Editing Tichborne case (section)

{{Short description|1871–74 English legal case}}
{{Redirect|The Tichborne Claimant|the film|The Tichborne Claimant (film){{!}}''The Tichborne Claimant'' (film)}}
{{Featured article}}
{{Pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2019}}
{{Use British English|date=February 2023}}
[[File:TichborneTryptich.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|The blended image (centre) was said by the Claimant's supporters to prove that Roger Tichborne (left, in 1853) and the Claimant (right, in 1874) were one and the same person.{{refn|Photographic evidence was not given weight in the courts because of the belief that such images could be manipulated. The above triptych was assembled after the conclusion of the criminal trial.<ref>McWilliam 2007, pp.&nbsp;45, 197–198</ref>|group= n}}]]

The '''Tichborne case''' was a legal ''[[cause célèbre]]'' that fascinated [[Victorian Britain]] in the 1860s and 1870s. It concerned the claims by a man sometimes referred to as Thomas Castro or as [[Arthur Orton]], but usually termed "the Claimant", to be the missing heir to the [[Tichborne baronets|Tichborne baronetcy]]. He failed to convince the courts, was convicted of [[perjury]] and served a 14-year prison sentence.

Roger Tichborne, heir to the family's title and fortunes, was presumed to have died in a shipwreck in 1854 at age 25. His mother, Lady Tichborne, clung to a belief that he might have survived, and after hearing rumours that he had made his way to Australia, she advertised extensively in Australian newspapers, offering a reward for information. In 1866, a [[Wagga Wagga]] butcher known as Thomas Castro came forward claiming to be Roger Tichborne. Although his manners and bearing were unrefined, he gathered support and travelled to England. He was instantly accepted by Lady Tichborne as her son, although other family members were dismissive and sought to expose him as an impostor.

During protracted enquiries before the case went to court in 1871, details emerged suggesting that the Claimant might be [[Arthur Orton]], a butcher's son from [[Wapping]] in London, who had gone to sea as a boy and had last been heard of in Australia. After a [[Civil law (common law)|civil court]] had rejected the Claimant's case, he was charged with perjury; while awaiting trial he campaigned throughout the country to gain popular support. In 1874, a criminal court jury decided that he was not Roger Tichborne and declared him to be Arthur Orton. Before passing a sentence of 14 years, the judge condemned the behaviour of the Claimant's counsel, [[Edward Kenealy]], who was subsequently [[disbarment|disbarred]] because of his conduct.

After the trial, Kenealy instigated a popular radical reform movement, the Magna Charta Association, which championed the Claimant's cause for some years. Kenealy was elected to Parliament in 1875 as a radical independent but was not an effective parliamentarian. The movement was in decline when the Claimant was released in 1884, and he had no dealings with it. In 1895, he confessed to being Orton, only to recant almost immediately. He lived generally in poverty for the rest of his life and was destitute at the time of his death in 1898. Although most commentators have accepted the court's view that the Claimant was Orton, some analysts believe that an element of doubt remains as to his true identity and that, conceivably, he was Roger Tichborne.