world in general, and the constitution of the English bar in particular, are wrong; but anyhow one thing is certain, that the counsel damaged the case materially, and showed himself eminently unfitted for the position of leader.  Mr. Hawkins’ powerful address quickly disposed of Dr. Kenealy and his crotchets.  The inquiry was raised into a calmer height when the Lord Chief-Justice commenced his memorable summing up, going minutely through the vast mass of testimony—­depicting the true character of Roger Tichborne from the rich mine of materials before him, contrasting it with that of the defendant as shown by the evidence, and, while giving due weight to the testimony in his favour, exposing hundreds of examples of the falsity of his statements made upon oath.  The verdict of Guilty had been anticipated by all who paid attention to the evidence.  The foreman publicly declared that there was no doubt in the mind of any juryman that the man who has for eight years assumed the name and title of the gentleman whose unhappy story is recorded in these pages is an impostor who has added slander of the wickedest kind to his many other crimes.  But not only were they satisfied of this; they were equally agreed as to his being Arthur Orton.  The sentence of fourteen years’ penal servitude followed, and was assuredly not too heavy a punishment for offences so enormous.  Yet there are others still at large, who, having aided the impostor with advice and money, should not be allowed to escape, while the more clumsy scoundrel suffers the award of detected infamy.

Thus ended the great Tichborne impersonation case, the most remarkable feature in which was, not that a rude ignorant butcher should proclaim himself a baronet, but that thousands of persons sane in every other respect should have gone crazy about him, and should, despite the evidence given—­sufficient many hundreds of times told, or for any reasonable being—­even now persist that Roger Tichborne still lives, and is the victim of a gross conspiracy.  What need is there to point out the idiotcy of such ravings?  What necessity ever to contradict statements which contradict themselves?

* * * * *