The Sun.
London, England, 1832-09-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

One of our friends at Birmingham was so
kind as to send us, on Friday evening, along
with a.similar favour to our morning contempo-
raries, a prodigiously long report of the great
battle which took place at Birmingham on Wed-
nesday and Thursday last, on the subject of the
currency, between a celebrated banker of that
town and the man of the Gridiron, or the person
whom we used formerly to denominate " the
butcher of Kensington.' It is not for us to
find fault with our contemporaries for what they
insert or for what they omit. We leave that
matter to be settled between them and their
readers, and if the latter are satisfied, so are we ;
but we owe it to our Birmingham correspondent
to explain in this public manner, as we haVe not
his private address, why we declined a well-meant
offering, which others accepted, lest we should
he passed over when our correspondent has
something better to communicate. We need
not plead on this occasion that we are enemies
of the ring—that we never report pugilistic con-
tests, though " the Champion of England" be
engaged in the fight,—that nobody takes our
paper for " Life in London," or for a sporting
magazine,—that even the great battle which took
place at Leamington or Stafford, some years
ago, between a celebrated bear whose name
(so short-lived is fame!) we have forgotten,
and two as celebrated mastiffs, whose memory
has likewise perished, occupied but a very few
lines in our columns,—that we have a kind of
instinctive horror at recording the feats of all
animals, whether bipeds or quadrupeds, who tear
each other for money,—and that we do
not reckon our Kensington butcher, who
handed his bat round to receive the shil-
lings, though matched with a more ho-
nourable opponent, as any exception to
to our general rule. We regard the challenge
and the battle about Bank-notes and currency in
Birmingham as not more useful, and certainly
not mote amusing, than the scenes in the West-
minster bear-garden, which some years age' fur-
nished illustrations to the Hon. Member for
Galway in introducing his Bill for the protection
of the brute creation. But this, though
it appear a sufficient excuse, is not our
sole or even our chief reason for reft!ising
the report of our Birmingham correspon-
dent. Upon reading it over, we found
the speech of Mr. Attwood—though an able
defence of paper money—so long, that it Would
have cost us a great deal of labour to abridge it,
and, moreover, so perfect a repetition of: his
former speeches, that an abridgment would
have been useless ; while the disjointed trash
of the other gladiator—his coarse and ig-
norant anti-paper antagonist—was a Mere
hash of the Register, only fit for putting below
his own " gridiron." Of Mr. Jones we shall say
nothing, as his learned dissertation upon money,
copper, iron-, cowries, and gold, though formed
of good materials, and polished with much care,
was scarcely a weapon fit for brandishing in
such a contest. This gentle and harmless corn-
batant could not even act like one of those
handilleros, who at a Spanish bull-fight engage
the attention of the bull and the spectators dur-
ing the inaction of the picadores and the 'ma-
tador. His interlude was entirely thrown away.
And what do our readers, who are not ypt in
the secret, think that all this hubbub was about,
which amused some of the curious people of
Birmingham—which called some of them from
their workshops and others from their counting-
houses—which excited their interest nearly as
much as a meeting of their Political Union, and
which procured some hundred shillings folii the
man of the gridiron ? 'Why, it was nothing
else than a question of robbery ! It was nothing
else than to decide by a show of hands,' in a
Mr. Beardsworth's Repository at Birmingham,
whether the national creditor, and all the Other
creditors on long contracts, should be plundered
by unlimited issues of 1/. Bank-notes, or e‘ by
equitable adjustment." But, lest we be accused
of not being a fair bottle-holder between the
parties, we shall give the subject of diS"pute, as
settled by their respective friends. The question
in dispute was as follows :—whether it is 'best
for the safety and welfare of the nation, to at-
tempt to relieve existing distress by an action on
the currency, or by an equitable adjustment of
the taxes, rents, contracts, and obligations which
now strangle the industry of the country ?" 4 By
an action on the currency," answers Mr. Att-
wood ; " by equitable adjustment," repliei the
man of the gridiron—and the lists are foamedaccordingly. The word " strangle" is not;
properly introduced into such a question of
plunder, but it ought to be applied to some-
thing else than the " industry of the country,"
i.vhich can never be relieved by any act of injus-
tice and spoliation. By " an action on thecur-
. rency," Mr. Attwood means a return to small
note circulation, and an issue of paper money
similar in amount or effect to that which existed
before the repeal of the Bank restriction act in
1819—an issue which raised so high the nominal
prices of all commodities, and depreciated so
much the exchangeable value of our existing
circulation. Such an "action on the currency'
might be properly represented by that " action"
which would beat a sovereign into gold-leaf; and
insist on paying in surface instead of weight. By
"equitable adjustment" the man of the gridiron
means a forcible reduction of the dividends of the
national debt to less than half their present
amount, and a consequent entire destruction of
public credit,—an abolition of all existing con-
tracts between man and man, or between corpo-
rations and individuals—and a new arbitrary
settlement of all the money obligations of society'
which had been formed a week previous td the
appointment of his said commission, or the esta-
blishment of his " committee of public safety."
Both the combatants proceed on the undeniable_
fact—a fact not discovered by either of them,
and for the announcement of which neither of
them has any merit—that our currency suffered
an enormous depreciation during the state of
things which succeeded the Bank restriction act
of 1797 (and which operated nearly as an entire
establishment of a paper currency for 20 or 30
years), and that'
-it acquired a proportionable rise
in value from the restoration of a 'metallic
standard in 1819. Mr. Attwood, who is really a
man of strong intellect, and of extensive financial
knowledge, traces the progress of the deprecia-
tion, and of the recent rise, with great truth and
correctness, and we are willing to allow the jus-
tice of nearly all that he states against the Con-
duct of the Bank, and the ignorance of the Ad-
ministration at successive periods of the operas
tion. His citation of an opinion of ours, _ex-
pressed in some recent remarks on Mr.
Mundell's pamphlet, is perfectly allowable for
the extent of the depreciation,—but we pro-
test against any allegation of having changed
any of our opinions, or having hinted
at the possibility of concurring with him
in his practical conclusion, though we ad-
mitted that the act of 1819 raised the value
of the existing currency much more than 4,4ser

cent., or, in other words, than the difference
then existing between the market and the Mint
price of gold. We never have allowed for a mo-
ment the justice of returning upon that decision
at a4'Subsequent. period,- so,- as again 10 un-
settle the value of the currency, in favour of the
parties who were then alleged to suffer by the
change. Things have now adjusted themselves
to each other—the distress of the transition has
been severe, but its very severity is a sufficient
reason 'against its renewal in the eternal cycle
which Mr. Attwood and his partisans would
form. -If we have variations in the supply of the
precious metals from the mines—if one year we
have 48,000,000 of dollars, (or 10,000,0001.)
sterling, and the next, by political convulsions,we
are reduced to a fourth of that quantity—we
become aware of the fact, that the labour of pro-
curing the precious metals has become less pro-
ductive, and we adapt ourselves to a change of
circumstances in which the whole of the com-
mercial and civilized world are equally interested
as ourselves. But if the Bank of England can
raise its issue to 30,000,0001. one year, and in
three or four years reduce them to 16,000,0001.
—if country banks one year have 20,000,0001.
of paper afloat, and the next only 7,000,0001.
or B,ooo,oool.—what vigilance canguardagainst
this " pestilence walking in darkness,"—what
fortune can withstand its fury ? Yet this is the
pestilence which Mr. Attwood wishes to let
loose upon us. Because the value of money
was raised thirteen years ago, and all debt-
ors were sufferers to the amount of the
rise, he now proposes to reduce the value
of the currency, that all the former sufferers
may gain equally by the fall, In other
words, because the debtors in all fixed money
contracts were robbed in 1819, he proposes that
the creditors in all fixed money contracts shall
be robbed in 1832, without considering that
debts and credits have changed hands so often,
and to so great an extent in the interval, as to
leave little chance of compensation for the right
parties. ttdmitting, therefore, that the experi-
ment of 1819 was rash (which we admit only
for the sake of argument, because we have as yet
seen no better remedy for a crying evil), still we
think that Mr. Attwood's proposal in 1832
would be more rash, with the experience of 13
years to guide us. In the abstract proposition
that, independently of the public burdens created,
and the private contracts made in one kind of
currency to be discharged in another, there is a
positive necessity of having a different kind of
money than that of the precious metals to enable
us to conduct or to measure the immense com-
merce of this country—a proposition which Mr.
Attwood broadly asserts—we can by no means
agree. The very reason which fie gives for his
opinion of the necessity of such enlarged circu-
lation—namely, the almost inconceivable extent
of business, amounting to more than 10,000,0001.
a day, transacted by bankers' cheques and other
paper credits in London—would appear to us a
proof that the circulation might be diminished
without any great inconvenience. No actual
money, or at least a very small floating ba-
lance, is sufficient to adjust an amount of
business greater than that which ever took
place in the most extensive empires of former
eras. The effect of these abridged modes of
business, is itself equivalent to the action of an
immense mass of currency ; and, therefore, in-
stead of requiring its extension, may be regarded
as supplying its place. Of the man of the
gridiron and his" equitable adjustment" scheme,
we need say nothing more than what we have
already stated. He is totally incapable of un-
derstanding correctly, or of explaining systemati-
cally, any general question ; and though he has
been writing about currency for the last 20 or
30 years, there is probably not a man in Eng-
land, of ordinary capacity, who is less acquainted
with the principles or the details of the subject
than himself. He could not even conceive the
possibility of a gold circulation, which we have
had for the last 11 or 12 years, being restored
to England. He even wrote several Registers,
to show that the thing was chimerical and ab-
surd—end we dare say that he is at this moment
in as great ignorance of the manner in which
gold got into the circulation, as a certain royal
personage is represented maliciously to have been
of how the apples got into an apple dumpling.
Then to talk about " equitable adjustment" of.
the transactions of 30 years in a great nation, in
the metropolis of which, as Mr. Attwood states,
more than 4,000,000,0001. of balances are settled
every year—where property so frequently changes
hands—where funds and capital every day alter
in value—where—but we are ashamed to argue
with such an antagonist, or against such exploded
absurdities.— Times.

It is well observed by a northern contemporary
(the (aledonictn Mercury) that " Don Pedro
may repulse an attempt to carry Oporto by
storm, and his brave band may cover themselves
with glory ; indeed, we feel confident that this
will be the case. But he cannot remain long
cooped up within the walls of a single town.
His means will in time become exhausted, and
his soldiers are not immortal. There is no in-
stance in history of an open town being held for
any considerable period against the force of a
whole kingdom. A number of circumstances
must unite to render this impossible. A perma-
nent state of siege is intolerable even a pro-
tracted investment might drive the inhabitants to
despair. Upon what grounds, then, can Don
Pedro build any hopes of ultimate success ? We
answer, on foreign assistance alone. And is it
probable that this will be afforded to him ? We
fear not. England is pledged to neutrality, and
France, situated as she now is, will scarcely stir
in a matter, which, in all probability, would lead
to a war with Spain, without the concurrence and
approbation of England," A meeting to
recommend the interposition of the Go-
vernment of this country in behalf of
the Constitutional Portuguese has been an-
nounced ; but we do not anticipate much from
such a meeting. We wish all success to the
cause of Don Pedro ; but beyond good wishes
we would not go even in his case ; and we are
much mistaken if this be not the general feeling
of the people of this country.—Morning; Chron.

It happens rather unfortunately for our con.
temporary (the Standard) that he has to advo-
cate the cause of West Indians, who will allow
no Bible reading to their slaves, and Irish
Orangemen, who, till lately, were almost against
ail Bible reading, but who now insist that there
not only shall be no education without Bible
reading, but that the whole Bible shall be put
into the hands not only of Protestants, but also
of Catholics, in order to do violence to their
consciences. No reflecting person ever doubted
that the object of the Orangemen in forcing
.the
whole Bible on the Catholics was the same; as
that of the West India planters—to prevent edu-
cation. Indeed our Contemporary has a theory
to justify the opposition to education—" We
are persuaded (he says) that mere literary edu-
cation—that is, education without religion,—is
education against religion, and that where such

prevails, the best educated will be the least reli-
gious. "Let our Contemporary suppose the case
of an individual, whose principles are unsettled,
and whose mind has not received from educa-
tion any bias, one way or the other. Does
he believe that such an individual, thrown upon
a promiscuous library of knowledge, as a matter
of necessity would reject the evil and choose the
good ?" If a man possess a sound mind, he
must naturally be anxious to inquire into that
which is of so much importance to him as future
happiness or misery ; and why we are to take it
for granted he must choose the evil, we cannot
understand. The presumption is that the truth
will prevail. Our Contemporary may as well
assume, that if a man is free to use his legs,
he will run into a ditch, as that he will neces-
sarily reject the truth, because his powers of
discernment have been improved by education.
" The best educated classes, as far as mere li-
terary education goes, are not the most reli-
gious," says our Contemporary. The best edu-
cated classes, he will tell us, are those who
have been educated at Oxford and Cambridge.
Does he mean to say that they had not a reli-
gious as well as a literary education ? If he says they
had a religious as well as literary education, how
happens it that they are not the most religious
as well as the most literary ? With all de-
ference to our Contemporary, the whole
of his argument is pure quibble. There
may be oral instruction, and instruction
by means of leetters. The latter must be,
in many respects, better than the former.
Having a better instrument for acquiring
instruction, religion will of course gain by the
improved instrument. The man who can read
has great advantages, in prosecuting any mental
inquiry, over the man who cannot read. Indeed,
we should say distinctly, that the man who can-
not read must take his religion on trust from
another; and that he iwmerely Catholic, Pro-
testant, Hindoo, or Mussulman, because he has
been thrown among Catholics, Prote,tants, Hin-
doos, cr Mussultnans. The Archbishop of Can-
terbury, when Bishop of London, in a charge to
his clergy, termed religion a countervailing
power to education, assuming, like our contem-
porary, that education, without religion, was
worse than no education at all. This doctrine of
the Right Reverend Father smells very like infi-
delity. At all events, it betrays no great confi-
dence in the superiority of religion over infidelity.
Morning Chronicle.

It really seems as if Louis Philip was most
anxious to prove to all the world that the hosti-
lity with which Charles X. regarded the freedom
of the press was not more malevolent than his
own ; yet Charles X. reigned by " divine
right," and Louis Philip has no title to a Crown,
but what he derives from a revolution—a revo-
lution, too, which the press chiefly brought about,
by the devoted and heroic resistance which a few
Opposition papers made to the illegal ordinance
by which liberty of opinion was to have been
suppressed for ever in France. But among the
papers which offered that heroic resistance to
the despotic ukase of the Polignac Administra-
tion, none was more distinguished than the Na-
tional—the very paper which the Government of
Louis Philip has just now selected to try the
experiment of silencing the press, by holding
over it the terrors of a " law of blood." The
system of State prosecution for opinion, which
was one of the principal wheels of the machi-
nery of Casimir Perier 's Government, has been
worked almost as actively as ever, since that
charlatan-statesman and slave of the Holy Alli-
ance has been called to his account. It was the
principal editor of the National, M. Carrel, who
threw down a gauntlet to Casimir Perier, which the
latter had not, with all his boasting, the courage to
take up. By so doing, that gentleman, at
great personal risk, rendered an essential service
to all the independent Editors in France—yet
bad as Casimir Perier was, he had never dared
to have an editor prosecuted for any political
opinion circulated through his paper upon a ca-
pital charge. No— Louis Philip himself—the
King of the barricades, gives the first. example
of this sort, and perhaps the last. The worst
construction that we should have thought the
most astute Crown-lawyer could have put upon
the paragraphs in the National, which have
been capitally prosecuted, would have been
one of sedition. Not satisfied with that, Louis
Philip demands the life of the Editor and
Printer, He calls in, as his auxiliary, against
the too-free opinions of the Press, the extermi-
nating terrors of the guillotine. Charles X. was
more humane, for it was more merciful to put
down the Press altogether, than to make the
lives of those who conduct_ it answerable for its
opinions. When we speak of Louis Philip as
the author of the prosecution of M. Paulin, the
responsible Editor, and M. Hingray, the Printer
of the National, on a capital charge, we do
so because Louis Philip takes upon himself to
act as Minister of State, and is in fact the Pre-
sident of his own Cabinet Council. We would
not make the King of England accountable for
any act of state, because he is obliged to act ac-
cording to the advice of his Ministers—the
Constitution not allowing him any power of con-
trolling
their deliberations. If, indeed, he does
not like the advice which his Ministers give him
he can dismiss them and take others ; but this
only shifts the responsibility from one set of men
fo another. He cannot act for himself. He
must have advisers accountable to the law, as
his own person is inviolable; and it is in this
sense the maxim is to be understood, that " the
King can do no wrong." One of our Govern-
ment Evening Papers, very recently, in advert-
ing to the leading part which the Citizen King
of the French takes in the deliberations of the
Cabinet Council, spoke with admiration of the
ability which he showed in out-arguing his Mi-
nisters. It was a silly commendation. If Louis
Philip had common sense he would not, through
mere vanity, play a part which may involve him
in the most awkward responsibility. The part
which Louis Philip took at the time of
the treason of Dumourier is matter of history
—no penal prosecution can erase the memo-
rial of it from an imperishable record. The
prosecution of M. Paulin and M, Hingray
only more decidedly revives it, and their ac-
quittal heaps upon the " Citizen-King" and his
Government new disappointment and mortifi-
cation. If this capital prosecution had suc-
ceeded, every Editor of a newspaper who wrote
or published such sentences as some of those
charged against the defendants should understand
the " liberty of the Press," as granted by the
" Citizen-King," with the guillotine in the per-
spective. Two of the sentences prosecuted were,
it appears, " care must be taken not to make
moderate men violent by laughing at modera-
tion," " in the present order of things there
are two
andwointerests, two principles to conciliate, if
possible ; and in favour of one of which events
may render it one day necessary to decide." Only
think, English reader, of the sort of freedom of
the Press which the " Liberal"—the revolu-
tionary Government of France allows, when the

blood of the Editor and the Printer of a news-
paper are demanded for such sentences as these !
If Louis Philip really desires to set the Press at
defiance, we can tell him how to do it without
penal prosecutions. Let him observe the promises
which he gave at the time of the revolution,
and which he has most shamefully falsified—
let him cease to be the enemy of constitutional
freedom, and the slave of the Holy Alliance, and
he may smile at the censures of the Press—if the
Press should still be censorious.—Morning
Herald.

After the decisive evidence that we gave on
Saturday respecting the opinions of Mr. Jones
.Lloyd and Mr. Thomas Tooke, as we believe it
to have been given before the Committee of the
House of Commons on the affairs of the Bank,
it is scarcely necessary to strengthen it by further
opinions; but these Gentlemen, we understand,
were so strongly supported by Mr. Glynn, Mr.
Rothschild, Mr. Grote, and Mr. Gurney, as to
the inconvenience of more than one bank of
issue. in London, that it would scarcely be doing
justice to the case to omit what we believe will
be found to have been their evidence. Is is under-
stood that Mr. Grote had the question directly
put to him as to what he thought of the policy of
having more than one joint-stock bank of issue in
the metropolis. We believe the answer of that
well-informed individual to have been that he
should considerit decidedly mischievous.Helcould
see no benefit to he derived from the multipli-
cation of banks of issue, and a considerable
chance of evil. Upon being asked what were
the advantages of having only one joint-stock
bank of issue in London, and what he thought
would be the disadvantages of having more
than one established there, Mr. Grote's an-
swer, we believe, was, that if there be only one
bank of issue, the circulation is considered as a
whole, which would be impossible if it were
distributed among several banks. With one bank
of issue only, if that bank be placed under the
control of publicity, there is a much better secu-
rity for the circulation being administered upon
fixed principles, and enlarged or contracted with
a constant reference to the foreign exchanges,
than there would be if there were several banks.
No one among the competing banks would be
either able or willing to measure its own sepa-
rate issues with reference to that total of
circulating medium which might be proper for
the country at the moment. Each bank would
study principally the means of increasing its own
part of the circulation, and would be tempted to
extend its issues, not at the time when it might
be desirable for the circulation generally that they
should be extended, but at any time when there
was a prospect of unusual profit or of acquiring
new connections, taking the chance of being able
to supplant the notes of other banks. This we
believe to have been the opinion of Mr. Grote,
delivered before the Committee, this Gentle-
man, as well as Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Tooke,
being favourable to changes in the internal ar-
rangements of the Bank, and, consequently, free
from any biassed opinion in favour of that
establishment. Mr. Samuel Gurney, the bill
broker, is understood to have given an opinion
equally decided. Upon being asked what
was his opinion as to the policy of allowing
other banks in the metropolis besides the Bank
of England to issue notes without any re-
striction as to the number of their partners,
he has stated that he did not think it would
be beneficial' to the public, his opinion being that
the notes of the Bank of England, founded as
they were, were the best circulating medium the
country could have. He did not think such an
admixture would tend to any advantage, but the
contrary. Upon being asked, as it is under.
stood, whether the competition would be pro-
ductive of inconvenience, Mr. Gurney said that
he could not point out the practical inconveni-
ence. The present system worked exceedingly
well, and he should be sorry to see it endan-
gered by putting a variety of notes in competi-
tion with each other in the city of London. No
additional advantage could possibly accrue from
such a measure. Mr. George Carr Glynn is
supposed to have said that the existence of more
than one bank of issue in London would expose
the commercial world to very great fluctuations,
and the bankers in particular to very great incon-
venience in their details of business ; because if
there were three or four banks of issue in existence
at the same time carrying on business in London,
it would be necessary fornthe private banker to retain
in reserve notes belonging to each of those banks,
to meet the wishes of parties presenting cheques ;
for an individual presenting a cheque might de-
mand payment in a particular note, and either
that note or gold must be given to him ; and
therefore the private banker must retain three or
four times as much as he does at present, or a
very large amount in gold. The further mis-
chief would be, that it would produce such great
inconvenience to the private banker, and would
so much diminish his deposits, that he would be
in a great measure deprived of supplying a por-
tion of the trade in London, which at present
entirely depends upon him for the necessary ac-
commodation, and which is given through the
medium of his deposits. The opinion of exten-
sively informed practical men ofbusiness, however
they may differ in details of minor management,
is so decided in objecting to more than one bank
of issue in London that it is almost a work of su-
pererogation to add what we believe was the testi-
mony of Nlr. Rothschild upon this point, and
he is supposed to have said that he thought it
must be left to one bank in London the issue of
paper, because if this operation were left to se-
veral banks every one would be jealous of the
other, and if the Bank of England had 4,000,0001.
of gold, another would have 4,200,000/. ; but
if the strings were all in one hand, and if one
bank hold the specie, it can be useful to the
Government, to the country, and to every body.
If there were several banks, one of them might
act in an imprudent manner, and cause a run
upon itself, which would materially prejudice
the others, and shake confidence to a great ex-
tent ; and there was more steadiness insured
to the circulation by having one bank of issue
in the metropolis than by having several. We
will now proceed to the evidence upon one
other head of the inquiry, viz., the propriety
of giving periodical statements generally of the
affairs of the Bank, but more particularly the
amount of bullion held against the issues of
paper. Upon this point there appears to be a
considerable diversity of opinion among practical
men. We shall first call attention to the opi-
nions of thOse who consider publicity to be
attended with pernicious consequences. Of the
witnesses examined upon this head of the in-
quiry we understand that Messrs. Rothschild,
Gurney, Glynn, and Sir Coutts Trotter, were
against publicity, and Messrs. Grote, Tooke,
and Lloyd, were in favour of it. Mr. Roths-
child was asked whether there would be any dis-
advantage in the Bank of England being re-
quired to publish, from time to time, an exact
isticicoonul
dn t
includeof the wholet
eomf
eint st
nt rfa
allns aicttsi
pons,
us ,b
iwe hi
nc Id)

private securities, the amount of deposits, the
amount of bank-notes issued, and the amount of
bullion held by the Bank. To these various in-
terrogatories Mr. Rothschild said he thought it
would be a dangerous plan, arising from the
impossibility of preventing a run being made
upon the Bank whenever it was ascertained that
the specie they held on hand was not sufficient
to meet the demand which either internal or ex-
ternal circumstances might create when their
other assets could not be rendered available. To
this general proposition Mr. Rothschild adhered
by a great variety of illustrations, which we have
not time to-day to enter upun ; to-morrow we
shall return to this subject, and in the meantime
we must observe that if publicity is to be given
to the affairs of the Bank, it is not easy to urge
with justice concealment for joint-stock banks
and private bankers ; but, as our first object to-
morrow will be this head of evidence, we close
our remarks with the practical reason for non-
publicity given by Mr. Rothschild.—Morning
Post.

SUMMER ASSIZES.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Yonr, Aua. 31.

Luke Jackson was charged with feloniously cut-
ting and stabbing George Eastwood, with intent to
kill or do him some grievous bodily harm.
The prosecutor and the prisoner are both glaziers
and painters, residing at Brandsburton, near Bever-
ley, and on the night of the 2d of June last they
were together at a public-house at that place kept
by a person of the name of Whiting. Some angry
words there passed between them. At the request
of a man of the name of Hall, prisoner was induced
to get up and go away; but on leaving the house, he
said he would fix the prosecutor. In about a quar-
ter of an hour afterwards a woman of the name of
Wallis went to the public-house and communicated
to the prosecutor, in the presence of several other
persons, that the prisoner had been knocking at the
►window of prosecutor's house, and had said to his
wife, " Thou must get up, I am going to murder
thy hwband." In consequence of this he rose up
to go home. The company not thinking it safe for
him to go alone, volunteered to accompany him.
The prisoner came up to them as they were goit.g,
but nothing at that time took place. However,
when they had got between 30 and 40 yards from
the door, the prisoner ran after them, sprung upon
the prosecutor's neck, and cut or stabbed him upon
the back of the head, under the left jaw, and also
upon the forehead, and under the right eye. A
surgeon proved that the injury received by the pro-
secutor was severe and dangerous. The prisoner
was apprehended, and, upon searching him, a razor
was found in his coat pocket.
The prisoner, when called upon for his defence,
said he was intoxicated at the time.—The Jury
found the prisoner Guilty. Sentence not passed,
Elizabeth Jobbling was convicted of concealing
the birth of her illegitimate child, and was sentenced
to six months' imprisonment and hard labour in the
Howe of Correction.