would predispose to insanity in his offspring, but acute mania would not necessarily be inherited.

Dr. H. Armstrong, of the Peckham Lunatic Asylum, produced the certificates upon which Wm. Edmunds was received into the asylum in March 1845. He died in the asylum in March 1847.

Dr. G. W. Grabham, resident physician of the Earlswood Asylum for Idiots, produced the certificates upon which Arthur Burn Edmunds, brother of the prisoner, was admitted into the asylum. The patient was subject to epilepsy, and died in the asylum in January 1866.

The Rev. J. H. Cole, chaplain of Lewes Gaol, said that he had been two years chaplain and secretary of St. Luke's Hospital. The prisoner was brought to Lewes Gaol on the 9th of August. There was a rule that if the chaplain noticed anything indicating unsoundness of mind in a prisoner, it should be entered in the chaplain's journal, and reported to the governor and other persons. He made an entry of this kind respecting the prisoner, and reported it. The prisoner was under his care until Christmas. He noticed a very peculiar formation and movement of the eye. She had a vacant look at times. Her conversations were perfectly coherent, but they struck him as extraordinary, considering the situation in which she was placed. He found in her the most unnatural calmness and exceeding levity. When he spoke to her of her position, she broke out into a very extraordinary laugh. She seemed to have no power to fix her mind upon any grave subject. She would suddenly change from tears to laughter upon frequent occasions. She did not appear to realize her position in the least. His opinion was that the prisoner was of unsound mind.

Alice Over, living at Brighton, deposed that she had known the prisoner six years. She had resided at witness's house two years. Prisoner's demeanour while in her house was ladylike, quiet, and kind in every way. Noticed some time before she left that she was not so quiet. About March or April last year she appeared very strange, and said she thought she was going mad. Her eyes were very large and dull.

Cross-examined-Last saw the prisoner before she went to Margate. Mentioned the fact of prisoner's strange demeanour to her husband.

George Over, husband of the foregoing witness, noticed the prisoner's eyes. They were full, and had a wildness of expression. Her manner was excitable. Dr. Woods, physician to St. Luke's Hospital, had had long experience in cases of insanity. Had seen prisoner a fortnight ago. Was much struck at her absolute indifference as to her position, and he failed altogether to impress her about her serious position. He believed her to be quite incapable of estimating her position. Her mind was so weak that she was incapable of judging between right and wrong in the same sense as other people would. Was an hour and a half with the prisoner.

Cross-examined-Prisoner knew the object of witness's visit to her. Had told her that he came to ascertain the state of her mind. She appeared to understand that. He said to her, "Do you know the consequences of a conviction ?" She said, "I would rather be convicted than brought in insane." Witness said, "Do you think it wrong for any person to attempt to destroy the life of another because you believe that individual wished to get rid of you ?" After some hesitation, she said she thought it was wrong, but she did not say it in a manner that led witness to believe that she really thought so.

The witness was here pressed as to other questions which he put to the pri soner, but as he could not remember any special question, the prisoner stcol 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 you in your present position.

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