist as to her testimony,” and 
 totally rejects the substantive facts to which she deposes, we are 
 debarred from including: her in the number of those witnesses whose 
 testimony is undoubted. 
 
 The only remaining witnesses to corroboration, then, are the 
 two Benns. Will any one venture to say that their testimony is 
 undoubted ? Can any one be asked to believe a witness who swears 
 to what must be regarded as positive acts of adultery at the very 
 time when the Court itself treats the physical condition of Mullane 
 as a damning proof of the impossibility of intercourse, and who 
 admits that she not only concealed the publication of the facts to 
 which she deposes, and which, if she is believed, could not have 
 been otherwise than notorious for upwards of two years, but 
 positively made in the interim repeated statements in favour of her 
 mistress’s innocence. Can the testimony of such a witness, I say, 
 be regarded as'undoubted ? It is needless to answer the question, 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 for even the Court of Delegates themselves shrink from so consider¬ 
 ing it. 
 
 Where, then, is the undoubted testimony to which the Court 
 refers? The answer is, it exists not. I have carefully passed in 
 review each of the witnesses to corroboration, and there is not one 
 whose testimony is not either proved and admitted by the Court to 
 be positively infamous and perjured, or, at all events, open to the 
 highest degree of suspicion. 
 
 My Lord, have I not made good my second charge? Have not 
 the Court rejected the evidence of Halloran, Finnerty, 0’Brien 3 
 Mooney, and the Benns, as manifestly perjured, and then relied 
 upon that very evidence as corroborating Mrs. Talbot’s admissions? 
 
 But not only does the Court treat the testimony of an infamous 
 witness and untruthful person as admissible in evidence, but even 
 permits evidence in the nature of hearsay, or at second hand, to be 
 read of what such infamous and untruthful person may, when not 
 on oath, have said or represented to others; and that not simply 
 with reference to matter which may have fallen under the personal 
 observation of such person, but even when he affects to speak to, 
 or represent what a third party may have intended, or even been 
 going to intend; and the Court goes so far as to admit this hearsay, 
 or second hand testimony, though the infamous and untruthful 
 person whose sayings or representations are deposed to is himself a 
 principal witness in the case, and examined before the Court on his 
 oath. 
 
 All this may, and doubtless will, appear startling to your Lord- 
 ship, but 1 shall be able to show that it is not more startling than 
 true. 
 
 It will be in your Lordship’s recollection that, on the morning 
 of the 20th of May, Mullane is proved by Blester Keogh to have 
 been made drunk by Halloran at Kelly’s whiskey shop; and in 
 
 E 2 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 that state placed by Halloran and Finnerty in Mrs. Talbot's bed¬ 
 room. The object of this diabolical outrage was, to lay the basis 
 for the representation which was afterwards made by these men, 
 that Mrs. Talbot intended to elope with Mullane. The plot appears 
 to have succeeded both with the Consistory Court and the Court 
 of Delegates, both of which Courts act on the assumption that 
 she intended to leave for Dublin with Mullane. Upon what 
 evidence this assumption is made to rest, your Lordship will find 
 in the following extract from the judgment of the Court of 
 Delegates:— 
 
 “I decide not on suspicious testimony whether she had an-” 
 “ nounced her intention of going with him to Dublin; but it is” 
 “ cleat 'from the evidence and the conduct of the Rev. Mr. McClelland ” 
 “ that such an intention had been in meditation, and that he ” 
 “resolved to frustrate it.” 
 
 The proof, then, rests on the evidence and conduct of the Rev. 
 Mr. McClelland. Now, whether the conduct of any one person 
 can, in law, be regarded as evidence of the intentions, actual or medi¬ 
 tated,* of another, I leave for your Lordship’s consideration. I can 
 only say for myself I should feel the extreme of apprehension and 
 disquiet, if I could for a moment contemplate that any meditated 
 intentions of mine, or anything else that I could wish to be correctly 
 represented, would ever have to be illustrated or interpreted by the 
 conduct of the Rev. Mr. M'Clelland; and I think it possible that 
 your Lordship may consider my distrust justified, when you have 
 
 * I have used the term “ meditated intention,” not so much from a sense of 
 its propriety, which I much doubt, as in compliment to the Court of Delegates, 
 who, it will be seen, speak of the intentions of Mrs. Talbot as having been in 
 meditation; by which, I presume, the Court meant to refer to that course or 
 operation of the mind, which, though it had not arrived at a definite or certain 
 intent, might, by possibility, ultimately result in one. The Judges of the 
 Court of Delegates certainly appear in the right track for attaining at some time 
 or other to the wisdom of the Parliament of Trim, who, about the year 1465, 
 enacted that it should be “ lawful for all manner of men to cut off the head of” 
 “ anybody going or coming to rob, and having no faithful man of good name ” 
 “ and fame in their company in English apparel.” 
 
 In the amended copy of the judgment, the word “agitation” is substituted 
 for “meditation.” Whether this amendment improves the law, the sense, or 
 the English, of the passage I leave your Lordship to determine. 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 heard all that I have to say of this reverend gentleman. But, then, 
 there is his evidence ; let us see what he actually says : “ And I ” 
 “depose that, having heard from the servants that the impugnant” 
 “intended to go to Dublin that evening” (that is, the 20th of 
 May) “with said William Mullane, I determined that she, the” 
 “impugnant, should not go with said William Mullane.” 
 
 The only servants to whom the rev. gentleman could be indebted 
 for his information are Halloran and Finnerty (for the evidence 
 of Keogh negatives the possibility of her having been his 
 informant), so that we are driven to the conclusion that the 
 “ unsuspicious testimony ” on which the Court rested so impor¬ 
 tant a fact as the “meditated intentions” of an accused is the testi¬ 
 mony by hearsay, or at second hand, of an infamous and perjured 
 person who is a principal witness in the cause, and whom the Court 
 declines to believe on his oath. It is difficult to see why the Court 
 should have preferred taking the evidence at second hand, rather 
 than from the witnesses themselves who depose directly to the facts, 
 unless the Court had considered that the bare statement of an in¬ 
 famous and untruthful person, passing by a course of filtration 
 through such an apparently respectable channel as the Rev. Mr. 
 McClelland, would acquire an amount of credibility and purity 
 which otherwise, though verified by the oath of the party himself, 
 would not have attached to it. 
 
 My Lord, have I not made good my third charge ? Has not the 
 Court admitted the hearsay of Halloran and Finnerty by the mouth 
 of the Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland ? 
 
 The Court of Delegates, as we have seen, admit hearsay evidence 
 against Mrs. Talbot to condemn her; but a still more extraordinary 
 judicial anomaly is exhibited by Dr. Radcliffe, the Judge of the 
 Consistory Court, who actually finds an argument in support of Mrs. 
 Talbot’s guilt in the fact of hearsay evidence not having been 
 adduced to prove declarations by Mullane of her innocence. 
 
 It would seem that, after Mrs. Talbot’s removal to Dublin, Mullane 
 called at the Hotel where she was staying, in the care of the Rev. 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 Mr. M'Clelland, and sent np to her a note, in the following words: 
 —“ Mrs. Talbot, William Mullane is stopping at No. 15, Dominick ” 
 “ Street.” This note was given to the Rev. Mr. McClelland, who 
 opened it, and conceiving the notion (scarcely justified by the 
 language and character of the note itself) that the object of 
 Mullane’s visit was to attempt to renew what he assumed to have 
 been the improper intercourse between Mullane and Mrs. Talbot, 
 instead of the more natural and probable object of a desire on 
 Mullane’s part to render his assistance in proving his mistress’s 
 innocence, positively I'efuses him admittance in the face of an earnest 
 entreaty on the part of Mrs. Talbot that he should be permitted to 
 see hei\ 
 
 Upon this occurrence Dr. Radcliffe makes the following observa¬ 
 tions: “This,” says he, (alluding to Mr. M £ Clelland’s refusal to 
 admit Mullane), “is argued to be an injury to Mrs. Talbot, as he ” 
 “ might have come to vindicate her fame; why did he not say to ” 
 “ Mr. M‘ Clelland, c This lady is falsely accused, she is innocent. ’ ” 
 “ ‘I am ready to come forward and vindicate her?’ But, in my ” 
 “ mind, this amounts to a confession of her acts, and corroborates ’ 
 “ indirectly Finnerty and Halloran, as to her sending for Mullane ” 
 “ to Mount Talbot.” 
 
 It would be very hard upon a lady charged with criminality with 
 her husband’s servant, if the refusal of the party with whom she is 
 charged to have had improper intercourse to depose to her inno¬ 
 cence could be deemed in any way evidence of her guilt, and I 
 should hope, for the sake of common justice, that such a mode of 
 receiving evidence is as unwarrantable in point of law, as it is 
 obviously repugnant to the plainest principles of humanity and right 
 reason. 
 
 I can only state, however, that if those who conducted Mrs. 
 Talbot’s defence could for a moment have imagined that declarations 
 by Mullane could have been evidence, either for or against his 
 mistress, they would have had no difficulty whatever in proving the 
 most emphatic protestations on his part of her innocence, under 
 circumstances in which it could not possibly have been to his 
 interest to have stated other than the strict truth. 
 
 As a remarkable instance of Mullane’s declarations, I may refer 
 to that made by him to the car-driver at Athlone, referred to by me 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 in a note to page 5. To test the truth or falsehood of this repre¬ 
 sentation, let us for a moment assume the facts charged and 
 attempted to be supported by the evidence to be true. We must, 
 then, believe that Mullane had for a period of upwards of two 
 years been carrying on an illicit intercourse with his mistress; that 
 such intercourse had been so carried on in the most open and 
 notorious places ; that it had been repeatedly witnessed by servants 
 in the house, who were then living either on the spot or in the 
 immediate neighbourhood where the intercourse had taken place. 
 We must, then, reconcile with all this the fact that, with such a 
 guilty knowledge, Mullane should have gone to a fellow-groom—a 
 familiar associate of his own class—and protested to him his mis¬ 
 tress’s innocence ; and that he should have done so, at the very 
 time when, if we are to credit the evidence in the case, he had 
 arranged to elope with his mistress, and was then actually on his 
 way to Dublin to carry out this intention. We must also reconcile 
 with such a guilty knowledge on the part of Mullane not only the 
 undoubted representation above mentioned, but the not less 
 unquestionable fact that, after his unsuccessful attempt to obtain 
 an interview with his mistress, he should have l’esorted to an 
 attorney to defend him in the action of crim. con., brought against 
 him by his master; should have made similar representations to the 
 attorney, as to his mistress’s innocence and his own, to those he had 
 previously made to the car-driver, and should only have been 
 induced to abandon his defence upon finding that the whole of 
 the money he could scrape together for the purpose would be 
 ridiculously inadequate to provide for the costs of his defence ; and 
 that as he set his foot on the deck of the vessel which was to 
 remove him for ever from his native land, he accompanied his last 
 farewell to his relatives with an earnest and emphatic declaration 
 of the innocence of his mistress. 
 
 It must be apparent to your Lordship how much importance the 
 Court attaches to the evidence of the Lev. Mr. M £ Clelland. 
 
 His testimony is the only rag of respectability that hangs upon 
 the case at Mount Talbot, and the Court stretch that scanty mantle 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 over the nakedness of Halloran and Finnerty till their perjury looks 
 out still more conspicuously through its rents. 
 
 The Court quotes him as proving alike what he asserts and 
 what he denies! vouches him for what Halloran and Finnerty said, 
 and for what Mrs. Talbot thought. So anxious are the Court to 
 secure the benefit of Mr. M'Clelland’s testimony, that, for the sake 
 of doing so, they set at nought the rule of law which excludes 
 hearsay, and the rule of morals which inculcates an observance of 
 accuracy in the statement of facts. In defiance of the former, they 
 receive his statements of what he “ heard from the servants”—in 
 breach of the latter, they repeatedly assert that he proves a confession 
 at Mount Talbot which he expressly disproves. 
 
 Is the Rev. Mr. M'Clelland, after all, worth this unscrupulous 
 trouble ? 
 
 Now, I throw down the gauntlet to the Rev. Mr. M‘CIelland. 
 I say he is not a witness worthy of belief. I say so for this reason, 
 —his statements upon oath and his statements not upon oath are 
 inconsistent and contradictory. He swears in February, 1853, 
 “ I never, on any occasion, saw any reason to think that there was ” 
 “ any combination against the impugnant.” Now, the Rev. Robert 
 Gage has sworn that in May, 1852, he saw the Rev. Mr. 
 M‘Clelland at Coffey’s Hotel; “ he then told me (says Mr. Gage) ” 
 “ that the servants at Mount Talbot w T ere a very had set, and com 
 “ lined, he thought, against the impugnant .” And Mary Armstrong 
 swears, referring to conversations at the same period, that the Rev. 
 Mr. McClelland said, “I hope it is not a conspiracy got up against ” 
 “ her” Now, if Mr. M'Clelland spoke truly on his oath in 
 February, 1853,—if he never had any reason to think there was 
 any combination against the impugnant,—he spoke falsely to the Rev. 
 Robert Gage when, in May, 1852, he said he thought that there 
 was such a combination, and vice versa. Either way he is unworthy 
 of belief. Ills oath and his assertions contradict each other. Rut 
 it does not rest here. In August, 1852, the Rev. Mr. McClelland 
 told me that when he first heard of the charges against Mrs. Talbot 
 he thought it ivas a conspiracy of the servants, and I am ready to 
 depose on oath that he did so, if ever I have the opportunity. He 
 made a similar statement to my brother, and he is ready to depose 
 to it on oath. 
 
( ) 
 
 The Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland swears that, on going to Mount Talbot, 
 he “ found the impugnant in an upper room* of the house, ap- ” 
 “parently preparing for her departure, with a quantity of boxes” 
 “ and clothing about herthat she was “ not crouching in a ” 
 “ corner, nor betraying every symptom of horror and distraction.” 
 Now I will swear that in August, 1852, the Rev. Mr. M £ Clelland 
 described to me how he went to Mount Talbot; how Hester Keogh 
 let him in to the house; how she pointed upstairs in the direction 
 where her mistress was to be found; how, in panic terror, Mrs. 
 Talbot had fled from her bedroom and concealed herself in a garret, 
 into which garret he took me, and there pointed out where he found 
 her crouching, mad with terror; how, when she saw who he was, 
 she threw herself upon his protection. Not a word about “ box'es ” 
 or “clothing” or “preparing for departure” then. To my own 
 mind, and to my brother’s, who also heard his description, it in¬ 
 stantly recalled that terrible and vivid picture of the discovery of 
 Lucy Ashton in the “ Bride of Lammermoor,” which once read can 
 never be forgotten.! 
 
 Immediately after the conversation, when we were leaving Mount 
 Talbot on the car, my brother and I, almost at the same moment, 
 mentioned to each other the fact that Mr. M'Clelland’s description of 
 Mrs. Talbot’s condition had called up in each of our minds this not 
 more tragic fiction. As to this, it is impossible we can be mistaken. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland also swears that I wrote him a letter, 
 “ with a view to induce him to swear that the impugnant was of” 
 “ unsound mind during the period of his stay with her.” Now, 
 
 * In another part of his evidence Mr. M : Clelland says : “ I found the im-” 
 pugnant in a garret room , ” &e. The room in question exactly answers 
 Johnson’s definition of a garret; it is a small “ room on the highest floor of the ” 
 “ house” above Mrs. Talbot’s bedroom, it is reached by a narrow steep flight of 
 stairs. 
 
 j “ There was no private passage from the room, and they began to think ” 
 “ that she must have thrown herself from the ivindow, when one of the company, ” 
 “ holding his torch lower than the rest, discovered something white in the ” 
 “ corner of the great old-fashioned chimney of the apartment. Here they ” 
 “ found the unfortunate girl seated, or rather crouched like a hare upon itsform , ” 
 “ her head gear disshevelled ; her night clothes torn and dabbled with blood; ” 
 “ her eyes glazed , and features convulsed into a wild paroxysm of insanity.” 
 
what my views were will appear from the letter itself, and here it is, 
 the only letter I ever wrote to the Rev. Mr. M'Clelland. 
 
 Humberstone, near Leicester, 24 December , 1852. 
 
 My dear Mr. M £ Cleeland, 
 
 I remember so well your vivid description of poor Mrs. 
 Talbot’s state when you so kindly, and at such great pains, released 
 her from the hands of the ruffians by whom she was surrounded, 
 that I have requested Mr. Geoghegan to forward you a statement to 
 lay before the Court. He will give you the necessary instructions, 
 and if it contains anything }mu consider incorrect you can alter it. 
 
 Lam sure you will be very glad to hear that we have at last suc¬ 
 ceeded in rescuing my sister-in-law from the place where she was 
 shut up in England; and she is now the guest of my father and 
 mother, with my wife. We have had a physician from London in 
 attendance upon her for a week, and he has not a doubt that she is 
 of unsound mind. What wonder, after all she has gone through! 
 Your account of the state in which she was at the time you disco¬ 
 vered her in the bedroom at Mount Talbot would be very valuable 
 evidence, as shewing the excited state of her mind ; and it is my 
 knowledge of your very kind feeling towards her, and of } r our great 
 desire that the truth should at last be known, which impels me now 
 to trouble you. 
 
 With my best compliments to Mrs. M'Clelland, 
 
 1 ours very truly, 
 
 T. T. Paget. 
 
 P.S. Perhaps you would favour me with a line in answer; and if 
 you could tell me anything of the little girl it would be a great 
 comfort to Mrs. Talbot. 
 
 Now, if it be asked what produced the change in the Rev. Mr. 
 M‘Clelland between May 1852, when lie made his statement to the 
 Rev. Mr. Gage, and to Mary Armstrong, August 1852, when the 
 interview between him, my brother, and myself, took place, in 
 reference to which I wrote this letter in December following (which 
 I could not have written had his representation been other than I 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 liave described), and the subsequent month of February 1853, when 
 he gave evidence on oath, contradictory of his former statements, 
 it is not for me to answer that question ; but I will add this further 
 fact, which I will also verify on oath—that in the same conversa¬ 
 tion in August 1852, the Rev. Mr. M'Clelland told me he was 
 “ under 'pecuniary obligation to Mr. Talbot, and begged on that ” 
 “ account that I would, if possible, abstain from calling him as a ” 
 “ WITNESS ! ” 
 
 Now, as I have said, I throw down the gauntlet to the Rev. Mr. 
 M £ Clelland. If Mr. Talbot applies to the House of Lords, I will 
 at the bar of that House verify what I have said upon oath. 
 
 If he does not venture upon that ordeal, let the Rev. Mr. 
 M‘Clelland move for a criminal information against me for what I 
 am now writing. 
 
 But it remained for the Court of Delegates themselves to supply 
 the most cogent argument in favour of Mrs. Talbot’s innocence, if 
 any argument were needed to establish it. 
 
 Your Lordship will remember that, when Mrs. Talbot was stated 
 to have been detected in the room of Mullane, her daughter, “a” 
 “ remarkably sharp and intelligent child,” of between six and seven 
 years of age, was her companion. It pleased Providence that this 
 poor child, which had shared “ the unbounded affection ” of its 
 mother, should be permitted to interpose its shield over her inno¬ 
 cence. Like the angel before the lying prophet, she stood in the 
 way to avert the curse from the guiltless; and the Judges of 
 the Court of Delegates themselves seem to have revolted at the 
 notion of a lady consummating her guilt with her husband’s groom 
 in the presence of her innocent offspring. 
 
 As may be supposed, therefore, Mr. Talbot and his advisers felt 
 the difficulty occasioned by the child; and in order, if possible, to 
 get rid of it, and to account for the presence of the child consis¬ 
 tently with a criminal intention on the part of the mother, they had 
 recourse to the following expedient. They produce two witnesses 
 —the one a jobbing carpenter, of the name of Fallon, who has since 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 emigrated to America, and is now dead; and the other a person of 
 the name of Bridget Queeney, who had formerly been a laundry- 
 woman at Mount Talbot. 
 
 These witnesses depose to the fact of Mrs. Talbot being in the habit, 
 not of bolting herself and child in Mullane’s room, but of taking tbe 
 child there and afterwards bringing it to Queeney, with instructions 
 to take it away, and then returning alone to Mullane’s room, in 
 sight of Queeney, and remaining there a considerable time; in 
 fact, taking a course the most studiously adapted to excite suspicion 
 and ensure discovery that could well be conceived, if, as deposed, 
 Mrs. Talbot had made any such improper visits to Mullane’s room, 
 as alleged. 
 
 Fallon, like the rest of Mr. Talbot’s witnesses, admits that 
 he never told the facts deposed to till the month of May 1853, 
 when he mentioned them to Barlow and Finnerty; previously 
 to which he signed a paper in the presence of two persons, which 
 signature he afterwards denied, in which he stated, “ that he ” 
 “ had always seen her (Mrs. Talbot) act with the greatest pro- ” 
 “ priety, and that he was sure that she was falsely accused.” 
 
 Queeney also admits that, on inquiries being made of her respecting 
 Mrs. Talbot, she stated that she “saw nothing wrong done by her.” 
 
 The judgment of the Court of Delegates, as originally delivered, 
 altogether omitted the fact of the child being present on the alleged 
 detection in Mullane’s room, nor was the evidence either of 
 Queeney or Fallon even alluded to. Some time after the delivery 
 of the judgment, however, a second edition made its appearance, 
 revised and corrected by the Judges themselves, and which differs 
 in one important particular from the judgment originally delivered, 
 as such judgment was evidenced by the shorthand writers’ notes, 
 with which I was supplied immediately after the delivery of the 
 judgment. 
 
 This important particular is the introduction into the revised 
 edition of the following remarkable passage, which formed no 
 part of the judgment itself as originally delivered. The passage 
 is as follows:—“ As further auxiliary evidence to sustain the ” 
 “ confession of the appellant, let me advert to the evidence of” 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 Fallon, the carpenter, and Bridget Queeney, the laundress/’ 
 “ touching the frequency of the visits of the appellant to Mullane’s” 
 “ room, the detaching her child from her presence when there , and” 
 “ thus manifesting that, however indefensible her conduct may have ” 
 “been, she did not consummate her infidelity in the presence of” 
 “her innocent offspring. Thus the presence of the child in Mullane's ” 
 “ room on the 1 9 th may be accounted for by the reflection that, if not" 
 “ then detected, the child would have been withdrawn."* 
 
 Now your Lordship cannot have forgotten that when Mrs. Talbot 
 was stated to have been detected in Mullane’s room, it was 
 deposed by Halloran and Finnerty that the door was bolted, 
 and that Mrs. Talbot and her child were both within; and 
 the Court of Delegates, notwithstanding the perjured and in¬ 
 famous testimony on which it rested, received and acted on the 
 assumption of the door being bolted as an established fact in the 
 case. Taking, then, the original judgment and the supplemental 
 appendage together as one instrument (which, for the sake of argu¬ 
 ment only, I must be considered as doing), the conclusion to which 
 “the judicial mind” appears to have arrived is this: That Mrs. 
 Talbot, with the intention of committing adultery, takes her child 
 with her to the groom’s room, bolts herself and child and the groom 
 within, in order that she may afterwards unbolt the door, detach 
 the child, send it away, and afterwards return alone to perfect her 
 guilty intentions. 
 
 Whatever may be said of the legal attainments of the Judges 
 composing the Court of Delegates, w'hich I leave for your 
 Lordship’s consideration, they certainly do not appear to me to 
 be the most favourable illustration of the motto Lex et Sapi- 
 entia; and certainly, if the above can be justified as a judicial 
 conclusion, it tends to explain the difference which has puzzled me 
 throughout these investigations between “the judicial” and the 
 rational mind. What, then, is the conclusion at which common 
 
 * I reprint the judgment, with the various amendments of the Court, from 
 the copy appended to my brother’s published letter to the Hon. Justice Torrens. 
 This copy was carefully compared both with the original and amended copies, 
 and all the variations are noticed in the notes. See Appendix. 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 sense would arrive? It is, I apprehend, simply this, that on the 
 occasion in question the door of Mullane’s room was not bolted 
 at all, but that, if it was in any way fastened, it was locked on the 
 outside and the key removed. If we believe the door to have been 
 bolted in the inside, we must be prepared to believe that a lady of 
 chaste and virtuous reputation should, in the open face of day, 
 exposed on every side to observation from house stewards, butlers, 
 cooks, housemaids, laundry women, job carpenters, and others con¬ 
 nected with such an establishment as Mount Talbot, and with the 
 increased risk of detection from a husband who was scarcely ever 
 absent from home, and whose acuteness it would not be just to sus¬ 
 pect, should go into the room of a groom, bolt herself and her child 
 within, and then commit adultery in the presence of that child 
 whom (it is proved) she had been in the constant habit of instructing 
 in the first elements of religious duty every evening before she 
 retired to rest. Unless we suppose an intention on the occasion in 
 question to commit actual adultery (an assumption repugnant even 
 to the Court), it is impossible to conceive why the door should have 
 been bolted, for if Mrs. Talbot could be supposed to have had any 
 other object, she ■would have been but needlessly perilling her repu¬ 
 tation by fastening the door. If anything, however, were wanting to 
 satisfy any reasonable person that the door was not bolted on the 
 inside, it would be found in the attempt on the part of her husband 
 to prove a habit and custom on her part at total variance with the 
 possible supposition that the door would, on the occasion in question, 
 have been bolted with the child within. 
 
 Taking, then, the original judgment of the Court and the sup¬ 
 plemental appendage in the mode most favourable to the Court, 
 they lead to a conclusion discreditable to the reasoning power of 
 any five men. But the question still remains whether a much 
 grosser breach of judicial duty than even that of arriving at a pre¬ 
 posterous conclusion has not been committed by the Judges selected 
 to adjudicate on appeal in this case. As before stated, when the 
 judgment was originally delivered, not a word is said of the child 
 being discovered in Mullane’s room, nor of the evidence of Queeney 
 and Fallon; the words of this part of the judgment are: “The 
 “ detection in the room of Mullane took place on the 19th of May,” 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 “ and it is an undisputed fact.—The door bolted—admission denied ” 
 “—the door forced—the appellant found concealed behind the” 
 “ curtains of the bed— what inference but one can be deduced from” 
 “ these facts ? ” 
 
 The necessary conclusion to be drawn from the above language 
 is that Mrs. Talbot was found there alone, with the door bolted, 
 which would of course be evidence of the commission of adultery 
 (notwithstanding that the Court in the case of the Benns did not 
 so consider it.) That such was the meaning the Court intended to 
 be conveyed by this part of the judgment, is evident from their 
 lauguage. “ What inference but one can be deduced from these ” 
 “ facts;” and again, further on in the judgment, “ the inference is ” 
 “ undeniable, looking at the facts.” Every one must, I think, admit 
 that if any other inference than that of actual adultery having been 
 committed was intended by the Court, it was at all events not 
 obvious. The judgment then in the form above-mentioned is 
 openly published in Court; carrying conviction to the minds of 
 any one who should read it that on the occasion in question actual 
 adultery had been committed by Mrs. Talbot. 
 
 Sometime after this publication an addition is made to the judgment 
 by the Judges themselves in private, and which was not published 
 with the same form and solemnity as the original judgment, from 
 which it appears that on the occasion in question Mrs. Talbot’s 
 CHILD WAS PRESENT WITH HER MOTHER IN MuLLANE’s ROOM; and 
 that the one inference which any common reader would have ex¬ 
 tracted from the judgment as originally delivered was not the 
 inference which at the time of the supplemental alterations was 
 intended by the Court; for the Court then considers the presence 
 of the child sufficient to negative the evidence of adultery, and 
 treats the evidence of Queeney and Fallon as favouring this 
 view. If, then, the one inference was not that of adultery having 
 been committed, what was it ? The only obvious inference, if we 
 take the supplemental appendage to assist us, would be a negative 
 one, viz., that on the occasion in question Mrs. Talbot was not pre¬ 
 sent in Mullane’s room with any intention of committing adultery; 
 for it is quite impossible to subscribe to the view upon which Mrs. 
 Talbot was sought to be criminated, and which was afterwards 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 adopted by the Court in the supplemental addition to the judgment, 
 viz., that her object was to unbolt the door, send the child away, 
 and afterwards return alone to commit the criminal act. Such a 
 conclusion, whatever may be said of it, is certainly not obvious or 
 undeniable. 
 
 The result therefore is that, if we read the judgment as originally 
 delivered, we can arrive at but one conclusion, and if we take it 
 with the alteration, we are necessarily compelled to arrive at 
 another and a totally opposite one. How, then, is this judicial 
 anomaly to be accounted for? Simply by considering that at the 
 time when the judgment was delivered the Court had altogether 
 overlooked the fact that the child teas 'present with Mrs. Talbot in 
 Mullane's room* 
 
 This is the only conclusion that can possibly be arrived 
 at, for it is quite impossible to conceive that, with a knowledge 
 of that fact at the time of the judgment, the Judges constituting the 
 Court would have wilfully omitted notice of it, and at the same 
 time used expressions leading to a conclusion the very reverse of 
 that which would (according to their own notions) necessarily have 
 resulted if the fact of the child’s presence had been stated. 
 
 It follows, then, that when the Court of Delegates condemned 
 Mrs. Talbot, the} 7 laboured under a misconception of one 
 of the most important facts of the case, and on the foundation of 
 
 * JUDGMENT, AS ORIGINALLY 
 DELIVERED. 
 
 — The detection in the room of 
 Mullane took place on the 19th of 
 May, and it is an undisputed fact.— 
 The door bolted—admission denied— 
 the door forced—the appellant found 
 concealed behind the curtains of the 
 bed— what inference hut one can he 
 deduced from these facts, SfC. ? 
 
 PASSAGE SUBSEQUENTLY 
 INTERPOLATED. 
 
 — thus manifesting, that however 
 indefensible her conduct may have 
 been, she did not consummate her 
 infidelity in the presence of her inno¬ 
 cent offspring. 
 
 Thus the presence of the child in 
 Midlane's room on the 1 9th may be 
 accounted for by the reflection that, if 
 not then detected, the child would have 
 been withdrawn. 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 which the judgment is specifically rested, and this must be added as 
 another to the gross and wanton blunders with which the Court is 
 chargeable in their adjudication in this case. But I am almost 
 sick of referring to judicial blunders; let me for a moment submit 
 for your Lordship’s consideration whether the conduct of the Court 
 in reference to this matter does not in fact amount to something: 
 worse than even gross blundering. 
 
 When the Judges of the Court of Delegates published in open 
 Court their deliberate judgment, condemning Mrs. Talbot to infamy 
 and disgrace, prefacing it by the statement that it was “ right that ” 
 “the reasons which influenced the judgment of the Court should ” 
 “ be publicly announced,” and concluding it by stating that “ the ” 
 “ Court did not found its judgment on other grounds than those it ” 
 “had assigned,” they must, I suppose, be considered as performing 
 a judicial act, the importance of which they solemnly recognise, but 
 that when they tookacopy ofthe judgment sodelivered to their homes, 
 and in private mutilated and altered it so as to make it represent 
 something, not only formally but substantially different from, and at 
 variance with the judgment so openly and solemnly delivered, and 
 afterwards attempted to substitute the copy so mutilated and altered 
 in the place of, and as in'fact constituting the original judgment, 
 they must be regarded as committing an act not only extrajudicial 
 but wrongful. The supplemental alterations then, I submit, 
 could be of no weight or importance whatever, except as evidence 
 of the Judges being under a delusion as to the real facts of the case, 
 when they solemnly delivered their judgment. But if the attempt 
 of the Judges as individuals, to tamper in private with a solemn 
 judgment, delivered by them in a judicial capacity in public, and bj 
 such means to patch up a judicial blunder by the creation of an 
 extrajudicial absurdity, be wrongful, amongst what class of wrongs 
 is it to be ranked? The judgment of a High Court of Appeal, in 
 which the honour or infamy of a woman is concerned, cannot, I 
 should suppose, be looked upon as less solemn than a deed orinstru- 
 ment executed by parties out of Court. In such cases the alteration of 
 a deed or other document in a material part by one of the parties to 
 it behind the backs of the other parties interested is, I believe, con¬ 
 sidered a fraud. It is for your Lordship to determine what term of 
 
 F 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 reprobation in the language is most appropriate to characterise a 
 delinquency, when the subject tampered with is the judgment of a 
 High Court of Appeal, in which the honour of a woman is con¬ 
 cerned, and the tamperer one of its Judges. 
 
 My Lord, have I not made good my fourth charge ? Did not 
 the Court of Delegates deliberately suppress or negligently omit 
 the fact of the child being with her mother in Mullane’s room on 
 the 19th of May. Is not that fact distinctly proved, and does 
 not the Court subsequently admit the importance of it? 
 
 I have now gone one by one through the charges I placed on 
 record at the head of this letter. One by one I have proved them 
 all. If I have misstated anything I can be convicted with the 
 utmost ease. I refer, as proof of my accuracy, to the published 
 judgment of the Court of Delegates, and to the evidence which 
 remains on record in the Consistory Court. 
 
 Inquiry is what I want,—I court the most searching investigation. 
 
 —I write under a sense of the deepest responsibility. To deny 
 that tribunals deserve the respect which ought to be their due—to 
 arraign judges at the bar of public opinion, is a task not lightly to 
 be undertaken. If the charges I have made are unfounded, they 
 recoil with double force on my own head. I have thrown down 
 the gauntlet in a contest in which one or other of the combatants 
 must be covered with obloquy and disgrace. 
 
 Six months have elapsed since the judgment of the Court of 
 Delegates was delivered. Immediately upon that judgment being- 
 delivered, the attention of the Court was called to the errors it 
 contained by my brother, in a letter to the Hon. Justice Torrens, 
 the senior member of the Court. 
 
 That letter was immediately transmitted to each member of 
 the Court, it has been before the public for five months, it has 
 been the subject of discussion and comment in six leading daily and 
 weekly London papers, and also in the papers of Dublin and 
 
( «7 ) 
 
 Belfast, and many of the principal provincial towns in England and 
 Ireland. As far as I am aware, no attempt has been made to 
 deny, or even to question the accuracy of any statement it 
 contained. 
 
 I now repeat the chai’ges I have made in the most specific 
 form:— 
 
 1. I charge the Judges with citing the Rev. Mr. McClelland as 
 
 proving what he denies. 
 
 2. With citing the Rev. Mr. Gage as proving, in two separate 
 
 instances, what he never proves at all. 
 
 3. With quoting expressions as having been used by Mrs. Talbot in 
 
 Mullane’s room, on the 19th of May, which are not deposed to 
 by any of the witnesses. 
 
 4. With relying on the evidence of Halloran, Finnerty, O’Brien, 
 
 Mooney, and the Benns, or some or one of those witnesses, as 
 corroboratory of Mrs. Talbot’s confession, after having utterly 
 discredited one and all of those witnesses as to the matters to 
 which they deposed, and rejected their testimony as unworthy 
 of belief. 
 
 5. With having admitted, and permitted their minds to be influenced 
 
 by, and with having cited and referred to in their judgment as 
 one of the grounds of that judgment, the hearsay evidence of 
 Halloran and Finnerty as to the intentions of Mrs. Talbot con¬ 
 veyed to the Court by the lips of the Rev. Mr. McClelland. 
 
 6. With having deliberately suppressed or negligently overlooked the 
 
 fact of the child being in the room at the time of the alleged 
 discovery, and having consequently inferred that Mrs. Talbot 
 was in that room at that time for a guilty purpose. 
 
 7. With having, after the public delivery of the judgment, introduced 
 
 a passage into the copy of that judgment, attempting to account 
 for the presence of the child on that occasion, in a manner 
 inconsistent with the judgment as originally delivered, so that, 
 after the introduction of the passage, the two parts of the 
 judgment are contradictory to each other, and the same state 
 of facts is referred to in one part of the judgment as conclusive 
 that Mrs. Talbot was guilty at that time, and in the other part 
 
 F 2 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 of' the judgment as conclusive that she was not yuilty at that 
 time. 
 
 Either the Court has not done what it proclaims to be its duty. 
 Either it has not “examined the evidence” and “ sifted it in detail,” 
 in which case it was, by its own admission, guilty of a neglect of 
 duty; or, having “ examined the evidence,” having “ sifted it in 
 “ detail,” and knowing what was and what was not in that evidence, 
 it has deliberately and knowingly represented the evidence as con¬ 
 taining what it did not contain, and wilfully falsified the 
 
 TESTIMONY ON WHICH IT FOUNDS ITS JUDGMENT. 
 
 f rom one horn or the other of this dilemma there is no escape. 
 
 The inevitable conclusion, therefore, from what I have said is 
 that this unhappy lady has been condemned to perpetual infamy 
 and disgrace, upon the wild ravings of insanity, not only uncorro¬ 
 borated by any credible testimony whatever, but attempted to be 
 supported by the foulest and blackest evidence ever brought 
 within the w r alls of a Court of Justice, and deposed to by witnesses 
 who would “shudder 1 ” at nothin'* but the gallows; and that such 
 condemnation has been passed by a tribunal, which has set at naught 
 the first elements of justice and right by quoting pleading, instead 
 of proof—misstating and perverting the most important evidence 
 in the case—which has shorn of its foulness testimony the most 
 perjured and abandoned, which has received and acted upon evi¬ 
 dence, even at second hand, characterized by the Court itself, as 
 infamous and untrustworthy; and all for the purpose of sustaining 
 and corroborating alleged admissions of guilt, which, according to 
 the rules which guide the administration of justice, ought never to 
 have been admissible in evidence in any Court. 
 
 If this be the mode in which evidence is treated by Irish 
 Courts of Justice, can we wonder that fraud, outrage and wrong 
 should have been the characteristic features of this hitherto 
 unhappy country; and that these Courts should be the first to 
 have to adjudicate upon a case which for villainy and enormity is 
 almost without its parellel in the history of crime ? 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 My Lord, there are considerations which force themselves upon 
 the mind in this case, whether one will or not. 
 
 A gentleman of ancient descent, high rank, ample fortune, 
 charges his wife with adultery; he supports the charge by pro¬ 
 ducing no less than six witnesses to overt acts of the most flagrant 
 description, not one of whom the Court believes, but whose 
 testimony is disposed of, in the guarded language to which Courts are 
 accustomed, as utterly incredible, as stamped with “the seal of con-” 
 “demnation,”as “obviouslyuntrue,”as “infamous” and “disgraceful,” 
 and with a significant intimation as to the “motives” which had 
 led to the production of “ such testimony, as no Court could ” 
 “ consider truthtelling or trustworthy.” 
 
 But there is a seventh witness produced by Mr. Talbot—and 
 this exhausts the list of witnesses vouched to prove substantive 
 criminality—whose evidence the Court scarcely notices. This 
 witness, like the others, is a servant in the employ of Mr. Talbot; 
 she is actually in his service at the very time when she gives her 
 evidence. She is vouched to prove ocular observation of her 
 mistress’s guilt; but when she is examined she denies the truth of 
 every one of the charges which she is called to support; she 
 declares her firm belief in the innocence of her mistress, and, 
 what is of equal, if not greater importance, she states that attempts 
 had been made by her fellow servants, the other witnesses in the 
 case, to induce her to join them in “ swearing false against her 
 mistress,” and that she had heard them boasting that money had 
 been furnished by Mr. Talbot to get Mrs. Talbot away! 
 
 Thus of the seven witnesses produced by Mr. Talbot, six are 
 rejected by the Court as perjured, and the seventh proves that she 
 had been solicited to be a partner in their guilt! 
 
 Upon the character of this woman there is not a shadow of 
 imputation. She is Mr. Talbot’s own servant and witness, and 
 gives her evidence at a time and under circumstances which 
 
 o 
 
 preclude the possibility of her having been subjected to any induce¬ 
 ments to deviate from truth, except those which had failed to 
 procure her support to the falsehoods of her fellow servants. She 
 is, therefore, the most unexceptionable witness possible. She 
 deposes adversely to the side which produces her, and she has 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 resisted attempts to induce her to swerve from the truth. Why, 
 then, do the Court pass her testimony by unnoticed? Is it because 
 they felt that, if they noticed it, they would have been compelled 
 to ask themselves the question what were the “motives” to per¬ 
 jury they had before darkly hinted at, and who -presented those 
 motives ? 
 
 Crime is, unhappily, very cheap in Ireland, and no one knows 
 that better than your Lordship; but neither in Ireland nor any¬ 
 where else do men commit perjury or any other crime absolutely 
 without motive. Now there appears to be no ground for 
 imputing malice against Mrs. Talbot as the motive which prompted 
 the perjury of Halloran, Finnerty or O’Brien; and if there had 
 been any grudge which prompted so deadly a vengeance in Mooney 
 or the Benns, it would not have lain dormant for a couple of years. 
 
 Personal malice in the witnesses, therefore, was not the motive 
 which prompted their perjury. 
 
 What was the motive, then, and who furnished it? 
 
 This is a question which no man has a right to ask, unless he 
 has honesty to probe the evidence to the bottom, and courage to 
 follow out the investigation to its legitimate conclusion, be that 
 coJiclusion what it may. 
 
 It is unnecessary to disturb the mind and distract the attention 
 by a multiplicity of inquiries. The person who originally prompted 
 one of these perjured witnesses prompted all. Halloran is the 
 earliest, the most important, the most infamous: I will therefore 
 place Halloran on the dissecting table, and, if I succeed in 
 demonstrating his motive, I may fairly infer that his confederates 
 are actuated by the same. 
 
 It is impossible to paint the character of Halloran in colours too 
 dark. He is by his own confession a forger; by the evidence in 
 the case a would-be ravisher; by the emphatic condemnation of 
 the Judges a perjurer; by the testimony of his fellow servant a 
 suborner! Of the crimes prohibited in the latter half of the deca¬ 
 logue, murder is the only one with which he is not stained. His 
 minor vices of habitual drunkenness and debauchery sink into 
 insignificance by the side of his more heinous offences. He was 
 a man with no scruples, and a fit agent for any villainy; but he 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 had no motive to originate, and, as Dr. Gayer (Mr. Talbot’s counsel) 
 very justly remarked, neither means nor opportunity to carry out 
 a conspiracy against the honour of his mistress. Had the plot 
 originated with Halloran, it must have broken down as soon as it 
 began to ramify and to take in the Benns, O’Brien and Mooney. 
 
 Halloran, therefore, is not the prime mover, the original actor: 
 he is but a subordinate agent in the drama. 
 
 When we have once arrived at the conclusion that there is some 
 one behind Halloran, the question that naturally suggests itself is, 
 who paid .Halloran ? who rewarded him ? who sheltered and pro¬ 
 tected him ? who has voluntarily retained in immediate attendance 
 upon himself for years, the man whom no one else could endure 
 for months or even weeks ? who, when that close connexion was 
 broken, renewed it, and paid for that renewal by raising Halloran’s 
 wages ? who is the only man who has heard without a shudder of 
 the monstrous outrage committed by Halloran on the night of the 
 19th of May? 
 
 The answer to these questions must be sought for in the evidence 
 of Mr. Talbot’s own witnesses, of Halloran, his butler, of Finnerty, 
 his steward, of Barlow, his agent, of Hester Keogh, his nurse, and 
 of the Rev. Robert Gage, his attorney’s brother-in-law. I refer to 
 nothing but what is in evidence on the records of the Court in the 
 testimony of the very witnesses whom Mr. Talbot has produced to 
 prove the guilt of his wife. 
 
 It has often been said “ shew me the man who profits by a crime,” 
 “and I will shew you the criminal.” With equal truth may it be 
 said, “ shew me the man who fosters, cherishes and rewards the ” 
 “ criminal, and I will shew you the man w’ho suggested the crime.” 
 
 The very Judges who have condemned Mrs. Talbot have, 
 at the same time and with the same breath, indignantly de¬ 
 nounced the whole story told by Halloran as “ obviously ” 
 “ untrue,” and have marked this yet more emphatically oy 
 slightly altering the phraseology in the copy of the judgment 
 which passed under the revision of the Court, and speaking of 
 “ its characteristic being marked by the obvious incredibility ” 
 “ of it.” There is no hesitation,—no doubt,—no weighing of proba¬ 
 bilities,—-whatever conclusion they may have arrived at as to other 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 parts of the case, Halloran’s evidence is wholly false,—wholly per¬ 
 jured,—and he stands before them branded, to use the language of 
 the Court itself, with “infamy and disgrace.” 
 
 It is needless to waste a word upon Finnerty ; he falls with 
 Halloran. The two are so closely united it is impossible to separate 
 them. 
 
 Let us now follow Dr. Gayer’s argument, the logical force and 
 truth of which I fully admit, through the other witnesses whose 
 testimony the Court rejects as entirely as it does that of Halloran, 
 and it is most important to keep in mind the dates to which each 
 witness deposes. I will take the witnesses in the order in which 
 Dr. Gayer has placed them. 
 
 Mooney deposes to an act of adultery in August, or the begin¬ 
 ning of September, 1851. 
 
 In November, 1852, she enters the service of Mr. Barlow, Mr. 
 Talbot’s agent; at that time she not only remains silent when the 
 occurrences at Mount Talbot are the subject of discussion and con¬ 
 versation amongst her neighbours, but declares that she “ knows ” 
 
 NOTHING ABOUT THEM.”* 
 
 She is examined on the 18th of August, 1853, and deposes in 
 the following words to the 14th interrogatory. 
 
 “ I first mentioned the fact of Mrs. Talbot’s misconduct with ” 
 “ Mullanc to Mrs. Barloav in last September, and after to ” 
 “ Mr. Barlow about three months since.” 
 
 Mr. Barlow is Mr. Talbot’s agent, and it was at his house, in the 
 immediate vicinity of Mount Talbot, that Mr. Talbot passed the 
 night of the 19th of May, during which Halloran attempted violence 
 on Mrs. Talbot. 
 
 0‘Brien (whom the Court condemn in language as emphatic as 
 that which they apply to Halloran) comes next in Dr. Gayer’s list 
 of witnesses whom Halloran “ could not have been the person to ’’ 
 “ suborn.” 
 
 0‘Bricn, it will be remembered, deposes to adultery in the winter 
 of 1850, and early in the spring of 1851. 
 
 On the 27th of August, 1853, 0‘Brien is examined, and after 
 
 * loth Interrogatory. 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 a hesitating statement of his “ belief” that he first communicated 
 these facts to a person of the name of Carpenter (in whose service 
 he has been for twenty-seven years and who has an illegitimate family 
 by O'Brien’s sister), but he cannot take upon himself to say “when ” 
 “ or where” he made such communication ; he deposes without doubt 
 or hesitation as follow’s, and as so frank an avowal on the part of a 
 witness of his readiness to swear anything that was wanted, for any¬ 
 body who would employ him, is not common, I give his statement 
 without note or comment in the order and in the precise words in 
 which it appears on the records of the Court. 
 
 “ I first mentioned all the facts I have deposed to on my direct ’ 
 “ examination in the beginning of this summer to Mr. Adair, in ” 
 “ Mallow; the Rev. Mr. Collis was present when I was ” 
 “ telling Mr. Adair said facts; I never mentioned them to Mr. ” 
 “ Talbot; and further to this interrogatory I cannot answer.” 
 
 8th. “ It w r as Mr. Adair who first applied to me on the part of ” 
 “ Mr. Talbot, but I cannot state when that was, except that it was ” 
 “sometime this Summer; that was the only time I was asked any” 
 “ questions on Mr. Talbot’s part, and” &c. 
 
 9th. “ I had several conversations, about November, 1852, with ” 
 “Mr. Josh. Thompson and Thomas Curtin in the presence of” 
 “each other. I believe I did say to Josh. Thompson and” 
 “ Thomas Curtin that I never saw anything improper on ” 
 “ the part of Mrs. Talbot towards Mullane. I do notrecol- ” 
 “lect saying to them or either of them that I did not see anything” 
 “ I could condemn but I might have said so to them, and” &c. 
 
 10th. “ I believe I did on or about the 19th day of July, 1853, ” 
 “ at Ballygarrett, state to Thomas Curtin that the statements I ” 
 “made to him Thomas Curtin and Mr. Thompson, meaning the ” 
 “ statements in the next preceding interrogatory mentioned, were ” 
 “ true, and that I was prepared to prove them on oath ; and ” 
 “ further” &c. 
 
 11th. “I did in the month of August 1853, at Mallow, state ” 
 “ to Charles Curtin that the statements 1 had made to said Thomas ” 
 “ Curtin and said Thompson, namely the statements in the ninth ” 
 “ preceding interrogatory, were true; and ” &c. 
 
 We now come to the Benns, who depose to acts of adultery in 
 August or September 1850. 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 In November 1852 Susan Benn states that she “never observed” 
 “ anything in the conduct of Mrs. Talbot with respect to Mullane; ” 
 
 “ that Mrs. Talbot always appeared very kind and familiar to all ” 
 
 “ the servants, and that she was quite positive that any kindness ” 
 “ Mrs. Talbot might have shewn Mullane was nothing more than ” 
 “ might be shewn by any lady to a servant so circumstanced, he ” 
 “having charge of her horse, and living a distance from home.” 
 
 On the 27th of August 1853 Susan Benn is examined. In 
 reply to the 11th interrogatory, she states that Mr. Talbot heard 
 what evidence she could give “ in consequence of the Rev. Mr. ” 
 “ Collis and Mr, Adair having called upon her,’’ and to the 12th 
 interrogatory deposes as follows: 
 
 “ It is about six months since I first mentioned the facts I have ” 
 “ proved to any one : I then mentioned them to said Mr. Adair ” 
 “ and Mr. Collis.” 
 
 Mary Ann Benn, the woman who complains to her brother that 
 “ she lost a good situation in consequence of Mrs. Talbot not ” 
 “ giving her a character,” and who thinks she told her father and 
 mother something, but she cannot recollect what, three years ago, 
 and with that exception appears to have been perfectly silent; 
 is examined on the 22nd of September 1853. She then deposes 
 in reply to the question, “howMr. Talbot or his agents had learnt” 
 “ that she would give evidence for him?”—that she is “ unable” 
 “ to depose to said interrogatory further than, about three or four ” 
 “ months past, the Rev. Mr. Collis, brother-in-law of Mr. ” 
 “ Talbot, called on her at Rock Lodge and asked her to tell” 
 “ him all the information she knew about Mrs. Talbot and Mul- ” 
 “ lane, which she then told him; ” and she further deposes, that 
 “ Mr. Collis told her her expenses should be paid when she went” 
 “ to Dublin, and that when she arrived there he would see that ” 
 “ she was comfortably provided for there.” 
 
 Now my Lord, having given the evidence of Mr. Talbot’s own 
 witnesses in their own ivords, as to the time when, the circumstances 
 under which, and the persons to whom they first told the stories 
 which the Court have denounced and discarded in the manner we 
 have seen, I will with equal candour give Mr. Talbot the benefit of 
 the very able argument of his own counsel, Dr. Gayer, upon that 
 testimony. It is as follows: 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 “ It is perfectly ludicrous to say or impute to Halloran that he ” 
 “ has concocted the entire of this conspiracy. He seems to have ” 
 “ been a man, according to the evidence, who was very indifferent ” 
 “ about keeping Mr. Talbot’s place, or the place of anybody at all. ” 
 “ But let him be ever so anxious to ingratiate himself with Mr. ” 
 “Talbot, it is utterly out of the nature of things; let him try to” 
 “ suborn Hester Keogh, or any servant with whom he might have ” 
 “ lived in the house, but it is impossible that he could have been ” 
 “ the person to suborn Maria Mooney, 0‘Brien, or the two Benns ” 
 “ not one of whom he seems ever to have seen. The conspirator ” 
 “ in this case must have been somebody outside Halloran. The ” 
 “ person who furnished motives to these different witnesses to ” 
 “perjure themselves must be some one who has a greater interest” 
 “ in the case than he has. If this is the modest case of the Solicitor ” 
 “ General, the conspirator must have been somebody more opulent, ” 
 “ who had a deeper interest at stake than this wretched Michael ” 
 “ Halloran; to suppose that such a conspiracy could have been ” 
 “ concocted and carried out by somebody without the connivance ” 
 “ of Mr. Talbot, is absolute fatuity.” 
 
 Dr. Gayer used this argument in terrorem, to shew that the facts 
 deposed to by these witnesses must have occurred, and that their 
 testimony must be true. He was successful before Dr. Radcliffe. 
 The Court of Delegates have come to an opposite conclusion. 
 They hold that the testimony is false —that the facts deposed to 
 never occurred at all, and that some one has (to use Dr. Gaj^er’s 
 expression) “ furnished a motive to these different witnesses to ” 
 “ perjure themselves.” 
 
 Without note, comment, or observation, I lay the testimony of 
 Mr. Talbot’s own witnesses and the arguments of Mr. Talbot’s own 
 counsel before you, and I leave your lordship to answer to your 
 own mind the question. 
 
 Who was the Conspirator? 
 
 Till the morning of the 19th of May, 1852, Mr. Talbot believed 
 
 “ THAT A MORE CHASTE AND VIRTUOUS WOMAN THAN HIS WIFE DID ” 
 “NOT EXIST.” —Before that day closed, he had consigned that 
 wife to the custody of Halloran. —Within twelve hours Halloran 
 attempted to violate the person of his prisoner.—Mr. Talbot hears 
 of the outrage, —expresses neither horror, surprise nor even dis- 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 pleasure, cherishes—fosters—rewards the miscreant! Yet Dr. 
 Radeliffe considers this a “ trifling circumstance,” and the Court 
 of Delegates, whilst they express their own abhorrence of the act of 
 Halloran, pass no condemnation upon Mr. Talbot, and see no 
 ground for the suspicion that the case was “ got up” by him “ as a ” 
 “ conspiracy with his servants !” There is a foul moral atmosphere 
 which the mind may be trained to endure, as those who are 
 habituated to it can breath a pestilential air which brings death to 
 all who inhale it with unpractised lungs. That such an atmo¬ 
 sphere pervades the Court where they preside, is the only mode of 
 accounting for the fact that a cry of horror did not burst from the 
 lips of the Judges when the picture of Mr. Talbot enduring—nay, 
 seeking and purchasing—the pollution of Halloran’s presence in his 
 house, and forcing that pollution on his innocent and unhappy child, 
 presented itself to their eyes! 
 
 There remains but one argument to answer. It is said, How can 
 five judges and four clergymen be mistaken ? 
 
 This argument proves too much. If it is good for anything, it is 
 good to the extent that a judicial tribunal can never err, and that a 
 Priest must be always infallible and always honest,—conclusions to 
 which it is not too much to say that history and experience are 
 opposed.—Ann Boleyn, was convicted by the verdict of twenty- 
 six peers of England, with her own uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, 
 at their head.—Was the Parliament of Thoulouse, by whose 
 order Calas was broken upon the wheel for the murder of 
 his son, one whit a less learned or a less respectable body than 
 the Delegates of Dublin? and does any man in his senses believe 
 at the present day that Calas was guilty? Dr. Titus Oates was in his 
 day esteemed even a brighter luminary of the Church than the Rev. 
 Mr. Collis; does any one now believe a single word of the testimony 
 of the witnesses whom he produced? or of the confessions of Praunce, 
 which Dr. Lloyd said “ it was impossible to doubt the sincerity 
 of?” Is the testimony of Rev. Robert Gage, Clerk of Tamlaghtard 
 Glebe, in the county of Derry, more deserving of respect than 
 that of Master llarrie lorbes, minister of the Gospel in Aldernc, 
 who sat da}' after day solemnly listening to and deliberately taking 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 down the confession of poor Isabell Gowdie, and recording her 
 penitence for carrying on an adulterous intercourse with the Devil! 
 for which offence and upon which and the like confessions, proved 
 by ministers of the Gospel,—schoolmasters,—clerks of session,— 
 witnesses no less respectable than the Rev. Robert Gage and the 
 Rev. George Kemmis, and before tribunals to the full as learned as 
 the Court of Delegates, hundreds of miserable women were, in the 
 terrible language of the day, “ ordainit to be tane to the Castell Hill” 
 “ of Edinburgh, and thair to be wirreitt at ane staik to the deid!”* 
 If we are to conclude that because men are judges and ministers 
 of the Gospel their decisions are not to be questioned, we must 
 believe in witchcraft because Sir Matthew Hale hanged witches at 
 Bury St. Edmunds; and in the ordeal of touch, because two grave 
 and highly respectable clergymen swore that they saw a body which 
 had been buried for a month open its eyes, raise its hand, point 
 at the murderer, and a drop of blood issue from the end of its 
 finger! whereupon three miserable wretches were hanged !f 
 
 We must hold the glorious army of martyrs to have been a band 
 of malefactors, the dungeon of Galileo a Temple of Truth, and the 
 scaffold on which Russell perished an altar to Justice ! 
 
 Jeffreys was not a Judge of the Consistory Court, but he 
 was Chief Justice of England and Lord Chancellor, he was the 
 most notorious of that “ succession of ruffians in ermine” (as they 
 have been truly designated by one now filling with honour the seat 
 they disgraced), who “ violated the principles of law, the precepts ” 
 “of religion, and the dictates of humanity:” but never did Jeffreys 
 more grossly violate each of these than did Dr. Radcliffe when he 
 inferred Mrs. Talbot’s guilt from the absence of hearsay evidence in 
 her favour, assumed the presence of “ two teacups ” from the proof of 
 “two eggs!” and grounded a judgment, on which hung more than 
 life or death, on a “ perhaps.”! 
 
 * See Pitcairn’s Trials, App. p. 602. 
 
 f Howell’s St. Tr., vol. 14, p. 1324. See also a very complete collection of 
 the facts with regard to these singular delusions in the note to the trial of the 
 Mures of Auchindrayne, 3 Pitcairn’s Cr. Tr. 156-192. 
 
 J “ Perhaps when Mullane drove her out in the car, or accompanied her ” 
 “ with her child on the donkey, ground for observation to those outside was ” 
 “ afforded.” 
 
(-78 ) 
 
 Jeffreys began his campaign in the West with what the present 
 Chief Justice of England has rightly called the murder of Lady 
 Lisle. What was the swift sharp stroke of the headsman compared 
 to the lingering agonies to which Mrs. Talbot has been condemned? 
 The loss of home, of child, of reason, of good fame !—which fate 
 would a man of honour select for his sister or his daughter ?—which 
 would a woman choose for herself? 
 
 When I first knew Mrs. Talbot, some time before her marriage, 
 she was a beautiful, singularly gentle and accomplished girl, residing 
 in her father’s house, and surrounded by every luxury and comfort 
 which wealth and parental fondness could furnish. 
 
 When next I saw her she was married to a man, her equal in 
 station and a distant relative of her father’s, but the meanness of 
 whose disposition developed itself in the denial to his unhappy 
 wife, not only of the luxuries, but even of the comforts, she had 
 been accustomed to. At the time of my visit to them with my wife 
 during their residence near Mallow, though the husband kept his 
 hunters, the wife had no clothing but of the meanest description, no 
 servants but the lowest, and, for pocket money, it is in evidence 
 that she borrowed, and had difficulty in repaying, even the most 
 trifling sums. All, however, seemed overlooked by her in the one 
 ruling woman’s passion: intense love for her child, who never left 
 her side, and to whom her whole life was devoted —“ the child of” 
 “ her unbounded affection”—as the Judge of the Consistorial Court 
 describes her. On coming into possession of Mount Talbot things 
 did not improve; the better servants, hired during their short visit 
 to London, were discharged on pretences by the husband—disap¬ 
 pointment at that one single child, and she a girl, rankled more and 
 more bitterly,—her home became more and more wretched, herself 
 more and more coldly treated, neglected and set aside, until, on the 
 19th May, 1852, the events occurred and the catastrophe was con¬ 
 summated—the circumstances of which form the substance of this 
 letter to your Lordship and to the public, the only Court of appeal 
 yet open to me. 
 
 When we again met, it was at Windsor in the November of that 
 year, when iny wife and I at last succeeded in releasing her from 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 her confinement at Mrs. Tennant’s, after vainly seeking access 
 to her, and having the door closed in our faces when we called, 
 she being denied to her own sister, of whose visit she was kept in 
 ignorance. She was then, as pronounced by two eminent physicians, 
 in a state of insanity, confirmed and of long standing, with shattered 
 health, an enfeebled frame, and labouring under the most extreme 
 depression. 
 
 Cautioned by the medical men to be on our constant guard 
 against returns of violent and suicidal mania, we took her to the 
 house of my father in Leicestershire. For a month my wife never 
 quitted her night or day. Anguish for the loss of her child seemed 
 paramount to every other emotion — terror of some imaginary 
 danger haunted her—she was attacked with constantly recurring 
 wild fits of delirious depression—till after months of quiet soothing 
 and gentle kindness, her mind gradually assumed a greater degree 
 of tranquillity. Sleep returned; and, to a certain extent, she 
 became quieted, and somewhat more like her former self. During 
 intervals, when her mind seemed clearer and her spirits in less 
 agitation and terror, particularly during Dr. Roscoe’s visit, he, my 
 wife, and myself attempted to lead her mind to the recollection of 
 the past, and endeavoured to ascertain if she had any remaining 
 gleam of memory sufficient to light us through the dark horrors of 
 that awful night. Generally her ideas become clouded and con¬ 
 fused—what Cowper has so vividly designated as “a strange and ” 
 “ horrible darkness,” an indistinct “ sense of sin and expectation ” 
 “ of punishment,” occasionally accompanied by wild rambling and 
 inconsistent stories, wholly irrelevant to the matter charged against 
 her, prevailed, but there were intervals when it was far otherwise. 
 I have said much of the looseness of the alleged confessions—I 
 shall not follow that course in loose vindications, but I here give 
 for the judgment of your Lordship and the public, the ipsissima verba, 
 the very words which were taken down at the time by Dr. Roscoe, 
 my wife, and myself, and which we are prepared on oath to verify. 
 
 Notes of a Conversation between Dr. Roscoe and Mrs. Talbot, 
 
 at Humber stone. 
 
 6th December, 1852. 
 
 She does not know there were any proceedings going on 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 against her—she said Mr. Talbot said he would get a divorce, 
 and would not let her give any explanation at all—she said she 
 does not know what these wicked people have told him (wicked 
 people several times). 
 
 Q. Have you given cause for this ? 
 
 A. No; I wish I had never gone into that room—I only 
 went into that room to dry the child’s feet—had often been in 
 the room before to make things neat. 
 
 Could not bring her to anything definite. I said “when?” 
 “ tell me when this was.” 
 
 She said, “ Nobody ever saw anything wrong.” 
 
 Q. Why did you go into that room ? 
 
 A. To see things were neat and right— often. 
 
 Q. Have you been talking to that old lady at Windsor? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Were you comfortable there? 
 
 A. She was verv strict. 
 
 %l 
 
 Q. Did you get exercise ? 
 
 A. Not much—I did not go out much. 
 
 Q. When did this business occur? 
 
 A. Oh, dear, I cannot tell. 
 
 Q. But the month ? 
 
 A. I cannot tell. 
 
 There seemed to be an impression on her mind that she was 
 thought a wicked woman. 
 
 Q. Why is there an impression you’re a wicked woman ? 
 
 A. From what these people have said—I should like to 
 know what they have said. 
 
 She said it was all confusion to her—oh ! dear, that he (John 
 Talbot) would have stopped and listened to me. “ But 1 ” 
 “ believe he warded to get a divorce, Dr. Roscoe—he wanted a ” 
 “ son. 
 
 She never spoke of any place but that room. “ Nothing, ” 
 she said, “but I was only in that room to dry the child’s” 
 “socks.” 
 
 Q. Was there anv other reason ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Have you ever been in any other place locked up ? 
 
(81 ) 
 
 A. Never but in that room—somebody turned the key—I 
 wish I had never gone into that room. 
 
 Q. But you had been in that room before? 
 
 A. Oh, yes, often, and into the other servants’ rooms, to see 
 things were right and neat. 
 
 She said he (,T. T.) ought to have sent me home. She then 
 said I know there is nothing in it but what these people 
 have said. Throughout the whole of this conversation she 
 kept harping on the child. Again, and again, and again, she 
 said, shall I see my child?—shall I ever see my child again? 
 I had to call her attention continually from the subject of the 
 child. 
 
 After Dr. Roscoe went out of the room her sister came in, 
 when she said, Why didn’t he let me speak to him (meaning 
 her husband)—I could have cleared it all. But I think he was 
 glad to get rid of me, for he only said, “ Now 7 , I will have ” 
 “my divorce .” 
 
 I (T. T. P.) said. Wait patiently, it will all be cleared. 
 Oh, no, she said, it is too long now ; if they only had taken me 
 home at once. 
 
 The impression on her mind being that she could then 
 have cleared herself at once. 
 
 “ Since my senses left me," she said, “my senses left me I ’ 
 “ know nothiny .” 
 
 She did not say a word about Dublin. After that she kept 
 on saying, I shall go mad —I shall go mad. 
 
 In a subsequent conversation, 6th December, 1852, she said 
 to Dr. Roscoe: 
 
 If I had remained at Windsor I should have died. 
 
 I remember signing a paper, but I thought it came from my 
 father, and I don’t know what it was for. 
 
 I could not write to any of my friends, nor did I hear of 
 them, or have any letters. 
 
 Dr. Roscoe said, “ Surely, you could write to your father,” 
 to which she said, “ No, indeed, I could not.” 
 
 She used to drive out w'ith the lady sometimes, and when 
 they came in they had prayers. 
 
 G 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 Memorandum of a Conversation with Mari/ Anne, in /presence 
 
 of my Wife. 
 
 1th December, 1852. 
 
 She said: I never knew of your visit to Windsor—I heard 
 the knocks—I thought it was the doctor—I hardly ever saw 
 any one—at first Mrs. Tennant seemed rather kind, and I 
 sometimes went out with her, but lately she was very much 
 changed, and very strict and silent, very reserved, and I hardly 
 ever got out—I had little or no exercise—I could not sleep, 
 and if I had remained there I should have died—if I had seen 
 you when you came I should have jumped out of the window 
 to get to you—I remember Mrs. Tennant telling me to go away 
 from the window that Sunday you mention, and then they 
 drew down the blinds—I did not know the reason—I did not 
 expect you to come, for Mrs. Tennant said I was wicked, and 
 none of my friends would have me—she said if I went to them 
 they would spit upon me—she repeatedly said that—I am sure 
 she used that word—when I went with her to Uncle One* she 
 told me they did not want me, and I was to live with her 
 always, because I was wicked—I remember signing a paper—I 
 did not know' what it was for, but Mrs. Tennant told me it came 
 from my father, and I must sign itj—I did what she told me, 
 for I had not my senses, as I have now—my senses seem to be 
 returning now'—it all seems to me like a horrid nightmare—I 
 remember I wrote something to Robert Gage—I don’t know 
 what I wrote—she told me the words I was to write—she 
 told me to write a paper, what she called a confession , 
 at another time—she said if I did not write what she 
 told me I should be locked up and starved till I did— 
 and that it w'as at my friends’ desire—she said if I ever 
 said it was not true I should never go to Heaven—she said 
 I was to live with her always, and never to go away, for my 
 relations would never have me—oh, why did I not go home 
 
 * The late Onesiphorus Tyndall Bruce, Esq., of Falkland, 
 f There can be little doubt that this paper, which Mrs. Talbot recollects 
 being thus compelled to sign, was the proxy appointing Messrs. Worthington 
 the Proctors introduced by Mr. Adair. 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 —why did not he (J. T.) take me home—why did not he stop 
 and listen to me when I wanted to tell him all about it—why 
 did he say he would have his divorce now—he would not 
 have said that if he had been sorry—he would not have been 
 composed—oh, why did he take the child away, and tell them 
 to lock me into my bedroom ! They did so, and I never saw 
 him again. I asked her, are you sure he said now I will have 
 my divorce ? When did he say so ? Oh, he said so as he was 
 going into the house, I am quite sure, and he was so composed 
 —I thought it so strange—and they said to him, take the child 
 from her—but indeed it is all true—but 1 don’t know who 
 bolted the door—I felt it all so strange—I felt as if I was 
 turned to stone—I was so astonished—What when you were 
 in the room? Yes, when I was drying the child’s feet and 
 they broke in. I did not know the door was locked—I can 
 solemnly say I never knew the door was locked—I did not 
 know it was him—I was locked into my room—I rang for 
 Hester Keogh; she w'as with me all the rest of the night. 
 All the men were drunk; I think indeed Mr. McClelland 
 said they were a set of devils. I had no idea how to get 
 away—I never thought of it—you know dear Tertius, I was so 
 ill—so very ill—I wish I had gone to Mr. Mahon’s—if I had 
 my spirits and my sense as I have now I should have gone— 
 I have thought of that since—I went away in his carriage 
 with the clergyman to Dublin. I had no money at all, but I 
 heard Finnerty had £20. I went to lodgings in Dublin, and 
 to an hotel. Why was I left alone ? Why did not you come— 
 oh, why did not you come to take me away and bring me here ?— 
 I told her I did not know where she was or anything that had 
 happened at that time. Oh! I know you would have come— 
 why did not papa come and take me home—I was very, very 
 ill—I used to lie in bed and think whether Dody* would come, 
 and expect her—I used to fancy I heard her step and listen— 
 she never came. I asked her if she knew why she was taken 
 to Mrs. Tennant’s ? She said she did not know—she was taken 
 there by Mr. Kemmis, why was she taken there? Just before 
 
 * Her sister Theodosia, Mrs. Edward Senior. 
 
 G 2 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 she left she said Mrs. Tennant told her she was going to her 
 friends, who would say she, Mrs. Tennant, was an old fool, and 
 would persuade her to say what she had written was not truth, 
 but she said, I think I have implanted something in you in 
 these five months, and if I have you will know you can never 
 go to Heaven if you ever say that it is not true. I asked her 
 where Halloran came from ? She said, from Dublin—he 
 “ got him from the papers.” She said, speaking of John Talbot, 
 Do you think he believes what they told him ? Why did he not 
 listen to me—surely he might have believed me rather than 
 those men —1 think he teas determined to believe it, because he 
 would not hear me—and why should not he hear me—if I 
 had murdered the whole country he might have heard me—I 
 think he did not love me—he did not care for me, and wanted 
 to get rid of me. She kept saying I might have been saved if 
 I had gone straight home—but now it is too late—it is too 
 late—it is all such confusion—I have been so mixed up at so 
 many places—oh! it is dreadful—dreadful. 
 
 All this was interrupted by constant passionate inquiries 
 about the child. Oh! to believe that man before me (meaning 
 Halloran), he was always drunk. 
 
 I took this down immediately after the conversation. My 
 wife and I have read it carefully over, and are sure of its truth 
 and correctness. 
 
 Katherine Geraldine Paget. 
 
 T. T. Paget. 
 
 7th December, 1852. 
 
 Conversation with Marianne Talbot at Humberstone :— 
 
 Sunday, February 20th, 1853. 
 
 Tertius asked her if she ever heard anything wrong of 
 Hester Keogh ? to which she said, “ Never.” He (T. T. P.) 
 then said, “ When did you see Halloran last before leaving ” 
 “Mt. Talbot?” She said, “He carried the things down” 
 “ stairs, and tried to steal my dressing box, but we got it from ” 
 “ him. In reply to a question when she had seen him before 
 that, she said, “ Oh, you heard lie came into my room that ” 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 “night, and I called the housemaid and turned him out.” 
 Tertius said: “Did Mullane breakfast in your room that” 
 “morning?” She answered sharply: “Oh, goodness, no!” 
 “ Was he ever in your room ? ” To which she said, “ Oh ” 
 “ never. If he (J. Talbot) had listened to me, when he left ” 
 “I could have cleared it; it is now too late, they have told” 
 “him so many lies I am afraid. He said he would have a ” 
 “ divorce, and 1 felt turned to stone. I was not in the room ” 
 “ drying the socks five minutes. I feel as if I had been mad,” 
 “ and now as if I could begin to think again.” 
 
 K. G. Paget. 
 
 Such are the statements which, whilst the Rev. Mr. Collis 
 was permitted to swear to Mrs. Talbot’s guilt by “ manner and 
 “ expressions,” I was precluded from bringing forward! Can a more 
 gross or monstrous perversion of the first principles of justice be 
 conceived! 
 
 Her charity and generosity of feeling, her care for the poor and 
 her attention to my mother’s village schools, marked her character 
 and occupied her days as health and composure returned; and to 
 what extent she became endeared to every person who had access to 
 Per—in what light she appeared to those who nursed her, who 
 attended her, to all who watched her slightest word or action, and 
 were daily witnesses, for nearly three years, of the unaffected piety 
 and genuine kindness of her nature, I will not trust myself to say. 
 
 I leave it to the pen of one who had never seen her till she 
 entered my father’s house—one who is now no more—but from 
 whose kind and excellent widow I have the fullest permission to 
 publish the following letter, addressed to me a few months before 
 his death. To that touching letter I will only add one other tribute 
 in the concurrent testimony born to the constant purity and deli¬ 
 cacy of her every look, gesture, and expression—to the singleness of 
 her heart and the sincerity of her mind, not only by my father and 
 mother, by my wife and myself, during the three years which she 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 has passed under their roof, but also by every visitor here, who 
 during that time has made her acquaintance. 
 
 My dear Paget, 
 
 Halstead Grange, Billesdon, Leicester, 
 
 20 tli July, 1855. 
 
 I finished your brother John’s manly, straightforward 
 letter, to the so-called Hon. Justice Torrens, last night; and it 
 certainly did not act as a soporific, for it kept me awake all night 
 boiling with indignation, that such scenes of “ oppression, ” 
 “ corruption, and strife,” can be enacted in these our days of 
 boasted enlightenment and freedom. You knowl have knocked 
 about in every quarter of the globe, and been mixed up with 
 thousands of every caste, colour and habit; if I have gathered 
 little else in my wanderings, at any rate I have gained an 
 insight into human nature, and a correcter judgment of the 
 characters of people in general. Now, I have known Mrs. 
 Talbot for the last two years ; and from being somewhat 
 acquainted -with her previous history, am never in her presence 
 without observing all she says and does; no look, movement, or 
 gesture of hers has passed unnoticed; and I can safely say I 
 never met with a more child-like innocence, purity, and sim- 
 plicit}\ Peace and piety are clearly stamped upon her brow; 
 all her words and actions betoken a refined, gentle, loving 
 trustfulness to those around her, and most thoroughly falsify 
 every statement alleged against her. By all I hold sacred, I 
 could swear to her entire purity and innocence; and I cannot 
 help thinking that her husband and her accusers in their 
 hearts (if they have any) acknowledge and believe the same. I 
 never see her without feeling the mercy of Him who has cast such 
 an utter oblivion over her bitter past, and granted her such a 
 vivid consciousness of her bright and happy present, surrounded 
 as she now always is, with looks of confidence and love, and 
 words of kindness and affection. I often quote the home at 
 Humberstone as one of the happiest I have ever entered, and 
 your dear mother as a mainspring of usefulness, cheerfulness, 
 
f 87 ) 
 
 trustworthiness and excellence,—long may such a guardian be 
 spared to poor Mrs. Talbot, and long may she be spared herself 
 to carry on her labour of love amongst the poor and suffering, 
 for such seems to be her delight. When she is summoned to 
 appear before that bar, where God is judge and not man, when 
 the secrets of all hearts are laid open, and wrongs redressed, 
 what thousands then may envy her lot, if true, as we are told, 
 that every earthly trial is converted into a heavenly gem— 
 what a radiant diadem hers will be, rich in celestial jewellery. 
 I must ever honour and esteem your parents, brother, wife and 
 self, for the brave, noble and unselfish manner you have, one 
 and all, come forward to shield this poor helpless victim from 
 the sneers and taunts of a cold world’s cruel scorn,—you will 
 have your reward. 
 
 Pray give our united kind love to your dear wife, and tell 
 her how much we long to see her quite well and strong again, 
 and what pleasure it will give us to welcome Mrs. Talbot and 
 herself to Halstead once more. 
 
 With best regards to Mr. and Mrs. Paget, believe me, most 
 sincerely and faithfully, yours 
 
 William Chester. 
 
 The melancholy conclusion then to which we are unavoidably 
 brought is, that this unhappy lady, after enduring unheard of wrong, 
 and whilst in a state of insanity resulting from it, has been most 
 unrighteously condemned to infamy and disgrace by a Court boasting 
 its connexion with a Christian Church, and presided over b}' r the 
 Vicar General of an Archbishop; but which retains in its practice 
 and procedure in the nineteenth century, the mystery, the darkness, 
 the torture—moral if not physical, all the impediments to the 
 investigation of truth, which disgraced the worst tribunals of the 
 Tudors and the Stuarts, where the accuser and the accused are alike 
 absent, where the witnesses are unseen, where Priests, who hovered 
 round the bed of agony in the darkened torture chamber, are per¬ 
 mitted to'reproduce the ravings of madness, not in the insane words 
 of the patient, but in their own guarded paraphrase, to detail the 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 impression produced on their minds in conversations held with her, 
 when they will not “take upon themselves to say that she was ” 
 “sane to swear that her “ manners and expressions” denoted her 
 guilt, whilst she was repeatedly attemping suicide, taking a grown 
 woman of thirty years of age for her own child of six, and tearing 
 her flesh with her teeth and nails, that while she believed they were 
 “Devils,’ and the “house was Hell,” she was under “no delusions,” 
 and to boast of the “ Christian Charity” which produced the perjury 
 of the Benns and O'Brien to support the frantic delusions of their 
 victim ! 
 
 Truly has a great artist of the last century drawn a prophetic 
 picture of the fate of this unhappy lady. “ Revenge from some ” 
 “ baneful corner shall level a tale of dishonour at thee, which no ” 
 “innocence of heart or integrity of conduct shall set right.” 
 “ Cruelty and Cowardice, twin ruffians, hired and set on by ” 
 “ Malice in the dark, shall strike together; and trust me, tchen , to ” 
 “ gratify a private appetite , it is once resolved upon that an innocent ’’ 
 “ and helpless creature shall he sacrificed, ’tis an easy matter to pick ” 
 “ up sticks enough from any thicket, where it has strayed to make a ” 
 “fire to offer it up with." 
 
 A judicial tribunal has been found to give the sanction of a 
 Christian nation to this sacrifice, and it is for that nation, whose 
 honour and dignity have been scandalised, to determine whether 
 such a tribunal shall any longer remain a reproach to its institu¬ 
 tions, and whether those, through whose instrumentality such a 
 scandal has been perpetrated, shall continue the administrators of 
 its laws. 
 
 The question involved in this case is not one solely of individual 
 injustice. A fold and monstrous public wrong has been committed, 
 and I call upon your Lordship, not with a view of obtaining redress 
 or atonement—that is impossible—the door of justice is closed and 
 the innocent victim of domestic perjury, clerical cruelty, a secret 
 tribunal, and judicial blunders, must go down to the grave with the 
 'mark and seal of public infamy unobliterated and uncancelled, but, 
 through the mere}’ of Providence, unconscious of her wrongs, and 
 in happy ignorance of the name of herself and her child being 
 associated with these loathsome and disgusting details; but I call 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 upon your Lordship, as the Vicegerent of Her who is the head and 
 fountain of Justice, relying on those feelings of humanity which 
 have never failed to be associated with your name, to prompt you 
 to take such measures as shall ensure that no other innocent woman 
 shall be sacrificed to the like injustice of Ecclesiastical Courts. 
 If that pestilence is stayed, the blood of the victim will not have 
 been scattered on the threshing floor in vain. 
 
 I have the honour to be, my Lord, 
 
 Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, 
 
 THOMAS TERTIUS PAGET. 
 
 Humberstone, Jan. 1, 1856. 
 

[Reprinted from the Report appended to a Letter to the Honorable 
 Justice Torrens, by John Paget, Esq.] 
 
 HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES. 
 
 Honorable Justice Torrens. 
 
 Right Honorable Justice Moore. 
 
 Right Honorable Baron Greene. 
 
 Sir H. Meredyth, Bart., Q. C., L.L.D. 
 Robert Andrews, Esq., Q. C., L.L.D. 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 TALBOT v. TALBOT. 
 
 The Honorable Justice Torrens 
 delivered judgment.* 
 
 “ In this important and painful 
 case it is my duty, as the senior 
 member of this Court, to pro¬ 
 nounce the judgment at which 
 my brethren and myself have 
 with unanimity arrived. In the 
 discharge of that duty it is right 
 that the reasons which influence 
 
 the judgment of the Court should 
 be publicly announced; and I 
 have the satisfaction to state that 
 the grounds of the judgment 
 which I shall deliver have like¬ 
 wise received the unanimous con¬ 
 currence of each of my brethren . 1 
 This is an appeal brought by the 
 appellant, Mary Anne Talbot, 
 
 1. Colleagues. 
 
 * I was furnished by the gentleman who has throughout these 
 proceedings attended as a reporter on behalf of Mrs. Talbot, with the 
 short-hand notes from which this judgment is printed. Since it was 
 in type I have been favoured with a copy of the judgment as amended 
 by the Judge ; I have compared it word for word with the report (of 
 which I have not found it necessary to alter a single syllable), and 
 have noticed every variation in a foot note. The text contains the 
 judgment reported with very remarkable skill and accuracy as de¬ 
 livered ; the foot notes contain the latest amendments and final polish 
 which it has received as it passed for revision under the eye of the 
 learned Judge who delivered it. It is impossible that there should 
 be a higher testimony than a comparison of the two affords to the 
 skill and accuracy of Mr. Elrington. It will be seen that since the 
 delivery of the judgment two passages have been re-written, without 
 in any way altering their substance, and that one passage of new 
 matter has been introduced.—J. P. 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 from the definitive sentence of 
 the Consistorial Court of Dublin, 
 declaring that theappellant should 
 he divorced from the respondent, 
 on the ground of adultery alleged 
 to have been committed with 
 William Mullane, a groom in the 
 respondent’s service. A sentence 
 of divorce on the above ground 
 was pronounced by the learned 
 Judge of the Consistorial Court 
 of Dublin; and against that sen¬ 
 tence the present appeal is 
 brought. Although this is a 
 case of an appeal in which counsel 
 upon behalf of the appellant, 
 commencing in statement, fol¬ 
 lowed up by reading proofs to 
 sustain it, the Court considers it 
 would be a simpler and clearer 
 course to pursue,—first, to con¬ 
 sider the evidence on which the 
 respondent’s case is founded, and 
 whether it sustains the judgment 
 of the Court below; or, if insuffi¬ 
 cient for that purpose, how has it 
 been overborne by the evidence 
 of the appellant ? In pursuing 
 this course, it is to be observed 
 that the-allegations 1 of adultery 
 preferred against the appellant 
 rest on three distinct grounds of 
 charge and proof:—first, there is 
 the direct and positive evidence 
 of eye-witnesses to the commis¬ 
 sion of the offence on four dis¬ 
 tinct separate occasions. The 
 first is at Eden Hill, sustained by 
 the evidence of O’Brien ; next, at 
 Mount Talbot, as testified to by 
 Halloran, at the water-closet; 
 again by the same witness, when 
 concealed in a turf-press, when, 
 
 as he alleges, Mullane remained 
 for six hours in the appellant’s 
 bed-room, in the absence of Mr. 
 Talbot; and, fourth, by Maria 
 Mooney’s seeing Mullane in 
 S the appellant’s bed-room on the 
 evening that Mr. Talbot and his 
 3 family dined at Mr. Mahon’s. 
 4 [This concludes the evidence of 
 the actual eye-witnesses to facts.] 
 The next class of evidence on 
 which the respondent relies is 
 the confessions of Mrs. Talbot; 
 and here it may be the proper 
 time to remark on the nature of 
 this testimony, on which alone a 
 question of law 5 is suggested, 
 namely, whether the confessions 
 of accused parties are, per se, 
 (tending to criminate themselves, 
 and to absolve the nuptial obli¬ 
 gation), admissible in evidence in 
 cases of divorce in’ Ecclesiastical 
 Courts; and we are 6 clearly of 
 opinion that such confessions are 
 not, per se, evidence . 7 At this 
 opinion we arrived as well from 
 the wording of the Irish Canon 
 as from the current of opinion in 
 cases of divorce, to which it is 
 unnecessary more particularly to 
 allude. And it is contended that, 
 in this particular case, there is 
 no auxiliary evidence to sustain 
 the confessions made by the 
 appellant, except the testimony 
 of the witnesses to whom 8 I have 
 referred already, and whose evi¬ 
 dence is not worthy of credit. 
 
 2. her bod. 
 
 3. friends. 
 
 4. (part between [ ] omitted). 
 
 5. arising in the case. 
 ii. all. 
 
 7. admissible. 
 
 «. which. 
 
 1. Accusations. 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 The confessions are 1 impeached on 
 the ground of having been made 
 when the mind of the appellant 
 was unsound and disordered, and 
 were the result of delusion pro¬ 
 duced by the sudden and unex¬ 
 pected shockher intellectreceived 2 
 from afalse 3 and unfounded charge 
 being preferred against her, in¬ 
 consistent with her previous 
 purity of character and spotless 
 life. On the part of the respon¬ 
 dent it is contended, that however 
 some of those confessions may 
 bear the stamp of a disordered 
 intellect, whether arising from 
 guilt or remorse, yet there are 
 other acknowledgments or admis¬ 
 sions free from the foregoing im¬ 
 putation, and susceptible of being 
 received as the pourings-forth of 
 a mind sensible of transgression, 
 seeking for atonement and par¬ 
 don in 4 acknowledging guilt. It 
 is also contended on the part of 
 the respondent, that there is 
 in the acts and declarations of 
 the appellant, much auxiliary evi¬ 
 dence to support her confessions, 
 while neither labouring under de¬ 
 lusion nor constraint. It will be 
 the duty of the Court to examine 
 these different classes of evidence , 5 
 and to sift them in detail, and 
 examine whether, separate or 
 united, they are sufficient to sus¬ 
 tain the judgment of the learned 
 Judge of the Consistorial Court. 
 To begin in the order of time 
 
 1. also. 
 
 2. experienced. 
 
 3. foul. 
 
 4. its acknowledgments of. 
 
 5. which I have enumerated. 
 
 with the acts of criminal inter¬ 
 course charged. The first witness 
 to 6 an act of infidelity is O’Brien, 
 detailing events and transactions, 
 ivhile the family were residing 
 at Eden Hill, in the conduct of 
 Mrs. Talbot, which are in them¬ 
 selves so improbable, that this 
 Court cannot 7 attach such credence 
 as to induce it to found a decree 
 on his uncorroborated evidence. 
 This Court is called on to believe 
 that a lady theretofore, and up to 
 the time of the alleged 8 criminal 
 intercourse^ sustaining a chaste 
 and unsullied character, should 
 suddenly and unblushingly pros¬ 
 titute her person, and devote 
 herself to the embraces of a 
 menial servant, in places the most 
 exposed, and in the open day, 
 10 unchecked by the fear of dis¬ 
 covery, and yielding to the rude 
 and coarse address and language 
 of a vulgar paramour! I forbear 
 to allude more particularly to the 
 words said to have been used by 
 Mullane, in urging her to dis¬ 
 miss her apprehensions as to the 
 danger of discovery ; and, I have 
 alluded to the character of the 
 appellant , 11 for it is clear (we have 
 the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. 
 Williamson, who were on terms 
 of 12 familiarity with the family) 
 
 6. the earliest act of adultery. 
 
 7. attach such credence to them as would 
 induce the Court to found a decree. 
 
 8. commission of. 
 
 9. wherewith she is charged. 
 
 10. and should thus suddenly and against the 
 experience of human conduct plunge herself into 
 a deep abyss of guilt. 
 
 11. at this very period. 
 
 12. intimacy and. 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 that the conduct of Mrs. Talbot 
 'was pure and irreproachable: but 
 in the loathsome evidence of 
 Mullane’s physical state of health 
 at the 2 time O’Brien alleges the 
 3 intercourse took place do we not 
 find ample grounds to 4 disc-ard his 
 testimony, and pronounce that by 
 whatever motives he 6 might have 
 been induced to give such testi¬ 
 mony, no Court can consider him 
 a truthtelling and trustworthy 1 ? 
 witness ? I shall have occasion 8 to 
 advert to the testimony of the 
 Benns, which offers itself in prio¬ 
 rity of time to other events, but 
 which, for other purposes, I shall 
 refer to before I conclude. On 
 the succession of Mr. Talbot to 
 the family estate, his establish¬ 
 ment was removed from the 
 county Cork to Mount Talbot, 
 in the county Roscommon. They 
 arrived there in 1851; and Mul- 
 lane came with the family. I 
 need not go through the details 
 of whom, or of what particular 
 class of servants the establish¬ 
 ment at Mount Talbot consisted 
 then. It is sufficient for the 
 investigation of this part of the 
 case, that at the time of the 
 commission of the ^intercourse at 
 Mount Talbot, there were two 
 male persons, Finnerty and Hal- 
 loran, in the sendee of Mr. Talbot, 
 
 1. and her demeanour. 
 
 2. ven - . 
 
 3. criminal. 
 
 4. discredit. 
 
 5. story. 
 
 6. may be. 
 
 7. faithworthy. 
 
 8. in the course of my further observations. 
 
 9. criminal intercourse alleged to have taken 
 place at. 
 
 and one female servant, a house 
 maid, 30 Mooney. Halloran and 
 Maria Mooney depose to positive 
 acts of adultery at different times ; 
 and, therefore, it will be right 
 for us to proceed and examine 
 how far, and to what extent, the 
 evidence of n the two last named 
 witnesses'—Halloran and Maria 
 Mooney—should influence the 
 Court in their judgment. To 
 begin with Halloran : I believe I 
 may safely state it to be the un¬ 
 doubted opinion of this Court, 
 that if the case depended on 
 the testimony of Halloran alone 
 there would not be any hesitation 
 in pronouncing that no reliance 
 should be placed on the testimony 
 he has given; and this opinion is 
 founded as well on the previous 
 character of the witness, which 
 he himself has given of himself, 
 as from the inconsistency of the 
 evidence he has given as to the 
 facts to which he deposes; and 
 from his suppression and non¬ 
 communication of these facts up 
 to the date of the latest 12 inquiry 
 into the conduct of Mrs. Talbot. 13 
 The character of Halloran renders 
 14 it incredible to any Court of 
 justice, as well from the offence 
 lie acknowledges himself to have 
 committed (and for which he suf¬ 
 fered legal punishment), as for his 
 refusing to answer other charges 
 which, on cross-examination, are 
 suggested that he committed, and 
 
 10. namely, Maria. 
 
 11. both or either. 
 
 12. period of the original. 
 
 13. in the Sheriff’s Court. 
 
 14. him incredible in a Court of justice. 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 which his caution in not an¬ 
 swering, must satisfy the Court 
 that he felt he would damage his 
 credit if he had answered. But 
 what is his testimony as to the 
 commission of the actual facts 
 to which he deposes ? Early in 
 May, J [the time not particularly 
 specified, hut is stated to be 
 early in that month]—he deposes 
 that he concealed himself in a 
 water-closet, where (without going 
 through the precise nauseous 
 details of the case), I may say 
 he saw the actual fact of crimi¬ 
 nal intercourse committed. His 
 vigilance at this time was alive 
 to detect Mrs. Talbot, and also 
 to communicate her infidelity 
 to Mr. Talbot; for soon after, on 
 the 17th of the same month, he 
 communicated his suspicions to 
 Mr. Talbot; but we have no evi¬ 
 dence from himself, or aliunde , 
 that he communicated to Mr. 
 Talbot, what he witnessed in the 
 water-closet after this occurrence. 
 Subsequently, on another occa¬ 
 sion, he concealed himself in a 
 turf-press, for the purpose of 
 discovering further criminal in¬ 
 tercourse ; and, as has been justly 
 argued, when he had seen the 
 actual commission of the of¬ 
 fence, why again conceal, him¬ 
 self, at a subsequent period, to 
 ascertain a fact of which before 
 he had ocular 1 2 demonstration P 
 One could understand how he 3 
 agreed with some other individual 
 
 1. (part between [ ] omitted). 
 
 2. proof. 
 
 3. might have associated with him. 
 
 to conceal himself in the turf- 
 press, and having doubts 4 as to 
 parties doubting his veracity, he 
 might wish to have corroborating 
 testimony. But, on the second 
 occasion, when he states that 
 Mullane remained six hours in 5 
 the bed-room, he obtained no 
 new evidence of infidelity, 6 nor 
 does it appear in the case that he 
 ever, previous to the discovery of 
 7 Mrs. Talbot in the room of 
 Midlane, disclosed to Mr. Talbot 
 what he had witnessed. On the 
 proposed detection of Mrs. Tal¬ 
 bot’s infidelity Finnerty and Hal- 
 loran were active parties ; accord¬ 
 ing to Finnerty’s own testimony 
 he watched the approach of Mul¬ 
 lane with Halloran to the water- 
 closet. One would naturally 
 suppose that the scene of the 
 detection having been laid as 
 likely to occur in the water-closet, 
 Halloran would have communi¬ 
 cated to Finnerty what he 8 pre¬ 
 viously witnessed in the water- 
 closet ; yet we find that Finnerty 
 deposes that he never heard of 
 the scene in the water-closet till 
 Halloran deposed to it on the 
 trial before the sheriff in August 
 1852. This one fact—if other 
 facts were wanting—in our own 
 minds puts the seal of condemna¬ 
 tion on the testimony of Halloran; 
 and this being so, I feel it unne- 
 
 4. as others might have of his own veracity. 
 
 5. Mrs. Talbot’s. 
 
 G. criminality to that which he had before 
 saw and knew. 
 
 7. Mrs. Talbot in Mullane’s room. 
 
 8. had theretofore witnessed on either of the 
 occasions to which I have referred. 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 cessary to enter into : a descrip¬ 
 tion of the minute discrepancies 
 in his evidence which characteris¬ 
 tically mark its obvious untruth. 
 But before I conclude this part 
 of the case, let me not omit to 
 comment on the conduct of this 
 man in his- attempt to violate 
 Mrs. Talbot on that night of 
 agony after the discovery. If for 
 the infamous purpose of further 
 fixing on her the crime of infidelity 
 and 1 2 3 using the circumstance for 
 his own purposes; or if for the 
 indulgence of a brutal passion he 
 sought to triumph over her in the 
 hour of her distress, 4 is there any¬ 
 thing else necessary in the case 
 to stamp his character with the 
 features of infamy and disgrace ? 
 The next direct testimony to an 
 actual fact of infidelity is the evi¬ 
 dence of Maria Mooney. 5 She 
 undoubtedly' deposes, on the 
 night in question, to seeing Mul- 
 lane 6 in Mrs. Talbot’s bed. Me 
 do not find that Maria Mooney’s 
 evidence is "impeachable on colla¬ 
 teral grounds beyond the imputa¬ 
 tion cast on her evidence that she 
 did not disclose the fact that she 
 witnessed after the immediate 
 discovery—when rumours of the 
 lady’s infidelity were afloat among 
 
 1. minute discrepancies and inconsistencies 
 in his evidence, its characteristic being marked 
 by the obvious incredibility of it. 
 
 2. brutal attempt on the person of Mrs. 
 Talbot. 
 
 3. divulging it. 
 
 4. does it not further stamp his character 
 with infamy and discredit ? 
 
 5. if accurate and faithworthy. 
 
 6. on. 
 
 7. impeached. 
 
 the servants of the house—nor 
 until 3 she had entered into the 
 service of Mr. Barlow, the agent 
 of the respondent. Perhaps nei¬ 
 ther of these objections would be 
 sufficient in themselves to dis¬ 
 credit Maria Mooney r in a court 
 of justice ; but to encounter the 
 truth of her story the evidence of 
 Margaret Hall is most important. 
 There seems no reason to doubt 
 the evidence of Margaret Hall as 
 to the transactions of that night. 
 The identity' of the day is fixed 
 by the illness of Mrs. Talbot, 
 which Mooney says was real—not 
 assumed — and by the absence of 
 Mr.Talbot9 at Mahon’s. 10 But we 
 cannot reconcile the evidence of 
 Maria Mooney and the details 
 given by' Margaret Hall, so as to 
 pronounce that there is not such 
 a conflict between them as to ren¬ 
 der it impossible for us to foimd 
 a judgment on it. Hall goes 
 through the conduct of Mrs. Tal¬ 
 bot in the library with the child ; 
 and there, according to her testi¬ 
 mony, she was occupied in the 
 performance of an interesting and 
 sacred duty — in the religious in¬ 
 struction of her daughter. It is 
 most difficult to say but that 
 grave doubts as to the accuracy 
 of 11 cither’s testimony may not 
 
 8. after. 
 
 9. and friends. 
 
 10. we cannot reconcile the evidence of the 
 details given by Maria Mooney, with the evi¬ 
 dence given by Margaret Hall, of Mrs. Talbot’s 
 conduct in the library with her child, and when, 
 according to her testimony, she was occupied iu 
 the performance of a most interesting and sacred 
 duty, the religious instruction of her child. 
 
 11. their. 
 
(97) 
 
 arise ; and if there be sufficient 
 uncertainty in their conflicting 
 evidence to create a doubt, this 
 court cannot act on such evidence 1 
 to give a decree. Let us also 
 add that Margaret Hall does not 
 conceal the fact of Mullane’s be¬ 
 ing in the library on the evening 
 in question; and if she believed 
 him to have been there for an 
 improper purpose, 2 3 4 might she not 
 —if not a truthtelling witness—• 
 conceal that fact ? Whereas she, 
 3 though strongly pressed, declares 
 she has no reason to suspect, 
 nor does she believe, any impro¬ 
 per intercourse existed. On 
 these grounds, whether Maria 
 Mooney is to be discarded, or 
 whether, with the conflicting evi¬ 
 dence of herself and Hall, there 
 exists great doubt in the minds 
 of the court, who do not consider 
 it sufficient in itself to found a 
 judgment for a divorce. It will 
 now become necessary to examine 
 further the evidence of the re¬ 
 spondent, and, perhaps, the most 
 important of it all—namely, the 
 confessions, as they are called, 
 or, more properly speaking, the 
 admissions and acknowledgments 
 
 1. alone to decree a divorce. 
 
 2. she might, if not a truthtelling witness 
 have concealed that fact. 
 
 3. relates the cause for which he was sum¬ 
 moned by her mistress, and, although strongly 
 pressed to depose to the contrary, she declares 
 that she never had reason to suspect, nor did 
 she believe that any improper intimacy sub¬ 
 sisted between Mrs. Talbot and Mullane. 
 
 4. discredited, or whether the conflicting 
 
 evidence of herself and Margaret Hall, excites 
 
 grave doubts on the mind of the Court. We do 
 
 not consider it sufficient to found a judgment of 
 
 divorce. 
 
 of guilt on the part of the appel¬ 
 lant. Two objections have been 
 raised to the admissibility in evi¬ 
 dence of these confessions or ad¬ 
 missions. Hirst, that they are the 
 outpourings of a disordered mind 
 labouring under delusion, origin¬ 
 ating in, and created by, false and 
 unfounded reflections on her chas¬ 
 tity and reputation; and that, by 
 the suddenness of the accusation, 
 and the consequent conduct of the 
 parties by whom she was sur¬ 
 rounded, her nervous system re¬ 
 ceived such a shock as to destroy 
 all 5 mental power, and to create an 
 aberration of her intellect; and 
 that thenceforward every thing 
 she said 6 touching her guilt was 
 the wandering of a distempered 
 imagination, not based upon re¬ 
 ality, and, as such, should not be 
 received by a court of justice 
 examining into the question at 
 issue between the parties. The 
 court feels, and does not mean to 
 dispute, that such was the state 7 
 of the appellant at periods and 
 intervals subsequent to her arrival 
 inDublin. When labouringthere 8 
 under sincere remorse for trans¬ 
 gressions or anguish, 9 she exhibited 
 symptoms 10 [of madness] and me¬ 
 ditated acts which would preclude 
 the court from receiving confes¬ 
 sions or admissions made during 
 the “influence of such excitement 
 
 5. her mental powers. 
 
 6. and uttered. 
 
 7. of mind. 
 
 8. either. 
 
 9. at their detection. 
 
 10. [omitted]. 
 
 11. intervals. 
 
 II 
 
( 9 * ) 
 
 as denoted a crazed mind. But 
 the unhappy task devolves on this 
 Court to take up the case of the 
 appellant from the period of its 
 occurrence — from the 19th of 
 May 1 —and tracing, by steps, the 
 conduct and declarations of the 
 appellant from that time onwards, 
 to see whether there are not ^con¬ 
 fessions] and Acknowledgments of 
 transgression untainted by any 
 suspicion that they are flowing 
 from 4 delusion. The detection in 
 the room of Mullane [took place] 5 
 on the 19th of May, [and it is] 6 an 
 undisputed fact. The door bolted 
 — admission denied — the door 
 forced —the appellant [found] 7 
 concealedbehindthecurtainsofthe 
 bed. "What inference but one can 
 be deduced from these facts, if 
 unaided by anything which fell 
 from the appellant ? 8 [But] 9 what 
 are her words? “It is not” 
 
 “ Mullane’s fault, I am only to ” 
 
 “ blame.” 10 [Toblame]forwhat,if 
 she did not feel 1 'culpability at¬ 
 taching to her for being foimd in 
 the place where she was disco¬ 
 vered ? She offers no palliation 
 of why she was there. The reason 
 assigned by some of the witnesses, 
 that the appellant occasionally 
 visited the servants’ rooms for 
 
 1. in Mullane’s room. 
 
 2. [omitted]. 
 
 3. and admissions. 
 
 4. the delusions of a disordered mind. 
 
 5. [omitted]. 
 
 G. [omitted]. 
 
 7. [omitted]. 
 
 8. herself. 
 
 9. [omitted]. 
 
 10. [omitted]. 
 
 11. that culpability was attachable to her from 
 being. 
 
 domestic purposes, is not even 
 
 12 -*. She acknowledges blame. 
 
 For what ? The inference is un¬ 
 deniable, looking to the facts. 13 It 
 is suggested that this is a con¬ 
 spiracy got up by Halloran, to 
 which it is surmised—not 14 proved 
 —that Mr. Talbot 15 lends himself. 
 16 But let us recollect that Hester 
 Keogh (the witness for the ap¬ 
 pellant!) deposes to what she saw 
 in the yard—the child torn from 
 the mother by the injured hus¬ 
 band, the consignment of the 
 appellant to her room, and the 
 consequent departure of Mr. 
 Talbot from the house, ['"from the 
 result referred to—of being seen 
 in Mullane’s room.] Where is to 
 be found any colour of evidence to 
 establish the surmise that, when 
 the appellant was thus found, and 
 uttered these words, to which I 
 have alluded, she laboured under 
 18 delusion, or was the victim of a 
 disordered 19 mind ? Here then, I 
 think, we have arrived at the first 
 admission of the appellant that 
 there was culpability 20 attachingto 
 her—the extent of that culpability 
 is to be inferred from 21 the other 
 
 12. adduced by her. 
 
 13. proved. 
 
 14. pressed. 
 
 15. lent a willing ear. 
 
 16. and that Halloran alone is the witness to 
 sustain it. 
 
 17. now to revert to the scene in Mullane’s 
 room. 
 
 18. any. 
 
 19. intellect or dethroned understanding. 
 
 20. to be attached to her conduct. 
 
 21. these. 
 
 * Sic in original. 
 
 t Mistake for “ Respondent.” Hester Keogh 
 was Mr. Talbot’s witness and in his service at 
 the time she was called and examined. 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 facts, and her subsequent con¬ 
 duct. 1 But the court now adverts 
 in the order of time to the morn¬ 
 ing of the 20th May, in order to 
 ascertain whether in the interval 2 
 from her departure for Dublin, 
 any circumstance arises which 
 would induce the court to believe 
 that she then laboured under 
 aberration of 3 mind. The night 
 of the 19th May was, no doubt, 
 a night of agony and suffering. 4 
 What human mind, after the oc¬ 
 currence of the previous day- 
 involving honour, character, and 
 position in society—but would 
 acutely feel and deplore the agoni- 
 
 1. and admissions. 
 
 2. that elapsed on that morning to the period 
 of her departure for Dublin. 
 
 3. intellect 
 
 4. and woe. 
 
 zing reminiscences of the day last 
 past ? But acutely to feel, and 
 sensibly to deplore the past does 
 not, in itself, bespeak anaberration 
 of the understanding; and let 
 us see whether the facts 5 subse¬ 
 quently arising on the morning 
 of the 20th do not satisfy the 
 judicial mind that remorse, and 
 notaberrationof mind, 6 ledto 7 [the 
 confessions and] the conduct to 
 which, as proved, I shall now ad¬ 
 vert. She sent for Mullane to 
 her chamber. She in bed. No 
 doubt he was there—whether for 
 breakfast or not I will not pro¬ 
 nounce or assume, but he was 
 there and at her request, and 
 for what purpose ?* I decide not 
 
 5 . occurring on the morning of the 20th. 
 
 6 followed upon detection and discovery and. 
 
 7. [omitted]. 
 
 * It is not a little singular that the Court should apparently have 
 adopted the testimony of Halloratt as to this occurrence. 
 
 Halloran, Finnerty and Hester Keogh are the only witnesses who 
 give any evidence with regard to it. 
 
 Finnerty says that Mrs. Talbot “ remained in her bed-room the” 
 “ entire night fully dressed ,” which is certainly a very different thing 
 from being “ in bed ” in the ordinary sense of that expression; it is 
 therefore not on his evidence that the Court has relied. 
 
 Hester Keogh (the only other witness whom Mr. Talbot has 
 vouched to this transaction) proves that, so far from Mrs. Talbot 
 having “ sent for Mullane to her chamber,” or his being there 
 “ at her request,” he was, in fact, made drunk by Halloran at 
 Kelly's whiskey shop, brought back by him and Finnerty to Mount 
 Talbot, taken by them to Mrs. Talbot’s room, and left there in a 
 state of intoxication. This witness also denies the story of the 
 breakfast, and proves the whole of this scene to have been an outrage 
 perpetrated on Mrs. Talbot by the ruffians in whose charge her 
 husband had left her, one of whom discharged the trust reposed in 
 
 h 2 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 on suspicious testimony whether 
 she had announced her intention 
 of going with him to Dublin but 
 it is clear from the evidence and 
 s [the] conduct of the Bev. Mr. 
 M'Clelland that such an inten¬ 
 tion had been in 3 meditation, and 
 that he resolved to frustrate it. 
 Where do we find in this pro¬ 
 jected arrangement any symptom 
 of a disorganised intellect* on the 
 score of insanity ? On the other 
 hand do we not find reason to 
 believe that an organised system 
 of arrangement was in contem¬ 
 plation, undisturbed by any de¬ 
 clarations or acts 5 that argue 
 destruction of reason or subver¬ 
 sion of intellect? This, therefore, 
 is the second step in this melan¬ 
 choly history after the morning 
 of the discovery; 7 and it is mani¬ 
 festly coupled with the circum- 
 
 1. or of thereafter living with him. 
 
 2. [omitted], 
 
 3. agitation. 
 
 4. or of wandering which command rejec¬ 
 tion. 
 
 5. which demonstrate. 
 
 6. of the powers of the understanding. 
 
 7. which manifests, coupled with the circum¬ 
 stances. 
 
 stance that I am about to state— 
 that the admissions 8 made by the 
 appellant on the morning of the 
 20th of May must receive the 
 same construction, as being free 
 from intellectual aberration, as 
 sthat which was alleged to have 
 been made when the actual de¬ 
 tection took place in Mullane’s 
 room. But let me add to the fact 
 to which I have first alluded as 
 further manifesting the full pos¬ 
 session of the appellant’s intellect 
 on the morning of the 20th of 
 May, the period of I0 the first con¬ 
 fession, 11 this fact—the getting of 
 Finnerty to write a letter to her 
 paternal home for the faithful 
 servant of 12 the family to meet her 
 in Dublin ; 13 and -with this fact I 
 close the proceedings at Mount 
 Talbot. 14 Previous to the appel- 
 
 8. and acknowledgments. 
 
 9. those which she made when the actual 
 discovery took place in Mullane’s room. 
 
 10. her. 
 
 11 namely, getting Finnerty. 
 
 12. her. 
 
 13. and with this observation. 
 
 14. Previous to the appellant’s departure for 
 Dublin on the 20th with the Rev.Mr. M‘Clelland, 
 we find from his testimony, the appellant’s ac¬ 
 knowledgment of her transgressions. 
 
 him by attempting violence on her person—the other by introducing 
 a drunken groom into the room in which his mistress was imprisoned, 
 and both by “ locking the outer doors” and attempting to exclude the 
 rector of the parish! 
 
 Halloran is the only remaining witness. 
 
 The Court seem to have forgotten that they had, only a few 
 moments before, declared that “ no reliance could be placed on the” 
 “ testimony” of Halloran, that he was “incredible in any Court of” 
 “justice;” that his “ chai’acter was stamped with the features of” 
 “ infamy and disgrace,” and that they themselves put the seal of 
 condemnation on his testimonv ! 
 
 T. T. P. 
 
( 101 ) 
 
 lant’s departure for Dublin, on 
 tbe 20th with Mr. M'Clelland, 
 we find from his testimony her 
 acknowledgment of her trans¬ 
 gression, and his opinion that, 
 though excited and confused, 
 there was no evidence of a dis¬ 
 ordered mind. But we mean not 
 to decide singly 1 on the evidence 
 of this reverend gentleman, for 
 we must combine and connect it 
 with the testimony of the other 
 reverend gentlemen to whom, after 
 her arrival in Dublin, and at dif¬ 
 ferent intervals, she made the 
 revelation of her misconduct— 
 namely, to the Bev. Mr. Gage, 
 Bev. Mr. Collis, and Bev. Mr. 
 Kemmis ; all of whom depose to 
 her sanity as to the period to 
 which they confine their testi¬ 
 mony, 3 although each of them 
 deposes to her distraction at 
 other intervals amounting to an 
 excitement bordering on, if not 
 amounting to, insanity. It is a 
 painful judicial task to recur 
 minutely to the unhappy lady’s 
 confessions ; but her interviews 
 with Mr. Gage and his evidence 
 place it beyond reasonable doubt, 
 and impress on the judicial mind 
 the conviction, that her declara¬ 
 tions 4, were the outpourings, 5 the 
 conscious visitings in a mind 
 broken down by remorse, unaf¬ 
 fected by any other feelings than 
 those of agony 6 and remorse. I 
 
 1. decide simply. 
 
 2. interviews. 
 
 3. as to her declarations. 
 
 4. and admissions. 
 
 5. of compunctious visitings and remorse. 
 
 6. at her misconduct. 
 
 forbear to go through the sad 
 detail—who could do it unmoved ? 
 or to refer to her touching ad¬ 
 dress to Mr. Gage-—her friend, 
 her kinsman, and her pastor— 
 when addressing him in each ot 
 these different capacities. She 
 conjured him, as he states in his 
 evidence, in these words, “Oh,” 
 “ Eobert! pray for me and my ” 
 “ child.” 7 This is one of those 
 touching appeals manifesting the 
 consciousness of transgression 
 and the hope of his intercession 
 and influence for her on High to 
 have her fault forgiven, and thus 
 making a clean heart, and ex¬ 
 hibiting returning symptoms of a 
 renewed spirit. 8 [The testimony 
 of Mr. Kemmis is to the like 
 effect. Almost the same address 
 was made to him. “ If you think ” 
 “ me worthy of it, mention my ” 
 “name to your wife, that she” 
 “ may pray for me and for my ” 
 “ child.” Surely after such tes¬ 
 timony as this, the use of these 
 words must convince any man 
 that these are the outpourings of 
 an individual who felt she had 
 committed a crime, and was wil¬ 
 ling and desirous to obtain the 
 prayers of those whose inter¬ 
 cession might be efficacious if 
 addressed to the throne of Heaven 
 on her behalf.] In the progress 
 
 7. Thus in this feeling exclamation. 
 
 8. Like expressions of consciousness were 
 used towards the Rev. Mr. Kemmis, when sepa¬ 
 rating from him in England (he, too, her relative 
 by marriage), conjuring him, if he thought her 
 worthy of it, to name her with affection to his 
 wife and to pray for her. [Substituted for the 
 part between brackets]. 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 of the observations I have made, 
 I think I have adduced sufficient 
 auxiliary evidence, arising from 
 what are called “ proximate” acts, 
 to sustain the truth of the con¬ 
 fessions made by the appellant, 
 and thus satisfy the law upon 
 this head; and taking this view 
 of the case the court is satisfied 
 there are sufficient corroborating 
 facts, resting on 'undoubted tes¬ 
 timony, to sustain the confessions 
 of the appellant, and justify the 
 judgment pronounced by the 
 learned Judge of the Consistorial 
 Court. Let me now in this place 
 also add what I before inciden¬ 
 tally adverted to — namely the 
 evidence of the Benns at Summer 
 Hill—as affording further auxi¬ 
 liary evidence to the confessions 
 of the appellant. No act of in¬ 
 fidelity is proved by them; but 
 what ' reason has the court to 
 discredit the testimony of these 
 two women as to acts of familia¬ 
 rity inconsistent with 3 the relative 
 positions of the appellant and 
 William Mullane ? There is no 
 ground in the opinion of the 
 court totally to 4 discard the evi¬ 
 dence of these women. Their 
 evidence is far short of establish¬ 
 ing criminality; but it surely 
 amounts to 5 [further] auxiliary evi¬ 
 dence. Thiscourtdoesnotfoundits 
 judgment on 6 other grounds than 
 
 1 nnimpeached. 
 
 2. evidence. 
 
 3. thjrir different positions in life which passed 
 between the appellant and Mullane. 
 
 4. discredit, 
 
 5. [omitted]. 
 
 6. any. 
 
 those it has assigned. It neither 
 adopts nor rejects the reasons 
 which appear in the judgment of 
 the court below. We have exa¬ 
 mined the case on the evidence 
 submitted to ourselves; and, in 
 fine, have come to this conclu¬ 
 sion :•—That although the evi¬ 
 dence of the several acts of infi¬ 
 delity, deposed to by eye-witnesses 
 to the alleged facts, would not 
 be sufficiently satisfactory in 
 itself to induce this court to 
 pronounce a sentence of divorce, 
 still we are of opinion that, 
 coupled with other circumstances, 
 we cannot altogether discard 
 them as unimportant, or as 7 pal- 
 bably unfounded; but it must 
 have some weight in 8 our arriving 
 at the conclusion we have done. 
 In having adverted to the reve¬ 
 rend gentlemen who have deposed 
 to the sanity of the appellant in 
 Dublin and her admissions and 
 declarations at that time,9 [I have 
 not adverted, but shall do so 
 now, to the testimony of the 
 physician, Dr. Walshe, who, on 
 her arrival in Dublin, was called 
 
 7. absolutely. 
 
 8. enabling us to arrive. 
 
 9. Perhaps I ought not to omit observing on 
 the testimony of Dr. Walshe, who visited the 
 appellant for a bodily ailment after her arrival 
 in Dublin. He attended her for four or five days, 
 and at the end of that period her health being 
 in his mind re-established, he discontinued his 
 visits. His testimony is full and convincing aa 
 to her sanity during his attendance. On the 
 question of sanity, we have not overlooked the 
 evidence of the eminent physicians who have 
 given their opinion on the delusions of the human 
 mind, and the unfounded aberrations of intellect 
 in individuals accusing themselves of crimes 
 which they never committed and of offences 
 for which in reality there was no foundation. 
 [Substituted for the part within brackets]. 
 
( 103 ) 
 
 in to attend her and prescribe 
 for bodily ailment. He attended 
 her, I think, for four or five days, 
 and up to the period at which 
 he thought he might discontinue 
 his visits ; and during the whole 
 of that time we have the testi¬ 
 mony of this experienced (as I 
 must take for granted he is) 
 physician, testifying to the sanity 
 of this lady, and not observing 
 any symptoms of delusion in her. 
 Having touched on his testimony 
 who had ocular proof of her 
 state, and who visited her for 
 bodily ailment when lodging at 
 the hotel, who gave np his visits 
 when he considered she was not 
 sufficiently ill to require them—- 
 it may be proper to advert to 
 the testimony of the other phy¬ 
 sicians which they have given 
 touching the general state of the 
 human mind, and adverting to 
 cases which occurred in their 
 experience as exciting delusion 
 •where no actual offence was com¬ 
 mitted. I shall, therefore, pro¬ 
 ceed. to say we have not over¬ 
 looked the evidence of the cele¬ 
 brated physicians who have given 
 opinions on delusions in the 
 mind and aberrations of the in¬ 
 tellect, on individuals accusing 
 themselves of crimes which they 
 never committed and offences 
 which in reality had no founda¬ 
 
 tion.] Happy would this court 
 be if the sad 1 offence which it has 
 been our duty to comment on 2 
 could lead us to coincide with 
 those philosophical and abstract 
 opinions—no doubt founded on 
 experience ; 3 but we must apply 
 their doctrines and 1 examples to 
 the circumstances of the case 
 now before us; and, however 
 true their abstract doctrines may 
 be, we are of opinion the circum¬ 
 stances of this case preclude us 
 from deciding it on these abstract 
 principles 5 and doctrines—care¬ 
 fully excluding from the judg¬ 
 ment any Admissions made by 
 the unhappy lady during mo¬ 
 ments of 7 raving, or under the 
 influence of an aberration of 
 mind. 8 The fulness of the facts 
 of this case will be, I hope, suffi- 
 
 1. events. 
 
 2. and record. 
 
 3. and medical science. 
 
 4. experience. 
 
 5. of science or philosophy. 
 
 6. declaration or. 
 
 7. excitement or raving, aberration of mind. 
 
 8. [As further auxiliary evidence to sustain 
 the confession of the appellant, let me advert to 
 the evidence of Fallon the carpenter and Bridget 
 Queeny the laundress, touching the frequency of 
 the visits of the appellant to Mullane's room ; 
 the detaching her child from her presence when 
 there, and thus manifesting that however inde¬ 
 fensible her conduct may have been, she did not 
 consummate her infidelity in the presence of her 
 innocent offspring. Thus the presence of the 
 child in Mullane’s room on the 19th, may be 
 accounted for by the reflection that if not then 
 detected the child wo\ild have been with¬ 
 drawn].* 
 
 * The interpolation of this passage in this place is curious. The 
 learned Judge who has delivered the judgment of the Court, has 
 gone through the case chronologically, travelled from Summer Hill 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 cient apology for the court and this judgment; bnt I cannot con- 
 my brethren for the prolixity of elude it without adverting to 
 
 to Eden Hill, then to Mount Talbot, passed witness after witness 
 in review, dismissed the Benns, discarded O’Brien, discussed Mooney, 
 denounced Halloran, misquoted Mr. M'Clelland, dwelt at great 
 length and with much particularity on the circumstances of the 
 alleged discovery of Mrs. Talbot in the room of Mullane, on 
 Einnerty’s assertion that the door was bolted, on what did, and 
 what did not, take place on the 19th and 20th of May; has followed 
 Mrs. Talbot to Dublin, disposed of the evidence of the clergymen 
 and the physicians ; has carefully pointed out and defined the 
 grounds of Ins judgment, and expressly stated that the “Court” 
 “ does not found its judgment on any other grounds than those it ” 
 “ lias assigned and all this time has never considered either Q.ueeny 
 or Fallon worth a single word, and has overlooked, as I have before 
 observed, the fact that Mrs. Talbot’s child was with her in Mullane’s 
 room at the time of the alleged discovery ! A fact of the utmost 
 importance ! He discovers this omission at last, and inserts this 
 paragraph between his comments on the scientific evidence of the 
 physicians and an apology for the length of the judgment! A 
 place where it could not have appeared had it been anything hut 
 an afterthought. The presence of the child is fatal to the hypo¬ 
 thesis, that Mrs. Talbot was in Mullane’s room for any guilty 
 purpose. So, having entirely overlooked this fact, and decided 
 adversely to Mrs. Talbot, the learned Judge now feels the 
 necessity of getting rid of the cliild in some way, and resorts 
 to a suggestion founded on the evidence of Queeny and Fallon, 
 which, until this necessity arose, he has considered unworthy 
 of notice. But the learned Judge has failed to perceive that his 
 two hypotheses are fatal to each other. In the earlier part of the 
 judgment the statement of Finnerty, that the door was bolted, is 
 accepted by the Court, and guilt is inferred therefrom. But if the 
 door w r as bolted the child was bolted in, not bolted out. This 
 demonstrates the falsehood of the story on which the Court has 
 relied in the first instance, and had the Court not overlooked the 
 
 
( 105 ) 
 
 „ facts which, though not material in the progress of the argument, 
 to the decision of this case, have, been brought to bear and cast 
 
 fact of the child being present, no doubt it would have seen how 
 palpably false Finnerty’s story is. This fact, however, the Court 
 never discovers until too late, and then is obliged to resort to the 
 suggestion that the intention was to send the child away (of which 
 intention there is not one particle of evidence) ; but, if so, why 
 bolt the door F The two stories cannot possibly stand together. 
 No doubt the original intention of Mrs. Talbot’s accusers was, that 
 her guilt should be inferred from her presence in Mullane’s room ; 
 and they, like her Judges, overlooked the fact of the child being 
 present. They felt how fatal that fact was to their story, and the 
 evidence of Queeny and Fallon is then got up to account for it, 
 just as the stories of the Benns and O’Brien were manufactured 
 (after a year had elapsed'), in order to support Mrs. Talbot’s 
 wild admission of long continued guilt. The presence of the 
 child is the proof of the falsehood of the charge in the one 
 case, as the infectious disease under which Mullane was suffering 
 is in the other. The fact that the child was in the room, is conclu¬ 
 sive to all men of common sense that the mother was not there for 
 any gnilty purpose; whether she was there in the course of her usual 
 inspection of all the servants’ rooms, when, as appears from the 
 evidence of Rogers, Hall and Keogh, she was in the habit of taking 
 her child with her; or whether, as the child told Keogh, she, on that 
 particular occasion, was there because it was the nearest place Avhere 
 she could find a fire “ to dry the child’s stockings which were wet,” 
 cannot be known unless a merciful Providence should restore Mrs. 
 Talbot to her reason and her memory. But the omission of the Court 
 to notice the presence of the child in the first instance, and the sub¬ 
 sequent attempt to account for her presence in a manner inconsistent 
 with the previous part of the judgment, is hardly less extraordinary 
 than the misquotation of the evidence of the Rev. Mr. M‘Clelland ; 
 and what makes it more marvellous still is, that the attention of the 
 Court was expressly directed both to the evidence of Mr. M £ Clelland, 
 and to the fact of the presence of the child, in the course of the 
 
( 106 ) 
 
 reflections on the different mem¬ 
 bers of the appellant’s family 
 who hare interested themselves 
 in her case, as to the manner in 
 which they have done so. To 
 this court it appears that there 
 is no blame to attach to one 
 section of the family or the other. 
 It is a sad but simple story 
 which one section of the family, 
 giving credit to and believing in 
 the transgressions of the appel¬ 
 lant, were desirous that publicity 
 and notoriety should be avoided; 
 and on their parts steps were 
 resorted to (in which the court 
 sees nothing to find fault with) 
 to avoid public exposure. An¬ 
 other section of the family thought 
 otherwise; and, as confidently 
 
 believing in the innocence of the 
 appellant as the others did in 
 her guilt, took steps to sustain 
 their opinion of her innocence; 1 
 and the present case is the result 
 of these conflicting opinions ; but 
 in the investigation of this case 
 in the court below, or in this 
 court, blame does not attach to 
 the conduct of the parties on 
 either side. 2 One other topic, 
 and I have done. It relates to 
 the allegation—surmised but not 
 proved—as if the case had been 
 got up by Mr. Talbot as a con¬ 
 spiracy with the servants. The 
 court sees no grounds for such a 
 
 1. and to vindicate her reputation. 
 
 2 The conduct of the case on either side does 
 not influence the judgment of the Court. 
 
 argument! If this is the mode in which Judges deal with facts 
 and evidence, the very facts and evidence which they consider 
 as the most important, and as leading to “ inferences ” which 
 are in their opinion “undeniable,” is it to be wondered that 
 ignorant and uneducated men should shew little regard to the 
 testimony they give, or to the obligations of an oath ? This 
 passage, it will be observed, does not appear in the original note 
 of the judgment, and I therefore did not see it until after my letter 
 to Mr. Justice Torrens was in print; but as it evidently formed no 
 part of the original judgment, it does not render necessary any 
 alteration in that letter, in which, however, I have taken care to 
 direct attention to this passage; and in the remarks which I have 
 thus felt it my duty to make, I trust 1 have not exceeded what Lord 
 Campbell last night, in his place in the House of Lords, declared to 
 be the privilege of every one—namely, “ to comment stringently, 
 and, if necessary, severely, on the proceedings of courts of justice, 
 freely to canvass their decisions, and, if need be, to hold them up as 
 erroneous.”—J. P., July 7, 1855. 
 
( 107 ) 
 
 surmised allegation put forth in 
 argument, but not in proof. 
 Again; the court would desire 
 to express that whatever may 
 have caused the indiscretion of 
 the lady—whether from natural 
 temperament, or from any other 
 undiscoverable motive—her con¬ 
 
 duct did not proceed (as her own 
 declaration testifies) from any 
 unkindness or want of aflfection 
 on the part of her husband, Mr. 
 Talbot. I have therefore only to 
 say that this court is of opinion 
 that the judgment of the court 
 below should be confirmed.” 
 
 THE E>'D. 
 
 LO.VDOV : 
 
 BAVVKR AVI) HODOBS, PRINTERS, 
 Fetter Lane, Fleet Street. 
 
Lately Published, Price One Shilling and Sixpence, 
 
 Talbot v. Talbot.— A Statement of Facts, by Thomas Tertius 
 Paget, Esq. 
 
 Price Four Shillings, 
 
 Ecclesiastical Coijbts.— A Report of the Judgment of Dr. Rad- 
 cliffe in the case of Talbot v. Talbot, with very full Citations from the 
 Evidence and Observations on the Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, 
 by John Paget, Esq., Barrister at Law'. 
 
 Price One Shilling, 
 
 Talbot v. Talbot.— A Report of the Speech of IV m. Keogh, Esq., 
 M.P., Solicitor Gleneral for Ireland, on behalf of the Appellant, before 
 the High Court of Delegates, January 8, 1855. 
 
 Price One Shilling and Sixpence. 
 
 A Letter to the Hon. Justice Torrens, by John Paget, Esq., Barrister 
 at Law, with a Report of the Judgment of the High Court of Delegates, 
 delivered on June 14, 1S55. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 No reader, we presume, can have perused the pamphlets of Mr. Paget without rising 
 from them convinced that the stories respecting Mrs. Talbot’s conduct were absolutely 
 without foundation..—. The Leader of July 21. 
 
 In painful interest, and in the extraordinary nature of its details, the case of Talbot r. 
 Talbot stands alone_ Morning Post. 
 
 There cannot be the slightest doubt that the treatment of this case by the Court was 
 not such as to lead to justice.— Globe of July 10. 
 
 The Court, blundering between the pleading and the pretended proof, cites the article 
 instead of the deposition, and condemns a perhaps innocent woman on the accusation, in 
 mistake for the evidence !— The Patriot of July 25. 
 
 The unfortunate lady must be looked upon as the victim of a base conspiracy by all who 
 read and ponder on the eloquent, logical, and candid appeal of Mr. John Paget, barrister 
 at law, of the Middle Temple, and certainly a lawyer of singular ability.— The Britannia 
 of Sept. 1. 
 
 It is not Mr. Paget’s own case ; he is no grievance-monger, neither is he a paid advo¬ 
 cate. * * * The witnesses for the “promovent” are, for the most part, separately- 
 
 died black with the foulest perjury_ Era. 
 
 The evidence given before the Court in Dublin was obviously one-sided and flagrantly 
 contradictory.— The Dublin Evening Packet. 
 
 It must be acknowledged that the Messrs. Paget adopted throughout a chivalrous 
 course of procedure.— The Banner of Ulster. 
 
 The pamphlets before us are meant to show that despite the decision of Dr. Radcliffe 
 and the Court of Delegates, Mrs. Talbot is really innocent, and Mr. Pagbt boldly chal¬ 
 lenges the plaintiff to assert his right to a divorce at the bar of the House of Lords_ 
 
 Waterford Daily Express. 
 
 One of the boldest and most out-spoken pamphlets we have seen for a long time.— 
 Coleraine Chronicle. 
 
 The Judge was an aged man who made so serious a mistake as to refer to the pleadings 
 instead of the evidence, and to take those things as proved against Mrs. Talbot which were 
 contradicted or disclaimed by the witnesses called to prove them. — Northern Whig. 
 
 The Court of Delegates has absolutely confounded the pleadings with the evidence, and 
 based its judgment, at least in part, on the former, though unsupported by sworn testimony, 
 doing a grievous wrong to a person whom we (irmly believe to be innocent of the offence 
 laid to her charge— Londonderry Sentinel. 
 
 Read carefully, aud ponder thoroughly these pamphlets, published by Mr. John Paget 
 on this painful topic. They are, in point of logical severity and plainness of story, as 
 creditable to him as a lawyer and a writer, as honourable to him as a man. — Preston 
 Chronicle. 
 
 That Mrs. Talbot has been wrongfully condemned, no dispassionate man, acquainted 
 w ith the facts, can reasonably doubt_ Gateshead Observer. 
 
 London: James Ridgway, Piccadilly, aud Thomas Blk.nka rn. Law 
 Bookseller, 29, Bell Yard, Lincoln’s Inn : Med l vsn an, Savkville Street. 
 Dublin; and all Booksellers. 
 


Trials. 
 
 L65824 
 
 vol .16. 
 
 ISSUED TO 
 
 / 6 fg'Z' * 
 
 uc/./a