Landscape photography seems not to be understood by the Italians. They seem to set the camera down anywhere, without any consideration for picturesque effect—no judgment whatever exercised as to light and shade, and the result is a hard black and white picture with a clean white paper sky, wholly devoid of anything like artistic effect.
What would not a Wilson or an England effect here! I wish they who have done so much for Scotland and Switzerland could be persuaded to cross the Alps and give us the benefit of their labours in these charming scenes. Surely it would answer their purpose to spend some months in these parts. I can promise them, in addition to scenery of surpassing beauty and variety, good hotels and not expensive, with the means of locomotion easy and cheap. If the foregoing lines should induce them or some other competent artists to pay a visit to these regions, I shall, I hope, have done some service to photography and the diffusion of art.
P. Le Neve Foster, M.A., Cantab.
THE EARS AND THUMBS OF CONTENTION.
Who that has read the graphic account of the great diversity of shapes and characteristics of ears given by Mr. O. G. Rejlander in The British Journal Photographic Almanac will not feel an interest in this topic? Who, once more, that has read the evidence in the Tichborne trial, given in our number for December 22, by Colonel Stuart Wortley, Mr. Savage, and Mr. J. T. Taylor, will not feel some interest in thumbs? On both of these topics the Attorney-General enlarged at much length in his speech on Tuesday last.
Respecting the former subject—that of the ears—the Attorney-General said:—I come now to another member of the body upon which we have had a good deal of evidence. If the evidence you have got before you be true, the claimant and Roger Tichborne cannot be the same. That is my argument upon the question as to his ears. We have got unusually full and distinct proof about the ears, and I’ll demonstrate to you that they cannot be the same on the ears alone. Now, the ears are not so unimportant as some people may be inclined to make out, although, I dare say, my learned friend will by-and-by treat the ears with summary contempt. First of all, M’Cann distinctly recognises him by his ears amongst other things. Then we find that Mr. Baigent in his affidavit said something upon the same subject:—“I then left with Mr. Holmes, and accompanied him to the Swan Hotel. On entering the large room facing the street I saw the plaintiff, whom I recognised instantly as the eldest son of the late Sir James Doughty Tichborne, whom I formerly so well knew. His eyes, the upper part of his head, and his ears were unmistakable, and his voice had quite an effect upon me, and was alone quite enough to convince me.” At this time, when Mr. Baigent made his affidavit, he knew nothing about the Chili photographs. He probably knew nothing about either of them; certainly not of the one in the case produced here. These Chili daguerreotypes were in due time proved in the case to be good and true likenesses of the real Roger Tichborne, and we have Roger Tichborne’s own letter upon the subject describing how they were taken. He sent one, as you may remember, to Lady Doughty, and one to Sir James and Lady Tichborne. Finding that they were authentic and good likenesses, and knowing this at the time when he came to be examined (he himself having said in his affidavit that he recognised the plaintiff by his ears), and finding that the daguerreotypes would not suit the ears theory, Mr. Baigent, in his cross-examination, turns round upon the daguerreotypes and tries to discredit and throw dirt upon them, knowing full well, if they were to be depended upon, the ears of Roger Tichborne and this man could not be the ears of the same persons. He is acute enough to see that, and so when he is examined he turns round upon the daguerreotypes. He says it was a badly-formed ear; but Sir William Fergusson, on the other hand, said it was a large ear, but remarkably handsome. He was shown the photograph at this point, and asked whether the ear as it there appeared represented the ear of Roger Tichborne, and he said he thought not. The cross-examination goes on to say:—“The position in the photograph is not such as to give a good idea of the ear. Is this daguerreotype a fair representation of Roger Tichborne as you last saw him?—It is a very poor representation of him. I don’t speak of it as a work of art, Mr. Baigent, but does it faithfully represent the features, to the best of your recollection?—I do not consider it a faithful or good portrait. Does it faithfully represent the features?—No, it does not give you a faithful representation of the man as he was. I cannot say, but it is something like him, but it is a very poor thing. Is there any mistaking it?—Oh, it is over-solarised, burnt out, and everything else. Is it a picture you could look at without knowing it was intended for Sir Roger Tichborne?—You must look at it two or three times before you can make it out. Does it represent the ear?—It does not convey an idea of the ear of Roger Tichborne.” At this time Mr. Baigent knew perfectly well what we were going to say about the ears. At this stage of his cross-examination there was an adjournment, and when he comes back into the box he is questioned further about the other daguerreotype, and he then said neither of the pictures gave a representation of Roger Tichborne’s ears. He throws dirt, you see, on the daguerreotypes, but he asserts they show the same sort of ear that the claimant now has. But my learned friend called Colonel Stuart Wortley. We are told he is a great authority in matters of photographs. It is no part of my duty to dispute that. I am not aware of it; but I have no doubt he knows more about photographs than Mr. Baigent. But Colonel Wortley very likely did not know of this point about the ears. The Lord Chief Justice, in the course of the cross-examination, said:—“I should call your attention to this: that it has been suggested that the lobe of the ear might have extended below the junction, and that a different effect is produced by some defect of the light. Do you find indications of that?” Colonel Wortley, in reply to this question, said he did not think there was any such indication. We have, gentlemen, got thus far. The ear is a very important question. We have got Mr. Baigent first of all making importance of it in his affidavit, and we have got other witnesses who do the same. We have got it that Mr. Baigent at that time did not know of the existence of these Chili photographs, and that when he did know about them he said two things—first, that they were very bad, and not to be depended upon as likenesses; and next, that they showed the dependent ear of the claimant. Colonel Stuart Wortley is called on the same side as an authority, and he says they are to be depended upon, and do not show that upon which Mr. Baigent insists. That is so far as we have got in the great ear question, and by your leave we will here break off for our usual adjournment. [The adjournment here took place accordingly.] Let me say, gentlemen, I quite feel—and I am afraid I may have shown that I feel—the tedium of this part of the case; but if I am right it is the most important part of the case of all. This ought to be conclusive, because you may argue about mind and memory, but if the body be not the same there is practically an end of the case. Pray don’t suppose I suggest that you are not the kindest of listeners. I do nothing of the kind. I am only apologising for appearing to take up time in apparently small matters, but if they are really made out to your satisfaction they are of enormous importance in the consideration of the case. If I show that the ears of the plaintiff cannot be those of the real Roger; if I afterwards prove, as I hope to be able to do by other features, an utter physical irreconcilability between the two persons, you will find that there is an end of the claimant’s case. Well, as I have pointed out, Mr. Baigent, for reasons that I then explained, attempted to throw discredit on the daguerreotypes, though Colonel Wortley has distinctly accredited them. When that failed the next thing the plaintiff’s advisers tried to do was to show that his ears had, in point of fact, altered. According to their present shape it must be admitted that they are not like the ears of Roger in 1854. The daguerreotypes prove this much, so they had to fall back on the theory of the ears having altered. The persons examined to sustain this point were Dr. Sutherland, Mr. Canton, and Sir William Fergusson. I shall refer to Mr. Canton’s evidence first. He is asked whether he noticed the ears at all, and he answered that he did. Both had this peculiarity—that they were unusually large and the lobes were pendent. The rest of the ears was well formed, and then—“Does any portion of the ear change with age?—The skin covering the cartilage becomes more firmly adherent, and the lobe of the ear in those who get lean in old age becomes less. Supposing a person gradually increased in size, what would be the result?—The lobe of the ear would be increased also if the increased size of the ear was due to fat. Would the ear become more pendent?—As it would become changed with fat the ear would increase in all directions except above. A Juror: Does the ear lay in fat in common with other parts of the body?—As fat increases in other parts of the body, so it would be in the lobes of the ear. In this case I saw fat cheeks, and expected to see fat lobes.” Mr. Canton does not say whether the lobes would change in character, or whether they would become adherent or non-adherent; but he says that on that part of the lobe which is not cartilaginous fat would grow, as I suppose it would. I did not cross-examine this witness, because he did not say anything it was necessary to challenge, and because I had got all I wanted from Sir William Fergusson. He, therefore, left the matter very much where one’s sense would leave it, and does not come to the point at all.
The Judge—He says his attention was only called to the claimant’s ear the day before.
The Attorney-General (assenting)—But Sir William Fergusson, examined and cross-examined, goes much further in the matter:—“Is there anything you recollect as a peculiarity?—Very recently, about the lobes of the ear. What was that peculiarity?—The lobe was much larger than is the case with most people. The Lord Chief Justice: In what way larger?—Witness: It was broader and softer to the touch than is common. The Attorney-General: Do they depend much or adhere?—They depend so much that they strike one at once. When you say depend, what do you mean?—They hang down. Below the junction with the side of the face, do you mean?—Yes, they hang down. Are they free?—Yes, they are free. They are big lobes, handsome, and very conspicuous. They are, however, big, and many people would object to them on that account. Was there anything to show whether they were in a natural or unnatural condition?—Decidedly in a natural condition. Do you think any pulling would have produced the condition in which you saw the lobes of the plaintiff’s ears?—No; I think not.” Then in cross-examination by the jury, the witness was asked whether he thought a great increase in the bulk of the body generally would have affected the size of the ears, and what was Sir Wm. Fergusson’s answer? He said, No; and that it was a rare thing for fat to be deposited on the ear—in fact, never; but we sometimes saw tumours in that locality, which he, however, explained were very different things from fat—so distinct, in fact, that it was impossible to mistake the one for the other. Sir William Fergusson, therefore, differs from Mr. Canton about the matter of fat on the ears. Mr. Canton says that fat is deposited on the ear where it is not cartilaginous and does not adhere to the cheek or side of the face; but Sir William Fergusson says, “No, it is a rare thing for fat to be deposited on the ear; in fact, never, I may say.” In effect, Sir W. Fergusson says there is no appearance of any trick or pulling the ears having been practised, and therefore the fair conclusion is that what he saw in 1871 he would have seen on the same ear in 1854, and there I must leave it. Dr. Sutherland is then called and examined about the ears:—“Was your attention called to his ears?—Yes. When?—On the 9th of November. Would you agree with Sir W. Fergusson that the plaintiff’s ears are large, well-formed and unusually pendent?—Yes. Are they what you would call decidedly and distinctly detached ears?—Decidedly. Are there some ears which are perfectly lobeless?—No doubt. And others in which the lobe is detached?—Yes. Do you agree with Sir W. Fergusson that if a man has a lobeless ear it never becomes pendent?—I should think it would not. And anatomically you would say that if a man has the one kind of ear it never becomes the other?—Decidedly.” You thus perceive that Dr. Sutherland carries the matter a step further, and he says that there are for general purposes two classes of ears. His opinion is, he says, and also his experience, that an ear once attached never becomes detached and dependent. So far the scientific evidence. There are two medical gentlemen on our side—Mr. Seymour Haden, and Mr. Bernard Holt—who, as you will remember, saw the plaintiff when the rest of us saw him, and they will tell you that Dr. Sutherland is perfectly right in saying that a dependent ear never does come out of an attached one, and that Sir William Fergusson is right in saying that substantially the ear remains the same all through life. Take the Chili daguerreotypes and compare them with the photographs of the claimant. In the Chili daguerreotypes of the real Roger Tichborne, which Col. Wortley says are for this purpose to be depended upon, you will find that the ears are distinctly adhering, but in all the photographs of the claimant where the ear is shown the ear is distinctly not adhering to the face. Take the uncontradicted evidence that the one class of ear never becomes the other class of ear, and draw for yourselves the conclusion. The ears of the real Roger were of the one kind, the ears of the claimant are of the other, and as it is not contradicted or disputed that the ears never change, it is plain that they are not the ears of the same man. Therefore, the two sets of ears belong to two different persons, and that is my case. Therefore, gentlemen, if you have no objection, I should like you to pause for a moment, and look at the photographs—first, the Chili photograph of Roger Tichborne, and then one of the photographs taken of the claimant since his return from Australia.
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.