Lord Esher was one of the two other Judges, both concurring, who formed the Court of Appeal which granted the writ, and a few days subsequently he gave from his place in the House of Lords the following further statement of his judgment and views:— “As I was a party to the judgment, which seems to have been more misunderstood than any judgment I recollect, I, perhaps, may be excused from making an observation. It was urged before the Court of Appeal that by the law of England a husband may beat his wife with a stick if she refuses to obey him, and that if a wife refused her husband conjugal rights, whatever that phrase may mean, which I have never been able to make out, he may imprison her until she restores him conjugal rights, or satisfies him that she will. All that the Court of Appeal decided was that a husband cannot by the law of England, if the wife objects, lawfully do either of those things. Those intelligent people who have declared that the judgment is wrong must be prepared to maintain the converse—namely, that if a wife disobeys her husband he may lawfully beat her; and if she refuses him a restitution of conjugal rights he may imprison her, it was urged, in the cellar, or in the cupboard, or, if the house is large, in the house, by locking her in it and blocking the windows. I thought, and still think, that the law does not allow these things....”—(The _Times_, 17th April, 1891.) Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy further tells us that:— “To Lord Selborne the married women of this country owe a further debt of gratitude for his introduction in 1884 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of that session, which put an end to the punishment by imprisonment of the husband or wife who refused to obey the decree of the Court for restitution of conjugal rights. The arguments of Mr. Lankester and Mr. Finlay in the Clitheroe case, based upon this abolition of the power of the Court to imprison for disobedience, are known to everyone. It would be destructive not only to personal freedom, but a gross infraction of justice and common-sense, were a husband to be permitted to exercise on his own behalf and at his own pleasure a prerogative of punishment which had been withdrawn from the Court.