The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-11-07 00:00:00

ANOTIIER ARREST.

The fourth man was arrested at Manchester on
Saturday morning. He also gives the name of
Baker.
ThG inquest on the murdered constable has been
formally opened and adjourned. The police have
seized three portmanteaus, which had been consigned
from Gretna, a small station near Longtown, to
Carlisle, and found them full of housebreaking tools,
skeleton keys, and a bag of revolver bullets. Three
suspicious characters were seen at Gretna during the
coursing meeting endeavouring to inveigle a drunken
farmer away from the platform.

RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.—Mrs. Slatternhussey :
"Look 'ere, Mrs. Miggles, I arst you perlitely 'an f a
hour to lend me the loan of twopence 'ap'ny, 'cause I
I felt low, an' wanted a 'arf quartern of unsweetened
gin; an you said, Mrs. Miggles, as 'ow you 'adn't got
it to spare; an' I've just seen yer a-buyin' two pounds
of pertaters with my own eyes." Mrs. Mrggles :
"That was for my dinner, my dear." Mrs. Slattern-
hussey : "I don't care what they was for Ws.
Miggles; I honly say I think you're a hunfeeling
woman to deny a lady friend the price of a necessity
of life one minute, and go wollering in lulcuries your-
tlavt.."

THE NOTORIOUS ARIISTRONII
ABDUCTION CASE,

Mr. H. Matthews, Mr. Waddv, and Mr. Horne,
Payne having, on the sixth day of the trial, addressed
the jury on behalf of the defendants Jacques, Booth,
and Mrs. Combe respectively,
. .

The defendant Jth.rett Was next examined. She
gave the story of her life, her escape from her evil
habits, and how she was forced to return to her former
haunts by the defendant Stead, who said, in his inter-
view with her, that he would not let her go until she
had promised to do what he wished. She alleged that
Mrs. Armstrong and the woman Broughton knew her
object in taking Eliza, and that both of them received
gold from her in payment. The case was then
adjourned.

At the commencement of the proceedings on the
seventh day, a juryman asked the judge how long he
thought the trial would last.—His lordship said they
might almost as well ask him how long the Kingdom
of England would last, or when the Day of Judgment
would be.
Rebecca Jarrett was then recalled. Cross-examined
by the Att. rney-General: Her name was Rebecca
Jarrett, and she had never been married. Her first
acquaintance with Mrs. Broughton was at Claridge's
Hotel, but she mighc have seen her once or twice
before that. She went to Claridge's, she believed,
during May, 1883. Previous to going to Claridge's,
she had kept a gay house in High-street, Marylebone,
No. 23. She did not rent it, but the man she lived
with did. His name was Sullivan. That was at the
end of 1882 and the beginning of 1883. She had also
kept a gay house at No. 6, The Cliff, Bristol. She had
been in hospitals and convalescent homes from the
time she left Claridge's to September, 1884. She had
been trying to be good. She could not help herself.
(Laughter.) The letter dated September, 1883,
written to Mrs. Broughton, containing the words,
"1 do not get any toast now," had a slang meaning.
By his Lordship: The slang word meant what she
had said it did. The witness here fenced a great
deal with the question, and would not give any reply.
Ultimately she admitted the word " toast " had an
improper meaning. She meant to represent to the
jury that Mrs. Armstrong had let the child " go for
a man without first knowing how much she was to
receive. By his Lord-hip: It was quite correct that
Mrs. Armstrong consented to let her child go to be
used by a man without knowing how much she was to
receive. She thought Mrs. Armstrong trusted to her
to give her what she thought fit for the girl. His
Lordship: You were a stranger to her, and yet she
trusted entirely to you to give her what you thought
fit for her daughter? The witness: She did, sir.
His Lordship: Because Mrs. Broughton got the
child you were to give her £4, and the mother only
? The witness: Yes, sir. Cross-examined: And
you gave her the £2 without mentioning any amount?
I did, sir. In continuation, the witness said the £2
was given after the mother had consented to let
the child go. She had never mentioned any
amount to Mrs. Broughton at any time. She did not
tell Mr. Stead that she had bought a girl for £5.
She did not know who "Lily" was. She had read
the article in the Pall-mall Gazette, and had a little
doubt that the "Lily" was Eliza Armstrong. By his
Lordship : She recollected the verses in the letter she
had received from Eliza, and having read the verses
and the article she would tell the jury that she did
not think that Eliza was the same girl. Having read
the passages about the visit to Poland-street, the
chloroform, and the man in the room, she did not
know what to answer, whether it was Lily or Eliza.
She did think it now. She had always supposed
that the other little girl was the real " Lily." She
did not tell Mr. Stead that she had agreed to give
Mrs. Broughton £5, £3 pad down and the remaining
.E 2 after her virginity had been certified. She had
not agreed with Mrs. Broughton to give liar that
amount. When she took the child away she did not
know she was going to be sent to France. She did not
know how Bramwell Booth got the girl.
Cross-examined by Mr. Stead: She had told him
that she had kept houses at different places, and that
it was the usual thing for such houses to procure
little girls. The Attorney-General said all this was
mere hearsay. Mr. Stead asked the witness, who
wept freely, whether she had not been most reluctant
to do what he asked her, and she replied in the affir-
mative. When she first came up from Winchester
she brought a letter from Mr. Bramwell Booth, who
had directed her to do whatever Stead told her. On
Whit-Monday she made an inquiry at Lady Lake-
grove, and agreed to have two little girls delivered to
her, but did not get them. His Lordship: We are
not trying whether girls can be bought for the im-
moral purposes which you suggest, but whether in
regard to this particular girl you took her out of the
possession of the parents and against the parents' will.
Mr. Stead then continued his cross-examination, and
the witness pointed out several mistakes in the Pall-
mall Gazette article, and said Mr. Stead had "mixed
it up" somehow. To the best of her belief, Mr.
Stead did not know anything about the girl except
what she had told him, and said nothing whatever to
lead him to believe that Mrs. Armstrong expected
her child back again. The Attorney-General: Who
made the arrangements about the Poland-street
house? The Witness: Ido not know. Mr. Jacques:
I did.

The Cvart then adjourned until Monday.
On Monday, the eighth day of the trial,
Rebecca Jarrett was placed again in the witnese-
box and cross-examined by the Attorney-General.
You told us before that you kept an improper
house at 23, High-street, Marylebono, in 1882, or in
the beginning of 1883?-1 am willing to go through
any punishment and to answer anyth!ng concerning
the case, but I am not going to answer anything that
relates to my past life.
Mr. Justice Lopes: I think it is a very proper
question, and one which you ought to answer. If
you do not answer, the jury will draw their own in-
ference.

(Question repeated.) Witness: You forced that
lie out of me.

Do you adhere to the answer you gave ?—I am not
going to answer to my past life. If you have not dis-
covered where I lived, all you have got to do is to
find it out.

Mr. Justice Lopes: Shall I take your answer?—
Yes, sir, please.
The Attorney-General: Have you ever lived at 23,
High-street, Marylebone, during the last ten years?
—I am not going to answer the question, sir.
Next in order came Mrs. Josephine Butler, well-
known for her rescue work among fallen women, who
had assisted Stead in his investigations, and who
created some amount of amused astonishment by
boldly declaring that she never gave information to
the police, although it was quite another thing, she
added, to give it to the law. Professor Stuart, M.P.,
followed for the defence, and was succeeded by Mr.
Stead, who at the suggestion of the judge was
examined from his own notes by Mr. H. Matthews.
Mr. Stead said: I have edited the Pall-mall
Gazette since mid-summer, 1883. I became in 1871
editor of the Northern Echo, of Darlington. I have
constantly written in favour of the amend-
ment of the law for the protection of women. In
the year 1880, when in some doubt as to whether
I'should accept the post of assistant editor to Mr.
John Morley, 1 was largely prompted to come up to
London by reading the letter which Mr. Benjamin
Scott, as chairman of the Committee for the Suppres-
sion of the Foreign Traffic in English Girls, addressed to
the Government of that day, and which was published
at that time. I had lung felt called to write some-
thing which would enable the great public to realise
what prostitution meant; and I felt that that could
only be done by one who was in a position to
descend into the depths of the social hell. On the
23rd of May Mr. Benjamin Scott came to see me, and
I went down with Mr. Scott to the office of the Sal-
vation Army to see Mr. Bramwell Booth, who was
an intimate personal friend of my own, and with
whom I had been in communication upon this sub-
ject about a fortnight previously. Mr. Scott pro-
mised to give me all the information in the possession
of his committee. He promised to help me, and in-
formed me that Mrs. Butler had at Winchester a
woman who in her time had kept houses of ill-fame.
I asked him to get Mrs. Butler to send the woman up,
and I set aside the Bank holiday to a study of the
subject. On leaving the office of the Salvation Army
I went home to Wimbledon and drove over to Putney
to see Mr. John Morley, to obtain from him a copy of
the Report of the Lords' Committee. On the follow-
ing Whit Monday afternoon Rebecca Jarrett
arrived from Winchester, with a note of
introduction from Mrs. Butler informing me
that Rebecca would answer any question that I put
to her, suggesting various questions, and suggesting
also various points upon which she could give informa-
tion. I saw Rebecca. She was very reluctant to
speak about her past life. I was very much shocked
and pained by what she told me, and the 7hole. story
appeared to me too horrible to be credited without
verifying it for myself. "Jarrett," I said, "If you
have done this in earnest so often in the old days you
must do it in make-believe once mole." She seemed
much pained at having to recall the part she had
played, and I was much impressed with her evident sin-
cerity and the heinousness of the offences to which
she confessed herself guilty. I said to her, " Mrs.
Jarrett, you have. now told me that you have com-
mitted crimes which have led to the ruin of many
innocent girls who are now walking the streets
owing to what you have done. It is now
in your power to make some reparation, to render
such crimes more difficult in the future. You have
procured innocent and unsuspecting girls for immoral
men in order to put money in your pocket; will you
now, in order to make whatever atonement is in your
power for these crimes of your past, procure girls for
me in order to show beyond any doubt that girls can
be procured without difficulty and without danger of
detection by any brothel-keeper who knows her
business ?" She objected, I pressed her. I said,
"If it is true what you tell me, that innocent girls
are being trapped into brothels and there violated and
doomed to a life of shame, it ought not to be difficult
for you to go to a brothel-keeper and buy a girl from
her." She said that it could be done easily enough,
but she had been out of the business for six mouths,
and she did not want to go back to her old haunts.
I said to her: "But there ought to be no need for
that,. If what you tell me is true, and every other
brothel-keeper in London will procure innocent girls,
virgins, for wealthy customers, it ought not to be im-
possible for you, who know the ways of the trade, to
go and buy one, two, or three children for me,
merely to prove that it can be done." She said it

mid take time, and having been out of it she might
find some difficulty in convincing the brothel-
keepers to whom she applied that she really meant
business. I said, "The time is short"—for I then
wished to publish the "Maiden Tribute" in the first
week of June, instead of the first week of July—
"and I thiak'yoq ought to do what you can to make
it more difficult for brothel-keepers to ruin innocent
girls in future, and thereby save more girls than you
have ruined." She said she would think about it, and
must first talk to Mrs. Butler.
In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he
had no authority, except Rebecca Jarrett, for the
statements he made in the " Lily " article of July 6,
and that he did not now believe her so implicity as
he had done. He said the "Lily" of the article he
wrote for the Pall-mall Gazette was Eliza Armstrong.
What was in the paper was an" exact transcript" of
what Jarrett told him, although it was not written
for nearly four weeks after the conversation, of which
no notes were taken. In answer to the Judge, Stead
said he did not suggest that the child's father knew
that she had been taken away for improper purposes.
The case was adjourned.

Tuesday was the ninth day of the trial at the Old
Bailey arising out of the taking away of the girl Eliza
Armstrong from her home on last Derby Day, and the
proceedings at the early part of the sitting included
the hearing of witnesses for the defendant Stead, or,
perhaps, it would be more accurate to say, hearing
and seeing of witnesses, for some of them, notably the
Archbishop of Canterbury, were not allowed to say
much— in fact, in the case of the Primate, nothing—
on the groend that what it was sought to elicit had
nothing to do with the issue before the jury. But
first of all Mr. Stead's cross-examination, which was
of a somewhat searching nature, was concluded.
Then Mr. Stead called the Archbishop of Canterbury
as his first wi!ness. His Grace took up a
position beside the judge, and -was duly sworn,
it having been decided that he should give
his evidence from the bench. The Arch-
bishop stood up, and Mr. Stead, occupying the
dock, proceeded to put his first question about writing
to the Primate at the end of May. Before the ques-
tion was finished, however, the Attorney-General
objected that the proposed evidence was ncA admis-
sible, as it related to motives, which were not in ques-
tion. This led to a long argument between the judge
and Mr. Stead, during which the Archbishop of Can-
terbury took a seat on the bench. In the end the
proposed evidence was rejected, and the Archbishop
of Canterbury left the court. Cardinal Manning,
whom it was also proposed to call, had written to say
that indisposition prevented his attendance. Other
witnesses called by Mr. Stead were Lord Dalhousie,
who occupied a place on the bench, Mr. Howard
Vincent (lately at the head of the Criminal
Investigation Department at Scotland - yard)
Mr. Benjamin Scott (Chamberlain of London),
Miss Ellice Hopkins, and Mr. George Russell,
M.P. Thera was some further argument upon the
relevancy of evidence as to motive; and Mr. Stead
announced that as his lordship had pronounced a ban
against th7s class of evidence he would sacrifice a
large number of witnes,ses he had proposed to call,
amongst whom he mentioned Sir W. Harcouit, Sir
R. Cross, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. John
Morley, Mr. Stansfeld, the Secretary of the Conre-
gational Union, and ex-Inspector Minahan. The
defendant Jacques was not tendered by his counsel as
a witness. Mr. Bramwell Booth went into the wit-
ness-box, and was examined by Mr. Horne Pe sme
and cross-examined by the Attorney - General.
Madame Combo was afterwards called as a
witness, and stated that she had no knowledge
of the transaction with the parents. Under the
direction of the judge, and with the approval
of the Attorney-General, the jury returned a for-
mal verdict of Not Guilty in the case of Madame
Combo. At the close of the defendant Stead's exa-
mination, be was told, in reply to a question, to
cross-examine himself. He then said: That narra-
tive I have handed in is the story of Eliza, written
about three weeks after.it was told to me by Jarrett.
During that time a ministerial crisis had occurred,
that increased the strain upon me. During that time
I also went among many brothels, and although I am
a teetotaller I had in playing a false part to smoke
and drink champagne. I tol.d the story of Eliza as
nearly as possible as it was told to me by Jarrett, as
I remembered it. I had no object in adding any-
thing. I did not wish to expose Mrs. Armstrong or
Mrs. Broughton, because I had given Jarrett a
pledge not to expose her friends. I state in the
articles that I was an investigator, not an informer.
If I had violated the confidence of the persons I got
the information from I would have had to.spend six
weeks of my life in the witness-box. I asked Mr.
Booth and Mrs. Butler to say nothing to the police
that would in any way get Mrs. Armstrong or Mrs.
Broughton into trouble.
The Foreman of the Jury: Had you any conversa-
tion with the child about her parents ?—No; I do not
think I did. I asked her if she had bade her
mother good-bye. I think she said her mother was
out.

Why did you not speak to the child about her
parents ? —I thought the parents were drunken.
Mr. Justice Lopes: Do you not think it would
have been wise to ask her?—Yes; if I had seen
before as I see behind it would have been wise.
You know the sort of woman Jarrett had been ?
Yes, but I relied on Mrs. Butler's statement that she
was a changed woman.
The Foreman Juror: Did Eliza appear to be a
cheerful and truthful child ?—Yes, I have said so in
the " Lily " story.
Another juror wished to know if the child had
been outraged?
Mr. Justice Lopes: I think you may assume that
the child has in no way been outraged. The evidence
is all the other way.
Did Mr. Thomas ask to be allowed to question
Jarrett at the Mansion House, and was he prevented?
—I do not recollect.

- - - Mr. Justice Lopes reminded the jury that they
were not trying anything about outrage, and they
must confine their attention upon the unlawful
taking away of the child from those who had the
legal custody.
After Madam Combo had boon dischargeo,
The Judge then said: When I come to sum up the
ease I may as well say that the questions I shall put
to the jury will be these :—Was the child taken out
of the possession of the father? but there will be
very little doubt as to the answer to that. Then, was
it with his consent? I say nothing about what the
evidence on that matter is. I purpose also to ask the
jury, did the mother let the child go for the purpose
or service or for an immoral purpose? and had she
any authority from the father to let it so go?
In reply to the Attorney-General and Mr. H.
Matthews,
His Lordship also intimated that other questions
would arise with regard to the different defendants.