The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-11-14 00:00:00

THE RUSSIAN NAVY.

The Czar has a new hobby. Tired, apparently, of
costly conquests in Central Asia, he is now turning
attention to tbe augmentation of his naval forces.
No longer shall a scornful Bismarck ridicule the idea
of the Russian elephant fighting with the British
whale. No longer shall Britannia boast that she
rules the waves. Before many years elapse, the
Vikings of the icy North will sail forth in scores of
huge ironclad "dragons," and the British tar, shiver-
ing his timbers, may consider his occupation gone.
Not only has a new armour-plated cruiser, con-
structed at a Russian dockyard of Russian materials,
been added to the Imperial navy, but quite a dozen
of other craft are ordered to be constructed, all for
the benefit of England and for the peace of the
world. As one of the illustrious officers who were
present at the launch of the Admiral Nalihiinoff
pleasantly remarked, "England will never be Russia's
true friend and ally until the Russian fleet is equal to
that of England.' Now we know, therefore, the
price that we are expected to pay for the love of ou.r
Northern admirer. We have merely to cease ship-
building, and the Czar will make all possible haste to
equalise matters on the ocean. It is to be feared
that our present rulers do not quite recognise the
advantages of the bargain thus offered. In a spirit
of downright "cussedness "they are laying down new
monsters, hurrying forward those in course of com-
pletion, and in other ways largely increasing the
fighting strength of the navy. It follows, therefore,
that as we build very much quicker than Russia, we
shall be farther ahead of her than ever by the time
her new vessels are finished. Clearly M. Lessar
must again be called in to experiment once more with
his patent " ethnographical " specific for the creation
of friendly relations between England and Russia. It
is true that, ever since he left London, he has been
boasting about the clever way in which he "diddled"
British diplomacy over the Zulfikar affair. But we
'repose such perfect confidence in his capacity for
adapting himself to circumstances, that we make no
doubt whatever he would not be a week in England
before he flattered our wounded amour propre by re-
presenting himself as the diddled.—Tile Graphw.

A temperance reformer got a severe rebuff in New
Jersey lately. Meeting a man in the street, and
being anxious to spread the cause, he asked him—
My friend do you drink?" "Yes." was the reply,
' where shall we go?"

THE ARMSTRONG ABDUCTION CASE.

CONY ICTION_OF STEAD AND.JARRETT..

Saturday was the twelfth day of the trial of the
Armstiong abduction case before Mr. Justice Lopes
at the Old Bailey. It will be remembered that Mr.
William Thomas Stead, the editor of the Pall Mall
Gazette ; Mr. Sampson Jacques, a member of the
staff of the same newspaper; and Mr. Bramwell
Booth, an official of the Salvation Army; and
Rebecca Jarrett, were in custody for the misdeamour
of having, contrary to the 24th and 24th Vict., chap.
100, sec. 55, unlawfully taken and caused to be taken
one Eliza Armstrong, an unmarried girl under the
age of 16, out of the possession of her parents against
their will.

Counsel for the defendents having addressed the
jury, and the Attorney-General having replied, Mr.
Justice Lopes summed up the case. He stated that
the charge against the defendants Jarrett, Stead,
Jacques, and Booth was that they had unlawfully
conspired together to take a girl named Eliza Arm-
strong from the custody of her parents without their
consent; and although the case had unhappily occu-
pied a very long time, he was of opinicn that nothing
that could throw any light upon a question that had
created such public interest should be withheld from
the jury, and they should be made acquainted with
every fact connected with the charge. He was of
opinion that the Attorney-General had exercised a
wise discretion in trying the charge of abduction, be-
cause it gave all the defendants an opportunity of
giving their own explanation of their conduct upon
oath; and he oonsidered that it was most satisfactory
that four of the defendants had availed themselves
of this privilege ; and the jury might therefore be
considered to have all the fats before them. The
jury had been asked by some of the learned counsel
for defendants to return a verdict which, in his
opinion, would be contrary both to law and evidence;
but he was sure that they would not allow themselves
to be led away by such an ape( 1, and that they
would return a verdict founded upon law and
evidence only. He went. on to say that there was no
doubt that a series of filthy and disgusting articles had
been issued from the Pall Mall Gazette, articles which
were, undoubtedly, calculated to do a great deal of
mischief to the young and innocent. That had
nothing to do with-this, and the only point they had
to consider was whether the defendants were guilty
of taking Eliza Armstrong from the austodyl of her
parents without their consent. It did not appear to
be disputed that Jarrett and Stead did take the girl
away from the parents, and the only issue that re-
mained for them to say was whether the taking away
of the girl was without her father's consent. He had
grave doubts at first whether he ought to leave any
other questions to them, but he should leave another
question, which was whether the parents were aware
that the girl was to be taken away for immoral pur-
poses. This would apply to Stead and Jarrett only,
and the remaining point for their consideration was
whether Booth and Jacques had aided and abetted in
taking away the girl from her parents without their
consent. It would be an important question for the
jary to consider as to whether the possession of the
child was obtained by fraud; and it was his duty to
tell them that if this was the case, the consent was null
and void, and it was no consent at all on the part of the
parents. Part of the defence appeared to be that all
that had been done was done with good motives, but
even assuming this to be the case, it was his duty to
tell them that this was no answer whatever to the
present charge; and that the law of the land could
not be violated from mere caprice or to carry out some
object that was supposed to be good and lawful. If
this sort of thing was to be allowed they would no
longer be governed by fixed law; but would be sub-
jected to all sorts of caprices, and have the law con-
stantly violated in order that persons who entertained
certain ideas might carry out what they supposed to
be a good object. The learned judge went on to say
that the case against Jarrett appeared to be that the
mother of the child had been deceived by her, and
had allowed the woman to take the child away as a
servant; and the answer to this was that the mother
had sold the child to Jarrett for immoral purposes.
He reminded them that the father of the child was
ignorant of what had happened, and believed that the
child was going to service. The mother denied that
there was any truth in the charge made against her, .
and the charge rested entirely upon the evidence of
Jarrett, who was a woman described as being steeped
in iniquity; but it was said that she had ceased to be
a sinner, and had abandoned her old habits. But
the evidence did not seem in any way to support
this idea. On the contrary, it seemed that only
last year she had lapsed into her old habits, and
it was evident that she had led a life of
vice and crime; and it was upon the evidence of
such a woman as this that the jury were asked
to say that Mrs. Armstrong and Mrs. Broughton had
acted in the mercenary and heartless manner that
had been suggested. He said that the story told by
Jarrett in the witness-box was not only inconsistent
with the admitted facts of the case, but also incon-
sistent with the case she had set up. He reminded
them that Jarrett was contradicted by the mother,
by the girl herself, and three other witnesses, and
yet they were asked to disbelieve the evidence of
these witnesses, and rely upon the evidence of such a
woman as Jarrett was admitted to be. The girl
Eliza Armstrong appeared to be a truthful, innocent
child, and the letter that she wrote to her mother
while staying at the headquarters of the Salvation
Army was a striking proof that she was such a girl
as he had described. She had been, no doubt,
brought up in a low locality, and he asked them
whether, having regard to this fact, she should have
been such an innocent and affectionate child as she
appeared to be. The mother had given her evidence,
and it was said that she was addicted to drink; but
he asked them whether they would be justified from
this fact in drawing the inference that she was a wicked,
heartless woman, who was capable of selling her own
offspring to a life of disgrace and ruin. He said it
appeared to him that the whole conduct of the mother,
and the letters she wrote, were utterly inconsistent
with the suggestion that she could have acted in
the way stated. Everything showed that the parents
were very much distressed at the loss of their child,
and that they did all they could to regain possession
of her, and he asked them whether this was not also
inconsistent with the idea that the mothel was such a
wicked, heartless, and degraded creature as Jarrett
suggested her to be. The learned judge next referred
to the conduct of Mrs. Broughton, and he said that
all that appeared to be suggested against her was that
there were discrepancies between the statements
made by her and those that were made by Mrs. Arm-
strong ; bat the question for the jury was not whether
there were some slight discrepancies in their evi-
dence, but whether, substantially, they were speaking;
the truth. As to the evidence of the father, it ap-
peared to him that there was not the slightest impu-
tation against him. It was not disputed that when
he heard that his wife had sent the child away with-
out his consent, he was very angry, and that he
struck his wife and knocked her do;vn for having
done so. He considered it very possible that Jarrett,
having undertaken the task of procuring a child, and
finding herself unable to do so, had resorted to the
expedient of procuring the girl Eliza Armstrong by
fraud and false representations; and that she had
deceived Stead altogether; and that if he had been
aware of the real facts he would have indignantly
refused to have anything to do with such a
transaction. He then read the statement made by the
girl Eliza Armstrong, and said that. the jury would
consider whether it was not a straightforward story
of that which had taken place between her and the
prisoner Jarrett after she had been taken away from
her mother's house. It had been said on behalf of
the defendants that the mother had not acted with
proper care and caution in allowing her child to be
taken away; but this was not the question. Persons
in the condition of the Armstrongs were naturally
desirous to obtain employment for their children,
and the representations made to her by Jarrett were
calculated to deceive her and throw her off her guard.
He asked the jury whether it was probable that any
wicked, infamous mother, such as Mrs. Armstrong
was suggested to be, would have sold her child with-
out knowing bow much she was to receive, and yet
this was what was suggested to have occurred by
Jarrett? The sum of £1 appeared to have been
mentioned, and subsequently the sum of £5, but the
mother denied having anything, and what she was to
have was to have been left to Jarrett's generosity.
He asked them to consider whether this was a pro-
bable state of things. Again, when the mother read
the article in the Pall Mall Gazette, she appeared to
have at once suspected that something was wrong, and
the very next day she went to Marylebone Police-
court and she stated what had taken place. The
article in the Pall Mall Gazettes° clearly pointed to her
daughter that Mrs. Armstrong appeared to have at once
reco, nised the case, and became alarmed; and the
jury would consider whether this conduct was consis-
tent with the suggestion that she had sold her child
for the vile purpose stated by Jarrett. They would
also not forget that the mother had solemnly sworn
that there was no truth in the story. Then there is
the story of going to Milton-street, Poland-street,
and so on, and then Jarrett goes to Paris. Now what
does she say about the Post-office orders? She says
she bought them in Paris, but Mrs. Broughton denies
that she ever received them. We have the evidence
of Professor Stuart as to this Paris story, but there is
no confirmation about the purchase of these Post-
office orders. Jarrett distinctly says that Mrs.
Broughton is a respectable woman, so far as she
knows. Can you imagine, then, how she could go to
Mrs. Broughton's for the purpose of buying a child?
Can you understand, by-and-by, when she comes to
relate the circumstances of June 2 and 3 to Mr.
Stead, she describes this woman, Mrs. Broughton, of
whom she says she knows nothing immoral, as a
brothel-keeper? She says she believes she told Stead
all that passed as truthfully as she could. This is on
the evening of the Tuesday, the relation of which sub-
sequently appears in the Pall Mall Gazette. Stead, you
know, says he was most careful to be accurate. This
woman, whom we are asked to belieee in the face of all
the witnesses for the prosecution, whose evidence
cannot be impeached, says she did not know the
"Lily "of that article was Eliza. Why, in the original
MSS., the name Lily was written, and not Eliza. She
told Stead she had agreed to get a girl for £5. She
admits that, and that was a lie. No money had been
mentioned. According to her own statement, she is
contradicting herself. She did not, she says, tell
Stead the girl's father thought she was going to a
situation, but Stead directly contradicted that, and is
concerned about it; and yet on evidence like this
will not use the expression which was on my mind—

you are asked to dismiss the evidence of the prosecu-
tion as unreliable. When asked why Mrs. Broughton
should have written to Wimbledon she was unable to
give any explanation, except that she might have
mentioned it to the woman. Then you have the
letter in which she signs her name as "Mrs.
Sullivan." Why did she assume that name? Ac-
cording to her, she had never told Mrs. Broughton
anything about marriage. She admitted that she
intended to represent Hope-cottage. Winchester, as
her home.. In the witness-box she said that she
thought that the letter would bring them to a sense of
the iniquity they had perpetrated. I have already said
that this letter from Jarrett, dated the 10th June,
was a most valuable piece of evidence—
the most valuable, perhaps, of the whole evidence.
I will tell you why, and you may agree with me or
not. This latter is written just a week after the girl
has gone, and it goes to corroborate the story for the
prosecution that the girl was to write. In that letter
she informs Mrs. Broughton that the girl is all right,
and that she had bought her a lot more clothes.
Just let us pause for a moment and inquire what
was the object of writing the letter. The case for
the defence was that the child was sold for violation,
and was it not extraordinary that the mother, if
that was the case, should care to hear from the child,
who by that time had been ruined? Is the writing of
the letter consistent with the case for the defence?
Is it not a remarkable corroboration of the story told
for the prosecution? In this letter she talks of going
to her home and being on a visit. Jarrett felt, a week
having gone by, that this mother, whom she knew
to be kind and affectionate, would become apprehen-
sive that Stead would learn the true state of the case,
and that the terrible deception she had practised
would be absolutely exposed. Take that letter, and if
there is any weight in the observations I have
addressed to you, give them weight. If not, reject
them. Consider whether that letter is not inconsistent
with the story told by the defence, and absolutely con-
sistent with that told by the prosecution, viz., that this
child was never sold for purposes of prostitution, but
sent, as Mrs. Armstrong believed, to be used as a
servant in the ordinary way. You remember the
phrase, "Give my love to my father and ray mother."
I asked Jarrett why she used that° words, and she
said, "I thought this letter would bring them to a
sense of the iniquity they had perpstrated." I should
very much like to know how it was that that neither
Mr. Stead nor Mr. Booth tried to bring the mother to
a sense of the iniquity which they thought she had
perpetrated. Then Jarrett goes on to speak about
other matters. Cross-examined by Mr. Stead, she
said: "I told you I had been in the habit of pur-
chasing girls." She also said: "I saw Booth that
night. I told him what Stead wanted me to do, and
Booth said I was to do whatever Stead told me."
That was on Whit Monday, before Jarrett went to
Broughtons, 'and was of importance as connec‘ing
Booth with the case. (The Court here adjourned for
luncheon.) Upon resuming his lordship said there
was no doubt that the Royal Commission had made
an extremely strong report upon the traffic in girls,
and he did not for one moment say that there was not
a great amount of credit due to Mr. Stead for his
generous and philanthropic motives. Jacques had
told him of the character of the house of Madame
Mourey, and Stead had replied that if such things
were done there they must prove it. They did obtain
this girl, Eliza Armstrong, and Jacques was the man
who went with her to Madame Mourey's house. His
lordship then said that after that Jacques went with
Stead, the girl, and Jarrett, to Poland-street, and he
was then dismissed. His lordship then said: I can-
not finish this part of the case without saying a word
about Dr. Heywood Smith. Anything more discredit-
able to a medical man I cannot imagine, and I grieve
to think that anyone belonging to that great profes-
sion should have done anything so discreditable. I
have now dealt with the evidence as far as Jarrett and
Stead are concerned. With regard to Jacques and
Booth the question is whether they aided and
abetted. If you come to the conclusion that they
earnestly believed that this girl was sold for an itn-
moral purpose, with the consent of her father, I do
not think you can find them guilty. Jacques was
not put in the witness-box, as you know. His case
is different in that respect to the others. There is
nothing to contradict on his part. He admits it all,
and says, "Admitting all that, it doesn't make me a
party." In order to find that they were all parties
in the sense intended, in order to acquit them, you
must be of opinion that they believed that the
father's consent for the child going for immoral pur-
poses had been obtained, and had reasonable grounds
for so believing. That is the case as regards
Booth and Jacques. If you Cuink that all or either
of the defendants assisted Jarrett you will say so by
your verdict. I am very sorry that I have detained
you at such length, and although I place these series
of questions in your hands, you will not forget that
the material point is this: Was the girl taken against
the will of the father? That is the material question,
and it is one to which I would draw your particular
attention; asking you to bear in mind that it is not
suggested for the defence that the father knew that
she was going to other than respectable service.
The Foreman asked if there was any objection to
have the first count divided, as the jury felt a difficulty
in the joint and equal responsibility.
The Judge: That is not a matter for you, but for
me to deal with. I f,)11 you most distinctly
that if the child was in the possession of the father, It
is the will of the father that must prevail, and his
will only.
The Attorney-General: May I suggest that the
jury desire to distinguish between Jarrett and Stead
in the first instance.

The Jury: That is so.
The Foreman: Our difficulty is this: that if Jar-
rett obtained the child by false pretences, we feel
that it was directly contrary to Stead's directions.
This is confirmed, in our opinion by the remarks
which fell from your lordship, th:t if Jarrett had
teli Stead how she had become possessed of the child
he would have indignantly dismissed her from his
service. We find it, therefore, difficult as business
men to find him guilty of a criminal responsibility
which he would have repudiated.
The Judge: Do you mean as to the purpose? I
will add to the question if you like.
Mr. Charles Matthews suggested that after Jarrett
the words "or either of them" should be inserted, as
the question main.
The judge altered the question au follows: "Did
Jarrett or either of them take Eliza Armstrong out
of the possession and against the will of the father ?"
The foreman said that no personal feeling should
influence the jury in their verdict, and they then
retired at twenty minutes to four o'clock.
After an absence of three hours the jury returned
into court.
The Clerk of Arraigns: Did Stead and Jarrett, or
either of them, take Eliza Armstrong out of the pos-
session of her father against his will?
The Foreman: Yes, he did. Stead did not have
the consent of the father to use horns he did.
The Judge: Then about Jarrett. Did Jarrett take
Eliza Armstrong out of the possession of her father
against his will?
The Foreman: Yes, my lord.
The Clerk of Arraigns: Did Sarrett,rby falsely re-
presenting that she wanted Eliza Armstrong as a
servant, induce the mother to let her go?
The Foreman: We are not agreed.
The Clerk of Arraigns: Did the mother consent to
her going to be used for immoral purposes?
The Foreman: No. (Applause in court.)
The Judge: The fourth question: "If for immoral
purposes, was the taking against the will of the
father? "—is rendered unnecessary by the answers
already given.
In further reply to the Clerk of Arraigns, the
Foreman said the verdict of the jury was that neither
Jacques nor Booth were parties to the taking of Eliza
Armstrong out of the possession of her father.•
The Judge: I must tell you, gentlemen, that is a
verdict of guilty against Stead and Jarrett, and not
guilty against Booth and Jacques. Do you find that?
The Foreman: Yes, my lord. We say that Stead
did not have the consent of the father for the use of
child to which he put her, and that he was misled by
Jarrett. The jury trust that the Government will
secure the proper administration of the Act just
passed for the protection of young children. •
The Judge: I quite agree with that.
His Lordship then handed to the foreman the
letter addressed to the jury, to which allusion has
already been made. He said it was a most improper
letter.

The jury having received it, the Foreman said they
quite concurred with his lordship, and the letter was
then handed to the Solicitor to the Treasury to take
such action as might be considered necessary.
It was stated by Mr. Poland that there was another
indictment against Stead, Jarrett, Jacques, and the
other defendant Mourey, for indecent assault, and his
Lordship thereupon said he would postpone sentence
until the matter had been gone into. The trial
would commence on Tuesday morning.
The Foreman made some remarks which, in the
noise caused by the general exodus from the court,
could not be distinctly heard. They were understood
to be to the effect that the jury trusted a lenient
sentence would be imposed upon Mr. Stead.
The Judge: In sentencing Mr. Stead my action
will be strengthened by the representation you have
made. His lordship then thanked the jury for their
attendance, and again highly complimented them on
the care and attention which they had brought to bear
in the discharge of their duty.
The court then adjourned until Tuesday morning.

The proceedings in connection with the Armstrong
abduction case terminated on Tuesday, and resulted
in varying sentences of imprisonment being passed
upon Mr. Stead, Mr. Jacques, Rebecca Jarrett, and
Madame Mourey. When Mr. Justice Lopes took his
seat at 20 minutes to 11 o'clock, a fresh jury was
empanelled to try an indictment for an indecent
assault on the child Eliza Armstrong, on the night of
June 3, the defendants in this case being Madame
Mourey, of 3, Milton-street, Dorset-square; Rebecca
Jarrett, Mr. Stead, and Mr. Jacques. Mr. Bramwell
Booth, who was bound over on Saturday night to
surrender on an indictment charging him with con-
spiracy, was present. The Attorney-General, after
telling him that he need not go into the dock, in-
formed his lordship that after the verdict of the jury
on Saturday he had decided not to proceed with that
indictment, and that no further charge against Mr. B.
Booth would be proceeded with. Mr. Justice Lopes
expressed approval of the course which had been
adopted, but said it was much to be regretted that
Mr. Booth did not give up the child when it was de-

manded. The AttorneY-General then opened the
case for the prosecution with regard to the assault
upon the child, the act upon which the indictment
was founded being the examination of the girl by the
midwife. and pointed out that thene could be no justi-
fication for this conduct. The girl Eliza Armstrong
was again called upon to relate the painful details of
the examination. Mrs. Stead, who was a pretty con-
stant attendant during the first trial, was again pre-
sent. Mr. Bramwell Booth, released from attend-
ance in the dock, now occupied a seat at the solicitors'
table, while Mrs. Bramwell Booth was seated among
some ladies in another part of the court. The pre-
sence of ladies, many of them young, was remarkable,
considering the nature of the evidence. None of
the defendants tendered themselves as witnesses,
Jarrett, being called upon to address the jury, stood
up, and stated that she had nothing to say except
that she had done a good many bad things in her life,
but she was thankful that this affair was one good
thing. Nor did Mr. Stead address the jury. Mr.
Jacques, on the other hand, delivere3 a vigorous
speech in his own defence, and in an effort of decla-
mation he accidentally sent some papers lying on the
ledge of the dock flying into the well of the court to
the amusement of the spectators. Both Mr. Stead
and Jacques partook of luncheon in the dock during
the interval of adjournment. By a coincidence the
jury retired at exactly the same moment that the pre-
vious jury on Saturday left the court to consider their
verdict—viz., at 20 minutes to four. But the analogy did
not extend to the length of the absence. After 40
minutes the jury came back into court, and returned
a verdict of guilty against all the defendants, recom-
mending all except Mourey to the merciful considera-
tion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Lopes then proceeded to pass sentence.
Addressing the defendants severally, his lordship said:
William Thomas Stead, it will be convenient if I deal
with your case first. You have been found guilty
under two indictments; the one charging you with
the abduction of Eliza Armstrong and the other
charging you with an indecent assault. I am pre-
pared to give you credit for good motives from your
point of view, but at the same time I cannot dis-
guise from my mind that you have acted throughout
recklessly and against the advice of all those whom
you thought fit to consult. Believing in the existence
of the most horrible depravity, it appears to me you
made statements about it which when challenged you
were unable to verify. You then determined to
verify the truth of your assertions by an experiment
on a child, who was to be bough:, and subjected to
all that a real victim would have been, bat that it
was to be rescued before any harm was done. For
this purpose you selected a person of alleged reformed
character, but who to your knowledge had passed a
life—an infamous life, I may say—pandering to and
encouraging the very sins, which you say—and I
believe yon—you were so anxious to repress. You
chose your own agent, and as might have been antici-
pated, having regard to her antecedents, which you
full well knew, the agent deceived you. A jury
have so found, and so I believe. The result is your
experiment, instead of proving what it was intended
to prove, has absolutely and enth.ely failed. A jury
have found that Eliza Armstrong, who was subjected
to that experiment, was never bought for immoral
purposes at all. I regret to say you thought fit to
publish in the Pall Mall Gazette a distorted account
of the case of Eliza Armstrong; and you deluged,
some months ago, our streets and the whole country
with an amount of filth which, as I fear, has tainted
the minds of the children that you were so anxious to
protect, and which has been, and I don't hesitate to
sly it, and ever will be, a disgrace to journalism.
(Some applause, at once suppressed.) An irreparable
injury has been done to the parents of this child.
They have been subjected to the indelible scandal and
ignominy in the eyes of the nation of having sold
their child for purposes of violation. The child has
been dragged through dirt, examined by a
woman who certainly appears--at any rate, in
your opinion appeared—to be a vile creature,
subjected to chloroform, taken off to a brothel, sub-
ject to chloroform a second time, and then sent to
the south of France, her letters to her mother sup-
pressed, and the child refused when demanded. All
this has been done by you, relying upon the state-
ment of a woman whose character you knew, and
whom you entrusted with money—and I think this is
no small part of the offence you committed—to bribe
parents to commit the greatest sin they could commit,
to sell their own children for immoral purposes, Now,
I feel that I cannot, that I ought not, to punish you
as I should have punished a person guilty of abduc-
tion, actuated by sordid and sensual motives. I am
willing to give effect as to any good motives you
had, as far as I possibly can. give effect to the recom-
mendation of the jury which they made on Saturday
night when they returned their verdict. But I can-
not forget that you are an educated man, who should
have known that the law cannot be broken to promote
any supposed good, and that the sanctity of private
life cannot be invaded for the furtherance of views
of any individual, who, as you seem to have done, may
be inclined to think that the end sanctifies the means.
Now, in these circumstances—and I need not say
that I have given the most intense consideration to
your case and considered it with the utmost anxiety
—I have come to the conclusion that I cannot pass
anything but a substantial sentence, and it is that you
be imprisoned without bard labour for thre3
calendar months. I now come to your case, Rebecca
Jarrett; and there is no doubt a mitigating circum-
stance in your ease, but there is also an aggravating cir-
cumstance. The mitigating circumstance is that I fully
believe the evidence, and I believe you were pressed
into this service; I don't think you volunteered it. I
think it was upoii earnest pressure you undertook
what you did. But then after a most patient hearing,
and having regard to the finding of the jury, I am
fully convinced that you misled your employer, Mr.
Stead. Under these circumstances, the sentence I
, pass upon you is that you be imprisoned without hard
labour for six calendar months. Sampson Jacques, I
now deal with your case, You have only been found
guilty upon one indictment. You have been acquitted
of the charge of abduction; I don't hesitate to say
properly acquitted. I quite agree with the verdict
the jury found in that case. Of course, I must look
at i only by the light of the evidence, and I have no
reason to think upon the evidence that you knew,
or had any reasonable grounds for knowing that the
child had been taken out of the possession of the
father against his will. You therefore stand charged
with this indecent assault only. The sentence upon
you is that you be imprisoned without hard labour for
one calendar month. Louise Mourey, I cannot look at
your case in the same light as I look at the others.
I have considered it with much anxiety. It has been
stated and stated over and over again by those who
are charged with you that you are a professional
abortionist, and that you obtain your living in that
way. That statement proceeds from them only. I
am not in a position to say whether it is correct
or not. I trust it is not correct. But I don't
think I should be justified in acting upon it as
correct. If I had evidence before me which
would lead me to think that you were a pro-
fessional abortionist and you had gained your liveli-
hood in the way stated, I should have subjected
you to the highest punishment the law enables
me to impose. You have been found guilty of an
indecent assault, and of a most serious indecent
assault, on this child of 13 years, at night or late in
the evening, who was brought to you by people of
whom you knew nothing. You were asked to
examine that child, and you examined her in the
way described. I fear very much that you must at
i that time have known or had reason to suspect that
the child was intended for outrage. At any rate, I
know this—you could have been actuated by no good
motives. I khow this, too—you received payment
and reward for what you did. Whether you received
as much as has been said for the chloroform, I know
not; but, according to the account you yourself gave
I to Inspector Borner, you received 20s. for the exami-
nation. Under these circumstances, not knowing
whether you deserve the imputations cast upon you,
to the full extent, the sentence that I pass upon you
is that you be imprisoned with hard labour for six
calendar months.