Yet he felt it only just to face the evidence against her, and seek to the best of his ability to rebut it.
What reasons were there for supposing her to be connected with the plot to defeat the treaty? He placed them in order of their occurrence.
1. He had seen her driving with Mr. Riddle on the day after his dinner.
2. She had denied her acquaintance with Darcy, in his presence, to that gentleman's wife, though she had since been proven to be very intimate with him.
3. She had proposed a game of cards, and suggested Stanley's using an old letter to score on, which proposal and suggestion had led to the restoration of the secret instructions to Mr. Riddle.
4. Kent-Lauriston said she had asked Kingsland to take the chests containing the money to London.
5. She had been in the hall late the night before, assisting Darcy to break open the door.
This was all the evidence against her. Did it prove that she was a partner to the plot?
No, he told himself. It did not.
Did it prove that she was a dupe of these men? An innocent instrument in the furtherance of their vile conspiracy?