JOHN WILLIAMSON.

EXECUTED FOR MURDER.

Williamson was the son of people in but indifferent circumstances, who put him apprentice to a shoemaker. When he came to be a journeyman he pursued his business with industry; and in a short time he married an honest and sober woman, by whom he had three children. His wife dying, he continued some time a widower, maintaining himself and his children in a decent manner.

At length he contracted an acquaintance with a young woman deficient in point of intellect, to whom he made proposals of marriage, in the anticipation of receiving a small sum of money, which her relations had left her for her maintenance. The woman was nothing loth, and notwithstanding the opposition of her guardians, Williamson having procured a licence, the marriage was solemnized; and he in consequence received the money which he expected.

Within three weeks after the marriage, his ill-treatment of his unhappy wife commenced; and having frequently beaten her in the most barbarous manner, he at length fastened the miserable creature’s hands behind her with handcuffs; and, by means of a rope passed through a staple in the ceiling of a closet where she was confined, drew them so tight above her head, that only the tips of her toes touched the ground. On one side of the closet was now and then put a small piece of bread-and-butter, so that she could just touch it with her mouth; and she was daily allowed a small portion of water. She once remained a whole month without being released from this miserable condition; but during that time she occasionally received assistance from a female lodger in the house, and a little girl, Williamson’s daughter by his former wife. The girl having once released the poor sufferer, the inhuman villain beat her with great severity; but when the father was abroad, the child frequently gave the unhappy woman a stool to stand upon, by which means her pain was in some degree abated.

On the Sunday preceding the day on which she died, Williamson released his wife; and at dinner-time cut her some meat, of which, however, she ate only a very small quantity. Her hands being greatly swelled through the coldness of the weather and the pain occasioned by the handcuffs, she begged to be permitted to go near the fire; and the daughter joining in her request, Williamson complied; but when she had sat a few minutes, her husband, observing her throwing the vermin that swarmed upon her clothes into the fire, ordered her to “return to her kennel.” She immediately went back to the closet, the door of which was locked till the next day, and she was then found to be in a delirious state, in which she continued till the time of her death, which happened about two o’clock on the Tuesday morning.

The coroner’s jury being summoned to sit on the body, Mr. Barton, a surgeon, of Redcross-street, who had opened it, declared that he was of opinion that the deceased had perished through the want of the common necessaries of life; and other evidence being adduced to criminate Williamson, he was committed to Newgate.

At the ensuing sessions at the Old Bailey he was brought to trial before Lord Chief Baron Parker; and the principal witnesses against him were his daughter, Mrs. Cole, and Mr. Barton, the surgeon who opened the body of the deceased.

The prisoner’s defence was exceedingly frivolous. He said his wife had provoked him by treading upon a kitten, and killing it, and then turning up the whites of her eyes. He had the effrontery also to declare to the Court that he had not abridged his wife of any of the necessaries of life; and after sentence of death was pronounced, he reflected upon his daughter as being the cause of his destruction.

Being put into the cells, he sent for a clergyman, and acknowledged that he had treated his wife in the cruel manner represented upon the trial; adding, however, that he had no design of depriving her of life: and he afterwards behaved in a decent and penitent manner.

He was conveyed to the place of execution in a cart, attended by two clergymen and a methodist preacher. The gallows was placed on the rising ground opposite Chiswell-street, in Moorfields; and after he had sung a psalm, and prayed some time with an appearance of great devotion, he was turned off, January 19th, 1767, amidst an amazing concourse of people.

His body was conveyed to Surgeons’ Hali for dissection, and his children were placed in Cripplegate workhouse.

SARAH METYARD AND SARAH MORGAN METYARD.

EXECUTED FOR THE MURDERS OF PARISH APPRENTICES.

In this condition, without the smallest nourishment of any kind, the wretched girl remained for three days and two nights, when having been let loose, in order that she might go to bed, she crept up to the garret in a state of the greatest exhaustion. On the fourth day she faltered in her speech, but was nevertheless again conveyed to what was worse than her condemned cell, and there, in the course of a very short time, she expired, her body being suspended by the cords which had been again placed round her person. The other girls, seeing that her whole weight was thus supported, cried out that she did not move; and the younger Metyard coming up, said, “If she does not move soon, I’ll make her,” and immediately beat her on the head with the heel of a shoe; but finding that in truth she was senseless, she sent for her mother to come and assist her. The body was then released from its bonds, and efforts were made to restore animation, but without effect; and Mrs. Metyard being convinced that the child was dead, removed her remains into the garret. On the return of the other children, who had been sent out of the way, they were informed that the girl had been in a fit, but was perfectly recovered; and it was added that she was now locked in a garret, in order that she should not run away: and to strengthen the effect of this story, a plate of meat was sent up to the room where the body lay in the middle of the day for her dinner.

On the fourth day, a design was formed to follow up the tale which had been related; and the body of the deceased having been locked in a box, the garret-door and the street-door were left open, and one of the apprentices was desired to call Nanny down to dinner, and to tell her that if she would promise to behave well in future, she would be no longer confined. Upon the return of the child, she said Nanny was not above stairs; and after a great parade in searching every part of the house, the Metyards reflected upon her as being of an untractable disposition, and pretended that she had run away.

The sister of the deceased, who was apprenticed to the same mistress, mentioned to a lodger in the house that she was persuaded her sister was dead; observing, that it was not probable she had gone away, since her shoes, shift, and other parts of her apparel still remained in the garret; and the suspicions of this girl coming to the knowledge of the inhuman wretches, they, with a view of preventing a discovery, cruelly murdered her, and secreted the body.

The body of Anne remained in the box two months, during which time the garret-door was kept locked, lest the offensive smell should lead to a discovery; but the stench at length becoming very powerful, they judged it prudent to remove the remains of the unhappy victim of their barbarity; and, therefore, in the evening of the 25th of December, they cut the body in pieces, and tied the head and trunk up in one cloth, and the limbs in another, excepting one hand, a finger belonging to which had been amputated before death, which they resolved to burn.

When the apprentices were gone to bed, the old woman put the hand into the fire, saying, “The fire tells no tales;” but fearing that the consumption of the whole body would create an unpleasant smell, they determined to dispose of its parts by throwing them into the common sewer in Chick-lane. Being unable to effect this, however, they left them among the mud and water that was collected before the grate of the sewer; and some pieces of the body being discovered about twelve o’clock by the watchman, he mentioned the circumstance to the constable of the night. The constable applied to one of the overseers of the parish, by whose direction the parts of the body were collected and taken to the watch-house. On the following day the matter was communicated to Mr. Umfreville, the coroner, who examined the pieces found by the watchman; but, supposing them to be parts of a corpse taken from a churchyard for the use of some surgeon, he declined summoning a jury.

Four years elapsed before the discovery of these horrid murders; but at length the dissensions which frequently occurred between their wretched perpetrators procured their apprehension and conviction. It appears that the mother was in the habit of treating her daughter with a brutality almost equal to that which she had exhibited to her apprentices, and about two years after the murders a gentleman of the name of Rooker took lodgings in the house of Metyard, where he lived about three months, during which time he had frequent opportunities of observing the severity which she suffered.

He afterwards hired a house in Hill-street, and, influenced by compassion for her sufferings, and being desirous of relieving her from the tyranny of her mother, he invited the girl to live in his family in the capacity of a servant; which offer she cheerfully embraced, though her mother had many times violently opposed her desire of going to service. The girl had no sooner removed to Mr. Rooker’s house than the old woman became perfectly outrageous; and it was almost her daily practice to create disturbances in Mr. Rooker’s neighbourhood, by venting the most bitter execrations against the girl, and branding her with the most opprobrious epithets. Mr. Rooker subsequently removed to Ealing, to reside on a little estate bequeathed him by a relation; and having by this time seduced the girl, she accompanied him, and lived with him professedly in the character of his mistress.

The old woman’s visits were not less frequent at Ealing than they had been at Mr. Rooker’s house in London; nor was her behaviour less outrageous.

On the 9th of June 1768, being admitted to the house, she beat her daughter in a terrible manner; and during the contention many expressions were uttered by both parties that gave great uneasiness to Mr. Rooker. The mother called Mr. Rooker “the old perfumed tea-dog;” and the girl retorted by saying, “Remember, mother, you are the perfumer; you are the Chick-lane ghost.”

The mother having retired, Mr. Rooker urged the girl to explain what was meant to be insinuated by the indirect accusations introduced by both parties in the course of the dispute; and, bursting into tears, she confessed the particulars of the murders, begging that a secret so materially affecting her mother might never be divulged.

Mr. Rooker imagined that the daughter could not be rendered amenable to the law, as she performed her share in the murders by the direction of her mother, and he wrote to the overseers of the parish of Tottenham, acquainting them with what he had learned. The elder Metyard was in consequence taken into custody; and the evidence against her being conclusive, she was fully committed for trial. Some circumstances, however, having come out which served to criminate her daughter, she also was secured, and with her mother was sent to Newgate to abide her trial.

When arraigned upon the indictment preferred against them at the ensuing Old Bailey Sessions, they bitterly reproached one another with the part each had taken in the affair; and if any evidence of their guilt had been wanting, their own declarations at this time would have been sufficient to secure their conviction. The jury immediately found them guilty, and they were sentenced to undergo the severest penalty of the law. The younger prisoner pleaded that she was pregnant, on being called up to receive judgment; but a jury of matrons being assembled, they declared her plea false, and she was sentenced immediately.

On the day fixed for their execution, the elder prisoner was found to be in a state of utter insensibility, and in that condition she was carried to the scaffold, and, all efforts to restore her having failed, was turned off. Her daughter prayed for a few minutes with the ordinary who attended her, but was in almost as melancholy a condition as her mother.

They were executed at Tyburn on the 19th July 1768, and their bodies were afterwards dissected at Surgeons’ Hall.

FREDERIC, LORD BALTIMORE; ELIZABETH GRIFFENBURG; AND ANNE HARVEY.

TRIED FOR THE COMMISSION OF A RAPE, THE FEMALES AS ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT.

The disgusting passions of his lordship, however, knew no bounds; and agents were employed in London, whose duty it was to select new objects for the gratification of his lustful desires. Amongst others who were thus engaged in this degrading office were the women Griffenburg, who was a native of Germany, and the wife of a Dr. Griffenburg, and Harvey, whose names appear at the head of this article. They were both women of low education, and their duty was to discover and point out persons who might be deemed worthy of the attentions of their employer, and in case of necessity to aid him in securing the end which he had in view. In the course of their brutal and inhuman searches in this occupation, they unfortunately discovered a young woman of considerable personal attractions, and of some respectability, named Woodcock, who kept a milliner’s shop on Tower-hill; and Mrs. Harvey acquainting his lordship with her residence, in November 1767, he directly proceeded to the spot for the purpose of pursuing his diabolical designs. Calling at Miss Woodcock’s shop, he purchased some articles of trifling value, with a view of making an acquaintance with her; and then having succeeded in opening a conversation with her, he invited her to accompany him to the theatre. Miss Woodcock declined the offer, saying that her religious opinions taught her to believe that theatrical entertainments were incompatible with the due exercise of the worship of the Almighty; and his lordship finding all his efforts to attain his object vain, retired, but only to put his agent, Mrs Harvey, to work.

Introducing herself as a customer, this infamous woman called repeatedly at the shop of her intended victim, and purchased ruffles and other articles of millinery. On the 14th of December, however, she proceeded to take active measures in her plot; and then ordering a pair of lace ruffles to be made by the following day, she directed Miss Woodcock to take them herself to her residence in the Curtain-road, Shoreditch, declaring that they were for a lady of rank and fortune, who was desirous of encouraging her in her business, and who, if the order was punctually obeyed, would, without doubt, become an excellent customer.

The ruffles were finished and carried home at the appointed time; and then Miss Woodcock being invited in, was received politely by Mrs. Harvey, who pressed her to stay to tea. She declined the invitation, on the ground that it would be dark before she could reach home if she remained; but at this moment a man named Isaacs came in, who said that he was going to the theatre, and Mrs. Harvey expressing a desire at once to convey the goods which had been brought to her to the lady for whom they were ordered, it was eventually agreed, after some objections on the part of Miss Woodcock as to her dress, that as Isaacs must hire a coach, they should all go together.

At this time Lord Baltimore’s carriage was waiting in the neighbourhood, and the Jew going out, called it up, and all three got into it, Miss Woodcock making no remark as to whether it was a private or a hired conveyance. The coachman drove at a great pace; and after they had traversed many streets, the vehicle was driven into the court-yard of a house which appeared to be that of a person of consideration. Mrs. Harvey and Miss Woodcock then alighted, and being ushered into the house, they were conducted through several apartments until they reached one in which an elderly gentleman, afterwards known as Dr. Griffenburg, was seen seated; and he immediately retired, saying that he would acquaint the lady of the house with their arrival. Lord Baltimore soon afterwards entered; and Miss Woodcock was alarmed to find that he was the person who had visited her shop. He bid her rest quiet, however, saying that he was only the steward of the lady whom she was to see, and then quitted the room, but soon afterwards returned with Mrs. Griffenburg, who conversed with her as if she had expected her coming and was the lady of the house. Orders were afterwards given for tea; and on the equipage being removed from the table, Lord Baltimore presented some trinkets to Miss Woodcock, which he said he had purchased for her. As the evening advanced she became anxious to return, and expressed her fears that her relatives would be surprised at her long absence; but his lordship, in order to divert her from this purpose, took her to view the apartments in the house, and at length, on her becoming still more importunate, insisted that she should stay for supper. Private orders having been given for the preparation of this meal, and Mrs. Griffenburg having retired, his lordship began taking liberties of an indecent character with the young lady; but on her exclaiming against this treatment, Mrs. Harvey and Dr. Griffenburg appeared, as if to aid in opposing her escape in the event of her attempting to obtain her liberty. Supper was soon afterwards served; but it does not appear that any idea was entertained by Miss Woodcock of an intention to detain her forcibly until after this meal, when Lord Baltimore told her that there were no coaches to be had then, and that she must remain for the night.

Mrs. Griffenburg and Mrs. Harvey now endeavoured to prevail on the young lady to go to bed; but she declared that she would never sleep in that house; and although they conducted her to a room in which they went to rest, she continued walking about till the morning, and lamenting her unhappy fate. Looking out of the window at about eight o’clock, she observed a young woman passing, to whom she threw out her handkerchief, which was then heavy with tears, intending to attract her attention and send to her father for assistance; but the two women, jumping out of bed, prevented the possibility of her holding any communication with her, and upbraided her for what they called the rejection of her good fortune, declaring their wishes that they were in her happy situation.

The women now quitting the room, Lord Baltimore and Dr. Griffenburg came in soon afterwards; when the former said that he was astonished at her outrageous behaviour, as he had promised that she should go home at twelve o’clock: but she replied that they had no right to detain her, and that she would go home directly, as her sister, and particularly her father, would be inexpressibly anxious on occasion of her absence.

To this no answer was made; but Lord Baltimore conducted her down stairs, and ordered breakfast. She refused, however, to eat, and having wept incessantly till twelve o’clock, at that hour she once more demanded her liberty. His lordship then said that he loved her to excess; that he could not part with her; but that he did not intend any injury to her, and would write to her father: and on this he wrote a letter, of which the following is a copy, and in it sent a bank-note of two hundred pounds:—

“Your daughter Sally sends you the enclosed, and desires you will not be uneasy on her account, because everything will turn out well with a little patience and prudence. She is at a friend’s house safe and well, in all honesty and honour; nothing else is meant, you may depend on it; and, sir, as your presence and consent are necessary, we beg of you to come in a private manner to Mr. Richard Smith’s in Broad-street Buildings.”

Having addressed this to her father, he showed it to her, and desired that she would write a few words at the bottom, signifying her compliance with its terms; and terrified by her condition, she wrote, “Dear Father—This is true, and should be glad you would come this afternoon. Your dutiful daughter.”—From the statement of the young lady, it appears that after this she conjured his lordship to give her her liberty, pointing out to him, in the most striking manner, the degradation to which she was subjected; but all her arguments were in vain, and she was again compelled to pass the night, as before, in the room with Mrs. Griffenburg and Mrs. Harvey. In the morning, by permission of his lordship, she wrote a letter to her father, desiring him to come to her immediate assistance, but saying that she had been treated with “as much honour as she could expect;” but she still declined holding any conversation with his lordship, and used all her efforts to make her situation known to the passers-by. In this, however, she was checked by his lordship and the women, who threatened to throw her out of window in the event of her making any disturbance. Towards the middle of the day she was told that her father had called at Mr. Smith’s, but had refused to wait until she was sent for; but at midnight Mr. Broughton, his lordship’s steward, brought intelligence that Isaacs, the Jew, having offered a letter to Miss Woodcock’s father, was stopped till he should give an account where the young lady was secreted. Lord Baltimore was, or affected to be, in a violent passion, and vowed vengeance against the father; but in the interim the Jew entered, and delivered a letter which he pretended to have received from Miss Woodcock’s sister, and she took it to read: but she had wept so much that her eyes were sore; and of all she read, she could only recollect this passage:—“Only please to appoint a place where and when we may meet with you.”

The hour of retirement being now arrived, Miss Woodcock refused to go up stairs, unless she might be assured of not receiving any insult from his lordship. She had not taken any sustenance since she entered the house; and on this night she lay down in her clothes on a bed in which Mrs. Harvey reposed herself. She then asked this woman if she had ever been in love, and acknowledged that she herself was addressed by a young fellow, who appeared very fond of her, and that they were to settle in business as soon as the marriage should take place; and she desired Mrs. Harvey to show her the way out of the house that had been so obnoxious to her: but the answer of the latter was, that though she had lived in the house several years, she did not herself know the way out of it.

On the following morning, when Miss Woodcock went down stairs, she pleaded earnestly with Lord Baltimore for her liberty; on which he became most violently enraged, called her by the vilest names, and said that if she spoke to him on the subject any more, he would either throw her out of the window, or send her home in a wheelbarrow with her petticoats tied over her head; and turning to Isaacs the Jew, he said, “Take the slut to a mean house like herself;” which greatly terrified her, as she presumed he meant a house of ill fame.

The sufferings she had undergone having by this time made her extremely ill, Lord Baltimore mixed a draught for her, which he insisted on her drinking; and in the afternoon he compelled her to sit by his side to hear him converse upon subjects of religion, in the course of which, however, he ridiculed everything sacred, and denied the existence of a soul.

After supper he made six several attempts to ravish her within two hours; but she repulsed him in such a determined manner, that he failed in accomplishing his dishonourable purpose. On that night she lay with Mrs. Harvey, but could get no rest, as she was in fear of renewed insults from his lordship.

On the Monday morning she was told that she should see her father; and having been supplied with a change of linen by Mrs. Griffenburg, she was about mid-day hurried into a coach with Lord Baltimore, Dr. Griffenburg, and the two women, and with them conveyed to Epsom, where, as we have already said, his lordship had a country-seat. Here she was told that resistance was useless, and that whatever objection she might make to submit to his lordship’s desires, force would be used if her consent was not given. At supper she partook of some refreshment; and immediately afterwards she was conducted to a bedchamber, accompanied by the two women, who began to undress her. From weakness she was unable to make much resistance; and from the same cause she was prevented from opposing Lord Baltimore, who, it turned out, was in a bed which was in the apartment, and who, in spite of her cries and entreaties, twice effected his horrid purpose. In the morning Mrs. Harvey came to her, and she told her what had passed; but the only answer which was given, was a desire that she would make no more fuss, for that she had made noise enough already. It would appear that after this the proceedings of his lordship were, to a certain extent, acquiesced in by Miss Woodcock; but it was not until several days had elapsed that she ascertained the name of the person who had dishonoured her. On the afternoon on which she made this discovery, the whole party returned to London, and Miss Woodcock was there introduced to Madame Saunier, the governess of his lordship’s illegitimate children. On the next day his lordship gave her some money; and when night advanced, directed that she should repair to his bed. Having been permitted on the night before to sleep by herself, she requested that the same favour might be again granted to her; but his lordship’s commands being positive that she should share his couch, she consented on certain terms, which were fulfilled, while, according to her statement, a crime of a still more atrocious nature was committed.

It may now be inquired whether no steps were taken by Miss Woodcock’s friends in order to procure her discovery, and her return to the roof of her parents; and it appears that some circumstances having been learned which induced them to guess the real place of her concealment, Davis, her lover, proceeded to Southampton-row, Bloomsbury, where his lordship’s house was situated, and while watching there saw her at the window. He immediately communicated the discovery which he had made to her father, and the advice of Mr. Watts, an attorney, having been taken, a writ of habeas corpus was obtained. These proceedings, however, were heard of by his lordship, and he conversed with Miss Woodcock on the subject, and, as she alleged, extorted from her a promise to declare that she had remained at his house voluntarily and of her own free-will, promising to recompense her by settling upon her an annuity for life. She in consequence wrote a letter to her father to that effect, which was delivered by one of his lordship’s servants; and on Mr. Watts’ proceeding to the house to serve the writ of habeas corpus, she made a declaration to him having the same tendency. Lord Baltimore then said that it was necessary that she should go before Lord Mansfield and make a similar statement, and she was accordingly conveyed to his lordship’s house in Bloomsbury-square. They were there shown into different apartments; and Miss Woodcock’s friends having heard of the proceeding, were also in attendance in an ante-chamber, where they awaited the result of the conference.

The young lady, on being examined by Lord Mansfield, expressed her willingness to remain with Lord Baltimore, but desired to see her friends first. She was then conducted to the room where her father was awaiting the conclusion of her examination; and there the first question which she asked was, “Who is Lord Mansfield?” Having been satisfied upon this head, and also that he had the power to set her at liberty, she desired to see him again, and then said that she wished to go home with her father, and that she would no longer remain with Lord Baltimore.

On Miss Woodcock’s discharge, Mr. Cay, a baker in Whitecross-street (to whom her father had delivered the two hundred pound bank note which had been enclosed in the letter by Lord Baltimore), conveyed the young lady to Sir John Fielding, before whom she swore to the actual commission of the rape by his lordship.

The two women, the coadjutors of his lordship, had been already taken into custody, on the charge of decoying away the girl; and a warrant was now issued for the apprehension of Lord Baltimore. His lordship, however, secreted himself for the present, but surrendered himself to the Court of King’s Bench on the last day of Hilary Term, 1768; when the two women being brought thither by habeas corpus, they were all admitted to bail, in order for trial at Kingston, in Surrey, because the crime was alleged to have been committed at his lordship’s seat at Epsom.

In the interim Miss Woodcock went to the house of Mr. Cay, in Whitecross-street; but not being properly accommodated there, she proceeded to the house of a friend, where she lived in great privacy and retirement till the time arrived for the trial of the offending parties.

Bills of indictment being found against Lord Baltimore and the two women, they were all brought to trial before Lord Chief Baron Smythe; and, after the evidence against them had been given, in substance as may be collected from the preceding narrative, Lord Baltimore made the following defence, which was read in Court by Mr. Hamersley, solicitor to his lordship:—

“My Lords and Gentlemen,—I have put myself upon my country, in hopes that prejudice and clamour will avail nothing in this place, where it is the privilege of the meanest of the king’s subjects to be presumed innocent until his guilt has been made appear by legal evidence. I wish I could say that I had been treated abroad with the same candour. I have been loaded with obloquy; the most malignant libels have been circulated, and every other method which malice could devise has been taken to create general prejudice against me. I thank God that, under such circumstances, I have had firmness and resolution enough to meet my accusers face to face, and provoke an inquiry into my conduct. Hic murus aheneus esto,—nil conscire sibi. The charge against me, and against these poor people who are involved with me, because they might otherwise have been just witnesses of my innocence, is in its nature very easy to be made, and hard to be disproved. The accuser has the advantage of supporting it by a direct and positive oath; the defence can only be collected from circumstances.

“My defence is composed, then, of a variety of circumstances, all tending to show the falsity of this charge, the absurdity of it, the improbability that it could be true. It will be laid before the jury, under the direction of my counsel; and I have the confidence of an innocent man, that it will be manifest to your lordship, the jury, and the whole world, that the story told by this woman is a perversion of truth in every particular. What could induce her to make such a charge, I can only suspect:—Very soon after she came to my house upon a representation to me that her father was distressed, I sent him a considerable sum of money: whether the ease with which that money was obtained from me might suggest the idea, as a means of obtaining a larger sum of money, or whether it was thought necessary to destroy me, in order to establish the character of the girl to the world, I know not; but I do aver, upon the word of a man of honour, that there is no truth in anything which has been said or sworn of my having offered violence to this girl. I ever held such brutality in abhorrence. I am totally against all force; and for me to have forced this woman, considering my weak state of health, and my strength, is not only a moral, but a physical impossibility. She is, as to bodily strength, stronger than I am. Strange opinions, upon subjects foreign to this charge, have been falsely imputed to me, to inflame this accusation. Libertine as I am represented, I hold no such opinions. Much has been said against me, that I seduced this girl from her parents: seduction is not the point of this charge; but I do assure your lordship and the jury, this part of the case has been aggravated exceedingly beyond the truth. If I have been in any degree to blame, I am sure I have sufficiently atoned for every indiscretion, which a weak attachment to this unworthy woman may have led me into, by having suffered the disgrace of being exposed as a criminal at the bar in the county which my father had the honour to represent in parliament, and where I had some pretensions to have attained the same honour, had that sort of an active life been my object.

“I will take up no more of your lordship’s time than to add that, if I had been conscious of the guilt now imputed to me, I could have kept myself and my fortune out of the reach of the laws of this country. I am a citizen of the world; I could have lived anywhere: but I love my own country, and submit to its laws, resolving that my innocence should be justified by the laws. I now, by my own voluntary act, by surrendering myself to the Court of King’s Bench, stake, upon the verdict of twelve men, my life, my fortune, and, what is dearer to me, my honour.

“March 25, 1768.”

“Baltimore.”

The substance of the defence of Mrs. Griffenburg and Mrs. Harvey consisted principally in alleging that Miss Woodcock had consented to all that had passed, and that no force had been used towards her either by Lord Baltimore or themselves.

The whole of the case having now been heard, Lord Chief Baron Smythe, in a clear and lucid manner, proceeded to sum up the case to the jury. Having pointed out to them the law of the case, as it affected the charge against the prisoners, and their defence, his lordship proceeded to recapitulate the evidence which had been produced, in doing which he was occupied during a period of three hours. He concluded by saying,—“In point of law, the fact is fully proved on my lord and the two other prisoners, if you believe the evidence of Sarah Woodcock. It is a crime which in its nature can only be proved by the woman on whom it is committed; for she only can tell whether she consented or no: it is, as my lord observes, very easy to be made, and hard to be disproved; and the defence can only be collected from circumstances; from these you must judge whether her evidence is or is not to be believed. Lord Hale, in his ‘History of the Pleas of the Crown,’ lays down the rules:—1. If complaint is not made soon after the injury is supposed to be received; 2. If it is not followed by a recent prosecution; a strong presumption arises that the complaint is malicious. She has owned the injury was received December 22; the complaint was not made till December 29; but she has accounted for it in the manner you have heard. The strong part of the case on behalf of the prisoners is her not complaining when she was at Lord Mansfield’s, the supreme magistrate of the kingdom in criminal matters. You have heard how she has explained and accounted for her conduct in that particular, which you will judge of. Upon the whole, if you believe that she made the discovery as soon as she knew she had an opportunity of doing it, and that her account is true, you will find all the prisoners Guilty; if you believe that she did not make the discovery as soon as she had an opportunity, and from thence, or other circumstances, are not satisfied her account is true, you will find them all Not guilty: for if he is not guilty, they cannot be so; for they cannot be accessory to a crime which was never committed.”

After an absence of an hour and twenty minutes, the jury returned with a verdict that the prisoners were not guilty.

This singular affair was tried at Kingston, in Surrey, on the 26th of March, 1768.

It would be useless to offer any observations upon this extraordinary case. From the verdict returned by the jury, there ought to exist no doubt of the innocence of the persons charged of the offence imputed to them; but although Lord Baltimore and his companions were acquitted of the charge of rape, there can be little doubt that the ruin of the unfortunate girl Woodcock—even if what was admitted by his lordship were only true—was the effect of a vile conspiracy among the prisoners to sacrifice her to the libertine passions of his lordship.

JOHN WILKES, ESQ.

CONVICTED OF SEDITION AND BLASPHEMY.

The most scandalous and offensive of his writings were in a periodical publication called the “North Briton,” No. 45; and a pamphlet entitled “An Essay on Woman[12].” The “North Briton” was of a political nature; the other a piece of obscenity: the one calculated to set the people against the government; the other to corrupt their morals.

Amongst the ministers who found themselves more personally attacked in the “North Briton” was Samuel Martin, Esq. member for Camelford. This gentleman found his character, as secretary to the Treasury, so vilified, that he called the writer to the field. He had before been engaged in a duel with Lord Talbot, and had then escaped unhurt, but Mr. Martin shot him; and the wound proved so dangerous that he lay uncertain of recovering during several days, and was confined to his house for some weeks.

His sufferings, however, did not end here, for the attorney-general filed informations against him as author of “The North Briton,” No. 45[13], and the pamphlet entitled “An Essay on Woman.” On these charges he was apprehended; and his papers having been seized and inspected, he was committed prisoner to the Tower, but was soon admitted to bail. Before his trial came on, Mr. Wilkes fled to France, under the pretext of restoring his health, which had suffered from his wound, and the harassing measures taken against him by the secretaries of state, Lord Egremont and Lord Halifax; and no sooner was he out of the kingdom, than the ministers proceeded to outlawry, dismissed him from his command as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia, and expelled him from his seat in parliament.

While in Paris, he was challenged to fight by a Captain Forbes, on account of the reflections which he had cast upon the birthplace of the gallant captain, Scotland; but he declined the invitation, alleging that he had still an affair to settle with Lord Egremont before he could venture to take any other duel upon his hands. The death of that noble lord, however, left him free to fight; but on his writing to accept the challenge, his antagonist was not to be found. Mr. Wilkes subsequently returned to London, and gave notice that he should appear to answer the charges preferred against him on a certain day; and then having appeared in his place, as an alderman, in Guildhall, on his return, the mob took the horses from his carriage and dragged it to his house, crying “Wilkes and liberty!” On the 21st of February 1764, the trial of Mr. Wilkes, upon the accusations alleged against him, came on before Lord Mansfield, and he was found guilty on both charges, subject to arguments upon certain points as to the validity of his apprehension, the seizure of his papers, and the judgment of outlawry which had been obtained against him. The discussions preliminary to these arguments occupied the courts at various times during a space of two years; and in the mean time, the popularity of Mr. Wilkes and the outrages of the mob increased daily.

At length, on the 27th of April 1768, Mr. Wilkes having been served with a writ of Capias utlagatum, was brought to the floor of the Court of King’s Bench in the custody of the proper officer, in order that the question of his being admitted to bail might be considered. A long argument took place, but it terminated in favour of the crown, and Mr. Wilkes was conveyed to the King’s Bench prison. On his way thither the mob seized the coach in which he was carried, and taking the horses from it, dragged him to a public-house in Spitalfields, where they permitted him to alight; but at about eleven o’clock at night he effected his escape from his over-zealous friends, and proceeding to the prison, immediately surrendered himself into lawful custody. On the following day he was visited by many of his friends; and a vast mob having collected outside the prison, it was feared that some outrage would be committed. All remained quiet, however, until night, when the rails by which the prison wall was surrounded were pulled up and burned as a bonfire, and the inhabitants of Southwark were compelled to illuminate their houses; but upon the arrival of a captain’s guard of soldiers, the crowd dispersed without doing any further mischief.

On the 28th of April the case of outlawry was determined; and Mr. Serjeant Glynn having appeared on the part of Mr. Wilkes, and the Attorney-General for the crown, a learned and lengthy argument was heard, the result of which was a unanimous expression on the part of the court that the outlawry must be reversed. The general warrant on which the accused had been apprehended was next considered and declared illegal; but the counsel for the crown then immediately moved that judgment might be passed upon Mr. Wilkes upon the several convictions which had taken place. This was answered by a motion on his part in arrest of judgment, and the following Thursday was fixed upon for hearing the point argued.

In the mean time a mob had remained assembled round the prison whom no efforts of the civil force could disperse; but at length the justices appeared, followed by a troop of soldiers, determined at once to put an end to the alarming nuisance which had so long existed. All attempts to procure the separation of the crowd by fair means having failed, the Riot Act was read; and this also having no effect, the soldiers were ordered to fire. The command was instantly obeyed, and many persons were killed and dangerously wounded, some of whom were passing at a distance from the scene of confusion.

At length the day arrived on which the last effort was to be made to get rid of the charges against Mr. Wilkes; but the arguments for an arrest of judgment, though carried on with great ingenuity, would not hold, and he was found to have been legally convicted of writing the libels. For that in the “North Briton” he was fined five hundred pounds, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in the King’s Bench prison; and for the “Essay on Woman” five hundred pounds more, a further imprisonment of twelve months, and to find security for his good behaviour for seven years.

Previously to his imprisonment Mr. Wilkes had been elected member of parliament for Middlesex, when the address which he published to his constituents contained the following passages:—“In the whole progress of ministerial vengeance against me for several years, I have shown, to the conviction of all mankind, that my enemies have trampled on the laws, and have been actuated by the spirit of tyranny and arbitrary power.

“The general warrant under which I was first apprehended has been adjudged illegal. The seizure of my papers was condemned judicially

Wilkes’ Riots.
Wilkes’ Riots.

The outlawry, so long the topic of violent abuse, is at last declared to have been contrary to law; and on the ground first taken by my friend, Mr. Serjeant Glynn, is formally reversed.”

The mob after the election proceeded to the commission of the most violent outrages. They broke the windows of Lord Bute, the prime minister, and of the Mansion House, including even those of the lady mayoress’s bedchamber, and forced the inhabitants of the metropolis to illuminate their houses, crying out “Wilkes and liberty!” and all who refused to echo it back were knocked down.

A stone was thrown by this daring mob at the Polish Count Rawotski, which he dexterously caught in his hand, the windows of his carriage in which he sat being fortunately down; and his lordship looking out and smiling, he received no other violence.

The outrages of the populace were too many to be enumerated; several innocent people were killed, and vast numbers wounded. They broke windows without number, destroyed furniture, and even insulted royalty itself.

These disgraceful tumults were not confined to the metropolis; and the lenity, or, as some did not hesitate to assert, the timidity of the government, spread disaffection into all classes of mechanics, who, thinking the time at hand when they might exact what wages they pleased, perhaps even beyond their masters’ profits, struck work.

The sailors, following the example of the landsmen, went in a body of many thousands, with drums beating and colours flying, to St. James’s Palace, and presented a petition to the king, praying a “Relief of Grievances.” Two days afterwards they assembled in much greater numbers, and proceeded as far as Palace Yard, in order to petition Parliament for an increase of wages; when they were addressed by two gentlemen standing on the top of a hackney-coach, who told them that their petition could not be immediately attended to, but that it would be considered and answered in due time; whereupon the tars gave three cheers, and for a while dispersed. A short time afterwards, however, they re-assembled at Limehouse, and boarding several outward-bound vessels, seized their crews, pretending that they would not suffer any ships to sail until their wages were increased. The watermen, the Spitalfields weavers, the sawyers, the hatters, and the labouring classes in the country, all combined in the attempt to procure their wages to be raised; but while in London the confusion was nearly universal, in the country its effects were confined to a few districts, where some interested persons managed to excite the peaceably-disposed people to acts of outrage.

They soon discovered the error into which they had fallen, however; and a few of them having suffered execution, and others some severe imprisonments, they returned to their duty.

The folly of popular commotion was never better exemplified than in the case of Wilkes, whose patriotism was accidental and mercenary; for his letters to his daughter clearly show the contempt with which he regarded the enthusiasm in his favour, and the object he had in view in exciting hatred against the government. Many of the deluded people who shouted “Wilkes and liberty!” were severely injured in the riots; and others were subsequently punished by the outraged laws of the country. In a short time the commotion subsided, and the author of them sunk into comparative obscurity, in which he continued until his death in 1797, at the age of seventy years.

MUNGO CAMPBELL.

CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF THE EARL OF EGLINTON.

About ten in the morning of the 24th of October 1769, Campbell took his gun, and went out with another officer, with a view to detect smugglers. Mr. Campbell took with him a licence for shooting, which had been given him by Dr. Hunter, though they had no particular design of killing any game, but intended to shoot a woodcock if they should see one.

They crossed a small part of Lord Eglinton’s estate, in order to reach the sea-shore, where they intended to walk; but when they arrived at this spot it was near noon, and Lord Eglinton came up in his coach, attended by Mr. Wilson, a carpenter, who was working for him, and followed by four servants on horseback. On approaching the coast his lordship met Bartleymore, who told him that there were some poachers at a distance. Mr. Wilson would have endeavoured to draw off his lordship’s notice from such a business; but Bartleymore saying that Campbell was among the poachers, Lord Eglinton quitted his coach, and mounting a led horse, rode to the spot, where he saw Campbell and the other officer, whose name was Brown. His lordship said, “Mr. Campbell, I did not expect to have found you so soon again on my grounds, after your promise when you shot the hare. I must desire that you will give me your gun.” Mr. Campbell refused to deliver up his property, because he said that he was not employing it in an unlawful manner, on which Lord Eglinton rode towards him, apparently with the intention of taking it from him. Mr. Campbell on this raised his gun, and retreating, presented it at his lordship’s body; but the latter still followed him, and smiling, asked him if he meant to shoot him. He said that he would if he did not keep off, and then Lord Eglinton desired that his gun should be brought to him from the carriage. In the interim, his lordship dismounted, and going close to Mr. Campbell, again required that he should deliver up the weapon which he carried, but the latter declared that he had a right to carry it, and that he would deliver it to no man, and repeated that his lordship must therefore keep off, unless he wished to be shot. Bartleymore now interfered; and Mr. Campbell stumbling against a stone, fell, and Lord Eglinton then advanced as if to seize him. In a moment, however, Mr. Campbell raised himself on his elbow, and lodged the contents of his piece in the noble earl’s left breast. His lordship directly cried out that he was killed, and Mr. Campbell was seized; but his lordship desired that no violence should be used towards him.

Lord Eglinton’s seat was about three miles from the place where this fatal event happened; and his servants put him into the carriage to convey him home. In the mean time Campbell’s hands were tied behind him; and he was conducted to the town of Saltcoats, the place of his former station as an exciseman.

His lordship, after languishing for ten hours, died; and Mr. Campbell was then committed to the jail of Ayr to await his trial.

Upon his being arraigned upon the indictment preferred against him, various arguments were urged in his favour. It was said—“That the gun went off by accident, and therefore it could be no more than casual homicide.

“Secondly—That, supposing it had been fired with an intention to kill, yet the act was altogether justifiable, because of the violent provocation he had received; and he was doing no more than defending his life and property.

“Thirdly—It could not be murder, because it could not be supposed that Mr. Campbell had any malice against his lordship, and the action itself was too sudden to admit of deliberation.”

The counsel for the prosecution urged in answer, in the first place,

“That it was certain malice was implied, in consequence of Campbell’s presenting the gun to his lordship, and telling him that, unless he kept off, he would shoot him.

“Secondly—That there was no provocation given by the earl besides words, and words could not be construed a provocation in law.

“Thirdly—The earl had a right to seize his gun, in virtue of several acts of parliament, which were the established laws of the land, to which every subject is obliged to be obedient.”

After repeated debates between the lawyers of Scotland, a day was at length appointed for the trial, which commenced on the 27th of February 1770, before the High Court of Justiciary; and, the jury having found Mr. Campbell guilty, he was sentenced to die.

The Lord Justice Clerk, before he pronounced the solemn sentence, addressed himself to the convict, advising him to make the most devout preparation for death, as all hopes of pardon would be precluded, from the nature of his offence.

The prisoner conducted himself throughout the whole proceedings with the utmost calmness, and took leave of his friends in the evening with great apparent cheerfulness; and, retiring to his apartment, he begged the favour of a visit from them on the following day. In the morning of the 28th of February 1770, however, he was found dead, hanging to the end of a form which he had set upright, and a silk handkerchief fastened round his neck.

The following lines were found upon the floor, close to the body:—