wages, or had a month's notice. The jewel-box was always kept in the safe. I was in the habit of wearing valuable jewels, and I used to keep them in the box. My mother used to constantly carry money about with her in her porte-monnaie. I received the bank-notes that I have mentioned either on the Thursday, or Friday, or Saturday before her death.

Re-examined-The house in Park-lane belonged to my mother, and after her death I put a married policeman into it with his wife. I have never lived in the house since the event took place. The jewel-box was made of iron, and was heavy.

The Attorney-General asked the witness to allow the box to be brought to the court on Thursday. He said they would not hurt it.

Mdlle. Riel said she was not afraid of the box, and it had not now any jewels in it. (A laugh.)

The evidence of the police-constables was then taken.

Charles Butcher, a detective, in cross-examination, said-I have not got possession of the diamond ring that was on the finger of the deceased. The last time I saw the ring it was on the dead body. I cannot say whether the ring was on the body when the inquest was held. I did not take any inventory of the contents of the jewel-box, and it was not considered necessary that any inventory should be taken. Everything in the pantry appeared to be in order, and there was not the slightest indication of a struggle having taken place there.

By the Attorney-General-Mdlle. Riel said that everything was safe in the jewel-box, and therefore no further notice was taken of the matter.

Inspector Hamblin, cross-examined, said—I have had a good deal of experience in these matters, and I have no doubt that there were no indications of a struggle. The ring that has been referred to was removed from the finger of the deceased by order of the coroner, and handed to Mdlle. Riel. I saw the jewellery that was in the box, but I have no idea of its value. I have no doubt that at the present time all this jewellery is in Mdlle. Riel's pos

session.

A cabman deposed to driving a woman whom he believed to be the prisoner to the Victoria Station on the evening of April 7, and Richard Warner, a clerk at the station, stated that on that evening the prisoner took a ticket for Paris by a first-class express train, and he saw her start by the train.

Jean Bouillon was next called and examined by the Attorney-General. Mr. Powell objected to this witness being examined, on the ground that this was the first time he had been called as a witness, and the prisoner had no means of knowing what evidence he was to give. Baron Channell ruled that the witness was a perfectly legal witness, and it was impossible that he could exclude his evidence.

The witness then stated that he was a metal-worker. He was formerly concierge at an hotel in Paris, and knew the prisoner. His wife was a native of the same village in Belgium as the prisoner. In September, 1870, the pri soner lived with him and his wife for about four weeks, when she was out of place. She did not pay them anything for her board and keep, and he told his wife to tell her he could not afford to do so any longer, as he was out of work himself at the time. The prisoner left, and he only saw her occasionally from that time until April of the present year, when she came to his house at ten o'clock at night. He did not expect to see her at this time, but he had

received a letter from her on April 4. That letter, he said, he had lost, and he did not know what had become of it. The letter was to the effect that the prisoner intended to come to Paris on the 1st day of May, and that she would then pay him what she owed him. When the prisoner arrived, on April 8, he asked her why she had come so early, as they did not expect her till May. The prisoner replied that her master and mistress had decided to come at once, and they were living at the Boulevard de Malesherbes. She then paid him 125f. in English gold. She had previously asked his wife whether she would prefer to be paid in gold or by a bank-note, and his wife said she would rather be paid in gold. The prisoner slept two nights at his house-April 8 and 9-and she then went away, and he did not see her again until she was at the Prefecture of Police.

In cross-examination M. Bouillon said that he had known the prisoner since 1868. In that year she stayed five or six weeks at his house. She was amiable, truthful, and honest, but very passionate if she was in any way thwarted. "But," said the witness, "she had a good heart in spite of that.'

Thomas Gerard, coal-dealer of St. Denis, said the prisoner, whom he had not seen since July last year, called on him on April 13, when he was serving a customer. He did not for the moment recognize her, but she addressed him in patois, and then he remembered her. She asked the witness when he last saw her father, and told him she had left a situation in the Faubourg St. Honoré, asking him if he knew of a situation in his neighbourhood. He told her there were no aristocrats at St. Denis, and advised her to go back to the Faubourg St. Honoré. Subsequently she told him that she had a fight with her mistress before she left, and finally admitted that she had come from London, and that she had killed her mistress.

Mr. Archibald-Did she tell you how it happened P-Yes.

What did she say ?-She said that her mistress wanted to send her away, and would not pay her. She said that her mistress came into the kitchen and said, "You must leave." She replied that she would go provided she paid her, and that if she did not pay her she would not go. Her mistress said that she might stop if she liked, but she would make her suffer for it. The prisoner said that this put her in a passion, and she seized her mistress by the throat and threw her down to the ground. She said that her mistress got up and was going to take hold of some article in the kitchen, and that seeing this, she struck her mistress a blow under the chin and she fell down again backwards and gave two gasps, and then appeared to be dead instantly, and never rallied. She said that when she saw this she dragged her mistress into the coal-cellar. At this time she said that the lady's maid came down-stairs, and she locked the door of the coal-cellar, and put her back against it. She said that the lady's maid asked where her mistress was, and she told her that she had gone out for a little while. The lady's maid wanted some coals, and she told her there were none, and she went up-stairs. The prisoner said that she then tried to carry the body up-stairs, but her strength began to fail her, and she tied a cord round her neck and dragged the body up-stairs, and placed it in the pantry. Before she did this she said that she had locked all the doors in the kitchen. I asked the prisoner how she had obtained the money to get away from England, and at first she made me no answer. She afterwards said that after it happened she and the lady's maid had drunk two bottles of wine and had some bread and cheese together, and she then said that she

intended to have gone away from London by the six o'clock train, but was too late, and she was obliged to travel by a first-class train, and that it had cost her 37. I did not know the value of English money, and asked her how much 31. was, and she said that a pound was worth twenty-five francs. I replied, "So it has cost you seventy-five francs to come to Paris." She replied, "Yes." Neither myself nor my wife would believe what the prisoner said, and she pulled out a newspaper from her pocket called La Petite Presse, and pointed out to me one of the columns. At the very moment that the prisoner was making this statement the police arrived and apprehended the prisoner, and took her away. During the conversation I had with the prisoner, she told me that as she was on her way to Paris her young mistress, Mdlle. Riel, was on her way to England.

Cross-examined-The father of the prisoner, I believe, is a very respectable

man.

Inspector Hinschberger, of Paris, was the next witness, and was followed by Inspector Druscovitch, of the Metropolitan force.

Mr. John William Berton, cashier at the bank of Cox and Co., proved that Lord Lucan kept an account there, and he produced his lordship's cheque for 807., drawn on March 30 by himself, and said he paid him in bank-notes.

The Earl of Lucan said-I keep an account at Cox and Co.'s, and I went there about March 30 last and drew a cheque for 801., and I received sixteen 57. Bank of England notes in payment for the cheque. I gave Mdlle. Riel six of these notes to hand over to her mother on the same day I received them.

66

Cross-examined-I have had occasion to see Madame Riel now and then. Was she a passionate person ?-She was 'vive," like all Frenchwomenhasty I should say, perhaps-but I did not notice anything else particular about her. I never witnessed any differences between her and her servants, or noticed that she was particularly passionate.

The Attorney-General-Was she a woman, as has been suggested, of ungovernable temper ?—I never noticed anything of the sort. She was not at all different in her manners from ordinary French people.

Mdlle. Riel said, in answer to questions put by Mr. Archibald, that her mother was hasty but very good-hearted, and she never made use of bad language. The diamond ring found in the possession of the prisoner at Paris belonged to her mother, but she could not say the exact time when she last saw her wearing it.

By Mr. Powell-There were perhaps five bracelets and four pairs of earrings in the jewel-box. They were not of very large value, but they were valuable articles. Witness was in the habit of wearing some of the jewellery when she went to St. James's Theatre.

Dr. Wadham was called, and described the appearances presented by Madame Riel's body when he examined it.

After further evidence, Mr. Powell proceeded to address the jury for the prisoner. He did not, he said, attempt to deny that the prisoner had caused the death of the deceased, but he argued that the story told by the prisoner was the truth, and that the act was committed during a quarrel and under a sudden impulse, and he contended that the prisoner ought only to be convicted of manslaughter.

Baron Channell summed up the case to the jury, who retired at twenty

minutes past eleven o'clock to deliberate upon their verdict, and returned into court at five minutes to twelve o'clock.

They found the prisoner guilty of murder, but at the same time strongly recommended her to mercy, on the ground that there was no premeditation in the act.

The prisoner asserted that she had no intention of causing death.

Baron Channell, having put on the black cap, addressed the prisoner, and said the jury, after a most careful consideration, had found her guilty of the crime of wilful murder. It would be his duty to take care that the recommendation to mercy which accompanied that verdict should at once be transmitted to the proper quarter, but at present all he had to do was to pass upon her the sentence of the law. His Lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual form.

The prisoner was then asked whether she had anything to urge in stay of execution, the object being to know whether she was pregnant.

She replied that she was not.

The prisoner was then removed from the bar, and the crowded court was soon cleared of its occupants.

The prisoner's sentence was afterwards commuted in accordance with the recommendation of the jury.

IV.

THE ATTACK ON THE QUEEN.

ARTHUR O'CONNOR, the lad who attempted to alarm the Queen by pointing a pistol at her as she was about to alight from her carriage at Buckingham Palace on the evening of February 29, was on the 11th of April brought up for trial before Baron Cleasby at the Central Criminal Court.

When the prisoner was first brought up he pleaded guilty, and it was expected that judgment would be at once passed; but Mr. H. Williams, the counsel for the prisoner, asked that that plea might be withdrawn, on the ground that prisoner was not in a fit condition of mind to plead. Baron Cleasby said he thought it would be better to try the question whether the prisoner was of sound mind or not, and a jury was accordingly empanelled for the purpose. Mr. Williams then briefly addressed the jury, and the following evidence was adduced :

Mr. George O'Connor said—I live at No. 4, Church-row, Houndsditch, and am in the employ of the Iron Steamboat Company. The prisoner is one of eight children. I am nephew to the late Feargus O'Connor, who was confined in a lunatic asylum. Other members of our family have also been insane. The prisoner has always had bad health since he was six years old, and in 1866 he sustained a severe accident in Chancery-lane, and was wounded on the head, and was insensible for some time. After this injury I did not notice immediately any difference in his habits, but subsequently there was a marked change in him, and I noticed that he became very irritable. He was always a studious and silent boy, and I never heard of his attending any

political meetings, or that he had any political associates. I did not notice anything particular in the prisoner's demeanour on February 29, the day on which the outrage was committed. I had previously heard that he was very restless at nights, and he complained of his head, and in the morning he seemed fatigued and jaded, and said that he had pains in his head. I did not know that he was in custody until Superintendent Williamson told me of it. I have seen the prisoner several times in Newgate, and when I spoke to him on the subject of his crime he would not make any reply. I never suggested to the prisoner that he should plead guilty to the charge.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General--The prisoner has had bad health since he was six years old, but could read and write, and was employed in several businesses, and I never heard any complaint against him. He was a clerk in a law stationer's office, and there was no complaint of the manner in which he did his work. He left that employment on account of the state of his health, not on account of the state of his mind. This was after he met with the accident. After this he was engaged by Mr. Marshall, and then I heard no complaints. He went from this place to Lovett and Franks's in the Borough, and he was in their service when this was done. He was employed as clerk in the wholesale warehouse, and I had no complaint of him from them. The prisoner went out with one of his brothers, nine years old, to see the illuminations on the night after the Prince of Wales went to St. Paul's. I consider the prisoner's mind was out of order all the time the prisoner was at Lovett and Franks's. His wages were 12s. a week, and he was paid every Friday.

The Attorney-General-Did you see the prisoner pretty often in Newgate? -We went as often as we were allowed.

How often did you speak to him about the trouble he had got into ?—Only once, and that was about a fortnight ago. I asked the prisoner how he could be so foolish as to do what he had done, and he made me no reply. I repeated the question, and he made me no answer. The prisoner subsequently complained of the food that was given to him, and said he did not like the gruel, and that the meat was hard. I do not know if the meat was hard. It was I who sent Dr. Tuke and Dr. Harrington to see the prisoner. I do not know who is to pay them. Nothing was said about payment.

Dr. Smith, of King's College, who amputated the prisoner's toe, also went to see him. He did not go by my desire. I never made a communication to the solicitor for the prosecution that it was my wish the prisoner should plead guilty. I did not know he intended to plead guilty. I have received a letter from a gentleman in Ireland named Connor in reference to this matter.

The Attorney-General-Did you ever authorize Mr. Connor to communicate with the Solicitor to the Treasury upon the subject of the prisoner pleading guilty.?-I never heard anything of the sort.

My mother answered Mr. Connor's letter, but I am not aware that she said anything about the prisoner pleading guilty. I am not acquainted with the contents of that letter, or that there was any sug gestion that the prisoner should plead guilty, and that he should ask to be leniently dealt with. I left it entirely to my mother's discretion how the letter should be answered. I might have asked her what she said in the letter, but she only gave me a general answer. Of course she thanked Mr. Connor for his kindness, and also told him that we were without funds, and did not know