npedrazzini/19thc_murder_suicide_news huggingface dataset:
The Sun. — 1867-09-21 (London, England)

CONSUL CAMERON AND KING THEODORE.  a It has been said "it was not true" that Mr. Cameron went into the interior of Abyssinia against the instructions of the Government, or that he was m accused of delay forwarding a letter of King T a despatch from Earl Russell, dated to thedatedF February 2, 1861, 1861, is quoted in proof bracettery of these statements In that very despatch, however, although Corsul Cameron was instructed to " watch" proceedings on the sea coast or in the interior, he was calitioned against becoming " the partisan of either of the contending parties." The wishes of the Government are stated in the following despatch from Earl Russell to Mr. Cameron, dated Sept. 8, 1863: " I have received from her Majesty's Agent and Consul in Egypt your despatches of ;he 20th of May last ; and I have to state to you that her Majesty's Government do not approve your proceedings in Abyssinia, nor your suggestions founded upon them. I have only to desire that you will abstain from all interference in the internal affairs of that country, and that you will remain at your post at Massowah, whither you were ordered by ray despatch of the 22d of April last to return and reside."  In a subsequent despatch addressed to Colonel Stanton, dated October 5, 1865, Earl Russell, in reviewing Mr. Cameron's conduct, says—" He went to the country of Bogos, where he employed himself in reconciling some rival chiefs, sending on the Emperor's letter to the Queen to Massowah by the Abyssinian messenger." The despatch concludes thus :—" It appears, further, that the chief cause of the Emperor's anger with Consul Cameron was this journey to Bogos, coupled with the Emperor's suspicion that Consul Cameron had intrigued to set the Turks and Egyptians of the frontier against him, and aggravated in some degree by the return of Consul Cameron to Gondar without any answer to the Emperor's letter to the Queen. It appears from King Theodore's letter to Mr. Rassam, sent home by that gentleman in his letter of Sept. 5, that the King alleges that Captain Cameron ' abused and denounced him as a murderer,' in consequence of the vengeance which he took on the persons who killed Consul Plowden and Mr. Bell, and that when he had treated him well, and asked him to make him (the King) a friend of the Queen, Captain Cameron went and stayed some time with the Turks, and returned to me (the King)' ; and, further, that when the King spoke to Captain Cameron about the letter sent by him to the Queen, he said he had not received any intelligence concerning it. There is no reason to suppose that Consul Cameron incited the Egyptian forces on the frontier to commit aggressions on the territory of Abyssinia. It is far more probable that the enemies of the British name in Abyssinia should have infused unjust suspicious into the mind of the Emperor. But certainly Capt. Cameron, in going to Bogos, acted without orders, and incurred the displeasure of his own Government." Therefore, it is added, if released, "he will be employed hereafter in a different part of the world, and will never have occasion to return to Abyssinia."
The Sun. — 1867-09-10 (London, England)

GRANT. The report that GRANT had refused to acknowledge the PRESIDENT'S authority over the district commanders is denied. The new Secretary of State protested, it seems, against the course determined on by his chief, but never refused to execute his orders. On the 28th of August General GRANT removed General SICKLES, and appointed General CANBY in his place, according to Mr. JOHNSON'S direction, and it was thought that as soon as General THOMAS recovered his health he would occupy the post originally assigned to him. Meanwhile a cordial understanding is said to exist between the PRESIDENT and the Secretary for War, and it is to be hoped that their united action will secure internal peace to the long-harassed and distracted population of the South, thus restoring harmony and prosperity throughout the Union.  The revelations before the Manchester Trades Union Commission continue to be of the most startling character. The saw-grinders of Sheffield must share their unenviable notoriety with the brickmakers of Manchester. We have the old story over again—the destruction of property, the secret attacks by night, even wanton murder, all on account of some infraction of the union rules and regulations. The men, it may be said, are led on from step to step, and have no intention of committing so serious an offence as taking life when they begin. This may bo true, but when men start on midnight expeditions, carrying loaded firearms, we caunot suppose that they intend to be very scrupulous in the use of them. The atrocities revealed at Manchester are not in themselves new; the motives which prompted them were similar to those which actuated the Sheffield culprits; the mutilation of the society's books is not new either. The noticeable thing is that the evidence before this commission so fully confirms the impression made by its predecessor, and that these terrible actions, so far from being, as some would have us believe, denounced by the body politic of the men, are supported and paid for by them. The evidence of a master brickmaker at Droylsden, who was formerly secretary to the Ashton Bricklayers' Union, is conclusive on this point. He says that there were generally a number of men ready to execute orders. Only a small minority expressed disappointment, but the majority decided. " When houses were to be destroyed or bricks spoilt it was not mentioned in general meetings, but the expenditure of money for such purposes was generally understood among the members." There were usually four or five such cases to be settled while he was in office and he believed it was so now. When the men were tried for murder more than £2OO was paid for their defence. Seven unions, including those of Manchester, Liverpool, and Sheffield, subscribed for the defence of the men who committed the murder. Such facts as these speak volumes, and it would be well if those who would befriend the working man instead of trying to evade or contradict them would acknowledge the existence of a terrible and wide-spread evil, and exert themselves to find a remedy.
The Sun. — 1867-09-10 (London, England)

GRANT. The report that GRANT had refused to acknowledge the PRESIDENT'S authority over the district commanders is denied. The new Secretary of State protested, it seems, against the course determined on by his chief, but never refused to execute his orders. On the 28th of August General GRANT removed General SICKLES, and appointed General CANBY in his place, according to Mr. JOHNSON'S direction, and it was thought that as soon as General THOMAS recovered his health he would occupy the post originally assigned to him. Meanwhile a cordial understanding is said to exist between the PRESIDENT and the Secretary for War, and it is to be hoped that their united action will secure internal peace to the long-harassed and distracted population of the South, thus restoring harmony and prosperity throughout the Union.  The revelations before the Manchester Trades Union Commission continue to be of the most startling character. The saw-grinders of Sheffield must share their unenviable notoriety with the brickmakers of Manchester. We have the old story over again—the destruction of property, the secret attacks by night, even wanton murder, all on account of some infraction of the union rules and regulations. The men, it may be said, are led on from step to step, and have no intention of committing so serious an offence as taking life when they begin. This may be true, but when men start on midnight expeditions, carrying loaded firearms, we cannot suppose that they intend to be very scrupulous in the use of them. The atrocities revealed at Manchester are not in themselves new; the motives which prompted them were similar to those which actuated the Sheffield culprits ; the mutilation of the society's books is not new either. The noticeable thing is that the evidence before this commission so fully confirms the impression made by its predecessor, and that these terrible actions, so far from being, as some would have us believe, denounced by the body politic of the men, are supported and paid for by them. The evidence of a master brickmaker at Droylsden, who was formerly secretary to the Ashton Bricklayers' Union, is conclusive on this point. Ile says that there were generally a number of men ready to execute orders. Only a small minority expressed disappointment, but the majority decided. " When houses were to be destroyed or bricks spoilt it was not mentioned in general meetings, but the expenditure of money for such purposes was generally understood among the members." There were usually four or five such cases to be settled while he was in office and he believed it was so now. When the men were tried for murder more than £2OO was paid for their defence. Seven unions, including those of Manchester, Liverpool, and Sheffield, subscribed for the defence of the men who committed the murder. Such fasts as these speak volumes, and it would be well if those who would befriend the working man instead of trying to evade or contra. diet them would acknowledge the existence of a terrible and wide-spread evil, and exert themselves to find a remedy.
The Sun. — 1867-08-27 (London, England)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.  POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.  Iftutnrnous ASSAULT OX A WlFE.—Charles Earnstring, a labouring man, living in Cecil-court, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with violently assaulting his wife, Anna Earnstring. The wife, who appeared in a state of great suffering, was assisted into the witness-box, and gave her evidence seated. She said that she lived at No. 12, Cecil- court, and the prisoner was her husband. In the course of Saturday night the prisoner came home, and while she was undressed beat her about and kicked her on the back, her sister holding her down while the prisoner iil-used her. She came to the court yesterday, and applied for a warrant, which was granted, and last night the prisoner camp home, burst open the door, and set kicking her about the legs, foot, and loins, saying that he would not leave her till lie had her life. She was very ill, and in great pain. A certificate was banded in to Mr. Tyrwhitt, signed by the house surgeon of the Charing-cross hospital, to the effect that the complab,ant was suffering from severe contusions of the logs and back.  Mr. Tyrwhitt asked the complainant whether the pH soner had ever assaulted her before.  Tho complainant said that he had continually beaten her about, but being her husband sho had never appeared against him, and had forgiven him. In March last sho wag in the hospital, the prisoner having knocked out somo of her teeth, and put her thumb out.  Mr. Tyrwhitt remarked that the complainant appeared to be very ill.  The complainant said it was entirely through the prisoner's ill-usage. She had been married three years, and now the prisoner wanted to leave her for her sister, and her sister had been the cause of unhappiness between them.  In answer to th 3 prisoner the complainant said that she had never carried a knife about with her to stab him.  James Rogers, a waiter, living at No. 17, Castle-street, Leicester-square, said that hearing cries of "murder" proceeding from the house No. 12, Cecil-court, ho went there, and on entering the prisoner's room found him lying on a sofa, and heard him say to the complainant, " You I'll do for you before I have done with you." Police-constable Davidson, 153 C, proved going to the house and bursting the door open and taking the prisoner into custody. The prisoner said to his wife, "If you give me into custudy, I'll swing for you." In answer to •Mr. Tyrwhitt the complainant said the prisoner never gave her more than a shilling a week, and ho took away froth her a shilling she earned on Saturday. Ile could earn a good deal of money if ho  Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded the prisoner for a week, at the same time telling him that he might depend upon it that he would get sharp punishment for his wretched and cowardly conduct. The poor woman, whose legs were covered with bruises, was sent to the hospital in a cab.
The Sun. — 1867-10-08 (London, England)

THAMES.  NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOURS.—Mary Ann Burchey, a married woman, carrying a half-starved child in her arms, was brought before Mr. Benson charged with violently assaulting Mary Ann Mayse, of No. 3, Upper Charles-street, Bromley.  in the course of the investigation the prisoner's husband called out to the complainant, " Don't tell such -- lies. Your father jumped out of window to illuse my wife." The man, who was drunk, was  immediately ejected from the court by Mr. Livingston, the chief usher, who soon afterwards removed two other noisy persons who were disturbing the  proceedings.  The prisoner and the complainant are next door neighbours. There was a quarrel between them on Sunday afternoon, which was followed up by another and more disgraceful riot last night. The prisoner knocked at the door of the house in which the complainant, her parents, and brother are living, and continued knocking and shouting until the complainant came down and opened the door. The prisoner immediately pounced upon her, beat her, and called her all manner of names, and tore her hair from her head. She also struck the complainant with a brick, and inflicted sundry injuries upon her. The complainant's brother and sister left their beds to see what was the matter, and the people of the adjoining house left their beds. A regular fight took place, and at one time there was a dozen persons on the ground tearing each other's hair, kicking and beating each other. Blood was shed, cries of " Murder" were raised, every window was raised, and the affrighted inhabitants of Upper Charles-street looked on astonished at what a witness described as the " Battle of Bromley." The police interfered, and the prisoner, who was clearly proved to be the casus belli, was the only capture effected by a neutral power. The prisoner said that Mrs. Emily Moyse beat her daughter on Sunday afternoon, and knocked out four of her teeth, and that all the family of the Moyses were sitting up for her last night when she came home.  Mr. Benson said it was clearly proved by disinterested witnesses that the prisoner commenced the disturbance last night by knocking up the Moyses and rousing them from their sleep. The complainant, her parents, and other relatives, were very foolish to leave their beds and go down stairs. They invited a fight by their conduct. The prisoner repeated that her daughter's four best front teeth were knocked down her throat by the complainant.  ➢lr. Benson would send for the girl and examine her mouth, if the prisoner wished it. The prisoner wished to go borne to her three starving children..  Mr. Benson—Shall I send for the girl who lost her four best front teeth ? The prisoner—ller mouth was bleeding on Sunday afternoon at any rate. I don't want her to be sent for.  Mr. Benson said the prisoner was the sole originator of a most disgraceful riot and fight, and if she was brought before him again he would send her to prison without the option of paying a fine. He ordered her to pay a penalty of 10s. or be imprisoned for seven days.
The Sun. — 1867-10-08 (London, England)

NEIGHBOURS.—Mary Ann Burchey, a married woman, carrying a half-starved child in her arms, was brought before Mr. Benson charged with violently assaulting Mary Ann Mayse, of No. 3, Upper Charles-street, Bromley. in the course of the investigation the prisoner's husband called out to the complainant, " Don't tell such -- lies. Your father jumped out of window to illuse my wife." The man, who was drunk, was immediately ejected from the court by Mr. Livingston, the chief usher, who soon afterwards removed two other noisy persons who were disturbing the proceedings.  The prisoner and the complainant are next door neighbours. There was a quarrel between them on Sunday afternoon, which was followed up by another and more disgraceful riot last night. The prisoner knocked at the door of the house in which the complainant, her parents, and brother are liy;-auu wonting until the complainant came down and opened the door. The prisoner immediately pounced upon her, beat her, and called her all manner of names, and tore her hair from her head. She also struck the complainant with a brick, and inflicted sundry injuries upon her. The complainant's brother and sister left their beds to see what was the matter, and the people of the adjoining house left their beds. A regular fight took place, and at one time there was a dozen persons on the ground tearing each other's hair, kicking and beating each other. Blood was shed, cries of "Murder" were raised, every window was raised, and the affrighted inhabitants of Upper Charles-street looked on astonished at what a witness described as the " Battle of Bromley." The police interfered, and the prisoner, who was clearly proved to be the cases belli, was the only capture effected by a neutral power.  The prisoner said that Mrs. Emily Moyse beat her daughter on Sunday afternoon, and knocked out four of her teeth, and that all the family of the Moyses were sitting up for her last night when she came home.  Mr. Benson said it was clearly proved by disinterested witnesses that the prisoner commenced the disturbance last night by knocking up the Moyses and rousing them from their sleep. The complainant, her parents, and other relatives, were very foolish to leave their beds and go down stairs. They invited a fight by their conduct.  The prisoner repeated that her daughter's four best front teeth were knocked down her throat by the complainant.  Mr. Benson would send for the girl and examine her mouth, if the prisoner wished it. The prisoner wished to go home to her three starving children.  ➢lr. Benson—Shall I send for the girl who lost her four best front teeth ?  The prisoner—Her mouth was bleeding on Sunday afternoon at any rate. I don't want her to be sent for.  Mr. Benson said the prisoner was the sole originator of a most disgraceful riot and fight, and if she was brought before him again he would send her to prison without the option of paying a fine. He ordered her to pay a penalty of 10s. or be imprisoned for seven days.
The Sun. — 1867-07-03 (London, England)

GEO. ODGER (shoemaker) seconded the resolution. He condemned the conduct of the press in its endeavour to affix a stigma on all trades unions for the crimes committed by a few men in Sheffield. Some months before the sitting of this commission the trade societies of London bad denounced the system of rattening prevalent in some of the Sheffield trades, but they were not prepared for the revelations of outrage and murder which had been brought to light. (Hear.) Mr. Howell (bricklayer), Mr. Dunning (bookbinder), and Mr. llarvey (joiner), supported the resolution, which was carried unanimously. Mr. APPLEGARTH (joiner) moved a resolution  thanking the Sheffield Trades' Commissioners for the able manner in which they had brought to light the organised system of crime prevailing amongst certain of the Sheffield trades. He hoped the commissioners would extend their inquiry, for he felt convinced they would not find the Sheffield employers entirely blameless in the matters. 'Mr. DODD (zinc worker) seconded the resolution. Professor BEESLEY and Mr. E. BEAUS spoke to the resolution, expressing their pleasure at haying  heard the trade unionists of London so emphatically repudiate any sympathy with the perpetrators of the abominable outrages which had taken place. The resolution was carried unanimously, and a vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the proceedings.  We are informed that the number of applications for tickets for the review in Hyde Park is so much in es cess of the accommodation provided for the public that no  more can be attended to.  NEW RESIDENCE FOR lIER MAJESTY IN TILE lIIGHLANDS.—Her Majesty, who has sinco her annual  visits to Deeside been making improvements year by year  around Balmoral, is having a somewhat extensive house  for her occasional accommodation built on tho south-west  end of Loch Muick. The want of such a retreat must havo been long felt, as her Majesty frequently drives to the vicinity of the loch, and when sketching orvisiting the more distant places on that side of Lochnagar, has had sometimes to stay over night at "the Hut," where the accommodation  is limited. To obviate this want is the purpose of the building now in course of construction. The site is in very wild but picturesque locality. On each of three sideo of it, and within a few hundred yards of the house, rise the bold rocky mountains that guard Loch Muick, while on the fourth side an unbroken view of the loch will be, obtained. A bridle path leads to the Dhu Loch on the south-west, where numerous falls indent and variegate the increasing wildness of the scenery in that direction.  The house will be large enough to accommodate her Majesty and a limited suite for a night, and will take two seasons to build. Its isolated position may be imagined when it is known that it is about seven miles from the nearest farmhouse, and nearly four miles from the nearest habit able dwelling, the latter being the house of one of her Ma' jesty's gamekeepers.—The Scotsman.