generally; I am not clear in what capacity he wished him to go, but I think he mentioned Van Diemen's Land; I understood the defendant to say that the plaintiff's wife was as fond of drink as himself, and rather as an accessary to it; on the third day I informed the defendant that I did not think his brother insane; on the first morning I thought he was incoherent, but that might have been the effect of liquor, operating on a mind otherwise sound; I have made up my mind since, that it was; Mr A. Fletcher never called for any answer to the paper which he gave me, and never came afterwards; that was on the Wednesday. I have never seen anything but what was perfectly correct on the part of Mr Robert Fletcher, except when his breath has given me reason to believe that he had been drinking. I will not attempt to draw the nice distinction between drunkenness and madness.

The certificates, and a letter from Mr Alexander Fletcher, desiring Mr Fox to receive the plaintiff in his house, were put in in evidence.

Mr J. Hopke.-I am a surgeon, and reside in Radcliffe-Highway. In the month of July, 1822, I was requested by a Mr Crow to see the plaintiff for the purpose of examining him, that I might give a certificate for the plaintiff to be received into a private madhouse. I did see him by the desire of the defendant. I afterwards saw the defendant, and told him that I found the plaintiff quite rational; that he said there was a dispute between him and his brother respecting property, and that I saw no reason to sign a certificate. I asked the defendant whether there was any truth in the statement that there was a dispute between him and his brother respecting property? The defendant said there was some truth in it. I then

said that there was the less reason for giving a certificate.

The questions put by Mr Robert Fletcher to the defendant were read. They related to books of accounts, and money left by their uncle. Some of the questions were answered, and some were passed over, and some of the answers professed ignorance.

Mr Robert Hedges. I am assistant of the last witness. The plaintiff attended me as an instructor in the classics up to within one or two days of his being taken to Mr Fox's asylum. I had opportunities of observing the state of his mind, and never entertained any idea of his being insane. I went and paid him a visit at Mr Fox's, and found him perfectly collected, and as much master of himself as I was.-[This witness stepped back to state that he knew Mrs Fletcher, upon whom some aspersions had been cast, and he knew nothing at all of her that would prevent him from choosing her as a companion for his wife. The reflections he had heard cast upon her had quite harrowed up his feelings.]

John Nicholson, one of the head scholars in the plaintiff's school, stated that he had about forty or fifty scholars. The school began to decline after the plaintiff's confinement at Mr Fox's. It declined to twelve scholars, and then he gave up the school. Two guineas a-quarter were paid for me.

Mrs Adams produced a letter. It was from the defendant to the plaintiff, and was dated the 22d of December, 1822. It requested that the witness would call on the plaintiff, and propose to him to leave the country, promising, if he would do so, the defendant would assist him.

Mr Ebenezer Temple stated that he lived in the defendant's house. He remembered Mr Robert Fletcher call

ing at the defendant's house, in July last, and applying to see the defendant. He could not say whether the door was shut against him, but he did not see him.

Cross-examined.-About a week before the plaintiff was taken to Mr Fox's I was at the defendant's at Ho merton. I heard a knocking at the door. There was nobody at home but myself and the servant, who went down, and she would not let him in. He then went round to the garden, and he said he would not leave the premises until he had stabbed the d-d hypocrite. He was going to pull off his breeches, but I went out and persuaded him not to do so, and he buttoned them up again. He rolled upon the ground and foamed at the mouth. I considered him insane, As we were going down the lane he said he would pull the hair off my skull, and I ran a little way from him. He used violent threats against his brother, and laughed and cried alternately. He spoke sometimes in the same breath, both kindly and with threats of his brother. I have seen him conduct himself in chapel-not on the 20th of July, but at other times-most offensively. He called his brother to come forth in Latin, "In the name of God, I call thee, my brother." He impressed me with a belief that he was insane. This happened about two Sundays ago.

The Chief-Justice-Brother Taddy, how can you go on after this?

Mr Serjeant Taddy.-It is a ques

stood there was not the least taunt on his client.

Mr Serjeant Vaughan was in his Lordship's hands.-Mr Serjeant Taddy, after some little delay, said, that he consented to his Lordship's proposal.

The Chief-Justice said it was the best course.

Mr Serjeant Vaughan said a few words on the forbearance and the spirit of lenity manifested by the defendant; and he almost trembled for the consequence of that lenity.

Mr Serjeant Pell for the defendant.-Mr Knight said that under the circumstances he would consent to withdraw a juror.

The Chief-Justice perfectly agreed with the observations that had fallen from Mr Serjeant Vaughan as to the conduct of the plaintiff Fletcher, and observed, that if the cause had proceeded much farther, it was probable that this unfortunate plaintiff would have had to pay those costs from which he would now be exempted; and he hoped that still something would be done for him. No imputation could rest on Mr Knight. His Lordship also eulogized the conduct of Mr Fox.

A juror was then withdrawn.

TRIAL OF JAMES AFFLECK, FOR BLASPHEMOUS PUBLICATIONS.

tification to carry the verdict.

The Chief-Justice suggested that even now it would be best to withdraw a juror.

Mr Serjeant Pell, who appeared separately for Mr Knight, thought he ought to have a verdict, but he would undertake not to ask for costs. He was anxious that it should be under

July 31.

On Monday James Affleck was placed at the bar, charged with vending seditious and blasphemous publications.

When the clerk was about to read the indictment, the Lord JusticeClerk observed, that, in consideration

of the nature of the extracts which it was necessary to read, the Court relied that the good sense and discretion of those connected with the public press would suggest to them the propriety of refraining from giving them farther publicity.

The indictment having been read, (which occupied an hour,) the usual interrogatory was put to the prisoner, who replied, "Guilty of selling the books libelled, and I refer to my counsel for an explanation of the cir

cumstances."

The Jury having returned a verdict of Guilty in terms of the prisoner's confession,

Mr Jeffrey rose to address the Court in mitigation of punishment; the learned gentleman founded his hopes of the leniency of the Court being extended to his client on his candid confessions and the contrition he had shown for the imprudence of which he had been guilty, and on which he was anxious to avoid a protracted discussion. Fortunately for the country the offence might be considered a new one, a trial for blasphemy not having taken place in that Court in the memory of man. The prisoner early in life became a militiaman; that force having been disembodied, he assisted his brother, who was a grocer in this city, and afterwards he commenced for himself in the same line. Had the trial gone on, very respectable evidence would have been adduced of his inoffensive character. He had been visited by heavy domestic calamity, which exhausted the profits of his trade, and induced him to commence bookseller in a certain line, hoping to overcome his difficulties; and he (Mr J.) was not there to disguise that the publications he sold were objectionable, but he had not in any part of his previous life been concerned in such traffic. The prisoner was not altogether ignorant

of the nature of them, as he was aware his speculation was hazardous, but his ignorance of the trade might be allowed to be some palliation. The books libelled on were to be found in the catalogues of the most respectable booksellers; this he did not mean to say formed any ground of defence, or could alter the law, but surely it might tend to mitigate the punishment. The prisoner had voluntarily given up the whole of the obnoxious publications, and had assured his Majesty's Advocate of his determination to refrain altogether from vending such works, and if the Court, consistent with its duty, could pass from severity of punishment, it would have the assent of the public prosecutor. The prisoner, at considerable pecuniary hazard, did shut up his bookselling shop and reading-room, and resumed his grocery business, trusting by industry to obtain a livelihood for his family, consisting of a wife and several children. The learned gentleman, in conclusion, hoped the Court would consider the offence sufficiently marked to the world, and humbly trusted, that as his client, up to the time of committing the offence, had maintained a good character, the ends of justice might be answered by the publicity of the conviction.

The Lord Justice-Clerk gave great praise to the learned gentleman for the course he had adopted, as one more safe could not have been taken.

Lord Hermand rejoiced in the event of this trial, and thought that, all circumstances considered, moderate punishment would be the best, and he should therefore propose, that the prisoner be imprisoned for three calendar months in the jail of Edinburgh, and find security for his future conduct in the sum of 1007.

Lord Gillies expressed his high approval of the candid, proper, and be

coming defence, and was happy to concur in the proposed lenient punish

ment.

Lord Pitmilly was happy the Court had been relieved by the judicious and sensible defence of the prisoner's counsel, which had enabled them to do that which, otherwise, they could not have done.

Lord Succouth expressed the astonishment and horror he had felt on perusing the indictment, and thought the prisoner was much obliged to the learned gentleman. His Lordship was happy to concur in the proposed sentence, and trusted no mistaken view would be taken of the case, for on recurrence of the offence it would be absolutely necessary to visit the party with exemplary punishment.

Lord Meadowbank said the prisoner had made the only atonement in his power, and an eminent counsel had given it the weight of his authority.

The Lord Justice-Clerk also felt happy in the result of this trial, which he trusted would have a salutary effect. The case was the only one of the kind during a long period, and was of a very aggravated nature; for what man who looked at the law, or the happiness and prosperity of the country, but must reflect with astonishment and horror that there could exist such a spirit. The prisoner had deviated from the path of duty, and had lent himself to others; but fortunately he had seen his error, had become sensible of the crime he had committed, and had pleaded guilty. The learned gentleman had taken an extremely beneficial course for the interest of the prisoner and the country by his good sense and proper statement, and his Lordship trusted it would have due effect in preventing others from committing similar offences. A vigilant eye will be on the watch; the law will be as promptly carried into effect as in England, and

VOL. XVII. PART II.

no such excuse will be admitted, as it will not then be in the power of the Court to award a lenient punishment. The present was the first case of the kind in this part of the kingdom, and he trusted it would be the last. His Lordship severely condemned the publications libelled on, as obscene, blasphemous, and infamous. In conclusion, he said he saw no reason to doubt the sincerity of the prisoner's contrition, who, he trusted, would avoid in future to embark in such a dangerous trade. Sentence of imprisonment for three months was then passed, at the expiration of which the prisoner was to find security for his future good conduct in the sum of 100l.

WEXFORD ASSIZES.

Wednesday, August 4.

TRIAL OF JOHN CARROLL, POPISH PRIEST, AND OTHERS, FOR MURDER OF A CHILD.

This morning, Mr Justice Johnson entered the court precisely at half past nine.

Mr Sheil appeared, to put off this trial until next morning.

Counsel for the crown would not accede to the postponement.

John Carroll, Nicholas Wickham, James Devereux, Patrick Parel, Nicholas Corrish, and Walter Scallan, the three latter of whom had surrendered since the previous day, were then placed at the bar.

It was stated that the prisoners would not join in their challenges.

Mr Driscoll. Then we must try them separately. The other prisoners were withdrawn from the bar, and Father Carroll alone allowed to remain.

The panel was here called over. It

I

consisted of 300 names, 116 of whom answered. There were several challenges, principally on behalf of the prisoners; and at eleven o'clock the Jury was sworn.

Mr Dixon, counsel for the prisoners, said, that the Jury having been sworn, he would now allow all the prisoners to be tried together. All the prisoners were then put to the bar, and the indictment having been read, and the several prisoners given in charge,

Mr Driscoll, K. C. stated the case for the crown. He said that this was one of the most distressing cases that ever came before a criminal court of justice, whether it were viewed in reference to the reverend character of the prisoner at the bar, or as one in which the life of a fellow-creature had been forfeited. The King, for whom he prosecuted, had a right to know by what means one of his subjects came by her death, and the Jury were placed in that box for the purpose of ascertaining the fact. A case of a similar nature to that which he was now about to state to them, never before occurred in Ireland, nor was there a parallel to be found for it in the annals of the British history. Before, however, his going into the merits of the case, he would call upon the Jury to dismiss from their minds all impressions injurious to the prisoner, whether received through the medium of the newspapers, or conveyed by public rumour. He would call on the Jury to spiritualize themselves, and be influenced entirely in the verdict they should give, by the evidence which should be laid before them. The defence to be set up was well known; and the counsel for the prisoner in dicted as the principal, could not feel greater pleasure in establishing that defence than he (Mr Driscoll) should, in having it clearly ascertained, that this atrocious murder was committed

while the prisoner was labouring under mental derangement. The priso ner at that bar, and he stated it with regret, was a clergyman-a minister of the Almighty; and it was a lamentable, a melancholy thing, to find a man of his cloth and calling mixed up in a transaction such as the present. He stands at the bar to take his trial for his life, and for the heinous crime of slaying a fellow-creature. The indictment tells you that the victim which he has sacrificed was only three and a half years old, sacrificed under peculiar circumstances of barbarity, and slaughtered in her parents' house. Gentlemen of the Jury, before you can acquit the prisoner, you must be convinced that it had pleased God to take away his best, his greatest gift to man-reason, and leave in its stead darkness and distraction. Should you come to such a decision, the spirit of the law will walk with the prisoner, and bring him out unhurt. This unfortunate man fancied that, in imitation of our Saviour, he could expel devils; and in one of those exorcisms was the murder, which is the subject of the present investigation, committed. There are other persons indicted with the reverend gentleman, who assisted at the melancholy sacrifice; one who brought a light at his command (for it was night), and others by supplying the fatal tub with which the murder was effected, and for assisting and aiding, by their presence and encouragement, in its perpetra tion. If those persons were aware that murder was intended, they are guilty as accessaries. If, however, they were the victims of a bestted superstition, and acquiesced under the impression that a miracle would really be performed, you must take from the Judge, whether, in the eye of the law, they are, in such a case, guilty of murder. If," said Mr Driscoll, "I employ a maniac to com

66