never to have been used for any other purpose; he was unable to account for the other circumstances, and refused to answer several pertinent questions.

Mr Combe, surgeon, stated, that he was called to dress Moffat's wounds on the morning in question. Does not conceive it probable that these wounds could have been inflicted in the manner described by the panel in his declaration. Supposes that a wound inflicted by raising the arm to ward off the intended blow, would have been exactly of the same description as that which he saw on the arm of Mr Moffat, provided the edge of the knife was held downwards. Considers it highly probable that the blow would have been fatal if it had not been warded off with the arm.

Defence.

The following evidence was then called by the panel's counsel :

Mr John Harvey, a solicitor in Leith, examined by Mr Robertson. Had known Mr Hay for about four years. Two years ago he applied to him for professional advice. He said he had some property, and feared some one was going to take it from him. He said he wished to talk with witness in private; witness took him into a private room where he opened his story; it was very inconsistent; and witness felt convinced the panel had no property whatever, and that he was operated on by some delusion. The panel was admitted into the Corporation of Weavers. A member expressed his surprise at the panel being introduced, observing, that he was only likely to be a burden to their funds; witness was of the same opinion. Witness afterwards discovered that he had property, because he conveyed some from him to a client. Wit

ness thought him of a sound mind, though he considered him a weak man, and that there was a great deal of mental imbecility about him..

Mr Steadman, merchant - tailor, Leith, had known the panel for fourteen or fifteen years past. He frequented his house once a-week, or oftener. His disposition was quite simple and innocent. Witness really thought he was not in the full possession of his intellects, and considered him of so silly a nature as to afford game for his people rather than anything else. From his infancy upwards he might sometimes have been called " daft Hay."

The Lord-Advocate then addressed the Jury on the part of the Crown. Mr P. Robertson addressed the Jury for the panel.

The Lord Justice-Clerk summed up the evidence in a very compendious and distinct manner, and deduced from the law and evidence of the case, that the plea of insanity had totally failed, and that the crimes charged had been fully proved against the panel.

The Jury, after about a minute's deliberation, without retiring, returned a verdict, by the mouth of their Chancellor, J. W. Brougham, Esq. unanimously finding the panel Guilty of the crimes libelled.

Lord Hermand, after remarking that it would be necessary to apply to the legislature for an extension of the capital punishment in the case of maiming to Scotland, if this crime should continue to make any progress here, proposed the same punishment which had recently been awarded in a somewhat similar case-namely, public whipping, and transportation for fourteen years.

The Lord Justice-Clerk informed the panel, that if his crime had been committed in England, and followed

by a similar conviction there, nothing could have relieved the Judges from the duty of pronouncing upon him the last sentence of the law; and he fully concurred in what had fallen from Lord Hermand, as to the expediency of applying to Parliament for the extension of Lord Ellenborough's act to Scotland, if this crime should not be arrested by the present example. His Lordship pronounced the sentence of the Court, that on Wednesday, the 18th instant, the prisoner be publicly whipped on his naked back through the streets of Leith, which he had disgraced by his crimes; and that he be afterwards transported beyond the seas for fourteen years from this date.

The prisoner, after the admonition of the Lord Justice-Clerk at an early part of the proceedings, continued in a real or counterfeit stupor, seldom exhibiting any signs of animation, except when he had recourse to his snuff-box. His appearance was pale and sickly, and he walked lamely out of Court.

sion, fired the shot at Mr Franks which deprived him of life.

Mr Sergeant Goold stated the circumstances of the case to the Jury, as they were subsequently detailed by

He

Edward Magner, the accomplice, who remembered the murder, and was at it. He had been previously at the house of a person named Power, at Shanballymore; this was in the month of May, upon which occasion he saw the three prisoners there, whom he now identified. They drank to him, and asked him to go murder the Franks, and he said he would. left them then, and didn't see them till two nights before the murder, when, being then at home, a man came to him, and told him to be ready. He said he would, and went from thence to one Thomas Barry's, at Ballyduff, where he remained reaping till the night of the murder, when, at about four o'clock, he left it, taking with him a woman's cap and gown; he proceeded from thence to his own house, where he got a pistol, and then went to Mr Franks's kitchen-garden, where he saw the three prisoners, who had appointed to meet him there. At this time he had on the cap and gown; it was about six o'clock. Pat Cremin had an apron and shawl on, just as a woman would wear them; they had pikes and bayonets on sticks. They went into the kitchen of Mr Franks's house, through the hall; there was a table, with a cloth, jug, and a candle lighted, on it. Mr Franks was sitting at it, and the witness asked for arms; he said he had none, but would send for them; witness and prisoner then went to a cupboard, and threw out the things; a poker, which was on the top of it, fell, and J. Cremin took it up. P. Cremin then took up the jug, threw it in Mr Franks's face, and the witness fired the pistol at him, which had a ball and two slugs

in it. At this time he was standing up, having risen when the jug was thrown at him, when Patrick struck him with the poker, and he fell. Young Mr Franks, who was present all the time, then took up a chair to defend himself, when he was struck by a man, who is not present, on the arm, which was broken. The light had been put out, and they then twisted the table-cloth round Mrs Franks's head, to prevent her from making a noise, as she was screeching while they were killing the rest. They were all then killed. The party consisted of nine altogether, of whom one assumed the command; and when young Mr Franks was thrown down, that person said, "Do your duty."

This witness was cross-examined by Mr O'Connell. He made one of those exhibitions which characters like him always do under similar circumstances. They killed them all, he said; and if the Counsel himself was there, or Major Carter, or any one else, they would have been killed. He would go up to his knees in blood-would kill Major Carter with pleasure; and who knows, if he was let out, but he would kill more. 'Tis two years since he took the Whiteboy's oath-he forgets part of it; part of the oath is to do everything he was ordered; and he would kill men, women, and children, if he was desired. He had been tried and convicted under the insurrection act; he did not like to go away, but he wouldn't swear, except in honesty, to be allowed to stay at home. Three weeks after he was convicted, he told Major Carter about this business; only for that, maybe he would be transported. He had been at the burning of four or five houses, and would have burned more, if he was ordered. He had murdered all the Franks, and would murder more, if ordered.

After the murder he slept, got up next day, worked, and was as cheerful as ever. The witness gave all the answers, which exhibited him in such an atrocious character, with perfect ease, but in nothing did he vary from his direct evidence.

Mary Myers was next examined.— She stated that she had recently lived in Dublin; before that at Major Carter's; and, previous to that, at Scarf. She knew the Cremins, whom she identified, and had known them for some time. She knew Mr and Mrs Franks, with whom she lived, but not as a servant, at Lisnagourneen. She recollects the night of their death at their own house; they were killed; she was in the room at the time, and saw a good many of the party; she knew only the Cremins; the three were there. When the party were coming in, Mr Franks got up, and went out against them, but they pushed him in; there was a light in the room, and a candle on the table. Mr and Mrs Franks, and young Mr Franks, had dined at the table, and there was some pork, and plates, and knives, and forks, and tea, and some jugs on it. One of the party had a pistol, and two more had guns; some of them were dressed in their dayclothes, and one of them in woman's clothes. When they came in first they threw down the table, then shot Mr Franks, and beat him with a crow-bar and a pike; they then beat young Mr Franks with the crowbar; he had done nothing to them, but cried for mercy; they said, “You have no mercy to get, you rascals;" they then turned to Mrs Franks; two of them searched her pockets, and then beat her with the crow-bar; they remained for a good while. The witness was all this time under a table in the same room.

Mr Justice Torrens summed up, and the Jury retired, and remained

in consultation a few minutes, when they returned a verdict of Guilty in all the counts against the three pri

soners.

His Lordship proceeded to pass sentence of death on them for one of the foulest crimes that had ever been perpetrated, when he was interrupted by a cry from all the prisoners, that "it was a wrong charge!" When silence was restored, he said, that a few hours ago he had heard a like declaration of innocence from one who, like them, had been found guilty of an atrocious murder (alluding to Linnehan, who was executed this day for the murder of the policeman); but he had the satisfaction to know, that since then he had acknowledged the crime, and the justice of the sentence that had been passed upon him. He then proceeded, in the most awful and impressive manner, to pass sentence of death upon them.

pupils.

pupils. The defendant, the Rev. Alexander Fletcher, is a minister of a Scotch congregation meeting, at. Albion Chapel, Moorfields, and he (the learned serjeant) believed a favourite preacher. It was his (the learned serjeant's) duty to state the facts shortly in detail. An uncle of these two gentlemen, a Mr Gilfillan, who lived in Scotland, died some time ago, and left the plaintiff and defendant an interest in certain property. The defendant had admitted that there was money, for which he would have accounted to the plaintiff, but for certain reasons, which the Jury would hear this day. The plaintiff had wished to refer their differences; but the defendant had refused to account in any way to his brother, until he "returned to the Lord!" When the learned serjeant cited that expression, he did not mean to cast ridicule upon the defendant, or to charge him with hypocrisy; but he used it to shew that at that time he considered his brother in a sane state, and not in that state which the defendant thought proper to act upon afterwards. Proposals were made by the plaintiff to his brother to no purpose, and he endeavoured at last to obtain an interview with him. On the 20th of July 1823, being Sunday, not having then seen his brother for two years, Mr Robert Fletcher went to the chapel in Moorfields, in the evening, just at the close of the service, and when the congregation was dispersing. He endeavoured to go into the vestry, but he met with resistance, and did not effect his purpose of seeing his brother. It had been suggested that the plaintiff was violent and intoxicated; the Jury would say whether these suggestions would be borne out in evidence. But look at what took place afterwards. Two constables were called in by the defendant, who de

sired them to take the plaintiff to the watch-house. The other defendant, Knight, insisted that the plaintiff should be taken to the private madhouse of Mr Fox, at Cambridge Heath, Hackney. On being conveyed there he begged to be taken home, and they told him they were taking him home. If the state of the plaintiff's mind had been anything short of insanity, the most dangerous course would have been to have taken him to a mad-house. The defendant, Knight, who is a medical person, wrote a certificate in these words:"This is to certify, that I consider Mr Robert Fletcher a fit person to be put under your care." This was signed by Knight, and was directed to Mr Fox. When they arrived at the mad-house Mr Fox was not at home, but on seeing the certificate, he observed it was not conformable to the act of parliament; and Mr Knight, upon this, wrote another certificate, regular in form, but most irregular in substance:-" In conse. quence of sufficient personal examination, I hereby certify that Mr Robert Fletcher is of insane mind, and that suitable confinement in your care is necessary for his state." The defendant gave orders that the plaintiff's wife should not see him, and Mr Fox himself took upon him to let him see his wife. The next fact he had -to state would create surprise. While the plaintiff was in the mad-house, his brother made proposals to him to go as a missionary to Van Diemen's Land, and to allow him a small pension for his support. In this letter the defendant spoke of his brother as being likely abroad to lead a life of usefulness and honour. Was such a letter consistent with an idea of his brother being insane? If it were proved that the plaintiff had been de prived of his liberty without cause, and from whatever motives, the Jury

would visit such an attack with the most exemplary damages.

John Markwell, the elder.-I am one of the constables of Moorgate; I was on duty on Sunday evening, July 20, 1823. Mr Fletcher's chapel, the Albion, is near the watchhouse; Mr Robert Fletcher came to the watch-house on that evening, with several other persons; he appeared to be very violent, like a drunken man; he was there about an hour. I did not see the defendant there at all. The defendant, Mr Christopher Knight, came in about twenty minutes afterwards; before that he had his coat off, and was noisy; he was not so violent when Mr Knight came in ; Mr Knight said that he had been making a disturbance in the chapel, and I said that if there were a proper charge given of him, I should think it my duty to take him to the compter; Mr Knight went backwards and forwards two or three times; Knight said that he was insane, and he would give a certificate for him to be taken to a proper place; I said I thought it was my duty to take him to the compter, but that was over-ruled by Knight; I do not recollect seeing Knight talking to the plaintiff at all; Knight said that Mr Robert Fletcher was a lunatic, and he would send him to a madhouse, and exonerate all parties; a coach came. I am sure his brother was in the chapel just by; it was about eight o'clock; several persons got into the coach, but Mr Knight did not go with us; we went to Mr Fox's, at Hackney; no directions were given to any one to go to his wife to let her know where he was going; in the coach he was not violent, but he spoke against his brother; he asked where they were taking him, and he was told he was going home. When they got to Shoreditch church, he said, you are not