Part 36

The jury resumed the inquiry on Thursday morning, when a post-mortem examination of the body took place.

Further evidence was given in corroboration of that heard on the preceding day, when the gentlemen who had examined the body of the deceased read a report, from which it appeared that the body was perfectly healthy. The lungs were sound and free from all disease. The heart was healthy, and the windpipe equally so; in fact, the medical gentlemen added, that in their professional researches they had seldom seen a body that had lived forty years with internal structures so generally healthy, and so fine in their proportions.

Several of Dr. Long's dupes were called to swear to the general excellence of his treatment.

The coroner addressed the jury, stating that the question for their determination was, whether the deceased came by her death from gross ignorance or inattention from her medical attendant, or whether she died a natural death.

The jury retired for about half an hour, and then returned the following verdict:--

"The jury, having attentively and deliberately considered their verdict

[Illustration: _Campbell shooting the Earl of Eglinton._

_P. 225._]

can come to no other than Manslaughter, against John St. John Long."

The coroner inquired on what grounds they found their verdict?

Foreman: On the ground of gross ignorance, and on other considerations.

Upon this second charge Mr. Long was tried at the Old Bailey on the 19th of February, 1831.

Mr. Long appeared somewhat confused on his entering the dock, but he soon recovered his self-possession, and bowed to many persons who entered the court. The case was tried before Mr. Baron Bayley.

The evidence of Captain Lloyd, and of the other witnesses examined before the coroner, was now again gone into, and the additional testimony of Mr. Campbell, who had first seen Mrs. Lloyd after she had quitted Mr. Long, was also given. His statement was as follows:--

I am a surgeon; I visited Mrs. Lloyd some time before her death; she appeared to me a healthy person; she told me a few days before her death that she was suffering great pain in her breast, which, from its appearance she must have done; there were very extensive wounds, no doubt produced by strong corrosive liquid; the skin was destroyed, and hung in folds on the chest; there was a considerable discharge from the wound generally; the wound extended from nearly one arm-pit to the other, and from the throat to the bottom of the chest; the skin was off both breasts; it was of a very dark colour; when I attended her first, there was no cabbage leaf on; I applied a simple dressing; I saw the deceased afterwards, every day until her death; I considered the wound dangerous to life from the first moment that I saw it; when Mr. Vance was called in, he applied the same dressing, and I described to him the treatment I had pursued; I gave the deceased some internal medicines; it was not until mortification had commenced that bark and mineral acids were administered; according to the best of my judgment, I should say that the deceased died of the wound in her chest; it certainly was not necessary to produce such a wound to cure a difficulty in swallowing; I know of no disease where it would be necessary to produce such a wound.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. Phillips: I have practised as a surgeon for seven years; some hope (after Mr. Vance was called in) remained that Mrs. Lloyd would recover; from the time that I was called in Mr. Long had no opportunity of prescribing for her; generally speaking, the remedy applied by the surgeon must be regulated by the description the patient gives him of his disease; I was not present when the deceased first described her symptoms to Mr. Long; I do not recollect whether I proposed to Mrs. Lloyd to call in some eminent surgeon; I did not consider that I was authorised in calling in another surgeon without the party wished it; the general practice in dangerous cases certainly is to mention it to the friends, and leave them to act as they please.

Mr. Phillips: Seeing, as you express it, that it was a wound dangerous to life, did you not wish for further assistance? Witness: I had no objection to take the chance; mortification came on about seven or eight days after Mrs. Lloyd was under my care; I was from the beginning apprehensive of gangrene, but I cannot say how soon afterwards it commenced; I applied nothing but simple dressing until Mr. Vance was called in; I stated at first to the friends of the deceased the danger that I anticipated from the wound; I attended her nearly a month before she died, during which time Mr. Long had no opportunity of seeing or prescribing for her.

Re-examined: I fully believed that I understood how to treat the wound; I saw the body examined after death, but from nothing I then saw do I think there is any reason to suppose that I mistook the cause of death; I never saw a wound like the one on Mrs. Lloyd's breast produced by a blister, and in such cases, where fatal results have followed, there have generally been appearances to account for them.

By the Court: I think simple dressing best calculated to have reduced the inflammation.

When the whole of the evidence had been given, Mr. Alley and Mr. Adolphus addressed the court, and urged that there was nothing in the proofs, which had been adduced, which fairly brought the prisoner within the jurisdiction of the court.

Mr. Baron Bayley, however, held that any man presuming to meddle with what he did not understand--unacquainted with the principles of medicine, venturing to prescribe for the sick, and thereby causing their death, incurred a heavy responsibility, and indisputably, in some cases, was guilty of manslaughter. It would be for the jury to decide whether the present case assumed such a complexion.

The prisoner was then called on for his defence.

He addressed the court and jury at some length, urging that the death of the deceased was occasioned, not by any improper treatment of his--for that, if he had been permitted to attend her for a few days longer, he would have restored her to perfect health--but to the inexperience of Mr. Campbell, into whose hands she was thrown, to his utter exclusion. He complained of the prejudices which had been excited towards him by practitioners, who were jealous of his success; for while he was earning ten or twelve thousands a year, they were not obtaining more than one-third of that sum. It was true that he was not a member of either the College of Surgeons or Physicians; but he had spent a fortune in the attainment of his professional knowledge, and in the pursuit of his practice had given the most universal satisfaction--so much so, that were he acquitted that day, he was persuaded he should be again honoured with the confidence of those distinguished and respectable individuals who had already from experience placed implicit confidence in his skill and judgment. Of those, he was proud to say, he had many in attendance, to whose testimony in his behalf he should refer. He complained that he had not himself been examined as a witness, before the Coroner's inquest, and repeated, that if guilt attached anywhere, it did so to Mr. Campbell more than to himself; for that there was nothing in his treatment which could have occasioned the melancholy result, which no man deplored more than himself. The prisoner spoke in rather a low tone of voice; and, having a slight impediment in his speech, his address did not seem to make a very forcible impression.

The counsel of the prisoner then proceeded to call evidence in his behalf.

Mr. Abingdon was examined: He said he had several times been under the care of the prisoner; he had an asthma, and subsequently a determination of blood to the head.

The Attorney-General here interfered, and submitted that the course of the present examination ought to be confined to the general character of the prisoner, in which the court, after hearing arguments from Mr. Alley and Mr. Phillips, acquiesced.

Mr. Phillips endeavoured to shake this decision, contending that as the indictment raised the question whether Mr. Long was grossly ignorant, or had been grossly careless, it was impossible to establish his innocence otherwise than by showing, as he verily believed they could, that he was both learned and skilful, and most attentive and humane in his practice of the healing art.

Mr. Baron Bayley: We cannot go into specific cases; we must confine ourselves to general evidence.

Mr. Phillips resumed the argument at length, but

The Attorney-General, in reply, said that if his learned friends found themselves at liberty to go into all the successful cases of the prisoner, he should go into the several failures in his practice.

The court having repeated its former decision, the examination of Mr. Abingdon was resumed, and he stated that the prisoner had attended him for several disorders, and he had the fullest reason to be satisfied with his skill, care, and attention.

Mrs. Ashworth, the wife of General Ashworth, Miss Rook, her sister, Mrs. Prendergast, Mrs. M'Donnell, Mrs. M'Dougall, and a vast number of other ladies and gentlemen were then examined, and every one of them bore testimony, in the strongest manner, to the skill, assiduity, and humanity of the prisoner, and to the extraordinary success which had uniformly attended his practice.

Mr. Baron Bayley then proceeded to sum up, observing, that the question for the jury to decide was, whether the prisoner had been guilty of gross rashness, or had manifested culpable ignorance. The point at issue was, not whether, after the medicine had been administered, the prisoner had been inattentive, for his services were prevented; but whether, before it had been administered, he was ignorant of its nature and probable effect upon the constitution of the unhappy person to whom it was applied. His lordship then proceeded to read over the evidence, and to comment upon it as he proceeded. If the jury were of opinion that the death took place from the wound given on the morning of the 10th, they would give their verdict against the prisoner; but they must be fully satisfied that the death arose from that alone. If they entertained any doubt, the prisoner would be entitled to the benefit of that doubt; but they must be satisfied that the crime imputed to him had been committed feloniously.

The jury retired at half-past eight o'clock, and returned in an hour with a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Several ladies, elegantly dressed, remained with the prisoner in the dock throughout the day, to whom this verdict appeared to give great satisfaction.

Mr. Long, upon his discharge, resumed his "rubbing in" practice, as before, and, we believe, still with much success. Many reports were circulated as to his habits and history, and many calumnious statements were made, both as to his mode of life and the system which he had adopted to carry on his business. For one of these libellous publications he brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas, which was tried on Tuesday, 14th June 1831, and he obtained a verdict with 100_l_. damages.

Mr. Long, we believe, was a native of Mallow, in Ireland, where his father carried on the useful but humble trade of basket-making, in which he was assisted by his son. At an early period of the life of our hero, his father removed to Doneraile, and there he became acquainted with some members of the family of a gentleman named Hill. The young Hills were at the time engaged in perfecting themselves in a knowledge of drawing, and young Long being observed by them to possess some taste and considerable aptitude as a draughtsman, he was permitted to copy the sketches which they made. A slate and pencil were his original utensils; but his patrons, finding that he soon excelled them in proficiency, generously provided him with better materials, and better means of obtaining a knowledge of the art for which he had taken such a fancy. A short time served to render him a tolerable proficient; and leaving the basket-making trade to be prosecuted by his father and brothers, he repaired to London, where for a considerable time he supported himself by the productions of his pencil. We have no means of learning the manner in which he discovered his system of medical treatment, or in which he was first introduced to the public as a successful operator in the case of certain diseases, but it is true that he numbered amongst his patients persons of the highest eminence in this country, and that he obtained an extent of practice which enabled him to live in excellent style.

He died in the year 1834, and his body was consigned to the tomb in the Harrow Road cemetery, where a monument has been erected to his memory at the cost of his former patients, who, in an inscription, pay a handsome tribute to his talents.

WILLIAM SWALLOW, _alias_ WALDON; GEORGE JAMES DAVIS, _alias_ GEORGE HUNTLEY; WILLIAM WATTS, _alias_ CHARLES WILLIAMS; ALEXANDER STEPHENSON, _alias_ TELFORD; AND JOHN BEVERIDGE, _alias_ ANDERSON.

TRIED FOR MUTINY AND PIRACY.

The whole of these persons at the time of their trial for piracy were already convicts; but having been concerned in a mutinous seizure of a vessel, in which they were confined as prisoners, they subjected themselves to a punishment more severe than that to which they had been already sentenced, and were therefore liable to a second trial.

They were indicted at the admiralty sessions of the Old Bailey on Thursday, November 4, 1830, for having, on the 5th September in the previous year, piratically seized the brig Cyprus. And they were also indicted for that they, being convicts, had been found at large in England before the period of the sentence of transportation passed upon them had expired.

The facts proved in evidence were shortly these:--The prisoners were convicts in Hobart Town, but having been there guilty of second crimes, by which they rendered themselves liable to new punishment, they were tried before the supreme court of judicature there, and sentenced to transportation. The places to which prisoners twice convicted were at this period assigned, were Macquarie Harbour, a place on the northern coast of Van Diemen's Land, and Norfolk Island, which is situated at a distance of about a week's sail from Sydney, in an easterly direction. The prisoners were ordered to be conveyed to Macquarie Harbour, where they well knew they would be subjected to drudgery of the very worst description, in punishment for their offences. The Cyprus, a colonial brig, was chartered to convey them to the place of their destination; and, in the month of August 1829, she sailed, having on board thirty-two convicts, a crew of eight men, a military guard of twelve men, under the command of Lieutenant Carew, whose wife and children were passengers, and a medical gentleman named Williams, under whose superintending care the convicts were placed.

On the 5th of September, Dr. Williams, Lieutenant Carew, the chief mate, a soldier, and a convict named Popjoy, went ashore in Research Bay on a fishing excursion; but when they had left the ship about half-an-hour, they heard a firing on board, which induced a fear that the convicts were striving to overpower the guard and crew. They immediately returned, and on their going alongside found that their anticipations were realised, and that the convicts having risen _en masse_, had mastered the guard, and were now in possession of the ship. They refused to suffer any one to board except Popjoy; and, having secured him, they thrust him down below. Immediately afterwards the convicts sent the crew and the soldiers and passengers ashore, but without provisions or the means of existence. Popjoy swam ashore the next morning, and was of material assistance afterwards in procuring fish, &c. for his fellow sufferers.

On that evening the Cyprus made off, and Lieutenant Carew and the rest remained in a most forlorn and miserable condition for many days, until they were at length happily delivered from the dangers which surrounded them by the Zebra, a small vessel which was accidentally sailing by, and saw some signals of distress which they made. The Cyprus was never afterwards heard of; but the prisoners were apprehended separately in various parts of Sussex and Essex, whither they had returned to their old haunts.

The evidence of Popjoy, who for his good conduct on this occasion had received a free pardon, and who was now a seaman in the East India Company's service, was procured at the trial, and tended to fix guilt upon all the prisoners; Stevenson and Beveridge, however, he admitted were not so active as many others; and the conduct of Swallow, he said, was quite consistent with the defence which he set up, that he had been forced to act by the other mutineers.

Other witnesses corroborated his testimony, and Swallow was acquitted, while a verdict was returned against the other prisoners, Stevenson and Beveridge being recommended to mercy.

Sentence of death was immediately passed upon the convicts.

On the 1st of December following, the cases of the prisoners were reported to His Majesty, by Sir Christopher Robinson, the judge of the Admiralty Court; and His Majesty was pleased to grant a respite to all but Watts, _alias_ Williams, and Davis, _alias_ Huntley.

On Thursday, 9th of December 1830, the sentence of death was carried into execution on these culprits. In the early part of the morning they partook of a slight repast, and at about half-past seven received the sacrament. They then admitted that they were about to die justly, and declared that they were at peace with the world. Davis was neatly and respectably attired in a new suit of blue clothes; and his fellow-sufferer also wore a blue jacket, with a white waistcoat and trousers. They behaved with much decorum, but were both extremely dejected.

Beveridge and Stevenson, who had also been convicted, were transported for life to Norfolk Island; and Swallow having been identified upon the indictment, by which he was charged to be a returned transport, was sentenced to be once more sent back to Macquarie Harbour, to undergo the remainder of the punishment to which he had been already sentenced.

LUKE DILLON.

TRANSPORTED FOR RAPE.

No person possessing the ordinary feelings of human nature can read the dreadful detail of this villain's detestable crime, without shuddering at the baseness of heart which prompted him to its commission. Few instances are to be found where the remorseless debauchee has resorted to means so horrid as those adopted by this youthful destroyer of female virtue; and setting aside his age, and the respectability of his family, one is at a loss to discover a reason why the full sentence which the law awarded to his crime should not be carried out, and why a mitigated punishment of transportation only should have been inflicted upon him.

He was tried at the Commission Court at Dublin on Thursday the 13th of April 1831, on a charge of feloniously violating the person of Miss Anna Frizell, a young lady of most respectable connexions and amiable disposition, and but twenty years of age.

Upon his being placed at the bar, Dillon appeared to be only about twenty-one years of age. He advanced to the front of the dock with an air of the most unblushing effrontery. He was fashionably and gaily attired, and his appearance was highly prepossessing.

Miss Frizell was the material witness against him; and her evidence detailed the whole of the connexion which had existed between her and the prisoner. She was frequently interrupted during her examination by her emotions; and her answers were allowed to be repeated by Mr. West, king's counsel, who sat near her. From her statement it appeared, that she had been principally educated abroad, and that, after having passed eight years in a convent in France, she returned to her father's house at Slapolin, near Howth, in the year 1828. She was occasionally in the habit of visiting her relations, Dr. and Mrs. O'Reardon, who resided in Molesworth-street, Dublin; and there she met the prisoner about two years before the trial. An acquaintance soon ripened into an intimacy; and on her meeting him at a party at Mr. MacDonnel's, in Stephen's Green, whither she had accompanied Mrs. O'Reardon in October 1830, he professed himself to be her warm admirer. At her invitation he was to call upon her on the following day, for the purpose of receiving some letters which he had undertaken to convey to England for her; but upon his knocking at the door, Dr. O'Reardon presented himself, and denied her to him. On the 4th of November they again met, and the prisoner then accompanied her, and Mrs. O'Reardon, to a dinner party. They entered into conversation in the course of the evening; and Dillon requested her to meet him on the following day, as he had something

## particular to say to her. She exhibited some hesitation in complying