The Mysteries of the Court of London — page 221: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

204 THE MYSTERIES. that they alluded to s certain Joseph Warren, nick-named the Magsman, with whom they had had previous dealings in respect to spurious coin. The baronet next explained the tragic scene which took place st the Manor, and which involved the suici- dal attempt made by his wife—an act ultimately causing her death. He then related how he was kid- napped and conveyed to the dungeon in Thacker’s Court—how he was required, as the price of his liberty, to sign some paper with the contents of which he was not made acquainted—how he refused to affix his signature thereto—and how he escaped in a few days by the assistance of a certain Mr. Page. Lastly, Sir Richard Stamford explained how he had sought and obtained an interview with his wife in her last moments—how he had par- doned her for all her sinfulness towards him—how she had confessed her guilt in the presence of 4 magistrate who attended at her death-bed on pur- pose to receive her statement—and how with her last breath she had proclaimed her husband's inno- cence of all the misdeeds imputed to him. The Buckinghamshire justice of the peace who was present, as just described, at Lady Stamford's death, was the second witness examined. A paper was put into his hand; and he declared it to be the depositions which he had taken down from the dying woman’s lips. The contents went far to con- firm Martin and Ramsey’s guilt in respect of the misappropriation of the funds of the bank, and likewise to prove her husband's innocence in that respect. With regard to the forgeries and the issue of spurious coin the document said little; as Lady Stamford had never been made acquainted with those facts by her paramour Ramsey: but the pa- per set forth that when Sir Richard accused Ram- sey of those crimes, on the memorable night at the Manor, he did not attempt to deny them. The next witness called was Mr. Peter Grumley, the police-officer. He deposed to the capture of the prisoners effected in the manner already known to the readers; and on being shown a certain paper, he declared that he had discovered it in a cupboard when searching the house in Thacker’s Court. This paper set forth that Sir Richard Stamford conveyed all his property to Martin and Ramsey for the benefit of the creditors of the bank; that he acknowledged to have committed certain frauds and forgeries, which he implored them to settle in order to rescue his name from infamy; that on those conditions he would depart to America, with the express understanding that he was never to re- turn to Eugland; and that five hundred a-year were to be allowed him for the rest of his life by the aforesaid Martin and Ramsey. This paper, which was drawn up in the handwriting of Ramsey (as proved by another witness), was without date or signature, and was evidently the one which it was sought to coerce Sir Richard Stamford into signing when he was imprisoned in the dungeon. Mr. Page was now summoned to the box, which he entered with a smirking self-sufficient air; and, having complacently surveyed both judge and jury, he proceeded to answer the questions put to him by the counsel for the prosecution. He explained that, being entrapped into the power of certain villains, he was incarcerated in the same dungeon with Sir Richard Stamford—that they escaped thence—uand that accident had thrown into his hand a docu- ment which had already been adduced in evidence at the police-court. This was a letter addreseed to Joseph Warren, at the Beggar's Staff, Horslydown; and it was likewise proved (in the course of the trial) to be in Ramsey’s handwriting. We recapi- tulate its contents, as being a necessary link in the chain of evidence, although they are already known to the reader :-— | “ March 17th, 1794. “The terms are accepted. A Bank-note for a hun. dred pounds is enclosed in thisletter. You will acknow. ledge the receipt thereof, directing your reply, as hereto- fore, to Mr. M——~, putting ‘ private’ in the corner out- side the letter. We will take three thousand in the first instance, and three thousand more this dsy six months, You will pack the goods up ina square deal box, the boards of which must be at least three-quarters of an fach thick; and the lid must be well nailed down. Book it per carrier; and print ‘C. and Co.’ in the oorner of the card of address. On receipt of the box, the other hundred pound note shall be duly forwarded.” The next witness examined on the present oo- casion was the cashier of the late banking establish- ment at Aylesbury. He proved the handwriting of the document found ir the house at Thacker’s Court, and that of the letter addressed to Joseph Warren: it was Mr. Ramsey’s. The cashier went on to show that Sir Richard Stamford never interfered with the business, and never overdrew his own private account. He perfectly well recollected the arrival of a box containing gold, or alleged to contain gold, about the commencement of the Spring of the previous year (1794). The contents were three thousand guineas, or what he (the cashier) took to be guineas; and Mr. Martin himself mixed them up with several thousands of guineas previously in the safe. The whole was paid away in due course. He thought the box came from Coutts and Co., the London agents of the bank. The next witness was a clerk in the Bank of England. This gentleman proved that extensive forgeries had been committed on that establish- ment: powers of attorney authorising the sale of stock invested in the names of several persons, had been acted upon by Mr. Martin who was in the habit of receiving the dividends for that stocic. These powers of attorney were forgeries. Mr. Martin had attended at the Bank with a stock- broker to effect the sales and receive the pro- ceeds. Two or three witnesses were then called to prove that they had never signed their names to the powers of attorney just alluded to: nor had they in any way authorised the sale of the stock specified therein. This closed the case for the prosecution; and a barrister, who had been retained for the purpose, entered upon the defence of the two prisoners, But, although a man of great talent, he could not grapple with the stubborn facts which had been adduced. The forgery, at all events, was com- pletely made out: and the learned gentleman was compelled to do the best he could for his clients in the shape of sophistry, specious declamation, and impassioned appeal to thejury. At the conclusion of his speech, he called several witnesses to testify to the characters of the acoused; and this course gave the prosecuting counsel the right of reply—a privilege which is detestable in the estimation of all humane men, but which in political cases serves the purposes of despotic Ministers and bloud- thirsty Attorneys-General most admirably, COMIGROO S COMM