the defendant was not also a Roman Catholic. Yes, replied the counsel; but I fear he is a very bad one.

As for his client, his conduct and appearance argued the genuineness of his pretensions. He had led a bad life; he had degraded himself in many ways; he had forgotten much of his early education and culture; indeed, he had not much of either to start with but he was not the low, illiterate, and vulgar brute that the butcher-born Arthur Orton was, that bush-ranger, horse-thief, and suspected murderer of "Ballarat Harry." On the contrary, the defendant, though he might be but a ruin, was yet the ruin of a gentleman. His air and bearing showed it. He could not walk down Westminster Hall without manifesting his breeding. His smile was of "remarkable grace and sweetness," at this bold assertion an irreverent burst of laughter escaped from some of his hearers; but the doctor, with much gravity, said that he spoke in all seriousness. The features of the defendant might have been observed, too, to have worn during the trial a certain expression of pensiveness and melancholy, which had been a trait of the young Roger.

Throughout the whole long and trying affair he had manifested the courage, the spirit, and the openness of an honorable and innocent man. It should be remembered that he had not been impelled by a guilty conscience to run away from the prosecution, though he might easily have done so: he had had ample opportunity in his unrestrained freedom. Neither had he, like an impostor, fearing detection, been jealous of being seen. On the contrary, he had ranged throughout the kingdom, showing himself everywhere, seeking public gatherings, courting notice and obser

vation.

The cause had been conducted by the prosecution, as the doctor argued, upon a theory utterly abhorrent to the English law, and indeed to every sound notion of justice. For the criminality had been taken for granted; the evidence for the defence had been treated as if it were evidence of the crime. Mr. Hawkins had distinctly requested the jury to assume the guilt of the accused. "This has never been the law of England," said the doctor," and in my opinion it is the law of hell."

Chief Justice Cockburn. Really, Dr. Kenealy, we must interpose. This is not an expression to use in a Court of Justice. It is taking a great deal

upon yourself to say what the law there is! proper and indecorous.

Dr. Kenealy stood by his words.

Such language is most im

Chief Justice. I say such language is not proper, and it shall not be used. It is needless, and must shock some ears if it does not shock yours.

Kenealy expressed the hope that his ears were as fastidious in such matters as those of any other person. Then, returning to his argument, and refraining from the use of the offensive word, he said the conduct of the case by the prosecution had been a disgrace to any earthly tribunal, and fit only for the tribunal to which he had referred.

A most unjust burden had been thrown upon the defendant. His memory, undermined as it was, had been tested by the memories of two hundred witnesses. They came armed with diaries, journals, letters, memoranda; and if any of them could remember any thing which the defendant could not, or if any of them stated any thing in any slight particular differently from his statement, then this discrepancy or forgetfulness of his was assumed as proof of his falsehood. If he remembered any thing correctly, upon the other hand, it was said that he had been informed and "coached" by Bogle, the old servant, or by Miss Braine, the governess, or by Carter, or McCann, or by Mr. Onslow, or Mr. Whalley. He was impaled on such a dilemma that the things which he forgot and the things which he remembered were equally made to militate against him. Evidence, which rightly operated in his favor, was distorted into evidence of his guilt, in gross contravention of the rules of justice and the established doctrine and practice of the law. Yet, indeed, if the defendant had been "coached" by these people, he would have avoided many an error into which he had fallen. The very glaring imperfections of his memory were themselves the best proofs of his bona fides, and that he had relied upon himself in utter neglect of such aid as he might have had from others. Further, it was obvious that the defendant had not sought to obtain any information concerning the life of Roger in Paris, or while quartered with his regiment in Ireland. Just such "coaching" as this would have been considered by an impostor to be essential. But Roger, relying on himself, had not made such an effort.

If the defendant's story of his life of vice and dissipation were

true, the jury must be prepared for any act of folly and absurdity on his part. Thus must they account for the sudden, unprovoked, and complete cessation of his correspondence with his family and friends at home. This, which the Chief Justice regarded as one of the most formidable difficulties of the defendant's case, was treated as the result of a weakened brain and disordered fancy. As well, said Dr. Kenealy, might it have been argued that Joseph was not Joseph, because he sent no communication out of Egypt to his father.

Speaking of Luie, the doctor said that he had not introduced into his opening any mention of him or of the facts to be proved by him, but had held him back so long and then had put him on the stand so suddenly, and so much to the surprise of every one, not for the sake of springing any trap upon his opponents, but because the witness had dropped upon the defence like a man from the clouds. They had never heard of him, never sought for him, never received any intimation of the existence of such a man, until he had unexpectedly presented himself to them in the middle of the summer. Then the counsel had not thought it proper to summon him to tell his story until they had time to investigate its truth. Hence they withheld him while Mr. Whalley was hastily despatched to the United States to make an investigation and to seek corroboration of Luie's tale. Whatever the government might set up concerning his general morality, whatever they might prove about him in the way of specific sins which he had committed, even should they show him to be a murderer, the doctor would yet ask the jury to believe that what he said about the "Osprey" and the defendant in 1854 was true. He had come forward voluntarily, at the instigation of no person connected with defendant's case, simply to tell what he knew in the matter.

After abusing poor Mr. Gosford outrageously, charging him with felony, and being roundly contradicted and rebuked by the Chief Justice, Kenealy, continuing still in the same strain, referred to the large sums of money which had been paid to some of the witnesses called by the Crown, as had been elicited in his crossexamination. Mrs. Hayley was to have one thousand dollars; Mr. Gibbes was to have six hundred pounds. Of such great hire had the chief laborers been thought worthy! What sums would

not persons, who paid such bounties to bring their own witnesses,

unquestionably be willing, e converso, to pay to persons who might be witnesses for the defence, in order to keep them out of the way! Whereupon the Chief Justice said: "This is really beyond all limits of propriety and decency, — charging persons with these things without a tittle of evidence, making accusations by wholesale against every one! You suppose everybody to be mixed up in some hideous system of corruption and iniquity. . . . There is not the slightest foundation for such black imputations.' To preserve something like continuity in the brief abstract of the proceedings, it is necessary here to interrupt the sketch of Dr. Kenealy's argument in order to dispose finally of the Luie episode. On Friday, December 5, he was brought into Court, and a sort of trial within a trial was had. Eight officials from Chatham Convict Prison identified Luie as one Lungren, received into that place in 1868, under sentence of seven years penal servitude, and liberated on a ticket-of-leave, March 25, 1873. Others identified him with Lungren, a Swede, who was sentenced in 1862 at Bristol to three years of penal servitude for the theft of a bill of exchange for £242; and again he appeared to have been sentenced at Cardiff in 1867, for obtaining £20 under false pretences. He was identified as a clerk in the employ of merchants at Bristol, from 1859 to 1861; when he was sent to gaol in a civil suit, and afterward to prison on a criminal charge. A great many witnesses testified to his having extorted or tried to extort money by falsely pretending to be a sea-captain in the manner already narrated.

A policeman from Bristol said the man Luie or Lungren had a wife and child living there, though not under the name of Lungren; the woman had taken the name of another man, Hawkins. [Much laughter at the expense of the counsel for the Crown.]

Mr. Hawkins. What was her maiden name?

Witness. Miss Sarah Cockburn.

[Renewed laughter; this time at the expense of the Chief Justice.]

But the witness explained that the name was spelled differently, Colborne; both Cockburn and Colborne being in England pronounced Coburn. Whereupon the Chief Justice triumphed over Mr. Hawkins. But that gentleman promptly retaliated that his namesake in Bristol also spelled his name

differently—with a g g-Hawkings. So everybody laughed merrily at this little pleasantry, as if all the crimes and the arguments, and the great weariness of the interminable case, were not resting upon their overweighted spirits. Then the wife, with the amusing alias, was called, and identified Luie as her husband, whom she had not seen since 1865. "Did you recognize him at once?" said the Chief Justice. "Rayther, sir," responded the damsel, with a suddenness and emphasis which again set the auditory into roars of laughter.

But this Luie investigation was far from being marked throughout with such good feeling and jollity. Dr. Kenealy gallantly stood by the witness in this hour of his trouble, and cross-examined the hostile witnesses with all his usual keenness, not to say offensiveness of manner, and with more than his usual prolixity. The task must have severely taxed his temper, for he could not extract much that was satisfactory from them. Especially must it have been provoking to be unable to break down the testimony of some who testified that Luie or Lungren had been at Hull, in the employ of a firm there, from the spring of 1854 till the middle of 1855; thus covering just the very time when Dr. Kenealy wanted this same person to be sailing from near Rio to Melbourne, in the "Osprey," washing Mr. Tichborne, and giving him brandy to keep him stupidly drunk and quiet. So the fuel of his wrath was well prepared to blaze up, and it was not long before the match was applied, and a grand conflagration ensued. Dr. Kenealy was cross-examining a witness, reiterating questions which seemed to be idle and unimportant, and harassing him to no good purpose. The Chief Justice expostulated upon so needless a waste of time. But Dr. Kenealy said the question was for the jury; he must convince them. Then Justices Lush and Mellor, and many of the jurors, thus indirectly appealed to, intimated that they fully agreed with his Lordship. The discussion began to wax warm, and Kenealy finally so far forgot himself as to say to the Chief Justice:

Your Lordship is perpetually insulting me from the bench; I don't know why.

Chief Justice. Don't, sir, use that language to me; for I will not bear it. Dr. Kenealy. I consider that what you have said, my Lord, taking all things into account on this and other occasions, justifies the use of my language.