London Legal Letter.

39

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Dec. 5, 1891. T THINK it was at the close of my last letter

• ■ that I referred to the matrimonial cause of

Russell v. Russell, which fell to be tried this term. The case has just been heard, and the verdict given. It excited even greater interest in legal, social, and general circles than was anticipated, — the high rank of the parties, as well as their youth, lending an unusually dramatic complexion to the proceedings. The respondent, Earl, Russell, is grandson of the first and great Earl Russell, better known as Lord John Russell of Reform Bill fame; his son, Viscount Amberlay, predeceased his father in 1876, leaving the present peer an orphan at ten years of age. The boy was sent to Winchester School, and subsequently to Oxford, being entered at Balliol College, where he developed tastes for socialism, radicalism, vegetarianism, and oriental religions. He acquired no mean knowledge of such subjects as electricity, and being far from a wealthy man, he works hard as a partner in some electrical business at Teddington. In 1890 Earl Russell married Miss Mabel Scott, the second daughter of Lady Selina Scott; his bride was only twenty-one. Unfortunately, their married life from the first was unhappy, and they only lived for five months together, their disagreements resulting in the present suit for judicial separation, brought by the youthful Countess against her husband, who is twenty-seven, on the ground of cruelty. The trial has lasted for four days; the petitioner was repre sented by the Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Clarke, and Mr. I-ewis Coward, a popular and prosperous junior. The Earl employed five counsel, led by that doughty advocate, Sir Charles Russell, who, of course, is no relation of his noble client. The Judge was Sir Charles Butt, President of the Pro bate Divorce and Admiralty Court, now happily restored to health after a long and trying illness. When the case opened, public sympathy was strongly with the Countess; but as the evidence proceeded the conduct of the Earl came to as some a less serious aspect; and when Lord Rus sell left the witness-box, it was apparent that he would in all probability succeed in resisting his wife's petition for judicial separation. This an ticipation was fulfilled : at the close of the Judge's summing up, the jury promptly found a verdict

for the Earl. While the finding was no doubt on the whole a just one, public opinion is fairly unanimous that the husband had not always pur sued the gentlest methods in dealing with his wife. His tastes are scientific, mechanical, and methodical; hers those of a woman of fashion, unaccustomed to restraints of any kind; conse quently it is not so very surprising that misunder standings should have occurred. The Salvation Army never allows itself to remain long in the background. A trial at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, has just ended, in which various members of the " Army " were ac cused, among other charges, of conspiracy and unlawful assembly in respect of conduct pursued by them at Eastbourne. Eastbourne, as is well known, is a fashionable watering-place, and for a long time past the Salvationists have been con ducting a series of operations there, organizing demonstrations, and on Sundays creating disturb ances, by means of processions and brass bands, in the teeth of municipal statutes and regulations. The roughs, who occupy the lower parts of the town, were not slow in scenting this opportunity of gratifying their rowdy propensities, and accord ingly a great number of disgraceful scenes have taken place, — the Salvationists never appearing without crowds of roughs bearing down on them, pelting them with mud and filth, and on several occasions breaking up their musical instruments and banners, and inflicting various personal inju ries. The number of combatants on both sides made it impossible for the force of police, at the disposal of the magistrates, to interfere efficiently. I don't think almost any one, however much the riotous scenes may be regretted, approves of the conduct of the Salvation Army at Eastbourne. They have gone there with the avowed intention of asserting their right to do as they please. The townspeople, of all degrees and shades of opinion, are enthusiastic in supporting the Mayor and magistrates in their efforts to enforce the municipal regulations; and there is no doubt that the followers of " General " Booth will have to give in. The trial referred to ended by the jury finding the delinquents guilty of unlawful assembly, and acquitting them on the other charges. The verdict, for technical reasons, will