Mr Justice Chamberlain then told the jury that the present prosecution was the most unfounded and unsupported of any that had ever appeared. That there was not a tittle of evidence to support it; that on the contrary the very evidence produced by the Crown, proved the very reverse of the charge brought forward.
The jury without a moment’s hesitation or stirring from their seats, instantly produced a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
*****
What is your verdict having seen the same evidence as the jury?
First the prosecution did little to present evidence or witnesses that might secure a conviction. By the end of the case they are apologising that it has ever been brought.
And what of the defence? Francis Bellew was not called to give his account of the evening of 26th December 1792. His team led the Court on a series of red herrings about the patriotism and loyalty of the family and quite irrelevantly introduced the French Revolution.
It would have been a serious matter if young Francis (Sir Patrick’s ninth son) had been convicted; he would have been executed. Neither side wanted this outcome.
He was beyond doubt guilty. At dinner that night at Barmeath were some officers from the garrison at Drogheda who mentioned that their light-horse would break up the meeting of Defenders at the Cross of Grange (Grangebellew today). Francis was sent post-haste to warn them and tell them to disperse.
The first witness for the Crown at one point was looking forward to a reward if Francis was convicted but by the time he came to give evidence he had changed his mind. He became conveniently blind to the unknown horseman and his sweaty mount. He would not be popular in Drogheda if his evidence sent Francis to the gallows.
John Ruxton, the second witness, did not perjure himself. He was not asked what other guests dined at Barmeath that night. He was not asked if Francis was late for dinner or left during dinner. By the time the ladies had left the dining room Francis had already warned the Defenders and could reward himself with two or three glasses of wine. He kept going out to listen in case the Defenders had ignored his warning and there were sounds of a skirmish.
It cries out to be dramatised and performed at Barmeath. Act I: at the assizes, Dundalk, 1796. Act II: the hall at Barmeath, early evening 26th December 1792. Act III; the dining room at Barmeath, dinner the same day. The present Lord Bellew could be cast as Sir Patrick and one of his grandsons as Francis.
The contemporary ideas of the French Revolution were particularly appealing to the Irish, remember this was 1792, a matter of mere months before France would declare war on Britain. Catholic Ireland was intoxicated with ideas of Religious freedom. Again, the context is highly significant: 1792 saw the formation of the United Irishmen, the political situation in Ireland was rapidly unraveling, yet, as always in Ireland the situation is far from monochrome e.g. The Duke of Wellington was in favour of Catholic Emancipation in 1793, his speeches on the rights of Catholics are illuminating.
The fatal flaw in this case was the failure of Mr Justice Chamberlain to recognise that is was not the reputation of the family which was on trial. He aught to have intervened and directed the defence to try only the events of the night in question .
I thought from the beginning the whole saga would make a most intriguing theatrical spectacle. Bru could/would/should (?) certainly act, but he would also insist he must direct (could prove tricky), but in what part would the author be cast? If the judgement had been different we could have had Act IV: The Execution, and I am in no doubt that you, Christopher, would make a jolly ruthless executioner.
BB,
Great drama and I am sure you conclusion is highly likely. I can imagine that Sir Patrick was very busy squaring the participants. It reminds me of a conversation I had with an American (Irish catholic). I mentioned that two ancestors of mine had hung around the edges of Bosworth Field waiting for the outcome to become apparent before casting their lot. The American’s response was that if this had been his family, he would have been ashamed to tell the story.
My husband is descended from JK Hill, an older brother of your ancestor FJP Hill. I have been researching the family history for going on 30 years and have recently found some death certificates, burial references, and a will, mentioning your great-grandfather FJP Hill, which gives some interesting insights into the Hill history, which you may not have.
One of my cousins is the family genealogist for the Hills and we are both interested in pooling information with you.
Thank you for getting in touch.