The Sun.
London, England, 1824-09-24 00:00:00

STATEMENT TO WHICH THE DOCUMENTS REFER.

Sir William Hastings accompanied Lord Hastings to India,
and landed in Calcutta in October 1813. In the early part of
the year 1814 he received through Mr. Palmer of Calcutta, a
proposal to become a partner with William Palmer and Co.
of Hyderabad.'l4ord Hastings at that time in Calcutta,
Sir William Rumbold 'consulted his.lordship on the prudence
of accepting the (Ara, but was discouraged by his Lordship
from acceding thereto. . •
In the month of June, Lord Hastings prormled up the cottn.
try, and in the autumn Sir WilliaM hunt °id addressed his
Lordship by letter, urging his inclination to join the house at
Hyderabad (1). fly a reply, dated 4th November, 1814 (No. 1),
Lord Hastings again discouraged the project. In order to Un»
derstand the reference to trust-money in this and letter (No. 2),
it is requisite to state that Lord Hastings is a trustee to the
marriage settlement of Sir William Rumbold, and his consent
is therefore necessary to the employment of any and every por-
tion of the funds in aettlement.
In consequence of further information,,Sif William Rumbold
again toldresßed Lord Hastings in a letter (No. 2), in the latter
end of 1814, recurring to the subject of the Hyderabad house,
and enclosing a letter from Mr. De Fries, of Madras (No. 3.),
To this Lord Hastings repluiti by a letter dated 4th January,
1315 (No. 4.)
in the month of April following, Sir William numb* pro•
ceeded to Hyderabad and became a Omer, anti signed a deed
of copartnery with Messrs. William Palmer, Hastings Palmer,
liunketty Dos, Dr. Currie, anti Hans Sotheby.
On reference to Lord Hastings' letter of January, 1818, it
appears that a letter from the Governor-General in Council
had been previously written to the Resident at Hyderabad,
giving the benefit of the British Government's sanction and
countenance to the house of William Niftier and C 0.," in con-
sequence of the service rendered by that house to the Nizam's
Government, at the request of the Resident."
The disturbed state of Central India, and the distressed state
The trOasttry at .this and following -periods, refl.
deredit very desirable. te, the Minister,, Chtmitoo Loll, to-be
able totominatid Trioneyfor the payment of the troops, at times
when. tke resources of the country did nut enable imp to pro-
vide it. r, . . .

The house or Palmer iind CO., will mean, of the pledged sup-
port, afforded to the IHtnister by the British Government and
ent, did front time
to be
!pftnloatette:iecrigieten that the
and efficiently suul conduct of
pported
do:tsttoiien•aatdlyttnetanii atneninihlti:drie,:eydptv:trhalotislioseitinrwid!elryl7:eli isnr
resoluteaso t
and
theY
t h
fieldt ie° k.• 1341 t ly ally
momentousetirltai-t
crisis. l'hat it was enabled to afford that assistance, and that
• the Minister was enabled to preserve his • station and power
against the intrigues of his rivals and his enemies, was owing
to the resources lie found in the confidence net liberality or
Messrs. William Palmer and Co,
In the year 1816, the House directed its attention to the pre.
'else terms and import of 'the leiter tuhlressed by the Suprente
Government in their favour to the Resident ; and although he
had Considered it sufficient to authorise hint in sanctioning the.
transactions they had had with the Nizatn?s Government, they
thought it right 'to address a letter to the Governor-General in
Council, dated June 27, 1816 (Ntr.• 5), requestingra ,specitie
official protection against the penalties of the 37th Geo. 111.
according to the terms of the Act. The licence, under the hand
and seal of the GoVertiorXieneral in Council (No: 0), was trans-
rnitted ins letter from Mr., ,Secretary Main, .dated-the 234' of
July, 1815 (No. 7). • • • , • •
• In 1817 an application, was made .to William 'Palmer and
Co., tin the representation. ' of Contain Sydenhain the British
at Rerar, to este
Political Agent dish a branch of the firm at
Arungaball,• for the purpose of paying with regularity the re-
gular.and reformed troops of his .fligliness. .
It is important to observe, that.eaptain Sydetilutm was most
,Urgent in desiring that the house of Palmer arld'Co. should
consent to undertake this transaction;' dad yet it has
sinutited that Mr. Russell was a pattner, or 'Otherwise inte-
rested in the money 'transactions of the house of Cholittuo
Surely Captain Sydenham would not.have suggested the'trans-
aition, had he deenied it one merely calculated for the'iindue
• adyantage • of the house, tit the expence of the :Nizam's 004
•verninent, which is the insinuated ground on which it is pre-
tended Mr. 'Russell's interested consent to theAratuutition was
alone obtained.
• The extract' of a letter -from 31r.. Witham , Palmer to Mr.
John painei (No. }Ai, faivea the o.ccolint of the. Motives which.
Induced the former to assent to the arraogement.
This letter-was written after Sir Wiiliton Rumbold had Left
)waving
whiealich6l ')eit.r:itc..)teqr t ner
.'cod 1:1e° cmt? Dan ndl
sea ut
;Id: et
hn.futidriluivthn grca:bonarldegaeets4nte4:b:salei4,9:
wClll:llo4undintlra-tiblit'beifs:rapdt;tebnicoi'setcadcl°,vtlijet it
I that the advances' they'ipight be called on to furnish' would be
tus
el
e4nttlr,ettii considerable,tnphasebtllea co-opttnet fici era: tttPit4ror,Vthehlier:nructenr,g4emlcanttpil
t:tt:ron7eyt ty1;3111:8:
armies;: t fy inrned(eual rti Resi-
dent, 131'
rating
ere
neadositolstieureilicitluelltregoitthhtife;y;:wreecoptur:he;lintal:iice:oiewobo:y:thptia:;ll:::Attiint;i4c4:uml:,icsjeplbovyoraiahteor.otittelseltdieli'ed:::arnuai
the corfiniencernent of the year iqaptaia„Sydeohatu hold.
ing out the prospect of an impending revolt of the troops,'Wil-'
Liam Paltrier and Co. did. consent to the, proposed establishment
at Aurungitbad. •, , • • • • •
The house 'engaged' to mke. monthly paymentrto the Mops ‘:
to an amount not oteeiding..wo hies rupees per,munthdi.afitioix:
which the ;Ilinisterwito gtve,tlr, at the.CdraMeneetnent
th
Hous
each year, assignments the,,Co .ectots, to. thq titutiunt of 3Q
th
PPl:liceCiirt3nliliittri.ll"ecir‘wbi°:l‘°t'Qiw:eP:ll44.f tritl:l!;:eb:set:;(citi4:l.teihr4lbgtrgwrr4l:ll-netyie:e7ie4'pat tr:ute. inat itn per ibe lrrilea4l;:tllri7feri
balance of cash in their hands, arising frpm an excess of their
receipts front the Collectors beyond their payments. ft is-
potted on the Nizant's Governor, therefore, by seeing siut

'rolleoOrA TeAde punctual payment of the charges upon them,
that Titlems. Palmer and Co. should derive no advantage what.
ertr from the cottract.

'rhe Resident was fully acquainted with the contents of the
tontrect.

On the 4th Of September, 1819, the Governor-General in
,'Council wrote to desire a -copy of the accounts of Messrs.
Palmer.e and Co. with the Minister Clittndoo Loll, relating to
the Aurungabad contract. Whilst the letter was on the road,
Sir Wm. Rumbold was crossing it on his way to Calcutta.
On leaining, on his arrival there, what had been done, he
..addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government, announcing
}finis& as a partner in the house of William Palmer and Co.,
and in the name of himself and partners declining to produce
the accounts called for. Sir Wm. Rumbold was summoned
before the Council, but for what purpose he was not informed,
and he there stated that he objected on principle to disclose any
account between his house and any constituent; but he stated,
that the accounts hatiheen delivered to the Minister, and that
he was the proper person to be applied to for them.
The Council sustained the validity of the grounds of the ob-
jection, and Sir Wm. Rumbold understood the demand would
not be pereistecl in.
Sir Wm. liturnbold being before the Council, stated at be
had heard that an impression existed of Mr. Russell's being,
or having -been, 'a secret partner in the firm of which he was
made member, and he tendered himself to be examined on oath
on that.subject, but his offer was not accepted.
After the Council broke up, he received a note (No. 8), dated
Oct. 9, from the Secretary Mr. Metcalfe, stating that it had
been determined that the arrangement between the house and
Chundoo Loll should not be interferred with. In the mean
time, the requisition of the Governor.Getteral in Council had
been transmitted to Hyderabad; and in Sir Win. Rumbold's
absence, Messrs. Palmer and Co. deeming that erroneous con.
elusion; might be drawn from the withluilding the accounts,
transmitted • themin full detail:to the Resident, with a letter
(No. 9), Sept. 12,.11119. On the following day, Mr. Russell
acknowledged the receipt in letter (No. 10) (2).
On the 3d of 'February, 1820, Mr. Metcalfe addressed a letter
. (No. 11) to Sir William Rumbold, stetting that the accounts
had been received, and that after passing in circulation among
the Members of Government, they had been.returneel to Hyde.
rabad, there being no plea for scrutinizing or recording. them.
It should be here stated, that the Minister had observed his
part or 'the contract to the letter only, but the spirit; for the
assignments he gave to the house proved' to be not claimable
to a very large amount, anti thus was the house left, after
acting under the contract for a year and a half, under an ad.
vanes of cash of nearly 14 lacs-of rupees, on the Aurungabed
contract.

The house wax, at this time, urgent with the Minister to
keep his promises made to them at the period of their advances
during the Pindarry war, anti for the pay of the lierar Suwara,
and to give them flood assignments as security or a discharge of
their
_ _

The Minister urged his inability to' keep his word,. at a mo.
mot too, when he was pressed by the British Resident to di.
minish the establishment, and that such reductions required the
immediate command of a sum of money to discharge existing
claims; and Olathe only saw one way ofbeing enabled to do his
duty to all parties, viz., by raising a loan sufficient to discharge
all his debts bearing a higher rate of interest, and at the same
time leaving.him a sum to discharge the claims to be paid on re.
during the establishment. •
. •

. .
The—proposal of the Minister was replied to by a letter from
the house, which letter, together with the Minister's proposal
delivered to the Resident, were at a later period ftwwartled by
hint to Calcutta, and the sanction of the Council was returned
to the loan. The terms on which the proposal was submitted
to the Supreme Government were, that for an advance of sixty
.laesoix.onnual re-payment:of of sixteen lees each, were. to be
.received in return. These re-payments were to include interest,
commission, and all charges.
To raise so large a sum within the limited district to-which
the constituents Of the house were usually confined, did not
come within the calculation or expectation of Messrs. Palmer
and Co. It Was their scheme to have furnished the money by
instalments, within u li„di•ltt period of some months: in the
interval, they counted upon receiving Money on loan from the
different Presidencies, at n moderate and, ordinary rate of lute.
rest.. The proposals for the loan,•on'thatertni above specified,
were made in the month Of. March or April, but not sent to Cal.
cotta till some months later, for the formal approval of. the Go-
vernor-Generel in Council. The terms and object of the loan
had been immediately communicated to Mr. Russell, and re-
ceived his sanction. He was of opinion, 'that. under the letter
of license, the express sanction of the Government to this trans.
action was not requisite. The measure was one of evident ad-
vantage.to the.Mimster, as by it alone was he enabled to comply
with the,Resident's wishes of reduction, and at the same time
to meet the call for' the fulfilment odds engagements to Pal-
mer and Co., and to other creditors.
Immediately on the assent of Messrs. Palmer and Co, being
signified to the Minister, he became urgent mith them tuiet
hint have,advances made to him at the momtmt,, those pay-
ments to be counted as. in part of the loan, when the contract
should be formally drawn-up and completed. Thesaprevieux
advances, at the period between the proposal for and the actual
contracting for the loan, swelled up to the amount .-ofAessrs.
Palmer and Co.'s claims, when the loan came to be completed,
to an amount so nearly approaching the whole of it, as to make
it appear merely a transfer of one security to another; but the
money 1141113 nut the less actually paid to the Minister. For his
atoonimodatlon the o 4 n was. anticipatv4, and lie gave the bonus
for that service and risk.

Poi this accommodation, at theivent expense. and .Ineonve..
Memo of the house, he Offered them compensation in the shape
of the bonus, out of the loan, of eight lace. Mews. Palmer
and Co. are ready to submit to any mercantile, persons Me
question Whether, under their circumstances, they would not
have much preferred the delayed payment, than to have made
the advances at the risk thay did for the bonus. In fact,• from
the representations of' the Minister of the urgency of 14,iti neces.
cities, and the peril to their own claims previously extsting, they
telt themselves compelled to support Chtindop Loll at this crisis.
Those claims had arisen with the knowledge of the Resident.
On the lot January, 11121, Mr. Metcalfe addressed a.letter
(No. 12) to -Messrs. Palmer and Co., intimating the order of
the Court of Directors that the license of July, 1018, should
be suspended, as to any.future transactions between the house
and the Nizem. 'On the 15th January, Meseta. Palmer...and
' Co. replied by letter (Nod 18).
Soon after Mr. Russell s retirement, Mr. Metcalfe, hie sue.
cessor addressed to Messrs. Palmer and Co. a letter (No. 10,
dated 19th March, 1821, announcing. his intention of submitting
to the Supreme Government a plan for discharging the sixty-
lac loan. To this letter Messrs. Palmer and Co. replied, onthe
24th'April, by letter (No. la).
.On the nth April Mr.. Metcalfe submitted his proposal to the
Oovernor.lieneral in Council, but it dots not appear to have
been approved. It has been supposed, that its failure wasowing
to Sir Rumbold's influence with the Governor.GeneraL
This is, however, a completely erroneous impression, for It so
'happens that Sir Wm. Rumbold, in ins view of the
effect of the proposal from his partners, by whom, afterrepeat-
ed discussions, he was out-voted and overuled, was very an-
xious that the proposal of the Resident. should be complied
with.

Oa the 111th Junc,lll2l, Lord Hastings' addressed a private
letter (No. 16), to Sir William Rambold ticairing, that, with
view tO remove any doubt cm his own mind, the firm of Palmer
and (.1..e. abould define, Upon °oath, whether or not any British
'public functionary had, at any time, had pecuniary truncate.
-tionti with the 'ham:, which could influence hint in county.
nuncilig their dgaintp with the Nizatti's flovernment. In the
end of this letter, Lord Hastings expressly states the object of
his ititluirY to vslate tit Mr. Henry Russel. In this letter Lord
Misting refers to a former cenumuneation he had made to Sir
atating the inexpedireley of 111 r. Palmer's mak.
ing a simiiiti.dealaration the preeedinz month of Dee.
Upon that occashm Sir.: W. }tombola waited upon Mr. Alet.
i:Alfe,ltie Resident, and communicated to hiM Lord Hustings'
wish and at tile itame time reacl to hint the declaration (No. 17)
to which Mr. Palmer was ready to *wear. Ile also stated to
Mr. Metcalfe the fact of Mr. Sotheby, having been at one time
a partner in the house, .whilst he occupied the station of Asada.
runt to the ReSiclent ; -and he further acquainted .Mr. Metcalfe
with the partieatlar circumstances under which Mr. Palmer had
been induced to give Lim a Aare in the bowie, Which fully itc:.
quitted Illesars. Palmer And Co. of any corrupt motive in hay:
big so done.
' Sir William Ilumbold considered his communication of Mr.
sotheby'g connection to Mr. Metcalfe as liming been mode
in the coalidenee of private 'anti ft:kindly intercourse, and
he felt convinced that the Resilient would not make any
public use of the knowledge so acquircal, to .the. injury of that
rodeinan.
Sir W. Ittimbold would probably not think himself autho.
riled to refer it now, if he had not heard that it had been alluded
Lb In Calcutta. lie states it now, us proof that, the houae.did
not consibr the connexion as objectionable in point of fact, anal
:ipso aK explanatory of the purpose of the affidavit afterwards
made out. Sir 'William- Rumbold's object in this communica.
thin to Mr. Metcalfewas to obtain his private opinion,
whether the declaration would be, considered by Lord Hastings
as a safficientamwer to the information he had required ; and
it'was necessary to explain to that gentleman the difficulty of
trucking it more general,' without involving Mr. Sotheby. lib..
8441014, at the time he woe admitted a ,partner, Was scarcely
on a(yenktng terms with the lesident, and never set his. foot
without the Residency, except: ore' public or formal occasions.
The terms was on at the Residency did not vary during the
whole time tinithe continued partner. The declaration of Mr.
Palmer (M.o.' 17),waa read over to'3lr. Metcalfe, .and not ob.
jetted to bHilm, and was transmitted to Lord HinitlngtA by
.Sir Rumbold in a letter dated the 22c1 December, 11)20
(No. 14 On the receipt of Lord Hastings' letter of J one 10:1),

1821, above referred to (No. 16), which could not have reached
Hyderabad earlier than on the 25th June (11), Sir Wm.,Rurri.
hold and Mr. Palmer drew up an affidavit (No:20), and swas4 1.
the same before Mr. Sotheby, the First Assistant (in Mr. Met;
calfe's absence).
On the 26th June it was transmitted to Lord Hastings,
letter from Sir William Rumbold (No. 21.) This affidavitbas
been the subject of unmerited andlmfottruled remarks.

It is submitted, that a • fairer or more conscientious; honest,
and open declaration, was never made ; one which it was utterly
impossible to misconstrue or misapprehend.
In reference to this affidavit, Mr. Metcalfe wrote to Sir Wil-
liam Rumbold on the Bth May 1823 (No. 22), and enclosed a
letter from the Supreme Government (No. 23), to which Sir
Rumbold replied by letter (No. 24.)
Letters (No. 25, 28) are here added, as completely bearing out
the correctness of the affidavit, in confutation of the insinuations
which have been made against its truth.
The affidavit embraces a period commencing with the preseht
house of William Palmer and Co., and distinctly denies any im-
proper connection with Mr. Henry Russell and also with Mr.
Charles Russell : for had hebeen connected with the house, the
partners could not have sworn that Mr. Henry Russell was not
Indirectly connected with them.

(1) That house was established in February, 1814.
(2) The copies of these letters furnished by Sir William
Rumbold, are dated Na. 9, the I;th Oct., and No. 10 the
30th Oct.

(3) The post, in fine weather, is about thirteen days corn-
ing. The rains begin in June.; after which the time is very
uncertain.

TRIAL OF MR. ASKEW.

OLD BAILEY,7NEW'COIJII.T;-.

• 1131 ore the,ituCoßDElt.l
•
Yesterday James Askew was indictettfor steal.
ing five rings of the value of 80/. ; two pairs of ear-sinqsifialue
251.; 'part of a coral, set with diamonds, value 501.; a iationd
cross, value 25/. ; a' gold chain, value 10/. ; a ,gold buckle,
value 41.; an opera glass, value 21.; three tiiiree spoons, value
39 pair of stockings, value 3/.;
3/. ;three silver forks, value W.;
29 shifts, value 71. ; one shaw, value 304 ; one veil, value 5/. ;
a lace handkerchief, value 81. ; a (items, value 1/. ; seven .pro-
missory notes for the payment of 1,000 franes each, and five
for the . payment of 500 francs each, the property ofellarriet
Virginie Perrot..
The' witnesees.. on both sides were ordered to remain out of
Court until they should he called in to be examiried.
Mr: Put r.r.ips stated the case for the' prosecution.. The pri-
sorter was what was called a inaster-milliner, residing in Ox-
ford-street, and towards the end 'of last year hei went to France
to engage an eminent female milliner to superintend his este-
, blishment. In Paris he met with the prosecutrix, who was a
.Frenchwoman.. Having satisfied himself of her respectability,
he engaged her to serve him at a salary of 2,000 francs a year,
which he believed was 804 English money, exclusively of pro-
viding her with board and lodging. Miss Perrot came to ibis
; country with the prisoner, and her conduct in his establish-
! men t was such, that in May last, he, of his own accord, doubled
her salary—nay more, he declared that at the end of the year
she might, if she chose, become a partner in the concern. To
a young woman like the prosecutrix—she was 22 years of age—
this.was the highest merit of approbation that could be given.
Soon after the period when the prisoner had increased the
prosecutrix': salary, a Mr. Bertrand, who was her friend,
came from Paris to London. From that time the prisoner's
conduct towards the prosecutrix was, from what cause the pri=
soner could best tell, become very much changed. The pro-
secutrix, by the desire of the prisoner, went to Cheltenham,
and opened a shop there, in which she carried on the mil-
linery business for the prisoner. Whilst iee was at Chef-
tenham, the prosecutrix received several letters from the de-
fendant, expressing the utmost kindness towards her ; In-
deed, their tune was very extraordinary, when it was considered
that they were written from a .master to his servant;
also sent her a gold Watch., The prosecutrix had received no- '
tice from the solicitor for the prisoner to produce all fhe letters,
which she had received froM the prisoner. :.She had complied
with that notice, and lie would read some of, those letters to the
jury. In a letter, dated July 23, 1894, the prisoner addressed
the prosecutrix in the following terms ;—" Dear Madam; good
morning. On my return home, the first thing I thought Of
was your watch. It has produced a wand quarrel between
Harnet and me. Gander bad delivered 'the watch to Harriet
last Monday, and she positively refused to deliver it out of her
possession. In this difficulty I am very unhappy, because it
places me in a view so contrary to the wishes of my heart.
Gander has promised to get me another watch superior to the
first. Do not reproach me; I um not to blame • I will send
you a watch, and also a turban. If I do not inner you al.
ways, do not think me less your friend. Remember that a soft
tongue has not always a good heart."—ln-a letter, dated July
27, the prisoner, after some remarks on the subject of business,
said,—" The arrangement which I have made resp ecting Mr.
Bertrand will betgreeable to you,' when every thingis ox.
plained, and you will be sorry for the letter which you have
written tante. Bertrand's visit to England, without invitation
and without eniployment, can't be agreeable to me ; but
.to
please you, I will not mind it."—On the 3d of August the pri-
saner wrote another letter to the prosecutrix, the contents of
which were of importance, inasmuch as they showed that he
was satisfied with her account*. Immediately, after that letter
had been received by the prosecutrix, the prisoner caused her
to be arrested for a debt of 501. Miss Perrot deposited the
amount of the debt in the hands of the Sheriff's officer, and
-was liberated. The prisoner then informed the prosecutrii
that he wished her to leave his employment. That she did, but
not until the prisoner had signed a document, stating that she
had correctly accounted for all the property'which had been
intrusted to her. The prosecutrix came to town, and employed
Mr. Hubert, a respectable solicitor, to recoverthe property which
she had left at the prisoner's house. .Before Mr. Hubert pro-.
ceeded to demand the property of .the prisoner, the prosecu-
trix described to him (he begged the particular attention of the
jury to the fact) a confidential letter, in which he stated,
that the bills mentioned in the indictment were enwrapped.
lie would prove, that these bills were brought from Paris by
Mr. Bertrand. When Sir. Hubert made his business known
to the prisoner, the latter said, diet the prosecutrix was a bail
woman, and had lost her character. Mr. Hubert demanded
some proof of the truth of these assertions, and after some licei-
lotion the prisoner produced the very letter which Miss Perrot
would swear )bas wrapped round the French .bills which were
deposited in her drawers. Mr. Hubert was struck with the
letter, and read it over three times. He then .asked the pri-
soner how he came by it, Askew said that that was of no con-
sequence, since lie had got it. It was upon that point that he
chiefly rested the case of the prosecutrix. If the prisoner could
account for the manner in which that letter came into his pos.
session honestly, he would depart from that Court without any
stain upon his character. If he failed he do that, it was natural
to inter, that the person in whose possession the letter was found
'knew what had become of the money which it once enwrapped,
and which the prosecutrix had never obtained; for when her
drawers were opened in the presence of Mr. Hubert, none of the
'property, which she would swear she placed there, was found.
Harriet Virginie Perrot, the prosecutrix, was then examined;
she spoke Engligh with tolerable accuracy; she deposed to the
following. effect:-She, became acquainted with the prisoner
about a year ago. She afterwards became his first milliner,
and kept his house at a salary of 2,000 a, exclusive of board,
lodging, and .washing. tier salary was afterwards doubled._
Soon after a gentleman named Victor Bertrand carne on a visit
tobondon, by the Invitation of Sir. Askew. (The letters read
by Mr. Phillips were shown to the witness, and she identified
them as having been written to her by the prisoner.) Bertrand
erriveti ebout.the end of April. or the beginning of May. A
few days after he came, he placed some French bills, of the
Royal Bank, in her possession. On the 4th July she went to
Cheltenham. The prisoner and she were then on good terms.
She deposited the bills and. sonic other property hi is chest of
drawers in ,her bathroom, previous to her departure for Chelten-
ham. The bills were rolled up in m piece of Whiteebrown paper,
together with a letter from a Nobleman. (A latter was pro-
duced, which she said was the letter in question.) Amongst
the property which she left in the drawer was a °ante° ring of
the .F.ariperor of Russia, set in brilliants into • ; it was worth ,
about 300 francs. Another of the rings was a diamond, another
a ruby, and two other common gold rings. The witness then
described the rest of the property us described in the indictment.
All the jewellery was given to her, except the 2 common rings.
.—Some disagreement tool( place between. her and the prisoner
about the beginning of August. She conceived that jealousy
was the cause of' the disagreement. She received-a gold watch
as a present from the prisoner, at Cheltenham. On the 14th
of August, the prisoner arrested her for the money she had
received on his account, at Cheltenham ; it amounted to 501..
At that time he owed her 701. for wages. She gave bail, and
was liberated. One Saturday evening the prisoner turned her
out of his house. On the day before this occurred, the prisoner
signed a paper, at the 'desire of her attorney. (The paper was
produced and read. It was an acknowledgment, on the part of
the prisoner, that the prosecutrix had rendered a fair account of
all die goods which he bad intrusted her with.) At that time
the prisoner owed her 701 which had never yet; been -
When she arrived in London from Cheltenham, she applied to
the prisoner for her property. Ile at first meld that'll() had no
objection to give her the property which was in the drawer;
but lie afterwards said that lie would give her 014 some stock-
ings and shifts. When she went to Cheltenham, she left her
drawers locked. An inventory.of part of her property was in
one of them. (A paper was produced .which she Identified as
the inventory.) That inventory was drawn up by Mr. Bete
fraud, in Earis, before she came to London. When iihe found

'Ait OW:Prisoner, would not give tri) her property, she went
again to hiS house; accompanied by Mr. Hubert, her attorney.
'The prisoner 'then:. c4id, that he would not deliver any thing
without *consulting. his attorney. In about a week afterwards
the prisoner gave up a pair of diamond ear-rings and a .few
clothes. 7 Mr.ilubert also went tti the" prisoner's alone to de-
tumid her property:`. _Previously to his going, she described to
him a•ititter which had been written to her by a nobleman.—
She subsequently preferred a complaint against the prisoner
before a Magistrate.
Cross-examined by Mr. Apor.Pitus—What nobleman is
the writer of the letter you speak of ?
Witrss-t—l am willing to tell his Lordship. He is a noble-
man, and. would be sorry to have it mentioned in a Court.
Pitir.Lipirobjecteitto the question. The name of the
writer; or the contents of the letter, had nothing to do with the
Cause. • ,

The RECORIAIt said. that the.question was a proper one.
• 'Mr. ADOLPiillg repeated the question.
The witness was silent, and looked to the Recorder.
The RuconnEß.--Voil must tell us the name.
Witness.—l must give up . the name ? Then I can't: he is
quite a Nobleman, and if it were known, perhaps his reputation
may be lost.
The ItECORDI:n.,-4 should not think that I should be likely
to. lose my reputation if j wrote to you.
Witness.L-I will prove to you, by some other letters with his
name signed, what it is, if you will look at them.
The ItEconnErt.--7You must give up the name, if the coun-
selyersists' in, the quextion._ _

Mr. Pax he Nobleman cannot be angry with you
,for stating his name, under the circumstances in which he is
placed.. _ . _

. •
‘Vitness, ('after some hesitation.)—He is a General in the
a rmviy,i the.tonfes g I
rips:irnoro 0
ifnnton.ssia—General Schwietzen.
S!hiwrieltzlenn°.
. What is he,,aa Ambassador ?.-..Vee; his brother was Ambits-,
, sador to Rome: Why 'do you call him Excellency ?—Because
t Jin,tnitUrne to eddresg hini .:40.• ,' Did' you ever hear him called
1., 1.:‘,7hie1t.,-,-is.Ghei
sneortail6S:flinut.)lbeitizileyn ,1..._
icets.):---Yes, General Nicholas
eilll ?e
is Excellency.
i count, .or Dulee, .or 'Mertittie ?---Ne; only Excellency, and
General. Her exanthiatfoe then proceeded' as follows :—She
did ,nut bring all flit:lb/90 which she had lost from Paris.
When the prisfiner canie to 'Paris to engaiie her,
_ she lived at
Ne. 4, Rtteetla Grenonillie‘ -E,Adetter was here shown to her.]
'Phut letter was written by Ali Bertrand. The letter was written
to hiss Harriet- Dirlati,•'a young lady in tlx: prisoner's house.
[Atiothee'paper Was profit:iced:l That paper was the statement
of tier case, which. Ali Bertram
gave to Mr. Abraham, an at-
! torney: it way drawn up IwAl. Bertrand. It was not written
bylier dictation. Slie consulted Mr. Abraham before she em-
ployed Mr. Hubert.. 'She was fecommerided to Mr. Hubert by
the French . consul. • 'Site:. never mentioned to • Mr. Abraham
any thing all* the 9,000 franks; She never particularized toMr.
A brahairror his clerk any of the things which were in the drawers.
She did not enipley Mr.' Abraham to recover her money, but
to obtain the furniture.• of her room. She expected to get'
the furniture of the room, and therefore she thought it best to
say nothing* particular about the.properti in the chest of drawers.
She could not recollect•whether she told Mr. Abraham or his
clerk that she had jewellery in her drawers, but that she could !
nor tell the amount. Mr. Bertrand was a grocer, and lived at
39, Rue de Orenoulle. ,He was not her relation. By direction
of the prisoner, she had called Mr.. Bertrand her brother. The .1
prisoner desired her to call him Bertrand— , 1
Mr. AnoLritus here asked the witness when the prisoner
first desired her to call :Mr. Bertrand her brother ; and she re.
plied that it was when the •prisoner and she and he were tra-
velling from London to Paris. The Learned Gentleman, over
and over again, pressed her to assign a reason for the injunc.
tion of the prisoner, which she did not appear, able to do. At
length she said, ‘.. I have lived long time in your country. ' I
ant a stranger here, and .I.hope for justice."
Mr. ADOLPIUTS.—I hope you will get it.
• Witness,-Very well..
Mr. Apormitus.—Yes, and in a different manner from that
which you expect.
' ,Examination continued...-Sbe always spoke of M. Bertrand
as her broiher•in London. ill. Bertrand gave her the French
notes'ar. billete delanque a,day or two after his arrival in Lon;.,
don. `'Bertrand brought.over some articles which begave her,
in his own box, which was kept in her bed-room. Bertrand
gase•her the billets de batique in her bed-room. He gave them
to her to keep in safety for hint. Miss Hudson saw them one
one
morning in het-room; and M. Bertrand, coming in at the time, _
before
scoldedher for chewing them, This was about a month
she Went 'to Cheltenham. Bertrand had French and English
gold in hisilocket, and site, believed he had other billets de
Banque than th9se which lie gave to her. Bertrand used to
sleep in the yn Bertrand removed From
soner's warehouse. .
the prisoner's about' three weeks before , she went to Chelten-
ham, and went to lodge with Mrs. Broadfoot, -in Berwick-
street. She .sometimes sent little things to Bertrand by the
prisoner's permission. BefOre she went to Cheltenham, there
was a quarrel bet Ween Bertrand and the pritioner, end the lat-
ter forbad the former his house; but to please her, he used to
allow' hero send Bertrand victuals, which Bertrand paid for.
After she went to Cheltenham, the . prisoner wrote to her to
tell her that he continued to send articles of food to Big-
trend., NVhen ' she returned from Cheltenham, she went to.
lodge at the Same house with Bertrand. She did not give Ber...
trend the bind de bunpie when She went to Cheltenham. One
Saturday evening Bertrand asked her for them", and she said she
would bring them ' the next morning before she went to Chel-
tenham; but She Aid' not do so, because she set offearlier than
she expected the next day. She never agreed to ice till the Sit'
taitday evening. 'rite prtsoner lived at U 5, in Oxford.street.
She'did not see Bertrand on the Sunday morning. She set olr
at six o'clock, and it was very wet. She did not think of the
notes in the morning. Those were the only:reasons why she
did not give the notes to Bertrand. Site never made a memo-
random. of the numbers of the notes, bemuse it was not the cut--
tom to .do so in France. (A billet de Semple fbr a thousand
francs was shown to the witness.)—The..hills for 1,000 francs
which Bertrand gave her appeared to be like that, ;but she 4id
not examlnethem minutely; she merely looked *at their anount.
She did not take much apparel with her to Cheltenham, because
the prisoner told her that if she did not like to stay she might
return. She did not write to the prisoner to send lie'r any
clothes, because she was 'afraid to send her key on the account of
the property, in. her drawers: She wore some of the jewellery ma-.
atonally, but she avoided wearing her diamond ornaments in the
show-room. Miss Hudson had seen some of the jewellery.
She never said that a coral necklace was one the things taken
from her. She never told Mrs. Broadfoot• that she was mar-
tied to Bertrand ; she was not a woman who would swear what
was untrue; because the was paid for It. Mrs. Broadfoot had
seized the things belonging to heroand Bertrand *for rent after.
the prisoner was 'committed for trial . but her attorney had
been kind enough to pay her rent, because Mr. Askew had
taken her all.—(lVeeping.)—She saw Mrs. Broadloot at her
own house on the night the prisoner was committed for trial,
Sir. ADOLV/Wg.—Did you on that occasion tell Mrs.
Broadfoot that you would be revenged on Mr. Askew, and
have him hanged F
Witness (with vivacity.)—No, I will swear it, never. Al-
though he 'has robbed me, I do not wish to hang him.
Sir. ADOLPIIUB observed that this was cunningly clone.
She knew Mr. Unit. She never told him 'that Mr. Bertrand
had brought over only
2,000 francs; but she did tell him, to
prove that Bertrand had brought seine money, that she herself
had changed for giro a billet de .barque for 200 francs, in St.
James's-street. • The reason why the prisoner refused to let
Bertrand'stay in the haute was, • that he was jealous of hint.
One meriting she went, In company with another French lady
who lived in 'the prisoner's house Into his bedroom to waken
him. He told her to bring his clothes . she went for them, and
when she came back the French lady lied left the room. The
prisoner took her hand, twit whaled to. kisS her; but she would
not let him, and said that she never would enter his room again
tinletni she wererateompenied by the. servant. The prisoner
was, angry with . her, . lie often said that Bertrand was his
enemy, and lie did not 'wish to see him., 1:
The cross-examination lasted about two hours. Towards the
conclusion, the, witness beearne much exhausted, and was fur-
nished with ss seat and some cold water. •
lie-examined-7(4 letter was shewn her.) That letter is In
the handwriting,:of the prisoner; it is not signed; it contains
an extract from the letter which was wrapped round the billets
de barque' Which were deposited` in her drawers ; there was only
one key to her drawers. and the took it with her to Chelten-
ham ; she was certain that the'property described in the indict-
11141t wait in her drawers when she went to Cheltenham ; Mr.
A bralt ait i, whom she tirst employed as her attorney, never got
her any thing I. and then, by the advice of the French Consul,
she employed Mr. Hubert. When the 'prisoner travelled with
her from Paris, he was very attentive to her; she objected to it,
and he asked her the reason ; she said, because he was married,
and because she was engaged; she told him that she was en-
gaged to Al. Bertrand.
The clerk of the arraigns here read several letters which bad
been written by the prisoner to the prosecutrix, at Cheltenham.
In one of these, the.prisoner said, in allusion to M. Bertrand,
that " Mary has. made a nice pigeon-pie, and a rump-steak,
for his Sunday dinner. This is done to please you,' &c.—.
The other letters contained nothing remarkable ; they were all
addressed to the prosecutrix, tinder the name of Normanville.,._
The anonymous letter, which the prosecutrix had stated to be
in the hand-writing of the prisoner, was also read : it was in the
following terns:-.." To Monsieur Le Gros. The child ,with
light hair, and blue eyes demands your assistance, and the assist-
ance oryour sister. Moil DieOf Adieu:"
Mr. Al:Wl:Pflug skewed the prosecutrix several letters, •the
signature to which (Normarrville) she acknowledged to be in'
her hand-writing.
Victor Bertrand examined—He came to England about the
end of April. A fewidays after he gave to the prosecutrix seyen

Meta de banque of 1,000 francs each, and five of 508 francs
each, to take care of for him. He never got them back.
Cross-examined by Mr. LAW—Ile had known the prosectt-
trix for four years. He did not make a memorandum of the
numbers of the notes which he gave to the prosecutrix : it was
not the custom of the French to do so. He got some of the
notes at a Tublic bank in Paris, in exchange for silver.
could not tell the name of the person who exchanged them.. One
of the 1,000 franc notes he received from M. Bon-flomme, the
director of the prisons. The witness never received any money
from the prisoner. He did not place the notes in his trunk, be-
cause it .was inconvenient to put property of that kind amongst
clothes. He never applied to anybody for the loan of 301., to
enable him to obtain the situation of teacher to a French school.
When he first knew the prosecutrix she was very respectable.
Respectability in France was the same thing as respectability
here. He sometimes took gold out of the prosecutrix's drawer
as he wanted it.

Why did you pass as the brother of the prosecutrix P—Ask
Mr. Askew. • •
Mr. A DOLritus.—My Lord, is it because these people are
foreigners, that we are to be insulted by them.
Witness.—l beg your pardon ; perhaps lam wrong ;I do
not know your country. Mr. Askew told me to pass for
1114demniselle Perrot's brother. She has always been the cause
of quarrel between us.

Did you tell Mrs. Broadfoot that if she proved any thing
against you, you would say that she asked you to sleep with her ?
I will be sorry to say any thing of her character. I have said
to her, you have treat me ill because you have asked me to do
so and so. I know her.
The cross-examination was concluded by the witness stating,
that on one occasion he saw the prosecutrix showing his billets
de -banque to Miss Hudson, which he told her she ought not to
have done. It was evident that this witness understood very
imperfectly many of the questions which were put to him ; in-
deed, he once asked for an interpreter, but his request did not
reach the ear of the Court.
George Hubert deposed that he was attorney for the prose-
cutrix. • He went to the prisoner's, and demanded some pro-
perty, of which the prosecutrix had furnished him with an
inventory. The prisoner said, that he had -many complaints
against the prosecutrix, and that she was a bad woman. Ile
(the witness) asked him to prove it, and the prisoner said that
he had documents to prove it. ' The witness said that one do-
cutuent.would be more convincing than all the prisoner could
say on the subject. The prisoner said, that if he knew him,
he would show him a document. The prisoner afterwards went
up stairs, and brought down a letter, which the witness read
twice or thrice over.; AskeW said, that perhaps the witness did
-not understand the French language,' and he had a translation.
The witness did understand the French language. The prose-
cutrix had described a letter to him before he went to. the pri-
soner's. He remarked, that it was very extraordinary.that the
prisoner should be in possession of such a confidential letter,
and asked him how he had obtained it? (A letter was shown
the witness.) That was the letter which the prisoner produced.
It answered that description which the prosecutrix had previously ,
given of it. There was nothing in the letter to spew that it came
from a nobleman. The prisoner said that it was of no conse-
quence how lie became possessed of the letter. On a subsequent
occasion, the witness saw the prisoner, and demanded Miss
Perrot's property. The prisoner said iet he could do nothing
till he saw his solicitor. About a week afterwards the wit-
ness met the prisoner in the street, and he said that if the wit-
ness would bring an order from the prosecutrix for the de-
livery of the property, and the keys of her drawers, the property
should be delivered to him that afternoon. He obtained from
the prosecutrix a notice for the delivery of her property, and
went to the prisoner's in the afternoon. In the forenoon he had
repeatedly urged the necessity of the prosecutrix being present
ihen•the drawers should be opened, but the prisoner always
refused to allow it. The drawers were opened in the presence
of two ladies who resided in the prisoner's house. The prisoner
left the room as they were being opened. Nothing was found
in them but a pair of diamond ear-rings, some clothes, and an
inventory of goods (that made in Paris.)
Mr, Anor.rii us proceeded to cross-examine the witness.`
He puf the -French letter, which had so.often been referred to,
into his hands, and desired him to read it. The witness began
to:read, when
The. REConDEn said, that unless the contents of the letter
could be shown to have some reference to the subject of the
charge against the prisoner, bethought it should not be read.
Mr. ADOLPH us said that his object was to show that the
contents of that letter were of such a nature that their disclo-
sure could never be forgiven by the prosecutrix ; and that it
was not likely the prisoner would have 'exhibited it if he had
committed a felony. Besides he thought it ought it be read,
as illustrative of the prosecutrix's character.
' Mr. LAW also observed that the reading of the letter would
tend to show, that the proceedings against the prisoner had ori-
,ginated in malice.
The RECORDER said, that if the Counsel for the prisoner
intended to give evidence that the letter had not been in the
prosecutrix's drawer, with the property as 'described by her,
and they thought that the reading of the letter was necessary
to support that testimony, they were entitled to havejt read :
but it their only object was to invalidate the evidence of the
prosecutrix, it could not be read. He-would inipposethat the
letter imputed to her that she had been criminally connected
with twenty different men. They could not,ascertain that fact
by questioning the prosecutrix, and were they to be allowed
to arrive at the knowledge of it by a letter;- which might
state things which never occurred ? The prosecutrix had sworn
that the letter was deposited with some goods in a drawer, and
it was to be inferred that the person who had got the letter had
also got the goods. If the Counsel for the prisoner meant to
prove that the letter was not placed in the drawer, and could
flew that the reading of it was necessary to prove that, it should
be read.

Mr. ADOLPDIJS said, that his Lordship had thought proper
to mike one supposition on one thing, and he would make
another.—Suppose that the letter, so far from being written by
a Russian Nobleman, was written by a French valet, who wus
asking money ?
- The REcoaDEß—Whether the letter was written by a
nobleman or not, is not of the slightest consequence to the pre.
sent inquiry.
Mr. Anowitis then put a translation of the letter into the
hands of the witness, and asked him to read that.
The RECORDER interposed, and said that it must not be
read.
Mr. Anor.rxtra said something about the difficulty of his
situation.
Ymust do you complain of the difficulty
of your
depend on the merits of your
IlivitcuoantionLalortth
case.; you must adhere to the rules which apply in all other
eases.
M
Mr. ADOLPIIESIf we had had the name of the Rus.
sian General a week ago, We might have gone to the Russian
Ambassador, and discovered that no Ouch person was in
existence.
T
The REconnEn—What is the use of talking about what
you might have done ? Proceed now with your case.
The witness continued—pie letter was one which a lady
would not like to have made public. He did not know whe.
ther it was likely to produce irritation ip the mind of the pro.
secutrix.
Mr. Anor.rxtrs—Suppose the letter had contained a charge
against the prosecutrix of palming a child upon a man ?
The REconina refused to allow the question to be put.
The witness was reexamined, and stated that at the police.
office he never was allowed an opportunity:of seeing the letter.
Three persons, named Smith, Londegine, and Evans, were
placed in'the witness-box by the Counsel' for the prosecution,
who stated that it was not his intention t 6 examine them. The
Counsel for the defence also refrained from examining them.—
0
This, was the case for the prosecution.
The RECORDER here addressed the Jury. He observed
that the charge against the prisoner was that of feloniously
stealing certain goods. It was not enough that there might
have been a culpable detention of the goods by him ; unless the
Jury should be satisfied that the goods were detained with the
felonious intention of being converted to the benefit of the pri.
saner, the charge could not be sustained. The case, on the part
of the prosecutrix, had all along been treated as a civil transac-
tion. The prisoner never attempted to conceal that he was in ,
possession of the goods, but only. said that lie would not give
them up. It Was not proved that he had converted them to his
own use. Tbat he had withheld them wits clear, supposing the
„evidence which had been given to be correct: but he had never
absconded, or shown that he was unwilling to meet the charge.
If, therefore, the Jury should .be of opinion that the prisoner
did not possess himself of the goods with a felonious intention,
they would be bound to acquit him, and the prosecutrix must
proceed against him by civil action. He threw these observa-
tions out for the consideration of the Jury. If they had taken
the same view of the subject that he had, they would acquit the
prisoner without proceeding further; but if otherwise, they
would hear the defence.
The Jury consulted together for about a quarter Of an hour,
when

The RECOUDEU repeated his former observations in nearly
the same words. If, he said, the Jury should be of opinion,
after the quarrels which had taken place, and the jealousy
which had been displayed amonpt the parties, the prisoner had
detained the property from a feeling of resentment, they should,
acquit
.him. But it rested with them to hear the defence, if
they thought it necessary.
The Jury, after a further deliberation, returned a verdict of
guilty qf detaining the grads wdatediilly.
The nr.connElt.—Y(lo must say " not guilty."
A Juryman.—We wish not to debar the prosecturix from
obtaining a remedy by civil action. If we are to say that he is
not guilty, we must confer again.
basle'haenCdo. utnigria—telf thdeetenprisotionnerefhas been guilty of the most
property, that would not

warrant you in finding him, in the absence of proof, guilty of
a felonious intention. By returning a verdict of not guilty.
you will not prevent the prosecutnx from bringing a civil
action.

Ina few minutes the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. LAw, addressing the prisoner, said, " Your case has
not been heard ; if you have the slightest regard for your clia-
meter; you will prosecute these parties for a conspiracy."
The RECOUDER made some observation to Mr. Law, which
we could not hear. We understood that he told him was
acting improperly.
Mr. Law, said that he was instructed to contradict every part
of the evidence' for the prosecution. He applied to the Court
to impound all the documents and pledged himself to prose.
cute the prosecutrix and her friend for a conspiracy.
'This annunciation appeared to excite considerable surprise
anumgst the Jury.
The RECORDER--I will not impound these documents;
and I think that the view the country has taken of this questiA
will not be very much in favour of a subsegnent prosecution,
Mr. limy—Whatever the country may hear now shoald
have no weight. You stopped the case in the middle, here
we could make our defence.
The it ECOUDEn—I hope, Sir, you will treat the Court vial
respect. If not, the Court will enforce it.
Mr. LAW—I wish to treat the Cottrt with respect; but at
the same time to perform my duty to my client.
The REcounEa—l think that you have departed from tie
respect which is due to the Court.
The RECORDER asked if there was any other charge agair"t
the prisoner, who by this time had been removed from the Intl
and being answered in the negative, he directed thathe
sboull
be discharged forthwith.

OLD COURT.
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ARSON.
Two genteelly dressed females, the one named MarY,P,if:,
indicted for setting fire to a certain dwelling-house,
kering, widow, and the other Sarah Shannon, were arm:
the pro-
Pony of Mr. John Jackson, being No. 3, Castle-street, Clerk-
en well, on 26th August last. The hearing of the evidence for
the prosecution occupied nearly 6 hours, when the Jury declared
themselves so perfectly satisfied of the prisoners' innocence that.
the Court proceed no further, and the prisoners were acquitted
—A burst of applause accompanied the pronouncement of the
verdict.