died, and the prisoner used to feed him with milk thickened with flour or rice. I saw the prisoner give her husband something on the day before he died, but I do not know what it was. The prisoner did not like anybody but herself to feed him, and she always did so.

By the prisoner. I did not see anybody else give him anything to eat but you. Some one may have given him a cup of tea, but I know of nothing else.

The deposition of Mr. Willing, who was at the time relieving officer of the union of which Clavering is a portion, and who has since died, was then put in and read. It was to the effect that the prisoner applied to him for an order for the doctor for her husband, and he gave her one, and he subsequently repeatedly visited the deceased at his cottage. He always complained of pain in the chest, of continual vomiting, and also that his body was swollen, that his bowels were constantly out of order, and that he always felt sick. The prisoner told him that the deceased was continually vomiting, and that if he got better for a day or two, he always relapsed again, and became worse than before.

Mr. Hawkes, the medical officer to the Saffron Walden Union, who attended upon the deceased during his illness.-I first saw him about the 11th of February, and he complained of distension of the bowels and violent pain in the abdomen, and sickness, and all these symptoms continued for a period of six weeks, when he was somewhat better. The symptoms intermitted constantly, and sometimes they returned with greater, and sometimes with less violence. The case was of such a nature

that I could not form any satisfactory opinion as to the nature of the disease or its cause. All the symptoms, however, were such as would be the result of the administration of small doses of some irritant poison. The deceased also exhibited symptoms of a disease of the lungs, and they continued until his death. About this time I had talked in the village of the necessity of having a post-mortem examination of the body in case death should ensue, and the prisoner came to me in a very angry manner, and said that she had been given to understand that I intended to cut her husband's body open. I told her I hoped there would be no occasion for it, and that her husband would get well. I had sent medicine to the prisoner and to her son, but none of it contained arsenic or any preparation of arsenic.

The symptoms

I have mentioned continued until the death of the deceased took place. I made a post-mortem examination of the body, and ascertained that the immediate cause of death was disease of the lungs. I afterwards removed the stomach and the intestines and their contents, and they were carefully sealed up and subsequently submitted to Dr. Taylor for analyzation.

Mr. Thomas Brown, surgeon.-I was present at the post-mortem examination of the deceased on the 20th of May, and assisted Mr. Hawkes in performing the operation and in removing the stomach and the intestines from the body, and I afterwards saw them sealed up and delivered to the coroner. I have had some experience in cases of consumption, and I never saw any symptoms of griping and purging in the early stages of that

disease. I should attribute these symptoms solely to inflammation of the stomach and the coats of the intestines, and if I found them intermittent, and returning with increased violence, I should attribute them to some irritating substance being taken into the stomach either in the food or some other way. I observed symptoms of inflammation in the bowels, such as would be produced by an ardent poison.

Superintendent Clarke.-On the 28th May I searched the prisoner's house. The prisoner was at home at the time. I first searched the room in which the family lived, and in a kneading trough that was in it I found a quantity of rice. Before this I had taken possession of some bottles and other things. The prisoner made no objection to my doing so. I found the rice in a bag; and when the prisoner saw me take it up, she said she hoped I was not going to take that away, as it was her father's, and she had used some of it for her husband; and she added, that if I took it away, she hoped I would tell her father of it. I told her not to interfere with me, and I should take away just what I thought proper. Two or three times after this she repeated that she hoped I should not take the rice away. I kept the bag and the rice in my care until the 30th May, and I then delivered it to Dr. Taylor in the same state it was in when I took it from the prisoner's house.

Dr. Taylor, Professor of Chemistry at Guy's Hospital, examined. He deposed that he examined the contents of the bladder handed to him by Mr. Lewis, and applied the usual tests to them, and the result was the discovery of the presence of arsenic. He also said that the intestines presented the appear

ances which usually accompanied the exhibition of arsenic. The whole quantity of arsenic found by him was about the 25th part of a grain, which he said was insufficient to occasion death. It was possible that the arsenic he found was the remainder of a larger dose that had been administered some days before, and he did not believe that it had been administered very recently before death. The symptoms exhibited by the deceased would, in his opinion, be entirely explained by the administration of small doses of arsenic.

By the Lord Chief Justice.Witness was of opinion that the arsenic must have been administered in small doses, not at all calculated to produce death at once, and when the administration of the poison was relinquished for a time the man got better.

By Mr. Bodkin.-The effect of the continual administration of small doses of arsenic would be to gradually cause the powers of the body to languish, and would thus tend to develop any constitutional malady-such as consumptionthat might be in the system. Witness subsequently examined a quantity of rice that was handed to him by Clarke, the police-officer, and he found that it was all over arsenic, and according to the calculations he had made he was of opinion that in the rice, which was about a pound in quantity, there were about sixteen grains of arsenic. Every grain of rice was covered with a minute portion of the poison, and the whole appeared to have been carefully mixed up together, so that every part of the rice was poisoned, and the interior of the bag containing the rice was likewise covered with arsenic. The poison consisted of the common white arsenic, which

had the appearance of flour. Witness was examined upon the previous trial of the prisoner for poisoning her children, and he upon that occasion in her presence described the nature of arsenic and its mode of action. [From this and other circumstances it appeared that this horrible woman had marked attentively the evidence given on her former trial, and had learned from it a lesson in her fearful practices.]

Hannah Phillips, the wife of a labouring man at Clavering, proved that she knew the prisoner before her former trial, and remembered her coming home after it was over. Witness was passing by her cottage some time afterwards, when she called her in, and began talking to her about her children being poisoned, and she said that she did not poison them, but that some one else had done so. She mentioned the name of the person, and said that he had given the children a halfpenny a piece to take what he gave them. The prisoner then mentioned arsenic, and witness told her that she must not talk to her about arsenic, for she did not know what it was, and the prisoner then said there was very little difference between the look of arsenic and a little flour. She also said that the arsenic she had had before she was sent to Chelmsford for trial she had hid under a stump of a tree in a lane at Clavering, and when she came back she took it again, and she said that was the poison she had intended to poison the woman with, but had not the opportunity, and that she poisoned the child first. She mentioned the name of the woman whom she meant to poison. The prisoner did not tell her all this at one time,

but upon several different occasions. Another time the prisoner told her that she had bought some liver and lights and made a mince pie of them for her husband, and she advised witness to make one too, and said that if she did not know how to "season" it, if she brought it to her she would season it for her, and she added that it would be no more harm to kill such a man as her own or witness's husband than it would be to kill a

mouse. Witness had had a quarrel with her husband a short time before, and had told the prisoner of it, and she said that her husband would not dare to hit her, and if ever he did so, she would put him under the bricks. On the Tuesday after the death of the deceased the prisoner came to her, and said that her mother-in-law had heard what she had been saying about the poison, and she asked witness not to say any more about it; and she added that her trouble was great. Shortly after this request the prisoner came to her, and thanked her for what she had said before the coroner, and began to abuse her; she replied that she had not said so much but what she could say a good deal more; and she then called the prisoner Sally Arsenic, and told her that she might have had her husband alive as well as other people, if she had treated him properly.

Caroline Cole, a neighbour of the prisoner, deposed that, while the deceased was ill, she had some conversation with the prisoner upon the state of her husband's illness. The prisoner afterwards said, "If I have poisoned my children, I have not poisoned my husband;" and she then began to abuse the witness Hannah Phillips, and said

that if she had an opportunity, she should like to season a pie for her, and make her a "croaker."

The prisoner, when called upon for her defence, made a long rambling statement, in the course of which she asserted that she was innocent, and declared that if her husband had been poisoned, the poison must have been taken in some of the things which people were continually sending to him while he was ill.

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of "Guilty;" and the learned Judge passed sentence of death.

The prisoner did not betray the least emotion during the learned Judge's address; and, when he had concluded, she walked with a firm step from the dock.

She was executed on the 25th of March, with Thomas Drory, convicted of the murder of Jael Denny; but, unlike that criminal, remained hardened and impenitent to the last.

Jael Denny, was the daughter of Louisa Denny, who had subsequently married one Thomas Last. She was a young woman of remarkable appearance, much exceeding the common height, good looking, and of fine figure, about 21 years of age. At the time of her murder she was living with her step-father and her mother at Doddinghurst. Thomas Last and his family had been living as farm servants at the "off-hand" farm of Mr. Drory, senior; the prisoner living in the same house, and managing the farm for his father. A short time after the family went to live at this farm the deceased went into service, but seems to have remained but a short time in any situation. On most occasions she returned to her parents at the farm; sometimes, however, she lodged elsewhere. casions she employed herself in needlework and stay-making, her parents assisting her when these were insufficient.

On these oc

It was stated that she always conducted herself quietly and respectably-conduct, however, which did not seem to strike the witnesses as being incompatible with her receiving the frequent visits of the prisoner and of another young man. In fact, while residing at the farm, an improper intimacy had taken place between her and Thomas Drory, which had been continued for eighteen months, and she was now more than eight months gone with child by him. Thomas Last had left the farmhouse in September, and was living with his wife and family in a cottage at Doddinghurst. The poor girl's intimacy with the prisoner seems to have continued. The circumstances immediately pre

ceding the murder were detailed by the mother, and also a circumstance which points out a motive to the crime.

Louisa Last.—I am the mother of the deceased. I remember the evening of the 12th of October. My daughter went out for a short time on that evening between 4 and 5 o'clock. She returned home soon afterwards, and came to me in the garden, and in consequence of something she said I prepared the tea. It was about our usual time for that meal. I and my husband and the deceased sat down to tea; and while she was having her tea my daughter looked at the watch and got up and drank her tea and laid her bread and butter down and went out. This was about half-past 6 o'clock. She dressed herself very hurriedly, and did not tie her bonnet. Before she went out she said something to me about an appointment. On the following morning, when my daughter was missed, I went to the prisoner's farm. He came to me, and appeared as though he had been engaged in milking cows. I asked the prisoner where my child was. He said he did not know, he had not seen her. I told him it was not true, for he did see her the day before between 4 and 5 o'clock, and talked to her, and appointed to meet her at half-past 6, at the stile nearest to my house, and she had gone to meet him. I then asked him where he left her, and he said he had not seen her after 5 o'clock, and that he had been to Brentwood afterwards. My daughter was in good health when she went out, and she appeared cheerful and in good spirits. I never saw her again alive. I expected, from her leaving her bread and butter in the way I have deVOL. XCIII.

scribed, that she would have returned almost immediately. On the 3rd of September before this, I remember a youth named Gibling being at the prisoner's house. At this time I knew my daughter was in the family way. I said to the prisoner in Gibling's presence, and also in that of my daughter, that he must be a villain to think of marrying Miss Gibling, when my daughter was seven months gone in the family way by him. I had heard he was going to get married. The prisoner made no answer when I said this to him. I spoke to him two or three times afterwards upon the subject of my daughter's condition, and we used to disagree. On the 29th of September, I and my husband went to the prisoner's house to remove some fruit trees we had left behind. My daughter was at home at the cottage alone. I suddenly missed the prisoner from the garden, and upon my returning home I found him under my bed in my bed-room. My daughter was down stairs in the keeping-room, and she appeared hot and flurried. The prisoner, upon seeing me, came out from under the bed and handed me a paper, which I read, and he said to me, "Here, are you going to sign this?" I saw it was my daughter's scribbling. I told the prisoner I knew nothing about it, and I was not going to set my hand to any paper whatever. The paper appeared to have been just written. It was dated the 29th of September, 1850, and contained