Star. — London, England, 1827-05-31 00:00:00

• J • love and affection, eibid. repel the aaboenation et perjury *de against him. refined to a ealramitsitlisirit'd some years ag setshire, where the licensed were charged with away a young Ledy by force, and afterwards i bar. and stroWwas the impression mad witnesses ar the prosecution, that the Judge at would not som up the evidence, and the prisoner convicted. Soon afterwards, however, some of the wit. names were convicted of perjury, and the Lady herself, under circumstances which might be easily imagined,{ was obliged to fly the cotfntry to avoid a s imilar con• I, *Jake. If the House was determined to pass this Bill, *likely it Must be on grounds of public espediency ; and be would ask if it would got be better, if not for his sake, • at ledst for Mr. Turner's own sake, that the whole truth should be known. It had been suggested to him, since be came into that Hose, that it would be better for him to give their Lordships a short sketch of what his wi t . news would be able to prole, and though totally to prepared before hand, he thought it best to comply with that suggestion. He then ptbduced a printed pamphlet, out of *inch he read what the innkeepers and waiters on the road could say, all of which went merely to 'skew that Miss Turner bad been sometimes in good humour and laughed; that she did not appear under am restraint, and that Mi. Wakefield behaved with great politeness towards her. le the coarse or reading evidence, Mi. Wakefield was bdik‘ rs IyPEtANIERE, , wbo thous% that is was quita , kr for their Lordships to heat what .Mr. Wake . cold read at present. If they were determined that the witnesses themselves should be heard, he conceived that it was quite unnecessary to hear tbeir•evidence at present: The Earl of ELDON said, that it was absolutely • necessary that Mr. Wakefield should state to their Lord. ships what he proposed to prove, before they could de termine whether his witnesses should be heard or not? (Hear, hear.)—He himself had read the whole evidence at the trial, and had formed an opinion; but whether • that opinion would be ultimately adopted by their Lord ships or not, he' conceived it to be their duty in the mean time to hear what was proposed to be proved. • Mr. Wakefield then proceeded to read from a printed pamphlet the evidence adduced for the defence at the trial in Lancaster. When he concluded, he said that it was incomplete—a mere sketch; it did not contain the third part, certainly not the half, of what his witnesses would be able to prove. These witnesses were scattered through various parts of England, some were in Scot land, and some in Frante. It was therefore impossible for him to collect all the matter which they wete in a condition to prove. In fact, he did not come there to-day prepared to eater into any details; he did not expect that any explanation would be gone into. The prayer of his Petition was, that he might be at liberty to enter his opposition to the further progress of the . Bill; and. the course he intended to pursue was this —to state, in the first instance, his objections to the Bill, and after wards to produce evidence to substantiate those objections. In the mean time he proposed to cross . examine the witnesses against him, and particularly • the Lady herself, and to rebut by his own evidence such parts as-were untrue. Ile abstained, in the pre. ' sent instance, from cross-examining the witnesses fur the Bill, in order that he might more cquveni.ntly rebut it at a Insure time. As he was not, however, allowed sufficient time to procure them, be would withdraw his , opposition to the Bill, and' allow it td proceed upon what must be considered as purely es-parte evidencei which, if it accorded with the statement of the Learned Cou,rsel who opened the case, would be false. How ever, lie had no remedy, although, if he were afforded ti'e stale opportunity of. producing his witnesses that he would have in a criminal court, he felt confident • that he should successlq)ly oppose the Bill. Mr. Wakefield then retired. Mr. Griinsditch was then sworn, and in reply to questions from the Loan CHANCRLLOR, said, that be had served Edward Gibbon Wakefield with a copy of their Lordships' Orders, on Monday, the 21st instant. He had since given him notice, that the order for the second reading of the Bill had been discharged, and that it was fixed for this day. He at the same time saved him with a copy of the Bill itself. As soon as the witness bad retired, The LORD CHANCELLOR said he felt it neces sary to trouble their Lordships with a few observations upon the matter which had been stated by the Peti tioner. He (Wakefield) had compared his case to a proceeding in a Criminal Court oh Justices and he (the Lord Chancellor) was disposed to follow up that ana logy. When a party, brought before a Court of Justice,' . made an applicatioosimilar to that of the Petitioner, it was always considered, and it was an. invariable rule, thathe should produce established facts, in order to sa tisfy the Court. If he complained of the absence of wit nesses, he must satisfy the Court that he had done all in his power to procure their attendance, and that their evidence would have been of such ; nature as to rebut that adduced against bim. In. the present case it bad appeared, from the testimony of the witnesses who had last been examined, that so far back as. the Slst of this month—.that was, ten days since the Petitioner had been served with notice of their Lordships' intention to proceed . with the . 1141; and a yet he had not taken a tingle step to precuts the attendance of any one of the long list of wit nesses, to whichhe had referred. It roust appear to their Lordships quite clearly, that the person must have been 9 convinced of the nature of the case against him —nay, further, he had been fully prepared with the nature of the testimony, which the witness in support of the Bill could prove. In neglecting the timely notice he had received, and irk refraining from cross-examining those witnesses, be had therefore failed in establishing a ground for his application. He complained that be had not cross-exa . mined the witnesses. Why bad he noteross-examined , Oen)? He was told it was perfectly optional' to bier to remain or. withdrap—and he withdreo. He was perfectly Swage ,of. the nature of the evidence those witnesses would give, and yet he had not puto single i question to one of them, not even w char one which he 'Ailed the principal witness. He coo said he had tefrained from . a cross-examination of the witnesses foe the Bill until be should have his own witnesses ready substantially to contradict them. But if he had put such questions to the witnesses produced as would have rendered the re ception of further evidence necessary, be must have come before their Lordships with a very strong case for delay. He might say, " I have witnesses to produce - mho can prove that what has keen here sworn to in sup. port of the Bill is false." He had not done so, and, there fore, upon that part of the case, it was oi.neceroary to add a single word ; but he (the Lord Chancellor) felt *winced that it must appear to their Lordships from the most careful consideration of the whole of the evi dence given at the Bar of their Lordships House, that it was not in tbc slightest degree shaken by the state- Suppose, however, that from a consideratioa of her pluton, Miss Turner had consented to the marriage, was tt at all inconsistent with the fact of her haling bison' imposed utinn, that she should, 'in the fivetsr six laYathat had elapsed, appear, to a certain dorm tran— itl.—that she should appear, •to a certain d e g ree, pleased? Bat mirk that 'most important fact—at the I very &st moment when the had been made aware of -the fact of the fraud, it was then that she appeared to Oink with freedom—then it was that she said he (Wakefield) had behaved like &irate, add • that she thanked Goo she hae been 'released from him. It appeared to him (the Lord Chancellor), therefore , that sll the cirturnstanees attending the youn Lady's Conduct subsequent to the marriage w as perf ectly re concileable an 4 consistent with the statement and facts upon which Bit - Bill *as f3unded ; and that if all . the evidence racatrititlated by the petitioner had been proved at the bar of their Lordships house, that still those statements anti those facts could not be in the slightest degree shaken by it. So convinced, indeed, did tliat (Wikefieldrhirnielf appear cif tfrat fact, that it' =ply in idneral Itiagi•dr:bid - logseOrd..that thia production of that evident* might erect a change In their Lordships minds . Bat suggestions and surmiSei of that nature ought not to have any weight with their Lordships. On those grounds he humbly submittedloo their Lordships that there ought to be no further deli, or postponement in proceeding with the Bill. Lord REDESDALE fully concurred in the argu ments of the N;;lsk Lord on the•WOolsack. The Earl of ELDON also thought do further delay should be granted, and that their Lordsh;ps should pro ceed on the, infor mail 'n which was now before them,— .The,question now before their Lordship was, whether by legislation the marl iige should be made null And void ? If their Lordships were of opinion that this marriage hat been brought about by fraud and force, it was a grave que•tion, and worthy of consideration whether it WAS a q.u,estion which called for legislative interference to declare that marriage null and void. After alluding to the opioiois held by the Learned Judge who tried the cause (Baron Hullock)opi nions which he (Lord E:dor.) deemed perfectly correct —his Lordship went on to observe, that it was not for that House to judge by whit appeared at the trial; but by the evidence given at their bar. That fraud. had been used was beyond all doubt ; • and. he thdught it equally clear that there was.,wh It in law must be considered force, as the young. Lady was kept in a kind of custody from the moment of her leaving school up to the period of the m arriage at Gretna Green. He had seen the evidence read at the Kir ; it had been sent to him in the form of a letter ; be had read it atten tively, but it did not appear to him to affect the case in the slightest degree•L(Hear, hear). If the Lady believed, that having been married at Gretna Green, she was this man's wife—as she did, in fact, believe it—then was she to be civil- and friendly with him, or was she to „turn upon him and say " Although I am your wife, I will not behave to you with eomnspn (Hear, hear). He thought there was sufficient to. in dace their Lordships to decide against further delay.— The other question as to legislation upon the subject, was a more serious mater ; and when the principle of fbe Bill came to be discussed, he should sender the best assistance in his power. One wo• d as to what ha:theta said about the civility and kindness with whiCh the Lady had behaved to this person. What, he asked, became r f that- civility and that kindness from the moment the Lady found she had been deceived? ,from that moment she treated him as an ill treated and de ceived woman ought to treat the man who deceived her. The question, that the Bill be read a secondtime, , was then put by tht LORD Ctlaiscimi.on, and carri.d. The Bill was accordingly read a second time. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said. he did not wish to offer the least opposition to the decision of the House, but he thought it right to say that it was not usual to go into a Committee before the Bill was printed. A conversation then ensued between Lord ELDON, Lord HOLLAND, and the LORD CHANORLLOR, as to the time for further proceedings. Atter which the Bill was! NS a wood time, and ordered to be committed todnorrow (this =lire o'clock. It was also arranged that the Ikll should be and the discussion on the principle of the Bill to take place at a/snore stage. lir. Z. G. Wakefield was then removed from the bar in custody, aid tie general business commenced. Earl SPENCER presented a Petition from certain Landowners In the county of Northampton, against any alteration in the Corn Laws.. Lord RENTON presented a Petition from the same county, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. Tie Duke of RUTLAND presented a Petition from the Ship. owners of Scarborough, against the Reciprocity Duties; and two from the Ministers and Churchwardens of Parishes in the county of Leicester, one against any further concessions to the Catholics;' and the other against the Repeal of the rest Act —Laid on the table. Bari GROSVENOR adverted to a Petition from an indiAdual which he had preowned some time since to their Lordships, cow ;shining of the conduct of the Gaoler of the Stafford Gaol. Itched dkotered that all the allegations of the Petitioner were unfounded, hod should therefore take no further step on the subject. Sir ALUAIIIMIL Gamer, Mr. Pam*sw Witaor, and slaters brought up from the Commons the General Turnpike Act Alien& I went Bill, the Election ExPruces Bill, chit Whttby Harbour Ins ptovement Bill, sad the Scotch Ale Daties Bill, which were read a Ares tiase.--Adjourned. . JNOUSS OF COMMONS.. TUT AIND cntacts•Tuns ACTS. Mr. B. DAeltretnit presented a Petidon fawns certain Dissenters of Middlewyche, praying for a repeal of the Test and Corpora. don Acts. Mr. N. Cavezar presented* similar Pedtion from tie County of Hertford. Mr. Powt.rm Presented a similar Petition from South „Weide, and Bishop Scanner& Mr. Diemoisun presented similar Petitions from Chard and another place. Mr. BING presented similar Petitions from RAM Chaseside. and from South-place, Finsbury. Mr. J. Swim presented similar Petitions from apiece in Lord STANLZT presented soimilas Petition from Maneheeter. Lord J. Smear presented siniihr Petitions Erma Cardiff sad Swansea. • • Mr. LITTLETON presented a similar Petition from' Bursley. He could not see the use of maintaining Acts of Parliament and passing others every year for the purpose of rendering them nugatory. But as the' grievance was not a practical one, he wai glad to hear that the parties did not Mean to press their case during the present Sessirm. Mr. CALCRAFT' and Mr. HUMS expressed their regret that the question was not to be dieresset4 and their iosestion of supporting it. Lord A LTHORP said, that the Dissenters had them. pelves decided against urging their case at present, and lawirwasi .greater to the members of the Church of England, who were compelled by them to profane one of, the most sacred ceremonies of that Church for the sake of worldly emoluments and advantage. Whether the sacrament was taken or not, the grievance was alike felt. Hi should certainly give the question his most cordial sup. port, and he hoped it Weald be brought forward at the earliest period which the. Patitionets should_ think coo' Sistent with its most advantageous discussion. Mr. BROUGHAM said he should take this oppotto. nity oistating succinctly. but very distinctly, the views he took of this most important question, in order that they might not be mistaken in. consequence of its peat: ponement. He was of opinion that alt those were guihl of a great error indeed who underweighed the value of the Test and eirpurationi*Acts; either as they affected the Dissenting Protestant or the Church of England,. He held it to be no light stigma, even supposing it to go no further, to tell millions of his Majesty's subjecti, including many of the most Wealthy, the most loyal, the most active, and, industrious of his Majesty's subjects, that.their acting upon opinions and principles conscien tieuAt entertsioed, shoultotand ifs the way qi their ,hiring in the civil offices of State,tile:unless they told( the bene fi t of an annual indemnity. Vhenever. and by wbognsoever this question was brought on, provided those who did it looked at the broad view which in cluded the welfare and success of othergreat questi ins, it should have his fullest and firmest support. Having said thus much, he must express his surprise that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, should have -regretted the course which had been determined upon —a course which had been taken after the most serious deliberation and iii,cussion on the part of those most in terested in the question, and who in his opinion had most discreetly and most disinterestedly decided upon its postponement for the pre.ent. He rejoiced th it they had dine so, and he was sure that the delay would in crease the vote by which the question would be sup ported hereafter. Mr. CAWS* FT and Mr. BROWGRAY expLinel Mr. MUNI)Y presented similar Petitions from two places in Derby. •A similar • • Petition was presented from Southampton. Mr. ELLISON presented similar Petitions from the neighbour oed of Newcastle. Mr. BRIGHT presented similar Petitions from Bristol and Pill. Lord W. RUSSELL presented a similar Petition from certain Unitarians of Tavistock. Mr. W. TAYLOR prevented& similar Petition from Devizes. A similar Petition was presented lions Manchester. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY presented a Petition from the Pro. testant Dissenters of Seeley, io Staffordshire, and another front a similar class of persons in the same county, praying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Lord HUSTON presented a similar Petidon from the Protes tant Dissenters of Bury St. Edmonds. Mr. PROTHEROK presented two Similar Petitions from places in the county of Gloucester. Sir WILLIAM GUISE presented Petitions to the same effect from the Prbteltant Dissenters of Chalfont and Eden In the county of Norfolk. Mr. L. K OCK presented a similar Petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Dartford. Mr. Al A RJOIti BANKS presented a similar Petition Area OW Protestant Dissenters of a place in Kent. Psse: Mr. FARA KER LEY presented Petitions from the ' i Dissenters of Spalding, mid three other places, to the same Mr. PEN DA RYES presented a similar Petition from the testant Dissenters of Losterithiel. . . Mr. d'f KEA presented similar Petition from Hull, South Shields, sod *Anther place in the county of York. Lord ALTHORP resented similar Petitions from Woodfall and•four other pi ices iu Northamptonshire. ' Sir L HARVEY presented four Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters of different places in Easez, praying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Captain GORDON presented a similar Petition from the Pro testant Dissenters and other Friends to Religious Liberty in Sets- ' don, lit Witts. .&r K. KNATCHBULL presented a similar Petitioo from tis Protestant Dissenters of Hightborne, in Kent. Mr. BAN KES presented a similar Petition from Shaftesbury, lb Dursetshire. Sir T. ACLAND presented similar Petitions from the Pratte Anet*Diesenters of Dartmoor, Newton, and another place in Do emsehire. /dr. EASTHOPE presented similar Petitions from Newport, St. Alban's, and two other places. ' Mr. WILLIAMS presented a similar Petition from the Pre fullest Dissenters in Great Marlow ; ss did Mr. J. WOOD from them of Deanrow, in Cheshire, Ashton-under-Lyme, and a place mar Manchester. Mr. PHILLIPS presented similar Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters MAshley, and Saltoun, in Lancashire. Lord MILTON presented similar Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters and Friends of Religious liberty in Bradford, and three other places in Yorkshire. Lord NUGENT preseoted a similar Petition from Hadwell, within the Hundreds of Aylesbury, Bucks: The Petitions were severally ordered to be printed. ' Mr. MUMS presented a Petition from knstruther, praying the Moose to suppress the burning of Hisao° women.—Ordered to be printed.. Mr. PITT moved for a Return of the amount of premiums paid on Life Insurances in the various Mee, within the year.—Ordered. Mr• LITTLETON gave notice, that on Thursday, the 71110 June, be should move Resolutions to give effect to the mutilation of the Comdtittee for reducing the Fees Igoe Tills* pike Bills. Mr. MUNDY gave notice, on the part of Lod L. Ges4o. that on Friday next he should move foe leave.to bring In a le enable the Government to Brest sites for public buildings. • Me. BRIGHT Yresented a Petition tall* the atteetion - of *so Hesse to the law of Landlord . and Tenant. After a few words from Mr. Haire*Days, Sir C. Begazt, and Mr. Baum:, the Petition was ordered to be printed. A Message from the Lords semoonced that their Lordships hal agreed to various Bins, and passed others. £llllO CHURCH. Ste C. COOTS presented a Petition from the Protestant TAAL VMS of Mallow, in the county and diocese of gilialoe, cot plafaing of the union of parishes is the Church. Sir J. NEWPORT said, this was one case amongst I many which requ ired the attention of the House. Lord MILTON said that these matters had been for int:TlT carried on for the purpose of supporting the power of the Goverameht, and that the most disgrace. fel jobbing, surd as would not have been tolerated in .this country, was practised in bestoWing the patronage and emoluments of the ha Church. Mr. GOULBURN wished to know whether the No ble Lord meant to apply what be hid said to any acts of the late Government ?—[Lord MILTON disclaimed it.]—The conduct of the Irish Hierarchy bad been quite the reverse of what the Noble Lord described while he was connected with the Government. Sir J. NsivroaT and Lord MILTON explained, that they meant to cast no imputation upon the present memb'ers of the Irish Government or of the Irish Church. Mr. M. FITZGERALD said, that having been poli ticafly opposed to the Irish Government, he felt bound in justice to say that they, as well as the Bishops of that cimatiy, had endeavoured to remedy those abuses as far as a was in their power to do so,. and that the eau t.ions of the latter were now giving to Ireland a much Ptietaitant amp than she tottetly Petition was ordered to be printed, • zillltianTlON. i F tn l port TZl K Eß: e l e a d D '4 Kerry, praying Heat the House would he pmen trust ted ed ul a :r t i i is s o lt a ß i o t ilg i h n re t hedi fi ft : speedy means, in aid of ernigratiOO hoof Colonies. He thought this question one (Mr. W. Horton) would take this oppon sa i ti of stating what the intention of Government was le regard to the subject of emigration. He believed that emigration, and emigration alone, would afford ad s , eats or. r w eli . ef ti t o o RthTeodNistretzuogfhtht ite pop ulation for thepab. lie to understand, that until the Committee appellate,' to inquire into.the subject of emigration bad terminated its labours, and reported their result to the H aft, mu steps whatever could be taken by the Goverameat, was particularly desirable that this should be distinctly made known by those who had the means of cites's: king the information generally through Ireland sod Scotland, where a mistaken impression existed, and even in many parts of England. • Mr. L. FOS I'ER said, that the experience which be bad gained in the Committee led him to the coixlinion that something must be done to enable the unemployed' population of Ireland to emigrate. He would not attempt to depict to the House the misery endured by these unfortunate purple. The.consequeoce of this state of things in Ireland affected Gentlemen belonging to this country to a degree of which they were cot, per. haps, aware. The population of Ireland being is such excess, naturally caused a great transfer of the surplus number to England, as long as there was any vacuum in that country to receive them. It would, therefore, be useless to remove the distressed population of E nt . hand until a remedy was first applied to Ireland. The Committee, he thought, were fully impressed with this conviction, and riey intended to propose that a rectal* number of the labouring population of Inland should be removed to the colonies at the expense ot the landlords. Mr. W. NORTON suggested to the Hon. Member that it was irregular to anticipate the Committee by stating what it meant to recommend. Mr. CALCRAFT expressed his surprise at the Hon Member having gone on so long anticipating the dui. sioos and determinations of the Committee, contrary to the orders of the House. The Hon. MeMber paraded to describe the flow of Irish population into this cooly as a great evil. They were always the most idle, the must ungovernable; and the most suffering class to be found. Sir G. HILL said, he thought the Hon. Member vu doing that which he had condemned in his Hon. Friend, Mr. W. HORTON rose to deprecate discus.ion M r. C ALCR A FT resumed, and said, that he did sot allude to the proceedings of the Committee, sot haring teen on if, and he was therefore not out of otder. Ile repeated, that the Irish poor in this country had btu properly described by him, and the fault of their' driven here in such distress, rested with a class of he had no intention to speak with disrespect, lords of that country. Mr. S. RICE rose to protest in the strongest against his countrymen being described as idle, derly, an 1 ungovernable, which he would under say, was in every respect the direct reverse of the —(A laugh). Lord MILTON said, that in she county where sided a great part of the field labour was done by Irish, and he never heard'cumplaints of them. The Prude* was ordered to be printed. SPURIOUS BANK CIRCULAR. Sir J. WROTTESLEY gave notice, that of June he should submit a moti in to.the House she iubject of the Circular which professed to' the Bank of England. Mr. MANNING beiiig called upon, said that OP hesitation in stating that there was not the foundation for considerng the Paper in question document of the Bank of England. The Directors else Banksof England knew nothing of it u and so f.r were they Irons having put forward a. Paper, th at the subject had never come under consideration. Sir J. WROTTESLEY said that the answer satisfactory to his mind. Sir N. COLTHURST presented a .Petition from W and other settlers at the Cape of Good Hope, praying ' Ordered to be printed. Mr. ROBINSON presented a Pctitioa from the k. poration and Inhabitants of Worcester, re s pecting the Fisheries, in the Severn, which was refereed to dm Canamitthe the said Fisheries. Mr. H. DUNDAS presented a Petition from the Rochester against the Ale House Licensing BA—Referred Committee on the said BEM Mr. H. BORN brought in a Bill to Amend the Baokrupts.-.-Reed a lint dens and adored to be roods on Friday, and printed. Mr. G. RANKIN brengbt in a 818 re MO& tad i Laws relating to the Land Tan Doable Asetwooost, with Roman Cathoiics.—Resd a RR times mei entered so goad WIN oa Friday next. and to beimilatod: Mr. A. DAWSON presented a Rate from certain and others in Dieter, praying that anogragaroasteaight bland navigation b Ireland. NAVAL 1111=01fit Cirrafigs. Colonel DAVIES said, that seeing one of of the Admiralty (Mr. K. Douglas) in his would take that opportunity of asking a qt spectiag the tempt appoinussints which ' place in the Navy, of severalVoterrmusders Captains in line-of-battle ships. He had waited time in the hope that some One familiar with ject would take it in hand, but as be had been pointed, and as he believed the measure to be unpopular in the Navy—(Cries of Order, Order The SPEAKER said, the Hon. Member, rent's reflection, must see that he was out of less he meant to conclude with some motion. Colonel DAVIES said, that that being the would conclude with a motion, which should Return of the Number of Commanders who appointed to serve in line-of-battle ships. Mr. Secretary BOURNE said, that the mail of such a nature,, that he . really thought ' Member should have given some notice of bit . to move it. Mr. C ALCRAFT protested against the publi mess being so frequently interrupted by the agitation of a variety of subjects. Col. DAVIES was astonished at the remark by the lion. Member for Wareham. That - bet had spoken at least half-a-dozen times that and Basely then he was among the last who talk of interrupting the progress of the public —(Larightet). He had nsen for the purpose ing information, which was rendered desirable recent act of power. The Navy were displeased .he alteration which had been made. He wish! know whether it was intended that in fotnre a nutdet should be appointed to serve in every , . eller of manta of the petitioner, and that it costa not haltahnea : of tel Itethp7t. tbowet7.46.lef.lefactrtesd:smettpossessed.tespee,thtableel He thee shaken by the preductionof all that evidence to which scums to in Dori' be had himself referred . What Wu tire nature of that At . iteme vitt" aillteetk‘tth Mt MIL Fund the carryi‘teidence? That the mintage in liseetion had been et- Isfeieber for Warehltm,' that tha 'Protestant Meister' Mr. hi. FITZ( marrying. 3ebraterf with the consent of that yerdag Lady. pal ha4to temp n a great prattled . ance, end at the County of Ke de by the bad it not been a marriage hseught shoot by the prat = pay were insulted My the annual dectlaiiin*thst they' afford some speed at the trial tice of a most atrocious tread? Her apparent ease were nnviorthy to be admitted into the V..onstitntion, Ireland to the Col, honer was mind and cheerfulness had also been remarked on. But the grietaace of these lawrwar. its his opinion, stilt of greet import . .. • ____,.___,.:..._ ../ 1,.... ftrest•r to the members of the Church of England, who Friend (Mr. W. I •..uum , therefor; on of Ear. !land. The • el with this at a tercel* land ihoolit to landlords. a. Member Dmruittee by at the Hot ing the deo. contrary to er weeded this ccootty lost idle, the 'ins class to Member au Hon. Friend. scussion. st he did sot t, not having f order. He try had btu sf their Wag lass of whom ect, the lead. nest maw I idle, dins. undertake w of the facts. where he ro done by the em. at on the 7th House opus to issuehor that he had the slighteo 'cation as the Directors d hatsoerer: eard any sod t under their Wet waist ot Wm. Puke ing for relief. — Mayor, Cot• rig the Solace coseetitthe 0 the China d .Referred to ele Law maw* ads we allow Wad Aeon tit ~wka ,wart" to be Rage* combs Bakes dalle k pees" of the Lodi his plan, b e a qUeitioo re h had tikes ro assecood waited some rith the sub , been disap be extreme)! Drder). ge, on a so of order ua on. bas ,sare ;ll f ra e: theinbtho li b tut h p l ibtue °l i ub d i oc s e a t rbo h a b r i ec bi n ro a ti le t a o :t d cu. oces ca sh rg_ !gb a is sot giti rt : lox ispleased 101 H e wished t ° rotore a Co! every line- i • c d )i ~a . P II -,,ffl • P I