With the view of discovering the drift of the best native opinion on these subjects, the Legal Adviser told the story to two natives, one a religious sheikh of very high position, universally respected, and the other a servant who had been for many years in the employment of English masters. The sheikh, whilst not doubting that such an ordeal, if employed by a man of holy life, was a reasonable method of detecting crime, was inclined to think that this particular fakir was an impostor. At the same time, he did not consider that he should be punished, as the death might be due to some cause hitherto undiscovered. To illustrate his point he repeated a well-known story of a man who died at his friend’s house immediately after eating some honey. Great suspicion fell upon the friend, who only escaped punishment by the discovery of a dead serpent coiled up at the bottom of the pot. In this case, too, he suggested, a snake might have spat into the inkpot. The servant went further. He, too, was of opinion that trial by ordeal was a reasonable method of detecting crime, and more than that, it was really the only satisfactory and effective way, far better than any investigation by the best and wisest of mamurs. The only thing that surprised him in the story was that the guilty man should have died after confessing his crime; for this was contrary to precedent. He could only conclude that the man was exceptionally wicked, and that God had taken this opportunity to punish him for other crimes.