The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-15 00:00:00

THE EXPREBSO WEDNESDAY Brgnir46

,1 7 . " •

„.

street in which he might meet him. Upon the receipt
of this letter Mr Ames Ferguesen applied to a panel-
Vets sad • versant was issued spent the defendant,
and he was *Wend to find hall to keep the peace. Being
tumble to procure the neoesssty sureties he was committed
to the Westminster House of Detention, MA while he was
there he repeated the charges he bad formerly made, in
some doggrel verve, and m the most offensive and dimes.
hug terms charged the prosecutor with being guilty of
cowardice while serving in the Crimea. The defendant had
the want of manliness and proper feeling to endeavour to
send this letter to the wife of the prosecutor, but the autho-
rities of the prison refused to allow him to do so, and the
letter was returned to him. Very shortly after he cbtained
his liberty, however, thisletter was received by Lady Fergus.
son by the poet, and he thought it right to inform thetury
that whenthe defendant found that these verses were likelyto
get bun into trouble he reprmented that his pockethad been
picked of the letter, and that he had not been the medium
of sending the verses to her ladyship. The learned counsel
then said that the defendant had not only published the
libellous statements to which he bad already alluded, but
he had also repeated them in a letter to the right hon.
member for Bucicinghamshire. Upon the occasion of his ap-
plying for payment for some articles he had furnished to a
religious publication called The Leisure Hour, he went out
of his way to make the most offensive allusion to the prose-
cutor some members of his family. The learned counsel
concluded by stating that he could not trace any other
object the defendant could have had in view than to extort
money from the prosecutor, and if this fact was established
to the satisfaction of the jury he felt assured they would
perform their duty by returning • verdict of guilty against
him upon the present indictment.
?dr. John Allen Quintin, a gentleman connected with the
publication called The Leisure Hour, was then examined,
and he deposed that the defendant keit been in the habit of
contributing to it, and be called for some money and wrote
a note to the secretary, the work being published by the
Religious Tract Society, which w.u; produced and read. It
contained a statement to the effect that the defendant was
compelled to ask for money in consequence of his having
been robbed by Sir James Fergusson, and he alluded to that
gentleman in • most offensive manner.
The witness was cross-essamined at considerable length
by the defendant, but he did not elicit anything that at all
lore upon the case.
Mr. Disraeli was then sworn. He said —I am member
for Buckinghamshire, and on the god of June last I re.
ceived the letter now produced.
(The letter which was referred to in the opening of the
learned counsel was then read.)
Cross-examined by the defendant—l never heard of
such ason as the Reverend Ebenezer Grubb, of New
York. A laugh.)
Defendant—Are you a Jew wow, or not ?
Mr. Disraeli—l am what I slways was —a Christian.
The defendant proposed to ask several other offensive and
irrelevant quertions of Mr. Disraeli, but the Recorder would
not allow them to be put, and said he would not allow a
court of justice to be made the medium of insulting
anThenSefendaat (to Mr. Disraeli)—Have you ever received
any other letters from me ?
kr. Disraeli—l have received • great many from you
since the year 1852. They were at length of such a cha-
racter that, coupled with your conduct, it was considered
advisable that you should be put under the surveillance of
the police.
Defendant—What did I do that induced you to take this
stelC. Disraeli—Yon were constantly in the habit of
haunting the public offices and the House of Commons, and
you behaved in such a manner that it was charitable to
advise the police to hare their eye upon you.
Defendant—How many letters do you say you have re-
ceived from me? . . . . .

Mr. 1 I have received persosially about twenty
frvou, but at last they were of such a character that I
would
not receive any more. I believe that you have sent
altogether 120 lettere to me.
Defendant—Were you not aware that I had some con-
versation with Lord Malmesbury about making a draft of a
reform bill that would be satisfactory to the working
clamber? (A laugh.)
Mr. Disraeli—l never saw you in my life until I saw you
at the polioe-office.
The defendant then asked the right hon. gentleman
whether the sole cause of his appearing against him was not
on account of his having represented him in an illustrated
newspaper ea a conjuror in a bottle ; and several other ab-
surd and irrelevant queetions, and—
Mr. Giffard interposed, and said that in the interest of
justice he felt called upon to protest against such a course
being proceeded with.
The Recorder told the defendant that be could not be
permitted to pursue such a line of cross-examination. The
questions he had asked were totally irrelevant, and had
nothing to do with the inquiry, and were only calculated to
insult the witness, and he would not permit that to be done.
The defendant then asked Mr. Disraeli whether he had
not written a letter to him, thanking him for " cutting up"
Lord Palmerston? (A laugh.)
Mr. Disraeli—Certainly not.
Lady Edith Persimmon said—On the 9th of June I received
the letter containing the verses now produced. I afterwards
sent it to my husband.
Oromexainined by the defendant—l never heard that
you had expressed your regret that the letter had ever
reached me. _ _ _ . _

Le Brutnent, one of the warders in the Westminster
Howse of Detention, proved that the defendant gave him a
letter, addressed to lady Fergusson, which contained some
verses. He read a portion of them, and showed them to
Captain Hill, the governor of the prison, and he refused to
send the letter. - .

------
By the defendant—Witness always considered that he
was perfectly sane while he was in tee prison.
Captain Hill, governor of the Westminster House of De-
tention, deposed that when the verses were shown to him
he considered they were very improper to he sent to a
young married lady, and he refused to allow the letter to
be sent, and it was returned to the defendant.
In answer to questions put by the defendant, Captain Hill
said he believed that upon some points he was labouring
under a delusion. . .

Defendant—Did I not acquiesce in the verses being
returned to me! - - -

Captain Hill—You had no alternative, becalm I refused
to send them. (A laugh.)
The defendant asked the willies@ whether he did not
receive instructions from the prosecutor to starve him, so
that he should not be able to bear up and conduct his
defenno?

-6;i4.--ain Hill said the question was too absurd to require

The defendant put a great many other irrelevant ques-
tions to the witness, and the Recorder was frequently
obliged to interpose, and request the defendant to confine
his attention to the question before the court.
Yr. B. F deposed that he was uncle to Sir James
Fergueson, and a writer br the signet in Scotland. Witness
monied adaughter of the defendant's sister, at least he be-
lieved she was.

By the defendant—l had never seen you until I saw you
yestenlay. I have no reason to believe that my wife is not
your sister's child.
Sir James Fermisson was then called. He said lam the
member for Ayrshire. I was formerly lieutenant in the 3rd
battalion of Grenadier Guards, and afterwards captain of
that regiment. I served in the war in the Crimea, and was
present at the battle of the Alma, and I was slightly
wounded at Inkermann. I was elected for Ayrshire while
I was in the Crimea. I received the letter now produced at
my house in Scotland on the 21st of December, 1859. On
the 13th of February I received another letter from the de-
fendant, and on the 73rd of March I received a third. I
afterwaribi received the copy of verses addressed to my wife.
Cass.examined— I have never described yon as a lunatic
or an assassin, but in conversation I have certainly said that
you were an impostor. I never influenced the editor of the
Time, to write an article against yon and describe you as a
madman. _ . .

In answer to further questions put by the defendant, Sir
Jame, Fergusson said he had received many other letters
from the defendant, but be destroyed them an, except the
one of the 21st of December, in which the demand was
made for money.
The defendant then put some question', involving charges
of grosa immorality against some members of the family
and other persons.
The Recorder interposed, and said that he really would
not permit such matters to be gone into. It was a most
infamous abuse of the privilege of cross-examination to
attack absent parties, and they really had nothing whatever
to do with the inquiry before the court.
In answer to further questions put by the defendant, Sir
James Ferguson denied that he had in any way interfered
to prevent him from obtaining any property to which he
was entitled, and he was not even aware that he was
entitled to any.
Sir Wm. Dunbar, whose name had been mentioned in the
course of the trial, was then called, but Mr. Ciffard and he
hail no questions to put to him. The defendant also de-
clined to put any questions.
Mr. Bniy, an inspector of police at the House of Commons,
proved that he bail frequently seen the prisoner at the
Howie of Commons, and in the month of July he called
upon him at his house and wished him to go with him to
Marlborough-street Police Court to get a summons to
compel Sir James Fergusson to restore him some letters that
belonged to him. He refused to do so. The defendant
then asked him to go to Sir James and yak him to give him
5001. to settle the dispute between them upon any terms.
Witness told him he could do nothing of the sort, and the
defendant thee went way.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The defendant then proceeded to address the jury in
answer to the charge. He made a long ramblimg speech, in
which he referred to his literary productions and other mat-
ters that had nothing whatever to do with the we. He
denied that he had any intention to extort money from Sir
James Fergusson, and declared that what he had stated
with regard to his conduct in the Crimea he had heard from
two soldiers who were conlieed with him in prison, and he
said be thought that as Sir James had had an opportunity of
contrailicting what he had said, upon his oath, he ought
to be satisfied. He then referred to the alleged
libels, and said that they ought not to be regarded in •
serious light, as they wore merely intended to meet the eye
of Sir James himself ; and as to the verses, he declared that
they were stolen out of his pocket, and that he did not send
them to Lady FeNusson. Ile thou reminded the jury that
lie bad already suffered ten weeks' imprisonment for writ-
ing these letten, and urged them not to ldve a verdict
against him that would have the effect of increasing the
punishment he hail already undergone.
' The Recorder, in summing up, said that its the defendant

had not pleaded a justification, It must be taken that the
defendant had admitted there was b 0 foundation for the
charges he had brought ageing the prosecutor, and the only
questions the jury had to consider were whether the lettere
and the verses were libellous and defamatory, and whether
they were published with the intention to extort money.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Guilty,
but recommended the defendant to mercy on account of the
state of his health.

He was then ordered into custody, and the Recorder slid
he would consider what sentence should be pronounced.