I have received from Sir Robert Stout your letter to him dated 12th October, declining to compensate me in any way for [unclear: the] losses you had inflicted upon me, because "no other Estate within [unclear: the] Trust had benefited at my expense. "This, you know, is no reply [unclear: to] my letter, nor is it a question referred to in my letters to you upon which I have based my claims The questions at issue between us are, how far and to what extent I had suffered through acts of neglect [unclear: sonal] to yourself, such as the leaving my trust funds for long [unclear: priods] uninvested and for me quite unproductive; for depriving us (so [unclear: is] the judgment) of interest for 25 years on over £2000 of our Residue [unclear: ds] for retaining in hand since 1869 quite unproductive for very [unclear: many] years about £640 received from Rich, Short, Bell and others, [unclear: quit] unknown to us; for not selling portions of our Estate, though [unclear: used] by us and willing and intending purchasers, to do so, by which [unclear: as] lost fully £10,000; in failing to supply us with accounts, except [unclear: sauch] as were inaccurate and misleading; and in very many other ways [unclear: inficting] loss and injury upon me, without in the remotest way [unclear: gesting] where "others had benefited at my expense," and is not this [unclear: excuse]—pardon my saying so—very evasive indeed?

page 22

That it could be possible for any man possessing and [unclear: being] prompted by feelings of justice and integrity, and with great ability, [unclear: se] to neglect the sacred duties of his trust as to entail a loss upon his ward—a woman under disabilities—of several thousand pounds sad interest for 25 years, and then against her to plead the Statute of Limitations (literally meaning, does it not, "You found me out [unclear: toc] late ?") to shield him from the consequences of his own wrong doing shocks all one's instincts of probity and honour, and there I must [unclear: leawe] it. After this I shall hope not to have to write about or refer to this subject again; possibly some day a sluggish conscience may get a [unclear: rus] awakening, and then a tardy justice may be done to me. Your [unclear: desing] leaves me—almost under compulsion—an only alternative, that is [unclear: the] explain to others, who have a right to know, why I cannot [unclear: dischang] my obligations to them, and it appears to me that this can only [unclear: to] done by allowing them to get copies of some of my letters to [unclear: you] detailing as best I was able the nature of my claims upon yourself [unclear: aal] the way my Estate has been impoverished through your careless and utterly neglectful management, and, why the decision of the [unclear: Coun] appears to me harsh and inequitable, and in a way, why I thus [unclear: appef] against it. The Court holds that "ignorance of the existence of that cause of an action will not prevent the Statute running," though [unclear: is] this case my ignorance was created and abetted by yourself. I [unclear: anger] that you, my Trustee, assured me again and again by letters and [unclear: s] personal interviews that our Residue funds were exhausted and there small debit existed. Your books showed this to be the case. Further proof, if needed, was that in July 1881, you transferred from another account to Residue the sum of £85 14s 3d to cover this [unclear: deficience] You and you alone were in the fullest sense "party and privy" to [unclear: also] this wrong doing—I don't say fraudulent or even intentional wrong doing, but mistakes that with a very little care could and should has been avoided. Your books, your letters, your personal assurances myself, the accounts you sent me, all concealed the true facts from [unclear: ne] all misled, and the true "information" I submit was certainly [unclear: wish] held, yet I, a woman, and my dear children are to be punished [unclear: wish] cruel severity because we did not mistrust you, and did not [unclear: ascertis] how the accounts ought to have stood; but of course I must bow to [unclear: his] judgment of the Court which holds that "there was nothing of [unclear: the] nature of concealment on the part of the Trustees so as to make [unclear: it] equitable on their parts that they should take advantage [unclear: of] Statute."

The following has been furnished me:—In the case of [unclear: Thorm] Heard, quoted to sustain this position, Kay L.J. in the [unclear: judgment] "here there was no moral complicity, the Trustees were not [unclear: par] privy to it. The case seems a very hard one and he came [unclear: to] decision against the plaintiff (a legatee) very reluctantly," [unclear: and] plaintiff lost £535, and received warm kindly sympathy from the [unclear: bend] My Trustee was party and privy to all; in fact, himself was the [unclear: aut] of all the wrongs done. He misled me, and withheld true "information" from me, and I must lose over £5000 (p) and get no [unclear: symp] page 23 but I am promised a number of authorities upon this question which I am assured will not sustain the doctrine of the Court here, which, if I get in time, I will send with this. And, further, the Court holds "that each amount wrongly paid was ascertained or ascertainable so soon as it was debited in the books." With great respect I venture to dispute this, and I may, I think, be pardoned if I attempt to disprove it. How in the absence of any accounts given me except such scraps as were [unclear: inaccurate] and misleading, could I ascertain what they were ? Mr. [unclear: lie] claims exemption from duties and consequences for [unclear: neglecting] which no Court has any right to impose upon him." I presume I [unclear: light] have doubted your oft repeated assurance that the Residue funds [unclear: id] been properly and rightly " exhausted," and, doubting you, have [unclear: iked] for the Residue Accounts, but of what avail would that have [unclear: ben?] The books were all wrong, and did not contain the items [unclear: rerred] to in my letter of 22nd August, as the "fourth account," [unclear: aounting] to nearly £5000; nor has the Residue Account ever yet [unclear: been] credited with the £640 paid by Rich, Short, and others. Even [unclear: id] I got accounts, for me they would have been a thousand times more [unclear: of a] Chinese puzzle" than I am told they were to the Court for days, [unclear: with] eight counsel to assist to try to disentangle the complex skein, and [unclear: but] for the great ability displayed by Mr. Woodhouse, the fog seemed [unclear: ipenetrable.] But these items, amounting to nearly £5000, have, I [unclear: y] never yet got into the books at all; they have never been [unclear: passed] the Trustees, or been submitted to them, and except by yourself are [unclear: white] unknown to anyone of them. How, then, I venture to ask, was [unclear: the] estate of the Residue Fund ever ascertainable till it got into Court? [unclear: And] even when the last lot of amended accounts were rendered after the others were withdrawn as one by one the different items were objected to, you then as firmly asserted that they were accurate and properly charged. Therefore, I respectfully submit that for me to have [unclear: t] any time attempted to ascertain the state of the Residue Fund was [unclear: a] absolute impossibility except by the process of this suit, and that by [unclear: t] became disclosed, and for the first time, the correct state of the [unclear: indue] balance; and that "if a Statute runs against a Residue it must [unclear: a] from the time the Residue is ascertained and not from the death of [unclear: he] Testator "; and if this be so, I think I am entitled to interest as [unclear: per] at the end (p); instead of which I am punished with an [unclear: unird] of severity because I, a woman, did not and could not find out [unclear: fore] how you had mismanage 1 our affairs, though you now state that [unclear: the] Court sustains your administration," and apparently you, the [unclear: thor] of all this wrong, will get off pretty well scot free!! The [unclear: folriog] has just been given to me " In cases of fraud or mistake [unclear: Courts] Equity hold that the Statute runs from discovery, because the laches [unclear: the] plaintiff commence from that date," Wm. Exors. p. 2034. One [unclear: ber] matter: Mr. Chapman certainly trapped me when under the [unclear: lie] of attacking my husband he asked "if I had perfect confidence in [unclear: ir] Isaac and that he would look after my interest. Had I said "No," [unclear: might] have been misconstrued. I replied in the affirmative, and [unclear: let] by the Court has been held to mean that I relied upon him and page 24 not upon you to look after my affairs. Such I assert most firmly [unclear: ma] not the case. Had it been so, the mistakes now disclosed could [unclear: ne] have remained undiscovered, nor would Mr. Isaac be able to say [unclear: the] till this suit he is convinced he never saw the books, certainly [unclear: never] examined them, and never saw a statement of the Residue [unclear: Acco] except the inaccurate scraps referred to, nor does he believe was [unclear: ou] ever rendered. The fact was, and no one knows it so well as yourself I often expressed my wish to him that you should not be [unclear: interf] with, but left untrammelled and uncontrolled, and these wishes of [unclear: mi] he loyally carried out, and now gets pretty well all the blame [unclear: for] neglecting duties which it is said "the Court had no right to [unclear: in] him with." If I feel and write bitterly (I wish I could avoid it) let [unclear: the] loss (explained in detail in my letter of 8th February, last year) [unclear: e] fully £30,000 through your wanton neglect be my excuse. I [unclear: firm] believe, as someone has said, that there has been no single day [unclear: sin] the first meeting of Trustees in March, 1869, that I have not [unclear: suff] and often very acutely through your utterly careless administration [unclear: n] my estate.

Of the Judge who presides over this Court, I can only say that [unclear: t] esteem for himself personally and the high estimate that is formed [unclear: i] his great legal attainments, coupled with a deep sense of [unclear: justice] universal, nor do I doubt that it is thoroughly well merited, yet [unclear: m] conviction remains that in my case he has been misled.

In circulating or publishing these letters, as I hear it is [unclear: wish] they should be, I refer to those dated 4th March 1893, 8th [unclear: Feb] 1894, 22nd August 1895, and this letter, will you permit me to [unclear: giv] with them (this permission I am advised I must get) your [unclear: replies-] such they can be called ?