The Sun.
London, England, 1821-09-18 00:00:00

AIRS. SERB ES.

The following Article appeared la a Daily
Paper of last week :

The Public will be a little amused and surprised at the fol-
lowing relation, which we have from a Correspondent, of the
baptism of a full-grown Princess, which took place at Islington
Church, a few days ago. About eleven o'clock in the forenoon
of Thursday last, the carriage apparently of a person of rank
was observed standing at the door of the Curate, which was
soon afterwards driven to the gate of the Church-yard. The
curiosity of the neighbouring inhabitants was much excited on
seeing a portly well dressed dame, apparently about fifty,
handed from the coach by a dashing young fellow of no
more than half her age, and to whom it was concluded she
was now about to bestmirher fair hand at the altar. The
Parion, the Lady, and her friend were for some time in
the Church, the party not having .thought it necessary
even to send for the Parish Clerk to record the proceed-
ing. The curiosity excited by this mysterious proceed-
ing remained ungratified till the secret became known to those,
whose iirying inquisitiveness led them, the day after, to peep
into the Parish: Register, where the matter stands clearly de.
veloped in the following terms :
",1821.—September 6.—Baptized Olive, daughter of Fre-
derick Henry, Duke of Cumberland, and Olive, his first wife,
born 1772."

This article was followed by the following one
in an Evening Paper of last week :

." We were favoured a few days ago, exclusively we believe,
with an account of • a royal christening, which account, we are
assured, is substantially correct, by a communication from the
Princess of Cumbcrland'herself, which we supply verbatim :---

" TO THE EDITOR.

" The mention of the baptism of the Princess of Cum-
berland in your Paper was correct, but • the statement
added was not merited, it being a relative who accom-
panied -. her Highness, the Duke of Cl-.--, [the passage
in Italics is struck through with a pen]—William Henry
Fitzclatence, Esq. ; and certainly the Princess performed but
religions-duty in being received into the established church that
brought her ancestors to the throne. She had been half-bap-
tised at three hours old, as the infant of the. Duke and Duchess
of Cumberland, but not received in the church till the 6th of
September,-1821.- Her Highness wishing to approach her God;
and to satisfy the. English nation as to her legitimacy; adopted
the calletl46r measure-bound -by every. principle of con-
scientious honour to respect the ceremonies of that religion
which has 'so eminently 'distinguished 'Great Britain, and pre-
served its :ipternal repose amidst the turmoil of surrotinuing
States.

" OLIVE."

Now, as the claims ,of this person have been
asserted with so much formality, and, as if they
Were not- Well-founded, many may suffer from
too confident a reliance on their authenticity, it
(seems generally to be deemed proper that they
should one way or other be set entirely at rest.
If' she is a mere pretender, the imposition
should be finally stopped ; but if her claims
are:legitimate, they should be legally. recog-
nised. .Under no other Government on earth
would the matter be so long suffered to remain
in dOubt. It is proper to observe, that the claim-
ant assumes the equipage and appearance of a
branch•of_thltoyal k'amily, and that in reality,
she is the wife. of
.111 r. SEattEs, a marine painter
of eminences to whom she has been married
many years, and has one female offspring, whO,
if
,the, snhject is not.fnlly and finally determined
at present, may of, course be expected to ad-
ce the pretensions of her mother.
1111‘

YesterdaY,actin SwineN Barnard Tinier
.
was pnt.to the:
bar,indicted for forging eight
several traufersin :the Bank o; England-; and
,also.for forging seven certain receipts, &c., with
intention to defraud the Governor and Company
of the Bank of England.—The Prisoner pleaded
Not Guilty..-7 Mr. BOLL AND oPened the case.
Mr. Sergeant BosANQucT addressed the Jury.
The unfortunate man at the bar stand's indicted
for a most serious and capital offence. The re-
spectable situation in which he was placed sup-
poses that his character must have been good ;
but placed as he was, in a situationnfconsidera-
ble trust, he ought to have prevented others from
defrauding his isrnployera: Th,;,,Learned Sera
geant explained the nature of the cifenmstances
under which the fraud 'W.tt.s, committed, which
were shortly these: -Sir bad, in March
fast, considerable property in the Navy per
Cents., 10,0001. of which was transferred into the
name of Johit Penn, Esq. of 'llighgare This
was not discovered till the 20th of May ; when
on referring to the books in which the transfers
were entered, two leaves were found missing. It
was then discovered that the stock had been frau-
dulently, sold, and that John Penn, the alleged
purchaser, was a fictitious name. This transfer
being made, it was necessary likewise to proceed
to give the receipts. For the purpose of
check three books are kept, in which all trans-
fers are entered ; and it was necessary that this
transaction should appear in each ; and the man-
ner-in which it was so entered excited suspicion,
which led to detection. -The Learned Counsel
then entered into a long detail of the various cir-
cumstances attendant upon the fraud, and which
it would be his duty to endeavour to prove in
evidence.

Mr: REYNOLDS then called Edw. Salisbury.—l am a`clerk.
in the Bank of England, in the Navy 5 per Cents. Office. Our
office is separated into four divisions ; it my duty to enter the
transfers. 'We had no account of a transfer from Sir Robert
Peel on the 20th of March. Lklere the witness examined the
ledger.) The last entry is dated 30th of May, 1820 ; it is
" (). I. 80, to J. Bunn No. 5,281, 10,0001." at is not my
writing; I wrote the- following words, " 20th March 1821, to
J.. Penn, 10,0001.," which' were -erased. I made this entry
from the transfer-book. I should be able to refer to the trans-
fer-book, by this entry, if it were correct. The original entry
of mine should have said R. Y. I stated it from memory.
The. book I have now before me, is what the transfer 'should
appear in. It appears to me that two pages of this book have
been torn out, which would bccasion the corresponding leaves
of the sheet to be out too. There is an alteration in the paging
of the folios. The following page now stands 85 upon an
erasure ; and the pages are altered as far as I)3. There is no
alteration in.the former part of the book.
The date of the entry preceding the leaf that has been taken
out, is 20th March.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY.--,l'Qlen I speak of the
state in which I wrote the entry, I tiv not speak from ani re-
collection of the factt but fray; referenoe P-P other books. '1 hese
books are not written by me. There are oirout 40 clerks in the
Navy 5 per Cents. Office. All of them would have access to the
ledger. llach clerk operates as a check upon the other. En-
tries are made OD the same day, and afterwards checked.=
Notwithstanding, accidenis sometimes occur.
Re-examined by Mr. REYNOLDS.—There are eleven clerks
in my. office. The accounts between Sir R. Peel and .1. Penn,
would have been entered in my division. •
Walter Prideaux examined by Mr. BOLLAND.—I am a
clerk in the Transfer Office. It is my duty to enter a transfer.
I recollect making an entry for 10,0001. to J. Penn, Esq. High-
gate -; I took it from the R.Y. entry-book. I have the 'book
before me, but it is not here now—the number 4,181 ; when I
posted it, it was 11,181. There was no account opened to
John Penn, of Highgate, and therefore I opened a new one.
As the entry now-stands, it is " 1821. Mar. 26, P.Y. 86, by R.
(some name illegible from a blot), No. 4,181, 10,0001. As 1
made it, it was " R. Y. 86, by R. Peel." I can find no ticket for
such transfer. No transfer
.is made without such ticket. The
transfer is enteredinto the hook from such ticket; they are.after-
wards tiled and taken into . the strong room. I have looked
there for this tiCket, but I cannot.dnd it.
_ Cross-examined. by
.3117. ALLEY.—In the alteration a 4 iS
substituted for al. 'I cannot swear from recollection that I ever
saw a figure of lin that place. It is sometimes, but not always,
my duty to take the file of transfer tickets into the strong room.
It was not my duty to carry in the file on. which this ticket
ought to have been.
John Baker Mansel.—l am a clerk in the division L. to R.
in the same office as other witnesses. On the 12th of April,
1820, there was an entry in Sir R. Peel's name, in the ledger,
for 14,7591. ls. 5d.; the original transfer was for 4,7591. Is. sd.
which is my handwriting. Souse one has added the figure of a
1, which makes it 14,0001.

Jay Mr. GURNEY.— I have been a consklerable time in the
office with Mr. Turner. At the .time he was charged I owed
him 1001., which he had not required me to pay him.. At the
tirrie of hiri apprehension I owed him 9a The usual time for
the clerks to leave is from three to half-past three o'clock. I
am not aware-that Mr. Turner on the day of his apprehension,
left earlier.

John Alseger, another clerk in the same office, examined by
Sergeant llosANau ET.-It was my duty, on the 20th of March
last, to supervise the transfers. 1 have some confused recol-
lection of a transfer in that month, in the name of Sir R. Peel,
but cannot speak' with certainty.
Thomas (;harles Frances, another. clerk in the same office,
examined by Mr. REYNOLDS--I am in no division. My busi-
ness is to search the powers of attorney, and compare the led-
gers with them. In the month of Marcn last I found no powers
of attorney in the name of Sir Robert Peel.
John OsWald Trotter, another clerk in the same office, cor-
roborated the tbregoing evidence.
Charles Norris examined by Mr. Ro I.LAND —I am chief clerk
in the Navy 3 per Cents. Office. All the clerks in that divi-
sion (from L to It, 15 in number) were present on the 20th of
March.l Their names are always entered into this book.—(Here
Mr. Holland called over their names, which tallied with the
book.)—lt is the duty of all those clerks, as occasion may occur,
to witness transfers.

Cross-examined by Mr. WILLIAms.—I have no recollection
that Mr. Turner was absent on leave about the 20th of March.
(The witness here referred to his book, 'and found that the pri-
soner was absent from the. `?lst of April to the 7th of May in-
clusive.) I have been on terms of intimacy with Mr, Turner
for upwards of three years, and my opinion of him was very
high.
The othei clerks in that department of the office were then
called, who respectively deposed' to their not having attested
any transfer from Sir Robert .Peel on that day, and likewise to
their having made, no salt:nations in the transfer book. They
also said they knew of no such person as James Smith in the
Rotunda (which was the same ',inserted for the broker en.-
ployed).
Sir Robert Peel was then called. Mr. ALLEY objected to
Sir Robert being examined, on the ground of his being an in-
terested party, until it was proved that Sir R.'s loss had been
made up, and soiree Coiasidoxable discussion took place between
the Learned Counsel for the respective parties and the Bench,
Which ended-1;y a decision. in savour of Mr. Alley ; and Sir
Robert was not here examined.

Roberti:lest; Esq. Secretary to the Bank of England, was
then sworn.

Best proved
,that the Directors of the Bank of Eng-
land had resolved to refund to Robert Peel the :.€1.0;000
Navy Five per Cents. which bad been fraudulently transferred
from his. account. The resolution to that'cffect was put in evi-
dence.

Mr. Cole examined by Mr. REY NOLD-I am a broker. I
purchased 10,411i11. live per cent. for the linuk, to bi transferred

to Sir Robert Peel'; it was so transferred before the dividends
were paid.
James Gyrine examined by Mr. REYNOLDS--I am one o
the clerks of the Transfer Office. On the 3d of July; stock to
the amount of ten thousand pounds was transferred into thename
of Sir Robert'Peel. I witnessed that transfer ; it was made in
time to carry the dividends.- •
Sir Robeit Peel was then egarnined—l was on the 20th of
March at my house in the country. I did not myself make, nor
did I authorise any person by power of attorney to make for
me, a transfer of ten thousand pounds that day:
.loseph Starlin„7.-4 am a stockbroker ; I saw the prisoner on
the 2lst of March. He came to mein the Rotunda, and asked
me the price of stock, saying that he had one thousand pounds
to di,Spose of.. Tire price was Mil: I agreed to purchase the
one thousand pound."... He left me, and went towards the Five
per Cent. Office.: I saw him again in the Office at the dose of
the day. .1., eudgred. him my check for the amount on his. giv-
ing me a receipt:, 7 The check produced is what I gave him.—
In the receipt there was a mistake of five shillings in the Calcu,-
lation, of I told him, and he altered it. I believe the
_t..'ensfe; to be. liifi bairn ,Nriting,but I fAzxaot
'Pak to a certaintk.--1 saw no broker - iii this business. I let-7.1
it to him to get the transfer made to me.
4,3ir. Norris was again examined by Mr. 11,EYNOLDS—Ue
read from the traWerrbook the entry of the '.CIOOO,- sold to Mr.
Starling by JOhn Penn, Esq. and witnessed by Win.-i Turner.
Knows the hand-writing of prisoner well ;. the signature is his.
can't say in whose hand-writing the name John Penn is ; un-
der it is written the name of J. Smith. The witnessing-clerk
• ought to know, that the person so signing was either a; broker
or respectable person. The words "John Penn". Ought to have
been written ~by•Alr. Campbell, -.as he is the person who has
entered the transfer: Ido not Campbell
any broker of the: name
of J. Smith.

Cross-examined by Mr. ADOLPHIIS.—It is customary for a
broker to witness : but it is often the case for other persons to
do it.

Mr. Campbell proved that the name " John Penn" was writ-
ten by him, and that he copied it from a transfer ticket. -
witness made out the transfer frOm a ticket which he .recelvZil
from a clerk, 'whose duty it was to hand it to him on that day,
but could not say from whom it was.
Edward Taylor proved paying a check of Mr. Starling's, for
£1045; but could not say to whom he paid the money.
Mr. Weston is a clerk in the 3 per Cents. Office ;" the 27th
March received from the prisoner a £3OO note, two for one
iundred, and some smaller ones, whicle he' paid over to Mr.
Harman.
Mr. Harman corroborated the testimony of the last witness,
and identified the notes produced. There were three for .100,
and he believed one for £3OO.

Mr. Nixon, Deputy Receiver-General for the County of
Middlesex, said, that .in the bc,rinnimt of April he received
from 'the prisoner 15001. on the '6th of April, 15001., and on
the 7th of April, another sum, -the whole of which he paid into
the Bank of Curtis and Co.

Thomas proved receiving in the monthof March .I
3001, from the prisoner, which he paid into the house of Messrs.
Ladbroke, ,he supposed from thelactof.his being in the habit
of doing so. -
Mr. Allseger, Clerk in the house of Messrs. Ladbroke, prov-
ed receiving two one hundred pounds and one forty pounds
notes from the previous witness, and, identified two of them
now produced.
Thomas More, Clerk in the Three per Cents. Office, proVed
receiving from the prisoner, in the month of March, 1311. 1.25.-
in Bank-notes.
EXamined by Mr. GunwEv---Would undertake to say, -
from his own recollection, that he did,receive a £lOO notefroln
the prisoner, which he paid .into the Bank of . Messrs. Curtis;
he night in the month of Ma.veir have paid another note.for
£lOO into their hands.
- ;
Robert Strahan identified the notes paid by More to him._
Two notes now produced were part of then; he could not say
what day in March it was he received them.
Mr. KayeeSolicitor, proved imxin.(kthe prispir.trin the month
May
of last, relative to certain entires,...Several trahsfers were
produced and shewn the prisoner ; they amounted to about ten
thousand pounds. At the time of the .discovery, the prisoner
described Mr. Smith to be of the Stock`Exchange, but not a
Member, and that he did not know any thing of him, but from
his attending in the Rotunda. The second transfer was attested
by the same person named Smith. The Prisoner-was then ask-
ed about Mr. Penn, and said he had been introduced to.him as
John Penn, and he was about 50, but did not know. whether
he had any transactions, in the *ands previously. Smith had
transacted business in his (the prisoner's) book before; and he
knew him as a respectable broker, and believed he was knoWn
to Messrs. Campbell and Salisbury, of the Five per-Cents. Office.
All the transfers were witnessed by- the prisoner, and identified
by J. Smith. In answer to further questions, the prisoner said,
he did not think Sinith had- a box in the Rotunda with his
name on it, and that-he had himself observed a difference in
the signature of John Penn to the transfers. That he had
• been DI advised, misled, and defrauded by several persons, and
that he had lost a great deal of money. The prisoner had
Also admitted, that he had sold out the stock, and got the
money for it, and that he had paid it to that rascal Penn. The
prisoner said, he had been defrauded by Samuel Turner, who
had absconded. '
Joseph Drake, collector of assessed taxes at Highgate, knew
of no person of the name of Perin, at the time in question, re-
sidink, at Highgate.
N. Sibley resides at the post-office of Highgate ; had lived
there for eighteen months ; had no knowledge of any such
person as J. Penn ; his business extended over tine whole of
the parish. - •
• James Drax, letter-carrier of lli qrhgate. His walk extended
over the whole parish, except.Sauth..vVood-lane ; there was no
such person as John Penn resideat there.
- Joseph Birnie, A letter-carrier, deposed, that there was no
such person as John Penn in Swath. Wood-lane.
Thomas -Ovore, parish officer, said that he was in the habit
of receiving militia papers the laSt year, but did not know of
any person named John Penn.
Thomas Bennett,-' theteadle of the parish of Highgate, de.:
posed to thesame effect. . .
Jaynes; Barton, one-of the patrole who often& the Rotunda,
had been so engaged for-14 ytltrs.; knew .no person of the name
of J. Smith there for many years;. there was a person named
J. Smith who used 'to come through sometimes, but he had
been dead about four years. • ; • • • • • •

John Smith, also a-porter in the 'Rotunda, bore testimony to
the same dial. .

John Foy; the officer, who took the prisoner into custody,
bore testimony
.to the' attempt made by the prisoner to escape
from the room in which he.was confined.

Examined 1;7 Mr. GunNEY.•-•--T.he prisoner accompanied
the witness to the Bank very readily ; he had at the time no
warrant for his apprehension.
A'Clerk in the house of Messrs. Curtis and Co. proved re-
ceiving a note for 1001. from Mr. More ; he did not know it
frotn•his own-knowledge, but from an entry made by him.
Mr. Prideaux was called to prove the hand-writing of Tur-
ner • beli;yed the. transfer to be in the hand-writing of Turner ;
the entry in the kitger Was also in the hand-writing of the pri-
soner. Several other entries were also, in the belief of the wit-
ness, in thehand-writing of Turner.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY—The other clerks in the
Bank niight-or might not be able' to state it to be the hand-
writing of Turner; they had been asked the question ; could
not go so far as, to say if. the word. John Penn had been shewn
Only,.that it was Turner's; if he had been shewn that name
Ciohn• Penn) attached to a stock receipt, without being told any
thing:more; he, would not have said it was Turner's; the reason.
he said so•was the fact „ofits being mixed up with the Bank bu-
sinss ; could not sAY whether he had or had not said he did not
believe in the New Testamentor the Christian Religion. •
• !Examined by jr.^Sergearit I3osANQuET.—Believed in a
future state of rewards and punishments.
a Here the case for the prosecution cloSed.

Joseph• Starling 'called again—I transferred the 10001. I
bought of • the prisoner on the next day, and received the pro-
duce. .

Mr, GURNEY snlmitted that id' a point of law the indict-
ment could not he sustained, as the receipt alleged to he a for-
gery could have,nooperation on the Bank of England; neither
could it at all effect Starling, who had disposed of the Stock,
and received the money. Therefore, the indictment improperly
alleging that it teas with intent to defraud the Bank of Eng-
land, and Jr. Starling, could not be sustained.
Mr. ALLEY, faiMvid on the same side.

Mr. Justice everruled the objection; Mr.
Baron GRAHAM concurred with him in opinion, that there was
nothing in the Objection.'
The prisoner was then called on for his defence. 114 re: