Q. Did she not tell you that she was sorry not to have seen Lord Russell, that she missed him, and was sorry not to have seen him? A. I do not remember. I have no recollection of it.

SIR HENRY JAMES: Now, take that letter (handing it to the witness) is that your writing? A. Yes.

Q. That is a letter of October 13th, 1889, you will see the letter of Lady Cardigan is November, 1890. I am sorry this interval has occurred, but the jury will probably recollect the answer to Lady Cardigan's. This is from you to Lord Russell: "We are not going to London to-morrow, so we shall expect you," etc., etc. (The learned Counsel read the letter.) Is that true? A. Yes.

Q. Now, did Lady Cardigan at that time express herself as being so sorry not to have seen Lord Russell? A. It is such a long

time ago.

Q. I am going to ask about that, that is in October, 1889, do you believe that to be true what you wrote ? A. Yes.

Q. You gather from that Lady Cardigan did wish to see your husband? A. Yes.

Q. When she saw you and expressed the wish to see your husband, did she tell you of immorality? A. No.

Q. Is it a fact that your husband refused to see Lady Cardigan ? A. Yes, he said he did not wish to know her.

Q. Did you communicate that to Lady Cardigan. A. No, certainly not.

Q. You see you knew that a person, whom your husband did not wish to know, did make certain charges against him, and you have acted upon these charges? A. I saw no reason why she should write to me like that.

Q. A person whom your husband refused to know, and a person who wished to know your husband. Did you ever ask her when she learnt the foundation for the statements she thought right to make? A. Did I ever ask her ?-no.

Q. So you do not know if she learnt them after she wished to see your husband, or before? A. No.

Q. And you never gave your husband an opportunity of even telling you those charges were untrue? A. I have written to ask him to meet me.

Q. Did you ever, before you used the information as part of your foundation for the charge at the trial, ask him if they were true or not? A. No.

BARON POLLOCK: I should like to ask, though I think it is clear already, at the time this lady wrote to you in familiar terms—she began by saying she had your little note-at the time you wrote that little note, never mind its contents, whatever it was, had you then known that your husband had no desire to know Lady Cardigan? A. Yes, that was, I believe, before my marriage, I am not

sure.

Q. In fact it was this, you had known her some time? A. Yes, a great number of years.

Q. You have said he did not wish to know her? A. Yes, my lord.

Q. And being on friendly terms, you wrote to her and she wrote to you? A. Yes. I had not seen her, I do not think, since my marriage, except more than perhaps once or twice.

SIR HENRY JAMES: I am sorry to ask this about a third person, but your husband's objection to meeting this Lady Cardigan was on the ground of her life and character? A. I do not know. I suppose he had good reason.

Q. Did not he tell you that his objection to meet her was on the ground of her life and character? A. Yes, he said there was something about her life.

Q. Lord Russell had asked you to apologize to Mr. X. A. Yes. I believe so.

Q. Did you think that Mr. X. was guilty of the charge that had been made against him? A. I thought my husband was guilty of neglect and cruelty with him.

Q. Neglect-you know we have got past that long ago. You have told us you thought there was something, and the relations made the charge, and with reference to the Hawk, and so on-you did think so? A. Yes, I did.

Q. You do not now? A. No.

Q. Have you ever apologized to Mr. X.? A. No.

Q. Have you allowed this gentleman to exist under that charge without ever publicly withdrawing it, though you believed him innocent? A. No, I have not apologized certainly, until

now.

Q. Have you apologized to him now? A. Not at present, no. Q. Are you going to? A. Yes.

Q. When? A. To-day-I wish to apologize.

Q. Now?

BARON POLLOCK; You do so now? A. Yes, my lord,

SIR HENRY JAMES: For the first time? A. For the first

time, yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF LADY SCOTT

Q. You knew the nature of the charge-you knew what the charge is that was made against Lord Russell and Mr. X. did you not? A. I knew what was inferred.

SIR HENRY JAMES: And you knew that of course when the trial took place in 1891, and during the years 1892, 1893, and 1894 ? A. Certainly.

Q. Did you believe it to be true? A. No.

Q. Never?

A. Never believed it to be true.

Q. Never suspected him? A. No, never suspected him. 1 was extremely fond of him.

Q. Never believed it true, and never suspected it? A. I did not wish to believe it to be true.

BARON POLLOCK: That is a different thing. I never believed and I never wished to believe it. Which am I to take? A. I think

I may say I never wished to believe it.

SIR HENRY JAMES: Did you believe it, that is no answer? A. I am very sorry, I shall give no other answer.

Q. Did you believe it to be true? A. No, I have said so, I have said at first I did not believe it, and I did not wish to believe it.

Q. It will suffice for me if I have clearly from you that you did not believe it. A. I did not believe it to be true.

Q. And never have? A. And never have.

Q. Who is Mr. Hornyblow? A. A detective.

Q. How many did you employ? A. I really cannot say. I think about ten.

Q. At the same time? A. No, different times.

Q. One after the other? A. Yes, one after the other. When one did not bring any evidence, and I had paid him, I was not going to employ him again.

Q. This was your extreme desire to prove his innocence? A. Yes, it was partly that that I employed him.

Q. Ten; did you find the money for them? A. Yes, my friends. Q. I have a good many communications, and you were telegraphing to them and writing to them? A. Yes.

Q. And doing your best to get evidence against Lord Russell? A. No, either to prove his guilt or not guilt.

Q. Why did you employ ten men in order to get good news? A. They are all. such story-tellers.

Q. Well, you know better than I, because I never employed any.

MR. MURPHY: Lord Russell would know, as he employed some. SIR HENRY JAMES: But Lady Scott asked me, and I will give way to her opinion, as she has employed ten, and paid them.

Q. They could not get any evidence against Lord Russell? A. No.

Q. They did not get any good news? A. I do not call it good

news.

Q. You did call it good news in your letter. Have you set anybody up for life? A. No, I have no money to.

Q. Have you promised? A. Well, ladies often promise things that they do not fulfil.

Q. Is that a virtue you attribute to man? A. Yes.

Q. You had nothing to pay them with, and you were a bankrupt -a beggar? A. Yes, but I had a little money now and then.

Q. Not kept from your creditors, I hope, to go to detectives? A. Oh well, I do not know. There is not enough to pay my creditors. Q. You have paid nobody anything? A. Yes.

Q. But under your bankruptcy what have you paid? A. Not anything yet.

Q. But you paid the ten detectives? A. Yes. The money has been run away with by detectives.

Q. How gratifying to your tradesmen and others who supply you with flowers and dresses? A. Oh, they do not mind, I think. Q. Really, that is too amusing. I think I must leave it.

B

CHAPTER XXIII

SUMMING UP

ARON POLLOCK: Gentlemen of the jury, you have now

heard the whole of the evidence in this case, and the remarks that have been made by the learned counsel upon both sides. The case, no doubt, has occupied a considerable length of time, and, considering that the oral evidence before you has been very short, perhaps it might be thought that more time has been occupied than has been necessary. For myself, I do not think this is so, because the interests involved are large. The question of law is certainly a new and important one, and in the remarks that were made by learned counsel I think you have obtained an assistance in hearing what is to be said, and said fully, upon both sides of the question.

Now, you have been told this is a suit brought by the petitioner, in which she seeks for what is called a restitution of conjugal rights. By the law of this country, it is the duty of a man and wife to live together, and that duty is not to be cast aside lightly, and if any man or woman chooses to assert a right that he or she will not consort with her husband or wife, then the law says that the person who is so excluded from the society of the other may bring this action, and the person who so brings this action is entitled to succeed unless there be some sound ground of law to the contrary. Now, the pleading in this case-the answer-in the first instance is this, that the petition has not been presented bona fide and for the purposes of relief, because she, that is the petitioner, still alleges that the respondent has been guilty of this crime that has been mentioned. The next paragraph is this-one that was altered you will remember at the suggestion of the learned counsel during the case, and it stands now thus: "That the petitioner has been guilty of cruelty in falsely alleging and filing a petition and stating on oath that the respondent has been guilty of the crime." I do not go on further. That is, therefore, the issue that is raised, cruelty or no cruelty. A good deal has been said, and, perhaps unavoidably with regard to the