Conclusion
The doubts which Inspector Tanner had experienced as to the truth of
Austin’s statement were short-lived. After a careful consideration of
the story, Austin was subjected to a most searching examination on
small details—such points and so many of them as no trio of
conspirators could possibly have foreseen and provided for. Cosgrove,
who made a statement similar to Austin’s, was also tested upon these
points, and his answers convinced the authorities that at last the
truth was known. At his request the false confession of blackmail,
signed ‘Edward Dale,’ was given up by Miss Belcher, to whom it had
been handed for safety. But what cleared the last shreds of doubt from
the minds of those concerned was the statement of Dale. Not only did
his testimony agree with that of the others, both generally and on the
small matters in question, but he went further than either of them. He
confessed fully that his action had been the cause of the tragedy,
stating, which neither of the others, had done, that he had actually
pushed Sir William back. He swore most positively he had no idea of
injuring the manufacturer, nor had he noticed the rope or thought
about the other’s tripping.
It was clear to the authorities that with any ordinary jury the
defence would win, and indeed, both Tanner, his Chief, and the Crown
Prosecutor themselves believed the explanation given by the three
prisoners. The case against Austin and Cosgrove was therefore
unconditionally withdrawn, and they were set at liberty.
Against Dale the matter was not so clear, a charge of manslaughter
being considered. At last, however, it was decided he could not be
proved guilty of this, his only punishable offence being blackmail.
But as Austin and Cosgrove resolutely refused to prosecute, the charge
was not proceeded with, and Dale also was set free. The cousins even
agreed to pay him the £320 a year he had been promised, though they
would not purchase for him the annuity.
All the cases thus collapsing, the Yard authorities did not consider
it necessary to make known the illegality of Sir William’s marriage,
and the secret was therefore preserved.
A few weeks, later two announcements were to be seen in the
fashionable papers. First came:
‘Ponson—Drew. Dec. 29, 1920, at St George’s, Hanover Square, by the
Rev. Sydney Smallwood, cousin of the bride, Austin Herbert, son of
the late Sir William Ponson of Luce Manor, Halford, to Lois Evelyn,
eldest daughter of Arthur Drew, of Elm Cottage, Halford.’
Below it was another announcement:
‘Ponson—Belcher. Dec. 29, 1920 at St George’s, Hanover Square, by
the Rev. Sydney Smallwood, Cosgrove Seaton, son of the late John
Ponson of Oaklands, Gateshead, to Elizabeth Clare (Betty), youngest
daughter of the late Rev. Stanford Belcher, of St Aiden’s Rectory,
Nottingham.’
The End
Transcriber’s Notes
This transcription follows the text of the edition published by
HarperCollins in 2016, which is based on the original 1921 edition
published by W. Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. The following alterations have
been made to correct what are believed to be unambiguous errors in the
text:
* Seven missing quotation marks have been restored.
* Three sentences terminated with a comma have been changed to end
with a period.
* Six further invalid commas have been deleted.
* The word “Franklyins” has been corrected to “Franklyns” (Ch. III).
* The words “un substantiated” have been corrected to
“unsubstantiated” (Ch. V).
* The phrase “fled him forward” has been corrected to “led him
forward” (Ch. VI).
* The word “aerodome” has been corrected to “aerodrome” (Ch. XII).
* The word “Anstin” has been corrected to “Austin” (Ch. XV).