wards recanted their recantation, acknowledging their rashness, and declaring their belief that their contemporary had "made good his charges to the letter." One of our professional contemporaries, on the 24th November, in handsome terms expressed regret at having ever acquiesced in the belief that a member of the profession had been guilty of cruel and unconscientious conduct, "and thereby unintentionally joined in a wrong." That they "were bound to say, that after reading the letter of the learned Commissioner, no doubt remained on their minds that his conduct was misrepresented; and that in most painful and trying circumstances he did exactly what a right-minded man and a conscientious advocate ought to have done." On the 15th December, however, the same journal announced that it had once more undergone a total change of opinion. "We have, since the 24th November, procured the report in the 'Times' of June 22d 1840; and we are bound to say that every particular in the 'Examiner's' charges is strictly proved. Mr Phillips was accused of having appealed to heaven as to his belief in his client's innocence, after receiving a confession of his guilt. We have gone into this detail, derived from our own perusal of the 'Times' report, in order to show that we are not now relying, as we did before, on an ex parte statement." The Times, however, and the great majority of the other journals, indicated by their silence, and some by replies to the Examiner, contentment with their originally expressed opinion. Thus the matter stands with the press. In professional circles the matters in question have afforded topics for much and grave discussion; and we have felt it our duty, as an independent organ of professional opinion, to examine into the matter temperately and candidly; regarding it as one, not of professional etiquette and usage merely, but of professional honour and morality. It is this consideration alone which has induced us to make topics appearing in the columns of the Examiner, a non-professional weekly journal, the

subject of comment in our pages. Consideration also for Mr Phillips, as a gentleman of long and distinguished standing at the Bar, and whose reputation, save in the matters above referred to, has never, that we know of, on any occasion been sullied by even the suspicion of misconduct, conduces to urge upon us the duty of sifting this matter thoroughly, in order to see if there be any real foundation for imputing to him this solitary instance of grave misconduct. The charge is one which ought never to have been made, much less, avowedly, " from time to time" re-asserted by any journal, or by any person, except upon the surest grounds, the clearest evidence, and after dealing with that evidence with perfect candour and impartiality. We have carefully referred to every source of information within our reach, and are now prepared to submit the result of such investigation to our readers.

In examining into the propriety or impropriety of a particular line of conduct, it is obviously desirable to be placed, as far as possible, in the position, at the time, of the individual whose conduct is the subject of examination;-to look at the doubtful and obscure aspect which it presented to him, in the order of events, and not as illuminated by those brought afterwards into existence. For this purpose we shall give, as briefly as possible, a narrative of the circumstances attending the discovery of the appalling assassination of Lord William Russell; whose murderer selected, as his leading advocate, in Mr Phillips, a gentleman of brilliant eloquence, of great experience, and characterised by a zealous devotion to the cause of his clients. In the midst of his powerful exertions on behalf of a client, whom there appears no doubt that both he and his brother advocate in the cause believed, as they still declare that they did, innocent— exertions but too likely to have proved successful, owing to the extraordinary mystery in which the circumstances of the case were enveloped,-his execrable client almost

* Examiner, 24th Nov. 1849.

paralysed him by a confession of his guilt, accompanied, nevertheless, by an injunction "to defend him to the uttermost!"* Having thus barely alluded to this signal circumstance, we request our readers to dismiss it for a while from their minds, and follow us while we narrate the leading circumstances of the murder, in the order of their occurrence, as they appear in the official short-hand writer's notes of the evidence taken at the Central Criminal Court, and published every session by authority.

He

On Tuesday night, the 5th of May 1840, Lord William Russell, infirm, deaf, and aged, being in his seventy-third year, retired to bed at his usual hour. was a widower, living at No. 14 Norfolk Street, Park Lane, a small house, occupied by only himself, and three servants-Courvoisier, and two women, a cook and housemaid. The latter two had lived with him for about three years; but Courvoisier, a young Swiss valet, had been in his service for only five weeks, having come to it from that of Mr Fector, then the Member for Dover, with an excellent character. It would appear, however, that he did not like his situation as much as he had expected, and was piqued at receiving lower wages than had been given to his predecessor. He occasionally complained, moreover, of the peevishness of his new master's temper, expressing surprise how the former valet could have lived with him so long, and a doubt whether his own temper would allow him to do so. He also said, in the course of conversation with his fellow-servants, that he was not as well off in his circumstances as when he had come over to England; and on two occasions spoke to them of his master thus:—" Old Billy was a rum old chap, and if he had his money, he would not remain long in England!" On the housemaid (whose name was Sarah Manser) telling him that "his lordship was not a very rich man," he replied, "Ah, old Billy has money; and if I had it, I would not remain long in England." These *Correspondence, &c., pp. 11, 27.

expressions he used twice; once, shortly before attending his master to Richmond, on the 5th of April, where they stayed till the 22d of that month; the second time, shortly before the 5th of May. He said this, however, in a jocular manner, and it attracted no attention from his fellow-servants; with whom, it may be stated, he lived on the most friendly terms. On the day last mentioned, some conversation had passed between them relative to money matters, in the course of which Courvoisier spoke of his having only £5 or £6 left, with the exception of £8 and a few shillings at the savings' bank; and that he should soon have to ask his lordship for some money. Shortly before Lord William and Courvoisier went to Richmond, the latter was observed by one of the servants to have brought his lordship's dressing-case down into the pantry, a circumstance which had never occurred, to her knowledge, in the time of the former valet; and on the day of their going to Richmond, she also saw him there with his lordship's cash-box, which his lordship had left unlocked. Courvoisier accounted to her for it, however, by the remark, that he had brought it down because it was unlocked, and he knew his lordship was going to take it with him that day to Richmond. Both the dressing-case and the cash-box were always kept by Lord William in his bed-room. Another circumstance also is not unworthy of notice,-that the same fellowservant, the housemaid, had on more than one occasion seen Courvoisier apparently peering inquisitively into the "property" in almost (she afterwards stated) "every room" in the house; and on her asking him what he was about, he answered simply that he was "looking for something."

On the 5th of May, Lord William had given Courvoisier orders for the carriage to be sent to Brookes's Club by five o'clock that afternoon, but Courvoisier forgot to communicate the orders to the coachman; and Lord William, naturally somewhat irritated, returned home in

a street cab about half-past five, and rebuked Courvoisier for his forgetfulness, at first peevishly: but, as Courvoisier stated, he quickly resumed his good humour. He dined at home, alone, that day; and in the evening repaired, as was his custom, to the back drawing-room. The cook (whose name was Mary Hannell), having sate at home after dinner, working till towards nine o'clock, laid her work aside, putting her materials, including an old silver thimble, worth little more than a shilling, into her workbox, which she placed in the cupboard, in the kitchen, and then went out for about an hour, returning a little before ten o'clock. Courvoisier let her in by the front street door, which he then shut, closing both bolts, and barring, locking, and fastening the chain across the door. Whilst she was preparing her supper, he went out for her beer, through the area door and gate; and on his return locked both as usual. About a quarter past ten o'clock, the housemaid went up to bed, leaving Courvoisier and the cook in the kitchen, observing, as she passed the door of the back drawing-room, his lordship sitting there, with candles, as was usual with him at that period of the evening. She then went into his bed-room, where she lit his fire, and placed a rushlight—a whole one-in the shade, his lordship being in the habit of burning one. The bedroom had three windows, the bed being between them and the door, which was covered with green baize, had a spring on, and opened and shut noiselessly. The back bed-room adjoining was used only as a lumber-room, one door of it opening on the landing, and another communicating with the front bed-room.

On quitting the latter, the housemaid went up to her own bed-room, which was immediately over that of her master. She and the cook occupied separate beds, but in the same room, which was separated from that of Courvoisier by such a slight partition as admitted of almost the smallest noise in the latter being heard in that of the women servants'. Just before the cook retired to bed,