were quite different. A considerable time had elapsed since the elopement of the first witness, and on her return she manifested those symptoms of repentance, that appearance of return ing affection, which might well be supposed to disarm vengeance, and prevent that ferocious purpose which the prisoner appeared to have deliberately contemplated. Even while her blood was flowing from the wounds inflicted, she still intreated him to kiss her; and in that kiss conveyed a pardon to her assailant. Under circumstances such as these, the law did not admit of the same excuse as when a husband detected his wife in the very fact. Sufficient time having been given for cool reflection on one side and for repentance on the other, the law, proceeding on the same principle as the benign religion which it imitated, did not allow vengeance to be inflicted with impunity. After some further observations, which the learned judge delivered with great talent and feeling, he summed up the evidence at length.

The jury then retired, and after consulting for about half an hour, returned with a verdict of Guilty; but recommended the prisoner strongly to mercy on account of his good character.

Mr. Justice Best.-The recommendation shall certainly be forwarded.

The punishment of Stent was finally commuted for 2 years imprisonment.

SEPTEMBER 19. Theft.-Elizabeth Dunham was put to the bar, charged with steal

ing two keys, the property of the governor and company of the Bank of England, on the 28th of August.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to the fact of taking the keys, but would not admit that it was a theft. She was respectably dressed, and while Mr. Bosanquet was stating the case, appeared to pay great attention to him. He said the only object of the Bank in bringing forward this prosecution was, that the prisoner might be sent to a place where she could be taken proper care of. It appeared that when her room was searched there were found not less than 4,000 keys. Among them were the keys of the Church Missionary Society, Bell's-buildings, of the counting-house of the duke of York's school, the padlock of Greenwich watchhouse, the key of the College of Physicians, of the Royal Exchange, the Temple stairs, county prison, Maidstone gaol, the council-room Guildhall, and many others. They were all ticketed, and the day carefully recorded on which they were taken. Mr. Bosanquet having closed the case,

Shackwell, the porter of the Bank, was called for the purpose of identifying the keys, which having done, the prisoner requested that they might be put into her hands for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were the same found in her room. This being allowed, the moment the poor woman got them into her possession, she exclaimed with an air of high satisfaction and triumph, "Now I have got them, I shall hold them for the rights of my king, my country,

and

and myself." She then wrapped them up carefully in a pocket handkerchief, and said nothing should induce her to give them up but a free pardon from the Prince Regent.

The constable who searched her lodgings was then examined. He stated that he found there not less than 4,000 keys, all of which were labelled except about 200.

Being called upon for her defence, she said that she had done all this; that she had taken all the keys for her own rights, which she could not otherwise obtain. She thought that by doing so she would secure her own rights as well as those of her country, as the persons who own them would thereby be obliged to come forward and do her justice.

Mr. Justice Richardson.-Have you any witnesses to call?

Prisoner. I don't know that I have; I see no witnesses. I have got many relations, but no friends.

The jury, under the direction of the Court, acquitted the prisoner upon the ground of insanity. She was, however, detained for the purpose of being taken the proper care of which her situation required.

OLD BAILEY, FRIDAY, SEPT. 24.

At 10 o'clock, Mrs. Mary Ridding, the wife of captain William Ridding, was put to the bar, and tried upon an indictment for stealing Benjamin, the infant child of John Schrier, 14 months old, on the 28th of August last.

The first witness was a little .boy, 7 years of age, named SaVOL. LXI.

muel Schrier, who said his father lived at Bencroft-place. Witness was sent out with his 3 little brothers before 2 o'clock on Saturday; one of them was Benjamin; he took him to the adjoining field to the alms-house. A lady who was the prisoner at the bar, came up to him, and asked, "Is this Bencroft-place?"-he replied, "Yes," she then asked him if there was a cake-shop near, and if the child (Benjamin) was his brother? he said, "Yes;" she then gave witness a shilling, and desired him to go and get 3d. worth of cakes, and she took the child out of his arms to hold while he was away; he was gone about a quarter of an hour, and when he returned to the spot he found Benjamin missing, and searched all about the fields without being able to find him or the lady. The lady had a bundle in her hand, but he did not know what it contained.

The moment he saw the lady at Lambeth-street, he identified her as being the same who carried away his little brother.

Sarah Holdgate said, her husband kept a green-grocer's shop at Shadwell. On Saturday, August 28, the prisoner came to their shop, about four o'clock in the afternoon, to buy some fruit for a child she carried in her arms. The child now in the mother's arms was, she believed, the same. The lady seemed very agitated, and trembled much: she said she had lost her way, was much fatigued, and said she wanted a coach to Old-street and did not mind what she paid for it. Witness directed her to the nearest coach-stand, and was, at the time S

while

while she stopped, for about ten minutes, struck with the difference in the condition of dress of the child and the lady, and also at the whitish coloured hat of the child as being much newer than the rest of its dress. Witness was so much struck with this, that on the same day she communicated her suspicions to a lady whom she knew. She was quite certain of the identity of the pri

soner.

Ann Knight lived in Newsquare, Minories, and knew the prisoner perfectly well; she took an apartment at her house on the Monday before this business occurred. On the Saturday in question she left the house about half-past 12 o'clock; she had no child nor any family with her; she said she should not return before night. Witness did not observe any bundle in her hand when she went out; she, however, while she was at the house, used to see her with a hat, which she said she meant to give to a poor woman. At seven o'clock in the evening of Saturday, she brought a coach to the door and took her things away.

Hester Hilder lived at the Cross-keys inn, Gracechurch street, and remembered the prisoner's coming there on Saturday the 28th of August. She had been there once before: this Saturday, when she came with the child it was dark and candles were lighted for her; she left the inn on the Monday following. Witness had occasionally assisted her in dressing the child, which was a boy, and which she said she took from nurse. She could not speak positively that the

Cross-examined. The lady treated the child with the greatest tenderness.

On the 28th of

John Schrier was night-constable at Mile-end road, and the father of seven children; Samuel, the boy who had been examined, was one of them. August, Benjamin, another of his sons, was two days more than 14 months old, and was sent out with three of his brothers. On the 28th August he returned home about four o'clock, when he found that Benjamin was lost; he immediately went to make a diligent search, in the course of which (on the Thursday following) he arrived at Birmingham, where he found Martin, the officer, who had arrived there before him; he was in the same apartment with the child and the lady at the bar. Martin held up the child to him, which he immediately owned to be his, and accordingly took it. Martin then pointed to the lady and said it was she who stole it; either the prisoner or her sister-in-law, who was present, asked witness how he knew it to be his child; and he pointed out a mark on the child's arm and eye, when one of the ladies remarked he might have seen these marks since he came into the room. He refuted this by producing one of his printed bills advertising the lost child, which contained an enumeration of the aforesaid marks. Prisoner then became embarrassed, and said something about the

child having been put into her hands.

Joseph Martin, an officer, pursued the prisoner to Birmingham in consequence of information he had received. He found her there on the Wednesday, with the child in her arms, at the door of her house: it was dressed very smartly, and she was nursing it. He did not speak to her until the Thursday morning, when the father came; he told him he thought he had succeeded in finding his child. He then went to the house, which was a bookseller's, and asked for captain Ridding, who was out; he then asked for Mrs. Ridding, who, with her sister-in-law, came down stairs, and he was introduced to them in a back parlour. Witness then said to them, "I am an officer of the police from London, and have a serious charge against you; it is for stealing a child." She appeared dreadfully agitated at this intimation, and the sister-in-law equally so. The latter said, "What does all this mean, my dear? Speak the truth; what is there about this child ?" "I will then," said she (the prisoner); "The captain has been long wishing for a child, and I went to London, determined to take some poor person's child and adopt it as my own; I accordingly walked about and saw this child and some others at play; I offered them money for cakes; the boy who had it said he would fetch the cakes, and he then pushed the child into my arms and ran off for the cakes. I wait ed for his return some time, but he did not come, and I then thought Providence had put the

child into my care, and I went away with it, determined to take care of it and apprize its parents of the circumstance as soon as I could ascertain who they were.' On his asking her for the clothes the child had when she took it, she went up stairs and brought them down. [Mrs. Schrier here identified the clothes produced as being those her child had when it was lost.] The officer further said, that when he first saw the child on the Wednesday it was elegantly attired in a lace dress : on the Thursday it had a new and different dress; the lady appeared to treat it tenderly, and offered to send a careful person up with the child to London; she did not seem to wish to conceal the child at all, and saw her dancing it in her arms at the bookseller's door on Wednesday.

The lady, on being called upon for her defence, said, "I was walking near where the children were playing, and I wished to give them some cakes; I offered money to them, and the boy pushed the infant into my arms and said he would go for the cakes; I gave him a shilling, and he went to bring the cakes. After staying some time, awaiting his return, he never made his appearance, and at the instant it struck me, that, as I was anxious to adopt a child, it had pleased Providence to put this infant in my way. I then from that moment determined to adopt it as my own; as I had lost my way and knew not where to turn to look for its parents, I went away with it, determined to apprize its parents as soon as I could ascertain who they were; I treated it

$2

whilst

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH, GUILD-
HALL, OCT. 12.
Libel.

The King v. Richard Carlisle. -This was an action brought by the Attorney-general against the defendant for the republication of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, formerly adjudged to be a blasphemous libel. The cause excited general interest, and at an early hour the court was crowded to excess.

Mr. Carlisle conducted his own defence without the assistance of counsel; before the cause commenced, he objected to the competency of the tribunal, not being aware, he said, of any law on which the present prosecution could be maintained.

The Attorney-general, in opening the cause, repelled the assertion of the defendant that the present information was founded on no law. Christianity, he said, was a part of the law of the land, and to deny or revile it was punishable both by the common law and by several express statutes; and he cited several cases in support of this declaration, particularly the verdict formerly obtained against one Williams for the publication of the very work now in question.

If the Christian religion were part of the law of the land, the next point was to show that the defendant had violated it by publishing one of the most abominable, disgusting and wicked attacks on religion that had ever appeared in the world; and the learned gentleman proceeded to read passages from the work containing the most open and vehement attacks both on the authenticity and the moral tendency of the Old and New Testament.

Mr. Carlisle, in his defence, stated truth to be his only object in the publication; and expressed his conviction that such publication was essential to the interests and welfare of the country. His fellow-citizens, he said, were now fully prepared to discuss the subject; indeed it was only by perusing such works as these that the minds of the public could be perfectly enlightened. The sentiments of his own breast, he should state, were in unison with those of Paine, and his religion consisted in the avowal of them. He then entered into a laboured defence of these sentiments, which he affirmed to be free from any immoral tendency; and he proceeded to read aloud nearly the whole work, accompanying it with his comments.

After eleven hours had been occupied in this manner, the Lord Chief Justice at the request of the defendant adjourned the court to the following day.

The defendant, on resuming his defence, undertook to prove, by reading passages from the scriptures themselves, that the charges brought against them by Paine were founded in truth; but

he