Star. — London, England, 1830-06-03 00:00:00

e NVMBER OF STEAM BOATS IN ENGLAND. The following is an official account of the number of •team-vessels employed in the United Kingdom from the year 1814 tp to the 31st of January 1830, with the amount of their tonnage, nd number of men serving on board of them. Steam-boats were sot ir. general use in England until the year 1814, although they had Levi known in the United States of America some years pre. it% pubhe means of conveyance. The following table will chew the gradual increase of that wonderful invention in this country :--- _ Years. I Vessels. I Tons. I Men. 1814 11 542 :65 1815 25 1,558 150 1816 :14 2,084 201 1817 42 2,382 233 1818 I 53 3,807 305 1819 60 4,165 369 1820 l 78 5,807 478 1821 101 8.003 712 1622 i 129 11,007 924 1823 151 13,104 1,112 1824 168 14,708 4,276 1823 213 18,730 1,630 1826 :285 26,904 2,278 1827 318 30,239 2,566 1828 338 30,912 4 2,708 1829 I :142 1 31,108 2,745 (If this nquiber about 167 ply up and down t between bondon, Gravesend, Margate, Ramsgate, Calais, Boulogne, Ostend, Harnburgh, and St. Pt he river Thames, Newcastle, Leith, NEW COURTS AT WESTMINSTER AND THE JUDGES' CHAMBERS. t OPY OF MEMORIAL TO THE LORDS OF THE TREA SURY, AND THEIR LORDSHIPS' REPLY TO IT. To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury. The Memorial of the Members of the Metropolitan Law Society, instituted for the purpose of preventing abuses in the Profes %ion of the Law, and of the Members of the Northern Agents' Society, instituted for promoting fair and liberal practice amongst Attorneys and Solicitors— SREWE TN, That the above Societies are composed of respectable attorneys and solicitors resident in the metropolis, prac tising in his Majesty's superior Courts of Law and Equity, at Westminster. That your Memorialists, while engaged in their profes sional avocations, are often compelled to be in attendance upon the Courts of Westminster, for four or five hours a day, and, during such times, are necessitated to hold fre quent communications with their clients, and with Coun sel, upon matters of great public as well as private im portance. That from the plan adopted in the construction of the Court of King's Bench, where the greatest pressure of business exists, the attorneys having business in that Court are not only personally incommoded from the want of seats, hut are deprived of the means of conferring with their Counsel, or with each other, by which the public are sub jected to much loss and inconvenience. That the space allotted in the Court of King's Bench to the attorneys will not contain more than about twenty persons, whilst the number in attendance generally ex ceeds five times that amount, and even this space is fre quently occupied by strangers, or persons not immediately concerned in the business of the Court. That the Court is equally inconvenient for the counsel, the officers of the Court, for students, and also for the public. That females and aged persons, in waiting as witnesses, us well as the attorneys and others who are compelled to be in attendance upon the Courts, aro not only without proper accommodations in the Courts, but there are no rooms, or places adjoining, where they can be in atten dance until wanted, except the large hall, which is with out seats, and always without a fire. That it would facilitate the business of the public, be conducive to the respectability of tho profession, and add to the dignity of the administration of the laws them selves, if suitable rooms adjoining the Courts were ap propriated to the use of attorneys and solicitors, in which they might, during the sittings, either consult with their clients and each other, or hold conference with their counsel, as might be requisite for the interests of their employers and the general despatch of legal business. That for the use of such rooms, your Memorialists will (if necessary) undertake to find responsible persons to pay such reasonable rent for the hire of the same as may be required, and upon such terms as your Lordships shall approve. That your memorialists also beg to call your Lordship's attention to the chambers of the Judges in Sergeant's Inn, wherein an extensive branch of the business of the Courts is conducted, but which are wholly unfit for the purposes to which they are applied, and are not capable of accommodating a tenth part of the persons who are compelled to attend upon the Judges there. The attorneys and solicitors contribute largely to the expenses of the State, in personal taxes, by the payment of stamp duties upon their articles of clerkship,admisaions, and annual certificates, which, within the last five years, cannot have produced less than one million sterling, a sem they believe more than sufficient to pay the salaries of the Judges, and the expenses attending the adminis tration of justice in England and Wales. Your Memorialists, therefore, humbly pray that your Lordships will be pleased to take the subject of this their Memorial into your early consideration, and cause such alterations and im provements to be made in the Court of King's Bench, and the Judges' Chambers, as will remedy the defects complained of, and become the dignity of the law, and be suitable to the wealth and greatness of the British empire. And your Memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. Signed, &c. THE ANSWER. Treasury Chambers, April 30, 1830. SlR,—The Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury having had under consideration the Memorial from the Metropolitan Law Society, and the Society of Northern Agents, praying that some alterations may be made in the Court of King's Bench, Westminster, and the Judge's Chambers, in Sergeant's Inn, for the accom modation of the attorneys, &c. in attendance upon bu siness there ; I have it in command to acquaint you, that my Lords regret that when the new Courts of Law were erected, and when they were altered, more ample accommodation was not afforded, than the present Courts appear calculated to give, to the several persons who have occasion to attend them ; but my Lords having made careful inquiry as to the possibility of extending the ac commodation, and as to the cf,i-^se attending the same, do not consider that they should be justified, under pre sent circumstances, in incurring the large expenditure to which the necessary alterations would give rise, even if they were prepared ' now to direct the building at West minster, which has been once partially pulled down, and rebuilt, to be again subjected to a similar operation My Lords are fully sensible of the inconvenience of the Judges' Chambers in Sergeant's Inn, and do not see the same obstacles as at Westminster to erecting, at a future period, apartments better suited to the convenient transaction of official business. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, To James Anderson, Esq. J. STEWART 20, New Bridge.atreet. At a Meeting of the Committee of the Metropolitan Law Society, held on Thursday, the 20th day of May;lB3o r Mr. BILIZIMALIC in the Chair, • It was Resolved, That the memorial to the Lords of the Treasury, on behalf of the attorneys and solicitors practising in the metropolis, with their Lordships reply, be printed and circulated amongst the members of the profession. That the expense of the alterations and improvements guggested in the Courts at Westminster, for the neces sary accommodation of the practitioners, will not exceed 13,0001. That the annual sum paid by attorneys and solicitors, being not less than 200,0001. and the Court fees and other disbursements incurred by their clients being enormous, this Committee conceives that the expense of the pro posed improvements is comparatively insignificant, and ought not to impede the important objects in view. That whilst the members of the profession do not ob ject to pay an annual compensation for the accommodation required, they feel assured that the community at large, which is so deeply interested in the most efficient admi nistration of justice, would cheerfully consent that the ex pense should be borne by the public revenue. That a petition be presented to the House of Commons to carry the object into effect, and that the members of the several Law Societies, as well as of the profession in ge neral, be requested to sign the petition : and that copies thereof be left for signature at the following places, viz.: At the office of Messrs. Baxendale, Tatham, Upton, and John. son, solicitors, 5, King's Ar m -yard, Coleman-street; Messrs. Clowes, Orme, and Wedlake, 10, King's Bench-walk, Temple ; Messrs. Brembridge and Cleobury, 'B, Furnival's Inn ; Messrs. G. and W. Heldere, 17, Clement's Inn ; Messrs. Anderton and Scott, 20, New Bridge-street; and at the office of the Metropolitan Law Society, Quality-court, Chancery.Ltne, until the 9th day of June next. May 23. By order, JAMES ANDERTON, Set. ~~ . --- LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 2. (Sittings at Nisi Fritts, before Lord TENTERDEN and Common Juries.) DAWSON v. wILLINGTON AND ♦NOTIIEB. -- - This was an action for entering the plaintiff's house, and taking his goods under a distress for rent. The de fendants justified under the statute, which allows a landlord to follow and seize the goods of his tenant in cases where they have been fraudulently removed for the purpose of avoiding the rent. It appeared that the plaintiff, prior to the 26th of August last, had been a tenant of the defendant Willington, of apart ments in Upper North-place, Gray's-inn-lane -road. On August 25th he removed from those apartments, taking his goods to No. 5, Gray's Inn-lane, and leaving unpaid a sum of 2/. which became due to Willington for rent on the following day. Willington having a few days afterwards discovered that the plaintiff had taken a house or apartments in Yardley-street, Spa-fields, authorised the other defendant, Houghton, who was a broker, to make a distress on those premises. The distress was accordingly made on the 27th of August. An inventory was made out, and the men remained in possession from eleven o'clock in the morning till ten at night ; but the goods were not removed, the distress being ultimately abandoned. The plaintiff's witnesses swore that the goods distrained had never been on the premises in Upper North-place, but that fact was contradicted by a witness called on the part of the defendants, who swore positively to some pictures as having been there. Lord TENTERDEN left two questions to the jury: first, whether the goods bad been fraudulently removed from Upper North-place : and next, whether the goods distrained were those which had been on the promises. If they negatived either of those questions, they would find for the plaintiff, otherwise for the defendant. The jury 'found for the plaintiff—Damages 408. LOVERIDGE V. HODSOLL, ESQ. This was an action to recover 51. 12s. 6d. the amount of a certain assessment made by the Commissioners for Paving, Lighting, and Watching, in the p ar i s h o f S t . Pancras, appointed under a local act, passed in the 41st year of the late King. The assessment had been made in respect of two houses belonging to the defendant, on the road leading to Hampstead, called Haverstock-hill, and the question whether or not the defendant was liable to pay it depended on the construction of the local act, and the General Metropolitan Paving Act of the 57th George 111. The defendant contended that the commis sioners (who sued on this occasion in the name of their clerk, Mr. Loveridgo), had no right to take under their jurisdiction any part of the Hampstead road lying north ward of the Regent's-canal. Some facts Caving been proved on both sides, A verdict was, by consent, taken for the plaintiff, sub ject to the opinion of the court above upon a case. MARTIN V. sow Les: This was an action against the proprietor of White Conduit-house to recover the value of a great coat be longing to the plaintiff. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, on the evening of the 10th of November, 1828, went, accompanied by an acquaintance, a journey man currier, to White Conduit-house, where an eighteen penny concert and ball was given by a club called the Odd Fellows. The plaintiff and his friend left their great coats in the care of a man named Smith, an occa sional waiter at the house, and received from him a ticket for them. On inquiring for the coats at the conclusion of the entertainments, the plaintiff's was not to be found. An application was made respecting it, in August last, to Mr. Monkhouse, the person who manages the business at White Conduit-house, and he then stated that he would stop out of Smith's wages the value of the coat. The defence was, that Smith was not, on the evening in question, employed by, or acting on the account of the defendant, but was attending at the house as a member of the club of Odd Fellows. To prove this, Smith him self and two waiters were called. From their evidence it appeared that Smith obtained admission to the room 1 where the Odd Fellows were assembled without obtaining one of the tickets which were issued at Is. 6d. each, having gone there, as he said, " to try to pick up a few shillings." It seemed pretty clear that he acted as a waiter to the Odd Fellows and their party, but whether with or without the defendant's knowledge did not dis tinctly appear. Lord TENTRRDEIf told the Jury, that if they were of opinion that Sthith had been permitted by the defendant to act as a waiter on the evening iu question, the plaintiff would be entitled to their verdict for the value of the coat. If not, and they thought that he was acting as waiter without the defendant's knowledge or permission, they would find for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 31. 10s. DOE, EX DEM. PAGE, V. DAN I ELL, ESQ. A X D ANOTHER. This was an action against Mr. Daniell and lir.Tor riano, barristers of the Chancery bar, to recover posses sion of the premises No. 41, Chancery-lane. Those premises, it appeared, had been let by the lessor of the plaintiff, Mr. Samuel Page, a surveyor, to Mr. Bremridge, an attorney, for a term of twenty-one years. The lease, which was dated the 30th December, 1828, contained a clause prohibiting the lessee from assigning the premises, or parting with the possession, without the consent in writing of the lessor. It als o contained a covenant, on the part of the lessee, not to convert the plemises into, or permit them to be occupied as chambers. Mr. Bremridge having let the premises to the defendant Daniell, without obtaining the necessary consent from Mr. Page, and Mr. Daniell and Mr. Torriano having, as it was alleged, converted them into chambers, the present action was brought to recover possession under the clause giving the lessor a right of re-entry in case of a breach of any of the covenants. For the defence, the draught of an assignment from Mr. Bremridge to Mr. Daniell (to which Mr. Page's name appeared as a consenting party) was put in. It was signed by Mr. Page's son, Mr. Samuel Flood Page, as having been approved by him, on the part of his father ; and it was contended by the defendant's counsel that this was a sufficient " consent in writing " to Mr. Bramridge, to assign the premises. It appeared, how ever, by the evidence of Mr. S. F. Page, that although lie acted generally as the agent of his father in the management of his house property, all that he did was subject to his father's approval, and he had no authority to assent to the proposed assignment to Mr. Daniell. His father, on being apprized of it, refused to ratify the terms which he (the son) had acceded to. Lord TENTERDEN observed, that from this evidence it eras clear that Mr. Page, jun. had no authority from his father to agree to the proposed assignment ; and if he had, he (Lord Teuterden) should very much have doubted whether it amounted to a " consent in writing," on the part of the father, within the meaning of the lease. Verdict for the plaintiff. FELL V. LORD KENSINGTON. This was an action to recover the balance of an account for plumber's work done at the mansion erected by Lord Kensington in Carlton-gardens. The amount of the de mand originally was about 7001. 4001. had, as was ad mitted, been paid, and the plaintiff, by this action, sought to recover the remainder. He failed, however, in proving more than 481. beyond the 4001. and the defendant hav ing, before the action was brought, paid 111. and ten dered 401. the plaintiff was nonsuited. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jules 2. (London Sittings, before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL and a Common Jury.) STRANGE V. WIGNEY AND OTHERS. This was an action of trover to recover the amount of a 1001. Bank post-bill. Mr. Serjeant WILDE and Mr. KELLY conducted the plaintiff's case; and Mr. Serjeant TADDY and Mr. CoT TINGHAm that of the defendants. The facts were these :—The plaintiff, Mrs. Strange, keeps the Kentish Hotel at Tunbridge NVells. Having occasion, on the 16th of September last, to come to Lon don, she took her place on the outside of the coach, and arrived in town in due time. She carried in her hand a silk bag, in which were deposited a purse con taining the Bank post-bill in question, and some money, also a silver knife, and some other articles. She and a friend of hers got into a hackney-coach in Smith field ; but on quitting it she forgot her bag, which re mained behind her on the seat. Upon subsequently dis covering her loss, she sent to the Bank of England to stop payment of the bill, of which she gave the par ticulars. She afterwards gave information at the hackney coach office, and caused handbills to be printed, offering a reward of 51. for the resto:ation of her bag and its contents. She had these handbills distributed in the neighbourhood of Smithfield, Chcapside, the Exchange, and several hackney coach stands. She also caused an advertisement to the same effect to be inserted in the Morning Advertiser on the 24th of the same month. She shortly afterwards received a communication from the secretary to the Bank of England, informing her that the bill had been presented for acceptance by Messrs. Masterman and Co. bankers. Learning that it had been remitted to them by the defendants, who are bankers at Brighton, she caused a letter to be written to them, acquainting them with the circumstances under which she had lost the bill, and requesting as much in formation as possible as to the party from whom, and the manner in which, it had come into their possession. In reply, she was informed that the bill had been pre sented by a person who called himself Wilson, and gave his address Great Queen-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, adding, that he was going to Southampton or the Isle of Wight, and that he had received 51. Bank of England notes for it, but no entry had been taken of the numbers of them. Besides the name of Wilson, there was also that of Thomson on the back of the bill, and both these names were believed to be fictitious, as no trace of any such persons could be discovered. It had, how ever, been regularly indorsed in blank, and the Bank of England having received it from proper respon sible hands, declined to give it up to the plaintiff, except upon her lodging 1001. when they allowed her the use of it to assist her in tracing the parties, if possible, through whose hands it had passed to the de fendants. Under these circumstances, the present action was brought by the plaintiff, on whose behalf it was con tended that the defendants had not used due caution in taking a bill of this large amount, without seeking for some satisfactory information respecting the party v.-ho presented it to them, and without entering the numbers of the notes given in exchange, whereby all clue to the discovery of such party was destroyed. On the other hand, it was argued that the defendants had done all that could reasonably hare been required in the way of in quiry respecting the person from whom they had received the bill; and that the plaintiff's loss had been occasioned by her own negligence in carrying a note of this amount through town and country in an open reticule, and after wards contenting herself with scattering a few handbills amongst some hackney coachmen, instead of taking proper steps to inform the commercial public of her loss, so as to guard them against taking the lost bill. The Loan Cu Er JUSTICE left it to the jury to say whether or not there had been any negligence on either side, and, if so, on which, and find their verdict ac cordingly. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff— Damages, 1001. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, June 2. NEW COURT. This day the sessions having terminated, the Court adjourned, and at a quarter to two o'clock, the Rs- CORDIR, attended by Alderman A IiSLE T and F.% it !- BROTHER, took his seat on the bench, for the purpose of passing sentence upon those prisoners who had been convicted during the sessions, who did not receive judg ment instanter. The awful sentence of death was passed upon the fol lowing 11 unfortunate individuals:— Thomas Brown, and John Crawley, for maliciously cutting and maiming, with intent to kill; Jeremiah Collins, for a robbery upon the person; William Norton, Thomas Garland, John King, and Robert Durley, for stealing goods and monies, above the value of 61. in dwelling-houses; Thomas Smith, Laz arus Hart, Joseph Evans, and George Froggatt, for housebreaking, and committing larcenies therein. The learned RICOADIR addressed these convicts at great length, and in a most impressive manner. He la mented that persons so young, and who, in some instances, had worldly prospects once before them, should, by a fatal propensity to crime, have rendered themselves amenable to the extremest punishment which the laws of civilised countries inflicted upon transgressors. As the issues of life or death were alone vested in an executive power, he trusted that they would prepare for the latter, and then in cue the sovereign should, by the advice of his council, remember mercy in the midst of judgment, they wrii,!4i become better subjects in another country, to which thy might in all probability be exiled. During this address, the most profound silence u 4, observed in court, and the prisoners appeared to h e deeply impressed with the awful situation in which they were placed. The following were ordered to be transported for life viz.--Hugh Hughes, James Harris, William Horton, :o w Margaret Brown. For fourteen years.—Jano Lovell, whose ca , c curious defence appeared in the Star of yesterday, atid John Jones. The following were also adjudged to the sante term of expatriation, viz.—John Dewart, Henry Newman, lA, Carrington, John Rose, Philip Porter, Sarah Jones, Johi. Tubley, John Dean, Vim. Deacon, and John Barnes The latter was convicted on Tuesday of a robbery at the mansion of the Marquis of Bath, to whom he had been a confidential servant. The following were sentenced to be transported foi seven years, viz. : Win. Walker, Ann Armsworth, Wm. Wells, John Crouch George Brooks, James Nicholson, Geo. Box, John Wenma; Samuel Baker, Geo. Brown, Thos. Bolton, Henry R ose, M sry . Stevens, Thos. Collins, Wm. Williams, George Topper, Thorns:: Smith, Jeremiah Rogers, Maria Payne, John Line, John Hedges, M'm. Green, Margaret Gorman, John Wm. Coxon, John Edward Adams, Henry Little, Thos. Smith, John IVardrop , John IVat. ford, James Roberts, Robert Roster,Win. Illingworth, Mary.lener, Louisa Hewgall, Mary Dunn, Benjamin Stem, James Steers, Charles M'Carthy, Edward Burnett, John Baptiste de Alatthews, William Everett, John Cross, John Clow , Edward Low, Thomas Lancaster, Mary Charlotte Moore, John Carney, Jelin Itrysm, Thomas Ferrell, Henrietta Williams, Amelia Anderson, Chnks Smith, Joseph Vares, Edward Simmons, John Mapleton, Sam ue l Cooper, and William Cosgrove. A great number were sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to bard labour for various periods from seven day.. to two years ; others were ordered to be privately whipped and discharged ; and the judgments, in some cases, were respited until the next sessions. The sessions were then ordered to stand adjou:r. , until Thursday the Bth of July. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW-STREET. Yesterday, Mr. Joseph Lilly, bookseller in Me m.. se,:m.., Bloomsbury, was brought before Mr. HALLS, charged by a your: gentleman, named William 'Delves, rcaiding in Mary.s..n.et, gent's Park, with violently beating and kicking him. Mr. Delves, a delicate looking young man, stated that on Tutsti.” evening he was standing in front of the London University, hen .1 dog ran at him, and caught hold of his trowsers with his teeth. which, however, did not penetrate to his skin. He gave the anima: a kick, upon which he defendant came up to him, and said. " d—n you, Sir, how dare you kick my dog ?" To which cue.. plainant replied, " Sir,• instead of abusing me, yon ought have apologised for suffering your dog to run at me and attempt :, bite me." The defendant upon this again abused him, and said uttered a lie, and complainant then called bhn an Insolent scoundrel The defendant in answer said, " if you call me an insolent EiCOtlr. • drel again, I will knock you down.." Complainant did repeat if: epithet, and the defendant gave him a blow on the face, which I'. yelled him. As he was rising the defendant was coming to him again. when he called out " for GOD'S sake don't strike again, for I am in a delicate state of health." He, defendant, however, knocked him down with a blow in the mouth, which ant his Elm very severely. Complainant, on rising once more, recovering his legs, endeavoured to retreat, but the defendant followed him across the street and again knocked him down. He (Mr. Delves) af. terwards followed the defendant until he found a policeman. t whom he gave him in charge, and he was conveyed to Eagle: street watchhouae, but there the inspector on duty refused to de tain the defendant, as the police-officer had not himself seen the assault committed. The defendant gave his card of address, art: complainant procured a warrant against him at this office. PI, defendant had a female with him during the whole transaction. Mr. Lilly, in his defence, said, that he believed the dog had no% attempted to bite Mr. Delves, and that when the latter called him a scoundrel, he certainly knocked him down" and (continued the delkndant,) I would do so again to any man who dared to apply such an epithet to me. Wu Ito submit tamely to be called a scoundrel in the presence of a female, and that female my wife ?" Mr. Hau.s—l admit that the language conveyed great provoca tion, but you had no right to take the law into your own hands. Mr. Lilly—But what other remedy had i, Sir? Mr. HALLS.—If you had contented yourself with the first blow, I should, considering the provocation you received, have viewed the case in a very different light ; bugto follow it up as you did a second and a third time, and especially after the appeal made to you by the complainant after the first attack, evinces a degree of savage feeling which deserves punishment. The Magistrate then ordered the de fendant to pay a fine of 40s. Mr. Lilly raid he considered the fine most unjust, and asked i. there was no appeal ? The clerk told him there was not an appeal, and he must :E.! Lr pay the money or go to prison for a month. Mr. Lilly paid the fine ; but expressed, in warm terms, his dirt.. tisfaction at the decision. QUEEN SQUARE. A FIGHT PREVENTED.—On Tuesday last a number of inhabitants of IV*lham.green and Fulham gave infonnation to the Inspector of Pollee of the V division, stationed in that district, that there was to be a pitched battle between two men on the same afternoon ; and as these fights generally ended in riotous and elite orderly conduct, to the terror of the neighbourhood, the inhabitant. expected that the police would interfere to prevent any fight from taking place, and preserving order. Accordingly, several hundred men met near Walham.green Church, and no sooner had the cont. battants stripped for the fight, but they were interrupted by a strung body of tie New Police. The men immediately desisted on the appearance of the Constables, and decamped ; but the bye. 'tandem who did not appear to like their sports interrupted, wire not so easily dispersed, and they assaulted several of the police. no; only with their fists, but with stones ; two of the ringleaders, Til. berry and Cumlin, were secured, and two others were soon after secured. and taken to the watch-housc and yesterday morning they were placed at the bar, and a long investigation took place, when the above statement was detailed in evidence, and each defendant was fined 4lls. and, in default of payment, to be imptisored ont month. John Collier and George Reid was afterwards placed at the ha% charged with being the principals in the above-mentioned The prisoners were fighting a pitched battle in the Kines.road. Chelsea, that morning, and were apprehended by the police. t.i there being no evidence to prove they were the same 'ilea that oven• sioned the riot at Walham-green, the magistrates only fined half a crown each. RANK POPERY.—" Sixty years since," an English lady, who could not conform to Scotch habits, requestetl of the minister of the kirk to allow her to have her pew cleaned and lined, that she might not spoil her clothes: but he refused, saying it was rank Popery."—lreland and its Economy. 111ARRIED. On the lat inst. at St. Mark's, Kennington, Joseph, eldest son of J. Radford, Esq. of West Brixton, Surrey, to Mary, widow of the late J. Dimwit, Esq. of Claremont-place, North Brixton, and only daughter of the late J. Thompson, Es q of the Manor-house, Chelsea—On Wednesday, the 2d in►t. at Willesden, Mr. Toiler, of Conduit -street, to Ann Gertrude. cldcbt daughter of H. Jarvis, Esq. of Kilbourne. DIED. On Tuesday, the Ist inst. at Stoke Newington, in the Bth yeas of his age, Julius, youngest child of A. H. Rivas, Esq.—On Thursday, the 27th ult. Ann, relict of the late Rev. 1. Taylor, of Onset, in the 73d year of her age—On the 30th ult. at Leek, in the county of Stafford, in the 66th year of his age, MT. S. Lucca. of the 6rm of Gaunt and Lucas, silk.manufacturcrs, one of du oldest establishments in the trade—On Wednesday, the 2d inst. Eli. sabeth Nary, wife of J. Rawlins, Esq. Paradise-row, Islington. aged 87—On Tuesday, the Ist inst. aged 55, Mary, wife of J. Dimis, Esq. of Upper Clapton, and late of Si. Ann's-fare , A ate-street—On the 31st ult. at Lowndes.plam, Holloway road, 1r..1. Randall, in his 78th year, after a short illness; many years an inhabitant of the Broadway, Westminster— On the 21st ult. at Stonehouse, Devon, much esteemed, aged 79, Mrs. Le Grlce, widow of the late Rev. C. Le Ghia, rector of Wiekbampton, Ic Norfolk, and of Thwaite, in Suffolk, and lecturer of St. James's. Bury St. Edmund's. H I 6 H. W ATER at LONDON-BRIDGE TO-MORROW . Morning 23 minutes atter •••• • Atter:woe • 44 album attar ••••• Lomas: Printed and Published by Jou' MATINS, at she teas- Ormuz No. l, Pleketuphee,Tesopie Bar.