APHBy Ann Healy
Source: Tuam Herald 17 January 1987
In the second and concluding part of ANN HEALY’S account of the now almost forgotten but once famous attempt on the life of Athenry landlord Captain Giles Eyre Lambert in 1869, we take up the story as evicted tenant’s son Peter Barrett, a postman in London, takes the train from Athenry that evening. Lambert has survived the murder attempt and raised the alarm, and the local constabulary are on the alert.
BARRETT’S WHEREABOUTS
The shooting occurred some time after nine o’clock and Castle |Lambert was approximately three miles from Athenry. Barrett arrived at Athenry station, wearing a tall hat, and bought a ticket for London shortly before ten o’clock. He then entered the Railway Hotel and waited in the bar for the train to arrive. While there, Barrett drew attention to himself by asking a member of the staff the correct time, even though clock, showing the correct time was clearly visible to him, In so doing, Barrett had made his presence in the hotel at that precise time known to all within’ earshot. Shortly afterwards, Barratt boarded the Dublin-bound train. The police presence in Athenry that particular day was smaller than usual as most of them had been relocated to Belfast for extra duty work, for the July 12th celebrations due to be held the next day.
However, sub-constable Hayden, stationed at Athenry, boarded the Dublin-bound train. He later noticed Barrett asleep in one of/ the train’s compartments, following a description given by Lambert of his assailant being al slight, young man in a dark suit. Barrett fitted this description and he was arrested on the train. They got off the train at Woodlawn and the following morning Barrett was taken to Castle Lambert where Lambert identified him as his attacker. Barrett had been searched on the train, but no pistol was found on him. His presence in Athenry, however, and the rapidity of his return put him under great suspicion.
A MAN WITH A MOTIVE
No explanation was given for Barrett’s. behaviour. He was a peasant’s son with a strong motive for shooting Lambert. On the other hand, Lambert was a magistrate, a soldier and a man of property. Lambert’s unshakeable evidence, the circumstantial evidence, and the background of the case, all combined |to weigh heavily against the prisoner.
BARRETT’S DEFENCE
This was the perfect case for a man of Isaac Butt’s legal calibre. Barrett’s, case was calculated to demand all of his attention Butt, successfully set off most of his client’s suspect behaviour by so completely, shaking Lambert’s credibility as a witness that it seemed as if Lambert was intent on making evidence to convict Barrett at any cost.
MISLEADING EVIDENCE
During the trial that followed, Lambent was adamant that he recognised Peter Barrett as the man who shot him, Yet, when he was questioned shortly after the attack, he could only describe his attacker’s appearance without giving any name. When the police presented Barrett the next morning, he did not hesitate to identify him. Butt wasted no time in high-lighting Lambert’s apparent excess of zeal in obtaining the conviction of Barrett. This anxiety, displayed by Lambert to obtain Barrett’s conviction, was not very edifying and cast doubts or his own character.
In his cross-examination, Butt uncovered the truth that Lambert had suppressed some of the facts including his knowledge of the exact time of the shooting and that some of the trees under which his assailant had stood had been cut down soon after the shooting
Butt got Lambert to admit that he had held back the detail of the exact time of the shooting because he did not want Barrett’s legal advisors to know everything. The surprising admission by Lambert that two of- the trees under which his attacker had stood were cut down within twelve days of the crime also placed his evidence under greater suspicion. In court Lambert’s brother stated that the face of a man standing under the trees would have been hidden by the foliage, thus adding greater significance to the evidence. Lambert denied knowing anything about the trees and said his wife had ordered their felling as they were spoiling the view. A map of the area had been made after the crime, which Lambert denied having seen. Under persistent questioning by Butt, Lambert finally admitted to having seen it.
DUBLIN JURY
The case of “Regina versus Barrett,” was first heard at a Special Commission, in September 1869, in Galway. However, the jury were unable to agree on a verdict and discharged. The Crown moved to have a second trial heard in another county, on the grounds that a fair and impartial trial could not be heard in Galway, where public opinion favoured the prisoner. The Attorney General suggested Dublin as a fair and impartial venue.
It |was finally agreed to hold a second trial in Dublin as affidavits of the resident magistrate at Galway, of the Crown Solicitor, Galway, of Mr. Jackson one of the jurors at the former trial, and of some of members of the constabulary, suggested that before and after the offence many outrages had been perpetrated in Co. Galway. There existed among the peasantry a strong sympathy for such offences and a disinclination to aid the government in detecting the criminals.
Jurors known to favour Barrett’s conviction and the Judges entering and leaving the courthouse during the trial were stoned by mobs whose sympathies lay with the prisoner. Even by resorting to a Special Jury Panel, it was felt that a fair trial could not be held in Galway.
Affidavits made on behalf of Barrett stated that a fair trial could be held in Galway with a selection from the special jury panel. It also stated that a fair trial could only be held in Galway where the true character of Captain Lambert would be known to the jurors, who knew that his oath had been disbelieved at a former trial in his own county. Affidavits from jurors at the first trial also stated that they had not been intimidated by anyone during the trial.
In the defendant’s affidavits, it was stated that since the trial in September, Captain Lambert had encouraged and instigated a witness, who was then examined, to leave this country for America and that Captain Lambert had done other acts to injuriously affect the evidence against the prisoner at the second trial; and therefore the trial should take place where Captain Lambert’s testimony would be properly scrutinised.
An affidavit for the prosecution was made denying that Galway was in a tranquil state and also denying any interference with a witness
Attorney-General Barry, (with him Sergeant Dowse and Edmund Jordan), supported the motion that the case be heard in Dublin.
BUTT’S SPEECH TO THE JURY
In his speech for the prisoner. Butt counselled the Dublin jury not to convict on Lambert’s evidence. He reminded them that in Galway, Lambert would have been known as a man “rash in statement, reckless in his vengeance, obstinate in his assertions, and violent in his prejudices.” Captain Lambert in Butt’s view, did not deserve to be a landlord and Barrett did not deserve to be punished on the word of a man whose character had been called into question.
Whether Barrett was guilty or not, the jury agreed that they would never reach a unanimous decision, and so he was freed of all charges. He became a local hero to the people of Castle Lambert and the subject of verse and song.
THE TRIAL IN GALWAY
The jury heard the evidence of Captain lambert who claimed he knew Peter Bartett well and that he was the man who had shot him. There were no other witnesses to the crime. A number of witnesses who claimed to have seen Barrett in Athenry that evening were called to the stand. Timothy Kinneen, who knew Barrett, stated that he saw him in the Railway Hotel between 9.30 and 9.45 the evening of the shooting
Another witness, Michael Cullen, also gave evidence that he saw Peter Barrett on July 11th, near the North Gate, at approximately 9.05 p.m. Biddy Murphy, who it was alleged gave Barrett some bread and milk at her house in Frenchfort. Oranmore, just two and a half miles from Castle Lambert, the evening of the shooting, also gave evidence. In court she said she did not recognise the prisoner and said to the judge, “My lord he was more like yourself” – referring to the man she had fed
LOCAL FOLKLORE
It is known that three men were sitting om a gate that summer’s evening when Lambert was shot. In court two gave evidence that they saw a man walking along the road towards Castle Lambert, shortly before the shooting. They claimed they did not know the man and could not identify him as Peter Barrett. The third man, however, said he knew the man to be Peter Barrett. It is said that in order to find out who was telling the truth, Isaac Butt took a Cambridge needle from his lapel (the Cambridge has the smallest eye). He gave this needle to each man in turn to thread. The two men who could not identify Barrett threaded the needle while thethird man failed. Their evidence was crucial in the jury’s decision to free Barrett.
OTHER WITNESSES
Michael Kelly, who was a gardener at Castle Lambert, also gave evidence in court. He said that he had seen a man walking on the lawns and had ordered him to get off the grass. He said he could not identify the man as Peter Barrett.
Mr. Wolloms, who owned a firearms shop in Tottenham Court Road, London, gave evidence that Barrett bought a small gun off him on July 9th. He gave the excuse that he was left minding an empty house for a few days and that he needed the protection of a gun
Mrs. Sterling, Barrett’s landlady in London, gave evidence that Barrett was always very quiet and never gave her any trouble. She saw him last on Saturday morning. July 10th. when he told her he was taking a few days off to visit a friend named Lally.
Barrett had told his employers at the Post Office that he had hurt his leg, and he had received a doctor’s certificate to verify this, in order to take leave of his work for a few days
After the jury had heard this evidence, they could not agree and the charges were dismissed.
The outcome of the trial, decided upon by the jury, was described by the Chief Justice as “a great misfortune for the administration of justice.” Who knows for sure if he was fully justified in saying so!
Peter Barrett, once freed of all charges, became a local folk hero and became known as the “First Rory of the Hills.” The story of his trial and the final verdict became the inspiration for many songs and stories.
The real hero of the day must surely be Isaac Butt, about whom these lines were written
in the song, “Lines Written on the Liberation of Barrett”:
Their locks and keys he threw aside,
The law he soon expounded O,
And every foe of Barrett’s now
He nobly did confound them O.
With talent rich and speech sublime
He freed his client clever O,
Long may he live to wear the i gown,
Brave Butt, he is a ripper 0.”
The work of Butt’s young Mr McDermott, both in the courtroom and be apprentice, behind the scenes, must not be overlooked. He is remembered for his diligent work on the case which undoubtedly helped ensure the defendant’s release.
After the trial Peter Barrett went to America. He returned to Athenry ten years later. While on holidays he stayed with Mr. Corbearsy at St. John’s, Athenry. It is alleged that both men went into Galway one day. They were walking down Shop Street when they met with Mr. Thomas Lambert from Moorpark. He did not recognise Barrett, who was well dressed in the American fashion. He asked Mr. Corbearsy to introduce him to his friend. Knowing the outcome of such an introduction, Mr. Corbearsy seemed hesitant to do so. When finally he introduced Barrett to Lambert, the latter declined to shake hands, turned and walked away,
Nothing remains of Castle Lambert Housel today. The only thing worth noting is the Lambert burial chamber, situated at Moorpark cemetery, a couple of miles from |Castle Lambert and adjacent to the place now known as Barrett’s Hill.
