LONDON, MAY 14, 1921. CONTENTS.-No. 161. NOTES:-Court-Martial on a Duellist, Newfoundland, 381-Legay of Southampton and London, 385-" Gog and Magog," 388-Aldeburgh Chamberlains' Accounts, 387-Captain Robert Wyard Martin Chuzzlewit Elijah Pogram, 389-Crucifixion of Dogs-Deaths, 390. QUERIES:-King of England, Lord of Baux-Lives of Venetian Painters-Menzel's German Literature,' 390Napoleon as a Child-Arms of Ellingham- Letters from Galilee '-John Winthrop: Inner Temple, 1628Francis and John Gallini-Wiche-James William Unwin -Foxhounds- Stirbitch Fair'- -Rayner of Woodham Walter-" Cicero" Cook the Learned "Scout "-Rice,391Van Der Does-The Exercitia Spiritualia' of St. Ignatius Loyola-Corsican War-Dogs: Island of Fowls-Early Stage-Coaches-The Monument: 'Ingoldsby Legends' or Statues of George IV. at Brighton-"Common REPLIES:-" Cor ad cor loquitur "-Mary Russel Mit- placed on half-pay in May, 1828, and died, unmarried, Dec. 15, 1869, at Blackrock, Dublin. The following account of his trial by court-martial for shooting John Philpot in a duel is taken, somewhat abbreviated, from The Public Ledger and Newfoundland General Advertiser of Friday, April 28, 1826 :SUPREME COURT. April 17, 1826. THE KING vs. MARK RUDKIN, GEORGE FARQUHAR MORICE, and JAMES STRACHAN, for the wilful murder of JOHN PHILPOT, by shooting him with a pistol-ball, in a duel on the 30th March last. (Mark Rudkin, Capt. Royal Veteran Companies, as principal; and James Strachan, Surgeon of the same, and G. F. Morice, Capt. R.N., as accomplices-principals in the second degree.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the proceedings, and gave an outline of the case intended to be proved. In whatever point of view it was regarded, he said—whether as it respected the individual whose death was the cause of the present inquiry, who had been suddenly cut off, in the vigour of health from all the endearments of social life-whether considered in reference nected with Old London Bridge, 397-The Mermaiding the personal safety of the prisoners, it was to the violated laws of the country-or as affectat her Toilet '-Hunger Strike in the Fourteenth CenturyJohn Pym-Wine Names-Paul Lucas : His Journey through Asia Minor'-Collet Family, 398. one of the most serious with which he had ever had to do; but he exhorted the jury to dismiss from their minds whatever they might have NOTES ON BOOKS :—' Molière '—' The Gild of St. Mary, heard out of doors; or, if they could not entirely Lichfield''The West Riding of Yorkshire'-Annals TRIAL Notes. OF A BY COURT-MARTIAL DUELLIST. NEWFOUNDLAND, 1826. CAPTAIN MARK RUDKIN, the duellist here in question, belonged to a family which has been traced as owning property in Norfolk and Rutland from the thirteenth century onwards, and a branch of which had been settled in Ireland, in Co. Carlow, since the middle of the seventeenth century. He was the second son of William Rudkin of Corris, Co. Carlow, born June 4, 1786. A Captain in the 50th and 100th Regiments, and afterwards in the Royal Newfoundland Veteran Company, he served in the Peninsular War from 1808 to 1813, being engaged in the disastrous Walcheren Expedition in 1809. He was present at nearly all the great battles in the Peninsular War, being several times wounded, and received a medal with five clasps. He was finally divest themselves of those recollections, it were better to set upon them the seal of falsehood and cast them from them. They were bound upon their oaths to be governed in their decision by the evidence which would now be brought before them. The principles of law upon which the prosecution was founded were then laid down; first, in order to enable the jury with more facility to embrace the principles of the case; and, secondly, he felt it due to the defendants to facilitate their defence in the perilous situation in which they were placed. The following citations were then made : "The fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoners, unless they should arise out of the evidence produced against them; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice until the contrary shall have been made apparent. . ." et seqq. (Foster, p. 255). The same learned writer (Mr. Justice Foster), had just cited, speaking of duelling, says that:— whose high authority he (the Attorney-General) "If death ensueth from deliberate duelling, such death is, in the eye of the law, murder. And though a person should be drawn into a duel, not upon a motive so criminal, but merely on the punctilio of what swordsmen falsely call ately taketh the blood of another, upon a private honour, that will not excuse; for he that deliberquarrel, acteth in defiance of all laws human and divine " et seqq. (ibid., p. 297). As to the malice which the law implies in such cases, the same learned Judge says that: "Most if not all the cases which are ranged under the head of implied malice will, if carefully adverted to, be found to turn upon this single point, that the fact hath been attended with such circumstances as carry in them the plain indications of a heart regardless of social duty, and fatally bent upon mischief (ibid., p. 257) On the subject of accomplices the same learned Judge says that : In order to render a person an accomplice and a principal in felony, he must be aiding and abetting at the fact, or ready to afford assistance if necessary (ibid., p. 350). A distinction was then drawn between the second of the deceased duellist and the second of the survivor. The Attorney-General observed that the law which he had cited was to be traced in the earliest authorities, and was recognized in our own days in Rice's case (3 East, 581); and among the cases therein referred to, the distinction between the seconds was again recognized. He then proceeded to call the evidence. LIEUT.-COLONEL THOMAS ROWLAND BURKE, of the Veteran Companies, sworn and examined :Knows the prisoners at the bar. Captain Rudkin is under his orders; Dr. Strachan is AssistantSurgeon in the military establishment; Captain Morice commands the Governor's yacht in the harbour. John Philpot was lately Ensign in his corps he is recently dead. On the 30th March last, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, Captain Rudkin rushed into witness's room, seemingly out of his mind, and told him that Mr. Philpot was dead. Witness asked for an explanation; thinking from his manner that he was distracted. Captain Rudkin said that Mr. Philpot had kicked him last evening, that they had just fought, and that he had shot him dead. Mr. Philpot had been with witness several times that morning; he was then in good health. 66 without taking off his coat. The pistols were By the Court :-The occurrence happened between 1 and 2 o'clock. Witness was, he believes, not more than fourteen yards from the parties. By the Court:-Witness inquired who the He went into the enclosure with Philpot and seconds were, when Captain Rudkin said, Mr. Morice. Strachan "; and, after some hesitation, added "Captain Morice." Thinks Captain R. told him that Mr. Strachan was his (Capt. R.'s) second, but he is not very certain. Witness had seen Mr. Philpot several times that morning upon points of duty; there was nothing peculiar in his manner. CAVENDISH WILLOCK :-Knows all the prisoners. Knew Ensign John Philpot. Knows of his death. Knows how and when he came by his death. He was killed in a duel by Captain Rudkin. On the last Thursday in March witness was in an enclosure at the back of West's farm, within a mile from the town, and saw there Captain Rudkin, Mr. Philpot, Dr. Strachan, and Capt Morice. The ground was measured out by Captain Morice and Dr. Strachan. The distance was 15 paces. At that time Captain R. was standing upwards of 100 yards from the others. Philpot was standing close to the seconds, and was the first who took his station, having previously taken off his coat. Captain Rudkin then took his station upon being beckoned to by the others, From the means which he had of knowing the parties, could have no doubt that Capt. Morice, Capt. Rudkin, and Dr. Strachan were the persons who were on the ground. EDWARD KIELLEY-Is a surgeon. Knew Ensign John Philpot, was sent for by the Coroner, during the inquest, to inspect the body. Found a wound between the 5th and 6th ribs, on the right side, through the membrane and lining of the chest. It was a pistol-ball wound. It had penetrated the third lobe of the right lung. Found the pistol-ball in the body and extracted it. Has no doubt that that wound was the cause of the death of the deceased. (This witness was about to give an anatomical description of the appearance of the body upon opening it, but the Court thought this unnecessary, and therefore dispensed with it.) Cross-examined :-The ball entered between the 5th and 6th ribs; and from the situation in which it entered, the arm of the deceased must have been extended, as if in the act of firing when he received the wound. This was the case for the prosecution. MR. DAWE, for the defence, addressed the Court, and read the following appeals from the respective prisoners. 66 66 CAPTAIN RUDKIN'S ADDRESS. My Lords, and Gentlemen of the Jury, Labouring under feelings of the deepest regret, for the melancholy circumstance which has placed me and my fellow-prisoners in the unhappy situation in which we now stand before you, and charged as we are by the indictment, as principal and accessories in a crime at the bare mention of which human nature shudders, I have thought it prudent to commit to paper the few observations I have to address to you, lest, in the agitation I must naturally feel on so awful an occasion, I should omit anything which might be material to our defence. "The fatal quarrel, gentlemen, arose at a card-party at the quarters of a brother-officer, and the deceased addressed me in language he was in a state of great mental irritation, and which I will not repeat. I saw, however, that therefore left the room to prevent his further followed me out of the door and kicked me. committing himself; when, gentlemen, he Yes, gentlemen, I blush to acknowledge that I suffered the vile indignity; aye, and in the I will call to prove the fact. presence of a gentleman, and that gentleman "Of all the personal insults one man can give another, a kick is, gentlemen, the most galling and degrading. A blow is certainly a very gross "You have as yet only heard the mere naked provocation, but the man who strikes you, treats facts immediately attending the fatal rencounter in the scale of the creation; but, gentlemen, in you as if you were upon a level with himself in which I have unhappily, though uninten- a kick, contempt is coupled with violence; it tionally, deprived a fellow-being of existence; sinks you in your estimation, as it were, below but I trust, gentlemen, that when the circum- humanity; it is an act which a man of correct stances which led to it have been given in evidence, and humane feeling would scarcely commit you will be satisfied that, as a British Officer, towards a dog he regarded; it leaves a stain upon I was bound to seek that satisfaction which, the character of the injured party, especially according to the laws of honour and the estab- in military life, which verbal apologies never can lished rules and customs amongst military men, efface; and, gentlemen, had I not redeeemed could alone atone for the gross insults and provocation I received-or, that I must otherwise my character by pursuing the course I did for ever have forfeited all claim to that character (however much the event of it is to be deplored), which I had acquired by years spent in the and held in contempt by my men. I should have been scouted by my brother-officers arduous service of that country in whose cause it have been for me to quit my present regiment; Vain would I have so often fought and bled. the disgrace would have stuck to me through the army, would have driven me from it, and have followed me even into the retirement of private life. What would it have availed me that I had served, with a reputation for courage unsullied and undoubted, in all those campaigns which have raised the British Army to the highest pitch of military glory, had I submitted to this degrading indignity without resenting it as an officer and a gentleman. I should, notwithstanding, for ever have been branded as a poltroon and a coward. "Gentlemen, we stand indicted for wilful Murder. To constitute this crime, to use the language of a learned Judge, the fact must be attended by such circumstances as are the ordinary symptoms of a wicked, depraved, and malignant spirit; a heart regardless of social duty, and deliberately bent upon mischief.' "It is not for me, nor for my fellow-prisoners, to speak of our own characters. What they are, gentlemen, you will hear from the witnesses; and I trust that when you have heard them "By some means, gentlemen, it has acquired publicity that the insults offered me by the deceased, on the night previous to the fatal meeting, were not the first that I received from him it is, indeed, but too true. "For his previous conduct he had apologized; and I most solemnly declare, standing, as I now do, at the bar of this tribunal, through whose decision I might, perhaps, in a few short hours appear before the more high and awful tribunal of my Creator, that I had, with all that candour and sincerity which are the characteristics of my countrymen, with all my heart and soul forgiven him, and that I entertained the same friendly disposition towards him which I had felt from our first acquaintance. And, gentlemen, it has been laid down, by the highest legal authorities, that if there be an old quarrel between A and B, and they are reconciled again, and then upon a new falling out A kills B, this is not murder, for it is not to be presumed that the parties fought upon the old grudge, unless it appears from the whole circumstances of the fact.' "Gentlemen, I had no alternative. If I had reported his conduct to the commanding officer, his ruin would have been certain-but that would not have repaired my injured honour. An officer in the army, however high his rank, is bound to resent such an insult as I received in the manner I did; nor can he ever refuse a challenge from an inferior officer. It is not long since the Marquis of Londonderry, Colonel of the 10th Hussars, went out with Mr. Battier, a Cornet in his regiment. "I requested Dr. Strachan, who was the friend of both parties, to wait upon him. He accepted my challenge. We went, gentlemen, to the fatal field, but with widely different feelings, and for widely different purposes-I, gentlemen, to repair my injured honour, and he, to seek my life. Had that, gentlemen, not been his fixed determination, he might, without even the shadow of an imputation on his courage, or indeed even without submitting to an apology, have averted his untimely fate. He might have fired in the air, and then the matter must have ended. was by a mutual friend advised to do so, and He curred in this or the neighbouring colonies, with the exception of that of Mr. Uniacke, who, with his second, was tried at Halifax for the murder of Mr. Bowie, as is, most probably, within the recollection of you all. in full confidence that he would have followed that advice, I did, as it will be proved in evidence, fire the first shot in the most careless manner, purposely to avoid injuring him; but when I found that, instead of doing so, he did deliberately fire at me that he afterwards resisted all the earnest | "In that case the parties were not military men, entreaties and endeavours of our seconds, who neither was the provocation of such a nature were alike the friends of both, to effect an accom- but that it might have been decided by a legal modation-when I saw him change his position, tribunal, without any imputation upon the and fix his eye upon me as if to make sure of his courage of either party. Mr. Uniacke, however, intended victim, was compelled, in defence of was a man possessing high spirit and honourable my own life, to fire the second time. But, gentle- feeling, and preferred appealing to the laws of men, you will be satisfied from the evidence that honour instead of those of his country. He called I fired in the most fair and honourable manner. Mr. Bowie out; they fought, and at the second My pistol was not raised till the word was given, fire the latter fell. Mr. Uniacke and his second, and we fired instantaneously. The distance was Mr. McSwiney, were, as I before stated, indicted unusually great. The pistols I had never seen for wilful murder, but as it appeared from the before; they were not adapted for duelling, but whole of the evidence that the unfortunate transof the commonest description-such as action had been fairly and honourably conducted, must convince even the most inexperienced in the jury (after an impressive charge from the such matters that the fatal result was the effect of Judge, in which he recapitulated the evidence, laid chance and not of superior skill or deliberate aim. down the law on the subject, and pointed out the general conduct of jurors on such occasions) returned a verdict of Not guilty. were Gentlemen, as a further proof that the deceased went out with a fixed determination not to quit the ground till one of us had fallen-a short time previous to leaving his quarters he took off a flannel waistcoat and flannel shirt (which were articles of dress he always wore), that in case my fire took effect nothing might be carried in with the ball likely to irritate or increase the inflammation of the wound. On the ground he threw off his coat, keeping nothing on but trousers and a linen shirt. "It is not, gentlemen, in the power of language to convey to you my feelings of regret for the fatal result; but even should your verdict consign me to the scaffold, my conscience would, in my last moments, acquit me of any vindictive feeling towards the ill-fated man who fell by my hand. But, gentlemen, the more I reflect on the melancholy event, the more I am convinced that I could not possibly have acted otherwise than I have done. My God! Gentlemen, could I have lived a disgrace to that honourable profession to which my life has been devoted-to my family and to my country? "I must here, on behalf of the gentlemen who are implicated with me in this unhappy business, beg most solemnly to declare that their conduct throughout was honourable in the extreme: they were alike on friendly terms with us both, and they evinced the greatest anxiety, before going to the field, and when there, before we fired, and after the first shot, to bring the matter to an amicable conclusion. Most gladly, gentlemen, would I have complied with any terms they proposed, confident that the honour of both parties could not be placed in safer hands. Gentlemen, I have been nearly 22 years a soldier, and have served my country in all the campaigns in the Peninsula, at Walcheren, and in America. I have been frequently wounded, and I have been a prisoner of war. During this long period, you must naturally suppose, I have met with brother-officers of all tempers and dispositions, and under circumstances calculated to prove them both; but, gentlemen, till this unfortunate business, I do most solemnly assure you that I never before was party to a similar affair. "This is, gentlemen, I am informed, the first case of this unhappy description which has oc "In the United Kingdom, where matters of this unhappy description are of more frequent occurrence, they are, I might almost say, sanctioned by custom, and whatever might be the strict letter of the law, in some degree even by the Judges themselves-as in the case of Mr. Alcock and his second, who were in the year 1808 indicted at the Wexford Assizes for the wilful murder of John Colclough, Esq., in a duel, which arose from a quarrel at a contested election. They were honourably acquitted by the jury; and Baron Smith, before whom the cause was tried, in discharging the prisoners, expressed his satisfaction at the verdict. "I will only detain you, gentlemen, to mention one case more, of which you, no doubt, all have heard-that of Col. Montgomery and Capt. Macnamara. A quarrel took place between those gentlemen in Hyde Park, in consequence of their dogs fighting. A duel ensued, and Col. Montgomery fell. Capt. Macnamara stood his trial at the Old Bailey, in 1803, for wilful murder, and was acquitted by the jury; and I cannot close my address to you in words more manly and eloquent than those in which that gentleman concluded his on that occasion. He, gentlemen, was a captain in the navy, as I am in the army; the same high sense of honour, the same tenacious regard for character, are alike common to the officers in both services; but I will give you his own words : "Gentlemen (said he), I am a captain of the British Navy-my character you can only hear from others; but to maintain any character in that station I must be respected. When called upon to lead others into honourable-dangers, I must not be supposed to be a man who had sought safety by submitting to what custom has taught others to consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming to urge anything against the laws of God, or of this land. I know that, in the eye of religion and reason, obedience to the law, though against the general feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought to be the rule of action; but, in putting a construction upon my motives so as to ascertain the quality of my actions, you will make allowances for my situation. It is impossible to define in terms the proper feelings of a gentleman; but LEGAY OF SOUTHAMPTON AND LONDON. (See ante, p. 341, 362). to which the deforciants were Katherine Legay, widow, Thomas Hollis and Hannah his wife, John Solly and Martha his wife, and Elizabeth Legay, spinster (Sussex Record Society). The widow died in 1718, aged 85 (Dallaway), having made a will on October 5, 1716, proved June 5, 1718 (P.C.C., 120 Tenison), to the following effect:: £50. To Mr. John Frencham of Sandwich To Mr. John Eaton of West Stoke £50. To two students in divinity to be nominated by Mr. Clarke of Crutched Friars £50 each. To Mrs. Mary Greene, now of Childwall, and Mr. Isaac Greene her son, £100 between them or to the survivor. To servant Richard Sims £20. All manors in Lancashire and Sussex to daughter Hannah Hollis and grandson Richard Solly, who Witnesses: are to be executors and take any residue. Lans. Linthorne, Mary Datchon, Thomas Barron. A codicil dated February 22, 1717/8, states that having sold her manors in Lancashire to Mr. Isaac Greene, the above-named executors are to complete the transaction in case manor of West Stoke is confirmed to them. testatrix should die before completing it. Witnesses: Mary Datchon, Lans. Sims, Thomas Barron. IV. ISAAC, the second son of Peter, was born about 1625, his age being given as 65 at his death in 1690 (Dallaway). As already shown, he was a London merchant, trading to Barbados and New England also, and lord of the manors of Childwall, &c., in, Lancashire, succeeding to West Stoke on his father's death. He married Katherine, one of the daughters of Edward Williams, of a Dorset family. Her sister Honor married Richard Lardner of Kingston, in Portsea, merchant (will P.C.C., 64 Duke), and so Frencham and Eaton were probably Nonbecame grandmother of the celebrated conformist ministers, but very little has been Nonconformist scholar Nathaniel Lardner done for the history of the Nonconformist (1684-1768). Isaac and Katherine had congregations outside London and Lan and cashire; The issue-Samuel, Hannah, Elizabeth a John Eaton was sometime Martha. Of these Hannah married Thomas minister at Stoke Newington. "Mr. Clarke Hollis; Elizabeth seems to have died un- of Crutched Friars" was Samuel Clarke, married, and received in 1690 a legacy of minister of the Independent Chapel in £100 under the will of Robert Thorner of Miles Lane, a chapel which is still comBaddesley, Hants (Waters, Geneal. Glean-memorated by the name of Meeting House ings,' i. 477), who may be the Thorner Yard in that lane; he died in 1726, and named in the deed cited above; and Martha according to his will was of the parish of St. married John Solly (not Nicholas Solly, Olave's, Hart Street, in which parish is as in V.C.H., Lancashire) of Sandwich Crutched Friars (P.C.C., 94 Plymouth). and Ash. Elizabeth and Martha died. Soon after Mrs. Legay's death, by lease between 1700 and 1716. By his will, dated December 10, 1689, and proved June 8, 1691 (P.C.C., 99 Vere), Isaac Legay of West Stoke bequeathed to his wife Katherine and only son Samuel all manors, lands, &c., in Childwall, Much Woulton and Little Woulton, in Lancashire, and West Stoke, near Chichester; to be disposed of, if necessary, to pay debts, &c. To his daughters Elizabeth and Martha (both unmarried and under age) £500 each, with £500 more after the wife's death. To servant Elizabeth Brand £5. The executors were the wife and son, to have £20 each. Witnesses: Samuel Marner, John Forder, William Harwood. V. Samuel Legay, the son, died in Lancashire in 1700, apparently unmarried and without issue. Soon after his death, viz., at Michaelmas, 1700, a fine was levied on the seven-eighths of the manor of West the and release of July 17/18, 1718, between |