of a great number of questions, that was nothing more than was done in other declarations. He therefore did not think it would be inconsistent with the law or practice of Scotland to receive and read the declarations.

The declarations were accordread. The first was the most important. After entering into particulars as to the prisoner's name, age, occupation before marriage, and the name of her husband, she stated that she last saw the deceased in her (McLachlan's) house in Broomielaw, on the 28th of June. She was not in or near Mr. Fleming's house, in Sandyford-place, on Friday, the 4th, or morning of Saturday, the 5th, of July, and was not in any way concerned with the murder or theft. She was in her own house the whole day, till about 7 at night, and after going out twice, returned finally about a quarter past 11, P.M., letting herself in by a check lock. She went to bed, and rose about 8 next morning, her little son sleeping with her. She admitted having the plate, but said she had got it from Mr. Fleming, who told her not to tell what she had done for him.

Such was the case for the prosecution.

From the exculpatory evidence now tendered on the part of the prisoner, it appeared that the prisoner and the deceased had always been good friends-that the deceased had frequently spoken of old Fleming as "an old wretch," and "an old villain," and had described him as "a very inquisitive old man, who was exceedingly troublesome to her- always wanting to know who came in and who went out of the house." Two policemen deposed to finding a clothes-bag VOL. CIV.

with a mark of blood upon it in old Fleming's room; and another policeman swore that he saw two women come out of the house on the Saturday evening previous to the discovery of the murder, neither of whom was the prisoner.

In his speech for the defence, the prisoner's counsel urged that it was impossible to believe that the prisoner, without any motive in the least degree adequate, without any absolute need or pressure -for the sake of getting a few old dresses to pawn, and a few pieces of old plate, upon which she could raise some 67.—should have forgotten all claims of gratitude and affection, and with no other object than so mean a one, should have inflicted on her friend the fearful wounds from which she died. He then went into a minute analysis of the circumstances as detailed in evidence, pointing out the discrepancies as developed in the cross-examination, and renewed his argument as to the utter improbability of the murder having been committed by the prisoner under the circumstances alleged against her.

Lord Deas having summed up at great length, the jury retired for twenty minutes, and then came into court with a verdict, by which they unanimously pronounced the prisoner Guilty of murder and theft.

The prisoner on hearing the verdict rose and said, "Well, I am as innocent of this murder as my own child, three years old.”

A new turn was now given to the case by a request, on the part of the prisoner's counsel, that a statement, written by the prisoner, and placed in the hands of her law agent as far back as the 18th of August a statement upon which she had herself wished that her

G G

་་

Lord Deas consented; and the statement, which was of great length, was accordingly read. It was wonderfully minute and circumstantial in detail; but in substance it amounted to this:-On the Friday night, the prisoner went up to the Flemings' house for the express purpose of seeing Jessie McPherson, though with what object she does not state. There she found the old man sitting in the kitchen with the servant. Some cross words passed between the two, and at last Fleming asked her to go and fetch some drink, for which he gave her the money. She went out, found the public-houses closed, and returned, after a short absence, without the drink. On re-entering the house she discovered that there had been a quarrel between maid and master, and that either in the heat of passion, or on purpose, Fleming had struck Jessie with the cleaver, and seriously wounded her on the head. According to the prisoner's statement, she was not much alarmed at the time, and as neither Fleming nor Jessie herself wished a doctor to be sent for, she did not press it, but consented to stop and watch during the night. Gradually the wounded girl recovered from the stupor into which she had been thrown by the blow, and complained that her master had taken liberties with her, and had then quarrelled with her because she had threatened to expose him. The old man, meanwhile, was in a terror of alarm for fear of his character being injured, offered both the women to make it up to them

got them to swear a solemn oath on the Bible not to mention the matter, and busied himself for hours in clearing away all traces of the assault. Towards morning Jessie became much worse, and the prisoner, seeing she was sinking, insisted on fetching a doctor. Mr. Fleming positively refused to hear of it, and at last Jessie McLachlan left the dying girl's side to see if she could not leave the house and call in medical assistance. While she was out of the room she heard screams, and on running back found that the old man had killed Jessie by chopping her with the cleaver. At first Mrs. McLachlan was too frightened for her own life to call out, and when she had recovered her senses Fleming threatened to accuse her of the murder if she said anything, and told her that both of them would be suspected, and that the best chance for their escape was to make it appear that the house had been robbed and the servant murdered by the burglars. He thereupon gave her the plate and the girl's clothing, and, induced by fear of being suspected herself, she consented to dispose of the property and keep silence about the crime.

As soon as the reading of this statement had been concluded, Lord Deas proceeded to pass sentence of death. Addressing the prisoner, he said :—

"Of the crime of murder you have been convicted by the unanimous verdict of as intelligent and attentive a jury as I ever saw in the box, after a trial of very unusual length, conducted with the greatest possible patience and care. Your statement does not convey to my mind the slightest

impression of truth; it conveys the impression of one of the most wicked falsehoods I ever listened to. In place of your statement throwing suspicion on the old man, I think that if anything were wanting to satisfy the public mind of that man's innocence it would be that most incredible statement which has now been read. Be that as it may, I must act upon the evidence and the verdict. I cannot do otherwise than say that I concur in that verdict, and that I think no other verdict would have been consistent with the ends of justice. In that state of matters, the law leaves me no alternative whatever but to pronounce the sentence prescribed for the crime of which you have been convicted."

Then, with the usual formalities, his lordship passed sentence of death on the prisoner without holding out a hope of mercy.

So ended this remarkable trial. No sooner, however, was the report of it circulated through the country than very grave doubts as to the correctness of its result began to beset the mind of a large proportion of the public. In Scotland especially, a strong and very general impression prevailed that the statement made by the prisoner was as consistent and as deserving of credit as that made by the old man Fleming. It was felt, too, that if the defence had been based, as the prisoner herself wished, upon her own statement, instead of being left to rest upon the simple plea of "Not guilty," with the chance of obtaining a verdict of "Not proven,'" facts and circumstances must necessarily have been investigated at the trial which were now left very much in the dark, but an accurate knowledge of which was most

essential to the true and indisputable ascertainment of who the real murderer was. Under the impulse of this feeling public meetings were held, memorials drawn up, and petitions adopted-all calling loudly and earnestly upon the Home Secretary at least to stay the execution of the sentence until some further inquiry should be made. The press, not only of Scotland, but of London and of other parts of the kingdom, joined warmly in the demand. In Glasgow the impression that the prisoner's statement was true gained strength from hour to hour, and as the day appointed for her execution (the 11th of October) drew near, it was said amongst the citizens of that city (as afterwards stated in Parliament) not only that "she ought not to be hanged, but that she should not be hanged, and that it would take three regiments of soldiers to hang her." Moved by the representations which were so warmly pressed upon him from so many quarters, the Home Secretary, after due consultation with the highest authorities of the Scottish law, determined to institute a further investigation, and with that view directed that the execution of the prisoner's sentence should be respited to the 1st November. This respite was accompanied by a distinct intimation that it was granted only for the purpose of inquiring further into the facts and circumstances connected with the perpetration of the crime; and that should the result of such inquiry not tend to confirm the truth of the statement made by the prisoner as to her share in the transaction, no hope of a commutation of her sentence could be held out to her. Mr.

Young, an eminent member of the Scottish Bar, was commissioned by the Government to conduct the inquiry, which took place at Glasgow on the 16th, 17th, and 18th of October. The proceedings were secret, and were carried on with closed doors. Mr. Young made his report to the Home Office, with due despatch; and on the 28th of October the Lord Provost of Glasgow received a letter from the Secretary of State, intimating that the sentence of death had been respited from the 1st of November until Her Majesty should further signify her pleasure. On the 8th of November a further communication was received, intimating that the sentence of death had been commuted to that of penal servitude for life.

Thus, then, the feelings of one large portion of the community were fully gratified. But now a new difficulty and a fresh cause of complaint arose from the extraordinary position to which the supplementary inquiry and the commutation of McLachlan's sentence had brought the old man Fleming. As has been already stated, that inquiry was instituted with a distinct intimation from the Secretary of State that no commutation of the sentence of death would be granted unless the averments made in the previous statement should prove to be true. When, therefore, a commutation was granted as soon as the inquiry closed, no other inference could be drawn than that the Government was convinced of the truth of McLachlan's statement; in which case it followed of necessity that old Fleming was guilty of the murder. Under such an imputation it was impossible for any innocent man to remain

passive. His law agents, therefore, at once opened a correspondence with the Home Secretary (Sir George Grey), drawing attention to the position in which their client was placed, and asking the Home Office "to express an opinion that the alteration in the sentence was not intended to lead to the inference that Mr. Fleming was otherwise than innocent of the murder of Jessie McPherson." Sir George, in reply, declined to express any opinion on the matter. On the 7th of November the lawagents re-opened the subject, urging the necessity of ordering a renewed investigation, in order that their client might be afforded an opportunity of adducing evidence to test the truth of any statements which might have been made at the inquiry ordered by the Crown tending to criminate him. On the 14th of November, Mr. Clive, in the name of Sir George Grey, intimated to the agents that it was not in the power of the Home Office to direct a judicial inquiry to be held into the guilt or innocence of any person not charged with any offence, "especially when, as in the present case, according to what Sir George is informed is the law of Scotland, the person on whose behalf you make the request, having been examined as a witness in a criminal trial, cannot afterwards be subjected to a criminal prosecution in respect of the matter of such trial." Mr. Clive added: "Sir George Grey instituted the inquiry to which you refer under the very peculiar circumstances of this case, in order to assist him in deciding whether sufficient doubt existed as to the share which the prisoner, Jessie McLachlan, had in the commission

of the crime to justify a commutation of the capital sentence. The result satisfied Sir George Grey that the whole facts relating to the case had not been submitted to the jury at the trial, and that sufficient doubt did exist to justify him in recommending a commutation of the sentence to penal servitude for life. But the result of the inquiry was far from removing all uncertainty, nor could it be justly held to fix a share of the guilt on any other person, especially when such person was not represented at the inquiry." Upon this, the agents again addressed the Home Office, expressing regret that Sir George Grey did not feel it to be in his power to direct further inquiry, urging that it was not enough to say that the result of the investigation had not "fixed" guilt on their client; and calling for an explicit declaration of his innocence, or an opportunity to rebut any evidence which might have been taken by the Crown agent, and which tended to throw suspicion "on the hitherto unblemished character of Mr. Fleming." The only reply to this was a reference to the answer already given in the communication of the 14th. so the matter was left.

And

At a subsequent period the painful peculiarity of old Fleming's position was made the subject of a discussion in the House of Commons, when the strange provision of the Scotch law, which prescribes that a person once admitted as a witness in a criminal case cannot afterwards be tried in reference to the same charge, was again referred to by Sir George Grey and the Lord Advocate, as presenting an absolute bar to that open trial for the vindication of his character which the old man challenged, courted, and craved.

The unsatisfactory result of the whole of the proceedings in this remarkable case resolves itself to this; that of the two persons under accusation of a barbarous crime, the law seizes one and holds her in durance for the remainder of her life (which her self-acknowledged accompliceship in the crime after its committal may well warrant); but leaves the other under an imputation of guilt as great or greater than hers, which it will not investigate of itself, and which it utterly denies to him any means whatever of rebutting or disproving.

THERE is probably no form of guilt that strikes the mind of society with a deeper sense of disgust and horror than that of secret poisoning; and it must be admitted that in the whole catalogue of crimes there is not one that, from the odious circumstances that invariably accompany it, more fully merits

the detestation in which it is universally held. It is a crime into which the rougher and (if such an expression may be used) the more natural passions of man never enter it is committed in no heat of blood-is the result of no sudden or ungovernable impulse. In its nature it is essentially deliberate,