Weekly Mail

THE COLIN CAMPBELL DIVORCE SUIT, The Colin Campbell divorce case was down for trial on Friday morning in the Divorce Division of che High Court ot Justice (before Mr. Justice 3utt and a special jury). To obviate the incon- venience caused by the assembling of large Crowds around the doors, barricades had been Erected, but long before half-past ten the atten- Sants were besieged by applicants for admission, And very early the court was crowded. The case appeared in the lists a" Campbell v. Campbell and Campbell tI. Marlborough, Shaw, Hutler, and Bird. The counsel instructed were:—For Lord Colin Campbell: Mr. R. Finlav, Q.C., Mr. F. Lockwood, Q C., M.P., and Mr. R. Searle. For Lady Campbell: Sir C. Russeil, Q.C., M.P„ Mr. lnderwick, Q.C., and Mr. Charles Matthews. For the Duke of Marl- borough: The Attorney-! ieneral and Mr. Lewis Cowaid. For Captain Shaw: Mr. Gullv, Q.C., vnd Mr. C. Strong. For General Butler: Mr. Murphy, Q.C.. and Mr. Synnett. For Dr. Bird: rise Solicilor-Crencrul and Mr. T. Terrell. His lordship entered the court at half-past ten, ttid the jury was at onco sworn. At the outset ;here w.ts a dispute between counsel as to which side should open the pleadings. The first case in She list was Lady Campbell's suit for a iivorce, and with that Mr. Matthews tsked to open the pleadings. Ms-. Fin lay, Q.C., on the other hand, u;g:-<i that Lord Colin Campbell was entitled to open the bail, as tlfe Dthrr case was only entered very hurriedly in :>r<ier to forestall his Jordship's suit. Sir Charles Russell "food on his right as beine first in the list, aud, after argument, his lordship decided that Lady Colin's suit should be first heard. Mr. Matthews then opened the pleadings, which alleged cruelty ami adultery against Lord Colin Campbell; the cross-suit, alleging adultery against. Lady Colin with the co-respondents named, was also set forth. LADY CAMPHELL'S CASE. Sir Charles Russell then opened the cnse for Lady Campbell, des.-nbing it as both extraordinary and painful. Lady Colin Campbell was the Sautter of Mrs. Blood, and Lord Colin was a son of the Puke of Argyll. Their marriage was based Dn sincere and muiual affection. Miss Blunt was not an heiress, but she was a lady of considerable accomplishments, and after a not very long acquaintance Lord Colin proposed. He was at the time suftering from a painful disease, necessitating an operation. He after- wards went to the Cape of Good Hope, and, in consequence of the slowness of his recovery, the marriage had to be postponed from thp da;e originally fixed. On the 21at of July, 1831, the parties were married, the engagement having commenced in September, 1830, and Lord Coiin having a month before the marriage commu- aicated to his inter.ded wife the fact that for some ■ cime after marriage they must occupy separate apartments. The marriage took place at the Savoy Clwpel, and the honeymoon was spent at I the Isle ol Wight, Lord Colin being attended by a hospital nurse; in fact, down to 1883 he had an attendant of that description. The marriage ■WHS consummated in Scotland in October, 1381. The effect oi the consummation was toseriousfy ininre Lady Colin's health. On the 17th of June, 1882, a circumstance occurred at Cadogan-place, on which was based the charge of adultery against Lord Cohn hut he would not co into the details of that at present. Subsequently another opera- tion was necessary for Lord Colin, and after his convalescence he was attended by Mr. Tern Bird, who aiso, with his lordship's full cognisance, attended Lady Colin, whose life was being ren- dered almost unbearable and revolting by the existing state of things and by her sufferings. She, consequently, sought in the early part of 1833 relief by the way of judicial separation, and she wrote a letter to Lord Colin, the contents of which were conveyed to him by Lady Miles, with whom th»y were staying. The document set forth the painful story of her married life, and her desire to remain a friend and companion, but to cease cohabitation. Lord Colin wrote a reply, of which only a copy now existed, in which he made statements which could only be taken as a reply to her letter, and in which also he mis-stated I the nature of his disease. It. was in April, 1883, ihe first allegation was made against Lady Camp- Dell in regard to Mr. Bird, it being based on a itatement by a hired nurse, Mr. Bird indignantly repudiated it. He declined to continue attending her ladyship unless it were withdrawn and an apology made. It was withdrawn, and Lord Colin requested Mr. Bird to continue his attendance. Later in the year Lady Campbell insisted on having the relief she had asked for. At a faniilv council Lord Colin threw out insinuations which he susequently most solemnly withdrew. Mr. George Lewis was eventually consulted on her behalf. Correspondence ensued, and the petition for judicial separation was filed on the 4th of August, 1883, on the ground of cruelty. The charges were denied in the respon- dent's answer. On the 11th of September, 1883, some correspondence took place between Lord Colin and Lady Miles, in which a statement was made having an important bearing on the charge of adultery preferred against. Lord Colin. The suit for judicial separation came on, and in the course of it all allegations against Lady Colin were withdrawn. A decree was made by the 'iourt as asked, and since then Lord CoHn had spared neither money nor social influence to rake from tha gutter evidence calculated to injure her tair fame. After the decree of judicial separation was pronounced Lady Campbell left ber husband's borne. Her steps had since been dogged by detectives when under the care abroad of her father and mother, but by her wish her husband bad been kept aware of her movements. In June, 1884, the was in Paris with Mr. and Mrs. Biood and the charge cf adultery with the Duke of Marlborough was based on a visit paid by that co-respondent to her while there. On the 8th of June, 1884. there were together in Paris Lord Coiin Ounpb 11, his solicitor (Mr. Hum- phreys), and a Mr. Rae.a Paris solicitor. Would they believe it that Lord Colin Campbell made a normal complaint, in writing, to the Paris municipal authorities to have a warrant issued on which his wife, if found in suspicious circum* stances, might be arrested and lodged in the prison of St. Lnzare! Lord Colin's pride had been lowered to the dust, and, apparently, he thought there was nothing low enough to stoop to to gratify his passion for revenge. Had the warrant heen executed, Lady Colin might have been detained in the prison for months. They had dpcumentary evidence to support what, seemed to be almost inconceivable. Mr. and Mrs. Blood left Ffrria ignorant of the steps taken, and! then Lady Colin took up her residence in London. As to the allegation of adultery against Lord Colin, it was intended to give evidence suggesting undue familiarities between his lordship and Mary Watson, a housemaid, at Cadogan-place, and Ladv Miles would state that on the 18th of June, 1832, she found the girl in Lord Colin's bedroom under circumstances which could lead to only one conclusion. During 1884 Lady Miles suggested to Lord Colin the desirability of a divorce being obtained, and considerable corre- spondence ensued, in the course of which Lord Colin tried to entrap Lady Mile*. Finally, he said he should charge his wife with adultery. Lady Miles saw him with his solicitor, and re-called to his mind the story of Mary Watson, giving him five minutes to alter his intention, threatening, if he did not, she would go to Mr. Lewis. He decided to go on with the petition. Lady Miles went to Mr. Lewis's office, met there Lady Colin, and, for the first time,told her of the Mary Watson incident. On the 6th of November Lady Campbell filed her petition. On the following day Lord Colin tiled his. In March, 1835, Lady Campbell went by the St. Gothard route to Italy, and Lord Colin came to the conclusion she was going to Monte Carlo with the Duke of Marlborough, for which there was not a shadow of foundation. He again went to Paris, and applied for another warrant consigning his wife to St" Luzare. Lady Colin was etill seriously ill in Juiy, 1885. She returned to London, and the jury had now to deal with the issues between the parties. Charges were made against her, and, with one exception, they were in so vague and uncertain terms chat at that 8Uge he could not tell his tnswer. In the one specific case they had a com- plete answer. In regard to Captain Shaw, he was m intimate friend of the Campbells, but certainly Lord Colin, in a morbid state of mind, did at one ama express dislike at his visits to the house, which were consequently discontinued, but the cmptain would give a complete denial to the charge, as also would General Hutler, a friend of Lady Campbell, and one old enough to be her father, and whose wife was an intimate friend of Lady Colin. One and all the charges they were prepared toO meet in full. They ranged over a period when from the actual physical condition, it was improbable, if not impossible, they could be well founded. Lady Colin looked forward to the end of this trial to •rt'taia from the free minds of the jury a Terdlct. fully acquitting her from the foul aspersions which her husband had spared neither expense nor ingenuity to bring against her. Mr. lnderwick then put in the evidence of the luit for a judicial separ-tion. EVIDENCE OF LADY MILES. Lady Miles was the first witness. Examined by Mr. lnderwick, she deposed that she was the wife )1' Sir Philip Miles, and resided at heigh Court, Dear Bristol. She was first cousin of Lady Coiin's father, and was present at the marriage of Lord Coiin and Miss Blond. At the end of 1532 Lord Colin stayed at Leigh Court, with his wife, during a long illness, and, at witness's request, Mr. Bird attended Lord Colin during his illness, ua J also, at his lordship'^ request, Lady £ olin as well. In February, 1883, Lady Coiin gave witness a letter, and desired aer to read it to Lord Colin. She did not do so, Sut she made certain statements to Lord Colin. She told him that Lady Colin had quite made up tier mind not to live with him as his wife, but that she would continue on the kindest relations, and Would guard his reputation and all that concerned his interests. In reply, he said it was very hard on him, and he should expect her to live with him on the old terms. He also said she could not care tor him to a"k such a thing. He sent a letter in reply, and of tint Lady Colin made the copy pro- duced. On the 23rd of April witness went to London and saw Lady Colin in Cadogan-place. She was then very ill and in violent pain, and was being attended bj Dr. Bird, who wasaiso attending Lord Colin. Two ot three days later Lord Colin told witness there had been fod play and Lady violin had had a miscarriage. Witness told him it was im- possible; but he reiterated the charge, and men- tioned Dr. Bird's name, saying Tom bird's a ir>arp fellow; thev managed it between them." Se said Puffys, the nurse, told him Dr. Bird was in the house, and witness had a long conversation ^itli him. She then returned to Lord Colin, nnd told him Mr. Bird had solemnly asserted that Nothing of the kind had occurred. There had been bo miscarriage; It was an utter impossibility. He declined to attend Lady Colin any longer unless i>Qx4 Colia withdraw tlit accusation apologised. Lord Colin told witness to apologise for him, and she did so. The court here adjourned for luncheon. At two o'clock Lady Miles resumed her evidence. She stated that on the 20th of July, 1883, there was a family meeting at Mr. Blunt's house in Thurlow-square, which witness attended at Lord Colin's request. Certain suggestions were at. that meeting made by Lord Colin against his wife, but he subsequently asked witness to completely with- draw them. Witness was very angry with Lady Colin for instituting a suit for judicial separatiou. Some correspondence wok place between her and Lord Colin while it was pending, and in one of the letters his lordship suggested he should have to call her as a witness. She replied that she would be glad to help him with evidence on the charge of cruelty, but it would be better for him not to call her, be- cause of her knowledge of his relations with Mary Watson, and if she appeared in court she would be obliged to tell the whole truth, and under cross examination it would eure to come obliged to tell the whole truth, and under cross examination it would sure to come out; therefore, he bad better let her alone. After the separation was granted witness saw I Lord Colin, who expressed dissatisfaction at the result of the trial. She told him it was lucky for him it was not a dfvorce. Some letters passed between them. Witness, having heard that Lord Colin intended to present a petition against his wife, met Lord Colin at his solicitor's office, and, in the presence of young Mr. Humphreys, reminded him that, as he had committed adultery with Mary Watson, he must not file a petition against his wife. She told Mr. Humphreys that one evening while at Cadogan-place she pretended to leave the house, and subsequently went upstairs and found Lord Colin on the side of the bed embracing the girl, and she left immediately. Lord Colin denied the truth of the assertion, and his solicitor said it was an ugly charge. She said he had forced her to expose him by filing a peti- tion against an innocent woman; that she would give him five minutes to re-consider his decision, and that, if he did not withdraw it, she should communicate with Lady Colin and her solicitor, which she did, as Lord Colin decided to proceed with his petition. On the evening this adultery was committed Lord Colin said Mary Watson was a very pretty girl, who was very fond of him. She had pretty hair, and he used to take it down and play with it. Witness had seen letters from Mary Watson to Lord Colin. They were signed, Yours affectionately, Mary." Witness advised Lady Colin after that to send her away, as she was too pretty for a housemaid and an awkward person to be in the house. A week afterwards she told Lord Colin what she had seen, and he said a man could not account for every little thing he did. He did not deny it. A lot of letters between the witness and Lord Colin were then put in and read. They were couched in very intimate terms, Lord Colin being termed "Koko," Lady Miles "Muzzy," and Lady Colin The Arab." The reading of the correspondence was not com- pleted when the court rose. SECOND DAY. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF LADY MILES. The hearing of this suit was resumed on Satur- day morning. Lady Colin Campbell and her friends occupied the same seats as they did on Friday, as also did Lord Colin Campbell. Lady Miles again entered the box, and, in answer to Mr. Inderwick, said: Lady Colin Campbell pre- sided often at charitable meetings, and sang at concerts of the same description at the East-end of London. Cross-examined by Mr. Finlav: At the time I went to Mr. Lewis's office I telegraphed to Lady Colin to meet me there. I told Mr. G. Lewis that I had seen Mary Watson in Lord Colin's bedroom. I cannot answer for the memory of Lady Colin. I believed Mr. Lewis was going to act for Lady I Colin in the suit, and, under that impression, I gave the information I have stated. I did not at my interview with Mr. G. Lewis give the exact date of the occasion on which I saw- Mary Watson in Lord Colin's bedroom. I did not say it was the 17th of June, 1882, but I said it was in the month of Jnne. Did you forget that. yesterday you said it was on June 17 ?—At the interview I said it was in the month of June to the best of my recollection, but afterwards I was enabled to fix the date as June 17. Did not Mr. Lewis, before the 9th of December, 1384, apply to you for the date of the affair 7—No. What induced you to &x the date as the 17th of June i'—I put it down in my Prayer Book. Where is that, book ? Have you it with you ?— No. Where is it ? Is it. lying at church ?—No it is in my bedroom at Leigh Court. 1 should like to see t hat Prayer Book.—I can send for it. Sir C. Russell: The book shall be telegraphed for. Mr. Finlay: How came you to put a mark in your Prayer Book about the matter ?—I always read the Psalms in the morning, and on the date of the Psalms for the 17th day of the month I put a line, and by that I know the date. I also put a line under M," which formed a guide to Mary Watson. When you went into the room you were shocked, I suppose ?—I did not go into the bedroom. I saw it from the staircase. Then anyone passing up the stairs could see ?— Yes. You were very much shocked ?—I was. And you had never seen such a thing before ?— No, and I never want to see it again. Did it alter your feelings towards Lord Colin ?— Yes, I was much shocked. But you always felt towards him as a mother?— Yes; and I do now. Now, in the whole of your correspondence you made no allusion.to this affair ?—No, I do not put those things into letters. Letters often get mis- laid. When you spoke to Lord Colin some time after- wards about this what did you say P—I said that a man should not make love to the servant maids in the house. He had not been married a year, and I told him he had a beautiful wife, and ought to be satisfied. He eaid men would have little faults like that. What did you say then?—I said it was very wrong, and that it would not lead to happiness. I spoke to him as I should have spoken to my own son. In one of your letters you ask Lord Colm," Has Blandford anything to do with it ? Did that mean that you thought Lord Blandford was urging Lady Colin to go into cout ?—I did not wish the matter to come into court, neither did the Duke of Argyll. We did not want the scandal. I thought that Lord Blandford had porliaps recommended Ladv Colin to go to Mr. Lewis. But does not the allusion in the letter to Lord Blandford mean something about adultery with him ?—No. I alluded only to Lady Colin going to Mr. Lewis, the solicitor. Mr. Finlay was proceeding to cross-examine on various letters when tho witness said: You con- fuse me so. Why do you not go straight on ? You begin with 1881, then go to 1882, and then to 1884. How can my mind follow you ? (Clapping at the back of the court.) Mr. Justice Butt (severely) I cannot have that kind of noise in the court. Clapping in court is indecent in the extreme. I have given the ushers instructions to turn out anyone they see clapping his hands or to bring him before me. In your correspondence you make no allusion to having seen Lord Colin in adultery with Amelia Watson. Was that to keep Lady Colin out of court?—I wanted both of them to keep out of court. I ha.d no intention of appearing against Lord Colin. Then you wrote from The Shark, Cowes, with reference to a change of servants, and speaking of Lady Colin's suit you say, I call the whole affair infamous." Did you mean the proceedings she was taking against her husband ?—I thought the proceedings against her husband were ill- judged. Sir Charles Russell: She was not alluding to these proceedings. Mr. Finlay (to witness): You were referring to the suit of Lady Colin for a judicial separation? —Yes; I thought any suit of that kind was infamous. When you wrote that you knew that Lord Colin was guilty of adultery :,I-Yes. Then you think that such a suit was infamous, even when the husband has committed adultery ? —Lady Colin was not aware of it. Now, with regard to the letter from Lord Bland- ford, which was brought by a cabman, was not a I note brought ftom his lordship, and did not Lady Campbell object to give the answer to any other person than the cabman?—He was to deliver the letter, and it was to be taken to Lady Campbell's room. And he was to take it to her bedroom ?—I don't know that ho was to take it to her bedroom. He was to take it to her room. I don't know that the cabman went into her bedroom to get the answer. Was not the story about the cabman that after the man brought the letter Lady Campbell sent for him to taka the answer ?—Lady Campbell would not trust Lord Colin's nurse, Mrs. Duffy, as she knew Mrs. Duffy was only waiting for the letter. Therefore, she would not give the answer to any other person but the cabman. Was not the object of Lady Colin in sending for tho cabman to come up in order that she might give the answer herself to the man ?—Lady Colin preferred giving the answer to the letter to the cabman herself to prevent the matter becoming generally talked about in the house. The witness was cros>examined at some length as to the contents of the letter of the 22nd of Sep- tember, 1882, to Lord Colin in reference to the phrase, "I wish this horrid business could be amicably arranged." Do you say that had reference to adultery with Mary Watson ?—No. In writing to Lord Colin I thought I was writing to a man of honour. I have not kept a copy of aU my letters, and you, there- fore, have the advantage of me, as Lord Colin has apparently kept copies of all his letters. Will you tell me whether you told Mr. George Lewis that you had sent the letter to Lord Colin in regard to having seen adultery with Mary Watson as the reason for not appearing at the trial ?—I never told Mr. George Lewis about Mary Watson until after the interview. Did you tell Mr. Lewis that you had sent a letter of such importance to Lord Colin ?—Never. I told Lord Colin I could not appear at the trial, as I had a strong objection to give evidence in court. I regarded Lord Colin as my son. But you wrote the following to himM If it is nn«ihlK to keep me out of this wretched business, Srav do V I cannot tell you how sorry I am to appear." What was your reason for writing in that way?—Because it would be eminently dan- gerous to Lord Colin for me to give evidence. In the letter of..the 2nd of August, 1884, there occurs this passage If I were you, I would get rid of her (Lady Colin) by letting her divorce you if you could not divorce her." What did you njean by that ?—I referred to the story about Mary Wat- son with regard to him. I did not believe Lord Cohn could divorce his wife. I knew he had tried in every manner to find out something against her, but he did not succeed; Then there is another passageaS to his "getting a nice little woman for a companion." What do you mean to suggest by that ?-"I meant to suggest that litf would be in a better position than he was, Ii and that if he were in a position to marry he would be much happier. wiiat did you mean by asking in the letter to be placed in a position to help Lord Colin ?—That he should give me permission to speak to Lady Camp- bell on the subject of divorce. Now, madam, did you not suggest that Lord Colin Campbell should commit adultery in order to obtain a divorce ?—Lady Miles to this question gave her answer with the greatest indignation: I never suggested such a thing-such a heinous thing. How dare you ask me such a question ? I am a woman of honour. You have no right to put such questions to me. What do you mean by writing in one of your letters to Lord Colin, read yesterday, by stating certain matters, and the placing of Lady Colin Campbell in such position as to be enabled to get a divorce from him?—Why, by telling her about Mary Watson. Why did you not say so in so many words ?— Because I wrote the letter, and not you. (Laughter.) On the occasion of a conversation you had with Lord Colin, he made you believe that Lady Colin was suffering from miscarriage ?—Yes, he out it so forcibly. You knew Lord Campbell could not be the father?—I said. "You have not been with Lady Campbell for months." You thought the father some other man?— Lord Colin made me believe so. I was taken by surprise. I cannot say I actually believed it. The conversation did not last five minutes. I went up- stairs with feelings of surprise and indignation,and at once spoke to Dr. Bird. Cross-examined as to the miscarriage incident, Lady Miles said Lord Colin accused Dr. Bird of bringing about the miscarriage, aided by Dr. Hicks. She told Dr. Bird this. Do you mean to say that after this Dr. Bird con- tinued to attend Lady Colin merely on a statement made by you as to apology ?—I do not know what el.3" mt>.y have occurred between Lord Colin and Dr. Bird. In re-examination, Lady Miles stated that the story of the miscarriage was invented by Mrs. Duffy, Lord Colin's nurse. Lord Colin told witness that lie was trying all he possibly could to get information against Lady Colin to enable him to divorce her, but he failed. Lady Miles said, in reply to Sir C. Russell, that Lord Colin Campbell never pretended not to understand the letters, and never asked her if she meant to suggest his committing adultery. This concluded the case for the petitioner. Sir C. Russell, after Lady Miles left the box, said he wished to correct two errors in his opening statement—one that Sir Henry Thompson had a private hospital, which Sir Henry said was not the case, and the other was that Lady Colin had brought no fortune to her husband. As a matter of fact she brought him £6,000. LORD COLIN CAMPBELL'S CASE. Mr. Finlay then opened the case for the respon- dent. He said: It was a matter of irrepressible relief to Lord Colin to at last have the opportunity of defending himself in open court from the gross and cruel imputations which had been so long hanging over him. The jury now knew what evidence it was on which this trumped-up charge was made against Lord Colin Campbell, and their eyes had been opened to its character. The parties were engaged in 1880, and after that Lord Colin took a sea voyage to get. rid of an Eastern fever he had caught while in the East with Mr. Goschen. On his return from the voyage the marriage was brought, on the lapis. With regard to Lord Colin's health, he was suffering from a stricture, but his illness was in no sense of the term a venereal one. It was quite true that the stricture was the result of indiscretion many years previously at Cambridge. The state of "Lord Colin's health was an obstacle to the marriage, and both his surgeons advised him not to marry, not on account of any possible danger to his wife, but on account of danger to himself. These facts were communi- cated to Mrs. Blood, but she continued to urge on the marriage, saying that Lord Colin's state of health need be no obstacle, as her daughter would be perfectly satisfied to be his nurse only. Mrs. Blood wrote to the Duke of Argyll, who did not approve of the engagement, and had not at that time called on the Bloods or recognised Miss Blood in any way. The way Mrs. Blood urged on the marriage was inconsistent with the most elemen- tary sense of decency or propriety, and in an evil hour the marriage took place on July 21, 1881. It was for them to consider whether such a marriage was likely to be a happy one. The marriage was not consummated until nearly the end of November or the beginning of December, 1381, and for that Sir Charles Russell had denounced Lord Colin, and held him up to execra- tion as the basest of men for not being wiser than the two surgeons who had made these matters their special study. After that marital inter- course between Lord and Lady Colin Campbell was only very occasional, and it ceased altogether after tho 19th of June, 1882. He should next show what sort or a nurse Lady Colin made. In Sep- tember and October, 1881, Lord Colin was laid up in bed for a fortnight with » bad cold, but what did this young wife-not more than two months married—do ? She was out all day, dined out fre- quently, and had her own visitors and her own life. On that occasion she was called on by Lord Bland- ford (now the Duke of Marlborough), who remained with her for about an hour. Afterwards Lord Colin said to his wife in a pointed manner, I don't know Lord Blandford." She replied," Oh, we only had a talk about Gladstone." (Laughter.) In November, 1881, Lord Colin went to Scotland, and caught another bad cold, which made him extremely ill. Two days after that Lady Colin left him in bed and went on a visit to Lady Miles at Leigh Court. Lord Colin was ill again from December, 1881, to January, 1882; but on the 27tb of December Lady Colin left her husband in bed and went away again to Leigh Court. In fact, the title of "Lady Colin was only a warrant for that liberty which an unmarried woman could not have by the usagea of society. At Easter again she went to Leigh Court, and at that time Lord Blandford was there. Their bedrooms, either by accident or design, were next to each other. It was alloged that Lord Blandford committed adultery with Lady Colin during that visit to Leigh Court. On April 30 the visit came to an end, and then Lady Colin went to Paris with a party of friends, Lord Blandford being one of the party. They remained there until May 13. Lady Colin's'ekaperone was Lady Miles,and it was for the jury to consider whether the austere control of that estimable lady was suffi- cient to prevent mischief at Paris any more than at Leigh Court. In the following June Lady Colin came suddenly to London, and packed off her maid, Rose Abear to her home in Switzerland. That was a point which must be considered. He should call evidence to show that while Lord Colin Camp- bell was lying ill from the effects of an operation performed on him at Leigh Court Lady Campbell was continually running up to London from that place, and it was durihg that period that the alleged intimacy with Dr. Bird took place. Lady Colin only just looked in during the morning to Lord Colin's room, and during the remaining part of the day she was away, and was perpetually in the company of Dr. Bird, walking about in all sorts of weather, and, in fact, more of her time was given to him than was judicious. She was then cer- tainly fit for society, and during this time she was also known to visit Lord Blandford. On the return to Cadogan-place, after Lord Colin had sufficiently recovered, the alleged intimacy with Colonel Butler took place. He called one afternoon on the 13th of April. and went to the drawing-room, where he remained some hours. A lady friend of Lady Colin's called, and at this time Lady Colin, with hair disarranged and face flushed, called out to her maid that she was not at home, so the lady left without seeing Lady Campbell. After Colonel Butler had been in the house for over three hours, and although Lord Colin was then in his apartments, having returned meanwhile, he left in the most silent manner, slipping downstairs quietly on tiptoe- (laughter) —certainly not in the manner one friend would leave the house of another. That evening Lady Colin was taken ill. (Sensation.) Reverting again to the charge against Dr. Bird, he asked the jury whether it would be believed that any medical gentleman would, after the serious charge against him. remain in the house of the person making it without the most absolute apology and complete retraction of the charge, and felt certain that the theory that had been put forward on the point would not be satis- factory to the jury. He then referred to the illness of Lady Colin and the course that was pursued both by herself and Dr. Bird. Lord Colin at that time knew nothing; but she had a guilty con- science,and got Mr. Lewis to write a letter charging Lord Colin with communicating to her a disgust- ing disease, declining to live any more with him as a wife, but offering to remain in the house in separate apartments. Lord Colin refused, for he had never heard of the charge before. Lady Colin continued very ill indeed for three months, until the end of the month of April, 1883. The impres- sion made upon the minds of the women in the house at the time was that she was suffering from the effects of a miscarriage. Lady Miles is the intimate friend, the cousin, the confidante of Lady Colin. Lord Colin says to her, My wife has had a miscarriage." Lady Miles knew that they had not been living together as man and wife. She alleges that that miscarriage, if it be true, must be the result of adultery. Tliady Miles tried to modify that to-day, but the women in attendance have expressed the opinion that it was a miscarriage, and Lady Miles accepts for the time the idea that her cousin has committed adultery. Suppose, gentlemen, such a statement were made with regard to any one whom you knew as intimately as Lady Miles did Lady Colin, would you not say, The thing is impossible. I know my cousin would not be guilty of such a thing." But according to Lady Miles's own evidence she went upstairs to Lady Colin, thinking that this ghastly charge was true. An incident happened during this illness of which, I think, we are pretty well aware, but which will be further elucidated, if it be necessary, by evidence. That is the story of the cabman. You remember how, in her letter, Lady Miles says, "It looks very suspicious, sending for the cabman," And I must say that the story has aU the elements of suspicion about it. A hansom cab went to Lady Colin's with a letter from Lord Blandford to her, antf he was instructed to take the letter up to Lady Cohn's bedroom. The letter was sent up in the usual way. Lady Colin wrote a letter in answer to it at once, but she was resolved to take extraordi- nary precautions, so that no one in the house should know that she was sending to Lord Bland- ford. She sent the page boy downstairs, and told him to hold the cabman's horse, whilst the driver was told to go up to Lady Colin Camp- bell's bedroom. The cabman did not know what he waa going to do in the lady's bed- room but, upon getting nearer and nearer to Lady Colin's bedroom, he was told to" Come in," and. whatever feelings of delicacy the cabman had •(laughter)~were overruled, and be went into Lady Colin's bedroom, and received the letter from her hand. Lady Colin told him not to go any- where before he had delivered the letter, and to go direct back to Lord Blandford. The story of the cabman is not, therefore, at ail unimportant, and particularly when you find that Lady Colin directed him not to go to any other address to which he had been told to go, but to go back direct to Lord Blandford's house with this important and mysterious document. He then referred to incidents that took place on July 13, two days before the family meeting at Zion House, and said on that occasion Lady Colin Campbell came home late at night with a gentleman, who remained in the house for some time and then left. He then dealt with the proceedings at the Zion House meeting, and insisted that many of the letters that had been read during the proceedings had been written with the sole object of intimidating Lord Colin Camp- bell. He urged that the story of Lady Colin having suffered in her health through Lord Colin was a trumped-up charge of cruelty of an infamous kind, concocted for the purpose of screening a guilty woman by endeavouring to blast her husband's reputation, and so prevent him from coming into court to obtain what he and what she knew he was entitled to. The court at this stage adjourned till Monday. THIRD DAY. At eleven o'clock on Monday morning Mr. Justice Butt and a special jury, sitting in the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, resumed the trial of the consolidated actions of Campbell v. Campbell and Campbell v. Campbell, Marlborough, Shaw, Butler, and Bird, the same counsel appearing as before. As usual, the doors were besieged at an early hour by crowds of applicants for admission, but the official pre- cautions against overcrowding were carried out with admirable effect, and beyond those having business there or intimately connected with the parties to the actions, few were allowed to enter. His Lordship, on taking his seat, informed Mr. Finlay that Lady Miles's Prayer Book had been received by the Clerk of the Court, and Her ladyship having identified it, ¡ Mr. Finlay and Mr. Lockwood examined it. CONTINUATION OP MS. FINLAY'S ADDRESS. Mr. Finlay then resumed his address to the jury on behalf of Lord Colin Campbell. The learned counsel first adverted to the fact that he, on Saturday directed the attention of the jury to the married life of the parties and to the know- ledge of the Blood family prior to the marriage of I the illness of Lord Colin. He now intended to deal with that portion of the case in which it was j alleged that Lady Colin's health had suffered from her husband's conduct, and he would point out that no such allegation was ever breathed to Lord Colin until Mr. George Lewis had been consulted. Mr. Finlay was proceeding to argue out his point, when His Lordship ruled that he was estopped from traversing. The learned counsel then dealt with some of the letters written by Lady Miles to Lord Colin. Lady Miles had remarked that letters ought to have been kept sacred, and that she thought she was writing to a man of honour, and not to Lord Colin, a remark which carried the gallery with her. The fact was, Lord Colin was compelled to disclose them by Mr. George Lewis, who put them in evi- dence. The taunt came, too, with bad grace when Lady Miles herself introduced a letter she alleged having written to Lord Colin, and referring to the Mary Watson incident. Lord Colin would deny on oath having received such a letter. In another letter Lady Miles very severely commented on the conduct of the Blood family, and suggested that Lady Colin was acting in concert with Lord Blandford. Again, on the 9th of August she wrote and called the whole affair infamous. Later on she wrote," What a pity you ever met such a woman. Her's is a cold, pitiless, cruel nature, with no fear of God to guide her," and on the 17th of August she wrote that Lady Colin, when she spoke to her about her relations with her husband, gave reasons which I told her were not sufficient." Again, "She is behaving in a most senseless, indelicate manner, and the best thing for both will be a divorce." According to Lady Miles's own showing, Lord Colin had behaved with perfect kindness and propriety. The real version of the matter was that Lady Miles conveyed from Lady Colin a communication expressing her strong objection to cohabitation, because, it made her feel like a beast, and it was a noteworthy fact that a wife's repugnance to a husband was one of the first signs of infidelity on her part. In view of her expressed dislike, Lord Colin had promised never to force her, but he very properly repudiated the demand that he should sign a document contain- ing untrue statements and binding him to certain conduct for all time. A more unfair and odious proposal never was made. Its object was not legitimate; the aim was to give her a complete indemnity for her past and future misconduct. Dealing with the verdict given for Lady Colin in the previous suit, the learned counsel attributed it to the advocacy of Sir Charles and the fascinations of a beautiful woman, but he had now evidence which would shed a flood of light on Lady Colin's character, and he would leave it to the jury to say whether, if such evidence had been forthcom- ing on the last occasion, the verdict then given would not have been a different one. The fact was, Lord Colin in consummating the marriage acted on the advice of eminent medical men. Yet, by tho skill of advocacy, Sir Charles induced a jury to sav his conduct was reckless. Dealing next with the applications Lord Colin made to the Paris municipal authorities, counsel said, although they might not have been advisable, they were certainly usual in that country, and in full accord with French practice when a husband had reason to believe his wife could be taken under suspicious circumstances. Lord Colin did then believe his wife was in Paris acting improperly with Lord Blandford. He applied for a. summons. not a warrant, and the only effect could have been the imprisonment of the woman if, on inquiry, a magistrate found the charge of adultery proved. He asked the jury to discharge from their minds all preju- dice that might arise from the aspects erroneously placed on the transaction by Sir Charles. The fact was, the Paris incident had been distorted in order to take the attention of the jury from mate- rial facts of the case. Lord Colin had been attacked for having his wife's movements watched. He did so for good reasons, but, directly he knew her health was bad, as a man and a gentleman having regard for his wife, he ceased his inquiries. Before dealing with the allegation of adultery with Mary Watson he would state briefly the cases he had against the four co-respondents. The Duke of Marlborough was introduced to Miss Blood before her marriage. Lord Colin informed her of the objections be had to her having an acquain- tance with Lord Blandford (now the Duke of Marlborough), and if his lordship ventured to place himself in the box they would probably hear something as to the reasons for those objections. After the marriage Lord Blandford frequently called on Lady Colin at Cadogan-place, where the servants had instructions never to announce him in the hearing of Lord Colin. At the end of February, 1882, Lady Colin one night, with great demonstra- tions of affection, begged her husband to dismiss from his mind aU suspicions be might entertain in regard to Lord Blandford. Of course, it was difficult to refuse such a beautiful woman any request, but he did not like the fact of her keeping a photograph of Lord Blandford on her writing table. Once or twice Lord Blandford accompanied Lady Colin home late at night, and on one occasion they spent twenty minutes together upstairs. On another occasion a servant went to the room in which Lord Bland- ford and Lady Colin were alone, and found the door locked. While entering later attention was drawn to the disorderly state of Lady Colin's hair and the flushed faces of both of them. At Easter in 1882 the two occupied adjacent bedrooms at Leigh Court, a fact on which he could not compli- ment Lady Miles; and Lady Colin's maid would give evidence showing that Lady Colin did not occupy her bed alone, and that Lord Bland- ford was seen at the door. He would ask the jury to bear in mind, too, that Lady Colin's maid soon after that was sud- denly packed off to Switzerland. Again, evidence Would be given that Lord Blandford and Lady Colin stopped together two nights as man and wife at an hotel at Purfleet. A good deal of testi- mony would be given as to the great intimacy which apparently existed between the two. Lady Colin was perpetually calling at Lord Blandford's house, especially after her quarrel with her hus- band. The jury must draw their own conclusions from such conduct. He next came to the case of Mr. Tom Bird, a young unmarried surgeon. Lady Colin's intimacy with him first attracted attention between August, 1882. and Feb- ruary, 1883, when they were staying at Leigh Court. They were continually out together. Sometimes they paid brief visits to London, and once he took her to a concert, left his coat there, and it was returned to Cadogan-place as Lord Colin's pro- perty. Mr. Bird's visits to Lady Colin were unusually lengthy, and Lady Colin gave orders that when he was with her no one else should be admitted. In the early part of April, 1885, Lady Colin and Mr. Bird drove together to New Cross Hall, and the cabman would state he saw them caressing one another and acting as only lovers did. On the return journey Lady Colin stayed a very long time in Mr. Bird's own house in Brook street. Later on Lady Colin was very ill, and Mr. Bird was very attentive to his fair patient, stay- ing for hours by her bedside in a dark room. The jury would have all these matters dealt with in evidence. Captain Shaw was also a gentleman who knew Miss Blood before her marriage, and in October, 1881, she was with Captain Shaw alone In an unfurnished room for a very long time. After that he made frequent calls, staying for three- quarters of an hour and on one occaston, in June or July, 1882, when they were alone in the dining-room, a servant below being attracted by some knocking on the floor, went up, and saw both Captain Shaw and Lady Colin under very suspicious circumstances. The only allega- tion against the fourth co-respondent. Colonel Butler, was with reference to a long visit which he paid Lady Colin, just before her serious illness, under circumstances he detailed on Saturday. It was a grievous thing that a woman in Lady Colin's position should be charged with adultery with four men, but they must bear in mind the singular circumstances of the marriage, and the strange position she was placed in by her mother, who forced on the marriage with a full knowledge that it must for a long time be a marriage only in name. He now came to the charge of adultery preferred against Lord Colin himself. It. was, he submitted, founded on miserably weak and slender evidence, and it would never have been heard of had not Lord Colin insisted on bringing his complaints against Lady Colin into court. The charge was an infamous falsehood. It would be denied on oath by Lord Colin, Mary Watson, and other ser- vants in the house, and, feeling convinced it was a wicked conspiracy concocted by two shameless women, viz., Lady Miles and Lady Colin, they had had her examined by twosurgeons, who would say no man could ever have had connection with her; Lady Miles and Lady Colin were cousins and confidantes. They had concocted this story to slander a respectable servant girl. Her character was her only chance of life. Yet these two women had not blushed to do that which would entail the ruin of Lord Colin and a respectable girl..Was not that conduct of a scandalous and outrageous character? The triumph of wickedness was short, the day of reckoning was coming, and Lady Miles and Lady Colin would be exposed in their cruel, pitiless character. They had shown they were prepared to combine to give perjured evidence and to blast the character of a pure woman. As to the evidence of the marked Prayer Book, he did not hesitate to say that, that evidence was manufactured for the purposes of this case; and to suggest that the Prayer Book thouid have bean marked by her for the purpose • suggested—could they conceive a more revolting compound of devotion and of depravity ? The Prayer Book was prostituted in order to give a flavour of sanctity to their proceedings in con- cocting such an infamous conspiracy. He accused Lady Miles, further, of suggesting to Lord Colin that he should commit adultury to enable Lady Colin to get a divorce. Just before two o'clock Mr. Finlay completed his opening speech. He said for years Lord Colin had laboured under a weight of calumny almost insupportable. He saw the pick of the English Bar arrayed against him. But he had truth on his side, and he (the learned counsel) left the case with the most implicit confidence in the hands of II the jury, being sure they would decide it accord- ing to the evidence. Before adjourning for luncheon, the Judge inti- mated that he would not sit again cn this case until Wednesday. After luncheon evidence was taken. MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr: Clement Godson, of 9, Grosvenor-street, con- sulting physician of the City of London Lying-in- Hospital, and assistant physician accoucheur of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, deposed that that morning he examined Amelia, otherwise Mary Watson, and he had no doubt that she was virao intacto. Cross-examined by Mr. Inderwick. he said he saw no signs of attempt at intercourse. AMELIA WATSON. Amelia Watson said she was formerly in the service of Lord and Lady Campbell. She was called Mary in tha house. She was not now in service. It was not tru9 she ever sat on Lord Colin Campbell's knee, nor was there ever a.ny familiar intercourse. Lord Colin never took her hair down and played with it. She had never been insolent to Lady Miles. She remembered Lady Miles one afternoon toM her how to make linseed poultices for Lord Colin, and she took one up for his lordship. After Lady Miles had left the house she made three poultices for his lordship, and she spoke particularly sharp to her for not making them properly. Witness, continuing, said that when she entered Lord Colin's service the other servants were Roche, the butler; Anne Morrell, the cook; and Rose Baer, her ladyship's maid. Eaer always posted Lady Colin's letters. Witness saw them sometimes, and often noticed one for Lord Bland- ford, who also visited the house occasionally. There were letters, too, for Captain Shaw. Both he and Lord Blandford made lengthy visits to Lady Colin. On one occasion Mr. Bird and Lady Colin drove togother to a concert. After it Lady Colin informed witness that Mr. Bird had left his coat in the hall, and a day later the coat was brought to the house, the messenger stating it was Lord Colin's. The messenger had a letter written by Lady Colin which stated that the coat was Lord Colin's. Mr. Bird's servant subsequently called for the coat. Before going to the concert Mr. Bird was in Lady Colin's bedroom, and when witness wont to the door Lady Colin opened it, and at once called out, 14 Keep your hands on the dose, doctor." Mr. Bird teemed quite bewildered. She remembered Lady Colin being absent from town from Satur- day to Monday shortly after Lord Colin had gone on one of his visits to Scotland Witness said that, after leaving Lord Colin's- service, she went to Mrs. Robertson's at Brighton. when Mr. Lewis called on her and said Lady Miles had made an accusation against her with reference to her putting on poultices for Lord Colin and pulling down her hair. Nothing, however, was said about the date, or about her sitting on Lord Colin's knee. Before he left witness said, It's all Lady Colin's doings," and Mr. Lewis replied that she must get it out of her head that it. was Lady Colin's doings; it was, he added, Lady Miles' doings. Cross-examined by Mr. Inderwick: Mr. Lewis asked witness's mistress to be present at the inter- view. He told witness she was charged with intimacy with Lord Colin. Prior to that she had seen Mr. Humphreys' clerk, who also told her of the actions pending. She did not understand she was charged with adultery. Mr. Lewis asked her if she had seen any impropriety on the part of Lady Colin, and she said she had not. Witness did write to Lord Colin when he was at Leigh Court. She never signed herself" Your affectionate Mary," or anything to that effect. She wrote four or live times. She wrote to him about a pup he had sent up. Witness was next cross-examined as to her statement that she and Rose Baer watched Mr. Bird and Lady Colin drive away from the house one day, and that Lady Colin did not return, and she was compelled to admit that Rose wa.s not watching with her on that occasion, and she would not swear that was > not the occasion when, accompanied by Mr. Bird, she went to Leigh Court to join her husband. She had watched Lady Colin occasionally, but not with tha idea of catching ber in any impropriety. Witness had seen Mrs. and Miss Shaw at that house, as well as Captain Shaw. Up till the time witness left her ladyship seemed to be in perfect health. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General (who appeared for the Duke of Marlborough); Witness would swear she saw Lord Blandford visit the house three times, but could not fix too dates. She never knew Lord a.nd Lady Blandford to dine with Lord and Lady Colin Campbell. Lord Blandford called in the afternoon, and waa shown into tho drawing-room in the usual way. Was quite sure Mrs. Boltou was never present on any of the occa- sions. Mrs. Bolton was a frequent visitor. On one occasion, when she admitted Lord Blaudford, she went to her ladyship, who was with Lord Colin, and told her the cook wanted to see her. She did that because on the previous day she had heard Lord Blaudford had run away with some- body else's wife. Lady Colin was continually writing to gentlemen. I Re-examined by Mr. Finlay < She saw no dosa when Dr. Bird was iu Lady Colin's bedroom. When Lord Blandford called and Lady Colin was in Lord Colin's bedroom she told Ladv Colin that the cook wanted to see her, because she had heard that Lord Blandford bad run away with another man's wit'e. Dr. Gibbon, physician to the Grosvenor Hospital for Women and Children, corroborated Dr. H, Godson's evidence. ¡ The court adjourned till Wednesday, FOURTH DAY. Punctually at half-past ten on Wednesday morn- ing Mr. Justice Butt and a special jury resumed the hearing of the divorce causes of Campbell f. Campbell, and Campbell v. Campbell, Marlborough, Shaw, Bird, and Butler, the same counsel appear- ing as before. THE SWISS MAID'S EVIDENCE. The first witness called was Rose Fisher, the wife of Godfrey Fisher, a courier, living at Notting-hill. Examined by Mr. Searle she said: My name before my marriage was Rose Baer. I was formerly in the service of Lady Colin Camp- bell as lady's-maid. I went into her service some time in November, 1881, and stayed until the 4th of June, 1832. At the time I entered her Bervice Lady Colin was staying at her mother's, In Thur- low-square. Shortly afterwards I went with her to Lady Miles's, Loigh Court. We stayed there for five days, nnd tbpn returned. When we came to town we lived at 79, Cadogan-place. During the first part of your living in Lady Colin's service was Lord Colin unwell Yes; he had an operation performed, and his illness lasted for about six weeks. While you were At Cadogan-place did Lord Blandford visit the house ?—Yes. Often ?—Often. And at what time of the day were those visits generally?—In the afternoon, and Sometimes In the evening. He Used to be shown up to the drawing-room, whetf Lady Colin was, and he generally remained thoro fifteen or twenty minutes or half an hour. How long have you known him to remain?—The I longest was about an hour. Have you ever posted letters to Lord Blandford for Lady Colin ?—Yes. How often ?—Every day. 'I The Judge: For what length of time?—The whole time I was there with Lady Colin, and some- times of an afternoon, I took notes to his own I bouse, 46, Cadogan-square. Did Lady Colin go out of an evening much ?— Yes, nearly always of an evening—sometimes to dinner. Did you go out with her ?—No, not when she went out to dinner. (A laugh, i What time did she return?—Sometimes very late; between two and three in the morning. And when she did not go out to dinner you went with her?—Yes; her ladyship used to leave me at the corner of Font-street and Sloane-street. How far is that from Cadoga.n-square ?—About five minutes' walk. When you got there, what would she say ?—She used to tell me to go back. Did you notice what kind of dress she wore ?— Yes; she wore a dinner dress and a fur cloak. She was in the habit of wearing a thick veil over her face. and she carried a man's hat under her arm underneath the cloak. What sort of a hat do you mean ?—It was a man's bat. His Lordship: But a man wears more than one kind of hat. (Laughter.) What was its shape ?— It was round. His Lordship: Do you mean a crush hat. Per- haps you do not know the English name of it ?—I do not. Mr. Searle: Was it your duty to dress her ?— Yes and to undress her. What time did she generally return home?— About twelve o'clock. "His Lordship: What time did she go out ?— About half-past nine. Mr. Searle: Did she ever return later than that hour ?—Never. Did she drive or walk home ?—She used to drive to the corner of the street, and walk the remainder of the journey to the house in Cadogan-place. His Lordship: In what part of the street is No. 79 v—At the bottom. It is one of the small houses at the end of the street. How many houses are there at the bottom ? Are thero more than twenty ?—I do not know. Mr. Searle How could you tell that Lady Colin stopped the cab at the corner of the street?—I I heard it stop, and she would come in shortly afterwards. Do you recollect finding a broken tumbler in the drawing-room one night ?—Yes. Had Lady Colin been out that evening?—Yes. I cannot fix the time of that nearer than about Christinas, 1881. Delaroehe was the manservant at that time. I went with Lady Colin to Leigh Court at Easter, 1882. Where was Lord Colin ?—I think, in Cadogan- I place; not at Leigh Court. We stayed a week on that occasion. Was the Marquess of Blandford there?—Yes. When you arrived?—Yes, and he remained all the time we were there. What bedroom did Lady Colin occupy ?—No. 37 or 38. And Lord Blandford?—-His was the next room to it. Did they occupy those rooms during the whole of the visit ?—Yes. I to it. Did they occupy those rooms during the whole of the visit ?—Yes. Do you recollect finding anything in Lady Colin's bedroom ?—Yes; a white silk hanaker- II chief. Did you show it to Lady Colin?—Yea; ud aha' said, "I know who it belongs to," and she took it away. Do you recollect on one occasion, while you were attending Lady Colin, prior to her retiring to bed, noticing any thing ?—Yes; I heard someone coming upstairs. Lady Colin also heard the sounds, and she coughed. Where did the person go ?—In to the next room —that of the Marquess of Blandford, and, after her ladvship heard the door close, she told me I could go. Did you notice anything about the towels in Lady Colin's bedroom ?—Yes, I noticed they had been disarranged, they were thrown about any- where in the room. I noticed creases in the sheets. Do you think that more than one person had slept in the bed ?—Yes, I could see there had been two persons in it. Mr. Justice Butt: What time of day was this?— In the morning, my lord. Mr. Searle: Do you know of Lord Blandford being in Lady Colin's bedroom ?—Yes. Where was Lady Colin ?—She was also in the bedroom. What did you hear ?—I heard them talking toge- ther. The time of day was the afternoon. This only happened on one occasion. Where were you ?—I was outside. Do you remember one night that you ware brushing Lady Colin's hair ?—Yes, the time was twelve o'clock. Did you hpar anything then?—Yes, I heard somebody trying the door. What happened ?—Somebody tried the door and went away again. Mr. Justice Butt: Was the door locked?—No, it was not locked. Examination continued: I came to town with Lady Colin from Leigh Court. Did anybody come with you?—Yes, Lord Eland- ford. Lady Colin got into one carriage, and I got I into another. Did Lord Blandford and Lady Colin travel in the same carriage together to London?—Yes. I Was anybody else in the same carriage with them ?—I don't know nor can I say when they arrived in London. Afterwards Lady Colin went to Paris. I did not go with her. She went to Leigh Court without me. Did you ever notice tbe peculiar sort of key that Lady Colin had ?—Yes; it had a key at each end. I do not know where the key is now. Was there a back entrance to the house in Cadogan-place ?—Yes, and there was a latch-key to that. Who had that key?—Lady Colin. Amongst frequent visitors to Cadogan-place was Captain Shaw. How often did he come ?—1 saw him only twice. I once saw him walking up and down in Cadogan- place. I have posted letters to him from Lady Colin. Did that frequently happen ?—It did. I remem- ber two occasions. Take the first occasion. Who came home with her then ?—Lord Blandford. What time did she come home on that occasion? —It was between two and three in the morning. Where did they go to ?—In the dining-room. I do not. remember how long he remained. There was supper laid for them. I had to wait to undress I her ladyship. I cannot remember bow long I had to wait. What was the other occasion?—I don't know who it was came home with her. It was nearly twelve o'clock. I have no doubt it was a gentle- man from his voice. What room did they go into ?—The dining-room. There supper was laid. I cannot tell how long the gentleman stopped. Mary Watson was in service I at that time. Have you ever seen any impropriety whatever between Lord Colin ant] Mary Watson?—Never. As far as I could see, there was never anything in their conduct suspicious even. Did Lady Colin ever give yu. any directions about the letters that came to the house to ber ?— Yes. She told me I was not to leave them about in the hall, but to take them upstairs to her bed- room. To Mr. Justice Butt: Those were general direc- tions. Examination continued: Some of these she would burn, and others she would put away in a box under the bed. It was locked. Now, as to your leaving her service ?—On one occasion Lady Colin came back from Leigh Court unexpectedly. What was the date?—The 4th of June, 1882. Lady Miles was with her. I was called up into the drawing-room, where she and Lady Miles were. What passed?—Lady Miles told me I had blackened Lady Colin's character, and that I must leave the house at once. She said that she would send for a policeman if I did not go. Did Lady Miles say whero you were to go ?—No, I did not know where to go. Sbo said she did not care where I went, or what became of me, but I was to go at once. Did you ask for any further reason ?—No. Were your wages given yúu i'—Yes. Lady Colin came up and gave me £10, of which about £3 or £4 was due as wages. Was there anything said then as to what you were to tell tho other servants was the cause of your going ?—Lady Coiin said I was to tell the servants nay father was ill. The Judge; Well, where was your home'J.—In Switzerland. l Did Lady Colin say anything to you before you left?—Yes she said she always regarded me as a I sister, not as a servant, and she kissed me twice. (Lady Colin here smiled, and whispered to Lady Miles.) Did Lady Colin say anything about Lord Colin ? —Yes; Lady Colin said it was his lordship who was sending me away. Did you leave this country for Switzerland?— Yes; at six o'clock that evening. THE MAID CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell: Mr. Humphreys two years ago wrote to witness for information about Lady Colin. Witness, in December, 1884. received a visit from Lord Colin at 11, Chesterfield-street, Mayfair, after Mr. Humphreys had sent two letters there which 6he did not answer. Lord Colin merely asked her to go and give evidence. She did not know what evidence she was to give, but eh9 agreed to give it, and he told her to go to Mr. Humphreys. She did so a week later, and her statement was taken down in writing. Sir Charles called for the statement. Mr. Finlay objected, on the ground that it was privileged, but, stung by a suggestion of Sir Charles as to the contents of the statement, he put it in with an indignant protest, and gave notice that he would not allow it to form a precedent. He handed in a statement which Sir Charles said was only a fair copy. Mr. Finlay said that the original was in shorthand notes. Continuing her cross-examination, witness said her examination in December, 1884, occupied two hours. She could not say whether it was taken in shorthand, but the paper she signed was the ouo the clerk wrote ou. Last month the statement was read over to her, and she made a second statement, which she signed. Witness would swear she was dismissed on the 4th of June, not on the 17th of July. Lady Colin did not accuse her of being reported speaking in an unpleasant way about Lord Colin's illness. Her ladyship had seen O'Neill before witness was called up, but ho did not tell her what he had been questioned about. Lady Colin did not tell witness she had advertised for a. place for her in the Morning Post. Lady Colin gave witness no reason for dismissing her, and witness asked for one. Her ladyship never gave her any character. O'Neill was told by her ladyship to get. French money to piy witness's travelling ex- penses home. Did tell Lady Colin she was sorry Ehc had been gossiping with the servants, but did not admit she had told lies. She wrote several times to Lady Colin, but never received any answer. It was not true she threatened to expose Lady Colin because she did not answer her appeals. Sho never wrote such a threat to Lady COlin. Sir Charles here read a sentence from the wit- ness's statement to Mr. Humphreys, in which she had written to Lady Colin stating that if her lady- ship would not give her a character to enable her to take a situation she would expose her. I To witness: Did you make that statement ?— Oh, yes, I did say that, but I recollect now it was a mistake. When did you find out it was a mistake ?—Only last week, when I thought the matter over. I told Mr. Johnson at Mr. Humphreys' only six weeks ago that I wrote the threatening letter, and I also then told him I did so because I wanted her to give me the character I thought I was entitled to. How often did Lord Blandford visit Cadogan- place?—On an average twice a week; always about the same time in the afternoon—between two and seven. Tha letters for Lord Blandford were handed to witness with Lady Colin's other letters. Her ladyship had a large correspondence. There was no secrecy about Lord Blandford's letters. On some days there were as many as three letters to his lordship. Witness's instruc- tions on the delivering of letters at Lord Bland- ford's house was to ring the bell and run away. When her ladyship took a man's hat under her cloak on going out it was her own hat. Witness thought it a suspicious act, and that she took it for the purpose of disguise. How often did it occur?—Two or three times. How often did you find her dress disarranged?— Two or three times. I cannot, give the dates. It was not the dress that was disarranged. It was the petticoat that was undone. That was the sole reason you gave for the state- ment that she must have had her dress off V—I did not mean the petticoat was undone; it was the skirt which was undone. Did you have suspicions as to Lady Campbell's conduct with anyone besides Lord Blandford ?— No. Further cross-examined as to her statement to No. Further cross-examined as to her statement to Mr. Humphreys, witness said that though in that she said Lady Colin and Lord Blandford occupied adjoining rooms at Leigh < ourt at Christmas, 1831, it was a'mistake; she was then referring to the Easter visit. Sho was positive Lord Blandford was at Leigh Court at Christmas, 1831, but she could not remember the numbers of the bedrooms then occupied. Further cross-examination disclosed other dis- crepancies between the witness's statement to Mr. Hurnphrevs and her present evidence. The Judge: One can scarcely forbear asking howshecamo to make such statements. Sir Charles Russell: Was it an invention or a mistake ? Witness: A mistake. t Witness said that on returning from the Christmas visit to Leigh Court Lord Blandford and Ladv Colin sat on a seat at Paddington Station looking 'like two lovers very unhappy at their parting. On the resumption after luncheon some delay was caused by the non-return of the witness, who had fainted away during the interval. She, how- ever, was able to take her seat in the witness-box. t Witness, cross-examined, said that, though she told Mr Humphreys Lady Colin had a peculiar key for Lord Blandford's house, she had not heard any- one say that. It was pure assumption on her part. I How often did you post letters from Lady Colin to Captain Shaw ?—About one or two a month. I ( will swear Captain Shaw was at Leigh Court either at Christmas, 1881, or Easter, 1882. Will you sav Lord Bhndford was there at Christmas, 1831 ?—Yes. You are certain?—Yes. You told Mr. Humphreys that because Lady Colin did not sleep with her husband she was bad J after men. What did you mean ?—I thought she used to run after men. When did that idea first come into your mind? —A long while ago. Why did you not state it to Mr. Humphreys in 1884 ?—I was not married then, and did not like to. In fact, I did not remember it then. Why in your statement in December, 1884, did you introduce Mary Watson's name, and say she would hardly look at a man?—Because Mr. Humphreys told me it was charged that Lord Colin had committed adultery with ber at Christmas, 1881, at Leigh Court. Did not. Lady Colin occupy bedroom No. 36 ?— No. I What room did she occupy ?—I do not know. Do you swear Lord Blandford was at Leigh Court at Christmas, 1331 r- Yes; positively. Was not the bali at Easter ?—No at Christmas. What was the number of Lady Colin's room at I. Easter, 1882 ?—Either 37 or 33. Was not the number of the room at the Easter visit 29 r—No, I do not think so. Was not 23, intended for Lord Colin, empty ?— I do not know. Was not 30 occupied by Sir Philip Miles ?—It is not true. I am perfectly sure Lady Colin occupied 37 or 38. Was not Lord Blandford's room at the Easter visit No. 37?—Either 37 or 38. He had one of them, Lady Colin the other. I am sure the room Lady Colin occupied at Christmas was in a corner, and at Easter it was not. Was tho room over the portico entrance ?—No, I am sure. What did the window look out on ?—I cannot say. It looked over the park. By the Attorney-General (representing the Duke of Marlborough) Did not know that in February, 1882, Lcrd and Lady Colin Campbell dined with Lord and Lady Blandford. Did not know Lord Blandford lent Lady Colin books. Lady Colin went to a charity bail at Clifton at Easter, 1882. During that visit to Leigh Court there was no bail at Leigh Court. How many nights was Lord Blandford there &t Easter, 1882 ?—1 cannot say. I Was it more than two ?—I cannot say. Did Lord Blandford return to Leigh Court after the charity ball?—Yes; I saw him at the Court after that. Re-examined by Mr. Finlay: She never heard of an advertisement being inserted in tha Morning Post of July 17 for a situation for her, It was not put in for her. Until that day she never heard it euggosted that the cause of her dismissal was that she had talked about Lord Colin's illness. She believed she wrote a letter threatening to expose Lady Colin, but never sent it. O'Neill did not enter Lord Colin's service till just before Easter, 1882, and until then she had never seen him. The court adjourned at ten minutes past four o'clock.

ACCIDENT TO LADY COLIN I CAMPBELL. It is stated that a hansom, containing Lady I Colin Campbell, was upset in Fetter-lane, London, on Tuesday afternoon, but har ladyship escaped I, unhurt, and was able to proceed on foot to Eol- born.

THE CARDIFF ACCOUNTANT AND HIS WIFE. j At Cardiff Police-court on Wednesday week the case of Mrs. Chadwick, who summoned her hus-! band.Mr.Chad wick, for maintenance, was adjourned till Wednesday last to enable Mrs. Chadwick to call rebutting evidence to the charge of adultery pre- ferred against her by her husbatd with a Mr. Crowder.—Mr. M'Lachlan (from the office of Mr. Harry Cousins), who appeared for Mrs. | Chadwick, informed the bench on Wednesday latt that the case wouid be withdrawn. It appeared that Mr. Crowder was not forthcoming, and there was no evidence to disprove the charge of adultery. —Mr. Chadwick, who was in court, asked the bench to dismiss the case, net simply to allow it to be withdrawn.—The Magistrates' Clerk If the plaintiff withdraws the casa is dismissed.—Mr. Chadwick: Thank you.—It was subsequently stated that proceedings in the Divorce Court will now be commenced.

CARDIFF BANKRUPTCY COURT. At Cardiff Bankruptcy Court on Tuesday (before I Mr. Langley, the Registrar) several debtors came up for examination by the Official Receiver (Sir. T. H. Stephens). In the case of Edward Kinsey, grocer, 28, Bute- terrace, Cardiff, Mr. G. David appeared for a petitioning creditor.—Tbe debtor stated that he had been in business in Cardiff about five years. His capital on commencing was :;15. He pre- viously traded at Abardare, where in 1875 he filed his petition and paid a conposition of Is. in the JE. In December, 1835, he had a private meeting of his creditors and again paid a composition, and was released from his debts. His present liabili- ties had been incurred since that time. Shortly before his petition was filed he sold some of his furniture. The pressure upon him then was very great, and lie sold the iurniture thinking he could do so at an advantage, and that it would be for tho benefit of his creditors. His wife had some property in Herefordshire, left by his father's will. There was a mortgage upon it, the interest of which was paid by his wife out of the rent received from the property.—The caso was adjourned until the 16th inst. Thomas James, draper and builder, Blaengarw, who also came up for examination, said he com- menced business at Blaengarw about two years ago. He then went to Cadoxton, where he carried on building operations. At Bridgend he offered his creditors 12s. 6d. in the JS, which he proposed to realise by selling his stock-in-trade and furni- ture, and also by borrowing from his friends. The offer was refused, and, in consequence, h6 had to file his petition. The further examination of the debtor was adjourned until the 16th inst. In the matter of Benjamin Arthur, provision merchant, Cardiff, Mr. Downing appeared for the debtor, and Mr. Fedden (from the office of Mr. H. P. Ingledew) for petitioning creditors. Debtor, in examination, stated that he formerly carried on business at Rotunda Buildings, Cardiff. He began business in 18SO with a capital of £500 of his own and £1,200 borrowed from friends. In 1835 he had to stisDend payment. He then assigned the whole of his estate to his brother, Mr. W.E. Arthur, for the benefit of his creditors, a.nd called a private meeting of them, at which he made an offer of 6s. 8d. in the JS, the payment of which was guaranteed by his brother. This was accepted by the majority of the creditors, but three or four of them persistently refused it, and hence he became bankrupt. After the business had been assigned to his brother he (the debtor) became manager of it at a salary of £150 per annum. Since 1885 the business had declined, and the debtor was now a traveller for a wholesale firm in London. He resided at PenartU in a house belonging to his wife, which she had acquired through a Building Society. The. furniture also belonged to his wife, having been given titem by her parents when they were married, about 21 years ago. His brother to whom the business at Rotunda Buildings was assigned was a merchant in London, and was now on his way to Japan upon business connected with his firm, who traded with that country.— The Registrar adjourned the further examination of the debtor until the 16th inst.—The debtor's liabilities are £ 3,212, and the assets nil. Charles Jones, hairdresser, Castie-strest, Cardiff (represented by Mr. G. David), was also examined. He stated that he had only been in business in Cardiff since the 25th of June last. He was for- merly at Carmarthen. Ho had no capital on coming to Cardiff. His debts were chiefly contracted at Carmarthen. He had paid away considerable sums to assist a daughter in business, and had had to II pay JE200 under a surety into which he had entered for a brother-in-law.—Adjourned until the 16th instant. Thomas Edward Davies, draper and outfitter, Pontycymmer, in examination, stated that he com- menced business in January, 1885. He had no capital at tha time, but his lather-in-law became security for the payment of bills. During the period of his trading he had incurred liabilities amounting to jEl,230, and he attributed his failure to the bulk of the trade having leit the place. Pontycymmer was a mining district. When he went there there were prospects of success, but he had been disappointed. The assets were £2CS. The examination was adjourned until the 16tu inst., and the court then rose.

fAJtRT attm Roess'c Welsh Yarns art tht but. 7Mfe

CARDIFF IMPARTIAL SOCIETY. THE REV. C. J. THOMPSON ON FREE| EDUCATION. On Kondisy evening, at the Lecture Theatre Working-street, Cardiff, the Rev. C. J. Thompson, vicar of St. John's, gave a lecture on the subject of Free Education, following an address given the previous week by Mr. A. J. Williams, M.P., on the same subject. The chair was occupied by Mr. J. Pyke Thompson, and there was a numerous attendance. In opening the proceedings, the CHAIRMAN said it had been suggested that something of the nature of a library should be formed in connection with the society. Probably this would be done in time, but, meanwhile, a list of books relating to the sub- jects under discussion would from time to time be placed upon the notice boards. MR. THO!llPSOl"S ADD*EiS. The K&v. C. J. THOMPSON then addressed the ( meeting. He said:—In order to arrive at a sound conclusion upon any debatable subject, it is essential to keep it free of all side issues. For in- stance, discussion as to differing systems cr standards of education as to what is or is not an ideal schoo!; as to the school as a social nursery for a democratic community, and the like, is quite irrelevant to the question before us, which is whether Free Education would or wouid not be a greater benefit to the country than the system of education for payment which prevails at present. I We have to apply and confine our thoughts to I existing schools and to an existing condition of things. It is not a question of framing a new scheme of educational provision, but of revolu- tionising an old and established one. WHAT IS "FBEE EDUCATION*" ? But» first, let us be quite sure of our terms. What is meant by Free Education ? Is it educa- tion which, while exacting no tuitional fees, lays no additional burden upon the community, nor any section of it ? If it be this, so far as I am con- cerned controversy drops. I am prepared to give it trial. If it be not this, Free Education is a misnomer—it is a term misleading and in-exact. This is not what tHe advocates of the question mean, though it is clear that nothing short of this absolute immunity from burden on the part of every individual can satisfy the term. What, then, do its advocates mean by "Free Education." This only—The abolition of school fees in all public Elementary Schools. A legislative measure would probably deal only with Board Schools by I direct provision, but indirectly, and in the ultimate event, it would affect all Voluntary Schools as well. If the rule of free admission into Board Schools 1 were universally prevalent it would only be i question of time as to when the Voluntary Schools 'I would be compelled to comply with the same con- dition, so that we may fairly say that the cry for Free Education means the abolition of school fees in all the public Elementary Schools. My business to-night is to treat the subject from a different point of view to that of the abie lecturer (Mr. A. J. Williams, M.P.) of Monday last; or I may state it in this way, it is to see whether I can arrive at conclusions similar to his, and, if no^ then to I advance reasons why not. From what I have already said, you will understand that the question we are both dealing with is not properly Free Education, but the abolition of school fees. A GOOD OR AN EVIL ? Mr. Williams and those who agree with him, e.g., j Mr. Chamberlain and a large section of the advanced Liberal party, desire to efiect the aboli- tion, and, so far, to secure free schools. I am not convinced of the advantages that would result from this step, but think that the evil would j greatly outweigh the good, and, therefore, am opposed to the abolition of school fees under present conditions." I say under present con- j ditions," because the question is one very largely of expediency, and there is not, nor can b?, any finality in the social or political ordering cf affairs. COST OF ABOLISHING FEEb. 1. I ask you to consider the cost involved in freeing the Elmentary Schools from payment cf fees. That cost is of two kinds :-11 Certain, (2) probable. (1> As to the certain cost. The | total amount of school pence contributed annually as school fees is over £1.700,000; and Mr. Childers j (late Chancellor of the Exchequer) estimates that the discontinuance of this payment would mean a contribution from the Exchequer of £2,000,000. This £2.000,000, now obtained easily and willingly from one source, would have to ba obtained from > another, the Exchequer—i.e., would have to bs supplied by taxation. Some view this prospect with equanimity. Mr. Childers, on tha contrary, j sees a possibility, if this project be carried out, of our educational fiuance breaking down alto- gother." (2) The total amount of voluntary sub- scriptions for toa year ending August 31,135a, was £755,936. HOW VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS WOULD BE AFFECTED. But what has a measure for freeing schools from fees to do with subscriptions towards their support ? someone may ask, This-the need for j subscriptions will be greater than ever; but how long are they likely to bs given ? The subscriber J wil.' be more heavily rated than before for the j Board Schoolhe will be additionally taxed far the Voluntary School, and the effect must be that this source of income will universally enmesh, and perhaps fail altogether. Titus, to the £2,000,000 to be supplied in lieu of pence must be added the more than three-o.uarteis of a million pounds derivable from voluntary sources, making a sum of £2,756,000 to be ccrtairdy obtained from in. creased The parliamentary Education J Grant fay 13S4 was £ £ ,722,000. it shows a tendency to increase* every year. But, eup-1 posing it to remain stationary, to ask Parliament j for a grant of at least £5,478,OvO, in addition to more than £1,100,000 of rales locally levied, would b9 a bold demand on th8 part of any statesmen, to say the least of it. And I ask to-night, simply on the ground of its certain demonstrable cost, is it worth while to make the experiment Is it not better to leave well alone ? j SO FINALITY OF COST. But there is the probable cost in addition to that which is certain. At pressnt there are 3,420,616 school pl»ces in Voluntary Schools, and 1,640,887 in Board Schools—1> the former provide more than two-thirds of the whole school accom- moda.tion of England and Wales, the Board Schools less than one-third. The average attendance shows a corresponding result, though the propor- tionate advantage here is slightly in favour of the Board Schools. That it should be so is not remark- able if we remember that the country districts are almost wholly supplied by Voluntary Schools. Suppose these Voluntary Schools closed because of failure of revenue to carry them on, the School Boards would have to supply the accommodation that would be lacking, i.e., an additional number of new schools would have to be built equal in capacity to those withdrawn from school usef. The value of the Voluntary Schools of England and Wales is set down as £ 30.000,000. Tii^ School Boards have already piled up a debt of £15,000,000. In the event anticipated that debt would bwell up into one of some £45,OCO,Oao. It is, of course, possible that soma of the existing Voluntary Schools would be transferred to the boards, but it is absolutely certain that a. very .much larger number would not. The State has no claim upon them whatever. THE BCTLDIKG GRAFTS OF 1S70. What, say you, about the building grants made in 1870? (1) They were, relatively speaking, i very small. (2) They were of the nature of con- tributions by an interested party, and stand on the same footing as all other contributions. As to the smallness of the sums contributed by Govern- ment, these are the facts—I quote from the Blue Book of 1884-5:—" In the twelve years ending December 31, 1882, building grants to the amount I of £ 312,200 have been paid to meet local contri- butions to the amount of £ 1,348.169." In addi- tion to this 4,727 Voluntary Schools, the great majority of which have been erected, &c., without j Government aid, at a cost to the promoters of at least £5,000,000, have come under inspection since 1870. This refers only to the work of voluntary educational zeal for a period of twelve recent years, and I mention it mainly to show how absolutely erroneous it is to speak of tho school property now vested in the persons of trustees as in any soose the property of the State. I think there can be little doubt but that the cost of abolishing school fees would m. an additional national burden of taxation in the form of Parlia- mentary grant and local rate of at least 7-i millions I of pounds a year. In this sum I include the interest upon loans raised for building purposes, but not the re-payment of principal. A STRONG MORAL OBJECTION. I ask you to consider aa objection resting upon j moral grounds:—1.1 eafinot admit that a parent is less under an ebligation to provide education for his children than to provide food, clothing, and pro-j tectio.n. 1 am not going to repeat the pauperisa- tion argument, but I maintain this, t hat to remove the whole immediate cost of his children's school- ing from the family budget is to lessen his interest in their educational progress, and must be a serious invasion of the sphere of parental respon- sibility. Not only do we all value what we pay for more than what comes to us habitually for nothing, but, as the present chairman of the London School Board has well pointed out, it is good for the parent to pay. In some cases thj payment of school pence im- plies hardship, arid in many more it implies self- denial on the part of parents. But the very fabric of the family is built upon the foundations of denial and sacrifice. The bulwark of the English I realm is the English home, and no step can be re- garded as otherwise than serious which ten as, in however limited a degree, to lessen in English homes the sense of direct parental responsibility." HOW FKEE EDUCATION WOGLD AFFECT THRIFT. 2. Mr. Diggle also points out, in an admirable pamphlet, that this question of school fees has a direct bearing on the subject of thrift and tempe- rance. If parents are impressed with the idea. that they, rather than the community, are respon- sible for the education of their children, a power- ful motive to thrift and a restraint upon intempe- ranee are at once supplied. The late Professor Fawcctt went so far as to say, "I believe that the sacrifices involved in securing education for their < children have probably enabled more working men and working women to resist the temptations of intemperance than all the temperance societies joined together." EXPOSING A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. If a system works well. there may be reasons for trying to make it work better, there can be none for abolishing it. But does 1,he fee system work well ? Admirably. If a few people are unwilling to pay for what is money's worth is that an excep- tional state of things ? Is the butcher, the baker, the lawyer, the doctor, the landlord always paid? Do not large numbers of people plead inability to pay, and larger numbers still recaivo remission of ( debt? But no one yet has started the cry cf "free" bread and "free" meat, though we do seem to be nearing tiie'days of ,4,free" land. (Laughter.) The fact is that school fees present no hindrance whatever to school efficiency. I believe there is no item of family expenditure j which the average working man pays with more pleasure and willingness than his chifdrea'a school pence. Such, at least, is my experience. A CBCSKIXO ABGUilHNT. 00 this point I am abie to speak, not onlf from along ar.d exhaustive practical experienca of the Voluntary School system, but also from my more than ten years' experience ais a member of our Schoo! Board. I have for most, of these years been chairman of the Schoo! Attendance Com- mittee, one of whose speciai duties it is to receive applications from indigent parents, and to decide upon remission of the school fees. What is my experience ? This—The total amount of fees remitted for ten months to the 1st of the present month—a period of great trade depression—is £ 142 10s. 6d., or, to make it reprp. sent a year's account, if we add JE28 more. we shall have a total remission for the past year of JE170. Against that what is the amount of the fees paid by the children of oux Board Schools? e follow*: —For the vear ending September 29 last no less than jM.135 Os. 2d., to whLch must be added for books and other articles said to children a further sum of £203 13s. 8d. Thus, the income of our Cardiff Board Schools, from school pence alone, willingly and punctua'/y paid, amounts to £4.343 13s. 10J. From this it will be seen that the re- mitted payments, in 8, population largely composed of the labouring clasps, and during an exceptionally unprosperous time for wage-earners, amount to less than 4 per cent. of the sum paid in school fees. But I have something further to say. Those whe apply for remission are very largely the thriftless, the worthless, rmd the intemperate. HONEST LABOURING MEX PAT. Sometimes it is otherwise, and then almost íLo variably the parents ask to be helped over a time of difficulty, a.nd express their willingness and desire to pay. At a recent sitting of our com- mittee there were seven or eight intima- tions from poor parents that they wished once again to pay their children's fees themselves. One word more, since much stress is laid on tKs alleged objection. It is not the payment of a fee which prevents attendance at school; on the contrary, tlWJ children who pay attend the best, while those who have free schooling are the most irregular and unsatisfactory. What hurts school attendance is the selfishness of the parents, the weak- ness of parental control, and the value of the children's services at home. The giris are kept from school to nurse baby or attend to mother in her illness; both boys and girls to take father's dinner or go on remunerative errands; and in a community like ours there is the constant terop- tatioa to earn money by a bit of work. Whatever else the argument for abolition of school fees may be rested on, it cannot, with truth and reason, hp urged on the ground that they are a hindrance to tile emciencv of the schools. As to ";c teachers time being misspent in collecting the pence, it viU be time to considsr that plea when it is urged bj the teachers themseiver. INEVITABLE < i Then I object to this proposal on the ground t its almost inevitable consequences. What are they beyond what has been already stated? (1) The substitution of a statutory uniformity for the existing duality of our educational system. To some this may appear an advantage. 1 should r gard it as a result to be deeply deplored. rei- formity is as little fitted to educational as to religious institutions. Its tendency is to repress, to confine, to chili. It works, not by zeal c enthusiasm, but by rules. We have r_; this m::mer-T a school system co-extensive with the ration arc. capable of infinite expansion. That system res'? on two prime motives—one if religious zeal, the other civil fluty. It is well established: it has, on both sides, its traditions, it suits t'-2 genius of the English people. It links moderr ideas with the proved experiences of the past. It gives scops on the one hand for inaividuF.i enterprise and generosity, and compels cn the other hand the soiii^h to bscr their ui the burdens cf the Stata. B. A-; try to encourage a generous rivalry Ln.tweeu the two systems. Better far tc recognise that in our complex community each meets and satieties a need, and so foster and strengthen both. In my opinion, things being as they are, to take ar y step which would issue in the suppression cf one, and that far the larger side of the education^ system, would be a blunder of tun stamp which is worse than a crinid. Ei:UGIOUS TiACHINW. Eut (2) tha entis.ciionof Voluntary Schools noolJ mean the silencing of religious teaching as we understand and practise it now. Religious instruction would no longer form an integral part of the school syllabus. Eut a denominationai school has. as its impulse, religious belief. From that, as its inspiring source, the whole vast volun- tary fabric has arisen and it is because we regard no schem.' of education as complete and satis- factory from which the teaching of religious doctrine is excluded that we labour to maintain it in efficiency. Mr. Williams, last Monday even- ing, said much ou this point. I shaH say but little. He frankly told us that, as a Unitarian, he did not believe ia the necessity to salvation of any kind of fr.ith, and expressed his view of the wortiilessness of religious teach- ing as given in any school whatever. I dC:1't criticise this view: I only mention it tc eay that mine is very di Cerent. And I mention it for this reason. It is quite easy to understand that those who think thus should have no compunction whatever in working the destruction cf a system which is committed to what they consider a sub- let of tmproiitcble instruction and a daily misuse of valuaolc ti:ac. It is no less easy to understand to what a large extent tbev are bound to be out of sympathy with denominational schools. Before, therefore, we Can view with equanimity tbe secu- larisation of our schools, we must recant as error all our educational beliefs, and be ready to cancel the trust 0'-e0- (.r between 16,000 and 16,000 echooit- JOKEIGX UDCCATIOS. Eeiove closing I will allude Very briefly to what I thay call theforeisa argument. We ate poictad to Switzerland, to Germany, to America. If all the facts were before Us my impression is that "I should think twice before incorporating theic metiiods or school management into our own. From Switzerland, no argument can fairly be drawn as to average attendance, eeeing that in most districts the whole of '.he summer months are regarded as one long holiday, in the winter, when out-do# employment is scanty and imprac- ticable, the att6nua:.co at school is naturally good. The German system is that of the drill-sergeant- partakes of the iron rigidity and uniformity of th. German military method, and is utterly unsuited to our English character and habit. To America we may turn with more expectation of finding a condition of things more analogous to our own, and of receiving a satisfactory answer to our inquiry. What do; the States tell us of the condition; of education ? That, compared with our own, it ia deplorable in the extreme. EDUCATION IS AMKEICA, The Rev. T. C. D. Morse, of the London School Board,bas extracted from the report of the Commis- sioner of Education at Washington souie euggos live particulars. Here are the heads of them. g. takes tho twelve most influential and best educated States of the Union," and gives (1) tiie length of the school year, and ,2) the average attendance. Supposing the school year lasted fOL' a uniform period of 200 days. (1) There is & wide difference between the highest and lowest number oi days which make up the period of the school year. Tht longest school year is that of JCew .fersey— 192 daye the shortest that of New Hampshire— &627. Our school year consists of a uniform period of about 220 days. (2.) The attendance. supposing the school year to uniformly consist or 200 days, would be as follows :—The highest— Massachusetts—would show G5 ll per cent, i the lowest—Western Virginia—26 S3. I have only to add to this fact concerning the schoo! attendance nf the States, that there Elementary Education is entirely free. ENDOWMENT OF AlIKRICAN SCHOOLS. But this is not the whole of the case. Why is primary education free in America ? Because the Common Schools are endowed with land to the extent of one-eighteenth of tVie public domain, a territory amounting to 68.000,000 acres. This endowment prevents any great pressure upon the ratepayers. Tho difference between the two countries, therefore, in respect to this question is just this, that whereas in America the ratepayer is hardly taxed at all, in Bng'and the entire cost would have to be defrayed by an increased levy of taxes and rates. FICTION AND, MELODRAMA. My contention, thou, to sum UP. is briefly this (1) I contend, and U.mk I have shown, that as yet school foes are no barrier to educational efficiency. The pictures drawn for us last Monday evening of the distress, misery, and the iike caused by their exaction are pure lictions of a melo- dramatic type, a.nd may bs consigned to the limbo of phyect-out. imaginations. But (2) if Parliament should see ill. to abolish school fees, then I see two certain—and, to my thinking, most An injury to the sense of family and parental responsibility, and (b) a grievously-unequal incidence of taxation, from the fact that, Free Schools cannot be limited to those of the lowest grade; and two further results—I refrain from saying certain, but perilously probable —(a) the destruction of that splendid edifice oi educational enthusiasm and faith which repre- sents, perhaps, tile bestt the most unselfish side of our nineteenth century Christianity, and with it (fc) the secularisation of our schools. (Loud ap- plause.) In reply to some questions, the rev. gentlemar said he would have r;o objection to see the duty 4 of remitting fees placed with some such authority as the Scuool Board or other central b'dy. At the conclusion of the address a hearty vote of thanks was passed to th" Rev. C. J. Thompson on the motion of Mr. J. J. P. Burt, vice-president of the society, seconded by Mr. C. Thompson.

MEETING OF WELLS' CHAUITST GOVERNORS. A meeting of the governors of Wells' Charh v was held at the Grand Jury-room of the Town- tiall, Cardiff, on Monday morning, Dr. Edwards presiding, and there being also present Alderman laylor, Alderman Waring, Dr. Paine, and 1.\h, I'homas Rees. Owing to the conduct of tb.. chairman, who wanted to alter the wordvn? of nearly every resolution on the minutes which °hari been passed at full special meetings of the governors, it took an hour to get over the formal preliminary stage of signing the minute book. There was no business of public interest.

FOR CONSUMPTION*, WASTING DISEASES, GENEKAI PTBILITR, &c„ SCOTT'S EMULSION OF PuRE COD LIVN OIL with HypopHOSpniTEg has no equal. It combinpi the virtues of these two well-known remedies in a most palatable and easiiv digested form,audits use invariably increases both weight ana tncth. f s- it, and t.rj pour weight. Chemists, at 2s. 6d. and 4s. Sd. Lc7D,.a MOTHKP.S AND NPI»SF.S.—The safest romedv for the troubles 60, common to cUildrca t-tthing i; Mrs, Johna»n 3 American Soot-hing 6,rn. wiiicb has bvttf used wirh marked suecass darieg the gcsAier pat < f » century, and has s,w.j hundreds of children, wheji thought past r^covtry, from convulsions. It qniekiy rfsieves the throbbing and heated gums, and u« j»jrf«et> innocent. One bjt.Un contains suifrcienf ferthewhoia eours-s of tc.-thii.g. ]'riCéO 29,90. <>f all c,emi8&;l!o. direct from the Proprietors (whose name is engravtrd 9^ tha Government Stamp attached cxch bottl..), Ba#c!a> and Sons, Si, i'urri^srd^n-street, Louden. ;.N4& Tmuss. — Mi.juticxs I*ATKN T StrarBmmi. — f« ,+,1. sjr.Eg? 11a hard pa<is. Pamphlet, with tertt mvr,K;>, BriiWl.