Chapter 7

'James May is doomed to die,And is condemned most innocently;The God above he knows the same,And will send a mitigation for his pain.'

'James May is doomed to die,

And is condemned most innocently;

The God above he knows the same,

And will send a mitigation for his pain.'

The paper on which the above rhymes were written, contained also some notes in the prisoner's hand-writing, which appeared to be private notes to assist the memory in some communications that he intended to make relative to the manner in which subjects are obtained at the hospitals, the conduct of watchmen, &c.

The evidence of May's guilt we never considered on the trial to be conclusive; and, in fact, so general was the opinion, that his acquittal was considered as put beyond a doubt. His subsequent escape from an ignominious death may, in reality, be ascribed to the joint statements of Bishop and Williams; and this leads us to the discussion of the justice of the punishment, which has been subsequently inflicted on May. We espouse his cause on the abstractprinciple of right and justice, and in accordance with that principle, we would punish the guilty, and pardon the innocent. The indictment against May stated, that, in conjunction with Bishop and Williams, he had murdered an Italian boy, of the name of Carlo Ferrari; and another count stated, that he had been an accomplice in the murder of some other person unknown. On this indictment he was found guilty, and sentenced to be executed. On the confession, however, of the murderers themselves, it appeared that May had no participation whatever in the crime, and that he was wholly ignorant of the manner in which the body of the boy had been procured, but supposed that it had been obtained by the usual method of exhumation. It was acknowledged that he assisted in the attempt to dispose of it, on the ground that he was enabled to obtain a higher price, and that, in the attempt to dispose of it at the King's College, he was apprehended, and finally committed to prison to take his trial as an accomplice in the murder. The sequel of that trial is already known; and his life was spared, it having been made evident to the competent authorities that he was neither a principal in the murder nor an accessory after it. The great question, then, is, and which involves a very important point in the administration of justice of this country, for what crime has May been sentenced to the severest punishment, with the exception of death, which our sanguinary code exhibits, namely, transportation for life? He was either guilty or innocent of the murder,—the most cogent and valid testimony was adduced in favour of the latter, and it was considered so conclusive, that a respite was granted. In the eye of the law he therefore stood assoilzed from the crime for which he was tried, and therefore not subject to any punishment. If it be urged that his participationin the attempt to dispose of the body of the murdered boy rendered him amenable to the laws, and, being taken indelicto flagrante, to the punishment attached to that act, we perfectly coincide in the proposition; but then, as the law now stands, the having a dead body in our possession is not a felony, but simply a misdemeanour, and punishable, as all other misdemeanours, by imprisonment, hard labour, or whipping. Of what crime then, we repeat it, has May been found guilty, to subject him to the punishment of transportation for life. The confessions of both Bishop and Williams distinctly negatived the fact that May had the slightest participation in any of the murders committed by them, and that he even did not know in what manner they had procured the body, in the attempted sale of which he gave his assistance. If the simple fact of rendering that assistance rendered him subject to punishment, how, then, comes it to pass, that no punishment has been inflicted on Shields, who, with the exception of negotiating with the purchasers of the body, was, setting the murder out of the question, as deeply implicated in the affair as May himself. The entire gist of this extraordinary business lies simply in the following question,—After the respite was sent to May, for the commission of what crime was he then detained in prison, for which he had been tried, or was yet to be tried? We know it may be urged that it is a rule, that if, through the royal clemency, the life of a criminal sentenced to death be spared, his punishment is commuted to transportation for life; but then these general cases do not apply to the individual one of May. The respited criminals still stand convicted of the crime for which, by the laws of their country, their lives became forfeit; and although the royal clemency steps in to prevent the sacrifice of human life, their offendedcountry still demands their punishment, and the next severest to death itself is inflicted upon them. Those cases will not, however, apply to May. He was tried at the bar of his country for murder, and a jury of that country, on account of a long chain of circumstantial evidence, many of the links of which snapped in the attempt to force them to their utmost influence, found him guilty of the crime charged in the indictment;—he received the usual sentence of death, and, according to all human calculation, his hours on earth were numbered. As it has frequently happened in the cases of criminals sentenced to death, a subsequent investigation took place in regard to the guilt of May, or, indeed, to any participation on his part in the murder of the individual for which he was indicted. From the coincident testimony of the real murderers, it was most distinctly made to appear that May was wholly innocent, not only of any participation in the crime, but that he was actually ignorant of the manner in which the body of the boy had been procured. The judge himself who tried the prisoners fully coincided in the propriety of granting a respite to May, founded on the confessions of Bishop and Williams; and his innocence was at length so strongly confirmed, that his life was spared. But we now come to the great question,—On what condition?—That he should be transported for life. Here, then, in the most enlightened nation of the world, whose courts of judicature are held up as the pattern for all surrounding nations—whose laws are boasted of as being founded on mercy, clemency, and truth,—here we have the example of an individual tried, condemned—found innocent, and respited—but still punished with the next severest punishment after death which the criminal code of his country could inflict upon him! May could not be deemed, in the eye of the law,innocent and guilty at the same time; but if he was declared to be the former, he had a right to expect all the benefits and advantages of that innocence. There was no intermediate state of guilt; he was either guilty of the murder, or not guilty; and as his innocence was made manifest, he ought to have been placed in the same situation as he would have been had the verdict of Not Guilty been pronounced upon him by his Jury.

It was owing to these sentiments operating so powerfully on our mind, that we were led to analyze a little more closely than we might otherwise have done, the speech of the Duke of Sussex, in which he enlarges in such laudatory terms on the enviable superiority of our courts of law, and the manner in which justice is administered in them; and all this on an occasion in which a man, afterwards discovered to be innocent, is condemned to death, and who would certainly have suffered but for the concurrent testimony of his associates, on which his innocence was established.

We are aware that not one of our contemporaries has taken this view of the case of May; and until we are informed of the crime which May committed, and for which he was tried and convicted at the bar of his country, we shall always consider that his transportation is an indelible stain upon the judicature of this country, and that an irreparable injury has been done to the individual, for which no after redress can be sufficient.

The public mind, in the mean time, was by no means at rest respecting the identity of the body of Carlo Ferrari; and as it involved some very nice points connected with the manner in which the prosecution was got up, Mr. Corder, on the 8th of December, appeared at Bow-street, before Sir Richard Birnie and Mr. Minshull, attended by Joseph Paragalli and Andrew Colla, the two Italian witnesseswho gave evidence on the trial of Bishop, Williams, and May, at the Old Bailey, on Friday, the 5th instant, and stated, that in consequence of the confessions made by Bishop and Williams, denying that the body found and sworn to was that of the Italian boy, the two witnesses now present were most anxious to remove an impression which had gone abroad, in consequence of the confessions referred to, and wished to reiterate their firm belief that the body of the boy brought to King's College for sale was that of Carlo Ferrari.

Paragalli and Colla then came forward and reasserted their former evidence.

Mr. Corder said that there were strong grounds for believing that the confessions of Bishop and Williams, so far as related to their statement that the body found in their possession was not that of the Italian boy, was wholly untrue; and in consequence of the denial put forth in their confessions, which appeared in some degree to cast discredit upon the whole prosecution, the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, had determined to publish a statement in a few days of the whole transaction, in order to relieve the public mind from the doubts occasioned by the confessions of Bishop and Williams. He was perfectly satisfied, that when that statement was submitted to the public, there would no longer be any doubt upon the subject, and that the body found in the possession of Bishop, Williams, and May, was not that of the drover's boy, but the body of Carlo Ferrari.

Mr. Minshull said he had no doubt but such was the fact, and expressed his desire that the public mind should be set at rest with respect to the identity of the body.

Mr. Corder said he would lose no time in drawing up the statement to which he had alluded.

He then retired, accompanied by the witnesses.

In a few days afterwards, Mr. Corder transmitted the following statement to the editor of theTimes, but which still leaves the identity of the boy as mystical as before.

'Sir,'Without travelling through a very long statement which has recently appeared in most of the public journals, purporting to be "the confession of the murderers," and signed "John Bishop," there are two points contained in it which appear to me to require some notice, and upon which the public have some right to be satisfied. The points are, first—"That the boy, supposed to be the Italian boy, was a Lincolnshire boy;" and second—"That the death of the deceased was caused by drowning him in the well, into which Bishop and Williams put him head-foremost, and where he remained about three-quarters of an hour." Upon the first point I beg to trouble you with one or two observations, and in reference to the second, I shall content myself with the written report, which the surgeons, who examined the body, both at and previous to thepost mortemexamination, have been kind enough, at the request of the prosecutors, to furnish, and which will be open to the opinions of all medical and scientific men, as to the probable cause of the death of the deceased.'Regarding the identity of the deceased, his person, as Charles Ferrier, is positively sworn to by several witnesses of unimpeachable integrity, some of whom were his fellow-countrymen, and knew him intimately. Two of them had lived for some time in the same street with him, and one of them (Colla) had actually made the cage for him in which he carried about his white mice. All these witnesses saw the body of the deceased within two or three days after his death,and unhesitatingly recognized him as the same. Two of them had seen him alive and well the same week; and one of them accurately described the trousers worn by the deceased, (which precisely correspond with those found in the garden,) before he was allowed to see them. In addition to this, we have it in evidence that an Italian boy with a cage and white mice was seen close to Bishop's house on the day of the murder; wearing a cap similar to the one found on the premises, and which Bishop endeavoured in vain to account for. We then find the white mice and cage at Bishop's house, in the possession of his children, on Friday, the 4th instant, the day after the murder, as proved by a very young witness, but who gave his evidence with all the simplicity characteristic of truth. And, lastly, we find the clothes of the deceased in Bishop's garden, the lower buttons being cut off the jacket, apparently to admit the revolution of his cage; the tapes also stitched to the lower part of the same garment for the passage of the strap or riband by which the cage was confined to his body. And against this body of evidence what is set up? The unsupported assertion of the wretched culprits, who, to the latest hour of existence, evinced no penitent or religious feeling, and who, during their short passage to the scaffold, on the morning of their execution, execrated the jury who so justly condemned them. A Lincolnshire boy! Where are his friends or relations? It is now nearly six weeks since the murder, and no inquiries are made for him. On the contrary, where is Charles Ferrier? Why does he not appear? It is a fact that the body of the deceased was recognized by at least a hundred persons as a poor Italian boy, whom they had seen carrying white mice about the streets of London. But were there any appearances to indicate that the deceasedwas a Lincolnshire drover boy? None. His hands were smooth and soft, and no horny substance upon them, as though he had been used to manual labour. These facts, and this evidence, together with the verdict of a jury, after a long and patient trial, before a humane and discerning judge, stand at present alone opposed by the statement of the murderers, and between them the public must judge.'On the second point, as to the mode of death of the deceased, which is described in the confessions as that of drowning, it will be only necessary to read the following report which the surgeons have been requested to prepare on the appearances of the body, both at and previous to thepost mortemexamination, and it will then be for medical and scientific persons to say whether it is morally possible that the heart should have been perfectly empty and contracted, and that the other appearances described should have manifested themselves, if death had been produced as the murderers allege.'Post mortemappearances of the body of the Italian body, who was murdered late on the night of the 3d, or early on the morning of the 4th of November, 1831.'The corpse was first seen by one of the undersigned, about two o'clock,P.M., of Saturday, November 5, and by the other at a late hour the same night.'External appearances.—The body was four feet six inches in length, of rather stout make, face broad, hair light brown, dry, neither curled nor yet matted, eyes gray, general appearance that of a foreigner, judging more from the cast of features than the complexion, limbs rigid, and the upper extremities somewhat contracted, palms of the hands quite soft, face rather swollen, eyes bloodshot, teethextracted, gums bloody, a wound three-quarters of an inch in length over the left brow; the neck and throat, together with the extremities, were attentively examined, but did not exhibit the slightest indications of violence.'The dissection was conducted in the following order:—'Head.—On turning down the scalp its vessels appeared a little fuller than usual; the wound over the brow extended to the bone, which was not, however, fractured, neither was there any blood effused around the cut; higher up, over the coronal suture, there was a patch of extravasated and coagulated blood between the scalp and bone; the brain and its membranes appeared perfectly healthy, and their vessels were not unnaturally full; the ventricles did not contain more than the usual small quantity of serum. The body was next turned on its face, the brain having been previously removed, and in so doing a quantity of fluid blood gushed out from the spinal canal at the occipital foramen. On cutting through the muscles at the back of the neck coagulated blood, to the amount of five or six ounces, was found extravasated among them; extending from the occiput to the termination of the cervical vertebræ, and upon removing the arches of the vertebræ and that portion of the occipital bone which lies behind the foramen magnum, from one to two ounces of coagulated blood were discovered within the spinal canal (exterior to the theca) pressing upon the upper part of the medulla spinalis; a considerable quantity of fluid blood was likewise contained in the lower part of the canal; there was no blood within the theca, and the cord itself retained its natural appearance and firmness; there was no traceable injury either of the vertebræ or of their ligaments.'Chest.—The pericardium contained about two drachms of serum. The heart was healthy, rather small, quite contracted, and its four cavities perfectly empty. This contracted and empty state of the heart struck us at the time as a very remarkable circumstance. Each bag of the pleura contained about one ounce of serum. The lungs were healthy and not congested; there was an old and partial adhesion between part of the right lung and the pleura costatis; the pharynx, œsophagus, larynx, trachen, and bronchi, were healthy and unobstructed.'Abdomen.—The stomach was tolerably full of half-digested food, of which some fragments of potatoes formed the only recognizable part; its contents smelt lightly of rum, its coats were healthy, the small intestines were full of recently digested food; the whole of the alimentary canal, and all the abdominal viscera, were healthy, but the liver contained a little more than the usual quantity of blood.'The urinary bladder was contracted and quite empty.'It is for professional and other scientific men to judge, whether the appearances above described are compatible with the supposition of death having been produced by drowning, hanging, strangulation, or any other mode of suffocation.(Signed)'Richard Partridge.'George Beaman.'December 10.'The foregoing report, it will be observed, is signed by Mr. Partridge, the Demonstrator of Anatomy to the King's College, and Mr. Beaman, a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, who, in addition to an extensive private practice, holds the appointment of Parochial Surgeon of St. Paul,Covent-garden; their report has been submitted to Mr. Tyrell, a Surgeon of St. Thomas's Hospital, and Lecturer on Physiology, Anatomy, and Surgery, to that Institution. His observations on that report are as follows:—'Sir,'According to your request, I have attentively perused the statement respecting the examination of the body of the boy, the subject of the late trial. I find that it perfectly agrees with the evidence given by Messrs. Partridge and Beaman on that occasion, of which evidence I, by the desire of the prosecutors, took notes. It is my opinion, that the death of the boy could not have been caused by any mode of suffocation, as drowning, smothering, &c. I have no doubt that injury to the upper part of the spine, which created the effusion of blood into the spinal canal was the immediate cause of death.'Yours, respectfully,'Frederick Tyrell.'17, New Bridge-Street,'Blackfriars, Dec. 10.'I have thus endeavoured, as briefly as possible, to put together a few facts and observations on the two only points in 'the confessions' which appeared to me to call for notice. I consider Williams's confirmation of the truth of Bishop's statement of very little consequence, inasmuch as he was allowed to be present at the making of it, and nothing was easier than for him to say that he fully adhered to the statement made by his partner in crime. If separate 'confessions' had been made, and in the absence of each other, it is possible the wretched culprits might have furnished something more to the world.'I have to apologize for the length of this communication, which has been hastily written. I hope the importance and anxiety with which the subject is viewed by the public may be pleaded in excuse, and also induce you to give it insertion in your columns. I may add, that I should not have presumed to have addressed you on the subject, had not the circumstance of the management of the prosecution devolving upon me entitled me to be pretty fully acquainted with all the details of the case.'I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,'Jas. Corder.'St. Paul, Covent-Garden,Vestry Clerk's Office, Dec. 14.'

'Sir,

'Without travelling through a very long statement which has recently appeared in most of the public journals, purporting to be "the confession of the murderers," and signed "John Bishop," there are two points contained in it which appear to me to require some notice, and upon which the public have some right to be satisfied. The points are, first—"That the boy, supposed to be the Italian boy, was a Lincolnshire boy;" and second—"That the death of the deceased was caused by drowning him in the well, into which Bishop and Williams put him head-foremost, and where he remained about three-quarters of an hour." Upon the first point I beg to trouble you with one or two observations, and in reference to the second, I shall content myself with the written report, which the surgeons, who examined the body, both at and previous to thepost mortemexamination, have been kind enough, at the request of the prosecutors, to furnish, and which will be open to the opinions of all medical and scientific men, as to the probable cause of the death of the deceased.

'Regarding the identity of the deceased, his person, as Charles Ferrier, is positively sworn to by several witnesses of unimpeachable integrity, some of whom were his fellow-countrymen, and knew him intimately. Two of them had lived for some time in the same street with him, and one of them (Colla) had actually made the cage for him in which he carried about his white mice. All these witnesses saw the body of the deceased within two or three days after his death,and unhesitatingly recognized him as the same. Two of them had seen him alive and well the same week; and one of them accurately described the trousers worn by the deceased, (which precisely correspond with those found in the garden,) before he was allowed to see them. In addition to this, we have it in evidence that an Italian boy with a cage and white mice was seen close to Bishop's house on the day of the murder; wearing a cap similar to the one found on the premises, and which Bishop endeavoured in vain to account for. We then find the white mice and cage at Bishop's house, in the possession of his children, on Friday, the 4th instant, the day after the murder, as proved by a very young witness, but who gave his evidence with all the simplicity characteristic of truth. And, lastly, we find the clothes of the deceased in Bishop's garden, the lower buttons being cut off the jacket, apparently to admit the revolution of his cage; the tapes also stitched to the lower part of the same garment for the passage of the strap or riband by which the cage was confined to his body. And against this body of evidence what is set up? The unsupported assertion of the wretched culprits, who, to the latest hour of existence, evinced no penitent or religious feeling, and who, during their short passage to the scaffold, on the morning of their execution, execrated the jury who so justly condemned them. A Lincolnshire boy! Where are his friends or relations? It is now nearly six weeks since the murder, and no inquiries are made for him. On the contrary, where is Charles Ferrier? Why does he not appear? It is a fact that the body of the deceased was recognized by at least a hundred persons as a poor Italian boy, whom they had seen carrying white mice about the streets of London. But were there any appearances to indicate that the deceasedwas a Lincolnshire drover boy? None. His hands were smooth and soft, and no horny substance upon them, as though he had been used to manual labour. These facts, and this evidence, together with the verdict of a jury, after a long and patient trial, before a humane and discerning judge, stand at present alone opposed by the statement of the murderers, and between them the public must judge.

'On the second point, as to the mode of death of the deceased, which is described in the confessions as that of drowning, it will be only necessary to read the following report which the surgeons have been requested to prepare on the appearances of the body, both at and previous to thepost mortemexamination, and it will then be for medical and scientific persons to say whether it is morally possible that the heart should have been perfectly empty and contracted, and that the other appearances described should have manifested themselves, if death had been produced as the murderers allege.

'Post mortemappearances of the body of the Italian body, who was murdered late on the night of the 3d, or early on the morning of the 4th of November, 1831.

'The corpse was first seen by one of the undersigned, about two o'clock,P.M., of Saturday, November 5, and by the other at a late hour the same night.

'External appearances.—The body was four feet six inches in length, of rather stout make, face broad, hair light brown, dry, neither curled nor yet matted, eyes gray, general appearance that of a foreigner, judging more from the cast of features than the complexion, limbs rigid, and the upper extremities somewhat contracted, palms of the hands quite soft, face rather swollen, eyes bloodshot, teethextracted, gums bloody, a wound three-quarters of an inch in length over the left brow; the neck and throat, together with the extremities, were attentively examined, but did not exhibit the slightest indications of violence.

'The dissection was conducted in the following order:—

'Head.—On turning down the scalp its vessels appeared a little fuller than usual; the wound over the brow extended to the bone, which was not, however, fractured, neither was there any blood effused around the cut; higher up, over the coronal suture, there was a patch of extravasated and coagulated blood between the scalp and bone; the brain and its membranes appeared perfectly healthy, and their vessels were not unnaturally full; the ventricles did not contain more than the usual small quantity of serum. The body was next turned on its face, the brain having been previously removed, and in so doing a quantity of fluid blood gushed out from the spinal canal at the occipital foramen. On cutting through the muscles at the back of the neck coagulated blood, to the amount of five or six ounces, was found extravasated among them; extending from the occiput to the termination of the cervical vertebræ, and upon removing the arches of the vertebræ and that portion of the occipital bone which lies behind the foramen magnum, from one to two ounces of coagulated blood were discovered within the spinal canal (exterior to the theca) pressing upon the upper part of the medulla spinalis; a considerable quantity of fluid blood was likewise contained in the lower part of the canal; there was no blood within the theca, and the cord itself retained its natural appearance and firmness; there was no traceable injury either of the vertebræ or of their ligaments.

'Chest.—The pericardium contained about two drachms of serum. The heart was healthy, rather small, quite contracted, and its four cavities perfectly empty. This contracted and empty state of the heart struck us at the time as a very remarkable circumstance. Each bag of the pleura contained about one ounce of serum. The lungs were healthy and not congested; there was an old and partial adhesion between part of the right lung and the pleura costatis; the pharynx, œsophagus, larynx, trachen, and bronchi, were healthy and unobstructed.

'Abdomen.—The stomach was tolerably full of half-digested food, of which some fragments of potatoes formed the only recognizable part; its contents smelt lightly of rum, its coats were healthy, the small intestines were full of recently digested food; the whole of the alimentary canal, and all the abdominal viscera, were healthy, but the liver contained a little more than the usual quantity of blood.

'The urinary bladder was contracted and quite empty.

'It is for professional and other scientific men to judge, whether the appearances above described are compatible with the supposition of death having been produced by drowning, hanging, strangulation, or any other mode of suffocation.

(Signed)'Richard Partridge.'George Beaman.

'December 10.

'The foregoing report, it will be observed, is signed by Mr. Partridge, the Demonstrator of Anatomy to the King's College, and Mr. Beaman, a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, who, in addition to an extensive private practice, holds the appointment of Parochial Surgeon of St. Paul,Covent-garden; their report has been submitted to Mr. Tyrell, a Surgeon of St. Thomas's Hospital, and Lecturer on Physiology, Anatomy, and Surgery, to that Institution. His observations on that report are as follows:—

'Sir,

'According to your request, I have attentively perused the statement respecting the examination of the body of the boy, the subject of the late trial. I find that it perfectly agrees with the evidence given by Messrs. Partridge and Beaman on that occasion, of which evidence I, by the desire of the prosecutors, took notes. It is my opinion, that the death of the boy could not have been caused by any mode of suffocation, as drowning, smothering, &c. I have no doubt that injury to the upper part of the spine, which created the effusion of blood into the spinal canal was the immediate cause of death.

'Yours, respectfully,'Frederick Tyrell.

'17, New Bridge-Street,'Blackfriars, Dec. 10.

'I have thus endeavoured, as briefly as possible, to put together a few facts and observations on the two only points in 'the confessions' which appeared to me to call for notice. I consider Williams's confirmation of the truth of Bishop's statement of very little consequence, inasmuch as he was allowed to be present at the making of it, and nothing was easier than for him to say that he fully adhered to the statement made by his partner in crime. If separate 'confessions' had been made, and in the absence of each other, it is possible the wretched culprits might have furnished something more to the world.

'I have to apologize for the length of this communication, which has been hastily written. I hope the importance and anxiety with which the subject is viewed by the public may be pleaded in excuse, and also induce you to give it insertion in your columns. I may add, that I should not have presumed to have addressed you on the subject, had not the circumstance of the management of the prosecution devolving upon me entitled me to be pretty fully acquainted with all the details of the case.

'I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,'Jas. Corder.

'St. Paul, Covent-Garden,Vestry Clerk's Office, Dec. 14.'

On this statement of Mr. Corder we shall make but a very few comments. One part of it is, however, particularly deserving of remark, in which he states, that above one hundred persons recognized the body of the murdered boy, as being that of a poor Italian boy, whom they had seen carrying white mice about the streets of London. If this were actually the case, let us put this question to Mr. Corder—Why a tithe of the hundred persons was not brought forward on the trial to identify the body? The only persons on the trial, who spoke with the least assurance respecting the body, were the Paragallis; for Brin, or Brun, the man who actually brought the boy over to this country, could not speak to the identity of the body. But if, as Mr. Corder affirms, there were a hundred persons who really did recognize the body as being that of the Italian boy, he was certainly guilty of a dereliction of his duty, in not bringing forward some of them; as it would have been attended with the immediate good effect of tranquillizing the public mind, and dissipating every doubt as to the real individual who had been so inhumanly murdered.

It must also be fresh in the recollection of Mr. Corder, that the identity of the clothes as having been worn by the Italian boy, was not definitively established on the trial; on the contrary, by one witness it was deposed that the clothes found in Bishop's garden did not correspond in colour with those worn by the Italian boy, as seen by the witness on the day on which the murder was supposed to be committed. In other respects, however, the arguments of Mr. Corder may be considered as carrying with them a great degree of corroborative testimony, relative to the murdered boy being the Italian youth; and until some more conclusive evidence presents itself, the matter must be considered as resting on the established certainty of the identity of the body, and, consequently, that the statements of Bishop and Williams were not founded in truth. Their statements, however, excited so extraordinary a sensation in the public mind that, on the 13th of December, Mr. Hunt brought the business before Parliament. The Honourable Member said, that he had a question to ask, calculated greatly to relieve the mind of the country. It was with respect to the persons lately executed for the crime of 'Burking.' According to a statement put forth in the newspaper, they, instead of confessing three or four murders only, on the day previous to their execution, confessed sixty; and were going on until stopped by the Ordinary of the prison. This might be a laughable subject, but it had greatly agitated the public mind; and was, he believed, at present, the source of much excitement. He, therefore, was desirous to know of Government whether the fact of this confession was true or not?

Mr. G. Lamb did not know on what authority the statement in the newspapers was put forth, buthe (Mr. Lamb) was not aware of any other confession than that officially published.

Alderman Waithman had seen both the Sheriffs and the Under-Sheriff, and the latter had declared his most positive conviction, that these men had told every thing they knew in the confession, which he (the Under-Sheriff) had witnessed. He (Mr. Alderman Waithman) was, therefore, astonished to see the statements that had been circulated in the newspapers.

Mr. Hunt rejoined, that it was asserted that the confession was made to the Ordinary of Newgate. Now it did not appear that either the Right Honourable Secretary for the Home Department, or the worthy Alderman, had any communication with the Ordinary.

Mr. Lamb had intended to give a satisfactory reply. No communication had been forwarded to Government with respect to the confession in question, and in a matter of that importance, had there been ground for such a communication, it would undoubtedly have been made.

Alderman Waithman had communicated with the Ordinary, but had heard of no confession of the kind referred to.

We cannot close the subject of the murder of the Italian boy more appropriately than with the following lines, written by F. W. N. Bayley:—

Poor child of Venice! He had leftA land of love and sun for this;In one brief day of tears bereft,Of father's care and mother's kiss!The valleys of his native home,The mountain paths of light and flowers;The Savoyard forsook, to roam—For wealth and happiness in ours.And pitying thousands saw the boyFeeding the tortoise on his knee;And beauty bright, and childhood coy,Oft flung their mite of charity.And as he rested on the stone,His organ tuned to some old air,Men paused at its familiar tone,And left their little tokens there.But now, though hundreds pass the spot,At even time, or early day,They shall not see the unforgot,Whose music all hath pass'd away.Still when they learn that he hath gain'dNo riches but a grave-stone here,From gentle hearts, by mem'ry pain'd,The thoughts of him will start a tear.

Poor child of Venice! He had left

A land of love and sun for this;

In one brief day of tears bereft,

Of father's care and mother's kiss!

The valleys of his native home,

The mountain paths of light and flowers;

The Savoyard forsook, to roam—

For wealth and happiness in ours.

And pitying thousands saw the boyFeeding the tortoise on his knee;And beauty bright, and childhood coy,Oft flung their mite of charity.And as he rested on the stone,His organ tuned to some old air,Men paused at its familiar tone,And left their little tokens there.

And pitying thousands saw the boy

Feeding the tortoise on his knee;

And beauty bright, and childhood coy,

Oft flung their mite of charity.

And as he rested on the stone,

His organ tuned to some old air,

Men paused at its familiar tone,

And left their little tokens there.

But now, though hundreds pass the spot,At even time, or early day,They shall not see the unforgot,Whose music all hath pass'd away.Still when they learn that he hath gain'dNo riches but a grave-stone here,From gentle hearts, by mem'ry pain'd,The thoughts of him will start a tear.

But now, though hundreds pass the spot,

At even time, or early day,

They shall not see the unforgot,

Whose music all hath pass'd away.

Still when they learn that he hath gain'd

No riches but a grave-stone here,

From gentle hearts, by mem'ry pain'd,

The thoughts of him will start a tear.

At the very time, however, when Bishop and Williams were suffering on the scaffold the last penalty of the law for the heinousness of their crimes, the neighbourhood of Golden-lane, Whitecross-street, and Chiswell-street, was thrown into the greatest state of consternation and alarm, in consequence of a fine healthy female child, about eight years of age, the daughter of an Irish labourer named Duffey, who resides in Broad Arrow-court, Milton-street, having been found, about ten o'clock on Saturday night, murdered, in a public privy in Cowheel-alley, Golden-lane. About nine o'clock on Saturday night, the 3rd of December, a woman, about thirty years of age, named Bridget Calkin, was brought to the station-house in Bunhill-row, and given into the custody of Inspector Perry, of the New Police, upon the charge of Mrs. Duffey, No. 3, Broad Arrow-court, Milton-street, who stated, that her husband was a labourer, and she had a fine healthy girl, about eight years old, who wasremarkably full-grown and tall for that age. The prisoner lodged within a door or two of her residence, and had known the child for the last three years, and appeared to be rather kind and attentive to her, and which in part won the child's affections. The prisoner, who is occasionally a char-woman, returned to her lodgings on Saturday night, about half-past four o'clock, and a little after five o'clock she was seen to leave the court with the child in her company, and to whom, it appeared, the prisoner gave a penny, for the purpose of decoying the child. All Mrs. Duffy wanted from the prisoner was, to know what became of, or where was her child. The statement of Mrs. Duffy, so far as the child having been seen to leave the court in company with the prisoner, was fully borne out by four or five other persons. The prisoner admitted her return to her lodgings about the time stated, but denied any knowledge of the child, and accounted for herself by stating where and in whose company she was from five o'clock until she was taken into custody. Inspector Perry, seeing the case at that period enveloped in much mystery, and well knowing the desperate characters with which St. Luke's is infested, despatched officers to where the prisoner stated she was, and on their return, they reported that the statement of the prisoner was altogether a fabrication; and one of the parties (Nurse Bryant, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital) admitted she knew the prisoner, but denied having been out with her on that evening. Upon searching the prisoner, Inspector Perry found a gentleman's small memorandum-book, with an account of daily expenditure, but no name or address, so as to trace to an ownership. In about an hour after, informations were given to Mr. Perry that the body of the murdered child had been discovered lying on the floor of a public privy in Cowheel-alley,Golden-lane, under the following circumstances:—It appeared, that about ten o'clock a little girl, the daughter of a green-grocer, went into the privy, and trampling on the murdered child, she became alarmed, and ran back in a fright, and apprised her brother (a young boy) of the circumstance. The boy got a candle, and went to see what had so alarmed his sister; and upon his opening the door of the privy, a man and a woman dashed out, and ran away in different directions, the man having first knocked the candle out of the boy's hand; notwithstanding which the boy thought he should be able to identify him. In the meantime, Inspector Perry sent for Surgeon Leeson to examine the child, whose body was not then cold, and who thought it came to its death about half an hour before by being suffocated. The body of the child was then conveyed to its father's, where two police-officers were stationed in the same room; and as it became cold, marks of discoloration were very apparent round the neck and under the right arm.

On the following Monday Bridget Calkin was brought before the Worship-street magistrates, on a charge of being concerned in the wilful murder of a little girl, five years old, named Margaret Duffy. A man named Cattle, a noted resurrectionist, who had also been apprehended on suspicion, was placed at the bar on the same charge. The prisoners were brought from the police-station in Bunhill-row, in a hackney-coach, guarded by a strong body of the police, and followed with the most appalling yells by an immense mob, hundreds of whom had, no doubt, been witnesses of the awful exit of the murderers, Bishop and Williams, shortly before, in the Old Bailey. The female prisoner, who lived next door to the parents, was seen on the evening of the murder, with the child,whom she had called out of doors, in order to give her a penny to divide between her and her brother. The child could not afterwards be found; and shortly before nine, the prisoner, who denied all knowledge of her absence when questioned by the parents, was charged with stealing her; but while that charge was under inquiry at the police-station, the corpse of the deceased was taken there, having been found in the place before mentioned.

Dixon, a policeman, stated, that the prisoner Calkin, when brought to the station, before the body was discovered, declared that she left the child in the court where they lived, and never saw her again, and she accounted for the disposal of her time by saying that she went to a person (whom she mentioned) in Rotten-row, Old-street, and remained there till about seven, after which she walked about for upwards of an hour, and was part of the time in company with one of the nurses of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, named Bryant. Upon inquiry, both these statements were denied; and at the hospital, it was stated by the nurse herself, and the sister of her ward, that she had not been out of the place all that day, nor had she seen the prisoner for two days previously. A man, named Bailey, deposed that he was passing through the court on Saturday evening, and saw the prisoner Calkin come from the privy where the deceased was afterwards discovered. It was somewhere about eight o'clock when he saw her. Mr. Twyford asked him if he was certain it was the prisoner? He said he had no doubt of it; he could not be mistaken, as he had known her for a length of time. A female, named Jennings, stated, that between seven and eight o'clock she saw the prisoner and the little girl about one hundred yards from that spot.

The female prisoner made a statement of somelength, to the effect that she frequently took the child out, and admitted that she saw her in their court, as stated by the witnesses, and gave her a penny. She did not take her away from the place, but left her there, and never saw her again until she saw the corpse at the police-station. She herself went to Rotten-row, Old-street, and afterwards went towards Whitechapel and walked about, and during that time met with Nurse Bryant. The nurse came forward again, and expressed her astonishment at this statement, which she flatly contradicted.

The prisoner Cattle is known to be a resurrection-man, and lives close to the spot where the body was found. A man was stated to have run from the privy, and Cattle was taken on suspicion. The little boy said, that the man who knocked out his light was not the prisoner Cattle; and there being no evidence against the latter, he was discharged.

The prisoner Calkin was remanded, to await the decision of the Coroner's Inquest.

On the following Tuesday, at six o'clock, an inquiry was commenced, before Mr. Baker, Coroner, the Churchwardens and other officers of St. Luke's parish, touching the death of the little girl, Margaret Duffy. The facts were proved as above stated, with respect to the child being seen last alive in Broad Arrow-court, Milton-street, in company with Bridget Calkin, and the finding of the body some hours afterwards in a privy, situate in a court in Golden-lane; but the evidence as to the circumstances which then ensued was exceedingly discrepant, and the Jury after having been engaged between five and six hours, adjourned until the following Friday.

Accordingly on that day the inquest was resumed at the Golden Boot public-house, Milton-street. The privy in which the body was found is common to theinhabitants of several intricate passages, and as there appeared to be some confusion in the statements as to the localities and other circumstances, Dixon, the policeman, procured an accurate plan of the neighbourhood. Upon the return of the Jury, who went in a body to view the spot, and compare it with the plan, the following evidence was adduced:—

Mr.John Leeson, a surgeon in Chiswell-street, stated, that he was called in on Saturday to see the deceased at the Station-house. On going there he saw the body lying on the floor. On examining it he found the extremities quite cold, but some warmth remained in the body. There was no lividity or swelling of the face; no contusion or swelling of the tongue; or any other appearance but those indicating that she had died of suffocation or strangulation. The deceased was a fine healthy child. There was a mark on the neck, as also discoloration of the skin, which led him to believe that some violence had been applied to that part. The teeth were also clenched; and from these circumstances he imagined that the child had met its death by foul means, probably by suffocation, by stopping the mouth, and placing a thumb and finger behind the neck. There was a bruise on the right arm, apparently by the pressure of the thumb, done while alive. His opinion was that the child had not died of apoplexy or anything of a poisonous nature given to it.

In reply to the foreman of the Jury, the witness said there was a slight bruise upon one of the arms, which might have been done in a struggle. Coroner: 'And what time do you suppose it would take to destroy life by the means you have described?'—The witness said, he should think from three to four minutes.

Mr.W. Brooks, surgeon, of St. Luke's, stated,that on Tuesday morning, in conjunction with Mr. Rance, he opened the body of the deceased. On opening the head, he found the vessels of the brain exceedingly turgid, quite sufficient to occasion death. Believed the deceased's death was not the result of natural causes, and his opinion was that it had been produced by violence. There was a discoloration from the neck downwards. It was not produced by decomposition. There was a pressure on the breast, which possibly might have produced the marks described. In his opinion the child had died from suffocation by closing the mouth.

Coroner.—In what time would strangulation be produced by placing the hand on the mouth and nose?

Witness.—That I won't take upon me to say—probably in four or five minutes.

Mr.Rance, a surgeon in the City-road, deposed to having examined the body of the deceased externally and internally, and expressed it as his opinion that death had been produced by violence.

Mr.Whittle, a third surgeon, agreed in opinion with the two former witnesses. He perceived two marks on the neck, which corresponded with the large vessels which return the blood from the head to the heart, a strong pressure on which would produce death.

Coroner.—In what time would that take place?

Witness.—In four or five minutes apoplexy would be produced, which would occasion death independent of suffocation, which might be produced by pressure on the mouth.

William Dalton, stated, that he knew Bridget Calkin, the woman who was in custody, and saw her about a quarter past seven, on Saturday, (yesterday se'nnight,) in Payne's-buildings, within a short distance of the privy where the child wasfound, and she then had a child about six years old with her; he had no doubt that it was Bridget Calkin.

Eliza Kenny, the wife of a carter, stated, that about half-past five on Saturday evening, she was standing near Prospect-place, when Bridget Calkin and a female child passed her. She took particular notice, because she heard Calkin say to the child, 'Don't cry, my dear, we shall soon be at home.' She observed that the child had neither shoes nor stockings; she knew Calkin before; the child was crying, and Calkin seemed to be dragging her along.

Martin Bailey, of Turk's Head-court, Golden-lane, labourer, said, that about eight o'clock on Saturday evening, he saw Bridget Calkin come out of the privy, and go through Payne's-buildings; she seemed to be in a hurry; he had known her for some months; he was certain that she came out of the privy; he was three or four yards from her when she came out, and saw her by the light of a gas-lamp that was near; he saw no child or other person near at the time; he could not speak to the time precisely; it might have been later than eight o'clock.

Catherine Dempsey, of 36, Payne's-buildings, stated, that a little after seven on Saturday evening, she saw Bridget Calkin, with a child about six years old, who was barefooted, and heard her say to the child, 'What ails you?' Witness knew her about three months ago, when she lived in the house immediately opposite the privy, and lodged with Mrs. Burns; she was in the same dress which she had on at Worship-street, on Monday, and witness had no doubt of her identity.

Coroner.—Have you seen the body of the deceased?

Witness.—Yes, Sir; but from the state in whichI saw it, I cannot say it is the same, but it is very much like it.

Juror.—Do you know the prisoner Calkin?

Witness.—Yes: about three months ago she lived next door to where I do, which is exactly opposite the privy where the deceased was found dead.

Juror.—Do you know how she gets her living?

Witness.—No, Sir.

Juror.—What dress had she on at the time?

Witness.—A light gown with flowers on it. The child had no bonnet on at the time.

Eliza Rennysaid, that on Saturday evening, about five o'clock, she saw the prisoner Calkin dragging the deceased by her door towards the privy. The child was crying at the time, and had neither shoes nor stockings on.

Martin Caileysaw the prisoner Calkin, at about eight o'clock on Saturday evening, near the privy where the body of the deceased was found. She appeared to have come out of it, and walked out of the court in a hurried manner. She (Calkin) was in the habit of keeping bad company. Some of the persons she associated with he (witness) believed to be body-snatchers.

Catherine Lampeersaw Calkin with a child, in Payne's-buildings, at about seven o'clock on Saturday evening. The child had neither shoes nor stockings on. She heard the prisoner say to the child, 'What ails you?'

Eliza Bryan, an assistant at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, was called, to contradict a statement which had been made by the prisoner, that she was in her company from five to seven o'clock on Saturday evening. The witness denied having seen her at all on that day.

Another witness deposed to the prisoner havinglived for some time opposite to the privy in which the child was found. In reply to a question from a Juror, she said, that the prisoner Calkin was about nineteen years of age, and that her father kept a school in the neighbourhood of Islington.

Nathaniel Birnie, a policeman, deposed, that about ten minutes before nine on Saturday night, the mother of the deceased came to him, and stated that Bridget Calkin had given a penny to her child at the door, and taken her away, and that as the child had not been brought back, she feared it had been made away with. Witness told Inspector Perry, and he went to Broad Arrow-court, and took the prisoner into custody; she denied having taken away the child, and appeared surprised at the charge; she admitted having given the child a penny at the door, but said she had not seen her afterwards. She said that she had been to Rotten-row in the evening, and the witness went there with her; the woman she had mentioned was out, and the prisoner then asked the husband, 'What time was I here this evening?'—The man replied, 'Not at all.' On the return of witness to the station-house, the body had been discovered and taken there.

Juror.—Did she appear affected at the sight of the murdered child?

Witness.—Not at all; she appeared quite unconcerned.

Mrs.Duffy,—the deceased's mother, was then brought before the Jury and examined. The poor woman appeared exceedingly distressed; she said that she had for some time known Bridget Calkin, who once before took the child away and kept her out some hours, and witness then desired her never to do so again.

Ellen Jennings, a girl, stated, that about half-pastfive on Saturday evening, deceased was upstairs, playing with her, when Biddy Calkin came to the door and called for her; witness asked her what she wanted, but Biddy would not say, but took the deceased down stairs, and witness never saw her again. Bridget Calkin returned home about nine o'clock without the child.

The whole of the testimony of the witnesses having been gone through, it was thought advisable to have the prisoner Calkin present, to ask her if she had any witnesses which she might wish to have examined, or any explanation to offer.

TheCoroneraccordingly despatched an officer to Clerkenwell Prison for her, and the Jury adjourned for an hour, to await her arrival.

The officer, in about an hour, returned, and stated, that the prisoner declined appearing, saying, that she had no witnesses; nor did she wish to add anything to the statement which she made at Worship-street Police-office.

TheCoronersummed up the evidence; and the jury, after deliberating for nearly an hour, returned a verdict of 'Wilful Murder' against Bridget Calkin; and the Coroner at once made out his warrant for her commitment to Newgate on the charge.

Since the examination of Bridget Calkin, on a suspicion of having been concerned in the murder of the little girl, Margaret Duffy, several other persons were taken up on suspicion, as it was sworn, that immediately upon the discovery of the corpse in Cowheel-alley, a man and woman rushed out of the privy, and ran off; and the witness to that important fact, a boy, twelve years of age, named William Newton, who was close to the spot with a lighted candle, gave a particular description of the man, who, he said, blew out his light, struck him uponhis breast, and then ran off as hard as he could towards Golden-lane. Upon Calkin, when she was apprehended on the night of the supposed murder, a handsome Russia-leather memorandum-book was found, which, she said, had been given to her by Robert Tye, an ornamental glass-worker. The latter was brought before Mr.Twyford, at Worship-street, by Hanley, the Worship-street officer, who had taken him into custody upon hearing of his connexion with Calkin.

Tyeadmitted that she had the book from him, and he said that he found it in Old-street, a fortnight since.

William Shearing, William Dunkley,aliasBoney, and —— Long, three resurrectionists, were afterwards brought into the office to be viewed by the witnesses, William Newton and Mary Kean, who, however, could not identify either of them or Tye, and they were all discharged.

Dunkley.—Before I go, I just wish to say, that Mr. Hanley ought not to mention my profession in this open manner. Why the people would tear us to pieces just now, if they're put up to it in this way.

Hanley.—You know it is no secret. Why, I've heard you myself making a boast in public of your body-snatching.

Mr.Twyfordtold them to go about their business, as there was no further charge against them, and he desired Mr. Dixon, the Superintendent of Police, to take particular care of the boy Newton.

Shortly after these persons had been discharged, Police Inspector Perry came before the magistrate, accompanied by a gentlemanly-looking person, who identified the memorandum-book which Robert Tye, who had just been discharged, admitted that the prisoner, Bridget Calkin, had from him. It appeared, from this gentleman's statement, that helost the book in question from a house at Cow-cross, on the night of the 5th of November, when the fire occurred in which several persons perished; but how the book was taken he could not tell.

At the same office Bridget Calkin was brought up, on the 13th, for final examination before Mr. Twyford, charged with the wilful murder of the child, Margaret Duffy, for which she already stood committed for trial upon the Coroners inquisition. The evidence before the Coroner's Jury, upon view of the body of the deceased, was taken in the absence of the prisoner, who was then confined in Clerkenwell Prison; and a messenger being despatched thither to ascertain if it was her desire to be taken before the Jury or offer any defence,—she returned for answer that she had no such wish, nor anything to add to the statement which she had already made before the magistrates at this office. Of her statement or the statements of the witnesses on that day, there was, however, no written evidence. It was now considered necessary to have the whole of the evidence taken at the Worship-street office, in order to her commitment by the magistrate, without reference to the proceedings before the Coroner; and one of the clerks was occupied the whole of one day in taking the necessary depositions.

On the 7th of January, Bridget Calkin was placed at the bar of the Old Bailey, upon an indictment, charging her with having by means of pressure on the throat, chest, &c., murdered Margaret Duffy. She was also charged upon the Coroner's Inquisition.

The prisoner, who during the whole of the trial appeared to view the proceedings as an indifferent spectator, pleaded 'Not Guilty.'

Mr.Adolphushaving briefly stated the case, assubsequently developed by the evidence, called the following witnesses:—

Mary Canedeposed, that on Saturday night, the 3d of December, she found the body of a child in a certain privy in Hartshorn-court, Little Cheapside, having accidentally struck her foot against it in the dark. On her giving the alarm, several persons arrived on the spot, with a light; she then saw the body of the deceased lying on its back in a corner of the privy; one of its legs was doubled up, and its clothes were above the knees. No one could get to the place, but those who were acquainted with the premises, and knew how to open the door. The inhabitants of seven houses had a right of admission to the privy. Prisoner lived next door to witness.

William Newton, a boy, twelve years old, stated that he resided at No. 7, Payne's-buildings, near Hartshorn-court; that on the night in question, the preceding witness told him what she had seen, on which he went to the privy with a light, and pushed the door, but did not succeed in pushing it quite back; that a man rushed out past him, jostling him against an opposite door, and extinguishing his candle. The man was lusty, wore a black coat and had crape round his hat; a 'littleish' woman also came out, who had on a light shawl, and a high cap or bonnet. Two men named Shookers and Nolan came up and took the body of the child out of the privy.

Patrick Nolan, who first took up the body, described the state in which he found it.

John Shookers, a costermonger, of No. 1, Hartshorn-court, proved that on the night alluded to, about ten o'clock, he heard Mary Cane scream, and hastened towards her in consequence; when he got to the privy he saw Nolan with a candle, andlikewise perceived the body of the child; took the child to Mr. Smith, a surgeon, but life was quite extinct.

Cross-examined by Mr.Clarkson.—It was witness, and not Nolan, who first lifted the child from the ground where it was lying.

James Duffy, father of the deceased, who lived in Broad-Arrow-court, deposed that his child was between five and six years of age, was very healthy, and had never been subject to fits since she had had the hooping-cough, two years before. Saw her last alive at half-past five o'clock on the 3d of December, when she was going out with the prisoner, who often nursed the child, and appeared to treat it with kindness. Witness next saw his daughter at the station-house, Bunhill-row, about a quarter before ten, but she was quite dead.

On being cross-examined, he added, that Calkin had always appeared uncommonly fond of children, and acted tenderly towards them.

Eleanor Jennings, twelve years old, said she was playing with the deceased between five and six o'clock in the evening in question, in her (witness's) parents' room. The prisoner then came to the room and asked if Margaret Duffy was there; being told she was, the prisoner took her down stairs, and witness never saw her companion alive afterwards.

Elizabeth Kenny, of No. 12, Prospect-place, Pump-alley, about five minutes walk from Hartshorn-court, stated, that on the night referred to, about half-past five, or a quarter before six, she saw the prisoner for the first time; she had on a light dress, a black bonnet, and a light shawl; the child had hold of her hand, walking by her side; the child was without shoes or stockings, and was crying: prisoner told her not to cry, for she would soon be at home; they were then going towards Hartshorn-court.

Martin Bailey, a labourer, deposed that he saw the prisoner come away from the privy door in Hartshorn-court, shortly before eight o'clock the same evening; he was only a few yards from the privy, and Calkin was walking quickly towards Little Cheapside.

Nathaniel Birnie, a police constable, stated, that on the night of the 3d of December, the child's mother applied to him, and in consequence of the representations she made to him, he apprehended the prisoner at about ten minutes before nine, in Broad Arrow-court, near her lodgings. On his asking her where she had left the child, she said she had not seen the little girl since she gave her a penny as she stood at her father's door. On their way to the station-house he asked her where she had been since she gave the child the penny; to which she replied that she had been at the house of Mrs. Lea, in Rotten-row, for whom she usually washed. He accompanied her to Mrs. Lea's, where they found a man; in answer to her question upon the subject, the man declared that he had not seen her there that day before. Witness then took her to the station-house, and she afterwards mentioned that she had been in the room of a Mrs. Warren in the same house.

Eleanor Dunfey, with whom the prisoner stated she had lived, lent her on the evening before the 3d of December the same shawl which she had on when taken into custody. Being cross-examined, she said that Calkin had been absent from five o'clock till eight, from which hour she did not leave the house till her apprehension by the officer.

Anne Lea, andMartha Warrenproved that the prisoner had not visited their lodgings on the 3d of December.

James Dixon, superintendent of police, deposedto another story as to the manner in which the prisoner told him she was employed on the evening of the murder, and this account was also disproved by reference to the party with whom she pretended to have been in company.

Mary Duffy, sister to the deceased, gave evidence of a conversation between her and the prisoner on the evening in question, relative to the absence of her sister, whom Calkin alleged she had taken to Old-street, after having left the court in which the privy was situate. Witness then said she must have made away with her, and threatened to give her in charge; and the prisoner told her in reply, that she was a 'b——y liar,' and that she did not care about being sent to the station-house, as she had a sovereign in her pocket to keep her until she could get out.

On cross-examination, the witness further stated, that there were many lanes and turnings about Hartshorn-court, in which a child of her sister's age might be lost.

Bridget Murray, confirmed the statement of Mary Duffy, relative to the angry conversation which had taken place between her and the prisoner when the child was first missed.

Mr.Smith, the apothecary, who examined the child between nine and ten o'clock, deposed that the child, to the best of his judgment, must have been dead at least an hour and a half when he saw it; the body at that time was not quite cold, with the exception of the arm, which had been exposed without covering.

On being further questioned by theCourt, he stated, that he could not give a positive opinion as to the length of time which might have elapsed; it might have been only half an hour, the retention of warmth depending, in a great degree, on thetemperature of the atmosphere; nor could he say that a child put to a violent death would become cold sooner than one that died by the ordinary course of disease.

Mr.Leeson, a surgeon, living in Chiswell-street, stated, that he also saw the body about ten o'clock; the extremities were cold, but the body itself was warm; the warmth was as high as 83 degrees. He should have supposed that the child was dead about an hour, but it was possible he might be mistaken a full hour in his calculation. He found discolouration on the neck, which seemed to indicate violence, and the jaws were very firmly clinched. The father of the deceased was present at the time. On the same night, at nearly one o'clock, he saw the body again, and there was no perceptible alteration in the appearances. On neither occasion did he strip the child.

Mr. JusticeJ. Parkeobserved, that he ought to have done so, and thoroughly examined the whole person.

On Tuesday morning the body was stripped, and underwent further examination, internally as well as superficially; other surgeons were present: the vessels of the brain were turgid from excess of blood; but the action of the stomach appeared to have been healthy up to the time of death. There were certain marks apparently caused by the pressure of fingers upon the neck, and he came to the conclusion that the child died by violence,—in his opinion by means of suffocation.

Mr.Rance, a surgeon, residing in the City-road, stated, that he had made apost mortemexamination of the body of the deceased on the 6th of December, in the presence of Mr. Brooks. Decomposition was then rapidly taking place, owing to the warm state of the weather: nearly the whole surface ofthe body was discoloured. There was a slight mark of pressure on the left arm, but on account of the discolouration, witness could not undertake to say whether there were any other marks of violence on the body. The tongue protruded about three-eighths of an inch between the teeth, which were firmly closed upon and had indented the tongue. The muscles were rigid and firm, with the exception of those of the neck, which were in a flaccid state. The stomach was in a perfectly healthy condition. Digestion was going on at the time of death. On examining the thorax, he found the lungs collapsed to a degree that proved that the last act of respiration was that of expiration. The heart was healthy, but nearly void of blood. On opening the right auricle of the heart, a small quantity of blood issued from it. A portion of blood also flowed from the pulmonary veins leading to the left auricle of the heart. The vessels of the neck contained a little serous fluid, and a quantity of fluid blood escaped on dividing the jugular veins. The head exhibited no external marks of violence, but on removing the scalp and bone, the blood-vessels of the brain were found to be distended. These appearances must have been caused by pressure on the neck, preventing the blood from flowing back to the heart. On removing the bandage with which the jaws had been tied up after death, a quantity of serous fluid escaped from the nostrils. There was no appearance of fracture or dislocation of the neck, or laceration of the tendons. The death of the deceased was, in all probability, caused by external pressure, which produced suffocation.

Mr.Brooksgave a similar account of the appearance of the body; adding, that, in his opinion, considerable violence had been used towards the child; and that no reasonable person couldentertain a doubt that the cause of death was suffocation.

The last witness examined for the prosecution was Martin Lee, who swore that the prisoner was not at his house on the 3d of December, as she alleged to the officer she had been.

This closed the case on the part of the prosecution.

Mr.Clarkson, who stated that he had been directed by the Sheriffs to conduct the prisoner's case, here made an objection to the manner in which the indictment was drawn up. He said that the prisoner was charged with causing the deceased's death, by squeezing and pressing about the neck. This description of the manner in which the murder had been perpetrated, he contended to be of too vague a nature, and in support of his argument referred to the 2d volume of Lord Hale's Pleas of the Crown, where it was laid down, that if a wound was inflicted on the breast, arm, or head, it was bad to say that it was inflicted 'about the breast, &c.,' (circiter pectus,super brachium, or,super manum) for the particular part of the breast, arm, or hand, must be specified. He conceived that no distinction could be drawn with respect to this point, between a death caused by a wound and one by suffocation; and he was therefore of opinion, that the words in the indictment, 'about the neck,' did not fix with sufficient distinctness the part of the neck to which violence had been applied.

Mr.Adolphus, in answer to the objection, said, thatcirciterhad a particular meaning in Latin; but every person knew that 'about' was capable of two significations. The learned Counsel was prevented from proceeding further by

Mr. JusticeJ. Parke, who said, that the Court was of opinion that the objection was not valid.The word 'about' in the indictment was to be taken in the sense of 'around,' death having been caused by pressing the hand around the neck. The learned Judge then informed the prisoner, that it was now the time for her to say whatever she wished in her defence.

ThePrisoner, who, during the whole of the proceedings, had exhibited no signs of feeling much interest in a matter which affected her life, rose and answered with great indifference, 'I have nothing to say, except that I am innocent of the crime with which I am charged.'

Witnesses were then examined for the prisoner, of whom the first was—

Jane Duggan.—I am married, and the mother of twelve children. I live at No. 6, George-yard. My husband is a stone-mason. The prisoner lived with me as a nurse to one of my children. She is kind and affectionate to children, and has always borne that character.

Another witness, living in the same place.—I have known the prisoner for twelve months. She has always borne the character of being kind, humane, and fond of children.

Elizabeth Martin.—I live in Golden-lane. I have known the prisoner for seven years. I should readily intrust her with the care of my children. I am a married woman.

Julia Cochrane, another married woman, deposed to the kindness and humanity of the prisoner.

Mary Flanagan, a person of the same description, gave similar evidence.

Ellen Macdonnellwas examined to the same effect; as wereMary Bruce,Terence Doughty,Peter Macdermot,Daniel Manning,John M'Hugh,Christopher Suggon,Henry Pritchard,Bridget Grogan, and several other witnesses.

No evidence as to facts were offered.

Mr. JusticeJames Parkesaid, it was then his duty to state to the jury the evidence that had been laid before them on the present trial, and to accompany it with such remarks as the circumstances of the extraordinary case suggested to his mind. The offence with which the prisoner stood charged was that of wilful murder, the indictment stating, that, with her hands about the neck of the deceased, she so grasped or squeezed the throat of the said Margaret Duffy, as by choking, suffocation, or strangulation, to occasion her death. If they were satisfied that the deceased came to her death in consequence of suffocation or strangulation, the particular mode in which that crime happened to be perpetrated was immaterial. It was immaterial, for example, whether the prisoner did it with her own hands, or was present when the crime was committed by some other person. He meant by being present, was in such a situation that she could see the act done, and was near enough to interfere for its prevention. If they believed that she committed the crime with her own hands, they would, of course, find her guilty; or if they thought that she was present, aiding and abetting at the time it was committed, they were by their oaths bound to find a verdict of guilty. If, upon a candid and dispassionate consideration of the evidence, they arrived at the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain either of those charges, the prisoner was entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Before he proceeded to recapitulate to them the substance of the evidence which had been offered for their consideration, he could not refrain from earnestly requesting them to dismiss from their minds anything they might have heard or read on the subject. He begged that they would use their best endeavours to free their minds from all prejudice,and approach the solemn duty which they had to perform with minds as much as possible freed from any prepossession whatsoever, and decide solely upon the evidence that day offered in Court. The evidence given on the trial was of the description called circumstantial, or indirect testimony; but it often happened, that some of the very greatest crimes were detected, exposed, and the offenders convicted upon indirect evidence. No doubt direct testimony was the most satisfactory, for that gave the Jury the advantage of hearing the facts sworn to in the plainest manner by eye-witnesses; and when their veracity could be relied upon, nothing, of course, could be better than testimony of this nature. It happened, however, that in some cases circumstantial evidence led the mind as directly to a conclusion as direct evidence; for facts were in such cases positively sworn to by such a number of witnesses as could seldom be obtained to testify directly, and were free from the suspicion of being actuated by a bad motive to give evidence against the party accused. The first point to which they would direct their attention was, did they believe the witnesses examined had spoken the truth? Secondly, could they reconcile the facts sworn to, with no other supposition, than that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the crime of which she stood accused? If it was impossible for them to reconcile it with any other supposition in the ordinary course of human affairs, then were they bound to pronounce a verdict of guilty. There was another point of view in which they might consider the evidence—namely, that though the prisoner neither committed the murder, nor was present at its commission, yet that she might have spirited away the child with a view to its being deprived of life, and have delivered her over to others for that purpose.Should they take such a view as that of the evidence, the prisoner would be undoubtedly entitled to their acquittal; for then she would be in the eye of the law an accessory before the fact, and, as such, she could not be found guilty under the present indictment. He had further to call their attention to that which was the duty of jurors, in all cases, which was, to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt which, upon a careful review of the evidence, presented itself to their minds; she was entitled to the full benefit of that doubt, and, if it existed, to be discharged from their bar; that there was, as they must fully remember, no direct evidence against the prisoner, proving that she actually committed the murder with her own hands—nay, it had been shown that she was of a humane disposition, and affectionate in her conduct towards children. Neither did it appear that she was under the influence of any feelings leading to the commission of a crime of that nature; but, unfortunately, the experience they had had in that court enabled them to assign a motive of no very ordinary character—that of selling the human body to those who wanted it for dissection; or, as might possibly be the case with the prisoner, of delivering over the unfortunate child to those who would put an end to her existence for purposes of that nature. When he should have restated to them the evidence, they would say whether or not the prisoner had been actuated by such a motive. His lordship then recapitulated, most minutely, the whole of the evidence. When he got to the end of the first part, he observed, that he presumed they would not have much difficulty in saying whether or not the child died a natural death, or lost her life through violent means. If they were of opinion that she had been murdered, then they would consider whether or not the circumstantialevidence brought home the guilt of the offence to the prisoner then at the bar. There certainly was no direct positive proof, yet the prisoner was seen with the child at a time near to that at which she was murdered. Again, some child was seen with her still nearer to the important moment; and in the absence of all proof that she had in the interval taken up another child, the jury would say how far there was proof upon which to convict her. The learned Judge then proceeded to enumerate the leading facts of this point of the evidence, and to detail the conduct of the prisoner upon being taxed with the crime, observing, that doubtless the natural and proper course for all persons accused of such a crime was, if innocent, at once to explain the whole matter, by a full and candid statement of the truth; at the same time, it was by no means uncommon for ill-educated persons, when wrongfully charged with an offence, to endeavour to get rid of it by some false statement. He then proceeded to the evidence of the surgeons, and having thus gone through the whole case for the prosecution, he repeated, that if the jury could not reconcile that body of evidence with any other supposition than that she was not entirely innocent, they were bound to find the prisoner guilty. It was, he then said, the opinion of some of the surgeons, that considerable violence had been used, such a degree of violence as a female would not be likely to inflict. It was, therefore, probable that some other person was engaged in the atrocious transaction, and it was for them to say whether they considered the man and woman, whom the boy Newton swore to have rushed from the privy, to be the murderers. Finally, he had to tell them, that if they could reconcile the facts to any possible supposition but that the prisoner was a principal—that is, was either the actual murderer, or present, aidingand abetting—then they must acquit her. Again, even though they might suppose her an accessory before the fact, she was still entitled to an acquittal, in a word, if they entertained any reasonable doubt whatever that she was according to the legal definition a principal, they could not find her guilty.

The Jury retired a few minutes to six o'clock, and did not return till half-past seven. In the mean time the prisoner was removed from the bar, maintaining her self-possession to the last. When the jury returned into Court, at the end of nearly two hours, the accused woman was again placed at the bar; in the interval she had become much paler than during the trial, and she was then attended by two men, one at each side, as well as by the female attendant of the prison.

Back to Index Next