The Mysteries of the Court of London — page 94: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

76 THE COURT OF LONDON ‘“‘ Good heavens! what do you believe? ”’ exclaimed Mrs. Bredalbane, with a frightened regard. “Tell me what was the impression that Joux entertained on the subject? ” inquired Mrs. Arbuthnot. ‘““I do not remember that he ever specifically and in so many words explained his opinion,”’ said Mrs. Bredalbane. “‘ He told me the narrative, gave me the letter, and suffered me to draw my own inference, which I did, supposing it to be the same that he himself had already deduced from the facts themselves.”’ “Depend upon it,’’ observed Mrs. Arbuthnot, shaking her head solemnly, “‘ that the impression Joux formed was very different from the one which you, my dear friend, received.”’ ‘“Good heavens! I begin to entertain a dreadful sus- picion,’ cried Mrs. Bredalbane. ‘‘ And my wonder is that you did not entertain it long ago,’’ rejoined Mrs. Arbuthnot. “ Look calmly and dis- passionately at all the facts. Why was Joux so overpowered with alarm on discovering the secret? Because he read the frightful truth in a moment. Had he believed Neale, a humble and obscure domestic, to have been the murderer, he would not have feared to proclaim this belief. But it was because he comprehended the whole of that awful mystery —”’ ‘* For God’s sake, take care of what you say! ”’ interrupted Mrs. Bredalbane, casting an anxious glance around, as if the faces of listeners might peer forth from the very walls. Then she rose and looked forth from the door, to satisfy herself that there were no eavesdroppers. ‘‘ It is impossible,’’ continued Mrs. Arbuthnot, when Mrs. Bredalbane had resumed her seat, ‘‘ to shut one’s eyes against the truth, startling, horrifying, and astounding though it be, which stands forth patent and visible from amidst all the facts before us. The belief that Neale was the murderer involves the clumsiest theory. How could he be ruined and undone because a royal lady bestowed her favours on him? Would she not screen him? Would she not provide for him? Where was the necessity to murder Sellis? Think you that the princess herself would have counselled him to the deed? And then, if your theory makes him the murderer of Sellis, it must make him also the assail- connicoooKks (CO)