“ ‘YOUNG ENGLAND.RULES AND REGULATIONS.“ ‘1. That every member shall be provided with a brace of pistols, a sword, a rifle, and a dagger. The two latter to be kept at the committee-room.“ ‘2. That every member must, on entering, take the oath of allegiance to be true to the cause he has joined.“ ‘3. That every member must, on entering the house, give a signal to the sentry.“ ‘4. That every officer shall have a factitious name. His right name and address to be kept with the secretary.“ ‘5. That every member shall, when he is ordered to meet, be armed with a brace of pistols (loaded) and a sword to repel any attack; and also be provided with a black crape cap, to cover his face with—his marks of distinction outside.“ ‘6. That whenever any member wishes to introduce any new member, he must give satisfactory accounts of him to their superiors, and from thence to the counsel.“ ‘7. Any member who can procure an hundred men shall be promoted to the rank of captain.“ ‘8. Any member holding communications with any country agents must instantly forward the intelligence to the secretary.“ ‘9. That whenever any member is ordered down the country or abroad, he must take various disguises with him (as the labourer, the mechanic, and the gentleman), all of which he can obtain at the committee-room.“ ‘10. That any member wishing to absent himself for more than one month must obtain leave from the commander-in-chief.“ ‘11. That no member will be allowed to speak during any debate, nor allowed to ask more than two questions.“ ‘All the printed rules to be kept at the committee-room.
“ ‘YOUNG ENGLAND.RULES AND REGULATIONS.
“ ‘1. That every member shall be provided with a brace of pistols, a sword, a rifle, and a dagger. The two latter to be kept at the committee-room.
“ ‘2. That every member must, on entering, take the oath of allegiance to be true to the cause he has joined.
“ ‘3. That every member must, on entering the house, give a signal to the sentry.
“ ‘4. That every officer shall have a factitious name. His right name and address to be kept with the secretary.
“ ‘5. That every member shall, when he is ordered to meet, be armed with a brace of pistols (loaded) and a sword to repel any attack; and also be provided with a black crape cap, to cover his face with—his marks of distinction outside.
“ ‘6. That whenever any member wishes to introduce any new member, he must give satisfactory accounts of him to their superiors, and from thence to the counsel.
“ ‘7. Any member who can procure an hundred men shall be promoted to the rank of captain.
“ ‘8. Any member holding communications with any country agents must instantly forward the intelligence to the secretary.
“ ‘9. That whenever any member is ordered down the country or abroad, he must take various disguises with him (as the labourer, the mechanic, and the gentleman), all of which he can obtain at the committee-room.
“ ‘10. That any member wishing to absent himself for more than one month must obtain leave from the commander-in-chief.
“ ‘11. That no member will be allowed to speak during any debate, nor allowed to ask more than two questions.
“ ‘All the printed rules to be kept at the committee-room.
“ ‘LIST OF PRINCIPAL MEMBERS.
‘FACTITIOUS NAMES.
‘MARKS OF DISTINCTION.
‘Counsel—A large white cockade.President—A black bow.General—Three red bows.Captain—Two red bows.Lieutenant—One red bow.“‘A. W. Smith, Secretary.’
‘Counsel—A large white cockade.President—A black bow.General—Three red bows.Captain—Two red bows.Lieutenant—One red bow.
“‘A. W. Smith, Secretary.’
“There were in the same pocket-book three letters, purporting to be orders addressed by the same secretary, Smith, to Oxford: the first was as follows:—
“ ‘Young England, May 16, 1839.“ ‘Sir—Our commander-in-chief was very glad to find that you answered his questions in such a straight-forward manner; you will be wanted to attend on the 21st of this month, as we expect one of the country agents in town on business of importance. Be sure and attend.“ ‘A. W. Smith, Secretary.“ ‘P.S. You must not take any notice to the boy, nor ask him any questions.’“Addressed—‘Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Minton’s, High-street, Marylebone.
“ ‘Young England, May 16, 1839.
“ ‘Sir—Our commander-in-chief was very glad to find that you answered his questions in such a straight-forward manner; you will be wanted to attend on the 21st of this month, as we expect one of the country agents in town on business of importance. Be sure and attend.
“ ‘A. W. Smith, Secretary.
“ ‘P.S. You must not take any notice to the boy, nor ask him any questions.’
“Addressed—‘Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Minton’s, High-street, Marylebone.
“The next letter ran thus:—
“ ‘Young England, Nov. 14, 1839.“Sir—I am very glad to hear that you improve so much in your speeches. Your speech the last time you were here was beautiful. There was another one introduced last night by Lieutenant Mars, a fine, tall, gentlemanly-looking fellow, and it is said that he is a military officer, but his name has not yet transpired. Soon after he was introduced, we were alarmed by a violent knocking at the door; in an instant our faces were covered, we cocked our pistols, and with drawn swords stood waiting to receive the enemy. While one stood over the fire with the papers, another stood with lighted torch to fire the house. We then sent the old womanto open the door, and it proved to be some little boys who knocked at the door and ran away.“ ‘A. W. Smith, Secretary.“ ‘You must attend on Wednesday next.’“Addressed—‘Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Farr’s, Hat and Feathers, Goswell-street.’
“ ‘Young England, Nov. 14, 1839.
“Sir—I am very glad to hear that you improve so much in your speeches. Your speech the last time you were here was beautiful. There was another one introduced last night by Lieutenant Mars, a fine, tall, gentlemanly-looking fellow, and it is said that he is a military officer, but his name has not yet transpired. Soon after he was introduced, we were alarmed by a violent knocking at the door; in an instant our faces were covered, we cocked our pistols, and with drawn swords stood waiting to receive the enemy. While one stood over the fire with the papers, another stood with lighted torch to fire the house. We then sent the old womanto open the door, and it proved to be some little boys who knocked at the door and ran away.
“ ‘A. W. Smith, Secretary.
“ ‘You must attend on Wednesday next.’
“Addressed—‘Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Farr’s, Hat and Feathers, Goswell-street.’
“The last was in the following terms:—
“ ‘Young England, April 3, 1840.“ ‘Sir—You are requested to attend to-night, as there is an extraordinary meeting to be holden, in consequence of having received some communications of an important nature from Hanover. You must attend, and if your master will not give you leave, you must come in defiance of him.“ ‘A. W.Smith, Secretary.’“Addressed—‘Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Robinson’s, Hog-in-the-Pound, Oxford-street.’ ”
“ ‘Young England, April 3, 1840.
“ ‘Sir—You are requested to attend to-night, as there is an extraordinary meeting to be holden, in consequence of having received some communications of an important nature from Hanover. You must attend, and if your master will not give you leave, you must come in defiance of him.
“ ‘A. W.Smith, Secretary.’
“Addressed—‘Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Robinson’s, Hog-in-the-Pound, Oxford-street.’ ”
“Under these circumstances, gentlemen, if the prisoner is accountable for his acts, will you say whether there is any reasonable doubt of his guilt? I should tell you that the balls, after a strict search has been made, have not been found; but I think that no one can entertain any serious doubt that the pistols were loaded with balls. I understand there were marks on the wall, which were examined immediately afterwards, and which some conceive must have been made by the balls from the pistols. I shall lay this evidence before you, but I acknowledge to you freely my own conviction that much weight is not to be attached to it. To my own mind it seems more probable that the balls went over the wall. I shall show that Oxford was not skilful in the use of pistols; and it is probable, in the confusion and flurry under which he must have laboured at such a moment, that the pistols were directed unsteadily, and that the balls went over the wall. Can there, however, be a doubt that the pistols were loaded? He buys bullets, he had them at his lodgings, there was also a mould in which to cast bullets in his box: he had been firing at a target; he had been practising at a shooting-gallery; and at the time, whatever he may have said since, after asking whether the queen was hurt, he voluntarily declared that the pistols were loaded. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that if the prisoner was at the time accountable for his actions, there can be no doubt of his guilt. But it is for you to hear the evidence that shall be given, and you are the judges of the fact. I now come to the second question, Whether the prisoner was accountable for his actions at the time when the offence was committed? And I will at once admit, under the law of England, that if he was then of unsound mind—if he was incapable of judging between right and wrong—if he was labouring under any delusion or insanity, so as not to be sensible of his crime, or conscious of the act which he committed—if at the time when that act was committed he was afflicted with insanity, he will be entitled to be acquitted on that ground. In former times, it was said that there was some doubt upon the law, and some difficulty of acquittal on the ground of insanity. There was, as their lordships will recollect, an act passed in the time of Henry VIII., raising some doubt upon this point, when there was an attempt against the life of the sovereign. Happily, however, that act has beenrepealed, and now we have both reason and justice on the side of the law of the land. But it lies upon a party setting up such a plea to make it out clearly and satisfactorily. It must be shown on his behalf, not merely that he was at times guilty of strangeness of conduct, or of extravagant acts—not merely that violence had been done by him, or offences committed—but it must be shown that at the particular time when the offence charged was committed, he was not an accountable being; that he was then labouring under some delusion, that he could not distinguish right from wrong, and that he was unconscious of committing any offence. Such, I apprehend, is clearly the law of the land, as it will be expounded to you by my Lord Denman and his learned brethren; and as this law is expounded to you by them, I have no doubt you will consider yourselves bound. It would be most dangerous to admit the plea of insanity, merely when it is shown that the prisoner labours occasionally under a degree of excitement, and that at former times he has been guilty of violence, if at the time when the crime is committed the party was not actually labouring under a delusion, but was aware of the object he had in view, and its consequences. I may mention for your information, that by the law of England, if exemption be claimed from a criminal charge on the plea of insanity, there is a greater necessity that mental aberration should be proved, than in civil transactions in which it is sought to annul a contract or to take away the management of a man’s affairs. In criminal matters it must be proved that the insanity is existing at the time of the crime, and that it is connected with the crime committed. In civil matters it is enough to show that the party is of unsound mind, although it is not connected with the particular transaction.” The learned Attorney-general having then referred to a great number of cases in support of the proposition which he had laid down, proceeded to say,—“I will now implore you, gentlemen, to consider whether, upon the evidence which will be produced, you are bound to say that the prisoner was insane at the time this crime was committed. I say most unaffectedly, that I should rejoice if such had been the case. I feel that I only speak the sentiments of all present at the time when he was guilty of this most atrocious attempt, when I say so. The crime, though levelled against any person of rank inferior to that of her majesty—putting out of the question the allegiance we owe to the head of the state, and the lamentable consequences which must have followed had this attack been successful—is of the deepest possible dye, and I say, that it would be a great relief to all who have respect for our common nature, if it be shown that the person who was capable of such an act was unconscious of what he was doing. But I have a duty to discharge to the crown and to the public, and I must say, that, so far as I have yet learned, there is no reason to believe that the prisoner at the time he committed this crime was in a state of mind which takes away his criminal responsibility for the deed. We do not find that, previously to this occurrence, he was ever treated by his friends as a maniac; but, on the contrary, he was placed in situations of trust and confidence, where he was called upon to perform duties of some difficulty, which he went through to the satisfaction of his employers, and as a reasonable being would. He is not an idiot, but, on the contrary, his proceedings throughout the whole course of his life show him to be a person of singular acuteness. I will refer to what passed when the prisoner was before the Privy Council. The witnesses wereexamined; the prisoner had an opportunity, which he exercised, of cross-examining them; and, at the conclusion of the evidence, he was asked whether he wished to say anything or not. He was told that he was at liberty to give any explanation or not, as he pleased; and he was informed, that anything he said would be taken down, and read against him another day. On that occasion these were the words which he voluntarily uttered:—‘A great many witnesses against me; some say that I shot with my left, others with my right. They vary as to the distance. After I fired the first pistol, Prince Albert got up, as if he would jump out of the carriage, and sat down again, as if he thought better of it. Then I fired the second pistol. This is all I shall say at present.’ He was asked whether he would sign the statement? He said that he had no objection, and he signed it ‘Edward Oxford.’ This, gentlemen, may be material in two points of view—first, because at this time he did not say that there were no balls in the pistols; he made no allegation of that kind, but to the contrary; and, next, that he was then fully sensible of the act he had committed. Upon these facts, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether, at the time this act was committed, the prisoner was accountable for his actions. You will, I am satisfied, come to a right conclusion upon the evidence; you will consider all the facts that are proved; but, at the same time, you will consider that you have a great duty to perform; that duty you will perform with caution and with conscientiousness; you will, from the evidence, come to your decision, and of that decision the country will have no reason to complain.”
The evidence for the prosecution was then gone through in corroboration of the statements of the learned Attorney-general, and Mr. Sidney Taylor addressed the jury for the defence. Having argued upon the facts of the case proved by the witnesses for the prosecution, upon which he contended, first, that it was quite consistent that the pistols were not fired at the queen, but with a view only to excite alarm; and, secondly, that the pistols might not have been loaded with ball, both of which were necessary ingredients of the crime; he proceeded, thirdly, to the equally important issue of insanity. With regard to this part of the case, he entreated the jury to pay the most earnest and solemn attention to it, for the issue raised upon it was of a most important character to the interests of the prisoner, and he hoped to be able to convince them of that which he was sure would shed universal satisfaction through the country, that the prisoner was not a person who wilfully and in the possession of his senses would commit this crime. He was sure that if they could conscientiously come to this conclusion, they would most willingly free the subjects of this realm from the imputation of having them one who would, under such circumstances, dye his hands in the blood of the sovereign. It was not the first time, unhappily, that the life of the sovereign of this country had been attempted to be taken away; but he rejoiced to say, for the sake of our national character, that in no one instance had such an act been done by a person possessing a sane mind. It had been proved in evidence that certain papers had been found in the possession of the prisoner: and that fact, which had been opened by the learned Attorney-general as an important feature in this case, he placed before them as a proof of the prisoner’s insanity; and he contended that that only showed in him a mind diseased, which induced him to suppose theexistence of a society which, in fact, was never heard of, and of which certainly he was not a member. That no such society in fact existed, he thought he might take for granted, because if in truth there had been any such, beyond all question its members and its proceedings would have been discovered through the indefatigable exertions made through the means of the highly effective police possessed by this country, the operations of which would be called forth from the necessity of finding whether there was anything in reality beyond the mere act of the prisoner which portended danger to the state. He contended that it was morally impossible that such a society could be in existence, for he was sure that the executive government of the country would not be accessory to the throwing any slur upon its own character by admitting that such was the fact, and that all its ramifications had not been brought to light. The prisoner, he contended, must be taken to have believed that he belonged to such a society; but in order to prove the utter absurdity of such a belief, he would prove to the jury that the rules, as well as the letters and papers which had been found, were all in the handwriting of the boy at the bar—a striking and cogent proof, he thought, of his insanity. Every effort had been made to trace the real existence of such a society, but in vain; and he thought that the only inference which could be drawn from the existence of these papers was, that the mind of the prisoner had been worked upon by his own absurd fancy. With regard to the probability of his being selected to put into operation such a plan as that of the assassination of her Majesty, he would ask them whether it was likely that any political society would have employed a boy of his years and want of discretion to complete a scheme so important and yet so horrible? How was the act itself committed? The prisoner, amongst a number of other persons, in the open day, depriving himself of every chance of escape, had voluntarily been guilty of an offence which subjected him to condign punishment. Did he then attempt to escape? He did not; and even when another person was taken under the supposition that he was the man, he immediately came forward with a declaration that he was the person, as if courting publicity and apprehension. What, but insanity, could be inferred from these circumstances? Might he not well have dreaded his destruction by a mob inflamed and excited against the perpetrator of an attack so dreadful upon our young Queen? Yet, with a feeling which could be deemed nothing but insanity, he persisted in forcing himself into that very situation in which he could hope to meet with nothing but punishment. He was taken; having been seized, he was teased and excited, and gave answers which must not be taken into account as admissions that there were balls in the pistols. Since that time he had been the subject of great curiosity, and various statements, many of them false, had been made concerning him. He felt that the jury must come to the conclusion that he was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the act, and that it would be as cruel as the supposed intended assassination itself to deliver him up to the same doom as a sane criminal. He should produce evidence to show the tendency of the boy’s mind to insanity. His age was just that at which such a failing would be likely to develop itself; and as in all cases some particular period must occur at which such an aberration of intellect would first appear, so, notwithstanding all the apparent premeditation and contrivance which he had exhibited, the moment of his attack upon the life of his sovereign might be that at which it would exhibit itself.He should show that the paternal grandfather of the prisoner had been insane, and died in a lunatic asylum. The father, it would be proved, had been guilty of acts which clearly proved he ought not to have been permitted to be at large. The opinion of the most eminent medical men was that the greatest proportion of cases admitted into lunatic asylums were cases of hereditary insanity, and if they were to refuse to consider the case of the prisoner in this light, they would be proving the truth of the words of a celebrated physician, that ‘man’s vengeance followed God’s visitation.’ Let them bear in mind that no ill consequences had followed this attempt. Her Majesty the next day had entertained a party at dinner, and had the evening after gone to a concert. That showed that her Majesty felt that this must have been the act of an isolated madman, and that she had nothing to fear from the machinations of any secret society. A great and illustrious female predecessor of hers was told by some officious courtiers of a conspiracy against her life; but she said ‘I will not believe of my subjects anything that a mother would not believe of her children;’ and such, he was convinced, were the sentiments of the present illustrious occupant of the throne. The papers found in the box of the prisoner seemed to be the commencement of the insanity, and the attempt itself the consummation of the insanity. The whole of the persons mentioned in the papers found in his box were creatures of his imagination; and the crape with the bows, the sword, and the documents showed that he was the victim of pitiable mental delusion, and the object rather of compassion than of vengeance. It was impossible to say in what variety of shapes the noble structure of the human mind might be ruined; and he contended, that the whole course of conduct of the prisoner, subsequently, as well as at the time of the commission of this supposed offence, exhibited him to be the victim of an absurd delusion, driving him to seek notoriety, by whatever means it was obtained, and not a person capable of any crime so dreadful as that alleged against him. His inquiries after the safety of the Queen showed his apprehensions, that by some accident her Majesty might have been unintentionally injured by the wadding from the weapons which he had discharged; and his declaration that the pistols were loaded with ball might equally be taken as a proof of his insanity, as the absurd desire for celebrity which had prompted him to the commission of such an act.
A vast body of evidence was then adduced with a view to support the defence of insanity which was set up. From it, it appeared, that the grandfather of the prisoner was a person of colour, and that he was frequently, when intoxicated, guilty of acts of the wildest and most wanton description. He was a sailor, and when on shore was constantly drunk; but in his old age he received the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, where he died, having from his good conduct gained for himself the rank of boatswain in the establishment, by virtue of which he was bound to mount guard at one of the gates. Expressions were proved to have been occasionally used by him, indicating a mind bereft of reason, and he was stated to have suffered severely at one period of his life from a fever. With regard to the father of the prisoner, evidence of a similar tendency was adduced. His wife, the mother of the prisoner, was called, and she gave a dreadful detail of the injuries which he had inflicted upon her subsequently to her marriage with him, and of the brutal treatment to which he had subjected her. He had several times taken poison in her presence, and had otherwise been guiltyof the most extraordinary and outrageous conduct. The prisoner, she proved, had been born in the year 1822, and throughout his life had exhibited symptoms of imbecility. He would frequently burst into tears, or into fits of laughing, without any assignable cause, and was in the habit of talking in a strain which exhibited a most anxious desire on his part to obtain celebrity in the world. He was always fond of the use of fire-arms, and frequently presented pistols at the head of his sister or his mother. Medical witnesses were also examined, who gave their decided opinion that the prisoner was in an unsound state of mind. The general result of their testimony went to show, that the ordinary senses of affection, and of personal fear for the consequences of the crime charged against him, the heinous nature of which he could not comprehend, as well as of memory, had disappeared from his mind; that he appeared incapable of estimating the importance of his trial as regarded his interests, and that he neither possessed any regret for the disgrace or pain which might be produced to his relations, nor apprehension for his own safety.
In reply to this evidence, the Solicitor-general (Sir T. Wilde) made a most powerful speech, with consummate skill arguing upon every branch of the proofs adduced to show the insanity of the prisoner, and contending that the jury should in nowise be influenced by any of the topics advanced in his favour upon the case for the prosecution, all of which tended to show his perfect calmness and self-possession, and the greatest degree of acuteness. He urged that the evidence of the madness of the prisoner’s father and grandfather was incomplete and inconclusive, and that their drunken freaks could not be taken to have had any influence in producing the disease sought to be proved in the mind of the prisoner, and that the facts sworn to with regard to the early life of the latter were marks of the waywardness of an indulged child, and not of that species of madness which could free him from criminal responsibility.
Lord Denman summed up the evidence, and at the end of the second day’s trial the jury returned a verdict, acquitting the prisoner, upon the ground of insanity.
He was ordered to be detained, in obedience to the terms of the statute, during her Majesty’s pleasure, and was subsequently conveyed to Bedlam.
ONMonday the 29th of June, 1840, Robert Taylor, one of the most impudent impostors that we ever remember to have read of, was tried at the Durham sessions for polygamy. The offender was a mere youth, between nineteen and twenty years of age; but his numerous matrimonial adventures, and devices to obtain money, marked him as a person of singular cunning and dexterity. His plan seems to have been in all cases to practise first on the cupidity of his own sex, by holding out a pecuniary reward to any one who would procure him a suitable alliance, and then, by representing himself to be of aristocratic birth, and heir to extensive possessions, to dazzle and win over the victim and her friends. To aid his views,he represented himself as a son of Lord Kenedy, of Ashby Hall, Leicestershire. He was furnished with numerous documents, framed to corroborate his misrepresentations. These, which he carried in a tin case, were found on his person when he was apprehended. Amongst them was a parchment, on which was written, in a fine clerkly hand, what purported to be “The last will and testament of Lord Kenedy,” &c. By this document Taylor appeared to be the heir to 1,015,000l.Three per Cent. Consols, besides immense wealth in coal-mines, salt-factories, woollen-factories, quarries, machinery, houses, plate, jewellery, and even ships; and “John Nicholson, Thomas Johnson, and Mrs. Robinson” appeared to have been constituted “guardians of the said Robert Taylor.” The documents bore date 22nd of September, 1829, and exhibited the signatures, first, of the supposed testator “Kenedy,” and then of the attesting witnesses, “Samuel Robinson, clerk to James Lee, and John Turner,” and “William Cowley, barrister.” He had also an indenture certifying the correctness of the will, and describing his person by certain marks on his right arm, and elsewhere. He had sundry other papers ingeniously enough contrived for the purpose of aiding his deception; but, as he was a youth of coarse and vulgar manners, the success which attended his impostures can only be accounted for by the blind avarice of his dupes. At the time of his trial, six of his marriages, in several parts of the north of England, had come to the knowledge of the police; but there was good reason to suppose that there were many other instances in which he had successfully conducted his plans. Like many who have pursued a career of base and unprincipled deception, this scoundrel affected great sanctity, and connected himself at different times with both the Wesleyan and Primitive Methodists. Indeed, one of his principal dupes was a Mr. Fryer, a preacher in the last-named connexion; and Taylor, having promised a reward of 10l.to any one who would procure him a young and religious wife, this person offered him the choice of his two sisters-in-law. Taylor chose the younger, a girl about eighteen years of age, and was married to her. This preacher not only failed to obtain the expected reward, but was swindled out of 12l.which he lent to the roguish adventurer. This, however, proved the last of his exploits; for having made several fruitless attempts to run away from this wife, he was at length compelled to take her with him, and on his way through the county of Durham he was apprehended.
The budget of papers found in the prisoner’s possession contained a multitude of curiosities besides those above alluded to, which our space will not allow us to particularise. It appeared from one of them, an indenture of apprenticeship, that at the age of thirteen he had been apprenticed to a sweep and collier in Staffordshire, till he should be twenty-one years old. The indenture described him as a poor child from Fatfield, in the county of Durham. There were several licences and documents relating to his marriages. One of these was a memorandum of an agreement between Robert Taylor and Mary Wilson, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, to marry in three months from October 16, 1839; Taylor to forfeit 20,000l.if he married any other woman, and Mary Anne to forfeit one-third per annum of her yearly salary if she proved faithless. Annexed to this was a memorandum of a loan of 4l.from Mary Anne’s father, with an engagement, on the part of Taylor, to pay 1l.per annum interest. Many of the papers related to the prisoner’s connexion with the Wesleyan and Primitive Methodists, and withthe Teetotallers, of which latter society he appears to have been a staunch adherent. The most curious paper was “a memorandum of agreement made between Robert Taylor, Esq., son of the late Lord Kenedy, of Ashby Hall, in the parish of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and those he may engage as servants.” We regret that we cannot give this amusing document entire. It bears what purports to be the prisoner’s signature, and from it he appears to have engaged an establishment of stewards, butlers, footmen, grooms, coachmen, gamekeepers, helpers, &c., at salaries of from 20l.to 60l.per annum, sufficient for half-a-dozen princes. The stipulation of the engagement was, that the servants, butlers included, were to observe the teetotal pledge.
When the prisoner was placed at the bar to take his trial, the court was excessively crowded, and all eyes were fixed upon the young Lothario who had so readily succeeded in procuring half-a-dozen wives. Instead of a handsome, seductive gallant, there stood before the court a shabby-looking individual, with a face not merely ordinary, but repulsive. He was evidently much amused at the sensation which his appearance produced, and joined in the smiles of the bystanders. He was perfectly unabashed, and conducted himself throughout the trial with the utmost ease and unconcern.
The first case taken was that of the prisoner’s intermarriage with Mary Ann Davidson, the sister-in-law of Mr. Fryer, the Primitive Methodist preacher. John Wood, a waggoner, of Birmingham, was called to prove the first marriage of which the authorities had any knowledge. It appeared, that this witness met the prisoner in Birmingham, in 1838. The prisoner told Wood he was heir to 60,000l.a-year, under the will of his father, Lord Kenedy. In proof of this assertion he produced papers. He said he had a great wish to be married to a respectable young lady, and if Wood could introduce him to such a one, he would make him a handsome present. Wood introduced him to Miss Sarah Ann Skidmore, and to her father, who was a shopkeeper. The documents were shown to the young lady and her parents; the licence and the wedding-ring were procured that very day; and the couple were married the next morning. Shortly after, the prisoner went to London to settle his affairs. He subsequently returned and lived with his wife; but he had not been married more than six or seven weeks when he deserted her altogether.
As the prisoner was undefended, the court asked him if he had any questions to put to the witness.
Prisoner: “I’ll ax him one or two. I axed you if you knew a decent girl as wanted a husband, and you said you did; you knew as how one Sarah Ann Skidmore wished to be married, and I told you I’d advertised, and offered a reward of 10l.You took me to Benjamin Skidmore. Now, are you sure as how he saw the dockyments?”
Witness: “Yes, quite sure; you showed him a document stating that you would have 60,000l.a-year when you came of age.”
Prisoner’s mother (from the middle of the court): “Robert, tell them thou’s under age, and thy marriage can’t stand good.”
The prisoner gave a lordly wave of the hand, accompanied by a significant gesture, intimating to his maternal parent to leave the management of the case to his superior skill. Then, turning to the witness, he said, “Are you sure that you yourself saw the will?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Prisoner: “No, it was not the will; it was only the certicket of my guardians to show who I was, and what property was coming to me.”
Here Mr. Granger, the counsel for the prosecution, drew forth the tin case, which was a pitman’s candle-box, bearing the following inscription, “Robert Taylor, otherwise Lord Kenedy.” From this case the learned counsel drew the “dockyments.” The “will” was rich alike in its bequests and its odours. It was a foul and filthy affair to look upon and to approach. Disregarding the usual long and dry prefaces in which lawyers are accustomed to indulge, it rushed at once into the marrow of the subject. Mr. Granger tickled the ears of the court with a line or two. Thus:—“I give and bequeath to Robert Taylor, son of Elizabeth Taylor, single woman, 1,015,000l.Three per Cent. Consols and no more.” The will proceeded to bestow upon him four coal-pits, a woollen-factory, two or three ships, and sundry other trifles, as before mentioned.
Mary Davidson, a neat, modest-looking girl, detailed the circumstances which led to her marriage with the prisoner. The latter, she said, was introduced to her at the house of her father, on the 4th of April, by Benjamin Fryer, her brother-in-law, who was a preacher among the Primitive Methodists. The latter said he had known the prisoner some time, and he recommended him as a pious young man whom he had brought to the house on purpose to marry her. The prisoner said he was the son of Lord Kenedy, and the moment he arrived in London with a wife he would have 700l., and 20l.a year till he was of age, when he would have 60,000l.per annum. He showed her several documents, one of which was a certificate that he was Lord Kenedy’s son, and would have 60,000l.a year when he came of age. He had previously seen her unmarried sister, whom he rejected in favour of her. They were married, by licence, the very next morning. They lived together three weeks, during which time the prisoner had made several attempts to get away; and many times, in the night, he had endeavoured to slide the ring off her finger. While they were together, he lived upon the money which he borrowed from her brother-in-law, to whom he owed 22l.
The prisoner being again directed to ask the witness any questions he pleased, said, placing his hands upon the bar, and leaning forward in a counsellor-like attitude, “Now, Mary, are you certain that I had 22l.from your brother-in-law?”—Witness: “You had 12l.in money, and you were to pay him a reward of 10l.”
Prisoner: “You say I had 12l.in money, Mary. Now there was 10s.to be paid for the ring, 5s.for fees, 3l.10s.for the licence, and 8l.I had in money, which makes 12l.5s.So you see, Mary, you are wrong. You was also wrong when you said I told you I was to have 20l.per annum per year.”—Witness: “You said 20l.”
Prisoner: “No, Mary, I said 150l.per year per annum. And I wish to ax you if I didn’t say, ‘Will you have me, money or no money?’ ”—Witness: “No, you did not.”
Prisoner: “Yes, Mary, I axed you, would you have me, money or no money, and you consented either way.”
The prisoner spoke at considerable length in his defence, giving a rambling account of his various migrations from the north to “Brummagem,” from “Brummagem” to the north, &c., with some amusing particularsof his marriages and courtships, whereby he wished to make it appear that all the young ladies he came near wanted to have him, and that he had been in every instance inveigled into wedlock for the sake of his possessions. His main defence was, that he was under age, and that all his marriages were illegal; and his conclusion seemed to be, that having contracted one illegal marriage, he thought himself perfectly justified in contracting a hundred.
The prisoner’s mother having expressed a wish to give evidence, and the prisoner having consented, she took her place in the witness-box, and deposed that she was now the wife of Michael Rickaby. The prisoner was not born in wedlock; she had him in a love-affair. But she would not say who his father was. She had not come there for that. He was under age.
The jury found the prisoner “Guilty.”
The prisoner was next indicted for having, in October 1839, married Mary Ann Wilson, daughter of George Wilson, a tobacconist, of Newcastle. The marriage to Miss Skidmore was again proved by the certificate, which bore his lordship’s mark. The prisoner, it appeared, had advertised for a wife in the Newcastle papers. In that town he appears to have attached himself to the Wesleyan Methodists. By his professions of religion and his teetotal pledges, he obtained a high character for morality and sanctity. Miss Wilson said she first saw the prisoner in October at a Methodist chapel in Newcastle. On the same day she met him at a class-meeting. On the 16th of October she was introduced to him by a friend, when he promised to call upon her at three o’clock that afternoon. He did so, and as soon as he sat down, he pulled out a tin case which was marked “Robert Taylor, otherwise Lord Kenedy.” He said he was entitled to 60,000l.a year, and other hereditaments. The following day he made her an offer of marriage, and she accepted him. He said if he could get the loan of some money, they would be married the next morning. Her father lent him 4l.; a licence was bought; and they were married the day but one after she had accepted him, and three days after her introduction to him. Eighteen days after this he deserted her, and she heard no more of him till he was in custody.
By the prisoner: “He spoke of putting in the bans. She did not say ‘she would rather be married off-hand.’ ”
Prisoner: “Oh, yes, Mary, you did. I consented to take you immediately if the money was raised, and you raised it.”
The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.”
The court having spent some time in deliberation,
The chairman said: “You have for some time been going about the country in a most unprincipled way, marrying weak and unsuspecting girls, and bringing misery upon them and their friends. We have seriously considered whether it is not imperative upon us to visit you with the severest penalty that the law allows. We have determined, however, to stop short of this; but you must be punished with great severity for your wicked conduct. For the first offence of which you have been convicted, you are sentenced to be imprisoned one year to hard labour; and for the second, to be imprisoned eighteen months to hard labour, making altogether two years and a half.”
Prisoner: “Gentlemen, when I come out again, will any of my wives have a claim upon me?”
The court declined to answer the question, and he then requested that his “dockyments” might be restored to him.
The court thought it better to make no order; they might be placed in the hands of the governor of the jail.
The mother of the prisoner, on quitting the court, finding herself an object of some attraction, became somewhat communicative on her family history. Among other things, she stated that her son was one of General Evans’s “Legion;” and that she had sent a letter into Spain, which had the effect of procuring his return to England. She had come from Workington, in Cumberland, a distance of one hundred and fifteen miles, to attend the trial; for “her son was her son,” and she could not rest without coming. One thing she would not allow curiosity to penetrate—and that was, the mystery which hung over the prisoner’s birth. She had “kept the secret” nineteen years, and was not going to reveal it in the twentieth. All that she would say was, that “she had him to a real gentleman.”
THEtrial of this person took place at Aylesbury, on Tuesday, March 10th, 1840, before Mr. Baron Parke, when the indictment charged that the prisoner had been guilty of the manslaughter of John Charles, on the 21st of October previous, at Buckland, in Buckinghamshire. The case excited a great deal of interest in the county, from the condition in life of the deceased and the prisoner, who were both respectable farmers, and from the close intimacy which had long existed between them, as well as from the mysterious manner of the death of the former. Though the coroner’s jury returned a verdict of manslaughter only, the prosecutors sent up a bill of indictment for murder to the grand jury, which they ignored.
The main circumstances of the case were, that on the 20th of October 1839, the deceased John Charles went, about ten o’clock in the forenoon, to the “Boot,” on Buckland Common, where he had some beer; and while there, the prisoner came in to take lunch, about twelve o’clock. They remained talking and drinking together until about five o’clock in the evening, when the landlord, John Edwards, came in, with whom they had some more drink. About half-past ten o’clock at night they rose to go away, their road being the same to pretty near their respective homes. Before they went, however, Charles said, “I think I am the best man now, let us walk the chalk;” meaning that he was the less intoxicated of the two. “Walking the chalk” is, in this part of the country, the test of drunkenness, and the experiment is performed by the attempt to walk straight upon a chalked line drawn across the floor, or by walking along the straight line between two layers of bricks where the floor is of that material. The experiment was tried in this case, and the result proved that Charles, the deceased, was the less affected by drink of the two; and he therefore undertook, as is usual between two companions on such occasions, to see the other safe home. Neither of them ever reached his home, for the deceased perished on the way, and the prisoner having been taken into custody the same night, remained in Aylesbury jail up to the day of thetrial. The first person who made known the dreadful catastrophe was the prisoner himself, who, about half-past twelve o’clock on the same night, in a very wild and still intoxicated state, went to Johnson, the policeman, in the town of Tring, about two miles from the place where the death took place, and told him “he had killed a man.” At first the policeman did not believe him, thinking it the mere folly of drink; but he persisted, and said he would take him to the place where the body lay. The policeman then went with him, and in a lane leading to the homes of both parties, the body of the deceased was found lying on its back on the grass, in a place not exactly on the road, but where a gap in the field, which was the termination of a footpath running parallel with the lane inside of the hedge, led into the road. That path was one which had been made by people going through the adjoining land to avoid a bad part of the road; and having passed that portion of the road, they came into the road again. The prisoner, before the body was found, had told the policeman that he was sure the person he had killed was “Joe Kibble, the sweep of Tring, who had been sent by Humphrey Bull to kill him.” Humphrey Bull was the relieving officer of the union, of which both the prisoner and the deceased were guardians, and was of different politics from the prisoner, the latter being a liberal, and Bull a conservative; but they were on good terms; and nothing could show more strongly the strange state of delusion which the effects of intemperate drinking had wrought upon the prisoner’s mind on that fatal night, than that he should give as a reason for killing one of his friends, that he believed him to be an assassin sent by another friend for the purpose of murdering him! On examining the body of the deceased, it was found to bear marks of dreadful beating on the head and face, which had produced great effusion of blood. The bones of the nose were completely broken, and a surgeon deposed to a concussion of the brain, as one of the effects of the violence which caused death. In the pockets of the deceased were found a ten-pound note, a five-pound note, and some sovereigns. On the notes being taken out of the pocket, the prisoner immediately exclaimed, “These are the two bank-notes which Bull gave Joe Kibble to murder me!” At that time nobody present was aware that the body was that of farmer Charles. So far from that, the policeman actually sent a person to the house of Charles, to ask him to come to see the body. The prisoner had previously told the police that he had been going home from the Buckland Inn, with his friend Charles, but the latter parted from him somewhere on the road, he could not tell where. The probable solution of the mystery is, that the deceased, who was proved to be, when in his cups, of a jocose disposition, and rather addicted to the too-often dangerous practice of practical joking, or what is vulgarly called, “larking,” had, in going home that night, resolved to frighten Patteson, who, though a man of prodigious bodily strength, was known to be rather deficient in courage, and had before expressed fears of going home by that lonely road. With this view, it is supposed that Charles, taking advantage of the very drunken state in which Patteson was, slipped away from him among some trees which stood at the entrance of the footpath which we have before described, and which ran parallel with the road along which Patteson had to proceed to his home. A high bank and hedge would screen any person going along this pathway from the view of another on the road. At the place where the pathway led again into the road, atthe gap, there was a mound of earth with an open space between that and the hedge, so that a person coming from the gap might, by going partly behind that mound, be concealed until he came suddenly in view, and this is probably what the deceased did in order to frighten his companion; and the position of the body near the gap when found seemed to strengthen that supposition. Whether the deceased laid hold of the prisoner before the latter saw him or not must remain for ever involved in obscurity, as the panic-terror into which Patteson was suddenly thrown, operating upon the drunkenness, caused him to destroy the unfortunate man immediately; and it is probable that from his strength, his first blow knocked him senseless. The prisoner said, that, while he was beating the supposed murderer on the ground, he asked him “who sent him to kill him,” and that he pronounced the name of “Bull” three times. This of course was the mere hallucination of the temporary frenzy produced by drunkenness and terror. When the prisoner and deceased left the inn together, the latter had a knobbed walking-stick in his hand, the other had none. The stick was found under the body of the deceased, but not marked with blood, or presenting any appearance that could show that it had been used in inflicting the wounds by the prisoner. Those wounds the surgeon was of opinion were inflicted by the fist only. The prisoner was in an agony of grief as soon as he was made aware that it was his friend and companion Charles that he had so unwittingly slain, and continued in a state of deep affliction, even up to the time of his trial.
On behalf of the accused, evidence was adduced which showed that he was a most amiable and respectable man.
Mr. Baron Parke, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that if they were of opinion that the delusion which operated on the mind of the prisoner, and led to the perpetration of the fatal act, was caused by such an alarm of personal danger as would not have produced a similar effect upon the reasonable mind of a sober man, they must find him guilty of manslaughter, otherwise the act would be excusable homicide.
The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty of manslaughter,” accompanied by a recommendation to mercy.
Mr. Baron Parke, in pronouncing judgment, observed, that from the time he had read the depositions he believed the fatal act of the prisoner to have been the result of a delusion produced upon a mind which intoxication had deprived of the control of reason; that the prisoner never had the slightest intention of killing his friend, with whom it was proved he never had any quarrel, was clear beyond all doubt. It was not right that he should, however, go altogether unpunished, but in consideration of his having already suffered five months’ imprisonment, he should sentence him to be imprisoned for two months only, hoping that this case would be a warning to all who heard it of the danger of indulging in intemperate habits.
THISperson was convicted of an offence of a most mischievous description.
He was indicted at the Old Bailey sessions, on Saturday the 11th of April, 1840, for feloniously uttering and putting off a forged order for the payment of money, and a forged certificate, knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.
The evidence which was adduced in the progress of the case, showed that the prisoner was a person of extremely respectable connexions, and was at the time of his trial in the fiftieth year of his age. At an early period of his life he entered the navy, and in the course of a long service was present at many actions, in which he is reported to have behaved with much gallantry. Having obtained the rank of lieutenant, he was engaged by her late majesty, Queen Caroline, the unfortunate consort of George the Fourth, as commander of a yacht, in which her majesty took frequent excursions, during her residence on the Continent. In this capacity he gained the confidence of his royal mistress, and she was known to place much reliance on his ability and zeal in her service. On her majesty’s return to England, Lieutenant Flynn accompanied her, and he was subsequently examined as a witness before the House of Lords, in the course of the inquiry, which took place into the conduct of her majesty. Subsequently to this period, Lieutenant Flynn was supposed by many of his friends to have had the honour of knighthood conferred upon for his exertions in favour of the government, and he was generally known as Sir John Flynn. He was shortly afterwards married to a person of respectable connexions, by whom he had several children. In the year 1831, Lieutenant Flynn, with a view to increasing the means which he possessed of supporting his family, at that time resident at St. Malo, procured for himself a licence to act as a prize agent, an occupation frequently followed by persons in his situation, and considered by them as in no degree derogatory to their rank. In the course of his professional engagements he was compelled to make frequent trips from France to England, and he became acquainted with Mr. Beresford Ayton, a Navy-agent, who proposed to put him in the way of increasing his business. With this view he introduced him to Mr. Holgate, a clerk in the Prize Office at Chelsea Hospital, and an agreement was entered into, that the latter should furnish the names of soldiers who were entitled to prize money, together with the amount standing opposite to their names, and the transactions in which they had been engaged, and by which their claims were authorised, (although such a course was opposed to the duties of his office,) while Lieutenant Flynn should allow him two and a half per cent. upon all sums recovered from the prize commissioners, by reason of such information,—the presumed object being, that Flynn should find out the soldiers, and by informing them of the fact of their being entitled to put forward their claims, procure them to make application for such sums as properly fell to their share.
Flynn, however, determined to apply this information to a purpose the same in effect as that which Holgate supposed him to possess, although his object was to apply to his own use all the money which he obtained. With this view he applied, in 1835, to Mr. E. A. Théleur, a friend, residing in Great Marlborough-street, to receive any letters which might arrive at his house, addressed for him, and to receive such moneys as should become payable to him, and retain them for his use. Mr. Théleur at once consented to this course, and on the 20th of August (in that year) he received a letter from Nantes.
Among the names handed to Flynn by Holgate, was that of George Langley; who had been a serjeant of the St. Helena regiment of artillery at the time of the capture of Buenos Ayres, in 1806, and who was entitled to a sum of 177l.for prize money. In the course of 1835 an application was received at the Prize Money Office, at Chelsea Hospital, purporting to be that of Langley, and dated from Nantes, in which the applicant requested that an order might be sent to him, for the amount standing against his name. An answer was returned, acquainting Langley, that by lapse of time his claim had fallen to the ground, for that no such applications were listened to, if not made within six years of the time of the money becoming due, but informing him that if he gave a satisfactory excuse for his neglect, the prize-money commissioners might grant the prayer of his petition. In reply to this communication, another letter from Langley was received, and upon the statement contained in it, an order was transmitted to him, with directions that it should be filled up in a certain manner, and that a certificate, signed by certain persons as to his identity, should be sent back, upon the return of which the money would be paid.
The order and certificate required were received by Mr. Théleur, in the letter which reached him, which purported to be signed by George Langley, and which, besides, requested that he would procure money for the order enclosed. While Mr. Théleur was reading the letter Lieutenant Flynn called upon him, and when the letter and its contents were shown to him, he declared that it was quite correct, and expressed a wish that that gentleman would procure payment to be made to him, as the order was drawn up in his name. Mr. Théleur, in consequence, proceeded to Chelsea Hospital, and on the 24th of the same month, a check for the amount was handed to him, for which he gave a receipt. On the following day he obtained cash for the check, in obedience to the expressed wish of Flynn, and he then paid over the amount to him, on his giving him an acknowledgment for it.
Subsequently some suspicion arose, and Holgate being questioned, he disclosed what he had done to Mr. Bicknell, the solicitor to the commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. Inquiries were in consequence instituted, and it eventually proved that Serjeant Langley had died within six months of the taking of Buenos Ayres, on board the Woolwich man-of-war, on his way back to St. Helena; and that, therefore, the application made in his name must have been fictitious, and that the certificate as to his identity, which purported to be signed by certain individuals resident at Nantes, was false, inasmuch as that no such persons were in existence.
Mr. Théleur, who had now removed to St. Germain, in France, was in consequence written to, and the explanation which he gave of his participation in the affair at once cast suspicion on Flynn, who was eventuallyapprehended and brought to trial. On the night before the investigation, which took place before the jury at the Old Bailey, it was ascertained that the order and certificate, as well as the letters of application to the prize-money commissioners, were written by a young woman who had been a member of Flynn’s family, but who had been since married; but in consequence of her absence from London, it was impossible to obtain her testimony to account for the circumstances under which she had been induced to draw out those documents.
These circumstances constituted the evidence laid before the jury upon the indictment preferred against the prisoner. For the defence, it was suggested, that some person more designing than the prisoner had imposed upon him; but the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, accompanied by a recommendation to mercy.
It was stated, that there were other prosecutions against the prisoner of a similar character, and that frauds to a very great extent had been committed upon Chelsea Hospital.
Mr. Baron Alderson in passing sentence upon the prisoner declared, that he felt the deepest regret at finding a person of his rank in life placed in such a situation. He had hitherto borne a good reputation, but the crime of which he had been found guilty was of a most aggravated character:—it was one which might have robbed the soldier of the hard-earned fruits of his valour, of his meritorious sacrifices for the safety and honour of his country. A short time before, for such an offence he would undoubtedly have been consigned to an ignominious death, and he feared that the laxity with which the existing law was carried out, would compel the legislature to re-enact that dreadful punishment for such crimes as his. He would take care that the blood of no man should rest upon his head; and although it was his intention, as it was his duty, to present the recommendation of the jury in the proper quarter, and he should not stand in the way of the mercy of the Crown, he considered it to be his imperative duty to pass a sentence of transportation for life.
THEbrutal and sanguinary murder for which this unhappy man was tried, was that of Mr. William Duke, the chief police-officer of Huddersfield, in Yorkshire. Surrounded as it is by circumstances of the very greatest barbarity and atrocity, it is no small relief to find that the person by whom the dreadful deed was committed was insane, and therefore legally irresponsible for his acts.
The scene of this dreadful transaction was thus described by an eye-witness. He says, “On Tuesday the 28th of April, after tea, I paid one of my usual visits to our beautiful public exhibition, and while in conversation with a friend, I heard the cry of ‘murder,’ and rushed out of the back door, close to which stands our prison and the prison-house. The crowd around soon told me in what course to direct my steps, and I immediately entered the prison-house. The first object that struck my attention was Dawson, one of our police-officers, seated in a chair, literally stifledwith the blood which he was stroking from his head and neck, and which was streaming from other parts of his body. All was consternation and horror. The cries of Mrs. Duke, and other females, that her husband was murdered, induced me to hasten to the prison-yard, there to witness a scene that beggars description. Blood was so largely scattered in every direction that the place resembled a slaughter-house. There I found Duke, our head police-officer, weltering in his blood, pale with exhaustion, and Mr. Wrigley, surgeon, on his knees, vainly attempting to stop the bleeding. I rushed back to the front door—sent for all the surgical assistance to be found, and then returned to the scene of horror to hear the piteous request of the dying officer, “Don’t remove me, doctor, don’t be so cruel—let me die here!”—nearly his last words.
“On my first entrance into the prison-yard the door of one of the cells had just been locked, and the horrid imprecations of a wretch were heard amidst a scene that was calculated to appal the stoutest heart. I soon learnt the melancholy tale, that this cell contained the author of deeds that will long live in the memory of the inhabitants of Huddersfield, and for which there is no parallel in this town since the murder of Mr. Horsfall, in the days of Luddism, that very day twenty-eight years ago, and about the same hour, and in a similar beautiful season. I shall briefly state what I learnt, and which was corroborated at the coroner’s inquest. A Scotch gardener named Alexander MacLaughlin Smith, who for the last twelve months has been located about Elland and Halifax, where he is well known, and has been an object of dread from his violence, was in the act of bargaining for a plant, and wishing to take advantage, he was given in charge to Dawson, a police-officer, about four o’clock in the afternoon. Being slightly affected with liquor he resisted, and became very rough, especially when taken into the prison yard, where he made an attempt to injure Duke with a pruning-knife. This, however, was taken from him, and a leg and a wrist chain were put on him, and he was locked up. He then became outrageous, and continued so until about six o’clock, when Duke, Dawson, and Dalton, the three police-officers, agreed to meet and secure him more closely. Duke opened the door of his cell, and asked what he meant by his conduct; when the prisoner (who, although chained, was not fastened to the wall) answered that he would let him know, and with an open pruning-knife in his hand, rushed out and instantly stabbed Duke, who ran, followed by the prisoner and Dawson. Dalton ran in a contrary direction, and met the three half-way round the prison. Duke was laid prostrate, and Dawson in close contact with the prisoner, bleeding, when Dalton, fortunately having a staff, knocked the knife out of the hand of the prisoner, and with assistance secured him.
“It was in this position that I found the parties, and shortly after poor Duke was removed into his house, his wounds washed, and all medical aid afforded, but he breathed his last about ten minutes after he was removed, and in about twenty minutes after his deadly encounter. Dawson was removed to the infirmary, where he now lies with hopes of recovery, notwithstanding he has received ten or twelve wounds, some very severe, one of which is nine inches long and deep to the bone. Duke’s wounds are horrid to describe, some six inches long by two and a half deep; but the one that was the immediate cause of death, was in the inner-side of thethigh, four inches long and two and a half deep, which cut through two-thirds of the femoral artery.
“The dreadful news of the murder spread rapidly, and crowds assembled around the prison. The wretched prisoner in his frenzy rejoiced in his success, and regretted he had not killed more. I remonstrated with him, but was only threatened with the same fate, could he reach me. The wretch was shortly after doubly pinioned, and left for the night. The morning came; I was kindly permitted to see the prisoner, whose mind still remained callous, without a symptom of remorse, or the slightest regret, save that he had hurt his own fingers!
“To-day (Wednesday) an inquest was held at the George Inn, before Thomas Dyson, Esq., and a highly respectable jury. The whole town was in a ferment, and when the prisoner was brought in an open carriage, in his blood-stained clothes, and with his unwashed hands, with an air of savage indifference, nay even a smile on his countenance, the expression of indignation was fearful! Before the jury gave their verdict, the coroner asked the prisoner if he had any questions to ask, when, with fiendish look and sarcastic sneer, he replied, ‘Me ask any question? Are you satisfied with what you have got? Then be doing!’ The jury then, without removing from their seats, unanimously agreed to a verdict of ‘Wilful Murder.’ Shortly after the prisoner was committed and driven off to York Castle, to take his trial at the next summer assizes, amidst a dense crowd, whose suppressed indignation under the horrid exciting circumstances of this tragic scene does them great credit.
“The prisoner is about thirty-four or thirty-five years of age, with sandy hair: he stands about five feet seven inches high, is strongly built, and very broad in the chest: he has a peculiarly savage aspect. He is a native of Scotland, and has a wife and two children at Stirling, in indifferent circumstances, from whom he has long been absent. During the whole of this tragic exhibition he manifested the utmost callousness and indifference, even approaching to scorn. Not even the bloody knife or the bloody soaked clothes, when produced in court, had any apparent effect on him; and to all appearance the probability of a violent death has no terrors to him. From first to last he remained unmoved! On his road to York he was the same, and unreservedly stated, that he thought no more of killing men that acted to him as the police had done than of killing bullocks.”
The wretched man during his confinement in York Castle exhibited such symptoms as could leave no doubt of his insanity, and the necessary precautions against his doing any further mischief were taken.
Dawson, the second object of his attack, after remaining in the police infirmary during upwards of a month, was sufficiently recovered to resume his duty, but he was still in a state of considerable weakness, from the great loss of blood which he had experienced.
The trial of the prisoner took place at York on the 21st of July 1840, before Mr. Baron Rolfe, when the facts which have been already detailed having been proved by various witnesses, evidence of the insanity of the prisoner was given.
The jury, in consequence, acquitted the prisoner, and he was ordered to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.