THE ORTON TICHBORNE TRIAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1762, 7 April 1874, Page 2

THE ORTON TICHBORNE TRIAL.

[Melbourne Augus. | : London, Jan. 23. ►■.- ] The absorbing interest of the great , trial has, more than once during the past j month, been almost entirely diverted to J proceedings before the humbler tribunal of our Bow-street Police-court, where the daring^in dividual who swore that his name was Jean Luie, that he picked up the defendant and other survivors of the Bella, and landed them, in Melbourne from the Osprey in July, 1854, has several times been brought up on remand. So important were the proceedings against this man considered in relation to the present trial, that when the Luie investigation was in progress, it was easy to know by the whispering and the buzz of conversation among the bar when anyone had arrived who could tell how the Bow-street proceedings were going. Dr Kenealy was, as usual, maundering away about everything in the universe except the issue before the jury, when the first editions of the evening papers coming into court were read and passed on from hand to hand until they had been the round of the hall. What had Luie said ? Was it true that he had confessed — not his own guilt, for that there is no longer any doubt about— but the way in which, as he had vigourously declared. at the preliminary formal investigation, he had been encouraged and "set up" to do what he had done ? Had he told why it was thnt after Mr_Whalley.._member oj Parliament, had gone to the United States, and found out that the story was entirely fake, the defendant's advisers still kept him snug until, when they thought it too late for the prosecution to send' out and make similar inquiries, the pretended steward of the phantom Osprey, with his wild, romantic, incredible story, was suddenly dropped into the witness-box ? Was the attorney of the defendant to be prosecuted for subornation 1 Were the members of Parliament and the noble and honourable gentlemen who have been so darkly mixed up iv this strange affair to be classed together and included in one common indictment for a wicked conspiracy ? Poor Mr Whalley, whose senses, whether in his seat in Parliament or in the c raer in which he is accustomed to worship Arthur Orton in the Court of Queen's Bench, always forsake him at suggestion that there is a;" Jesuit plot," is probably houest, so perhaps are many oihers ; Imt the human mind is a strange thing, and there is a class of persons who, in the fn-vour of partisanship, wil! do things which in the abstract would inspire them with disgust. There is a considerable number still of influential people who have staked not only their money, but their reputation for common sense, upon the truth of Orton's impossible tale. It is bad enough to lose one's cash, and that the investments in the Orton swindle are lost must now be perceived even by Mr Guildford Onslow ; but to be laughed at into the bargain, and taunted every day with the question, "Who is right now, eh ?" is more than weak persons of this stamp are willing to face. If the object of their misplaced enthusiasm could only just escape by the death or illness of a juryman, or by one dissentient in the jury box, it might leave them still a possibility of shaking thsir heads and saying that, after all, they are not so sure "that he isn't the man." But a verdict of "Guilty," which would strip the exslaughter-man of Waarga of his house, and his carriage, and all the other means which have been artfully employed to keep up his prestige, in the eyes of ' the mob— a verdict which would pack him straight off to the hulks, would at once convert millions. Whether from these considerations or fro '.i what other cause it is difficult to say, the whole conduct of the defence in this case has been marked by manoeuvres which, to say the least, are daring, and not a little dangerous. Hence the words of Luie, " 1 should not have done this if I had not been encouraged and set up," were remembered ; and curiosity has still further been stimulated by a private letter of Luie's, written while he was merely detained for want of bail, to his friend Mr Whalley, which concludes with the strange postscript, " If I am rendered assistance, Sir Roger and all of you are sp.ved." And assistance has been rendered. At the examination at Bow-street appeared Mr Whalley and Mr Onslow, and other persons implicated in the affair, and the best legal advice having been furni.-hed at their expense, Luie is obstinately defended, though without the faintest chance of saving the man, who has been identified, beyond all possibility of question, Carl Lundgren, the ticket-of-leave convict who, instead of being in the Osprey and roughing the seas for 20 years past, has been spending his time in England, partly in gaols and partly outside, as a daring swindler. To those who like myself, saw Luie day after day in the Court of Queen's Bench petted and welcomed by the defendant's party, sitting at the little table beside the defendant, smiling and stroking his blackgrey beard, and known as the great witness who had settled the whole business in the defendant's favour, there was something peculiarly dismal in his appearance as a prisoner in the dock at the policecourt. Curiously enough, his countenanance in that earlier time wore quite a genial and benevolent expression. His grey eye twinkled at a joke from a witness ; he sat at his ease, like a man who was conscious of having done his duty and c< r .-ned his repose, and little cares had Jean Luie at that time. It was true that Mr Onslow and Mr Whalley were urging upon him strongly to get out of the country ; and Mr Onslow actually gave iiitn a letter to the superintendent of the Southampton Docks, dated on the very day after he gave his evidence, and asking that gentleman to procure him forthwith a passage to the United States. Luie, it appeals, undertook to go ; but he changed his mind. Perhaps> a LSOO or so might have quickened Ms movements ; bv.t the expenses have been heavy on the defendant's side, and money has been long scarce in that quarter. Mr Onslow, it appears, and Mr Whalley too, presented that gallant seaman of the Osprey with a written testimonial declaring their satisfaction at the way in which he had given his evidence, together with L 5 each, and an expression of regret that they were not able to give 100 times that amount. ButLlOand a blessing did not suit the ideas of Jean Luie. He had, he considered, alone saved their protege, "Sir Roger," from conviction, perhaps helped to put him in possession of L 30,000 a year. Was he to be fobbed off with a LlO note : and now that they had got all they could out of him, to be actually

i m'ktled out of the country in that fashion ! H was true th it they were sending him : iuiine to America, where he said he had an ' establishment, with a family anxious to | welcome the return of a fond father too ' long detained by public duties in this ;' country. But that was all untrue. He | had no family in New York, no little res- ! tau'rant in Chicago, no grog shop in Jersey | city. Though he talked in the witness box so gilbly about " Nineteenth-street" and "Newbury-avenue," he had never been in the United States in his life, anc didn't want to go there now. Remain here; and he would be a perpetual terror to the defendant, who might at last scrape up a handsome sum to get rid of the man whose antecedents he must perfectly well have known would not bear investigation. Besides that, Jean Luie had his daily allowance from the Government as a witness who was staying in England at the request of the prosecution. So it came about that the Court being suspicious, ordered Luie not to depart until further orders, and from that hour detectives watched him so that getting away would have been difficult. To do hin justice, he took no pains to escape observation. It is a curious illustration of the recklessness of the habitual criminal, that this man actually took a pleasure in sitting all clay in the open court beside his bosom friend the defendant, though he well knew that at the general registry of prisons, within a couple of stones' throw of West-minister-hall, was a photographic portrait and description of the e° nvio * Oari Liindgren, taken -on -Ms" release from Chatham Just six months before. Nay, as I have already said, he actually presented himself on public platforms, and made speeches on behalf of " my poor dear Roger" before thousands of persons. Such boldness, indeed, was in itself calculated to disarm suspicion, and his Swedish accent helped to convince that his home was really foreign parts, as he had said. Added to that there was the manner and appearance of the man— his mild-looking - countenance ; his frank, open, straightforward, and cheerful manner! Only once in his two days' examination did he show an arjproach to irritation at the severe cross.questioning of Mr Hawkins, and then it was but the natural indignation of conscious rectitude. " Before Gott and man," he said, " I speak de truth," and suppressed applause ran through the court, and even Mr Hawkins, who is not easily abashed, looked ashamed of having for a moiient doubted so good a niah. But oh the change in Bow-street, where last Saturday, profiting by the fact that the Court of Queen's Bench does not sit on that clay, 1 was en: -bled to be present at the second examir jfou of this famous , criminal. He is now charged with perjury, to which has been superadded lately a charge of bigamy ; but he has already been identified as the convict Lundgreti who had broken his licence, he is confined in the Penitentiary, whence he is brought up for examination in the horrible dirty yellow convict uniform, close buttoned to the chin. The* flowing beard is gone, the hair on each side of the bald head is cut close ; for the first time the face of Jean Luie is really seen, and a more determined and ferocious countenance could perhaps hardly be pictured — not haggard or worn, as might have bean supposed, but presenting a well-fed plnmptness, as if prison air and the fo )d of gaol birds had come to be his natural element, on which he thrives best. Nor was his air downcast or sullen. His great under lip comes up in a curious fashion, and the thin upper lip presses down into it in a way that gives a marked expression of determination. His eyes, that used to be small and twinkling, by some strange change now fix themselves on the witnesses against him, and seem as large again as they were. There is always something painful in the sight of a man without a vestige of linen, either about the throat or at the wrists, and Luie's aspect in this condition under the swinging lamp, whose light was struggling hard against the darkness of a foggy day, was peculiarly sombre and repulsive, though he smiled now and then, and yawned like one who was weary of the farce going on. As far as the evidence against him goes, there was little that was not already known. That lie had never sailed in any Osprey, and never picked up the defendant, and that therefore the fact that the defendant, the moment he saw Mm in the presence of Mr Whalley, greeted him in Spanish with the words, " Como esta Luie '?" was a mere pre-arranged performance, we knew. We knew, too, that the Osprey was a mythical craft, and all that story of running away from her and going up to Ballarat with the other rascally witness Jane 3, and the acquaintance made with the celebrated witness Captain Brown, was a pure fabrication, though Brown had sworn to his part of it, and the defendant had endorsed it all round. Even the defendant's counsel, Dr Kenealy, after maintaining with vehement asseverations that " every word that Luie had said was true," and. this even after he had been identified beyond question, had at last given him up, and spoken of him as that " wretched man who ha 3so grossly deceived us." So that all we expected was a little information from the " steward of the Osprey" as to the secret history of his introduction into the Orton trial. But the result was disappointing. The Onslows and the Whalleys had taken action ; there had been interviews with Luie and promises of aid, and the man's mouth was found to be closed. Yet there was evidence that he had not always been so uncomunicative. On the contrary. With the inspegtor who first took him to the prison he had exr pressed a desire for advice, and. had been remarkably confiding. To him he had said that the matter was concocted with Mr Whalley in Brussels, many weeks be« fore the time when he has hitherto been believed to have first appeared ; and he had made a statement as to what w;ia to have been the share o; Mmself and other persons in the Tichlo-ne estates, if they were ever obtained. O f course the word of Jean Luie is not worth much ; but it is a curious fact that after this man has been identified as a notorious criminal by evidence irresistible and conclusive, he is still supported openly by two members of Parliament, determined to shield him if they can. The day a f ter he gave his preposterous evidence these two gentlemen addressed to him a letter, in which they certified that he " bad shown himself to be a man of thorough honesty," and that he had " borne himself throughout all his life as a person entitled to confidence and respect." More than that, they certified that, though " exposed to great difficulties, harassments, and temptations, \he had remained gtaunch and true, and rendered great seryjee to Roger Tichborne." As Hamlet

says, the gentlemen "did protest too much, methinks ;" but for all this it is proved that they were very anxious to hurry him away beyond the terrible jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench from the very moment that he had given his evidence. Even the powerful support of these gentlemen, and the party with which they are connected, however, has not prevented inconvenient disclosures. Yesterday, Luie was brought tip again, and then, for the first time, Mr Hendriks, the defendant's attorney, who washed his hands. of the case last" August, rather than be a party to the Luie business, appeared to give evidence. This gentleman produced a letter from the firm in New York whom Luie had named as the owners of the Osprey, informing him, as far back as last July, that they never owned any vessel called the Osprey, and knew nothing of any steward called Jean Luie. It was also proved, by comparison of the original statement of Luie with his evidence given in the court on this trial, that his story, not to speak of strong internal evidences- of falsehood, varied very considerably at different times ; and yet this rascal was allowed to go into the witnessbox, and the defendant sat there and heard him tell his tale ; and his counsel maintained its perfect truth and honesty even after the prison photograph and the description in the prison registers (only a few months old, be it remembered) had satisfied every impartial person that Jean Luie is, in fact, Carl Lundgren. Only three days ago Mr Whalley published a letter, declaring that Luie was an injured person, who was suffering from telling the truth, for which contempt of Court he was this morning compelled to appear before the judges, and after a rambling defence by his counsel, he was adjudged to pay a fine of L 250. At first the Court said that they did not think it necessary to imprison the hon. member for Peterborough; but the hon. member for Peterborough, emulating the example of Mr Pickwick on a famous occasion, arose, and vehemently declared that he would not pay it. Upon this the judges immediately ordered him into custody, and when Parliament meets, a few days hence, Peterborough will, fortunately or unfortunately for itself, be deprived of its representative. As for the trial itself, though it has been protracted beyond the time which I anticipated al the date of my last letter, it is some comfort to note that its termination cannot be far off. Indeed it may be confidently predicted that the result of this cause, cclbhrc, begun on the 23rd of April last, will have been telegraphed to Tlie Argus before this letter .can appear in your columns. When I last wrote we had ad journed for the Christmas holidays, and it waa fondly believed in some quarters that Dr. Kenealy, who had been threatened and warned by the Court, and had since the 2nd of December been speakin", was drawing to a close. But we had reckoned without our host. The learned counsel actually went on to the 14th inst., and only stopped then after some solemn warnings, ajjain and again repeated, that he would be peremptorily ordered to sit down and conclude his desultory talk. Never, perhaps, was a more flagrant case of speaking against time. There was something almost sublime in the coolness with which the orator, on the 150 th day of this trial,' set to work to read extracts from ancient works of fiction and forgotten poems, and once more discoursed in a leisurely way upon the peculiar and irresistible tendene'es to wickedness in persons of enormous bulk. But there must be an end to all things. Taking his two speeches together, Dr Kenealy had actually addressed the jury for 43 entire days, and though such a step had never hitherto been taken, the Court, it appeared, not only had the power, but were prepared to exercise the power of compelling him to stop that very day. Of the substance of his speech there is nothing to tell ; but the last day waa devoted to a violent and disgusting attack upon Mrs Radcliffe with regard to the now exploded sealed packet story, and the alleged seduction at the mill. It was nothing to Dr. Kenealy that this story has been disproved over and over again. It mattered not to the learned counsel that hi 3 own client had given accounts of the affair confused, contradictory, and wholly irreconcilable, not only with themselves, but with dates, facts, and circumstances about which there is not even any dispute between the prosecution and the defence. The movements and the whereahouts of Roger Tichborne at the period referred to, and the movements and whereabouts of Lady Radcliffe, then Miss Kate Doughty, a mere girl, are known with marvellous exactness from the mass of correspondence which has been preserved, from the record of leave granted to the young officer who was with his regiment then, and from numerous other sources. The story in ifself was so wild and absurd that it is astonishing how it could have been whispered, as it has been, all over the county of Hampshire ever since the claimant first started it seven years ago, and not be seen through by every body who heard it. His motive for starting it was obvious enough. He was simply in the unpleasant difficulty of being unable to say, when challenged to do so, what was in the sealed packet ; and he got'out of the difficulty, and at the same time wreaked his vengeance upon Lady Radcliffe and her husband, who had pronounced, him an imposter, by swearing thai he had not been unable, but simply unwilling, to speak of the contents. To support this shuffle he declared at last that the: document in the packet, which has since been shown, not only by the evidence of the gentleman with whom Rogiir Tichborne left it, but by the letters of Roger himself, to be perfectly innocent, was something very dreadful. All this Kenealy knew, and he also knew that the story could not be true, because, as he has been compelled to admit Roger never saw Migs Doughty, and was never near her home after a certain day in July 1852, and the defendant is, therefore, compelled to put the seduction at that date. But then Roger left Europe in March, 1853, and the claimant has sworn that he then left the packet, directing Mr Gocford what to do if (!) liis cousin should prove to be enceinte. It happened that judges and jury went down in the recent vacation to Tichborne, and having inspected the mill (as Kenealy himself did about the same time), were satisfied, .as they must be, that nothing of the sort could have occurred there. Tndeed, Kenealy is himself so satisfied oi this point that he has impudently changed hi 3 ground, and said that it was not at the mill, but in a grotto, that the affair took place ; and finally, to the astonishment of everybody, he declared that there was some improper conduct on the part of his

client in the grotto, but that the wickedness was finally completed at Tichborne, in Miss Doughtj-'s father's own house. All this was contrary to his client's own statements on oath; but that meters little to Dr. Kenealy. What are the defendant's oath to him 1 Has he not declared that his client's. statements on oath are all moonshine ? This way of talking reached its climax of absurdity when, on the last day of the trial, he declared in loud tones, that if his client said he was Arthur Orton he wouldn't believe him. And what (inquired the Lord Chief Justice with quiet sarcasm) are we to say when he declares he is Roger Tichborne ? It was on Thursday week that Mr Hawkins at last got up to. address the jury on behalf of the prosecution, and great was the change. He is one of the most eloquent, but what is still more important, he is the most logical and coherent of reasoners at the bar. Though he has nowbeen speaking for seven entire days, he has wasted no time^ and; it; is expected that his speech will have concluded on Monday afternoon, when, of course, the judges will, begin to sum up. It was a good sign when the learned counsel, after a few preliminary observations; addressed himself instantly what is known as the Orton part of the case. There are a great many wiseacres about who will tell you that the jury will not be satisfied that Tom Castro, the slaughterman' of Wagga Wagga, is the same man who, under the name of Artur Orton, was in Hobart Town and in Gipps Land from 1853 to 1855. People who have long maintained that this man is no other than Roger Tichborne have lately been shaken ; and it is now the fashion with such weakminded folks to take refuge in a kind of half-way house. They wag their heads sagaciously in steamboats and in omnibuses, and deliver themselves of the observations— " Well, sir, lam inclined to think that he has been shown not to be Tichborne ; but, on the other hand, nothing shall persuade me that he is Arthur Orton." The notion is ridiculously at variance with the evidence, at least as far as.regards the least half.-of it, but it looks, they think, moderate and sensible. Whether Mr Hawkins thinks there may be one of these folks among ihe jury, I know not ; but he lost no time in undertaking to show by the evidence before them that ; the into now undergoing his trial is- not o*ly perjured in maintaining that he is identical with the young officer who was drowned in the Bella, bat is no other than Arthur Orton, the.son of. old George Orton, the Wapping butcher. And he has proved it. In. less than two days' and a half— piecing this with that, and tracing the story of the butcher's life— he made out his 3tory with a completeness w.hich ought, once and for ever, to set that question at rest. I have already acquainted your readers with the details of this evidence, but one or two of its main features are worth, perhaps, a parting glance. I ' have heard people who ought to know something about this case talk as if the jury had only to decide between two sets of witnesses— between the "yea" of one 250 and the ".nay " of another 250. setting aside the fact that witnesses" yary very much in quality, and cannot be estimated by their mere numerical strength, it is of the utmost importance to bear in mind that, while the evidence in favor of the defendant is merely oral, that for the prosecution is both oral and documentary. Everyone knows that independent records are of infinitely greater value than mere depositions. as to recollections. Now, it go happens that Arthur Orton's movements have been traced by documents up to a certain pomt — namely, 1859^with such exactness and certainty that that fact alone is sufficient to blow 'to the winds the wild stories about meeting Arthur Orton in the bush which we have heard from the ex-convicts, and the racing t^uts, and the "sly- grog sellers," who have come into the witness-box to prove that Tom Castro and Arthur Orton > were very different persons. From the very beginning of his- career— indeed, from the day of his birth— the butcher boy's life has thus been ascertained.' There is his baptismal register, dated 1834, which is not unimportant ; for when Torn Castro was married in Wagga Wagga, in January, 1865 (he had not thought of setting up as a baronet then), he described himself as 30 years of age ; whereas Roger, if alive, would then have been 36. In 1848 the boy went away in the ship : Ocean,* for Valparaiso; and. in the seaman's registry there is the record of the fact, andi of his name, parentage, and description. Curiously enough, though his Wapping witnesses pretend to recollect, after : ajj those years, that the boy was much marked with the small-pox, and had a great scar on his face — this registry records in the appropriate column that he had "no marks." Now, the defendant admits that he was in the little town of Melipella, in Chili, and that he there knew Don Thomas Castro, whose name, when he found it expedient to drop his awn cognomen in Australia, he chose to assume. More than that, he had written to this Don Thomas since he left Wagga Wagga, mentioning 2.0 other persons there, whom he knew years a.go. This, lie says, was in 185,3> when RogerTichborne, though he has never been shown to have been in Melipella, was cer- „ tainly in South America. " Not at all," says his Melipella iriends ; "it was in 1849-50-51, my dear sir, that you were here. " This they say in the most friendly manner in the world, as only correcting a little mistake, and evidently without a notion of the importance of the difference, Besides that, while, as appears by their letters, they are evidently under the belief that his proper name is Roger Tichborne, they : remind their correspondent;, in the' most innocent fashion, that when among them he had assumedithe name of Orton and Arturo, and that he said he had had St. Yitus's dance, which both sides have deposed that Orton had, And when the commission from the Court of. Chancery went out to examine these folks, they said that they never knew any Roger Tichborne, but that in 1848 a sailor youth came to them, and did not go away till 1851, having been hospitably* and kindly treated by them. He said his father was a butcher, but a great man for all that, who served the Queen, with whose children Arthur (who, you perceive, had acquired bad habits at that early time) declared that he had often played. He said his father has sent him to sea to cure his "St. Vitus," that the captain treated him unkindly, and that he had run away from the ship at Valparaiso. They also, said that he remained just a year and a half. Now, when they all swore to these details (behind "the claimant's back it is true, but that was his fault, for

though he went out to South America for the purpose, ho would not face them) no one had thought of going to Valparaiso — about 90 miles off— and searching the records of our consul's office there ; but, finally, it did o^cur to s^me one, and a search waa made, and behold there was an entry rot only of the fact that Arthur Orton did abscond from the ship Ocean in the very month and year in which the Melipella folks said he came to them, but re-embarked exactly eighteen months later, just as they had deposed. Back comes Arthur to Wapping, courts Miss Loader, and write 3 her love-letters for a twelvemonth, and then embarks aboard the Middleton for Hobart Towu. All thiß is proved again, not by anybody's memory— always a treacherous faculty — but by the seamen's registry and the crew-list of the vessel. He lands in Hobart Town, and here we have documentary evidence again, in the shape of his letters written thence, as well as from aboard the Middleton on his voyage. He stays there till If 55. Proved again, not only bylhe evidence of Mrs Jury, but by the letter and promissory-note in his hand, and signed Arthur Orton, which he gave that lady in May and June, 3855, when he swindled her ' out of LlB. Thence absconding, he took service with Mr Johnson atKewburn Park ; and next at Mr Forster's, at Bairnsdale, where ha remained till the end of 1858. Proved again, not merely by the witnesses who saw him at both places, but by the ledgers of Mr Forsterfor those years, and the cheque-books of the stfme gentleman, recording tbo wages paid and rations served out to a stockman named Arthur Orton. Mrs Foster (now Mrs Macalister) and her husband have as your readers know- come all the way from Gipps Land to Westminster and have positively sworn to the defendant ; but set that aside. There can at least be no doubt that the Arthur Orton of Foster's and the Arthur Orton who has been traced to Hobart Town are one and the same person, for Mrs Macalister produced a book in which her husband's stockman had written a long foolish vow, signed it Arthur Orton, and in the same book and in the same hand had scribbled the words " Mr Johnson, Newbnry Park." These handwritings are identical. He is next traced to Sale in 1859 by a number of witnesses, and in this case there- is again documentary evidence, for he sued Mr Foster on a false claim for wages, and the proceedings in that suit are found duly recorded in the County Court books of that town. After 1859 we find no Arthur Orton, but only a Thomas Castro, arid from that point there is no more documentary evidence of Orton, but there is plenty of evidence that these were the same men. There is the witness Hopwood for example, who was in the same service with Arthur at Johnson's, and who knew him at Mr Foster's, and in Sale. This man has told us that he saw the defendant in Wagga Wagga in 1864, in the butcher's shop, and, addressing him by the words, "Holloa, Arthur," was told by the defendant that he had changed his name "over a matter of a hoese" at Sale, and wanted no one to know that his then present name of Tom Castro was not his true one. With this substantial foundation for the Orton story, Mr Hawkins invited the jury to look at the facts of Castro's life in Wagga Wagga in 1864, 1865, and 1866, and the facts which point irresistibly to his being Orton. Here, agairj, documents, of the authenticity of which there is no dispute, came in aid of the oral testimony. His i very name is evidence, for "Tom Castro" < was the name of the gentleman in whose house, in the little obscure town of Melipella, in the heart of South America, young Orton lived. Everybody remembers the Wagga Wagga will, which is still in existence, in which the Tichborne property described is purely imaginary, and ' there is not a name which is genuine except those of Henry Angell and John Jar vis of Bridport and Dorset, England, who happened to be old friends of the Ortons. Again, it is no dream of Mr . Gibbes that this man, being asked what ■ ship he left Europe in, didn't say that it | was the Pauline, the ship in which Ttoger sailed, but the Jessie Miller, the very name of the ship in which Orton, as appears in the consul's books referred to, sailed, on his return in 1851, from Valparaiso for Wapping. It is no dream that, when asked when he sailed, Tom Casfro did not say, on the Ist of Maich, 1853, the date of the Pauline's sailing, but the Bth of November, 1852, the day he was 8 bound for Hobart Town. All these thing are proved, besides fifty more scarcely less important, by the answers which Tom Castro gave to Mr Macarthy, the solicitor of Wagga Wagga, as taken down by that gentleman at the time, and by the solemn declaration made by the defendant at the same period. These document exist, and they cannot be got over. They throw a great light upon the future secret transactions with the Orton family at Wapping, and the money which he confesses to have allowed every one of them, "to keep them quiet," says Mr Hawkins. They throw Bonie light, too, on the fact that he has never dared to call as witnesses the sisters of Orton, though they are avowedly in his pay, and have been harging about the court since this trial has been going on. These persons, it is tine, were induced, five years ago, to make an affidavit in which they swore that they did not recognise " Sir Roger" as their brother Arthur ; but it is a very different thing to sign a paper, or even to swear to it in a lawyer's effice, and to come into open court, before solemn judges and a jury, to be examined and crossexamined by counsel. Their not coming can only be explained by the fact tnat they dared not come. And what antwer has the defendant to all this ? Nothing but general abuse, directed through his counsel, against everyone who has been in any way concerned in bringing him to justice. The latest of all the mancevres of the defendant's supporters is to mob the counsel for the proEecution on the way home from the court. Every afternoon there are thousands assembled in the neighborhood of Westminster-hall, and for the first two or three days after Mr Hawkins' speech begun this gentleman aid hiß learned coumel, Seijeant Pairy, weie subjected to what appeared to be an organised attack from a considerable portion of these " roughs." A man was obseived to give a fignal, on which there was a ciy of "Here's Hawkins," and and f<rthwith Eome hundreds surrounded his cab, ehcuting and threatening both •gentlemen. Un the first occasion they had nearly succeeded in overturning the ab, and .were only deterred by a vigorous harge of the police. Since then the

police force has been considerably strengthened, and the two counsel, under a powerful escort, get home with tolerable freedom from annoy.ince. But the mobs continue to congregate ; and it a curious fact that all the exposures of the defendant's tricks,and even the dramatic breakdown of the Luie and the Osprey story, does not appear to have affected the popularity of the defendant with these classes. With them he is still Sir Roger. They receive him night and morning with vociferous welcome. They throw their hats in the air at the first sight of his neat carriage, with the coachman in his neat livery. Nothing now will ever shake their faith that the ex-slaughterman whom yon have been so good as to send us is not the rogue and rutiian which his own counsel has depicted him, but a persecuted saint. When he is convicted and sentenced — as he apsured will bo before many weeks — it is to be feared that there will be some trouble with the mobs ; but the police will be ready, and short work will be made of Tichborne rioters.