from these Pleadings as an irrelevant matter. Let me ask you this question. Has Lady Russell told the truth, or has she sought to deceive you? Now, Gentlemen, the learned Solicitor-General, behaving (I have known him for many years, I am happy to say) as I have always observed him behave, like an honourable and straightforward man, finding how the matter stood, has got up and withdrawn this charge, and has declined to press it. But the consequence of the charge having been made cannot be withdrawn. It is not true that that young man X was visited in his bedroom in the small hours of the night and morning on four separate occasions by Lord Russell. If it be not true, either Lady Russell has sworn to that which she knows to be false, or she has sworn to that which she does not know to be true-I mean, as to the fact of his going up to that young man's room. In either alternative, what is the value of her evidence upon any one of the dozen or twenty subjects upon which she has spoken? The whole case against her husband rests upon her testimony, and if her testimony cannot be regarded as of any value in such a matter, what becomes of her case? What becomes of her alleged right to the remedy which she seeks in this Court?

"One more observation, Gentlemen, and I have done, Why on earth if that charge is not true was that matter of this young man's career at Oxford referred to? What earthly bearing on this case could such an incident have if it were not for the purpose of making you believe that he was a man who was addicted to such practices as were at first suggested in these Pleadings? Now we know the facts, or some of them. There was some disagreeable occurrence about a letter to a man (I know not what), Lord Russell's account was this: 'I was asked about it; I heard about it, and I demanded an inquiry. The present Master of Balliol,' Professor Jowett with reference to whom Sir Charles Russell's observations were perfectly well founded-a man of the highest distinction and of the highest consideration—' was the Master of my College. He was also Vice-Chancellor of the University. The inquiry was not made, and I took my name off the books,' says Lord Russell. Well, so far the matter ended: but he was asked also: 'Is it not a fact that you have been received as a guest at Professor Jowett's house since.' 'Yes, it is: and more than that, Mr. Jowett was present at my marriage.' Do you suppose, Gentlemen, that if Professor Jowett had thought that any imputation of this sort rested upon his former pupil (I do not know whether that is the correct ex

pression, or Undergraduate of his College) that he would have been present at his marriage or would have had him to visit him? Why is the allegation made? It is another piece of malignity imported into this case for the sake of enhancing and pointing it to make a moral of the most improper allegation in the Particulars. From whom does it come, and how does it come?

"Gentlemen, I have ended the observations I have to make in this case, and if you think the charges which are made in this Petition are substantially proved, then, of course, you will find a verdict in favour of the Petitioner to the effect that the husband has been guilty of cruelty. If you are not satisfied, and think that the charges are either disproved or are not brought home with that cogent evidence which it is incumbent on those making the charges to give, then your verdict on every principle ought to be for the Respondent." THE ASSOCIATE: Consider your verdict, Gentlemen.

THE FOREMAN: We should like to retire, My Lord: we want to know the issues which are to be pronounced for?

SIR CHARLES BUTT: I had better give you the Pleadings. The specific issues are these

THE FOREMAN: We want to know what is the question we have to answer?

SIR CHARLES BUTT: It is this-Whether John Francis Stanley, Earl Russell, the Respondent has been guilty of cruelty towards Mabel Edith, Countess Russell, the Petitioner? That is the only question for you. I think I have explained to you what cruelty would be, and what would not be cruelty. That is the question formally drawn which will be read to you on your return. I will hand it to you now (handing it). If there are any documents you would like, either the diaries or the correspondence, you can either take them with you or can send for them.

THE FOREMAN: My Lord, as to the incident, is that charge withdrawn?

SIR CHARLES BUTT: That charge is now withdrawn from the case, or I should have left it to you. The charge is admitted by the Solicitor-General to be untrue, and that is now withdrawn. You recollect the statement of the Solicitor-General as to that in his speech?

THE FOREMAN: Yes.

(The Jury retired at 5.15. At 5.45 they sent a paper to the learned Judge, and 5.55 they sent another paper to the Judge, returning into Court at 6.10.)

THE ASSOCIATE: Have you agreed upon your verdict?
THE FOREMAN: We have.

THE ASSOCIATE: Do you find that John Francis Stanley, Earl Russell, the Respondent, has been guilty of cruelty towards Mabel Edith, Countess Russell, the Petitioner ?

THE FOREMAN: No.

The case was over the Jury had acquitted me: round upon round of applause began in the corridors, and swelled down through the crowd of people gathered there to the very doors in the Strand where I had been hissed two days before. Butt looked up with a twinkle in his eye and said: "That noise is not in this Court, I have no power to stop it," and added sotto voce," and I would not if I could."

George Lewis was not used to fighting honest men; he had adopted his usual tactics of bluff and judging from his long experience he thought a guilty conscience would cause me to collapse, but I had called his bluff, and when once you call, the bigger the bluff the worse the fall. Mabel Edith had been found by the Jury to be a liar and she had been denounced by the Judge as a malignant woman who made wicked and monstrous charges. How did she meet this exposure? By going the next day to the Hawk a scurrilous rag edited by Augustus Moore, repeating her charges, and saying that if she had only had a proper chance she could have established them. And this after a four days' trial!

N June, 1890, I took up my residence at Amberley Cottage, a house which we had chosen together for our joint home, and had

I

been over together, and of course at that time I was still hoping that Mabel Edith would return to it. In fact she never lived there. It was a rough-cast riverside house about half a mile above Boulter's Lock, on an estate called Maidenhead Court, which had been developed by Charles Boxall, who lived in the largest house on it. It was unfortunately separated from the river by the towpath, but it was a pretty little house of the villa type with a little verandah and a suburban garden. Of course I needed to put in electric light and build a magnificent engine-house. I had my old engineer Moyse with me, the sole survivor of the crew of the Royal, and he also ran the launch which I still kept on the river. During my first ten years of course I drove horses, as motor-cars were not then practicable, and I used to do the two miles to Taplow station in about 10 minutes.

Boxall was a successful solicitor of the firm of Boxall and Boxall, in Chancery Lane, but like many successful solicitors he took more interest in the things he did away from his office. He was very keen on this estate, which he had developed, and he also had an estate at West Chiltington, Sussex, where I have often shot partridges with him and French, in the days before General French became so famous. Even in those days, French had the same capacity for out-walking and wearing out all the other members of the shooting party with his energy as his Staff have subsequently experienced. Boxall was very kind to me, and we took quite a fancy to each other. I used often to go up to his house to play billiards after dinner in his Baronial Hall, of which he was very proud. We used to discuss legal matters, and also every turn and twist of the developments in the matrimonial cases. Mrs. Boxall was an amiable woman but rather deaf and could not, therefore, contribute much to the conversation. Boxall among other professional cares had the serious task

of looking after the young Duke of Manchester, and his estates. We used to go to each other's houses when there were any interesting guests to meet. He introduced me to a neighbour Archer, with a pretty wife and two unmarried sisters-in-law, who afterwards disappeared from this country, having robbed them of all their funds of which he was trustee.

In the year 1894, the Parish Councils Act was put into operation, and Boxall suggested that I ought to run for election for the Parish of Cookham which we were in. The only public speaking I had done so far was the speech I had made, on my return from America, under the auspices of Henry Villiers, when he asked me to recount my experiences to an audience in his parish. I was very reluctant to put myself forward, to speak in public or to enter into conflicts, but Boxall over-persuaded me. I stood and was elected, and not unnaturally was appointed chairman of the Parish Council. The District Council election was held under the same Act a little later, and I was persuaded to stand for this on a Progressive platform with Stone, a doctor who lived at Cookham Dene. We stumped the Parish which was an extensive one, held meetings in schoolrooms, and were triumphantly returned at the top of the poll turning out two old members who had sat for years. In all these contests my most active ally was a little Radical named Cooper, who was a grocer in Cookham Village. Incidentally I may say that I do not know any ordeal more trying for a public man than to find himself on the platform in a cold deserted schoolroom on a winter's evening addressing six dispirited and uninterested yokels. It is necessary to have something to say, and to be determined to say it without any assistance from your audience, and a man who can speak with any animation under such depressing circumstances need not be afraid even of addressing the House of Lords. Under the Act District Councillors were also Guardians of the Poor, and in this capacity we had the administration of Maidenhead Workhouse, where meetings were

held.

I found myself then fairly launched in Local Politics, and being full of reforming zeal, I found more than enough to occupy me. On the District Council we had the care of the roads, and it was important to see that the best methods were adopted, and that contracts for hauling and supplying stone were placed with the proper people, and not merely given to those farmers who thought they had a prescriptive right to it because they sat on the Council. In this Captain Woodhouse our Chairman always supported me,