The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-23 00:00:00

was identified as the prisoner's by Henry Carr, a former
fellow-servant.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Phillips ap-
plied to have the case adjourned till the following day, which
was complied with, and the prisoner was removed from the
bar about eight o'clock.

THIRD DAY.—SATURDAY.
Long before the opening of the court, the bench and every
part of the court was crowded by well-dressed persons.
Never has there been known such an assemblage of ladies on
any preceding occasion in a criminal court. Every chair in
front of the bench had its lady occupant, and, durtng the
whole of the three days, the ladies have been indefatigable in
their attendance, many of them, not quitting the court even
during the time of the adjournment. His Royal Highness
the Duke of Sussex was not present to-day.
Shortly after ten o'clock the judges took their seats upon
the bench, and, immediately afterwards, Francis Benjamin
Courvoisier was placed at the bar. He appeared pale, and
,downcast, and anxious; but his firmness never deserted him.
C. A. Rivers, who made the model of Lord William Rus-
sell's house, was examined.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS then rose and addressed the jury for the
defence. After having commented, at considerable length,
on the evidence for the prosecution, the learned counsel said,
that he now came to a portion of the case of which he had
loudly to complain. Up to the evening of Thursday, not
one word was said about the missing plate. Nothing could
be more shameful than the' way in which that man was
treated, in the not having, within an hour of Mr. Cum-
mings's arrival, notice of the new evidence to be produced.
They ought, at least, to have had the night to have investi-
gated the character of the witnesses to be brought against
him. He knew not who Mrs. Poilaine was, and, if she did
not tell the truth, those who came to corroborate her proved
nothing. He hoped they knew Leicester-place. Here was
a billiard-table at the Hotel de Dieppe, where any person
might go in and play. Here was this woman living with her
husband, who most conveniently goes to France, and she
swears that she never opened her lips to her husband on the
subject of the murder, because she was too busy. Had they
ever heard anything so absurd ? Was it not odd that such a
discovery should have been made in the middle of the trial,
a reward of £5O having been offered previously for the dis-
covery of the 14autest portion of this plate ! ,A French
newspaper is read to this lady that puts her in mind of the
parcel. Now, he begged their attention to this.' Courvoi-
sier was never known in that house by the name of Cour-
voisier. He was known only by the name of John. How
could the French paper direct her attention to this ?
Mr. Baron PARKE.—You have no right to raise a doubt
upon the paragraph in the French paper, unless it is put in
in evidence..
Mr. C, PHILLIPS.—Did it, not subject his client to any
fresh mine that might be sprung, without notice, upon him,
by calling upon them to put in fresh evidence ? The whole
depended upon the evidence of this ivoman. She knew so
little of Courvoisier that, when he first called, she did not
know him, and that, when she opened the parcel, she sends
for half-a-dozen people, who all sign a sort of round-robin
as to the articles found in the parcel. All that was consist-
ent with the woman not having received the parcel from
Courvoisier. They attempted to identify the clothes, but
they utterly failed ; and that woman proved, if she proved
anything, that the sock was not Courvoisier's. He was sure,
if the jury could find their way out of the case consistently
with justice, without shedding that man's blood/they would
do so. Now, supposing they admitted everything connected
with the property, that it was left there by Courvoisier, was
that conclusive of the murder? He thought not. But it
was conclusive of robbery, for which he might be convicted,
and sentenced to be transported, to suffer a lingering death
upon Norfolk Island. Here was a golden bridge for them
to pass over. If they entertained a suspicion, and yet felt
themselves bound to acquit him, still he might be punished
for it ; and he would say, if he should have been guilty of the
murder, which he hoped to find he was not, better, far bet-
ter, would it be that he should repent, in the bitterness of
such an exile, than be sent, in the dawning of his life, to an
ignominious death. This did not come so in aid of the for-
mer proof as to compel them to convict him. " Now," said
the learned advocate, " my anxious task is ended, and yours
is about to begin. One of the attributes of the Almighty
God is now committed to you : the issues of life and death
are in your hands. You are to restore that man once more
to the enjoyment of existence and freedom, or to send him
to an ignominious death, and brapd upon his grave a mur-
derer's epitaph. Awful is the consideration—still more awful
the responsibility. Violate not lightly that temple which the
Lord hath made. Recollect, the word once gone forth from
you, it is irrevocable. Speak it not lightly. Speak it not
upon suspicion, however strong—upon moral conviction,
however cogent—not upon argument, not upon probability—
but upon broad, clear, irresistible noon-day conviction. I
speak this in no hostile spirit, but with a Christian feeling.
If you do this deed, do it not light, or its consequences will
follow you like a shadow—it will accompany you in .your
crowded walks—be with you in your homes—and his accus-
ing spirit will hover over your deathbed, and confront and
condemn you at the judgment-seat of your God. Beware
what you do !"
The address of the learned counsel was listened to with
breathless interest by the most crowded court we ever wit-
nessed, and at the conclusion of it many of the people present
were affected even to tears.
Several witnesses were then called to character, and ex-
mined by Mr. Clarkson.
All the witnesses to character having been examined, the
Court adjourned for refreshment previous to the summing up.
The Court reassembled at half-past one o'clock, and the
jury having answered to their names,
The Lord Chief Justice TINDAL commenced the summing
up. He desired the jury to discharge from their minds all
they might have heard previous to being sworn, and calmly
to consider the evidence they had 'heard, and consider whe-
ther it was sufficient to bring home to their minds that the
prisoner was guilty. If they entertained any doubt on the
subject, they were bound to give the prisoner the benefit of
it; but, if they came to the conclusion, that it was by the pri-
soner's hand that Lord William Russell died, then, however
painful it might be, they were bound to convict him. The
case was one of circumstantial evidence, and, if circumstan-
tial evidence were to be always rejected, crime would almost
always go unpunished, because it was very seldom that per-
sons committed atrocious crimes in the presence of witnesses.
But it would not be enough for them to be satisfied that such
and such circumstances were consistent with the guilt of the
prisoner, but that they were utterly inconsistent with any
other supposition than that the prisoner was the person who
committed the crime. He, would first offer some general
observations on the case and then read the evidence. It was
beyond a doubt, that Lord W. Russell was murdered in the
night between Tuesday, the sth, and Wednesday, the 6th of
May. There was no possibility of saying that he had com-
mitted suicide. It was also perfectly clear, that, in the course
'of that night a robbery was committed. Various valuables
were taken away, all of which were afterwards found con-
cealed in some other part of the house. It was for them to
determine whether it was within the reach of human possi-
bility that that robbery was unconnected with the murder.
Whether there could have been a robbery by one set of peo-
ple, and a murder by another, in the same house on the same
night, was a most important point for them to consider—
whether that robbery was committed by persons breaking into
the house, or by the inmates residing in it. At 7 o'clock in
the morning it was found that the front area door was fas-
tened, the front door open, the back door fastened, the back
area door open, and a cloak was found folded up, with a nap-
kin lying upon it, in the hall, near the front door. Upon the
first impression, therefore, the natural inference would be,
that some person had entered by the back area door, which
bore marks of violence, had robbed the house, murdered
Lord William Russell, and afterwards made his escape by
the front door, leaving his booty behind him. But were
there any circumstances leading us to suppose that this was
merely a contrivance, for the purpose of avoiding detection
by the real perpetrator? Now, it appeared, that no articles
were really taken away, and that many articles easily port-
able were left behind, and they were to consider whether a
real thief would have left such articles behind him, some con-
cealed with great care, and others left close to the door, when
the thief might have taken them away with him on his per-
son without exciting suspicion. Then, with regard the door,
they would have to say whether they were marks produced
by a person breaking into the house, or made by a person
after the door had been opened. He should wish them not to
place any great reliance on the expressions made use of by
the prisoner, or on his agitation, as the conduct of a person
under such circumstances depended so much upon his tem-
perament and education, that it would be harsh to draw any
Inference from them. Neither should they suffer some of the
observations of the learned counsel for the defence to pro-
duce too great an effect upon them. They were placed to
administer not mercy, but justice, and to give their verdict
accordingly. They were bound to put the most favourable
construction they could on the circumstances, and, having
come to a conclusion, they were to recollect, that they were
under the obligation of an oath to administer justice, and
they must find their verdict accordingly, regardless of the
consequences. The learned Judge then proceeded to read
the evidence, assisted by Mr. Baron Parke. On reading the
evidence of the cook, his lordship said, that it had been com-
mented on, that the housemaid said the cook was asleep,
while she (the housemaid) was getting up, and the cook said
she was awake. He did not think this was an important
discrepancy, as, if the cook did not speak, it might have been
natural to suppose that she was asleep. With regard to the
warming-pan having been left on the stairs, he did not think
that a circumstance of any importance one way or the other.
With regard to the observations which had been made upon
the expressions used by the housemaid, " Let us go and see
where his lordship is," he thought it was merely a natural
expression of anxiety for his lordship's safety under the
circumstances. With regard to her preventing the prisoner
sending to Mr. Russell by a labouring man Passing by,
her idea might have been that a man of that de-
scription, sent to such a distance as Belgrave-square,
might have loitered by ' the way, or, perhaps, not have
goite at all : however, they had heard the observations of
the counsel upon it, and it was a question entirely for them
to determine. With regard to the expression used by the
prisoner, " Old Billy was a ram old chap, and had money,"
be thought the Jury must not lay too much stress upon ex-
pressions !mid by persons in the prisoner's class of life when
discoursing with their felloiv-servants : all the inference that
could be drawn from the expression was, that the prisoner
thought Lord William Russell was a rich man. With regard
to what had been said to the counsel about the seeming con-
tradiction in evidence given by the housemaid in the court
and before the coroner, he ought to have had the evidence
given before the coroner read, and, to have given her an op-
portunity of explaining it : as it was, her evidence was un-
contradicted ; ands,even admitting all that the learned coun-
sel had said, he really did not think it was a discrepancy of
any importance whatever. With regard to the breaking into
the house, the Jury, before they came to any decision as to
the prisoner's guilt or innocence, must make up their minds
as to whether it was a real breaking in for the purpose of
robbing the house, or merely a simulated breaking in for the
purpose of directing suspicion and inquiry away from the real
perpetrator of the crime. With regard to the evidence of
Baldwin, it did not appear to him (the Judge) that he gave
his evidence in such a way as entitled him to full credit. Yet,
the prevarication of which he had been undoubtedly guilty
could not alter facts, and, as all the material facts to which
he deposed were also deposed to by Rose, on whose character
no such imputation rests, he should read Rose's evidence to
the Jury, omitting altogether that of Baldwin. With
respect to the glass door being undisturbed, it was very
remarkable that any housebreaker should have neglected
the comparatively easy method of getting into the house by
removing a pane of glass from this window, and have gone
down a story lower, for the purpose of getting into the
house by the back area door. Some strong observations had
been made upon the fact of the gloves having been found in
the prisoner's trunk upon the second examination, and not
upon the first ; and it had been insinuated, that they had
been placed there by some one for the purpose of getting up
a case against the prisoner. Now it was for the jury to de-
termine whether it was not possible for the gloves to have
escaped observation on the first examination, when the shirts
were merely unfolded, and yet to have fallen out of one of
them 'on the second examination, when the shirts were
shaken. They had seen the police-officers who had been
examined before them, and it was for them to determine
whether they thought those persons would have been wicked
enough to have got up evidence against the prisoner in that
manner ; and, if they had been so wicked as to make evidence
against the prisoner in the manner charged, would they not
have invented some circumstance of infinitely more import-
ance than the finding of a pair of white gloves, so lightly.
stained with blood as to render it almost impossible they
could have been worn by a person when engaged in such a
horrible transaction as this murder? Very strong observa-
tions had been made on the conduct of Pearce : now, nothing
could be more proper than to show any things which might
be found to a prisoner and to ask him any proper question :
at the same time, it was exceedingly improper in a minister
of justice to attempt to entrap a person into a confession of
guilt, and it was for the jury to determine what was to he