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

Ilk: SU N, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING:, MARCH 22, 1.360,

ta,
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 manu-
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..--7inzes.

THE REFORM BILL.

tion from the Court, Mr. Barrow kindly consented
to act in her behalf.
Sergeant Ballantine opened the case for the pro-
secution in a very clear and temperate manner. It
appeared that the prisoner was a person 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 preparation, it ap-
peared, was used twice by her, and the remainder,
which, according to the evidence, 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 appeared 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 which children of
tender age are subject. Nothing 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 was 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
be 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 stateclithat 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 so 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 evilence, 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 contend that. the evidence was by no
means conclusive to show that this poison was ad-
bmeianni s
it
wased yi
itvheen ptaoiciiucs
iordgneeenrtt,haoelri
yat. hb
Theas
etn,
ceelNeToanir.
neiefvai
diet:
nhu
caned_
sel tiien proceedeL:
to show that the prisOner entertained any unkind
feeling towards this poor child, and to the absence
of any motive for the commis,on of such a dread-
ful crime, and heconcluded by earnestly entreating
the jury to give the prit over the benefit of any
doubt that might be created in their Winds, and
say that she was not guilty of the very ,heinous
offence alleged against her.
The learned Judge, on summing up, explained W
the jury that the learned counsel who conducted
the prosecution, 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 bang absent about a quarter of an hour they
again ame 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 uncle no reply.
The learned Judge then addressed her, and said
that she stood convicted upon perfectly clear evi-
denee 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 Y. WILSON.
Mr. Bolen and Mr. Lushington appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Merewether 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 c0,..--rt9hip between the plaintiff and defendant,
whichin
.1555 resulted in an engagement. On the
ground of
approaching marriage the defen-
dant made app: ations to the chief land agent of
.
the neighbourhood to: leases of variot:s farms. A
series of letters written bj the defendant at inter-
vals, when either of the parti€.s were absent from
home during the years from 1855 to 1857, were p.." -
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 in her charge. The defen-
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 familyway, 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.
.11e Avaa occupied by 1119 defewapdati Li, mother,

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.
_ _ .