informed me that she regularly attended the sacrament, and always put £1 in the plate in new gold. What made the conduct of the shopkeeper of the firm in Regent Street the more inexcusable was that at the time she called on her the woman was in such a state, in consequence of her dirty habits, as to be plainly insane, and this compelled the landlady shortly afterwards to insist on her leaving the house, as all the other lodgers complained. When she was first admitted to the Workhouse her habits were so repulsive that she was an intolerable nuisance to the other inmates and nurses, for she was alive with parasites. I considered the treatment this poor creature had received at the hands of the proprietors of the drapery establishment so abominable that it merited exposure, and with that view I called on a gentleman connected with the Press, and asked him to take the matter up. He declined, as it was not within the province of his journal. At the same time he gave me an introduction to the editor of _Truth_, who he said would do so. On going home I drew up a history of the case, and sent it in a letter marked private to the editor, enclosing the letter of introduction, and asking that he would grant me an interview, when we might arrange for publishing my statements without my name appearing. I received no answer from the editor, but a day or two afterwards I was told that my statement had been published _in extenso_ in _Truth_. A day or two after that the Chairman, who lived nearly opposite the draper's shop, called on me and stated that he was deputed by the firm to inform me that if I did not at once write to the editor of _Truth_ and disavow the letter and story an action for libel would be commenced against me without delay. My answer was as follows: "Go back to this firm and say that I did not give any authority for the story to appear as it has done, but as it is all absolutely true I shall decline to withdraw or modify a single syllable." I certainly did write to the editor and complained of the way in which he had published the story, and told him of the threat which had been made of prosecuting me. The only result was that an annotation appeared in the next week's issue which, under the guise of an explanation, made the scandalous story a great deal worse. The firm did not prosecute me or the editor of _Truth_.