By C. E. Long, Esq. 217 



together in one chest. One thing, and only one, I give up. 1 

 mean the allusion to tlie " miscarriage." I misconstrued the 

 jjhrase. The real meaning was, as our friend intimates, the 

 miscarriage, by death, of the mother, not that of the infant. 



We now come to Aubrey's statement as regards Judge Popham. 

 It is clear that our friend while, as he saj's, "not implicitly 

 believing," is much disposed to believe the "probability of this 

 part of the narrative;" and to enforce its truth he drags first Lord 

 Chancellor Bromley into Court as the bribee \n jjosse, and then, two 

 years afterwards, Mr. Solicitor General Popham in the same capa- 

 city' in esse. With this faith in Aubrey so perseveringly put for- 

 ward, why does he overlook the fact (and there is no "filter through 

 the traditions of centuries " in this case) that his witness distinctly 

 tells us that Popham, as " Judge," tried the case, and " gave sentence 

 according to law," while "some-how" (to use his expression) he 

 got the prisoner off in his capacity of " Solicitor General ? " " Some 

 matters" our friend is of opinion, "lend some countenance to the 

 statement so positively made by Aubrey," and then he quotes 

 Darell's offer in 1583 to sell his property, being obviously much 

 involved in debt, to Lord Chancellor Bromley. The train of 

 reasoning may thus be tracked — very like the wounded snake — 

 dragging " its slow length along." Lady Hungerford who " may 

 or may not be " the " gentlewoman in travaj'le " was divorced in 

 1569. Mistress Barnes, no doubt after many mysterious mutter- 

 ings, died with her story on her lips in 1578. Darell, therefore, 

 endeavoured, as our friend thinks, to bribe Lord Chancellor 

 Bromley to help him out of the scrape of her supposed accusation 

 by an offer of his lands in 1583. The Lord Chancellor declined 

 the tempting bait, but in 1585 (the date is wrong it should be 

 1587) an indictment, which our all-believing friend thinks it 

 " possible had some relation to the child murder," was pre- 

 ferred against Darell at the Marlborough Sessions, at which time 

 Popham being "Solicitor General" (a slight error again — he 

 was Attorney General) may " some-how " have got him off. So 

 that we are required to believe that tjjis most grave and frightful 

 charge of child-burning remained suspended, first for five years, 



\'0L. VII. — NO. XX. X 



