prison; and he, in short, has related every fact, and how he escaped.

'Gentlemen, that will be read in evidence before you; for he is one of the defendants in this very conspiracy; you will therefore have not only what has passed between Tronson, who is not here (though he ought to be here, having given netice of his trial); but you will have what passed between Shanley and the persons concerned, during the transaction of the persons being in pursuit of Shanley. Jaques was not idle: Tronson was not asleep it was necessary, if possible, to recover the money; and therefore instructions were to be given by Tronson to Mr. Crossley, to sue the warden for the debt due to Alder; and Jaques applied to his attorney, Mr. Price, to sue the warden for the debt due under the warrant of attorney.

Gentlemen, this scheme would have taken place-the actions would have gone on; but the iniquity was so full, the acts came out so strong, that the attorneys who were applied to gave up their papers, and gave every information in their power.

• Gentlemen, Tronson having applied very frequently to Mr. Crossley, giving intimation to a lady, a Miss Brooks, who lived in London, that he had escaped, telling her to come abroad to him, desiring Mr. Crossley to proceed on it: by way of imposing on Mr. Crossley to bring the action, clothes were sent by Tronson to Mr. Alder, for the purpose of dressing himself up to go to Mr. Crossley, to desire him to go on with the action. Alder was out; he had been passing the day with Tronson: he returned, and complained of being ill (for he began to be shocked at the idea of the iniquity); he soon died: he died, and then application was made to

the widow, with an offer to her, if she would stand in the shoes of her husband, of no less than two hundred pounds. The clothes which he had to dress himself in were returned to Tronson. Jaques, within a very few days after the escape, was the first person to carry the intelligence; (to be sure he was the person that knew it better than any body.) He applies to Price, and desired him to proceed to recover the money, which was eight hundred and sixty pounds, anxious to get it on; thinking, if he could get the money, he should be able to put it into his own pocket, or share it among them.

'Gentlemen, in this state of the case, it will appear to you clearly that these two warrants of attorney are fabricated. The witness to one is a Mr. Brown, who will not appear to prove his signature. The situation of Alder was such, that he could not lend Shanley a farthing. In regard to Jaques's warrant of attorney, he confesses it was his own: he writes to his attorney it is his own, though taken in the name of his brother; and the witness, his brother, John Jaques, who I believe he will not call. I wish to see him here; I wish to examine him. Then as to Mr. Bailey ;— Bailey is a brother-in-law of Jaques ; so distressed, that he borrowed money before he went to the public house in Lime Street: so distressed, that he borrowed it of his brewer and of his distiller; and, before he borrowed that money, he assigned all his effects over to Jaques, his brother. This is the man he made use of as the plaintiff in the charge; and Mr. Bailey, being applied to for money, says Why,' says he, "I shall not be able to pay you now; but the moment we can recover some money from the warden I shall be able to pay some of my debts;' so

that he is to have some share in the

Concerns.

'Gentlemen, these are the facts I am instructed to lay before you. I have endeavored to state them to you as shortly as I possibly could; because a case like this requires no comment; it requires a mere narrative of facts in the plainest way it possibly can; and I am sure, if I prove them in evidence, there cannot be a doubt in the mind of any man that hears me, that a fouler conspiracy could not enter the mind of man. Jaques knew perfectly well, from his situation, that the Warden of the Fleet was answerable.for the persons in custody; he knew very well the warden was answerable for the escape; the only question therefore was, how he was to get this money in his pocket; that was to get fictitious plaintiffs and fictitious defendants; and to get a man that would look like a woman, and dress him in the habits of a woman, and impose upon the poor turnkey.

Gentlemen, a fouler conspiracy I believe never came before this Court, and any jury. I have not opened a circumstance which I am not instructed I shall prove. These facts, in my mind, are irresistible; they prove the connexion between Jaques and Tronson; they prove the connexion between Jaques and Shanley; they prove that Shanley was sent to France after the escape had been contrived.

• Gentlemen, so accustomed is Mr. Jaques to prisons of this kind, so hardened in iniquity, that he has not done it for the first time; but this is a common trick.

Gentlemen, I do not wish that the character of Jaques, infamous as it is, should have any weight on your minds at all: judge him on the facts I have opened to you; and if he is guilty, as I am instructed he is, you will have no difficulty in

pronouncing your verdict. As to Tronson, his character is not so black as Jaques's; but black enough of conscience. Shanley, if he is a gentleman, has disgraced himself by associating with these people: as to Bailey, a relation of Jaques's, I shall say nothing of him. I sit down perfectly satisfied that I shall prove sach facts, such connexions between the parties, as net to leave the least doubt in the mind of any man but that they are all guilty of this charge; and it is high time that justice should overtake these delinquents.'

The prisoner conducted his own defence, and cross-examined the witnesses with some ingenuity. He addressed the Court with considerable ability; and, when his case was going to the jury, he exclaimed,

For God's sake, gentlemen, coRsider my family; I have a large family!" He was, however, without hesitation, found guilty of the conspiracy.

He then made the following appeal to the Bench:

Mr. Jaques. My Lord, can I ask on what counts I am found guilty?

Court. Yes, you may ask that certainly.

Mr. Silvester. Third and fifth.

Mr. Jaques. My Lord, I trust your lordship will, in passing senteuce, have some consideration as to my family: I have a very large family, entirely dependent on myself.

Court. It is not my province to pass the sentence; but, now you have brought it to my mind, I find, by the evidence, you had it in contemplation to bring an action against the worthy Recorder: if he, therefere, has any difficulty in passing the sentence, I shall solicit the assistance of my brother, Wilson, ard pass it for him.

Mr. Jaques. My Lord, if I had

been indicted under that act for effecting the escape of a prisoner, you know the punishment that is inflicted under that act; if you will suffer me to transport myself from this country; or otherwise I should be glad if sentence of death could be passed upon me.

SENTENCE.Robert Jaques, the offence of which you stand convicted is one of the foulest crimes which man can commit; it is so extensive in its consequences, and so dangerous in its example, that at all times the Court are bound to inflict a very heavy and severe punishment for it. In your case it has been attended with every circumstance that can aggravate so black a crime as this; and therefore in passing the sentence upon you, which the Court in their discretion think the case requires, I cannot make any allow ances for any supposed mischiefs or inconveniences which may arise from what you have yourself stated to have been your former situation of life. You have deprecated of the jury that they would not incline against you, because your life hitherto has been very bad: it is a strange defence to come out of the mouth of any person: perhaps you may have heard that it did succeed here in one case better than it ought, and therefore might succeed again in blinding a jury. The fact has been clearly proved against you beyond all possible doubt: and the offence is of that enormity, that the Court think themselves bound to inflict that punishment which the

.

justice of the case requires, and they must rely on the officers of the Court that the sentence is executed with proper severity. The sentence of this Court is, that you be imprisoned in his majesty's gaol of Newgate for the space of three years; and that during that time you be once set in and upon the pillory at the Royal Exchange for the space of one hour, between the hours of twelve and two o'clock.'

During Jaques's imprisonment, in pursuance of this sentence, Sir James Sanderson was robbed to a considerable amount in cash and notes. Part of the latter were brought into Newgate, (that receptacle of stolen property,) and Jaques contriving to get possession of them, under pretence of raising money on them, gave immediate notice to Sir James, who, by this means, recovered the principal part of his property.

We are not, however, to believe that this was a spontaneous act of virtue in Jaques: he saw in it a gleam of hope, in prevailing upon Sir James, in return, to do him the kind office of getting, at least, the more hateful part of his sentence, the pillory, remitted. In this he succeeded; Sir James was a man of influence, and Jaques was pardoned. Yet it seems that this fortunate escape was not warning sufficient to Jaques, who often appeared at the criminal bar; for we find him, shortly afterwards, convicted of wilful perjury, from which he fled to parts beyond the seas.

bringing packages by coach, waggon, &c. to London.

The imposition practised under this pretence had arrived to such

pitch, that rascals, pretending to be porters to inus, would often put a few stones or brickbats into handbaskets, and other packages, and cheat the unsuspicious, to whom they had directed them, of a few shillings, as carriage and porterage. Other villains, actually porters to inns, would charge carriage, though already paid in the country, as will be found in the present case.

Samuel Hinchcliffe having thus imposed upon Daniel Delaney, Esq. that gentleman commenced a prosecution against him, on which he was tried at the Westminster sessions, in January, 1790, for fraudulently obtaining from Francis Cowley, his servant, two shillings, under pretence of its being for the carriage of a parcel from Norwich, the prisoner well knowing that the carriage had been before paid.

Francis Cowley deposed that the prisoner brought to his master's house a parcel directed to Daniel Delaney, Esq. He told the witness he had brought it from the White Horse Inn, Fetter Lane, and demanded two shillings for the carriage, and one shilling for the porterage. The witness observed to him that the carriage ought to have been paid, and, looking at the direction, he discovered that part of it had been torn off, and Three Shillings' wrote over it.'

This created a suspicion, and he several times advised the prisoner not to take the two shillings for the carriage, as he was persuaded it was paid. The prisoner, however, persisted in his charge, and took three shillings.

The next day the witness was sent by his master to the White Horse, and found that the parcel was not brought from that inn. He then went to the Swan, in Lad Lane, to which inn he found that

the parcel had come by the Norwich coach, and that the carriage had been paid in the country.

The next witness called was a clerk at the Swan, who deposed that the prisoner was an assistant porter to that house, employed to deliver parcels. Upon examining the waybook he found the carriage of the parcel had been paid, and that the prisoner had only accounted for oue shilling for the porterage.

The jury immediately found him guilty.

Mr. Mainwaring, the chairman, observed that this was a case of great importance to the public, who were daily suffering under such impositious. As it was very difficult to detect this kind of fraud, it was necessary to make an example of those offenders against whom the charge was proved.

He farther added, that Mr. Delaney, by instituting this prosecution, merited the thanks of the public; and then sentenced the prisoner to three months' imprisonment, and to be publicly whipped from the Admiralty to Charing Cress, and from thence to Bridge Street, Parliament Street; which was inflicted amidst the approbation of the spectators.

The following singular circum. stance occurred during the same Old Bailey sessions:-Two men, one named Roberts, the other Robert. son, were tried for stealing linen. Robertson was found guilty, and Roberts acquitted; but by some mistake the guilty man was dis charged, and Roberts detained. The friends of Robertson were overjoyed, of course, at seeing him at liberty, and advised him to go out of the kingdom; but the fellow, greatly to his credit, surrendered himself at Newgate before the sessions ended, -He was of course brought up to

SEVERAL months previous to the apprehension of this man, a report ran through all ranks of society that young females had been secretly wounded in different parts of their bodies, in the public streets, and often in the day-time, by a monster, who, upon committing the brutal crime, effected his escape.

Sometimes, as reported, the villain presented a nosegay to a young female, wherein was concealed a sharp instrument; and, as he offered them the flowers to smell, stabbed them in the face. Other tales were told, of some being stabbed in the

VOL. III.

thigh, and behind; in fine, there was universal terror in the femal world in London.

At length a man named Renwick Williams was apprehended on the charge of one of the young ladies thus brutally wounded, and his trial came on at the Old Bailey, on the 18th of July, 1790.

The indictment charged, that with force and arms, in the parish of St. James, on the king's highway, Renwick Williams did, unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously, make an assault upon, maim, and wound, Anne Porter, against the peace, &c. 76