the heir of Tichborne out of his estates, which in less than twenty years would be worth 50,000l. a year. One Cabinet Minister had been put into the box to swear recklessly and rashly, though not wilfully, what every one now must know was untrue. Another Cabinet Minister had conferred a fat appointment on a witness. At the end of his first day Dr. Kenealy was enlarging on "the great and unseen powers behind the prosecution, who were going against this man for their own purposes."-After the rising of the Court Jean Luie, who, in compliance with the regulations of his bail, had been in attendance all day, was sent for to the Judges' private room, and, there being no other security forthcoming but Mr. Whalley, M.P., Jean Luie was not admitted to further bail, but sent to Holloway prison.

Dr. Kenealy here again severely stigmatized the course pursued by the prosecution. When, in his abuse of the prosecution, he declared that the principle on which it had acted was not the law of England, but might be the law of hell, the Lord Chief Justice "took upon him" to object to language which, "if not blasphemous, was most improper and indecorous." The doctor went on to complain of the ordeal to which his client had been subjected in having his whole previous life brought up against him as a test of his identity. He ridiculed the theory of the prosecution that the defendant had been coached, and reproached it with not having rested its case on some specific points in the evidence, which would have kept the trial within a few days' compass. Respecting Roger Tichborne's residence at Stonyhurst Dr. Kenealy set up a number of hypotheses and battled for them. One was intended to account for the defendant's statement that he had first lived in a cottage outside the gates. Another was used in support of his alleged expulsion from the college immediately on his return in 1849. A high-flown eulogy was bestowed on Bogle, "the faithful African," and stray incidents were cited as inconsistent with the doctrine that he was a co-conspirator.

For some days the address of Dr. Kenealy went over the old ground, except where it consisted of denunciations, in which he was repeatedly stopped by the Court. His running criticism on the evidence for the prosecution bore hard on Señor Barra for what he had said to Castro about the defendant. It discovered many grounds of probability for Roger Tichborne having visited Melapilla-his writing home that he was studying Spanish, the way he had talked about his magnificent estates, and so forth. The doctor objected, parenthetically, to the Australian and other maps put in by the prosecution, that they had not been proved.-Mr. Justice Lush asked if he meant to convey an imputation against the Queen's geographer, Mr. Wyld. -Oh! no; but he thought that a more accurate map was to be preferred to a less accurate one. It was shown, per contra, that the prosecution had been very severe on his client's lapses of memory. Mr. Hawkins had laughed at his calling his mother "Mama" and writing "Bart." after his signature; but these peculiarities demonstrated his superiority to coaching. Even the contradictions in his client's own statements strengthened this conclusion in Dr. Kenealy's mind. He could not explain how the defendant had sworn that the Santiago likeness was taken at Southampton; but an imposter, he argued, could not afford to risk committing such an inaccuracy. His knowing the incident of the mule falling over a precipice was strongly inconsistent with imposition.-The Lord Chief Justice offered to tell Dr. Kenealy how he meant to instruct the jury on that point-it had been got from Moore.-After

some discussion about Moore not having been called, Dr. Kenealy pronounced the Lord Chief Justice's theory "a wild speculation." From this there was a digression to the sealed packet, regarding which Dr. Kenealy accused himself of an omission, for which he would never be able to forgive himself "as long as he walked this mortal earth." Mr. Hawkins had told the jury that the date of the packet was not in Roger Tichborne's handwriting. On examination, his lordship and the jury both agreed that it was.-Dr. Kenealy proceeded to insinuate that Mr. Hawkins had a grave design in casting suspicion on the writing.---The Lord Chief Justice observed that Mr. Hawkins had yet to be known either as a rogue or a fool, and if in this case he had been rogue enough to try to mislead the jury, he would not have been fool enough to put in the document.-A juror suggested another explanation— that Dr. Kenealy might assume they came from Earlswood.-The doctor, however, took a sudden flight to Rio, and there drew a Bacchanalian portrait of Roger drunk at two o'clock in the morning, and getting pigeoned out of his money. He complained that the voice of the community was stifled, but he foresaw a time of retribution, when these points would be agitated by many active and energetic minds.-The Court objected to forestalling such great minds, as it wasted time; and Dr. Kenealy, being entreated to come to the main points himself, showed the importance of establishing that there was an "Osprey" in Hobson's Bay in 1854, by which Roger Tichborne might have been picked up.-The Lord Chief Justice granted that if he proved this he cut away the ground from one of the strong arguments of the prosecution.

Dr. Kenealy then spoke at some length upon what he termed "the Luie episode." He declared that the legal advisers of the defendant never had the slightest suspicion that the man's evidence was untrustworthy, and that his conduct subsequently to the time when he gave his evidence justified them in placing faith in him. The learned counsel explained his own share in the matter, and assured the jury that the extraordinary art, skill, and daring of the man had "deceived him, as it had deceived others." He then addressed himself to the question of the defendant's responsibility, and, while presuming that the production of Luie had undoubtedly done great and vital injury to his cause, pointed out to the jury the reasons for the defendant's belief that the story told by Luie was a genuine one. In the end, Dr. Kenealy assured the jury that if he could for a moment believe that his client had palmed off this witness upon him, knowing his antecedents, he would throw up his brief with scorn, as he had done with the Fenian, Captain Burke, on discovering that he was implicated in the Clerkenwell outrage. A question rose next about Captain Brown's alleged recognition of Luie, which the Lord Chief Justice wondered at, as the "Osprey" had never been at Rio in 1854. He invited information also on Luie's statement that he was led to believe that the pilot and part of the crew of the "Osprey" were then in London. Dr. Kenealy promised to look into this point, and concluded for the day with a protest that, if the captain of the "Osprey" had neglected to report his ship at Melbourne, the defendant ought not to be responsible for it.

He was next engaged in pointing out the omissions of the prosecution, and showing what he called the absurd consequences of the Orton theory. There was never a case heard of, he said, where the imposter had known so little of his model, or had so little means of acquiring information. There had never, from the time of Perkin Warbeck, been an imposture so long-lived. All the

eccentricities of his client became, in Dr. Kenealy's hands, proofs of his bona fides. Towards the close of the sitting the learned counsel digressed into his favourite field of biographical analogy. Lord Carew, Lord Peterborough, Richard Savage, Dean Swift, and other celebrated eccentrics, were portrayed in support of the doctor's argument that ordinary rules were not always to be applied to human nature.

The learned counsel spoke of the amount of gold which he alleged was ready in this case when witnesses were wanting-a remark which elicited a rebuke from the Judges, Mr. Justice Lush observing that, after the experience of the last ten days, he listened with astonishment to these imputations. Dr. Kenealy, during his address, explained why he had not called Orton's sisters in support of his case, and reviewed at considerable length the conduct of the defendant in going to Wapping on the night of his arrival in England, in December, 1866. Here Dr. Kenealy provoked another altercation with the Bench by speaking of the independence of the Bar as being imperilled.

The visit of the defendant to Wapping on Christmas Eve, 1866, next formed the staple of Dr. Kenealy's address. He said the only true way of looking at it was as the act of a brain which was not right-of a person hardly responsible for what he did. Assuming the defendant was Arthur Orton, it was conduct perfectly inconsistent with that of a cool, calculating villain like a man of that description, who had fabricated an ingenious and wicked fraud; but, on the other hand, assuming he was Roger Tichborne, a wild, headstrong, and foolish man, such conduct, being irrational, was consistent enough. Dr. Kenealy proceeded to argue that the evidence of the Wapping witnesses who had deposed that the claimant and Arthur Orton were the same person was highly improbable, if not incredible, and occupied most of the day with disparaging comments on the Wapping witnesses called by the Crown. Dr. Kenealy pointed to the fact that most of the witnesses for the Crown could not say whether the ears of Arthur Orton were pierced or not, and the Lord Chief Justice having expressed a doubt whether a casual observer would notice it, the learned counsel said he could distinctly see the ears of the jurymen so as to say whether they were pierced or not. Whereupon he was asked by a juryman, "Are the foreman's ears pierced ?" and replied "No." Much laughter was caused by the foreman saying, "You are wrong."

At this stage Dr. Kenealy was more than once interrupted by audible remonstrances from the defendant on the line of argument adopted. When the learned counsel admitted that his client had in fact gone to Lloyd's to make searches, as charged in the indictment, the defendant was suddenly heard to exclaim, "They may swear; but I don't admit it;" and when the speaker insisted that if his client "went to Wapping to give money to the sisters, he gave them none for twelve months afterwards," the defendant again turned round, and said aloud, "That is not so." "I wish you would not interrupt me," returned the learned counsel; to which his client replied, rather sharply, "Well, I wanted to put you right."

Just before adjourning for a brief Christmas vacation, the Lord Chief Justice expressed his desire that the learned counsel might, when the Court met again, be enabled to finish his observations within a working week. Dr. Kenealy assured the Judges that, while he would use every reasonable means to confine his remarks within proper limits, it was impos

sible for him to pledge himself to six or any other number of days. The Lord Chief Justice said the Court would exercise its discretion. A good deal of time had been wasted in dealing with trifling topics, but, as long as the learned counsel dealt with important facts and material issues, there would be no disposition to curtail or abridge his address. After some further discussion on this point, Dr. Kenealy continued his speech, returning to the Wapping witnesses for the Crown, who, he contended, had no sufficient opportunities of knowing Arthur Orton, and ought not, therefore, to be relied upon by the jury. He also argued that the evidence of Donna Maria Hayley, of Melipilla, who recognized the defendant as Orton, had been coloured by the handsome sum she had received from the prosecution, and was in other respects unsatisfactory. The learned counsel then dealt with the other witnesses called to support the Orton theory; in most instances quoting their evidence, and pointing out where it was open to doubt or suspicion. Passing next to Mr. Purcell, he said he did not say anything against that gentleman, as great allowance was to be made for him, as, being a stranger in Melipilla, and knowing hardly anything of Spanish, he was at the mercy of the people by whom he was surrounded, and naturally fell into grievous errors. Regarding the personal appearance of Orton, he reminded the jury that he had produced forty-nine witnesses who deposed to his having high cheekbones, ears like those of a kangaroo, and bored for earrings, none of which peculiarities were to be found in "our fat friend," as he styled his client.

A sitting was occupied with reading tables compiled by Mr. Cooper Wyld, showing how many witnesses had sworn to the extreme size of Orton's hands and feet, his pockmarks, his height, and his slovenly appearance. Dr. Kenealy next read abstracts of the evidence of each witness, and illustrated them with running comments. Except one brief remark from Mr. Hawkins, and one or two almost as brief from the Judges, the learned Doctor was now uninterrupted save by the somewhat pertinent queries and observations of one or two of the jury, who followed with the closest attention all that was said.

On the last day of the year Dr. Kenealy was still continuing his speech for the defence, his observations during the greater part of the day being directed to an analysis of what is known as the Orton evidence in this case. Dr. Kenealy reverted to the foreman's statement about earring marks being eradicable, when the foreman stated that his own ears had been pierced and showed no marks. In referring to his client the learned counsel instanced his independent treatment of his friends as a proof of patrician recklessness. "Though," exclaimed the Doctor, "I have worked for that man as I should work for my own flesh and blood, he has never said 'Thank you!"" "You should take that for granted," interposed the claimant.

And so the third year of the Tichborne case ended, leaving Dr. Kenealy speaking.

APPENDIX.

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND STATE PAPERS.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH RUSSIA RESPECTING CENTRAL ASIA.