letter, and the claimant, therefore, without Gibbes's knowledge, wrote to Cubitt for information, desiring him not to let Gibbes know he had written to him, and also 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 Cubitt that Sir R. T. "would not hear of any one seeing him at Wagga," and that he had himself written to Lady Tichborne, mentioning matters which would prove his identity also. The letter of the claimant to the Dowager, dated January 17, 1866, began:

"My dear Mother, The delay which has taken place since my last letter, dated the 22nd of April, 1854, made it very difficult to commence this letter. I deeply regret the trouble and anxiety I must have caused you by not writing before, but they are known to my attorney, and the more private details I will keep for your own ear, &c. Mr. Gibbes suggests to me as essential that I should recall to 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 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 country 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 2007. This was towards the end of January, and three weeks afterwards, on the 15th of February, Cubitt wrote 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 Cubitt wrote to the Dowager that he had sent her the claimant's letter, that she might be able to recognize the handwriting, and that if he was the heir, there could be no difficulty as to funds; and 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 well 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 (21st of April) that Sir R. had written home, and that money would no doubt come by the June mail. To this Cubitt replied, 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 recognized 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 I 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 the banker here will advance the money or not."

On the 22nd of June, the claimant being then at Sydney, Cubitt wrote to the Dowager that he had seen 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 I 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, and also by one Guilfoyle, an old gardener to the late baronet. Before the claimant left, he gave Gibbes draughts for 5007., 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 did, however, find him, and Bogle, who has not yet been examined, came home with him. In this 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 remarried, and made his will. In January, 1866, he had married, but under the name of Castro. On the 1st of June, 1866, 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 devices he admitted to be fictitious, and made, he said, in order to secure Gibbes. And on the 9th July he was re-married in the name of Roger Tichborne.

In September, 1866, as already stated, he sailed for England, and on Christmas-day, 1866, the claimant landed, 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 Gravesend, to keep out of the way, he said, until he should see his mother. On the 28th he went to Alresford, and visited Tichborne. He then saw Mr. Hopkins, the attorney, who afterwards made an affidavit in his

favour. On the other hand, while he was at Alresford, Mr. Bowker the attorney for the family, saw him, but does 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.

While the claimant was at Gravesend, on the 6th of January, Mr. Gosford, with a relation 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 any one to know where "I was staying, and was annoyed to see you here." But Mr. Gosford came up with him from Gravesend on the 8th, 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 every thing I put him in mind of," and afterwards Mr. Gosford stated that every thing the claimant said was untrue; but the claimant, in his evidence, stated that, in the train, Gosford "assented to every thing he said."

In a day or two the claimant went to Paris to see the Dowager, and was there ten days, returning on the 22nd of January. Soon afterwards there ensued a correspondence between the claimant's attorney, Mr. Holmes, and the attorney for the family, in which the latter declined to acknowledge him, but proposed a family 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 this letter that he was going to meet his mother, who was then coming from Paris, and lived some months with him at Croydon. She made an affidavit in his favour, in which she declared positively that he was her son, and she wrote to Sir Clifford Constable, who also made an affidavit in his favour. This affidavit was shown to several of the officers, who likewise supported him. On the 10th of February, 1867, Mr. Seymour, 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 evidence the account given of the interview at the time in the letters of the attorneys, and in the evidence of the claimant. 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 they 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 that Mr. Radcliffe also said, "I knew Roger Tichborne well, and I 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, except the 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 that 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, 1852, 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 getting 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 were 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 failed to recognize him.

In January, 1868, the claimant saw Major Fraser, who had been adjutant in Roger Tichborne's regiment, and who failed to recognize him. It appears that Major Campbell, Major Phillipps, and Major Foster, officers of the regiment, also failed to recognize him. On the other hand, Colonel Custance, Captain Sherston, and Colonel Sawyer made affidavits in his favour— rather, however, from his knowledge of circumstances than from positive personal recognition. Mr. Scott, 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 lasted forty days before the "Long Vacation," of which more than twenty were occupied with the cross-examination 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

on the 4th, 9th, and 11th days. The latter was cross-examined at great length, with a view to show that he had told the claimant circumstances that had happened in the regiment, his knowledge of which had afterwards influenced the officers. Colonel Norbury, Major Heywood, Colonel Sawyer, General Custance, Captain Sherston, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Scott, and Sir Clifford Constable were called on behalf of the claimant, but most of them appear to have founded their evidence in his favour rather on his 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 twenty-two 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 he might have been told by the Dowager, or by Carter, or by others, or might have gleaned from the letters of Roger Tichborne himself. Some portion of the 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, because he recollected nothing of Tichborne's life except what he might have learnt. 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.

So stood the famous case when it was discontinued for the "Long Vacation;" and we are indebted to The Times for the summary that we have given.

66

The case was resumed on the 7th of November, from which time till the "Christmas Vacation," thirty days were occupied in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the plaintiff. Two witnesses from Australia were called to confirm, from their memory, the arrival of the "Osprey," in the summer of 1854, at Melbourne, having on board passengers said to have been picked up from a shipwrecked vessel; and three were called who, giving quite a different account, spoke to coming with the sailors to Melbourne in the steamer. One of these, Sharpin, spoke from memory to the plaintiff as on board the steamer with them. No entry at the Customhouse was produced to prove the time of arrival, nor were the owners of the Bella" called, nor was there any evidence of the owners or log of the Osprey." The persons who had made affidavits in Chancery were called as witnesses, except Hopkins and the Dowager, who were dead. The Lord Chief Justice repeatedly observed on the discrepancies between the affidavits of the witnesses and their evidence. At the trial, however, many new witnesses were called, and among these were Bogle-who had come over with the claimant, and lived with him ever since-and Moore. Among the new witnesses was a Mr. Bingley-a gentleman who saw Roger at Santiago, but never spoke to him. A Captain Sankey also was called in favour of the claimant; but it came out that the claimant took him for Captain Kellett. A Mr. Leslie, a medical man, was also called in his favour; but he had only seen Roger casually twice or thrice, and his son, who was in the regiment, was not called. A great many witnesses were called to give their opinion as to the claimant's identity. It was shown that the claimant had a mark on