^'k. «>, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) y m A s^ ^ A.. %r :/- :A t/. s 1.0 I.I '- IIIIIM 2.5 2.2 ;: ii£ 1110 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 < 6" - » V] <^ /a ^h /A 'w '/ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques Tt to The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliogra[ihically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion ie long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 filmies. L'Institut a microflL.iA le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a Atf possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont per;t-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6tho«de normaie de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. D D D D D n n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolories, tachet6es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t^ film6es 6 nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tl P< o( fil O bi th si ol fil si 01 Tl sf Tl w M di : ri) re D Additional comments:/ Commentairas suppl6mentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X aox J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmad h«r« has b««n raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'axamplaira film* fut reprodult grica A ia g*nirosit6 da: La bibliothAque des Archives pubiiques du Canada The images appearing hare are the beat quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Itaeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copiat in printed paper covera are filmed beginning with vhe front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated imprea- sion, or the bacit cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Las images suivantes ont 4t4 reproduites avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nettet* de rexempiaire film*, et en conformity avac las conditions du contrat de filmage. Lea exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont filmis en commenpant par la premier plat et en terminant soit par la darniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras exemplaires originaux sont filmAs an commandant par ia pramiire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la darniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "I, or the symbol Y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboies suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de rMuction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reprodult en un seul clichA. il est filmA A partir da I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droits, et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les disgrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 ( f t ( tl SI Ml h ni a 00 :lft#, oNili- ed a venlict against the tBeged IMMliiil, ■ ♦ 2 applied to Parliament for a, Bill of Divorce. Mrs. Campbell being a woman of spirit, and having the confidence and sympathy of all the reputable people of the town in which she lived, resolved that in defence of her own honor and the reputation of her children she would follow him to Parliament, even though he had ob- tained a temporary triumph on the ques- tion of aUmony in the Court of Chancery. But what a prolonged, what a desperate struggle ! She has been compelled to demand justice from the only tribunal having power to decree it, session after session, since 1876 I At last, in 1870, she has obtained from the Senate, in spite of tlie persistent and unreasoning opposition of half-a-dozen members, (whose views of woman's rights may be inferred from tlieir own marital rela- tions) a second verdict of acquittal a? re- spects the accusation of her husband, and a second award, in the form of a Bill passed to its third readmg, securing a sufficient semi-annual payment from her husband for her support while she re- mains ssparated and unreconciled. This Bill, passed in the session of 1877 by the Senate ; stayed in the Commons by the Standing Orders Committee on the ridiculous pretence that the hus- band, who was present defending jiis money-bags against the rightful claims of his wife, had not been properly notified of her claim ; obstructed by the Private Bill Committee of the Senate in the session of 1878, on the ground that the rules of that body had not all been com- plied with, though the Senate had passed her Bill in the previous session, and her petition to be allowed to renew her appli- plioation m forma pauperis, and for a sus- pent;\on of any rules that might hinder her progress, was then before the Senate — is, at last, before the House of Com- mons for its concurrence. Unless justice in this country is reserved for nun and denied to icomtn in these marital disputes ; unless it is to go abroad that our laws, Uke those of tlie Roman tyrant which were written in small characters on a high tower, are beyond the reach of any helpless wife who may be turned out of doors by a brutal husband, the judgment of the Senate will be endorsed by the Commons, and rendered effective as a law, without any further delay. In the present House of Coniraous there are many new members. Those who attended the sittings of the Commit- tee of the Senate in 1870, or who had an opportunity to observe the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, and especially those who came in contact with Mrs. Campbell's husband, wil'. with very few exceptions, approve of the verdict of the Senate Committee, twice confirmed, as it has been, by the Senate itself. But, for the benefit of those who have not had these opportunities, Mrs. CaaipboU's friends have procured the publication of the very full ond able speech of her counsel before the Senate Committee. The evidence will be found in the Senate Journal of 1876. Mr. McDougall's re- view of that evidence, and his exposition of the law, applicable to the case of Divorce a mensn et ihoro arising in the Province of Ontario, will, perhaps, bo read with uiterest by those who have now the duty of pronouncing a verdict in the Commons. The speech was taken in short hand by the Messrs. Holland, of the Senate reporting staff, and published in the Whitby Chronicle of June, 1876. Honorable Gentlemen : I need not remind you of the peculiar interest and unportance of the question submitted for your consideration by the reference of this Bill. Although a Pri- vate Bill, brought in at the instance of an iutliviilual to rodrens a private wrong ; though only six persons are directly in- terested in its passage, you will all agree that as an example and a precedent — let us hope as a warning — it will bo read, and the action of the Senate upon it re- garded with interest in every Province of the Dominion. In its nature and conse- quences, the decision in this case will have an important bearing, not only on the rights of these individuals, and their future happiness and position in society, but a powerful moral influ- ence upon other families and mdividuals, far and wide. The decision of this Committee, con- firmed as it probably will be by the Sen- ate, is to the respondent morally speaking, life or death. Life in one event clouded and unhappy, it is true ; but still toler- able, still susceptible of those parental emotions, those joys, and hopes, and sweet anxieties, which none but a mother's heart can feel, and, perhaps, under the subduing and chastening in- fluence of her unexampled misfortunes, slie mi.y in her declining years look for- ward with a steadier eye, and a firmer faith, and a better assm-auce of sym- pathy and love from that other marriage which, wo are told, awaits the Christian believer wlien all earthly bonds are sever- ed. In the other event, she is con- demned to a living death. She is branded witli a mark of infamy which no power on earth can efface. The ver- dict of a common jury obtained by sur- prise, if not by perjured testimony, in a case m which she was neither witness, nor defendent, she could survive. Sur. rounded by relatives and friends who k. " the motives of her accusers, and the f"l 'hoods by which they Imd mis- led tho court, she could still hold up her head and assert her innocence ; she could point triumphantly to another \Hirdict when the scales of justice were not weighted against her — where her witnesses were not excluded by a rule of law — the relic of a barbarous jurisprudence. She could claim that the latter verdict had reversed the former, and that by the oaths of twelve men she had shown that her accusers and tra- ducers were not to be believed. She might still command the sympathy of strangers, and of hundreds of undoubt- ing believers in her lionor and truth among her neighbors, the most compo* tent to judge of her character and con- duct, in all the scenes of this domestic drama, even though a Chancery judge had argued himself out of his doubts in her favour, by a laborious process, which required 17 months to reach an adverse conclusion ! But who can expect her to withstand, or even to survive, the cruel blow aimed at her defenceless head by this Bill ? She must go down before the power of the two Houses of ParUament. There is no re -hearing in this case ; no ultimate appeal except to that dread tri- bunal, where the helpless victim of hu- man injustice may look for exculpation if innocent, as certainly as her persecu- tors and judges may expect condenma- tion if they have falsely or carelessly wronged her. The question therefore is one of exceeding gravity in whatever way it may terminate, and no doubt of very serious importance to the petitioner also. I simply glance at this view of the case, for the purpose not only of pre- paring my own mind for the work before me, but of directing the attention of the Committee to the serious character of the issue they are about to try. I trust I will be pardoned for reminding them of the duty and the necessity that rest upon them, to consider carefully, and weigh justly, the evidence in their hands. It would almost be an impertinence to make this special appeal if the case had not been before other tribuuala, with op- posite results. An action for damages was brought against the alleged seducer, Gordon ; — it was tried by u jury. Under the law of Ontario — which in this respect is pecu- liar, because in other Provmces, as well as in England, a special tribunal exists for tho trial of such cases, and rules of evidence obtain hi them different from ordinary courts — the petitioner in this action has the case all to himself. Ho produces his own witness os and they can not be contradicted. The real party charged — the lady who was hero a few moments ago — could not be heard, and had neither witnesses nor defenders. It was a matter debated and decided be- hind her back. She had no right, power, or privilege to make any explanation or defence. The co-respondent in that par- tioular case certainly did make a defense, but he could not be examined as a wit- ness, and could not, therefore, give any explanation of the proceedings of that night. It was an action brought by the plaintiff under circumstances which gave him every advantage, and it is not surorising that he secured a ver- dict. We know how that verdict was secured. We know what kind of evi- dence was given there, and the particu- lar statement — the ^eged confession of guilt — upon which a good deal of the evidence brought before this Committee bears — and, as I trust I can shew confutes — that the co-respondent, on being charged with the crime con- his guilt, was a complete sur- to every one. The learned told the jury that if they be- tlutt evidence it made an end fiEir as Gordon was as fessed prise Judge Sieved to the case concerned, and no doubt he was right. Even th« Vice-Chancellor, in the judg- ment now in your hands, tells us he dis- believes the story of a confession ? But my contention before this Committee is, that the guilt or innocence of the respon- dent was not fairly submitted to that jury, and what followed proves it. An- other action was brought, this time by Mrs. Campbell, against one of the wit- nesses at that trial who gave false evi- dence, as she alleged. On this occasion, she and Gordon were allowed to give evi- dence, and other witnesses were brought who proved a different state of facts. The jury, presided over by a Chief Justico, thought the evidence of the witnesses "/ the first trial was not to be believed ; that Mrs. Campbell and Gordon were not guilty jf the crime of which they were accused, and they gave her $1,000 dam- ages agaiust James Campbell for having defamed her character. These are facts proved before the Committee, and they have had an important mfluence on the pubUc mind. Another trial subsequently took place which has had a more serious effect on the case, and one to which I ask you to give your patient and serious attention. A suit was brought by the re- spondent, for the purpose of obtaining from this petitioner means of support to which she was entitled as his innocent and legal wife. Under the law of most civihzed countries — a wife, if she has not been proved guilty of adultery, is en- titled to be supported according to the means and condition of her husband. It is not the law of this country that a husband can, without just cause turn his wife out of doors, penniless, leaving her to the chance protection of friends, and contributing nothing to her support, or the support of his own child subsequently bom. But the Petitioner in this case seems to have had advice to the contrary, and a suit was brought by Mrs. Campbell to establish her claim to alimony. Under the law of Ontario this question of alimony stands in a very peculiar position. The Court of Chan- cery claims that it has exclusive jurisdic- tion in the matter. The Act which gives it jurisdiction will be found in the Consolidated Statutes. The language is very indefinite and be- came the subject of discussion in the first case I find reported, Soulea vs. Soules, and afterwards in the case of Severn vs. Severn. The first you will find in 1. Grant, p. 800. The case occurred in 1851. "This Court," says the Chan- cellor, "has no jurisdiction to decree either divorce or restitution of conjugal rights, although it has power to deal with alimony." I shall have occasion to cite this and otlier cases at the conclu- sion of my address ; I only refer to them now for the purpose of discussing the effect of this suit for alimony, The only remedy the Com-t could give her, was simply to order the payment annually, or periodically, of a sum of money for her support. The same evidence as that produced in the action for defamation of character, appears to have been brought before the Vice-Chancellor, but a very singular incident occurred. When the case of the husband was concluded, and all the evidence adduced which was ex- pected to satisfy the judge that she ought not to receive alimony, (viz.: that she was guilty of adultery) the learned Vice- Chancellor, as we have shown in the evi- dence here, suggested to the defendant the propriety of accepting from his wife an explanation. He proposed that they should be reconciled, that they should meet together privately, and discuss mat ters ; make mutual explanations, and agree to live together. I hope the Com- mittee will permit me to call their attention again to the langage which he is reported to have used on e evi- dant wife they lould mat and Dom- their hich on that occasion : <* Although I find this against the plaintiff," that is to flay that the wife had shown frivolity and indiscretion, "/ have ttot yet been able to come to the conchision that she hag been guilty of the verj grave — the gravest charge which a man can bring against his «•(/«. 1 have pondered over tlie evidence, every point of which has been brought out with the utmost skill by the able counsel en- gaged in the case, and I con/ess that it has failed to establish tlie charge against the plaintiff to the satisfaction of my mind. 1 am unable to force my mind to the conchision that I can stamp Mrs, Campbell with the indelible stigma, which must attach to her should I Hnd in favor of the defendant. 1 do appeal to the husband ; I most earn- estly beg of Mr. Campbell to consider that, already under oath, has Mrs. Camp- bell denied these charges that have been made against her ; I do beg of him to consider the most painful ordeal to which he is now about to submit his wife in her lengthened public examination in respect of all the accusations brought against her ; and I may confideutly say that, of all those present, none will feel more keenly the position of the wife than the husband who is exposing her to this trial. I appeal to Mr. Campbell's feel- ings as a husband, to allow his wife that opportunity of explanation, which she so beseechingly asked for in her appeal- ing letter of the 28th of August, read by her counsel. I appeal to him looking back to the remembrance of those ten years of married life, passed in compara- tive happiness, to do this. Looking to the future of his young children, who cannot plead for themselves, and who, the parents being aj^Jiia united, will grow up to call them blessed ; but separated may grow up to regard with aversion, one or both of their paronts, may I not appeal to his tenderness as a father in tliis unhappy matter. Looking to the short period of life — a short span at tlie best for both— left, I beg of you to con- sider the grave question at issue. And looking also to the light of the great Hareafter, to which we are all so rapidly hastening, I appeal to Mr. Campbell to spare his wife and himself this ordeal. It is scarcely necessary to remind him of the misery which during the past eight months his wife must have suffered through the various painful stages of these untoward proceedings. May he not now rest assured that his wife, warned by the fearful ordeal she has undergone, wiU in the future seek more diligently to cul- tivate that spirit of obedience to his wishes, which it is her duty to exhibit ; will learn more carefully to look after her children and her household duties, and perform her part of a good wife and mother. It must be remembered that, at best, the opinion I vnut ultimately form in this COM will be but fallible, and that should I come to the conclusion that the wife is i/uilty ivlien slie is innocent, the husband will thus be the means of inflicting uiwn the wife the greatest injury that can be done. It was with the utmost pain I heard read on the Arst day of this trial the letter in which the wife, hav- ing been informed of the accusation made against her, in supplicating tones fM>gqed an interview with her husband and her accusers, in order that she might have the opportunity of disproving their charges — which request was refused her. I think, the husband should have given the wne that oppor- tunity. Looking at all, I beg of him still to give her the opportunity sought for. / would not urge this upon him did I not fed strongly the improbability of the truth of the grave change made against her, and did I not sincerely hope and trust that a life of happiness might yet be opened to both of them. It is not yet too late to allow this matter to end in happiness to both, before a decision which may do an irreparable wrong and injury has been pronounced. And, in view of all the facts, I make a last appeal to the hus- band to give the wife that opportunity of explanation which she applied to him to give her at an earlier (period." Now this is the language of the Vice- Chanoellor during the hearing of the suit for alimony. It appears strange to me, and I confess that I have looked very carefully into the case and endeav- oured to ascertain the grounds and rea- sons for his judgment, that after long deliberation — seventeen months elapsed after this language was used before he announced his judgment — he came to the conclusion that the crime wat? suffi- ciently established, and therefore that she was not entitled to alimony. I cannot help thinking that the learned Vice- Chancellor has misinterpreted and mis- applied the law as laid down by the authorities he quotes : that ke has mis- tftken the evidence in material pointH, Mid that he has shown but httlo know- ledge of tlio social habits of our villagerrt and country people. I may have to point out Homo of those miHtakes and niisapprehenBious, but at present, I con- tent myself witli this reference to the antecedent facts of the case, which are a part of its history, that ought to bo con- sidered before you come to deal with the evidence. The husband now applies to the only court in this country which has power to separate him legally from his wife. He comes to the Senate and says, "I demand your assistance in severing the marriage tie between myself and my wife, because I shall establish to your satisfaction that she has committed the crime of adultery." It has b'^en the practice heretofore when clear evidence was produced that a wife had dishonored her husband, for this Senate to interfere and grant the appropriate remedy. But, following the nilo observed on former occasions, I take it, that this committee will not recommend, nor the Senate vote, nor Parliament grant a divorce from the bond of matrimony in any case in which it is not clearly and indubitably proved that the crime was committed. No mere in- ferential conclusion will suffice. Yon must be satisfied beyond any question that the fact of adultery is established. I need not cite examples. The learned judge has cited some cases and authori- ties under the old practice in England, as to the proof which should be deemed satisfactory, and if it be uecessai'y to re- view them, I undertake to say that among all the cases cited there is not one so weak in proof as this. In none of them are the circumstances of such a doubtful character ; in none is there so little evidence. — where so much must rest on inference — as in the case sub- mitted to you. For instance, one of the cases cited as parallel, is where a mar- ried woman was found in the lodgings of u single gentleman, alone with him for a sufficient time for the commission of this oifence. That fact being proved, other surrounding facts showing a dim- inished fondness for the husband, etc., were proved, and the judge came to the conclusion that these things put together tended to produce such a violent pre- sumption of guilt, that the court, open- ing its eyes, and treating the question as men of common sense would treat it out- side of the court, must find the fact proved. Hut in most of those cases the character of the house the woman visited, and the time of night she was out of her own houHC, as well as the proof of domestic infelicity, led to a conclusion of guilt. In one of the cases a married woman left her own house accompanied by a young man to his private lodging, entered his bedroom, and was seen going from it after a considerable lapse of time. In one instance it was a house of assignation, or prostitution, to which the married woman was taken. If anything of that kind had been proved here I might be compelled to place it in the same cate- gory, and confess that the reasoning of the judges, as quoted, is applicable ; but there is no such evidence. In this case, the married woman was in her own house ; her husband beuig awa^ from her under circumstances which I shall pres- ently notice. The gentleman found with her was a neighbour she had known from childhood, who was on friendly terms with the family ; who had been invited to the house on more than one occasion, and had been loft alone in her company by her husband. Their families had been in the habit of interchanging visits for years. On the very night of the al- leged criminality they wore brought to- gether at her father's house by a visit of the two families. It is absurd to say that there is any ground for accusation or even suspicion in a country village, where the social re- lations are familiar and unrestrained as we know them to be, that a young man, for years a near neighbor, and one of her social circle, should be found at the house of a married lady alone with her in tlie evening. Certainly there is nothing in the mere fact of such a visit in the ab- sence of the husband, or even its prolon- gation under the circumstances proved, that requires explanation or justifies sus- picion. But the case of the jjetitioner appears to be this : that his wife had shown signs of disUke and repugnance towards him previously! That, if true, may account for her seeking in the society of others, the pleasure of intellectual and friendly intercourse, which he denied to her ; but it does not prove crime. The committee will sec, however, that we 1 loner had auco true, ciety and dto The have no tostimpn}', exco])t hiti uwu, to support this theory, and even that testi- mony is limited to a very tew instances. He mentions one occasion on which she had expressed a desire to separate, and wished that her children were dead, or, if they wera dead, (IiIm recollection was not Rood as to the precise words.) she would be glad to soparate from him. She denies tliis story in toto. We have no evidence to corroborate a statement made, I will not say for the first time, but certainly elaborated and extended before this committee, as if greater importance would be given to it here than elsewhere. Then, as to her conduct towards her husband, we have only two instances, and one ot these is brought out by her own evidence. The petitioner's counsel did not venture in his cross-examination to question her as to her frivolity on the trip to the Old Coun- try. What did it all amount to, taking the evidence on both sides ? Simply to this : — On their return across the Atlan- tic she walked with a gentleman on the deck of the steamer, and played and sang for him in the cabin. No complaint, not even a remark was made about it at tlie time. It would appear the husband was inattentive to his young wife, whom he had taken abroad for her own pleasure as well as his own — at least a good husband would put it that way — and she accepted civilities from those she met on equal terms and whose acquaintance she made on the voyage. Every gentleman who has crossed the Atlantic will testify that some of the most agreeable and desirable acquaintances of life have been formed in that way. On this occasion, it seems Mrs. Campbell, according to her own statement, was escorted up and down the deck by a gentleman coming to this coimtry, and a bowing, walking and talk- ing acquaintance sprang up between them. The husband, observing all this said nothing, but seemed rather glad that somebody should take charge of his wife while he was amusing himself with his own reflections. But after their return to Whitby, in a chaffing way, as he ad- mits, he made allusion to this gentleman as a person she admired more than him- self. And this insignificant circumstance is gravely imported into this case as prov- ing, or tending to prove, or in some way bearing on the crime of adultery with Gordon ! The Vice* Chancellor quoton this story as told by the petitioner, and, sagely, and I suppose we must admit, learnedly concludes, that as she did not deny the walking, or the subse- quent " chaffing ", or the otlicr insignifi- cant incidents that had occurred months, and some of them years, before the alleged seduction by Gordon, tliey help to establish that fact. I submit, with all due dcferonco, to the Committee, some of whose members are learned in the law, that there is no relevancy in such evidence, and that it ought not to be considered. The only instance of alleged improper conduct proved by the petitioner and admitted by tne respon dent is the visit of Gordon one evening while he (Campbell) was in the house, and at the time taking his tea. Gordon was shewn by the servant into the par- lor; Mrs. Campbell went in to meet him and the husband was invited by her to see him. He went in, apologized for not being able to stay, went out leaving Gordon witli Mrs. Campbell, and re- turned a couple of hours afterwards finding his visitor still there, and again entered into conversation with him. The petitioner says he "chaffed " her about it, but did not at first pretend that he spoke seriously, or charged her with any impropriety. But when examined upon the point at such length as to SI' 'gost tlie importance of giving some color to the case, he says she hurst into tears! I think we all felt tliat this incident, heard for the first lime, suggested innocence rather than guilt. But Mrs. Campbell spoils the poetic features of the case, for she denies the "tears," denies the chidings, and only admits the " chaff "I It was mere banter — was thought nothing of at the moment, — and soon passed away. This insignificant fact is also brought into court, is the subject of serious comment by the Vice- Chancellor, and is one of his reasons for reversing his first opinion, and finally refusing Mrs. Campbell's ap- plication for alimony. These are the two instances or proofs of waning affection, and which you are asked to accept by way of preparation for the infidehty, which is alleged to have taken place on the 26th of August. I must say I have never heard, or read of a case, standing upon Huch a flimsy foundation as regards tlie prelimiuary faoti— aliouatiou of affec- tion, and improper behaviour. But there is another incident — the Park oorrospon- denoe — which bblongs to this part of the case, and which I admit cannot bo dis- missed BO summarily. The husband on his return from England in August 1678, found a letter addressed to his wife, but to the care of his firm, which he opened and read, and acted upon. It was bup- posed to be written by a person named Parks, though signed with the initials O. H. This letter never came into her pos- '^ession, and yet a single passage in it — "Where do you think the suspicion is" — created a suspicion in his mind that his wife had committed adultery with Parks, and without asking or seeking an ex- planation from her, he resolves, then and there, to leave her forever. It is trno he went to his wife's bureau, and discovered amongst numerous writings and memo- randa, two or three scraps of paper. You have them before you ; look at them ! With one exception they are extracts from books. You can go to tlie library and find the ven^ books from which they are copied. She appears to be a woman of reading and cultivation, who, left very much alone — her husband being absorbed in business — occupied herself with books, and music, and amusements of that kind. She made extracts from the books she read, and you are asked to believe that these disconnected passages, found on different scraps of paper, are copies of letters written to her paramour. There is nothing on the face of these writings, or in the sentiments they ex- press, to justify that belief, — and she has sworn that there is no foundation for it The correspondence with Parks ought to be ruled out altogether. It is res inter alio» acta. The specific fact charged in this case is adultery with Gordon on the 26th of August, and a thousand letters | and scraps showing affection for another man would not prove the specific fact. I cannot understand the principles on which this so-called correspondence with Parks was admitted in the previous actions. It is oontouded, I believe, that a married woman who writes a letter to a young man in answer to one from him, in which words of affection are used, S'ves evidence of a laxity of morals, of a ORening of the marital tie, of a corrupt imagination, and of a willingness to coin mit adultery with any one! The con- clusion is vetpr far fetched, and in my judgment, such evidence is inadmissablo in a case of this kind, and the conclusion sought to be established by it is against reason, and the experience of mankind. But this correspondence has been uhoiI as evidence hero, and I am obliged to make a few observations upon it. The intercepted letter, which is among the exhibits, and will be found in the judg- ment of Vice-Ghancellor Blake, is as fol- lows : "Ck>ncord, August 14th, 1878. Dear Marie — I wrote you from here tliree or four weeks since, but have never had an answer . I was thinking of com- ing about the first or second week of next month, should I be in time to escape the O — d — n. I asked in my last for some envelop - es ; will you write by return and send me a few ? I have been very busy all day, and have hardly a minute to spare, and have to walk to the post office with this, as I cannot allow any one to see the address. Be sure and write by return. In haste. — Believe me to remain. My dear Marie, Yours in sincerity, G. H. I think if you have written to me your letter must have gone to the States, as there is a place of the same name there. Please address to me at Concord post office. County of Vaughan, Ontario. Tell me where you think the suspicion is." That is the letter which aroused his jealousy, and with the pencil extract, and draft of a letter never sent, induced him to remove his children and accuse his wife of adultery. He comes here and asks you, upon the same evidence, to admit that he treated her in a proper manner when he deserted her without explanation, and took his children awav from her on a false pretence. Now, it has been laid down by the highest au- thorities, that a husband must come into court with clean hands. He must be able to show that he has not contributed to his own dishonor ; that he has not neglected or exposed his wife. [Mr. Mac- dougall here read from Shellord and other authorities.] If he wants equity, he must shew that he has done, and is ready to do, equity. On the evidence of KH. is." }ed )iis extract, Induced Ihia lettjr, wluuli ooutainu noUiing crim- inal, and tho '* scraps " not proved, lie makes this accusation to others, but not to her, and deserts hor forever! You will find by the authurities that a letter /'> a person, is not evidence to prove a crune committed by that person. Any Hcoundrol niivy write such a letter for tho very purpose of injuriug a lady's roputii- tion. We are all familiar with the cele- brated case of Sidney, who was charf^ed with treason, and convicted in a dark a^e of our jurisprudence, because treasonable correspondence addressed to him was found in his desk. But after he was be- headed, the illegality of a conviction founded upon such evidence was ad- mitted by judges, as well as political writers. I remember a case in this coun- try (it is one of tho early recollections of my life) similar, except the beheading, to that of Sidney. A previous Speaker oi the Legislature, whose portrait will bo f )und in one of the lobbies, was charged wiiih being concerned in the rebellion of 1887. He remained iji his place, and those who knew his amiable temper and Christian jjrofession, believed him in- capable of anything treasonable. Tho Government had intercepted a number of letters written to him which wore detain- ed unoponod. He was asked whether ho would allow them to be opened, and take the consequences, whatever they might be, or leave the country. Mr. Bidwell (for he was the man) replied : — " I have personally no objection to the letters b3ing opened, there may be somothin;,' t.'easonable in them. People may have written to mo under the assumption that I would sympathize with their treason- able views; but I have invited no cor- respondence of that kind, and according t ) law, I cannot be held or punished fur the crimes of others." But, in those ex- citing times, when suspicions were in tho air, and a vindictive spirit abroad, the ex- Speaker decided that it would be bet- ter and safer to leave the country for a time, lest anything should be discovered to compromise himself or his friends. I think he acted prudently. Suppose treasonable language had been found iu these letters, and suppose some scraps of political writing condemning the government of that day in severe and pungent terms, had been found among his papers, which an ingenious prosecutor could have patched to^ ither, and a partizan judge and jury could have construed into copies of lettters to the parties who wrote to Mr. Bidwell ? He would have been hanged beyond ques- tion, if tho rules of evidence and tho rosoning resorted to in this Chancery judgment had prevailed. I appeal to tho legal members of this Committee to confirm the doctrine I contend for on this subject, viz : thatstatemonts contained in totters written to a person cannot be used as evidence of criminality, until you have established previous or subsequent correspondence from the parson charged, which connects him with the crimo. Now, wo havfl no letters received by Parks from Mrs. Campbell, and while the lady horsolf told tlie whole story in court, thoro was nothing legally proved against hor. Slie said, "it is true Parks wroto to me after he loft Whitby, and I an- swered him, for a lark." He waja young gentleman who spent some months iu Whitby, and moved in the social circle to which she belonged. As far as we know, he was a respectable person. A friendly acquaintance sprang up be- tween them, and when leaving WJiitby, it appears he asked permission to write to her. At all events ho did write to her two or three notes, and she answer- ed them, until finding his letters rather frequent and familiar, and as she tells us, likely to bring her into difficulty, she wroto him that there was suspicion, and requested him to dicontinue the correspondence. The letter produced here corroborates her statement of the case. He writes, " 1 think if you have written to ma your letter must hava gone to the States, as there is a place of tho samo name thero," intimating that ho had not received a letter from her for some time, that he was disappointel because ho had not, and asking her " where" she thought " the suspicion" was. She denies that she enclosed him envelopes, and the letter confirms the denial. The last paragraph and also the first confirm her statement that after two or three notes had passed between them, the correspondence ceased. Parks writes iu a complaining tone of the in- civility of this lady who, according to the petitioner, was so eager to find a paramour I She explains the passage " tell me where the suspicion is" in tho w only manner tbat is reasonable, iu view of all the facta we know. She tells you that in a letter written " to frighten him," she said there were " suspicions " as to their correspondence. She did not say "where," evidently, by the question he asks. In the Ught of her explana- tions, and from the internal evidence of the intercepted letter, which she never received and never an- swered, the correspondence with Parks was at the most a " lark," very impru- dent no doubt, but very far from justify- ing a charge of adultery or an applica- tion for divorce. It was a case demand- ing explanations, and justifying reproof, and to a fair-minded sensible man, the explanation she has given to this Com- mittee would, at least, have removed all suspicion of criminality. But im- pelled by evil counsel, he at once jumped to the conclusion that his wife was guilty. Guilty of what ? Accord- ing to the petitioner, of adultery ; ac- cording to the evidence, of correspond- ing with a young man without the knowledge of her husband. But that is not the charge before the Committee. You do not sit here to try or to admon- ish people for breaches of decorum. You have to deal with the crime of adultery, and that only. But let me return for a moment to the contents of the bureau. I ask your attention to the internal evi- dence which these writings contain in refutation of the theory of the peti- tinuer. — "Here I am vacillating be- tween two opinions, whether shall I stay her* or stray afar off ? Duty says stay." That is an extract word for word from a book, and though writ- ten on a separate piece of paper contain- ing the address of her brother in Califor* i nia, it is printed in this judgment as if i it formed part of a continuous letter or i composition. Another extract, patched I into the case, is the following — " I be- lieve tlaere are certain men who can be | happy when they have learned where the | ideal lies. We never can be perfectly happy, although a great deal of our hap- piness consists in being contented. We mutt be sorrowful sometimes, in order to compare the difference of happiness and misery. I have no wish to marry, and it is not likely that I shall ever sacrifice my independence to any woman ; so much the worse for you f You will never know what love is, for wc love only virtuous women, my dear, and we are never loved except by them" etc. Now, this is part of exhibit E. and is put in as a copy of a letter to Parks I I say that passage was written by a wan, or intended by the author to express the sentiments of a man. I'll •' never sacrifice my independ- ence to any woman ", — Is that the lan- guage of a woman writing to a paramour ? It is clearly an extract from some book she was reading, and had no reference whatever to Parks. Yet it is put here, in this judgment, and used as part of the evidence to establish criminality against this woman. Her mind being already con'upted by such literature as we have read — so reasons the Vice-Chancellor — she was a fit subject for seduc- tion ; therefore, Gordon seduced her ! Really, gentlemen, I am afraid there are hundreds of women in this country, good wives and good mothers, who would not be able to pass the Vice-Chancellor's orfleal. I have read and re-read these so-called letters, and I confess I am too dull to discover the " moral depravity " the learned judge assures ns they contain. Senator Kaulback, — I understand she did not deny exhibit C. was a letter sent to Parks. Hon. Wm. MacDougall, — She denied that it was a letter, but admitted that it is, or may be the draft of a letter which she never sent. And suppose she had sent this very draft letter. I ask any one to read it, and say whether it con- tains a single word or suggestion, amount- ing to proof of criminal relations with Parks, or bearing in any way whatever on the charge in this easel I say if it had been found in Parks' possession, or proved to have been sent to him — which it was not — it would not establish the petitioner's case even as to Parks. " I am glad you enjoy attending the Holy Trinity." Is that the language of a cor- rupted wife to a paramour '? Why talk about the Church of the Holy Trinity, and her preference for Low Church or evangelical views, &c., if she had com- mitted or contemplated committing adul- tery ? It docs not seem to me to be more than a gossiping letter, such as any woman in her position in life might write, without the remotest intention of doing any wi'ong to her husband, I see n any con- [ount- with itever if it ^n, or rhicli the "I iHoly cor- talk lity, ^1 or 3om- Mul- be as ight of see nothing in these exhibits to sustain a charge of anything more than thought- less levity — indecorum if you will — which this poor woman now confesses she committed, though at the time she had no evil intention, and was unconscious of the danger to which she exposed her- self. I shall now pass to the case of Gordon, the only one, as I contend, that we can consider under this reference. He ap- pears from all the evidence to have fallen into the difficulty suddenly. There was no previous suspicion, nothing to lead any one to believe tliat his relations with Mrs. Campbell were improper. It is evi- dent tliat in instructing his house to be watched, the husband's idea was to en- trap Parks. He expected, as it would seem, that Parks might appear in tlie neigliborhood during his absence. No evidence whatever was produced here to shew that they watched the house for Gordon. James Campbell denies that he was previously aware of any suspicious conduct on the part of Gordon. They watched the house expecting to catch Parks, the pay Lothario, and they discov- ered Gordon, a neighbor and a friend, visiting her in an open, innocent, friend- ly manner, and so they bagged him ! You have heard the evidence of the witnesses. Oii the cross-examination, I think I pretty well sifted all they know, and you have before you a full re2)ort of all they can say on the subject. And what is tlie story ? Jt is this, — a lady of education, and confessedly of more than ordinary accomplishments, living in her own house in a country town, under the eye of her neighbours, within four months of her confinement, — her husband having just returned after an absence of several wcehs, and having taken her children away, as she supposed,- for a short trip, kissing his wife at parting, sub- mits herself for tlie first time, to the embraces of a young mati whom she had known for years, and this too with the parlor door open, a light burning, the maid- servant listening for anything they knew, and the criminal act, or rather acts, preceded and followed by loud and lewd conversation, laughing, crying, and kissing, that could be heard out of doors, tlirough the curtains, the windows, and the blinds ! I submit to youjijcntlcmcn, that on the mere state- ment of the case as proved by the peti- tioner, the story is utterly incredible. I would have said, but for this judgment, the evidence adduced by the petitioner alone, without any explanation whatever, makes it impossible for any court to con- vict that woman of adultery. The lan- guage sworn to by the witnesses is in- credible on the theory that it was uttered ui reference to acts of criminality. The whole story is improbable, contrary to the instincts of human nature, and to the experience of every married or single man competent to give an opinion on matters of this kind. We all, I presuve, know something of the other sex; of their humors, habits, and dispositions, the young as well as the middle-aged; and I say that the acts alleged to have occurred at that house on the 26th of August, and the conversations alleged to have been hoard by the two witnesses in relation to those acts, are contrary to the experience of every one of us. It is incredible that such language could have been used in the sense conveyed to us, by a woman brought up under religious influence, as- sociating with the most respectable people of the neighbourhood, and thank God, associating with them still. Yes ! after the repeated attempts of her husband and his good brother to damn her repu- tation, she has .still their respect, tlieir confidence, their good will, and even their ardent sympathy. Now, you are asked to believe that a person in tliat condi- tion of life, in her own house, under the circumstances I have mentioned, was seduced by a neighbour, and had criminal connection willi him not once, but twice ; that the language reported to us by the two witnesses was used in the course of the seduction, and was uttered in a loud tone. I repeat, the story is not credible. 1 doubt if a com- mon prostitute, in this or any other city, under any circumstances, except, per- haps, in a state of intoxication, would use such language in her intercourse with the other sex. But while that diffi- culty meets the petitioner at the begin- ning, and on the mere statement of his case, what are the difficulties thai con- front him when we come to consider the evidence in detail ? Last night I took the evidence of James Campbell and Anderson, and carefully extracted all the words they swear they heard used in 1; that parlor. James Campbell reports sixteen distinct expressions in the whole of his evidence. He forgot four or five in his examination-in-ohicf, among them the California story. Anderson was listening at the west window, whore he could hear equally well. James Camp- bell told us he could hear better at the front window, but on being pressed, said he could hear equally well. The windows were closed, and these two, listening there for a joint purpose, heard a num- ber of expressions, Campbell 10 and Anderson 12, and yet only four of these expressions have any similarity or can be held to relate to the same matter. Is that a credible thuig ? They went there to listen to everything ; they swear they heard conversations ; they pretend to give the language used by each of the parties ; the time, with reference to acts, when these several conversations were heard, and yet they do not agree in tbeir report as to 24 out of 28 of these con- versations or expressions. I do not con- tend that the language sworn to should be precisely identical, but it ought to agroe in substance, and the expression, attributed to the interlocutors, should be heard at the same time. The witnesses separate the time, and tell us what was said before and what after certain events, and yet there is no identity or corr'-bora- tion. The witness at one time puts language into Mrs. Campbell's mouth, which, at another, he swears was used by Gordon. But these contradictions and discrepancies, fatal as they are to the credibility of the witnesses, will not justify me in asking you to dismiss their testimony altogether. I have no doubt they heard some of the w^ords sworn to, — words which were perfectly innocent, but which their evil imagination distorted into vileness. Let any man take the ex- pressions one by one as they are recorded in that evidence, and ask himself this question, — does that necessarily imply sexual commerce between these parties '? It is not possible that words of a similar sound, with a slightly different colloca- tion, — not so different as the witnesses tliemselves have reported, — were used without any improper or criminal mean- ing ? To the first question I say, no ; to the second, yes. They are all intel- ligible — they can all be explained — upon the theory of innocence. No doubt these eavesdroppers went there to hear some- thing wrong, and no doubt also they put the worst construction on the few frag- ments they heard ; yet, after all, they report only one word which leads almost necessarily to the conclusion that there was criminal intercourse. ' ' Robert might suspect," was the expression first heard by James Campbell. Anderson did not hear that at all, though at the time — a little after 12 — he was standing near the window, and swears he could then hear distinctly. The reply was — " Has Robert had anything to do with you since his re- turn," or, as the witness afterwards put it, *' Has Robert had any con- nection with you since his return ?" etc. Up to the time of his going for a stick to break the window, this is the only conversation James Campbell swears he heard between these parties. A great deal depends upon this word " connec- tion." I admit, if it were true that Gor- don asked Mrs. Campbell this question, and she answered it in the words sworn to, the conclusion would almost necess- arily be that there was criminal famil- iarity between them. But in his exam- ination-in-chief the witness said Gordon asked, — '* Has he had anything to do with you." That might have referred to some other matter — it is not neces- sarily criminal or evil in its character — but finding it necessary to use a word that would leave no doubt on your minds, that an improper question was asked, j Campbell next day revises his evidence and uses the word " connection," to which he adheres. Let us now look at the probability, at the reasonableness, of this dialogue. What possible object could he have in asking such a question ? What could Robert suspect ? I cannot imagine a woman five months gone with child, discussing with her paramour the dan- ger of suspicion on the ground which the witness imagines he heard suggested. Can any member of this Committee, can any human being, solve the difficulty ? I could suppose that a young woman, before marriage, if solicited by a seducer, would ask herself, if she did not ask him, whetlier her consent might not cause sus- picions ; but for a married woman, within four months of her confinement, to talk about suspicion in such a case, and for the other party to reassure her by suggesting that suspicion could not 13 child, le dan- the jested. ie, can }ulty ? lomai), ]ducer, hiiu, ) aus- )man, ^ment, case, fe her Id not attach because her husband had been with her since his return, is too puerile for serious argument. As Anderson, though Hstoning, heard nothing of this absurd question, and still more absurd answer, I ask you not to hear them either. Campbell swears the next ex- pression he heard, after he returned with tlie stick, was — " I have no pleasure in life, etc." Anderson heard nothing of this, but if he haa, and concurred in re- porting the language, I deny that there is anything criminal in such a confession of unhappiness. I contend that a pre- sumption of innocence must go along with us in construeing the language of these parties until guilt is proved by evi- dence that cannot be doubted. I say, even if this language was used exactly as Campbell pretends to have hoard it, no such conclusion as he draws from it would be justifiable. The next expres- sion is — " will you come half way if I go the other." We are expected to believe that this was an invitation to criminal intercourse by a married woman, ad- dressed to a young man sitting there, who was eager for the opportunity, who in fact had already enjoyed it, and yet refusing the invitation ! Is that the way such matters are conducted ? Is this the same man who — as we are afterwards told, wanted this woman three times and declared he was crazy for it ! Anderson, though listening, hears nothing of that conversation either. Then another ex- pression is — "The floor is as good as a bed." A volunteer, speaking of camp life, might make an observation of that kind without committing adultery, but as Anderson did not hear it, I am disposed t« believe James CnmpbuII is romancing again. Then we oouie to an expression which seems to have some kind of correspondence with one sworn to by Anderson. -Tamos Campbell swears ho heard Gordon say — " What is the mat- ter?" and she replied, "You are hurting me." He assumed that was evidence of criminal connection. I say, if any such words wereused, they do notprove, or even imply a criminal act. They were sitting near each other playing draughts, and something about "hm-ting" or it may have been "beatmgme" may have been heard. Tt is true both swear to this word, but not in the same sense or connection. — The next expression — and it is the only one sworn toby both witnesses — is — "What is this ?" She answers, "My navel." I do not know what conclusion they came to as to the position of the parties when fiordon displayed such curiosity, and at the same time smcIj ignorance of the human organism. I asked if they were undressed, but the wihiesses could not tell us, or even venture an opinion on the subject. No doubt the word " Naval " was heard, as she sang a marine song, and remembers a remark about the naval service, but Campbell prefers to spell it with an"e." We now come to a re- markable utterance, sworn to by James Campbell: — "Those are nice breasts, Eliza." Anderson heard notliing of that. If the expression was used in such a loud tone as to be heard outside the window, it seems strange that Anderson did not hear it. Another expression is : — " If there is anything wrong it is your fault." Anderson did not hear that, and there is nothin.T; criminal in them, even if the words as reported were used. Campbell tells us Gordon spoke of having a hard day's work before him — rather inconsist- ent with the " crazy " story, at three o'clock in the morning. Anderson did not hear the observation about the hard day's work. Campbell swears he beard Gordon say, " Eliza, you are my dear love." Anderson does not hear that either. Campbell heard her say, " I want you to take me to California." An- derson tells us something about California, but neither the words nor the meaning are the same. Mrs. Campbell explains the allusion to California. Each had a brother there, and she remembers some conversation on the subject. It wag natural they should speak of California, under such circumstances, but certainly not as a hiding place from guilt. (Mr. McDougall then commented on certain expressions sworn to by Campbell, but not heard by Anderson, which ho denounced as utterly incredible in the sense pretend- ed, but perfectly innocent as explained by a conversation respecting a stereos- cope.) Apparently, the word "crazy" was heard by both just before Gordon left, but they do not quite agree in the relative words. " Crazy " is put in the mouth of Gordon by one, and in Mrs. Campbell's by the other. Campbell swears she asked, " Why are you so crazy ?" — and he replies, " Why did u you ask me to come here on Sunday night, to-night ;'" Y.'hat liad that to do witli his being crazy ? Remember, this language was used after he had twict liad criminal intercourse, according to (Jamp- bell, and after his l>and had been se<>u on the door, and he had expressed his desire to go home. I have gone over all the expressions sworn to by Camp- bell. I shall now for a moment turn to the evidence of Anderson. The first remark he heard was, " You aro gettmg stoiit." Nothing of that kind was heard by Campbell. It amounts to very little in any case. The second expression heard by Anderson relates to Cahfornia. This conversation, if we are to believe Anderson, took place before Campbell started to get the stick, and, therefore, immediately after he heard the words about " suspecting." That fixes the point of time in the narrative. All this was heard by Ander- son before Campbell went for the stick. Immediately after Campbell's return, Anderson hears Gordon use Uiis expres- sion : " Put your arms around me," etc. Campbell heai's nothing of that. They seem to have heard diflferont parts of the convoiSdtiou all the way through. Now, if there was criminal conversation in the popular or in the legal sense, these witnesses who heard everything ought to give us substantially tlie same account of it. The next he heard was, " What are you crying for '?" but there was no reply, according to Anderson. He swears he heard her say " Kiss me." It seems remarkable that Mrs. Camp- bell should find it necessary to ask a young man who was so lustful, accord- ing to their joint report, to come and kiss her. Did he recjuire to be encour- aged and formally invited to do it '* Campbell does not hear that. lie ..ays he heard kissing, and that is the most remarkable thing of all — that he could hoar through the curtains, windows, blinds, and all the other obstructions, the noise of lips meeting. You are asked to believe that two clandestine lovers, seated in a parlor, 12 feet at least from the eavesdroppers, listening at the windows of a well bui!t brick house, with all their impediments — and the ptu'lor door open — indulged in labial smacks that could be heard outside ! Gentle- men, is that possible or probable ? The last expression Lj swears to is, *' You may kiss me. ' After she had invited him to kiss her, after the sound thereof — like the kiss of Moore's lover that " startled tlie woods of Madeira," had reached the ears of one of the listeners, the other heard the coy wanton tell her paramour " You viai, kiss rae ! " Incred- ible condescension ! This kissing busi- ness is enough of itself to destroy the whole story of those wretched spies. In truth they tell two stories, so unlike, so improbable, that you cannot believe either of them. If witnesses lor the plaintiff, in an action for slander, varied m then statements of the slanderous words, as these witnesses have in 24 out of 28 expressions, he would find himself out of court. In this case where a crimin- al act is to be proved from the language used by the alleged criminals, I doubt whether any of the expressions sworn to hero would legally support a verdict of guilty, even if the witnesses agreed in then' evidence. But before a tribunal like this, it would be useless, I know, to discuss mere technical questions ; you will very properly take this evidence for what it is worth ; you will consider it in connection with the surrounding circum- stances, and you will be asked to say whether the evidence satisfies you that there was criminal connection between these parties on that occasion. Reason- ing upon it from a legal point of view, I contend there is no word in the double dialogue sworn to by the two witnesses — for I have shewn that neither hcai-d the language reported by the other — except the word " connection," which leads to tlie conclusion that there was criminal conversation between Gordon and the respondent on that night. Admitting the witness Campbell heard that word as stated in his cross-examination, it is stiD your duty to consider whether the witness Anderson did not describe tlie situation truly in his first written state- ment when he represents Campbell ac- cusing Gordon (.f " atteiiiptiny to seduce" his brother's wife. " The law always presumes against crime," and therefore, until the evidence has raised a presump- tion of guilt, which preponderates over the presumption of innocence, the latter must prevail. The petitioner's case is that those j.arties engaged in criminal convcroation while a servant was within if leason- view, I double kesses — fcai'il the -except leads to Iriminal [ud the linitting Ivord as li, it is ]ier the [be tlie state- jell ac- leduce" lahvays )refore, jsump- is over latter :aso is I'iiuiual I within ear-shot of them, the door open, and lights burning, that the loud solicitations of the sodncer, and even the touching of lips were heard through the walls. I think you will require something more than the disjoint. hI phrases, so variously reported, to makj you believe that unUer the circumstance!'., even as proved by the petitioner, two human beings, with ordin- ary intelligence, such as these perf>ons are admitted to possess, to say nothing of their social relations and previous habits of life, committed the crime of adultery. Nothing has been adduced here to shew there was a suspicion of wrong doing by Mrs. Campbell previo i to the receipt of the anonymous letter, and this unfortunate visit of Gordon. Her character was irreproachable ; her husband, after efforts to tind some slips, some instance of immoral behaviour in her ten years of married life, utterly failed — yet he asks you to believe that she brought a young man to her house, and carried on a conversation which, as construed by the petitioner, proves that she was the seducer, and Cordon the seduced, and all this in loud talking that could be heard out of doors, and therefore by the servant upstairs I I find no par- allel to this case in the English Divorce Court, and I have looked through the re- ports with some care. Did the petitioner's counsel venture to interrogate that ser- vant as to whether she heard anything improper ? On cross-examination 1 com- pelled her to admit that she heard no- thing. The sounds of the voice, as every- one knows, would go up stairs through the open door more readily than through walls or closed windows, and she has shewn a sufficient animus to justify uio in saying that she would have reported anything to the discredit of her mistress if she could. I say on that ground alone, the case breaks down. Mr. McDougali argued strongly against the probability of the act, in view of the respondents condition, combatting the theory of the Vice-Chancellor, that women in such cases are apt to give "free course to their passions," referring to medical theory and experience. At the conclusion of the argument on this point, the Commit- tee adjourned till the following morning at 10 o'clock. The Committee met, Wednesday at 10 a.m. Hon. Wm. McDougali resumed his speech. He said : — When the Commit- tee adjourned yesterday, 1 was speaking of the improbabilities of the case on the evidence presented by the petitioner. I ask your attention for a few moments to tlo evidence of the gu'l, Newsome. With respect to Martha, her evidence can have but a very remol,e bearing on the charge in this Bill. She, by her own statement, was not in the house, having loft Mrs. Campbell's service on the 15th of August. She does make some refer- ence to some incidents which, I sup- pose, in the prejudiced view of the other side, help the inference they wish to have drawn. For instance, she speaks on one occasion of finding the curtains of the parlor pinned together, and the footstool away from its usual place. . Ad- mit the fact and it is nothing. She says she found the stump of a cigar in the parlour on another occasion. She does not specify when, nor can she swear it was not dropped from the corner of the table, where it may have been left by Gordon, or some other person. It adds nothing to the evidence required to sus- tain this charge. She speaks of having found her mistress's boots in the parlour on one or two occasions, as if finding a lady's boots in the parlour of a country house, after an evening parl/y, is ground for grave suspicions against her > But Mrs. Campbell tells us very frankly, that on one occasion, having been en- gaged dancing with some friends, she took off a tight pair of boots during the evening, and left them in the parlour. I find nothing further in her evidence, ex- cept her notions of matrimonial duties, and her illustration of the saying that a guilty conscience needs no accuser, on which last subject, I admit, she is a competent witness. The other ser- vant Newsome, was in the house on one occasion of Gordon's visit. I call the attention of the Committee to an important feature of her evidence. She says she retired to bed about 11:15 p.m., but the petitioner's chief witness, Anderson, swears she went to bed at 12 o'clock. Both he and Campbell swe.xr positively on that point. She must, therefore, have been awake and capable of hearing the conversation that preceded the first act of criminaUty, because it occurred, as they say, about 12 o'clock. 16 $ I'he conversation they overheard up to the time Campbell went for the stick, was before 12 o'clock/ and the criminal act was completed before he returned. It follows that the servant, who was in the house, and within hearing, at the very time these witnesses outside heard criminal conversation, is unable to re- port a single word of it t I say a strong inference is to be drawn from that fact. This servant, who is a willing witness, and is now in the employ of the petitioner, will not swear that she heard any language, such as the out- siders report to us, although she was in a much better position than they to hear it. She swears she heard the noise of sDme person walking on the gravel. If she could hear the footsteps of Campbell, who was in his stocking feet, il must have been when he was going for the stick, and, therefore, she was awake at that juncture according to her own evidence. Why did she not hear the loud and disgusting language sworn to by Campbell ? She is brought to contradict Mr. Gibson and his wife as to the fact of singing. What object Campbell and Anderson expected to gain by denying tlie statements of the ex- Mayor, is not apparent to me, but as they have under- taken to prove there was no singing or music th.it night, we have produced witnesses to contradict them. Tliese witnesses have been cross-examined several times, yet adhere to the state- ment that late on the evening of the 26th of August in passing the house, they heard music and two voices singing. Jane Newsome is brought here to raise a doubt in your minds, and it is suggostad the Gibsons are mistaken as to the night. My answer is, it does not follow because tnere was music on the 27th there was none on the 26th. I believe Miss Ham was there on the night of the 27th, and no doubt this witness heard music on that occasion. Gibson says he was pass- ing on the night of the 26th, and saw two parsons standing near the window, ap- parently listenmg. Now, if Gibson did not see Anderson and Campbell, it is evi- dent he did not see Jane Now.iorae and her young man, who, she admits, was but little taller than herself. You have only to look at the photographic view to be satisfied that the fence would have concealed them from Gibson's observation. Hon. Mr. Elokey: — Does not the wit- ness Gibson say he could see over the fence because the sidewalk was elevated ? Hon. Mr. McDougall : — He could not if they wore between the fence and the window, whore Gibson swears he saw the heads and shoulders of two men. S > fur as the New8omo'5 are concernovl, tiuy state nothing, and corroborate nothiir^ that is material in this case. In addition to the evidence of Gibson and his wife, we have the positive statement of Mrs. Campbell (and we know Gordon corrob- orates her), that there was singing and music in the house on the night of the 20th. Here we have four persons under oath, stating this fact, and we have Campbell and Anderson and this girl Newsome denying it. As to Jane New- some's character, I need only recall what she has admitted, — that before these events she had lost her virtue ; I doubt, after that confession, that you will give lier credit for having retained much of her veracity. She says she was gather ing pears on the night of the 27tli of August. According to my experience in fruit-culture, we do not grow standard pears in this climate that are fit to eat so early in the season. The next point to which I desire to di- rect your attention is tlie interview or altercation that took place between Gor- don and James Campbell. And first, as to the question of time. Campbell and Anderson state they did not leave the ver- andah until tliree o'clock. I cross-ex- amined them at considerable length as to how they ascertained and fixed the time. Aft^r much fencing, Campbell admitted that he saw his watch by the light of the window. If his evidence is shown to be untrue, to be really substantially and knowingly false, on the question of time, then I shall ask you to distrust his truth- fulness on other and more vital points. They went down to their shop for the purpose, as Anderson says, of getting some whiski J , being tired and cold after their long watching. They heard foot- steps, and suspecting the approach of Gordon, they waited until he came near and called to him. Campbell swears he charged Gordon with having been in the house from 9 until 8 o'clock, and having criminal connection with his brother's wife, and that Gordon said — '• I could not help it, it is not my fault." If Go?- IT Iross-ex.- Ith as to ne time. Idmittecl lit of the m to be lly and )f time, is truth- points. Ifor the getting \\i after fd foot- )ach of 18 near hars he in the 1 having rothor's could [f Gor- don made that reply certainly most of us would agree with tlie witness that it amounted to a confession of guilt. Four witnesses give evidence as to the time this street colloquy occurred, and, what I regard as much more important, as to the tone and character of the interview. Dr. Adams swears that Qordon denied the charge at once, using very strong and very emphatic language. Mr. dross, who was aroused from his sleep by the cry, as he supposed of " fire,"' (the words " fire " and *• liai'," sounding very much alike,) ran to the front window to look out, being a property holder and natur- ally anxious about fires. Seeing noth- ing but three or four men on tlie op- posite side of the street, he went to the back window. On his return he hurt his foot, and finding that he had been awakened by a row only, he went to bathe his foot. He explains how his at- tention was directed to the hour of the night. He had been asked to subscribe for stock in a clock company, and a speci- men clock had been placed in his house . on trial. It stood beside an English '' clock, and as he sat down stairs bathing his foot, he noticed as he sat that it was just 1:30 by both clocks. We have, moreover, the evidence of Mrs. Allen, clear and unimpeachable, though not so precise as that of Mr. Gross, on the point of time. She lives immediately adjoining Campbell's place of business. She was sitting up a little later than usual, reading a book, (which, she tells me, was her Bible,) when she heard loud talking in the street, and although she did not look at the clock at that moment her impression is from knowing the time she completed her domestic duties, and having on her mind the necessity of re- tiring, that it could not have been more than a few minutes after one o'clock. We have the statement of Dr. Adams as to his impression of the time. He did not look at his watch, but the young stu- dent who slept with him, was regular at his hours, and according to their idea of the time, it could not have been later than 1.20 a. m. The student corro- borates Dr. Adams in every important particular. I submit, therefore, that the titne of the altercation in the street, has been proved by independent un- impeached testimony, by per8