mouth, on December 22. His lordship was the only surviving son of Philip Henry, the fourth earl, by his marriage with the fourth daughter of Robert, first Lord Carington. He was born on January 30, 1805, and was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where he took the usual degrees. While bearing the courtesy title of Lord Mahon he was elected M.P. for Wootton Bassett in 1830, and again at the general election of the following year. On the disfranchisement of that borough he offered himself as a candidate for Hertford, and was elected, though subsequently unseated on petition. He was more successful at the general election of December 1834, and held his seat, not, however, without several sharp contests, down to 1852, when he was defeated by Sir Thomas Chambers. He was not only a supporter, but a personal friend, of Sir Robert Peel, whose literary executor he was jointly with Lord Cardwell, and under whom he served as UnderSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his first short Administration in 1834-35, and again in 1845-46, as Secretary to the Board of Control. He succeeded to his father's titles and estates in 1855. He acted for many years as president of the Society of Antiquaries, having been first elected to that chair as far back as 1846. He was also president of the Royal Literary Fund, a fellow of the Royal Society, a trustee of the British Museum, a foreign member of the Institute of France, and an Honorary Doctor of Laws of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He was a deputy-lieutenant for Kent, in which county he was widely respected as a resident landlord and magistrate. He was elected Lord Rector of the University of Aberdeen in 1858, and his name is well known at Oxford as the founder of the prize for the study of modern history which bears his name, and also as having on several occasions acted as an examiner there in those subjects in which he took an especial interest. Lord Stanhope never took a very prominent part in the proceedings of the Upper House of Parliament, but in 1858 he carried an address to the Crown, petitioning for the removal from the Prayerbook of three of the State services. The nation has also to thank his lordshipjointly, at all events, with the late Lord Derby for the establishment of the National Portrait Gallery. But it is rather as an historian than as a politician or statesman that Lord Stanhope will be remembered hereafter, at all events, by those who recognise in him the Lord Mahon who, thirty or forty years ago, achieved such great fame by his "History of the War of the Succession in Spain," his "Life of Belisarius," and his History of England from the Peace of Utrecht down to the Peace of Versailles"-a work which has proved almost as widely popular in America as in this country, in spite of a long controversy which was carried on between its author and Mr. Sparks. For the purposes of this history Lord Mahon was enabled to have access to and examine carefully the Stuart papers; and his account of the rising of 1745 and of the adventures of Charles Edward was printed separately in a popular form, and passed through several editions. The same was the case with his history of the rise of our empire in India. Lord Stanhope published subsequently "The History of England during the Reign of Queen Anne, down to the Peace of Utrecht," as a connecting link between Lord Macaulay's brilliant narrative and his own history already mentioned. He was the author also of The Life and Correspondence of William Pitt," for which he was able to secure much valuable information privately, on account of his relationship to Pitt's sister, Lady Hester Stanhope. He was also the author of three essays on modern historical questions, delivered originally by him as lectures at Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham; and in 1863 his various contributions to literature were edited by him in a collected form, under the title of "Miscellanies." Lord Stanhope married, in July 1834, Emily Harriet, second daughter of the late General Sir Edward Kerrison, K.C.B., and by her (who died December 31, 1873) left one daughter, Mary Catherine, Countess Beauchamp, and four sons, of whom the eldest, Arthur Philip, Viscount Mahon, M.P. for East Suffolk, succeeds as sixth Earl Stanhope. ADMIRAL SIR HOUSTON STEWART, G.C.B. Admiral of the Fleet Sir Houston Stewart died on December 10, at Downe Bank, Fort William, in his eighty-fifth year. He was the third son of Sir Michael Shaw Stewart, and entered the navy in 1805, and was actively employed under Sir Samuel Hood and other commanders until 1808, and took part in the Walcheren expedition. He obtained post rank in 1817; was appointed in October 1823 to the "Menai," in which he served on the coast of North America; and commanded the "Benbow" from 1839 until 1842, seeing much active service in the Mediterranean. In the bombardment of St. Jean d'Acre, off which place he was for a time the senior officer, the "Benbow" was the first ship in action; and during the evacuation of Syria by Ibrahim Pasha, Capt. Stewart had command of the British and Austrian forces employed off the coast. For his services he was rewarded with the Companionship of the Order of the Bath. In 1855 he was appointed second in command of the naval force off Sebastopol, and was created a Knight Commander of the Bath and a Commander of the Legion of Honour, of which he was appointed a Grand Officer in 1857. The deceased Admiral was visitor and governor of Greenwich Hospital from 1869 to 1872. Sir Houston had been superintendent at Devonport Dockyard, and afterwards of Portsmouth. From February 1850 to December 1852 he was one of the Lords of the Admiralty; and he was for a few months in 1852 a representative of Greenwich in the House of Commons. He was nominated a Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath in 1865. SIR H. W. STISTED, K.C.B. Lieutenant-General Sir Henry William Stisted, K.C.B., Colonel of the 93rd (Sutherland) Highlanders, died on Dec. 10, at Sydenham Hill, aged fifty-eight. He was son of the late Colonel Henry Stisted, of the 3rd Dragoons, was educated at Sandhurst, and in 1835 entered the army. His career in India was highly distinguished-in Afghanistan, at the storming and capture of Ghuznee (where he was wounded); in Beloochistan, at the capture of Khelat; in the Persian war, at the battle of Khooshab, and at the bombardment of Mohumrah. For these services he received the thanks of the Governor-General of India, as well as a medal and clasps. During the Indian mutiny he was attached to Havelock's forces, and commanded the advanced guard at the Relief of Lucknow in 1857; in that year he succeeded Brigadier-General Neil in the command of the first brigade. In 1858 he was in the Rohilcund campaign, and commanded the second brigade at the battle of Bareilly. Subsequently he held a divisional command in Canada, and was the first LieutenantGovernor of Ontario. He was made C.B. in 1858 and K.C.B. in 1871. Sir Henry married, in 1845, Maria, daughter of Lieutenant-Colonel Burton. MR. SWIFTE. Edward Lewes Lenthal Swifte, Esq., late Keeper of Her Majesty's Regalia, died on December 28, in his ninety-ninth year. He was the younger son of Theophilus Swifte, Esq., of Goodrich, Herefordshire, and grandson of Dean Swifte, Esq., of Worcester, and of Castle Rickard, in the county of Meath. At the period of his decease he was the father of the Irish Bar and a barrister of the Middle Temple. In 1813 he became Keeper of Her Majesty's Regalia, which office of trust and dignity he held till 1852, when he retired. Distinguished as a scholar, wit, and poet, he was much esteemed and loved by a large circle of friends. Mr. Swifte was born June 20, 1777, and died, after a short attack of bronchitis, on the very verge of being a centenarian, in the full possession of his great faculties. He was four times married, and left a numerous family. VISCOUNT DE VESCI. The Right Hon. Thomas Vesey, third Viscount de Vesci, of Abbey Leix, and Baron Knapton, in the Peerage of Ireland, one of the representative Peers and a Baronet of that part of the United Kingdom, died suddenly on December 23, at his town residence in Carlton House Terrace. He was born September 21, 1803, the elder son of John, second Viscount de Vesci, by Frances Letitia, his wife, daughter of the Right Hon. William Brownlow, of Lurgan, and was greatgreat-grandson of Sir Thomas Vesey, Bart., Lord Bishop of Ossory, on whose son, Sir John Denny Vesey, Bart., an Irish peerage was conferred in 1750. Lord de Vesci was a large landowner in Ireland, having inherited, in addition to his Queen's County estate, a very valuable property at Monkstown and Kingstown, near Dublin. He graduated at Christ Church, Oxford, in 1825, second class in mathematics. In 1835 he was elected M.P. for the Queen's County, and continued, with a short interval, to represent that constituency until 1852. In 1855 he succeeded to the Peerage at the death of his father, and was chosen a representative Lord in 1857. His Lordship married, in 1839, Lady Emma Herbert, daughter of George Augustus, eleventh Earl of Pembroke, and left two sons and three daughters. REMARKABLE TRIALS. I. THE CITY LIBEL CASE. RUBERY V. GRANT AND SAMPSON. THIS was an action for libel, brought by Mr. Alfred Rubery, of Hazelwood Lodge, Birmingham, against Mr. Sampson, formerly the City editor of the "Times." The counsel for the plaintiff were the Solicitor-General (Sir John Holker), Mr. Hume Williams, Mr. Douglas Straight, and Mr. Percy Gye; for Mr. Albert Grant, Mr. Day, Q.C., Mr. Grantham, and Mr. Reid; and for Mr. Sampson, Mr. H. Giffard, Q.C., Sir Henry James, Q.C., and Mr. J. O. Griffits. The alleged libels appeared in the "Times" of Nov. 18 and Dec. 20 and 21, 1872, the defendant Sampson being at that time City editor of that paper. The proceedings were opened on Dec. 18, 1874, by the Solicitor-General, Sir John Holker. He stated that the plaintiff was a gentleman residing near Birmingham, the son of a manufacturer in that town; the first defendant, Mr. Sampson, was the writer of the "Money Article" in the "Times," and the other defendant, Baron Albert Grant, was a banker and financial agent in the City. The libels complained of were contained in some articles in the "Times," imputing to the plaintiff that he was party to the gross fraud in the year 1872, known as "the Great Californian Diamond Swindle," which was exposed in that newspaper. Mr. Sampson had admitted that he was the writer of the articles in question, and pleaded that he was justified in writing them, as they were true in substance and fact. Baron Grant had simply pleaded "Not Guilty," which meant that he had nothing to do with the publication of the articles, but Mr. Rubery asserted that he had instigated Mr. Sampson to write them. The plaintiff had in 1862 travelled in America, and there making the acquaintance of Mr. Harpending, he had, in conjunction with him and some other Southern gentlemen, fitted out a privateer to act against the Northern fleet; before the vessel was out of harbour she was seized, the plaintiff was, with Mr. Harpending, tried and sentenced to imprisonment and fine, but was eventually pardoned through the intervention of Mr. John Bright, and returned to England. This act of fitting out the privateer was charged in the libels as being an act of piracy. On his return to England the plaintiff went into business in Birmingham, but failed in 1869, paying, however, 20s. in the pound to his creditors. In the same year, Harpending came to England, and tried with the plaintiff to form a company to work some mineral property owned by himself and others, called the Pyramid Range. This scheme was unsuccessful because it was written against in the "Times; but Harpending and Rubery coming in contact with Baron Grant, that gentleman, it was alleged, said that if he had taken the matter in hand, he would have made the fortune of the Pyramid Range; he knew Sampson, a man of great literary attainments, but a man not above temptation, and he had him under his thumb, and could make him do what he liked. Baron Grant then, in conjunction with Rubery and Harpending, formed the Californian Mining Company, but a dispute having arisen between Grant and the plaintiff, which was compromised by the former paying a considerable sum of money, he was reported to have told Rubery that if he and Harpending brought out a company, he would have it condemned in the "Times," through the instrumentality of Sampson. In 1871 Harpending again visited England, and communicated to the plaintiff the rumour afloat of a great diamond discovery. A man named Lent came over from America, and told Harpending and Rubery of the nature of the discovery and the value of the stones, and they all three agreed to go out to the States together. The discovery was admitted (said the Solicitor-General) to be a gross fraud from beginning to end; no diamonds natural to the soil were there; a tract of land had been "salted," and although it was undoubtedly known to some persons, it was not known to everybody. In April or May 1872, an expedition to view the "diamond fields" started, led by one Arnold, and consisting of Harpending, Rubery, M. Janin, a mining engineer of considerable reputation, and a few others. The diamond field was situated in the neighbourhood of the Green River, near the Snake River. They commenced their search, and found some diamonds and rubies. Steps were taken to form a company to work the fields, other companies were afterwards formed, and allotments of land given them. When the expedition first found their way to the field, they gave glowing accounts of the discovery, and were interviewed by newspaper editors and reporters. The plaintiff is said to have stated that his foot struck against an ant-hill, and stooping down to look at it, he found it filled with diamonds and rubies. He would deny ever having said such a thing, but if he did, the greater fool was the reporter who believed it. After a time public suspicion was roused. Articles appeared in the "Times " newspaper. The American public was warned not to be credulous. At length the fraud was discovered. It was a fraud, and Rubery had been gulled and deceived like the rest. Upon the discovery being made, the people who had lost their money were naturally very angry. The matter was laid before a grand jury in America for enquiry; the plaintiff was at once dismissed, and others were convicted. There was no evidence against the plaintiff, and the grand jury were satisfied he had nothing to do with the fraud. The plaintiff returned to this country, and had been living here ever since; but, unfortunately for him, on his return he found that the "Times had been very busy about the diamond swindle, and not only with that, but with his The Solicitor-General then read the libels of which the plaintiff complained. They were published in the "Times" of Nov. 18 and Dec. 20 and 21, 1872, and were written avowedly by the defendant Sampson. name. One paragraph was as follows:-" In the accounts received some weeks back of the Arizona mining 'discoveries,' it was narrated that one of the party, ‘an intelligent young Englishman named Rubery' (there is an intelligent Englishman or an eminent English mining engineer in every Californian speculation), stumbling upon an ant-hill, found on examination that the mound was composed of rubies and diamonds. It might have been hoped that before this our fortunate countryman would have communicated interesting details to some family or other connexions on this side, where they would have met with proper attention; but nothing has since been heard of him. His Christian name was not mentioned, and the surname of Rubery appears common in California. A Mr. Rubery was understood to have been interested in some way in the Lincoln gold mining affair, and a Mr. Rubery, an Englishman, was arrested in San Francisco in the winter of 1862 for fitting up a schooner called the Chapman' as a privateer." The second libel contained the following paragraph:-"The greatest swindle ever exposed in America' is the heading placed by the New York Sun' to the full history just received of the Californian diamond frauds. It details how in August last two men, named Slack and Arnold, came to San Francisco as discoverers of the diamond-field, and associated themselves with several persons, Lent, Harpending, Roberts, and others; how Mr. Henry Janin, a mining expert, was chosen to survey the locality, and reported it as 'a wonderfully safe and attractive' property; how all the prominent business men of San Francisco, together with their connexions in New York, rushed into the investment; how the articles on the subject in the London Times' on the transparent folly of the whole affair created misgivings which induced those parties to order a new survey under Mr. Clarence King, United States' geologist; and how that authority at once ascertained it to have been the contrivance of 'swindlers of no common order. This result, however, was not attained until the concoctors of the business had escaped with about 130,000l., or, as is alleged in some accounts, 400,0007.—which is still a trifle compared with what might have been obtained from the American and English public had the exposures been delayed even for a few weeks. . . The Solicitor-General only read a portion of the third libel, which had appeared in the form of a leader in the "Times." In conclusion the Solicitor-General said: The plaintiff had applied for redress; he could get none, and was driven to bring this action. Sampson had confessed to having written the libels, and the only question with him was, were the accusations true? With regard to Baron Grant, his (the Solicitor-General's) instructions were, that they were written at the instigation of Baron Grant by Sampson, and personally paid for by Grant. He would have to go into matters about Grant and Sampson, and should ask the jury to infer that Grant knew all about these libels, that he carried out his threat, and ordered Sampson, whom he stated to be under his thumb, to attack Rubery. That the plaintiff joined the expeditions was not denied, but it was denied that he was a party to the fraud. The examination of the plaintiff occupied the court two days, and corroborated the Solicitor-General's statements. The deposition of M. Janin (taken at the commision in America) was next read. It stated that he was a mining engineer, and that in May 1872, being in New York, Lent and Dodge called upon him and met by appointment at the Metropolitan Hotel, when Harpending came, and the diamond affair was discussed, and he was requested to go out to the fields and make an examination of them. When search was made in his presence, Rubery was the first man to announce that he had found a diamond, and Janin said, “Come, Rubery, is that honest now?" He said it was; it was no joke he was perpetrating. Where Rubery found the stone it was a thin drift of alluvial deposit of gravel, conglomerate, and sand. Janin himself found some diamonds and rubies, and the whole amount found was between 800 and 1,000, but most of them were exceedingly small. It appeared from the deposition that other parties had L |