The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-22 00:00:00

THE lONIAN ISLANDS.

Lord J. MANNERS asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether instructions had been sent to our naval authorities
off the coast of Greece to refuse protection to the lonian
subjects of her Majesty ; and whether, as the Bth article of
the Treaty of Paris, Nov. 5, 1815, invited the accession of
the Ottoman Porte to that convention, as welf as that of the

Powers which signed the treaties of May 30, 1814, and of

June 9, 1815, it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to invite the Porte to attend the conference about to
be held on the proposed cession of the lonian Islands to
Greece ?
Lord PALMERSTGN said that no instructions of the
extraordinary kind alluded to had been sent to the mili-
tary, naval, or diplomatic agents of the British Govern-
ment, and for the obvious reason that no change had
taken place in the relation of the lonian Islands to Great
Britain. They were still under the protectorate of the
British Crown, and therefore there was no reason why, in
anticipation of an event that had not yet happened, the
lonian Islands should be withdrawn from the protection of
Great Britain. With regard to the second part of the
question, it was quite true that by the first treaty between
England, France, and Austria, it was stipulated that the
accession of Austria, Turkey, and the Two Sicilies should
be invited. For reasons of his own, and from a disinclina-
tion to mix in European affairs, the Sultan at that time de-
lined to be an acceding party ; but a few years afterwards
there was a convention for the concession of Bata, to which
her Majesty's Government renounced all claim, and in re-
turn for which the Government of the Porte agreed to
acknowledge the lonian Islands a possession of the British
Crown, and to treat with the lonians as possessing all the
rights and privileges of British subjects. That being the
state of affairs, Turkey had not been invited to become a
party to the cession of the lonian Islands to Greece.
Mr. B, COCHRANE wished to know whether the noble
lord thought the recent occurrences in Greece would cause
any delay in the arrival of the King at Athens.
Lord PALMERS roN thought that the King must be
left to determine for himself the period of his arrival in his
own dominions--but he saw no reason for any delay.
IRISH INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM.

In reply to Mr. GREGORY,
Sir R. PEEL said that, in deference to the opinions of
many Irish members, the Government would not this ses-
sion propose the amalgamation of the Irish Industrial
Museum within the Dublin Royal Irish Society, nor would
such amalgamation take place at any time without the
consent of Parliament.

BRITISH EXPORTS FROM FEDERAL PORTS.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that some time last session
t
Government
hoardi t i ebeensatcatlbleedptoortthe
circumstance
of
that the
the
Federal
authorities la attention
New York required from British subjects exportingait goods
a bond that no portion of those goods should
fall into the hands of persons connected with therewa
Con-
federate
rds
States. The noble lord at thehead of the Govern-
menteaty
then spoke of the requisition as a breach of the treaty
between the British Government and the United States,r
and some correspondence took place. That correspondence
had not been laid upon the table, but it had been reported
that the course alluded to was still persisted in, and that
the consuls at Federal ports refused clearances unless those
bonds were entered into. He wished to know, therefore,
whether the noble lord's attention had been called to the
continuance of that practice by the Federal authorities, and
whether any further correspondence had taken place.
Lord PALMERSTON said her Majesty's Government
considered that that practice was net in accordance with the
international rights of this country, as founded upon the
ordinary rules for the intercourse of nations and upon the
treaties made with the United States. Remonstrances were
therefore made, and the Federal Government promised to
give orders to put an end to it. He feared, however, that
hose orders had not been made very effectual, because very
recently an intimation had been given of an instance in
which that practice had been repeated. Application had
thereupon been made to the Federal Government, and he
hoped that, when the matter had been again brought under
their
eliciiwt:c..opnisTidzerGatEioßnAihDe practice alluded to would be put an
had been
would be laid upon the
whether
said the correspondence of last year
Produkneet,wbut not in a complete form. He wished,
I Lord PALMERSTOrIseaid,
therefore, to
be. the further correspondence
as far as possible, it should

RUSSIA AND POLAND.
Mr. lIENNESSY asked whether the Govern-
ment w,-re in possession of the despatch from Prince Gort-
schakoff, in reply to the French Government, with regard to
the six points, and whether it would be laid before Parlia-
ment.

Lord PALMERSTON—The Government are not in
possession of it in a way that will justify us in laying it be-
fore Parliament.
VOTING BY PROXIES IN PUBLIC COMPANIES
Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved the following resolution
:
"That the present amount of stamp duty on proxy voting-
papers, involving the necessity of procuring a stamp of a
particular amount, not always easily accessible to the voter,
and thus impeding the exercise of a franchise, and also,
according to the analogy of draft and receipt stamps, ex-
cessive in amount in comparison with such stamps, and not
involving consideration of importance to the revenue,might
conveniently be reduced to one penny."
The motion having been seconded by Mr. WHALLEY,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Uovornramt had at all times shoal a disposition to

facilitate the exercise by proprietors of joint-stock com-
panies of their privilege of voting by proxy, and at various
intervals they had proposed the reduction of the tax from
30s. to 6d., at which sum it now stood. He trusted
that the effect of the motiou would be to elicit an expres-
sion of the general feeling amongst the proprietors of
these companies, and thus place him in a position on the
part of the Government to submit a proposal to the house
on the subject.
On this assurance Mr. GRIFFITH consented to with-
draw his motion.

LIEUT. TINLING.
Col, SYKES called attention to the despatch of Admiral
Kuper, dated April 14, 1863, reporting the death of Lieut.
Tinling, of her Majesty's ship Encounter, at the siege of
Showahing, and moved for papers.
Lord C. PAGET read a correspondence relating to the
circumstances under which Lieut. Tinling had met his
death, from which he drew the conclusion that as Lieut.
Tinling had gone beyond the radius of 30 miles, and engaged
in operations against the Taepings, which British officers
had been strictly ordered not to do, he would not be justified
in saying that the gallant young man had died in the ser-
vice of his country.
Mr. WHITE warmly reprehended the conduct of the
Secretary to the Admiralty in not affording to the family of
Lieut. Tinling the poor consolation that the unfortunate
youth had died in the service of his country, seeing that he
had accompanied his captain on the occasion.

After a few words from Mr. BAILLIE, the motion for
papers was withdrawn.
MR. WILLIAM BEWICKE.

Mr. BERKELEY moved a resolution that the grievances
suffered by Mr. Bewicke, as detailed in his petition of the
28th of April, were such as entitled him to the considera-
tion of her Majesty's Government. The hon. member ex-
plained that the petitioner had been sentenced to four years'
penal servitude on a charge of firing a pistol at and resisting
some sheriff's officers in the execution of their duty, and that
subsequently he received the Royal pardon on its being
clearly proved that his conviction was the result of a con-
spiracy. Returning to his home, however, he found that
the cominiss!oners of Greenwich Hospital had entered,
'seized his furniture, and sold it for less than one-third of
its value as the property of a felon. The case was one of
great hardship, that demanded a remedy, and proved con-
clusively that the law was not in a satisfactory state.
Sir G. GREY contended that there was no failure of jus-
tice, as far as regarded the evidence upon the trial, which
was perfectly satisfactory both to judge and jury. When
the witnesses upon whose evidence Mr. Bewicke was con-
victed were tried and found guilty of perjury that gentle-
man was pardoned, and, as it was impossible to restore his
property, which had been sold by the commissioners of
Greenwich Hospital in the interval, they paid him the sum
it brought. It was not in the power of the commissioners to
make compensation ; but he admitted it might be matter for
consideration whether a person convicted wrongly, and sub-
sequently pardoned, should not be placed in a more favour-
able position.
Sir F. KELLY said the state of the law was disgracefully
unjust, and that it was the bounden duty of Government to
take the case into their consideration, and recommend the
grant of a sum of money as compensation to Mr. Bewicke.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL acknowledged that the
petitioner had been hardly used, though no fault attached
to the law or those who had administered it; but he did not
see how an exception could be made in this instance, or why
it should be placed upon a different footing from that of
other cases where there had been a possible miscarriage of
justice.

The house divided—
For the motion 2O
Against
Majority
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLS ENCY COURT
(DUBLIN).

Mr. V ANCE called the attention of the house to the in-
suffici. nt accommodation afforded to the bar, the suitors,
and the public in the court in which the sittings in bank-
ruptcy and insolvency were held in Dublin; and moved for
copy of any correspondence which had taken place between
the judges of the court and the Government on the subject,
Mr. F. PEEL said the matter was under consideration,
and the Government hoped to be able to make satisfac-
factory arrangements for sufficient accommodation for these
courts; but he was unable then to state whether it would
be by building new courts, or rearranging other public
buildings.
After some remarks from Colonel DUNNE,
The motion for the production of the correspondence was
agreed to.
DUBLIN AND EDINBURGH CORPORATIONS.
Mr. VANCE moved an address for copy of any further
oorrespondence between the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
Ulster King-of-Arms, the Home Secretery, and Garter
King• of-Arms, and of any other person on the subject of
the precedence between the corporations of Dublin and
Edinburgh.
The motion was agreed to.
JAPAN.

Mr. B. COCHRANE callod attention to our relations
with Japan, and, in doing so, said that he was induced to
bring the subject before the house at so late an hour of the
night, and at the end of the session, because he thought it
was undesirable that the house should break up without its
being brought forward, and an expression of opinion ob-
tained from her Majesty's Government relative to the state
of affairs in Japan. If we were not actually at war with
that country we were likely to be so, and, judging from the
results of the Cbina war, this country was likely to find
itself involved in an enormous expenditure. Our relations
with Japan might be said to have originated in 1854. In 1853
the Americans entered into a treaty with the Japanese, and
in the following year the same ccncessions were granted to
England as had been granted to America. In 1858 Lord Elgin
thought fit to go to Japan after the treaty of Tein-tsin, and
in doing so he actually broke a condition of the treaty,which
prohibited the anchoring of a ship of war within a certain dis-
tance of Jeddo. In Japan the authority of the two sovereigns
was completely overridden by the Daimios, who were the
great merchant princes of the country; and until influ-
ence could be exercised over these princes treaties were of no
avail. Lord Elgin, however, had insisted upon a commer-
cial treaty, in spite of the remonstrances made by the great
council of the nation; and surely it was a very hard thing
upon the Japanese to compel them in the first instance to
make a treaty, and afterwards, when they found the state of
their country was such that it was impossible to carry it out,
then to declare war against them. He was aware it was the
fashion to say that the Japanese were barbarians, but all the
best authorities spoke of their high civilisation, Towards
Sir Rutherford Alcock the people had evinced the utmost
courtesy and consideration, and that gentleman bore testi-
mony to the goodness of their dispositions. On our side,
however, no attention was paid to the wishes either of the
people or their rulers. It was desired that the consuls
should be located at Yokohama; but the diplomatic agents
insisted on their being stationed at Kanagana. The Ja-
panese, however, objected, on the ground that Kanagana
was on the great line of traffic which was traversed by the
Daimios ; and as they were opposed to the commercial treaty
there would be constant risk of encounters between them and
the foreigners. Well, the consuls stationed themselves at
Yokohama, and the result was the unhappy encounter in
which Mr. Richardson was killed. He asserted, upon the
authority of every writer upon Japan, including Mr. Oli-
phant, that the Japanese were compelled to enter into a
treaty with us. The house might not credit all that was
stated in regard to the wealth and power of the Daimios,
but that they were both wealthy and powerful could not be
doubted. In this case they had a stronger weapon than
wealth—they had justice. If British commerce could be
promoted, while the feelings, nay, the prejudices of the Ja-
panese were respected, well and good; but if it could only
be done by shedding the blood of a happy, contented, and
innocent people, then he should like to see the treaty of
commerce torn in pieces, and our fleet withdrawn from the
waters of Japan. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member con-
cluded by moving for papers.
Mr. LIDDELL seconded the motion, and attributed the
difficulties we had encountered in Japan to the Elgin treaty,
which was a revolution in itself and had been obtained from
the Japanese by fear..
Mr. LAYARD said he had listened with great attention
to the speech of the hon. member for Honiton ; but ho con-
fessed he was unable to understand the object of his speech.
The hon. member condemned everything in the past, but
he suggested no remedy. He (Mr. Layard) lamented as
much as anybody the necessity they were under of making
demands upon Japan which might possibly end in hostili-
ties ; but he thought he would be able to show that our
ipresert position was unavoidable, that we were placed in
the position against our wishes, and were only now per-
forming an absolute duty. Up to 1854 this country had
scarcely any connection with Japan. At that time a con-
vention was made between this country and Japan, which
simply afforded protection to our ships. America and Russia
had concluded treaties of commerce with Japan. British
trade extended all over the world ; wherever there was
anything to buy or sell, there Englishmen were found. It
was to this commercial enterprise that England owed much
of its glory, its renown, and its wealth. Supposing that
while Russia and America were developing the trade of
Japan, England had been excluded, and her subjects ven-
turing to Japan had been repulsed and outraged, what
would be the feelings of the country and the house ? Would
not the Government be denounced for not entering into a
treaty with Japan ? But, after all, by whom was the treaty
concluded ? Why, under instructions from Lord Malmes•

bury. And when the present Government came into office
it was their duty to see that the stipulations wero fairly and
honourably carried out. In Japan, unfortunately, there
was a party, ho supposed he must call Conservatives, who
were opposed to all progress. They opposed all trade with
foreigners ; but not all the Dahnios were of that party.
The Government had been asked with whom the treaty had
been concluded. His answer was that it was concluded with
the same authorities as those with whom Russia and Ame •
rica had concluded theirs. He agreed with his hon. friend
that the conduct of some of the British merchants was
highly disgraceful, but his hoe. friend had made an excep-
tiono in favour of the individual who had committed the
greatest outrages against Japan. That individual had shot
on land interdicted to Europeav s a bird sacred to the Japa-
nese, but upon being called to account he shot a policeman.
Mr. A
ock punished him, but subsequently had damages
given against him at Hong'Kong
at the instance of the in-
dividual, for having,
in inflicting this punishment, infringed

the laws of Japan. Her Majesty's Government then wrote
to those who were supposed to have most influence in Japan
with the merchants, and asked them to put a stop to their
proceedings, and he hoped that by this time an improved
state of things prevailed, and that those who had outraged
the feelings of the Japanese had left the country and given
place to a better class of men. Now as to the Japan out-
rages, they were not committed alone against Englishmen.
The fiat was the murder of a Russian officer and se an—
a murder not yet redressed. This was followed by the mur-
der of the American Secretary of Legation, and shortly
afterwards one of Sir R. Alcock's interpreters was murdered
at the door of his!,house. Then the outrage upon the Eng•
lish followed. Mr. Oliphant was wounded. Shortly after
two marines were killed. This country had means of de-
manding redress, but the demand was most moderate. Her
Majesty's Government were inclined to treat the Japanese
Government with consideration. The Japanese had sent
over an embassy. That embassy was treated with the
greatest kindness. Their object was to induce the British
Government to make concessions—in fact, not to insist for
a time on the opening of all the treaty ports. Did her Ma-
jesty's Government refuse ? On the contrary, they con-
sented to postpone the operations of the treaty, and it was
the example of her Majesty's Government that induced the
other Powers of Europe to make a similar concession. Shortly
afterwards a murderous assault had been committed on
four British subjects in Japan, who were walking at the
time on a public road, to which foreigners had access. Was
not the Government bound to demand redress for this wan-
ton outrage ? It had been asked whether they were going
to make war. By the last accounts they had hopes that the
demands of the British Government would be acceded to,
and that Prince Satsuma would be compelled to make repa-
ration for the outrages his retainers had committed. Whether
he would be compelled by the Tycoon or by the British
forces the next mail would probably show ; but the English
Government had throughout treated the Japanese Govern-
ment with the greatest consideration. The principal object
was to get the English merchants to conduct themselves
with ordinary prudence. They were, unfortunately, the
first to cause disputes, and then, when in difficulty, they
turned round upon the Government and demanded the assis-
tance of the naval and military forces to protect them.
After a few words from Mr. COCHRANE, the motion was
withdrawn.
POLICE CHARGES.
Upon the motion of Mr. WHALLEY, a return was
ordered of all the cases of charges made before police ma-
fgt
for
rgs tecrtoahst
together
rss
withi n
from pettythe
D esessionsamounts
s orc
p 2 a,a
tdop o
jbl
yiuc
nte
the
ce3o
persons
rtl
ssso,
6na3ns. d do i scit nh
ai Srsgeedd,

DISSENTING CHAPELS.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved for a return from the chief
officer of police in every town of Great Britain, showing
every chapel belonging to other sects than the Church of
England, and every monastery, convent, or religious house
used or occupied to the month of August, 1863.
After some discussion the motion was withdrawn.
CIVIL SERVICES.
Mr. PEEL moved for a general abstract of the grants
for civil services for 1863-4, compared with the grants for
1862-3.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE CONTRACT.
Mr. PEEL moved that the contract for the conveyance
of the Cape of Good Hope mails with the Union Steamship
Company be approved.
Mr. AYRTON hoped this would not be drawn into a
precedent, but that the contracts would be allowed to lie on
the table for a month before the house was called on to con-
firm them. _

The resolution was agreed to, as was the following :
"That the contract for the conveyance of the Brazil and
River Plate mails with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Com-
pany be approved."
THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

Mr. PEEL then moved that the contract for the convey-
vey.ance of the American mails from Galway with the At••
lantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company be approved.
Mr. DILLAVYN asked whether Galway was to be aport
of departure for the steamers, or simply a port of call, the
packets starting from some English port?
Mr. PEEL said the new contract was identical with that
of '59, and that Galway would be the port of departure,
THE RUM DUTIES.

In committee of the whole house,
Mr, PEEL moved that the Chairman be directed to move
that leave be given to bring in a bill to reduce the duty on
ruin in certain cases, He said that since the American war
there had been a great increase in the price of spirits of
turpentine ; but it had been found that rum could be used
as a substitute for it in the preparation of paint, and the
object of the present bill was to allow the use of rum for
such purposes without being subjected to duty, No loss
would be entailed upon the revenue, because the rum to be
so used must be rendered unfit for general purposes.
Mr. HENNE SY asked why the same relaxation should
not be extended to Irish whisky, which would answer
equally well in the preparation of paint.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the only representation made to him was to the peculiar
fitness of rum for the purpose. Of course, if whisky would
answer it would be used.

Leave was then given for the introduction of the bill.
PETTY OFFENCES BILL.

The order for the second reading of this bill was discharged,
RAILWAY BILLS (No. 2) BILL.

This bill was withdrawn.

---........_ ..._
The Indemnity, Colonial Letters Patent, Jurisdiction of
Justices, and Pauper Lunatic Asylums Bills were severally
read a third time and pacsed.

The Clergymen (Colonies), Alteration in Judges' Circuits,
and Superannuation (Union Officers) Bill, were read a second
time.

The Lords' Amendments to the Oaths Relief in Criminal
Proceedings (Scotland) Bill were considered and agreed to,
The house adjourned at a quarter to 1 o'clock.

THE ROUFELL FORGERIES.

FIFTH DAY.

(Before Mr. Baron Channel! and a Special Jury.)
This trial was resumed at Chelmsford yesterday
morning.

The case fcr the plaintiff having been brought
to a conclusion on Monday afternoon, Mr. Bovill
yesterday addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendants.

Sergeant Shee, before he did so, said that in con-
sequence of an observation that had fallen from his
lordship on the preceding day, it had been thought
advisable that Miss Sarah Roupell should be in at-
tendance, and she was now in court, and he proposed
to examine her.

Mr. Bovill said he should object to any further
evidence being adduced after the case for the plain-
tiff had closed.

Baron Channell said he considered that the lady
could give important evidence, and in the interests
of justice he should allow her to be examined.
Miss Sarah Roupell was accordingly placed in the
witness-box.

In answer to questions put to her by Sergeant
Shee, she said was living at Aspen House when
my father died, and for some years previously. This
letter (the letter of instruction to prepare the deed
of gift) was written by me. I remember writing
it. It was at the request of my brother William.
He was present, and no one else. My brother dic-
tated to me. I wrote it at the time it bears date,
Jan. 8, 1856. I cannot remember that I ever told
anybody I wrote it.

Cross-examined—l think I can swear I never told
any one. Ido not mean I think. I will swear I
did not. I never told my mother. lam not aware
that my mother had given property to my brother
William. I bad not been this letter for a year until
it was put into my hands this morning. I swear
that the letter was not shown to me yesterday. I
have been in Chelmsford since last Thursday, and
my mother also.
Mr. Bovill—Are not these proceedings against the
wish of your mother and your brother Richard ?
The witness hesitated, and Sergeant Shee ob-
jected to the question.
The witness then said she did not think they ob-
jected to these proceedings, but they would have
been glad if any other course could have been
adopted that would have saved exposure to the
family. Mr. Liuklater told me that I should not be
called as a witness if it could be avoided; and I was
informed last night after the court had risen that I
should have to give evidence about this letter in
consequence of what the judge had said; but the
letter was not shown me.

Baron Channell—lt was in my box locked up.
(A laugh.)

Cross-examination continued—As children the
family were in the habit of scribbling each other's
names, but did not mean anything wrong. I have
signed my mother's name, not for anything wrong,
but to save her trouble. I remember perfectly well
that I wrote the letter in the drawing-room, and
that my brother William dictated it to me. Ido
not remember seeing anybody on the same morning,
but I suppose my father was there.
Mr. Bovill—Then your mind is a perfect blank
upon everything else that occurred on that day,
except the letter ?

Witness—l do not remember anything else.
Mr. Bevill then addressed the jury for the de-
fendants, and he comme❑ced by observing that no-
thing was in his opinion more dangerous than to
call a witness the last moment to prop up a particu-
lar case. If this letter was a genuine one, the wit-
Sarah Roupeli ought to have been called to prove

it, but she had been purposely kept away. Why
did they not call Mr. Whittaker, a respectable so-

licitor, who could have told them whether the trans-
action was a genuine one or not? A
not Mrs. Roupell, the mother, brougaghitn, forward,why was
who could not only have proved that the plaintiff
was the hair-at-law, born after wedlock, Out also
whether her husband had given away this pro-
perty or not ? These witnesses had been kept
back, and the jury would judge with what object;
been as it
but the witness Sarah Roupell, who had
were dragged forward at the last moment,
had con-
tradicted William Reopen in a most material
point, for he swore that he wrote a draft of the
letter and that his sister copied it, while she swore
that he dictated it to her. The fact was that the
whole story was a lie. William Roupell, the son of
the old smelter, and brought up in the school of the
old smelter, who had amassed £400,000, bad de-
ceived them, or tried to do so, and if he succeeded
he would go back and laugh in his sleeve at their
credulity. What was the real state of the case ?
His clients had advanced £12,000 u
the signature to the deed of gift being the faith of
genuine, and
the object of the present action was to rob them
of this large sum of money, which had been ad-
vanced upon the faith of a solemn deed. The plain-
tiffs were playing for a game of £200,000, and they
cared little what became of the unhappy ladies and
their families who were the real defendants in this
action, and who had advanced their money upon
the faith of this deed of gift being genuine, or whe-
ther they were compelled to go to the workhouse or
not. The plaintiffs did not dare to attack the great
mortgagees who had advanced large sums of money
upon what was called the Roupell Park estate, but
they thought probably that these four ladies would
not have found the means to contest such a ques-
tion, and that they would quietly give up posses.
sion of the property. They were mistaken, how-
ever ; and if the jury bad not already grave doubts
whether the claim of the plaintiff was not founded
solely upon the fraud and perjury of William
Roupell, he felt a strong impression that the evi-
dence he should lay before them on the part of the
defendants would completely satisfy them upon this
point, and the plaintiff ought not to succeed in this
action. The learned counsel then proceeded to call
the attention of the jury to the proceedings that had
taken place with reference to this particular pro-
perty, and said that if the actions that had been al-
luded to hadbeen tried as against the tenants, a great
portion of evidence would have been excluded, and
the real question in dispute would not have been
brought before the jury, and he urged that every
trick and contrivance had been resorted to. It was
represented by Messrs. Linklater that they were
defending for the tenants, which was not true; and
the defendants ultimately recovered their rent, their
claim being founded upon this very deed of gift,
anh the tenants, or rather Mr. Richard Roupell, the
present plaintiff, who now set up that the deed was
forged, had to pay the costs. After this Messrs.
Linklater pretended that they were not the repre-
sentatives of Messrs. Springham and Haws, the
tenants, but that they were really acting for Mr.
Richard Roupell, and that it was only upon some
technical grounds that the former action had not
beep defended. It was idle to say that they were
not acting for Mr. Richard Roupell, for they knew
perfectly well that their case rested entirely upon
the question whether this deed of gift was genuine
or not. The result of the proceedings he had re-
ferred was to leave the defendants in possession of
the property ; and if the present claim of the plain-
tiff were to ba slice% ed to succeed he would ask
them who would be safe. He believed, however,
that he was safe in the hands of the jury, and
although they might say there was doubt and there
was suspicion, still there was moral evidence upon
which they could rely, and they would not disturb
the parties who were legally and honestly in pos-
session of the property. With regard to the evi-
dence of Mr. W. Roupell as to the will, it had no-
thing to do with the question. He was playing the
deep game of confessing himself a perjurer and a
forger in order to obtain £200,000 for his family,
and he came into the witness-box with a lie in his
mouth; for he swore he had not been in mu
comni-
cation with Messrs. Linklater, when t was clear
that he had given them all the information they
possessed, and that he bad been in constant
communication with those gentlemen, not only
before but since he had been in prison. His eto
s-
teemed friend Sergeant Shee was to tell the t
the jury, and William Roupell was to prove it, and
he, by his own account, had been a liar and a forger
all through the proceedings. The jury would -
collect that he had represented that shortly before
these forgeries were represented to have been com-
mitted he was only in the position of a lawyer's
clerk, when it appeared that at this very t
d s ime
ere
he
had four bankers; that thousands of poun w
he
passing through his bands every year; and that
had borrowed £40,000 from the Guardian Insurance
Company and £12,000 from the Lond
over on and a
most
West-
minster Bank; and that lie had control
extensive property, of which the witness Truman,
to whom he paid .300 a-year salary, was the ma-
nager. He thought the jury would agree with him
that William Roupell had deceived them at every
stage of the inquiry, and that it was only now and
that the troth
then, and quite by chance, was eli-
then,
roceeded
cited from him. The learned counsel then p
to call the attention of the jury to the circumstances
connected with the making of the deed of gift, and
he said he should prove that it
ti
was in the possession
of Mr. Edwin Whitaker long before the me when
William Roupell and the witnesses Dand he hould
ove and Tru-
man represented that it was executed; s
and particu•
prove also that many of the witnesses,
larly William Roupell, had contradicted themselves
it
in a great many essential particulars ; and that
was impossible that a great many of the statements
He then remarked upon
they made could be true.
the evidence that had been given by Truman and
Dove, and said that it was no doubt intended to in-
duce the jury to believe that their signatures to the
eries, but when it was found
deed of gift were forgeries
n that they had signed the
that they could not de y
then W. Roupell turned
deed as attesting witneseles,
round and said that they were genuine signatures,
as to the nature of
but that he had deceived them
the instruments that they were about to sign. He
Roupell
contended that the story told by
of his having concealed a portion of the deed with
a piece of blotting paper was absurd and could not
ert of the
be relied upon, and that this was
merely p
fraud that had been concocted by
William Roupell,
ose
and by which he intended to imcomment upon
p upon the
jury. He then proceeded to
the statement proved to have been made by
Dove, one of the attesting witnesses to the
deed of gift, to Mr. Coventon, which was to
the effect that it wa chine enuine signature, and that
he should not have ig it as the attesting witness
His
if he had not seen the deceased execute it.
learned friend had pledged himself to prove that
the signatures of the attesting witnesses were for-
geries, but he submitted that he had failed entirely
to do so; and, under these circumstances, he asked
the jury what evidence there was that this deed of
gifewas a forgery, and whether they would be justi-
fied upon that supposition in depriving
not mean the present
to
defendants of their property ? He did
say that there might not be some suspicion in refer-
ence to the transactions of this family, and that the
truth had not yet been arrived at, and probably
never would be ; but the question they would have
to decide was, whether it was clearly established by
evidence upon which they could rely that the deed
in question was a forgery ? They had no doubt the
statement of Mr. William Roupell, but they would
not forget that he bad £200,000 worth of property,
and probably a ticket-of-leave, in view, and that it
was quite clear that he was ready to swear to any-
thing that was likely to effect the objects he bad in
view. He then reminded the jury that it had been
proved that the old man stated to both the tenants
of this property that he had given the Warley estate
to his son William, and that they would in future
have a lawyer for a landlord ; and he said he should
produce a mass of evidence to show that the signa-
ture of the deceased to the deed of gift was a genuine
signature, and he should also lay before the jury the
evidence of a number of gentlemen who were known
as experts in handwriting, who would contradict the
evidence of this class that had been given on behalf
of the plaintiff, and who would tell the jury that in
their opinion the signature was a genuine signature

The learned counsel then reminded the jury that Wm.
Roupell contradicted his sister as to the letter, and
he said that nothing was more improbable than that
he should have got his sister to write a letter which
must have led to his immediate detection. He asked
the jury whether, if the old man had given authority
for such a letter to be written, it would not have
been talked about in the family? If William Rou-
pell were to succeed in this action, and to get the
property for his brother Richard, what security had
they that he would not come forward next year and
declare that all he had stated before was false, and
produce another will by which all the property was
left to himself ? He would not deny that William
Roupell had been guilty of forgery with reference
to the leases, and this he said ho believed was the
foundation of the whole of the story ; for, knowing
that he had been guilty of one forgery, he thought
he might just as well say that the deed of gift was
also forged, and thus get rid of the whole affair.
The learned counsel then proceeded to call the at-
tention of the jury to various discrepancies in the
evidence of William Roupell, and particularly to the
fact, that although he pretended to have kept back
the genuine leases for the purpose of copying the
signatures of the tenants, the signatures he after-
wards put to the fictitious instruments were totally
dissimilar, and there was not the slightest resem-
blance to the genuine signatures. His learned friend
had, as he thought, most improperly and unneces-
sarily introduced the question of the will, with
which the defendants had nothing whatever to do;
but as he had done so, he should make use of it, and
contend, on the part of the defendants, that unless
the jury believed the evidence of William Roupell
as to the existence of a genuine will of 1850, and
that by this will the property was devised to Richard
Roupell, he would not be entitled to a verdict in the
present action. He then referred to the proceed-
ings of William Roupell in connection with the
wills, and asked whether they could possibly be-
lieve that he did not look at the genuine will for a
week after it came into his possession, or that he
retained the document for more than six years, and
did not destroy it until the 29th of March, 1862, the
day before he left England. Again, the jury would
remember that Mrs. Roupell, the mother, was in
the house in Cross-street every day for a week after
the funeral, and she must have known every thing
that took place there, and yet she was not called as
a witness. It was said that William Roupell was
solely actuated by a feeling of sincere repentance.
Sincere repentance, indeed ! Why, he did not say a
word till the mortgagees of this property threatened
to foreclose the mortgage, and he knew the forgery
of the leases must be discovered, and then he
attempted, first to shut the mouths of the attorneys
by alleging that the deeds relating to the other pro-
perty were also forged, and having failed in this, he
boldly resolved to tell the extraordinary story he
had done, in order to get back property of the value
of £200,000 for his family. The learned counsel
then next proceeded to argue that the will now
alleged to be forged was a very reasonable one, and
it was very likely that the old man shoald have left
the property nominally to his wife instead of leaving
it to William Roupell ; for the jury would remember
that the property was alleged to be worth £400,000,
and that if it had been left to the latter, he was
Illegitimate, and that the legacy duty would have
amounted to £40,000, and this sum was saved to
the family by the property being left to the mother.
It being now past one o'clock, the Court was ad-
journed for a short period, and,
upon the return of
the jury, Mr. Bovill resumed his address to them for
the defendants.

The learned counsel then commented at consider-
able length upon the effect of the will, and he also
remarked upon the evidence as to the handwriting,
and said he should call witnesses from the Bank of
England, from which establishment, they would
remember, not a single witness had been called by
his learned friend, although the old man kept an
account there, and they would state their opinion
with regard to the signatures to the instruments
that were alleged by the plaintiff to have been
forged. He then proceeded to make some humorous
comments upon the slight peculiarities by which
some of the " experts" had professed to come to a
positive conclusion that the signatures were not
genuine, and he said he should produce a number
of receipts which were undoubtedly signed by the
deceased, and they would find that every one of
those supposed peculiarities were sometimes absent
and sometimes present, and argued that this
portion of the evidence was really worth nothing
at all. The learned counsel, in the course of
his further observations, urged that the whole
case came from a polluted source, commencing with
the smelting-pot of the old man, from which he had
obtained £400,000, and that trick and artifice had
been resorted to with a view to mislead the jury and
to wrest a verdict from them ; and he concluded by
saying that the questions to be decided by the jury
were—first, whether the deed of gift of January,
1856, Was executed by Richard Palmer Roupell, in
the presence of the attesting witnesses,Truman and
Dove ; secondly, whether the signature was genuine,
although it might not have been signed in the pre-
sence of those witnesses ; and, thirdly, whether the
will of 1850 gave the property to the plaintiff; and
unless they were satisfied upon these points, the
defendants were entitled to their verdict. He con-
cluded a most eloquent and able address by stating
that if they returned a verdict for the plaintiff upon
such facts as appeared in the present case, it might
be attended by the most dangerous and frightful
results.

The following witnesses were then examined for
the defendants.

Mr. T. West said—l was a tenant of Mr. Richard
Roupell for 25 years, and I frequently saw him sign
receipts for rent that I paid him.
The deed of gift was then shown to the witness,
and he said he believed the signature, "Richard Pal-
mer Roupell," was his handwriting.
Cross-examined—My only reason for saying it is
his handwriting is, that the signature resembles
those to my receipts for rent. I perceive there are
some slight differences between the two signatures,
but that does not shake my evidence at all.
In answer to questions put by the jury, the wit-
ness said that having carefully examined the re-
ceipts and the signature to the deed of gift, he was
of opinion that the signature to the latter was
genuine.

Mr G. Lasty, another tenant of old Mr. Roupell's,
gave -similar evidence. He also expressed a posi-
tive opinion that the signature to the deed of gift
was the handwriting of the deceased.

In eross•examination, he said he should much
rather say that the signature was a genuine one
than that it was an imitation of his signature by a
skilful forger. He went to Doctors'-commons, and
saw the will that was alleged to be forged, and in
his opinion the signature to that will was a genuine
signature.

The letter of instruction to Mr. Witaker was then
shown to the witness, and he said that the signa-
ture was a forgery.

Mr. Shuter, a letter sorter at the General Post-
Office, and who was also a tenant of the deceased,
produced some receipts that had been given to him
by Mr. Richard Roupell, and he expressed an
opinion that the signature to the deed of gift was
genuine.

Similar evidence was given by other witnesses;
a great number of receipts were put in, the object
being to show that the deceased constantly varied
his signature, and that very few of them were abso
lutely alike. In one instance it appeared that the
deceased had only put one "1" to the name of Rou-
pell ; but Sergeant Shee suggested that this pro-
bably arose from the deceased having begun to sign
so close to the end of the paper that there was not
sufficient space for the final letter.

Mr. Phipps, the secretary to the Lambeth Water•
works Company, proved that the deceased was a
shareholder in that company, and he identified two

signatures to two transfers of shares that had been
made by him. He also produced several dividend
warrants which had been signed by the deceased,
and there appeared to be some observable differ-

ence between the signature. The witness then
looked at the deed of gift, and he said the signature
was exceedingly like that of the deceased, but be

could not say that it was his signature ; it was very
like it.

Some further evidence of the same character was
then given, after which the Court adjourned.