GLADSTONE'S FAIR NAME

Wairarapa Age, 4 February 1927, Page 2

GLADSTONE'S FAIR NAME

DEFENDED BY HIS SON.

THE WEIGHT CASE IN COURT. TENSE SCENES. • LONDON, February 2. The libel action of Captain Peter Wright v. Lord Gladstone was continued to-day before Mr. Justice Avory. The case for the plaintiff concluded yesterday. When Mr. N. Birkett, K.C., counsel for the defence, called Lord Gladstone to the witness-box, the cause eelebre of the day reached its climax. Lord Gladstone is a man of middle height, not looking his seventy-three years, with a grey moustache and close-crop-ped iron-grey hair. The witness answered dispassionately until Mr. Birkett asked: “What do you say about this passage in Wright’s book?” Lord Gladstone’s face flushed, and he answered emotionally: “It is revolting. It made me angry almost to an ungovernable extent.

Mr. Birkett: “What was the relationship of your father and mother?” The witness (with emphasis): “Absolutely perfect.” Mr. Birkett: “After Wright’s evidence, do you wish to qualify or withdraw the expression ‘foul’ ”?

The witness: “Certainly not. One who makes a foul charge is foul-mind-cd. I thought Wright was a foul fellow and I think so stilh” “WITH IRON TENACITY.”

Lord Gladstone proceeded to outline his father’s work in connection with fallen,women, and mentioned several institutions founded and liberally supported by him throughout his lifetime. Furthermore, in that cause his father often spoke with women of the streets. Despite what Lord Morley described as “the baseness of men’s tongues,” he kept to his resolution with iron tenacity.

Referring to the. letter to Mr. Wright Lord Gladstone declared that he wrote it with the express and absolute purpose of forcing him into the Law Courts. It was the only remedy, because when he and his brother were gone, nene of the family would be left with a full knowledge of the facts. A correspondence extending over 23 years between his father and Madame Novikoff was available. In it there was not the slightest suggestion or hint of impropriety. Wright’s allusion was an infamous vile charge against Madame Novikoff also. QUEEN VICTORIA’S NAME. Lord Gladstone lengthily reviewed the association of Mrs. O’Shea and Parnell,* quoting an instance to prove that his father was unaware of the relationship.

Mr. Birkett on that po?nt read extracts from Mrs. O’Shea’s book, adding that it proved conclusively that Gladstone was not aware of any relationship. The cross-examination developed into a lively duel. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Merriman, referred to a passage in which it was suggested that Lord Beaconsfield regarded Gladstone as a religious hypocrite.

L%rd Gladstone retorted: “I don’t care what you say. Beaconsfield can say what he likes. I knew.”

Counsel proceeded to refer to the * ‘ hostility ’ ’ of Queen Victoria to Gladstone, whereupon the Judge ruled that the name of the Sovereign must not be mentioned.

When various charges such as that in reference to Madame Novikoff were mentioned, the proceedings developed into a veritable verbal duel, and Lord Gladstone’s voice rang through the Court: “I was with my father at the time, so I know what I am talking about.” Often witness and counsel were speaking simultaneously. Lord Gladstone declared that his father would have taken action had the Novikoff charges been brought in his life-time.

Mr. Merriman lengthily questioned the witness about an article published in his father’s lifetime, asking why had Mr. Gladstone not taken action. The Judge broke in: “All I can say is that if it happened that he had been tried before me I should have to consider whether the words were capable of any such meaning at all.”—(A. and N.Z.).