The Sun. — London, England, 1834-11-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. therefore, if we are (as we believe ourselves) accu rately informed, must, when placed on the right foot ing, be described as a thing that was—not praiseworthy in the Sovereign, for he had no choice—but, morally speaking, inevitable. The question was, whether the King ought to have dissolved the late Cabinet when he did, or to have waited until it should be self dissolved, in the midst of a session of Parliament. Failing the late Ministry, on what other could the Sovereign fall back ? On the Ultra Tories ?—on the O'Connell rump, and the tail of two-score joints appended ?—dn the Ultra Tories ?—or, finally, on that party which he did at once appeal to ? We mean that division of the Conservative party which has always borne the name of " moderate," softened down and mellowed, as they have been, by years of exclusion from official power, by the recollection that they were expelled for want of sympathy with the people, and want of attention to their demands—fraught, more over, with that grave lesson of experience, the disre gard of which would be as surely fatal to them, and now even more irreparable, than their previous igno rance or apathy. What can be the specific purpose of the city orators who moved and seconded the resolu tions for an address to his Majesty does not very plainly appear. They grieve over the appointment of the present Ministers, but they do not venture to tell the Sovereign where he ought to hunt for others. Lord Grey is gone The present Lord Spencer, it ought to be stated,' is for the present gone. Whom would the city orators recommend ? Lord Durham could not construct a Ministry comprising any efficient portion either of Lord Grey's or of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet ; the objec tions to his Lordship in both those quarters appear, on repeated and recent trial, to have been of a nature almost insurmountable ; nor, direct and manly as we admit his political declarations to have been, is any sufficient evidence adduced that the property and in telligence of the nation would yet accept him for Prime Minister. Last comes Lord Melbourne ; and let us, with all the high and useful qualities for which that noble Lord is to be respected, ask whether he could form a Ministry more united, powerful, or stable than the last ? or would he, if ever so warmly solicited, again undertake the difficulties and troubles from which the Royal pleasure has released him ? As a practical question, therefore, we should like to know from the statesmen of the Common Council, how they would act if the cards were given them to shuffle and deal round. We think too reasonably of them to suppose that they would drag the kennels for an Administration of gin-burnt revolutionists, the writers and distributors of unstamped rubbish, or the moun taineers of the House of Commons. The practical remedy, allowing the change to be an evil, we are at a loss to find. Still less can we in our consciences affirm that any remedy is wanting beyond that which the Reform Bill itself affords us. During . the progress of that measure, how often was it echoed from every part of England that thenceforward the people of England would be their own law-makers, that the voice of the nation would bear so irresistibly upon . the measures of its representatives as to make it an affair of little moment who or what might be the occupants of the Treasury Beneh, provided they were men of fair capacity for carrying on the public business. If the Reform Bill have really the virtues ascribed to it by the voice of its admirers (and ours was not unheard among them) —if it really has deposited in the hands of the people the substantial power of self-government--if the representatives of the people do really speak their wishes and retain that controlling authority over the public purse which had been exercised and perverted by the old borough representatives, what in the name of Heaven, have we to fear from the Duke of Wellington or his unknown colleagues ? Can they outvote us in the Commons House ? If they do, they must have the country with them ; in which case there is no rational cause for complaint ; and to affirm that they still can legislate for Eng land against her will is to libel grossly the law by which Parliament has been reformed, or to prove that reform was intrinsically good for nothing. It seems that a leather-headed personage of the name of Stevens, who is also, we are told, a seller of gin and bitters, will not understand the use of his mother tongue, but harps pertinaciously on the same cracked string as the hired newspapers of certain discarded placemen, assuring his hearers of the Com mon Council, that a " popular journal" (meaning the Times) sacrifices its principles, and advocates the very measures which it has most loudly decried." Why, does this dolt conceive the meaning of the word " prin ciple ?" Does he comprehend the difference between a " man" and a " measure ?" What principle have we sacrificed? Is it that of "reform?" Perhaps he fancies Lord Brougham to be a "principle," or Joseph Hume to be a "measure." (If a " measure," he is an empty one, we opine.) But because we have all along maintained, as clearly and invariably as language could express our sentiments, that we would never abandon the principle or system of reform, and would support the Duke of Wellington not one moment longer than he agreed with us in promoting the cause of reform, this gin-monger chatters about our " sacri ficing old principles," and " advocating measures that we had before condemned I" Such animals are not worth the type that spells their nonsense. We regard their rant as much as we should the braying of a herd of donkies, eloquently discoursing over their meal of thistles. As for the majority in the Common Coun cil on behalf of men, and in contempt of measures, it was not, we are told, so great as might have been ex pected on the approach of St. Thomas's day. Rabble talk is usually predominant at this season, just before the corporate elections, but three months hence (we have no objection to a wager) the gentlemen will change their tone. Moreover, a city wag assures us that an address to the King has always charms for your Corporation grandees, inasmuch as there accrues to them some profit on what may be termed the draught of that important document. Half a sovereign a-piece for coach-hire to the gentry in black gowns, who honour his Majesty with their attendance on such occasions, enables them, we dare say, to pocket half of it; thus enjoying the sight of a Sovereign• and-a half, for the mere trouble of crying " ay" instead of " no," and getting credit for patriotism into the bar gain. At poor Waithman's funeral, when at first it was understood that each mourner must pay his own coach hire, there were only 11 volunteers ; but after wards, on a Corporate resolution to defray the carriages out of the city purse, no less than 90 public-spirited tributaries to " departed worth" came forward and took part in the procession I This beats the " farce of county meetings" hollow.—Times. The grave accusation preferred against us by the Tory, and renegade Whig, press, when we declared that the public mind was astonished and confounded at the daring attempt to seat the Chief of anti-Toryism and hostility to Reform in the seat of those who had always detested the Tories, and were not only opposed to those measures in church and state reforms, but un questionable, however slow, advocates of reform in all departments, —was, that there was no astonishment— that there was no confusion—that there was no agita tion or alarm :—the next, that we, who had, as they foolishly alleged, in the height of their presumption, and in defiance of, and contempt for, the people of England, " nailed our flag to the mast of Reform" when no one cared for the mast, or when the vessel was in no danger of shipwreck, had created agitation, and that but for us,and our honest and independent contemporaries, there would not have been even one meeting upon the dismissal of his Majesty's Ministers, and the alarm so justly felt by the selection of the Duke of Wellington to be his successor :—and, now what is the alleged charge ? Why, th a t th e ag i tat i on or t h e a l arm, or the astonishment, or by whatever name the present move ment may be denominated, only exists in ill-favoured quarters—among mob orators, and unwashed artisans ! We confess that we are not among the number of those who are inclined to despise men for their poverty, or to think, that because their hands are not washed, their hearts are not honest, nor their feelings worthy of Englishmen ; but the impudence of daring to assert that there are none but the comparatively uneducated classes of society who take an interest in the present state of the country, is beyond conception the most unprece dented of which we have either read or heard. Wh r a e t ly ! was the meeting at Manchister a meeting of me uneducated classes, or unwashed artisans ? Did that at Liverpool partake of the same character ? Was there nothing respectable in the meeting at Hull ? Is cf Glasgow composed of rrsons tit. Ton Council _ In the postscript to the Quarterly Review, which was yesterday copied into the Times, and called an au thorised statement, we find the following assertions : " The Cabinet has been dissolved, not by the removal of Lord Althorp from the House of Commons, but by its own internal and irreconcileable dissensions?' Po- SITIVELY FALSE in both respects. The principal pretext assigned was the removal of Lord Althorp from the House of Commons; and there were no dissensions of any kind in the Cabinet—no, not the slightest diffe rence of opinion either then or since the formation of the Melbourne Cabinet. 2. "That in consequence of these dissensions, Lord Melbourne waited on the King, and made a proposal of remodelling the Cabinet, for the sake of stablishing unanimity between the two sections of the Cabinet who disagreed on the Irish Church question." Positively false. Lord Melbourne made no such proposal, there being no such disagreement upon the Irish Church measure then in contemplation. 3. Lord Melbourne "candidly informed his Majesty that his propositions, even if agreed to, would not have the effect of establishing unanimity, &c." Positively, alse. The Cabinet were unanimous. It is superfluous, there fore, to contradict the other part of this falsehood. 4. "In this state of things, his Majesty, with equal frankness and good sense, suggested that if the proposal then submitted to him was avowedly to settle nothing, but, on the contrary, to render an other and early crisis inevitable, there could be no use in patching up a provisional expedient ; and that it would be better to do at once, that which was admit ted to be unavoidable at last—namely, to dissolve the ncoherent and distracted Cabinet." False in every particular. His Majesty made no such sugges. tion—no such proposal was submitted to him ; no thing was said of another and early crisis, or any crisis at all. No admission of the sort was made nor was the Cabinet said, by either party to the con versation, to be incoherent and distracted. We re peat, there was no difference between them, on any point whatever. 5. " The late Premier conveyed to the Duke of Wellington his Majesty's letter summoning his Grace to Brighton." This is " lying like truth. " A gentleman about the Court requested that Lord Melbourne's servant might carry a letter to Sir Henry Wheatley, inclosing another to the Duke of Welling ton ; and of this fact the monstrous inference has been fabricated—that Lord Melbourne was a party to the sending for the Duke of Wellington. 6. " His Majesty has already reaped some of the fruits of such upright conduct, in the full admis sion—as we have heard—of various Members of the late Cabinet, that they have nothing to to complain of." Certainly his Majesty has already reaped the fruits of such conduct, but not the full ad mission here talked of. We are likely to know more of the parties in question than the writer of the Post script ; and we must contradict hint as flatly as to this assertion, as we have with respect to every particular of his statement. A similar misrepresentation of what passed between his Majesty and Lord Melbourne, has been already contradicted on the authority of his Lord ship himself, but the repetition of such a fable in the Quarterly Review requires a second exposure. Oh that Parliament were sitting.—Morning Chronicle. The Common Council of the city of London has not fallen short of the expectations of the country. It ought, as Mr. Ashurst well observed, to have been called together immediately upon the dismissal of the late Ministry ; in which case it would, as in times past, have set an example to the nation, instead of merely swelling the tide of public opinion. However, this was not the fault of the Common Council, but of the Lord Mayor, who has signalized his entrance on office by two very ungracious acts—the above delay, and the positive refusal of a Common Hall. In the very outset of the proceedings yesterday, his Lordship dis played great oversight—first, in telling the Common Council that, " in the steps he had taken relative to that Court, he spoke advisedly, and with the sanction of the Court of Aldermen,"—an open insult to the Com mon Council, and unfairness towards the Aldermen, as it throws the responsibility from his own shoulders on them, and places them in an invidious situation with reference to the other Court ; and then, in persisting for some time, in defiance of a standing order, to hear Mr. Ashurst. However, to come to the proceedings themselves, the Duke of Wellington may perceive from the votes of the representatives of the City, how ob noxious he is to the people. The impudent recom mendation to wait till his measures were before the public, was scouted as it deserved. The Duke, it is well known, was opposed to the Reform Bill, and to him principally it is owing that the reforms expected by the people under it, have not been obtained. It is ob vious, therefore, that his principles and his practice have been the ground of his appointment; and it is equally obvious that his object in taking office must be to give effect to his principles, that is, to prevent, as far as he can, the reform of abuses, and to avail himself of the first opening for damaging the Reform Bill it self. To suppose that the Duke could have any other than Conservative intentions, is to insult him. " Were these men (said Mr. Ashurst, the mover of the resolution) now to come forward, and, merely for the sake of office, say, We will carry out those prin ciples which we before opposed, and throw our con sciences Overboard?" The division gave 60 to 109 in favour of the resolution, which was thus car ried by a majority of 49. Excluding the Alder men, the numbers were 105 to 52. As St. Tho mas's Day is at hand, it will hardly be contended that the City Representatives were not well aware of the state of feeling among their fellow •citizens, and that the vote is not in accordance with it. But if the votes indicated the general hostility to the Duke, the speeches were still more decisive in this respect. Alderman Browne made a humdrum speech, little calculated to benefit his Grace ; and old Mr. Samuel Dixon indulged in some very gross abuse of the late Ministry, which the Lord Mayor tolerated with an approving smile, though lie deemed it neces sary to manifest his Tory zeal by checking any allu sion to the public life of the Duke of Wellington. We are inclined to think with Mr. R. Taylor, that good will result from the attempt to reinstate the Tories in power. " The movement now in progress, and of which he said he approved, was to prevent the Tories from gaining power ; and he believed that movement would be attended with glorious results ; it would in duce the country to rise in its demands, to increase in its strength, and to ask more than had heretofore been required, from conviction of its necessity, to guard the country against the recurrence of that power which now threatened."—(Cheers.) The nature of the crisis is well understood. The enemies of Reform have determined at last to make a stand. They have seized on power. All those who counsel the people to remain with their arms folded, are the enemies who are most to be dreaded. A struggle is inevitable, and that the pretended friends of Reform who counsel inaction, well know. But the instinct of the people has saved them. They are fully alive to their danger, and the Tories, with all their wiles, will infallibly be beaten. The struggle will be productive of this good, that it will teach the people the necessity of preventing ano ther, which might be attempted under less favourable circumstances. We must have no more collisions.— Morning Chronicle. The Common Council of London met yesterday, and passed resolutions, of which the object was to con demn his Majesty for having dismissed his late Minis ters, and for having called the Duke of Wellington and his friends into office. Often have we repeated our sincere concern at the removal from the Government of Lord Melbourne, and those of his colleagues whom he esteemed, and in whom he confided, because it is our firm belief that they meant well by the rights and liberties of England, and would have endeavoured to carry to the furthest salutary extent, those reforms in Church and State which the nation demanded of them. But there is another thing also to be deplored, viz., the positive certainty, that had the late Government met the House of Commons, there are some reform measures essential (as we think) to the country, which no one of the late Ministry could have brought forward, but at the risk of a dissolution of the Cabinet, by the secession of three or more of his colleagues ; while, had the same or similar measures been moved by the Opposition, the adverse sections of the Ministry must have given a divided vote, and the dissolution of the whole been thereby no less :12 roughly accomplished. The change of Ministers, THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1834. not worthy of consideration ? Is the unanimous ex- ' pression of the Dissenters worthy of no notice ? Are the people of Ireland of no weight in the scale of public opinion. Verily, we know not where to find any other expression of public opinion in the country, except it be in the hole-and-corner meetings of Tories, and. in the vamped-up and compulsory dinners which have been lately eaten by them, and those whom they could drive to them ; but if all the preceding meet ings to which allusion has been made, be no proof of the feeling of astonishment and indignation which pervades the country, at the attempt to saddle it with an anti-Reform Administration— ' what, let us ask, is to be made of all the meetings which have been held, or are about to be held, in the metropolis ? Is the meeting of the Common Council nothing ? Are its resolutions, passed in the teeth of the Tories, by more than two to one, nothing? Is the Finsbury meeting, to be held on Monday next, nothing ? Is the Westminster meeting nothing? Is the solemn declaration of the men of Birmingham, and assented to in all its parts by the people of Shoreditch last night, of no avail ? The tricks resorted to by the Tories to prevent the expression of public opinion, where they have power to prevent it, and their attempts to suppress it, when made and acknowledged, are as infamous as they are impolitic. If there be no agita tion, why not expose those who declare that it exists, by printing their speeches and exposing their meetings ? Why suppress them in the shameful manner that they have been suppressed, and give in their stead the unwholesome exhalations of the Tory faction ? It is by such tricks—by such ma noeuvres to prop party and to obtain power, that kings are deluded to their destruction—that thrones are shaken to their base—that principalities are over thrown--that the people are driven from their origina attachment to Monarchical institutions, to those whicl- breathe the purer and more attractive air of Republi canism. But the tricks and the manoeuvres avail not. The time was—a time of blindness and ignorance— when the motives of such despicable partisans and slaves might have passed without suspicion, and the glorious curse, " May we perish if we desert the cause of the people," have enlisted thousands on the side of its unguarded utterers ; but that time is past—never, we hope, to revisit us. The people not only know their rights, and dare to maintain them, but see through the flimsy veil which covers the treacherous devices of their enemies, and justly spurn them for their inconsistency, their want of principle, and their unmitigated baseness. The high moral feeling which pervades them is worthy of all admiration, and furnishes a noble and elevating example to succeeding generations—their union a proof of their determination, and the certain harbinger of victory. They will have no Tory Minis try, nor will they have Reform measures from a Tory Administration, be the measures what they may, or the Ministry be composed of what it may—they will have honest measures from honest men, and from no others—they will not be cajoled by " he may," or " he will," and " wait and see,' and " it is unjust to con demn," and the thousand other deceitful arts which are put in practice, to seduce them into an allegiance to their former task-masters—no ; charm they however wisely, there is no dragging them into the net—no upsetting of their fixed resolution. This conduct may be unpalatable at the Herse Guards, as well as in higher places ; but, in our estimation, it is neither more nor less than political gospel, from which it would be mom' heresy to dissent, as well as political blas phemy to condemn.—Morning Advertiser. ROLLS' COURT.—Nov. 27. THE ATTORNEY-GENEILAL V. THE MERCHANT TAILORS' COMPANY. Mr. BICKERSTETH said that this was an information filed to establish certain charities. Various sums had been given to the defendants, on trust, to lend it out, on security, to poor persons belonging to the Company. The defendants admitted having in their possession certain sums which the information charged were applicable to the terms of the trust, and consequently he submitted that a reference ought to be made to the Master to approve of a scheme for the application of the funds according to the intention of the donor. All porties agreed in the present application. His HONOUR the Master of the Rolls directed the reference as prayed. THE ATTOILNEY-GENERAL V. T&OLLOPE. Mr. BICKERSTETH moved in this case that the relators might be allowed to amend their information, or to file a supplemental one, for the purpose of obtaining a discovery of the lessees in whom the lease of the workhouse o f t h e uni ted parishes of St. John and St. Margaret, Westminster, was now vested. The facts of the case were as follows . —A sum of 1,2001., left to the parish on charitable uses, had been employed in the erection of a new workhouse. An information had been filed, and when the matter had come before the Court on a previous occasion, an o bjectionhaving been taken for want of parties, his Honour the Master of the Rolls had suggested the propriety of the officers of the two parishes in question voluntarily coming forward. Ap plication had been made to the solicitor of the parish, but as yet without success. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Bickersteth) submitted that the motion ought to be granted. Mr. WRIGHT, for the Dean and Chapter of Westmin ster, complained that his clients had been kept five years before the Court, when the question might have been de cided long ago. His Hormuz said that the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their information, but a limited time ought only to be allowed. Consequently he would name three weeks. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27. JOHNSON V. WILSON. This was an action brought to recover damages for an injury the plaintiff had sustained owing to the negligent drivitr , of the groom of the defendant, a respectable wine merchant, 6 residing in Drury-lane. It has twice before been tried ; once, when no Counsel appeared to defend, and an other time when the Jury, after having been locked up until twelve at night, would come to no conclusion, and were discharged. The plaintiff was a poor widow woman. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 50/. BREACH OF PROMISR OF MARRIAGE.-PtILLEN V. TINSLEY. Mr. Sergeant SPA NKIE stated that this was an action brought by the plaintiff, Miss Rosina Pullen, the daughter of a respectable attorney in Basinghall-street, to recover damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The inti macy between the parties commenced as long ago as in 1825, when the lady was of the age of 22, and the defendant only 19, upon his coming to London to endeavour to get articled, when he was introduced to Mr. Pullen. A brother of the defendant, of the name of Henry, had formerly been on equal good terms with the plaintiff, but from some cir cumstance had absented himself. It was just on his doing so that the defendant presented himself on his arrival in town. 'The plaintiff, finding herself in very great distress and ill health from the conduct of Henry Tinsley, loft London to visit her relations at Wisbeach, in Lincolnshire, where she was accompanied by the defendant, who had relatives in that neighbourhood. On his return soon after to town, a long correspondence took place between them, which was continued until 1826. His letters were extremely long, some of them as many as six or eight brief sheets in length, in which he addressed her in a most tender way, saying in one, " that the God of our father may ever bless you will be the heartfelt wish of yours ever, Charles," and in all of them addressing her very affectionately and familiarly ; many of them also containing an account of his adventures and pleasures, talking of theatricals, and offering a disserta tion upon a play of My Uncle Toby, at the Surrey Theatre, in which he complains that Corporal Trim was not introduced, which was as bad as leaving out Romeo in the play of Romeo and Juliet, and introducing the candle snuffer. In October, 1829, the lady having returned to her father's house on the Ist, the defendant called and had a conversation with the mother, in which he stated that he had been for a long time corresponding with her daughter secretly ; that he was greatly attached to her ; and it was his wish that she should enter into an agreement to let him marry her at the expiration of his articles. She objected at first to it, stating that it was so long a time for her daughter to wait, and she was extremely angry with the daughter for having corresponded, but that as she was agreeable she had no objection. The father also had a conversation to the same effect with the defend ant, in which he stated that he had made a verbal engage ment to marry her, which it was agreed should be kept se cret, giving as a reason for it, that some people might sup pose it was his wish to supplant his brother in the affections of the plaintiff, and stating that he had 1,500/. to receive from his father. On August 1, 1833, the d e f en d an t mar ried a lady of the name of Turner, at St. Marylebone Church. The father hearing a report of it called upon him at the office of his employer, Mr. Pyne, Duke-street, St. James's, and asked him as to the truth of it. The defend ant at once admitted it was the fact, saying that he was forced into it—that he could not help himself—and upon being threatened with an action, declared the plaintiff could not maintain an action for a breach of promise as it wl;t1 only a verbal one. The father, mother, sister, and brother of the plaintiff were called to prove these facts, and the defendant's letters were read which took up much time. Mr. Sergeant WILDE, on the part of the defendant, was sorry, as a principle of law, be could not agree in what the defendant was reported to have said, that he had only given a verbal promise. In all matters of contract in commercial life it was by the policy of the lavenecessary to have written ones ; but in this, the most important of all, it was not ; but he contended that on the present occasion there was no promise ever given. He trusted the Jury would not con sign a young man just commencing life in respectability to a gaol, with a young wife dependent upon him, whom he had married without a farthing, and that even if he bad the costs against him it would be his ruin. —[The letters of the plaintiff to the defendant were then read.] The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, one farthing. The cause lasted till ten o'clock at night. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nor. 27. (Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Common Jury. ) BRANSCOMBE V. EMERTON. Mr. STEER appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. JUSTICE fur the defendant. This was an action for an attorney's bill. The defendant had gone to the plaintiff, at Aylesbury, and asked him about prosecuting a man who had obtained a horse from the de fendant ; but the plaintiff said that the matter could only be made the subject of an action. The actual proof was given on the part of the plaintiff, that he had performed the business of attorney to the present plaintiff in that action, and the Learned Counsel for the defendant chiefly rested his defence on the fact that there was no written retainer ; and he attempted to argue from that circumstance that the business was created by the plaintiff, who probably under took it on the principle of " no cure no pay." Mr. Justice PATTESON said that it was not necessary that there should be a written retainer ; and as to the ob servation about taking the case upon the principle of " no cure no pay," he must take that opportunity of saying that an attorney who made such an agreement was considered to be disgraced, and the agreement itself was one which the law would not enforce.—Verdict for the plaintiff. PIKE V. FLOWER. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. CummiN) stated the case. The plaintiff was a law-agent, carrying on busi ness for many years in Chancery-lane, and there were few more re spectable men engaged in his deqartment of business in the metro polis. This gentleman was employed by the defendant, an attor ney of Furnival's Inn, whose business was on a very limited snle, to procure him a little business or partnership, and a memorandum was drawn up between the parties, dated 11th Sept. 1832, by which the defendant bound himself to pay 5 per cent to Mr. Pike, upon any sum which he should be required to pay on account of any business or partnership the plaintiff might procure for him. About this period Mr. Alderman Harmer, a very eminent and well known solicitor of the city, wished to lessen his professional labours by taking three partners, and the plaintiff, after a good deal of trouble, procured one of the shares in this company for Mr. Flower, and for which the defendant was to pay a premium of 20001. The plaintiff had been paid 151. on account, and it was for the ba lance at 5 per cent., which amounted to 851., that the present ac tion was brought. The defendant had some difficulty in raising the 20001., and employed the plaintiff to sell his business in Furnival's Inn, but this was altogether a distinct transaction. Mr. Pike sold it to a Mr. Young, and for this trouble Flower gave him his ac ceptance for 501., which was duly paid. This affair was wholly dis tinct from the procuring of the partnership, and he (the Attorney- General) only mentioned it lest any unworthy attempt should be made on the part of Mr. Flower to disgrace himself by setting up this sum of 501. as part payment. The plaintiff's clerk was called, and proved the defendant's sig nature to the agreement. Sir JAMES SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. Platt) addressed the Jury for the defendant, and after a humourous allusion to the plaintiff's name, which he observed was that of the fresh water shark, he contended that the plaintiff had been paid the full amount of his contract. He denied that the defendant ever employed the p!aintiff to sell his business at Furnival's Inn ; on the contrary Mr. Pike was employed by Mr. Young to purchase the business for him, and was paid by Mr. Young. He would also show by the deed of partnership, which had been sent for, and which he hoped to procure before the trial terminated, that only 1,000/. had been paid by Mr. Flower, and that the other thousand was not to be paid until the partnership realized a certain sum from the business. One of the partners was called, who stated that he believed only 1,0001. had been paid by the defendant, but he could not state the precise terms of the deed of partnership. Heard plaintiff say he had received 651. from defendant on account. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and in the course of his ad dress was interrupted by Sir James Scarlett, who applied to the Court for permission to examine the witness who had been sent for the deed of partnership. This was objected to by the Attorney- General on the ground of irregularity, but the objection was over ruled by the Court. The witness was examined, but the deed was not forthcoming. The witness produced a bond to the same effect, but Sir James Scarlett declined giving it in evidence, as it, was not legally per fected. The Learned JUDGE left it to the Jury to say whether the 65/. had been paid on account of the 1001. claimed, or whether 50/. of that sum had been on account of another transaction alluded to, the sale of the business in Furnival's-inn. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 35/. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27. LORRADAILE AND OTHERS V. BRICKWOOD AND WHITE Mr. WIGRAM said that this was a motion on the part of the plaintiffs for an injunction to restrain the defendant Brickwood, as secretary to the Commissioners for the dis tribution of the West India Relief Fund, from advancing a sum of 3,6001. to White, the other defendant, upon the security of certain estates in the island of St. Vincent, of which estates the plaintiffs, as assignees of John and Henry Rucker, bankrupts, were mortgagees. _ _ _ Mr: COLERIDGE, for the Commissioners, said the Cour ought to reject this application with costs. Lord LiNDHURST n iaid he did not think the Commis• sioners had power to advance money except under the Act He felt bound to grant the motion. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE AGAINST THE REV, ROBERT TAYLOR-RICHARDS V. TAYLOR. Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS stated that this was an action brought by Georgiana Richards against the Rev. Robert Taylor, to recover damages for breach of marriage promise. The plaintiff was employed as housekeeper at the Rotunda, and it appeared that a mutual affection had taken place between her and the defendant. About a fortnight before the defendant was committed to Horsemonger-lane Gaol, he promised to marry the plaintiff, and which promise he repeated when placed in confinement. The Learned Coun sel then stated that the defendant had violated the promise which he made to the plaintiff, and married an elderly lady named Robinson, who had charms to the amount of 4001. or 5001. a year. A Mrs. Potter stated that about three weeks after the defendant was committed to prison, he was visited by the plaintiff, when he received her with great affection, and said " He wished he had been spared a fortnight longer, in which time, Georgy, I would have made you my wife." His behaviour to the plaintiff was that of a lover. The witness, in her cross-examination, said she had heard the plaintiff say, when speaking of Mr. Taylor's principles, that she would rather see him drowned than married, for if he married he would no longer be a public man. Mr. Tay lor, when he lectured, was dressed in a white surplice, and the plaintiff assisted him to put it on. Mr. Fletcher, a medical gentleman residing in the Lon don-road, once or twice accompanied the plaintiff to see Mr. Taylor in prison. Mr. Taylor's manner towards the plaintiff appeared to be like that of a gentleman who was paying his attentions to a lady previous to marriage. In a conversation which the witness had with the defendant about Mrs. Robinson, his wife, the defendant said; in alluding to his rich relations, " There is Mrs. Robinson, she can well afford to make me a present, for I know she has some 4001. or 5001. a year." Mrs. Robinson is about sixty, the plain tiff twenty-five, and Mr. Taylor between forty and fifty. After the defendant had been released from prison, he de serted the plaintiff, which had a great effect upon her health, and caused her to be afflicted with hysterical fits. This was in July, 1833. The defendant's letters to the plaintiff were here read. The first, dated the 17th of November, 1831, was to the following effect : Dear Georgiana.—The seal of this will not be broken, which is a comfort conquered and achieved from our tyrants— (you see I take the liberty of fancying that my enemies are yours)—and would never have been conceded. The method of my victory was this—The tyrants were obliged to enter upon their books a resolution, which made it law that one male friend should be allowed to see me every day, except damnation day ( Sunday.) On this law I advanced my chal lenge that no male friend coming to see me should be subject to any sort of inquiry, examination, or impertinence, of any one, or be treated otherwise than as being equally respectable w ith any one of themselves. This they admitted was involved in the sense of the law. On this admission I advanced again, then my friends shall and will convey letters to and from me. It was answered, of course they cannot be hindered from doing so. Then, what goes of the gaoler's power to open and read my letters ? He has still the right to do so, said they. But the power is gone, cried I, defeated, completely defeated ; he has the prerogative without the power. It said the gaoler himself, defeated, and you will be able and have a right, to secure all your correspondence from my in spection. So so I and this, my dear Georgy, is the first effusion of my heart under a seal that is inviolable. I have never once, at any time (no merit, for I could not help it), failed of drinking health, and all joy of heart, and length of life to my heart's dear one. We shall yet conquer, my Georgy. Make it your religion, I pray, to have the firmest confidence in our eventful triumph. I have, indeed, been in very great grief, for I will always tell you the truth, but I have never, never, at any moment, been in that sort of grief that had the least touch of melancholy in it. I have never been wretched, no, nor dejected I never, at any moment, in such a state as that if an y one had told me, it is all well yet with G,' I should not have jumped up in a moment, and sung ' How joy repels the envenomed dart, and conquers every care.' I have found by experience The broadest mirth unfeeling folly wears Less pleasing far than Virtue's very tears." I am yet very rich in hope. P ra y tak e y o ur p q rt of it., I s hall be gaining every week fresh. privileges, and I still think there is some Motion'in the elements that looks like dawning liberty. Be m good health, my Cato's daughter No trenble which I cannot bear will reach me but throne you ; and be sure of it—sure it is'as fate—that many, very many happy days will reward our deserving of them. One word comprehends our whole policy and hope. We must be wise ! My most fervent gratitude, my heart's eternal reverence, and honour is their's who love and comfort you. When you are well and cheerful let your good genius tell you that I am so, and yours, while I shall be " ROBERT TAYLOR." The second letter, which excited more laughter than the preceding one, was in the following words. It was dated the sth of June, 1832 : " My dear Georgiana,—l am grieved beyond all manner of grief at the insolent cruelty of my oppressors, in debarring me of the comfort (the very sweetest drop of comfort that could have been instilled into my cup of sorrow) which I had hoped for, of seeing you. You may guess with how ill a grace, and how unwillingly, they have been constrained by the report of the surgeon to grant an►y alleviation of my suf ferings, and how diabolically ingenious they have been as torturers and tormentors, in accompanying the concession which they could not withhold, with the most galling' insult that they could devise. I have not written to you, as you have doubtless thought I should have done, not because there has been any change, or ever will be, in my feeling towards you ; but because I could not do so without a grid' and pain in the doing, which it was as natural to endeavour to avoid, as it is to endeavour to avoid grief and pain. What had Ito write ? No good ;no joy ;no hope. I had only to draw upon you sympathies ; to be the object of your pity ; to fill your eyes with tears, and your heart with anguish, and I have pride my Georgy—a pride in all my troubles that cannot bear to lay my heavy burthen on the heart that would most feel it. I have hoped, and wished, and sought that you might suffer as little on my account as possible, and I thought you would suffer less the less I obtruded the remembrance of my griefs on you. lam as one dead, and like one dead the less my remembrance survives the better. If I could make you happy, oh how happy should I be to do so ; but not a feather weight would I willingly lay on to the already too heavy bur then. I cannot write Jeremiads; very severe experience has taught me the great importance of taking none but the sober est view of every thing, however gloomy the sober view may be, and that view is at present that I shall at last, perhaps after next month, obtain the allowance which has been so inexorably refused. With utmost affection, respect, and love, I remain, my dear Georgy, altogether yours, " ROBERT. " Christian Charity Castle, June the sth, 1832." This closed the case on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. F. Kelly then addressed the Jury for the defence. All knew what a republican marriage meant, tying two per sons together, and throwing them into the river—a horrid practice that was carried into execution in France upon numbers of victims in 1745. Here was Mr. Taylor, preach ing against religion, and attempting to subvert all religious principles, supposed to enter into a promise to perform that religious ceremony of marriage. Both Mr. Taylor and the plaintiff seemed to despise that ceremony, and it was for the Jury therefore to say whether the promise, if any, had such a meaning as the parties wished now to make it appear. The Jury had heard that the plaintiff said she would rather that Mr. Taylor was drowned than married ; and did not that furnish the strongest evidence of the contempt in which she held the marriage ceremony, and that she despised it because it would cause Mr. Taylor to depart from those principles which he entertained. Was it to be endured that a court of justice was to be perverted from its original purpose, and become a place for the recovery of da mages for a breach of contract made under circumstances of the most wicked, and heinous nature ? At the time when the alleged promise was made Mr. Taylor scoffed at and derided religion, and Miss Richards gained her daily bread by assisting at the dissemination of those doctrines. A mar riage between them, therefore, he repeated, would have been a mere hypocrisy, and a scoff at religion ; they would have appeared at the altar with a lie on their tongues, and with Atheism in their hearts. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da mages, 2501. It was stated in Court that Mr. Taylor has left the country POLICE INTELLIGENCE. Q UEEN-SQUARE. Yesterday a young man, dressed in a most fashionable style, who gave his name Charles Jones, but who refused to give his address, was brought up in custody, and placed at the bar before Mr. BURRELL, charged with picking the pocket of Mr. Joseph Heeley, a surgeon, of No. 13, York street, Bryanston-square, of a small parcel, containing seven new muslin pocket handkerchiefs, in the Court of King's Bench. Mr. Heeley stated that between three and four o'clock on the previous afternoon, he was in the Court of King's Bench when he distinctly felt a persons hand in his coat pocket, he turned round and seized the prisoner, who was behind him. He struggled violently, and endeavoured to get away. A police constable came up, and he gave the prisoner into custody for having robbed him of some hand kerchiefs. A police constable of the A division, No. 38, stated that he was on duty in the Court of King's Bach, and took the prisoner into custody. He saw him drop a small paper parcel at his feet, which witness picked up. When he seized the prisoner he called out " What are you going to take me for ? I have not taken anything." On searching him at the station-house he found a penknife, a small pair of scissors, of a particular make, such as is used by thieves for cutting pockets, and 12s. 6d. in silver. The inspector said that the prisoner was well known. The prisoner was recognised as having been several timss in custody. The last time he was convicted in the name of Charles Austin, for attempting to pick pockets at the Ita ian Op era House. Mr. Heeley sdentified the handkerchiefs produced by the constable as his property. The prisoner in reply denied the charge, and was fully committed for trial. Prisoner—l hope your Worship will order the little silver upon me to be given up to me. Mr. BURRELL told the constable he might give him the money, and he was then locked up. On the same afternoon a gentleman was robbed of about 601. in the same Court. UNION-HALL. Yesterday Mr. John Scale:, a tradesman living at Ro therhithe, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and obstructing a policeman of the R division in the execu tion cf his duty, near the scene of the late fire in that parish. The defendant, as one of the inhabitants, had en rolled himself amongst those who had taken upon them selves the duty of patrolling the streets, to prevent a repe tition of the incendiary fires which have lately occurred in the neighbourhood. During the time he was in the state above described, a fire broke out on the premises of Mr. Pitman, the barge-builder, adding another to the list of conflagrations at Rotherhithe, and little doubt exists as to its being the work of incendiaries. Policeman 39, division R, stated that he belonged to the extra party of police on duty at Rotherhithe on the pre ceding night. About two o'clock in the morning he heard a noise in Rotherhithe-street, and on going to the spot he saw the defendant, who was intoxicated, and creating a great disturbance. He had a pipe in his mouth smoking, and he was abusing the police and swearing that he would knock their - heads off. He continued to persevere in the conduct described, and was taken to the station house. The policeman added that while he and some other policemen were engaged with the defendant, their at tention was drawn off to a fire that burst out on the pre mises of Mr. Pitman, a barge-builder. Mr. MURRAY inquired whether the fire alluded to was supposed to have been committed by an incendiary? Inspector Rawley stated that there was no doubt of it ; and proceed to describe that about a quarter after 2 o'clock the alarm of " Fire" was given at Mr. Pitman's premises. One of the police constables had been placed on the pre• mises in question in the early part of the evening with the view to watch them closely, in order to discover if any at tempt would be made to set them on fire. The policeman took up his station in the lower part of the building, and nothing occurred during the time he was on the 100k -out, until some time after two o'clock in the morning. At that hour he heard a crackling noise in the loft above that upon which he was, and also thought he observed a light in the same place. He immediately gave the alarm, and some policemen, together with a few of the inhabitants, broke open the door leading into the loft, and' then found that a tar-barrel and a considerable quantity of wood were in a blaze. By their united exertions the fire was extin guished, but had they been a few minutes later it would have been impossible for them to nave succeeded in check ing the flames, owing to the quantity of materials of a combustible nature on the premises. There was little doubt, the inspector added, that it was the work of an incendiary, for close to the spot where the fire commenced there was a tarpaulin, and other articles of a like nature, indicative that they were intentionally p l ace d there for the purpose of setting fire to the premises. At present there is not the slightest idea how or in what manner the fire could have been conveyed into the loft, to which nobody has had access for some time, and when the policeman first discovered it, sledge-hammers were obliged to be usod before they could break the door open to gain admission into the place : evrything was so secure, and to all ap pearance safe from any attempt of the kind. Th e same morning a fireball was found on the premises of Mr. Coul thorp, the coal-merchant, at Rotherhithe, and no doubt is entertained that it was placed there by an incendiary for the purpose of setting fire to the extensive warehouses and premises on the spot, Mr. Mr.TRAy, in allusion to the case against the de fendant Scales, said, th a t hi s con d uc t i n gett i ng d run k an d behaving in the manner described by the policeman, was extremely discreditable to him. Instead of preserving order at such a time, when the minds of the inhabitants were necessarily in a state of alarm, owing to the recent fires and destruction not only of life but property also, he had become intoxicated, and by his obstreperous behaviour called off the attention of some policemen when their exec r_ Lions would have been otherwise required at another . c a which had br o ke n ou t du r ing the time they wer e engage with - him. fre T ely he wi d ti e l fe s n o d m an e t fr a ie d n m d i s t , te a d nd th s a a t id h t e hat ha n d e biveasen inderainpakiblte of giving offence, if he had not been molested in the firs instance. The policeman said that he had been given to unders t3n . that before he c ame u p a fireman, who saw the defends! smoking a lighted pipe, spoke to him and said that, osvisig, to the fires in the neighb o u r hood, smoking Was not lowed at unseasonable hours alone , the streets. Il i :: timation had the effect of enraging the feelings °' defendant. The defendant's solicitor said that his client , was dime s ' as any of the other inhabitants to discover the ineendiare!' and in fact at the time he was taken to the station-ho?.! his he was going to patrol the streets.along with o thers of neighbours. Mr. MURRAY—Then he was in a most unfit condition too perform a duty of that description. The M t questioned the defendant very closely as to where he sP 5 the evening, and the society in which he was, until he ", 8 ultroat!lY found drunk and disorderly in the streets, and adjudged him to find two sureties of 30/. each, and il ni fy self in the sum of 601., to answer any charge which mag i s tra he te be preferred against him at the Sessions, the observing that, under all the circumstances of the c ase r ,' it should not think himself justified in deciding °P I) " summarily. agistrate the SECOND - E1)ITION' SUN OFFICE, ,Scten o'cloc;. THE LONDON GAZETTE THIS EVENING. , Nov. . dto b e 4th Regiment of WAR-OFFICE Light Dragoons— Cornet 2B G. J. Il abs l.l o- Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Knox, whose promotion' ul o , be chase, has been cancelled, Nov. 14. ; T. Geils, Cornet, by purchase, vice Bates, who retires, Nov. 28., A frO Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards— Captain B. the half pay of the 2d Dragoons, to be Lieutenant an without purchase, vice Langton, deceased, Nov. 28. 10' Ist Regiment of Foot—Ensign J. A. Morris, from th e 0 , ; 116 5e ' of the Royal African Corps, to be Ensign, without Ca be Nov. 23. 18th Foot—Lieut. R. A. Haly to be Oaptain, by porr h as ase 'to Sir W. W. Lynar, who retires; Ensign C. A, Ed" .ar Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Haly ; Ensign H. Costert on,t vur: the half-pay of the 43th Regiment, to be Ensign, chase ; S. Haly, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, v ice Nov. 28. 1, 3 11-1 4 Y the too , 21st Foot—Lieut. Hon. G. H. H. Cavendish, Nal, johns Unattached, to be Lieutenant, without purchase, v""" • promoted, Nov. 28. withg ito rch , ,astit Rh in 43d Foot--Assistant- Surgeon T. Hume, from th e '" the' ; ' meet, to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Galiani, promot ed Regiment, Nov. 28. ureba se, 46th Foot—W. C. Marshall, Gent., to be Ensign' bY cose. vice Lucas, who retires, Nov. 28. par t, 51st Foot—Lieut. P. H. F. Phelps to be Captain' 1 ) , tel o o vice Mawdesley, who retires ; Ensign P. Rice, to be„i al le „f re ; ,, e , by purchase, vice Phelps ; Gentleman Cadet 11. 1 1 the Royal Military College, to be Ensign, by purchase' 14th Nov. 28. v of t ise 59th Foot—Lieut. J. G. Rogers, from the half - Pk Regiment, to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice moted, Nov. 28. f er 69th Foot—Lieut. 11. French, from the half-paY Sher t e at p ' Regiment, to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice _,„ e r meted, Nov. 28. •tbova 75th Foot—Ensign F. R. Phavre to be Lieutenant, ssbeolos,-,,ir chase, vice Hutcheon, promoted in the 55th Regimen t ; to 116 Cadet P. J. Bathurst, from the Royal Military College' . sign, vice Phayre, Nov. 28. e on' 76th Foot—P. Russel, M,D. to be Assistant-Sul v. 9,3. ce , Fergusson, promoted in the Ist West India Reginicii t ot „ 77th Foot—Lieut. P. W. A. Bradshaw to be I °' • vice' Steele, who resigns the Adjutantcy only, Nov. 28. base , bf 81st Foot—Lieut. B. Taylor to be Captain, by Vir Lie ,,e te po it i t'. Hamilton, promoted ; Ensign E. Bowyer to be by purchase, vice Taylor ;J. Bailie, Gent., to be En s 'e -- v ice chase, h M vice Bowyer, Nov. 84t.D , to be Assistant -Surgeas' the Hume, apointed to the 43d Regiment Nov. 28. „ t, ,1 o f 94th I , oot—Lieut. G. Nightingale, the 1 18 "r ' " Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards, to be Lieutm nan ' purchase, vice Butler, promoted, Nov. 28. Ferr:,ef" Ist West India Regiment—Assistant-Surgeon M.D., from the 76th Regiment, to be Surgeon, vic e - who retires upon half-pay, Nov. 28. be CO 40 2d West India Regiment—Lieut. E. C. Soden t° , o 3 f,t o n. without purchase, vice Fitz-Gerald, deceased, Nov.,`, t+ G. H. Messiter to be Lieutenant, without purchavi , deceased, Nov. 29 ; Ensign W. C. Kennedy to 13 1 1 id c, Lieutefnt without purchase, vice Soden, Nov. 10; F. 1.. to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Messiter, Nov. t,, Royal African Colonial Corps--Ensign E. O'BrY,,,euraors,r tenant, without purchase, vice Nichols, deceased ; J. to be Ensign, vice O'Bryen, Nov. 28. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCI. or d s hi p' JAMES KINGSLEY, sheep-jobber, Holme , 13 'St. 3 WILLIAM WIFFEN, plumber, Alpha Wood. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDE D ' Strand' SIMOM SMITH, saddler, King William-stre ol ri' 1 0 BANKRUPTS. C_otteges, , ,01 ,1, eilar JONATHAN FORSTER, money-scriver, E o ' lll °, t ‘ alr-,;;f0 shire, to surrender Dec. 15,kand Jan. 9, at eleven , " r d fP”" man's, York. Overton, York ; Japues, Bettye , a V ;s l, Barnard's lan, Holborn. iuff i g fl 'l-1( e • WILLIAM FILKES HAINES, surgeon, L 0 , 1 ' 1 0 , 4 00 i ,orr wickshire, Dec. 11, and Jan. 9, at one, at the O ar Jan e ' Birmingham. Bigg, Southampton-buildings, ChancerY rers, don • ANNA JONES t a ct's, 0 0 JONES and JOHN FOYSTEB, ribben .4 a, a _ n e le 3 ,... P re Halsted, Essex, Dec. 2, and Jan. 9, at eleven, at to ot . LA .--CO ' ~,i Inn, Colchester. Dixon and Sons, New 1300" 11 9 ' ' O 3 street, London ; Jackson, Braintree. JOSEPH COATES, woollen-draper, Worcester, Dec. Jan. 9, at twelve, at the Hop Market Inn , NV orcestef•Foch, 0' Whitmore, Bedford-row, London ; Holdsworth a 0 I jl . o l oo' tester, hire, _w i lt, ~ BENJAMIN RABY, innkeeper, Preston, Lan ca ' 'kw' t ,a ' and Jan. 9, at twelve, at the Town Hall, pres to t old' Gregory, and Faulkner, Bedford-row, London ; '''-- l•F r , terall, and Charnley, Preston. E%e ter 'Ste ABRAHAM ELISHA ABRAHAM, o ptician' Exete r. , 17, and Jan. 9, at twelve, at the Half Moon Inn , 4 1", Broad-street-bu p il li dias, lP Lo s nd a o o n d • JTOuHrnNer Exeter. „v., lin': Or' Turner, Exeter. Tilooni f : 1 , " pens, Dec. 9, and Jan. 9, at two, at the Commercia' 0, jle ,' ~i tol. Hare and Little, Bristol ; Bridges and 314.5° 4+ square, Bristol. P' P.." , MARTIN CALDWELL, merchant, Austin -f rjao, S.•• .te , Jan. at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Crnsb) , ; e , ~i Ve c ,, Cheapside ; Gibson, Basingliall-street, official a s S k g i ' 41,,ipt c ' i'' °l 2 al'i • dir e ' JOHN DAVIDSON SMITH, s table-keepe r ' 4 , o f , , 0 1 `, 9, at one, and Jan. 9, at eleven, at the Coif of psi. o ,i, Birkett and Son, solicitors, Cloak-lane; J. Clark , flef t ' , ‘ St. Swithin's-lane Lombard-street. , c t in Y,,„ 0",,, , e ALEXANDER ' DUNCAN SMALL, l' a P - 1 , tr as sig" cattle-dealer, December 9, and Jan. 9, at (me ' ffieia' i Bankruptcp. J. F. Groom, Abchurch-lane, °` 9 4 ;0' Gem and Pooley, Carey-street. r i l ert se) o 3 , to ° - GEORGE BELL, tailor, W!ndsor-street, • ' 31r. d er,'„.o and Jan. 9, at twelve, at th e C o u r t of Bankrupx7.l',„„ool3,o;,, Pancras-lane, official assignee ;H. F. Richar:isai , '; ./ea thr v at> J 0 HN WINCH, coa c h- m a s ter, Car:,sbridg'e";',,,f .133111,01 Green, Dec. 9, and Jan. 9, at eleven, s' the Cm m ar d a e leY s ' ~i , ,,'• Groom, Abchurch-lane, official as , ,lgnee ; 2 "'" I, l ' ii• rilf l ' d P - street, Goodman's-fields. T CA' ' l ''''3 l ' I BENJAMIN BRADLEY and ROBERT D e. 0, 00 s9mi,gneracethetan;wtwesl,vaeldV,ehasotitntei:HeAaitsoto-inerotuFoiiarßLsoo,omLkrobonapdrtdoor-yis..tretericcebre,r,ssiihr°rel,:ibt: , tr . ,;,, JAMES NEWCOMBE HASSELL, m e lia ll, „ fi e Pe' Dec. 9, and Jan. 9, at the T&riporary Slnr'' . l ,• tall i arai 3 ,o4 - Teece, Shrewsbury ; Clarke and Metcalf, Linen i V IP, o f ,_, as- AARON BRAY, horse-dealer, Red Lion-Yaboue"tclaelas. 5, at half-past ten, and Jan. 9, at twelve, at th e tre etN 1 0 0-P „at ruptcy. Green, Kino's Rrms-yard, Colernan: a ,„cola„,.. ga r ,l o t' signee ; Mayhew and Johnson Carey-street, P,,,,`" t , t of v io ll- HENRY FRANCIS HUNT, wine-mere lP- e , ' (;o ax ing Hill, London, Dec. 8, at one, and Jan. 9, at '' al l ' .et' ruptcy. Owen and Dixon, Mincing-lane ; Wa itbili n ote'sftl! , street, official assignee. .l oef E eo tr S B: asoci S nffiok O ca rr iuUaopi:Tt assignee. c H Dy. G e A . T E STEVENS, P l a o r° t e t t ' t ; „ e ,, 1 v , e . 17 ' 4 14 ill* hall -street, Richardson, 8 - ; ' Jolin s "" fir 0 14 t .13 g RU th S e SE in jLeSri,es . 11 123 faiii,n a d ,1y... 1 5r, i s b.a a r3 ._,,0. twaiil. i:i l f bb t ey er enumerati ß n g a r r a e te -u fu n l io t n o twhiethToßrieelgs,iuifmt,hethyehilava:rdeeit. fisaiiii'cirt:rconritii tentions towards Holland, and if they p". ove s pee ta .4 4 till then, Holland ought to remain a w ere otp t!;,, re se IVO events tat are passing round it. BRUSSELS, Nov. 25.-The Chamber °f fo g r e tte °r a gl oe d o ' o continues the discussion of the project of lat ie has y o bati tion of the Communes. Nothino. rerna rka- _ i N w o h v ic here wail be ov the later sittings. It is thought t Article 81. V" 1•••••Mmi....• e Ol t BIRTH S. • oicare ' ijlir lensa l l ,- Si On the 26th inst., at Hyde-park -gate , of Henry Ronalds M.D., of a son. l i n e, 0, 131 / 9 . fig: kg biro' n $ l4 / ' Stevenson,Onthe otfhtiwnfot.,soantsCompton-terrace, 1a..- - . ° frbote o f i era' 4 / of a On da t o h g e h 2 te 4 r t . h inst., at Maidenhead, Ber k --' a son.On the 22d inst., the lady .„ 0 ,010b6 , iiiiß•RhE.• Sir Willi:na, o f ..," On the 26th inst : , at Upton_, Buc ks , se ___ d d a ugni,•`ol , ,i Bart., of Pitnar:lden, to Eliza Henrietta, cr, the law j. P: l ! . .rilson of the Hon. East India Company m r . II ~b i j( / John Ltolsden, Esq., of Cushny, and r elict ,s n. seet ,;_ rfc e : i d 17 of Charles Robert ....„,,, ,-, ,ot sO late Henry On the '2.sth inst., at St. Mary's, IslingttoonAcn, o nly ' 11 09 ..? eiinlraiy•lvebilodnineg-s,tEreseqt.,,p.7,,Liri:gi .. ..ec i. , 111 only , : On the 25th inst., Charlotte Maria, .se London. ..,,,o#o7 Rev. Thomas Wharton, St. John's W, South ~..itibe,,rl , On the 26th inst., at Turret House, .h . if { Mary Pr Cole, aged 72. i ' . Phillips, late of Chelsea. On the 26th inst., at Thames Di tt on, ' J of Fleet-street, in his 69th year. . Ti . 0 x.utchinsen, ,i, 4 On the 23d inst., at Begbrook, lie& On the 20th inst., Madame Vietoir N • us oor tie Berkeley-sheet, / Selif ' 44 daughter of Mons. Prins, of Brussels. Catherine / On the 26th inst., in her 71st year, t _ car cle . u. _,,,,,„ widow of Captain F. King-street , Cmv en b ,•'''' Vv' of Mr. N. S. Machin, of King--- „ 4 , Bristol,ur. , . toff Published by gimp° / i v at The Sun °Ma . ' i Loudon : Printed andve, 112.:Istrouteino NA g ~„ LD (•eI k ti ID:°t bett t it: h ae ,. t(), ettld %Ai/ Z i a ( kM kl,ar 4 - ti t ,' eopr: t , T he = - 111 15 i 1 1)4, 1 , or it tn t :tts ve t .' (pr, 14 4 ' 4 ' 1 44 rp her exertwea. rl;hriel,to