The witness was here pressed as to other questions which he put to the prisoner, but as he could not remember any special question, the prisoner stcod up in the dock and said, "I remember the question."

His Lordship, however, said he could not take it from the prisoner.

Cross-examination continued-Could not remember any other questions but those he had mentioned, and the answers he had received formed part of the ground upon which he gave it as his opinion that the prisoner was of unsound mind.

Re-examination-Dr. Robertson and Dr. Maudsley were present. Dr. Robertson put most of the questions. Was still of opinion that the prisoner was not in a sound state of mind.

Dr. Robertson sworn-Had a very great difficulty in coming to any conclusion as to the state of the prisoner's mind. Regarded her as bordering between crime and insanity. Regarded her intellect as quite clear and free from any delusion. Thought her moral sense deficient from what he had observed in the descendants of sane persons. Failed to impress her with the gravity of the position in which she was placed. Knowing the history of her life, he was led to regard her as morally insane.

Cross-examined-Was visitor in lunacy to the Court of Chancery. Was specially appointed to that court. There was not an absence, but a deficiency of moral sense.

His Lordship-Do you mean to say that if she administered poison for the purpose of destroying life she would not know it was a wrong act?

Witness-I believe she would know it was a wrong act intellectually. Dr. Maudsley sworn-I found a deficiency of moral feeling. She did not appear to me to realize her position. In reference to her moral sense I consider her mind to be impaired.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Ballantine-What do you mean by the term "impaired moral sense"?

Witness-I mean a want of moral feeling with regard to events or acts regarding which a perfectly sane person might be expected to exhibit feeling. I should say that anybody who deliberately committed crime was deficient of moral feeling.

Do you consider that insanity ?-Certainly.

Re-examined-The prisoner absolutely laughed at the idea of her life being in danger, or of anybody thinking it. Her only real distress that she seemed to evince was about the treatment she received in Newgate.

Mr. Serjeant Parry addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He drew the attention of the jury specially to the evidence that had been adduced in reference to the prisoner's history, and to the probability of her having inherited the insanity which existed in her family. It had, he said, been clearly shown that she had herself declared she was going mad. It had been proved that she suffered from hysteria, and it was well known that persons so afflicted had irresistibly been guilty of crime, for which they could not be held responsible. It was a most melancholy fact to think that the prisoner being tried for so terrible a crime should be a member of a family which he might say was saturated with hereditary insanity. They had had undoubted proof of disease existing in her family, and he (the learned serjeant) was sure that it would receive the weight of their consideration to which it was entitled. God knew whether the wretched woman at the bar was suffering from insanity.

He (the learned counsel) did not affirm it. It was for the jury to say whether she was or was not, but he entreated them to remember that they were trying a case unparalleled, and a woman whose father, whose brother, whose sister, all had died in a state of insanity. The learned serjeant then reviewed the evidence he had called in support of his opening, and concluded an earnest appeal to the jury that they would feel it competent to find the prisoner innocent of the crime with which she stood charged.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then replied by saying that he commenced with the words at which his learned friend had concluded, that the public would be satisfied with the verdict the jury might return, in the full assurance that that verdict would be founded upon the evidence which had been adduced. While he sensibly sympathized with the position of his learned friend, still there was a duty that they all owed to the public, and in his endeavour to do that duty he was afraid that he would have to call their attention to the many acts of the prisoner, and should be obliged to ask them to bring that knowledge to bear upon their verdict, by asking themselves whether there was the slightest ground for assigning the acts of the prisoner as a consequence of insanity. The learned serjeant then called the attention of the jury to certain parts of the evidence which he asked them to consider, and concluded an able address by expressing his conviction that their verdict would be in accordance with the evidence laid before them.

His Lordship then summed up. There were, he said, two important questions in the case to which the jury would have to direct their special attention. The first and the most important was whether the prisoner had contrived to substitute for the chocolate creams which she sent the boy for other creams which were poisoned; and if the child Barker had died from eating one of those creams, the prisoner was undoubtedly guilty of murder. The second point was whether the prisoner was in a state of mind to be responsible for her actions. There was no doubt that on the 12th of June the uncle of the child Barker bought a quantity of creams at the shop of Mr. Maynard, and that he gave one of those chocolates to the child, who afterwards died from its effects, and died, too, of symptoms such as the poison strychnine would produce. Evidence had been given that Mr. Maynard never had any poison or other deleterious matter on his premises. Therefore, assuming that this child had died from the effects of strychnine, the jury would have to say whether it was the prisoner who administered that poison. If they believed the evidence of Mr. Garrett and others, it was shown that the prisoner had been in possession of strychnine, which she had obtained upon several occasions by giving a false name and address. Then, again, if they believed the documents that had been produced and spoken to, she had sought to disguise her acts of purchasing the poison by surreptitiously obtaining Mr. Garrett's poison salebook and abstracting therefrom the leaves containing the register of the sales, These were all points to which the jury would have to give their best attention, which would of course guide them in their verdict. If they should believe that she was the person who acted in this way, then they would have to consider the defence which had been set up-namely, that she was not of sound mind, and was, therefore, not responsible for her acts. But in considering this point, they must bear in mind that the law requires that it shall be clearly proved that the accused at the time of the act is labouring under a state of insanity. The learned judge then reviewed the evidence of the dif

ferent witnesses, and after reminding the jury that there was certain evidence in support of the prisoner's insanity, concluded his summing up by requesting that they would carefully consider the various points he had referred to, reminding them that if they were satisfied that she was insane, they would, of course, find that she was not responsible for the act; but if they were not clearly satisfied of this, why then they would find her guilty.

The jury retired at ten minutes to four to consider their verdict, and returned into court at ten minutes to five.

The Clerk of the Arraigns said-Have you all agreed to your verdict?
The Foreman-Yes.

The Clerk of Arraigns-Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty ?
The Foreman-Guilty.

The prisoner then said in a low voice-I wish to be tried on the other charges brought against me, and I want my whole connexion with Dr. Beard gone into. I am sure Serjeant Ballantine will go on with the case. It is owing to the treatment that I have received from Dr. Beard that I have been brought into this trouble.

The Judge-I am not at all disposed to disbelieve you, but it simply goes to confirm the truth and justice of this verdict. I am satisfied that since you became acquainted with Dr. and Mrs. Beard, you turned your attention to the poisoning of these innocents. But I have but one duty to perform, and in the performance of that duty I must say that I entirely concur in the verdict of the jury. There is no doubt that you had no desire to kill this particular little child. It is true, as you state, and it is also true, as I believe, that you got into a morbid state of mind in consequence of the relationship existing between you and Dr. Beard, but I wished to keep this case entirely separate from the others, in order that you might have as fair a trial as possible. I cannot believe that any doubt can possibly be entertained that the boy was subjected to those poisonous sweets, and that they came through you; nor can I doubt that the jury were wise in rejecting the evidence of insanity which was set up; indeed, on that part there was no evidence to go to the jury. I do not, however, mean to distress you more. I can only repeat that the verdict is a just one, although it can be no pleasure for me or any one to place in your present position.

you

His Lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual way, amidst breathless silence. The prisoner evinced no emotion, but listened to all his Lordship said with calm resignation.

The Clerk of the Arraigns-Have you anything to say in arrest of the judgment—are you pregnant, or is there any other cause?

The prisoner here muttered something, which could not be heard. She was asked to repeat what she had said. Her reply was equally inaudible, whereupon the female warder and Mr. Jonas, the governor, stepped towards the unhappy woman, and asked her what she had said. She muttered to them that she was pregnant.

This announcement created considerable excitement in the court. The prisoner was relegated to her seat in the dock, and in the course of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour a number of ladies, some of whom had been in the court during the trial, were assembled, and were requested to go into the jurybox, which they did, and they were sworn amid dead silence to inquire whether the prisoner was "with quick child.”

The prisoner was then asked if she wished to call anybody to prove that she was with child, and she replied, "I do not wish to call anybody."

The jury of matrons then retired, and a few minutes afterwards they sent for a medical man, and one being forthcoming, he went to the room in which they were. A few minutes afterwards they returned into court.

The Clerk of Arraigns-Are you agreed in your verdict, and do you find whether the prisoner at the bar is with quick child?

The Forewoman-We say she is not.

While this was going on, the prisoner looked wildly round the court. The Clerk of Arraigns directed that she should be removed, on which she turned towards him, as if she would have said something; but the gaoler, taking her by the arm, said "Come on," and she was led away.

The sentence was afterwards remitted on the ground of insanity.

III.

THE PARK-LANE MURDER.

THE trial of Marguerite Dixblanc for the murder of her mistress, Madame Riel, in Park-lane, on Sunday, April 7, was commenced at the Central Criminal Court, before Baron Channell, on June 12. The Attorney-General (Sir J. Coleridge), Mr. Poland, Mr. Besley, and Mr. Archibald conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Powell, Q.C., Mr. Gough, Mr. Wildey Wright, and Mr. Mirehouse. M. Albert was engaged as interpreter. The prisoner, who when placed at the bar exhibited a remarkably calm and composed appearance, was seated during the trial.

The Attorney-General, in opening the case to the jury, said it was his duty to state, as clearly and shortly as he could, the few facts of this awful crime. The only question would be whether the prisoner committed that crime, and he was very glad to see that the prisoner had the assistance of his learned friends, who would do everything that could be done honourably on behalf of the prisoner. He was afraid, however, that there would be no doubt that the prisoner committed the crime, and that the jury would be compelled in the result to return a verdict to that effect. The Attorney-General then proceeded to give a short narrative of the facts of the case, to prove which the following evidence was adduced :—

Eliza Watts, examined by Mr. Poland—I was formerly in the service of the deceased as housemaid, at No. 13, Park-lane. I had been in her service about four months before this occurrence took place. The household consisted of Madame Riel, her daughter, the prisoner, and myself. The prisoner was cook, and she came into the service last January. On Easter Sunday, the 31st of March, Mdlle. Riel went to Paris. The prisoner did not speak English, but I was able to understand what she said, and she told me that she was going to leave Madame Riel's service on the 21st of April. On Saturday, the 6th of April, Madame Riel dined at home with a friend, and after dinner the food was placed in the pantry. This pantry was on the ground floor-the same floor as the dining-room and parlour. The deceased kept the key of the pantry, and she always locked the door, and put the key in her pocket. Deceased always kept the door locked. There was an iron

safe in the pantry. Before the dinner was over on the Saturday I spoke to the prisoner, and told her that madame wanted to speak to her, and she went up to her, and afterwards the prisoner went out. This was about nine o'clock. I did not know what she went out for. She did not return until nearly midnight. Madame Riel's friend at this time was gone, and madame had gone to bed. I sat up for the prisoner in the kitchen. She let herself in with a key-the key of the area. She brought with her some articles of food for the next day. I slept on the third floor, and the prisoner occupied a separate room on the same floor. The deceased's bedroom was on the second floor, and on the first floor was the bedroom of Mdlle. Riel and the dressing-room. I and the prisoner and the deceased were the only persons in the house on the 6th of April, during the night. On the morning of the 7th I got up at half-past seven o'clock as usual, and went down-stairs, and about eight o'clock I took the deceased her breakfast in her bedroom. She had tea and bread and butter. I lighted the fire in her bedroom, and then left her in bed. I and the prisoner remained in the kitchen, and at half-past nine o'clock I went again to the deceased's bedroom. She rang the bell after this, and I went again to her in her bedroom. At this time the deceased was up and dressed, and she told me that I might do up her room, and I did so. The deceased put on her bonnet and dress, and said she was going in the Green Park for a quarter of an hour, and she went down-stairs, and she told me that if a lady came to ask for her I was to say that she would be back in a quarter of an hour. She had her little dog with her. I believe this was about twenty minutes past eleven o'clock, and I did not go down until just before twelve. While I was up-stairs I did not hear the slightest noise or disturbance in the house. I saw nothing of the deceased when I went down-stairs, but I saw the little dog was down-stairs. The prisoner was in the pantry, and she told me that madame had gone out, and that she had locked the door of the kitchen, and had taken the key away with her. She had told me that madame had not ordered any second breakfast. About twenty minutes after twelve o'clock the prisoner asked me to go out and fetch some beer, and I told her it was Sunday, and that it was of no use going before one o'clock, as the publichouse would not be open. The prisoner asked me several times before one o'clock to go and fetch some beer, and about five minutes after one o'clock the prisoner gave me a jug, and told me to go for the beer, and I went out for that purpose by the front door, and the prisoner looked out and said that the public-house was open. The public-house was on the same side at No. 13, in the direction of Piccadilly. I went for the beer, and when I got back I found that the door was shut. I rang and knocked several times, but could not get any answer for some minutes. I asked the prisoner why she had not answered the door, and she said she thought it was madame who was at the door. I and the prisoner then went into the kitchen, and had some beer and something to eat. It was a usual thing for me to fetch the beer on Sunday. I did not notice any difference in the appearance of the kitchen at this time from when I went out. After this I went up-stairs to dress myself, and the prisoner also went to her bedroom, and remained there a long time, an hour and a half or more. I had called out to her to ask her what she was doing, and why she did not come down, and she made me no answer. When she did come down-stairs I again asked her why she had been so long up-stairs, but she made me no answer. In the afternoon, about four o'clock, a French lady