The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-18 00:00:00

him that he had given the estate to his son William, and
that he might do as he liked about enfranchising it, or he
might do as he liked with it. He also told him that he had
given witness's and Springham's farm to his son, and now
they would have a lawyer for a landlord. (A laugh.) lie
was aware that William was a lawyer, and he had never
heard of Richard or any other son. The conversation to
which he referred he believed took place in 1855. The wit-
ness then stated that when the action was brought against
him by the mortgagees, Mr. Linklater indemnified him
against costs on behalf of the Roupell family, and that he
only paid the amount of rent that was due.
Oa re-examination the witness said that old Mr Roupell
made the observations he had mentioned in quite a positive
manner, and he was laughing at the time.

Mr. Sharp, clerk to Messrs. Ring, the proctors, of Doc-
tors'-commons, proved that he was acquainted with the de-
ceased Richard Palmer Roupell, and that a will was made
for him in 1839, and another in 1840, and a third in ]B5O.
This last will was a very long one, and witness engrossed
it, but he did not remember whether he was present when
it was executed. He could not find a draft of that will in
the office, and he believed it was destroyed in 1860, when
their business was removed from one office to another, He
remembered the deceased coming to his office on the 30th of
August, 1856, and informing Mr, Ring that he wished to
make a codicil to the will of 1850, and he at the same time
produced a paper of instructions. Witness prepared a codi-
cil while the deceased waited, and he took it away with
him.

changed one of the exe-
curtio'hrse c
, and gave was read.avestall eglatciresertroldYifferent persons who were
in the service of the deceased. and confirmed the wi,l of
1850 in every other particular.
The witness then stated that ho drew up several other
wills for the deceased besides those he had mentioned, but
he never heard of the one now alleged to be forged until it
was brought to tiae office of Messrs. Ring by William
Roupell.
Mr. Ring corroborated the testimony that had been given
by Mr. Sharp, and he explained that the draft of the will
of 1850 was not destroyed until after the will that was
alleged to be forged had been proved by Mr. William
Roupell as the last will and testament of the deceased.

Mr. Jas. Surridge, who had occupied a farm belonging to
the deceased, proved that he was on very intimate terms
with the deceased, and was well acquainted with his hand-
writing. The will that was alleged to be forged was placed
in the witness's hands, and he was asked his opinion as to
the signature, and, to the astonishment of the learned coun-
sel for the plaintiff, he said that in his opinion the signa.
ture was a genuine one. He was asked to put on his spec-
tacles and look at the signature attentively, and he aid so,
and then said that he was really unable to say whether the
signature was the handwriting of Mr. Richard Roupell or
that of Mr. William Roupell. The witness went on to say
that he remembered dining with the old gentleman on the
31st of August, 1856, a few days before his death, and the
deceased then told him that he had made his will, and that
he had appointed him one of his executors, and that he
would have £l5O for his trouble. The witness added that
he did not know that he was appointed as one of the exe-
cutors until William Roupell told him there was another
will, but he said he should have the £l5O just the same,
and he paid him that sum shortly afterwards. The witness
then produced several receipts that had been given him by
the deceased.

In cross-examination he said that he had given a great
many other receipts to Mr, Linklater, the solicitor to the
plaintiffs, besides those that had been produced.
Mr. Bovill said he should like the whole of those receipts
to be produced.

Mr. Lush said he had no objection to this being done.
Mr. W. Roupell was then re-called w;th a view to his
being examined as to how he was occupied on the 2d of
September, 1856, the day the forged will was alleged to
have been executed by the deceased, and to have been
attested by himself and Muggeridge, and he detailed how
he passed the day, and all the different places he went to.
His evidence, in this respect, was to the same effect as that
given by the witness TrurMan, who was represented to have
been with him the greater part of the day. He swore posi-
tively that he did not even see old Muggeridge on this day.
He detailed the particulars of the genuine will and the mode
in which the property was divided among the family.
Baron Channell inquired of Mr. Bovill whether he had
any questions to put to the witness.
Mr. Bovill said he should ask nothing of this person.
Mrs. Hunham, the housekeeper to the decea,ed, was then
examined. She said she remembered Mr. Surridge and his
son dining with the deceased at the end of August, 1856,
and that at this time he was very ill, and kept getting worse
until his death, and she said she did not think that he ever
went out again. She also said that Mr. W. Roupell was
very kind to his father during his illness, and he was con-
stantly with him, and used to help him upstairs.
Several witnesses were then examined with a view to
corroborate the statement made by Mr. W. Roupell as to
how he was occupied on the 2d of September, the date of
the alleged forged will.
The foreman of the jury interposed, and said that a state-
ment had been made by Mr. W. Roupell wi h regard to
this will which they should be glad to hear corroborated if
it was possible. The statement he referred to was that
after hie father's death he went into the bed-room and took
out the genuine will from the bureau, and put it into his
pocket, but finding it was too large to be concealed, he put
it into a small writing desk which he constantly carried
about with him, and that he did not see the will, and had
no opportunity to destroy it until a week afterwards. The
jury were very anxious to know whether this statement
could be confirmed by other testimony.
Baron Channell said that possibly Mrs. Hunham, the
housekeeper, might be able to give the court some informa-
tion upon the subject.
This witness was accordingly recalled, and in answer to
questions put to her she said that after the death of old Mr.
Roupell, Mr. William was constantly in the house until the
funeral. Mrs. Roupell used to come every morning at 8
o'clock, and she remained until 11 at night, but as there was
no accommodation for her to sleep, she would go back to her
own house at Brixton and Mr.,Wm Roupell slept every
night in the house; and after his mother left there was no
one but him and witness on the premises With regard to
the writing-desk, she said she knew he bad one, and when
he came to Cross street in his own carriage it was brought
with him, but if he went out in a cab he left it at home.
Between the death of old Mr, Roupell and the funeral she
said she was certain that Wm. Roupell was frequently by
himself for many hours.

Mr. Francis Thompson, who had been clerk and cashier
waslyn'n where the deceased kept an account for
ext examined. He stated that he was
wanuteal‘lnliyaecsyqseruasa.risn G,
ted with the deceased, and with his handwriting,
and upon being shown the forged will and the alleged deed
of gift, he expressed a confident belief that the signatures of
Richard Palmer Roupell to both these documents were for-
geries. He stated with very great clearness the grounds
that led him to form this conclusion, and said that he had
arrived at the above result for the reasons he mentioned,
and which he represented were quite satisfactory to his own
mind.

The, trial was then adjourned, the cross-examination of
the witness being postponed until Monday morning.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

SATURDAY REVIEW.—It is quite clear that the
French Emperor did make some complaint of the
treatment he had reteived from the English Minis-
try in reference to Confederate reeognition, for the
two members asserted it, and he has not denied it.
It is probable that the offence took place at some
time between January, 1862, when M. Thouvenel's
despatch upon the Trent affair proved that he was
was heartily with us, and November, 1862, when
Count Fiahault's melted othisnion to observe the
ordinary form of leaving a copy of the despatch which
contained the proposal for an armistice indicated the
existence ofsome estrangement. It is probable, there-
fore, that the communication upon American affairs
which Lord Russell is said to have betrayed to the
Americans was made in the spring or summer of last
year. From the scrupulous care with which Lord
Russell has retrained from making any de-
nials upon the subject, and the ostenta-
' tious frankness with which Mr. Layard has
been always ready to deny everything, it is
likely that the communication Was made privately
to Lord Russell ; and from the zeal with which Mr.
Leyard has searched the written archives of the Fo-
reign-c ffiee, it may be interred that the communi
cation was verbal. To secret diplomacy Vi,t.
which Mr. itoehuck's disclosures are connected does
not probably enu here. They appear to have caused
negotiations at least as important as those which
they revealed. It is not to be supposed that the
Emperor abstained from confirming the statements
of the envoys he had selected, or that they them-
selves have been content to endure ali kinds of in-
sinuations in silence, except for a consideration of
some kind. It must have been shown to them that
the object they were seeking was more easily to be
attained by silence than by talking. We must
wait for the future policy of the El fish Go-
vernment to inform us whether any dis,inct un
derstanding, as to the period of recognition,
was the price of their discretion. The
strongest feeling which this curious episode has left
behind it is a decided dislike to private diplomacy.
It is not merely that the channels of the Imperial
confidences to the House of Commons w. re not " re-
sponsible," as Lord Palmerston argued; for that
hackneyed word is now so bare of any shade of
meaning that it has almost ceased to be available
even as a constitutional fiction. Few people would
think of quarrelling with an official, self-constituted
or otherwise, for being des.itute of so shadowy an at-
tribute. The real evil is the informal and ill-defined
functions which a private diplomatist fills. Eie never
has any authority to speak for anybody. When Mr.
teoebuck gave to the Emperor at, explanation of the
teelings of the House of Commons, he spoke without
any commission from that body, and probably misled
his Imperial friend very considerably. When he re-
versed the process, and came to tell the House of Com-
mons of the opinions of the Emperor, he was in a
difficulty scarcely less serious. He had a com-
mission, indeed, of some sort, to speak in the Em-
peror's name; but he was under the shelter of none
of the formalities with which those whose function
it is to deal with princes protect themselves against
wrong. He had no memorandum of the conversa-
tion, no despatch in which it was embodied, no com-
mission to reveal it that he could show. The result
was,that he was wholly unprotected against any
trick the Emperor might like to play him. If the
Emperor had chosen to disavow him, he could have
done it with perfect ease. Ap.,rt from the infor-
mal oral evidence of Mi. Lindsay, Mr. Roebuck
had nothing to which he could appeal—not even
the testimony of a past diplomatic career. The con-
stitutional question is, of course, large and grave.
For the House of Commons to receive the messages
9f foreign Sovereigns is, in effect, to assume execu-
tive authority. It might as well send out its own
orders to generals and admirals, and receive from
them direct reports. If it may keep up relations
Frith independent Powers, it becomes an in-
dependent power itself. The whole machinery of
Queen, Ministers, and diplomatists is entirely super-
anous, if the functions which they pertorm can be
iischarged by the employment of two travelling
Members of Parliament as volunteer ambassadors.