explosion had alarmed other persons in the village, who
promptly came to the assistance of the terrified inmates,
but no traces of the perpetrator of the diabolical and
cowardly outrage could be found. On examining the
house it was discovered that the ceiling of the apartment
in which the explosion took place was elevated
two or three inches above its former position, as was
also the ceiling of an adjacent closet; one of the walls
was cracked, the bed-room door by which Mr. and Mrs.
Booth were attempting to escape was forced three
inches out of its position, and the walls were deeply
indented with the fragments of the stone bottle in which
the explosive matter had been confined; several tiles
were also blown off the roof. It is difficult to imagine
in what motive this dastardly deed has had its origin,
for the workmen in the employ of Messrs. Booth have
had a regular engagement at full wages, and their
earnings have always been punctually paid; moreover, Mr.
Booth and his family are respected throughout the
village. It is stated that two of their hands were
missing on the night of the outrage; Mr. Booth himself
distinctly heard the footsteps of some one running
away just previously to the explosion taking place, but
no footmarks, nor anything else to lead to the identification
of the guilty persons, have yet been discovered.
A reward of £120 has been offered—namely, £50 by
Mr. Booth, £50 by the Conisborough Association for
the Prosecution of Felons, and £20 by the Sheffield
Trade Protection Society, for the detection and
conviction of the perpetrator of the crime.

Mr. R. Philip, lately provost of Leith, was tried on
the 3rd inst. before the High Court of Justiciary,
Edinburgh, charged with Indecent Practices towards girls
under or about the ago of puberty, as also assault. The
ex-Provost, who is a widower, aged sixty-five, has long
been one of the leading citizens of Leith and was
reputed to be a man of considerable wealth. Since his
appointment to the provostship, and previously, he had
taken a prominent part in the benevolent and religious
enterprises of the community of Leith. He had held
the office of provost for four consecutive years. The
indictment set forth that on the 26th of September,
1855, in the pannel's office, Old Church wharf, Leith,
he committed the offence stated on the persons of two
girls, in presence of the other in each case, one of them,
named M'Kenzie, being ten; the other, named Smith,
being twelve years of age. Both were the daughters of
working men. The proceedings occupied the court
from nine o'clock in the morning till nine o'clock at
night. The jury, after an absence of three-quarters of
an hour, returned with a verdict of Guilty. The Lord
Justice Clerk, in passing sentence, said, the very
circumstances which ought hereto have produced restraint
of any inordinate and strange desires which might come
across a man, only aggravated his guilt. Looking to
the practice of the Court in regard to such sentences,
and looking to the sentence pronounced that day in the
case of a youth found guilty of libidinous practices even
on one child, the Court had no other course left than to
pronounce in the case of the prisoner at the bar, the
sentence of fifteen years' transportation. The case to
which the Lord Justice Clerk referred in passing
sentence was that of J. Samuel, a private of the Edinburgh
County Militia, aged only seventeen pears, who, having
pleaded guilty of assault on a girl of six years of age,
was sentenced to transportation for fifteen years.

The attempt to create Sunday Disturbances in Hyde
Park have been continued during this month. On the
4th instant there was an immense and disgracefully riotous
mob, excited to violence by orators belonging to a society
calling themselves the Working Men's Provision League,
and several persons were pelted and grossly mal-treated.
Some of the rioters were captured, and fined next day
by the police magistrates. On the 11th vigorous
measures had been adopted to keep the peace. The crowd
was as great as ever; but the numbers and dispositions
of the police put down every attempt to get up a riot.
On the 18th no such attempt was made, and the day
passed off quietly.

Among the cases which daily occur in the police-
courts of Cruel Treatment of Wives by their Husbands,
the following is a remarkable instance of the anxiety
shown by the poor victims to screen their husbands from
punishment. James Hall was brought before the
Southwark police-court on the 6th instant, charged with
committing a ruffianly assault on his wife. The woman
who exhibited several bruises on the forehead, ascended
the witness-box, and with great reluctance gave the
following evidence, the prisoner all the time looking at
her in a threatening manner. She said she had no wish
to press the charge against him, as he was generally a
good husband, arid never ill-used her before the previous
night. The constable who took him in charge said, that
when they arrived at the station-house she said he had
illused her almost every day since they were married.
Complainant: I did not mean to say so. He did not hurt
me last night, and what he did was owing to my own
conduct. Mr. Combe: Is there anybody present who
witnessed the assault, as it seems perfectly clear to me
that this brutal fellow has been threatening his wife
with vengeance if she speak the truth against him?
Mr. Gillies, a linen-draper in St. George's-road, stepped
forward and said, that on the previous night he was
transacting some business in Bermondsey-street, when
he saw the prisoner, without the slightest provocation,
attack his wife and knock her down like a bullock.
While she was on the ground he pulled her off the
pavement by the hair of the head, dragging handfuls of
hair out at the same time, causing the woman to scream
dreadfully. He called the assistance of a constable, and
they prevented the prisoner from committing further
brutality towards his wife, and then he was given into
custody. Blood was flowing from her head at the time.
Mr. Combe (to the wife): What have you to say to what
this gentleman says about your husband? Is that true?
Complainant (looking tremously at her husband): He did
not hurt me, sir! and as for mv hair, that was loose. I
don't want to hurt him. Please let him go. Mr.
Combe: How long have you been married?
Complainant: Ten months, sir. Mr. Combe: And he has
ill-used you all the time? Complainant: Oh no, sir; he
has not. Let him go, sir, for the sake of the children.
Mr. Combe: You say you have only been married to
him ten months. Whose children are you talking
about? Complainant: My own children by a former
husband; and we all rely on him for support. Mr.
Gillies here informed his worship that the woman told
him her husband had beaten her ever since they had
been married, and that she was afraid he would murder
her. Witness never saw a man act like a greater brute
towards a woman before. In answer to the charge, the
prisoner said he had been drinking, and his wife came
after him to the public-house. When he came out
they quarrelled, but he had no recollection of pulling
her hair from her head. He never beat her before.
Mr. Combe said he should commit the prisoner to
Wandsworth House of Correction for three months
with hard labour. The prisoner seemed quite thunder-
struck at his Worship's decision, and was removed from
the dock amid the cries of his wife.

On the night of the 6th inst., a Daring and Artful
Robbery was perpetrated in Little Cannon-street,
Birmingham. Some days before, Mr. Brown, a watch-
maker, carrying on business in Coventry, was waited on
by a stranger, respectable in appearance, who ordered
twenty gold watches to be ready for him by a given
day. The man again called, and inquired if the order
had been attended to. Being informed that the watches
were ready for delivery, he assumed the appearance of
being in a hurry, and said he could not wait for them;
but added that if Mr. Brown put them in a little box
and brought them over to Birmingham by the six
o'clock train on the following Tuesday evening, he (the
customer) should be at the New-street Station on its
arrival, and would then and there pay for the watches.
Mr. Brown agreed to this, and came to Birmingham
according to arrangement. His customer, however,
did not keep the appointment, though Mr. Brown
loitered about the station for two or three hours.
Towards ten o'clock he left the station. Turning into
little Cannon-street he was suddenly pounced upon by
four men. One of them seized him round the waist;
another covered his face with a plaister composed of
pitch and soot; a third snatched from his hand the box
containing the watches; the fourth rifled his pockets of
what money they possessed; and having secured their