yesterday. They were all walked round, and I picked him out as the man who had been at my shop. Captain M'Call is the superintendent of the Glasgow police. When he called upon me he was accompanied by a detective named Smith. I am quite sure he did not ask me about "bottoming," but about "buttoning" boots. The reason I did not finish Barrett's boots was that I was obliged to finish a pair for the shop for which I worked.

By the Lord Chief Justice.-I cannot say how long it took Barrett to read the account of the Clerkenwell outrage to me and the men in my room-not very long. I have no clock, but I should not think it took more than five minutes. I do not know which of the Glasgow papers it was in. There are two published every day. It did not contain an account of any thing that had passed at the police-court in London-only the blowing up of the prison wall. It was just an account of the explosion. When Mullen introduced Barrett to me he did not tell me where he lived, and I did not ask. I do not know how it was that Barrett did not pay for his boots himself. He took the boots away with him, and I was content to look to Mullen for the money. He gave me no receipt.

By Mr. Baron Bramwell.-The boots I took home to the shop on Saturday night were one pair of men's boots. The shop I took them to was Mr. D. Mahon's. He gave me out that work on the 13th. I had only one day to do them in, and that was the reason why I could not repair Barrett's boots. I should have got no money that week unless I had finished Mr. Mahon's boots. I also had a pair to take home on the night of the 13th. The men who came to my house and who did Barrett's boots were journeymen shoemakers who had got their week's work finished. I cannot tell which of them mended the right boot and which the left. I believe that these men had not heard of the explosion, except that they might have seen it on the newspaper placards. I said it was a horrid event, and the other men said about the same. Barrett said it was the most ridiculous thing he ever read. I suppose he meant that it was a very wild job. All seemed to be quite "taken down" about it.

John Peak and John Welsh, the two shoemakers who, according to M'Nulty's story, mended Barrett's boots, were called, and repeated the story in all particulars. Nor were they shaken by cross-examination in any perceptible degree, except upon points of detail. There was then called another set of witnesses to support the alibi. The first of these was Arthur Burgoyne, a young man about Barrett's age. He said, I recognize Michael Barrett among the prisoners in the dock. I knew him first last August, at Glasgow. I generally met him once a week after that. I remember the executions at Manchester for the murder of Brett. There was a torchlight demonstration on the Thursday before the execution, which occurred on the Saturday. A Mr. M'Corrie was the chairman, and Michael Barrett was at it. I carried a torch. After the demonstration was over, I heard Barrett say that a person had run a torch against his jaw. He said his face was almost destroyed by it. When I knew him first he had a light, small, thin whisker, and this was his state at the demonstration. After the demonstration he had no whiskers. His whiskers appeared to have been singed. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General, he said he was not a Fenian. He could be a sympathizer with the men who were executed at Manchester without being a Fenian. He might have called them the murdered men, but did not remember having done so. Another witness, Charles M'Manus, was next called. On the Testament being placed in his hand and the oath administered, he raised the book reverentially above his head at arm's length before kissing it. In

reply to Mr. Greene, he said he saw Barrett at the meeting to arrange a funeral demonstration. He had neither whiskers nor beard then, and had apparently not been shaved for three or four days. The date of that meeting was "about the 13th of December." The cross-examination was directed to show that the witness sympathized with the Fenians. Mr. Peter M'Corrie was next called. He described himself as editor and proprietor of the Irish Catholic Banner, published at Glasgow. He also swore that Barrett was at the torchlight procession. The Attorney-General now adduced evidence to rebut the alibi. He called Mr. Alexander M'Call, superintendent of the Glasgow police, who said he received a copy of the letter written by Barrett from prison, in which he had asked a friend to seek out the shoemaker M'Nulty, and bring the facts sworn to in the alibi to his recollection. Mr. M‘Call said, “I found out the man M⭑Nulty. I asked him some questions. He said, I never heard Barrett's name, nor do I know him at all. He never was introduced to me by O'Neill. I never repaired any boots for O'Neill. I do not remember any man coming to my house about that time to get boots buttoned." I asked him if he had any recollection of any man coming to his house to get a pair of boots "buttoned,” and if he did not remember a man coming back there about that, and, the work not being done, his kicking up a row. He said he had no recollection of such a thing. I asked if he remembered a man who had left some work with him sending out for a newspaper and reading about the Clerkenwell affair. He said he did not, and that such a thing could not have taken place without his remembering it. I told M'Nulty I was chief superintendent of police when I asked him those questions.

M'Nulty was recalled at the instance of the Attorney-General, and in answer to questions by him said, I remember Mr. M'Call calling on me. I said I did not know Barrett, and had never heard of him, and that no such man was introduced to me by O'Neill. I said I did not remember any man coming to my house to get boots buttoned. Captain M'Call spoke of a row, and I did not understand what he meant. In fact, he completely humbugged me.

The witness M Manus, the friend to whom Barrett's letter was communicated. was recalled, and cross-examined very minutely.

The Attorney-General then replied upon the whole case. Addressing himself to the alibi, he premised that the evidence for the prosecution, particularly that of the lad Morris and Mrs. Koeppel, showed conclusively that Barrett was in town some weeks before and on the 13th of December. He commented upon the absence in Barrett's letter of any statement that Mullen had introduced Barrett to M Nulty, as the latter had described, and upon the improbability that Mullen, himself a shoemaker, should have introduced Barrett to M Nulty in order to have his boots soled. He turned next to the second branch of the alibi, referring first to Mr. Peter M'Corrie, whom he described as connected with a paper in which the most detestable and seditious writing habitually appeared. Adverting again to the letter written by Barrett from Millbank, the Attorney-General said it was strange that there was no allusion whatever in that letter to the meeting at "the Bell" on the 13th of December, or to the private tea-meeting immediately afterwards, or to M'Corrie playing the piano. According to the witness Burgoyne, from August to the latter part of December Barrett was in Glasgow. If that were so, why were not men with whom or for whom he worked, or persons with whom he lodged, called to corroborate that statement? Why should it rest on the evidence of one man? Morris and

the woman Koeppel, who saw him from day to day in London and on the evening of the explosion, could not have been mistaken. Before the explosion they saw him with his whiskers on, and on the evening of it the woman Koeppel saw him with them off. When she next saw him in London after his arrest his whiskers were growing. Where were those persons a man would naturally have called to prove he was twelve hours' distance by an express ?

The Lord Chief Justice then proceeded to charge the jury. He said the evidence of the alleged conspiracy to release Burke rested upon the evidence of Mullany, and he must without doubt be looked upon as an accomplice in the act that had been done. It was doubtless competent for juries, if they believed the testimony of an accomplice, to act upon it, even if it were not corroborated; but juries had for a long series of years been recommended by the Judges not to convict upon the evidence of a man who came forward to save his own life at the expense of others, unless his evidence was corroborated. The jury must, however, bear in mind that it was not necessary the evidence of an approver should be confirmed in every particular. If it could be so confirmed, his evidence would not be required at all. Happily for society, men who were engaged in offences of this kind, when danger and detection were impending, were very apt to turn upon one another, and to denounce each other to the police. It might be hoped, from the present and many other examples, that those who were mixed up with them in these treasonable practices would learn that their greatest danger was to be found at the hands of those with whom they had been most intimately associated. After recapitulating the evidence of Mullany on the plan for effecting the liberation of Burke, the Lord Chief Justice examined how far that evidence was corroborated by other testimony. Adverting to the remarkable incident of the letter, his lordship said that when the jury heard Mullany tell the story of that letter they must have received it with doubt and suspicion. It was not every one who knew that secret communications could be carried on by chloride of gold and rendered visible by a solution of copperas; and the incident might have savoured more or less of romance had it not been confirmed by a most marvellous combination of circumstances. When Burke was arrested there was found upon him a small glass bulb, hermetically sealed, containing a certain mineral substance, which when analyzed by a scientific chemist, turned out to be chloride of gold. It was also shown that Mrs. Barry endeavoured to introduce in Burke's stockings a portion of green copperas. The inference was that this man by means of these substances found the opportunity of carrying on a secret correspondence with these persons outside the prison, and thus one of the statements of Mullany was corroborated. The conduct of Burke within the prison was not likely to mislead the jury. It was quite clear that it was the purpose of the conspirators to blow down the wall of the prison on the 12th of December, and that Burke was aware of the event, and prepared to take advantage of it. It had not been shown how it was arranged that the throwing of a ball over the prison wall should be used as a signal, but a ball was used as a signal on both days. When the ball was thrown over on the 12th Burke fell out of the ring in which he was exercising with the other prisoners, went to the furthest part of the exercise ground, leaned against the wall, and took off his boot as if to take a stone out of it. He did all this with the utmost possible slowness and deliberation, tardily putting on his boot and returning to his place when he could not help doing so. No one could doubt that Burke was aware of what was going on, and that all was done according to the arrangements which he had probably

himself suggested. The conduct of Burke was such as strongly to confirm the testimony of Mullany. The attempt to blow up the prison wall on the 12th and the blowing up of the wall on the 13th could not have been effected unless, at least, three or four, or perhaps more, persons had been connected with it. Looking to all these circumstances, the Lord Chief Justice said it would certainly appear that Mullany was truthful in his statement of the design of the conspirators and the means by which it was to be accomplished. That still left the question to be considered whether Mullany was confirmed as to the particular individuals whom he alleged to have taken part in the explosion. His lordship then went over the evidence of witnesses who had seen the attempt of the 12th of December, and the explosion of the 13th. Having gone into the testimony affecting, respectively, William Desmond, Timothy Desmond, and English, the Lord Chief Justice proceeded to say that the alibi set up in the case of Barrett was the most remarkable that he remembered in the whole course of his experience. If they believed the witnesses examined for the defence, there was an end of the case against Barrett, but in that case Mrs. Koeppel, Morris, and the witnesses for the Crown either laboured under the strangest hallucination, or else it was a falsehood the most wicked and basest that was ever offered in a court of justice to destroy the life of this man. There could not be a shadow of doubt that there was a man who played the part that Mullany spoke of, but was there some one to whom all the circumstances deposed by the witnesses in London applied but who was not Barrett? He therefore said that this was one of the most remarkable instances of an alibi he ever remembered, because they were not dealing with the case of a man who was charged with an offence by those who knew and saw him only for the moment and who had no acquaintance with him before, but an alibi set up and dealing with witnesses who had known the man for months, who were in almost daily intercourse with him, and who saw and spoke to him before and after the explosion. The jury would say whether, from the position and demeanour of some, at least, of the witnesses who spoke to the identity of Barrett, they were not entitled to credit; while, on the other hand, there were circumstances so remarkable and peculiar in the case of the alibi for the defence, that they required their most vigilant attention before they adopted it. The first and most startling reason was that the jury had heard of this defence during the last three or four days for the first time. What was the natural course of a man who found himself implicated in a charge the very nature of which was calculated to excite horror in the mind of any man of common humanity? Would they not expect such a man to say that his defence was a very simple one, that he had not been in London for months; that he had been in Glasgow all the time, and was known to many people there. Would he not say, "I was at Glasgow long before the explosion and at the time when it happened, and I can produce the people who saw me ?" If he had done so, the law would have lent him the assistance he required to bring these witnesses to London. But not one word to that effect had been stated. The Lord Chief Justice then recapitulated the evidence first of the three shoemakers, and then of Burgoyne, M Manus, and M 'Corrie, and remarked that, at first sight, it seemed perfectly conclusive and satisfactory. It was just possible that the statement of the shoemakers was true, and that they did repair the boots, and that the altercations did take place with M'Nulty, but that the whole affair might have taken place a week later. The second branch of the alibi related to the meetings at Glasgow, in which it was alleged Barrett took part. It still required the evi

dence of those who lodged and lived and were in daily intercourse with them. Barrett must have had a home of some sort. Some one must have known where he slept, and who could have come and said it was a total mistake to suppose he was in London at the time of the explosion. Some one could have said, "He was lodging in my house," and others, either employers or fellow-workmen, could have spoken for him when it was all-important he should give an account of himself.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict. They remained in deliberation for two hours and a half. When they returned their lordships were sent for, the prisoners were placed at the dock, and amid breathless silence the names of the jury were called over.

Clerk of the Arraigns.-How say you, gentlemen of the jury, is William Desmond guilty or not guilty?

Foreman.-"Not guilty."

Clerk of the Arraigns.- Is Timothy Desmond guilty or not guilty?

Foreman." Not guilty."

Clerk of the Arraigns.-Is Nicholas English guilty or not guilty?
Foreman." Not guilty."

Clerk of the Arraigns.-Is Michael Barrett guilty or not guilty?

Foreman.-" Guilty."

Clerk of the Arraigns.-You say that William Desmond, Timothy Desmond, and Nicholas English are "Not guilty," and that Michael Barrett is " Guilty," and that is the verdict of you all?

Foreman.-It is.

The three prisoners first named were then removed from the dock. Barrett, on being asked, as usual, if he had any thing to say why sentence of death should not be passed, made an able and eloquent speech, and the Lord Chief Justice, after expressing his concurrence in the verdict of the jury, passed sentence of death upon the prisoner.

II.

LYON v. HOME.

THIS suit was commenced on the 20th of April before Vice-Chancellor Giffard. It was instituted by a lady named Lyon, the widow of a deceased merchant, against the well-known table-turner, table-rapper, and so-called "spiritualist," Daniel Douglas Home, who called himself Daniel Home Lyon, and claimed to be a spiritual medium, with power to evoke the spirits of deceased persons, to compel the restoration of moneys and securities for money to the amount of 60,0007., which the plaintiff gave to him and transferred for his benefit, when, as she alleged, she was subject to great influence and ascendancy by him, owing to her belief at the time in his pretended spiritual powers.

Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., opened the case by reading from the bill of complaint the substance of the plaintiff's case, and an affidavit of the plaintiff in substantiation of it. The plaintiff, Mrs. Lyon, was a lady advanced in life, whose husband died in 1859, leaving her the absolute control over a large fortune. She alleged in her affidavit that before dying her husband informed her that he believed a change would come in seven years from his death, and that they would