The Sun. — London, England, 1834-11-05 00:00:00

he mentioned Mr. Shelton as an individual of whose posthumous suggestions he had availed himself, as an argument in favour of the Bill, and Lord Wynford ac knowledged Mr. Shelton's great experience. The Chancellor avowed that he had availed himself of all the information he could collect on the subject, and that he had received the assistance of the Judges. It is well known that some such plan, or, at least, some substitute for the old system, had long been considered desirable by the practitioners at the Middlesex and neighbouring Sessions. The judicial authorities, how ever, and the Government had allowed the evils to remain ; and the public are greatly indebted to the Lord Chancellor for having at length interfered. The Bill, as is well known, was the production of several hands. Some of the clauses were drawn by Mr. Charles Phillips, from the materials he found among Mr. Shelton's papers; others were drawn by the Chan cellor himself. Mr. March Phillips, the Under Home Secretary, drew also several ; and the Judges, who were all consulted, gave many hints. This is the first time we ever heard of a Minister's merit being tried by the test of the Times. We never before heard that a Minister was deserving of praise according to the de gree in which his measures were original—that a le gislator, instead of drawing on all men of experience, capable of supplying him with the best information, ought to shut himself up in his garret, to hold com munication with no one, or to withdraw to some se cluded farm-house, like Goldsmith, when composing She Stoops to Conquer, in order to strike out some new touches with which to startle the town. But a new light has flashed on us. The law-giver must now study the labouf,s of his predecessors merely to avoid availing himself of them ; and carefully avoid profiting by the aid of experienced men, lest he should be charged with plagiarism.--Morning Chronicle. A large proportion of our columns are this day devoted to the proceedings of loyal and Constitutional Meetings, to which we direct the attention of our readers with a degree of genuine satisfaction propor tioned to the strength of the conviction we have long felt, that such manifestations of public spirit are of the greatest importance, not only as a proof of the actual numbers, energy, and zeal of the Conservative party in Great Britain, but as the best means that can be devised to recruit its forces, to diffuse its principles, and to stimulate its efforts. We need only appeal to the dinner given at Aberdeen to the Hon. Captain Gordon, the Representative in Parliament of that county ; the dinner at Tewkesbury to C. W. Codring ton, Esq., the Constitutional Member for the eastern division of the county of Gloucester ; and the Meeting of the Church of England Association at Cheltenham all of which we have this day the happiness and the honour to record, as affording a satisfactory demonstration that the Conservatives of England are not inactive, that they are determined to do their duty to the country, and that they know how their duty to the country may be most effectually dis charged. We triumphantly point to these assem blages of conscientious and uncompromising Con servatives. We call upon the British public only to compare their proceedings with the low and inde cent orgies of the Whigs at Edinburgh and the Radi cals at Glasgow, and then to ask themselves which class of persons are most worthy to be entrusted with the controul and direction of national affairs? Our limits will not permit us to dilate upon the many gra tifying topics to which the occasion invites us ; but we cannot refrain from directing attention to the honour able and manly terms of cordial esteem and affection in which, at the Scottish celebration, the Earl of Aberdeen spoke of the illustrious chief of the adminis tration of which his Lordship was so distinguished a member, and of his eminent colleague, Sir R. Peel, nor from contrasting this Conservative conduct with the low jealousy and paltry competition for mob ap plause that characterised and disgraced the hollow con vivialities in which the Whigs and Radicals have re cently exposed themselves to the derision and con tempt of society. We feel also that we should be guilty of injustice to our readers, were we not to direct their special attention to the powerful eloquence and unanswerable arguments which distinguished every passage of the admirable address delivered by Lord Ellenborough at the Tewkesbury dinner.—Morning Post. ' • The public are expecting, not patiently we fear, some further insight into the plans of his Majesty's Ministers for accommodating the two branches of the Legislative Body with chambers wherein to meet. To say the least of it, the mystery observed is rather un gracious towards the public. It is more than ungra cious, because the questions raised upon the subject do not involve merely considerations of taste or judgment, —they involve the expenditure of the public money,— the disposal, which having once taken place is irre deemable, of no slight portion of the national property, a matter on which we presume to think that, if only as a feeler, some indications of its designs might with propriety be thrown out by the King's Government, for the sake of hearing the opinions of intelligent men, or even of ascertaining through the press the inclination of the general sentiment. The only data which the country has to go upon are, that prepara tions have been already made for fitting up a part of the buildings which suffered from the fire as Houses of Lords and Commons ; that the Painted Chamber is to receive the Lords, and the old House of Lords to shelter the Commons ; and that the total expense of these operations has been estimated at 30,0001. If we be given to understand that the Painted Chamber and the old House of Lords are to form the two per manent receptacles for the Peers and representatives of the people of England, and that these two apart ments are fully capable of answering the purposes to which they have been respectively destined, most per sons will agree with us that 30,000/. is a moderate charge for so important an object ; and that if there be nothing behind the curtain, the country has got off cheap. But if, as has been suspected, and as we have heard, this 30,0001. be no more than the esti- mated cost of a temporary and transient " fitting up," and if the Legislative Bodies are to be finally deposited elsewhere, at an expense of double, treble, or qua druple that amount, we may very well ask whether it be justifiable, or, in other words, whether it be wholly unavoidable, that so large a sum as 30,000/. should be wasted on a momentary use ; and whether 9-10ths of the amount might not be saved by lodging the Peers and Commons in buildings which the fire has not devastated, and which may be inhabited without expensive repairs and alterations. Should it be in tended that the House of Lords, though not well adapted, under any circumstances, to the use of the Commons, shall, after the provision of a permanent chamber for that assembly, revert to the Peers themselves, the same arrangements of benches, galleries, &c., or nearly so, being made equally to accommodate either body, there is on that score little objection to be offered. The Peers will succeed to the popular representatives, and there is an end of it. But if the House of Lords is now to be dressed up at an expense of some 15,0001. or 20,0001. for the Commons, and afterwards, on the return of the latter to their own permanent house, the same House of Lords is to be realtered at an equal or still higher cost for the lasting reception of their Lordships, we know not by what term short of " spoliation" of the public purse such conduct deserves to be designated. What again be comes of the Painted Chamber after its approaching ephemeral service shall be over ? Is it to be altered r' for the Peers—only to be realtered for a room of con- ference, and with an additional outlay ? We cannot comprehend all this. If architects and b u ild ers are to turn viceroys over ministers, the case ig intelligible enough. The poor men must live, and must do some thing for a livelihood. When thousands of labourers were perishing for want of work, that profound states man, the late Lord Castlereagh, thought every thing preferable to sheer idleness, were it . no more i:12!, digging holes and filling them up again. We should nevertheless hardly venture to recommend such an im provement on the Noble Lord's political economy as the present case exhibits—where apertures are wrought by spade and pickaxe for no imaginable purpose but to b e filled up with—gold. If St. James's be indeed holy ground, sacred exclusively to courts and guard rooms, and not to be defiled by any presence so gruff' and intractable as that of a modern Parliament, there still remains, as we have often said, Exeter-hall. But in the name of common sense and national dignity, let not the country be insulted by two successive tiers of THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1834 almshouses for the Legislature-Ist, the plastered and gilded ruins of the former edifices.; 2d, the ruined gildings of Buckingham Palace, for which, it must with all deference be added, if his Majesty had at his accession to the Crown avowed that his royal disrelish was incurable, from 100,0001. to 150,0001. of the pro duce of our taxes might have been saved to the people of this country. We finish by asking for at least an intimation of what is to be done, and why ?—Times. Who is Mr. Robert Mounsey Rolfe, Lord Brougham's new Solicitor-General ? He is a Gen tleman, elevated (?) to the rank of King's Counsel by the amiable, consistent, and well judging Lord High Chancellor, who refused that appointment to one whose learning, talents, and acquirements, are universally recognized, and whose position both on the Home Circuit and in Westminster Hall gave a virtual right to the honorary distinction. But whence springs the said Rolfe ? Oh, from the united boroughs of Penryn and Falmouth, which returned him at the late general election, when, as an inducement, he assured them, " That his presence in the House of Commons was of the greatest importance for the purpose of fur thering the amendment of the law ;" and, he might have added, " his advancement in that profession." Re turned to Parliament what has he done ? Voted silently, but steadily, in Ministerial majorities ; yea and nay have been his eloquence, obedience to the whipper-in his peculiar talent. But where stands his name in Westminster Hall ? Echo answers, " Where." Whom can we select, is the question. Sugden, Knight, and Pemberton are Tories ; Bickersteth repudiates office ; and the blessed Reform Bill has left us no seats in Parliament for our new Law Officers. The said Rolfe sits for Penryn ; he, therefore, is our man. Ay, ay ; but he must pay a " Dudley" visit to his consti tuents, who will, we trust, mete out to him " Camp bell" measure. We call upon Mr. Freshfield, the honest and consistent Member for Penryn in the two last Parliaments, and whose conduct at the late gene ral election won him the regard and respect even of his opponents, again to come forward, and we have no doubt Penryn will add another instance to the many already on record, of that re-action which has been pro duced by the combined causes of Whig dishonesty and returning good sense on the part of the people of England.—Morning Post. We should not have again recurred, after the ex pod which we gave on Monday last of what is now termed " the Brougham and Durham controversy," .and the clencher of our evening contemporary the Globe on the same subject, to a question so utterly unworthy of discussion, if not also in a great mea sure devoid of interest, as that personal affair, had not the Courier of last night provoked us to the barren contest in an article, brief indeed, and intended to be conclusive, but which, of all that we have been doom ed to peruse, exhibits the most complete specimen in our recollection of what logicians term a series of non sequiturs. We agree with that evening contemporary, that the more that " affair is meddleth with, the more offensive it becomes," and for the precise reason that the injudicious friends of Lord Durham would make that of it against'the Lord Chancellor, which the facts con nected with it will not bear out; but we totally disagree with him in his statement of the case as it now stands. Our contemporary is methodical, and gives his state ment under six different heads. " 1. We believe," says the Courier, "no intelligent per son, who read the Review, can avoid seeing that one main object of the writer was to injure Lord Durham in the opinion of the Reformers, who were about to confer public honours on him at Glasgow." We trust that we are gifted with some intelligence, as well as some of our friends and readers, and we are ready with them to make oath that, whatever the in tention of the writer of the article in the Edinburgh Review may have been—(the said writer being con sidered by the Courier to be the Lord Chancellor, al thoughlno proof of the fact has hitherto been exhibited) —the palpable object of the article was to defend a particular course of action, and to exhibit Lord Durham as a practical, though not professed approver of it— but not to injure that Nobleman by such exhibition of of the difference between his theory and his practice. " The mode," says the Courier, "in which this was to be done, was by insinuation, rather than direct charge." Now, there is not an insinuation to be found in the article in question from beginning to end—neither is there a charge in the sense in which the word is used by the Courier. The charge, if charge there be, is a mere statement of fact, in illustration of the propriety of pursuing a particular line of policy. "3. The matter of reproach," adds our cotemporary, " is contained in the following passage : " First, there was the 201. qualification, which the scheme, as reported by Lord John Russell and the rest of the sub-committee, contained, and which would have de stroyed a hundred rotten burghs, and created about twice that number! This was changed by the Cabinet to ten pounds, and Lord Durham made no objection—a change, however, which he may (though most incorrectly) represent as no compromise, because it was an extension, and not a clipping of the plan.' " Here three facts," says the Courier, "are stated as affecting Lord Durham. First, that the Sub-Committee reported in favour of a 201. qualification ; second, that the Cabinet changed this to a 10/. - third, that Lord Durham merely made no objection.' The natural inference is, that the Cabinet, as a body, was more liberal than Lord Durham in this matter." Here, unquestionably, " three facts are stated as affecting Lord Durham," but not to his in ; for had such been the case, he might well say, " have mercy on me !" inasmuch as, as we shall presently spew, the whole of the facts are capable of proa Here, for example, are the words of Lord Grey, o the 7th October; 1831 : " It has been urged," said he, "by some persons that this qualification (101.) is too high, and will exclude many respectable persons in the small country towns from the right of voting, which they ought to possess. On the one hand, however, very many have stated, and in particular, the Noble Lord opposite, who dwelt on this part of the measure at great length, that the qualification is too low, and will not afford an adequate representation to property. lam ready to admit that our first intention was to form he new constituency of the occupiers of 201. rental ; but we found, on inquiry, that the constituency would be so narrow and confined, in many of the country towns, that the large body of the householders would be excluded." Upon the same occasion, or nearly at the same time, the Lord Chancellor also observed— " It is said, indeed, that we have pitched the qualifica tion too low ; but are we not now debating on the principle of this Bill ? And is not the Committee the place for dis cussing whether that principle should be carried into effect by a qualification of 10/., or a higher one ? I have no ob- section, however, to consider the mere matter of detail here and if I can satisfy the Noble Earl ( Harrowby) that all over England, except in London and a few other great towns, .101. is not too .low, and may expect his vote after 0 • all. Now, in the small towns—l speak in the hearing of Noble Lords who are well acquainted with the inhabitants of them—persons living in 16/. houses are in easy circum stances. This is, undeniably, the general case. In fact, the adoption of that sum was not a matter of choice. We originally proposed 2.0/., but when we came to inquire, it appeared that very large places had a most considerable number of such houses: One town, for instance, with 17,000 or 18,000 inhabitants, had not !went y who rented houses rated at 201. a year. Were we ,o destroy one set of close boroughs, the Old Sarums and Gattons, which had at least possession to plead for their title, in order to create another new set of boroughs just as close, though better peopled?" Now here are the facts stated, the secrets disclosed, —at least what for party and malignant purposes are now termed secrets—and yet who will accuse Lord Grey of having made a charge against his son-in-law in these revelations, or of having disclosed any Cabi net secrets which it was dishonourable to make known ? Who will accuse Lord Brougham on the same score ? But then, says the Courier, one charge is that Lord Durham " made no objection ;" and why should he, when the qualification had a more liberal tendency than that which was originally suggested ? The beau tiful non sequitur, however, of the Courier's reason ing is to be found in the " natural inference that the Catnii.7t was more liberal as a body than Lord Dur ham. i n thi s maiL"." Durham b e i ng s i m pl y r.ian of a Sub-Com mittee, thi n k o f it, rea d e r) the LAI,-: and not the Committee itself I We neeci;CFcelY proceed farther with this painful and tedious analysis. The remaining facts and inferences of the Cou rier are either disposed of by the preceding extracts from the speeches of LOrds Brougham and Grey—by the extract which we gave the other day from Lord Durham's Gateshead speech—or b) his announcements at Glasgow ; while with regard to the charge, as it is termed, of " clipping and compromising" alleged to have been brought against him by Lord Brougham, we perfectly agree with a northern contemporary, that the friends of Lord Durham ought, for the sake of their favourite, to let the matter rest where it is " What are Lord Durham's avowed opinions now ?" says the Edinburgh Evening Post. "He has declared himself a - supporter of Household Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments.' We would ask him, whether, in consenting to the principles of the Reform Bill, he did not clip and compromise' each and all of these measures? How, then, dare Lord Durham to accuse any man of clipping and compromising,' when he is thus so glaringly self-convicted of the very offence, in its grossest form, with which he charges another ?" Enough I When Lord Brougham has answered these interrogatories to the satisfaction of the British public, we may again—but not till then—return to a subject which, as the Courier justly states, " becomes more offensive, the more it is meddled with."—Morn ing Advertiser. A letter has lately appeared in the columns of some of our contemporaries, written by Mr. John Dickinson, on the subject of the duty on paper. It is a commu nication most worthy of notice, on account of the facts which it brings forward and the arguments which it employs, although the force and merit of both are de teriorated by their intermixture with some prejudiced reasonings, and some inuendos—for we shall not call them inferences—which only demonstrate the imma ture reflection and hasty consideration of the writer. Mr. Dickinson proposes the abolition of the paper duty, instead of the abolition of the stamp duty on newspapers. Now, with the first part of the proposi tion we concur, though not with the second. We do not see why the two duties should be brought into comparison, nor the necessity of retaining the stamp duty on newspapers, because the abolition of the paper duty may be considered, or proved to be, a beneficial measure. The abolition of the paper duty is a measure which ought to stand on its own merits, and we recommend and advocate it, not because we concur with all the reasonings as signed for the adoption of the measure by Mr. Dickinson, but on far less objectionable grounds ; on grounds connected with the most valuable inferences of political economy, and with the most clearly demon strated advantages of free trade, both as concerns the increasing welfare of society, and the undiminishin,,g condition of the public finances. It is on the ground of the interests of commerce generally, of the interests of free trade, and of the general interests of society, that we advocate the abolition of the paper duty, and not on such absurd and narrow grounds as those par tially set up by Mr. Dickinson in the passages of his letter, where he refers to the " political publications in favour with the gin-shop and the pot-house," and which he idly presumes would be superseded by the augmen tation of such cheap public instructors as the Weekly Visitor, published by the Religious Tract Society." We may be here permitted, en passant, to re mark, that there exist other poisons besides those of a political and physical description ; among which the moral poison of fanaticism, and of blind and uninquiring prejudice, may be reckoned. No reasonable man can look in the most cursory way on the question of the paper duty without being convinced that it is a duty open to the condemnation of all sound principles of legislation, and that it is baneful and pernicious to society in a very extensive degree. In the first place, it is clearly a tax on the free operations of the mind, on the diffusion of knowledge, and on the interests of literature. On this head the arithmetical calculations brought forward by Mr. Dickinson in his letter, and previously enforced by Mr. M'Culloch, in his " Commercial Dictionary," cannot, by any possi bility, be impugned. It is quite clear that if the duty were taken off, the profits both of authors and of pub lishers might be doubled without the imposition of a single farthing additional expense on the pub lic. The removal of the duty would act as a direct premium on the diffusion of knowledge, by securing publishers from the risks which they now run in pub lishing works of any description (and not more than one out of three books is known to pay its expenses), and encourage literary men and authors generally, as well as raise the character of the literature of the country, by a more adequate remuneration for the ex hausting productions of intellectual labour that can now be afforded. The paper duty, however, is not limited in its fatal action to its restriction on the labours of the mind, but extends the baneful sphere of its withering influence to a large variety of important trades, and to the injury of a very considerable number of industrious operatives. Sir Henry Parnell has shown that it prejudices the interests of letter-press and copper-plate printers, bookbinders, paper-stainers, card and pasteboard-makers, artists, &c. &c. It also greatly prejudices the revenue, not only by decreased con sumption, and by inferior quality of manufacture, but also by prompting to great frauds under the excise laws. Mr. M'Culloch calculates that 27,000 indivi duals are supposed to be directly engaged in the paper making trade, and besides the workmen employed in the mills, that the paper manufacture creates a con siderable demand for labour of mill-wrights, ma chinists, smiths, carpenters, iron and brass-founders, wire -workers, woollen-manufacturers, and others, in the machinery and apparatus of the mill. These facts and arguments are quite sufficient to warrant our calling on all the extensive capitalists embarked in the trade,—on all the commercial classes and operatives depending on the employment of their capital—on all the advocates of the free-trade system—on the entire bookselling trade—and on all authors ,and literary men,—in other words, on the intellect of the country, to unite hand and heart in a grand effort to shake off the fetters of the paper duty.—Morning Advertiser. Though the result may seem a little startling and incredible to some, the fact nevertheless will, in the end, we are persuaded, turn out to be, that, were the property of the different City Companies well ma naged and duly administered, the revenue would be found sufficient to educate all the children of citizens who might be found to accept such aid, and to main tain in comfort all such members and their families as may fall into decay ; and that, were the immense re venues of the Corporation itself duly expended, it might relieve the inhabitants from every local burden, besides seeing a large sum annually expended in im proving and beautifying the city, with its trade and port. Yet how different are the real results from these! In most of the principal and wealthy Companies not only is all knowledge of their affairs confined to a chosen few, but Commissioners appointed by the Crown are openly set at defiance by the very persons who, if they have been acting honestly in the execution o f th e i r respective trusts, would, we should think, be proud to divulge, and shrink from concealment. But while this reluctance and concealment of itself speaks volumes, enough has been elicited to evince th e ex t ent o f mis management and abuse which prev a il s i n most o f these Companies , proving undeniably that the few are in most instances reaping the benefit which was meant for and indeed belongs to the many. From what passed a few days since at a meeting of the Common Council, it would seem that while the income of the larger body, the whole Corporation, is diminishing, the expenditure proceeds in an inverse ratio ; so that unless the tide of wanton and unneces sary outlay be stayed, we may soon expect to see Gog and Magog themselves among the insolvents in their own Hall. Yet here is an annual Parliament, that chosen panacea of so many of our modern patriots, entirely unable either to control expenditure or to ac quire even a knowledge of what their actual means and resources are. Though we trust that any such suspicion as the fact gives rise to, must be groundless, it is impossible not to be struck with the extreme sensitiveness with which the knowing members of this body uniformly shrink from any thing like fair and open investigation into its affairs. Though the most gross and palpable imputations are cast, nothing can ever tempt the arraigned to defend themselves ; while an apparent dread of recrimination, a tacit acknowledgment that " both are in the wrong," puts its extinguishers both upon inquiry and disclosure. Coupling these exhibitions with the extraordinary fact so often complained of, of the very auditors appoint(d by the livery not being allowed to see the vouchers for the accounts which they are called upon to pass, that mind must be stfangely. wedded to . the continuance of abuse which can deny the 11e9eSsIty gf Corporate re form. Except as far as nnnecessary fees and exactinis are concerned, no honest Reformer; we are convince 4, wishes to see any Corporate body throughout do kingdom deprived of any of its present resources. On the contrary, there are few ways in which so much good might be done as by a faithful application of the means intrusted to their care. Even splendour and hospitality, if confined within reasonable bounds, no one wishes to curtail. But the system of flagrant job bing and corruption which evidently exists is what all who do not partake of it must wish to see done away with, and that, instead of the concealment which originates in a consciousness of wrong, all the accounts of those bodies should be as explicit and open as honest accounts always should be.—Morning Herald. COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 4. Mr. KINDERSLEY, at the sitting of the Court this morn ing, made an application respecting a young lady of great personal beauty, sixteen years of age, and who, on attaining her majority, would be entitled to a very large fortune. It appeared that one of her guardians was about to take her to the Continent with him, a step which the other guardian considered highly injudicious and improper. The present application was therefore an order to prevent the young lady from being removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court. The LORD CHANCELLOR immediately granted the order as prayed. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, on his Lordship's entering the Court this morning, reverted to the question of the pro priety of holding the present sittings during term at Lin coln's Inn, and expressed a hope that his Lordship had taken into his consideration the very great inconvenience sustained by the bar from the destruction of Howard's Coffee-house and the consultation rooms. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had turned his attention to the subject, and made some inquiries on the practicability of the removal to Lincoln's Inn, but he was not yet prepared to determine on the proposition submitted to him. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said that the inconvenience which the bar suffered at present might be removed if the Judges of the Court of King's Bench could be induced to give the use of the Grand Jury Room for holding consultations. In the event of their Lordships consenting to allow the Grand Jury Room to be so used, the Gentlemen of the Chancery Bar might request those of the Common-law Bar to allow the use of their consultation rooms to the Chancery Bar in common with themselves. There was little doubt that this request would be immediately complied witillawd thus the Learned Counsel thought there would be sufficient accom modation for every one, and the whole"of the present incon venience would be got rid of without difficulty. His LORDSHIP approved much of this suggestion, and intimated his intention to send a message to the Judges of the Court of King's Bench in the course of the day. TOWNSEND V. REED. The motion was opened yesterday, and the arguments resumed this morning. It was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor, by which his Honour refused to allow a solicitor his costs generally out of the fund in the cause. It appeared that the solicitor had been concerned for the defendants in the cause, as their attorney in an action at law, and also in defending them against another suit in this Court, but upon points in both suit and action which were closely connected with the matter of the present suit. Up on a decree being pronounced in their favour, he claimed therefore to have a lien on the funds to which the defen dants were declared to be entitled, for his costs generally ; and he gave notice of that lien before the money was paid over to the defendants by the trustee, who received it on their account. The trustee, in defiance of the notice, paid the money over to the defendants, and the solicitor then applied to have the whole of his costs taxed by the Master, and that the amount found due to him might be now paid by the trustee, to whom he had given notice of his lien on the fund. This application was resisted on the part of the trustee, who contended that no such lien as the solicitor put forth could operate on him 4 and even if it did, that it only extended to the particular suit, and not to the general costs incurred on the part of the solicitor's clients. The Vice-Chancellor being of opinion that the lien was thus limited, pronounced an order to that effect, and against this order the solicitor now appealed. Mr. KINDERSLEY having argued in support of the appeal and Mr. Lloyd against it, The LOBD CHANCELLOR said he was of opinion that the solicitor had, in this case, a general lien for all his costs in curred on the part of the defendants in litigating the mat ters at issue, and that a trustee, having received regular notice of the lien, was bound not to part with the money until that lien was satisfied. His Lordship glanced at the practice which had prevailed with respect to liens since the time of Lord Mansfield, and took occasion to observe that, although now so thoroughly established, it was by no means of ancient practice. In the present case he directed the bill of the solicitor to be taxed, and that the trustee should then pay so much as might be found due on all the proceedings in which he had been concerned for the defendants in the cause. LIBRARY OF THE COURT. Mr. AGAR adverted to the question of the liability of the Suitors' Fund to bear the cost of repairing or replacing the books of the library, and observed that he thought the words of the 16th and 17th sections of the 50th Geo. 111. would fully warrant his Lordship in making an - order for that purpose . By that Act the interest of a certain sum was set apart for the payment of salaries and all neces sary expenses in the repairs or alterations of the Court of Chancery, and he conceived that the word "repairs" would fully apply to the library and its furniture, the most impor tant part of which was the books. His LORDSHIP doubted whether the word could be so construed ; but he was much obliged to the Learned Coun sel for the trouble he had taken in the matter, and he would certainly look into the Act, in order to ascertain the extent of his power over the Fund for the purpose alluded to. The books were only fortunately wet, not burnt, and the cost of the repairs would be trifling. TROTTER V. TROTTER. This appeal was opposed by Sir W. Horne, until the rising of the Court at four o'clock. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 4. DEWAR V. PURDAY. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause why the nonsuit that had been entered in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. He said that this nonsuit had been entered under rather extraordi nary circumstances. This was an action to recover da mages for pirating a song, and the music of the song. The plaintiff was the original composer of that music. Sir J. Scarlett, who appeared for the defendant at the trial, at first objected that the evidence was not sufficient to support the action, and that a nonsuit ought to be entered. Lord Denman, however, before whom the case was tried, was of opinion that the case must go to the Jury, and no point was reserved, nor any leave to move given. Lord DENMAN—I beg pardon, Mr. Attorney, I took a note of the objection, and have so entered it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—Nothing at all turned upon that. The case proceeded. The question was, whether the music was an original composition ? The plaintiff proved by Sir George Smart, and other distin guished musicians, that it was an original composition, and a meritorious one. On the other hand, the defendant called witnesses to prove that it was not original, and that the notes were the same as were to be found in other mu sical compositions. The Jury retired about four ecleck in the afternoon, and when the Court met the next morning he was surpiised to learn that they had been locked up all night. They were called into Court, and said that they had all agreed to find for the plaintiff except one, and that he must have some motive for it, which he (the Attorney-General) must confess was somewhat of an indecent observation. They were desired to return to their chamber. While the Jury were in Court he was in Court, and so was his Learned Friend (Mr. Thessiger), - who was Junior Counsel for the plaintiff. When they were desired to withdraw he went to the House of Lords, where he had business ; and Mr. Thessigcr went to the Court of Common Pleas, where he was retained in a cause then in the course of trial. He was very much sur prised to be told, not long afterwards, that Lord Denman had directed that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. He came into Court, and, with a warmth which it was natural lie should feel, but for which, if it was in the least degree improper, he most sincerely apologised, he expressed his surprise at what had been done, and said that there were considerable doubts as to the power of the Lord Chief Jus tice to direct a nonsuit under such circumstances. His Lordship answered that the objection was too late ; the non suit was then recorded. He now moved to set aside that nonsuit. With the greatest possible respect for his Lordship, he must say that it seemed to him there was no power whatever on the part of the Judge to nonsuit the plaintiff. The rule was, that the plaintiff might be called when the Jury had agreed to give their verdict, or while the evidence was proceeding, and if th e pl a i nt iff did not then appear, he might be nonsuited ; but he might appear, and if he did ho could not be nonsuited. Th e J u d ge had not the power to non suit him ; and certainly not when the Jury had with drawn, and were considering their verdict ; for then the plaintiff was not obliged to be in Court, and was not con sidered to be there ; he was only liable to be called into Court when the Jury had agreed upon their verdict, and were ready to pronounce it ; and then it was required that he should be in Court, because, according to the old prac tice, lie was liable to be fined for his false clamour if the verdict should be against him. The plaintiff, too, was liable to be called at the instance of the defendant : and that was another ground of objection in this Ran I fpf thil nPPS4it " 3 ' l t e rPd here FT rim viol of the I , carTl4 judge, and without the defendant haying celled for it. what he had stated as the law, was to be found 4 rages 867 and 808 of Tidd's Practico i and the for to Lo ob- served was sufficiently proved by the form in Tidd's Ap pendix. If Lord Denman had directed the Jury to discharged, he could not but have consented to it, after so [ much time had elapsed without their being able to come to an agreement ; and, indeed, his Lordship might have directed it without the consent of either party. In the same manner he (the Attorney-General) should have been willing to refer the case ; but when eleven out of twelve men were in his favour it was not to be expected that he should submit to be nonsuited. The COURT hardly thought that the ATTORNEY-GENE RAL was at liberty to refer to such a matter. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought he was at liberty to do so, because the fact was stated in open Court. He then repeated his former arguments, and contended that he was entitled to the rule. LORD DENMAN—You are not exactly inforMed, Mr. Attorney-General, as to all the facts, and I will now state how the matter occurred, during a period of the time you were absent from Court. The question was whether the plaintiff had made out his title to the music of the song as the original composer of the air. I confess that doubted whether he had done so ; and when Sir J. Scar. lett asked for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence, it appeared to me that there was some evidence which it was rather discreet than absolutely proper to submit to the notice of the Jury. I was, in fact, unwilling to with draw it from their notice. When I came into Court in the morning, they applied to me to be discharged. I then told them that they must endeavour to agree in their verdict, and I sent them back to re-consider the case. After that they sent again, and said that they were not at all likely to agree. I desired an inquiry to be made for the Counsel in the case. I then desired the Jury to come into Court ; and the Counsel not being present, though they had been inquired for, I thought it was right to act on the im pression which I had had in a former stage of the case, namely, that there was not sufficient evidence of authorship. I thought there was the least inconvenience in acting upon the impression that in my view there was no sufficient evi dence to go to the Jury, feeling that in consequence of the absence of Counsel there was nothing at all for me to do but to act upon my former impression. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had no doubt whatever that all his Lordship had stated as to what had occurred was most perfectly accurate, but even on that statement he submitted he was entitled to his rnle. The Court granted the rule. Just as the Court was about to rise, a female rose and begged to make an inquiry of Lord Denman as to a peti tion she had given him to present to either the House of Lords or the Commons in 1831, and to request him, if he had not presented it, to return it to her. She was informed that that was not the place for the discussion of such matters. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 4. (Sittings in Banco.) BUSINESS OF THE COURT. At the opening of the Court this morning, Mr. Justice GASELEE announced to the Bar (and the announcement was afterwards, in substance, repeated by the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE in full Court), that in consequence of the present state of Westminster Hall depriving the Courts of their usual accommodation, one Judge would in future take his seat at a quarter before ten o'clock, for the purpose of dis posing of bail and practice cases. PRICE V. THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX AND OTHERS. The facts of this case were briefly these :—A sheriff's officer, named Jackson, having a writ t o execute upon t h e plaintiff, watched for him at his back-door, whilst his son watched at the front. On the plaintiff coming out the son followed him for a short space, and then arrested him, and gave him into the custody of a policeman on a charge of felony. On this charge he was taken to a police-office, where he was detained until Jackson was fetched from his station at the back-door by his son. Jackson on coming to the police-office arrested the plaintiff on the writ, and con veyed him to Whitecross-street. The son was not a sheriff's officer. The plaintiff then brought an action for an assault and false imprisonment against the sheriff and his officer. The defendant pleaded the general issue as to the first part of the transaction, and a special plea of justifica tion under the writ for all that took place after the arrest at the police office. The Jury found for the plaintiff, da mages 1001., the Judge (Gaselee) giving the Sheriff leave to move that a verdict should be entered for him, or a new trial had between the parties. A rule to show cause to that effect having been obtained on a former day, cause was now shown against it, and it was contended for the plaintiff that the sheriff was liable for all that was done in the exe cution of the writ, and that the mode of his arrest could not be separated from the arrest itself. In reply it was con tended that the sheriff could not be made liable for the act of a stranger, like Jackson the younger, who was neither an officer of the sheriff, nor acting in the presence of an officer of the sheriff, nor under the sanction of his warrant. The Court took time to consider its judgment. ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov. 4. (Before Sir J. NicuoLL.) To-day Mr. George Fielder was admitted into this Court as a Proctor. Sir John Dodson, havinc, ' been appointed Ki ng ' s Advo cate, took his seat on the right hand o f th e B enc h, an d Dr. Phillimore sat on the left as Admiralty Advocate. THE GERELOMA. To those connected with the shipping interest this was a case of some importance, as it involved the question of the extent of the liability of owners of ships to make good da mage done by their vessels when piloted to others. The vessel in question was Neopolitan, and ran down the Edward in the river, thereby causing serious damage. The owners of the Edward brought an action to recover compensation for the damage. The other parties appeared under protest, on the ground that by the Gth of Geo, IV. the pilot in charge of the vessel was alone liable for the loss sustained. The KING'S ADVOCATE appeared for the owners of the Gerelonta, and Dr. ADDAMS for the owners of the vessel run down, and the case having been opened, Sir Jollier noun'. said the question was one which in volved the jurisdiction of the Court, and was of very great importance. Before the Act of the 6th George IV. had been passed the owners were liable, though mas ters were not, for damage done by pilots having the conducting of vessels. In a case decided in 1814 by Sir William Scott this rule was held, and it would be for the Court to judge how far the old law was al tered by the Act alluded to. Pilots only gave bond to the amount of 100/., and it might happen that through their mismanagement a valuable vessel with the cargo might be lost, and it could never have been intended to alter the law in order to do away with the right of persons suffering loss from proceeding against ow ners o f vesse l s t h at comm i tted such damage. Th 55th, 56th, and 57th clauses of the new Act provided that owners should in a case like the present only be liable to the extent of the value of the ship and freight ; but it was also provided that the owners and masters of any ship should be amenable for damage which might arise through the neglect or incapacity of any licensed pilot. It was also provided that nothing in the Act should deprive the parties of any remedy that they might have had if the Act had not passed. No doubt could be entertained but that before the Act had passed, a remedy could be ob tained in the Admiralty Court for such damage. The KING'S ADVOCATE Wa& desirous that the c ase s h ou ld stand over for consideration. Sir J. Mu-tom. said the question was decidedly one of importance to the commercial interests, especially if it could be established that the remedy could only exist against the pilot. Another question would be whether the master of the vessel had not made himself liable for not taking proper precaution when the fog came on, to prevent the damage. Under the circumstances of the case he should direct the question to stand over for consideration between the coun sel, and on a future day the matter might be discussed re specting the construction of the Act alluded to. THE TRUSTY. This was a salvage case. The Trusty is a Leith and London sailing vessel, and was run against by the brig Faith off Cromer, by which she was much damaged, by having her bow stoved in, &c. Another Scotch sailing ves sel, the Edinburgh Castle, was at the same time about two leagues off, and was hailed by the Trusty, came up an d rendered assistance to the damaged vessel, and afterwales. rds towed the vessel into Yarmouth, a distance of twenty The value of the ship was estimated at 500/., and the cargo at 2,300/. The owners of the Trusty had tendered thirty e guineas for salvage services, which were refused. Sir JoHN lslictioLL, in giving judgment, said proceedings had been commenced by the Edinburgh Castle for aw ar d o f salvage service rendered to the Trust T he damage oc curred on the sth of April, the vessel h having as ing had h er b ow to t render stoved in, and otherwise so much damaged absolutely necessary that she should b e got into o harbour, i t to afford protection to the passengerssasneld would have ha H ve ad fil t l h od e wind increased the pitching of th e vessel her. A carpenter was sent by the Edinburgh Castle on board of the Trusty, and she wa as to the injury sustained, andthse inspected vessel,e towed into Yarmouth, u p war d s of by the master tnty miles from where %I the damage was done. The Edinburgh Castle was fore entitled to compensation, anti it rn i.3- , • t e're if, by the delay in centinuink her Lit be a question ' voyage, she would not have vitiated I I.;er insurance had she received any d amage . Considering th e f acts of the case, therefore, and to the po licy for the general interests of 0 retVatti assistance rendered, a c n o d m looking t e vessel a n d cargo, he was f e k rc . e , and of humanity was insu th fficient. opinion that nb t o thirtythe valuegu guineas a s e f Peril in the case in question had been gq 4 Vdad against, and he should pronounce against the ten der, and award 100/. to the Edinburgh Castle for salvage service, with costs. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. be Yesterday M r . BBroo°kbWan-Sk,TaßrEesEpere.table inab.ittine George -street, to t Ad e lphi, appeared upo n sum e s t Lon cause why he r e f use d to pay the sum of 175. authorities o f St. Martin-in-the-Fields, for he pacin g duly made by the vestry, according to law. ore , 0 ° _ Mr. Clarke, of the firm of Clarke Fine' do ( Clarke, in C raven - s t ree t, Strand, attended w surr 0 10 the complaint. The Collector proved that a rate for pavi°g, sv , as e ' fri ° on the 9th of April last, which was to take its ( 15 ` 11 Ir , H e c alled ,"P e re fes ,4 the previous Michaelmas day. Brookbank for his share of the rate, 175., an d , a e oin o to pay it, alleging that it was not legally passe u i to iej produced the ratebook in which the rate objeete", nin e defendant was entered, and which was sig.ned T DF tr i, p the Committee of the Paving Board "I° Ves try t h e e f t sembled." Es Mr. Brookb an k as ked the witness at what time I was made? . The witness said at seven in the evening. s css s ' l Mr. Brookbank said he would show the ra te o 4 0 ' legal, and produced the Act of Parliament, in "'' ,l be iiol enacted that all rates must be made and pas se on, as ' nine o'clock in the morning and four in the afteroov as tir that with the sanction of the ratepayers in t o est r . ftV eier 0 bled. He had a witness to show that nr , qtV provisions wa s co mplied with. Mr. Goodlad, a householder, deposed that 0 3 tj ' o e t ii fe ar April he attend e d at the Vestay-room from nille:tion°': in the day, and no such rate as the o ne i° quithes passed with the sanction of the rate-P ayers melt s ittif . , l). sembled. Mr. Clarke said he could account for tn e l t to r, enough. The authorities properly constitute a m ad in t' the rate in the Vestry-room, but being interruPt ~biooer s' performance of their busines s ' by a body of the P arr they adjourned to the workhous e. h 0 11111 o t ; Mr. Brookbank said he must still r esist i e .-e lec ted , , The Committee who passed this rate were selll,, of 1 '; at all events appointed against the general s h , o l) - O f th 1 :11 parishioners, who had chosen another Conil it and i ll ' own, so that if he paid this demand he rnigb' - o f probability would, be called upon a second ti 3 l e ' e j th e ' t 'y . Mr. Clarke, in support of the claim, pro uue tt, t° scar b le 0 it e : nions of Sir John Campbell and Sir James effect that the Committee had a right, having_ w ic e o - ri.b (°. rupted in the Vestry-room to adjourn to the t and that therefore the rate ' legal. Jefer' Yl J Sir P. ROE said he was o w f as .. n that the ito , so had failed in establishing a legal ) the e ls signed an order for the payment. ------ tie LAMBETH-STREEZ , t gie . Yesterday James Henry Lambert, a man h t , 5 P:r r , opinion to size, being seven feet and one inch in he i g ht, befor e , di , portionate corpulency of person, was brough!, :o o, 1 Hardwick on a charge of assaulting Daniel Sal° lr J mingtive Irishma n . A t P aPt eet s ' The complainant stat e d that the defen°aa „ r ow p a a n t d his house in Essex-street, Whitechape l, f °r „ - t bi s `l, be being apprehensive that he had not pu t °-• ;ch i ' 1 10 11' be l' s on the preceding night, he entered the ro° et her 1 ,13, and his wife slept, to satisfy himself as to ti th e 0101 the defendant, The instant he put his foot insid orde retl be . efendant, in a most authoritative mar iner ' •eve r ' til ,c d to withdraw immediately. Not relishing, I° ,% e ti r fti n ,.,o atso commanded in his own house, he hesitate"' dater , tlirtiLl the moment to obey so peremptory a niaateol, °4 flung whic h the prisoner seized hold of a eert„,a i L a : I , e sseir t j j l e L f l ling it with great violence at his head. . 1 " e .„, ao°, him falling on on t t h h e e f ll o o r o e r be w a a d s , and caused . a l er g_ e _( b L u a ill o r i bter t'e f tl ' e broken to pieces. t o ' a) 'rn? r6 " The prisoner when asked what he had ve ry. ,t be i , charge, replied that the complainant had, i° 3 ; a to i i 1r per manner, as he conceived, obtruded hirase" ' , t i to ed t he room, at a most improper time, and havinisgooreerfu)7us3t the draw when he desired him, he (the Pr usin g t, in: utensil before-mentioned, and which he u n lo' itl' time, into his face. He also said that the e °llll- ' 6' 4 $ tin ). , ooe r, stead of leaving the room, put himself into . I ' 3e pro tor tude, and began to spar at him. " 13ut,"531(1,' to h ur b - ieh 'you perceive, your Worship, if m y object, was o ,rith s i i r ) Pe injure .l him (the prisoner here held out his rr ia of . a - w ith a i t n h s a i than n g g ltei t i h ebl a aor i w i ni d ; size more resembled the bin leg s ins' ote .. ohfuatmthaen)faletcowuasld, Ihawvieshaendnithoilereast.essehilki,'nt; hisnaees with contempt, and I therefore shove d t tate d. bait . face, but did not fling it at him as he 5- for Viijilt loo' 4 ' prisoner then went on to express his sorow - aP° d. taken place, and said he was willing to r n' 41ce d I ' lll'l3l' l l'o and give any reasonable recompence for schs!ll3to Witb:(nr,l3. an Mr. HARDWICK recommended the Par t l es o od f rle o - 0 0, d s ettle the matter amicably among theinselc-justiee4- i v They were about to withdraw from t he tote coin' r when Lambert held out his he rculean arlistrat° plainant, who seized and shook it, and the ' t 1,05' ceiving l it discharged the prisoner. „ffi ers te ,i," A 1 0 In answer to some questions put by the 11, c s a id '' . 4 t est bert, after the case had been disposed o f, o r e h t e gr e '", t oi was by birth an American, but had ber e :f o r o - rte, e t a i s Y if,'; part of his lifetime in France, and serve ( ' '" ..; d ° I u e ' ll4 in Buonaparte's Imperial Guards. At one Pe" ° se nt b • he said, he weighed thirty-four stone, but at Pre not exceed twenty-two stone. an ted UN/ON-HA.LL. ~,a a Pr e . cr rote. ln the course of yesterday a man an d w° l. - lg agi 'l; s° ` ( themselves, said whether,"and the former, addressing tl ins , to o f Your Worship, I took 'the liberty o f t al ta ocl s l '' . I might marry this here woman wh a 5 .11 1° side." 0 0 01 The Magistrate said that he was asat s l t j a h n e u r a t sb ) ' , t e:. a.iijoilit: l ll 3t 1 woman if he pleased. icorsh iP Applicant—But I for of to tel your ' 13 t ti t'' have one wife already g , 3 11 ~11 The Magistrate said that if that was the ib e . 3 ;', I)''' b V sl. , l he married the lady he introduced into the ° a nd r' rend tr e a r n h s i p m or s t e e lf d l f i o a r bl t e he to eff a en c e h e arg . e o f bigamy' 00 0 cs.. o be 10-vesrs' Applicant---What is a poor fellow to A ' do ? a t eo . 0 4, as this, your Worship :—I have been Tn T a rr ha i s e . e V i e !, a t r lio' e , and for the last five ?n them my and she has been wife and ' ilnil'' a llo, living with another roan' the 1 3 Side l' circumstances (inquired the applicant) iv , by 01, out sherri e T t i h O s e ag rn f ar r e e m r e y a a b l t e l l e ll . shere little woman,,,,, OiP exclaimed, " I am agree (Laughter followed this declaration.) „ r oc , kne _ The Magistrate told him tha t lie had I"" in st e bet' sa fo on r dlo b in e ng tt i er or for worse, for riche r or for Po th ee ooly to t ier p ot health, and forsaking all other, keep the the latt il r° " The applicant gave a deep sigh on heari,n,gotti . f, our of the ceremony of marriage, and said, r d. biot , ship, my wife has forsaken me of her own a c co rd' en The Magistrate said that even if she " je el ° . c onr still that would not absolve him from his ma rr 0 ..,4 0 tt , 4 , he s,v a i s eoP e The applicant, and the female by wh ° ' a long , a t e t s p o it i nied, then left the o ffi ce, the latter c asting Lar ied ° a ril ate look up at John's face, as they both 0 , d e and he the office through the crowd that were asseinhie the singular nature of the application. 3 ,1) 4 HE daoo l .nn i a l nrtt t edh h hy ee e 44 3 ttcalhh Holland,i , n ii nn s Es t s tst . q , E,i a ia t gitno. D f: oDuaufm, Devonshire-place, g l m e n l t s o l ni daughter. T re l rHall,Sa::::: er 9 . b 1 r e 11; . I 1 1 I i : f J. la ° van, Esq., of-a. daUghter. o f 3 o po" On the 4th inst:, the lady ofhill‘telerrn.s;yl33alrekreNereolas7;f Du° 1 0 1 l' On the 4th inst , Mrs. James Livermore, of a s°,'": o / 0. P' On the Ist inst.., at Sowton, near Exeter, the laa) -------- Esq., of a daughter. of MARRIED. Ball, the 3d inst., at Church, w anderAlfreel. i' r f the t iatt . .bourne, Sussex, eldest son of the late Rev. Al,.7, g hter ° Thomas, Esq., v dd. IL. Vicar of that place, to Mary Anne, eld est of icot, late Samuel Fennin Dreys ,of St. James's -square* of °phi' At Trinity Church, ' Islington, Francis Shuker, E o ni; e is Montgomeryshire, to Bridget, only daughter defaaoOtohinniatothhh;eehte43hrtlehsewtlianniefslertt..so:ifstaiAentr.,Niivithepr Hall,IE1) Doncaster, i° ier D 77 rb B")'e)f tP' "' Miss Harley-street, s r es y b li r sa a tr y r Mowbray, ,a s qp. the a o n f t ae ll i,o u vs r oe o lne T hr r e t p rno. ' aiy. . ol. „ f o g t r o r :_ of the late Joseph Planta, Es of the British Museurai. of Di 'e tb r ‘ On the 27th ult., aged 44, Mr. James HarroP, Prin te ..! to r of pool, eldest son of the late Mr. James Harrop, proprie Manchester Volunteer and Mercury newspaper. _., De , Fo O n n ter th , the 2mdeitonsbto.r, ofat I 0: Friends.tonchiaemtiogrfeen,i her 92d yew, of On the 31st ult., Agnes, the wife of William On the Ist inst., Mr. John Pvrke, of Us West-street, Finsbury-circus, aged 63. thohire' his 79th year. sr - Aef t On the 2d inst., in Northampton, Thos. Butcher, Es‘l';', e On the 28th ult., at Deptford, Dr. William Kent Al•v• or' ' f o r me r l y son of the late Mattew Salmon Kent, Esq., M.D. , elv geon of his Majesty's Dockyard at that place. I 11 131$ On the 31st ult., in Lloyd-street, Pentonville, Mr. Ju I burn, upwards of 40 years an inhabitant of the Minories._ U rn, On the 2d inst., at Kilburn,, Isabella, the wife of John Idyl surgeon, StulA () 71 the 2d inst. at Church Cottage, Thames Ditto], , f the Rev. William'Ellis, Rector of the above place, aw l ° .ear, Moulsey. f S On the 4th inst., in Mare-street, Hackney, in her 0 ) . t. Airs. Hayes, widow of C. T. Hayes, Esq. ivioPignatoteun, VA., 0 s ‘ . 5 ,., 0 On the 3d inst., Rebecca, daughter of Elias Isaac , •L' ' de') Mary-Axe, solicitor, aged 21. n C llB os On the 31st ult., at Marchwood, near Southatupto ; ~, 3lartelli, Esq., Lieut. R.N., aged 34. He was Autho 0 ' , Naval Officer's Guide for Preparing Ships for Sea. _ . ,. t olt"' On the 28th ult., in London, Ann , wife of Hugh S tu ' Esq., aged 47. ---„; —II.IN-, London : Printed and Published by MURDO at 'l'he sun Office, No. 112, Strand. N 441 4!1: 5 It f 4 t li,, l lv i ,l • lt, ,61 Ni;