This exhibition, however, gave great offence to the colliers; and after the remains of the unhappy wretch had been exposed for several weeks, they were, on Saturday the 8th of September, suddenly missed, having been removed during the previous night. The deceased had been a collier; and little doubt was entertained that his late companions and fellow-workmen had done this service to his memory: all subsequent efforts to discover the place of concealment of his body proved unavailing. But although undoubtedly its unauthorised removal was a serious breach of the law, there were few to be found who looked upon it as matter for regret, or who did not view the circumstance as a convincing proof of the impolicy of reviving a practice so barbarous as the exposure of the bodies of executed criminals.

The law by which this exposure was authorised was enacted by the statute 2 and 3 W. 4, c. 75, s. 16. That act provides, “Whereas an act was passed in the 9th year of the reign of his late majesty (9 Geo. 4, c. 31), for consolidating and amending the statutes in England relating to offences against the person, by which latter act it is enacted, that the body of every person convicted of murder shall, after execution, either be dissected or hung in chains, as to the court who tried the offender shall seem meet, and that the sentence to be pronounced by the court shall express that the body of the offender shall be dissected or hung in chains, whichsoever of the two the court shall order; Be it enacted, that so much of the said last recited act as authorises the court, if it shall see fit, to direct that the body of a person convicted shall, after execution, be dissected, be and the same is hereby repealed; and that, in every case of the conviction of any person for murder, the court before which such prisoner shall have been tried shall direct such prisoner either to be hung in chains or to be buried within the precincts of the prison in which such prisoner shall have been confined after conviction, as to such court shall seem meet; and that the sentence to be pronounced by the court shall express, that the body of such prisoner shall be hung in chains, or buried within the precincts of the prison, whichsoever of the two the court shall order.”

The legislature appears to have duly estimated the extent of the disgust created by the two exhibitions which have been referred to of the remains of Cook and Jobling; and, by the 4 and 5 W. 4, c. 26, s. 1, the provisions of the statute last mentioned are repealed, so far as they relate to the hanging of criminals in chains. That act enacts (after reciting the provisions of the statutes of 9 Geo. 4, and 2 and 3 W. 4), “That so much of the said recited act, made and passed in the ninth year of the reign of Geo. 4, as authorised the court to direct that the body of a prisoner convicted of murder should, after execution, be hung in chains, and also so much of the said recited act, made and passed in the second and third year of the reign of W. 4 as provided, that in every case of the conviction of any prisoner for murder, the court should direct such prisoner to be hung in chains, should be and the same is hereby repealed.”

DENNIS COLLINS.
CONVICTED OF HIGH TREASON, IN THROWING A STONE AT KING WILLIAM IV.

THIS extraordinary attack on the person of his majesty took place at Ascot Heath races, for many years the resort of the royal family. The assault, for in common parlance it amounted to no more, appears to have originated in nothing more than an insane desire on the part of the person who was guilty of it to vent his anger on the king for a supposed injury, inflicted on him in the forfeiture of a pension which had been granted to him for past services in the navy.

It was on Thursday, the 19th of June 1832, that this attack was made. His majesty, accompanied by his consort, had just reached the grand stand on the race-course, and had advanced to the front window to acknowledge the respectful greetings of his people, when two stones, thrown in quick succession after each other, were seen to fly in the direction of the window at which the royal party was stationed. The first stone rebounded from the building to the ground below, but the second entered the open window and struck his majesty a somewhat severe blow on the front of the head. An instant alarm was raised, and a thousand arms were extended to seize the individual by whom the attack was made, whose act was attributed to an intention far more dangerous than it eventually appeared the unfortunate man had had. His majesty was much agitated, and retired to the inner part of the room, apparently in alarm lest any further violence should be attempted, and was observed to express considerable fear lest her majesty, or any of the females of the suite, might receive injury; but in a few moments he regained his self-possession, and presented himself at the window to assure the public of his safety. His majesty had received a slight injury only, owing to the stone having fallen upon his hat; and the royal party appeared perfectly re-assured long before the alarm created in the minds of those present had subsided, and they had become convinced that the attack was not the subject of some deep laid and villanous plot.

The wretched author of the mischief, as we have already stated, had been immediately secured, and he was now carried before Sir F. A. Roe, the chief magistrate of Westminster, who was always in attendance upon his majesty upon such occasions, and who held a species of court in a room under the Grand Stand. Gardiner, the Bow-street officer, had the prisoner in charge, and conducted him to the presence of the magistrate. In a few moments the room where the examination was held was crowded with persons in attendance on his majesty, or attached to the royal suite, who were anxious to learn the particulars of this extraordinary act, as well as to ascertain the station and occupation of the assailant of the king.

The prisoner was found to be old and decrepit, with a wooden leg, and wearing the tattered garb of a sailor. He gave his name Dennis Collins, and surveyed the assembled throng with a calm composure, while, however, there appeared to be considerable incoherence in the expressions which he occasionally let fall, produced apparently indeed by the confusion in which he was involved, consequential upon the somewhat rough treatment which he had received from the mob before he had reached the custody of the police-officers. The circumstances which have been already detailed were now proved in evidence; and witnesses were examined who had seen the prisoner on the race-course during the morning, and had remarked his demeanour. He appeared to be occupied in begging, but an angry resentment seemed to be exciting his mind. This had evidently reached its height at the moment of his attack upon his majesty; but his premeditation appeared to be exhibited beyond a doubt by his possession of the missiles which he threw, which must have been brought from a somewhat distant part of the ground.

The miserable old man was considerably below the middle height, and the general aspect which he presented was the reverse of pleasing, on account of the want of cleanliness of his person. His countenance was by no means ill-favoured, and a bright sparkling eye appeared to lend to it an expression of considerable intelligence. He made no statement before the magistrates, and was eventually committed to Reading jail for re-examination on the following Wednesday.