to those which we have commented upon, to make others believe.’  Now, without re-adverting to the fact that stronger evidence ‘to make others believe,’ could never have been adduced, it may be remarked that a man may very well be understood to believe, in a case of this kind, without the ability to advance a single reason for the belief of a second party.  Nothing is more vague than impressions of individual identity.  Each man recognizes his neighbor, yet there are few instances in which any one is prepared to give a reason for his recognition.  The editor of L’Etoile had no right to be offended at M. Beauvais’ unreasoning belief.

“The suspicious circumstances which invest him, will be found to tally much better with my hypothesis of romantic busy-bodyism, than with the reasoner’s suggestion of guilt.  Once adopting the more charitable interpretation, we shall find no difficulty in comprehending the rose in the key-hole; the ‘Marie’ upon the slate; the ‘elbowing the male relatives out of the way;’ the ’aversion to permitting them to see the body;’ the caution given to Madame B——­, that she must hold no conversation with the gendarme until his return (Beauvais’); and, lastly, his apparent determination ’that nobody should have anything to do with the proceedings except himself.’  It seems to me unquestionable that Beauvais was a suitor of Marie’s; that she coquetted with him; and that he was ambitious of being thought to enjoy her fullest intimacy and confidence.  I shall say nothing more upon this point; and, as the evidence fully rebuts the assertion of L’Etoile, touching the matter of apathy on the part of the mother and other relatives — an apathy inconsistent with the supposition of their believing the corpse to be that of the perfumery- girl — we shall now proceed as if the question of identity were settled to our perfect satisfaction.”

“And what,” I here demanded, “do you think of the opinions of Le Commerciel?”

“That, in spirit, they are far more worthy of attention than any which have been promulgated upon the subject.  The deductions from the premises are philosophical and acute; but the premises, in two instances, at least, are founded in imperfect observation.  Le Commerciel wishes to intimate that Marie was seized by some gang of low ruffians not far from her mother’s door.  ‘It is impossible,’ it urges, ’that a person so well known to thousands as this young woman was, should have passed three blocks without some one having seen her.’  This is the idea of a man long resident in Paris — a public man - and one whose walks to and fro in the city, have been mostly limited to the vicinity of the public offices.  He is aware that he seldom passes so far as a dozen blocks from his own bureau, without being recognized and accosted.  And, knowing the extent of his personal acquaintance with others, and of others with him, he compares his notoriety with that of the perfumery-girl, finds no great difference between them, and reaches at once the conclusion that