Star. — London, England, 1816-08-19 00:00:00

• 'T' -.. -_ - V" dictraent, and very revere punishment. The Marshal' had two objects in view by instituting the Petent prosecution—the roost prominent of 'illicit was, Ins own vindication from all suspicion of connivance at the defendant's escape ; and the next was, to bold out to the hundreds of persons intrusted to 'his custody, that • there was no poisibility of escaping without punishment far such an offence, by showing 10111 t even a persim of the highest rank could not violate the laws of his country with impunity.. In what manner the defendant's escape was effJeted, the prosecutor was ottetly ignorant. Whether it was done by stratagem from without the prison walls, the prosecutor was wholly unin Formed : he only knew it was not done by his own connivance, (Sr by any contrivance to which he was privy. All that was known relative totheescape was, that Lon: Cochr-o.e was seen for the last time hy the Attendants of the prison on Sunday the 6th of bl-tell ; lie was not missed until a day or two after watds ; .and he was Lot recaptured until the 21st of tl:e same month. Thera was reason to suppose, than soon after hi, escape, Lf.rd Cochrane was very anxious . to return to conflne,nent when he was aware of the consequences. With the motives of his conduct, or the means of his escape, the Jory had nothing to do; it was sufficient, that on the 21st of March, before the time of his imprisonment had expired, the defendant, being a Memter of Pailiameat, was found at large 'sitting in the House of Commons some hours before 'the Speaker took the chair ; and the prosecutor, hay inj heard of this place of his retreat, went in company With his assistants; and re-apprehended him on the same day in the House of Commons. This was die short outline of the case; and how the defendant meant to dispute either the law or the facts of the case be was unable to divine. As to the facts which were necessary to support this indictment, they would be proved beyond the possibility of doubt. The princi ple of law applicable to the case was equally clear. It was simply this t the King's subjects owed obe ' dience to the Magistrates and constituted authorities; they were bound to acquiescein the sentences which the Magistrates pronounced. Indeed, so well esta— Mished was this principle, that if a man sentenced to the stocks made his escape from the persons empower ' td to see the sentence carried into-execution, be was • liable by the old law to be indicted as a felon. Un doubtedly this law in modern times had been altered; and where there was no actual breach of prison, but the party escaped by a stratagem or management, he was indictable only for an escape, or for going at large before the expiration of the time of his imprisonment —an offence which was certainly not subject to the severe penalties entailed upon the person who broke the prison walls, or forcedlhe doors. In this case it was not imputed to Lord C. that he broke the prison walls, but oaly that he broke its boundaries, and was out of prison long before his sentence bad expired. This allegation was incontrovertible, because it would be proved, that he was recaptured in the month of March, at a erne when his period of imprisonment had three months or more to run : added to this was, the fact of his having actually paid the fine of £ WOO on the following Sil of July. The only iuquirt of to. day was, whether Lord Cochrane had escaped from his confinement in the King's Bench pi ism before the twelvemonths were expired i Ilproved to have been without the limits of the prison, he would be found guilty of a tnisdemeanour. Lord Cochrane appeared to-day without counsel ; but whether his object was merely to watch the legal proof of the misdemeanour against him, or to meet the charge by a speech and evidence, was at present uncertain. Whatever course . the Noble Lord might think proper to take, he (Mr. 'Marryat) would confine himself to the simple facts of the case, which lay in an extremely narrow compass ; and of the result of the inquiry there could not be a doubt. With the sentence the Jury had nothing to do ; that would be matter of consideration of the Court of King's Bench in the ensuing term. Richard Gude, eumined by Mr. GUANSY.—Stated 'that he was clerk in the Crown-office; and produced a c spy of Lord Cochrane's commitment to the King's Sench prison in execution of his sentence, and also a copy of the rule of . Court by which his commitment Was mad* out. These documents were put in and read. Thomas Gibbons examlned.—Witness was Lord Ellenborough's tipstaif ; be was present 1e the Court of King's Bench when defendant was brought up and received sentence of the Court os the 21st of .11131.• 1.14. In obedience to the order of the Court, witness conveyed the defendant to the King's Bench prison, in execution of his sentence, and delivered him into the custody of the gaoler. ; sitnem afterwards saw the defendant on the 21st of March, 1815, about two in the afternoon, in the House of Commons; and with .the assistance of Mr. Jones tho. Marshal, Mr. 13roo :Isn't the Deputy Marshal, Lavender the Bow-street officer, Poole a tipst4l, and another officer, took him into custody, conveyed him back to the King's Bench, and replaced him in confinement. Cross-examined by Lord Cochrane.—By what an. thority . did fou convey Lord Cochrane from the Court of King's Bench to the King's Bench prison, on the 21st of June, 1814 ?—A. I was present in Court,' and heard your Lordship's sentence pro pounced by the Judge ; and in performance of in y duty, as directed by the Court, I took your Lordship to the King's Bench prison, in execution of your len. once. I delivered you to the turnkey, in obedience to my orders. . Q. Was the Marshal present whets you delivered Lord Cochrane into the custody of the turnkey ? A. The Marshal was not present. Q. Do you consider a deliverance to the turnkey a deliverance to the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench ; and do you know whether the turnkey had, any authority to act ? A. I know nothing of the authority of the turnkey; I acted in obedience to my orders, and I delivered your Lordship into the cus tody of the torakey at the servant of the Marshal. ' Q Had you any authority to act on that occasion? A. I had no authority to act by except the verbal orders of the Lord Chief 'Justice, which Were quite = s c ion for me. I was present at the proceeding, and heard the Judge's orders pronounced. Q. Will you take upon yourself to swear, that the person into whose custody you delivered Lord Cochrane was a turnkey, duly authorised to act as lit^uch ? A.. I know nothing of the person's authority : acted as turnkey, and I delivered your Lordship o his custody, as the acting officer on duty. V. Will you take upon Yourself to say, that the persons into whose . custody ypu delivered. Lord Cacti - race were really torokos 1 kr.• Justice icanoter.--ite only question is, were they acting es EA at the time; vete they thee on duty at turnkeys 1 A. Thai were the persons who opened the gates, and were'on duty at the time. Q. tby Lord Comotexa.) Will you take upon yourself to swear that they were not persons merely baring 64 the run of the byre A. I g_on't know of any such circumstance; they were tb A t'Marshal's ser vants, and acted under his orders. f Q. The Marshal was not present? A")To, he was not. . Do you considet the_deliverydsf Lord Cochrane at the time to the tin:they:o delivery to the Marshal, the Marshal not being patnt ? A. I certainly con sidered it a delivery to thitenstody of the Marshal of the King's Bench, in obeiience to the orders of the Court; the principal officers, Mr. Morris and Mr. Deveant, being then on duty. Q. Then, to the best of your belief, and upon your oath, you never saw the authority upon which those persons acted ? A. I only know that they were acting officers of the prison. Q. You think the Marshal was not present ? A.. I have already said he was not. Re examined.—The persons to whom the defen dant was delivered were acting as turnkeys and ME cers of the prison; defendant was delivered to their. custody in the usual way in which all other persons committed by the Court of King's Bench were deli vered, in obedience to the order of the Court, in exe cution of their sentence. Examined by Mr. JosticeSURROVOU--Witness was in the habit of conveying prisoners to the Kings Bench prison, and generally delivered them to the ;custody of the same persons. • Bernard Emanuel Brooshoft said, he was clerk of the Marshal of the King's Bench prison; the defen dant was committed to prison on' the 21st of June, 1814 D-invocation of his sentence, nnd remained there 'until his escape took place, wbieh was some time in the month of March following, but witness could not state the day.; witness first heard of the defendant's absence from prison about the Bth or 9th of March, • when be searched, and found the defendant was miss ing I he was afterwards present, on the 21st of March, when defendant was taken into custody in the House of Coupons ; there were no other Members in ,the House at the times and the Speaker eats not then in the Chair ; the House of Commons was nut a part of the rules or limits of the King's Bench prison; de. Pendant was re conveyed to confieement, and under. went the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment, On the 3d of July witness accompanied defendant's secretary to the Crown Office where the fine of 1 81000 was paid ; defend a nt was liberated on the same day. Cross•examined by Lord Cocnaees.—Q. Were you present when Lord Cochrane was committed ? A. No, I was not present t this I recollect. Q. Was the Marshal, present when Lord Cochrane was delivered into custody at the King's Bench pri son ? A. Nu, certainly net. Q. Do you consider the delivery of Lord Cochrane into the custody of the turnkeys, a delivery into the custody of the Marshal ? A. I certainly consider a delivery into the custody of the officer of the prison in effect a delivery into the custody of the Marshal. Q. Do you know by what authority Mt. Jones, the Marshal, acted on that occasion ; and do you not know that in point of fact the Marshal was not acting in his office of Marshal ? Mr. Justice B•musoucrw.r—The question is not upon what authority the Marshal acted, or whether he pro perly discharged the duties of his offices we hare no right to inquut into that subject. The issue is not whether Mr. Jones, the Marshal, in point of law, acted legally and properly; but the question is, whe ther the, defendant, being legally delivered into cus tody, escaped from that custody before the period of his imprisonment had expired I Lord COcaRANZ...I submit to your Lordship that it is of material importance to inquire whether an of ficer holding a certain situation, to which certain du ties arc assigned, has performed those duties. Does not ymir Lordship think it is an important issue in this case, whether that officer, bolding such a situa tion, has performel the duties of his office ? and whe ther that officer can be considered as. legally execu ting the duties of his office, when it appears by the evidence that he was not present Mr. Justice BURIMGM—We have nothing to do with the authority or the duties of the Marshal. The question is, whether, Oro tarn,. the dc;endant has been legally committ ed to custody ? If the Marshal does not perform his duty, or misbehaves himself, he may be removed from his office, or punished for any misbehaviour its it; but that is not the offence we are now trying. Lord Cocuawasr..—lt is clear, upon my cross-exa 'mination of the witness, that Mr. Jones, the Marshal, was not in the.exereise of his office, 'nor performing the duties assigned to him, and that he was not act ing agreeably to the tenour of his commission. Mr. Justice nuanouou.—He was exercising the office of Marshal, and the defendant was delivered to the sustody of his servants acting os his behalf. The Marshal might not be ally acting , . but still he wadlegally exercising is office through the medium of his servants. _ _ Lord COCHRANE...4 trust I may be permitted to call your Lordship's attention to the terms of the commission under which Mr. Jones is authOrisel to set ? Mr. Maanyarr.—r submit Luton: Lordship, it is not competent for the Court to enter into aby such inquiry as this. Mr. Justice ButtaouGn.—l take the object of my Lord Cochrane to be rather ee suggest what is the nature of the office and the nature of 01111111h600 under which the Manhal acts. _ _ _ Lord ellellegifit then wad.* passage from the Re port of the Committee of the House of Commons on the subject of the King's Bonk Prison. The defini tion of the dotes of the office of the Marshal of that prison was there contained.; thrpribeipal of was, that he should be present and personally acting in the discharge of his functions. He read isms lb .„ evidence of Mr. Brembeft before the Committee that the Marshal war seldom or never within its walls, though in the receipt ofa salary of mew than 43000 a-year. Ddr..Justice Buseouou —We cannot go Into any , abases in thuds's. ,This fecund a• pan of the is dictment. Whatley*, obiestionathlb e e me n d t , ade to the ntiniter in which the duce 1119 . that de" not make tins nificevoid. He' • limas the 011011. bible of in the peseemesiestibe glow idt. submitted, tbst tbe Covet oeibt not to irqnire into the niaMfee is AA& the &ties of the office Pere -discharged. Mr. Justin Buaaoudit agreed that this Course of inquirrought not to lift pursued, as the Court had nothing to do, with the manner in which the office of Marshal was discharged. Lord CrCIIRANZ then objected. that the evidence addocel did not sustain the language of the indict• ment. which charged him with having. ‘4 with force and aims." contemptuously escaped from prison. Mr. Justice Dunttouon said, that this was mere formal language, in which ail indictments of this sort were formed. Whether the escape was effected with vinitice or not, was of no consequence. Mr. MARRYATT said, that the same language WAS used in cases of libel and perjury. Lord COCURANg then submitted, that it was mate. rial to state in the indictment a precise day on which the escape had taken place. - Mr. Justice Bvitnouon.—The day is not at all ma terial. There are very few cafes in which it is neces sary to allege the precise day on which the offence 'was committed. Lord COCHRANE then resumed the examination of Brooshoft.— The witness never knew Crown prisoners to receive the benefit of the'Rules. He re. collected, however, that Sir W. Manners was under the sentence of the Court of King's Bench in that pri. son, and that be bad been for a part of that time without the walls. Sir William bad not been prose. cuted for exceeding his limits. The Court.—Had he committed an escape? Witness answered in the negative. Lord CocHaaNa then stated, that his only object was to shew what was the practice of the Marshal, who alldwed some prisoners to go out; and adopted a different mode of treatment for others. The Coart.—We have nothing to do with that. Lord COCHRANE.—Did Mr. Bowes or Mr. Hunt reside within the walls ? The Court.—.We cannot go into the history of every prisoner ; and allow me again to say, that we are not trying the conduct of the Marshal. Lord COCHBANIL—Was not Ralph Bandon, at the time of this famous expedition, prisoner in the King's Bench t—Witness believed he was a prisoner in the Rules. Lord COCIIRRNR then asked the witness, whether, in the event of his ultimate escape, he believed the Marshal would have been called upon to pay the thousand pounds fine?—Witneu replied, he could not say. He- farther said, that he had heard, by report, of his Lordship's intention to go to the House of Commons while he was at large. He did not know that the person said to be Marshal had entered into a negotiation to induce his Lordship to return into custody ; but he did recollect drat Mr. Jones sat up one or two nights in the expectation of his Lordship's return. Lord Cochrane here handed a letter to the witness, which the latter believed to be in the hand writing of Mr. Jones. The Count intimated to his Lordship, that he had better hold back the letter, whatever it contained, unathe time of his defence. The witness, in reply to further questions from Lord Cochrane, stated, that he did not know of any rule of Court by which the Marshal had power to punish with one month's close confinement, and not more, any escape from prison. He recollected liis Lord ship being. on his re-apprehension, confined in the strong-room without fire; and some dab without the window being glazed. The COURT here reminded LordCochrane to pursue a course more immediately applicable to his defense. Lord Commit:a said, that one of his objects was to shew that the main fear of the Marshal was the loss of his fine. The Count —Rather say the loss of his man. Lord COCHRANE joined in the smile which this ob servation created, and begged to ask if it would be relevant to spew that the Marshal had the power of punishing the offence with which he was charged by close imprisonment, and that, in this particular case, he had already inflicted that punishment. The COURT replied, that such evidence would be immaterial. Lord ComaAtm tben requested to know, if the in tention to commit an act of delinquency did not form the essence of the offence The Courr could see no necessity for discussing that topic hare. Lord Coutitsus declined further cross.eza mination. Mr. MaaavArr here closed the prosecutor's case. Lord Commute now rose and addressed the Court and Jury r he observed, that with a view to trespass. ing as short a period as possible upon their attention, be had committed to paper such matters as he thought , it was necessary . should be understood iu the investi. gation of the subject before them, and which, he thought, ought to be taken into ctmsid►ration by the Jury before they came to a decisive conclusion.— Conceiving, as he did, that the injustice done to him on a former occasion was in part attributable to the conduct of his Counsel, he had resolved in this instance to appear in his own defence: relying principally on these considerations, his Lordship then proceeded to read his written speech : Gentlemen of the Jury—l have lo submit, that the Marshal himself has repeatedly been accessary to more glaring violations of the sentence of the Court than that for which he now Prosecutes me ; that an escape, to be criminal, is contemplated in law as an act done with the intent wholly to abscond from and evade justice, whereas mine was a very contrary intention, as is evident from the use which I made of my li berty ; that the escape, U an offence, was such as the Marshal himself attemptectto compromise; and such as, on recapture, he had the immediate power to punish—a power which he did not fail to exercise.— It Is notorious that the sentence of the Court has Ire. quently been violated by the Marshal himself, who has seldom scrupled to allow such prisoners as could pay for the indulgence to quit the prison at their plea sure, and walk daily to any distance within the space . denominated the Roles, or even a holly to reside ip dem r and I have heard, that neither the rules of the ,Burg's Bench,. nor the shores of the kingdom, have always limited their excursions. Every such prat .tiee is as snarl an evasion of the sentence of the 'Plitt, which contemplates an unretnitted confine ;meat within the walls, as 'any description of escape Ilaindever. It is in reality an escape" from prison b anistance el the gaoler. The notoriety of such .lellentities beet to render it imperative on the Mar ishat to prove* manner of the escape now &fledged, weirs it only to thew that he himseki was not an lc _ ceseaoY. And eiet then, it could only be the present prosecution is not for a violai sentence of the Court, but for not buyini deracy of the Marshal. It is not for the , of a breach of prison, but for not effecti bribery. T 1.6 Marshal himself, when ee ,, fore a Committee of the House of Commo n , effect acknowledge the 'existence ot such far he eagerly expressed a resolution not of the like again. Indeed the Matter wt ous, that the Committee did not inquire things had been done, but whether he 1 do them ? Seeing then, that such corne like others elsewhere, are as notorious • nonn•day, bow could it be expected that cider it any very serious offence to escal King's Bench prison ? I had been eon, seven others, and had applied tor a ne was told that I could not be heard, bee, convicted persons were not then present. I'could not compel them to come, and not require an impossibility : bet the that the practice of the Court required the practice of the Court of King's Ilenel of the Court of King's Bench Prison. was sent to the prison, where I found it tice to depart and go at large. Why then I conclude from what I had been told, th rice of the King's Bench prison was the King's Bench prison ? Why should practice Lute the law in one case and not in tie however, I have trespassed by observing of the prison, rather than that of the Court, ,still to plead that my transgression was oppression. Was it. no extenuation to know imprisonment was unjust—to be conscious innocence of the crime for which that imp e ii g m bet was imposed as a punishment ? Was it no exteanali ai that I escaped, not to evade the pain oftisetpe n i s h. ment, but to denounce the injustice of its hare m To use his own previous language OR "I staid long enough in prison to evince endure restraint as a pain, but not as a had staid long enough to be certain that tors were conscious of their injustice, an_ My submission to their unmerited inflictions losing the dignity of resignation, and sinkie ignominious endurance of an insult. Wa tural then to think it high time to be gone manner of going was of all others least ...not, as alleged in this indictment, to • ample of all others for my plan scarcel , knew, and none would dare to follow. an example that could be followed, nor , evil example that was set. Had I made by the old, cowardly, corrupt method, yl never have heard of this prosecution; and motives, they were more than barely dere were laudable. Mine was not an escape a creditor, or do any man an injury, bui to obtain justice. I might, indeed, be . to the mode by me adopted ; but if it was •it was a venial one. It was an irregular sure, but it was the only ene which present to my imagination at the time; wholly i I was with indignation at the insolence of those under whose conscious injustice ing, and eagerly grasping at the hope and repelling that injustice by any practie, I therefore effected my liberation with :* of assuming my seat in Parliament, and ing that assembly, that astir sentence had been reversed by the people ; and of wont them that strict investigation into I my suffering, and into the conduct of ml which I was entitled, and which had not Which, I am sorry to say, has not yet to me. The House of Commons is descril old writers upon the Constitution to be " where all wrongs are to be righted of cannot obtain redress elsewhere :" and, ' that House, I had a right to expect which it is bound to afford to all, and to me as a Member. Such was my object at the moment, was my hope ; and it I ionic in that hope, it can only be account my miud) by the alteration, or rather the tion of Parliament, fr• - ini it: , aiginal end tion. Such a hope in Letter days would , better tounde.t. The Mirrour, written times, says, " The l'ailiamvnt was insti' redress of wrongs done by . the King, the their children, and especially of those (wean, one could not have otherwise common lir' same thing is said in ether words by F. Norman French, which in English is—" ment has absolute power t• 4 make law: maters in law, try the life of a man, and. in the King!: Den especially where tberi mischief which the ordinary course of remedy." Knighton, a very old Historiai Parliaments are held. in ()lifer " that poor rich may be refreshed with peace and ease oppressions, and alwa)s find infallible and and succour." And Rushworth says purpose, that Parliament is " the corrective tice and oppression; which (curtccrive) tributed to all, so that every man au benefit and protection of justice that is Now these passages show a received opinion justice might be done to a man in the Court' Parliament, but in that highest of all Cow to look with assurance for redress. Such case, 1, as a Member of that Court, m'e gine that I had only to cross its threshold not only refuge, hut redress. That 1 was is notorious ; for it was in that House—it as I conceived, I.f that very refuge, and that . very redress—that 1 was found br prosecutor—who, in open violation of as a Member, and my right as a suite dragged me back to the seat of oppression gross aglravation of that oppression, mured are in a pestilent dungeon, and there immured for a period of 26 days; and of being punished for his violence and barbaric patiently calls on a Jury of his country oppression on the bead of his persecuted When the Marshal of the King's Benr' apprised of my absence, he sent my see message to Mr. Basil Cochrane, entreating, *new or could ascertain where I was, to codes) to prevail on me to return, and that b e wr me privately at soy hour of the night, anc, it. ra M e r. to Coc re l t i u ra ru ne should so d c b r e i o tak e n t ad vise °f . . .. be IQ, th et absent, but t elation of ti , t letter• frorn ing the male. franks, Which to commi ss i on , sense was con reeling it by ' chewed to the examined be..• not made him nanie s , di l ill • the Marotta' 1 . ch pr:tctices i • :•ersight possibl7 it tote guil, y t : . : 4' raising •It vas so stototi. ' • o n the day it whether such Wi l y, was at continued to . Immediately e, 'opt practice s , /hew that lett • as the sun at • o f the House . I should coo. so done, he br : .ape from th e • toe, that if I idemned with ' keceived in 1 : , re, trial; bo t ' brie confident: leeanse all th e sficitild be in I had said loom ; so th the law did i h e a t morning. i,I answer wa . oisncealed m I it, and thaii ~ Cochrane's a ;1 1 was the law 1 t i on to e ff e ct t Afterward s I •:. B ible, aecomi, was the ra t . Marshal won hen might cot r eward he ha he law o f that th c . seised Mr. C of ln th e his kind COnsi , oractiee ma. be took in th he other t. v s to Mr. Coehr ig the ptacti ct . W SW c —to c Court, I hut as the fruit i have the ploassi se:die:to an know that m ' us • out Wring us of my aw l - b e ll abed, • - i mPrisolObec, whale _et this no enegoatiot ' dierehre, saw = t that you A diNtbriilit. . 44 accosts • s iterfaxis N.. .1 in had au . • [ the subject.. wawa, ee that leoelf . aXi a penalty"—l , " Baia Cocbr at my prosecu. Hence it A. nd to feel that ous to comp inflictions was with the see Inking into the a great and Was it ones 4 • castigation. one? and n $ , opportunity : exceptionable :i abal's propose to the evil ex. privately at a steely any one and that the I neither set an arrangernt. r followed the • t) Mr. Cochr tde an maye chile custody ' I, you would • lecturing to he and as to my before the 11. fensible—they I accordingly a se to defraud , 1 Iollowing• an but to do and ' lag that I di. e mistaken at . mean time, c was an error, • 'shah, and ha dar way to be person s is re resented itself turn from th • impressed as benison that e and iniquity ' that I went e I was suffer. l Stance might eof exposing I' violence wit actical means. what might i the sole view **teed en m nd of remind. Tile Marshal eof expulsion • tilts: of effect of demanding of avoiding .. :o the cause of my Judge, to not then, aol been afforded I: gable),nn y i a tii i h ci r r i :: s e cj i s . !scribed in the pose, by a be the place the very day A which men tiered ; and I , therefore, in through the that redress most imenedi I in particular in effect he h ect, and inch. Rod object o [ was too M. sagely be to iunted for (in was made ac the deteriora. it it most e4i td and invite- my intentic a i h a v e proved however coat i l l in S iva tenet.. 1A v 4 Muted for the Ito other hi.o the Queen, or bat remoas: r rrongs) where aledly my oh right." The is the gist or Finch, in old Prison, these 66 'fl h.• I'Atii4- *llse, which ws, illOe i , f law as an .• d Cerrat errol from and e ; theft is some ried frito elle • law cannot Which lan. Drian, says— tittitexl, th it nor as well as llkowst that ease of their that I hAvt• s nd sore relogo t silent decre • to the saris! ; ton cocrcina ctive of tni... 1 fir nn, for sa ) is to be dis- prove; t' i hall have that uvsallt cal;i: due to him." tier nans.!. ink* .that in. a.f the pt faun, :ourts out of 1729, i.-. is - - ..'ourts he was leaunly calls.. nch being the tiuct the juJ ght well iota- • • of time h.: thold to find, Ctint mittee o as so actuated cor.gneenent .in pocesuon e of c!tclinetne din search of . tailed the st sy my present are both of my priviregt ..... isther with litor, forcibly tlt tiviihi , ut Alas lion; and. in '' tea •c ahem! instantly int- :. pelbcrn hay there held it e . . LAWS beds it I who, instead wh3 haw n. rarbarity, im- that Lord C to heap flesh i weeks; the ted victim.— • I &Need on t ich was gist -, rotor carped rent with a amelleVao a i eating, if he A tam,* • . to endeavour i a lit boor would receive P nd ilialdph — and no notice 431•watekie.' plied, that he • Nev . 1 Was T‘ADI 11111491141 th