CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER, AS SECOND IN A DUEL BETWEEN THE DUKE OF HAMILTON AND LORD MOHUN. No occurrence, short of a national misfortune, at this time engaged the public equal to the memorable duel between the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun; and no crime of this nature was ever committed with more sanguinary VOL. I. dispositions. The principals murdered each other, and Mr. Hamil. ton was one of the seconds. John Hamilton, Esq. of St. Martin's in the Fields, was indicted at the sessions held at the Old Bailey on the 11th of September, 5 1712, for the murder of Charles Lord Mohun, Baron of Oakhampton, on the 15th of November preceding; and at the same time he was indicted for abetting Charles Lord Mohun, and George Macartney, Esq. in the murder of James Duke of Hamilton and Brandon; and having pleaded not guilty' to these indictments, the evidence proceeded, to give their testimony, in substance as follows: Rice Williams, footman to Lord Mohun, proved that his master having met the Duke of Hamilton at the chambers of a master in chancery, on Thursday the 13th of November, a misunderstanding arose between them respecting the testimony of an evidence. That when his lord came home at night, he ordered that no person should be admitted to speak with him the next morning except Mr. Macart ney. That on the Saturday morn ing, about seven o'clock, this evidence, having some suspicion that mischief would ensue, went towards Hyde Park, and, secing the Duke of Hamilton's coach going that way, he got over the Park-wall; but, just as he arrived at the place where the duellists were engaged, he saw both the noblemen fall, and two gentlemen near them, whom he took to be the seconds; one of whom he knew to be Mr. Macartney, and the other (but he could not swear it was the prisoner) said 'We have made a fine piece of work of it.' The waiters at two different taverns proved that the deceased noblemen and their seconds had been at those taverns; and, from what could be collected from their behaviour, it appeared that a quarrel had taken place, and that a duel was in agitation; and some of the duke's servants and other witnesses deposed to a variety of par ticulars, all which tended to the same conclusion. But the evidence who saw most of the transaction was William Morris, a groom, who deposed that, as he was walking his horses towards Hyde Park, he followed a hackney-conch with two gentlemen. in it, whom he saw alight by the Lodge, and walk together towards the left part of the ring, where they were about a quarter of an hour, when he saw two other gentlemen come to them; that, after having saluted each other, one of them, who he was since told was the Duke of Hamilton, threw off his cloak, and one of the other two, who he now understands was Lord Mohun, his surtout coat, and all immediately drew; that the duke and lord pushed at each other but a very little while, when the duke closed, and took the lord by the collar, who fell down and groaned, and the duke fell upon him; that just as Lord Mohun was dropping, he saw him lay hold of the duke's sword, but could not tell whether the sword was at that time in his body; nor did he see any wound given after the closing, and was sure Lord Mohun did not shorten his sword. He declared he did not see the seconds fight, but they had their swords in their hands, assisting their lords.' Paul Boussier, a surgeon, swore that, on opening the body of the Duke of Hamilton, he found a wound between the second and third ribs, which entered into the body, inclining to the right side, which could not be given but by some push from above. Henry Amie, a surgeon, swore that he found the Duke of Hamilton had received a wound by a push, which had cut the artery and small tendon of his right arm; another very large one in his right leg; a small one in his left leg, near the instep; and a fourth in his left side, between the second and third ribs, which ran down into his body most forward, having pierced the skirt of his midriff, and gone through his caul; but that the wound in his arm caused his so speedy death; and that he might have lived two or three days with the wound in his breast, which wound could not be given but by an arm that reached over, or was above him. He further deposed, that he also viewed the Lord Mohun's body, and found that he had a wound between the short ribs, quite through his belly, and another about three inches deep in the upper part of his thigh; a large wound, about four inches wide, in his groin, a little higher, which was the cause of his immediate death; and another small wound on his left side; and that the fingers of his left hand were cut. The defence made by the prisoner was, that the duke called him to go abroad with him, but he knew not any thing of the matter till he came into the field.' Some Scotish noblemen, and other gentlemen of rank, gave Mr. Hamilton a very advantageous character, asserting that he was brave, honest, and inoffensive; and the jury, having considered of the affair, gave a verdict of manslaughter;' in consequence of which the prisoner prayed the benefit of the statute, which was allowed him. At the time the lives of the above mentioned noblemen were thus un fortunately sacrificed, many persons thought they fell by the hands of the seconds; and some late writers on the subject have affected to be of the same opinion: but nothing appears in the written or printed accounts of the transaction, nor did any thing arise on the trial, to warrant so ungenerous a suspicion ; it is therefore but justice to the memory of all the parties to discredit such insinuations. But here a reflection will naturally arise, that we hope may be of service to our readers of superior rank. If all duellists are, as common sense seems to intimate, murderers, in what light are we to consider their seconds? Certainly in no other than as accessories before the fact. The law says, and with great justice, that accessories in case of murder shall be deemed principals. With regard to the particular case in question, if we believe the plea of the prisoner, we cannot consider him as an accessory, because he was ignorant of the intention of the duke. Be this as it may, it is much to be lamented that we have not laws of force sufficient to put an effectual stop to the horrid practice of duel. ling-a practice which had its rise in the ferocious manners of the most barbarous ages, and is a disgrace to any people that pretend to be polished or refined. Honour is made the vile pretence; and murder, real or intended, is always the consequence. Men ought to consider that their great Creator has intrusted them with life for more valuable purposes than to put it to the hazard on every frivolous occasion. One would imagine that the reflection of a moment would teach any man in his senses that the determination to rush into the presence of his Maker with the crime of murder on his head was sufficient to ensure his perdition! Happy are those, who have been thus tempted to imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-creatures, if they escape the murdering sword or pistol, and have time allotted them to repent of their misdeeds and surely a whole life of penitence is short enough to atone for the intentional murder of a fellow-creature. ELIZABETH CHIVERS, EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF HER BASTARD CHILD. AT the sessions held at the Old Bailey, in the month of July, 1712, Elizabeth Chivers was indicted for the wilful murder of her female bastard child, Elizabeth Ward, by drowning it in a pond ; and, pleading guilty, she received sentence of death. This unnatural woman was a native of Spitalfields, but lived at Stepney at the time of the commission of the murder. The account she gave of herself after she was under sentence of death was as follows:-She said that her father dying while she was very young, left her in indigent circumstances, which obliged her to go to service when she was only fourteen years of age; that she lived in several reputable families, in which her conduct was deemed irreproachable. When she arrived almost at the age of thirty years, she lived with one Mr. Ward, an attorney, who prevailed on her to lie with him; in consequence of which she bore the child which she afterwards murdered. Finding herself pregnant, she removed from Mr. Ward's to another family, where she remained about six weeks, and then took private lodgings; in which she was delivered of a girl, who was baptized by the name of Elizabeth Ward. The father, agreeable to his promise, provided for the mother and child for about three months, when Mrs. Ward, discovering her habitation, exposed her in the neighbourhood, so that she was ashamed to make her appearance. Enraged by this circumstance, she was tempted to destroy her child: on which she took it into the fields, and threw it into a pond not far from Hackney; but some people near the spot, happening to see what passed, took her into custody, and carried her before a magistrate, who committed her to Newgate. All the time that she remained in this gloomy prison, her mind seemed to be tortured with the most agonizing pains on account of the horrid crime of which she had been guilty; and she expressed a sense of her torments in the following striking words, which she spoke to a clergyman who attended her : Oh, sir! I am lost! I cannot pray, I cannot repent; my sin is too great to be pardoned! I did commit it with deliberation and choice, and in cold blood: I was not driven to it by necessity. The father had all the while provided for me and for the child, and would have done so still, had not I destroyed the child, and thereby sought my own destruction.' She suffered the dreadful sentence of the law on the 1st of Aug. 1712. It is very remarkable of this woman that she was near thirty years of age before she was seduced, and previous to that time her character was unimpeached.-Hence let young women learn the importance of chastity, and consider how very little they have to depend on when the character is once gone. Let men, likewise, be taught to refleet what a horrid crime seduction is; and that, when once they tempt a young woman to violate her chastity, they are only leading her to the brink of inevitable destruction. The terrors of conscience this poor creature underwent appear to have been of the most dreadful kind, and afford us a shocking idea of the consequences resulting from the crime of murder. What a deplorable state must that wretch be in, who despairs to so great a May God, degree as to be unable to repent! May God, in his mercy, grant that none of the readers of this work may ever have occasion to repent of a crime so shocking as murder! Nature revolts at the idea of so enormous an offence; but we know not to what lengths our passions may lead us. Let us, therefore, constantly pray that we may not be 'led into temptation ;' and 'let him that standeth take heed lest he fall.' RICHARD TOWN, EXECUTED FOR FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY. IN September, 1712, Richard Town was indicted at the Old Bailey for withdrawing himself from his creditors after a commission of bankrupt issued against him, and for removing and fraudulently carrying away fifteen tons of tallow, valued at 400l. and 400/. in money, with his debt-books and books of accounts, with intention to defraud his creditors. Having pleaded not guilty to the indictment, the counsel informed the jury that the act of parliament had expressly declared that, if any person, being a bankrupt, after the month of April, 1707, did fraudulently conceal, embezzle, or make away with goods or money to the value of 201. he should be deemed guilty of felony.' A number of witnesses were called to prove his being a regular trader, and to make it appear that he had committed an act of bankruptcy; but the principal of these was Mr. Hodgson, who deposed that being sent after a prisoner by the commissioners of bankrupts, he apprehended him at Sandwich, and searching him, by virtue of his warrant, found in his pocket twenty guineas in gold, and about five pounds seven shillings and sixpence in silver; and that he had three gold rings on his fingers: that he took from him the gold, and five pounds in silver, and left him the odd silver. Town had intended to sail in a ship which was bound to Amsterdam; but, being too late, he went on board a packet-boat bound to Ostend, and, being taken sea-sick, he went to the side of the vessel, and, stooping down, dropped eight hundred guineas, which were in two bags between his coat and waistcoat, into the sea. A storm arising at sea, the packet-boat was driven back, and obliged to put into Sandwich; in consequence of which Town was apprehended by Hodgson, as above mentioned. When Town was examined before the commissioners, he acknowledged that he had ordered Thomas Norris to carry off his books and accounts, plate, and papers of value, and likewise to convey a large quantity of tallow, which he supposed was then arrived in Holland. Now the counsel for Town insisted that, as Norris was a joint agent with him, the act of one was the act of both; and that he could not legally be convicted till the other (who was then abroad) could be apprehended, and tried with him. But, in order to frustrate this argument, it was proved that Town had |