With most miraculous organ:”
and how truly is this observation of the most wonderful of poets exemplified by nearly every page of these records of crime!
WILLIAM ANDREW HORNE, ESQ.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
THE short notice which we give of this man exhibits a human being reduced far below the level of a beast.
The subject of the memoir was the eldest son of a gentleman of fortune in Nottinghamshire, who in vain strove to instil into the mind of his son any of those principles of rectitude, without which man cannot be considered to be humanised. The sports of the field, and all the dissipation which a country squire could at that time obtain, formed the amusements of this reckless youth. His passion for women was unbounded; but his love of gold surpassed all the other bad qualities which so peculiarly distinguished him. It was while his father yet lived that he committed that crime for which his life was eventually forfeited; and it appears to have occurred in the following manner:—
His passion for women led him to commit the most disgusting excesses; and at length so far had he carried his crimes, that an incestuous connexion took place between him and his sister, the result of which was the birth of a boy in the month of February 1724; Horne told his brother Charles of the circumstance three days afterwards, and at ten o’clock at night said that he must take a ride with him. He then put the new-born infant in a bag; and, mounting their horses, they rode to Annesley, in Nottinghamshire, at the distance of five miles, carrying the child alternately. On their arrival near the village, William dismounted and inquired if the child was living; and being answered in the affirmative, he took it and told his brother to wait till he came back. On his return, Charles demanded to know how he had disposed of the infant; to which he said that he had placed it behind a hay-stack, and covered it with hay.
They then returned home; and it was afterwards learned that the child died in the course of the night from exposure to the cold; but in a short time afterwards a quarrel arising between the brothers, the whole transaction was communicated by Charles to his father. The latter enjoined him to the strictest secrecy; and this injunction was obeyed up to the time of the old man’s death, which occurred in the year 1747, in the 102nd year of his age. The real estate of the family, being entailed, then descended to the eldest son; but the father had previously made over his personal property by deed of gift to his son Charles. No sooner had the new squire assumed the government of the estate than he behaved with the utmost severity towards his brother as well as his tenants; and at length the former, rendered miserable by his participation in the horrid act, having some business to transact with Mr. Cooke, an attorney at Derby, told him of the long-concealed affair, and asked his advice. The lawyer told him to go to a justice of the peace and make a full discovery of the whole transaction; and he accordingly went to a magistrate, and acquainted him with what had happened. He hesitated to take cognizance of the matter, however, saying that it might hang half the family; and as it had passed so many years ago, advised that it might remain a secret.
No further notice of the circumstance was then taken until the year 1754, when Charles being suddenly seized with a severe fit of illness, called in a Mr. White of Ripley, to whom, in anticipation of his death, he disclosed all that had occurred. Mr. White declined to interfere; but his patient almost immediately recovered, declaring that “he had been better ever since the weight of the transaction had been taken off his mind by his making the disclosure.”
The discovery, however, soon became a matter of notoriety; and William Horne having a quarrel with a publican named Roe, the latter called him “an incestuous old dog.” A suit in the Ecclesiastical Court at Lichfield was the consequence; and Roe being unsuccessful, was ordered to pay all the costs. This circumstance inflamed him with revenge; and having made such inquiries as persuaded him of the truth of the report which he had heard, he procured a warrant to be issued for the apprehension of his late opponent. A constable of Annesley and he in consequence proceeded to the house of the squire at about eight o’clock in the evening, and after having experienced considerable difficulty, succeeded in obtaining admittance. A strict search was then commenced; but it was not until a long time had elapsed that they discovered the object of their inquiry concealed in a large box, which had been described as containing clean linen. He was immediately carried before two justices, who committed him to take his trial at the following assizes.
On the 10th of August 1759, he was brought to trial before Lord Chief Baron Parker; and after a hearing of about nine hours, the jury found him guilty, and sentence of death passed of course.
Horne being convicted on a Saturday, was sentenced to die on the Monday following; but a number of gentlemen waited on the judge, intimating that he had been so long hardened in iniquity, that a farther time would be necessary to prepare him for his awful change, and a respite of a month was in consequence granted.
When this time was nearly expired, he received a reprieve during his majesty’s pleasure; so that he began to entertain hopes of obtaining a free pardon: and he employed a considerable part of his time in writing to his friends to make interest to secure this object. He, however, confessed the justice of his conviction, but seemed little affected by the enormity of his crime, and frequently said, “it was d—d hard to suffer on the evidence of a brother for a crime committed so many years before.”
He gave the following account of the transaction:—He said he had no design of destroying the infant, but put it in a bag lined with wool, and made a hole in the bag that it might not be stifled. He added, that the child was handsomely dressed, and he had intended to have left it at the door of Mr. Chaworth, of Annesley; but the dogs barking, and there being a light in the house, he desisted from his first intention, in the fear of a discovery. After some hesitation, he said, he resolved to place it under a warm hay-stack, in the hope that, when the servants came to fodder the cattle in the morning, it would be found.
He acknowledged to a clergyman who assisted him in his devotions that he forgave all his enemies, even his brother Charles; but made the following strange addition to his speech: “that if, at the day of judgment, God Almighty should ask him how his brother behaved, he would not give him a good character.”
The hopes of a pardon which he had entertained soon proved unfounded; and an order arrived for his execution on the 11th December 1759, on which day he completed his 74th year, and terminated his life on a scaffold erected at Nottingham.
LAURENCE, EARL FERRERS.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
LAURENCE, EARL FERRERS, was a man of singular and most unhappy disposition. Descended of an ancient and noble family, he was doomed to expiate a crime, of which he had been guilty, at Tyburn.
It would appear that the royal blood of the Plantagenets flowed in his veins, and the earl gained his title in the following manner:—The second baronet of the family, Sir Henry Shirley, married a daughter of the celebrated Earl of Essex, who was beheaded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and his son, Sir Robert Shirley, died in the Tower, where he was confined during the Protectorate, for his attachment to the cause of the Stuarts. Upon the Restoration, the second son of Sir Robert succeeded to the title and estates; and Charles, anxious to cement the bonds which attached his friends to him, summoned him to the Upper House of Parliament by the title of Lord Ferrers of Chartley, as the descendant of one of the co-heiresses of the Earl of Essex; the title, which had existed since the reign of Edward III., having been in abeyance since the death of that unfortunate nobleman. In the year 1711, Robert, Lord Ferrers, was created by Queen Anne, Viscount Tamworth and Earl Ferrers; and it appears that although the estates of the family were very great, they were vastly diminished by the provisions which the Earl thought proper to make for his numerous progeny, consisting of fifteen sons and twelve daughters, born to him by his two wives.