efore arrested. But the Secretary of State for the
Home Department took the matter up and determined that the proceedings
should go farther than the local authorities intended. At first it was
contemplated to indict the members of the General Committee for
conspiracy, but it was finally concluded to include only the medical
gentlemen who had accepted the responsibility of superintending the
watching, as well as both parents of the deceased child.

The initial proceeding took place before a full bench of magistrates,
and continued eight days. The Crown and the accused had eminent counsel,
and many witnesses were examined. At the conclusion of the inquiry the
presiding magistrate announced that it had been determined by the court
that no case had been made out against the physicians, who had not been
shown to have undertaken any other duty than that of advising the
nurses, and that it did not appear that their advice had been asked. As
to the father and mother the court had decided to send them both for
trial for manslaughter, at the next assizes. In due time they were
arraigned, they pleaded not guilty, but after being defended by able
counsel, the jury, after an absence of about half an hour, returned with
a verdict of guilty against both the prisoners, but with a
recommendation of the mother to the merciful consideration of the court,
on the ground that she was under the control of her husband. The man
protested his innocence, and the woman "buried her face in her shawl and
wept bitterly."

His Lordship, in passing sentence, said: "Prisoners at the bar, you have
been found guilty of a most aggravated offence. I entirely concur with
the verdict which the jury have given, and I shall act upon the
recommendation which they have presented in favor of the female
prisoner, the mother, though, I must say, that I cannot but feel that it
is a greater crime in the mother than the father, since it is more
contrary to the common nature of mothers, to neglect their children in
the manner in which you have treated this unfortunate child. It is
contrary to the nature, even, of a father. But I shall act upon the
recommendation of the jury, upon the ground they have put forward, that
you have been subject to the control of your husband more than has
appeared from the evidence of the case. But the offence is, as I have
said, a serious one, on this ground; that there can be no doubt that
both of you have persisted in this fraudulent dec