264 Char lea, Lord Stourton, See, 



» 



his employer other lands besides the above mentioned (late mon- 

 astic) farm at Kilmington. His conduct in these transactions must 

 have created jealousy and dissatisfaction in the mind of the heir 

 apparent who saw, or fancied that he saw, his patrimony unneces- 

 sarily or improperly diminished, and in this sense Charles Stourton 

 may have considered himself to have been "cozened." 



These then are the only two causes that have ever yet been pro- 

 duced to account for the murder; viz., Hartgill's taking part with 

 Lord Stourton's mother, and his acquisition of land from Lord 

 Stourton's father. For any thing else that is known in explana- 

 tion of their mutual enmity we are indebted to the Papers that 

 have lately been discovered. Yet even among them there is not 

 one that specifically details the whole matter from the very begin- 

 ning. It is only incidentally and by circumstantial evidence that 

 we are able to infer what the case really was. 



From the Papers alluded to it is clear that during the old Lord's 

 life-time there had been, on the part of Charles Stourton whilst 

 heir expectant, a smothered suspicion and dislike of Hartgill; and 

 that no sooner was the breath gone from the father's body than the 

 flame broke out between the son and the steward ; the immediate 

 cause being — William Lord Stourton's Will. 



Under this, Charles Stourton found himself deprived of the whole 

 personal estate, which had been bequeathed to a " Mistress Agnes 

 Eyce." Charles Stourton contested the Will, and Hartgill took the 

 lady's part. All the particulars of this affair will be given presently 

 in detail. 



War between them being thus seriously declared from the first, 

 no wonder that when, as often happens in neighbouring properties, 

 subordinate questions of right arose, the personal feeling interfered 

 with patient adjustment, and their quarrels were often, and at 

 length fatally, cut short by blows. 



Of this petty border-hostility the documents supply us with 

 several instances. Hartgill held certain lands, rent for which was 

 claimed by Charles Stourton. The other alleged a particular Lease 

 but refused to produce the document, or to pay any rent. This 

 went on for several years : and in the Rent Rolls (which are at 



