the remains of Mary Ashford, a young woman
chaste as she was beautiful, who, in the
twentieth year of her age, having incautiously
repaired to a scene of amusement, without
proper protection, was brutally violated and
murdered on the 27th of May, 1817, in the
parish of Aston.

Lovely and chaste as is the primrose pale,
Rifled of virgin sweetness by the gale,
Mary! The wretch, who thee remorseless slew,
Will surely God's avenging wrath pursue.
For, though the deed of blood be veiled in night,
'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?'
Fair blighted flower! The muse, that weeps thy doom,
Rears o'er thy sleeping dust this warning tomb!"

To answer the last-named work there was
published "A Reply to the Remarks of the
Rev. Luke Booker, LL.D., in a pamphlet
entitled 'A Moral Review of the Conduct and
Case of Mary Ashford, &c.'  By a Friend to
Justice."

There also appeared, "Observations upon
the case of Abraham Thornton, &c.; showing
the danger of pressing presumptive evidence
too far, together with the only true and
authentic account yet published of the
evidence given at the trial, the examination of the
prisoner, &c. And a correct plan of the locus
in quo. By Edward Holroyd, of Gray's Inn."

There were also two very wild dramas on the
subject: one of them entitled "The Murdered
Maid; or, The Clock Struck Four! A drama
in three acts." The other, "The Mysterious
Murder; or, What's the Clock? A
melodrama in three acts. Founded on a tale too
true."

Funds were procured, and a clever local
solicitor, raking up an old unrepealed statute,
induced the brother of Mary Ashford, as her heir,
to take proceedings for an "appeal of murder"
against Abraham Thornton, who was arrested
by the sheriff of Warwick on the 1st of October.
On the 16th of November term, William
Ashford appeared in the Court of King's Bench, at
Westminster, as appellant, and Abraham Thornton
was brought up on a writ of habeas corpus
as appeller. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Reader
defended Thornton. Lord Ellenborough and the
other judges took their seats at eleven.
Ashford's counsel were Messrs. Clarke, Gurney,
and Chitty. Ashford was a short slight-made
young man of twenty, with sandy hair and
blue eyes; Thornton, a short, very fat, robust
man, with full cheeks, fresh complexion, and a
confident smile on his by no means forbidding
countenance. The court was densely crowded,
and the place almost taken by storm. Lord
Yarmouth and Lord Montford were conspicuous
among the spectators.

There was a vague feeling that the old trial
by ordeal was to be revived—single combat in
the lists—a tournament in full plate armour,
with trumpets blowing, and the law-judges standing
by to cheer on the two combatants; the
drowsiest and most briefless old lingerer on the
back benches at the Westminster court kindled
with curiosity, and began to pore over Bracton
and Spelman for the last precedent of such an
extraordinary way of discovering the innocence
or guilt of a prisoner who had already stood his
trial.

Mr. Le Blanc concluded the reading of the
record by saying, "Are you guilty or not
guilty of the said felony and murder whereof
you stand so appealed?" Mr. Reader now put
into the prisoner's hand a slip of paper, from
which he read, "Not guilty; and I am ready
to defend the same with my body." Mr. Reader
had likewise handed a pair of large gauntlets or
gloves to the prisoner, one of which he put on,
and the other, in pursuance of the old form, he
threw down for the appellant to take up. The
glove was not taken up. Ashford's counsel
disputed the right of Thornton to "wager of
battle," and were ready to fight it out with
tongues and not spears.

Mr. Le Blanc: Your plea is, that you are not
guilty, and that you are ready to defend that
plea with your body?

The prisoner: It is.

The appellant then stood up in front of Mr.
Clarke.

Lord Ellenborough: What have you got to
say, Mr. Clarke?

Mr. Clarke: I did not expect, my lord, at
this time of day, that this sort of demand would
have been made. I must confess that I am
surprised that the charge against the prisoner
should be put to issue in this way. The trial
by battle is an obsolete practice, which has long
since been out of use, and it would appear to
me extraordinary indeed, if the person who has
murdered the sister should, as the law exists in
these enlightened times, be allowed to prove his
innocence by murdering the brother also, or, at
least, by an attempt to do so.

Lord Ellenborough: It is the law of England,
Mr. Clarke; we must not call it murder.

Mr. Clarke: I may have used too strong
an expression, my lord, in saying murdering
the brother; but, at all events, it is no less
than killing. I apprehend, however, that the
course to be taken is in a great measure
discretionary; and it will be for the court to determine,
under all the circumstances, whether they
will permit a battle to be waged in this case or
not.

Mr. Clarke then put in a counter-plea that
the applicant was incompetent, from youth and
want of bodily strength, to fairly meet the
appellee in battle, and trusted the court would
waive the right of battle, and direct a new trial
by jury.

On November 22nd the case again came on,
and Ashford counter-pleaded that there were
circumstances which induced the most violent
presumption of Thornton's guilt, and that in
such cases the law was that he could not be
permitted to wage battle, but must be tried by his
country. The proceedings were then postponed
till the next term. This interim lawyers all
over England devoted to antiquarian researches