THE QUEEN AGAINST OWEN
BY
ALLEN UPWARD
AUTHOR OF ‘THE PRINCE OF BALKISTAN’
A NEW EDITION
London
CHATTO & WINDUS, PICCADILLY
1895
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS
ON
THE QUEEN AGAINST OWEN.
‘An unmistakable success. Regarded simply as a story, we have not fora long while read anything more intensely dramatic. It would compelnotice for the mere manner of its telling. Not often has an author whohas boldly departed from the traditional lines of the writer offiction so completely vindicated his method. There is high quality inthis book, with its vivid glimpses of life, and its clevercharacterization.... Altogether, a notable book; and if its popularitybe at all commensurate with its merits, it will have a greatvogue.’—Sun.
‘The narrative never flags.... A realistic representation of acriminal trial.’—Athenæum.
‘Lovers of exciting fiction, powerful, original, and dramatic, shouldread “The Queen against Owen.” Narrative after narrative, somewhat inthe Wilkie Collins manner, draws you on until the mystery thatsurrounds the crime—which remains a mystery almost to the veryend—disappears, and then you draw a breath of relief, but notbefore.’—Sporting Life.
To
CLEMENT HARLEY DOWNS
ESQUIRE
THIS SLIGHT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIS KIND SERVICES
IS TENDERED BY THE AUTHOR
NOTE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
I take the opportunity of a second edition of this little sketch topoint out a rather curious fact in connection with the numerouscomments which were made in the press on the evidence presentedagainst the heroine. My object in writing the story was, naturally, toso balance the evidence as to leave it open to my jury to returneither verdict, and thus keep the reader in a state of mild suspenseduring the progress of the trial. How far I succeeded may be gatheredfrom the following extracts:
‘A jury that required to deliberate at all in such a caseought to have been hanged.’—Brief.
‘The way in which the feeblest of cases is worked up to averdict of guilty is a trifle ridiculous, and a slander onjudge, bar, and even jury.’—Leeds Mercury.
‘It is absurd to suppose that upon such evidence any judgeand jury could have convicted her of murder.’—Vanity Fair.
‘A tangle of circumstantial evidence which is supposed to beconclusive, but on which we feel confident that no Englishjury would convict.’—New Zealand Mail.
‘The prisoner is found guilty on what seems to us mostinsufficient evidence.’—Daily Chronicle.
‘It is difficult to believe that the jury on the evidencecould have brought in a verdict of guilty.’—Daily News.
‘The evidence being purely circumstantial, as well asflimsy.’—Academy.
[N.B.—Several of the above reviewers were friendly to the book onother points.]
‘In Scotland the verdict would certainly have been “NotProven.”’—Glasgow Herald.
‘Though the evidence is purely circumstantial, it seems atfirst sight so strong that no magistrate could fail tocommit.’—Saturday Review.
‘T BU KİTABI OKUMAK İÇİN ÜYE OLUN VEYA GİRİŞ YAPIN!
Sitemize Üyelik ÜCRETSİZDİR!