The Sun. — London, England, 1835-02-07 00:00:00

, PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Mr. O'Connell's declarations have thrown some additional light upon the secret springs of the Whig- Radical movement against Sir C. Manners Sutton. It is now pretty evident that whoever votes for Mr. Abercromby as Speaker, votes for Mr. O'Connell's nominee. This is worse than being a pensioner on the country, without any consideration of services ren dered to the public to justify the pension. The ac cepting office in a condemned Court, a short period before its abolition, and stepping from its sinecure dignity into the substantial comfort of a pension of 2,0001. per annum, may be reconcileable with Mr. Abercromby's notions of high-minded patriotic purity ; but we, who have always opposed all the unearned and unmerited grants upon the pension list, cannot regard this pension in any other light than one which, upon an honest revision of the system of public pensions, ought to be abolished. We shall probably enter more into the particulars at a future oppor tunity. It is at present our intention only to make a few observations upon the extraordinary circumstance of the ex-Steward of the Duke of Devonshire being nominated by Mr. O'Connell for the Speaker's chair. It will be recollected that we mentioned some time ago the name of Mr. Spring _Rice as having been put forward for this office by a portion of the Whigs. The Whig papers did not deny the correctness of the state ment at that time, but they deny it now. When we first mentioned the name of Mr. Rice, the present O'Connellite competitor for the chair with the late Speaker had not been put forward. Now we say that we set no value whatever on the contradictions given by the Whig-Radical Papers, to the statement of Mr. Rice having been a candidate for a time. We say he was put forward for the office by a portion of the Whigs, who had at first thought of Mr. Littleton for the Chair—but afterwards turned their eyes towards Mr. Rice, for whom a can vass was actually commenced. Why another change in the hero of the drama was made, and Mr. Aber cromby put into the part, remains to be explained. It was reported that Mr. O'Connel refused to support Mr. Rice, who had given him mortal offence by his speech on the question of the Repeal of the Union. Whether this be the truth or not, we do not know of our own knowledge ; but with regard to Mr. Aber cromby, the repeal agitator has left it no secret that he is animated with a most ardent zeal for his election. He has issued his commands to the " tail" on that subject, and declares that he shall, if possible, be in London on the 16th instant, to organise a plan of op position to Sir C. Manners Sutton. He says that " all minor differences should be sunk in their unani mity in the coming struggle." He says this in the same breath in which he states that there is " no cure for the evils of Ireland but repeal"—so that Mr. O'Connell evidently thinks the success of the Whig- Radicals in this struggle necessary towards the grand consummation—the dismemberment of the emplre.— Morning Herald. The arguments of party-men are naturally and al most invariably shaped so as to accommodate their sense of party-interests. That it is oftentimes a mis taken sense, matters very little. It may be a false light—but they have no other to guide them. In space or time they are incapable of looking beyond the cir cle in which " they have been used to act," or beyond the succeeding hour. There have been too distinct arid somewhat inconsistent charges brought against Sir Robert Peel and his friends, by the adversaries who preceded them in office. At first it was assumed that the Conservative Ministers could not by possibility hold the reins of Government, because the nation would never recognise the fitness for power of men who were enemies to reform. But when the Prime Minister declares the falsehood of the assumption that he meant to govern on anti-reform principles, or that he was, in fact, an enemy to reform in its true sense, they turn round upon the Right Ho nourable Baronet and exclaim, " Oh, then, it is a fortiori impossible that the nation should recognize your political fitness, because you are a Reformer." They argue that a man who changes his opinions in favour of reform can alter them from no other but selfish and dishonest motives. How, then, stands the case ? Sir Robert Peel objected to the Reform Bill, for this reason, among many others—that it would open the floodgates of democratic power so directly upon the measures of the Legislature and of the Crown, as to make it an extremely difficult task to carry on the Government. Sir Robert Peel would rather have had public opinion filtered through the strainers and colanders, provided by the borough system, and thus gently and gradually brought to hear upon the functionaries of the state, than let in at once the whole volume of popular feeling, and expose the bulwarks and frame of the Constitution to the chance of a severe concussion. We did not agree with Sir Robert Peel, nor did the country : but that avails not. The bill has passed. The position of the 'Minister who now accepts power is essentially different from that of the same Minister when he held office before the passing of the Reform Bill. He may retain his former sentiments, and regret that the old machinery of the Constitution has been replaced by any other ; but he must know that a return to the old mechanism, or any recourse to the principles on which it acted, is now altogether impracticable. He is in the circum stances of a veteran seamen, who resisted to the last the introduction of steam as a moving power into navi gation. But is there any seaman in his right senses, who, once on board a steam-ship, will refuse to fill his boilers, and to light his furnaces, leaving his vessel like a log upon the water, and whistling for a wind ? There is no use in bandying sophisms or hard names about this matter. The Reform Bill has abrogated the old clauses and conditions in the lease under which an English statesman holds his political farm, and has substituted fresh ones, by which he must henceforth abide. Is he to be abused for an inconsistent or knavish blockhead, because he fulfils the new engagements im posed by the landlord of the property ? Or, as the alter native, is a process of ejectment to be at once entered against him, before it is ascertained that he will violate his voluntary obligations, or fail to pay his rent ? It would assuredly be very convenient for the Whig- Radicals, if by the foul and opprobrious epithets of turn-coats, renegadoes, &c., which we have heard for some weeks past launched out against the Con servatives, the latter could be deterred from proceeding with any measures of reform, and induced rather to risk the universal hatred of their countrymen than to stand the gibes of a faction which seeks their ruin. If the Ministers will reform, and reform freely and manfully, they will satisfy the sound part of the nation, and may keep themselves in power for an age to come. But by this course they will probably not succeed in affording satisfaction to their rivals for office. Hence they cannot at one and the same moment obtain favour with the country and forgiveness from the Whigs. The choice is now fairly before them. In fact, the very publication of Sir Robert Peel's address to his constituents at Tamworth is of itself an homage to the principle of the Reform Bill, and, as has been well remarked by a writer in the Quarterly Review just published, is a sufficient earnest that lie feels bound by the new and increased authority of public opinion to throw himself upon it for support. At what former period of modern history did a Minister of the Crown ever dream of appealing directly to a con stituent body for their approbation and protection of his general policy, the details of which he by the same in strument expounded ?—Times. We are enabled to state, in the most positive man ner, that the most extraordinary exertions are at this moment making to secure the re-election of Sir Charles Manners Sutton as Speaker, by persons whose situa tion, and whose sex would equally, had they the least feeling of delicacy or sense of propriety, preclude them from interfering in such matters. If the courtly pro prietors of petticoats must needs indulge their propen sity for governing, let the sphere of their government ex tend no farther than their children and domestics ; or, in those instances where their husbands are so inclined, there can be no objection to their being included among the subjects of their sway. We would even go farther ; we are willing to acquiesce in their being " ladies of the ascendant " at Almack's, and other similar resorts of fashion and frivolity ; but we do not think that it can add to their attractions to interfere with the govern- ment of a great nation. It is an ungracious task to expose, and point the finger of indignation at the poli tical misdeeds of the sex ; but false delicacy must not in such a case stand in the way of a public duty. The interests involved are not those of a few individuals, or even of a party ; they are the interests of the nation, and of the deepest magnitude. The country has already suffered too often and too severely from " female in fluences behind the throne," to justify our silence when we hear of the zeal and activity with which certain " fair " canvassers are now ex erting themselves in behalf of Sir Charles Man ners Sutton. We grieve to be obliged to add, that they have succeeded to an extent for which we were not prepared. They have been successful in quarters in which we had thought success impos sible. Sir Francis Burdett, we regret to say, is, if we are rightly informed, one of the Re formers who have given in their adhesion to the Court party in the approaching struggle for a Speaker, and his example, we understand, is to be urged as a plea for a similar course by others who are Tories in their hearts, though Reformers in profession. But will the electors of Westminster submit to this conduct on the part of their repre sentative without remonstrance ? Will they de mand no explanation of the grounds on which the Right Honourable Baronet attempts to defend the course he intends to pursue ? And if those grounds are unsatisfactory, as they must of neces sity be, will they hesitate for a moment in publicly and in the strongest terms expressing their unqualified disapprobation of his conduct ? The electors of West minster have in this case a public duty to discharge ; let them not shrink from its prompt and fearless per formance. Sir Francis is the first decided Reformer who is reported to have signified his intention of be traying the confidence of his constituents, and compro mising the interests of the nation by voting for Sir Charles Manners Sutton ; and for the sake of deter ring others from following his example, it is right that the displeasure of his constituents should be pro claimed, not only loudly, but immediately. It is only by the electors throughout the country keeping a watchful eye on their representatives, and severely pu nishing every deviation from the path of duty, that we can have any security for their attending to our inte rests.—Morning Advertiser. It is with extreme reluctance that we refer to an article which appeared in the Times of yesterday, on the appointment of the Marquis of Londonderry as his Majesty's Ambassador to the Court of St. Peters burgh. We had begun to indulge the hope that we should have been spared the necessity of any contro versy with a Journal which, within the last month or two, has evidenced a disposition to uphold the cause of law, property, order, and religion in Great Britain, and to renounce at once and for ever the jacobinical principles and temper by which it had, unfortunately, distinguished itself upon so many occasions. The conversion of our Contemporary was to us a subject of unfeigned satisfaction. We rejoiced on the ac cession of the Times, supposing that thereby a valuable and powerful acquisition had been gained to what we believe to be the cause of public wel fare, tranquillity, and happiness. But it seems we were mistaken. The cause of order and good Government has made no such acquisition. Our contemporary is yet only half converted. He is willing to propitiate the favour of the intelligent classes of the British people by speaking generally the language of mo deration and good sense, but he must pay, nevertheless, an occasional tribute to the tap-rooms, with which hi therto he has been chiefly conversant. He will sup port the legal prerogatives of the Crown, with a special proviso that the King shall never appoint an Ambas sador from among the men whom the Times, in its days of Jacobinism, has thought fit to abuse. He will ren der justice to the Duke of Wellington upon condition that he may be permitted without rebuke to commit foul injustice upon the character of the Marquis of London derry. We know that we speak the unanimouse sense of the whole of the Conservotive body in Great Britain, when we say that they will be parties to no such igno minious condition. The reputation of the Marquis of Londonderry is of infinitely greater value to the cause of good government in this country than the advocacy of the Times. And we feel that we we should abandon our duty were we to remain silent when that reputation is assailed, without the least sha dow of reason, without the allegation even of a single derogatory act, and apparently for no other than the futile and impracticable purpose of maintaining in one single particular a show of that consistency which, so far as regards the general scope of principles the main current of transactions, has been frankly, resolutely, and, we are bound to add, most meritoriously, aban doned. The following are the terms in which the Times thought proper yesterday to speak of the appoint ment of the Marquis of Londonderry. We give the article at length, in order that the observations we shall append to it may not incur the suspicion of unfairness : " Lord Londonderry is, it appears, appointed in reality Ambassador to the Emperor Nicholas. When the rumour of this unfortunate nomination first reached us, we spoke of it, and in sober earnest, as a hoax—in other words, as a step so ill-judged and reprehensible on the part of the King's Ministers, that it could not be seriously meditated by any man to whom the history and political character of the Noble Marquis were camiliar. We stand by our first declaration. It is an appointment which the whole country will condemn. Nothing can reconcile the people of England to the employment of a functionary whose unfitness to repre sent the dignity and the civilization of England has been already demonstrated. If, moreover, the choice of a Plenipotentiary were to be determined by the con geniality of his political principles to those of the Court where he is to reside, instead of to those of the Government which sends him, the favour designed for the ex-Ambassador to Vienna might be more easily understood. As the case is, we cannot and will not defend or palliate this unbecoming mission. In what is here urged for the consideration of the King's Ministers, we — say not a word as to the personal -!haracter of Lord Londonderry, whom we have always been taught to look upon as in his family and among his intimates a most good-natured and kind-hearted person. That he will convey to the Court of Russia, with regard to politics, just what his old master the Duke of Wellington puts down for him, and under such a chief will not presume to utter an unauthorized syllable, we are confident enough. But ought a Bri tish Minister at such a Court, and with so many deli cate questions pending, and such mighty interests at stake—ought, We say, our Minister at St. Petersburgh to be an automaton ? He ought, on the contrary, to be all eye, all ear : the noble Marquis, like other Ambas sadors, must have feelers out, not, we hope, in all di rections, but in the right directions. Yet we should like to be informed (and might then have every dispo sition to allow for it) under what extreme emergency or embarrassment of party connexion it is, that such au employer was forced to encumber himself by the ser vices of such an agent. Better save the salary, and depute a Charge d'Affaires." In the above tirade there is clearly nothing that can convince, while there is much that must offend, every man of moderation or good sense. It is poured forth against a Nobleman who has heretofore been employed in the service of his country upon occasions of considerable delicacy and importance, and the propriety of whose official conduct (we challenge the contradiction of the Times if what we say be incorrect) has never in a single instance been impugned or questioned by any competent autho rity. The history and political' character of the Noble Marquis are familiar to the country. His history is that of a servant of the State, who upon various occa sions has been intrusted with arduous and important duties, and who in the discharge of those duties has never incurred the slightest censure or reproach. His political character is identified with those Conservative principles in relation to the institutions of Great Britain, and those just and honourable principles in relation to her foreign affairs, which form the highest and proudest distinction of that eminent body 0.1 1 Statesmen whom the King has recently called to Councils, and whom our contemporary deems not unwoi-+Jiy of his support. We venture to s a y, i n di rect contrauiti . L ; nn to the Times, that, so far from the whole country condemn , ing this appointment, there is no man in the country who will condemn it, with the exception of the very small number of individuals who make it a rule to fol low the Times, lead where it may, and turn as often as it will. We deny that the unfitness of the Marquis of Londonderry to represent the dignity and civilization of England has been already demonstrated, and insist that he is far more fit to represent either the one or the other (will the Times contradict us ?) than Lord Durham, whose mission to St. Petersburgh we recol lect the Times vehemently applauded. Here, indeed, we are quite safe from any contradiction on the part of the Times, for that journal admits in terms that the Marquis of Londonderry is a good-natured and kind-hearted person, and, by implication, there fore, that he is no employer of bludgeon-men when the press offends him, no systematic pro moter of litigious prosecutions against journalists for doing what they believe to be their duty. The friends of the Marquis of Londonderry may justly be offended by the comparison ; but we are replying to the Times; and to that journal it must be sufficient to say, that, as a Representative of the dignity and civilization of England, the Marquis of Londonderry is immeasurably the superior of Lord Durham. The Duke of Wel lington has always been distinguished for the accurate judgment and nice discrimination with which he selects, for employments of various kinds, men well qualified to fill them with honour to themselves and advan tage to the object they had in view. In this the Noble Duke has seldom been known to fail, and the splendid success of which his whole life has been little else than an uninterrupted career, is to be ascribed principally, it is generally thought, to his unparalleled skill in the selection of the requisite kind of co-operation for every purpose and occasion. The Times, over looking every other object for the sake of conveying insult to the Marquis of Londonderry, speaks of his " old master, the Duke of Wellington," forgetting, apparently, that this expression, rude and uncouth as it is, suggests an ample vindication of the appoint ment which the Times so virulently denounces. The Duke of Wellington, then, by the confession of the Times, cannot be unacquainted with the quali ties of the Ambassador whom he has appointed, any more than he can be ignorant of the duties which that appointment may be expected to involve. The question for the country therefore is, whether it is more likely that the Duke of Wellington has erred in this particular appointment, or that the Times, in denouncing it, has manifested, as is not very unusual with the Times, a certain degree of ignorance and presumption ? Our contemporary insists that the Ambassador to Russia should possess extraordinary qualifications. The Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs believes that the Marquis of London derry possesses all the qualifications that are neces sary. The Times wishes for a man who is to be all eye, all ear. The Noble Secretary imagines that two eyes and two ears may very well answer the purpose. The country will not hesitate to decide for itself which of the two opinions is the correctest one. We heartily wish that the linzes were all eye and all ear, or rather that it would use the eyes and the ears that it has to any good purpose. In this case it could not fail to be speedily recalled to the rational and moderate con duct which becomes a Conservative journal, by disco vering how much contempt and disgust its conduct upon the present occasion has excited.—Morn. Post. We cannot help admiring the dexterity of the To ries, in changing the mode of warfare with regard to the Speakership. Sir Charles Manners Sutton be longs to a family which has supplied sinecurists and incapables, for the consumption of the public money, for generations. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, not content with the enormous patronage at his dispo sal, provoked a very discreditable discussion in the House of Commons, shortly before his death, by an attempt to give, through a private Act, a valuable si necure of which he was not by law to dispose, except during his own life, to two sons, should it not fall in till after his death. In the Red-Book will be found the Registrar of the Faculty Office, J. H. T. Man ners Sutton, Esq., with his two Deputies, who discharge the duties, a sinecurist to an enor mous amount per annum, in whose favonr the law was so set aside. This was out of the ordinary way. But the regular spoil shared by this Arch bishop's family is enormous. Among seven of them are shared sixteen rectories, vicarages, and chapelries, besides preacherships and dignities in cathedrals. Of the eleven daughters of the Archbishop, one married the Rev. Hugh Percy, now Bishop of Carlisle, and she was portioned off with preferments to the value of 10,0001. per annum, four of which were given in one year. Another daughter married the Rev. James Croft, who became Archdeacon of Canterbury, Pre bendary of Canterbury, Curate of Hythe, Rector of Cliffe at Hone, and Rector of Saltwood, all pre ferments in the gift of the Archbishop. A sis ter of his Grace married a Rev. Richard Lock wood, and he was presented with the three vi carages of Kessington, Lowestoff, and Potter- Heigham. The Rev. T. M. Sutton and the Rev. Evelyn L. Sutton were made Chaplains of the House of Commons. Besides, these nephews have livings out of number. So much for the voracity of of the Sutton branch of the Mariners family. The Speaker was, to use a homely phrase, " born with a silver spoon in his mouth." He is a well-bred gentle man, who carried himself well, and knew how to spend a good income in an agreeable manner ; but without his family connections he could never have risen in the world. It truly becomes the partisans of Sir Charles Sutton to fasten on Mr. Abercromby's retiring pension of 2,0001. per annum. No person has ever questioned the ability or the integrity of Mr. Abercromby. Indeed, if he had lent himself to the dishonest pur poses of the Tories, and suffered an useless and ex pensive Court to be kept up, he would have been per fection itself in their eyes. It is most amusing to hear the Standard talk in this manner— Now, one word as to Mr. Abercromby and. his pension, upon which the Morning Chronicle has bestowed a long article to-day. We can afford to waive all consideration of the jobbing, and chicanery, and thimble-rigging,' by which the pension was obtained—and it was manifold, because we have in the pension itself 2,0001. a year earned by no more than two years of service, without any sacrifice whatever—a corpus delicti, quite sufficient to convict Mr. Abercromby of acting inconsistently with all the professions of his party—in other words, to convict him of the grossest political dishonesty, undor a pecuniary temptation. The question is not what hugger-mugger work may have preceded his grasping this 2,0001. a year, but what service has he rendered to the public, what avoidable personal sacrifice has he made for it ? When the Morning Chronicle shall answer this question, it will do something for Mr. Abercromby, but not till then." If there was any hugger-mugger work in this case, it was on the part of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, and not on that of Mr. Abereromby. When the Lord Advocate introduced his Bill for the regulation of the Scotch Courts, including the Ex chequer, into the House of Commons on the Ist of April, 1830, some time after Mr. Abercromby's ap pointment to the office of Chief Baron, he stated, after a long preamble respecting the antiquity of the Court, the necessity for its preservation agreeably to the Act of Union, &c., that— " It:was now proposed to abolish two more of the Puisne Ba rons, so as to reduce the Court to one Puisneßaron and the Chief Baron. He contended that the business of the department could not properly be confided to one individual, however competent ; and he thought it would be admitted that two were the smallest number of Judges that the Court ought to consist of. . . • . . He was prepared to expect that some Hon. Member would argue that the Court of Exchequer in Scotland might be entirely abolished ; he in sisted on the contrary ; Scotland was entitled to a Court of Exchequer in some shape or other, even if some grounds could be shown why it ought not to exist ; she had a just claim by the terms of the Act of Union, that her Court of Exchequer should not be wholly abolished. He made this assertion with confidence, and with some knowledge of the subject, having for eleven long years attended that Court, and argued every case there under discussion before the Lord Chief Baron, Si r S . • • _ Shepherd, that most learned and enlightened lawyer. He maintained, also, that to throw the business of the Exchequer into the Court of Session, would not only be most inexpedient but most unjust ; neither could it produce any saving of ex pense if that were the object, inasmuch as additional labour could not be thrown upon individuals without additional emolument." After so confident a statement by the Government organ for Scotland, who was backed by the regular Tory pack who so long reflected disgrace on that country, the English Members were unwilling to com mit themselves to a positive declaration that the Court . _ was useless. But Sir. Abercromby no sooner found that the Court was worse than useless, than he exerted himself . -pc),P the delusion respecting it ; and, to the great annoyance of the Scotch Tories, succeeded in obtaining an investigation berm 4 Committee of the 1-Touse of CommonS. It is false that the Act in troduced in April, 1830, and passed on the 23d July that year, contains any enactment for the abolition of the Court of .P‘che mier. It will be seen from the extract from the Lord Advocate's speech, that he con templated its perpetuity ; and nothing but the honest perseverance of Mr. Abercromby could have effected this good. For the whole of the " saving, as is well observed by the Courier— " The public are indebted to Mr. Abercromby, who might have pocketed his 4,000/. a-year, as Sir Samuel Shepherd did, living in London, and only proceeding to Edinburgh for two months in term-time. Sir Samuel Shepherd, at the pre sent moment, enjoys a far larger retiring salary, as Lord Chief Baron, than Mr. Abercromby. Even Mr. Hume, on the discussion on the Bill for abolishing the Court of Exchequer, and superannuating Mr. Abercromby at 2,0001. a-year, ad mitted that, ' although he went into the Committee prejudiced against the measure, he was now satisfied that it was a most desirable arrangement, and that there would be no difficulty in defending it.' " In answer to the demand of the Standard, what services has Mr. Abercromby rendered, and what sa crifices has he made for the 2,0001. per annum ? we ask in return, what services would he have rendered had he, instead of filling the office 27 months, pocketed his 4,0001. during his life ? Why does the Standard ap ply to Mr. Abercromby for the first time, a principle, that a Judge who is dismissed by the abolition of his Court, may be deprived of all compensation.? Is there an instance of even a sinecurist being deprived of his income on the abolition of the sinecure ? What would the Standard have said if the Whig Government had i nstant l y di sm i sse d t h e ten useless Bishops' in Ire , land, and even refused them compensation ? Even Mr. O'Connell, till last vacation, never proposed to deprive any of the sinecure Protestant Clergy of Ireland of their incomes. Mr. Abercromby abandoned the sources of his income in England fur his judicial office in Scot land ; and it would have been strange justice to turn him loose on the world without a.shilling, because he was too honest a man to connive at the continuance of an abuse by which he pocketed 4,0001. per annum. He has, however, always shown himself ready to ren der service to the public for his 2,0001. He received no additional income from being Master of the Mint ; and if the Reformers succeed in turning out the present hypocritical crew, he will again have an opportunity of serving the public for his 2,000/. The outcry against Mr. Abercromby reminds one of the fable of the ani mals during a plague, who, consulting as to what might be the cause of the celestial wrath, found out that the hare had, in a case of hunger, eaten something on a fast-day, on which it was deemed unworthy to live by the lion, the tiger, the wolf, and other beasts of prey, and accordingly the hare was sacrificed as a heinous sin n e r.—/Vio rn ing Chronicle. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1835. PRIVY COUNCIL. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yes terday in the Council Chamber. Two appeals from Bengal were put down for hearing, Sumboo Chunder Chowdree v. Mariani Dibeh, and Homo baee v. Punjeabhaee. In the former case Messrs. Miller and Wigram were heard for the appellants, and Mr. Sergeant Spankie and Mr. Lloyd replied for the respondents. Mr. Baron PARKE (on the part of their Lordships) gave judgment. By this appeal their Lordships were placed under the necessity of deciding a question of Hindoo law which had not been expressly decided. The suit was con menced in 1788, and the plaintiffs intervened as parties at a subsequent period. The Zillah Court decided that the appellants were entitled to one moiety of the property, but this decision was reversed by the Provincial Court on the ground that the intervention of the plaintiff was irregular, and that Court, therefore, rejected the claim of the appel lants. The appeal then came before the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, who also decided against the appellants. Complaint was now made that the parties had not been heard upon some questions of law and some questions of fact ; the questions of law had, however, been rightly de cided, but certainly the Court was irregular in deciding questions of fact in the absence of the appellants, which they ought to have had the right of contesting ; but if the judgment was rightly founded on the Hindoo law, their Lordships would not reverse the decree of the Court below, although the judgment was put on a wrong footing. The question was, could an adopted son succeed colla terally as well as lineally? From the answer of the pun dits, to whom reference had been made by the Courts in India for their opinions, an adopted son would succeed not only to his father, but also to his collateral successions. The appellants had been excluded from debating this ques tion in the Courts below, but had not produced any in stance against this opinion. The authority must therefore be taken, that an adopted son would succeed not only line ally but collaterally to his father. Their Lordships therefore affirmed the decree of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, but without costs. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. DINES V. WOODFORD, BART., AND ANOTHER. This was an action to recover from the defendants con tribution towards the repair of a bridge at Rickmansworth. The defendants were the trustees of the Thelluson pro perty in that neighbourhood, and the plaintiff was a gen tleman who had been obliged to repair the bridge, and who now came on the defendants for their share of the money expended. The case having been fully made out, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of 1501, being the sum claimed as their amount cf contribution. HOOK V. WHITEHEAD. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that this was an action to recover compensation in damages from the defendant for not having p ro p er l y exam i ne d t h e secur i t i es upon w hi c h the plaintiff was to be paid an annuity of 281. The plaintiff was a respectable tradesman, and the defendant a certifi cated conveyancer, who had carried on business in Burling ton-street ; and the negligence imputed was, that the de fendant had omitted to examine the registers of the county of Middlesex, in consequence of which the plaintiff lost all the benefit of the security for the money he had advanced. The Learned Counsel having stated the facts, called wit nesses. Sir J. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, contended that there was no consideration moving to the defendant from the plain tiff ; that the defendant was not the agent for the plaintiff, but for the other party, from whom alone he had received compensation for his trouble. Lord DENMAN summed up the case to the Jury, to whom he left the question whether the defendant had acted as the agent for the plaintiff ; and if so, whether he had conducted himself negligently in his employment ? The Jury, after a short consultatiou, returned a verdict For the plaintiff—Damages, 1501. ADMIRALTY COURT. THE MINSTREL BOY-BOTTOMRY. This case involved the validity of a bottomry bond given upon the Minstrel Boy at Leghorn, under rather peculiar circumstances. The validity of the bond was opposed on the part of the assignees of the owner of the vessel, who had be come bankrupt before the bond was given. The facts as stated in acts of Court were as follow : The Minstrel Boy was purchased by Mr. T. Anderson, of Liverpool, at the beginning of 1834, the firm of Messrs. Hyfield becoming responsible for part payment, and it was arranged that the vessel should be employed to trade be tween Leghorn and Liverpool, the firm before named having a partner residing at the former place. The vessel was freighted out, and sailed for Leghorn on the Bth of April, and arrived at her port of destination on the 4th of May. It was agreed that the freight earned by the vessel should pass through the bands of Messrs Hyfield, and be placed to their account in part payment of the advances made to the owner. The owner became bankrupt on the 6th July, and on the fact being known to Mr. S. Hyfield he refused to make further advances to the vessel, except upon the secu rity of a bottomry bond. To this the Master, Captain Toy, at first objected, but as by the laws of Tuscany the per sons making advances on vessels were empowered to stop the vessel and register her if their de mands were not satisfied, or security given, the bond was at length signed. Mr. S. Hyfield retained possession of the freight earned out, and gave an acknowledgment for the home freight by an insertion on the bill of lading that the freight had been paid for in gold at the true rate of ex change. The bottomry bond, which was for 150/., was objected to by the assignees of the owner, on the ground that the advances made by Mr. S. Hyfield at Leghorn were upon the credit of the owner ; that a sufficient sum in freight had been received by the agent at Leghorn to pro vide the vessel with supplies, &c ; and that Mr. S. Hyfield had not acted rightly in endorsing the bill of lading as stated. _ _ On behalf of the holders of the bond, the King's Advo cate contended that the vessel being in want of supplies of Leghorn, and the owner not having credit at the time it was given, the Court was bound to pronounce for it, espe cially as by the laws of Tuscany she could not have pro ceeded on her homeward voyage unless the bond was granted, Dr. Addams said be appeared for the assignees of the owner, and should with confidence submit that the bond was invalid. The vessel was sent to Leghorn for the mutual benefit of the owner, Messrs. Hyfield, Brothers, of Liver pool, and Mr. Samuel Hyfield, of Leghorn. Sir Jpipj NICHOLL asked whether there was any hypo thecation. of the ship up to the period when the owner be came bankrupt ?—Dr. Addams—Ceitainfy not. Sir JOHN NICHOL'. said if it WO wished 1w would take time to consider the case, but his own impression was that the bond could not be sustained. It was unquestionably a hard case for Messrs. Hyfield, Brothers, but they placed themselves in the difficulty. The firm had acted on the credit of the owner, and if they chose to do so they could not be relieved by the Court. There was nothing before the Court to induce it to pronounce for the bond, and he (Sir J. Nichol') felt bound to pronounce against it. As it was a case of hardship upon Hyfield, Brothers, he would not give costs on the present occasion. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. IN RE BENJAMIN E. POTE. In this matter Mr. Woodroffe, at the rising of the Court, applied for an attachment against the insolvent. He was discharged some time ago, and 501. a year was ordered to be set aside for his creditors out of 1601. which he derived from a situation which he held in the Post Office. The order expressed that the money was to be paid annually, and at the end of the first quarter the insolvent refused to pay it. A rule was obtained On him, but the Court said that as the order was drawn up for the money to be paid by the year, they would not alter it. When the year ex pired the insolvent refused to pay, and the present applica tion was to obtain an attachment against his person. The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER granted the motion. COURT OF REQUESTS. W.HITECHAPEL. Thomas Allen summoned Mrs. Anne West before tho Commissioners for a debt amounting to 31. 6s. 6d. The lady was not forthcoming, but was represented by a meagre melancholy votary of Terpsichore, who advanced with a conge that Silvain might have envied, and announced him self the son of the defendant. The CommrssioNEß inquired if he came to acknowledge or dispute the debt ? West had the honour of payinc , his devoirs for two pur poses—imprimis, to allow the dcbt was justly due, and, secondly, to assure them that it was as impossible it could be paid, as for the Siamese twins to dance dos a dos. COMMISSIONER—This cannot, of course, prevent us from doinc , our duty, which is, to give an order against your mother for the money. West—l can assure your Worships that I would pay the money myself most willingly, but that the age of grace has vanished. There's not a light fantastic toe in the Tower Hamlets, and Vestris herself would starve now a days east of St. Paul's ; the profession has been upon the chassez backwards these five years, and I question if there could be had a pair of pumps in the parish. _ _ _ The Commissioners sympathised with the plaintive hop merchant upon the decline of the fine arts, and were about so make an order against defendant, when it was arranged that her son should discharge the demand in equal monthly payments. West returned his acknowledgments with a salaam that spoke at least three quarto volumes of gratitude and then made a thoroughbred Italian Opera exit. James Kinnier, a bluff roundabout disciple of Galen, whose admirable case exhibited that he was not of the San grado school, at least as far as concerned his treatment of himself, summoned James Jennings for 1/. the amount of a medicine bill. Mrs. Jennings, for the defence, assured the Commission ers that one of the items in the account had been furnished when the patient for whom it was intended was at least half-way to Styx, if not already under the guardianship of the ferryman. Kinnier—l am certain she was not quite dead, and while there is life there is hope you know. The COMMISSIONER—There seems to be a great many half-crown charges in the account ; of what nature'are they? Kinnier—Oh, Sir, you have half the pharmacopeia there— pills, powders, and electuaries, plasters, blisters, emolients, and alteratives, and if those are not value for a sovereign, why lives are not worth the saving, that's all. The COMMISSIONER here made an order in favour of complainant, who retired to reduce defendant's monetary system by immediate bleeding. Mr. Brahanz Kish, a dapper dandy-like personage, ap peared to answer the complaint of Charles Phillips. Mr. Kish, who is a medical student, and exceedingly fond of small tea parties,, in his natural anxiety to do the amiable amongst his fair friends had ordered from the plaintiff, who is his father's tailor, various flare-up articles of apparel, which, as being beyond the pale of papa's ideas of toggery, were to be placed to the account of the young gentleman himself. Amongst these was a magnificent green velvet vest and various other • natty appurtenances especially cal culated to set off a blonde physiognomy and aquiline nose to the greatest advantage. After a sufficient period of credit had elapsed without relieving plaintiff from the cog. nomen of " a sufferer," papa was applied to, but proved ob durate, and the 'patter in consequence was placed under the surveillance of the Commissioners. Mr. Braham Kish pleaded hard the right of his sire to be accountable, as he was still an apprentice, but in vain ; the needle of Mr. Phillips could not be prevailed upon to tend towards the pole of compassion, and defendant was in con sequence directed to satisfy the bill. POLICE INTELLIGEN CE. BOW-STREET. Yesterday Mr. Wm. Purser, of No. 8, Margaret-street, Cavendish-square, the brother of Mr. Charles Purser, who applied for the protection of the police on Wednesday last against certain parties, whom he charged with having caused him to be confined in Warburton's mad-house, came before Mr. MALLARD, a county magistrate, who sat during the temporary absence of Sir F. ROE, and stated that he ap peared for the purpose of contradicting a statement made by his brother, that, in causing him to be placed under re straint, his family and friends were influenced by political motives. If such had been the case, he admitted that no thing could be more cruel or unjust ; but the fact was t hat, during the late elections, his brother exhibited a degree of excitement so strong and extraordinary, that even the friends of Mr. Wood urged the absolute necessity of causing him to be placed under immediate restraint, both for the sake of himself and others. Sir John Rennie, the gentle man in whose employment he had been, feeling strongly the necessity of such a step, wrote a letter t o Dr. Sutherland, who was on Mr. Wood's committee, and by his advice and that of other medical gentlemen who concurred in pro nouncing his brother as labouring under strong mental de lusion, his friends felt it necessary to resort to the melan choly duty of placing him in a lunatic asylum. Unfortu nately, however, he contrived to effect his escape. Mr. MALLARD—Where is he now? Mr. Purser--I understand he is locked up in Tothill-fields prison, in con sequence of a riot in which he was engaged with a medical student. Mr. MALLARD—What is your present object? Mr. Purser—l wish in the first instanc., to remove the stigma he cast upon his family by the statements which he made both at this office and the Mansion-house ; and which, in deed, are at variance with each other, for he stated here that he escaped from Mr. Warburton's Asylum by climb ing the walls in his slippers, at the imminent risk of his life.; and the story which he told the Lord Mayor was that Mr. Warburton ordered the doors to be opened for him. Sir F. ROE here entered the office, and Mr. Purser having repeated the substance of his statements, the Chief Magistrate told him that his brother would be liberated from Tothill-fields as soon as he found bail for the riot with which he was charged. As it appeared, however, that he experienced some difficulty in procuring persons to become his sureties, the probability was that he would be obliged to remain in confinement until the next Westminster Ses sions, when he would be discharged by proclamation, unless measures were taken to place him under further restraint, should the state of his mind warrant the adoption of that step.—Mr. Purser thanked the Magistrates and withdrew. MARLBORO UGH-STREET. Yesterday Sir John Burgoyne waited upon Mr. CONANT, the sitting magistrate, to make public the following attempt at imposition : About two years ago Lady Burgoyne was confined at their residence, in Park-street, a notice of which appeared in the public papers. Immediately after the announcement Sir John received a letter from Warwick, containing a statement of great distress, with the signature of William Fowler. No answer was returned to the writer, and then, close upon each other, upwards of a dozen more letters from the same individual were received, after which the correspo'ndence ceased. A few days ago a notice of Lady Burgoyne's accouchment appeared in some of the papers, and then a letter, of which a copy is below (which was word for word the same as the first letter received, two years ago, was sent to Upper Brook-street, where he (Sir John) at present resided : " Commercial-buildings, near Warwick, Feb. 4. " Honoured Sir—With the utmost deference, though with a heart almost broken, I take leave to address you, and hope, under existing circumstances, you will pardon the liberty taken. The motive of my taking this great liberty is owing to my distress, and most respectfully to implore your benevo lence. " The cause of my misfortunes in the first instance were owing to my building speculations in a brewery, in which my all is lost : would to God my troubles would end here. But, Sir, it is with the most poignant grief I inform you that my poor dear wife (who is a native of Bedfordshire) is very ill, brought on by a strain, which has caused an inflammation of the womb. Under these circumstances, Sir John, painful as the alternative is to me, I am compelled to adopt this course, for my poverty (with a family of three children) precludes her from those ordinary comforts she stands in need of. Previous to my misfortunes I was an Officer, and have been accustomed to every comfort, though now tasting of the bitter cup of misery. Since my misfortunes often have I wished it 444 pipoied God 1 had fallen when fighting the battl e s of my dountry, for lif e t o me o f late has had but ew all ments fallen as j am mod,. driv.: i, A to act so repugnant t to my feelings. As one of the county of Bedford, as one who' I doubt not can feel for the sufferings of others, I hope) actuated as I am by real distress, you will not refuse your mite to a truly unfortunate family, thus bowed to the grouna by misfortune and domestic affliction. I have an additional favour to ask, namely, that, for the sake of my poor wife, you will be pleased to honour me with your answer per r?turnf for I assure you upon my honour as a man I have but f.'s. 6c l . in the house. I shall proceed to inform you more particularly how my misfortunes originated. Prior to my building, I ern' ployed a person to give me an estimate of the probable el* pense, which, when complete, to my surprise, came within 1001. to double the estimate. Unfortunately I then got into the hands of the money-lending attorneys, and they have been my ruin. Resting my hopes in your goodness, which (however trifling) will ever be acknowledged with the most lively grail' tude, I remain, honoured Sir, in bitter grief, " Your truly-distressed servant, " W. FOWLER• " P. S.—lf convenient, please to procure a frank, on 11 6 ' count of my extreme poverty. I will send to the office o 0 Friday, in the full hope of your answer. Pardon, Oh I par' don, I pray l" Mr. CONANT remarked that the letter was well calor lated to deceive the benevolent, and it was proper the writer should be exposed, especially as he appeared to be a practised hand. Sir John Burgoyne said he had no doubt the person irt 4 in the habit of writing to numbers of individuals simile letters, for all which he had received were couched in the same style. He could not help admiring the cool effrontery of the writer, after sending double letter after double letter, to desire the answer to be sent in a frank. Mr. CONANT observed that postage would be ari object, as the writer's correspondence was, no doubt, very exteir sive. The course he should advise Sir John to adopt would be to go to the office of the Mendicity Society, and place the case in the hands of their officers. Sir John thanked the Magistrate, and promised to adopt the suggestion. Kitt) Byrne, a pugnacious production of the Sider Isle► was brought before Mr. DYER for having been found fight" ing in Berwick-street. The policeman said he heard a riot in Berwick-street , and on proceeding there, he found the defendant uncapPea' with an Infant tucked under one arm, in hostile collisl oo with at least half a dozen women. He removed her, aP i left all quiet, but in a few minutes he was again attracted to the spot, and then found the defendant brandishing a poke* and laying about her with vigour and effect. Mr. DYER—What do you mean by fighting in the streets ? Defendant (demurely) —I never lifted one hand► and that's the blessed truth. I wint to Peter-street to la for my daughter, whin me and my husband was bate hi above twinty people. They kilt me wid the proker stoned me husband to death *id paving stones. H e 's out' side, and can prove it. Mr. DYER—And you never offered to strike again? Defendant—No, yer Wertchip. I bad one child i n one hand, and a loaf of bread in the other, and as I 'diciPnt want to get a black eye, becase I was going out claming to a pi' tleman's house the next day, I put both lands over me face and called out. Ribbon the bonnet air the head of me, and teer all the hair all me and wekome ; but do n 't g i ve me black eye. Mr. DYER said he Was glad to see she had some desire to avoid such a disgraceful mark as a black eye, and dis` charged her on payment of the usual fee. QUEEN- S QUARE. One Thomas Spratbury was charged before Mr, BM BELL with making a disturbance and insulting the audience at the Surrey Theatre. Johnson, the constable of the theatre, stated that it beg frequently occurred within the last few months that a mote ber of young lads have intruded themselves into the theatre, behaving with the grossest impropriety to the audience'' On a previ ous n i g h t h e o b served the prisoner in the pit o f the theatre making use of gross language and throwhl orange-peel at two ladies, who were seated there. He took him into custody, and the ladies had come forward to giv e evidence against him. Miss Caroline Edwards, of White Hart-street, Ker nington, stated that she was at the Surrey Theatre, 3 , company with he r s i ster . T he prisoner was them, an d tong' every method o f th row i ng orange-peel, and making lig e of the most offensive language to insult both her and he r sister. Mr. BURRELL asked him the reason for such insolent conduct towards respectable females ? The prisoner, with an air of indifference, said that he really had no recollection' of what had passed. Johnson said that the prisoner was not in the least 7 0 ' toxicated at the time ; his recollection was quite perfect then. Mr. BURRELL ordered him to find sureties for his good behaviour for the future, and he was removed in custody. Richard Lewaski and Robert Tyler were charged be' fore Messrs. WHITE and BURRELL, with an assault up oo John Chant, the toll-collector of Hammersmith Sus Pee" sion-bridge. The proprietor of the tolls attended to prefer the charge' in consequence of a number of persons in the neighbour hood of Barnes having lately endeavoured to evade the par merit of the toll, by obstructing the collector in the pe r formance of his duty. John Chant, the collector, stated, that on the 26th of January, the defendants, with about eight or nine o ther young men, came across the bridge at the time he was rr ceiving toll from a carriage, and endeavoured to pass over without paying. Upon his following them, the prisoner Tyler struck him a violent blow on the head, and. Lewaeß, also cam e u p an d struc k hi m. Both prisoners had passe " over in the morning, and behaved in the most insulting manner, and it was the common practice Tor the Barnes people to throw the amount of the toll upon the pavement* telling him in the most opprobrious language to pick it up' Both defendants had passed the gate. Tyler, in his defence, said, that he had dropped the no' ney by accident on the pavement, and Lewaski ma de it similar defence. The MAGISTRATES considered the assault proved, 03 : fined them both in the penalty of 20s. each. The finer' were paid. COURT FOR THE RELIEF OF INSOI VENT DEBTORS. The Matters of the Petitions and Schedules of the Prison hereinafter named (the same having been filed in the Col in) are appointed to be heard at the Court-hoube, in Porte street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, on Monday, the 9th day v' February, 1835, at Nine o'clock in the Forenoon. Pearce, J. H., Bird's-place, Camberwell, statuary. Iddiols, J., Greek -street Soho, straw-hat-presser. Palmer, J., Oxford-street, tailor. Constable, J., St. Ives, butcher. Pearse, J., Wellington-terrace, Wellington-street, Blackfii at road, chemist. Walkington, R., Turner -street, Whitechapel-road, agent. Scrymgeour, J. M., New Inn-lane, Dorking, artist. Castell, W., Lamb's-b u ildi n g s , Bunhill- row , fi s h monger. Stark, J., St , Ann's-court, Dean-street, Soho, milkman. Hill, H. M., Collonade, New-road, Brighton, draper's shopman. , Myers, H., White-street, Cutler-street, Houndsditch, dealer in marine stores. Foster, Z., Newgate-street, City, shoe -maker. On Tuesday, Feb. 10.—Same Hour and Place. Weaver, G., Leg-alley, Hart-street, Covent-garden, fruiterer.. Wood, J., C as tl e - street, Holborn, fiann el-dealer. Dalby, S., Osmaston-road, Derby, journeyman miller. Coats, H. W., Notting-hill-terrace, Bayswater, surgeon. Willoughby, C., Tranquil-vale, Blackheath, no profession. - Johnson, J. T. Brick-lane, St. Luke's, engraver. Hounslow, E., ' King -street, Goswell-street, toy-dealer. Hudson, J., Gloucester-street, Brighton, officer in tf s e sheriff Court of Sussex. Vickery, G. Stamford Aru n d e l], S omersetshire, farrie Simmons, G., Windsor-street, Chertsey, painter. Hill, J., Malden, Surrey, blacksmith. Robinett, R., Mint-street, Southwark, printer. On Friday, Feb. 13..—Same Hour and Place. Bright, J., Cumberland -market, Regent's -park, I,,ak er . Kelly, T., King's Head-court, Shoreditch, labcrarer, BIR T HS. On the 4th i ns t., i n U pper Woburn-place, Mrs. J. Salkeld, o f • daughter. On the 6th inst., Grosvenor-place, the lady of T. W. Beaumon M.P., of a son. On the 6th inst., in Chesterfield-street, the wife of Franc ° Kemble, Esq., of a daughter. On the 4th inst., at Chalfont, Bucks, the lady of Charles t r . Gaskell, Esq., of a son. On the sth inst., Mrs. H. J. Blaksley, Clapham-road, of i_t_sl,3: MARRIED. • On the 3d inst., at All Souls', Langham_place, and afterward° i 4 the Bavarian Chapel, according to the rites of the Catholic Churc l3 ' the Baron Paul Louis Jules de Peyronnet, to Georgina France! second daughter of the lat e George Whitfield, Esq., of the , of St. Vincent and Grenada. On the sth inst., at Streatham Church, William Clark, Egg. , „E• Bahia, in Brazil, to Clarissa, eldest daughter of Mr. Westleys Park-place, North Brixton. On the 4th inst., C. L. Phillips, Esq. of Gould-square, t o Frances, only d aug h ter of Joseph Joseph, Esq., of the Paragon' Streatham. If On the 12th u lt., at P oplar-grove, Halifax, Nova Scotia, v• • . Jervis, Esq., Captain Royal Navy, of Canaan and Mount Ricket . ,..7 in the Island o f J ama i ca, to Susan Arabella, third daughter of '4' late John Starr, Esq., Member of the Provincial Parliament for th e County of King's. DIED. On the 6th inst., at Earl's-court, Brompton, the Hon. Geore argig _ Lady Ponsonby, w id ow of Major-General .the Hon. Sir Wain" — ft Ponsonby, K. C. B. On the sth inst., at Clare Hall, Herts, in her 90th year' Catherine, relict of the late James Sharp, Esq. On the 31st u lt., i n C ursitor-street, Chancery-lane, Mr. 'moo Henman, solicitor and notary, in his 34th year ; also his son, Th° Henman, on the 23d ult., aged 6. Lary On the 4th i ns t., i n Red Lion-street, Wapping, Lary Hannah, the infant daughter of Mr. Adr4hus Cutler. On the 4th inst., in D oddirrgion-grove Kennington, Groi n ! g NN ing, thi r d son o f t h e I . court Chapel, a y ."' te Mr. George Greig, Minister of Crowl' London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of 1 4° 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the ca n " of Middlesex. rilm --A__ 1 1 ° Agents tor Irelam T HE P. de p o , Notes, an, Also, a this useful As only plieati on sl F. de I Marshall. LIF " This i vithstanaii the author Pri nce, an , durin g the w aY."--Sa Edward Noll tTIS . ] ALAI th " This is In the ki ng An ins Yingelieal ii In 1 With a Lif The airtounta dtivtitt aril on of or tta onreceipt, 1 e-h alf p( o n Feb::e but PU il N.rso4:l::Vt Irish AtihNN tat R r Cav tion o tit°°_,ls, which w itaZ 4ri ng 24 3 li tta. & ,eifte stock 1 14 each, w eka backs --1 ay Chea du: ;r:eed silks, ). 107,, at 3s. takf'---Every R eels e ,' A ttx I tte et rra y and I (), the Premise t t V • lienry Iti 11, and ' , E mo qitt o, Cernpris, ttiN Water-ing! ' ` , l lell y - F cut , wine, " 1 and 3 to e k a "orttnent /kri et °l table Sel ' , fey of the u s , tlt "I des • ,rit‘ eripti 4 1 e , ts ig machine -.lt a la i; s v be vievieel lijgues had Oti! St • "at , ASS g% do4ee bri:l/ A neat Ro< A g~ht V aluab kte eludin g th wh i h, late one p ar e __ k A :ati i ,,,L, (=reek ; Duo tl6:lllities • t' 1 a lar e Di s. . raper 1 NRill;s Bavie's , is, lar " . ge pap etionnaire (rannth, and 1. 0 , 4 , l rto__ En t ° s cY ! q eo. 4 1/ o 'l 4 ge, 4 vols. 8 ) Bar d - D" A t N ; r uad s ~ t he" l.les , 12 IJah ral e , tr CI •"' 13: ta _st4re re ele ea, "tar v' Cook, V 0 Yages an A tt et4v ° 0 --- (F 4uvr 16 ~di - Constable,, evi e 2 4 (- 1 tVlhetia ; Gentle h 1 11) 11 , 4 0 : 1 " Sen n 411 1;o ' Till 1. Hulsean