Star. — London, England, 1830-03-18 00:00:00

/ R IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—Wannispay. Bu Rama.. Mr. CORRETT, and other members of the House of Commons. brought itp several priva'c Bills, which were severally teatl a first time. .Mr. DaxvEllg, from the East India House, presented at the bar • •) account of the receipts and charges of the Presidencies in India, a given period. (Cr. tile motion of Viscount MELVILLE the account was ordered te.pr;nted. Viscouttt GRANVII.I.I: presented a petition from New. ...ctle.ander..Lyno. against paying wages in goods instead of money. The E.srl of CLARE presented a petition from several uni'ed :r Monmouthshird, praying a revision of the tithe laws. CORN RETURNS. The Earl of ROSEBERY moved for a return of the amount of duty paid, with the rate stated, of grain imported into the country from the sth of July, 1828, to the sth of January, 1830, distin guishing the grain on which the duty was paid. The noble earl was desirous of having this return, with a view of completing the returns already on their lordships table in reference to this subject. After a few observations from the Earl of MALIIIESBERY, the motion was agreed to. _ _ _ LEAD. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from Swaledale, in Yorkshire, against the importation of foreign lead. lIAMERTON ' S DIVORCE BILL. Mr. HARRISON stated the case for Major Hamer ton, on whose behalf a Divorce Bill was introduced.— The averment was, that the parties had been married at Paris in 1818, and staid in France till 1827, when they came to England, and resided at Cheltenham, where they met with Mr. Bash°, with whom the lady committed r.dultery. On the 26th or 27th of May, 1827, Mr. illishe and the lady left England, and went abroad, where they had been ever since One of the witnesses to the marriage was dead; and the other, General Murray, was No ill that he could not attend, but he had a duplicate of the certificate of the marriage, which was produced from an office of the Bishop of London, which would, in the case of a foreign marriage, be sufficient when they should prove the hand-writing of the parties. Thomas Rogers, clerk to the Bishop of London, proved the certificate of the marriage sent from Paris to the proper v! ice in the usual manner. Anne Hatton, who lived with Mrs. Hamerton as lady's maid for five years, proved the hand-writing of the par ties to the certificate. Captain Richard Halket was acquainted with the par ties both before and after the marriage. They lived on good terms together. Major Hamerton's solicitor stated that on the 26th of March, 1827, he received instructions to proceed against Mr. Bushe by action at law, and against the wife in the Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce. Mr. Bushe left Eng land on the 26th, and had not since returned, and the solicitor could only proceed to an outlawry. Mrs. Mathews's servant woman often saw Mrs. Ha uierton and Mr. Bushe, at the house of Mrs. Mathews, Bellvue-crescent, Cheltenham ; they came at different times in the day, and they were often, for some time, in a room by themselves • once when Mr. Bushe called at the house of Mrs. Mathews, Mrs. Hamerton was there, and had just begun her dinner; when he ca me in, he went into a separate room, and Mrs. Hamerton imme diately followed him, and they remained together for an hour ; the window-blinds were down, when they were to gether in the room ; Mr. Bushe gave her and other ser vant of Mrs. Mathews money; he was the only gentle man who visited Mrs. Mathews who did so; Mr. and Mrs. Hamerton did not live in the same house with Mrs. Mathews. Anne Hatton proved that Mrs. Hamerton, who had before been in the habit of breakfasting in bed, in the year 1826, and the beginning of 1827, rose in the morn ing, when she ascertained that her husband had gone out to hunt, and went to meet Mr. Bushe ; on the 25th of March, 1827, she went with Major Hamerton, when he examined Mrs. Hamerton's dressing-case. Further proceedings on Wednesday next. LORD ELLENBOROVGIeS DIVORCE BILL. The Earl of ROSSLYN moved the third reading of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill. The Earl of RADNOR rose to oppose it. It was with the greatest pain and regret that he found himself com pelled by a sense of duty to adopt this course ; but on the best consideration he could give to the evidence which he had now examined, both in its manuscript and printed state, ho really thought that it was not sufficient to authorise the passing of this act, considering the prin ciples on which their lordships had been in the habit of proceeding with reference to such billi. It might be said that he ought to have stated his objections on the motion for the second reading, and he would be exceedingly sorry, and wished to make every apology if he bad been the occasion of any inconvenience or delay to their lordships, by his not having done so. But the truth was, he had not been aware of the intention to hear the evidence on the bill on the day in which it was taken, and had only come into the house by accident, at five o'clock, when the case was almost concluded. He had only heard a very small portion of the last part of the evidence on the day when the bill was read a second time, and was not then prepared to state his objections. He had, at that time when he came into . the house, no idea or intention of opposition to the bill. He had no thought of any such thing, and it was by accident merely that he came to the house before the bu siness was concluded. .He did not then feel any disposition at all to interfere, and therefore he did not desire that the evidence should be printed, and did not a any opposition to the second reading of the bill. But afterwards, when he had left the house, and consi dered the aspect which the case appeared to assume, with reference to that part of it which he had heard, he re solved to come to the house on the following day to read the evidence ; eight+ dtd read it in manuscript, and in con. sequence of having read it, he suggested the propriety of postponing 'the third reading of the bill till the Mon day following, and then he requested the .noble earl opposite (Rosalyn) to delay the third reading till this day, in order to have the evidence printed in the meantime, for the use of their lordshiPs; and to this also the noble earl acce ded. —Now that he had again considered the evidence, he found hiniself compelled to say Not content" to the question for the third reading of the bill, although it was with the mese sincere pain and regret that he opposed the remedy which was sought by a bill of this kind'. It was most painful and. disagreeable to stand in the way of the 'Pike( applied for under such circumstances ; and the more so, considering that the person 'soliciting this indulgence was a noble lord and a member .of this house, and also - envoi' the ministers of the crown. But, at the same time, *Rum/ the noble lord ihsi a member cif this house and one of shieltlAjesty:s .mipisters, their lordships were so much tiffs atiye bound to-take Care thai in this proceeding 'every thing„nhould be done openly, fairly, formally, - and , But; iheir /brdilhips were aware that the • -.formalitimFalstuil hilhele vase% had not baits observed in tbie catZt had not undergono investigation in the tri lunak ; -awd, under these circumstances, it was pe lialarly.intingient theit•Lewiships to inquire strictli . into-the whole of the cam. - kosher cir • eumstanceleorthiof °bewail= was, that it was usual on 516casions for a Learned Council.to attend on the ' . .. v. part of the Lady, and really and bona fide to oppose the Bill. Now, any one who attended on the hearing of the evidence must be aware, and could not avoid seeing most plainly, that the Counsel who attended apparently for the purpose of opposing the Bill, was a mere blind, and never contemplated nor intended a real and bona fide opposi tion. There was surely in this evidence much that was very liable to observation ; and a Counsel really anxious to oppose the Bill, if he was possessed of any ability at all, could not have been much at a loss to find strong argu ments against it. It was manifest that it was not a bona fide opposition, and the counsel might as well not have been at the bar at all. These were surely circumstances which required much consideration before their lordships consented to pass this bill. Now it did appear that the evidence was in many parts loose, vague, and unsatis factory. On the first branch of it there was much doubt as to the identity of Prince Swartzenberg ; and the counsel for the Bill was, therefore, desired to carry the case farther; and then he produced the evidence as to visits of the Lady to Prince Swartzen berg, in Harley-street, three or four times every week, and her staying with him, and going to bed with him for some hours. (Hear, hear.) He confessed, as an honest man, that on hearing the evidence he had no doubt of her guilt, and that ho had no doubt of the identity of the parties. But his objection was, that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough throughout the transaction was such that he was not entitled to the relief which he prayed. He could understand, as well as any man, that it might be an invidious task to oppose a man when struggling for this kind of remedy ; but at the same time it was not unfair to do so under the cir cumstances of this case ; however grievous and irksome it might be to those parties to be kept in the miserable bondage of marriage after what bad happened. But there were other considerations to be attended to besides the wishes and the feelings of the parties. If the propo sition were to be admitted that the wishes of the par ties were the main consideration to be attended to, then when married parties differed in temper, or from any cause were disagreeable to each other, that would be a sufficient ground for a divorce. What his own opinion on the subject was, he would not now state. It was ' , quite enough for him at present to show that this Bill ought not to be passed, and could not be passed con sistently with the principles by which their Lordship's had been governed in proceedings of this description.— At present, no lawylr could say that the mere wishes of the parties formed a good ground for a divorce; and if the Right Reverend Prelates had been present, he would confidently put it to them whether the mere wishes of the parties formed a good ground for a divorce. Of all the evidence, however, that with respect to the terms on which the parties lived together formed the weakest point. To prove that the parties lived happily together, the best witnesses were relations of the family, who were in the constant habit of visiting them and observing their con duct, or others who were in the habit of seeini , them. In the present case it was easy to have produced many wit nesses of this description, but only two had been, in fact, produced. One of these was Mr .Law, a brother of Lord El lenborough, who stated ho was in the habit of seeing them for two years and a half from the period of their marriage ; but then he had been abroad, where he staid a consider able time ; and all he could say was, that they appeared to live happily together for some time after their mar riage, and that they appeared to be happy together after his return. Miss Stephen, the governess, who appeared to be rather a reluctant witness, said, indeed, that they lived happily together, but she did not live in the house, and knew little about the matter. Another remarkable circumstance was, that for six or eight months prior to the separation, the parties had separate beds, and did not cohabit together • and although the governess stated that in the E cclesiastical Court, the counsel did not think proper to examine her to that point here. And then, it appeared from the evidence, that the lady was in the habit for a year and a half, or nearly so, of going to Harley-street to visit Prince Swartzenberg three or four times in the week, of re maining with him each time for some hours, and going to bed with him, and then going away in broad day, and as openly as when she came. Now he would ask whether any man of common sense, who paid any attention to the conduct of his wife, could fail under such circumstances of knowing what was going forward ? or if he did not know, was not this an instance of the grossest negligence and inattention ? Then con sider the age of the lady. She was a young woman of 21 years of age, and was stated to be very beautiful. Now was it consistent with the proper degree of at tention in the husband to be allowing a young and in experienced woman to be ranging the streets of London in this way unattended and unguarded, especially when it was known how superior to her in knowledge of the world Lord Ellenborough was ? He owned that this did appear to him to be very gross negligence, and his not cohabiting with her for so long a time was worse than negligence ; and under these circumstances he did not think the husband was entitled to a di vorce a vinculo matremonii. If this bill should be passed, it might be said that the bare fact of adultery was a good ground for a divorce,although, in the Queen s case, a right reverend prelate was severely reproved for saying something like that. It was a sound doctrine, that the man who came here for a divorce ought to come with clean hands ; and another right reverend prelate bad quoted, in support of this passage, from the Gos pel by St. Matthew, " He that putteth away his wife without a cause, causeth her to commit adultery." Now did not this negligence and inattention, and want of cohabitation, provoke the wife to commit adultery ? To a woman of that kind negligeneg itself was a great provocation. All this might be explained ; but, as the evidence stood, he could not think that the husband in this case was entitled to a divorce. ,He did not pretend to say that there was collusion in all this ; but he would say, that if the parties had in tended to collude to procure a divorce, they could not have for that purpose acted in a better way than they , did. Then, as to the confession of the wife to the Go verness that she was with child by Prince Swartzenberg, what could be more easy than for parties, when they got tired of each other, to agree that the wife should tell a story of this kind, in order to procure a divorce ? And then, again, consider that the adultery was with a fo reigner, and that the parties, immediately after the sepa ration, went abroad so as to avoid an action in the Courts below ; and also that the husband did not direct his soli citor to commence proceedings till a month after they went off. He did not mean to impute collusion to the parties ; but if there had been collusion, the matter could not have been better managed. He did think that under all the circumstances this bill could not be allowed to pass, if their lordship. chose to adhere to the princi ples by which they were usually governed. The Earl of MALKISIIIST thought this was ti:2 important uestion, and was anxious to say a few w 041. the subject. He also felt great pain in opposing the 1311, tits he was bound to look, at the question impartially. firmly, and with a single eye to the purposes of justice. I Ho teed not 'trouble their lordships with a detail of the - evidence, as they had it in their hands. Their lordships would consider that in these cases they were called upon to exercise a kind of dispensin; power, for this was not merely a divorce a mensa et thoro, which might by the or dinary law of the country be granted. Such a divorce might be necessary to prevent a spurious issue being palmed on a man and inheriting his property. But this bill went much further than that, the object being to place the husband in the same situation as if he had never been married. He had the curiosity to ascertain what was the number of divorce bills that had passed this house during the last 10 years, and he found that from 1820 to 1825 six bills of this kind had passed ; and from 1825 to 1830, 21 bills. So that the number of divorce bills was on the increase ; and this evinced an increasing profligacy in the higher classes, or a greater facility in their lordships in granting these divorces. He said the higher classes, because the remedy was so ex pensive that the middling and lower orders were deprived of it. The points which had been raised by his noble friend were highly deserving of their lordships' atten tion. If these parties had been living happily together, where could have been the difficulty of producing a dozen of the most competent witnesses to prove the fact ? Instead of that, they called only the brother and the governess, nei ther of whom, for the reasons mentioned by his Noble Friend, knew much about the matter. The lady, it was true, was stated to have confessed that she was with child by Prince Schwartzenberg ; but then, bow easily could a story of this kind be got up, if parties intended to collude together to get a divorce ? He did not mean to say that there was a collusion in this case, but then their Lordships must consider what effect the passing of the Bill might have by way of precedent, and whether it would not have a tendency to encourage profligacy in the upper classes. It was, undoubtedly, a remarkable circumstance, that the lady should have ranged the streets in open day so frequently, and for so, long a time, without any knowledge on the part of the husband of what was going forward. If he did not know of her misconduct, it was most strange negligence; and yet it was admitted, that he who came to their lordships for a remedy of this kind ought to come with clean hands. As the evidence at present stood, he did not think it suffi cient to support the bill. But then further evidence might be adduced ; and in a late instance (Thorndyke's divorce bill) their lordships had rejected a divorce bill in one ses sion, and passed it in the next. So hero, the better course would be, to withdraw the bill for the present, and then ' to proceed with it again, when satisfactory evidence should be produced. The Earl of ROSSLYN contended, that the evidence was already complete and satisfactory. The noble lords had disclaimed the imputation of collusion; otherwise, that was au insinuation which he would have been certainly prepared to repel. But then they asked, why more abundant and satisfactory evidence of the parties living happily together had not been produced. What better evidence could there be produced than that of the noble lord's brother and the governess, who had the best opportunities of knowing on what terms they lived ? But then the noble lords said, that as only these two were called, the evidence was vague, loose, and unsatisfactory. In that respect, he differed from them ; but, in point of fact, there was more evidence on this point, to which the noble lords had not adverted; and that was the two letters which had been put, and which were expressed in terms which proved that the parties lived on good terms together. The noble earl here read the letters, which he contended shewed that these parties had lived together without dispute. He was sur prised after this to hear the statement that the noble lord had been guilty of negligence, and that in so decided a manner as to disentitle himself to the relief he nowsought. In his opinion there was no pretence whatever for accusin g the noble lord ofnegligence ; the identity of the parties was fully made out; and the evidence which the noble earl had just objected to, relating to the demeanour of these parties, was evidence that would have been admitted in any Court of Justice in the kingdom. He thought it was impossible to doubt the fact of the adultery ; and thi l l question then resolved itself into one of collusion or negligence. In his opinion there never had been a cue in which there was less of either than in the present. The noble earl had referred to the great number of divorce bills that within the last five years had passed through parliament ; but surely there was no reason on that account to refuse the passing of this bill ; for even if it were true, as the noble earl seemed to sup pose, that these bills were in general granted with so much facility, that circumstance ought not to prevent an individual who had fully made out his case to be deprived of the remedy he sought. Where was the pretence of neg ligence ? There was none whatever ; for it surely would not be argued that a man was bound to employ his whole time in watching his young wife, and yet to such a length must the argument be carried before the noble lord could be accused of negligence. As to Lord Ellenborough's not having heard of these transactions till so late a period, he must say, that he much wondered to hear that circumstance stated as a ground for not passing the bill. Good GOD! was it to be said in that house, that a hus band in such a situation was blameable, when they must know that a husband was always the last person who was made acquainted with such transactions ? The conduct of Lord Ellenborough, even after his suspicions had been awakened, was that of a kind and generous, but not of a negligent man ; he could not watch her vi sits, to see whether she always went to her mother's, when she pretended to do so ; and upon the whole of the evidence Be (Lord Roselyn) was not the least afraid of the decision to which their Lordships would come upon this Bill. The Earl of MALMESBURY explained. Lord WHARNCLIFFE had never seen a stronger case of adultery. What, then, were the grounds on which Lord Ellenborough was to be refused the relief he sought ? The first was, that it was said it had not been shown that the parties lived on good terms with each other. He thought it had been proved ; but, in his view of Ithe case, such proof was not necessary in support of I this bill. In a court of law such proof was required, 'because the amount of damages sought must have relation to the degree of injury inflicted, and the ex tent of the injury was hest proved by showing the terms on which the parties had lived together. But the case was different when a party came to that house for a bill of diiorce.. He would suppose a case in which the parties had lived together on bad terms, and that these were the consequence of the bad temper of the wife ; was there any one in that house who would say, that because the parties did not live happily together, the wife was at li ber ty to go into the streets and intrigue with ; o ilman she might meet? He believed no one could such a doctrine. He thought, however, that in this case the letters of Lady Ellenborough furnished, if the proof was necessary, ample proof of the affectionate terms on -which she had lived with her husband; and in the very last of them 'she spoke in the warmest terms of his kindness and affection. The noble ead te had talked of the negligence Of Lord El lenborough, and seemed to impute the adultery of the lady to that cause. He begged - to ay that in his Wind 6ere was not the s4hteia ground for the ha pindien. Lady Elienboro went to Harley-street, to • visit Prince Schwartzenberg, in the day-time. Why, was there a peer of that house who did not know that,his wife was in the habit of going out at two o'clock in the day, and returning at five; and was there any one who, merely because she was absent from home during those two hours would accuse her of being unfaithful toward; him? But then it was said she went to Harley-street. True ; and what was there in that circumstance t,) excite suspicion ? If Prince Swartzenberg lived in Harley-street, so did Lady Ellenborough's family ; and if Lord Ellenborough had inquired where his lady had been during the morning, and had been answered that she had been to Harley-street, he would naturally have con cluded that she went thither to visit some member of her family. The time and the place, therefore, were both of a kind that in themselves precluded suspicion ; and they must know that a husband was always the last man whom his servants thought proper to inform of any suspicious circumstances. On the whole, if he were a juror, giving his verdict on his oath, he should say, most conscientiously, that he never saw a case in whicL adultery was more decidedly proved, or in which there was less appearance of negligence or improper conduct on the part of the husband. He did not know on what it was that noble lords founded their opposition to this bill. They might, perhaps, found it on something they had heard out of the house, for there was nothing that had occurred within the house that justified them in thei r opposition. The LORD CHANCELLOR said this Bill was founded on the adultery of the lady, which had been proved so clearly and unequivocally, that nobody who read the evidence could doubt of its having been corn mitted. His Lordship hero referred to the evidence of the groom of the visits to Harley and Holles-streets—of the meeting at Brighton—all of which, he asserted, even without Miss Steele's testimony, was sufficient to show the fact of the adultery, and to establish the identity of the parties. The previous mode of life of Lord and Lady Ellenborough was proved by Miss Steele to have been kind, affectionate, and happy, but on that point he must say, that lie concurred fully with the Noble Baron who had preceded him, that such proof was not necessary in support of a Bill of Divorce. Yet the proof had been given, and given in a manner that must establish the fact beyond all doubt, for not only bad Miss Steele, who fo years possessed the most perfect opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the s;ihject, proved the affectionate and happy terms on which they lived together, but Lady El lenborougt herself had given by her own letters the most conclusive, the most convincing testimony in support of the same fact He knew not how Lord Ellenborough could justly be ac cused of negligence towards his wife's conduct. Every noble lord must recollect that Lord Ellenborough, during the whole of these transactions, had been an active mem ber of his majesty's government ; and every member of that government could speak to the unremitting attention which Lord Ellenborough had paid to the discharge of the duties incident to his high station. But then it was said that there was collusion between these parties as to the manner in which the case had been presented at their Lord ships' bar, and the affectionate terms of Lady Ellenbo rough's letter were referred to in proof of the statement. In his opinion, no man could read that letter attentively, and then come to the conclusion that it was written collu sively to forward the views of Lord Ellenborough. man at all acquainted with the human heart could avoid perceiving that the expressions of the writer were the un disguised and natural effusions of her own agitated feelings His lordship here read the letter, and laid particular stress on the assertion of her Ladyship, that Lord Ellenborough had always, in act and manner, been most kind to her; that she was grateful to him for his kindness ; that though het conduct had excited his suspicions, she solemnly assured him she was innocent in act ; and that she only yielded to his desire for a separation in obedience to his wishes. Evi dence like this would be of the greatest weight, even if it were met by evidence of an opposite character, but there was no opposing evidence, and on every ground he felt confident that their lordships would come to an unanimous vote in favour of this bill. The Earl of RADNOR said, the vote certainly would not be unanimous as far as he was concerned ; and notwithstanding the speech they had just heard,he thought that if there were collusion between the parties, they would not have acted otherwise than they had done. After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord RADNOR as to the evidence of Miss Steele, the question was put and carried, and the bill was read a third time and passed. The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were read a second thme.—Adjourned. -..VVEDNESDAV. HOUSE OF Car --- .)NS Sir E. C. Dzzairm took the oaths and his seat, as member for Wexford. CRIMINAL LAWS. Sir THOMAS BI AM MARTIN presented a petition from the Mayor and inhabitants of Plymouth, praying a revi.ion of the Cri minal Laws, and that punishment of death should be abolished, except for the crime of murder.—The petition was laid on the table. and ordered to be printed. A similar petition was presented from the town of Poole. Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the Mayor (and principal inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull, also praying a revision of the Criminal Laws.—Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. SPRING RICE moved for the return of the amount of duty on coals received in Ireland for the last ten years. Also for an account of the number of gallons of spirits on which duty had been paid for the last ten years in Irehnd.—Ordered. Mr. RAMSDEN presented a petition from the inhabitants of Alalton, praying for a revision of the criminal laws.—. Ordered t o be printed. Petitions against the truck system were presented from Wednes. bury, and other places in Staffordshire, by Mr. BENSON ; from Kingstanky in Gloucestershire , by Mr. CRIPPS ; from Bursar, in the Staff ordshire potteries, by Lord SANDON ; from intoßoln, in Lancashire, by Mr. Ilusensox ; and from four places Staf. fordshire, by Mir LITTLKTON. Petitions complaining of distress, were presented from Romney Mah, aull other districts In the county of Ken t, b y Sir EDWARD KN rs ATCHSHLL; from Stockbridge, by Mr. Wit.mutuau from several parishes in Warwickshire, by Mr. LAWLIY; from a parish in Oxford, by Mr. LOCKHART. Mr. HAYpresented a petition from Lanark, against the East India monopoly. Mr. HUME postponed to the 11th of May a motion of his. which stood for the 23d of this month, relating to the continuance of the once of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the brewers in Edin burgh, praying for a higher duty upon whisky. Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from Norwich, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for forgery. Mr. Alderman - THOMPSON moved for an account of the duties paid on fire Insurances in the respective quarters of the year 1829.. Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS postponed to next WednesdaY. his motion for a bill to consolidate the acts relating to the pay ot tbo Navy. • • Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from a hundred in Norfolk, praying for the repeal of the malt duties. Mr. LAW LEY resented a petition front a parish in War. wickshia n T s. yhtg for the abolition of the practice of burning Hin doo W Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the Lord Lieute nant and Grand Jury of Suardsh complaining if the haw? duals upon the county rates caused by the pogo, of Scotch and kish vagrosaa. TMICK STSTHIS. Mr. LITTLITON rose to all the attention ri the Moe to a =Wed of great loportanco, upon which a n obeady howevumber of pslidens boi hoes er, he was convinced, but a MB peolpoillom Mils oneut hei Va the house would receive.-- (Hear, alert bei.) The heeonzeble member then proceeded Wl '_ • how mildtloonne the truck system wee to the workmen. Me podium& diewisift to thew that some at if sedirlooltho ma rime, Irals swift tbsessaili, woe them 6or , 11 - . I*, •