dow's Corner, at Camlachie; at that place they all turned to the right off the public road. Witness went up to a house farther up, where by a different route he got on to the place where the party was going. They went down towards a park on the right hand side of the Glasgow road. Witness went after them very slowly, but kept them in sight. It had been raining, but was not then, and no moonlight. Heard M'Phie, when they were in the park, exclaim, "B of hell!" but he did not know what it meant. They still went on, and on going down a brae towards a burn, they got out of his sight. He then heard the report of a pistol fired. After the shot, witness heard repeated cries of murder from the same place.

Cross-examined-His reason for dreading some harm to the soldier was, that panels had been often blamed for things of that kind before.

George Hamilton, weaver, Parkhead, remembers of a soldier being shot near Camlachie, in February last. Had been in Glasgow that day, and returned to Parkhead about nine in the evening. He met a soldier about the west end of Parkhead, on the north side of the road towards Glasgow. Cannot speak as to his dress. No one was with him; but saw the panels, M'Menemy and M Phie, following him; also a third man, whom he did not know; they were two or three yards from him. When in bed, he was told that a soldier had been shot and robbed that night. His brother, when he passed him on the road, said something to him, but what it was does not recollect,

Hamilton Cross, lately weaver in Camlachie, now private soldier-Was in Camlachie in February last. Heard of a soldier being killed. He met a soldier on the pavement, going towards Glasgow. The three panels were with him; M'Phie was in rear of him; MMenemy was on the right, and Hamilton on the left. Had known them be

13

fore. They walked as they discoursed, both going in the same direction, till the soldier and panels turned down a road to the right, when witness observed to M Phie that was a funny way to go to Duke Street. Witness went off the road by Haddow's Corner, towards Chalmers' Close, which is near Vinegar Hill; this might occupy a minute. He sat down in the house for some time, when he heard the report of a pistol from the eastward, or north side of the Glasgow road; it came from the direction of Camlachie burn, which runs in a park behind Chalmers' house. Went out, on hearing the shot, and heard the cries of murder; he ran to where the cries came from, through the field, which was ploughed, and went along the ridge of the brae, before he descended to the burn. Three persons ran past him towards Haddow's Cor ner; they were like the three men whom he had seen with the soldier, but did not recognise them as the same, though he thought they were. He went down (the ground being ploughed, as he thought) to where a soldier was lying, but cannot say he was the same whom he had met with the panels.

Evidence of a similar tendency was given by other witnesses.

William Lyon, surgeon in Parkhead, remembers a soldier being brought in wounded, to the house of a man named Haddow in Camlachie. There were two wounds in his left thigh, one in the inside, the other in the outside; the bone was fractured, and small pieces of bone were issuing from one of the wounds,

Francis Neilson, surgeon, Glasgow, was sent by the Sheriff to visit the deceased. Read a report of his case, made up by him at the time, which bore that it was a very dangerous one. After he died, witness inspected his body, and made out a report, which he now read. It bore that the wounds in his thigh were the cause of his death, and that among the muscles was found a quan

tity of delft and tile. In witness's opinion the wounds must have been made by a circular substance, which passed through and through.

The prisoners' declarations were then read. Hamilton stated that he was a soldier in the 79th regiment, from which he deserted at Campbeltown, and was in Glasgow about the time that a soldier was wounded. He denied being accessary to the crime.

M.Menemy stated that he was a weaver, and resided in Parkhead on the night the soldier was shot, but was not out of his own house that evening. He denied all accession to, or knowledge of, the crime.'

M Phie said, he was a weaver by trade, but had latterly been employed in a coal pit as a shanker. That on the night the soldier was wounded he had gone to bed early; but was awoke by a dragoon, who was on furlough, with whom he went out for a little, after ten o'clock, to get a dram.

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

John Scott knows the panels M'Menemy and M Phie. Remembers the evening of the day in February, on which a soldier was shot. Witness was at M'Menemy's house that evening. Went there about seven o'clock, and found M Menemy at home. There was nobody else there but his wife and children. Remained there nearly two hours. While witness was in M'Menemy's he heard M'Phie singing. Knew it to be M Phie's voice. Mrs M Menemy said, "Hear our Sandy singing." When witness left the house, M'Menemy came to the door, and bade him good night. He had at that time his coat, hat, and shoes off, and appeared to be going to bed.

Janet Black or Crosbie, wife of Robert Crosbie, Parkhead, knows M'Menemy and M'Phie. Remembers Scott going away, a few minutes before nine o'clock. Heard M'Menemy and him go out together, and take good night.

Heard M Menemy return and shut his door. There could no person, not the smallest child, pass up or down, without witness hearing them. Heard a man's foot on the stair afterwards. The man knocked at Samuel M.Menemy's door; knew it was a man's voice and tramp. It was a heavy tramp. The person asked for Sandy M'Phie, and Mrs M Menemy showed him the door. Mrs M Menemy barred her door again, and witness heard her and her husband speaking together. Heard the person rap at M Phie's door. M'Phie's mother answered, and said he was in, but in bed; and asked the person to come in. He stopt a considerable time, and he and M'Phie went out together. M'Phie stopt out about a quarter of an hour.

By the Crown-Is quite sure it was on the evening in which she afterwards heard of a soldier being wounded, that all this happened. M Phie locked the outer door that night just before eleven o'clock.

Robert Hamilton, father of the panel of that name, heard of his son's desertion; went for him to M'Nair's mother's on the 24th; it was not then rung six o'clock. He took his son home with him to King's Street, Calton; he had him there before seven o'clock; he is sure he did not go out again that night, nor till near six o'clock next morning; is as sure as the sun is in the firmament. He wished to conceal his son, knowing him to be a deserter. He slept beside his own bed on a shake-down.

The Lord Advocate then addressed the Jury. He contended that the evidence in proof of an alibi, with the exception of the near relations of the panels, was quite inconclusive.

Mr M'Dougall (with whom was Mr Dunbar) said, that the corpus delicti had been proved, there could be no doubt. But the case was one of circumstantial evidence, and it was necessary in all such cases that the chain of evidence should be complete-that not

a link should be wanting. He then went over the proof in exculpation, contending that they had made out a complete case of alibi for all the prisoners; and on the whole view of the evidence, he asked of the Jury their full and free acquittal.

The Lord Justice Clerk then proceeded to sum up the evidence, which he went through with great minuteness. In conclusion his Lordship observed that the Jury would have to consider which was entitled to belief-the witnesses for the prosecution, or those for the panels. His Lordship began his ebarge at a quarter before ten, and concluded at half past twelve o'clock.

The Jury then retired, and returned into Court, at a quarter past one, with a verdict finding the indictment Not Proven.

The Lord Justice Clerk, in dismissing the Jury, said he was not surprised that there should have been a difference of opinion among them in this case. His Lordship then addressed the panels, and said they had made the narrowest of all possible escapes. With regard to the verdict, he would only say that they were fortunate men; and trusted that their future conduct might be such as that it should never be found necessary again to place them at the bar on such a charge.

The prisoners are all good-looking young men, but not seemingly of spotless character; as it appears from their declarations, that their intimacy had commenced when prisoners in Glasgow jail. They maintained the greatest com. posure throughout the trial.

LANCASTER ASSIZES.

RIOTS AND DESTRUCTION OF MACHINERY AT BLACKBURN.-On Monday, the 14th August, James Riding, William Sutcliffe, Richard Kay, James Latham, James Ormerod James Haworth, and Thomas Bolton, were VOL. XIX. PART III.

indicted for, "that they, on the 24th of April, with force and arms, in the parish of Blackburn, did feloniously, by day, break into a certain building, namely, a cotton mill, belonging to Bannister Eccles, with intent to break and destroy the machinery therein, and did actually destroy it." The jury found the first six named individuals Guilty, and the other Not Guilty.

THE WAKEFIELDS.-On Saturday, the grand jury returned true bills against Edward Gibbon Wakefield and William Wakefield, for a misdemeanour. Also a true bill against Edward Gibbon Wakefield, William Wakefield, Edward Thevenot, and Francis Wakefield, for a conspiracy. The bill against Edward Wakefield, the father, was declared to be ignored.

On Monday, Edward Gibbon Wakefield was placed at the bar; he is a goodlooking man, of middle stature, with a not very intellectual or amiable countenance; he was handsomely dressed; his age is forty.

The clerk of the Court then read to Edward Gibbon Wakefield and William Wakefield the indictment against them for a misdemeanour, in the abduction of Ellen Turner, on the 7th of March, from the care of the Misses Daulby, she being of the age of only fifteen years, without the consent of her father, and against her own will, and falsely and wickedly representing to her that her father was in danger of being arrested for debt, but that if she should immediately consent to marry the said Edward Gibbon Wakefield, her father would be released from all danger of imprisonment and ruin, and that the marriage actually took place. Mr Coltman then entered into an argument to show that Edward Gibbon Wakefield was entitled to delay pleading to this indictment, and to traverse to the next assizes.

Mr Williams and Mr Brougham, for the prosecution, urged that, though

G

Edward Gibbon Wakefield had been committed for the felony, and was now proceeded against only for the misdemeanour, yet the facts were the same, and therefore, he would not be taken by surprise if called on to take his trial immediately.

The judge gave it as his opinion that Edward Gibbon Wakefield had a right to traverse till the next assizes, though he must plead immediately; but he gave his opinion most strongly that William Wakefield, who had been originally charged only with the misdemeanour, and had been out on bail more than 20 days, must take his trial at the present assizes.

William Wakefield was now called upon to plead to the first indictment against him, and he pleaded Not Guilty. He was then arraigned on the second charge of conspiring to carry away Ellen Turner, to which he also pleaded Not Guilty.

Frances Wakefield, the mother, was then called upon to plead to the second indictment of conspiracy, and she pleaded Not Guilty. Her husband, Edward Wakefield, was bound in recognizances of L.2000 for her appearance at the next assizes, and her father, the Rev. D. Davies of Macclesfield, and her brother-in-law, Mr Daniel Wakefield, the Chancery barrister, became sureties for her to the amount of L.1000 each. Edward G. Wakefield then pleaded Not Guilty to both indictments, and he was allowed to traverse to the next assizes, giving bail, himself to the amount of L2500, and Dr Davies, and Mr Daniel Wakefield, to the amount of L.1250 each. He was also required, by the same recognizances, to keep the peace towards the said William Turner, Esq. and his family, and the judge said it would be a most heinous aggravation of his already enormous crime, if he broke the peace again towards that family. His Lordship then adjourned the Court.

A motion was brought forward on Wednesday morning to postpone the trial of Mr Wakefield until next assizes; and, after lengthened pleadings, Mr Justice Park refused the motion. Upon being asked by the AttorneyGeneral to name a time for the trial to come on, his Lordship said he could not tell when, but he might by possibility commence it on Thursday. Then a serious case of murder (the M'Keands) would be taken on Friday, and perhaps it might be Saturday before Wakefield's case closed.

Friday, the trial of Alexander M Keand, aged 35, and Michael M‹Keand, aged 24, for the murder of Elizabeth Bates, at Winton, near Manchester, took place. The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. The witnesses examined were, Mrs Martha Blears, the landlady of the public house where the murder was committed; Mr Joseph Blears, her husband; Wm. Higgins, the boy who lived with the two last witnesses, and whose escape from the murderous grasp of Alexander M'Keand was so providential, Mary Andrews, the next neighbour to Mr and Mrs Blears; Mr William Brittan, the constable of Barton (who produced several articles of dress, marked with blood, and a knife likewise all bloody); Simon Williamson, a servant man, living in the neighbourhood of Winton, Mr Edward Foulkes, attorney; Mr W. Hancock (the individual who lodged with the M Keands at the time of the dreadful occurrence); Mr Richard Farrady (the person who apprehended the prisoners); Mr Garside, the surgeon; and Mrs Sarah Stewart. The Jury found the prisoners both Guilty. The awful sentence of the law was then pronounced upon the wretched men.

The trial of William Wakefield, which has been looked for with such extreme interest, and which was to have come on, on Monday last, has gone off in a manner wholly unexpect

ed, owing to the flight of the defend

(ant.

At half past nine Mr Justice Park entered the Court. The only counsel for the prosecution in attendance was Mr Brougham, who rose and intimated to his Lordship that he should wish William Wakefield to be called on his recognizances.

The Judge having given orders accordingly, the Clerk of the Court made the following proclamation three times: -"William Wakefield, come forth; save you and your bail, or you will forfeit your recognizances." The Judge then ordered his sureties to be called in like manner, and the Clerk of the Court proclaimed accordingly-" David Davis, of Macclesfield, in the county of Chester, Doctor in Divinity, bring forth the body of William Wakefield, whom you undertook to have here to-day, or you will forfeit your recognizances." The same proclamation was made with regard to the other surety, John Cuthbert, of Stonehouse, near Broadstairs, in the parish of St Peter's, Isle of Thanet, in the county of Kent, Esq.

The Judge. Is there any reason to suppose that William Wakefield is not here? May he not have been prevent ed by the circumstances of this morning from attending punctually?

66

Mr Dennison, the attorney for the defendant, said, “ My Lord, he will not be forthcoming."

The Judge. Let the recognizances be estreated.

Mr Brougham. Not only those of his bail, but his own recognizances.

The Judge. Certainly.

Mr Brougham then applied for his Lordship's warrant to apprehend the defendant.

The Judge. I will issue my warrant, but you are aware that it only extends to this county. You must apply to a Judge of the Court of King's Bench, if you want one to extend all

over the kingdom. I shall grant the warrant certainly, but it will be in the usual form, viz. that he should be brought before me, if I should still be remaining here, or otherwise before any of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace. The question is, whether I have the power of inserting a clause in the warrant, that notice of bail shall be given if he is taken. He will be entitled to be bailed, and he may afterwards forfeit another recognizance. It appears to me that to limit the jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace would be to infringe it. I was asking Mr Hopkins (the clerk of the Court) if there ever was an instance of such a limitation, and he says there is not. One of my clerks, who was formerly with a Judge of the King's Bench, tells me that he has often made out warrants in that Court, with a clause that there should be forty-eight hours' notice of bail, but those were warrants to bring the defendants before one of the Judges of the King's Bench. Mr Hopkins remembers a case from Liverpool where notice of bail was required.

Mr Brougham.-No doubt he will be entitled, when taken, to be bailed, as this is only a misdemeanour; but I apprehend he must give notice of bail. That, however, may probably be left to the discretion of the Magistrate.

The Judge. Certainly; it will be safer to make out the warrant in the common form.

The warrant was then made out accordingly.

During this conversation, none of the defendant's Counsel were in Court, neither were any of the Wakefield family.

The amount of the recognizances forfeited by the non-appearance of William Wakefield is four thousand pounds. It was thus apportioned: Wakefield's own recognizance was L.2000; Mr Cuthbert was bail for L.1500; and Dr Davies for L.500.