Rape or Debauchery in the Archbishop's Palace at Tallaght, 1800

By A Ramble about Tallaght -





Rape or Debauchery in the Archbishop’s Palace, Tallaght in 1800.

On the 7th of October, in the year of our Lord, 1800, Ensign Edward Smith, an Irishman serving with the Durham Fencibles was brought from Kilmainham Gaol to Green-Street Sessions House charged with the rape of a young woman in the Archbishop’s Palace at Tallaght two months earlier.  Before Chief Justice Lord Kilwarden of Newlands House and the Right Hon. Justice Kelly, Edward Smith pleaded not guilty.  The case for his defence was diligently made. 


The scene of the crime
The Archbishop’s palace in Tallaght was by 1800 past its best.  Its upkeep was beyond both the needs and the means of the Archdiocese.  It would, 21 years later, be disposed of under an Act of Parliament and leveled by Major Palmer, its rubble used in the construction of Tallaght House, Palmer's substantial private residence.  By 1800 the Archbishop rarely stayed in his summer Palace or country-seat in Tallaght following a raid for arms on the palace by banditti three years earlier.  By the summer of 1800 the Palace at Tallaght served principally as a barracks for military personnel or militia- protecting what was left of the Palace and serving as a secure garrison in what was still considered bandit-country. Ireland after the 1798 uprising was still in a state of heightened alert and few places, more so, than Tallaght.  Earlier in the year in April, a series of murders and raids were carried out in the district by Captain McCabe, the leader of a party of insurgents.  A Mr Hood and Mr Eagar had both been murdered and another respectable farmer threatened with a blunderbuss for money.


The Arrival of Sarah Rawson
It was to this village of Tallaght that Sarah Rawson, a young hat maker arrived from Baltinglass to stay in the summer of 1800.  She was to live with Annie Hill, then resident on the Commons of Tallaght.  The day Sarah Rawson arrived in Tallaght was the 7th of July 1800.  It was the day of the Pattern of Tallaght, an ancient local custom marking the feast day of St Maelruain, reputedly dating back to 1082 and by the late 1700s generally marked by scenes of drunkenness, dancing, carousing and debauchery.  The Tallaght Pattern had lost all religious symbolism and meaning and was little more than a country fair to which people travelled from far and wide, to engage in revelries and behaviours unacceptable in their own neighbourhood. 

Sarah Rawson had been bred to the millinery business. She had spent five years learning the business with a mistress in Dublin, but had not practiced in recent years.  Sarah had come to live with Annie Hill, a second cousin, on the Commons of Tallaght, as the town was considered a safer place for a young lady to live in, than Baltinglass.

Within a month of her arrival in Tallaght the body of Sarah Rawson would be ‘ruined’.





The Charge of Rape
“The Jurors of our Lord the King, upon their oath, say and present that Edward Smith, late of Tallaght, in the county of Dublin aforesaid, Gentleman, on the 6th Day of August in the fortieth year of the reign of our sovereign (1800)…With force of arms, that is to say, with swords, sticks and so forth, at Tallaght in the said County of Dublin, in and upon one Sarah Rawson, Spinster, a true and faithful subject of our said Lord the King, …and feloniously did make an assault, then and there, by force and contrary to the will and consent of her, feloniously did ravish and carnally did know (her)… contrary to the peace of our said Lord the King, his crown and dignity, and contrary to the form of the statute in the case made and provided”.

To this indictment, Mr Edward Smith, Gentleman, pleaded NOT GUILTY, and for trial put himself on God and his country.


In Reilly’s Fields
Between noon and one o’ clock on Wednesday the 6th August 1800, Sarah Rawson was crossing the path in “Reilly’s Fields” on the Dublin side of the Palace in the neighbourhood of Tallaght.  She was ‘going for rents’ and was returning to her lodgings when she saw Ensign Edward Smith of the Durham Fencibles, approaching across the fields on horse-back.  A servant of Smith was in a distant field catching horses for his master.  Smith galloped at great speed up to Sarah Rawson.  According to Sarah he, arriving on horseback, gripped the back of her neck.  He did not ‘meddle’ with her there but took her by force into another of the Minister’s fields near the Minister's House, on the Blessington side of the Palace.
  




Here, according to Sarah Rawson, Smith “Took down his small clothes and wanted to have to say to me; and I wanted to leap over the ditch and he gripped me and swore I should not”.   According to Sarah, she resisted “while Smith did his utmost”.  After a struggle Smith then took Rawson into the Bishop’s shrubbery outside the garden adjoining the Bishop’s field. According to Rawson’s testimony, Smith again “took down his small clothes, and had to do with me, and then like a dog, he threw me down in a place where there were briers”.  There was a lot more to follow- a full three days.


On questioning by the defence as to whether this was done by force and against her will, Sarah gave testimony:

              A.“Yes Sir, by force and against my will”.
           Q. “Had the prisoner at the bar criminal knowledge of your person, by force and against your will”
A. “On my oath he had”.
Q. “Then you cried out?”
A. “I did; but it was of no use to me”.
Q. “Could you have been seen from the high road?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Could you have been heard?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Did Mr. Smith hold you all the time while he led you from Reilly's fields to the Minister’s field”. 
A. “Yes, he held me forcibly all the time with both hands”.

         Chief Justice (Lord Kilwarden). “You say you might have been seen and heard from the Minister’s fields?
A. “Yes, my Lord; but he clapped his hand on my mouth”.
Q. “Is it not a very great thorough-fare?”
      A. “Yes, my Lord, but there was nobody present”.


 Mr. Mac Nally (for the Defence)-  “You were together, you say, in Reilly's field and the Minister’s field, and it was there he first had his will of you?”

A. “No, it was in the Bishop’s shrubbery.  It was there that he did his utmost”.
Q. “And so the more he did, the more he was able to do : might he not have quit you?”.
A. “No, he never left the spot”.
Q., “I am not speaking of the spot, but how did he hold you”.
A. “He held me between his legs”.
Q. “The first time that he made the attempt he did not perpetrate the fact?”
A. “Yes, he did forcibly”.
Q. “Did he commit a rape the first time he took down his breeches?”
A. “Not the first time”.
Q. “There was a great struggle between you?”
A. “Yes: with me at any rate”.
Q. “Then Mr. Smith did not struggle?”
A. “Yes; he did to keep me forcibly”.
Q. “His small clothes were down?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “At last you both got up?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “At the time you got up when Mr. Smith had his clothes down, why did you not run away?”
A. “I made an attempt to escape through the hedge and he gripped me, and held me forcibly”.
Q. “Do you recollect how deep the ditch was?”
A. “You would be ankle deep in it?”
Q. “Then you must have been very dirty?”
A. “No, I was not: he held me still”.
Q. “Had you been thrown down in the dirt?”
A. “No, I had not. In the first ditch he held me forcibly, and I told him I would have his life; and He swore, by his eternal Saviour, he did not care a fig for me”.
Q. “And he held you, you say, with both his hands?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Then how did he contrive to get down his small clothes?”
 A. “With one hand”.
Q. “How did you get to the top of the ditch?”
A. “He held me still, and brought me forcibly over it”.
Q. “Was the bank as high as your head?”
A. “No”.
Q. “About breast high?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Who got out of the ditch first?”
A. “Neither, for he held me all the time”.
Q. “Then he did not get up to help you?”
A. “No, we both got up together; he dragged me over the ditch”
Q. “After the prisoner had effected his purpose, what did he do next?”
A. “He then took me by force to the barrack: He is an Ensign in the Durham Fencibles. He put me in his barrack-room (In the Palace)”.
Q. “After He deposited you there, what did he do?”
A. “He took me forcibly and threw me on the bed”.
Q. “Did he repeat the same act and accomplish it?”
A. “He did Sir”.

Mr. Justice Kelly- “Pray my good girl, how soon was it after he ravished you in the field, that he ravished you again?”

       A. “It was about a couple of hours my Lord”.
       Q. “Did he repeat that violence by force and without your consent”.
       A. “By violence and without my consent”.


The Chief Justice clarified as to whether this was a second or a third instance of ravishing. Sarah confirmed it was a third.

Mr. Justice Kelly- “You say he ravished you a third time: how soon was that after the second time that he ravished you?”
            A. “About an hour my Lord”.

Sarah Rawson, under oath gave testimony that she spent the next three days locked into Smith’s barrack-room in Tallaght Palace.  The room was an upstairs chamber, with a coved ceiling and with a sash window.
Q. “How often, during that time had the prisoner to say to you, as you express it?”
A. “As often as he chose”.

She had on a number of occasions been left alone in Smith’s barrack-room.  When questioned as to why she had not tried to escape out the sash window, she noted the window was too high from which to escape- “I would have broken my neck Sir”.



Q.“Could you not have broken the panes or the sash?”
A. “Yes, I could, if there was any body to help me”.
Q. “Did you call out?”
A. “I did and nobody came near me”.
Q. “The building you were in was narrow: and if you made a noise, would it not have been heard in the courtyard?”
A. “I don't think it would”.
Q. “How many steps did you go up to the chamber?”
A. “One flight”.
Q. “And you think if you had made a great noise it could not have been heard: are there more than nine or eight steps up to the chamber?”
A. “Yes, my Lord, there are”.
Q. “There are more?”
A. “Yes: they are short stairs”.

Mr. Mac Nally- “Was the room you were in coved or flat?”
A. “It was coved”.
Q, “He had an officer's bed?”
A. “Yes”.

Chief Justice- “And his servant had a second key to the room?”
A. “Yes, my Lord”.

Mr. Mac Nally.  “You said there was only one window that looked into the gardens?
A. “Yes, three in the front and only one in the back”.
Q. “Where did the other windows look into? Did they look into the town of Tallaght?”
A. “No, but you could see the tops of the houses”.
Q. “Did no female visit you while you were in confinement?”
A. “No”.

Questioning of the alleged victim, by the defence, continued-

Q. “You did not think it was decorous to go to bed to a gentleman without a night cap, and therefore you called for one and you put it on?”
A. “I did not call for it, but he did, and put it on me.
Q, “What became of the cap?”
A. “I can't tell”.
Q. “On your oath Miss Rawson, did you not return the cap to the servant woman and say “I shall want it again tomorrow!" I do not suppose you kept the cap?
A. “No, I did not say so, nor return it to anybody”.
Q. “Had you a shawl on you when you went forcibly into his room?
A. “I had”.
Q, “Who did you present that shawl to?”
A. “I left it on the foot rail of the bed”.
Q. “Then you did not give that to the servant woman?”
A. “No, I did not”.



That Sarah Rawson remained in Smith’s room in Tallaght Palace from Wednesday until the following Saturday morning was not contested.  Nor was the fact the Smith carnally knew Rawson repeatedly over those three days.  During the three days, Smith’s servant-man brought food and drink, victuals and punch into the room for Rawson and Smith to dine.

Mr Justice Kelly- “Pray, my good girl, who attended you in the room?”

A.“Mr. Smith’s servant”.
Q. “Who brought your victuals unto you all the time”.
A. “His servant”.
Q. “And pray my good girl, who ate with you”.
A. “Mr. Smith to be sure”.
Q. “You and Smith ate together and breakfasted together?”
A. “We did”.

Sarah testified that she was not permitted to leave the palace until Saturday morning, when she persuaded Smith to allow her to leave to get some clean clothes.  On Saturday morning she returned to her lodgings on Tallaght Commons.

Mr. Mac Nally (Defence)
Q, “When you parted the Captain to go to Mrs Hill’s did he give you anything?”
A. “Not a guinea. He offered me money, but I left it on the bed”.
Q. “How did you get away?”
A. “When he went out, I went under pretense of getting clean clothes”.
Q. “That was what you said to him?”
A. “No, it was not”.
Q. “You say he gave you no money?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Did you never apply to him with Mrs Hill. about a small sum of money?”
A. “No, I did not want money from him, and on my honour I don't believe he had it”.
Q. “Did he ever visit you in Mrs Hill’s?”
A. “One night in his Tantrums”.
Q. “How often did Mrs. Hill apply to him, and get a bottle of brandy?”
A. “No Sir, she did not apply or get a drop of brandy from him”.


The defence called a witness, Mrs. Jane Kane, who had been collecting sprigs in the fields behind the palace at 1pm on the 6th August.  She was examined at length-

Q. “Are you married?”
A. “I am”.  
Q. “What is your husband?”
A. “A labourer”.
Q. “Do you know Miss Rawson?”
A. “I saw her in a field. I know her by sight”.
Q. “Do you know Mr. Smith?”
A. “I know him by sight”.
Q. “Did you ever see them together in a field?"
A. “I did.”
Q. “Is that the field called Reilly's field?”
A. “It is”.
Q. “At the time you say you saw them in that field, in what location were they?”
A. “I saw her first, and looking behind her; and I saw him after, coming over the ditch”.
Q, “On Mr. Smith's coming over the ditch, how did Rawson conduct herself?”
A. “She went easy”.
Q. “With what gait did he cross the field?”
A. “Pretty fast”.
Q. “How long did you see them together?”
A. “About half an hour”.
Q. “What were they doing?”
A. “They were sitting on the grass, throwing little things at one another”.
Q. “You mean they were throwing what they call ‘lumps of love'?”
 A. “Yes, Sir”.
Q. “Did they both get up together?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Were you so situated as that they both could see you?”
A. “Yes, Sir.  I was gathering sprigs.”
Q. “In what manner did they go away?”
A. “I did not see them going".
Q. “Did you see Miss Rawson run and Mr. Smith follow her?”
A. “She was before him”.
Q. “Did you hear anyone cry out while you were in the field?”
A. “No!”


The Labourer, Thomas Dunn
Another Witness, Thomas Dunn, a labourer working in the grounds of the palace was called by the defence to give evidence-

       Q. “Pray what are you?”
A. “A labourer”.
Q. “Were you working near the Bishop’s palace in the beginning of August last?”
A. “I was”.
Q. Can you recollect at any time during that month, seeing Mr. Smith and Miss Rawson together?
A. “I saw him, and a young woman along with him”.
Q. “Where was it you saw them?”
A. “At the back of the barrack, going to the gate”.
Q. “What time in the month of August was it, as nearly as you can guess?”
A. “I cannot be particular”.
Q. “What time of the day was it?”
A. “I believe it was about one o'clock”.
Q. “What day of the week was it?"
A. “It was on a Wednesday”.
Q. “What gate was it you saw them at?”
A. “The Bishop’s gate; going out into the field, for the cattle to go through”.
Q. “Was the gate open or shut when they approached it?”
A. “It was shut and bolted inside”.
Q. “Did you observe them there for any length of time?”
A. “I did. They walked together: and when he came to the gate he found it fast, and he went round to the street and came to the gate; and the very moment she heard the bolt of the gate she was at it before it was open, and as soon as it was open she went in”.
Q. “Did you hear her cry out in the field?”
A. “No: I did not”.


Chief Justice- “What did the young woman do when the prisoner went round to the street?”
A. “She sat down by a tree: but I cannot tell what she did there”.
Q. “Did you ever hear this matter spoken of?”
A. “I did”.
Q. "How soon?"
A. “In two or three days".

Mr. Justice Kelly-  “Did you tell what you saw when you went home?”
A. “No: I did not”.

Sarjeant Lomax, (A Sarjeant in the Palace) was examined by Mr. Mac Nally
Q. “Do you know a young lady of the name of Rawson?”
A. “Yes Sir I do.”
Q. “Did you ever see her in the Bishop’s house, where you are quartered?”
A. “I did, Sir”.
Q. “Can you take upon you to say, as near as you can guess, what time it was you saw her?"
A. “It was about half past eight o'clock in the evening”.
Q “In what months was it?"
A. “In the month of August: in the lawn”.
Q. “What do you mean by the lawn?”
A. “I mean in the front part of the house that is like a court and grass plot.  She came through my room from the stairs, and stayed there a quarter of an hour and came back”.
Q. “You know Mr. Smith of course?”
A. “Yes”.
Q. “Was he at home at this time?”
A. “He was not. He had left the whole charge of the place to me”.
Q. “Did Miss Rawson appear to make any complaint?”
A. “She did not”.
Q. “If she had chosen, might she have left the barrack?”
A. “She might”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Greene.
Q. “Don't you believe the door of the chamber was locked for nearly three days?”
A. “It was not. When Mr. Smith came home he went upstairs.  I followed him as far as the stairs. He rapped at the door, She was in the inside, and asked "Who comes there?" He said "a friend”' and she opened the door and he went in”.
                Q, “Did you ever hear she wanted to get out of the room and could not?”

   A. “I did not”.


Chief Justice- Lord Kilwarden of Newlands House


Chief Justice, Lord Kilwarden-

"Gentlemen of the Jury"-

"I will not take up your time by stating to you at length, the evidence that has been given—The crime of which the prisoner at the bar stands charged is of the most horrid and abominable nature but that, gentlemen of the jury, is to have no weight with you; you are not to look for punishment of the individual, but you are to enquire, whether the prisoner at the bar did feloniously ravish the prosecutor and carnally know her, against her will?  The woman has sworn positively to a fact.  In order to see if she has sworn truly, you are to examine first, the circumstances sworn to,  the manner in which it was sworn, and to see whether under all the circumstances of the case, credit is to be given to what the woman swore.  You are to see if she has been consistent with the account given by the other witnesses that she produced, and to whom she calls on you, to give credit; and if you should find that there has been no inconsistency between them, then you are to try if the witnessed for the prisoner have contradicted her in any of those circumstances she has sworn, so that if they swear true, she must have sworn false; and then you are to enquire as to which species of evidence you will give belief".

(His Lordship then briefly stated the leading features of the account given by the prosecution).


"This, gentlemen of the jury, is the account given by the prosecutor: an account, in my mind, big with a thousand improbable circumstances— If she went willingly with the prisoner to his room in the barrack and remained there for three days, which seems to be the defence he relies upon, the circumstance of locking the door upon her, will require to be explained to your satisfaction.  The entire of the case furnishes a thousand observations to create great hesitation on the minds of the court and the jury.  She is a strong and healthy looking woman, she had a number of fields to pass in a public place and in the middle of the day, and that by force and, if you believe her testimony, against her will.  This will require some consideration before you give entire credit to it. It does not appear that she was a woman overpowered by weakness.  She exhibited no such appearance on the table, nor did she pretend to it…The female frame is strong and nervous and not subject to fear, and particularly strong in one case, and that is in defence of their chastity".

The Jury without hesitation, accordingly brought in their verdict,
NOT GUILTY.

Mr. Smith was immediately discharged from custody

***

After 200 years, it is difficult to judge impartially or dispassionately the merits or weaknesses of the Criminal Justice system in Ireland in the 18th Century. It is impossible to know with any confidence that Justice was rightly done.

There are several observations worth making.  Mr Edward Smith, the alleged perpetrator of the offence was not questioned before the Jury by either the Prosecution or the Defence.  There was nobody questioned more rigorously than the alleged victim, Ms Sarah Rawson.  And almost all other witnesses called, were in the employ of the Palace estate- servants, guards and labourers.

There are few things we can know with any certainty but this: Mr. Edward Smith was tried before a jury of his peers on the charge of rape upon the body of Sarah Rawson; of that charge he was found not guilty. And whatever of Sarah Rawson’s body, within months of her arriving in Tallaght, her reputation, at least, was ruined.  


Albert Perris
Share, like and subscribe
A Ramble About Tallaght 

 For a more comprehensive account see:



Comments

Post a Comment