The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-19 00:00:00

LONDON, SATU RDAY EVENING, JUNE 19, 1858.

THE VICTORIA CROSS.

(From, tke Gazette of Friday.)
WAR-OFFICE, JUNE 11.
The Queen has been pleased to confirm the grant of the
decoration of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned
officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of her Ma-
jesty's and the East India Company's Armies, which deco-
ration has been provisionally conferred upon them by
Major-General Sir James Outram, G.C.8., and by the late
Major-General Henry Havelock, on account of
acts of bravery performed by them in India, as recorded
against their several names in virtue of the power dele-
gated to Generals commanding corps, divisions, or brigades,
by her Majesty's warrant of Jan. 29, 1856, viz. :-
Captain (now Major) Francis Cornwallis Maude, C. 8.,
Royal Artillery-This officer steadily and cheerfully
pushed on with his men, and bore down the desperate
oppositionrtillerym eonf.
Sir
theeneraes Outramym,thonghwithattidhse, lotshantof
this
A
attack appeared to him to indicate no reckless or feel-
hardy daring, but the calm heroism of a true soldier,
who fully appreciates the difficulties and dangers of the
task ho has undertaken ; and that, but for Captain
Mauds's nerve and coolness on this trying occasion, the
army could not have advanced. (Extract from Field
Force Orders of the late Major-General Havelock, dated
17th October, 1857 )
Captain (now Lieutenant-Colonel) William Olpherts,
Bengsl Artillery -Date of actof bravery, 25 It of Septem-
ber, 1e57. For highly alistinguish id conduct bn the 25th
of September, 1857, when the troops penetrated into the
city of Lucknow, in having charged un horseback with
her Majesty's 90th Regiment, when, gallantly headed
by Colonel Campbell, it captured two guns in the face
of a heavy fire of grape, and having afterwards returned
under a severe fire of musketry to bring up limbers and
horses to carry off the captured ordnance, which he ac-
complished. (Extract from Field Force Orders of the
late Major-General Havelock, dated 17th October, 1857.
Lieutenant (now Captain) Herbert Taylor Macpherson,
781 Regiment-Date of act of bravery, 25th of Sept.,,
1857. For distinguished conduct at Lucknow on thath
of Sept., 1857, in setting an example of heroic gallantry
to the men of the regiment at the period of the action,
in which they captured 'two brass 9-pounders at the
point of the bayonet. (Extract from the Field Force
Orders of the late Major-General Havelock, dated 17th
of October, 1857.)
Assistant-Surgeon Valentine Munbee M'Master, 78th
Regiment.-Date of act of bravery, 25th of September,
1857. For the intrepidity with which he exposed him-
self to the fire of the enemy in bringing in and attending
to the wounded on the 25th of September, at Lucknow.
(Extract from Field Force Orders of the late Major-
General Havelock, dated 17th of October, 1857.)
Sergeant-Major George Lambert, 84th Regiment.- Date of
acts of bravery on the 29th of July, 16th of August, and
25th of September, 1857. For distinguished conduct at
Ouao on the 29th of July; at Bithoor on the 16th of
August; and at Lucknow on the 25th of September.
(Extract from Field Force Orders of the late Major-
General Havelock, dated 17th of October, 1857.)
Sergeant Patrick Mahoney, Ist Madras Fusiliers.-Date
of act of bravery, 21st of September, 1857. For dis-
tinguished gallantry (while doing duty with the Volun-
teer Cavalry) in aiding in the capture of the regimental
colour of the Ist Regiment Native Infantry at Mungul-
war on the 21st of September, 1857. (Extract from
Field Force Orders of the late Major-General Havelock,
dated 17th of October, 1851.)
Lance-Corporal Abraham Boulger, 84th Regiment.-Date
of acts of bravery from the 12th of July to the 25th of
September, 18 7. For distinguished bravery and for-
wardness as a skirmisher in all the 12 actions fought
between the 12th of July and and 15 h of September,
1857. (Extract from Field Force Orders of the late
Major-General Havelock, dated 17th of October, 1857.)
Private Joel Holmes, 84th Regiment.-For distinguished
conduct in volunteering to assist in working a gun of
Captain Maude's battery, under a heavy fi. e, from which
gun nearly all the artillerymen had been shot away.
(Extract from Field Force Orders of the late Major-
General Havelock, dated the 17th of October, 1857.)
Private James Hollowell, 78th Regiment. -Date of act
of bravery, September 26, 1857. A party, on the
26th of September, 1857, was shut up and be-
sieged in a house in the city of Lucknow by the
rebel eepoye. Private James Holland, one of the
party, behaved throughout the day in the most
admirable manner; he directed, encouraged, and led
the others, exposing himself fearlessly, and, by his talent
in persuading and cheering, prevailed on nine dispirited
men to make a successful defence in a burning house,
with the enemy, firing through four windows. (Extract
from Divisional Orders of Major. General Sir James
Outram, G.C.8., dated the 11th of October, 1857.)
Private Peter M`Manns, sth Regiment. Date of act of
bravery, 26th If September, 1857. On the same occa-
sion Private M'Manus kept outside the house until he
was himself wounded, and, under cover of a pillar, kept
firing on the sepoys and preventing their rushing on the
house. He also, in conjunction with Private Jobn Ryan,
rushed into the street, add took Captain Arnold, of the
Ist Madras Fusileers, out of a dooly, and brought him
into the house, in spite of a heavy fire, in which Captain
Arnold was again wounded. (Extract from Divisional
Orders of Major-General Sir James Outram, G.C.8.,
dated 14th of October, 1857.)
Private John Ryan, Ist Madras Fusiliers. Date of act of
bravery, 26th of September, 1857. In addition to the
above act, Private Ryan distinguished himself through-
out the day by his intrepidity, and especially devoted
himself to rescuing the wounded in the neighbourhood
from being massacred. He was most anxious to visit
every dooly. (Extract from Divisional Orders of Mnjor-
General Sir James Outram, G.C.8., dated 14th of Oct.,
1857.)
Private Thomas Duffy, Ist Madras Fusiliers, for his cool
intrepidity and daring skill, whereby a 21-pounder gun
was saved from falling into the hands of the enemy.
(Extract from Divisional Orders of Major-General Sir
James Outram, K C. 8., dated the 16th of October, 1857.)
Private Henry Ward, 78th Regiment. Date of act of
bravery, the 25th a nd 26th of September, 1857.
For his gallant and devoted conduct in having on the
night of the 25th, and morning of the '26th of Sep-
tember, 1857, remained by the dooly of Captain H. M.
llavelock, 10th Regiment, Deputy Assistant Adjutant-
General, Field Force, who was severely wounded, and
on t he morning of the 26th of September escorted that
officer and Private Thomas Pilkington, 78th High-
landers, who was also wounded, and had taken refuge in
the same dooly, through a very heavy cross fire of ord-
nance and musketry. This soldier remained by the aide
of the dooly, and by his example and exertions kept
the dooly bearers from dropping their double load,
throughout the heavy fire, with the same steadiness as if
on parade, thus saving the lives of both, and bringing
them in safety to the Bailie Guard, (Extract rom
Divisional Order of Major-General Sir James Outram,
G. C. B , dated the 27th of October, 1857.)
Her Majesty has also been graciously pleased to signify
her intention to confer the Decoration of the Victoria
Cross on the undermentioned officers of her Majesty's and
of the East India Company's armies, who have been recom-
mended to her Majesty for that decoration, in accordance
with the rules and regulations laid down in her Majesty's
warrant before referred to, on account of acts of bravery
performed by them in India, viz. :-
Surgeon Anthony Dickson Home, 90th Regiment; date
of act of bravery, 25th of September, 18i7. For perse-
vering bravery and admirable conduct in charge of the
wounded men left behind the column, when the troops
under the late Major-General Havelock forced their way
into the Residency of Lucknow, on the 21tth of Septem•
ber, 1857. The escort left with the wounded had, by
casualties, been reduced to a few stragglers, and being
entirely separated from the column, this small party
with the wounded were forced into a house, in which
they defended themselves till it was on firs. They then
retreated to a shed a few yards from it, and in this
place continued to defend themselves for more than 2 t
hours, till relieved. At last, only six men and Mr.
Home remained to fire. Of four officers who were with
the party, all were badly wounded, and three are since
dead. The conduct of the defence during the latter part
of the time devolved therefore on Mr. Home, and to his
active exertions previously to being forced into the
house, and his good conduct throughout, the safety of
any of the wounded and the successful defence is mainly
to be attributed.
Assistant-Surgeon William Bradshaw, 90th Regiment ;
date of act of bravery, 26th of September, 1857. For
intrepidity and good conduct when ordered with Sur-
geon Home, 93th Regiment, to remove the wounded
men left behind the column that forced its way into the
Residency of Lucknow, on the 26th of September, 1857.
The dooly bearers had left the doolies, but by great ex-
ertions, and notwithstanding the close proximity of the
sepoys, Surgeon Home and Assistant-Surgeon Bradshaw
got some of the bearers together, and Assistant-Sur-
goon Bradshaw, with about 20 doolies, becoming sepa-
rated from the rest of the party, succeeded in reaching
the Residency in safety by the river bank.
Captain George Forrest, Bengal Veteran Establishment- -
date of act of bravery, the 11th of May, 1857. For
gallant conduct in the defence of Delhi magazine on the
11th of May, 1857.
Captain William Raynor,Bengal Veteran Establishment-
date of act of bravery, the 11th of May, 1857. For
gallalt conduct in the defence of the magazine at Delhi,
the 11th of May, 1837.
Deputy Assistant Commissary of Ordnance John Buckley,
Commissariat Department-(Bengal Establishment)--
slate of act of bravery, the 11th of May, 1357.
For gallant conduct in the defence of the magazine at
Delhi, on the 11th of May, 1857.
Lieut. Robert Blair, 2d Dragoon Guards-date of act of
bravery, 28th of Septembr, 1857. " A most gallant
feat was here performed by Lieut. Blair, who was or-
dered
to take a party of one sergeant and 12 men and
bring in a deserted ammunition waggon. As his party lid
approached a body of 50 or 60 of the enemyis horse
came down upon him from a village, where they had
remained unobserved. Without a moment's hesitation
he formed up his men, and, regardless of the odds, gal-
lantly led them on, dashing through the rebels. He
made good his retreat without losing a man, leaving nine
of them dead on the field. Of these he killed four him-
self; hut, to my regret, after having run a native officer
through the body with his sword, he was severely
wounded, the joint of his shoulder being nearly se-
vered." (Despatch from Major-General James Hope
Grant, K.C.B , dated :oth of Jan. 1858 )
Lieut. Alfred Stowell Jones, 9th Lancers-(now Captain
18th Hussar.) ; date of act of bravery, Bth of June,
killing the
1857. " The cavalry charged the
guns,rebels
and rode
through them. Lieut. Jone-scooflotnthheeleir 9irtuhleL,sanacessriss,tawnicteh,
it
hisd
i drivers ,a
turned lr:unnpod,cn a villageawpitttihreLdi°oun teof
occupiedLieut.-Colonel
by the rebels, who
were quickly dislodged, This was a well-conceived act
gallantly executed." (Despatch from Major-General Jas.
Hope Grant, K.C.8., dated 10th of Jan. 1858.)
Captain (now Major) Dighton Macnaghten Probyn, 2d
Punjab Cavalry- 'Has been distinguished for gallantry
and daring throughout this campaign. At the battle of
Age a, when his squadron charge 1 he rebel infantry, he
was sometimes separated from his men, and surrounded
by five or six sepoys. He defended himself from the
various cuts made at him, and before li!a own men had
joined him had cut down two of his assailants. At
anotlur time, in single comb t with a s epoy, he v as
wounded in the wrist by the bayonet, and his horse also
Was slightly wounded ; but, though the supoy fought
desperately, he cut him down. The same day ho singled

out a standard-bearer, and in the presence of a number
of the enemy, killed him and captured the standard.
These are only a few of the gallant deeds of this brave
young officer."—(Despatch from Major-General James
Hope Grant, K.O 8., dated Jan. 10, 1858.)
Lieutenant John Watson, Ist Punjab Cavalry—Date of
, act of bravery, Nov. 14, 1557—" Lieutenant Watson, en
the 14th of November, with his own squadron, and that
under Captain, then Lieutenant Probyn, came upon a
body of the rebel cavalry. The Ressaldar in command
of them—a fine specimen of the Hindustani Masanlman
• . —and backed by half-a-dozen equally brave men, rode
out to the front. Lieutenant Watson singled out this
fine-looking fellow, and attacked him. The Ressaldar
presented his pistol at, Lieutenant Watson's breast, at a
yard's distance, and fired, but, most providentially,
without effect ; the ball must by accident have pre-
viously fallen out. Lieut. Watson ran the man through
with his sword, anti ismounted him ; but the native
officer, nothing daunted, drew his tulwar, and with his
sowars renewed his attack upon Lieut. Watson, who
bravely defended himself until his own men joined in
the melee, and utterly routed the party. In this ren-
contre Lieut. Watson received a blow on the head from
a tulwar, another on the left arm, which severed his
chain gauntlet glave, a tulwar set on his right arm,
which fortunately only divided the sleeve of his jacket,
but disabled the arm for soree time ; a bullet also passed
through his coat, and ho received a blow on his leg, which
lamed him for some days afterwards.”--( Despatch from
Major-General James Hope Grant, K.C.8., dated Jan.
10, 1858.
MEMORANDUM.—Lieutenants Duncan Charles Home
and Philip Salkeld, Bengal Engineers, upon whom the
Victoria Cross was provisionally conferred by Major-
General Sir Archdale Wilson, Bart., K.C.B for
their conspicuous bravery in the performance Of the
desperate duty of blowing in the Cashmere Gate of the
fortress of Delhi, in broad daylight, under a heavy fire of
musketry, on the morning of the 14th Sept., 1857, prepa-
ratory to the assault, would have been recommended to
her Majesty for confirmation in that distinction, had they
survived.

Al 7 INTEL LIGENCE.—June 18.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster, before Lord
Campbell and a Special Jury.)
HUGHES V. LADY DINNIBEN-LIBEL.
(CO7l thaued from The Sun of yesterday )

Miss Luiskill, examined by Mr. Honeyman—She was
a niece of the fir,t Lord Dinorben's first wife. After
her aunt's death she continued to reside with him at
Kirmel-park after his second marriage with the present
Lady Dinorben. She had never seen her write, and
bad only received one letter from her. Witness had
peen letters and notes addressed by her ladyship. She
had seen the letter addressed to Lord Ravensworth and
Nlr. Liddell ; she was not well acquainted with her
ladyship's handwriting ; but to the best of her belief she
considered they were in her ladyship's handwriting.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaulay—She told- Mr.
Bloxam last year, when be brought the letters to her,
that she thought they were in Lady Dinorben's hand-
writing. She received the letter referred to, in 1841,
alter her mother'a death. She had not kept it.
Re-examined—The letter to herself was anonymous.
Lord Campbell—How do you know they came from
Lady Dinorben ?

Witness--Because they wore so very much like her
handwriting. She had received two letters from Lady
Dinorben with her signature, and one anonymous. The
latter she sent to Lord Dihorben, and wrote to him
respecting its contents. She had not preserved them.
Miss Teniel, txamined by Mr. E. James—She was
four years' governess in Lady Dinorben'a family. She
believed the letters produced were wiitten by her lady-
ship. Tne writing aas very like her lEl,dpi:tip's.
Cross-exAmined by Mr. Macaulay There were great
peculiarities about the letters "M" aed " L," and
others that resembled her ladysliip'e writing. Mr.
Bloxam directed my attention to thew when he showed
mo the letters. . .

Mr. Morris, in the employ of a stationer of Mount
et!, Grosvenor-square—Lady Dinorben dealt with u.. for
some years. befdre 1854. The letter commencing " the
housekeeper, oh the housekeeper," was written on
paper and enclosed in an envelope, supplied by his firm.
The envelope had the name of the firm on it. The
letter was posted Sauth-street, Grosvenor-square, the
nearest post-office to Lady Diriorbeu's residence.
Cross-examined by Mr. Macaulay—The paper and
envelope were like that supplied to tier ladyship—they
sold a large quantity of the same kind t) other persons.
Re-examined by Mr. efemes—Tbe paper and envelope
produced were of the character supplied to her ladyship.
She was very particular in having that quality and
description. When her ladyship was in mourning she
had another quality as well.
Mr. Nethercl ff, examined by Mr. Bovill —He was a
lithographer, ar d was in the habit of tatlogfa,e similes;of
handwriting. He had paid great attention to hand-
writing, and frequently gave evidence ou tLe handwriting
of documents,
[The anonymous letters, with genuine letters of her
ladyship's writing, were put into the witness's hands.]
Photographe of the letters and documents were
handed in for the guidance of the Jury.
The anonymous letters were written in a disguised
handwriting. There were different disguises, but they
were written by the same person. The letter "w" all
through the letters was an eccentric charaner. There
was a peculiarity running through all of theta relative
to " wb," " tn,' cap. " 1.1," and other letters, especially
the "D" in Dinorben. There was a dis'inct dash after
the final "g" or "y." He (witness) minutely pointed
out the peculiarity that led him to sta'e the anonymous
letters produced were all written by the same person.
There were several instances where the writer had for-
gotten to disguise, and had broken into the natural
hand.

Mr. Nethercliffe also p!inteil out similar peculiarities
in the genuine letters.
Cross-examined by Mr. Macaulay—He had three
times txamined the anonymous letters or part of them.
Toe first time was in 1852. One of the letters sub-
mitted to him as genuine, be had since ascertaice I was
not co. Some of the peculiarities of her ladyship's
writing were wanting in it.
Mr. Henry Adlard, examined by Mr. James,
said he had for several years been employed in
examining handwriting. He had examines the
genuine with the anonymous letters for three dap,
and, to the best of his judgment, all the anonymous
letters, with the exception of No. 8 (the e!ention
letter) were written by the same pets n, and in a
disguised hand. He also tblught thtiy were writ-
ten by the same person who wrote the undisputed
letters. The disguised hand always goes into the
natural hand towards the end of a paragraph or
sentence—it oozes out at the end.
C:oss-examined by Mr. Macaulay—The witness
pointed out instances of the natural hand "oozing
out," as he called it. The letter "w" is made in
the peculiar form when it begins a word.
Mr. Samuel Flamer, formerly inspector of "franks.'
in was of opinion the anonymous
the same person. He be-
lievedl
letters were written by the same
lettersost
p rt sh eoa Gr'they' '
ewhonr: wrotenraaull'lPYu office,
the genuine ice een b
t:
nine letters. The writing was
bold and clear for a lady. Her ladyship was disposed
to flourish in her writing. There was a great peculiarity
about the " w " which pervaded all the letters, bota
genuine and ananynaoul. He was only doubtful about
the election lever.
David Browne was then called upon his subpoena,
but did not answer.
This closed the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Macaulay then addre sedthe jury on the part of
the defendant, who, he said, wail most anxious to give
an indignant, direr', and positive answer to this unjust
and grievous calumny, under which she had known she
had laboured for twelve months, but which had existed
now
behind her back for some fom. or five years. This action
had been brought, not to vindicate the plaintiff's charac
ter, but in order to get rid of a ca!umny he had cast
thegiv case. It was inconceiv-
e productionn of writing, other
might have been
upon his aunt about twelve months ago. The exzuse for
not bringing the action early did not apply. The same
into pain
thist manyo
ne e persons
whose, because
Sir Richard Bulkeley had blurted out his conscientious
evidencet than
givena n
in
thatltoBhosan2tl,
connected
ed
d except been
with
th the
able how Mr. Hughes coul 1 have been advised to br.ng
this notion,
u a
name
e!nd hadb
causeeen sodr a
gfmuchzed
belief of what he hid euppressed upwards of five years,
in which the plaintiff was implicated. The learned
counsel said the Attorney-General had been made
the mouthpiece of as wilful, malicious, and groundless an
imputation against:
• • Lady Din then as 13
a 1 ever been
concocted. He complained a the prejudices that had
been introduced to show an animosity on the part of
the defendant to the plaintiff; but the facts were
that the plaintiff had never seen his uncle, Lord
Dinorben, till he was between 22 and 23 years
of age. He was then at a ball in Wales, where Lady
Dinorben was, and she sought him out and made his
acquaintance. On the following season she took pains
to find him, and sent for him into her opera box, when
she introduced him to his uncle; by him the plaintiff was
presented at Court ; invited to Kinnuel Park, but
the acquaintance was not continued. There was
no foundation for supposing that. Lady Dinorben
wished to prevent his mama e for the sake
of her daughter, and the Attorney-General, in
introducing the case to their notice, ought not to
have accompanied it with the imputation that
Lord Dinorben was the only person Rho could
have had any cause for preventing the plaintiffs
marriage with Miss Liddell. The answer to
this action was simply that the anonymous letters
were not written by Laity Dinorben. She would
go into the box and swear they were not,
and he should call numerous and respectable
persons ivho had transacted business with her,
and who knew her writing well, who would
state they did not believe the anonymous letters were
in the handwriting of Lady Dinorben, That he thought
would be convincing proof that the evidence of the ex-
perts could not be relied upon. The teamed council refer-
red to the evidence of writing, and the diffiCulty there had
been in proving the defendant wrote the letters, and in
reference to the declaration called attention to the fact,

that after an interview between the attornies o' both
aides relative to the identification of the letters, the
plaintiff's attorney amended his declaration by
adding after the words wrote that her_ ladyship
bad procured them to be sent. Colonel
Williams and Sir Richard Bulkeley both doubted the
authenticity of the libels, and be thought their
evidence was more to be relied on than that of
the experts. Lady Dinorben's handwriting was of a
light and feathering character—peculiarly a feminine
hand, whereas the anonymous letters, especially the one
referring to "coals" and "beef" were of a stiff, bold,
upright character, more like that of a mabi's writing
than a female's. Sir R. Bulkeley's evidence was the must
important, except that of the post-office clerk, for be
afterwards disavowed a belief of one of them being in
her handwriting, and he (Mr. Macaulay) should prove
that that letter was not written by Lady Dinorben.
The learned counsel then called the following
witnesses :

Lady Dinorben, examined by Mr. Harcourt,
said—l am the defendant in this action, and the
widow of William Lewis, the first Lord of Dinorben.
About this time lsst year, in June, my attention
was first called to these letters. I then learned
for the fi. st time that it was imputed to me that I
had mitten them. I have never seen them. This
letter, No. 1, addressed to Lord Ravensworth, was
not wri' ten by me, nor by my desire or knowledge.
This letter, No. 2, addressed to Mr. Liddell, was
not written by me, nor was it written or sent by
my desire or knowledge. The witnees said the
same of No. 3, and No. 4, and No. 5 (March 1853).
The letter, December 4, 1853, is not in my hand-
writing. This letter is not in my handwriting (he
election letter), nor is this (the letter to Mi s
Wallis). I never wrote an anonymous letter.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—l never wrote
an anonymous letter to Miss Wallis. I never
heard till to-day that she had accused me of
it.
I heard that Mr. Wallis accused me of
writing that letter to his sister. He wrote to me in
February. I did' not write t I Miss Wallis for some
time before-her death. She had lived with me for
some years. I thought, as she was in a consump-
tion, she should provide apartments. That made
some difference. I never spoke to her about leav-
ing her fortune to her cousin. Miss Smyth, my
other niece, was not residing with me at the time
—shortly after. I had seen her just at the time.
My brother, Colonel Smyth, proposed to see Mr.
Hughes, the same as Sir R. Bulkeley, this time
last year. I was anxious to remain at Kinmael a
little longer, and it was granted. I did not com-
plain. I did not complain to Mr. Williams that
Mr. Hughes had refused to let me remain. I can-
not exactly remember. I directed a letter to be
written to the plaintiff not to come to the funeral.
1 may have done so. He came from Chester to the
funeral. My consent was asked as to the plaintiff
having an allowance out of Lot dDinorle:,m's estate.
I had no voice. I had heard he was paying his ad-
dresses to Miss Liddell. I knew it a long time. I
don't know at all whose writing the letters are.
Re-examined by Mr. Macaulay—The plaintiff
wished to be made committee of the estate. I never
gaveany intimation of intention to impute author-
ship of the letters to Miss Walls.
George L -nnox Cunningham, examined by Mr.
Tozer, said—l am chief clerk in the office of the
Secie.ary of State for Foreign Affairs, and hive
acquired a good knowledge of handwriting. I have
known Lady Dinorben for 30 years. I have ft e-
quen received letters from her, and am familiar
with the lett rs whic'‘ I received from her, signed
with her name. I have examined the letters Nos.
1 and 2. In my opinion they are certainly not in
Lady Dinorben's handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—l can't say whe-
ther they are disguised. (Looks at them.) I see
nothing in this letter to show that it is in a dis-
guised hand. In No. 2, the words " more I could
say, but enough to open your eyes,' do not re-
semble the commencement. The latter words are
a more natural hand than what goes before. Ido
not think the whole was written. by the same
person. I think there are two hand writings,
and there may be three. (Laughter.) The rest
of the letter appears to me to be written
by the same hand that wrote the two first pages of
the note. There was nothing peculiar about Lady
Dinorben's " w." That " w"—iu No. 2—is only
a bad attempt to make a " w." (Laughter.) I
think it is a woman's writing, and that three
women must have had something to do with it.
(Laughter.) I think the same person wrote the
first page of one letter who wrote the first page, of
the other. I don't think the " w".in " wish" is
like the "w" in "what." I think the: word
" true," in No. 1, is not written by the same hand
as the re. t. I think both letters were writ ten by
the same parties, but whether they were more than
one I can't say.
Re-examined by Mr. Macaulay—The mode of
making the "w" in Lady Dinorben's letters is
common. I have received loom from South
America—(laughter)—in which the " w" is made
in the same way, and also from China.
Mr. James said he must object to this Chinese
correspondence.
Mr. Campbell—He says the " w" is commonly
made in that way.
Dr. Mayo, examined by Mr. Macaulay, said—l
live in Wimpole-street. I have known the defen-
dant 11 years. I have frequently seen her, and
received notes from her. In my opinion the let-
ters are singularly unlike Lady Dinorben's hand-
writing. I should say they are unquestionably
not her handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—l should think
the letters are disguised. In No. 2 the words,
" More I could say," &c., ate unlike the st ; but
they are quite unlike Lady Dinorben's. I brought
one down ' • but I find it is Miss Str'yth's. I have
two or three times talked with Lady Dinorben
about this. She has said she did not write the
le ters. I have seen her professionally. I should
say that in the letter to Miss Wallis there is an
attempt io disguise. The "w" is peculiar, very
pecolir, and is like the "w" in No. 1. I should
say the same person wrote No. 1 and No. 2, but I
do not see any ground for saying they were written
by one sex more than en oiler. I think the direc-
tioti to Lord Ravensworth is a gentleman's writing.
Re-examined by Mr. Macaulay—l see no sex in
the handwriting.
Mr. Mason, examined by Mr. HARCOURT, said
he was cashier in Coutt's bank, and had been in
the habit of cashing Lady Dinorben's checks. He
gave his opinion that the leaers were not in her
handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES —Ho thought
the letters were in a disguised hand, and that in
No. 2 the natural hand came out at the words
"More I could say, &c."
Re-examined by Mr. MACAULAY.—Where it
comes out more natural is not the character of
Lady Dinorb n's.
Colonel Wilson, examined by Mr. Luse, maid,
—I have known Lady Dinorben since 183 U, and
have received notes and invitations from her. I
do not believe either No. 1 or No. 2 are in h-r
handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES.—My opinion is
that the first letter is written by somebody at-
tempting to imitate Lady Dinorben's hand. Some
of the letters resemble Lady Dinorben's. The
letter "L," in " Lord," and I think the " w's,"
and some of the tails to the " y's," in some in-
stances. It appears to me that the band is too
cramped for Lady Dinorben's. The words, "More
I coull say, but enough to open your eye..," is
more free, and is a batter imitation ; but still, in
my opinion, it appears to be cramped, and rather
too heavy for Lady Dinorben's writing. It ap-
proaches a resemblance. The word "true" is a
better imitation. The "w" in " wish" is rather
like. The " what," in No. 2, is an imitation, and
rather like.
Mr. Cuffe Wall, examined by Mr. MACAULA.Y,
said,—l have known Lady Dinorben 33 years, and
corresponded with her, particularly during the
last five or six years. I have seen her write. In
mh
ayn dbar eviie
Cro,s-examined by Mr. JAMES —I am not any
business. I live at 7, Denmark-cottages, Camber-
well.the. I have had commissions from her, and
known her brother many years. I don't think
either of the letters is disguised ; I should
say they are written in the natural hand of
the same person. The words, "More I could say,
but enough to open your eyes, are
.not so well
written, but I think they were written by
the same person as the first. Tue word " true" is
not exactly the same. Ido not agree with Colonel
Wilson that there is any attempt to imitate Lady
Dinoilern's handwriting. I have not brought any
of her letters with me. I received a letter a few
days ago. She had a peculiar mode of forming the
w " but I have not observed it particularly.
Lawrence Walker, examined by Mr. Macaulay—
tip to 1855 I was member of the firm of Walker,
Grant, and Co. Our firm had been from the year
1839 solicitors to Lord Dinorben, and since his
death for Lady Dinorben. I was in frequent corres-
pondence with her on business. I acted as auditor
for Lord Dinorben. I have frequently seen Lady
Dinorben. I have inspected all the anonymous let
ters. I am of opinion that the letters No. 1 and
No. 2 are most certainly not in her handwriting.