News Items from 1810

Excerpts from the Edinburgh Annual Register 1810

January 1810.

A curious indictment was preferred at the Norfolk sessions last week, in which a clergyman was the prosecutor, under the following circumstances:--It was alleged, that on a certain Sunday, while he was preaching, the daughter of one of his parishioners came with her sister into the church, attended by a man, who carried a bag. The ladies, “with clanging stride,” clattered in their pattens up the aisle—opened the door of their pew—packed their movables therein into the bag, and after posting a label containing the words “a pew to let,” opened the door, and retreated in the same order. To punish this conduct, the indictment was preferred, but the bill was not found.

April

6^th.—BOW STREET.—ROBBING CONGREGATIONS—PICKPOCKETS.—For some time past, complaints have been made of robberies, by daring gangs of pickpockets in the day-time, in the public streets; also at churches, chapels, and meetings, particularly at St. George’s church, Hanover-square, on Friday mornings during Lent, while numerous congregations assemble to hear Dr. Hodgson. The Countess of Aylesford, and several other ladies of distinction, having been robbed there, mentioned the circumstances to Townsend, the officer. The Countess of Aylesford said, she had no doubt but she was robbed by a short fat woman. Dr. Hodgson also informed Townsend of the robberies that were continually committed in the church; in consequence of which Townsend went to the church yesterday morning and as soon as he entered it, he observed in the aisle Mary Blakeman, alias Hills, a well known female pickpocket, genteelly dressed in a black velvet pelisse and a cottage straw bonnet. She is celebrated for robbing females. He beckoned her to come out, which she instantly complied with, and then addressed Townsend with, “My good soul, I am not come here to do anything.”—Townsend replied, “But you have already done something.” He took her to the vestry room, and searched her; but no property was found which was suspected to have been stolen. She was conveyed to the above office, and underwent an examination before Mr. Nares.

The clerk of the church proved his having seen her several times in the church; as did the beadle, who also seen her several times in the avenues leading to the church; particularly when the crowd was going in, when the doors were opened, and on the congregation coming out.

Townsend said, he had known her to be a thief for 25 years. Sayers, the officer also had known her to be a thief for the same length of time.

She was committed for further examination on next Tuesday.

April 6

Saturday, Thomas Smith was brought before the lord mayor, at the Mansion-house, by the overseers of the parish of St. Bridget, charged with leaving his wife a burthen upon the parish, and not giving her that support which his circumstances enabled him to do. The defendant pleaded that she was not his lawful wife; that they certainly had been married, and lived together some years, but she had been married before, and had not heard of her first husband for 17 years. He was advised by a lawyer gentleman, that unless she could prove her first husband’s death previous to her marriage with him, she had, of course, lived in adultery, and therefore he was not bound to support her. The lord mayor, however, taught him a different doctrine. It also came out in the course of the investigation, that this gallant, gay Lothario had another wife, whose company was more agreeable to him, and a third was also mentioned; all of whom, it appears he had dispossessed of the little property they had, and then set them adrift. The gallant was a poor meagre pipe-maker by trade, and had four children by the wife who appeared, and who had kept a little school, and lived in decency and respectability before she was unfortunate enough to become his yoke fellow.

The lord mayor, after a severe reprimand, handed him over to the care of the parish officers, until they should ascertain what allowance he could make to his discarded spouse, declaring, at the same time, that his offence should not escape without impunity.

July 1810

Suicide at Carlton House--Yesterday morning, one of the most deliberate and horrid suicides was committed by a young man of the name of Tranter, a footman in the employ of the Prince of Wales. He entered Carlton-house as early as between five and six o’clock, and went into the servants hall, where he was found writing by another servant named Barr, who had got up early. They conversed together without him perceiving ay thing extraordinary in Tranter’s conduct or behavior. At length Barr left the hall, and when he was in another part of the house, heard the report of a pistol. He had no suspicion that it proceeded from the hall, but returned there as he intended, when he found Tranter in a different part of the hall, and at that instant called to him to know what was the matter, but received no answer; and on looking at him, he perceived blood flowing from his stomach, and that he had shot himself with one of his travelling pistols, which are always kept loaded; his waistcoat was on fire, occasioned by the wadding of the pistol. Barr was so much alarmed at the horrid sight, that he ran out to fetch the gate-porter to assist. On his return with the porter, just before they got to the hall-door they heard the report of another pistol and its fall. They found that Tranter had been so completely determined on his own destruction, that he had got off his waistcoat, which was on fire, and in his wounded state, he had got across the hall, about ten yards, and procured another loaded pistol, and discharged the contents into his left side.

Barr asked Tranter what induced him to do the rash act? he replied “he had done it himself, and it was no business of his or any body else.” Tranter lived about twenty minutes. The letter he was writing proved to be a letter addressed to his sister’s husband, bequeathing all his property to his sister, amounting to about 500l. except 40l. to be given to a natural child.

He appeared to be in very good health and spirits on Tuesday. He neither assigned any cause for the rash act, nor can any conjecture be formed as to the cause, except a report of a disappointment in a love affair. He had lived with the prince between seven and eight years. Previous to that he lived with the Duke of Queensberry as a running footman. The body was taken to St. Martin’s bone-house.

30^th.—GUILDHALL.—SUMMARY DIVORCE.—Mrs. Rachel M’Millan, a spouse of a Hibernian carpenter, exhibited against her husband charges of frequent battery and outrage, which she sustained by a considerable share of voluble eloquence. The more immediate cause of appeal occurred on Sunday night. This discordant pair have, for some years, kept two houses in the vicinity of Fetter-lane, well stowed with lodgers. The husband had some time since presented his rib with a small watch as a token of his affection. For some cause, which did not appear, he came on Sunday evening to demand the restoration of this gift. The lady was full dressed in white muslin, and a fashionable straw bonnet, for an evening’s promenade; and conceiving her time-keeper too important a part of her dress to be surrendered at this juncture, refused to give it up. Refusal tended only to render demand more peremptory, and the husband insisted on having the watch—or else!—A warm debate ensued; and the business of argument and answer, reply and rejoinder, was carried on for some time with increasing heat. At length the husband, finding himself no match for his yoke-fellow in eloquence, thought it might serve his cause, “to suit the action to the word, and the word to the action;” and, suspecting the smartness of her dress boded nothing favourable to the fidelity of her conjugal attachment, he laid violent hands on her bonnet, and snow-white robes, and sacrificed both to his fury. The lady produced the fragments, in evidence of the fact; adding that he had repeatedly agreed to part from her, and allow her “a separate maintenance,” but had as often broke his word; and she now claimed the performance of his promise in a formal separation. This demand was accompanied by a long detail of black eyes and rib-roasting, conferred on her by her cruel yoke-fellow.

The defendant now spoke in his turn; he stated that he had been married to this woman twenty-five years, and bitterly complained of her extravagance and infidelity; that she ran him in debt in the neighbourhood, borrowed money from his lodgers, which he was obliged to allow in their rent; and, in short, that she ”confusticated every penny he could rap or run;” that she was a very bad woman; for while he was industrering early and late to get the better of poverty, she was spending his property with other men; and that one morning after he went to work, he made a short turn upon her unawares, and found her locked up in his room, and she refused him admittance; that he got in at the window, and pulled a man from under her bed; that for four years together she frequented a noted receiving house in Holborn; that one night last week she went to Vauxhall against his consent, and staid out all night; that when he went home on Sunday evening, and saw her dressed in her Walchereen bonnet, he suspected it was for no good, and he was provoked to tear it; that he was willing to do any thing in his power to get rid of her, and now offered her an allowance of 10s. per week, which was one third his earnings.

These proposals, however, the lady did not think sufficiently advantageous; and every thing would have relapsed into the status quo, had not the worthy magistrate succeeded in advising the lady to take what was offered.