xxxix] HAMPDEN AND THE FLAT EARTH 373 



for fresh libels, and on proof of his previous convictions and 

 apologies, he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and 

 to keep the peace, under heavy recognizances and sureties, for 

 two years more. (A full report is given in the Chelmsford 

 Chronicle, March 12, 1 875.) 



Through the interest of his friends, however, he was 

 liberated in about six months ; and thereupon, in January, 

 1876, he brought an action against Mr. Walsh to recover his 

 deposit of £500, and this action he won, on the grounds 

 already stated ; and as I had signed an indemnity to Mr. 

 Walsh, I had to pay back the money, and also pay all the 

 costs of the action, about ^200 more. But as I had a judg- 

 ment for .£687 damages and costs in my libel suit against 

 Hampden, I transferred this claim to Mr. Walsh as a set-off 

 against the amount due by him. Hampden, however, had 

 already made himself a bankrupt to prevent this claim being 

 enforced, and had assigned all his actual or future assets to 

 his son-in-law. 



There were now legal difficulties on both sides. I was 

 advised that the bankruptcy was fraudulent, and could be 

 annulled ; but to attempt this would be costly, and the result 

 uncertain. On the other hand, it was doubtful whether my 

 claim against Hampden would not be treated as an ordinary 

 creditor's claim in the bankruptcy. There was, therefore, a 

 consultation of the solicitors, and a voluntary arrangement 

 was arrived at. I was to pay all the costs of the suit and 

 £120, amounting to £277 ; while £410 still remained nomi- 

 nally due to me from Hampden. 



These terms were formally agreed to by Hampden and 

 his son-in-law, and were duly carried out. Of course I had 

 also to pay Mr. Walsh's costs in the action and my own 

 lawyer's bill for the settlement, as well as those of the action 

 for libel, and the various criminal prosecutions of Hampden I 

 had been compelled to undertake. 



Notwithstanding this settlement, however, Hampden was 

 by no means silenced. The very day after his recognizancss 

 expired, in 1878, he began again with his abusive post-cards, 

 circulars, and other forms of libel. In 1885 he wrote and 



