The Billy and Charley Story - Page 4

costs¹⁸. He dismissed Henry Syer Cuming's findings as "Foolscap tirade" and suggested that the matter be settled by a forum of experts and interested parties¹⁹.

Charles Roach Smith reported on the trial for The Gentleman's Magazine. Here he argued that the comparatively late manufacture of the objects in the 16th century could explain their anachronistic design. A forger, he explained, would copy objects known to him, but these bore no resemblance to any product of any period. It would also be impossible for a forger to produce such a wide variety of objects²⁰. He challenged Henry Syer Cuming to prove him wrong, but, inexplicably, Henry Syer Cuming withdrew from the debate.

At the end of 188 Charles Reed, the head of a London printing company, exhibited some of the finds to the Society of Antiquaries. The ensuing debate was unfavourable to the objects and prompted Augustus Franks, the Director, to read a paper on forgery at the next meeting'²¹. But nobody made

I8. B.L., Ad. Mss. 30297, item 276.
19. Ibid. item 184: (see also 283 & 284).
20. October 1858 400-1.

any new investigations into the matter, and despite the remonstrations of Charles Roach Smith, the debate petered out.

However, the press coverage of the trial gave the objects such publicity that sales revived. It may not have been coincidental that George Eastwood had moved his business to the Haymarket by the start of 1859²². Henry Syer Cuming claimed that the Guildford trial was "A glorious victory'; as with so many supposed victories, it is doubtful that there were any winners.

The matter rested until the start of 1861, when Charles Roach Smith wrote an article on the finds for the fifth volume of his Collectanea Antiqua. He feared that it might be litigious to revive the debate, but he believed that the British Archaeological Association owed George Eastwood compensation. He argued that the objects dated from the reign of Queen Mary (from their style of lettering), and had been imported from the Continent to replace those articles of religious devotion that has been destroyed

21. Proc Soc Ant Lond I ser 4 (1858) 241: 246-9
22. Gentleman's Magazine Feb. 1859 173.