The Foreman—If you wish it, Mr. Attorney-General, of course we will do so with the greatest pleasure; but the point is so thoroughly before every one of us that we really do not think it is necessary. If you remember, the point was raised by us in the first instance, and it is most clearly before us now.
The Attorney-General—Very well, gentlemen. That is so, and I am very glad you see the point upon which I insist. There will therefore be no need for me to spend any more time about it, for we have plenty to do yet. So much, then, for the ears. The next point we come to is the hands in general. I have little to say about them, but then we come to a most important part of the question, one which my learned friend with great solemnity said more than once he thought was of the greatest importance—that is the question of the thumb. And I ask your attention to the way in which this has arisen, and the charge made in connection with it. It is the thumb of the left hand. You saw the plaintiff in the box. You saw him for a terribly long time—for many days. Did you ever see his left hand ungloved? Now, I ask you that question. Had he not always got a glove on his left hand? Did you ever see his left thumb? That the habit of the man was to sit with a glove on the left hand I am quite certain, and I believe he always did it. The case went on something like seventy days before we heard a word about the thumb, and the first we heard about it was in the re-examination of Mr. Baigent. It is remarkable the terms in which he introduced it, and the terms in which the charge is made, and the persons against whom it was made. “Attend to me carefully,” says Mr. Serjeant Ballantine; “were the photographs shown taken from the daguerreotype?” “Yes, they were.” “Has the daguerreotype been in any way altered since it was taken?” and he answers, “Yes, certainly; it has been tampered with.” Then he is asked, “You say it has been tampered with; what has been done with it?” and his reply was, “The thumb and the greater part of the hand has been smudged out.” Now that is the first time in the case that anything was said about the thumb. The Lord Chief Justice then asked by whom the photograph was produced, when Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said, “You may take it that it has throughout been in the possession of the defendants.” The Lord Chief Justice remarked, “I always thought it was produced by the Court of Chancery.” The witness, however, said, “No, it was produced by Mr. Bowker.” The Lord Chief Justice then asked whether it was meant to be suggested that it had been altered since the adjournment, and my learned friend assents to that. Then Mr. Baigent, in answer to a question, says—“My belief is that it was not in the same state as it is now some few days after the first trial commenced last May”—so that there is no doubt that my learned friend and Mr. Baigent both meant to impute that this daguerreotype had been tampered with by the defendants since the trial began in May. Mr. Baigent further says—“I don’t pledge my oath to that. That is my impression. I did not notice it. I certainly should have noticed it I believe.” Then I say, “As I understood it, it may be taken as a fact that it comes from Mr. Bowker’s possession, and it should also be taken as a fact that from Mr. Bowker it was handed in, and has been in the possession of the Court ever since.” Then Mr. Serjeant Ballantine says—“_De die in diem_ it has been in the possession of Mr. Bowker ever since.” Do not let us have any mistake about it. I don’t think my learned friend can say that I have not dealt fairly by him in calling your attention to this matter. Baigent makes a charge against the attorney in the cause of having tampered with this daguerreotype since the 6th of May. If English words mean anything, they mean that my learned friend says—“There have been suggestions against every human being in the case produced on the part of the plaintiff.” I do not know what he means by that. “I shall not shrink from any imputation.” Nobody has suggested it of my learned friend. Certainly not. “If there is any ground for a charge I will not hesitate to make it,” and then I say, with perhaps a superfluous interposition, “Of that I am quite certain.” Now, what is our answer? In the first place, that Mr. Bowker had himself multiplied copies from the unaltered daguerreotype—that he had himself given the unaltered daguerreotype[1] to Mr. Savage, at Winchester, who had multiplied photographs from it by scores and fifties, and that in every one of the positives from his negatives the thumb or hand remained exactly as it was in the daguerreotype from which it was originally struck off long before the beginning of the trial. Our first answer then was this:—“You accuse Mr.