he child of that perpetual curate his
daughter-in-law. But not the less on this occasion was he true to his
order, true to his side in the diocese, true to his hatred of the
palace.

"I don't believe it for a moment," he said, as he took his place on
the rug before the fire in the drawing-room when the gentlemen came
in from their wine. The ladies understood at once what it was that he
couldn't believe. Mr. Crawley had for the moment so usurped the county
that nobody thought of talking of anything else.

"How is it then," said Mrs. Thorne, "that Lord Lufton, and my husband,
and the other wiseacres at Silverbridge, have committed him for
trial?"

"Because we were told to do so by the lawyer," said Dr. Thorne.

"Ladies will never understand that magistrates must act in accordance
with the law," said Lord Lufton.

"But you all say he's not guilty," said Mrs. Robarts.

"The fact is, that the magistrate cannot try the question," said the
archdeacon; "they only hear primary evidence. In this case I don't
believe Crawley would ever have been committed if he had employed an
attorney, instead of speaking for himself."

"Why didn't somebody make him have an attorney?" said Lady Lufton.

"I don't think any attorney in the world could have spoken for him
better than he spoke for himself," said Dr. Thorne.

"And yet you committed him," said his wife. "What can we do for him?
Can't we pay the bail, and send him off to America?"

"A jury will never find him guilty," said Lord Lufton.

"And what is the truth of it?" asked the younger Lady Lufton.

Then the whole matter was discussed again, and it was settled among
them all that Mr. Crawley had undoubtedly appropriated the cheque
through temporary obliquity of judgment,--obliquity of judgment and
forgetfulness as to the source from whence the cheque had come to
him. "He has picked it up about the house, and then has thought that
it was his own," said Lord Lufton. Had they come to the conclusion
that such an appropriation of money had been made by one of the
clergy of the palace, by one of the Proudieian party, they would
doubtless have been very loud and very bitter as to the iniquity
of the offender. They would have said much as to the weakness of
the bishop and the wickedness of the bishop's wife, and would have
declared the appropriator to have been as very a thief as ever
picked a pocket or opened a till;--but they were unanimous in their
acquittal of Mr. Crawley. It