The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1863,

CELEBRATION of the TERCENTENARY of
the BIRTH of SHAKSPEARE, at Stratford-upon-
Avon. The Tercentenary Committee (of which Sir Robert
N. C. Hamilton, Bart., K.C.8., is Chairman) are now receiv-
ing SUBSCRIPTIONS, and they may also be paid to the
account of the Tercentenary Committee, at the Stourbridge
and Kidderminster or Warwick and Leamington Banks,
Stratford-upon-Avon ; Messrs. Greenway, Smith, and
Greenway, Warwick ; or their London agents, Messrs.
Smith, Payne, and Co , Messrs Hanburys and Co., or Messrs.
Glyn and Co , bankers, London.

School

Monu-
mental
Memorial.

General Fund
for opening
gardens and
celebration of
Festival.

£ s. d.
1.65 0 0

£ s. d.

£ s. d.
10 10 0

50 0 0

53 0 0

5 0 0

25 0 0

5 0 0

10 0 0
5 0 0
10 0 0
5 0 0
10 0 0
1 1 0
5 0 0
2 2 0

10 0 0
5 0 0
10 0 0
5 5 0
10 0 0
6 5 0

5 0 0

10 0 0
50 0 0
5 5 0
10 10 0

10 10 0
10 0 0
10 0 0
10 0 0
10 0 0
1;, 0 0
10 0 0
5 0 0

5 0 0

5 0 0

10 0 0

210 0

10 0 0

10 10 0

10 0 0

1 1 0

THE ROTIPELL FORGERIES.

EIGHTH DAY.
CHELMSFORD, July 24.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Special Jury.)
ROIJPELL AND ANOTHER V. MOWS AND ANOTHER.

Tho trial was resumed this morning.

Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. J. Brown, and
the Hon. Mr. Thesiger, were for the plaintiffs. Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Garth were for
the defendants.

Wm. Roupell was again brought down in custody.
Baron Channell summed up the whole case to the jury.
After some preliminary observations, his lordship said that
the case they had now to dispose of was one almost unparal-
leled in the history of legal jurisprudence. The principal
question they would have to decide was, whether the deed
of gift about which they had heard so much was a genuine
instrument or not ; but there were some very important col-
lateral matters connected with it which would require their
most serious consideration. The action was one of ejectment,
to recover possession of a portion of one farm called Bolens,
and the whole of another called Herds, and originally there
were two plaintiffs, Richard Roupell and James Surridge ;
but it was admitted that the latter had not made out any
title, and the only question therefore was as regarded the
claims of Richard Roupell. He claimed as heir at law, and
the point he had to establish to support his claim was, that
his father died possessed of the estate in question, and there-
fore the material question was, whether he did really die
seised of the property, or whether he had previously dis-
posed of it by the deed of gift, and whether the deed of gift
which was the ground of the defendants' claim was a genu-
ine instrument, or whether it was forged, under the extra-
ordinary circumstances that had been narrated in the course
of the trial. Some collateral questions would arise as to the
will, but the validity of the deed of gift was the real ques-
tion in the cause. The case for the plaintiff rested a great
deal on the evidence of Win. Roupell, but it did not do so
entirely, for there were many important collateral circum-
stances that were relied upon to support the evidence of this
witness. No ono could fail to be impressed with the earnest
eloquence of the learned sergeant, and he joined with him in
the hope that he was sincerely penitent. In a court of jus-
tice, however, they must deal sternly with the facts, and
act upon evidence alone, and their feelings ought not to be
allowed at all to influence their decision. There could be no
doubt that Wm. Roupell was a man who had been guilty
of great crimes; he had in the first place committed the
offence of the forging of the leases relating to this property,
and then, according to his own admission, he had destroyed
his father's genuine will, forged a fresh will, and in this par-
ticular case he had by means of forgery and fraud obtained
from the defendants the sum of £12,000. If he now came
forward and deliberately committed the additional crime of
wilful perjury in order to regain possession of the property,
his crime was of a still deeper dye, and this was the
question they would eventually have to decide. He had
said that William Roupell was a man who was deeply
steeped in crime, and, as the laiv formerly stood, he would
not have been a competent witness, but the law was now
altered, and it was left to the discretion and good sense of a
jury to decide whether a man in the position of William
Roupell, who professed to be actuated by a feeling of sincere
repentance, was speaking truth, or whether, as he had be-
fore stated, he had added to his former great crimes the ad-
ditional one of wilful and deliberate perjury. It appeared
to him that a groat deal of the evidence that had been ad-
duced for the plaintiffs was quite immaterial, particularly
that portion of it which related to the legitimacy of the
plaintiff, and he thought that there could be no doubt that
the plaintiff Richard Roupell was the legitimate son of
the deceased Richard Palmer Roupell, and that he was
entitled to bring the present action as heir at law. As
the most important witness in the cause, he should in
the first place call their attention to the evidence of
William Roupell, making such observations as he proceeded
as he hoped would assist them in their deliberations. He
said it appeared to be quite clear that William Roupell had
great influence over his mother, and according to his own
statement his father was very careful of money, indeed
almost penurious, and that at the end of 1855 he was in
great pecuniary difficulties, and owed large sums of money
to his bankers and to the Guardian Insurance Office, and
also to his solicitor, Mr. Whitaker, to whom he was intro-
duced by Mr. Watts, the husband of the lady who had been
examined as a witness on the first day of the trial. The
learned judge then alluded to the course alleged to have
been taken by William Roupell with regard to the forgery
of the leases of this estate, and he observed that these pro-
ceedings were undoubtedly of the most artful character, and
he explained that the effect was that the property was made
to appear of much larger value than it really was, and to
enable him to obtain a loan to a greater amount than ho
would otherwise have been able to obtain. With regard to
these leases, it appeared to be admitted on both sides that
these leases were forgeries, but the contention of Mr. Bovill,
on behalf of the defendants was, that he was legally entitled
to the property under a genuine deed of gift, and that the
forgery of the leases was only committed for the purpose of
enabling Wm. Roupell to raise a larger sum of 'money upon
the property than he otherwise could have done, in order to
relieve himself from the pecuniary difficulties in which he
was placed. The question then was, whether the deed of
gift was genuine or not. In reference to this subject here-
minded them that a letter had been written by the sister of
Win. Roupell to Mr. Whitaker, at the dictation of the for-
mer, and he could not help observing that in his opinion,
although this young woman might have acted incautiously
in writing auch a letter, there was nothing in the matter
that reflected upon her ; and with regard to her not having
been called earlier in the cause, he could understand that
from humane motives the counsel and the attorney who were
concerned in the inquiry would have avoided, if it had been
possible, calling a witness whose brother was in the painful
position of Wm Roupell. Upon this letter it appeared that
Mr. Whitaker, without any further inquiry, prepared the
deed of gift, and he could not help saying that in his opinion
this was a most imprudent proceeding. His lordship then re-
ferred to the circumstances under which the deed of gift
was represented to have been attested by the witnesses Tru-
man and Dove, and said that the evidence given by Mr. E.
Whitaker and Mr. Covinton certainly tended to throw some
doubt upon the evidence of Wm. Roupell and those two wit-
nesses in reference to This transaction, and the jury would
consider what effect this had upon the portion of the ease to
which he had called their attention. The learned Judge
plaintiff.esttt
pro-
ceeded to read the evidence given by Wm. Roupell, and
observed that it certainly was rather an extraordinary pro-
ceeding that he should not have read the genuine will after
he had taken it out of his father's bureau until alweek after-
wards, and he explained that, in order fur the present plain-
tiff to
spoken havee ansi
sd as heir at law, they must believe that Wm. Roupell had
ewHtar
truth
he
lordshipv when
i titlesheed unn
t dho under
enr h stated
h
atti SebdprWortoithlelaeeiterndbde Ryedpeitchhtnoi
s will
adnre
Richard,
the independently of claim-
ingadmis-
sion that he had falsely sworn that the will of Sept. 2, 1856,
was genuine, that he had practically cheated the defendants
out of £12,000, that he had robbed his mother of £10;000,
Roupell, ae the
his i here-
maining War-
ley
present
evidence given by Wm. and to narrate
t
a h

that he had obtained £200,000 from other parties to whom
he had sold or granted mortgages on the property, and that
his object in telling the present story was " incidentally"
to get the property back for his family. He then referred to
the circumstances under which the deed was alleged to
have been attested by the witnesses Truman and Dove, and
to the statement that was made by the former that the sig-
natures resembled his own and Dove's handwriting, but that
he had never seen Richard Palmer Roupell execute any
deed in the whole course of his life, and that the latter ad-
mitted that the signature was his handwriting, and that
although he did not remember the circumstance of attesting
the deed, he should not have put his name to it if he had
not seen Richard Palmer Roupell sign it. The learned judge
next referred to the evidence as to the circumstances under
which the signature of the old man John Muggeridge was
obtained to the alleged forged will, and to the testimony
that had been adduced that this signature was a forgery, and
he also called the attention of the jury to the fact that Mr.
Longman had refused to advance any more money upon the
security of the deed of gift because he could not obtain the
concurrence of the old man to the mortgage. His lordship
then proceeded to call their attention to the evidence that
had been adduced to show how Wm. Roupell and Mug-
geridge were occupied on the day on which the will of the
2d of September was alleged to have been executed, and
that it was impossible they could have been together, or
that the will could have been executed on this day. He then
proceeded to refer to the evidence as to the handwriting,and
to the statement made by one of the tenants, Nathaniel
Springham, that the deceased had said to him about July,
1856, that he was going to give the Warley property to his
son William. He also alluded to the proceedings that had
been taken by the present defendants against the tenants to
recover rent, and to the fact that judgment was allowed to
go by default in that action, and said it appeared to him that
these proceedings ought not to be allowed to have the least
weight in the present inquiry. After some further observa-
tions, the learned judge said that on the part of the defen-
dants very few facts appeared to have been proved, except
such as were necessary to lay the fouudationfor the evidence
that was afterwards adduced as to handwriting; and he ob-
served that as, in the present state of the law, the jury had
a right to examine and compare signatures and handwrit-
ing, it appeared to him that the evidence of experts, as they
were termed, was of very little importance. They hail heard
a great deal about the flourish at the end of the name, and
various small peculiarities in the different letters; and the
object of the defendants appeared to be to show, by a mass
of signatures to receipts, and a number of other documents,
that the deceased had no uniform mode of signature, and
sometimes signed in one way and sometimes in another. If
they desired that he should read the evidence on this point
in detail he was ready to do so; but it appeared that, hav-
ing regard to the nature of the evidence and the attention
the jury had paid to it, he himself considered it was unne-
cessary to do so. The evidence on the part of the defendants
was undoubtedly very cogent, and in such a case as this the
jury ought not to give effect to the evidence of such men as
Wm. Roupell, unless he was confirmed in every particular
where he could have been confirmed. If, however, they
should be of opinion that Wm. Roupell was the witness of
truth, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and this was
the material question for them to decide. His lordship, in
conclusion, left the following questions to the jury :
First—Was the deed of gift signed by old Roupell in the
presence of the two witnesses ?
Secondly—Assuming that it was not so, was it actually
signed and sealed by him, whether or not in the presence of
the witnesses ?

Thirdly—Was the will of the 2d September, 1856, the
will of the testator ? (the effect of which would be that the
will of 1850 would be revoked).
Fourthly—lf that will of 1853 was not revoked, did it
devise this estate to the plaintiff, Richard Roupell?
The Foreman of the jury desired to have the questions in
writing, and
The learned Baron accordingly furnished them with the
questions in a written farm. While this was being done,
Mr. Bovill made a suggestion, in answer to which
The learned Baron said the moment the plaintiff's heir-
ship was admitted it became a question whether the testator
died seised of the estate. The defendants contended that he
did not, because of the deed of gift, and the counsel for the
plaintiff undertook to destroy that deed by showing it to be
forged. He was not, therefore, sure that the ordinary rule
of law as to onus of proof applied ; but upon the whole of
the case the jury would say whether the deed was or was
not executed by old Roupell.
The Foreman desired to know whether there was any
evidence that William Roupell was in the habit of preparing
deeds for his father. There was evidence that he had been
admitted as an attorney; but was there evidence that he
had acted as such for his father in preparing deeds ?
The learned Judge said he did not know that there was.
Mr. J. Brown said he thought there was evidence that the
old man was in the habit of reading any document he signed.
The learned Judge referred to his notes, and did not find
it, but found this —that he " was very cautious."
The jury now retired to consider their verdict. It was
about 25 minutes past 2 o'clock.
There was no "bill of exceptions" on either side.

A warm discussion now ensued between the learned
counsel on both sides as to the transcripts of the shorthand-
writer's notes to be furnished on either side. The transcript
on one side was objected to as having been "turned down,"
and on the other as having been marked. This, it was said,
would serve to direct the attention of the j cry to particular
passages,and the most genitive jealousy was shown on each
side as to the notes of the other, and in the result.
Mr. Bovill said he should prefer that the jury should come
into court and refer to his Lordship if they were in doubt
upon any point, and that the notes on either aide should
not be furnished to them.

[These transcripts of the shorthand writer's notes being
verbatim notes of everything—question and answer—formed
a pile 'of manuscript something like a foot in height, which
would completely have overwhelmed the jury, who probably
would have derived very little advantage from them, and
found them "a mighty maze, and all without a plan."]
After the lapse of nearly half an hour the under-sheriff
came into court, and said the sheriff had sent the bailiff for
the will, upon which the learned Baron sent it to them.
The jury were absent for some hours. Shortly before 6
they returned into court, and, the officer calling on them in
the usual way, "Are you agreed on your verdict ?"
The Foreman answered,—Not quite. We are agreed as
to three of the issues, but not as to the second (whether the
deal was executed)—nor are we, as to that, at all likely to
agree.

_The learned Judge desired to have the paper of questions
he had given to the jury; and, looking at it, said he thought
he need not trouble them to agree as to the one on which
they were not agreed. His lordship handed it down to the
counsel on each side to look at it, and they did so, on which

Mr. Sergeant Shee said he thought the jury had better
give their answers openly.
The learned Judge asked if the second question were
withdrawn by the defendants?
Mr. Bovill said he only desired a general verdict.
The learned Judge said he had put the question to the
jury, at the desire of the defendants' counsel, and could not
withdraw it without their consent.

Mr. Bovill said it seemed to him the main pcint in the
case. Upon this
Tho learned Judge said he must desire them to retire
again to reconsider that question.
The Foreman—That is no more than I expected, my lord.
(Great laughter.)
The answers of the jury wore as follows :
To the fiest question—Was the deed of gift executed in
the presence of the two witnesses ?—they answered it was not.
Upon the second question, as to whether it was executed
by the testator, they were not agreed.
To the third question—Was the will of Sept. 2, 1856, the
will of the testator ?—they found it was not so.
To the fourth question—Whether the will of 1850 devised
the estate to the plaintiff?—they answered that there was
not sufficient evidence to enable them to find.

The jury retired again about 6 o'clock. At half-past 7
they again returned into court, having been out five hours,
and

The Foreman, being asked if they were agreed, said—No,
we are in the same position as when we went out, and I
regret to say that, however long we may remain together,
there is no prospect of our being able to agree.
A discussion here ensued between the learned Judge and
the counsel on both sides, which being carried on in a low
voice out of the hearing of the jury it was not easy to follow.
From what afterwards took place, however, it appeared
that the counsel for the plaintiff contended that upon the
findings of the jury already given the plaintiff was entitled
to recover upon his title as heir, as his heirship was ad-
mitted, supposing that there was no devise to any one else,
which was now negatived as to the will of 1856, and not
proved as regarded the will of 1850.
The learned Judge then prepared in writing another
paper, in which he said there was an alteration of the fourth
question.
Upon this the jury retired again.
The alteration of the fourth question was understood to
be whether the will of 1850 devised the estate to any one
else than the plaintiff.
The jury being unable to agree, were discharged at half-
past 10 o'clock.

THE LAMBETH WIFE MURDEF,.—At the South-
wark Police-court yesterday, Joseph Hawes was
brought up for final examination upon the charge of wilfully
murdering his wife. Mr. L. Lewis appeared for him. The
evidence was to the effect that a fellow-lodger, hearing
screams, went into the prisoner's room, and there saw the
deceased lying with her shoulders across the fender, and
the prisoner striking at her. From the injuries then re-
ceived the woman died. The prisoner was committed for
trial on the charge of wilful murder.

THE POLISH INSURRECTION.

THE RUSSIAN NOTE.

The following " Further Correspondence" was
published yesterday ;

"No. 1.

" LORD NAPIER TO EARL RUSSELL..—(Received

July 23.)

"St. Petersburg, July 18, 1863.

" My Lord,—The French Ambassador was called
to Tsarskre Selo yesterday to hear the replies of
Prince Gortschakoff to the overtures of the three
Powers on behalf of Poland. I had occasion to
meet his Excellency in the evening, when he in-
formed me that the Vice•Chanceller desired to see
me for the same purpose this forenoon. I found the
Duke de Montebello under a very decided impres-
sion of the bad effect which the Russian communi-
cation would have at Paris. The Duke gave me a
brief outline of the tenour of the despatches with
which he had been acquainted. The armistice was
rejected; that we had foreseen. The conferences
were declined ; that we had apprehended ; but the
six points had not been distinctly adopted, and,
what was altogether unexpected and most to be de-
plored, the intervention of France and England
were set aside, and proposals were made to enter
upon a separate discussion on Polish affairs with
Austria and Prussia, as counterminous Powers pe-
culiarly interested, without any apparent provision
even for the subsequent participation of the other
Powers signataries of the Treaty of Vienna. Such
an overture, in the opinion of my French colleague,
would be regarded by his Government not only as
unsatisfactory, but as most insulting, and as tend-
ing to a positive and immediate rupture.
"I heard the intelligence with surprise and con-
cern, for I frilly shared the impression of the Duke
in regard to France, and I could not but feel that
the determination of the Russian Cabinet would be
highly unacceptable to her Majesty's Government.
" After some consultation it was agreed that the
French Ambassador should accompany me to Tsar-
skoe Selo this morning, in the hope that Prince
Gortschakoff might be enabled to give us some ex-
planation of his views, which, on being communi-
cated to our respective Cabinets, might set his in-
tentions in a more favourable light, and mitigate the
first impression which the perusal of his despatches
would create.

" We accordingly waited on Prince Gortschakoff
this morning, who placed the three despatches in
our hands. After we had carefully read them
through apart, we returned to the Prince, when,
after thanking his Excellency for his communica-
tion, I spoke to him in the following sense :—I said
that I might have abstained from all remarks on the
subject, and simply awaited the resolution of her
Majesty's Government, I must beg him to under-
stand that any observations which I might offer
were solely prompted by the hope that a fuller ex-
planation of his sentiments on one or two points
might be found to be calculated to mitigate the
feelings of dissatisfaction with which his resolutions
would probably be received by the allied Govern-
ments. I pinch feared that his communication would
be understood in England as an attempt to gain
time and detach Austria from our alliance ; that a
proposal which at the present conjuncture aimed to
exclude two great Powers from the discussion of a
question in which they had expressed the deepest
and most deliberate interest would be regarded as
far from conciliatory, and even as offensive ; that a
scheme by which the interests of Poland would be
committed exclusively to the hands of the Powers
by which Poland had been partitioned, and in past
times oppressed, would inspire no confidence ; in
fact, that no form of reply could, in my humble
judgment, have contained fewer elements for a
friendly or pacific adjustment. Nevertheless, in
the eyes of England, at least, there was something
to be pleaded in favour of the Russian argument,
in so far as it professed, even in restricting the dis-
cussions to the three Powers, to go upon the basis of
the Treaty of Vienna, which had been adopted by
your Lordship as the ground of our mediation. I
would ask his Excellency, for your Lordship's im-
mediate information, two questions :
" 1. What was the form, and what the basis,
which he designed to give the discussions which he
proposed between Austria, Russia, and Prussia ?
And,

"2. 'Whether he proposed to exclude France and
England even from any participation in the ratifi-
cation of the engagements which might be taken
by the three Powers ; or whether he proposed to
admit them in the same manner and in the same
degree in which they had been admitted by the
Treaty of Vienna ?
" The Vice-Chancellor stated, in reply, that the
Plenipotentiaries of Austria and Prussia would be
received by him at St. Petersburg, and the results
of this restricted Conference might, as in the Trea-
ties of Vienna, be consigned in the form of proto-
cols, or in that of a treaty, or in any other shape
which might be considered desirable ; that the basis
of the discussion (point de d4)art) would be the six
points proposed by the three Powers, which con-
tained nothing contrary to the views of the Empe-
ror, as well as other points which he might deem
it his duty to submit. _ _

"In reply to my second question, Prince Gort-
schakoff stated that the resolutions embraced in the
Conference of the three neighbouring Powers most
directly concerned in the affairs of Poland would be
officially imparted to the Governments of England
and France, which would be able to appreciate the
conformity of those resolutions (which would em-
body a practical adaptation of the six points) to the
spirit and text of the Treaty of Vienna.
" I urged the Vice-Chancellor to declare unam-
biguously whether his resolutions did or did not ex-
clude the logical result to which a strict adherence
co the method of the Treaty of Vienna would con-
duct him—namely, to the embodiment of the results
of the restricted Conference in a general Conven-
tion, to which all the Powers bouad by the engage-
ments of 1815 should be parties. The Vice-Chan-
cellor did not perhaps absolutely commit himself
against such a conclusion, but he refused to admit
it, and repeatedly asserted that he would accede to
nothing which would give the Western Powers any
right whatever of interfering in the internal con-
cerns of the Russian Empire, in which he seemed
to include the Kingdom of Poland, though I did
not cease to contend that we had a limited right of
interference there under the Treaty of Vienna.

" After a good deal of discussion of a desultory
nature, in which the French ambassador took an
active share, the enclosed telegraphic despatch in
clear, forwarded to your lordship under the present
date, was drawn up with the approval of Prince
Gortschakoff, who sent it off to Baron Budberg and
Baron Brunnow.

" I can only hope that the part which I have
taken in endeavouring to elucidate the views of the
Russian Nlinister may not meet with your lordship's
disapproval. I entered upon the inquiry in the
hope of being able to temper the effects of an unfor-
tunate communication, as I deem it, and of furnish-
ing her Majesty's Government the means of making
explanations in Parliament for which the text of
Prince Gortschakoff's despatch might not have
afforded the materials.

" I have not given the Vice-Chancellor the least
ground for supposing that the tenour of his de-
spatch to Baron Brunnow, or its present develop-
ment of its meaning, will be considered satisfactory
to her Majesty's Government.—l have, &c.,
NAPIER."

(Enclosure in No. 1.)
" LORD NAPIER TO EARL RUSSELL.
(Telegraphic.)
"St. Petersburg, July 18, 1863.

" The Duke de Montebello and I have asked
Prince Gortschakoff in what form and on what basis
the discussions proposed by him respecting the
affairs of Poland between Austria, Russia, and
Prussia would take place, and whether the remain-