been distinctly disproved. All that can be known of the utter falsehood of this remarkable case, is so much of the intended defence as was produced to secure the punishment of the plaintiff.

The impostor, after being ordered into custody in the witnessbox, for perjury, was committed by the Gloucester magistrates for forging the two wills on declarations of Sir Hugh Smyth. He was tried at the Gloucester Spring Assizes for forgery, and uttering the document dated the 10th of September, 1823; it was described as "a codicil" to the will of Sir Hugh Smyth, and in other counts as a testamentary writing."

66

The evidence for the Crown showed that, however ingenious the impostor had been in concocting his story, the manner in which he had formed the chain of circumstances was palpable to detection in every link. The person Crane, from whom the impostor stated he had received this document, was produced, and declared that he had written the letter, which was said to have accompanied the deed, at the prisoner's dictation; the deed was produced at the time, and the witness took a memorandum of the names of the attesting witnesses on the back of a copy of his letter. This copy, with the endorsement, was produced in Court. brown paper, which the prisoner had sworn formed the wrapper of the deed when he received it, was proved to be the same in which Mr. Moring, the seal engraver, had wrapped up a seal which he had sent to the prisoner; this unfortunate brown paper played a double part in the fraud, for the seal it had enveloped was that which bore the arms of the Smyth family, in which the artist had engraved the

The

motto, "Qui capit capitor," instead of "Qui capit capitur." Another very obvious blunder of the prisoner was clearly proved, the parchment on which the forgery had been written was prepared by a process, which had only been discovered about 10 years. Chemists were clearly of opinion that the ink had received its antique appearance by artificial means, and beyond doubt the wax was modern. The circumstance of the peculiar mis-spellings of the document was used as argument. The words "rascality" and "set aside" were spelt with two I's and two s's; this doubling of the consonant was a constant error, personal to the prisoner, as was evidenced by the letters avowedly written by him, and he maintained against the learned Judge himself, that these words were thus spelt correctly. Again, the signature of William Dobson, was, according to the prisoner's fatal custom of doubling the consonants, spelt with two b's, a mistake a man was not likely to fall into in writing his own name. The document, moreover, contained a palpable oversight of fact; it refers to "the late Elizabeth Howell;" now, this lady, at the date of the alleged deed, was then living, had been married to Sir Hugh Smyth, and was known as Lady Smyth up to her death, in 1841, surviving her husband 17 years.

These were the chief points urged to prove the fact of the forgery of this document by the prisoner; but in further proof of the uttering with guilty knowledge, evidence was put in with respect to other forgeries. The alleged portrait of Sir Hugh was produced, and was proved beyond doubt to be that of John Provis, the eldest son of the carpenter, and the pri

soner knew the fact well. The various alleged circumstances of the prisoner's early education were distinctly disproved; but one singular circumstance was admitted to be true, and was not attempted to be explained; it was admitted that he had been for some time at Winchester School.

The prisoner's sister, Mary Heath, was made a witness against him, and recognised him as being her youngest brother, Thomas Provis; she had never heard of his being any other, though, upon his taking up the trade of lecturing, she knew he had assumed the name of Dr. Smith." Several persons, acquaintances of the carpenter's family, recognised the prisoner as his son Thomas, and had never heard the slightest hint that he was not so. It was proved that the prisoner was married at Bath in 1814 to Mary Anne Whittick; his sister was present at the marriage. Some persons were called to identify him as a person who had kept a school at Ladymede, Bath, and had been compelled to abscond for his disgraceful conduct towards his pupils; but they failed to identify him by any marks whatever. Whereon "the prisoner, with an air of great triumph, produced an enormous pigtail, which up to this moment had been kept concealed under his coat, and turning round ostentatiously displayed this appendage to the Court and Jury, appealing to it as an irrefragable proof of his aristocratic birth, and declaiming with solemn emphasis that he was born with it. He added, also, He added, also, that his son was born with one six inches long." A singular discovery was produced in evidence which showed the origin of much of the tale which the prisoner had

concocted. It will be remembered that the sole proof of the concealed marriage of Sir Hugh Smyth and Miss Vandenbergh, and of the birth of the prisoner, was the entry of those events in a family Bible, which, besides those memoranda, contained a signature ofJno. S. Vanderbergh," as to which the prisoner's counsel said on the trial he could produce no information. This Bible with this signature, and with no other entries, Mr. Kimpton, a second-hand bookseller in Holborn, proved he had sold to the prisoner on the 21st of February, 1853, for fifteen shillings; having purchased it, with a lot of old books, in July, 1852, of Mr. Vandenbergh, a merchant of London. Mr. Vandenbergh then deposed that this signature was his father's. This curious discovery gives the key to the adoption of the name of Vandenbergh as that of his supposititious mother. It was now clear that the signatures of the attesting witnesses to the entries were forgeries; but it was further proved that Dr. Verney Lovett, D.D., did not take the degree of a Doctor of Divinity until ten years after the date of the supposed marriage. Mr. Cocks, a jeweller, of No. 361, High Holboru, proved that he was employed by the prisoner in January, 1853, to engrave the inscriptions on the rings, which the prisoner had selected on the supposition that they were antique rings, but, in fact, they were modern antiques. The engraving of the seal by Mr. Moring, by the prisoner's order, was also given in evidence. These and a vast number of points of less interest postponed the punishment of the impostor during a trial of two days, during which

the prisoner, who defended himself, conducted himself with great energy and much ability.

He was, of course, found Guilty, and was sentenced to be transported for twenty years.

A complete history of this remarkable impostor would be curious. It has been stated that many points of interest could have been proved, if necessary, to his conviction. The Governor of the Chester Gaol was prepared to identify him as that Thomas Provis who, in 1811, was in that prison under sentence of death for horse-stealing. That Mary Anne Whittick, whom he married at Bath, had been a domestic servant in the family of Sir John Smyth in 1814; he kept the school in Ladymede; was accused of an abominable offence, was held to bail, and absconded. In consequence of this, his wife (Mary Anne Whittick) returned into the service of the Smyth family, and was housekeeper at Ashton Court for many years under her married name of Provis. Another error in the seal escaped notice until after the trial of the cause. The peculiar badge of a baronetcy is a bloodred hand carried in a canton on some part of the family shield. As this canton is necessarily very small, the engraver had not succeeded in getting in the proper

complement of fingers; the hand, therefore, had but three fingers and a thumb. The doleful tale of Sir John's death the night after he had received his nephew's stunning information is, happily, without foundation. Sir John died suddenly no doubt; but evidence could have been given to show that no such interview as that alleged had taken place, though the impostor had been seen about the Hall at that time.

The defence against this daring imposition is said to have cost the family at least 6000l. On the other hand, it is reported, that certain speculators, who had supplied large funds for the promotion of the suit, both lost their money, and were disappointed of enormous gains annuities for pounds. The prisoner, who kept up the game to the last, before his trial assigned all his right, title, and interest in the Smyth estates to his eldest son, lest they should become forfeited to the Crown by his conviction for felony.

The telegraphic message so opportunely received was sent by the Oxford-street tradesman, who had read the first day's proceedings in The Times, and immediately recognised the rings and brooch as hav. ing been sold by him to the prisoner, and engraved by his order.