For the plaintiff, several witnesses proved the speaking of the words, and that the boys were boarded, educated, and clothed, by the plaintiff, at £20 a year each, near Richmond in Yorkshire: and the usher of the school was called to prove that the boys were well fed and well lodged, and had no itch. In his cross-examination it appeared that there were between eighty and ninety boys; that about seventy of them had had a cutaneous disease; and that they all slept in three rooms close to the roof, with no ceiling; and that there was a general combing of the heads of the whole school every morning over a pewter dish, and that the vermin combed out were thrown into the yard; no boy was free from them. A piece of bread of a perfectly black hue was shewn him: he did not think the bread in the school so black as that. The witness having stated that he had himself been at the Appleby grammar-school, the plaintiff’s counsel wished to ask him what was the quality of the provisions used by the plaintiff’s school, compared with those consumed by the Appleby grammar-school. The defendant’s counsel objected to this. ABBOTT, C.J. That cannot be asked; what is done at any particular school is not evidence. You may shew the general treatment of boys at schools, and shew that the plaintiff treated the boys here as well as they could be treated for £20 a year each, for board, education, and clothes. One of the plaintiff’s scholars was then called to prove the plaintiff’s good treatment of them. In cross-examination, the defendant’s counsel wished to ask him whether the plaintiff did not set the boys to plant potatoes in school hours? ABBOTT, C.J. I do not think you can ask this; the issue here being whether the plaintiff’s scholars were ill fed, badly lodged, had the itch, and had vermin. Nothing has been said as to their being badly educated. Their education is not in question here. _Gurney_, for the defendant, addressed the jury, and called witnesses to prove the truth of the words. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £120. FOOTNOTES: [29] The question of the domicile or “settlement” of paupers was the cause of endless litigation. See Mr. Blake Odgers’ lecture V in “A Century of Law Reform.” He quotes a judgment in 1724 which has been preserved in rhyme. “A woman, having a ‘settlement,’ married a man with none. The question was, he being dead, if what she had is gone. Quoth Sir John Pratt, the ‘settlement’ suspended did remain, Living the husband; but, him dead, it doth revive again.” [30] It must have been named after Admiral Pellew (Lord Exmouth), who captured Algiers in 1816. LECTURE VII MID-VICTORIANISM. W. M. THACKERAY