Mercuriosities

As a consequence of the investigation of the Easton murder, many labourers were found to have committed lesser crimes.

“Easton Murder. – The enquiry before the Magistrates (still going on) has led to the committal for trial at Northampton of Richard Woodward and John Archer (noticed in our last to be in custody) as perpetrators of this horrid and almost unparalleled act of atrocity. It has also led to other most important results: on Wednesday last, from circumstances which transpired during the investigation, the following persons, all of Easton, were committed for trial, viz. Jacob Earl, labourer, on the charge of stealing sheep, the property of Thomas Thompson, Esq., of Tinwell; Chas Newey, tailor, charged with stealing fowls from the premises of the Rev. Gregory Bateman; Henry Ford and James Ploughwright, labourers, on the charge of stealing fowls from the premises of Mr. Charles Whitehead; and William Woodward, labourer for stealing fowls from Mr. John Trasler, butcher. – There are still parties in custody whose cases are not disposed of, and most of those committed will have to answer for a plurality of crimes: and dark as may be this miserable picture, we are sorry to observe that the Augean stable of Easton (in Northamptonshire, about two miles south-west of Stamford), yet containing little more than 100 houses, does not appear to be yet nearly cleansed.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

Following last week’s post, more is revealed about the female husband found in Manchester. Apparently, female husbands have been known for centuries. A recent book by Jen Manion comprises dozens of anecdotes and narratives detailing the lives of people who were considered girls at birth but who adopted masculine names and loved and lived with female wives. Also, Henry Fielding’s novel, ‘The female husband’, fictionalised the life of Mrs. Mary, alias Mr. George, Hamilton.

“THE WOMAN HUSBAND.–Subsequent enquiries confirm the truth of the statements made in the Manchester Guardian of the 11th, as to this singular case. This woman-man who for probably more than 25 years has succeeded in concealing her sex, and in pursuing a trade of a more than ordinarily masculine and hazardous description, with a degree of skill and ability which has led to her establishment in a good business in Manchester, bound herself apprentice, at the age of 16 or 17 years, to a Mr. Peacock, a bricklayer and builder at Bawtry, a small market town in the West Riding of Yorkshire, on the River Idle, which separates the counties of York and Nottingham. She did not remain with Mr. Peacock during the whole period of her apprenticeship, but was ‘turned over,’ as it is called, to another person in the same business. It was during her apprenticeship that she met with her present wife ; and they were married at the old parish church of Sheffield, in the year 1816, when the wife was only 17 years of age. Since the investigation and disclosure of the circumstances on Thursday week, the wife and husband have separated. The latter was for many years a special constable, in the 13th division of that body ; acting for Manchester ; and we are assured that, on all occasions where the services of the division were required, as at elections, orange processions, meetings of trades’ unions, turn-outs, &c. &c., so far from absenting herself, from what, as in the case of well-grounded apprehensions of a riot, must have been, to a woman, a post of some unpleasantness, she is remembered to have been one of the most punctual in attendance, and the most forward volunteer in actual duty, in that division. We understand that she is only no longer a special constable, because she did not, on the last annual special session, held for that purpose at the New Bailey, present herself to be re-sworn. She was not discarded or discharged ; there was no complaint against her ; and probably the extension of her own business was her only motive for not resuming the duties of this office. Altogether, this is by far the most singular case of the kind which has ever reached our knowledge. The celebrated Chevalier D’Eon was not married ; and James Davis (so-called), the discovery of whose sex took place only after death, had not been married for so long a period as the woman whose case is now under notice. There, too, the discovery was made too late to obtain from the party herself any clue to the motives which led her to so unfeminine a course of deception ; but here both parties to the supposed marriage are alive, and the one who assumed the male sex is still alive to give, if she chooses, the true history of her reasons or fancy for laying aside the garb and character of her own, and assuming the appearance, and undertaking the toil, of the other sex, which would certainly be a very curious chapter of biography.–Manchester Guardian of Saturday last.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

Female husband: lesbian, transvestite or woman seeking worthwhile employment and enjoying the benefits of a wife at home? What would Queen Victoria have made of this, bearing in mind that she refused to believe lesbianism existed ?

“FEMALE HUSBAND.–In the Manchester Times of the 8th inst. was a paragraph to the following effect :–“UNFOUNDED REPORT:–A silly report has been industriously propagated this week, to the effect that a respectable female in this town has been married for about 17 years to a person who, within the last few days, is discovered to be a woman. As it was not impossible for such a circumstance to have occurred, although very improbable, we had curiosity enough to make inquiries on the subject and find that the alleged ‘remarkable discovery’ was a gross fabrication.”–We, too, (Manchester Guardian,) have had curiosity enough to make inquiries on the subject, and find that the “unfounded report” of the “remarkable discovery, which, though not impossible, is very improbable,” is true. All the circumstances communicated to us relative to this singular case we do not feel justified in publishing ; but we may mention a few of the principal facts connected with what is here known of the history of this chevalier d’Eon in humble life, of course suppressing the names of the parties. A few days ago a respectable female waited upon an attorney in this town, and asked his advice in a case of a very peculiar nature. It seems that her husband, a master bricklayer, who had been in the habit of trusting her implicitly in his business, even leaving to her management the book-keeping requisite in his trade, had of late, had some cause or other, refused to allow her the weekly usual sum for housekeeping. Having also, in other respects, treated her as she considered in an unkind manner, she came to take advice as to how she could proceed, under the circumstances, against her husband, whom, to the no small astonishment of the professional gentleman she was then consulting, she declared to be, not a man, but a woman. The attorney thought it his duty, under such singular circumstances, to bring the matter under the notice of Mr. Foster, the magistrate, who directed that Mr. Thomas should take the case under his management, and bring the parties for private examination before him (Mr. Foster) at the police-office. Mr. Thomas took the necessary steps ; and on Thursday last the parties were brought before Mr. Foster, in the deputy-constable’s room at the police-office, when the truth of the wife’s averment to the attorney, was corroborated in the most distinct and unqualified manner by Mr Ollier, surgeon to the police, who gave a certificate declaring the individual in question was a woman. The woman-husband, we believe, did not make the least attempt to deny her sex, but contented herself with stating that her wife had only been led to make this exposure because she had withheld from her the weekly allowance of money for housekeeping expenses. The wife replied that this was not the only cause of complaint against her spouse, for that she (the husband) was occasionally intoxicated, and that, when in that state, treated her very ill. The wife also stated that she accidentally made the discovery of the sex of her husband as much as two or three years back, but that she kept the secret to the present time.

From what could be gleaned of the history of this female husband, it would seem that she assumed the garb and character of a boy at an early age, and that in that character she was apprenticed, at the age of 16 or 17, to a master builder, in one of the large towns of Yorkshire. Being of good exterior, with prepossessing appearance and manners, and of features rather handsome, the supposed young man attracted the attention of many females in the same condition of life ; and, amongst others, was the one who afterwards became the wife. The attentions of the young bricklayer was [sic] acceptable and accepted ; and the union took place shortly after the expiration of the apprenticeship. Soon afterwards this couple came to Manchester, about the year 1829, where the husband commenced the business of a builder, and by considerable ability and attention to trade was tolerably successful. Amongst other branches of the business, this builder became remarkable, indeed almost to celebrity, for skill and success in the erection of flues, ovens, &c. ; and we believe is at this moment in very good business, employing several hands, and giving very general satisfaction to those for whom any work has been executed. The wife had the entire management of the books and accounts in the business, and, as far as we have heard, there was not the slightest imputation on her character. We believe that nothing was done in the way of legal proceedings. Several articles claimed by the wife as her property have been sent to the police-office by the husband, who, so far as we have heard, has not offered any reparation to the wife for the cruel and painful position in which she is now placed. One thing is now certain, that after the exposure which has taken place, and the affair was currently talked of as early as Thursday and Friday last, the woman who has ventured to assume the character of a man will no longer be able to continue to carry on business in this town, and that she must either lay aside her disguise and resume the appearance which most befits her sex, or if she will retain her unfeminine appearance and character, she must seek to hide her imposture in some place where she is not known, and where she may hope for a while to escape detection. We believe that many persons who have employed her join in declaring that they had not the slightest suspicion that she was other than what she seemed.

It is somewhat remarkable that this is not the first case of this nature which has been brought under the notice of Mr. Thomas. In January, 1829, a labourer in the service of Mr. Crisp, shipbuilder, at Dockhead, London, while assisting in sawing a log of fir, was struck by the severed part of the log with such force on the head as to die of the injury while being conveyed to St. Thomas’s Hospital. On stripping the body to prepare it for interment, it was discovered that the deceased, who was about 38 years of age, was a woman. She had been known for about 22 years to have filled various situations, as groom, shipwright’s labourer, and other subordinate occupations in dock-yards, vitriol-works, &c., and had been 21 years married, and her wife declared in the most solemn manner, on the inquest, and before the police-magistrates at Bow-street, that during the whole of that period she had been in utter ignorance of the real sex of her supposed husband.–Manchester Guardian.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

The dreadful murder at Easton, reported in last week’s post, continued to fascinate. However, it appears they had apprehended the wrong men and had to discharge them.

“In the case of the late atrocious murder of Elizabeth Longfoot, of Easton, the coroner’s jury on Wednesday last returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person on persons unknown; and yesterday the inquiry of the Magistrates on the same painful subject, which has continued almost daily at Easton since Tuesday se’nnight (the day of the murder), terminated by the release on his own recognizance of Andrew Porter, on whom suspicion had fallen: other parties apprehended had previously been discharged: thus it would seem that the perpetrator of this dreadful crime must remain undiscovered till the writhing of a guilty conscience, or some act of that Great Being ‘from whom no secrets are hid,’ shall develope (sic) the horrid transaction.”

The Stamford Mercury, 16th March, 1838.

But the police did not give up and three weeks later, another man was arrested:

“John Stansor, on whom suspicion rests as a party concerned in the later murder of Eliaabeth Longfoot at Easton, and for whose apprehension the most unremitting exertion have been made in various directions since the perpetration of the horrid deed, was on Wednesday last taken, whilst emplyed in spreading manure at Willow-hall Farm, near Peterboro’, (where he was engaged under the name of Islip,) by Mr. Wm. Reed, the chief constable of Stamford, and is now in safe custody.”

The Stamford Mercury, 6th April, 1938.

But then again, perhaps some of the released men were guilty after all . . . ? We think the gang of thieves mentioned in the last sentence were unconnected with the murder.

“Easton Murder. – Since the apprehension of John Stansor, noticed in our last paper, the searching inquiry of the Magistrates has been pursued with additional zeal: breathless anxiety now prevails on the subject, both in the village of Easton and in the neighbourhood. On Wednesday last Stansor underwent an examination before the Rev. Charles Atlay and W. L. Hopkinson, Esq. M. D., ad was remanded. A meeting of the Magistrates was afterwards held at the Bull and Swan inn, St. Martin’s, and was attended by the Marquis of Exeter. Richard Woodward, slater, and John Archer, labourer, inhabitants of Easton, are in custody: the latter was one of the persons originally apprehended as implicated in the crime: the fact elicited are, however, properly kept secret, and we studiously avoid promulgating various circumstances which rumour has brought to our knowledge, lest any observation at present in a public paper might tend to defeat the ends of justice. Yesterday a whole gang of thieves were apprehended at Easton: many are lodged in Stamford gaol.”

The Stamford Mercury, 13th April, 1838.

It appears the early Victorians loved to hear about blood and gore. This report of a horrendous murder in Easton-on-the Hill revels in the details of the victim’s wounds.

“Murder at Easton, near Stamford. – On Tuesday morning last, about four o’clock, a shocking murder was perpetrated on the person of Elizabeth Longfoot, a maiden lady, residing in her own house, near the church in the above village. The unfortunate victim’s mother died about twelve months ago, since which time she has lived alone, notwithstanding she laboured under an aberration of mind, in which state she would frequently wander about the village at untimely hours. It was on her return from one of these wanderings that the unfortunate creature met her fate. The wretches who imbrued their hands in her blood appear to have entered the house in her absence, at the kitchen window, the centre part of which they had broken and opened, but finding a strong iron bar down the middle, which prevented their ingress, they took out the whole side of the window, and so effected an entrance. They then procured a bunch of keys belonging to the poor woman and left in the house, and proceeded to ransack all the drawers in search of treasure. From the penurious habits and a small independent property possessed by the deceased, it was said she had money secreted in the house. Whilst the search was going on, it would appear she returned home, and was knocked down with a bludgeon just as she passed the outer gate: her body was then dragged within the door of her house, where on Tuesday morning she was found weltering in her gore, quite dead. The blood had flowed profusely where she fell, and on each side of the body appeared the imprint of a man’s knee in corduroy breeches, who had hastened her death by gripping her throat. The wound on the left temple was not above half an inch in length, but the blood had flowed so freely as to leave a pool under her head and completely saturate and fill her bonnet and cap. In consequence of three persons being already apprehended on suspicion of having committed the murder, and warrant being issued for the apprehension of others, it was deemed essential to the ends of justice not to report the evidence taken on the inquest, which was held at the Bell Inn at Easton on Wednesday, before Thos. Marshall, Gent. of Kettering, a coroner for Northamptonshire, but we were able to gather the following particulars:- Henry Mitchell and Samuel Mitchell, two young men residing nearly opposite Mrs. Longfoot’s house, heard about four o’clock in the morning the cry of ‘murder’ three times repeated by the deceased, and the latter distinctly heard what he is now convinced was the fatal blow; but they took no notice of it, as they had been long accustomed to hear her make similar noises during the night. Two brothers named Thompson, residing a little higher up the hill in the village, state that they heard her come home about four o’clock, and when she arrived at her gate she exclaimed ‘You villains, I’ll swear my life against you in the morning;’ and instantly she cried out ‘Murder, murder, murder.’ On this they got up and came into the street, where they stood for some time listening, and saw a light carried about the rooms: they advanced to the house, and just as they got to the gate, the door was shut to and locked, as they supposed by the deceased, on which they went away. – On the day of the murder, the Rev. C. Atlay and Dr. Hopkinson, magistrates for Northamptonshire, investigated all the circumstances then brought to light, and also examined several witnesses, which led to the apprehension of three brothers named Archer, residents in Easton, William a shoemaker, and John and James labourers, who were lodged in Stamford gaol on Tuesday night for further examination. On a post-mortem examination of the body by M. W. Jackson, Esq. on Wednesday, the marks of the fingers of the murderer on the neck of the deceased were distinctly observed, and it is believed that her death ensued from strangulation: her age was 54: the brain was in a healthy and perfect state, except as to one part, which is supposed to have occasioned her insanity. The inquest was adjourned by coroner till Tuesday the 13th Inst. Yesterday morning, a young man of Easton, named Andrew Porter, a baker was apprehended, and after examination before the magistrates, was committed to Oundle gaol for further examination t0-morrow at ten o’clock.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th March, 1838.

We know smoking is horrible, but this diatribe looks at the possible effect on the lungs, as well as almost everything else!

“The propensity to smoking is declared by the physicians to be actually one of the most efficient causes of the German tendency to diseases of the lungs. In point of expense, its waste is enormous. In Hamburgh alone 50,000 boxes of cigars have been consumed in a year, each box costing about 3l. sterling: 150,000l. puffed into the air! And it is to be remembered, that even this is but a part of the expense; the cigar adorning the lip only of the better order, and even among those, only of the young; the mature generally abjuring this small vanity, and blowing away with the mighty Egyptian plague of frogs, is felt every where and in every thing. It poisons the streets, the clubs, and the coffee houses; furniture, clothes, equipage, person are redolent of the abomination. It makes even the dullness of the newspaper doubly narcotic; that napkin on the table, tells instantly that native hands have been over it; every eatable and drinkable, all that can be seen, felt, heard, or understood, is saturated with tobacco; the very air we breathe is but a conveyance for this poison into the lungs; and every man, woman and child, rapidly acquires the complexion of a boiled chicken. From the hour of their waking, if nine-tenths of the population can ever be said to be awake at all, to the hour of their lying down, which in innumerable instances the peasantry do in their clothes, the pipe is never out of their mouths; one mighty fumigation reigns, and human nature is smoke-dried buy tens of thousands of square miles. ~But if it be a crime to shorten life, or extinguish faculties, the authority of the chief German physiologists charges this custom with effecting both in a very remarkable degree. They compute that of twenty deaths of men between eighteen and thirty-five, ten originate in the waste of the constitution by smoking. The universal weakness of the eyes, which makes the Germans par excellence a spectacled nation, is probably attributed to the same cause of the general nervous debility. Tobacco burns out their blood, their teeth, their eyes, and their brains; turns their flesh into mummy, and their mind into metaphysics. – From a Journal of the Defence of Hamburgh in 1813.”

The Stamford Mercury, 30th November, 1832.

A very sad story about a father’s despair after his daughter received unwelcome attentions from the butler at Burghley House. There was some doubt about the fate of the butler, however.

“Attempt to violate a young female at Burghley – Suicide of the Father of the Girl. – On Saturday an inquest was held at the King’s Arms, Little St. James’s-street, London, before Mr. Higgs, touching the death of William Bowles, aged 63, coachman in the service of W. S. Poyntz, Esq., M.P., of the Albany. – Mr. Thos. Smith, of No. 16, North-mews, Mapleton-place, Burton-crescent, stated that the deceased, who was his brother-in-law, drove to his door in a hackney coach about eight o’clock on the preceding morning; he was accompanied by his daughter, a very interesting girl, who lived as upper nursemaid in the Marquis of Exeter’s mansion, Burghley, near Stamford. On getting out of the coach, the poor man stared wildly, and appeared as if labouring under the most heart-breaking anguish. On enquiring into the cause of his uneasiness, the deceased, with tears in his eyes, told him that the butler in the service of the Marquis had been taking the most improper liberties with his daughter, having tried every means which a villain could suggest to seduce her. He then added, with great emphasis, that if he knew where to find the villain who had attempted his daughter’s honour, he would blow out his brains with a pistol . Witness reasoned with him and he became a little more composed, and shortly afterwards he left witness’s house, leaving behind his daughter, whom he placed under his care, with strict injunctions to look well after her, as she was the darling of his heart and comfort of his age. On the following day he was greatly shocked on hearing that his unfortunate relative had hanged himself in a loft over his master’s stables, in Little St. James’s-street, and when found he was quite dead and cold. – In answer to questions from the coroner and jury, the witness said that the Marquis of Exeter had investigated the conduct of the butler, and feeling satisfied that he had behaved in the most brutal and improper manner towards the young woman in question, had dismissed him from his service. – Several witnesses stated that the deceased bore the most exemplary character, having been in Mr. Poyntz’s service for the last 36 years. Upon hearing of the ill-treatment which his daughter had experienced, he immediately repaired to Burghley-House and brought her away. Since that time he had been distracted, and had threatened vengeance against the butler. – The jury said they thought the Marquis of Exeter had acted properly in dismissing such a man from his service, although the punishment was far too light for such delinquency. – A verdict of temporary insanity was then recorded. – London Papers. – [We understand that the butler has not been dismissed: he returned to Burghley House on Friday, and still continues there.]”

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1832.

A Miss Blackwell and her maid stoutly defended their home against a party of robbers, seeing them off with a salvo of shots.

“A few nights since a [pa]rty of ruffians, about seven or eight in number, attacked the house of Lieut. Blackwell, of Cookstown, near Ardee with the view of robbing it. Lieut. B. was on the continent a[t] the time (but has since returned), and the only persons in the house were his sister and a servant maid. It was near one o’clock, when Miss Blackwell was awakened by hearing persons attempting to force the door and windows: on her demanding what they wanted, they replied that they has a message from her brother. She desired them to deliver the message, as she would not open the door at that unseasonable hour. They threatened, if they were not admitted, they would break in the house and afterwards set it on fire, and accordingly they commenced a violent attack on both front and rear; but the house, which was very strong, having been recently built, resisted all their efforts. In the mean time, Miss B., fearing they might be successful, charged with some arms which were in the house: she then commenced firing out right and left, which so daunted the assailants that they decamped, after breaking a number of windows. They fired one shot into the house, the heroic protectress of which fired no less than six in return. It is conjectured that robbery, either of money or arms, was the object of the gang. – Droghera Journal.”

The Stamford Mercury , 22nd December, 1837.

Three or four years ago, we published a series of posts about Wife selling. The more we read these old newspapers, the more instances we find. Here’s another one!

“BUYING AND SELLING WIVES. – The London papers state that a disgusting and disgraceful scene happened in Smithfield market on Monday. A fellow led his wife by a halter, and gave her to a drover, desiring him to tie her up to the pens, and sell her to the best bidder. The woman, who did not appear to be above 25 years of age, and not bad-looking, suffered herself to be tied up very quietly. A crowd of persons soon gathered round, and a rather respectable man entered into a negociation with the drover for the purchase of the wife: after some higgling, she was knocked down for the sum of 10s. The money was paid, but the driver refused to release her except on the payment of 2s. as his commission for the sale which he had effected. Some confusion took place about the demand, but it was eventually paid, and she was released from the pens opposite the Half-Moon public-house, and delivered to her purchaser, who appeared highly pleased with his bargain. The parties adjourned to a neighbouring public-house, where the late husband spent the greater part of the money in brandy and water. – As a caution to persons who figure in scenes of this description, and for the instruction of Magistrates, who, from the frequency of such occurrences, must either be ignorant of negligent of their duty, we quote the following passage from a very useful popular digest of the laws, which is well known by the title of The Cabinet Lawyer:- ‘The Court of King’s Bench is the guardian of public morals, and has the judicial animadversion of offences against public decency and good behaviour. In that court an information was granted against a number of persons concerned iin assigning a young girl to a gentleman under pretence of learning music, but for the purpose of prostitution – 3 Bur., 1438. There is no doubt that the vulgar and brutal exhibition, too often tolerated, of a man selling his wife, and delivering her in a halter is a misdemeanours, both in the buyer and seller, punishable with fine and imprisonment, or by an endictment preferred at the assizes or quarter sessions.'”

The Stamford Mercury, 2nd March, 1832.

A new Rector’s ego and an inexperienced builder combined to produce the ruins of St. Michael’s church in Stamford.

“Early on Friday morning the 1st Inst., nearly the whole of the roof and body of St. Michael’s church in Stamford fell into a mass of ruins. the building had been for some time under the hands of masons who were employed to effect what it was hoped would be an improvement, by widening the span of the arched and diminishing the number of pillars, so as to admit of a better view and hearing of the clergyman by the congregation. In the course of this work, it was discovered that some of the pillars which were removed had given support to the tower of the church; and so great was the alarm which arose for the safety of that part of the edifice, that the contract, which had entered into with a young builder was suspended, and more experienced architects were called in. Their attention was immediately directed to shoring up and propping the tower: and this difficult job seemed to be nearly effected, when heavy raid unfortunately set in last week, and as part of the walls of the church, being uncovered, were exposed to the influence of the wet, at the time we have mentioned the whole of the roof and part of the parapets fell in, and the church is now a heap of ruins which it is dangerous to approach. To add to the calamity, the fall and wrench of the timbers of the roof have still further weakened the supports of the tower, which has in consequence declined from the perpendicular so considerably towards the south-east, and is so extensively cracked from the bottom to the top on both the south and east sides, that it is hourly expected to come down, and it is even feared that great mischief may by its fall be done to surrounding houses. – So extensive and unforeseen a consequence of meddling with the masonry of the church has perhaps rarely before occurred. The parish, on the suggestion of the newly-presented Rector (the Rev. Chas. Swan), had at first agreed to re-pew the church with a view to increase the number of sittings; and as this improvement would necessarily interrupt the performance of divine service for some months, the further suggestion of removing at the same time some masses on antient stone-work, and giving lightness to the body of the church, was entertained, and contracts were entered into for executing the whole of the work at an expense of about 650l. According to the present aspect of things, a charge of at least three thousand pounds will be incurred in restoring the church and the tower, every stone of which, it seems, must be taken down! – Dr. Goddard, the Archdeacon of Lincoln, has twice within these ten days visited Stamford on this business; and hopes are entertained that through his representation considerable assistance will be afforded to the parish, from the funds of the society in London for building and repairing churches and chapels; but still a frightful amount of charge will remain to be defrayed by a small parish, – and upon some Dissenters who are assessed for considerable property within it the burthen will be particularly had. – The accident is one of so extraordinary a nature that we humbly think a public subscription might with propriety be solicited; and we have pleasure in stating that this view of the case is countenanced by the spontaneous liberality of two gentlemen, who have, by notes addressed to a parishioner, signified their desire to contribute 5l. each should a subscription be formed: those benevolent individuals are, the Rev. H Mortlock, of Morcott, Rutland, and W. L. Hopkinson, Esq. M.D., of St. George’s parish, Stamford.”

The Stamford Mercury, 8th June, 1832.