“In reference to some of the remains discovered, surgical testimonies were opposed. Amongst several unclaimed bodies deposited at La Morgue, during the progress of this examination, was that, evidently, of an Englishman, whose blue coat and top-boots betrayed his origin. Although swollen and disfigured, while found naturally at a distance down the Seine, yet no other Englishman than the man-servant of M. Vilby had disappeared. The inference became certainty from the subsequent declarations of many pompeurs, gendarmes, and bystanders, that after the rescue of the nurse with her child, a figure had been seen to leap from the pursuit of the flames out of this window into the canal. “The declaration of M. Vilby, after several days, was taken. ‘Believed the fire to be accidental. Had left Madame slightly indisposed, to see an after-piece at the theatre, which he particularly wished to see with her. Had been somewhat annoyed at her inability to accompany him. Had met friends, and instead of remaining, had sent home a message by his servant, to say he might return late. Had left them, however, earlier than he at first intended—and’——the emotion of the witness was at that point more expressive than words. The commissary-in-chief intimated that no further evidence on the part of M. Vilby would be necessary, unless on inferior points. ‘He was aware of the employment of Suzanne Deroux. Did not know of her introduction of her own infant on any occasion into the house. During his absence on business, his wife had gone out of Paris for some days to visit a married friend, leaving their child, with his full approval. He had approved her not nursing the child herself—nay, had suggested it. He had considered Suzanne a faithful servant, if not very intelligent. Certainly, had she been so, she might have saved his child, without risking her own. He was now about to visit the married friend of his wife in the neighbourhood of Paris.’