THE TICHBORNE CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1145, 30 March 1872, Page 2

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

[The following summary of this interesting case, taken from the Tithes of ■ November 7th, will pat our readers in possession -of all the main facts, as elicited by the^vidence, up to the resumption of the trial after vacation.] . -5 The trial of Jhis extraordinary case will recommence to-day — a case in which, to use the language of Serjeant Balantine, "the issue is whether a person- ■wh.tmow claims to be entitled to an ancient baronetcy and extensive estates is really the true heir, or is, in truth/, an| outrageous impostor." The trial has already lasted so long, . and the mass of evidence already taken is so enormous, that it appeared desirable before the trial recommences, especially after so long an interval, to present a summary of the evidence so far as it hai already gone, so' as to enable .the reader, to take up the thread of this protracted investigation,- and understand; the bearing of ; the evidence which remains to be given. The attempt to do so is rendered at once easier and more desirable,' because the whole of the evidence has been printed, and in a form substantially correct has been published, and is in everybody's hands, so that it is unnecessary to enter into details ; and it will be sufficient to refer, in general terms, to the evidence under each head ; while, on the other hand, the evidence, as given hot being in order of time, it is difficult, without some assistance, to follow it or understand; its real meaning and effect. It is proposed, therefore, to offer such assistance by presenting in a clear and connected form the broad facia of the case as already disclosed in , the evidence, avoiding disputed J points as far as possible, and only /referring to tlie. 1 evidence under each head. The numerals of references will be to the' day of the trial and the name of the witness, in order to enable any one to follow our summary and -to test its accuracy by reference to the evidence in exteiiso, andthus the summary will serve the double purpose, of an Sndex.or guide to the evidence,, and of a clear and succinct account Yof the" case. The first thing it is necessary clearly to understand is the issue to be determined, which, as defined by the Court of Chancery (whence the case icOmea)i is- whether the claimant is or- is not the heir of Sir James : Tichborne, who died in the year 1862. That is the issue to be determined, and upon thatissue the claimant haying to make out that he is the heir,; he, 'of . course; began, and all the evidence; up to this time has been his evidence. It is only from that evidence the. present account has been collected ; and it is only intended to present the principal and, as far as possible, .the undisputed facts. The heir of Sir James Tichborne was his son Roger, who was born in 1829. His parents — his mother being', a Frenchwoman—resided' in France, and there he was born and brought up, until he was fourteen or fifteen years of age. Consequently he spoke French with facility; and it appears that he even spoke English with French accent. His parents being Roman Catholics, he was sent to Stonyhurst College for education, and was there for three or four years. In October, ,1849* he entered the army, and obtained acorn* mission in a cavalry regiment (the Carabineers), stationed first at Canterbury and afterwards in Dublin and other parts of

Ireland. His parents continued to reside in Paris, and he corresponded with them in terms of affection. Many of his letters have been produced, and printed, and as our readers are probably accquainted with them it is enough to say of them that they are written with propriety as to ideas and feelings and expression, and that though they contain some minor misspellings and some Gallicisms, they have no vulgarities. Witnesses stated at thu time Roger Tichborne was pale and thin, and that he had good manners. He, of course, moved in good society; one of his intimate friends was Sir Clifford Constable, whom he visited at Burton. He was connected on his mother's side with the family of Seymours, and on his father's side with the Roman Catholic families, including the Townleys and the Radoliffes, and among others he knew was Mr Radcliffe, who afterwards married Mis Doughty. When he attained the age of twenty-one, which was on the sth of Jannary, 1862, he joined in disentailing the estates, on which occasion a Mr Hopkins acted as his attorney. It should be stated here that the family attorney was a gentleman named Gosford, in whom Roger Tichbotne had great confidence, and with whom he was always on terms of personal intimacy. Roger was on j duty with his regiment in Ireland until January, 1853, except during temporary leave of absence. When he had leave of absence, he oaed to stay with his uncle, Sir Edward Doughty, who then held the baronetcy and estates at Tichborne-park,

(For continuation of Aeuw tee 4th Page.

and thero ho fell in love with his cousin, Kate Doughty, then a girl of seventeen. The Christmas of 1851 was spent by Roger Tichborne at his uncle's, and there he appears to have proposed to his cousin, and to have boen rejected. This appears from his letters to have occurred in January, 1852, and the dale jb important. The event appears to have greatly affected him ; for on the sth of January he wrote that he intended going abroad, and desired to make certain arrangements as to his estate, and that he had confided his private wishes aud intentions to Mr Gosford. Thero is no doubt that he deposited with Mr Gosford a sealed packet containing his last wishes and intentions ; and the claimant, in his evidence, stated, that there were no other private wishes and intentions than those contained in the packet. This, it will be observed, was on 7th January, 1852. Ten days later he •was in Pariß, where he arrived on the 16th, and next day wrote to Mr (xosford, alluding in terms of bitter disappointment to the sudden termination of his visit to Tichborne. Early on February ho wrote to his cousin in terms of affection, referring Borrowf ully to the break-ing-off of their engagements, and alluding to an angry interview with his uncle, which had led to his Budden departure. Again, noxt day, he wrote, her in terms which indicated that he had been rejected on account of some fault in lub character ; and he declared that he should occupy three years in trying to reform, and in becoming all she wished. It appears that he still entertained a hope at some future time of marrying her, and on tho 22nd June, 1852, lie signed a paper, in which he solemnly vowed to build a church if his hopes should be realized. While in this state of mind he threw up his commission and made arrangements for going abroad for a year or so. Some of the last letters, of Roger Tichborno while in England were to Miss Doughty. Thus on tho 6th of December, 1852, he wrote to her in affectionate termß that ho was unable to come down to see her, as he had to go to Paris to see his parents, and ■ that he should probably remain there until a ■week or ten days before he embarked for South America. He told her he should be glad to hear from her, and would certainly answer her letters, and give her an account of his wanderings. He went to Paris accordingly to see his parents, and promised them to return immediately iv the eventof his father's death. His mother Baid:— When Roger quitted Paris, just before his departure, his father, after vainly trying to make him give up the idea of going away, at last told him that, at least if God was to take him, he hoped he would come back immediately to be his mother's protector. To that he readily consented, and said that in that melancholy case he would return to his mother. Early in 1853 Roger went to London to make final arrangements for his voyage. From London he wrote to his parents in affectionate terms. In this letter he Stated that his attention was to go to Bjuth America, and to be abroad "a ye_r or e'ghteen months." He sailed ; oin Havre on the Ist of March, 1853, for Valparaiso, with one Moore as his ser\«.nt, and from the time of his arrival in South America ho continued to write tt his mother, or his aunt, Lady Doughty, or Mrs Seymour. He arrived _at Valparaiso on the 19th of June, 1853. He staid there only a fow days, and went to Callao, and thence to Lima. Thenco he went a fortnight's excursion to Guayaquil, and theiym the 12th of December, back to Valparaiso, and thence to Santiago. This was on the 11th of January, 1854, and from Santiago he went across the Cordilleras, to Mendoza, and thence, on the 13th February, to Buenos Ayres. He wrote that he should go to Montevideo on his way lo Brazil, and that he should go thence to Kingston, Jamaica, on his way to Mexico. On the 29th of June, 1853, Roger wrote front Valparaiso to Mr Grosford, mentioning that he had heard of the death of his uncle, by which his father had succeeded to the baronetcy, and that he presumed his parents were settled at Tichborne. He had arrived, he said, at Valparaiso on the 19 th of June, and he intended to go to Lima, and then to Chili and Peru, and so to work his way to the south in the spring, bo as to bo at Buenos Ayres or Montevideo. The letters of Roger Tichborne do not, bo far as has appeared, mention any stay at Mellapilla^ and his journal has not yet beeu put' in. The claimant has stated that he was there for some weeks, ■ and that he there made the acquaintance of a family named De Castro, whose name he afterwards assumed. It has appeared in evidence that Orton also was at Mellapilla (though at what precise time- is uncertain).; for De Castro, in writing to the claimant, stated that the person whom he described as. "Sir Roger" bore the name of Arthur Orton, and sent home a lock of hair which at first the claimant declared to be his own, but which afterwards ho said had been cut from the head of Orton. In December, 1853, Roger wrote to his mother giving an account of his journey to Lima. From Lima, he said, he went back to Valparaiso, on his way to Santiago ; from which place he Baid he meant to go to Buenos Ayres and Montevideo, and. he very carefully gave an address at Bahia for the purpose of correspondence. So far as wo are aware no mention is made in his letters of a stay at Mellapilla, or of the family of the De Castros, but his journal has not yet been put in. On the 25th of February, 1854, Roger wrote from Buenos Ayres an affectionate letter to his aunt, Lady Doughty (the mother of the cousin to whom he had been attached)— a most affectionate letter — sondiug her some presents, begging her to write, giving his address at Kingston, Jamaica, and sending his love to his cousin Kate. The terms of this letter indicate that he had already corresponded with them, and it will have b?en seen that he had promisod to do so. On the Ist of March, 1854, Roger wrote to his mother from Buenos Ayres the last letter prior (o his departure. In this he stated that he should in a few days leave for Montevideo, where he should remain, for a few days before he i want to Brazil. " Whtn you answer <¥s letter," he wrote, "direct yours to Postroflke,' Kingston, Jamaica, where I fciiaU call to get my letters on my way to Mexico, where I expect to be about three months and a-half." In this letter he a iludes to a journal he kept, and which La said he should copy out when he had time. On the 20th of April, 1854, he sailed from Rio in a ship called the Bella, vhich foundered at sou, and was treated by the owners and underwriters as lo3t, and from that time until the claimant ap-

peared nothing more was heard of RogerTichborne. A Chancery suit was instituted, in which his death was legally proved. Year after year rolled by, his cousin Kate married Mr Radcliffe, his father died, and'his death was widely published, but nothing was heard of him until the plaintiff set up his claim. The, claimant certainly was in Australia subsequently to the loss of tho Bella, but at what period he arrived there is of course in dispute. His case is that he is Roger Tichborne ; that he was picked up at sea with several other seamen, and carried to Melbourne ; but of this, as yet x there has been no other evidence than his own statement, which, of course, ia disputed. As already mentioned, Roger, beforehe embarked, had heard of the death of his uncle, Sir Edward ; of his father's succession to the title and estates ; and he had a considerable sum at his banker's. The claimant stated that from 1854 to 1865 he passed under the name of De Castro, and that he was occupied with horses, slaughtering, &c. In 1862 he was at WaggaWagga looking after horses, slaughtering, &o. While there he was in difficulties, and he made the acquaintance of an attorney, named Gibbes, whom he described as his "best friend" and who acted for him. As ono part of the case relates to the suggested identity of the claimant with Orton, it is necessary here to state that it appears that Orton was in Australia i subsequently to the loss of the Bella, for a receipt of his had been produced dated " Hobarton, 1855." It also appears that Ortou was in South America before Roger left, and that he was at Mellapilla ; for De Castro, a friend of the claimant, wrote to him that the person who was there bore the name of Arthur Orton, and a lock of hair had been sent from Mellapilla, | which was stated to have been cut from I the head of Orton, and that the person they knew bore that name. It is necessary to state these matters with reference to such portions of the evidence as relate to Orton. Those parts of the case which relate to Orton. have arisen out of the claimant's acts and conduct. Thus on the j 13th of April, 1865, the claimant, under the name of De Castro, addressed a letter from Wagga Wagga to some one at Wapping, to inquire after Orfcon or his family, He had written, he said, several letters to him to which ho had no answers, and he wanted any information about Orton or his son Arthur. The Orton who was in Australia and in South America was Artur Orton, and it is undisputed that he was in Australia at this time, and that he was employed at Wagga in 1865 or 1866. . It should here be stated that in the Home News of 1862, which was published and read in Australia, there appeared in the list of deaths 'and wills that of Sir James Tichborne, the father of Roger, and it was stated, on tho assumption that Roger was dead, that the heir was the next sou, Alfred. In 1863 the Dowager, who always ardently hoped for the return of her lost sou, caused advertisements to be inserted in The Times a s to his loss, mentioning the name of the vessel in which he embarked, and the date at which he sailed. The claimant, it is to be observed, had known Gibbes for two or three years, and had been in communication with him on the subject of the claim as early, at least, as July, 1865. He had been living at Wagga Wagga since 1862, and he said he knew Mr Gibbes for two or three years prior to June, 1866. Early in 1865 Cubitt caji3ed to be inserted in The Times an advertisement of a " Missing Friends' Office" of his at Sydney. This advertisement appeared on the 19th of May, 1865, and ■ was seen by tho Dowager, who on that day wrote out to Cnbitt telling him of her son ; mentioning that she had heard that part of the crew had been picked up by a vessel going to Australia, "possibly to Melboure ;" but that she had not been able to getany other infor .nation. In this letter the Dowager described her son as " rather tall and thin, with very light brown hair and blue eyes" and suggested that he might have married and changed his name. She also intimated that anyone giving her information about him would be " handsomely rewarded."- Cubitt in reply suggested that " the amount of the reward ought to be governed by the importance of the case," and that the assurance that tho lost heir was still living was a "piece of information which could not be overrated by a widowed mother." He expressed Ixis firm conviction that her search would terminate as she desired it should, and he inclosed an advertisement he had issued, in which the heir, was described as rather tall, aud with very light brown hair and blue eyes, but not as "thin." Not long afterwards Gibbes wrote to Cubitt that on his return to Now South Wales, after a ten years absence, he had just fixed his abode at Wagga Wagga, and he wished to have further information about Tichborne, as he had " spotted him" some time ago, and could, he thought, find him. This was dated the 9th of October, 1865, and a few days after Cubitt. wrote to the Dowager }' that his search progressed satisfactorily," giving a copy of Gibbes's letter. Cubitt also' wrote at the same time to Gibbes, thanking him for his offer of gratuitous assistance. Gibbes replied in November that "if the necessary funds and something. to leave behind could be got he could send in the missing man at a very few clays' notice ; but he had promised not to reveal his secret before the end Of March," that is March, 1866. Cubitt replied to this that he had already written that it was to be a "business transaction," and that there would be no difficultry in the necessary advances. In the meantime the Dowager i had written to Cubitt, in warm and eager terms, that any amount of reward would be paid ; and, in answer to this, Cubitt, on the 21at December, 1865, wrote to her that her son was " alive and well." Three weeks afterwards, on tho loth Jauuary, Cubitt wrote to Gibbes to send Tichborne, but Gibbes replied that "he had left his abode," and that " he should claim the reward on behalf of the real discoverer, his wife." He also required a copy of the Dowager's letter, but this was refused; and the very next day Gibbes wrote to her himself, stating that ho had prevailed I on her son to put Tumßelf in cotnmunicaI tion with her, and tho claimant, in answer to the jury, stated that he had aeen this letter before it was dispatched. Gibbes had also shown him Cubitt's letter, ;iud the claimant, therefore, without Gibbes's knowledge, wrote to Gubitt for | information, desiring him not to let. Gibbes know he had written to him, and' n! .o desiring him, as he did not wish his name or title to be known at Wagga, to write to him under the address of initials "T. C.," at the Post-office. Gibbes, not apparently aware of this, wrote to Oubitt

that Sir R. -T. "would not hear of any one seeing him at Wagga," and that he had himself written to Lady Tichbornc mentioning matters which would prove his identity also. The letter of the claimant to the Dowager, dated Januai/ 17, 1860, began :— My d(Bar;Mpthet-^Tii3 .delay which has taken place :-: since my- last letter, dated the 22nd of April, 1854, make it very difficult to commence this letter. T deeply regret the trouble and anxiety I must have caused you bynot writing before, but they are known to my attorney, and the more private details I willkeep for your own ear, &c. Mr Gibbes suggests to me as essential that 1 should recall te your memory things which can only be known to you and me to convince you of my identity. I don't think it needful, my dear mother — although I send them — namely, the j brown mark on my side and the cardcase at ! Brighton! In writing to me, please enclose the letter to Mr Gibbes to prevent unnecessary inquiry, as I do not wish any person to know me in this couotry when I take my proper position and title. Having therefore made up my. mind to return and face the sea once more, I must request: the means of doing so and paying a few outstanding debts. I could return by the overland mail. The passage money would be over £200. This was towards the end of January, and three weeks afterwards, on the 15th of February, Cubitt prote to the Dowager enclosing the claimant's letter to him. The letter of Gibbes to her is dated the 18th of January, and on the 25th of February she wrote to him giving him further details. On the 18th of April Cnbitt wrote to the Dowager that he had sent her the. claimant's letter that she . might be able to recognize the hajidwrii ing, and that if he was the heir there j could be no difficulty as to the funds, and I then Cubitt. wrote again to Gibbes, urging him to produce the man : — Things have now arrived at such a position that you must no.longer remain silent, but aid me in bringing the search to a conclusion. I have promised you your share of the spoil, and as we are both interested we must both work together. I have no doubt that our efforts will be repaid, but if you have really got the right man, both he and you must, so far as necessary for the progress of identity, throw off the mask. To this Gibbes replied that Sir Roger had written home, and- that money would no doubt ocne by the June mail. To this Cubitt replied, enclosing a letter to the claimant, to which Cubittrcplied, enclosing a letter from the Dowager to the claimant, which Cubitt had received for him, and which is dated the 25th of February. In this letter she besought him to come home/ and wrote : — You need not be afraid about the money, as the necessary funds will be found. If you go to the bankers and announce yourself as Sir Roger Tichborne, they will advance the money. Still the claimant did not come forward, and Cubitt wrote to Gibbes rather angrily that he was pressed to "advance money for the departure of some one supposed to be Sir Roger," " but what evidence have I of this?" On the 10th of May, 1866, the Dowager wrote to Cubitt, mentioning the claimant's letter to her ; but apparently she had not recognised him by the writing, for she says not a word about it, but on the contrary, wrote, "I cannot say he is my son until I see him." And she does not appear to have replied to the claimant's letter. The claimant, on the 24th of May, wrote to the Dowager that he had received her note of the 25th of February : — I wrote to you on the 16th of January for the first time since I have been in Australia. You will wonder why I have not wrote before, but that T will tell you myself,, should God spare my life to reach England. I am trying to get away by the Panama route, which leaves Sydney on the 15th of June, but I do not know whether tho banker here will advance the money or not. On the 22nd of June, tho claimant being then at Sydney, Cubitt wrote to the Dowager that he had seeu him. On the same day the claimant wrote to the Dowager that he had received no letter from her ; and on the 24th of July he wrote again to her that he had received her letter, and was disappointed that she did not acknowledge him as her son. In August the Dowager wrote to Gibbes that she fancied the photographs sent her of the claimant were like her son, but of course after thirteen years' absence, there must have been some difference in the shape, as Sir Roger was very slim, and she supposed the larger clothes might make him appear larger than he was. She calls him in this letter her son, but says he must come over to England to be identified. On the 2nd of September he sailed from Sydney, and Gibbes wrote that he had been identified by one Bogle, a black, who had lived in the family, aad also by one Guilfoyle, an old gardener to the late baronet. Before the claimant left, he gave Gibbes draughts for £500, and he had also given Cubitt a draught for a sum which Cubitt declined to disclose. In this letter written from Sydney, he stated that Guilfoyle, an old, servant of the family, had called ..upon him, and knew him as •soon as he saw him, but that as to Bogle, an old black servant of the family, whom the Dowager had mentioned as being in Australia, he had inquired for him, but could not find him. He didj-however^-find him, and Bogle, who has not yet been examined, came home with him. In his letter he enclosed a photograph of himself, but as the post was two months, the letter would not reach Paris until towards the end of September. It should here be stated that pending the negotiations the claimant was re-married, and made his will. In January, 1866, he had married, but under the name of Castro. On the , Ist of June, 1865, he made a will in the name of Roger Tichborne, which was attested by Gibbes, as his attorney, and in which he proposed to give "dower" to his wife, whom he said he had married in the name of Castro, and which contained several devises he admitted to be fictitious, and made, he said, in order to secure Gibbes. And on the 9th of July he was re-married in the name of Roger Tichborne. In September, 1866, as already stated, he Bailed for England, and on Christmas-day, 1866, the claimant lauded, and went to Wapping in the evening to inquire after the 'Ortons. Next day he -went again to Wapping to inquire after them, describing himself by the name of Stephens. And then he went to Graveaend, to keep out of tho way," he said, until he should see his mother.- On- the 28th he went to Airesford, and ■visited Tichborne. He then saw Mr Hopkins, the attorney, who afterwards made an affidavit in his favour. On the other hand, while ho was at Airesford, Mr Bowker, the attorney for the

family, saw him, but doe 3 not appear to have recognized him. The claimant returned to Gravesend, and, while he was there, one of Arthur Orton's sisters wrote to him claiming him- as her brother ; and on the 7th of January the claimant wrote to her in a feigned hand,, signing his name Stephens, and declaring that he was not her brother, but a friend of his ; and he enclosed her a photograph, which he described as representing her brother's wife, whereas, in fact, it was a photograph of his own. From a subsequent letter of ■ the claimant's, it appears that he had had an interview with Charles Orton and a Captain Angell, who ia, no doubt, the same person who was examined the other day on behalf of the defendant. While the claimant was at Gravesend, on the Gth of January, Mr Gosford, with a rela-' tion of the family (a Mr Plowden), and another gentleman acquainted with the family, went down to Gravesend, to see him, and they caught sight of him and spoke to him, but he withdrew himself, and wrote them a note that he did not wish anybody to know where "I was staying, and was annoyed to see you here." But Mr Gosford came up with him from Gravesend on the Bth, and had a long conversation with him, as to which Mr Gosford has not. yet . been .examined, and the plaintiff has given his own account. Next day the claimant wrote to the Dowager — " He seems to deny everything I put him in mind of," and afterwards, Mr Gosford stated that everything the claimant said was untrue, but the claimant, in his evidence, stated that, in the train, Gosford " assented to everything he said." In a day or two the claimant went to Paris to see the Dowager, and was there ten days, re.turning on the 22nd of January. Soon, afterwards there ensued a corespondence between the claimant's attorney, Mr Holmes, and the attorney of the family, in which the latter declined to acknowledge him, but proposed a f imily meeting, which was refused. Miss Kate Doughty appears at this time to have been desirous of seeing the claimant, when he was again at Alresford, for at the beginning of February he wrote to her at that place to say he was sorry he could not come and see her, but that he was coming down again in a few days and then he would see her. He mentioned in his letter that he was going to meet his mother, who was then coming from Paris, and live some months with him at Croydon. She made an affidavit in his favour, in which she declared positively tlfat he was her son, and she wrote to Sir Clifford Constable, who also made an affidavit in his favour. Her affidavit was shown to several of ihe officers, who likewise supported him. On the 10th of February, 1867, MrSeymour, an uncle of Roger Tichborne, went down to Alresford to see the claimant, and the claimant afterwards heard from Mr Hopkins (who was present on the occasion) that Mr Seymour did not recognize him as his nephew. In March Miss Doughty, then Mrs Radcliffe, went with her husband and Mrs Townley to see the claimant ; and there is in eviderce the account given cf the interview atthe time iv the letters of the attorneys and in the evidence of the claimant. Mr Radcliffe and his wife have not yet been examined, but Mr Radcliffe wrote at the time that they were all thoroughly convinced he was not Sir Roger, and that not only because they failed to recognize him, but because he did not recognize his nearest relations. In his own account the claimant admitted that he had addressed Mrs Townley as his cousin Kate, but ascribed it to her being veiled. Whether he recognized them or not, it is clear that +hey did not acknowledge him, for he stated in his evidence that Mrs Townley said, "I knew my cousin well, and do not believe you are the man," and Mr Radcliffe also sxid, " I knew Roger Tichborne well, and 1 don't believe you to be the man ;" to which it should be added that the claimant said in his evidence he had never seen Mr Radcliffe before in his life. Lady Doughty also did not recognize the claimant. An old friend of Roger Tichborne's — Colonel Greenwood— met the claimant in June, 1868, and did not recognize him. In fact, none of the relations of the family recognized him, exceptthe Dowager and a cousin, Mr Biddulph, and accordingly his claim was resisted and the suit proceeded. In June, 1867, there was an interview between the claimant and Mr Gosford,. with whom Roger Tichborne had left the sealed packet, as to which Mr Gosford has not been examined, and of which the plaintiff has given his own account, and from which it appears tha*. Mr Gosford asked him to name the contents of the packet, and he declined to do so in the presence of others. Two other gentlemen were present, but though they walked to the other end of the room, the claimant did not state the contents of the packet. It may be conveniently stated here that in the course of the suit the claimant made an .affidavit that he had placed the sealed packet in the hands of Gosford, and that it related to his cousin Kate. In his evidence at the trial, he stated that there were no other private instructions than those in the sealed packet. He swore at the trial that the sealed packet related to his seduction of his cousin before the disruption of their engagement, and that the paper dated in November, 1852j was deposited in March, 1853. It will have, been seen in what language Roger Tichborne refers to his instructions as to his private wishes and intentions, and the date at which he did so, which was in January, 1852, and after the disruption of the engagement. Early in 1867 Carter, who had been Roger Tichborne's servant, applied to the claimant, who engaged him in his service during the whole of that year, and during the whole of that year the claimant was busy in gotting affidavits in his favour to be used in the Chancery suit, especially from the officers of Tichborne's regiment, most of whom were living and known to Carter. It appeared, however, that the opinions of the officers were very much divided on the subject, and though several of them have been called in favour of the claimant, it has also appeared that several of them have failed to recognize him.

In January, 1868, the claimant aavr Major Fraser, who 1 had been adjutant in Roger Tichborne.'s regiment, and who failed to recognize' him. It appears that Major Campbell, Major Phillipps, and Major Forster, officers of the regiment, also failed to recognize him. On the other hand, Colonel distance, Captain Sherston, and Colonel Sawyer made affidavits in his favour— rather, however, from his knowledge of circumstances than from positive personal recognition. Mr Sco A t, Mr Biddulph, and Sir Clifford Constable also were in his favour, while Lord St. Lawrence and others were

against him. As to the trial itself, it has lasted nearly forty days, of which more than twenty were occupied with the crossexamination of the claimant. It was not, however, until the third day that the evidence commenced, and for ten days it was continued before the claimant was called. M'Cann and Carter, who had been Roger Tichborne's servants, were called. The latter, was cross-examined at great length with a view to show that he had told the claimant circumstances that had happened inthe regiment, his: knowledge of which had afterwards influenced the officers. Colonel Norbury, Major Hey wood, Colonel Sawyer, General distance, Captain Sherston, Mr Riddulph, Mr Scott, and Sir Clifford Constable were called on behalf of the claimant, but most of their evidence in his favour rests rather on hi 3 knowledge of circumstances than upon positive, personal recognition. On the 14th day the claimant was. called, and his examination in chief lasted three days. On the 17th day his cross-examination commenced, and was continued until the 39th— that is, for 22^ days. The greater part of this protracted cross-examination was directed to show that the claimant could not be Tichborne, because he recollected nothing of the things Tichborne must have known, except such things as might have been told by the dowager or by Carter or by others, oc might have been gleaned from the letters of Roger Tichborne himself. Some portion of the I cross-examination appears to have been directed to show that he is really Arthur Orton, but the, great bulk of it has certainly been directed to show that.he is not Tichborne becanse he recollected nothing of Tichborne's life except what he might have learnt. The cross-examina-tion, however, was so protracted, that, as the part of it which related to Orton was the latter part, it has probably been better recollected than the rest. Some of the last questions asked of the claimant related to his supposed identity with Orton; he was challenged to produce him, and he replied to the challenge by an intimation that possibly he might be able to produce him. The issue, however, it will be borne in mind, is not whether he is Orton, but whether he is Tichborne ; and though, of coxirse, if he be Orton he- cannot be Tichborne, it will not follow that he is Tichborne because he is not Orton. So stands this great case, and we trust that this summary of it may tend to assist our readers in following what remains of the evidence and help them to understand it. ..■■•. ■ :