Star. — London, England, 1812-11-18 00:00:00

- ? . •e . COVAT Q? EXPHEQUER, NOWAtir iL '• :' . - Zk ' , - • , THZ situp v. LoLt.at. _ ./' Mr. BROUGHAM argued th is case on .hillllf Of the ! defendant WilliAM Martin Jolley, who k be-seid, was .n English subject, !who -had hisen-matried in Eng-1 nd, hc c cording to- theliiee of -it; thatch, to an Eng rah lady. , Some ,years aitetwatds, the parties remo ta to Scotland, where the husband waasailty of Several acts of adultery, which occasioned tFectife to i . ePply tathe"Scotch Consistorial Cott •• and.-bring-, Mg bersase within its jurisdiction, she obtained a - aensence of divorce. The parties returned separately ,to England, where the :husband married a second Offe,. and being prosecuted for bigamy, was tried at the last Lancaster Assizes, before Mr. Baton Wow. The case for theproseCutinn beinsproved, the priso nee.rested his defence uPon•the proof ofthis -Scotch liroecr .and was found Guiky, with a reserve of , F:veral points for the.considenitiOnof theAtfelve dges. 1. Whether a divorce, had in Scotland, or . 434, arty flitelgti country, can dissolve the tiers/um of an English marriage f 2: Whether such a divorce as thivs.though irbe not of sufficient force to dissolve the iiiernlyi At Mi Eoglish :marriage, is nevertheless seffi lettl,to-brioje the party, within 411 e exception -in th e it it t f i t e ro A n e p t i: . , thl tkc i s in t: g tt, o4.4 .l jas a . m c. 7 .l f l i . fin w y h , ic si lu i r k novntickexs: lend tei-arty Odeon . Who shall be at the time of inch item riage ditorced by any sentence in the Eccksiasti. 1 cal Court. The Ad point, which did now come be- forethe,consisleration of the Court, as there was To ' sidiiig of the fact by the Any, related to the proof of &allusion in obtaining the Sentence of divorce which *strAde kit fraud upon the law of Scotland, and to the Otinet Amps taken on the part of the htsband to snOace- wite to obtain it- LOr i l I wauionoi.on suggested the propriety of. *Ailing 2d point, first. * o 4 :Mr. Bealt Ham said; ihat would be the most obvi- AllticCOUriMp as that point - avail less doubtful then the first ; and:if at -Were politely with lien, it -would be - sufficient for the defentiaaes.ease: but the connection beta Ate fest end second points was so great, that he een,l4 SA trust hisriself with sefficie.nt confidence in the latterilill he , had made a little way in the for ' Ott. it was contended by his antagonists, that the - . Scotch eantedice of divorce was not stifficient, because is FoglAnd there was no such means of dissolving a . ;puate : their proposition was, that marriage being in England au indissoluble contract, the ,parties i bnutidly it should hot, by going where, by the laws of a country, man iage was not an indissoluble con.' tr 0 ,, and returning, avail themselves of the &solo prioeiples of those taws. Bet there was CO ay.', priufpr sayieg that in England the essence of the ainage-contract was its heingibdissoluble, although, 'fis A d . jurisdiction in England whereby that , iinaluden could be obtained; or, rather, al th ough " ! some Courts had a jurisdiction to deal with it, they 1 were prohibited from dissolving the eiarelass of the o gipe link r r iageindidet. Even (be Pontifical- lees did;net hold ssoluble t and to thiner_that ;bedew's. r L., si c imeta of marriage was pot a neerr.doctrine. the leer-, sled Counsel quoted the 6th book of PuffendorG. cit. I: see. 21, which gave adultery, aiid 'l4l desertion _al trufileient censers of divorce; (rein the common ma r- tpre of covenants, that *hen one party had broken ' tlle ag9nOient. the-other-is no longer obliged to keep it, and which justified the injured party not only in refusing to cohabit, but likewise inpasingto a second' marriage, whatever the Canonisis brged''to the don-' teary ; and even they eluded their oWn decrees, dry I tbnevattion of declaring the former marriage to km bra originally null and void. It was Pope busmen& who started' the idea that marriage was not a eiril! contract, but a sacrament, a divine contract whicli no haman power could dissolve. This Was adopted by ' oar Church, together *ith the rest Oftheltotnish sei perstitions, and thence it found its way into our law. —.He then quoted Porter's case, Croke Charles, 461, in which the five causes of dissolving marriageo mentioned in' ft Ed. 111., and coinciding with those id Coke Lyttlevn, 235 a, were all pre-existing causes of ere searing the anartlage void.. Thu was a prow evil/MlA:mit a woman for Polygamy. who bad a ... .--- 411ftres sepsrstiou 9 soma et slard by the Ecclesias. tical Court, trolttrr scvitiset, which she pleaded at, bringing her within the proviso in the statute of Jas. but the Court doubted, and adOsed her not to insist *pan the law, but to procure a pardon sad yet Co s lnst. 89, says such s person ir within the pro. trik After the Reformation, do sattedness of mar. rii_ge *as denied, and its sarramentality was done slily with, along with other ROmlsh superstitions ;•—• stiir whatever H 4 vir - _.....ever Mentz _ilLinar Al * ' Initten in the MAU part of his wogs; ha certainly introduced the typedy of divorce a Toad° etairistaii. The lb . *. asilag ..teen Esckeiasticareah 47., the substance of wbith is IR Gibson's Codex, 445, last edition, and in * ft Burn's Ecclesiastical•Lbr, title Marriage, was then referred . to ; and:Although th it reformatiou was never a r o a t cO iptp "ktp. yet the remedy had been applied our Courts trotter achilierimandprep • m frarier Tor some time the divorce a viscid° ma ,!r7'•- irk Veiegnised in our Courts, till in 5. Sul . thr - -- • and another in iuL _ In former country, and indissoluble in the latter . ; that the mere circumstance of crossing a river could give a man all the rights of marriage, or all _the pnvi. of celibacy—could by a reflex I operatim change s e SC he had done one country into something ferent in another. It signified nothing where a man was marrieds change of place could not endure to make him married here, and not married there. In construing a contract, the consideration I Vas, where was it made ? but in the enforcing o f . it, what are • w • rivrviiii irtlld, 13f3, it was, raid tat " a divorce for adultery i the remedies provided by our awn I A sentence we anciently of Vinceile wAttrinronii • and, therefore b :ni upon a contract in one country was conclusive in an. tile . beginning of the reign of QUeen Elizabe th . the o th er; and he contended, on principles of the iegy 1 epniion of the. Church of 4i gland was, that after 4 nature of contract, that the marriage was dissolvilirg ohrorde for adultery the patttc4, might marry again as and that that dissolution. being good -in Scottilei I:o.liamb's case, .Masi 44, .&m. in the star Chamber, I was good all the world oveg. He then awned 4/rei that opinion is as chnged,: and Archbishop Ban- i case of Aldan IN the Duke de a syiLja w es, 1 Boil*, eroft, upon the advic e of Divines, held that adultery tquet and Puller, 138 ; in which defendant, being, 'vas only a divorce a wesua is them" since, and. 1‘ I held to bail in this country. on an instrurnententera virtue of. that case, tbm were no name of slieoke t into in France, and by which his property only, and' 144 . 014 7' of separation. for adukety or cruelty, anti ' not his person, Was node liable, the Onset dischanil nn power 4 attutilli9g an. origioally good aadvalid i gad hint, on eateriag a com* appearance; lopelk magiage% But the GM* of this indisspinhilirt Wog C. J. Eyre saying. so that it mast be shewn what gart. l only.the copsigleratiutt 4 marriage a* a in crement , '. laws of France were, and that they crested an obits . and Oax cookisierakul t being dope awn with by the , gation which the laws of England woad enforce ;"' Reformatiods be bail a right to slYsla, the words Of and Mr. J. Rooke concurring, although the only' blithstonas 1 Comma. 483, that " our law muskier's& other Judge present (Heath) mokquite a difientati marriage in no other light than at a civil contract." I view of t h at ewe . and ths in4pilkest had not since Taking it, then, in die civil or common le* view of ! given perfect satisfaction. The Learned Counsel did it, it was A. cArittike. 91 a peculiar nen)* ; for it • not rest his doubts of its law on the case of Somers b"un 4 * 94 PAY for OR to another, who lost s 1 se- sett th e negro, which was decided by Lord Mans. Dante. =jaw., "NIPS power of reitase s it eras the fie d, is Trent' , Terse, 11 Ceo . 9, or on the saw of *time as if a wan were to tie up his pen perty with ida Talheyrand o. Bouisser, (S Veaer,jua. 447) r, but fivriPiasail l in favour oia person erligterotail bav no on a ocarce of Lord Engsboroligh. Cli the quulat...ike paws; to, mimic birp,. l'he icujelklegitar Ai 016. af •" ...puke de Fitriargeg...oo9* s'• viel _ _ , thesesievana ' He also -of Wit. Wax . - _ A the want of a` sipalatte potsreeollisam. as% (II East. 45.1.1 - quoted the ciao and he eoutended that- allatbat , *ae gaits *. Jones, 13 East. +39, 2 , 314*1*/et case dips !isdatiog at the cue of marline, was a oompeaait ja• Unit ;atm% not let reported. of which he bad been • hr , , ... , ' ifilittlifitio tiotii di isititiiti, ibt a 'tilsseittibie , f i alleatei with note. ttr. gaoled; hi whi Oinciple within it. There were three views which une Ofthe Judges now observed - to . Mr. Broughant, presented themselves nethe Learned Counsel ; first he thought both ranks bad been in Javnalca toga { 1 ind chicly, beamed ask, in what manner were the Cher. - The Learaej Counsel then proceeded to are Ecclesiastical Courts (who had the exclusive - jun:- gut, that the law of tbeemintry 'where a man was diction of the tralidity of marriages) tied 4p from dis. remaining claimed to Iwtherule of his conduct: as Kevin* the viarxhatt of marriage t In a way quite he subjected himself the moment he entered it to the inconsistent with the notion of the indissolubility of iacovimoda, he hada right to the csmaioda. He then marriage. By the'lo7th Canokpassed ortly after reversed the case, and supposed a Scotch marriage relearn - les case, it was ordered **titan, ' sentences coming into the English Ecclesiastical Courts, prov pronounced a alma It Mom there Aced" - a caution ing adultery, and clanningeadivorce a vincula marl -and.restraipit inserted, fbat the s Paetlei .shntild live ',wail. The answer would be, 44 We can'egrant. it :eltastely.andatittifiently, and'not conemet tilauimony you." The'claimant would reply, 44 If we had been with other persons ) during each other's life, and that married in England you might refuse, but we were the sentence should not be pronounced till the party married in Scotland.' Still the answer would be, requiring it had given security to the Coon for not 14 Whatever remedy you may hyle in your own coun transgressing the said prohibitibn t and by Canon try, you can't claim it here." And upon the same -108, if any Judge giving sentence of divorce should principle the divorce was granted, when sought in. not observe theliremise , ,gie shall be suspended from Scotland ttpon an English marriage. Afteepursuing the exercise of his office for One,yea4and ;the sentence this argument, he asked, as the English law recog. dial be void: It was not neceseiry faiths Ltarned nited the conttatt of a Scotch "marriage, why it; Counselto rely ittion the abitracrhatute of marriage, should except 'to acknowledge the dissolution or ter- Mir Upon the decision of Archbishop Bancroft, mination ot that contract ? No one doubted that the against all authority to dissolve the. vincylaw of mar- Contract was good here ; why was there any exception rtage : sill he had to do was'to rest upon these canon' as to diet:menet in which its validity shouldterrninete? as proving 'his propoiition, and it affording sufficient A-Upon the same principle, of giving effect to a fo. grounds for aayiog that metrierhad nothing of the reign tottnery, the English law ought to say that the essence of indhsofuhilty, since it cased to be Corsi- parties were no longer married, but had reverted to • tiered as a sacrament. If that could have been relied thtir singleness. As these parties ceased, in the eye upon, where was the use of publishing the 'canon of die Englidehtw,mbe single, only when the Scotch and taking thelOnd for obeying it, Which was the law said they were married ; why did they sot ceese. practice to this day / Re should, secondly, consider to be married when the Scotch law said they were the numerous cases of dissolving marriage, by private again single ? Wasietio inconvenience or abseedity, , bill in Parliament, in use at the present day. Ithat a man should be said to be single or married only - Lord Eetseammuon—Do not the preambles asp, in rated, loci P—that when he was in one degree of .those Acts rune-a whereas the parties cannot harem ',latitude,he should be free from the chains of anti relief bat by the authority of Parliament 1" ' mony ; and subject to its burthens, when in another ? Mr. - BROUrilliAil assented. The preamble did not ' -1 - --that if he marries one foot to the right df'a certain say e whereas Marriage is in hs nature indissoluble," line, he . should incur felony; and one foot tei the left, or 66 whereas ao Court can - diS3oll"e it;" and the . should be performing a laudable and holy act t The early cases went, not on the nature of the contract very definition of a man's rtatur was, the qualities or the want of jurisdiction, bat on the impediment , which begonged to his person, natal ally inherent in or which the cannot law threw in the way. He quoted . legally attached to him, and which travel about with the speech of Bishop Coutins in the case of Lord ; him, wherever he goes. Was there nothing absurd ' Rous, 1G66; the arguments in Parliament, in the in saying, that this .tatty should not travel about with Duke of Norfolk's case, 1699. 1700 t and the speech : lien, but that he should be eithet clothed with orstrip. of Bishop 'Burnett, to Mother Case. If the contract ped of it. accordingly as he inhabited one part of the were indissoluble, nrithis,Parliament nor any human ' kingdom or another ? Hence the principle which in law could dissolve its eattl I eh;s, like the right to bind duced one country to recognise the laws of another : after-Parliaments, would be one of the cases in which i if there were no such thing as trading or travelling, Parliament itself wooed heeled up. The thed con- it would be useless; and Courts of Justice would sideration was the distinction between a contract not have nothing to do, but to ascertain how fir their i iedissoluble i end yet which there existed no jurisdic • geographical jurisdiction extended. i ton to diuolve t and them were many wrongs for Lord Eet-Exaortoener.—lu China, if a man conii. which there was no redress, and many righ s for dews his family too Large, he may drown one or more which there -wits no temedy. He instanced debts i Ol his children; do you mean to coMend that a Chi ' lamed by the Statute of Limitations, which were nese may sately do that in the river Th ones ? still legal rights, but the enforcing of which was Mr. Bnnuanari extended his principle to civil estnpped. There was no ifection or statute, iiet es- cases only, not to criminal. If the present defendant tepting the SW Hen. 8, since the Reformation, which had done what would be a criminal act in all coup. made marriage an indissoluble cOntrace There were tries, the case eould be different ; but the present in various eases, in which a woman had relief Against dictment did not accuse him of felony in marrying her husband. The operation of the canons iras B. but that being •already married to C. he had been confined to dais country t other consisten t taking the guilty of felony in marrying B. Then catt l e the same view of the marriage contract with England, question, whether he was married to C. at the time ? had adopted means Of practically dissolving it . : the, In the case put by Lord Ellenboiough, the crithinal nature and essence of the contract was the same both question was the principal s and there was no civil in England and Scotland; and the definition of mar ! . I matter at all r here the civil question was the main, riage by a Scotch writs ! would precisely hold with our , and thew criminal incidental. He then proeeded *pun views, o a conjunction of man and wife to eve insepa.i the subject of statutes to quote ; limber at conflirtu le rably till death." Just adore did not consider this con-1 as diverrarwa in diver it imitaiih in Iris Pralectioare tract to prevent our separation a wait's, Moro, so the fur. Rom. b. I. 3,.tit. sect. 2. . • Scotch laws did not think it inconsistent with dissial. L or d Eeezesoitotron adverted to the ease ilia. vlng die wince/ens : one was as mach a separation as etersett the negro, in which the ka irci was held ht., the other : we held the contract bindidg as long as applicable to slavery, and that though it negro wool -.. law does rot .separate us—ties, as long as -the I brought from a country in which he was legally vinculum hold them together. In Scotland, adultery , a slave, yet he erased to be so the moment his is punished as a high misdemeanor, sometimes capi- I master carried him into one 'where slavery was not tally—incest, always capitally—and bigamy etinielo permitted ; and said that so, when Scotland was the able likewise. He then quoted the case of Com pton i d e f en d ant ' s res id ent country pro tnaisorr, the marriage v. Bearcroft.. before the Delegates, ( .fuller 's Nisi + had been dissolved, but eve could not adopt that Prius, 111), in which a Scotch marriage of English , eivorce as_paramount. The relation of parent and subjects, the wife being under age, and running away child, his Lordship added, was universal ; but sup without the consent ot her guardian, WAS held good pose the authority of the old Roman law was given here ; also the note 79 b. in Hargrave and Butler's by any country to a father over a child, were we to Coke Litt.; and the case of Ilderton v. Ilderton. 2 abide by our own law, or adopt that in any instance? Henry Blackstone, 145, in which itwas admitted at ! Mr. B lot: . GHAM said, that that was exactly his con the bar, and assented to by the Bench, as an undeubt - - , :_ - _ tention in favour of general and not particular • . . . ed proiosition, that a marriage celebrated in Scot. i - rights. ord land (if not between persons wni go thither for the .• L ELLSNIOSOUtars—Here is a general induso purpose of evading the laws of England) will entitle lability. Mr. BROVGPIAII.—in thecase put by his Lordship, the woman to dower in England. The same prin. ' if the question were whether parent or not, we should ciple was also recognized in the subsequent case of be bound to decide the legitimacy by their law; and Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, which gave real rights here the question was whether married or not. The over an English estate, by virtue of a marriage in , relation of parent and child, and husband and wife; Scotland. It suss, inCleed, absurd to suppose that . the act of marriage could mean one thing in Scotland : must hold all over the world. In the nearest ease of England—could be dissoluble ' the stow to the present was one of Crawford sh Patrick, tfrhich the Learned Counsel himself had the honour to argue before the House of Lords, Session 1807-B. It was a Scotch appeal, and the Chancellor decided that the rastas was the same in whatever country.— The marriage in that case took place in America, where the English law prevails; and the question was, whether a son should inherit estates in Scotland, who was born before the marriage, but who would nevertheless have been legitimate by the law of Scot.. land The Hoitse decided that the rtotw, or legiti. of she son, referred to the country where he waswas been, and not where he would have taken lands, and he was therefore illegitimate. There the case of the Chinese was put by Mt. Brougham; (who had then to argue Ob that side,) as thatot a J.ipanese. • Mr. Baron GHANA-M.—lt not a marriage, indisso luble here, indissoluble all the world over ? 1 , • 'Mr. BROUGHAM contended, that it was not indisso- Wile here ; and that the defendant had acquired the 4SeSse of singleness in Scotland. He quoted Calvin's ; coo, 7 Rep. to prove that degrees from a King to a ILnight were universally recognised, of whatever ,country. Lord EummettonsiitLia :Xing of Mawr/scar or of Anarnabee, Ms Wegener R Om afraid the antho- Irity will net with servliori-; bat it is in the book, l and you are not answafor it.' 3dr. Iktovonsu proceeded, that the relation of iiikster and slave was not universal, but that of father and son, of legitinurte and bastatd, of married and 'single, was so. He next contended, that the coin ,persoc lemma in dui Scotch Court, acting in roe. $4 not between . parties personally, was conclusive 41011111‘.11SIORRilMpeached • and was proceeding to w. Henderson S Bon. and PdL 751% &c. • - ' • ' eitOINYEL.L/GEAret. •If I ~. r. air *Pen 414 Ogden Last .1 °Non,. S T. R. what J e eu.seatteOuott Mid, time was vo doubt it the general principle he would therehy prove. The f 'll ••• '.. . " -•!: & :.-- •, ttillitititi • " lea Odd' St Paler ` klt yit adopting condemnations of v. Mr..Bnothast A nu' then quoted the Xing st. Vi ne% fon t .1 Strange 491, which was forgery. of a seaman's eg as-to personality, and in whi c h t h e produced prom was held conclusive evidence t but. Mr. Justice CHAMALUI said, that ease had be. ' overruled. Mr. -Baouuttasa then eked several other casts —.ma concluded his arguments, which lasted three hoop % Mr. Lavnarvag, contra, will be heard -on $ --..., We mentioned yesterday the named to: the g i n .. Noblemen who were elected on •Friday b ut Ili ti ll ; burgh, to represe*t the Peerage of Scotland in 'W it , suing Parliament s Pang 1 Duke of Buoeleugb and Quiltbabetry Dote of•AIAoa Margo!! of goombitty Earls - ol 'Rot is* Caithness -114,1tuil Moray Home Keine Lauderdale 'Xienoul Khicirdhle Wemysa St March Leven 4h Melville aIINT. kalif of Siik4 111kat* Ab .* ytie — A!)eidtaa (Amoy hc. Arbuthnot tdrds'Ftirbos Crap Sada tba r t Ei&Wel Klan,/ TROlttll. Duke if Lamot to Lord Rirbes ' P.ail of thoodonald Lord Gray '.m-1 a Breads%ate Earl 6f Stair Lord 1 orphichen Lord Rea within) Liars. I guilt of !friars'. :Dykes et Gordon PAontrove Partak e 16* of Errol ti*Pone k l itintea 'Vbooeat Samoa Caullit lAirdi Pia Sheiks Haddingtoi • m uggii • Galloway ilwasater filtailitek iiirkeedisright.att Dunmore 9 e otal panther of voters it Besides the Peers who were elected, votes , given for the following Noblemen, aldiciugh'ictlie !them were not candidates, namely. Duke of Rexburgh 1 hod Mayne .1 Earl of Stiathatore t Lord Reay •eh !Earl of North's& 17 Lord Kinntlrd IPA Writ ea)N.—The fire (which we mentioned pet terday), at, lr't threatened the destruction of tbo whole building : it bloke out about three o'clock is the morning. It connizenced in that part id de building which is neatest Oxford.rattet, oft Ike tint I floor. The front is of stone—the Theatre is at thlt back of the premises. Bets% e• n four and five o'clock the !Limes were got under, the only parts burntireitg those between the moue front and the theatre, vies the passages and the . ' bbies. Sunday se'nnight, in the evening, a chaise Cum Bridgworth drove to the Lion Inn, Wolverhampres with two passengers, a male and female, who illus.. thately proceeded in another chaise to Birmingham. Mr. EVANI, the landlord, was Iron] home at the time; lot on his return, the informationthe received fro 6 dot Btidgnorth post-boy, and other circumstances, led hie to suspect that the male passenger was a French pi. toner; he immediately sent an express to Birm night% which reached that place I cline the chaise. Theses. stables, in consequence, were in readiness at the bpi Hotel, and the parties, on their arrival, were Meet The man proved to be a Lieut. MOWIVAZIN, A firma naval officer, who had been only four days at Bridle% north previous to his breach -of parole; and tbs finals stated tiers if to have met him by accident, sad?* ferted this mode of travelling to the coach, • Saturday se'nnight, about half past Six o'clock, et three countrymen were returning home, about kill's. mile from Carlisle,, on- the Wigton nod, they Mee attacked by six or seven ruffians. One of the cs* pony galloped forward and escaped.; anettier,-wlialf horse had been struck to the ground, though MAW what injured, contrived to retreat on foot tutu ll* dewgate. On his way back, he met Mr. Harrisenit of Nalhouse, whom he informed of the citcumstancet and advised him to return. Mr. Harrison, wino is 6 strong and resolute man, was not tin be detefted, aadl after in vain endeavouring to induce the fugitive return to the scene of combat, he rushed alone ands assistance of the remainder of the party, Mr. Lnbett Waugh, of Newby Cross, who was very spiritedly de.' fending his property. After a very severe struggle. Mr. Waugh Was robbed of 475, and his gallon auxiliary of about AS, besides his Watch and hm.a The villains then made their escape, leaving the two , unfortunate men almost lifeless, they being beam with bludgeons about the-head and face in Wale shocking manner. Three persons, apprehended et suspicion, have undergone repated examination which have not yet been finished. BIRTHS. Sunday, in Soho-square, of iota, the Lady of WOW " I t Esq. M.P. being her fifteenth child. • At Templenwee, of Tipperary, the La*, 4de Ilk and Rev. Arctsdeeecas St. or, of a son. Ststh lune, on board the Juliana Ease-indlenson,thillit of Lint-Coked kftwaregor; slNt Rqriagest, of s Ow•- . _ ISAMU/D. At Maim" se dm MimeoairPlA AelSorriP. sour, to Jade, socos4 &piker d F. Dewar, Est The Sch inmost, at lavorsess,tbs Rev. Hugh WWI club, to Mho Ams Frefirerni.se daughter d tiss.l l ll lo 4 Lig morellos% Surinam Lately, stlywietiand, Licata.* S. G. Ca:04110 roliall foot,daugatakolaw of Lllll•game YO' aon, ado t. J. a#6lliiiioi it* is64 loo '' F fry, wpm a. Distfray, Majdr Oppoid - Deeply lantana, at York-place Edlabargh, blips 11114 1 0 of her age, atter a lingering illnera, whiab she burs tiritk distinguished christian knit - tide and resignation, Um Rae Wilson, daughter of John Phillips, of dtalscross, 1114 William Rae*Wilion, of Kelvinbask, in the county a 140 11 , North Britain. On the 24tt of December last, in the prime of life, from his horse, near his seas, Swift Fsttos. in New Sow 4 Captain Austin FOrrrst, hedger of Maw y Petron e bip espy to the Conunander In Chief& Plymouth. On the 11th of Dauber, at WWI, whin >w bit erriva 4111 , A _ Spain, in the hope of 'recovering hit health, Cap.aan Mal a si : vingstono, aam of the late Sir Alexander Lisialimillk 1 " Westquirter and ladloomie. • At 1 eislip, Ireland, Elisabeth, the wife of Cepa& 1.08 00 . adze Royal Radnor Militia. Lately; Molter. Dead Morgan, Tim MINI& Oh pals at Deptfoldani Woolwich. _ • HIGH WATlilt AT 19411111. " . " - LONDON BRIDOII tialudinOwm.Weibt 41 1116114 1 k 1 M1 - • -a „ed. LONDON $ hinted by Lava& Kswr. picket published dem, lad at the Ow OS", . , ..