mouth, where he entered him on board a ship of war then bound for the West Indies, thinking such a course most likely to prevent him from the commission of future crimes.

He went the voyage, but on his return he deserted from the ship, and again bent his course to London, where he renewed his former habits. From his knowledge of many commercial houses, and of the bankers with whom they did business, he contrived to acquire large sums through the means of blank checks, which he filled up, and committed forgeries to a vast extent, there being no less than thirteen indictments against him, at the time of his conviction.

During the month of July, 1810, he frequented the Surrey Theatre, and the Equestrian Coffee-house, contiguous to it, the waiter of which he sent to Messrs. Smith and Co. to get the banking book of Messrs. Diffell. This enabled him to ascertain the balance of money which Messrs. Diffell had in the hands of their banker. He then sent back the book by the same person, with a request to have a check-book, upon receiving which he filled up a check for four hundred pounds, eight shillings, and delivered it to Mr. Johnson, the box and house keeper of the Surrey Theatre, with whom he appeared to be on intimate terms, telling him he had some custom and excise duties to pay, requesting him to get payment of the check in notes of ten and twenty pounds.

Johnson went to Messrs. Smith's; but, as they could not pay him as he wished, he received from them two notes of two hundred pounds each, which he immediately took to the Bank, and exchanged for the notes Thomas wanted. The forgery being soon detected, Thomas was taken into custody, in company with a

woman with whom he cohabited. Upon searching her, a twenty-pound note was found, which was identified by a clerk of the Bank as one of those paid to Johnson in exchange for the two-hundred-pound notes. The woman, being asked where she got it, answered Thomas gave it her; when he, being locked up in an adjoining room, called out No, you got it from a gentleman.'

In a privy which communicated with Thomas's room fragments of ten-pound and twenty-pound notes were found, and upon several of the pieces the date corresponded with the entry in the Bank.

In addition to this, Mrs. Johnson, mistress of the Equestrian Coffeehouse, produced a twenty-pound note which she had received from Thomas on the same day the check was presented; and which, with the fragments, &c. made up exactly the sum of four hundred pounds. These facts being proved on his trial, and the forgery established, he was found Guilty, and sentenced to be hanged on Monday, September 3, 1810.

From the day of his conviction, August the 20th, until the Saturday preceding his execution, notwithstanding the zealous exhortation of the chaplain, who daily attended him, he could scarcely be aroused from an apathetic indifference to his fate, or to a penitent sense of the crime for which he was to suffer. On Sunday he attended divine service in the chapel of the gaol, where near three hundred persons of respectable appearance were also present, most of whom appeared to be more deeply affected by the situation of the prisoner than he himself.

He was attired in a fashionable and gentlemanly style. His dress consisted of a blue coat with gilt buttons, lined through with black

silk; white waistcoat, with black silk breeches, and stockings; his hair unpowdered, and his upper lip adorned with Hussar mustachios. His coffin, covered with black, was placed before him; and when the chaplain stated that the unfortunate youth, who had now but a few hours to live, was a veteran in the species of crime for which he was convicted, although he had not yet completed his nineteenth year, the whole auditory were dissolved in tears; not

excepting the gaoler, who sat by him, though familiar with such scenes; while the youth himself manifested a pensive firmness, and was the only person present who appeared indifferent to his fate.

Next morning, September 3, 1810, he was brought to the top of Horsemonger Lane gaol. His dress was precisely the same as that already described; and he met his fate with decorous resignation.

THE Summary punishment of a ravisher, by a conscientious Emperor of the Turks, in days of old, if now, perchance, inflicted, might more tend to check the inordinate, unlawful, lust of men, than all the public executions of such destroyers of the peace of females.

Our laws, and certainly wisely too, restrain us from seeking redress at our own hands, except in case of self-defence but where is the man, witnessing a brutal attack upon his wife or daughter, that would, by a jury of his fellow-men, be convicted of a deadly crime, in searching the heart's blood of their ravisher upon the guilty spot of his atrocity?

Mahmoud, Sultan of Damascus, one night while he was going to bed, was addressed by a poor villager, who complained that a young Turk of distinction had broken into his apartment, and forced him to abandon his wife and family to his abuses. The good sultan charged that, if the Turk returned, he should immediately give him notice of it. Three days after the poor man came again with the same complaint. Mahmoud took a few attendants with him, and, being arrived at the complainant's, commanded the lights to be extinguished, and, rushing in,

He

cut the ravisher to pieces. then ordered a light, to see whom he had killed, and, being satisfied, he fell on his knees, and returned God thanks; after which he ate heartily of the poor man's bread, and gave him a purse of gold. Being asked the reason of this extraordinary behaviour, he replied,

I concluded this ravisher was one who might fancy himself entitled to my protection, and consequently might be no other than my son therefore, lest the tenderness of nature should enervate the arm of justice, I resolved to give it scope in the dark. But, when I saw that it was only an officer of my guards, I joyfully returned God thanks. Then I asked the injured man for food to satisfy my hunger, having had neither sleep nor sustenance from the moment I heard the accusation till I had thus punished the author of the wrong, and showed myself worthy of my people's obedience.'

Princes, nobles, men of fortune'read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest! The hut of the meanest peasant, by the law of Britain, is sacred as your own gorgeous palaces and castles; and, should you dare to violate his female relative

therein, each injured owner may prove a Sultan Mahmoud.

John Whitmore was capitally indicted for a rape on the person of Mary, the wife of Thomas Brown, on the 24th of October, 1810, on the Common between Hayes and West Bedford. The prisoner was a labourer in the powder-mills at Harlington Common; and the prosecutrix, who lives at Hayes, having one of her sons by a former husband living as servant with Mr. Potts, a farmer, at West Bedford, had gone thither about twelve o'clock with some clean linen for her son. She stopped at a public house in the neighbourhood whilst he changed his linen, and there saw the prisoner, who, after asking her several questions, told her she had come much the longest way about, on her way from Hayes, and offered to show her a much shorter cut over the heath on her return. The prosecutrix thanked him, and accepted his offer. He accompanied her as if for that purpose, decoyed her two miles out of her way to an unfrequented part of the heath, amongst some bushes, under pretence of looking after a stray horse, and there brutally violated her person.

The poor woman, who was fortyseven years of age, as soon as she could, ran away from him, over the

heath, and again lost her way; by accident she met a gentleman, who put her in the right road, and she reached her home about eight o'clock at night. She was afraid to tell her husband what had occurred till the following Sunday.

The husband next day set out with the constable in search of the prisoner, from the description given by his wife, and on Tuesday traced him to a public house at Twickenham, where he was known by the familiar appellation of Old Dasher;' and there, after a stout resistance, he was taken into custody. The facts were, on his trial, which took place at the Old Bailey, in October, 1810, clearly established by the poor woman, who evinced through the whole of her evidence traits of modesty and chastity of mind that would have reflected honour upon any character.

The prisoner, by the questions he asked her in making his defence, attempted to impeach her as consenting to his brutal purpose, and thereby only aggravated his crime.

The common-sergeant summed up the evidence for the jury; who, after a minute's consideration, found the prisoner Guilty-Death. The fate of this malefactor received no commiseration.

brave and the virtuous still regard them with detestation and horror. Those who are dead to the feelings of manhood, and wanting in the Christian duties of life, may, however, be intimidated from such a practice by the following particulars of a man, who, perhaps, thought, like them, that he might with impunity wreak his passion on his defenceless companion, whose soothing

exclamations of tenderness were poor protection against the brutal force of her inhuman husband, whose blows were followed by death, and for which he died upon the GALLOWS. James Fallan bore, without deserving it, the name of soldier. He was a corporal in the guards, from which service he obtained his discharge, in consequence of a liver complaint, and was admitted a pensioner at Chelsea Hospital on the 8th of February, 1811, and took up his abode in a cellar in the Marketplace. The very next day, two of his comrades, also pensioners, with two servant-women, came to see him, and they drank pretty freely, until they had finished all the spirits then in the cellar. Fallan then desired his wife to go out for more; but she, perhaps, thinking that they had already drank enough, or that ber pocket could not afford any more, refused, or, at least, did not obey; upon which the friends departed. Fallan then demanded of his wife why she did not do as he had desired her, upon which an altercation ensued, and the wife, by no means inclined to silence, bestowed upon her husband some abusive terms, when he struck her upon the face, which he repeated, knocking her down several times, though she cried out ' Dear Jemmy, don't murder me!' He, however, continued beating her with such violence, that a woman named Sarah Llewellyn, who lodged in the same cellar with him, attempted to interfere, when he threatened to serve her in the same manner, and then eturned, with renewed violence, to beat his unfortunate wife, who by this time had sat or fallen down on the bed. Llewellyn now attempted to get out, but he prevented her. As his fury had not been yet exhausted, he returned to renew his blows on his wife; and the woman

availed herself of the opportunity to run out for assistance. She found three women listening at the cellar door, who went with her up stairs to request a man to come down; but he refused, and on their return they distinctly heard the continuance of the blows, the poor woman all the time crying out, Oh! dear Jemmy, don't kill me!' till her groans grew fainter and fainter.

Llewellyn, afraid to venture down, remained on the stairs all night, and next morning she found Fallan and his wife in bed together, upon which she expressed her satisfaction. The unfortunate woman appeared shockingly bruised, and complained very much of a pain in her side.

'Cut my head, and then give me a plaster,' is very applicable to the conduct of such husbands as Fallan. He now, sent for a surgeon, and had some blood taken from his wife, who did not appear to get better on that account. On Tuesday morning Fallan went out for the avowed purpose of procuring another lodging, but did not return until the Saturday following, when he saw his wife, and then went away again. The unfortunate woman languished till next day, Sunday, when she died, in consequence of which her brutal husband was taken into custody.

His trial came on at the Old Bailey, April the 5th, when, in addition to these facts, it was proved by a surgeon, who opened the body of the deceased, that she came by her death in consequence of the four false ribs, on the left side, being broken, two of which were forced into the pleura, and had wounded several of the vessels, and occasioned a great effusion of blood, which was the immediate cause of her death.

Fallan, in his defence, produced a long written statement, imputing