Dr Matthew Bourns has his day in court (1853)
The Mayo Constitution, 15 March 1853, p. 1.
I have selected this 1853 story because it gives us some insight into the social world of the propertied classes in Erris just after the Famine. Matthew Bourns (or Bournes) was a member of a notable family that may have been part of Sir Arthur Shaen’s original colony at Erris in the seventeenth century.
Even if not part of the original colony, we know that Thomas Bournes of Castleconnor, Sligo, took a lease at Rossport in 1707. The Bournes were Methodists, building a small chapel at Rossport. Mary A. Strange’s family history documents how the family eventually left Mayo, largely emigrating to North America and Australia. Sophie Rhys-Jones is a descendant.
Matthew was the son of Ballina merchant John Bournes. Very likely part of the extended family, Matthew moved to Belmullet at some point in the 1830s. At the time of the newspaper story below, he would have been about 46, and Denis Bingham about 35.
CROWN COURT — WEDNESDAY
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF ASSAULT. — A GLIMPSE OF ERRIS LIFE.
Thomas Lloyd, Esq., stood indicted for that he, on the 8th day of January, 1853, at Belmullet, in this county, did maliciously assault one Matthew Bourns, M.D., so as to inflict on his person grievous bodily harm.
In the second count he was charged with a common assault.
Mr Lloyd pleaded “Not Guilty.”
Doctor Bourns examined by Mr Robinson, Q.C. — Recollects the 8th of January last; was in my own house on that day, and Mr Lloyd came into my bed-room, and asked me to sign a document to the effect that Mr. Denis Bingham had said something disrespectful of his lady; I refused to do so, when he, in the most violent manner, commenced horsewhipping me; he then pulled me out of the bed, and struck me with the handle of the whip; he also kicked me when I was on the floor; he had a knife in one of his hands, for the purpose, I believe, of doing me grievous bodily harm; after he had pulled me out of the bed, my servant-boy and son came into the room, and my son took hold of Mr Lloyd and shoved him off me, and kept him so until my wife and servant-woman came in and protected me from further violence; I was unable to rise off the floor after the effects of the beating; I caught hold of the whip after Mr. Lloyd struck me, and it was broken.
To a juror — When I was on the floor, he held the whip over my head in a threatening manner.
Cross-examined by Mr Blakeney — Did you ever know of a man who earned a flogging better than you did on that occasion? Witness — I swear I gave him no provocation; he wanted me to read a statement made by another person, a correspondence which took place between Mr Bingham and himself; I had nothing to do with that correspondence, nor can I recollect the subject of it; I think it was that Mr Bingham had spoken disrespectfully or unhandsomely of his (Mr Lloyd’s) family.
Mr Blakeney — On your oath, Doctor, what member of Mr Lloyd’s family was maligned? Were not you yourself the maligner? Ah! You hesitate now. Witness — On my oath I was not the maligner, nor did I ever malign the lady.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, was Bingham the author of this foul slander? Witness — I believe Mr Lloyd said so.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, were you accused of conveying this slander to the Bingham family or any one else? Witness — Upon my oath, I am not the author if it, nor was I so accused by Lloyd before I took proceedings against him, but I heard that he did so after this occurrence took place.
Mr Blakeney — Did you ever hear it before you got this chastisement? Witness — Certainly not.
Mr Blakeney — Did not Mr Lloyd ask you to sign a letter denying that you slandered the fair fame of his wife? Witness — He did not, but he asked me to give a statement of what occurred in private society, which I refused to do.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, did you not tell that respectable officer, Mr Pinchin, that he was the person accused? Witness — Upon my oath, I did not.
Mr Blakeney — Had you any conversation with Mr Pinchin about this foul transaction? Witness — I don’t think I had — I might have had — I can’t recollect — I don’t recollect that I had any conversation with him respecting Mr Lloyd; I might have had; on my oath, I did not malign that lady to anyone else.
Mr Blakeney — Come now, Doctor — on your oath, did not Mr Jackson ram the lie down your throat? Witness — On my oath, he did not.
Court — that is rather a poetical expression, Mr Blakeney.
Witness — Mr Jackson and Mr Lloyd were displeased with me for something that occurred, but I never said anything to the lady’s discredit; on my oath, Mr Jackson did not put me on my knees and call me a common maligner; there was a burlesque scene in my own house where I was put on my knees (laughter).
Mr Blakeney — Was it to say your prayers you were put on your knees? Witness — No, I repeated verbatim what Mr Jackson then said; I don’t recollect what it was I then read, but my object was to satisfy Mr Lloyd; it was not to say my prayers Mr Jackson put me on my knees (continued laughter); I can’t recollect the exact words, but I suppose I did beg the lady’s pardon; upon my oath, I never mentioned Mr Pinchin’s name upon any occasion.
Mr Blakeney- Upon your oath, do you know Captain Nield, and did not you not repeatedly calumniate that respectable gentleman? Witness — Upon my oath, I did not.
Mr Blakeney — I am told you are president of the temperance society in Belmullet — is not that the case? eh, Doctor? (laughter). Witness — I never took the pledge.
Mr Blakeney — On your oath, did you never take a pledge against taking the pledge? (renewed laughter). On my oath, I did not; I never required the pledge.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, how often were you drunk in the witness box under examination> Witness — The imputation is false, sir; I think I am as temperate as yourself.
Mr Blakeney — Well, Doctor, we won’t go by comparisons now, as I have not the honour of your acquaintance, but let me ask you this simple question — upon your oath, are you a sober character? Witness — Upon my oath I am (cries of oh, oh).
Mr Blakeney — Is everything else you swore as true as that? Witness — I consider myself a sober character.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, sir, are you not considered the most drunken character in your neighbourhood? Witness — It is untrue, sir.
Mr Blakeney — How often have the police been obliged to take you under their protection? Beware of yourself now, for you see I have the officer here. Witness — I am not surprised at anything that gentleman says.
Mr Blakeney — Doctor, do you know Bess Barrett? Witness — I do.
Mr Blakeney — I suppose your moral character is as good as your character for sobriety? (laughter). Witness — My character for morality and sobriety are both equal (great laughter).
Mr Blakeney — I believe you there, Doctor (continued laughter). Tell me now, my old gentleman, did poor Bess ever live with you? Witness — She lived with me as a servant; upon my oath, I did not get up a case of seduction for Bess against Mr Pinchin.
Mr Blakeney — was there not a process brought by her against Mr Pinchin for £40? Witness — There was; it was dismissed on the merits, because I could not attend the summons from the effects of the beating I received.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, did you ever deserve a licking better in your life? Witness — I could not attend from other causes.
Mr Blakeney — What other causes? were you drunk? (laughter). Witness — The imputation is false. I did not apply to the board of guardians in time for leave to attend the sessions; I never got a licking in my life before, except at school.
Mr Blakeney — Oh then, if you got it there, you richly deserved it (laughter). However, I will refresh your memory a little. Did my brother barrister, George Crampton [William Carter’s agent], ever strike you at Mr Jackson’s table, and kick you out of the room — oh, Doctor, do you recollect that? Witness — He struck me on the face, but I did not deserve it; I was not kicked nor turned out of the room; Mr Crampton did not strike me, but he apologized for it afterwards.
Mr Blakeney — Are you a great duellist? Witness — I am not.
Mr Blakeney — I believe you are not a steady shot — you are troubled with delirium tremens? (great laughter). Have you a case of duelling pistols? Witness — I have not; I had a case that was given me by a friend.
Mr Blakeney — Did you ever get a kicking from any other member of the Crampton family? Do you ever recollect Mr John Crampton licking you? (laughter). Witness — I recollect something, but it was not a beating he gave me.
Mr Blakeney — Oh no, it was only a gentle chastisement; anything you don’t wish to remember is always “non mi recordo.” Now, Doctor, will you tell us did you ever play spoil five with Mr George Crampton, and did he not lick you well for cheating him? Witness — Never, sir; your imputations are false altogether.
Mr Blakeney — Oh, of course; nevertheless, I am refreshing your memory a little; but I suppose that took place after dinner, and your recollection of after dinner transactions is not the clearest in the world, Doctor (laughter); your ideas are generally agreeably confused — in fact, you then quite forget that you are president of the temperance society. We shall now come back to the subject with Mr Lloyd. Did that gentleman not show you a letter from Mr Bingham? Witness — He read several letters for me; he accused Bingham of speaking disrespectfully of his wife, and because I would not corroborate what Bingham had stated in the letters, he assaulted me in the manner I have already described; it is some years ago since I went through the burlesque of begging the lady’s pardon.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, did not my client ask you to sign a letter denying that you had ever spoken disrespectfully of his wife? Witness — He never did, but he asked me to write a letter to criminate Bingham; I said I would give nothing under my hand of what occurred in private society, but that if I was compelled I would give every satisfaction to Mr Lloyd; I don’t recollect that I called Bingham a blackguard and a swindler, but I might have said he was a blackguard, or might have used harsh language and applied opprobrious epithets to him.
Mr Blakeney — Now, is there a more habitual slanderer in Erris than you are? You are both bone-setter and maligner to the whole barony; may God help the Errisonians (laughter). Witness — I repeat, sir, that your imputations are false.
Mr Blakeney — After this rencontre, and notwithstanding your abuse of Bingham, did you not take shelter in his house on the Monday after this occurred? Witness — On Saturday I was beaten, and on the following Monday I went to Bingham’s to attend his wife, and I was there confined to bed.
Mr Blakeney — Oh, then, it was the doctor that was “confined,” and not Mrs Bingham (laughter). Now, may I ask you, Doctor, were you not in that “confinement” safely delivered from a fit of drunkenness? (laughter). Witness — I drank wine, which recovered me very much; I also took some punch; I was very near dying.
Mr Blakeney — Upon your oath, if you died then, would you not be dead drunk? (roars of laughter). Witness — Upon my oath I would not.
Mr Blakeney- Well, you went through the farce of dying, and you also made a dying declaration, did you not? Witness — Yes, I made a declaration, when I thought I was dying, before Mr Bingham; I was sure I would die.
Mr Blakeney — And here you are today, sweet Doctor Bourns, On your oath, were you drunk or sober when you made that dying declaration? Witness — On my oath I was under the influence of wine when I made the declaration (laughter), and I said if I died I would lay my death upon Mr Lloyd; I am sure I cannot tell how much I had drunk, but I think if it were not for the wine I would have died; after taking it I felt the action of my pulse considerably increased.
Mr Blakeney — Did you bring up the pulse to 92? Did the resident magistrate feel it? Witness — Not that I recollect; but he was not in Mr Bingham’s when I was so near dying, but Dr Mullany was there, and felt my pulse.
Mr Blakeney — After you made that sham dying declaration, did not Bingham issue a warrant to arrest this respectable gentleman? Witness — I don’t know, but I heard he was arrested; indeed I have no doubt of it; it was upon Mr Bingham’s warrant that Mr Lloyd was arrested.
Mr Blakeney — When the resident magistrate came to Bingham’s, did he not find the great Dr Bourns well and out of danger? Witness — I was better when he came, but not out of danger; if I had not got better, I would have died.
Mr Blakeney — Small loss (laughter). Have you taken any other proceedings against my client? Witness — Yes, there is a civil action pending, and damages are laid at £1,000.
Mr Blakeney — Don’t you wish you may get it? (laughter). You may go down now, Doctor.
Mary Caulfield examined — Lives with Dr Bourns in Belmullet; was living with him on the 8th of January, the day that Mr Lloyd was there; when he came to the door I let him in; he asked me was Master Jack within; I said not; he then asked me was the master in, and I told him he was not up, upon which he went up stairs to my master’s bedroom; I followed him up stairs, and heard him and my master talking angrily in the bed-room, and also heard the noise of the beating; I told the servant-boy to call the mistress; the mistress and Master Jack then ran up to the bed-room; I was the last to go in; when I went in I saw the doctor on the floor and Mr Lloyd on the other side of him; the mistress was scuffling with Mr Lloyd, and trying to keep him from laying hands on the doctor; in spite of all the mistress could do, he broke away from her, and made another rush at the doctor, and I took a coat and threw it at him; he (Mr Lloyd) had a knife and a whip in his hand when he went out of the room; he threw the knife on the table and said, “I think you have got it, you old blackguard;” it was not a penknife Mr Lloyd had, but one of our own dinner knives.
Mr Buchanan — Well, Mary, you told us you did not know much about this matter until you would recollect yourself; perhaps you recollect your husband, do you? Witness — I could not, for I never had one.
Mr Buchanan — How many children had you? Witness — I had three children, sir, but I had no husband.
Mr Buchanan — Oh, I see! Well, could you tell us whose children were they?
The Court objected to the witness answering this question.
Mr Buchanan — Were they Dr Bourns’s children? Witness — They were not; I never heard it said they were his; I saw Dr Bourns the night before the beating; I cannot tell what hour it was when he went to bed; the shops were closed and every one else in bed; I did not see him drink.
Mr Buchanan — Now, upon your oath, how often did you see him go to bed sober? Witness — I could not tell when one would be drunk or sober; I never had to put him to bed in a state of drunkenness.
Thomas Paddeen and “Master Jack” corroborated the last witness’s evidence, with the addition that “Master Jack” called out to Paddeen, his foster-brother, to bring him the loaded gun, until he would shoot Mr Lloyd; upon hearing this terrible order, Mr Lloyd begged, for God’s sake, to be permitted to leave the house without incurring the vengeance of “Master Jack” and his fosterer, which request was considerately enough complied with, and Mr Lloyd left the house unhurt.
Mr Blakeney then proceeded to address the jury for the defence: — No, gentlemen of the jury, it is grateful to my feelings, indeed, that in this case on behalf of my client, I have the honour to address twelve such gentlemen as I see in that box. It is almost needless, I think, for me to occupy much of your time, were it not that I think it necessary for the vindication of the honour, character, and feelings of my client, to state very shortly to you the gross, cruel, and grievous injury my client received at the hands of the old maligner. Mr Lloyd is a native of the county of Limerick, in which he has property of very considerable extent, and is where he also holds her Majesty’s commission of the peace. He came to reside in your county, in the neighbourhood of Belmullet. Gentlemen, that was an unfortunate hour for my client that he did come to reside there, for, gentlemen, from the time he first came to that portion of your county in 1848, up to the present, he has not had a happy moment. Because the lady to whom he is married, a lady, and of rank and education would not herd with a certain party in Belmullet, slanders of the grossest and foulest nature have been circulated by those persons who attempted to undermine the fair fame of this accomplished lady. During a temporary absence of this lady’s in 1848, this man who comes forward to prosecute my client, was the first to spread the calumny that this lady allowed improper liberties to be taken with her by an officer then quartered there. Gentlemen, you saw with what difficulty I wrung the truth out of him. It was non mi recordo with everything he did not wish you hear; quite against his will, gentlemen, I wrung anything from him, but, fortunately, there was a gentleman standing in that box who made this calumniator go on his knees and beg this lady’s pardon, and he flinched before the glance of that gentleman. He wants you to believe that was all a burlesque. Would any man of Mr Jackson’s position lend himself to a burlesque with such a fellow as Bourns? No, gentlemen, it was sober seriousness, and he should then have got the chastisement he so richly deserved; but Mr Jackson fearing it might come to the husband’s ears, and dreading a collision, contented himself with compelling the fellow to go on his knees and beg the lady’s pardon. This foul system of cowardly persecution and whispering away the fair fame of a virtuous lady, must be put an end to. I put it to any man in this court, and now let any one of you, gentlemen, put yourself into my client’s position, who heard the fair fame of his wife maligned and whispered away in this foul manner, what would be your feelings? Is there in life anything that comes home to a man’s breast more than such a thing as that? They contrive that foul slander, this man Bingham and that set who my client and his respectable wife refused to herd with — Burns [sic] himself has the audacity to say he had been told by Bingham of the impropriety of this lady. My client, acting under the natural impulse which a man of sense and feeling should have, at once applied to Bingham, and he got from Bingham and his wife, form under their hands, a full retraction and denial of the foul calumny. He then, gentlemen, came to Bourns; he met that specimen of a president of a temperance society moaning in his bed at 12 o’clock in the day. He tells him that Bingham and his wife had given under their hands a complete denial of this foul calumny. What have you to say now, said he? Give me also from under your hand a similar denial that I may bring this case to a proper investigation, and if falsehood and lies have been told, that I may be able to find out the foul calumniator. What was the conduct of Bourns on that occasion? If the fellow had a gentlemanly or honourable feeling, would he have acted as he tells you he did. — He had previously told my client to get a letter of denial from Bingham and his wife and that he would bear it out. But what was his reply on the occasion? Gentlemen, I am at a loss for language sufficient to express my horror and disgust of this fellow’s conduct. You heard it wrung out of him from the commencement to the end, and at length he was obliged to admit that he refused to give that explanation to my client in writing which he had promised before. He refused to disclose the names of the guilty party who had fabricated that infamous lie on the fair fame of his lady; the consequence was, gentlemen, he received the chastisement he so richly deserved. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I ask you as men, as husbands, could my client have done otherwise. It is impossible that any man possessed of sense and feeling could condemn the course taken by my client on that occasion. Gentlemen of the jury, you saw how that respectable witness, the unmarried mother of three children with God knows how many fathers (laughter), gave her testimony; she endeavours to torture the tobacco blade of “Ould Bourns,” which my client pulled out of the bed along with its respectable owner, into a terrible weapon. You have also seen how that lady, Miss Caulfield, who rejoices in so many aliases, gave her evidence; she does not say that she saw my client going to immolate the poor dear doctor, but Misther Padden, the foster mother [sic] of Master Jack — arcades ambo — would have you believe they were preventing my client making a rush with this terrible weapon, “Ould Bourns’s tobacco blade,” upon the poor doctor himself. Gentlemen of the jury, what was the conduct of the doctor himself? After calling Bingham a blackguard and a scoundrel, whether he deserved it or not, he takes refuge in his house, and to keep up the steam he pours punch down (laughter), and in that happy, oblivious state, he makes his dying declaration (laughter), and Bingham, the blackguard, as he calls him, sends for the police [and] arrests that respectable gentleman, my client. — Gentlemen, the doctor was near committing felo de se, or more properly speaking, he was dead drunk (great laughter). The matter assumes such a serious aspect in the eyes of Mr Cronin, the present Resident Magistrate — Mr Cruise had then left Belmullet, and Mr Cronin was not up to the tricks of these bright boys — that he goes out to see the poor doctor, whom he expected, from the nature of the warrant, to see on his death bed; instead of that he beheld him in one of his habitual booses. Mr Cronin at once took bail of my client. It was not the quality but the quantity that the poor doctor had taken that caused him to make his dying declaration. But, gentlemen, I feel I am taking up too much of your valuable time. Probably some of you will be present next assizes when the civil action comes on, and I need not tell you how much of the £1,000 you will give poor old Bourns as damages.
The learned judge having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of a common assault with a strong recommendation to mercy.
The Court, taking into consideration the great provocation Mr Lloyd had received, inflicted on him a fine of sixpence, and immediately ordered his discharge.
Who was Thomas Lloyd Esq. and why was he in Belmullet? A search of the contemporary press suggests he may have been Thomas Lloyd JP DL (1798–1873) of Beechmount, Rathkeale, son of Thomas Lloyd MP (c.1771–1829). If so, why did he move to Belmullet in the dark times of 1848?
His wife at the time of this story was his second wife, Julia. They married when he was about 40 and she 18. She lived until 1901 (‘Deaths’, Western Gazette, 04 October, p. 8).
Intriguingly, Thomas Lloyd of Beechmount joined the Repeal Association in 1845, ‘to the surprise and concern of all his friends and connexions’ (The Globe, 2 October 1845, p. 4). A wealthy Protestant, this was a coup for Daniel O’Connell. If this were the same Thomas Lloyd, and he were still sympathetic to Repeal in 1853, that would have been another factor generating friction with Denis Bingham, a member of the Orange Order at the time.
