MADAM,
I HAVE lately been at one of the most awful solemnities in this kingdom, or perhaps in any kingdom in the world; the trial of a peer of England for felony and murder. The more attrocious the crime, or the more dignified the criminal, the higher must curiosity be raised in every breast. Having a desire not to lose any circumstance of the behaviour of the several noble actors in this deep tragedy, I placed myself early on Wednesday morning in Westminster-hall, in a situation that at once might allow me a sight of the prisoner, his counsel, and particularly of his great and right honourable judges. I know full well the duty which I owe to the supreme court of judicature, at whose bar the prisoner stood arraigned; nor shall I even by any iota, or much less by any inuendo, break in upon the privileges, which they so justly assume of making their own proceedings sacred and invulnerable to improper publications, and the licentiousness of too bold, I will not venture to say too free a press; yet surely I may, nay, I must declare, that this high court of judicature did upon this, as in every other point, and upon every other occasion, act like itself. All the spectators, who were splendidly numerous of both sexes, saw, heard, and confessed that justice was concomitant with mercy, enquiry was diverted of rigour, indulgence appeared without condescension, humanity displayed itself without weakness, judgment without partiality, and uprightness without severity.
About eleven o’clock in the morning, as soon as the peers, with the lord high steward at their head, were situated in their order, and rank of place, lord Ferrers was brought to the bar. But what shall I say of this unfortunate nobleman? He had neither dignity in his countenance, nor sufficient gracefulness in his manner to draw companion on his misery, or reverence to his person: down-cast eyes, an unmeaning face, a low stature, rather despicable than a gentleman-like appearance, must in all other circumstances and situations have drawn a biass against him, and must have compelled his beholders, on the first impression, to have pronounced him an ill-favoured disagreeable-looking man.
Placed at the bar of Westminster-hall, a miserable helpless prisoner, with all his crimes upon his head, we naturally rejected the prejudices that were arising against his outward demeanour, and joined with the clerk of the crown, in wishing that God might send him a good deliverance
The several particulars of the attrocious crime for which his lordship is to suffer, will appear in the printed trial; they will appear, I am afraid, shocking and barbarous. The trials of the Old Baily have scarce produced a parallel. It was a murder planned, concerted, and executed with deliberation, cruelty, and determined malice. Neither drunkenness nor madness excited the immediate execution of it. Several persons were sent out of the way, on purpose to leave the wretched victim beyond a possibility of assistance or rescue. The poor man was defenceless, without arms, and even without the least suspicion of his fate. He was locked into the parlour by the inhuman earl, was compelled to kneel down on one knee, and in that posture was shot, the ball remaining in his body. A glimpse of repenting humanity then took place. The earl first caused him to be carried and put into a bed, and then sent for a surgeon to assist him in his agony. But soon after the arrival of the surgeon, all humanity vanished, a fresh blast of fury arose, and it was with difficulty that his lordship could be hindered from tearing the agonizing Mr. Johnson out of bed, dragging him on the floor, and putting the finishing stroke to a life already gasping out its last painful moments. Here indeed was the excuse of ebriety. The earl by this time had dozed himself, by brandy, into all the heat of rage and violence: from brandy he descended to Port wine, and continued drinking till nature was sufficiently drowned by liquor to sink into a sound sleep, and a temporary oblivion of the horrid action which he had committed. Poor Johnson, terrified to be under the roof of his murderer, was by his earnest desire carried to his own house, where, in a few hours, he expired, amidst the tears and lamentations of his miserable family.
It was a most affecting part of the trial to see Miss Johnson, daughter of the deceased, dressed in mourning, and giving testimony of her father’s catastrophe.
All compassion towards the earl is much curbed, if not totally suppressed, when we consider the miserable situatibn into which this unhappy family is thrown. Yet I must confess that I found myself deeply moved when the earl gave in that paper of his defence, which with great uneasiness he urged as the strongest, perhaps the only plea in his favour. ‘I am, said he, importuned, and indeed constrained, my lords, by my family, to plead to your lordships, by way of mitigation and excuse of my crime, the unhappy state of mind under which I frequently labour, and with which I must have been particularly visited when I committed the crime that has been laid open to your lordships.’ Words to this purpose were pronounced by him in the greatest perturbation of spirit, in a confusion and uneasiness not to be described, and with a difficulty of respiration that evidently discovered the inward workings of his soul. Unhappy man! could he have proved that he had committed the murder whilst he was visited by the sorest disease to which human nature is liable, death would not have been his portion. But even his own witnesses testified his intervals of sanity to have been too many, and too constant to admit of any such plea. The earl was indulged in producing any witnesses to the purpose he desired: two were heard, but the evening coming on, the trial was adjourned till next day.
On Thursday afternoon, the noble judges came into Westminster-hall. The earl pursued his plea of lunacy, and to that purport examined a fresh string of witnesses, nine, I think, in number, of which two were his own brothers. This seemed to me, and probably to most of the audience, a very shocking scene; a noble family exposed, persons long since in their graves conjured up, like ghosts, only to be proved lunatics; younger brothers, as an instance of the strongest fraternal affection, endeavouring to denounce their elder brother mad. Relations, acquaintance, and even servants, giving various instances of the earl’s frenzy; wildness and distraction. Yet all to no purpose. None of these instances came up to the point.
The unfortunate prisoner might have been sometimes wild, sometimes frantic, but never totally deprived of sense. Johnson was killed in an hour of sanity. Johnson fell by malice prepense. A short speech concluded all the earl had to say: it was read by the clerk of the house of lords, and was evidently a composition as well put together as if the author of it had never, in the whole of his life-time, been visited by the least degree of madness. The counsel for the crown then summed up, and observed upon the whole evidence, and ended as they began, in the most tender, clear, impartial, generous, but just manner, that nature could demonstrate, or human abilities display.
The lords returned to the parliament-chamber, and after some time came back to Westminster-Hall, where each of their lordships severally, and for himself, pronounced earl Ferrers, guilty of the felony and murder of which he stood indicted
The number of peers who gave their votes were one hundred and sixteen, twenty one bishops, and four temporal lords being absent at the time when lord Ferrers received his doom. The number of spiritual and temporal lords who attended the first day, were one hundred and forty one. The number happened to be exactly the same as had attended lord Lovat’s trial. The prisoner was then summoned to the bar, the judgment of the lords was declared to him, and as he was to receive sentence of death the next day, he was immediately remanded to the Tower.
The lords came into Westminster-Hall about noon on Friday, and Laurence earl Ferrers was asked, according to the usual form, Why judgment of death should not pass upon him, according to law? His lordship produced a written speech, which was read by the clerk, and was drawn up in a most proper decent manner, still regretting the plea he had been forced to offer of lunacy, and submitting entirely to the judgment of the house of peers.
The lord high steward then pronounced his sentence, having introduced it by a most proper exordium. The sentence was, that earl Ferrers should be hanged till he was dead, and his body should be delivered to the surgeons to be anatomizedWhen he heard the sentence of hanging pronounced, he said, in a low voice, God’s will be done; but when he heard he was to be anatomized, he said, with great emotion, God forbid; however, both parts of the sentence must be absolutely fulfilled. The law that enacts it passed no longer ago than the year 1752, and has no respect of persons; not even the king can commute the sentence. His majesty may reprieve from time to time, or he may pardon, but his majesty cannot alter the letter of the law. All the indulgence within the power of the lords in their legislative capacity was shewn to the prisoner; without that indulgence he must have been hanged on Monday the twenty-first instant, and till his execution, must have been sustained solely by bread and water, nor could any person be permitted to converse with him: instead of these severities (by a power vested in the judges of the court where the felon is tried) his death is postponed to the fifth of May, and his diet and manner of custody are entirely left to the discretion of the noble lord who presides over the prisoners in the Tower, to their great happiness, and to his own great honour.
Thus concluded the trial of Lawrence earl Ferrers, who drew upon himself his own dismal catastrophe. Here let us close the scene, but not without remembring, that the last trial of any peer for murder was in the year 1699, above threescore years ago, when Edward, earl of Warwick and Holland, and Charles lord Mohun, were each severally tried for the murder of Richard Coote, Esq Lord Warwick was found guilty of manslaughter; lord Mohun was entirely acquitted. Lord Warwick claimed and received the benefit of his peerage, upon the statute of Edward VI. Lord Mohun (who in the year 1692 had been tried and acquitted, for the murder of Mr. Mountford the player) towards the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, ended his life in a duel with the duke of Hamilton in Hyde-park.
I am, madam, Your most obedient, humble servant, A. B.
April 21, 1760.