Of this decree the _Edinburgh_ (‘Shelley-and-Mary,’ October, 1882) Reviewer remarks, ‘But, as is well known, the paternal claim of Shelley to his offspring was resisted by their grandfather Westbrook, and rejected by Lord Eldon on petition, on the ground, not of Shelley’s misconduct to his wife, but of the opinions expressed in his writings.’ This statement is precisely contrary to the fact. The claim was rejected, _not_ on account of opinions expressed in Shelley’s writings, _but_ on account of his misconduct to his wife, which on inquiry was found to correspond with rules of action laid down in the anti-matrimonial note to _Queen Mab_. The misstatement of the _Edinburgh_ has been made in various ways over and over again, and has as often been corrected. Yet again to tell the truth of the matter will have no effect on those of the Shelleyan zealots, who are wont to reply to every correction of any one of their misstatements with a stubborn reiteration of the error. They will only smile, and repeat the misrepresentation more authoritatively. Such stubborn persistence in error has never before been witnessed in literary annals. But for the benefit of persons, who wish to know the truth of Shelley’s story, I repeat yet again that Lord Eldon’s decree kept Shelley’s conduct steadily in view. Conduct, conduct, conduct, is reiterated throughout the decree, till the reader grows weary of the word. And yet the Shelleyan enthusiasts go on stubbornly asserting that the poet’s conduct had nothing to do with the decision. Fortunately the Chancellor gave his judgment in writing, and fortunately the decree was printed in Jacob’s _Reports_ from a copy, furnished to the editor by Mr. (afterwards Vice-Chancellor) Shadwell, counsel in support of the petition. Here is the whole judgment, given paragraph by paragraph, with a brief note by the present writer to each paragraph:-- Paragraph No. 1.--‘I have read all the papers left with me, and all the cases cited.’--No word here touching Shelley’s opinions. Paragraph No. 2.--‘With respect to the question of jurisdiction, it is unnecessary for me to add to what I have already stated. After the example of Lord Thurlow, in _Orby Hunter’s_ case, I shall act upon the notion that this Court has such jurisdiction, until the House of Lords shall decide that my predecessors have been unwarranted in the exercise of it.’--No word here about Shelley’s opinions. Paragraph No. 3.--‘I have carefully looked through the answer of the defendant, to see whether it affects the representation made in the affidavits filed in support of the petition, and in the exhibits referred to, of the _principles and conduct_ of life of the father in this case. I do not perceive that the answer does affect the representation, and no affidavits are filed against the petition.’--Shelley’s _principles_ are here referred to, in connection with his _conduct_.