their perpetration, and so deliberate in their motive, that the reader may well be startled, and ask himself, can these things be, and yet our boasted progress be more actual than a dream? Does the cultivation of the intellect teach greater crimes, as well as greater virtues? Is the enjoyment of greater pleasure but the motive to greater abandonment in the means of compassing it? Knowledge, however, is but an instrument, powerful for good or for evil, as its possessor shall apply it. The human mind is not changed, though its operation may be modified, by the acquisition of knowledge. It is not in the acquisition of much, but in the increased power to perceive and to adopt the good and to reject the evil, in the increased motives to good, and a clearer perception of the futility of evil here and hereafter, that the human mind has received its advance. There may still be great crimes, still much misery and suffering; but the universal horror and excitement they cause, the intense eagerness of the community to witness the due detection and punishment of the one, their noble efforts to alleviate the other, are undeniable proofs that they are antagonistic to the general moral sense, and that, as society has advanced to improvement, crime has shrunk back to the other confine.

These reflections have been called forth by the fearful events which have been reserved for this portion of this work-crimes so enormous in their inception, so ruthless or so reckless in their execution, and attended with circumstances so enthralling in their detection and punishment, that neither could space be accorded nor sufficient elaboration be permitted in the Chronicle. And even

here, where so much depends upon the preservation of minute circumstances and characteristic traits, it is not practicable to preserve much that tended to keep up the public interest, and to invest these fearful deeds with the full enormity with which they appeared to the public at the time of their occur. rence.

The first of these terrible deeds which are now to be recorded is the catastrophe of the tragedy at Stanfield Hall, the particulars of which, so far as time had then developed them, are briefly given in the Chronicle of last year, p. 155.

That retribution which human foresight and Divine Providence have appointed to those who violate the sanctuary of human life was now about to overtake the great criminal for this and his other manifold misdeeds; of the victims of Rush's atrocious projects who had not been immolated on the spot, the miserable Mrs. Jermy, who had witnessed her husband and father-in-law perish before her sight and despite her fruitless devotion, was still lingering in a state of apparently hopeless suffering, and although her life was ultimately saved, it was not without the loss of her arm, and the ruin of her health. The devoted servant, Eliza Chestney, dreadfully injured, was now sufficiently recovered to be removed from the Hall to Norwich for the purpose of giving evidence on the trial; she was carried in a litter closed with curtains, and escorted by a body of police, to protect her from the not discreditable curiosity of the townspeople. Emily Sandford, the victim of the murderer's treachery and lust, and the unconscious tool of his crimes, had been

under the care of the authorities, and had been delivered of a child, against whose father she was now called on to give damning testimony. Of the murderer himself, the few accounts that had reached the public during the interval represented him as firm in mind, cheerful in aspect, devout and reliant in conduct; nothing that could become an innocent man was wanting to a wretch whose crimes, now about to be clearly proven, and others more than suspected, suggested a long course of hardened iniquity.

The trial commenced on the 29th of March, in the Court House at Norwich, before Mr. Baron Rolfe. The building and the open space around the castle was crowded with a mass of eager spectators; and the seats on the Bench and the galleries were occupied by the Bishop and the principal nobility and gentry of the eastern counties. A model of Stanfield Hall and Potash Farm and the fields around was placed on the table.

The prisoner, James Blomfield Rush, was brought into the dock in the custody of the governor of the gaol and of a turnkey, and advanced with a firm but slouching step to the bar, where he deposited a large bundle of papers. His features were resolute and set, but his hands trembled excessively, which might, however, be habitual. Rush was a powerfully made man, with strong but rather coarsely moulded limbs, and below rather than above the middle height. His shoulders, which were slightly inclined forwards, supported a short bull-neck, on which a large and massive head, which a craniologist would declare indicative of the possession of strong animal passions and considerable intellectual power, was

firmly set in such a way as to render it rather difficult for him to look straight before him. His mouth, and the general formation of his jaw and of the lower part of his face, betrayed great determination and an unflinching will. He was dressed with care and neatness in a suit of black and a white cravat; his gray hair was carefully brushed, and his appearance altogether that of a respectable yeoman.

The indictment charged him with the murder of Isaac Jermy by shooting with a pistol, &c. On being called on to plead, he said in a firm and distinct tone Not guilty," and put in the same answer to an indictment on the coroner's inquisition. The prisoner requested a few moments to arrange his papers.

Mr. Serjeant Byles, Mr. Prendergast, and Mr. Evans were counsel for the prosecution. The prisoner conducted his own defence, but had, it was said, applied to counsel to assist him upon such points as he might choose to refer to him; but no counsel would undertake the responsibility upon such terms; the prisoner was said to be confident in his own abilities and resources. He repeatedly interrupted the Crown counsel during his statement, in such a manner as to compel rebuke from the Judge, even under such circum

stances.

Mr. Serjeant Byles stated the case for the Crown. The prisoner at the bar, said the learned serjeant, was indicted for the wilful murder of Mr. Isaac Jermy, late Recorder of Norwich. As the jury might naturally ask what motive the prisoner could have for such a crime, it would be necessary, in order to give a satisfactory answer, to go into the history of transactions

some time back between the late Mr. Jermy and the prisoner at the bar. The deceased gentleman had been Recorder of Norwich, and a gentleman of fortune. His father, the Rev. Mr. Preston, died in October, 1837, and the deceased had taken the name and arms of the Jermy family on coming to the estate of Stanfield Hall. In the immediate vicinity of the Hall was the Potash Farm, of which, as well as of Stanfield Hall Farm, the prisoner had been the tenant. The deceased had also two farms at Frelingham, at the other side of Norwich one of them occupied by the prisoner, and the other by the prisoner's mother, since deceased, so that he occupied four farms in all. In 1844 Mr. Jermy advanced to Rush considerable sums of money on Potash Farm by way of mortgage, and one of the deeds connected with this transaction, dated the 20th of September, 1844, would have a most important bearing on the case. It set forth that 5000l. was charged on the estate by way of mortgage at 4 per cent., making an annual charge of 200l., and was to run till November, 1848. The money became due on the 30th of November, 1848. The murder of Mr. Jermy took place on Tuesday, November 28, just two days before. In the prisoner's pocketbook was this entry,-" September 20, Potash Farm, interest due; principal due November 30, 1838,"-the latter date being evidently a mistake for 1848. Soon afterwards disputes arose between Mr. Jermy and Rush about the Stanfield Hall property, and in October, 1847, the former put in some distresses, and brought an action against the prisoner for miscultivation of the farm, so that no good feeling existed on the pri

soner's part towards the deceased. In fact, it would be proved he had expressed himself with great hostility towards the deceased, and declared "it would not be long before he served Jermy with an ejectment for the other world.” It would also be proved that he said, speaking of Mr. Jermy and Mr. Clarke, a solicitor engaged in these proceedings, "Damn them; I will do for them the first opportunity I have." This, however, depended on verbal evidence, which was not so satisfactory as written testimony, being liable to be misunderstood at the time. But the evidence he was now about to read would not be subject to any such observations as the evidence of which he had just spoken, inasmuch as it consisted in passages from a pamphlet printed by Rush, and purporting to be a report of the trial at Norwich on the action brought by Mr. Jermy in March, 1848, and also a case, "Jermy against Jermy, as to who is the right owner of the Stanfield Hall and Frelingham Estates." It might here be necessary to observe, that, shortly after the death of Mr. Preston, persons named Larner and Jermy had laid claim to the estates in question. The passages were as follows:- Even if the villain had behaved as he ought to have done to have acted with common honesty-I would never have done myself so much goodnot half so much, as if I had remained at Dowling." Another passage contained these words :—

That fellow Jermy has no right to the Stanfield Hall property. He knows it, and he knows that I know it as well. His whole conduct in keeping possession of the estate and taking the name of Jermy, and his behaviour to the

poor people who have a right to the estate, have been most villanous and disgraceful to any man with any pretensions to respectability, and I shall be happy to prove it whenever I am called upon to do so." And further on,-" Why I have published this is that some one who has money may come forward and see justice done to this poor man Jermy, who is the real owner, and who is only kept out of it by want of means to employ counsel, and to have it brought to trial." And again, "I hope some one will come forward and oust this fellow, who has not half as much right to the property as I have. I hope this may be done by the steps I have taken, and am about to take." Again," If there is truth in the Bible, such villany is sure to be overtaken, and that when it is lest expected." In May following the prisoner became bankrupt.

A

witness would prove that a meeting took place beween the prisoner and men named Jermy and Larner, the claimants already alluded to, on October 3, at the prisoner's lodgings, No. 2, Milne Street, Pentonville, when an agreement had been signed, to which he would call their particular attention. The witness to whom he referred was a young person named Emily Sandford, whose father had been a clerk to an extensive house of business, and who had been engaged by Rush as governess for his children. Her evidence on this point would be confirmed by a letter in the prisoner's handwriting, dated October 2, and addressed to a person named Reed, who seemed to be disposed to lend his assistance to Larner and Jermy in obtaining the Stanfield Hall and Frelingham properties. At that meeting Emily Sandford was pointed

out as the lady who would find the money to carry out the claim, and the result of the meeting was, that an agreement was written, in which Jermy and Larner agreed to let Rush have the Potash Farm for 21 years, from October, 1848, at a rent of 2301., while on his part he agreed to put them into possession of the estate, and assist them in maintaining it. Rush at this time being in possession of Frelingham Farm, it was arranged that Thomas Jermy should go down there and be put in possession of it, and accordingly, on the 4th of October, he went over there, accompanied by Larner. Next day Emily Sandford returned from London to the Potash Farm. On the 10th of October Rush, accompanied by Emily Sandford and a boy named Savory, drove over, though it was so late that the night was quite dark, to Stanfield Hall, and went in to see Mr Jermy, leav. ing Emily Sandford at the bridge leading across the moat round the house. He could not state what took place at that interview, but he returned to the Potash Farm, while Emily Sandford proceeded to Norwich the same night in the gig, and took lodgings at Stacey's, in Theatre Street. This happened on the 10th. It would be observed that Rush's interest in the farm would expire on the 30th. While she was there Rush asked her to sign a paper, which purported to be a memorial of an agreement by Mr. Jermy to let to James Blomfield Rush the farms lately occupied by him for 12 years for 300l. a year, reserving the right of shooting and the use of bedroom and sitting-room to his son. She hesitated to do so, but as Rush told her it was only a copy, she put her name to it as witness. Subse

quently she became uneasy at having done so, and kept a copy of a letter she had addressed to him about it. He appeared angry with her, and remonstrated with her for writing on such a subject, and destroyed the copy. On the 4th of November she returned to the Potash Farm, and about the same time Larner and Jermy left Frelingham, where they had nothing to do, and returned to London, against the will of Rush, though he gave them money to go. On the 21st of November the prisoner produced some more agreements for Emily Sandford to sign, one dated the 10th of October, purporting to be an agreement to let the 50001. remain on the Potash Farm for three years beyond the term of the original deed at 4 per cent., signed by Mr. Jermy and the prisoner, and the other, dated the 21st, by which Mr. Jermy was made to cancel the mortgage altogether. He would call the attention of the jury to this fact, that if Larner and the other Jermy were in possession, Rush had a lease of the farms for 21 years, and if the deceased Recorder were, he had in his possession two agreements, one cancelling the mortgage altogether, and the other extending the period of the mortgage. As the latter were forgeries, they would be much more likely to take effect after than before his death. About this time the prisoner was in the habit of going out after dark. There was to be a concert at Norwich on Tuesday the 28th of November, for which the prisoner bought a family ticket, and for this and other reasons the family and servants were absent, leaving the prisoner and Emily Sandford the only persons at Potash Farm. At the usual hour, on Tuesday the 28th, they

sat down to tea. Emily Sandford observed he was agitated, and in answer to her inquiries he said he had been thinking a great deal about the story of the Scotch chief, alluding to the well-known story of Robert Bruce before Bannockburn, who, on observing a spider fail six times in endeavouring to gain a beam in the ceiling, and succeed the last, said, "Well, I have failed several times, I will try now again, and I dare say I shall succeed." "And," said the prisoner, "I too have tried five or six times. I may succeed in my object this time also." She expressed her alarm, and asked him what he meant? But he only replied, "I shall like you better if you don't ask me now." He was in tears at the time. Some time between seven and eight o'clock he went out. Emily Sandford heard, but did not see him go. And here it would be necessary to remark, that the path leading to Stanfield Hall from the Potash Farm had been covered over with fresh straw by the command of the prisoner some days before, up to the commencement of the greensward, so that no impression of a foot could be visible from the farm up to the hard gravel outside Mr. Jermy's residence. About the same time Mr. Jermy was sitting alone in his dining-room. His son and daughter-in-law were in the drawing-room preparing for a game of picquet. Mr. Jermy left the dining-room and proceeded to the hall-door. The moment he opened it and came into the porch before it some person discharged a gun or pistol, loaded with slugs, at him, blowing his heart nearly to pieces and breaking several of his ribs. He fell, and instantly expired. Immediately after this, a man of the