The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-07 00:00:00

BO W-STREET.

►fir. Joseph Bowers Gray, a surgeon, of St. James's-
street, and recently carrying on business in Holborn,
wai charged with forging a signature to a post-office
order for 11.,

Mr. Peacock prosecuted on behalf of the Post-office,
and Dlr. Ballantine appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Davis, a clerk in the money-order-office, produced
the order, the advice respecting which he described as
having been received from the post-office, Newark, on
the 29th of August last, the amount being issuable from
the Rev. A. Tatham, of Southwell, and payable to Mr.
G. L. Hines. _ _

George E. Hall, a clerk in the money-order- office, de-
posed that the money-order produced, granted by the
post-office at Newark, was paid by him on Sept. 2 last,
to the person who presented it, but of whom he had no
recollection. It was signed according to the book, which
he had examined before paying the money. The usual
entry had been made by him in the paying-book.
Mr. George L. Mlles, of No. 12, Sidney-place, Brolly-
ton, a surgeon, deposed that he lately carried on
business in Holborn, where he had been in practice
for many years prior to October, 1844. At about
that time he disposed of his business to the prisoner,
to whom he gave up the possession of his
house, No. 114, High Holborn. When in practice
there he had a patient, the Rev. A. Tatham, who, he
believed, at present resided in Southwell, Newark. In
consequence of a communication recently received from
him, relative to a small sum still owing to witnese, he
applied to the General Post-office, where the money
order produced was shown to him. He believed that
the order was intended for him. The signature was not
in his handwriting, and he never authorised any person
to sign it in his name. He had frequently seen the pri-
soner write, and had corresponded with the prisoner in
writing, and was of opinion, from his knowledge of the
prisoner's style, that the receipt was in his handwriting.
Thomas Hillas, the son of the last witness, who had
frequently seen the prisoner write, deposed that the
signature to the order was in his handwriting. In
September last he had some conversation with the pri-
soner, in the course of which he (witness) remarked, that
a post-office order had been presented and a forgery
committed; upon which he said, "it was very easy to
commit a forgery of that kind, for a person had only to
mention the name of the party sending the money."
Cross-examined—Had no recollection of the prisoner's
saying, "You had better go and have the matter investi-
gated at the Post-office." Could not tell whether this
took place in September or October. Mr. Drew, the
assistant, was in the shop at the time.
Mr. G. Garnett, of the Isle of Wight, stated that he
was an assistant to a chemist and druggist, and knew
the prisoner at the bar, by whom he was formerly em-
ployed, at 114, High Holborn, having entered his ser-
vice in March last, and remained till July. Knew the
prisoner's writing, and identified the signature to the
order as his.
Mr. Peacock here applied to his Worship for a remand.
Mr. Ballantine briefly alluded to the serious import-
ance of the case, and claimed for his client the fullest
investigation. He spoke of the prisoner's hig,h respect-
ability and character, and adverted to the payment by
him of 8501. for the business in Holborn, and 2,0001.
since then, for a business in St. James's, proving that he
was above temptation. Under these circumstances, he
trusted his Worship would allow bail.
Mr. JARDINE declined to accept bail, and remanded
the prisoner to Tuesday next.
SOUTHWARK.
Mrs. Ellen Taylor, the wife of a snuff and tobacco
manufacturer, in Tooley-street, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Cottingham, charged with committing an
assault on her husband. _ _

--The cOmplainant, who exhibited a wound on the side
of his nose, near his left eye, stated that on the pre-
ceding night when he went home, he found his wife up
stairs preparing to go to bed. On his entrance into the
room where she was she commenced abusing him, and
he endeavoured to appease her, and to prevail on her to
go to bed, but she refused, and continued to make use of
opprobrious language towards him. As he was desirous
of tranquillising his wife, he permitted her to go on
without answering her, but this seemed to increase her
passion, until she at length flew at him like a tigress, got
him down on the floor, and began to jump on his body
until his cries brought their daughter to the room, and
she perceiving what was going forward, called for a
policeman, who rescued him from further violence. The
complainant declared that his body, from his neck down-
wards, was bruised in a frightful manner, owing to the
violence of his wife; that in the presence of the police-
man she snatched up a pair of scissors off the table, and
in the height of her passion made a thrust with it at his
(complainant's) face, the point of it penetrating the side
of his nose in such a manner, that had it been a quarter
of an inch higher it must have entered his eye. He
added that upon a former occasion he was compelled to
have his wife taken into custody for acts of violence to-
wards him.
Policeman 156 M stated that when he was called into
the house on the preceding night, on his entrance into
the room where the parties were, ho saw the complainant
lying on the floor, and his wife in the act of jumping
upon his body. He (the policeman) immediately pro-
ceeded to his rescue, and with much difficulty dragged
the prisoner away, she at the time being in a frantic
state with passion. The complainant appeared to be
very severely hurt, and complained of being bruised all
over the body from the violence exercised towards him
by his wife before he was rescued, but nevertheless he
did net seem anxious to give her into custody at first.
They all went down stairs into the parlour together,
and while there, the complainant having merely uttered
the words that he was cruelly treated by his wife, she
snatched up a pair of scissors, and before he (the police-
man) had time to prevent it, she ran at her husband, and
thrust them at his face, the point of which entered the
side of his nose, as already described. The witness
added that he then secured Mrs. Taylor, and conveyed
her to the station-house.
Mr. COTTINGHAM having expressed his surprise at the
violence displayed by the prisoner on the occasion, in-
quired the cause of her having displayed such ferocity,
as it might be termed, towards her husband, whom she
might have killed on the spot, or at all events have in-

jured for life by thrusting the point of a pair of scissors
into his face.

The complainant in reply said that he ascribed her
change of temper to religious delusions under which she
was labouring, and she was impressed with a notion
that he was a sinner—did not attend to his religious
observances, and on that account she was constantly
taunting him with his impiety, and would frequently
break out in loud denunciations against him, and pro-
ce( d so far with her vengeance as frequently to assault
him ; that his wife having the advantage of him is p
of strength, availed herself of it, and that he had been a
severe sufferer from her violence of temper.
The wife contradicted the greater part of what had
been stated. Her husband, she declared, was addicted to
vice ; that on the night in question she bad merely ex-
pressed a wish to invoke the Almighty, and that being
thwarted by her husband, and in fact abusive words
arose between them, and he struck her, and she resented
the blow. . .

Mr. COTTINGFIAM—BU'. you resented it with a venge-
ance ; for it appears by the evidence you not only got
him down, but jumped up )n his body, and afterwards
attacked him with a pair of scissors, with which you
might have endangered his life. As it is you have
severely injured him, and it is my duty, for your own
sake, as well as that of your husband, to impose
such a restraint upon you as will prevent both of
you from the effects of such blind fary, and that will
be by adjudging you to find two sureties of 201.
each, and } ourself in 401, to keep the peace for six
months. The Magistrate added, that as the defendant's
mind seemed to be affected by strange delusions, the
complainant had better employ some medical gentleman
to examine her on the point, with a view of having her
placed in a situation where she might be properly looked
after, And means adopted to effect her recovery from
sach a painful condition of mind.
Emma Austin was charged, under Lord Ellenborough's
Act, with cutting and wounding William Maxwell, a
lighterman, on the preceding night.
The complainant, who had the upper part of his face
covered with adhesive plaster, stated that on the pre•
ceding night he went into a coffee-shop, in the Waterloo-
road, to take some refreshment. That while he was
sitting drinking a cup of tea in one of the boxes, the
prisoner entered tke room with a dog following her.
She walked into the same box where defendant was
seated, and taking up the animal in her arms placed it on
the table. He requested she would make the dog go
down, at the same time saying that the table was not a
proper place for the animal. The prisoner refused to
comply with the request made, when the complainant
expressed his determination to turn them both out of
the box. She swore that if he attempted anything of
the kind, she would thrust a knife in his eye. Some
angry words then occurred between them, during
which the complainant gently removed her from the box.
He then sat down, and commenced drinking his tea,
when the prisoner rushed at him, and aimed a blow at
his eye, which missed it, and took effect at the right
angle, close to the organ of sight. The moment he
received the blow, the blood streamed down the side of
his face from a wound which he was not aware thee was
inflicted with a knife. He immediately rose from his
seat, and attempted to seize the weapon out of his as-
sailant's hands, in doing which, the front part of his
trousers was cut through, but fortunately he sustained
no injury in the abdomen. He added that the wound at
the side of his eye was afterwards dressed by a surgeon,
who said that, had the instrument entered the eye, it
must have killed him on the spot.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said, that the charge against the
prisoner, from the deliberate manner in which she armed
herself with the knife, after being turned out of the box,
and after the complainant had sat down and commenced
drinking his tea, was of the most serious character, and
that it was only providential she had not killed him. The
case was one of such an aggravated description, that instead
of dealing summarily with it, which would be a punishment
quite inadequate to such an offence, he should at
once commit the prisoner for trial to the Central Criminal
Court.
The prisoner, who merely denied that she had stabbed
the complainant, was then committed for trial.

RETROSPECT of the CORN-LAWS.
(From the Devonpoit Telegraph.)
The enactment of a law to raise the price of food for
the purpose of sustaining high rents, will render the year
1815 a more marked period in history even than the
battle of Waterloo. This law was based on certain re-
solutions proposed in the House of Commons by Mr. F.
Robinson (now Earl of Ripon), on the 17th of February,
1815. In reading the speech with which the resolutions
were introduced, it is rather curious to find that the pre-
cedent of restrictions on the wool trade was the argument
on which the mover principally relied, because that very
trade now forms the most striking instance which ana-
logy can afford of the inutility of restrictive laws to
protective interests, and their detriment to all other
classes. Among the opponents of the proposed law, we
find Sir Robert Peel, the father of the present Premier,
and we shall extract a portion of one of his speeches :
" He was anxious to correct a mistake which seemed
to prevail in the House, that the interests of the land-
owner and manufacturer were conflicting and incom-
patible. They were in the view of enlightened policy
the same, and the success or ruin of the one was
the success or ruin of the other ; inasmuch as the
country generally had been enriched by the sale of our
manufactures, the landholders had received their share
of wealth and advantages. It had been the wise policy
Elf former Governments to keep the price of the chief
article of subsistence as low as possible. Upon this
principle Mr. Pitt had acted with success, but the sys-
tem now was about to be changed. It was undoubtedly
true that the rent of land would be diminished by the
unlimited importation of corn ; but if the resolutions
upon the table passed in their present shape, the manu-
factures of the towns would be destroyed, and the land
must consequently be depreciated. Corn might be grown,
but paupers would be the only customers for it. It was
in truth impossible to separate the two interests. The
value of land in some places had within memory increased
three-fold, the owners had derived their benefit from
the political state of things, and now they must suffer
the depreciation produced by an alteration in that poli-
tical state. With respect to our manufacturers it was al-
lowed that during the war our triumphal situation on
the sea had enabled us to force a trade without rivals; but
now we were open to competition, it would be madness in
us to throw fresh obstacles in the way of those who had
so many to contend against. In his opinion, it might
be fairly argued that the manufacturer had been the
great benetactor of the landed interests. He did not
say that his design was to serve the landowner. That
had been the effect of the flourishing state of our manu-
factures, and in the difficulties now to be encountered
the landowner ought to participate. By the measures
now upon the table, the wise system pursued for years
was about to be subverted, and the labourers prevented
from putting the real wealth of the country into that
marketable shape by which this country had been
hitherto made the envy of surrounding nations."
Subsequently he declared that " the more the mea-
sure became known, the more generally it was exe-
crated and condemned." The feelings of the public
on the subject were indeed sufficiently proved by the
fact that the petition against the measure, from the
City of London, received 40,571 signatures in less
than ten hours ; and that the civic petition to the
Lords was signed by more than 80,000 persons. When,
however, it became manifest that the patrons of famine
prices were resolved to pass a law to create artifi-
cial scarcity, the greatest excitement prevailed in the
metropolis. On the evening of the 6th of March,
crowds collected round the avenues of the House of
Commons to deprecate the taxation of their bread.
Those who were known to be favourable to raising a
revenue for landlords by taxing the food of the labour-
ers were hooted ; and those who, like Mr. Baring (now
Lord Ashburton), were opposed to the plunder of the
industrious for the benefit of the idle, received 'some
applause. The carriages of a few members were
stopped to ascertain how they intended to vote; and this
was made the pretext for ordering out a military force,
which acted so violently, that Mr. Lambton (the late Lord
Durham) was nearly trampled down by a troop of horse.
He rushed into the House of Commons, and interrupted
the debate to protest against the unconstitutional display
of an armed force to overawe the deliberations of Par-
liament. It was with some difficulty that the excitement
within doors was calmed ; but outside, notwithstanding
the presence of the military, it continued to increase in
violence. Several of the houses of the leading bread-
taxers were attacked ; but wherever the inmates ex-
hibited forbearance very little damage was done. Lord
Ellenborough came forward, and remonstrated with the
multitude ; and they were so pleased with his deport-
ment, that he was loudly cheered.
Far different was the scene at the house of Mr.
F. Robinson (now Lord Ripon), the original pro-
pounder of the bread-tax ; fire-arms were dis-
charged from his parlour windows, which proved
fatal to two innocent persons, Mr. E. Vyse, a mid-
shipman, and Mrs. Watson. It was consistent that a
law to produce starvation should be baptised in blood.
Wilful murder by the musket was a proper preliminary
to wilful murder by famine. This is not our language,
it is the verdict of the coroner's juries in both cases. The
coroner's inquest on Mr. Yyse found " Wilful murder
against some person or persons firing shot frsan and out
of fire-arms from Mr. Robinson's windows ; that on Jane
Watson returned a verdict of " Wilful murder against
Mr. Robinson's butler and three soldiers."
It is well worth while to notice the precipitation with
which the corn-law was hurried through Parliament; it
was first broached in the House of Commons on the
17th of February; it was passed in the House of Lords
on the 20th of March. In the interval, the City of
London prayed to be heard by counsel against a measure
so pregnant with danger to the trade and commerce of
the country ; but this reasonable request was rejected
with something like contumely.
A law passed by a packed Parliament of Members in-
terested in the perpretration of injustice naturally pro-
voked the indignation of the people ; and its authors
took measures to suppress the expression of public
opinion by military violence. No sooner was the increas-
ing extent of popular discontent known, than Wort.
anything like outrage was committed, preparations were
made to occupy London with an overwhelming army, as
if it had been a hostile capital. Tne following circular
was addressed by the high constable of Brighton to the
different innkeepers of that town and the surrounding
district :
" In consequence of a requisition received by me from
the Quartermaster-General, I have to request you will,
on or before Monday next, furnish me with a correct
return of the number of soldiers you can accommodate,
in case of emergency, on their march through this to sin ;
also what number of horses you can possibly make room
for."

This precious missive is dated March 4th, 1815. and
there was not the slightest disturbance of the public
peace before Monday, March 7th. The soldiers were
stimulated to commit acts of violence. We have already
mentioned the two murders committed at the house of
the present Earl of Ripon. On the same evening, Mr.
Henrick, of Cecil-street, Strand, who was quietly going