The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-21 00:00:00

HE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 21, 1863.

speaker showed that he cared very little for the cause which
he professed to advocate, or the national interests which he
pretended to consider. A grand oratorical display, or the
satisfaction of his unreasonable prejudices, these were the
objects which the orator proposed to himself ; and no won-
der, therefore, that his speech, whilst it drew applause for
the carefully-studied and well-delivered epigrams, 3seited
surprise and pity by its astounding incoherence and its fla-
grant contradictions. It is hard to determine what Mr.
Horsman would have the Government do, as it is to recon-
cile the different points of Mr. Horsman's oration. But it
may be taken generally, that tha right hon. gentleman is
anxious that England should organise a war to reconsti-
tute Poland in the full extent of her territory of 1772. The
House of Commons will separate without having obtained
the slightest knowledge of the Ministerial intentions, with-
out the slightest assurance in favour peace. It has left
everything to the Government, and Mr. Horsman's motion
has only served to ventilate his own eloquence, and waste
an evening which might have been devoted to more busi-
ness and useful purposes. The House of Lords has shown
itself once mere far more practical and sagacious than the
Commons. It obtained, in a very short debate, a most em-
phatic declaration from the Government that under no cir-
cumstances would it adventure upon war; and with that
declaration, not repudiated or weakened last night, the
country must content itself.

(Renewed laughter.) The receipts for rent which
had been shown to her were in her husband's hand-
writing.
While Mr. Bovill was cross examining the wit-
ness he had been busy enclosing the will and the
various documents to which the witness had been
referred as containing her husband's signature in
envelopes of paper, leaving only the signatures ex-
posed, so that no one could tell to what documents the
signatures were attached. He then handed them
in succession to the witness, who appeared ex-
tremely puzzled in forming an opinion as to
which of the signatures she considered genuine
and which not, and at last she would not give
a positive opinion on any of them, only saying,
" Well, that looks like his'n ; but I cannot say posi-
tively whether it is or not." After looking at the
last document handed to her, the witness said the
" I" did not look much like his'n ; she did not be-
lieve it was his'n; but she could not be quite posi-

Mr. Bovill said the first documents he had shown
the witness were those cnntaining the signatures of
her husband, which she had before said were
genuine, and the last one was the will, with her
husband's signature as one of the attesting wit-
nesses.

Mr. Knott (who had been examined before) was
recalled by Mr. Bovill, and said he knew the hand-
writing of the late Mr. Roupell very well, from hay-
ing had receipts from him for rent. He had looked
at the signature to the deed of gift, and though
there was some slight difference between that and
Mr. Roupell's ordinary writing; yet to the best of
his belief it was a genuine signature. If an order
had been sent to him for goods with that signature
he should have sent them.
The witness, at the request of Mr. Sergeant Shee,
having compared the signature in the deed of gift
with some genuine signatures of Mr. Roupell's, said
he could certainly see a difference between them.
Mr. Sharp, recalled by Mr. Bovill, said he recol-
lected Mr. Roupell calling en him on the 30th
August, 1856, and he did not then notice that he
was iu a bad state of health.
Louisa Turner, examined by the Hon. F. Thesi-
ger, said she was the wife of John Turner, of No.
6, Little Lant-street, who was tenant of part of that
house to the late Mr. Roupell. They paid their rent
to Mr. Muggeridge between one and three o'clock,
sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly. In the lat-
ter part of his life he was generally accompanied by
his wife. She remembered that Sometimes he was
accompanied by his grandson. He entered the re-
ceipt of the rent in a book belonging to her, which
she kept. The book now produced was hers, and
looking at it she could say that she paid him 10s.
on the 2d September, 1856. Her father lived next
door, and was also a tenant of Mr. Roupell's. The
entry in her book of the 10s. on the 2d of Sep-
tember was in the handwriting of Mr. Mug-
geridge. She also paid the rent for her father, and
entries were made in a book belonging to him. The
book now produced was the one. Looking at it,
she could say that she paid 15s. for rent to Mr.
Muggeridge on the 2d of September. The
entry was in the writing of Mr. Muggeridge. She
saw him write it.
Sarah Chadwick, examined by Mr. Lush, said—
She was also a tenant of Mr. Roupell's and lived
in a house in Lant-street. She used to pay her rent
to Mr. Muggeridge, and kept a book in which Mr.
Muggeridge used to enter a receipt of the rent ; but
the book had been lost. When she left the house
she did not take any particular care of it. Mrs.
Ray used to live next door to her. Witness did not
see Mrs. Ray pay any rent on the 2d September,
1856 ; but she knew that she did pay it. The book
now produced was the book in which Mr.
Muggeridge used to enter Mrs. Ray's receipts, and
the entry of the 2d of September was in his writing.
The corresponding entry in Mr. Muggeridge's book
for that date was also in Mr. Muggeridge's hand-
writing. Mrs. Rey was ill, and unable to give
evidence.
The Court here adjourned for a short time.
Mr, Bucksworthy, examined by Mr. Brown, said
he was now managing clerk for Messrs. Wilkinson,
solicitors, at Walsall, and was formerly managing
clerk for a firm in the Southwark Bridge-road. He
was there from 1845 till 1859. When he first went
there, in 1845, they were the acting solicitors for
old Mr. Roupell, and continued so till 1852. Soon
after he went there he took the management of old
Mr. Roupell's business. While he was acting in
that capacity Mr. Roupell bought severvl proper-
ties and granted several leases, which leases witness
either perused or prepared, and afterwards saw
signed and executed by Mr. Roupell. Witness was
shown the deed of gift, the will, and the letter of
instructions, and said it was his firm belief, from
what he knew of the handwriting of the late Mr.
Roupell, that those documents had never been
signed by him.
Mr. Thomas George, examined by Mr. Sergeant
Shee, said he acted as collector of rents for the late
Mr. Roupell for sixteen or seventeen years. He
was well acquainted with Mr. Roupell's handwrit-
ing, and did not believe that the signature to the
will was ever written by the late Mr. Roupell. The
capital " I'," the " o," and the small " p," were un-
like those letters in Mr. Roupell's ordinary writing.
Mr. Roupell's "o" generally commenced from the
bottom and went to the top, and was more like an
"a" than an " o." There was not so much freedom
in the " P" in the will as there was in Mr. Rou-
pell's usual capital" P." Mr. Roupell's small "p"
was more like the letter " f" than a " p," but in
the signature in the will the small part of the letter
did not join the stroke. He did not believe the
signature to the deed of gift (which was shown to
him) was the signature of Mr. Roupell. The flou-
rish in that signature differed from the flourish in
Mr. Roupell's general signature. Mr. Roupell
used, when he got to the final " 1" in his name, to
make the flourish first and the straight stroke after-
wards. He was speaking now from his actual ob-
servation of Mr. Roupell's handwriting. In his
belief the signature to the letter of instructions of
January 8 was not the signature of Mr. Roupell.
There was not freedom enough in the capital " P,"
the " o" commenced from the top, and the " p" was
too plain. The dissimilarity which he had pointed
out in the first document existed in the others.
By the Court—He had never seen William Rou-
pell write.
By Mr. Sergeant Shee—The signature now
placed in his hands was a genuine signature of Mr.
Roupell's to an agreement for a tenancy attested by
the witness, and was very different from the signa-
tures to the deed of gift, the will, and the letter of
instructions.
In cross-examination by Mr. Bovill, the witness
said he had never seen the documents which had
just been shown him before, although he had been
in court during the whole of the previous proceed-

ings.
Mr. William Alder, examined by Mr. Lush, said
he was for three years a tenant of the late Mr.
Roupell. He used to pay his rent to Mr. Roupell,
and book receipts from him. There was a peculia-
rity in the signature which he noticed at the time.
He did not notinc.. at the time that Mr. Roupell
wrote the whole signature without taking his pen
off, but he had examined the signature to his re-
ceipts since. He had seen the signature to the will,
and was of opinion that it was not the, writing of
old Mr. Roupell. In all the signatures to his re •
ceipts, there was a breakat the lower part of the
" Roupell," but there was
capital " inno such
break in the signatures to the will. Every tim
it
e
in the
shaoesi
strokernt hri will.neee
the letter " o" occurred in the reeeciptes,
like an "a," which was not the as
The small part of the " p" also joined the
the genuine signature, whereas it did not do
will. The general character of the writing was
pell's ordinary writing,
more studied than Mr. Roil
tind did not appear to possess the ordinary freeness
of Mr. Roupell's writing. He thought the signa-
ture to the letter of instructions was a very bad