The Cardiff Times

-THE GREAT TICHBORNE TRIAL. The base of Tichborne T. Lushington was resumed on ,"Monday morning,, in the Court of Queen's Bench, West- minster* (by adjournment from the Sessions House), jkefore Lord Chief Justice Bovill and a. Middlesex special dmy. The Attorney-General, continuing his address for the ^defence, read an affidavit made by Mrs. Jury and }Mrs. Tredgett, in June 1868, saying that their brother jEdmund had not been heard of for two years, and was then jin Mexico. Their brother Arthur Orton left England in .1852, and was in England in 1861, since which time he had written from Waega-Wagga, and since that in Octo- ber 1867, from Freemantle, in Western Australia. Those letters had been sent to their brother, Captain George Orton. Now, the Jury had seen the first of those letters, but not the second. Detective Whicher had called on the women to make inquiries about Henry Orton; but they said they had no brother of that name. He shewed them photographs which they could not recognise, and wished to borrow a photograph of Edmund, which they would not lend him. "Whicher wished them to go to Mr. Dobinson's office, but they declined. Whicher made inquiries of other people. The sisters saw the plaintiff, and they distinctly swore that he was not their brother Arthur, who was pitted with smallpox. The defendants thought at first that it was a Harry Orton who was wanted, and it would be true that Whicher called upon those women. Mr. Dobinson also had an interview with them, and he would tell the jury what transpired. It would be remembered that in the Wagga-Wagga letter, Arthur Orton, or whoever signed it in that name, said he had heard nothing from any of them since 1854, so that Mrs. Tredgettta assertion that she had seen him in 1861 was inaccurate. It was a direct contradiction of her state- ment, and when she swore her affidavit she had no suspicion this letter would be forthcoming. His (the Attorney-General's) suspicion was that the letter was not written at the time the affidavit was sworn, as she would scarcely have sworn that she had seen her brother in 1861. If they got the letter in 1866, it was strange that it did not reach Captain George Orton's hands until the latter part of 1868. Besides, the letter was not like the -rly caligraphy of the plaintiff, although undoubtedly it was an Orton letter, having all the peculiarities of Orton's style. But the jury would probably agree that it was written by the plaintiff after he had made himself acquainted with Roger Tichborne's handwriting. The Jury pointed out that the water-mark was that of 1866. The Attorney-General contended that it was a most mysterious epistle, it contradicted the affidavit, and had no envelope. It was not written on Australian, but English, paper, and the maker had no Australian connection that he was aware of. Moreover, the trader who sold it had been found, and he was a dealer in the city. He would tell the jury that he recognised his private mark on the paper. Fault was found because he (the Attorney-General) assumed that the other side did not know about the existence of the letter, and perhaps this about the paper was also known to them. He was in the dark, and did not know how to argue on the point; but ihe supposed that some explanation would be forthcoming, (although he could not imagine what it could be. If this letter went out to Singapore, where were the envelopes in which it went out and returned ? Did the jury believe, (however, that this was really the letter pre- isented by the plaintiff as Stephens at Christmas, |1866 ? The plaintiff had fenced with ques- ftions about it with amazing ingenuity, as the Attorney- General was questioning him in the dark, and he evinced a remarkable degree of low cunning. Now, how- ever, it had come out: but if there was a proper explana- tion of its existence, why did not the plaintiff then acknow- ledge it and give the explanation ? He had evidently written it in the place of a still more damaging letter sent to Mrs. Tredgett, who replied claiming him as her brother. But there was nothing in this letter to lead her to such a con- clusion. Besides, it would have been awkward for the plaintiff, when in the box, to explain how Orton came to speak of Stephens in Wagga-Wagga. It was not known whether Stephens was a myth or not; but if he was not a myth, how was it he was not called to explain his share in the matter ? The reading of the plaintiff's cross-examina- tion on this point would take a long time, and therefore the Attorney-General merely directed the attention of the jury to the place at whlch they would find it. The Attorney-General put in a letter of January, 1854, and contended that the character of Roger Tichborne's handwriting was wonderfully preserved, after his school- boy days, down to the latest letter he wrote. He asked the jury to compare this letter with one written by the plain- tiff, and commencing My dear Cosing Kate," and say whether they were written by the same man. As to the later letters of the plaintiff, they might contain some of the salient features of the early letters of Roger Tichborne, which he would see after his arrival in England. Therefore, the best com- parison would be between the latest letters of Roger Tich- borne and the first letters that the plaintiff wrote from Australia. They must take into account, however, that the AVagga-Wagga and Sydney letters would be super- vised by persons having a better education than himself. There was a similarity between Arthur Orton's and the plaintiff's handwriting, but a great dissimilarity between the plaintiff's and Roger Tichborne's, the latter being a peculiar style, foreign in character, and not at all common- place. Roger Tichborne always formed his C with a loop, bringing the letter above the loop, dmd it was in its elements more like an E. ¡In the claimant's letters the loop was always below the top of the C. Other peculiarities having been pointed lout, the Attorney-General contended that the handwritblgs -were shewn to be dissimilar both in general resemblance tend details. The defects in spelling were next alluded to, pmd undoubtedly there were many such errors of spelling jin the 1> tiers of Roger Tichborne, the plaintiff, and .Arthur Orton: but there were fourteen or fifteen words j written by Arthur which were misspelt; and in the ^plaintiff's letters, especially the early ones, they were mis- jspelt in the same way: while they were netfer s& misspelt by Roger Charges Tichborne. If that were so, where did he ,1earn the misspelling of those words? Did he learn them during his stay in Australia from Arthur Orton over their cups? They spelt "received" as "receved," "few" as fue (except in the plaintiff's later letters), "like "as "lick," "anything" as "anythink," "were" as "ware," children" as "chillllren," whether as weather," "signteA" as siiied," Elizab^h" as "Eliza berth," going" as "agoing," "accept" as except," "friends" as "frinds," and nothing^ as nothink." None of those were so mis- spelt by Roger Tichborne. Other similar peculiarities having been pointod out, the Attorney-General said there were numerous other mistakes made by the plaintiff, and not by Roger Tichborne. He then came to phrases common to Orton and the plaintiff. Orton wrote "it bear the cross," while the plaintiff wrote "it bear the Doughty and Tichborne crest." The Wagga- Wagga letters also had It many years since," &c. They both wrote since I been," "has" for as," wrote for written," see" for saw," and so on. They used the singular number for the plural, and missed out the apostrophised s when the noun or pronoun was in the possessive. They both used a small i" occasionally for the personal pronoun, while Roger Tichborne never did so. When Roger Tichborne wished to insert a word which had been omitted in writing, he made a cross, and put in the word above; while the plaintiff made no mark, and put the word in below. The dates were also remarkable. The plaintiff never wrote the full figures for the year. but put '(i7 for 1867, which was also done by Orton; but Roger Tichborne, with one exception, always put the full number of figures. Orton and the plaintiff also wrote out a sum of money in full, while Roger Tichborne put it in figures. The aggregate of this evidence was of enormous value: and then they must consider the mental peculiarities of the letters, which shewed so great a dissimilarity. Roger Tichborne's were those of a well-educated gentleman, of which nobody need be ashamed, while those of the others were those of a low-born and low-mannered person, unaccustomed to the society of gentlemen. It was untrue that the plain- tiff was in the bush for years without being in any human society, for he lived principally in large villages and towns in the company of respectable tradesmen. That would have kept up his- civilisation. The Court then adjourned for the examination of the plaintiff's finger and for luncheon. On the reassembling of the Court, The Attorney-General expressed his pleasure that the jury had seen the small mark on the plaintiff's finger. The surgeons would tell them that the plaintiff had originally told them it was the result of the pressure of a ring; and they would also tell them that to- day it bore the same appearance which was that of something having been removed. It was on the little finger of the right hand. If the outer cuticle had been removed, it would grow again and make such a depres- sion and if there had been such a mark as one of the Aus- tralian witnesses deposed to, and that had been cut out, it would leave such a mark as was on the plaintiff's finger. They now came to deal with the story of the sealed packet and the attack on Mrs. Radcliffe. They would first con- sider how the attack was made, and then the real facts of the case. Overwhelming evidence would be given to crush this foul and detestable slander. It was an absolute and wicked fabrication on the part of the claimant. On the 24th of December, 1851, Roger Charles Tichborne came to stay at Tichborne, and he stayed until the 12th of January, 1852. On the 11th, Sir Edward and Lady Doughty became aware of his attentions to his cousin, and on the 12th he was sent away in a hur- ried manner. Sir Edward became very ill at the end of that month, and on the 30th of January Roger Tichborne came back, staying .until the 11th of February. iHe then left, and went away with a sort 10f hope that he might marry his cousin, •but with her father and mother against him. In 'June he saw Lady Doughty and her daughter in London, where he stayed for about a week. On the 19th of June lie went with them to Tichborne, where there was a small family gathering. On the 22nd, Sir Edward and Lady Doughty, finding that his habits were objectionable, broke off the engagement, and sepa- rated him from his cousin, and from that date he never saw one of them again. The sealed packet was given to Mr. Gosford on the first" of those visits. The claimant came back to this country in 1866. He had" learnt very early that Mr; Gosford was an in- timate friend' of Roger Tichborne, and would be one of the most valuable aids his case could have. Mr. Gosford was then a needy man, and had got into trouble thrtmgh sink- ing capital in some waste land. He was behindhand in his payments to the Doughty trustees by some thousands of pounds. The letters sent by Mr. Robertson Gladstone shewed what Mr. and Mrs. Gosford thought of the case. Mrs. Gosford was exceedingly anxious that Mr. Gosford; should recognisVthe plaintiff, as that would put an end: to their troubles>&n& if; he-could conscientiously have done so, he would1. The Court after the Lord Chief Justicahad said that he did not propbse&to sit on the day of the General^ Thanksgiring^ftrtrhe.l'ecovery^of the Prince- of Wales. TUESDAYS ..13 II The case^lichbornetv." Lushington was resumed on Tuesday morning, at the Court of Queen's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Bovill and- a Middlesex special jury. The Attorney-General corrected a mistake he had made on tha-preyipaa evening, as the -plaintiff had. re&Hrjgajd^ declined to state the~ contents of the sealed packet, and he had been misled by an error in the printed notes. But the observation would arise that the plaintiff never stated the contents of the documents until Mr. Gosford swore that he had destroyed the packet. The plaintiff then gave his version, when he thought he could not be contradicted, but he was not aware that Mrs. Radcliffe had a duplicate of the paper. The plaintiff, in his examination, declined to repeat the contents of the sealed packet, but said he was quite able to do so, and there the matter then stopped. It was a miserable affectation of gentlemanlike conduct, as the plaintiff had already imparted the contents of the packet to others, whom he invited to help him to keep the secret; and preciously well they kept it, for it waa known in every part of the kingdom where the case was men- tioned. It was not fair for the other side to throw upon the defence the onvs of bringing out the plaintiff's account of the packet; and Mr. Giffard ought either to have had all the story brought out, or else left it alone altogether. They felt this to be a crucial test in the case, and they knew when the question would come up. The night before the plaintiff went over the charge again with Mr. Spofforth, and wrote it down. This document pro- fessed to be a verbativi copy of the instructions left with Mr. Gosford, and was dated November, 1852, at Cheriton. It was better written and expressed than earlier documents. It was a sad result of this case that men could be found to really think that this man had the manners of a gentleman. If so, how easy it was to learn what distinguished the manners of a gentleman from those of the uncultivated. To hear this man talk, and to watch his demeanour, one would say he had never been within 100 miles of a gentleman, and yet people had declared that his conduct in the box was fine, and that his disclaimer of having been prompted—"on the honour of a gentle- man"—told highly in his favour. He (the Attorney- General) was afraid that he himself was not familiar with the upper circle where such manners obtained. The examination of the plaintiff as to his rela- tions with Miss Doughty was then read. He said his atten- tions were distasteful to her father, and that was manifested in the latter part of 1852, after which he did not go so often. In cross-examination he said he meant it was in July, 1852, that he found his attentions were distasteful to Sir Edward Doughty. That was when he found that the end of that year would not do. He said that he was paying his attentions to Miss Hailes, of Canterbury, at the time, but it had been shewn that he never paid any attentions to Miss Hailes, and he wrote to her to apologise for having mentioned her name in Court. This was the Don Quixote before whom the greatest English gentlemen paled their ineffectual fires He forgot whether he ever wrote to his cousin; but could the jury conceive of the author of those pathetic and tender letters, which had been read, forgetting them ? Bogle and other servants would know of the breaking off of the engagement; but they would not know the particulars of the interviews between Roger Tichborne and his relations; and it was just on those particulars that he broke down. He spoke of having been at Tichborne afterwards; but the fact was that Roger Tichborne never could be induced to visit the family again. He spoke of seeing Miss Doughty in the village, but professed a reluctance to say anything more about it, although the fellow had instructed his counsel to open that there was a story to be brought out. He said he gave the sealed packet to Gosford alter his final parting with his cousin in November, 1852, and he left no private wishes or intentions with Gosford except the sealed packet, but the jury would remark that Roger Tichborne's letters, in which he spoke of his private wishes and intentions left with Gosford, were dated January, 1852. He said that the event he knew had not happened was his death, and the event he hoped had not happened was the confinement of Miss Doughty, as he seduced her at the mill in July or August, 1852. At first, he professed reluctance to say anything about it, and said it would be on the head of the Attorney-General. Every honourable man must feel unutterable contempt and scorn for such a ruffian! The otters of Roger Tick-home referred to the sealed directions several months before the date of the alleged seduction but the plaintiff did not know the date of Roger Tichborne's letter on which he was cross-examined. The plaintiffs account of having received a rosary and a ring from Miss Doughty was quite wrong: as were also his statements of certain presents to her. Mrs. Radcliffe would be prepared to deny most solemnly the plaintiff's story, and she would be one of the first witnesses to be examined for the defence. she would give her evidence at great risk, as she was about to become a mother and she would dare the learned serjeant to cross-examine her in any manner he pleased. It was not for him (the Attorney General) to sing the praises of this lady, but if at any time he desired to point to an example of how a woman could be modest and courageous, mingling gentleness with firmness, he would recall the conduct of Mrs. Radcliffe in the Sessions House at Westminster. If he displayed emotion, it was because he felt it, and if any of the jury had stood in his place, they would have done the same as he had done. And now to destroy this vile calumny. In June, 1852, Roger Tichborne and his cousin met for the last time,, and then the engagement was provisionally broken off. A number of letters which he wrote to Lady Doughty were then read, shewing that he loved his cousin devotedly, but only wished for her happiness, and would agree to her marriage with someone else if she wished ic. This was on the first breaking off of the engagement, in January, 1852; but in February he went away under more favourable auspices, and then there were II. number of letters between that time and his next visit to Tichborne. Lady Doughty's letters were also read, encouraging him in his endeavours to resist the temptation of drinking and other vices. He had been in the habit of reading questionable French works, about which she warned him, and she was unwilling to trust the happiness of her young and innocent daughter to him until he got rid of all his bad habits. Serjeant Ballantine asked if the letters had been put In ? The Attorney-General said that all had been put in except Lady Doughty's and they would be put in. Serjeant Ballantine expressed himself as being perfectly satisfied. At this point Serjeant Ballantine made an application that the Court should adjourn from the 25th of March until near the end of the following week, as Kingston Assizes would be on at that time. His Lordship thought there ought to be some adjourn- ment, as they had been sitting for a long time now. As it was a question whether that adjournment should be for seven or eleven days, he would leave it to the jury for their decision. The Foreman said they should like to talk it over during luncheon time. The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On the re-assembling of the Court, His Lordship said the question of the adjournment for Easter was a little premature; but The Foreman of the Jury said they were desirous that it should be for a fortnight. His Lordship observed that it was still his opinion that it was premature to make the arrangements. Serjeant Ballantine said that although his lordship had intimated that it would be in abeyance for the present, he should act upon it as so arranged. (Laughter.) The Attorney-General then°resumed his reading of the correspondence, which, he contended, proved the alibi, that Roger Tichborne was never at Tichborne after the 15th of June, 1852, when the engagement was broken off. This was a month or <> two before the date of the alleged seduction. Many of the letters to Gosford spoke of his feelings towards his aunt after the breaking off of the engagement. He spoke of giving up the army, and living in Hampshire, to which Lady Doughty objected, as necessitating an explanation of the reason why he did not visit at Tichborne. For some time Roger Tichborne held to his intention of living in Hampshire, and at last Lady Doughty offered Upton to him. That was the reason of his spending his last winter in England at Upton, where he re- mained during the hunting season. Other letters, con- taining the most honourable sentiments, were read. The closing letter of the correspondence was from Lady Doughty, and was dated the 23th of October. She said that she had explained to his father the desire of Sir Edward and herself that there should be nothing more at that time than cousinly consideration between the young people. The jury should be satisfied that there could not have been a time, without a miracle, when Roger Charles Tichborne could have been at Tichborne, and could have been guilty of the wickedness which the plaintiff imputed to him. All the dates were inconsistmt with the story told by the plaintiff, who said he was at Tichborne, off and on as before, after the engagement was broken off. But there was an unbroken correspondence, in which there were not ten days without a letter from Roger Tichborne from some other place, although the plaintiff declared he had been at Tichborne for ten days before the alleged seduc- tion. Serjeant Ballantine had taken this as a crucial test, and challenged its investigation, admitting that if it were confuted his client was an imposter. The challenge had been taken up, the story was confuted, upon his own shewing, the learned serjeant's client was a rascal, and was an impostor. (Applause, which was immediately suppressed.) The Attorney-General then read a letter written by Roger Tichborne from South America, and said that shortly afterwards he embarked on board of the Bella, and was drowned. So ended the life of Roger Charles Tichborne in a dark and melancholy manner. In the time of Elizabeth there was another Tichborne, who got into Babington's conspiracy, and was executed on Tower Hill. Concerning his death were a few excellent lines, which were said by some to have been written by Sir Walter Raleigh, but which, in the excellent book of the elder Disraeli, were ascribed to their rightful author, the subject of them. Those lines of Chidiock Tichborne might be .read as the character and epitaph of Roger Tichborne:- My prime of youth is but a frost of cares; My feast of joy is but a dish of pain; My crop of corn is but a field of tares; And all my good is but vain hope of gain. The day is fled, and yet I saw no sun; And now I live, and now my life is done. My spring'is past, and yet it hath not sprung; The fruit is dead, and yet the leaves are green; My youth is past, and yet I am but young; I saw the world, and yet I was not seen. My thread is cut, and yet 'tis hardly spun; And now I live, and now- my life is done." The Attorney-General resumed his seat amidst applause. In reply to Counsel, the jury expressed a desire to sit on Friday next, as the Attorney-General would have finished his speech before that time. The Court then rose. "WE i) N E S D AY. CONCLUSION OF THE ATTOr.lsEY-GENERAL'S SPEECH. NINETY-SIXTH DAY. The case of TicEbonie v" Lushington was resumed on Wednesday morning at the Court of Queen's Bench, "before Lord Chief Justice Bovill and a. Middlesex special jury. The Attorney-General said he was happy to think ha was approaching the end of his wearisome speech; and he should now make observations upon the conduct of the case from the beginning. In doing so, he disclaimed all :al feeling, or any desire to add fuel to any discord which might exist between counsel on the other side and himself. Therefore, so far as he had to comment upon the conduct of those engaged on the other side, it would only be to shew that it was in consequence of such conduct that the imposture had dragged its length along so far. The task of couusel on the other side must have been neither easy nor pleasant, and it was due to them to say that they had great difficulties to contend with. Whatever he said was er ammo, and he should continue to speak in the same spirit. Proof had been given, by reading extracts, and the jury would judge whether the remarks had been too strong. If a gentleman thought he had gone beyond the line, he could not say so too soon; and to make an attack in public and an apo- logy in private was not the act of a gentleman, but the act of a blackguard. If he had been supposed to suggest that c miisel on the other side had acted dishonourably, he must ga;* that he never had any such intention; but when he had commented upon passages which had been read, it was for the learned Serjeant to shew by argument that the inference drawn was unjust. He never intended to make any improper imputations, and whatever might be the result of the case he wanted the truth now to be thoroughly understood. Having said so much, he should proceed to draw attention to matters of which he thought he had cause to complain. At the same time he did not know what the instructions had been on the other side, and that must be borne in mind. He said he had already pointed out the manner in which the case had been got up and now he should comment on the way in which it had been got up out of court and in court. Thi sending of the affi- davits out to influence eviuence was an irregular and an unfair proceeding where the question was one of identity. Scarcely a witness saw the plaintiff, except by appointment, time being given for preparation. Then, when certain things were known by the other side to be false, no intimation was given to the defendants, who were left to find out the facts for themselves. It was a discreditable thing, for instance, for anybody to allow Cator's affidavit to be used when he knew that it was given upon false information. The people who were roally interested on the other side, not including the plaintiff, which would be bad enough, were speculators and money-lenders, who hoped to get extravagant interest for their money. If they had believed in the plaintiff's case they would not have required 60 or 70 per cent. for thoir money. It was a scheme to defraud the rightful owners of their inheritance; or at any rate to inflict misery upon them and cripple their estates. They speculated upon getting a verdict by lavish expenditure, and it was a nefarious conspiracy upon their part. It was like a man dealing in stolen property, who might succeed, but who deserved the execration and reprobation of all honest men. They dare not call one of the confiden- tial attorneys, who must know the case better than any- body else. At every stage the question of privilege" was interposed to prevent information being given. There was not an attorney who had not dropped the plaintiff from the beginning, speaking broadly. Mr. Gibbs said if Tichborne had been an officer, the plaintiff was a scoundrel, and ought to have fifteen years on the roads. Yet it was proved that Roger Tichborne was an officer. The next attorney was Mr. Holmes, who threw up the case after the plaintiff's refusal to face the Chili Commis- sion, and said his client was pretty much an impostor. The next was Mr. Moojen, who dropped the plaintiff just after the Themis story. Then it came into the hands of 1\1essrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton and such a case was never heard of before, as a member of the firm threatening to break up the partnership rather than be mixed up in such a case, and when he found he could not do so, he withdrew from the case, together with his son. That was long before the revelation of the Orton letter, and was just five days after he (the Attorney-General) began to address the jury. Mr. Rose felt the ground slipping from under him. and as a man of character to the world, he publicly dissolved his connection with this case. What was it made him do so? It must have been something, the blackness of which they did not know. The firm was Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Mr. Rose said that Messrs. Baxter and Norton were honourable men. If so, they must have some qualms of conscience on the same point whieh influenced Mr. Rose. He was bound, in the interest of his partners, to swallow all that he could swallow, unless the most stringent necessity compelled him to take the step he had. Now, how had the case been conducted been conducted in Court? No doubt, the learned Serjeant was acting upon instructious of which he was the sole judge. No doubt they justified to his mind the course he took, of subjecting people on the other side to vituperative attacks—accusing them of a deliberate conspiracy in the Orton case, and he refused to withdraw that charge when appealed to, saying that he had information before him, and had an opinion of his own. The other side, at that time, knew all that the jury now knew—they knew that the plaintiff him- self had put the defendants on the Orton track —and yet they instructed the learned serjeant to declare that the Orton case was a conspiracy, Was there the smallest pretence for such a charge ? Would not every juryman, if separately appealed to as a gentle- man over a glass of wine, say at once that this man was Arthur Orton ? Then the defendants were charged with having hounded the Dowager to death; and whoever instructed the learned serjeant to say so instructed him with an impudent fabri- cation, for there had not been a shadow of evidence to support it, and it would be shewn to be utterly false. As to the Chili Commission, the learned serjeant was in- structed to charge Mr. Purcell with suborning and mani- pulating the witnesses to whom the plaintiff had referred. If an attack of the sort was made, there ought to be some evidence to prove it. and they oug-ht not to wait for the cross-examination of Mr. Purcell to support it. Gibbs had been charged with being drunken; but no evi- dence of it was given. It was said because Mr. Gibbs had given damaging evidence against the plaintiff, who dared not swear to the charge which he instructed his counsel to make. Chatillon's character was attacked in a similar manner, and the plaintiff shrunk from swearing to it. Jules Barron was represented as a thief; but the plaintiff did not dare to say so in the box. He made the attack on the chance of Barron being dead. Gosford had also been vilified, as they had heard, without evidence being called in support of it. Serjeant Ballantine was too manly to come forward now and answer this by saying that the Attorney-General made a personal attack upon himself. He was an honourable man, who contended in a straightforward manner, and would not make a general reply in this way. Having glanced at the outside attacks upon himself for having spoken strongly about the conduct of the case, the Attorney- General contended that it was unfair for the plaintiff's advisers to put a number of honourable witnesses as to identity into the box before they examined the plaintiff himself, in spite of the remon- strances of his lordship and the jury. It was done to throw a halo of respectability about the case. It was ex- ceedingly discreditable, too, to allow Mr. Scott to go into the box under the impression that the letters pro- duced at the Alresford meeting were forgeries, and had not been written by the plaintiff. After twelve days the plaintiff was actually forced into the box, and then Mr. Giffard examined him from a proof which the plaintiff himself had furnished. Yet the matters mentioned he had laid before Mr. Locock Webb in 1867, and the-most of them had been compiled from information obtained from the head-quarters of the regiment. Did the jury believe a word of the plaintiff having been ill in the box ? The cross-examination was made as unpleasant as possible, and it had a tonic effect upon him. It was an attempt to impose upon the Court; and whenever an attempt was made to get anything out of him, the plea of privilege was raised; but privilege would not be a good plea where conspiracy was charged. Why should there be privilege, unless they wished to conceal something which was black, dishonourable, and vile ? Doubtless, if Mr. Holmes had been called, they would have pleaded privilege again, and little woidd have been got out of him. There was a ride of law that a witness was not bound to answer a question which might place him in a criminal dock, and time after time the plaintiff declined to answer questions on that ground. He admitted that he had been accused of bushranging, and admitted attempting to swindle Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Drummond, trying to obtain money by false pretences, and being friendly with Toke, the murderer. What was it, then, that he did not wish to admit ? It must have been something uncommonly black, and worse than what he had admitted. The questions put to him were for the purpose of investigating where he had been and what he had been doing. He pretended to rely upon certain marks for proofs of identity, but an examination of his body was persistently refused until a later stage of the case, when it was comparatively useless though still of great importance. The truth was that the plaintiff dared not then submit himself to an examination, as he would be unable to square the marks, in their then state, with the story he told. Privilege was also claimed when his corre- spondence with Arthur Orton was inquired into. That might be that he and Arthur Orton had been guilty of felony together; or that there was no such correspondence. Probably both were true—that he, Arthur Orton, was guilty of felony in the name of Castro, and that there consequently could be no correspondence with himself. Then there were perpetual interrup- tions, which gave the plaintiff the opportunity of considering his answers; and there were people around prompting him. There were important matters kept back as long as possible. The Orton letters were given up piecemeal, and probably they had not been all given up yet. The letters left with Dawson in Sydney had not been forthcoming; but if they had been, did the jury not believe that they would have been practically destructiva of the plaintiff's case? The fragmentary correspondence shewed that some were kept back; and, in the words of Lord Mansfield, they had a right to assume everything against a man who could produce something and did not do so. There had been wholesale suppression of evidence in this case; if it were an honest case, why was this so ? Mr. Holmes had not been called; yet, if this was a conspiracy he must know it. He must know whether the plaintiff was a rascal and an impostor, or an honest man. He must know whether it was an honest case or a. scandalous and dishonest one. It was repeatedly said that he should be called, and that all the letters he had should be produced. Even up to the 9th of November 1871 it was said he would be produced, and on that footing the other side had proceeded. Baigent's letter shewed that it was fear of cross-examination on Holmes's bill which prevented him being called, and as soon as that letter was read it was intimated that Holmes would not be called. In the case of Overend, Gurney, and Co., where a number of perfectly honourable men were indicted, the attorney was called, from him a full account of the whole transaction was "ot and it per- fectly exonerated the prisoners. Did anybody suppose that if he (the Attorney-General) had not dared to put the attorney into the box, the special jury would not have laughed in his face when he asked them to acquit his clients ? In this case, the defendants said it was a nefarious conspiracy, of which Holmes was for three years the mainspring, and they asked the learned serjeant to put Holmes into the box to refute it. In any other case Holmes's presence in the box would be essential. He was the man who could negative the charge of conspiracy if any body could, and yet they had not thought proper to call him. The jury would place their own construction upon this. In the calling of wit- nesses there was no order to tell a story coherently. Mr. Gibbs was examined in Australia, and the plaintiffs advisers did not read his evidence; they did not call Mr. Mooien nor did they call Mr. SnofFortb, who Dnøht to have been exsmfned aDout Catoi*s afliuavTt. It was diffi- cult to know how he could submit to keep out of the box in the face of these matters. An explanation of Cator's affida- vit, and of Mr. Scott having been allowed to go into the Court in ignorance, was promised. Mr. Spofforth was the only person who could give it, and he had not been called. Wood, the gardener, had given evidence as to the planting of soma trees; but he wrote afterwards to Baxter, Rose, and Norton, to say that he withdrew, and that his evidence must be considered as null and void. Mr. Wood sent a. copy of his letter to the defendants. The other side had never given any notice of that to the jury. The date of the letter was the 22nd of January, the day when Mr. Rose retired from the case. They did not know how many similar letters had been sent to Mr. Spofforth, who did not come forward to give any explanation. It could not be made now by Mr. Spofforth, who knew all except the last letter before the Attorney-General commenced his ad- dress. No wonder that Mr. Rose went qut of the case, and shook the dust off his feet against it. Mr. Spofforth well knew that if he came into the box, he would be cross-examined as to the whole of the case, and have to answer very awkward questions. Mr. Cubitt knew all about Mr. Castro, and ho was called in Australia, but they dare not read his evidence. Mr. Arthur Cubitt was in this country, and they dare not call him. Mrs. Gibbs was not called either. Mr. Leet, who introduced the plaintiff to Holmes, and was present at the first mysterious interview with the Dowager, was also kept back. Wit- nesses connected with the Burton Constable story were not called; nor was Major Stillman nor Mr. McEvoy, M.P., for Meath. The latter would be called for the defence. Captain Pinckney was not called; but his clerical brother was called. Norris, the Dowager's at- torney, was not called, although the Attorney- General was burning to cross-examine him about his bill. (Laughter.) Where were Stubbs and Huggins ? (Laughter.) Mr. Chabot had not been called, although he had furnished the other side with a proof con- cerning handwriting. The Messrs. Vining, the owners of the Bella, were not called, althought the jury invitod their presence. The invitation was declined by Serjeant Ballantine, but accepted by the Attorney-General. There was not a solitary Parisian called, although Roger Tich- borne lived in Paris for so many years. Of Stoneyhurst witnesses there was only poor,dear Mr. Meyrick called but if his powers of mind had been the same as when the Attorney- General knew him at Oxford, he would not have made the observations he did in the witness-box. Why was the Superior of Stoneyhurst not called ? The plaintiff did not dare to go there for fear he had to face someone who knew the early Roger Tichborne. There was a mass of Chilian evidence, not one line of which did the other side read, although the witnesses were those to whom the plaintiff referred them. They every one contradicted him, although none were cross- examined to shew that they had been tampered with. The story true of Chili was also true of Australia, a.s the plaintiff's account of his Australian life was nega- tived by all the witnesses except the prisoner Kemmis. If would take a lot of money to buy the 113 Australian witnesses, and there was no pretence for saying they had been bought. No single piece of evidence was completed; but the door was in each case now closed. The officers called on the other side were not the intimate friends of Roger Tichborne; those would be called for the defence. Not a single member of the family or connection was called, except Mr. Bid- dulph and Sir Talbot Constable. The members of the family and the most intimate friends of Roger Tichborne would be called. They had seen this nif.n in the box, and had heard the stoiy learnt by him subjected to cross-examination. They had formed a judg- ment which, unless the jury thought it was corrupt, was formed, under the most favourable circumstances. Serjeant Ballantine had said that there was no record of a man having endeavoured to personate another iiuiu whom he had not seen, and Arthur Orton had never seen Roger Tichborne; but the learned ser- jeunt had surely not read of Perkin Warbeck, who per- sonated the Duke of York after the latter had been evroute;! in the Tower, Xow for some observations upon the conduct of the plaintiff himself. He represented that he told Mr. Radcliffe that his relations with Mrs. Radcliffe should be sacred between them; but that was just wbat Tichborne would not have said. He refused to an- swer questions about the games he played at school, as being unpleasant to speak about in public. In many cases he professed a delicacy to mention the names of ladies, and throughout assumed an air of gentlemanly feeling which was spurious. The name of the priest to whom he confessed was also withheld through delicacy;" but the real reason was that he did not know the name. He did not even know the Pere Lefevre, to whom he really confessed, when confronted with him. He did give the name of one priest, but added He's dead, so you cant call him;" so that he had no delicacy about mentioning the names of dead people, only living ones. (Laughter.) He also npolo- gised for having called Lord Clarendon merely "Clarendon." Those were specimens of the high-bred, chivalric, and knightly temper of the plaintiff; but he had another side, li :< :11 perfect men. There were pcr80ns whom he tln-ew dirt upon, such as Chatillon, Mrs. Nangle, Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Gosford, Mr. Plowdcn, Captain Fraser, Lord St. Lawrence, Mr. Watson, the Chili witnesses, Jules Barron, Gibbs, Mr. Henry Seymour, Major Bott, Major Batty, Lady Doughty, and the whole of the TichLome family and connections, Mr. Store Smith, M". Tucker, and Mr. Stevens. Now, it was very hard on Mr. S't„vens. whose card he got, and whoso name he made of. to call him a spy. Those honourable and inde- ;•» l: lent people were attacked because ho knew rh -y were coming against him. He also said that Mr. Bowker offered £ 1,000 to his servant to poison him. (Laughter.') Then t!) -re was the foul, base, and disgraceful attack on Mw. [i-i !cii!fe. The man whom the plaintiff had most maligned —:n Roger Tichborne, the man of honourabb feelings and unrequited love, who had found the j>e»ce denied him by this world beneath the nuiet waters of the Atlantic. Serjeant Ballantine had «s*id that if the plaintiff was not the real man, he was the auther of one of the most atrocious impostures eve r concocted by the mind of mortal man. It was shewn that he was not the real man, and therefore he was "what the learned serjeant had described hiu. He had shewn himself capable of putting forwnrd such a fraud if he thought there was a chance of his being successful. The Dowager had been a dupe from the be- ginning: and at first the plaintiff thought the Dowager was fraudulently inviting his claim. When he found thatjwas not 30, he dressed his conduct and his case accordingly. Baigent and Moore had given them the character of the Dowager, who might easily have been imposed upon in this matter. 1\0 one could tell what were her feelings while associated with him in this country, mixed up with this ruflian for months, and subject to doubts, under which she sank anil died. That, was more likely to be true than the utter fabrication that the defendants had hunted her to death. Certain friends of the real Roger had been imposed upcii by gipsy arts. The jury had been shewn how and by whom:this had been done. One, at least, of the witnesses had since written to withdraw his evidence, and they did not know how many more had really changed their minds. In reply to his lordship, Mr. Giffard, Q.C., said it had been thought better not to interrupt, but to place the letter before the Court as soon as the Attorney-General had finished. The Attorney-General, resuming his address, said the plaintiff fell into thousands of hopeless blunders, many of which had yet to be exposed. Of the real character of the sealed packet, or of its date, he knew nothing. Ho fixed impossible dates for both it and the alleged seduction. Ho did not know that Roger Tichborne had given to Mrs. Radcliffe a copy of the contents of the sealed packet, which she had kept sacred until she was compelled to pro- duce it in vindication of her fair fame. He made a charge which Roger Tichborne would have died rather than have allowed to be wrung from him. The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On the re-assembling of the court, The Attorney-General continued his summary of the contradictions he should have to offer to the plaintiffs case Of the 113 Australian witnesses, only one, a crimi- nal, confirmed the plaintiff in terms; and the rest were as conclusive against him as were the Chilian witnesses. The evidence to which he appealed was examined, and his case broke down under it. Then came the physical portion of the story. The plaintiff was altogether un- like the descriptions they had of Roger Charles Tichborne. There was not a member of the family but Mr. Biddulph who would not tell them that it was impossible that the plaintiff could be Roger Tichborne. He would be contradicted by a number of honourable and respectable people, from Paris, Stoneyhurst, Ireland, and many other parts, who would denounce him as an impostor. And he was really contra- dicted by the absence of the various attorneys in the cage This W3. the general outline of the case. If necessary, multitudes would be called to siablish the Orton case, but he should not enter upon that unless driven to it. He wished he could make a peroration, as if ever there was a case which deserved one this was it. He had endeavoured to keep close to fact, and make every statement on evidence; then to address exhortations to gentlemen like the jury would be idle They had done their duty in a manner to earn the admiration of all. A graver responsibility was never cast upon a jury. A great estate and the name of an ancient family depended upon them. Was the estate to be wasted, and the family degraded by a man whom he described before, and would now again des- cribe as a conspirator, perjurer, forger impostor, slanderer, and villain. (Suppressed applause.) The hopes of the great and ancient house were centred in the little child, for whom he (the Attorney-General) asked their verdict. He only asked tor what was just and right, and he had absolute faith in the honour, justice, and integrity of a set of English gentlemen. In complete confidence he expected the issue, as. his cause was right, and the jury were just (Slight applause.) .b Mr. Giffard said that Wood's letter was placed in counsel's hands when received, and they were unanimous m the conclusion that it should be placed in his lordship's hands at the conclusion of the Attorney-General's address. Serjeant Ba a ine said that if a person changed hia mind, he eould be called and say so His Lordship explained the remarks _of Attorney General, who ga ~dJ>hat other repudiations of evidence had been made. Another letter besides Mr. Wood's had been handed in, and they oughtall to be shewn to the jury. Serjeant a sai'^ that the witnesses should be recalled at the plaintiff's expense. Lord Bellew, examined by Mr. Sawkins, Q.C., said he was at swneyhurst with Roger Chaijles Tichborne in 1847 and 1848. They were both philosophers, and lived at the Seminary, tie said "e were not in any class exactly, but I s^v .^ra during recreation. I have a recollection of his appearalice. I was in court when the plaintiff Was cross-examined for about three hours, and I could discover nothing to remind me of Roger Tichborne. In my judgment and bel ]'f- 'f Kn0t *he man" 1 remember tattooing one of Koger iichborne's arms at Stoneyhurst. It was the left arm, and there was another tattoo mark upon" it at the I + f '•a lr°S8iand anchor I tattooed R C. T., about two inches from the wrist. I tattooed withJndmn ink, and three needles inserted into a small deal handle. There was another mark on the wrist, like tattooing badly done-hke a "splotch." I frequently saw his arm bare afterwards, up to the'time of his leaving Stoneyhurst, and all the marks were there the last time I sawhisarm. Ihe same day that I tattooed him he assisted in tattooing the same materials and the same ink. That maik is still on mv arm but it is very small. [Lord Bellew then shewed his arm to the jury, and to Servant Ballantine.] Iu his Lordship: It has never been touched, but remains precisely as it was done. Lord Bellew proceeded to say that the DiainfifFs general description of Stoneyhurst was not accuraite Examination resumed: i never iras at Qahir in my life, slfjjough Jhe plaintiff sai—saw.me. there. urosB-examinca By SerjewifBaHfeB^I' • r r"—3 this claim being set up when 1 read about it in the news- papers. I can't say whether it was before the plaintiff arrived in England. When did you first mention the fact of your having tattooed Roger Tichborne to anyone ?—I mentioned it to my friends—to Mr. John Wolsey. I spoke of it last spring. I cannot name anyone to whom I mentioned it before that, but I've no doubt I did mention it. Mr. Bowker wrote to me, and his letter is now in Ireland. He asked if I recol- lected anything about Roger Tichborne. I answered his letter, and afterwards saw him. I mentioned to him the former tattoo marks, which existed before I tattooed Mm. About that I've no doubt what- eveh [Mr. Bowker's letter was read, asking witness if he tattooed Roger Tichborne with Faith, Hope, and Charity."] I had never said that I had tattooed" Faith, Hope, and Charity." My recollection at the time was indistinct; but on thinking it over I was per- f> ctly satisfied that I tattooed R. C. T. and not Faith, Hopo, and Charity." [Witness's reply was read, in which he said he could not remember whether he tattooed the heart, cross, And anchor or the initials.] Tichborne spoke French fluently, and he spoke English with a foreign accent. The tattooing was in my room, I think, and I think that Henry Segar assisted me. He is dead, I understand. The Court then rose.