the architect, from Westminster Abbey. It was decorated most gorgeously, and looked like a golden arch. The rooms were hung with crimson and gold; there were oak carvings and heavy candelabra and chandeliers, and Venetian and Bohemian glass,-every thing, in fact, which was rich and rare. It was Mr. Wolley's hobby, as well as that of his wife's family, to amass these curiosities. Old curiosity shops were ransacked for the purpose; and such was his enthusiasm, that he actually bought an estate in order to get at the carvings in its mansionhouse. There was one room in the house nearly a hundred feet long, extending the whole length of it, called the ball-room. The house altogether was utterly unrivalled; it might be deemed a folly, but it was Mr. Wolley's fancy; it was, in fact, his hobby. The whole length of the ball-room was divided into panels, and every panel filled up with a picture. Such was the style of the house, and in the same spirit its owner acted. He kept up a sumptuous and noble hospitality, and gave splendid entertainments; and at last the house became quite remarkable for its character, and ladies and gentlemen who had honoured Mr. Wolley with their company would be called as witnesses to describe it and its contents, and to negative the idea of removal of its furniture. As much as 16,000l. had been advanced to him. His wife's fortune was about 30,0007, or 40,0007., and it was all expended on the house. To keep up its character there were servants in livery of blue and silver-many of them borrowed for the occasion, no doubt. It might be said it was all "tinsel," but no such thing; the fêtes took place by night and day, and always with the greatest splendour. The learned counsel went on to state, that numerous persons-especially Temple and Timbrell—had been constantly employed in and upon the premises. Timbrell was dead, but his evidence had been taken, and it was to the effect that he had worked for years under Temple, and that the value of the work and materials could not be less than 10,000l., and that 10007. had been paid to him alone for gold for gilding; and as to the furniture, &c., he said it was worth 60007, or 70007., and the fittings, 70007.; yet the furniture was only insured for 5000Z, and the fixtures, &c., for 70001. The pictures had been insured at 50007. with a priced catalogue deposited with the office, which, indeed, did not include all of them, for many were left uninsured. The witness Timbrell had been examined by the office, and his business, he said, was to regild and refit the furniture and fittings. There were other witnesses who would give similar evidence, and confirm the drawings and the value of the house and its contents. The offices, indeed, alleged that the insurances had been increased, and that was true enough; and if it were not so, what would have become of his mortgagees? In 1856 Mr. Wolley let his house to a man of great notoriety, Colonel Waugh, and on that occasion thought it advisable to increase his insurances. In the autumn of 1859 there were further insurances, in consequence of the entreaties of Mr. and Miss Coape-the latter of whom was interested, and had advanced 50007. on the house, and 80007. on the furniture. The business of the new insurance was, however, managed through the intervention of the agent, Mr. Freeth, who saw the premises, and actually wanted Mr. Wolley to insure still more. And now, forsooth, it was suggested by the offices that it was suspicious that the insurances should have been increased, although they had charged the highest possible rate-the "doubly hazardous rate”—on account of the age of the building and the dryness of the timbers. What ground was there for suspicion in the increase of the insurances up to and not beyond the real and true value? About the time these insurances were effected Mr. Wolley took a house at Brighton, and the furniture of the house at Tunbridge (which

had been removed to Campden House) was sent to that house at Brighton. No doubt there were some things also from Campden House, but the greater part was from the house at Tunbridge. It had eked out that the office intended to impute a fraudulent removal of furniture from Campden House; but the removal was not secret, and Mr. Wolley had actually insured the Brighton house furniture in the same office, the Sun. It had all been done with the knowledge of the office; and they received about 1307. a year in premiums. At this time there was 12,0007. on the house, 70007. on the fixtures and fittings, and 50007. on the pictures. There was at this time no insurance on the furniture, down to 1861. In the autumn of that year, however, Mr. Wolley had determined to let Campden House, and Miss Coape suggested that there was then no insurance on the furniture, and accordingly an insurance upon the furniture of 5000l. was effected through Freeth. That was in October, 1861, and so the insurances stood down to and at the time of the fire, the amount being 29,000l. No doubt it seemed a large sum, but what was it after all for house and fixtures and fittings and furniture and pictures? The real truth was that Mr. Wolley was the party least interested in the question, and that the parties really interested were the mortgagees and the landlord. What was there, after all, in the case to excite suspicion? It had been rumoured that the plaintiff took waggon loads of goods and pictures to Brighton. The jury would see what truth there was in that. Some things, no doubt, had been removed, but only a few; and there was no pretence for a charge of fraud but the removal. Before the family went to Brighton, in November, it being the close of the season in London, Mr. Wolley was desirous of having the woodwork revarnished, and varnish was bought for the purpose, and he and Mr. Coape, and Temple and Crozier set to work at it, and linen hangings were bought to protect the pictures, &c. The jury would hardly believe that it was suggested that all this was with a view to prepare combustibles for a fire! Well, on his return to the house, on the 3rd of March, this continued; and he would sometimes buy varnish for the purpose. The learned counsel then came to the description of the circumstances of the fire, of which a full account would be given by the witnesses whom he intended to call. The first impulse of Mr. Wolley and Crozier was, he said, to save the Temples, who were at the back of the house. The police went to the front, while Mr. Wolley and Crozier were shouting at the back, and in the result the Temples were saved. The night was wet, and Mr. Wolley, who got out-not, indeed, in his night shirt, but in his bed shirt-caught cold, and was for some time very ill. The fire burned rapidly because the materials were so old, and in many places the beams embedded in the wall were quite consumed. The rain was not enough to damp the fire, which burnt with terrible rapidity, and soon consumed the whole. The learned counsel then went on to advert to an article which had appeared in the "West London Observer," as to which he said that no doubt Mr. Wolley had communicated the information on which it was composed. It was supposed that it cast some reflection upon Temple. Beyond all doubt he was not with his wife and child, and though the police were, they said, on one side of the house, Mr. Wolley was on the other, and he did not see them. With regard to the origin of the fire, the learned counsel said it was found impossible to ascertain it; there were very few fires in the house, but, beyond all doubt, Temple had said he was frying sausages "in the green-room," and there was a flue from the chimney of that room right across the house, and a beam in it. It might be that the fire had originated there, and that the beam had smouldered all night and burst out about three o'clock in the morning. The learned counsel then went on to advert to the correspondence on the subject of the

claims. Coming to the charge of arson, he said it rested on a number of little circumstances which raised a cloud of suspicion, under cover of which the office hoped by cross-examination of Mr. Wolley, and going into the history of his whole life, to extract evidence sufficient to support their charge. He would place Mr. Wolley in the witness-box, and challenge all their scrutiny. Indeed, the office had already had the opportunity of examining him, and had declined doing so, though they had examined all the rest of the inmates of the house. Among the other circumstances of suspicion relied upon was the discovery of a bundle of clothes under the portico, which it was suggested were prepared and provided for the event which had occurred. The attorney for the plaintiff had asked to be allowed to inspect these clothes, but this was refused, and probably they would turn out to be clothes sent by a friend. The reply of the company's attorney was that Mr. Wolley could surely tell what the clothes were. But they might have been sent by some one else; and surely he was entitled to see them. Another circumstance of suspicion was supposed to be the hanging of tapestry over the windows, as was suggested, to conceal the flames as long as possible. This was utterly idle. Then it was said that it was strange that Mr. Wolley should have worked at the varnishing himself; but that was a matter of taste, though it was certainly a peculiarity. It was said that there was no plate found in the débris, nor any signs of wine in the cellar. But the reason for this was very simple; it was that the plate and wine had been taken to Brighton on the removal of the family for the autumn. But there was no pretence for the charge of a fraudulent removal of furniture and pictures. It was said the claim was fraudulent, but that was not possible as regarded this policy, nor, indeed, as regarded any other, for beyond all question Mr. Wolley was not fully insured. The real question was whether he had set fire to the house. Why should he do so? There was no reason for it. Why should he destroy a house which had been the pride and pleasure of his life? And, indeed, what interest could he have in its destruction? The house he must rebuild. The furniture and other contents were assigned. He came forward there not so much to enforce the policies as to vindicate his client's character. The offices had threatened to rip up every event in his past life. "Gentlemen,” said Mr. Bovill, "we fear not the closest scrutiny. On the part of my client we invite it. The real, the true question, I repeat, is whether he set fire to this house; and I am firmly persuaded you will find that there is no foundation for the charge."

Miss Barker, sister of Sir Geo. Barker, a lady who had executed some of the drawings exhibited, was then called. She was acquainted, she said, with Mr. Wolley and his sister, Miss Coape, and she was often at Campden House. There was a profusion of pictures, statues, and a great deal of gilding. There were more pictures than were hung up; and some were in lumber-rooms. Many of them seemed valuable, and they were all old. In the ball-room most of them were in the panelling, and so in the library. The house was exceedingly beautiful. The furniture was very rich and appropriate to the character of the house. There was a great deal of ancient embroidery, and much of it seemed rare. The carpets were extremely good, and in good order, "velvet pile." At the back was the theatre, and she had acted herself there a good deal in 1861. The performances were got up by different persons of position for the benefit of charities. Lord Raynham and Lady Ann Sherson got up some. She herself got up

66

one. The theatre was extremely handsome, the appointments good, and the properties" sufficient. Mr. Wolley took a great deal of interest in the house. She never knew any one take so much interest in any thing. His amusement

and his sister's seemed to be entirely in the house. She last saw the premises in the beginning of December, 1861, the winter before the fire. That was just before Mr. Coape went to Brighton. There was no change then in the furniture or fittings. She knew the house at Brighton, and she did not believe there was a single thing in it which she had ever seen at Campden House, except one or two small ornaments. When she saw the house at Campden-hill, in December, it seemed to be thoroughly furnished; indeed, over furnished.

Cross-examined.-She said she missed nothing. She was first at Campden House eight or nine years ago, at a concert. There were large assemblies there very frequently, and theatrical entertainments, perhaps twenty in the season. Her first introduction to Mr. Wolley was with Mrs. Milner Gibson. She was first intimate in 1860, and called more frequently, and in 1861 she was there continually. She was at the Brighton house first in that year, or end of 1860. As to the pictures, she should say there were 300 at Campden House. They were every where about the house. There were seven chandeliers of Venetian glass in the ball-room. She thought they were for candles, not gas. There would be sometimes about 300 or 400 people there at assemblies and concerts. There were on these occasions suppers-regular suppers. The witness was then asked as to the month of March before the fire, and it was elicited that she did not know Mr. Wolley was in town for a day, as he was at that time, and had understood from him that he was only to be there a few days. She was finally asked as to a fête given by Mr. Wolley a few weeks ago at the grounds of Campden House. It was, she said, very extensive. There were, she thought, about 800 people there. Mr. Wolley had a very large circle of acquaintance.

Lady Belcher was the next witness called. She had known Mrs. Wolley before her marriage, and knew Mr. Wolley since 1848. She gave very similar evidence to that of the last witness.

Sir John Burgoyne, who said he had known Mr. Wolley for some years, and had been on friendly terms with him, confirmed the evidence of these witnesses. The articles at Campden House seemed rich and recherchés, and Mr. Wolley appeared to have a mania for acquiring such articles.

Cross-examined.-He said that cards were issued very widely for the entertainments at Campden House.

Count Wezelé was next called, and gave similar evidence. He said he had been at the house a few days before the fire, but only saw Temple there, and did not see him until after the fire.

Colonel Macdonald was called, and gave similar testimony.

Mrs. Smythies, who had known the plaintiff since 1840, gave evidence of a similar character. She called at the house, she said, three days before the fire, and saw Mr. Wolley there. She was in the room called the ball-room, which was full of furniture all in the middle, covered over with brown holland, paper, and cloths of all sorts, there being, as it appeared, workmen in the house, decorators, &c. Pictures were on the floor, and all was in confusion, and she took her leave.

She

Cross-examined.-She could not say how many workmen she saw. saw Crozier and some two or three other persons-that is, a man and a boyfor she took no particular note. In 1840 the plaintiff was in excellent society, and very much courted. He was then quite a youth. She did not know his father. She only knew him at parties. She lost sight of him on her marriage. When she went to the house in March she saw the walls covered with sheets of

holland, as she had seen walls covered in cases where decorators were at work. The pictures were, she said, against the walls.

Mr. Wolley the plaintiff was then called. He stated that in 1847 he married a Miss Coape, a lady of considerable fortune, and soon after took Campden House, and in 1854 purchased the lease for 62001. He proceeded, When I first took possession of the house it was in a very dilapidated state. With the exception of one room, the dining-room, there were merely the bare walls. Many persons said I was mad to take it. From the time I took it I laid out very considerable sums of money upon it gradually. I was some years about it. A great deal was necessary to be done externally and internally. I fitted it up according to my own taste. There were very few fittings in it. I took the grates out and fitted it up in the style of the original age of the house, with dogs for firewood, &c. I continued these restorations for a number of years. In fact, I was continually doing something to it. At the time I bought it, it was greatly improved, and I then continued to improve it, and was always doing something up to the time of the fire. I was always purchasing things, such as panels, and had them put together. I purchased them in all places, at home and abroad. I did not always pay ready money for them. I recollect purchasing a place in Essex called "Fearing." It was an old house, and there were very remarkable carvings in it. I am almost afraid to say how much I gave for it; I think 1500l. or 2000l. It was before my wife's death. I purchased it not for the purpose of using it, but for the sake of the carvings, which were of the time of Henry VII., very remarkable; indeed, there are casts of them in the Kensington Museum. They were removed to Campden House, and one room-the breakfast-room-was entirely fitted up with them, and furnished in keeping with the carvings. I was constantly purchasing pictures, both abroad and in England; very few modern ones, chiefly of the ancient school, little known in this country at that time. Italy was in a very disturbed state at that time, and things were often for sale. The panel pictures were principally in the room called the long-room, or ball-room. Some time ago, I may state, I had an illness, and am almost blind sometimes, and can hardly see by day. There might be twenty or twenty-five pictures in the room of great value; several very fine Italian pictures. There was a portrait I bought at Brescia, of great value; that was one of the panel pictures. There was a picture by Velasquez, I think. There were also a great many pictures in frames, and a good many that had not been framed or were taken out of frames, for I had a fancy for ebony frames, and would purchase pictures for the sake of such frames, and take them out; and this I used generally to do by myself. Those that were not in frames were all over the house-a great many in the corridor, some in a cupboard in the library. There were not very many looking-glasses. There was one magnificent Florentine or Venetian glass at the end of the ball-room. It was in a very magnificent frame, and that was its value; elaborately carved-the early part of the sixteenth century. It was, I believe, the finest glass of the kind in England, and I had never seen one like it. My brother-in-law, who had a house in the Isle of Wight, was anxious for it, and said he would give 4007. for it. There were a great many chandeliers procured from different places, many of them bought at Falcke's, Bond-street; but they were much added to afterwards, and crystals, &c., bought at various times, put to them. There was a great deal of gilding in the house. From time to time, when I saw any thing in the style of the house I bought it. I had no professional occupation; my house and garden were my occupation; and I used to be always fitting up something.