offering a substantial reward for news of it,
with a reward to the sender of the codicil, if he
came forward. Fresh stories, too, came up
from  Gloucester. It was rumoured that Mr.
Chadborn and a companion had been seen, just
after the death, busy tearing up and burning
papers in the testator's room. This was duly
charged, and, strange to say, admitted. They
were unimportant papers—old lottery-tickets,
&c. On being pressed, it was owned that one
of these papers was a sort of power of attorney
to Chadborn, which, as it was now useless, he
thought it better to destroy.

Then the case began to drag itself slowly
through the court. It exhibited some highly
characteristic instances of human subtlety and
nice reasoning. No less than six-and-thirty
witnesses were brought forward for the executors,
to prove his hatred of the corporation of
Gloucester, and his dislike of charities. Nearly
all these were shown the codicil, and were
almost positive as to its being a forgery. Their
reasons found a valuable commentary on the
fallibility of such a test. He always wrote
"exors" in a peculiar way; Mr. Counsel's
name was spelled "Council;" and he had been
heard again and again to caution clerks and
others against writing amounts in figures, as
they could be altered. Yet all these vast
sums were in figures. But a little industry in
searching his papers, showed precedents for all
these points, spelling being one of his weak
points, and "Lien in Hospital" being found in
his handwriting for Lying-in Hospital. Such
tests are fallacious, as assuming human nature
to be consistent always; and as Lord Lyndhurst
acutely remarked, a forger would have
taken care to write the amounts in words, not
in figures, knowing this peculiarity. Though
here again an ingenious advocate might retort
that a more clever forger still would refine on
this, and would have written in figures, because
it would be said that a forger would have taken
care to know his peculiarity. An instance of
the speciousness of human testimony arose in
the case. A Mr. Smith declared that only a
few years before, he had seen a will of Jemmy
Wood's, in which he had left twenty thousand
pounds to an hospital, on the strange condition
that the money was not to be paid until the
hospital was built. This seemed particular
enough; the witness was very positive, and
they seemed to be on the track of something.
But a sort of letter-book turned up, in which
this very will was found, in Smith's writing,
but it was a will he had drawn for a Mr.
Chetwynd.

It was curious that all the thirty-six witnesses
should have such a strong opinion against
the codicil. The supporters of the latter were
lucky enough to find five-and-twenty to swear
positively to the writing. They gave the usual
reasons, a particular flourish here, a straight
stroke there. They went through in regulation
cross-examination. Look at that trembling
down-stroke in the letter D, now look
at this D—are the two alike?

At last, it came to decision before Sir Herbert
Fust Jenner, who reviewed the whole case
in what was called "an elaborate judgment."
He went through all the evidence, and finally
decided that he could not act upon the codicil,
which had nothing to support it, and had come
into being in too suspicious a manner. This
decision of course affected no one, costs came
out of the fund, and both parties must have
appealed whatever way it had been decided. It
was then taken to the Privy Council, and in
1841 Lord Lyndhurst gave what was no doubt
the correct judgment, reversing that of the
lower court, and thus diminishing the gains of
the executors by about a quarter of a million.
It was all but certain that a will had been
destroyed. Most probably what had taken place
was this. Chadborn returning home, and searching
among his papers had found various codicils
and wills, which had virtually reduced what
was to come to the executors to some insignificant
sum. These he found referred to each
other, and were so connected that he could not
destroy one without destroying all; on the other
hand, by destroying them he destroyed the
names of the executors, a loss he could only
supply by the device of wafering on the old
"instructions" The codicil he no doubt
thought he had torn and burnt with the rest.
Who saved that codicil? Who wrote that
most dramatic note? Why did the writer
conceal himself? What risk would he run by
coming forward? Why was he not tempted by
the handsome reward of the corporation? Had
he no spirit of revenge if he had been defrauded
of a legacy? Was it some spying servant,
prowling about that irregular house when the
ransacking and burning the papers was going
on, and had he found it under the grate just
scorched? Or was it some more important
person in the drama, some one struck with
alarm at the magnitude of the deed, or perhaps
conscience stricken, and wishing to leave it to
fortune to make reparation—but who dare not
appear? Was it Chadborn himself?

MR. CHARLES DICKEN'S FAREWELL
READINGS

MR. CHARLES DICKENS will read on Thursday,
April 8, and Friday, April 9 at Liverpool; Tuesdays,
April 18,27, and 25, St. James's Hall,London.