Random musings on No Name (2), with a question of ethics

1/ It’s interesting that Captain Wragge completely steals the scene in Scene 4, but when he’s gone, in Scene 6, Magdalen becomes prominent and interesting again.

2/ Look at the end of Scene 5—Progress of the Story through the Post.
Some of the letters say “From Mrs Noel Vanstone to Mr Loscombe” in the headline, but they are signed as Magdalen Vanstone.
The signature should be Susan Vanstone. Mr John Loscombe is Noel Vanstone’s lawyer, and Magdalen’s assumed name when she marries Noel Vanstone is Susan Bygrave.
This must be Wilkie Collins’s mistake, because it happens more than once and Mr Loscombe says nothing about it.

3/ I forgot that George Bartram was mentioned early in the book, so had to go back to check. He’s the son of Mr Andrew Vanstone’s dead sister (Mr Andrew Vanstone is father of Norah and Magdalen).
Magdalen Vanstone marries Noel Vanstone, and if my prediction from the end of Scene 4 is correct that Norah Vanstone would marry George Bartram, both sisters marry their cousins. 
Not only so, George Bartram looks like Mr Andrew Vanstone in his younger days. That’s kinda gross, no?

4/ From the point of morality, how bad is Magdalen? Who are we meant to sympathise with?
Let’s go back to the beginning—why do Norah and Magdalen lose their entire inheritance? It’s because they’re illegitimate, their parents’ recent marriage makes the father’s previously made will become invalid in the eyes of the law, and the sudden death cuts off the possibility to make a new will. 
In short, stupid laws and unfortunate circumstances. It is clear that if not for the accident, the father would create a new will to provide for them.
So the entire inheritance (£80,000) goes to the dead man’s brother, Michael Vanstone. Norah accepts her situation and is forced to work as a governess to earn her keep, whereas Magdalen thinks the money should belong to her and her sister, so she tries to get it back. Other characters think of it as revenge, but is it not righting an injustice?
As I read the book, I was rooting for Magdalen. Norah might be seen as more virtuous, but Magdalen works to get back what is unfairly taken away from her. Later, when the money goes from Michael Vanstone to his son Noel, Noel is a miser anyway, who doesn’t want money to go out of his pockets and therefore never spends any of his money unless he absolutely has no other choice. Maybe I just really loathe misers.
I have disliked Miss Garth from early on, for having prejudices about forces of evil in Magdalen, based on nothing. I dislike her more for interfering and helping Mrs Lecount. It is partly Magdalen’s fault, for not warning her and Norah, the same way she’s careless with Mrs Wragge, but the old governess is also meddlesome and naïve, easily taken in.
I also dislike Mr Pendril, the lawyer. As I read the exchanges between Miss Garth and Mr Pendril, between the old governess’s treacherous meeting with Mrs Lecount and the news of Noel Vanstone’s death and Magdalen’s 2nd disinheritance, I’m appalled at their reaction. Is there no sympathy? Is there no understanding? Mr Pendril shows no pity in his letter; instead, he warns that Magdalen would continue, and Norah must be careful. 
(This is a comment on the characters, not a criticism of the book).
Miss Garth and Mr Pendril both are insufferable in their virtuousness—they have no empathy.