The Newgate Calendar
Part III (1800 to 1841)



JAMES BRODIE
A Blind Man, who was executed in 1800 for the Murder of his Boy
Guide


JAMES BRODIE, a blind man, was indicted at the assizes for the
county of Nottingham for the murder of a boy, named Robert
Selby Hancock, who acted as his guide, on the 24th of March,
1800.

John Robinson, a warrener, said he went into his warren on
Sunday, the 24th of March, 1800, about two o'clock in the
afternoon. He saw the prisoner, as he supposed, fishing in a rivulet.
On approaching him he found him lying on his belly, upon which
he called out: "Hullo! What are you doing?" The prisoner said he
was a blind man, and had been wandering about all night, for he
had lost his guide, who was dead; that he had stayed by him till he
had taken his last gasp. The warrener went with two men to seek
the boy, and they found him about three miles from the place
where the blind man was, covered all over with ling, or fern, as
much as would fill a cart. The skull was found fractured in two
places, the head covered with blood and torn at the ear, and the
shoulders and arms beaten to a jelly.

The blind man had a stick, with which it was supposed he
committed the murder.

The prisoner, in his defence, said they had lost their way, and that
the boy had got up into a tree, with his assistance, to see if there
was any road near; that the boy fell from the tree and hurt himself
very much; that just before he had tumbled over a log of wood;
that, finding the boy was hurt, and could not stand, he covered him
over with ling, in order to keep him from the cold; and that he
stayed by him till he was dead.

Not one word of this defence was admitted by the jury, who
instantly found him guilty, and execution, in the short time allowed
to murderers, followed, at which time this culprit of darkness was
but twenty-three years of age.



RICHARD FERGUSON
"Galloping Dick," convicted at the Lent Assizes, 1800, at
Aylesbury, and executed for a Highway Robbery


THIS daring highwayman, for his bold riding when pursued,
obtained the name of "Galloping Dick." He was born at a village in
Herefordshire. His father was a gentleman's servant, and was
frequently in London, Bath, and other places, with his master;
consequently he could not bestow that strict attention to the
education and morals of his son which his own conduct gave every
proof he would otherwise have done.

Young Dick gave very early proofs of that daring wicked
disposition which afterwards rendered him so infamously noted. If
any mischievous project was set on foot among his companions
young Dick was sure to be their leader, and promoted it as far as
lay in his power.

Dick's father, finding him, when fifteen years of age, make little
progress in learning, and given to such mischievous pranks,
resolved to employ him under his own eye. The coachman being at
this time in want of a stable-boy, young Dick was taken to fill up
the vacancy. He took great delight in his new employment, and,
being a smart and active youth, was taken much notice of in the
family. As he paid particular attention to the horses, he soon made
astonishing progress in the management of them.

About a year afterwards young Dick came to London with the
family. During their stay in town the postilion was taken ill and
Dick was appointed to supply his place till he recovered, which
was not very long.

Dick was now stripped of his fine livery, and sent back to his
station as a stable-boy. This his haughty spirit could not brook.
Fond of dress, and being thought a man of con-sequence, he
resolved to look out for another place. Accordingly he told his
father his resolution, and asked his advice. His father, knowing he
was well qualified, in respect to the management of horses, told
him he would look out one for him.

A circumstance happened that very afternoon which highly
gratified our hero's pride. A lady who frequently visited the family,
being in want of a postilion, asked Dick's master what had become
of his late postilion. Being informed he was in his stable, and was
very fit for her employ, he was sent for, and hired.

Dick was now completely his own master, and for some time
behaved to the satisfaction of his mistress. He was a great favourite 
in the family, particularly among the female part. He was now in
his twentieth year, and though not what may be termed handsome,
there was certainly some thing very agreeable, if not captivating, in
his person. For some time he lived happily in this family, until his
mistress discovered him in an improper situation with one of her
female servants, when she immediately discharged him. Nor could
any intercession afterwards prevail upon her to reinstate him.

He soon afterwards got another place, in which he did not long
remain. He had at this time got connected with some other servants
of a loose character and, their manner of drinking, gaming and
idleness suiting his disposition, he soon became one of them. After
losing several good places, by negligence, he applied to a livery-
stable in Piccadilly, and obtained employment.

Dick's father now died, and left him the sum of fifty-seven pounds,
which he had saved during the time he lived in the family. With
this sum Dick started as a gentleman. He left his place, bought
mourning, frequented the theatres, etc. One evening, at Drury
Lane, he got seated beside a female who particularly engaged his
attention. He took her to be a modest lady, and was very much
chagrined when she readily granted his request to conduct her
home. He resolved to leave her, but found his resolution fail him;
and at the end of the play he conducted her home to her residence
in St George's Fields, and stayed with her the whole night. Next
morning, after making her a handsome present, he took his leave,
with a promise of soon repeating his visit. He went home, but this
artful courtesan had so completely enamoured him that he could
not rest many hours without paying her another visit, and but for
the accidental visit of some companions he would have returned
immediately. With them he reluctantly spent the day, and in the
evening flew again on the impatient wings of desire to his dear
Nancy.

She thought him to be a person of considerable property, from the
specimen she had of his generosity, and received him with every
mark of endearment in her power. Indeed she was as complete a
mistress of the art of wheedling as perhaps any female of the
present day. At the time Richard Ferguson became acquainted with
her she was the first favourite of several noted highwaymen and
housebreakers, who, in turn, all had their favoured hours. While
they could supply cash to indulge her in every species of luxury
and extravagance she would artfully declare no other man on earth
shared her affections with them; but when their money was once
expended, cold treatment, or perhaps worse, compelled them to
hazard their lives for the purpose of again enjoying those favours
which any reasonable thinking man would have spurned.

Unfortunately for himself, Ferguson became as complete a dupe as
ever she had ensnared. What money he possessed, what he could
obtain by borrowing or otherwise, was all lavished on this
insatiable female, and he was, after all, in danger of being
discarded. Not able to bear the thought of entirely parting with his
dear Nancy, he went to an inn in Piccadilly, offered himself as a
postilion, and was accepted. Whenever he could obtain a little
money he fled with impatience to his fair Dulcinea and squandered
it away in the same thoughtless manner.

As he drove post-chaises on the different roads round the
metropolis he frequently saw his rivals on the road gaily mounted
and dressed. One day, while driving a gentleman on the North
Road, the chaise was stopped by the noted Abershaw and another,
with crepe over their faces. Abershaw stood by the driver till the
other went up to the chaise and robbed the gentleman. The wind
being very high blew the crepe off his face, and gave Ferguson a
full view of him. They stared at each other, but, before a word
could pass, some company came up, and the two highwaymen
galloped off.

At this period Ferguson was under the frowns of his mistress, for
want of money. He and Abershaw knew each other perfectly,
having often met together at Nancy's. Abershaw was very uneasy
at the discovery, which he communicated to his companion. A
consultation was immediately held, and they resolved to wait at an
inn on the road for the return of Ferguson, and bribe him, to
prevent a discovery. They accordingly went to the inn, and when
Ferguson came back, and stopped to water his horses, the waiter
was ordered to send him in. After some conversation Dick
accepted the present offered him, and agreed to meet them that
night, to partake of a good supper.

With this fresh supply of cash he fled to his Nancy. But she was
otherwise engaged, and did not expect him so soon to possess
sufficient for her notice (being now acquainted with his situation in
life), so she absolutely refused to admit him and shut the door in
his face. Mad with the reception he had met with, he quitted the
house, and resolved never to visit her more; which he strictly
adhered to.

Nettled to the soul, he was proceeding homewards when he met the
highwayman who accompanied Abershaw, and went with him to
the place of rendezvous in the Borough, where he was received by
those assembled with every mark of attention. They supped
sumptuously, drank wine, and spent the time in noisy mirth. This
exactly suited Ferguson: he joined in their mirth, and, when
sufficiently elevated, very eagerly closed with a proposition to
become one of their number. He was, according to their forms,
immediately initiated.

When the plan of their next depredations on the public was settled,
Ferguson was not immediately called into action, as it was
suggested by one of the members that he could be better employed
in giving information, at their rendezvous, of the departure of
gentlemen from the inn where he lived, etc., whereby those who
were most likely to afford a proper booty might be waylaid and
robbed. This diabolical plan he followed successfully for some
time, taking care to learn from the drivers the time post-chaises
were ordered from other inns, etc. He shared, very often,
considerable sums, which he quickly squandered away in
gambling, drunkenness and debauchery.

At length he lost his place, and consequently his knowledge
respecting travellers became confined, and he was obliged himself
to go on the road. As a highwayman he was remarkably successful.
Of a daring disposition, he defied danger, and, from his skill in
horses, took care to provide himself with a good one, whereby he
could effect his escape. He and two others stopped two gentlemen
on the Edgware Road, and robbed them; soon after, other three
gentlemen came up, who pursued them, and Ferguson's two
companions were taken, tried and executed. When his associates
complimented him on his escape he triumphantly asserted that he
would gallop a horse with any man in the kingdom.

He now indulged himself in every excess; his amours were very
numerous, particularly among those married women whom he
could, by presents or otherwise, induce to listen to his brutal
desires. He prevailed upon the wives of two publicans in the
Borough to elope with him, and carried on several private intrigues
with others.

At one of the last places in which he lived he was frequently
employed to drive post-chaises between Hounslow and London,
and notwithstanding he drove close by his old companion,
Abershaw, where he hung in irons, it had no effect in altering his
morals. To follow him through the various exploits in which he
was afterwards engaged would require volumes to enumerate. He
was at length apprehended, and taken to Bow Street; thence
conveyed to Aylesbury, Bucks, and there tried and convicted of a
highway robbery in that county.

When he found himself left for execution he seriously prepared for
his approaching end; and when he came to the fatal tree he met his
awful fate with a becoming resolution, inspired by the firm hopes
of the pardon of all his transgressions through the merits of his
blessed Redeemer.

Galloping Dick took a hasty road to perdition. Happy had it been
for him had he chosen the safe path of virtue, and run a good race.



SARAH LLOYD
Convicted of Larceny in April, 1800, and executed in spite of
Extraordinary Efforts to get her reprieved


THIS unfortunate woman was accused of having introduced into
the house of her mistress a man, who robbed and afterwards set it
on fire. Her case occupied much attention. She was generally
considered as the instrument made use of by a designing villain,
and having a most excellent character the affair excited a very
strong interest. Being convicted of larceny only, to the value of
forty shillings, at Bury Assizes, April, 1800, and condemned, she
was left for execution. A petition was immediately signed, most
respectably and numerously, for her respite and pardon; but the
Duke of Portland, deeming the application to arise from ill-judged
humanity, sent down a King's Messenger to order her execution.
Among the persons who interested themselves on this occasion
was Mr Capel Lofft, who addressed the following letter to the
editor of The Monthly Magazine, setting forth her case, and
proving her an object of mercy:--

SIR,--Give me leave to caution you against an implicit credit in the
accounts published in most of the public papers respecting the case
of the unhappy Sarah Lloyd. Thus much only I will say at present -
- a most extraordinary and most affecting case it is. I have never
heard of one more so; I have never known one in any degree so
much so. I was on the Grand Jury which found the two bills of
indictment. I was in court at the trial. I am happy, yet perhaps I
ought not to say so, that I was not in court when sentence of death
was pronounced upon her. I have visited her several times since
she has been in prison, with several respectable persons, and
particularly with a lady of very superior understanding, who,
struck with her mild and ingenious countenance, the modesty,
unhesitating clearness, simplicity and ingenuous character of all
she says, her meek and constant fortitude and her modest
resignation, has interested herself greatly in behalf of this young
and most singularly unhappy woman. She was indicted for a
burglarious robbery in the dwelling-house of her mistress. She was
convicted of larceny alone, to the value of forty shillings, and
under what circumstances, it will be proper to state more fully
hereafter. The jury acquitted her of the burglarious part of the
charge, and thereby negatived any previous knowledge on her part
of a felonious intent of any person. The other indictment, for
malicious house-firing, was not even tried. Unhappily, perhaps, for
her that it was not. It seems but too certain that she will suffer
death on Wednesday next; and from anything that I can yet learn, I
should fear a numerously and respectably signed petition will not
find its way to the King while she yet lives. I write only thus much
at present; that if you state the supposed facts which have been so
widely diffused against her, and have made so dreadful an
impression, you may also state these remarks, which have for their
object merely that the public would suspend their judgment till a
full and correct statement be laid before them, as it necessarily
must; and that, in the meantime, at least, the public will not
conclude her guilty of more than that of which she solely stands
convicted and attainted on the record -- the larceny only. And as to
the nature and degree of her guilt, even upon that they will
estimate it according to the circumstances, when fully before them.
Then perhaps they will have no cause to wonder that efforts have
been made, as they have certainly been, with most persevering
anxiety, to obtain a mitigation of her sentence, so far as it affects
her life; nor that the prosecutrix, the committing magistrate, the
foreman and several others of the grand jury, and many persons of
true respectability, have concurred in these efforts, and,
particularly, persons in whose service she had lived, and who
speak of her temper, disposition, character and conduct in terms
every way honourable. I remain, etc.,
	CAPEL LOFFT
	TROSTON, April 21.

In another letter this gentleman gives an account of her  person,
execution, etc., as follows:-

"Respecting the case of Sarah Lloyd, what ought now further to be
said, I wish that I felt myself capable of saying as it deserves. I
have reason to think that she was not quite nineteen. She was
rather low of stature, of a pale complexion, to which anxiety and
near seven months' imprisonment had given a yellowish tint.
Naturally she appears to have been fair, as when she coloured, the
colour naturally diffused itself. Her countenance was very
pleasing, of a meek and modest expression, perfectly characteristic
of a mild and affectionate temper. She had large eyes and eyelids, a
short and well-formed nose, an open forehead, of a grand and 
ingenuous character, and very regular and pleasing features; her
hair darkish brown, and her eyebrows rather darker than her hair:
she had an uncommon and unaffected sweetness in her voice and
manner. She seemed to be above impatience or discontent, fear or
ostentation, exempt from selfish emotion, but attentive with pure
sympathy to those whom her state, and the affecting singularity of
her case, and her uniformly admirable behaviour, interested in her
behalf.

"When asked (23rd of April, 1800), the morning on which she
suffered) how she had slept the preceding night, she said: 'Not well
the beginning, but quite well the latter part of the night.' She took
an affectionate, but composed and even cheerful, leave of her
fellow-prisoners, and rather gave them comfort than needed to
receive it. It was a rainy and windy morning. She accepted of, and
held over her head, an umbrella, which I brought with me, and
without assistance, though her arms were confined, and steadily
supported it all the way from the prison, not much less than a mile.
What I said at the place of execution, if it had been far better said
than I was then able to express myself under the distress I felt,
would have been little in comparison of the effect of her
appearance and behaviour on the whole assembly. That effect,
none, who were not present, can imagine. Before this, I never
attended an execution; but indeed it was a duty to attend this, and
to give the last testimony of esteem to a young person whose
behaviour after her sentence (I had not seen her before, for in court
she was concealed from me by the surrounding crowd) had
rendered her so deserving of every possible attention. Those who
have been accustomed to such distressing observations remarked
that the executioner, though used to his dreadful office, appeared
exceedingly embarrassed, and was uncommonly slow in those
preparations which immediately precede the fatal moment, and
which, in such a kind of death, are a severe trial to the fortitude of
the strongest and most exalted mind, and much the more so as they
tend to destroy the sympathy resulting from the associated ideas of
dignity in suffering; yet she dignified, by her deportment, every
humiliating circumstance of this otherwise most degrading of
deaths, and maintained an unaltered equanimity and
recollectedness, herself assisting in putting back her hair and
adjusting the instrument of death to her neck.

" There was no platform, nor anything in a common degree
suitable to supply the want of one; yet this very young and wholly
uneducated woman, naturally of a very tender disposition, and,
from her mild and amiable temper, accustomed to be treated as
their child in the families in which she had lived, and who
consequently had not learned fortitude from experience either of
danger or hardship, and in prison the humanity of Mr Orridge had
been parental towards her, appeared with a serenity that seemed
more than human; and when she gave the signal, there was a
recollected gracefulness and sublimity in her manner that struck
every heart, and is above words or idea. I was so very near to her
the whole time that, near-sighted as I am, I can fully depend on the
certainty of my information. After she had been suspended more
than a minute, her hands were twice evenly and gently raised, and
gradually let to fall without the least appearance of convulsive or
involuntary motion, in a manner which could hardly be mistaken,
when interpreted, as designed to signify content and resignation.
At all events, independently of this circumstance, which was
noticed by many, her whole conduct evidently showed, from this
temper of mind, a composed, and even cheerful submission to the
views and will of heaven; a most unaffected submission entirely
becoming her age, sex and situation."

Such, however, were the exaggerations of the London journals,
which ascribed to this woman all the crime, that it need not be
wondered that no attention was paid to the petition. The following
is an extract of one (Times, 11th of April), by which the reader will
see quite a different representation from the above -- -

"The circumstances attending the case of Sarah Lloyd are perhaps
unequalled for the atrocious intentions of the perpetrator, who was
a servant to a very respectable lady, residing at Hadleigh, named
Syer. On the 3rd of October last she set her mistress's house on fire
in four different places, and robbed her of some considerable 
property. Her intention was the destruction of her protectress, for,
to prevent the escape of her mistress, the principal combustibles
were placed under a staircase which led to her mistress's bedroom,
and, but for the timely assistance of the neighbourhood, she would
have perished in the fire."

The incendiarism and intended murder, here asserted as facts of
her deep ingratitude and base depravity, were neither tried nor
proved; and of the burglary she was acquitted: which acquittal
must also acquit her of the other charges.



JAMES HADFIELD
Tried for shooting at his Majesty George III. at Drury Lane
Theatre, on Thursday, 15th of May, 1800


THE trial of James Hadfield, for high treason, came on in the
Court of King's Bench on Thursday, the 26th of June. The
indictment being read, the prisoner pleaded "Not guilty," and the
Attorney-General addressed the jury at considerable length.

Mr Joseph Craig was the first witness examined. He was a
musician, and saw Hadfield at Drury Lane Theatre, with a pistol in
his hand, pointing it at his Majesty. It was instantly fired and
dropped. He helped to drag the prisoner over the rails, into the
music-room. Mr Sheridan and the Duke of York came in. Prisoner
said: "God bless your Royal Highness, I like you very well; you
are a good fellow. This is not the worst that is brewing."

Mr Wright, another witness, was in the first row next the orchestra.
He heard the report of a pistol as his Majesty entered his box,
turned round, and caught the prisoner by the collar. A young lady,
who sat behind, immediately pointed to the ground, where he saw
and picked up the pistol, which he produced in court.

Mr Law, one of the counsel for the prosecution, here desired that
his Royal Highness the Duke of York might be called; upon which
the prisoner, in a paroxysm of enthusiasm, cried out: "God bless
the Duke, I love him!" The Court, seeing his agitation,
immediately gave directions that he should be permitted to sit
down; and Mr Kirby, the keeper of Newgate (who all the time sat
next him), told him he had the permission of the Court to sit down,
which he did, and remained composed during the remainder of the
trial.

The Duke of York said he knew the prisoner, who had been one of
his orderly men. The prisoner said he knew his own life was
forfeited; he regretted the fate of his wife only: he would be only
two days longer from his wife; the worst was not come yet. His
Royal Highness said the prisoner appeared to be perfectly
collected. After his Majesty had retired, his Royal Highness
directed a search to be made in the King's box, where a hole was
discovered, evidently made by the impression of a shot, fourteen
inches from his Majesty's head. It had perforated the pillar. In
searching below, some slugs were found; they had been recently
fired off. Mr Erskine asked his Royal Highness if the most loyal
and brave men were not usually selected to be the orderly men. His
Royal Highness answered that the most tried and trusty men were
appointed as orderly men. When the prisoner was asked what
could have induced him to commit so atrocious an act, he said he
was tired of life, and thought he should have been killed.

The evidence for the prosecution was then closed, and Mr Erskine
addressed the jury at considerable length.

Major Ryan, of the 15th Light Dragoons, in which the prisoner was
a private; Hercules M'Gill, private in the same regiment, and John
Lane, of the Guards, all knew the prisoner, and deposed to
different acts of his insanity.

Mr Cline, surgeon; Dr Crichton, physician, and Dr Letherne,
surgeon to the 15th Regiment, as professional gentlemen gave
testimony to their belief of the prisoner's insanity.

Captain Wilson and Chris. Lawton, of the 15th Light Dragoons;
David Hadfield, brother to the prisoner; Mary Gore, sister-in-law
to the prisoner; Catharine Harrison and Elizabeth Roberts detailed
different acts of insanity, particularly on the day previous to and on
which he committed the crime for which he stood indicted.

The prisoner was found to be insane.

NOTE -- Ravaillac, who stabbed King Henry IV. of France while
in his coach and surrounded by his guards, was tortured to death in
the following manner:-

At the place of execution his right hand, with which he gave the
fatal blow, was put into a furnace flaming with fire and brimstone,
and there consumed. His flesh was pulled from his bones with red-
hot pincers; boiling oil, resin and brimstone were poured upon the
wounds, and melted lead upon his navel. To close the scene of
horror, four horses were fastened to the four quarters of his body,
which were torn asunder.

His parents were banished their country, never more to return, on
pain of immediate death; and his whole kindred, nay, all
individuals bearing the name, were ordered to renounce it, so that
the name of Ravaillac should never more be heard of in France.



THOMAS CHALFONT
A Post-Office Sorter, executed before Newgate, 11th of November,
1800, for stealing a Bank-Note out of a Letter


THOMAS CHALFONT, aged seventeen, was indicted upon the
capital charge, for that he, being a person employed in business
relating to the Post Office, did feloniously steal out of a certain
letter, containing three bills, a Banbury bank-bill, of the value of
ten pounds, the property of Bernard Bedwell, John Yates, Bernard
Bedwell, junior, and Philip Bedwell. This letter, instead of arriving
on the 18th, in due course, was not received until the 19th, and
then contained but two bills, the words "three" in the letter being
altered to "two" and the "thirty" to "twenty."

The bill in the indictment (the one missing) was found to have
been honoured at a banker's, for which a Bank of England note for
ten pounds was given; and this individual note was proved to have
passed through the hands of the prisoner, who wrote his own name
upon the back of it, after several other endorsements, and paid it to
the clerk of the Receiver-General of the Post Office.

The jury withdrew for nearly an hour, and on their return
pronounced him guilty. He was executed.

About a year before he suffered, a letter-carrier, named John
Williams, was executed at the same fatal place for stealing a
Salisbury bank-note out of a letter entrusted to his charge; and yet
this proved no warning to Chalfont.



JAMES RILEY AND ROBERT NUTTS
Executed before Newgate, 24th of June, 1801, for Highway
Robbery


THESE men were capitally indicted for assaulting and taking from
the person of Andrew Dennis O'Kelly, Esq., on the king's highway,
on the 3rd of December, at Hayes, near Uxbridge, three seven-
shilling pieces, one half-guinea, one half-crown and several
shillings.

The prosecutor swore that about eight o'clock on the evening of the
3rd of December, as he was going in a post-chaise to West
Wycombe, he was stopped, about a mile on this side of Uxbridge,
by three footpads. The prisoner Nutts stood at the horses' heads,
while the other prisoner, Riley, opened the chaise door and
demanded his money; he gave him all the loose cash he had in his
pocket, as stated in the indictment. They then demanded his
pocket-book and watch; he assured them he had none. The prisoner
Nutts then came to the other side and searched him, and took from
him some loose paper, which they afterwards returned. The third
footpad, who was not taken, felt in his breeches pocket, and took
from him fifty pounds in bank-notes and a bundle of linen that lay
upon the seat of the chaise. They then made off. He proceeded to
the next public-house, in order to get assistance, but could not
procure any, nor at Uxbridge. As he was going on to West
Wycombe, when he was about a mile from Uxbridge, he was
overtaken by a person on horseback, who informed him that two of
the men had been taken. He swore particularly to one of the
shillings, from a certain mark upon it.

This gentlemen was the nephew and heir of the once famous
Colonel, ironically styled Count Dennis O'Kelly, the fortunate
owner of Eclipse, the best racer of the English turf. The Count,
from a mean origin, was advanced to the rank of Lieutenant-
Colonel of the Westminster Regiment of Middlesex Militia, and at
the time of the riots in London, in the year 1780, manoeuvered the
regiment, as Major, before the King, in review, in St James's Park.
The nephew succeeded also to the lieutenant-colonelcy, but was
soon dismissed the service, by the sentence of a general court
martial.

Nibbs, the constable of Hayes, was walking on the footpath when
Colonel O'Kelly passed by in the chaise. Seeing some men on the
road make up to the chaise, and suspecting they intended to rob the
person inside when the carriage was stopped, he went on to the
Adam and Eve and got assistance, and he and four other persons
pursued them into a field, and secured the two prisoners, but not
till they had made a desperate resistance; they fired two pistols,
both of which, fortunately, flashed in the pan.

These desperadoes were convicted in January Sessions, but, owing
to the King's indisposition, were, with forty more condemned
culprits, reserved until the 24th of June, when they suffered along
with James M'Intosh and James Wooldridge, for forgery; and
Joseph Roberts and William Cross, for highway robbery.



JOSEPH WALL, ESQ.
Formerly Governor of Goree. Executed 28th of January, 1802,
nearly Twenty Years after committing the Crime, for ordering a
Soldier to be flogged to Death


MR WALL was descended from a good family in Ireland, and
entered the army at an early age. He was of a severe and rather
unaccommodating temper; nor was he much liked among the
officers.

Mr Wall was Lieutenant-Governor of Senegambia, but acted as
chief, the first appointment being vacant. It was an office he held
but a short time -- not more than two years -- during which he was
accused of the wilful murder of Benjamin Armstrong, by ordering
him to receive eight hundred lashes, on the 10th of July, 1782, of
which he died five days afterwards. His emoluments were very
considerable, as, besides his military appointments, he was
Superintendent of Trade to the colony.

His family were originally Roman Catholics; but of course he
conformed to the Protestant Church, or he could not have held his
commission.

As soon as the account of the murder reached the Board of
Admiralty a reward was offered for his apprehension; but having
evaded justice, in 1784, he lived on the Continent, sometimes in
France, sometimes in Italy -- but mostly in France -- under an
assumed name, where he lived respectably, and was admitted into
good company.

He particularly kept company with the officers of his own country
who served in the French army, and was well known at the
Scottish and Irish Colleges in Paris.

In 1797 he returned to this country, as if by a kind of fatality. He
was frequently advised, by the friend who procured him the
lodging, to leave the country again, and also questioned as to his
motive for remaining. He never attempted, however, to give any,
but appeared, even at the time when he was so studiously
concealing himself, to have a distant intention of making a
surrender in order to take his trial. It is very evident his mind was
not at ease, and that he was incapable of making any firm
resolution either one way or another. And even the manner in
which he did give himself up showed a singular want of
determination, leaving it to chance whether the Minister should
send for him or not; for, rather than go to deliver himself up, he
wrote to say he was ready to do so. He was allied, by marriage, to a
noble family, and his wife visited him frequently when in his
concealment at Lambeth. Since that time he had lived in Upper
Thornhaugh Street, Bedford Square, where he was apprehended. It
is most probable that had he not written to the Secretary of State
the matter had been so long forgotten that he would never have
been in any way molested. At the trial it was proved by witnesses
that Armstrong was far from being undutiful in his behaviour. He
was, however, tied to a gun-carriage, and black men, brought there
for the purpose -- not the drummers, who in the ordinary course of
things would have had to flog this man, supposing him to have
deserved flogging -- were ordered to inflict on him the punishment
ordered. Each took his turn and gave this unhappy sufferer twenty-
five lashes until he had received the number of eight hundred; and
the instrument with which the punishment was inflicted was not a
cato'-nine-tails, which is the usual instrument, but a piece of rope
of greater thickness, and which was much more severe than the
cat-o'-nine-tails. The rope was exhibited in evidence. While this
punishment was being inflicted the prisoner urged the black men to
be severe. He said, among other things: "Cut him to the heart and
to the liver." Armstrong applied to him for mercy, but the
observation of the defendant on this occasion was that the sick
season was coming on, which, together with the punishment,
would do for him. After receiving a great number of lashes -- that
is, eight hundred -- this poor creature was conducted to the
hospital. He was in a condition in which it was probable his death
might be the consequence. He declared, in his dying moments, he
was punished without any trial, and without ever being so much as
asked whether he had anything to say in his defence.

The prisoner in his defence urged that the deceased was guilty of
mutiny, that the punishment was not so severe as reported, but that
the deceased was suffered to drink strong spirits when in the
hospital.

The jury, after being out of court some time, pronounced a verdict
of guilty.

The recorder then proceeded to pass sentence of death upon him:
that he be executed the following morning, and that his body be
afterwards delivered to be anatomised, according to the statute.

Mr Wall seemed sensibly affected by the sentence, but he said
nothing, merely requesting the Court would allow him a little time
to prepare himself for death.

On the 21st of January a respite was sent from Lord Pelham's
office, deferring his execution until the 25th. On the 24th he was
further respited till the 28th. During the time of his confinement,
previous to trial, he occupied the apartment which was formerly
the residence of Mr Ridgway, the bookseller. His wife lived with
him for the fortnight. Although he was allowed two hours a day --
from twelve to two -- to walk in the yard, he did not once embrace
this indulgence; and during his whole confinement he never went
out of his room, except into the lobby to consult his counsel.

He lived well, and was at times very facetious, easy in his
manners, and pleasant in conversation; but during the night he
frequently sat up in his bed and sang psalms, which were
overheard by his fellow-prisoner. He had not many visitors. His
only attendant was a prisoner, who was appointed for that purpose
by the turnkey.

After trial he did not return to his old apartment, but was
conducted to a cell. He was so far favoured as not to have irons put
on, but a person was employed as a guard to watch him during the 
night to prevent him doing violence to himself. His bed was
brought to him in the cell, on which he threw himself in an agony
of mind, saying it was his intention not to rise until they called him
on the fatal morning. The sheriffs were particularly pointed and
precise in their orders with respect to confining him to the usual
diet of bread and water preparatory to the awful event. This order
was scrupulously fulfilled. The prisoner, during a part of the night,
slept, owing to fatigue and perturbation of mind. He had an
affecting interview with his wife, the Hon. Mrs Wall, the night
before his execution, from whom he was painfully separated about
eleven o'clock. Numberless tender embraces took place. The
loving wife reluctantly departed, overwhelmed with grief, and
bathed in tears, while the unfortunate husband declared that he
could now, with Christian fortitude, submit to his unhappy fate. In
the morning one of the officers proceeded to bind his arms with a
cord, for which he extended them firmly; but recollecting himself
he said: "I beg your pardon a moment" and putting his hand in his
pocket he drew out two white handkerchiefs, one of which he
bound over his temples, so as nearly to conceal his eyes, over
which he placed a white cap, and then put on a round hat; the other
handkerchief he kept between his hands. He then observed: " The
cord cuts me; but it's no matter." On which Dr Ford desired it to be
loosened, for which the prisoner bowed, and thanked him.

As the clock struck eight the door was thrown open, at which
Sheriff Cox and his officers appeared, The Governor, approaching
him, said: "I attend you, sir"; and the procession to the scaffold,
over the debtors' door, immediately succeeded. Without waiting
for any signal the platform dropped, and he was launched into
eternity. From the knot of the rope turning round to the back of the
neck, and his legs not being pulled, at his particular request, he was
suspended in convulsive agony for more than a quarter of an hour.

After hanging an hour his body was cut down, put into a cart, and
immediately conveyed to a building in Cowcross Street, to be
dissected. His remains were interred in the churchyard of St
Pancras.



HENRY COCK
Executed before Newgate, 23rd of June, 1802 for Forgery,
whereby he swindled his Benefactor's Estate


WILLIAM STOREY, ESQ., who rented the Parsonage House at
Chatham, was rich, and, having no children, adopted Henry Cock
as a son. The return made for this protection was the commission
of forgery, in order to rob his benefactor. Cock's fate is still less
deserving of commiseration when we find that he had received
every advantage from education, possessed a considerable
knowledge (for his early years) of mankind, and was in the
profession of the law, as an attorney, at Brewers Hall.

At the early age of twenty-six he was indicted for feloniously
forging, on the 20th of April, 1802, three papers, purporting to be
letters of attorney of William Storey, of Chatham, in the county of
Kent, Esquire, to transfer several sums of money in the stocks of
the Bank of England, and for uttering and making use of the same,
knowing them to be forged.

His trial came on at the Old Bailey, before Lord Ellenborough, on
the 1st of May, 1802, and occupied the greater part of that day.

It appeared that the prisoner was a near relation to Mr Storey, and
had received his dividends for him, as they became due. Mr Storey
died on the 14th of August, 1801, leaving, as he thought,
considerable sums in the three and four per cents. and seven
thousand pounds in the five; memoranda to that effect having been
found by his executors among his papers.

When several persons to whom he had left different sums pressed
for their legacies, Mr Jefferies, the acting executor, drew up a kind
of plan for discharging them, in which he appropriated the sums in
the different funds for the payment of particular legacies, setting
down seven thousand pounds as in the five per cents. among the
rest. Towards the end of November this paper was shown to, and
copied by, the prisoner, who was consulted by, and acted in town
for, the executor; which copy was produced in court.

So far from informing Mr Jefferies at that time of there being no
property in the five per cents. to answer the legacies he had set
down against the seven thousand pounds, the prisoner sent two or
three letters to persuade him not to sell it out till after Christmas,
that they might have the benefit of the dividend. This was acceded
to by the executors, who, having left it beyond the time for that
purpose, were at length determined to fulfil the provisions of the
will; but on applying at the bank they found, to their great
astonishment, that the whole of the seven thousand pounds in the
five per cents. had been sold out at different periods -- the last in
the month of August, 1801 -- by the prisoner, under the pretended
authority of a warrant of Mr Storey.

This warrant was produced; and Mr Jefferies swore to the best of
his belief, the signature was not the handwriting of his deceased
friend.

To prove that the prisoner had made use of this paper, and had
actually by that means obtained the money, the transfer-books
were produced, and the several clerks of the bank were called to
prove the identity of his person.

Mr Justice Mainwaring, Mr Alderman Price, and several other
persons in an equally respectable line of life, spoke for the
prisoner's good character. The jury, however, considered the fact
as sufficiently proved to warrant their pronouncing a verdict of
guilty.

He was dressed in mourning on the day of execution; and
underwent his dreadful fate in penitence, and with fortitude.



WILLIAM CODLIN
Executed 27th of November, 1802, for scuttling a Ship, of which he
was Captain


CODLIN was a native of Scarborough, and allowed to be an
excellent seaman in the north coast trade. He was captain of the
brig Adventure, nominally bound to Gibraltar and Leghorn, and
was indicted at the Old Bailey for feloniously boring three holes in
her bottom with a view to defraud the under-writers, on the 8th of
August, 1802, off Brighton. Codlin and Read were charged, as
officers of the ship, for committing the fact; and Macfarlane and
Easterby, as owners, for procuring it to be committed.

The trial came on at the sessions-house at the Old Bailey, on
Tuesday, 26th of October, 1802, before Sir William Scott, Lord
Ellenborough and Baron Thompson. It commenced at nine o'clock
in the morning, and did not conclude till twelve at night.

The first witness was T. Cooper, who said he was a seaman on
board the Adventure, originally before the mast; he was shipped in
the river, the vessel then lying below Limehouse. Codlin was
captain and Douglas was mate. The rest of the crew consisted of
two boys, making five in all. Storrow came back and forward.
There was part of the cargo on board, and the vessel sailed from
Limehouse for Yarmouth, where she took in twenty-two hogsheads
of tobacco, some linen, and fifteen tons of ballast. From thence
they proceeded to Deal, having taken on board at Yarmouth an
additional hand, named Walsh, a bricklayer's labourer. At Deal,
Douglas, the mate, complained of rheumatism, and left them.
Storrow went away, and was succeeded by Read. They took in
another hand, named Lacy.

The Captain said, as witness was bringing him off shore, that
witness should take Douglas's berth; but witness said he was not
capable, not knowing navigation. The Captain said, as long as he
pleased him that was enough. They did not sail from Deal as soon
as they might. The Captain said, at one time, he waited for letters;
and at another, he waited for a wind. At length they sailed, five or
six days before the vessel went down. The Captain gave strict
orders to keep the boat free; witness put in four oars, cutting two of
them to the length. Formerly they threw lumber into the boat, but
the Captain ordered that none should be put there, and that there
should be plenty of tholes, or pins, for the oars. He also said they
should not be in the ship fortyeight hours longer. This was Friday.
On Saturday he said that night should be the last: it was impossible
she could carry them through the Bay of Biscay. He did not think
her trustworthy for his life, and why should witness for his? The
Captain then sent witness down to mix grog for himself and Read,
and some of the crew. Witness was afterwards walking the quarter-
deck; the Captain was at the helm, and called witness to relieve
him. The Captain went below. He came up in a quarter of an hour
and said to the witness: "Go down, and you will find an auger on
the cabin-deck; take up the scuttle, and bore two or three holes in
the run, as close down to the bottom as possible." The witness
went down and found the auger; it was a new one, bought by the
Captain at Deal, and was put into the handle of another auger. He
bored three holes, close down in the run, with two augers and a
spike gimlet, which he left in the holes. The witness came on deck
and told the Captain he had bored the holes. The Captain asked if
the water was coming in. Witness said, not much, for he had left
the augers in the holes. The Captain said they might remain till
daylight. On Sunday morning the cabin-boy was prevented from
coming down by the Captain; before that he always came down
and got breakfast in the cabin.

At daybreak witness pulled out the augers and the water came in,
but the Captain did not think it came in in sufficient quantity, and
wished for the mall to enlarge the holes. The witness said the
crowbar would do. The Captain ordered him to bring the crowbar
and make the holes larger; he did so. The Captain was present all
the time, and assisted to knock down the lockers, to make room.
The crowbar went through the bottom, and the witness believed the
augers did also. Mr Read was in bed, close by the holds; the
distance might be about four yards. Mr Read turned himself round
several times while the witness was boring the holes, but he never
spoke; nor did the witness speak to him. The auger did not make
much noise.

When the holes were bored the witness called Read, by the
Captain's order; he came on deck, but shortly after he went down
and went to bed again. The bed was on the larboard side of the
cabin. Read could not see the augers, but he might hear the water
run, as the cabin-boy heard it, and the witness heard it himself, a
small hole being left open to keep the pumps at work. Read went to
bed again, but he was on deck when the hole was beat with the
crowbar. Read was permitted to go down, but the boys were not.
When the hole was beat through, the colours were hoisted; the boat
was already out, and all hands in it, except the Captain and
witness. Witness packed up his things when he was told they could
not be forty-eight hours in the vessel, but he mentioned the matter
to nobody. He packed them in a bread-bag which he emptied on
the deck. While the holes were being bored, the Captain ordered
the men aloft to take in sail; no one could possibly see or hear him,
except witness, the Captain, and Read.

They left the vessel at eight o'clock. Several boats came off on the
signal. The people in them said they (Captain Codlin and his
people) had met with a sad misfortune; they answered yes. One
boat asked if they wanted any assistance, and offered to tow them
on shore. The Captain said she was his while she swam, and they
had no business with her. The Swallow revenue cutter then came
up and took the brig in tow, fastening a hawse to the mast; the brig,
which lay on her beam-ends before, immediately righted, and went
down. Witness had no doubt that she went down in consequence of
the holes. Read's trunk had come on board at Deal; it was sent back
the next day. Witness helped it into the boat. It was full of linen
when it came, and was not locked. Witness did not know what it
contained when it went back. Captain Codlin and the whole crew
went to the Ship Tavern at Brighton. Read said to a lady who came
to see him that he had lost everything belonging to him, and that he
was ruined. Easterby and Macfarlane came to Brighton on
Tuesday; they went to the Ship Tavern. Easterby asked where the
holes were, and of what size. There were some carpenter's tools on
the floor, which had been brought from the vessel. Easterby asked
if the holes were of the same size as the handle of the chisel that
was among the tools; and, being told they were, said the witness
should prepare the handle to plug the holes, in case the ship should
come on shore, as she was then driving in. Macfarlane was in the
room, but witness could not say whether he heard, as he spoke in a
low voice. Easterby said Codlin was a d--d fool; he had made a
stupid job of it: he should have done the business on the French
coast, and then he might have made the shore of either country in
the boat, in such fine weather. Macfarlane discoursed with them,
but witness did not hear what he said. Macfarlane and Easterby
ordered the Captain and witness to go to London together and take
private lodgings, in which they should keep close, or they would
be under sentence of death. Macfarlane took seats in the coach for
them, and paid their passage. Read wrote on a piece of paper where
witness was to go to in London, to Macfarlane's house. Witness
received nine shillings as wages, and Macfarlane gave him a
guinea; this was after he had described the size of the hole. He
could not say whether the others were paid their wages. Witness
came up with one of the bags, the Captain being stopped by a
gentleman (Mr Douglas). The boy was put in his place at five or
six in the morning. Read went with witness to the coach offices;
Macfarlane came after, and Easterby came with the boy, who was
apprentice to Storrow. Only one pump had been worked for a
length of time in the ship, the other was not in order. There was a
gear for the other, but the Captain did not want to find it. The
Captain sent the boy down for his greatcoat; the boy, on his return,
said the water was running. The Captain said it was no such thing,
it was only the water in the run; and told the boy to go forward. He
ordered witness to go down and see, but jogged him as he passed,
and told him to say it was nothing. Witness, on coming up, said it
was only the water in the run. Witness stayed in London two
nights, and then went to his mother, near Saxmundham, in Suffolk.
Having no money, and failing to get a ship, after several
applications, he walked the whole way, which is eighty-eight
miles. When he arrived, his mother told him there had been people
after him, about a ship; and there had been handbills, offering a
reward. He immediately sent for the constable of the place, Mr
Askettle, and surrendered himself, to whom he told everything,
desiring him to take him to London.

John Morris, George Kennedy, Lacy, and James Walsh
corroborated Cooper's testimony. Storrow proved the intent of the
voyage, that it was to defraud the underwriters. The insurances
were also proved. Several witnesses gave Read and Macfarlane a
good character.

As it appeared that Read had taken no active part in the business,
and as one of the witnesses had intimated that he was deaf -- the
learned judge observing that it was possible he could not hear the
conspirators talking, and the boring of the ship, etc. -- he was
acquitted, and the rest found guilty; but two points of law having
been elucidated by Mr Erskine in favour of Easterby and
Macfarlane, judgment was accordingly arrested, for the decision of
the twelve judges. The prisoners heard the verdict with much
firmness -- Read, with composure; Easterby, apparently with
indifference, looking around him; Macfarlane's features showed he
was inwardly much affected, though he bore himself with
firmness.

Sir William Scott then pronounced sentence of death on Codlin in
an impressive manner. Codlin retired with a firm and undaunted
deportment, taking a respectful leave of the Court as he went out.

Previous to his execution he freely communicated to Mr Dring all
the circumstances of his crime. At Brighton, he said, between five
and six guineas were given him, and he was urged to go off, being
assured that if he was taken he would be hanged. On Saturday
morning, 27th of November, 1802, he was brought out of the jail
of Newgate to proceed to undergo his sentence at the docks at
Wapping.

He was conducted from Newgate, by Ludgate Hill and St Paul's,
into Cheapside. A number of peace officers on horseback were at
the head of the procession. Some officers belonging to the Court of
Admiralty, with the City Marshals, followed next. The sheriffs
were in a coach, as was also the ordinary of Newgate, the Rev. Dr
Ford. Codlin was in a cart, with a rope fastened round his neck and
shoulders. He sat between the executioner and his assistant. As he
passed down Cheapside, Cornhill and Leadenhall Street, and
onward through Aldgate and Ratcliff Highway, he continued to
read the accustomed prayers with great devotion, in which he was
joined by those who sat with him in the cart. He ascended the
ladder to the scaffold without betraying any emotions of terror. His
body, after hanging for the due length of time, was cut down, and
carried away in a boat by his friends.



GEORGE FOSTER
Executed at Newgate, 18th of January, 1803, for the Murder of his
Wife and Child, by drowning them in the Paddington Canal; with a
Curious Account of Galvanic Experiments on his Body


THE unfortunate George Foster, whose conviction, as stated by the
Lord Chief Baron in charging the jury, was most entirely upon
circumstantial evidence, was put upon his trial, on the horrid
charge above-mentioned, at the Old Bailey, January 14, 1803.

The first witness was Jane Hobart, the mother of the deceased, who
stated, that she lived in Old Boswell-court, and that for some time
back, the deceased and her infant lived with her, but that she
generally went on the Saturday nights to stay with the prisoner,
who was her husband; that she left the witness for that purpose a
little before four o'clock, on the evening of Saturday the 4th of
December, taking her infant child with her; and that she never
heard of her from that time until she was found drowned in the
Paddington canal. The prisoner had four children by her daughter -
- the one above alluded to, another was dead, and two were in the
workhouse at Barnet.

Joseph Bradfield, at whose house the prisoner lodged, in North-
row, Grosvenor-square, saw the deceased with him on the Saturday
night of the 4th of December, and they went out together about ten
o'clock on the Sunday morning. The prisoner returned by himself
between eight and nine o'clock at night, which did not appear
remarkable, as the deceased was not in the habit of sleeping there,
except on the Saturday nights. This witness did not consider them
to be on very good terms, arising, as he believed, from the
deceased's wishing to live with the prisoner: she used to call at his
lodgings once or twice in the week, besides the Saturdays, on
which nights she always waited to get some money from him. On
the Sunday following, the prisoner and another person went with
the witness to see his mother at Highgate, and on their return, the
prisoner asked if his wife had been at his lodgings; but which, on
his cross-examination, he admitted might arise from his being
surprised at her not coming as usual.

Margaret Bradfield, wife of the last witness, corroborated his
testimony, with the addition, that on the Wednesday she saw the
child which had been found in the Paddington canal, and which she
was positive was the same that the deceased had taken out with her
on the Sunday morning.

Eleanor Winter, who kept what was usually called the Spotted
Dog, but which is now called the Westbourne Green tavern,
between two and three miles from Paddington, along the canal,
swore that she perfectly recollected the prisoner coming to her
house on the morning of the 5th of December, with a woman and a
child with him: they staid at her house, where they had some
beefsteaks, beer, and two glasses of brandy, till near one o'clock. --
While they were there, she observed the woman to be crying, and
heard her say, she had been three times there to meet a man who
owed her husband some money, and that she would come no more.
This witness had seen the body of the woman that was found in the
canal, and she was certain of its being the same woman, who was
with the prisoner at her house, on the above morning.

John Goff, waiter at the Mitre tavern, about two miles further on
the canal, related, that the prisoner, with a woman and child, came
to their house some time about two o'clock on Sunday the 5th of
December: they had two quarterns of rum, two pints of porter, and
went away about half past four. The Mitre is situated on the
opposite side of the canal to the towing path; and when the
prisoner and the woman went away, they turned towards London
on that side of the canal, though there was no path-way, and it
would take them at least a quarter of an hour to get to the first
swing-bridge to cross over; there was a way to pass through a Mr.
Fillingham's grounds, which would lead them to the Harrow-road,
and which he believed to be much nearer than the side of the canal:
but then persons going that way got over the hedge, and he
perceived from the kitchen window where he was standing, the
prisoner and the woman go beyond that spot. They had no clock in
the house, but he had no doubt as to the time, from its being very
near dark when they went away. On being questioned by one of the
jury, he said, that besides thc place to which he alluded for passing
through Mr. Fiilingham's ground, there was a gate about one
hundred yards farther on, and to svhicb the prisoner and woman 
had not got over when he lost sight of them.

Hannah Patience, the landlady of the Mitre tavern, recollected
seeing the prisoner there on Sunday, Dec. 5, with a woman and
child: they had been there a good while before she saw them. She
served them with a quartern of rum, and they had a pint of beer
after it. They left the Mitre about half past four, as far as she could
judge from the closing of the evening, for they had no clock. She
also recollected Sarah Daniels coming to buy a candle to take to
her master: they were then gone, and as they were going out, the
woman threw her gown over the child, saying, 'This is the last time
I shall come here.' In a minute or two the prisoner came back to
look for the child's shoe, which could not be found, and then
followed the woman. This witness took no particular notice of
them, but thought she had seen them at her house two or three
times before.

Sarah Daniels, aged nine years, was examined by the court as to
her knowledge of the sanctity and solemnity of an oath, and being
satisfied with her answers, she was sworn, and said, that she met a
man following a woman with a child, walking by the canal, as she
was going from Mr. Filiingham's to the Mitre; and, from the
circumstance of its being near their time of drinking tea, she was
sure that it could not want much of five o'clock.

Charles Weild, a shopmate of the prisoner, stated, that he met him
a little after six o'clock, in Oxford-street, on the evening of Sunday
the 5th of December, and that they went together to the Horse
Grenadier public-house, where they continued till after eight.

John Atkins, a boatman employed on the canal, said, about eight
o'clock, on the morning of Monday, he found a child's body, under
the bow of the boat, at the distance of a mile from the Mitre; that in
consequence of some directions which he received from Sir
Richard Ford, he dragged the canal for three days, on the last of
which close under the window of the Mitre, he pulled up the
woman's body, entangled in a loose bush. He had before then felt
something heavy against the drag, at near 200 yards towards
London from the house, but he could not ascertain whether that
was the body or not.

Sir Richard Ford produced the examination which the prisoner
signed at Bow-street office, after being questioned as to its being
the truth, and cautioned as to the consequences it might produce.
The account which the prisoner then gave was as follows:

'My wife and child came to me on Saturday se'nnight, about eight
o'clock in the evening, and slept at my lodgings that night. The
next morning, about nine or ten o'clock, I went out with them, and
walked to the New Cut at Paddington; we went to the Mitre tavern,
and had some rum, some porter, and some bread and cheese.
Before that we had stopped at a publichouse near the first bridge,
where we had some beefsteaks and some porter; after which she
desired me to walk further on by the cut, so I went with her. I left
her directly I came out of the Mitre tavern, which was about three
o'clock, and made the best of my way to Whetstone, in order to go
to Barnet, to see two of my children, who are in the workhouse
there. I went by the bye lanes, and was about an hour and a half
walking from the Mitre to Whetstone. When I got there, I found it
so dark that I would not go on to Barnet, but came home that night.
I have not seen my wife nor child since; I have not enquired after
them, but I meant to have done so to-morrow evening, at Mrs.
Hobart's. -- I came home from Whetstone that evening between
seven and eight o'clock; I saw no person in going to Whetstone;
nor did I stop any where, at any publichouse, or elsewhere, except
the Green Dragon, at Highgate, where I had a glass of rum. My
wife had a black gown on, and a black bonnet; the child had a
straw bonnet, and white bedgown. My wife was a little in liquor.
	(Signed) 'GEORGE FOSTER.
	'Witness, Richard Ford,
	December 27, 1802.'
	'Prisoner says, before he left the Mitre Tavern, on the said
Sunday his wife asked the mistress of the inn whether she could
have a bed there that night, which the prisoner afterwards repeated;
that she asked half a crown for one, which the prisoner and his
wife thought too much, and the latter said she would go home to
her mother.'

The latter part of this was positively contradicted by the landlady,
not a single word about a bed having passed between her and the
deceased.

W. Garner, a shopmate of the prisoner, called upon him at the
Brown Bear, in Bow-street, after he was taken into custody; to
whom the prisoner said, he was as innocent of the charge as the
child unborn; and that if any one would come forward to say, or
swear, that he was at such a place on that night, he should be
cleared immediately. The witness understood him to refer to the
Green Dragon, at Highgate.

James Bushwell, a coachmaker, declared, that the prisoner was one
of the most diligent men he had ever employed; and, from his
having so very good an opinion of him, on hearing he was in
custody, he went himself to see if he could render him any service;
that upon his making that offer, the prisoner replied, that if it was
not too much trouble, he would thank him to go to the Green
Dragon, at Highgate, and enquire if a man was not there on the
Sunday evening, who had a glass of rum, and asked after Mrs.
Young: with which he complied; but, as the rules of evidence
would not admit of Mr. Bushwell's giving the answer, Elizabeth
Southall, who keeps the Green Dragon, was called, who said she
perfectly recollected such a circumstance, but she could not exactly
say what Sunday it was; and, besides, the man who did so enquire,
had a woman with an infant in her arms with him, and to whom the
man turned round and said, That is Bradfield's mother.

The prisoner made no other defence than contradicting some parts
of the evidence of the waitcr at the Mitre.

George Hodgson, Esq., coroner of the county, and before whom an
inquest on these bodies had been taken, said there was not the least
mark of violence upon either the woman or the child; of course, the
report of the latter's arm being broken was false.

From being acquainted with the place, he was examined
particularly as to the way through Mr. Fillingham's grounds and
which he affirmed to be far the nearest way to town. He could not
undertake to say what the actual distance from the Mitre to
Whetstone was, but he was sure it could not be less, even through
the lanes and over the fields, than seven or eight miles, and about
the same distance from Whetstone to town.

Four witnesses were called to the prisoner's character, who all
agreed in his being an industrious and humane man.

The Chief Baron, in summing up to the jury, said, that this was a
case which almost entirely depended upon circumstances, but in
some cases that might be best evidence, as it was certainly the
most difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate; they, however, would
deliberately judge how far they brought the charge home to the
prisoner, so as not to leave a doubt on their minds before they
pronounced him guilty. His lordship noticed some inconsistencies
in the written paper which the prisoner had signed, observing, that
in one part of the story the prisoner was contradicted by several
witnesses; and that it was scarcely to be presumed that the prisoner
could walk such a distance (from the Mitre to Whetstone) in so
short a time. There were other traits of the story which were also
extremely dubious. The learned judge then went through the whole
of the evidence, remarking thereon as he proceeded; and the jury,
after some consultation, pronounced a verdict of guilty.

This was no sooner done, than the Recorder proceeded to pass
sentence upon the prisoner; which was, that he be hanged by the
neck, next Monday morning, until he be dead, and that then his
body be delivered to be anatomized, according to the law in that
case made and provided.

This unfortunate malefactor was executed pursuant to his sentence,
January 18, 1803. At three minutes after eight he appeared on the
platform before the debtor's door in the Old Bailey, and after
passing a short time in prayer with Dr. Ford, the ordinary of
Newgate, the cap was pulled over his eyes, when the stage falling
from under him, he was launched into eternity.

When he ascended the platform his air was dejected in the
extreme; and the sorrow manifested in his countenance depicted
the inward workings of a heart conscious of the heinous crime be
had committed, and the justness of his sentence.

From the time of his condemnation to the moment of his
dissolution, he had scarcely taken the smallest nourishment; which, 
operating with a tortured conscience, had so enfeebled him, that he
was obliged to be supported from the prison to the gallows, being
wholly incapable of ascending the staircase with out assistance.
Previous to his decease, he fully confessed his having perpetrated
the horrible crime for which he suffered: confessed that he had
unhappily conceived a most inveterate hatred for his wife, that
nothing could conquer, and determined to rid himself and the
world of a being he loathed: acknowledged also, that he had taken
her twice before to the Paddington canal, with the wicked intent of
drowning her, but that his resolution had failed him, and she had
returned unhurt; and even at the awful moment of his confession,
and the assurance of his approaching dissolution, he seemed to
regret more the loss of his infant, than the destruction of the
woman he had sworn to cherish and protect. He was questioned, as
far as decency would permit, if jealousy had worked him to the
horrid act; but be made no reply, except saying, that 'he ought to
die'; and dropped into a settled and fixed melancholy, which
accompanied him to his last moments. He was a decent looking
young man, and wore a brown great coat, buttoned over a red
waistcoat, the same in which be was tried.

He died very easy; and, after hanging the usual time, his body was
cut down and conveyed to a house not far distant, where it was
subjected to the galvanic process by Professor Aldini, under the
inspection of Mr Keate, Mr Carpue and several other professional
gentlemen. M. Aldini, who is the nephew of the discoverer of this
most interesting science, showed the eminent and superior powers
of galvanism to be far beyond any other stimulant in nature. On the
first application of the process to the face, the jaws of the deceased
criminal began to quiver, and the adjoining muscles were horribly
contorted, and one eye was actually opened. In the subsequent part
of the process the right hand was raised and clenched, and the legs
and thighs were set in motion. Mr Pass, the beadle of the Surgeons'
Company, who was officially present during this experiment, was
so alarmed that he died of fright soon after his return home.

Some of the uninformed bystanders thought that the wretched man
was on the eve of being restored to life. This, however, was
impossible, as several of his friends, who were under the scaffold,
had violently pulled his legs, in order to put a more speedy
termination to his sufferings. The experiment, in fact, was of a
better use and tendency. Its object was to show the excitability of
the human frame when this animal electricity was duly applied. In
cases of drowning or suffocation it promised to be of the utmost
use, by reviving the action of the lungs, and thereby rekindling the
expiring spark of vitality. In cases of apoplexy, or disorders of the
head, it offered also most encouraging prospects for the benefit of
mankind.

The professor, we understand, had made use of galvanism also in
several cases of insanity, and with complete success. It was the
opinion of the first medical men that this discovery, if rightly
managed and duly prosecuted, could not fail to be of great, and
perhaps as yet unforeseen, utility.

NOTE:-- An experiment was made on a convict named Patrick
Redmond, who was hanged for a street robbery, on the 24th of
February, 1767, in order to bring him to life. It appeared that the
sufferer had hung twenty-eight minutes when the mob rescued the
body and carried it to an appointed place, where a surgeon was in
attendance to try the experiment bronchotomy, which is an incision
in the windpipe, and which in less than six hours produced the
desired effect. A collection was made for the poor fellow, and
interest made to obtain his pardon, for it will be remembered that
the law says the condemned shall hang until he be dead;
consequently men who, like Redmond, recovered, were liable to be
again hanged up until they were dead.



COLONEL EDWARD MARCUS DESPARD, JOHN FRANCIS,
JOHN WOOD, THOMAS BROUGHTON, JAMES SEDGWICK
WRATTON, ARTHUR GRAHAM AND JOHN MACNAMARA
Executed in Horsemonger Lane, Southwark, 21st of February,
1803, for High Treason


LORD ELLENBOROUGH, in passing sentence, said: "Such
disclosures have been made as to prove, beyond the possibility of
doubt, that the objects of your atrocious, abominable and traitorous
conspiracy were to overthrow the government, and to seize upon
and destroy the sacred person of our august and revered Sovereign,
and the illustrious branches of his Royal house."

If such were the objects aimed at by these men, as the noble and
learned judge declared to have been the case, it was certainly the
most vain and impotent attempt ever engendered in the distracted
brain of an enthusiast. Without arms, or any probable means, a few
dozen men, the very dregs of society, led on by a disappointed and
disaffected chief, were to overturn a mighty empire; nor does it
appear that any man of their insignificant band of conspirators --
Colonel Despard alone excepted -- was above the level of the
plebeian race. Yet a small party of this description, seduced to
disloyalty by a contemptible leader, brooding over their vain
attempts at a mean public-house in St George's Fields, alarmed the
nation.

The members of this rebellious gang were Edward Marcus
Despard, a colonel in the army, aged fifty; John Francis, a private
soldier, aged twenty-three; John Wood, a private soldier, aged
thirty-six; Thomas Broughton, a carpenter, aged twenty-six; James
Sedgwick Wratton, a shoemaker, aged thirty-five; John
Macnamara, a carpenter, aged fifty; and Arthur Graham, a slater,
aged fifty-three.

Still more shocking to relate, all of them were married men,
leaving numerous offspring to bewail their fathers' fate and their
own loss. There were others of the gang tried and acquitted, and
some pardoned.

Colonel Despard, the ill-starred leader of these misguided men,
was descended from a very ancient and respectable family in
Queen's County, in Ireland. He was the youngest of six brothers,
all of whom, except the eldest, had served their country either in
the army or navy.

He so well discharged his duty as a colonel that he was appointed
superintendent of his Majesty's affairs on the coast of Honduras,
which office he held much to the advantage of the Crown of
England, for he obtained from that of Spain some very important
privileges. The clashing interests, however, of the inhabitants of
this coast produced much discontent, and the Colonel was, by a
party of them, accused of various misdemeanours to his Majesty's
Ministers.

He came home and demanded that his conduct should be
investigated, but, after two years' constant attendance on all the
departments of Government, was at last told by the Ministers that
there was no charge against him worthy of investigation, and that
his Majesty had thought proper to abolish the office of
superintendent at Honduras, otherwise he should have been
reinstated in it; but he was then, and on every occasion, assured
that his services should not be forgotten, but in due time meet their
reward.

While in the Bay of Honduras the Colonel had married a native of
that place.

The Colonel, it seems, irritated by continual disappointments,
began now to vent his indignation in an unguarded manner;
consequently he became a suspicious character, and was for some
time a prisoner in Coldbath Fields, under the Habeas Corpus Act,
then lately passed, and which empowered Ministers to keep in
confinement all suspected characters.

Imprisonment increased the rancour of his heart, and on his
liberation he could not conceal his malignancy towards
Government. Thus inflamed, he endeavoured to inflame others,
and at length brought upon himself, and those poor ignorant
wretches who were seduced by his arguments, disgrace and death.

On the 16th of November, 1802, in consequence of a search
warrant, a numerous body of police officers went to the Oakley
Arms, Oakley Street, Lambeth, where they apprehended Colonel
Despard, and nearly forty labouring men and soldiers, many of
them Irish. The next morning they were all brought up before the
magistrates at Union Hall. The result of the examination was that
Colonel Despard was committed to the county jail, and afterwards
to Newgate; twelve of his low associates (six of whom were
soldiers) were sent to Tothill Fields Bridewell, and twenty to the
New Prison, Clerkenwell. Ten other persons, who had been found
in a different room, and who appeared to have no concern
whatever with the Colonel's party, were instantly discharged.

The Colonel's conduct during all his examinations was invariably
the same: he was silent during the whole.

The Privy Council, the more effectually to try the prisoners, issued
a Special Commission.
The trial of Colonel Despard came on on Monday, the 7th
of February, 1803. The indictment, which consisted of three 
counts, having been read, the prosecution was opened by the
Attorney-General, who, in a very eloquent and impartial manner,
laid before the jury the whole of the charges.

The prisoners designed on that day to carry into effect their plan,
by laying restraint upon the King's person and destroying him.
They frequently attempted to seduce soldiers into the association,
in which they sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed. Francis
administered unlawful oaths to those who yielded, and, among
others, to Blades and Windsor, giving them at the same time two or
three copies of the oath, that they might be enabled to make
proselytes in their turn. Windsor soon after became dissatisfied,
and gave information of the conspiracy to a Mr Bonus, and showed
him a copy of the oath. This gentleman advised him to continue a
member of the association, that he might learn whether there were
any persons of consequence engaged in it.

On the Friday before the intended assassination of his Majesty a
meeting took place, when Broughton prevailed upon two of the
associates to go to the Flying Horse, Newington, where they would
meet with a nice man, which nice man, as he styled him, was the
prisoner Despard.

Thomas Windsor, the chief witness, declared the manner in which
he took the oath, and the plan of the conspiracy. Having mentioned
the intended mode of proceeding, he said the prisoner observed
that the attack should be made on the day his Majesty went to the
Parliament House, and that his Majesty must be put to death; at the
same time the prisoner said: "I have weighed the matter well, and
my heart is callous."

After the destruction of the King, the mail-coaches were to be
stopped, as a signal to the people in the country that the revolt had
taken place in town. The prisoner then desired witness to meet him
the ensuing morning, at half-past eleven o'clock, on Tower Hill,
and to bring with him four or five intelligent men, to consider upon
the best manner for taking the Tower and securing the arms.
Witness accordingly met him at the Tiger public-house, on Tower
Hill, having brought with him two or three soldiers. The prisoner
then repeated his declaration that the King must be put to death;
and Wood promised, when the King was going to the House, that
he would post himself as sentry over the great gun in the Park, that
he would load it, and fire at his Majesty's coach as he passed
through the Park.

The several meetings, consultations, etc., were further proved by
William Campbell, Charles Read, Joseph Walker, Thomas Blades,
and other witnesses.

Lord Nelson gave the prisoner a most excellent character. They
were on the Spanish main together. They served together, and he
declared him to have been a loyal man and a good officer. On
cross-examination his lordship said he had not seen him since the
year 1780.

Sir Alured Clarke and Sir Evan??Nepean bore testimony of his
having been a zealous officer.

Mr Gurney, the other counsel for the prisoner, addressed the jury
in an able speech; and the Solicitor-General having replied on the
part of the Crown, Lord Ellenborough summed up.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but earnestly recommended
him to mercy, on account of his former good character and the
services he had rendered his country. On the following
Wednesday, 9th of February, the trial of the other prisoners took
place, when the same circumstances, chiefly by the same
witnesses, were repeated, and nine (already named) out of twelve
were found guilty, three of whom were recommended to mercy.

Lord Ellenborough, in a style of awful solemnity highly befitting
the melancholy but just occasion, addressed the prisoners nearly to
the following purport: "You" (calling each prisoner separately by
name) " have been separately indicted for conspiring against his
Majesty's person, his Crown, and Government, for the purposes of
subverting the same, and changing the government of this realm.
After a long, patient and, I hope, just and impartial trial, you have
been all of you severally convicted, by a most respectable jury of
your country, upon the several crimes laid to your charge. In the
course of evidence upon your trial such disclosures have been
made as to prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the objects
of your atrocious and traitorous conspiracy were to overthrow the
Government, and to seize upon and destroy the sacred persons of
our august and revered Sovereign, and the illustrious branches of
his Royal house, which some of you, by the most solemn bond of
your oath of allegiance, were pledged, and all of you, as his
Majesty's subjects, were indispensably bound, by your duty, to
defend; to overthrow that constitution, its established freedom and
boasted usages, which have so long maintained among us that just
and rational equality of rights, and security of property, which have
been for so many ages the envy and admiration of the world; and
to erect upon its ruins a wild system of anarchy and bloodshed,
having for its object the subversion of all property and the
massacre of its proprietors; the annihilation of all legitimate
authority and established order -- for such must be the import of
that promise held out by the leaders of this atrocious conspiracy, of
ample provision for the families of those heroes who should fall in
the struggle. It has, however, pleased that Divine Providence,
which has mercifully watched over the safety of this nation, to
defeat your wicked and abominable purpose, by arresting your
projects in their dark and dangerous progress, and thus averting
that danger which your machinations had suspended over our
heads; and by your timely detection, seizure and submittal to
public justice, to afford time for the many thousands of his
Majesty's innocent and loyal subjects, the intended victims of your
atrocious and sanguinary purpose, to escape that danger which so
recently menaced them, and which, I trust, is not yet become too
formidable for utter defeat.

"The only thing remaining for me is the painful task of
pronouncing against you, and each of you, the awful sentence
which the law denounces against your crime, which is, that you,
and each of you" (here his Lordship named the prisoners
severally), "be taken from the place from whence you came, and
from thence you are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of
execution, where you are to be hanged by the neck, but not until
you are dead; for while you are still living your bodies are to be
taken down, your bowels torn out and burned before your faces,
your heads then cut off, and our bodies divided each into four
quarters, and your heads and quarters to be then at the King's
disposal; and may the Almighty God have mercy on your souls! "

On Saturday afternoon, the 19th of February, was received the
information that the warrant for execution, to take place on the
following Monday, was made out, which contained a remission of
part of the sentence -- viz. the taking out and burning their bowels
before their faces, and dividing their bodies. It was sent to the
keeper of the New Jail in the Borough at six o'clock on Saturday
evening, and included the names already given.

The three other prisoners, Newman, Tyndall and Lander, were
respited. As soon as the warrant for execution was received it was
communicated to the unhappy persons by the keeper of the prison,
Mr Ives, with as much tenderness and humanity as the awful nature
of the case required.

Colonel Despard observed that the time was short: yet he had not
had, from the first, any strong expectation that the recommendation
of the jury would be effectual. The mediation of Lord Nelson and a
petition to the Crown were tried, but Colonel Despard was
convinced, according to report, that they would be unavailing.

Soon after the warrant was received all papers, and everything he
possessed, were immediately taken from the Colonel.

Mrs Despard was greatly affected when she first heard his fate was
sealed, but afterwards recovered her fortitude. Mr and Mrs
Despard bore up with great firmness at parting; and when she got
into a coach, as it drove off she waved her handkerchief out of the
window.

At daylight on Sunday morning the drop, scaffold and gallows, on
which they were to be executed, were erected  on the top of the
jail. All the Bow Street patrol, and many other peace officers, were
on duty all day and night, and the military near London were
drawn up close to it.

Seven shells, or coffins, were brought into prison to receive the
bodies, and two large bags filled with sawdust, and the block on
which they were to be beheaded. At four o'clock the next morning,
the 21st of February, the drum beat at the Horse Guards, as a signal
for the cavalry to assemble.

At six o'clock the Life Guards arrived, and took their station at the
end of the different roads at the Obelisk, in St George's Fields,
whilst all the officers from Bow Street, Queen Square,
Marlborough Street, Hatton Garden, Worship Street, Whitechapel,
Shadwell, etc., attended. There were parties of the Life Guards
riding up and down the roads.

At half-past six the prison bell rang -- the signal for unlocking the
cells. At seven o'clock Colonel Despard and the other prisoners
were brought down from their cells, their irons knocked off, and
their arms bound with ropes. When the Colonel came out he shook
hands very cordially with his solicitor, and returned him many
thanks for his kind attention. Then, observing the sledge and
apparatus, he smilingly cried out: "Ha! ha! What nonsensical
mummery is this?"

As soon as the prisoners were placed on the hurdle, St George's
bell tolled for some time. They were preceded by the sheriff, Sir R.
Ford, the clergyman, Mr Winkworth, and the Roman Catholic
clergyman, Mr Griffith.

The coffins, or shells, which had been previously placed in a room
under the scaffold, were then brought up and placed on the
platform, on which the drop was erected; the bags of sawdust, to
catch the blood when the heads were severed from the bodies, were
placed beside them. The block was near the scaffold. There were
about a hundred spectators on the platform, among whom were
some characters of distinction. The greatest order was observed. At
seven minutes before nine o'clock the signal was given, the
platform dropped, and they were all launched into eternity.

After hanging about half-an-hour, till they were quite dead, they
were cut down. Colonel Despard was first cut down, his body
placed upon sawdust, and his head upon a block; after his coat and
waistcoat had been taken off, his head was severed from his body,
by persons engaged on purpose to perform that ceremony. The
executioner then took the head by the hair and, carrying it to the
edge of the parapet on the right hand, held it up to the view of the
populace, and exclaimed: "This is the head of a traitor, Edward
Marcus Despard." The same ceremony was performed on the
parapet at the left hand.

His remains were now put into the shell that had been prepared for
him.

The other prisoners were then cut down, their heads severed from
their bodies and exhibited to the populace, with the same
exclamation of "This is the head of another traitor." The bodies
were then put into their different shells and delivered to their
friends for interment.

The body of Colonel Despard was taken away on the 1st of March,
by his friends, with a hearse and three mourning-coaches, and
interred near the north door of St Paul's Cathedral. The City
Marshal was present, lest there should be any disturbance on the
occasion.

The remains of the other six were deposited in one grave, in the
vault under the Rev. Mr Harper's chapel, in London Road, St
George's Fields.



JOHN TERRY AND JOSEPH HEALD
Executed under Extraordinary Circumstances at York, 21st of
March, 1803, for Murder


JOHN TERRY and his fellow-apprentice, Joseph Heald, were
found guilty of the wilful murder of Elizabeth Smith, aged sixty-
seven years, at Flaminshaw, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire.

The deceased bore an excellent character, and had maintained
herself by keeping cows and selling their produce.

Having had the misfortune to lose two of her cows she was left
nearly destitute, but by the humane assistance of her neighbours
she was enabled to purchase one cow; and a son, who lived at
Leeds, sent her eighteen guineas afterwards to buy another, but
desired her not to purchase it before??fog-time. On her receiving
the eighteen guineas it was immediately made known amongst her
neighbours.

T. Shaw and S. Linley, constables, proved the confession of Terry,
which was that he and Heald met together on the night on which
the murder was committed, and parted at ten o'clock to meet again
at the deceased's about one o'clock. They met. Then he (Terry)
assisted Heald in getting into a window, up one pair of stairs; he
afterwards set up something against the house and climbed up after
Heald. After several blows had been struck at the deceased, Heald
took a razor and Terry held her head. In a short time he had his
hand cut, and advised Heald to desist, as he had got enough; then
he went to the door, to see if all was safe. Upon his return he found
that Heald had got the deceased into the adjoining room, and was
beating her over the head with the tongs; upon which he told him
to desist and come away, and there would be no more about it.
Afterwards, when Heald was brought into the room after Terry had
made the confession, Heald said to him: "Terry, I thought thou
wouldst not have deceived me so; thou knowest I was not with
thee." To which he answered: "Thou knowest there is a God above
Who knows all." A second time Heald asked him why he should
deceive him, and said: "Thou hadst better lay it upon somebody
else." To which he replied: "I will not hang an innocent man; thou
knowest there were but us two, and God for our witness."

The jury declared both the prisoners guilty. Accordingly the judge,
in the most solemn manner, pronounced sentence of death upon
them.

Their execution was fixed for Monday, 21st of March. When, early
in the morning, the Rev. Mr Brown, the ordinary, attended the
prisoners in their cell, in order to administer the Sacrament, Terry
informed him that Heald was innocent; on which Mr Brown stated
to them the leading facts that were proved against them upon their
trial, and referred to Terry's own confession of the manner in
which they had perpetrated the murder.

Terry said that he had been induced to make that confession, as he
had been told that he should thereby save his own life; but he now
declared Heald to be innocent, and that he would not be hanged 
with an innocent man.

In consequence of this declaration the ordinary thought it his duty
to inform the judge of this extraordinary circumstance, but his
Lordship was so perfectly satisfied of Heald's guilt that he ordered
the sentence to be put into execution. His Lordship, however,
humanely sent his marshal, Mr Wells, to attend the prisoners, with
a discretionary power to respite the execution should any
circumstances appear to him respecting Heald, that would justify
the measure. Mr Wells was convinced, from the conversation that
passed, that Terry had not spoken the truth, and in consequence
they were left to their fate.

Again Terry, when proceeding from the cell to the drop, exclaimed
aloud that Heald was innocent, and that they were going to hang an
innocent man, and appeared to have worked himself up to a state
of frenzy and distraction.

On their being brought on the platform, a scene of more brutal
stubbornness was never witnessed than that which was exhibited
by this young offender; for as soon as he got on, he went forward
to the front and exclaimed in a loud voice: "They are going to hang
an innocent man" (meaning Heald); "he is as innocent as any of
you!" As he uttered this he immediately made a sudden spring, in
order to get down the ladder, which he certainly would have
effected had he not been laid hold of by the clergyman. While they
were pulling him back he again exclaimed: "It was me that
murdered the woman. I said it was Heald, but I did so to save my
own life; and would not any of you hang an innocent man to save
your own life?" These words he afterwards repeated, adding:
"Don't hang Heald; if you do, I shall be guilty of two murders."

The clergyman then proceeded to do his duty; to which Terry paid
no attention, but continued very clamorous, notwithstanding the
entreaties of Heald not to deprive him of the benefit of the prayers.
But Terry was not to be restrained; and it was with the utmost
exertions of five or six men that he could be dragged to the drop
and the rope forced over his head, during which he tore off his cap.
At the moment the platform sank, which put an end to the life of
Heald, Terry made a spring, and threw himself against a rail of the
scaffold, got his foot upon the edge of a beam, and caught the
corner-post with his arm, by which he supported himself; and in
this dreadful situation he continued for about a minute, till he was
forced off by the executioner, and launched into eternity, with his
face uncovered.



CAPTAIN MACNAMARA
Who killed Colonel Montgomery in a Duel arising out of a Quarrel
about Dogs, and was acquitted on a Charge of Manslaughter


THE Clerk of the Arraigns said: "James Macnamara, you stand
charged on the coroner's inquest for that you, on the 6th of April,
did, with force of arms, in the parish of St Pancras, in the county of
Middlesex, on Robert Montgomery, Esq., feloniously make an
assault, and a certain pistol, of the value of ten shillings, charged
and loaded with powder and a leaden bullet, which you held in
your right hand, to and against the body of the said Robert
Montgomery, did feloniously shoot off and discharge, and did
feloniously give, with the leaden bullet so as aforesaid discharged
by force of the gunpowder, in the right side of the body of the said
Robert Montgomery, one mortal wound; so the jurors aforesaid,
upon their oaths, say that you, Robert Montgomery, in manner
aforesaid, did feloniously kill and slay, against the peace of our
lord the King, and against the form of the statute."

To which the prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Mr Knapp then said: "Gentlemen of the jury, the only question you
have to try is, whether the gentleman who is stated in the
inquisition to have lost his life lost it by the act of the prisoner --
lost it in a rencounter which took place between them at Primrose
Hill; and if you are of opinion that the prisoner was the cause of
the death of the deceased, in consequence of the pistol he fired at
him in that rencounter, there can be no question; but your verdict
must find him guilty of manslaughter. Both the prisoner at the bar
and the gentleman who has lost his life are persons most
respectably connected. The prisoner is a gentleman of
acknowledged bravery in the service of his country, and eminent
for his good qualities. The deceased was a man who deserved the
affection and regard of everyone who knew him." The learned
counsel shortly stated the facts: he adverted to the origin of the
quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased; their subsequent
meeting at Primrose Hill, attended by their seconds and surgeon,
and the fatal result of that meeting. The following witnesses were
then called.

William Sloane, Esq., sworn, said: "I was in Hyde Park on
Wednesday, the 6th of April, between the hours of four and five in
the afternoon. I was on horseback, in company with Colonel
Montgomery, the deceased, and my brother, Stephen Sloane. There
was a Newfoundland dog following Colonel Montgomery; there
was another dog of the same species following some gentlemen
who were also on horseback. We were in that part of Hyde Park
between the bridge and the barrier when the dogs began fighting.
Colonel Montgomery turned round and jumped off his horse to
separate them: they were separated. I heard Colonel Montgomery
call out: 'Whose dog is this?' Captain Macnamara answered: 'It is
my dog.' Colonel Montgomery said: 'If you do not call your dog
off I shall knock him down.' Captain Macnamara replied: 'Have
you the arrogance to say you will knock my dog down?' Colonel
Montgomery said: 'I certainly shall, if he falls on my dog.' About
this time Lord Buckhurst came up, and some further conversation
passed. I heard the word 'arrogance' made use of several times;
Captain Macnamara made use of it. We all proceeded to Piccadilly.
Colonel Montgomery and Captain Macnamara gave their names to
each other. The prisoner said he was Captain Macnamara of the
Royal Navy. Colonel Montgomery said: 'It is not my intention to
quarrel with you, but if your dog falls on mine I shall knock him
down.' I took leave of Colonel Montgomery at the top of St James's
Street, with the intention of going home. I saw Mr Macnamara's
party turning back to go down St James's Street: at that time I had
first turned up Bond Street, but returned, and again joined Colonel
Montgomery, who went down St James's Street with my brother. I
afterwards saw Mr Macnamara in Jermyn Street. Colonel
Montgomery had proceeded as far as St James's Church; they were
about thirty yards from the church when a person, I believe
Captain Barry, went from Mr Macnamara to Colonel Montgomery;
I did not see him return again."

Lord Buckhurst (son of Lord Westmorland) said he was not
present at the first dispute about the dogs; but he came up
afterwards, and heard Captain Macnamara say that the way in
which Colonel Montgomery had desired him to call off his dog
was arrogant, and not in language fit to be used by one gentleman
towards another. Captain Macnamara said he would as soon
revenge an insult as any man, and would fight Colonel
Montgomery as well as any other man who offered him an injury.
Captain Macnamara was shaking his stick, but it appeared to be an
involuntary action, the consequence of his passion, and not
intended as an insult.

James Harding, vintner, Jermyn Street, said: "I was at Chalk Farm
on the Wednesday, at half-past six. I observed the party -- Captain
Macnamara, Colonel Montgomery and three other gentlemen --
ascending Primrose Hill. One of the party (Captain Barry) desired
the servant to bring a case out of the chaise; this opened my eyes to
the business. I stood about fifty yards distant from them. I saw Sir
W. Keir and Captain Barry conversing together, and preparing the
pistols; one was discharged to see whether they were in good
condition. The parties separated to about six yards. Colonel
Montgomery fired and Captain Macnamara fired; they stood face
to face. Both fired at the same time. Colonel Montgomery fell;
Captain Macnamara did not. I went up. Colonel Montgomery was
extended on the ground, and, shortly after, Mr Heaviside opened
his waistcoat and looked at his wound; it was on his right side. Mr
Heaviside administered relief to him and then went to Captain
Macnamara. I think he said he was wounded, and that he must
bleed him. I assisted in carrying Colonel Montgomery; his eyes
were fixed, and he was groaning. I saw the corpse afterwards on a
bed in Chalk Farm."

The prisoner was now called upon for his defence. He entreated the
Court to indulge him with the permission of addressing the jury
sitting, as he felt much pain and inconvenience from his wound
while standing. His request was instantly complied with, and he
delivered himself in these terms, but in so low and tremulous a
tone as scarcely to be heard:

"Gentlemen of the jury, I appear before you with the consolation
that my character has already been freed, by the verdict of a Grand
Jury, from the shocking imputation of murder, and that although
the evidence against me was laid before them without any
explanation or evidence of the sensations which brought me into
my present unhappy situation, they made their own impression,
and no charge of criminal homicide was found against me. I was
delivered at once from the whole effect of the indictment. I
therefore now stand before you upon the inquisition only, taken
before the coroner, upon the view of the body, under circumstances
extremely affecting to the minds of those who were to deliberate
on the transaction, and without the opportunity, which the
benignity of the law affords me at this moment, of repelling that
inference of even sudden resentment against the deceased, which is
the foundation of this inquest of manslaughter.

"The origin of the difference, as you see it in the evidence, was
insignificant: the heat of two persons, each defending an animal
under his protection, was natural, and could not have led to any
serious consequences. It was not the deceased's defending his own
dog or his threatening to destroy mine that led to the fatal
catastrophe: it was the defiance alone which most unhappily
accompanied what was said; for words receive their interpretation
from the avowed intention of the speaker. The offence was forced
upon me by the declaration that he invited me to be offended, and
challenged me to vindicate the offence by calling upon him for
satisfaction. 'If you are offended with what has passed, you know
where to find me.' These words, unfortunately repeated and
reiterated, have over and over again been considered by criminal
courts of justice as sufficient to support an indictment for a
challenge.

"Gentlemen, I am a captain in the British Navy. My character you
can hear only from others; but to maintain any character in that
station I must be respected. When called upon to lead others into
honourable dangers I must not be supposed to be a man who had
sought safety by submitting to what custom has taught others to
consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming to urge anything against
the laws of God, or of this land. I know that, in the eye of religion
and reason, obedience to the law, though against the general
feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought to be the rule of
action; but in putting a construction upon my motives, so as to
ascertain the quality of my actions, you will make allowance for
my situation."

Witnesses for the defence were then called.

Lord Hood said: " I have been acquainted with the prisoner,
Captain Macnamara, eight or ten years; I had the good fortune to
promote him in the year 1794. I always considered him a man of
great moderation, and of gentlemanly manners. It was from the
high situation in which he stood, in my opinion, as an officer of
merit, that I promoted him."

Lord Nelson said: "I have known Captain Macnamara nine years;
he has been at various times under my command. During my
acquaintance with him I had not only the highest esteem and
respect for him as an officer, but I always looked upon him as a
gentleman, who would not take an affront from any man; yet, as I
stand here before God and my country, I never knew nor heard that
he ever gave offence to man, woman or child during my
acquaintance with him."

Lord Hotham, Lord Minto, Sir Hyde Parker and Sir Thomas
Trowbridge, K.B., one of the Lords of the Admiralty, also gave
evidence.

Mr Justice Heath then addressed the jury, and they retired from
court for about twenty minutes. On their return the foreman
pronounced a verdict of not guilty.



ROBERT SMITH
Executed before Newgate for robbing Coachmen on the Highway,
8th of June, 1803


THIS singular robber was a Scotsman, and one of those
adventurers who, ingenious in wickedness, devise new plans of
depredation, and make the industrious, whose hard earnings they
enjoy, the chief objects of their prey.

The mode of robbery which this man adopted was that of
employing a hackney-coach to drive him to some??outlet, and then
robbing the coachman in the first lonesome place he came to, in
which for some time he was too successful. This trade he
commenced early in the month of March, 1803, when, being
genteelly dressed, at night, about ten o'clock, he hired a hackney-
coach at Charing Cross, and ordered the coachman to drive to St
John's Farm, near the first milestone on the Edgware Road. When
the coach got to the top of the lane leading to St John's Farm,
Smith pulled the string and asked the coachman to let him get out,
as he had passed the house he wanted to go to; upon which the
coachman got off his box and let him out of the coach. Smith then 
asked what his fare was. When he was told five shillings and
sixpence, he put his hand into a side-pocket, pulled out a pistol,
and swore he would immediately shoot him if he did not deliver
his money, which the coachman complied with. Smith then
demanded his watch, which the coachman likewise delivered, and
with which he made his escape across some fields. On Monday
night (6th of March), about eleven o'clock, he hired another coach,
and ordered the coachman to drive to St George's Row, on the
Uxbridge Road. When the coach arrived at that place the man got
out and, with horrid threats, demanded the coachman's money, at
the same time presenting a very long pistol to his breast, and
slightly wounding him in the side with a tuck-stick. The coachman
delivered his money, amounting to two seven-shilling pieces and
eight shillings and sixpence in silver. The robber, on parting, told
the coachman that if he attempted to pursue him he would shoot
him. But his career did not last long, for on Sunday night, the 19th
of March, about ten o'clock, as Thomas Jones and others of the
patrol were on duty in King's Road they met Smith, whom they
questioned as to his business, etc., and he not being able to give a
satisfactory account, one of the patrol put his hand on his breast,
and discovered a pistol.

On Monday morning he was brought to Bow Street, and underwent
an examination, when the hackney-coachman who was robbed
near St John's Farm attended; and when a pawnbroker produced a
watch corresponding to one of Smith's pawn-tickets he positively
identified the watch, and also the person to be the robber.

T. Jones (another hackney-coachman, who was robbed in Maiden
Lane) attended, and likewise identified a watch produced by a
pawnbroker, and the person of the prisoner. The prisoner refused to
give any name, or to give any account of himself. He gave the
names of Gordon and Smith when he pledged the watches.

On his re-examination, in addition to the charges before exhibited
against him, Francis Treadwell, another driver of a hackney-coach,
stated how the prisoner had robbed and wounded him. Also John
Chilton, a porter at Mr Spode's Staffordshire warehouse, swore that
on the evening of the 14th instant, about eight o'clock, the prisoner
stopped and robbed him of three shillings and sixpence, near
Bayswater, and slightly wounded him on the breast with a tuck-
stick.

The driver of another hackney-coach identified the prisoner as
having robbed him a short time since, near Wandsworth, Surrey.
On his trial the prisoner pleaded guilty, and the jury pronounced a
verdict in accord with his own confession and the evidence before
them. He pleaded, however, for mercy, on the ground of its being
his first offence; but Mr Justice Heath observed that his plea could
not be listened to, for there were five other indictments against him
for similar offences, and a sixth for firing at a person with intent to
rob.

He was executed at the front of the debtors' door, in the Old
Bailey, on the 8th of June, 1803.



JOHN HATFIELD
"The Keswick Impostor." Executed at Carlisle, 3rd of September,
1803, for Forgery; with Particulars of the once celebrated "Beauty
of Buttermere," a victim to his Villainy.


JOHN HATFIELD was born in 1759, at Mottram, in Longdale,
Cheshire. Although of low descent, he possessed many natural
abilities. His face was handsome, his person genteel, his eyes blue,
and his complexion fair.

After some domestic depredations (for, in his early days, he
betrayed an iniquitous disposition) he quitted his family, and was
employed in the capacity of an agent to a linen-draper in the north
of England. In the course of this service he became acquainted
with a young woman who had been nursed, and resided, at a
farmer's house in the neighbourhood of his employer. She had
been, in her earlier life, taught to consider the people with whom
she lived as her parents. When she arrived at a certain age the
honest farmer explained to her the secret of her birth. He told her
that, notwithstanding she had always considered him as her parent,
he was in fact only her guardian, and that she was the natural
daughter of Lord Robert Manners, who intended to give her one
thousand pounds, provided she married with his approbation.

This discovery soon reached the ears of Hatfield. He immediately
paid his respects at the farmer's, and, having represented himself as
a young man of considerable expectations in the wholesale linen
business, his visits were not discountenanced. The farmer,
however, thought it incumbent on him to acquaint his lordship with
a proposal made to him by Hatfield that he would marry the young
woman if her relations were satisfied with their union, but on no
other terms. This had so much the appearance of an honourable
and prudent intention that his lordship, on being made acquainted
with the circumstances, desired to see the lover. Hatfield
accordingly paid his respects to the noble and unsuspecting parent,
who, conceiving him to be what he represented himself, gave his
consent at the first interview; and the day after the marriage took
place he presented the bridegroom with a draft on his banker for
fifteen hundred pounds. This transaction took place about the year
1771 or 1772.

Shortly after the receipt of his lordship's bounty Hatfield set off for
London. He hired a small phaeton, and was perpetually at the
coffee-houses in Covent Garden, describing himself to whatever 
company he chanced to meet as a near relation of the Rutland
family, and vaunted of his parks and hounds; but he so varied in
his descriptive figures that he acquired the appellation of "lying
Hatfield."

When the marriage portion was exhausted he retreated from
London, and was scarcely heard of until about the year 1782, when
he again visited the metropolis, having left his wife, with three
daughters she had borne him, to depend on the precarious charity
of her relations. Happily she did not long survive; and the author of
her calamities, during his stay in London, soon experienced
calamity himself, as he was arrested, and committed to the King's
Bench Prison, for a debt amounting to the sum of one hundred and
sixty pounds.

The Duke of Rutland, on being appealed to, sent to inquire if he
was the man who had married the natural daughter of Lord Robert
Manners, and being satisfied as to the fact, dispatched a messenger
with two hundred pounds and had him released.

In the year 1784 or 1785 his Grace of Rutland was appointed Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, and shortly after his arrival in Dublin,
Hatfield made his appearance in that city. He immediately on
landing engaged a suite of apartments at an hotel in College Green
and represented himself as being allied to the Viceroy, but that he
could not appear at the castle until his horses, servants and
carriages had arrived, which he had ordered, before leaving
England, to be shipped at Liverpool. The easy and familiar manner
in which he addressed the master of the hotel perfectly satisfied
him that he had a man of consequence in his house, and matters
were arranged accordingly.

At the expiration of one month the bill at the hotel amounted to
sixty pounds and upwards. The landlord became importunate and
arrested his guest, who was lodged in the prison of the Marshalsea.
The Duke again came to his rescue, and he was released.

In 1792 he went to Scarborough, introduced himself to the
acquaintance of several persons of distinction in that
neighbourhood, and insinuated that he was, by the interest of the
Duke of Rutland, soon to be one of the representatives in
Parliament for the town of Scarborough. After several weeks' stay
at the principal inn at Scarborough his imposture was detected by
his inability to pay the bill. Soon after his arrival in London he was
arrested for this debt and thrown into prison. He had been eight
years and a half in confinement when a Miss Nation, of
Devonshire, to whom he had become known, paid his debts, took
him from prison, and gave him her hand in marriage.

Soon after he was liberated he had the good fortune to prevail with
some highly respectable merchants in Devonshire to take him into
partnership with them, and with a clergyman to accept his drafts to
a large amount. He made, upon this foundation, a splendid
appearance in London, and, before the General Election, even
proceeded to canvass the rotten borough of Queenborough.
Suspicions in the meantime arose in regard to his character and the
state of his fortune. He retired from the indignation of his creditors,
and was declared a bankrupt in order to bring his villainy to light.
Having left his second wife and two infant children behind, at
Tiverton, he visited other places; and at length, in July, 1802,
arrived at the Queen's Head, in Keswick, in a carriage, but without
any servant, where he assumed the name of the Honourable
Alexander Augustus Hope, brother of the Earl of Hopetoun, and
Member for Linlithgow. Unfortunately some evil genius directed
his steps to the once happy cottage of poor Mary, the daughter of
Mr and Mrs Robinson, an old couple, who kept a small public-
house at the side of the beautiful lake of Buttermere, Cumberland,
and by their industry had gained a little property. She was the only
daughter, and probably her name would never have been known to
the public but for the account given of her by the author of A
Fortnight's Ramble to the Lakes in Westmorland, Lancashire, and
Cumberland, in which she was referred to as the "Beauty of
Buttermere." At length the supposed Colonel Hope procured a
licence, on the 1st of October, and they were publicly married in
the church of Lorton, on Saturday, the 2nd of October.

The day previous to his marriage he wrote to Mr M--, informing
him that he was under the necessity of being absent for ten days on
a journey into Scotland, and sent him a draft for thirty pounds,
drawn on Mr Crumpt, of Liverpool, desiring him to cash it, and
pay some small debts in Keswick with it, and send him on the
balance, as he feared he might be short of cash on the road. This
Mr M-immediately did, and sent him ten guineas in addition to the
balance. On the Saturday, Wood, the landlord of the Queen's Head,
returned from Lorton with the public intelligence that Colonel
Hope had married the "Beauty of Buttermere." As it was clear,
whoever he was, that he had acted unworthily and dishonourably,
Mr M--'s suspicions were of course awakened. Eventually a
warrant was given by Sir Frederick Vane on the clear proof of his
having forged and received several "thanks" as the Member for
Linlithgow, and he was committed to the care of a constable.
Having, however, found means to escape, he took refuge for a few
days on board a sloop off Ravinglass, and then went in the coach to
Ulverston, and was afterwards seen in Chester.

Though he was personally known in Cheshire to many of the
inhabitants, yet this specious hypocrite had so artfully disguised
himself that he quitted the town without any suspicion before the
Bow Street officers reached that place in quest of him. He was then
traced to??Brielth, in Brecknockshire, and was at length
apprehended about sixteen miles from Swansea, and committed to
Brecon Jail. He wore a cravat on which were his initials, J. H., and
which he attempted to account for by calling himself John Henry.
His trial came on on the 15th of August, 1803, at the assizes for
Cumberland, before the Honourable Alexander Thompson, Kt. He
stood charged upon the three following indictments:-

1. With having assumed the name and title of the Honourable
Alexander Augustus Hope and pretending to be a Member of
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and with having, about the month of October last, under such false
and fictitious name and character, drawn a draft, or bill of
exchange, in the name of Alexander Hope, upon John Crumpt,
Esq., for the sum of twenty pounds, payable to George Wood, of
Keswick, Cumberland, innkeeper, or order, at the end of fourteen
days from the date of the said draft or bill of exchange.

2. With making, uttering and publishing as true, a certain false,
forged and counterfeit bill of exchange, with the name of
Alexander Augustus Hope thereunto falsely set and subscribed,
drawn upon John Crumpt, Esq., dated the 1st of October, 1802, and
payable to Nathaniel Montgomery Moore, or order, ten days after
date, for thirty pounds sterling.

3. With having assumed the name of Alexander Hope, and
pretending to be a Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, the brother of the Right Hon. Lord
Hopetoun and a colonel in the army; and under such false and
fictitious name and character, at various times in the month of
October, 1802, having forged and counterfeited the handwriting of
the said Alexander Hope, in the superscription of certain letters or
packets, in order to avoid the payment of the duty of postage.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to
death. On the day of his execution, the 3rd of September, 1803, the
sheriffs, the bailiffs, and the Carlisle volunteer cavalry attended at
the jail door about half-past three, together with a post-chaise and a
hearse. A prodigious crowd had assembled. It was market-day, and
people had come from a distance of many miles out of mere
curiosity. Hatfield, when he left the prison, wished all his fellow-
prisoners to be happy. He then took farewell of the clergyman,
who attended him to the door of the chaise, and mounted the steps
with much steadiness and composure. The jailer and the
executioner went along with him. The latter had been brought from
Dumfries upon a retaining fee of ten guineas.

It was exactly four o'clock when the procession moved from the
jail, Passing through the Scotch Gate, in about twelve minutes it
arrived at the sands. Half the yeomanry went before the carriage,
and the other half behind. Upon their arrival on the ground they
formed a ring round the scaffold.

As soon as the carriage door was opened by the under-sheriff the
culprit alighted with his two companions. A small dung-cart,
boarded over, had been placed under the gibbet. A ladder was
placed to this stage, which he instantly ascended. He immediately
untied his neck-handkerchief and placed a bandage over his eyes.
Then he desired the hangman, who was extremely awkward, to be
as expert as possible about it, and that he would wave a
handkerchief when he was ready. The hangman not having fixed
the rope in its proper place, he put up his hand and turned it
himself. He also tied his cap, took his handkerchief from his own
neck, and tied it about his head also. Then he requested the jailer to
step upon the platform and pinion his arms a little harder, saying
that when he had lost his senses he might attempt to place them to
his neck. The rope was completely fixed about five minutes before
four o'clock; it was slack, and he merely said: "May the Almighty
bless you all." Nor did he falter in the least when he tied the cap,
shifted the rope, and took his handkerchief from his neck.

Great apprehensions were entertained that it would be necessary to
tie him up a second time. The noose slipped twice and he fell down
about eighteen inches. At last his feet almost touched the ground,
but his excessive weight, which occasioned this accident, speedily
relieved him from pain. He expired in a moment, and without any
struggle.



ROBERT EMMET
Executed for High treason, 20th of September, 1803

THIS enthusiast was the son of Dr Emmet, a man of good family, and
possessed of considerable wealth; but who, having imbibed opinions
favourable to republicanism, took care to instil them into his
children. His eldest son was implicated in the Irish rebellion of
1798, and escaped with his life upon the terms offered to Arthur O
Connor, Dr M'Nevin, and others, and accepted by them, and, like
them, became an exile in a foreign land.

The hero of the present sketch was intended for the Irish Bar, and
received a most liberal education. In Trinity College he became
conspicuous, not only for his abilities, but for his display of
eloquence in the "Historical Debating Society," a school which
matured the talents of Bushe, Burrows, and several other members
of the Irish Bar. Young Emmet, however, wanted discretion; and
having too often avowed his political principles, a prosecution
was threatened, to avoid which he precipitately fled to France,
where his republican opinions were confirmed.

In 1803 he returned to Dublin, not being then more than twenty-
four years of age, and found himself in possession of three
thousand five hundred pounds, left him by his father, then
recently deceased. With this money, and the talents and
connections which he possessed, he might easily have established
his own independence; but the sober business of life had no
attractions for him; he aspired to greater fame, and resolved to
attempt the separation of his country from England.

Wild and extravagant as the scheme was, he entered seriously upon
it, and easily found abettors among those who had escaped the
angry vengeance of 1798. Having procured several associates, he
took a house in Patrick-street, and converted it into a rebel
depot for powder, guns, swords, pikes, &c. In the purchase and
preparation of these be expended upwards of one thousand pounds;
but before the plan of insurrection was ripe, the powder in the
magazine, through accident, ignited, and the whole depot was blown
into the air. Such, how ever, was the fidelity of Emmet's
partisans, that no discovery took place, further than that caused
by the explosion; and the government, who ordered the guns to be
brought to the Castle, remained ignorant of the purpose for which
those destructive implements were provided.

A mind so sanguine as that of Emmet was not to be damped by an
accidental disappointment: he collected his partisans, took
another house in a lane in Thomas-street, and again commenced
preparations for a popular rebellion. The ramifications of treason
were easily extended through Ireland, where the discontent of the
Catholics induced them to join in any extravagant scheme which
promised them redress of grievances. Emmet had correspondents in
every county; and the 23rd of July, was the day appointed for a
general rising, the signal of which was to be an attack upon
Dublin.

The plan of surprising the metropolis was admirably adapted for
its sanguinary purpose; but fortunately several disappointments
took place, and Emmet was unable to proceed as he intended. In
the, confusion of such a moment the rebels deceived one another,
and several hundred men, who came in from the country, returned
home, being told, that the rising was postponed, while those who
remained were crowded into the depot, and impeded the
preparations. It was too late, however, to retract, or alter the
intended movement, as Emmet expected the whole country to rise on
that night. He therefore made the desperate attempt, and, with
eighty followers, sallied out, at nine o clock, into Thomas-
street, and made towards the castle, which he intended to
surprise.

The experience of a few minutes showed him his madness and folly;
for he quickly found himself without authority, in the midst of a
ruffianly mob, who would neither obey nor accompany him; but who
soon convinced him, that, though cowardly, they were brutal and
sanguinary. When he had arrived at the market-house, his followers
had diminished to eighteen; and as he was now convinced of his
rashness, he prevented the discharge of a rocket which was to be
the signal for the outposts to commence hostilities. This act
saved the lives of hundreds, for the Wexford men, to the number of
three hundred, had assembled on the Coal-quay, and other large
bodies had met in the barley-fields behind Mountjoy-Square; all of
whom, in consequence, escaped uninjured, and were prevented from
inflicting injury on others.

The rebel band in Thomas-street, meanwhile, largely increased in
numbers; but, being without a leader, they remained confused and
inactive. At this moment, however, an act of atrocity was
perpetrated. sufficiently serious to exhibit the nature of the
design. The coach of the lamented Lord Kilwarden, chief justice of
the Court of King's Bench, containing his lordship, and his nephew
and niece, the Rev Mr Wolfe, and Miss Wolfe, drove up, and was
instantly surrounded. Much confusion prevailed, and his lordship
received a deadly stab from the hand of an assassin which
eventually deprived him of life; his nephew was dragged from the
vehicle and ill-treated; but Miss Wolfe was borne to an opposite
house in the arms of a lusty rebel, apparently more humane than
his comrades.

The precise particulars of the murder of Lord Kilwarden are not
known, and have always been the subject of controversy. By some it
is alleged that it was the unpremeditated act of a ferocious
rabble; by others, that he was mistaken for another person; but
there is another account, which admits the mistake in the first
instance, but subjoins other particulars, which appear
sufficiently probable. It is related, that, in the year 1795, when
his lordship was attorney-general, a number of young men, between
the ages of fifteen and twenty years, were indicted for high
treason, and upon the day appointed for their trial they appeared
at the bar, wearing shirts with tuckers and open collars, in the
manner usual with boys. When the chief justice of the King's Bench
appeared in court to proceed with their trial, he remarked, "Well,
Mr Attorney, I suppose you are ready to go on with the trial of
these tuckered traitors?" The attorney-general was quite prepared
to proceed at once; but, disgusted with the remark which had been
made, he said, "No, my lord, I am not ready;" and he added in a
lower tone to the prisoners counsel, "If I have any power to save
the lives of these boys, whose extreme youth I did not before
observe, that man shall never have the gratification of passing
sentence upon one of these tuckered traitors." He performed his
promise, and soon afterwards procured pardons for them all, upon
condition of their going abroad. One of them, however, refused to
accept the pardon upon the condition imposed; and being obstinate,
he was tried, convicted, and executed, After his death, it is said
that his relatives, readily listening to every misrepresentation
which flattered their resentment, became persuaded that the
attorney-general had selected him alone to suffer the utmost
severity of the laws. One of these, a person named Shannon, was an
insurgent of the 23rd July; and when Lord Kilwarden, hearing the
popular cry of vengeance, exclaimed from his carriage, "It is I,
Kilwarden, chief justice of the King's Bench," Shannon immediately
cried out, "Then you are the man I want," and instantly plunged a
pike into his lordship's body.

Whatever may be the truth or falsehood of this story, his
lordship's death, there is no doubt, was the effect of the
violence of the mob on this occasion; and it appears, that the
fatal wound had scarcely been given, when a party of military
reaching the spot, the people were put to flight, and his
lordship's body rescued from further violence, and conveyed to
Werburgh-street.

Major Swan soon after arrived, and in his fury at the attack upon
so good a man, exclaimed indignantly, that every rebel taken with
arms in his hands ought to be instantly hanged; when his lordship,
who still lived, turned round, and impressively exhorted him "to
let no man suffer but by the laws of his country." In a few
minutes after, this great and good man expired.

For a few hours the rebels continued to skirmish with the
military, and several men were killed. By morning, however, all
appearance of rebellion had vanished, and large rewards were
offered for the apprehension of the leader, Robert Emmet, who had
escaped to the county of Wicklow, where he arrived in time to
prevent a rising of the assembled rebels.

This unfortunate young man was every way an enthusiast; for his
love was as extravagant as his patriotism. It appears that soon
after his return from France he visited at the house of Curran,
the celebrated Irish barrister, and became attached to that
gentleman's youngest daughter. Their affection was mutual, but
unknown to Mr Curran. Upon the failure of the insurrection Emmet
might easily have effected his departure from the kingdom, had he
attended solely to his safety; but, in the same spirit of romantic
enthusiasm which distinguished his short career, be could not
submit to leave the country to which he could never more return,
with out making an effort to have one final interview with the
object of his unfortunate attachment, in order to receive her
personal forgiveness for what he now considered as the deepest
injury. With a view of obtaining this last gratification, he
selected a place of concealment midway between Mr Curran's
country-house and Dublin; but before the meeting took place he was
arrested. On his person were found some papers, which showed that
be corresponded with Mr Curran's family, in consequence of which
that gentleman's house was searched, and the letters there found
were produced in evidence against him.

His trial came on, at the sessions house, Green street, Dublin,
September the 19th, 1803, before Lord Norbury; and the evidence
being conclusive, his conviction followed. When called upon in the
usual way, before passing sentence, be addressed the Court as
follows

"I am asked if I have anything to say why sentence of death should
not be pronounced upon me. Was I to suffer only death, after being
adjudged guilty, I should bow in silence; but a man in my
situation has not only to combat with the difficulties of fortune,
but with the difficulties of prejudice: the sentence of the law
which delivers over his body to the executioner, consigns his
character to obloquy. The man dies, but his memory lives; and that
mine may not forfeit all claim to the respect of my countrymen, I
use this occasion to vindicate myself from some of the charges 
advanced against me.

I am charged with being an emissary of France:-- tis false! I am
no emissary -- I did not wish to deliver up my country to a
foreign power, and least of all, to France. No! never did I
entertain the idea of establishing French power in Ireland -- God
forbid! On the contrary, it is evident from the introductory
paragraph of the Address of the Provisional Government, that every
hazard attending an independent effort was deemed preferable to
the more fatal risk of introducing a French army into the country.
Small would be our claims to patriotism and to sense, and palpable
our affectation of the love of liberty, if we were to encourage
the profanation of our shores by a people who are slaves
themselves, and the unprincipled and abandoned instruments of
imposing slavery on others. If such an inference be drawn from any
part of the proclamation of the Provisional Government, it
calumniates their views, and is not warranted by the fact -- How
could they speak of freedom to their countrymen? How assume such
an exalted motive, and meditate the introduction of a power which
has been the enemy of freedom in every part of the globe?
Reviewing the conduct of France to other countries, could we
expect better towards us? No! Let not, then, any man attaint my
memory by believing that I could have hoped for freedom through
the aid of France, and betrayed the sacred cause of liberty, by
committing it to the power of her most determined foe: had I done
so, I had not deserved to live; and dying with such a weight upon
my character, I had merited the honest execration of that country
which gave me birth, and to which I would have given freedom.

"Had I been in Switzerland, I would have fought against the French
-- in the dignity of freedom, I would have, expired on the
threshold of that country, and they should have entered it only by
passing over my lifeless corpse. Is it, then, to be suppose that I
would be slow to make the same sacrifice to my native land? Am I,
who lived but to he of service to my country, and who would
subject myself to the bondage of the grave to give her
independence -- am I to he loaded with the foul and grievous
calumny of being an emissary of France? My Lords, it may be part
of the system of angry justice to bow a man's mind by humiliation
to meet the ignominy of the scaffold; hut worse to me than the
scaffold's shame or the scaffold's terrors, would be the
imputation of having been the agent of French despotism and
ambition; and while I have breath I will call upon my countrymen
not to believe me guilty of so foul a crime against their
liberties and their happiness.

"Though you, my lord, sit there a judge, and I stand here a
culprit, yet you are but a man, and I am another; I have a right
therefore to vindicate my character and motives from the
aspersions of calumny; and as a man to whom fame is dearer than
life, I will make the last use of that life in rescuing my name
and my memory from the afflicting imputation of, having been an
emissary of France, or seeking her interference in the internal
regulation of our affairs.

"Did I live to see a French army approach this country, I would
meet it on the shore with a torch in one hand and a sword in the
other -- I would receive them with all the destruction of war I
would animate my countrymen to immolate them in their very boats;
and before our native soil should he polluted by a foreign foe, if
they succeeded in landing, I would burn every blade of grass
before them, raze every house, contend to the last for every inch
of ground, and the last spot on which the hope of freedom should
desert me, that spot I would make my grave: what I cannot do, I
leave a legacy to my country, because I feel conscious that my
death were unprofitable, and all hope of liberty extinct, the
moment a French army obtained a footing in this land. God forbid
that I should see my country under the hands of a foreign power.
If the French should come as a foreign enemy, Oh! my countrymen,
meet them on the shore with a torch in one hand, a sword in the
other: receive them with all the destruction of war; immolate them
in their boats before our native soil shall be polluted by a
foreign foe. If they proceed in landing, fight them on the strand,
burn every blade of grass before them as they advance -- raze
every house; and if you are driven to the centre of your country,
collect your provisions, your property, your wives, and your
daughters; form a circle around them -- fight while but two men
are left; and when but one remains, let that man set fire to the
pile, and release himself, and the families of his fallen
countrymen, from the tyranny of France.

"My lamp of life is nearly expired -- my race is finished: the
grave opens to receive me, and I sink into its bosom. All I
request, then, at parting from the world, is the charity of its
silence. Let no man write my epitaph; for as no man, who knows my
motives, dare vindicate them , let not prejudice or ignorance
asperse them; let them and me repose in obscurity and peace, amid
my tomb remain undescribed, till other times and other men can do
justice to my character."

Judgment was then passed on him in the usual form, and he was
ordered for execution. On his return, to Newgate he drew up a
statement of the insurrection, and the cause of its failure, which
he requested might be sent to his brother, Thomas Addis, who was
then at Paris.

The unfortunate young man, on the night before his execution,
wrote to Mr Curran and his son Robert, excusing himself for his
conduct towards Miss Curran, and the firmness and regularity of
the original handwriting contain an affecting proof of the little
influence which the approaching event exerted over his frame. The
same enthusiasm which allured him to his destruction enabled him
to support its utmost rigour. He met his fate with unostentatious
fortitude; and although few could ever think of justifying his
projects or regretting their failure, yet his youth, his talents,
and the great respectability of his connections, and the evident
delusion of which he was the victim, have excited more general
sympathy for his unfortunate end, and more forbearance towards his
memory, than is usually extended to the errors or sufferings of
political offenders.

Moore, the celebrated Irish bard, has lamented his fate in the
following melody:

Oh! breathe not his name -- let it sleep in the shade!
Where cold and unhonour'd his relics are laid
Sad, silent, and dark, be the tears that we shed,
As the night-dew that fans on the grass o'er his head.
But the night-dew that falls, though in silence it weeps,
Shall brighten with verdure the grave where he sleeps;
And the tear that we shed, though in secret it rolls,
Shall long keep his memory green in our souls.

Several of Emmet's deluded followers met the fate of their leader,
and by their ignominious deaths, taught their countrymen the folly
and madness of attempting to separate Ireland from this kingdom by
violent means.

The following pathetic history of Miss Curran, after the death of
her lover, is extracted from Washington Irving's "Sketch Book," in
which it appears under the title of "The Broken Heart." It is
rather long, but its beauty will amply repay the trouble of its
perusal.

"Everyone must recollect the tragical story of young E--., the
Irish patriot; it was too touching to be soon forgotten. During
the troubles in Ireland he was tried, condemned, and executed, on
a charge of treason. His fate made a deep impression on public
sympathy. He was so young -- so intelligent -- so generous -- so
brave -- so every thing that we are apt to like in a young man.
His conduct under trial, too, was so lofty and intrepid! The noble
indignation with which he repelled the charge of treason against
his country -- the eloquent vindication of his name -- and his
pathetic appeal to posterity, in the hopeless hour of condemnation
-- all these entered deeply into every generous bosom, and even
his enemies lamented the stem policy that dictated his execution.

"But there was one heart, whose anguish it would be impossible to
describe. In happier days and fairer fortunes, he had won the
affections of a beautiful and interesting girl, the daughter of a
late celebrated Irish banister. She loved him with the
disinterested fervour of a woman's first and early love. When
every worldly maxim arrayed itself against him; when blasted in
fortune, and disgrace and danger darkened around his name, she
loved him the more ardently for his very sufferings. If, then, his
fate could awaken the sympathy even of his foes, what must have
been the agony of her whose soul was occupied by his image! Let
those tell who have had the portals of the tomb suddenly closed
between them and the being they most loved on earth -- who have
sat at its threshold, as one shut out in a cold and lonely world,
front whence all that was most lovely and loving had departed.

"But then the horrors of such a grave! so frightful, so
dishonoured! There was nothing for memory to dwell on that could
soothe the pang of separation -- none of those tender, though
melancholy circumstances, that endear the parting scene -- nothing
to melt sorrow into those blessed tears, sent, like the dews of
heaven, to revive the heart in the parching hour of anguish.

"To render her widowed situation more desolate, she had incurred
her father's displeasure by her unfortunate attachment, and was an
exile from the paternal roof. But could the sympathy and kind
offices of friends have reached a spirit so shocked and driven in
by horror, she would have experienced no want of consolation; for
the Irish are a people of quick and generous sensibilities. The
most delicate and cherishing attentions were paid her by families
of wealth and distinction. She was led into society, and they
tried by all kinds of occupation and amusement to dissipate he:
grief, and wean her from the tragical story of her lover. But it
was all in vain. There are some strokes of calamity that scathe
and scorch the soul -- that penetrate to the vital seat of
happiness -- and blast it, never again to put forth bud or
blossom. She never objected to frequent the haunts of pleasure,
but she was as much alone there as in the depth of solitude. She
walked about in a sad reverie, apparently unconscious of the world
around her. She carried with her an inward woe that mocked at all
the blandishments of friendship, and heeded not the song of the
charmer, charm he never so wisely.

"The person who told me her story had seen her at a masquerade.
There can he no exhibition of far-gone wretchedness more striking
and painful than to meet it in such a scene. To find it wandering
like a spectre, lonely and joyless, where all around is gay -- to
see it dressed out in the trappings of mirth, and looking so wan
and woe-begone, as if it had tried in vain to cheat the poor heart
into a momentary forgetfulness of sorrow. After strolling through
the splendid rooms and giddy crowd with an utter air of
abstraction, she sat herself down on the steps of an orchestra,
and looking about some time with a vacant air, that showed her
insensibility of the garish scene, she began, with the
capriciousness of a sickly heart, to warble a little plaintive
air. She had an exquisite voice; but on this occasion it was so
simple, so touching, it breathed forth such a soul of
wretchedness, that she drew a crowd mute and silent around her,
and melted every one into tears.

"The story of one so true and tender could not but excite great
interest in a country remarkable for enthusiasm. It completely won
the heart of a brave officer, who paid his addresses to her, and
thought that one so true to the dead could not but prove
affectionate to the living. She declined his attentions, for her
thoughts were irrevocably en grossed by the memory of her former
lover. He, however, persisted in his suit. He solicited not her
tenderness, but her esteem. He was assisted by her conviction of
his worth, and her sense of her own destitute and dependent
situation; for she was existing on the kindness of her friends. In
a word, he at length succeeded in gaining her hand, though with
the solemn assurance that her heart was unalterably another's.

"He took her with him to Sicily, hoping that a change of scene
might wear out the remembrance of early woes. She was an amiable
and exemplary wife, and made an effort to be a happy one; hut
nothing could cure the silent and devouring melancholy that bad
entered into her very soul. She wasted away in a slow, but
hopeless decline; and at length sank into the grave, the victim of
a broken heart."



FRANCIS SMITH
Condemned to Death on 13th of January, 1804, for the Murder of
the supposed Hammersmith Ghost, but pardoned soon afterwards


SUPERSTITION of old, in the beginning of the enlightened year
1804, was revived in the vicinity of Hammersmith, near London,
where the inhabitants were possessed with an opinion that a ghost
haunted their neighbourhood; but the fancied spectre was proved to
be composed of human flesh and blood, which were unfortunately
mangled and shed unto death by the unhappy man whose case is
now before us.

The wanton performer of the pretended spirit merited severe
punishment, for, with the frogs to the mischievous boys who were
pelting them with stones, the victims might truly have said: " It is
sport to you, but death to us." Besides the poor man who lost his
life, being mistaken for this mimic ghost, Francis Smith, who was
an excise officer, was condemned to die for the murder.

One poor woman in particular, when crossing near the churchyard
about ten o'clock at night, beheld something, as she described, rise
from the tombstones. The figure was very tall and very white. She
attempted to run; but the ghost soon overtook her, and pressed her 
in his arms, when she fainted; in which situation she remained
some hours, till discovered by some neighbours, who kindly led
her home, when she took to her bed, from which, alas, she never
rose.

Neither man, woman nor child could pass that way, and the report
was that it was the apparition of a man who had cut his throat in
the neighbourhood a year before. Several lay in wait different
nights for the ghost; but there were so many by-lanes and paths
leading to Hammersmith that he was always sure of being on that
which was unguarded and every night played off his tricks, to the
terror of the passengers.

Francis Smith, doubtless incensed at the unknown person who was
in the habit of assuming this supernatural character, and thus
frightening the superstitious inhabitants of the village, rashly
determined on watching for, and shooting, the ghost; when,
unfortunately, he shot a poor innocent man, Thomas Millwood, a
bricklayer, who was in a white dress, the usual habiliment of his
occupation. This rash act was judged as wilful murder by the
coroner's inquest, and Smith was accordingly committed to jail. He
took his trial at the ensuing sessions at the Old Bailey, 13th of
January, when Mr John Locke, wine-merchant, living in
Hammersmith, stated that on the 3rd of January, about half-past ten
in the evening, he met the prisoner, who told him he had shot a
man whom he believed to be the pretended ghost of Hammersmith.
A rumour of a ghost walking about at night had prevailed for a
considerable time. He went with the prisoner, in company with Mr
Stowe and a watchman, up Limekiln Lane to Black Lion Lane,
where the deceased was lying, apparently dead.

The witness and Mr Stowe consulted together upon what was
proper to be done, and they directly sent for the high constable.
The body had no appearance of life; there was a shot in the left
jaw. The prisoner was much agitated. The witness told him the
consequences likely to result from his misconduct. The prisoner
replied that he fired, but did not know the person whom he had
shot; he also said that, before he fired, he spoke twice to the
deceased, but received no answer.

Mr Const, for the prisoner, cross-examined this witness. For five
weeks previous to this melancholy catastrophe the ghost had been
the subject of general conversation in Hammersmith. He had never
seen it. The dress in which the ghost was said to appear
corresponded with that worn by the deceased, being white. The
deceased had on white trousers, down to his shoes; a white apron
round him, and a flannel jacket on his body. The ghost sometimes
appeared in white, and frequently in a calf's skin.

The prisoner was so agitated when the witness met him that he
could scarcely speak. The deceased, after the prisoner called out,
continued to advance towards him, which augmented his fear so
much that he fired. The witness described the evening as very dark.
Black Lion Lane was very dark at all times, being between hedges;
and on that evening it was so very obscure that a person on one
side of the road could not distinguish an object on the other.

The prisoner, when he first mentioned the accident, expressed to
the witness his wish that he would take him into custody, or send
for some person to do so. The prisoner was a man mild and
humane, and of a generous temper.

William Girdle, the watchman, in Hammersmith, after stating that
he went to the spot with Mr Locke, described the posture in which
the deceased was found. He was lying on his back, stretched out,
and quite dead. On his crossexamination the witness said that he
had seen the supposed ghost himself on the Thursday before, being
the 29th of December. It was covered with a sheet or large
tablecloth. He encountered it opposite the fourth milestone, and
pursued it, but without success, as the spirit pulled off the sheet
and ran. The alarm had been very great for six weeks or two
months, and many people had been terribly frightened. He knew
the prisoner, and he was nothing like a cruel man.

Anne Millwood, sister to the deceased, said her brother was in his
usual working dress. She had heard great talk of a ghost stalking
up and down the neighbourhood, all in white, with horns and glass 
eyes, but she did not know that anybody had ever watched in order
to discover and detect the impostor.

For the defence the prisoner's counsel called Mrs Fullbrook,
mother-in-law to the deceased. She said that on the Saturday
evening before his death he told her that two ladies and a
gentleman had taken fright at him, as he was coming down the
terrace, thinking he was the ghost. He told them he was no more a
ghost than any of them, and asked the gentleman if he wished for a
punch in the head. The witness advised the deceased in future to
put on a greatcoat, in order that he might not encounter any danger.

Thomas Groom was called to prove that some supernatural being
actually visited the town of Hammersmith. He said he was servant
to Mr Burgess, a brewer, and that as he and a fellow-servant were
going through the churchyard one night, something, which he did
not see, caught hold of him by the throat.

A number of witnesses were then called to the prisoner's character,
which they described as mild and gentle in the extreme.

The Lord Chief Baron, in his address to the jury, said that,
however disgusted the jury might feel in their own minds with the
abominable person guilty of the misdemeanour of terrifying the
neighbourhood, still the prisoner had no right to construe such
misdemeanour into a capital offence, or to conclude that a man
dressed in white was a ghost. It was his own opinion, and was
confirmed by those of his learned brethren on the bench, that if the 
facts stated in evidence were credible, the prisoner had committed
murder. In this case there was a deliberate carrying of a loaded
gun, which the prisoner concluded he was entitled to fire, but
which he really was not; and he did fire it, with a rashness which
the law did not excuse.

The jury retired for above an hour, and returned a verdict of guilty
of manslaughter.

On hearing this verdict, it was stated by the Bench that such a
judgment could not be received in this case, for it ought to be
either a verdict of murder or of acquittal. If the jury believed the
facts, there was no extenuation that could be admitted; for
supposing that the unfortunate man was the individual really meant
to have been shot, the prisoner would have been guilty of murder.
Even with respect to civil processes: if an officer of justice used a
deadly weapon it was murder if he occasioned death by it, even
although he had a right to apprehend the person he had so killed.

Mr Justice Rooke said "The Court have no hesitation whatever
with regard to the law, and therefore the verdict must be 'guilty of
murder,' or 'a total acquittal from want of evidence.'"

Mr Justice Lawrence said: "You have heard the opinion of the
whole Court is settled as to the law on this point, it is therefore
unnecessary for me to state mine in particular. Upon every point of
view this case is, in the eye of the law, a murder, if it be proved by
the facts. Whether it has or not is for you to determine, and return 
your verdict accordingly. The law has been thus stated by Justice
Foster and all the most eminent judges."

The recorder said: "I perfectly agree with the learned judges who
have spoken. Gentlemen, consider your verdict again."

The jury then turned round and, after a short consultation, returned
their verdict "guilty."

The Lord Chief Baron said: "The case, gentlemen, shall be
reported to his Majesty immediately."

The recorder then passed sentence of death on the prisoner in the
usual form; which was, that he should be executed on Monday
next, and his body given to the surgeons to be dissected.

The prisoner, who was dressed in a suit of black clothes, was then
twenty-nine years of age, a short but well-made man, with dark
hair and eyebrows; and the pallid hue of his countenance during
the whole trial, together with the signs of contrition which he
exhibited, commanded the sympathy of every spectator. When the
dreadful word "guilty" was pronounced he sank into a state of
stupefaction exceeding despair. He at last retired, supported by the
servants of Mr Kirby.

The Lord Chief Baron having told the jury, after they had given
their verdict, that he would immediately report the case to his
Majesty, was so speedy in this humane office that a "respite during
pleasure" arrived at the Old Bailey before seven o clock, and on
the 25th he received a pardon, on condition of being imprisoned
one year.



ANN HURLE
Executed before Newgate, 8th of February, 1804, for Forgery, at
the Age of Twenty-two


ANN Hurle, only twenty-two years of age, was on Saturday, 14th
of January, 1804, capitally indicted at the Old Bailey for having
forged and counterfeited, uttered and published, as true, in the City
of London, a letter of attorney, with the name of Benjamin Allin
thereunto subscribed, purporting to have been signed, sealed and
delivered by a gentleman of that name, residing in Greenwich, in
the county of Kent, a proprietor of certain annuities and stock,
transferable at the Bank of England, called "Three per Cent.
Reduced Annuities," for the purpose of transferring the sum of five
hundred pounds of said annuities to herself, with an intent to
defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, 
against the statute.

George Francillon, a stockbroker, said he was acquainted with the
prisoner at the bar for five or six months, and recollected her
applying to him on Saturday, the 10th of December, at the Bank
Coffee-House, requesting him to take out a power of attorney for
the sale of five hundred pounds Reduced. She told the witness it
was to be taken out of the stock of a Mr Benjamin Allin, of
Greenwich, who, she said, was an elderly gentleman; she also said
she had been brought up in his family from her infancy, and that
her aunt had been for many years housekeeper and nurse to Mr
Allin. The prisoner then said that this five hundred pounds stock
was a gift Mr Allin had made to her for her great attention to him
during her stay at his house. The witness, on hearing this, took out
a power of attorney from the bank office, and delivered it to her
that same day, when he desired her to take it to Greenwich, in
order to get it executed. She told the witness she would have it
executed that afternoon and return with it on the Monday morning,
in order to transfer the stock into her own name. She accordingly
brought back the deed on Monday morning, at eleven o'clock,
executed in the name of Benjamin Allin. He then desired her to
wait a few minutes till he went to the proper office at the bank, in
order to have the power passed; and as she had said she was
inclined to sell the stock, he told her he would inquire the price of
it in the market and let her know. Having left the power of attorney
at the bank, he returned in about twenty minutes afterwards, and
the clerk of that office told him that Mr Bateman, the clerk who
passed the powers, desired to see him. He accordingly went, in
company with the prisoner, to the gentleman, who said that the
signature of Benjamin Allin differed from that gentleman's
handwriting which they had at the bank. The witness told Mr
Bateman he did not know Mr Allin, but only Ann Hurle, who
wished the power of attorney. She, on being questioned by Mr
Bateman, said she had been brought up in Mr Allin's family from a
child, that he was a very old man -- nearly ninety years of age, in a
very infirm state of health, and, if the handwriting differed, she
could account for it in no other way but by his not being
accustomed to writing, which might occasion some difference in
the signature; but if it was necessary she said she would take out a
fresh power of attorney.

Benjamin Allin said he resided at Greenwich, and had a person of
the name of Jane Hurle in his service, and knew Ann Hurle, her
niece, but had not been much in her company, nor in any company
whatever. On being shown the power of attorney, he deposed that
it was not in his handwriting, and that he had not signed any paper
since the first day of December.

The prisoner was called on for her defence, but she made none,
saying she left it to her counsel. No witnesses were adduced to
speak in her behalf. She was much affected, and fainted twice 
during the trial. The jury, after deliberating a short time, returned a
verdict of guilty.

The unfortunate Ann Hurle was ordered for execution. She was
brought out of the debtors' door in Newgate at eight o'clock. The
mode of execution by the drop having been for the time changed to
that of the common gallows, she was put into a cart and drawn to
the place of execution, in the widest part of the Old Bailey, where
she expiated her offences in penitence and prayer. When the halter
was fixed she seemed inclined to speak, but her strength evidently
failed, and she was incapable. Her appearance, upon the whole,
excited emotions of compassion among the spectators, who at last
became so clamorous that the sheriff, in a loud voice, described to
them the impropriety of their behaviour; after which they were
more silent. The cap was then pulled over the face of the sufferer
and the cart drawn away. As it was going she gave a faint scream,
and for two or three minutes after she was suspended she appeared
to be in great agony, moving her hands up and down frequently.



ROBERT ASLETT
Assistant Cashier of the Bank of England. Condemned to Death for
embezzling Exchequer Bills to a Large Amount, entrusted to his
Charge, and respited during his Majesty's Pleasure, 18th of
November, 1804


ROBERT ASLETT had been in the employ of the Governor and
Company of the Bank of England for about twenty-five years, and
had conducted himself faithfully and meritoriously until he had
been induced, unfortunately, to speculate in the funds; and, in
dereliction to that duty and fidelity which he owed to his
employers, had subtracted immense sums from the property
entrusted to his care.

In the year 1799, having gone through the necessary and regular
gradations, he was appointed one of the cashiers. It was a part of
the business of the bank to purchase Exchequer bills, to supply the
exigencies of Government; the purchases were entrusted to the
care of a very meritorious and excellent officer (Mr A. Newland),
but on account of that gentleman's growing infirmities --he having
been fifty-eight years in the service of the bank -- the management
was left wholly under the care and direction of Mr Aslett. These
purchases were made of Mr Goldsmid, by means of Mr
Templeman, the broker. It was usual to make out the bills in the
name of the person from whom they were purchased, and then
deliver them to Mr Aslett to examine, and he entered them in what
is called the bought-book, and then gave orders to the cashiers to
reimburse the broker. The bills were afterwards deposited in a
strong chest kept in Mr Newland's room, and when they had
increased in bulk by subsequent purchases they were selected by
Mr Aslett, tied up in large bundles, and carried to the parlour --
that is to say, the room in which the directors held their meetings --
accompanied by one of the clerks with the original book of entry,
when the directors in waiting received the envelopes and deposited
them in the strong iron chest, which had three keys, and to which
none but the directors had access; nor could they be brought forth
until the course of payment, unless by consent of at least two of the
directors. Therefore it was not possible for them to find their way
into the hands of the public or the money market unless embezzled
for that purpose.

On the 26th of February, 1804, Mr Aslett, according to this
practice, made up three envelopes of Exchequer bills, the first
containing bills to the amount of one hundred thousand pounds; the
second, two hundred thousand pounds, and the third, four hundred
thousand pounds; making in the whole seven hundred thousand
pounds. These were, or in fact ought to have been, carried into the 
parlour and signed as being received by two of the directors,
Messrs Paget and Smith; one of these bundles -- namely, that
containing the two hundred thousand pounds' worth of bills -- was
withdrawn. The confidence which the Governor and Company
placed in Mr Aslett had enabled him to conceal the transaction
from the 26th of February to the 9th of April, and it was next to an
impossibility that it should be discovered, as no period of payment
had arrived; but on that day, in consequence of an application
made by Mr Bish, the whole was discovered.

On the 16th of March Mr Aslett went to that gentleman and
requested he would purchase for him fifty thousand pounds'
Consols., to which request no objection was made, provided he
deposited the requisite securities. The fluctuation of the market at
that time was six per cent., and Aslett, in order to cover any deficit,
deposited with Mr Bish three Exchequer bills, Nos. 341, 1060,
2694, which he knew had been previously deposited in the bank.
From some circumstances, and from his general knowledge of the
whole of the business of the funds, Mr Bish suspected all was not
right, and accordingly went to the bank, where an investigation
took place, at which Mr B. Watson, one of the directors, was
present. Mr Newland was sent for and asked whether any of the
Exchequer bills could, by possibility, get into the market again
from the bank. He answered in the negative, observing they were a
dormant security. The same question was put to Mr Aslett, and the
same answer given by him. It was found necessary to tell him that
the bills in question, which could be proved to have been in the
bank, had found their way into the money-market; and at the same
time it was observed that he had made purchases, to a large
amount, of stock with the bills. This was acknowledged by him;
but he said he had done so for a friend named Hosier, residing at
the west end of the town, and he declared they were not bank
property, nor to be found in the bought-book.

The directors, however, were not satisfied on this point, and he was
immediately secured. His trial was, however, postponed till July,
as it had occurred to those employed in the prosecution that the
bills in question had been issued with an informality in them, not
having the signature of the Auditor of the Exchequer. They were
aware of the objections that might be taken, and as Parliament was
not then sitting it was thought advisable to postpone the trial, lest it
might create an alarm in the money market. The fact was no sooner
known than a Bill was brought into Parliament for remedying those
defects, and to render the bills valid.

On Friday, the 8th of July, 1804, Mr Aslett's trial commenced. Mr
Garrow, on the part of the prosecution, stated the facts above
mentioned; but when about to call witnesses to give evidence, Mr
Erskine insisted that the Exchequer bills, which the prisoner stood
charged with having stolen, were not good bills till the Act of
Parliament had made them so, and consequently that they were
pieces of waste paper when stolen. Chief Baron Macdonald, Mr
Justice Rooke and Mr Justice Lawrence concurred that the present
indictment could not be maintained; and the jury were accordingly
desired to acquit the prisoner. He was afterwards tried on nine
other indictments, but the evidence being the same, Mr Garrow
applied to the Court to detain him in custody, it being, he said, the
intention of the bank directors to issue a civil process against him
for one hundred thousand pounds and upwards, the moneys paid
for the bills which he had converted to his own use.

On Saturday, 17th of September, at a quarter before ten o'clock,
Mr Aslett was again brought to the bar of the Old Bailey, before
Baron Chambre and Mr Justice Le Blanc. The prisoner was
attended by four or five gentlemen, who continued in the dock
during the whole time of the trial.

Three indictments were read, with two counts in each. The three
indictments charged the prisoner with secreting and embezzling
three notes, and, after considerable evidence had been given, the
jury returned a verdict of guilty.

Before sentence of death was pronounced he was wretchedly
dejected. When he was asked what he had to say why judgment of
death should not be passed upon him he answered: "Nothing; I
resign myself to my fate." He never looked up the whole time the
recorder was addressing him, and left the court under great
perturbation of mind. A report of his case was not made to the
King by the recorder till the 18th of November, when he was
respited during his Majesty's pleasure.



RICHARD HAYWOOD
A Violent and Hardened Sinner, who was executed along with
John Tennant, before Newgate, 30th of April, 1805, for Robbery


THIS Richard Haywood, alias Reginald Harwood, was indicted for
having stolen two bolsters and two pillows, valued at ten shillings,
the property of Richard Crabtree; and for cutting, with a certain
sharp instrument, Benjamin Chantry, in order to prevent his lawful
apprehension of him for the said felony.

Miss Jenkins, cousin to Mrs Crabtree, deposed that on Saturday
evening, the 20th of October, 1804, she and Mrs Wilson, in
consequence of some suspicions which they had, sat watching in
Mr Williamson's house, which was opposite to Mr Crabtree's, No.
11 Thayer Street, Manchester Square. They saw two men go into
Mr Crabtree's house with a key. Thereupon Mrs Wilson went
downstairs, and the witness observed her cross over and knock at
Mr Crabtree's door. She saw the door open, but nothing else.

Mr Williamson said that he followed Mrs Wilson, and was, when
she knocked at Mr Crabtree's door, close to the step of it. He saw
two men come out of the house; one ran to the left, who, he
believed, made his escape; the other (the prisoner at the bar) made
a blow at Mrs Wilson, and ran to the right. The witness cried:
"Stop thief!" and he had not got above twenty yards before he was
stopped by a gentleman. The prisoner fell down in the middle of
the street, but got away from the gentleman. The witness never lost
sight of him till he was stopped by several people in Marylebone
Lane.

Henry Holford, a merchant, in Crutched Friars, said that as he was 
passing through Thayer Street, Manchester Square, he saw the
prisoner come out of the house, No.11, and make a violent blow at
a lady. He immediately ran towards Hind Street, and came so close
to the witness that he seized him. He struggled, and made a blow at
the witness's head, which he avoided, and the prisoner fell. The
witness saw something in his hand, which he afterwards
understood to be an iron crow. The witness returned the blow, and
the prisoner fell. He got up again, and turned, and escaped for a
moment. The witness pursued him down two small streets, and
kept sight of him till he saw Chantry at the door of his own house.
The witness called out to him: "Stop thief!" Chantry laid hold of
him immediately. The witness told Chantry to take care, for he had
an iron crow in his hand. Chantry looked round, and a few
moments afterwards the prisoner lifted up his hand and made a
violent blow at him with the iron. He was then taken to the watch-
house, and the iron crow was delivered to the officer.

After conviction he behaved with shocking depravity. His fellow-
sufferer was John Tennant, who had been ordered for execution
along with Haywood. When the keeper went to warn them of their
approaching execution they behaved in so determined and riotous a
manner that it was necessary to secure them with irons to the floor.
Haywood, who was supposed to have procured a knife from his
wife when she was permitted to see him, rushed upon the keeper,
during the altercation, and would have stabbed him with it if he
had not left the cell. They uttered the most horrid imprecations;
and, after declaring in cant terms that they would die game,
threatened to murder the ordinary if he attempted to visit them.
Their behaviour in other respects was so abandoned that the
necessary attendants were deterred from further interference, and
left them to the dreadful fate which awaited them.

When told it was time to be conducted to the scaffold, Haywood
cheerfully attended the summons; he first ate some bread and
cheese, and drank a quantity of coffee. Before he departed,
however, he called out in a loud voice to the prisoners, who were
looking through the upper windows at him: "Farewell, my lads; I
am just going off. God bless you." "We are sorry for you," replied
the prisoners. "I want none of your pity," rejoined Haywood; "keep
your snivelling till it be your own turn." 	Immediately he
arrived on the scaffold, which he ran upon with great agility, with a
loud laugh he gave the mob three cheers, introducing each with a
"Hip, ho!" While the cord was being prepared he continued
hallooing to the mob: "How are you? Well, here goes!" He then
gave another halloo, and kicked off his shoes among the spectators,
many of whom were deeply affected at the obduracy of his
conduct. Soon afterwards the platform dropped.



HENRY PERFECT
A most plausible Begging-Letter Swindler, transported to Botany
Bay, in April, 1805


HENRY PERFECT was the son of a clergyman in Leicestershire,
and had been a lieutenant in the 69th Regiment of Foot. He was
twice married, and had had considerably property with each wife.
Being at length found out in his impositions, which he carried out
by means of begging letters, he was indicted on the statute of
George II. for obtaining money under false pretences from the Earl
of Clarendon. His trial, which occupied the whole of the day, and
excited universal attention, came on at the Middlesex Sessions,
Hicks's Hall, 27th of October, 1804. Mr Gurney, in a very able and
eloquent address, expatiated on the enormous guilt of the prisoner,
who had personated the various and imaginary characters of the
Rev. Mr Paul, the Rev. Daniel Bennet, Mrs Grant, Mrs Smith, etc.,
and who also had had the art of varying his handwriting on every
occasion, having kept notes in what hand every original letter had
been written, with what kind of wafer or wax it was scaled, etc. He
likewise kept his book of accounts, as regular as any merchant in
London. When his lodgings were searched a book was found, in
his own handwriting, giving an account of money received (by
which it appeared that he had plundered the public to the amount
of four hundred and eighty-eight pounds within two years), with a
list of the donors' names, among whom were the Duchess of
Beaufort, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lord Littleton, Lady
Howard, Lady Mary Duncan, Bishops of London, Salisbury and
Durham, Earls of Kingston and Radnor, Lord C. Spencer, Hon.
Mrs Fox, etc.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the Court sentenced him to
seven years' transportation. He was sent to Botany Bay in April,
1805.



ELIZABETH BARBER ALIAS DALY
Who smoked her Pipe after murdering a Pensioner. Executed near
Maidstone, 25th of May, 1805


ELIZABETH BARBER was born in King Street, Deptford, and
she married an honest waterman, by whom she bore children.
Barber's good conduct obtained him an excellent situation in the
custom-house, while his wife was ruining him by her flagitious
conduct. She was soon beyond all control. Once she stabbed a man
of the name of Thomas Seerles, for which she was indicted, and
imprisoned at Maidstone for twelve calendar months. This,
however, proved no check to her fury, for, having formed an
intimacy with John Dennis Daly, a poor college man, at
Greenwich, she murdered him, on the 14th of October, 1804, by
stabbing him in the breast with a knife, for which she was sent to
Maidstone Jail.

Ann Ward stated that she lived in the room under the prisoner's, at
Greenwich; she heard a trampling over her head, as though of
persons scuffling. This was half-an-hour before she heard the cry
of "Murder!" and she heard Mrs Daly, the prisoner, say: "I'll do it -
- I'll do it! I will not put up with it!" About half-an-hour afterwards
she heard the prisoner open the door and cry out: "Murder! Bloody
murder! My husband has stabbed himself, and is dead enough.
Will nobody come to my assistance?" The witness called the
woman who lived underneath in the kitchen, and both went
upstairs with the prisoner. When they got up, they saw Daly sitting
in a chair with his head hanging on his left shoulder; the bosom of
his shirt was open, and the wound on his breast was washed very
clean. The prisoner was all the time smoking her pipe very
unconcernedly, merely observing that he had stabbed himself.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned judge
immediately pronounced sentence of death. She was aged fifty-
three. When sentence of death was passed upon her, she begged
her body of the judge for her children.

Her dress on the day of execution (which took place on 25th of
March, 1805, on Pennenden Heath) was very decent; and from the
time of her quitting the prison to the fatal drop she never uttered a
sentence. Before leaving the prison, however, she made an ample
confession of her guilt.



WILLIAM CUBITT
Executed in November, 1805, for stealing valuable Jewellery from
the Earl of Mansfield


WILLIAM CUBITT was in the service of the Earl of Mansfield,
and was convicted of stealing a gold snuff-box, set with brilliants,
the property of that nobleman.

Lady Mansfield appeared upon his trial, and stated that the
prisoner lived in their service, and was chiefly employed by her as
groom of the chambers. She discharged him by Lord Mansfield's
directions, who was then at Ramsgate. Some time between the 26th
and 30th of July she had the snuff-box in question in her care. It
was blue enamel on gold, with a miniature of the Emperor Joseph
II. on the top, set round with brilliants. The last time she
recollected seeing it was some time in May, before they went to
Caen Wood. She kept it in a cabinet, in the organ-room, at their
house in Portland Place. She knew nothing of the loss of it until
they received the magistrate's letter at Ramsgate, and then, upon a
search, she found that the box had been lost.

J. Dobree, jeweller, stated that on the 15th of August the prisoner
came to his house and wanted to purchase a gold chain which was
in the window. Having agreed for the price of it, he asked if he
would take old gold in return. Being answered in the affirmative,
he produced the fragments of a snuff-box, which the witness saw
had been of curious workmanship. He called his journeyman aside
and conversed with him for a moment on the subject, and then
asked the prisoner where he had got that gold. He replied that he
had got it from a servant. The witness, in answer, said he was sure
it was no servant's property, and that he should not go away until
he had given an account of it. The prisoner then snatched up the
pieces of gold that lay upon the counter and ran out of the shop.
The witness followed him, overtook, and apprehended him. He
was immediately carried to Marlborough Street office.

Foy and Lovatt, the two police officers belonging to Marlborough
Street office, said that the prisoner, on his examination, told the
magistrate he lived at No. 21 Bolsover Street. They, in
consequence, went to search his lodgings. They found in a drawer
twelve brilliants, the crystal of a miniature picture, and under the
fire, half-burned, discovered the remains of a miniature painting.

Lord Mansfield examined the broken pieces of gold found on the
prisoner, and declared he was convinced, from the workmanship,
that they were part of the box he had lost. The brilliants were the
same sort as those round the miniature, but he could not swear that
they were the same. He was positive, however, to the remains of
the miniature. The face was destroyed; but the breast, with the
Austrian orders, remained visible. He added that the box was a gift
from the late Emperor Joseph II. to his great-uncle, on leaving
Vienna. He did not know the exact value, but he presumed
somewhere about two hundred guineas. The jury found the
prisoner guilty.

He and two other malefactors were executed, pursuant to their
sentence, on Wednesday morning, 13th of November, 1805, at
half-past eight o'clock, at the usual place in the Old Bailey.



THOMAS PICTON, ESQ.
Late Governor of Trinidad. Convicted 24th of February, 1806, of
applying Torture, in order to extort Confession from a Girl


THE indictment on which Governor Picton was brought to trial
charged him with inflicting torture, in order to extort confession of
Louisa Calderon, one of his Majesty's subjects in the island of
Trinidad, in the West Indies.

Mr Garrow addressed the jury, and said that although he should
acquit himself zealously of the obligation imposed upon him to
bring to light, and condign punishment, an offence so flagrant as
that charged upon the defendant, yet much more happy would he
be to find that there was no ground upon which the charge could be
supported, and that the British character was not stained by the
adoption of so cruel a measure as that alleged in this prosecution.

"The island of Trinidad," added Mr Garrow, "surrendered to that
illustrious character, Sir Ralph Abercromby, in the year 1797; and
he entered into a stipulation, by which he conceded to the
inhabitants the continuance of their laws, and appointed a new
governor, until his Majesty's pleasure should be known, or, in other
words, until the King of England, in his paternal character, should
extend to this new acquisition to his empire all the sacred
privileges of the laws of England. I have the authority of the
defendant himself for stating that the system of jurisprudence
adopted under the Spanish monarch, for his colonial
establishments, was benignant, and adapted to the protection of the
subject, previous to the surrender of this island to the British arms.

"In December, 1801, when this crime was perpetrated, Louisa
Calderon was of the tender age of ten or eleven years. At that early
period she had been induced to live with a person of the name of
Pedro Ruiz, as his mistress; and although it appears to us very
singular that she should sustain such a situation at that time of life,
yet it is a fact that, in this climate, women often become mothers at
twelve years old, and are in a state of concubinage if, from their
condition, they could not form a more honourable connection.
While she lived with Ruiz she was engaged in an intrigue with
Carlos Gonzalez, the pretended friend of the former, who robbed
him of a quantity of dollars. Gonzalez was apprehended, and she
also, as some suspicion fell upon her in consequence of the affair.
She was taken before the justice, as we, in our language, should
denominate him, and, in his presence, she denied having any
concern in the business. The magistrate felt that his powers were at
an end; and whether the object of her denial were to protect
herself, or her friend, is not material to the question before you.
The extent of his authority being thus limited, this officer of justice
resorted to General Picton; and I have to produce, in the
handwriting of the defendant, this bloody sentence: 'Inflict the
Torture upon Louisa Calderon.' You will believe there was no
delay in proceeding to its execution. The girl was informed in the
jail that if she did not confess she would be subjected to the
torture; that under the process she might probably lose her limbs or
her life, but the calamity would be on her own head, for if she
would confess she would not be required to endure it. While her
mind was in the state of agitation this notice produced, her fears
were aggravated by the introduction of two or three negresses into
her prison, who were to suffer under the same experiment as a
means of extorting confession of witchcraft. In this situation of
alarm and horror the young woman persisted in her innocence: the
punishment was inflicted, improperly called picketing, which is a
military punishment, perfectly distinct. This is not picketing, but
the torture. It is true the soldier exposed to this does stand with his
foot on a picket, or sharp piece of wood, but, in mercy to him, a
means of reposing on the rottindus major, or interior of the arm, is
afforded. This practice, I hope, will not in future be called
'Picketing,' but 'Pictoning,' that it may be recognised by the
dreadful appellation which belongs to it. Her position may be
easily described. The great toe was lodged upon a sharp piece of
wood, while the opposite wrist was suspended in a pulley, and the
other hand and foot were lashed together. Another time the horrid
ceremony was repeated, with this difference, that her feet were
changed."

[The learned counsel here produced a drawing in watercolours, in
which the situation of the sufferer, and the magistrate, executioner
and secretary, was described. He then proceeded:]

"It appears to me that the case, on the part of the prosecution, will
be complete when these facts are established in evidence; but I am
to be told that though the highest authority in this country could
not practise this on the humblest individual, yet that by the laws of
Spain it can be perpetrated in the island of Trinidad. I should
venture to assert that if it were written in characters impossible to
be understood, that if it were the acknowledged law of Trinidad, it
could be no justification of a British governor. Nothing could
vindicate such a person but the law of imperious necessity, to
which we must all submit. It was his duty to impress upon the
minds of the people of that colony the great advantages they would
derive from the benign influence of British jurisprudence; and that,
in consequence of being received within the pale of this
Government, torture would be for ever banished from the island. It
is therefore not sufficient for him to establish this sort of apology;
it is required of him to show that he complied with the institutions
under the circumstances of irresistible necessity. This governor
ought to have been aware that the torture is not known in England;
and that it never will be, never can be, tolerated in this country.

"The trial by rack is utterly unknown to the law of England, though
once, when the Dukes of Exeter and Suffolk and other Ministers of
Henry VI. had laid a design to introduce the civil law into this
kingdom, as the ruling government, for a beginning thereof they
erected a rack for torture, which was called in derision the Duke of
Exeter's daughter, and still remains in the Tower of London, where
it was occasionally used as an engine of state, not of law, more
than once in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. But when, upon the
assassination of Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, by Felton, it was
proposed in the Privy Council to put the assassin to the rack, in
order to discover his accomplices, the judges, being consulted,
declared unanimously, to their own honour and the honour of the
English law, that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of
England."

Louisa Calderon was then called. She appeared to be about
eighteen years of age, had a very interesting countenance, being a
mulatto or creole, and a very genteel appearance. She was dressed
in white, with a turban of white muslin, tied on in the custom of the
country. Her person was slender and graceful. She spoke English
but very indifferently, and was examined by Mr Adam through the
medium of a Spanish interpreter.

She deposed that she resided in the island of Trinidad in the year
1798, and lived in the house of Don Pedro Ruiz, and remembered
the robbery. She and her mother were taken up on suspicion, and
brought before Governor Picton, who committed them to prison,
under the escort of three soldiers. She was put into close
confinement; but before she was taken there, the Governor said
that if she did not confess who had stolen the money the hangman
would have to deal with her. She knew Bagora, the magistrate, or
Lord Mayor. He came to the prison and examined her on the
subject of the robbery many times, and on different days. De
Castro, the clerk of the magistrate, also attended, and took down 
her depositions.

She was then carried to the room where the torture was prepared.
Here her left hand was tied up to the ceiling by a rope, with a
pulley; her right hand was tied behind, so that her right foot and
hand came in contact, while the extremity of her left foot rested on
the wooden spike.

A drawing, representing the exact situation, with the negro holding
the rope by which she was suspended, was then shown to her,
when she gave a shudder, expressive of horror, which nothing but
the most painful recollection of her situation could have excited;
on which Mr Garrow expressed his concern that his Lordship was
not in a position to witness this accidental, but conclusive,
evidence of the fact.

Lord Ellenborough objected to the exhibition of this drawing to the
jury until Mr Dallas, on the part of his client, permitted it to be
shown to them. The examination then proceeded, and the
remainder of Louisa Calderon's evidence corroborated the
statement of Mr Garrow. She remained upon the spike three-
quarters of an hour, and the next day twenty-two minutes. She
swooned away each time before she was taken down, and was then
put into irons, called the "Grillos", which were long pieces of iron,
with two rings for the feet, fastened to the wall; and in this
situation she remained eight months. A drawing of this instrument
was also produced, which the witness said was an exact
representation.

The effect from this picketing was excruciating pain; her wrists
and ankles were much swollen, and the former still bore the marks.
In reply to a question by Lord Ellenborough, she said her feet were
without shoes and stockings.

The jailer, Bagora the magistrate, Francisco de Castro, and
Raphael, an alguazil, with the executioner, were present at these
picketings.

Don Rafael Shandoz, an alguazil in the island, bore testimony to
his having seen the girl immediately after the application of the
torture. The apartment, in which she was afterwards confined, was 
like a garret, with sloping sides, and the grillos were so placed that,
by the lowness of the room, she could by no means raise herself
up, during the eight months of her confinement. There was no
advocate appointed to attend on her behalf, and no surgeon to
assist her. No one but a negro, belonging to Ballot the gaoler, to
pull the rope. The witness had been four or five years in the post of
alguazil. He never knew the torture inflicted in the island, until the
arrival of the defendant. There had been before no instrument for
the purpose. The first he saw was in the barracks among the
soldiers. Before Louisa Calderon, the instrument had been
introduced into the gaol perhaps about six months. The first person
he saw tortured in Trinidad was by direction of the defendant, who
said to the gaoler, 'Go and fetch the black man to the picket-guard,
and put him to the torture.' After the Sght months' confinement,
both Carlos and Louisa were discharged.

Don Juan Montes said that he was acquainted with the handwriting
of the defendant, and proved the document containing the order of
the torture, expressed in these terms
"Aplicase la question a Louisa Calderon.
(ie. put Louisa Calderon to the torture or the question.)
	(Signed ) " THOMAS PICTON."
After some observations from Mr Dallas, which were answered by
Mr Garrow, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the application of the
Alcayde Beggerrat, which led to the issue of this order should be
read.

Mr Lowton then read the representation of this officer, advising
that slight torture should be applied, stating that his own authority
was incompetent to do it without the order of the Governor, and
giving the result of the proceedings in the course of the
examinations Louisa Calderon had undergone. The instrument was
countersigned by Francisco de Castro.

Mr Dallas, for the defendant, rested his defence upon the following
statements:-

First. By the law of Spain, in the present instance, torture was
directed; and being bound to administer that law, he was
vindicated in its application.

Second. The order for the torture, if not unlawfully, was not
maliciously, issued.

Third. If it were unlawful, yet if the order were erroneously or
mistakenly issued, it was a complete answer to a criminal charge.

The learned counsel entered at considerable length into these
positions, during which he compared the law of Spain, as it
prevailed in Trinidad, with the law of England, as it existed in
some of our own islands; and he contended that the conduct of
General Picton was gentleness and humanity compared with what
might be practised with impunity under the authority of the British
Government.

Don Pedro de Bargass was sworn. He deposed that during the early
part of his life, he bad been regularly initiated and admitted to the
office of an advocate at the Spanish law-courts in the colonies; that
he had practised, after his admission, in the regular course, for two
years, and had resided, for a shorter or more extensive period at
five or six of the West Indian islands, in the pursuit of his
profession; and that, according to his knowledge of the Book of
Recapitulation, by which the laws are administered, there was
nothing contained in it to justify the infliction of torture, nor was
torture, to his knowledge, ever resorted to. He had not ever seen or
heard of instruments for torture being kept in the gaols, or
elsewhere.

In reply to a question, 'Do you know of any existing Spanish law
whatever, which warrants the application of torment?' he said, that
there was a law of Old Castile, of the year 1260, which justified it
in certain cases; but he never understood it extended to the West-
India colonies; and it had long been so abhorrent in Spain, that if
not repealed, it was fallen entirely into disuse.

In answer to a question from Lord Ellenborough, Mr Dallas said,
that he certainly was not prepared with any parole evidence, to
prove that the use of torture prevailed generally in the Spanish
West-Indies.

Mr Garrow said, that he looked at this case as he regarded the
honour of our country, and the redress of a stranger, who had
visited our land to procure it. If the defendant had had an English
heart in his bosom, he would have wanted no restrictive provisions
to have guarded from the commission of sanguinary acts. He
feared that it remained to the disgrace of the British name, that
general Picton was the first man to stretch authority, and order
torture to be established in the island of Trinidad. After a few other
animated observations Mr Garrow said, he left the case to the
decision of the jury, confidently anticipating their verdict.

The jury found there was no such law existing in the island of
Trinidad as that of torture at the time of the surrender of that island
to the British.

Lord Ellenborough said: "Then, gentlemen, General Picton cannot
derive any protection from a supposed law, after you have found
that no such law remained in that island at the surrender of it, and
when he became its Governor; therefore your verdict should be
that he is guilty."

By the direction of Lord Ellenborough they therefore found the
defendant guilty.

Mr Dallas moved, on the 25th of April, for a new trial. He stated
that the defendant was a person of respectability and character in
his Majesty's service, as Governor of the island of Trinidad. He
solicited for a new trial upon the following grounds:-

First. The infamous character of the girl, who lived in open
prostitution with Pedro Ruiz, and who had been privy to a robbery
committed upon her paramour by Carlos Gonzalez; and when a
complaint laid against her had been brought before a magistrate,
she, refusing to confess, had been ordered to be tortured.

Second. That Governor Picton, who condemned her to this torture,
did not proceed from any motives of malice, but from a conviction
that the right of torture was sanctioned by the laws of Trinidad; and
that he was rooted in this opinion by a reference to the legal
written authorities in that island.

Third. That whatever his conduct might be, it was certainly neither
personal malice nor disposition to tyranny, but resulted, if it should
prove to be wrong, from a misapprehension of the laws of
Trinidad.

Fourth. That one of the principal witnesses in this trial, M.
Vargass, had brought forward a book, entitled Recopilation des
Leys des Indes, expressly compiled for the Spanish colonies, which
did not authorise torture. The defendant had no opportunity of ever
seeing that book, but it had been purchased by the British
Institution at the sale of the Marquis of Lansdowne's library
subsequent to his trial; and, having consulted it, it appeared that
where that code was silent upon some criminal cases, recourse was
always to be had to the laws of Old Spain, and these laws, of
course, sanctioned the infliction of torture.

The Court, after some consideration, granted the rule to show
cause for a new trial. As the second trial, was attended with a
different result from that of the first, we think it no more than just
to the memory of Governor Picton to conclude our notice of this
affair with the following apology for his conduct, which is
extracted from a respectable monthly publication:

'In an evil hour the governor associated with him, in the
government of the island, the British naval commander on the
station, and Colonel Fullarton. This was, as might naturally have
been expected and as certainly was designed by one of the parties,
the origin of disputes and the source of anarchy. It is well known
that Fullarton, on his return to England, preferred charges against
Picton, which were taken into consideration by the Privy Council
and gave rise to a prosecution that lasted for several years. No
pains were spared to sully his character, to ruin his fortunes, and to
render him an object of public indignation. A little strumpet, by
name Louisa Calderon, who cohabited with a petty tradesman in
the capital of Trinidad, let another paramour into his house (of
which she had the charge) during his absence, who robbed him,
with her knowledge and privity, of all he was worth in the world.
The girl was taken before the regular judges of the place; who, in
the course of their investigation, ascertained the fact that she was
privy to the robbery, and therefore sentenced her, in conformity
with the laws of Spain, then prevalent in the island, to undergo the
punishment of the picket (the same as is adopted in our own
regiments of horse). But, as it was necessary that this sentence
should receive the governor's confirmation before it could be
carried into effect, a paper stating the necessity of it was sent to the
government-house, and the governor, by his signature, conveyed
his assent to the judges. The girl was accordingly picketed, when
she acknowledged the facts above stated and discovered her
accomplice. That the life of this girl was forfeited by the laws of
every civilized country is a fact that will not admit of dispute. Yet
clemency was here extended to her, and she was released, having
suffered only the punishment above stated, which was so slight,
that she walked a considerable distance to the prison, without the
least appearance of suffering, immediately after it was inflicted.
But what was the return for the lenity of the governor? He was ac
cused by Colonel Fullarton of having put this girl (whom he had
never even seen) to the torture, contrary to law; and the
caricaturists of England were enlisted in the service of persecution.
After a trial which seemed to have no end, after an expense of
seven thousand pounds (which must have completed his ruin, had
not his venerable uncle, General Picton, defrayed the whole costs
of the suit, while the expenses of his prosecutor were all paid by
the government) his honour and justice were established on the
firmest basis, and to the perfect satisfaction of every upright mind.'



RICHARD PATCH
Executed on the Top of the New Prison, in the Borough  of
Southwark, 8th of April, 1806, for Murder, after a Trial at which
accommodation was provided for the Royal Family


RICHARD PATCH was born in the year 1770, at the village of 
Heavytree, Devonshire, within two miles of Exeter. His father was
a smuggler, and was noted for a fierceness and intrepidity peculiar
to this class of men. Many feats were related of his dexterity and
enterprise in eluding and daring the officers of the excise, but he
was at length laid hold of by the officers of the revenue,
condemned in heavy fines, and sentenced to imprisonment for
twelve months in the New Jail at Exeter. When the period of his
confinement was at an end he did not, however, desert his station
in the prison, but was engaged by the keeper as one of the
turnkeys. In this situation he died, leaving several children, the
eldest of whom was Richard, who became a farmer, uniting with
his own paternal estate a small farm which he rented. It seems,
however, that he farmed with little success, as he was soon obliged
to mortgage his estate for more than one half of its value. Some
years, however, were passed at Ebmere, when an accident drove
him from his home. He went to London and immediately presented
himself at Mr Blight's, with whom his sister, at that time, lived as a
menial servant.

Richard had not been long in the service of Mr Blight when he,
naturally, cast a look towards his estate in Devonshire, and 
commenced a journey into that county for the purpose of making
an arrangement respecting it. Accordingly, in 1804, he disposed of
his land; for which, having first been obliged to clear off every
embarrassment, he received a net sum of three hundred and fifty
pounds, two hundred and fifty of which Mr Blight received for the
purpose hereafter mentioned, and the remaining hundred pounds
passed through the hands of his bankers, whom he probably
constituted as such upon the credit of this money.

The next year, 1805, on the 23rd of September, Mr Blight, who
was induced to come to town by means of Mr Patch, during the
absence of the latter was mortally wounded by a pistol, which was
secretly fired at him, and which occasioned his death the next day.
The case was particularly inquired into by A. Graham, Esq., the
magistrate, who, suspecting Patch of the horrid murder of his
friend and master, committed him to prison, and his trial came on
at the Surrey Assizes, continued by adjournment to Horsemonger
Lane, in the Borough, Saturday, 5th of April, 1806.

So great was the interest excited by the approaching investigation,
that by five o'clock in the morning a vast concourse of the
populace had surrounded the avenues to the sessions-house,
Horsemonger Lane. On the opening of the court it was with the
utmost difficulty that the law officers, and others whose
appearance was necessary, could obtain an entrance. The persons
of rank who obtained admission were the Dukes of Sussex,
Cumberland and Orleans; Lords Portsmouth, Grantley, Cranley,
Montford, William Russell, Deerhurst and G. Seymour; Sir John
Frederick, Sir John Shelley, Sir Thomas Turton, Sir William
Clayton, Sir J. Mawbcy; Count Woronzow, the Russian
Ambassador, and his secretary. The magistrates, who had met for
that purpose the preceding Wednesday, had made every
accommodation that the court would admit of. It was floored and
lined with matting, and the upper parts were covered with green
baize. New railing was put up on the sides and rear, and a box was
fitted up for the Royal Family.

The prisoner was conducted into court soon after nine o'clock, and
took his station at the bar, attended by two or three friends. He was
genteelly dressed in black, and perfect composure marked his
countenance and manner. Precisely at ten o'clock Lord Chief
Baron Macdonald took his seat on the bench, and the business of
the commission was opened by arraigning the prisoner in the usual
form. To the indictment he pleaded, in an audible voice, "Not
guilty," and put himself on his country.

He peremptorily challenged three jurors; after which a jury were
sworn, and the indictment read. Several witnesses were called, and
the jury pronounced a verdict of guilty.

His Lordship then proceeded to pronounce the awful sentence of
the law. He observed that the prisoner had begun his career of guilt
in a system of fraud towards his friend; he had continued it in
ingratitude, and had terminated it in blood. He then directed that he
should be executed on Monday, and his body delivered for
dissection.



CHARLES HEMMINGS AND GEORGE BEVAN
Bogus Bow Street Officers who robbed a Clergyman, and were
executed, April, 1806


THESE two men were tried at the Old Bailey in April 1806, for
robbery on the highway.

The Reverend Henry Craven Orde deposed that on the 24th of
March, 1806, he was suddenly attacked by the prisoners in
Southampton Street and robbed of his purse, containing a draft for 
eighteen pounds, a quantity of gold and silver, and several papers,
in a dark lane opposite Southampton Street.

The ruffians stated themselves to be Bow Street officers, who were
about to take charge of the clergyman for an offence if he did not
instantly give a sum in order to conceal it. Agitated by so sudden
an attack on his person, and fearing the threats that were
vociferated, he drew out his purse and gave the ruffians a seven-
shilling piece. He then attempted to get away, when his purse,
containing a draft for eighteen pounds drawn by his brother, the
Rev. John Norman Orde, was snatched from him, and the robbers
made off.

The next morning two persons went to the shop of Mr Lingham,
tailor, No. 280 Strand, and purchased two surtout coats, for which
they gave the eighteen-pound draft in payment. Bevan was the man
who gave the eighteen-pound draft for the surtout coats; and his
person having been described by Mr Lingham, Lovatt and Foy
apprehended him on the 31st of March, at the dead wall, in Savile
Row. One of the coats was found on Bevan.

Two days after the robbery Hemmings went to Mr Orde's and
returned the red leather purse to the Rev. John Norman Orde,
whom he mistook for the gentleman they had robbed, telling him
he was a Bow Street officer, that he could swear to him at any
time, and that he had, according to his advice, given the draft to
enjoin secrecy. He afterwards said that he was not a Bow Street
officer now, but had been one two months ago. He was detained by
the prosecutor's brother, who sent the servant for a constable.

The jury found them guilty; and they were executed pursuant to
their sentence.



JOHN DOCKE ROUVELETT ALIAS ROMNEY
After maliciously prosecuting a Woman he was executed at
Ilchester, at the Summer Assizes, 1806, in Somersetshire, for
Forgery


JOHN DOCKE ROUVELETT, a notorious swindler, was well
known at Bath, where he passed for a West Indian of considerable
fortune and family. He was about forty years of age, and had the
appearance of a creole. He lived with a woman of the name of
Elizabeth Barnet, who passed for his wife. Having been arrested
for debt, he was occasionally visited by this woman in the Fleet
Prison, and was afterwards removed, by habeas corpus, into
Somersetshire, on a charge of forgery.

Conscious that Elizabeth Barnet was the only witness against him,
by whose evidence he could be convicted of the forgery, as well as
of perjury, another case also pending -- Rouvelett having falsely
sworn a debt against Mr Dorant, of the York Hotel, Albemarle
Street -- he had her taken up for a supposed robbery, and charged
her with stealing his purse in the Fleet Prison, containing forty
guineas, half-a-guinea, and a valuable diamond. This case of
singular atrocity came on at the Old Bailey, Saturday, 5th of July,
1806. The young woman was fashionably attired, and her
appearance excited universal sympathy. Rouvelett was brought up
from Ilchester jail, ironed, to prosecute on his indictment. An
application was made to put off the trial, on the affidavit of the
prosecutor, which stated that some material witnesses at Liverpool
had not had sufficient notice to attend. The object of this attempt
was to prevent the woman appearing against him on his trial for
forgery, and also to prevent her becoming a witness against him in
the case of perjury, as already mentioned. The recorder saw
through the transactions, which he described as the most foul and
audacious that ever were attempted. He ordered the trial to
proceed.

Rouvelett, who called himself a gentleman, stated that the prisoner
was with him on the 11th of June, 1805, when he drew half-a-
guinea from his purse and gave it to a messenger; after which he
put the purse containing the property as stated in the indictment
into the pocket of a surtout coat, which was hanging up in the
room, in which was the ring, worth thirty pounds. There were no
other persons in the room but the prisoner and himself, and in
twenty minutes after she was gone he missed his property from the
greatcoat pocket. He concluded that the money was safe, as the
prisoner had gone to Dorant's hotel, Albemarle Street, and he did
not suppose her capable of robbing him. She, however, absconded,
and he never saw her again until she was arrested at his suit, jointly
with Dorant, in an action of trover for twenty thousand pounds for
deeds, mortgages and bonds, bearing interest, for which bail was
given. He had no opportunity of bringing her to justice for the
alleged robbery, being himself a prisoner. (The recorder here
remarked that the prosecutor could find the prisoner for a civil suit,
although he could not find her for the criminal act.)

On the cross-examination of the prosecutor he said he was born at
St Martin's, in the West Indies, and had been at most of the islands
in that quarter. His uncle was a planter in the West Indies, and he
lived on such means, whilst in England, as his family afforded him.
He was brought up in Amsterdam, at the house of Mr Hope,
banker; after which he became a lieutenant in the British Army
(the 87th Regiment). He knew Mr Hope, of Harley Street,
Cavendish Square, and Mr Hope knew him to be Mr Rouvelett, of
St Martin's, for the two families had been closely connected for a
hundred years. He lived in England on remittances from his uncle,
in goods or bills, but he had no property of his own. Messrs
Stephens & Boulton used to pay witness his remittances at
Liverpool, but he could not tell who paid them in London. The
recorder observed that the witness should not be pressed too far to
give an account of himself, as he (the prisoner) stood charged with
forgery. Being asked if he, the witness, had not said he would be
revenged on the prisoner, as she was intimate with Dorant, and
charge her with a felony, he answered that he did not recollect
having said so; but the question being pressed, he partly
acknowledged it. The purse, which was empty, witness
acknowledged was found under the pillow, on the 12th of June, the
day after the alleged robbery, by his room chum, a man of the
name of Cummings. The prisoner was with him in prison after the
12th of June, although he had said she had absconded.

The recorder did not suffer the cause to be further proceeded in,
and directed the jury to acquit the prisoner; he also observed this
was the most foul charge he had ever heard of.

The disgust of the persons in court as the fellow retired was
manifested by hisses and groans in such a manner as baffled the
efforts of the officers of justice for some time to suppress.

The trial of this malicious offender, who was thus happily
disappointed in his views, came on at Wells, on Tuesday, 12th of
August, 1806, before Baron Thompson, and excited uncommon
interest throughout the county of Somerset.

The prisoner, John Docke Romney alias Rouvelett, was indicted
for having feloniously and knowingly forged a certain bill of
exchange, dated Grenada, 10th of November, 1804, for four
hundred and twenty pounds sterling, payable at nine months' sight
to the order of George Danley, Esq., and drawn by Willis & Co. on
Messrs Child & Co. in London, with the forged acceptance of
Messrs Child & Co. on the face thereof, with intent to defraud
Mary Simeon.

Mr Burrough entered into the details of the case, which were
afterwards substantiated by the evidence.

Mr Philip George, the younger clerk to the Mayor of Bath, stated
that the bill in question was delivered to him by the Mayor of Bath,
and that he had ever since kept the bill in his own custody.

Mrs Mary Simeon, dealer in laces, at Bath, deposed that in April,
1805, she lived at Bath. The prisoner came to her house on or
about the 16th of March 1805; he looked at several articles in
which she dealt, bought a fan, paid for it, and said he should bring
his wife with him in the afternoon. He accordingly did so, and
brought Elizabeth Barnet as his wife, Mrs Romney. He asked 
whether Mrs Simeon had a Brussels veil of a hundred and fifty
guineas' value. The witness answered she had not. He then bought
two yards of lace, at four guineas a yard, and went away. This
happened on a Saturday. The following Monday he came again,
accompanied by his wife, looked at a lace cloak, at veils worth five
and twenty guineas, and other goods, but did not buy any. In the
course of the week he called again, and proposed to purchase a
quantity of goods from the witness, if she would take a bill of a
long date, accepted by Messrs Child & Co., bankers, in London.
Witness answered she had no objections to take a bill accepted by
such a house. He returned in two or three days and purchased
articles to the value of about one hundred and forty pounds, which,
with other goods afterwards bought, and with money advanced by
her, made the prisoner her debtor to the amount of two hundred
and ninety-nine pounds. He bought all the articles himself,
unaccompanied by his wife. In the month of April, between the
20th and 24th, the prisoner proposed paying for the different
articles, and he brought his wife to the house, when a meeting took
place between them and the witness, and her brother, Mr Du
Hamel. He said: "I am going to London, and I should like to settle
with you. This is the bill I proposed to you to take; it is accepted by
Child & Co., bankers, in London"; and, turning over the bill, he
added: "The endorser is as good as the acceptors."

The bill was here produced, and proved by Mrs Simeon to be the
same which the prisoner gave to her in April, 1805.

The witness then took the bill, and her brother, Mr Du Hamel, paid
to him, for her, thirty-five pounds, which, with the articles
previously bought, made the whole of the prisoner's debt to her
two hundred and ninety-nine pounds. In her presence he wrote on
the bill the name of John Romney, as his name. He afterwards
went to London by the mail. She sent the bill to London the next
day.

The conversation which passed between her and the prisoner, in
the presence of her brother and Elizabeth Barnet, was entirely in
the French language. He left his wife at her house, where she slept.
While he was absent the witness received intelligence from
London that the bill was a forgery, and she instantly wrote a letter
to the prisoner, informing him of it. He came to Bath in
consequence of the letter, late on a Sunday night, and a meeting
took place then at her house with him, his wife, herself, her
brother, and her solicitor, Mr Luke Evill, of Bath. The conversation
then passed in English. Several questions were put to the prisoner
by herself and by Mr Evill. Mr Evill asked him whether he had any
business with W. A. Bailey, the endorser, which induced him to
take the bill. He said Mr Bailey had sold some sugar for him. She
asked him if Bailey lived in London; he replied at some inn or
coffee-house, the name of which she did not recollect. He was then
asked in what island or islands Mr Bailey's property was situated.
He mentioned two or three islands in the West Indies, but he did
not know in which of them Mr Bailey was at that time. The
prisoner then inquired where the bill was. Being informed by the
witness that it was in London, he said she must write to get it sent
back. She, however, declared that such an application would be
unavailing, and the prisoner pressed her to go to London herself.
She refused to go alone, and he entreated Mr Evill to accompany
her, saying that he would give Mr Evill twenty pounds to defray
the expenses of the journey, which he accordingly did. She set out
at ten o'clock that night, accompanied by Mr Evill, and obtained
the bill from Messrs Sloper & Allen, in whose custody it was, by
paying three hundred guineas, which was all the money she then
had at her bankers'. She brought the bill back to Bath, having
stopped but one day in London; but the prisoner was not at Bath
when she returned. He had left some property at her house with his
wife, who had removed from Sidney House, with his clothes, etc.
The bill remained after this in her custody about a twelvemonth,
and was given up to Mr Evill by her brother. Mr Dorant paid the
whole of the debt due by the prisoner on the 6th of May, 1805, a
few days after the prisoner finally left Bath.

Upon the cross-examination of Mrs Simeon, it appeared that she
considered the prisoner and Elizabeth Barnet as man and wife. It
was not until May, 1806, that she appeared before the Mayor of
Bath against the prisoner, whom she knew to have been in the
Fleet Prison. She did not go before the magistrate at the solicitation
of Mr Dorant, nor did she at any time, nor on any account, receive
any money from Dorant, but what was actually and fairly due to
her by the prisoner.

Mr Du Hamel, brother of Mrs Simeon, corroborated all the
principal facts stated by his sister.

Mr Whelan deposed that he was a clerk in the house of Messrs
Child & Co. He had filled that situation for about nine years, and,
from his knowledge of the business, was enabled to state their
manner of accepting bills. The house had no correspondence
whatever at Grenada by the name of Willis & Co., and the
acceptance which appeared on the face of the bill was not the
acceptance of Messrs Child & Co.

Elizabeth Barnet was next called. She deposed that she became
acquainted with the prisoner in the month of September, 1804,
when at Liverpool. About a fortnight after she first saw him she
began to live with him, and continued till the 6th of June, 1805;
during all that period she passed under the name of Mrs Romney.
She left Liverpool in the month of January, 1805, and came to
London with the prisoner. They then took lodgings at Mr Dorant's
hotel, in Albemarle Street. The account he gave of himself to her
was that he was a West Indian planter, and that he had estates in
Martinique and St Kitts. They remained between two and three
months at Mr Dorant's hotel, during which time they were not
visited by anybody except a Mr Hope, whom she remembered
seeing with the prisoner. This Mr Hope was not represented to her
as coming from Holland. She accompanied Mr Romney to Bath,
and on their arrival there they lodged at the White Hart Inn for
about a fortnight previous to her lodging at Madame Simeon's.
Soon after their arrival at the White Hart she went along with the
prisoner to Madame Simeon's to look at some laces and a black
cloak. None of these articles, however, was purchased at that time
by the prisoner, they being afterwards bought when she was not
present. She heard the prisoner state to Madame Simeon that he
would give her a bill of exchange, accepted by Child & Co. of
London. She did not then see any bill in his possession, but saw
him writing one three days afterwards, when he sent the witness
for some red ink. Two or three days after the prisoner gave the bill
to Madame Simeon he was much disturbed, and on being asked the
reason he said he would be hanged. He asked her to fetch him his
writing-desk, which she did. He then took out a large parcel of
papers and burned them. She had no opportunity of seeing what
those papers were. She said to him: "Were the papers any harm?"
He said: "Yes; and there was a paper which must not be seen." She
never lived with the prisoner after the 6th of June, 1805. She,
however, remembered visiting him in the Fleet Prison. She was
soon afterwards arrested at Bath, at the prisoner's instance, for the
sum of twenty thousand, three hundred and twenty pounds, and
carried to Winchester jail, and afterwards removed to the King's
Bench. She saw the prisoner on this occasion, and again at the Old
Bailey, when he was examined as a witness against her on her trial.
He then charged her with having robbed him on the 11th of June,
1805, of forty guineas and a diamond ring, when he was in the
Fleet Prison. This charge was totally without foundation, as was
also the alleged debt of twenty thousand, three hundred and twenty
pounds. She never had any transactions in her life to which such a
charge could refer.

On her cross-examination she deposed that her real name was
Elizabeth Barnet. She was the daughter of a farmer in Shropshire,
from whom she had had a plain education. She left her father when
nineteen years of age and went to Liverpool, where she lodged
with a Mrs Barns. She lived in Liverpool about nine or ten months.
After she had left off seeing Mr Rouvelett in the Fleet she lodged
at a Mr Fox's, in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, for seven or
eight weeks. She afterwards went to Berry Street.

To some additional interrogatories by Mr Burrough this witness
further deposed that the prisoner Romney sued out a writ against
her for twelve hundred pounds, exclusive of the sum before
mentioned. This was after she had ceased to visit him in prison and
had gone to reside at her father's, and it was also previous to the
arrest for the twenty thousand, three hundred and twenty pounds
already taken notice of. No demand was made against her by the
prisoner when she visited him in the jail.

The jury, having consulted for a few minutes, returned a verdict of
guilty of forging the acceptance, and of uttering it knowing it to be
forged.

The trial lasted nearly twelve hours, and the court was filled in
every part. Among the audience were the first characters in the
country. This notorious offender was executed at Ilchester,
pursuant to his sentence, on the 3rd of September, 1806. He was
dressed in a blue coat with metal buttons, striped trousers, green
slippers, and a fur cap.



JOHN HOLLOWAY AND OWEN HAGGERTY
A Hundred Spectators were killed or injured in a Crush at the
Execution of these Men before Newgate, 22nd of February, 1807


THE fatal accident which happened on the spot and at the moment
of the execution of these men, by which more than forty people
lost their lives, and many more were terribly bruised, will cause
their memory, more than their crimes, to remain a dreadful
warning to many generations. Their whole case, indeed, was
attended with singular and awful circumstances. Even of their guilt
many entertained doubts, which were not entirely removed. Their
conviction rested upon the evidence of a wretch as base as
themselves, who stated himself to have been their accomplice; but
the public indignation against them was excited to such a pitch that
it is not to be wondered at that a jury pronounced them guilty.

On the 6th of November, 1802, Mr John Cole Steele, who kept the
Lavender Warehouse, in Catherine Street, Strand, was murdered,
with much barbarity, on Hounslow Heath, and his pockets rifled of
their contents. The murderers escaped. Though rewards were
offered for their apprehension, no discovery was made. Every
search had been made by the officers of the police after them.
Several loose characters were apprehended on suspicion, but
discharged on examination, and all hopes had been given up of
tracing the murderers, when a circumstance occurred, about four
years afterwards, which led to the apprehension of John Holloway
and Owen Haggerty. A man of the name of Benjamin Hanfield,
who had been convicted at the Old Bailey of grand larceny, was
sentenced to seven years' transportation. He was conveyed on
board a hulk at Portsmouth, to await his departure for New South
Wales, but being seized with a severe illness, and tortured in his
mind by the recollection of the murder, about which he constantly
raved, he said he wished to make a discovery before he died. A
message was immediately dispatched to the police magistrates at
Bow Street to communicate the circumstance, and an officer was
sent to bring him before them. When he was brought on shore they
were obliged to wait several days, his illness not permitting his
immediate removal. On his arrival in town the magistrates sent
him, in the custody of an officer, to Hounslow Heath. He there
pointed out the fatal spot where the murder was perpetrated, and
related all the circumstances which he alleged had attended it; and
as his evidence implicated Haggerty and Holloway, measures were
taken to apprehend them. Several private examinations of all the
parties took place. Hanfield was admitted King's evidence, and the
public once more cherished a hope that the murderers would meet
with the punishment they deserved.

Monday, 9th of February, 1807, being the day appointed for the
final and public examination of the reputed perpetrators of this
atrocious murder, Holloway and Haggerty were brought up before
Joseph Moser, Esq., the sitting magistrate at the police office,
Worship Street, charged with wilfully murdering Mr J. C. Steele,
on Saturday night, the 6th of November, 1802, on Hounslow
Heath.

There was a great body of evidence adduced, none of which tended
materially to incriminate the prisoners, except that of Hanfield, the
accomplice, who, under the promise of pardon, had turned King's
evidence.

The prisoners denied having any knowledge whatever of the crime
laid to their charge, but heartily hoped that punishment would
come to the guilty.

The magistrates, however, after maturely considering the whole of
the evidence adduced, thought proper to commit the prisoners fully
for trial at the next Quarter Sessions at the Old Bailey, and bound
over no less than twenty-four persons to appear and give evidence
on the trial.

Such was the eager curiosity of the public to know the issue of this
trial, which began on the 20th of February, 1807, before Sir Simon
Le Blanc, Kt., that the whole court and area of the Old Bailey was
greatly crowded. When put to the bar, Holloway appeared to be
about forty years of age, of great muscular strength, tall, and of
savage, brutal and ferocious countenance, with large thick lips,
depressed nose and high check-bones. Haggerty was a small man,
twenty-four years of age.

The King's pardon, under the Great Seal, to Hanfield, alias Enfield,
remitting his sentence of transportation for seven years for a
larceny, which he had been convicted of, and restoring him to his
competency as a witness, was read.

Benjamin Hanfield then deposed as nearly as follows:-

"I have known Haggerty eight or nine years, and Holloway six or
seven. We were accustomed to meet at the Black Horse and Turk's
Head public-houses, in Dyot Street. I was in their company in the
month of November, 1802. Holloway, just before the murder,
called me out from the Turk's Head, and asked me if I had any
objection to be in a good thing. I replied I had not. He said it was a
'Low Toby,' meaning it was a footpad robbery. I asked when and
where. He said he would let me know. We parted, and two days
after we met again, and Saturday, the 6th of November, was
appointed. I asked who was to go with us. He replied that Haggerty
had agreed to make one. We all three met on the Saturday at the
Black Horse, when Holloway said: 'Our business is to "sarve," a
gentleman on Hounslow Heath, who, I understand, travels that
road with property.' We then drank for about three or four hours,
and about the middle of the day we set off for Hounslow. We
stopped at the Bell public-house and took some porter. We
proceeded from thence upon the road towards Belfont, and
expressed our hope that we should get a good booty. We stopped
near the eleventh milestone and secreted ourselves in a clump of
trees. While there the moon got up, and Holloway said we had
come too soon. After loitering about a considerable time,
Holloway said he heard a footstep, and we proceeded towards
Belfont. We presently saw a man coming towards us, and, on
approaching him, we ordered him to stop, which he immediately
did. Holloway went round him and told him to deliver. He said we
should have his money, and hoped we would not ill-use him. The
deceased put his hand in his pocket and gave Haggerty his money.
I demanded his pocket-book. He replied that he had none.
Holloway insisted that he had a book, and if he did not deliver it he
would knock him down. I then laid hold of his legs. Holloway
stood at his head, and said if he cried out he would knock out his
brains. The deceased again said he hoped we would not ill-use
him. Haggerty proceeded to search him, when the deceased made
some resistance, and struggled so much that we got across the
road. He cried out severely; and, as a carriage was coming up,
Holloway said: 'Take care; I will silence the b--r,' and immediately
struck him several violent blows on the head and body. The
deceased heaved a heavy groan and stretched himself out lifeless. I
felt alarmed, and said: 'John, you have killed the man.' Holloway
replied that it was a lie, for he was only stunned. I said I would
stay no longer, and immediately set off towards London, leaving
Holloway and Haggerty with the body. I came to Hounslow, and
stopped at the end of the town for nearly an hour. Holloway and
Haggerty then came up, and said they had done the trick, and, as a
token, put the deceased's hat into my hand. The hat Holloway went
down in was like a soldier's hat. I told Holloway it was a cruel
piece of business, and that I was sorry I had had any hand in it. We
all turned down a lane and returned to London, As we went along I
asked Holloway if he had got the pocket-book. He replied that it
was no matter, for as I had refused to share the danger, I should not
share the booty. We came to the Black Home, in Dyot Street, had
half-a-pint of gin, and parted. Haggerty went down in shoes, but I
don't know if he came back in them. The next day I observed
Holloway had a hat upon his head which was too small for him. I
asked him if it was the same he had got the preceding night. He
said it was. We met again on the Monday, when I told Holloway
that he acted imprudently in wearing the hat, as it might lead to a
discovery. He put the hat into my hand, and I observed the name of
Steele in it. I repeated my fears. At night Holloway brought the hat
in a handkerchief, and we went to Westminster Bridge, filled the
hat with stones, and, having tied the lining over it, threw it into the
Thames.'

The witness, being cross-examined by counsel for the prisoners,
said he had made no other minutes of the transactions he had been
detailing than what his conscience took cognisance of. It was
accident that led to this disclosure. He was talking with other
prisoners in Newgate of particular robberies that had taken place,
and the Hounslow robbery and murder being stated amongst
others, he inadvertently said that there were only three persons
who knew of that transaction. The remark was circulated and
observed upon, and a rumour ran through the prison that he was
about to turn "nose," and he was obliged to hold his tongue, lest he
should be ill-used.

James Bishop, a police officer, stated that in the rear of the public
office in Worship Street were some strong-rooms for the safe
keeping of prisoners pending their successive examinations. In two 
of these rooms, adjacent to each other, and separated by a strong
partition, the prisoners were separately confined, and immediately
behind these rooms was a privy. In this privy he took post
regularly after each successive day's examination; and as the privy
went behind both rooms, he could distinctly overhear the
conversation of the prisoners, as they spoke pretty audibly to each
other from either side of the partition. Of this conversation he took
notes, which were afterwards copied out fairly, and proved before
the magistrates, and which he, on this occasion, read as his
evidence in court.

Mr Andrews, counsel for the prisoners, objected to this sort of
evidence, it being impossible, he said, that the officers could
overhear all that was said, and that the conversation thus mutilated
might be misconstrued; besides, the minds of officers, for the sake
of reward, were always prejudiced against the prisoners. His
objections, however, were overruled by the Court.

These conversations ran to a very considerable length but the
material points were few. They showed, however, from the words
of the prisoners' own conversation, that all they had said before the
magistrates, in the denial of any acquaintance with each other, or
with Hanfield, was totally false, and a mere stratagem to baffle the
testimony of the latter, who they hoped had secured his own
execution, by confessing his guilt, without being able to prove
theirs.

The prosecution being closed, the prisoners were called to make
their defence.

Haggerty protested he was completely innocent of the charge, was
totally ignorant of the prosecutor Hanfield, denied ever being at
Hounslow, and endeavoured to point out some inconsistencies in
the evidence which had been adduced by Hanfield.

Holloway declared he was equally innocent of the charge; but
admitted he had been at Hounslow more than once, might have
been in the company of the prisoners Haggerty and Hanfield, but
was not acquainted with either of them.

Mr Justice Le Blanc summed up the evidence in a very clear and
perspicuous manner, making some very humane observations upon
the nature of the testimony given by Hanfield. He admitted that
such testimony should be received with caution; yet such strong
collateral evidence must have its due weight and influence on their
verdict.

The jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, and returned with a
verdict of guilty against both the prisoners.

The recorder immediately passed sentence in the most solemn and
impressive manner, and the unhappy men were ordered for
execution on the following Monday morning.

They went from the bar protesting their innocence, and apparently
careless of the miserable and ignominious fate that awaited them.

Following conviction, Haggerty and Holloway conducted
themselves with the most decided indifference. On Saturday, 21st
of February, the cell door, No. 1, in which they were both
confined, was opened about half-past two. They were each reading
a Prayer Book by candle-light, as the cell was very dark. On
Sunday neither of them attended the condemned sermon, as in
cases of murder the offenders were deprived of benefit of clergy;
neither did the bell of St Sepulchre toll during the solemnity of
their execution.

During the whole of Sunday night the convicts were engaged in
prayer, never slept, but broke the awful stillness of midnight by
frequent protestations of reciprocal innocence. At five they were
called, dressed and shaved, and about seven were brought into the
press-yard. There was some difficulty in knocking off the irons of
Haggerty; he voluntarily assisted, though he seemed much
dejected, but by no means pusillanimous. A message was then
delivered to the sheriffs, purporting that Holloway wanted to speak
with them in private. This excited very sanguine expectations of
confession; but the sheriffs, on their return, intimated to the
gentlemen in the press-yard that Holloway wanted to address them
publicly, and therefore requested they would form themselves into
a circle, from the centre of which Holloway delivered, in the most
solemn manner, the following energetic address: "Gentlemen, I am
quite innocent of this affair. I never was with Hanfield, nor do I
know the spot. I will kneel and swear it." He then knelt down, and
imprecated curses on his head if he were not innocent, and
exclaimed, "By God, I am innocent!"

Owen Haggerty then ascended the scaffold. His arms were
pinioned, and the halter was round his neck. He wore a white cap
and a light olive shag greatcoat. He looked downwards, and was
silent. After the executioner had tied the fatal noose, he brought up
John Holloway, who wore a smock-frock and jacket, as it had been
stated by the approver that he did at the time of the murder; he had
also a white cap on, was pinioned, and had a halter round his neck.
He had his hat in his hand. Mounting the scaffold, he jumped,
made an awkward bow, and said: "I am innocent, innocent, by
God!" He then turned round and, bowing, made use of the same
expressions: "Innocent, innocent, innocent! Gentlemen, no verdict!
No verdict! No verdict! Gentlemen, innocent! Innocent!" At this
moment, and while in the act of saying something more, the
executioner proceeded to do his office, by placing the cap over the
face of Holloway; to which he, with apparent reluctance, complied,
at the same time uttering some words. As soon as the rope was
fixed round his neck he remained quiet. He was attended in his
devotions by an assistant at the Rev. Rowland Hill's chapel.

The last that mounted the scaffold was Elizabeth Godfrey. She had
been capitally convicted of the wilful murder of Richard Prince, in
Marylebone parish, on the 25th of December, 1806, by giving him
a mortal wound with a pocket-knife in the left eye, of which
wound he languished and died. They were all launched off
together, at about a quarter after eight.

The crowd which assembled to witness this execution was
unparalleled, being, according to the best calculation, nearly forty
thousand; and the fatal catastrophe which happened in
consequence will for long cause the day to be remembered. By
eight o'clock not an inch of ground was unoccupied in view of the
platform. The pressure of the crowd was such that, before the
malefactors appeared, numbers of persons were crying out in vain
to escape from it; the attempt only tended to increase the
confusion. Several females of low stature who had been so
imprudent as to venture among the mob were in a dismal situation;
their cries were dreadful. Some who could be no longer supported
by the men were suffered to fall, and were trampled to death. This
also was the case with several men and boys. In all parts there were
continued cries of "Murder! Murder!" -- particularly from the
females and children among the spectators, some of whom were
seen expiring without the possibility of obtaining the least
assistance, everyone being employed in endeavours to preserve his
own life.

The most affecting scene of distress was seen at Green Arbour
Lane, nearly opposite the debtors' door. The terrible occurrence
which took place near this spot was attributed to the circumstance
of two piemen attending there to dispose of their pies. One of them
having had his basket overthrown, which stood upon a sort of stool
with four legs, some of the mob, not being aware of what had
happened, and at the same time being severely pressed, fell over
the basket and the man at the moment he was picking it up,
together with its contents. Those who once fell were never more
suffered to rise, such was the violence of the mob. At this fatal
place a man of the name of Harrington was thrown down, who had
by the hand his youngest son, a fine boy about twelve years of age.
The youth was soon trampled to death; the father recovered,
though much bruised, and was amongst the wounded in St
Bartholomew's Hospital. A woman who was so imprudent as to
bring with her a child at the breast was one of the number killed.
Whilst in the act of falling she forced the child into the arms of the
man nearest to her, requesting him, for God's sake, to save its life.
The man, finding it required all his exertion to preserve himself,
threw the infant from him, but it was fortunately caught at a
distance by another man, who, finding it difficult to ensure its
safety or his own, got rid of it in a similar way. The child was
again caught by a man, who contrived to struggle with it to a cart,
under which he deposited it until the danger was over, and the mob
had dispersed. In other parts the pressure was so great that a
horrible scene of confusion ensued, and seven persons lost their
lives by suffocation alone. It was shocking to behold a large body
of the crowd, as one convulsive struggle for life, fight with the
most savage fury with each other; the consequence was that the
weakest, particularly the women, fell a sacrifice. A cart which was
overloaded with spectators broke down, and some of the persons
who fell from the vehicle were trampled underfoot, and never
recovered. During the hour that the malefactors hung, little
assistance could be afforded to the unhappy sufferers; but after the
bodies were cut down, and the gallows removed to the Old Bailey
Yard, the marshals and constables cleared the street where the
catastrophe occurred, and, shocking to relate, there lay nearly one
hundred persons dead, or in a state of insensibility, strewed round
the street! Twenty-seven dead bodies were taken to St
Bartholomew's Hospital, four to St Sepulchre's Church, one to the
Swan, on Snow Hill, one to a public-house opposite St Andrew's
Church, Holborn; one, an apprentice, to his master's; Mr
Broadwood, pianoforte maker, to Golden Square. A mother was
seen carrying away the body of her dead boy; Mr Harrison, a
respectable gentleman, was taken to his house at Holloway. There
was a sailor-boy killed opposite Newgate, by suffocation; he
carried a small bag, in which he had some bread and cheese, and
was supposed to have come some distance to behold the execution.
After the dead, dying and wounded were carried away, there was a
cartload of shoes, hats, petticoats and other articles of wearing
apparel picked up. Until four o'clock in the afternoon most of the
surrounding houses had some person in a wounded state; they were
afterwards taken away by their friends on shutters, or in hackney-
coaches. The doors of St Bartholomew's Hospital were closed
against the populace. After the bodies of the dead were stripped
and washed they were ranged round a ward on the first floor, on
the women's side; they were placed on the floor with sheets over
them, and their clothes put as pillows under their heads; their faces
were uncovered. There was a rail along the centre of the room: the
persons who were admitted to see the shocking spectacle went up
on one side of the rail, and returned on the other. Until two o'clock
the entrances to the hospital were beset with mothers weeping for
sons, wives for their husbands and sisters for their brothers, and
various individuals for their relatives and friends.

The next day (Tuesday) a coroner's inquest sat in St Bartholomew's
Hospital, and other places where the bodies were, on the remains
of the sufferers. Several witnesses were examined with respect to
the circumstances of the accident, which examination continued till
Friday, when the verdict was, "That the several persons came by
their death from compression and suffocation."



JOHN MAYCOCK
Executed 23rd of March, 1807, on the Top of the New Jail,
Horsemonger Lane, Southwark, for the Murder Of an old lone
Lady, Mrs Ann Pooley, in company with John Pope, who was
admitted Evidence for the Crown.


ON the 20th of March, 1807, Maycock and Pope were put upon
their trial at Kingston, on a charge of committing this crime in the
preceding month of August.

The case was opened by Mr Knowles, who stated that it was one of
a most aggravated nature, and perpetrated in the most deliberate
manner, for the sake of plunder. From the compunctions of
remorse with which one of the prisoners (Pope) had been visited,
he had disclosed the whole of the guilty affair; and he trusted that,
in the moment of need, at another tribunal, he might find mercy.

Mrs Sarah Pooley, sister of the deceased, stated that her sister lived
in Free School Street, Horsleydown, in a very retired manner, the
house being almost constantly shut up, and no servant in
attendance. The last time she saw the deceased was on the 26th of
July when she carried her the dividend due on her stock, which
amounted to twelve pounds. This sum she paid her in six two-
pound notes of the Bank of England, all new. Having been
informed of the murder, she procured a Mr Garrett to examine the
house.

John Mackrill Garrett stated that on the 20th of August he searched
the house, and discovered the deceased lying on her back in the
kitchen; her left leg was bent under her, her clothes were all
smooth, but her pockets had been turned inside out. There were a
pair of scissors, a thimble and a pen-knife lying by her side. The
body was in a putrid state. On making a further search he found
that all the drawers and boxes had been rifled, and that the
murderer or murderers had entered the house by pulling out some
bricks which were under the washhouse window. A Mr Humphries
and his wife also assisted him in the search.

Thomas Griffin, a corn porter, was acquainted with the prisoner
Maycock; he met him about two months previous to the murder,
when the prisoner said: "Tom, I'll put you into a good job." The
witness asked what it was. The prisoner replied:  "I know an
elderly lady who lives by herself in a house which is shut up, and
she is worth a deal of money; you and I, and a stout young fellow
who works with Mr Burgess, will do her out of it." The prisoner
did not tell the witness where the lady lived. He said his
companion was formerly a bargeman at Ware. The witness refused
to have any concern in the robbery, and when he heard of the
murder he communicated the circumstance to his brother, who
brought Mr Graham to his house (the witness being ill) to take his
deposition. Previous to this communication, and subsequent to the
murder, he had seen the prisoner, who told him he had plenty of
money.

Aaron Graham, Esq., was examined, touching the confession of
Pope respecting the murder. Mr Graham stated that Maycock was
not present when Pope made the confession, and that the
proclamation offering a reward for the discovery of the murderers
lay on the table. Mr Graham asked Pope if he had seen it, and he
replied in the affirmative: that this question was put to him in order
to induce him to confess.

At this stage of the prosecution some discussion arose respecting
the acquittal of Pope, it being contended by his counsel, Mr
Guerney, that he was entitled to his acquittal, and that in fact he
ought not to have been put upon his trial, he having confessed
under the inducement of being pardoned.

Mr Knowles, for the prosecution, contended that he ought to have
been made a party with the other prisoner, but the Chief Baron
ruled that Pope stood in the same situation as any other prisoner:
that he had confessed under the promise of being pardoned, and
that he was entitled to it. The prisoner Pope was accordingly
acquitted, and the trial proceeded against Maycock.

John Pope was then called, and his evidence was to the following
effect: "I am a corn porter at present, but formerly had some craft
at Bishop's Stortford, on the River Ware. I had known Maycock
about a year and a half before the murder. About six weeks
previous, he asked me to go with him to rob an old woman, who
lived in a hugger-mugger way, at a shut-up house. We had many
conversations upon the subject; and it went on till Saturday, the 9th
of August, when he asked me to go that evening. I agreed. We got
through the loophole, or kind of cock-loft window, which joins the
Bull, and is part of the deceased's house. I took some bricks out in
order to get in. I then unbolted the door and let Maycock in. We
went down into the cellar, where we remained till about eight
o'clock, when the deceased came down. Maycock went up to the
top of the stairs, and the instant she opened the door he rushed at
her, threw her down, and she screamed out: 'Oh!' I then ran
upstairs, and saw Maycock kneeling over her, with his hand or arm
on her neck, which he held until she was quite dead. She never
moved after I first saw her. Said he to me: 'She is dead.' We then
went upstairs and rifled the drawers, from whence we took out
gold, silver, bank-notes and halfpence to the amount of ninety
pounds. We divided the booty. The notes were all two-pound
notes."

The jury, after a short consideration, returned a verdict of guilty
against the prisoner. The learned Chief Baron then sentenced him
to be hanged on the following Monday, and to be dissected. When
sentence was passed on him he observed, on going from the dock:
"Thank you for that; I'm done snug enough."

He was executed at Horsemonger Lane jail on the 23rd of March,
1807.



WILLIAM DUNCAN
Convicted for the Murder of his Master, William Chivers, Esq.,
and transported for Life, March, 1807


WILLIAM DUNCAN was employed in the service of William
Chivers, Esq., as gardener, at Clapham Common. On the morning
of the day of the murder, after breakfast, the niece of Mr Chivers,
who resided with him, went in his carriage to take an airing. Mr
Chivers, who was between seventy and eighty years of age, went
into his garden to take a walk, as was his daily custom, inspecting
the gardener at his work, and conversing with him. About half-past
eleven o'clock the gardener ran into the house from the garden, in
great agitation and terror, exclaiming to the servants: "Lord, what
have I done! I have struck my master, and he has fallen"; and
immediately left the house, without giving any explanation, and
made for the town of Clapham. The footman went into the garden
to discover what had happened, when he found his master on the
ground, apparently lifeless, and his face a most shocking spectacle.
It appeared that the gardener had struck his master with a spade
that he was working with, the end of which entered the lower part
of his nose, broke both his jawbones, and penetrated nearly to a
line with his ears, so that his head was almost separated. The
gardener had inflicted two deep wounds, one being about eight
inches in length and three inches and a half in breadth. Duncan was
soon after apprehended, and the magistrates committed him to
Horsemonger Lane Prison. The cause of the shocking act was a
dispute between him and his master respecting the pruning of a
vine.

The jury, after having conferred for a considerable time, found the
prisoner guilty of murder; and he was accordingly sentenced to be
executed on the Monday following, and to be anatomised.

The prisoner, during the whole of the time, conducted himself with
great composure. He was a man of respectable appearance.

The Privy Council, however, did not, it appears, conceive that he
was guilty of wilful and premeditated murder, but, on the contrary,
admitted an immediate provocation on the part of the unfortunate
old gentleman. They therefore represented him as a subject for
Royal clemency, in consequence whereof he was twice respited,
and then ordered to be transported for the term of his natural life.



GEORGE ALLEN
An Epileptic, who was executed at Stafford, 30th of March, 1807,
for the Murder of his Three Children


INSANITY probably caused the horrid deed to be committed
which we are now going to relate. It appeared in evidence on the
trial that George Allen had previously thereto been subject to
epileptic fits, but that on the Sunday preceding the day whereon he
committed the murder he was considerably better. Though a jury
found him guilty of premeditated murder, we must, in charity to
the failings of human nature, suppose that one of these mental
derangements, epilepsy, again seized him at the time he committed
this strange, cruel, and most unnatural murder. His examination
before the coroner also seems to favour this opinion.

At eight o'clock on the evening of the 12th of January, 1807, he
retired to rest, and when his wife followed him, in the course of an
hour, she found him sitting upright in bed, smoking his pipe, which
was his usual custom. In another bed, in the same room, lay three
of his infant children asleep, the eldest boy, about ten years old, the
second a girl about six, and another boy about three. When his wife
got into bed, with an infant at her breast, he asked her what other
man she had in the house with her. To which she replied that no
man had been, there but himself. He insisted to the contrary, and
his wife continued to assert her innocence. He then jumped out of
bed and went downstairs, and she, from an impulse of fear,
followed him. She met him on the stairs and asked him what he
had been doing in such a hurry. In answer he ordered her to get
upstairs again. He then went to the bed where his children were
and turned down the clothes. On her endeavouring to hold him he
told her to let him alone, or he would serve her with the same
sauce, and immediately attempted to cut her throat, in which he
partly succeeded, and also wounded her right breast; but a
handkerchief she wore about her head and neck prevented the
wound from being fatal. She then extricated herself (having the
babe in her arms all the time, which she preserved unhurt), and
jumped, or rather fell, downstairs. Before she had well got up, one
of the children (the girl) fell at her feet, with her head almost cut
off, which he had murdered and thrown after her. The woman
opened the door and screamed out that her husband was cutting off
their children's heads. A neighbour soon came to her assistance,
and when a light was procured the monster was found standing in
the middle of the house-place with a razor in his hand. When asked
what he had been doing, he replied coolly: "Nothing yet: I have
only killed three of them!" On their going upstairs a most dreadful
spectacle presented itself: the head of one of the boys was very
nearly severed from his body, and the bellies of both were partly
cut and partly ripped open, and the bowels torn completely out and
thrown on the floor. Allen made no attempt to escape, and was
taken without resistance. He said that it was his intention to have
murdered his wife and all her children, and then to have put an end
to himself. He professed his intention also to have murdered an old
woman who lay bedridden in the same house. An inquest was held
on the bodies of the three children, before Mr Hand, coroner of
Uttoxeter, when he confessed his guilt, but without expressing any
contrition. In answer to other interrogations he promised to confess
something that had lain heavy on his mind; and Mr Hand,
supposing it might relate to a crime he had heretofore committed,
caused him to be examined in the presence of other gentlemen,
when he told an incoherent story of a ghost, in the shape of a horse,
having, about four years ago, enticed him into a stable, where it
drew blood from him, and then flew into the sky. With respect to
the murder of his children, he observed to the coroner, with
apparent unconcern, that he supposed it was as bad a case as ever
he had heard of.

The horrid circumstances of these murders were fully proved, and
he was convicted, and suffered the final sentence of the law.



MARTHA ALDEN
Executed, 31st of July, 1807, for murdering her Husband in a
Cottage near Attleborough, Norfolk


THE trial of Martha Alden on a charge of murder came on at the
Summer Assizes for the county of Norfolk, in the year 1807.
Samuel Alden, the victim of her brutality, was a husbandman,
occupying a small cottage near Attleborough, in that county, and
was accounted a quiet, industrious character.

Edmund Draper stated that on Saturday, the 18th of July, he was in
company with the deceased at the White Horse public-house at
Attleborough; that the prisoner, who was present when witness and
the deceased met, said to them she was going home with her child,
and went away. Witness sat drinking with Alden till nearly twelve
o'clock, chatting with the wife of the publican; he then
accompanied the deceased to his house, which lay on the way to
his own home. Witness stated that he himself was perfectly sober
at the time; that Alden, however, was rather fresh, but sober
enough to walk, staggering a little. No ill words passed between
the deceased and the prisoner in his presence. He proceeded home
in the direction of Thetford, and saw no one on the road. Alden's
house consisted of a kitchen and bedroom, both on the same floor,
and separated from each other by a small narrow passage. He saw
no one in the house except the prisoner and the deceased, and a
little boy about seven years old.

Charles Hill, of Attleborough, stated that on the morning of
Sunday, the 19th, he rose between two and three o'clock to go on a
journey to Shelf Anger Hall, about ten miles from Attleborough, to
see a daughter. When he approached the deceased's house he saw
the door open, and the prisoner was standing within a few yards of
the door; this was at nearly three o'clock in the morning. The
prisoner accosted the witness, by saying she could not think what
smart young man it was who was coming down the common. The
witness replied: "Martha, what the devil are you up to at this time
of the morning?" She said she had been down to the pit in her
garden for some water; this garden was on the opposite side of the
road to the house.

Sarah Leeder, widow, of Attleborough, stated that on Monday
night, the 20th of July, the prisoner came to her house to borrow a
spade, for a neighbour's sow had broken into her garden and rooted
up her potatoes. The witness lent her one, which was marked J.H.,
and she went away with it. On the following evening (Tuesday,
21st), about eleven o'clock, she went out of her house upon the
common to look for some ducks she had missed, and found them
in a small pit; near this pit there was another of a larger size, beside
a place called Wright's Plantation. In this greater pit, or pond, she
saw something lying which attracted her attention; she went to the
edge of the pond and touched it with a stick, upon which it sank
and rose again; but the place, though the moon shone, was shaded,
and she could not discover what it was, so went home for the night.
The next morning (Wednesday, 22nd), however, the witness
returned to the spot, and again touched the substance with a stick,
which still lay almost covered with water; she then, to her great
terror, saw the two hands of a man appear, with the arms of a shirt
stained with blood. She instantly concluded that a murdered man
had been thrown in there, and called to a lad to go and acquaint the
neighbourhood with the circumstances, and went back in great
alarm to her own house. In a quarter of an hour she returned again
to the pond, and found that in her absence the body had been taken
out. She then knew it to be the body of Samuel Alden. His face
was dreadfully chopped, and his head cut very nearly off. The
body was put into a cart and carried to the house of the deceased.
The witness afterwards went to look for her spade, and found it
standing by the side of a hole, which she described as looking like
a grave, dug in the ditch which surrounded Alden's garden. She
further stated that this hole was open, not very deep, and that she
saw blood lying near it.

Edward Rush stated that on Wednesday morning (the 22nd of
July), by order of the constable of Attleborough parish, he searched
the prisoner's residence. In a dark chamber he found a bill-hook,
which on examination appeared to have blood on its handle, and
also on the blade, but looked as if it had been washed. He also
confirmed the statement of a preceding witness as to the state of
the bedroom in the house of the deceased, and described its
dimensions to be about seven feet by ten.

Mary Orvice stated that she had been acquainted with the prisoner
for some time, and had frequently been at her house. On Sunday
(the 19th) the prisoner asked her to go with her to her house. When
she got there, the prisoner said to her: "I have killed my husband";
and, taking her into the bedroom, showed her the body lying on the
bed, quite dead, with the wounds as before described; she also saw
a hook lying on the floor with blood on it. When the hook was
shown to her in court, she said it was the very same she had then
seen. The prisoner then produced a common corn sack, and, at her
request, the witness held it whilst the prisoner put the body into it;
the prisoner then carried the body from the bedroom, through the
passage and kitchen, out of the house, across the road to the ditch
surrounding the garden, and left it there, after throwing some
mould over it. The witness then left the prisoner and went to
Larling. The prisoner slept that night at the witness's father's house.
On the following night (the 20th), between nine and ten o'clock,
the witness was again in the company of the prisoner, and saw her
remove the body of her husband (who was a small man) from the
ditch in the garden to the pit on the common, dragging it herself
along the ground in the sack; and when she arrived at the pit, the
prisoner shot the body into it out of the sack, which she afterwards
carried away with her. The deceased had a shirt and slop on. The
next morning (Tuesday) the witness went to the prisoner's house
and assisted in cleaning it up, taking some warm water and
washing and scraping the wall next the bed. The prisoner bade the
witness to be sure not to say a word about the matter; for, if she
did, she (the witness) would certainly be hanged. Upon being
questioned to that effect by the Judge, this witness further stated
that she had told the story to her father on the Tuesday night, but to
nobody else.

The learned judge then summed up the evidence in a very full and
able manner. On the subject of Mary Orvice's testimony, his
Lordship remarked that it certainly came under great suspicion, as
being that of an accessory to the attempted concealment of the
murder. Viewing it in that light, therefore, and taking it separately,
it was to be received with extreme caution; but if it should be
found, in most material facts, to agree with and corroborate the
successive statements of the other witnesses, whose declarations
did not labour under those disadvantages, the jury were then to
give it due weight and avail themselves of the information which it
threw on the transaction.

The jury consulted together for a short time, and found the prisoner
guilty. Whereupon the learned judge proceeded to pass upon her
the awful sentence of the law; which was, that on Friday she
should be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, there to be
hanged by the neck till she was dead, and her body afterwards to
be dissected. She confessed the crime for which she was to suffer,
and acknowledged that the girl (Orvice) had no concern whatever
in the murder, but only assisted, at her request, in putting the body
of her husband into the sack.

On Friday, 31st of July, at twelve o'clock, this unhappy female was
drawn on a hurdle, and executed on the castle hill, pursuant to her
sentence, in presence of an immense concourse of spectators. She
behaved at the fatal tree with the decency becoming her awful
situation



ROBERT POWELL
A Starving Fortune-Teller, who was convicted by the Middlesex
Magistrates of being a Rogue and Vagabond, 1807


THOUGH the offence committed by this unfortunate was neither
of great magnitude nor fraught with contumacy against the penal
laws of the land, yet there is in his fate something so singularly
curious, so strongly tinctured with eccentricity, that we have
deemed it fit subject-matter for the pages of our criminal
chronology. It is, however, merely the contemptible case of one of
those petty deceptive cheats, yclept "fortune-tellers"; but, as the
prisoner deemed himself -- an "astrologer."

This "seer," Robert Powell, was charged before the Middlesex
magistrates, in terms extremely degrading to the high and
mysterious dignity of a sideral professor, with being a rogue,
vagabond and impostor, and obtaining money under false and
fraudulent pretences from one Thomas Barnes, a footman in the
service of Surgeon Blair, of Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, and
taking from him two shillings and sixpence under pretences of
telling him the destinies of a female fellow-servant, by means of
his skill in astrological divination.

The nature of the offence and the pia fraus, or ingenious trap, by
which the disciple of Zoroaster was caught in the midst of his
sorceries were briefly as follows. This descendant of the Magi,
born to illuminate the world by promulgating the will of the stars
and the high behests of fate, had of course no wish to conceal his
person, his avocations or his residence: on the contrary, he
resolved to announce his qualifications in the form of a printed
handbill, and to distribute the manifesto for the information of the
world.

One of those bills was dropped down the area of Mr Blair's house,
in Great Russell Street; it was found by his footman, or factotum,
and laid on the breakfast-table, with the newspapers of the
morning, as a morceau of novelty, for his amusement; of which, as
is sometimes said in an august assembly, to prevent mistakes, we
have obtained the following copy:

Sciential Instructions
A. B.
PROFESSOR OF THE SIDERAL SCIENCE
No. 5 SUTTON STREET, SOHO SQUARE
Teaches Astrology and Calculating Nativities, with the most
Precise Accuracy, at 2s. 6d. per Lesson
APPLICATION TO THE COURTEOUS READER


WHO will not praise and admire the glory of the sun and stars, and
the frame of heaven, and not wish to know their influence and
operation upon earth? For fear of the ridicule of revilers and
vilifiers of the science, who understand it not, and so deem it fraud
and iniquity. Oh, happy world! if they were not a hundred
thousand times more hurt by the baits of pleasure, honour, pride,
authority, arrogance, extortion, envy, covetousness and cruelty!
and thereby make or ruin themselves, by grasping and wantonness;
and others by deception, craft, fraud and villainy! but that is all
gilded over, and so such pass for good respectable people. Some
may start and rave at this, but who can confute the truth of it?

Can any suppose that the stars, the celestial bodies, are designed
for no other purpose than for us to look at heedlessly, as being of
no worth, nor having any effect on us? Daily experience, and the
most learned of all ages, have proved it, and testified it to us that
they have, and in a great degree do determine our fate; which I and
all other professors have experienced and proved in thousands of
different nativities. Who then, by means of such a noble and
inestimable science, would not wish for a precognition of the
events of their most sanguine hopes and fears, which alternately
alleviate or depress their minds? Is the praising and magnifying a
work a wrong to the workman? Is knowing, manifesting and
experiencing, the power and operations of the created, wronging or
dishonouring the Creator? Though this be a persecuted science, yet
happy world I how blest a state, if nothing worse was practised in
it!
No letters, unless post paid, will be taken in.
________________


Mr Blair concerted, with some of the agents of the Society for the
Suppression of Vice, a stratagem to entrap the sideral professor; in
the furtherance of which he dictated to his footman a letter to the
"seer" expressive of a wish to know the future destinies of his
fellow-servant, the cook-maid, and what sort of husband the
constellations had, in their benign influence, assigned her. With
this letter the footman set out for No. 5 Sutton Street, Soho, where
he found the "seer" had, for the convenience of prompt intercourse,
chosen his habitation as near the stars as the roof of the mansion
would admit. In fact, he found him in that part of the house which
Juvenal facetiously describes "Ubi reddunt, ova Columbae,"
otherwise "the attic storey," by some termed "the roost of genius,"
or "the first floor down the chimney." Here the footman announced
the object of his embassy, delivered his credentials, and was told
by the "seer" that he could certainly give him an answer now, "by
word of mouth"; but if he would call next day he should be better
prepared, as in the meantime he could consult the stars, and have
for him a written answer.

The footman retired, and returned next morning, received a written
response, gave to the "seer" the usual donation of half-a-crown,
previously marked, which sum he figured upon the answer, and the
receipt of which the unsuspecting sage acknowledged by his
signature.

With this proof of his diligence he returned to his master, and was
further directed to go and state the matter in due form to the
magistrates. The vigilant Trott was, in consequence, sent tripping
after the prophet. He set out at a canter, and soon arrived, at full
gallop, at this attic mansion, where he found the sage absorbed in
profound cogitation, casting the nativities of two plump and
prurient damsels, and consulting the dispositions of the stars as to
the disposition of the lasses, and the kind of sweethearts or
husbands they were destined to have. Not only were the planets
consulted, but all the eminent authorities, from Moore's Almanack
up to the Ptolemies, which composed the "seer's" library, were
shrewdly scanned on the subject. All the conjunctions of course
were found to be copulative, and the omens propitious; but the
unrelenting Trott entered, and proceeded to fulfil his mission.

On searching the unfortunate sage, the identical half-crown paid
him by Barnes was found, accompanied by two other pieces of
similar value, in his pocket, where such coins had long been
strangers; and the cabalistical chattels of his profession
accompanied him, as the lawful spoil of the captor.

The magistrates, before whom, it seemed, the prisoner had been
more than once cited upon similar charges, observed that it was
extremely reprehensible for a man like him, who possessed
abilities which, by honest exertion, might obtain for him a
creditable livelihood, thus to degrade himself to a trade of
imposture and fraud upon the ignorant and unsuspicious orders of
society.

The wretched prisoner stood motionless and self-convicted. Aged,
tall, meagre, ragged, filthy and careworn, his squalid looks
expressed the various features of want and sorrow. Every line of
his countenance seemed a furrow of grief and anguish; and, his
eyes gushing with tears, in faint and trembling accents he
addressed the magistrates. He acknowledged the truth of the charge
against him, but he said that nothing save want and the miseries of
a wretched family had driven him to adopt such a mode of
procuring them food. If he had been able to labour he would gladly
have swept the streets to obtain them food, but he was too feeble to
gain employment, even in that way; he had tried every other within
the scope of his capacity, but in vain. He could not dig, to beg he
was ashamed; and even if begging, either by private solicitation or
openly in the streets, had promised him a casual resource in the
charity of the passing crowd, he was afraid he should thereby incur
prosecution as a rogue and vagabond, and be consigned to
imprisonment in Bridewell. Parish settlement he had none; and
what was to be done with a miserable lunatic wife (for the moon
was still worse to him than the stars) and three naked, famishing
children? He had no choice but famine, theft or imposture.

The magistrates, obviously affected by this scene, said that they
felt themselves obliged to commit the prisoner, as he had not only
been repeatedly warned of the consequences of his way of life, but
had once before been convicted of a similar offence. He was
therefore convicted under the Vagrant Act.



JOHN ALMOND
Convicted at the December Sessions, 1807, of forging a Will, and
executed before Newgate


JOHN ALMOND, aged forty-five, was an inspector of lamps for
the parish of St James's, Westminster; from which, and another
similar situation, he derived an income of about one hundred and
fifty pounds per annum. Abraham Priddy was a lamplighter, living
in Marlborough Row, Carnaby Market. The prisoner had lodged
for some time at Priddy's house, and by that means became
acquainted with his circumstances, and formed the plan of fraud
for which he forfeited his life. His trial came on at the Old Bailey,
before Mr Justice Grose, December, 1807.

Thomas Harrison, a clerk in the Prerogative Office, Doctors'
Commons, said that on the 11th of June the prisoner brought to the
office a deed purporting to be the will of Abraham Priddy, by
which the prisoner, who was declared in the will to be the testator's
brother-in-law, was made his executor and residuary legatee. The
will further stated that the said Abraham Priddy was possessed of
three hundred pounds in the four per cents., and gave the sum of
fifty pounds to his wife, and two other sums of fifty pounds each to
two other persons, who were afterwards proved to have no
existence. The prisoner had been formerly a clerk in the
Prerogative Office, and had engrossed many wills, so that the
witness knew his handwriting, and observed to him at the time that
this will had been written by him; to which the prisoner replied it
was. To this will was affixed the mark of Priddy, who, the prisoner
said, was now dead. Everything was transacted regularly, and an
attested copy of the will was received by the prisoner on the 12th
or 13th of June. Witness acted according to the instructions of the
prisoner, and wrote on the other side of the will, "Abraham Priddy,
testator, formerly of Marlborough Row, Carnaby Market, and
Smith's Court, Windmill Street, St James's, late of the hamlet of
Hammersmith, died on the 10th instant." The witness perfectly
recollected the prisoner's handwriting, though it was about twenty-
three years since he was clerk in the same office with him, and he
had never seen him write but once since then.

Abraham Priddy said that he had known the prisoner sixteen years.
One day he took the opportunity of advising him, for some trifling
reason or other, not to go into the City to receive his dividends that
half-year; to which witness replied that it was of no consequence to
him (the prisoner) when he went. Upon witness's going into the
City, however, some time later, the stock was gone, and was found
to be transferred to the prisoner, who had given himself out as
Priddy's executor. Witness added that he could neither read nor
write, and had never made a will in his life. The forged will was
now read, and the witness was asked if the prisoner was his
brother-in-law; which was answered in the negative.  Mary Priddy,
wife to Abraham Priddy, said that, some time before this happened
the prisoner had asked her, in the course of conversation, what
stock her husband had in the bank. She told him, with great
simplicity, that he had three hundred pounds four per cents.

It was afterwards proved by John Rose, a stockbroker and Charles
Norris, a clerk from the bank, that the money in the four per cents.
had been transferred over to the prisoner, in consequence of his
producing the forged will, and who, in that transfer, subscribed
himself executor to the deceased Priddy.

The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner guilty. On
the morning of his execution, 20th of January, 1808, he received
the Sacrament; after which he proceeded to the fatal platform,
before the debtors' door, Old Bailey, when he was launched into
eternity.



RICHARD OWEN
Convicted of Cross-Dropping, and sentenced to Transportation, at
the Old Bailey, January Sessions, 1808


THE prisoner, who had only recently returned from transportation,
was walking in the Green Park, when he fell into conversation with
an elderly lady. As they walked together he pretended to pick up 
something that lay in her way. He exclaimed, "What have we
here?" and, opening a small packet, said, "We have found a prize,
madam." The parcel contained a gold cross, apparently set with
diamonds, and there was inscribed on the outside "a diamond 
cross." The prisoner appeared exceedingly rejoiced at their good
fortune; and, while he was conversing upon its supposed worth, he
accidentally observed a friend, and, after the usual salutations,
informed him that he and the lady had picked up a diamond cross
of some value, and were at a loss how to divide their good fortune.
The friend looked at it, and undertook to inquire its value of a
jeweller if the parties would step into some coffee-house, or
genteel public-house, for a moment. The old lady was persuaded;
and, having no suspicion of the cheat, agreed to go into a public-
house. The friend went about his errand, and soon returned, saying
that the jeweller had offered only forty pounds for the cross, but
that he was confident it was worth one hundred pounds.

The prisoner then asked the lady if she had any property about her,
and proposed to leave the diamond cross with her, provided she
could give him anything like an equivalent for his share. She said
she had five pounds and a gold watch worth twenty pounds. This
the prisoner proposed she should give to him, with her address,
that he might deal honourably with her, in case the cross should
not, in the opinion of her friends, be worth more than fifty pounds;
and on the other hand, if it sold for one hundred pounds, that he
might be enabled to claim his share. The foolish woman, who was
the widow of a military officer, parted with her watch and five-
pound note, and on consulting a jeweller found that the cross was
made of mock diamonds, and was not worth more than a guinea.
She also found, too late, that she had been robbed, and
immediately gave information at the office; and from the
description she gave of the prisoner -- that of his being a tall, stout,
old man, with a wig, and his general appearance like that of a
farmer -- the officers told her that if she would go with them to
Leicester Fields they thought they could show her the individual.
She did go, and the prisoner was apprehended in consequence of
her pointing him out. Some altercation took place whether or not
the offence constituted a felony. This objection was overruled, and
the jury found the prisoner guilty.

The old lady was, however, fortunate enough to get back her
watch, but sacrificed the five-pound note to the shrine of credulity.
The rogue was once more shipped off to Botany Bay.



WILLIAM WALKER
A Soldier in the Middlesex Militia. Sentenced to Death for a
Highway Robbery of Sixpence and a Penny-Piece, but reprieved at
the Request of his Victim, February, 1808


IN the February sessions of 1808 this disgraceful soldier was
capitally indicted for assaulting Thomas Oldfield on the highway,
putting him in fear, and forcibly taking from his person a sixpence
and a penny-piece, his property.

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, who was an
athletic old man, that on the 10th of October, 1807, between nine
and ten o'clock at night, he was passing over the fields from
Pentonville towards town, when a man came up to him and asked
him, with great apparent good nature, whether he had any money
in his pocket. The prosecutor demanded why he asked the
question; upon which the prisoner immediately changed his voice,
and, with an oath, demanded his money. The prosecutor pulled
from his pocket a sixpence and a penny and gave it to the assailant.
As he took it he looked downwards, and asked how much there
was. At that instant the prosecutor struck him a blow on his side,
and he reeled from him. The prosecutor at the same moment
perceived the prisoner clap his hand to his side, as if he were going
to draw his side-arms; and, springing forward, he struck him
another blow in his face, which brought him to the ground. He then
jumped upon him, and kept struggling with him on the ground for
nearly five minutes. The soldier then entreated he might be
permitted to get up. The prosecutor replied he should get up,
provided he delivered up his bayonet. This was assented to, and he
gave up his side-arms; whereupon the prosecutor permitted him to
get upon his legs. The prosecutor observed, at the same time, that
if he attempted to come near him he was a dead man, as he was
determined to run him through.

Just as the individual was making off, the prosecutor heard
someone come up, and it was rather a curious coincidence that the
person who came to his assistance should be his own son. The
prosecutor, by this time exhausted by his exertions and his fears,
had just strength enough left to exclaim: "That scoundrel has
robbed me, and probably would have done me some mischief had I
not overpowered him!"

The thief then made off, but the son followed him; he failed in the
pursuit, and the thief effected his escape. The prosecutor, however,
had retained the bayonet, and went the next day to the headquarters
of the regiment. Having told his story, it was recollected that the
prisoner had that morning appeared on parade with his face very
much bruised and swelled. The bayonet, too, was proved to be the
prisoner's, marked "31," and was more strongly corroborated by
his being without one. The prisoner was accordingly apprehended,
and, having no defence to set up against the case made out on the
part of the prosecution, he was found guilty and sentenced to
death.

The prosecutor, with equal eccentricity and humanity, told the
judge that he hoped he would not hang the prisoner, and that if he
was sent out of the country he should be satisfied -- which the
Court assented to.



THOMAS SIMMONS
Executed at Hertford, 7th of March, 1808, for a Double Murder


THOMAS SIMMONS was not more than nineteen years of age,
and of a clownish appearance. His father was a shoemaker by
trade, but followed the plough some years before his death.

At an early age Thomas was taken into Mr Boreham's family,
where he lived some years, till, by his brutish behaviour in several
instances, they were under the necessity of discharging him; after
which he worked at Messrs Christie & Co., brewers.

Mr Boreham, a very old gentleman, afflicted by the palsy, had
been many years a resident at Hoddesdon; his house was on the
declivity of the hill, beyond that town, about two hundred yards
from the market-house. He had four daughters: one of them was
the wife of Mr Warner, brass-founder, of the Crescent, Kingsland
Road, and also of the Crescent, Jewin Street. Mrs Warner had been
on a visit to her parents for several days. On Tuesday evening, 20th
of October, 1807, Mrs Hummerstone, who superintended, as
housekeeper, the business of the Black Lion Inn, at Hoddesdon, for
Mr Batty, the proprietor, was also at Mr Boreham's house, in
consequence of an invitation to spend the evening with the family.
The company had assembled in the parlour, where were Mr
Boreham, his wife, and his four daughters, Anne, Elizabeth, Sarah,
and Mrs Warner. About a quarter past nine this party were alarmed
by a very loud voice at the back of the house. It proceeded from
some person in dispute with the servant-woman, Elizabeth Harris,
and who was insisting to get into the house. The person proved to
be Thomas Simmons, who, it seems, had, whilst in the family, paid
his addresses to the servant, Elizabeth Harris, who was many years
older than himself; but the symptoms of a ferocious and
ungovernable temper, which he had frequently displayed, had
induced his mistress to dissuade the woman from any connection
with him; and his violent disposition had led also to his dismissal
from this family. He had been heard to vow vengeance against
Elizabeth Harris and the eldest Miss Boreham; and on Tuesday
night he made his way to the farmyard, and from thence into an
interior court, called the stone-yard.

Elizabeth Harris, on seeing his approach, retired within the
scullery, and shut the door against him. He demanded admittance,
which she refused. High words accordingly arose, and he plunged
his hand, armed with a knife, through a lattice window at her, but
missed his aim. This noise alarmed the company in the parlour, or
keeping-room, as it was called. Mrs Hummerstone was the first to
come forth, in the hope of being able to intimidate and send away
the disturber; but just as she reached the back door, leading from
the parlour to the stone-yard, Simmons, who was proceeding to
enter the house that way, met her, and with his knife stabbed her in
the jugular artery; he then pulled the knife forward, and laid open
her throat on the left side. She ran forward, as is supposed, for the
purpose of alarming the neighbourhood, but fell, and rose no more.

The murderer pursued his sanguinary purpose, and, rushing into
the parlour, raised and brandished his bloodstained knife, swearing
a dreadful oath that he would give it them all. Mrs Warner was the
person next him, and, without giving her time to rise from her
chair, he gave her so many stabs in the jugular vein, and about her
neck and breast, that she fell from her chair, covered with streams
of blood, and expired. Fortunately Miss Anne Boreham had been
upstairs immediately previous to the commencement of this horrid
business; and her sisters, Elizabeth and Sarah, terrified at the
horrors they saw, ran upstairs too, for safety.

The villain next attacked the aged Mrs Boreham by a similar aim at
her jugular artery, but missed the point, and wounded her deep in
the neck, though not mortally. While the poor old gentleman was
making his way towards the kitchen, where the servant-maid was,
the miscreant, in endeavouring to reach the same place, upset him,
and then endeavoured to stab the servant in the throat; she
struggled with him, caught at the knife, and was wounded severely
in the hand and arm. The knife fell in the struggle. She, however,
got out at the back door and made her way into the street, where,
by her screams of "murder," she alarmed the neighbourhood. The
poor people residing near the house were all in their beds, but the
whole town was soon alarmed.

The murderer sought to conceal himself, but after some search he
was discovered in a cow-crib. He was immediately made prisoner,
and brought to the Bell ale-house, where he was bound and
handcuffed until morning, and was actually on the point of death,
from the tightness of his ligatures, which had nearly stopped the
circulation, when Mr Fairfax, of the Black Bull Inn, in the town,
interfered, cut the ligatures, and thereby prevented a death too
summary for the cause of public justice.

The prisoner was committed to Hertford jail, to abide his trial,
which commenced, before Mr Justice Heath, on Friday, 4th of
March.

As Mr Boreham's family, who were all Quakers, refused to
prosecute on behalf of Mrs Warner, the prisoner was tried on only
one indictment -- viz. for the murder of Mrs Hummerstone -- at the
instance of Mr W. White and Mr B. Fairfax, of the Bull Inn,
Hoddesdon, and Mr J. Brown, churchwarden of that place.

Evidence having been given, the jury gave the verdict of guilty;
and the learned judge pronounced the dreadful sentence of the law.
The sentence seemed to affect the prisoner very little; he walked
from the bar with great coolness and indifference, and suffered the
punishment denounced for his crime on the 7th of March, 1808.



JOHN SHEPHERD
Convicted, at Lancaster, of a Riot and setting fire to the Prison,
June, 1808


JOHN SHEPHERD was indicted with John Turner for having,
with divers persons unknown, riotously assembled at Rochdale,
and burned the prison, on the 1st of July, 1808.

Mr Park observed that it was no merit in the prisoners that they
escaped a capital offence, but as no person resided in the prison it
was not a dwelling-house. Circumstances had come to his
knowledge, and those entrusted with the management of those
trials for the Crown, respecting John Turner, they having it from
undoubted authority that he had not gone among the mob with any
improper motive, but had remained in company with some of them
from mere idle curiosity; and as he was not a weaver they had
agreed to admit him an evidence.

John Kershaw, an inhabitant of Rochdale, deposed that at noon, on
the 1st of June, the town was extremely agitated by the entrance of
a mob, to the number of about two hundred, which increased in the
course of the day to about one thousand. Soon after they entered
the town, one of them mounted on a large stone and harangued the
mob; he could not hear what he said, but it appeared to please the
mob in general, as they huzzaed several times. Dr Drake and Mr
Entwistle, the magistrates, who in general conducted the business
of that part of the county, came into the town and addressed the
mob, who behaved very civilly and respectfully to the magistrates,
but refused to disperse. The magistrates, in consequence, went to
the house where they usually transacted their business, and swore
in the witness, and about two hundred others, special constables.
Two-thirds of them were, in the course of the day and night,
maimed or bruised, by stones being thrown at them, and other
violence exercised towards them. The rioters entered the peaceable
weavers' houses and forcibly took away their shuttles. The special
constables succeeded in securing some shuttles from the rioters,
and deposited them, in the prison for safety, and they took five or
six of the rioters before the magistrates. However, as they were
conveying them to the prison they were rescued.

The windows of the room where the magistrates were sitting were
broken with large stones, the stones being intended to injure the
manufacturers of the town and neighbourhood, who had all
resorted to the magistrates' room for safety, and not intended for
the magistrates. The magistrates remained in the town till seven
o'clock: at their departure the prisoners and others of the mob
pulled off their hats to them, and behaved very respectfully. Soon
after the magistrates were gone they behaved in a very outrageous
manner. They attacked the prison -- in consequence of a number of
shuttles being deposited in it for safety -- the doors of which had
been supposed to be impenetrable, and set it on fire, which was
understood to be also impossible, so much of it being stone. They, 
however, contrived to demolish it so much that it was now merely
ruinous walls. After they had set the prison on fire they said they
would go to the New Hall, the residence of Mr James Royds, one
of the principal manufacturers, if he did not give them some
money.

John Whitehead, who resides not two miles off Rochdale, said the
prisoners called at his house at four o'clock the following morning,
much intoxicated, and said they had got money at Rochdale, and
wanted him to help them to spend it; they told him how things
were going on there, and said the prison was on fire. The witness
told them they would all be hanged. Shepherd said his hands had
set it on fire, and showed a piece of lead, which he said was part of
it.

Turner, who was admitted an evidence, said he was standing with
Shepherd, opposite the prison, when it was on fire, where he
observed that if any man put the fire out he would endanger his
life. Shepherd told him he had got five pounds from Mr Royds;
they went to Mr Deardon's for money, where a guinea was thrown
out to them. At one time Shepherd asked if any man would go with
him to set Charles Trot's manufactory on fire.

The jury found Shepherd guilty. He was imprisoned.



HECTOR CAMPBELL, ESQ.
Fined and imprisoned, in the Year 1808, for acting as a Physician
without a Licence


MR CAMPBELL, though convicted of practising without the leave
of the College of Physicians, had been a surgeon in the navy, was a
man of science and skill, and, but for a misplaced pride, might
have readily passed his examination and obtained his diploma.

He was indicted by the Royal College of Physicians, in Warwick
Lane, for unlawfully prescribing and practising physic, etc., in
London, and within seven miles round the same, he not having
been examined by the College with regard to his skill, or being
licensed by them to practise these arts. In order to bottom the
indictment, the charter constituting the Royal College of
Physicians by Charles II was produced and read, and various
details of the laws and by-laws of the college were stated and
proved. By one of these by-laws, confirmed by the charter, as also
by an Act of the legislature, any person who presumed to exercise
the calling of a physician, etc., he not being licensed so as to
exercise that vocation, was to be summoned by a summons and
monition to appear before the College. The defendant, having
carried on these arts for some time, was at length summoned to
appear before the censor of the College, on the 6th of March. This
summons was issued by Dr Harvey, the registrar, by authority of
the censors; but the defendant did not appear.

Dr Harvey deposed that on the 3rd of April he prepared an
interdiction against Dr Campbell, by authority of the Board, which
was signed by all its members on that day. He was a witness to the
signature of the interdiction, and delivered it to Miller, the beadle.
The whole Board, he said, did not sign in cases of summonses, but
in those of interdictions they did.

Dr Pitcairn, one of the censors, was present when the defendant
appeared before the College. The defendant seemed to plume
himself on the eminence to which he said he had attained in the
profession. He called himself Dr Campbell, and wrote
prescriptions in the style in which physicians generally do.
Campbell said the College had not acted impartially towards him,
and had been impelled to resist him by unworthy motives; he
added that two very eminent physicians had forced themselves into
the profession by paying sums of money. On this the president
desired Mr Campbell to be silent, and to withdraw, which the
defendant refused to do, stating he had not come before the
College unadvisedly, as he had consulted his lawyer on what
conduct he ought to pursue. The defendant clapped his hand in his
pocket and asked what was to pay; and, just before leaving the
room, he was asked by the president whether he felt inclined to
relinquish the practice of surgery and medicine he then carried on.
The defendant replied in the negative; when he was told by the
president that legal measures would, to a certainty, be resorted to
in order to compel him so to do. The defendant made a most gross
reply, distinguishing the Board as a set of scoundrels.

Dr Lambe proved that he had received a letter from the defendant
after the above transaction, and Sir Lucas Pepys deposed that the
letter had been handed over to him by Dr Lambe. The letter was
expressive of the sorrow and contrition of the defendant for the
intemperate expressions he had made use of to the College, and
concluded with offering a most humble apology for his error.

Mr Nolan addressed the jury on the part of the defendant. He
observed that if Dr Campbell had got the advice of a counsel, the
advice he had used was false, erroneous and unwise. The
defendant, it was his duty to state, had practised from the age of
eighteen as a surgeon, with great credit and fame to himself and
universal benefit to the public. This was in the country; and the
defendant's anxiety for science and for extended knowledge in his
profession induced him to take up his residence in the metropolis
as a medical practitioner. He was summoned before the Royal
College of Physicians, and in answer to these summonses he wrote
a letter to Dr Harvey, civil and respectful in the extreme. He
received an answer from the doctor in his capacity as an individual,
not in his official character; but upon that it was unnecessary for
him to enlarge. It was his object here to state the feelings of Dr
Campbell, when he received a letter which irritated his mind, as a
man and a gentleman. To this irritability in the defendant's temper
was attributable all that followed. His mind had been broken by
what he conceived to be asperity on the part of the College, and he
so far forgot himself as to utter the offensive words described by
Dr Pitcairn. The letter, however, which had been sent by Dr
Campbell as an expiation of his offence was couched in such terms
that pity came to his aid, and he understood that learned body did
not mean to press for judgment before the Court should the
defendant be convicted. Dr Campbell had done all that frail man
could do. He had confessed his error, and had made a most
befitting and becoming apology.

Lord Ellenborough, in his address to the jury, said it was
impossible for him to anticipate what might be the effect of an
appeal to the Court by the Royal College of Physicians, when the
defendant might be brought up for judgment, in his behalf. That
was not the point at issue: the jury had to consider whether, under
all the circumstances of the case, they were convinced that the
general counts and allegations in the indictment were made out.
Were they convinced of that, they would find the defendant guilty;
if, on the contrary, they entertained any reasonable doubt, they
would give the defendant all the benefit of those doubts. The jury
found the defendant guilty, and he was ordered to be imprisoned,
and to pay a fine.



ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, ESQ.
Brevet-Major in the Army, and a Captain in the 21st Regiment of
Foot. Executed 24th of August, 1808, at Armagh, in Ireland, for
murdering a Brother Official, whom he killed in a Duel


ALEXANDER CAMPBELL was tried at the Armagh Assizes,
13th of August, 1808, for the wilful and felonious murder of
Alexander Boyd, captain in the same regiment, by shooting him
with a pistol bullet, on the 23rd of June, 1808, in the county of
Armagh, in the kingdom of Ireland. This murder was committed in
a duel.

The first witness called was George Adams, who deposed that
about nine in the evening of the 23rd of June he was sent for in
great haste to the deceased, Captain Boyd, who had since died of a
wound he had received by a pistol bullet, which had penetrated the
extremity of the four false ribs and lodged in the cavity of the
belly. This wound, he could take upon himself to say, was the 
cause of his death. He was sitting on a chair vomiting blood when
witness was sent for; he lived about eighteen hours afterwards.
Witness stayed with him till he died. He was in great pain, and
tumbled and tossed about in the most extreme agitation. Witness
conceived his wound to be mortal from the first moment he
examined it. The witness then stated the circumstances which led
to the duel.

John Hoey, mess-waiter to the 21st Regiment, swore that he went
with a message from Major Campbell to Captain Boyd, by means
of which they met.

Lieutenant Macpherson, surgeon, Nice, and others, proved the
dying words of Captain Boyd.

John Greenhill was produced to prove that Major Campbell had
had time to cool after the altercation had taken place, inasmuch as
he went home, drank tea with his family, and gave him a box to
leave with Lieutenant Hall before the affair took place.

The defence set up was merely as to the character of the prisoner
for humanity, peaceful conduct and proper behaviour: to this
several officers of the highest rank were produced, who vouched
for it to the fullest extent -- namely, Colonel Paterson, of the 21st
Regiment, General Campbell, General Graham Stirling, Captain
Macpherson, Captain Menzies, Colonel Gray, and many others.
The learned judge, in his charge, briefly summed up the main
points, and thus concluded: "If you are of opinion either that the
provocation, which I have mentioned to you, was too slight to
excite that violence of passion which the law requires for
manslaughter, or that, be the passion and the provocation what it
might, still that the prisoner had time to cool, and return to his
reason -- in either of these cases you are bound upon your oaths to
find the prisoner guilty of murder. There is still another point for
your serious consideration. It has been correctly stated to you by
the counsel that there is a thing called the point of honour -- a
principle totally false in itself, and unrecognised both by law and
morality, but which, from its practical importance and the mischief
attending any disregard of it to the individual concerned, and
particularly to a military individual, has usually been taken into
consideration by juries, and admitted as a kind of extenuation. But
in all such cases, gentlemen of the jury, there have been, and there
must be, certain grounds for such indulgent consideration -- such
departure from the letter and spirit of the law. In the first place, the
provocation must be great; in the second place, there must be a
perfectly fair dealing -- the contract, to oppose life to life, must be
perfect on both sides, the consent of both must be full; neither of
them must be forced into the field; and thirdly, there must be
something of a necessity, a compulsion, to give and take the
meeting; the consequence of refusing it being the loss of
reputation, and there being no means of honourable reconciliation
left. Let me not be mistaken on this serious point. I am not
justifying duelling; I am only stating those circumstances of
extenuation which are the only grounds that can justify a jury in
dispensing with the letter of the law. You have to consider,
therefore, gentlemen of the jury, whether this case has these
circumstances of extenuation. You must here recall to your minds
the words of the deceased Captain Boyd: 'You have hurried me: I
wanted you to wait and have friends. Campbell, you are a bad
man.' These words are very important, and if you deem them
sufficiently proved they certainly do away with all extenuation. If
you think them proved, the prisoner is most clearly guilty of
murder."

The jury then retired, and, after remaining about half-an-hour out
of court, returned with their verdict -- guilty of murder; but
recommended him to mercy on the score of character only.
Sentence of death was immediately passed on the unfortunate
gentleman, and he was ordered for execution on the Monday; but,
in consequence of the recommendation of the jury, was respited till
the Wednesday se'nnight. In the meantime every effort was made
by the friends of the unfortunate man to procure the Royal mercy.
The respite expired on the 23rd of August, and an order was sent
from Dublin Castle to Armagh for the execution of the unfortunate
gentleman on the 24th. His deportment during the whole of the
melancholy interval between his condemnation and the day of his
execution was manly but penitent, and such as became a Christian
towards his approaching dissolution. When he was informed that
all efforts to procure a pardon had failed he was only anxious for
the immediate execution of the sentence. He had repeatedly
implored that he might be shot; but as this was not suitable to the
forms of the common law his entreaties were of course without
success.

He was led out for execution on Wednesday, the 24th of August,
just as the clock struck twelve. A vast crowd had collected around
the scene of the catastrophe. He surveyed them a moment, then
turned his head towards heaven with a look of prayer. As soon as
he appeared, the whole of the attending guards, and such of the
soldiery as were spectators, took off their caps; upon which the
Major saluted them in turn. This spectacle was truly distressing,
and tears and shrieks burst from several parts of the crowd. When
the executioner approached to fix the cord, Major Campbell again
looked up to heaven. There was now the most profound silence.
The executioner seemed paralysed whilst performing this last act
of his duty. There was scarcely a dry eye out of so many thousands
assembled. The crowd seemed thunderstruck when the unfortunate
gentleman was at length turned off. After hanging the usual time
the body was put into a hearse which was waiting.



JAMES WOOD
Convicted at the Cumberland Summer Assizes, 1808, and executed
for a Double Murder


ON the 24th of August, 1808, James Wood was put to the bar,
charged with the wilful murder of Margaret Smith, wife of Thomas
Smith, weaver, of Longburn, and Jane Pattinson, of the same place,
spinster.

Thomas Smith, the prosecutor, and husband of Margaret Smith,
deceased, was called and sworn. He said that he lived at Longburn,
in the parish of Bromfield, was by trade a weaver, and had a small
farm. James Wood, the prisoner, came to his house at Martinmas
last, when he was at Wigton Market. His wife and wife's sister
were at home, and the prisoner was detained by them till his return.
The prisoner being a weaver, the prosecutor engaged him to work
out a web which he had in the loom. He said the prisoner was a
good workman, and could make about fifteen shillings a week
when he chose to work, but seldom made much more than seven
shillings, which was the price agreed on for his board. He
continued with him in the capacity of a journeyman weaver from
that time till 19th of January, 1808, on which day the prosecutor
went in the morning to Wigton Market, leaving his wife, his wife's
sister and the prisoner in the house. He (the prisoner) had on a pair
of stockings and sleeved jacket belonging to the prosecutor, which
he had obtained leave to wear, being himself very scanty of
clothes, having only one suit. The prosecutor stated that when he
left home, on the morning of the 19th, there were six guinea notes,
a twenty-shilling note and a crown-piece belonging to his wife's
sister; half-a-crown belonging to his wife, and three half-crowns
and three shillings belonging to himself. The money was deposited
in a box in the parlour, which was kept locked, and his wife had
the key. The half-crown belonging to his wife had been in her
possession a great many years, was of the coinage of William and
Mary, and was marked with the initial letters of her maiden name,
"M.P."

He stated that on his return from the market, in the dusk of the
evening, he was much surprised, the day being wet, to find the
cattle out in the yard, which, at so late an hour, was a circumstance
uncommon. As attending to the cattle was the business of his wife
and wife's sister, he called out, but got no answer. After taking his
mare out of the cart he went into the house, and found his sister-in-
law sitting on a chair, with her head resting on the table. After
raising her head, and placing it on his arm, he wiped her face,
which was smeared with blood, and exclaimed: "My dear jewel,
what is the matter with you?" He received no answer; but as she
was an infirm woman, and Wood, the prisoner, and his wife not
being present, he imagined that, his sister-in-law having had a fall
on the floor, they had gone out, one to inform the neighbours, and
the other for surgical assistance; consequently he was not much
alarmed, as he had not yet perceived the state she was in, only
perceiving the wound on her forehead. He went out and took care
of the cattle but was absent not more than three or four minutes.
When he returned he lighted a candle, and discovered his sister-in-
law to be snoring in her blood, with which the table was covered.
He raised her up, and she opened her eyes; he thought she knew
him, and seemed anxious to speak to him. He perceived her little
finger was nearly cut off, hanging only by a small part of the inner
skin, became much alarmed, and concluded she had been
murdered. He now became anxious for the safety of his wife, and,
after a little searching, found her in the barn. She was extended on
the floor, with her head bleeding much; she appeared nearly dead,
and was speechless. He said her skull was very much cracked, and
her head as soft as a boiled turnip. His house being at some
distance from any other, he went in search of help to his nearest
neighbours, exclaiming "Murder!"

Mr Scott, magistrate of Annan, heard of the prisoner, on the 20th
of January, being at the Tolbooth public-house, and went to have
him secured. Robert Elliot, the constable of Annan, was with him.
The witness (Mr Scott) asked him if he had purchased a watch,
which he denied. He immediately ordered him to the jail, and went
with him for the purpose of examination. He was there searched,
and in the inside of his hat-lining a watch was found. He was then
ordered to deliver up every other article of property of which he
was possessed; when he put his hand in his waistcoat-pocket and
took out a shilling, a watch-chain, some halfpence and a knife, and
said he had nothing else about him. On further searching him there
were found in his watch-pocket a crown-piece, four half-crown
pieces and thirty shillings. One half-crown piece was of the
coinage of William and Mary, marked with "M.P. 1802." All these
articles were put in a paper in the presence of the prisoner, and
seled. Two hours afterwards he was taken before Sir William
Douglas, Messrs Greencroft, Hodgson, Forest and witness, Justices
of the Peace, and examined. The prisoner then made a confession.

The jury, after a few minutes, gave in their verdict -- guilty; upon
which the judge immediately passed sentence of death. He was
executed the next day.



JAMES INWOOD
Convicted of Manslaughter in killing William Goodman, who had
been detected in robbing a fishery, October, 1808


AT the assizes for Hertford, 1808, James Inwood was indicted for
the wilful murder of William Goodman, by giving him several
mortal wounds with a cutlass, at Rickmansworth, in this county.

Mr Common Serjeant, as counsel for the prosecution, stated that
the prisoner rented a fishery at Ricksmansworth, and on the
morning of the 6th of October the deceased William Goodman
went to the water, no doubt for the purpose of illegally taking the
fish. The prisoner and four other men were on the watch, and about
four o'clock in the morning they discovered the deceased, who,
finding that persons were there, plunged into the water and swam
up the stream to a little eyot, or osier bank, where he evidently
meant to land. At this time some of the party were on one side of
the stream, and some on the other; and the prisoner, with a cutlass
in his hand, ran round to the osier island. As it was dark, the rest of
the party could not see what passed; but it seemed that the prisoner
gave the deceased several wounds, notwithstanding which he
escaped, and got home to his own cottage, when he expired on the
following Saturday.

Thomas Tochfield said he was a labourer at Rickmansworth. On
the night between the 5th and 6th of October he and the prisoner,
together with Davy, Ellingham, and two others, went to watch the
fishery of the prisoner. About four o'clock in the morning the
prisoner, who was outside the weir-house, gave them notice that
someone was near the wheels, and desired them to wait until he
should get to work. As soon as they thought the man had begun,
they all sallied out, and the man, finding himself discovered,
plunged into the middle of the stream and swam up against it.
Inwood, Davy and Ellingham were on the north side of the river,
and two others on the south side; they called to him to surrender,
but he made them no answer. Inwood, the prisoner, said he would
run round the osier island, to prevent his escaping that way. In a
short time he heard a splashing in the water, and Inwood called out
that the man had got him in the water, and would drown him if
they did not make haste to assist him. They went round and found
that the prisoner had been in the water, but the man had escaped.
They then went back to the weir-house, and there they found the
jacket which the man had left behind him, with a basket and a bag.
By the jacket they discovered that the man in the water must have
been Goodman, as they had often seen him wear it.

Ellingham, Davy and Walker, other persons on the watch, gave the
same account of the transaction; but it also appeared that the eels
were confined in baskets, and that the deceased came not to catch
fish, but to take away those already caught.

The learned judge here observed that it made a considerable
difference in the case, as it was clear he came to commit not
merely a trespass but a felony.

The prisoner, being called upon for his defence, said that the
deceased, in getting up the bank, pulled him into the water, and he
was afraid he would be drowned, and that what he did was in his
own defence.

The learned judge stated the law to the jury to be, that if anyone
person suspected a felony about to be committed on his property,
he might take to his assistance a peace officer, as was done here;
and the wrongdoer, if he did not surrender when called upon,
might be killed if he could not otherwise be taken. If they thought
the prisoner could not take the deceased without killing him, it
would be justifiable homicide.

The jury found him guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced
to one month's imprisonment.



JOHN RYAN AND MATHEW KEARINGE
Executed in Ireland, for Arson and Murder, 1808


AT the Lent Clonmell Assizes for the year 1808 John Ryan and
Mathew Kearinge were indicted for the murder of David Bourke;
in a second count with the murder of John Dougherty; in a third,
with setting fire to the house of Laurence Bourke; and in a fourth,
with maliciously firing at Laurence Bourke, with an intent to kill
him. They pleaded the general issue.

After the Solicitor-General had opened the case he called Laurence
Bourke, the prosecutor, who stated that on the night of the 11th of
October, between the hours of ten and eleven o'clock, he was
informed by his servant that there were a number of men in arms
advancing towards the house. In consequence of this information
he went to the window and saw the prisoners, with several others,
all armed, surrounding his house. They desired him to open the
door, but he refused; and they then fired several shots in through
the different windows. In the house were Dougherty, the deceased,
a man who was servant to the witness, and witness's wife and
child. They were armed, but had no ammunition but what the guns
were loaded with. The prisoners and the party, finding they could
not get into the house, set it on fire; and the witness heard the
prisoner Ryan say: "Take it easy, boys; you will see what boltings
we shall have by and by." The witness's wife and child then went
to the window and called out to Ryan (who was her relation) not to
burn the house, but he replied with an oath that he would; and a
shot was fired at her, which, though it did not take effect,
frightened her so much that she and her child fell out of the
window, and were seized by the prisoner Kearinge; but they
afterwards fortunately made their escape. The house was now
falling in flames about the witness's head, and he therefore opened
the door and ran out. Several shots were fired at him, but he 
escaped them, and made his way to the house of his father David
Bourke. In his flight he fired his piece and killed one of Ryan's
party. When witness arrived at his father's house he found he had
gone to the assistance of the witness; and on returning to the place
where his house stood, in search of his father, he found that Ryan
and his party had gone, and his father's corpse was lying about
twelve yards from the smoking ruins of his dwelling.

Winifred Kennedy and other witnesses were examined, who
corroborated the testimony of Bourke, and proved that the
deceased John Dougherty was burned in Bourke's house. It was
also proved that the whole of Ryan's party were entertained at
dinner by him that day, and they all left his house armed, for the
purpose of attacking Bourke.

On the part of the prisoner Ryan an alibi was attempted to be
proved by a woman who lived with him, which entirely failed; and,
after a very minute charge from the learned judge, the jury brought
in a verdict of guilty against both the prisoners. They were
executed accordingly.



THE REV. ABRAHAM ASHWORTH,
Sentenced in 1808 to Three Years' Imprisonment in Lancaster Jail,
for ill-treating his Female Pupils


The Rev. Abraham Ashworth, a clergyman and schoolmaster, at
Newton, near Manchester, was brought up to receive the judgment
of the Court of King's Bench, at Westminster, in 1808, he having
been convicted at the last Lancaster Assizes on two indictments:
for assaulting Mary Ann Gillibrand and Mary Barlow, his scholars;
and for taking such indecent liberties with their persons as greatly
to hurt and injure them. Mr Scarlett addressed the Court in
mitigation. The punishment, he said, the Court would feel it due to
justice to inflict would be of little additional consequence to the
defendant, as his ruin was already consummated; but he had a wife
and six children, who had been virtuously bred and educated, and
it was on their account he implored the Court not to inflict a
punishment on the defendant that would render him infamous.

Mr Serjeant Cockell said it was not his wish to bruise the bended
reed, yet it was necessary that an example should be made of the
defendant. He was a clergyman and a teacher of youth; and the
prosecutors, who had acted from the most laudable motives, had
abundant reasons for what they had done. They felt themselves
irresistibly called upon to check the practices imputed to the
defendant, and which there was too much reason for believing he
had indulged in for a considerable time past.

Mr Justice Grose, in passing sentence, addressed the defendant to
the following effect: 'You have been convicted of an assault upon a
child of very tender years; the narrative of your conduct is horrible
to hear and horrible to reflect upon. The aggravations of your
offence, I am sorry to say, are multifarious. The object of your
brutality was a child committed to your care and instruction, and
you are a clergyman and a teacher; a man grey in years, and
possessing a large family. In looking to the class of
misdemeanours, I know of none so horrible as the one of which
you have been convicted. Of your guilt it is impossible to doubt,
and that guilt is rendered more heinous by your professing to
inculcate the doctrines of a religion which you have so little
practised. Instead of protecting the child from the contamination of
the world, you exposed her to your own licentiousness, and sought
to corrupt her mind. I am shocked at seeing a clergyman standing
to receive sentence for such an offence." Mr Justice Grose then
proceeded to pass sentence, and adjudged that the defendant should
be imprisoned in Lancaster Jail for three years, being eighteen
months for each conviction.

The court observed that the fear of a greater punishment befalling
him prevented them from inflicting that of the pillory. [It was
apprehended that he would, if pilloried, have there been killed by
the enraged populace.]



JOHN NICHOLLS
A Wholesale Bank-Note Forger, convicted at the January Sessions
at the Old Bailey, 1809, and executed before Newgate


JOHN NICHOLLS, a tradesman, of Birmingham, was capitally
indicted at the Old Bailey, January, 1809, for putting off and
disposing of forged bank-notes, knowing them to be such, with
intent to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of
England. One note in particular, for five pounds, No. 7484, was
charged in the indictment, and alleged to have been put off by the
prisoner, with the guilty knowledge imputed to him.

On the 25th of November an Italian, named Vincent Alessi, who
lodged at the Lemon Tree, in the Haymarket, and affected the
exterior of a foreigner of distinction, was detected in putting off a
forged five-pound bank-note at the house of a Mr Taylor, a
publican, in Holborn. Upon inquiry it was discovered that he had
put off another five-pound note of the same manufacture while
prosecuting an amour with a Miss Neads, in Soho, and that the
note was detected by Mrs Dearlove, to whom it was afterwards
tendered in payment for some wine. On searching his lodgings
more counterfeit notes were found, and it was suspected that he
was connected with some wholesale depredators. He was in
consequence interrogated as to the fact, and he immediately
confessed that he had bought the notes of John Nicholls, who lived
at Birmingham, and had given him six shillings for a one-pound
note, twelve shillings for a two-pound note and thirty shillings for
a five-pound note. The solicitor of the bank, thinking it would best
serve the ends of public justice, advised that Alessi should be
admitted an evidence for the Crown, and through his means the
wholesale dealer convicted. This was acceded to on the part of the
Crown, and means were instantly taken to detect Nicholls. This
could only be done through the medium of Alessi, who, on the
10th of December, his own detection being kept secret, wrote to
the prisoner, informing him that he was about to depart for
America, and that he should want twenty dozen of "candlesticks"
marked No. 5, twenty-four dozen marked No. 1, and four dozen
marked No. 2. The word "candlesticks" was understood between
the parties to mean bank-notes, and the figure mark, the value of
the notes. The prisoner wrote for answer that he should be in town
the following week, and if that would be in time he begged a line
to that effect. Alessi wrote a second letter, saying that the
following week would do exceedingly well, as he did not mean to
leave England till after Christmas.

This interview being arranged, four police officers stationed
themselves in a room at the Lemon Tree, adjoining that in which
Alessi was to receive the prisoner, so as to see and hear everything
that passed. The prisoner was punctual to his engagement. He
brought with him the notes, and took six shillings in the pound in
payment for them. When that transaction was finished Alessi put
on his hat -- the agreed signal for the officers to advance -- and
they rushed in and secured the prisoner. At first he said he had
found the parcel containing the notes in the street, and then that he
had received them from a friend at Birmingham. On searching the
prisoner other forged notes were found, and the letter written by
Alessi giving the order. The notes given by the prisoner to Alessi
on the above occasion were precisely of the same manufacture as
that stated in the indictment -- and which Alessi said he had bought
of the prisoner -- and as those found at Alessi's lodgings.

Alessi underwent a severe cross-examination by Mr Gurney, the
prisoner's counsel. He said he had been backwards and forwards
between Italy and England for the last fifteen years, but that he had
been only five months and a half resident this last trip, during
which time he had followed no other business than that of putting
off forged banknotes. He met the prisoner at Birmingham to which
place he went to purchase hardware, as an adventure to Spain. The
prisoner told him the bank-notes in question would pass current out
of England. He knew persons were hanged for forging bank-notes,
but did not understand that they were for passing them off. He
could not say whether he had betrayed the prisoner from a sense of
public justice or to save his life. He did not think he should be
hanged. He confided in hope, and it was the last thing a man
should lose. He had seen another man at Birmingham who also
was a dealer in counterfeit notes.

Baron Thompson summed up the evidence, and the jury instantly
found the prisoner guilty.

He appeared to have made up his mind, from the time of his
apprehension, for the worst fate that could await him. On his trial
he conducted himself with great fortitude; and with resignation
from his condemnation to the moment he was launched into
eternity.



MARGARET CRIMES ALIAS BARRINGTON
Executed before Newgate, 22nd of February, 1809, for taking a
False Oath, and thereby obtaining Letters of Administration to the
Effects of a Soldier


AT the Old Bailey, on Saturday, the 14th of January, 1809,
Margaret Barrington was capitally indicted for falsely taking an
oath before Dr Coote, surrogate to the judge of the Prerogative
Court, Doctors' Commons, to obtain letters of administration, in
order to receive twenty-four pounds, one shilling and sixpence
prize-money due to one Thomas Rotten, late a private in the 87th
Regiment, and a supernumerary on board the Eurus frigate at the
time she made various captures in her voyage to the West Indies.
The prisoner appeared to have been connected with two persons of
the names of Vaughan and Knight, the former of whom was
hanged, and the latter transported for life, for similar offences to
that with which she was charged. In her defence she persisted in
the story of her marriage to Thomas Rotten: the only thing she
could be blamed for, she said, was presenting a fabricated
certificate, which she confessed Knight made for her; but she was
told she would not get the prize-money without it, and at Dumfries
they kept no register of marriages.

The judge summed up with great humanity; and the jury, after
consulting together for some time, found a verdict of guilty. She
was sentenced to death, and ordered for execution on the 22nd of
February.

On a motion of her counsel she was again put to the bar, and
pleaded, in stay of execution, that she was quick with child; upon
which a jury of matrons were empanelled, who retired with the
prisoner and Mr Box, assisted by a surgeon of eminence, who were
also sworn. After being absent about fifteen minutes they returned
a verdict that she was not quick with child. Whereupon the
recorder, in a most solemn and pathetic manner, exhorted the
prisoner to make the best use in her power of the short time
allotted to her in this life. The unfortunate woman was taken from
the bar in convulsions, but next day appeared resigned to her fate.



MARY BATEMAN
Commonly called the Yorkshire Witch, Executed for Murder


THE insidious arts practised by this woman rendered her a pest to
the neighbourhood in which she resided, and she richly deserved
that fate which eventually befell her.

Mary Bateman was born of reputable parents at Aisenby in the
North Riding of Yorkshire, in the year 1768: her father, whose
name was Harker, carrying on business as a small farmer. As early
as at the age of five years, she exhibited much of that sly knavery,
which subsequently so extraordinarily distinguished her character;
and many were the frauds and falsehoods, of which she was guilty,
and for which she was punished. In the year 1780, she first quitted
her father's house, to undertake the duties of a servant in Thirsk,
but having been guilty of some peccadilloes, she proceeded to
York in 1787. Before she had been in that city more than twelve
months, she was detected in pilfering some trifling articles of
property belonging to her mistress, and was compelled to run off to
Leeds, without waiting either for her wages or her clothes. For a
considerable time she remained without employment or friends,
but at length, upon the recommendation of an acquaintance of her
mother, she obtained an engagement in the shop of a mantua
maker, in whose service she remained for more than three years.
She then became acquainted with John Bateman, to whom after
three weeks' courtship she was married in the year 1792.

Within two months after her marriage, she was found to have been
guilty of many frauds, and she only escaped prosecution by
inducing her husband to move frequently from place to place, so as
to escape apprehension; and at length poor Bateman, driven almost
wild by the tricks of his wife, entered the supplementary militia.
Mrs Bateman was now entirely thrown upon her own resources
and, unable to follow any reputable trade, she in the year 1799 took
up her residence in Marsh Lane, near Timble Bridge, Leeds, and
proceeded to deal in fortune-telling and the sale of charms. From a
long course of iniquity, carried on chiefly through the medium of
the most wily arts, she had acquired a manner and a mode of
speech peculiarly adapted to her new profession, and abundance of
credulous victims daily presented themselves to her.	It would be
useless to follow this wretched woman through the subsequent
scenes of her miserable life. Fraud and deceit were the only means
by which she was able to carry on the war, and numerous were the
impudent and heartless schemes which she put into operation to
dupe the unhappy objects of her at tacks. Her character was such as
to prevent her long pursuing her occupation in one position, and
she was repeatedly compelled to change her abode until she at
length took up her residence in Black Dog Lane, where she was
apprehended. Her husband at this time had returned from the
militia several years, and although he followed the trade to which
he had been brought up, there can be little doubt that he shared the
proceeds of his wife's villainies.	She was indicted at York on
the 18th of March 1809, for the wilful murder of Rebecca Perigo
of Bramley in the same county, in the month of May in the
previous year.	The examination of the witnesses, who were called
to support the case for the prosecution, showed, that Mrs Bateman
resided at Leeds, and was well known at that place, as well as in
the surrounding districts, as a 'witch', in which capacity she had
been frequently employed to work cures of 'evil wishes', and all the
other customary imaginary illnesses, to which the credulous lower
orders at that time supposed themselves liable. Her name had
become much celebrated in the neighbourhood for her successes in
the arts of divining and witchcraft, and it may be readily concluded
that her efforts in her own behalf were no less profitable.

In the spring of 1806 Mrs Perigo, who lived with her husband at
Bramley, a village at a short distance from Leeds, was seized with
a 'flacking', or fluttering in her breast whenever she lay down, and
applying to a quack doctor of the place, he assured her that it was
beyond his cure, for that an 'evil wish' had been laid upon her, and
that the arts of sorcery must be resorted to in order to effect her
relief. While in this dilemma, she was visited by her niece, a girl
named Stead, who at that time filled a situation as a household
servant at Leeds, and who had taken advantage of the Whitsuntide
holidays to go round to see her friends. Stead expressed her sorrow
to find her aunt in so terrible a situation, and recommended an
immediate appeal to the prisoner, whose powers she described as
fully equal to get rid of any affection of the kind, whether
produced by mortal or diabolical charms. An application was at
once determined on, and Stead was employed to broach the subject
to the diviner. She, in consequence, paid the prisoner a visit at her
house in Black Dog Yard, near the bank at Leeds. Having
acquainted her with the nature of the malady by which her aunt
was affected, she was informed that the prisoner knew a lady who
lived at Scarborough, and that if a flannel petticoat or some article
of dress, which was worn next the skin of the patient, was sent to
her, she would at once communicate with this lady upon the
subject.

On the following Tuesday, William Perigo, the husband of the
deceased, proceeded to her house, and having handed over his
wife's flannel petticoat, the prisoner said that she would write to
Miss Blythe, who was the lady to whom she had alluded at
Scarborough, by the same night's post, and that an answer would
doubtless be returned by that day week, when he was to call again.
On the day mentioned, Perigo was true to his appointment, and the
prisoner produced to him a letter, saying that it had arrived from
Miss Blythe, and that it contained directions as to what was to be
done. After a great deal of circumlocution and mystery the letter
was opened and read by the prisoner, and it was found that it
contained an order 'that Mary Bateman should go to Perigo's house
at Bramley, and should take with her four guinea notes, which
were enclosed, and that she should sew them into the four corners
of the bed, in which the diseased woman slept.' There they were to
remain for eighteen months. Perigo was to give her four other
notes of like value, to be returned to Scarborough. Unless all these
directions were strictly attended to, the charm would be useless
and would not work. On the 4th of August the prisoner went over
to Bramley, and having shown the four notes, proceeded
apparently to sew them up in silken bags, which she delivered over
to Mrs Perigo to be placed in the bed. The four notes desired to be
returned were then handed to her by Perigo and she retired,
directing her dupes frequently to send to her house, as letters might
be expected from Miss Blythe. In about a fortnight, another letter
was produced, and it contained directions that two pieces of iron in 
the form of horse-shoes should be nailed up by the prisoner at
Perigo's door, but that the nails should not be driven in with a
hammer, but with the back of a pair of pincers, and that the pincers
were to be sent to Scarborough, to remain in the custody of Miss
Blythe for the eighteen months already mentioned in the charm.
The prisoner accordingly again visited Bramley and, having nailed
up the horse-shoes, received and carried off the pincers.

In October the following letter was received by Perigo, bearing the
signature of the supposed Miss Blythe.

'My dear Friend --
	You must go down to Mary Bateman's at Leeds, on
Tuesday next, and carry two guinea notes with you and give her
them, and she will give you other two that I have sent to her from
Scarborough, and you must buy me a small cheese about six or
eight pound weight, and it must be of your buying, for it is for a
particular use, and it is to be carried down to Mary Bateman's, and
she will send it to me by the coach -- This letter is to be burned
when you have done reading it.'

From this time to the month of March 1807, a great number of
letters were received, demanding the transmission of various
articles to Miss Blythe through the medium of the prisoner. All 
these were to be preserved by her until the expiration of the
eighteen months. In the course of the same period money to the
amount of near seventy pounds was paid over, Perigo, upon each
occasion of payment, receiving silk bags, containing what were
pretended to be coins or notes of corresponding value, which were
to be sewn up in the bed as before. In March 1807, the following
letter arrived.

'My dear Friends -
	I will be obliged to you if you will let me have half-a-dozen
of your china, three silver spoons, half-a-pound of tea, two pounds
of loaf sugar, and a tea canister to put the tea in, or else it will not
do -- I durst not drink out of my own china. You must burn this
with a candle.'

The china, &c, not having been sent, in the month of April Miss
Blythe wrote as follows:

'My dear Friends --
	I will be obliged to you if you will buy me a camp
bedstead, bed and bedding, a blanket, a pair of sheets, and a long
bolster must come from your house. You need not buy the best
feathers, common ones will do. I have laid on the floor for three
nights, and I cannot lay on my own bed owing to the planets being
so bad concerning your wife, and I must have one of your buying
or it will not do. You must bring down the china, the sugar, the
caddy, the three silver spoons, and the tea at the same time when
you buy the bed, and pack them up altogether. My brother's boat
will be up in a day or two, and I will order my brother's boatman to
call for them all at Mary Bateman's, and you must give Mary
Bateman one shilling for the boatman, and I will place it to your
account. Your wife must burn this as soon as it is read or it will not
do.'

This had the desired effect, and the prisoner having called upon the
Perigos, she accompanied them to the shops of a Mr Dobbin and a
Mr Musgrave at Leeds, to purchase the various articles named.
These were eventually bought at a cost of sixteen pounds, and sent
to Mr Sutton's, at the Lion and Lamb Inn, Kirkgate, there to await
the arrival of the supposed messenger.

At the end of April, the following letter arrived:

'My dear Friends --
	I am sorry to tell you you will take an illness in the month
of May next, one or both of you, but I think both, but the works of
God must have its course. You will escape the chambers of the
grave; though you seem to be dead, yet you will live. Your wife
must take half-a-pound of honey down from Bramley to Mary
Bateman's at Leeds, and it must remain there till you go down
yourself, and she will put in such like stuff as I have sent from
Scarbro' to her, and she will put it in when you come down, and
see her yourself, or it will not do. You must eat pudding for six
days, and you must put in such like stuff as I have sent to Mary
Bateman from Scarbro', and she will give your wife it, but you
must not begin to eat of this pudding while I let you know. If ever
you find yourself sickly at any time, you must take each of you a
teaspoonful of this honey; I will remit twenty pounds to you on the
20th day of May, and it will pay a little of what you owe. You
must bring this down to Mary Bateman's, and burn it at her house,
when you come down next time.'	The instructions contained in
this letter were complied with, and the prisoner having first mixed
a white powder in the honey, handed over six others of the same
colour and description to Mrs Perigo, saying that they must be used
in the precise manner mentioned upon them, or they would all be
killed. On the 5th of May, another letter arrived in the following
terms:

'My dear Friends --
	You must begin to eat pudding on the 11th of May, and you
must put one of the powders in every day as they are marked, for
six days -- and you must see it put in yourself every day or else it
will not do. If you find yourself sickly at any time you must not
have no doctor, for it will not do, and you must not let the boy that
used to eat with you eat of that pudding for six days; and you must
make only just as much as you can eat yourselves, if there is any
left it will not do. You must keep the door fast as much as possible
or you will be overcome by some enemy. Now think on and take
my directions or else it will kill us all. About the 25th of May I will
come to Leeds and send for your wife to Mary Bateman's; your
wife will take me by the hand and say, "God bless you that I ever
found you out." It has pleased God to send me into the world that I
might destroy the works of darkness; I call them the works of
darkness because they are dark to you -- now mind what I say
whatever you do, This letter must be burned in straw on the hearth
by your wife.'

The absurd credulity of Mr and Mrs Perigo even yet favoured the
horrid designs of the prisoner; and, in obedience to the directions
which they received, they began to eat the puddings on the day
named. For five days they had no particular flavour, but upon the
sixth powder being mixed, the pudding was found so nauseous that
the former could only eat one or two mouthfuls, while his wife
managed to swallow three or four. They were both directly seized
with violent vomiting and Mrs Perigo, whose faith appears to have
been greater than that of her husband, at once had recourse to the
honey. Their sickness continued during the whole day, but
although Mrs Perigo suffered the most intense torments, she
positively refused to hear of a doctor's being sent for, lest, as she
said, the charm should be broken by Miss Blythe's directions being
opposed. The recovery of the husband, from the illness by which
he was affected, slowly progressed; but the wife, who persisted in
eating the honey, continued daily to lose strength. She at length
expired on the 24th of May, her last words being a request to her
husband not to be 'rash' with Mary Bateman, but to await the
coming of the appointed time.	Mr Chorley, a surgeon, was
subsequently called in to see her body, but although he expressed
his firm belief that the death of the deceased was caused by her
having taken poison, and although that impression was confirmed
by the circumstance of a cat dying immediately after it had eaten
some of the pudding, no further steps were taken to ascertain the
real cause of death, and Perigo even subsequently continued in
communication with the prisoner.

Upon his informing her of the death of his wife, she at once
declared that it was attributable to her having eaten all the honey at
once. Then in the beginning of June, he received the following
letter from Miss Blythe:	'My dear Friend --
	I am sorry to tell you that your wife should touch of those
things which I ordered her not, and for that reason it has caused her
death; it had likened to have killed me at Scarborough, and Mary
Bateman at Leeds, and you and all, and for this reason, she will
rise from the grave, she will stroke your face with her right hand,
and you will lose the use of one side, but I will pray for you. I
would not have you to go to no doctor, for it will not do. I would
have you to eat and drink what you like, and you will be better.
Now, my dear friend, take my directions, do and it will be better
for you. Pray God bless you. Amen. Amen. You must burn this
letter immediately after it is read.'

Letters were also subsequently received by him, purporting to be
from the same person, in which new demands for clothing, coals,
and other articles were made, but at length, in the month of
October 1808, two years having elapsed since the commencement
of the charm, he thought that the time had fully arrived when, if
any good effects were to be produced from it, they would have
been apparent, and that therefore he was entitled to look for his
money in the bed. He in consequence commenced a search for the
little silk bags in which his notes and money had been, as he
supposed, sewn up; but although the bags indeed were in precisely
the same positions in which they had been placed by his deceased
wife, by some unaccountable conjuration, the notes and gold had
turned to rotten cabbage-leaves and bad farthings. The darkness,
by which the truth had been so long obscured, now passed away,
and having communicated with the prisoner, by a stratagem,
meeting her under pretence of receiving from her a bottle of
medicine, which was to cure him from the effects of the puddings
which still remained, he caused her to be apprehended. Upon her
house being searched, nearly all the property sent to the supposed
Miss Blythe was found in her possession, and a bottle containing a
liquid mixed with two powders, one of which proved to be
oatmeal, and the other arsenic, was taken from her pocket when
she was taken into custody.

The rest of the evidence against the prisoner went to show that
there was no such person as Miss Blythe living at Scarborough,
and that all the letters which had been received by Perigo were in
her own handwriting, and had been sent by her to Scarborough to
be transmitted back again. An attempt was also proved to have
been made by her to purchase some arsenic, at the shop of a Mr
Clough, in Kirkgate, in the month of April 1807. But the most
important testimony was that of Mr Chorley, the surgeon, who
distinctly proved that he had analysed what remained of the
pudding and of the contents of the honey pot, and that he found
them both to contain a deadly poison, called corrosive sublimate of
mercury, and that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased and her
husband were such as would have arisen from the administration of
such a drug.

The prisoner's defence consisted of a simple denial of the charge,
and the learned judge then proceeded to address the jury. Having
stated the nature of the allegations made in the indictment, he said
that in order to come to a conclusion as to the guilt of the prisoner,
it was necessary that three points should be clearly made out. 1st.
That the deceased died of poison. 2nd. That that poison was
administered by the contrivance and knowledge of the prisoner.
3rd. That it was so done for the purpose of occasioning the death of
the deceased. A large body of evidence had been laid before them,
to prove that the prisoner had engaged in schemes of fraud against
the deceased and her husband, which was proved not merely by the
evidence of Wm. Perigo, but by the testimony of other witnesses.
The inference the prosecutors drew from this fraud was the
existence of a powerful motive or temptation to commit a still
greater crime, for the purpose of escaping the shame and
punishment which must have attended the detection of the fraud --
a fraud so gross, that it excited his surprise that any individual in
that age and nation could be the dupe of it. But the jury should not
go beyond this inference, and presume that, because the prisoner
had been guilty of fraud, she was of course likely to have
committed the crime of murder. That, if proved, must be shown by
other evidence. His Lordship then proceeded to recapitulate the
whole of the evidence, as detailed in the preceding pages, and
concluded with the following observations. 'It is impossible not to
be struck with wonder at the extraordinary credulity of Wm.
Perigo, which neither the loss of his property, the death of his wife
nor his own severe sufferings, could dispel. It was not until the
month of October in the following year, that he ventured to open
his his treasure, and found there what everyone in court must have
anticipated, that he would find not a single vestige of his property.
His evidence is laid before the jury with the observation which
arises from this uncommon want of judgement, but his memory
appears to be very retentive and his evidence is confirmed, and that
in different parts of the narrative, by other witnesses, while many
parts of the case do not rest upon his evidence at all. The illness
and peculiar symptoms, which preceded the death of his wife, his
own severe sickness, and a variety of other circumstances
attending the experiments made upon the pudding, were proved by
separate and independent testimony. It is most strange that, in a
case of so much suspicion as it appeared to have excited at the
time, the interment of the body should have taken place without
any inquiry as to the cause of death, an inquiry which then would
have been much less difficult, though the fact of the deceased
having died of poison is now well established. The main question
is, did the prisoner contrive the means to induce the deceased to
take it? If she did so contrive the means, the intent could only be to
destroy. Poison so deadly could not be administered with any other
view. The jury will lay all the facts and circumstances together;
and if they feel them press so strongly against the prisoner, as to
induce a conviction of the prisoner's having procured the deceased
to take poison with an intent to occasion her death, they will find
her guilty. If they do not think the evidence conclusive, they will,
in that case, find the prisoner not guilty.'

The jury, after conferring for a moment, found the prisoner guilty,
and the judge proceeded to pass sentence of death upon her, in
nearly the following words:

'Mary Bateman, you have been convicted of wilful murder by a
jury who, after having examined your case with caution, have,
constrained by the force of evidence, pronounced you guilty. It
only remains for me to fulfil my painful duty by passing upon you
the awful sentence of the law. After you have been so long in the
situation in which you now stand, and harassed as your mind must
be by the long detail of your crimes and by listening to the
sufferings you have occasioned, I do not wish to add to your
distress by saying more than my duty renders necessary. Of your
guilt, there cannot remain a particle of doubt in the breast of
anyone who has heard your case. You entered into a long and
premeditated system of fraud, which you carried on for a length of
time which is most astonishing, and by means which one would
have supposed could not, in this age and nation, have been
practised with success. To prevent a discovery of your complicated
fraud, and the punishment which must have resulted therefrom,
you deliberately contrived the death of the persons you had so
grossly injured, and that by means of poison, a mode of destruction
against which there is no sure protection. But your guilty design
was not fully accomplished, and, after so extraordinary a lapse of
time, you are reserved as a signal example of the justice of that
mysterious Providence, which, sooner or later, overtakes guilt like
yours. At the very time when you were apprehended, there is the
greatest reason to suppose, that if your surviving victim had met
you alone, as you wished him to do, you would have administered
to him a more deadly dose, which would have completed the
diabolical project you had long before formed, but which at that
time only partially succeeded; for upon your person, at that
moment, was found a phial containing a most deadly poison. For
crimes like yours, in this world, the gates of mercy are closed. You
afforded your victim no time for preparation, but the law, while it
dooms you to death, has, in its mercy, afforded you time for
repentance, and the assistance of pious and devout men, whose
admonitions, and prayers, and counsels may assist to prepare you
for another world, where even your crimes, if sincerely repented
of, may find mercy.

'The sentence of the law is, and the court doth award it, That you
be taken to the place from whence you came, and from thence, on
Monday next, to the place of execution, there to be hanged by the
neck until you are dead, and that your body be given to the
surgeons to be dissected and anatomized. And may Almighty God
have mercy upon your soul.'

The prisoner having intimated that she was pregnant, the clerk of
the arraigns said, 'Mary Bateman, what have you to say, why
immediate execution should not be awarded against you?' On
which the prisoner pleaded that she was twenty-two weeks gone
with child. On this plea the judge ordered the sheriff to empanel a
jury of matrons: this order created a general consternation among
the ladies, who hastened to quit the court, to prevent the execution
of so painful an office being imposed upon them. His lordship, in
consequence, ordered the doors to be closed, and in about half-an-
hour, twelve married women being empanelled, they were sworn
in court, and charged to inquire 'whether the prisoner was with
quick child?' The jury of matrons then retired with the prisoner,
and on their return into court delivered their verdict, which was
that Mary Bateman is not with quick child. The execution of
course was not respited, and she was remanded back to prison.

During the brief interval between her receiving sentence of death
and her execution, the ordinary, the Rev George Brown, took great
pains to prevail upon her ingenuously to acknowledge and confess
her crimes. Though the prisoner behaved with decorum during the
few hours that remained of her existence, and readily joined in the
customary offices of devotion, no traits of that deep compunction
of mind which, for crimes like hers, must be felt where repentance
is sincere, could be observed; but she maintained her caution and
mystery to the last. On the day preceding her execution, she wrote
a letter to her husband, in which she enclosed her wedding-ring,
with a request that it might be given to her daughter. She admitted
that she had been guilty of many frauds, but still denied that she
had had any intention to produce the death of Mr or Mrs Perigo.

Upon the Monday morning at five o'clock she was called from her
cell, to undergo the last sentence of the law. She received the
communion with some other prisoners, who were about to be
executed on the same day, but all attempts to induce her to
acknowledge the justice of her sentence, or the crime of which she
had been found guilty, proved vain. She maintained the greatest
firmness in her demeanour to the last, which was in no wise
interrupted even upon her taking leave of her infant child, which
lay sleeping in her cell.

Upon the appearance of the convict upon the platform, the deepest
silence prevailed amongst the immense assemblage of persons
which had been collected to witness the execution. As final duty,
the Rev Mr Brown, immediately before the drop fell again
exhorted the unhappy woman to confession, but her only reply was
a repetition of the declaration of her innocence, and the next
moment terminated her existence.

Her body having remained suspended during the usual time, was
cut down, and sent to the General Infirmary at Leeds to be
anatomized. Immense crowds of persons assembled to meet the
hearse in which it was carried, and so great was the desire of the
people to see her remains, that 30L. were collected for the of the
infirmary, by the payment of 3d. for each person admitted to the
apartment in which they were exposed.

Mary Bateman was neat in her person and dress, and though there
was nothing ingenuous in her countenance, it had an air of
placidity and composure, not ill adapted to make a favourable
impression on those who visited her. Her manner of address was
soft and insinuating, with the affectation of sanctity. In her
domestic arrangements she was regular, and was mistress of such
qualifications in housewifery as, with an honest heart, would have
enabled her to fill her station with respectability and usefulness.



HENRY HUNT
A Driver of the Norwich Mail. Convicted of stealing a Gold Watch
sent by his Coach, 8th of April, 1809


AT the Old Bailey, on Monday, 8th of April, Henry Hunt was put
to the bar charged with having stolen a gold watch, with a metal
outside case, and two gold seals, valued at sixteen guineas, the
property of a Mr James Bennett. There were other counts in the
indictment charging this property to belong to Messrs Gooch &
Co., watchmakers, and Messrs Boulton & Co., coach-owners.

It appeared from the evidence of Mr Gooch that he got the watch
in question from Mr Bennett, who resided at Norwich, and that on
the 5th of March he booked it at the coach office of Messrs
Boulton & Co. for that city, and paid booking. Mr Bennett proved
that it never came to hand.

It appeared that the prisoner was the driver of the Norwich mail, by
which coach the parcel containing this property was sent, and that
on the 11th of March he went to a public-house, known by the sign
of the Bunch of Grapes, in Bow Street, and there stated that he
wanted to have a watch, which he had lately bought, either altered
or exchanged for a silver watch, and wished the landlord to find
out the value of it. The landlord took the watch for that purpose,
and the first person to whom he made mention of the fact, after
showing it to a watchmaker, was an officer belonging to the public
office, Bow Street, of the name of Salmon, who ultimately
apprehended the prisoner, when he subsequently came to town, the
moment he alighted at the Golden Cross, Charing Cross. The
prisoner at first said he had bought it from a person known at Lad
Lane by the nickname of "Long Jack," and the officer accompanied
him thither; but it turned out to be a gross falsehood.

A witness of the name of Woodbridge was called to prove that he
saw the prisoner buy the watch from a tall man in Lombard Street,
whilst the coach was waiting for the mail delivery. But not only
was the account which he gave of himself problematical, but his
story as to the fact was so gross and contradictory that he was
subsequently committed to take his trial for wilful and corrupt
perjury, and he was immediately conveyed into Newgate by the
officers of the court.

The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. The
indictment, however, was, through the lenity of the prosecutors,
only maintained to the extent of larceny, by which means the
prisoner was saved from a capital conviction; but the Court had the
power of transporting him for seven years. He was sentenced to
transportation for seven years.



WILLIAM PROUDLOVE AND GEORGE GLOVER
Executed at Chester, 28th of May, 1809, for Salt-Stealing, after a
First Attempt to hang them had failed


IN the county of Cheshire were several salt-works; and these men,
it appeared, were connected with a gang of villains, who made a
practice of committing depredations on those valuable
manufactories, and conveying the salt to Liverpool and
Manchester, where they found a ready sale for it.

The works at Odd Rode had been frequently plundered by these
men; and when they were detected by an excise officer they fired a
pistol at him, in order to facilitate their escape. They, however,
missed their aim, were taken, tried, and sentenced to death. They
confessed the robbery, but solemnly denied the act of shooting at
the exciseman, which they laid to the charge of one Robert Beech,
one of the gang not then apprehended.

On the morning of their execution they received the Sacrament
with much apparent devotion, in which they were joined by the
wife of Proudlove, the mother of Glover, and four more convicts
under sentence of death. They were then consigned to the custody
of the sheriff, and walked with firm steps to the cart in waiting to
receive them. After they had passed through the principal streets of
the city of Chester they were carried to the place of execution,
which was covered with black cloth.

We wish we could here end our painful report of the sad scene
which followed the dropping of the platform; but alas, horrid to
relate, both ropes snapped a few inches from their necks, and the
poor sufferers fell upon the terrace.

The impression and shock upon the feelings of a multitude of
spectators at this moment cannot be described. Human sensibility
was harrowed to the very soul; and the moans, cries and tears of
the people loudly spoke the poignancy of their hearts. Stranger yet 
to tell, the miserable men appeared to feel little either in body or
mind from the shock they had received: they lamented it had
happened, and spoke of it as a disappointment in going instantly to
heaven.

They were conducted back to the jail, to which they walked with
equal coolness, and only requested that the chaplain might again
come to them. This was complied with -- and, stronger ropes being
procured, about three o'clock in the afternoon, having passed the
intermediate time in prayer, they were reconducted to the fatal
drop and, perfectly resigned to their fate, were launched into
eternity.

[Note: A circumstance of this affecting nature happened some
years ago, on the execution of William Snow alias Skitch, for
burglary, and James Wayborn, for a highway robbery at Exeter.
These wretched men had been turned off a few seconds, when the
rope whereby Skitch was suspended slipped from the gallows and
he fell to the ground. He soon rose and heard the sorrowful
exclamations of the spectators, to whom he calmly addressed these
words: 'Good people, do not be hurried; I am not hurried: I can
wait a little.' The executioner wishing to lengthen the rope, Skitch
calmly waited until his companion was dead, when the rope was
taken from the dead man's arms, in order to complete the execution
of Skitch, who was a second time launched from the scaffold,
amidst the tears of thousands."
	-- Historical Magazine, 1789.

From the same authority we also find that, on the execution of W.
Combes, W. Harvey and T. Hunt, owing to the carelessness or
ignorance of the hangman, two of the unhappy sufferers fell to the
ground after being tied up; and, to augment their horrors, witnessed
the last agonies of their unfortunate companion. ]



CAPTAIN JOHN SUTHERLAND
Commander of the British Armed Transport, The Friends.
Executed at Execution Dock, on the Banks of the Thames, 29th of
June, 1809, for the Murder of his Cabin-Boy.


AT the Admiralty Sessions, on Friday, the 22nd of June, 1809,
before Sir William Scott, President, and Sir Nash Grose, one of the
judges of the Court of King's Bench, John Sutherland stood
capitally indicted for the wilful murder of William Richardson, a
boy thirteen years old, on the previous 5th of November, on board
a British transport ship, named The Friends, of which the prisoner
was captain, in the River Tagus, and within the jurisdiction of the
High Court of Admiralty.

Sir Christopher Robinson stated the case on the part of the Crown.

The first witness called was John Thompson, a negro mariner,
who, being sworn and examined by the Attorney-General, stated
that he was a seaman on board The Friends, in the Tagus, at anchor
about a mile from Lisbon, on the 5th of November; that he had
been, about a month previously, engaged by the prisoner, in
Lisbon; that on the day above stated the captain and mate were on
shore, as were also the other two seamen belonging to the ship's
crew, and no person left on board but himself and the deceased, a
boy of thirteen, who usually attended on the prisoner. About eight
o'clock in the evening the prisoner came on board, and
immediately went down to his cabin, and called the deceased down
to him. A few minutes afterwards the deceased came upon deck
and told the witness to go down also, which he did. The Captain
asked him how it could be managed to keep watch on deck for the
night, the mate and the other two seamen being on shore. The
witness answered he could keep watch until twelve o'clock. The
prisoner agreed to this, and desired the witness to be sure to call
him at twelve, and in the meantime not to suffer any boat to come
alongside without letting him know. He then desired the witness to
go on deck and send down the boy, which he did.

About five minutes afterwards witness heard the boy cry out loudly
to him; he called him by his name, Jack Thompson. The witness
did not go down immediately, for he supposed the Captain was
only beating the boy, as usual. The boy continued to call out loudly
several times; and at last the witness went down, and saw the
Captain standing over the boy, with a naked dirk or dagger in his
hand, which he waved to and fro. The boy was lying on the cabin
floor, and he immediately said to the witness: "Jack Thompson,
look here: here Captain Sutherland has stabbed me"; and
immediately lifted up his shirt and showed him a bleeding wound
upon the left side of his belly, near his groin, and his entrails
hanging out. The prisoner said nothing at the moment; he heard
what the boy said. On the witness turning about to leave the cabin
the prisoner said to him: "Jack, I know I have done wrong." The
witness, who was not above three minutes in the cabin, answered:
"I know very well you have"; and immediately returned to the deck
and hailed the next ship to him, which was the Elizabeth transport,
for assistance. The Elizabeth not being able to send a surgeon, the
prisoner insisted on going ashore with witness and finding one.
There a British and a Portuguese soldier came up to them, to whom
the witness told what had happened. The Captain then came back
with the witness to the ship. When they came on board they found
that two surgeons had been there, dressed the wounds of the
deceased, and put him into bed. He was removed the next morning
on board the Audacious, as were also the prisoner and the witness.
At the time Captain Sutherland came on board, after going to seek
the surgeon, the mate, who had meanwhile returned, asked him
what he had to do with such a weapon -- referring to the dirk. The
prisoner answered that he would never hurt anybody else with it,
and then threw the dirk overboard. After the witness was on board
the Audacious he heard the prisoner say to the deceased he was
very sorry for what he had done; but he did not hear the deceased
make any answer. He heard him repeat his sorrow at another time.
The witness was on board the Audacious when the boy died, nine
days afterwards.

Other witnesses were called, and the jury, after a short
consultation, returned their verdict of guilty. Sir William Scott then
passed upon him the awful sentence of the law, which was, that he
be hanged at Execution Dock, and his body afterwards delivered to
the surgeons for dissection. The unhappy man, who had a wife and
five children, retired from the bar greatly agitated, and was so
overcome as to require the support of the attendants. He was about
forty years old.

At the rising of the Court Sir William Scott signified to the sheriffs
that the execution must necessarily be deferred until the following
Thursday, on account of the state of the tide. On that day,
accordingly, this unfortunate man was launched into eternity. 



HENRY WHITE AND JAMES SMITH
Well-equipped and armed Burglars, who were sentenced to Death
at the Old Bailey, 3rd of July, 1809


HENRY WHITE and James Smith were tried at the Old Bailey, on
the 3rd of July, 1809, on an indictment for burglariously breaking
into and entering the dwelling-house of Francis Sitwell, Esq., of
Durweston Street, St Marylebone, with intent to steal.

A watchman deposed that, being alarmed about the hour of two in
the morning with an unusual noise which came from Mr Sitwell's
house, he went towards it, when a man, who afterwards turned out
to be the prisoner White, suddenly ran off, and he followed him.
White was soon overtaken, and Smith was also secured. In the
direction in which they ran there were found some pick-lock keys,
in bundles, a dark lantern, an iron crow and a loaded pistol.

On examining Mr Sitwell's house it was discovered that a hole had
been bored exactly under the lock, by a centre-bit, large enough to
admit a man's arm, the door unlocked, the lower bolt forced back,
and the door opened, having been forced bv means of the crow, as
they could not reach the upper bolt from the hole made with the
centre-bit. They were found guilty, and received sentence of death.



WILLIAM HEWITT
Fined Five Hundred Pounds, and imprisoned, at the Old Bailey
Sessions, in October, 1809, for enticing an English Artificer to
leave his Country and emigrate to the United States of North
America


WILLIAM HEWITT was indicted at the Old Bailey sessions, in
October, 1809, for enticing an artificer, of the name of John
Hutchinson, to leave the country and emigrate to the United States
of America.

Mr Hughes, a dyer, in Bunhill Row, stated that Hutchinson was in
his service, under contract, as a working mechanic, skilled in the
dyeing of cotton, and that on the 30th of August the prisoner, by
promises of future reward, and the advance immediately of a sum
of money, amounting to about twenty-two pounds, engaged him to
leave his country and accompany him to America, there to be
employed in the cotton manufactory. His evidence was
corroborated by several other witnesses, and the prisoner called
some in his defence, but they rather confirmed than disproved the
case on the part of the prosecution.

He was convicted, and the Court sentenced him, under the Act of
Parliament, to pay a fine of five hundred pounds, and to suffer
three months' imprisonment.

Hutchinson, the servant, was likewise convicted under the same
Act, for engaging to leave the country, and was ordered to find bail
to remain in it.



EDWARD EDWARDS
A Young but Artful Thief, transported for stealing privately from a
Shop in London, October, 1809


THIS offender was not eighteen, and small for his age. He was
convicted at the Old Bailey, October sessions, 1809, of privately
stealing, in the shop of Mr Wilson, a jeweller, in Houndsditch, a
gold brooch set with pearls, a gold ring, set in like manner, and
some other articles of jewellery.

Mr Wilson stated that the prisoner came to his shop on Friday
evening and desired to see some fancy articles. He selected a
number, to the value of fourteen pounds, but contrived to steal
several articles, which were immediately missed; and the
prosecutor, on searching the prisoner, found the articles, but not
one penny of money about him. He immediately sent for a
constable and gave him in charge; and it was alleged by some
persons that the constable, by direction of the prosecutor, had
carried the prisoner on board the tender. The prosecutor expressed
a wish not to prosecute the unfortunate youth, in mere tenderness
to the feelings of his father, who was an honest, industrious man;
he rather wished him to be sent to serve his country, but denied
having given any directions to send him to the tender.

The constable denied that he had taken him there. Alderman
Newnham deprecated the idea of sending such a person to disgrace
his Majesty's service, as the only service for which such persons
were adapted was Botany Bay. He was tried at the last Old Bailey
sessions for a similar offence, and as he now seemed quite
incorrigible, no course remained but to send him out of the
country.

[Note: It had long been a practice to send notorious felons and
persons guilty of picking pockets from police offices to serve in
the navy. This was not only unlawful, but our brave and honest
seamen were disgraced by being compelled to associate with such
characters. Commanders of ships were also under the necessity of
imposing severe discipline to prevent the depredations of those
unprincipled miscreants whenever they formed a part of their crew,
and the good men in general suffered privations for the conduct of
the bad. Thus the service, honourable in itself, was brought into
contempt in the opinion of seamen belonging to the merchants.
Five delinquents guilty of felony, but suffered to escape by the
humanity of their prosecutors on condition of serving the King,
were once sent, by order of the sitting alderman, on board the
tender. After the constables had conveyed them on board the
officer immediately ordered them to be taken back, observing:
"We don't want thieves here."]



JAMES MARLBOROUGH, AND SARAH, HIS WIFE
Imprisoned for Gross Cruelty to their Child, 8th of December,
1809


AT the sessions held at Hicks's Hall, for the county of Middlesex,
on Friday, the 8th of December, 1809, James Marlborough and
Sarah, his wife, were charged with most inhuman and cruel
treatment towards Mary Marlborough, the infant child of James
Marlborough by a former wife.

The defendant, James Marlborough, had two children by his first
wife; Sarah was his second wife. From the moment of her marriage
she practised every species of barbarity towards both of them,
especially towards the little girl, whose daily and nightly shrieks
and piteous cries not only annoyed but alarmed all the neighbours
within hearing. On the 9th of October, 1809, the child was heard to
weep most piteously in the front cellar, a place known by the
neighbours to be of the most filthy and hideous description, and
where the defendants kept a pig. About twelve o'clock at night
some forced their way into the house, and insisted upon seeing
both the children. They searched the cellar, but could not find
anything there but gloomy darkness, dampness and a pig. They
then proceeded upstairs, and in the back parlour found the child
lying under the bed, with both her eyes beaten black, bruised from
head to foot, and almost starved -- a shocking spectacle, showing a
degree of cruelty and inhumanity never before witnessed. On this
the children were taken to the parish officers, and had been in their
hands ever since. The defendants were taken into custody, and the
woman then acknowledged that she had ill-used the child.

The little boy told a tale of woe that would have harrowed the
hardest heart. He fully established all the statements of the counsel
for the prosecution. He said that his stepmother was in the frequent
habit of plunging his little sister into a tub of cold water; that she
used to beat her with sticks, with rods and with a toasting-fork, and
that the two black eyes which she had when found under the bed
were given her on that day by her stepmother with a spoon. The
jury, without a moment's hesitation, found both the prisoners
guilty.

It turned out in the course of the inquiry that James Marlborough
had beat his wife for her ill-treatment of his children.

The Court sentenced the woman to one year's imprisonment in the
house of correction, Coldbath Fields, and the man to fourteen days
in Newgate -- a mild punishment for such barbarity.



GEORGE WEBB
Son of a Clergyman, and a Notorious Burglar. Executed on
Shooter's Hill, near London, 1809


GEORGE WEBB was born near Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire,
and, though the son of a clergyman, became a most notorious
depredator. He went to London, and there got acquainted with
Richard Russel, John Leonard White and Edward Egerton, men of
infamous character. He then went to Woolwich and worked as a
lumper, and there married a young woman of the name of Cocks,
and commenced as smuggler. About Deptford he was known by
the name of Smith. He was committed for an assault, and tried at
the Quarter Sessions at Maidstone, where he received sentence of
imprisonment, to pay a fine of five pounds, and to find bondsmen
for his good behaviour. He lay there six months after his sentence
had expired for want of sureties, and then volunteered his services
to the justices to serve in the West Kent Militia. His services were
accepted, and he was sworn in at Tonbridge.

He joined the regiment, remained with it five or six months, and
then deserted. He was taken up and brought back to Maidstone as a
deserter, and was discharged by order of the Secretary of War,
taken to the regiment, and punished.

Soon after this he again deserted, and took an apartment on
Blackheath, in the neighbourhood of which, many depredations
having been committed, he was apprehended and taken to Bow
Street, with Richard Russel and Sarah Russel, on suspicion of
feloniously and burglariously breaking into and entering the
dwelling-house of Thomas Ebenezer Taylor, situated at New
Cross, and stealing a pair of pistols, an opera-glass and divers other
articles.

They also stood charged with breaking into and entering the
dwelling-house of William Shadbolt, in the parish of Deptford, and
stealing divers articles of plate, several silver coins, seven shirts,
etc. Also with breaking into and entering the dwelling-house of
Joseph Warner, in the parish of Eltham, and stealing six window-
curtains and divers other articles. When taken into custody it was
discovered Webb had been at Birmingham. He had sent his mother
a letter, a copy of which is as follows:--

MY DEAR MOTHER,--
	Ingratitude, mingled with shame, almost dares me to either
write or see you again: however, I have this assurance and full
determination of seeing you, please God, and with your
approbation, on Wednesday next, at the Hen and Chickens, New
Street, Birmingham, with my sister or sisters. It is my intention,
please the Almighty nothing happens, to be there on the before-
mentioned day, and I hope you will give me the meeting there, if
possible you can make it convenient. Do not let the expense be a
hindrance, as that's of no consequence. I will defray the whole. So
you will, I hope, excuse this short epistle, and forward an answer
by return of post, to oblige your ungrateful son,
	GEORGE WEBB.
	BLACKHEATH.

P.S.-- Direct for Mr Webb, near the Hare and Billet, Blackheath,
Kent.

 The magistrates at Bow Street now thought it advisable to
dispatch William Adkins, an officer, to Bordesley, near
Birmingham, the residence of his mother, who, on his arrival there,
searched her house for silver tablespoons and other goods stolen
from the house of General Twiss, of Southend, near Eltham, in
Kent. Mr Payn and Mr Eagle, constables, assisted him in the
search. When he entered Mrs Webb's house he found therein Mrs
Webb and her two daughters, Mrs Knot, a lodger, and the servant-
girl. He asked Mrs Webb if she had a son who lived in Blackheath.
She said she believed she had. He then asked her if he had not been
down to see her lately. She said he had. He then asked her if he had
not brought a box or trunk with plated goods in it. She replied he
had brought a box, but there was nothing but clothes in it; and what
he had brought he had taken away with him. He then told Mrs
Webb he was an officer from Bow Street; that he and Mr Payn and
Mr Eagle had a warrant to search the house; that her son was in
custody on a very serious charge, and if he had left anything with
her, or if there was anything in her house which he had brought
down with him, he begged her to mention them, as otherwise, if
anything were found, it might be of serious consequence to her;
for, as to him (her son), no evidence was wanting to convict him.
Mrs Webb said there was nothing left there at all. He again begged
of her, if there was anything, to inform him of it. She hesitated a
while, and then said there was a pair of pistols, which were in a
box in the back kitchen. The witness took possession of them, and
also a pair of patent silver clasps or latchets, and wrote his initials
on them. He then asked her if there was anything more, and she
positively said there was not. Miss Ann Webb came up to him in
the passage, and he asked her if there was anything more, and she
said there was; that she had a purse and a smelling-bottle in her
pocket; and she immediately gave him a silver-net purse, a
smelling-bottle and an opera-glass. He then asked her if there was
not something else; and she said yes there was: her sister had a
purse also and a pocket-book. He then went to Mrs M'Gaa, and she
acknowledged to have received from her brother a purse and a
pocket-book, and went upstairs and fetched a silver-net purse, a
pocket-book, a pencil and pencil-case, and gave them to the
officer. He then asked Miss Ann Webb if there were not some
plated goods. She replied: " Why, has not my mother told you?"
He said: "Yes, but not where they are." Mrs M'Gaa then took him
to a shed in the garden and showed him where they were; and out
of a rabbit-pen in that shed he took four plated stands and two
silver saltspoons, which were covered with hay in the pen. He then
asked her if there was anything else. She said: "Has my mother
mentioned a table-cloth?" Adkins said: "No." Mrs M'Gaa then took
him upstairs and showed him a drawer, out of which he took a
large damask table-cloth. He then said he must search them; and on
that Mrs Webb pulled out of her pocket a shagreen mathematical
instrument case and instruments, which she said she had forgotten,
and a pocket-book of yellow leather, mounted with silver, which
she gave to him. Mrs M'Gaa afterwards gave him another pair of
silver salt-spoons. All these goods Mrs Webb said her son had
given to them. He also took from Miss Ann Webb seven pieces of
old silver coin and one piece of gold coin; also a silver cross set
with garnets, and an enamelled trinket mounted with brass. He
likewise found in the cupboard in the parlour a silver pepper-box.

The next morning he found in a drawer, in the front chamber, a red
morocco writing-case, which Mrs Webb and her daughters said
they had no knowledge of. The widow, on examination, afterwards
confessed that her son, George Webb, about twenty-eight years
old, came to see her that day fortnight, in order to sign a
conveyance of his interest in an estate to her, which she had
contracted to sell to Sir Harry Featherstone Haugh; that he told her
he resided at Blackheath, had married a wife with a fortune of nine
hundred and fifty pounds, was in the wholesale tea trade, and
doing very well; that he should have it in his power to assist her if
she wanted it, and to allow her fifty pounds a year; that he brought
his clothes in a box; and when he first came into the house he told
her he had brought her a small present, and went upstairs with his
box, and brought down two pairs of plated bottle-stands and two 
pairs of silver saltspoons, and a silver-net purse and a table-cloth,
which he gave to her; that soon after he gave to his sister, Mrs
M'Gaa, a silver-net purse and a silver pencil-case and penknife;
and to his sister Ann he gave a smelling-bottle, a yellow leather
purse mounted with silver, and an opera-glass. That as soon as his
brother Robert came home from work he gave him, in her
presence, a pair of brass pistols, which he said he had designed for
his brother Charles; that he also gave Robert a pair of patent silver
latchets, and a mathematical instrument case, as he thought Robert
was in a way of trade in which they might be of service to him;
that he said he had given five guineas for the pistols and two
pounds, ten shillings for the mathematical instrument case; that she
(the mother) was proud of these articles as a present from her son,
and showed them to Mr Allen and Mr Dickenson, and many other
neighbours; that in return she gave her son George, before he left
Birmingham, a silver watch of his father's, a gold seal and a silver
cup. She, however, confessed that, a little before the officers came
and searched her house, she had received a letter by the London
post, without a signature, and ill spelt, dated 1st of July, 1809,
desiring her to put everything out of the house. Fearing from this
that her son had done something wrong, she was distressed to the
utmost, and put the two pairs of bottle-stands and pair of salt-
spoons in the rabbit-pen; and that from the same fears, and under
the same alarm, she was induced to give the false account she did
to Mr Adkins respecting the things her son George had brought to
her house.

The stolen property being thus ascertained, the suspected
housebreakers-viz. Webb, Russel, White, Egerton and Sarah
Russel, Russel's wife, aged thirty-five-were removed from London
to Maidstone, and there tried for the same. Webb and Russel were
found guilty, and White, Egerton and Russel's wife were acquitted.

When sentence of death was pronounced, Webb did not appear the
least affected.



RICHARD TURNER
A Young but Artful Swindler, transported to Botany Bay for
Fourteen years for cheating a Young Lady


NUMEROUS as have been our reports of the tricks and shifts of
swindlers, this youth, had he not been checked in early career,
might have proved as dangerous to society as the greatest adept in
this species of robbery.

At Middlesex Sessions Richard Turner, a very young man, was
tried for fraudulently obtaining from Miss Stratford, the daughter
of a respectable gentleman in Hatton Garden, the sum of two
pounds, in the following artful manner. His father being a postman
at Clapham, he got access to letters sent by post. He opened one
letter sent by a young lady named Burford, a teacher in a school at
Clapham, directed to Mr Stratford in the common course of
correspondence; he suppressed the same and wrote out a copy,
interpolated with paragraphs of his own invention, particularly one
in which Miss B. was made to say that the bearer was the son of
the gardener, and begged Miss Stratford to send by him two
pounds, to pay for articles which she had purchased in Bond Street.
The prisoner carried the letter, and received from Miss Stratford
the money and some articles of dress, which he, instead of bringing
to Miss Burford at Clapham, gave to a common prostitute, whom
he kept company with in Lambeth. It also appeared that a letter
written by Miss Burford to a Miss Cooper in Shrewsbury had been
opened in the same manner by the prisoner, and a surreptitious one
sent in its stead, desiring an answer to be returned to Miss White,
St George's Fields. This circumstance came to Miss Burford's
knowledge; and an explanation having taken place between her
and Miss Stratford, a Bow Street officer was sent to Miss White's
lodgings, in Felix Street, Lambeth, who said he had a letter from
Miss Burford. The prisoner appeared to receive it, was
immediately taken, and confessed the whole fraud. He was found
guilty, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation.



JOHN LUMLEY
Imprisoned, and whipped through the Streets of the Borough of
Southwark, for stealing Pewter Pint-Pots from Public-Houses,
January, 1810


THERE was no petty thieving which had at this time so much
increased as stealing the pewter pots wherein London publicans
served their customers with porter. Even families had been
detected in disgracefully withholding and denying their having
publicans' pots in their possession when proof had been given that
they had not returned them to the owner. To check the severe and
increasing losses arising from pot-stealing, which seem nearly
incredible, the publicans formed a respectable association in 
London, as Licensed Victuallers, and brought a Bill before
Parliament for the better protection of their property. But the
Commons -- conceiving, perhaps, the complaint not to be of
sufficient magnitude for the interference of the legislative body --
threw out the Bill; so that their remedy remained only the law of
indictments for petty larceny, and this being troublesome and
expensive these meanest of thieves were but seldom prosecuted to
conviction.

The publicans attributed the opposition made to their Bill to the
pewterers -- what envy, even in these grades of society! -- and, by
way of revenge, the former entered into a resolution to
manufacture their own pots.

A meeting of the Licensed Victuallers was held at the Crown and
Anchor, in the Strand, pursuant to advertisement, to take into
consideration the measures for preventing the depredations
committed on their property by the purloining of pewter pots, on
the 16th of July, 1812,; Mr James Palmer in the chair.

The chairman commented at some length on the opposition given
by certain pewterers to their petition, and spoke in terms of severe
reprehension on the violent manner in which he conceived some of
them had conducted themselves while the business was in its
progress through the House of Commons. He had not the least
doubt but the Bill would be carried in the ensuing sessions. And
here he could not help speaking in terms of grateful respect of Sir
Thomas Turton, Mr Whitbread, Mr Rose, Sir James Graham, Mr
H. Thornton, Mr Sheridan, Mr W. Smith, Mr Wharton and the
other Members who advocated their cause and voted for their Bill.

He next proposed a remedy for the evil, and to protect their
property, which was highly approved. It was for the establishment
of a company among themselves for the manufacture of their own
pots, of pure metal, by which the stolen pots could not be
remanufactured and resold to themselves again -- a proposition to
which assent was carried unanimously. Several other resolutions
were then moved and agreed to, after which the meeting adjourned.

John Lumley was indicted at the Westminster Sessions, 1810, for
stealing a pewter pint-pot, the property of the landlord of the Cart
and Horse public-house, Tooley Street; there was also another
charge against him for a similar offence -- namely, having in his
possession a pot belonging to the landlord of the Black Lion; and a
third, for stealing two pewter pots, the property of the landlord of
the Green Dragon, Bermondsey Street.

It appeared in evidence that as the prisoner passed along Ratcliff
Highway, on Wednesday evening, he was observed to drop a pot
from under his coat, which a person near him instantly picked up.
Perceiving it to belong to a public-house, and a publican in the
neighbourhood having recently lost several pots, the man followed
the prisoner, secured him, and took him to the house in question. A
constable was sent for, and they proceeded to search him, when no
less than six pint-pots were found concealed upon his person, none
of which, however, belonged to the landlord of the house where he
then was, but to several public-houses in the Borough, amongst
which were the Black Lion and the Cart and Horse public-houses,
in Tooley Street, and the Green Dragon, in Bermondsey Street.
Upon discovering from what neighbourhood the pots came, the
constable took the prisoner to Union Hall, and the landlords of the
above and other public-houses attended, and swore to the pots
being their property.

The jury found him guilty.

The chairman observed that the offence of which the prisoner had
been convicted had become one of such great magnitude as to call
for the severest punishment. It would scarcely be credited, but it
had been ascertained that the depredations of this sort committed
on the property of publicans, in and around the metropolis,
amounted to the enormous sum of one hundred thousand pounds
per annum. The prisoner had been convicted on the clearest
evidence, and the Court felt itself bound to inflict a punishment
which might operate to put a stop, if possible, to this evil. The
sentence of the Court then was that he should be confined to hard
labour for three months in the house of correction, and once during
that time to be publicly whipped from the end of Horsemonger
Lane to the end of Lant Street, in the Borough; which was severely
inflicted.



THOMAS PUGH AND ELIZABETH PUGH
Convicted at the London Sessions, 20th of January, 1810, and
sentenced to Imprisonment for a Conspiracy, in what is called "
Child-Dropping "


THIS unfeeling, unnatural couple, father and daughter, were
indicted at the London Sessions, in January, 1810, for conspiring,
with other persons unknown, to defraud the overseers of the poor
of the parish of St Andrew, Holborn, by exposing there a child of
tender years, which would, of necessity, have become a burden on
the funds of that parish.

W. Sculthorpe, a letter-carrier, proved that he had found a child,
not above two years old, at the door of the house of Mr Moseley, in
Castle Street, Holborn, after nine o'clock on the night of the 31st of
August, 1809, half-way between the step of the door and the
kerbstone. He took it up and kept it on his knee till Mr Moseley
came out, who humanely took the child in.

Mr Moseley stated that after some ineffectual endeavours to get the
child into the Foundling Hospital he sent it to the workhouse. Ann
Taylor said she nursed the child from the 9th of October, 1807, till
the 27th of August, 1809, when Miss Pugh took it away; but
afterwards, on the remonstrance of a Mrs Dally, who suspected
some injury was intended to the infant, another nurse of the name
of Inglis was given the charge of it, from whom, however, it was
taken between seven and eight on the Thursday following.

A coachman proved he carried the two prisoners and the child (on
the night the latter was exposed) to Castle Street, Holborn.
Elizabeth Feary swore that Miss Pugh had told her that in the event
of the death of the child, who had been entrusted to her care, she
should have three hundred pounds. The father of the child was an
officer, who had settled that sum on the child, and on its death the
money was to come to Miss Pugh. This story she often repeated to
the witness, intimating her wish for the death of the child. This
alarmed the witness; and she, in consequence, warned the nurse to
whom the child was entrusted.

J. Timbray proved T. Pugh's confession that a letter, arranging the
meeting with E. Pugh at St Andrew's Church, Holborn, on the 31st
of August, was in his handwriting. A long defence was read by T.
Pugh, who was eighty-four years of age, and father to E. Pugh, on
whom he threw the whole blame.

Mr Gurney, counsel for Elizabeth Pugh, contended that the whole
circumstances of the case proved that his client had no intention to
put the child out of the way. She had paid ten pounds to the other
defendant, T. Pugh, who had undertaken to get it provided for
where there would be no probability of its mother being inquired
after, and in this he had deceived her.

The recorder made a suitable charge to the jury, who immediately
found both the prisoners guilty.

The recorder then pronounced the sentence of the Court to be, that
each of the defendants be imprisoned in Giltspur Street Compter
for six calendar months.



HENRY CLARKE
Convicted at the Old Bailey, 20th of February, 1810, for robbing a
Mail-Coach, and sentenced to Death


HENRY CLARKE was charged with robbing the Bath mail-coach
of bank-notes, of the Wootton-Basset bank, to the amount of one
thousand, eight hundred and twenty-five pounds, the property of
Messrs Large, bankers at Wootton-Basset.

It appeared from the statement of the counsel for the prosecution,
Mr Gurney, that a parcel containing the said notes was sent from
the banking-house of Messrs Cobb & Co., in Lombard Street, to
the coach office of the Swan with two Necks, Lad Lane, on the 2nd
of January, 1810, directed to Mr Large, at Bath, for the purpose of
being sent by him to their house at Wootton-Basset, but that the
parcel never came to hand.

The people at the coach office proved the booking of it there; but
whether it had been stolen at their office, or out of the coach in the
yard, or elsewhere, they could not say. It was proved, however, to
have been seen on the counter in the office; and one of the
witnesses went so far as to say that he was certain it had been put
into the coach.

Three of the notes of ten pounds each were some time after traced
to the prisoner, who was apprehended in consequence. His defence
was that he found them, but of this he gave no proof; and, to rebut
that, it was proved that in putting off one of the bills he had put a
fictitious name on it instead of his own.

These facts were all proved, and the jury, without much hesitation,
found him guilty, and sentence of death was passed.



WILLIAM COLMAN
A Convict on board the Hulks, at Woolwich. Executed on
Pennington Heath, 26th of March, 1810, for the Murder of a
Fellow-Prisoner


AT the Lent Assizes for the county of Kent, William Colman was
indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Jones, on the 29th of
August, 1809, in the parish of Woolwich, by giving him several
stabs in the neck and breast with a knife.

The prisoner was a young man, aged only twenty, and both himself
and the deceased were convicts on board the hulks at Woolwich.
The case was proved by two other convicts, and the facts they
stated were as follows.

A brick had, a night or two before, been thrown at one of the
officers of the convicts, and the prisoner suspected that the
deceased had given information that he was the man who had
committed the offence. Being incensed at the deceased, he
repeatedly swore he would be revenged. They were, however,
apparently reconciled, shook hands, and drank together; the
deceased also helped the prisoner into bed, as he was incommoded
by being loaded with very heavy irons. It appeared, however, that
the prisoner still cherished his purpose of revenge, for, after
remaining in bed some time, when he supposed all about him were
asleep, he softly rose and went to the place where he knew a knife
was kept, which he got. He then stole to the bed of the deceased
and stabbed him in the throat and breast in the most determined
manner. The wounds he gave were instantly mortal. He was,
however, observed to have got out of bed, and go to the place
where the knife was, by the two convicts, who gave evidence
against him.

The jury instantly pronounced him guilty; and he suffered death on
the third day after conviction.



WILLIAM COOPER AND WILLIAM DRAPER
Convicted of cutting off Trunks from a Gentleman's Carriage; the
Former was transported for Seven Years, and the Latter
imprisoned for Six Months in the House of Correction, 1810


AT the Lent Assizes, 1810, at Chelmsford, in Essex, William
Cooper and William Draper, two soldiers of the barracks in that
town, were indicted for grand larceny, in stealing from the chariot
of the Rev. Joseph Jefferson two trunks, containing a considerable
quantity of wearing apparel, a gold ring, some books, and other
articles of value, the property of Mr Jefferson and his servant,
Joseph Sharpe.

It appeared, from the evidence adduced on the part of the
prosecution, that the Rev. Mr Jefferson left Chelmsford in his
travelling chariot between seven and eight o'clock in the evening
of the 22nd of January, intending to go to London. The property
before mentioned was contained in two trunks strapped behind the
carriage, the servant, Joseph Sharpe, following his master on
horseback at a short distance. Half-way between Chelmsford and
Ingatestone the servant met a tall man going towards the former
place with a trunk on his shoulder, which, he remarked at the time,
resembled very much one of his master's trunks. He did not,
however, entertain any suspicion that his master had been robbed,
but on the arrival of the carriage at Ingatestone he missed both the
trunks from behind the chariot, and found that the straps which
held them had been cut across. This occurrence he immediately
communicated to his master, and also mentioned the circumstance
of his having met a man upon the road with a trunk upon his
shoulder. Mr Jefferson immediately set a diligent inquiry on foot,
and after a considerable degree of difficulty traced the robbery to
the two prisoners, who were private soldiers, and stationed in the
new barracks, at Chelmsford, in whose room part of the property
was found, and the remainder concealed in a ditch.

The prisoners strenuously denied the charge, but were both found
guilty.

Cooper was sentenced to seven years' transportation but Draper, in
consideration of former good conduct, was ordered to be
imprisoned for six months only, in the house of correction.



RICHARD FAULKNER
A Boy, executed at Wisbech, in 1810, for the Murder of another
Lad of Twelve Years of Age


RICHARD FAULKNER was, at the Summer Assizes for Norfolk,
1810, capitally convicted of the wilful murder of George Burnham,
a lad about twelve years of age, at Whittlesea, on the 15th of
February, by cruelly beating him to death, for no other cause than
for revenge on Burnham's mother, who had thrown some dirty
water upon him.

The prisoner was not sixteen, but so shockingly depraved and
hardened that after condemnation he repeatedly clenched his fist
and threatened to murder the clergyman who attended the jail, or
anyone who dared to approach him. Indeed he was so ferocious
that the jailer found it necessary to chain his hands and feet to his
dungeon, where he uttered the most horrid oaths and imprecations
on all who came near him; and from the Friday to Saturday night
refused to listen to any religious advice or admonition. At length,
to prevent the termination of his existence in this depraved state,
the expedient was devised of procuring a child about the size of the
one murdered, and similar in feature and dress, whom two
clergymen unexpectedly led between them, by the hands, into the
cell, where he lay sulkily chained to the ground; but on their
approach he started, and seemed so completely terrified that he
trembled in every limb; cold drops of sweat profusely fell from
him, and he was almost continuously in such a dreadful state of
agitation that he entreated the clergymen to continue with him, and
from that instant became as contrite a penitent as he had before
been callous and insensible. In this happy transition he remained
till his execution on Monday morning, having fully confessed his
crime, and implored, by fervent prayer, the forgiveness of his sins
from a merciful God!



EDWARD WILLIAM ROBERTS, -- BROWN, and DOROTHY
COLE, alias MRS BROWN
Convicted in the Court of King's Bench, of a conspiracy, and the
two first imprisoned and pilloried


SWINDLING has lately made more rapid advances than any other
mode of plunder. The gang to which these people belonged, were
particularly dangerous to tradesmen, from the extraordinary
abilities displayed by the individuals of which it was composed.

Edward William Roberts was regularly bred to the law, and about
ten years ago was called to the bar, where his abilities promised
him success in that learned and arduous profession. He occupied a
genteel house in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn, the furniture
of which together with a library, was presented him by his intimate
friend Major Davison. Here we find Miss Dorothy Cole, the
daughter of the kind landlady of the Magpie on Hounslow-heath,
whose smiles and good cheer will be long remembered by many a
traveller, passing as his wife, and attended by her footman, though
he was married, and the father of several children.

The first dishonourable act which we find committed by Roberts,
was that of secretly selling the bounty of his friend, and
clandestinely leaving his chambers, with a number of debts unpaid.

In a very short time, however, we find this loving couple much
more elegantly situated and attended, in Dover-street, Piccadilly;
where Roberts hired a furnished house at five guineas per week,
and a chariot for Miss, while one of her brothers acted the part of a
footman in a rich livery. Their success here was at first great, and a
tradesman was duped out of muslin to the amount of 250L.

It is a true saying that repetition of stolen joys renders us heedless
of the consequences of detection. That it was so with Roberts and
his mistress will be fully shewn in the sequel of the present very
curious case. From Dover-street, it appeared they were perforce
removed to the King's Bench. In prison, the fascinating wiles of
Miss stole upon the peace and purse of an old sensualist (and many
such characters frequent such a prison) who went by the
appellation of captain Fisher, who soon took her from durance vile
and snugly lodged her in Dyer's-buildings, Holborn; but Roberts
was left alone, to lament his fate. The vicinity of St. George's-
fields being ill-suited to the action of such a mind as our barrister's,
he procured a writ of habeas corpus, for his removal to the Fleet
prison, situated in the heart of the city of London. In the Fleet, he
made an acquaintance with Brown, who will soon be found a
conspicuous figure in the nefarious scenes which we have to
display. Brown reported himself to have been an eminent brandy-
merchant, and to be possessed of the title to lands in the United
States of America, which, if we may credit Mr Imber, the
auctioneer, in Hatton-garden, was of some small value. At any rate
upon some sort of paper negotiation, he procured his liberty,
leaving Roberts still a prisoner, but not without first entering into a
league with him for future operations.

Brown immediately repaired to Dyer's-buildings, took Miss from
the protection of the old captain, hired a handsome house in
Coram-street, Brunswick-square, wherein she entered as Mrs
Brown, in mourning for the death of his supposed father. A job
carriage was procured, with a regular suite of servants, in which
they went as man and wife to different tradesmen, who eagerly
furnished their new house with every kind of elegant furniture. It
was some time before Roberts could get outside the walls of his
prison, and not until the tradesmen had become importunate for the
payment of their bills; one of whom had issued a writ, and lodged
Brown with Wither's, the sheriff's officer. Roberts at this critical
time made his appearance in Coram-street, claimed the goods,
servants, horses, and all as his property; and Miss for his wife,
which she readily confirmed, for of all her admirers, he certainly
was the favourite. The remainder of the impatient tradesmen now
became alarmed, and mistrust ran through all who had contributed
to the establishment in Coram-street, and all now became
clamorous upon Roberts. A lawyer, next to the female decoy, is the
most useful member of a gang of swindlers, because he knows how
far to go, and when to stop; or in other words he knows how to
keep their necks out of the halter, though all his ingenuity is
seldom proof against the pillory. Our counsellor, therefore, in order
to extricate the whole, by a coup-de-main, drew a warrant of
attorney, the ultimatum of law proceedings, in which Brown
confessed judgment recovered by him for a large pretended debt,
and thereupon issued execution on the devoted goods, pretending,
however, that it was at the suit of his brother.

Mr Rackstraw, the upholsterer, in Tottenham-court-road, and a Mr
Hancock, an ironmonger, in the same neighbourhood, were the
principal victims of this deep-laid scheme of villainy.

The latter, from its consequences, added to other similar losses, in
a short time became bankrupt. To these men, how ever, are the
public indebted for bringing the swindlers to justice. They went to
Coram-street, insisted on seeing the writ under which their
property had been seized, and finding the pretended plaintiff to be
the identical Edward William Roberts, saw the very extent of their
danger. They posted off to the public-office, in Marlborough-
street, and upon their disclosing the scene of iniquity, obtained
warrants against Roberts and his lady, and lodged a caveat against
the removal of the goods; but when the officers of justice arrived,
the party complained of had fled. It soon appeared that in their
depredations, they had descended to the meanest tricks -- the petty
chandler, the little huckster, the washer and mangling women,
grocers, butchers, bakers, and wherever they could procure credit
for the most trifling score, surrounded their house. Their servants
found themselves unpaid, left to shift for themselves; and the
unhappy coachman, anxious to serve an old fellow-servant who
had commenced coal-merchant, had become responsible for his
master's cellar of coals, and was saddled with the payment.

Meantime the defeated lawyer with his fair one had secretly fled to
private furnished lodgings, at the house of Mr Thomas Prior, coal-
merchant, No. 24, Salisbury-street, Strand, where she was brought
to bed of a daughter, his acknowledged child, but according to the
report of the nurse, 'the very spit of the old captain.' Nor were the
runners after them idle. They, from whom no villain on whom a
good price is set, can long be hid, soon found their way to
Salisbury-street; and on their approach, Roberts ran to the top of
the house, but, alas! too late to find his safety in flight. Having
seized him, they entered the chamber of accouchement; but, as 'tis
said on one sad occasion, 'even butchers wept'; they too, though
also, 'unused to the melting mood', retired under the influence of
modesty and pity, and left the new-made parent awhile to her
sorrows.

At Marlborough-street, appeared as counsel for Roberts, Mr
Marriot, an advocate worthy of a better cause. The prisoner, also a
pleader, spoke long and with ingenuity in his defence, while his
brother counsellor also in vain exerted his eloquence. The hateful
mittimus was signed, and Roberts safely lodged in Clerkenwell
prison.

It will be here but justice to observe, that Miss Cole, for she
certainly never legally put aside her maiden name, was a woman of
considerable acquired accomplishments. She had already published
a novel, by subscription; but its nervous language plainly shewed it
to have been the production of Roberts; and it was, in fact, a well
written rhapsody. In search of subscribers, her manners, and
affected artless tale, imposed upon the benevolent hearts of lady
Haggerstone and lady Louisa Manners. With such patronage, no
wonder the book was prefaced with a long list of fashionable
contributors. The former of these noble ladies particularly
interested herself in the welfare of Miss; called upon her in her
own coach, accompanied by Mrs Siddons, (not the actress), called
in Salisbury-street during the accouchement, left her purse, and
promised to exert herself in procuring some employ for her
husband, believing her to be the wife of Roberts. This generous act
took place only a few days previous to his apprehension.

The supposed Mrs Roberts was now perfectly recovered -- the
month was elapsed, and no enquiries had been made after her from
Marlborough-street. Before this time, however, Prior the landlord,
had certainly cause sufficient for alarm, touching his rent, and on
this he spoke. The luxurious old captain, who had never neglected
his occasional visits, with ample remuneration for each, on this
occasion not only came forward and paid up all arrears, but sent
money to the prisoner in Clerkenwell.

Notwithstanding the fate of Roberts, and the very precarious
situation in which this infatuated woman stood, still she remained
in fancied security, upon the bounty of the old dotard. Not so with
those who still held a warrant against her, for so keen were they to
their trust, that they had sifted the nurse out on the day of the birth
of the child, nor did they suffer another day of the next month to
close without another visit to Salisbury-street, when, without any
difficulty, they made their caption, and carried the mother,
accompanied by the nurse and babe, to that tribunal from whence
Roberts had been already committed. Her crime having already
been investigated, little could be adduced in her defence, and she
was sent to her pretended husband. In prison, however, she did not
remain longer than a week, as this kind captain procured her bail,
and money to hire more comfortable lodgings, which she found, in
Amphitheatre-row, Surrey side of Westminster bridge, where she
remained secluded five weeks: a life ill suited to her active mind.
We next find her in a more central situation, but yet in humble
apartments, a furnished second floor in Theobald's-row, Bedford-
row; and there, strange to tell, Roberts once more joined her,
having at length been liberated upon bail. In Theobald's-road, they
got a prospectus printed of another novel, to be called, 'The
Mysterious Mother,' and with this, neatly enveloped in gilt paper,
and sealed with a seal bearing the initial R. she long employed her
time, on foot now, in going from one noble mansion to the other,
soliciting subscriptions.

So little do the major part of the great fatigue themselves in
reading the detail of criminal enquiries, at public offices, that few
had read the many long accounts of her commitment, and in order
to rid themselves of her perpetual importunities, subscribed to 'The
Mysterious Mother'; upon which Roberts and herself subsisted
until they were brought to trial. The third unlucky conspirator,
Brown, was again caged in the Fleet prison.

The trial of this gang stood upon the docket at Hicks' Hall, but as
the fish out of the frying pan jumped into the fire, they removed
their case into the court of king's bench, a far more dread tribunal,
but doubtless with the desperate hope that Rackstraw and Hancock
would not be at the great expense of following them. Here they
were again disappointed, for the injured tradesmen followed them
up, and the attorney-general led the prosecution against them; Mr
Marriot did all that man could do in a bad cause, but they were all
found guilty, and sentence postponed until the next term, as usual
in such cases. Though convicted, they were, until sentence was
pronounced, still upon bail. In the meantime it was reported that
death had put an end to the career of Miss Dorothy Cole; and
whether true or otherwise, she certainly has not since appeared
upon the grand theatre of wealth and villainy, London.

Roberts and Brown, however, still lived the dread of honest
tradesmen; but as in the capital they were now too well known,
they shifted their operations to its environs. The public papers soon
announced them to be at Cheshunt, a few miles distant. There they
played off their old game of hiring a house, and getting it
handsomely furnished. We are not in possession of the particulars
of the Cheshunt swindling; but we know that there they were again
detected, prosecuted, tried at the assizes for Hertfordshire, and
again sentenced to imprisonment and the pillory.

The first convictions, however, must be first satisfied; and for this
purpose they were brought into Westminster Hall, and sentenced to
a years imprisonment and pillory. The latter was put in force at
Charing-cross, in July, 1810, when the enraged populace severely
pelted them with rotten eggs, and all manner of filth, which could
be suddenly collected, until they bore little resemblance of human
beings; and were taken out half suffocated.



RICHARD VALENTINE THOMAS
Executed at the New Prison, in Horsemonger Lane, 3rd of
September, 1810, for Forgery


RICHARD VALENTINE THOMAS was indicted for forging and
uttering, knowing it to be forged, a cheque for the sum of four
hundred pounds, eight shillings on Messrs Smith, Paine & Smyth,
of George Street, Mansion House, purporting to be drawn by
Messrs Diffell & Son.

Mr Bolland having stated the indictment, Mr Gurney opened the
case, by which it appeared that the prisoner, in the month of July,
1810, who was in the habit of frequenting the Surrey Theatre, in
Blackfriars Road, and the Equestrian Coffee-House contiguous to
it, applied to a man of the name of Exton, who was waiter at the
coffee-house, to go to Messrs Smith & Co. and get the bank-book
of Messrs Diffell. This enabled him to ascertain the balance of
money which Messrs D. had in the hands of their banker. He then
sent the book back by the same person, with a request to have a
cheque-book. He received one, and filled up a cheque for four
hundred pounds, eight shillings, and delivered it to Mr Johnson,
the box and house keeper of the Surrey Theatre, with whom he
appeared to be upon intimate terms. He told him he had some
custom and excise duties to pay, and requested him to get payment
for the cheque in notes of ten and twenty pounds. The cheque was
drawn, accordingly, "Pay duties or bearer," etc. Johnson went to
Messrs Smith, but as they could not pay him as he wished, he
received from them two notes of two hundred pounds each, which
he immediately took to the bank and exchanged for the notes the
prisoner had desired him to get. The forgery was soon detected,
and the prisoner was taken into custody, in company with a woman
with whom he cohabited. Upon searching her, a twenty-pound note
was found, which was identified by a clerk of the bank as having
been given to Johnson in exchange for the two notes of two
hundred pounds. The prisoner and his companion were locked up
in separate rooms. When the woman was asked where she had got
the note of twenty pounds, she replied the prisoner gave it her; but
he, being within hearing, immediately called out: "No, you got it
from a gentleman.". Before they were removed from these rooms
the officers searched a privy communicating with the room in
which the woman was confined, and found fragments of notes of
ten and twenty pounds to the amount of three hundred and sixty
pounds, and upon several of the pieces were the dates
corresponding with the entry of the clerk of the bank. In addition to
this, Mrs Johnson, the mistress of the Equestrian Coffee-House,
produced a twenty-pound note which she had received from the
prisoner on the same day the cheque was presented, and this made
up the whole four hundred pounds.

The fact of the forgery being established by Mr Diffell, who had
for that purpose been released by Messrs Smith & Co., the jury
without hesitation returned the verdict of guilty, and sentence of
death was passed. The prisoner was a young man of very genteel
appearance. He died a penitent.



HENRY GRIFFIN
Indicted at the Old Bailey, at the September Sessions, 1810, for the
Murder of his Wife, found guilty of Manslaughter, and fined


HENRY GRIFFIN was indicted at the Old Bailey for the wilful
murder of Ann, his wife, by severing her windpipe with a razor, on
the 4th of September, 1810. The prisoner was a journeyman
blacksmith, and resided in Onslow Street, Saffron Hill. The
deceased was a woman of vicious habits, such as infidelity,
drunkenness, etc. She had been from home a day and a night
previous to the 4th, and the prisoner, accompanied by his brother
and sister, met her in Bartholomew Fair on the evening of that day;
and after treating her with gin, at her request, they all returned to
the prisoner's lodgings, which they entered without a light. A few
minutes after the prisoner's sister called out: "Murder!" On some of
the neighbours going into the room, they found the deceased with
her throat cut; and by signs she made to their interrogatories it was
understood that her husband had murdered her. The prisoner was
found near the house, and on being questioned about the murder he
did not deny it, but added that he hoped she was dead, as he did not
mind being hanged for her, and that he should die happy. He
contended that she had brought men under his nose, and
supplanted him in his bed, and threatened that her lovers should
chastise him.

He was discharged on paying a small fine to the King.



WILLIAM HITCHIN
Transported for Seven Years for stealing an Exchequer Bill,
September, 1810


AT the sessions at the Old Bailey, September, 1810, this man, an
old offender, better known in London as the celebrated Bill
Hitchin, was tried before a London jury, for having, in the month
of July, 1806, stolen from the warehouse of Messrs Kent, London
Wall, upholsterers, one Exchequer bill, of the value of one hundred
pounds.

It appeared that the warehouse of the prosecutors was
burglariously broken open, and plundered of various property, to
the amount of several hundred pounds, at the period above
mentioned, and no trace of the robbers could be obtained till two
years afterwards, when the prisoner, being apprehended in the
county of Warwick for an offence committed there, was being
searched, and the Exchequer bill mentioned in the indictment was
found upon his person. Having been convicted of the crime at that
time imputed to him, and suffered imprisonment for the same,
there was no opportunity of bringing him up for trial here till the
period of his imprisonment in Warwick jail had expired. That
having lately taken place, he was now put to the bar to answer to
this charge.

The case being gone through on the part of the prosecution, Mr
Alley, his counsel, submitted that it was not made out according to
law against the prisoner: that the indictment having stated that the
prisoner had stolen an Exchequer bill, it was incumbent on the
prosecutor to prove that it was an Exchequer bill, which he failed
to do. The Court, however, overruled the objection, and the
prisoner was found guilty. It being a grand larceny, the prisoner
had his clergy, but was sentenced to seven years' transportation.



THOMAS BELLAMY AND JOHN LANEY
Watchmen, convicted of assaulting those whom they were bound to
protect, September, 1810


AT the sessions of the Old Bailey held in September, 1810,
Thomas Bellamy and John Laney, watchmen, belonging to the
parish of St George's, Bloomsbury, were indicted for assaulting Mr
Hindeson and his wife. The watchmen had indicted Hindeson and
his wife for an assault on them, so that the jury had to try what is
termed a cross-indictment.

It appeared that on the 1st of April, at two o'clock in the morning,
Hindeson and his wife were going home -- they residing in
Stonecutters' Buildings, Lincoln's Inn Fields -- when Hindeson,
from the street, discovered a light in his apartment, at which he
was somewhat alarmed, thinking that thieves were in the house,
and with that persuasion of mind called the watch. Three came,
and he desired them to remain at the door with his wife whilst he
went upstairs to see everything was as it should be. They did so,
and upstairs he went. Shortly afterwards he returned, informing
them that all was right -- that the light proceeded from his fire --
and thanked them for their trouble. The watchmen, it seemed, took
umbrage at being "made fools of," as they termed it, and wanted to
be paid for their trouble in doing their duty; and on Hindeson doing
nothing more than thank them for the trouble he had given them
they were inclined to have from his bones what they could not get
from his pocket -- satisfaction! They attacked both Hindeson and
his wife with their bludgeons, and after cutting him violently on
the head, and tearing almost all the clothes off his back (the
tattered and blood-stained remains of which were exposed in
court), they insisted on carrying Hindeson to the watch-house, and
he remained under confinement for thirty-seven hours.

The watchmen, finding that Hindeson was going to proceed against
them, indicted him and his wife for an assault; and they swore that
they saw nobody strike either him or his wife, nor did they strike
either of them till Hindeson and his wife began to maul them,
when some blows might have been given in getting Hindeson to
the watchhouse. This and much more swore the two watchmen; but
there was neither circumstantial evidence nor tattered and blood-
stained clothes to support their tale. Such being the case, with the
total absence of all kind of evidence on the part of the watchmen,
they were found guilty on the indictment preferred against them by
Hindeson, and fined and imprisoned.



JOHN DAVISON, ESQ.
A Captain in the Royal Marines, convicted of stealing a Piece of
Muslin from a Shopkeeper at Taunton, 13th of November, 1810


AT the assizes held on the 13th of November, 1810, for the county
of Somerset, before Sir Soulden Laurence, Captain John Davison,
of the Royal Marines, was indicted for stealing a piece of muslin,
of the value of thirty shillings, the property of James Bunter,
mercer, of Taunton.

Mr Gazelee opened the indictment.

Mr Jeryle then stated the circumstance of the case to the jury, and
observed he had seldom, in the discharge of his professional duty,
a more painful task to perform than to detail the evidence which he
had to adduce, in order to substantiate the charge in the indictment,
which charged the prisoner with the crime of felony. The facts
were few, short, but cogent, and, he feared, irresistible. They
would come better from the witnesses than from any statement of
his. He would proceed to call them.

The first witness was Alexander Baller, who said: "I am an
apprentice to Mr James Bunter, of Taunton. I know Captain
Davison, He came to my master's house on the 25th of July, at
half-past seven in the morning; there was no one in the shop but
myself; he asked if Mr Bunter was up. I told him he was, and on
that he went away. Mr Bunter came into the shop in about five
minutes, and, on seeing someone go by with whom he wished to
speak, walked out towards the parade. Captain Davison came in
again immediately after. I was cleaning the windows on the outside
of the shop. On Captain Davison's again going into the shop I
followed him. He asked to look at the muslins he had seen the
night before, and walked to the lower end of the shop to the
counter on the right hand, and I carried to him ten or twelve pieces
as he was sitting on the counter. He took the first I showed him in
his hand, and very carelessly laid it by his side, and he did the
same with some other pieces. After looking at them some time he
went towards the door; but, before that, he had thrown his
handkerchief upon four or five of the pieces, which he had folded
up. When at the door he asked me how the handkerchief he had on
looked, and whether we had any of the same. I told him we had
none of them. He asked me for a looking-glass. I told him we had
none but what was fixed, but if he would walk into the parlour he
might see there; to this he made no reply. He then sat down in a
chair rather below where the muslin was, and asked to look at
some stockings at about five shillings a pair, for his brother; before
this I had taken away the pieces of muslin that were not covered
over. There was at this time a piece under his handkerchief, which
I could plainly perceive. I took him out some stockings from the
opposite side of the shop, but kept my eyes on him, and I observed
him draw his handkerchief from the counter into his lap with both
his hands. I observed the muslin was still under the handkerchief as
he drew it towards him. He then asked for some fashionable
waistcoat patterns; I went across to the other counter to get him
some. My face was towards him, and I observed him take up the
handkerchief and squeeze it together, and put it under the left lapel
of his coat; he took the patterns of the waistcoats, as he said he
wished to show them first to Yandell, his tailor. At this time his
arm was over his coat towards his lapel where he had put his
handkerchief, and he walked out of the shop. Mr Bunter came into
the shop whilst Captain Davison was there, but stayed only two or
three minutes. I missed the first piece of muslin I had showed him
immediately after his going out. It was marked with 'O/G S/R'; the
'S' had been altered, it had been an 'I'. When I missed the muslin I
rang the bell, and Mr Bunter came. I described to him what had
happened and the particular piece which was missing, and that
Captain Davison was gone to Yandell's. Mr Bunter left the shop to
go to Yandell's through Hammet Street; I then went out and saw
Captain Davison standing at Mr Bluett's shop door. When I
perceived Captain Davison was not gone to Yandell's I called to
Mr Bunter aloud, and Davison walked by the market-house
towards his own lodgings. At the time I showed Captain Davison
the first piece I took notice of the mark."

Cross-examined by Mr Serjeant Pell: "I had seen the piece of
muslin lost the preceding evening. Captain Davison had purchased
a yard of ribbon the day before. On my calling to Mr Bunter,
Captain Davison retired from Mr Bluett's shop."

Charles Sutton, constable of Taunton, said "I went, in company
with another constable, to search the house of Mr Owen; we first
went into a bedchamber, and then into a drawing-room. Captain
Davison was not there. In the chamber there was a trunk with
Captain Davison's name on it, on a brass plate; we broke it open,
and found in it this piece of muslin."

Alexander Baller identified the piece of muslin to be the one lost,
and that it was Bunter's property.

Mr Bunter said: "The marks on the muslin are my writing, the
muslin is my property, and worth more than thirty shillings. In ten
minutes after the search the muslin was brought to me, and I knew
it."

Alexander Baller, called again, said he had never sold that piece.

Here the evidence for the prosecution closed.

Colonel Mears, T. Woodford, Esq., Surgeon Bryant, R. Morgan,
Esq., Rev. Mr Townsend, Rev. F. H. Clapp, H. C. Standart, Esq.,
and the Rev. D. Webber, all of whom were persons of the first
respectability, and who had known the prisoner nearly two years,
severally gave him an excellent character.

The judge then summed up the evidence, and told the jury that,
however they might lament that a gentleman of the prisoner's
condition in life, holding the rank of a Captain in the Royal
Marines, and who had borne so high and honourable a character till
the present time, should on the present occasion have forfeited that
character, and have forgotten his situation, it was their duty, if they
were satisfied with the evidence they had heard, to find him guilty,
however painful the discharge of that duty might be. Character, in
cases where a fair doubt could be entertained, ought to have
considerable weight with a jury. But on the contrary, where the
facts were clear, and established by credible witnesses, however
good the character of the prisoner might have been up to the time
of committing the felony, it was no excuse for the commission of
it. And unless they could say that the prisoner, at the time of
drawing the handkerchief from the counter with both his hands, as
the witness Baller stated, was ignorant that the muslin was
contained in it, he did not know how to state to them a ground of
doubt. The muslin, as they saw, was of considerable bulk, and not
likely to be contained in a silk handkerchief without its being
perceived by the prisoner, and if they thought so, it was their duty
to say that he was guilty.

The jury, after a few seconds' consideration, returned a verdict of
guilty. Sentence -- transportation.



MARY JONES AND ELIZABETH PAINE
Transported for Seven Years, November Sessions, 1810, at the Old
Bailey for Shoplifting


THE treacherous species of theft commonly called "shop-lifting"
had at this time spread into provincial places of trade. In London it
had long been a favourite mode of plunder among abandoned
females. In order to carry on their depredations, a conspiracy was
formed of two or more abandoned women, who, well dressed,
went together into shops and, while one bargained and paid for
some small articles, the others secreted whatever they could lay
their hands upon. In general they were provided with long cloaks,
large pockets and wide petticoats, wherein they concealed their
plunder.

Mary Jones and Elizabeth Paine stood indicted for privately
stealing, on the 30th of October, 1809, twelve pairs of stockings,
the property of Robert Kenyon, a hosier, on Holborn Hill. The
value of the goods was four pounds eighteen shillings. It appeared,
from the testimony of Robert Kenyon, that the women were in the
shop on the 30th of October; they were cheapening flannel, and
went away after buying some trifle. On their leaving the shop he
missed the parcel of stockings, which was hung on a chair near
where the women were, but found the invoice which he had tucked
into the parcel. He instantly pursued the women, and found them at
a shop window in Holborn looking at some paper, and tearing
something by the light of the shop. He charged them with having
his stockings They denied it, and he proceeded to push them into
the shop, when a gentleman gave him a parcel of stockings which
he said one of the women had dropped.

The common serjeant, after a suitable admonition to the prisoners
on the heinousness of their offence, and the subsequent
aggravation of it by their conduct, assured them that it was a great
stretch of the jury's humanity that they were not capitally
convicted. In order -- as well as to punish them -- to deter all others
who might be pursuing the same courses, the Court sentenced them
to transportation for seven years.



THOMAS KIMPTON
Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, December, 1810 of a Violent
Assault on a Juryman of the Court Leet, and sentenced to
Imprisonment


THOMAS KIMPTON, who kept a butcher's shop near the
turnpike, Islington Road, was put to the bar charged on an
indictment with violently assaulting a gentleman of the leet jury of
that district in the latter part of the summer in a most violent
manner, and obstructing him in the discharge of his duty.

It appeared from the statement of Mr Walford, counsel for the
prosecution, that the gentlemen who comprised the said leet jury
were out on the day mentioned in the indictment, and had seized
several fraudulent weights, scales and measures. In the progress of
their duty they approached the shop of the defendant, and the
prosecutor, being then accompanied by only one of his associates,
instantly laid hold of two weights in the shop of the defendant,
both of which were deficient according to law, and so were seized.
The defendant contended that they were of the due weight, but the
prosecutor asserted, and showed, the contrary. From words they
came to blows, and the defendant struck and beat the prosecutor till
he was rescued from his hands by the interference of his
neighbours.

Some attempts were made to palliate the case, but the jury, without
any hesitation, found the defendant guilty.

Mr Watson, who presided for Mr Mainwaring, the chairman,
animadverted in very strong language upon the conduct of the
defendant) and adjudged that he should be sent to the house of
correction, Coldbath Fields, for the space of one calendar month.



WILLIAM BRITTON
Convicted at the Sessions at the Old Bailey, December, 1810, of
stealing from a coffee-house bedroom, and sentenced to
transportation


WILLIAM BRITTON alias Symer Mark Taylor, a stout-looking
young man, was indicted for stealing thirty-five guineas, a half-
guinea in gold, and four foreign pieces of gold coin, called moors,
of the value of four guineas, from Andrew M'Intyre, Esq.

The prisoner went into the Cannon Coffee-House at Charing Cross,
about three o'clock on the 17th of November, dressed in a naval
uniform. He ordered dinner, and in the course of dinner asked the
waiter if there were any other naval officers then in the house.
Being informed that there were two or three naval gentlemen then
in the house, he ordered a bed, and went out about six o'clock, on
pretence of going to the play. He returned to the coffee-house at
half-past nine, saying he had come away before the after-piece,
ordered supper, and was shown to bed at half-past ten. Shortly
after, the chambermaid, being in a room immediately under the
prisoner, heard a noise over her head, and entering the room of
Lieutenant Maitland, which adjoined the prisoner's, she found that
Mr Maitland's trunk had been taken out of his room. Having
communicated this to her master, he went up to the prisoner's
room, which was locked. The prisoner admitted the landlord, and
threw himself into bed, lying between the sheets with his clothes
and boots on. A number of articles were perceived scattered about
the room. The landlord immediately locked up the prisoner.
Having procured an officer, his room was searched, when they
found Mr Maitland's trunk, which had been forced open. Eighteen
guineas, two of the foreign coins and some linen were also found
in a chest of drawers in the room; and two guineas, in a piece of
brown paper, and a chisel, under the mattress. The rest of the
money for which the prisoner was indicted was found upon him
the next day, in one of his boots. Mr M'Intyre, to whom this money
belonged, had requested Mr Maitland to place it for security in his
trunk. The prisoner's sorry appearance could have hardly allowed
one to suppose that he had ever successfully personated a
gentleman. Found guilty -- transportation.



JOSEPH MOSES
Convicted in 1811 of receiving the Skins of Royal Swans from the
Serpentine River, in Hyde Park, knowing them to have been stolen


IN the beginning of the year 1811 the swans of the Serpentine river
were missing; and, on search after them, their bodies were found
on its banks, stripped of skin and feathers. The runners of justice
soon began a pursuit of the uncommon robber, and in a short time
traced the feathers, which had been sent by an Israelite to one
Ryder, to be dressed, for the decoration of pretty Christian misses.

Moses, not being able to convince Limerick, the Christian catch-
poll who seized him, of his honestly coming by the plumage of the
royal birds, was taken before a Bench of Magistrates, who
committed him for trial.

On the 5th of April, 1811, he was brought up to the bar of the
sessions-house at Hicks's Hall, charged with having received into
his possession six swans' skins, knowing them to have been stolen.
William Baker, the first witness called, stated that he was park-
keeper under the Right Hon. Lord Euston, Ranger of Hyde Park;
there were six swans kept in the Serpentine river, two of which had
been stolen in the latter part of January, 1811, and he found the
carcasses of the remaining four lying on the bank of the pond, the
skins having been stripped from them. A few days after, Limerick,
the officer of Bow Street, brought six skins to him, which, on
being applied to the carcasses, were found exactly to correspond,
and so he had no doubt they were the stolen skins.

A man of the name of Devine, and an officer of the name of Lack,
proved finding six swans' skins in the possession of the prisoner;
they were hanging up in his shop in Welbeck Street, where they
were found.

A young woman of the name of Mary Brush, who had been his
servant, but who had recently quitted his service, proved that on
Monday evening, the 25th of February, 1811, her master came
home about five o'clock, and had something wrapped up in a
bundle. She saw him open it in the parlour and take two swans'
skins out of it. She further deposed that on Tuesday, the 26th, a
man came to her master's house, and asked if Mr Moses was at
home, and left four more swans' skins.

A person of the name of Hart swore that he saw the defendant buy
two swans' skins in Leadenhall Market, and give two pounds for
them, on Monday, the 25th of February. He was not believed.

It appeared, however, that the skins tallied exactly with the bodies
of the dead swans; for, wherever a part of the skin stuck to the
bodies, a part in the same position was equally wanting from the
skins.

Several persons -- of the Hebrew persuasion and others -- gave the
defendant a good character; some knew him upwards of twenty
years.

The chairman summed up the evidence, and the jury, after retiring
upwards of half-an-hour, returned a verdict of guilty.

As soon as the verdict was recorded, Mr Alley, counsel for the
prisoner, raised some objections to the indictment, contending that,
swans being what in law is termed ferae naturae, the stealing of
them did not amount to a larceny; and, as there was no thief, there
could not therefore be any receiving.

The counsel on the other side contended to the contrary, and the
Court overruled the objections. The prisoner was fined, and
imprisoned.



EDWARD BEAZLEY
A Boy, whipped in Newgate for destroying Women's Apparel with
Aqua Fortis, 11th of March, 1811


UNTIL severe examples were made of the actors in this kind of
"frolic and fun," females often found their clothes drop to tatters,
and such as restricted themselves to mere muslin and chemise were
frequently dreadfully burned, in a way invisible and almost
unaccountable. A set of urchins and chaps, neither men nor boys,
by way of a "high game," procured aqua fortis, vitriol and other
corrosive liquids, and filling therewith a syringe, or bottle, sallied
forth to give the girls "a squirt."

Of this mischievous description we find Edward Beazley, who was
convicted of this unpardonable offence at the Old Bailey, the 11th
of March, 1811.

He was indicted for wilfully and maliciously injuring and
destroying the apparel of Anne Parker, which she was wearing, by
feloniously throwing upon the same a certain poisonous substance
called aqua-fortis, whereby the same was so injured as to be
rendered useless and of no value. He was also charged upon two
other indictments for the like offence, on the prosecution of two
other women.

It appeared that the prisoner, a little boy about thirteen years old,
took it into his head to sally into Fleet Street, on the night of
Saturday, 16th of February, and there threw the liquid upon the
clothes of several ladies. He was caught, carried before the sitting
magistrate at Guildhall, and fully committed, on three several
charges.

Three ladies appeared, and proved the facts stated in the
indictments, and exhibited their burned garments, such as pelisses,
gowns and other articles, which were literally burned to riddles.

He was found guilty.

His master, Mr Blades, an eminent chemist on Ludgate Hill, gave
him a good character for honesty; he never knew anything wrong
of him before, but he acknowledged that he had access to both
vitriol and aqua fortis.

The Court, having a discretionary power under the Act of
Parliament, instead of transporting him for seven years, only
ordered him to be well whipped in the jail, and returned to his
friends.



WILLIAM TOWNLEY
Convicted of Burglary, and executed at Gloucester, 23rd of March,
1811, a Few Minutes before a Reprieve arrived


WILLIAM TOWNLEY had received sentence of death at
Gloucester, for burglary, and was left for execution. A short time
after the departure of the judge towards Hereford, the next assize
town, he was informed of some circumstances favourable to the
case of the prisoner, and, in consequence thereof, he granted a
reprieve. By a fatal mistake this reprieve was directed by the clerk
to Mr Wilton, under-sheriff of Herefordshire, in place of
Gloucestershire, and put into the post office at Hereford. There it
remained until the letters were delivered next morning, time
enough for it to have reached Gloucester. When Messrs Bird and
Woolaston, the under-sheriffs for Herefordshire, opened the
packet, seeing its import of life or death, they dispatched Mr
Bennet of the hotel with it, upon a fleet horse, to the place of its
destination, thirty-four miles away; but, melancholy to relate, he
arrived at the spot of execution twenty minutes too late; the culprit
having been hanging on the gallows that time, and dead.



MICHAEL WHITING
Methodist Preacher, sentenced to Death for poisoning his Two
Brothers-in-Law, with an Intent to possess himself of their
Property, 1811


AT the Isle of Ely Assizes in 1811, Michael Whiting, a shopkeeper
in Downham, near Ely, and a dissenting preacher, was indicted,
under Lord Ellenborough's Act, on a charge of administering
poison to George Langman and to Joseph Langman, his brothers-
in-law.

It appeared in evidence that the Langmans resided together at
Downham, and were small farmers; and that their family consisted
of themselves, a sister named Sarah about ten years of age, and a
female domestic, of the name of Catharine Carter, who acted as
their housekeeper and servant. They had another sister, who was
married to the prisoner. On the morning of Tuesday, the 12th of
March, 1811, they sent their sister to the prisoner's house to borrow
a loaf. The prisoner returned with her, and brought a loaf with him,
and told the Langmans that, as he understood their housekeeper
was going on a visit to her friends for a day or two, he would bring
them some flour and pork to make a pudding for their dinner. He
went away, and shortly afterwards returned with a basin of flour,
and pork. Addressing himself to the housekeeper he said:
"Catharine, be sure you make the boys a pudding before you go."
He then took the young child home with him to dinner. The
housekeeper made two puddings, but observed the flour would not
properly adhere; she left them in a kneading trough, and the
Langmans boiled one of them for dinner. The diners had hardly
swallowed two or three mouthfuls before they were taken
exceedingly ill, and seized with violent vomiting. Suspecting the
pudding had been poisoned, one of the Langmans gave a small
piece to a sow in the yard, which swallowed it, and was
immediately taken sick and, after lingering some time, died. The
elder brother soon recovered, but the younger one continued in a
precarious state for several days. The remnants of the pudding
were analysed by Mr Woolaston, professor of chemistry at the
University of Cambridge, and found to contain a considerable
quantity of corrosive sublimate of mercury. The prisoner, who it
appeared was a dealer in flour, attempted to account for the
pudding being poisoned by stating that he had lately laid some nux
vomica to poison some vermin, and that some of it must
accidentally have been carried into his flour-bin. Mr Woolaston,
however, positively stated that the pudding contained no other
poisonous ingredient than corrosive sublimate; and it came out in
evidence that the prisoner, who sold drugs, had purchased of the
person whom he succeeded in business a considerable quantity of
that poison. It also appeared that the flourbins belonging to the
prisoner had been searched, and that immediately upon its being
discovered that the Langmans had taken poison the prisoner had
emptied his bins and washed them out.

Mr Alley, from London, conducted the prisoner's defence. The trial
lasted till six o'clock at night; and the jury, after deliberating about
ten minutes, found the prisoner guilty. The judge immediately
passed sentence of death, and he was left for execution.



RICHARD ARMITAGE AND C. THOMAS
Clerks in the Bank of England, executed before Newgate, 24th of
June, 1811, for Forgery


FORGERY was formerly an offence which was never pardoned, a
determination on the part of the Crown laid down in the cases of
the Perreaus and of Doctor Dodd, whom no interest could save
from an ignominious death. The ancient punishment for this crime
was thus minutely described in a London periodical publication for
the year 1731:

"June 9th.-- This day, about noon, Japhet Crook, alias St Peter
Stranger, was brought to the pillory at Charing Cross, according to
his sentence for forgery. He stood an hour thereon; after which a
chair was set on the pillory; and he being put therein, the hangman
with a sort of pruning knife cut off both his ears, and immediately
a surgeon clapt a styptic thereon. Then the executioner, with a pair
of scissors, cut his left nostril twice before it was quite through,
and afterwards cut through the right nostril at once. He bore all this
with great patience; but when, in pursuance of his sentence, his
right nostril was seared with a red-hot iron, he was in such violent
pain that his left nostril was let alone, and he went from the pillory
bleeding. He was conveyed from thence to the King's Bench
Prison, there to remain for life. He died in confinement about three
years after."

The crime for which Armitage and Thomas suffered was of the
very worst description of forgery -- a scandalous breach of public
trust -- a robbery upon the very corporation they were bound to
protect from the nefarious attempts of others. They long had
practised impositions on the Bank of England, unsuspected, and in
the meantime maintained a show of integrity.

Towards the latter end of August, 1810, Robert Roberts was
apprehended on suspicion of being concerned in the many
forgeries which for some time had been practised on the Bank of
England and the commercial part of the metropolis. He was
brought to one of the public offices, and from thence remanded to
the house of correction in Coldbath Fields. In a few days, in
company with another prisoner, of the name of Harper, he effected
his escape, and the public were surprised at seeing large printed
sheets of paper pasted on the walls of the City, announcing this
extraordinary circumstance, and offering a large reward for their
apprehension, but particularly for the discovery of Roberts, the
other belonging merely to the gangs of smaller rogues.

Notwithstanding the large reward offered for his apprehension,
Roberts evaded the strict search of justice. It was known that he
had carried off a considerable sum of money: his proportion of the
success of the forgeries wherein he was implicated, and for which
only the unfortunate subjects of this case suffered. At length he
was identified at a tavern on the Surrey side of Westminster
Bridge, where he had taken up his lodgings as a private country
gentleman detained in town on his own concerns.

Roberts, to save his own life, impeached Armitage and Thomas,
two clerks filling places of great trust in the Bank of England, as
the immediate agents of the many forgeries which had been of late
committed on that corporation; and he was admitted evidence
against them on the part of the Crown.

Richard Armitage was first apprehended: he was brought to the
public office in Marlborough Street on the 8th of April, 1810; and
after a short examination was committed to the New Prison, for
trial at the next Old Bailey sessions. Among the witnesses bound
over to give evidence against him was Mrs Roberts, the mistress of
his base accuser. His forgeries of dividend warrants were to the
amount of two thousand, four hundred pounds.

On the 2nd of May following, C. Thomas was apprehended and
brought to the same office, on a charge of having forged several
dividend warrants; and, after three separate examinations, was also
committed for trial.

This prisoner was a bank clerk in the Imperial Annuity Office, and
the warrants forged were to obtain the dividends of a person who
had been dead about three years, and whose executors had not
applied for his property. It appeared that three hundred and sixty
pounds had been paid out of the bank, and the prisoner's name was
signed as an attesting witness. It was also proved that bank-notes,
with which the dividends were paid, were found in the prisoner's
possession. Under these circumstances the prisoner was fully
committed for trial. This was one of the cases disclosed by
Roberts.

Armitage was fully committed, and Roberts and his wife were the
principal witnesses against him.

The trials of these unfortunate men were unattended by any other
circumstance worth noticing, further than that, independent of the
evidence of Roberts and his wife -- which, unsupported, would
have received little credit -- full proof was adduced of their guilt.
They were consequently found guilty, and received sentence of
death.

On the 24th of June, 1811, Armitage and Thomas were executed at
the Old Bailey, pursuant to their sentence. The former, from severe
illness, was under the necessity of being supported by a friend
while ascending-and during his continuance on the scaffold.



MARY GREEN
Convicted of putting off Base Coin, and sentenced to Six Months'
Imprisonment, 5th of April, 1811


AT the sessions for Middlesex held on the 5th of April, 1811,
Mary Green, a decent-looking girl, was found guilty of putting off
two bad shillings to Mr Harris, a linen-draper, in Pickett Street,
Temple Bar.

She went into Mr Harris's shop and asked for small silver for a
dollar. Mr Harris gave it to her. She walked two or three yards up
the shop and, addressing herself to the shopman, told him that his
master had given her two bad shillings. This Mr Harris denied, and
refused to take them. She then conducted herself most rudely;
whereupon a constable was sent for. Before he arrived she still
persisted in her impudent behaviour, saying that she had no more
money about her but the dollar. Lack, the officer, soon arrived, and
searched her, and there was found concealed about her twelve
shillings and four sixpences, all in good silver, besides the change
of the dollar.

The jury, after a charge from Mr Mainwaring, found her guilty.

As soon as the verdict was pronounced, the counsel for the
prosecution then acquainted the Court that, as the punishment was
pointed out by Act of Parliament, from which they could not
deviate, and therefore the prisoner's cause could not be affected by
the profligacy of her character, he thought it right to mention that
this was the second time she had been brought into that court (first
with her mother) for this kind of crime; that her father was at that
moment transported, and her younger sister was in confinement
under the sentence of the Court for the very same kind of offence.
She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.



THE HONOURABLE ARTHUR WILLIAM HODGE
One of the Members of his Majesty's Council in Tortola, an Island
subject to Great Britain, in the West Indies, executed there on the
8th of May, 1811, for the Murder of his Negro Slave


WE believe that this is the first Englishman, at any rate since the
late amelioration of their wretched condition, who suffered capital
punishment for flogging his own slaves to death; but we are very
sure that numbers as well French, Spaniards, Dutch, Portuguese,
and above all, Americans have deserved the fate of Hodge, for
barbarity to their fellow men, differing in nought but colour.

The greater part of Englishmen, while drinking grog, or quaffing
the fumes of best Virginia; or their wives and daughters in sipping
their tea, know not by what base means, rum, sugar, and tobacco
are imported into their country. The case before us affords an
opportunity of throwing some light upon the dark subject of
bringing to public view a long continued series of barbarity of
burdens not fit for beasts to bear of whips and chains that
overpower the frailer flesh, and bend the spirits down of deliberate,
cruel, wanton, and unpunished murders.

The brutal murder for which Mr Hodge suffered death, caused
further investigations to be made in other West India islands; and
which, at length, reached the government of the mother country.
This produced a correspondence between the earl of Liverpool and
governor Elliot, from which we shall select the first official
document laid before a committee of the house of commons, 
exhibiting similar scenes of barbarity in another island.

FROM THE ST. CHRISTOPHER GAZETTE OF 23rd FEB.,
1810.

 Published by the Authority of the Assembly of the Island of Nevis

NEVIS. -- At a meeting of the gentlemen of the assembly at
Charlestown, on Wednesday the 31st day of January, 1810; the
following resolutions were entered into:--

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this house, that the conduct of
Edward Huggins, sen. Esq. on Tuesday the 23rd of last month, in
inflicting punishment on several of his negroes in the public
market-place of this town, was both cruel and illegal; and that
particularly in two cases, where two hundred and forty-two, and
two hundred and ninety-one lashes were given, he was guilty of an
act of barbarity altogether unprecedented in this island. That this
House do hold such conduct in the utmost abhorrence and
detestation, which sentiments perfectly accord with the feelings of
the community in general. That this House do pledge themselves to
promote the strictest investigation into this cruel proceeding, so
disgraceful to humanity, so injurious to the fair character of the
inhabitants, and so destructive of the best interests of the West
India colonies.

Resolved, That the above resolutions, with the evidence taken in
support thereof, be printed. That copies be transmitted to England,
and circulated through all the islands.

The examination of John Burke, jun. deputy secretary of the said
island, upon oath, saith, that on Tuesday, the 23rd Jan. 1810, he
was standing in the street opposite the house of the Rev. William
Green; when he saw Edward Huggins, sen. Esq. and his two sons,
Edward and Peter Thomas Huggins, ride by, with a gang of
negroes, to the public market-place; from whence the deponent
heard the noise of the cart-whip; that deponent walked up the
street, and saw Mr Huggins, sen. standing by, with two drivers
flogging a negro-man, whose name deponent understood to be
Yellow Quashy. That deponent went into Dr. Crosse's gallery, and
sat down: that two drivers continued flogging the said negro-man
for about fifteen minutes: that as he appeared to be severely
whipped deponent was induced to count the lashes given the other
negroes, being under an impression that the country would take up
the business. That deponent heard Mr George Abbot declare, at Dr.
Crosse's steps, near the market-place, that the first negro had
received one hundred and sixty-five lashes: deponent saith, that Mr
Huggins, sen. gave another negro-man one hundred and fifteen
lashes; to another negro-man one hundred and sixty-five lashes; to
another negro-man two hundred and twelve lashes; to another
negro-man one hundred and eighty-one lashes; to a woman one
hundred and ten lashes: to another woman fifty-eight lashes: to
another woman ninety-seven lashes; to another woman two
hundred and twelve lashes; and, that the woman who received two
hundred and ninety-one lashes appeared young, and was most
cruelly flogged. That all the negroes were flogged by two expert
whippers: that Mr Edward Huggins, jun. and Mr Peter Huggins,
were present at the time the negroes were punished: that Dr. Cassin
was present, when some of the negroes were whipped, and when a
man received two hundred and forty-two lashes. That deponent
understood that Dr. Cassin was sent for by Mr Huggins, sen. That
Edward Harris, Esq., Mr Peter Butler, and Dr. Crosse, were present
at Dr. Crosse's house a part of the time during the punishment: and
that Mr Joseph Nicholson, Mr Joseph Laurence, and Mr William
Keepe, were present all the time.
	JOHN BURKE, Jun.
	Sworn before me, this 31st Jan., 1810, at the Secretary's
office.---
	WM. LAURENCE

A bill of indictment having been preferred against the said Mr
Huggins, in consequence of one of the female slaves, he was
acquitted, on which occasion Mr J. W. Tobin addressed an
animated letter to the governor, asserting that the jury was packed;
and, that their verdict excited the surprise and indignation of the
respectable part of the community.

In the letter of lord Liverpool to the governor, after adverting to the
heinousness of the transaction, he says, 'I am commanded by his
Royal Highness the Prince Regent to direct that you will remove
from that honourable situation any magistrate or magistrates who
actually witnessed the infliction of the punishment without
interference; and, that he cannot receive from the council and
assembly of the Virgin Islands a more flattering assurance of their
regard to the wishes of their sovereign, and of the interest they feel
in supporting the honour of the British name, than their anxious
endeavours to ameliorate the condition of that class of beings,
whose bitter and dependant lot entitles them to every protection
and support.'

Let us now bring forward the narration of an individual, on the
sufferings of African slaves in the British West India Islands.

The following are extracts from a work lately published by Dr. 
Pinckard, inspector-general of hospitals, and physician to the
Bloomsbury dispensary, intituled, 'Notes on the West Indies': --
The facts took place at an English plantation in Demerara, where
the doctor was stationed himself at the time.

'Two unhappy negroes, a man and a woman, having been driven by
cruel treatment to abscond from the plantation of Lancaster, were
taken a few days since, and brought back to the estate, when the
manager, whose inhuman severity had caused them to fly from his
tyrannic government, dealt out to them his avenging despotism
with more than savage brutality. Taking with him two of the
strongest drivers, armed with the heaviest whips, he led these
trembling and wretched Africans early in the morning, to a remote
part of the estate, too distant for the officers to hear their cries; and
there tying down first the man, be stood by, and made the drivers
flog him with many hundred lashes, until on releasing him from
the ground, it was discovered that he was nearly exhausted: and in
this state the inhuman monster struck him with the butt end of a
large whip and felled him to the earth; when the poor negro,
escaping at once from his slavery and his sufferings, expired at the
murderer's feet. But not satiated with blood, this savage tyrant next
tied down the naked woman, on the spot by the dead body of her
husband, and with the whips, already dyed with blood, compelled
the drivers to inflict a punishment of several hundred lashes, which
had nearly released her also from a life of toil and torture.

'Hearing of these acts of cruelty, on my return from the hospital,
and scarcely believing it possible that they could have been
committed, I went immediately to the sick-house to satisfy myself
by ocular testimony; when, alas! I discovered that all I had heard
was too fatally true: for, shocking to relate, I found the wretched
and almost murdered woman lying stark naked on her belly, upon
the dirty boards, without any covering to the horrid wounds which
had been cut by the whips, with the still warm and bloody corpse
of the man extended at her side, upon the neck of which was an
iron collar, and a long heavy chain, which the now murdered negro
had been made to wear from the time of his return to the estate.

'A few days after the funeral, the attorney of the estate happened to
call at Lancaster, to visit the officers, and the conversation
naturally turning upon the cruelty of the manager, and the
consequent injury derived to the proprietors we asked him what
punishment the laws of the colony had provided for such horrid
and barbarous crimes; expressing our hope that the manager would
suffer the disgrace he so justly merited! when to our great surprise
the attorney smiled, and treated our remarks only as the dreams of
men unpractised in the ways of slavery. He spake of the murder
with as little feeling as the manager who had perpetrated it, and
seemed to be amused at our visionary ideas of punishing a white
man for his cruel treatment of slaves.

'To the question, whether the manager would not be dismissed
from the estate? be replied "Certainly not;" adding, "that if the
negro had been treated as he deserved, he would have been flogged
to death long before." Such was the amount of his sympathy and
concern! "The laws of the country," he said, "were intended to
punish any person for punishing a slave with more than 39 lashes
for the same offence; but by incurring only a small fine he could at
any time punish a negro with as many hundred lashes as he might
wish, although the governor and the fiscal were standing at his
elbow."	'Great wretchedness is occasioned at slave sales, by
the separation of their friends and relatives. This dreadful and
inherent feature of the traffic has not perhaps, been sufficiently
attended to. The following description of a mother who was
exhibited at a sale, with her son and three daughters, furnishes an
instance:	'The fears of the parent, lest she should be separated
from her children, or these from each other, were anxious and
watchful, beyond all that imagination could paint, or the most vivid
fancy portray. When anyone approached their little group, or
advanced to look towards them with the attentive eye of a
purchaser, the children in broken sobs, crouched nearer together,
and the fearful mother in agonizing impulse, instantly fell down
before the spectator, bowed herself to the earth, and kissed his feet;
then alternately clinging to his legs, and pressing her children to
her bosom, she fixed herself upon her knees, clasped her hands
together, and in anguish cast up a look of humble petition, which
might have found its way even to the heart of a Caligula; and thus,
in Nature's truest language, did the afflicted parent urge the
strongest appeal to his compassion, while she implored the
purchaser, in dealing out to her the hard lot of slavery, to spare her
the additional pang of being torn from her children.'

Though Dr. Pinckard was always well received by the planters
lived in their society on a footing of the closest intimacy was a
witness of all the good as well as the evil of their manners and is,
in every respect, most naturally and properly inclined to vindicate
them, where truth will permit; yet his whole volumes, abounding in
every species of information, containing all the results of his
attentive, unwearied observations on the state of the slaves, as well
as of the colonies in general, do not offer to the most attentive
perusal one single fact or circumstance, approaching to a defence
of the evil so often imputed to the slave trade. Their whole
compass offers not a line to contradict, nor even in any degree to
weaken the mass of evidence upon which former writers on
colonial affairs have long denounced that detestable enormity. On
the contrary, he furnishes, almost in every page, new examples of
its evils, and new grounds for its abolition.

But let us now turn to charges of an American writer upon his own
countrymen; and see whether we cannot find, if possible, still
greater cruelties inflicted upon their own slaves, in their own
boasted land of liberty.

Mr John Parrish, an American born citizen and an en lightened
Quaker, in a pamphlet published in Philadelphia, 1806, by Kimber,
Conrad, and Co. (who have correspondents in London) says:--

'There is a species of slave trade carried on in the United States,
which in cruelty equals that in the West Indies. A class of men
whose minds seem to have become almost callous to every tender
feeling, having agents in various places suited to their purpose,
who travel through different states, and by purchase or otherwise,
procure considerable numbers of these people, which consequently
occasions a separation of the nearest connexions in life. Husbands
from wives and parents from children -- the poignant sensations
marked on their mournful countenances disregarded -- are taken in
droves through the country like herds of cattle, but with less
commiseration; for, being chained or otherwise fettered, the weight
and friction of their shackles naturally producing much soreness
and pain, they are greatly incommoded in their travel. Jails,
designed for the security of such as have forfeited their liberty by a
breach of the laws, are, through the countenance of some of the
magistracy, made receptacles for this kind of merchandize; and
when opportunity presents for moving them further, it is generally
in the dead of night, that their cries might not be heard, nor legal
methods pursued, such as have been kidnapped. Others are chained
in the garrets or cellars of private houses till the numbers becoming
nearly equal to the success which may have been expected, they
are then conveyed on board, and crowded under the hatches of
vessels secretly stationed for that purpose, and thus transported to
Petersburg in Virginia, or such other parts as will insure the best
market, and many are marched by land to unknown destined
places.

'The evidence of a free African will not be taken against a white
man; and, therefore, he may go unpunished.

'Many of the people of colour, who had fled to prevent their being
sold to southern traders, have, by authority of the fugitive law,
been pursued, brought back, and sold to men of this description;
and, as government has refused to afford them any redress, to God
only could they look for support.

'In some places, cognizance is taken of murder, long after the
perpetration. In Great Britain, the governor of Goree, in Africa, for
ordering a soldier to be illegally whipped, which occasioned his
death, was tried and executed fifteen or twenty years afterwards.
How have the coloured people's lives been sported with in some
parts of the United States! Numbers have been whipped to death,
and otherwise murdered, and little or no notice taken, in a judicial
capacity. It was reported, from good authority, that a black man
who was sold from near Snow-hill, in Maryland, to a distant part of
the continent, returned back, and lay out of doors. Being accused
of stealing from his neighbours, he was pursued, taken, and
brought into the village one morning, and there hung without judge
or jury; of which no more notice was taken than if they had hung a
dog!

'It was a just observation of Thomas Jefferson (late President of the
United States), that the whole commerce between master and slave
is one perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions on the
one part, and degrading submission on the other.

'Many instances have occurred, and some of a recent date, where
the slaves have rather chosen death, than to remain in a state of
bondage liable to be separated from all that is dear to them.

'When I was travelling through North Carolina, a black man who
was outlawed, being shot by one of his pursuers, and left wounded
in the woods, they came to the ordinary where I had stopped to bait
my horse, in order to procure a cart to bring the poor wretched
object in. Another, I was credibly informed, was shot, his head cut
off and carried in a bag by the perpetrators of the murder, who
received the reward, which was said to have been two hundred
dollars, and that the head was stuck on a coal house at an iron
works in Virginia. His crime was going, without leave, to visit his
wife who was in slavery at some distance. One Crawford gives an
account of a black man being gibbeted alive in South Carolina, and
the buzzards came and picked out his eyes. Another was burnt at
the stake in Charlestown, in the same state, surrounded by a
multitude of spectators, some of whom were people of the first
rank; the poor object was heard to cry, "Not guilty, not guilty."

'From a recent account, published in the American Daily
Advertiser, by a person who had taken a tour along the eastern
shore of Maryland, it appears that from that side of the bay only,
there were not less than six hundred blacks carded off in six
months by the Georgia men, or southern traders. In the state of
Maryland there is the greatest market, or inland trade, of the
human species of any part of the United States. Some of the agents
of those southern traders are so hardy as to publish advertisements
of their readiness to purchase these kinds of cargo, which they
effect in various ways; frequently by purchases made so secretly,
that the poor blacks when engaged at their meals, or occupied in
some domestic concerns, not having the least intimation of the
design, are suddenly seized, bound, and carried off, either to some
place provided for the purpose, or immediately on board the vessel.
Many are obtained by kidnapping, until the whole supply is
completed.

'I have heard some men in eminent stations say, "The country must
be thinned of these people (the blacks) they must be got rid of at
any rate." Some from embarrassed circumstances have made sale
of these wretched objects, who, being fallen upon unawares, were
handcuffed and sent afar off, which has struck such a terror to
other slaves, who would otherwise have remained with their
masters that they have run away. A man and his wife on the same
shore of Maryland, being thus circumstanced, fled under such
alarm, that the woman left behind her sucking child. After they
were taken, I met them, coupled together in irons, and drove along
the road like brute beasts, by two rough unfeeling white men.
When I was in Maryland, a minister of the gospel took some black
children away from their parents, amid the screams of the mothers,
never to meet again!'

This wretched race of men, both in the West India islands, and
United States of America, are bought and sold, exactly as we sell
our horses, oxen, sheep, and swine. Planters, who are to a man
gamblers, will stake a negro on the turn of a card, or the cast of the
dice; or barter them for a horse, cattle, or a piece of land. They are
put up in lots at auction, as we sell horses, and carried hundreds of
miles, from the place where they were born. On the death of their
master they are sold, along with the quadruped stock of the estate,
to the best bidder, as the following advertisement, taken from a
paper printed in the very town where general Washington was
born, will fully prove.

TO BE SOLD AT AUCTION,
PURSUANT TO THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF
MANN PAGE, DECEASED
 All the Personal Properly belonging to his Estate:
 Consisting of about One Hundred and Sixty
 NEGROES,

Together with all the stock of horses, three mules, cattle, sheep,
plantation utensils, and about 1000 barrels of corn. Amongst the
negroes are seven very valuable carpenters, three excellent
blacksmiths, two millers, and some other tradesmen. The greater
part, if not the whole, of this valuable property, will be sold on a
credit of 12 months; the purchaser giving bond with approved
security, to bear interest from the date, if not punctually paid. All
sums under 20 dollars must be paid money.

All persons having claims against said estate, will please to make
them known as speedily as possible; and those indebted will, it is
hoped, be forward in making payment to
	ROBERT PATTON, Administrator with the will annexed.

Fredericksburgh, Virginia, Dec. 1, 1806

The sum of these doleful tales is the case of Hodge, who, for his
wickedness to his slaves, expiated his crimes by the hands of the
executioner; unpitied by the whites, and execrated by the blacks of
Tortola.

The Hon. A. W. Hodge, Esq., proprietor, and one of the members
of his Majesty's council in this island, was indicted for the murder
of one of his own negroes, of the name of Prosper.

The prisoner on his trial, being put to the bar, pleaded 'Not guilty'.
The first witness called to prove the charge was a free woman of
colour, of the name of Pareen Georges. She stated that she was in
the habit of attending at Mr Hodge's estate to wash linen; that one
day Prosper came to her to borrow 6s., being the sum that his
master required of him, because a mango had fallen from a tree,
which (he) Prosper was set to watch. He told the witness that he
must either find the 6s. or be flogged; that the witness had only 3s.
which she gave him, but that it did not appease Mr Hodge: that
Prosper was flogged for upwards of an hour, receiving more than
100 lashes, and threatened by his master, that if he did not bring
the remaining 3s. on the next day, the flogging should be repeated;
that the next day he was tied to a tree, and flogged for such a
length of time, with the thong of the whip doubled, that his head
fell back, and that he could bawl no more. From thence he was
carried to the sick-house, and chained to two other negroes: that he
remained in this confinement during five days, at the end of which
time his companions broke away, and thereby released him; that he
was unable to abscond; that he went to the negro-houses and shut
himself up; that he was found there dead, and in a state of
putrefaction, some days afterwards; that crawlers were found in his
wounds, and not a piece of black flesh was to be seen on the hinder
part of his body where he had been flogged.	Stephen M'Keogh, a
white man, who had lived as manager on Mr Hodge's estate,
deposed, that he saw the deceased, Prosper, after he had been so
severely flogged; that he could put his finger in his side; he saw
him some days before his death in a cruel state; he could not go
near him for the blue flies. Mr Hodge had told the witness, while
he was in his employ, that if the work of the estate was not done,
he was satisfied if he heard the whip.

This was the evidence against the prisoner. His counsel, in their
attempt to impeach the veracity of the witnesses, called evidence
as to his general character, which disclosed instances of still
greater barbarity on the part of Mr Hodge. Among other examples,
the witness, Pareen Georges, swore that he had occasioned the
death of his cook, named Margaret, by pouring boiling water down
her throat.

Before the jury retired, the prisoner addressed them as follows: --
'Gentlemen, as bad as I have been represented, or as bad as you
may think me, I assure you, that I feel support in my affliction
from entertaining a proper sense of religion. As all men are subject
to wrong, I cannot but say that that principle is likewise inherent in
me. I acknowledge myself guilty in regard to many of my slaves;
but I call God to witness my innocence in respect to the murder of
Prosper. I am sensible that the country thirsts for my blood, and I
am ready to sacrifice it.'

The jury, after deliberation, brought in a verdict of Guilty. There
were six other indictments on similar charges against the prisoner.

After, as well as previous to, his condemnation, and to the last
moment of his life, Mr Hodge persisted in his innocence of the
crime for which he was about to suffer. He acknowledged that he
had been a cruel master (which, as he afterwards said, was all he
meant in his admission to the jury, of his guilt in regard to others
of his slaves); that he had repeatedly flogged his negroes; that they
had then run away, when, by their own neglect, and the consequent
exposure of their wounds, the death of some of them had possibly
ensued. He denied all intentions of causing the death of anyone,
and pleaded the unruly and insubordinate disposition of his whole
gang as the motive for his severity. These were the sentiments in
which he died.

The execution of this ruffian will, we trust, be the commencement
of a system of milder treatment towards those unfortunate beings,
denominated slaves, in the West Indies. The atrocities committed
by that fellow on his slaves, present a melancholy picture of the
state of manners prevalent amongst the West Indian planters, and
shew how inhuman that practice was which allowed persons of
their description to exercise an uncontrolled power over their
fellow-creatures.



THOMAS LEACH AND ELIZABETH, HIS WIFE
The Former transported for uttering Forged Bank-Notes, and the
Latter condemned to Death, July, 1811


AT the sessions, July, 1811, at the Old Bailey, Thomas Leach was
put to the bar charged with feloniously uttering and publishing as
true a certain false, forged and counterfeit bank-note for the
payment of five pounds, well knowing the same to be forged and
counterfeit, with intent to defraud the Governor and Company of
the Bank of England. On his being arraigned, he pleaded guilty to
the lesser charge in the indictment -- namely, that of having such
counterfeit note in his possession -- by which means he avoided
the punishment of death, and was liable to be transported for the
term of fourteen years.

When he was removed from the bar, Elizabeth Leach, his wife,
was next placed there. She stood charged with feloniously uttering
and publishing as true a certain false, forged and counterfeit bank-
note for the payment of one pound, well knowing the same to be
forged, false and counterfeit, with the intent of defrauding the
Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The prisoner did
not follow her husband's example upon this occasion, but pleaded
"Not Guilty," and her trial proceeded.

Several witnesses were then examined, and first a shopkeeper in
Clerkenwell, where she passed a false one-pound note. Other
persons proved the like, and added that she was always alone,
unaccompanied by any other person whatsoever. It was also
proved that upon searching her apartments there were found in her
pockets some genuine bank-notes of five-pound, two-pound and
one-pound value, and in her work-basket a bundle of forged notes
for the sums exactly corresponding with those that she had passed
to the several persons who had appeared against her. In her defence
she attempted to impress the Court and the jury to believe that her
husband had always accompanied her; in this, however, she totally
failed, and too late she found cause to lament that she had put in
such a plea as she did, for the jury found her guilty. She was
sentenced to death, which nothing could avert but an extension of
Royal clemency.



JOHN STANLEY, THOMAS JEFFRY, W. BRAINE AND
WILLIAM BRUNT
 London Boot Operatives who were imprisoned for conspiring to
obtain Better Wages, August, 1811


ON the 17th of August, 1811, John Stanley, Thomas Jeffry, W.
Braine and William Brunt, journeymen boot and shoe makers,
were brought before the aldermen, Messrs Scholey and Magney,
on an information charging them with forming a conspiracy, with
thirty-six others, to obtain, contrary to the statute, an increase of
wages from their master, Mr Hale, bootmaker, Fleet Street.

Mr Alley, as counsel for the prosecution, stated that the
defendants, under an improper and delusive sense of the law, had
illegally held a meeting for the purpose of compelling Mr Hale to
allow them the same prices for work that Mr Hoby and other
masters at the west end of the town gave. Mr Hale had, from
motives of humanity, selected a few persons for punishment rather
than the whole of those who had left his employment, and a hope
was entertained that his lenity would have had the effect of
inducing them all to return to their work, in which case the
prosecution would not be followed up; but if, on the contrary, they
should persist in their refusal to work, justice would take place.

Mr Hale, being examined, deposed that he was informed, while in
the country that his men had struck for increase of prices, and that
they had held a meeting for that purpose. In consequence of their
conduct he attended their meeting, and he was informed, by two
they had delegated, that the prices they required were contained in
a book. The men contended they were entitled to the price given by
Mr Hoby for boots, jockey-boots and shoes, which differed from
that given by the prosecutor. He refused on pretence that he gave
the same price that others did in the City. Finding them persist in
their refusal to work for him, he requested a final answer by letter,
as he was unwilling to resort to force precipitately. The meeting
did not send him any notice, and he applied to a magistrate, in
consequence of which the defendants were taken by warrants.

The brother of the last witness confirmed the preceding statement.

Mr Spankey, for the defendants, contended that they had not
offended against the statute by merely entering into what he termed
a shop association to obtain one of two rates of wages, payable and
allowed in the trade.

The magistrates, sitting in their double capacity as judges and
jurors, found the defendants guilty, and sentenced them to two
months' imprisonment in Newgate, where they were to be allowed,
by special order, to work at shoemaking for the support of their
wives and families.

Watts and Bulger also appeared on the same charge; but the
former, by pleading guilty, escaped prosecution; and the latter was
acquitted, as it did not appear that he had attended the meeting of
the other conspirators. The wives and children of the defendants
were present. This decision was of great importance to
journeymen, as it decided a question on which they had hitherto
entertained very erroneous opinions. The defendants in this case
had the power of appealing to the court or sessions, but they
declined doing so previous to the decision of the aldermen. The
magistrates had power, by the Penal Act, to commit the defendants
for three months to the house of correction.



JANE COX
Executed at Exeter Summer Assizes, 1811, for poisoning a Child
with Arsenic


JANE COX was indicted at Exeter Assizes, on the 9th of August,
1811, for the wilful murder of one John Trenaman, an infant,
sixteen months old, and Arthur Tucker was charged as an
accessory. The latter was a respectable farmer, living at
Hatherleigh, in this county, and the infant was his natural child. It
appeared that Jane Cox had, an the 25th of June, 1811,
administered to the child a quantity of arsenic, by putting it into the
child's hands. The child put the arsenic in its mouth, in
consequence of which it died in about two hours. The prisoner, in
her written confession, had implicated Tucker, as having persuaded
her to do the deed, and stated his having taken the arsenic from
under the roof of a cottage, and given it to her, and promised her a
one-pound note if she would adminster it to the child. This was not
believed.

The prisoner, Jane Cox, after a trial of seven hours, was convicted,
and hanged on the following Monday. Tucker was acquitted. He
called a number of respectable witnesses who gave him a very high
character.

On Monday, the 12th of August, 1811, pursuant to her sentence,
this unfortunate woman was brought to the "new drop," the place
of execution, and underwent the dread sentence of the law.

She addressed the spectators at some length, and lamented that the
person who had instigated her to the commission of the horrid deed
was not also to suffer with her.



JAMES DALE
A Chimney-Sweep, who descended Chimneys to break into Houses,
and was convicted on 9th September, 1811


AT Union Hall, in the borough of Southwark, on the 9th of
September, 1811, James Dale, a chimney-sweep, was charged on
suspicion of committing divers felonies. It appeared that the houses
of several of the inhabitants of the borough had recently been
entered by some person contriving to get on the roof, and then
descending the chimney. This depredator descended into the house
of Mr Stewartson, a haberdasher, and found his way into the
kitchen, which is on the first floor; here, as it would appear, though
in the dark, the closet did not escape his notice, as a considerable
quantity of bread and cheese had disappeared when the servant
came down in the morning, A morocco thread-case, belonging to
Mrs Stewartson, in which was a gown pattern cut out of thin paper
-- by the feel of which the thief was probably deceived into an
opinion that he had got a prize of bank-notes -- was also taken.
From this house the villain went to Mr Freeman's, where he again
descended. Here having discovered his error with respect to the
thread-case, and also having found more valuable booty -- namely,
four silver tablespoons and a silver vegetable fork -- he reascended
the chimney with them, leaving the thread-case and also a clasp-
knife behind him.

The next house he visited was Mr Bishop's, a haberdasher, where
he proceeded so far as to remove the chimneypot, preparatory to
his descent, when it is supposed he was interrupted, as he retreated
without effecting his object. On the same night he visited the
World Turned Upside Down public-house, in the Kent Road,
where, according to his usual practice, disdaining the common
entrance, he descended the chimney; and, finding nothing better,
contented himself with taking a bag containing about three pounds
worth of light halfpence; and here, it is supposed, he terminated the
labours of the night. On Goff, the officer, being applied to by Mr
Freeman, his suspicion fell on the prisoner, Dale, who had been
seen with a considerable quantity of bad halfpence in his
possession; these suspicions were strengthened by the prisoner's
initials, "J. D.," being marked on the knife left at Mr Freeman's, as
well as by a hieroglyphical device upon it, expressive of his trade -
- viz. a house with the chimney on fire, and the chimney-sweep
running towards it. At Mr Stewartson's the depredator had left an
impression of his naked foot on the floorcloth, which agreed
correctly with the shape and size of Dale's foot.

This sooty rogue was committed to prison.

[Note: A ludicrous circumstance had lately occurred at Bromhill,
near Whalton. Some villains attempted to rob the barn of Mr John
Pratt, of that place; but, while they were breaking in, two chimney-
sweeps who were lodged there, for the purpose of starting off early
in the morning with their work at the farmer's, were roused by the
noise, and on one of them calling out, "I am coming," the
depredators scampered off in great terror. At Highgate, about the
same time, two ladies were dreadfully alarmed by the appearance
of a black figure in their bedroom. The younger of them
immediately jumped out of bed, ran downstairs and alarmed the
family; when, to their astonishment, on returning to the room, it
was found to be a chimney-sweep, who had descended from the
wrong chimney, to the no small confusion of the ladies, who found
themselves in complete deshabille before this son of soot.]



ARTHUR BAILEY
Executed at Ilchester, 11th of September, 1811, for stealing a
Letter from the Post Office at Bath


THIS unfortunate man, previous to his detection in the crime for
which he suffered, lived in credit, and bore an unblemished
character, supporting an amiable wife and several children by his
industry. He had long been in the confidence of the postmaster of
Bath, who entrusted him with sorting the letters, making up the
mails, etc.

Though robberies had been frequently practised upon the office,
and letters missed, yet it was some time ere suspicion fell upon
Bailey as the plunderer. At length, however, justice, slow yet sure,
overtook him. He was convicted, at the Summer Assizes for
Somersetshire, of stealing from the Bath Post Office a letter
containing bills, the property of Messrs Slack, linen-drapers, and of
forging an endorsement on one of the said bills.

Shortly after his conviction, Mr Bridle, the keeper of the jail, gave
him a list of several letters reported to have been lost from the Bath
Post Office, and which it was supposed he must have had some
knowledge of. On this he wrote: "I have clearly examined this list,
and there is only one I really know of, and that I have received the
benefit of -- must beg to be excused from saying which. -- A. B."
On another part of it he added: "It has been said I have had
concerns with others in the Post Office; now I do positively declare
to God that I had no concerns with anyone. -- A. B." Bailey had
some hopes of a reprieve till Monday, when his solicitor informed
him that all applications to the Secretary of State, the Postmaster-
General, and the judge who tried him, were in vain. As the prisoner
could be brought to acknowledge only the crime for which he had
been convicted, the under-sheriff, in consequence of several letters
he had received to that effect, thought he might be brought to make
a further confession; consequently, on Tuesday morning, after he
had taken an affectionate and distressing leave of his wife and six
children, and received the Sacrament, and had been left to himself
and his own reflections some hours, Mr Melliar, with much
humanity, again urged him on the matter, mentioning particular
letters that had been lost; to which Bailey firmly replied: "I must
request, sir, you will not press me further on this subject. I have
made a solemn engagement with Almighty God that I will not
disclose more than I have done, which I think would be a heinous
and additional sin to break; if I had not made this engagement I
would readily, sir, answer all your questions, and remove all
difficulties." Afterwards he observed: "I am about to suffer for
what has been truly proved against me. All the rest must die with
me."

He was taken out of prison a little after eight o'clock in the
morning, and placed in a cart, attended by Mr Melliar, the under-
sheriff, and the chaplain of the prison, in a chaise. He showed the
greatest firmness on the way to the fatal tree, and when under the
gallows he joined fervently in prayer, and addressed the spectators
audibly: "I hope you will all take warning"; then, holding a Prayer
Book in his hand: " I beg you to look often into this book, and you
will not come to shame. Be sure to be honest, and not covet
money, cursed money! -- and particularly money that is not your
own." He was then deprived of his mortal state of existence, dying
without a struggle.



WILLIAM BEAVAN
A Burglar, who was identified by his Deformed Hand, and was
executed before Newgate, 19th of September, 1811


AT the sessions at the Old Bailey, September, 1811, William
Beavan was put to the bar, being indicted for breaking into and
entering the dwelling-house of Mrs Mary Stratford, in Kensington,
on the morning of Saturday, the 24th of August, 1811, and stealing
thereout a considerable quantity of plate and other articles.

John Stratford deposed that he saw Mrs Stratford fasten all her
doors and her windows the evening before the robbery was
committed. Mrs Stratford was a market-gardener, and being in the
habit of attending Covent Garden Market at a very early hour each
market-day, she went out about half-past twelve o'clock on the
night mentioned in the indictment, about her business to Covent
Garden Market, and secured her doors as she was accustomed to
do. In the morning, about five o'clock, when witness came to Mrs
Stratford's house, he found the window had been broken and
forced open, and that robbers had plundered the house.

Charles Stratford, a boy about fourteen years old, nephew to the
above-mentioned witness, stated that he was awake about one
o'clock (for he heard the clock strike that hour); and, listening, also
heard a noise in the front room; that he called out, but receiving no
answer he concluded that his grandmother (Mrs Stratford) was in
the front room, and fell asleep again; but in a quarter of an hour he
was roused by a noise resembling the breaking open of drawers,
upon which he got out of bed and went into the front room, where
he saw two men, one with a mask over his face, a pistol in one
hand, and a lighted candle and an iron crow in the other. The other
man had a black ribbon tied across his mouth. When he went into
the room the man who had the mask on his face struck the witness
twice on the side of his head, and in a coarse voice desired him to
go back again into his bed, which witness immediately did,
followed by the man who had struck him. He went into bed, and
then the man who followed him into the room took a sheet of paper
and covered the witness's face with it, and at last made him lie
entirely under the clothes. Whilst he was in this situation the other
man came into the room and threatened him that he would shoot
him if he did not tell where his grandmother kept her money; but
he could not. The two men then left him, and sat down in the
adjoining room, where they stayed upwards of one hour and three
quarters, amusing themselves with beer and greengage plums, all
the time, and at last departed by the same window through which
they had forced their way into the house. When they went off, and
the witness could safely do it, he gave the alarm, but the thieves
had escaped with their booty, having carried off plate, watches,
money and other property to a considerable amount.

On his cross-examination he said that the reason why he knew the
prisoner at the bar to have been one of the men who broke into his
grandmother's house was because the man who struck him had no
fingers on the hand that gave him the blow, and that he struck him
with his right hand. He was positive of that; the more so as, when
he was holding the paper on his face, and removing it again to
make him lie under the bedclothes, he had a full opportunity of
observing the deformed hand with much more distinctness. He
further identified him from the coarseness of his voice.

The prisoner was here directed to hold up his hands, and the right
was just in the state described by the boy, for it appears he was
born deformed, the fingers all adhering, and not above an inch
long, but with the nails on.

The jury, after remaining shut up a very considerable time, at last
came into court, and returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced to death. He was executed before Newgate, on the
19th of September, 1811.



DANIEL DAVIS
A Postal Letter-Carrier, convicted at the September Sessions,
1811, at the Old Bailey, and sentenced to Death, for stealing a
Letter containing Ten Pounds


DANIEL DAVIS was capitally indicted for having secreted a letter
entrusted to him as one of the letter-carriers of the General Post
Office, and appropriated to his own purposes a ten-pound Bank of
England note contained therein.

It appeared in evidence that the letter which the prisoner was
charged with having secreted had been with the usual regularity
put into the post office, upon the 29th of May, 1811, at Liverpool,
by a person named William Scolfield, directed to his father at the
house of Mr Raynes, 25 King Street, Covent Garden. A letter of
advice had been previously sent, and received by Mr Scolfield,
senior, stating the number and particulars of the note which it was
his son's intention to transmit to him. The letter, however, with the
promised enclosure, not having arrived upon the 31st of May, Mr
Scolfield, junior, went to the bank and stopped payment of the
note. Until the 31st of July no information was received by which
the circumstance could be elucidated; but upon that day it was paid
away in the Bank of England by Messrs Robarts & Co. Mr Parken,
solicitor for the Post Office, to whom previous intimation of the
robbery had been given, then ascertained that Robarts & Co. had
received it from Meux & Co., to whom it had been given by a
publican named William Rose, who kept the Crown and Two
Chairmen, Dean Street, Soho.

In the evidence of Mr Rose it appeared that he had received the
note from the prisoner, whose name he put on it, and who was
letter-carrier to the district in which he resided.

The usual proofs of the routine business at the Post Office having
been adduced, as well as the proof of the mode by which the
prisoner had obtained possession of the letter, Mr Justice Heath
summed up the evidence, and the jury found the prisoner guilty.
He was sentenced to death.




ELIZABETH KING
Sentenced to Death at the Old Bailey, for privately stealing a Bag
of Gold, 21st of September, 1811


ON the 21st of September, 1811, Elizabeth King, along with
Elizabeth Blott and Philadelphia Walton, were put to the bar,
charged with a robbery in a dwelling-house.

Mr Barry, for the prosecution, stated the following case to the jury.
The prosecutor, Mr William Coombe, a publican, lived at the
King's Head public-house, Earl Street, Blackfriars. On Saturday,
the 8th of June, about eight o'clock in the evening, the three
prisoners came to his house, and going into a back parlour ordered
some ale, which they drank. Then one of them, Elizabeth Blott,
begged to sit in the bar, as she waited to see Mr Lloyd, whom she
expected. Mr Coombe accordingly permitted her, and the three
prisoners went into the bar together. In a short time Blott and
Walton went to look for Mr Lloyd, leaving the prisoner King in the
bar, from which Mr Coombe was frequently called, so that she was
several times alone there. When the other two, with Mr Lloyd,
returned, they all sat down a short time together, and then all
departed.

At twelve o'clock at night, when Mr Coombe was going to bed, he
discovered that a canvas bag, containing a silk bag and thirty-six
guineas in gold, which was in his coat pocket that hung across the
back of a chair in his bar, had been carried off. Dickons, an officer
of Bow Street, received information of the robbery, and through
the exertions of Mr Reading, a publican, in the neighbourhood of
Gray's Inn Lane, and Elizabeth Blott, one of the prisoners, the
prisoner Elizabeth King was apprehended, when she immediately
confessed that she only had committed the robbery. She stated that
she had exchanged the guineas for bank-notes, that she spent six of
them, and that she had deposited the notes, etc., in the hands of Mr
Slyford, a publican in Brooke's Market.

The counsel for the prosecution stated that the bank-notes and
three guineas, as mentioned, were delivered up by Mr Slyford; and
he added that, in justice and humanity, the prisoners Walton and
Blott should not have been included in the indictment, and if he
had been consulted before the bill had been preferred he would not
have permitted them to have been put upon their trial.

The facts, as stated, were proved, and Elizabeth King was found
guilty and sentenced to death.



AGNES ADAMS
Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, 1811, and sentenced to Six
Months' Imprisonment for uttering a "Bank of Fleet" Note


BETWEEN 1808 and 1811 numberless impositions were practised
upon the unwary in the metropolis in passing notes manufactured
in imitation of the notes of the Bank of England. These were traced
to have first originated in the Fleet Prison, a receptacle for debtors
only. These notes were printed on paper similar to that used by the
Bank of England; but upon the slightest inspection they were easily
detected; which creates surprise at so many having been imposed
upon. The great success of sharpers passing them chiefly arose
from the hurry of business of those imposed upon, and from the
novelty of the fraud. The shopkeeper would see the word one, two,
three, etc., an exact imitation, but did not examine further, or he
would have found that instead of "Pounds" the counterfeit
expressed "Pence"; and this, with all the wisdom of our laws, was
found not to be forgery. Instead of "Governor and Company of the
Bank of England" the worthless paper substituted "Governor and
Company of the Bank of Fleet." Such a gross deception we may be
sure could not long be practised, and every tradesman, who had
dearly been taught precaution, on taking a bank-note, convinced
himself that it was not a "Fleet."

The circulation of "Fleet Notes" was generally entrusted to
profligate women, who cohabited with the men who made them.
This mode was less suspicious, and in a single year had been
carried on to a considerable amount.

Of this description -- and we could adduce many such -- was
Agnes Adams; who, in passing one of such notes denominating
twopence as a two-pound Bank of England note to Mr Spratz, a
publican of St John Street, Clerkenwell, was by him detected,
seized, prosecuted and convicted. The punishment could only be
extended to six months' hard labour in the house of correction.

The fraternity of thieves about London have fabricated or cant
names for the different articles which they steal. The "Fleet Notes"
they called "Flash Screens."



RICHARD PAYNE AND JOHN MALONEY
Convicted, October Sessions, 1811, at the Old Bailey, and
sentenced to Death, for robbing a Man whom they had accused of
being an Ex-Convict


RICHARD PAYNE and John Maloney were put to the bar and
indicted for making an assault, upon the king's highway, on
William Ducketts, putting him in fear, and taking from his person,
and against his will, a pocket-book, value sixpence, one Bank of
England note, value ten pounds, one other Bank of England note,
value five pounds, and three one-pound notes, his property.

William Ducketts deposed that he was a venetian-blind maker, and
that on the night of the day mentioned in the indictment he went
into a liquor shop in St Giles's and asked for some beer; but they
did not sell any, and he could not be served with that article; so he
called for some rum-and-water. Whilst drinking it he observed an
old man in the shop, and he invited him to a glass of gin, and paid
for it, and then took the old man with him across the way to a
public-house, where the two prisoners, who saw him in the liquor
shop, followed him. They all conversed together, and he treated
them all. He had no sooner done this than he perceived the prisoner
Payne whisper something to another man in the room (Salmon, the
Bow Street officer), and immediately Salmon took him (the
prosecutor) into custody and searched him, saying that he had an
information against him. He answered that he was not afraid of any
matter or person, but the officer proceeded to search him, and upon
taking his pocket-book from his pocket examined it, and found its
contents to consist of the property above mentioned, whereupon
Salmon said he was misinformed, and advised him immediately to
go home. All this time the two prisoners were present, and saw the
notes taken out of and again restored to the pocket-book, which he
placed again in his inside coat-pocket, and having paid his
reckoning departed. He had not, however, proceeded many paces
from the last public-house when two men rushed upon him; one of
them pulled his hat over his eyes, and the other pulled back his
hands, and one or the other of them said, "Come, you b--y -- , your
pocket-book," and they snatched it violently from his pocket, and
made off.

Salmon corroborated all that part of the testimony of the prosecutor
that related to the occurrences which took place during the whole
of the time he was in the room of the last public-house, and he
assigned as a reason for searching the prosecutor in the manner he
did that one of the prisoners (Payne) had privately informed him
that he, the prosecutor, was a returned convict.

Another witness, the publican, proved that both the prisoners came
to his house the day after the robbery and tendered a ten-pound
Bank of England note to be changed, which turned out to be the
very identical note that was in Ducketts's pocket-book when he
was robbed.

The evidence of the prosecution being gone through, the judge, Sir
Simon Le Blanc, summed up the evidence with his accustomed
accuracy and precision, making suitable comments on the whole,
and the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, and sentence of death
was passed.



WILLIAM ROGERS
Overseer of Carpenters, employed at the Lyceum Theatre,
transported, October Sessions, 1811, for embezzling Timber, and
making False Charges to his Employer


MR ARNOLD, one of the proprietors of the Lyceum Theatre,
having been informed that the foreman of the carpenters employed
at the theatre was in the habit of purloining wood, canvas, etc., and
having the same made into articles of furniture for his own use by
several of the men belonging to the theatre, an inquiry took place,
when it appeared that the foreman, a man named William Rogers,
had long been in the practice of employing men to make him
articles of household furniture, and packing-cases to convey scenes
to the West Indies for the Barbados Company, out of the stock
belonging to the proprietors. It was also discovered that he had
made charges, as overseer, of more money paid to carpenters under
his orders than they had received or were entitled to. For these
frauds he was indicted at the Westminster Sessions in October,
1811, being charged with having defrauded, by means of false
pretences, Messrs Thomas Sheridan and William Arnold, the
proprietors of the Lyceum Theatre, of the sum of nine shillings, by
falsely pretending that in his capacity of overseer of the carpenters
he had paid so much money to a man of the name of William
Crawford, for night work done at such theatre, whereas he did not
pay him such sum of nine shillings.

Mr Gurney stated to the Court and the jury that the defendant had
been employed in the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and after in the
Lyceum -- altogether upwards of twenty years; that on Saturday
the 12th inst. he came to the treasurer, Mr Peake, and, as was his
custom, tendered him a list of workmen, and the work which they
had done during the week, in which list was the name of William
Crawford, to which was affixed the sum of one pound, fifteen
shillings -- namely, twenty-six shillings for day and nine shillings
for night work, as done by him during that week -- and the money
was accordingly given to him, that he should pay it over to
Crawford. It was, however, soon discovered that Crawford had not
done the night work, as charged by the defendant, and, upon
investigation, other circumstances occurred which led Mr Peake
and the proprietors to entertain the worst opinion of the defendant.
He was ultimately apprehended, and this prosecution instituted.

Mr Arnold proved the proprietorship of the theatre to be invested
in Mr Thomas Sheridan and himself, and he proved other collateral
matter relative to the subject more immediately in question.

Mr Peake proved that the defendant had tendered to him the list of
workmen above mentioned, wherein was charged thirty-five
shillings for W. Crawford, nine shillings of which was for night
work.

W. Crawford was the last called, and he proved that all the
defendant had paid him for that week's work was twentysix
shillings, and he further proved, to the satisfaction of the Court,
that in that week so charged he had not done any night work
whatsoever.

Here ended the case in support of the prosecution.

The jury brought in a verdict of guilty.

The defendant was tried upon a second indictment, accusing him
with a like fraud in charging for a young man, of the name of
Franklin, the sum of forty shillings, whereas he had paid him no
more than twenty-five shillings, thereby defrauding the proprietors
of fifteen shillings. On this he was also found guilty.

There was a third indictment against him, but Mr Gurney declined
proceeding upon it. He then signified that the defendant had been
guilty of like practices two years ago; but, in consideration of his
family, and his apparent repentance, he was then forgiven. He was
sentenced to be transported for seven years.



TUCKER, THE MOCK PARSON
Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, 2nd of November, 1811, for
swindling a Victualler of his Wine, and transported for Seven
Years


AN unusual crowd of very respectable persons assembled at an
early hour at the Middlesex Sessions in November, 1811, to see
this clerical impostor, and to hear his trial. He was put to the bar
charged with obtaining goods and money under false pretences --
viz. by pretending to a person of the name of William Edbrook that
he was a clergyman in Holy Orders, and Rector of Frome, in
Somersetshire; and, by means of these false pretences, obtaining
from the said W. Edbrook three bottles of wine and one bank
dollar of the value of five shillings and sixpence.

Mr Edbrook deposed that he kept the Quebec Arms, in Oxford
Street. On the 1st of July, 1811, the prisoner came to his house and
entered into conversation with him. It was rather late in the
evening. He asked him his name; and on hearing it was Edbrook
observed that he was sure he was a West Countryman, as he knew
many of that name in the West of England; adding, at the same
time, he was a West Countryman himself, and that his uncle was
Recorder of Exeter, his name Tucker, and he himself was Rector of
Frome, in Somersetshire, and that he was also curate of Park Street
Chapel; also that he was intimately acquainted with Sir T. D.
Ackland, Bart., and many personages of the first distinction; and
that he lodged at No. 42 Green Street, Park Lane. He then inquired
if his wine was such as he could recommend, and upon being
answered in the affirmative ordered some wine to be sent the next
day to him, as his father, sister and some friends were to dine with
him. This being promised, he departed that night, and paid his
reckoning.

The next day Mr Edbrook sent to know whether the prisoner did
actually reside at 42 Green Street, and whether he performed
service in Park Street Chapel; and his servant brought back
intelligence that it was all true. He then sent two bottles of sherry.
The next day prisoner called on him, and drank a bottle of port, but
went away without paying for it, saying, however, that he would
call the following day. The following day he did call; and, talking
high as before, asked if he could have a bed there that night. Mr
Edbrook had no accommodation for him, as his house was all
engaged, but he procured a bed for him in a neighbouring
coffeehouse, and he called in the morning after, and breakfasted at
Mr Edbrook's. When breakfast was over he signified that he had no
money about him less than a two-pound note, upon which he put
on his hat and departed, and witness saw no more of him till his
apprehension at Bow Street.

Benjamin Tedder said he was clerk to Park Lane Chapel. On the
22nd June last the defendant came to him and said he was
appointed by the Rev. Mr Clark to assist him in the clerical
functions at the chapel, and he accordingly attended the next day.
He came in a gown, and was accommodated with a surplice by the
witness. He went through the communion service and, after the
sermon, administered the Sacrament to a considerable
congregation. He also performed the evening service of that day.

The witness understood that the Rev. Mr Clark had actually
engaged the defendant, being imposed upon by him. In
conversation with him the defendant said he had a great number of
invitations for each Sunday, and consulted with him which he
should prefer, when the witness very honestly advised him to go
where he should get the best wine and the best company.

The prisoner was found guilty on the second indictment, and the
Court, having considered the various circumstances of his life,
sentenced him to be transported for seven years.



HARRIET MAGNIS
Tried for child stealing, 1811


THIS was a very singular and mysterious affair. It greatly excited
public curiosity; and though every means was taken, even to the
proclamation of the lord mayor of London, offering a reward for
the recovery of the lost infant, and describing the person and dress
of the woman suspected of the crime, the offender with the stolen
boy long remained undiscovered. The woman was described to
have been genteelly dressed, and that she had purchased some
pastry to treat the child, and a hat and feather for it, at a hatter's
shop, on Fish-street-hill.

Suspicion fell upon an innocent lady, the wife of a surgeon in the
navy, and, sad to relate, she was brought before his lordship, who,
after two examinations of several witnesses, all of whom, it will be
found, mistook her person, committed her for trial at the Old
Bailey. It is true she was acquitted, but what alleviation could be
offered to her feelings what reparation made to an injured husband
and distressed relatives?

The trial of this lady, whose name it would be indecorous to
mention, discovered the whole proceedings of this very singular
offence; just as practised by the guilty woman, who we shall soon
introduce to the reader; and which were to the following effect.

Mary Cox, who keeps a green-grocer's and fruiterer's shop, in
Martin's-lane, Cannon-street, deposed, that about half past ten
o'clock on the morning of Monday the 18th of November 1811,
Mrs Dellow, the mother of the lost child, came to her shop, told her
she was going to consult a medical gentleman on some complaint
in her eyes, and left the little boy and another child, his sister, in
her care, until her return. The witness was sitting shortly
afterwards with one of the children on her knee, when a lady
answering to the prisoner's description came in, and called for two
penny-worth of apples. She put down the child, and served her.
Immediately afterwards some other person came in for some of her
merchandize, whom she also served. She then, missing the children
from the door, called them to come in, but neither answered. She
ran into the street, but could not find them. Alarmed at this, she
went up the street, and called frequently, Rebecca (the little girl's
name), but received no answer. After a short time, she saw the
little girl, without her brother, returning down Fish-street having an
apple and a small plum cake in her hand. She asked her who had
given her them, and where her mother was? The child replied, she
bad got them from the lady who, just before, had bought the apples
at her shop, and had taken her little brother with her to his mother.
The woman made every enquiry about the neighbourhood, but
could find no satisfactory traces of the lady. Witness could not,
however, positively swear to the identity of the prisoner.

Two witnesses from a pastry-cook's shop, on Fish-street hill, the
one a shop-woman, and the other the daughter of the master,
proved, that on the morning, and about the hour stated, a lady,
attired in a dark gown, blue cloth cloak, and black straw bonnet
and feather, came into the shop with two children; one, the little
girl now produced in court, and the other a little boy, about four
years old. They had neither hats not tippets on, and the boy had his
hair turned up on one side of his forehead, answering to the
description of the lost child. The lady bought some buns, of which
she gave two to each of the children, and immediately went out
with them. Both these witnesses looked at the lady, and felt every
reason to be convinced she was the same person, although she was
now dressed quite differently. being attired in a scarlet cloth cloak,
and figured silk coiffure. The uncle of the child stated, that having
heard his brother's little son had been stolen, he made every
enquiry into the circumstances, and round the neighbourhood, in
order, if possible, to discover some clue to the person who had
taken off the child. He learned what had occurred at the pastry-
cook's: and afterwards was informed at the shop of Mr Shergold, a
hatter, on Fish-street-hill, that a lady answering the same
description had purchased the same morning a hat and feather for a
little boy, whose appearance agreed with the person of little
Dellow; but all farther enquiries were in vain, until some days
afterwards, when a gentleman of his acquaintance, to whom he
related the story, told him of a woman who lived at a house in
Trafalgar-place, Southwark, whose person corresponded with the
description he gave. Thither he went, accompanied by a police
officer from Union-hall, and one of the young women from the
pastry-cooks. Unwilling to excite any alarm, be first rapped at the
door, and enquired if Mrs R--- was at home; and was told she was
not by the person who opened the door. He said he would wait for
her, and he was shewn upstairs to the front apartment of two which
the lady occupied. After waiting a few minutes she came in. He
engaged her by some conversation, still casting his eye about for
some traces of the child, but saw none. He asked if she had not
another apartment, to which she answered, 'Yes,' and shewed him
into the next room. He discovered no clue there to his object. She
then asked him who the persons were who waited below stairs? He
said they came with him; and, requesting her not to be alarmed,
told her the nature of his business, and asked her if she had any
objection to see and speak to the girl from the pastry-cook's shop?
She answered she had no objection to see any person upon the
subject. The girl was then called upstairs, and on seeing and
hearing the defendant speak, said she was the very person. The
witness cautioned her at the time to be very circumspect, but she
was positive as to the defendant's identity. The witness again
requested the lady not to be alarmed; but told her it would be
necessary for her to accompany him with the officer to the hatter's
shop before-mentioned. She came without hesitation; but at the 
hatter's, the female who had sold the hat and feather, could not
speak positively to her person, but merely to her size; and she
herself positively denied having ever been either at the hatter's or
the pastry-cook's. She was, however, held in custody, and her
apartments were afterwards searched, but no such cloak or hat as
those described to have been worn by her on the former day, nor as
that said to be purchased for the child, were discovered, nor
anything that could give any information respecting her.

The lady positively denied any knowledge of the transaction, and
added, that she was confined within her lodgings by illness the
whole of the day, and the two days preceding this transaction,
except going out on the Monday afternoon about four o'clock; and
this, she said, could be proved by two witnesses; the owner of the
house where she lodged, and another female, who is also an
inmate.

Several witnesses were then examined to the prisoner's character,
who all bore testimony to her general good conduct.

The recorder, in summing up the evidence, observed, that there
was nothing to fix the prisoner with guilt but her identity; he then
instanced a case in which six witnesses had sworn to the person of
a gentleman as having committed a robbery at Hampstead, who
afterwards proved, to demonstration, that he was in London at the
time at which it was said he had been guilty of the offence imputed
to him. Having then adverted to the alibi, proved on the part of the
prisoner, he exhorted the jury to divest their minds of all prejudice,
and form their judgment wholly upon the facts before them. If they
had any doubt as to her guilt, her good character ought to be
thrown into the scale of mercy -- if, on the contrary, they were
fully convinced of her criminality, they would return a verdict
accordingly.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verd