afterwards made the vehicle of a much
more mysterious attack. The passage in
that periodical to which I allude, occurred
about four years afterwards, and while the
fatal occurrence was still fresh in public
recollection. It commenced by a rambling
preface, stating that 'a CERTAIN PERSON
whom CERTAIN persons thought to be dead,
was not so, but living, and in full possession
of his memory, and moreover ready
and able to make GREAT delinquents
tremble.' It then went on to describe the
murder, without, however, mentioning
names; and in doing so, it entered into
minute and circumstantial particulars of
which none but an EYE-WITNESS could have
been possessed, and by implications almost
too unequivocal to be regarded in the light
of insinuation, to involve the 'TITLED
GAMBLER' in the guilt of the transaction.

My father at once urged Sir Arthur to
proceed against the paper in an action of
libel; but he would not hear of it, nor
consent to my father's taking any legal
steps whatever in the matter. My father,
however, wrote in a threatening tone to
Faulkner, demanding a surrender of the
author of the obnoxious article. The
answer to this application is still in my