The Sun. — London, England, 1834-11-11 00:00:00

represented by competent judges as likely, in a gene ration or two, to result from a good system of na tional education ; do . you entertain such an expecta tion p" To crush crime in the egg, therefore, igno rance wherever detected should be• sent to school. It is amazing that the Chancellor could command his muscles and compose his speech in a grave answer to the quoted question. It is the opinion, forsooth, of " competent judges," that the millenium may be had in a generation or two, by dint of schooling ! And this, in effect, was said to a personage who was at that very moment founding, as he fondly fancied, an ' immortal renown upon the establishment of a Central Criminal Court ! The Chancellor had no notion of parting with the pedestal of his fame on such easy toms, but the moderation of his reply to such a mon strous piece of folly, heightens the effect of the ab surdity. " I hold exaggerations of this kind to be extremely ill-judged. * * * * That the cha racter and habits of men will be improved (by a (rood education), and the amount of crimes greatly lessened, I confidently expect ; but it is a wild imagination to fancy that crime ever can be extir pated, and betokens an unwise enthusiasm on one subject, ;causina a species of blindness to other con siderations. This actually supposes the nature of man to be changed by reading, and that, though still inhabiting the body, his mind has ob tained a complete ascendancy and mastery over his senses. My opinion of the benefits of education is very high, but certainly much humbler than this." It would be pleasant to know which of the committee put the question, and what the' " competent judges" think of the answer. In deriding such extravagant folly, we are far from underrating the benefits of po pular education. The most formidable state to society is that in which men are liable to strong temptations, and unable to calculate the consequences of their ac tions. They are thus as dangerous, as ungovernable, as excited animals, and rush headlong to their object, though their own destruction lie in the way. Even the little information which the poor pick up in their reading, exercises their minds in the apprehension of consequences, and teaches them to look for the ac companiments of violent actions, the penalties of the passions. All this does not prevent crime, but it diminishes the most atrocious exhibitions of it, and we have petty felonies instead of massacre and revolts. We hear it often complained that the reading operatives are troublesome and litigious ; but, however annoyingly such people may press their no tion of their rights, a point of great social importance is gained when they have recourse to tbeir reasoning instead of to their physical powers for the redress of grievances, real or imaginary. The physical power, it may be said, after all waits on the other, but there is a great evaporation of the passions in discussions, and it is seldom fat violence is to be feared after men have begun chopping logic. A frightful exception occurs here and there. But a century ago, had the same masses of people been packed together in factories, how tremendous would have been the explosions of a dense ignorance, misguided and inflamed by firebrand agitators. The extent to which society has benefited by the spread of information is a very wide and debatable question, but the fact that there has been a benefit is hardly to be doubted. We now stand, however, between two fanaticisms---the fanaticism of the advocates of popular ignorance, and the fanaticism of the education mongers. It is curious that the Chancellor, though so sagacious in his views of compulsory education, enter tained a doubt upon the most monstrous proposition for the same end that has ever been hazarded. He observed—" How far an improvement which has been suggested in the law, that of making no action of debt maintainable except on a written instrument, might operate very indirectly, and thus safely, in favour of education, is a question which I have sometimes con sidered, but without forming a clear opinion in its fa vour." We hope not indeed. Such a law would be a denial of justi,e to the ignorant, and it would be ne cessary to introduce a qualification in Magna Charta, that to none should justice be denied unless they were unable to read and write. This would be a curious mode of reviving benefit of clergy in the 19th century. The Chancellor has apparently not considered that the evil of the denial of justice does not only consist in the wrong to the individual, but also in the encouragement to others to take advantage of the unprotected : the vicious propensities are thus invited to indulgence. But, independently of the latter consideration, was there ever anything more monstrous conceived than the project to deny the remedy of law in matters of debt to the number of persons in the United Kingdom who have not learned to read and write ? We intended to offer some observations respecting " normal schools," but for the present must postpone this branch of the subject.—Times. a ary every now and then, by our Whig statesmen or their advisers, to throw him some illustrio us victim like Baron Smith or the Marquis of Downshire, whose delinquency consists in opposing the reckless career of his selfish and destructive ambition. We will help Mr. Sheil to a precedent of a more comprehensive description : ---4 Ames 11. attainted upwards of 3,000 Protestants in Dublin by one sweeping Act of his Irish Parliament, or " domest ic Legislature . On this precedent let an Act be brought in by Mr. Sheil, next Session, to attaint the whole of the Protestants who attended the Downshire meeting. But who will go into the North to put it into execution ? Not Dan, at the head of his " seven millions." He will not be the Archibald-bell-the-Cat of the expedition.—Morn ing Herald. We give elsewhere a report of the proceedings at the Lord Mayor's dinner. The ceremony was per formed in the usual way, but with much less of that orderly arrangement which has hitherto characterized . it. The great object of attraction was the Lord Chancellor and his speech ; and nobly did he bear himself in every respect. We never witnessed greater dignity of countenance—or a more calm demeanour — he appeared as he is, the beau ideal of the highest in tellect of the country, and not proud of his office, the highest in the kingdom ; but proud of what he has clone, and-what he intends to do. He appeared to be in excellent health, and was loudly cheered, not only on entering, but on leaving the banquet-room. His speech, brief but energetic, was listened to with the utmost attention ; and when he declared that it was only necessary to point out an abuse in order to gain his aid, in correcting it, and that the principles which he had originally professed, were those by which he had always been, and would be guided, the cheering was not only loud, but vehement and continued.— Morning Advertiser. It is seldom that the annual festivities in the City of London, on the inauguration of the Lord Mayor, call for any observation. Those of the present year pre sent, however, a most grateful exception to the general rule. At the dinner at Guildhall, as will be seen by referring to our report of the proceedings at that splendid banquet, several circumstances occurred which, by those who take on interest in observing the temper of the times, cannot but be regarded as of the greatest importance. By a very appropriate and exceedingly well-timed departure from the established custom at this periodical festivity, the first toast given from the Chair, instead of simply " The King," was " Church and King." We do not hesitate to say that this deviation from the usual practice was, con sidering the position in which the Church of England is placed, and the sentiments which in reference to that position the Sovereign has been graciously pleased to express, one of the most striking manifesta tions.of good taste and right feeling that has been made either eastward or westward of Temple Bar for many a year. The thing is honourable in the very highest degree to the New Lord Mayor, or to whomso ever had the management of this civic celebration. But what is chiefly worthy of remark is the manner in which the loyal and Constitutional toast, as thus amended, was received by the numerous party assem bled to enjoy the hospitality of the Corporation of London, a party drawn together from all parts of the metropolis, from all the various classes of society above the lowest, from every sphere of human action and opinion. The reception of this toast was favour able—,unanimously—enthusiastically favourable. Ano ther circumstance,—well worthy of remark— was the—equivocal shall we say ?—no, that is not the word—the by-no-means flattering or agreeable recep tion afforded to the Lord Chancellor,. afforded by per sons whose previous and subsequent conduct sufficiently attests that their coolness towards the Noble and Learned Lord has nothing in common with the hos tility of the Durham faction, but proceeds from an entirely opposite source. We imagine his learned Lordship, learned at least " by courtesy," must have wished himself itinerating for applause in the North, or seeking this pabulum of his moral and intellec tual being, anywhere but in the city of London. A third circumstance, more striking, perhaps, than either of the former, was the fervent applause which attended the mention of the Duke of Richmond ; of the Duke of Richmond, not as late Postmaster- General, not even in his more meritorious character of a seceder from the Whig Ministry, although this probably had something to do with the warm and hearty welcome he received, but of the Duke of Rich mond as the representative, at the late Lord Mayor's table, of the Peerage of Great Britain. The toast was " The Duke of Richmond and the House of Peers," and it was not mere modesty or self-depre ciation, but a very true and accurate perception of the meaning of the assembly which led the Noble Duke to reply to the toast as a compliment not to himself, but to that branch of the Legislature of which he has the honour of being a Member. There are persons no doubt who still contend that there is no re-action. Will such persons have the goodness to tell us whether they believe that three years ago " Church and King," would ever have been the most popular toast that could liave been given at a civic festival at Guild hall ; whether at that period of Sir John Key's glory and of penny-cup excitement " The House of Peers" would have been the toast next in popu larity to that of " Church and King ;" and whether at the date to which we refer the name of Lord Brougham, for sake manifestly of contrasting its re ception with that of the two loyal and constitutional toasts above mentioned, would have been hissed ? Upon the answer to these question, that of re-action or no re-action evidently turns, and in this position we are perfectly content to leave it. We cannot dis miss this gratifying comment upon the civic festivities of Lord Mayor's Day, without referring to the addi tional proof of re-action furnished by our excellent friends, the Merchant Tailors' Company, who, al though always firm and sound in their principles of constitutional loyalty, so far as regards the great ma rity of their Corporation , have not always had the hhappiness of being so perfectly unanimous as they proved themselves yesterday.—Morning Post. We are disposed to concur in the Chancellor's opi nions on the subject of education as stated before the Select Committee of the House of Commons. The project of compulsory education he condemns as un desirable and impracticable ; he thinks that the efforts of individuals to establish schools should be assisted by the State, but that the aid should be so given as not to supersede the necessity for those private exertions which it is intended to help ; and he advocates the es tablishment -of schools for the instruction of teachers (normal schools) at the public expense. With respect to compulsory education, the example of which in a despotic country has strangely charmed some of the professed lovers of liberty, it is enough to say that it is impossible—the people of this country would not hear of such an intrusive meddling innovation, and therefore, sound as the Chancellor's arguments are against the principle of the project, and the danger of committing a system of instruction to Govern ment which might fall into the hands of men who would turn it to slavish purposes, they are unneces sary. The counter part of the sage scheme should be, that as, in the present day, fathers in certain classes are often observed to be behind their children in know ledge and understanding, their sons should be com pelled to send them to a school for the adult and aged — a fancy, by the way, in which the humour of the facetious Thomas Hood has already revelled. Com misSions of ignorance should be applied for as commis sions of lunacy ; and upon evidence that the Duke of - or the Bishop of was possessed of some preposterous error, he should be declared inca pable of managing the affairs of-thestvation, and-com mitted to a public institution for the cure of ignorance. The advocates of compulsory education say—" We must compel the instruction of the children of the labouring classes, to prevent them from injuring society by the errors of ignorance ;" but where is the application of this principle to stop ? Wherever it happens that ignorance is found in connexion with authority, and threatening injury to society, is autho rity to be put to school? Following out the principle of our German crotchet-mongers, the schoolmaster's warrants should be issued for errors of ignorance, and dunces of all ages and stations should be committed to school. One of the sages on the Select Com mittee gravely put the following question to the Chan cellor :—" The total extirpation f crime has been , MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR LITTLETON. ( From the Dublin Evening Mail.) At an advanced hour of the day we received the follow ing communications from Mr. Craig, the Private Secretary of Mr. Littleton, accompanied by a request, most politely couched, that we should give insertion to the correspondence in our publication of this evening. We most cheerfully comply, even though at some personal inconvenience, in displacing other matter in progress of completion. " TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUBLIN EVENING MAIL. " Sir,—ln consequence of the report in your paper of the speeches of the Marquis of Londonderry at the Down shire meeting, it became necessary that Mr. Littleton should require an explanation from that nobleman, and with this view he consulted me, placing himself entirely in my hands. The accompanying correspondence was the result. You will, I am certain, feel that it is due to Mr. Littleton to give it a place in your paper. " I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, "Royal Hospital, Nov. 7, 1834." " HUSSEY VIVIAN. NO. I. SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN TO THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY. " My dear Lord Londonderry,—My friend, Mr. Littleton, on reading your speech at the Down meeting, as given in the Dublin Evening Mail, requested to see me, and pointed out to me the very offensive language the reporter has made you use towards him. I cannot, knowing you so well as I do, believe it to be possible you could have applied terms so wanton and unprovoked towards any gentleman ; and, without hesitation, I undertook to become the medium of a communication to you on the subject. I feel confident that, in reply to this, you will rejoice in the opportunity I afford you of contradicting it, and allow me to have the pleasure of conveying to Mr. Littleton such an explanation as you will, I am certain, feel he has a right to expect at your hands. " The following is aco of the paragraph in the Even ing Mail to which I refe r.— " But I confess I cannot speak in terms of respect of Mr. Littleton. Never was there an exhibition so disho nourable, so treacherous, and intriguing as that which was carried on through that gentleman's agency last session.' " Requesting the earliest possible answer, believe me ever, my dear Lord Londonderry, very faithfully yours, "Dublin, Nov. 1, 1834." " HUSSEY VIVIAN. NO. 11. THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY TO SIR H. VIVIAN. My dear Sir Hussey,—Being absent from home, I did not receive your letter of the Ist until this day. " In reply, I have to state, that on referring to the Bel fast newspapers, the Guardian and the News Letter, and the Mail, I find they all vary so much in the report of my speech, that I think it establishes at once the inaccuracy of your extract. " With regard to my expressions as to Mr. Littleton's political conduct, I avowed, unequivocally, I could not treat it with respect. His own admission before Parlia ment and the country, of error and indiscretion in his ne gociations with O'Connell, are the grounds of my opinions, if none others were at hand. " I applied the words treacherous,' dishonourable,' and intriguing,' to those transactions of government, by which Lord Grey was forced to resign ; and to the writer and author of the letter (who being in the cabinet or go vernment with his Lordship) made the communication (un known to him) which changed the Lord Lieutenant's views as to the Coercion Bill, by which secret proceeding, Lord Grey was overthrown and personally abandoned. " I adhere still - to these sentiments. I hope lam inca pable of applying terms wanton and unprovoked towards any gentleman, much less towards one with whom I have been in the habits of intimacy. `• My remarks immediately and generally related and re ferred to all the transactions and conduct of the Whig go vernment of the day. " I was on the point of sailing for England, but shall re main at Mount-Stewart until I bear from you again. Be lieve me, my dear Hussey, your's ever most sincerely and faithfully, " VANE LONDONDERRY." " Saintfield, Nov. 3, 1834. NO. 111. SIR H. VIVIAN TO THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY. "My dear Lord Londonderry—l am much gratified al THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1834. the receipt of your letter, inasmuch as that it enables me to hope that I have been the means of preventing an ap prehended misunderstanding between two old friends. " With any expressions you may have used, touching the conduct of the government, or that of any unknown writer 'of a letter to which you refer, I can have nothing to do. My business is only as regards Mr. Littleton ; and I re joice to find that the opinion you have expressed in refe rence to his political conduct, which you say you could not treat with respect, and explain your grounds for so saying, is not such as to call for any personal discussion ; while I give you full credit for the assurance that you are incapable of applying terms wanton and unprovoked towards any gentleman, and much less towards one with whom you have been in the habits of intimacy. " I trust the construction I have here put upon your letter is that which you intended it to bear, and I shall be glad to receive this assurance from you in reply. " Ever, my dear Londonderry, very faithfully, yours, " Dublin, November 4, 1834. " HUSSEY VIVIAN. " P.S.—You will, I am certain, feel that the explanation thus entered into should, in justice to Mr. Littleton, be made as public as was the offensive paragraph which gave rise to it." NO. IV THE. MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY TO SIR H. VIVIAN. " Mount-Steward, November sth, 1834. "My dear Sir Hussey—l can have no hesitation in con curring with your interpretation of my letter of the 3d in stant, which I think was sufficiently explicit ; nor can I have any objection to you or Mr. Littleton making any use of the correspondence you may think fit.—Believe me, my dear Sir Hussey, yours very sincerely, " VANE LONDONDERRY. " Lieutenant-General Sir Hussey Vivian." ELOPEMENT OF A PRIEST'S NIECE. It is known to most of our readers 'that in the rural dis tricts of Ireland the cottage of the Priest is generally cheered by the presence of a fair tenant who passes under the mysterious designation of the Priest's " Niece." In some instances, Fortune is so liberal in the dispensasion of her favours, that the good man is doubly blessed, and re joices in the possession of two blooming relatives. Such is, or rather was the case with a Reverend Father located in a parish of this county, and distant little more than half a dozen miles from Parliament Bridge. The parish is situated southward, and it would seem that even the sanc tity of his office could not protect him from some of the inconveniences incident to the latitude, for on Saturday night week one of the lasses who had been so long the objects of his care bade adieu to his dwelling and placed herself under the protection of a neighbouring swain, who with commendable foresight had a travellor in waiting, into which he handed the fugitive, and then seating himself by her side, ordered the driver to lose no time .in placing both beyond the reach of pursuit. The driver obeyed his orders, they soon set down safely in the city, and here they con tinued for three days in the uninterrupted enjoyment of each other's company. Things, however, did not long pro ceed thus smoothly. As soon as the flight was discovered the peaceful village was in an uproar : among those who seemed to take the matter most to heart was the mother of the hero of the tale. Resolved to leave nothing undone to prevent their union, she hurried into town, and for three days did she pace indefatigably its lanes and alleys. On the fourth she succeeded in discovering their retreat, and in it she found her son and his Dulcinea, both of whom were petrified with astonishment at the entrance of their unwel come visitor. The scene that ensued we are unable to describe. Remonstrance and entreaty were employed in vain to induce the gallant to abandon his companion. The old lady's resentment was roused and her pride was stung, and after repeated upbraidings for his breach of duty, the indignant mother left the house declaring that if he married her, one penny she would not leave him. He might marry any " decent body" he pleased, but " to marry a Priest's niece !—who ever heard of such a misfortune befalling any honest woman's son ?" Why the old dame should be so inveterate in her prejudice against the Priest's niece, we know not—especially are we ignorant of the grounds of the prejudice in the present instance, for she is herself not only a parishioner but an intimate acquaintance of mine " uncle.' Be this, however, as it may, prejudiced she was, and pre-' judiced she proved herself to be, for words less gentle than those which she used to declare her displeasure, have sel dom issued from woman's lips. All, however, had no effect on her graceless son, for in a day or two after, he aril his companion repaired to a priest, and were made " one for life."—Cork Paper. KENSINGTON SPECIAL SESSIONS. IMPORTANT TO THE PARISHES ROUND LONDON. THE PARISH OF CHELSEA V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN ROADS. (Present Sir JOHN SCOTT LILLIE, Chairman, THOMAS FRANCE, and --- TUBBS, Esqrs.) On Saturday last a Special Sessions of the Magistrates of the Kensington Division was held at the Bell and An chor Tavern, Hammersmith, to hear and determine in a case of great interest to the parishes within the limits of the Metropolis Roads' Act. The following are the facts of the case : For some time past great dissatisfaction has existed among the inhabitants of Chelsea, in consequence of the great expense to which that parish had been put in keeping in repair the extensive lines of roads which pass along and intersect it, more especially at the additional expense thrown upon them since the removal of the turnpike from Hyde Park-corner, of having to repair the King's-road, which has become a great Western thoroughfare, along which numerous waggons and carts daily travel, heavily laden with materials, to repair the turnpike roads under the Metropolitan Trust ; but for which accommodation the Commissioners of the metropolis roads afford the parish no compensation, beyond exacting from them yearly the sum of 701. 15s. in lieu of statute duty. On the 9th of last month, a public vestry of the inhabi tants was convened to take the matter into c onsideration, when it was unanimously resolved, " That application be made to the magistrates acting in the Kensington division, to hold a special sessions, for the purpose of relieving them, if possible, from the payment of the statute duty." A special sessions was accordingly convened for the 25th ult., but, previous to that day, the conflagration of both Houses of Parliament through a new light upon the road the parish had to travel, in obtaining relief from the impost of the metropolitan trust. One of the inhabitants of Chelsea, returning on the night of the fire, from the scenes of de vastation, picked up some papers in one of the adjacent streets, which, on his arrival at home, he found was the " Eight Report to Parliament of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Roads," from which it appeared they had a balance on hand, on the 25th of March, 1833, of 2,1771. 7s. 2d. ; and on the 25th of March last, 2,104/. 17s. On the 25th ult., a deputation of the vestry attended the spe cial sessions, when, on the complaint of Henry Slyfield, the parish surveyor, a summons was granted by the bench against the clerks and surveyor of the trust, requiring them to appear before them and produce their accounts, on Saturday last. On that day the vestry clerk and a large body of the parish were in attendance ; but the parties summoned, with th e exce pti on o f M r . Newman, the sur veyor, neither appeared, nor sent any excuse. After waiting from eleven until one o'clock, the Magis trates adjourned until eleven o'clock yesterday, and issued fresh summonses for that day. Yesterday the Magistrates again assembled at the same place, pursuant to adjournment, when Mr. Newman at tended, and delivered to the Chairman a letter from the office in Whitehall-place, stating the absence from town of Mr. Panter, one of the clerks, and requesting a postpone ment of the case until Monday next, the 17th inst., which the Magistrates acceded to, and again adjourned. The above is only the second case of the kind which has occurred since the passing of Lord Lowther's Act. The first, " The Parish of Fulham v. the Commissioners of Me tropolis Roads," was heard on the Bth of July, 1833, before the same bench of magistrates, who decided in favour of Fulham. The commissioners were, however, not satisfied with the decision of the magistrates, and appealed against their order, which appeal was heard at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions on the 28th November last, and confirmed. A precedent was thus established, which, we doubt not, other parishes besides Chelsea will act upon. PROSPECTS OF LITERATURE.—The approach ing publishing season, according to Mr. Bentley's recent an nouncement, promises to be one of rare attraction. We ob serve with pleasure that the encouragement afforded by the public has infused a spirit into literature which it has long wanted. Valuable as well as amusing publications daily issue from the press. In the class of works of fiction we may ob serve that since the whole town were on the qui vice for the new novel by Sir Walter Scott, we do not remember any pro duction which has attained the popularity of Mr. Bulwer's new romance of " The Last Days of Pompeii." Lady Morgan has announced a new novel to be called " The Princess ;" Miss Landon is about to present us with a romance entitled " Francesca Carrara," and an Old Maid promises her " Vil lage Reminiscenses." A new edition of Miss Edg ewor th' s novel, Helen,' as well as of Mr. Morier's Turkish romance, " Ayesha," have just appeared. The following valuabl e wor k s will possess attraction for readers of all classes :—Mr. Beck ford's Italy, with Sketches of Spain and Portugal ; the New Voyage of Discovery to the South Atlantic Ocean, by com mand of the British Government, performed in his Majesty's ship Chanticleer in 1829, 1830, and 1831 ; The United States and Canada, in 1832, 1833, and 1834, by C. D. Arfwedson, Esq. ; Oriental Memoirs, comprising a Narrative of Seven teen Years' Residence in India, by the late James Forbes, Esq., edited by his daughter, the Countess de Montalembert ; and a new and cheaper edition, of the delightful Letters of Horace Walpole to Sir Horace Mann, edited by the late Lord Dover. Here surely will be found ample recreation for the approaching long winter evenings. COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 10 BROOM V. PAGE. When this case was called on Mr. KNIGHT said he was in one of the appeals arising out of it. Mr. Wakefield was also in one of them, but in that which was to come on first was Sir E. Sugden, who wished to open it himself, but he was kept from Court by slight indisposition. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked who was with Sir Ed ward? Mr. KNIGHT said Mr. Tinney. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Very well ; Mr. Tinney may open the appeal, and Sir Edward Sugden may have the re ply. That course was often ordered by Lord Eldon. Mr. KNIGHT said it would be more convenient to him self if all the appeals were to remain over, but, fearing his Lordship would order them on, he told Mr. Tinney he should be in Court at the close of the last case. Mr. Tinney not being then in Court, The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give a quarter , f an hour. At the end of that time his Lordship came from his private room, but, Mr. Tinney not being then in Court, his Lordship said as he had to wait half an hour for the Lord Mayor he would give the parties the benefit of that time before he should strike out the appeal. The Lord Mayor and Recorder, &c., came in about two o'clock, and invited the Lord Chancellor to dinner to-day, which invitation his Lordship accepted. After they retired his Lordship not seeing Mr. Tinney, asked the solicitor why he did not send for him ? The solicitor said he thought he could not have him in the time named by his Lordship. The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the appeal to be struck out : but that order was not to affect the appeal in which Mr. Knight was concerned. His Lordship added that be would have a notice put.up, that for the future all causes in which counsel were not ready to go on with when called should be struck out. That would be a good general rule. His LoRDHH' rose about half-past two o'clock. ROLLS' COURT.—Nov. 10. BROOKE V. GIBBART. Mr. BICKERSTETH appeared in this case on behalf of the plaintiff. He proceeded to state the facts of the case. The plaintiff was a gentleman, the owner of certain lands situated in the parish of Hever, in the county of Kent, and the defendants were the tenant and owner of a water-mill situated in the same parish. The bill was filed to restrain the defendants from damming or obstructing a certain stream that skirted the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff's land consisted of different portions called the clover field, Gibbart's meadow, orchard, and Calf's plat. At the west ern extremity of the clover field was the defendant's mill, and along the meadow ran the stream in question, till, taking a northern direction, it reached the defendant's mill. This land had previously to the year 1816 belonged to a gentleman of the ,name of Smith, who about that time sold it to a person of the name of Ashby, and the deed of this conveyance bore date the 2d of June, 1816. Soon after the execution of this deed some discussion took place between Mr. Ashby and Mr. Smith's son respecting the supply of water to the mill, and accordingly a memoran dum to the following effect was drawn up and indorsed on the back of the deed :—" Previously to the date and execution of the within-written indenture between Mr. John Smith and Mr. William Ashby, Mr. John Smith for the consideration herein-mentioned does cove nant and agree for himself, his heirs, and assigns for ever with Mr. William Ashby that it may and shall be lawful for the said William Ashby to pen and dam up the water as high as the top of the present bay at the west side of the millpond, adjoining the orchard." It then went on to pro vide, in case of any damage being done, that W. Ashby should pay such sum as any two respectable persons to be chosen shall direct and adjudge. Shortly after this one of Mr. Smith's sons became the tenant of the mill, and he formed a canal along the northern sides of the meadow and clover field, and at a certain point, marked on the plan B, made a dam or weir-stock to give greater force to the water flowing in that direction. In the year 1827, the present plaintiff, Mr. Brooks, became the pur chaser of certain other lands which Mr. Smith had not conveyed to Ashby. The plaintiff had not long entered into possession when he found himself seriously incon venienced by the penning up of the water. He made frequent complaints but without effect. About the year 1831, the defendant, for the purpose' of obtaining an additional power of water, formed a pen-stock, consist ing of a sort of flush dam, and by means of this da maged the plaintiff's lands in two ways. The first was by keeping the water at too great a height, and thereby pre venting a proper drainage of the land ; and the second, frequent floods. The bill was filed praying that the de fendant might be restrained from damming or obstructing the ancient stream, and he (Mr. Bickersteth) conceived that no authority could be produced to support a continu ance of this great injnry to his client. The contents of the memorandum were not disclosed until after the filing of the bill, and the defendant asserted that they were entitled under that memorandum to do all that they had done. The defendants had acted contrary to that memorandum, for the pen-stock that it provided should be formed was only in lieu of another, and yet they made the new one considerably higher than the former dam. Besides, there was this extraordinary circumstance connected with the memorandum, it having been signed by Mr. Smith only a few days before his death. He (Mr. Bickersteth) appre hended that the questions of law could not be disputed, and he thought under the circumstances of the case that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief he sought. Mr. DICKSON, after reading the affidavits filed in behalf of the plaintiff, addressed the Court at great length on the same side. _ _ _ Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for the defendants. His Learned Friend had said that the law affecting the present case could not be doubted. He (Mr. Pemberton) differed from his Learned Friend, for he believed the law of the Court to be not to interfere in such cases as the present unless either destroying the inheritance of a property, or preventing a multiplicity of suits or some privity of title, between the plaintiff and defendant, could be distinctly proved. In support of this position the Learned Gentle man proceeded to cite all the cases which bore upon this point. The Learned Gentleman was proceeded, but it then being three o'clock, His HONOUR postponed the further hearing of the argu ment till to-morrow (this day). During the course of the sitting Mr. Preston took his seat within the bar, being appointed a King's Counsel. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 10. GODSON, &C., V. FREEMAN. Mr. GODSON moved for a rule to show cause why the ver dict given for the defendant in this case should not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the grounds—first, of a misdirection • and, secondly, because the verdict was against evidence. This was an action on an attorney's bill. The Statute of Limitations had been pleaded, but there was evi dence to show that that Act did not apply. The defendant was the tenant of the Rev. T. Clarke, vicar of Overbury. There were some persons who wished to assert a right of pathway across some fields belonging to the vicar. The defendant was instructed by the vicar to resist the attempt, and was indemnified for the costs to which he might be put in doing so. The defendant, however, exceeded the vicar's instructions, and mixed up personal mat ters with the affair of the pathway. The vicar then said he should not have anything further to do with it, on which the plaintiff of course declined proceeding with the conduct of the business. The defendant, how ever, insisted on proceedings going on, and gave the plain tiff a written retainer to act for him. At the trial of the cause before Mr. Justice Williams, at the last Assizes at Worcester, the defendant's liability was, for the first time, disputed, and the Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say whether the plaintiff had or had not, in fact, given credit to the defendant, or whether he had given credit to a Mr. Clarke. The Learned Counsel submitted that this was a misdirection, and that the Jury who had adopted it, and found a verdict for the defendant, had given that verdict against the evidence in the cause. The Court did not think there was evidence to authorize the finding of the Jury. Rule to show cause granted. WILTON V. CHAMBERS. Sir J. SCARLETT in this case, which has been for so long a period constantly before the public, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and said that a rule had been obtained, calling on him to pay a sum of money which he had levied into Court. The Learned Counsel prayed that the Sheriff might be allowed to deduct his poundage therefrom. Mr. F. POLLOCK stated that in the first instance Mr. Chambers had contested the commission of . bankruptcy issued against him, but being unsuccessful, the commission was afterwards disputed by Mr. Wilton, who was the attor ney. The mode of doing this w as by commenc i ng an ac ti on against 111 r. Chambers for costs incurred in disputing the com mission. Judgment was confessed for 1,6001., and the plaintiff took out execution for that sum. • The Court, interrupting the further discussion on this point, made the rule absolute as to the Sheriff paying in the money, after deducting the poundage. WILTON V. CHAMBERS. Mr. ALEXANDER then brought on another Rule in this case, which was, that the Sheriff should re-enter under the execution mentioned in a former rule of May, 1832. There had been, in May, 1832, an execution issued under what was then declared by a Jury and by the Vice-Chancellor to be a bona fide debt, but the Court withdrew from the She riff all his power by a rule, ordering him to withdraw from the possession of the property seized under that execution, having power reserved to him t o re - en t er , in case the vali dity the commission should be established, as in Bernas oni v. Farebrother. The witness who had formerly given •-• " ' • • - the most important testimony in support of the commission turned round in the trial that followed upon that rule, and contradicted all that he had formerly said, so that the Jury found a verdict invalidating the commission. The present application was to rescind the rule ordering the Sheriff to withdraw, and to leave him as before, by which the creditors would get the fruit of the execution. Lord DENMAN said that if the Court rescinded the rule, that would only have the effect of withdrawing the restric tion, but would not force the Sheriff to sell, and he might decline to do so, and come to the Court for protection. The Court ordered the rule to be discharged with costs. THE KING V. FRANCIS. This was a rule calling on the defendant, the printer of the Liverpool Commercial Advertiser, to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against him for the publication of an alleged libel. Mr. J. PoLimex (with whom were Mr. KELLY and Mr. W. H. WALTON) appeared to show cause against the rule, but before doing so he took a preliminary` objection. In the affidavit as to the place stated to be the place of publi cation it was described differently from the place at which, by the imprint on the paper, the publication really appeared to be made. In a similar case that had been brought be fore the Court the rule had been discharged, because the affidavits in support of the application did not contain a statement that the defendant was the publisher of the same paper as that in which the libels were inserted. If neither of the modes of identifying the publisher required by the Act relating to these matters were observed the Court could not grant the application of a prosecutor. In the pre sent case the applicant had not even shown the defendant to be the publisher, for the affidavit on which the application was founded, after stating the paper supposed to contain the alleged libel, did not g o on to state that the defendant was the publisher, and h ad published the paper at the office where the imprint on the paper showed the publication really to have taken place. Sir JAMES SCARLETT contended that the objection could not be held sufficient to defeat this application. The cause of the error was that the defendant had changed his place of publication ; but if a defendant did that it did not follow that a person applying against him was on that account to be deprived of all redress. The Act required the publisher of a Newspaper to file an affidavit stating the place of printing and publishing it. When, therefore, the defendant changed the place of printing and publishing he ought to have made another affidavit. It was no fault of the pro secutor, but it was the fault of the defendant that he had not complied with the provisions of the Act, and he, and not the prosecutor, ought to suffer for it. Lord DENMAN said that in his opinion the rule ought to be discharged. The Act of Parliament had pointed out an easy process by which the publisher of a Newspaper might be discovered, and brought before the Court. It was the fault of a prosecutor if he did not avail himself of the Act of 1798, and he must take the consequences of neglecting to do so. Mr. Justice TAUNTON concurred, and observed that the Act referred to by the Lord Chief Justice had been much complained of at the time, as making publishers too well known, and so offering too much facility for proceeding against them. A prosecutor, to entitle himself to proceed under that Act, must proceed strictly according to its pro visions.—Rule discharged. EX PARTE LAW. Mr. FOLLETT showed cause against a rule for a prohibi tion to be issued in this case to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. The required prohibition was to stay all pro ceedings against John Law in the matter of J. Wood, de ceased, until the liability of Richard Coates on a bill of the said Joseph Wood should be discharged. Lord DENHAM called on the other side to support the rule. Mr. WIGHTMAN, who was heard in support of the rule, said the Prerogative Court had issued an order on two at tornies to deliver up a will which they had made, and which they claimed to retain till certain costs due to them were paid. The question really was, whether that Court could thus put an end to an attorney's lien by compelling the at torney to deliver up and deposit with the officer of the Ec cleciastical Court that instrument on whio he claimed to have a lien. If the Court could do this, then no attorney could safely calculate on a right of lien. Lord DENHAM was clearly of opinion that this rule could not be maintained. Mr. Justice TAUNTON said that this Court never did in terfere with the Ecclesiastical Court by the issuing of pro hibitions, unless the latter were about to do something that was against laW. He could not tell but that the Ecclesias tical Court would cause the instrument to be deposited with their officer, so as to take care to have his custody of it considered as a continuation of the custody of the at torney himself. M. Justice WILLIAMS said that this Court could not assume, at this stage of the proceeding, that the Ecclesias tical Court would decide any - thing as to the right of this gentleman.—Rule discharged with costs. BAIL COURT, Nov. 10. ( Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE and a Common Jury.) EVANS V. STEERS. Sir J. SCARLETT (with whom were Mr. PLATT and Mr. JoNEs) stated"that the action was brought to recover com pensation in damages for certain slanderous words spoken by the defendant of and- concerning the plaintiff. After stating the case, the learned Counsel called— Mr. James Casterton, who stated that he was a member of the Stock Exchange. He knew the plaintiff, and also a gentleman named Gibbs, in whose service plaintiff had lived in the capacity of housekeeper for nearly forty years. Witness was one of his executors. By his will, in consi deration of her faithful services, he bequeathed to the plain tiff 3,5001., and such articles of his plate and furniture as she might think proper to select. Witness acted as stock broker for Mr. Gibbs. Cross-examined by Mr. THESSIGER-Mr. Gibbs was in perfect possession of his faculties when he died. Did not know how old he was when he died. The plaintiff, who was sitting immediately opposite the learned Counsel, attired in a black silk dress, here got up and said he was eighty-eight. Mr. THESSIGER (addressing her) —Although, Madam, you have a new silk gown, you are not entitled to address the Court.—(This observation caused a burst of laughter, Mr. Thessiger having obtained his " new silk gown" only a few days.) Mr. Edward Hetherington stated that he was one of the executors appointed under the will of Mr. Gibbs. In the month of January last, the defendant, who is a retired tradesman, and in whose house the plaintiff then lodged, called upon him to make some private communication to him, which he declined receiving, and referred him to Mr. Goldsmith. . . Mr. Goldsmith stated that on the day mentioned by the last witness the defendant called upon him, and after re questing a private interview, which was granted, told him that it was a shame that people should be robbed of their rights, as soon as men were dead, by that woman Mrs. Evans (the plaintiff) ; that he had witnesses to prove that she had swindled the relations of 9,000/. ; and had re moved Mr. Gibbs's plate to her lodgings the morning after his death. Cross-examined by Mr. TnEsslGEß—Did not tell the plaintiff of this conversation until a fortnight afterwards. The statement made by deferit:. nt was in confidence. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. THESSIGER addressed the Jury tor tilp defence, and said that the words spoken were not actionable, aj that they were uttered by the plaintiff in an unguarded momelj; and, in the absence of all proof of malice, he trusted the Jury would return a verdict in his favour. He did not call any witnesses. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE summed up the evidence, and The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the defendant. SIR ROBERT SYDNEY V. O'GORMAN MAHON, ESQ. Sir JAMES SCARLETT stated the plaintiff's case. It was an action, he said, to recover the sum of 4791. 65., brougbt by the plaintiff, a solicitor, who had conducted the proceed ings for the defendant before a Committee of the House of Commons upon a petition presented against his return to Parliament for a borough in Ireland. He understood there was no real defence to the action ; indeed, 50/. had been paid on account, and, with respect to the sums paid as fees to Mr. O'Hanlon, the counsel, these had been struck out of the bills, as it was understood the defendant had arranged those with the counsel. There were two items objected to in some letters which would be read, from the defendant to the plaintiff, but these would be proved correct charges, and then it would only be necessary for the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff, minus the money paid on account, and the fees arranged respecting the counsel, who was a friend of Mr. Mahon: Two letters from the defendant were read, written in 1831, and subsequently. In the former he alludes to his illness, and the restrictions laid upon him by his physician not to interfere in business ; says that Sir Robert has no occasion to trouble Mr. O'Connell respecting the bill, as it will be arranged. In the latter, he writes that he cannot be certain why he is making such a fuss about the bill. Why don't the people deliver their bills ?—They shall be settled, if correct ; and money shall be lodged in the banker's hands to discharge them. Some of the charges— those regarding the press and the money paid to the short hand writer —were not correct ; but, however, he wishes Sir Robert to let him know whether a dissolution was to be expected soon, as he would be mainly guided in his movements by that event. Mr. John Bellamy, housekeeper of the House of Com mons, was shown a bill for 201. 13s. which he had received of the plaintiff. He stated the items to be all correct, and the fees such as were regularly paid on election inquiries. Another witness, a Parliamentary agent, who manages election business for the plaintiff, stated that the charges the made in that part of the bill as "respects 31r. Guil t * o r short-hand writer, and some other items were perfectlyecere rect. On being asked by the Learned Judge whether of the were any other witnesses to prove the correctness ? i l d in bill, f as he was in the employ of the plaintiff, he rePI c ok e he negative ; but said, when any objections w ere ail , to al a bill of a solicitor, the Speaker was referred to, an ways appointed persons to tax the bill. to• i r ° bill The ir w J e r A e M p E r S o SvacrbLyEpTeTrssaanisd,inthtahteoirn earallpoicacya.sions sobc The Jury found, (after deducting 50/. and the f e es Ar e the Counsel had arranged) a verdict for the plaintiff 345/. I Is. _. • ,10• COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ii°-• • LAPORTE'S BAlL.ffce• Mr. Seguin, bookseller in Regent-street, Cox, 0 r o f keeper at the Opera-House, and Mr. Last, " boos, the stall department," appeared to justify actions commenced against Mr. Laporte. at Gd . In answer to questions put to him by Mr. Sergea b.urn, who opposed the bail on behalf of one of the.Pgr. tiffs, Mr. Seguin stated that he bad been bail fo r as ; Laporte about twenty times within the last twelve me n 0 the highest amount was for 500/. ,that he had Iread ° h • that morning justified as bail for him in the King' s , 0 5 for 78/. ; that he did not know to what a mount i! had liable before this morning's business, but that u , e ns cre been told by Mr. Laporte's Solicitor it was ee" - than 401. t f or as bail in w Mr. Justice VAUGHAN (who had come into O ur , o ula the purpose of taking bail cases) said that the bail t oot not be allowed, as it was clear he did not know the ale of his liabilities. Mr. HEATON, for the defendant, stated that be, lf structed that the bail was exonerated from all liaw7j account of the other actions which had been refer c ;, and if the Court would (rive him time he wo uld Pr°a,`l affidavit to that effect. No injury could in th e I nsl e result to any one, Mr. Laporte having rende red in doc of his bail, and being actually in prison. r et, Mr. Justice VAUGIIAN said that it would be a 17. 3 9 0 upon such negligence as had been exhibited in this` lot let the defendant have the indulgence asked fo r f< t ts paying for it. He might have it on pa'ying the the clay. Two days' time were ultimately granted. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. W. ____..____ aer DICAS V. BENGOUGH. This was an action for libel against a newsve°, et ioo' selling some numbers of the Satirist, containing re' e ; fre' upon the plaintiff, the particulars of which have b ee be fore quently before the public. The cause was tried Lord Lyndhurst in the sittings after last Ter ¢r tee Mr. t verdic given for the defdant. •I the Sergeant Bo PAS now moved to se t 01" diet, as perverse and against evidence. • fiv Lord LYNDHURST—The facts of the case w e-c a 1i 513 these :—The defendant was a widow, who sold tra rly her shop, and upon a Sunday she sold newsioaPder'''botigbjt plaintiff sent his son there to buy the Satirist. P ' e ber aij the numbers of the 9th, 16th, and 23d of Septena ,; tba t took them home to his father. There was no evi d , e 7a yt he had read these papers himself, or that the 'l e sold any other copies of those particular numbers: o 0 ,; Jury, therefore, I suppose, thought that there s wi r :o t'; dente of injury to the character of the plain till of s°' publications complained of. There was no evidence eve r person having read the alleged libels. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS said that such evidence williciePt required in support of actions for libel. It w wg ; ,., 5 0 Di tbe to prove the libellous matter and the publieet`v defendant. r Lord LYNDHURST—YOU do not mean Bretu e 'h t ° t " e that if a man writes a libellous letter to an a }1 can bring an action for it ? " lin t 4 Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS did not go that leg t i ;ter t f't was prepared to contend that if a person wro te a , t holl containing a libel upon B, it would be enoug h teal it, tb A received the letter without showing that be f ri Lord Lvninit sT thought the Jury had con e ev •le o -d ° ,o the plaintiff sustained no injury, as there was n o , un t b e l t yi any other copies having been sold by the defeen en ce t o those sold to plaintiff's son, and there was no any one has read the libel but the p laintiff. - parties might agree on behalf to a stet processus. to Mr. CHILTON, of the defendant , e °l33e b il, that mode of settling the matter. He, however' ° that another such victory would ruin his client. o i• iz INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, °l l tbe cl ffe William Lucy was opposed by Mr. Wood ° , tote ;jr , part of Mr. E. Bayntum, of the firm of 13 :1;d 1 frf Bartholomew, silk-merchants. He was supe 0 11 ' Cooke. )1 01 ' ref° The COURT adjourned the case for the ills' or or tain the consent of three-fourrhs of his creditors .0 for in prison until the expiration of five years fr °ll) disAndrecharge. ee. w Shiel, a baker, applied for his re r was supported by Mr. Cooke. r oe P e It appeared that he had been assisted by ' ° , la ' for whom he had accepted several acconn'' . "( i o l . 11' 1 His debts and liabilities were stated at nearlY ` 2 ,4tai n t Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said be Ale s ' ° tr consents. 1 A Vi e to The insolvent said he could not ; he sbelh - , g rs , ..,, v rtl' main in prison until the expiration of the five,Y,e- e n ''; s ke Mr. Commissioner BOWEN told him he ha d ous t beo dent enough to give accommodation bills, a r) ,s", the consequence ; he had injured by that mea— fide creditors. The case was adjourned sine die• b o Two unopposed insolvents, whose misfortneea. t it arisen from accommodation bills, were discharg„o 01:54e The Learned COMMISSIONER told one of i,",:a was fortunate for him he was not o osed, forLaclea. cent holder complained he would have been re"" te' ter clsl BERMUDA.—Bermuda papers were Y eS c lslitos ceived to the Bth of October. They contain acreal,Pdr stating that as the cholera existed at Quebec, O Sl Oll O O' • Scotia, and New York, all vessels from thence O a be eo r e d, ject to quarantine. The provincial Parliament ha bil , l er rogued to the sth of November. His MajestYl 4 s 5 0 - 4 lid se under the command of Lieutenant Austen, had „el', muda in twenty-four days from Jamaica, bound I ,„ ° r t he r.bli s Pr way of Halifax. She had called off Bermuda, I °; he c 5 t,', 5 " e°' of landing two convicts, condemned to serve ", of 11 ; f ig e meet at Ireland Island ; but from the circuelstsec; berEj yellow fever having occurred on board the shiP,e_ A - r ge l c or from Jamaica, the Health Officer at Port St• u_n e r tb e d iott' fused to allow them to land. The Tweed was w— t b s l3s - „ , er9 mand of Lieutenant Austen, and within three from the effects of the yellow fever, her aPleteell ° ,111 1 , 1 assistant-surgeon, two warrant officers, a nd se v o , 04 le ft crew. Lieutenant French, of the Royal Arta ; ser e fallen fallen a victim, and fifteen men and two officer the hospital at Jamaica. A ce " B I R THS . 110 0 O f ' te r On the 9th inst., Mrs. Matthew Clark , of Regent's Park, of a son. On the 9th inst., Mrs. George Brace, of a daug h o ter f 0/40 6 On the 9th inst., the lady of Adams Beck, Esq" ass* On the 31st of July last, at Werk-en-Rust, Dern- G. H. Davis, of a daughter. tbe ch O ar n le t a h ,Th e 3 o l m st a ul on t. der on of th 3 e l , Alfred , young to Jo ila na"ghter of John ' S q.' Masterin Chancery, ughter ..... Stephenson, Esq., and graxt -rla 10 vi scou ;:t Molesworth. ' 25 ' th b ult. id i9E , On the 6,!" 11 inst., at St. Martin's; 1, F . Ids --r. li. re ' Martin's-in-the - F ields ie , , go tO wb ay s- tu. ngs, to Miss Elizabeth Jones , eT of needle-street, to Carolina' Maria Dow, of the above l ac- ge• c ol" sat al BPrarlifgiAshtßonßlljrl). J.ohn LeostckBe°l :Ilia::: On the Bth inst., at St. George's, Hanover-sqlosfion, Taylor, of Davies-street, Berkeley-square, to Eliza daughter of the late Mr. Joseph Fleetwood, of 11011)00' f _O l g On DIED. ~ k barn , , 100 the 6th inst., in his 62d • M William J' ir a fter ell year, r. seer of his Majesty'sship ur , inc e York, Portsmouth 11arb0,,,,,R, 5 and severe illness, which fort''' . , . cie f i t y I ented by all who knew li'm On the 21st nit at 1 • in , he Basono%trs`cf ~ Jonkoping, Sweden , t voc oy P bt er hausen, widow of B aron de Rehausen, many year s "'d c la o g dinary from the Court of Sweden in this country, a n ff 4.' the late John Merchant Bulkeley, Esq., of Lisbon. 0 s a ttl On the 25th of April, at Bengalore, Henry Anse JO' 7th Mad I; - h 'V' t. ras ight Cavalry. • bet ~,I t • On the 7th inst ,at Cla ham-common, Airs. E110,.,,5, yt. oh. On the 14th ult. , on his passage from the West Inalftoo, ~,ci D. Marshall, youngest . son of Major Marshall, R.M.,ii, , Or On the 7th inst., at Old Brompton, in her 74t1 1 Ye' . ylr' Charlotte, relict of the late John James Vallotton, -,,5511,',,d year e pt , , At the Priory, near Stroud, Gloucestershire, in bt .i'lee, .00,01 Joseph Wartnaby, eldest son of J. Wartnaby, Escl., of v oast , On the 7th inst., at Poole, Dorsetshire, Mr. Henry .-J o , Milk-street, Ch 'd eapsi e. 0. De jeoef' On the Bth inst., llenry, infant son of Mr. ei je Aldersgate-street, solicitor. WilkiP s°ll ' . ng t°ll f: On the 7th inst.,' at Highgate, Elizabeth Tone , ___,, pit o 0 1 daughter of the late Mr. Jos. Wilkinson, of Canon,el)lol,o On the 7th inst., Fanny Caroline, aged two y are„,. ~ .., i , eldest child of Dr. Rowland, M.P., of Fenchurch-o r of (c , On the 4th inst., in her 95th year, H a r nett, relict _ OO O I e t , Goodwin, Esq., of Studham Lodge, Herts. u g I Robert Ferran, yo i' v , On the 6th inst., aged 33, Mr. d , , John Farrah, Esq., of East-place,Lambeth. ~,a ns , '..bit i ' On the sth inst., at the Wild Farm, near St..ii-nit'he East Smith, Esq., of the India House (late Captain 1 te r Volunteers), aged 46. ~ et a B'. beg On the 31st ult., at Leeds, John Cusson, Psrl . ,; r '' o f 613'' 0 On the Bth inst., Mr. John Mainwaring, jewe" e ' cat).l, rents, Chancery-lane. f the l ate ea re'''' On the 2d inst., at Jersey, Elizabeth, widow !:) Jolla W l' Philip Pipon, R.N. and daughter of the late Sir , 0 01 1 many years Baillie Of that island. , 'tort' On the 4th inst., the Rev. John Ferra ~ by of Welford tonshire. ra r,i o ' ------ c) : 1(‘'" ). London : Printed and Published by MURD at The Sum Office, No. 112, Strand,. NEW A, The ver; t Nte ANQ ] 7711:1, I A. Tlp • lit S.;ll,lT,"'ld Cy P , bin L~Lv~ lit ~e ei s s o p Ak o ther et 4 4 ; PY J HE orl6 FN./ k is!) • I: I kJust Pu' T V V Aitr D„ c 4 ' The