were few vacant seats that morning in the Divinity School.  Space will not permit us to accompany the future Lord Chancellor through his “most affecting oration,” which presents the case for the Crown with moderation and fairness, and concludes with a tribute to the “indefatigable diligence” of the Earl of Macclesfield and Lord Cadogan “in inquiring into this hidden work of darkness.”  He was followed by Serjeant Hayward, who, employing a more rhetorical and florid style, was probably better appreciated by the audience, but added little to the jury’s knowledge of the facts.  In an “improving” passage he besought “the young gentlemen of this University,” who seem to have been well represented, to guard against the first insidious approaches of vice.  “See here,” said he, “the dreadful consequences of disobedience to a parent.”

We need not examine in detail the evidence led for the prosecution; from the foregoing narrative the reader already knows its main outlines and may study it at large in the following report.  The Crown case opened with the medical witnesses, Drs. Addington and Lewis, and Mr. Norton, who clearly established the fact that arsenic was the cause of Mr. Blandy’s death, that arsenic was present in the remains of his gruel, and that arsenic was the powder which the prisoner had attempted to destroy.  The appearance of Mrs. Mounteney in the witness-box occasioned the only display of feeling exhibited by the accused throughout the whole trial.  This lady was her godmother, and as she left the Court after giving her evidence, she clasped her god-child by the hand, exclaiming “God bless you!” For the moment Mary’s brilliant black eyes filled with tears, but after drinking a glass of wine and water, she resumed her air of stoical indifference.

Susan Gunnell, “wore down to a Skelliton” by the effects of her curiosity, but sufficiently recovered to come into Court, was the principal witness for the prosecution.  In addition to the material facts which we have before narrated, Susan deposed that the prisoner often spoke of her father as “an old villain,” and wished for his death, and had complained that she was “very awkward,” for, if he were dead, “she would go to Scotland and live with Lady Cranstoun.”  Susan gave her evidence with perfect fairness, and showed no animus against her former mistress.  Equal in importance was the testimony of Betty Binfield, which, perhaps, is more open to Miss Blandy’s objection as being “inspired with vindictive sentiments.”  When communicating to the maids Mrs. Morgan’s prophecy regarding the duration of their master’s life, the prisoner, said witness, expressed herself glad, “for that then she would soon be released from all her fatigues, and be happy.”  She was wont to curse her father, calling him “rascal and villain,” and on one occasion had remarked, “Who would grudge to send an old father to hell for L10,000?” “Exactly them words,” added the scrupulous cook, though in this instance