off the picturesque attire in which he had hitherto been in the habit of
dressing, and assumed one of a more homely character. This was a blouse
or frock of brown holland with a black belt, in which he carried a brace
of pistols; and a round bat. He was usually also armed with a sword and
dagger; but his miserable followers possessed no other weapons than
those which the hedges or woods through which they passed afforded them.
It is remarkable that none of them were of so low a station as to render
it at all probable that want had induced them to listen to the insane
promises of their leader. The precise object which was held in view
appears to have been unknown even to the misguided men themselves; but
the general impression was, that Courtenay, by his power, would take
possession of all the private estates of the county, which he would
bestow upon his trusty followers. The Sunday after the riot, according
to the statements and promises which he made, was to have been "a
glorious but a bloody day," and some persons did not scruple to assert
that it was his intention on that day to fire Canterbury. The
distressing events, therefore, of the 31st of May, it is probable,
served to prevent the occurrence of scenes even more terrible. The
belief which existed among the lower orders that Courtenay would rise
again from the dead was one which could scarcely be driven from their
minds, even after they had seen that the process of decomposition had
commenced in his remains. He had told one of his disciples, a woman,
that if a little water were placed between his lips after his apparent
death, he should rise again in a month; and so firm was the belief in
his assertion of his and his followers being invulnerable, that the
wretched men at the conflict in Bossenden-wood fought for a time with
the most reckless carelessness of the consequences.
The visual proof of the existence of a degree of superstition so gross
as that which is shown here to have been exhibited is almost necessary
to induce its belief; but there can be no doubt that the lamentable
ignorance and fanaticism of the peasantry was even more striking than we
have described it to be. The general happy contentedness of the
inhabitants of the county of Kent--the agricultural, and, therefore,
simple nature of their employment--the proximity of their position to
the metropolis, and the high state of cultivation to which the soil of
that county has been brought, one would have thought would have tended
to forbid the possibility of such occurrences among them. These
remarkable details, however, only serve to afford an additional proof of
the facility with which the human mind is moved, and how open it is to
the operations of the allurements of fanaticism.
WILLIAM FRANCIS ADAMS.
TRANSPORTED FOR LARCENY.
This wretched convict there is too much reason to believe was guilty of
the horrible crime of parricide, as well as that of larceny, of which he
was convicted, although the evidence to show his participation in the
more serious offence was deemed too inconclusive by the jury to warrant
his conviction upon that charge.
At the time of his first trial, on the 16th of March, 1838, Adams had
only recently reached his eighteenth year, and the charge which was then
preferred against him was that of the wilful murder of his father. Upon
this indictment he was acquitted; but within a few days of his
liberation from custody he was again committed to gaol, upon a charge of
threatening an old shepherd who had given evidence against him. Some new
evidence of his guilt was obtained during this imprisonment of the
unhappy youth, and on Thursday the 26th of July he was again indicted at
the assizes held for the county of Buckingham, at Aylesbury. His
acquittal upon the charge of murder rendered it impossible that he
should be tried a second time for that offence; and the allegation in
the indictment now preferred was, that he had stolen a pocket-book
containing notes and cash, the property of his father.
The circumstances which appeared in evidence were these:--Old Adams was
a man of some property, both personal and real, and lived at Burcot,
near Wing, in Buckinghamshire. On the 28th of December, 1837, both he
and his son (the prisoner) were seen by the workmen employed about the
farm to go by different directions towards a place called the Fox-hill
cow-house, which they entered about the hour of half-past two. From that
time the old man was never more seen alive; but his son was shown to
have ridden home at four o'clock on a mare on which his father had been
seen at the hour first mentioned. In consequence of his non-appearance
at nightfall, a strict search was instituted, which eventually resulted
in the discovery of the body, cold and extended under some hay in the
cow-house, with rifled pockets, and marks of injury produced by gunshot
wounds in his head, which were quite sufficient to have caused instant
death. At the time no suspicion was aroused against the prisoner, but on
the following day he was taken up, and at the spring assizes tried for
the murder of his father. Of this charge, however, after a trial of
nearly fourteen hours' duration, he was acquitted, and, being set at
large, returned to his home, but shortly after his liberation, in
consequence of the further statements of a fellow-prisoner (who had
given at the former trial the most material testimony of an ample
confession by the prisoner, but who had been discredited, we presume,
for want of corroboration by other witnesses), the young man was again
arrested, and after an examination before the magistrates, finally
committed to take his trial at the present assizes for the offence of
stealing the pocket-book and its contents as above stated. To support
this charge, the former witness, James Fuel, was now again called, who
deposed to the fact of "Young Adams" having asked him, during the time
they were in prison together, before the first trial, if he could get
anybody to get him some money if he told him where it was to be found?
Upon which, his brother Richard being sent for, Adams wrote two notes,
which were given to Richard with directions to "go by them." These notes
Richard now stated that he showed to three persons who read their
contents to him, and who all now deposed that to the best of their
memory (the notes having been burned and destroyed) they were to the
following tenor:--"This is to inform you where to get the money. Go to
Wing, at Burcot, and inquire for Adams's farm, and then look round and
see where the privy is. On the right-hand side, over the door, in a hole
betwixt the tilings and the loft, in the day-time, you will find a
pocket-book; you will take the money out of the pocket-book, and let the
papers remain in, and drop it down against the Cock Inn, Wing." The
second note was as follows:--"The man you have got in hold is innocent.
Them as done the deed find it out." Having possessed himself of this
information, Richard Fuel quitted his residence on Pinner-common, for
the purpose of going to Burcot and taking the money, in conjunction with
two others. They, however, got alarmed, as they said, when they heard
that Mr. Adams had been murdered, and desisted from their intentions;
but afterwards, some other men, with more nerve, to whom they had
disclosed their secret, started on the same errand, and sleeping
together at an inn at Tring, chanced to be overheard by the landlord
while they discussed the whole affair. This person immediately set out
himself, and, going to the house, asked for the prisoner's
brother-in-law, to whom he revealed all he knew of the matter. He, from
a very pardonable motive no doubt, and a wish to keep secret so
important a fact, for the trial of his relative had not then taken
place, invited the landlord to dine, and sending for his lawyer, went in
the mean time alone to the privy, where he found, just as he had been
told, the pocket-book of his father-in-law. This was now produced, and
its contents identified, by a long chain of evidence which we need not
particularize, further than by saying that it was most conclusive.--Such
is the outline of this extraordinary case, as detailed by the witnesses
for the prosecution.
On the other hand, Mr. Andrews addressed the jury, in a speech of great
acuteness and power, stigmatising the whole as a base fraud and
conspiracy between the Fuels and their friends, who had got up this
evidence, improbable and absurd as it was, against the unfortunate youth
at the bar, with a view to secure the pardon of James Fuel, who having
been convicted of felony since the last assizes, could only become a
witness by the pardon of her Majesty. To obtain this wicked end this
plot had been concocted, and to show its falsity witnesses would be
called who would prove from Fuel's own mouth, that he had over and over
again said that he had got a convict, named Mead, to write the notes, in
order that he might say Adams had given them to him, and to induce the
magistrates to take up the affair again and clear him from the penalty
of his own offence.
To substantiate this defence two men were called, named Daly and Palmer,
to the former of whom, when a prisoner, and to the latter also, who had
seen him in the prison, he had repeatedly admitted that he had spoken
falsely, and had got up the charge for the purposes above mentioned:
while another man further swore that Fuel's character was such that he
could not be believed upon his oath.
Mr. Byles having replied upon the whole case,
Mr. Justice Park elaborately, and with the utmost impartiality, summed
up the lengthened chain of evidence in an address which lasted to a late
hour. At the close of his lordship's address, which was delivered in a
tone and with a manner which showed how deeply the mind of the learned
judge had been affected by the painful nature of the inquiry, the jury,
after a short time spent in deliberation, returned a verdict of
"Guilty."
The prisoner was then immediately sentenced to transportation for a term
of seven years.
FRANCIS LIONEL ELIOT, EDWARD DELVES BROUGHTON, JOHN YOUNG, AND HENRY
WEBBER.
INDICTED FOR A MURDER COMMITTED IN A DUEL.
On the evening of Wednesday the 22nd of August, 1838, a duel took place
on Wimbledon Common, which was unhappily attended with fatal
consequences. The principal parties to this melancholy transaction were
Mr. Francis Lionel Eliot and Mr. Charles Flower Mirfin; and they were
accompanied, the former by Messrs. Young and Webber, the latter by
Broughton and another person, whose name, we believe, was never
ascertained with certainty, and also by Dr. Scott, a medical gentleman,
who attended to render that professional aid which it was deemed
possible might be required of him.
The circumstances which led to this duel are stated to be the
following:--During Epsom races, 1838, both Mr. Mirfin and Mr. Eliot
attended that far-famed sporting meeting. On the Derby-day they were
returning to town, Mr. Eliot driving a phaeton, and Mr. Mirfin a gig,
when, by some accident, the two vehicles came in contact, and Mr. Mirfin
was overturned. In the fall some of his ribs were fractured; and, on
getting up, an altercation arose, and offensive language passed, which
ended in Mr. Eliot striking Mr. Mirfin a blow on his already injured
side, of which injury, however, it is due to say, Mr. Eliot was
ignorant. The pain at the moment was excessive, and Mr. Mirfin had only
a faint recollection that the name of the party with whom he had come in
contact was Eliot; but he had been unable to obtain his address, and
therefore had no clue to his discovery, although extremely anxious to
call him to an account. Months rolled on, and only on one occasion, till
Tuesday night the 21st of August, had he obtained a transient view of
Mr. Eliot, in a cigar-shop, but almost instantly lost sight of him. On
Tuesday night, in company with two friends, he entered the saloon in
Piccadilly, and while he was there he heard the name of Eliot mentioned.
The name at once struck him, and, on looking at the party by whom it was
acknowledged, he recognised him as the person whom he had so long
sought, and from whom he had received a blow. He immediately requested
one of his friends, Mr. Broughton, to address Mr. Eliot, and call the
matter to his recollection Mr. Eliot admitted the fact, and offered to
make an apology. It would seem, however, that neither party was in a
situation to enter upon the subject then, and it was agreed that mutual
friends should meet at the Opera Colonnade Hotel at twelve o'clock on
the next morning to discuss the matter. Mr. Mirfin then proceeded to his
residence, No. 2, Pleasant-place, West-square, Lambeth, where he retired
to rest. At the time appointed the friends met, when an objection was
made on the part of Mr. Eliot to meet Mr. Mirfin. A firm determination
having been expressed, however, that such meeting must take place, on a
second application to Mr. Eliot he acceded to the proposition, and a
hostile meeting was arranged for the same evening, on Wimbledon-common.
The individuals whom we have named accompanied the principals to the
intended scene of action; and a fitting spot having been selected, the
parties proceeded to adjust the preliminaries. After some conversation
among the parties, in which Mr. Mirfin refused to consent to receive a
verbal apology, the ground was measured, twelve paces, and the
principals being placed in their positions, each provided with a pistol,
at a concerted signal both fired, when the ball of Mr. Eliot's pistol
passed through Mr. Mirfin's hat, whilst that of Mr. Mirfin went
harmlessly by his antagonist. Mr. Mirfin then impatiently demanded
another pistol, having previously declared he would face a dozen shots
rather than submit to the insult he had received. The second fire
quickly followed, when Mr. Mirfin, placing his hand on his side,
exclaimed, "He's hit me!" and then, staggering a few paces back, fell
into the arms of Dr. Scott and his second. The former soon ascertained
that the wound was fatal, and in a moment the unfortunate man breathed
his last. The ball had taken a transverse direction, and had passed
through his heart. The fatal result being ascertained, Mr. Eliot and the
two seconds left the ground in the same carriage, and some casual
passengers coming up, the body was lifted into a cabriolet, and
immediately driven off the ground. It was conveyed to Pleasant-place,
and, with the assistance of Dr. Scott, who resided in Rockingham-row,
Kent-road, was laid on the carpet in the parlour, when another medical
gentleman, a Mr. Smith, was sent for, and the body was stripped, but all
hope of recovery had vanished. It would seem that application was
subsequently made to Mr. Reed, an undertaker in the London-road, to
prepare a coffin, and to convey the body for interment to a distant part
of the country. This he declined; and finding the cause of death, he
felt it his duty to inform Mr. Young, a constable in the neighbourhood,
who communicated the fact to Field, a police-inspector, who placed the
corpse in charge of one of his men until a coroner's inquest could be
held.
On Saturday, the 25th of August, an inquest was held on the body of the
deceased, which was continued by adjournment until the following
Tuesday, when the circumstances which we have detailed were proved in
evidence; and from the statements of the witnesses, the various parties
whose names have been mentioned were shown to have been concerned in the
affair. The duel appears to have been conducted, however, upon perfectly
fair principles, and there was nothing in the conduct of any of the
persons present to induce a supposition that any ungentlemanly advantage
was taken on either side. Mr. Scott, the surgeon, entered into a
detailed account of the whole transaction, which differed in no material
degree from the general statement which we have given. The jury
returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder" against all the parties concerned
as principal or seconds; the verdict as to the latter, however, only
referring to them as being accessory to the offence.
At the ensuing session at the Central Criminal Court, indictments were
preferred against the various parties concerned; and it being understood
that Mr. Broughton would surrender to take his trial on Friday the 21st
of September, on that day the court was much crowded.
Upon Mr. Broughton being called, however, he did not appear, and his
absence was stated to be accounted for by the indisposition of Mr.
Clarkson, who had been retained as counsel on his behalf; but Messrs.
Webber and Young presented themselves, and declared themselves ready to
take their trial. They were defended respectively by Mr. Adolphus and
Mr. C. Phillips, while Mr. Chambers conducted the case for the
prosecution.
The whole of the facts were then again proved in evidence; and eloquent
appeals having been made on behalf of the prisoners by their counsel, a
great number of highly respectable witnesses were called, who gave them
excellent characters for the general humanity of their disposition.
Mr. Justice Vaughan, in summing up the case to the jury, remarked upon
the circumstances which had attended the duel. He observed, that it
should have been the bounden duty of all those who had acted as seconds,
or who were present, to have interfered to prevent this fatal meeting;
and that, at all events, after the first shot, even supposing the
mistaken ideas which might be entertained with regard to wounded honour
might be deemed to have rendered the affair so far excusable, they
should have positively refused to suffer any further proceedings. The
principals in such cases were the mere tools in the hands of their
seconds, and upon the latter rested the more serious responsibility. The
learned judge having also offered some observations upon the omission of
Mr. Scott to attempt to prevent the duel, said, that it sometimes
occurred that the feelings of the man were in opposition to those of the
judge, and considering that everything in this case appeared to have
been conducted with what was deemed fairness, he could not but feel some
compunction in stating, as he was bound to do, that persons who had
acted under such circumstances as those which had been disclosed were
guilty of murder. The question of the prisoners being connected with the
case was one for the jury, and one upon which their decision was
required. The jury, after some consideration, found the prisoners
"Guilty," and at the same time declared their opinion that Mr. Scott
himself should have stood at the bar with them. Mr. Justice Vaughan
expressed himself to be of the same opinion, and sentence of death was
then recorded against the prisoners.
They were instantly conveyed to the interior of Newgate, where they were
placed, in obedience to the usual course, in the condemned cells. The
application of their friends to the crown, however, soon procured their
liberation from this disagreeable confinement; but the sentence of death
was only removed upon condition of their undergoing twelve months'
imprisonment in the House of Correction at Guildford, one month of which
was to be passed in solitude.
On Friday, the 8th of February, 1839, Mr. Broughton surrendered at the
Old Bailey to take his trial, and pleaded "Guilty" to the indictment.
Sentence of death was recorded against him; but in this case, as in that
of Webber and Young, the punishment was reduced to twelve months'
imprisonment.
Mr. Eliot, the surviving principal in this affair, was a gentleman of
highly respectable connexions--his father being a major-general in the
army. Mr. Mirfin, it appears, had formerly carried on business in
Tottenham-court-road as a linen-draper, but subsequently retired from
business upon a competency. His connexions were of great respectability,
his father and brothers being engaged in trade in the north of England
of a similar character with that in which he had been concerned. Mr.
Broughton, we believe, was a relation of Sir John Delves Broughton,
Bart., a general in the army, and descended of an ancient family.
Mr. Eliot succeeded in making his escape to the Continent, and has not
yet surrendered to the indictment preferred against him, which,
therefore, still remains in operation.
CHARLES KINNAISTER, AND OTHERS.
EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES.
The atrocious cold-blooded massacre of which these persons were guilty
is scarcely equalled by any event of a similar character. The scene of
the murder was the colony of New South Wales,--the victims were the
unoffending aboriginal natives of the country,--the miscreants by whom
the savage scene was enacted were Englishmen, who, however, from their
sanguinary disposition, do not deserve that they should receive such an
appellation. Fortunately for the vindication of humanity, the
unparalleled barbarities of which they were guilty were discovered, and
their perpetrators brought to justice.
The names of these monsters in human shape were Charles Kinnaister,
William Hawkins, James Perry, Edward Foley, James Cates, John Russell,
and John Johnson. It would seem that all of these were convicts, and had
been transported from this country. They had been assigned as stock-men
or shepherds to some of the settlers in the interior of the colony. In
the month of June 1838, these ruffians, influenced or induced by what
motive has not been discovered, beyond a determination to extirpate the
unhappy natives, set out on horseback in pursuit of their helpless
victims. They were traced in their progress inquiring after blacks, and
at last arrived at a hut near the big river, beyond Liverpool plains,
occupied by the first-named prisoner, Kinnaister. Here they discovered
that a little tribe of about thirty natives, men, women, and children,
including babes at their mothers' breasts, were congregated in the bush,
unsuspicious of danger and unconscious of offence. This was on Sunday
the 10th of June. They immediately approached their victims, who,
terrified at their manner, ran into Kinnaister's hut for protection,
crying for mercy; but they appealed to hearts of stone, who having thus
caught them, as it were, in a trap, dismounted, followed them into the
hut, and, despite of their entreaties, tied them together with a rope,
with the exception of one woman. This was done without a word being
uttered, and with a cool and bloody determination.
[Illustration: _Australian Aborigines slaughtered by Convicts._
_P. 479_]