Star. — London, England, 1828-05-06 00:00:00

~. Mr. HAAT DAVTS presented a Poi MA., fleegeons of Bristol, praying for greater facilities for ion. General DliaFF rgsent l e:l4s ton 'I Men Aberdeen.— OrdereAzilv FlArlo t supieet. • SMALL Kr As ". . is s ir LIDDELL rre.eote d etitions from Newcastle . . yne and North Shields in favour of the circula tion of. Ss!) 41.Nntes. He wished the public to be made fully acquainted with the views of the Government upon this vt•ry impottant subject. The withdrawal of small notes from circulation had materially injured every ciese in the community, and particularly the ship owners. There certainty was some difficulty in the sub ject, and he had to express a hope that in avoiding Scylla they would not fall into Charybdis!— " Ind& in Scyllam, capiens evitare Cbarybditi." Mr. BELL concurred entirely with the prayer of the Petitioners. lie saw no reason why the Scotch Bankers and Traders should be placed in a dif ferent si.uation from the same classes of persons in England. The withdrawal of small notes had consider ably diminished prices, and prevented that accommo dation which was necessary to the great body of per sons in trade in these countries. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that as frequent op. portunities would be afforded for a (N.:cession on the whole subject of the currency, he would not detain the Honse by any lengthened discussion on the subject. Sir M. W. RIDLEY wished merely to state, that the circulation of One Pound country Bank Notes was merely a matter of credit, and one between the public and the bankers. •The question was one of great im portance, and deserved the serious consideration of the House. The Petitions were then ordered to be printed. Mr. bi A RSHALL presented a Petition from Dewsbury splust any further Tax on Foreign Wool. Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a Petition from Newcastle-upon. Tyne, praying for a revision of the Laws of Landlord and Tenant. —.Ordered to be printed. Mr. AIIIiRCROMBY presented a Petition from a person of the name of Barrow, complaining of the Duty upon Coals.—Laid on the table. Mr. A BERCROMBY presented a Petition from a Person of the name of Brown, in the county of Wexford, complaining of Grand Jury Presentments as to• Roads in Ireland.—Laid on the table. LAW Of EVIDENCSOWIENCES AGAINST TWIN PERSON. Mr. PEEL said, that before the Speaker left the Chair, he was anxious to explain to the House the nature of the subject about to be discussed. The Bills in question had been prepared by a Noble Lord (the Marquis of Lansdown), whilst he filled the office of Secret* , y of State for the Home Department. The measure which he was about to propose would intro duce some alteration in the Law of Evidence. That Bill contained only four clauses; the objects of which were as follow : The first provided that the affirmations of Quakers and Moravians (under a particular form) should be received in Courts of Justice in all criminal cases. As the law now stood, their affirmations were taken in civil cases ; and the proposed law provided, that it should be extended to them in criminal cases also. This became the more essentially necessary, inasmuch as, in many cases, where persons of those classes were the sufferers, criminals were allowed to escape, because neither the one or the other class would take the oath prescribed in our Courts of Justice. By the adoption of the proposed clause no injury could arise, while it would, on the other hand, materially for ward the ends of justice—(Hear, hear). The object of the second clause was, to allow persons interested in cases of forgery to be received as competent witnesses. As the law now stood, the party injured by, and theree fore interested in, a case of forgery, was precluded trom giving his evidence, which he looked upon as a serious perversion of the ends of justice. The third clause had for its object the removal of all doubts as to third per sons who erre parties to felonies, not capital, being competent to appear as witnesses for prosecution , . The fourth clause was of the same tenour, and provided that persons convicted of misdemeanour, and having under gone the punishment thereunto attached, should be re stored to their competency of giving evidence in criminal cases. One objection to this rule was, however, very pre. perly made, which was, that all persons convicted of per jury should be debarred from giving evidence in such cases. The second Bill which he meant to introduce, in cluded the whole Statute Law of the country relating to offenses against the person. The effect of this measure, if carried into a law. would be the repeal of no less than fifty-seven Acts of Parliament on that subject. These laws, as they now stood, were obscure and intricate, and the object of the proposed measure was not so much to consolidate them as to simplify them and to make them clear. As the law now stood, a wife murdering her husband, a servant murdering his master, or a clergy. man murdering his clerical superior, was considered guilty of petit treason, and in all such cases the accused were allowed 35 challenges of Jurors, and two compe tent witnesses were necessary to prove their guilt. Now he could not, in cases of this description, see any good ground for departing from the general rule adopted in our Courts in casts of murder ; on the contrary, he conceived that in all such cases the practice ought to be unilor its. There was another alteration, too, upon which he wished to say a few words. According to the existing law, a person knowingly harbouring and con cealing a murderer a as, under the law of William, liable to imprisonment for one year, or for a greater period of time. But he thought it wouldhe right to make this a capital offence, and in support of his argument he mentioned the recent murders which had taken place at Fetcham (Surrey), the murder of Mrs. Donatty, in the neighbourhcod of Bedford-, row, and the still more recent murder of Mrs. Jeffs, in Montague-place, as instances of the manner in which the ends of justice must have been frustrated by the concealment of the guilty persons. Another criminal case in which he wished to make an alteration, was the following :—As t'•e lawnow stood, in all cases where parties were accused of murders committed abroad, an examination . must first tag place before the Privy Council—witness the case of Governor Wall. This, it was found, was productive of great inconvenience, and he meant to propose that an examination before a Justice of Peace in such cases should be sufficient. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of tle House was an Act, commonly called Lord Ellen borough's Act, by %hid: all cutting or maiming with a sharp instrument, or firing with a gun or pistol, with latent to kill or do some grievous bodily harm, is held to be a capital offence; while all attacks with the same intent, if made with a blunt instrument,was vis;ted iu a different manner. He really could not see where the one species of attack should be differently punished from the other, and therefore he proposed that upon conviction, the puOishment should be the same in both cases. He would instance a case of very recent occur rence, in whiella man, named Howard. attempted,with a bleat instruh4lmt, to murder a Mr. Mullay, whom he bad enticed to his residence under certain false pre tences. Where, he would ask, was the difference as to moral turpitude betweenihat case' and the case of an at tack with a sharp instrument? Where was the difference becweenw mortal blow given, or attempted to be given, with a stick, or with dumb bells, and with a like attempt made with A • WNW dor a pistol ? It WWI smite clear, that if death ensued in either case, the criminal party would be proceeded against for 'warder. The neat point to which the proposed measure referred was—the wilfol concealment, by a female, of. the birth of her child.. As the law now stood, it provided, that v here a concealment of the birth took place,. and the infant died, or was born dead, the female was. ou conviction, punished with imprisonment, even though site might nave been indicted for the murder. For himself, he did not see any ground upon which any difference ought to be made between married and single women in such cases. On the contrary, he imagined that if the 'law was just in the one case it was 'equally just in the other. Again. he proposed to alter the law of itbduc lion, either with intent to defile or marry the female.— As the law now stood, it extended protection only to heiresses tolanded property—heiresses to funded or other property being excluded. By the proposed alteration he meant to extend this protection to heiresses in all cases of abduction. Another clause provided, that it should not be lawful to kill any person in the prevention of a felony unless all other means for the prevention of such felony Were previously resorted to without effect. He now came to two or three cases of much difficulty and deli cacy, in which he meant to propose alterations in the existing law. He felt how unpleasant it was to trouble She House with such a subject, but he also felt that he Was, in the discharge of the duty he had undertaken, called upon lb state them. The three offences to which he alluded were, rape committed upon grown females ; carnal knowledge with intent to commit a like offence upon infants under ten years of age ; and the third was " the crirnen inter Christinnos non nominandum." The Right Honourable Gentleman, after entering ,into -a detail of the evidence necessary to obtain a conviction in either rf such cases, evidence which, he observeJ, must consist, first, of proof of the assault; and secondly, of the party having succeeded in his criminal intentions —vent on to observe, that by this Bill the first part of the proof should be conclusive of the guilt of the ac cused, it being in all cases difficult, and io some impos sible, to substantiate the other part of the charge. He admitted that such charges were easily made, and Vk iti► difficulty rebutted, but this formed no ground why protection should not be afforded where it was most needed. The Right Honourable Gentleman went on to cite several cases of violation which had been referred to the Twelve Judges, in 1721, 1758, 1771, and 1780, in which great difference of opinion prevailed as to the degree of proof necessary in such cases. In one case, Lord Mansfield and two other Judges were of opinion that the one species of proof was sufficient, while the other Judges held that the double proof was necessary. He begged pardon of the House for thus troubling them with details—(Hear, hea , ). The sanction and support which his efforts had hitherto received were his best reward, and at the same time his greatest encou ragement to persevere in them—(Hear, hear). He begged leave to move. " That the House should . go into a Comm.tree on the Law of EvidenCe Bill." The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House. on the Law of Evidence Bill. _ _ Mr. W. W. WYNN objected to the clause which permitted the affirmation of Quakers and Moravians to be taken in Courts of Justice, instead of an oath, in cri minal- c ases. Mr. G. LAMB was at a loss to know in what manner it was to be ascertained, whether a man, who offered an affirmation instead of an oath, was or was not a Quaker or a Moravian. Was it to be con , idered suffi cient fur an individual, wren examined before a Court of Justice, to say simply, 41 I object to an oath, and wish to give my affiimation?" The case, as applicable to Q•sakers, would equally apply to all separatists. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that Quakers were well known. He would be far, however, from including in the exception all separatists. Mr. W. W. WYNN said that any man might-object to be examined on oath, on the same ground that Quakers did, viz. scruple' of consciences as to the taking it. Mr. W. SMITH stated, that the object sought to be obtained was, that the cobrse of public justice should not be obstructed, because certain individuals objected to the administratii.n of an oath. It was not for the sake of the Quakers and Moravians, but for the sake of the public, tt.at it was sought to yield to this scruple, and he could nqt see why it should be opposed. In Scotland an a ffi rmation was considered su ffi cient. Mr. W. W. WYNN did not consider that an indivi dual would be inclined to press harder upon an accused in coireqsence of having to give merely an affirmation, but lie diJ consider that there would be many instances in which individuals would give their. evidence more favourably for an accused person when that evidence was not given on oath. At the bar of the House, for example, there was much mote prevarication than in Courts of Justice. Mi. Secretary PEEL thought this question ought to be viewed with reference to the interests of society, and not with regard to those of any particular body. It the principle of admitting the affirmation in the place of the oath were extended, the effect would be to introduce a great laxity of evidence- The Hon. Member, who had alluded to Scotland, should bear in mind that the affir mation there was, to all intents and purposes, an oath, n d an oath of peculiar solemnity ; for the witness de clared, "in the presence of Almighty Goa," and as be " hoped to be saved." The extension of the principle of the affirmation, however, would be to encourage new sects, which would inevitably arise if ;teeter ad vantages were given to them than others enjoyed; and if it were extended, it would be necessary to go a step further, and say that every man should be permitted to give his testim ny after the form most binding to his conscience—the effect of which would assuredly be a great laxity of evidence, and consequently less confi dence in the administration of the laws. Mr. W. SMITH believed that to many an affirma tion would be more binding than an oath to others, administered as that oath was in our Courts of Justice. L'rd JOHN RUSSELL aid the privilege of an affir mation was originally allowed to Quakers as an indul gence. There was a sect, which, although small, was well known in Ireland. called Separatists. They also thought that the Christian religion forbade all oaths ; be could not see why they should be prevented from Leing of benefit to the country because of this scruple. It should be remembered that persons giving falsetestimony on an affirmation were liable to prosecutions for perjury equally as if an oath had been administered. He should suggest that each person objecting to take an oath should state his being in connertion with some Society whose te nets obliged him so to object. If he belonged to such a Society, there could be no danger in taking his affirma tion ; and if he did not so belong to such a Society. his evidence would naturally be watched with some sus* pinion by the Court. In several States of North America, affirmations were received, and it might be worth the Right Hon. Gentleman's inquiring whether any incon venience had arihen in consequence. Mr.WA R B URTON wat of opinion that the receiving an affiratati in from certain parties could jot be attended with danger. I Si t EDMUND CARRINGTON (*saved.- that the first object of the Legislature 'and of the Tribwards Justice was, that a sufficient sanction should be imposed on the conscierfee of those who were tailed upon to rat ev id e ace...,it superinduced the terror r.f temporal pettal,- ties; hut the first was its great, and, trusted, the most operative sanction. In considering this clause, peared to him Oat it amounted sys-o_Legislative ration that the affirmation of the Quaker, or of the Moravian, was in fact, and in its result to all *oral intents, an oath, whatever might be the formal okketlon of those religionists to the mere words ss swear 'and is oath." With respect to qrakers, it had been found by long experience that, in civil cases, the ends of jus tice were ansisered by their admissibility ; but it would be dangerous to admit the affirmation of those various sects which spring up day by day to a transient notice, and then sink into oblivion. After a few words from Mr. Q. LAMS and Mr. Gem's, the House resumed, the report was brought up, sad ordesed.so •be re ceived to-morrow. Mr. Secretary PEEL moved, that the House shotild resolve itself into a Committee on the second Bill, for consolidating the laws respecting offences Against the person. Mr. PA ULE'r THOMSON suggested that it would he well to introduce a clause into the Bill to enable Magistrates summarily to compensate parties in cases of assault. Mr. Secretary PEEL replied, that the best oppor tunity for discussing such a prnpoial as that , would be in the Committee. His first impression was to have introduced such a clause into the Bill, but besides the increasing of the summary jurisdiction of the Magis tracy, and the necessity there would be raised of having securities against this abuse of the new power intrusted to their handi, he feared it would lead to more numer ous frivolous complaints, than were now made, being brought before Magistrates. At the same time he was ready to acknowledge, that at present great injury was often done which went unpunished from the expense Or proceeding to trial. The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. Sn T. BARING objected to the shortness of the time between the trial and erecution of a man convicted or murder. It did not allow him time to prepare himself for leaving this world, or for making that application to the Crown for mercy which was possessed by other . criminals. Mr. Secretary PEEL said that it would be difficult to say what the effect of any change would be, but he knew that at present, particuLaily in Ireland, the quick ness of the punishment after the offence, tended greatly to support the feeling of horror which was entertained for the crime of murder. Mr.VAN HONIRIGI-1 related a case in which a man was found guilty of murder, when he had only been guilty of manslaughter, and who narrowly' escaped being hanged for the first mentioned crime, through the short• ness of time allowed between the trial and execution. After a few words in explanation from Mr. Pm and Sir T. BARING, the clause by wkich the bodies of per- sons found guilty of murder mere to be given op for dissection, or hung in chains, was agreed to. Mr; HUME asked whether this was to be considered as definitive? Mr. PEEL said that he must wait the report of the Committee that* had bern appointed on the subject of dissection before he could an,wer the questinn. • On another clause relating to attempt to kill, wawa, or maim, Mr. Secretary PEEL prilpoted as an amendment, to the effect that where the 'wanks, of the party was ma• nifestly to commit murder (ata4 which would be de duced from overt acts), that them po matter whether with a sharp or cutting instrument, or with a blunt or obtu e one, or by poison, the attempt should be deemed equally capital. The Right Hon. Gent. instanced the late attempt of Howard upon Mr. Mullay with a cricket bat, and the - eine also of a person (Thurtell) who in tended to slay his victim with dumb bells. The ATTORNEY GENERAL supported the amend: ment ; the immoraiity of the attempt to commit murder And the completion of the crime, being in his mind quite the f anie. The SOLICITOR GENERAL also supported the amendment, referring to late attempts at murder by drowning. Mr. FERGUSON opposed the amendment, the effect of which would be, that for every common assault parties would be put on Dial for their lives. Such a proposition was monstrous. Mr. G. LAMB agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), respecting the mora lity of a real or only an intentional murderer, and could see nothing so monstrous as a proposition, that a person making a regular boxa.fide attempt to commit murder —(A laugh)—and the completion of which accident only should have prevented, should not be deemed as guilty as he who perfected the offence. Mr. BERNA L opposed the amendment. After a conversation, in which Mr. Noses. Mr. C. Willi', Mr. Fraousisx,lU:d Mr. STURGIS BOURN, took part, Mr. Secretary PEEL repeated his former argument, and referred to a recent case, in which a poacher had pulled a trigger at a gamekeeper—the gun fortunately missed fire, but the poacher was convicted and left for execution. It having appeared, however, to him (Mr. Peel).- that it might have happened that murder was not intended, there having been no overt act to prove such guilty intention, the man was respited. The Amendment before the Committee would meet such a case in future. The clause, u amended, was then agreed to; as were several others, without opposition. On the clause respecting the concealment of the births of illegi timate children by their slathers, Mr. Secretary PEEL rose to propose an amendment. It appeared to him that the concealment of the birth 'of a child, although stillborn, ought not to be viewed 1 1 as equally criminal with the concealment of a birth 'where the child should be born alive. There might be many, not absolutely guilty, reasons for concealing such a birth. - On the clause for the punishment of violent outrages (of a capital nature) upoa females * Mr. W. SMITH suggested the propriety of excepting females from the revolting public examination to which they were exposed in giving evidence in such cases. It there was not an absolute necessity for that violent ex• posure, be should wish some other mode of examination to ascertain the charge. Mr. PEEL said, that if a private examination were tolerated, one of the greatest impediments would be re moved to the detection of false charges of this kind, which were capable of being easily made, • and at the same time difficult of refutation. _________ On the same clause, relative to ill treatment and cruelty to chil dren under ten years of age Mr. W. SMITH objected to the extreme inequality of the principle of punishment recognised by this part the Bill. For the slightest imaginary offences against property, they assigned a two years' imprisonment ; there was the same punishment for an offence only short of taking away life itself. Mr. Secretary PEEL admitted, that the Honourable Gentleman opposite bad introduced his clause in an im perfect shape; but thought the Honourable Member for Norwich (Mr. W. Smith) had lost sight of an im portant distinction to be observed in it. The offeuce designed by the clause was, " Assault and ill ulat t meat; so that there must be both the ill treatment and assauli: The word or" was sat implied. nce meant therefore was " assault." with aggr; Mr. JOHN MAR fIN would be quite satisfied to press the clause now, if the Right H n. S.ctet i , (Mr. Peel) would only give it the benefit, b 'wren th ani the neat sitting of the Committee, of his e tt side, a , ion. After a few words from Mr. W. &trim, Sir I'. B A Mr. Secretary Pau., it was agreed that the clays* ihould I at all events, and in that shape, as part of the Bill, again be on for discussion. Nit. BERKLEY PORTMAN also beined to upon the Right Hon. Secretary's attention, the . tion he had before thrown out, as to the propriety giving Magistrates a summary jurisdiction in case, common assaul , . Mr. S. BOURNE supported this recont - The defect of such a summary jurisdiction wa s a evil in our system of laws, and friim his own err he could speak to the frequent operation such detec t in rendering the powers of the Magistrates and inefficient, even where the offence was clearly out. It-would be much better to give them the p, of imposing fines, according to circumstances, o f not less than 10s. nor more than 40s. with the [tufty is the offender of imprisonment, in case of non-payra nt. Mr.W. SMI rH could not help emplaning t h dttbt least offences against proverty were looked atter m cist carefully, and punished most severely, in this cum ); while the vigilance and the severity of the law wow to be careless or mitigated in respect of offences the person. The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progres, 'obtained leave to sit again ; the Bill with the amendments , :printed, and report to be brought up on Monday neat. The Order of the Day for the third reading of the Election Acts Consolidation Bill was then read, on the motion of Mr. C. W. WYN N, who proposed a verbal 'amendment, and a clatise to the xffect that the excuses of Members, e respect of not serving on Committees hallotted for to Itleetion Petitions, &c. should not be accepted before, bi House should have decided on such cases. The clause was read a first and second time. The a third lune and passed. The House adjourned at HALINPMIT THE EVENING SPA LONDON. TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1828. , IMI••= , STOCK EXCHANGF, TWELVE OTI.Or The Consol market still remains heavy, and Consols morning at 85j ; soon after a sale, of fifty thousand wt. which caused the market to recede to 855 4, but at present may be quoted at 851 a. In the Foreign market nothing is doing. CITY, HALF-PAST ONE o'l Consols have been fluctuating, during the morning, between and 855 for the Account, and at present may be quoted PRICE OF STOCKS AT TWO 0 eItA)CI Ban% Stock India Stock 2185 3 per Cent. Red. 841 5 4 Ditto Bon& 97 3 per Ct. Cons. 854 # 4 South Sri Stuck 35 per Cent. New Ditto 851 35 per Cent. Red. 924 4 41000 Excheq. Bills 1 4 per Ct. Never 10215 I 4 1 1 it 50D Ditto 66 1 4 per'Cent. Scrip 1100 and £2OO Ditto 4 per Cent. 1826, 1024 4 Commercial 61 Long Ann. 19 3-16 4 Consols for Acct. 851 , ; FOlth:IIIN FUNDS, TWO itci.t t K Brazilian Bds. 3 p Ct. 61 Mew Bds. Sp Ct. 26 Do. Ace. 61 Portiog. lids. Sp C.I voioniblan Honda, 6 per Ct. Do Acct. 635 I Do. 80ud5,1824, Russ.Bds.lll22, 5 per Ct. Do Acct. 235 Spanish Bds Sp Ct - BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHARKS, TWO O'+ PHA AIL PAID. Colombian 100 225 United Mexican 40 - 36 Britialt Rock and_Patelit 6ait7. _ 7 • Some interesting contgisa;ion tqum_the st Wool Trade took place in the How of Lads lait nigl upon a motion made by the Duke of RICHMOND for a , mittee to inquire into the State of the Trade. The Dul usurrust, in agreeing to the motion, deemed it necessary from the inquiries be bad thought It his duty to make, 'laced that the result of the inquiry would not be an the duty. After several Noble Lords bad deliverad ments, the motion was agreed to, and the Committee Some more witnesses were examined upon the Penrya chisement Bill, and the further proeeedinp were ordered day and Thursday next. Ii the House of COMITIOII3, on the preseni Petition against any additional duty being laid upon •• reply to Lord MILTON, who presented it, Mr. C. Gr. tor. his Majesty's Government had well considered the . had determined to mate no alteration in the duty. the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was recur Lords by Lord moult Rossau., Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. CAI other Members of the House of Gastrusons. Mr. LIDDELI two Petitions Irons Newcastle and North Shields again. Notes Bill. Mr. &said it was necessary to encourage modate the manufacturing interests, which could not without the Country Bankers. Mr. Batt. thought if the pl . _ ten were persisted - in, a vacuum M the currency would which they would feel It extremely difficult to till up. _ was made to these observations. Mr. Pam., in an entered into an enumeration of the prospective advsnt, derived from Lord LAstsnowo's Law of Evidence the House going Into Committee on eke Bill. In the ci same speech the Right Honourable Gentlema■ also exi commented with his useal ability and lucidness of argw various clauses of the Offences against the Person BM . Nobleman. The two Bills were then successively commie after some discussion, the daises. with a few IncouJiderat ' meats, were agreed to, the report on each brought up. to be received this day :The Election Trial Censolidati4 passed, after some verbal amendments had been made The Foreign Journals received last night, great deal of conjecture respecting the affairs 4::o An article dated liamburgh, Apt il 29, gives, is alleged to be good authority, a statement frt that the passage of the Pruth by the Kussiat fixed for 25th April, N.S. Up to the pre,eni however. nothing is publicly known in this ct the subject ; but we understand that the nest di from St. Pdersburgh, which are ansiowly 101 will convey the positive determination of tl with the fixed time of putting his army in root' , We received this moining Piedmentese Gaze 27th ult.—they contain no political news. that an experiment lately vied in Spain. as parts of the Mediterranean, to intiodttce the insect, promises to be attended with the d"ii' at Malta. The following are extracts: ROME, Aran. 19. The accounts which we receive from the of Urbino and Pe%aro, and especially from speak of the great alarm which was every *ll , •by the earthquake, was feirthire on plie, t it 1 a ggravaw satisfied at 1. S.. vela ; s . tween , of his co s Baatao, t F uld be print, On be bract get] to I), the sugg propriety i in Cifeb mendating. `III agre e 6 n expellent:4 h detect had to es nupoo ri , ki ledtly most t' tt the pore, flees, o f al o [chitty to tt on -payment, .ing t h at I :Ater mpg I f s his cnuntri ; law se etbiti it races ahaitt profile„, m ndments to k Election Ti ti of ndmentattaat 1 2 er s, em oath, k , W c to try tal k r, but after th • Le IBA** e tit th z Ire _....:.---. Si br -t 'Loa. r i:ols opened thie .1 was effected at proem they • O'CLOCK. ag, between ef, :; ;Ned at tia I. z • etas SS 1 ► ' 1 Dion 66 ? 2 35 a I K t. 26 C.63* • a per Ct. Sit Ct lla 1 • O'CLOCK. 14k 0 st-ite of the' night. Itsroa r a 3clect Cosa \ tt t Duke of Witel miry no say, ti 4 1 akr, ht felt toil •- 1 re an increased :red their semi zee appointed.- Penryo Diefra f ordered far Ur ;t e or.e s e n... NThsvitotii.:2n,inii::::.:Oftskiris:;, 62:j ret urnzd to tY or !ODELL prorate e zaimt the Smi . 1 rage :•r.3 moo to not bt. t Actre le plan cf Mine. you'd be createl up. No KO an able epteck , tiyArnages to to Bill, p revious he coursed* a explained,s 4 !argument cud* ILO of the ad* committed, ad 1 tideratleacor ei, 13 11 is hivr idon u d fste P r,os ' o i , i : g a cm i n too i h d t• el ein: a t ' e r 11 whatti a 1 East. 8,11"µ ado ;3 1 . 1. T issian army i• present times 0 if country os It dispatches y looked fon )f the CZAII 111106 00 . ;aZdies 10 the It appea l " and in some the cochineal desired restili ae moun tailli P torn llsbr i I ss here coo t* on the 10.