Dairy, said, when he saw the fire he went, and saw two men-one was Mr. Wolley-standing in their shirts. He went up into the house, and kicked against a heap of clothes. He picked up a pair of drawers, and a pair of boots, and threw them down, as the smoke compelled him to leave the house. In twenty minutes he returned. The fire-escape had then arrived, and he assisted to rescue young Temple. The fire had then spread all over the house.

Cross-examined. I could find no policeman when I went to look for one. It was half an hour before the fire-escape arrived. I do not know how the fire office became aware of what evidence I could give. Some one told me to go to Mr. Temple, and I told Mr. Temple all I knew. Some gentlemen came from Mr. Wolley, but I said I should not say any thing unless I was obliged. I told Mr. Randall all I knew. When I picked up the boots and drawers I saw two naked men standing in the rain, but I did not offer the clothes to either of them. I threw them away about twenty yards from the house.

Mr. Bovill.-Are we to understand that on a wet morning in March Mr. Wolley and Crozier were walking about with nothing but their shirts on ?—That is what I saw. My master did not ask me to tell Mr. Wolley all I knew, but he said what little I knew would not hurt any one.

George Nicholson, policeman, said that by six o'clock the house was burnt down to the bare walls.

Miss Dell, of 7, Gloucester-terrace, said the fire seemed to come out of all the windows at once, and the house burnt very quickly, as she should expect an old house would.

Miss Tudor, of Gloucester-terrace, her father, Captain Tudor, and General Cotton deposed to the rapid spread of the fire,

Otley, policeman, said the flames did not spread through the ceiling, but as if every room in the house was on fire.

Superintendent Swanton, of the fire brigade, said he had examined the ruins, and saw nothing to lead to the conclusion that the house was one which would burn down rapidly. The timbers being of massive oak would not burn so rapidly as deal or pine.

Cross-examined.-Sir Watkin W. Wynn's mansion at Wynnstay, which was a building of the same description as Campden House, was entirely consumed by fire in a very short time.

Mr. Ellis, plumber, of Kensington, deposed that about twenty minutes to two o'clock on the morning of the fire he was in Sheffield-place, near Campden House, when he met Mr. Wolley and Mr. Crozier walking together towards home. The witness gave a confused account as to the precise spot where he represented that he met the plaintiff and Crozier, but he said he was positive they were the persons he saw. He said, however, that what he meant to convey was that they were ahead of him, and he did not see them until they turned round.

Cross-examined.-Witness had not had delirium tremens two or three times. He was not "slued" on the night of the fire. He did not say to Mr. Teesdale's clerk that he only saw the backs of the two people on the night of the fire, and that he did not know who they were. He said he had rather not state where he had been on the night of the fire.

Several police constables were then examined, who deposed to the same effect as their fellow-policemen.

Mr. Denman said the object was to repel the charge that the police did not attend immediately on the alarm being given.

Mr. Randall (defendant's solicitor) deposed that in 1856 Mr. Wolley executed

a bill of sale upon the whole of the furniture in Campden House, to Mr. Edmund Robins, to secure a loan of 1000l. A second bill of sale was executed to Miss Coape in 1859 to secure the sum of 8000Z.; and he had examined the schedule of the furniture attached to the two bills of sale, and that executed in 1859 did not contain so many items as the one of 1856.

Mr. Gwynn, cabinet-maker, proved that in 1856, and while Colonel Waugh was occupying Campden House, he, by his orders, made sixty packing-cases for him, and he saw them filled with antique articles of furniture, paintings, and other things of that description. Mr. Wolley came in while the packing was going on, and he ordered it to be stopped, and said that Colonel Waugh had no right to remove the property. On the following day, however, he received a letter from him authorizing the property to be removed, and the whole of the cases were subsequently taken to Branksea to Colonel Waugh's residence. Among the property that was so removed were two crimson gilt sofas, and these same sofas he knew were afterwards sold under Colonel Waugh's bankruptcy.

Mr. Bovill then called the following witresses in reply :

Mr. Cross, a surveyor to the Sun Fire Office, proved that in 1855 and again in 1859 he made a survey of Campden House, and that the insurance ultimately effected upon it was a special insurance at a higher rate of premium than doubly hazardous.

Miss Coape and Mr. Duncombe were recalled, and they stated positively that the sofas removed by Colonel Waugh were not the same articles claimed for under the insurance, and that the latter were in the house when the fire occurred, and were destroyed.

Mr. G. C. James said that he was a solicitor, assisting Messrs. Maples, the solicitors for the plaintiff, in their business. On the 26th May, in consequence of something he heard, he went to the house of the witness Ellis, accompanied by Mr. Wolley. He told him he had heard that he had stated he saw Mr. Wolley and Mr. Crozier walking together on the morning of the fire between two and three o'clock. Ellis at first seemed disinclined to say any thing; but he ultimately said that he had seen them on that morning. Witness asked him where he saw them, and he replied in Sheffield-gardens. He put some other questions to him, and he said that he only saw their backs, and he seemed to be uncertain whether it really was Mr. Wolley or not.

Mr. Clift recalled.-He was acquainted with Ellis, and a few days after the fire he had some conversation with him about it. During that conversation he stated that when he came home on the night of the fire he was rather "slued."

This concluded the evidence on both sides.

Mr. Lush then addressed the jury upon the evidence on behalf of the defendant, and Mr. Bovill made a general reply, calling on the jury with great confidence to find their verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. Baron Bramwell then, at the close of the fifth day of the trial, summed up the case to the jury as follows:

"Gentlemen," he said, "there can be no doubt that if you give the plaintiff a verdict you ought to give him every thing you can. There can be as little doubt that this is a case of vast importance to him and to the public, and that probably the parties to whom it is of the least importance are the very eminent and highlyrespectable offices which are concerned in it. Still to them it is of great importance, no doubt, and they would not lightly have defended it. There are foolish people,

they are well aware, who are likely to say when they see an office defend a case on such grounds, 'Oh, we will not insure in that office.' And such offices, no doubt, never do defend a case on such grounds, unless they are thoroughly convinced that they can sustain it. It would, indeed, be a grievous thing if such charges were to be made lightly or recklessly, and it is not likely that they will be by offices of such eminent character. The best proof that it is not so in the present case is that you are sitting there to this moment, at the end of a four days' trial, not quite so satisfied on the case as not to desire to hear me address you. I think, therefore, that every one must acquit the company of having improperly defended this action. Consider the consequences which must ensue if the companies were to say, 'We will pay claims which we believe have originated in fraud and arson rather than discredit ourselves with the public.' Gentlemen, if they were to take that course it would speedily come to this—that no man would be safe in his bed for fear lest his neighbour, certain of impunity, might not set fire to his house in order to defraud an insurance company. It would be a downright iniquity if offices were to pay claims which they believe to have arisen out of crime. It would render it necessary that the matter should be taken out of their hands and entrusted to some office on the part of the public. It is an undoubted fact that life and fire insurances have been converted into the means or motive of crime. The question, then, is undoubtedly of vast public importance. But to the plaintiff we cannot conceal from ourselves that it is of vital importance. He is charged not merely with fraud and perjury and arson, but with an act which might have terminated in the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Temple and their son-an act which, undoubtedly, would have been murder. And, though he is not charged with a direct attempt to kill them, yet he is charged with a wilful doing of an act which he must have known might have terminated in their deaths. And this is not all. He is charged not only with having originally and wilfully set the house on fire, but, after having done it, he is represented as standing still with his arms folded, contemplating quietly the approach of the flames to the bed-room where the Temples lay! instead of what surely would be more probable-that, having done the act, he should at least attempt to save three innocent lives. Fraud, arson, murder! Such are the charges against a man of whom nothing worse has yet been discovered than that, when a youth, he did not pursue quite so steady a course as one of mercantile habits might have done, and was at one time at an hotel, and at another time acting at a theatre, and glad of a 'benefit.' That appears to have been the worst of his antecedents, so far as they are known, until he married Miss Coape. He is then subject to the imputation, it is suggested, of squandering her money away, though I don't know that he might not justify his taste for old carvings as well as some of us can our love of dogs and horses, or any thing else which we may happen to take a fancy to. He is charged, indeed, with having recklessly squandered away a large part of his sister-in-law's property, but she appears to have participated in it; and with living in a state and style not suited to him. Well, that is the worst that has yet been discovered of a man who is charged with all these crimes. Well, if these charges are true, and you confirm them by your verdict, the best thing that he can do is to go somewhere where no one will ever see or hear of him again, and where Campden House and its history are unknown. Gentlemen, it is, however, a question entirely for you. The burden of proof is on the defendants, and they are to satisfy you that this man has wilfully set fire to his house. If they do not do so, then he is entitled to your verdict. Now, in the first place, as to the motive. I need not tell you that no act of this kind is done without a motive. No man commits

such an act unless it is either to secure some object or to relieve himself from some burden or remove some obstacle. It would indeed be most unreasonable to say that because you cannot find the motive, therefore you are to assume there is none. But, if you find a motive for the act, it increases its probability; and if you do not find that there is a motive for it, it detracts from its probability; and if you find that the motive is the other way, then there is a necessity for almost overpowering proof of the act. Now, I hardly know whether it is now suggested that the motive was one of profit or gain to himself. One motive, however, which has been suggested is that, except by means of a fire, he could not realize the outlay which he had been put to, and which he desired to have returned to him, and that by a sale he could not have realized the amount of his insurances. Another motive which is suggested is more recondite, and certainly not impossible, that, being unable to carry on the appearance he had kept up, he thought that this would be the best mode of retiring from the scene. Now, with respect to any benefit or profit to be derived; he would have had out of the 29,000l. to be realized by these insurances, to lay out at least 12,000l. in rebuilding, and that the fittings were worth 7000l. appeared not to be really disputed. Then, as to the furniture, even assuming the claim to be excessive, there would still remain enough to justify a claim to the amount of the policy; and, as to the pictures, a list of them was in existence which was priced by him, and the offices had the opportunity of going over them before the insurances, and they accepted the new insurance, and if it had been excessive they would have observed it. Another thing to be observed is that the furniture, &c., formed Miss Coape's sole security, and the property was hers,-not his; added to which he would run all the risk of detection and all the consequences of it. Now, gentlemen, I have been counsel in many cases of this class, and I generally found that a man who has committed arson to defraud an insurance company has done so (so to speak) with the value more in his favour; and I have never heard of a case in which a man burnt down property worth at least 20,0007., or perhaps more, to gain 29,000l., even if he did gain it all on recovery, which he would not in this case have done. Such a thing is, to say the least, according to my experience, exceedingly improbable. Then, there is the other motive suggested-the desire to 'secure a retreat,' so to speak, from an untenable position. Well, you must consider the probability of both these motives in reference to the actual facts, so far as they have been proved, and consider whether the motive would be for or against the act imputed, not taking it for granted that because you cannot find the motive, therefore it may not have been there; and then, whether with or without the suggested motives, or with the motive the other way against the act, consider all the other circumstances of the case. Now, certainly, there are very striking things, which Mr. Lush has grouped together vividly, and disposed in a tableau calculated to produce an effect. And, no doubt, they are very remarkable. There's the sudden increase in the insurances; there is the plaintiff coming to Campden House with Crozier, for what reason it is difficult to understand, when Miss Coape and the servants were at Brighton. [Mr. Bovill said it was to engage a gardener.] Well, one would think that three weeks was a long time to take to engage a gardener. [Mr. Bovill. And to prepare for the season.] One does not see that these are sufficient reasons for his coming up to stay there for three weeks without female servants, and so (though Mrs. Temple was there) without, one should suppose, the ordinary comforts and conveniences of home. Then, there is the coincidence of this with the increased insurances and the staying there three weeks with Crozier-varnishing and covering up every thing with materials undoubtedly most combustible.

Then there is the fact that to some of the windows tapestry was hung up which would obscure the interior; and books spread out, whether to assist in the burning of them, I don't know. There are undoubtedly all these concurrent circumstances the staying in the house without any sufficient reason for staying there in such an uncomfortable state, the varnishing, the hanging the walls, the covering up of the furniture, and so on. Then there is a fact which certainly is very remarkable with reference to the occurrences of the particular night in question. They come in, Mr. Wolley and Crozier, and Mr. Wolley goes into the library, because he says it is warmer, while Crozier gets his fire lighted, and then he goes up to bed, and Crozier says he asked him if he had put out the light (and Mr. Temple's observation of the light downstairs towards the library is a confirmation of this), and up to this point there is nothing remarkable. But then Mr. Wolley says he himself went downstairs with Crozier. It seems singular that, being so sensitive to cold that he stopped in the library while Crozier went upstairs to see if the fire was alight in his bed-room, he should have gone downstairs again from his warm bed-room and sat, as he said, on the stairs while Crozier shut up. It is, no doubt, a most remarkable thing. The suggestion is, that he and his servant had apparently gone up to bed, and not knowing that they would meet the Temples, were going down again on this most horrible business, but meeting the Temples had to invent some reason for going down again. No doubt the reason they assigned was good, as far as regarded the servant. But without saying it is bad as regards Mr. Wolley, it is certainly not one which would naturally have taken him out of that bed-room. At the same time there may have been some reason or motive which he cannot now recall, and we all do acts at times for which we can assign no sufficient reason. But there is this on the other hand, that though an isolated fact may be accounted for, a number of small matters massed together may be very important. Therefore it is you are to consider the effect of all these circumstances taken together; and you must consider further, that if each of these things taken separately appears singular, it is still more strange that he should have so many such things to explain. But it is remarkable that he gives a plausible reason for every one of them. There is this great fact in his favour to begin with, that beyond all doubt when he began to increase his insurances he was under-insured; and again, it appears that the increase of his insurances was suggested to him by Mr. and Miss Coape. As regards the darkening of the windows by hanging up the tapestry to repair, it seemed strange that he did not put up one piece at a window at a time, instead of putting them all up at once. He accounts for this by saying that he wanted to see the effect of the whole of the tapestry. Such are the explanations he gives. If you think that collectively they are not satisfactory, then you may consider how far they go to make out a case against him. As to the fire burning so rapidly, no doubt it would do so, whether the fire were wilful or not, by reason of the state of preparation in which the house was at the time. I have known a case in which the fire ran up a staircase, passed by the first floor, and set fire to the second. The truth is, as was stated by one witness, there are many circumstances which would have to be considered. Thus, if the fire got hold of the staircase it would soon spread from it to the rooms right and left. Then as to that head of evidence which related to his calling out, Mr. Freer said he heard the cry, and so did the policeman Nicholson. The case for the defence on that point, therefore, that he did not call out before he heard the rattle, is at variance with their evidence. There is in this part of the case a feature of a very peculiar character. It is supposed that having set fire to his house so effectually that it must soon be consumed,