or three, or more?  Each successive one is multiple evidence — proof not added to proof, but multiplied by hundreds or thousands.  Let us now discover, upon the deceased, garters such as the living used, and it is almost folly to proceed.  But these garters are found to be tightened, by the setting back of a clasp, in just such a manner as her own had been tightened by Marie, shortly previous to her leaving home.  It is now madness or hypocrisy to doubt.  What L’Etoile says in respect to this abbreviation of the garter’s being an usual occurrence, shows nothing beyond its own pertinacity in error.  The elastic nature of the clasp-garter is self-demonstration of the unusualness of the abbreviation.  What is made to adjust itself, must of necessity require foreign adjustment but rarely.  It must have been by an accident, in its strictest sense, that these garters of Marie needed the tightening described.  They alone would have amply established her identity.  But it is not that the corpse was found to have the garters of the missing girl, or found to have her shoes, or her bonnet, or the flowers of her bonnet, or her feet, or a peculiar mark upon the arm, or her general size and appearance — it is that the corpse had each, and all collectively.  Could it be proved that the editor of L’Etoile really entertained a doubt, under the circumstances, there would be no need, in his case, of a commission de lunatico inquirendo.  He has thought it sagacious to echo the small talk of the lawyers, who, for the most part, content themselves with echoing the rectangular precepts of the courts.  I would here observe that very much of what is rejected as evidence by a court, is the best of evidence to the intellect.  For the court, guiding itself by the general principles of evidence — the recognized and booked principles — is averse from swerving at particular instances.  And this steadfast adherence to principle, with rigorous disregard of the conflicting exception, is a sure mode of attaining the maximum of attainable truth, in any long sequence of time.  The practice, in mass, is therefore philosophical; but it is not the less certain that it engenders vast individual error. {*16}

“In respect to the insinuations levelled at Beauvais, you will be willing to dismiss them in a breath.  You have already fathomed the true character of this good gentleman.  He is a busy-body, with much of romance and little of wit.  Any one so constituted will readily so conduct himself, upon occasion of real excitement, as to render himself liable to suspicion on the part of the over acute, or the ill- disposed.  M. Beauvais (as it appears from your notes) had some personal interviews with the editor of L’Etoile, and offended him by venturing an opinion that the corpse, notwithstanding the theory of the editor, was, in sober fact, that of Marie.  ‘He persists,’ says the paper, ’in asserting the corpse to be that of Marie, but cannot give a circumstance, in addition