THE IMPALEMENT CONTROVERSY.
[TO THE EDITOR Or THE SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—Yonr sanguine anticipations as to the result of the revival of the great beanstalk controversy received an instructive com- ment on the very day on which they appeared. Both the Saturday Review of that day, and the St. James's Gazette of the previous evening, contain observations on the same subject which hardly bear out your view of the case. At all events, they show that evidence goes for very little when people have made up their minds. The St. Tames's takes the firmer ground in assuming that the Canons told a falsehood, which, as every one who followed the controversy at the time perceived, is the only possible alternative to believing that what they reported really happened. The Saturday, apparently, would be persuaded by the testimony, if it could be obtained, of a certain member of the Croatian Landtag, though why his evidence should be of more authority than that of two English clergymen is not dear. Presumably he saw no more than they saw; and if they mis- took any other object at a less distance than that between the Guards' Memorial and the Doke of York's Column for a human body, why should not he ? The funniest part of the whole busi- ness is that up to that time, no one had the least doubt as to the occurrence of impalements in Turkey, and that for the first day or two the story excited little surprise. Then Minium Pasha was instructed to contradict it, and "the fight began." The present controversy only shows once more that the Tichborne -claimant was no bad observer of human weaknesses.—I am,
Previous page
