The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-22 00:00:00

IHE -SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EV.ENING, MARCH 22, 1860,

to that country which is shrewd enough to take
everything and give nothing. The Americans buy
our rags over our heads, but keep an import duty
of 30 per cent. on our manufactured paper ; in other
words, they make paper as cheap as possible in the
United States, provided only it be of home manu-
facture. If we receive paper duty free from any
country which will not give us rags free of duty,
we give that country an advantage in our market
which the selfishness of its policy does not deserve.
This is the argument of the papermakers. As re-
gards the truly exceptional character of the raw
material, we fully admit its validity, but our mann-
facturers do themselves less than justice when they
shut the resources of their own skill and energy so
completely out of the account, For our own part,
we can see no likelihood of French paper, of the
quality we require, coming into competition with
that of English manufacture. :Were the case other-
wise, French rags would speedily rise in price to a
level with English, and the chief cause of alarm to
our papermakers would cease.—Times.

THE REFORM BILL.

DEPUTATION TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL.

Yesterday an influential deputation from the
Tower Hamlets Reform Association had an inter-
view with Lord Russell at the Foreign-office, with
a view of inducing his lordship to amend the Reform
Bill in committee, with special reference to an in-
crease of the representation of the Tower Hamlets.
Mr. BUTLER, M.P., in introducing the deputa-
tion, said they waited on his lordship with the view
of bringing under his notice the case of the Tower
Hamlets with reference to the Reform Bill. On
the morning after the introduction of that bill they
had had a meeting of the inhabitants of the borough,
which was very numerously attended, and there
had been no difference of opinion whatever With
regard to that part of the measure which gave to
Birmingham, Leeds, and other towns increased re-
presentation, and left the Tower Hamlets without
any addition. There had been very great disap-
pointment experienced in that borough in conse li
-
quence, and he would leave it to the sense of justice
of his lordship, who had done so much for civil and
religious liberty, and for the extension of political
representation, to do his best to free them from the
exceptional position in which they stood. He
could not understand the principle upon which it
was proposed to distribute the seats. The property
in the Tower Hamlets was rated at between two
and three millions, and if the vastness of their
shipping interests and the extent of the other inte-
rests of the borough were considered, he could not
understand the plan on which the Government had
acted in framing the bill. There were great inte-
rests in the Tower Hamlets. He might instance
the shipbuilding interest, which employed 12,000
skilled artisans—men of great intelligence; it was
important that that interest should be considered.
They received goods from all parts of the world,
and there was the silk trade, which was, unfor-
tunately, not so good at present, in which 30,000
persons were employed. There was an idea abroad
that the Tower Hamlets was a poverty-stricken
district, and not entitled to the benefits of increased
representation in the same manner as Birmingham,
Leeds, and other manufacturing towns. They had
a larger share of houses rated at £2O and up-
wards than any other metropolitan borough, and
more than Birmingham and Leeds put together,
and the population of those two places, which
were to have six members, was not so large as that of
the Tower Hamlets; and, in point of education, he
considered the Tower Hamlets at least equal, if not
superior, to those towns. He ventured to hope that
when the committee now sitting on bribery had com-
pleted their reports, if certain towns were denuded
of two members, one of them might be given to the
'1 ower Hamlets. If he spoke strongly it was with
the greatest respect to his lordship, feeling conscious
of the debt of gratitude this great city owed to him,
and that if the bill passed in its present form it
would be not so much his lordship's desire as that
it was thrust upon him by his colleagues.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was prepared to admit
everything that had been said; but the question was
what was the best way of amending the representa-
tion as a whole ? He remembered when the repre-
sentation was fixed at two for Marylebone, four for
the City, two for Westminster, and two for South-
wark. It was considered and proposed to add eight
to this number, which might be said fairly to repre-
sent the metropolis, and there was no part of the
Reform Bill which excited so much doubt and oppo-
sition. The representation was not founded on the
exact population or wealth of constituencies, but on
general considerations. With regard to the metro-
polis he thought that 10 members who resided in
the metropolis were worth in point of attention and
activity 15 or 20 of those who come from other parts
of the country, and whose private business, fre-
quently requiring their presence elsewhere, did not
allow them to devote so much time to their Parlia-
mentary duties. Members came from Liverpool Lo
represent the shipping interest, and were frequently
absent, whereas the metropolitan members were
continually there. He thought the metropolis was
very well represented, if not so large numerically.
It was proposed to give a member to Birkenhead,
as the interests of that place could not be properly
represented by the members for Cheshire. Their
claim was, however, a matter for fair consideration,
and every point should be brought before the Cabi-
net. In conclusion, his :lordship thought that no
plan which was more extensive or went further
than the measure proposed, could be carried through
Parliament.
The deputation then withdrew.

tion from the Court, Mr. Barrow kiaolly consented
to act in her behalf.

Sergeant Ballantine opened the case for the pro-
secution in a very clear and temperate r nanner. It
appeared that the prisoner was a persm a in humble
circumstances, and that she was legally chargeable
to the Petworth Union, and on the 17th of Novem-
ber last year she was admitted into the -workhouse
with the child in question, which was then about
two months old. She was at this time in a very
miserable and dirty condition, and. very soon after
her admission to the workhouse she was supplied
with a preparation of mercury, :known as white
precipitate, mixed with lard, for the purpose of
cleansing her head, and this pr, eparation, it ap-
peared, was used twice by her, an ,d the remainder,
which, according to the evidenoe, consisted of
about the quantity of the size of a walnut, was
placed in a window-frame in one of the wards of
the workhouse. The child appeare d to be tolerably
healthy when it came into the workhouse, and
nothing was observed to be the matter with it, ex-
cept the ordinary ailments to IN/Arial children of
tender age are subject. Nothin.g particular oc-
curred until the 20th of December,. and on the morn-
ing of that day the child appeared to be in good
health. In the course of the afternoon the prisoner
asked one of the paupers, who was employed as a
sort of portress, to buy her a penny worth of white
precipitate powder, and she did so and gave it to
the prisoner, the quantity consisting of about 20
grains, the paper in which it was wrapped up hav-
ing upon it in large letters the word " poison."
There was no doubt, from the use that had formerly
been made of the powder, that the prisoner was
perfectly well aware of its deadly character, and it
was one of the circumstances strongly pressed
against her that she had no necessity to buy
such an ingredient, as she could have obtained
any quantity that IN as required by applying to
the medical officer of the workhouse. In the
course of the evening of the same day that the
prisoner had obtained the white precipitate under
the circumstances stated, some arrowroot was ad-
ministered to the child by the prisoner, and imme-
diately after taking. it he was very sick, and during
the night the poor infant was heard to make several
peculiar shrieks as though it was in great agony.
On the following morning the child was found to
he dreadfully ill, and, according to the evidence of
some of the witnesses, it had become " quite an old
man" during the night, and its appearance had un-
dergone the most extraordinary change. It con-
tinued sinking during the whole of that day, and
expired about two o'clock on the following morn-
ing. It would seem that the circumstances attend-
ing the death were such as to immediately create
suspicion in the minds of the authorities of the
union, and the prisoner was told by Mrs. Hobbs,
the matron of the workhouse, that the child could
not be buried without further inquiry, as there
was a strong suspicion that she given it something
wrong. The prisoner replied that she had heard
something of the same sort, and she was very glad
the child was going to be opened, as she had not
given it anything. The matron then asked her
what she had done with the precipitate powder that
had been purchased for her, and she at first said
that she had rubbed it into her head as it was.
She was told that if she had done this, she must
have injured herself very much ; and the prisoner
then said that she had mixed it with the portion
that was left of that which had been originally
supplied to her; and she made one or two other
contradictory statements with regard to the manner
in which she had disposed of the poisonous ingre-
dient. Upon a post mortem examination of the
deceased child by Mr. Shout and Mr. Mims, the
medical officers of the union, the cause of death
was discovered to be violent inflammation of the
small intestines, and there were unmistakeable in-
dications of the exhibition of some violent irritant,
and the stomach and other portions of the body
were sent to Dr. Taylor, the eminent lecturer and
professor of chemistry, for analysis, and the result
was that this gentleman discovered the presence of
white precipitate in the gullet and other parts of
the body to the extent of two grains. Dr. Miller,
of King's College Hospital, also made an indepen-
dent examination of other portions of the body of
the deceased infant, and he came to the same con-
clusion with regard to the cause of death as Dr.
Taylor; and Dr. Pavey, of Guy's Hospital, gave
evidence to the same effect.

Mr. Barrow, at the close of the case for the pro-
secution, made a very eloquent address to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner. He said he was sure the
jury would believe him when he statedlthat he rose
to address them with,feelings of the very deepest
anxiety, for although the prisoner was not upon
her trial for wilful murder, yet the crime of which
she was accused was still a capital one, and the
effect of a verdict of guilty might be to consign the
wretched girl now standing before them to the
scaffold. The charge against the prisoner was that
she had wilfully and deliberately administered to
her child a quantity of deadly poison, and that she
did ao with the intention of destroying its life, and
unless both those points were clearly made out by
the evidence they would not be justified in finding
her guilty. After the medical evidence, he said he
did not think he should be justified in attempting
to deny that poisonous matter had been found in
the body of the deceased child, and that this poison
was administered by some person or other, but he
said he should cont that the evidence was by no
means conclusive to show that this poison was ad-
ministered by the prisoner, or that, even if it had
been, it was given accidentally. The learned coun-
sel then proceeded to urge the absence of evidence
to show that the prisoner entertained any unkind
feeling towards this poor child, and to the absence
of any motive for the commission of such a dread-
ful crime, and he concluded by earnestly entreating
the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of any
doubt that might be created in their minds, and
say that she was not guilty of the very heinous
offence alleged against her.
- The learned Judge, on summing up, explained to
the jury that the learned counsel who conducted
the proseeution, having, in the exercise of his dis-
cretion, thought it advisable not to proceed with
the charge of wilful murder, the question they had
to decide was whether the evidence established be-
yond any reasonable doubt that the prisoner had
knowingly administered poison to her child with
the intention of destroying life, and if so, they
would be bound to find her guilty. He at the
same time said he thought it right to inform them
that although the learned counsel for the prisoner
had correctly told them that the offence that was
now the subject of inquiry was still a capital one,
yet the capital punishment was in a great many
cases mitigated, and the result of a conviction was
very different to that involved by a conviction for
wilful murder, in which case the law almost inva-
riably claimed the life of the prisoner in return for
the life she had destroyed. His lordship then pro-
ceeded to call the attention of the jury to the
evidence that had been adduced, commenting upon
all the material portions of it as he proceeded.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
after being absent about a quarter of an hour they
again came into court, and returned a verdict of
guilty.
The prisoner was then asked in the usual form
whether she had anything to urge why judgment
of death should not be recorded against her, and
she made no reply.

The learned Judge then addressed her, and said
that she stood convicted upon perfectly clear evi-
dence of a crime of the most aggravated character.
He had no desire to add to the misery she was
enduring at that moment, and he should say no
more than that he did not intend the law should
take its course, and that he considered justice
would be satisfied by his merely ordering judgment
of death to be recorded against her.
A verdict of not guilty was then taken upon the
charge of wilful murder, and the prisoner, who
cried bitterly, and exhibited the deepest anguish
during the trial, was then removed from the bar.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, March 21.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)

WEST V. WILSON.

Mr. Boden and Mr. Lushington appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Merew ether and Mr. Wills for the
defendant.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover damages for a breach of promise of marriage
made by the defendant.
The plaintiff was the daughter of a farmer at
Cresswell, and had when 12 years of age been left
an orphan with a brother, who succeeded his father
in the farm, and with whom she continued to live.
In 1853 the defendant came, with his mother and
brother, to occupy an adjoining farm at Frithwood.
An intimacy ensued between the two families, and
a courtship between the plaintiff and defendant,
which in 1855 resulted in an engagement. On the
ground of their approaching marriage the defen-
dant made applications to the chief land agent of
the neighbourhood for leases of various farms. A
series of letters written by the defendant at inter-
vals, when either of the parties were absent from
home during the years from 1855 to 1857, were pro-
duced and read, and these sufficiently showed the
nature of the intimacy and relations between them.
At Martinmas, 1858, the plaintiff's brother removed
to another residence four miles from Cresswell,
leaving the house there is her charge. The defer-
dant after this time continued to visit the plaintiff
on the same terms, and was generally in the house
once or twice a-day. In July, 1859, the plaintiff
appeared to be in the famityway, and upon her
brother inquiring of the defendant what he intended
to do, he refused to marry her, alleging that he did
not believe the child to be his, although up to that
time he had never "seen nothing amiss by her."
Under these circumstances the action was brought.
The farm occupied by the defendant, his mother, I

and brother was one of 280 acres, and very fairly
stocked. The only plea of the defendant was a
denial of his promise, but this was abandoned at
the commencement of the case, and his counsel con-
fined himself to addressing the jury in reduction of
the damages, which were laid at £2,000.
The learned Judge said that, as the defendant had
not pleaded that which would have been an answer
to the action—viz., that he was not the father of
the child born of the plaintiff in October, 1859, it
must be taken that he was its father, and the only
question was as to the amount of damages.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, award-
ing her as damages £2OO.

The Lord Chief Baron, with a special jury, re-
sumed the trial of " Cresswell and Jackson," which
occupied the court until 5 o'clock, when the jury
retired to consider their verdict.