ene Morrisy, an Irish labourer, and one Thomas, an English carter. There was present another Irishman, named Scandling, and an officer's servant, of the Cornish militia. These silly representations of their respective countries kept up a boisterous debate for a considerable time, during which challenges to fight were given, and Morrisy and the officer's servant were proceeding to blows, when the housekeeper, Sarah Cumber, interfered, and succeeded in pacifying them for a moment. Morrisy then proposed to depart; but the landlord, suspecting that he wanted only to collect his countrymen, prevented him at first, though it appears he afterwards permitted him to withdraw, and then bolted the doors. The landlord's conjecture was right; Morrisy returned with a mob of followers, but was refused admittance. Soon after a man named Daniel Mahony knocked, when Scandling, who had remained within, opened the door, contrary to the wishes and in spite of the remonstrance of the proprietor. Mahony, in an outrageous manner, stormed, swore, and brandished his stick over his head. He had not continued long in this violent manner, when a gang of thirty of his countrymen demanded admittance. This being refused, they proceeded to break the windows and window-shutters, and Scandling, once more, in defiance of the opposition of the landlord, unbolted the door. As the band of ruffians rushed in, the carter and the officer's servant escaped through the back door; and fortunately for them, as otherwise, in all probability, they would have met the fate of their host. Mahony demanded the cause of the uproar, and was answered by a ferocious Hibernian that the English had insulted an Irishman. That's enough,' he returned, leaping into the bar, and, knocking down the landlord, continued to beat him till his head was much bruised, his arms broken, and his body greatly wounded. A female interfering, a blow was made at her, and she was obliged to fly and hide herself. The ruffians next proceeded to search for the carter and the servant; but, not finding them, they swore they would murder some one before they departed, and actually beat an old man, who was running away, who had three of his teeth knocked out, and his thigh dislocated from the kicks he received. These sanguinary brutes next demanded some gin, which was given them, and they departed, exclaiming, Who will insult an Irishman " Bolding, the landlord, languished seven days, and then expired, in consequence of the wounds he received. These six men were then taken up, all the others having absconded, and being sworn to as implicated in the riot, they were found guilty as accessaries to the murder, being associated for illegal purposes, which, according to Lord Hale, makes each accomplice responsible for the conduct of a part, or whole. Sullivan, who was guilty of nothing except being present, was respited, but the other five unfortunate men were executed on Saturday morning, August the 18th, 1810. JOHN LUMLEY, WHIPPED FOR POT-STEALING THERE is no petty thieving which cans serve their customers with has so much increased as stealing the pewter wherein London publi porter. Even families have bee detected in disgracefully withhold ing and denying their having publicans' pots in their possession, while proof has been offered that they had not returned them to the owner. Such people are worse than the petty thief who more daringly robs; and pity 'tis that the law could not reach them as far as the punishment inflicted on Lumley. To check the severe and increasing losses arising from pot-stealing, which is nearly incredible, the publicans, who now form a respectable association in London, as Licensed Victuallers, brought a bill into parliament for the better protection of their property; but the Commons conceiving, perhaps, the complaint not to be of sufficient magnitude for the interference of the legislative body, threw out the bill; so that their remedy remains upon the law of indictments for petty larceny, which, from being troublesome and expensive, these meanest of thieves are but seldom prosecuted to conviction. The publicans attribute the opposition made to their bill to the pewterers;-what envy even in these grades of society!—and, by way of revenge, the former have entered into a resolution to manufacture their own pots! John Lumley was indicted at the Westminster sessions, 1810, for stealing a pewter pint pot, the property of the landlord of the Cart and Horse public house, Tocley Street: there was also another charge against him for a similar offence, namely, having in his possession a pot belonging to the landlord of the Black Lion; and a third for stealing two pewter pots, the property of the landlord of the Green Dragon, Bermondsey Street. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner was passing along Ratcliff Highway on Wednesday evening, when he was observed to drop a pot from under his coat, which a person near him instantly picked up; and perceiving it to belong to a public house, and a publican in the neighbourhood having recently lost several pots, the man followed the prisoner, secured him, and took him to the house in question; and, sending for a constable, they proceeded to search him, when no less than six pint pots were found concealed about his person, none of which, however, belonged to the landlord of the house where he then was, but to several public houses in the Borough, amongst which were the Black Lion and the Cart and Horse public houses in Tooley Street, and the Green Dragon, in Bermondsey Street. Upon discovering from what neighbourhood the pots came, the constable brought the prisoner to Union Hall, where the landlords of the above and other public houses attended, and swore to the pots being their property. The prisoner, when called on for his defence, said he was going from the Borough to Ratcliff Highway on business; and, having occasion to turn up a court near London Bridge, he found the pots standing there: he picked them up, and it was his intention, on his return home from where he was going, to have returned them to their respective owners. The jury found him Guilty. The chairman observed that the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was one of so great magnitude as to call for the severest punishment. It would scarcely be credited, but it had been ascertained, that the depredations of this sort committed on the property of publicans, in and around the metropolis, amounted to the enormous sum o. one hundred thousand pounds per annum. The prisoner had been convicted on the clearest evidence, ene Morrisy, an Irish labourer, and one Thomas, an English carter. There was present another Irishman, named Scandling, and an officer's servant, of the Cornish militia. These silly representations of their respective countries kept up a boisterous debate for a considerable time, during which challenges to fight were given, and Morrisy and the officer's servant were proceeding to blows, when the housekeeper, Sarah Cumber, interfered, and succeeded in pacifying them for a moment. Morrisy then proposed to depart; but the landlord, suspecting that he wanted only to collect his countrymen, prevented him at first, though it appears he afterwards permitted him to withdraw, and then bolted the doors. The landlord's conjecture was right; Morrisy returned with a mob of followers, but was refused admittance. Soon after a man named Daniel Mahony knocked, when Scandling, who had remained within, opened the door, contrary to the wishes and in spite of the remonstrance of the proprietor. Mahony, in an outrageous manner, stormed, swore, and brandished his stick over his head. He had not continued long in this violent manner, when a gang of thirty of his countrymen demanded admittance. This being refused, they proceeded to break the windows and window-shutters, and Scandling, once more, in defiance of the opposition of the landlord, unbolted the door. As the band of ruffians rushed in, the carter and the officer's servant escaped through the back door; and fortunately for them, as otherwise, in all probability, they would have met the fate of their host. Mahony demanded the cause of the uproar, and was answered by a ferocious Hibernian that the English had insulted an Irishman. 'That's enough,' he returned, leaping into the bar, and, knocking down the landlord, continued to beat him till his head was much bruised, his arms broken, and his body greatly wounded. A female interfering, a blow was made at her, and she was obliged to fly and hide herself. The ruffians next proceeded to search for the carter and the servant; but, not finding them, they swore they would murder some one before they departed, and actually beat an old man, who was running away, who had three of his teeth knocked out, and his thigh dislocated from the kicks he received. These sanguinary brutes next demanded some gin, which was given them, and they departed, exclaiming, Who will insult an Irishman "' Bolding, the landlord, languished seven days, and then expired, in consequence of the wounds he received. These six men were then taken up, all the others having absconded, and being sworn to as implicated in the riot, they were found guilty as accessaries to the murder, being associated for illegal purposes, which, according to Lord Hale, makes each accomplice responsible for the conduct of a part, or whole. Sullivan, who was guilty of nothing except being present, was respited, but the other five unfortunate men were executed on Saturday morning, August the 18th, 1810. JOHN LUMLEY, WHIPPED FOR POT-STEALING THERE is no petty thieving which has so much increased as stealing the pewter wherein London publi cans serve their customers with porter. Even families have been detected in disgracefully withhold ing and denying their having publicans' pots in their possession, while proof has been offered that they had not returned them to the owner. Such people are worse than the petty thief who more daringly robs; and pity 'tis that the law could not reach them as far as the punishment inflicted on Lumley. To check the severe and increasing losses arising from pot-stealing, which is nearly incredible, the publicans, who now form a respectable association in London, as Licensed Victuallers, brought a bill into parliament for the better protection of their property; but the Commons conceiving, perhaps, the complaint not to be of sufficient magnitude for the interference of the legislative body, threw out the bill; so that their remedy remains upon the law of indictments for petty larceny, which, from being troublesome and expensive, these meanest of thieves are but seldom prosecuted to conviction. The publicans attribute the opposition made to their bill to the pewterers; what envy even in these grades of society!—and, by way of revenge, the former have entered into a resolution to manufacture their own pots! John Lumley was indicted at the Westminster sessions, 1810, for stealing a pewter pint pot, the property of the landlord of the Cart and Horse public house, Tooley Street: there was also another charge against him for a similar offence, namely, having in his possession a pot belonging to the landlord of the Black Lion; and a third for stealing two pewter pots, the property of the landlord of the Green Dragon, Bermondsey Street. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner was passing along Ratcliff Highway on Wednesday evening, when he was observed to drop a pot from under his coat, which a person near him instantly picked up; and perceiving it to belong to a public house, and a publican in the neighbourhood having recently lost several pots, the man followed the prisoner, secured him, and took him to the house in question; and, sending for a constable, they proceeded to search him, when no less than six pint pots were found concealed about his person, none of which, however, belonged to the landlord of the house where he then was, but to several public houses in the Borough, amongst which were the Black Lion and the Cart and Horse public houses in Tooley Street, and the Green Dragon, in Bermondsey Street. Upon discovering from what neighbourhood the pots came, the constable brought the prisoner to Union Hall, where the landlords of the above and other public houses attended, and swore to the pots being their property. The prisoner, when called on for his defence, said he was going from the Borough to Ratcliff Highway on business; and, having occasion to turn up a court near London Bridge, he found the pots standing there: he picked them up, and it was his intention, on his return home from where he was going, to have returned them to their respective owners. The jury found him Guilty. The chairman observed that the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was one of so great magnitude as to call for the severest punishment. It would scarcely be credited, but it had been ascertained, that the depredations of this sort committed on the property of publicans, in and around the metropolis, amounted to the enormous sum o. one hundred thousand pounds per annum. The prisoner had been convicted on the clearest evidence, and the Court felt itself bound to inflict a punishment which might operate to put a stop, if possible, to this evil. The sentence of the Court then was, that he should be confined to hard labour three months in the House, of Correction, and once during that time to be publicly whipped from the end of Horsemonger Lane to the end of Lant Street, in the Borough; which was severely inflicted. WILLIAM MOULDS EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF WILLIAM TURNER. THIS case exhibits a most cruel and treacherous crime-the assassination of a fellow-creature, at the very moment when the murderer had been proffered his assistance. William Moulds was indicted for the wilful murder of William Turner, by shooting him on the king's highway, near Faruham, on the 18th of May, 1810. The prisoner was a soldier in the 52d regiment, from which he deserted from Winchester, accompanied by two females, of the names of Elizabeth Roper and Mary Fisher. As he was on the road, he declared to them that he must have some man's clothes, to prevent his being taken as a deserter, and he would shoot some one to get them. As they went along they were joined by the deceased; and, after some conversation about a bed, he told them they should have some straw in his brother's barn at Farnham. The deceased was walking a few yards before with Elizabeth Roper, when the prisoner fired at him with his musket, and the ball entered his back. He had, however, strength enough to run to Farnham, when he reached the house of a Mr. Bott, a surgeon; he lived two days, and then expired. A party of soldiers were sent out in pursuit of the prisoner, and he was apprehended. The deceased saw him, and identified his person, before he died. After he had shot the deceased, one of the girls fainted, and he and the other took her into an adjoining clover field. Here he declared he was sure that the ball must have entered the man's body, and he could not have run above twenty yards, and he wished he had gone back to have had his money and clothes. The jury found no hesitation in finding him guilty; and the judge immediately passed on him the sentence of the law. He was executed at the New Prison, Horsemonger Lane, August the 16th, 1810. RICHARD VALENTINE THOMAS, THIS youthful malefactor evinced an extraordinary propensity for that species of crime which at length brought him to a premature and ignominious death. He was the son of a respectable tradesman of the city of London, who placed him, at the age of sixteen, in the countinghouse of an opulent bargemaster near Blackfriars He had not been long here when he forged a cheek on his of |