needed to make a medallion cost twopence, but one could be sold for half a crown, and larger items could sell for considerably more. William Edwards became one of their principal customers, describing the objects as "The most interesting relics I have met with for years and the earliest pilgrims' signs that have yet been found". He showed them to George Eastwood. an antique dealer in the City Road, who bought large quantities, advertising them as "A remarkably curious and unique collection of leaden signs or badges of the time of Richard II".
Not surprisingly, the appearance of so many artefacts of a type hitherto unknown aroused suspicion. Henry Syer Cuming of Southwark, secretary to the British Archaeological Association, and Thomas Bateman, the Peak District archaeologist, were dubious of the examples they saw, and corresponded on exposing the fraud. By the end of March Henry Syer Cuming had discovered how the objects were being made. "The game is now almost up, and it is high time it should be" he wrote. In a lecture to the British Archaeological Association, he said that 12,000 has appeared [an exaggeration], and concluded by condemning them as a "Gross attempt at deception" and regretting that there were no legal methods of punishing the forgers. The lecture was not published in the Journal of the Association, but it was reported in The Gentleman's Magazine and Athenaeum.
Meanwhile the eminent archaeologist Charles Roach Smith inspected the finds. By 1858 he had retired from public life, but his reputation was still very high. He was not sure what the objects were, but he felt that they belonged to the 16th century, partly on the logic that no forger would create anything so preposterous. If they were forgeries, he wrote, they would be "The most extraordinary insults that ever were offered to the judgments of collectors this century".
But the debate moved away from academic speculation when George Eastwood sued the publishers of Athenaeum for libel. He claimed that they had published an article which accused him of selling forgeries; although not named, he was the principal owner and vendor of the objects described.
The case, which was held at Guildford assizes on 4th August 1858, was unique in English legal history in that it arose from a meeting of an archaeological society. Archaeologists have appeared as expert witnesses in court, but this case sought to determine the implications of an archaeologist's expert opinion.
George Eastwood was first to testify. He said that he had paid William Edwards £296 for 1100 of the objects before taking his custom direct to Billy and Charley, paying them £50 for more finds. William Edwards said that Billy and Charley had first brought the objects to him in June 1857, and supplied him with 1100, eight or ten at a time over the next year, for which he had paid them £200. He did not think he would easily let himself be taken in by his own suppliers.
Charley Eaton had recently married, and his wife would not let him attend the court. But Billy Smith did appear. Described by a reporter covering the trial as "a rough looking young man", he said that with Charley he had found 2000 of the objects, making £400 from their sale. They bribed dock workers to smuggle them out for free drinks, or searched the docks for them after working hours (both of which, he was forced to admit, were against port authority regulations).
Expert witnesses were then called. Charles Roach Smith attended the court unwillingly, upset that matters had come to such an end, and uncertain that legal action would yield satisfactory results. Nonetheless, he reiterated his belief that the objects were genuine. The Rev. Thomas Hugo, Frederick Fairholt, an archaeological illustrator, and two other antique dealers, also vouched for the authenticity of the finds.
Here the prosecution rested its case. The defence claimed that there was no case to answer, as there was no evidence that George Eastwood had even been alluded to in the article under discussion. The judge agreed, and directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, although the defence was asked to affirm its faith in George Eastwood's integrity.
Henry Syer Cuming was delighted. "We gained a glorious victory" he wrote to Thomas Bateman; "How are the mightly fallen!" He had even obtained the admission of an accomplice of Billy and Charley that he had made "scores" of the objects, taking designs from the Journal of the British Archaeological Association and Charles Roach Smith's Collectanea Antiqua. If this confession had been produced in court it might have ended the debate, and it is strange that he made no further use of it. It is also puzzling as to how Billy and Charley could have obtained copies of Collectanea Antiqua, which raises the possibility that they had collaborated with more highly placed figures.
Charles Roach Smith reported on the trial for The Gentleman's Magazine. Here he argued that the comparatively late manufacture of the objects in the 16th century could explain their anachronistic design. A forger, he explained, would copy objects known to him, but these bore no resemblance to any product of any period. It would also be impossible for a forger to produce such a wide variety of objects. He challenged Henry Syer Cuming to prove him wrong, but, inexplicably, Henry Syer Cuming withdrew from the debate.
The press coverage of the trial gave the objects such publicity that sales revived. It may not have been coincidental that George Eastwood had moved his business to the Haymarket by the start of 1859. Henry Syer Cuming claimed that the Guildford trial was "A glorious victory'; as with so many supposed victories, it is doubtful that there were any winners.
The matter rested until the start of 1861, when Charles Roach Smith wrote an article on the finds for the fifth volume of his Collectanea Antiqua. He feared that it might be litigious to revive the debate, but he believed that the British Archaeological Association owed George Eastwood compensation. He argued that the objects dated from the reign of Queen Mary (from their style of lettering), and had been imported from the Continent to replace those articles of religious devotion that has been destroyed by the Reformation.
As this went to press the fraud was exposed. Charles Reed had been making his own investigations. He visited Shadwell Dock, but he could not find anybody who had uncovered any of the objects. When a sewer hunter (a scavenger who roamed the city sewers) offered to sell him some of the finds, he won his confidence and persuaded him to divulge that they were forgeries. Through him he gained an introduction to Billy and Charley. Discovering that they felt that antique dealers had defaulted on payments, he offered to buy from them. Having gained their trust he bribed the sewer hunter to break into their workshop and steal their moulds.