of it was, to be admitted to see the state prisoners.

Q. You mentioned their names, per haps.-A. I believe not, I am not sure that I knew their names.

Q. Did you mention any particular object for making that request?-A. I believe I did not.

Q. You rather believe you did not mention any object you had to satisfy in seeing any of the state prisoners? -A. I am not sure.

Q. And you did not know their names even at that time?-A. I rather think not; I think the gaoler told me their names in the course of that day's conversation.

Q. What answer did the defendant make to that request of your Lordship's-A. He refused.

Q. What were the terms in which he communicated that refusal?-A. The precise words I cannot state, "I am not able to do it," or, "I cannot do it."

Q. As nearly as your lordship can state them?-A. I think they were, "I cannot do it," or, " I am not able to do it."

Q. Did not he ask your lordship if you had any complaint to make? Did he not tell your lordship, he had no objection to your lordship and the other gentlemen seeing the state prisoners, and merely asking them whether they had any complaint to make?-A. I think not.

Q. Did not the defendant say, that he had no objection to your lordship and the other gentlemen who were with you seeing the apartment of the state prisoners, merely asking them whether they had any complaints to make?-A. I think not; I think he positively refused to let us see the apartments. He pointed out where the apartments were, and as we were going round the prison, he pointed out the apartments from the outside.

Q. From the outside of their apart

ment, but the inside of the gate ?-A. Yes. As we were going round the prison, we met one of them walking through the yard, attended by a turnkey.

On the part of the defendant were exhibited many original commitments to the Tower, from 1650 to 1817, signed by the Secretary of State for the time being, also to Newgate, and county gaols. Among the early documents were the commitments of Lord Rus sel and Algernon Sydney; among the latter, those of John Horne Tooke, Quigley, and others, all to safe and close keeping, and forbidding intercourse with any one, except by special permission.

The Rev. Mr Manesty, one of the two visiting magistrates appointed at each quarter sessions to superintend the gaol, was then examined. He stated, that he was visiting niagistrate during the period in which the state prisoners were confined at Reading; that he and his brother magistrate were constantly admitted to them, and regulated every thing respecting them; that a guinea per week was allowed to each of them for subsistence; that they were accommodated in the best rooms in the prison, to the great inconve nience of the gaoler and the principal turnkey; that every comfort, consistent with their safe keeping, was studiously afforded them; and that, in point of fact, they had no complaint to make in those respects; that the whole conduct of Mr Eastaff was regulated by their advice and direction, and in every particular met with their perfect approbation.

Mr Justice Park then summed up the evidence, and addressed the Jury to the following effect:-Before he gave them, (as he was bound to do,) his view of the law upon the subject, he could not but express his satisfaction at the manner in which the trial had been conducted. It must satisfy

the assembled crowd, that, by the admission of all parties, their fellow subjects, in the unfortunate situation of prisoners, were treated with every humane consideration. He could not but deeply lament, that the majority of the magistrates at the sessions at Abing don had been induced so suspend Mr Eastaff from his office, pending his trial, and before it was ascertained by a Jury whether he had done any thing worthy of blame, or contrary to law; for obvious reasons, he could not approve of such a proceeding. Upon the law of the case he was bound to state his opinion to the Jury, who would give that opinion no more weight in their minds than they should think it deserved. With this caution he did not hesitate to declare, that he did not think that the Act of Parliament of the 31st of the King in any way af. fected the right of the crown, acting by the Secretary of State, to commit prisoners upon suspicion of high treason to SAFE and CLOSE custody, and to exclude them from intercourse with any individuals, magistrates or others, except by special permission. He came to this conclusion from a careful pe rusal of the words of the Act itself, from a reference to the parliamentary history of the time in which it was enacted, and from the uniform practice of above a century and a half, inclu ding periods both before and subsequent to the passing of the Act, and contemporaneous with it. If he could have any doubts as to the purport of the words of the Act, these two last mentioned circumstances would entirely remove them from his mind. Without meaning to cast the slightest imputation on the magistracy in general, or of this county in particular, he thought it would be utterly inconsistent with the fair ends and purposes of justice, and of the safe keeping of prisoners under charge of treason, that two or three hundred individuals should

possess the power of demanding free admission to them at their pleasure, without any restraint as to the nature of the intercourse, or any cause as signed for their interference :-that he threw out of his consideration, and exhorted the Jury to discharge from theirs, the characters, station, and con dition of the several parties in the cause. The question for them to consider was, Whether the prerogative of the Crown, as it had been uniformly exercised without question or dispute, for the repression of dangerous of fences, was abridged to the extent con tended for, by the Act of Parliament authorizing magistrates to visit "gaols, and other places of the nature of penitentiary houses;" if they were of that opinion, they would find the defendant guilty; ifotherwise, they would acquit him. He thought they should also take into their consideration that part of the preamble of the Suspension Act which was referred to by the counsel for the defendant.

The Jury, in less than five minutes, found a verdict for the defendant.

of his premises, and see if all was secure. All was secure the windows closed; and he recommended to Mr Bird to pick the lock of the front door, which could not be done because the key was inside. They then tried a door between Mr Bird's house and witness's, and broke it open; a passage communicated from that door to the back part of the house. Through that passage witness and two or three others proceeded to the back part of the house. They there raised up the sash of the kitchen window, and broke open the shutters. He then went through the window to the kitchen. When in the kitchen, he went to the hall through a passage. He opened the back-door to let in light, and then saw the body of Mary Symmons lying in the passage, with her head towards the stairs, and her feet towards the street-door. Witness stepped over her body, and opened the hall window, and then saw Mr Bird lying dead on his back in the parlour. The door between the hall and parlour was open. Upon examining further, he observed blood on the floor of the hall. It was near the body of Mary Symmons. There was a track of blood by drawing the body. The head was cut, the car was slit in two, part of the banisters was broken by her; a candle was lying beside her, which was nearly a whole one. About one-eighth part of the candle was burnt. When he saw Mr Bird, he saw a candle and candlestick near his knees; between his arms lay his spectacles, which were broken; on the table was a small pocket-book and a lottery ticket. There was no watch in his fob. His pockets were searched, and nothing was in them. Witness afterwards went up stairs into the little room over the parlour, and observed there a large tin box, and a padlock on it, and some papers lying loose on the floor. Some of the drawers of the secretary were open. Wit

ness did not examine them. He went to Mr Bird's bed-room, and found a double chest of drawers open, and every drawer was half open. The things in them appeared to have been turned over, and left in disorder. On the bed there were two or three keys, and near them, on the counterpane, marks of blood. The bed was made, and turned down ready for sleeping in. He did not go into the servants' room. On the front door of the house there was a chain, which did not appear to have been on that night. The lock was a spring-lock, and had not been locked beyond the spring. Witness remarked in the kitchen the servant's needlework on the table, and a penknife or two, and the tablecloth folded on one corner of it, as if for present use. There was a pair of slippers on the fender, and in the oven roasted potatoes, and the tea-kettle was full of water. He looked into the bureau, and saw a gentleman take some plate out of the bureau, which was open.

Frederick Finch, a surgeon at Greenwich, examined by Mr Berens.About one o'clock on the Sunday he went and saw the body of Mr Bird, who appeared to have been slaughter. ed in a most shocking manner; there were two deep indentions, about the size of a penny piece, on each side of the forehead, and a long fracture on the back of the head, appearing to have been caused by several blows repeated; from one wound a portion of the brain appeared to have escaped: he was of opinion that it had been done with a hammer, which had a sharp cutting edge and smooth face. He found on the head of Mary Symmons the mark of a blow on the os frontis, which alone would have caused death; she had besides seven or nine wounds, all appearing to have been inflicted with the same instrument; they appeared as if caused by the cutting edge of the hammer. He since saw a hammer,

and one of that description was exactly the one which would have inflicted the wounds; there was one wound in particular, which seemed exactly to correspond with the cutting edge of the hammer he saw. The jugular vein had been wounded, and caused a vomiting.

Cross-examined by Mr Nolan.Witness did not think that any instrument but some species of hammer could have inflicted the wound.

Mrs Kesiah Bell examined by Mr Common Serjeant.-Witness lives at Greenwich, and is a washerwoman. She used frequently to go to chare and wash at Mr Bird's; his wife died two years and four months before the murder; nine o'clock was his usual hour of supping; sometimes he supped on potatoes; ten o'clock was his general hour of going to bed; he used to pull off his shoes after supper, and his slippers were left for him after the supper-cloth was removed. Witness had been washing there on the Monday before the murder; she washed eighteen shirts; after the murder she saw two shirts and a handkerchief produced by the constable; she was sure she had washed those two shirts on the Monday, and the handkerchief she saw resembled that of Mr Bird. They generally kept cake and wine in the house.

John Litton lived at a house called the Greenwich Academy; he and his wife occupied two floors of the house; he is a cooper by trade; at the time in question was employed as a patrole; and was accustomed to go out at eight o'clock. He knew the prisoner, who left a box at his house when he quitted his place; there were two staircases in the house. He and his family generally went up the larger staircase. There was a smaller staircase, through which a person might pass into the room where Hussey's box was deposited, without being observed by his

family. Hussey often came backwards · and forwards to his house. Witness was not in the habit of locking his doors when he went out at night as a patrole. There were two privies to the house, which adjoined Mr Smith's premises. Near one privy, there was a place where his and other children used to play; in that place he never recollected to have seen any matting or rubbish; there was nothing on the day of the murder which could have concealed a bundle. There was a dark cellar close by, where a person could conceal any thing; the door of it was always open. Near this place there was a cistern, with water always in it; this was near the staircase leading to the room where Hussey's box was; there was always a pump in the kitchen, which was not used by any one; a person might go there without meeting any part of his family. He kept his cooper's tools in the lower part of the house, near to the kitchen that was not used. Before Mr Bird's murder, he had a cooper's hammer in this place; before the murder, he had missed the hammer; he left it there about four in the afternoon, and missed it next day; it was about ten days or a fortnight before the murder was committed; he inquired for the hammer, but could not find it; it was a pail-rivetting hammer; he saw this hammer since in the possession of Mr Bicknell's clerk; before this he had described it to the magistrate; when he saw the hammer since, he knew it to be his. The prisoner used to come frequently to his box; witness once saw the box open, and there was hardly any thing in it; when Hussey first brought it, it was secured by a pack-thread; witness took the box away, and then it was secured by a stronger cord; he took the box to a Mrs Goddard's, in Deptford, and left it there; this was about ten days after the murder. The box then appeared to be a great deal hea