cousin Roger's arm. They were a cross, an anchor, and a heart. She saw them on several occasions. On being asked whether she gave Roger a rosary which the plaintiff swore she had given to him, she answered, “No, it never belonged to me." She produced two locks of Roger's hair, which were inspected by the jury. There was not, she said, one word of truth in what the claimant had said of his intimacy with her; it was completely and absolutely false. Mrs. Radcliffe detailed the history of her relations with her consin, and mentioned certain presents given to her by Roger, among which was no such article as a gold crucifix, which the claimant had specified. On June 22, 1852, Roger left, having given her, on that day, a paper in which he promised to build a church to the Virgin if he married her within three years. She had never seen him since. "That," she repeated, "I solemnly swear." She then described minutely the appearance and habits of Roger Tichborne, and narrated her interview with the claimant, when he addressed her as "Lucy,” and Mrs. Townley, who accompanied her, as "Katie." She expressed herself as "perfectly certain " that the claimant was not her cousin Roger—an assertion which, after a rigid cross-examination, she again repeated with emphasis to Serjeant Ballantine. Mr. Henry Danby Seymour narrated his interview with the claimant. He had taken a former valet of Roger Tichborne to identify him, and the claimant hazarded the conjecture that it was his "uncle Nangle" -who was a very old man. This witness also expressed himself as having no hesitation in saying that the claimant was not Roger Tichborne. The evidence of the Chilian and Australian commissions was put in. Early in the day the Attorney-General withdrew some observations which he had made reflecting upon Mr. Rose, late one of the plaintiff's junior counsel, who was a son of a partner in the firm of Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and who had died very recently. Lady Catherine Doughty, mother of Mrs. Radcliffe, was then examined, chiefly in regard to the habits and disposition of her nephew and his attachment to her daughter. Lady Doughty stated that, having had an ample opportunity of watching the claimant's demeanour, she had formed a very decided judgment that he was not her nephew, and about this she had not the slightest doubt. There was at this point a discussion upon a demand by Mr. Giffard for the production of the draught proof of Lady Doughty's evidence, which was objected to by the Attorney-General. The Lord Chief Justice held that he had no power to order the production of the document. The conversation was enlivened by a little passage between Sir John Coleridge, who had spoken rather sharply to Mr. Pollard, and Serjeant Ballantine, who wished his junior to be protected from "rude observations." Lady Doughty's cross-examination was then resumed and concluded. In the midst of it there was a controversy upon the question whether some pocket-books of her ladyship had been put in evidence. It was terminated by the foreman of the jury declaring that the waste of time was "perfectly intolerable." Mrs. Nangle, sister to the late Sir Edward Doughty, was afterwards examined, and caused some amusement. When asked by Sir G. Honyman, "Is that (the claimant) your nephew ?" she emphatically exclaimed, "Gracious! no." She mimicked his mispronunciation of French, and said that when he got angry at being cross-examined, all the foreign accent departed from his speech, and "it was quite British." This witness was very positive as to the tattoo marks, and also as to the extreme unlikeness between the claimant and Roger Tichborne. M. Adrian Chatillon, tutor to Roger Tichborne for six years,

from 1834 or 1835, being consulted as to the identity of the claimant, said "Never Roger Tichborne-never, never!" and stated that, when he saw his former pupil in 1853, his French had in no way deteriorated. Jules Berraut, too, at one time an innkeeper at Lima, then servant to Roger Tichborne, and now describing himself as a merchant in Brazil, also repudiated the idea that the plaintiff was his former master. An intimation which many had for some time been expecting was made on Monday, the 4th March, by the jury. In the early part of the day M. Jules Berraut, one of Roger's servants, was recalled and cross-examined, and his evidence was followed by that of Madame Chatillon; Senor Deranza, who had known Roger from a child; Mr. Robert Mansfield, a landed proprietor in Hampshire; and the Abbé Salis, who had been acquainted with the Tichborne family for many years. The whole of these emphatically disputed the claimant's identity. At length, about halfpast two in the afternoon, the foreman of the jury rose and said that, having heard the evidence regarding the tattoo marks, subject to the Judge's correction, and to the hearing of anything which counsel might desire to place before them, the jury would not require any further evidence. Serjeant Ballantine at once asked for an adjournment until Wednesday, in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting with Mr. Giffard, who had left town for circuit. This, after some conversation between the learned counsel, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General, was agreed to.

Wednesday, the 6th of March, the 103rd day of the trial, witnessed the complete collapse of this extraordinary case, amid every sign of popular excitement. When the court opened, Serjeant Ballantine spoke of the declaration made by the jury on Monday as one which was not quite clear to his mind. Did the jury mean to convey that they had satisfied themselves solely upon that portion of the case which was known as the tattoo marks, or had they formed their opinion in relation to the evidence set forth in the entire case? The jury retired for half an hour, and on their return the foreman stated that their decision was based upon the entire evidence, as well as upon that which related to the tattooing. Serjeant Ballantine then elected to be nonsuited. The Judge expressed his concurrence in the finding of the jury, and, believing that the claimant had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, directed him to be prosecuted at the Central Criminal Court. His Lordship fixed the bail at 50007. in the plaintiff's own recognizances, and two sureties of 25007. each, or four of 12507. each. The Attorney-General undertook that the prosecution should be at the public expense. A warrant for the claimant's apprehension was at once issued, and he was lodged in Newgate in the course of the afternoon. The Lord Chief Justice, before closing the court, took occasion warmly to compliment the jury, and, amid loud applause, to express his entire belief in the evidence of Mrs. Radcliffe. The subsequent chapters in the year's history of the Tichborne case may be briefly detailed.

On April 9th the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court returned a true bill against the claimant, entered on the records as Thomas Castro, otherwise Arthur Orton, otherwise Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne, Bart., for perjury and forgery. The averments of perjury contained in the indictment turn, first, upon the affidavits made by the prisoner in the Chancery suit; and, secondly, upon portions of his evidence on the trial in the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Montagu Williams appeared on this occasion for the prisoner, who was admitted to bail by the Court of Queen's Bench on the 23rd April. The Attorney-General and Mr. Archibald opposed the bail: Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Montagu Williams, supported it.

The trial of the claimant was fixed for the November term. When that time arrived, however, it was found that the length of time that the trial must be expected to occupy must give rise to serious considerations as to the best means of disposing of it. On the 23rd of November, in the Court of Queen's Bench, the Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Brown, claimed his right to have the case brought to a trial at bar, to which Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, who (now with Mr. Horace Brown) appeared for the claimant, consented; and the application was accordingly granted.

In connexion with the case of the Rev. Charles Voysey, reported among the remarkable trials last year, and mentioned also in the "Chronicle," we are anxious to correct an error into which we inadvertently fell. At page 16 of the "Chronicle" is printed a letter from Mr. Voysey to the Registrar of the Privy Council, which from the twelfth line of the letter should have run thus: "The rejection of my appeal, for which I was quite prepared, I acquiesce in as just, knowing that nine-tenths of the clergy might, with equal justice, be condemned; but I was certainly not prepared to find myself condemned without any reply to my arguments, and almost without any attempt to furnish the reasons on which that condemnation was based." The italicized words were omitted in the report of this letter which appeared in the Times, in copying from which we copied the error.

APPENDIX.

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND STATE PAPERS.

THE TREATY OF COMMERCE.