The Chronicles of Crime or The New Newgate Calendar. v. 2/2 / being a series of memoirs and anecdotes of notorious characters who have outraged the laws of Great Britain from the earliest period to 1841

CAPTAIN WILLIAM MOIR.

EXECUTED FOR MURDER.

On Wednesday, the 24th of March, 1830, a poor man named Malcolm, residing at Hammersmith, quitted home, in a boat, accompanied by his apprentice, and a brother fisherman, named Duke, for the purpose of fishing. They proceeded to Shell-haven Creek, where Malcolm threw out his nets. In a short time Captain Moir made his appearance, armed with a knife, and accompanied by a servant named Raven, and ordered the nets to be removed. Malcolm offered some observations of abuse towards him, and reluctantly retired; but he was proceeding across Captain Moir’s meadows, intending to go to the house of a man named Baker, when he was called back, and ordered to go round by the sea-wall. He directed some further abuse towards the captain, and took off his jacket, as if to fight him, but at length he went away. Captain Moir then returned to his house, and Malcolm and his assistants went to Baker’s cottage; but they had not been there more than an hour and a half, when they went back to the Creek, where Malcolm’s boat was lying. At this time Malcolm had a boat-hook over his shoulder, to which was suspended a basket of potatoes, which he had obtained from Davis, and the party was again crossing Captain Moir’s premises, Malcolm being about seven yards in advance, when the captain and his servant were seen riding furiously towards them. The former exclaimed that he thought he had ordered them not to trespass upon his lands; and Malcolm answered that he would go, or that he might go and be d—d, the precise observation not having been distinctly heard; and then Captain Moir suddenly presenting a pistol, discharged it at him. Malcolm exclaimed, that his arm was broken, and dropped his boat-hook; and the captain threatened his companions, to serve them in the same manner, if they did not instantly retire.

Malcolm was soon afterwards carried back to Davis’ cottage, where he was attended by Mr. Dodd, a surgeon, at the direction of Captain Moir, and was found to be in a position of so great danger as to render his immediate removal necessary. The poor man was subsequently attacked with lock-jaw, and died after the lapse of two or three days. A conversation took place between Captain Moir and Mr. Dodd upon the subject, upon the day of the occurrence, when the former justified his conduct, declared that his land was his castle, and that he would do the same again on the next day, under similar circumstances.

A coroner’s inquest having been held upon the body of the deceased fisherman, a verdict of Wilful Murder was returned, and Captain Moir was committed to Chelmsford jail, to take his trial at the ensuing assizes.

The case came on for investigation at Chelmsford before Lord Tenterden, on Friday the 30th July, when every exertion was used on behalf of the accused, but to no purpose, and a verdict of Guilty was returned upon the capital charge. The prisoner urged the absence of all malice on his part towards the deceased, and alleged that he had been compelled to retain loaded pistols constantly in his house, in consequence of the desperate characters by which his neighbourhood was surrounded. All, however, was of no avail, and sentence of death was passed in the usual terms.

After his conviction, a strong and urgent appeal was made on his behalf to the government, founded upon the suggestion that there was little doubt that the act on the part of the unhappy man had been dictated by insanity. It was declared, however, that it was too late to hope for mercy upon any such grounds, which ought to have been made the subject of inquiry at the trial, where, had they proved well founded, they would have relieved the prisoner from all criminal responsibility. To this answer the obstinacy of the unfortunate gentleman, who refused to offer any extenuating circumstances in his own favour to the jury, which should subject him to perpetual imprisonment, was replied, but all was of no avail, and the sentence of the law was directed to take its course.

In the mean time, the wretched prisoner, unconscious of the measures which were taken by his friends with a view to secure his safety, diligently applied himself to the only duty remaining for him to perform on earth,—that of making his peace with the Almighty. He attended divine service in the chapel of the jail on Sunday, and was afterwards visited by his wife, then only twenty-eight years of age, his mother, his sister, and some friends, of whom he took a most affectionate farewell. At about seven o’clock on Monday morning he received the sacrament, and expressed himself perfectly resigned to his fate, declaring at the same moment, that he had not the smallest degree of animosity against the ill-fated man whose death he had caused, and whom he had had no intention to kill. Throughout the dreadful concluding scene of his life, he conducted himself in the calmest manner. He ascended the scaffold, declaring that he was at peace with all mankind, and repeatedly denied that he had had any feeling of unkindness towards Malcolm. At nine o’clock, the fatal bolt was drawn, and the ill-fated gentleman died instantaneously. His body was subsequently delivered over to the surgeons for dissection; but after such an anatomical process as was sufficient to fulfil the terms of the sentence, it was humanely sent to his disconsolate widow for interment.

Captain Moir at the time of his execution, which it will be seen took place on the 2nd of August, 1830, was only thirty-six years of age. He was a remarkably fine man, and stood upwards of six feet in height. He was brother-in-law to Sir James G. Baird (a near relative to the gallant Sir David Baird), and was first-cousin to Sir William Rae, at the time of his execution the Lord Advocate for Scotland. He was descended on his grandmother’s side from the heroic Bruce, and was also connected with the distinguished families of Blair of Blair, the Stewarts, and the Butes.

The unfortunate man who was the victim of his crime was of the same age with himself, and left a wife and six children. He had long been known upon the Essex coast as a fisherman, and had frequented the spot for several years where he unfortunately met his death.

JOHN SMITH, alias WILLIAM SAPWELL.

EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF A POLICEMAN.

The necessity of some improvement in the police of the metropolis had long been felt; and the utter inadequacy of the few Bow-street patrol hitherto employed to guard the streets of London by day, and of the watchmen, upon whom the same duty devolved by night, had for a considerable time attracted the attention of the public and of parliament. Committees of the House of Commons sat for the purpose of receiving evidence upon the subject, and a vast number of suggestions were thrown out upon the subject of the proper measures which should be taken with a view to obviate the existing difficulty. Statements were published in many of the newspapers, in which the faults of the system were pointed out, and partial remedies suggested; but it was universally felt that no amendment of the plan then in operation could be sufficient to secure the object in view, and that a general and complete alteration and re-organisation of the whole police of the metropolis was requisite. A plan of this description was long and ably advocated in a weekly journal of large sale (Bell’s Life in London), the Editor of which had turned a great portion of his attention to a subject so nearly connected with the most minute interests of the community. A series of articles appeared in that newspaper, upon which there can be no doubt that the new police system, now so deservedly popular for its competency and for its admirable effects in securing our common safety, was founded. Mr. Peel, at that time Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the session of parliament of the year 1829, introduced a bill to the House of Commons, founded upon principles directly in consonance with those supported in the journal in question—principles which were eventually adopted with the almost unanimous consent of the legislature. The general scheme which was put forth as being most desirable to be carried into effect, was that of making a police throughout England, the centre and focus of which was to be fixed in London, while the great towns throughout the kingdom would act as corresponding agents for the diffusion of that intelligence, the rapid and regular transmission of which was properly looked upon as so important to the success of any system of this description. In London, again, a smaller focus was to be formed under a board of commissioners, who would have daily communication with every division of the metropolis in which the police should be established, as well as with those country districts to which we have already alluded.

The minor details of the measure were to be carried out by the marking out of divisions, to be governed by superintendants, inspectors, serjeants, and privates in their various grades, constant communication being kept up throughout the metropolis, by day as well as by night, between each division. The advantages to be derived from a scheme so comprehensive in its details, and so complete in its organisation, must be at once obvious to the mind of every person; and it is needless to point out to our readers the vast variety of instances in which its effects would be attended with the very best results. It was felt, however, by Mr. Peel, that so large and general a measure could not be carried into operation with immediate success, and that much delay must take place before a universal scheme of rural police could effectually be established. He was yet convinced of the great utility which would be produced, even from its partial adoption; and he lost no time in proposing a bill in parliament, which should have for its object the immediate appointment of a body of men capable of performing all the police duties of the metropolis. The proposition was at once assented to by both houses of the legislature; and on Tuesday the 29th September, 1829, the “new policemen” first entered upon their duties. Their dress, their supposed military character, and the extreme jealousy with which all classes of Englishmen view anything which may be supposed to derogate from their rights and privileges, long conspired to make this most useful force in the highest degree unpopular. Epithets of the most odious character were heaped upon them, attacks both abusive and violent were levelled at them from all quarters, and a few instances of irregularity amongst their numbers were eagerly seized hold of, as arguments to be employed against the general body; but at length the increased safety obtained for the community, the quiet and orderly manner of the men themselves, as well as the improvement in the general conduct of the lower classes, obtained for them a reputation of the very highest description, which those who were originally the most strongly opposed to their introduction now seek, by their most strenuous exertions, to raise. The system which, first, was confined to the limits of the metropolis, has been joyfully extended to all large towns, and to manufacturing neighbourhoods; and so anxious have even the most remote rural districts become for this new safeguard for their property and their lives, that almost every month sees the adoption of the plan in some new quarter. The improvement of the morals of the lower orders is no less than that which has taken place in their manners; and many of the crimes by which society was formerly so frequently disgraced, have, through their activity, now happily disappeared from the dreadful catalogue which the life of degraded man presents.

The offence of which we are about to enter into a description, there can be no doubt was in some degree attributable to that feeling of hatred for the police which was so peculiarly exemplified among the lower orders of the people. Long, the unfortunate object of the attack of this determined murderer, was a police-constable, No. 43, of the G division, and occupied a beat in Gray’s-inn lane. On the night of Monday the 16th of August, 1830, he was engaged in the performance of his duty when, at about half-past twelve o’clock, he observed three men of suspicious appearance lurking about the vicinity. Entertaining an apprehension of their intention to commit a burglary, he communicated his opinions to a brother constable on the adjoining beat; and it was determined that the men should be watched. They remained within Long’s district of duty; and he followed them as far as the burial-ground of St. Andrew’s parish, which is situated at the back of Mecklenburgh-square. Here they stopped and remained in conversation for some time, and Long, believing this to be a favourable opportunity for convincing them of his intention to prevent the success of any marauding schemes which they might have in view, warned them to retire. The words had scarcely escaped the lips of the unfortunate man, ere he was violently seized by the arm by two of the party, while the third stabbed him to the heart. So desperate was the wound, that the murderer was unable to withdraw the weapon with which it was inflicted; but in his effort to do so, he pulled away the handle, and then all three ran off. This diabolical act was witnessed by more than one person, and several individuals instantly rushed to the spot. Long had fallen to the ground, with an exclamation that he was “a dead man;” and upon his head being raised upon the knee of one of the witnesses, he immediately expired. Newton, the constable to whom the unfortunate man had communicated his suspicions, in the mean time had followed the assassins, and Smith was secured by him, having run a considerable distance, and being in a state of the greatest agitation and alarm. Two other persons were also taken into custody; but it turned out that they were unconnected with the dreadful occurrence, and were again set at liberty. The truth of the suspicions of the constable was amply exhibited by the discovery of a number of housebreaking implements near the spot, which it was evident the thieves had intended to employ, but had thrown away in their flight. The handle of the knife was also discovered lying in the road at about one hundred yards from the spot where the murder was committed.

Several examinations of the prisoner subsequently took place before the magistrates at Hatton-garden, and witnesses were called, who swore positively that his was the hand by which the wound was given which had caused the death of the deceased. During his imprisonment, he continued firm in his denial of his participation in the murder, and maintained a sullen silence as to his occupation in life, as well as his connexions. He appeared to associate with none of his fellow-prisoners, except Sheen, the murderer of his child, to whose case we have already alluded, and who was again in confinement on a charge of felony; with whom he was observed to hold frequent and earnest conversations, the result of which did not transpire.

His trial took place at the Old Bailey sessions, on Friday the 17th of September, when it turned out that his name was Sapwell, and that he was a baker by trade. He still protested his innocence; but the evidence of the witnesses being of the most conclusive description, a verdict of guilty was returned, and he was sentenced to be executed on the following Monday.

On the day after his conviction he was visited by his wife and his six children, to whom, as well as to the officers of the jail, he continued loud in his declarations of his having been wrongfully convicted. He asserted that he had been to the Bedford Tea-gardens, at Camden Town, on the night of the murder, and that on his way home he heard a cry of “Stop thief,” and had joined in the pursuit of four men whom he saw running away, when he was himself taken into custody. He was exhorted by the Rev. Mr. Cotton, the ordinary of the prison, to whose humane advice he paid some attention; but he declined to receive the sacrament. In the course of the following day (Sunday) he also received a visit from the Sheriff (Ward), to whom he made no secret of his having intended to commit suicide, if an opportunity had occurred, and with whom he argued against the sinfulness of such a mode of terminating his life. He instanced the cases of Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Whitbread, and other distinguished individuals, who he said were perfectly justified in depriving themselves of existence when it became irksome to them.

On the morning of his execution (the 20th of September, 1830,) he entered freely into conversation with Sheriff Ward, and with new asseverations that he was not guilty of the crime for which he was about to suffer, declared, in an imaginary dialogue with the Almighty, that on his arrival at the gates of heaven, he should be unable to account for his standing there, and that the Almighty would give him admission; protesting, however, that he ought not to have been sent there so soon. He appeared sensible of his situation, and requested that the proceedings on the scaffold might occupy as little time as possible. He was turned off at the usual hour, and his remains were given to the directors of St. George’s Hospital for dissection.

The wretched man occupied the greater part of Saturday and Sunday, previous to his death, in drawing up statements of the manner in which he was by mistake drawn into the situation in which he stood, which amounted simply to a repetition of the story he had related to his family. He appears to have been very illiterate, his letters being both ill-spelt and ill-written, and he expressed none of those fears usually exhibited by persons in his situation.

Smith stabbing a Policeman.
P. 212.

Long, the constable, appears to have been a man of excellent character, having for a considerable time occupied a situation as watchman before he entered the police. He left a wife and several children, for whom a liberal public subscription was afterwards raised.

AGRICULTURAL RIOTS.

In the course of several months, during which these outrages continued, many rioters were apprehended and lodged in jail, and the eventual firm proceedings of the magistrates did much to check the mischievous progress of wilful devastation. In many instances, small villages gave up their peaceful character, and assumed the appearance of military encampments, so long as the fear of danger remained in their vicinity, and not unfrequently the alehouse or the justice’s mansion was converted into a temporary lodging for the prisoners. The first convictions which took place for these atrocious acts of violence were at the quarter sessions for the county of Kent, held at Canterbury on the 24th November, when many prisoners were tried and convicted upon charges of machine-breaking and riot. For the former offence a man named Reid, who had previously suffered imprisonment for lead-stealing, was sentenced to transportation for life; while John Stannard, William Siddars, William Stone, Thomas Strood, Henry Andrews, and Henry Halke were sentenced to seven years’ banishment from the scene of their offences. Other prisoners, who were convicted only of assault and riot, were ordered to be imprisoned for terms varying from six months to two years; and the discovery by the labourers thus of the responsibility to which they subjected themselves did much towards quelling the disturbances, which even yet had not ceased.

Proclamations were subsequently issued offering rewards for the apprehension of all offenders, and before the conclusion of the year a vast number of prisoners had been taken into custody.

At the succeeding assizes these persons were brought to trial, and in Wiltshire, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, and other counties, where the disturbances had assumed the most serious character, the prisoners were tried under a special commission.

Our space prevents our going into the particulars of one tithe of the cases which were tried, or even of those where the malefactors were ordered for execution. Of the latter the number was small as compared with the whole amount in custody, but many of their cases were attended with circumstances of great atrocity. At the assizes at Maidstone, Lewes, and other places on the circuits within the jurisdiction of which these occurrences had taken place, a great number of prisoners were convicted and sentenced to death. Many of the wretched men ascribed their guilt to their having paid attention to the lectures or the writings of Mr. Cobbett; and it is a remarkable fact that few of these rioters stated that they had been driven to the commission of crime by their poverty.

At the Hampshire special commission, held at Winchester, the offences which were brought under the consideration of the learned judges who presided, were those of machine-breaking, arson, extorting money by threats with intent to procure an increase of wages,—and near 300 prisoners were found guilty. On Thursday, the 30th December, 1830, Mr. Baron Vaughan, as the senior judge, proceeded to pass sentence on those who had been convicted. In the dock there were twenty prisoners, in rows of five each; and the other prisoners were so disposed in the jury-box and elsewhere as to hear all that passed.

The judges having put on their black caps, James Thomas Cooper, Henry Elridge, and John Gilmour, were called to the bar. The first two were found guilty of destroying the machinery employed in the manufactory of hemp and flax, the property of Messrs. Thompson, at Earl Mill, in the parish of Fordingbridge; and the latter for destroying the machinery employed in the foundry of Messrs. Robert and William Tasker, in the parish of Upper Clatford; to which the law affixed the punishment of death. Cooper had been particularly active as the captain or leader of the rioters, and was mounted on a horse giving the word of command. He was called Captain Hunt.

Mr. Baron Vaughan addressed these men with great eloquence, and in the most feeling manner, on the enormity of their offences and the necessity in their persons of making a severe example with the view of deterring others from the commission of similar offences hereafter. Having pointed out the aggravated character of the conduct of the prisoners, he forewarned them that their fate was fixed, and there remained for them no hope of mercy on this side the grave. His lordship then passed the awful sentence of death.

Cooper and Elridge were deeply affected—the latter nearly fainted; but Gilmour behaved with the most stoical apathy.

Robert Holdaway, James Annalls, and Henry Cooke were then placed at the bar. They had been convicted—Holdaway of demolishing, with others, the poor-house belonging to the parishes of Headly, Bramshot, and Kingley.—James Annalls, of robbery from the person of William Courtnay, of Barton Stacey; and Henry Cooke, of robbery from the person of Thomas Dowden. These were all cases of peculiar aggravation, and as in the case of the three previous convicts, the prisoners were told to prepare for death, from which no hope of reprieve was to be entertained. In alluding to the crimes of these men, Mr. Baron Vaughan made the following important remarks:—“I believe that there are a little short of a hundred persons whose lives are now forfeited to the state for their participation in the guilt of these transactions. It is my firm and decided conviction, that many persons engaged in them under a delusion, and instigated by the practices of artful and evil-designing men. I state publicly, that in the course of these trials we have found few instances—and I am not certain that I could lay my finger upon one—in which the pinching spur of necessity has compelled the offenders to the commission of their offence. They are, in general, persons of a different character and description. We find among them carpenters, blacksmiths, sawyers, and others, whose wages are admitted to be adequate to their wants, and who yet take an active part in perpetrating these outrages. Not only persons in the handicraft trades which I have just mentioned, but occupiers of land, gardeners, and others who labour under no necessity and suffer no want, have been found strenuously engaged in stimulating those who were in more want than themselves to the commission of those crimes. I am happy, however, to observe, that there are but few, if there are any, instances in which downright want has proved the cause of the commission of offence.”

Many other prisoners were also sentenced to death with an understanding that the extreme punishment would not be inflicted, but that they would be transported for life; and the remainder were ordered to undergo various terms of transportation and imprisonment.

The trials of the persons charged with committing outrages in the county of Berks commenced on Tuesday, 28th December, at Reading. The prisoners who were first placed at the bar were W. Oakley, W. Smith, alias Winterburne, D. Bates, and Edmund Steele. They were charged with robbing J. Willis, Esq. of five sovereigns. It appeared that on the 22nd of November, two large mobs assembled in the neighbourhood of Hungerford and Kintbury, and after demolishing the windows of several houses, proceeded to the Town-hall of Hungerford. A deputation from each mob, of which the prisoners were the leading characters, was then admitted into the magistrates’ room. They demanded twelve shillings per week wages, the destruction of machines, and a reduction of house-rent. Oakley, in a violent manner, demanded 5l.; and Bates, who had a sledge-hammer in his hand, flourished it, and struck it on the ground, saying, with an oath, “We will have the 5l. or blood.” Others cried out, “We will have blood for blood.” The mob, which was about 400 in number, also became exceedingly clamorous, and the magistrates then gave them 5l.—The jury found all the prisoners Guilty.

D. Hawkins, W. Chitter, J. Pullen, W. Haynes, D. Yarlick, G. Rosier, J. Field, J. Cope, C. Smith, J. Dobson, W. Oakley, W. Winterborne, J. Watts, T. May, J. Tuck, E. Steel, and D. Bates, were then tried for rioting and destroying machinery belonging to Richard Gibbons, at Hungerford. On the 22nd November, a mob, consisting of about 400 persons, went to Mr. Gibbons’ manufactory; they had sledge-hammers, bludgeons, hand-hammers, sticks, &c. They rushed into the factory and broke the machinery, which was worth about 260l.—The jury found all the prisoners Guilty, except Haynes and Smith.

The trials were continued up to the succeeding Tuesday, and a great number of men were convicted of offences of a similar character, marked by different degrees of aggravation; the greater part of whom were sentenced to transportation for seven years.

On the latter day, however, the commission was brought to a close, and Oakley, Winterburne, and a man named Darling, were left for execution; but the sentence was carried out only in the case of Winterburne.

At Salisbury, the commission was opened on Friday, 31st December; and its proceedings did not terminate until Monday, 10th January. On that day such of the prisoners as had not received sentence at the time of the conclusion of their trials were brought up. Peter Withers and James Lush were severally sentenced to death, amidst a most distressing and heart-rending scene in the court. Lush appeared to be dreadfully sensible of his situation, and during the whole period occupied by the address of the learned judge, lay on the bar in a state of dreadful anguish, crying with the most piteous groans for mercy.

It would be useless to follow the course of these dreadful proceedings through the country, or to attempt adequately to describe the scenes of misery and wretchedness produced to the families of the misguided men, who were in custody by their dreadful acts. At Dorchester, Exeter, and the other assize-towns in the west of England, scenes such as we have alluded to occurred, and in almost every place some miserable wretches were left to expiate their offences upon the scaffold, while others were doomed to suffer transportation from the scene of their former happiness and of their crimes.

Notwithstanding these events, however, it was long before the country assumed that position of peace and quietude for which its agricultural districts had always been remarkable.

On the 17th August, 1836, it was announced in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, that of 246 persons sentenced to be transported for their participation in the offences of this period, all but ten, who were suffering punishment for crimes committed in the colonies, had been pardoned.

JOHN ST. JOHN LONG.

CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER.

It appears that about the month of August 1830, a lady named Cashin, of great respectability and considerable fortune, with her two daughters, came to London from Dublin, where they resided, for the purpose of procuring medical assistance for one of the young ladies, who was labouring under consumption. The ladies took up their abode in the house of a Mrs. Roddis, in Mornington Place, Hampstead-road; and Mrs. Cashin having heard much of the wonderful cures effected by Mr. St. John Long, determined to seek his advice and aid for her daughter. Mr. Long, it seems, had not been regularly educated as a surgeon, but he had acquired considerable celebrity for a line of practice which he had adopted, and occupied a house in Harley-street, Cavendish-square. Thither Mrs. Cashin repaired; and a short attendance upon the young lady, who was only sixteen years of age, was sufficient to confirm the melancholy fears of her mother, that all human exertions in her behalf would be of no avail. The insidious nature of the disease by which she was affected was known and acknowledged by Mrs. Cashin, and a desponding apprehension seized upon her mind, that her eldest daughter might also be attacked with this dreadful disorder. A new application on her behalf was therefore decided upon to Mr. St. John Long, who was requested to devise some means by which the impending mischief might be prevented. Mr. Long participated in the fears of the young lady’s mother, and acknowledged the prudence of the course which she had adopted; and, bidding them at once give up their fears, he assured them of his perfect ability to attain the object which they so anxiously had in view. Miss Cashin at this time was twenty-four years of age, and in the full enjoyment of health; but, notwithstanding the absence of any necessity to take any active steps in her case, Mr. Long determined upon employing his line of treatment towards her. The general nature of this treatment may be simply stated to be this:—in cases of internal disease, it was proposed, by creating an external wound and a discharge, to carry off the malady. In a few days the external wound was produced in the case of Miss Cashin, by what means did not appear, as the general mode of treatment was kept secret by the quack; and the effect was of the most dreadful description. The wound daily increased, and appearances soon presented themselves which so alarmed Mrs. Roddis, the landlady, that she felt herself called upon to adopt measures on behalf of the young lady.

She wrote to Mr. Long, and in a day or two he called. Mrs. Roddis humanely urged that danger might arise from symptoms which appeared so violent; but the doctor laughed at her apprehensions, declared that the wound was going on remarkably well, and that he would give a hundred guineas if he could produce similar favourable signs in some other of his patients. It was represented to him, that the wound had wrought a disease upon the young lady of another description,—she was unable to retain anything upon her stomach. For this, he said, he had a remedy with him if he chose to apply it. He was an enemy, however, to physic,—the sickness was a favourable symptom, and the young lady would find relief from its disagreeable effects by taking mulled port wine. This, however, like everything else, was ejected from the stomach. Mr. Long called again; in vain were certain angry appearances about the wound pointed out to him; he remained positive in his declared opinion, and refused to take any new measures for the young lady’s immediate relief.

Every day brought new symptoms, which were looked upon by Mrs. Cashin as unfavourable and dangerous; and at length Mr. Brodie, of Saville Row, was called in. This eminent surgeon took every step possible for Miss Cashin; but all his efforts were useless, and the very morning after his assistance had been obtained, the young lady expired. Mr. Long was acquainted with the circumstance of new aid having been procured, but he assured Mrs. Cashin that this was quite unnecessary, and he never afterwards called.

Circumstances of so remarkable a character were not likely to pass unnoticed or unquestioned, and on Saturday the 21st of August, 1830, a Coroner’s jury was summoned to inquire into the cause of the death of the deceased young lady. The investigation created much interest, and professional gentlemen attended on behalf of Mr. Long, as well as of Mrs. Cashin, to watch the proceedings.

Mrs. Roddis was the first witness examined, and she deposed to the circumstances which are above detailed. Upon her cross-examination by Mr. Long’s solicitor, it was attempted to be elicited from her, that the deceased had eaten a great quantity of plums; but this was distinctly denied; and Mrs. Roddis asserted, that ten days before her death, the young lady was in perfect health. The younger Miss Cashin, she added, had died on that very morning.

Mr. Brodie’s evidence was conclusive as to the cause of the death of the deceased. He said that he had been called in to attend the deceased young lady, and found a wound on her back, with considerable sloughing. He saw but slight hopes of her recovery, but applied such remedies as he deemed fit. On the next morning he found that she was dead. Mr. Brodie added that he had no knowledge of the manner in which the wound had been produced; but there was no doubt that it was that which had caused the sickness complained of, and which had also been the cause of death. He was at a loss to imagine how the production of such a wound could be supposed to have any effect in curing a patient of consumption, or in preventing such a disease.

At this point of the inquiry it was determined that the body of the deceased lady should undergo a post-mortem examination, and the further investigation of the case was, therefore, postponed until the following Monday.

On that day the inquest was resumed, new advocates appearing for the respective parties.

Sir Francis Burdett then came forward to speak to the mode of treatment adopted by Mr. Long with some of his patients, which he did not think dangerous; by his recommendation two persons had put themselves under Mr. Long’s care. He did not know the nature of the application used by Mr. Long; he had used it on his hand for the gout, but it did neither good nor harm. He had waited on him, understanding he could cure the tic douloureux, and he wished to have some information on the subject, with the view of apprising his friend, the Marquess of Anglesea, who was affected occasionally with that disease.

Dr. Alexander Thompson, who had examined the body of the deceased, was called, but he could form no positive opinion of the cause of death, as he was not permitted by the family to inspect the spine and head.—In this state of things, it was resolved that Dr. Thompson should pursue the examination of the body, and for that purpose was requested to have it exhumed from the burial-ground in Moorfields, where it had been interred.

On Wednesday the Coroner and Jury again assembled, when Dr. Alexander Thompson, Mr. Thomas King, surgeon, Mr. Wildgoose, surgeon, Dr. John Hogg, Dr. Thomas Goodeve, Dr. James Johnson, Mr. John Maclean, and Mr. Thomas Evans, who had all been present at the last opening of the body, and examination of the spine and head, were examined. They all concurred that it was a perfectly healthful subject—beautiful in form, and free from all disease, save that occasioned by the wound in the back. Few people could recover after such a local injury, which appeared to them perfectly unjustifiable. A notion was entertained by some that it was advisable to produce an external illness, for the purpose of drawing off an internal disease. Here was no internal disease, and the concurrent opinion of all was, that death had been occasioned by the wound in the back. The wound possessed much of the character of a burn, not produced by fire, but by some application that would cause the same result. The mode of inflicting the wound was kept secret.

Mr. Patrick Sweetman was then called: The deceased left Dublin about two months before, in perfect health. He saw her two days before she died, and had an interview with Mr. Long, who described her situation as most favourable, and said, that there was no danger whatever. The deceased was twenty-four years of age; her younger sister was sixteen. The latter was in a consumption, and left Dublin to be put under Mr. Long’s care; he believed she had also a wound in her back. From the first Mr. Long said he could not undertake her cure. Mr. Long stated to him the causes of the deceased putting herself under his care. He told him that a young lady, one of his patients, had asked him what he thought of the health of Miss Catherine Cashin, who was in the habit of going to his house with her sister Ellen; and Mr. Long told the young lady that Miss Cashin would be seized with consumption in less than two months, unless she allowed herself to be rubbed by him with his mixture. She informed the mother of what Mr. Long had said, and she consented to her undergoing this treatment, lest she might have to accuse herself of any neglect in the care of her children. Mr. Long said, he required every one to sign a book. He required those who signed it not to divulge anything regarding the mixture, and the inhaling which he prescribed. The inhaling was going on in the house while I was there. I signed the book, as a mere matter of form, at his request. He charged a guinea each visit for each young lady. I did not inhale; I should be very sorry to do so. He demanded no fee from me. Miss Ellen Cashin was pronounced by the most eminent medical men in Dublin to be consumptive. Mrs. Cashin heard of Mr. Long in consequence of a book which he had published. The faculty in Dublin endeavoured to dissuade her from bringing her daughter here, but she would. At the conclusion of this witness’s evidence, the inquiry was adjourned until Friday.

On Friday the jury once more assembled, and the evidence, touching the death of Miss Cashin, having been closed, Mr. Adolphus addressed the jury on the part of Mr. Long. He said that even supposing for a moment that the death of Miss Cashin had been caused by Mr. Long’s application, there was no evidence of malice prepense to constitute murder; and as to “manslaughter,” it had been recently decided, by two learned judges, that if a man, whether ignorant or skilful, acted honestly, and with intention to do good, he was not accountable for the result. Different practitioners adopted different modes of treatment, and it often happened that that which was deemed advisable by one was considered quite the contrary by others, and yet the practice objected to was the more successful.

Miss Matilda Christian, of North Bank, Regent’s Park, said she had been a patient of Mr. Long’s for some time; her complaint was a consumption. Mr. Long treated her as he did his other patients; he made wounds on the chest, on the left side, on the back, and on the temples; she recovered entirely under his care; the wounds left some marks, which might be seen when she was cold; her former medical attendant expressed great astonishment at her cure. In cross-examination by the jury, she said the sores did not affect her inside, nor did they confine her to her bed; Mr. Long had employed rubbing, as he did to the deceased, but what the ingredients were she did not know; for the rubbing he used a sponge; there was considerable discharge from the sores; she expectorated some stuff, which was put in water and sunk to the bottom; he cured a Miss Rough of a complication of disorders in the same way; she had lost her father, brother, and sister, by consumption of the same kind she had when she went to Mr. Long.

Mr. N. J. Bluett, formerly a solicitor, and residing at Brighton, attended Mr. Long for a complaint originating in accident; he had a general debility and swelling of the glands; he was completely cured by an application of Mr. Long’s, which at first created great pain; he attended him for six months; the same application was made every day; he inhaled something; he saw several other patients, and the same liquid was applied to all; he was told by other medical men that his case was one of the most desperate of the kind; he never pretended his complaint was consumption; after inhaling, his appetite, which had been lost, was greatly improved, as well as his general health.

Mrs. Sharpe, wife of General Sharpe, York Terrace, Regent’s Park, whose case had been pronounced deep consumption, by Sir Antony Carlisle, was also a patient of Mr. Long’s; she had been attending Mr. Long about three months; she inhaled something, and an external application was made to her chest and back, in the same manner as to the other patients; there was considerable inflammation and discharge; she got much better, and was still under Mr. Long’s care.

General Matthew Sharpe, husband of the last witness, said that the case was pronounced hopeless, and he applied to Mr. Long, of whom he never heard before; the consequences were highly beneficial: his wife was much better, and ceased to cough altogether; he certainly gave Mrs. Sharpe great relief, whatever might be the ultimate consequences.

Other witnesses who had been patients to Mr. Long, for different diseases, and to whom the same mode of treatment had been applied, spoke in the same terms of the advantageous effects which had accrued.

This evidence, however, was declared by the jury to have nothing to do with Miss Cashin’s case; for Mr. Long might have committed many harmless acts, which, nevertheless, would not relieve him from the consequences of one which was not harmless; and the inquest was again adjourned until the following Monday.

On that day the inquiry terminated.

Among the witnesses examined were the Countess of Buckinghamshire, Mr. Prendergast, M.P., and Mr. Higgs, the brewer, all of whom spoke in high terms of Mr. Long’s treatment, and of the virtues of his lotion for curing various complaints. The countess said she had greatly recovered since she had attended Mr. Long. Mr. Prendergast said he had suffered severely from a determination of blood to the head. His chest and forehead were rubbed, and the lotion applied to his back by Mr. Long; he was completely relieved, and the pain had not returned to his head from that day. Mr. Higgs said that for many years he had been afflicted with the gout, and had employed common doctors, who had done nothing for it. In February he applied to Mr. Long, and used his medicine for four months, and he was completely cured, perfectly at ease, and free from pain. All the witnesses said, that in consequence of the benefit they derived from Mr. Long’s treatment, they had recommended many persons to him, and would employ him again themselves in case of necessity. The coroner, in summing up the case, observed, that if Mr. Long appeared to have possessed the necessary skill and knowledge for carrying on medical practice, and had used due diligence and care in the case of Miss Cashin, they must arrive at the conclusion that in this matter he was nowise to blame. It would be a lamentable thing if every medical man who committed an error of judgment was to be held responsible as if he committed a criminal act. At five o’clock the jury retired to consider their decision upon the case; and at eight o’clock returned into the room, and announced their verdict of Manslaughter against Mr. St. John Long. A buzz of approbation was heard in the room when the verdict was pronounced; and one or two persons cried out “Bravo!” Others exclaimed, “Shame, shame!” The coroner then asked if Mr. Long were present, and having been informed he was not, issued a warrant for his apprehension, and bound the witnesses over to attend at the sessions and prosecute the offender. The jury-room was crowded to the last moment.

Mr. Long subsequently surrendered to the warrant, and was admitted to bail to answer the charge; but on the case being called on for trial at the ensuing Old Bailey sessions on the 18th of September, it was postponed, owing to the absence of some material witnesses for the prosecution.

On the 30th of October Mr. Long was placed upon his trial, when the same facts which we have detailed were stated in evidence. After an ample investigation, a verdict of manslaughter was again returned. Mr. Long was then committed to Newgate to await his sentence; but on the following Monday, he was again placed at the bar. The Court then passed upon him a sentence, condemning him to pay a fine of 250l. to the king. The money was immediately paid, and the defendant was discharged out of custody.

The case had already created a great degree of interest in society from the vast number of persons whom Mr. Long had attended; and many honourable and right honourable persons were present at his trial; but the public excitement was still further aroused upon a subsequent charge of a similar nature being brought against him. The result of this charge was different from that of the indictment preferred in the case of Miss Cashin, but the affair was regarded with no less astonishment by the larger proportion of the community, who wondered at the folly of any person submitting to the absurd mal-treatment of this person for the cure of any real or supposed disease.

We give the proceedings of the coroner’s inquest as they were published at the time, detailing more particularly, as they do, the course of treatment adopted by Mr. Long.

On Wednesday morning, November 10th 1830, at eleven o’clock, J. H. Gell, Esq. and a highly respectable jury assembled at the Wilton Arms, Kinnerton-street, Knightsbridge, to inquire into the death of Mrs. Colin Campbell Lloyd, aged 48, the wife of Captain Edward Lloyd, of the royal navy, whose death was alleged to have been occasioned by the treatment she had experienced under the hands of Mr. St. John Long.

The inquiry excited the most intense interest, and the jury-room was crowded to excess, principally by gentlemen of the medical profession, anxious to hear the result of the proceedings.

Mr. Wheatley, a barrister, attended on behalf of the family of Mrs. Lloyd; and Mr. Wooller appeared to watch the proceedings for Mr. St. John Long.

After the jury were impanelled, they proceeded to view the body of the unfortunate lady, at her lodgings, No. 33, Wilton-place, and on their return the following evidence was adduced:—

Mr. George Vance, of No. 27, Sackville-street, Piccadilly, surgeon: I visited Mrs. Lloyd on the 21st of October last, which, as I was informed by her medical attendant, Mr. Campbell, was about ten days from the commencement of her illness. Mrs. Lloyd informed me that she had inhaled from a tube a few times at Mr. St. John Long’s, in Harley-street, and had been rubbed on the chest with a liniment twice; she did not say who rubbed her; the first rubbing, she said, produced no inconvenience, but the second a sense of burning heat; she stated that she was quite well at the time, and had not suffered any important indisposition for three years, which was the time I had attended her; from the inhalation, it appeared to me that her tongue, mouth, and fauces had eroded; on examining her chest I found a sloughing sore of great extent (where she had, by her own account, been rubbed with a liniment), which extended from the arm-pits across the chest in one direction, and from the collar bones above, under the nipples, in the other direction; in the middle of this sore, the soft parts covering the breast-bone were black and dead, but towards the circumference there was a little appearance of health, and the mortified parts were separating from the living; the stomach was much disturbed, and she was in a state of great exhaustion and despondency, frequently expressing a desire to die; in a day or two after my attendance some of the constitutional distress (by which I mean fever and irritation, as well as the sickness of the stomach) subsided in a degree, and her spirits revived; the dead parts began to separate more freely, and in a correspondence with her friends I gave encouraging hopes of her amendment; no granulations, however, appearing in the clean parts of the sore, and the surface having become dry and flabby, exhibiting the appearance of the dissected parts of a dead body, I imparted to her friends the certainty of her death. Mr. Campbell, a surgeon, and myself, together and separately, removed masses of putrid flesh. The breast-bone was found bare, and I believe that if the slough had been freely thrown off, the cartilages of the ribs would have been exposed also. The deceased gradually grew weaker, and died on Monday morning the 8th of November. In my opinion the application of some corrosive matter, applied to the parts which I found in a state of mortification, was the cause of her death.—Mr. Vance added, that about three years before, he had attended Mrs. Lloyd for an affection in the throat, which he considered to be Globus Hystericus. It was a nervous complaint, but soon disappeared. This was the only disease which he observed in Mrs. Lloyd; she was, in all other respects, a stout woman, very richly covered with fat. He had never known any disease of that nature terminate fatally. Mrs. Lloyd said, that she had been persuaded to apply to Mr. Long.

Mr. Brodie, of No. 16, Saville-row, surgeon; and Mr. Campbell, surgeon, of No. 23, Wilton-place, confirmed the testimony.

Captain Lloyd was then examined: He said he came to London with his wife and family on the 15th July; Mrs. Lloyd was in good health but subject to a nervous affection of the throat when she took cold; she continued in good health, until she became ill from the rubbing of Mr. Long. On the 5th I accompanied her to Mr. Long’s house; she merely had a conversation; she went on the following day, when she inhaled. On the 7th she inhaled again, also on the 8th, when she paid him 1l.; she went to him on the 9th, when she was rubbed, for the first time, across the bosom, as she described to me; on the 10th October she told me that she had inhaled as before, and afterwards was rubbed—as they termed it, “rubbed out;” she told me that there was but a small portion of liquid in the saucer, but more was added when that was expended. She became so unwell while the rubbing was going on, that the rubber became alarmed and went for Mr. Long, who did not come for some time, but when he did he said it was nothing, and would soon go off, which it did after some time; but an odd sensation remained, which continued during the evening; she came home in her sister’s carriage, and continued uneasy the rest of the day; she complained of a cold and chillings all the evening; a cold shivering fit came on when she retired to bed, and she took some hot wine and water; she had a restless night, and on the 11th October was unwell all day; there was a vivid redness across the breast where the rubbing had taken place, and a dark place in the centre of the breast, from which a discharge was taking place from under some cabbage-leaves, which had been applied by the direction, as she said, of Mr. Long; the large dark spot on her breast still got deeper in colour. The edges were white, and all much puffed up. The pores of the skin on the black spot were expanded, but did not break. She expressed great surprise that Mr. Long did not call, and was inclined to be sick during the day, and could not take any nourishment, and complained of a dreadful burning heat in the breast. She passed a restless night, and on the morning of the 12th of October, on looking at her breast, it appeared to me that from lying on her back wherever the matter discharged from the wound rested it caused fresh blisters, some of which I cut to relieve her pain, as she complained all over. A wicker cradle was forced to be made to place over her to prevent the bed-clothes touching her. On this day I called upon Mr. Long, who expressed his surprise at not having seen Mrs. Lloyd to go on with her inhaling. On explaining her inability, and great sufferings, he said that he would come in the evening, which he did, and found that she had applied some common blister dressing to alleviate the heat and burning feeling. Mr. Long said that was wrong, and contrary to his practice, but he would rub it out, which Mrs. Lloyd exclaimed against, saying that she had suffered so much that she could not endure these parts being rubbed at all; the very idea of touching them, even by herself, was excruciating. Mr. Long said that the only thing necessary to be applied to the wound was old dry linen, to absorb. He then asked for a towel, and began rubbing it dry on the large black spot, as I suppose to absorb the discharge. Mrs. Lloyd said she had always healed any little blister by a simple blister-dressing; and Mr. Long said he saw no objection to her using it, and then departed. During the time Captain Lloyd was giving his evidence he appeared deeply affected, and frequently burst into tears.

The inquiry was then adjourned until the next day.

The jury resumed the inquiry on Thursday morning, when a post-mortem examination of the body took place.

Further evidence was given in corroboration of that heard on the preceding day, when the gentlemen who had examined the body of the deceased read a report, from which it appeared that the body was perfectly healthy. The lungs were sound and free from all disease. The heart was healthy, and the windpipe equally so; in fact, the medical gentlemen added, that in their professional researches they had seldom seen a body that had lived forty years with internal structures so generally healthy, and so fine in their proportions.

Several of Dr. Long’s dupes were called to swear to the general excellence of his treatment.

The coroner addressed the jury, stating that the question for their determination was, whether the deceased came by her death from gross ignorance or inattention from her medical attendant, or whether she died a natural death.

The jury retired for about half an hour, and then returned the following verdict:—

“The jury, having attentively and deliberately considered their verdict

Campbell shooting the Earl of Eglinton.
P. 225.

can come to no other than Manslaughter, against John St. John Long.”

The coroner inquired on what grounds they found their verdict?

Foreman: On the ground of gross ignorance, and on other considerations.

Upon this second charge Mr. Long was tried at the Old Bailey on the 19th of February, 1831.

Mr. Long appeared somewhat confused on his entering the dock, but he soon recovered his self-possession, and bowed to many persons who entered the court. The case was tried before Mr. Baron Bayley.

The evidence of Captain Lloyd, and of the other witnesses examined before the coroner, was now again gone into, and the additional testimony of Mr. Campbell, who had first seen Mrs. Lloyd after she had quitted Mr. Long, was also given. His statement was as follows:—

I am a surgeon; I visited Mrs. Lloyd some time before her death; she appeared to me a healthy person; she told me a few days before her death that she was suffering great pain in her breast, which, from its appearance she must have done; there were very extensive wounds, no doubt produced by strong corrosive liquid; the skin was destroyed, and hung in folds on the chest; there was a considerable discharge from the wound generally; the wound extended from nearly one arm-pit to the other, and from the throat to the bottom of the chest; the skin was off both breasts; it was of a very dark colour; when I attended her first, there was no cabbage leaf on; I applied a simple dressing; I saw the deceased afterwards, every day until her death; I considered the wound dangerous to life from the first moment that I saw it; when Mr. Vance was called in, he applied the same dressing, and I described to him the treatment I had pursued; I gave the deceased some internal medicines; it was not until mortification had commenced that bark and mineral acids were administered; according to the best of my judgment, I should say that the deceased died of the wound in her chest; it certainly was not necessary to produce such a wound to cure a difficulty in swallowing; I know of no disease where it would be necessary to produce such a wound.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. Phillips: I have practised as a surgeon for seven years; some hope (after Mr. Vance was called in) remained that Mrs. Lloyd would recover; from the time that I was called in Mr. Long had no opportunity of prescribing for her; generally speaking, the remedy applied by the surgeon must be regulated by the description the patient gives him of his disease; I was not present when the deceased first described her symptoms to Mr. Long; I do not recollect whether I proposed to Mrs. Lloyd to call in some eminent surgeon; I did not consider that I was authorised in calling in another surgeon without the party wished it; the general practice in dangerous cases certainly is to mention it to the friends, and leave them to act as they please.

Mr. Phillips: Seeing, as you express it, that it was a wound dangerous to life, did you not wish for further assistance? Witness: I had no objection to take the chance; mortification came on about seven or eight days after Mrs. Lloyd was under my care; I was from the beginning apprehensive of gangrene, but I cannot say how soon afterwards it commenced; I applied nothing but simple dressing until Mr. Vance was called in; I stated at first to the friends of the deceased the danger that I anticipated from the wound; I attended her nearly a month before she died, during which time Mr. Long had no opportunity of seeing or prescribing for her.

Re-examined: I fully believed that I understood how to treat the wound; I saw the body examined after death, but from nothing I then saw do I think there is any reason to suppose that I mistook the cause of death; I never saw a wound like the one on Mrs. Lloyd’s breast produced by a blister, and in such cases, where fatal results have followed, there have generally been appearances to account for them.

By the Court: I think simple dressing best calculated to have reduced the inflammation.

When the whole of the evidence had been given, Mr. Alley and Mr. Adolphus addressed the court, and urged that there was nothing in the proofs, which had been adduced, which fairly brought the prisoner within the jurisdiction of the court.

Mr. Baron Bayley, however, held that any man presuming to meddle with what he did not understand—unacquainted with the principles of medicine, venturing to prescribe for the sick, and thereby causing their death, incurred a heavy responsibility, and indisputably, in some cases, was guilty of manslaughter. It would be for the jury to decide whether the present case assumed such a complexion.

The prisoner was then called on for his defence.

He addressed the court and jury at some length, urging that the death of the deceased was occasioned, not by any improper treatment of his—for that, if he had been permitted to attend her for a few days longer, he would have restored her to perfect health—but to the inexperience of Mr. Campbell, into whose hands she was thrown, to his utter exclusion. He complained of the prejudices which had been excited towards him by practitioners, who were jealous of his success; for while he was earning ten or twelve thousands a year, they were not obtaining more than one-third of that sum. It was true that he was not a member of either the College of Surgeons or Physicians; but he had spent a fortune in the attainment of his professional knowledge, and in the pursuit of his practice had given the most universal satisfaction—so much so, that were he acquitted that day, he was persuaded he should be again honoured with the confidence of those distinguished and respectable individuals who had already from experience placed implicit confidence in his skill and judgment. Of those, he was proud to say, he had many in attendance, to whose testimony in his behalf he should refer. He complained that he had not himself been examined as a witness, before the Coroner’s inquest, and repeated, that if guilt attached anywhere, it did so to Mr. Campbell more than to himself; for that there was nothing in his treatment which could have occasioned the melancholy result, which no man deplored more than himself. The prisoner spoke in rather a low tone of voice; and, having a slight impediment in his speech, his address did not seem to make a very forcible impression.

The counsel of the prisoner then proceeded to call evidence in his behalf.

Mr. Abingdon was examined: He said he had several times been under the care of the prisoner; he had an asthma, and subsequently a determination of blood to the head.

The Attorney-General here interfered, and submitted that the course of the present examination ought to be confined to the general character of the prisoner, in which the court, after hearing arguments from Mr. Alley and Mr. Phillips, acquiesced.

Mr. Phillips endeavoured to shake this decision, contending that as the indictment raised the question whether Mr. Long was grossly ignorant, or had been grossly careless, it was impossible to establish his innocence otherwise than by showing, as he verily believed they could, that he was both learned and skilful, and most attentive and humane in his practice of the healing art.

Mr. Baron Bayley: We cannot go into specific cases; we must confine ourselves to general evidence.

Mr. Phillips resumed the argument at length, but

The Attorney-General, in reply, said that if his learned friends found themselves at liberty to go into all the successful cases of the prisoner, he should go into the several failures in his practice.

The court having repeated its former decision, the examination of Mr. Abingdon was resumed, and he stated that the prisoner had attended him for several disorders, and he had the fullest reason to be satisfied with his skill, care, and attention.

Mrs. Ashworth, the wife of General Ashworth, Miss Rook, her sister, Mrs. Prendergast, Mrs. M‘Donnell, Mrs. M‘Dougall, and a vast number of other ladies and gentlemen were then examined, and every one of them bore testimony, in the strongest manner, to the skill, assiduity, and humanity of the prisoner, and to the extraordinary success which had uniformly attended his practice.

Mr. Baron Bayley then proceeded to sum up, observing, that the question for the jury to decide was, whether the prisoner had been guilty of gross rashness, or had manifested culpable ignorance. The point at issue was, not whether, after the medicine had been administered, the prisoner had been inattentive, for his services were prevented; but whether, before it had been administered, he was ignorant of its nature and probable effect upon the constitution of the unhappy person to whom it was applied. His lordship then proceeded to read over the evidence, and to comment upon it as he proceeded. If the jury were of opinion that the death took place from the wound given on the morning of the 10th, they would give their verdict against the prisoner; but they must be fully satisfied that the death arose from that alone. If they entertained any doubt, the prisoner would be entitled to the benefit of that doubt; but they must be satisfied that the crime imputed to him had been committed feloniously.

The jury retired at half-past eight o’clock, and returned in an hour with a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

Several ladies, elegantly dressed, remained with the prisoner in the dock throughout the day, to whom this verdict appeared to give great satisfaction.

Mr. Long, upon his discharge, resumed his “rubbing in” practice, as before, and, we believe, still with much success. Many reports were circulated as to his habits and history, and many calumnious statements were made, both as to his mode of life and the system which he had adopted to carry on his business. For one of these libellous publications he brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas, which was tried on Tuesday, 14th June 1831, and he obtained a verdict with 100l. damages.

Mr. Long, we believe, was a native of Mallow, in Ireland, where his father carried on the useful but humble trade of basket-making, in which he was assisted by his son. At an early period of the life of our hero, his father removed to Doneraile, and there he became acquainted with some members of the family of a gentleman named Hill. The young Hills were at the time engaged in perfecting themselves in a knowledge of drawing, and young Long being observed by them to possess some taste and considerable aptitude as a draughtsman, he was permitted to copy the sketches which they made. A slate and pencil were his original utensils; but his patrons, finding that he soon excelled them in proficiency, generously provided him with better materials, and better means of obtaining a knowledge of the art for which he had taken such a fancy. A short time served to render him a tolerable proficient; and leaving the basket-making trade to be prosecuted by his father and brothers, he repaired to London, where for a considerable time he supported himself by the productions of his pencil. We have no means of learning the manner in which he discovered his system of medical treatment, or in which he was first introduced to the public as a successful operator in the case of certain diseases, but it is true that he numbered amongst his patients persons of the highest eminence in this country, and that he obtained an extent of practice which enabled him to live in excellent style.

He died in the year 1834, and his body was consigned to the tomb in the Harrow Road cemetery, where a monument has been erected to his memory at the cost of his former patients, who, in an inscription, pay a handsome tribute to his talents.