Star. — London, England, 1823-02-28 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINUS. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 47. The TARO CHANCILLOR came to the House at three o'clock, tnd soon after, the Royal Assen: was given by Commission to the Indemnity 1111.—The Commisiioners were, the Loan CHAN cattos the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and Earl BATHURST. ' The Dytke of MONTROSE stated, that his Majesty had been waited upon with Addresses for Papers, and had been gra ciously pleased to order the same to be laid before the House. The Earl of V ERUL A M presented a Petition from the Archdeaconry of St. Alban's Itgalnst that portion of the New Marriage Act which abrogates the previous mode of ranting Licenses.—The Petition was read and laid on the table. The Surrogates Licenses Legalization Bilr was read a thil'd time and passed. The Report of the Marriage Solemnization Clauses Repeal Bill was received, and the Amendments agreed to. The West India and Ankerinn Colonies Trade Bill passed through a Committee.—The House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The House was= summoned to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to the Annual Indem nity Bill. A Paper was laid on the table by a Person from the Fleet Prison, of the number of Prisoners discharged from that Prison in the course of the last year. Mr. KIRKPATRICK presented the Annual Accounts of the Com missioners of Ramsgate Harbour, which were laid on the table. Mr. MANNING took that opportunity to observe, that it was an unfounded report that sin Honourable Baronet, Mem ber for the City of London, had ever held balances on account of this Harbour in his bands. On the contrary, he had on one occasion very liberally advanced money to meet the exigencies of the moment. _ _ _ The Honourable Member moved for a Return of the Rl lances in the hands of the Treasurer or Trustees of Ramsgate Ilybour, since the appointment of the Commission relative to it, from 1791 to 1829. Mr. WALLACE bore testimony to the irreproachable con duct of the Flom Baronet, the Member fur the City of London, in his contiectlon with Ramsgate thrbour.—The Return was ordered. Mr. CGIIW.RN presented a Petition from Ship-Owneri and others Interested in the Greenland and South Sea Fishery, ptayins for relief from the burdens which pressed on their trade. Laid on the table. Lord FRANCIS OSBORN presented a Petition from the County of Cambridge, eemphining of the undue burdens to which the land was subjetted, and praying for a liberal reduc tion of Taxes, retrenchment in the Public Departments, and 14 form in Pailiameoc—Laid on the table, read, and ordered to be printed. The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Annual Duties Bill, which was read paragraph by paragraph.— Agreed to; and the House having tetumed, the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow. The Exchequer Bill, and the Transfer of Aids Bill, went through the same stage. The LORI) ADVOCATE brought up a Bill, entitled the Scotch Ctediturs Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. _ _ Mr. CHARLES DIJNDAS presented a Petition from the Freeholders of the County of Berk; in Public Meeting assem bled, praying fur Relief to Agriculture. and a Reform in Parlia ment. The lion. Member strongly supported the sentiments of the Petition, which was that of the Gentry and most respectable portion of the County. Mr. F. PALMER said, that the sentiments of the Petition were those of every class in the county. Mr. MONCK concurred in the prayer of the Petition, parti cularly that fur Refohn The Haute of Commons, he consi dered, was not a House for the People, hut against them; it was dependent where it ought to he inde pendent, and indepen- . 1 dent where itcught to he dependent, when subservient to Royal favour.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. PRICE pre:sent, .1 a similar Petition from the Lan& owners of the County of Hereford. • 'Lord FOLKSTONR supported the Petition. He observed that be had heard a great deal of abuse against the Coition from the County of Norfolk. and of this County.; but until he heard roam: refutation oldie oplaiiins and doctrines of these Pe titions, he should offer tio alignment against the objections to them. Something Of the nature prayed for by three Petitioos was evidently what the country warited.-s-Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. • - - Mr. DAUI presented a Petition from Galway, complaining of Agricultural _ _ _ Leird FOLKSTONE withdrew a notice of motion he had for Itednesday next, and postponed it to the j2th of March. 'A Message from the Lords brohght down a 141110 render certain ilattiages'oalido.--Tleißill,oi the motion of the Arson nits-.oaxszat., seas read a first tine, and ordcred Ea a second gesslir,;4ll lionday nest. • npr TAT. • Mr. CUR.TEIS presented a Petition from the Hop Planters of Blechley, in Susses, praying for the re-. moval of the Doty on The CHANCELLOR of the EXC HU:WI:a said,' he would take that opportunity of answering a ques tion put to him by the Honourable Member a few days back on this subject. Tha: question, • as he un derstood it, was, whether it was his intention to pro pose a reduction of the duty upon Hops, or whether he would assent to the appointment of a Committee to take their grievances into consideration? In an swer to that question lie was compelled to state, that lie could not conceive that there was sufficient reason for the adoption of either of those expedients. lithe Honourable Member wished to bring the subject be fore the House, it was competent to him to make a motion to that porport ; but in his opinion there was neither sufficient ground for the appointinent of a Committee, nor even eith a view to Vie interests of the parties thetpelves, for a reduction of the duty._ The difficulty attending the cultivation of flops in certain parts of the country was well known to be such as to render it inquissible to make the culture of them ansifer, Without very high prices. It was' also well known that theie was no article subject to griatcr fluctuation than ficips, owing to the peculiar nature of this climate. The crops had been good for many years, and - therefore the prices had been low, and thus it was that a reduction of the dory would really produce no good. Many - of the lands formerly enaplOyed in the cultivation of Hops could not, from die nature'of existing circumstances, row be made to grow that article withourloss. The removal of the, duty, therefore, by stimulating to unprbfitable and losing speculations, would only fend to bring back the very evil complained of. This, however, he was prepared to do in behalf of this interest—he had no sort of objection to extend to them the advantage svhich had sometimes been. done before, of postponing the payment of the dues ; and in the execution of: that intention 'he wag wa l ling to , give every possible facility in his v . ostert ' 114,,cohleiifd, however, that he I should not be inducedlo 'go'io far, did he think that it warsuld have the effect Of stimulating to the culti vation of the article on those lands, where, according to the representations of the Petitioners themselves, it would-tot answer to grow it; Without the certainty of very high prices—(Hent, herr): Sir E. KNATCHBULL could . not express himself satisfied with the small hope of relief held out by the Glianceilorof the Exchequer. He begged to put it to the-serious consideration of the Right Hon. Gen-' tlebutn, whether it Would not be better for him to , a.a r ord a better •prospect . of 'relief, where so large a population was concerned; as in this rase ? Mr. CURTEIS gave notice, that if not anticipated by the Honourable Baronet, the Member for Kent E. Kuatchbull3, he should .mote for the repeal 4116- of the whole ei part of, th it op 11ii was. theft laid oil' thp r .1 •., • . hiAsifEß Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know froth the Right Secretary.oppositt, whether any steps were to be taken relative to the ()ace Of the Rolls, the duties of the head of which Court, he presumed, he was aware had been discharged by Deputijor x consi derable time past? A notice also had been stuck up to say there 'would be no business there from the 28th of the present month till the lbth April, by which Much time would he loseto the Public. Mr. Secretary PEEL was unable, in the absence of his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, to give any information to the Hon. Member on this subject. He believed the absence of the Master of the Rolls proceeded from severe indisposition, which it had been hoped would be temporary. CASE OP MR. BOWRING. Lord A. HAMILTON, pursuant to notice, rose to bring the consideration of tia case of Mr. Bowring before the House. His object was to move for cer tain papers to elucidate the parts of it which were not clearly known. He was .aware that a case of this nature might be felt to be a foreign question; but the House would bear in mind that it was the case of an Englishman, wlipse person had been outraged whilst under the protection of this Government. Ile was not going to arraign the conduct of this Government; for, although he could not say that what it had done was not right, he was able to say that it might have done more. The best course for him to take with the House, he believed, would be to state the case of Mr. Bowring's arrest, his subsequent sufferings, the remedy he had sought, and the justice he had ob tained, with x view of shewing the right of the House to the official correvpondente on that subject with the office of the Right Honourable Secretary for Foreign Affairs. This, then, was the case of a merchant travelling on the Continent, upon commercial busi ness, with whom, he begged leave to say, he was not acquainted, nor had he ever seen him. Upon demanding his passport at Paris, some trifling ob struction was made, not necessary to notice, indi cative of what afterwards fell out. At Calais, the luggage of Mr. Bowring was taken from him; but not satisfied with the - detention of that, Mr. Bowling himself was arrested, and . his papers put under ex amination. Upon aiking what charge there was against him, he was told that a telegraphic commu nication had been received from Paris, ordering his papers to be examined, and himself arrested. He was aware that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would answer him, that what Mr. Bowring suffered was in conformance with the French law; but he wished it to be impressed on the Right Hon. Gentle man, and all who heard him, 'that when he was re leased, he was told that he was set at liberty, be cause it had been determined that the crime ofowhich Ice was accused, was one which did not admit of im prisonment. - This, he must observe,- was a .most gross inconsistency in theFremeh law, to imprisdn a: man for what would not adinit . Of imprisonment. Another telegraphic dispatch prdered that he be con veyed to Boulogne. There he was conveyed, with out-being informed of the charge against him, and confined du secret, debarred Coininunicatico with any one NOW he would put it to the House to consider the injustice and hardship of an Englishman confined in a foreign prison, and subject to foreign laws, not being permitted to have prefessional assistance: To . so monstrous an . extent was-this pushed, that when Mr. Bowling was led out from his dungeon to be subjected to interrogatories, he was not allowed to have a legal- adviser. Although condemned to soli. tary confinement, he was not permitted the indul, gence Of 'solitude, for he was exposed to all' - the per .secutien which those who wereover him could inflict. He wished thlt every man - in the House would pUt hiniseli in the situation of Mr. Bowling. There was one point which be wished to be particularly attended , to,liecause of -its ot*scurtt7,-- and became he under stood it was intended fo refuse him the papers he Meaneto move for to elncidateit. Mr. Bowring had applied to Sir Charles Stuart, at .Paris, to interpose in his behalf. Upon this becoming known it ap peared that the Tribunals, Or Authorities, or the. Ministers of Justice; or, as he Would Call them, of injustice, set to work to find out some other charge. If they had done this, it was a sort of chicaned, or quibble, amounting to a fraud ; and it was to prove this that he desired these papers. There had been no cause of irritation that he knew of in France at that . time, unless, indeed, which he supposed the Right 'Hon. Gentleman would nut admit, it had proceeded from some of the acts of those who bad gdne before him. Thus they had succeeded in manufacturing a" charge of " complicite" in'treasonable-practices. They could not justify the former charge, and therefore manufactured a second one, in hopes of swallowing up the first. After iubtnitting to many interrogatories, Mr. Bowling was told that he might go to Paris, but that he was not compelled, and it appeared there were two letters from . -t'he French Authorities, one of , shich declared he had agreed to go, 'and the other that he had refused. The use that he had made of this remark was, to point out the necessity of his. having been permitted some professional man of that country. A few chiyi after this came the sen tence from Paris, which he had already stated. After inch a result, was it possible to say that no injustice 'had been done to this individual? - He did not accuse the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite, nor his office; but after what the Hduse had seen and heard, was it'not natural and just to hear and see more?—, He was aware that it would be said, it was of no use to arraign the laws of other countries. He knew, too, it might be said that the Courts of France were Open, hut that would be no answer to the call he Made, to have what was confused and contradictory Cleared up. One goOd would at least wise from the succeis of his motion—and that was, that -those documents would be published, by which every Englishman would see, that when he crossed thechannel he gave up his claim to freedom, and was liahle to arbitrary imprisonment. It appeared that, real guilt was- not half so severely punished as suspicion of guilt; and that, after suspicion, no matter whether it could %e substantiated,' the same. punishment was awarded . . Sir Charles Stuart. he understood,. had been unable to extract any charger from the Frepch Government. He maintained, that if the publication of . -thesempi-' pers did nothing more than excite the indignation and disgust of foreign nations, it would answer a sitfficient and good purpose.' He was aware that it could be retorted upon them, that every foreigner • Wto landed in England was liat4e torornalr it t mint ; and if it was so,. what presence, indeed, could theY,who every two ye* - peiiied an nu therising arbitrary impriSonenent 'ac the discriltifts of the Secretary of State -for the Moine Depariment, have to pursue such a charge as this?—(Hear, hetir). Whatever might be the fate of his motion, he trusted the\House and the Right Hon. Gentleman would give him credit for having embarked in this cause without any personal interest or any personal hosti lity towards the Right Hon. Secretary or his office: , The Noble Lord concluded by moving for " copies of all the letters addressed to the Right Hon. George Canning, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, by , Mr. John Bowring, relative to his imprisonment in France; and also to Mr. Plant; with the iuclosures relating to the same subject." Mr. Secretary CANNING said, whatever might be his opinion of the expediency of the motion,. he was sure it would not be right : neither had he a disposi tion to suppose that it was brought forward with any improper object, or urged in an improper manner. For his own part, he certainly ha. ao complaint to make of the manner in which he had been alluded to personally, or that part of his conduct involved in this question ; and having nothing to complain of, the House would conclude that he saw nothing ob jectionable in the discussion of the subject by the House. The production of the papers he meant to oppose, upon the sound Parliamentary principle that no practical ground had been sbewn for the produc tion; and he (Mr. Canning) had -apprehended that it was for those who moved, and not for those who opposed, to shew the use to be made of the papers when produced —(licar, hear).—He would endea vour to put out of sight every painful allusion, in treating of this subject, by stating the general pi in ciple upon which ail such individual cases revolved. lie believed it would be granted, that the first prin ciple in the law of nations was, that a stranger, upon entering into a foreign country, entered into a tern porary alleg iance to the laws of that country. lluw ever harsh the laws of that country might appear— however little congruous to a British subject—and however he might regret the absence of the dons connected with the happier Constitution of /England, he was bound for the time being, to yield the same obedience to them which was exacted from thembjects of the nation in which he resided. He . had no right to complain of the severe operation of the • laws, provided they were impartially adminis tered in his case, as they would-be in that of a mi . - tural-born subject. When thus he heard of the im prisonment of this Gentleman (Mr. Bowring), of ;hose private character, talents, and personal de meanour he wished to speak, so far as he could judge, from all he had heard, and from the slight inter course which had taken place, with perfect respect. As soon as he had heard of the case, it teemed to him that it was the duty of the English Government to take care that the individual so arrested was dealt with by law—not the law of England, but that of France, impartially, and as a French subject, si milarly circumstanced, would have been dealt with. The instructions, therefore, which he had sent out to -our Ambassador in Paris, and not an hour was lost in sending them, for they were dispatched in about three quarters of an hour aftey he had heard of the case,.directed Sir Challes Stuart to inquire into the circumstances, and if no prima facie ground appeared for applying to the French Government, on account ref irregularity, he was then directed carefully to watch the proceedings, and to see, aided by the best legal advice which he could obtain, that the law was administered with strict impartiality and justice. lint he did not think that Mr. Bowing, having separ a t e d himself for a time troth England, had a- right to ex pect that the form of the proceedings against him in -France should be tiresome that he might have looked for under a like accusation in this country. He and 'lris Majesty's Ministers had no authority to introduce our Habeas Corpus, and our mode of Trial by Jury into France, fot the protection of Mr. Bowring. All they could do, 'as to see that whatever means of defending himself impartial justice would accord to an accused subject of France, 'should be afforded to Mr. Bowring, and it was only when any departure from This occurred,- that the right of national inter ference would begin. Nothing could be tnore clear, more indisputable, than the position that national interference could only be resorted to in behalf of an individual in a foreign land, when justice, according to the laws OF that land, was either delayed oire fused. He would not go into the consideration of all the circumstances connected with Mr: Bowring's arrest arid imprisonment; but in passing, he mttst re mark, it appeared .to 'him that the Noble Lord had fallen into one mistake. The Noble LOrd had truly stated that when Mr. Bowring was released, his en largement was accompanied by a declaration on the part of the French Authorities that fhe crime with which he (Mr. Bowring) had been charged was not one to which the penalty of imprisonment attached. This was true, but the Noble Lord was mistaken in his view of the 'bearing of that declaration. This Gentleman, it appeared by his own Statement, and also by the counter-statement of the French Govern ment, had been arrested as the bevy' tif- sealed let ters. This was an Offence against the 'Wench law — it was - an attempt to =defraud (he did- not -use the , word invidioudyitheßevenue of Prance. There was. nothing atrocious in it—it was an offence of no deep moral dye—it was not a inalton in se, but a 'naafi pro hibiliun. Here a punishment was inflicted for the same offence f but the offence was visited pecnniarilj, while in France it was punished iira more summary Manner. Mr. Bowring being-so detained as a cat rier of sealed letters, there afterwards grew up out of these letters, - or out . of other circumstances, new grounds of accusation. The crime with,which he was charged after his arrest was one which did incur the punishment of imprisonment; but on.that other crime 'he was never brought to trial, and when re leased on the greater charge, he was not detained on the lesser. He had been "told he might go; as it was not intended to proceed on the more serious accusa tion, and as the lesser one was not an offence which incurred the punishment of imprisonment. He was not released becaug 'the French Government ad mitted that lie had been unjustly ihiprisoned; but the greaterf.charge not beipg.gogqinto i the minor did not authorise his detention. -Heiltiught it. would be seen 'that there was a great difference between chit which he stated to have taken place, and that which the Nqble Lord had understood to be the fact. He (Mr. (.anning) WAS not bound, nor did he consider that he bad been in the progress of the case, to cp. mine the statements for and against Mr. Bowling, i n order to form an opinion on its merits. The sin g le point to which he had to apply himself was not to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused, but to determine whether Mr. Bowring, standing in the Isituation °fan accused person in FE Auce,hadteenclealt with iirispartially according to the laws of that country ; It was superfluous to enlarge on thil subject. Th e Noble Lord must allow, that through. the whole course of the transaction.. had Mr. Bowring heed the Person nearest to the English Government, or to Lim. self individually, it would have been impossible- to have . watched over Itian more carefully, or with a more anxious desire that justice should be done. But when the case had been brought to a close, with strong reasons for believink that it had been in some degree precipitated, by the constant Intel ference of the British Government, which had required, not that the French Authorities should let Mr. Bowring go, but that they should let him go or proceed against him ; after this, the course taken had been to inquire whether or not any. reparation was due to that Gea demon. This question it had been thought right to refer, not to English but to French Lawyers, who were to inquire into the whole course sif the proceed ings, to ascertain whether the line of conduct which had been pursued was consonant with the established rules of French jurisprudence. Accordingly, Sir C. Stuart was ordered to lay the case before two of the most celebrated Advocates of France, one of whom ' was to be selected from those individuals at the Bar who were favour: tole to the present Governmeat, the other from those who were known to be pio litically opposed to it. To these persons he was directed to state tire case anooyn:ously, and to ino quire if the ordinary practice had been duly oh served in the proceedings Which had taken plate? The answers given by those Learned Advocates" concurring in their knoo-ledge of the law, but fering in every political opinion, and without knows. . ledge of each other's de;tision, was this : that in the case of Mr. Bowring, th t law had been scrupsilousl observed, and that a Fowl) subject under such cis. cumstances would have had no cause of complaint, excepting that which evetr man accused elan offense and not bought to trial Ir. ir it, might assume he had a right to prefer. To some degree-of inconvenienoe the aczusation naturally subjected the party accuses!. If this had been caused Maliciously, the proper mo de of acting would undoubtedly be to Prosecute the individuals concerned. If Mr. .Bowring' .thong lit fit to pursue this course, he was assured that ire might depend on receiving every countenance frrira the English Ambassador. If the French 1. is would not allow of his doing it, he (Mr. C inninr) then came back to his former position, and must s. sy, that if Mr. Bowring had found hinisell in a country so ill provided with law, he, having voltentarily gc to 'thither, had abdiCated :itsr a season the advantages of . living under British laws, and must take the corn 1.-. quences. He was not disposed to do mote for Ali. Bowring, and he was sure he was not disposed to c'e , less for hint than for any other individual. Donla'r less, a little reflection would satisfy every one the i here was no case for nazional interference. Let thsi House suppose what would be the feelings of 1,1'.e English Government with respect to aFreach sobjs who might be taken up, not under the Mien Act, ! set 'in the ordinary course of law. Suppose a Proochn- in, on landing in this country, should be involved i. a scuffle of some kind, and in consequence be commit tat to prison—suppoie this committal to take place September, just after the termination of the Sumn ks Assizes, and that he should remain in prison, in t Le absence of a third Assize, till the ensuing March, a pd be then dismissed why, would the English Govei meat bear that A case like this should be made t tie subject of national interference? Would they rct at once refer to the municipal law, and say, wh. en the individual came to this country, he necessarily exposed himself .to that treatment to which union; 1- nately, but not maliciously, he . had been doomed ?- - If the claim set up for Mr. Bowring were good, a similar clairt might be set up for every other trap. 2 yeller who suffered from the laws of the country in • • which he sojourned.. We (said .Mr. Canning) must take the good and'evil of our. institutions together.-- Englishmen might travel, as they often. did, to Con stantinople, Aleppo, or Algiers, and is the Govern ment to take notice of all its wandering subjects In every part of the globe? When an Englishman cas ters those despotic States, where law is scarcely heayd' of, is he to expect that we are to transplant our owe institutions to their States for his peculiar Protectl'ito, and to distinguish him from the other suhlesas, amongst whom, for the time being : * he has vo) en. tarily enrolled himself? I cannot agree to. thetas°. tion, without allowing that every British subject, . wherever he goes, has a right to ca ll on , t h e strong , ► and outstretched arm of the country, to rescue hies from the consequences of the foreign allegiance to which he had tacitly submitted.' The peculiar insti tutions of independent States are beyond the COll. troul of other Governments:' I shall there:foie abstain from giving my authority, to the principle advocated by the motion ; and as there is neither room nor ne- •ts cessity adduced, I shall object' to the prodisction'of the Papers—(Loud and continued cheers). Sir ROBERT WILSONsaid, he , helieved th e meanest native of any other country.tiould noChair. been treated as Mr.' Bowring, an Englith merchant,. a Gentleman of the most amiable manners and of the' most excellent_ attainments, had been treated by the French Government. . Herwai not, however, aware that it was a case which* called for ,national inter- t ,ference. It was one, however, that ought to be gene rally known. This discussion would' be most u.eful. ' to their countrjmen. at large,.hecaude it would she*" that this country was determined to protect her.sub: jests from. the violation of the law. It Was not enough . for a foreign Government to say," We violate 4ie• haw in the persons of our own subjects, And havriA right, therefore, to AO the same with respect to yatti.s: In such a case, it was necessary to appear tO - tho 41. of Nations:— it was. proper, pat Oey, shonlckiei . .ffiat ;. justice was not tong denied, or delayed.so.lonsessto.. become, in effect, a denial. The Right How: Uentle.t man bad said, " Are we to protect all the•wandetbp traveller who - Imve this country ?-• Are thifto)* . always under thePmtecoion of thelritich (Mewl ment ?" Undoubtedly, wherever Oil countelPhad ha' Ambassador, British subjects ought to be protected against despotic power. Because the Vizier al COD' stantinople struck off the head of any per,* be pleased, or bosause he commanded women to be enckged in. 'them ci:stsfes; .:. 7 becanse ipcts of. this • 'Under the be recollectc It be endure, snent,., shMtl the •ezlitipg security :nod Saotime:and .ihe system Such was th those occasit the' officer o :61 em ber the - Prench' terril which he si that the B; ,assistance to 'which his I+] kutchinson) protected at calling on tl of one of the honour that Oliver Gron German Prii not prevail, tom! y Law must take ii dente to av Mr. C. 14 British &rave .tries by the the laying i the House vantage. .4 never accept dune fir a Ig teeing into a in Govern!! - The fact Wit! ' Bowing wr alcettatn wt by their roc fore the Fri meted with France. Ant at all that c then dischat in reality as petted perso whose lette evidence of Gentlenian i the Governr the pmceedi bellion of 11 fined in the ( guilty,epevirdso enns evidence it : 1 1 g, a l cause they w only clanger lightened rt then prote ct Noi, convey Bowring, w in the fi,llov - " Queen con • Conseil du Tri • ravention i l'i i ethes ou 'env ce Correction . .--This; he t which was much severs .bt the first inalefactor, geon, irm,se IVith respe cis secret, it than that u and he rea went could Criminal •C, terests of i bad Called present. gut existed in tl Mr. nowrir Gentleman, end to hav Anne im pre ittlet. It vr to say, dial and that • h • his country Mr: Secr be had beer seemed to I have been riever intern seemed, to i Mr. Briwrin tl tilt Gentle of guilt ha much reaso Lord A. production %were under proceeding, was then n On the mot Zilttea, to farch, Me Wrigh ordered to be *JOHN tesnlate the a Offices in she !nitre effective vikis pfand J On the rill ni ***return fi • , _ir.rinOts and imilmeted, ANS, togethe ; '4attiid pFrioo • 'fillatnation.ol • Neff .aiteresar Lbs:, • ; amen Nitii, MbP , '-fitt! 04ct -11rhai ~n' Ia 17198.M7 4 Land Tax, Iv detattas Debt