5 OCTOBER 1867, Page 3

It seems clear that neither will Miss Braddon throw any

light on the authorship of the stolen novel by the soi-disant Babington White, nor will the Pall Mall Gazette throw any light on the authorship of the letter forged in Miss Braddon's name. Our con- temporary unjustly attributes to us incredulity as to its innocence of this hoax. On the contrary, from the moment of its first dis- claimer of complicity we never had a doubt on the matter ; and when we said so, we meant what we said. But we cannot help believing that our contemporary could afford some assistance in discovering who the author of this discreditable hoax was,—which it evidently is not at all inclined to do. Now, is it reasonable to be so exceedingly virtuous in reprobating one discreditable trick, and so very destitute of all zeal as to the exposure of another at least equally dishonest? Miss Braddon begs us to record her absolute disclaimer of having herself written the letter, or had any know- ledge of the writer. We accept her word, of course, at once. But she, too, seems more anxious about extracting the mote from our contemporary's eye than about extracting the beam from her own. If the Pall Mall would set about discovering the authorship of the forged letter, and Miss Braddon of the stolen novel, we might soon bring the authors, of both these discredit- able actions to the light.