The Express.
London, England, 1849-10-26 00:00:00

defense which at first sight appeared odious; and he would
be followed by another counsel, whose duty ft would
be to seek to destroy him whom he (Mr. Sorjeant Wilkins)
wished to save. How did it happen that in this vagary it
was always necessary for the judge to caution the jury
against the representations of those who were the peahen&
medians of liberty ? Who were thew rebels against j*
tice ? Who were these refracts of our laws ? The jury
and himself had alike read the history of the French revolt-
tfirmy• thNanothaingbasietad anditamcruel"l dpresth:twrehiveliurtnowuinthcedmrerditt
without trial. He urged the jury, however, to banish from
them the prejudices of the cue, sad to judge solely from the
' evidence before them. He did not dLtate to the jury what
their verdict should bra; his duty was to watch his &dea-
-1 eery ; to see that every topic which could be urged
spinet his client, if proved at all, should be proved in a
Mime manner. His duty would then have been performed.
That of the jury would still rusaio„ and it must not be
decided by impulse or without caution; and he was out&
deat the jury would tot consider him asking too much in
asking to seek light more than human. The coessquentes
if the investigation reached from earth to • never-ending
fatuity, and every circumstance, therefore, should be well
pandered. Now what was the nature of the defence—the
defence which the prisoner had set up at the moment of his
apprehension, aid in which he had sines persevered ? He
would not quarrel with the law as laid down by the Attor-
ney-General. There would be little doubt that O'Connor 1,
had been murdered ; that this wretched man, whose fate alone
excited sympathy was murdered by some one. The question i
was, when was he murdered, where, and by whom ? It weal
probable that he was murdered en the Bth of August, and
there could be little doubt that the murder took place in the
house of the prisoners. But by whom was he murdered ?
Was be murdered by both ? If so, where was the proof of I,
concert ? He thought the learned counsel for the prosecutioa
had been misinstructed. The only two facts against Man-;
ning were the purchase of the lime and that of the crowbar.
The jury must not sense to the conclusion that the male I,
always excelled in power and strength. History had taught
them that woman seared !etcher in virtue and sank 1
deeper in vice than man ; and in this case he
hoped to show that • woman made her husband
a dupe, and was now seeking to save herself by his
destruction. Now what reason was there for doubting that
the lime purchased by Manning war wanted by him to de-
stroy slugs in the garden? lie gave his address when he
purchased it, and there wee no concealment or mystery.
Two days elapsed without its being sent home, and he exhi-
bited no impatience. For • garden like that at the back of
the house it was natural that lime should be required. lie
would :now speak of the crowbar. Where was it
procured? There were plenty of merino stores where
such an instrument could he procured if wanted
for • deadly purpese ; but the prisoner ordered it
at one of the most respectable shops in Hing Williaustreet.
Was that consistent with the supposition of his intending to I
commit murder ? The press had told them that Manning
was a very conceited and consequential person. It so, that
would account for the course pursued by Manning on per-
ceiving that the crow-bar was not wrapped up. Ile said,
" What, can't you afford • bit of paper ?" and
then took the messenger into a stationer's shop,
where he bought • sheet of brown paper, in which It was
enveloped. For what purpose was this craw-bar wanted?
For the commission of murder a poker woald have been a
far more fitting instrument. Tree stones could have been
just as easily raised with the tongs. Looking at the pub-
hefty of the whole thine, and considering that there were
many ways of avddine it, he submitted that no inference
could be drawn prejudicial to the male prisoner. Thee-, he
repeated, were the only two pieces of evidence which at all
required explanation. Now if there were concert before,
there wee a total cessation of concert after. No doubt the
crime might have been done by one. The hand that fired
the pistol could easily complete the deed. The bury-
ing could have been done by oce. The polioemea had
told them that the stones could be lifted up by one person.
Well, then, if the murder could be committed by one, let them
look for • motive, not hsrdeaing their minds against any
impressions which he might seek to make. If they should
do wrong by acquitting the male prisoner, no man could
blame them if they had the approval of their own consciences.
, Now what motive had the mde Manning ? Oa the
other side, it appeared to him that they were about
to set up the wild theory that Manning was jealous of his
wife. He feared that Manning was not the man to be jea-
lous. He was far too easy with regard to the honour of his wife.
When O'Connor was seised with a fainting lit, who fetched
him brandy The Tao last time Manning and O'Connor
were seen together a peeled friendship existed between them.
Then, with regard to lucre, was Manning ever seen with is.
that belonged to O'Connor? Never, until he was seen in pos-
session of the 1001. note, which was part of the scheme by
which Mrs. Manning attempted to dupe him. It was easy
to arty that Manning was attempting to escape infamy by
throwing the blame on his wife. Why, had he not, on the
supposition of his innocence, suffered enough already ? If
his instructions were to be relied upon, all the appeals that
could be addressed to the jury on this point would
be fruitless. lie would show that Mrs. Manning was capable
of such on act—that she was capable of consummate wicked-
ness, and could carry it off with a face which happily few
women could assume. The learned counsel then pro-
seeded to analyse the evidence. With regard to
the evidence of Barnes as to the condition in which
the body was found, he said there could be no doubt that
the female prisoner had sufficient strength to tie up the
body. He would not urge topics which were evithntly un-
sustainable, and it was impossible to deny that the murder
was probably committed on the night of the 9th. There
was • principle of law that the husband was the master of
the wife. But could the jury doubt, from the evidence with
regard to O'Connor's visits, that the real master was
Mrs. Manning. The note of invitation was written
by her ; she it was who complained of O'Connor's not
coming ; and her whole bearing bore out the notion that she
was supreme, and that, with regard to O'Connor, cupidity
was her guiding principle. Iterating saw Mrs. Manning
at his home on the 12th, and he prayed the jury to mark
her consummate hypocrisy. She asked him if he had seen
O'Connor, and she replied that she had not seen him since
Wednesday. She then said that he bad been invited to dinner
on Thursday, and that she had been to his lodgings to gee why
he had not come ; and then, her pretence of mind forsaking
her for the only time, and her cheek blanching, she said,
" Poor Mr. O'Connor; he was the beet friend I had in Lon-
don." Why " poor Mr. O'Connor," unites it were that she
uttered its words under a temporary absence of mind, know-
ing that in the kitchen lay the body of her former
companion, and that she had his property in her
possession. With regard to her visit to the house,
it was clear that she knew the nature of his property, and
that property was found in her possession. O'Connor hav-
ing been seen on London-bridge at a quarter before five, at a
quarter-past five he was seen withia one hundred yards of
Manning's house. There was no evidence as to the puma
who admitted him, but it could not be doubted it wee the
female prisoner, who, amercing to her own statement, left
the house to go to his lodgings at six o'clock. At • quarter
before seven Manning himself was seen sitting on the
garden-wall. Now he (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) did not
mean to contend that the male prisoner had not, after the
translation, aided in secreting the body ; his love for hie
wife might have induced hint to do so. The witness who
spoke of his being on the wall, said he was deemed as usual,
and smoked and drank fox about half an hour. Throughout
the whole affair Mrs. Manning seemed to have taken as
much pains to deceive and dupe her husband u to deceive,
dupe, and destroy O'Connor. There could have been no
concert between Mumble and his wife as to the place to
which she should go. Her own statement was opposed to
such an hypothesis. After Thursday they were never seen
together, toe was there any proof of subsequent concert.
It ;would probably be attempted to be shown
that there were torus of endearment existing between
O'Connor sad Mrs. Manning. He had no doubt there were
saaniOntwarn festadona of affection ; she might have poured
eaa-deecelogne on his head, but would any man suppose that
she loved him She love O'Connor I Why did she steal
his property or content hie death? That ISTa must
be strong indeed which bade defiance to Heaven,
and sop a& at the ressechesof man ; and, lithe hypothesis
were eeriest that Mrs. Manning loved O'Connor, affection
would have roused Rule and she would not bare gone fist to
kie house sad then to Edinburgh to apply his property to
her own use. The learned counsel then commented at
length on the evidence with regard to Mrs. Manning's visit
to O'Cciener's home. The next testimony, he said, was that
of Mr. Mussy. The learned Attontey-General had led
them to expect something important, but Memey's evidence
really animated to nothing. Manning's question whether

Massey thought marten's could go to heaven, though odd
in itself, was not very wonderful in en age when a vicious
morality was stalking abroad. Massey, being a medical stu-
dent, frequently talked about his own profession. Henning
asked him, he said, where the brain lay. Otis would have
supposed that any one who had ever passed •
butcher's shop would be informed on that subject.
Ou further examination, however, it came out that the
question arose on a professional c tnversci ea about the struc-
ture of the human body. There was really nothing in what
Manning had said to Many at different times which might
not have been utterred by numbers of innocent persona in
the coarse of their history. The shovel was bought by Mrs.
Manning on the Bth, the very day on which she wrote the in-
vitation to O'Connor. With regard to Bainbridge, tlsheeker,
and his wife, it was clear they were both mistaken with
respect to Manning's expressions in relation to his wife's
departure. Mr. and Mrs. Bainbridge were both very pan-
tive, but they contradicted each other with regent to the
' words in which Manning referred to his wife's having left
him. Mrs. Manning herself had stated on her examination
' that she left London without her husband's knowledge.
It seemed- to him (Mr. Serjeant Wilkins) that
Manning himself afforded the beat explanation of
the whole matter when he said at Jersey, " I wee
a great fool that I did not stay behind and explain all."
Whatever • man said there were numbers of uecharitable
persons who would treat his words as evidence against him.
Even a child would o'ten tell • lie to ovoid con-
sequences. Supposing Mrs. Manning to have com-
mitted the &el, her husband would be in doubt as
to the course he must pursue. If he declared what had
been done, his wife might be brought to infamy. He
at length yielded, perhaps to bad reasoniegs ; Le might
have even assisted in secreting the body ; sal then afterwards
he said," 1 was a great fool that I did not explain all." One
thing was clear—that for a time there was somethirg which
looked like resolution on his part, for several cloys elapsed
before he yielded to his fears and le ft London. Mr. lel'ex 1,
*most intelligent pelieteofficer, said Mrs. Manning was a
consistent character throughout. W leen he entered the room
he said, " Mrs.Smith,l presume." " Yes," she replied, with
ell the courtesy of the drawing-room. On his telling her that
he suspected she was the wife of George Frederick Man-
ning, her cheek did not blush in the least. lie mentioned
scrip. " Scrip !" she said, " what scrip." The scrip was
produced. Still no manifestation of feeling, but at length
she declared that she had some scrip of her own.
When secured of the murder of O'Connor, she
said, " Murder Mr. O'Connor 1 he was like a
tatter to me." He might have been • father to her, but
she was a strange child to hiss. On being coesties.eil as to
her husband, she said she did not know wihra he was. He
had been a bad husband, and had once attempted to kill her.
The learned fierjeant proceeded to analyse the evidence as it
related to Manning. With rrspeet to the powder found in
his cost, it was hardly to be wondered a', tint, being a
sportsman, a little powder should be found in hi. cue. It
should le remembered that he was always anxious to see
his wife, and to see her in the presence of a third person.
Ile had no doubt she would confess, as it was undonbte Ily
she who had shot O'Connor. She was a violent woman,
and was determined,to be revenged of O'Connor. The newt
witnest was the chemist, who had proved as to the blood,
and he was followed by Stevens, the stockorokor. Ile called
the particular attention of the jury to this evidence. Mrs.
Manning asked for shares which did not require to be regis.
tered, as she wanted shares which she might cell without
the knowledge of her husband. It appeared that she wanted
to cheat her husband as well as every one else.
Could there be any doubt but that she wee at that
time intending to steal the Bemire and Meuse and
Amiens shares from O'Connor. Then they had Mr. .
Lomond, and Mr. Green, the transfer clerk in the
Eastern Counties Railway. Ile called upon them to look at
Manning, whose face was so remarkable as never to be for-
gotten by embody who had once seen him. What occurred 2
A person went to Killick's office, supposed to he Manning,
but Shilliheer: had deposed that the signature to the transfer
was not his handwritinz. The clerk could not swear that it
was Manning who had dealt with him. A note was paid of
1001., which was afterwards chv.ged at the Bank's with Man-
ning's name on it. There was no doubt hut that
Mrs. Manning h6d obtained his signature before presenting
it at the Bank. Where was the note afterwards found ? Why
in the possession of Mrs. Manning, in Edinburgh. Ile had
now gone through the evidence. lie had been c6lled on to
perform • painful duty. Not because he doubted the inno-
cence ef kis client, but because he felt the enorm an amount
of prejudice that had been created, and the way in which the
case had been written up. Ile also his feelings lacerated
because it was his painful duty to defend the husband by
attempting to criminate the wife. He would he followed by
his learned friend Mr. Ballantine, and he truseed that what
he had just said would not be obliterated by the ingenuity
or eloquence ef his learned friend. Let their verdict
be one of reason, not of feeling Let no compassion for sex
warp their judgment, but decide as between two human
beings, and let justice be their only guide.
At the conclusion of the learned eerjoant's address the
jury retired for refreshment.
Mr. Ballantine commenced his defence of the female pri-
soner by complimenting his learned predecessor (the Attor-
ney General) on the candour and impartiality of his address.
Ile could not ask the jury to dismirs from their minds all that
had transpired relative to this cue up to the preeeut time,
because, from the manner in which it bad filled the public
prints, such oblivion would be impossible. He was
aware of the calumnies which had been circulated
against his unhappy client, but worst of all he com-
plained of the manner in which she had been
attacked by his learned friend. It wee a case
unparalleled in • court of justice, to see a leaned counsel
endeavouring, in the wanner his felted had done, to blacken
the character of a prisoner, and that prisoner a woman. He
(Mr. Ballanine) did not mean to follow such a course. Thus
to attack an unfortunate prisoner on trial for his lifo, and who
might be led from that court to the scaffold, was a course, in
his opinion, derogatory to the profession, and, sooner than
follow it, he would abandon his profession at once and
for ever. He should now endeavour to call the
attention of the jury to the facts of the cue.
His learned friend, the attorney-general, hadtold them there
were two points in which his client might be found guilty
That whether as • principal or din accessory before the fact,
she was equally responsible, and, that the jury might find
her guilty on either charge. Ammonia acts were at best
extremely vague, and in the case of man and
wife, should be received with extreme hesitation.
Unless they were clearlyof opinion that the woman was pre-
sent at the murder, they could hardly come to a conclusion
that she had had any previous share in its arrangement.
He must follow the dates in this transaction with the great-
est care. The prosecution had given them no proof of
the woman's presence at the deed. What were the dram-
stances ? O'Connor seemed to have formed an illicit con-
nection with the female prisoner, but such a falling from
virtue was not at all an indication of a ferocious character.
It appeared that she had bean ill-treated by her husband,
and the only use that could be made of the connection
was to lead the jury rather to the conclusion that she was
not likely to murder O'Connor. It appeared that he was a
man passed the middle age of life, and therefore likely to
concede to a woman he loved almost anything she
yfv:it tut
raiseia murder
:h
e et
h;l7 8:: It
ke rill° stlitirt lob. is
':
8, It
tbatu t ap-
peared a I lasked, and that hisi
didneceatryattasattoopartifirocire
whe-
ther or no her husband knew of the connexion, as it was not
material to his case. It was quite clear that she was constantly
away from home; and it appeared that fifteen months
ago her boxes were left at O'Conner's lodgings. According
to the account of the Misses AMC, Mrs. Manning followed
her boxes, and it appeared those ladies behaved with the
greatest propriety, sr I did not let out their house for say
improper tampon. It showed, ho were!, that Mts. Manning
had no inducement to commit murder, that she might
have got into comparatively wealthy keeping, and
the jury could easily imagine how a young woman
might obtain all she wanted from an old man
without any :wares to violence. The jury must
conclude one of two things, either that she was
a most abandoned woman, in which case she might have
got whatever she required without violence, or eke she was
a person of frail but kindly feelings, in which ease eke
would be incapable of the act. He now came to the day
in which this most appalling murder was committed. It
was quite clear ehst the unhappy man bad been 1/111441fade^
and that he was buried in Manning's kitchen, l,
,t,T.,j,f :. 4
•'470,1'."- „i ' .t ' '
:;`:i'^ O-'
?
ri ! lt- X e