THE TICHBORNE TOTAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1174, 3 May 1872, Page 2

THE TICHBORNE TOTAL.

is he orton 1 On the 19th February the AttorneyGeneral continued the reading of the affidavits made in 1868 by the sisters of Arthur Orion. Particular stress was laid on the paragraph in which Mrs Jury swore that her brother Arthur had paid a visit to England four years ago, in order to show how it could be refuted by the letter dated Wagga Wagga; June, 1866, in which claimant said he had. not heard from any of his relatives since 1854. The suggestion was made to the jury that the letter referred to had a forged date, and was written after the affidavits had been ■ made. The sister would scarcely have dared to make her depositions on oath with that letter, as it were staring her in the face. Though the letter was what the Attorney-General termed "Ortonish," it was submitted that it was written after the claimant had seen a good deal of Roger Tichborne's writing. Some minor points having been adduced, the Attorney- > General referred to the ingenuity with which the claimant had tried to outwit him at a time when the defendant's advisers were ignorant of the existence of the Wagga Wagga letter. Reading the cross-examination of claimant in the light of what was known, he . charaterised that portion as a most cunning and dexterous piece of fencing. Recurring to claimant's connection with Wapping, it was signified that it would be proved by one Schottler, an. old friend — an early schoolfellow— of Arthur Orton, that claimant and Orton were identical; and it. was again impressed . on the jury that not only as a matter of justice, but as a matter of , fairness, the claimant's advisers could only meet by 'argument-4-not. by new witnesses— the case for the defendants. The subject of . the handwriting was next dealt with and an opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of England on the subject read. In reply to an observation of the learned council, the Chief Justice of the. Common Pleas said he had presided on an occasion on . which handwriting was .discussed, when, by the wayj the Attorney-General arid Mr Serjeant Ballantirie were engaged, and the . former haying claimed that the verdict at that! time was given in his favor, the Attorney-General' remarked . that he was glad to perceive that the A" learned serjeant had recovered his power^A of interruption. The interruptions hxther-*^^ to had been so unpleasant that he was glad again to be interrupted pleasantly. After a few more retorts and replications, Mr Serjeant Ballantine finished the brief encounter by saying, with a good deal of bitter emphasis, that his observations would not be pleasant on account of ; his opinion of the conduct of the AttorneyGeneral. The examination of the letters was then continued, the peculiarity of Roger Tichborne's as contrasted with those of the claimant being pointed out in detail. The dissimilarity in the character of the handwriting of the two sets was held to prove that the letters of the one could not have been written by the other. • Though it was admitted that Roger.Tichborne sometimes spelt incorrectly, it was urged that there were fourteen words in the spelling of which the same inaccuracies occurred in the letters of the claimant and Orton's, and that these words were always correctly written by Roger Tichbarne. Some of these words were enumerated, and it was then mentioned as a most remarkable circumstance that when Orton or the claimant left out words, the omissions, when afterwards supplied, were filled in under the line ; whereas in the letters of Roger Tichborne they were written above it. The most important consideration, however, in this division of the subject was the contents of these documents. The letters of Roger Tichborne, with all their defects, were those of a gentleman ; whereas those of the claimant ivere the productions of a low-born man with low-born mind. At this stage the Attorney-General caused a perceptible movement in court by saying that after luncheon he was about to ap- v proach the last section of the case-7- ) : namely, that of 'referring to the'seaWd packet. During the adjournment an examination was made in the Court of Common Pleas of the claimant's arm and hand, counsel and surgeons representing both sides being present. At the resumption of the sitting, at half-past 2, the Attorney-General said it was found on examination that there was a slight depression in the upper part of the first joiriirof the little finger of the claimant's right hand, as. if the cuticle had been worn off — the real skin not being affected.

MBS RADCLIFFE. The episode of the sealed packet was that next related, the observations on this subject being listened to with silent attention by an audience which, crowded the cotirt in every part. Mr Goßford, it would be mentioned, who had been an old friend of Roger's, was in needy circumstances when the claimant returned to England, and owing as he did at the time LSOOO to the trustees of the Doughty estates, he was anxious, as shown by Mr Gosford's letter, to identify him as the real baronet. Notwithstanding that, Mr Gosford had been stigmatised by Mr Serjeant Ballantine. as one of the bitterest persecutors of his client, an assertion of which no proof was offered, even. if it could be obtained. The story ■, of the attack on Mra^Radcliffe, which the At-torney-General designated a foul and detestable slander, was begun, the particulars of the interview between claimant and Mrs Radcliffe and her husband being detailed, and a denial given to the statement sworn to by the claimant when in the boi that he had told Mr-Radcliffe regarding the packet that what he knew was sacred— pronounced ?'sakkred''< by him on the occasion -in question— and could not therefore be revealed. Mrßulpitt's share in the black and villainous transaction, as it was called, was denounced by the Attorney-General iri'ebntemptuous language, it being represented thatßulpitt was so abject that he could not rise to the dignity of even bad motive. The conversation held between Mr Gosford, Mrßulpitt, Mr White, Mr Hingston, and the claimant at the Grosvenor hotel was described as one of the most important isolated incidents in the whole case. Claimant's account of it w*s contradicted by Mr Gosford, whose evidence to the effect that the former said he did not know anything of' a private and confidential letter left behind by the real Roger, was, curiously enough, confirmed by Mr Bulpitt. Why, demanded the Attorney-General, with almost vehemence of gesture, if their testimony could Bupport the claimant's story, were not the

other, two who were present during the conversation producedto substantiate this villainous slander? On the 20th February those who were present in the Court of Queen's Bench were spectators of more than one incident of interest.' At the resumption of the sitting the commentary on the conversation held between the claimant Mr Gosford, j and' others at the Grosvenor hotel, was j continued, and it was held that previous to that time no single syllable of slander had been uttered against Mrs Raddiffe ; it was not till then, probably, that it became the claimant's impression that the packet had been destroyed. In connecction with this it would be perceived that it was only about the packet that Mr Gosford was cross-examined at the Law Institution. Mrs RadclinVs visit to the claimant after his arrival in England was adduced as one of the strongest proofs of her innocence, inasmuch as every dictate of common sense— every prompting of her mmd — would have prevented her, who was then a happy wife and mother, from visiting a man by whom, if she did not identify him, her reputation might be blasted for ever. The packet, as shown by the letters of Roger Tichborne, was nothing but a solemn record of a religious intention to build a church in honor of the Virgin Mary in case he should survive and marry his cousin Kate. Claimant thought that Mrs Radcliffe— a lady of stainless name — was the only person who was aware of the contents of that document; he was not aware that any one else was acquainted with their substance, and so when she had denounced him as an impostor the suggestion which was being now dealt with was devised. The letter of the claimant, which was the first definite step in the history of the alleged slander, 1 was read, and characterised, not as the production of a gentleman, but of some one with the mind of a country lout who had misconducted himself with some girl of his own class. The transaction vith Mr Bulpitt, who, it was said, took a part in initiating the attack on Mrs Radcliffo, was referred to in tones of contempt, and jt was intimated that the gentlemen of Hampshire, of which county he was a magistrate, would hereafter know how to treat him as he deserved. The indirect threats against Mrs Radcliffe and the pressure put upon Mr Gosford, were next referred to, and special attention was directed to the advance one step farther which was made by the learned Serjeant on the other side. He had challenged the defendants to produce the packet ;if they did* not the jury would be told they dare not. That the socalled confession relative to Mrs Radcliffe was wrung from the claimant by the defendants was an unfair assertion ; for in the examination in chief the former was led by his own counsel to hint at the contents of the packet, and then it was left to him (the Attorney-General) to make plain the insinuation. Nor should it be forgotten that this secret, as it was called had been published far and wide over the country by those interested in establishing its truth. The story of the packet as told by the claimant was related, and it was submitted that any information he had obtained about MissDpughty had been got since in England. The jury was reminded that he had sworn that his final parting with Miss Doughty took place in November, 1852, although this was refated by his own assertion that the letters in which he had giveti his final instructions to Mr Gosford were dated January in that year, almost a twelvemonth earlier. Pausing for a moment, the At-torney-General stated that Mrs Radcliffe' would appear in the witness-box to declare that the wnole charge was false ; she would do so at great personal risk, for she was about to become a mother ; but even f the pain and peril which were impending over her would not deter her from the denial upon oath of the foul attack made upon her honor. She knew that there were men and women who had no faith in the honor and purity of the daughters, sisters, or wives of others, and what was her course of action when she found that a villain had belied her honorable name? When he himself had dragged that hateful lie into light it was done by her own choice and in her own presence ; for she was willing to oppose the shield of her innocence to the slander, to confront her accuser, in open court,, with her husband by her side. Never probably has a greater depth of emotion been evinced by any one engaged in a case of law than that shown by the At-torney-General when struggling in broken accents to complete the sentence. He said that if ever again he had to point out an example of mingled gentleness and firmness in a woman he would recall Mrs Radcliffe in the Westminister Sessionshouse. The effect on the audience of this part of his address was perceptible until the rising of the Court. Before the adjournment, Mr Serjeant Ballantine made an application that, on the 24th of March, the Court should adjourn for a fortnight or ao. The Attorney-General opposed, on the ground that every delay entailed rninous expense on those concerned on his side, and that he had no authority from Mr Hawkins and Sir George Honyman, who also had an interest in going on circuit, to accede to it. * After a brief conversation, it was left to the jury to decide ihe point, luncheon time being allow d for consideriug the matter. .At the resumption of the sitting, the foreman of the jury said it was the wish of them all that the adjournment, when it took place, should be for a fortnight instead of a week. The Chief Justice intimated that it would be premature at present to make any definite arrangement, and the subject dropped. Continuing his speech, the Attorney-General urged that an alibi was conclusively proved by the letters of Roger, who could not have been at Tichborne in the month of July or August, 1862, fixed by the claimant as the date of the seduction of his cousin. Letter after letter was read to prove the falsehood of Mr Baigent's evidence that Lady Donghty was anxious to secure Roger as a husband for her daughter, and the question was put to the jury whether the honorable straightforward corresponence of Roger was consistent with the story told in the box by the claimant, j who stated that the visit during which the alleged act was committed lasted for ten days. In opposition to this it was pointed out that there was unbroken correspondence during the time specificd — indeed, from June, 1852, to February, 1853— between Lady Doughty and Roger, writing at considerable distance from each other. The sealed packet could not have been given to Mr. Gosford at Oheriton in November, as there were letters constantly passing between Roger and his '■fiends during that month. It. was need-

less, however, to dwell on the inconsistencies and contradictions as regarded time, for when the whole contents and spirit of the correspondence- were examined, the jury could not possibly conclude that the claimant was identical with Roger Charles Tichborne, who, if not a thoroughly well-educated man, was' a young fellow of high mind and feeling. Having quoted a passage from the opening speech of Mr Serjeant Ballantine, in which that learned gentleman said that the matter of the sealed packet was crucial, and that he challenged the defendants to examine it, the Attorney-Gene-ral said he had accepted the challenge ; he had examined the matter ; he had shown the accusation against Mrs Radcliffe to be baseless; and, further, adopting the words of the learned sergeant, spoken hypothetically, he stigmatised the claimant as a rascal and an impostor. Two other letters were read : and, with that, so far as the case was concerned, ended the life of Roger Charles Tichborne. It was, said the Attorney-General, concluding his address on this division of his subject, a melancholy, ill-starred existence, reminding us of the fate of another Tichborne, who lived in the time of Elizabeth, and was executed for treason. The fortunes of Roger Tichborne might be described in the words of his kinsman of the sixteenth century, who, in some verses, the correct authorship of which was discovered by the elder Disaeli, had pathetically lamented his forthcoming doom — " his thread was cut, and yet it was not spun."