The Sun. — London, England, 1825-12-23 00:00:00

111 E LONDON JOURINALS• DAILY Extracts front the Mariano - Papers, Dec. 23, 1825. [MORNING CHRONICLE.] ,W . e are yet without the particulars of the death of Alexander. There are individuals, well ac quainted with Russia, who are inclined to suspect alai it Will turn out" he has not received fair play. Ihey ground their opinion on the immorality of Jttissian Nobles, and the deep displeasure with which they viewed his system of military colonization. Here A lexapder wounded them in the tenderest point, for wherever slavery pre- TAUS, the deadliest of all ! - .;ns in the eye's of a slave owner will be measures calculated to strike at, their power over his slaves. The Russian landowners did not conceal how much they were incensed by the colonization system ; and it should always be borne in mind, that though the army in Russia is every thing, that army is officered by Nobles. Indeed Dr. Lyal, in his lately published Travels, all but says, that the Emperor could hardly hope to escape the fate of his father and grandfather. After observing that his words and Ukases often proclaim other than his real sentiments, ""in order to tranquillize his irritated and all pOwerful Nobility," he proceeds to say; Upon what a prickly and painful bed must Despots repose, when even the mild, the good, and the generous Alexander has not only to study the humour of his Courtiers, his Ministers, his Generals, his Admirals, and even of his Nobles, but besides (as I have been assured), in order to please them, to act contrary to the dictates of his own heart. Who would envy the life of such a Sovereign, with all its eastern, gorgeous splendour, and all its apparently gigantic powers? The shades of Peter I 11. and of Paul must some times disturb the midnight slumber of all their successors to the Throne of Russia." Dr. Lyal bears 'testimony to the general unpopularity of the system of Military Colonization, which 'Alexander had, notwithstanding, determined on prosecuting. But whatever may have been the cause of his death, it can hardly fail to lead to most important results in Europe. The Russians, since the invasion, entertain the most exaggerated ideas of their own power. The masters of slaves in all countries are fond of war, first, because the habit of domineering from infancy has a ten dency to develope in them those qualities which most diSPose men to violence ; next, because it at ds them that strong excitement in which they delight ; and, lastly, because it holds out to them hopes of obtaining means for indulging in dissipation and extravagance. " To such an extent," says Dr. Lyal, 44 has the taste for military rank and military life grown upon the Russians, that it involves all other con siderations ; and it is not uncommon to hear these memorable words, ' Quanta je voir un 'officier civil it me donne mal au cceur; re sounding throughout the halls of the imperial winter palace. Indeed the idea seems more than ever to be spread throughout the nation, that a :Man, whatever be his civil rank by birth, by edu cation, or by talents, is nothing—nay, is, in some degree, contemptible—unless he has been a iiOldler or at least has . acquired military title." It is not likely that a Nation of this description, 'now that the man whose passion was peace, is removed from them, would be very fastidious "with respect to the grounds of justification of hostilities. [THE PUBLIC LEDGER.] The Berlin Papers speak of the strong and universal sensation which the death of Alexander occasioned in that capital, tl►e moment it was known. One of its effects was, to render the Public Securities almost unsaleable for a tittle; and we observe, from the Hamburg!' Papers, that it had a similar effect in that Market. The private letters received yesterday from the latter place, describe another impression which it had made there, we mean a most unfavourable one, as far as the peace of Europe is concerned. We find, too, that in Amsterdam the intelligence threw a profound gloom over the Money Market, and we strongly apprehend that the result of every new arrival will be to shew that 'these ominous signs have acquired a character of greater consistency. The Paris Market also has been deeply affected by the news ; and, to judge from the tone of the Public Journals, the effect is likely to be much greater. The latter, for obvious reasons, are cautious how they give :way to their forebodings; but in spite of this circumspection, they have expressed themselves in terms quite intelligible enough to convince the ' .most'careless Reader, that they see in this event the dissolution of that harmony, which has hither. to subsisted between . the principal Powers of Europe.. This is a new instance of the in stability of political combinations, particu larly when they are formed to suit the ca price of Monarchs, and' are not founded upon the immutable basis of justice. It is not four months since the Emperor Francis, amidst a variety of topics of a similar tendency, boasted of the per. feet concurrence of views that subsisted between him and his allies, for maintaining what he was •• pleased to call the pacific system, or, i❑ other words, the system for arresting the course of human improvement, and extinguishing every vestige of civil and religious liberty. What is the value of that proud boast now ? The keystone of the political arch, which was thrown over the Continent some years ago, has been washed away, not by the force of popular passions, but by the fiat of Omnipotence, and the mighty superstructure will 'soon follow. 4.11 attempts to prop it will be as useless us per. .." nicious ; and the European Continent, front the Guadalquiver to the l3orysthenes on the one side, and from the shores of the Baltic to those of the Bay of Calabria on the other, will, probably be fore the lapse of half a dozen years more, see the ...Property and persons of its inhabitants placed under. the protection of just laws, instead of being ! subjected, as they are for the most part now, to the brutal violence-and demoralizing influence of arbitrary power. LMORNING POST. Accounts said to have been received from the Prussian Consul at Warsaw, present the colour which the new Emperor wishes to give to the death of his brother. Should these particulars have really been circulated in that capital, under the eye and sanction of Constantine, they dis play a less wish of concealment than was used in 1801 on a similar. occasion. At that period, the violent death of the Emperor Paul was repre sented as the effect of apoplexy. According to this report, the Emperor Alexander is made to have died of an inflammation of the throat 1 This is said to have arisen from a violent cold caught during his travels in Crimean Tartary, which settled with such virulence on his throat that he remained speechless for some days. The mo ment before expiring, however, he is represent ed to have suddenly recovered his speech in a wonderful manner, for the purpose of contradict ing all that he had hitherto said and done, and, in direct opposition to his soleMn will, to declare the Grand Duke Constantine his successor. His death is then stated to have immediately fol lowed, and to have taken place on the Ist inst. at Taganrok. Now if we wished for any indi rect confirmation of the melancholy intelligence which we lately published, we should find it in this ill-contrived statement, which scarcely disguises the naked facts. We said that the conspirators would of course assign an ill ness of a shorter or longer duration, as might suit their purpose, to their victim before they announced his death, but we little thought that they would have selected one which had no much relationship to the true one. Appearances, however, may have revealed themselves on the person . of the deceased Emperor, which com pelled them to connect the cause of his death with the throat. As to the assertion that he changed his mind before expiring, and declared Constantine his successor, this alone would betray the purpose of the whole. The fatal Will was to be annulled, and that could only be done by a declaration which it would not be in the power of the unfortunate Autocrat to revoke. The con spirators now affirm that it has been made, and the possibility of contradiction has been removed from the earth. [NEW TIMES.] Whatever doubts may have existed as to the death of the Emperor Alexander must now be removed, for the news is , confirmed from so many quarters that further scepticism would be ridicu lous. The date of the melancholy event is stated to he the Ist instant, but of the place where it happened there is still some doubt. The German accounts say it was on the road from Taganrok to St. Petersburgh ; but Lord Clanwil liam's first account, which is said to have been followed by a second to the same effect, speaks of Taganrok itself as the scene of his Imperial Majesty's dissolution. As to the cause of his death the most credible account is that the Em peror had been attacked with a violent cold during his travels in Crimean Tartary, which settled in an inflamatory sore throat, of such virulence as to deprive his Imperial Majesty of speech for some days. Fortunately however, he recovered, so far as to express his wishes; and conscious of his approaching end, he declared the Grand Duke Constantine his successor, thus confirming by his last wish, the right of that Prince to the throne of Russia. The romantic tale of assassination, at a water party, on the sea of Mop!), although we are told it came from " a high quarter," is now pretty generally taken to be a com plete humbug—not that we in the least sus pect our worthy cotemporary himself of any thing like an intention to deceive the public : he was, no doubt, deceived himself: and we would therefore advise him in future to be cautious of the information that he gets from " high quar ters." The French Funds seem to have been more affected by this event than our own : and yet we do not see why they should he so. M. De Villele, whom the reports in the city had very unceremoniously turned out of office, appears to be more firmly fixed than ever, at least for a time. No Sovereign in Bo rope would voluntarily choose such a moment as the present to make changes in his Cabinet. As little reason is there to apprehend that the Em peror Constantine will in any degree break faith with the public creditor. The Russians never have done so : they religiously respect contracts of that nature ; and their Monarchs have always paid in full the debts of their Predecessors. It was, no doubt, a knowledge of this historical fact, that prevented the fall which had been anticipated in the Russian Bonds. [THE TIMES.] The agitation of the waves after a storm is a proverbial expression ; but we think that the state of the Money Market yesterday presented something more of turmoil and menace than would be strictly analogous to that description. There were some few elements of confusion mingling with the subsiding hurricane. Or at least, ob serving how long, and with what reluctance the calm succeeds, we should infer that the preceding tempest has been yet more violent than was ima gined during its existence. The Bank was surrounded by the civil and military force which has been recently thought necessary. —We hope., the serenity of the sacred season which is now at hand will not be disturbed by this display of secular power.— We said at the beginning of the late confusion, that the Bank had to look to its own propriety, and to the guarding themselves against ruin or absolute loss. The -duty of the Directors was confined within these bounds. It is with regret, therefore, that we hear it asserted, that the value of Bank-stock. is increased. Indeed it would be a great reproach if, during a crisis when all the other banks and all other capitalists had sustained great injury, and barely escaped bank , ruptcy,- a bank calling itself national had alone enriched its partners, and increased the value of its stock. We hope the Bank of England will look to this. We should think it acted in a highly culpable manner, if, by the prodigality of its issues, it ever suffered the foreign exchanges to turn against us, or the value of gold to pass the Mint price. [MORNING HERALD.] It has been fortunate for the Bank that during the present storm thy exchanges have bees in our favour ; had that not been the case, gold would have borne a premium, and would have been ex ported. While a sovereign is only equal in value to a Bank of England note, there is not much danger to be apprehended of a run upon the bank. We remember, however, when the rate of exchange between Paris and London was as low as 16 francs, guineas at that period were purchased at high prices ; and they disappeared, till the exchanges came round again to 1?e in our favour. As for hoarding, there is not much danger of that in this country—for almost every body spends as much as he receives. Too many spend more than their incomes amount to, as is proved by the numerous insolvencies and bankruptcies. Still we cannot help thinking, that though the exchanges are in our favour, a circulation of ten millions of sovereigns is much too little, while the Bank of England and country bank paper amounts to so much as forty millions. One is cer tainly out of proportion to the other, for if ex changes were only to turn against us 21 per cent., and that a sovereign should be worth 6d., every one of course would get his note exchanged for a sovereign, when the latter coin would soon dis appear. We do not agree in opinion with some of our contemporaries that the rescinding of Mr. Peel's Bill at the present moment would increase the panic, at least in London. [BRITISH PRESS.j The great obstacle, it appears, which stands in the way of the Silk Trade, in their application for the postponement of the introduction of fo reign wrought silks till they shall have so far improved their machinery as to enable them to bear up against it, is—that the yielding to their request would be an abandonment, so far, of those principles of free trade which have, upon mature deliberation, been adopted, and from which it is not thought, expedient to depart. We sadly fear that if this system of free trade k to be persevered in, it must be by a sacrifice of the mercantile and manufacturing interests of this country, to an extent, the consequences of which we tremble to contemplate. The popula tion of this country must be fed, and if their means of obtaining subsistence by their own indus try is withdrawn from them, how are they to b e provided for, and what is to be the result ? If the mercantile interests of this country are to be put in issue--as they will be—by this experimental system, who shall say to what it may lead, and where it may end ? We would entreat the advocates of these principles—ere it is yet too late—to pause before they attempt the application of them in the present state of things. Let them take the advantages of contingencies. Let them profit by occasions as they arise. But let them not attempt to benefit the manu facturers by abstract theories of political econo my, for which they are not prepared, and which can only produce effects so deplorable as to leave them every thing to apprehend. If we speak on this subject with an earnestness that is extreme, it is from the deep and indelible conviction we feel, that, before three months shall have elapsed, if this scheme of policy as to the Silk Trade is not postponed, the consequences to this country will be such as no after-wisdom can either avert or recall. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Drc.22. COMMISSION OF REVIEW.-POWELL V. MOTJCHAT. The proceedings in this cause terminated this morning. The Lotto CHAXCELLOR, after a long and laborious corn ment upon the evidence, said that if he were now called upon to advise the Crown whether this commission of review should be allowed or not, his opinion would be that it ought not to be al lowed. However, he prided himself upon the power of altering his opinion upon reflection, and if any circumstance should occur to him to induce him to alter it in this case (though that was highly improbable), he would have no scruple in admitting it, when the Court met again on the 7th or 9th of January. LADY ANSON V. BRITISH MINING COMPANY. Mr. BicKEnsTETH resumed his argument against the mo tion for injunction and account, prayed against the defendants in working certain Cornish mines. The So LICITOR.GENERAL replied.—Judgment to-morrow morning. The SoLicuroit-GENERAL. prayed the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the bar, to refrain from sitting on Saturday. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could refuse nothing which was asked by the bar. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 22. PETTY b. PETTY. Mr. RoUFELL appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in this suit, who is the wife of the defendant. In consequence of dis putes which had arisen between these parties, a separation had been mutually agreed upon, and a deed executed, by which, amongst other things, it was stipulated that the husband should allow his wife a certain yearly sum for her main tenance. The husband having failed to perform his engage ment in this respect, the wife tiled a bill against him in this Court, to compel payment of the annuity. The husband, re solved to defeat her claims if possible, left England, and thus placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The cause was however proceeded in, and ultimately an order was pronounced for the sequestration of his real pro perty, to answer the claims due to his wife for her annuity. That order was pronounced in 1822, and it required the se questrators to whom it was directed to enter upon the defen dant's lands, and to receive the profits until 270/., then due to the plaintiff, should be paid, and all the costs incurred, by her and by them up to that time; and further, to keep possession until the defendant should clear his contempt. The sequestra tors, acting in pursuance of that order, had already received a sum sufficient to discharge the plaintiff's claim up to 1822, and all the costs, with the exception of 40/., and as the time was now fast approaching when the order would have expired, the plaintiff presented her petition to have it enlarged. The peti tion prayed, that the sequestrators might continue to keep pos session of the property, and to pay all the arrears which had subsequently accrued, as well as the subsequent costs incurred about the suit, and a reference to the Master to ascertain the sum now due in both respects. Mr. WAKEFIED appeared for the sequestrators, who were tired of their office, and would willingly be discharged on pay ment of their costs. The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought he could not pronounce the order prayed for. The order as it stood would be sufficient so far as the costs were concerned, because it was not neces sary to make any more explicit mention of them ; but the fUr ther sequestration of the property could not be ordered in the shape required. Mr. ROUPELL represented the annuity to be the plaintiff's only means of subsistence, and the sequestration of the de fendant's property as alone able to secure the payment. The VICE-CHANCELLOR promised to look further at the order ; but at the same time expressed his opinion that the ap plication must be renewed in some other shape. SIR A. M. GIBSON ✓. KNOWLFS AND OTHERS. Mr. HART stated this to be a petition for the division of a sum now in Court, and paid under various orders made in this cause, and for payment of the parties' costs. It appeared that the late Sir Thomas Maitland, being Colonel of the 49th Regi ment of Foot, appointed William Gilpin the agent for that re giment. In fife course of the transactions which ensued in con sequence, a sum of upwards of 3,0001. became due from Sir Thomas Maitland to the agent, and the latter being a bank rupt, his assignees claimed the payment of that sum. The re presentatives of Sir Thomas Maitland were ready to pay any sum that might appear to be due, but as Mr. Gilpin had re ceived various sums from the War-office on account of the re giment, they were advised that they could not pay Sir T. Mait land's debt unless they should first deduct the sum due to the War-office. The assignees objected tto this on the ground that the agent's charge against Sir T: Maitland ought first to be liquidated, and that the War-office must come in and prove among the other creditors under the commission, for whatever balance should appear due to them. In consequence this suit was instituted by Sir Alexander Maitland Gibson, and Mr. Maitland, as the representatives of the late Sir Thomas Mait land, against the defendants, assignees of Mr. Gilpin, the agent. On the cause coming on to be heard, the Lord Chan cellor directed an issue for the purpose of trying that legal question, which arose in the course of the suit, viz., whether the representatives of Sir T. Maitland had a right to set off the debt due to the Crown against his debt to Gilpin's estate. On the trial of that issue a verdict had been given in the affir mative, and the right to set off was established. The petition was therefore presented for dividing the funds in Court. ROUPELL thought the case must go again to the Lord Chancellor, because the fact of the late Sir T. Maitland having given a power of attorney to Mr. Gilpin, by virtue of which he had received the money in question at the War-office, had not been stated. Mr. WRAY, for the Crown. only appeared to ensure the payment of the sum due to the War-office. The VICE-CHANCELLOR had at first thought that this question must go again before the Lord Chancellor; but since it had been explained that the agent acted under a power of attorney from Sir T. Maitland, the appearance of the case was changed. That circumstance placed him in the same situa tion as Sir Thomas Maitland, and laid him under the same responsibility. The verdict of the Jury was, therefore, quite satisfactory, because it established that single proposition to which the dispute had been resolved—viz., whether Sir T. Maitland ought to pay to Mr. Gilpin's assignees, without any deduction, - the sum admitted to be due to him from the regi ment, or whether he ought to pay out of that sum the debt due to the War-office. He should therefore direct, in the words of the prayer, that the sum of - 1,539/. should be paid to Mr. Maule, the olicitor to the Treasury, together with his costs; that the costs of the other parties should be paid out of the residue of the fund in Court; and that the balance should be paid to the assignees of Mr. Gilpin, in discharge of the debt, due to them from the late Sir T. Maitland as Colonel of the 49th Regiment. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 22. CRIM. CON.—PARKES V. CRESWICKE. This was an action against the defendant for criminal con versation with the plaintiff's wife. The Attorney-General and Mr. Chitty conducted the plain tiff's case. Mr. Scarlett and Brougham that of the defendant. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in opening this case to the Jury, put it as a case of great injury to the plaintiff', of vio lated feelings, and of the most artful seduction by the defendant. It appeared, however, in the result of the inquiry, that no very great damage had been sustained except by the plaintiff's wife, who seemed to have been most unfortunate in all her amatory connections. The defendant resides at Hannam Court, near Bristol, and is a Magistrate tbr the district of the county of Gloucester, and also for the county of Somerset. The plaintiff is at present in possession of a competent property. though at the time when he married he was a traveller for a London house. Having had occasion to go, in the course of business, through the West of England, he accidentally became ac quainted with Mr. Latcham, a solicitor, near Bristol. Mr. Latcham had a daughter, with whom the plaintiff'formed an attachment and married. This took Vace in 1812. A thou sand pounds were given, by way of fortune, by Mr. Latcham, which was settled upon her, the plaintiff's brother and father in-law being appointed trustees. After the marriage the plain tiff and his wife came to London, where they remained eight or tine months ; and then he was induced, by the wish of his wife, to reside among her friends and 'go down to Bristol and set up business as a plumber, in partnership with one .teffries. The 1,0001. which had been settled on Mrs. rarkes, Mr. Latcham was persuaded to advance, by way of loan, to assist in carrying on the business; notwithstanding this, they failed in 1814. and this money, for which Jeffries gave. his bond, was entirely lost. From this period till early in the year 1810, the plaintiffand his wife lived together, he having no employment, when he once more returned to Lon don, to see if he could get something to do. Toward the end or this year, or the beginning of 1817, he succeeded in obtain ing an appointment to an establishment near Soho-square, in which he and his wife were to resftle jointly. He then went down to Bristol to bring her up, but she refused to return with him. from this period he had taken no further notice of her, although her father's affairs having become embarrassed, and she, with her two children, had very little means of support ; not only had he not sent for her again, but he had never sent her even a farthing to help her. About the close of the year 1819 she was introduced to the house of the defendant, with whom very shortly after she formed the criminal connection for which this action • was brought. They left Hannam Court, went to Exeter, thence to Exmouth, where they re sided some time, anti ience to Lyndhurst, near Southampton, in Hampshire, where they remained another period. In this time Mrs. Parke had three children to the defendant, one of whom died. Towards the latter end of 1822, the defendant, tired with the obscurity in which he had been living, and sa tiated with his victim, returned to his residence near Bristol, and disclaimed his conection with Mrs. Parkes, but when pressed with the charge by a Mr. Fry, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Parkes's, to whom in her distress she had written, her father and mother being both dead, he admitted that he had lived with her, and had only abandoned her in consequence of her depraved habits. Mr. Fry, determined to ascertain the truth of this charge, went to see her, and found her living indeed in a state of great poverty, but diligently labouring to support herself and children, and appearing to conduct herself with propriety. In the course of the year 1824, Mr. Parkes became possessed of a considerable property ; he then brought this action, anxious to obtain a divorce, and rid himself of his wife. It appeared that in the successive migrations of the de fendant and the plaintiff's wife, they had assumed a new name at every stage, a circumstance on which the Attorney- General relied, as proving their desire to keep their connection a secret from their friends. Mr. Latcham, the brother of the plaintiff's wife, proved the marriage. On his examination he said, "My father is a soli citor, and at the time of the marriage was residing near Bris tol. My sister was then about 19 ; she was the only daughter; she is a first cousin of Mr. Parkes, her husband. The mar riage took place with the approbation of her family. Mr. Parkes was then a traveller to a house in London. He pos sessed property to about 1,0001., and made a settlement on his wife. He was about thirty years of age. Mr. and Mrs. Parkes after the marriage went to reside in London. After a few years they returned to Bristol, and Mr. Parkes entered into business with a person of the name of Jeffries. This partnership was after some time dissolved, and Mr. Parkes returned to London, Mrs. Parkes continuing to live with her father and mother. In the March of 1821 her mother died, and her father in Decem ber 1822. The defendant has acted as a Magistrate of Glou cester and Somerset. In the years 1819 and 1820, he was living at Hannam-court. Mr. Latcham, Mrs. Parkes's father, acted as clerk to the Magistrates; they became in consequence ac quainted. Mr. Latch= was for several months at Hannam court. It is twelve years since I lived with my father. In the year 1821 Mrs. Parkes was missing from Bristol. On my father's death I succeeded him." Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—I did not object to the marriage; they married on the 9th November, 1811, and then went to London. I am sure I don't know whether they were in London two or three years. When I was in London on business, I called at their house, but never slept there ; Parkes, on going to Bristol, carried on the business of plumber and glazier for several months ; they failed, and Parkes returned lack to London ; Mrs. Parkes, and her two children lived se veral years with my father and mother after this; they had no support but what my father gave them ; my father supported her, notwithstanding she went to Mr. Pickering's and Mr. Fisher's; I do not remember seeing Mr. Parkes after he return ed to London ; I may have said that " Parkes behaved like a scoundrel to his wife." I don't believe they lived happily to gether; she refused to return to London again. I know the handwriting of Mr. Milward, the plaintiff's attorney.— The witness here verified several letters which were put into his hand.)—After my father's death, the eldest of the children was brought to me to support it; I wrote up to Mr. Parkes about it, and got no answer, and sent it to the parish, who sent it up to him. Mr. Creswicke,i about the years 1819 and 1820, was under great embarrassments ; I know nothing of his concern now. Thomas Tippet—l lived at Exeter in 1820. I remember the defendant coming to my house in August 1820, with a lady, and introduced her as Mrs. Humphrey, calling himself Mr. Humphrey. They did not take lodgings in Exeter. He after wards went to Exmouth and took a cottage there; I then be ' came more intimately acquainted with them. He never spoke of' her but as his wife. She had a child there ; after the birth of the child he frequently came to Exeter. He made no coin munication to me about leaving Exmouth. The child was brought to Exeter. The child was nursed by a Mrs. Ford. They left this neighbourhood in 1821 ; the child was left be hind at nurse ; they never returned again together. In Feb. 1822, I again saw .11r. Creswicke ; he stated his object to be to take away the child. I brought away the child and gave it to Mr. Humphrey. Previous to this he declared who he really was, and said the lady was not his wife. I had known before who she was ; I might perhaps have mentioned' this to him before he told me. Mrs. Sarah Gourlay—l am niece of Mr. Abraham Kennay ; my uncle has a cottage at.Exmouth. I remember Mr. Hum phrey calling on him about the cottage ; my uncle stated the rent was 11)01. ; the lady wished him to take it, as it was ex- - pensive living at an inn ; after some time, I observed she was in the family way ; they were there about eight or nine months; I saw him again in February 1822, and he said then he did not know where he was. Clark--I reside in Exmouth ;, in 1820 I was requested to attend Mrs. Humphrey, and on the 27th Nov. delivered bet of a male child. Mr. Clarke—l am a surgeon at Lyndhurst, near Southall; ton ; I remember a gentleman and a lady of the name of coming there, and delivered her of a child, in January 1 828 the lady passed as Mr. Hill's wife. I frequently visited'thert I have subsequently ascertained their real names. She is no w living in a state of great pove r ty, an d h er t wo c hildren with her. She supports herself by needle-work. I have not seen hurl there since the 10th November, 1822. Mr. Fry—l saw the defendant after his return. I show4 l . him Mrs. Parke's letters to m e . H e p rom i se d to give me "'j ig for them next morning. H e did no t pa y t hi s s um to me next morning, but he did afterwards. He said that he h ad lived in Devonshire with her. He said he had one child bl her. I found her in a cottage at needle-work ; she apt:wire d e be conducting herself with propriety. The defendant said on of the children was his, and ascribed another to Dr: Clarke He asked me fbr her letters to m e; h e go t th e m about a f0r,... night ago; he paid me th e 201. f or h er a b ou t a fortnight since= I sent the letters to him a f e w d a y s ago . I do not know t " Mr. Creswicke possesses considerable property. 1 Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Befo r e I sent the °., ters to Mr. Creswicke, I tried to make something of them of Parkes. I asked him if he would not give me a sum of n3on e l i for them. I lodged at Mr. Latcham's four years; whilethee knew Mr. Creswicke only by name. I left shortly after fflAr e ' d • Parkes and her children came t o th e h ous e i n 1816. 'I stay two months after she came. Mr. Latch= was very P0n . ,,, I did not have to make ro o m f or h er . I h a d k nown Mrs: Pa rii tit 20 years. Her father w a s no t a bl e t o su p por t h er . She wee r first to Mr. Pickering's, and th e n t o Mr. Fisher's. frequently while there. Her child was put to school by":" Pickering, who is a n a v a l o ffi cer . Sh e remained there ` - r . months. I have heard of her husband getting some little acs, ters of plate away. I was n o t i n th e habit of seeing Mr. I go. wicke. It was sus p ec t e d, w h en M r . C resw i c k e and , now Parkes disappeared, th a t th e y were gone o ff toget h e r. r s a t o nothing of Mr. Creswicke's circumstances. Ido not know he went off to avoid being arrested. do r Re-examined by Mr. ATTO RN E Y -G ENERAL ...4.ra 01° lived about two years after she went down to Bristol. • the Thomas Parkes—l am brother to th e pl a i n tiff ; I Vet! in house of Mr. a nd M rs . P ar k es 8 or 9 mont h s a f ter tbt} married ; I was in the habit of visiting them afterwards; then dulged her in every thing she could requite; when InY.b . "..ife's came to London in 1816, h e did so on t h e a d v i ce of nts "of a father, who said he would take care of her till my b r other i g t he situation; my brother got a s it ua ti on i n t h e l atter end ° ing • }ear 1816; he went do wn t o B r i s t o l f or t h e purpose of-hr ;,, t gole her tip ; in 1824 my broth er b ecame p ossesse d o f a c onsider s propert. uler 0 , hi Cross-examined by M r . S CARLETT —H e got hi s P the a distant relation. From the latter end of the year 181 0 , "' o f beginning of 1817, till the year 1820, I believe he ner e l„dge, her ; he never went to bring her up again to my kno r w rar nor to my knowled ge did he ever make any inquiries sit e ' till the year 1824. w i fe Thomas Joseph Severn—After the plaintiff and hies tow n ' were married, I was in the habit o f v i s iti ng them in '• t beta 'They appeared to be living very h a ppily. I did not visit much. the „ear, By Mr. BROUGHADI —Ho w did th ey li ve d ur ing 1817, 1818, and 1819 ? The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Why d o y ou ask sac.. a tion ? They were not living together then. the Mr. BitouGHAst—l thought this question as much 0 4 point as that of the Att orne y -G enera l, w h o as ked ho w lived during the first six months after marriage. colv Three letters were here put in and read, to shew th e and nection between the defendant an d t h e p l a i n tiff's wile/To to shew on what terms they were toward each other• to p , of them were written i n 1823, a f ter t h e d e f e ndant toll doned her in Hampshire. They only related to tire 'wets sums of money which h e was sen di ng her, and o'culti no way remarkabl e , exce pt as shewing . the 01 which he had in raising such small sums as N. titter' which were sent on eac h occas i on . Th e other l etter ws! "„ rlrsr in 1819, and marked the period at which this conneaf;diO 4 beg:an. Its formal tone clearly indicated that up tO 07 e - , pr of its being written no illegal intercourse had taken Pha b - t i tween them. The contrary was attempted to be estabds the plaintiff's Counsel. L e tchit tn ' " My dear Madam—Having conferred with Mr. rt ,,,,, c laf I think it best to defer illatilda s coming home until 4 re . or Wednesday, when I will fetch you both. Should her esyo mining - with you not be attended with any inconvenient Or thank you to hand h er th e enc l ose d ; ot h er wise do not 0 01 but give me a line. I feel more than obliged for your kin and remain, dear Aladam, your obliged Servant,. " Dec. 2.5 th, 19. " H m. CRESN'el c r at Mr. SCARLET T, for the defendant, at.!clressed the ••,° to ts considerable length. He did lit t l e more than re as they had been disclosed in evidence, and argue fFoll s i e tif that, before the criminal intercourse took place, the P at bsc abandoned his wife, that he had sustained no damage , ° L i on' he brought this action merely because having recently anon. expectedly become possessed of a considerable property ed to have a divorce. on ttenn The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE merely directed the a- of the Jury to the principal features of the case. far 1116 After a short consultation, they returned a verdict plaintiff—Damages 50/. LIBEL.—WILLOUGIIBY V. FLETCHER• The This was an action by Mr. Willoughby, who keel's ' o f Ws Hotel" at Chester, against Mr. Fletcher, the pr oprietor of the Chester Chronicle, fur a libel contained in that Pape of 24th of December, 1824. The libel was headed ' 0 0; loughby Controversy, and contained allusions to some Pr etor ings in Chancery between Lord Grosvenor, t h e proPrt oat the house, anti Mr. Willoughby his tenant, and al„st i Zotes,; papers in the Chester Courant, on the other side : n a to s ir tion. The writer of the article, which was very long: !', hat or' persons not residing in Chester very dull, observed " 1 that "c Willoughby now thought with Mr. John Williams),,, c ellor Court of Chancery needed refbrm, since the Lord td"l be rac` had decided against him, and had stated that whatever ot ter of truth seemed to belong to his affidavit in the' Tbe lO C stance, such character could not be given to it ROW' rs . of the article was wholly uninteresting to London rear g ih a t -state thatio Mr. J. WILLIAMS, in opening the pleadings, Pil ger 01 libel, after sonic matter very imm a t er i a l to the plain t one else, imputed to him perjury. hat °et° Mr. SCAR LET T, in opening the case, observed t tett e,e was no species of information communicated thg e '; e port; medium of newspapers, so frequently incorrect as a „ ct ion . o ,, of proceedings in Courts of Justice. He meant no reili n those who prepared them ; but from the mariner technical those proceedings were conducted, and from their of thee nature, it unavoidably happened that the. accoti nt A t. trlsi s, , were often erroneou s ; a nd he had often seen reports: ....on , could a at which not be h ew accurate.as net urae present bsus therefore, wtificl h .in could ca of gpresor interest, when extraordinary pains were taken,- an din repo_lr, ceedings were noted in sho r t h a nd, errors would ocellfs evil of trials which could sc a rcely b e p re vented, To thi in , p ub b , ie ties must generally sub m it, b ecause proceedings o euls_,,, Courts ought to be made public; but no man was _., o con . who garbled proceedings for it ma li g nant purpoie , alc e sosf; parried them with malignant comm e nts. The Lear,nri', client then went through the libel in q ue stion, 'and urged his claim to damages. 0( 10. t The plaintiff's son being called to proie the it ti r t ion, averments in the declaration, stated, on cross-exam'. t h e Cllr he had carried papers from his father to the office of a tbe Courant, before the publication of the libel. , urge ' AO The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for thd defenno.•9 t he ni7, e distance of the place of trial from that of' puhlicationslie b y . o l ' oti spirit of party in Chester ; and the obvious appeal n t l g plaintiff himself to the press, as grounds for ova' VI damages. returned The Jury retired for half an hour, and then. diet for the plaintiff—Damages 300/. . _on rt During the last fortnight there has " t t". l Og g . single debtor in the gaol of Dumfries—a cit ed " —ta n of 1 : ,0 he -1- never occurred before in the memory of the ohles t ness in town. During the last six years, the hikhes...,,sol' of commitments for debt was twenty—the lowest tvf ° average about seven.—(Dunnfrier Coitrier.) 5 • BITHS. Yesterday, the Viscountess ß Folkestone, of a daugh t ' e roe"' On the 22d inst., i\lrs. Thomas Brooksbank, . street, of a daughter, ------------ _. M A R HIED. fr 3ll L St. NI '4 14iingWri's,pge$ On Thursday, the 22d inst., at t..i. ary ~ , yO.• br , cis E. J.Valpy, A.M., of TrinityColle,te, Carnbricf e ', o f ° son of the Rev. Dr. Valpy, to Eliza, 'second daugnte. Smith. Pullen, ry Es.. f Canonbu. On the 22d inst, at. St. Andrew's, Holborn, Ric ha tiXa rd - Esq., of Buckden, Huntingdonshire, secretary 0) . bar d Bishop of Lincoln, to Mary, eldest daughter of Rle k' wards, Esq., solicitor, Castle-street, „Holborn. terr DIED vocro is9 Yesterday, at his residence in. D u k e -street, 1 j. , Ili df°r Nathaniel Atcheson, Esq., aged 54. air On the 6th inst., at her residence, Alfred-o_oe' of 1 ° square, Cydyppto Dutton, wife of John Fowl0, 1 :• q " 0 of 12 ston, amaica. y ear _ ti , ag 2n o t le he ß l e 9 v t . h o in eo St ;g , e a c t li i i r s a i l l n roi t i n n e , rso .D ith : in the 7 461 of i ks 41 yea s recto r more, in the county of Dorset. . - - ..,..1.104,.....• at the vs Printed and Published for the PnwiniElo ng• OFricz, No. 112, Strand, by J. B. CAT""