ent perfectly coincided
with the verdict. Lord de Ros was not abroad when the scandal was set
afloat. He went abroad after the scene at Graham's had set all London
talking, and he returned in consequence of a peremptory call from his
friends. He was most reluctantly induced to take the required steps for
the vindication of his character; and it is preposterous to suppose that
any little coterie would have dreamt of accusing a man of his rank and
position with the view of driving a skilful player from the field. His
accusers were not challenged. Neither were they volunteers. They became
his accusers, because they formed the Whist party at which he was first
openly denounced. They signed a paper particularizing their charge, and
offered to refer the question to a tribunal of gentlemen, with the Duke
of Wellington or Lord Wharncliffe to preside. Would a little coterie,
who lived by gambling, have made this offer? Or would Lord de Ros have
refused it if he had been the intended victim of a conspiracy? Lord
Henry Bentinck signed the paper, appeared as a witness, and took quite
as active a part in the proceedings as any of the four, except Mr
Cumming, who undertook the sole legal liability by admitting the
publication of the paper.

(36) The Times of February 11 and 13, 1837.

'The evidence was overwhelming. Suspicions had long been rife; and on no
less than ten or twelve occasions the marked packs had been examined in
the presence of unimpeachable witnesses, and sealed up. These packs
were produced at the trial. Several witnesses swore to the trick called
sauter la coupe. It was the late Sir William Ingilby who swore that he
had seen Lord de Ros perform it from 50 to 100 times; and when asked
why he did not at once denounce him, he replied that if he had done
so before his Lordship began to get blown upon, he should have had no
alternative between the window and the door. Of course, every one who
had been in the habit of playing with Lord de Ros prior to the exposure
would have said the same as Sir Charles Dalbiac and Mr Baring Wall.
With regard to the gentlemen whose names we have omitted we take it
for granted that the author is not aware of the position they held, and
continue to hold, or he would hardly have ventured to describe them so
offensively. He has apologized to one, and he had better apologize to
the other without delay.

'The case was complete without the evidence of either of the original
accusers, and th