classical education at Stonyhurst, and from the companionship of the officers of the Carabineer regiment, than for the credulity with which some of those very officers, and not a few other individuals who had known the real Roger Tichborne (not to mention the young man's mother, who appears to have been almost crazed on the subject), were taken in to believe his tale, and by their evidence in his favour to persuade thousands of the outside world that the claimant was in reality an aggrieved baronet, unjustly kept out of his rights by a family cabal. In our report for 1871 we have given an account of the early history of the case, and followed briefly the long windings of the SolicitorGeneral's celebrated cross-examination of the plaintiff; in 1872 we gave a short summary of the speech for the defence by the same learned counsel (at that time Attorney-General, and now Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas), and reported the sudden conclusion of the case, after the examination of a few witnesses on the same side, by the jury expressing themselves satisfied without further evidence of the falsity of the claim, upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited. The case could not be left here. If the plaintiff was not the baronet he had asserted himself to be, he was, to use the strong language of Sir John Coleridge," a conspirator, a perjurer, a forger, a slanderer, and a villain." The Lord Chief Justice accordingly directed that he should be prosecuted for perjury at the Central Criminal Court. Strange to say, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against him that had been brought forward at the trial, the claimant still found a strong party to support him. Bail was raised for him to the amount of 10,0007., and in the interval which elapsed before the trial for perjury could commence, the claimant was able to go about the country under the patronage of Mr. Guildford Onslow and others, getting up and speaking at public meetings, and was by no means unsuccessful in gaining the popular sympathy, and in raising funds for his defence. Thus once more, in 1873, the pages of our volume devoted to "Remarkable Trials" were almost entirely filled with the report of this second "Tichborne Case," and this year again, but now, we hope, for the last time, we have attempted to condense into comparative briefness the lengthy speeches which have occupied so many columns of the daily and weekly papers;—an idea of the length to which they extended may be gathered from the fact mentioned in the "Times" that the Lord Chief Justice's charge alone occupied 180 of its columns.

The conduct of the counsel for the defendant in this trial, Dr. Kenealy, Q.C., having frequently called for serious reproof from the Lord Chief Justice, and met with the general disapprobation of the public, at a meeting of the members of the bar of the Oxford Circuit, of which he is a member, held at Gloucester on April 2, it was decided to exclude him from the bar mess.

The benchers of Gray's Inn also instituted an inquiry, which was conducted with closed doors, into Dr. Kenealy's conduct as editor of the "Englishman" newspaper. They issued, on August 1, a report of their proceedings, as well as a copy of the resolutions passed by them. Mr. Bradley, printer of the paper, was summoned to attend, but this gentleman wrote "regretting that his position as a printer would render his attendance an indefensible proceeding on his part, and he was obliged, therefore, to be absent." Mrs. Kenealy wrote stating that Dr. Kenealy intended to have been present in person; having been seized, however, with violent pains in the head, he could not appear. He therefore "left the Masters of the Bench to act as their own desire of honour, right, and justice might dictate." Seventeen numbers of the "Englishman" having been perused by the Benchers, the following resolution was carried unanimously:

Moved by Mr. Manisty, seconded by the Solicitor-General:-1. That Dr. Kenealy is editor of the "Englishman." 2. That the "Englishman" is replete with libels of the grossest character. 3. That Dr. Kenealy, being editor of the newspaper, is unfit to be a Master of the Bench of this honourable Society. 4. That the call of Dr. Kenealy to this Bench be hereby vacated. 5. That Dr. Kenealy be prohibited from dining in the hall of this Society until further orders. 6. That the future consideration of this matter, as well as the consideration of several other charges which Dr. Kenealy has been called upon to answer, be postponed to a future pension, to be hereafter appointed. 7. That a copy of the proceedings of the Bench be sent to Dr. Kenealy, also that a copy be preserved in the hall of the Inn, and that a copy be sent to the treasurer of each of the other Inns of Court.

The publication of the "Englishman," however, continued in the same strain. The Bench, the Bar, Cabinet ministers, and many other eminent persons were scurrilously attacked. Of the Benchers it was written-"Where ever the English language is spoken and this paper is read, they will be spat upon by every lover of truth and justice. If the learned professions in England were weeded out, probably the equals of these men in ignorance, meanness, and vulgarity could not be found." The Lord Chief Justice was compared to Scroggs and Jefferies; the judges, and several other gentlemen were described as capable of any shame, and in a host of ways imputations were thrown broadcast. Dr. Kenealy's conduct as editor was again taken into consideration by the Benchers of Gray's Inn on Dec. 2, and the following resolution was moved by Master Manisty, seconded by Master Holker, and carried unanimously :-" That in the opinion of this Bench, Dr. Kenealy, being the editor of the newspaper called the Englishman,' replete as it still is with libels of the grossest character, is unfit to be a member of this honourable Society or the public Bar." It was further moved by Master Manisty, seconded by Master Holker, and carried unanimously:-"That Dr. Kenealy's call to the Bar be and the same is hereby vacated; that he be expelled from this society, and his name erased from the roll of the members thereof." By this disbarment Dr. Kenealy loses the benefit of dining in the hall, loses a set of chambers in the Inn which he has hitherto enjoyed rent free, and cannot hold a brief nor practise before the courts of law. His name was also struck out of the list of Queen's Counsel.

II.

TRIAL OF JEAN LUIE, ALIAS LUNGREN.

THIS was a trial for perjury committed in the evidence given on the Tichborne trial, and also for bigamy. Jean Luie, it will be remembered, came forward as having been mate or steward of the "Osprey," but in the course of his evidence witnesses appeared to prove that his story was false, and that he had passed at different times under various aliases.1 One young woman claimed him as her husband under the name of Carl Lungren. He was accordingly examined at the Bow Street Court, and committed both for perjury and bigamy. The following evidence was given in support of the charge of bigamy:-Emma Bleach,

1 See Annual Register for 1873, pp. 207-215.

wife of a clerk in the Pension Department, Woolwich Dockyard, said:-The prisoner married my sister on April 2, 1855, in the parish church. I knew him by the name of Carl Peter Lungren. The second day of their marriage they came to London, and lived at No. 1 Tichborne Street. They afterwards went back to see my father, and he was afterwards clerk to Cary and Sons, Cardiff. I remember his being at Bristol. I remember also his being arrested and tried, and it was in 1859 when he was convicted. My sister is still alive, living at Bristol. Harriet Arend deposed to having herself been married to the prisoner, who then bore the name of Captain John Smith, in April, 1867. A fresh charge of perjury was preferred against the prisoner in consequence of a statement by him that, whilst staying at the house of Mr. Pulleyn, in Newington Butts, he had paid his own expenses, whereas the money had really come from another source. The evidence of Mr. Pulleyn was to the effect that he knew the person now on his trial at Westminster. He had nothing to do with the trial, but he managed the Claimant's public meetings. Prior to the trial Mr. Guildford Onslow and Mr. Whalley attended those meetings. He knew the prisoner Luie, who lived at witness's house from July 7, 1873, till the day of his examination in the Tichborne trial. He then left the house, but continued to pay the rent. Luie, it was believed, then went to live at Mr. Rimell's, at Finchley, but he occasionally called at witness's house. The papers that were found there belonged to Luie, and were given up to Inspector Clarke. Witness first saw the prisoner Luie at 2 Poet's Corner, the office of Mr. Hendriks, on July 7. He was at the office when witness arrived. He said he was waiting to see Mr. Hendriks. This was about nine o'clock in the morning. Mr. O'Brien, a clerk, arrived; they conversed together, and witness afterwards saw Mr. Hendriks with Mr. Whalley with Luie, while the clerk was writing down his statement. Mr. O'Brien, Mr. White, and Luie all went together to the Claimant's residence, and then returned to the office. The Claimant and Mr. Hendriks were present, and witness was asked by them to accommodate Luie in his house. He arranged with them to receive Luie, and took him home the same day. He afterwards read the statement which had been taken down by Mr. O'Brien. No exact terms were named, but he was to have 31. 10s. for boarding, lodging, and supplying what he wanted and giving him pocketmoney "within reason." Witness paid for everything that Luie had, put no restraint upon him, and took him to places of amusement. He found him in tobacco and spirits and other things. He had made an entry of the sums received on Luie's account. Up to August 11-twenty-two days- he received 217. for board and lodging, 37. 10s. for wearing apparel, and 51. for pocket-money. When he first came to witness, Luie had nothing but what he stood upright in. He had neither money nor luggage. He received for the first five weeks the sum of 291. 10s. altogether, and for the following five weeks he had about 287. The Claimant paid the money. For the five weeks up to October 13 the amount came to 21., and witness had only received 10%. of that sum. From first to last he never received a farthing from the prisoner. Mr. Poland said there would be a specific allegation of perjury in reference to the statement by the prisoner at the trial, that he lived on his own means, and paid his own expenses while living at Pulleyn's, and that he only stipulated that he should be paid for his time if he was detained in this country. Witness continuedHe went with me to several towns-Coventry, Bedford, Chelmsford, and other places. He travelled with me, and I paid for his railway fares out of the general receipts of the meeting. The Claimant sometimes accompanied us, but

me.

he usually travelled separately. Messrs. Onslow and Whalley travelled separately also. Luie did not do anything at these meetings. I took him with me because I did not like to leave him at home. My wife travelled with Mr. Poland: Was there any special reason for your not leaving him at home? Witness: No; except that I thought it best to take him with us, rather than leave him at home with the children. He never did any work all the time he was with me. He sometimes amused himself in the garden. I remember the day before his examination, October 13. He had not said anything about leaving my lodgings. In the evening, after he had given his evidence at Westminster, he told me he had received 51. from Mr. Whalley. He showed me a document, and left it in my charge. He said it was worth above 100%. to him. Inspector Clarke took possession of the document, and also of the prisoner's clothes. Mr. Poland requested the clerk to read the document referred to, which was as follows:

"Testimonial to Jean Luie, late Steward of the 'Osprey.' "This is to certify, on my own part, and on the part of all who have known Jean Luie in relation to the Tichborne case, that he has shown himself to be a man of thorough honesty and great intelligence, and that he has borne himself through all his life as a man entitled to confidence and respect. He has been exposed to great difficulties, harassment, and temptation through this affair, and has remained staunch and true, and has rendered very great service to Sir Roger Tichborne.

"G. H. WHALLEY, M.P.
"GUILDFORD ONSLOW, M.P."

Witness was then cross-examined respecting the statement made by Luie in his examination. He said :-I was in court during the examination of Luie, and heard him say that he paid 30s. a week for his lodgings. I think I was present when he described himself, on oath, as a gentleman of independent means. I heard Mr. Hawkins's cross-examination of Luie respecting me and my occupation" as a bill-sticker." I heard Luie say that he paid for his own lodgings and board at my house out of his own means. I heard him say that he had offered to pay me, but that I said he was to settle up when the trial was over. The whole of this was perjury. I did not interrupt the trial. I told Luie and also the Claimant that it was perjury. I did not tell anyone connected with the prosecution till I was subpoenaed. I expressed my dissatisfaction, and that was why he left my house. I was not in communication with the counsel for the Claimant, but I think I mentioned it to Mr. Harcourt, his solicitor, as well as to himself. I cannot say that I was aware that it was perjury, although I knew it was a wrong statement. I had money of the Claimant's on account, and I paid myself out of it, I did not give it a thought that it amounted to perjury. He came to my house repeatedly after this, and dined with my family. I did not think that much harm was done, and I supposed he would correct it. I spoke to Luie about his misstatements directly he came out of court, and asked him why he had said that he paid for himself. He said that he thought it looked better. After leaving me, Luie went to reside with Mr. Rimell, who, I think, is a silversmith. The prisoner said he was invited there.

At the next hearing of the case, Mr. E. Lewis, in a long speech on behalf of the accused, said that Luie was the son of a wealthy shipowner now dead,

and had occupied the position of a gentleman; he had conversed with him in three modern languages and had found him proficient in mathematics. The learned gentleman examined Charles Janes, and said he had eleven other witnesses to call for the defence, who were not then ready. There was consequently a further adjournment till Thursday. On that day, the case was again before the magistrate, and Mr. Whalley was examined at some length, giving an account of his interviews and correspondence with Luie, and of his visit to America for the purpose of collecting evidence to help the Claimant. Mr. Whalley, late M.P. for Peterborough, was then examined and following evidence:

gave the

I first became acquainted with Luie on July 7 of last year at the office of the claimant's solicitor, 2 Poet's Corner. Mr. O'Brien, the law student, was also present, and two or three clerks. I had never seen the prisoner before. It is not true that I met him at Brussels in the spring of that year. I had no knowledge whatever of the statement he was going to make. After the statement was taken, I think the prisoner said he should like to see the Claimant. While arrangements were being made for that purpose, such as getting a cab and packing up the papers, I asked the prisoner whether he thought the Claimant would recognise him. He replied, "I should think he ought to do so, considering that I nursed him for three months." After a pause he broke out, "Yes, I'll tell you how he'll recognise me--by that crooked finger." He held out his hand. In reply to my question "Why?" he said, "That crooked finger used to drive him nearly mad, as I used to rub the back of his neck for sunstroke." He explained that the finger scratched him. The cab arrived, and Mr. O'Brien, the prisoner, and I got into it. We then proceeded to Bessborough Gardens, the house of the Claimant. I did not hear Luie say he had been there before. When we arrived I went into the Claimant's house first. I found the Claimant suffering from erysipelas. He was reclining. I having told him we had brought an important witness to identify him, the Claimant expressed reluctance to see anyone on account of his severe indisposition, but on my urging the importance of it, he consented, and Mr. O'Brien and the prisoner came in. On the prisoner entering the room he walked up to within about three or four yards of where the Claimant was reclining, and looked very steadily at him for some time. The first words I remember the prisoner to have said were, "Yes, that is the man," or words to that effect. Upon that some conversation which I cannot call to mind, took place between the prisoner and the Claimant, and the former went over to the other direct, and with great show of feeling-tears coming into his eyes in fact-shook hands with him, and asserting that he was as certain as of his life that he was the man, and he would stand for him and do all he could on his behalf. Mr. Lewis:-Was the recognition mutual ?—I could not possibly say if the Claimant recognised him then. He recognised him as he had other witnesses, with caution and reticence -with no warmth of feeling. In speaking of some of the companions of the wreck, who were Spaniards, there was some reference made to language, and to the best of my recollection it was in respect to that part of the conversation that the Claimant said, "Como esta, Luie ?" I know the Claimant did address to him those words, but I won't swear it was under those circumstances.-After some further evidence describing his visit to America, Mr. Whalley said :-In consequence of the inquiries I made at Quebec and New York I addressed a letter to the solicitor of the Claimant. This letter has appeared in the newspapers, for which I have had to suffer some inconvenience- Sir Thomas