We have been listening this afternoon to statements made by Counsel, in which it appears that they complain because they cannot cross-examine, or they cannot examine, or they cannot do something or other. It seems to me that, upon the other hand, it is the Plaintiff who has the right of complaint, that he has been brought here with such a plea on the Record until the very last minute. That is very late, is it not? It is absolutely untrue that he ever did any one of those things. There is not one tittle of evidence to that effect, and nobody dare say so. It appears that Captain Burrows, who is one of the Defendants, was out in the Congo at an earlier year. I am not sure when; he returned to Europe on November 20, 1897. He was at that time a supporter of the Government in respect of the charges made by a person named Salusbury. In 1898 he brought out another book, called “The Land of the Pigmies,” against which I have nothing to say. It contained nothing at all in the shape of a charge against anybody in respect of this matter. He then went back again to the Congo, but he returned in 1901, and then commenced a correspondence between him and Commandant Liebrechts. There is an earlier letter in which he states that he is proposing to bring out another book. Later on there is correspondence as to which I agree, that it shows that he and the Belgian Government parted on terms not of dismissal of him, but upon a proposal being made that if he liked to place himself at their disposal for two years they would pay him a salary, and that he must be ready to accept any expedition on which he was asked to go. He declined that service. That was at the end of 1901. In the following year he published certain articles in the _Wide World_. They contained nothing at all about cruelties, as I understand, although they contained articles about the administration of the Congo Free State. That was in the year 1902; but when we get to the autumn of 1902 a new state of things commences, because up to that time you will see there is nothing to indicate that he had taken up a hostile position against either the administration of the Congo Free State or against any one who had been concerned in it. But on the 17th November things begin to assume a somewhat different complexion. There is the Agreement of the 17th November, 1902, made between Captain Burrows and Messrs. Everett & Co., under which the author warrants that the work is to be an original work. He names the work then as _The Congo Free State_. The publishers agree to pay him the sum of £250 on account, and a royalty of 15 per cent. On the 24th November, when that agreement was in force, a letter was written by Messrs. Everett & Co. to Commandant Liebrechts. Now the point of this letter is: Was the action of the Defendants _bona fide_ in this matter? Are they