APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



333 



be a restraint of natural modesty ; 

 buttherewasa femaleintbehouse, 

 Mrs. King, with whom she was on 

 terms of perfect intimacy. Why 

 had not she been trusted ? why not 

 brought to give her testimony be- 

 fore the raagi.'trate ? The house 

 in which Dr. Latham placed his 

 daughter must have been respect- 

 able. Was not the mistress of that 

 house fit to be intrusted with the 

 circumstance ? Had she been in- 

 trusted? Hadshebeen broughtbe- 

 fore the magistrate? She should be 

 at length brought, for she should 

 be seen in court that day. Was 

 Martha Lawrence, theservant, ac- 

 quainted with it ? Where was the 

 indelicacy of mentioning it to her? 

 Had she been prohibited from tell- 

 ing it ? or could any prohibition 

 prevent hertelling it, if it had been 

 told to her ? The jury were now 

 to prepare themselves for all the 

 plausibility which genius and elo- 

 quence could throw round a falling 

 cause. But he could bring twenty 

 witnesses to prove his case. On 

 the 4th of July Mr. Barrett came 

 to London with his family, and re- 

 mained in London till the l^th. It 

 could be shown with whom he had 

 done business during the time 

 when he slept in town ; public offi- 

 cers could be called to prove his 

 being presentthere. The signature 

 of bonds, executed within those 

 peculiar days, could be adduced to 

 prove the point beyond all doubt. 

 The proof had already succeeded. 

 His client's life had been saved, 

 he was now to vindicatehishonour. 

 On the 14tli, in the morning, he 

 arrived at Worthing. If violence 

 had been committed on the 12th, 

 were it possible thatheshould stay 

 there ? Advertisements had been 

 published describing the ravisher, 



and offering a reward for his ap- 

 prehension. Did he fly ? This 

 was posted up on every house ; he 

 could not raise his eyes without 

 meeting it, yet he remained in 

 Worthmg till the 18th or lyth un- 

 molested. He went to all public 

 places ; he exhibited no fear, he 

 practised no concealment. Theact 

 was said to have been committed 

 between the hours of eight and 

 nine in the morning, in Miss La- 

 tham's room ; that room was im- 

 mediately over the shop. The 

 mistress of the house would come 

 forward to prove the total falsity 

 of the statement : she had been in 

 the shop from seven that morning: 

 she heard no shrieks, no fall of 

 chairs, no fall of a body, and Miss 

 Latham was of a form that must 

 make her fall audible. If this 

 misfortune occurred to her in the 

 morning, in what situation must 

 she have been afterwards ? Would 

 she not havebeen unfit to converse 

 with any but her most intimate 

 friends ? She would continue af- 

 fected, agitated, overpowered by 

 the mingled feelings of such an in- 

 jury. This was human nature. 

 Her countenance must have be- 

 trayed, though her tongue were si- 

 lent ; she must have shrunk from 

 the eye ; she must have saddened 

 and pined under the sensibilities 

 of youngand timed outraged inno- 

 cence. Were those symptoms dis- 

 coverable in her ? She came down 

 stairs in her usual spirits, with her 

 dress unruffled, and arranged with 

 its usual care, to altercate with the 

 landlady about some three-pence 

 or four-pence of a laundress's bill. 

 The learned counsel concluded by 

 declaring, that his object was, to 

 vindicate his client, not to ruin 

 Miss Latham. His client might 



