Great excitement prevailed throughout England towards the close of the
year 1853, in consequence of the result of a trial which took place at
the autumn assizes at Gloucester. A person calling himself Sir Richard
Hugh Smyth laid claim to an extinct baronetcy, and brought an action
of ejectment to recover possession of vast estates, situated in the
neighbourhood of Bristol, and valued at nearly £30,000 a-year. The
baronetcy in question had become, or was supposed to have become,
extinct on the death of Sir John Smyth, in 1849, and at his decease
the estates had passed to his sister Florence; and when she died, in
1852, had devolved upon her son, who was then a minor, and who was
really the defendant in the cause. Mr. Justice Coleridge presided at
the trial, Mr. (afterwards Lord-Justice) Bovill appeared for the
claimant, and Sir Frederick Thesiger represented the defendant.
According to the opening address of the counsel for the plaintiff, his
client had been generally supposed to be the son of a carpenter of
Warminster named Provis, and had been brought up in this man's house
as one of his family. When the lad arrived at an age to comprehend
such matters, he perceived that he was differently treated from the
other members of the household, and, from circumstances which came to
his knowledge, was led to suspect that Provis was not really his
father, but that he was the son of Sir Hugh Smyth of Ashton Hall, near
Bristol, and the heir to a very extensive property. It seemed that
this baronet had married a Miss Wilson, daughter of the Bishop of
Bristol, in 1797, that she had died childless some years later, and
that he had, in 1822, united himself to a Miss Elizabeth. The second
union proved as fruitless as the first, and when Sir Hugh himself
died, in 1824, his brother John succeeded to the title and the greater
portion of the property. By-and-by, however, certain facts came to the
ears of the plaintiff, which left no doubt on his mind that he was the
legitimate son of Sir Hugh Smyth, by a first and hitherto concealed
marriage with Jane, daughter of Count Vandenbergh, to whom he had been
secretly married in Ireland, in 1796. But, although the plaintiff was
thus convinced himself, he knew that, while he possessed documents
which placed his origin beyond a doubt, it would be extremely
difficult for a person in his humble circumstances to substantiate his
claim, or secure the services of a lawyer bold enough to take his case
in hand, and refrained from demanding his rights until 1849; in which
year, rendered desperate by delay, he went personally to Ashton Hall,
obtained an interview with Sir John Smyth, and communicated to him his
relationship and his claims. The meeting was much more satisfactory
than might have been expected. As Sir John had been party to certain
documents which were executed by his brother in his lifetime (which
were among those which had been discovered), and in which the
circumstances of the concealed marriage and the birth of the claimant
were acknowledged, it was useless for him to deny the justice of the
demand, and he recognised his nephew without demur. But the excitement
of the interview was too great for his failing strength, and he was
found dead in bed next morning. Thus all the hopes of the real heir
were dashed to the ground, for it was not to be expected that the
next-of-kin, who knew nothing of the supposed Provis, or of Sir Hugh's
marriage, would yield up the estates to an utter stranger, without a
severe struggle and a desperate litigation. He, therefore, refrained
from putting forth his pretensions, and travelled the country with his
wife and children, obtaining a precarious living by delivering
lectures; and he took no steps to enforce his rights until 1851, when,
after negotiations with several legal firms, he at length found the
means of pursuing his claims before the tribunals of his country.
In support of the plaintiff's case a number of documents, family
relics, portraits, rings, seals, &c, were put in evidence. At the time
when the marriage was said to have taken place there was no public
registration in Ireland, but a Family Bible was produced which bore on
a fly-leaf a certification by the Vicar of Lismore that a marriage had
been solemnized on the 19th of May, 1796, "between Hugh Smyth of
Stapleton, in the county of Gloucester, England, and Jane, daughter of
Count John Samuel Vandenbergh, by Jane, the daughter of Major Gookin
and Hesther, his wife, of Court Macsherry, county of Cork, Ireland."
In the same Bible was an entry of the plaintiffs baptism, signed by
the officiating clergyman. A brooch was produced with the name of Jane
Gookin upon it, and a portrait of the claimant's mother, as well as a
letter addressed by Sir Hugh Smyth to his wife on the eve of her
delivery, in which he introduced a nurse to her. Besides these, there
were two formal documents which purported to be signed by Sir Hugh
Smyth, in which he solemnly declared the plaintiff to be his son. The
first of these declarations was written when the baronet was in
extreme ill-health, in 1822, and was witnessed by his brother John and
three other persons. It was discovered in the possession of a member
of the family of Lydia Reed, the plaintiff's nurse. The second paper,
which was almost the same in its terms, was discovered in the keeping
of an attorney's clerk, who had formerly lived in Bristol. The
following is a copy of it:--
"I, Sir Hugh Smyth, of Ashton Park, in the county of Somerset, and of
Rockley House, in the county of Wilts, do declare that, in the year
1796, I was married in the county of Cork, in Ireland, by the Rev.
Verney Lovett, to Jane, the daughter of Count Vandenbergh, by Jane,
the daughter of Major Gookin, of Court Macsherry, near Bandon.
Witnesses thereto--The Countess of Bandon and Consena Lovett. In the
following year, Jane Smyth, my wife, came to England, and, immediately
after giving birth to a son, she died on the 2d day of February, 1797,
and she lies buried in a brick vault in Warminster churchyard. My son
was consigned to the care of my own nurse, Lydia Reed, who can at any
time identify him by marks upon his right hand, but more especially by
the turning up of both the thumbs, an indelible mark of identity in
our family. My son was afterwards baptized by the Rev. James Symes of
Midsomer Norton, by the names of Richard Hugh Smyth; the sponsors
being the Marchioness of Bath and the Countess of Bandon, who named
him Richard, after her deceased brother, Richard Boyle. Through the
rascality of my butler, Grace, my son left England for the continent,
and was reported to me as having died there; but, at the death of
Grace, the truth came out that my son was alive, and that he would
soon return to claim his rights. Now, under the impression of my son's
death, I executed a will in 1814. That will I do, by this document,
declare null and void, and, to all intents and purposes, sett
asside(_sic_) in all its arrangements; the payment of my just debts,
the provision for John, the son, of the late Elizabeth Howell, and to
the fulfilment of all matters not interfering with the rights of my
heir-at-law. Now, to give every assistance to my son, should he ever
return, I do declare him my legitimate son and heir to all the estates
of my ancestors, and which he will find amply secured to him and his
heirs for ever by the will of his grandfather, the late Thomas Smyth
of Stapleton, Esq.; and further, by the will of my uncle, the late Sir
John Hugh Smyth, baronet. Both those wills so fully arrange for the
security of the property in possession or reversion that I have now
only to appoint and constitute my beloved brother John Smyth, Esq.,
my only executor for his life; and I do by this deed place the utmost
confidence in my brother that he will at any future time do my son
justice. And I also entreat my son to cause the remains of his mother
to be removed to Ashton, and buried in the family vault close to my
side, and to raise a monument to her memory.
"Now, in furtherance of the object of this deed, I do seal with my
seal, and sign it with my name, and in the presence of witnesses, this
10th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1823. HUGH SMYTH (L.S.).
William Edwards.
William Dobbson.
James Abbott."
After some proof had been given as to the genuineness of the
signatures to this and the other documents, the plaintiff was put into
the witness-box. He said that his recollections extended back to the
time when he was three years and a half old, when he lived with Mr.
Provis, a carpenter in Warminster. There was at that time an elderly
woman and a young girl living there, the former being Mrs. Reed, the
wet-nurse, and the latter Mary Provis, who acted as nursemaid. He
stayed at the house of Provis until Grace, Sir Hugh's butler, took him
away, and placed him at the school of Mr. Hill at Brislington, where he
remained for a couple of years, occasionally visiting Colonel Gore and
the family of the Earl of Bandon at Bath. From Brislington he was
transferred by the Marchioness of Bath to Warminster Grammar School,
and thence to Winchester College, where he resided as a commoner until
1810. He stated that he left Winchester because his bills had not been
paid for the last eighteen months; and, by the advice of Dr. Goddard,
then headmaster of the school, proceeded to London, and told the
Marchioness of Bath what had occurred. The marchioness kept him for a
few days in her house in Grosvenor Square, but "being a woman of high
tone, and thinking that possibly he was too old for her protection,"
she advised him to go to Ashton Court to his father, telling him at
the same time that Sir Hugh Smyth was his father. She also gave him
some £1400 or £1500 which had been left to him by his mother, but
declined to tell him anything respecting her, and referred him for
further information to the Bandon family. The marchioness, however,
informed him that her steward, Mr. Davis, at Warminster, was in
possession of the deceased Lady Smyth's Bible, pictures, jewellery,
and trinkets. But the lad, finding himself thus unexpectedly enriched,
sought neither his living father nor the relics of his dead mother,
but had recourse to an _innamorata_ of his own, and passed three or
four months in her delicious company. He afterwards went abroad, and
returned to England with exhausted resources in 1826. He then made
inquiries respecting Sir Hugh Smyth, his supposed father, and
discovered that he had been dead for some time, and that the title and
estates had passed to Sir John. Under these circumstances he believed
it to be useless to advance his claim, and supported himself for the
eleven years which followed by lecturing on education at schools and
institutions throughout England and Ireland.
Up to this time he had never made any inquiry for the things which the
Marchioness of Bath had informed him were under the care of Mr. Davis;
but, in 1839, he visited Frome in order to procure them, and then
found that Davis was dead. Old Mr. Provis, who had brought him up, was
the only person whom he met, and with him he had some words for
obstinately refusing to give him any information respecting his
mother. The interview was a very stormy one; but old Provis, who was
so angry with him at first that he struck him with his stick, quickly
relented, and gave him the Bible, the jewellery, and the heir-looms
which he possessed. Moreover, he showed him a portrait of Sir Hugh
which hung in his own parlour, and gave him a bundle of sealed papers
with instructions to take them to Mr. Phelps, an eminent solicitor at
Warminster. The jewellery consisted of four gold rings and two
brooches. One ring was marked with the initials "J.B.," supposed to be
those of "James Bernard;" and on one of the brooches were the words
"Jane Gookin" at length.
The claimant further stated that, on the 19th of May, 1849, he
procured an interview with Sir John Smyth at Ashton Court. He said
that the baronet seemed to recognise him from the first, and was
excessively agitated when he told him who he was. To calm him, the
so-called Sir Richard said that he had not come to take possession of
his title or property, but only wanted a suitable provision for his
family. It was, therefore, arranged that Sir John's newly-found nephew
should proceed to Chester and fetch his family, and that they should
stay at Ashton Court, while he would live at Heath House.
But the fates seemed to fight against the rightful heir. When he
returned from Chester twelve days later, accompanied by his spouse and
her progeny, the first news he heard was that Sir John had been found
dead in his bed on the morning after his previous visit. All his hopes
were destroyed, and he reverted calmly to his old trade of stump
orator, which he pursued with equanimity from 1839 till 1851. During
this time he vainly endeavoured to secure the services of a sanguine
lawyer to take up his case on speculation, and it was not until the
latter year that he succeeded; but when the hopeful solicitor once
took the affair in hand, evidence flowed in profusely, and he was at
last enabled to lay his claims before her Majesty's judges at
Gloucester assizes. Such, at least, was his own story.
In cross-examination he stated that although Provis had two sons,
named John and Thomas, he only knew the younger, and had but little
intercourse with John, who was the elder. He described his youthful
life in the carpenter's house, and represented himself "as the
gentleman of the place," adding that he wore red morocco shoes, was
never allowed to be without his nurse, and "did some little mischief
in the town, according to his station in life, for which mischief
nobody was allowed to check him." After a lengthy cross-examination as
to his relationship with the Marchioness of Bath and his alleged
interview with Sir John Smyth, he admitted that as a lecturer he had
passed under the name of Dr. Smyth. He denied that he had ever used the
name of Thomas Provis, or stated that John Provis, the Warminster
carpenter, was his father, or visited the members of the Provis family
on a footing of relationship with them. As far as the picture, which
he said the carpenter pointed out to him in his parlour as the
portrait of his father, was concerned, and which, when produced, bore
the inscription, "Hugh Smyth, Esq., son of Thomas Smyth, Esq., of
Stapleton, county of Gloucester, 1796," he indignantly repudiated the
idea that it was a likeness of John Provis the younger, although he
reluctantly admitted that the old carpenter sometimes entertained the
delusion that the painting represented his son John, and that the
inscription had not been perceivable until he washed it with tartaric
acid, which, he declared, was excellent for restoring faded writings.
He was then asked about some seals which he had ordered to be engraved
by Mr. Moring, a seal engraver in Holborn, and admitted giving an order
for a card-plate and cards; but denied that at the same time he had
ordered a steel seal to be made according to a pattern which he
produced, which bore the crest, garter, and motto of the Smyths of
Long Ashton. However, he acknowledged giving a subsequent order for
two such seals. On one of these seals the family motto, "_Qui capit
capitur_" had been transformed, through an error of the engraver, into
"_Qui capit capitor_," but he said he did not receive it until the 7th
of June, and that consequently he could not have placed it on the deed
in which Sir Hugh Smyth so distinctly acknowledged the existence of a
son by a first marriage--a deed which he declared he had never seen
till the 17th of March. A letter was then put into court, dated the
13th of March, which he admitted was in his handwriting, and which
bore the impress of the mis-spelled seal. Thus confronted with this
damning testimony, the plaintiff turned pale, and requested permission
to leave the court to recover from a sudden indisposition which had
overtaken him, when, just at this juncture, the cross-examining
counsel received a telegram from London, in consequence of which he
asked, "Did you, in January last, apply to a person at 361 Oxford
Street, to engrave for you the Bandon crest upon the rings produced,
and also to engrave 'Gookin' on the brooch?" The answer, very
hesitatingly given, was, "Yes, I did." The whole conspiracy was
exposed; the plot was at an end. The plaintiff's counsel threw up
their briefs, a verdict for the defendants was returned, and the
plaintiff himself was committed by the judge on a charge of perjury,
to which a charge of forgery was subsequently added.
The second trial took place at the following spring assizes at
Gloucester. The evidence for the crown showed the utter hollowness of
the plaintiff's claim. The attorney's clerk, from whom the impostor
had stated he received the formal declaration of Sir Hugh Smyth, was
called, and declared that he had written the letter which was said to
have accompanied the deed, from the prisoner's dictation; the deed was
produced at the time, and the witness took a memorandum of the name of
the attesting witnesses on the back of a copy of his letter. This
copy, with the endorsement, was produced in court. The brown paper
which the prisoner had sworn formed the wrapper of the deed when he
received it, was proved to be the same in which Mr. Moring, the
engraver, had wrapped up a seal which he had sent to the prisoner--the
very seal in which the engraver had made the unlucky blunder. It was
also clearly proved that the parchment on which the forgery had been
written was prepared by a process which had only been discovered about
ten years, and chemical experts were decidedly of opinion that the ink
had received its antique appearance by artificial means, and that the
wax was undoubtedly modern. Various startling errors and discrepancies
were pointed out in the document itself, the most noteworthy being a
reference made to Sir Hugh's wife, as "the late Elizabeth Howell,"
whereas that lady was alive and in good health at the time the deed
was supposed to have been drawn up, and having been previously married
to Sir Hugh, was known as Lady Smyth up to her death in 1841, she
having survived her husband seventeen years.
The picture, which had been produced on the first trial as a portrait
of Sir Hugh, was proved beyond all doubt to be that of John Provis,
the eldest son of the carpenter; and the prisoner's sister, a married
woman named Mary Heath, on being placed in the witness-box, recognised
him at once as her youngest brother, Thomas Provis; and said she had
never heard of his being any other, although she knew that upon taking
up the trade of lecturing he had assumed the name of "Dr. Smyth."
Several persons, who were familiarly acquainted with the carpenter's
family, also recognised him as Tom Provis; and evidence was led to
identify him as a person who had kept a school at Ladymede, Bath, and
had been compelled to abscond for disgraceful conduct towards his
pupils. They, however, failed to do so very clearly; "whereon," says
the reporter, "the prisoner, with an air of great triumph, produced an
enormous pig-tail, which up to this moment had been kept concealed
under his coat, and turning round ostentatiously, displayed this
appendage to the court and jury, appealing to it as an irrefragable
proof of his aristocratic birth, and declaiming with solemn emphasis
that he was born with it. He added also that his son was born with one
six inches long." Cocks, the engraver, proved that he was employed by
the prisoner, in January, 1853, to engrave the inscriptions on the
rings, which the prisoner had selected on the supposition that they
were antique rings; but, in fact, they were modern antiques. Mr. Moring
also gave evidence as to the engraving of the fatal seal. On this
evidence Provis was found guilty, and was sentenced to twenty years'
transportation. He retained his composure to the last, and before his
trial assigned all his right, title, and interest in the Smyth estates
to his eldest son, lest they should become forfeited to the crown by
his conviction for felony.
His history was well known to the authorities, who were prepared to
prove, had it been necessary, that he had been convicted of
horse-stealing in 1811, and had been sentenced to death--a sentence
which was commuted; that he had married one of the servants of Sir
John Smyth, and had deserted her, and that he had fled from Bath to
escape the punishment of the vilest offences perpetrated during his
residence in the City of Springs. But it was needless to produce more
damning testimony than was brought forward. For twenty years the world
has heard nothing more of the sham Sir Richard Hugh Smyth.