written "New America" and "Spiritual Wives." Galling as what was said might have been to Mr. Hepworth Dixon, he had no right to sue the defendant and to say that his character was ruined when what was said was substantially what the Times had before said. He had challenged the Pall Mall Gazette, and they in answer asserted that the books were "vamped up" and "obscene." You could scarcely refer to any part in which sexual intercourse was not alluded to. Whatever might have been the object of the book, it being published in a popular form was still obscene. The plaintiff had palmed off as philosophy and for pelf books under the pretence of their being philosophy. In conclusion the learned counsel said, "As you say you are a member of a high and honourable guild or calling, I say you have prostituted that calling by taking up your pen and writing for pelf works which you have palmed off as being works of philosophy, when you knew that they were works of filth; you have injured that high calling to which you belong, and you are a writer of obscene books."

The learned counsel sat down amidst great applause, after having spoken for five hours.

Mr. Sergeant Parry replied on behalf of the plaintiff. He sought to demonstrate to the jury that Mr. Dixon had been slandered and libelled by the Pall Mall Gazette, and that there was no defence or justification. In general, this must be remarked-that the libels were not a criticism on one or two works which Mr. Dixon had published, but it was an attack upon his whole life and career. What was meant when it was said that a man was a writer of "obscene "books was this, that he had written with an improper motive in writing, whilst Mr. Dixon had sworn, and there was no contradiction of it, that there was no improper motive influencing him. He had gone into the box, and his whole life was open to inquiry, whilst his libeller preserved the secrecy that surrounded him, and perhaps had been sitting in court listening with gloating enjoyment to the attacks of Sir J. Karslake upon the plaintiff, who was forced to come into court to vindicate his character. There were many men in the literary world who had made mistakes, and Mr. Dixon had made a mistake, for it was to be regretted that he had ever published "Spiritual Wives." Still, was it fair, looking at all the books of biography and travel, of description, that he had written, to say that he was "best known as a writer of obscene books"? His object was to place the bare truth before the jury, and therefore he frankly said that his client had written one bad book. He trusted that the jury, whilst bearing in mind this admission, would say that they would not condemn Mr. Dixon in general terms for this one unfortunate inadvertence or mistake. In no sense could it be said that the plaintiff was "best known" in the way imputed. Sir John Karslake had endeavoured to sustain the expression by saying that a man was best known for the time by his last work, and that Mr. Dixon's last work was Spiritual Wives;" but, unfortunately for this theory, his last work was "Her Majesty's Tower." Mr. Dixon was also called the successful composer of "vamped-up travels." Substantially, the only book referred to by the defence in justification of this was "Free Russia." There was nothing whatever to justify the general imputation that the plaintiff was a successful composer of “vampedup travels." Scarcely anything had been said of any other travels of Mr. Dixon; and not one word about his " Travels in the Holy Land," a book which had been praised both in the press and in the pulpit. The very fact

that the writer or writers of the articles were kept out of the box was in itself, he contended, a strong presumption that there was malice. In conclusion, the learned Serjeant said, "I have only a few words to say to you now, and I scarcely know how to say them. I feel that interests of a most sacred character have been entrusted to me; that against my client there have been arrayed an amount of ability that I cannot at all pretend to, and I feel that I may have done something or omitted something that I ought to have done; but I say in the last moment-I trust to you, if that be so, to believe that it may have been so, because of those strong feelings of personal friendship that I have always entertained for Mr. Dixon, and that this may in some measure have misled me as an advocate." (Slight applause.)

Mr. Justice Brett then summed up the case to the jury. Whatever (said his lordship) may be said of this trial, I think no one can doubt that it has been conducted on both sides with great ability and eloquence, and my brother Parry can have nothing to reproach himself for in the way he has conducted the case from beginning to end. Now the plaintiff complains that the defendant, or those for whom he is responsible, have published three libels upon him-I say three libels, but practically there are only two-and he also complains that by way of aggravation they were published maliciously—that is to say there was a malicious intention on the part of the person who wrote and published them. The defendant answers in the first place that the articles do not contain libellous matter, and in the second that if they do they were written bonâ fide, and were not more than a fair criticism on a public man on a public occasion. Then, he says, that even if they do contain libellous matter it is true in fact. With regard to the defence that the articles are fair criticism, the plaintiff answers that it is not-that even if the occasion were a public one on which a bonâ fide criticism might be made, it was not made bonâ fide. In this kind of action more than any other it is peculiarly your duty to decide between the parties. Assisting as you do in the administration of the law, you have no right to give a verdict according to any personal feeling of your own, and you are bound to say what are the proper answers to the questions I shall have to put to you. In almost any other action where the matter complained of is in written documents, it would be my duty to tell you what is the meaning of those documents, but in an action for libel it is not. My first duty is to construe the written document-to say what it means-whether it is a libel or not. If you are of opinion that a written document, charged as a libel, would, in the opinions of ordinary, reasonable, and right-minded persons reading it-if you think it would, if it were true, tend to degrade the party of whom it is written by holding him up to hatred, ridicule, or contempt-then it would be a libel. The first thing, therefore, you have to do on looking at these articles, is to say whether they or either of them, when considered by people of ordinary reason and right feeling, would, if true, tend to degrade Mr. Hepworth Dixon by holding him up to hatred, ridicule, and contempt. If you think either or both of them would have that tendency, they are libels; if you do not, they are not,

The jury left the court for the purpose of considering their verdict at half-past two, and at four o'clock they returned a verdict for the plaintiff— Damages, One Farthing.

The announcement was received with some applause, which was instantly suppressed.

VII.

THE TICHBORNE CASE.1

AMID signs of increased interest the hearing of the Tichborne case was resumed on the 15th January, 1872, in the Westminster Sessions House. Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Pollard, and Mr. Jeune, appeared for the Plaintiff: the Attorney-General, Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Sir G. Honeyman, Q.C., Mr. Chapman Barber, and Mr. Bowen, for the defence: Mr. H. Matthews, Q.C., and Mr. Purcell for the Trustees of the Doughty Estate. The Attorney-General opened the case on behalf of the defence. He denounced the claimant as a cunning and dangerous conspirator, a perjurer. a forger, an impostor, and a villain, adding that he would be able to prove hundreds of facts inconsistent with the story before the jury. Each of these facts would convict the claimant of a fraud, a lie, and a crime, on a scale of depth and wickedness unequalled in the annals of the law. A detestable imposture had been palmed upon the public, and he would unmask and expose it so that it should require no second doing. The learned counsel then made a long and searching analysis of the claimant's case, and contrasted it with the facts upon which he relied to convince the jury that the plaintiff could not be Sir Roger Tichborne. He denounced the statements of the claimant about Miss Doughty as "the most infernal lie that ever villain told in a court of justice." His narrative of the relations between Roger Tichborne and his cousin Kate, together with his statement of the reasons which led Sir Edward and Lady Doughty to refuse their consent to the union of the young people, was listened to with the deepest attention by the crowded court. He read at length extracts from the correspondenee which had passed between Roger and Lady Doughty, principally to show the terms upon which the families were, and the style in which Tichborne was capable of writing; and then, in foreshadowing the line of the defence, told the jury that it was the plaintiff's duty to satisfy them that he was Roger Tichborne, and it was no part of the defendant's duty to show who the claimant really was. He should, however, contend that the plaintiff's own story, and what he had written, showed that he was not Roger Tichborne, and that the conclusion was almost inevitable that he was Arthur Orton. The speaker then placed before the jury an outline of the case supporting the Orton hypothesis, and was proceeding to comment upon the circumstances under which the discovery of the claimant was made in Australia. He then proceeded to an analysis of the Australian correspondence, because, in his view, the initiation of the alleged fraud was of the utmost importance for the consideration of the jury. He pointed out that the claimant's information had grown with the progress of this correspondence, and that it would appear as though an impression at one time existed that if Lady Tichborne acknowledged him there would be an end of all difficulty in the way of recognition, and he could settle down in the colony to enjoy the

1 Looking to the extraordinary length to which this trial extended, we have found it impossible to give any detailed report of it, as it was our intention to do. We have, therefore, continued the summary from the point at which we left it last year. See "Annual Register" for 1871, p. 224.

proceeds of the Tichborne estates. In dissecting the testimony given on the other side, he called attention to many inconsistencies in the letters of the claimant with the knowledge of the facts which Roger Tichborne must have possessed, even had he been, as sought to be established, absent twelve years from his native land. Much fault having been found with the strength of his expressions about the claimant at the opening of his speech, he proceeded to justify them. He had no notion of being mealy-mouthed, if the man was an impostor, as he believed he was. It would be remembered that prior to leaving England Roger executed an elaborate will, in which he dealt with his property in a masterly fashion. On June 1, 1866, the claiment executed a will at WaggaWagga, which he signed as Roger Charles Tichborne, and in which he dealt with the Tichborne estates. Now it was singular that if the claimant was the genuine Roger Tichborne he should not have remembered and said something about the previous will, which he must have known was in existence in England. No reference, however, was made to that will, and it was altogether an independent document, with this extraordinary fact, that in dealing with the Tichborne estate it did not set forth one solitary thing connected with the family or property which was correct. Since the examination of the claimant had concluded, the defence had sent out a gentleman to Australia, and he had made a curious discovery. In the possession of a man named Cox, there had been found a pocket-book which originally belonged to the claimant, and which would be proved to be in his handwriting. On many of the pages of the book the name of Sir Roger Tichborne was written many times, as if the claimant was practising how to write such a signature. In some cases Roger was spelt with a "d," and Tichborne was described as being in Surrey, England. America was spelt in different ways, such as "Amereka," and "Amerika." On another page there was written the following bit of morality, signed “R. C. Tichborne, Bart." :-"Some men has plenty money and no brains, and some men has plenty brains and no money. Surely men with plenty money and no brains were made for men with plenty brains and no money." On a subsequent page there was written, "R. C., Tichborne Park, I hope, some day." After various other inscriptions and a rude drawing of a three-masted ship, there was this:-"I, Thos. Castro, do hereby certify that my name is not Thomas Castro at all; therefore, those that say it is don't know anything about it.-R.C.T." Then there was what looked like "Own dear fair one," and underneath, "Miss Mary Ann Loder, No. 27, Russell'sbuildings, High-street, Wapping, London "-Miss Loder having been Arthur Orton's sweetheart. This book, he submitted, threw a flood of light upon the case. After disparaging, at great length, the evidence of Bogle, and treating of other matters, the Attorney-General referred to the claimant's voyage home. He started on Sept. 22, 1866, in the "Rakia," for Panama, with his family, Bogle, and Butts. He came from Panama in the "Sella," and landed on Christmas Day, 1866; he went to Ford's Hotel, and then, without seeing anybody in the world, this returned "Baronet" went down to Wapping in a cab, about nine at night, disguised. Why, if the man were Roger Tichborne, should such secrecy and deception have been practised? What made him represent a photograph of his own wife and child as those of Arthur Orton? Why did he not go at once to Lady Tichborne, or to the Seymours, or to some other near connexion of the family? When he went to Alresford, under the name of Taylor, was it likely that the

real Roger Tichborne would have muffled himself up and induced some one to drive round Tichborne Park in disguise? The learned gentleman read several letters of Roger to Gosford to show the difference in style between them and the correspondence of the claimant. He afterwards analyzed the testimony of Mr. Baigent on several points of importance, and spoke of many of the incidents surrounding the identification of the claimant by the Dowager Lady Tichborne as being of a very unsatisfactory character. He then examined in detail the incidents of the meeting between Hopkins, Baigent, and the plaintiff; remarking that probably these three persons had but little idea of the mischief that must arise from the putting forward of the present claim, but which had been irreparable. In analyzing the evidence of Colonel Lushington, the nominal defendant, Sir John Coleridge reminded the jury that, previously to his visit to Tichborne Hall, the claimant had studied a catalogue of the pictures, and was thus enabled to recognize the portrait of the Dowager. Besides, Bogle had been in all the rooms, and had probably given the plaintiff every information. After some references to the peculiarities of the claimant's orthography, the Attorney-General passed on to notice the testimony of Carter and M‘Cann, who had been with Roger Tichborne in the army, stating that he would call fifteen or sixteen officers, who would give their opinion that the story was altogether trumped up, and that the claimant was nothing but an impostor. In continuing his speech, the Attorney-General examined in detail the incidents of the interviews which the claimant had with Mrs. Radcliffe and the other members of the Tichborne family some time after his arrival in this country. He pointed out the blunders committed by the plaintiff on these occasions; such, for instance, as his mistaking Mrs. Radcliffe for her cousin, Mrs. Townley. In dissecting the evidence given by the military witnesses, the claimant had professed to recognize them all at a glance, although, when confronted with the members of the Tichborne family, with whom Roger Tichborne lived for years, he did not know them. Mr. Biddulph was the only member of the family, with the exception of the deceased Dowager, who had recognized him as Roger Tichborne. The Attorney-General then read the claimant's examination in Chancery in 1867. His object was to show the manner of the answers then given, and how particular bits of evidence were obtained from him. The account given by the plaintiff of his rescue from the wreck of the "Bella" was also commented upon, and its inconsistencies pointed out. One feature of the case was particularly striking. The life of Roger Tichborne while he was in France was almost altogether a sealed book to the plaintiff, except as to one or two things which he might have learnt from the Dowager. His absence of knowledge concerning his companions and course of education at Stonyhurst was likewise remarked upon. What would have been the evidence of the real Roger compared with the miserable scraps of testimony fished up by the claimant? Much of the knowledge which he possessed was of the kind picked up by gipsies and afterwards used for the purposes of their frauds. With officers the claimant spoke simple English, while to the private soldiers he put on a French accent, which was an indication of fraud. It was noticeable upon what very slender grounds people would build up opinions upon important matters. There was Mrs. Hussey, who, having once danced with Roger when she was fourteen years old, at once recognized him again. Then Mrs. Legge, the washerwoman, this man, who had forgotten almost everything of consequence,

Q