SPECTATOR'S LIBRARY.

CIIMINAL Jmnsparnascs, The Great Oyer of Poisoning: the Trial of the Earl of Somerset for the Poiaouing or.: Sir Thomas Overbury, in the Tower of London, and. various matters connected' therewith, from contemporary MSS. By Andrew Amos, Esq., late Member of MO. Supreme Council of India BentJem. &mammies, Sixth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, Iii England.

Seventh Annual Report of the Registrar,General of Births. Deaths, and Merriest:ay, in England. (Abstracts of the two years 1843,1844.) Clones and Suns •

THE ANNUALS,

Heath's Book of Beauty: 1847. With beautifully-finished Engravings teem Dravringli

by the first Artists. Edited by the Countess of Blessington LONffniat1 and Co.. The Keepsake : 1847. With beautlftilly-thilshed Engravings from Drawings by me- first Artists, engraved under the superintendence of Mr. Charles Heath. Edltedg.

by the Countess of Blessington Longman and 00.

MISCELLANEOUS LITERATCSE,

Stray Leaves from a Freemason's Note-book. By a Suffolk Rector .. Spencer..

MR. AMOS'S TRIAL OF SOMERSET FOR THE MURDER, OF OVERBURY.

THE historical greatness of some of the persons implicated, and the mys-- tery in which it was involved, have given an interest to everything eon- ueeted with the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, that more remark- able trials in a merely criminal sense do not inspire. Something, too, must be added for the manner in which the case has been presented to us by eminent writers ; something for the previous circumstances attendant, upon the connexion of Somerset with Lady Essex; and a good deal, per- haps, to the necessary haze in which the story must be popularly pre- sented, from the indecencies that would attend upon its full display. As an example of the probable prevalence of atrocious crime in high places, we do not think that it proves much, from the evident horror with which it was regarded by the public ; though it may be readily enough received' as a specimen of the Court of James the First—the grossest and basest, and perhaps the most criminal in our annals.

A full exhibition of the whole case—a complete filling up of the out- lines of Hume—would form a very curious and interesting book ; espe-- daily if recourse were had to our manuscript depositories, now so acme-• sible for literary purposes. Front the great mass of materials, either of` subordinate interest, or so like in character as to be little more than rope.- titions, considerable art must be used in their management; so that while the reader should have all the original evidence which bears upon the proof or illustrates the manners- of the age, mere formal matters or repetitions should be avoided. As far as regards industry and research upon points connected with his subject-matter, " the trial of the Earl of Somerset for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury," Mr. Amos leaves little to desire. Whether the subject has not been too much limited to the simple fact of trial and, guilt may be a ques- tion : there is no doubt but that the materials are inartistically pre- sented. The Great Oyer of Poisoning is neither a story of the whole proceedings, such as we find in some foreign narratives of criminal

cases, nor a simple report of the trial, nor a collection of original docu-. ments relating to it, but to some extent partakes of the nature of all'

three, without the unity and character of either. Mr. Amos opens, his work, with a review of the previous circumstances which led to the' murder of Overbary. In this lie is brief, and somewhat jejune : for' which it may be said, that fulness was very difficult, consistently with modern delicacy, in all that concerned the intrigues and divorce of Lady Essex : but there was no occasion to dwell, as Mr. Amos does at length, and in a kind of annual-writer style, upon the mere externals of the, subjects,—as masques and court parties. The trial of Somerset from the' State Trials, its comparison with another report in the State Paper Office, and the publication in full of many examinations that were garbled or suppressed at the trial, have the interest attending upon original dom. ments, in an age when more dramatic character was possessed by indi=- viduals and more dramatic spirit infused into life. The remarks on the conduct of King James, and an endeavour to penetrate the motives of its. mystery—the elaborate exhibitions of the behaviour of Coke and: Bacon in reference to the getting-up and public management of the case;. with some observations on the general nature of the charge against Somer.*• set—have a relation to the main business, but are rather of the natant-. of antiquarian criticism than popular disquisition. But the true fault of all these chapters,. and indeed-of the book, is diffuseness and overdoing‘. Mr. Amos cannot let a position speak for itself, or be content after proving• without overwhelming it. if he wishes to impress the caution with' which the confessions of condemned criminals should be received, he: quotes from Jonathan Wild and The Beggar's Opera; and he con- tinually wanders as far if not so wide for illustrations of plain positions., Hence, a heavy and lumbering character is imparted to tke matter of that book, and the style frequently approaches the twaddling.

Notwithstanding the number of new documents from the State Paper; Office, we do not know that the general conclusion formed by coup! temporaries and continued to the present day is much affected. Thati Overbury was poisoned, we think is clear enough ; that Somerset's wife#, the divorced Lady Essex, instigated the plot, seems equally clear; air well as that Franklin the apothecary and Mrs. Turner concocted and. conveyed the poisons ; whilst Weston, the gaoler of Overbury, adminhsw. tered them, with the cognizance and sanction of Elwes or Helwysse, the; Governor of the Tower, appointed by Somerset and his friends—pro heat vice, as it is inferred. That the earlier poisons were not administered' through fear and struggles of conscience, as declared in the confessions. of Weston and Elwes, is likely ; because it seems impossible for Over- bury to have survived so long had he taken some of the doses. It is even possible that their unskilled and bungling efforts might not destroy him after all, but that, as Mr. Amos infers, he was seal), done to death by a clyster prescribed by the. French physician of James and adminis- tered-by the French apothecary Lobell ; Somerset himself being innocent of the plots both of the. Monarch and his wife. The only evidence otk this view, however, is a series of refined and rather farfetched inferences. The hatred of the Countess to Overbury—the quarrel between Overbury and Somerset—the imprisonment of the former at the instance of the latter—the removal of one Lieutenant of the Tower, the appointment of another, and the only known agents in the business being traced to Somerset, or at least to his wife—are strong moral and indeed legal pre- aumptions against him. The motives of James are hazy, and are not known ; they have to be conjectured. That Overbury was in possession of some mysterious secret, either relating to the murder of Prince Henry —a fact, by the by, never established—or to the King's addiction to an infamous vice, is mere guess. Whatever Overbury knew we may be sure that Somerset knew; • so that the King had as much inducement to poi- son his favourite as his favourite's friend. That there was "something between" the King and Somerset, was known by the anxiety of James to get him to plead guilty, and by his predetermined pardon if he be- haved inoffensively. Somerset (and additional proofs under Coke's own hand are given in this volume) displayed the coolness of conscious inno- cence or conscious safety; whilst the cautious manner in which he con- ducted his own defence, yet firmly protesting his innocence, led some of his contemporaries to infer his ignorance of the murder. On a trial under the modern system, (as put by Mr. Amos,—though, as such a crime is impossible in our times; the supposition must pass for nothing,) Somerset would probably have bn acquitted; but rather under a ver- dict of "not proven" than "net guilty." We should, however, feel more inclined to adopt the hypothesis of Mr. Amos as to the guilt of James than the innocence of Somerset.

The examination of the professional conduct of Coke and Bacon in re- lation to this murder, and the detection of the murderers, is rather, col- lateral than principal to the subject of the book. It therefore wants the attraction of closeness and coherence. Read as separate disquisitions on Coke and Bacon, they possess considerable interest, from the light they throw on the character of their respective minds. We see Coke untiring in labour, patient over the slightest facts, and wonderfully painstaking in conning the details till he had thoroughly mastered them and was ready to work up the whole into a conclusive case. The legal character of his mind is visible throughout. He is submissive to the King, ready to do his business, and without boggling at scruples ; but he must do it in a businesslike way. He will not mind straining the law, or terrifying the witnesses ; but he must work by means of evidence, no matter what its moral value, or how he gets at it ; it seems pretty clear that he pur- sued evidence which the King might rather have held in ; and he ap- pears to have had that high professional feeling which renders some emi- nent men inclined to give despotic advice to their patients or clients. The mind of Bacon, on the other hand, was more various and elastic. He studied to anticipate the wishes, he soothed the conscience, (or what might pass for conscience,) and he considered the honour of the King, as well as regarded public appearances. The treatment of Bacon was more of the scholar, the courtier, the politician, and orator. Coke was only the lawyer : but, as law was the matter in hand, we suspect he shows to most advantage in the business. Mr. Amos is quite right in holding that the prosecutions for the Overbury murders cannot properly be passed over in the lives of either Coke or Bacon. The inquiry will not reflect much credit upon Coke, and, we grieve to say, will only further con- firm the truth of Pope's characteristic of Bacon, " meanest of mankind."

A useful feature in the book, though somewhat interfering with its march, are the remarks on former legal practices, which Mr. Amos in- troduces from time to time as the text gives occasion to it. Of these we quote a few.

CHARACTER OF THE OLDER STATE TRIALS.

It is to be regretted that in Hargrave's and in Howell's State Trials the reader is seldom furnished with any references to the authorities from which the reports

of the different trials are taken. The reports of the more ancient trials in these collections were most probably copied from publications prepared under the in- spection of the chief officers of state and of the law, and sometimes revised by the Sovereign himself. We should not attach much credit to a report published by the Austrian Government of a trial of William Tell, or by the French Repub lie of the trials of Louis XVI. and of Queen Marie Antoinette; but, in our domes- tic history, we are too apt to surrender our belief to the only extant details of our ancient State Trials, without duly considering by whom and with what motives they were published. The course of proceeding in ancient times for crushing an individual who had excited fears or kindled hatred in the breast of a sovereign, was somewhat after the following manner. Written examinations were taken in secret, and often

wrung from prisoners by the agonies of the rack. Such parts of these documents, and such parts only as were criminative, were read before a judge removeable at

the will of the Crown, and a jury packed for the occasion, who gave their verdict under the terror of fine and imprisonment. Speedily the Government published whatever account of the trials suited their purposes. Subservient divines were

next appointed to " press the consciences," as it was called, of the condemned, in their cells and on the scaffold; and the transaction terminated with another Go- vernment brochure, full of dying contrition and eulogy by the criminal on all who

had been instrumental in bringing him to the gallows. In the meanwhile, the Star Chamber, with its pillories, its S. L.s branded on the cheeks with a hot iron, its mutilations of ears, and ruinous fines, prohibited the unauthorized publication of trials, and all free discussion upon them, as amounting to an arraignment of the King's justice. The right of publishing State Trials, till a comparatively late period, appears to have been restricted to persons appointed for the purpose. Thus, in regard to the trial of Pluuket, the titular Primate of Ireland, for high treason, in the thirty- third year of Charles II., we have the following imprimatur—" I do appoint Francis Tyton and Thomas Bassett to print the trials of Edward Fitzharris and Oliver Plunket; and that no others presume to print the same. F. Pemberton." In the time of Queen Anne, long after the abolition of the Star Chamber and the emancipation of the press, we have an instance of jealousy entertained in re-

gard to the unrestricted publication of trials. It is the more remarkable as it occurred before Lord Holt, a strenuous champion for liberty. The transaction is thus related in Howell's State Trials, vol. xiv. p. 935. " Counsel—My Lord, we insist upon it, that these fellows should not go on writing. " Ordered, that the writers be turned out of the court. " And accordingly they were turned out, at the repeated instance, &c. How- ever, thus far the short-hand-writers had proceeded with great exactness; and they are ready, by their handwriting and notes, to justify all before mentioned in this trial, which by this time was very nearly ended? In a paper which one Haagen, executed for the abduction of an heiress in the first year of the reign of Queen Anne, delivered to the Sheriff on the scaffold, he complains—" I expected my trial should be published, that the world might see my treatment, what I have done and what I have left undone in my case; but I am informed it may not be printed."

DISTRUMENTS OF TORTURE.

The Rack was a large wooden frame, of oak, raised three feet from the ground: the prisoner was laid under it on his back upon the floor; his wrists and ankles were attached by cords to two collars at the ends of the frame; these ends were moved by levers in opposite directions, till the body rose to the level of the frame; questions were then put; and if the answers did not prove satisfactory, the sufferer was stretched more and more, by the further elongation of the ends of the frame from each other, through means of the levers, until the bones started from their sockets.

The Scavenger's Daughter, another instrument of torture used in the Tower, was a broad hoop of iron, consisting of two parts fastened to each other by a hinge: it operated by pressure over the small of the back, and by force of the compression soon cansed the blood to flow from the nostrils.

The Iron Gauntlets, another kind of torture, served to compress the wrists and suspend the prisoner in the air from two distantpoints of a beam. "I felt," said F. Gerard, one of the sufferers by this kind of torture, " the chief pain in my breasts, belly, arms, and hands. I thought that all the blood in my body had run into my arms, and began to burst out at my finger-ends. This was a mistake; but my arms swelled till the gauntlets were buried within the flesh. After being thus suspended an hour, I fainted; and when I came to myself I found the execu- tioners supporting me in their arms: they replaced the pieces of wood under my feet; but as soon as I recovered, removed them again. Thus I continued hanging for the space of five hours, during which I fainted eight or nine times."

A fourth kind of torture used in the Tower was called Little Ease. It was of so.small dimensions, and so constructed, that the prisoner could neither stand walk, sit, nor lie in it at full length. He was compelled to draw himself up in a squatting posture, and so remain during several days.