PETERSFIELD.
THE TICHBOURNE SUCCESSION.— To the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. —Sir,—The following correspondence will speak for itself. Having the honor of being nearly connected with the Tichborne family, it occurred to me that an opportunity would offer itself during the Derby week for effectually clearing up the doubt which in many persons’ minds attaches itself to the identity of the person who states himself to be Sir Roger Doughty Tichborne, returned to England after a self-imposed exile of thirteen years. I accordingly addressed the follow letter to Mr. Holmes, of 25, Poultry, E.C., the solicitor who has undertaken the establishment of Sir Roger’s claims:
71, Eaton-square, May 23, 1867
Sir,— General Richmond Jones, who was in the 6th Dragoon Guards whilst the late Cornet Roger Doughty Tichbourne served in that regiment, is now in London, and he has authorised me to say that if it will be agreeable to your client, who claims to be Sir Roger Doughty Tichbourne, he will wait upon that gentleman at any time and place that may be most convenient to him, taking with him those amongst the officers of the Carabineers who were ,ost intimate with Cornet Tichbourne. Should your client be disposed to receive General Jones’s visits, all questions as to his identity will probably be disposed of one way or the other. As soon as I hear from you I will make arrangements for the meeting. Many of the officers of the regiment are now in London, and are likely to remain here until after Ascot races.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
M. J. HIGGINS,
J. Holmes, Esq, 25, Poultry, E.C.
In due course of post I received the following reply from Mr. Holmes:
25, Poultry, London, E.C., May 24, 1867.
Sir,—I am much obliged by your note of yesterday’s date stating that General Richmond Jones is now in London and would visit my client, Sir Roger Doughty Tichbourne, if agreeable, taking with him those amongst the officers in the Carabineers, who were most intimate with him when a cornet in that regiment. If I mistake not General Richmond Jones is now or recently has been staying with Sir Roger’s sister-in-law the Hon. Teresa Tichbourne, or has been in correspondence with her, and her mother, and the General will probably have learnt that shortly after Sir Roger’s return to England she wrote to his mother, the Dowager Lady James Tichbourne, to inquire whether he was in fact her son, and received a reply from her conveying the most positive assurance that he was. Consequently the Hon. Teresa Tichbourne can have no doubt whatever as to my client’s identity, nor can I concur that the General sees any room to question it. I have not as yet had an opportunity of seeing my client since the receipt of your note; but I cannot advise him to accept the honor of receiving the gentlemen you refer to upon the ground mentioned in your note—namely, that his identity is questioned. At the same time I doubt not that it will give him much pleasure to renew the acquaintance of his old military friends; and I have therefore to request to be good enough to give me the names and addresses of the officers to whom you refer, as well as the present address of General Richmond Jones.
I am, sir, yours obediently,
JOHN HOLMES
M. J. Higgins, Esq., 71, Eaton-square.
The only comment I shall make on Mr. Holmes’s letter is, that he is entirely mistaken in supposing that ‟General Jones is now, or has recently been staying with Sir Roger’s sister-in-law, the Hon. Teresa Tichbourne (widow of the late and mother of the present baronet), or that he has been in correspondence with that lady or her mother.” General Jones assured me yesterday not only that he was not personally acquainted with those ladies, but that he has, up to the present moment, never communicated with either of them directly or indirectly on this or any other subject. Nor can General Jones have any preconceived impressions concerning the identity of the person who claims to be Sir Roger Tichbourne—for he has never seen him. General Jones, however, is fully convinced that he and his brother officers will have no difficulty in identifying their old comrade, if Mr. Holmes’s client indeed be he; as it is but thirteen years since they parted, and as, for nearly four years prior to his embarkation for South America, they lived with him on the most friendly and familiar terms. During the time of Coronet Tichbourne’s service in the Carabineers he was seldom absent on leave, and but for short periods, consequently his person and habits were even better known to the officers of that corps than to the members of his own family—none of whom, save and except his mother, have been able to to discern in the claimant to the succession the slightest resemblance to their long-lost relative. I may as well add that up to the present moment no steps have been taken by Mr. Holmes to assert his client’s alleged rights legally.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
M. J. HIGGINS
71, Eaton-square, May 26th, 1867