HISTORY (continued 2)

May.—When the body was laid on the floor, was the arm doubled up?

Witness.—Yes, and I unclenched the fingers myself, and observed that the limbs were very stiff.

Bishop (smiling). The fact is, you are not in the habit of seeing fresh subjects, and you don't know anything about it. (Here Bishop and May both laughed.)

Mr. Thomas suggested to the prisoners, that they had better be quiet, as they were doing themselves no good.

Bishop.—I can do myself no harm at all events.

Mr. Beaman, the surgeon, who had minutely examined the body after death, was again called forward and re-sworn. He repeated his former opinion, founded on the post mortem examination of the body, that death had been produced by extravasation of blood in the spinal canal, an effect, which must have been produced by violence on the back of the neck. The violence might have been produced by a blow from a round stick or bludgeon, or even by the wrist of a strong man's arm. It was barely possible, certainly, that the injury might have been occasioned by a fall down stairs.

Mr. Partridge, demonstrator of anatomy at the King's College, agreed with Mr. Beaman in every particular, in regard to the causes which had produced death.

Mr. Minshull.—Is it your opinion, then, that the boy came to his death by violence—in short, that he was murdered?

Mr. Partridge.—I certainly do believe that the death of the deceased was effected by violence.

Mr. Minshull.—Is it from the state of the neck merely, or from other appearances, that you have come to that conclusion?

Mr. Partridge.—I believe the immediate cause of death to have been a blow on the back of the neck by some blunt instrument, but I judge of the violence which must have been used, from other circumstances, namely, the freshness of the body, the rigidity of the limbs, the swollen state of the face, the bloodshot eyes, and their perfect freshness.

In answer to a question by Mr. Swabey, the witness said that the superficial dirt on the thighs, belly and chest of the deceased, might have been done designedly or by accident. Trailing the body along a dirty floor would leave such marks.

Mr. Minshull.—Could the deceased have committed suicide?

Witness.—It is just barely possible that a person might inflict a blow on the back of his own neck which would cause death. It was, however, exceedingly improbable, and almost impossible.

Mr. Beaman said, he could not see how suicide could be at all effected in that way. A man might certainly break the back part of his neck, by flinging himself from a height on a bar, but he could not, in his opinion, inflict the same injury on himself, by means of a stick or bludgeon.

Mr. Thomas Mills, a dentist, residing on Newington Causeway, having been sworn, stated, that on Saturday morning, the 5th of November last, the prisoner May came to his shop and offered him a set of teeth for sale, for which he asked a guinea. Witness observed that one of the front teeth was chipped, and said that it did not belong to the set: upon which May said, 'Upon my soul to God, they all belonged to one head, and that not long since, and that the body had never been buried.' He ultimately agreed to take twelve shillings for the teeth.

Mr. Corder asked the witness, if he had not observed something peculiar about the teeth.

Witness.—Yes, portions of the gums were adhering to them, and part of the jaw-bone. There could be no doubt, but that the teeth had been forcibly removed immediately after death. I said to May, that from appearance the teeth belonged to a female. His reply was, 'the fact is they belonged to a lad about 14 or 15 years of age.'

While this witness was giving his evidence, the prisoner May appeared for the first time to change countenance, and lose that hardness of nerve, which distinguished him throughout the whole of the proceedings. He stared at the witness at first rather wildly, and compressed his lips while listening attentively to the evidence, and as soon as it was concluded, he endeavoured to resume his composure, and forced a laugh; but almost in a moment afterwards, his countenance underwent another change, and he muttered to himself, as he looked over to the witness, 'The b——y rascal.' He then asked the witness, if he was quite sure of the exact words he had used, when he brought him the teeth, with regard to the body not having been buried.

Witness.—You said that the body had never been buried.

Mr. Thomas, the superintendent of the police, was then examined, and repeated the evidence he had given before the coroner. He went to the house of the last witness, who gave him the twelve teeth now produced.

The hamper and sack which contained the body were here produced, the latter had stains of blood upon it.

Higgins, a police constable of the F division, produced a heavy iron instrument, one end of which was bent and nearly as sharp as a chisel, and the other thick and round. He also produced a brad-awl clotted with blood. A question arose as to the use to which the latter had been applied, when May at once said, 'I took the teeth out with that brad-awl.'

The other instrument was then handed to Mr. Partridge, who gave it as his opinion, that the sharp end might have inflicted the wound on the forehead of the deceased, and that the thick rounded end was likely to have inflicted the blow on the back of the neck, and which, in his opinion, was the immediate cause of death.

The witness Higgins said, that he found these instruments, together with a rope with a noose at the end of it (which he produced) at the house of Bishop. He also found the pair of breeches now produced, belonging to the prisoner, and he discovered the marks of blood upon them. He saw some fresh blood on the floor of the room, where he found the breeches.

May explained that the blood was that of a jackdaw, which cut its leg, and afterwards hopped upon the breeches.

Mr. Thomas said, that, in fairness, he must say, that as the breeches were not found until a week after the prisoner was taken into custody, he thought that the blood was entirely too fresh to connect it with the murder.

Kirkman, a police constable, proved that he was in plain clothes, in the station-house at Covent Garden, on the evening of the 10th inst., when the prisoners were brought there, for the purpose of appearing before the inquest, which was then sitting. He observed the prisoner Bishop reading a bill pasted upon the wall, announcing that a boy had been murdered, and was then lying for examination at the bone-house. As soon as he had read the bill, Bishop observed to May, in a low tone of voice, 'It was the blood that sold us.' He then got up and read the bill again, repeating the words 'Marks of violence on the body;' then turning to May again, he said, 'There were no marks of violence on the body, but only a few breaks in the skin;' and as he said so, he sat down, smiling.

Bishop admitted that he had read the bill over, but denied the expressions imputed to him.

Margaret King, a decent-looking woman, in an advanced state of pregnancy, was then called forward and sworn. She stated, that on Thursday fortnight, about one o'clock, she was standing with her children in Birdcage Walk, near Nova Scotia Gardens, when she saw an Italian boy, whom she had frequently seen before in the neighbourhood of Bethnal Green, standing at the corner of Nova Scotia Gardens, with a little box slung before him. He stood about thirty yards from where she was standing. She never saw that boy since. He had his back to her, but still she was sure he was the same boy whom she had seen so frequently before. He had either a box or a cage with him.

Mr. Minshull.—Are you sure it was on a Thursday you saw him where you have just described?

Witness.—I am sure it was on a Thursday, because it was my washing day. It was on the Thursday before the 5th of November. I heard some gentlemen speaking about the awful murder that had been committed on the body of a poor Italian boy, and I immediately said, 'Dear me, I saw a boy such as is described, standing at the end of Nova Scotia Gardens a short time ago.'

Mrs. Parragalli, who had been before examined, was again called forward, to prove that she knew the deceased, and had frequently seen him about the streets carrying a cage, with white mice in it. On the 1st inst. she saw him in Oxford-street, and had since seen his body at the station-house.

Bishop.—Are you quite certain that the boy you saw in Oxford-street was the same boy whose body lay at the station-house?

Witness.—I have no doubt of it. He used to carry about his little cage, suspended in front by a string across his shoulders. At a distance, the cage might appear like a box.

Mr. Corder was about to put in evidence the statements which the prisoners had severally made before the Coroner, when

Mr. Minshull said, that it would perhaps be better to defer receiving that evidence at present.

Mr. Minshull then, addressing the prisoners, told them that they would be remanded to that day week, when they would again be brought forward for further examination. He deemed it right to apprise them that other evidence would be produced against them, and said, if they wished to say anything, he was willing to hear them.

The prisoners declined saying anything, and were removed from the bar to the lock-up room at the back of the office, strongly guarded, and in custody of Dodd, the jailer.

The wife of Bishop, and Rhoda Head, alias Williams, wife of the prisoner Williams, were then brought forward, and remanded until the following Tuesday. Mrs. Bishop had been the wife of Bishop's father by a second marriage; so that his wife is also his mother-in-law. Rhoda Williams alias Head is Bishop's sister.

When the prisoners left Bow-street in the prison van, they were assailed by the groans of a large concourse of persons, who had been waiting for several hours to see them.

On the evening of the same day that the prisoners had been examined at Bow-street, an Italian, named Augustine Bruen, or Brin, the master of the ill-fated boy, arrived in town from Birmingham, with the view of identifying the body, for which purpose it was disinterred early on Saturday morning, the 19th. Although it was, of course, difficult to swear positively to a body which had undergone the operations of the surgeons, and was partially decomposed, the master appeared to entertain no doubt of its being the remains of the boy whom he had brought from Sardinia, and whose name, he said, was Carlo Ferrair, or Ferrari. He spoke positively to the colour of the hair and eyes, and also as to the height of the body, which particulars corresponded exactly with the description of the boy, who had left his service about a year ago, and had since been wandering about town, exhibiting his cage of white mice. The master having satisfied himself as to the identity of the body, it was once more interred.

We understand that this Bruen, or Brin, is the master of a juvenile crew of poor, ragged, half-starved little urchins, who are brought to this country as matters of speculation; and the following curious particulars connected with this tribe of travelling mendicants to which Carlo Ferrari belonged, will, we have no doubt, prove interesting to our readers.

The haunts of these unfortunate beings are in Vine-street, Saffron Hill, Bleeding-heart Yard on Holborn Hill, Coal Yard in Drury Lane, and in the purlieus of Shoreditch. Whole houses are occupied by these wretched boys, who sleep eight or nine in a bed. Each boy's monkey is chained near him every night on going to rest, and the other curiosities are placed in situations appointed to the owners; so that, on starting out in the morning, each boy takes his own companion. On the ground floors reside the men, some Italian and some English, to whom the monkeys, &c., really belong; and they provide each boy with lodging at fourpence a night, with a basin of gruel in the morning, upon starting on their peregrinations, having first paid the master for the use of whatever curiosity they may take with them to exhibit. The following are the charges made by the proprietors upon the juvenile crew.

For a porcupine (very novel, there being only two) and an organ, 4s. per day, being 2s. 6d. for the porcupine, and 1s. 6d. for the organ.

For a monkey (undressed), 2s. per day.

For a monkey in uniform, 3s. per day.

For a box of white mice, 1s. 6d. per day.

For a tortoise, 1s. 6d. per day.

For a dog and monkey (the latter may be frequently seen in the street riding on the dog's back), 3s. per day.

For dancing dogs, four in number, including dresses, spinning-wheel, pipe and tabor, &c., 5s. per day.

For a box of wax figures of the Siamese twins, 2s. per day.

For an organ with figures waltzing, 3s. 6d. per day.

Some of these boys, by their artlessness of manner and gesticulations, it is said, obtain six or seven shillings a day, and some more. One of them being asked, what was the largest sum he ever received in one day, replied, fifteen shillings, which he accounted for in the following manner:—One day he was ambulating about the Marine Parade, at Brighton, with his dog and monkey on his back, when a gentleman offered him fifteen shillings to allow him to throw a stone into the sea for the dog to fetch. The boy consented, the stone was thrown, and away jumped the dog with the monkey into the sea; the monkey fastened tight round the dogs neck, and both reaching the beach in safety, the boy received the premium.

To return to our melancholy subject. It having been intimated to Mr. Minshull, that it would be advisable that the premises occupied by the prisoner Bishop, in Nova Scotia Gardens, Bethnal Green, should be strictly searched, and the garden ground dug up, Mr. Thomas, and some of his constables, together with Mr. Corder and Mr. Cribb, who was foreman of the coroner's jury, proceeded to the spot on Saturday morning, the day after the prisoners had been examined in Bow-street, when a strict search was commenced, first in the house, even the tiles of which were examined, and next in the privy, which is situate in the garden, and is detached from the dwelling. After some delay and much labour, several pieces of human flesh were raised from the soil, and also the scalp of a head, which was evidently that of a female, from the profusion of dark brown hair which was found attached to it. It was supposed that the body to which these discovered portions had belonged, was a subject stolen from a churchyard, and afterwards cut up, in order to dispose of the limbs and other parts separately for the purpose of dissection; a practice which, we understand, is not unusual with those who follow the trade of body-snatching, and who often obtain as high a price for a muscular and well-formed leg or arm as for an ordinary body. Having made this discovery, Mr. Thomas directed his men to dig up the garden, in the hope that something more might be discovered connected with the horrible traffic in which the prisoners had been engaged, and possibly tending to throw additional light upon the case which is more immediately the subject of inquiry. Two constables were accordingly set to work with spades and other implements, and having dug up nearly the whole of the garden, without finding any thing of importance, that portion of it which formed a path from the house to the further end next attracted attention, from the circumstance that the clay, although much trodden, appeared to have been heaped together for some other object than merely the forming of a pathway. The two constables were then directed to dig up this portion of the garden; and an instrument called a searcher, having been made use of for the purpose, in consequence of the hardness of the soil, a child's blue jacket was dug up, and a pair of black cloth trowsers, corresponding in size, followed almost immediately after. The brace button-holes of the latter were torn, as if force had been used in pulling the trowsers from the body. Two pieces of riband, used as braces, were attached to the brace-buttons. The pattern of the riband is a white ground with red stripes. The jacket, which appeared to have been made for a boy of very tender age, and which was probably his first, was made of good blue cloth, with a double row of covered buttons on the left side. A shirt, corresponding in size with these clothes, was discovered. Having dug further, a coarse blue coat was next discovered, and also a pair of trowsers, made of coarse grey cloth, together with a striped waistcoat and an old shirt. These articles were apparently made to fit a boy of about fourteen or fifteen years of age. The trowsers were patched on the knees, and stains of blood were discovered on the waistcoat. The coat was of a peculiar cut, and resembled those worn by charity school-boys. After the discovery of these clothes, an application was made to Mrs. King, who, it will be remembered, had seen an Italian boy, with a cage slung before him, on the morning of Thursday, the 3d instant, in Nova Scotia Gardens; and her description of the coat which the boy wore agrees both in colour and cut with the one which was thus discovered.

These facts, with others that came to light in the course of the same day (Saturday), induced Mr. Thomas, and Messrs. Corder and Cribb, to wait on Mr. Minshull, at Bow-street Office, on Saturday night, for the purpose of requesting that, in consequence of the additional evidence received, a special examination of the prisoners should take place at as early a period as possible.

Mr. Minshull, to whom the additional evidence was detailed, considered it of so much importance, that he expressed his willingness to send for the prisoners that night, in order to proceed with the investigation at once, or, if necessary for the ends of justice, he was willing to devote Sunday for that object. It was subsequently arranged that the examination of the prisoners should take place on Monday at twelve o'clock.

In consequence of the advanced state of pregnancy of Mrs. King, who, it will be seen, is a material witness in the case, it was at first supposed that the trial of the prisoners must have been deferred until after the Old Bailey Sessions next ensuing. To obviate this difficulty, Mr. Corder applied to Mr. Minshull, to have the deposition of Mrs. King taken specially, and certified, in which case, he said, it was ruled by the judges, that it might be admitted as evidence on the trial of the prisoners.

Mr. Minshull at once agreed in the propriety of the application, and gave directions accordingly.

Consistently with this arrangement, Bishop, May, Williams, and Shields, were brought forward on Monday the 21st, for the purpose of undergoing a special re-examination.

Mr. Minshull presided on the bench, and was assisted by Mr. Halls, Dr. Robinson, and Mr. Mallard. Lord Montford and other county magistrates were also present, and the office was crowded in every part. Several hundred persons were assembled in Bow-street, to learn the result of the examination and catch a sight of the prisoners.

Mr. Minshull directed Dodd, the jailer, to place the prisoners at the bar, and in a few minutes afterwards they entered the dock, and answered to their names. Bishop appeared to be considerably depressed in spirits, and as the examination proceeded and new facts came out against him, his countenance fell, and his eyes, which are full and prominent, assumed a glassy appearance, as he listened apparently with intense anxiety to the witnesses. The prisoner May appeared also to pay particular attention to the evidence, and it was observed, that during the examination, he displayed, except on one occasion, none of that indifference and levity which marked his former conduct. Williams, who has evidently less nerve than either of his companions, betrayed a restless anxiety as the case proceeded, and on several occasions his colour changed, and his lips grew white and dry. As to the old man, Shields, who was placed rather apart from the others, and against whom no other evidence has yet been produced, except the fact of his having carried the body in a hamper to the King's College, with a full knowledge of its contents, he stood upright in the dock, in a sort of half stupor, without once changing his position during the three hours and a half which were occupied in the examination.

As soon as the prisoners were ranged at the bar,

Mr. Corder said, that it would be merely requisite at present to produce such further testimony as would be necessary to fill up the links in the chain of evidence already brought forward.

John Atkinson was then sworn, and identified the hamper.

Edward Chandler deposed, that he was waiter at the King of Denmark watering-house, Old Bailey. On the evening of Friday, the 4th of November, he saw the prisoners May and Bishop, both of whom he had previously known, at that house. They came there about five o'clock, and witness served them with some tea. The witness Seagrove was there at the same time. The prisoners called for half a pint of gin, with which he (witness) served them. He drank a glass of the gin himself, and his fellow servant had another. May also drank a glass of the gin, and chucked a glass into Bishop's tea.

Mr. Corder.—Did Bishop make any observation when the glass of gin was put into his tea by May?

Witness.—Yes, Bishop said to May when he did this, 'Are you going to hocus me, or burke me?'

Mr. Minshull asked the witness if he knew the meaning of the word 'hocus?' (This word has been erroneously spelt as locus.)

Mr. Harmer, who attended this and the former examination, to assist the prosecution, explained that the word was well known, in cant language, to describe the act of putting a man in a state of stupidity.

Witness, upon being questioned more particularly as to which of the prisoners, May or Bishop, used the phrase which he had mentioned, ascribed it first to one and then to the other, upon which May and Bishop both laughed. The witness, however, who appeared somewhat confused, said that the words were used by Bishop when May poured the gin into his cup.

Henry Mann, driver of the hackney-coach No. 985, was the next witness examined. He stated that he was in Bridge-street, Blackfriars, on the evening of the 4th of November, between the hours of five and six o'clock, when he was applied to by the prisoner May, to take up a fare in Bridge-street, and go to Bethnal-green.

Mr. Minshull.—Can you swear it was the prisoner May who applied to you? Look round and see if you can point him out.

Witness.—I know it was May, for I knew him before. There was another man in company at the time, but I cannot say it was one of the other prisoners.

Mr. Minshull.—Did they tell you where you were to go from Bethnal-green?

Witness.—No; they did not tell me where I was to go. I declined to go with them.

Dr. Robinson.—What was your reason for declining the job?

Witness.—My horses had not finished their corn, and I had not taken my tea. Besides, I had another reason—I knew what May was, and that was principally the cause of my declining to go with him.

Margaret King, who had on a former examination stated, that she saw an Italian boy standing close to Bishop's house, on Thursday the 3d instant, was again called forward, and her evidence having been read over,

Mr. Minshull asked her if she recollected how the boy was dressed, whom she had seen on the day in question? She replied, that she recollected no part of his dress, except that he wore a dark blue coat or jacket. [Another female witness on the trial swore that it was a dark green.—Ed.] The boy's dress appeared to be shabby, such as other boys wore who went about the streets.

Witness did not remember whether the boy had a cap or a hat on.

Mr. Minshull then addressed the prisoners, saying, he had told them before, and now repeated, that they might, if they thought fit, put what questions they pleased to the several witnesses who appeared against them.

May said he was aware of that. The prisoners then declined to put any questions to Mrs. King.

John King, son of the last witness, stated, that he remembered his mother's washing-day before the last; it was on a Thursday. I saw an Italian boy standing at the corner of Nova Scotia Gardens, facing Birdcage Walk; I was looking out at our loft door at the time, and I asked my mother to let me see what the boy had in his cage or box. She refused to let me go and see.

Mr. Corder.—Can you describe the way in which the Italian boy stood?

Witness.—He stood with his right foot turned out, and, I think, his arms were resting on the box or cage, which he carried before him. He wore a brown hairy cap.

Mr. Corder.—Have you any recollection what sort of leaf or shade the cap had got?

Witness.—It was lined with green.

Mr. Minshull.—What time would it take you to go from where the boy was standing to Bishop's house?

Witness.—It would not take me more than half a minute.

Mr. Minshull.—Had you ever seen the boy before?

Witness.—I think I have seen him about before; he used to carry a doll with two heads in a glass case. I saw him about a month ago. He looked like the same boy. I have not seen him since the Thursday I saw him in the gardens; he was then standing to see if any one would come and see what he had to show. I did not see him go away.

Margaret King being sworn, said, that her mother washed on a Thursday, but she was not sure whether it was on Thursday fortnight or the Wednesday that she saw the Italian boy in Nova Scotia Gardens. She could not describe his clothes, but remembered that he wore a brown hairy cap. She had seen the boy before that day; he was standing opposite Birdcage Walk, and had a box or cage slung over his neck by a sling. The cap which he had on was brown, hairy, and rough. She did not perceive how the shade of it was lined, because the boy had his back towards her. She never saw him since that day.

Joseph Higgins, a police constable of the F division, No. 35, was then sworn, and his former evidence having been read over, he stated in addition, that on Saturday last Mr. Thomas directed James Waddy and him to proceed to Bishop's residence, in Nova Scotia Gardens, for the purpose of digging up the garden. They went accordingly, and having tried the ground with an iron spit, it struck against some spongy substance in the earth, on the west side of the garden, and at a distance of about five yards from the door of the dwelling-house. They dug up the earth, and found a jacket, a pair of trowsers, and a little boy's shirt. Part of the suspenders, which were composed of yellow calico, were attached to the trowsers, some of the button-holes of which were broken. About a yard farther, the iron rod again struck upon something soft, which proved to be a blue jacket, or short coat, a pair of grey trowsers, and a striped waistcoat.

Mr. Corder.—Did you perceive anything particular on the waistcoat?

Witness.—I perceived marks of blood on the collar, both inside and outside. I found in the pocket of the waistcoat a piece of a small-tooth comb; and I also found an old shirt, which was torn down the centre.

Mr. Harmer.—You swear that the shirt was torn, as it now appears, when you dug it up?

Witness.—I do.

Mr. Minshull.—Look again at the waistcoat, and say, whether those marks of blood were on the neck part when you took it from the ground?

Witness.—They were. They had more the appearance of blood when I took the waistcoat from the ground than now. I took particular notice of the marks; the colour appeared to be deeper, and the blood more fresh than now.

Mr. Halls, having examined the waistcoat, observed, that it appeared to have been made for a grown-up person, and it had been taken in at the back, in order to make it fit to whosoever it last belonged.

Mr. Thomas observed, that the waistcoat had been taken in with coarse worsted, and in a very rough manner.

Mr. Minshull said, that the fact of the waistcoat having been made for a man was important, and it might be the means of bringing forward the person to whom it originally belonged.

James Waddy was then sworn, and stated, that he was a gardener and labourer, and assisted the last witness in digging up the garden. They began at twelve o'clock on Saturday, and kept on until four, when they came to a narrow border, close to the palings, and about five yards from the door of the house. The witness here identified the child's dress which had been first discovered.

Dr. Robinson.—How deep were they buried in the ground?

Witness.—About a foot deep. Having found these things, the last witness tried the ground again, and dug up the grey trowsers, waistcoat, and shirt, which have been produced. They were made into a bundle, and were wrapped up in the grey trowsers.

Mr. Corder.—Had you any particular reason for trying the part of the ground where the articles were found?

Witness.—Yes; our suspicions were raised in consequence of seeing some ashes spread over the place, and also on perceiving that the ground was loose.

Mr. Minshull to the prisoners.—Have you any questions to ask either of the last witnesses?

Bishop.—Nothing particular now.

Mr. Thomas was the next witness examined. He stated that he went yesterday (Sunday) to Bishop's house, for the purpose of making a more rigid search. On examining the front parlour, he found among a heap of old clothes and dirty linen, the cap which he now produced.

Mr. Halls.—In what part of the room did you find this cap?

Mr. Thomas.—In a corner, where there was a heap of soiled linen and children's dresses.

Mrs. King was recalled, and the blue coat last found submitted to her view.

Mr. Minshull.—Was that such a coat as the Italian boy had on, whom you saw in Nova Scotia gardens, on the day you have already mentioned?

Witness.—The coat is to all appearance exactly like the coat which the boy had on, but there is no mark about it to enable me to swear positively that it is the same coat.

Mr. Minshull.—You are not called upon to swear so positively to it, but only to the best of your knowledge and belief.

Witness.—All I can say is, that the coat is exactly like, as far as regards colour, size, and shape, and it has every appearance of the coat which the boy had on, when I saw him on Thursday.

John King, son of the last witness, was then recalled, and the fur cap produced by Mr. Thomas, having been placed in his hands, he was asked if it was like the one which the Italian boy had on, whom he saw near Bishop's house.

Witness.—It looks exactly like the cap which the Italian boy had on.

Margaret King, sister to the last witness, having also examined the cap, gave precisely similar testimony.

Mr. Corder sworn and examined. I was present at the examination of the body of the deceased, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday last, and I feel quite sure that the body so disinterred was that of the Italian boy, upon which a coroner's inquest had been held: this body was shown on Saturday in my presence to the witness Brun.

Augustine Brun was then called forward, and Joseph Parragalli was sworn to interpret his evidence truly. He stated that he knew a boy named Carlo Ferrair or Ferrari, and that he brought him to this country two years ago, from Piedmont. He was a Savoyard. Witness took him from his parents. His father's name was Joseph Ferrari. Witness had the boy for nine or ten months, and then bound him over to another person for two years and one month. The last time the witness saw the boy alive, was about fifteen months ago. This was after he had been bound, and he then went with his new master towards Bristol, and witness left town in another direction. The boy, who was about fifteen, lodged about that time at the house of Mr. Elliott, No. 2, Charles-street, Drury-lane. Witness saw the dead body of a boy on Saturday, but he could not identify the face. The hair, colour of the eyes, and also the size of the body, corresponded with the description of the boy whom he had named. The tout ensemble agreed.

Mr. Minshull.—Ask the witness, whether he can swear, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that the body which he saw was that of Carlo Ferrari?

The interpreter having put the question, the witness replied, that 'The features were so disfigured by decay, that he could not swear that the face was the same.'

Mr. Thomas desired the interpreter to ask, whether the witness remembered any warts on the left hand of the boy, Carlo Ferrari.

The interpreter answered, that 'The marks of identity on the hand were also obliterated by the green colour which it had assumed.'

Mr. Corder said, that although the witness had properly given his evidence with so much caution, he appeared to be satisfied in his own mind of the identity of the body, for almost ever since he saw it he had been crying.

Joseph Parragalli, the interpreter, was then sworn, and stated, that he remembered a boy named Carlo Ferrari, who lived with his master about eighteen months ago, at No. 2, Charles-street, Drury-lane. Witness examined the body of the deceased before the inquest took place, and was quite positive that it was the boy, Carlo Ferrari, whom he had so known. Witness saw him alive in the Quadrant, about twenty yards from the County Fire Office, about a month or five weeks ago. It was a very wet day, and the poor boy looked cold and miserable. He had his cage suspended from his neck. Witness had seen him about a week before in Portland-place, and spoke to him then. He could not, however, describe the boy's dress on either occasion, which he accounted for by saying, he was too much occupied with his own business to observe it. The box which the boy used to carry was divided into a cage, which used to turn round with the mice in it, and they slept in the box part.

Dr. Robinson.—What opportunity had you for taking such particular notice of the boy, as to be able to identify him after death?

Witness.—I was present when the boy was bound over by the last witness to his new master, and had, besides, other opportunities of knowing the boy, for I was constantly at the house of his master. [It will be remembered, that when before the coroner, the Parragallis positively depose, that they do not know the name of the boy whom they saw in the Quadrant, and in Oxford-street. By what means they subsequently and so suddenly attained to the knowledge of it, so as to be able positively to swear, that the boy whom they saw in the Quadrant was an Italian, whose name they knew to be Carlo Ferrari, appears rather enigmatical, and is one of those contradictory circumstances, by which this most extraordinary case is distinguished.—Ed.]

In answer to another question, the witness gave it as his opinion, that the fur of the cap produced was English, but that the leaf was of French manufacture. When the boy first came to this country, he wore a cap, the leaf of which was similar to that of the cap now produced.

The evidence having arrived at this stage, Mr. Corder said it was not intended to proceed further in the case that day.

Mr. Minshull then asked the prisoners if they wished to say anything.

Bishop shook his head, saying, he had nothing to say then. The other prisoners also declined saying anything.

They were then about to be removed from the bar, when Mr. Thomas begged leave, before the prisoners were remanded, to request that Bishop and Williams might be placed at the bar alone, as he meant to charge them with another murder.

Mr. Minshull.—Is it your wish, Mr. Thomas, that the other two prisoners should be removed from the bar before you make your charge?

Mr. Thomas.—I am willing to make my charge in the presence of all four; but I have no wish that May and Shields should remain.

Mr. Minshull then directed Dodd, the jailer, to remove May and Shields, and leave Bishop and Williams at the bar.

Mr. Thomas was then sworn, and stated, that he felt it his duty, as a public officer, to charge John Bishop and James Williams, alias Head, with the murder of another boy, whose name, for the present, was unknown. He was in possession of some evidence at present, and expected much more.

Mr. Burnaby, the clerk, asked Mr. Thomas, if he meant to produce any evidence now before the magistrates, in support of the charge against the prisoners at the bar?

Mr. Thomas replied in the negative, and said, he meant to charge the prisoners generally for the present, reserving the evidence which he had now in his possession, and that which he expected to receive, for a future opportunity.

Mr. Minshull observed, that Mr. Thomas acted very properly, and directed the charge to be taken in general terms, as he wished it. The charge having been written down accordingly,

Mr. Minshull asked the prisoners if they wished to say anything touching this charge.

Bishop answered, 'Nothing.'

Mr. Minshull then informed the prisoners that they would be brought forward for re-examination on this and the other charge, on the following Friday.

The prisoners were then removed in custody, strongly guarded.

On the day following the above examination, Mr. Corder applied to Mr. Minshull for the purpose of obtaining an order to liberate Sarah Bishop and Rhoda Head, alias Williams, who had been in custody for some days, charged with being accessories after the fact in the murder of the Italian boy. Mr. Corder observed, that as yet there was no evidence whatever against either of the women, and as they might be wanted by their husbands to procure them the means of defence, should their trial come on at the ensuing Old Bailey sessions, he considered that it would be but an act of humanity to release them from custody, particularly as there was no evidence to warrant their detention.

Mr. Burnaby, the clerk, said, that Mr. Thomas, upon whose charge the prisoners were detained, was desirous that they should not be liberated until after the trial; and as facts might arise between this and the sessions tending to fix the women with a guilty knowledge of the murder, it would, perhaps, be the better way to detain them for the present.

Mr. Minshull agreed in the propriety of detaining the female prisoners, at least until Friday next, when their husbands would undergo another examination. Besides, where were they to go if they were now liberated? The police were in possession of the house in which they had resided, and would, no doubt, retain it as long as there was any chance of procuring additional evidence.

The female prisoners, who had been brought from prison for the purpose of undergoing an examination, were then ordered to be placed at the bar; and on their appearance there,

Mr. Minshull told them, that he was in hopes he might have discharged them; but from what had been suggested, he felt it his duty to retain them until Friday, when they would be again brought forward.

The prisoners were then conveyed from the bar.

Two of Bishop's children were taken from the workhouse, where they had been placed on the apprehension of their mother, and lodged in the station house at Covent Garden, with a view to their giving evidence in the case, one of them, a little boy, having told another boy, before the murder was discovered, that he had some nice little white mice at home, and that his father had broken up their cage to light the fire. From the tender age of the children, however, it was determined not to make witnesses of them; and they were accordingly sent back to the workhouse at Bethnal Green.

When Higgins, the police constable, was engaged in digging up the garden-ground on Saturday, Bishop's eldest son, a boy about twelve years old, was present; and when the officer looked suspiciously towards the raised pathway, beneath which, it will be remembered, the clothes were discovered, the little fellow told him to be cautious how he dug there, as the cesspool was under that part of the ground; and if he (Higgins) attempted to remove the earth, he would be sure to fall into it. This fact which was stated by the constable would lead to the belief that the child was aware of the clothes having been buried where they were subsequently found.

It is not improbable that the concealment of the articles took place immediately after Bishop and his associates were taken into custody.

It now became a subject of serious deliberation whether the case, as it now stood against the prisoners, with whatever evidence might arise in the interim, should be sent to the ensuing Old Bailey sessions, commencing the 1st of December, or whether it might not be advisable to await the issue of the second charge of murder which Mr. Thomas preferred against the prisoners, Bishop and Williams.

Mr. Minshull was in favour of keeping the case open for the reception of fresh evidence; and the Recorder of London waited upon Mr. Minshull to request that a case of such public importance might not be sent to the Old Bailey unless the evidence was as complete as circumstances would allow. The same anxiety was also, we understand, expressed at the Home Office.

The exertions of the police officers were now leading them to the discovery of another murder committed by the horrid wretches, Bishop and Williams; and which, perhaps, never would have been detected, but for the discovery of the murder of the Italian boy.

It will be remembered, that in consequence of the strict search which Mr. Thomas caused to be made at the residence of Bishop, a quantity of human flesh, together with the scalp of a woman's head, to which a considerable portion of long brown hair was attached, were found in the privy. It was at first conjectured that these were portions of a subject which Bishop had procured from a churchyard, and that the limbs had been sold to the surgeons separately,—a practice by no means uncommon. Recent events, however, having raised a strong suspicion that the residence of Bishop has been the scene of more than one murder, Mr. Thomas, acting upon that impression, went yesterday (Wednesday 23rd) to Bishop's house, with the view of making a still further search, and appeared before Mr. Halls on the same day at Bow-street to communicate the result.

Mr. Thomas was accompanied by two females, mother and daughter, who lived in the neighbourhood of Bishop's house. The mother had stated to him, that about three weeks ago a daughter of hers had disappeared in the most sudden and mysterious manner, and under circumstances altogether unaccountable. She had taken tea with her mother and sister on the evening of her disappearance, and went out to execute some trifling errand. Her return was therefore expected every minute; but from that time to the present she had neither been seen nor heard of. There had been no previous quarrel to account for her absence; and her relatives were under the dreadful impression that she had been waylaid and murdered.

Mr. Thomas added, that in consequence of his having made further discoveries that morning, in the house adjoining to Bishop's residence, the mother and sister of the missing young woman, who were now present, called upon him at the station-house, and upon showing them the hair which was previously found in the privy, they both of them declared it to be similar to that of the young woman, whose absence had given rise to such dreadful apprehensions.

Mr. Thomas then called forward the mother and daughter, and asked the latter to describe her sister's hair. She replied, that it was of a dark brown colour, very long, and that it closely resembled her mother's hair.

Mr. Thomas then drew the attention of Mr. Halls to the mother's hair, and observed, that it was exactly like the hair which had been found in the manner before described. He then added, from inquiries he had previously made, he was enabled to prove, that about the time when the young woman was first missed from her home, Bishop had sold two subjects, one of them the body of a young female, at Guy's Hospital. Having been engaged, however, at the time he ascertained this fact, in the case of the Italian boy, he did not feel it necessary to make any particular inquiries respecting the two bodies he had mentioned, but he should now feel it his duty to cause such inquiries to be made.

Mr. Halls observed, that the circumstances stated by Mr. Thomas had certainly a very suspicious appearance, and he told both mother and daughter, that they might rest assured that every means would be taken by Mr. Thomas to sift the matter to the utmost. The inquiry could not be in better hands.

Mr. Thomas said it was not without good reason he had prayed for the detention of Bishop's wife and sister, for he considered it quite impossible that they could have been ignorant of what was passing in the house.

Mr. Halls said he fully agreed in the propriety of detaining both women in custody, and he was quite sure that Mr. Minshull would not part with them until the latest moment that their detention might be necessary.

Mr. Thomas then observed, that he had that morning deemed it expedient to examine the house immediately adjoining to that in which Bishop had lived, which had been empty for a considerable time, and until a week of Bishop's apprehension. The result was, that a woman's gown, shawl, a pair of stays, chemise, and a pair of stockings were discovered in the privy.

Mr. Halls asked if the mother and daughter had seen the articles.

The mother replied, that she went to the place for the purpose of seeing them, in order to ascertain if they were her daughter's clothes, but she was not allowed a sight of them.

Mr. Thomas said, he would furnish her with a written order to inspect the clothes, and at Mr. Halls' suggestion, he added, that he would send a constable with her, to ensure her and her daughter an immediate view of the articles.

Mr. Halls then asked a question as to the situation of Bishop's house, observing, that he understood it lay in a very lonely situation.

Mr. Thomas replied, that Bishop's house formed one of what he might almost call a colony of cottages, but although placed in the immediate neighbourhood of each other, they were each divided by a low wooden paling, enclosing a small space of garden ground, attached to the separate dwellings. Bishop and Williams resided together in the same house, for the last eighteen months, and as the house contained but three rooms altogether, and those were very small, he was quite convinced that all who were inmates in the house must have been aware of what was passing in it. Besides, as he had before stated, Bishop and Williams had the use of the adjoining cottage, and as the discovery he had made that morning proved they had taken advantage of the circumstance, in order more effectually to carry on their abominable traffic, there was no doubt of their having chosen this very situation expressly for the purpose.

Mr. Halls asked if the garden adjoining Bishop's had been dug up?

Mr. Thomas replied, that he had left some of his men engaged in turning up the ground; but Bishop and Williams might have had access to nearly fifty enclosed gardens besides that, as they had only to step across some low palings to get from one to the other.

Mr. Halls observed, that it would be well to search the gardens of some of the other cottages, and he supposed the persons who owned that ground would have no objection.

Mr. Thomas replied, that it would be an easy matter to do so, for the poor people who lived in the adjoining cottages were so panic-struck with the recent discoveries, that many of them had left, and others were following the example.

Mr. Thomas soon after retired, for the purpose of sending a constable with the mother and sister of the girl who is missing, in order that they might obtain an immediate inspection of the articles of clothing which were found in the manner described.

The clothes were accordingly inspected by the parties, who at once declared that they were not the same which the missing girl had on when she disappeared. The following is an accurate description of the articles found, and their appearance justifies the belief, that to whatever unfortunate woman they belonged, they had been violently torn from her body, either immediately after death or in a struggle with her murderers. A camlet cloak, a plaid gown torn up in front, a flannel petticoat also torn up in front, with two large patches of blood near the top, a shift torn up in front, a pair of stays cut up in front in a zigzag manner, and laced in the back in the usual way, an old muslin half handkerchief, a pair of black worsted stockings very coarse, black cloth pockets, a pair of female's shoes, the tops made of black twilled silk, and a pincushion of scarlet cloth.

These articles were found made up into a bundle. The garden ground was partly turned up, but nothing discovered. The house, it would appear, had been occupied by the prisoner Williams, before he married Bishop's sister.

On Friday, the 25th, the prisoners, Bishop, May, Shields, and Williams, were brought to the office, in Bow-street, for the purpose of being finally examined on the charge of murdering Carlo Ferrari, the Italian boy. Long before the hour appointed for the examination to commence, the street in front of the office was nearly blockaded by crowds of persons; and as the prisoners alighted from the van, at ten o'clock in the morning, they were again assailed by the groans and hisses of hundreds. The bench was crowded with magistrates, and the office itself was filled in every part.

At twelve o'clock the prisoners were brought in, guarded by a strong body of constables, and placed in front of the dock.

Mr. Minshull having intimated that he meant to confine the examination exclusively to the murder of the Italian boy,

Mr. Corder said, he intended to produce five or six additional witnesses, for the purpose of strengthening the case, and completing the chain of evidence already made out at the previous examination. He then called

Sarah, the wife of John Trueby, who having been sworn, stated, that she was landlady of the cottage which Bishop had lately occupied. The houses Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Nova Scotia Gardens, belonged to her husband, for whom she collected the rents. In the month of July, 1830, she let the house, No. 3, to Bishop's wife. Bishop lived there until the 5th of November, 1831. About four months since, she let the house adjoining, No. 2, to the prisoner Williams, alias Head, and he lived there about two months. The house stood empty for some time, but it was now in the occupation of a man named Woodcock. The gardens of the two houses were separated by a paling, about three feet high, and there was a gate which opened from one to the other. Witness had frequently seen Williams in Bishop's house and garden since he gave up the occupation of the house next door. She had also seen Williams's wife there without her bonnet.

Mr. Minshull.—The question we want you to answer is this—Have you seen the prisoner Williams residing at the house of Bishop?

Witness.—I have seen him frequently there, but I cannot positively say that he resided there.

Mr. Thomas said, that he took Mrs. Williams into custody at the house of Bishop, where she appeared to be residing at the time.

Mr. Minshull.—Who paid the rent of Bishop's cottage?

Witness.—It was sometimes paid by Mrs. Bishop, and sometimes by Bishop himself. Williams paid his own rent, while he occupied the house next door.

Prisoner Williams.—She knows I took the house to work at the glass trade.

Robert Mortimer, of Nova Scotia Gardens, tailor, was then sworn. About two months ago he was employed to turn a coat for the prisoner Williams, and frequently called upon him for payment at Bishop's house. He appeared to be living there, up to the period of his apprehension on the present charge.

William Woodcock sworn.—I am a brass-founder, and occupy the house No. 2, Nova Scotia Gardens, adjoining Bishop's cottage. I went to live there on Monday, the 7th of October last. I had frequently seen Williams in Bishop's house. I remember the night of Thursday, the 3d of November. On that night I went to bed at half-past nine o'clock, and about three or four hours after, I was awakened by a noise in Bishop's house. I got up, and heard a scuffling or struggling.

Mr. Minshull.—Describe particularly the sort of noise you heard.

Witness.—It was like men's feet; I can swear to three men.

Mr. Minshull.—At what hour do you suppose this occurred?

Witness.—I went to bed at half-past nine; and I suppose I might have slept for about four hours, when I was awakened by the noise I have described.

Mr. Minshull.—You speak of the feet of three men;—how can you tell the number?

Witness.—I can account for it in this way. After I heard the scuffling in the house, I listened, and heard the gate shut, and knew, from the sound of the feet, that two men ran away through the gate, from Bishop's house. They came back again almost immediately; and while they were absent, I heard the heavy tread of only one man in Bishop's house.

Mr. Halls.—When you heard the scuffle you describe, did you at the same time hear the voices of the men who appeared to be engaged in it? did they say anything?

Witness.—I heard the voices of men, but could not tell what was said. I can speak to the voices of two of the men, but cannot speak as to the third.

Mr. Minshull.—To the best of your belief, were there three men?

Witness.—There must have been three, for I distinctly heard two of them run from the house, and at the same time I heard the foot of the third man in the house. Everything was quite still at the time, and I could have heard a mouse stir.

Mr. Corder.—Then it was before the two men ran from the house that you heard the struggle?

Witness.—It was when the two men returned to the house, that all was still.

Mr. Minshull.—How long was it before the two men returned?

Witness.—About a minute, I should think. I thought it had been a family quarrel, and that two of the party had gone to fetch the police.

Mr. Minshull.—Did you hear any female voices?

The witness replied in the negative, and added, that as soon as all was still, and finding that the noise was not in his own house, he went to sleep, and thought no more about the matter.

Mr. Minshull.—Should you know the voices of the men again?

Witness.—I cannot positively say that I could swear to the three voices.

Mr. Minshull.—Are you familiar with the voices of the prisoners, May, Bishop, and Williams?

Witness.—I never heard the voices of either May or Bishop before that time, but I think I can swear to the voice of Williams. I have reason to believe that his was one of the three voices that I heard.

Mr. Halls.—Did it strike you at the moment that you heard the voice of Williams?

Witness.—Yes, it struck me at the moment that it was the voice of Williams. Had I known that anything wrong was going on at the time, I might have put my ear closer to the wall, and might have heard everything that passed.

Mr. Burnaby, the clerk.—In what part of the house did you hear the scuffling?

Witness.—It took place in the front parlour, and my bed was in the front parlour of the house adjoining.

The prisoner Williams here observed, that on the Thursday night spoken to by the witness, Bishop kicked up a row, and broke his things.

Witness.—The row of which you speak, when Bishop broke his things, was on the previous Sunday night.

Williams.—No, it was on the Thursday; and I went for the policeman, who came with me to the palings, about two o'clock in the morning, but refused to go any further. I took care of my wife's bonnet and shawl, and also a looking-glass, to prevent Bishop from breaking them. The policeman was present at the time.

Mr. Minshull.—The explanation, prisoner, which you give is, that the row, as you call it, took place on the night of Thursday, and not on the Sunday night.

Williams.—It was either Thursday night or Friday night. The women can say which night it was. (Here Bishop whispered Williams, and the latter said no more.)

William Woodcock, aged twelve, son of the witness Woodcock already examined, was next called to prove that Bishop and Williams were joint occupiers of the house, No. 3, Nova Scotia Gardens. Witness remembered Saturday, the 5th of November, because it was Guy Fawkes' day; and two or three days before that he saw Williams smoking a pipe in Bishop's garden.

Thomas Wigley, of No. 17, Cock Lane, Smithfield, was then sworn, and stated that he lived next door to the Fortune of War public-house, in Giltspur street, and was employed as porter at the Cross Keys Inn, Wood-street. He remembered the night of the 4th of November. He went into the tap-room of the Fortune of War about half-past six o'clock on that night, and remained until half-past eight. About half-past seven, Bishop and May came into the room. Bishop sat next to witness, and May sat on the opposite side. Bishop said to May, 'What do you think of our new one? did not he go up to him well? I told you he was a staunch one. Don't you think he is a staunch one now?' (The face of Bishop became suddenly flushed as the witness repeated the words attributed to him.)

Mr. Minshull.—Did Bishop say anything more to May?

Witness.—Yes, he said to May, 'Do you stick by me, and I will stick to you. I know the other one is all right; he's nothing but a good one.' In about an hour after this, Williams came in, upon which Bishop said, 'I told you he would come; there's a good one.' (Here Williams laughed.)

Mr. Minshull asked the witness if May said anything in answer to what Bishop said.

The witness replied, that May said in reply to Bishop, 'I don't know what you mean.' Soon after, Bishop and Williams got up, and said they would go home. May said, I am going to stop a bit.' He then took up a newspaper, and Bishop and Williams left the room together.

Mr. Corder.—Did you perceive that May, during this conversation, had anything with him wrapped up in a handkerchief?

Witness.—I saw that he had a handkerchief in his hand, which appeared to contain something, but I cannot say what. The handkerchief was wet.

The depositions of the witnesses previously examined were then ordered to be read over. When the evidence of Davis, the porter at Guy's Hospital, was read to him, he complained of a statement which, he said, appeared in the morning papers of the preceding day, and particularly in the Times.

Mr. Minshull told the witness, that if he had any addition to make to his evidence, he would willingly swear him; but he had nothing to do with what was published in the newspapers. If anything had been mis-stated, his proper course was to apply to the editors of the papers, who would, no doubt, willingly correct any error.

The reading of the depositions was then resumed, and having been concluded,

Mr. Corder then read the statements made by the prisoners before the Coroner, and which had been committed to writing by order of the Coroner.

Mr. Halls asked if it was in evidence that the body which was offered at the King's College was the same upon which the inquest was subsequently held.

Mr. Hill, of the King's College, who received the body there, and Mr. Thomas, to whom it was afterwards delivered at the station-house, proved that fact.

Mr. Corder said, that the whole of the evidence was now gone through, as applying to the prisoners Bishop, Williams, and May. With regard to the prisoner Shields, it was not intended to offer any evidence against him.

Mr. Minshull then directed that the prisoner Shields should be removed from the bar, and brought round in front of the bench. The magistrate told him he was discharged from this offence, but that he meant to swear him as a witness. The oath having been administered to him, he went into a long statement as to the manner in which he met Bishop, who told him that he wanted him to do a little job on the Saturday morning. He agreed, and went to Guy's Hospital, Bishop having previously procured a hamper, for the purpose of conveying the body from that place to the King's College. He accordingly carried it from Guy's Hospital to the latter place on the Saturday, but knew nothing whatever of what the hamper contained. Bishop was to have given him half-a-crown for the job, but he had not 'as yet' received the money.

Mr. Corder observed, that the statement of Shields differed in several points from the account which he gave before the Coroner.

Mr. Minshull.—You say you were not aware of what the hamper contained; do you still persist in saying so?

Shields.—Upon my word, your worship, I knew nothing of what the hamper contained. I carried it as I would any other job.

A Magistrate.—Did you ever carry any load for Bishop or May before?

Shields.—No, your honour, never.

Mr. Burnaby, the clerk.—You know, Shields, you have carried bodies repeatedly to the hospitals. You should remember you are now on your oath.

Shields.—I mean to say, that I did not know what the hamper contained that May and Bishop hired me to carry.

Mr. Minshull.—Have you heard any conversation pass between the prisoners relating to this murder, during any time you may have passed in their company since they and you were apprehended?

Shields.—None whatever, your worship, except that I heard Bishop say he got the body from the ground.

Mr. Corder.—It is quite clear that this man cannot be believed on his oath, and therefore it would be useless to make a witness of him.

Mr. Minshull said, he certainly should not allow him to give evidence; for every word which he had as yet spoken went for nothing. If he discharged him now, it would be on the condition of his undertaking to communicate to Mr. Thomas where he went to live, in the event of his removing from his present residence.

Mr. Corder submitted, that Shields ought to be detained, at least for the present.

Mr. Minshull then told Shields, that as there might be a charge of another description against him, he certainly should not now consent to his discharge. He would take time to consider how he ought to be disposed of.

Shields was then removed in custody.

Mr. Minshull then addressed Bishop, saying, 'John Bishop, you have heard all the witnesses who came to give evidence against you. The whole of that evidence is now completed; and therefore, if you wish to say anything, now is your time, as this is the last opportunity you will have of appearing before me.

Bishop.—No, Sir, I have nothing to say at present.

Mr. Minshull.—James Williams, alias Head, have you anything which you wish to say?

Williams.—Nothing, Sir.

Mr. Minshull.—John May, is it your wish to speak before you are finally committed?

May.—I have nothing more to say, Sir, than what I said already at the Coroner's inquest. This man, Bishop, can clear me of everything, if he likes to speak the truth. He knows I am innocent of the charge. The man says he got the body from the ground, but he don't like to say where, because he is loth to injure the two watchmen left to guard it. Things, however, are come to such a crisis now, that he ought to speak the truth, and I wish him to speak the truth—(he added, looking full in Bishop's face)—for I defy him to say anything to implicate me. I knew nothing of the body until I went to take it from Bishop's house.

Bishop, in a low tone, said, I have said nothing against you. It is true what you say, you knew nothing of it till then.

May.—I did not; that is the truth.

Mr. Minshull.—Have you anything more to say?

May.—No, your worship, not now.

Mr. Minshull.—Prisoners, you will all be committed to Newgate, to take your trial at the ensuing sessions at the Old Bailey, commencing on the 1st of December next, for the Wilful Murder of Carlo Ferrari; and there will be another count in the indictment, charging you with the wilful murder of a person unknown. You are now committed accordingly.

The prisoners were then about to be removed, when Williams requested that his friends might be allowed to see him; adding, that he had nothing to say to any person that he would not be willing should be heard in the presence of the officers of the jail.

Mr. Minshull.—You will be lodged in Newgate, and whatever accommodations are customary there, will, I have no doubt, be afforded you. I have no power to interfere.

The prisoners were then removed from the bar, strongly guarded.

Mr. Corder then, addressing the magistrate, observed, that he had done all he could to assist the prosecution, and on the part of the parish which he represented, he should, of course, proceed. He was, however, instructed to say, that the expense of prosecuting this case fell rather hard upon the parish, inasmuch as the body was not found in it; neither had the boy come by his death in the parish. He was aware that it was necessary that the body should have been removed, for safe custody, to the station-house, and therefore that, so far, the thing was unavoidable. The parish, however, was not in a very prosperous state, and he was fearful, from an interview he had had with a member of the government at the Home Office, that no pecuniary assistance was to be looked to from that quarter.

Mr. Harmer said, that being aware that the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, was not at present in the most flourishing condition, he had offered the parish officers his humble efforts gratuitously to conduct the prosecution.

Mr. Corder said, he was bound to acknowledge the able assistance which he had received from Mr. Harmer.

Mr. Harmer said, that the difficulty of prosecuting such a case, in which there were so many witnesses, would be considerably lessened by the manner in which the evidence was taken and arranged by the clerk.

Mr. Minshull then directed the jailer to bring in the wives of Bishop and Williams.

They were accordingly brought forward, and Mr. Minshull told them they were discharged, and might go where they pleased. The cottage, however, in which they had lived was in the possession of the police; and, under all circumstances, he supposed they would not think of returning there.

Mrs. Bishop said, they certainly would not.

They were then removed, and ordered to be taken care of by the jailer, and on no account to be allowed to go into the street while it was crowded by so large a concourse of people.

Mr. Thomas had previously told Bishop that his wife would be discharged that day. His reply was, 'I thank you, Sir. I hope you will look to her, and see that she is not insulted by the mob.' Shields was ordered to be detained for a similar reason; and it was not until late on the same night that he was liberated, after the crowds had left the street.

Notwithstanding the heavy rain that fell during the whole of the afternoon, the concourse of persons in Bow-street remained undiminished until the arrival of the van, when considerable difficulty was experienced by the officers to get the prisoners conveyed with safety into the vehicle. The yells and hootings which the mob set up on their appearance was deafening; and but for an additional guard of constables, the consequences might have been very serious. Williams and Bishop cowered down, as if to avoid at once the fury and the gaze of the assembled crowds. May, however, stood more erect, and jumped lightly into the van, which immediately drove off to Newgate, followed by the shouts and execrations of the people.

When May was removed to the lock-up room, after he was taken from the bar, he burst into tears, and declared solemnly to Dodd, the jailer, that he knew nothing whatever of the boy's death, and never saw the body until Bishop showed it to him in the box. He then said, that an acquittal would almost be as bad as a conviction to him; for where could he find employment after this charge? Bishop and Williams, on the contrary, were by no means cast down. They appeared to rally their spirits, and assumed a levity of manner, which, however, was but of short duration.

On the prisoners being conveyed in the prison van from Bow-street to Newgate, they were followed by a mob of between two and three hundred persons, hooting and yelling. In order to evade the mob, the van drove out of Fleet-street, through Chancery-lane, towards the House of Correction, where two or three other prisoners were disposed of, whence the van proceeded towards the Old Bailey; and the mob still increasing, on arriving at Newgate, it was with the greatest difficulty that a number of officers could clear the way before the felon's door for the admission of the prisoners. The discordant yells were so tremendous as to frighten several horses in the different vehicles as they passed by.

It will be remembered that, previously to the final committal to Newgate of Bishop, Williams, and May, for the murder of the Italian boy, the entire dress of a woman was found in the privy of the house adjoining to that which Bishop and Williams occupied at the time of their apprehension. The articles so found were, on Saturday, the 26th of November, fully identified as having belonged to a poor woman named Frances Pigburn, who suddenly disappeared about six weeks ago; and a warrant, charging Bishop and Williams with her murder, was lodged in Newgate on the evening of that day. Mr. Thomas was since that time unremitting in his exertions to procure additional evidence; and on Monday night Michael Shields, the porter, who was discharged from custody on the previous Friday, came to Mr. Thomas at the station-house; and having declared that he wished to do all in his power to forward the ends of justice, made a voluntary statement, which Mr. Thomas took down in writing, and of which the following is the substance:—

He said he was employed by Bishop and Williams early in the morning of Sunday, the 9th of October last, to go, along with Bishop's sister (Rhoda Head, alias Williams), into the Borough to carry a trunk. Bishop and Williams called upon him at his lodgings in Eagle-street, Red Lion-square, and called him up. He then accompanied them to Bishop's house in Nova Scotia Gardens, and when he got there, Bishop placed a trunk upon his knot. It was the same trunk which Mr. Thomas produced at Bow-street, in the late inquiry. They all left Nova Scotia Gardens together, namely, Bishop, Williams, Mrs. Williams and himself, and proceeded to St. Thomas's Hospital in the Borough. Bishop and Williams walked on one side of the way, and Mrs. Williams walked by the side of informant, carrying a band-box, tied up in a handkerchief, for the purpose, as informant verily believes, of giving the journey the appearance of a servant going to her situation. On arriving at St. Thomas's Hospital, he was joined by Bishop and Williams, and they entered the hospital together, while Mrs. Williams stopped outside. The trunk having been deposited in the hospital, they all went together to a public-house to have some refreshment. Bishop, not being able to sell the body at St. Thomas's Hospital, resolved on going to Mr. Grainger's dissecting-rooms, and he (Shields) walked with him, leaving the trunk behind. When they reached Mr. Grainger's anatomical theatre, Bishop held a private conference with Mr. Appleton, the porter to the dissecting-rooms, which lasted a few minutes. They then returned to St. Thomas's hospital, and fetched the trunk from thence to Mr. Grainger's rooms. On arriving there, Bishop took a body from the trunk for Mr. Appleton's inspection. It was that of a middle-aged female. It was a particularly fresh subject, and had not the appearance of a body taken from a grave. There was no dirt upon it, and informant observed, that the hair of the corpse was dark and short, and that the subject altogether was thin, and remarkably light in weight. Mrs. Williams was not present then, but remained at the public-house as a kind of pledge for what was drank, until the money should be procured. Mr. Appleton and Bishop bargained for some short time, and a price being agreed on, Mr. Appleton paid Bishop part of the money, and promised to pay the remainder on the following day. Gin was then sent for, and Mr. Appleton and all of them partook of it. Bishop, Williams and informant then went back to the public-house, and found Mrs. Williams crying, on account of her having been questioned about the reckoning. Bishop went into a great rage, and paid it, saying he never would enter the house again, nor should any of his friends. They then went away together, and returned over London-bridge as far as Bishopsgate-street, and had some gin at a public-house there, where coaches stopped. Bishop paid for the gin, and informant then went away. Mrs. Williams still retained possession of the band-box, and it was just in the same state as when she took it from home. Bishop paid informant ten shillings for the job, and said if that did not satisfy him, he might have more to-morrow.

Shields, having made this statement, said he was so frightened when in custody, that he did not know what to say, and was fearful if he let slip any thing it might implicate himself. He now, however, wished to atone, as far as lay in his power, for the part which he had taken in that and the other transactions.

Mr. Thomas, perceiving that the statement of Shields corresponded not only with the time of the disappearance of Fanny Pigburn, (she having been seen last alive on the night of the 8th of October, and Shields dating the above transaction on the 9th,) but also with the description of her age and personal appearance, as described by her sister, and other witnesses, felt that the information was important, and that Mrs. Williams was sufficiently implicated in the transaction to warrant her apprehension. He accordingly proceeded to Newgate on Tuesday the 29th of November, and having taken her into custody there, while she was waiting to see her husband, immediately conveyed her to Bow-street police-office, and charged her before Mr. Minshull, as an accessary after the fact, in the wilful murder of Frances Pigburn, adding, that he took the prisoner into custody, in the lodge at Newgate, about half an hour before; and that, on a future day, he expected to produce further evidence against her.

The prisoner wept bitterly while the clerk was writing down the charge against her, and when it was entered,

Mr. Minshull asked her if she wished to say any thing, at the same time cautioning her that whatever she said would be taken down in writing, and might be made evidence against her.

The prisoner replied, 'I thank you, sir, but I want to say what I know—I wish to speak the truth. She went on to say, that her father (meaning Bishop, but there must be here some mistake in the report, for Mrs. Williams is the sister of Bishop, not his daughter) called her up on Sunday morning at six o'clock, about six or seven weeks ago. They were then living at No. 3, Nova Scotia gardens. He asked her if she would carry a bandbox for him; she asked in reply, where did he want her to take it? He replied to the Borough. She then went along with Bishop, her husband and Shields over London bridge, and when they got a little way over the bridge they came to a public-house, and Bishop told her to go in there and wait until they returned. They came again in about half an hour, and then they went together to another public-house, and had a pot of half and half, and some pipes. There was no money to pay the reckoning, and her father left her there, and told her to stop until he should return. He came back and paid for the beer, and then they all went to Bishopsgate-street, and called for some gin in a public house there. Shields then left Bishop, her husband and herself, and, after that, they all went home together. The prisoner added, that is all I wish to say. I have nothing more to add.

Mr. Minshull.—It will be my duty to commit you for further examination upon this charge, to this day fortnight.

Mr. Thomas said, he thought he should be able to produce further evidence in a week.

Mr. Minshull.—Then let the re-examination of the prisoner stand for this day week. As the prisoner was about to be removed, Mr. Thomas said, he believed she had not had any food that day, and as she was now about to leave his custody, he hoped that she would be allowed some refreshment.

Mr. Minshull.—Most certainly; the jailer shall provide her with what is necessary. No prisoner shall want food, whilst I sit here as a magistrate.

The prisoner was then removed in custody.

While these proceedings were carrying on, the public alarm was increasing in every direction; the medical profession was visited with the most severe, and we think, unjust indignation, inasmuch as it was believed to be the secret encourager of a system by which human life was sacrificed with the most heartless indifference, and the detection of the crime became a matter of extreme difficulty, almost amounting to impossibility, on account of the secrecy with which the proceedings are carried on in the hospitals and the private dissecting-rooms. It is at once evident that, from the present mode of supplying subjects for dissection, no man's life is secure. The murderer may disguise his victim by laying out, and for a time burying the corpse, by cutting off the hair, or by knocking out the teeth, and then his market is as safe as it is sure; or, if the assassin be more timid than usual, he has only to dismember the subject, and the sale by piecemeal will turn in an equal profit, and defy detection.

This is a state of danger to the public, the toleration of which would be criminal. The medical profession must arouse from its equivocal silence, and take such measures as may prevent its being, in a secondary sense, accessary to murder.

That the medical profession feel sore at the imputations which are cast upon them is not to be wondered at, and they very industriously throw the blame upon the existing laws, which, on account of their pretended impolicy, are themselves the cause of the different murders which have been committed, for the purpose of supplying the anatomical schools with subjects for the pupil. Thus Dr. Southwood Smith, in concluding that branch of his lectures on forensic medicine, which includes the extinction of life by intentional human agency, and illustrating the several points which demand the attention of the medical witness, on the examination of the body after death, from poisoning, drowning, hanging, strangulation, bruises and wounds, adverted to the real position in which the medical profession and the public are placed by the present state of the law relative to the study of anatomy, and after drawing a strong picture of the consequences that would result to the community, from the general neglect of this pursuit by the profession, spoke nearly as follows:—

'You dare not practise without a knowledge of anatomy,—you cannot prescribe for a patient, you cannot undertake the management of any surgical or medical case without a direct violation of the law, until you have adduced, before legally appointed authorities, evidence that you have studied anatomy with such effect, as to be able to stand a searching examination. But the same law that makes it imperative on you to study anatomy, in order to acquire a legal right to practise your profession, renders the possession of the means of pursuing the study illegal. Human anatomy cannot be known without the dissection of the human body, yet the possession of a body that has been exhumed, for the purpose of dissection (no body except that of the murderer being obtainable in any other mode) is penal. So that you are to be punished for not conforming to a law, which you cannot qualify yourself for obeying without breaking! Did ever any civilized country witness such a situation as that in which the law has placed you and the public? It has contrived to raise the price of a dead body to such a height, as absolutely and appallingly to endanger the safety of the living. Of this danger, both the public and the legislature have been long and earnestly warned. Several years ago, before any instance of the actual perpetration of the crime had been discovered, the temptation and the consequent danger were fully brought to view in a pamphlet, entitled "The Use of the Dead to the Living." Investigation was set on foot, a parliamentary inquiry was obtained, the medical profession performed its duty in the fullest manner, and stated, without reserve, all the odiousness and all the danger of exhumation. It laid open the true character of the hardened and the desperate men engaged in this employment. It had not yet occurred to those men, that it might be more easy to murder the living than disturb the dead, but the possibility of the occurrence of such a thought, and the probability of their acting upon it, were distinctly foretold. Over and over again it was stated, that the price always to be obtained for a subject, from ten to fifteen guineas, was a temptation to murder not likely to be resisted, and with an earnest voice the profession implored that this risk might be no longer incurred. The administration was impressed—the public was excited—something was promised—a little was attempted, but nothing was done. Then came on the Edinburgh horrors; and now we are thrown into a state of intense alarm, lest the same horrors should be perpetrated, and are perpetrating, at our own doors. And knowing this, it is said, it behoves the teacher and the medical profession in general to be extremely cautious, to examine with the utmost vigilance, whether any thing suspicious appear, and if it do, to investigate it to the bottom; and that it is now become an imperative duty, there can be no more question than there can be that it will be faithfully and rigidly observed in all schools, and throughout the profession. But when you come seriously to consider what it is in the power of the anatomist and physiologist to do—when, from the preceding statements, you see the utmost they can do, the truth is not more true than it is dreadful. If then it be made worth while to pursue murder as a trade, it can be carried on to a prodigious extent without detection. But men, even the desperate men, called body-snatchers, will not murder without a motive; but they will murder upon system, and to an extent to which no limit can be fixed, if the temptation be great, and the chance of escape considerable. It is in vain to look for protection to the law—no law can restrain them; no punishment will deter them:—the only effectual remedy is the removal of the temptation, the taking away of the motive, by rendering the dead body so cheap, as to be in fact without value as an article of sale; and the mode of doing this is simple. All that is necessary is, to repeal the existing law, which renders it illegal to possess a dead body for the purpose of dissection; and to enact a law, rendering the possession of a body for the purpose legal. Every thing would then be accomplished without exhumation, without danger, without any feeling being shocked, without any injury or indignity being done to any human creature. Those who from ignorance or childish prejudice—prejudice now confined to the highest and the lowest vulgar, raise a clamour against this and all similar expedients—assist and aid every future murder of this kind that may be committed, as really, though not as intentionally, as though they assisted at the strangulation.'

On this highly-interesting subject, and which now embraces the attention of all ranks of the community, we shall not be accused of diffuseness in giving the sentiments of another most celebrated surgeon, especially as many hints are there thrown out, by which the present system of obtaining dead bodies may altogether be exploded.

Mr. Brodie (for we ascribe the following remarks to him, although he has not affixed his name to them) says, 'Such is the importance of anatomy, that those who are engaged in the study of medicine and surgery will always endeavour to learn it, as far as it lies in their power to do so; and if subjects for dissection cannot be procured by decent and legal means, they will be procured by means that are indecent and illegal. The present system of procuring them by the robbery of churchyards, is attended with very great mischief in various ways. It disgusts and alarms not only the surviving friends, but the whole of society. Some are rendered miserable, because they know that the bodies of their friends have been stolen from the grave, and carried to the dissecting-room; and others, because they are apprehensive that the bodies of their friends may be served in the same manner. The men who are employed to exhume bodies are of the very worst description; they are outcasts of society, who being pointed at as resurrection-men, are unable to maintain themselves by any honest employment; and are thus driven to become thieves and house-breakers, because, when not actually employed in stealing bodies, they can do nothing better.

'The price of subjects at this moment is as high as eight, ten, or twelve guineas, and it has been as high as fifteen guineas. But many a person has been murdered for a much smaller sum than the least of these. Here then is an inducement to commit actual murder; and in addition to the mere gain, there is this further inducement, namely, that the murder is committed under circumstances peculiarly calculated to effect its concealment: as the bodies in the dissecting-room soon become disfigured, so that they cannot be recognized, it is not to be supposed that the teachers of anatomy, except under peculiar circumstances, can distinguish the bodies of those who die a natural death. It may be observed further, that it is impossible for the teachers to spare, from their other occupations, the time necessary to make an accurate examination of each individual subject that is brought into the dissecting-room, and that if such examinations were made, they would have the effect of preventing the students making some of the most important and useful dissections afterwards. The subjects must be handed over to the students untouched; the teachers and senior students may and ought to be as vigilant as possible, but it is equally absurd and unjust to suppose, that an absolute responsibility can rest upon them.

'The commission of murder for the purpose of obtaining subjects for the anatomical schools, is now found to be no imaginary evil. But the public need not be surprised that it has occurred. It has been foreseen by medical men, whose attention has been directed to these inquiries for some years, and the danger has been long ago pointed out to many members of the legislature; nor can all the activity of the police, nor all the watchfulness of the teachers of anatomy, prevent it recurring some time or other, if there be no easier method of supplying subjects for dissection, than that which is now resorted to, and if they continue, in consequence, to produce the enormous sum which they produce at present.

'One effect of the existing difficulty of procuring subjects in this country is, that a large proportion of medical students visit the Continent, and reside in Paris, or elsewhere, for the purpose of dissection. It may not be very creditable to us as a nation, that we should not possess among ourselves the means of instruction in so important a branch of knowledge as anatomy; but there is another and a stronger reason for lamenting the emigration of medical students. There is no class of society, in whose honour and integrity, and good principles, the public are so deeply interested, as in those of the medical profession. The members of it are admitted to a degree of confidence which is not given to any other individuals; circumstances are of necessity made known to them, which are not intended for the world, and the disclosure of which would, in many instances, destroy the peace of a family. They visit their fellow-creatures, labouring not only under the bodily, but the mental weakness of disease, and a depraved or dishonest person will easily convert those opportunities to some base purpose of self-advancement or self-gratification. We need not insult our neighbours by asserting that there is more vice in Paris than in London. Be that as it may, there is still good reason to suppose, that a number of young Englishmen are more likely to fall into vicious and dissipated habits in the former city than in the latter. Even if their parents reside in a distant county, they have in all probability relations, and at any rate they have acquaintance in London, and while in London, they are in constant communication with their families in the country, and they are in a greater or less degree under the surveillance of their friends. But while they reside in Paris, these restraints are removed; they are left entirely to themselves, and that at a period of life when temptations are new to them, when their passions are strong, and when good counsel and good example are of more importance than at any other period, either earlier or later. Can any one regard this as a favourable condition for young men, who, in the subsequent part of life, are to have such trust reposed in them, as necessarily must be reposed in medical practitioners?

'Anatomical knowledge is necessary to a right understanding both of medicine and surgery. But the law declares that the having a dead body in your possession is a misdemeanour; and the judges lay it down as a maxim, that there is only one legal way of possessing a body for dissection, namely, by procuring that of a man hanged for murder. The anatomical students are compelled to deal with people who steal bodies from churchyards, and who are liable to be punished for so doing. But the College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the Company of Apothecaries, all require that those who present themselves for examination, should have attended anatomical lectures, and should have performed dissections. Thus it appears, that the laws forbid the student to dissect, and the constituted authorities, under the sanction of the laws, require that he should dissect. The medical student, in the first instance, is persecuted on account of his endeavours to obtain knowledge; and afterwards, when he is engaged in practice, he is persecuted for not having obtained it, and, to make the inconsistency still greater, there is not an individual amongst those who make the laws, nor amongst those by whom they are administered, who hesitates, when his life is in danger, to apply for assistance to those individuals, who would not have it in their power to relieve him, if they had not devoted a considerable portion of their lives to these forbidden studies.

'But it is to no purpose to point out the evils which exist, unless it can be shown at the same time that those evils admit of being removed. The next question then is, how can a more abundant supply of subjects be procured, in a manner less offensive to the community?