election. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, while a tower of strength to his own party, is the most bitterly hated person in England by his opponents, who have no champion able to enter the lists against him. His private life has been blameless, and the only resource of those who thought to destroy his power was to attack him in his business relations, which are very extensive. Unfortunately, so far as the Colonial Secretary was con cerned, the articles in question were so skil fully prepared that no direct attack was made upon him of such a nature as would bring the writers within the law of libel. It was different, however, with his brother, Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, and the latter accord ingly brought his action. The trial lasted several days, during which the Lord Chief Justice's Court was so crowded that special arrangements had to be made with reference to the admission of the public. Although the nominal plaintiffs were Mr. Arthur Chamberlain and Mr. Neville Chamberlain, it was felt that the issue was whether or not Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had acted corruptly. The charge so often reiterated by his foes, and so insidiously expressed in the neat epi gram, "The more the English Empire ex pands, the more the Chamberlain contracts," was the only one with which the jury was
supposed to be concerned. As~ the political parties in this country are fairly divided, so far as numbers go, the assumption is natural that of the twelve men in the jury box a con siderable portion of them were bitter op ponents of Mr. Chamberlain, while the others were his fierce partisans. And yet, as in the Bennett murder trial, the first twelve men called were sworn, and not a single challenge was made. So far as any scrutiny was con cerned, or any interest in the personnel of the jurors was evinced, the litigants and their attorneys and counsel were absolutely indif ferent to the sympathies, prejudices and con nections of the entire panel. The situation may, perhaps, be better understood, if it is • likened to the bringing of an action by Mr. Secretary Hay or Senator Hanna in New York City against the "New York Journal" for libel, and counsel accepting without ques tion the first twelve jurors sent to the box by a Tammany sheriff. In the Chamberlain action the jury awarded Mr. Arthur Chamberlain £200, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who had brought a similar action against the same defendant, £1,500 damages, and there the litigation ended. There had been no objections to evidence, no exceptions were taken, and there was no appeal.
STUFF GOWN.
