in the Court of King's Bench, before the Chief Justice and two other
judges,[74] complaining that Thurtell had not been allowed to see his
counsel. And there were other points at issue. Thurtell's counsel moved
for a criminal injunction against the proprietor of the Surrey Theatre
in that a performance had been held there, and was being held, which
assumed Thurtell's guilt, the identical horse and gig being exhibited in
which Weare was supposed to have ridden to the scene of his death.
Finally this was arranged, and a _mandamus_ was granted 'commanding the
admission of legal advisers to the prisoner.' At last the trial came on
at Hertford before Mr. Justice Park. It lasted two days, although the
judge wished to go on all night in order to finish in one. But the
protest of Thurtell, supported by the jury, led to an adjournment.
Probert had been set free and appeared as a witness. The jury gave a
verdict of guilty, and Thurtell and Hunt were sentenced to be hanged,
but Hunt escaped with transportation. Thurtell made his own speech for
the defence, which had a great effect upon the jury, until the judge
swept most of its sophistries away. It was, however, a very able
performance. Thurtell's line of defence was to declare that Hunt and
Probert were the murderers, and that he was a victim of their perjuries.
If hanged, he would be hanged on circumstantial evidence only, and he
gave, with great elaboration, the details of a number of cases where men
had been wrongfully hanged upon circumstantial evidence. His lawyers had
apparently provided him with books containing these examples from the
past, and his month in prison was devoted to this defence, which showed
great ability. The trial took place on 6th January 1824, and Thurtell
was hanged on the 9th, in front of Hertford Gaol: his body was given to
the Anatomical Museum in London. A contemporary report says that
Thurtell, on the scaffold,

fixed his eyes on a young gentleman in the crowd, whom he had
frequently seen as a spectator at the commencement of the
proceedings against him. Seeing that the individual was
affected by the circumstances, he removed them to another
quarter, and in so doing recognised an individual well known in
the sporting circles, to whom he made a slight bow.

The reader of _Lavengro_ might speculate whether that 'young gentleman'
was Borrow, but Borrow was in Norwich in January 1824, his father dying
in the following m