So they were brought to trial, and all found guilty. William Mathewe and Lady Agnes Hungerford were sentenced to be hanged; William Inges pleaded benefit of clergy. The plea was contested on the ground that he had committed bigamy, by which he lost his right to claim his clergy. The question was referred to the Bishop of Salisbury, who proved that Inges was a bigamist, and Inges was therefore also sentenced to be hanged. There is no record of a third execution; the servant hanged at the same time as Lady Agnes Hungerford was therefore William Mathewe. The story is still incomplete: it may be hoped that records somewhere exist the discovery of which will tell us more. It will be observed that Lady Hungerford was indicted, not for the murder of her husband, but for receiving, comforting, and aiding, five months after the fact, those who, by her procurement, had murdered him. What was the nature of the comfort and aid thus given? Had something of the story leaked out, and was Lady Hungerford compelled to protect the murderers? Again, what part in the tragedy was played by Sir Edward? It is clear that at the time of the murder Agnes Cotell was supreme at Farleigh Castle. She brought over from Sir Edward’s other house the two men who committed the deed; she was so fully in command of Farleigh Castle that she could secure the use of the furnace for disposing of the body of the murdered man. It is not difficult to divine what were the relations between Sir Edward and the wife of Cotell, who was probably employed in some capacity on the estate. How did Agnes Cotell account for his disappearance? And not his disappearance only; as a preliminary step towards the marriage, Sir Edward must have been satisfied that Cotell was dead. Did he know the nature of his death? Had he a share in this great crime, or was he merely the helpless victim of an ambitious woman, bent on obtaining a great position, and reckless as to the means to be employed to obtain it? There may have been in Sir Edward a tendency towards degeneracy; his son by the first wife was executed at the Tower in 1540 for an abnormal crime. But if Sir Edward was ignorant of the murder, there must have been suspicions, perhaps necessitating the active interference of Lady Hungerford when she received, comforted, and aided the murderers. There must have been whispers, rising to open denunciation when Lady Hungerford’s protector, her husband, all-powerful in the county, had quitted the scene. For more than three years justice was blind and deaf, but only seven months after Sir Edward’s death the criminals were indicted. If we take into account the imperfect means of communication then existing, we shall find reason to believe that the law must have been set in motion very soon after Sir Edward’s death.