The National Register. — London, England, 1811-02-24 00:00:00

TIIE NATIONAL RF,GISTER. Moral death of its victim. It was an evil that required the se rious attention of the Legislature. He had bath' trailed' to the service of a soldier in the 15th Light Dragoons; there he had early learned to respect the soldier; but while in that regiment he never • s'aw the triangle planted before them. That author expriused his disapprobation of the mode of punishing by flog ging, in very warm language ; but he was never prose cuted lot a libel. To prove that flogging was not bene ficial in its effecti, Sir Robert Wilson instanced the conduct of an hish Colonel whom he had known. That Colonel flogged •so many as seventy men in one day, yet the corps was not the best disciplined in the service. Flogging broke the spirit without mending the heart. No man who had once been flogged could evet'aftewards forget the cat. The subject, it was true, was a delicate one, bin would any man, anxious for the general good of the service, be deterred from preserving it from the fear of being told that he had written from bad motives. The Learned Gentleman next noticed a parnplet published by Brigadier-General Stuart, the object of which was nearly the same as Sir Robert Wilson's. That gallant (;eeeral censured the mode of punishment by flogging, contending that it lowered the spirit and destroyed the subordination of the heart. " The French soldiers," said Gen. smart, 44 are sometimes shot, but are rarely flogged ;" main taining that the mode of punishment by flogging was so .bad, that even the French did not countenance it. These sentiments were delivered in much stronger language than that in which the libel was couched; yet no one ever dreamt of prosecuting the author for-publishing a work that was calculated to sow ,edition in the army. No one ever thought of putting such con struction upon that gallant General's pamphlet. If either Sir R. Wilson or Brigadier-General Stuart had exceeded the fair langiatge ofaliscussion, then was his argument at an end. As to the libel, he would defend it on its merits. It stated fairly and clearly the sentences of certain Lout•ts-lalartitil, and tie punishments which had been inflicted in consequence. The facts were stated fairly; and then the author felt strongly ; and if we -allowed them to feel strongly they must permit him to express himself strongly. He had done that, and he had done no more. The author was net anxious to raise France hi the estimation of his reader ; for he expressly said 46 we are no friends of Buo naparte." The author had not attempted to inflame the minds of the soldiery, by making them discontented with the con duct of those whom they ought to obey ; for he observed that to the Military code, he feared, must continue to he more severe than the civil, and discipline is the soul of the army." The author did not mean to say that Weeding soldiers ought not to be punished; he contended that the punishment ought to be chastising and less degrading. The author speaks in language of severity, and tells the soldier that strictness is ne cessary. The libel then goe4 on to say—" We despise those who would tell its that there is more liberty in France than there is in England." Was that the language of one who would advise the ;Soldier to go over to the enemy ? The author had been charged with bringing forward improper arguments in illustra tion • but he had not overstepped the bounds of free discussion. To admit of such a mode of free discussion, would be, .indeed, binding fast in chains of adaniant, the boasted liberty of the press. To say that such a discussion had the tendency of sow ing discontent in the army, was as rational as to say that discus sion on the propriety of raising certain taxes, was cal culated to make the people rise against the fax-gatherers ! It might as well be said that Mr. Pitt's arguments on the slave trade were calculated to make the blacks rise against their owners. He could not but observe that one material point had had been. Studiously kept out of s.ght, the probability of their flogging promoting mutiny from a disgust being created in the minds of the soldiers. la conclusion, the Learned Gentleman again, pressed upon the minds of the Jury that their ver dict would decide whether Engjishmen were to contnue to ex press their opinions of public measures, and of general systems eef_policy. Fhe Attorney-General briefly replied, And after a charge from Lord Ere.e. e BOROUGH, .11e Jury retired for near two hours, and returned a verdict— .7l7ot Guilty. Sir Robert Wilson was on the Bench With his Lordship during the whole of the trial. • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. .11. The only case of any interest which occupied the attention of the Court was an action of trover, from Mrs. Reader against Mr. Niche.les, pawnbroker, to recover the value of an old quarto volume of the History of England, which the plaintiff bad pawned•with the defendant for twelve shillings, and which was sold, notwithstanding plaintiff had given notice agreeable to the Act of Patlialneht, to keep the book for three months after the expiration of the year. 'Verdict for the plaintiff—Damag es , Thirty Shillings, the Value of the pledge, aid interest to be deducted. OLD BAILEY. • • Wednesday the Sessions commenced before the Lord Mart y Mr. Justice Heath, Baron Wood, Mr. Justice Bailey, th, Recorder, &c: Edward Deacon, glizabeth Deacon, and Francis William! were capitally indicted for feloniou.ly co l ou ri ng , with certain materials producing the colour of silver, several round blanks dr base metal, and forming them into figures resembling the colts of this kingdom.—Mr. Juitice Heath thought that there ads not sufficient proof adduced to criminate the female prisoners • the strongest had been given of th e g uilt o f th e man.—The Jul accordingly acqu t ited the t wo w o m en , an d f oun d Ed wa Deacon guilts. . HIGHWAY ROBTIF.ItY.. William Oldham and John Pit ford were capitally indicted fn, assaulting Georie Cooper on the King's highway, putting him in fear of his life, and taking from his person, against Lis will, a.• silver hunting watch, gold chain and seal, three one-pound hank-notes, some silver, and a draft for 1681. George Cooper deposed, that his gather was a farmer, resid ing at Old Ford, and that he assisted him in his business. Oa • the evening of the 7th of January, as he was riding up-Old Fore. lane, towards his father's house, ab :ut six o'clock, lie saw tw• men walking before him, and, on his coming near them, the? . separated, each taking different sides of the road. Just as he overtook them, they each darted towards him, and seized his horse's bridle, while one of them, whom he believed to be Pits ford, placed a pistol to his breast, and said something which his did lug distinctly hear. Being somewhat. alarmed, he sai4 iF they would not use him ill, he would give them all he had. He imniediattly took from his pocket three one-pound notes,a dud; on Messrs. Masterman and Co. for 1681. and about fifteen shils hugs in silver, which he gave them. With this, however, thet were not satisfied, as Oldham drew witness's watch from his fob, after which they went off. At the time of the robbery the moon was shining full in the prisoners' faces, and from this cir cumstance witness was enabled to swear, in the most positive manner, to Oldham. He was not so certain of -Pitford, al though he believed him to be the other man. He did not sese theni from the night of the 7th, until the following Saturday, when, from information he received, he saw them: at Bow street, and immediately recognised Oldham. 'These facts were corroborated by three other witnesses, wimp were present at the apprehension of the prisoners. Several persons appeared to_ the prisoners' characters, and described them to be hard-working, honest, industrious Melt. Amongst others came the head warehouseman of the Londases Docks, under whom they were employed, who said he always: , entertained the best opinions of them. Mr. Justice BalLev summed up the evidence with his woutet humanity; and the Jury, after a short cmsideration s acquittei- Pitford, and found Oldham--Guilty—Death. The prosecutor begged to recommend the culprit to mercy.• on the ground of his having used no cruelty or violence. The Court declared that the recommendation should be at tended to.' The prisoner is about twenty-five years of age, and has So wife and family. FRIDAY, VEIL 22. CHARGE OF MURDER. Rachael Woodthorpe stood indicted for the wilful murder of William Crickett, by cutting his tiLroat ' on Sunday, the totir day of February instant, of which he died on the Monday fol lowing. A person of the name of Holloway deposed, that the deceased resided in the Weavers' Alms Houses, near Short-ditch, and was supported there by the bounty of that institution, and bP annuities paid him from twe different persoi.s .On Sunday, - the 10th instant, he received a letter at an early hour in the morn: in; from the prisoner, requesting him to come to his uncle, (the deceased), stating in the letter what had happened. He accordingly went to the Alms-house, saw the deceased, whO was then alive, and in his perfect senses. l ie was in bed, and the bed was 11 covered with blood, and he found that • Lit throat was cut. He interrogoted the prisoner, and she said', • that sleeping in the same bed with the deceased, she was iv.voke about two, or half past two o'clock in thi. inorwng, and fcuHd that the deceased was all over covered with blood, on winch she got up and lighted the are, and walked about the room all night. That he aited her why she did not call for a ssistance ? she. replied, that she did not like to disturb •the neighbour!. at that very unseasonable hour. The witness went on to state, that he asked the deceased whether he had killed hintself ? awl he answered, No !" That he again asked him, whet-her , his niece (meaning the prisoner)• had killed hint, but at first he • would make no answer, only put his luind up, to his throat; but