NO. IV. DUELLING; AND "WHAT'S IN A NAME?" NO. V. THE MURDERED GLASGOW COTTON-SPINNER; AND THE 344437 952 V. 2 MISCELLANIES. THE MYSTERY OF MURDER, AND ITS THE legal profession, and the public, were equally taken by surprise, on Tuesday, the 20th November 1849, by the conspicuous appearance in the Times newspaper of that morning, of a correspondence, consisting of two letters, between Mr Charles Phillips,† and another member * 1. Correspondence relative to the Trial of Courvoisier. With a Preface and Appendix. 1849. 2. The Times Newspaper, from May 7th to June 30th, 1840, and for the 20th November 1849. 3. The Examiner Newspaper, for 27th June 1840, 11th July 1840, 24th November 1849, and 1st and 8th December 1849. 4. The Annual Register for 1840. Vol. lxxxii. pp. 229–244. 5. Minutes of Evidence, taken in Short-hand, at the Central Criminal Court. Published by Authority. Vol. xii. pp. 216–271. + Now Mr Commissioner Phillips. This paper appeared in the Law Review for March 1850; and is inserted in THE MISCELLANIES on account of the extraordinary interest of the case to which it refers; and also of the question to which it gave rise, with reference to the conduct of an advocate, placed in cirstances of sudden and almost unprecedented difficulty, by a confession volunteered privately by the prisoner during the progress of the trial to that advocate, whom he nevertheless required "to defend him to the uttermost!" The author expended much time and labour in thoroughly investigating the charge, perseveringly made by a weekly London journal for years, against the advocate in question, of atrocious misconduct in calling God to witness his belief that one was innocent who had just confessed himself guilty; and with attempts YOL, II. A of the Bar, on the subject of the former's defence of Courvoisier, the Swiss valet, who so barbarously murdered his sleeping master, Lord William Russell, in Norfolk Street, Park Lane, in May 1840. The counsel in question, in a brief note, dated the 20th November, called the attention of Mr Phillips to "an accusation recently revived against him in the Examiner," alluding to the following passage, which had, about a fortnight previously, appeared in that newspaper:-"How much worse was the attempt of Mr Phillips to throw the suspicion of the murder of Lord William Russell on the innocent female servants, in order to procure the acquittal of his client, Courvoisier, of whose guilt he was cognisant!" Mr Phillips was reminded that as this accusation had been thus renewed against him after his elevation to a responsible judicial office, he ought to lose no time in offering, as the writer of the note in question believed he could truly do, a public and peremptory contradiction to such serious allegations; and the writer added, that he had been told by Lord Denman that he had inquired into the matter, and found the charge to be utterly unfounded; that Mr Baron Parke, who was present at the trial, and had closely watched every word that Mr Phillips uttered, had given his lordship decisive testimony against the truth of the charges which had been brought against Mr Phillips on the occasion in question. To this note, Mr Phillips, a few days afterwards, replied, in an interesting letter, couched undoubtedly in indignant and contemptuous language; and the editor of the Times, to whom both were sent for publication by Mr Phillips, on the same day on which the correspondence appeared, called attention to it, in a leading article, temperately but emphatically pronouncing Mr Phillips' statement conclusive on the subject, forcibly observing, " that it would to attach the crime to an innocent fellow-servant of the prisoner. After the publication of this paper, the charge was never re-asserted; and the author had the satisfaction of being assured by one of high station and authority, that the paper was characterised by judicial impartiality and temper, and that it formed an unanswerable vindication of libelled innocence. have been well had he given to the world, nine years before, the very complete justification of his conduct in the Courvoisier trial, which appeared that morning in their columns." That "no man could afford to despise the general opinion of mankind, and least of all one who, by circumstances, whether of necessity or inclination, occupies a somewhat prominent place in the public eye.' That "had Mr Phillips uttered, long before, a denial so emphatic of the charges brought against him, he would at once have silenced the slander which had so long associated his name with unscrupulous advocacy, and inhuman carelessness of the life of an innocent fellow-creature. The example of the Times was promptly followed by almost the whole metropolitan and provincial press; several journals, in a praiseworthy spirit of candour, adding an expression of regret that they had ever lent assistance, unconsciously, in giving currency to misrepresentation. Rarely, in short, has an old but suddenly revived accusation received so sudden and successful an answer. On the ensuing Saturday, however, the Examiner reprinted its two articles of the 27th June and the 11th July 1840, containing the original charges, professing deliberately to re-affirm them; accusing Mr Phillips of having "done his best to evade every charge specifically brought against him by the Examiner;" and offering conclusive evidence of the truth of those charges, in the shape of extracts from the Times newspaper, which had reported the proceedings out of which the accusation against Mr Phillips originated. The Examiner, doubtless irritated by the vehement and scornful tone of Mr Phillips' letter, expressed its re-affirmed charges in very bitter terms; and also in the ensuing two numbers inserted extracts from several other newspapers; complaining also of the precipitancy of fellow-journalists in authenticating a charge of calumny against it, without having paused for its rejoinder, but presumed Mr Phillips' answer complete. Several journals, both in town and country, shortly after |