“The will which Mr. Vanstone the elder had destroyed in my presence had not been, so far as I know, replaced by another.  When I was sent for, in the usual course, on his death, I fully expected that the law would be left to make the customary division among his widow and his children.  To my surprise, a will appeared among his papers, correctly drawn and executed, and dated about a week after the period when the first will had been destroyed.  He had maintained his vindictive purpose against his eldest son, and had applied to a stranger for the professional assistance which I honestly believe he was ashamed to ask for at my hands.

“It is needless to trouble you with the provisions of the will in detail.  There were the widow and three surviving children to be provided for.  The widow received a life-interest only in a portion of the testator’s property.  The remaining portion was divided between Andrew and Selina—­two-thirds to the brother; one-third to the sister.  On the mother’s death, the money from which her income had been derived was to go to Andrew and Selina, in the same relative proportions as before—­five thousand pounds having been first deducted from the sum and paid to Michael, as the sole legacy left by the implacable father to his eldest son.

“Speaking in round numbers, the division of property, as settled by the will, stood thus.  Before the mother’s death, Andrew had seventy thousand pounds; Selina had thirty-five thousand pounds; Michael—­had nothing.  After the mother’s death, Michael had five thousand pounds, to set against Andrew’s inheritance augmented to one hundred thousand, and Selina’s inheritance increased to fifty thousand.—­Do not suppose that I am dwelling unnecessarily on this part of the subject.  Every word I now speak bears on interests still in suspense, which vitally concern Mr. Vanstone’s daughters.  As we get on from past to present, keep in mind the terrible inequality of Michael’s inheritance and Andrew’s inheritance.  The harm done by that vindictive will is, I greatly fear, not over yet.

“Andrew’s first impulse, when he heard the news which I had to tell him, was worthy of the open, generous nature of the man.  He at once proposed to divide his inheritance with his elder brother.  But there was one serious obstacle in the way.  A letter from Michael was waiting for him at my office when he came there, and that letter charged him with being the original cause of estrangement between his father and his elder brother.  The efforts which he had made—­bluntly and incautiously, I own, but with the purest and kindest intentions, as I know—­to compose the quarrel before leaving home, were perverted, by the vilest misconstruction, to support an accusation of treachery and falsehood which would have stung any man to the quick.  Andrew felt, what I felt, that if these imputations were not withdrawn before his generous intentions toward his brother took effect, the mere fact of their execution