what they said?—and this should be carefully weighed, because it divides itself into material and immaterial facts. Having dealt with and considered the evidence in this light, you have then to remember that in cases of this kind you have a double office to perform. You have to ask yourselves what are the real facts of the casee-that is, the facts which are capable of proof-and you will ask your minds what proof has been given. You will also have to perform a more difficult and delicate task-and that is, after accepting for the purposes of this trial certain facts, to determine what is the resulting inference to be drawn from those facts as establishing or failing to establish the guilt of the prisoners in respect of the charge for which they are arraigned." Clarke's first report of his proceedings at Shanklin was in his favour, but he could not shelter his subsequent intercourse under that; yet in his efforts to get back the letter he was guilty of no offence under the indictment, neither was there corroboration of an absolute bribe at Shanklin. The jury must be careful in drawing conclusions against Clarke from any of Benson's letters unless they found Clarke acted upon it or understood it in any sense. Had he in trying to get back the letter any knowledge that Benson was concerned in the frauds? Benson says on August 30, on returning from abroad, Clarke told him that Kurr had better surrender; that interview was confirmed by the servant. Did that lead to Kurr's giving himself up, and was Benson's account true? In the absence of Clarke it would have been Druscovich's duty to open the letter from Leeds, but he says he never saw it; while Benson says he was told by Meiklejohn at Derby that Druscovich had destroyed it. It was for the jury to consider whether the reports of Meiklejohn to the Midland Railway Company were those of an honest man. Little importance was to be attached to Benson's statement that on the return from Rotterdam Druscovich said, "I have done all I can for you; you must now do what you can for yourselves." Bale speaks of a visit by Palmer to Northumberland Street, which is a point worthy of consideration. Frederick Kurr confirms Benson's account of the conversation on the way from Rotterdam. Mrs. Avis says she posted letters to 20 Great College Street. Benson's servant says he saw Clarke visit his master at the Langham, that he had taken letters from Benson to Clarke, and driven him to Clarke's house. Other portions of the convict's evidence had been confirmed by various witnesses. The testimony of Mrs. Anderson showed that Druscovich did not exert himself as an honest man with the view of apprehending Kurr and Benson; his inquiries at the Bridge of Allan did not relate to a lame man such as he knew Benson to be. Mr. Anderson was not very communicative to Druscovich; but no one could expect a hotel proprietor to be very anxious to give information about people who stayed at his house. Up to the time of these inquiries there had been no suspicion of any of the detectives, and when Williamson asked Clarke if when a letter would suffice a telegram should be sent, the latter said not. Williamson also said there was nothing suspicious in Clarke's not having reported his later visits to Shanklin; besides, Kurr only implicated Clarke when he found himself in a corner with the many stories he had told. His lordship then reviewed the evidence for Druscovich and Palmer, and, repeating the observations he had made at the beginning of his summing up, he proceeded to notice the evidence affecting Froggatt. It was the duty of a professional man to bring to bear on the case of his client all his legal knowledge, experience, and industry; but he owed the

larger duty of a citizen to the laws of his country. The evidence against Froggatt, if reliable, would undoubtedly be strong as applied to the case of a man who knew that notes had been obtained by fraud; it was confirmed in one point, for Froggatt was proved to have paid a Clydesdale note into his banking account. If the evidence as to the sending the telegram to Rotterdam was true, there was an absolute and deliberate attempt to assist the prisoners at Rotterdam to escape. Froggatt certainly attempted to get the French Directory from Mrs. White's, and exceeded the bounds of his duty if he did it to assist the convicts, as the whole transaction seemed to indicate. In conclusion, his lordship left the matter as affecting all the defendants individually or collectively in the hands of the jury.

On the conclusion of the summing up on Tuesday, November 20, the jury retired to consider their verdict at about half-past three, and returned in three-quarters of an hour. They found Clarke not guilty, the four other prisoners guilty, recommending Druscovich and Palmer to mercy, the former on account of the circumstances under which he was first induced to become acquainted with the convicts and his previous good character, the latter on account of his previous good character and the absence of any evidence proving bribery. Cheers mingled with some few manifestations of disapproval followed the announcement of Clarke's acquittal, but they were speedily silenced :

Mr. Clarke (addressing the Judge)—My lord, there are other indictments, and I do not know whether the Crown proposes to proceed on those indictments against my client Clarke. If it be not their intention so to proceed, I should ask that he be discharged.

The Solicitor-General-I can hardly answer that question at this moment. I think my learned friend had better wait.

Mr. Montagu Williams and Mr. Straight both briefly addressed the Court, asking for merciful consideration of the facts that the detectives would lose their places, salaries, and pensions. The defendant Palmer said :

"I have a few words to say, my lord, to which I hope you will listen before you pass sentence upon me. I have already served nearly twentythree years in the police, honestly, faithfully, and fearlessly until this charge was brought against me. I have been in custody nearly four months. I hope that will have weight, and likewise the recommendation of the jury. One thing I wish to say publicly in court in reference to what was stated by the convict Kurr at Bow Street against me, although it was not stated here. He said that I had 50l. from Street. I declare, my lord, before my Maker, that is a most abominable, wicked, and foul lie. I never had such a sum or anything in my life from Street. Last, but not least, I ask you, my lord, to consider those who are nearest and dearest to me-my wife and children. I have a wife and children-I have six children, five of them entirely dependent upon me for support. I trust, on their behalf, you will pass on me as lenient a sentence as you can. [The prisoner, as he spoke of his family, was manifestly labouring under feelings of deep emotion.]

The defendant Froggatt said his position was one of utter ruin in every way, brought about by the machinations of these men trying to get him into their toils:

"If I exceeded my duty as a solicitor, I have been punished most severely and most onerously. I do appeal to you, my lord, most sincerely

not to punish me with severity. I, like Palmer, have a wife and child, and I shall be utterly ruined. I implore you, my lord, to pass as light a sentence as you can upon me."

Both Meiklejohn and Druscovich also spoke, the latter saying that, during the De Goncourt inquiry, he had never given any information to the convicts. He added:-"If I have departed from my usual course in this inquiry, it was for the purpose of avoiding a public scandal; also for the purpose of avoiding bringing some of my colleagues into trouble, and not for the purpose of enabling the convicts to escape."

Baron Pollock then proceeded to pass sentence. He said it was impossible for any person to have been present during the course of the long inquiry without being thoroughly satisfied with the conclusion at which the jury had, no doubt, most unwillingly arrived. "The crime," said the Judge, "with which you have been charged is the crime of conspiracy at common law -a crime which can be punished only by fine or imprisonment. By a statute, however, of somewhat recent date-so recent as 14 and 15 Vic.-where the conspiracy is to obstruct or defeat the course of public justice, the Court, in the event of a verdict of Guilty' being found, has the power to award imprisonment with hard labour. I cannot help thinking how inadequate seems the sentence which the law awards for the offence of which you have been convicted. The spirit and the rule of the law of England has been, and I trust always will be, to make a wide distinction between offences committed either under sudden impulse or under the pressure of want or poverty and offences committed by persons placed in a position of trust." His lordship proceeded to say that he felt it to be his duty, and his only duty, to pass the sentence that Druscovich, Meiklejohn, and Palmer be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the period of two years. The Judge continued—“ With regard to you, Edward Froggatt, your position is not identical with that of the other prisoners. In some sense I can feel still more what a wretched and unfortunate career yours has been. There are no persons who know the duties and vicissitudes of the profession to which you belong but must feel for you in your present position, especially when, as you have yourself said, the necessary consequences of the crime go beyond any sentence the law can pass upon you. The sentence in your case will be that you be imprisoned for two years with hard labour."

Froggatt, the moment he heard the sentence pronounced, threw up his arms and exclaimed, "My God! My lord, do lessen my sentence."

Subsequently, Chief-Inspector Clarke was formally released upon his own recognisances in 100l. to appear, if called upon on a future occasion, to answer other counts in the indictment.

APPENDIX.

STATE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS.

I.

CIRCULAR OF PRINCE GORTCHAKOW, AND CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE PROTOCOL ON THE AFFAIRS OF TURKEY.