of the Chief Constable of Winchester of discussions between Kast and Cockerton, as to which would be the best place and best time to choose for the charge they were concocting. We never got the chance of using this carefully prepared material.

I ought to record here an action which is to be credited to Mr. and Mrs. Dick Russell (my sister-in-law Giddy). As soon as they knew the nature of the charges Lady Scott was making, they repudiated her, and they caused it to be conveyed to me that they had disassociated themselves entirely from her proceedings. I cannot say as much for Mabel Edith; she was a party to the whole affair, and assisted and supported her mother all through the trial.

When we resumed after the adjournment counsel for the prisoners adopted a very wise but a very disingenuous course. They said that the witness who had died was their principal witness (of course he would be), and that it was impossible for them to proceed without him. Hawkins, who at an early stage had formed a pretty strong opinion about the case, told them in effect that they must not suppose the sentence would be nominal, and that they could quite well go on with the evidence they had if they chose. He twice pressed this view upon them, but now the time had come for their story to be tested in cross-examination, they preferred not to face it.

The trial was further adjourned until the next day when Hawkins delivered a short summing up, the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and sentence of eight months' hard labour was passed on each of the defendants. By our kindness and at our intercession Lady Scott was allowed to serve her sentence as a first-class misdemeanant. It was sufficient; this broke the Scotts, and I never had any more of that sort of trouble from them.

I cannot find any shorthand notes of Hawkins's summing-up, but I quote the following from contemporary newspapers :—

8th Jan., 1897: Mr. Justice Hawkins in passing sentence said: "I am sorry to see at the end of this case so much determination to insist upon the charges made against Lord Russell, of whose life I know nothing except what has been given in evidence before me. It shows that there was a great deal of tact in the procedure of yesterday, in withdrawing, after repeated warnings, this plea of justification. If the object of withdrawing the plea of justification was to get rid of testimony that would be subjected to cross-examination, merely for the purpose of having a word or two of vin

dictive comment uttered at the last moment, all I can say is that I am surprised. These libels were published-and it is well to bear the date in mind-at the end of 1896. They were published when the litigation between Lady Russell and her husband had come to a termination, save for the delivery of the judgment of the House of Lords upon a question of law. I must accept the withdrawal of the plea of justification, and must treat it as though it had never been. In a civil case, if this had been an action for damages, the damages would have been very considerably increased, if the defendants had thought fit to put upon record a plea of justification which they afterwards did not attempt to prove. What is the character of the allegations? They imputed to Lord Russell misconduct of a character which is very properly described as unfitting him for the society of decent men, if it were established as fact. Nobody can doubt it that, if there had been cogent evidence that the libels were true, the jury would have had no alternative but to act on their view of the evidence. They imputed crimes of the most abominable character, for which he would have deserved, if he had been guilty of them, the severest punishment. Now in what circumstances were the libels published? They were published broadcast-everywhere where it was thought that Lord Russell could be prejudiced. They were published for the purpose, avowedly, of influencing the tribunal which had to determine finally how the law stood with regard to this litigation. It was for the purpose of inducing the House of Lords, among other persons, to act upon these statements in the discharge of their judicial functions. A greater crime than that it is difficult to conceive.

He went to Winchester and his conduct there has not been for one single moment impeached. On the contrary, during his stay there he won affections and friendships which he was proud of— affections and friendships which have not left him now. He formed the acquaintance of the Rev. Mr. Dickins, Vicar of S. John's, and the friendship of Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, who hospitably entertained him. He has paid visits there since, and they came forward to testify what they knew of his movements in regard to one of the most important matters into which we have been inquiring. No slur of any kind rested upon him during that period. He went to Oxford. He was there for a time, and it is perfectly true that circumstances occurred there which were unfortunate, although, as he swore, the exact nature of the charge against him which brought on him the sentence of being sent down from Oxford was not known

In November, 1895, these statements which are the libels were signed by the defendants and by the man who is dead, and they were circulated by you broadcast to all sorts and conditions of men everywhere where you thought either a household or an individual or a body of persons might be prejudiced against Lord Russell. They came to his ears, and is it to be wondered at that he should consult his solicitors and counsel and take the best advice he could. The result was that steps were taken, when they came to the knowledge of Lord Russell, to have this matter investigated in a court of law, but before the actual information was taken, a very artful course was adopted. The information was taken, I think, with great laxity at Winchester under the circumstances which were narrated by the deputy clerk to the magistrates. I do not further allude to that, beyond to point out that Cockerton, who knew nothing about the Winchester incident, was the person who was sent down there with Kast for the purpose of laying the information. Lord Russell had the summons served upon him. Of course he had no alternative but to obey. He did obey it, and went down upon the day appointed for the hearing of the charge. Before he arrived, however, the learned counsel who appeared in support of the information against him rose and said that they had found out that the offence alleged had not been committed within the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates, and, therefore, he offered no evidence at all. Lord Russell was powerless. He was determined then that he would bring the matter to an issue; he laid the informations, and the result was that you and the others were arrested upon this charge.

"I cannot accept the reason given for pursuing the course taken yesterday. I must take it that the plea of justification has not been supported, and that the libels stand as libels without justification. I should not have said a word about this if it had not been again suggested that there is no money. I want to know the meaning of Cockerton and Aylott going down to the old pilot at Margate and telling him that he was a fool for not knowing about Kast, because there was plenty of money going. I do not understand it except in one view; and coupling that with the whole circumstances of the case, I, myself, have conceived a not very favourable opinion as to the manner in which this vengeance towards Lord Russell