"The Inspector conducted our reporter to a small room adjoining the court, in which the previous day's charges were still being tried, and pointing to a bundle on the table, said:

"'This was found in the river, near Cleopatra's Needle. It has been opened and tied up again, in order that you might see it in its original form.'

"'In what way do you suppose it concerns me?' asked our reporter, with an assumption of indifference, but moving nevertheless to the table and proceeding to undo the knots in the bundle.

"'The presumption is,' replied the Inspector, 'that it was the bundle which Mrs. Weston, your client, threw into the river last night.'

"'Being found,' contested our reporter, 'close to the place of the adventure, the more probable conclusion is that it was deposited in the river some distance off, the direction of which might be calculated from the flow of the tide.'

"'Ordinarily, yes,' said the Inspector, 'but there are surroundings not favorable to such a conclusion. In the centre of the bundle you will find a large stone, which would prevent it from dragging far. Then again, it was discovered caught in a snag, and our men say it must have fallen plumb into its position.'

"Our reporter shrugged his shoulders, and remarked, 'Evidence of that kind is in my opinion absolutely valueless in getting at the truth of a criminal charge.'

"By this time he had untied the knots and the contents of the bundle lay exposed. They consisted of a large stone and a suit of man's clothes--trousers, coat, and waistcoat.

"'Well?' he said to the Inspector.

"'Well?' said the Inspector, in return.

"'Do you seriously ask me to believe that a lady would deliberately go to a lonely part of the Thames Embankment at a late hour of the night, for the purpose of throwing trumpery articles like these into the river?'

"'What else can you believe?'

"'Anything but that,' said our reporter. 'In the first place it has to be proved that the clothes are hers--an absurd idea, to say the least of it. In the second place, what motive could she have had in disposing of them in such a manner?'

"'You have hit a nail on the head,' said the Inspector. 'A motive she must have had, and a strong one, too. It is a singular affair, and I confess that I don't see my way through it. You see, the suit is new; being but a short time in the water, that is not hard to prove. It is of a rather good description of tweed, and must have cost thirty or thirty-five shillings. To my eyes it has been worn very little, not more than half a dozen times, perhaps not more than three or four, perhaps not more than once. Supposing it to have been worn once only, it must have been worn for a certain purpose, which being carried out rendered its possession dangerous. Therefore it must be got rid of. Now, why throw it into the river? Fifty shopkeepers in fifty neighborhoods would be ready to purchase it for six or seven shillings. Why not sell it, then? I answer, because it would not do for the suit to be still in existence; because the person who disposed of it might be traced. Then would come the question--"Why did you purchase a new suit of clothes for thirty shillings, and sell it immediately afterward for five?" But the clothes may still be traced to the orig............