WCP5010

[1]¹ [p. lxxxix]

Frith Hill, Godalming: January 3, 1883.

Dear Sir,— I think you are unreasonable in expecting me to do more than I have done; but I will endeavour to explain precisely my present standpoint.

The jury and the judge acquitted your father of the offences charged against him on a balance of evidence. This the judge expressly stated. I accept that acquittal. But the acquittal does not disprove the facts alleged, only that Mr. Sellar was not responsible for them. I, however, have additional evidence of these facts— not laid before the jury— in the narrative of McLeod, and taking the whole together, I am of opinion that the facts of injury done to the people are substantially proved. When there is a conflict of evidence I claim a right to form my own judgment [2] [p. xc] — and I have formed it. I accuse no individual; but I quote a narrative which it appears to me was not invalidated by the conflicting evidence of the trial, and I refuse to conceal what I believe to be important facts of history.

I am sure that no impartial person, looking at the trouble I have taken to take out every possible clue to your father's name (and considering the extreme difficulty of getting a copy of McLeod's pamphlet, the reference to it as an authority is only nominal), will consider that I have published anything 'calumnious.'

I remain

Yours very truly,

Alfred R. Wallace.