other with an indignant snort and a sweep | our lungs, and living, as at any rate Lonof their somewhat faded skirts, on account doners do, in the forcing house of literaof some dispute over a question of precedence, or something equally petty, will be found next day combining to nurse a cholera patient, or tending each other in some grief or trouble. It is a pity that Mr. Kipling has not used his photographic powers of description, and allowed his genius to put life into more "Plain Tales" of quiet women's heroism in the plains than of foolish women's follies in the hills. He would find in the former a larger field and less commonplace material, and would, withal, give a truer picture of the most distinctively AngloIndian life. It may be said generally that the majority of women in India share with the men all the roughing and danger, except actual war (and in the Mutiny they shared that too), without sharing the credit or the rewards, except in so far as their husbands' honors benefit them. Women are the camp followers of the great army of English occupation, and they often find themselves under conditions which, to use a telling phrase of Mr. Kipling's own, are like the field of battle with all the glory missing." ture, art, science, and politics, to criticise our exiled sisters in India; in which country the subtler refinements of civilization, which develop women in England and mould their tastes, are absent. Let the critics be wafted suddenly in June from the exhilarating freshness of English country, or the mental mill-race of London, to an Indian station, its stifling heat, darkened rooms, and swaying punkahs, and let them see if in the lightest literature is to be found anything but a powerful soporific. A less obvious cause than that already mentioned has been suggested to me as underlying this lack of intellectual keenness among Englishwomen in India as a rule-a rule to which happily there are many exceptions. In India we find ourselves in a country and among a people where, as everywhere in Asia, tradition, religion, and inveterate custom combine to throw women entirely into the background; and it is particularly difficult for English women living among scattered groups of foreign sojourners in the land to find the material, or the opportunity, I regret that, owing partly to the fact for advancing outside the strict limitations that my own better luck gave me little of household duty and petty social occuopportunity of personally observing my pations. The Englishwoman as well as fellow-women under the most trying con- other women in India has to fight against ditions of Indian life, and partly that the the strong Asiatic prejudice which diskind of all-in-the-day's work, matter-of-likes her taking part in public affairs of course heroism and endurance that are any kind. In this direction she has few most characteristic of the Anglo-Indian chances and little encouragement. woman do not easily condense into anecdote, I am unable to give many illustrative instances. But one pathetically characteristic story comes to my mind of a young, newly married woman, who went with her husband on duty to some distant and God-forsaken spot, miles from any English cantonment. Within a year the husband died of cholera, dysentery, or one of the rapid Indian sicknesses. She found herself without benefit of clergy, doctor, or undertaker, alone, but for a handful of native servants. These helped her to dig the grave, but the coffin she hammered together with her own hands, out of the wood of old packing-cases which had contained the "Europe stores" for their daily use. But, in spite of these disadvantages and impediments, philanthropic English women are arising in these latter days, who interest themselves in schools and hospitals, both English and native, and who learn the native dialect in order to make friends with native ladies, the wives of chiefs and other native gentlemen. The English lady doctors sent out by the Society for Providing Female Medical Aid to Indian Women (better known as the Lady Dufferin Fund) are a new development of Anglo-Indian society. Their numbers are still comparatively small, but their existence certainly tends to stimulate the philanthropic and intellectual life of English women in India. These lady doctors, gaining as they do considerable acquaintcom-ance with, and insight into, the lives of native women of all classes, and yet taking their place in the English-social life, form a link and arouse an interest between English and native women which leads to the widening and enriching of the lives of both. Globe-trotters from time to time ment on the dulness of Indian society, and there is no doubt that it is conversationally dull, borné, and uncultured, but so is conversation apt to be in provincial society anywhere. It is easy here, with English ozone in Miss Roberts wrote, some fifty years ago, a book which is still an excellent picture of Indian society at that time; Mrs. Speirs produced a work of some value on ancient India; Mrs. Mackenzie has left on record a curious and interesting account of her experiences in the Hyderabad country; and, to come down to much later days, Mrs. Guthrie's books, "My Year in an Indian Fort" and "Life in Western India,” may be read for style and substance with much pleasure and profit at the present time. But the real interest of India centres in religion and politics, two subjects which few women have in any society shown themselves readily disposed to handle. Another common criticism by the globe- | countrywomen, who have sketched lightly trotter is that "English women in India and agreeably their rambles and recollecknow and care so little about India itself, tions, and have shown considerable apits history, antiquities, architecture, and preciation of the salient features of the natural beauties." I cannot pretend that society around them, and of the amusing to this accusation many must not plead and striking characteristics of civil or guilty (are there not many who might do military administration. likewise in England?), but I assert that there are many who have studied as much as opportunity offers the objects of beauty and interest within their reach. Many are in India years before they have the chance of leaving the most banal of English cantonments. I was lucky in having | more opportunities for travel than most, and my first experience, after a year and a half in India, was at Bijapore, whose glorious tombs and mosques were intoxicating in their contrast to the modern monotony of the place I had left. We were entertained there with true hospitality by the collector and his wife. This lady drove us about in her tonga,* and showed herself complete mistress of the history of the place, and also knew every detail of It is not sufficiently realized in England ornament, every point of view of the how with Anglo-Indians every day of splendid buildings. She showed us her leave and every spare (debased) rupee own tracings of the carvings, and her pho- goes to take them home, patch them up tographs of the buildings, and offered us for more Indian work, and keep up their copies of any we particularly admired. connection with their children and others She had been at Bijapore some years, had at home. Not ten per cent. of the Enthree or four pale children, and her hus-glishwomen in India ever get the chance band's health was evidently on the strain. She told me that during her first year or two there she had devoted herself to the study, the fruits of which she had so kindly placed at our disposal; but I could see that, except when a passing sightseer came by, she had lost her enthusiasm for the beauties around her. At last our conversation drifted to the old subjects exile, health, climate, home and she said, looking at her children, "My one thought now is to keep these children alive till April year' (we were then in September), "when"- her face brightening"we can go home for two years!" Was it wonderful that the strain of exile and anxiety had supplanted the aesthetic energy with which she had entered on her life at Bijapore? of seeing the Taj, or any of the great wellknown sights of India. They have neither the opportunity, the money, nor the freedom of mind to go touring about India, sipping the interest and eluding the hardships as their critics, the globe-trotters, do; they therefore tend, as the years go by, to become more local-minded, as they travel about in the province to which their husbands belong. I remember two officials of some fifty-five years of age, whose term of thirty-six years' service was just over when I arrived in India. They were starting, in triumph and boyish glee, on the "grand tour"-Jeypore, Delhi, Agra, Benares, etc., they having never before been outside the Bombay presidency! It is rare for men or women at the end of their Indian service to have enough health and energy (not to speak of pocket money, viewing the children's education in England) to start on such a tour. The extent to which Englishwomen have contributed to Anglo-Indian litera ture is probably not known; for up to quite recent years the literature itself has I am aware that in this article I have attracted slight notice in this country. fallen into the trap out of which every But some of the best books on the social writer on India finds it difficult to keep life of the English, on the every-day man-himself. I have generalized about a counners and customs of the natives, on the try which is almost a continent, and in scenery, architecture, and even the history which the conditions of life are most variof India, were formerly written by ourous. But I have done so, to some extent, A two-wheeled cart, drawn by a pair of ponies. purposely. The large majority of Indian stations are small ones, and the life in all of these has much in common with the rest whether it be in Madras, Bombay, the Punjaub, Bengal, or the north-west provinces, though in the latter three, during four months of the year, life is made in every way more home-like by the fact that they have a real "cold weather." This expression is always used in India as a substitute for "winter," but both terms are somewhat of a mockery in southern India. I have not attempted to describe, or to trace the difference between, the life and people in old-fashioned Madras, in go-ahead, beautiful Bombay, with its population of many races and professions, in Calcutta and Simla, with their brilliant officialism, their commercial and cosmopolitan elements. I have tried to paint the conditions amidst which the average Englishwoman finds herself, and her consequent characteristics, in the many hundred stations scattered over the plains of India, past which the globetrotter whizzes in the train, or within many days' journey of which he never goes, hardly knowing their names, or if he do, writing them off as having "nothing to be seen there." It is in these stations that the most typical Anglo-Indian lives are being led. Over the description of these lives I have perhaps thrown too dark a shadow and have dwelt, in a manner uncharacteristic of my typical Englishwoman in India, too much on the hardships and sufferings, too little on the easy social intercourse, the open-hearted, friendly sympathy, the young, playful, and sporting atmosphere which make up the bright side of Anglo-Indian life. But having experienced and appreciated to the full this brighter side of the life, and its superiority in certain relations over social life in England, I yet feel strongly (and think most Anglo-Indians would do so, too) with an eminent and well-known English judge who spent a long interval in India, and who is wont to say that he never knew what luxury was until he went to live in India; and when asked why, replies, "Because then I knew what it was to come home and live in England." KATHARINE LYTTELTON. From Belgravia. EARL FERRERS. A STATE TRIAL, 1760. ON the hearing of an appeal before him, the master of the rolls when the case of Earl Ferrers was cited, remarked, "Earl Ferrers! I thought he was hanged." He was hanged; but it was not from any points of law arising from his trial for murder that his case was cited as an authority. A sad story is told in the old reports, of an unfortunate man who gave intense trouble and anxiety to his relatives, who was twice attached for disobedience to a writ of habeas corpus, who was separated from his wife by act of Parliament, and who, finally, was found guilty and sentenced to death for murder. It was his conduct which compelled the courts to issue two writs of attachment against him to secure the preservation and security of his wife from personal violence and ill-usage and force him to bring up the body of his lady before them. The story is thus quaintly told in Burrows. Sir William Meredith, the brother of Lady Ferrers, had himself attempted to serve the writ upon the earl, but he was not to be approached with impunity, for he drew a pistol from his pocket, threatened Sir William, and challenged him to fight. It being impossible to serve the habeas corpus personally upon the earl, and the safety of the lady being still in danger, a writ of attachment was issued against him; at the same time Lord Mansfield intimated that it was better not to execute it at all, if it were possible to obtain the end by any gentler or other means, the end and intention of granting it being only to have the lady immediately brought up. The earl, having been served with the writ, or, at least, having had it notified to him, he appeared at Westmins ter Hall, and sent a message into court, to Lord Mansfield, desiring to speak with him. Lord Mansfield bid the messenger tell his lordship that when an affair was depending before the court, he could not speak with anybody about it but in the court. Soon after the earl came upon the bench and spoke to Lord Mansfield. It was not easy to understand what he said, as he spoke pretty low, but his questions were about his lady, and Lord Mansfield's reply was that when she came into court all proper questions would be asked her. Some time afterwards Lady Ferrers came into court, and had articles of the peace ready to exhibit against her husband. The counsel for the earl desired leave to ask Lady Ferrers one or two questions before she signed the articles, but Lord Mansfield told her ladyship that she was not obliged to answer any question previ ous to her swearing the peace, and asked the earl if he had security ready. The earl then pressed that Lady Ferrers might answer the questions, and intimated that his regard or disregard for her would depend upon her answers. Lord Mansfield then said that he had told her before that she need not answer them, now he would not suffer her to answer them. Four days afterwards, the earl appeared and gave security. This was in April, 1757; but in August the earl broke out again, drew a pistol upon his wife, and threatened her; and a fresh warrant was issued, and the countess swore fresh articles of the peace against her husband. This time the persons to give bail were Lord Ferrers himself, in £5,000, his mother Mrs. Shirley, and Mr. John Bennefold, a peruke maker, each in £2,500. Notwithstanding the very heavy penalties attaching to any misbehavior of the earl, he seems to have continued his course of ill-treatment, for in 1759, Countess Ferrers obtained an act of Parliament entitling her to a separation from her husband and a separate maintenance from his estates. This may be said to be the cause which led to the murder; for John Johnson, Earl Ferrers's victim, was appointed under that act receiver of the estates; but though he was so appointed at Lord Ferrers's own nomination the man proved honest and incorruptible, and the good opinion which the earl had of his steward gradually faded away, and in its stead grew up a murderous hatred. The earl was at this time living at Stanton Harold in Leicestershire with a Mrs. Clifford, by whom he had four children, and Johnson lived in the neighborhood, and was in frequent communication with him. The whole story is told very clearly by the witnesses at the trial, and the crime, proved without a shadow of a doubt as a murder, offers no more features of interest than attend any premeditated and brutal attack upon life; but at the trial (see State Trials, vol. xix.) there was exhibited the strange and unusual sight of a man examining and cross-examining witnesses with great skill to prove that he himself was insane, and incapable of knowing what he was doing, at the time when he committed the murder. The trial took place before full Parliament in Westminster Hall. The lords came from their own House in procession as follows: The lord high steward's gentlemen attendants, two and two. The clerks assistant to the House of Lords, and the clerk of the Parliament. Clerk of the crown in Chancery, bearing the king's commission to the lord high steward, and the clerk of the crown in the King's Bench. The masters in Chancery, two and two. The peers' eldest sons, two and two. Peer minors, two and two. York and Windsor heralds. Four serjeants-at-arms, with their maces, two and two. The yeoman usher of the House. The peers, beginning with the youngest baron, serjeantsat-arms, etc. Then garter king-at-arms, and the gentlemen ushers of the black rod, carrying the white staff before the lord high steward. Robert Lord Harley, lord-keeper of the great seal of Great Britain, lord high steward, alone, his train borne. The commission was read, and afterwards the certiorari and the return and the indictment against Laurence, Earl Ferrers. Then the earl was brought to the bar by the deputy-governor of the Tower, having the axe carried before him by the gentleman gaoler, who stood with it on the left hand of the prisoner, with the edge turned from him. The prisoner, when he approached the bar, made three reverences, and then fell upon his knees. The lord high steward: Your lordship may rise. On one Sunday, Lord Ferrers made an appointment with the steward to come to him the next Friday to discuss some business matters. He had taken unusual precautions not to be disturbed, by sending Mrs. Clifford and the children out for a walk, telling them not to return till five o'clock or after. Meanwhile Johnson arrived at the hour appointed, and was received at the door by Earl Ferrers himself, then taken into a sitting-room and the doorhis locked. What followed is not known with absolute certainty, but Lord Ferrers's confessions and explanations of what he did were very full and complete. From them, it appears that after denouncing Johnson, he forced him to go down on his knees, and then, when he was rising, shot him with a pistol mercilessly through the body. Then the prisoner rose up and bowed to Grace and to the House of Peers, which compliment was returned to him by his Grace and the lords. Then Earl Ferrers was formally arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. Clerk of the crown: Culprit, how will your lordship be tried? Earl Ferrers: By God and my peers. Clerk of the crown: God send your lordship a good deliverance. The trial then began, and lasted three | his senses. In cross-examination, Mr. days. The attorney-general, Charles Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden and lord chancellor, opened very fairly, without unduly pressing against the prisoner, and the trial proceeded in usual course. At the date, 1760, in trials for felony a prisoner was not allowed counsel save for the purposes of arguing a point of law or cross-examination of witnesses. It was not until 1837 that the right to be defended by counsel in cases of felony was given a prisoner, and rules drawn up for the guidance of the judges and the procedure in trials of prisoners, so that Earl Ferrers was obliged to conduct his own defence. It will be seen from the following extracts from his examination of the witnesses how far he succeeded. The defence set up by the prisoner was, as he himself put it, an occasional insanity of mind. "I am convinced," he said, "from recollecting within myself, that at the time of this action I could not know what I was about." His first witness, Bennefold, the peruke maker, who had now attained the respectable office of clerk of St. James's parish, gave evidence that his lordship had always behaved in a very strange manner, very flighty, very much like a man out of his mind, particularly so within these two years past, such as being in liquor and swearing and cursing and the like, and talking to himself, very much like a man disordered in his senses; and then he had behaved himself as well as any other gentleman at times. But he could specify nothing in particular, more than the particular circumstances of my lady, and expressing great hardships and dissatisfaction with the act of Parliament; but Lord Ferrers from the conversation he had with him appeared rather of better parts than an ordinary man. Mr. Goostrey, who had been employed by Lord Ferrers as his man of business for ten years, recounted how, on his return from Lord Westmoreland's place in Kent, he had come to him in the City, and told a strange, inconsistent story of his having been ill-treated by Sir Thomas Stapleton; and the intent of his coming was to draw an advertisement to be inserted in all the papers tending to challenge Sir Thomas, and to post him as a coward if he did not give him satisfaction. Mr. Goostrey was extremely uneasy at this, and endeavored to persuade Lord Ferrers from it, and forthwith declined being concerned for him, looking upon him as a man out of Goostrey stated that he made it a rule never to contradict his lordship, and during the ten years he was concerned for him he never had a word with him. An excellent way of getting on with a difficult client. Lord Ferrers's brother, Walter Shirley, could only give evidence that his Uncle Henry, third Earl Ferrers, was a lunatic by inquisition, and was confined till his death; and that there had been some talk amongst the family of taking out a commission of lunacy against the present earl, but that they did not think the court would grant a commission against him as he had such long intervals of reason. When pressed to specify some particular instance of madness or passion without any adequate cause, he said that he remembered once being at a hunting seat at Quarendon in Leicestershire, and as he chose to avoid the bottle (Mr. Shirley was a clergyman) he went up-stairs to the ladies - Lady Ferrers at that time lived with the earl and without any previous quarrel his brother came up-stairs into the room and, after standing some time before the fire, he broke out into the grossest abuse of him, insulting him and swearing at him, and he could not to that day conceive any reason for it. Peter Williams, when examined by Earl Ferrers said: "I have often observed your lordship, when I have been in your company, to be spitting in the glass and biting your lips, and stamping about the room, which induced me to believe your lordship was not in your right mind; and further to convince me it was so, there was a mare that your lordship sent me on the 17th of January and remained with me till the 1st of April following. One day, being Sunday, your lordship came to my house about five o'clock in the afternoon with two servants, your lordship armed with a tuck stuck on a stick, the two servants with guns and other offensive weapons. Upon entering into the yard your lordship jumped off the horse, and bid one of your servants, called Tom, knock the padlock off the stable door. He did so. My wife, hearing a noise in the yard, she came to know the reason, and without any ceremony your lordship felled her to the ground with your fist. Upon my seeing this I went into the yard and asked your lordship what you meant by this behavior." Earl Ferrers: "My lords, I desire to stop this witness. I only meant to ask him a general question.” |