The National Register. — London, England, 1821-11-25 00:00:00

. - am fond of riding, shooting, and walking, and you, my dear, would not be disposed to ramble through ditches, hedges, and over gates. 141101/ you anti I join in the duet, ' Togetlit r let its range the fields, let me et:eminent' hloorfields or spafields." The letters, said Mr. Pearson, are all in the same stile of familiarity. Another passage was— " Now, I think of it, I left my silk umbrella in the back parlour. There is no reason why you should use it, as yon have one of your own." The last letter wns dated Nov. 17, 1520:.-- " I trust this letter will find you better. lam not sur prised your journey to has had ill effects; besides, your situation made it more than likely. Receive my best wishes for your welfare." The gentleman returned to Brompton, and resided with her till October. No change had then been observed in his conduct. She expected his return one morning, And found lie did not come that day or the next. At last the gentleman's elder brother came, and said his brother had told him the time 1111 l st come when their intercourse must Cease, and the sooner it happened the better. The gen tleman she had lived with had promised to settle an annuity of 1001. upon her in case of separation, but the brother gave her 1001. to pay off servants and break up the establishment. After she had paid the (Hits, she had little left. Site was taken ill; the goods of the person site lodged with were distrained for rent, and the little pro perty site had remaining was swept away. Unable to live iu England, she resolved to go to Dublin. Her friend, Mary Anne Evans, was the partner of her journey. When they came to Liverpool she was again taken ill, and site wrote a letter to the gentleman, stating her money was gone. Site received no answer; and on her way back to London resolved to call on him. On Thursday, the 9th of October. she remained at an inn where the coaches stopped, and there resolved to apply to her former pro tector. Mr. Pearson observed at this part of his state ment, diet lie was not afraid of the charge of immorality, if he asserted that this young woman had some claim to the compassion of the person with whom she had lived three years. She wrote a letter, and retie : , steil Miss Evans to carry it. Miss Evans met the gentleman to whom it was directed, and (dieted to deliver it. He said lie knew from whom it came, and refused to receive it. They both went next day to the house, and sent the letter by a little boy, whom they met on the toad. The letter was refused by the servant. Soon after the gentleman's valet came oat, and asked the boy if these were the women who sent the letter? He said yes, The valet then declared that his master did not know them, and, if they did not carry themselvt a off, he wont(' send fur a person who would make them. Mrs. Carey thonght it right to apply to the gentleman in person, and met him on horseback. She attempted to speak to him, but he rode past her. She waited till Isis return, then went to the door. The valet said his master did not know her, bill lie would send for person to take care of her. A constable then wade his appearance. He was a butcher in the town. lie said these women were his prisontas, and if they resisted lie had something for them, producing two pairs of handcuffs. The botcher took them away, and transferred them to a matt with a cart, who conveyed them to Baker's cottage, a place where paupers were coefined previous to exami nation before the magistrate. There wits only one bed in the house. which was occupied by Baker and his wife. They were left all night without the means of sleeping, and without refreshment. The next day a farmer of the name of Tuanchard became answerable for their appear. ance, and they were permitted to go to the inn. On their way there they met the valet, who asked what business they had at farge—they wet e his master's prise:luta. !le t %eel) nine min ten o'clock the same night they w er e sent again to the cottage of Raker, and next day w ere told that they must go before the magistrate. !seta cell three and four o'clock they were removed to his house by the constable, mid for the that time the magis trate made his appearanee. The first (petition WAS.—Are they both prisoners ? The constable MO41,11(1111 had been kept primate's, but only one was the prisoner. Mrs. Carry was taken apart fur examination, and asked if she hail not been begging? Site said, no. The magistrate then said, lie was informed of her connexion. lle had beets the gen tleman, who said he did omit know her —Hoe, said Mr. Pearsott, the matt who had crossed the Atlantic to seduce this young woman pretends he does not know her. She produced all his epistolary correspondence, and said, Yi/1i must be acquainted oith the hand-writing of your friend, hut if yuu are not, t..ke the Inters and ask him the ques tion. Tit^ magistrate took the letters, and said he should return soon. 'is he went ant he said something to the constable. %flit n he wa- gone the constable said, l will give you 1. if you will leave this count y, and nut trouble the gentleman any tuore. She reftssed. When the eta. gistrate returned lie said, Are yon content to take the 21.? Her answer was, No. lie replied, Vety well; I ellen°, liiiish the exit 11l ill ation now, fur dinner is ready—let her be brought to me to-morrow. She wits taken away to the cottage of Baker, and detained all night. They were conveyed in a cart next morning to the magistrate, who asked her whether she would be committed for trial or hard labour. They both said for trial. He told them it should be for left labeur, and if they did not !ahem they should be whipped. The commitment was made out, and they were taken to prison. This young woman, who haul lived three Yeats with this gentleman, was instilled by his valet in a slate of sickness, and rallied in a cart to the common. I louse of Correction. They a ere comimitt i al mt the I ath (Wee:ober, and on the ah of September the magistrate came and ordered their release. On that day the Crantl Jury were entering the prison, and it was not unreloonable to suppose, said Mr. Pearson, the Grand Jury would have ordered her dis charge. lie contended that the whole transaction was illegal on the part of the nuagieuate. Mr..lustieellcst.—Does your affidavit state that the magistrate wits dining with this gentleman at the time the examination was ilyntracil ? Air. Pearson.—The magistrate stated. that he hail an interview with this gentleman preceding the examination, and that the golden= said lie did not know her. Judge Bayley.—The difficulty we have is in seeing whether there is A printafifeic case Against this gtntleman. Mr. Pearson.—Re says, when the letter is handed to hint by Miss Kraft., •• Oh! 1 ki.ow who it comes aunt, nun will not revive it." Mr: FuNtice Ttayley.—That is enough : you have slime cr,ough to teach the valet and et listable, hut you fail with respect to the filth person, who received dant at the cottage: Take yuur rule against four. _ Mr. l'earoon accordingly tool; his rule to slifiV CIUK why a , thoinal inhumation should out be filed again the four persons beli.re described. .fudge Wyk); askvil it I. not:te Lad been given to the ainigi3. trau: '17 9 THE NATIONAL. REGISTER Mr. l'eamon said no; but he had notice, because he had instructed a professional person to act for him. THE also v. RICHARD to..wow, CLERK. Mr. Brougham ',Jovial the judgo,ot of the Court on the defendant, .tound guilty on a gros. Idwl ua. her late Majesty ; but in consequence of trn absent* of the Lord Chief Justice, who sat at Nisi Prius. Guildhall, and the necessity ha the attendance of Mr. Justice Holroyd ut Chambers, judgment was postponed. znunsnaz. Nov. RIOT AT CH ELI l'N lAM. THE ICING V. THOM•S GREGORY •51) BIGOT OTHERS. The defendants appeared to receive judgment. found guilty of a riot and os.ault upon two officers of Excise, at Cheltenham, on the 31.4 of January NA. It appeared from the notes of the Lord Chief Justice, that two officers of the Excise, named Gladwin and Dogood, made a seizure of several painted window blinds in the shop of Francis Rawlins, an upholsterer. The seizure was made on the ground that the articles were liable to a duty that had not been paid Other seizures of the same description were made at the shop of Thomas Boucher. This eircum srance occasioned considerable opposition, which increased to a riot. The officers were pelted with stones, and compelled to seek refuge in the house of Mr. Lucie, of Cheltnnbain, and that of a German in the same town. The snob followed them and commenced an attack on the houses libel e the officers had retreaded, throwing stoma., tiring pistols, and threatening to murder the officers if they could get theta out. The defen• dams, who took an active part In the rlut, were much in eensed against informers, and they appeared to act tinder a belief that the articles seized were not liable to duty. The Jury found T. Gregory, E. Call, Thomas Boucher, D. Boa cher, F. ILtwlius, Wta. Rawlins, D. Alder, J. Alder, Wm. Peachy, and George Turk, guilt y. E. Call did not appear on this irecia on. The said...sits of Gregory, Thos. Boucher, and Daniel Boucher, and the other defendants were read. They de. clared their total ignorance of the liability of painted blinds to be seized. Several respectable persons gave the defendants the chit. meter of fair mid busiest tradesmen, peaceable and loyal subjects. Mr. Pullen addressed the Court as counsel for the tw brothers named Alder. Those two individuals had bitbert home the most excellent character. They did not appear to have taken an active part in Glis disturbance. They were not aware of what they were doing, and he trusted their former good conduct would plead in mitigation of punish. merit. Mr. Twins expressed a hope that the Court would make a lenient distinction with respect to this riot. It was not one of an 'l , 4 , Kr:iv:tied character. John Alder and Thomas Gregory, were perhaps persons who had peculiar claims to the mercy of the Court. Their general character was good; he therefore entreated for them uU the mitigation the Court could deal out. Mi. Ludlow appeared for George Turk and Win. Peachy; those Mend:sots, he said ,were not implicated in the origin of this t int. Mr. Campbell, ns Counsel for the Rawlins, said although the otlirers seized the window blinds, the son, William RUN hos offered no resistance, but sulfured the officers to take them away, The Lord Chief Justicesaid, Wm. Rawlins was heard to say, them—pull them out—murder W ilk regard th.it his properly had breu seized, under circumstances of lo;i4 lb hip. These blinds bud been exposed three months without the least suspicion that they were subject to duty. Alt . . Cross, in behalf of the (touchers. represented his cli ents to be young ;trudesineu who had suffered much by the loss of the articles st ized. The Soli, our General in aggravation, stated that the ex cise officers on this occasion acted with the usmost propriety. Tory were doing no inure than their duty. With respect to the situation in lite of the defendants, their respectability might have led them to more correct conduct. Mr. J ustice Bailey sentenced Thomas Gregory to he im pi isoned one year in the house of correction, at North Leach; Iliumas Boucher, Daniel Boucher, William Rawlins. und Fiamis Raisin's, to be imprisoned one year iu the same house of correction, and to find sureties, themselves in 2001. and two others in 1001. each. Francis Rawlins was atsu sentenced to pay a fine of 501. Daniel Alder and 1% illiam Peaehey were sentenced to be imprisoned four m oaths in the same house. Join' Alder was ordered to pay a fine of 251. and he imprisoned %ill' George Turk, iu the Willie 6uuse , six mouths, and at the expiration of that time find sureties. FRIDAY, NOY. Y.S. THE KING C. FREDERICK GERALD. The Sol:eltiaZ;;; - eriii ;17;;Zirii7r the judgment of the Cowl ul he defendant, an exci:c-ntfieer, who had pleaded guilty, in a prosecution fora cumpiracy to defraud the King, by not accounting for certain duties received for 45 dozen of •kins of parchment, manufactured by Mr. Benet tt, and Wm. Kirby, at Bermondsey. The defendant was sentenced to six months imprisonment in Ilnrsemnnger-luue gaol. TINE KING V. G. BIERC. The defendant, w ho was shiipman to Carlile, appeared to receive the judgment of the Court, found guilty of publishing tel Inin S. dodoes and blasphemous libels. AI•• H. Cooper put in affidavits fur the defendant. Tile first was made by Jane Carlile, who deposed that after tile information was tiled, she went to Mr. Mauhe, sniicitor for the prosecution, and made every possible ranee:ooo un the part of the defendant, and proposed discharging him from her service, in case the proceedings were stayed. Itichaid Carlile, in another affidavit, deposed that the defendant had been in his service since ISHO.—The deponent tank him from his parents in the country, a boy, and lie never supposed the law officers of the crown would proceed against the defendant, while the proprietor of the shop and author of the libel remained unnoticed by the prosecutors. The deponent further stated, that he believed the religious prin ciples of the defendant to be different from his how ii. He had, however, never made any enquiry respecting those prin ciples—all he expected flOlll the defendant as a servant was honesty and integrity. Several oilier affidavits gave the defendant the character of a sit tidy mural young man, constant in his attendance at 'Jim ch. Ali'. Cooper, as counsel for the defendant, addressed the Cowl in mitigation of the severity of punishment. lie ad : venni! to the affidavits which had been read, and expiessed siirpi ize that the Solicitor-General 'tad brought the darn dant up Inr judgment. He could only account for the ap pear:ince of the defendant on the boor of the Court, by con cluding that 11w Solicitor General was under the controul of an officer of tile crown higher than himself. The defendant shiod heroic the Court, nut twenty years of age, and cer tainly ler circumstances w Welt never attended a person hi ini;lit lip for judgment. The d-fentlant was wetely a ser vant to this shop, ssithont any interest in like 1111hiat 411U11, 11.4%,1111•1.111till16 %%huff!, he to he pnuis h r d , shit, the pf1.,./11 us u .wowed 1111111 , V the 1 , 4:A1 Ir•r of the idol *v.e, .c-^__.~_._ ST 1 nut prosecuted. Tills nits nett in unison with the generous feeling of mankind. Theic unto a noble sentiment and sy iit in this country, which disdained to strike the servile itrasui. meat, whist the bend and manor. , i of the (silence was vul nerable. In a ruse like ibis the Cowl was obliged, by a sense of duty, to pass a lenient judgment. lie made this as sertion open the is i,e maxim id law Nand in the commenta ries al 111 r. Justice Ilinckstiont. Mr. Cooper then cited the folluwingpassaze :—" Ni;xt to doing right, the great °Wet t in 11w administration of .justice is to give public satisfac tMn." There cookd be no satisfuer in a severe punish ment upon a servant pia ed iii the situation oh the defendant. It was impossible the crown could sanction such a proseru tion. " 1 wish," said Mr. Cooper," Kings laid that supers abundance of informal:on Ihey are supposed to 1..)51.1.61—1 wish the King of Eugland could all 1h al passes in his do. minima-1 would 1101 sa) K logs nee more than men, neither would 1 allow skein to be less. The King iv know° In be a man of feeling :toil a gentleman, and had lie known a ser vant was prosecuted (or the crime of lii• master he would hale stopped it. 1 have a right to presume the defendant bad nu knowledo of this publication ; no proof of know ledge of the contents of the publication was offered at the trial."--Mr. Cooper them rnutrudb d trial there never had been such a proceeding as 114, befort• the Court. if a wife was excused in the rye cif law as being under the conitoul of her husband, surely, a servant, is hu spider striin4er cuu trout, was also excusrable. The defendant was ;maim e before the Court, but he had strong claims to s lenient sen tence. Great and enlightened slaloms had made laws to ex. ewe crimes urged by the siurvitiA condition of the perpetra tors, and la this case it was not ton instill to ask the Court to consider this young man as u person depending solely on his employment for bread. The world was waiting for the the severe judgment of the Court to consign the defendant to infamy and ruin. The learned counsel had one of point to bring before the Court. It would perhaps lie urged th. t the defendant, by pleading Not Guilty, had aggravated los offence, but he trusted the Court would put a e liberal construction on that circumstance. It had been said ins many .occasions, that a plea of guilty did not lessee an of.. fence, and persons under accusation bad been frequently re commended to withdraw their admission of guilt, and depend upon a fair trial. lie concluded by deprecating any heavy punishment upon his client, in CUIIIiegIIVIKC of his age, his necessities, and character. The Solicitor-Getienil spoke nt considerable length in aggravation, considering it a case deserving of exemplary punishment, and that he should have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if he had not called the defendant fur judgment; and it was fur the purpose of putting down the intolerable 11U61111te of Cartile's publications that had guided bins in the perfurtuance of his duty. The Court, after sonic consideration, pronounced by Mr. Justice Bayley —'f lint the defendant be imprisoned in the gaol of Winchester fur s; a minith ,- , and give security for gond behaviour, himself in 5001. stud two others iu 1001. each, for seven yeats. TUC KING N. MICHAEL. BARNES. The defendant had pleaded guilty to an information charging him with iiin•ring a bribe of IV. to a rrstin named French, that he might disregard his duly, and friable the de fendant to land smuggled goody. The defendant, in his at - ilavit,:alleged that he was induced to oiler the money at the suggestion of a person named Davidson. Ile was sentenced to he imprisoned four !maths in Horsham gaol, anti to pny a fine of 504 THE KING V. T. OLGEINI.D. ... The defendant was found guilty of making 3 sienal light to keep off a smuggling vessel. In elinsi•queme of an davit, stating that he kid rendered great service to the mere and persons in danger of ship.. reek. by adventuring iu his boat—he was discharged on his own recogniz.ince. 7H KING V. T. BARTLETT. The defenclatttanalOinaguilty:ir;orai;::ult on a person named Wallace, on Margate Pier. It appeared that the d. - fendant struck the Man u violent blow, n hich broke his nose. They fell, and the defendant was f nod with an °peg clasp knife. 'rho object of his attack was an officer or the trus t 1111 l a, and it was supposed the violence was olf•red on thAt. occasion. The defendant was ordered to be imprisoned um year in the poison of St. Atobtitte. near Glutei boo y. THE KING V. ISAAC COIE. The defendant, on the motion of Sergeant fell, appeared to receive judgment for a libel reflecting on the character of Col. Norinau, a student at the military college, Sandhurst.— The libel tt as published in the Exeter Flying Pest. It al luded to the prosecotoi, and charged him with the greatest barbarity in shouting his mare, at the stable of the V4/I k llotel, Sidmouth. It wars described to be a wanton delibe rate act of cruelty, putting a useful animal to ',aline for the niece gratificat' of a cruel disposition. The intlictineat was tried at Exeter, mid the Jury were left to say whether the statement was a true account or mu tt did occur.— They negatived the proposition by hailing the defendant guilty. Mr. Coxe, n ho is an attorney, put ill a very long affidavit, in which he gave the examitiat ion taken by himself two per sons in the town of Sitilllollo, who acre supposed to be spec tators of the disgusting butchery of the animal. The state ment by those pci.sons was not on oath, but it made our the substance of the alleged libel. The defendant also stated that seve al inhabitants of Sidinotith bad consulted him on the means of preferring a crimitial prosecution against Mr. Norman, for cruelty, and hada% lie could nut make the party subject to any existing law on Ihe subject, lie acquiesced in s suggestion to expose him before the ti dams' of the puthir. The paragraph to question was consequently published. The Court under till the circumstance!, sentenced the de fender). to pay a line of 501., w hick lie paid, and was dis charged. lIYAIWPIIOL 'A.—A valuable horse belonging to Mr. C. Styring, of Sheffield, was bitten, a few weeks ago, by a dug ascertained to have been mad. On Monday last strung symptoms of the disease became apparent, and out the following morning it was found expedient to shoot him, and put an end to his sufferings. 'flue poor animal was in dreadful agony, and bit every thing around him. Several medical eentleitien, we understand, attended to witness the symptoms and mark the progress of this dreadful disoreer. At sot ° . clock on Monday evening a fire broke out in the manufactory of Mr. Colvin, ink-maker, King.street. Clerkenwell, which caused great apprehensinn in Ile iteirAhhourhood, from its vicinity to some saw mills and timber-yard in which was deposited an immense stock of wood. Several engines were on the spot in a short time, and bon,. worked and supplied with water, contith,l the li4toe, to the premises where it began, whicti t•TC, OW exertions of the firemen, ie dio : cd 0 , lion ' , lll/. i !". 4 «-