The Third Volume Read online

  CHAPTER IV.

  WHAT OCCURRED AT HORRISTON.

  AFTER that fatal interview Claude went neither to the house atKensington Gore nor to the chambers of his friend Tait. With the papersgiven to him by Hilliston in his pocket, he repaired to a quiet hotel inJermyn Street, where he was well-known, and there secured a bedroom forthe night. A wire speedily brought his luggage from the railway station,and thus being settled for the moment, he proceeded to acquaint himselfwith the tragedy of his parents' lives.

  It was some time before he could make up his mind to read the papers,and, dreading the disagreeable relation, he put off the perusal tillsuch time as he retired to bed. A note dispatched to the Club intimatedto Tait that the second seat at the Curtain Theater would be unoccupied,and then Claude tried to rid himself of distracting thoughts by a rapidwalk in the Park. So do men dally with the inevitable, and vainlyattempt to stay the march of Fate.

  Dinner was a mere farce with the young man, for he could neither eat nordrink, and afterward he dawdled about the smoke room, putting off thereading of the papers as long as he could. A superstitious feeling ofcoming evil withheld him from immediately learning the truth; and it wasnot until the clock struck ten that he summoned up sufficient courage torepair to his bedroom.

  With the papers spread out on a small table, he sat down at half-pastten, reading by the light of a single candle. A second and a third wereneeded before he arose from his chair, and the gray dawn was glimmeringthrough the window blinds as he laid down the last sheet. Then his facewas as gray as the light spreading over street and house, for he knewthat his dead father had been foully murdered, and that his dead motherhad been morally, if not legally, guilty of the crime. The tragedy--astrange mixture of the sordid and the romantic--took place at Horriston,in Kent, in the year 1866, and the following are the main facts, asexhibited by the provincial press:

  In the year 1860 George Larcher and his wife came to settle atHorriston, attracted thereto by the romantic beauty of the scenery andthe cheerful society of that rising watering-place. Since that timeHorriston, after a feeble struggle for supremacy, has succumbed topowerful rivals, and is once more a sleepy little provincial town,unknown to invalid or doctor. But when Mr. and Mrs. Larcher settledthere it was a popular resort for visitors from all quarters of thethree kingdoms, and the young couple were extremely liked by the gaysociety which filled the town. For five years they lived there, butduring the sixth occurred the tragedy which slew the husband, and placedthe wife in the dock.

  The antecedents of the pair were irreproachable in every respect. He wasa fairly rich man of thirty-five, who, holding a commission in the army,had met with his wife--then Miss Barker--at Cheltenham. She was abeautiful girl, fond of dress and gayety, the belle of her native town,and the greatest flirt of the country side. Handsome George Larcher, inall the bravery of martial trappings, came like the young prince of thefairy tale, and carried off the beauty from all rivals. She, knowing himto be rich, seeing him to be handsome, and aware that he waswell-connected, accepted his hand, and so they were married, to thegreat discomfiture of many sighing swains. There was love on his side atleast, but whether Julia Barker returned that passion in any greatdegree it is hard to say. The provincial reporter hinted that a priorattachment had engaged her heart, and though she married Larcher for hismoney, and looks, and position, yet she only truly loved one man--oneMark Jeringham, who afterward figured in the tragedy at Horriston.

  To all outward appearance Captain and Mrs. Larcher were a patterncouple, and popular with military and civil society. Then, in obedienceto the wish of his wife, George Larcher sold out, and within a fewmonths of their marriage they came to live at Horriston. Here they tooka house known as The Laurels, which was perched on a cliff of moderateheight, overlooking the river Sarway; and proceeded to entertain the gaysociety of the neighborhood. One son was born to them a year after theytook up their abode at The Laurels, and he was five years of age whenthe tragedy took place which caused the death of his parent. Claude hadno difficulty in recognizing himself as the orphan so patheticallyalluded to by the flowery provincial reporter.

  The household of George Larcher consisted of six servants, among whomtwo were particularly interesting. The one was the captain's valet,Denis Bantry, an Irish soldier in the same regiment as his master, whohad been bought out by Larcher when he took leave of military glory.Attached to the captain by many acts of kindness, Denis was absolutelydevoted to him, and was no unimportant personage in the new home. Theother servant was Mona Bantry, the sister of Denis, a handsome,bright-eyed lass from County Kerry, who acted as maid to Mrs. Larcher.The remaining servants call for no special mention, but this Irishcouple must be particularly noted as having been mixed up with thetragedy.

  For some months all went well at The Laurels, and it seemed as thoughthe Larchers were devoted to one another. But this was only outwardly,for the character of Julia developed rapidly after marriage into that ofa vain, frivolous woman, eager of admiration, extravagant as regardsdress, and neglectful of the infant son. Larcher, a thoroughlydomesticated man, greatly resented the attitude taken up by his wife,and the resentment led to frequent quarrels. He was annoyed by herfrivolity and continuous absence from home; while she began to dislikeher grave husband, who would have made her--as she expressed it--a meredomestic drudge. But the pair managed to hoodwink the world as to theirreal feelings to one another, and it was only when the trial of Mrs.Larcher came on that the truth was revealed. In all Kent there was nomore unhappy home than that at The Laurels.

  To make matters worse, Mark Jeringham paid a visit to Horriston, andhaving known Mrs. Larcher from childhood, naturally enough became afrequent visitor. He was everywhere at the heels of the former belle ofCheltenham, who encouraged him in his attentions. Larcher remonstratedwith his wife on her folly, but she saucily refused to alter her line ofconduct. But for the scandal of the thing Larcher would have forbiddenJeringham the house; and, to mark his disapprobation, gave him the coldshoulder on every occasion. Nevertheless, this inconvenient personpersisted in thrusting himself between husband and wife, to the anger ofthe former and the delight of the latter. The introduction of this thirdelement only made matters worse.

  The house was divided into camps, for Mona supported her mistress in herfrivolity, and, indeed, seemed herself to have an admiration forhandsome Mark Jeringham, who was very generous in money matters. Denis,in whose eyes his master was perfect, hated the interloper as much asLarcher, and loudly protested against the attention of Mona and hismistress. Another friend who supported Larcher was Francis Hilliston,then a gay young lawyer of thirty-five, who often paid a visit toHorriston. He also frequented The Laurels, but was much disliked by Mrs.Larcher, who greatly resented his loyal friendship for her husband.Things were in this position on the 23d of June, 1866, when eventsoccurred which resulted in the murder of Captain Larcher, thedisappearance of Jeringham, and the arrest of Mrs. Larcher on a chargeof murder.

  A masked ball in fancy dress was to be given at the Town Hall on thatnight, and hither Mrs. Larcher was going as Mary, Queen of Scots,accompanied by Jeringham in the character of Darnley. George Larcherrefused to be present, and went up to London on the night in question,leaving his faithful friend Hilliston to look after his matrimonialinterests at the ball. Before he left a terrible scene took placebetween himself and his wife, in which he forbade her to go to thedance, but she defied him, and said she would go without his permission.Whereupon Larcher left the house and went up to London, swearing that hewould never return until his wife asked his pardon and renounced thefriendship of Jeringham.

  Now, here began the mystery which no one was able to fathom. Mrs.Larcher went to the ball with Jeringham, and having, as she said toHilliston, who was also at the ball, enjoyed herself greatly, returnedhome at three in the morning. The next day she was ill in bed, althoughshe had left the Town Hall in perfect health, and Mark Jeringham haddisappeared. Larcher was not seen in the
neighborhood for five days, andpresumably was still in London; so during his absence Mrs. Larcher kepther bed. Then his body, considerably disfigured, was found at the mouthof the river Sarway, some four miles down. Curious to state it wasclothed in a fancy dress similar to that worn by Jeringham on the nightof the ball.

  On the discovery of the body public curiosity was greatly excited, and athousand rumors flew from mouth to mouth. That a crime had beencommitted no one doubted for a moment, as an examination proved thatGeorge Larcher had been stabbed to the heart by some slender, sharpinstrument. The matter passed into the hands of the police, and theypaid a visit to The Laurels for the purpose of seeing what light Mrs.Larcher could throw on the matter. At this awful period of her frivolouslife Francis Hilliston stood her friend, and it was he who interviewedthe officers of the law when they called.

  Mrs. Larcher was still in bed, and, under the doctor's orders, refusedto rise therefrom, or to receive her visitors. She protested toHilliston, who in his turn reported her sayings to the police, that sheknew nothing about the matter. She had not seen her husband since heleft her on the 23d of June, and no one was more astonished orhorror-struck than she at the news of his death. According to her storyshe had left the ball at three o'clock, and had driven to The Laurelswith Jeringham. He had parted from her at the door of the house, and hadwalked back to Horriston. His reason for not entering, and for not usingthe carriage to return, was that he did not wish to give color to thescandal as to the relations which existed between them, which Mrs.Larcher vowed and protested were purely platonic.

  Furthermore, she asserted that her illness was caused by a discoverywhich she had made on the night of the ball: that Mona Bantry was aboutto become a mother, and to all appearance she believed that the fatherof the coming child was none other than her husband. Far from thinkingthat he had been murdered, she had been waiting for his return in orderto upbraid him for his profligacy, and to demand a divorce. Mona Bantryhad disappeared immediately after the discovery of her ruin, and Mrs.Larcher professed that she did not know where she was.

  This story, which was feasible enough, satisfied the police authoritiesfor the moment, and they retired, only to return three days later with awarrant for the arrest of Mrs. Larcher. In the interval a dagger hadbeen found in the grounds of The Laurels, on the banks of the river,and, as it was stained with blood and exactly fitted the wound, it wasconcluded that with this weapon the crime had been committed. Inquiryresulted in the information being obtained that Mrs. Larcher, in hercharacter of Mary, Queen of Scots, had worn this dagger on the night ofthe ball. Hence it was evident, so said the police, that she had killedher husband.

  The theory of the police was that Captain Larcher had returned fromLondon on the night of the ball, and had witnessed the parting of hiswife and Jeringham at the door. Filled with jealous rage he hadupbraided his wife in the sitting room, the window of which looked outon the cliff overhanging the river. In a moment of fury she haddoubtless snatched the dagger from her girdle and stabbed him to theheart, then, terrified at what she had done, had thrown the body out ofthe window, trusting that the stream would carry it away, and so concealher crime. This the river had done, for the body had been discoveredfour miles down, where it had been carried by the current. As to thedagger being in the grounds in place of the room, the police, never at aloss for a theory, suggested that Mrs. Larcher had stolen out of thehouse, and had thrown the dagger over the bank where it was subsequentlydiscovered.

  Mrs. Larcher asserted her innocence, and reiterated her statement thatshe had not seen her husband since the day of the ball. He had notreturned on that night, as the servants could testify. The onlydomestics who had not retired to bed when she returned at three o'clockwere Mona and Denis. Of these the first had gone away to hide her shame,and all inquiries and advertisements failed to find her. But at thetrial Denis--much broken down at the ruin of his sister--swore thatCaptain Larcher had not returned from London on that evening, and thatMrs. Larcher had gone straight to the sitting room, where she first madethe discovery of Mona's iniquity, and then had afterward retired to bed.Mrs. Larcher asserted that the dagger had been lost by her at the ball,and she knew not into whose hands it had fallen.

  The trial, which took place at Canterbury, was a nine days' wonder, andopinions were divided as to the guilt of the erring wife. One party heldthat she had committed the crime in the manner stated by the police,while the others asserted that Jeringham was the criminal, and haddisappeared in order to escape the consequences of his guilt."Doubtless," said they, "he had been met by Larcher after leaving thehouse, and had killed him during a quarrel." The use of the dagger wasaccounted for by these wiseacres by a belief that Mrs. Larcher had givenit to Jeringham as a love token when she parted from him at the door ofThe Laurels.

  The evidence of Denis, that he had been with or near Mrs. Larcher tillshe retired to bed, and that the captain had not set foot in the houseon that evening, turned the tide of evidence in favor of the unfortunatewoman. She was acquitted of the crime, and went to London, but theredied--as appeared from the newspapers--a few weeks afterward, killed byanxiety and shame.

  The child Claude was taken charge of by Mr. Hilliston, who had been agood friend to Mrs. Larcher during her troubles, and so the matter fadedfrom the public mind.

  What became of Jeringham no one ever knew. His victim--as some supposedLarcher to be--was duly buried in the Horriston Cemetery, but all theefforts of the police failed to find the man who was morally, if notlegally, guilty of the crime. Denis also was lost in the London crowd,and all those who had been present at the tragedy at The Laurels werescattered far and wide. New matters attracted the attention of thefickle public, and the Larcher affair was forgotten in due course.

  The mystery was never solved. Who was guilty of the crime? That questionwas never answered. Some accused Mrs. Larcher despite her acquittal anddeath. Others insisted that Jeringham was the criminal; but no one couldbe certain of the truth. Hilliston, seeing that Mr. and Mrs. Larcherwere dead, that Mona, Denis, and Jeringham had disappeared, wisely keptthe matter secret from Claude, deeming that it would be folly to disturbthe mind of the lad with an insoluble riddle of so terrible a nature. Sofor five-and-twenty years the matter had remained in abeyance. Now itseemed as though it were about to be reopened by Mrs. Bezel.

  "And who--" asked Claude of himself, as he finished this history in thegray dawn of the morning, "who is Mrs. Bezel?"

  To say the least, he had a right to ask himself this question, for itwas curious that the name of Mrs. Bezel was not even mentioned inconnection with that undiscovered crime of five-and-twenty years before.