Certainly for a long time after the “Gothic Cottage” affair he was more circumspect in his conduct and general behaviour. For the greater portion of his life he seems to have lived on the border line of respectability and decent dulness, and at times appeared to settle down to an honest life. But he deliberately chose evil for good――the old craving for adventure and excitement would come over him again, and he would plunge headlong into the realms of desperate lawlessness to re-emerge shortly in the daylight as a quiet and steady young member of society. His single-handed self-reliant way of going to work is perhaps the most notable of his characteristics. He trusted to himself and no one else. Whilst this saved him from the danger of weak and treacherous accomplices, it made much larger demands upon his audacity and self-possession. Thus it came to pass that thousands for whom a vulgar career of crime and violence has no attractions are compelled to feel some interest in a man who is almost unique in the annals of crime. It is not so much, however, for his commanding superiority in any one department of criminal activity as for the rare combination of his various talents that Charles Peace commands attention. He was a veritable genius, who reached a high level of excellence in many branches of his profession. There have been more daring highway robberies and more extensive burglaries than any which he is known to have committed. But few men have caused more widespread terror, or created more profound attention by the suddenness and the brilliant success of their exploits. It would be a great misfortune if the boldness and fearlessness of this bad man were to blind even the most thoughtless to the utter worthlessness of his character. In shadowing forth his lawless career we are under the impression that it will act as a warning to those who peruse these pages. It will prove beyond all question the truth of the axiom, “That a life of crime is always a life of care.” In nothing does his baseness more transparently appear than in his miserable apologies and self-justifications with which his religious experiences are interlarded. Assuming, as we are anxious to do, that these pious utterances of his later days are not wilfully insincere, they nevertheless betray an utter moral blindness. He was very willing to call his past life wicked in general terms, but for his worst transgressions he had some extenuating plea, which destroyed the validity of his assumed penitence. If he could have been turned loose upon society again, one can hardly venture to hope that his future life would have corresponded with his edifying conduct in gaol. The curiosity of the public to know all about Peace and his life need not be regarded with too despondent an eye.