The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-12-02 00:00:00

A riendel N Mr. Iloptim.

" Lord Arundel presents his compliments to Mr. Hopkins,
and bee to say that the circumstance. alluded to by him
do not alter his belief as to the claimant to the 'I ichlkorne
title taint the real Roger. If he is, why does he not make
himself known to his friends, who would not be mistaken as
ttltia identity, if he is the person he represents himself to

Mr. litykbuito Messrs. Ma fight,' ra, Cullington.

" Mear sirw—l think it right to tell you I received • letter
from Roger "harks Tichhome on Saturday, and he dined at
my house, when I talked with him. I have no doubt he is
Roger (harks Tichborne. I received Mr. Gostorth's letter
on the nth .f January, and purposely abstained from announe-
Mg it. And glad I am I so acted. I left my business more than
• year ago, alia this will not preelude my rendering such
services to Roger (harks Thilborne as I urn :dole in ac-
knowledgment of the confidence reposed in me by him when
he was any client."

Mews's. Slaughter and Cullington to M. llopkin,
° Feb. 5, 1547.
"We thank you for your letter. We have not yet been
ablv to get rn interview with the person calling himself
Roger Tiehborne ,• but some person we know Whi, has seen
him assures us that he is not Roger. We think he ought to
be identified by members of his family.
•

. .
" P.S.—can you give us :my particular reasons for suggest-
ing him to be Sir Roger ? Had you much conversation with
him on private or pemonal matters?"
Mr. Gagent to Lady Doughta.
" Feb. :1,1. 17.

My dear Madam.—My last letter to you was in.answer
to yours of the 4th Dec. WA. Not having any reply I could
not think id writing to you. I send this because I think it
right to inform you that I have seen the gentleman who has
come from Australia, who is Roger Tichborne himself."

Mr. Baigent was then cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins.
Ile said I act solely as a friend of the claimant, and not
professionally. Between biti and a few years before the
death of Sir James Ti hborne I was engaged in obtaining
materials for a history of the Tichborne family, awl am doing
it to this day. I was not on this account permitted access
to the deeds of the family.

Have you since 1047 been a constant contributor to papers
relating to the Tiehhorne family, to the A ech‘cologieni
Journal have contributed such papers, and also to the
Herald and G., neabviNt. The last paper was a month or two
before the claimant arrived in England. This was written
before, not after. I knew of the claimaiit coining home. I
have been introduced at Tichborne to persons as me who
knew more about the Tichborne family than the family
themselves. I was selected to write to '• Booth's Peerage
assil Itaronetage" information it reference to the family.
During Sir Edward's lifetime I visited the house, but not as
a guest of Sir Edward. Sir Edward was very different from
any of the others of the family.
Von need not tell ire that you will have an oppor-
tunity of telling me all )cu know.--No doubt. Sir James
was more of a Tichtiorbe than Sir Edward. The letter I
produced on Friday from Sir James Is dated December 3,
1574 I have aleter one slated In 1,455, bla I will swear I had a
letter from him as late as about February, IsZAI. I had com-
manicatiou with him later thal that,

Where you ever In the hcrae `mtween Apr% 180, and ids
death on the 11th et June, 1,62 1 -No.

Did you during the last Wee years and upwards ot Sir
James's life ever call at Tichbotne those did not ; but
during that time I associated with members of the Tich-
borne family—with Alfred. I used to see him when he came
to Winchester. During the last two years of Sir James's life a
great change came over him with regard to all his friends.
Uis son Alfred hml got him into great trouble.

Was Mr. Hopkins one as to whom there was a great
rhanget—There was a general change. Mr. Hopkins and
Sir James were not on friendly terms, no far aa I know.
Now, I will expl dn that.

Thelrl thief Wet , 1, ehanae ie %tr. lii
kin.. and Jaliii,?—'rhey hail a 41,11 Ci. t how to one
Sir Jaiiieg liii not tot trrel uith during It, life.
Ti Mr. Hawkins I ilint think I limit it the tiaarrel front
Mr. flotikini. I aid anit to the

Are you in any way related to the ticlil,rue family ?—No ;
not related to them. I am connestcA with them by mac-
Wan not your connection with the family lu,ken otT in
consequence if pm. marriage!—llnly with sir James
was married it, December, Ig:S. 1 mat ried Miss Morava.
A lady who was double your own age? - Yew
Who had 13030 a year of her own?- Yes.
Whom you mart icd at Aldershot ?—Yes.
A priest named Virtue married you 7—Yes.

You parted at the churoli door :—No.
her lid you part did you part at Aldershot ? -Either
Alderslvat or Farnborough. They adjoin.
nid no ever sioak I tot aftor marriatre?—Yes, at Earn.
ham, four or tivo days ift, toy visit to Farnham to lie
married at the reel a• rar.s. I saw hor after that at A{.l :•r-
-t. itiot N IPA I.eMal I (.k latigli.) I SAW
IWe afterward, at Itath.

Where 6 she tivin...;?-1 .I,n't know whether she is living.
that, not yonr own wife she would only be seveotysnie
now, you know 11.anzntre.)—t waa ataYtaa' at ALlttain't
irey lo ann. Mt, n ts,it to travel alsmt good
kid hilt if sin, hi ii a Ivalse, Ii use Bath. I don't know a
s 'HMI4'II3IIIO Yowl at Rath. I know of such • person at
theltenb.un.

Tv..eiVe eoniniiiA.M9 from unit Si; behalf of your
wife I had :in interview with him. Ile did not require me
to settle the cv • a year on her. I did 1.4 say I would make
it all right by my will. I voluntarily made is nettleinent, not
consequence of what It. Fowl said. There wa.s nothing
sail about my will in reference to the subject.
Wm Dowager f.mly Tichlionie aware you were to be
marriedt—No. I had not spoken to her about it before my
marriage. I never Ela,d anything about my will in reference
to the 1:3.X) a year.
Was there not a difference between you and nil the
mentlwra of the Tieliborne fondly after y..ur marriage? -
No only Sir James. I was not received inh any of their houses.
I only saw the Dowager once after Sir James's death until
after I saw the plaintiff. That was at her lodgings in lieau-
mont-street, London, In the latter part of Istti.
Von heard of the loss 41 the /MN tuts-54?-I'es, I dhl.
Uhl you after that have repeated communications with
the Dowager ?—Repeatedly.

Did she tell you she was always under the impression
Roger would turn up some day l--Ye.
Did you say the same I—l said as little as I could about
that, I have said so. I never encouraged the belief.
Did you ascertain the belief and talk about It to her?—
Not that he was alive. I did not lead her to believe that I
believed it. I had had conversations with her on the
subject.
Was it suggested that you should go over to Australia to
make inquiries
When was the suumtion made last ; what date—Le:A '7.
or 'S 7—lt might have, perhaps, been -1355. The suggestion was
made many times by Lady Tiehls,rile.

Did the suggestion of your going to Australia cease after
ISSS?—I am not aware it was made more than once or twice.
I don't think it was made after the commencement of is:a.
I was not aware of advertisements for the plaintiff. I always
thought down to two years after the father's death lilt that
Roger would turn up. I doll not let the Is.svager know I
thought so. I used to discourage her entertaining that im-
pression
Did she seem to you to he a little flighty in entertaining
this impression ? Ni', she used to have extravagant notions,
and talk about ships that had been lost for long times and
yet persons had been found at last. She used to show me
books containing such amanita. They were sometimes
French books -as to persons being saved through theprayer of
saints and holy people.

After Mr Ja-m-esi Ileath need she to keep a lamp constantly
lighted lu the hall? - No.

Or did you hear of her going out with a lantern, so as in
the event of Roger coming back he might be able to find his
way.—l never heard of it.

Mid you hear of her constantly leaving a lantern when
there was no moon that Roger might Mal his way never
heard a lantern Sr light mvutioned. I was not impressed
with the notion that she was flighty or crazy or foolish. She
had very strong feelings. I believe this letter is my writing.
Mr. Hawkins : The date is September 26, 154 M. I may,
perhaps, read it by.and-by ; but I will now ask a question
as too passage in it. Your lordship will see what I mean, if
you look at it. (To witness'. Two words are scratched out
Its ink. —Yes. It is not in the same state as when I wrote it.
Mr. Hawkins : I will read a passage in it.
Witness: Let it all he read.
Mr. Hawkins : I will read at present only a passage.
Mr. Serjeant ballantine submitted that the whole letter
should be read.
The Lord thief Justice said that Mr. Hawkins was at
present altogether regular. The letter will, of course, have
to be read at some time.
Mr. If awklna : What was written originally In the letter?
—The word foolish."

Will you awtiiir it wits mt crated. craty, n1:11!Oily trim

•' This i a 1,011•;.,11;111;; if g.iitlo,aicnt Iving up
private ktters. The letter •• " was solded when it was
erased. I erased the third word, MA stated that I had done
in In it 'atter to a g'entlenien who has banded it over, the
other letter was bawled to the jury and inspected by them,

_
Witness continued Ihe letter ia addressed to Mr. Scott
Murray.
Mr. Hawkins It says, "Ito not -MA to be disrespectful?

Tie, el, atrolly sakel to have the I.lter er WI, and
Mr. ilsokrrr then rc,al the 'lie mailer part of it r•-•
fivr,l to re-city of cer.evl imittera of the seven-
cr;diaa couro,l drew atterition to the follow-ilia
ha.aeme I In liot w hilt to lie Iliarespeetful to your relialde
ugh, vdv, but mast
belief M. the statemeut abut ,ver Tiellhorue, ru much re
p.” t: his--I crs riie in tlda oei.Mlcairloaal for Ilie lant three
r f-ar a, I ,11 Ihr vmy sane, your
1: I •,a,, 1 -.• a. to l.rre taco i- p net with mane srecial
ehj vt tht 1 Mote the app,ar.ture of flhl 011 C repiascilthm
himself :is the vcritahle Roger Tleirlau ire would 114 ot iturprie
me the Iraq. Awl as for the porr " here comes hi the
er.ed word) "111.,ther (..letrlied, I 113V0 long wiiir,tei ell
that such ata Terre 113.1 not turned up heh-re how. It has
actually 1.11 repot h-. 1 that Ire lied 'Neu Wall ut Tichhorne
twelve 'mouths ago. KlP.wing the youth us well ai I to. end
all that fru occurred slice, I call never expect to tee hith in
the Medi."

Witness continued: I adhere to my statenunt that the
erased word was "foolish.- The up and the
.Itown
d strokes,
or rather the own sir Kes, I put to IlingniAe what the word
had been. The up strokes had belonged to the word
" tooltsli." Knowing that I had written strongly against
the plaintiff I wrote to Mr. Scott. Murray to send me my
letters, and then thinking the word not Justified I erased
it, ant wrote to him tint I had done in.

The Lonl Mel Justice, who had frequently complained
of his inability to hear the witness, directed that ho should
come nearer to him, and he left the box and stood upon a
table on the floor of the court

Lord thief Justice Mr. Itaigent, you will now have
to speak up, sa that the gontleman of the pnas behind you
may hear, U you wish to be correctly reported.

-
Witness continued :te Is my common practice If I ob-
literate a word to put some long strokes to disguise the
I. It does nit occur in the outer ensures because
there was to, object in dlagnising the words; it did not
matter whether they werr in or out. The letter was anion
before to. plahititt'a arrival in England, and the erasure
was afterwards. I knew when I made the erasure the
plaintiff hail seen the dowager, and she hail acknowledged
him as her son. I hail also seen him, and said I recognised
him. It did not strike me that leaking the original word
In the letter would invalidate n,y evidence or that of Lady
Tichbome. I did not think that I had a right to use the
word.

V. bat did you mean by " the per foolish mother
thought her expecting him back, and always dwelling upon
It was I•arrying the matter too tar.

Mr. Hawkins : Yo" wroto on the 7th April, 1867, to Mr.

Seett Murray—, I return the letter with thanks. In read-
ing them over, I ventured to draw my pen through one word
whiell might be interpreted in a way I never Intended.
ant glad I have seen them, and they are as outspoken as
felt." .

Witness: I adhere to what I said. I thought it right to
alter the word. I never thought that Mr. Scott Murray
would have given those letters back.
Mr. Hawkins: On the 3rd October, 1560, you wrote to Mr.
Scott Murray—. Your letter only came to hand last niehLon
ray return from I.,ndon. There is something no very ile.dl
about this discovery of Roger Tiebbonie as to make it per-
fectly laughable, but not ridiculous. Certainly, people are
very credulous, lint in a vase like this they Imght to give
their minds a little reflection." After sine further remarks,
the letter concludes —"I: shall he lend to hear anything
that turns up Moot the butcher." (Laughter.) Vim knew
at the time that the plaintiff had been a butcher?—Ye4
I saw Alfred within eighteen months of Ids death, an /
was present at his funeral.
By Invitation?-- Not by his Invitation. Laughte
Hopkins was a very fine man, very much like Lord Eversley.
He altered in his personal appearanee very 111111,11 In the
last seven or eight years of his life. I saw a good deal of
Roger before lie entered the army, and I saw him three or
four times afterwards. Our convenatlon perhaps all the last
ocessions would last five or ten minutes.

Von said It was the object of his life after he beeline six-
teen to ton4et his Fri nett. Ile bad been cdneated in
France ?—ltrought up there. My rico:natant, with him
dates Ir. an ISM. I saw him perhaps in all forty times or
more. When he Joined the army he spoke as a French boy
would speak, lie haw got better though. I thought that he
had very considurably improved Ile used apeak with it
broken accent.

Did he not prefer speaking French?— I never heard him
speak French. Ido not speak French.

Then that was a reason for his lint speaking French to
you. Did he not prefer French books? -N44 that I know of.
I adhere to my answer that after sixteen the object of his life
WAS to forget his I'roach anti become :la EttAllAiliMol. I to
teeted, however, a French accent win it I saw the plaintiff in
184;7.

---• •
Have you a sufficient recollection of Roger to describe him?
Do you recollect, for instance, the Mom lof Ida eyes? -They
were grey or blue. I used to remark that there was a great
peculiarity about the lobe of Roger's ear It came down
straight. It was a badly formed ear. I used to notice it,
kecause at that time I was food of drawing heads. The
part below the opening of the ear was rather long.
Was the lobe joined to the face, or was It loose ?—lf joined
to the face, there would he no lobe at all, like mine. The
lobe extended lower down than citric the car was joined to
the face. I canal say to what extent it came down. I re-
cognise the photograph from the daguerreotype as a portrait
of Roger, but it is not a good one. Ido not think that it re-
presents fairly the ear of Roger Tichborne. The ear here is
not such as would give you an Idea of the original. The oval
daguerreotype brought to me I do not consider a good por-
trait. It does notgive you a faithful represmdation dtithe
I can see it is, Init it is a poor thing. The right ear is exposed,
but it does not give you a fair representation of the ear. In
that particular imsition you do not get an Idea of the ear.
It is too much diminished : too much thrown back. The
other daguerreotype in the ease is a hotter representation
of Roger: but this also does not accurately represent his
ear. The ears are to small in proport km to the face. It re-
presents a lobe detaching fruits the face.
- ' -

As it wolf in Roger Tiehhonie ?---Yes. I consider the one
in the ease, the full faced one, the best. The other is a de-
fective, a spoilt likeness.
The Lord Chief Justice : So far as I can see the lobe is
joined down to the bottom of the fare r---It is the perspective
does that. lam well ammainted with these things. It is In
consequence of the perspective being so arranged as it is.
You said the other day that Roger's chief pursuit was
smoking?—Smoking was his principal pursuit.
_

- -
Were not, his pursuits those of a pentleman fond of a
country life—ri,Hicr, sooothig, and activity? -He liked to
keep hunself employed. He was not remarkable f.or activity.
- - • • -•

Was he not devoted to his dogs and his gum, and constantly
active ?—1 don't believe it. Ile did things to wile away the
time, I believe. Ile was indolent in my opinion.
Ohl he associate with his inferiors in any other respec
than tide, that he took the head gamekeeper with him shoot
log and went into the stables used to go below stairs.
I have seen hint there dozens of times.

What was boding )—Sometimes drinking. I have seen
him in the butler's pantry.
How came you to so there ?-- :son wanted anything, that
WM the place to get it. (Laughter.) I have often seen Mr.
Roger Tichtsirne there.

.•
Von said in your evidence that he associated with his
inferiors; what is the foundation for (fiat ?-1 have seen
him in the stables.

Doing what I—Looking about. (Laughter.'
Were you fond of associating with his Motors (—He was
not my inferior. He used to go about s.ith Bogle and a boy
named Manbridge.
Was Bogle an old setvant of the family ?--.% very devoted
servant to the family. I never meant to in.inuate that he
was food of low society. 1 have known Mankidge to be
sent for to him.

You said in your evidence that he prefert,l to he in the
society of people who werii ind his CI .1 he ever f re-
1111111t their company unless it 1,11 Iclr,l I hiks pursuits ?
I bow hint more with them thaa :ouno goidlcuun would he.
I have seen him with such peoide in tin. corridor or the
paswed.
WAS Itoger a little stupid. or was he clever ?—lf lie had
loon properly educated be would have made a very clever
fellow . .

sVas lie truthful ?—I have no opportunity of knowing.
Was lie looked upon by you a 4 truthful and 11011 i 111.1shle
hiokeil upon hint as the head id a family. (Laughter.)
Did you ever bow ally single circumstance derogatory to
hirt character for truthfuln,ss and honour !—llow can I
awilver?

I. toe Lor,l (Vet Justive : I .lon't know that he ever told
me an untruth. I might have heard something.

Mr. Hawhins: you ever hear such a thing don't
renienihrr that I did. I belie,: I did,

His father and mother were buth very much attached to
were they not ?—ile preferred to i.e away front them.
The Lonl Chief Just ire :t beg that you will answer the
ani fairly. I have indieril ilothing ill pal to slot,' ally
want of akamrate perception of languaue.
Witness He did not visit much among Ids relations that
I knew of. I know he visited at Kno)le and Drookwood
ibm't know that Laity Doughty wan very Mud of him. My
In lief is that she wanted him to marry her ilaughter. The
spoke kin ily, but not highly of Aim. Mr. Dosford was one
if his tri..n.ls. 1c must say whether Ike chiefly contided in
Il!m. I wss it More ordinary with Roger.
n•vi aequaitit,l s,jtli his writing S—lliii know
it mean lky assinahmuce. I had seen it. I could
piek it out.
You had still it Si as to become acquainted with it
don't koow what 3,0 narall by no
Will yial swear y. 41 deal undk,rstand the ,ku,sii.oo—lf
time Ito dictionary here I should like to look at the word
" acquainted.- (Laughter).
To the Jury : I cuuld nut identify it.
The I. cii Idol Justice You lit your profession must have
licard the gut nthll many times pia to witnessea—'• Are you
aconaintcd with the handwriting d,ct understand
the wort "acquainted," as used hy my learned friend
I.3llgliter.)
Mr. Hawkins : Pray, don't call me your learned friend.
Did you understand the word "acquainted when Mr.
Serjeant Rallantine put it to you in this sense 3—l thought
he meant whether I should know it. I Mal I have answered
several questions WrOlin% I swear that if six years ego
twenty letters were shown to me, I could not have picked
out Roger's letters.

had you in 10)0 the opportunity of becoming nomainted
with Roger', writing t—Froin 3lst December, Isti6 : that was
the first time. I believe that the letter handed tr.. me was
written by me : but we have had forged letters in this ease.
I hope it will all be read.

Mr. Hawkins It was from you to Lady Doughty, and is
dated 12th December, leen, and says :
" Dear Madam.—lf I had heard anything definite I should
have written instantly to you."
At the time were there any rumours of the claimant
arriving 2—Yes, Lady Deughty said it must be Sir Roger.
The letter went. on to detail the efforts of the witness in
reference to ascertaining the arrival of the plaintiff, and con-
tinued I do not know the address of your niece, Sir
Alfred's widow, at the present time. I can only say that
had I known it I could have been the means of petting a
letter into her hands which might have thrown a light Upon
the subject. As it was it has gone into the hands of the
dowager. It was a letter, posted at Paris on Monday or
Tuesday week, addressed to Lady T. The handu riting
struck me trio its resemblance to Roger's, ant I compared
it with severalld his letters. The most marked difference true
in the letter T, which inclined use to think it must have been
written by some French 'person. Notwithstanding, I must
say that if it was a letter from this Sir Roger, I should have
no hesitation in believing him the right man, so close was
the resemblance of the hand, &c." Now, having heard that,
tilt true what you have said that you had no opportunity of
knowing Rogers writing before the list December, Isn6 ?
Yes, it is true. Mr. Hopkins showed me some letters of
Roger's, and I compared them with this particular letter.
The resemblance atruck me after I had compared inanother
part the letter with the letters I saw.
Then the letter in the passage is not true ?—it does not
convey what it ought. (laughter. If I had copied my
letter I should have altered it. it was only the address of
the letter I saw. It was sealed. I believed that the letter
was intended for the dowager.

You must have known that, heeanae you say, "To prevent
It going to the dead.letter office I wrote her address on It,
and I believe it reached her in Paris wrote it at the
reouest of Mr. Hopkins.
Yon know Sir Alfred's mother's Interest was that her son
should take the estates, and that the claim of the plaintiff
was antagonistic to her.-1 did not know. 1 tan say it was
antagonistic.

I will have an answer to the question.—l don't know why
you mean by antagonistic." If the plaintiff was Sir Roo
It was his estate. I did not know that the Interests were
antagonistic. I don't see that I have any answer to give to it.
If they had believed it was Sir Roger, and had given up
the estate to hint, there would have been no antagonism.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice If the plaintiff succeeded, Alfred's
son would not have had the estate. Don't you know that
their interests were antagonistic ? -Yes. I know that.
The Lord Chief Justice: It Is a perfect waste of time, for
you have been asked the mime questions live or nix times.
Mr. Serjeant liallantine complained of the laughter and
noise with which some of the answers of the witnesses were
received.

The Foreman of the Jury said that they felt It added to
the difficulties of the witu“s, though he had been told to
Interfere.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the fact was that there
were so many persons interested in this case hi court that
the end would probably be that he should have to char the
court of everybody except the jury and the counsel.
Witness continued I did not know that the letter was
fro,, f,.ady Tiehborne. I o:dy presumed it. I bettered it.
tic 1,. rd thief Justice :And you say that you might have
pet ital., tin, 11311d3 of 011, lady a lett( r intended far another
—Witte!, wight have bon intended for one air other.
Mr Ilawkilw a .01 also say, "I have also seen a letter
al, t ear I:,,,ger from a person who says he had received an
IhVi!ation (rent MM." Who WA; ti,at total.
find "I have had is description of this perwal from three
did. rad and Inalepub at 1.10111,1,—pV1•1111. Cola,, 11:IVP seen
hit," W to, ~re they t Mr N-Inth. tiwn Mr. t4e,at Morr,y,
If,'' It, t- Mr. aiiatit, of e..,th wapt,na, awl thi. chief milker
nf the Aeon.. I had also scen a let ter from Illogic ill the
11,0404. Chruil irk. It might intVu been published through
Mr. hatpin.
Arian letter says, " Mrs. flreenwood either showed or sent
poor letter to Mr. Ilalyitt, the banker, awl he took it to the
Fuld idler of the Winchester paper to publish it." Had you
and Mr. 11.4d:ills any business colinectietah—No. We fre.
(faculty saw eaeh other in Oct, her and Noronha., 1,1043, In
reference to the claimant. Professionally I had nothing
whatever to do with the matter. I only interested myself in
the matter from knowing the fatally, and wishing to see
right done,

Mn. there anything between you and Roger known to no
flue else, or were you only ordinary aemmintances? - I men-
tioned one thing to him that he answered in • very re-
markable manner, though it might havo been known to
others.

The Lord Chief Justice asked the witness to repeat his
answer, bat he complained that he ma getting confused
from the strain on his mind.
Witness continue.' There were no doubt many little cir-
cumstances known only to me, Roger, and Mr. Hopkins.
Is there anything present to your mind now I—There is
nothing present to my mind : ills all gone.
The Lord Chief Justice If that be so, would you rather
we should adjourn at once?
The Attorney-General And we should wish the witness to
have full 114.3.3i1.11 of himself while under examination.
Witness My being deaf increases the straits there is upon
me. It would Inc an act of kindness to me to adjourn.
The Lord Chief Justice It is not a question of kindness,
but .d justice, or what is best to he done.
The court adjourned ate quarterto four o'clock.

The further hearing of this ease was resumed on Tuesday
morning, when the cross-examination of Mr. Itaigent wss
contiooml by Mr. Hawkins. Ile asid: I think it was a brem..l
of confidence of Mr Scott Murray to pr,aluee my private
letters without eomniunicati ; with ine.
But you yourself o•mted in your affidavit a uassage from a

letter to Scott Murray. in which he said, "You will have
flow to arid a new and most astounding chapter to your
' Tieliborniana, if, as I hear, Sir Roger Tichborne is found,
and will curtly ribbeAr in this country with a wife and child."
Waa not that also breach of confidence ?—lt was Intro-
duced by air Holmes. My object woo tod to show
th„, i scoft Murray believed i the tale. I only
Intended to show how that matter occurred. I only
OW Ned Mr. Holmes the one letter to Mr. Scott abir-
ray. I had the whole correspondence, but not with
true at the time. I did not purposely produce this letter to
Mr. Holmes and keup the others back. lie asked me when
I find heard of the claimant having returned, what I knew
about it. I told him the first information I derived sas
from a paper, and that the next thing was by a letter, and
gave hint a quotation from the letter. I had then no notion if
an affidavit being made. Afterwards Mr Holmes threw my affi-
davit, and mlii, " You must let me have the letter." Having
the message Ina.. Mr. Rouse on the Seth of June, 1867, I WAn
requested to yi, over to Alresford by the first train. I went
by the first train the neat morning that my affidavit might
be settled and sworn. Had I a previous knowledge that
this letter WOlllll have been used I should not have done so
without communicating with Mr. Scott Murray.
1.1.1.1881. lilt, y. 0117 8111,111Vit Jaime you swore it f—Yes.
And you knew it would be In your affidavit before it was
engrossed 3_h cc, lint I did not know it was gOillg 1., he
prided. I knew that the affidavit war to be produced m
C till.. I !rowed to Mr. lb,llll no with in inserting the en.
tract from the letter. air. Holmes never asked whether
there was chore than the one letter, an I I neve, told him.
The two letters handed t, or are in my handwriting.
These two letters were real. They were from the s Rocas
to Lady Doughty, and wile dated the 113th and tt,jth of
November, ISO,;. The writer in the test one gave a long
account of the runeon's ran tO the arr Dal of the plaintiff in
England, and .11i, • • It appears that his going to Paris WU by
Ills IllothEeS special arrangement. I (In n't like this by any
nteaus for several reasons, many of which you will under-
stand."

You knew the name that the plaintiff assumed, because
you say that in some American papers it was mentioned that
Sir Roger, his vs ire, and child had arrived? Yes. Ain Mount
or his curate, or Mr. C.•iliugridge, a priest at Winchester, had
Informed me 14 the plaintiff going to Paris. I did not like
his going to Paris, knowing the hostility between the dowager
and Lady Tichb iron. I thought it better that the dowager
should not see him first. 1 knew that the dowager was
above all things disirous to see her son if he were alive. I
also knew that she was natal all hostile to him.
Did you think that she woo likely to jump too hastily to a
conclusion 7—No. I had no reason to suppose that there
was anyinsly in Paris hostile to the pluintlif, nor that there
waif in England. I liid not know that his tut"? and some
of his earliest friends were resident in Paris.

why did you object to his guiog to Paris ?-1 did not ob-
ject.

Was it not natnral that be should go first to Bee his mother?

Then why did you .• not Eke this by any means"?-1
thought it desirable that a friend id the family like Mr.
Goitord thoithi see him first, mmaidering that his mother
had been carrying on privately a correspondence with him.
-•-• - . . .

Was Mr. (Milford a friend who lumw him as well as any
human being ?—lie knew him.
Did any one know him better I—l thought his aunt
Doughty would be equally competent. I thought Mr.
Gostord was a competent and fit person to decide.
Did you think liosford would know him better than his
own mother, If she was his mother ? -Certainly nut. I
thought it very probable if the Dowager should recognise
him that the family would be kept lung in suspense. If she
had been in Paris it might bc weeks or days before we knew
it. She was not very communicative by writing.
Did you think that the suspense would lie caused by her
hnhap.ithal to write ?--That she would be so insets taken
up by him that she would not care to write. I did not know
the dowager's address in Paris, nor where it could be pro.
cured except through Lady Doughty. I del mit at the time
know her :old ress iii London, because I scut a letter to where
Slat was'in Lset, and she said it had never readiest her. I
presume, therefore, that she had removed. I did not know
her address at the latter end of Issin.

In your own letter you say, under the date of the 12th of
December, " To prevent it going to the dead-letter
office I wrote her London address upon the envelope, and I
believe it has since reached her in Paris"? - I did not know
her then address, I only knew her old address in Beaumont-
street. t did 11,t, know how to communicate with the
dowager In Path. 1 believe Lady Doughty knew the address.
You wrote that there were several reasons, " many of
which will occur to you "? • Several reasons, no doubt,
crossed toy mind. We wished to know as soon as possible
whether the claimant was the man.
In your letter of the 20th if November, 10643, you say to
Lely Doughty, It is well you have not written to Mr.
Mount, as it would have been CI ommunkated to Paris." What
was the objet-Ibis to that ht do not know what it was at
the time. Ile would naturally communicate with the
dowager.
The Lord Chief Justice : Why should he not communicate
with Lady Tichbonie 1-1 thought—well, I cannot tell you
what I thought. (A laugh.) It is mere guesswork. 1 should
lie happy to explain. but I don't think I can. I hail a gicat
deal on my brain at that time.

You at all uvenrs knew that Mr. Mount was in communi-
cation with her, nil you were in communication with bull?
I did not know where she woe. I cannot say what was the
objection to communicat being made to Paris.

You say in your letter, " Lady Dowager T. awkedhiu ((he
Swiss gehtletuan Ti queKtions, sue of them ex.., d-
ing]) foollsh." What vole ll.e (oohs!, question,c,—The
gentleman e'Ole o‘er in, the roled, hash Ire., awl she said,

" mircly, - 7 •:1 eased like you '
But thcre v 4dons," and you also con-
tinue, " the ,• • : l•:11110 trißt to
What t„,• . • -1 tuaot
Do you ill, an to say 3,11 • of the par-
tieuLae of the intcra low h.: 1, , gentleman and
Lady Tichbortie than y,at I I go to not recollect.
Two or three .111y5 ago us minute details of con-
vetaations at Mr. Hopkins' .1 uould make an improssion
upon nie. I ml an to say lira I have forgotten what it was
that Ic- tilt 1.4 trust to pan and ink." I cannot give yen
the substance of it.
Is your memory inson the subject a perfect blank 7--It I.
From whom was It yell !earned, as you say In the litter,
that the i.owager had ord, rod that whatever Sir Rozer did
05 his arrival, he is not on any auonitt, to go to Winchester
or liresfoill":—Mr. Mount. It did net strike me as being
strange.

Yo; also say, Or Is he to see or near a certain seta-
tive Who xag that •;.-1 can't see. I I.eft•ve it 5104 'lra.
1;n1.11W0 A. Itot know anyliii4y Om. I vi,s t 4 i that
this ar.ii is. I in, not esslilpi that Mot llrcen-
tso. I • th..n:intive 1111,1e,1 to h letter scat u n tool,
tr.. list 3v :1,1:I I ctlti Ithotlt It I .li-
n g.t.. reasons 11 he • ,11,,1:1‘1 it sour g lo ;11. is
Cellalti 1,1311‘e.- lily Tich1e..1.1,.. wants. I t., see trill tn
it he Rea to Wing:ll4,4.r or Alte.b.i.l it n.mt,l Lid:*

That watt apply to all pi rone, not one only ?—it uti.;ht
occur to the diosa 4er that the chills:int won'tt naturally go
oet r I; reenwood's. I assume that the " certain relative"
was a person viio lived in the neighbourhood.
You say at heard this from " a trust., 4-thy somce."
Who eta that believe it was iny brother who lives at
Southamoiou. I have nothing to 010 with the Alrestord
met other, and I made no inquiries about it.
!tut you say, 'This I do know, hut it must not be men-
tioned. There are letters and newspapers at Alresford post-
ranee for Sir it. e. Tichhoriir, pnblished in Sydney •—Mr.
Hopkins till me that the postmaster had told him, and there-
fore it was not to he mentioned.

ynu before the end ed v.,: heen a visitor at Mr.
llopkins'?—Yes. I had not stayed at hig house. 1 had4lined
and lunched with him. 1 dined there in the latter part of
Pied.

But before the latter part of 1846 ?-I had dined with him,
but not at his louse. I believe that the only letter I eon,
mandated to Mr. Holmes, Iron, Mr. Scott Murray was the
.rue I have referred to. I did not carefully exclude that
reply from the affidavit. When I had back my letters from
Mr. Scott Murray in April. Isc7, I made copies of then,. I
made them because I thought that I might as well know
what I said against the man.
And so that you might be able to prove what was in the
correspondenceif it became necessary ?—No. I don't think
that entered my thought. I returned the letters.
In the copy you made, you make the phrase" poor mother,"
as though there had been no other word in copied it as
corrected.

The Lord Chief Justice Rot you dein show that the word
" foolish," or whateva it was, hod been obliterated ?
When one copies letters one does not copy all the blunders
that are In them.

Ti Mr. Hawkins I read the draft of my affidavit before I
SW, re it, MA I have some recollection of Inuring drawn my
pen through some parts of it.
Look st the Instructions furl' your affidavit, and say when
you prepared and sent them to Mr. Holmes ?—March or
April. It was many months let ore I swore the affidavit. It
was sworn to on the Sad of July.
Did you prepare It before or after you had got the letters
trout Mr. Scott Murray —I cannot say.
Von say in your afli lavit that " on the 24th of September,
ISW, I received a letter from Mr. Scott Murray, of Danes-
lied," and then there Is struck ont, " In reply I said I not
give any credence to it, hem.° such reports in one shape
or another had been dying about ever since his father's
death ;Ins fact, I ridiculed the idea altogether, but! have no
copies of my letters."
Why was the reference to tine reply stniek out don't
know. I knew nothing then about affidavits ; the solicitors
and counsel prepared them.
The Lord Chief Justice 'Wives a different impression to
insert the letter and leave out the reply.
Witness continued: I had at lids time heard of the photo-
graph.
Mr. Hawkins: Had you apprehended that thedowager by
constantly looking at the likeness of the claimant might
come to believe him to Inc her son y -- I had apprehended.
This is your letter is it not 7-1 must look at it carefully,
for we have had forgeries in this Cane. I believe it to be mine.
What was the date of your first interview with Mr. Hop.
kins on the ,abject -In October, 1066, think.
Neithe of you hail anything to do with making inquiries
professionally as to the ge 111 l i l neness of the claim 7—No. Mr.
Hopkins had retired from business awl lived on his means.
Mr. slaughter then acted for Lady Doughty, and I hence°
for Mrs. Rioletiffe. He was the only faintly .licitor I knew
of at that time. I did not know mitil afterwards that NI r.
howker was solicitor for the Dowager Lady Tichborine. 1
lint heart this at the dowager's funeral.

DM you or Mr. Hopkins communicate at all with Mr.
Slaughter or Mr. llowker Not to my knowledge.
am speaking now between Oet.her. leaa, and Fthruary,
15071—1 am not aware of any communication.

On the twenty-third paragraph of your affidavit you any,
" We 111,4(41.0 what we ought to do m the matter, and lot
the 27th of October we had a long discussion together, look-
ing at the 'natter in every pint, and we both felt that if
the claimant really was Sir Roger he might to be in mioil
hands and well advised.- Were you acimainted with Mr.
11..Iniea at the time ti had never heard if his MUM:. We
did not discuss what would be " good liana]."

flare is a letter trim 'iir. ii Ikl to you, dateli oil
December, 1,546, marked private," and which says--
dear Sir,--I have much reason to believe that the aol
self fa here, and will lie here for the next week, t]... .1[
try I tot to keep up the /ado. I have no
abont it from what I learn. The best would he
to come over. The man is at the Swan here, ano
T;clibinme yesterday. If 1011 c.ia come by the I
0.11.,4''i train yun Van f5,11t and judge fir yourself.- Y. 41
to Alr,f..ril to ate the plaiidilf in consequeLee iiii•
r Yes ; he met n,O 0t (IL! train lr. Rouse was on tine
platform, and Mr. Hopkins Introduced me to him. Mr.
Rollie was usually there as parcels agent. in a flOnttie it
an hour or 20 minutes we saw the plaintiff. I remained
with Mr. II opkine till the last train—nine or ten at night.
Mr. Rouse said that It,.gie Wonlid lentil:lo4y collie hy the next
train, and we wAlked about for the twenty minutes t 4)
9111110 the time. At the end if this time Wl.- silts the
plaintiff. (The witness drew on paper a plan of the locality
where the plaintiff was standing when he first saw hiaa
Ile continued It was at the back of the Swan. We were
twice the width if this court away from him. I don't think
that Mr. Hopkins hail seen him before. I got within three
or four paces of hits when he moved off, lie saw us
coming, and looked to gee who it was that was earning.
lie merely moved a short distance to allow us to pais,
and we passed, leaving hint On our right hand.
We did rot stay, or appear to take any notice of him, lies'-
lag heard from Mr. Rouse that he did not wish to are any
,me until be hail seen some one who was supposed to be his
mother. we thought that we would pay deference to his
wishes. It was "MY a passing inspection when we noticed
his height. We went to the swan. hut Bogle was not in it.
Mr. Hopkins said to Rouse, "I should like this gentleman to
see him." In consequence of a suggestion from Mr. Reuse I
went in the afternoon to the Swan, but WAS told it was no
use asking ter au interview, and nothing was done.
lint you went to Alresford toner him went in conse-
quence of Mr, ilopkinsa letter. I was entirely guided by
Mr. Hopkins. I went expecting to see him, and to see If I
could recognise him. We dial not turn to look at the plaintiff
to see where he went to. We went straight to the railway
station. I think I hail previously received a description ja
writing of the man I wae to eee. This writing was ins letter
front Mr. Cater. Mr. Hopkins bad also a letter from Mr.
Cater, giving a descrii.tion of the plaintiff. 7' writer al
the same time professed to he nit a giusl hand 41 wale
tion. Mr. Cater made an affidavit in the I",n, I did mat
prepare it.
The letter to Mr. Ca:er was read. It was dated from Stir-
ling, in Scotland, the I,th December, INS, and the writer
said that, in reply to the witnesas letter of the Inst.,

concerning Sir R. C. Tichborne, he would be very willing
to make known to him the knowledge he had, of the
plaintig. lie the writer) was a master baker at Wagga
Wagga, In New South Wales, for fifteen months, termi-
nating In April last, and duilng the time became acoainted
with the person who now cilia himself Sir It. C. Tielsborne.
Prior to the writer leaving Waage W awns, sir Roger handed
him It sealed note labelled, 'Not to be opened till at eca."
He thought no more of it, but on opening it afterwards
he fund that it stated that if at any time when in England
lie (Cater) should feel inclined for a ninth's pleasure, he
should go to Sir R. C. Tlchirorne, at Tichborne, in Hamp-
shire, and he would make him a welcome guest. Ile (('ater)
had another letter whidi referred to the plaintiff's colonial
life, but he had been enjoyned to keep it eeeret, and
that prevented him giving the letter in full. He added
that lie was a very bad judge of ph) siogomy, but the
following was the truest description he could give of
this Sir Roger. Ile was Mt. Pin. or Win. in height; stout
and full In body inclining to corpulency ; long in the
bed, short in the legs; had rather large feet: threw his
toes out when walking. He hod light, thin, smooth
hair, high forehead, large dark eyes, which protruded
tom the seekets, a little the eyelids passed rapidly
over the eyes, especially when he was speskiiig to
yea. Ile hail 511 impediment or hesitancy in his speech
Intl no whhku.s, and evidently never hod any, and was
•bout 28 or no years of age. He especially remembered his
telling him that he had been to ili.i de Janeiro and lorbmge
to Hampshire that lie and his father wore Reman
Catholics, and that he bad been wrecked in the flefhe
1553 or Mi. Ills mouth ass rather small and his
teeth Irregular." Where Is Cater now h-- I believe
that he loins Australia. IVW him at Croydon as a visitor to
thopltsioliih. lie left this country, I believe about two years
ago. Ile it after the emionissien had gone out to Aur.
tralia, and I ant not aware that wig attempt was made to
acme° his evidence before he left. I did not identify the
plaintiff when I first saw him.
The witness complained of being confused arid harrassed
by the questions put to and it being near the time fir
adjournment, the period for the adjournment was at his re-
quest lengthened by half an hour.

The witness, upon the reassembling of the court, said
Mr. rater, as appears from his letter, gave a description of
the plaintiff.

Did you on the first occasion when you now the plaintiff
see enough of mm ti be satisfied that he was the same
person, " especially from his walk, and of whom Cater had
given you a minute description "I
—Yes, I think so. I was
under that impression.
Ile was dressed you had said hi a cap with. a peak, which
shaded the upper part of his lace, RIOa pnekut handkerchief
to tire lower pull— Yes, very naturally, if he did not wish to
be known.

Had Mr. Hopkins altered so that he would not he known
by a person who had known him in think he has
altered very much. He was in the prime of life when Sir
Roger went away, and when he Caine hark lie stooped much.
I think I had altered in the meal, time as little as any body.
Here is my photograph, alit you can see.
Mr. Hawkins I don't want your photograph ; I shall
always hear you In mind. (A laugh).
Witness: The plaintiff did not appear when he moved oft
the path as though he wanted to avoid us. lie only UloVed
out of our way as a gentleman would do. He moved oil the
path on the grass. Ile moved twelve yards I should say—
further than fro inhere to Mr. Hawkins.

The I,rd Chief Justice: you mean to say that be
moved twelve yards to get out of your way ?—lt might be
four or live yards only. There is a story of somebody who
had measured the distance. These questions are really
childish and very distressing.

The Imril Chief Justice Imust tell you that the questions
are not childish,- but questions proper to be answered.
Witness :I am glad to hear your lordship say so. The
plaintiff did not seen, to recognise us. Rouse had not, so
far aol knew then, bad any opportunity of speaking to the
plaintiff after he hml seen us. I believe that st the time I
liad heard from Mr. llopkins that the plaintiff did not wish
to be recognised. I hope it will be borne in mind that all
this occurred live years ago. It did not occur to me that it
was strange that the plaintiff should nut wish to be known.
Mr. Hopkins and I did not discuss this. If he whaled to see
his mother first; this would explain all.
If this were so, I could quite understand the man going to
Paris at once ':—The luau could not go to l'aris if be had lei
money.

Balm went to Alresford and stayed there ?—Still he might
not be able to go to Paris.
Did it strike you as old that if he 161 not sant to be re-
cognised he should go to A Irestord and take Bogle with him?
—I thought it very natural,

Why mhould h tali, BogkV—Because they said that Bogle
was dead.

What was that to him if he was the right man -I trust
that you won't bullying it ii shocking to be bullied Ilya person
in those robes. We are not as the Old Bailey now. I get so
excited I do not know what taut about.
The Lord Chief Justice , If Mr. Hawkins had used such
observations as you have made to him 1 should have cor-
rected him.
Witness : I am very sorry if I have done wrong. The
Tdaintiffs proceedings did not strike me as at all mid. I did
It know until afterwards that Mr. Rouse had been clerk to
Messrs. Num and Hopkins. I was not toll that on the even-
ing of the ad rival ef the plaintiff he had smoked a cigar n ith
Mr. It. floe, and they had di ettnvenation about the gentle-
illen's seats ill the neighbourhood and about Tichborne.
nes, r heard that till I sou it in Mr. R•ilHe's Itflidavit. I did
not hear the following morning that plaintiff hail been
INV., by Mr. Rouse to Tieliborne House. I lii not hionlre
Li. in hat their proceedings a-ere. I llid not hear that Mr.
Rom, Lid ...Led that his fri,ol might he allowed to go over
the house, nor that the plaintiff had walked round the
house, nor that he hail been driven to different villages
round. I have no recollection of xi hat I had heat.l on the
weasi.m. I was an unbeliever at the time until I saw Logi,
M is. Hopkins remonstrated with me for my unbelief. ton
that occasion- Mr. Hopkins his ed me eight or nine letters Id
Itogvt, to compare toe handwriting with a part of the letter
the plaintiff gave to Mr. Cater. I have not got it. It was
in Mr. Hulmes's possession the last time I saw it.

Is that a letter 4of Roger Tichborne ? The witness ex-
amined the letter minuttly.l
Lank at the signature and answer.—But, Mr. Hawkins,
you have put in forged letters already.
The Lord Chief .Tmtiee Yen have repeated it several
times, so please tell me to what documents yell refer: —Those
letters written to Mts. Pittendreigh, by which the learned
gentleman attempted to crush the plaintiff on the last day
of his ex uuiivation. They are forged, besause I have ex-
amined them.

The Lird : Now. lacing explained that. you
will ple:ce to let the matter drop, There m•ty be a question
as to w Melt doeon oto uere forged. •
\Vite se,Tntne• •.1 7I bilk, tint 11112 lott.r handed to me
17. in the unlit, • :lyre Filth 'roe. It is dotod in January,
The nine ! (tens ,nielt 1 Imo produce Mr. Hopkins
handed to me te ....aware with the writing w hilt puriafft,al
have been el,. r pm he plaintiff tii eater. The nine lettere
were written inC tinier. I I.eliere that the letter now haud.:d
to ate is written p the plaintiff.
Mr. Hawkins : It is the letter handed to Cater, and the
envelope is laliellial •• be opened at sea," and Inside is
•' Mr. a ater,—At any time when you are in England you
Meath( feel inelined fora month's pleasure, go to Tiekliorne,
in Hampshire. inquire for sir Roger Charles Tioldeirne, Tieh-
botne 11011, Tichborne, and you will find one that will nuke
you a welcome guest."
-

Witness That was all I saw of it.
Mr. llawklna It goes no—' But on no acommt mention
the name of Castro, or allude to my beirK a married man or
to my have being as a butcher. You will understand me I
have no doubts—Yours truly, '• TIP .311 S CAST:Ib..
I sail by the June mail."
Witness: I know Roger makes all sorts of blunders. I
cannot recollect his using any such plirawms " My have being
as a butcher." 'rho word °pleasure- used in the letter is
very chsracteri.d•e of him, lie was very fond of the word
pleasure. As I was getting into the train on my return the
first tunic, I saw the plaint iff at Arresfonl. I saw 1t0.41e, and
said, " Hew do yell do, Bogle r I believe that was about
all. This was on the 31st December.
Were yen then satisfied that the man you had hail pointed
out to yea was Roger I'. Tichborne I—No, though my
were g.thig after I saw Bogle, I was never satisfied till
I sass' the plaintiff. The letter placed In toy hand is in my
writing. It was dated 6th February, Is(17, and addressed to
Lady Doughty. The writer stated his conviction that the
Plaintiff wa,, Roger, that be Ins.l been most infamously treated
since his arrival in England, and, ° it is enough to make one's
blood boil." It was added that nothing could be more
open or straightforward than everything he had done since
Iris arrival, and the writer cencluded—.. I ran only mbl that
so tsr back as the 31st December, I completely satisfied the
learned and cautious gentleman, Mr. Ignatius Collingridge,
that he could be no other than the right man."
Yon yourself were rod then satisfied 1--I Was not, brit he
was. Ile was satisfied by a comparison of handwriting.
There was one circumstance that I thought was known only
to Roger and myself. It was that I wrote Iris some in a book.
I painted it in. I have a copy of it, and you may as well
have it. Why don't you ask me what he said ?

The Lord Chief Justice : I most request Mr. liaigent that
you conduct yourself as a witness, and uot as a party to the

Mr. Hawkins The plaintiff has sworn, "1 don't remember
anything being painted in a book by Mr. Baigent a--Very
likely lie might remembev at one time and forget at
another. That was very like Roger Tiebberne. I wonder
the plaintiff remembered hail the things that were put to
him. The book, I believe, was intended for a diary. It
had a locker. This was in ISM. I never saw the book
afterwards. I mentioned it to the plaintiff when I saw him
on the Slat Deveml,er.

Ile had then seen Lady Tichlion:lei—She would not then
be likely to know about the hook.
You told Inc yesterday it tulght have been known to others
as well believe 1 referredno another circumstance then.
I think it was his setting fire to his uncle'n pony.carriage
with a fuzee. It was just at the time that I was getting
bewildered yesterday. I will say I Ihrlieve it Was.

At four o'clock the court again adjourned.
[The witnesAes were examined and cross-examineil at
great length each day, hut our space precludes us from
giving more than the foregoing outline.]

The cm...examination of Mr. liaigent wax re.
awned on Wedneialay looming, and WIU4 not concluded
when the Court adjourned, at four o'clock.