e many suggestions put forward by various newspapers or
private individuals, there were one or two which were feasible enough
to attract the attention of the public. One which appeared in The
Times, over the signature of an amateur reasoner of some celebrity at
that date, attempted to deal with the matter in a critical and
semi-scientific manner. An extract must suffice, although the curious
can see the whole letter in the issue of the 3rd of July.

"It is one of the elementary principles of practical reasoning," he
remarked, "that when the impossible has been eliminated the residuum,
HOWEVER IMPROBABLE, must contain the truth. It is certain that the
train left Kenyon Junction. It is certain that it did not reach Barton
Moss. It is in the highest degree unlikely, but still possible, that
it may have taken one of the seven available side lines. It is
obviously impossible for a train to run where there are no rails, and,
therefore, we may reduce our improbables to the three open lines,
namely the Carnstock Iron Works, the Big Ben, and the Perseverance. Is
there a secret society of colliers, an English Camorra, which is
capable of destroying both train and passengers? It is improbable, but
it is not impossible. I confess that I am unable to suggest any other
solution. I should certainly advise the company to direct all their
energies towards the observation of those three lines, and of the
workmen at the end of them. A careful supervision of the pawnbrokers'
shops of the district might possibly bring some suggestive facts to
light."

The suggestion coming from a recognized authority upon such matters
created considerable interest, and a fierce opposition from those who
considered such a statement to be a preposterous libel upon an honest
and deserving set of men. The only answer to this criticism was a
challenge to the objectors to lay any more feasible explanations before
the public. In reply to this two others were forthcoming (Times, July
7th and 9th). The first suggested that the train might have run off
the metals and be lying submerged in the Lancashire and Staffordshire
Canal, which runs parallel to the railway for some hundred of yards.
This suggestion was thrown out of court by the published depth of the
canal, which was entirely insufficient to conceal so large an object.
The second correspondent wrote calling attention to the bag which
appeared to be the sole luggage which the travellers had broug