Saturday 12 Jul 1845 (p. 3, col. 3-4) ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. ----- We are not responsible either for the principles, the reasonings, or the statements of our correspondents, for by merely inserting their sentiments we neither adopt nor deny them. ----- THE NICHOL FOREST GHOST STORY. To the Editor of the Carlisle Journal. Sir,-In your account, last week, of Isaac MILBURN's "Ghost Story" and the disinterment of the late John JOHNSTON, of Baxton Gill, you have given publicity to several falsehoods which I feel called upon to refute. Had you confined yourself to facts merely as they occurred, I would have felt very much obliged to you, as I court enquiry on the subject. My motive for having my late uncle's grave opened was not as you have represented it, to prove my innocence of the crime which Isaac MILBURN charged me of, by touching the body to see if blood would flow; and I cannot but feel indignant at what you represented as having taken place at the opening of the grave. You say "that I was in an agony of suspense until the coffin lid was removed," and that "I touched the skull rather gingerly," and one of the crowd cried out, "haud your finger down harder;" no blood flowing, you said that "I cried I am an innocent man. Hurrah, shouted the crowd," &c. &c. Now, sir, I can prove that not one word was spoken to the the [sic] above effect that day. My motive for what I did, was simply this: Isaac MILBURN having circulated his story about seeing the ghost, accusing me such a horrible crime; although no sensible person gave credit to it, yet many persons did believe it, or at least pretended so; and as Isaac had said if we opened the grave we should find the corpse in the same state of preservation as when it was interred, I knew of no other way to undeceive such people but by opening the grave, that it might be seen by every person what credit ought to be given to MILBURN's story. And I can assure you that the grave was opened in a very decent manner, and not one word was spoken about touching the bones to see if "blood would flow." The surgeon lifted the skull out of the coffin and desired that it might be washed, which was accordingly done, and no fracture being found, the ribs were examined (not taken out and washed as you say) and no marks of violence being found, the skull was again placed in the coffin and the grave closed up again. What you denominated a crowd, consisted of three and twenty persons, some of them are respectable farmers under Sir James GRAHAM. But, you say, that it is melancholy to reflect that there should have been some unpleasantness on the very day of the old man's death. This, sir, I positively deny. My uncle had been visibly declining for a considerably time previous to his death, and I can assure you "he was not cut off with a potato," as he died about eight o'clock in the evening (and not at his noontide repast, as you say) in the presence of his own servants-viz., James CAIRNS, from the parish of Cannobie, and Margaret SOWERBY, from the parish of Denton; and George BEETHAM and his wife, who lived in a cottage next to my uncle. Several respectable females in the neighbourhood assisted in laying out the corpse, who are yet alive, and can testify whether any marks of violence were seen about the body. And I can assure you the old man had no intention whatever of cutting my sister and me off with a shilling, for he remarked, more than once, to a man whom he often consulted about his affairs, and who assisted in making his will, that if he did not leave what he had to my sister and me, that he would not be acting honestly, as we had helped him in the management of his farm for twenty-five years. I make no doubt, sir, but you have given the story as it was represented to you, but what I have stated above I am ready to prove, and I hope you will give it place in your paper this week. I am, sir, your obedient servant, JAMES GRAHAM. Thorney Know, July 9, 1845. P.S.-I may add that Isaac MILBURN is an out-door pauper in the Longtown Union. ["Jemmy" has now had his say; but his comments only go to substantiate our statement of last week. Let us see how he establishes the "several falsehoods" with which charges us. "My motive for having my late uncle's grave opened was not," he says, "as you represented it, to prove my innocence of the crime which Isaac charged me of, by touching the body to see if blood would flow." Now Jemmy afterwards admits that he was accused of the crime-that there was a report that the corpse would be found as perfect as when buried, and that he knew "no other way of undeceiving the people but by opening the grave." And it is past all doubt that many of the parties present believed in the superstition as to blood flowing, and although Jemmy protests he did not, yet he ministered to the belief by touch- [sic] the bones and washing the skull to satisfy them. Where then, is the falsehood,-in our assertion, or in Jemmy's charge? Again he says-"The skull was placed in the coffin and the grave closed again." What did we say? "The remains of poor Jock o' the Gill were then put back into the grave." The difference in the statements being the difference between six and half-a-dozen. But it seems that "what we denominated a crowd consisted of three and twenty persons;" and a pretty numerous crowd too, for the little church-yard of Kirkandrews-upon-Esk. We suppose Jemmy intended to ask us how many men make a crowd. We ask, in return, of Jemmy, how many wells make a river? As to some of the men being "respectable farmers under Sir James GRAHAM," we can only say-the more fools they for their pains. Jemmy says he can prove that nobody said "haud down your finger harder." Our little bird, on being consulted on this point, reasserted it, with the addition that as no one could tell where the sound came from, it was believed to be from Jock o' the Gill's wraith, which was no doubt underground, and wished to keep Jemmy's nose to the grindstone-just as the Ghost of Hamlet moans to his son, "remember thine oath." There are some other points which the shrewd reader will find out for himself, and will best answer by referring to our statement. In one, we are glad to say Jemmy is right: we did give the story as it was represented to us; and we are sure all Nichol Forest will give him credit for correcting any inaccuracies into which our little bird may have fallen. Our Printer's Devil (who believes in spirits) swears he has been twice visited by Jock o' the Gill's wraith, and threatened with a smell of brimstone for daring to doubt his identity; though, perhaps, the apparition may be traced to the fact of the young rogue being awakened early one morning by his mother, in her nightdress, to take a spoonful of treacle and brimstone. We have heard of treacle, and other articles of commerce being "up;" it would now seem that "spirits" are rising.