statement is made by Lady Russell's counsel here, and till her statement is made in the witness-box, and by her mother, who includes in that Mr. X., that for the first time there is as regards Mr. X. a frank acknowledgment: "Nay, we never intend to make such a charge at all, and we consider that this gentleman is a man who, whatever his past, may go and live with his wife again." Women, heaven knows, are forgiving enough in these matters, and it is well they should be that he has done no act that should prevent a decent and moral woman going back and discharging the duties of a wife to him, and therefore she asks at your hands this restitution of conjugal rights.

Now, you shall have these documents before you for your consideration, and I do not intend to pursue them further. I will only make this remark in conclusion. It has been said, and said rightly, that this is a case of what is called the first impression, that is to say, that there is no case of the same kind exactly, to which you could point and say, Judges have directed and Juries have given verdicts on similar facts. But it being a case of first impression, does not in itself so far as the facts are concerned, prevent you under the direction of law that I have given to you, giving a verdict in favour of the respondent, because, as was said by one learned Judge who presided over this Court-Lord Penzance-when it was complained, as he said, that they were endeavouring to alter the law, and to make that cruelty which hitherto had not been considered as cruelty, Lord Penzance says: "We are not altering the law, it is the facts that are altered," because he says, in his experience, dealing with that particular case, no such facts had ever come before the Court before. Perhaps the facts in that case were almost as remarkable as the facts in this. Therefore you must not, because this case presents new facts which had never occurred before, say that you will not act upon them. If you think the facts bring the case within the principle that I have mentioned to you in laying down the law, then you would be entitled to find your verdict for the respondent, but in doing so of course the fact that you are, in one sense, enlarging the law upon the subject, should make you very careful when you come to consider what your verdict shall be. Ultimately it must be a verdict founded upon your judgment, and upon yours alone. You will have had the advantage of discussing the case and considering it together-mind consulting with mind, and pointing out all the different circumstances which ought to bear upon that verdict, and having done that, you will then say in the

first place, Do you consider the conduct of the petitioner, Lady Russell, was that of cruelty-cruelty such as disentitles her to the right which she asks here, of restitution of conjugal rights? Again, I would ask you, as I have said before, the second question -Do you consider in the course of her conduct since the trial that she was acting bona fide or not?

Would you like, Gentlemen, to have these documents?

The FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes, my Lord, we should.
The FOREMAN: May we have a copy of the questions?

BARON POLLOCK: Yes, I will write them down. Do you find the petitioner has been guilty of cruelty against the respondent? Secondly, in her conduct and correspondence subsequent to the first trial, did she act bona fide or not? You do not care for the pleadings, I suppose.

The FOREMAN: No, my Lord.

(The Jury retired at 12.10, and returned into Court 12.30.) The OFFICER OF THE COURT: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict?

The FOREMAN: Yes.

The OFFICER OF THE COURT: Do you find that the petitioner, Lady Russell, has been guilty of cruelty against the respondent? The FOREMAN: She has.

The OFFICER OF THE COURT: Do you say that in her conduct and correspondence subsequent to the first trial she acted bona fide or not?

The FOREMAN: Not bona fide.

The OFFICER OF THE COURT: And that is the verdict of you all? The FOREMAN: Yes.

W

CHAPTER XXIV

R. v. SCOTT

E had won hands down before Baron Pollock and not unnaturally Mabel Edith had appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held by a majority of two to one that the facts proved did not constitute legal cruelty, but they held unanimously that her conduct had been so infamous that no Court could grant her a decree of restitution. With this result of course she was not satisfied, because this gave her no opportunity of obtaining money from me and she appealed to the House of Lords from the refusal of a decree of restitution. As the case was going further I naturally entered a cross-appeal from the decision which set aside the verdict of the jury and the decree of judicial separation granted to me by Baron Pollock. Many things happened before this final appeal came on for hearing.

They were without money, they were embittered, and they were furious, and there was nothing they were not prepared to do in an attempt to ruin me for daring to resist their demands. Lady Scott bethought herself of a wretched creature called Aylott who had been employed in the wiring of her house at Walton, and whom she had complained of as a bad character, and asked never to have in the house again. She got in touch with him through a private detective named Littlechild, an ex-Police-Inspector, and he in turn put her in touch with another member of the Royal's crew, Cockerton. This man was a disreputable and drunken engineer, whose conduct has been more fully described in a previous chapter. These two hatched with Lady Scott a vile plot and got in touch with all the previous members of the crew of the Royal. One other named Kast was discovered willing to be bought with a promise of £500 and £1 a week for life, and these four conspirators then set about to concoct a series of filthy charges.

My first knowledge of the matter was the receipt by myself and my friends of printed libels of a most obscene and degrading character purporting to be in the form of statutory declarations,

but with the Commissioner's name omitted, and prefaced by a sheet signed by Lady Scott stating that she was impelled to take this action to protect her pure and holy daughter who had been so foully wronged. To this attack there was only one possible answer, viz., proceedings for criminal libel, but we were stumped by the initial difficulty of proving publication, as of course the printed signatures proved nothing.

We therefore advertised in the public Press offering a reward of £25 for the name and address of the printer, or of £100 for evidence sufficient to prove the actual publication by Lady Scott and her gang. Spurred by our activity they tried to get their blow in first, and issued a summons against me at Winchester, but when this was called on failed to proceed with it on the flimsy pretext that they had fixed the jurisdiction wrong. Meanwhile our advertisement had borne fruit: a low fellow named Carrez came forward and said he had posted the libels and handed over lists of names and addresses in Lady Scott's handwriting, and gave us ample evidence to prove publication. It turned out that his connexion with the matter was that he was a vendor of indecent literature and purveyor of rubber goods in a building on the first floor of which Lady Scott's sister carried on a massage establishment. On this evidence the Bow Street magistrate issued warrants for the apprehension of all the conspirators, and they were duly brought up at Bow Street the next morning.

The proceedings before a magistrate in cases of criminal libel are necessarily formal and the only thing of interest that occurred was an announcement of the prisoners' intention to justify. Lady Scott who had now sunk very low was represented by Newton, a police court solicitor, and Bernard Abrahams was also somehow mixed up with the proceedings. They were duly committed for trial on bail.

Then began for us a very strenuous time. We had to assume that they really might justify and we had to rake up every possible scrap of evidence about events ten years old to enable us to meet the charges and cross-examine the prisoners. The Log Book of the Royal, diaries, account books, letters and memoranda, were all carefully searched for and studied and frequent consultations with counsel were held.

By way of giving me something more to think about I received a telegram one day to say that my house at Maidenhead, Amberley Cottage, was burned down, and got back there to find nothing left of my house but a heap of smoking ruins.

Thanks to the devotion of my servants, my books and the furniture on the ground floor had been saved, although it had been necessary to throw them out into the snow, but my bedroom furniture, my household linen, and some cherished possessions such as the Grote printing press, together with everything else on the top floor had perished in the flames. So strongly was it believed that the fire was incendiary and that Lady Scott was responsible for it, that I had great difficulty in getting my house insured afterwards. As a matter of fact I am now inclined to think that it was accidental and due to the carelessness of some painters. Luckily the material required for the trial had already been handed to my solicitors.

In December, 1896, the trial came on at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Hawkins. Lockwood, C. W. Matthews, and A. Ll. Davies appeared for me: Lawson Walton appeared for Lady Scott, and Marshall Hall for the other three prisoners. Rather to our surprise they actually did justify and therefore we could technically have compelled them to begin and prove affirmatively the truth of their charges. This however would have been bad tactics for when your client is innocent you always put him in the box at the earliest possible moment. For a reason that could not have been foreseen it turned out unfortunate in this case.

I went into the box and was cross-examined for three days. It may be imagined that towards the end of the time I was rather tired and not very clear. I was asked if I had not gone to Malta in connexion with one of the witnesses in the trial, and I totally forgot the obvious and final answer which was that I knew nothing about this witness's connexion with Malta until I was sitting in the train at Fenchurch Street about to start for the steamer. However in spite of the strain I kept my end up and was able to deal adequately with every suggestion made. Some of the witnesses on my side were also examined.

Then came an unfortunate incident. Hawkins liked to keep his Court very hot and very stuffy, and the air outside was very cold. Kast fell ill the trial had to be adjourned and he died of pneumonia in prison, so that we never got the advantage of crossexamining him. Our material for cross-examination was deadly: we were able to show the numerous people Lady Scott had approached : the unlimited promises of money she had made, and the considerable sums she had actually paid: we were able to trace the growth and gradual development of the conspiracy, and we had the evidence