Two considerable hoaxes have been played off this week. In
one case Mr. Loftus Pemberton acknowledges that he issued an address to the electors of Kent, supposed to emanate from Sir John -Croft. The address was intended to diminish Sir John Croft's .chances, and did for some days diminish them, bat Mr. Pemberton .4trgues that the forged address was an allowable "election squib." .Suppose somebody publishes an address from him declaring that be has always been a concealed Radical, will that also be an allow- able squib? In the second case, Mr. J. S. Wortley, Yorkshire magnate and director of the Credit Foncier of England, was made in a letter to the Times to regret his connection with that company, -and to promise restitution of 18,000/. which he had received as .commission upon its profits. Mr. Stuart Wortley wrote no such letter, has made no such acknowledgment, and does not intend voluntarily to restore anything. We cannot see why the signature of a man's name to a letter should not be made as penal as his -signature to a cheque. If the victim does not lose cash, he loses -character, and should be equally protected by the law.
Previous page
