The Mysteries of the Court of London — page 366: what you’re looking at

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

336 THE COURT OF LONDON her usual calmness with a surprising promptitude, although Fernanda darted upon her a fiendish glance of mingled menace, hatred, and defiance. ‘“‘ The witnesses will do nothing and say nothing elsewhere, unless in obedience to my orders,’ she observed; then, turning toward Carrotty Poll, who was still lingering in the room, she said, “‘ Retire, and send in Mr. Roberts.”’ “The canting parson of Bellenden rectory,” ejaculated the earl, in a tone of contempt. “IT should perhaps inform you,” said the marchioness, taking no heed of the observation, “ that the corpse of Lord Raymond Montgomery has been discovered in the buttress of Malden Bridge; but this intelligence has of course reached you, inasmuch as Mr. Rigden’s clerk was present on the occasion, and evidence thereof was duly given before the Master in Chancery this forenoon.” While Lady Bellenden was yet speaking, Mr. Roberts entered the room and bowed coldly to the earl and Fernanda, who took not the slightest notice of him. The testimony which the reverend gentleman gave was to the effect that the vault of the Bellenden family had been opened and examined in his presence, and that a particular coffin-plate had been unscrewed and consigned to his care. This he produced. Austin was then recalled, and he at once affirmed that the plate was the same he had procured at Birmingham in compliance with the instructions of Earl Montgomery. When he had once more retired into the adjacent room, the | marchioness bade Mr. Roberts conclude his evidence; and the reverend gentleman proceeded to state that there was every reason to justify the belief that one of the registers of the parish of Bellenden had been tampered with in respect to the date properly belonging to the death of the last Mar- quis of Bellenden’s father. The principal ground of this belief was the fact that an entry for the year 1743 was made, by the presumed alteration, to stand in the midst of a number of entries for the year 1745, — an irregularity in the con- secutive order of the entries which could only be explained by the suspicion that the original words describing the date in full had been erased and others substituted. Having thus brought his evidence to a termination, the Reverend Mr. Roberts withdrew. “The farce is now at an end, I presume?” said Lord EORNIGLOOOKS.CC) m