By q. E. Long, Esq. 215 



marvellous," relied for his facts, about which he was by no means 

 scrupulous, on the loose but amusing fragments of village chit-chat 

 furnished to him by Lord "VVebb Seymour. Secondly we have 

 to base our belief, on the "material proofs" so triumphantly 

 paraded by the Reviewer, but only to be filtered away on a future 

 and more fitting occasion by the " Credulous Archaeologist." Our 

 friend complains that the discovery of this new evidence, viz., the 

 old woman's narrative, does not remove my incredulity " but only 

 shifts it to the locale and personnel." Exactly so — that is the very 

 point in question. I don't ask whether the old woman was doting 

 or dreaming. I ask how her story, as she tells it, afiects Darell and 

 Littlecote ? That some of the parties with whom Darell was at 

 variance, if not at enmity, (and his very creditable conduct in the 

 case of the Brind murderers shows that there were such parties), 

 caught at the whisperings of the old woman — improved upon 

 them by the " kind mendacity of hints " — nay even founded a 

 charge, and so got her tale taken down, thereby upsetting their 

 own theory, I readily admit. That they utterly failed in proving 

 their case is manifest. The remaining years, eleven in number, 

 of Darell's life sufficiently establish this. Why, Sir, there is 

 not evidence enough to induce twelve jurors, even with a bias, to hang 

 a ticket-of-leave man hedged in at the dock by the most circum- 

 stantial suspicions as to character and conduct. But now for 

 another straw which our drowning counsel catches at. "If" (he 

 goes on to say), " we believe that such a crime was actually com- 

 mitted, surely it is too late in the day now to look out for some other 

 _ possible locality or perpetrator." " Too late in the day ! " Too 

 late to tr}' and get at the truth ! Is our credulous friend so reduced 

 in argumeut as to be driven to take up such a position as this ! — 

 prematurely and desperately prepared to " die in the last ditch " 

 as the " great Deliverer " said. Is he entitled to plead that we 

 cannot look into that question new — that it is a received fact — that 

 people always believed it — and that it must be so — and to tell 

 us that we are " too late ? ! " Now, Sir, I protest against this 

 statute of limitations. Is Tradition to hold her ground when His- 

 tory is compelled to give way ? Was it " too late " to tear off the 



