THE CASE OF ELIZA ARMSTRONG.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1234, 23 October 1885, Page 3

THE CASE OF ELIZA ARMSTRONG.

James’ Gazette says : Armstrong lias at length been sifelr restored to her parents. The recovery was effected by a p irdnnable stratagem on the part of the mother, and by ihe revelation of farther instances of falsehood and deceit on the part cf those who were concealing the girl. It will be remembered that Mr Bramwell Boothe had given an add -ess in Loriol, Drome, Franc as the p ace where the chihl c mid he found. On the taiih of this statement Armstrong, the father, in company with a detective, was sent over to this address. The j nr ey of the poor m m to France, and the can» sequent cessation ofhis work for several da s, reduced hit family to severe ditress. On. arriving at Loriol he found that he had been the victim of another fraud. The child had been removed —it is behoved to Rouen. From here she seems to have been taken t > Kugland and placed in ihe house ot a gentleman who has been clos-dy associated with the literary part of Mr Booth’s recent enterprise. Frightened apparently, by the Ime-and cry which liad been raised the child’s ciptors acted tm the advice of a legal friend and decided to come to terms with the mother. They accordingly sent to Mrs Arm strong and agreed to take her to an address nt Wimbledon where she could see the child, if she would abstain from any attempt to iccover her airs Armstrong, felt justified (as she undoubtedly was) in meeting tln se persons with their owu weapons, bhe gave the required undertaking, and tlien informed the police. Accordingly when Mrs Armstrong was taken f o the house at Wimcledon where the child was kept, she was followed by some detectives, who quickly appeared on the scene and demanded that Eliza

should be handed ovey to them. The inmates of the house had apparently not expected any manoeurve of the kind, and were a good deal disconcerted ; but, of course, there was nothing for it but lor them to obey. The child, who was neatly dressed, was then given to her mother, and accompanied her back home “ The statement which has been published, that the child Eliza Armstrong was voluntarily restored to her parents by those who had possession of her, is not in accordance with f.ict. We believe that the account we gave yesterday is correct, and. that the child was not realised until the po ice appeared at the house at Wimbledon where she was detained, and demanded that she should be given up immediately. The father Armstrong has returned, and his account of bis journey to Franco is instructive as showing the way in which the child was shifted from place to place, when it was known that the pursuers wen on the track He left London last Wednesday, travelling in .the company of a detective, and proceeded, via Calais and Paris, to ,a town in the South of France. On reaching this place he was taken before the Maire, who d reeled a police officer to go wMi the detec'ive and the father to the house where the child was supposed to be. The house was found to be shut up, and the, visitors were given an address | to another place come 30 miles distant to which the inmates hid remove I. They went on to this place, and found ‘ the parties,’ as Armstrong calls their., but only learnt that Elizi had been removed. The lady who had the child in her charge informed Armstrong that his daughter had been * rescued ’ from a bad house, and that her parents were inf mious people, and had soil her lor vicious purposes Vot being able to trace the child further, the searchers returned to Kogland Armstrong sates that ha is convinced tlie Booth family were mixed up in the matter from the very beguiniiig. “ Questioned, on this at St. James’s Hall, Mr W, T. Stead made an important statement. He said that he and be alone was responsible for tak ing the child Elizi Armstrong from her home ; th it the mother had sold 1 the daughter for immoral purposes, that he had conveyed the girl to a bouse of bad character, butthit she had only remained there halt an hour and ha t left it free from all harm 'l’he fist statement conflicts with that marie l)v Mrs Josephine Butler; for this la ly has stated th it she was responsible for the proceedings of her friend Mrs Jauvt (whom Mr Stead has described as ‘au o d hand at proc ration ’), who is known to have taken the chil l from her home. The second point is denied by Mrs Arm I strong, who has stoutly persisted ad ! through that she did not sell the child and that sh ) ready be ieve 1 she was to he taken to a respectable situation. Mr Stead’s asser ion that the child was not wionged proved the fa sehood of the s ory of his ‘ revelations ’ The identity of the story of ‘ Lily ’ there given with that of Eliza Armstrong has been admitted by Mr Booth, an i indeed, in the f ce of ihe evidence which has been seen by ourselves and others cannot be denied. Now the ‘ Li y ’ affair is given as a bona file story of au iu= ocent child who was taken to a house of 111 fame, drugged, and outraged, if Mr Stead's statement on the platform is to be accepted, this story—the most striking of his ‘revelations’—is a fraudulent and obscene cone c ion. This is what we have frequently contended ; and we now tind onr surmise con finned from Mr Stead’s own lips. Mr Stead absolved Mr Booth from all share in decoying or convoying the girl Irom her home.”