South Wales Daily News

NEW CONSPIRACY IN RUSSIA 100 STUDENTS ARRESTED. L" TIllES °, TIELX(;RAM. I ST. PETERSBURG, Wednesday.—Another con spiracy has just been discovered here, this time among the military studeuts. On Saturday last a young prince, a cadet in one of the military schools, attempted to commit suicide by shooting himself. The report i. that he was led to the act by complicity in someplot which he believed bad been dis- covered. A searching inquiry has resulted in the arrest of a large number of young men and two or three naval officers. The arrests are stated by some persons to number over 100.

GREAT FIRE IN FRANCE. [REUTER'S TKIiEGBAM. J NANTES, Thursday.—The oil and soap manu- factory of MM. Serpette, Lorois and Compauy, was destroyed by fire last night. The loss is estimated at two million francs.

REPORTED MASSACRE OF AN EXPLORING PARTY. [REUTER'S TZLRGRAM-1 CAPETOWN, Thursday.—Traders who have ar- rived here from the interior brine a native report of the murder of the African explorer, Mr Holub, together with his wife and party.

THE MINERS' RIOTS IN SCOTLAND. RENEWED DISTURBANCES. The Central News Glasgow correspondent, tele- graphing on Thursday, says:—Great excitement prevails in the Lanarkshire coal district owing to the rioting at Blantyre yesterday, and the large number of men arrested and lodged in prison. It was hoped by the authorities that the vigorous action taken at Blantyre and elsewhere would prevent further trouble, but the hope has. unfor- tunately, not been gratified by events, Airdrie being to-day the scene of very serious rioting. In this district the strike has lasted for some time, and although oneor two coalmasters have conceded the demands of their men,themajority of the colliers are still on strike. Mass meetings have been regu- larly held, sometimes very late in the evening, and in some cases the men have marched in pro- cession through the streets. A meeting, attended by over 2,000 men, was held in the Academy Park, Airdrie, about one o'clock this morning, at which speeches were delivered bearing upon the disputes with the employers. The authorities had received information yesterday which led them to fear that disturbances would occur, and application was therefore made to the Edinburgh magistrates and to the county police for reinforcements, which were promptly sent. Seventy constables, including 12 mounted men, arrived from Edinburgh last night, in charge or two inspectors, and a detachment of 28 Glasgow constables, who did such good service at Blantyre, were also drafted to the Airdrie district, and lodged in the Temperance Hotel to await events. The meeting in Academy Park did not conclude until two o'clock this morning. The men then dispersed in different directions, and were by no means noisy or demonstrative. A great many marched in the direction of Crongrigend, and it was deemed advisable to send a number of constables after them to prevent possible mischief. The Edinburgh constables were told off for duty, and they kept pace with the miners right to Congrigend, a distance of about eight miles from Airdrie. The men, how- ever, contented themselves with hooting outside the houses of certain coalmasters, and ultimately all quietly dispersed. Meanwhile, disturbances bad broken out in an unexpected quarter. About three hundred men who had attended tbejmeetiog inaeademy Park, marched in a body In the direction of Coatbridge, headed by a flute and drum band. When at a village midway between Airdrie and Coatbridge, they made an attack on the grocery stores of Miss Simpson, in Stewart's Buildings. Cheeses, loaves, cans of preserved food, and other provisions were destroyed or carried off, an entrance to the shop having been effected by smashing the door. After looting the stores, the men resumed their march, many of them carrying their share of the booty. They had not proceeded very far when they were suddenly startled by the appearance of the Glasgow policemen, who had turned out to meet them. The band instantly stopped playing, and for a moment it looked as though a serious conflict would occur. Fortunately the courage of the rioters failed them, and they turned and fled belter skelter, the musicians dropping their instruments, and most of the marauders their booty. The police at once gave chase, and succeeded in capturing 22 men -some with stolen property in their possession. They would pro- bably have arrested many more but that some of the men, in their panic, jumped into the canal a.nd swam to the other side, while others took refuge in haylofts and outbuildings. Among the trophies secured by the victorious police were a revolver and a big drum, bearing the inscrip- tion "The harp of Erin." The prisoners were brought before Baillie Addie at Coatbridge to day, and remitted to the sheriff to be dealt with on charges of theft by house-breaking. Seventy- four men are now in gaol in connection with tho disturbances in this district. This after- noon a great mass meeting of miners on strike was held in the Academy Park, Airdrie. Upwards of 10,000 men were present. It was de- cided to continue the strike until the just demands of the miners had been granted, and a special resolution was also passed to the effect that, while deprecating any interference with the property of other* the mine/s would seek to impress upon the community thaf the oppression, tyrannies, and robberies of the past were the direct cause of the present exasperation of the mining classes. After an intimation that the Socialists would hold a de- monstration in Glasgow on Sunday by way of ex- pressing sympathy with the striker, the meeting quietly dispersed. A private meeting of Lanarkshire coalmasteis was held in Glasgow on Thursday afternoon to consider a proposal emanating from miners' agents that employers should meet the men in conference, with the view to arrive at some settlement of the present unfortunate disputes. The coalmasters of Airdrie, Bathgate, and Shm- annan agreed to meet the men, but definite deci- sion in regard to united action in the matter was adjourned.

A SWANSEA STE AM BR SUNK AT NEW YOLtK. A Reutei's telegram states that the s.s. Wells City, of Swansea, while lyine at anchor in New York on Wednesday night, was struck by some floating ice, and foundered immediately. The ice s, struck the vessel near the engine-room, staving a bole in her side, and she sank in eight fathoms of water. Only her fuuuel and masts arc visible. No loss of life i- reported.

DEATH OF THE DUKE OF LEINSTER. The Duke of Leinster died on Thursday, at his seat, Carton, Maynooth, <^>unty Kildare, Ho was chancellor of the Royal University, president of the Royal Dublin Society, and held a promineut position in connection with various other public bodies in Ireland. The duke was 68 years of age.

HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS. Outward infirmities.—Before the discovery of these remedies, many case* of sores, ulcers, etc., were pronounced to be hopelessly incurable, becausu the treatment pursued tended to destroy the strength it was incompetent to preserve, and to exasperate the symptoms it was inade- quate to remove. Holloway's Pill* exert the most wholesome powers over the unhealthy flesh or skin, ■without (i"'o;.rri:ig die patient from fre-di air and exer- cise, ami thus tbo constitutional vigour is husbanded while the most malignant ulcer-, unscesses, and skin ilifeuiie-.i are in process of cute. lioth Ointment and Pills make the blood richer and purer, instead ot per- 1114 ti-itig it to fall into that poor and watei v state so fetal to many labouring under chronic ulcerations.

HOUSE OF LORD$. -TittiRsDAY. The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the wool- sack shortly after four o'clock. LOCAL BILLS. The Cardiff Gas Bill and the Newport and Pill- gwenlly Water Bill were read a second time and referred to a select committee. TRJC APPELLATE JURISDICTIOK BILL. The House went into committee on the Appel- late Jurisdiction Bill,which, after some discussion, passed through committee. THE DEFECTIVE SWORD-BAYONETS. Lord BALFOUR asked what steps the authorities were about to take in order to ascertain who were responsible for having passed the defective sword- bayonets, and having taken them off the con tractor's hands, and what was the contract price paid for them. Information bad reached him to the effect that the price was so low that it was im- possible to supply proper weapons for it. The Earl of MORLEY remarked that, however severe the Government test might be, it was not to be expected that weapons which passed it would be capable of resisting every test that irresponsible persons might apply. After some observations from Lord STANLET OF ALDRBLEY, Lord HARRIS said as long as he had anything to do with any Government it would never be his object to screen any department, and no such attempt was made in the reply he gave the other day. He was not prepared to admit that the sword-bayonets were defective unless it could be shown that they would not stand the test to which they were submitted in 1871, and which was considered at that time to be perfectly sufficient. His present information was that they would stand that test, but that a certain proportion of them would not stand the more severe test that was required for swords and sword-bayonets in the present day. The superintendent of the small arms factory issued cutlasses and sword- bayonets on his responsibility, and the last con- tract price was 14s, including the scabbard. Lord ELPHINSTONE, replying to the Earl of Erne, stated that complaints had been received from the commanding officers of one of her Majesty's ships of the defective state of the sword-bayonets supplied to them, and from their reports it appeared that under the tests applied 34 out of 50 cutlasses, and 40 out of 55 sword- bayonets,supplied to the Active proved defective; that, in the case of the Rover, there were 45 out of 50 defective, and 54 out of 55 sword-bayonets and that there were 12defective cutlasses out of 50, and 17 out of 50 sword-bayonets, of those tested on board the Volage, From the Devastation it was reported that some of the weapons could be bent easily, and remained bent. The Admiralty were in communication with the War Office as to what steps they intended to take in the matter. The sword-bayonets were not naval stores, but ordnance stores, and the naval authorities were in no way responsible for the admission of defec- tive weapons. Lord HARRIS declined to accept responsibility on the part of the War Office until it was proved that the test to which the weapons were put on board the ships was a fnir one, The Secretary of State was deterniined to go most carefully into matters, and it would be investigated by the Commission on Naval Stores and the committee on the manufacture of swords. Lord ELLENBORODGH asked whether it was possible that the weapons were injured in the process of conversion. Lord .HARRIS replied that that was not the opinion of the small arms factory. The subject then dropped, and their lordships rose at twenty-five minutes to six o'clock.

SPECTAOLES Strongly reMmMENDED BY E Medical Profession can be .Warned Irom Ximsh Bro: High-srroet, Cardiff. MCMOINE*, ELAOTJC SROOKTNW. 1 CH*MICALS, DRUGS, TFCE., by parcels poet., under lib., 3d. Jtay Bros., .-tockport. CHIOBO UBID COPGH Lossr-NSWi. „ mea. cated lir.seed «wact, ed posfcac*. 3d.Kay Brt* cated iirsood ozu*et, bd*, posfcac*. 3d.Kay Stpekport, and ail cheHfts. 2018 1

NEATH. Tim "SOUTH WALas DAILY NEWS "—The pmbUsfamg and literary denartment of the Souih Wal,e Daily A'rw* in tiiis town will, IN iature. Üi; under TUC sol« charge oi Mr J. MA.RKHH.M, who will te gi- receive nrcter for advertisements. p <!)cr., etc.. at tb South Walft Daily N@ et-, Office. Bazaar Cbambe-s. Tbe Square. The South WA RS Echo may be OSTAWED 4.30, nrt the special CRN'INT edition at eight o'clock, CONTAINING all the LATENT iocai ANRI GENERAL intelligence. Dae notice of aii meetings to Oe reported shoulo he sent to the office. 2175

MERTHYH. CYKARTHKA WQKKS—We understand that Mr H. Jones i-ta- been appointed uinnagrer of the mill department at the Cyfarthfa Works.

ABERDARE. B. TBOMAS, Photo Artit. Aberdaire. O"- r,e« copied to Cabinet, 10- 6,1 half-dozen. Satisfaction guaranteed. Open dai y 579

PONTYPRIDD. THE GRAND JUKLEK MASONIC BALL —TINS Ball will be held on Monday, itth Kehroary. at the Park-ball, C.rci itt. Apulic itioBS for tickets should os made "t once to Mr J. Munaay. 1. Higii-street; Me V. C. Peace. Bedwality House, Uneen-street or Mr Matthews. 7. Edwarct-terrace, Cardiff. Tbe bale l.y -g reserved for lariy spe rators only. Tickets 2s 6ii each. Entrance to balcony Wiudso^-iane. 31 Uo WEDDING PRESENT 111 Solid Siifer and ties Electro-Plate. A great variety at Taimh Bro* 5. Httb-street, Cai fiiif. 1898 PHOTOGRAPHS taken by Mr Freke are uamir passed for excellence of artistic treatment. Ciroo6 tow I and J»i«;h-eiass fiaisb. Carte* irom t:I8 per dozen—I. Doke-street 1077

A SWANSEA ENGINEER DROWNED. Information was on Thursday received at Swansea of the reccvery of the body of Mr William Alfred Kogers, a son of the late Dr Rogers, of Swansea, on the seashore near Wimereux. Thi" ooldJMUti the fears whioh tiave for some time prevailed as to the fate of tHe Snowdrop, of West Haitiepool, which left Neu- castle foi iCiugston on December 4th, and has rot been heard of since. It i, probable tbat the Ne"el foundered it. i.he gale which prevailed in the channel on the 7th Decembei. Tbere is no doubt as to the identity of Mr Hogers, wha was all engineer on board the Snowdrop, for a letter from the British Consul to the Board of Tfi-de states that amongst the papers found on the 00 ^y were his engineer's cert ncate and a letter from his wife, beside-IS a watch, &c., wriioli have been for warded to E^la.nd. The body was recovered ou December 30th, and tuough tlie British Consul wrote full particulars to the Board of Trade on the following day. it was February 8th before the friends of decaased were informed ot the sad news.

PROPOSED LOCAL BOARD FOR ABERAYRON. At a legally-convened meeting, held at the A.esemblv-room's on Wednesday evening. Dr. Davies presiding, a resolution was passed by 27 ratepayers against 11 that the town ot Atier^vr ui and an environment, to be hereafter fixed upon. be formed into a. Local Government rllRtrlct. Mr Daniel Owen was elected secretary pro ta. A committee was appointed to druw ttie bouudary Jines, and the meeting adjourned tiil Monday night, when their report will be considered.

THE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT LLANELLY. The man, Henry Wardrow, who was run over by a train at the Llanelly new dock crossing on the Great Western Ranway, succumbed to his injuries early on Thursday morning. Deceased, who was a shunter, leaves a wilf and two children.

ST. DAVIDS COLLEGE, LAM- PETER. Mr Edward Owen, scholar of St. David's C.Jiie.|?e, has been elected to an open bchoUrthip ,p of £ 80, given for modern history, at Chr.st Church, Oxford.

LONDON LETTER. V [SPECIALLY WIRZD.) [BY OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.] MR GOBCHJEN 'S RJECKPTION IN THE ROUSF,-TUX I.ARG K.NESS OF HIS MAJORrry-IIR BATSMAN Å UNDESIRABLE CANDIDATE—A WABJC WET- COME TO my, HEALY-THE JURY-PACKING IN R PCBLIN DISGRACEFUL JOBBERY — MINISTERS AT IOGOERHEADS LORD HARTI.NGTON a I erJLECH-KORJ; BIACTIONART THAN KVER-UR MOBLET'S SPEECH AT NEWCASTLE. LONDON, Thursday Night. Mr Goschen got a tremendous reception to- night from the Tories. This was partly due to the fac. that he bad obtained so large a majority. I cannot say that this majority was entirely 1^ unexpected. Mr Haysinan is one of the large I nrrny of men who push themselves forward with- out modesty and without consideration. Hia selection by the Liberal Association of the district, and especially in the stead of Lord William Compton, who was just the candidate for such a constituency, was very much regretted by all the Liberals of the metropolis. It is to be hoped that, if the election have no other result, it will rid us of Mr Haysman, who has become t what may be called a professional candidate— that is to say, a candidate who will thrust forward his claimp,in season and out of season, and on the occurrence of every possible or impossible vacancy. The Tories were not to have it all their own way, however. The expectation of a division has led to the issue of a severe whip to the Irish members, and the result was that no fewer than three newly-elected members of that party turned up at question time to-day and took the oath. Among these the most remarkable was Mr T. M. Healy, who returns to the Howse after an absence of a few mouths, having been defeated at the last election for South Derry by Mr Lea. The activity, the vehemence, and the skill with which he has always fought in Parliament obtained for bim a welcome from his Nationalist colleagues l almost as enthusiastic as that which Mr Goschen received from the party to which he has allied his fortunes. The Home had to-day a somewhat brighter ap- pearance than it has worn for some days past. The cloae of the debate always does something to arouse interest. It was known, besides, that Lord Hartington was to liberate his soul, and there was great anxiety to hear the reasons by which he would seek to justify the continuance of his support to the Tory Government. Question time did not pass without incidents of some import- ance. The Solicitor-General for Ireland was severely examined in reference to the jury- packing in Dublin. He is not a very apt or prompt k parliamentarian, and, as he was mercilessly set upon I by several Farnellites all at once, he at last took f refuge under the portentous answer that such questions tended to interfere with the administra- i tion of the law. The nett result was that he confirmed the now practically universal impres- sion that Mr Dillon and his colleagues are going to be tried by a jury as clearly packed sa the worst devices of a Tory high sheriff and Tory law officers can produce. The bending cutlasses were the real sensation of question time. Lord George Hamilton, with an air of something like gusto, read out the disastrous consequences which had followed upon the experiments made with the cutlasses. lifty out of sixty-five. or forty-eight out of sixty- or some enormous proportion like this-of the cut- asses had broken down on trial. This confession of disastrous jobbery and blunder produced a marked impression on the House, and, as Tory members rose one after the other to ask on whom the responsibility for such a shameful state of things rested, they were encouraged by loud and resonant cheers. The tragic portion of the incident, however, was brought down suddenly to something like a genteel comedy when Mr Stanhope, as representiug the War Department, was asked a question which brought him to his legs. The question was put after Lord George Hamilton's statement that those cutlasses bad been supplied to the naval authorities by the War Department. Mr Stanhope, who has a shrill voice, was shriller than usual as he answered that the authorities of the War Department by no means accepted the judgment of the naval authorities. The speetacle of the heads of two departments thus openly calling each other names Was too much for the House, serious though the business was and there was a burst of laughter, which for some time prevented Mr Stanhope from proceeding any further. His answer amounted to fat promise that the whole matter would be sub- L jected to independent inquiry. ■ Mr Win. Redmond, one of the traversers of the V plan of campaign trial, led off the debate by a I vigorous defence of the plan. Then came the Marquis of Hartington. His speech was in senti- ment all that the Tories could desire, but it was significant of the leaden atmosphere of the House, and partly evidence of the depression of the epeaker, that it was listened to almost throughout "without anything like enthusiasm. This was perhaps partly owing to the fact that it was well L on to seven o'clock before he started, and that, before be bad done, he had made a fierce invasion into the hour sacred to dinner. The speech was thick and thin in support of the Government, and, if anything, represented the Whig leader as more reactionary than he was before. He bad no apologies to make for the rejection of the Parnell bill of last session, but, on the contrary, seemed to have convinced him. self that recent events have been the justification, and not the condemnation, of the Irish leader's policy on that occasion. This extraordinary confession he made with the declaration that prices in Ireland bad undoubtedly fallen, whereas the whole case of the majority of the members who oppoeed the bill was, that the prices bad not reduced, or, at least, that there had not been so material a redaction as to interfere with the ability of the tenants to pay full rents. He then took up the case of Sir Michael Beach with regard ta the pressure which that official was reported to have placed on the landlords, and adopted the nisi prius quibble of the law officers that no proof had been forthcoming of such pres- sure. He accepted the declaration that Judge Curran had a rightto make abatements of rent, but I am told on high legal authority that Judge Curran went far beyond his legal powers in making such abatements, and that bis authority was strictly confined to suspending the execution of writs of ejectment tor a certain limited period. <- On the whole the speech may be described as a series of extremely iugenious after-thoughts, by which au indefensible position last year was de- fended in the present year. The greater part of the speech was listened to with a want of animation that amounted aimost to sleepy dulness. But once or twice Lord Hartington did arouse the Tories to strong manifestations of approval, and the Nationalists to equally strong manifestations of reprobation. Indeed, Lord Hartingtou was happy in his banter of his colleagues on the front Opposition bench for not condemning the plan of campaign, and on Mr Parnell for not openly approving of it. The explanation was. in the one case, he said, that perhaps his right hon. friends would thersby imperil the support of t the Irish members; and that Mr Par- neil, on the other hand, would im. peril the support of the Liberal members. The hit at the difficulties of the Gladstonians and Parnellites was much relished, and was again and again loudly cheered. Protests came from the Irish members, though they remained tranquil I almost throughout, when the marquis declared I that Judge Curran had powers to abate rents. § He has no power," was several times shouted from their benches. Again they cheered ran- corously when he spoke of the proceedings with regard to jury- packing in Ireland, as perhaps shocking to English members, and they repressed shocking to English members, and they repressed with some difficulty their angerwhen be proceeded to justify such conduct as called for by the cir cumstances of Ireland.

PARLIAMENTARY ITEMS. PROPOSED WELSH' COMMITTEE. The Press Association understands that at the ordinary fortnightly meeting of the committee of Welsh members, held in one of the committee- rooms of the House of Commons on Thursday afternoon, Mr Henry Richard presiding, it was agreed that steps should be taken to bring before the House the desirability of a Welsh committee being appointed to consider matters specially affecting the principality, similar to that asked for by Scotch members. Mr Rathbone has been entrusted with the task of bringing the subject forward. Mr Gladstone, the Press Association states, will not come to town for the division on Mr Parnell's amendment. Sir William Harcourt will wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposi- tion, and Sir M. Hicks-Beach will reply for the Government. It has been finally arranged that the division shall take place to-night (Friday). The Government are issuing urgent whips to their supporters.

THE 11E PR E S E NT ATI O N OF BURNLEY. The Central News is enabled to state that Sir George Trevelyan having declined to become a candidate for the lepresen'tation of Burnley, the seat will be contested by Mr Thin-shy, a well- known local Conservative, who will receive lite -United Conservative and Libera! Unionist vote, 'upto the present ilie Glaustoiiiau Liberals have vt Mltcted their candidate*

THE MORMONS. [REUTERS TELYGBAYA.) NEW YORK, Thursday.—The Nevada Legisla- ture has passed a resolution for the disfranchise- ment of the Mormons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. -TH-U.RSDAY. The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock. BILLS RELATING TO WALES. Mr RATHBONE gave notice of his intention to move the appointment of a standing committee to consider bills relating to Wales. THE INSPECTION OF QUARRIES. Mr THOMAS ELLIS gave notice that he would ask the Secretary of SUte for the Home Depart- ment whether he will this session introduce a measure for the regulation and inspection of quarries similar to, or identical with, that intro- duced by his predecessor at the Home Office in a previous session, THE PROPOSED HARBOUR OF REFUGE AT LUNDY. Mr LLEWELLYN asked the Parliamentary Secre- tary to the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the serious aLd lamentable loss of life by shipwreck, especially during the last six months, in and near the Bristol Channel, and whether any scheme or propqsal is under consideration for the construc- tion of a harbour of refuge at Lundy Island or some other suitable place, as a means of mini- mising the risks to shipping on that part of our coast. Baron H. NE WORMS The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the serious and lamentable loss of life in the Bristol Channel. For a harbour of refuge, as distinguished irom a commercial harbour, there are considerations which seem to point to the suitability of Lundy, but of recent years the general policy of creating such harbours at the public expense has been dis- countenanced, and in view of the difficulties which surround this subject the Board of Trade do not see their way to make or to entertain at present any proposal such as that suggested in the honour- able member's question. NEW MEMBERS. Mr Goschau, who was introduced by Mr Cubitt and Mr Craig-Sellar, took the oath aud his seat for the St. George's, tHauover-square, Division of Middlesex. The right iion. gentleman was long and londly cheered by the Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists. On the other band he was vigorously assailed by the Irish members with both inarticulate and articulate cries. Mr T. Healy, introduced by Mr Biggar and Mr M. Healy, took the oath and his seat for Longford, He was enthusiastically cheered by the Irish members. Mr McNeill, introduced by Mr O'Hea and Mr J. E. Redmond, took the oath and his seat. Mr Kennedy, introduced by Mr Sexton and Mr Biggar, took the oath and his seat for South Sligo. THE CARTRIDGE CONTRACT. Mr NORTHCOTK, in: reply to Col. Bridgeman, said that it was a rule at the War Office that tenders which came in after the time appointed for their reception could not be considered. As for the contract for the 500,000 catridges for Queensland, it was given to a lirni whose tender was considerably lower than that of any other firm. Although the patent on which the car- tridges were to be constructed was a German one, the firm to which the contract was granted was au English one, and they had assured the director ot contracts that the metal would be rolled in Birmingham, and the cartridges would be made at their works at Millwall. THE PROSECUTION OF IRISH MMMBEEB. Mr GIBSON", in reply to Mr M. Healy, said that Mr Dillou, M.P.jothers haviuty been arrested in Galway, it had been decided that they should be tried in Dublin, where the plan of campaign was first published. The bills of indictment bad been presented to the grand jury of the couuty in accordance with tjae practice followed in other cases. (Oh, oh.) The jury panel of the county of Dublin contained both Protestants and Catholics, and was, as regarded all classes. more representative than any other panel in the country. (Loud cries of "< ob," from the Irish members,) The sole reason for the course adopted was the belief that in this way a better and fairer trial would he secured than in any other way. w (Oh, oh.) This was not the only case in which a similar course had been adopted. (Oh, oh.) Mr SKXTON, who was loudly cheered by his fellow Irish members, asked whether there was reason to suppose that a fair trial could not have been had by a jury of the city of Dublin. Mr MAURICE HEALY asked whether nine- tenths of the legal business of Irelaud was not tried by jurors of the city of Dublin. Mr GIBdON said that uo doubt a great deal of the business of Ireland was tried before juries of the city of Dublin, bur, lis could not say what was the precise proportion. He declined ta enter into any controversy with hon. members as to the merits of different panels. (Cries of Oh, oh.") Mr SEXTON I wish to ask the Solicitor-General whether there is anything in the state of the jury panel of the city ol Dublin to prevent a fair trial being had there. No answer was given to this question, although several of the Irish members cried loudly, Answer, answer." THIC DEFECTIVE SWORD BAYONETS. Lord G. HAMILTON, in reply to Commander Bethell, made a statement with regard to the defective bayonets much to the same effect as that made in the House of Lords. He did not think any useful purpose would be served by exhibiting the weapons which had failed to stand the tests to the members of that House. Mr STANHOPE, in further reply to Commander Bethell, said that he was glad to have an oppor- tunity of stating his general view of this subject. The officials of tbe War Office were by no means disposed to accept the correctness of tha view taken by the naval authorities. (Laughter.) These weapons were made before 1857, and they then satisfied the requisite tests. He felt that the public had certainly a. right to know whether these weapons were serviceable or not, and he, therefore proposed to institute a careful inquiry by an independent tribunal into the weapons complained of. He should invite the First Lord of the Adisjiralty to nominate the person to repre- sent the Admiralty on this inquiry. CHARGKS For. BILLETING SOLDIERS. Mr STANHOPE, in reply to Sir Joseph Bailey, undertook to consider the question of payment to licensed victuallers for billeting soldiers, but he referred to the various increases made down to 1873, since which time the price of provisions had fallen, and he saw uo reason for incurring the pay- ment, believing that it left the innkeeper a iair margin of profit. GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS. Mr AKERS. DOUGLAS, in reply to Mr A. O'Connor, said the book containing the list of newspapers to be advertisedin by theGovernment was changed with the change of Government, though there had been only two lists used in the last two changes. The system of the issue of Go- vernment advertisements was now under the con- sideration of the Treasury. BRITISH HONDURAS. Sir H. HOLLAND, in answer to Sir R. Fowler, said instructions had been given for the with- drawal of troops from British Honduras, oae com- pany at once apd the other company in March, 1888, or as soon as the armed constabulary force br the defence of the colony WM ready. EGYPTIAN AFFAIRS. Sir HENltY TYLER asked if the Government could, without detriment to the public interest, give any information as to the statement pub- lished in the press that the proposals of Sir H. Wolff at Constantinople had in view the neutra- lisation of Egypt. Sir J. FERGCSSON could only reply that her Majesty's Government adhered to their declaration made in respect to their policy in regard to Egypt. He was not able to make any statement as to negotiations now pending, but be might say the rumours in certain newspapers did not give any accurate representation of the objects that they I have in view. Sir J. FSRGUSSON. in answer to Sir J. Lubbock, said it was not correcl; to say that the French Government refused their assent to the financial arrangements necessary for the abolition of the corvee in Egypt. The French Government were not satisfied with some of the articles of the pro- posed decree for the abolition of the corvee, and it was apprehended that the consequent delay would necessitate the calling out of the peasantry to clean the canals. Since this was mentioned in debate, a telegram had been received stating that the French Government have now signified their adhesion to the decree, on certain conditions that an arrangement is probable and that if arrived at within a few days, it would still be in time to prevent corvee work being actually begun.

THE ADDRESS. SPEECH BY LORD HARTINGTON. The adjourned debate on Mr Parnell's amend- meut to the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech was resumed by Mr W. REDMOND, who laid he spoke aa one who was next week to undergo, in company with Mr Dillon and other Irish members, a trial that would probably end in their being subjected to a term of imprisonment. He complained that both the Attorney and Solicitor-General for Ireland bad commenced the indictment against him and his friends in that House. The hon. gentleman then entered upon a justification of the plan of campaign, which, he said, be bad been largely instrumental in introducing into different parts of Ireland. There were not above twenty estates to which the plan of campaign had been applied, and in no case was it proposed to deprive the landlord of his rent, but simply to enable the tenants to bank their money in order to protect themselves against evictions in cases where the landlords would not allow them fair reductions. Moreover, in no case where the plan of campaign had been tried bad the landlord proved to be barsh. As to the legal aspect of the matter, he asked how was it that tbe Government and the law officers of the Crown had never stirred in the matter or expressed their opinion that it was illegal until fully two months after he and others had kept the plan of campaign in full working order. With regard to its results, he claimed that it was mainly due to the plan of campaign that the past winter had been characterised by fewer evictions than ordinary, and an almost total absence oi crime and outrage. If there bad been an absence also of threats of armed resis- tance on the part of the Irish people, it was owing to the fact that they had been taught by Mr Parnell and their other leaders to believe in a wakening cense of justice on tbe part of the English people. In conclusion be assured the House that he would rather stand in the dock and receive a sentence for working for the overthrow of Castle rule in Ireland than receive at the hands of her Majesty all the wealth and titles she could confer. The Marquis of HARTINGTON, who rose amid loud cheers, said it who not for any member of that House to taunt the Irish leaders with not having incited the Irish people to insurrection because they believed that those hon. members had hopes of obtaining the objects they had in view by more legitimate means. The noble mar- quis went on to comment on the inconvenience of the modern practice of raising amendments to the Address that were not directed to the question of confidence in her Majesty's Government. Although he admitted that this charge did not apply to the specific amendment now before the House, never- theless, tho speeches of many who had supported that amendment, and among them that of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr Morley), had dealt with the amendment more as if it were in the nature of an abstract proposition. (Hear, hear.) The Government had had numerous charges directed against them. One of them was that they had rejected Mr Parnell's bill of last year on the ground that no fall of prices had taken place. This, however, was not correct. The bill was rejected because it was not deemed necessary, under the circumstances which then existed, and be maintained that what had since happened had justified the action then taken. It had been shewn that in a large number of cases the landlords had agreed to accept modified terms from the tenants, but, bad Mr Parnell's bill been passed, he put it to tbe House whether the tenants would have then been willing to come to any arrangement with their landlords. Moreover, had the bill been passed, many of the tenants had been provsd to have been in such a position that they would have been uuable to have paid even the half-year's rent which was the bnsis of that measure. (Hear, hear.) For bis own part, be did not believe satisfactory rela- tions in Ireland would ever be established until the existing dual ownership the land was done away with, aud a system established by which a larger portion of the land should be owued by the tiller. This, however, was a large and difficult question, which could only be properly approached on full information and by means of definite proposals. As it was, he failed to see what better remedies could be applied than could be found in the further development of the resources of the country, and the employment of a considerable number of tbe people, or some well- considered scheme of emigration. To steps in these directions he did not believe her Majesty's Government were averse, and if there were other means that could be suggested it was the duty of the Irish members to bring them forward. (Cheers from the Irish benches.) Taking the condition of a large portion of the Irish popula- tion, especially in the West, the proposals of the Irish members as to suspension of evictions and reduction of reut could not be expected to prove a sufficient remedy. (Hear, hear.) Refer- ence had been made to compulsory emigration. This he did not believe in, but be did believe in a well-considered system of voluntary emigration, assisted and directed by the Government, and organised by the local authorities. (Ministerial cheers.) It was further charged against the Government that they had brought undue pres- sure to bear on the landlords. Where, he asked, was tho proof of this ? It was said that Judge Curran had exceeded his powers, but if so his pro- ceedings could surely be reviewed by the superior courts. Who, however, had been injured or aggrieved by Judge Curran's action ? There was uo doubt that county court judges did possess considerable equitable powers as to suspending evictions and the promotion of arrangements between landlord and tenant, and he was very glad that such powers had been exercised. The power of eviction was doubtless a tremendous one, which should only be used as a last resource, and if it were possible to amend the law so as to prevent unnecessary harshness in regard to evictions, he for one should be very glad to see this accom- plished. (Hear, hear.) As to SidRedvers Buller, he (Lord Hartingtou) denied that that officer had made use of anything in the shape of threats, the utmost he had done being to give sound and humane advice. With regard to another charge brought against the Government that they had been privy to jury-packing in Sligo, the noble lord justified the suppression of a Sligo meeting which, he said, bad evidently been called to- gether for the purpose of influencing jurors and as to the alleged packing, he pointed out that there were persons in Ireland who made it their business to instruct jurors as to what tbey were to do. The question was whether or no there were persons likely to be influenced in their action as jurors by such persons, and if this were so, it was only reasonably to eonaider whether any Government would be doing its duty which in such oases omitted to use the powers which were conferred by the law as to the constitution of juries. With regard to the plan of campaign, iiuraly if tbe Government believed it to be illegal they were justified in the action they had takeu rather against the leaders than the dupes of that movement. The plan of campaign had been alluded to by Mr Gladstone as one of the consequences of the rejection of the bill of Mr Parnell, but what it would have been interesting to have learnt was whether tbe right hon, gentleman thought it a legitimate con- sequence of that rejection. (Ministerial cheers.) The late Chief Secretary, who professed to pro- nounce judgment in full on the plan of compaign, had said that whatever it was, it was not more illegal or more immoral than the action of some of the Irish landlords. The House had long been trying to make bad landlords good by act of Par- liament, and it had stopped when it had because it thought that by going further it might do more harm on a laree scale than it could do good on a small scale. It the plan of campaign were to be allowed, it was capable of doing a large amount of injury to the relations between landlord aud tenant, and destroying all the existing rights of the Irish landlords. If such a system were to be extensively applied, the only real remedy of the landlords would not bs partial, but wholesale eviction cf their tenants. Further- moie, he maintained that the Government would be no more justified in tolerating a passive than it would in permitting an open resistance to the law. Allusion had been made to dynamite plots, but it should be understood that it was in the power of the leader of the Irish Nationalists to dissociate himself from aud disown the organisation in America by which these plots were promoted. When the hon. member had done this, the House would be in a position to listen to the warnings of the hon. member for Cork on this lead in a different spirit from that in which such warnings were re- ceived at the present inuuieut. (Hear, hear.) Having said so much, he was sure the House would readily understand that he was unable to endorse the propositions contained in the amend- ment now before it. For bis part, he did not see the use of, and refused to be a party to, a vague resolution which would pledge him to what he mibt not b able to perform, and which failed to recognise the conditions which were justly required by the people of Great Britain before they could assent to any such proposition. (Ministerial cheers.) [LEFT SITTING.]

HARTLEY a SEVILLE ORANGE MARMALADE and Knglish whole Fruit Preserves are renowned for their purity and excellence, the quality being unequalled a.nd always reliable. May be bad from all Grocers. 2624 A SHIPWRKCKED MAN.—A man not old with age, but bending wider infirmity, was induced by a friend to take Hop Bittars for a week. Theuittiispeak-s of himself as having been shipwrecked in hope and health. He is now in tbe express business, strong and w«U, and able to lift an enormous weight, and a great | advocate of Hop Bitter*. Read adv«rUMQl«At. 2574

THIAL OF CARK AND ENSOR. 'II! DECISION OF JUSTICE STEPHEN. At the Glaoaorganaliire Assises, held at Cardiff on Thursday, Thomas Henry Ensor and H. Lascelles Carr surrendered to their recognisances on a charge of wilfully and maliciously libelling the late Mr John Batcbelor on the 24th July last. It may be remembered that the defendants were committed for trial at the Cardiff police-court about the month of August of last year, and that tbe cases would, in the ordinary course, have been heard at the Swansea assixes in the autumn. Prior to the assizes, however, an application was made in London to change the venue of the trial to that city, and the application was granted. At the assises at Swansea, however, the learned judge (Mr Justice Wills) charged the grand jury upon the alleged offences, and the grand jury found true bills agaiost.both of the defendants. In the course of some subsequent proceedings, the learned judges in London declined to allow the cases to be heard in Middlesex, saying they saw no sufficient reason for such a change of venue, and eventually Cardiff was fix upon as the locale of the trial. The following is the alleged libel which formed the subject matter of the prosecution :— In Honour of JOHN BATCHEXOR., A NATIVE OF NEWPORT, Who early in life letc his country for his country's good Who, on his return, devoted bis life and energies te setting CLASS AGAINST CLASS A Traitor to the Crown, a Reviler of the Aristocracy, A Hater of the Clergy, A Panderer to the Multitude, Who, as First Chairman to the Cardiff School Board, squandered funds to which be did not contribute; Who is sincerely mourned by Unpaid Creditors to the amount of Firry THOUSAND POUNDS; Who, at the close of a wasted and mis-spent life, Died a Demagogue and a. Pauper, THIS MONUMENT, To tbe Kternal Disgrace of Cardiff, Is Krected BY SYMPATHETIC RADICALS. Owe no man anythiug." For several days past the Nisi Prius Court, in which it was known the defendants would take their trial, has been crowded by an audience eagerly anticipating the proceedings. Notwith- standing that the last two days have been occu- pied by a case presenting few features of interest to the feminine portion of tbe community, the ladies have thronged the gallery set apart for them in great numbers, on the chance of the dry dock dispute suddenly ceasing, and the charges against Messrs Carr and Ensor coming on. Special precautions, however, were taken on Thursday morning to prevent tbe Nisi Prius Court from becoming inconveniently crowded and few persons were allowed to pass the iron gates in the corridor without satisfying the police that they bad some claim to be present in the Nisi Prius division. Mr Justice Stephen took his seat punctually at ten o'clock, at which hour the court was partially filled, there being also a number of ladies in the gallery. The first hour and ten minutes were occupied by the summing up of the judge in the dry dock case, upon which the jury quickly made up their minds. At half-past eleven o'clock Messrs Carr and Ensor took seats next to the barristers' table, when the following were sworn on the jury, to try, first, the case against the defendant Ensor;- Istrel Treharne Rees, Penarth. T. Skelton, Nash, Neath. Ebenezer E. Morgan, Bellevue, Lower Baglan. Robert Strong, Cardiff. William H. Simpkin, Peuarth. Daniel Lougher, Bonvibtone. Samuel Hughes, Swansea. William D. Jones, Briton Ferry. Samuel Dey, Aberdare. George F. Insole, Cardiff. James Board, Nash. George Edie, Swansea. Mr M'lntyre, Q.C., Mr David (of the Oxford circuit), and Mr Bullen appeared for the prosecu- tion Mr Boweu Rowlands, Q.C., M.P., Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C., and Mr Abel Thomas were for the defendants. THE CASE AGAINST ENSOR. MR McINTYRE'S OPENING. Mr Bullen read an analysis of the indictment. against the defend ant as follows :-Count 1 charged him with maliciously publishing a libel, intending to defame and vilify the character and memory of John Batcbelor, knowing the same to be false, by reading end publishing it on July 23rd, 1886, to John Henry Taylor and others 2. The like offence, intending to throw scandal on the character and memory of John Batcbelor, and to injure bis family and posterity by reading and publishing, as in count 1 3. The like offence, having a tendency to create a breach of the peace, and which did cause assault on Henry Lascelles Carr; 4. The like offence having tendency to excite friesds and relatives of John Batcbelor to revenge by a breach of the peace, and which did cause assault by sons of John Batcbelor on Henry Lascelles Carr 5. Same offence, as injeount l,by publishing in Western Mail on July 24tb, 1886 6. Same as count 2, by publishing in Western Mail on July 24th; 7. Same as count 3, by publishing in Western Mail on July 24th B. Same as count 4, by publishing in Western Mail on July 24th. To this, added Mr Bullen, a plea of Not uilty" was entered. Mr Mclntyre, Q.C., opened the case to the jury. He said the case was of a serious character, inasmuch as it was a libel which he could hardly find words strong enough to deprecate-a most atrocious and wicked libel—published in the Western Mail against the memory of a deceased man. It was of such a character as to make it incum- bent upon those related to him to vindicate the character of the man and take revenge on the persons who dared to do it. The defendant in that particular case was Mr Eusor, who was a solicitor of that town, and who ought to have known much better than to vilify a deceased man, and who only did it on account of the hostility ha manifested towards that man during his lite, when he had to retract and apologise for a similar libel he published. Mr John Batcbelor was a gentle- man who was born, he (the learned counsel) believed in 1820, at Newport, and he came to Cardiff in 1843. From that time to 1872, in part- nership with his brother, be carried on a.n impor- tant business as a sbipbuilder and merchant in the town of Cardiff. Unfortunately, in 1872, Mr Batchelor had to compound with his creditors for a considerable amount. There were many of his creditors secured but others were not secured. Such, however, was the opinion that his creditors had of him, that after he bad com- pounded with them they presented him with an address and a cheque for Therefore Mr Batcbelor, whatever bi8 misfortunes were in 1872, retained the esteem and respect of thoso witli whom he had dealings aud with whom he was connected, Mr Batchelor for many years took a prominent part in the affairs of Cardiff. He was chairman of the School Board for Cardiff and the adjoining place, Penarth, and be continued to be the chairman 01 the School Board for very many years. He (Mr Mclntyre) mentioned this as it was one of the subjects brought forward in the libel. He did not propose at the present time to give them any further history of the career of Mr Batcnelor. The defendant Mr Ensor had pleaded uot guihf. bur, with his plea of not puilty he put in the tissue —whether he wrote the libel, and whether it was a libel that was wriiteu by lum. Now he (the learned counsel) thought he should nut have the slightest difficulty in showing them that Mr Ensor was the writer of the libel, that he took it himself to the office oi the Western, Mail tor the purpose of its being published, and that it was published in the Mail. His Lordship: That raises the question of privilege. Mr Mclntyre: lean prove the libel to be his writing. His Lordship said there were several peculiar circumstances iu the enne, but the question of the truth of what was written was twt in jsue but Mr Ensor was indicted for publishing it knowing it to be false. Mr Mclntyre, resuming, stated that Mr Ensor had published several articles in the Mail, and he could prove that many of these were signed Censor." On the 23rd July, last year, Mr Ensor went to the Western Mail office, und he there asked to see Mr Carr. Mr Carr happened to be nut, so in the presence of one of the officials tntheomce,arnd in the presence alo, ot a gontleumn who was a stranger to the official, Mr Elisor read an epitaph which he had written tor Mr John Batchelor. Having FI F ked to see Mr Carr and finding that he was not there, he said to the official, "Here is au epitaph for John Batchelor," and he then read the epitaph in the following temui :— "In honour of John Batchelor, a native of New- port, who, in early life, left his country for his country's good." He (counsel) must paute at that for a moment. He could well understand thatany- one who read that would come to the conclusion, and he had authority for saying it, that Mr Ensor suggested that Mr Batchelor, in early life, had been transported. The phrase was taken from a prologue of an old play produced in Australia by a person who was himself a convict, and whose associates in the play they performed were also convicts. The prologue commenced in these wordl:i;- From distant climes, o'er wide-stretched seas we come. True patriots all, for be it understood, We kit oiu country tax our ceuufcry s good. That was to say, tuey had been ttaus- ported frcm tbe mother country, and were carrying out their terms in New South Wales, Mr Ensor was a literary man himself he was as well acquainted with the meaning of the words as any of those present were. Mr Ensor went on in his epitaph, Who on his return devoted his energies to setting class against class ati-aitorto the Crown, a reviltir of the aristocracy, a a hater of the clergy, a panderer to the multitude," It was one thing to use strong terms about a man when he was alive; it was another,to slander and vilify the dead. The epitaph proceeded, Who, as first chairman of the Cardiff School Board, squandered funds to which be did not contribute." Mr Batchelorwaschairman of tbeSchool Board, and since his death the amount of the rate paid for the School Board had increased ratherthandiminished. "Funds to which he did not contribute," said Mr Ensor. Mr Batchelor was a ratepayer of Cardiff as well as Penarth. Mr Ensor must iiave known that, or he ought to have made himself acquainted with the fact, "Who is sincerely mourned by unpaid creditors to the amount of £ 50,000, and who at the close of a wasted and mis spent life died a demagogue and a pauper. So ran the epitaph. Mr John Batchelor was the Crown agent for the Colonies, and for that he received a salary of jB600 a year. According to Mr Ensor, persons who received pay from the Government were paupers. Mr John Batchelor was not a pauper. The epitaph went oil "Th is monument, to the eternal disgrace of Cardiff, is erected by sympathetic Radicals." Even in politic-, one would think, went on Mr Mclutyre, there would be fair play, and people would abstain from making accusations against others which could not be substantiated and it must have been known to Mr Eosor that all elasses of politicians subscribed to the monument of Mr Batchelor. Then at, ttie bottom of the epitaph there was the term, Owe no man anything." Now, that was the document which was taken by Mr Ensor to the office of the Western Mail, and that document was handed over to one of the officials there, then showed to another, and next placed on the desk for Mr Carr, who was one of the proprietors of the Mail, and editor of the paper, and being left rut' him, it appeared in the Western Mail of the 24th of July, 1886. Well, they might very well suppose thai this document would very greatly offend the parsons who were uearly aud dearly attached to the late Mr John Batchelor, and it did irritate to the prreatest degree the sons of Mr Johu Batcbelor—Mr Cyril Batchelor and Mr Llewellyn Batchelor. It ffot rumoured about that these gentlemen were about to take the law into their own hands with respect to the persons who had written and published the libel. Therefore, on the 26sh July, 1885, that being a Monday, a letter was published in the Western Mail by Mr Ensor — a letter which was not quite what might have been expected from Mr Ensor. The letter was as follows: To tho editor of the We-stera Mail.—Permit me to state, in order to silence numerous enquiries, that I have never adopted the euphemistic title of Censor'. Perhaps Mr Ensor, went-oti "vir Mclntyre, never signed the name to his articles, but he knew well that the articles which he sent to the office appeared under the name ot Cenaor Mr Eusor (interrupting, and with great emphasis): Never. He had evidence (continued Mr Mclntyre) which would bear out the statement he had made. If Mr Ensor wished to say that be did not write the article, why did he not say so in so many words like a man ? Why did he not say, I never wrote the epitaph which appeared in the Western Mail, or any part of it." Instead of that he said, I never adopted the euphemistic title of Censor,' Some days after this appeared—Mr Ensor having disowned "Gemot "-tLe youngalessrs Batchelor came into contact with the editor of the Mail. The learned counsel pointed out that a libel on a deceased person was indictable if that libel tended to, or actually caused, a breach of the peace. That seemed to have been established by authority over a long series of years, and the case which seemed to have been relied upon by Mr Ensor— the Queen v. Labouchere, beard before the Queen's Bench DivisIOn-Old not at all detract from the proposition which he laid before the jury. No doubt the Queen's Bench division, in the exercise of their discretion, refused to grant a criminal information against the person who had published the libel upon a dead man. But in the course of the judgment by the Lord Chief Justice, he used words which seemed to show that such au indictment might be laid. His Lordship Is not this rather for myself aud the jury ? Mr Mclntyre: Yes, my lord. The learned counsel was commencing to read the latter part of the jildginent, when His Lordship said he did not think the caae of the Queen v. Labouchere had anything to do with the present case. That judgment actually held nothing more than that the court, in the exercise of their discretion, would not iosue a criminal information, partly because the person about whom the libel was written was dead. That was what the case actually amounted to. If the judgment of Lord Coleridge was gone through, it would be seen that the matter was left completely open, and in a way rather less than more favourable to the general proposition that a dead man was a subject for libel. There was an earlier case, the King v. Topham, in which the argu- ment turned very much upon the general principle. The whole thing, however, was based on the statement made by Lord Coleridge. Mr Mclntyre: Yes, my lord. Generally the learned counsel said that the proposition he put before the jury was that if a libel tended to cause a breach ot the peace that then the person libelled was entitled to bring an action. Mr Eusor appeared not to have had any breach of the peace committed on him by the sons of the deceased Mr Batchelor, but as far as Mr Carr was concerned, it did no doubt lead to such a breach of the peace. Mr Carr took his remedy for the assault by having a summons for assault issued against the sons. This was heard before the magistrates, and being heard by them the young Batchelors were fined Is without cost, and the magistrates added a strong expression of opinion as to the libel, which the learned counsel called a scandalous one. Having referred to Mr Carr, it was only right and proper be should state that the evidence would show that the manuscript which was taken by Mr Eusor to the Mail was modified by Mr Carr or by other persons connected with that paper. But the modification was what was called a toning down," and no doubt to some extent the libel was toned down. The exact extent of this toning down would not appear by the evidence of the witness, but with respect to one portion of the libel, namely, Who in early life left his country for his country's good," the word compelled" was left out—"compelled to leave his country for hi country s good "-and to that extent the libel was toned down. With respect to the rest of the libel, the alterations were merely verbal. The prosecution bad endearoured to get the original manuscript, but had failed to do so. The manuscript appeared to have been made up iu a bulk with others, and to have been destroyed, and therefore it would be for the witnesses to say whether the libel, as published, had been altered in any material de- gree. The learned counsel said he should contend that Mr Ensor took the libel to the Mailt and directed that it should be published, and tuat if it was toned down in the Mail office, that fact, he contended, did not at all improve his position. The defendant had tried in every way to have that libel quashed, and the learned counsel said he had authority for saying that the statements contained in it, especially the first part, which charged that Mr Batchelor left his country for his couutry's good, were libellous. It might be said that these words wore justified because true, but this was not enough to justify them. They must not only be true, but published for the public benefit. No one could shield himseli under such a plea as that. He should prove malice against Mr Ensor by what he bad done before, and in the result be thought the jury would come tu the conclusion that he was guilty. Evidence was then called. J. H. TAYLOR. John Heury Taylor, of Richmond house, Castle-road, Cardiff, was the first wituess. Examined by Mr David, lie said that in July last he was in the employment of the pruprletois of the Western Mail as mauaging sub-editor. He pro- duced a copy of the Western Mail for the 24tu July last, containing the epitaph. He read the manuscript from which it was priuted. He first saw it on me 23..d July, the date before publica tiou. That moiiiiijg a geut'cmun he did not then know, but whom he had found siuce to be Mr Ensor, brought it to the office, raying "Here's an epitaph I have written foi John Batchelcr." Mr Ensor subsequently read it, and gave it to witness, who said he would hand it to Mr Carr. The latter was away from the office at the time. Ensor read the epitaph aloud for him to heair it. Wituess put the manuscript on the table for Mr James Harris (the assistant editor) to, see it. Locking at the copy of the Mail for tho date men- tioned containing the epitaph, he said the passage "left his conntry for his country's good was compelled, &,c." The passage "As ch.iirmaii of the Cardiff School Board he squandered funds to which he did not contribute," was in the original As first chairman of the Cardiff School Board he squandered fuuds which did not belong to him." The passage, "Tbis monument, to eternal disgrace of Cardiff, is erected by sympathetic Radicals." read in the original "by rogues and Radicals." (Laughter.) Defendant called at the office again that day, but witness did not ee him again until the following Monday. Mr I lai;i,i questioned the witness as to his kuowledcre oi previous contributions by Mr Ensor to tAiaMaif, and whether he signed them Censor," aud witi.es-; si-id he had seen articles in the paper signed Censor." Mr Duvid: Whose contributions were they that appeared under that name ? His lordship held that the witness could not say } appeared under that IIAIlle ? appeared under that name ? His lordship held that the witness could not say } unless he saw them written. j Mr David We have another witness to speak I to tbat. In further examination witness said be wa.s not on the Western Mail now. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen Rowlands: Were you not at the time yon speak of under' notice to leave the iVe-qel-ti. Aiiii?-Y,,s I received notice from Mr Curt, sent by Harris when he returned from an interview with Mr Carr. That was on the evening of the day Mr Ensor brought in the epitaph. Are you now employed in newspaper work ?— No, thank goodness. When did you leave the Western Mail ?—-Ou the morning after, or rather on the evening of the day I gave evidence before the magistrates. I received a letter from Mr Carr summarily dismis- liillR ine because I had given evidence before the magistrates. Have yon kt.lp! that letter 1-1 have. Is it here ?—Yes. (Very emphatically.) His Lordship: Wben did you receive notice?- On the 23rd of July, my lord. How long did the notice extend over?—Three months. I When were you before the magistrates ?—On I the 30th of July. Mr Bowen Rowland* Was nob the latter date j August 30th ?-Yes it WH. I confused the months, but, anyhow, it was the day I gave evi. dence. Do you know Mr l!nsor'» handwriwug ?—No. As to tbe first line, Who in early life left his country for his country's yJ." did yon say before the magistrates that the line had been consider- ably altcred ? -Ye*, I did. You did not take any copy of the epitaph No. I uassed it over to the other side of the table where Mr Harris sat. The word compelled" was, you say, added ?— Yes. Did you say before the magistrates tbat the manuscript brought by Mr Knsor was not of the same substance as what appeared in the news- paper ?—I may have said so, and I meant it bad been altered in the manner I have indicated. Are the lines in the paper in the same order as in the MS. ?—Tbey did not appear the same in the MS. a-, in the paper, line for line. Then the order was altered ?—Yes. The Judge Do you mean that the order of the words was the same, but that they might have been divided into different lines !—Yes, my lord. Mr Rowlands: Take lines 6 and 7—"Abater of the clergy and a panderer to the multitude "— are they as thsy appeared in the MS. ?—Yes. Did you say before the magistrates, I cannot say that 6 or 7 are the same ? "—I did. Explain that?—I have studied them since, and I know they have not been altered. A traitor to the Crown and a reviler of the aristocracy." What do you say about that?—I cannot remember whether that hae been altered or not. 'Who was sincerely mourned by unpaid creditors to the amount Ha4 that been altered !-I cannot remember. A demagogue and a pauper." Has that been altered ? I don't think it has. Can you remember whether it has or not o. I The line containing the term, This monument, &c,"—can you speak as to that 1-1 believe there is no alteration in the line about the monument being an eternal disgrace to Cardiff. Owe no man anythin,c "-What about that? -Oh now; how about the oiber-you have skipped one ? (Laughter,) Mr Rowlands: That is my business, sir. (Re. newed laughter.) I did not know you were an advocate, but a witness. Witness: I am well aware of that, but I thought you were taking me through the epitaph line by line. The Judge; Don't let us have this unnecessary sparring. Mr Rowlands: Win you undertake to say whether the close of tbe original manuscript was in English or any otber language?—Yes in Latin. What was the Latin ?-I don't know. Since the afternoon of the day the manuscript was given you have you seeu it?—No. In further cross-examination by Mr Bowen Rowlands witness said he did not know what had become of the inaouscript since be gave it to Mr Harris beyond something that he had heard. He read it through two or three times before Mr Harris came in and be gave it to him. He did not remember having said before the magistrates I caunot remumber what the words were in the manuscript that were altered." What he said was lie did not remember how cer- tain lines were altered, but he distinctly remem- bered alterations in others. This was because, when he read it, he did not pay that attention to the epitaph that he had done since the -Air about it had had beeu created. He came to Card.ff in March, 1886. He could not say whether or not there was a good deal of opposition on the pait of the Conservative party in the town to the statue being erected Mr Mclntyre When were you dismissed ?— WitDe88 I was dismissed by Mr Carr on the day that I g.i v a evidence, in couseqaeuce of the evi- deooe I had given before the magistrates. Mr Mclntyre Then you were summarily dis- missed ?—Yes. His Lordship Did they pay you ?—Witness Yes, they did after some wrangling. FRANK GRIFFITHS. Frank Griffiths was the next witness called. He said in July last he was day foreman at the Mail. He saw the manuscript it was in Mr Ensor's handwriting. He kuew the handwriting, because he had frequently seen it before. On the day that the assault case was heard before the magistrates, he was asked by Mr Carr to produce the manuscript. He gave it to the lad, who was seat by Me Carr on that day, which was the 4th August. Mr Mclntyre: Did yau read it?—Witness: No, not on the day, but afterwards. What became of it ultimately ?—I destroyed it. When did you destroy it ?—I should say three or four days after the assault case was heard. How did you destroy it ?—I put it under the tap, made pulp of it, and ultimately put it down tho oloset. How came you to do that?—That is a question I am not prepared to answer. It involves a serious charge. Mr Mclntyre: Did you do it of your own accord, or because you were asked by someone else ? Witness To be candid, I did so because if the Batchelors had got hold of it, they were bound to indict Carr for perjury. That was after the case bad been before the magistrates was it at the request of somebody ? —It was at someone's request. Who was it that asked you to destroy the inanuieridt,-you need not answer if it is objected to? Mr Rowlands (to witness): Go on. Witness: A woman who lives in Mr Carr's house. Mr Mclntyre: What is her na.me ? Witness I believe Ellen Jackson. Mr Mclntyre: What is she called as a matter of courtesy ?—She is called Mrs Carr. I saw her at the office. I destroyed it on the Wednesday because she had previously protasted to me tbat Mr Carr kuew nothing about it. Mr Mclntyre: Did you have any communica- tion from Mr Carr by telephone?—Witness: I did, on the Suadav Mr Rowlands I object. His Lordship. It has been objected to, and it is not evidence. Mr Mclntyre: The manuscript is destroyed; can you tell us what was in it ?—-Witness: 1 can only say that the manuscript was toned down very considerably by Mr Carr. Can you give us a specimen of the toning down.—There were various passages toned down. I simply read it through, and when I com- pared it with what appeared in the paper, I said to myself, What would have been thought of it if it had appeared in print as it wae originally sent?" About the first line?—It was set up exactly the same as Written. It was displayed" f" written. "Left his country for his et)untrv's good?" That line was toned down. There was "traitor and" thief," or something stronger, but I can only speak geiierally. Cress-examined by Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C. The manuscript was taken away from the office by Mr Carr and Mr Harris. He did not know whether Mr Eusor had then left the office, but he bad no doubt he was not there. When did the manuscript next coma into your possession?—When Mr Carr asked me to go through it and produce it during the trial for assault. Now, at the time you gave evidence before the magistrates you were in the employ of the Western I Mail ?—No. How long before that had you left ?—The pre- vious evening. Now, do you say the manuscript was destroyed at the suggestion of inirs Carr, or the lady called Mrs Carr ?—I say it was destroyed for two reasons. But you say it was destioyed at her suggestion —I say for two reasons. Let us have them.—I have given them. (Warmly) Tell us your two reasons.— You need not bully me; you'll do no good by it. (Laughter.) My first reason was that if the copy was impounded and got into tbe hands of the Batchelor party-I know what I am saying now —or into the hands of the Crown, tbey could have priwecuted Mr Carr for perjury. What is the other reaaon I That I was asked by a person to destroy it, but I reiused. Did you swear before the magistrates that it was destroyed by nobody's instructions?—I swore it was destroyed by no one's instruc- tions. I made that distinction on purpose to save a woman. The woman whom you thougltt had been guilty of an improper act 1—There was no improper act. Why did you want to save her.'—I had great respect for her. You made a distinction ou your oath out of respect for a woyuai, "-I was asked by whose instructions was the manuscript destroyed," and I said no one, as Mrs Carr was not one from whom I could receive, in That's your idea of telling the truth on oath.- Well, I have been threatened about this. His Lordship: Don't enter at all into tna-' You say you were afraid that if that manuscript- were in existence Carr would be prosecuted for perjury. Why would he be prosecuted for perjury? —On account of the evidence he gave in the case before the police magistrates. Why did you say there was a charge of perjury to be brought against him ?-I said so because he said that the epitaph was used without his sane tion or consent, and that his instructions about the mauuscript were not carried out. But what wero the exact allegations of perjury to be made against him ?-TlkY were in regard to the whole affair. Then it was to save him that it was destroyed ? —No, I tell you it was to save the woman. Was the manuscript very considerably altered ? —Well, nut so much alterations us in the way of toning down. Were there not words substitute ?—Yes. Re-axamiued by MrM IlIèyre: Yuusay you were not instructed to destroy the manuscript ?-Y,% a friend came to me and said that I might save her, and I destroyod it for that reason. Had E len Jaclc«on any authority to direct or instruct you to destroy the mantiscrip,, tainly not. Was she the person who asked you ?—Yes, JAMES HARRIS. James Harris, deputy editor of the Wetiem Mail, was next called. Mr David Did y M see the manuscript of the epitaph in your office -I decline to say. The Jucige: Wiiy d,) you decline to say?—My auswer is that it might tend to incriminate myself. Passing on to another subject, witness took a file of the Western Mail containing a paper of the 26th July. He saw there a letter purporting to be signed T. H. Ensor, the MS. of which he had seen. He had been subpoenaed to produce it, but be bad not the slightest idea what had be. come of 1L Manuscripts were destroyed at inter- vals according to the accumulation. In whose handwriting was tbe manuscript of that letter? Mr Rowlands objected. The Judge: I suppose Mr David wants to knbw whether Mr Ensor signed it, though I don't see what this other letter had to da with it. Mr David: It shows that Mr Ensor had a knowledge of the letter going into the paper, and tbat be does not disclafva- Th* Judge; That is too wide, It the jury believe the evidence that Mr Ensor brought this thing to the office and s»ve it to the for the punxise of publication, what can you uive more? Mr David But I apprehend that an issue will be raised by the defendant that this is .not the same letter that went into the press. After some other argument, The Judge's Associate read the letter in ques- tion, which was as follows:— To the Editor of tbe Western MaiL. Sir,—Permit me to state, in order to silence numerous enquiries, that I have never in my life adopted the neot de plume of "Censor," nor written anything in your columns, or elsewhere, under that euphemistic signature. (Signed) T. H. ENS OK. Mr Rowlands: You would have been welcome to it if I had known that was what it was. (To witness): You have heard Mr M'lntyre give the origin of the phrase, "Left his country for his country s good ?"—No, I did not bear. When you read the phrase, did you understand that trausportation was meant ?—Certainly not. Are you acquainted with that phrase in litera- tnre?- Y es. Have you read a speech made by Mr Justice Butt on the 29th June ? The Judge Tht must be left to the jury. Mr Rowlands Perhaps you will permit me to refer to it in my speech. The Judge: Yes. Re-examined by Mr Mclntyre: Before you went to Mr Carr's did you see the manuscript at the office!- Witness: I decline to say. Then you decline to say anything as to what was in the manuscrip. ?—I decline to say any- thing about it. MrllcIntyre (to his lordship): Ishe jELstiflsd?- His Lordship: Yes, he is justified. Mr Mclntyre then proposed to put in the con- viction in the assault case to show that not only was a breach of the peace attempted, but that an assault was actually committed. His Lordship I do not know whether we are to retry that case. There is the fact of an assault, but it might have arisen about some other subject. Mr Mclntyre I do not think it makes much difference. That is tbe case for^ tbe prosecution, Tbe court theu adjourned for luncheon. THE DEFENCE. On re-assembling Mr Rowlands commenced the case for the defence. He t d: an objection to several of tha counts because they did not allege it was intended to defame and vilify posterity. His Lordship What do you say to the others? Mr R,wlands: Subject to the general rnling that this is not a subject for criminal indictment at aU, I do not think any intent is alleged that tbere was a tendency to commit a breach of the peace. His Lordship: You say first of all that an indictment does not lie on a dead man; and, secondly, as to some of the counts, that they are bad because they do not allege anything about his posterity, and, as to other counts, because they do not allege an intent but only a tendency. Mr Rowlands, having expressed agreement in this view, cited authorities in support of his ob- jections, amongst them Mr Justice Stephen's I)igest of The Criminal Lbw." His Lordship: Againcft me that is an authority, but 1 do not know whether it would be against anyone else. (Laughter.) Mr Rowlands also cited the case of the Queen v. Labouchere and the Queen v. Topbam, and denied that is the present case there was anything but the words of the alleged libel to show there was any intention to create a breach of the peace. A sensitive person might ectniiiit a breach of the peace in consequence of nucli a publication, but be would not necessarily be justified. Hi6 Lordship said it was true that in the case of the Queen v. Labouchere, Lord Coleridge (the Lord Chief Justice) seemed to leau against prosecutions for iibel on a deceased person, but the question had never really been settled. Mr Mclntyre held that the indictment was good, for the present case affected tbe nearest and dearest relatives of the deceased. The libel brought the memory of the deceased man into dis- grace, and had a tendency to cause a breach of the peace. The real question before his lordship was if the libel on tha dead was calculated to cause a breach of the peace. His Lordship; There is no part of the law which has beeu more passionately fought over than ttiis. I have always understood it in this manner:—That the indictment must prefer a criminal intention, and a criminal tendency is only evidence from which the jury may, in certain cases, infer the intention. That is, I should say, the whole question. Mr Mclntyre I have no doubt that this was the proposition contended for. I submit that if there is an allegation of the intention, that is sufficient for the indictment. His Lordship replied that if a man were indicted for murder, a vast number of things were included under the head malice aforethought." But he had never yet heard that malice afore- thought averred cne of the many things included under that head. The words imputing intention were as necessary to the libel as the words "malice aforethought" are to au imputation of murder. Mr Mclntyre I cannot say that it was done with the intention of malice aforethought at all events, my lord, I think it is a case for the jury. Mr David, who followed, said be was g-mg to cite from Hawkins, second volume, page 127, sec- tion 1. It seemed to him to put the matter in a perfectly dear light. It seemeth that a libel in the strict sense is taken for malicious defamation expressed either in printing or writing, and intended either to blacken the memory of one who is dead-" He would pause there. The sentence was com- plete, aud he thought that the word either for the purposes of the case might be excised. Consider for a moment, what was the object of tite law of libel and what the basis of it was. The basis was that it should provide some deterrent for persons, wbo when libelled, might be disposed to take redress into their own hands, rather than to risk the law upon it, and therefore the matter being one in which the peace of the public might be found looming in the distance, it was brought within the criminal law, and this remedy was provided. He afterwards proceeded to speak as to the word "tendency." Mr Houghton, who moved the court above to quash the indictment, put the same contention forward. Mr Jutice Denman replied that it was done maliciously. This, Mr David submitted, waa sufficient to support two of the counts. The word maliciously" contained the very essence of intent, and if it was alleged that an act was done unlawfully or maliciously, that was sufficient. His Lordship pointed out that a man could not be indicted for maliciously murdering a person. It would not be a good indictment. Mr David There would be further language. The word maliciously imported intent, and other equivalent words would follow. His Lordship: Would that do—maliciously intending to kill A or B ? Can you have a good indictment for murder except it contain the old- fashioned words of malice aforethought'? Mr David replied in the negative. His Lordship asked another question. If a man were indicted for uttering edítious words, would it be a good indictment if the words were inserted "Having a tendency to create a breach of th peace?" Mr David conten Je.1 on the authorities, and particularly the King v. Topham, that if would be allowed. Hi Lordship: It is just the intent which it is so difficult to prove. Juries would be told that the offence follows the natural tendency of the acts. If this contention had been invented and sustained 11 60 years ago, you (Mr David) would have been raised by the Crown to the highest legal position in the realm. (Laughter.) Mr David I do not seek any favours from the Crown. His Lordship: I omy say what a convenient doctrine it would have been. Mr David than quoted Lord Coke, and the bearings on the case as indicated in the most recently-decided case, namely, Queen v. Labou- chere.. I His Lordship: I know another equally high I authority—Lord Blackburn-who never regarded Coke as an authority at all. Mr David said that Mr Justice Hawkins and Mr Justice Dsnmsn, the two judges who heard the application to quash the case, expressed them- selves n exceedingly strong terms about this case. His Lordship Is it reported ? Mr David In the local papers it is reported verbatim. I His Lordsbip said he had thought a great deal over this case, and he wished to ask Mr Mclntyre whether he mea.nt to go to the jury on the count of the indictment, that the t'eal intention of the publisher of the iibel was to wake all attack on the character of the late Mr Batchelor's sans or relations, although in words it was confined to Alt Batchelor himself? Mr Mclntyre replied in the negative, and said I he used the word tendency «that the alleged libel was calculated to be construed iu that way. Hi* Lordship You do not mean to say such an Hi* Lordship You do not mean to say such an attack was intended ? I Mr Mclntyre No. H:s Lordship That bein 80, I will giye at once my judgment on the matter. (To Mr Boweu Rowlands) You say there is no evidence, and you ask me m direct a verdict of ccquittal ? Mr Rowlands: Yes. Mr Molntyre I contend, my lord, that tbere is evidence, supposing the indictment is sufficient tu go to tbe jury. His Lords!]1: That language has been used about a dead man erdctilated to excite the feelings of the living. But supposing I hold that is no crime ? M r Mclntyre It is not charged as a crime. His Lordship: I think after the evidence given I must undertake the tesponsibility of directing an acQuittal. Mr Mclntyre: There is evidence in support of the indictment, although the indictment may be bad. THE JUDGE'S SUMMING UP. His L irdshii* then addressed t-be jury as foi. lows:—Gentlemen of the jury, I have giveu a great deal of consideration to this case I have consulted all the authorities upon it, and have thought it over careiui..y. Before I came into court I put into writing my own views about the law of the subject, in order that they at all events might be correctly reported, and also because the question is one of very great iraportance, and has never yet been expressly decided. Now, the argument which I have heard has in no degiee changed the opinion which I formed. I will now state to you what my opinion is, and on what grounds I direct you, as I propose to do, that there is no evidence in this case upon which you can conviot the prisoner of the offence consistently with the law of the land. Gentlemen, tbere can be no question at all that if John Batcbelor were now living the language applied tn him would have been libellous, but he died three years before that language was published, and that raises the ques- tion whether, and in what cases, a libel upou a dead man is by tile low of Ear- I. land a crime. The authorities on the subject are three. -in. i'nre»* only. The latest of them is the case of Queen v. Labouchere, which, is reported in the Law Reports, 12 Queen's Bench Division, page 130. It has in reality very little to do with this question. That was a case in which an ex efiicto information war moved for in respect to the libel upon a dead person. The question was whether it could be granted, and the court hekl tbat the person's death was a reason why the court should not, in its discretion, grant the extreme remedy which is granted only in particular cases. It does not at ail follow that because the coart in that case refused to grant that information, the indictment for this libel would not lie. Tole learned counsel informed me—truly, I have no douot-tbat an application was made to the court to quash this indictment, and that the jftdges to whom the application was made, &nd who had been parties to the judgment in tbe Queen v. Labouchere said the judgment was Dot intended to decide the point which arises in these cases. There are two other authorities— ttie authority of Lord Coke and Lord Kenyon, and the authority of the Court of Queen's Beach, ia the case of the King agaiust Topham. Lord Coka s authority is con- tained in the 5th volume of his reports, folio 12c A. He distinguishes iibeis all libels agaiust a private man or a magistrate. He then goes on to say, Although the private man or magistrate be dead at the time of the commission of the libel, yet it is punishable, for in the one case it stirs up others of the same family blood, or society, to revenge and to creak the peace and in the other the hbelier traduces and slanders the state, which dies not." Now if this ever was good law it would follow that all history is unlawful, for every true history murt, in innumerable cases, traduce the state which dies not, Although Lord Coke, in the latter part of his long life, was distinguished for his independence as a judge, and for dehnding the subject against the encroachments cf the Royal prerosre- tive, he was of a bom" hat different character in the early part of his career. A contemporary writer, who has given the history of the Star Chamber, remarks, "In an ages libels ha-c been severely punished, and in this court [that is, the Star Chamber], but most especially they begin to be frequent about tie 42nd aud 43rd Elizabeth, In lbOO, when Sir Edw. Coke was Attorney-General." It o-ems to me, there- fore, probable that in making the observations which be did make, and wbich were not necessary for the matter then under discussion, be was giving his impressions of the practice in the Star Chamber, and that would not in these days be regarded as authoritative by anyone. I oould say much on Lord Coke '6 observations upon the criminal law. In several cases be ap- peared to me to go greatly beyond the authorities to which he refers, but in this particular passage he refers to no authorities at all. The real authority upcn the subject is the case of the King against Topham, in which Lord Kenyon delivered the considered judgment to the whole court upou the indictment, which charged Topham with Isbelling Lord Hooper by defaming him, and leading people to believe tbat he was a very wicked man. That expressly determines that some of the -ndtct inents are bad. "To say in generalthattbeconduct of a dead person can at nu time be canvassed—to bold that, even after ages past, bad men cannot be contrasted with good, would be to exclude the most useful part of history. Such publications ir-ay be made fairly and honestly, and they may be made early or late. If they be dune with a malicious purpose to vilify the memory of the deceased, ad in Rsgina v. Crittibley, then it comes within tlie rule, and it becomes illegal, for it is done with a design to create a breach of the peace.' That seems to me to show that a mere vilifying a deceased man is not enough. The dead hive no rights and they suffer no wrongs. The i: çill alone are the subject, of the legal protection of the law of libel, and that law is nitemied to protect them, not against writ- ing which gives them pain, but against writings holding them up to contempt and ridicule. That may be done in every variety (,f way. There are terms in our language by which, though another person is mentioued, imputations and aspersions are cast upon some other person. Thus if a man's mother were mentioned and vice were impated to her, in order to be a. discredit to her sou, it seems to me clear that though the sons might not be expressly mentioned the law would be tbe same. Snppose the object of a writer was clearly and obviously to brlug the memory of Jauies L into contempt It seems to me that it makes no difference whether the said James. 1. was the son ot an adul- terous murderess, or that Mary Stuart was au adulterous murderess. In cases of libel the in- tention is everything. If you wish to cause Haman to be banged, it makes no ditu.rence whether you say Behold, also, the gallows which Haman has made," or, "0" no account look at the gallows which Haman has made." It is sometiines said tbat a man must be held to only intend the natural consequences of his acts, and thai if a libel on a dead man is calculated to incite his liviuc friends and relations to case a breach of the peace, there- fore be is responsible for the intention. This view appears to have been taken by my brother Wills in charging the grand jury in this case at Swan- sea. No higher living authority could be quoted to me, and I hold nu man in higher respect, but upon this point I cannot agree with him. If it were correct it would follow that what Lord Coke said is correct, and that libels upon the dead are punishable because they are, by their very nature, likely to give offence to tbe living and cause revenge. If this were the Jaw the Queen v. Topham would be wrongly decided, for it expressly holds that that is uot the law, and judgment against the libeller of Lord Hooper was put aside because no intention to injure Lord Hooper's family was alleged. I teel if I were to lay down the law to you other- wise than it has been laid down by a long series of judges in all past times; if I were to tell you you have nothing to do with tbeintention of the party, but only to look at the tendency of the writing, I should be doing a very wrong and unconstitutional thing which I am not justified in doing. No doubt it would very much simplify tbe law it libel was to be a question not of iuttution but tendency, and far be it from me to say it would not be an important change in the law. But it fiti one which must be made by Parliament, and one which I don't think SUT judtre ought to make. In all the indictments for kibeI with whioh I ha ve been acquainted intention to do something unlawful is distinctly and pointedly affirmed, and has to be left to the jury and though it is true tbat the Jury vht always to be told that they are to suppose that a man intends the natural conse- quences of his act—that if I strike a man on the liead, if you shoot a man through the ead with a pistol, it is obvious you iutwsd to kill him; if you address to an excited mob violent language likely to cause outbreaks of violence and fury, youtmost be taken to intend to cause them. That it- strictly true, but it is no less true that the jury are to be-the judges of that indictment so drawn as to oust the jury from that duty, to take it from them, to leave them out of the question are indictments not in accordance with the law, There is yet anothwr subject which I am unwilling to leave unnoticed. 1 refer to the silence of the authorities, and the general practice of the profession for a iong series of years is one of the most weighty of all authori- ties in this case--an authority more weighty than isolated statements made by Lord Coke or the few unsatisfactory cases which are referred to in tue Queen v. Topham. I aui reluctant to the greatest possible degree to extend the criminal law. Speaking broadiy, to libel the dead is not an offence known to our Jaw. If for the good of society it is desirable that it should be punished as a criminal offence, it is for-the legislature to intervene. So far All my authority I extends, I will never do anything to extend the criminal law beyond what is usual and well- known. There may be exceptions, to which I ueed not refer but it is a strong argument against any interpretation of the law that it would prac- tically tend to extend tha domain of the criminal law, and for these reasous, and as Mr M'lntyre does not—and it is obvious oould not—put it to you tbat this was intended to be an attack on the character of the deceased Mr Batcbelor, as he do«s not suggest th-t there was an intention to injure hie posterity, or give evidence eveu to soow that the defendants ever kuew that Mr Batchelor had any family or had an> thing to uo wi oil iiim. As this is S", I tell you you ought to acquit the defendant on tiiis indictmert. Geu- tieweu, though I tell you that I do not think the law rules this case, I do not tell you that I in the smallest depree approve—either as a lawyer or a man of language applied to a pers- u very lately dead, and very likely indeed to leave those behind who might be erueily wounded by such language. I think we expect in all writing—particularly, I may say, in palitical writiog-we expect con- sideration for the deceucies of life, and we expect consideration for the very kindest and best of all feelings—the feeling with which near relations woul;i look on the deceased—and I think it is a wrong thing for a niau to so fax forget himself, and t be led away-I do not inquire by what motives or roas >ns—to apply brutal language. The language in itself is not sought to be justified —there iii no piea justifying it. I refer to a man who appears to have been widely enough known -I do not know anything about him or his affairs —to render various parsous in this town desirous of celebrating his memory. I have spoken my mind about thematterpeitectly plainly. I ted you the law leaves you no option Out to say that Mr Ensor is notguilty of the legal offence imputed to him. I need uot say more. It i» not u>y duty to Le a mwr*i center of other peopie's doings or s: y.i.gi, but I have said this—tiiat I oo not ,a), a single word in approval, in a moral, literal, or any other sense, The jury theu, by direction of his lordship, re- turned a verdict of acquittal.

THE CHARGE AGAINST CARR. In reference to the charge against Carr, Mr M'lntyre decided to offer no evidence, and asked that the indictmput might bequasoed. Hi.- Lordship said the court h:id discretion to quash the indictment, but he could not do so. Mr M'lntyre wished the indictment to be quashed that he urght move in the matter in & higher court, ..ud this he (toe judge) did not think de; uable, as the case had been sent to Cardiff for trial, ani should tie disposed of there. Mr M/Intyre said Mr Can's case differed from the other, ajs justification w. pleaded. His Lordship said unless that was withdrawn the case must be gone on u itti. Mr Rowlands, after consulting with his clients withdrew that plea, and said he would plead not jruilty. The jury, again directed by bis lordship, then acquitted Mr Carr also.

SWANSEA. VITAL STATISTICS.— Vital statistics for the week ending February 5th :—Births registered. 42 annual rate per 1,000, 28 "8 deaths registered 20 annual rate per i,OOG, 13'7.-EBJ:. DA VIES Medical Officer of Health. SWANSEA. HosrrrAL.—An abstract of the res-i dent medical officer's report to the weekly boara, from Feb. 3rd to Feb. 10,ii, 1887 :-In::1,,ol patients—Remained by last report, 61 ;ad-mitwod since, 14--75; dieebarged-cure(i and reiiereo, 13 died, 0—13 remaining, 62. Out.door patient;?— Remained by last report. 351 admitted since, 58-409 discharged—cured and relieved, 50 died, 0—50 remaining, 359. Mn BIKCHAW AND THE COTTAGH IIOMES.kt the weekly meeting of the board of guardians uU Thursday, held under the presidency "f Mr E. L. Bi»nie:, the visiting c'nmitte of the bomes re- ported that Mr Birch am, the Local OovenunaiK Boud inspector, had visited the domes, and reccmmended that the guardians should provide I the boys with flannel instead of cotton ones; liiat tke clothes ebouia be better, .,1 that a superioj class of boots siiouM be provided. Tuis, he suggested, would be far better tor the children, who looked cold, wtii ie many oi them seemed to have poor blood. Tile committee recommei.ded the adoption of the -,Lvfr Bir- cham, who attended tne meeting, said the boots applied were hardly of the quality he would like to see, amd, the oontract price being ouiy 3s bd, it was but natural to suppose they wou.t uot stand cobbling. Thea some children wore boots wbich were sizes too latge tor tbem, MB i, when h«» wished the superintendent to see if some ia stock would not tit better, be found tbere wa. a surplus of only a doaen pairs.—Ultimately the report was adopted.—Two applicants for toe assistant matronship af one of the homes attended, and Mis Jenkins was elected. CRARGK or STEALING GLOTHES.- Before Mews J. C. Fowler, T. Powell. T, C. iJavies, Pno J. C. V. Parminter, at the police-ocnrt, on Thursday, a boitermaker nam-d John Thomas, aged 46, was charged with stealing aguerns°y lrock, two shirt-, a vest, a pair ot trousers, and a raaer, from No. C', Calvert-street, the property uf a seaman liMned Sueiling. Prosecutor said defendant lived iI. the same house with hiw. He saw the clothes i" the bedroom ou Tuesday morning,and missed tfeein at night. The case was adjourned tor the production (1f further evidence. THSL MEANIK6 OF DwmEtm.N.A SUMMON*, brought by Annie Thomas against Dariiel Tht-raw,, her liusbaud, who li ves at 46, G-orae-lane, adjourned at a previous hearing in oroer that the authorities might be consulted as to the logal meauing of the word desertion," again came before tne bench on Thursday. Mr Woodward, io detmc.j, said the word wa. held to mean "to forsake or fail way from;" "to leave meM*uigiy or treacherously." It ha/i beeti proved that defen- dant had not acted in this way, because as it w,li his wite who left him. Another authority held that should one of the parties seek for a recon- ciliation which was refused by the other, then the second party could be charged for desertion. He coaid prove that the husband had desired a reconciliation which was refused by the wife. wkko ba(i, in reality. desftrted her husband. Alter further argument the case was dismissed. VISITORS please note specialties at Mr Ch;.p- man's Shudio. Finest artisnc wore in the pr incipality All latest improvement-. The prices most mnderat*. THE PEOPLE'S PHOTOGKAPHKK, J. H.ARR G-olrtie, Temple-street Soudio. window for ci. new. Instantaneous prooess for children. IC70

WEDDING AT NEATH. The village of Skewen, Neath, was en f4ie on Thursday, the occasion being: the marriage ot Mr S. T. Evaue, solicitor, o: Ravens worth, Neatb, to Miss Racbei R. Tdomas, eldest daueiitar of Mr William Thomas, of Sei View, Skewen. Tile marriage wa solemnised at the Tabernacle Inde- pendent Chapel by the Rev, L. Evans (uncle ox the bridgToom) and the Rev. F. Samuel. TOe chapel, wbich bad been tastefully decorated, was well C-led. The bridesmaids were Miss Evans (sister of the bridegroom), Miss Cassie Taomae (sister of the bride), Miss Kate David <coosin ot the bride), and Miss Laura Samuel (niece of ttte bridegroom). The bride was atcired in a drest of cream satin with bridal vei and orange blossoms. She were a hand- some pearl brooch, the gift of the bridegrooiu, and carried a bouquet corn posted ot the choicest flowers. The bridesmaids wore dresses of cream nun's veiling, with plush trimming, and hats of white straw trimmed with Chantiily net and plush. Each carried a pretty bouquet. The bridegroom was attended by his cousin, Mr S. Cromwell Jones, M.B., and the bride was given away by her father. After the ceremony the wedding pa.rty drove, through streets decked with streamers and evergreens and lined with spec- tators, to the residence of the bride's father, where the wedding breakfast was served. They left by the express train for London, where thtt honeymoon will be spent. The presents were numerous and costly, amongst the principal being the following: — My a" Mrs Thomas, alter fish knives and forks and silver dessert knives aad forks Mr W. M. Tbouia-, cruet stand Mr G M. Thomas, fruit basket Mis» M. C. Thomas, butter cooler Mr and Mr- Evijtr,, Bible, silver salver, and silver cake basket Mrs Samuel, batter cooler Miss Evans, silver hot wa.«r jug Dr S. Cromwell Jones, china afternoon tea service with silver spoons Miss I>avid, silver eggttand Mr and Mrs Pendi ill Charles, si ver tea and coffee ser- vice Master krauk and Mis" Nita Ciiarle,, case ot silver saltcellars Mr and Mrs H. P. Charles, sal: d bowl Mr D. M. Da vies, slrer sa,ver Dr D. L. D.tvies. biscuit box Mr Pft r Havres. afternoon tea «»erviee; Mr andMrsGeo. Davies. butter cooler and sheese stand Mr Davies (jevellar). inkstand and calendar Mrs Davies, satin apron Miss H it, card case Mr '<V. I Howell. case of silver dessert spions Mr M. Job:, marble timepiece Miss John, biscuit box Mr F. Jones, ditto Miss Llewellyn, pair of ornaments M- and Mrs Morgan, preserve dish Mr E. PoweH. dessen service Mr and Mrs r'hillips, jewel casket Ii> Phillips, atbum Urg How, tea service Mis* cruet stuiid Miss Hiohards, pin-cushion Mi- Samuel, cheese stand Mrs Thorn is (Rugby), lemon cutter; Mr Williams, butter kmle Mrs Williea^, preserve dish Miss M. Williams, at bam.

SERIOUS FIRE NEAR CARMARTHEN. On Wednesday night a thatched building in the farmyard of Mr Richard Jones, of Maesypant, in the parish of L'.anfynydd, near Carmarthen, took tire. The building comprised cowhouses and stables, and the resuit was that nine cows and two horses perished in the fi*traos. The fire was rot discovered until it had taken a farm hold ot tLe structure. Mr J oner's family were a^ou»ed oy the servant bu), and tbey used every effort to fiave the stock, but they only succeeded in rescuing two out of x! cows, and one oi these was severely bui ned. Tue origm of th* lire has not transpired, and it is feared that wone of tbe loss will be covered by insurance.