The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-18 00:00:00

:witness's) house, and wash her face and clean herself be-

fore going home. Deceased, her mother, and the prisoner
walked away towards witness's house, and witness fol-
lowed at some distance behind, after arranging her dress,
which had become disordered in the scuffle. Went home,
and, finding the prisoner and the two women not there,
went out again. Seeing a crowd round the door of the
chymist's shop nearly opposite, she went over there. Saw
there the deceased sitting on the floor and leaning her back
against the counter. Her cheeks wore very pale, and her
lips blue. -Mr Long, surgeon, arrived about 10 minutes after_
wards. Deceased's father and witness then carried the de-
ceased into the back room behind the shop, and there wit-
ness with Mr. Long partly undressed the deceased, and dis-
covered a wound in her back about three-quarters of an
inch in length. There was blood on the wound, and blood
on deceased's underclothes. (Clothes produced.) Those are
the clothes worn at the time by the deceased. Deceased's
wound was dressed by Mr. Long, and she was then taken
home by her father and mother and witness's husband in a
cab. Next day she saw the deceased lying dead at her
father's house in Surrey-street.
Cross-examined by Mr. Field—l said yesterday that he
struck her and she struck at him. I can't say whether she
did strike him or not. When I met the prisoner I caught
him in my arms and said, " Jem, my dear," Jcc. Was as
sober then as now. Once lived at Gosport. Would swear
that the deceased was not, to her knowledge, a girl of loose
character. Could give no other answer. Did not know
that the prisoner was averse to the deceased visiting her
(witness's) house unless accompanied by him. When the
prisoner asked his wife where she had been, she said she
didn't know. Could not say whether deceased and her
mother were sober or not, having to attend to the business
of her own house. When the man Parmiter knocked the
prisoner down it no doubt roused the latter's passion.
Joseph Parmiter, a joiner, living at Fratton, examined—
On Monday, the 9th inst., at about 5 p.m., was in Fratton-
road, and saw a man striking a woman with his fist. That
man was the prisoner at the bar. A woman; whom he since
knew as Mrs. Lillywhite, asked witness to give the man a
good thrashing, as he was killing the woman. Prisoner
struck the woman again then on the head with his fist,
knocked her down, and struck her several times afterwards
when she was on the ground. Witness said to prisoner,
" You scoundrel, you ought to be ashamed of yourself to
ill-use a woman in that way," when he replied, " I'll serve
you the same." Witness then struck the prisoner and
knocked him down. After the prisoner got up from the
ground ho said to witness, "You know nothing at all about
this." Deceased then rushed at the prisoner in a threat-
ening way, and they closed together. Could not say what
blows were struck. Witness then walked away. The
prisoner was sober.

Cross-examined—The women, Mrs. Lillywhite and the
deceased, were either under the influence of drink or great
excitement. The deceased rushed at the prisoner after he
had been knocked down by witness, and would not let him
alone. She pulled him about, and both appeared to be in a
great passion.
By the Court—Thought the prisoner would have gone
away quietly after witness had knocked him down if the
woman had let him alone.
John Henry Milligan, examined, gave evidence confirma-
tory of that of the previous witnesses relative to the quarrel
in Fratton-road. Could not recognise the prisoner as the
man who struck deceased.
Cross-examined—Saw the man and the deceased striking
at each other. The man seemed greatly excited. Heard
the deceased say, " I'll give it to you," and heard the man
use the same words in reply.
John George Hayward, recalled, deposed further to the
facts of the quarrel in Fratton-road, as spoken to by the
previous.witnesses: Could not identify the features of the
man now that struck deceased, owing to its being in the
dusk of the evening, and the man's back being generally
turned towards witness. Knew nothing of what took place
afterwards.
George Lush examined—ls a fish hawker, living in
Fratton. On the 9th inst., between 5 and 6 o'clock in the
evening, met the deceased and her mother in the Fratton-
road, with the prisoner close behind them, about four feet
distant. Heardthe deceased, Mrs. Piper, say to the prisoner,
her husband, " You shall have it for this." The prisoner

then came behind her and struck her a blow on the back
with his right hand. They were about four feet apart
when the deceased spoke to the prisoner, and the blow was
struck immediately afterwards. The prisoner, immediately
after striking the blow, shut a knife that he had in his
right hand, using both hands in shutting it. When the
deceased was struck she fell into her mother's arms, and said
"Oh !" The prisoner walked away fast, and then com-
menced running towards Fratton-bridge. The deceased
was then taken to the chemist's shop. About half-an-hour
afterwards witness went to 27, Surrey-street, Landport, and
the same young woman that was struck by the prisoner in
Fratton-road was then lying there dead.
Cross-examined—Met the prisoner, the deceased, and her
mother, and as he met them the deceased turned round and
used the words spoken of to the prisoner, who then stepped
up to her and struck her. Saw the glare of the knife when
the prisoner was shutting it up.
Henry Parnell, a costermonger, residing in Lower Church-
path, Fratton, examined, deposed to being with the last
witness on the evening of the 9th inst., and corroborated
his statements as to the words used by the deceased to the
prisoner, and the blow immediately following from the
latter. ' Saw no knife ; but the prisoner, after striking the
blow, shut up something which appeared like a knife. The
deceased, when she said to the prisoner "you shall have
it for this," stopped, and spoke in an angry tone. The de-
ceased's mother stopped at the same time, but did not say
anything to the deceased or the prisoner then.

George Ring, a boy, apprentice to his father, a painter at
Fratton, on Monday, the 9th, about a quarter past 5 in the
evening, saw, in Fratton-street, the deceased and her mother
together. They walked round from Fratton-street to Frat-
ton-road. The prisoner was walking in the same direction,
but behind the deceased and her mother, not close enough
to speak together. Afterwards the prisoner got closer to
them. Witness was walking close behind Mr. Piper, the
prisoner. Heard the deceased say, " You shall have it for
this." The prisoner then took hold of the deceased by the
left arm with his left arm, and struck her on the back with
his right hand. The prisoner was following the women
with both hands in his pockets.
Some other corroborative evidence was given, after which
the Court adjourned until 10 o'clock this (Wednesday)
morning.

A letter from Lemberg, published by the Czas,
states that more than 80 persons have been arrested at Lublin
on suspicion of having been concerned in aiding the flight
of Porada, formerly a resident on the estate of Count Zi-
moyski, and a commander of the Polish scythemen, who
had escaped from prison in company with two of his fel-
low captives.

SALT.—The exports of salt from the United
Kingdom decreased last year, having amounted in the 10
months ending Nov. 30 to 555,164 tons, against, 583,198
tons in 1863, and 629,569 tons in 1862 (corresponding
period). The exports increased to Russia and the United
States, but declined to British India, British America, and
other points. The value of the salt exported to Nov. 13
last year was 263,0421., against 269,3751. in 1863, and
302,8391. in 1862 (corresponding period).

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The sequel to the capture and mysteri-
ous destruction of the Florida is contained in a cor-
respondence which we publish in another column.
This correspondence includes a letter from Mr.
Seward to Mr. Webb, the representative of the
United States at Rio Janeiro, the formal demand of
reparation by the Brazilian Minister at Washington,
and Mr. Seward's final reply. There is no better
test of honourable sentiment, whether in indivi-
duals or in nations, than the:making of an apology,
and we therefore look with some curiosity to see
how the adroit Foreign Secretary of the United
States disavows an act which even he cannot justify.
The despatch to Mr. Webb, dated November 11,
just after the exploit of the Wachusett became
known at Washington, can have given the Brazi-
lian Government little reason to expect a handsome
reparation. Instead of simply requesting full par-
ticulars and promising ample redress, in case an
aggression should prove to have been made on neu-
tral rights, Mr. Seward begins with a censure of the
policy, " different as it was from that of all other
American States," adopted by the Empire of Brazil
towards the Confederate States. He reminds the
Brazilians that they had persisted, in spite of re-
monstrance, in furnishing " shelter and a haven to
pirates who were engaged in depredating upon the
peaceful commerce of the United States,"—in other
words, that, like the great European Powers, they
had recognised the Alabama and her consorts as
Confederate cruisers. Such injurious conduct was
sure sooner or later to " affect the harmonious rela-
tions heretofore existing between the two countries."
Accordingly, the violent seizure of the Florida
by the Wachusett within Brazilian waters, in
defiance of law, and the vain attempt of the
Brazilian Admiral to prevent it, are described as a
" collision," such as might naturally result from
this original wrong. Mr. Seward, indeed, reserves
his opinion on the legality .of that proceeding, and
intimates that he is " not indisposed to examine
the subject upon its merits carefully," but only
on condition that " a becoming and friendly spirit"
shall be exhibited by the aggrieved party. What
communications may have followed on the receipt of
this despatch we have no means of knowing, but on
the 21st of December a note was presented by M.
r Barboza, Charge d'Affaires of Brazil at Washington.
It bears date the 12th of the same month, but we

learn from a passage in Mr. Seward's response that,
" owing to an understanding," which may or may
not imply a concerted modification of its contents,
the official delivery of it was postponed. In its pre-
sent form it is rather a pompous document charac-
terising the outrage at Bahia as " an act of the most
transcendent gravity," which, " in the special cir-
cumstances which preceded and attended it, has no
parrallel in the annals of modern maritime war."
The account which it gives of the material facts
differs very little from that which reached us more
than two months ago, but it specifically charges the
United States' Consul at Bahia with a breach of his
plighted honor, and the commander of the W achusett
with a treacherous violation of the assurance that he
would desist from hostilities against the Florida and
return to his anchorage. It acknowledges the prompt
disclaimer of Mr. Webb, on the part of the United
States, and expresses the utmost confidence both in
the adherence of that Government to its traditional
principles and in the exalted wisdom of Mr. Seward.
The reply of that Minister is in his most effective
style. He makes the amende honourable with an air
of magnificent superiority, which shows him to be a
master in the art of apologising. M. Barboza is in-
formed that he had not counted too far on the mag-
nanimity of the Federal Government. " Jealousy
of foreign intervention in every form, and absolute
non-intervention in the domestic affairs of foreign
nations, are cardinal principles in the policy of the
United States"—a policy which, we presume, must
be dated from a period subsequent to the premature
recognition of Hungary. The President " will
suspend Captain Collins, and direct him to appear
before a court-martial. The Consul at Bahia (Mr.
Wilson) admits that he advised and incited the
captain, and was active in the proceedings. He
will, therefore, be dismissed. The flag of Brazil
will receive from the United States' navy the honour
customary in the intercourse of friendly maritime
Powers." Nor is this all. Although the crew of
the Florida, having been engaged in " piracy," are
" enemies f the human race," yet, inasmuch as
they came illegally within the custody of the United
States, they will be set at liberty, subject, however,
to "the hazard of recapture when beyond the juris-
diction of this Government." As for the ship itself,
it went down by a most untoward mishap at Hamp-
ton Roads. This occurrence was " owing to a leak
winch could not be seasonably stopped," and there
were those who fancied that the leak was " caused,
or at at least increased, by a collision with a war
transport." Such a representation " seemed to
affect the army and the navy." A double inquiry,
naval and military, was at once ordered, but one
branch of it was not complete when the despatch
was written, so that it may be taken for granted
that the event was " an unforeseen accident," en-
tailing no responsibility. Such is the degree of
penance to which Mr. Seward is prepared to sub-
mit, but under protests and with reservations which
are anything but penitential in their tone. His
Government refuse to believe that any deception
was practised either by the Consul or by the Cap-
tain, for those officers deny it, and that is, of course,
enough. They disallow the assumption " that the
insurgents of this country are a lawful naval belli-
gerent," and consider the recognition of them in
that character to be " an act of intervention" in
derogation of international law, and an injustice to
the United States. They repudiate the allegation
that the Florida belonged to the insurgents at all ;
on the contrary, she was, in their view, a mere
pirate belonging to no nation, and not to be har-
boured lawfully by any. These positions they con-
sider to be " no longer open to argument," and
they expressly advertise the Brazilian Government
that any concession " rests exclusively upon the
ground that the capture of the Florida was an
unauthorised, unlawful, and indefensible exer-
cise of the naval force of the United States,
within a foreign country, in defiance of its
established and duly recognised Government."
It it not for subordinate officers to choose their
own time and place for asserting national rights
and avenging national injuries. For this excess of
zeal they will be punished, but Mr. Seward manages
to hint that the chase of the Wachusett, being an
act of war, might be held, but for the generosity of
the United States, to have purged the prior offence
of Capt. Collins. Here, then, is the end of this
little affair, for we can hardly doubt that Brazil
will declare herself satisfied, with as good a grace
as she can muster. It is due to the American public
to record that Mr. Seward's disavowal and condem-
nation of the capture was anticipated by the most
enlightened part of the New York press, and the
fallacy of designating the Florida as a pirate, only
because she had burnt her prizes at sea, was exposed
with great force and fairness. Nor are we disposed
to bear too hard upon Mr. Seward for qualifying his
apology with a lecture on the enormity of receiving
her in neutral ports. All governments, but espe,ci-
ally republican governments, should be judged by
their acts rather than by their words. The former
represent their deliberate foreign policy, the latter
have often no other object than to gratify some
party at home. We need not take offence at any-
thing which Mr. Cassius Clay may say or Gen. Dix
may order, or even at Mr. Seward's invectives
against Lord Wrharncliffe and his colleagues, so long
as the Federal Goverhment will listen to reason in
each case of dispute, and is supported in so doing
by a majority of the people. At the same time we
cannot think it consistent with national dignity that
such effusions as Mr. Webb's letter to the Brazilian
Government should be allowed to pass without re-
primand. If an English representative, whether he
were an ambassador or a consul, were to volunteer,
in a public despatch to the Minister of some other
Power, his regret that a gross insult had not been
offered to the United States, he would infallibly be
recalled, and that on the very principle laid down
by Mr. Seward, that officious escapades on the part
of subordinate agents cannot be tolerated by a Go-
vernment which respects itself. This, however, is
entirely a question for their own superiors, and if
Mr. Seward does not feel the character of merican
diplomacy compromised by ebullitions of this kind,
it is not for us to complain of them.
POST.—The most interesting feature in the finan-
cial statement recently issued by M. Fould was un-
questionably the strongly-marked indication which
it furnished of a peaceful policy on the part of the
French Government: The expenditure for the army
and navy, taken collectively, will be reduced during
the current year to the extent of nearly one million
and three-quarters sterling, and the standard of the
effective strength of the military forces of the empire
will be lowered. From an article, evidently bearing
an official stamp, which appeared in the Constitu-
tionnel a day or two since, it would seem that the
standing effective force of the French army in time
of peace is henceforth to be fixed at 400,000 men,
inclusive of the forces serving abroad. Although to
our eyes this figure appears enormous, it would bear
comparison advantageously with what was considered
within the past few years the requisite strength of
the French army on a peace footing. In the year
1860, for example, the effective force was 485,000
men, in the following year it was reduced to 467,000,
in 1862 a trifling reduction had been made, and in
1863 the effective force, not including the reserve,
was stated to be 436,000. In the budget of the
'Minister of War for the year 1864 the total strength
was stated to be 404,000, but this was increased by
some 10,000 men, owing to the circumstances of
some of the battalions employed abroad being placed
on a war footing. Now, however, the round sum
of 400,000 is to be accepted as a fixed standard,

and will not in future be either increased or
nished. As figures of this kind, however, furnish
no idea except by comparison, we can only deter-
mine the precise meaning of a peace establishment
of 400,000 fighting men by considering its relative" i
proportion to the empire for whose defence it s
maintained and to the military establishments
of those States with which that Empire may
possibly come into collision. In order, there-
fore,- to determine whether the French Govern 7
meut can fairly claim to be considered as acting
with wisdom and moderation in fixing the
effective strength of their military forces at the
above-mentioned standard, we must take into ac-
count the comparative strength of the standing
armies maintained by the principal European
Powers. With the exception of Russia, whose peao
establishment has been roughly but most incorrectly
estimated at 1,000,000 of soldiers, the strength of
the French army exceeds that of any other Power.
Next in the list stands Austria, the number of troops
maintained by her on peace footing being 270,000.
The standing army of Prussia is estimated at
210,000 men, and the collective armies of the min°
German States at the same number, The army 0
the kingdom of Italy is set down as close on 200,000
men, whilst that of Great Britain in the past year
fell short of 150,000. Nothing, however, is more
deceptive than the figures furnished, more especially
by Continental States with reference to their peace
establishments, because the real military strength of
a State depends not on the number of troops ae-
tually enrolled, but on the facilities which exist for
bringing additional forces in case of necessity int°
the field. Thus, for instance, the French awl,
though on a peace footing of 400,000 men, can,
within a very brief space of time, be raised to be-
tween 700,000 and 750,000, by requiring the ser-
vices of men who, though not considered as forming
a portion of the establishment, are perfectly conver-
sant with military duties. In like manner the
armies of Austria and Prussia can with ease lie in-
creased to double or treble their nominal strength,
and placed on a war footing, should circumstances
demand such a step. The standing army of Great
Britain, on the other hand, is fixed with precision"
the yearly estimates, and that army, in time of war,
can only be increased by the slow, and what to fo-
reigners appears the unsatisfactory process of re-
cruiting civilians. If, then, a comparison be drawn
between France, Austria, and Prussia, it will he
found that although the peace establishment of the
first exceeds that of the other two, the difference in
the strength of the armies they are respectively able
to bring into the field is by no means considerable.
The armies of Austria and Prussia, when on a war
footing, are each somewhat in excess of 600,000
men, and probably in both countries, but certainly
in Prussia, where every man is compelled, at solve
time or other, to bear arms, and where the " Land-
weher," or militia, includes upwards of 400,000
men, the facilities for adding to the strength of the
regular army are greater than in Prance.- Cons!'
dered relatively to the number of the population
the three countries, the Prussian army, even on its
peace establishment, must be considered as propor-
tionately greater than those of the other two. In
Prussia it is estimated than one man in eighty-nine
of the population is a soldier ; in Austria, one in one
hundred and thirty ; and in France, one in ninety-
three. We may observe that, with the exception e!
Portugal, in which but one in two hundred and
twenty-four is a soldier, the proportion of the anti
to the population is smaller in Great Britain than
elsewhere. Out of a population of about twenty'
nine millions we supply an army of 148;000 men, or
about one soldier in one hundred and ninety-fll;e'
In Spain, the proportion which exists between tit!
army and population is nearly the same as that "
Great Britain. Measured relatively by the standards
of military strength which exist in Austria an.
Prussia, that which is now fixed on by France 1'
probably not excessive. If either of these Powers
can in an emergency bring an army of 600,000 MO
into the field, France may be justified in maintain'
ins such an establishment as would enable her t°,
defend her frontier with a force exceeding that
of either of her adversaries by 100,000 men'
But the comparison of
.the existing standing arinte.7
of the great military Powers of Europe, though'
may show what their relative proportions ought t°
be, furnishes no criterion of the actual size t°.,
which they might collectively be reduced. Franc,'
may want a peace establishment of 400,00°
soldiers, because Austria and Prussia maintain eSt3,
,
blishments almost as great ; but we are still s
liberty to ask why, if these vast armies only serle'
to counterbalance each other, they might not a"
three be proportionately reduced ? Is it necessarye
for the safety of those Powers? or, is it condi-lei!
to the interests of Europe, that France, or Austria;
or Prussia should be in a position, at three months a
notice, to marshal close on three-quarters of
million of trained soldiers either for the purposes °
aggression or of defence ? We cannot think
and believing, as we do, that these vast militant
establishments exist for no other purpose than th'le
of negativing each other's effects, we believe that th
true policy, not only of France, but of the other
Powers, would consist in effecting large reduotl°llls
,
in those establishments. The question natural..
suggests itself—Who shall begin? It is not neces-
sary sary that any Power should take the lead in di&
arming, the movement might easily be made siin;:he
taneous. It is, however, but just to say that .
c-
French Government have recently made covisg
rabic reductions in theirmilitary establishment, 3:11,..
before proceeding further, they have a right tc:noe
mand, that to some extent at least, their eon !a
should be followed. The changes made by Ans`"isi
and Prussia during the past year have certainly
not been by way of reduction.