had prohibited the former governess, who was a home governess, from giving any religious education, and Mrs. Besant gave none herself.  It is, therefore, not only the entertaining and publishing these opinions, but she considers it her duty so to educate the child as to prevent her having any religious opinions whatever until she attains a proper age.  I have no doubt that Mrs. Besant is conscientious in her opinions upon all these matters, but I also have a conscientious opinion, and I am bound to give effect to it.  I think such a course of education not only reprehensible but detestable, and likely to work utter ruin to the child, and I certainly should upon this ground alone decide that this child ought not to remain another day under the care of her mother.”

As to the publication of the Knowlton pamphlet, Sir George Jessel decided that that also was a good ground for separating mother and child.  He committed himself to the shameful statement, so strongly condemned by the Lord Chief Justice, that Dr. Knowlton was in favor of “promiscuous intercourse without marriage”, and then uttered the gross falsehood that his view “was exactly the same as was entertained by the Lord Chief Justice of England”.  After this odious misrepresentation, I was not surprised to hear from him words of brutal insult to myself.  I print here an article on him written at the time, not one word of which I now regret, and which I am glad to place on record in permanent form, now that only his memory remains for me to hate.

“SIR GEORGE JESSEL.

“During the long struggle which began in March, 1877, no word has escaped me against the respective judges before whom I have had to plead.  Some have been harsh, but, at least, they have been fairly just, and even if a sign of prejudice appeared, it was yet not sufficient to be a scandal to the Bench.  Of Sir George Jessel, however, I cannot speak in terms even of respect, for in his conduct towards myself he has been rough, coarse, and unfair, to an extent that I never expected to see in any English judge.  Sir George Jessel is subtle and acute, but he is rude, overbearing, and coarse; he has the sneer of a Mephistopheles, mingled with a curious monkeyish pleasure in inflicting pain.  Sir George Jessel prides himself on being ‘a man of the world’, and he expresses the low morality common to that class when the phrase is taken in its worst sense; he holds, like the ‘men of the world’, who ‘see life’ in Leicester Square and the Haymarket, that women are kept chaste only through fear and from lack of opportunity; that men may be loose in morals if they will, and that women are divided into two classes for their use—­one to be the victims and the toys of the moment, the others to be kept ignorant and strictly guarded, so as to be worthy of being selected as wives.  Sir George Jessel considers that a woman becomes an outcast from society because she thinks that women would be happier, healthier, safer, if they had some slight