was the principal owner and vendor of the objects described.

The case, which was held at Guildford assizes on 4th August 1858, was unique in English legal history in that it arose from a meeting of an archaeological society. Archaeologists have appeared as expert witnesses in court, but this case sought to determine the implications of an archaeologist's expert opinion.

George Eastwood was first to testify. He said that he had paid William Edwards £296 for 1100 of the objects before taking his custom direct to Billy and Charley, paying them £50 for more finds. He had believed them to be children's toys, but he now thought they were pilgrims' signs.

William Edwards said that Billy and Charley had first brought the objects to him in June 1857, and supplied him with 1100, eight or ten at a time over the next year, for which he had paid them £200. He did not think he would easily let himself be taken in by his own suppliers. When asked what the finds could be he replied that he considered that a matter for the archaeological societies to decide.

Charley Eaton had recently married, and his wife would not let him attend the court. But Billy Smith did appear. Described by a reporter covering the trial as "a rough looking young man", he said that with Charley he had found 2000 of the objects, making £400 from their sale. They bribed dock workers to smuggle them out for free drinks, or searched the docks for them after working hours (both of which, he was forced to admit, were against port authority regulations).

Expert witnesses were then called. Charles Roach Smith attended the court unwillingly, upset that matters had come to such an end, and uncertain that legal action would yield satisfactory results¹³. Nonetheless, he reiterated his belief that the objects were genuine. The Rev. Thomas Hugo said that he too believed them to be late medieval. But when pressed to explain why, they both said that their reasons were purely intuitive. Frederick Fairholt, the archaeological illustrator, and two other antique dealers, also vouched for the authenticity of the finds.

Here the prosecution rested its case. The defence claimed that there was no case to answer, as there was no evidence that George Eastwood had even been alluded to in the article under discussion. The judge agreed, and directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, although the defence was asked to affirm its faith in George Eastwood's integrity.

13. T.B.A.C. 4th Aug. 1858; British Library, Additional Mss. 30297, item 270.
14.T.B.A.C. 22nd Dec. 1858.
 

Fig. 4: a medallion showing two typical Billy and Charley knights. (Courtesy Cuming Museum)

Henry Syer Cuming was delighted. "We gained a glorious victory" he wrote to Thomas Bateman; "How are the mightly fallen!"¹⁴ He had even obtained the admission of an accomplice of Billy and Charley that he had made "scores" of the objects, taking designs from the Journal of the British Archaeological Association and Charles Roach Smith's Collectanea Antiqua. If this confession had been produced in court it might have ended the debate, and it is strange that he made no further use of it. It is also puzzling as to how Billy and Charley could have obtained copies of Collectanea Antiqua, which raises the possibility that they had collaborated with more highly placed figures.

The Times devoted a column and a half to the tria¹⁵. Athenaeum reprinted this with an introduction deploring George Eastwood's conduct¹⁶, and The Literary Gazette did the same, adding an introduction sympathetic to Athenaeum¹⁷.

Charles Roach Smith was more sympathetic to George Eastwood. "We proved the genuineness of the finds and we could do no more" he wrote to Thomas Hugo. He even offered to help pay his legal

15. 6th August 1858 12.
16. 7th August 1858 169-70.
17.7th August 1858 184-5.