The Sun. — London, England, 1835-01-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 1835. of parochial revenues, and sometimes, under the title of pluralitids,:a shameful accumulation in few hands, and to the .dvantage of none but those who hold it, of an inordinate proportion of that wealth which was designed for fair and equitable distribution amongst the teachers of the people, and the active ministers of the Church. On this subject of abuses in the parochial department of the Church, a pamphlet has been published by one who signs himself " A Curate," and who exhibits in a striking, but not unexpected light; the unmerited sufferings to which that order of ministers of the gospel are subjected under the laws and usages which now prevail, and are, if not di- Tectiv sanctioned, at least tolerated by the Bishops. With reference to a course of interrogatories which has lately been circulated, by the Right Rev. Bench, the author asks with etbrnestness, and with great pro priety,why questions t'Juching the condition ofthe curates should in all cases, be addressed to the rectors, and not to the curates 'theinseles, who are thus debarred from speaking upon their own affairs, or from suggesting an improver.ient in their own oppressed circumstances ? Again, he blames the framers of those interrogatories for confining their inquiry upon the conduct and situa tion of the rectors to the individuals implicated, mak ing them witnesses in their own cause, and witnesses, moreover, if it shall so please them, against the inte rests of their curates. We quote some passages from this little tract, which deserve the reader's attention. The form of tho pamphlet is that of a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which prelate, be it re membered, has not hitherto been successful in his attempts to reform " the Church, though we readily give him credit for a sincere disposition to do what is right:— I beg, in the first place, respectfully to approach your Grace with an inquiry, ivhy you have confined your questions exclusively to incumbents, when half of those inquiries ap pertain to curates, and why the curates should not be allowed to answer for themselves ? " Admitting that your Grace never gathered a famishing ILi istence for yourself, wife, and children, from the hands of an affluent and imperious rector, who paid your pittance, not because he merited it, but because law restricted he dared not withold it ; yet your Lordship's known kindness, age, and discernment, must, upon reflection, point out to you, that the rector is the last man in the world who would render a faith ful account of his pecuniary arrangements with his curate. It is, my Lord, his interest, however it may not be his incli nation, to throw dust in your Lordship's eyes. For exam ple, may not, and does not a rector, frequently, in his nomi nation, allow a curate 801, per annum, and subsequently take back a considerable portion in the rent of the rectory-house ? " Moreover, while 801. shall be represented as the net amount of the curate's income, has he necessarily that salary ? On the contrary, he is compelled, as the shepherd of the flock, to discharge to the sick and indigent, out of his bard-earned wages, the obligations of the non-resident. Is -it not likewise frequently entered in a nomina tion, that the rectory is an unincumbered residence ? Whereas its taxes, poor-rates, highway-rates, &c., reduce the salary below the wages of an hedger and ditcher. These things, my Lord, do exist, and yet the paro chial returns, penned by the rector, and credited by yourself, will doubtless represent the curate's income according to the full amount contained in his nomination. Under these cir cumstances, my Lord, would it have been derogatory to the moderation of the bench of bishops, to have been of opinion, that in matters pertaining to their own receipts, a little con descension might be granted to the curates, so far as to accre dit them with the ability to explain and answer for themselves? An ex parte statement would be admittedin no ordinary court of law ; it cannot, therefore, be allowed in an extraordinary court, presumed to be spiritual. " If curates were not men of cOueation, if in many instances they were not most holy . snen, and, ' though poor, making many rich,' they might; deservedly have been alienated from courtesy and coneide . ratioe, and treated as servile, puerile, and contemptible, But the 'acrid estimates their abilities, while it deplores their sufferings ; any measure of reform, therefore, originering in a document which lacerates the feelings of so large a portion of the clergy, will meet with no concurrence from the people, nor approbation from God. " In the next place, I would modestly submit to your Grace, that in requiring a statement of a rector's income from him self, you adopt a ccurse calculated to lead him into misrepre sentations, and to defeat yeer own purpose. In many instances, they arc so indolcet, and men of such unbusiness-like habits, as to keep no accounts, or, what is worse, had ones. From such persons, therefore, who are morally incapable, how can your Grace expect a fair statement? " Moreover, where the small tithe is taken. 'tailless in sin gular instances of punctuelity and conscieaiioasness, an esti mate must be pursly arbitrary. • In crows of the great tithe, likewise, is it not proverbial that some livings, estimated at a low rate a few years since, have become, through the con version of pastille into erahle land, double, treble, and even quadruple, their original ealue ? And yet, my Lord, in the parochial returns, these matters may be represented as suits the incumbent for the present ; and if at any future period they require investigatic e, the facility of escape from detection is pal pable. The great law of charity may influence your Grace to hope that others would act as yourself under similar circumstan ces; but where, in candour and impartiality, you direct your at tention to a certain portion of the clergy, you will perceive that such an eapectation must be nugatory. It is a source of deep re gret amr.ng the well- wis.bers of the establishment that, as in a private family, so in the case of that divine institution, 'the greatest enemies of a man arc those of his own household." There are many rich ineumbents who have assumed the garb of shepherds merely because their friends were possessed of clerical property. It is not therefore reasonable to believe, that such shepherds as have made the ministry a matter of spe culation, and temporal advantage, will treat your Lordship's inquiries as arbitrary arid inquisitorial ; and never having re garded their charge as one of spiritual obligation, present your Grace with what merchants term a salt-water invoice ? While you confide exclusively in a rector's representation, I take the liberty to suggess that there may be abuses to which you are a stranger. If, for instance, the following question had been introduced among your interrogatories, it might have alarmed some of your Lordship's ancient shepherds—' Do you hold the living of which you are the Rector for the private benefit of any other parties besides yourself ?' Your Grace's elevated station in society must have convinced you, that so powerful is the interest of certain individuals among the great, they may obtain, for asking, whatever preferment they please ; and the consequence is, that in cases where they occupy as many plu ralities as the utmost stretch of the law will allow them, still ravenous, they fix on some poor creature, whose poverty and not his will consenting,' enables them, at the expense of his conscience, to gratify their uncontrollable rapacity. 4 a a " My Lord, the wealth of church dignitaries never was their own. Therefore it is that the people weep, because they have made it their own. It is written in the law of God, • Thou shalt not steal,' and he who takes that gift which was deposited in his charge for the good of his neighbour, and appropriates it to his own use, is as great a robber as he who waylays the unwary traveller on the highway. 'W o b e t o th e shepherd s th at d o f ee d t h emse l ves . Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, but ye feed not the flock.' Much must be conceded, by every discreet mind, to the nature of the times, and much to the necessary expenses of office, added to those suitable and appropriate conveniences becoming the rank and condition of every individual. It is a mistake to imagine that the feelings of the rich are not to be consulted upon the subject of appear ances, as well as of the poor ; and it is reasonable to believe, that had it pleased the Supreme Being to throw the fates of the first twelve Bishops among Kings, Princes, and Nobles, as a standing order, he would have provided them with that mode of life which would have enabled them to be offensive to none. But, my Lord, on the other hand, excess, the result of pride, is as bad as defect, the result of fanaticism. While the feelings of the rich and great are consulted, that is no reason why their appetites should be pampered. To all that is be coming, decent, and appropriate, your order has a right, but beyond this, nothing. To reason by analogy, have we not had many members of Par liament, of high birth, a n d e v en P r i me Ministers, of very limited means, who have, nevertheless, discharged the duties of their situation with becoming dignity ? Surely, therefore, if the dignity of so elevated a civil officer requires but a mode rate income to uphold it, how is it that such immense ecclesi astical endowments as were provided by the Deity for the good of tho people have been appropriated exclusively to support the dignity of a spiritual officer ? Dignity, my Lord ! Why should a Bishop seek for dignity ? The very name of Bishop bears with it essential dignity. To encircle the Lord's anointed with superfluous purple, an d gold and erw.ine, is to offend the dignity of the witness of Jehovah, with the pomp, and Marc, and heat of a Turkish harem. My Lords, the hare? - s, and head, and feet of a bishop, are dignified. But ole .! how undefiled— how clear as crystal--how spiritually bight—when, like St. Peter's, they are washed from the stains of the world ! Is it not written How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those who publish glad tidings.' Use, universal use, the highest order of use, adds a dignity to the mitre which ' So lomon in all his glory was not arrayed with.' In short, Bi shops would have been the angels of God upon earth, had they accounted their spiritual duties their own, their wealth the people's !"— Times. The " Marmion" of the Tory 'Cabinet, the doughty Sir Robert, who has, at least, some of the " addi tions" of his prototype who fell at the field of Flodden, " Lord of Fontenay, Of Lilt terworth, and Scrivelby And Tamworth tower and town," has been again labouring to' procure a political eva cuation by means of the good people of the latter place, to whom, for .obvious reasons, Sir Robert can say what he could not well say anywhere else, and what may help him more, w ill b e b e li eve d , when no b o d y else could be expected to believe him. Sir Robert, it seems, " spoke a whole hour by Shrewsbury clock;" and we may well suppose that the purpose of the Premier in speak ing so long to those who are bound to believe all that he says, and who, therefore, had not the Smallest neresity for understanding one word of , it, went_deeper, or at all events was meant to "go wider," than Tarnworth. The points are, therefore, worthy of a little attention. In the first place, he is convinced that he can carry on the Government of the country with "the New House of Coniliiiim, on Conservative principles, and in the spirit of those Constitutional - Ihjorms on which all reflecting men ate agreed." " Conservative principles" to be acted on in the " spirit of Reform !" What in the tiame of all the contrarieties 'leek tl'ii Mean ? Were not the men who call themselves " Conservatives" con- gregated and thus named for the avowed purpose of opposing by joint-stock wits, joint-stock purses, and we fear we must add joint-stock tyrannies and persecutions (which last have been morally fearful in some of the counties during the present election), every species and degree of reform that could be named ? Are they not the men who, in and out of office, and in and out of both Houses of Parliament, have been the uniform, the desperate opposers, of every liberal measure ; and have they any one prin ciple, as Conservatives, that can be named, or in any way made plain to the understanding of any one man, but the principle (if principle it be) of opposing every thing that can in any way come under the name of re form ? Look at their whole conduct—look at the list of coadjutors which this weak, but would be wily Tory has chosen to be with him—look at the candi dates to whom they have given their support through out the election—look at the character of that support, and the way in which it has been given, and say whether there can be in him who is nominally responsible for all this, any one feeling in common with the spirit of Reform ? Truly, if the spirit of Reform is in him, that spirit is dead ; and the clay carcass of " hostility to all reform," is the only part of the compound which has life and can have action. Truly, in this case the living dog will be found too much for the dead lion. Ay, but it is " Constitutional" Reform ; and Sir Ro bert will be a mighty man of valour in that I Non sense I there is not, and there cannot be, any Consti tutional Reform. The Constitution of England, or of any other country, is matters just as they stand. No inatter whether they be good oe bad, they form the Constitution, just as they stand ; and when any man saes, that he is a Conservative, or a friend of the Con stitution, he just says, in other words, that he will and must stand up for " things exactly as they are,' without the slightest alteration either one way or another. If the system of things for the day does not form the Constitution and the whole Constitution, then the word is an unmeaning sound. Laws and usages which have ceased to be acted on are surely not parts of the Constitution ; and surely it will not be said that laws which arc not yet enacted, and usages which are not yet observed—but neither of which are so much as thought of—are parts of the Constitution ? From this definition of the Constitution, and it is the only one that can have meaning, there cannot in the nature of things be a Constitutional Reform, and, therefore, when the Pre mier speaks of that, he merely does what greater men have done when they have a purpose to serve—speaks nonsense with all the solemnity of a wise man. Sir Robert's second " fetch " was a sneer at the accounts of the majority, which arc against his party, notwithstanding all the immmoral means to which they have had recourse ; and, again, he woos the ".Constitutional Whigs," as 'the wolf woos the kid, or rather as the boa-constrictor woos the :ante lope. Need we tell him, after what we have already said, that there can be no " Constitutional" W l -' sig any more than there can be a " ConsOtri':onal" Re form. The Constitution is that is, without any alteration, however nece-s7,ary ; the principle of the Whig is that tc , . l ; tc , ) , in the judgment of reason, ought to Lc. This is a most important distinction, and tine which we thank Sir Robert for giving us the opportunity of explaining at some length. Sir Robert's " Constitutional Whigs" arc, therefore, nothing else than Ultra-" Tories ; men chained to corruption in thought and in act, just as his " Constitutional Re forms" mean the conservation of every political abuse and abomination at present existing.— Well may Sir Robert Peel say that there is a " dark gulf" between his " Conservatives" and " Constitutional Whigs," and Liberals of any description. Sir Robert will find that not only the majority of the people, but that of the Commons is one side - the gulf ; that there are only the anti quated Conservatives of abuse on his side of it ; and that the " honest and liberal Whigs" who are re turned to Parliament will treat him as he was treated by Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham. His call to them was— " Charge, Graham, charge !--On, Stanley, on !" and the most likely result of their refusal (for it speaks a language not to be misunderstood), will be, that in a .few weeks Stanley will be " on ;" and then some of the Tories, if they have breath enough left, will turn from him with the same indifference as others turned from his prototype. " Good night to Niarrnion." —Morning Advertiser. The contest for South Lancashire has gloriously concluded, after a most spirited contest, in favour of the two Conservative candidates, Lord Francis Eger ton and the Hon. Mr. Wilbraham. The defeated Ra dicals, Lord Molyneux and Mr. Wood, kept their sta tion at the bottom of the poll until the conclusion. This defeat will strike the Destructives with dismay. The value of the triumph may be estimated when it is considered that the southern division of the county of Lancaster has a dense population, as well as being the seat of immense manufacture, and that the olective franchise is extended to upwards of 11,000 electors, whose intelligence may be pronounced to be equal, if not to exceed, that of any part of the United Kingdom. The numbers polled on this occasion, and on the former struggle in 1832, present the same remarkable proofs of re-action which we have signalised in other counties. We subjoin the returns of the two years LANCASAIRE, SOUTHERN DIVISION. 1832. I 1835. G. W. Wood, Esq. Lord Alolynega Sir T. D. Hesketh, Bart 3,082 Lord Molvneux G. W. Wood, Esq ... 4,377 It is with such striking indications as these before our eyes that we are gravely told there is no re action. What will Mr. G. H. Ward, who has been spouting some rabid trash at a dinner of his consti tuents at St. Albans, say to the figures which we have daily exhibited from the most intelligent and wealthy counties in the kingdom ? Will he still repeat the parrot cry of no re...action ? We are informed that the change in public opinion in South Lancashire owes much of its origin to certain violent rhapsodies of Lord Molvneux at Liverpool ; but we believe that the noble stand in' defence of the Established Church which gave rise to the celebrated Newton dinner has been the cipal cause of the rejection of the fe:;,, er mem b ers. This attitude was assumed from the moment that Mr. G. W. Wood 1"7 - ~i- g nt forward his Bill for the apPr°"*.. - ,;tion of the Universities to purposes. An organization of the mends of our venerable and- revered institutions was resolved upon instanter, and the hour of retri bution has arrived. Mr. G. W. Wood, at the head of the poll in 1832, is ignominiously ejected from the representation of the county in 1835, and he now figures the " lowest of the low," 243 below his de feated colleague, Lord Molyneux, and with a loss of 1,317 of his former supporters. The position of the Conservative candidate in 1832 Was at the bottom of the poll, and in 1835 he gains 2,531 votes. We will not say more, but leave it to the " authoritative Courier to reconcile these differences. Our contem porary, by the way, has long been proved to be no conjuror, and we will now detnonstrate he is no prophet. Thus ambles forth our gentle Courier of last evening : " Owing to the state of the yowls ) :re presume, we were prevented last night from receiving tho intelligence which we expected from Manchester. It did' not reach our office till past midnight. We can now state, although the first day's poll for South Lancashire is not as we could wish, that there is no reason to doubt of Lord Molyneux and Mr. Wood's success. The voters of the country districts had chiefly polled on the first day; the voters for the town districts were not more than half polled, and we conldently anticipate that the result of the second day's poll will reverse the relative posi tions of the Reformers and the Tories." The confident anti c i pat i ons o f t h e Courier, not withstanding it had " no reason to doubt," have not been realized, and if our contemporary has, by the propelling dictates of all " Liberals " to be en avant, already put down in his veritable lists the names of two " Reformers," we must take the liberty to jog his memory, in order to prevent a repetition of the practice, now somewhat stli.lo; feCOrcling re turred appettaining to the Destructive clique. We have also to record the gratifying state ment that Lord Walpole and Mr. Wodehouse the two Conservatives, have defeated Mr. Windham and Mr% thTh ey, ifid that Mr. Corbett, the Conserva tive, has thrown out Sir W. Ingilbv, of malt tax no toriety. Among the circumstances which have occurred during the general election, one of the most singular and remarkable is the difference of the situations in which the various candidates have found themselves. Where, for instance, a Conservative has been defeated in nine cases out of ten, it has been by a majority of two or three. Mr. Lushington at Canterbury was de feated by four ; Lord C. Wellesley at Rochester by one ; W. Denny by four ; Broadwood at Horsham by three ; R. W. Jackson at Armagh by two ; B. Smith at Youghal by one ; Knight at Cambridge by five ; Bailey at Monmouth by four ; and Blake more, W. Attwood, Fitzroy, ,A. Hamilton (New port), Thomas, and Willoughby Gordon, were each rejected by a comparatively insignificant majority. In very few instances have the Ministerialists been rejected without a very severe struggle. In places where the electors have returned only a single Conser vative it almost invariably has been at the head of the poll. We will merely enumerate D. Carruthers at Hull ; Lowther at York ; Sandon at Liverpool ; Tre vor, at Durham ; Sibthorpe at Lincoln ; B. East at Winchester, ; C. Ross at Northampton ; Col. Lygon, Worcestershire : Sir C. Greville at Coventry ; Alder man Thompson at Sunderland ; Quintin Dick at Mal don ; J. W. Hogg at Beverley : Ryle at Macclesfield ; Major Morsland at Stockport; Trench at Scarbo rough ; Goodricke at Stafford ; Polhill at Bedford ; Dowdeswell at Tewkesbury ; Lord Jermyn at Bury ; Hardy at Bradford ; Bolling at Bolton ; W. Lewis at Maidstone ; Grove and Price at Sand wich ; Sir W. Fact at Exeter ; Sir W. Geary in West Kent ; Alsager in East Surrey ; Pechell at Brighton ; Grimston in St. Alban's ; Sir J. Beckett at Leeds, &c. What arc we to conclude from this list, and the evidence it affords of the feeling of the country ? That in case of another dissolution, whenever it may come, the Conservatives would be enabled to place two Members where only one now is found. These circumstances are deserving of especial remark, and are a sufficient answer to the bare-faced denials of the Radical organs that no re-action has taken place. It is no doubt very amusing to sec the Chronicle and the Courier labouring in their vocation to mislead the few people who throw away time to pe ruse their drivelline. impertinence ; but when we have fact.: of this kind' to advance, (independently of the evidence afforded by the result of the elections through out the kingdom,) we may leave these gentry to pro ceed without molestation in the service of their mas ters.—Morning Post. In our paper of Wednesday we inserted a report o the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Ship. owners' Society, held on Tuesday last, at the City London Tavern ; and although we have not much time or space to devote to the subject, it is one of such ge neral interest, that we cannot pass it over w ; !. ;out some notice. We have always been to pay a just tribute to the zeal anti . . of the Committee ; but it has been on!: 'Misfortune to - differ from them in the gc"P". - e', views they entertain of the causes of the de pression of the shipping interests, which from their own statements upon this occasion do not appear attributable to a want of employment, as, according to the returns of "the tonnage of ships that have entered the port of London (no statement of the tonnage for the United Kingdom is given), it is in evidence that' the navigation of the River Thames with foreign parts has greatly in creased ; nor is it less satisfactory to observe, notwith standing what has been alleged at the meeting, that Bri tish shipping has fully participated in such increase. We are content to abide by the documents referred to by the Hon. Member for 'Sunderland, which show an increase in the tonnage of loaded ships that entered the port of London from foreign ports during the last two years, as compared with 1832, of no less than 166,638 tons, being an augmentation of upwards of 20 per cent. ; of that tonnage, 104,518 tons were Bri tish, and the remainder 62,120 tons foreign, the relit ' tiv2 proportions being as to British 63 per cent., and as to foreign only 37 per cent. It would be really a waste of words, therefore, to offer an additional obser vation in refutation of the often-told tale of the de clining employment of British shipping, and the great preponderance of foreign. A most undeserved charge is also brought against the Legislature in the reso lution moved by the Honourable Member, amplified by some observations from other of the speakers upon that occasion, setting forth that no permanent improvement can take place until the British ship owner, in common with every other interest in the state, receives from Parliament due protection, and re proaching the Legislature with having been regardless of those interests, and having, even in matters of regu lation, done them injury. Surely the shipowners can not have forgotten what has been done by Parliament for them during the last ten years ; and if they have not, what pretext is there for the charge ? Has not the shipping of this country an exclusive protection in the coasting trade, the colonialyade, and the fisheries? Does it not enjoy peculiar protection under the naviga , tion laws, which restrict the importation of goods for home consumption from Asia, Africa, and America to British ships ? and also, as Neepects the enumerated articles " submodo" from the ports of Europe. And are not all these exclusive privileges, amounting to mo nopolies granted to the shipowner, at the expense of the consumer of the commodities, the price of which is enhanced by the augmentation of freight ? But let us see whether Parliament really has been inattentive to the shipping interests. Since the year 1824 a conso lidation of the laws of customs, excise, and of navigaw tion, has taken place. Upwards of 1,300 useless and obsolete statutes relating to commerce and shipping have been repealed ; acts have passed to separate the Customs from the Excise, and to reduce the fiscal re gulations into a simple and compendious form ; various laws have passed for improving the bonding system, whilst additional security has been afforded the shipowner in the means of attaching freight in the hands of the several dock companies ; the registry of shipping, pilotage, quarantine, have all under gone a laborious revision, and the laws . relating to smuggling have been ameliorated ; the stamp duties upon the sale and transfer of' shipping have been re pealed, and relief given in those upon marine in surances ; the law requiring bonds from. masters and mates of ships at the time of ciearing outwards has , been repealed, improved regulations introduced in re spect to passengers and ship's clearances, an inordi nate fees and charges upon shipping in the colonies abolished, and consular fees regulated ; the duties upon the importation of materials used in ship-building and fitting have been reduced ; shipowners permitted to supply their vessels in British ports- with foreign pro visions and stores without payment of any duty ; effective protection has been afforded to British ship ping against the discriminating duties imposed by foreign States by the means of commercial treaties, or retaliatory - measures of a countervailing fiscal character ; upwards of 60,0001. in light duties, &c. have been remitted, and several thousands of pounds per annum saved to shipping by a reduction of the Ramsgate and Dover harbour dues ; the tonnage duty on shipping generally has been repealed ; a great reduction effected in the burdens upon ships by the repeal of nearly the whole of the Port of London dock dues, amounting to upwards of 30,0001. per annum ; and the expenditure of the port establishment greatly diminished. By the refusal of Parliament to revive the exclusive privileges of the East India Docks, West India Docks, and Lon don Docks, shipping have been relieved from oppressive dues, and protection established b y means of o p en competition. Laws have been passed to regulate sea men and apprentices, and improve the mode of recovery of seamen s warns, the navigation with the Indian seas by British s;,:;.'s, and the p o rts of the continent of Europe, extended, trade with China thrown open; , 'eeed under Parliamentary great amplification i ntroa ~s i n es of the Cus authority in the con d uc t o f tne toms and Excis e , many useless oaths i_ _holished, and , .ssion for amongst other measures , an a ct passed last se. We the benefit of the merchant-seaman's widow. could, indeed, swell this catalogue with the recital of many other acts of the Legislature which have been passed for the imptovernent of commerce and naviga tion ; but i'Ve think i - lotigh hag beep refeiled to to show with what truth Parliament has been blamed for a want of attention to the shipping interests. Let the shipowners point out if they can, any other interest which has during the hist ten years engaged so large a portion of the attention of the Legislatilre, anti defied such important advantages from the fostering care of Parliament. If they wish to deserve a continuance of it, let them ab3tain from pressing claims which have no good foundation, and urge matters of improvement with temper and judgment. The disposition of Parlia ment to relieve them from any unnecessary burdens has been sufficiently proved to offer the best guarantee that the shipping interests of this country will never lie ne glected ; but it is highly important that existing cir cumstances, with relation to our commercial policy, as respects the intercourse with foreign nations, should be duly weighed, seeing that this country is not in a condition, as in the time of Cromwell, to dictate to the world the terms upon which the ocean is to be navi gated.—Times. That the Tories should fear, hate, and vilify Lord Durham is quite natural, and we accept all their ma lignity as a homage to the excellent purposes and high courage of that nobleman ; but we confess our asto nishment and concern - when we find men of liberal opinions countenancing the calumnies of the enemy, and wantonly flinging insults upon one of the most eminent and intrepid champions of the popular cause. Such cases are rare, for there are few professed Re formers who can speak of Lord Durham except in terms of gratitude and affection—of respect and confi dence. Even his candid opponents avow their admiration of his frankness and his talents, while they dissent from the principles which he declafes without teseiVe. if there be a statesman of our time who merits the description of one " without fear and without re proach," it is Lord Durham : to the praise of his spotless integrity many others, we are proud JO say, may also lay claim, but few, few indeed, possess his dauntless moral courage. ibis in the firmness which we need in aten ! unsteady times, and therefore ever effort is made by our enemies to overwh e lm hint s*ith a flood of calumny. About those attempts we feel little concern, knowing that his character soars high above the fetid tide of Tory slander ; but we own it moves Us NV h MOW is aimed at trim by one who should be a friend to him, or if not that, at least an ob server of truth. At the Stafford election the Rev. Thomas Gisborne is reported to have spoken as follows; I would wish those gentlemen, vciiether eitelori4 6i' not, and whether present or absent, who think it disrespectful to his Majesty's prerogative to oppose the present Administration, to contemplate the reattpr thits =Osc sotereiert may be e3nsideri. , :d to liaVe Mini, t My late Ministers were going on too fast and too tar; it was quite requisite to put a stop to their course, mid to commit the affairs of Government to other and to safer hands: To oppose these new Ministers, we are told, is to resist the Royal prerogative. But suppose our Sovereign had seen the subject in another point of view, Suppose that he had said, My present Ministers are too slow—they are too timid—they do not answer my wishes, nor the expectations of my people. I must change them for men of greater energy. I will appoint Lord Durham my Prithe Minister.— ( Hear, hear, hear, and laughter.) I will appoint Mr. Joseph Hume Chancellor of the Exchequer—( Renewed laughter)—and, perhaps, Mr. Cobbett, Home Secretary—(Great laughter)___ at any rate, I have Daniel O'Connell Lord Chancellor of Ireland t and the rest of the Cabinet shall be composed of men of a similar stamp, of equal determination of character.' —( Great cheering- and laughter.) I should like to know whether those who appear to be so jealous as to the Royal prerogative, under present circumstances, would have sat quiet under such an AdMinistration ? Would they not have said, We will not wait one moment 1 These people must be in stantly ejected We will not send one Member to the House or Commons, not pledged to vote for their immediate expul sion ?'—( Loud cheering, and laughter. )" Now, let us ask what Lord Durham has ever said or done to justify this collocation of him with Mr. Cobbett ? We say nothing of the other parties al luded to, but Mr. Cobbett has peculiar notions on the subject of the Debt, and consistently with them pro poses what he calls equitable adjustment ; and has Lord Durham's worst open enemy ventured to charge him with any designs against the rights of property, or is there a syllable in his speeches, or any passage in his life, upon which the bare suspicion of immorality could arise ?Is it just—is it worthy, to sport thus in juriously with the characters of public men, and to in clude the purest and best in the ridicule which may at tach to the most questionable ? Mr Gisborne is a cler gyman ; and we ask him to examine his conscience, and to ask himself whether he has in this instance, either observed the law of truth, or the maxim to do as he would be done by? The affront was wholly gratuitous. We cannot suppose that Lord Durham can have given his detractor stray provocation ; or, if he had, it was for Mr. Gisborne, as a minister of truth, to deal with him as he is, and not to disparage him by classing him as what he is not. We are not without hopes, however, that there has been clumsiness, instead of ill nature and bad faith, in Mr. Gisborne's illustration—that it was a slip of th e t ongue —th e c h a nce medley of anin stance began with one application and carried on with another ; and if so, he will be glad of the opportunity this notice will give him of setting himself right with justice ; if not, he merits a severer rebuke than we will administer, while there is a doubt of which he can have the benefit.—Morning Chronicle. COURT OF CHANCERY. ROBSON V. NOEL. This was a motion; - Clisciiaige an order of the Vice- Chancellor, directing Sir Gerard Noel to deposit with the Clerk in Court the books and documents set forth in his answer in the case. Mr. Twiss was heard in support of the motion up to the rising of the Court on the first day of the present Term. Mr. BACON now followed on the same side. Sir IV. HORNE, for the plaintiff, opposed the motion to to discharge his Honour's order. His LORDSHIP was of opinion that the defendant had not made out a case which would justify an interference with the order made by the Vice-Chancellor. The plaintiff must be permitted to inspect the papers, and there could be no doubt that they were in safe custody in the Six Clerks' Office. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. The VICE. CHANCELLOR was engaged the whole morning in hearing motions of no public interest. ROLLS' COURT-THURSDAY. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SULLEN. Mr. PEMBERTON moved that the information filed in this case might be taken off the file for irregularity, and that all proceedings might be stayed until a proper person should be appointed relator. This was a case of extreme importance, for it would decide whether an information filed by the King's Attorney-General, under the certificate of the Charity Commissioners without a relator, was a good and valid information. There were two grounds on which the present motion was endeavoured to be supported. The first was, supposing the Commission to have been in exist ence under the certificate of which the Attorney-General filed the information, had that Learned Officer the power under the different Acts of Parliament, to file an informa tion without a relator ? The second was, that as the autho rity of the Commissioners under the Acts of Parliament ceased prior to the filing of the information, the Attorney- General could not have any authority under those Acts ? His Horsoua—Has the Attorney-General, by virtue of his office, power to file an information without a relator? Mr. PEMBERTON contended that the Attorney-General had no such power. Mr. HALL followed on the same side. Mr. BicKEasTETH appeared in support of the informa tion against the motion. The Charity Commissioners were bound, in the discharge of their duty, to certify to the Attorney-General, and when they had done so, then it was that the Attorney-General was authorized to file an infor mation. The certificate under which the present informa tion was filed was dated when the last Act was in force. The Commissioners consequently had authority under that Act. It might happen that the Attorney-General had an inherent power to file an information without a relator. His Learned Friends had vainly endeavoured to prove the converse of this proposition. The real question was, had the Attorney-General a right to file an information without a relator ? To this question he should find an answer from Lord Eldon. That Learned Judge, in the Bedford case, had said, " There is no doubt, though relators are com monly required for the purpose of sustaining costs, the Attorney-General may, if he pleases, proceed without a relator." On this dictum, which had been partly confirmed by the late Master of the Rolls, Sir John Leach, in the cas e of the Attorney-General v. the Earl of Ashburnham, he would rely. Hi s lloNourt said, it seems to me in one part of this ease Lord Eldon entertains an opinion decidedly opposite to that of Lord Redesdale. It behoves me, therefore, to '- into the cases referred to, which seem to raise a pro- I and every body else have never doubted. p0810 . 9r..! KING'S BENCH.-THURSDAY. THE ICING V. FORD AND OTHERS. These clefenchints, who were convicted at the sittings after last Term, of resisting payinent of the assessed taxes, and assaulting an officer named Scattergood, in the execu tion of his duty, were brought up to receive the judgment bf the Court. Lord D6iiiiß said that, the Court was of opinion that no rule for arresting the judgment, br for a new.trial, ought to be granted in this case. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL having moved that the judgment of the Court be passed upon the defendants, Mr. HUMPHREY put in two affidavits on the part of the defendants, expressing contrition for their conduct, and stating that they had large families dependent upon them for support. Sir JoHt4 fILL did not wish to press for any severe judgment. on the defendants, and if they were willing to make the prosecutor, who had been severely beaten by them, a compensation for the injury he had sustained, he (Sir John Campbell) would, with the permission of the Court, consent to their being discharged on their own recognizances. The COURT would allow the defendants to enter into the arrangement proposed, and if they did not they would be severely punished. At. the close of the day the parties bad not agreed upon the terms, and the case stood over till Monday. THE KING V. SINCLAIR. This was one of the many indictments arising out of the disputes relating to the Swinton estdtes. The defendant had been convicted of a riot and assault. The COURT recommended that this case should be ter minated by an arrangement. The parties withdrew, but could not agree upon terms. Mr. DUNBAR addressed the Court in mitigation ; and Sir J. CAMPBELL and Mr. STEER in aggravation of punishment. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE pronounced the sentence of the Ceurt, that the defendant should be imprisoned in the custody of tile Margbal of the Alarshalsea for the space of one calendar month ; and further, till he had entered into his own recognizances in the sum of 100/. to keep the peace for two years. • Tilt ICING V. CHARLES WRIGHT. This defendant was called on, and not appearing, his re• cognizances were ordered to be estreatedi THE KING V. ROBISON, ESQ. Tll2ll Wall an indictment against the defendant for pub lishing a libel on Lieutenant-Governor Darling, of New South Wales, respecting that r person's conduct with respect to two soldiers named Sudds and Thompson. An affidavit of Elio defendant was put in justifying the truth of the libel. The ATTUNtY=GENERAI. asked for time to answer the affidavit. Mr. ERLE, on behalf of the defendant, objected to this. Lord DENMAN said that, supposing the prosecutor had been called al a"iyitness, and that an inquiry into the cir cumstances has been entered into, he should not have per mitted it to be carried forward. The Court thought that time should be granted. . Time was granted, and the Attorney-General was to mention the case upon another clay thig Tcrm. THE KING ON THE PROSECUTION OF CORNELIUS DEACON V. THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND OTHERS. Sir J. CAMPBELL moved that the certiorari granted in this case at the instance of the defendant might he quashed, and a precedendo issued, and likewise that the trial of the case might take place in Middlesex or London. This was an indictment againit these defendants for a riot and assault, which consisted of the act of turning Mr. Deacon out of a chapel of which he was the minister. The learned Counsel urged that it would be absolutely indecent for the Bishop to be tried by a jury of persons over whom he had high spiritual con troul, and all of whom resided within his diocese. The Bi shop must be tried by his peers, and his peers were com moners, over whom he presided as a diocesan. He ought not to be tried by a jury so composed. The prosecutor be- sides desired that this case might be tried in Middlesex or London, as be deposed in his affidavit that from the great connections of the Bishop and of the other defendants (one of them being the son of the Lord Lieutenant of the county) he was not likely to have a fair trial in Surrey. The Court granted the rule. STRACHAN V. THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. This was an action brought nominally against the Duke of Wellington as High Constable of Dover, but in fact against one of his deputy officers, for negligence in not ar resting a person named M'Dermott, against whom the plaintiff had obtained a writ of execution for the sum of 261. A. writ of execution issued against M'Dermott was forwarded:by the plaintiff's attorney to his agent at Dover, on which a warrant was subsequently obtained, and en trusted to the hands of Sell, one of the defendant's officers, with a notice that the defendant in the action (M'Der mott) was a very shy bird, but that he might be found at Broadstairs, and that on the officer applying to a Mr. Wood, a resident there, he would learn where M'Dermott was to be met with. Sell gave the warrant to his son, who did not take any steps to arrest M'Dermott until the day before the return of the writ, and in the meantime the bird had flown. The plaintiff complained that in consequence of this neglect he had lost his debt, the amount of which he sought to recover by the present action. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 26/. The trial lasted two days, and on the first day the Court was excessively crowded, it being supposed from the name of the defendant that the cause was one of great public interest. COMMON PLEAS.-TIIURSDAY. CHALMERS V. BYRNE AND PAYNE Mr. STAMMERS was instructed to appear in the present ease on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Peter Charles Chalmers, a gentleman of Scotch extraction, who for a considerable time previous to the unfortunate events which gave rise to the action now about to be decided had carried on an ex tensive business in Lower Thames-street as a provision and shipping dealer, and also had acted in the capacity of Lon don agent to a Mr. Cohu, an extensive miller at Guernsey. The action had been originally brought against two indivi duals, Nicholas Byrne, described in the declaration as pro prietor and printer of the Morning Post newspaper, and Thomas Payne, whose name appeared attached to that paper as its publisher. Since, however, the commence ment of the action one (Mr. N. Byrne) had died, and con sequently Thomas Payne, whom, as publisher, the law made responsible for any libel that might appear in the paper, became in point of fact the sole defendant. About the commencement of 1832 the plaintiff Chalmers received in the ordinary course of business a bill of ex change, purporting to bear the acceptance of an individual named Whiteman Freeman, a Captain of a vessel trading to the port of London. The la was given to the plaintiff by Captain Freeman in liquidation of an account for bis cuits supplied to his vessel ; and shortly after he received it he, the plaintiff, endorsed it over to Mr. Cohu, of Guernsey. When it became due it appeared Captain Freeman was not in the country, and no provision having been made for its payment, it was in the ordinary way pro tested. On Captain Freeman's return it was prosented to him, and, after some delay and demur on his part as to its payment, to the consternation and surprise of his client it was asserted that the captain's name had been forged, and at the same time insinuated that Chalmers was privy to the forgery. On this monstrous charge being made his client lost no time in demanding its investigation. He appeared in person at the Mansion-House, and brought forward all the evidence he could on the moment muster to disprove the assertion of Captain Freeman. Circumstances, however, were unfavour able to him, and the consequence was, the Lord Mayor felt called upon to hold him to bail to appear and take his trial at the Old Bailey during the ensuing May Sessions. On the day appointed Mr. Chalmers made his appearance in Court in discharge of his bail, and having being put upon his trial at a late hour of the night, a verdict was returned declaring him, not only to his own astonishment and con sternation, but to the astonishment and consternation of every one present in the Court, guilty of the crime laid to his charge. On the 12th of January, 1833, the lapse of time between May, 1832, and January, 1833, being fully accounted for by the circumstance that objections had been taken to the terms of the indictment, which the Recorder, after giving them every attention in his power, had deemed necessary to be referred to the decision of the twelve judges, his Majesty's free pardon was accorded to him, and he walked out of prison a renewed, regenerated, and untainted freeman. Objections had been taken to the indictment, but the Jury were not to suppose that it was in consequence of those objections his Majesty's pardon had been granted to him. The pardon he received was entirely attributable to the patience and perseverance of the Noble Lord who at the time filled the office of Principal Secretary for the Home Department. Immediately on the application being made by his client it met with investigation, and the result of that investigation was that justice was done to Mr. Chalmers, aria instead of his leaving the country as a con victed felon (capital punishments in cases of forgery having been abolished shortly after the trial in May, 1832) he was permitted to leave prison without a stain upon his charac ter. At the period of these transactions his client, from the mere circumstance of hii having received a pardon from a Government to which a portion of the press was politi cally opposed, became the butt of its rancorous misrepre sentation and malicious hostility. Scarcely had he been two weeks restored to his home and his family when there appeared against him in the Morning Post one of the most base, one of the most false, one of the most atrocious, one of the most accumulated libels ever fulminated against any individual, by the most degraded press of the most de graded country. It appeared in the Morning Post of the 28th of January, 1833, and the writer, ed►tor, or other person who penned it, not content with the false and ca lumnious :Enders it contained, had added to its effect by placing it, not in some obscure corner or interstice, but among the leading articles of the day, and adorning it with the following title, printed 'n large and attractive letters: Motives for the Extension of Royal Clemency." The first part of the libel the Jury would perceive was extracted from the John Bull, and the second contained the com ments of the Morning Post upon that extract.- - ( 1 " Stammers here road the alleged libel.) Such was the sub stance of the libel of which his client complained. The publication of the alleged libel in the Morning Post the liability of the defendant Thomas Paine, as publisher of the paper, and the grant of his Majesty's free pardon having been admitted by the defendant's counsel, the plain tiff's case closed. Mr. ADOLPHUS, on the part of the defendant, said the plaintiff bad a fair trial—he was found guilty of the charge brought against him ; points were reserved, they were re ferred to the Judges, the Judges saw nothing in them, and sentence of transportation for life was passed. The Go vernment subsequently, on grounds not stated, saw some reasons for the exercise of the Royal prerogative of m ercy. He was pardoned, and it well became him now to come forward and say that. he was an innocent man, and to ask a Jury of his countrymen to confirm his declaration by awarding damages for supposed injury to his character. The article in the John Bull was merely copied into the Morning Post. In the Morning Post, however, it was not put forward in a conspicuous manner to excite greater attention ; it was merely copied, as was the common pro , tice, as an article of news from another paper. It did not appear as a leading article, so as the more effectually to call attention to it. Nothing more was done than to quote the article, without observation or commeut of any kind, ae much as to say, Here it is, true or false ;" we say, here it iv, and judge for yourselves. The Jury, after deliberating some time, requested to be informed by the Court whether a farthing damages would early costs ? The Learned Judge replied that a farthing damagEe would carry costs unless he certified to the contrary. The Jury again consulted together for some tim e, and eventually found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Farthing. Mr. ADOLPHUS hoped the Learned Judge would bail no objection to certify. Mr. Justice GAZELEE, however, refused to certify, olr serving that ag the plaintiff had conducted his case without the aid of an attesey, the costs would he but trivial. -_,.. EXCHEQUER COURT.-THURSDAY. THE KING V. LORD BROUGHAM. Mr. LEE moved for a rule to show cause why an attach* ment should not issue against Lord Brougham, for neglect" ing to attend as a witness in the case of Dicas v. Lawsouf pursuant to a subpoena. He made this motion on the Ali' davits of Mr. Dicas and others, in which it was stated that the above cause was entered for trial for the sittings after Michaelmas Term last, at Guildh4ll; that on the 19th of November, a writ of subpoena was served on Lord Brougham, at his house in Stanhope-street, May-fair, to ; attend as a witness in the said cause , when L ord Broughate told the officer who served it, that if Mr. Dicas brought hit° to town, he would make him pay his expenses ; that in cow sequence of his Lordship's observations, Mr. Dicas wrote. him a letter, saying that he had directed the sum necessari for paying his expenses to be paid to him, which was the same as was paid to Lord Eldon for coming a greater die' tanee ; that, on the 19th of December , T h o mas Moseli left another letter at his Lordship's residence in Stanhope' street, stating that the cause was set down for trial on the 23d of December, and also left five shilling, as his neeessurl expenses ; that the cause was tried on the 23d of Dece° ber, before Baron Parke, at Guildhall, when Lord Brougbar° was called to give evidence, but did not appear ; that 13.15 Lordship was a material and necessary witness. Lord ABINGER—Your affidavit does not state the n ature of the evidence which Lord Brougham was to give, so that the Court might judge whether it was material or not. Mr. LEE—It is not usual in applications of this kind t° state more than that the party was a necessary and materiel witness. Mr. Baron Paula—lt was admitted at the trial th at the object of the summoning Lord Brougham was t ° prove that Mr. Dicas was the person to whom the public," tions referred. Mr. LEE—One of the publications was a letter 4 144 A Lawyer," which stated that Mr. Dicas had written a begging letter to Lord Brougham to extort money foci Lim. Therefore it was desirous to have Lord Brouglia° examined as to that fact, and also to produce the letters. j, Lord ABINGER — There was no justificatio n pleadeua therefore such evidence was unnecessary ; probably Le r , Brougham was aware of that fact. The C ourt will De: grant an attachment unless they have reason to know thay there was a contempt of Court. You may have an actioe against Lord Brougham for not attending. rt Mr. LEE—There is no difference in the eye of the %Au between Lord Brougham and another witness. Lord ABlNGER—Certainly not. Mr. LEE—AII that is usual in motions of this kind is t° state that the party was a material and a necessary vritnes_At;' The Attorney-General, in his address to the jury, obs er TA that no person had been put into the box to prove tha t tu. _ _ libels referred to Mr. Picas. • he Mr. Baron PARKE—That was not a point put to t'"l jury. The Attorney-General's speech went on the g rounu that the publication was not libellous. If it had no t beet; proved that Mr. Picas was the person referred to, I shout' have nonsuited him. Lord ABINGER—I agree that the affidavit in general _ d ig sufficient, but the distinction between this and other casv' is, that the subject of this action was before the Court a former day, whereby we were put in possessio n of 0,1 facts by Counsel, and knowing the facts, we feel s atisfi e • that Lord Brougham was not a necessary witness. 11°4 then, can we grant an attachment ? Mr. LLB—i;," is immaterial whether he was a necessl witness or not ; as he did not attend, he has been gu ilt: , a s a contempt of Court. It is for him to show that be ha not been guilty of such contempt. Lord ABlNGER—Subpoenas are sometimes served il l the purpose of annoyance and vexation:, and an attacbraeat may be sued out for the same purpose. When the Cou, know the facts, they are able to decide whether it i 6 contempt of Court or not—Rule refused. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. DIED. • flint i° oo' On the '2oth inst., in Woburn-square, Edward , the 'n Edward Bullock, Esq. relict t r elljj On the 17th inst. in her 73d year, airs. Rawlings, c/0004 late Thomas Rawlings, Esq., of Saunders-hill, Padsovi' MITOPMMIP. Lomion: Printed and Published by MORD () at The Sun (Met', No. 112., Strand. I" cc RAMS Ind Satan ROTTI day and t. e'rery Wed ANT'W as follows OSTE/ tight. CAL Al Applicat to be mad( *0 th e oth In form a t c 'Custom-hi Agent, m and Son Mr. c ol ; Ica; ancln; Powerft mons. en(t).c, ALL ant St. Jame s' thei r cl ea t; . the Clai m . ' a id T. ax witheiat I:l)°ittrtofrd?trrit, Di tto hi.; Fort, ~ T s itto, 5 Ditto, 8 uitto, 12 perio-r Sherries, et:l44le t o _ Ve rTsope -44tr eniel fl avour )) '` ic h fl 1 ‘' , olfi e ° , 4 s_ bitto) o; ' le eeo Very old ordin al liqueur :ver 10ab:14eisI, 1:111 :11_, it : i :' sel l a za ll E r eke e s l glshei ' aa Di tto, 61 Lis ßi g navoti Ai onn 't l' e T a r eavtaeli ditto it The Nit Zile 'NI J• II th e la Th gran ( thei r ha s , A ge ,- Paul' ~lGct ~'~o ~lr, ~ 1 Aloud THAMES FFICE. A weather-beaten son of the O ocean who stated his nse l to be Thomas Mars, and that he had just returned fro m cruise round the world, which bad occupied two years,.. i sP r : plied to the sitting Magistrates, Mr. BROD ERIP and 01 , BALLANTINE, for the release of his wife, who has been ee ri f fined in Clerkenwell Prison in default of bail, on a c harge° assault, since the Ist of October last. The gallant tar had buffeted many a wave, and weathere4.o many a hard gale, but nothing ever gave him so much 11 1 0 as to see the " girl" he loved in durance vile. When b i t ; " see'd the iron bars which separated her from biro 0 4 heart, which was as hard before as steel , naelted,andg us° out of his eyes a flood of brine. He hoped their Hon°uli would not allow him to be cast on a lee shore, but to kil o grant his request, or otherwise he should be lost. His only could keep him in sailing trim." gi rt` t he Mr. BALLANTINE — If I was to get your wife a- a how would you keep her quiet ? Applicant—ol" .1-460 Honour know's very well a sailor homeward bound always keep a girl quiet. Mr. BALLANTINE much doubted the applicant's - 1 " a pt to keep his wife peaceable, but still he was disposed to g r te l his request ; but he had seen that woman was co on° in the name of Barrett, and requested an explanation . The tar said that was his wife's maiden name. 09 6 Silvester, the officer—Oh, your Honour, the Irish ..14 go to prison in their maiden name. Mr. BALLANTINE—And with their maiden qualities; t he An order was then signed by the Magistrates, an u i e t, applicant immediately hired a cab, and, with the $u the rode immediately to the prison, where, on produeing w r order, his wife was given up to him, and be returned 01 / e t phantly to the office, where, after entering into sure t ie2ber her good behaviour, she was allowed to depart with of husband, who appeared highly elated with the such id his enterprise, and on leaving the office said, " D---n Trfer the first time I was ever before a Judge ; but 1 thin" done him." n(l ef A T BooKsiiLLEß.—Captain A-- 9 . . jet wished to obtain from a bookseller a list of any work s be '-hsve have on the geography of Africa. His reply was—" We it; no list." " But suppose you make . one ; pay Yo u f - fo ici and you may, besides, put money into your pockets, any of the books." " You may make out the list you be replied, "for I'll not be at the trouble " BIRTHS. fcl iis(4 On the 10th inst., at Southampton, the lady of Georg e Pococke, Esq. of a daughter. g o. On the 10th inst., at Melton Mowbray, the lady of the '- nip O lifit S. Hallifax, of a son. On the 16th inst., at Woodlands, Hants, the lady of Ph - Farnall, Esq., of a son. MARRIED. f 01 1 5 On the 22d inst., at Fulham, George Paterso n. Esq., o f house, Middlesex, to Frances, youngest child of the lat e ar d, Barnard, Esq., and niece to the We Rev. Benjamin l3arn GEN. _r