to the world persons
depending for their subsistence on their character." Surely this ought
to be sufficient. I cannot allude, however, to this giant of the press,
whose might can make or unmake a reputation, without gratefully
acknowledging that it never lent its great circulation to these libels.
It had too much justice. The "Morning Chronicle," the "Morning Herald,"
and the "Morning Post," the only journals to which I have access, fully
corroborated the "Times," if, indeed, such a journal needed
corroboration. The "Chronicle" runs thus:--"In the first place, says my
friend Mr. Adolphus, and says his witness Sarah Mancer--and here I beg
to do an act of justice, and to assure you that I do not for a moment
mean to suggest in the whole course of my narrative that this crime may
have been committed by the female servants of the deceased nobleman."
"The Morning Post" runs thus: "Mr. Adolphus called a witness, Sarah
Mancer. But let me do myself justice, and others justice, by now
stating, that in the whole course of my narrative with which I must
trouble you, I beg you would not suppose that I am in the least degree
seeking to cast the crime upon any of the witnesses. God forbid that any
breath of mine should send persons depending on the public for
subsistence into the world with a tainted character." I find the
"Morning Herald" reporting me as follows: "Mr. Adolphus called a witness
named Sarah Mancer. But let me do myself justice and others justice by
now stating that in the whole course of the narrative with which I must
trouble you, I must beg that you will not suppose that I am in the least
degree seeking to cast blame upon any of the witnesses." Can any
disclaimer be more complete? And yet, in the face of this, for nine
successive years has this most unscrupulous of slanderers reiterated his
charge. Not quite three weeks ago he recurs to it in these terms: "How
much worse was the attempt of Mr. Phillips to throw the suspicion of the
murder of Lord William Russell on the innocent female servants, in order
to procure the acquittal of his client Courvoisier, of whose guilt he
was cognizant?" I have read with care the whole report in the "Times" of
that three hours' speech, and I do not find a passage to give this
charge countenance. But surely, surely, in the agitated state in which I
was, had even an ambiguous expression dropped from me, the above broad
disclaimer would have been its efficient antidote.

Such is my an