51 



being false may be actually greater tban the probabilities of 

 its being true! But taking it as it stands — assuming that the 

 writer was present, or what is still more favourable to the pro- 

 secution, supposing that we had been present ourselves, that our 

 own eyes had seen, and our own ears heard the facts as he re- 

 cords them — what do they prove ? That a child was murdered 

 seems unquestionable ; but that he had been seen to enter a 

 Jew's house, is alleged on the most indistinct evidence. Yet on 

 this allegation, the Jew is dragged before an infuriated mob ; 

 Lord John of Lexington assumes the power of pit and halter ; 

 and the alternative is placed before the Jew of torture and death 

 on the one hand, or the framing of an accusation that shall 

 please the multitude on the other. The love of life prevails, he 

 accepts the terms, his friends are accused; on this vague and 

 extorted statement, which simply confirmed the popular pre- 

 judice, numbers are put to death ; and finally, with a breach 

 of faith winch is quite in harmony with the whole proceedings, 

 the King orders that the witness himself be executed. 



Two circumstances suggest themselves in reference to these 

 facts. If, on the one hand, we take a broader basis of evi- 

 dence, and compare with the prose narrative the other tra- 

 ditional accounts winch have reached us, the points of coinci- 

 dence become still fewer. At last we can only affirm, with 

 any degree of certainty, 1st, that a child was murdered at 

 Lincoln ; and 2nd, that one or more Jews were said to have 



tYs'tsV which is nearly \^. That is to say, the probabilities of truth are less than one 

 half ; and the story iu that shape is more likely to be false than true ! " When an 

 extraordinary event is transmitted to us through a witness, it loses something of its 

 probability, which will become the more feeble, as the event shall have been the sub- 

 ject of a greater number of traditions." Quetelet. " We cannot better compare this 

 diminution of probability, than the observation of the clearness of objects by the in- 

 terposition of numerous pieces of glass ; a number of small pieces being sufficient to 

 obstruct the view of an object, through which a single piece would permit you to see 

 distinctly. Historians do not appear to have attended sufficiently to this degrada- 

 tion of the probabilities of facts, when viewed through a number of successive genera- 

 tions ; many historical events repeated as certain, would appear at least doubtful, if 

 submitted to this test." La Place. 



