The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The political interest of the country in the proceed ings of the Legislature will this week be transferred from the Commons to the Lords. We do not appre hend that the Irish Tithe Bill will meet with any fur ther opposition of a serious nature in the Lower House. The Tories, after the division on Friday morning, will not venture on any combined division, and Sir Robert Peel is unlikely to risk his personal station by opposing the third reading. We understand that the Irish Corporation Bill will be introduced in the Commons this evening. After the full discussion of the English Bill, we do not apprehend any great difficulty in the passing of the twin measure through the Commons. Its fate in the Upper House we will not at present predicate ; but we cannot believe, that, under all circumstances, the Peers will reject the Irish Bill, and thus render Ireland an implacable enemy to the Aristocracy, by denying to it the same measure of Municipal Reform which must be conceded to England. In the meanwhile a prelimi nary meeting was held, on Saturday, of the Tory Lords, at Apsley House, where nearly 100 of them assembled to interchange opinions on the subject of the forthcoming Bills. The Ministerial measure of Corporate Reform—their first consideration—was the principal matter of discussion. The more acute leaders of the Opposition are happily satisfied that they cannot safely take the Government, however anxious the fanatics and place-hunters may be to turn out a Liberal Administration. Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington know that they cannot honourably involve the King in the mad adventure of a second violent change of popular Ministers. If they attempt such a coup d'etat a second time, they must again resort to the revolu tionary expedient of another dissolution of Parliament. The effect of this, in further exasperating the people, they are at no loss to discern, and, moreover, they know that they could not by any extreme acts of bri bery, Election corruption, or a cry of " No Popery," obtain a House of Commons suitable to Toryism. In short, they have discovered that laying " violent hands" on the Government would infallibly destroy the Conservative party. The discerning Tories perceive that " a change of Ministry" effects nothing for their principles—that the rejection of liberal measures re produces reform in a more formidable shape every suc ceeding year, and that time only more and more exposes the decline of the power of the oligarchy who lately ruled the country, and who still vainly hope to regain their late influence. We therefore confidently anticipate a more peaceable and successful termination of the ses sion than was lately apprehended. Ministers have gained great confidence and deserved popularity in the country by the honesty and moderation of their mea sures. Those party men who, under present circum stances, would advise the Sovereign causelessly, by a wanton exercise of prerogative held only in trust for the people, to dismiss the Melbourne Cabinet, and to agitate the nation by another general election, con voked by Tory successors, we should designate as traitors and destructives. The Duke of Wellington, though a bigoted politician, is not a disloyal subject, and as an experienced general will not fight a_ battle with certain defeat before him. We have yet to learn that his Grace will prefer the extinction of the Irish Church by the rejection of the Tithe Bill to the admission of the principle of appropriation. On the Corporation Bill the Duke of Wellington opposed himself on Saturday to the Ultra Peers of his party, who, headed by the Duke of Newcastle—the Cory plixus of rotten Corporations—proposed at Apsley house the rejection of the Municipal Bill. We do not doubt that a considerable number of the Tory Peers, if not better advised, would willingly risk anything rather than pass the essentials of the Bill. Several Noble Orators at the meeting questioned the good sense of the Duke of Wellington, and urged the most violent course. The utmost compromise which reason could produce at this meeting was an un derstanding of the majority that they would not divide on the second reading. 'We doubt whe ther all the Corporation-mongers will observe the compact ; and we must wait the result of the discus sion on Tuesday before we can divine the intention of the Lords as to the main principles of the measure. In the meanwhile, it is our sincere hope that the Peers will take warning by the memorable lesson read them in 1832. Their real enemies ardently desire that they should reject the Corporate Bill ; and those who desire the downfall of the Church Establishment, devoutly pray that they may also refuse the Irish Tithe Bill. If the Peers, spiritual and temporal, are well advised, they will not run counter to the " spirit of the age," or place themselves in hopeless and dan gerous collision with the people. We are not essen tially an anti-aristocratic nation, but the Lords may very soon change the popular sentiment. If they wish to undermine their order, they will mutilate the Cor poration Bill.—Morning chronicle. The Bill for abolishing imprisonment for debt has at length passed through the Committee ; but we re gret that there are still serious grounds of apprehen sion that the Session will expire before it shall have passed into a law. Several Hon. Members, in the course of the discussion, seemed to think it impossible that it could go through all its stages this Session ; but if the Government will persevere only half as stre nuously with this measure, than which few can be of greater importance, as they S :91 disposed to do with the Irish Tithe Bill, there c:Annot be any difficulty whatever in its future progress.. An objection was made in the course of the discussion to the fourth clause of the Bill, which struck us as having much weight. It was said that nothing could he more un just than to call upon a defendant to find sureties for debt and costs within ten days after the commence ment of a suit, if the plaintiff could make out a prima facie case of debt on affidavit. It was said that a de fendant might have a perfectly good case, and yet be unable to get security for debt and costs, in which case judgment would be signed against him. At the first blush this would appear to be monstrous ; but, on re ferring to the whole clause, we find that an alternative is given to the defendant, of which he may much more easily avail himself. The object of the clause is clearly to prevent a debtor from putting his plaintiff to the expense of a trial, where he has no plea either in law or equity, to resist payment ; but still we doubt if the terms of the clause will not, as they at present stand, open up an evil which has not been at all contemplated by the framers of the Bill. The clause runs thus : " And be it enacted, that if the plaintiff, in any action for any debt, shall, after suit commenced in any Court, show by affidavit that the sum sought to be recovered in such action is due to him from the defendant and on what account, and that demand before action brought was made upon the defendant for the payment of the sum so due, such plaintiff shall, after service of process on the defendant, be entitled to a rule of the Court in which such suit is commenced, or order of the Judge of such Court, giving the defendant notice that final judgment will be signed against him for the sum sworn to be due, unless such defendant shall, within ten days after the ser vice of the rule or order, give security, to be approved by an officer of such Court, for the payment of the debt and costs, in case final judgment shall be given against him, or unless the defendant shall, within the said time, show sufficient cause on oath why final judgment should not be signed against him, and that such judgment shall not be so signed, unless the said defendant shall either give such security or show such suffi cient cuuse." There is some vagueness about the latter part of the clause. We cannot understand very distinctly what is meant by the words " unless the defendant shall within the said time shew sufficient cause on oath." There appear to us to be two objections to those words. Is it the defendant's own oath that is to be admissible, or is he to be compelled to produce the oaths of witnesses who may not be within his reach during the limited period of ten days ? We presume that the framers of the Bill mean that the defendant should be obliged either to give security for debt or costs, or to swear that he has a good defence, in order to avoid the other alternative of having judgment signed against him. In this we see nothing wrong ; but this is not what the clause implies. On the contrary it would appear as if he were bound to adduce all his proof of his non-liability, or have judgment signed against him. Neither is this all that it implies, for when we ask the stibn, Who is to decide as to the sufficiency of to cause shown ? a new light breaks in upon us, and / ,tie-find that in actions for simple contract debts the 4 whole machinery of trial by Jury is t o b e set asid e . that Juries are to be superseded by, we presume, a Judge at Chambers. This, we believe, cannot be the object of the framers of the Bill. They cannot mean that a Judge is to hare the power of declaring whe- • THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 27, 1835. ther or not a defendant in humble circumstances is to be at liberty to defend an action ; for it comes to that ; because a man must be known to be in rather com fortable circumstances before he can find people who will be his securities for debt and costs, for such surety is -very different from that of giving bail to the Sheriff, or justifying afterwards. If they should in tend such an unconstitutional enactment, we hope that those who have sounder notions of justice will succeed in causing an alteration of the clause. The alteration would be simple. The alternative might be stated in a few words : " Unless the defendant shall make oath that he has a good defence to the action on the merits." This would be giving to the plaintiff all that he has a right to require, and it would, at the same time, relieve the defendant from a condition, which as it stands in the clause, would amount to a denial of justice to all who might be unable to obtain sureties. An unprincipled plaintiff, and such are by no means uncommon, might reap a nice harvest from people he never saw, and who had never seen him, by the mere exercise of a little ingenuity in selecting his victims from a class who are sufficiently respectable to find dozens of friends who would be bail for their ap pearance, or in other words, for their integrity, but perhaps not a solitary individual who would be surety for their ability to pay not only the debt sued for, but an indefinite amount of costs.—Morning Herald. So far as the House of Commons is concerned, that proposition, which taken under all its present circum stances, and with all its incidents, must be regarded as a sentence of death to the Church of Ireland, has been established by a majority of votes—though a small one—in a house of almost 630 members. Cu rious, rather than respectable, are the inconsistencies of public assemblies, and little to be relied on the good faith of men who can take refuge in numbers from the risk of individual responsibility. When this self same clause for alienating from ecclesiastical purposes the surplus revenue of the Irish Church was moved by Mr. Ward in the session of 1834, it was resisted by Lord Althorp and the actual occupants of the Treasury Bench, on the ground that a Commission had been ap pointed to examine into the finances of that Church, and that until the Commissioners should have reported, it would be altogether unbecoming and improper to forestall the results of their inquiries, and thus, by affirming an abstract proposition, assume a fact which might be found to have no existence whatever, thus putting on record an unmeaning and useless vote. But what is the case at present ? The Commissioners have reported certainly, and if the former Whig Minis try and the former House of Commons were hound by common sense and justice to waive the assertion of a general proposition, because they were doubtful whether the fact which it pointed at could be entirely substantiated, how much more forcibly have they been called upon in the recent instance to exercise a similar forbearance, now that the knowledge which they waited for on the previous occasion has been received, and positive proof afforded that the vote for appropriating a surplus is a superfluous mock ery, the fact being matter of positive demonstration, that no surplus whatever is likely to exist, if not a considerable deficit ! We do not believe that an in congruity so glaring between the professions of certain persons and their actions was ever before visible in the proceedings of party. But the spirit of the negative put upon Sir R. Peel's motion is plain from the con text of the Bill itself. The resolution to create a sur plus by a system of Church plunder is not less appa rent than the injustice of diverting it when found. Gentlemen may sneer as they like at the arithmetical calculations of Sir R. Peel, for it is safest to sneer at what you cannot answer. Mr. S. Rice was in a piti able predicament while attempting to cavil at Sir R. Peel's exposition of the scheme disclosed by the Irish Church Bill for breaking down the very elements of a Church, by separating all unions of two or more pa rishes, even where the naked subsistence of a clergy man depends on their permanent consolidation, as in the case of Collon, where there exists but one Church for three parishes, and where the parish, with se veral hundred Protestants, produces no decent live lihood (251. per annum) for a clergyman ; so that, by separating from it the other parishes, each not containing more than fifty Protestants, but contributing between them the main subsistence of the clergyman, who officiated for all three, two bad conse quences necessarily follow-Ist, the congregations of the two parishes of the union which contain the smaller number of Protestant parishioners are robbed of all that spiritual ministration which was formerly supplied by the incumbent of the whole union. 2d. The cler gyman of the parish which contains the several hundred inhabitants, but no funds, has not a shilling to subsist upon ; the incomes of the other two segregated pa rishes, with less than fifty Protestants each, being turned over to the uses of Romish education. When the profuse provision for the Irish clergy is dwelt upon, let us look a little into facts. There are in Ireland 1,383 parish churches. If each of these, according to the bill, be supplied with a clergyman, the whole revenue of the ' church of Ireland taken together will not furnish an ave rage income of so much as 2201. per annum. If the pa rishes in Ireland with more than 50 Protestants be admi nistered each by a single clergyman, he will not on the average have so much as 1901. per annum. Yet these Whig gentlemen chuckle about a surplus ! A surplus out of what ? Do theymean that the Church of Ireland shall command the services of none but ignorant and uneducated blockheads—of men who have their lessons to learn before they can teach even the rudiments of religion to their flocks ? If so, the plan has some consistency in it. But when the same persons melt with sympathy at the humiliating condition of the Popish Clergy, are they aware, that taking minister for minister, the Romish Priests were considerably richer than the Protestant Clergy, even when the latter did receive their tithes ? Are they sensible of the affecting fact recorded by two Catholic Members of Parliament—Mr. Finn and Air. Perrin—that the salaries of Protestant Curates are so low as to have made many individuals of that unfortunate class of gentlemen objects of compassion to the Roman Ca tholic peasantry, and actual receivers of their bounty ? When, again, the Scottish Church is held up as a model of financial propriety and frugality, and an ex ample to be followed by that of England in both islands, probably the projectors of such an economical reform are not conversant with the subject of Scotch parochial incomes. They cannot know that there are in the Scottish Church incumbents who enjoy an income from their parishes of 1,0001. per annum. They cannot be apprized that in Edinburgh, for instance, there are 18 Clergymen with revenues of between 5001. and 6001. each, and in Glasgow and Greenock stipends still more liberal. But the truth is, that without referring to the authority of Messrs. O'Connell, Sheil, or Hume, the inevitable tendency of the new Church Bill is to trans fer the whole revenue of the Church of Ireland, pro gressively, and by a resistless process, from Protestant to Popish hands, to thin the Protestant population, to lower the intellectual and moral standard of the Pro testant Clergy, and to leave the Popish priesthood un disputed masters of the whole Irish mind.—Times. Though Poland, in her present desolation, is a foul blot on the foreign policy of England, yet English men will not—cannot cease to watch with surpassing solicitude the proceedings in regard to that brave, but unfortunate people, and cherish the hope of a happier and better future for their posterity. A newly issued number of Le Polon= contains some inte resting observations on the policy of Europe, the revo lution of Italy in 1831, and the question of intervention with regard to Spain. These are all written with more than ordinary ability. The first especially evinces, with some errors, a most eloquent energy of style, and a searching profundity of thought. After passing in rapid and striking review the present condi tion of the various States of Europe—of France ever unstable, fixed in nothing, evincing at one time an unhealthy langour, at another unrestrained rage ; to-day, the timid prudence of an old man ; to-morrow the puerile desire of novelty—of Spain, torn by a con flict between an uncle and his infant niece—of Por , tugal, in the hands of a child (for the thrones of Eu rope are almost all encumbered by infancy or age), hoping to find peace in the lassitude of discords, and liberty in the will of a few men—the setting, not the rising twilight of liberty, a vain and careless Ministry, and an ignorant and apathetic people,--of England af frighted at Ireland, and herself seeking to repair rather than to reconstruct institutions, inclosing the germs of their own destruction—of Switzerland and her fac tions, an aristocracy irritated at its own decrepitude, and a democracy unrestrained in the extravagance of its desires—of Prussia, seeking a more liberal regime —Germany, feeling the land trembling under her Diet, and the peasants of Holstein armed to assault her cities—Hungary champing the rein, and ready to rush, not from slavery to liberty, but from despotic mo narchy to feudal barbarism—Poland, enslaved by forty-five thousand bayonets, an object of universal sympathy—Russia, a compound of exotic elegance and barbarous indigence—a monster with two heads, one in Siberia, the other in Paris—Algiers, where civilization is incapable to excite esteem—Egypt, with a despot sowing the seeds of liberty—the low murmuring of war in Persia—lndia disturbed--even in China whole provinces in insurrection—movements in America, the cradle of liberty—the negroes of Jamaica ready to revolt—tumults in the Brazils — massacres in Peru and Mexico—all Spanish America forming a chain of volcanoes, vomiting torrents of flame, or smoking from half-extinguished eruptions, —the writer next observes, that though at other times terrible discords have agitatated nations, the commo tion was never so electric and profound as at present. Never were events more strange, accompanied by more wonderful changes. Six revolutions in eight months—kings without people, and people without kings - -private individuals the creditors and creators of kings—servants of old monarchies allied to the creatures of new to trample them under-foot—fa cilities of communication increasing in an incredible manner—wants multiplying with the means of gratify ing them, and impossible to foresee where the move ment will cease—can England, even if she wished, restrain this movement ?--England, whose Constitu tion does not prevent her being a mediatrix between discords and alliances—illusions and intelligence— liberty and absolutism—whose Constitution has not taught her to be just towards her Colonies, or humane towards Ireland, to take from the Clergy their corrupt ing riches—from the people their degrading ianorance; to spare her soldiers from the lash, or her workmen the still more appalling punishment of labour which does not afford them time for the cultivation of their minds, or attention to the first necessities of existence ? The confiscation and sequestration of the estates of the Polish refugees still continue with unflinching per secution. An ukase of the 21st of April directs that the unfortunate Polish soldiers and subalterns, whom a previous edict compelled to enter the Russian army, shall cease to form part of it after the lapse of fifteen years I However, all the Polish prisoners made dur ing the war of independence, the Polish battalion of miners of the fourth regiment of the line, and the ar tillery of the guard, are excepted from this humane provision, and on account of their extraordinary ex ertions to liberate their country, are doomed to twenty five years' service I ! But as life, swords, bravery, and vengeance are still left to them, it is to be hoped that their sabres may yet sleep tranquilly from their toil in the bosom of their tyrants.—Morning Adver tiser. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. MIDLAND ClRCUlT—NorrnvoirAm, Juz,r 24. :GEESON V. MARBOTT. This action was brought for the recovery of two sums of 501. each, due on two promissory notes. Mr. HILL stated the case. The action was brought to recover two sums of 501., due and owing to the plaintiff by the defendant on his promissory notes. The plaintiff is a shoemaker, living at Bingham, in this county ; the defen dant, a retired publican, residing in the same town. In ordinary cases it was usual to put in the notes, prove the handwriting, and there leave the case, bUt, on the present occasion, he (Mr. Hill) would state under what circum stances the two notes, for the recovery of which the pre sent action was brought, were given. The plaintiff, who is a married man, had for some time previous to this trans action entertained some suspicions as to his wife's fidelity ; the justice of these suspicions being confirmed by the fact of the plaintiff's calling home one evening and finding the defendant in such a situation with his (the plaintiff's) wife, so as to put any doubt which he previously might have entertained as to the truth of such suspicions to silence. In consequence of this discovery the defendant, as a sort of reparation or atonement, consented to give to the plain tiff two promissory notes, at three months, for 50/. each. He would prove these facts, and then they would give him a verdict. Samuel Thraves examined—ls the father of the wife of the plaintiff. Saw the notes in question signed by the de fendant. Cross.examined by Mr. BALGUY—Does not know when his daughter was married. They have continued to live together since this job, but not very pleasantly. She had two illegitimate children before her marriage, by different fathers, neither of them by Geeson. He took her with a family ready made. Witness was sent for between six and seven o'clock on the night in question to the house of Gee son, who was there, along with Mabbott. Geeson said, " I have a bad job here ; I have caught Mabbott with my wife." Mabbott said, " I hope you won't expose me," and agreed to give 100!. Geeson said he would not. Witness went for the stamps. Geeson filled up the body of the notes, which Mabbott signed, and Thraves witnessed, when they parted, defendant looking very pleasant. These were the facts proved in the case. The Learned Judge having summed up, the Jury, after some consultation, found for the plaintiff for 100/., the amount claimed on the bills. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—MORLEY V. BURROWS. This action was brought to recover compensation in da mages for a breach of the defendant's promise in not marry ing the plaintiff. The defendant denied the promise ; and secondly, alleged that, supposing he had promised, the plaintiff had absolved him from the performance of it. The damages were laid at 1,0001. The plaintiff, Miss Morley, and the defendant, are the children of respectable farmers, and are our own cousins. The defendant as early as 1822 (Miss Morley then being 25 years of age, the defendant 24) had been received as the declared suitor of his cousin. It was admitted that the plaintiff was of irreproachable character, and the attach ment of the parties to each other continued in all its fer vour up to June in last year, when it was suddenly put an end to by the defendant's marrying a Miss Oliver, the only probable cause of his doing so, as conjectured, was that lady being possessed of the sum of 1,200/. The Jury found a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. Damages 300/. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YoRK, JULY 25. FISHER V. BEAUMONT. Mr. Sergeant ATCHEREY said this was an action brought by Mr. Fisher, a solicitor of Doncaster, against the Provi dent Insurance Company to recover the sum of 2,0001., se cured upon the life of the Rev. Edward Frank of Newark, who died in 1834. The great question was whether Mr. Frank was in an unsound state of mind when these policies were effected, These insurances were effected in 1823. The Rev. Edward Frank was the son of the celebrated Bacon Frank, of Campsall, and was in possession of two livings. The Learned Counsel proceeded to state that Mr. Fisher laid before Mr. Shepherd, a medical gentleman, the queries sent by the Prevident Office, to be answered be fore the policies were filled, who observed to Mr. Fisher that there was no question which relates to insanity, on which Mr. Fisher observed, " That is their concern, not ours." About the time that the negotiation was going on, proposals were made to the Pelican Office to effect an insu rance there upon Mr. Frank's life, who having some sugges tion made as to the state of mind of Mr. Frank, they refused to effect the insurance unless at an increased premium, which Mr. Fisher consented to, and paid the advance of premium accordingly. In 1822 some proceedings were taken before the Chancellor with a view of taking out a commission of lunacy against Mr. Frank, with the view of taking from him the management of his affairs and restrain ing his person ; his Lordship at that time declined to issue a Commission, but in 1825 he: was declared a lunatic, and was found by the Jury to have been so from 1816. The Learned Counsel then referred to eccentricities in the moral conduct of Mr. Frank, and mentioned many instances of absurd conduct, which could only be the result of mental aberration. Mr. Frank also obtained a license to reside out of the limits of both his livings, on the ground of his being unwell, and incapable of discharging his clerical duties. On these grounds the Learned Counsel contended that the condition of the policy had not been complied with, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover upon it. The Jury, after a deliberation of about five mi nu t es , re turned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2,3161. RAILROAD FROM PARIS TO BELGIUM.--We are assured that M. Fred. Meeus, Governor of the (Old) Bank, intends to go very shortly to Paris, to treat with the French Government on the forming of a joint-stock company for making a new railroad to commence at Paris, and commu nicate by divers branches with the principal cities of Belgium, particularly Brussels. Hitherto there are only very rough esti mates of the sum that would be necessary for this great work, but there is reason to believe that it would be at least seventy or eighty millions. It seems that the Governor of the Bank has already submitted to the Minister of the Interior his preli minary notices on the making of this road, and that there is reason to believe that our Government will be glad if so im portant a plan shall be received in France as favourably as it deserves.—Brussels Paper. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. THE PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The VICE-CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Few minutes before five o'clock. CORPORATION REFORM BILL. Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition from New castle against the Corporation Reform Bill. Lord HATHERTON presented a petition in favour of the Bill from Walsal, and one from Stoke-upon-Trent to the same effect. Lord PRUDHOE presented a petition from the freemen of Durham and Newcastle•on-Tyne, against the Corporation Bill. Also one from Morpeth, to the same effect. Also one from the merchants of Tynemouth, against any change in the Timber Duties. The Bishop of ROCHESTER presented a petition from the Clergy of his diocese, praying for protection to the Church. CERTIORARI BILL. Lord BROUGHAM, on the Report on the above Bill being brought up, said he intended to postpone the third reading of the Bill until the sth of August, so that Lord Denman might be in his place, as he was very anxious to introduce some amendment. The Earl of FALMOUTH presented a petition from Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, complaining of the Report of the Corporation Commissioners, and praying to be heard by Counsel against the Corporation Reform Bill. The Earl of T ANKE RVIL LE presented a petition from the Corporation of Berwick-upon-Tweed, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Corporation Reform Bill. The Duke of BEAUFORT presented a petition from Bristol against the Corporation Reform Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the wrights of Newcastle-upon. Tyne against certain parts of the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. The Earl of HARE WOOD presented a petition from the Corporation of Doncaster against the Municipal Reform Bill, and praying to be heard by counsel at the bar. He complained that according to the Bill as it then stood, the Corporation of Doncaster would be swamped into that of another place. Viscount MELBOURNE presented several petitions in favor of the Bill from Brecon and other places. ABERDEEN UNIVERSITIES. The Earl of ABERDEEN said he had received many pe titions against the proposed junction of the two Universities in Aberdeen, which he would not now present, as he under stood the Hon. Gentleman who had the charge of the Bill did not mean to press it during the present Session.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted, however, that the Noble Viscount would not countenance the plan in a future Session. CORPORATION REFORM BILL. The Duke of NEWCASTLE doubted very much whether the House had a right to proceed with this Bill, as in his opinion, it very much interfered with the prerogatives of the Crown.—(Hear, her.) It was a question of very grave im portance, and he thought it would be his duty to move an address to the King, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to instruct and authorize the Attorney-General to bring in a Bill to give legality to the Commission, upon whose Report the Bill was founded. Lord BROUGHAM never heard of such a proposition. He was perfectly prepared to show that the CominisSion was strictly legal, and he assured the House it was appointed in strict conformity to precedents of more than a century. There was one appointed no later than 1830, when the Noble Duke (Wellington) was at the head of affairs, when his Noble and Learned Friend (Lyndhurst) was Chancellor, and which Com mission was countersigned by the now Lord Chief Baron, who was then Attorney-General ; and that commission was almost word for word to the one in question that Commission was upon the Irish Church.--(Hear.) The re.nedy now proposed was one of the most singular kind he had heard of in the course of his experience—it was one part of the Legislature calling upon the King to desire the representative of Edinburgh to bring in a Bill upon a par ticular subject. Such a course, he would say, bad never be fore been dreamed of. It was preposterous, and he was cer tain the House would not countenance it. The Duke of NE WC ASTLE said a few words in reply which were inaudible. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES. In answer to an observation from the Earl of CARBERRY, The Marquis of CLANRIC AR DE said that he should postpone the second reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages Bill till Thursday next. The Duke of NEWCASTLE begged to know if his Ma jesty's Government had sanctioned the establishment of a monastery of the Jesuits' order near Loughborough ? He begged also to know if any information had reached the Government relative to the riots that had taken place in Liverpool and other places on the 12th July last. Viscount MELBOURNE knew just as much about the riots to which the Noble Duke alluded as he did. He had seen a statement relative to them in the newspapers, and be was satisfied the authorities would take the steps necessary for their suppression and the punishment of the parties im plicated. With respect to the other subject, if the Noble Duke supposed that he (Lord Melbourne) sanctioned the es tablishment of any colleges or universities but those recognized by law, he very much misunderstood him. If the establishment to which the Noble Duke alluded was an evil, he (Lord Mel bourne) knew nothing of it, and could not prevent it. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMiIIONS. The SPEAK ER took the chair at four o'clock. Papers were presented from the Treasury and the India House. On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL the Ballochneg Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. OSWALD brought up the Report of the Glasgow Poor-rate Committee. Mr. SPIE R S presented a petition against any further grant to the Scotch Church. Petitions on the same subject were presented by Mr. SINCLAIR and Sir M. J. STEWART. Mr. TE NNE NT presented a petition ffrorn the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast, praying that no alteration might be made in the duties on timber. He warmly supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. BOLD ER 0 supported the petition, and presented one to the same effect. _ . Mr. JACKSON also supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. ROBIN SON presented a petition from certain of the Honourable East India Company's Maritime Officers excluded from compensation under the late Act of Parliament. Shortly after the House met this Session he had presented two petitions on this subject, and in c onsequence of them a Committee was appointed. That Committee was most fairly constituted—it had the advantage of the assistance of persons who were competent to decide upon the subject. They went into a long examination of the evi dence upon this very singular case, and the Report of that Committee, to which he begged the particular attention of the House, was as follows. The Report was founded upon three Resolutions come to by the Committee, the first of which was to the effect that it appeared, that under the provisions of the Act of the 3d and 4th of William IV., c. 85. The East India Company were empowered to grant compensation to those officers whose interests were affected by the discontinuance of the trade ; that this grant was re stricted to officers who had been five years in the service ; and, thirdly, and this was the important part of the Report to which he called attention, and which justified him in asking why the Board of Control, had, notwithstanding the Report, continued to refuse to accede to the claims of those offi cers, and to do them that justice to which they were en titled. The third resolution stated that a strict adherence to this rule would appear to exclude from compensation the case of officers who were fairly entitled, and they therefore recom mended to the Court of Directors to consider the case of those officers who had been hitherto excluded, and whose interests were nevertheless affected by the discontinuance of the trade. He had never contended that the Company were not the proper persons to consider the case of these officers, and he should be sorry to see any necessity for taking the case out of 'their hands. But an arrangement had been made to which that House had been a party, and which provided for those officers whose interests were affected, he, therefore, thought that the House had a right to complain of the East India Company, after making an arrangement, giving ten and a half per cent. for forty years, and the repayment of the capital. This was a most advantageous arrangement, and the Company ought to adhere to the letter and the spirit of it. ( Hear, hear, hear.) What had the Company done ? In order to save the trouble of investigating the great body of the cases they made a general rule, by which they drew a line, by which no officer who had got his official appointment on the 28th of August, 1828, or subse quently, could become entitled to compensation.—( Hear.) He would ask what had the Act of Parliament to do with the year 1828? The Company had drawn an arbitrary line, by which an officer who had been appointed on the 29th of Au gust would be deprived of compensation to which the officer who had been appointed two days before would be entitled. It was because the special case had been in all instan ces excluded that he had brought forward the claim of these officers. When they applied for compensation, the invariable answer was, You don't come within the rule, and therefore we exclude you. He put the claim of these gen tlemen on the broad principle of justice; either they had a claim under the provisions of the Act, or they had not. If they had no claim, he would abandon their case, but if they had he would not consent to their being put upon a charitable fund, subject to the contingency of other officers dying off. He contended, that when the Act relative to the East India Colonies passed, it was always contemplated that these officers should have compensation. Every other officer connected with the Company had received full and am ple remuneration, and it was unaccountable to him that these officers in particular had been excluded.—( Hear, hear.) They had the Act of Parliament before them, which would convince the House that the Company considered these officers entitled to compensation. Next, they found these officers ex cluded by the rigid application of the rule drawn by the Company.—( Hear, hear.) The Report of the Com mittee of the House of Com mons , an d th e ev id e nce of Lord Gl en elg was in their favour, and with this having gone to the Company, the petitioners received the same answer. It was n othing that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite said that he did not agree with the East India Company in the policy of this exclusion. He (Mr. R.) asked the House, in the name of justice, whether these petitioners were not justified in coming again before the House." He would, for the pre sent, merely lay the petition on the table ; but if the answer of the Right Honourable Gentleman was not satisfactory, he should certainly feel it his duty, on some future occa sion, to bring forward a specific motion, and he would not abandon the case until he saw justice done them.—( Hear, hear.) He should certainly rather hear from the Right Hon. Gentleman that justice had not been done them, and that their cases would be reconsidered. It was too bard that those officers whose exertions had been the means of filling the coffers of the Company, should be refused compensation because they had quitted the service of the Hon. Company, previous to 1828, although they had been always anxious to return to it. He begged to apologize for having trespassed so long on the House, and he hoped he had said enough to convince the House that these petitioners had strong claims upon the Company for compensation for the services performed by them. The petition having been brought up, Sir J. C. HOB HOUSE objected to the petition being re ceived, on the ground that it prayed for a grant of money, and was therefore informal. The SPEAK ER said if such was the case it could not be received. Mr. ROBINSON—The petitioners merely prayed the House would assist them in obtaining compensation from the East India Company. After a few observations from Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE, Mr. ROBINSON withdrew the petition. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented several petitions from parishes in Kilkenny and Cork against the Bill now in progress through that House, relative to the Irish Church ; also, a petition from Sir William Harty formerly representative of the City of Dublin, to the same effect. Also a petition from a Protestant clergyman of the island of Achil, on the coast of Mayo, complaining of the persecution practised by the Roman Catholic clergymen against the children attending petitioners' schools. Lord COLE presented a petition from the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of Fermanagh, against the Irish Church Bill. Sir M. S. STEWART presented a petition from Renfrew, against the Ten Hours' Factory Bill. Mr. CAMPBELL presented a petition from a Society resident in London for the propagation of Christian Knowledge, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, relative to the con templated arrangement of the Scottish Colleges. Mr. M'KINNON supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. SINCLAIR also supported the petition. ECCLESIASTICAL REGISTRATION. Mr. W. DUN C OMBE presented a petition from a parish in Yorkshire against the Ecclesiastical Registration Bill, and asked the Attorney-General whether it was his intention to proceed with it at this advanced period of the session. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was sure that this Bill would be supported by both sides of the House, and therefore it was not likely to extend the duration of the session. He should bring it forward at the very first oppor tunity.—( Hear. ) Mr. HE ATHC OTE supported the petition. Colonel SIBTHORP did not conceive the Bill would meet with that general support which the Attorney-General seemed to anticipate, and in support of his opinion he reminded the House that there had been 166 petitions, to which there were 10,257 signatures appended, presented against the Bill. Mr. C. FERGUS SON advocated the measure, observing that be thought it was shown to be necessary by the gross abuses that had been proved to exist in the Ecclesiastical Court. Mr. WILK S trusted that the Attorney-General would not attempt to press the Bill forward during the present Session. l{ hoped however that it would be printed, in order that the country might have an opportunity of deliberately considering the subject. He wished that more important corrections had been attempted by the House. Mr. PEASE observed that the measure had been received, in some parts of the country, with great alarm. He did not like the principle that nothing could be well done, that was not done in London.--(Cheers.) Mr. LOWTHER trusted the Attorney-General would withdraw the measure for the present Session, in order to give the country time to consider the subject. Mr. SC ARL ETT thought the Bill should be withdrawn • for the present Session. The Petitions were then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. HODGES presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Kent, complaining of distress and praying the House for an alteration in the law with respect to Tithes. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Lewisham praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax. IRISH CHURCH. Mr. LEFR 0 Y presented petitions from Dublin and other places in Ireland in favour of the Irish Church. He would take that opportunity of correcting a statement which had been made in the course of the debate on the question of the Irish Church, by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. That Noble Lord had said that in the parish of Kilgarrick there were two clergymen, and that those two had dwindled into one man, whose only duty con sisted in the collection of tithe. Now the Rev. G. Townsend was certainly a prebendary, and was also rector of this parish, but he was a most excellent clergyman, was always re sident, and provided for two curates, so that the spiritual duties were performed by three clergyman instead of one. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from a Mr. William Bruce, complaining of the injuries he had suffered from the incursions of the Caffres in Africa. He also gave notice, on the part of the Honourable Member for Middlesex, that on Tuesday, the 28th instant, he would move that the House carry into effect the resolution of the Committee for distributing Parliamentary papers. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. FRE SHFIE LD said, that as the evidence in the Ips wich case had not yet been delivered, and as he supposed, from the two adjournments that had taken place, that the House would not discharge the prisoners until they had heard the evidence, he thought it useless to bring forward the case this evening. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN and Mr. WYNN, the case as we understood, was postponed. WOLVERHAMPTON AFFRAY. Mr. THORNLEY complained of the great delay that had taker► place in the printing and distributing of this evidence. IPSWICH ELECTION. • Mr. NICHOL asked whether the Hon. Member for Ipswich intended to present the petition which - he under stood had been placed in his care complaini-g of the con duct of the Committee in passing certain resolutions. Mr. RIGBY WA SON replied, that he thought it would have been nothing but fair for the Hon. Gentleman to have given him notice of this question: The petition re lated, he understood, to certain resolutions which were brought down to the Committee ready cut and dried, and which were of a nature to stifle all inquiry.—( Cries of " Order," during which the Hon. Member sat down.) Mr. GOULBURN spoke to order. Mr. R. WA SON said it appeared to him that the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen on the other side seemed disposed to listen to but one side of the question. It would be impossible for him give his answer without his reasons. Mr. WYNN said the question was—Whether the intention of the Hon. Member was to present a petition, accusing the Committee of some improper course ? Mr. NICHOL would put it to the House whether a body appointed to carry on an investigation should have this threat held over it. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had re ceived a petition to present which he had not yet done, and was it to be held over- the heads of the Committee in terrorem. —( Hear. ) Mr. R. WA SON said it was impossible to give his answer, if the Hon. Member would not hear his reasons. The conversation then dropped. DISTRESS IN IRELAND. Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move an Address to his Majesty, praying him to take the distress in the county of Mayo into his gracious consideration.—(Hear, hear.) He had also a letter signed by the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, in which he stated that the Government were disposed to do all they could, but that they did not possess sufficient funds to provide for the distress of large a population. He would now refer to the proceedings that had been adopted in former cases of distress. In 1822, when Sir Robert Peel was Secretary of State for the Home Department, he came to Parliament, and it placed at the dis posal of the Crown 250,0001. to be applied for the relief or distressed persons. In 1831, 50,000/. was raised for a similar pur poses. The distress was of such a nature that it would in crease progressively. The present condition of the people did not result from any imprudence, it was chiefly attributable to the absentee system.—( Hear. ) Another cause of the distresses of Ireland was, that the land lotds dispossessed the unfortunate tenants, because they did not send their children to the schools that the landlords wished. And this had taken place in the North, as well as the South.—( Hear.) Another cause was, that the rent was too high. It might be asked why did the people take land at a rent which they were not able to pay ? He would tell them. The tenant was not a free agent; he had nothing whatever between him and starvation but the bit of land.—(Hear, hear.) He made an appeal to their justice—he only demanded that they should restore to the people what was properly their own. Every man who drew a revenue from the country was bound to contribute to the employment and relief of the people. (Hear, hear, hear.) They wanted practical measures of relief. Would it be said that the House had not time to legislate for Ireland ? He trusted that such an imputation upon its justice would not go forth to the public. The Hon. Member con cluded by moving, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to take the distress existing in the county of Mayo, into his gra cious consideration. On the motion being put — Lord MORPETH did not deny the question having been put that the distress alluded to existed in various parts of Ireland. He believed the Government bad done every thing in its power to alleviate it, by sending persons to in vestigate that distress, and to superintend the landing of the cargoes of provisions forwarded to these districts. He feared that he must corroborate the statement of the Hon. Member relative to the apathy of the landlords.—(Hear.) If the House chose to make any grant to meet the present dis tress, he (Lord Morpeth) would not object to it. Mr. J. GRATTAN rose, and was left speaking. LUCIFER MATCHES.—The Magistrates of Bre men have issued a very rigorous prohibition of the newly-in vented Lucifer matches, on account of the danger of fire which they may occasion by spontaneous combustion. On Monday afternoon the neighbourhood of Spalding was visted, for about twenty minutes, by a storm of thunder and lightning. During the time this storm lasted (between three and four o'clock, p. m.), a son of Mr. Brown, of Rig bolt, in the parish of Gosberton, was ploughing in that part of Pinchbeck parish, called Spalding Fen, when the horses and plough were struck by the lightning. The horses were killed instanter, and the plough shivered to pieces. The young man was thrown down, stunned and stupefied, but not materially hurt. He fell backwards, to which circumstance, it is sup posed, he owes his life, and that had he fallen forward on the plough, he would have been killed.—Boston herald. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOW:E. A big fellow, of a most terrific appearance, was charge 'a with having beaten and kicked another man , who h ad bee, so much hurt as to be unable to make his appearance for ' some days. The complainant, on being called to give evidence, limped up to the table and said—" Please your Lordship, I aint got no charge against the man ; I aint hurt a bit." The LORD MAYOR, however, would not allow the mat ter to be made up in this way ; and ordered the complain ant to give him an account of all the p,articulars. It appeared from the man's statement, that some day' ago he had seen the defendant knock dowry his wife. Tb .e complainant interfered, and in return for hist friendship w as kicked and ill-treated by the defendant, wh o bit a pi ace from the inside of his thigh. The parties aft%erwards m a de ; it up " over a glass of gin." A policeman stated that the defendant had i bleu several times before committed on similar charges, an d was known to be a great ruffian. The Loan MAYOR committed him till he should find bail. QUEEN- S Q CARE. A man named James Bier was charged with causing an obstruction at the Marsh-gate, Liimbeth , and refusing to go on, although the Royal cortege from Wor thvich was about to pass through the gate at the th.ne. :'fie also as saulted the police. He was fined 205., and in default imprisoned -one month. T 0 WN-HALL. Henry C. Mason, owner and driver of th le ca .b 454, was charged as follows :—On Tuesday week the defe.ndant was observed driving at a furious rate near the S urrey Theatre, and goading his horse on to further speed, at. a tune when an elderly couple, named Turner, were cros sing the road, both of whom were knocked down. The old gentleman was so seriously injured that he died in a. few days, and Mrs. Turner still remains in a precarious state. The prisoner said the occurrence was quite accidental but he was ordered to be detained in custody till the .result of the Coroner's inquest is known. UNION-HALL. Richard Mandeville was charged with dry ?ssing himself in women's clothes, and assaulting several respectable females in the street, by insisting upon walking with them, and, on their refusing, pinching their arms. The defendant said he had taken tea with' a party of ladies, who prevailed upon him to adopt part of their' clothes, and then insisted upon his going into the street, where he got into a scrape. He was fined 10s. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. ADVICES, ARRIVALS, AND DEPARTURES AT THE SCOTCH WHARFS, JULY 26. HOARE'S WHARF.—No advices. Arrival : the Poterh cad Shipping Company's smack Margaret, William Begrie master, from Peterhead, with a general cargo. Departure : the Fraserburgh Shipping Company's smack Craig Ela hbies Andrew James master, for Fraserburgb, with a general c WV* DowNE's WHARF.—No advices or arrivals. Depar, tore the Dundee, Perth, and London Shipping Company's s sack Sovereign, William Simmers master, for Dundee, with g vods and passengers. CARRON WHARF.—No advices or arrivals. Departure the. Carron Shipping Company's smack Proserpihe, Richard \ Veb ster master, for Carron, with a general cargo. MILLER'S WHARF.—Advice : the Leith and Edinb' argb Shipping Company's smack Superb, Mein Anderson me iter, sailed from Leith the'2lst instant for this Wharf. No arrivals. Departures : the Leith and Edinburgh Shipping Company's smack Earl of Hopetoun, David Miller mast`er, for Leith; and the Aberdeen and London Shipping Company's :smack Superior, John Leslie master, for Aberdeen, both with g e neral cargoes. ABERDEEN STEAM-WHARF.—Departgre : the steran-shig Duke of Wellington, John Walker commander, for Aberdeea• with goods and passengers. LEITH AND GLASGOW WHARF.—NO advices. A.-rival and departure : the London, Leith, Edinburgh, and Glasgovi Shipping Company's steam-ship Royal Adelaide, William Allen commander, from Leith, at twelve o'clock on Pridai night, with goods and passengers, and she sailed age du las t night with goods and passengers. LEITH AND BERWICK WHARF.—Advises : the Lond on and Leith Old Shipping Company's smack the Earl of W ernyssi Alexander Brown, master, sailed from Leith the 21st inst,. and the same Company's smack Walter Scott, William Dick; master, arrived at Leith the 22d inst. Arrival : the Bo.rwici c Shipping Company's smack Commerce, William Crow, limiter, from Berwick, with goods and passengers. Departure : th e London and Leith Old Shipping Company's smack ()seam Henry Johnson, master, for Leith, with a general cargo. , DUNDEE AND ST. ANDREW'S WHARFS.--DepartUre schooner Earl Grey, James M'Lean, master, for Invartuest i, with a general cargo and several passengers. LEITH STEAM-SHIP FROM BtacxwaLt.-..-Departure :6 6 steam-ship Soho, Richard Fraser, commandier, for Leith, W' goods and passengers. VESSELS ENTERED INWARDS AT THE C TOM-HOUSE, JULY 25. 111, Lc Berger, Vancarterem, from Bruges; ; Lion Richards, Petersburg; Elivia, Fuzey, Danzig . and Elsinore; Bertha, Schmidtz, from Konigsberg; Frances, Masey, fin; stadt; Centurian, Heppenstall, Miramichi ; Resolution, Air thonism, Aalborg; Grace, Gall, Lyra; Hoop, Kall, Amster: dam; Bertha, Valtz, Memel ; Lousia, Li nctenberg, Gee° , Bramley, Brown, Stettin. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING, JULY 2 5 ' Tourist, Ling, for Antwerp; Betsey, llosenla, Nantes; Hope, Boxer, Rotterdam; Eliza, Harris, Mauritius; Done: rara Planter, Willis, Demerara ; Glory, Gay ner, Hamburg' Courier, Lexon, Cape of Good Hope; Bellast, Middleton, Calais ; Cater, Whitnall, Dunkirk ; Impe rial, Spence; Elsinore and Petersburg ; Eliza Moore, Monro , Elsinore an Petersburg. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO, JULY 2 6 : Belfast, Middleton, for Calais; Cater, Wit nall, Dunkirk! Tourist, Ling-, Antwerp ; Batavier, Dunlo,a, Rotterdam! Brocklebank, Middleton, Boulogne; Unicorn, Brier, Rouen' Crosby, Pace, Hamburg; Eagle, Paterson, and Mauritius! Window, Running, Charente; Union, De J onge, Ostend' Albion, Clark, Constantinople and Odessa.; Commerce' Fournier, Calais; Harriet, Page, Ostend; Gratitude, Todd' New York. CLEARED OUTWARDS IN BALLAST, JULY Egyptian, Henry, for Quebec; Fanny, Veale, Quebec; °`" James, Boyd, Constantinople and Odessa. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. Bombay, Lawson, from the South Seas, 19th ul't., lat. 404 long. 32. Isabella, of Sunderland, 12th inst., la;.t. 42., long' 17. Phillis, Wallace, Liverpool to Valparaiso, 15th inst,, la 45., long. 12. Sir Walkin, Aman, Liverpool to Ba . y Chalcart 16th inst., lat. 50., long. 15. Sunderland, Johnson , Aranda b to Lack Bay, Isle of Sky, 7th inst., bound to the hie of Mau' Mary Catharine, Liverpool to Charleston, Ist inst.. Justain' of Newcastle, Demerara for St. Andrew's, 27th ult., Put. 43.27.1 long. 67. W., by the Ebenezer, arrived at Bideforcii. Honor; Cardiff to Smyrna, 14th inst., by the Caroline, Greig, arrive a in the River. Malcolm, bound to the northward, 15th ult., lat. 11., long. 28. Enfield, Valparaiso to Liverpool, 4th inst'' lat. 14., long. 44., long. 30., by the Renown, arrived in the Cl}de. Ann Louisa, of Sunderland, 24th ult., lat. 48., 10 „1 55., by the Ann Grant, arrived in the Clyde. Diadem , N": ton, from Trinidad, lat. 47., long. 36., by the Fairy QUO"' arrived in the Clyde. : ---- .......a-, (ADVERTISEAIENT. ) a POWERFUL MUSICAL BOXES, in Wol cases, 12 inches long, by 5 inches wide, each playing Four Ai„,'; with the music finished in a very superior manner, are offere d ; Five Guineas each. Also a few of the same description, with Airs, price Seven Guineas each, at T. Cox SAN ouy's, Worldi'v Silversmith, Goldsmith, and Watchmaker, 47, Cornhill, N. B. The small musical boxes, 3i inches long, continue 0 111 7 in tin cases, price 19s. each, or in composition shell cases, lit each. ..' BIRTHS. On the 25th inst., the lady of the Right Hon. Sir Stratf o4 Canning, of a daughter. On the 23d inst., at Brompton, the wife of the Rev. Wodeho ° Raven, of a son. On the 25th inst., Mrs. Charles Webb, of Harleyford-place, nington-common, of a son. On the 22d inst., Mrs. Frederick Hart, of the Paragon, 13 10/ ‘ . heath, of a daughter. On the 21st inst., at Havre de Grace, the lady of Jacob W° °° ' Esq., of twin daughters. DIED. On the 27th ult., at Paris, in his 59th year, his Excellls the Marechal d'Oliveira, of the Imperial Brazilian Army, Menlo of the Privy Council of the Emperor of Brazil, and formerly nister of State. ..1 At Cottrell, Glamorganshire, Margaret, wife of Adrair.- Charles Tyler, G.C.8., aged 76. On the 25th inst., Anna Guilhermina, wife of Sir Peter 1- Bart. of On the 25th inst., aged 16 months, Edward, the infant o°o John Wilkin, Esq., of Spring-gardens. On the 22d inst., at Kilmartin, Argyllshire, N. 8., R e v ° Neill, son of Neill Malcolm, jun., Esq., aged two years. Lately, Mr. John Lees, of Middleton, farmer, aged 81. deceased had been Chief Constable of that division 41 years. ,„ rv a , On the Ist inst., in his 89th year, Mr. Isaac Williams , of ' tanni, near Pwllheli. 01" 11. On the 4th inst., - aged 87, John David, upwards of thirtY . years Verger of LlandatT Cathedral. 10 1°' On the 4th inst., in Carmarthen, aged 80, Mr. David phreys, late of Nantyllan, in the parish of Llandeveilog. London : Printed and Published by AIURDO YOUNG, ° i l to ty 112, Strand, at The Situ Office, No. 112, Strand, in Ow?' of Middlesex. Thi WA R Liq aaa if MARRIED. On the 25th inst. , at St. Mary's, Islington, Robert Montle Hume, Esq., of Cumberland-terrace, Regent's Park, and St. ' V o l dred's-court, to Martha, third daughter of the late Henry Mo ss, the Middle Temple, and Stockwell, Surrey. On the 25th inst., at Marylebone Church, the Rev. Ed ol4 o , Fanshawe Glanville, Fellow of Exeter College, to Mary 4;4 daughter of the late Sir Scrope Bernard Morland, Bart., it' 9, and widow of the Rev. Frederick Charles Spencer, of Wheatfie Oxon On . the 25th inst., at St. Leonard's-on-the-Sea, Edward Do I of Richmond-terrace, Esq., to Emily Frances, second daughte r the late Richard Searles, Esq., of Camberwell, Surrey. e cgr n thi s fires cies nI N ew , Fr ti i 11 1 , Roo, others