The Aberystwith Observer

i ENGLAND AND EGYPT. CONSTANTINOPLE, Sunday Night. An Imperial Irade has been issued appointing Mouktar Pasha Special Ottoman Commissioner in Egypt, in accordance With the terms of the Anglo- Turkish Convention negotiated with Sir H. D. Wolff. No better choice could have been made than this dis- tinguished General. CAIRO, Sunday Night. The news of Mukhtar Pasha's nomination as Otto- man Commissioner has given general satisfaction here. He will start immediately for Egypt, with all his family, and intends hiring a private residence, having respectfully declined the Khedive's offer of a palace. It is high time that he should come, as public opinion has already begun to doubt the good faith of the Porte, and the French organ, in a leading article, has echoed this feeling by saying that the delay in the nomination of the Ottoman Commissioner has produced suspicion as to the success of the Anglo- Turkish Convention, and the forced inaction of Sir H. Drummond Wolff renders all hopes of a good result quite illusory. The French journal was, however, wsong in speak- ing of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's inaction, as, in spite of indisposition, be has been hard at work for the last week, preparing the bases of arrangements to be afterwards worked out with the assistance of Mukhtar. Lord Norfchbrook's project will, I believe, be taken throughout as the skeleton, and be adopted with small modifications only on the questions of the army and the police. This latter department needs urgent at- tention and energetic help if Baker Pasha is to be held any longer responsible for the public safety. For instance, for the last three months the whole battalion of the Reserve has been without a superior officer, though nominations have been approved by the Council and the salaries voted in the Budget, and Baker Pasha has written repeatedly to the authori- ties on the subject, finally, in despair, disclaiming all responsibility for this body of men unless officers are given them. There is no news from Upper Egypt. The general impression in military circles here is that the mild scare which has been prevailing for the last three or four days is a groundless one, the principal reason for this view being the apparent impossibility of a rebel advance in force across thousands of miles of country deserted by the inhabitants, and affording no supplies whatever. The Durham Regiment left at eight this evening for Assouan, relieving the Berkshire, who in turn push on to Korosko, the Camercns reinforcing the advanced posts at Askasheh and Koshay. (Through Reuter's Agency.) CAIRO, Nov. 8. The Khedive has received a telegram from Kiamil Pasha, the Turkish Grand Vizier, informing him that Ahmed Mouktar Pasha has been appointed Turkish Commissioner for Egypt. No date, however, is yet fixed for his departure from Constantinople.

An Ohio school committee must have been puzzled to decide which of two candidates for a schoolmarm- ship was the better: fitted for the post the young woman who averred that respiration was the pers- piring of the body, or her rival, who believed emphasis" was the putting more distress on one word than another; definitions worthy of a place beside those achieved by the medical student responsi- ble for Hypothesis," something that happens to a man after death; and Irony, a substance found in mineral wells, which is carefully preserved in bottles, and sold by druggists as tincture of iron." All abroad, too, was the intelligent New York health officer," who having testified that his district was afflicted with highjinnicks, being pressed as to what he understood hygienics" to mean, answered: A bad smell arising from dirty water."

THE A-RMSTHOJSG ABDUCTION CASE. CONVICTION OF STEAD AND JARRETT. Saturday was the twelfth day of the trial of the Armstrong abduction case before Mr. Justice Lopes at the Old Bailey. It will be remembered that Mr. William Thomas Stead, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette; Mr. Sampson Jacques, a member of the staff of the same newspaper; and Mr. Bramwell Booth, an official of the Salvation Army; and Rebecca Jarrett, were in custody for the misdeamour of having, contrary to the 24th and 24th Yict., chap. 100, sec. 55, unlawfully taken and caused to be taken one Eliza Armstrong, an unmarried girl under the age of 16, out of the possession of her parents against their will. Counsel for the defendants having addressed the jury, and the Attorney-General having replied, Mr. Justice Lope3 summed up the case. He stated that the charge against the defendants Jarrett, Stead, Jacques, and Booth was that they had unlawfully conspired together to take a girl named Eliza Arm- strong from the custody of her parents without their consent; and although the case had unhappily occu- pied a very long time, he was of opinion that nothing that could throw any light upon a question that bad created such public interest should be withheld from the jury, and they should be made acquainted with every fact connected with the charge. He was of opinion that the Attorney-General had exercised a wise discretion in trying the charge of abduction, be- cause it gave all the defendants an opportunity of giving their own explanation of their conduct upon oath; and he considered that it was most satisfactory that four of the defendants had availed themselves of this privilege and the jury might therefore be considered to have all the fa?ts before them. The jury bad been asked by some of the learned counsel for defendants to return a verdict which, in his opinion, would be contrary both to law and evidence but he was sure that they would not allow themselves to be led away by such an appeal, and that they would return a verdict founded upon law and evidence only. He went on to say that there was no doubt that a series of filthy and disgusting articles bad been issued from the Pall Mall Gazette, articles which were, undoubtedly, calculated to do a great deal of mischief to the young and innocent. That had nothing to do with this, and the only point they had to consider was whether the defendants were guilty of taking Eliza. Armstrong from the custody1 of her parents without their consent. It did not appear to be disputed that Jarrett and Stead did take the girl away from the parents, and the only issue that re- mained for them to say was whether the taking away of the girl was without her father's consent. He had grave doubts at first whether he ought to leave any other questions to them, but he should leave another question, which was whether the parents were aware that the girl was to be taken away for immoral pur- poses. This would apply to Stead and Jarrett only, and the remaining point for their consideration was whether Booth and Jacques had aided and abetted in taking away the girl from her parents without their consent. It would be an important question for the jury to consider m to whether the possession of the child was obtained by fraud; and it was his duty to tell them that if this was the case, the consent was null and void, and it was no consent at all on the part of the parents. Part of the defence appeared to be that all that bad been done was done with good motives, but even assuming this to be the case, it was his duty to tell them that this was no answer whatever to the present charge; and that the law of the land could not be violated from mere caprice or to carry out some object that was supposed to be good and lawful. If this sort of thing was to be allowed they would no longer be governed by fixed law; but would be sub- jected to all sorts of caprices, and have the law con- stantly violated in order that persons who entertained certain ideas might carry out what they supposed to be a good object. The learned judge went or. to say that the case against Jarrett appeared to be that the mother of the child had been deceived by her, and had allowed the woman to take the child away as a servant; and the answer to this was that the mother had sold the child to Jarrett for immoral purposes. He reminded them that the father of the child was ignorant of what had happened, and believed that the child was going to service. The mother denied that there was any truth in the charge made against her, and the charge rested entirely upon the evidence of Jarrett, who was a woman described as being steeped in iniquity but it was said that she bad ceased to be a sinner, and had abandoned her old habits. But the evidence did not seem in any way to support this idea. On the contrary, it seemed that only last year she had lapsed into her old habits, and it was evident that she had led a life of vice and crime; and it was upon the evidence of such a woman as this that the jury were asked to say that Mrs. Armstrong and Mrs. Broughton had acted in the mercenary and heartless manner that had been suggested. He said that the story told by Jarrett in the witness-box was not only inconsistent with the admitted facts of the case, but also incon- sisfent with the case she had set up. He reminded them that Jarrett was contradicted by the mother, by the girl herself, and three other witnesses, and yet they were asked to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses, and rely upon the evidence of such a woman as Jarrett was admitted to be. The girl Eliza Armstrong appeared to be a truthful, innocent child, and the letter that she wrote to her mother while staying at the headquarters cf the Salvation Army was a striking proof that she was such a girl as he had described. She had been, no doubt, brought up in a low locality, and he asked them whether, having regard to this fact, she should have been such an innocent and affectionate child as she appeared to be. The mother bad given her evidence, and it was said that she was addicted to drink but he asked them whether they would be justified from this fact in drawing the inference that she was a wicked, heartless woman, who was capable of selling her own offspring to a life of disgrace and ruin. He said it appeared to him that the whole conduct of the mother, and the letters she wrote, were utterly inconsistent with the suggestion that she could have acted in the way stated. Everything showed that the parents were very much distressed at the loss of their child, and that they did all they could to regain possession of her, and he asked them whether this was not also inconsistent with the idea that the mother was such a wicked, heartless, and degraded creature as Jarrett suggested her to be. The learned judge next referred to the conduct of Mrs. Broughton, and be said that all that appeared to be suggested against her was that there were discrepancies between the statements made by her and those that were made by Mrs. Arm- strong bat the question for the jury was not whether there were some slight discrepancies in their evi- dence, but whether, substantially, they were speaking the truth. As to the evidence of the father, it ap- peared to him that there was not the slightest impu- tation against him. It was not disputed that when he heard that his wife had sent the child away with- out his consent, he was very angry, and that he struck his wife and knocked her down for having done so. He considered it very possible that Jarrett, having undertaken the task of procuring a child, and finding herself unable to do so, had resorted to the expedient of procuring the girl Eliza Armstrong by fraud and false representations; and that she had deceived Stead altogether; and that if he had been aware of the real facts he would have indignantly refused to have anything to do with such a transaction. He then read the statement made by the girl Eliza Armstrong, and said that the jury would consider whether it was not a straightforward story of that which bad taken place between her and the prisoner Jarrett after she had been taken away from her mother's house. It had been said on behalf of the defendants that the mother had not acted with proper care and caution in allowing her child to be taken away; but this was not the question. Persons in the condition of the Armstrongs were naturally desirous to obtain employment for their children, and the representations made to her by Jarrett were calculated to deceive her and throw her off her guard. He asked the jury whether it was probable that any wicked, infamous mother, such as Mrs. Armstrong was suggested to be, would have sold her child with- out knowing how much she was to receive, and yet this was what was suggested to have occurred by Jarrett ? The sum of £1. appeared to have been mentioned, and subsequently the sum of £5, but the mother denied having anything, and what she was to have was to have been left to Jarrett's generosity. He asked them to consider whether this was a pro- bable state of things. Again, when the mother read the article in the Pall Mall Gazette, she appeared to have at once suspected that something was wrong, and the very next day she went to Marylebone Police- court and she stated what had taken place. The article in the Pall Mall Gazette so clearly pointed to her daughter that Mrs. Armstrong appeared to have at once recognised the case, and became alarmed; and the jury would consider whether this conduct was consis- tent with the suggestion that she had sold her child for the vile purpose stated by Jarrett. They would also not forget that the mother had solemnly sworn that there was no truth in the story. Then there is the story of going to Milton-street, Poland-street, and so on, and then Jarrett goes to Paris. Now what does she say about the Post-office orders ? She say a she bought them in Paris, but Mrs. Broughton denies that she ever received them. We have the evidence of Professor Stuart as to this Paris story, but there is no confirmation about the purchase of these Post- office orders. Jarrett distinctly says that Mrs. Bi-oughton is a respectable woman, so far as she knows. Can you imagine, then, how she could go to Mrs. Broughton's for the purpose of buying a child ? Can you understand, by-and-by, when she comes to relate the circumstances of June 2 and 3 to Mr. Stead, she describes this woman, Mrs. Broughton, of whom she says she knows nothing immoral, as a brothel-keeper ? She says she believes she told Stead all that pas wed as truthfully as she could. This is on the evening of the Tuesday, the relation of which sub- sequently appears in the Pall Mall Gazette. Stead, you know, says he was most careful to be accurate. This woman, whom we are asked to believe in the face of all the witnesses for the prosecution, whose evidence cannot be impeached, says she did not know the Lily of that article was Eliza. Why, in the original MSS., the name Lily was written, and not Eliza. She told Stead she bad agreed to get a girl for £5. She admits that, and that was a lie. No money had been mentioned. According to her own statement, she is contradicting herself. She did not, she says, tell Stead the girl's father thought she was going to a situation, but Stead directly contradicted that, and is concerned about it; and yet on evidence like this-I will not use the expression which was on my mind- i you are asked to dismiss the evidence of the prosecu- tion as unreliable. When asked why Mrs. Broughton should have written to Wimbledon she was unable to give any explanation, except that she ntight have mentioned it to the woman. Then you have the letter in which she signs her name as Mrs. Sullivan." Why did she assume that name ? Ac- cording to her. she had never told Mrs. Broughton anything about marriage. She admitted that she intended to lepresent Hope-cottage, Winchester, as her home. In the witness-box she said that she thought that the letter would bring them to a sense of the iniquity they had perpetrated. I have already said that this letter from Jarrett, dated the 10th June, was a most valuable piece of evidence- the most valuable, perhaps, of the whole evidence. I will tell you why, and you may agree with me or not. This latter is written just a week after the girl has gone, and it goes to corroborate the story for the prosecution that the girl was to write. In that letter I she informs Mrs. Broughton that the girl is all right, and that she had bought her a lot more clothes. Just let us pause for a moment and inquire what wa3 the object of writing the letter. The case for the defence was that the child was sold for violation, and was it not extraordinary that the mother, if that was the case, should care to bear from the child, who by that time bad been ruined ? Is the writing of the letter consistent with the case for the defence ? Is it not a remarkable corroboration of the story told for the prosecution ? In this letter she talks of going to her home and being on a visit. Jarrett felt, a week having gone by, that this mother, whom she knew to be kind and affectionate, would become apprehen- sive that Stead would learn the true state of the case, and that the terrible deception she had practised would be absolutely exposed. Take that letter, and if there is any weight in the observations I have addressed to you, give them weight. If not, reject them. Consider whether that letter is not inconsistent with the story told by the defence, and absolutely con- sistent with that told by the prosecution, viz., that this child was never sold for purposes of prostitution, but sent, as Mrs. Armstrong believed, to be used as a servant in the ordinary way. You remember the phrase, Give my love to my father and my mother." I asked Jarrett why she used those words, and she said, I thought this letter would bring them to a sense of the iniquity they had perpetrated." I should very much like to know how it was that that neither Mr. Stead nor Mr. Booth tried to bring the mother to a sense of the iniquity which they thought she had perpetrated. Then Jarrett goes on to speak about other matters. Cross-examined by Mr. Stead, she said: I told you I had been in the habit of pur- chasing girls." She also said I saw Booth that night. I told him what Stead wanted me to do, and Booth said I was to do whatever Stead told me." That was on Whit Monday, before Jarrett went to Broughtons, 'and was of importance as connecting Booth with the case. (The Court here adjourned for luncheon.) Upon resuming his lordship said there was no doubt that the Royal Commission had made an extremely strong report upon the traffic in girls, and he did not for one moment say that there was not a great amount of credit due to Mr. Stead for his generous and philanthropic motives. Jacques had told him of the character of the house of Madame Mourey, and Stead had replied that if such things were done there they must prove it. They did obtain this girl, Eliza Armstrong, and Jacques was the man who went with her to Madame Mourey's house. His lordship then said that after that Jacques went with Stead, the girl, and Jarrett, to Poland-street, and he was then dismissed. His lordship then said I can- not finish this part of the case without saying a word about Dr. Heywood Smith. Anything more discredit- able to a medical man I cannot imagine, and I grieve to think that anyone belonging to that great profes- sion should have done anything so discreditable. I have now dealt with the evidence as far as Jarrett and Stead are concerned. With regard to Jacques and Booth the question is whether they aided and abetted. If you come to the conclusion that they earnestly believed that this girl was sold for an im- moral purpose, with the consent of her father, I do not think you can find them guilty. Jacques waa not put in the witness-box, as you know. His case is different in that respect to the others. There is nothing to contradict on his part. He admits it all, and says, "Admitting all that, it doesn't make me a party." In order to find that they were all parties in the sense intended, in order to acquit them, you must be of opinion that they believed that the father's consent for the child going for immoral pur- poses had been obtained, and bad reasonable grounds for so believing. That is the case as regards Booth and Jacques. If you think that all or either of the defendants assisted Jarrett you will say so by your verdict. I am very sorry that I have detained you at such length, and although I place these series of questions in your hands, you will not forget that the material point is this: Was the girl taken against the material point is this: Was the girl taken against the will of the father ? That is the material question, and it is one to which I would draw your particular attention asking you to bear in mind that it is not suggested for the defence that the father knew that she was going to other than respectable service. The Foreman asked if there was any objection to have the first count divided, as the jury felt a difficulty in the joint and equal responsibility. j The Judge That is not a matter for you, but for I me to deal with. I tell you most distinctly that if the child was in the possession of the father, it is the will of the father that must prevail, and his will only. The Attorney-General: May I suggest that the jury desire to distinguish between Jarrett and Stead in the first instance. The Jury: That is so. The Foreman: Our difficulty is this that if Jar- rett obtained the child by false pretences, we feel that it was directly contrary to Stead's directions, This is confirmed, in our opinion, by the remarks which fell from your lordship, that if Jarrett had told Stead how she had become possessed of the child he would have indignantly dismissed her from his service. We find it, therefore, difficult as business men to find him guilty of a criminal responsibility which he would have repudiated. The Judge: Do you mean as to the purpose ? I will add to the question if you like. Mr. Charles Matthews suggested that after Jarrett the words or either of them should be inserted, as the question main. The judge altered the question as follows Did Jarrett or either of them take Eliza Armstrong out of the possession and against the will of the father?" The foreman said that no personal feeling should influence the jury in their verdict, and they then retired at twenty minutes to four o'clock. After an absence of three hours the jury returned into court. The Clerk of Arraigns: Did Stead and Jarrett, or either of them, take Eliza Armstrong out of the pos- session of her father against his will ? The Foreman Yes, he did. Stead did not have the consent of the father to use her as he did. The Judge Then about Jarrett. Did Jarrett take Eliza Armstrong out of the possession of her father against his will ? The Foreman Yes, my lord. The Clerk of Arraigns Did Jarrett,'by falsely re- presenting that she wanted Eliza Armstrong as a servant, induce the mother to let her go ? The Foreman We are not agreed. The Clerk of Arraigns Did the mother consent to her going to be used for immoral purposes ? The Foreman: No. (Applause in court.) f The Judge The fourth question: If for immoral s purposes, was the taking against the will of the father ? "—is rendered unnecessary by the answers already given. In further reply to the Clerk of Arraigns, the Foreman said the verdict of the jury was that neither Jacques nor Booth were parties to the taking of Eliza Armstrong out of the possession of her father. The Judge: I must tell you, gentlemen, that is a verdict of guilty against Stead and Jarrett, and not guilty against Booth and Jacques. Do you find that ? The Foreman Yes, my lord. We say that Stead did not have the consent of the father for the use of child to which he put her, and that he was misled by Jarrett. The jury trust that the Government will secure the proper administration of the Act just passed for the protection of young children. The Judge I quite agree with that. His Lordship then handed to the foreman the letter addressed to the jury, to which allusion has already been made. He said it was a most improper letter. The jury having received it, the Foreman said they quite concurred with his lordship, and the letter was then handed to the Solicitor to the Treasury to take such action as might be considered necessary. It was stated by Mr. Poland that there was another indictment against Stead, Jarrett, Jacques, and the other defendant Mourey, for indecent assault, and his Lordship thereupon said he would postpone sentence until the matter bad been gone into. The trial would commence on Tuesday morning. The Foreman made some remarks which, in the noise caused by the general exodus from the court, could not be distinctly heard. They were understood to be to the effect that the jury trusted a lenient sentence would be imposed upon Mr. Stead. The Judge: In sentencing Mr. Stead my action will be strengthened by the representation you have made. His lordship then thanked the jury for their attendance, and again highly complimented them on the care and attention which they had brought to bear in the discharge of their duty. The court then adjourned until Tuesday morning. The proceedings in connection with the Armstrong abduction case terminated on Tuesday, and resulted in varying sentences of imprisonment being passed upon Mr. Stead, Mr. Jacques, Rebecca Jarrett, and Madame Mourey. When Mr. Justice Lopes took his seat at 20 minutes to 11 o'clock, a fresh jury was empanelled to try an indictment for an indecent assault on the child Eliza Armstrong, on the night of June 3, the defendants in this case being Madame Mourey, of 3, Milton-street, Dorset-square Rebecca Jarrett, Mr. Stead, and Mr, Jacques. Mr. Bramwell Booth, who was bound over on Saturday night to surrender on an indictment charging him with con- spiracy, was present. The Attorney-General, after telling him that he need not go into the dock, in- formed his lordship that after the verdict of the jury on Saturday he had decided not to proceed with that indictment, and that no further charge against Mr. B. Booth would be proceeded with. Mr. Justice Lopes expressed approval of the course which bad been adopted, but said it was much to be regretted that Mr. Booth did not give up the child when it was de- manded. The Attorney-General then opened the case for the prosecution with regard to the assault upon the child, the act upon which the indictment was founded being the examination of tLe girl by the midwife and pointed out that there could be no justi- fication for this conduct. The girl Eliza Armstrong was again called upon to relate the painful details of the examination. Mrs. Stead, who was a pretty con- stant attendant during the first trial, was again pre- sent. Mr. Bramwell Booth, released from attend- ance in the dock, now occupied a seat at the solicitors' table, while Mrs. Bramwell Booth was seated among some ladies in another part of the court. The pre- sence of ladies, many of them young, was remarkable, considering the nature of the evidence. None of the defendants tendered themselves as witnesses, Jarrett, being called upon to address the jury, stood up, and stated that she had nothing to say except that she had done a good many bad things in her life, but she was thankful that this affair was one good thing. Nor did Mr. Stead address the jury. Mr. Jacques, on the other hand, delivered a vigorous speech in his own defence, and in an effort of decla- mation he accidentally sent some papers lying on the ledge of the dock flying into the well of the court to the amusement of the spectators. Both Mr. Stead and Jacques partook of luncheon in the dock during the interval of adjournment. By a coincidence the jury retired at exactly the same moment that the pre- vious jury on Saturday left the court to consider their verdict-viz., at 20 minutes to four. Butthe analogy did not extend to the length of the absence. After 40 minutes the jury came back into conrt, and returned a verdict of guilty against all the defendants, recom- mending all except Mourey to the merciful considera- tion of the Court. Mr. Justice Lopes then proceeded to pass sentence. I Addressing the defendants severally, his lordship said William Thomas Stead, it will be convenient if I deal with your case first. You have been found guiity under two indictments; the one charging you with the abduction of Eliza Armstrong and the other charging you with an indecent assault. I am pre- pared to give you credit for good motives from your point of view, but at the same time I cannot dis- guise from my mind that you have acted throughout recklessly and against the advice of all those whom you thought fit to consult. Believing in the existence of the most horrible depravity, it appears to me you made statements about it which when challenged you were unable to verify. You then determined to vorify the truth of your assertions by an experiment on a child, who was to be bought and subjected to all that a real victim would have been, but that it was to be rescued before any barm was done. For this purpose you selected a person of alleged reformed character, but who to your knowledge bad passed a. life-an infamous life, I may say—pandering to and encouraging the very sins, which you say-and I believe yon-you were so anxious to repress. You chose your own agent, and as might have been antici- pated, having regard to her antecedents, which you full well knew, the agent deceived you.. A jury have so found, and so I believe. The result is your experiment, instead of proving what it was intended to prove, has absolutely and entirely failed. A jury have found that Eliza Armstrong, who was subjected t) that experiment, was never bought for immoral purposes at all. I regret to say you thought fit to publish in the Pall Mall Gazette a distorted account of the case of Eliza Armstrong; and you deluged, some months ago, our streets and the whole country with an amount of filth which, as I fear, has tainted the minds of the children that you were so anxious to protect, and which has been, and I don't hesitate to say it, and ever will be, a disgrace to journalism. (Some applause, at once suppressed.) An irreparable injury has been done to the parents of this child. They have been subjected to the indelible scandal and ignominy in the eyes of the nation of having sold their child for purposes of violation. The child has been dragged through dirt, examined by a woman who certainly appears-at any rate, in your opinion appeared-to be a vile creature, subjected to chloroform, taken off to a brothel, sub- iect to chloroform a second time, and than sent to the south of France, her letters to her mother sup- pressed, and the child refused when demanded. All this has been done by you, relying upon the state- ment of a woman whose character you knew, and whom you entrusted with money-and I think this is no small part of the offence you committed—to bribe parents to commit the greatest sin they could commit, to sell their own children for immoral purposes. Now, I feel that I cannot, that I ought not, to punish you as I should have punished a person guilty of abduc- tion, actuated by sordid and sensual motives. I am willing to give effect as to any good motives you had, as far as I possibly can give effect to the recom- mendation of the jury which they made on Saturday night when they returned their verdict. But I can- not forget that you are an educated man, who should have known that the law cannot be broken to promote any supposed good, and that the sanctity of private life cannot be invaded for the furtherance of views of any individual, who, as you seem to have done, may be inclined to think that the end sanctifies the means. Now, in these circumstances—and I need not say that I have given the most intense consideration to your case and considered it with the utmost anxiety -I have come to the conclusion that I cannot pass a iything but a substantial sentence, and it is that you be imprisoned without hard labour for three calendar months. I now come to your case, Rebecca. Jarrett; and there is no doubt a mitigating circum- stance in your case, but there is also an aggravating cir- cumstance. The mitigating circumstance is that I fully believe the evidence, and I believe you were pressed into this service I don't think you volunteered it. I think it was upon earnest pressure you undertook what you did. But then after a most patient hearing, and having regard to the finding of the jury, I am fully convinced that you misled your employer, Mr. Stead. Under these circumstances, the sentence I pass upon you is that you be imprisoned without hard labour for six calendar months. Sampson Jacques, I now deal with your case, You have only been found guilty upon one indictment. You have been acquitted of the charge of abduction; I don't hesitate to say properly acquitted. I quite agree with the verdict the jury found in that case. Of course, I must look at it only by the light of the evidence, and I have no reason to think upon the evidence that you knew, or had any reasonable grounds for knowing that the child had been taken out of the possession of the father against his will. You therefore stand charged with this indecent assault only. The sentence upon you is that you be imprisoned without hard labour for one calendar month. Louise Mourey, I cannot look at your case in the same light as I look at the others. I have considered it with much anxiety. It has been stated and stated over and over again by those who are charged with you that you are a professional abortionist, and that you obtain your living in that way. That statement proceeds from them only. I am not in a position tn say whether it is correct or not. I trust it is not correct. But I don't think I should be justified in acting upon it. as correct. If I had evidence before me which would lead me to think that you were a pro- fessional abortionist and you had gained your liveli- hood in the way stated, I should have subjected you to the highest punishment the law enables me to impose. You have been found guilty of an indecent assault, and of a most serious indecent assault, on this child of 13 years, at night or late in the evening, who was brought to you by people of whom you knew nothing. You were asked to examine that child, and you examined her in the way described. I fear very much that you must at that time have known or had reason to suspect that the child was intended for outrage. At any rate, I know this—you could have been actuated by no good motives. I know this, too—you received payment and reward for what you did. Whether you received as much as has been said for the chloroform, I know not; but, according to the account you yourself gave to Inspector Borner, you received 20s. for the exami- nation. Under these circumstances, not knowing whether you deserve the imputations cast upon you, to the full extent, the sentence that I pass upon you is that you be imprisoned with hard labour for six calendar months.

JUisccllancoits Jntclligenxxi HOME, FOREIGN, AKD COLONIAL CORN AVERAGES.—The following are the average prices of British corn for last week, as received trom the inspectors and officers of Excise Wheat, 31s. Id.; barley, 30s. 3d.; oats, 18s. lid. per imperial qr. Corres- ponding week last year: Wheat, 328.; barley, 31s. lOd.; oats, 19s. 4d. FOREIGN LIVE STOCK AND FRESH MIMT.-The arrivals of live stock and fresh meat at Liverpool daring the past week from American and Canadian ports amounted to 1296 cattle, 551 sheep, 11,213 quarters of beef, and 485 carcases of mutton, against the preceding week's imports of 2457 cattle, 920 sheep, 10,020 quarters of beef, and 590 carcases of mutton, showing a decrease in the shipment of live stock and mutton, but a slight increase in fresh beef. The con- veying steamers were as follows: Oxenholme, 363 cattle, and 299 sheep; Kansas, 631 cattle, and 860 quarters of beef; Lake Winnipog, 132 cattle, 352 sheep, 860 quarters of beef, and 60 carcases of mutton; Helvetia, 170 cattle, 940 quarters of beef, and 100 carcases of mutton; British King, 924 quarters of beef Pavocia, 2000 quarters of beef Britannic, 840 quarters of beef and 75 carcases of mutton City of Montreal, 1560 quarters of beef and 100 carcases of mutton; Wyoming, 2720 quarters of beef and 100 carcases of mutton and Adriatic, 700 quarters of beef and 50 carcases of mutton. VENICE.—The Piazza of St. Mark's at Venice is being repaved, and the opportunity has been taken to search for the remains of the ancient buildings which formerly stood on the site of the present square. Probably the excavations will occupy two or three years, as it is in" tended to determine the original area of the Piazza, and to look especially for traces of the native church of St. Giminiano, built in 552, and of the wall raised against the Hungarian pirates about 900. Some valuable twelfth-century sculptures have already been found in the mud. A PARISIAN NOVELTY.-A "Convicts Beershop" is one of the curiosities of Paris just now—a caf6 fully arranged as a realistic copy of the galleys. The waiters appear as convicts, with the orthodox green cap, and bring the customer his bock in a drinking" cup shaped like the heavy weight attached to the convicts' ankles, while the head officials of the esta- blishment wear the gaolers' uniform. As a great treat the soupe des Canaques is occasionally given-a New Caledonian concoction much relished by the convicts, and duly manufactured by the keeper of the caf6, a famous Oommunist who has served his time beyond seas. The number of these naturalistic restaurants rapidly increases in Paris, and a Rabelaisian cafe—the Abbey of Thelema-will be the next novelty' THE PARIS EXHIBITION. — Doubts having been expressed as to the intention of the French Government to proceed with the International Exhibition of 1889, the Paris Municipality, by 47 to 6, has expressed desire that the works should be promptly commenced. A CITY ART GALLERY. The arrangements for opening a permanent gallery filled with the works of art in the possession of the City are nearly completed. The gallery will be in a portion of the old Jaw courts 10 Guildhall-yard. The appointment of a curator is under consideration, and as soon as that official is appointed the gallery will be opened. at A SUCCESSFUL JOURNALIST.—The veteran journalist and critic Robert Springer, who has just died a Berlin, was originally a compositor. He will be chiefly remembered by his valuable contributions to Goethe literature—"Weimars K las si echo Statten," "D19 Klassischen Statten von Jena and Ilmenau, Anna Amalia von Weimar und ihre Poetische Tafelrunde, and others. INDIAN LITERATURE.—The total number of books and periodicals published in Madias during last year was 818. Of these 142 were in English, 539 in the vernaculars of the presidency, and 76 in the Indian classical languages. The most noteworthy literary feature of the year was the great increase in the of original works in the vernaculars, which were ompared with 225 in the previous year. HUGE GOVERNMENT OFFICES.—Two hundred men are busy working upon the immense new granite buildups devoted to the State, war, and Navy Washington. This mammoth building within years, at furthest, will be a finished structure. It already cost about 9,000,000 dols, and when it is its aggregate will foot up at least 10,250,000 dols. the largest building in Washington, and is said to f> the largest granite building in the world. It C°VJ10 about 4| acres of ground, or an acre more than v* Capitol.. g TRAVELLING JURIES.—The French Governments just created a certain number of travelling juries. is a modified form of an institution established by. jt first Republic. In the organic law of the Insti*? was ordained that the Institut was to select yeaW citizens to travel abroad and collect information use to science, commerce, and agriculture. These scienti travellers will not be appointed by the Academy Sciences or the whole Institut, but by a special admin trative commission on the basis of a competitive examination. DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.—A dissolution of cliament in November is a comparatively rare incident. Since the early pait of the 16th century there been only three November dissolutions—namely) 1 1558,1701, and 1868. Of the months in which diss?* tions have been most freqnent during thai: PERLF\! March stands the first with 15; April next with 1 July follows with 10; January, June, and Decent* with 8; February with 7; May and September with apiece; August with 4; November comes next with > and last on the list October figures with the mode number of 2. THE WELSH LANGUAGE.—The spread of ELEMENT^ education in Wales under the national code does n seem to have had the effect of discouraging t.0 persistence of the Welsh language, as many Pe°?:0 thought it would. The inspectors both in North an^t.a South Wales find a marked tendency to cling t° earlier speech of the country, and there is even demand for the introduction of such modifications the code as may result in the paying of Ste r„ attention to the national language and I'^eratn Meanwhile a new society has been formed, of which tj main object is declared to be the utilisation of as an instrument of elementary and higher educati° in the Principality.—" Athenaeum." HISTORIC EXHIBITITION.—It has generally been. posed that the exhibition which was held in the To Hall of Niirnberg in 1526 was the first display ot. kind. A Bible student informs us that the first tion known is undoubtedly that organised by Ahasuerua (Xerxes) in 472B.C. for we find it stated the fourth verse of the first chapter of the B°oK Esther that he (Ahasuerus) showed the richness otD glorious kingdom and the honour of his majesty many days, even an hundred and f°ut'sc_. days." It may be left an open question whether t passage is to be read as meaning that King Xer 1 King of Persia, held an exhibition of the Pr04^.c,ng. his kingdom in the sense of our modern exhibi^ v0ti Supposing we grant that he did, then it m^y, that a student of the Shuking or Sseki Twete furnish us with proof that shows of a similar kind held in China under the Hia, Shang, or Ohow nasties.