The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-28 00:00:00

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE AGAINST THE REV,

ROBERT TAYLOR-RICHARDS V. TAYLOR.

Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS stated that this was an action
brought by Georgiana Richards against the Rev. Robert
Taylor, to recover damages for breach of marriage promise.
The plaintiff was employed as housekeeper at the Rotunda,
and it appeared that a mutual affection had taken place
between her and the defendant. About a fortnight before
the defendant was committed to Horsemonger-lane Gaol,
he promised to marry the plaintiff, and which promise he
repeated when placed in confinement. The Learned Coun-
sel then stated that the defendant had violated the promise
which he made to the plaintiff, and married an elderly lady
named Robinson, who had charms to the amount of 4001.
or 5001. a year.
A Mrs. Potter stated that about three weeks after the
defendant was committed to prison, he was visited by the
plaintiff, when he received her with great affection, and said
" He wished he had been spared a fortnight longer, in
which time, Georgy, I would have made you my wife." His
behaviour to the plaintiff was that of a lover.
The witness, in her cross-examination, said she had heard
the plaintiff say, when speaking of Mr. Taylor's principles,
that she would rather see him drowned than married, for if
he married he would no longer be a public man. Mr. Tay-
lor, when he lectured, was dressed in a white surplice, and
the plaintiff assisted him to put it on.
Mr. Fletcher, a medical gentleman residing in the Lon-
don-road, once or twice accompanied the plaintiff to see
Mr. Taylor in prison. Mr. Taylor's manner towards the
plaintiff appeared to be like that of a gentleman who was
paying his attentions to a lady previous to marriage. In a
conversation which the witness had with the defendant about
Mrs. Robinson, his wife, the defendant said; in alluding to
his rich relations, " There is Mrs. Robinson, she can well
afford to make me a present, for I know she has some 4001.
or 5001. a year." Mrs. Robinson is about sixty, the plain-
tiff twenty-five, and Mr. Taylor between forty and fifty.
After the defendant had been released from prison, he de-
serted the plaintiff, which had a great effect upon her health,
and caused her to be afflicted with hysterical fits. This was
in July, 1833.
The defendant's letters to the plaintiff were here read.
The first, dated the 17th of November, 1831, was to the
following effect :
Dear Georgiana.—The seal of this will not be broken,
which is a comfort conquered and achieved from our tyrants—
(you see I take the liberty of fancying that my enemies are
yours)—and would never have been conceded. The method
of my victory was this—The tyrants were obliged to enter
upon their books a resolution, which made it law that one
male friend should be allowed to see me every day, except
damnation day ( Sunday.) On this law I advanced my chal-
lenge that no male friend coming to see me should be subject
to any sort of inquiry, examination, or impertinence, of any
one, or be treated otherwise than as being equally respectable
with any one of themselves. This they admitted was involved
in the sense of the law. On this admission I advanced again,
then my friends shall and will convey letters to and from me.
It was answered, of course they cannot be hindered from
doing so. Then, what goes of the gaoler's power to open
and read my letters ? He has still the right to do so, said
they. But the power is gone, cried I, defeated, completely
defeated ; he has the prerogative without the power. It
said the gaoler himself, defeated, and you will be able and
have a right, to secure all your correspondence from my in-
spection. So so I and this, my dear Georgy, is the first
effusion of my heart under a seal that is inviolable. I have
never once, at any time (no merit, for I could not help it),
failed of drinking health, and all joy of heart, and length of
life to my heart's dear one. We shall yet conquer, my Georgy.
Make it your religion, I pray, to have the firmest confidence
in our eventful triumph. I have, indeed, been in very great
grief, for I will always tell you the truth, but I have never,
never, at any moment, been in that sort of grief that had the
least touch of melancholy in it. I have never been wretched,
no, nor dejected I never, at any moment, in such a state as that
if any one had told me, it is all well yet with G,' I should
not have jumped up in a moment, and sung ' How joy repels
the envenomed dart, and conquers every care.' I have found
by experience
The broadest mirth unfeeling folly wears
Less pleasing far than Virtue's very tears." I
am yet very rich in hope. Pray take your pqrt of it.,
I
shall be gaining every week fresh. privileges, and I still think
there is some Motion'in the elements that looks like dawning
liberty. Be m good health, my Cato's daughter No trenble
which I cannot bear will reach me but throne you; and be sure

of it—sure it is'as fate—that many, very many happy days will
reward our deserving of them. One word comprehends our
whole policy and hope. We must be wise ! My most fervent
gratitude, my heart's eternal reverence, and honour is their's
who love and comfort you. When you are well and cheerful
let your good genius tell you that I am so, and yours, while I
shall be " ROBERT TAYLOR."

The second letter, which excited more laughter than the
preceding one, was in the following words. It was dated
the sth of June, 1832 :

" My dear Georgiana,—l am grieved beyond all manner of
grief at the insolent cruelty of my oppressors, in debarring
me of the comfort (the very sweetest drop of comfort that
could have been instilled into my cup of sorrow) which I
had hoped for, of seeing you. You may guess with how ill a
grace, and how unwillingly, they have been constrained by
the report of the surgeon to grant an►y alleviation of my suf-
ferings, and how diabolically ingenious they have been as
torturers and tormentors, in accompanying the concession
which they could not withhold, with the most galling' insult
that they could devise. I have not written to you, as you
have doubtless thought I should have done, not because there
has been any change, or ever will be, in my feeling towards
you ; but because I could not do so without a grid' and pain
in the doing, which it was as natural to endeavour to avoid, as
it is to endeavour to avoid grief and pain. What had Ito
write ? No good ;no joy ;no hope. I had only to draw
upon you sympathies ; to be the object of your pity ; to fill
your eyes with tears, and your heart with anguish, and I
have pride my Georgy—a pride in all my troubles that cannot
bear to lay my heavy burthen on the heart that would most
feel it. I have hoped, and wished, and sought that you might
suffer as little on my account as possible, and I thought you
would suffer less the less I obtruded the remembrance of my
griefs on you. lam as one dead, and like one dead the less
my remembrance survives the better. If I could make you
happy, oh how happy should I be to do so ; but not a feather
weight would I willingly lay on to the already too heavy bur-
then. I cannot write Jeremiads; very severe experience has
taught me the great importance of taking none but the sober-
est view of every thing, however gloomy the sober view may
be, and that view is at present that I shall at last, perhaps after
next month, obtain the allowance which has been so inexorably
refused. With utmost affection, respect, and love, I remain,
my dear Georgy, altogether yours,

" ROBERT.

" Christian Charity Castle, June the sth, 1832."
This closed the case on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. F. Kelly then addressed the Jury for the defence.
All knew what a republican marriage meant, tying two per-
sons together, and throwing them into the river—a horrid
practice that was carried into execution in France upon
numbers of victims in 1745. Here was Mr. Taylor, preach-
ing against religion, and attempting to subvert all religious
principles, supposed to enter into a promise to perform that
religious ceremony of marriage. Both Mr. Taylor and the
plaintiff seemed to despise that ceremony, and it was for the
Jury therefore to say whether the promise, if any, had such
a meaning as the parties wished now to make it appear.
The Jury had heard that the plaintiff said she would rather
that Mr. Taylor was drowned than married ; and did not
that furnish the strongest evidence of the contempt in
which she held the marriage ceremony, and that she
despised it because it would cause Mr. Taylor to
depart from those principles which he entertained. Was it to
be endured that a court of justice was to be perverted from its
original purpose, and become a place for the recovery of da-
mages for a breach of contract made under circumstances of
the most wicked, and heinous nature ? At the time when the
alleged promise was made Mr. Taylor scoffed at and derided
religion, and Miss Richards gained her daily bread by
assisting at the dissemination of those doctrines. A mar-
riage between them, therefore, he repeated, would have
been a mere hypocrisy, and a scoff at religion ; they would
have appeared at the altar with a lie on their tongues, and
with Atheism in their hearts.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 2501.

It was stated in Court that Mr. Taylor has left the country

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

Q UEEN-SQUARE.

Yesterday a young man, dressed in a most fashionable
style, who gave his name Charles Jones, but who refused to
give his address, was brought up in custody, and placed at
the bar before Mr. BURRELL, charged with picking the
pocket of Mr. Joseph Heeley, a surgeon, of No. 13, York-
street, Bryanston-square, of a small parcel, containing
seven new muslin pocket handkerchiefs, in the Court of
King's Bench.
Mr. Heeley stated that between three and four o'clock
on the previous afternoon, he was in the Court of King's
Bench when he distinctly felt a persons hand in his coat
pocket, he turned round and seized the prisoner, who was
behind him. He struggled violently, and endeavoured to
get away. A police constable came up, and he gave the
prisoner into custody for having robbed him of some hand-
kerchiefs.

A police constable of the A division, No. 38, stated that
he was on duty in the Court of King's Bach, and took the
prisoner into custody. He saw him drop a small paper
parcel at his feet, which witness picked up. When he
seized the prisoner he called out " What are you going to
take me for ? I have not taken anything." On searching
him at the station-house he found a penknife, a small pair
of scissors, of a particular make, such as is used by thieves
for cutting pockets, and 12s. 6d. in silver.
The inspector said that the prisoner was well known.
The prisoner was recognised as having been several timss
in custody. The last time he was convicted in the name of
Charles Austin, for attempting to pick pockets at the Ita-
ian Op era House.
Mr. Heeley sdentified the handkerchiefs produced by the
constable as his property.
The prisoner in reply denied the charge, and was fully
committed for trial.

Prisoner—l hope your Worship will order the little
silver upon me to be given up to me.
Mr. BURRELL told the constable he might give him the
money, and he was then locked up.
On the same afternoon a gentleman was robbed of about
601. in the same Court.