Henry:-Be good enough, Mr. Whalley, not to make observations in the witness-box. Witness continued:-I obtained information as to the clearance of vessels, and communicated that also to the Claimant's solicitor. I communicated with other persons, and can state what it was if I am asked.—In cross-examination by Mr. Poland, the witness said, it had been his desire that Luie should return to America in order that he might there continue inquiries bearing on the case.

The case was then adjourned till after the conclusion of the trial of the claimant. On March 5 the prisoner was again brought up. When Sir Thomas Henry had taken his seat, Luie's legal adviser said that he applied originally for the adjournment of the case in order that the late defendant in the trial at bar might now be called to give evidence in Luie's favour, and be bound over to give evidence. Matters had since occurred which had rendered that unnecessary, for the late Claimant could be produced at the trial if required. Mr. Poland then applied for the prisoner's committal on both charges. Sir Thomas Henry at once acceded to this request, and Luie was removed to Newgate.

On April 9, Jean Luie was brought to trial at the Central Criminal Court, before Mr. Justice Brett, on the charge of perjury in the evidence given by him in the Tichborne trial, and also for bigamy. Mr. Warner Sleigh renewed his application for an adjournment until next session, on the ground of there not The learned being sufficient time for counsel to master the facts of the case. judge, however, said he did not consider the application to be a bona fide one, and therefore declined to accede to it. Thereupon Mr. Poland opened the case for the prosecution, and the Court proceeded to take evidence against Luie, who, throughout the hearing, was undefended by counsel. The prisoner, thus left to himself, cross-examined some of the witnesses with considerable dexterity, while he declared his perfect ignorance of others who deposed to his identity. Some of the questions to Inspector Clarke appeared to convey the suggestion that the inspector had prompted parts of the confession made by At the close of the case for Luie to him, and already detailed at Bow Street. the prosecution, Mr. Whalley, M.P., volunteered his testimony in the prisoner's favour, and expressed his belief that the "Osprey" incident, as related by Luie,

was true.

The Judge, then addressing the prisoner, said :-Now, tell your own story. The great charge against you is that you swore that you were on board the "Osprey," and that you picked up the boat. It is said that that is untrue, and of course if it were untrue you knew that it was so. They (the prosecution) have proved that it was untrue, because they have proved that you were in England at the time. That is the first great charge against you. The next charge is that you gave evidence that you were not in England till shortly before the trial, whereas they have proved that you were in England for many years before. Those charges are what you have to answer for before the jury. Prisoner :-Well, my lord, during my cross-examination in the Court of Queen's Bench, I objected to questions of Mr. Hawkins respecting the latest period of my life, in consequence of a misfortune that I was really led into; but the Lord Chief Justice ordered me to answer the questions. I was compelled to do so, and I did it as it came into my mind at the time. Numbers of witnesses have been called here against me as to the period of 1853 and 1854, one, accor ding to his account, being himself a schoolfellow of mine. How is it possible for me to contradict these men when I am void entirely of assistance, either

legal assistance, or assistance of people whom I should have been able to bring forward? If I had time I should prove that they are mistaken-entirely mistaken in the identity. It requires in fact a wonderful memory for anyone to distinguish one man from another after a period of over twenty years' time, and especially when you have a man only just come into court to discern an individual. Had I been able to be defended, and produced witnesses, it would certainly have substantiated my story to a great extent. Of course in the later periods of 1862 and 1867 misfortunes have fallen to my lot. That undoubtedly is true, but respecting the time of 1852, 1853, and 1854 there is no truth whatever in what has been said. I don't say that people have perjured themselves, because if they had perjured themselves a vast number of witnesses who have been brought against Roger Tichborne must be as bad as they are in that respect. But I say I have been the sole victim of prosecution, from a number of people amounting to nearly 300. I think it is very hard indeed that I should suffer the inconvenience in which I am placed. It can be proved, and will in time come out, that the "Osprey" which I joined at New Orleans in 1852, and was with her up to the end of 1854, is a fact undoubtedly, and it will be found to be true. Time will tell that, and it should have been proved satisfactorily both to your lordship and the jury if I had had that ample means given me which I now stand in need of. Had it not been for the misfortune of this bigamy affair of mine, I certainly should never have given the account which I have given, because I stood in the position that whatever turn I took, when it came to the period from 1855 to 1867, whether I admitted that or made any false statement or not, it would have fallen to my lot to be punished. I am very sorry that this has taken up the time so long, keeping your lordship and the jury for such a length of time through the calling of all these witnesses, since I am not in a position now to bring forward evidence in support of my story. Very sorry, indeed, I am, but I trust that the time will come soon enough to prove my story and the fact of the "Osprey" in 1854. At the same time, I beg his lordship to be as lenient in his punishment towards me as possible, bearing in mind that I have still eighteen or nineteen months to be under servitude.

On the following day, Mr. Justice Brett proceeded to sum up the case. His lordship carefully went over the evidence in detail, after which he remarked on the prisoner's statement that Mr. Whalley had said to him at Brussels that a trial was going on in England which made him ashamed of his country. Why Mr. Whalley should be ashamed of his country on this account he certainly could not see. The prisoner also represented that Mr. Whalley said that one difficulty they had to contend against was that they could not find any men who had picked up a shipwrecked crew. Sitting on that bench, he had no hesitation in saying that if Mr. Whalley, either from folly or wickedness, or both, really did make this statement, he was giving an incitement to perjury. His lordship then referred to the statements of the prisoner with regard to Mr. Whalley and Mr. Onslow, and his representation that he should not have gone into the witness-box, if Mr. Onslow had not compelled him to do so. He did not say that this story was true, but all he could say was that if it was true, the prisoner was not the only person who ought to be put on his trial, as a conspiracy evidently existed to commit a serious offence. If the prisoner's story was true, it amounted to an admission that he was guilty of perjury, and if it was not true, and he had made those false statements against other parties, what could they think of a man who could act in such a manner? His lord

ship said he had now arrived at what was a painful part of the case, and one which satisfied him, with other matters, that there never was any real intention on the part of those who were called the prisoner's friends, to defend him. He had no hesitation in saying that Mr. Whalley had obtruded himself as a witness for the prisoner. He was asked in derision by the learned counsel for the prosecution, whether he was not a magistrate of two counties and also a barrister; and if he had had the slightest knowledge of even the elements of law, he must have known perfectly well that he could not give any evidence that would be of the slightest benefit to the prisoner. It might have the effect of showing sympathy-it might have afforded an opportunity for giving an explanation upon any particular matter; but he must have known that he could not say anything that was likely to be of any use to the prisoner, and his evidence gave the counsel for the prosecution a right to reply. If any evidence of importance could have been obtained in America, the witnesses might have been brought forward; but nothing of the sort was done, and a child could see through the proceeding that was attempted to be carried out.-The jury retired at twelve o'clock. They returned into court in about ten minutes, and found the prisoner "Guilty."

At the close of Jean Luie's trial, Captain Brown, another of the witnesses on Orton's trial, was put into the box to take his trial. The allegations of perjury against him were that he had sworn that he saw Castro or Orton at Rio de Janeiro in 1854; that Castro had no tattoo marks; that he also saw the man, Luie, at Rio at the same time; and that he was present when Roger Tichborne went on board the "Bella," with Capt. Oates and Capt. Hoskins, and another captain named Burkett. Capt. T. Oates and Capt. Hoskins were examined in support of the charge, after which the prisoner was called upon for his defence. He simply asserted his innocence, stating that he had no intention to commit wilful perjury. The jury, without retiring from the box, found the prisoner guilty. The other prisoner, Jean Luie, was then brought up, and both prisoners were placed at the bar to receive judgment. Mr. Justice Brett said that both prisoners had been convicted upon evidence as clear as that which led to the conviction of Arthur Orton, of the offence of wilful and corrupt perjury, and it was an offence of the most serious character. Nothing was more essential to the administration of justice than that truthful evidence should be given in a court of justice, and those who were guilty of giving perjured testimony committed a very great crime, and when they were convicted of it, it was the duty of the court to pass a very severe sentence. They had deliberately sworn to things they must have known to be false; and there was no doubt that they hoped by the false testimony they gave, to place the man Orton in his original position, and enable him to endeavour to plunder the family he had attacked. It was in the favour of Luie, that although he was evidently a brave man, he had at last been compelled to shed the tears of despair, and that he had refrained from putting the wretched man, Arthur Orton, into the witness-box. He then sentenced Luie to one day's imprisonment and seven years' penal servitude, and Brown to five years' penal servitude.

III.

THE FREDERICK LEGITIMACY TRIAL.

THE case of "Frederick v. Her Majesty's Attorney-General, and Frederick," was tried before the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in the month of December. The case was a petition under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, in which the petitioner, Capt. Charles Edward Frederick, prayed the Court to declare that his paternal grandfather, Col. Charles Frederick, was lawfully married to Martha Rigden, on or about March 20, 1773. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Morgan Howard, Q.C., Mr. A. E. Hardy, and Mr. Gumbleton for the Attorney-General; and Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., Mr. Searle, and Mr. Lindsay for the respondent, Vice-Admiral Charles Frederick.

It was admitted that beyond the declarations of the parties themselves, no direct proof of the alleged marriage can now be given. The proof of it rests on a series of circumstances; and the nature and character of this proof will be best shown by tracing in outline the history of Col. Frederick and his reputed wife from 1776, when Col. Frederick left England for India, until 1794, when Mrs. Frederick, who survived him, died.

Col. Frederick sailed for Bombay in 1766, leaving his wife, with her two infant daughters, in charge of her brother, Mr. John Rigden; and in the following year, Mrs. Frederick followed her husband to India, and lived with him there till his death, 1791. In 1779 a junior officer was promoted over Col. Frederick's head by the Government of Bombay. He, in consequence, resigned his commission in the East India Company's service, and came to England to lay his grievance before the Court of Directors. He then made the acquaintance of his brother Lenox's wife, who was generally called "Nancy." The warmest friendship sprang up between them, and when, shortly afterwards, Col. Frederick went to the Continent, pending an arrangement with his creditors, a correspondence commenced between him and his sister-in-law, which forms nearly the first link in the chain of proof upon which the petitioner relies in support of the asserted marriage. In a letter to Nancy, under date" Ostend, Jan. 31, 1781," Col. Frederick wrote:-"I do not conceive the accounts of the late shocking hurricane ought, by any means, to add to your uneasiness... The word 'wife' brings with fresh pleasure to my mind the late and only satisfaction I am capable of enjoying amidst my present misfortunes. I mean some letters I have just received from my wife." The letter continues full of expressions of affection for his wife and children. Under date "Ostend, February 28, 1781," he wrote:-"You can have no idea of the complicated horrors of my situation, nor do I wish you should. It would only add to that weight upon your mind which is already too great, for I am sure you would pity me. What I suffer personally, though much, I have philosophy to bear with patience, but I feel severely for a wife, the most amiable of her sex, and for four lovely children." And under date April 11, 1781 :-" You have perfectly won my heart by your kind manner of mentioning my wife; indeed, her behaviour and attachment to me have been such, and shown in so indisputable a manner, and through such trying situations, as my whole life, nay, twenty lives, would

hardly be sufficient to repay. The greatest and most unpardonable folly I ever committed in my life was not making her known to my family before I went to India. Would to God I had! The goodness of her disposition and her many amiable qualities would soon have reconciled everybody to her, I am sure, and secured their approbation of my choice. When my father was at the Hague I had determined on it with myself, and began a conversation with him about the maintenance of my children with that intent; but he took so much pains to change the subject that I did not know how to bring it about. I have never forgiven myself since for not having done it. I suppose you have heard I did inform him of my marriage when I was last in England, but there being no register, and the certificate being left in India to entitle her to the Company's allowance in case any accident happened to me, I could not immediately prove it legally, upon which grounds he refused to acknowledge her. I fear he was biassed by a person whom I thought my sincere friend, but who, since my present unhappy situation, has proved otherwise. You will readily guess who I mean. The subject is too melancholy to dwell any longer upon."

On Jan. 10, 1782, he wrote to his sister-in-law about the education of his two daughters, who had theretofore been under the charge of their uncle, Mr. John Rigden. It was considered that their uncle's position in life unfitted him for the superintendence of their training, and they were accordingly removed from his roof and placed under the charge of Mrs. Lenox Frederick. In 1782 Col. Frederick had his commission restored to him by the Court of Directors of the East India Company, and in the autumn of that year he took his departure for Bombay, which he reached in 1783. On his arrival he resumed the correspondence with his sister-in-law, and mentioned in a letter, dated Nov. 2, 1783, that while absent in England his letters to his wife had miscarried, and that, having heard reports injurious to his character, she had written to his father on the subject. With this letter he enclosed one from his wife to Mrs. Lenox Frederick respecting the education of his daughters, beginning "My dearest sister," and ending with "your obliged and very affectionate sister, M. Frederick. P.S. My husband writes to you by this opportunity."

Correspondence of a like character passed between Col. Frederick and his wife, and his brothers Lenox and Edward, down to his death at Dharwar in 1781. He left his wife and children wholly unprovided for, but Mrs. Frederick applied to the Government of Bombay, and claimed the usual allowance made to a colonel's widow out of Lord Clive's Fund. She further obtained, on March 2, 1792, an additional allowance from the Contingent Fund, on account of her eight children, and, having also received the proceeds of a subscription raised in Bombay for her assistance, she left India with her family in 1793 and returned to England. The allowances made by the Bombay Government were subject to the approval of the Court of Directors. Accordingly Mrs. Frederick sent in a memorial to the Board in December 1793. The sub-committee to which the matter was referred reported "that she was deserving of the pension of a colonel's widow, and submitted that she should be admitted thereto, she having produced the necessary certificates to entitle her to receive that pension. They also submitted that, having eight children wholly unprovided for, she should have a further allowance of 1001. a year from the Contingent Military Fund, the pension and allowance to begin from February 28, 1793, the date up to which she received the last half-year's pension at Bombay." On the 29th of the same month the Court of Directors confirmed the report of their sub-committee, and Mrs. Frederick continued in receipt of the pension