The Sun. — London, England, 1834-08-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The order for the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill in.the House of Lords stands for this evening, and the determination of the Tory 'Peers is looked forward to with extreme solicitude. There are three courses open to the Lords—meaning the Tories, be cause none doubt that they have the power if they have the will and temerity to outvote Ministers. They may pass the Bill in its present improved state—they may refuse the recent a m endments introduced i n t o th e original Bill by a majority of the Commons--or their " Lordships," in their infinite wisdom, may reject it altogether. We believe that the merits of the measure will be the smallest consideration with these wilful legislators. We may state, on undoubted authority— their own—that yesterday their " final" resolution, after much deliberation and difference of opinion, was to " throw out" the Bill altogether. We confess, n evertheless, that we cannot believe that they will screw up their courage to the " sticking place." What possible motive can the Tory Peers have for such a course of reckless policy ? Many of them are Irish landowners of extensive and valuable possessions. They well know that the Bill is received with accla mation in Ireland—that the Clergy are anxiously de siring its success—that no petitions from any class have been presented against it. They must know the interminable warfare of the Catholic laity of Ireland against the present offensive system of tithe. The evils of the predial agitation of the question have ex tended far beyond the mere subject matter of conten tion. The Irish Peers are sensibly alive to the preva lence of a growing spirit of disaffection to the pressure of their grinding rents. Will they then destructively oppose a measure which would finally, and, on the whole, equitably, extinguish the evils of the tithe sys tem of their unhappy and persecuted country? As the self-elected and exclusive champions of the Church Establishment of Ireland, are they prepared to. reduce the whole body of Protestant Irish Clergy to beggary and destitution ? Will they risk, by the rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill, the revival of a national agita tion which can only end with the entire destruction of the Irish Church ? Will they reject a measure beneficial to the people of Ireland—the salvation of the Clergy--and particularly gainful to the landed proprie tors ? It has been absurdly contended that the Bill is defective, because of the bonus given to the land lords. We much doubt the extent and reality of that bonus. The tenantry, relieved from the payment of tithe, will not have to bear any considerable share of the tax by a relative addition to their rents. Forty per cent. is extinguished. That portion of the extinction, fairly calculated as the cost of collection, is no loss to the Church ; and though the State will have to make good the difference between 60 per cent. and the cost of collection, yet the State will be quickly reimbursed from the surplus funds of the Church temporalities. The force of these objections we cannot discern. Suc cessfully to carry any measure of such vital and sweep ing importance, various conflicting interests must be necessarily propitiated. No remedy of existing evils could be, real or lasting which did not relieve the pau per Catholic tenantry from tithe. If the imposition is therefore necessarily transferred from the tenantry to the landowners, the latter have a clear right to some equivalent or ,gain commensura t e w ith th e bur den of a specifi c laud tax. But it is reiterated, " Why should the landlords pocket any portion of the State property ?" We reply, for the reasons above stated. Can it be denied that the State possesses through its Legislature the right of alienating any portion of its possessions ? The justification must be the righteous ness of the object. And what object can be more righteous than alienation for the national purpose of securing social order and contentment ? A cheaper purchase never can be made by this country than the exchange of 40 per cent. of Irish tithes for the ex tinction of predial evils which are rapidly becoming subversive of the entire rights of property. The ob jection proceeding from Tory Peers who have mort gaged the landed property of the whole kingdom in a national debt of one thousand millions—created too in an unsuccessful attempt to uphold the cause of Popery and legitimacy—is absurd and even ludicrous. If the Peers then reject such a Bill— passed to them by large majorities of the Commons— what must be their real motives of objection ? Their conduct could not have any relation to the merits of the question. We can only seek their motives in the spirit of faction. The Duke of Wellington is re ported, with many of the more sensible Tory Peers, to have strongly urged assent to the Bill, although it is understood that he has since reluctantly consented to put himself at the head of his motley troops. We must, therefore, attribute the opposition to " some busy Factionists of the meaner sort." Will his Grace, then, submit to the despicable councils of the rump of the Orange party ? Is he brought thus low to de dare a truce with that fanatical party as a reconcilia tion for the odious concession of Catholic emancipa tion ? We deeply grieve that the Duke of Welling ton, after the peace, transferred his mental activity from the field to the senate. Low, indeed, has he fallen, in the last session, to prefer the Tory roar of an Oxford Convocation to the prosperity of his native island. If, however, the Tory Lords are thus insanely determined to bring their " Order " into contempt and universal discredit, they must pursue their own course. It is now become evident that the King, the Commons, and the People cannot much longer submit to an Un reformed House of Lords. Necessity will work a cure. Our able Correspondent, " A Whig and Re former," proposes a remedy. We are not prepared to approve his proposition, though any change would be better ; but the Lords may be assured that their legis lative conduct in the four last Sessions of Parliament has begotten a new public question—their own re formation. If, by destroying the Irish Tithe Bill, they , calculate on. the chance of constructing a Tory Ministry, they are miserably deceived. The cant and hypocrisy of their pretended zeal for the Church is, however, amply portrayed. They cannot expect that the Commons, under such circumstances, will rob the public purse to pay the Irish Clergy in the interregnum of a renewal of Irish agitation. Perhaps they vainly imagine that his Majesty would send f or th e D u k e of Wellington in his dilemma. A probable circumstance —that the King should seek the council of a Peer to extricate and guide him from the evil of that Peer's - - machination I - Strait waistcoats alone would be suit able to all persons concerned in such a cabal.: Morning Chronicle. The decision of the House of Lords upon the Irish Tithe Bill is this day to be pronounced, and we en tertain a very confident expectation that their Lord ships will reject this iniquitous and jacobinical mea sure. Whatever may be thought of the nature of the property in tithe, whether it be deemed public pro perty or private property, whether it belongs to the State or to the Church, it is abundantly clear, at least, that it is property, and that in disposing of it, or of any portion of it, all that Parliament can do, by pos sibility, is to divest one class of the community of rights for the purpose of transferring those rights to another class or classes. The naked proposition con tained in the Irish Tithe Bill is that two-fifths of a large mass of property which now belongs either to the clergy of the Church in Ireland, or to the community at large, shall be transferred to the proprietors of land in Ireland. This proposition is equally monstrous whe ther tithe be regarded as the property of the Church or as the property of the State. If, as we believe, it is the rightful property of the Church, why should the Church be robbed to enrich the landlords of Ireland ? If, as others pretend, it is the property of the State, why should all the rest of the community be plundered to aggran dize the proprietors of the soil in Ireland ? What in either case is the merit of the one party or the delin quency of the other, that the former should be the ob ject of legislative bounty, and the latter the victim of political spoliation ? If the tithe is to be seized by the State upon the assumption - that it is the property of the State, why should the undivided advantage of this seizure be bestowed upon the landlords of Ireland ? Why in these days of economy should not the public at large be admitted to the spoil which is properly their own ? The reas on can only be found in the disposi tion of Ministers to gratify the envy, hatred, and ma lice of the Papists of Ireland towards the Protestant Church. This measure is not founded upon any prin ciple of public policy. It is merely an act of gra- , tugous homage rendered by the British Parliament to that class of the people of Ireland who are eager for the prostration of the Protestant Church because it is the Protestant Church. The injustice of this mea sure becomes more evident the more it is considered. It takes away from the Clergy two-fifths of their law ful property to bestow it upon parties who not only have no claim to it, but in whose favour no claim has ever been preferred. But, not content with this fla grant iniquity, it abolishes all the compositions by which under the sanction of antecedent Acts of Par liament the amount of that property has been deter mined, thus forcing upon the Clergy of Ireland a new and needless struggle with inveterate and elated anta gonists for that portion of their property of which it professes to leave them in the possession. Nor does the iniquity of the measure end even here. By the apathy or the feebleness of the Executive Government, the tithe-payers of Ireland have been permitted to fall greatly into arrear. And from this arrear they are to be exonerated, as a reward for their systematic resistance to the law, the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain being charged with the amount. In other words, the Irish tithe, which our liberal and economical rulers have caused to fall into arrear, is to be paid out of the pro ceeds of taxation levied upon the submissive and obe dient people of Great Britain. This, it must be admitted, is a specimen of legislation which is admi rably calculated to diffuse respect for the Legislature, and promote obedience to the laws. But it is said the Irish people will not pay tithe, and therefore it is good to give up two-fifths of that revenue and to take the rest in another form and under another name. This is the apology for the measure. Our wise Legis lators think there is no harm in giving direct en couragement and reward to rebellion, if they can at the same time perpetrate a paltry cheat upon the rebels. The contemptible cheat will inevitably fail, but the reward and encouragement will certainly produce their natural effect. If the Irish people, as they are called, will not pay tithe to the Protestant Clergy, by whom is the three-fifths of that revenue which an enlightened and Reformed House of Commons professes to leave for the maintenance of the Protestant Clergy to be henceforth paid'? Are the Irish people so dull as to prmit it to be smuggled out of their pockets ? And now that the House of Commons has explicitly recog nized their right to determine what they will pay and what they will not, must not the Irish people be a very extraordinary people indeed if they continue much longer in the disposition to pay rent to their landlords or taxes to the Crown ? Let the Tithe Bill once pass into a law, and the Roman Catholics of Ireland must be the worst reasoners in the world if they do not feel that thenceforth they are completely absolved from all such inconvenient obligation.—Morning Post. The defeat of the Bishop of Exeter's motion to save a Christian Legislature from the disgrace, and a Christian land from the calamity, of the immoral and unmanly clauses of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, touching the maintenance of illegitimate children, is more honourable to that distinguished Prelate than their triumph can be to his Malthusian opponents. The admirable speech with which he introduced his motion—a speech full of natural eloquence, the elo quence of truth and of feeling—a speech not less re markable for the clearness and force of its reasoning— for the beauty and pathos of its Christian sentiment— for the charm of its manly morality—such a speech will outlive the occasion that called it forth, and if we did not firmly believe that the sentiments which it en forces, and the morals which it inculcates, will flourish in England, when the Malthusian Bill shall only exist in the recollection of its monstrous but short lived violence to nature, reason, decency, and jus tice, we should distrust the moral government of the world. Let the Bill receive the stamp of law whenever it may, it can never get over the scathing effects of this speech, which so admirably laid bare its master-deformity to the public eye. Like a wounded snake, although it retains all its venom, it will have lost half its vigour. Its progress will be a constant writhing of inflicted weakness, and the heel of public opinion will yet crush it in the dust. Truly did the venerable Prelate say—" this Bill has not—it never can have the sanction of the British people. I defy any one to bring it forward under such a sanction—the thing is impossible. The British people have not been yet taught to regard woman merely as the minister to the vilest passions. No ; they regard her as a being—in her weakness to be cherished—in her distresses to be assisted, and in her wants and destitution to be sustained and pro tected. They never will—l know they never will—be parties to the cruelty and oppression of this Bill " This is the tone of animating--of impassioned truth, with which it becomes the orator of Christianity to meet, to grapple with, and overthrow the cold and heartless sophisms of that un-English sect, whose " philosophic" ambition it is to exterminate the na tural charities and manly virtues of the human heart. But, indefatigable as have been the exertions of these pseudo-philosophers for some years past to dissemi nate the sordid and demoralising doctrines of their school—that school known by the designation of the "preventive-check school," they had not pre pared the public mind for the introduction into the Legislature of such a measure as the Malthusian Poor Law Bill—the " boon to the female population " with its Central Board, its arbitrary power, and its more than Turkish contempt for the claims of betrayed and suffering woman upon the protection of her profli gate seducer, who may now hug his golden god in security, while he spurns his imploring victim and their common offspring with his foot ! Well might the Bishop of Exeter exclaim—" My Lords, will not the effects of this Bill be to disgust the people of Eng land ? and that disgust produced by a single measure will, it is natural to suppose, extend to the source whence that measure originated. Every instance of a Legis lature forming a law in despite of the feelings of the people is' but telling them to cast off their respect for the law as well as for the Legislature by which it was enacted." Abundant proof has been given that the Whig Ministers force this Bill through the Legislature to gratify the Malthusian oppressors of the poor, and extend their own patronage in despite of the feelings of the people. The sentiments of honest indignation, as well as the reasoning remon strances which have been uttered at numerous parochial and other meetings, and embodied in various petitions against the unconstitutional character and tyrannical principle of the Bill, more especially against its " un manly clauses," supported as those clauses are, by foul calumnies upon the character of the females of Eng land, have been treated with disregard and contempt. But, though the Lords are independent of public opi nion in a great degree, the representatives of the. peo ple, who have signalised themselves by supporting a measure which would have disgraced the reign of the Stuarts for its tyranny, and dishonours a Christian people by its monstrous innovation upon the morality of Christians, shall hear of it again. When the Re formed House of Commons, in its servile obsequious ness to the Ministers of the Crown, set itself against public opinion on this Bill, we thought the House of Lords had the finest opportunity that could be created for it of proving its usefulness to the British public as an Institution, able and willing to counteract the ser vility of the people's Representatives, when they for got their duty to their constituents and their country ; but the Lords threw away that opportunity, the like of which will never be afforded them again. As to the Tory party, in allowing themselves to be made the infatuated instruments to extend the dominion of Malthusian principles and the sphere of Whig patronage, they have acted like men doomed to political destruction, whom no earthly power can save. While they have acted in a spirit of cruel and sordid policy towards the poor of England—while they have acted an unmanly part towards the helpless females of their native land, they have, in one point o f v i ew , display e d un b oun d e d generosity. Their political t o i op ponents h a d d ug a p i t f a ll b eneat h t h e i r own which a t ouc h wou ld h ave prec i p i tated them, feet,bu the Tories have " generously" saved them from that fate by jumping in themselves. They have diverted the public odium from the Whigs, and revived all the bit ter recollection of their own incorrigible errors. They have shown that both parties only differ as the upper and the nether millstone between which the principles of a free Constitution—the claims of the poor --the protection of female helplessness, and the charities that are the greatest grace and ornament of a civilised THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1834. country, are to be ground to dust. We hope their old antagonists will be correspondingly grateful for the as sistance which they have given them in this trying crisis. We hope they will, in their turn, be generous enough not to halloo the Political Unions upon them whenever they attempt again to creep up the heights of power, or to set on their servile Press, to call for the extinction of the. House of.. Lords— whenever it dares to thwart the career of their ambition. Yes, the Whigs have framed, and their political opponents have supported, that Bill which the Bishop of Exeter justly describes when he says, " The tendency of the Bill in this part of its enactments is to harden the heart of man—to increase his selfishness to an intensity of which he was never yet clieved capable—to confound practically his sense of right and wrong—to completely deaden his moral feeling ; and it told him, in effect, that, by an Act of Parliament, he was released from the duty which he owed to God as his Creator, and to man as his fellow -creature. Such was the tendency, the moral' tendency of the Bill ; and he would ask their Lordships if they were prepared for such a mea sure ?—to make a sacrifice of every principle of justice and humanity, and to play the tyrant over that fair and helpless portion of the creation which it was their first duty as men to protect I" Again said the eloquent Prelate—and we repeat those sentiments, because we think they ought to be engraven on the hearts of the men of England—" If their Lordships were to pass the Bill, they would, for the sake of morality,' have re duced a fellow-creature--aye, he should emphatically repeat—they would have reduced a fellow-creature, one who was the equal of the highest among them in the eyes of the Father of All, to the condition of being without either hope or fear in this world for her mis conduct. W7:3 that a desirable state of things to pro duce ? He feared that the great majority of women who were reduced to that state, who were the mothers of illegitimate children, merged into those depraved classes, who would continue, under any circumstances, to run their course - of crime. But, amongst those who did suffer themselves to be led astray from the path of virtue, it was only natural to suppose that there would be some who, in spite of their error, would not have lost every feeling of honour, who would still have about them some lingering regard for the charm of self-respect, some hope of that without which life was odious and burdensome, the respect and esteem of others. With such women the latent but un-extinguished feelings of implanted honour would be perverted into guilty con flict with the best instincts of her nature, and their Lordships should be prepared to hear of the mo ther's hand being raised against herself or against her babe, rather than that she must endure the in evitable and lengthened shame and privation that must be consequent upon her crime. When there was a pro bability of this occurring but in one case (and lie solemnly declared that the foreknowledge of even one such case would induce him to give this law of in justice every opposition in his power), when even one solitary result might flow from a law founded upon that monstrous principle of doing evil that good might come of it, he confessed he shuddered at the idea of being a participator in its enactment." But another of the Prelates of our Church—the Bishop of London, did not shudder at the consequences of reducing the Malthusian doctrines into practice. Be that his fame as a minister of the Gospel of Mercy l—his enemy could wish him no other. This Learned Prelate, who was only supporting the system to which he had already set his signature, would have the bastardy laws abolished because perjury is sometimes committed under them ; why so it is under all our laws, civil and criminal. Men are sometimes hanged upon perjured evidence ; sometimes acquitted. If the Bishop of London's argument be worth anything, it should go to the extent of justifying the abolition of all our laws, civil and criminal ; for as the proceed ings of courts of justice daily show, perjury, to the detriment of the property, the liberty, and even the lives of men, is very often committed in their ad ministration. But, unfortunately for his argument, the logical Bishop adduced instances under the bas tardy laws in which the perjury was not successful ; showing that injustice is not always done, even in those instances in which injustice is intended. As to the Lord Chancellor, one of whose former speeches seemed to strike at the root of the whole of that beautiful system of social charity which used to be admired as the peculiar ornament and pride of this country, lie did not attempt to grapple with the speech of the Bishop of Exeter, or with the powerful arguments of Lord Wynford. He appealed, indeed, to France and Bel gium, and Ireland against the poor laws. France, that swarms with vagrants, and in the capital of which, in Paris, " the most polished city of the world," it has been shown that one-third of the whole number of yearly births is illegitimate. Now it cannot be the poor laws that make the females so unchaste in France, for they have none. And this practical ex ample shows, as well as that of Belgium, where also the proportion of illegitimate births is exceedingly great, that the repeal of the laws of bastardy will not preserve the chastity of f ema l es , w hil e i t w ill a ff or d a boundless license of vicious indulgence to those sordid profligates who care not what extent of female misery they create, provided they are not obliged to pay for it. But why appeal to France, or Belgium, or still more wretched Ireland, for the advantages of living in a state of nature, as far as the poor and illegitimate children are concerned. Why not direct our attention to New Zealand, or Otaheite, or Owyhee, where man exists in still more of the perfection of a state of nature ? What a gross mistake was that of our forefathers when they took the poor out of a state of nature—when they declared that guilty men should maintain their innocent offspring-.when they decreed that-a single error of a confiding and betrayed woman should not drive her to the agony and crimes of irremediable despair—when, in fact, they planted the tree of Christian charity, in our isle, and fenced it within the pale of British law, throwing its branches far and wide over all the children of calamity. "Whatever becomes of this odious and un-English Poor Law Bill, we have done our duty—liberavimus animam—on the heads of its 'au thors be the consequences which humanity will have to deplore. They have their triumph, and must gather its fatal fruits.—Morning Herald. It is now, we understand, a settled matter that the majority of the Lords will reject the Irish Tithe Bill, which is this evening to be read a second time in their Lordships' House. Upon what data the Oppo sition Peers adventure to execute such a determina. tion, and with what motives, and to what ends, is to us, and we believe to the public, a subject of extreme perplexity. The whole world are aware that for some years past not 5 per cent. of the tithe to which the clergy were by law entitled has been collected through out three-fourths of Ireland. But there are those who assert, that if the law was not enforced, it might have been enforced, and that only a little more vigour was wanting to put down effectually the conspirators against the payment of tithe. Who then were the conspira tors so easily and quietly to be subjugated ? They were, we lament to say, the whole population of Ire land, excepting merely the inhabitants of some small districts in the north ; and as for the facility of crush ing them, we need do no more than appeal to Mr. Stanley. That Right Hon. Gentleman has ever been an ardent (perhaps not equally judicious) advocate and supporter of the Church. He sacrificed place and power for the sake of it. While Secre tary for Ireland, he employed all the skill and energy of which he was master, and all the military and civil power which was at the disposal of the King's Government, on an experiment, of which the object was to solve the question whether tithe could not be collected for the use of the established clergy. Mr. Stanley, in full Parliament, assured the nation that this experiment had entirely failed ; that the ob stinacy as well as the dexterity of the people surpassed and defeated the zeal, the skill, and perseveranc e o f the public functionaries, both soldiers and police ; that the small amount of property seized upon, even if sold for the full value, would have cost the country 200 per cent., but that being seized. it was worth hardly an for no man would venture to buy it. Now, when such things ar2 acknowledged on such authority, it is not, probably, too much to assume, that the collection of tithe from the tenantry of Ireland, as a permanent source of peaceable and comfortable subsistenc e to the established clergy, is altogether out of the question. The state must look elsewhere for means of feeding its reli gious Ministers. An appeal has been made to the land- lords of Ireland, not precisely the appeal which we should, in the first instance have approved, but one which has been , met by them, both Catholic and Protestant, in a spirit far from hostile or unkindly towards the Church. The bill prop ose d by Mi n i s t ers , or rat h er that which has passed the House of Commons, secures to the clergy a direct payment from every Irish landlord of 60 per cent. upon the nominal amount of tithe now payable by his tenants, and one of 20 per cent. in ad dition, from the consolidated fund, so long as the per petuity fund arising from the sale of Bishops' leases shall be insufficient for such a supplementary purpose. Here, then, in lieu of a nominal 1001. not actually . realising 101., and that levied not merely at an enor mous cost of money and vexation, but at the imminent and frequent risk of murder—here, we say, is a law which se cures t o th e c l erg y man 801., paid by men of property, and taking place of all other debts, without violence, trouble, risk, or popular obloquy, enabling the clergyman to live in repose, and on terms of undis turbed good neighburhood with the people who have hitherto been alternately his victims and his persecutors. If the clergy of Ireland refuse such a settlement, they are insane. But they are far from refusing it. The great bulk of them rejoice over, and thankfully embrace it as a Godsend, which for years past they could not dare to have anticipated. It is not for the benefit of the church, nor in accordance with the spirit of the Protestant clergy, that the opposition to this measure, which we now deplore and deprecate, has been prepared by a certain political party. If the com fort of the clergy, if the welfare, nay the existence of a Protestant church in Ireland were really dear to the opposition Lords, they would hail the Tithe Bill as the most inappreciable blessing to both and to the country. But they meditate no such interests as these. They want to overth row th e Mi n i stry an d to usurp the Government, an object in which they will utterly fail. They want at all events to embroil the whole frame and internal relations of the empire—to plunge everything into confusion (and in that they bid fair, unhappily, to Prove successful, even beyond their wishes), and then turn round upon the liberal Government with this honest and manly apostrophe—" Ay, we told you so. We knew that you could not rule the kingdom peaceably ; here 'is another "Civil war in Ireland, and it is all your fault." The Tory Peers deceive themselves in fancying that a stratagem so base and vile as this will have any effect upon the British nation but to the detriment of those who have recourse to it. They deceive themselves egregiously in expecting that it will weaken the Administration of Lord Melbourne. The country will find itself dis appointed and maltreated by the same faction which lays its oppressive hand upon the Ministry, and will but turn towards the latter with the sympathy of a common indignation. Looking at the whole of this important and most alarming crisis, we hope—but alas ! it is against reason and experience—that the chiefs of the Opposition will yet pause upon the brink of the precipice which yawns alike for them selves and for the country, and ask themselves what they are about to do A present convulsion through out Ireland will be the least evil of their workman ship. When the Parliament shall be resummoned, as it surely will be, for October or November next, what a tale will be unfolded of the condition of the prostrate church !, What a prospectus of future ani mosity, fury, misery, and anarchy throughout the ill starred island for which the selfish and harpy soul of faction has no touch of human pity ! We do protest most conscientiously, that at no period within our re membrance have we given way to such deep anxiety for the social fate of Ireland, as at the moment when we are writing these remarks, and under the melan choly anticipation with which the portentous threat of this day's proceedings in the House of Lords has filled us. It is no paltry partisan solicitude,—it is no nar row thought for the persons of this or that Adminis tration. We tremble for the Church—for the name of Protestantism in Ireland—for the interests of reli gion—for the being of civilized society ; and would to God that we could impart our apprehensions to those individuals by whom they have been so fearfully ex cited.—Times. .COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 9. WENMAN V. JACKSON.—T H E MEDWAY OYSTER FISHERIES. Mr. CHING moved that the order for the commitment of Jackson, Green, and others, fishermen, for contempt of Court, be discharged. The men were very poor, and therefore all the assistance he. gave them was gratuitous ; but, f rom th e i r statement to hi m , i t appeared that they thought they had a right to be employed as labourers upon the grounds. Their error havinc , been explained to them. they now expressed their regret for what they had done, though the case had been greatly overcharged on the part of the Plaintiff. They went and dredged in open day, took the oysters to the foreman of the Plaintiff, and, on his refusing to receive them, replaced them in the beds without doing a farthing's worth of damage or injury, all of which was omitted in the Plaintiff's affidavits. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if the affidavits were filed? Mr. CHING answered in the negative, when His LORDSHIP ordered them first to be filed, and thought he should give the Plaintiff the order of committal, but stay the execution of it till the parties or their com rades did something more. By this means the Plaintiff would be guarded from delay during the vacation, and punishment be held over the heads of the Defendants. The Court terminated its sittings yesterday. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. WESTERN CIRCUIT.--BoDmIN, AUGUST 6. CRIM CON.—TREVANION V. DANBUZ. Mr. Sergeant WILDE, with whom was Mr. Sergeant COLERIDGE and Mr. FOLLETT, stated the case. This was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff and the defendant resided near Truro, in this county, and were men of high respectability and ancient families. In 1827 the plaintiff was married to a Miss Trelawney, both of them being then twenty-four years of age. Shortly afterwards they went abroad, and in May, 1831, they returned to this country and took up their resi dence for a short time at Brompton ; after which they came to reside near Truro, where the lady's acquaintance with the defendant commenced. He visited the plaintiff, and they were on intimate terms, which continued down to the commencement of this year, when the plaintiff made some discoveries of an improper intercourse between his wife and the defendant, which laid the foundation of this action. John Burley was present at the marriage of the Plaintiff with Charlotte Trelawney, at St. George's, Hanover-square, in June, 1827. They were both twenty-four years of age. Her father, Mr. Brereton, was formerly Colonel in the Coldstream Guards. He is now dead. Mrs. Brereton was present at the marriage. Saw them after the marriage. There was nothing particular in their conduct. They ap peared to live like other married people. Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLETT—Was solicitor to her family. Never saw plates thrown at her head. Her uncle, Sir Christopher Hawkins, a man of great wealth, died in 1829. Mary Ruspini resided at Brompton. The plaintiff and hi s wife came to lodge with her in May, 1831. They con tinued there until August, when they left for Cornwall. Mrs. Brereton, the lady's mother, used to visit them. They appeared to be very happy. They had two children. H e was very fond of them, but she did not appear so. She used to dine with her mother. They slept in the same bed, and they never quarrelled while they were there. Understood that they had come from France. J. H. Tremayne, Esq., for many years Member for this county, stated that they had been several time at his house after their marriage, and that they appeared to him to be on happy terms. Rev. Mr. Smith gave ev id ence to t h e same effect. William Endear entered into the plaintiff's service about Christmas, 1831. He resided then at Parle, near Truro. The defendant used to come there very often. When mas ter was in London the defendant used to visit mistress very frequently. He staid one night in the room with her from eight o'clock in the evening till three in the morning. Saw them romping round the drawing-room. Saw him kiss her. Master used often to stay away three or four weeks at a time. Saw her on the defendant's knee, and once, as he wa s fetching in lunch, she was rising off his lap. Saw him in her bed-room. Saw them both in the grounds together lying down, and when he got up he was brushing her shoul ders and his own knees. Carried notes from her to defen dant. Saw them carry hay to a corner of the field where there were trees, and lying down in it. Master was al ways very kind to mistress. Cross-examined.—The defendant did not come often w h en master was at home. Master and mistress dined once at the defendant's, when master left about eight o'clock to go to London, and mistress remained with the defendant. Could not say at what time she went home. Sometimes other gentlemen used to come when master was from home. Saw other gentlemen romping in the drawing room with mistress when master was from home. Re-examined.---Did not see her alone with any gentle- man when master was absent, except with the defendant. When Mr. Taylor visited her there were others present. Mary Griffiths lived as cook with the plaintiff. Fre quently saw the defendant there when master was from home. Mistress and the defendant used to romp together in the drawing -room. Was sent with the children in sum mer last year to Tilt. Mistress and defendant came one day together. They sent her and the children out to go on the water. When they returned, found that the bed was much rumpled, as if some persons had been lying in it. On one occasion went to mistress's rcom and found it locked. Mistress was inside, but would not let her in. There were five or six other witnesses to the same gene ral effect. Sir J. SCARLET; for the defendant, contended that there was not evidence from which the Jury would be justi fied in inferring a criminal intercourse between the de fendant and the plaintiff's wife. But if the Jury should feel satisfied that adultery had been committed, he main tained that the plaintiff, at the utmost, was not entitled to more than nominal damages. If he could satisfy them, as he was instructed he could, that the plaintiff had been a party to his own dishonour, the defendant would be entitled to a verdict. The fact was, he had been a long time anxious to get rid of his wife, and there could be no doubt that he exposed her to temptations with a view to that ob ject. The Learned Gentleman then read the following letter from the plaintiff to the defendant : Dear Danbuz—l have been much hurt and annoyed by re ports which unfortunately have reached me, although I need not say how thoroughly I am convinced of their fallacy ; but people seem to tftlk much of your intimacy here, and the friendship and go.KI feeling which exists between Mrs. Tre vanion and yourself, has become the subject of conversation among some of our worthy neighbours who couple it with harm. I leave it then to that same good feeling to direct you as to the path you pursue. It is sinful for me to write on this unpleasant business ; the manner in which the report has reached me has male it imperative on me to notice it, false and groundless as it may be.—Believe me to remain sincerely yours, J. C. TREVANION. Saturday, 18th. The defendant, having replied to this letter, received the following answer : Dear Danbuz—l cannot, without the permission of the par ties, give up their names. I have no doubt, however, that on my application I shall be able to give you the information you require. I assure you that the instant that permission is granted me I will instantly write to you, as I am anxious as yourself that the authors shall be discovered. Yours sincerely, J. C. TREVANIO,N. After this correspondence the defendant ceased to visit at the plaintiff's house, until after a short lapse of time the plaintiff himself invited him to dine with him, and requested a renewal of their intimacy. After that the plaintiff used to go to bed at an early hour, and leave the defendant sit ting up with his wife alone. His conduct towards his wife amounted to a license to her to do what she pleased ; and under such circumstances he had no right to complain. Charlotte Stodwell lived with Mrs. Brereton as lady's maid for five years. Was with her in 1831, when Mr. and Mrs. Trevanion were at Brompton. He used to dine occa sionally at Mrs. Brereton's. He spoke very harshly to his wife. She was in tears nearly the whole time she was at Brompton. Saw her once in hysterics. When her mother said she never saw her in them before, the plaintiff said, " She often has them now." When she recovered he said, " Don't be so foolish, Charlotte." She pushed him away, and said, "It is all your doing, John ; you are the cause of it all." They were by no meanshappy. Then they had a nurserymaid, who was rather good-looking, Used to hear the plaintiff whispering to her. She was in the family way when she went away. Heard him say to his wife he wished to God he was going to get rid of her instead of the nurserymaid. The morning that Ann Barber, the nurserymaid, was going away she was crying. The plaintiff said to her " Don't fret, you will hear from me or see me shortly." Some time afterwards Mrs. Brereton went to Southsea, where Mr. and Mrs. Trevanion came. He once went to a ball with her ; left her there and came home and went to bed. The defendant came there soon after, when plaintiff said, " My dear fellow, I hope you are come to stay." One night they quarrelled, and she came down stairs, and remained all night in his room. He was always unkind to her. He left two of Mrs. Wetherington's portraits at Mrs. Brereton's. Cross-examined--Mrs. Trevanion has been residing - with her mother since she left her husband. Mr. Walls, of No. 1, Manchester-square—M rs . Wether ington resided at three different times at her house, where the plaintiff used to visit her. She had a child and a ser vant. The plaintiff used to stay with her until about 12 o'clock. He had been at the opera with her. Witness thought they had both been to bed together before he left. Other gentlemen used to visit that lady. A Mr. Walker, and a Mr. Hillier, who she believed was at the bar—(Loud laughter)—visited her. She was Colonel Wetherington's widow. She had one child since the Colonel's death. She left witness's house on the 14th of July, on which day plaintiff was there three times. She was hurried off. He came about twelve o'clock at night on the 14th. - He re turned next day, and inquired if she was gone. He said she would be at Cheltenham the following day. Saw her a few days afterwards in Upper George -street. She had a child in March last. Cross-examined—She came to me as a respectable woman. All these gentlemen called upon her as friends. Believed her to be respectable. Was not aware of any improper in tercourse with her. Could not say that the plaintiff visited her for licentious purposes. All the persons who called to see her were respectable. Her husband (the Colonel) was dead two years. Francis Passingham, a solicitor at Truro, was acquainted for some years with Mr. and Mrs. Trevanion. Dined with them on the day of the Helston Ball. Plaintiff asked him to return home with him from the ball, and that he might sit in the carriage with Mrs. Trevanion. Witness said, "He might run away with her." " I wish to God, my dear fellow you would," said he. They made a party once to go to Falmouth. On their return the plaintiff said that he would ride in the close carriage, and said to his wife that the defendant would drive her home in his gig. Had been left at home with her alone, when the rest of the party went out. The conduct of the plaintiff towards his wife was by no means that of an affectionate or careful husband. Jonathan Peters heard the plaintiff say, of his own child, " How ugly this child is getting. It's getting like Mrs. Brereton." Mrs. Trevanion was present. She seemed very much hurt, and said she never heard anything so brutal. They did not appear to live on affectionate terms. The plaintiff told him that the reason why he invited so many persons to his house, was because he was miserable when they were alone. Saw her take a kettle off the fire once, when he said, " Ah, my dear, if Mr. Danbuz was here, you would not have to take the kettle off the fire." Sophia Gordon—Was in the service of .Mrs. Stewart, who resided in Connaught-square. Her mistress had no husband, but several gentlemen used to visit her. Mr. Tre vanion used to visit her, and lend her a horse to ride out along with him. Ladies visited her also. Cross-examined—Other persons were there when the plaintiff called. She never rode out with him alone. Jane Drew—Went into the service of Mrs. Trevanion on the 29th of May, 1830. Th e d e f en d ant o f ten visited the plaintiff, but never dined there. He used to come at eight o'clock, and go about ten. Master used to go to bed, and leave him sitting up with mistress. Master was very unkind to mistress. They did not sleep in the same bed. Cross-examined—Could not mention any unkind expres sion of his to mistress, except when she was going to bed once he said, " Good God, Charlotte, you are like a great horse coming into bed." Richard Taylor used to visit at the Plaintiff's house in consequence of the Plaintiff's pressing invitations. Was one day engaged in writing letters there, when angry words arose between Plaintiff and his wife. Left the room shortly afterwards. Went into the library, where he found her crying and much agitated. The Plaintiff's general conduct towards his wife was unkind. Was often there along with the Defendant. Plaintiff generally remained up until the Defendant went away, and left witness along with his wife. Heard him once say to her, "He wished she was off." " What would you do without me and my money ?" replied she, jocosely. ' " I wish I had never seen you," said he, Heard him say to her once at a dinner party, " Charlotte, what a beast you are." Once he returned home from London unexpectedly ; she asked him the reason. He said he did not wish to tell it before strangers. Witness went away, and when he saw Plaintiff next he said the cause of his return was that he had heard some unpleasant_ reports respecting the defendant and Mrs. Trevanion. having briefly summed up the evidence, the Jury deliberated about ten minutes, and re turned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, one farthing. This trial commenced at nine in the mor n i ng , an d l aste d until twelve at night. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-CHESTER, AUG. 8. RESPITE OF THE MURDERERS UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. The trial of James Garside and Joseph Mosley, for the murder, in January, 1821. of Mr. Thomas Ashton, a mas ter-manufacturer, at the instigation of the Spinners' Union, created a most extraordinary degree of interest, not only from the impenetrable mystery in which it has been involved during nearly three years and a half, notwithstanding the large amount of the rewards offered for the discovery of the p3rpetrators, but from the circumstances under which the disclosure was made which led to their apprehension. The implication of the Spinners' Union also served to heighten the interest, more especiOly as a clue has been obtained to the parties who actually planned and instigated the murder. The execution was ordered for this day, and the city has been a scene of bustle and anxiety all the morning as to whose duty it is to see the execution done upon the crimi nals, whether by the Sheriffs of the City or the High She- riff of the Coynty Palatine. The following is the explan a6 tion of this anomalous state of things : customedFor manytosee centuries execution done past theC a i City y the o Sheriffscity y ghaaosi up °n e a ; minals condemned to die in the Courts of the Cott% Palatine, and their warrant for so - doing was m erely a T o of Court signed by the Clerk of the Crown. The pre„9 v origin of this unpleasant duty being imposed upon the 'l4 Sheriffs is lost in the lapse of ages ; but it is reasonou'r,l supposed to arise from the paramount jurisdiction elle cised by the Chief Justice of Chester and his colleague,t, o f Judges of Assize for the County Palatine over the Ci, t ? e Chester and its Courts, both civil and criminal. int the passing of Sir James Scarlett's Bill for the ab° l ' l 'l, o of the Welsh Judicature and the Palatinate Courts, City Sheriffs, and th e c it y genera ll y , arc Is, b° ; , / exempted from th e j ur i s di ct i on o f t h e J u d ges of in the County Pal a ti ne . Wi t hi n t h e last kw m°- ths de. the Sheriffs, acting up on th e a d v i ce o f t h e a bl e and in e a fatigable city Memb er , M r . J erv i s, h ave m emoria li ', 4 the Home Secretary (L or d M e lb ourne ) on the su b j e ' co requesting the opinion of the Law Officers of the Cr ?:ot upon a case submitted t o th em . Th e A ttorney and S°licitv General were clearly of opinion that the liability of the, Sheriff to perform th e d u ty h a d cease d on the pas sil d. the Act for the abolition of the palatine Jurisdiction' the moreover, that the duty ought to be performed bY,,, High Sheriff of the county, as in all other counties in „ f i, land and Wales. A case on the part of the county trates was laid before the Law Officers, but they sti ll C O 7 n r, tinned of the same opinion as befo re , w ith w hich, how e ' e A the country gentlemen were by no means satisfied, he were determined to resist. Thus matters stood up t 0 t. commencement of the . Assizes, at which two men, at t) , were expected to be sentenced to suffer the extreme Peg' of the law. _ iO t The subject has be en a goo d d ea l canvasse d during week between th e J u d ges o f t h e c i ty an d coun ty au th( ? o ' i i ties. Mr. Baron PARKE is said to be decidedly of elm ni the that the duty devolves upon the High Sheriff f° l* 1 1 ' ' 5 county ; insomuch th a t th e somew h at su dd en re solve I ? f a a t Lordship to finish the calendar last night (which he d ' se t half-past t en o ' c l oc k) arose f rom hi s determination out on his ret urn t o L on d on t hi s morn i ng, l eav i n g th e :, ' ll prits for execution, and the High Sheriff to exercise lii s discretion as to whether or not he would execute then'. re At eight o'clock this m orn i ng th e Cit y Sheriff' i ` c „ e v d, served with the usual rule of Court, signed by J. nbe Esq., Clerk of Assi ze , comman di ng th em t o a ttend a t er i, usual place (thii boundaries of the city) to receive the tie , minals into their custody from the Governor of the C f„ s elf In reply to this M r . Sh er iff Rid gway , on b e h a lf o f ht lice and colleague (who i s ou t o f t own ) cause d a wr itten m en d to be served upon th e L earne d B aron declining to at to the warrant of the Clerk of Assize. One o 'Cloc k he All is still doubt and anxiety. No preparations O r t be execution have yet been made either at the Castle 0r fi t, city gaol. The hour appointed for the execution is P t o f and the state of the wre t c h e d cu l pr it s , w h o are ignora n i what is . going on, ma y b e more eas il y conce ived t' described. v q 4• The High She r iff f or th e coun t y , G. C. A n t ro bus, it is understood, has no personal objection to p e rforn duty sought to be imposed upon him ; but rather than o f right or privilege of his brother Magistrates and the Ge t ! j 5 of the county s h ou ld b e comprom i se d i n hi s pers on, P e i,is willing to resi s t a t a ll h azar d s , an d h as j ust l e f t to wn on return home accordingly. Half-past Ooe'o The difficulty ha s j us t thi s moment b een go t rid °f' for least for the present, by Baron PARKE giving a resP'' for the culprits until th e 18th i ns t., i n or d er to a ll o w tir l ; e r io some arrangement to take place, either by an Or" e Council, or a short Act of Parliament. pe of James Scholefield, the man mentioned in the evideP' pai 3 William Mosley, the acco m pli ce , as th e person wl'° „ a to the price of the murd er ( or a t l east a person su PP° 5 has be the same), is in custody at Stockport, and M 05 . 1%, be been taken over to St oc k por t t o id ent if y hi m. It , I s ' 5O O hoped, for the sake of public justice, that the other Pro✓ more immediately concerned in this cold-blooded O a tardly assassination will yet be discovered. •• CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice VAuonAN.), The business at nisi Ar i us was unusua ll y li g ht and r ; e cl• teresting, except to the parties immediately conce, o l There were 25 venires, w hi c h t urne d up 20 cause s, s e ''' . of which were undefended. MARKET INTELLIGENCE. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING LAST e yeas> Per vuartei. Whe a t . I s ar ey . ‘,ats. iseans. Ashburn 47 58 29 31 18 23 '3B 44 4 44 1g 4 Basingstoke ......—.. 4S 58 30 33 24 28 (38 40 6 Bath 6 Bridgewater 4484 66 55 2 2 2 8 2 3 6 6 2 20 0 2 2 g 3 36 2 4 31 4 " 7 2 Bristol— 48 56 23 32 16 20 134 38 Chesterfield 44 52 28 33 16 22 44 48 / Derby —.— 48 51 31 M '25 26 40 42 Doncaster 48 60 23 31 13 26 40 46 52 28 24 35 39 —" 5 6 46 25 28 1.3 26 44 52 4a 55 44 52 '2B 31 20 28 37 41 4 4 Hungerford 36 60 22 30 20 28 34 40 36 " Leicester,~, M . 46 31 24 37 g 8 Newbury 55 60 31 35 24 32 38 42 33 liemsey 52 58 26 28 21 25 38 45 Shaftesbury 54 25 17 41 -"" Shepton Mallet .. 54 60 '24 30 29 31 40 42 --- / Sherborne..-- 50 54 26 30 22 28 38 4i Taunton 51 25 323 32 36 Yarmouth,., 47 51 24 28 20 2 . 1 32 23 Yeovil 50 52 28 30 22 28 36 40 , " 0 Per Bushel. s. d. s. d. s. d. s . r 3. s. (1. s. a. d. s. d. Shrewsbury ... 70 76 40 46 56 74 00 00 WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.—Aug. S. roe b o, Wheat, Red, Nortclk and Suflhlk ...... —s. 445. to 48s. ---- Lin. and Cam. —s. 425. to 478. fine Yorkshire s. 42.5. to 465. fine n: —B. 475. to 525. One T;: Foreign, lied —s. ass. in 475. fine . .EFIELD CORN MARKET.-Aug. S. _Mk qortclk and Suflhlk ...... -8. 445. to 455 . fin. i. .In. and Cam. -s. 425. to 478. fin e's s, 'orkshire -s. 42.5. to 465. fine , -8. 475. to 525. fine ' 5 l; _ign, hed -s. 38s. to 473. fine r,;s. White -s. 40s. to 50s one '4, 2 ,. ' Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk ....... 275. to 30s. fine ' 3 04. - Lincolnshire - Yorkshire Wold -- Foreign Beans, -s. 4 9. Beans, Old 37s. to 395. fine 4 ,25 -- New 355. to 38s fine 4 . 3Ss. fine ply Oats, Potato - Poland ills. to 225 . 67e -8. 17s. to 19s . '. - Friezland and Small -5. I6s to 18s. fi ne to p - Mealing _.„d, Shelling 23s. to 26s Od. per Ini, Maltlka 355. 395. fine 42:. per _t. Rapeseed DEVIZES CORN Per Sack. s. d. s. d Best Wheat 23 6 to 30 0 Second 25 6 27 6 Thirds 22 0 24 0 726 Sacks or Wheat sold/ , 6 3 at the average of 0 , MARKET—Aug. 7. , s Per Quarter. s. 11 - :,!2 0 Barley.. 25 oto 03 , 0 Oats .2 0 1 0 Beans (per back) l7 0 4 . 2 . a Flour (per ba l l. ) : -.0 0 0 " Bread (per gall.) I 1 BIRMINGHAM CORN MARKEL Aug. 7. ~._. Wheat, 62 lb. Barley, imperial quarter Do. Grinding, 49 lb. Oats, 3916 Old Beans, 66% lb New ditto New White Boiling Pease, 3 imp. bush. Ditto Grey ditto . :: 16 6 3! .. 14 6 15 .. 22 0 2 2 18 6 2° i ' SCOTCH MARKETS. .........--4, Wheat. Barley. Uat,. Bean,. ....-- 0 --. —.— „, t() 0 •' ,,1 Aberdeen 3B to 46 23 to 26 14 t o 18 — to ! Berwick 3l 36 i 8 20 16 17 18 20 " Coldstream Cupar (Fife) 4B 56 26 31 18 22 22 26. Dundee 5O 60 30 33 20 25 30 31 Elgin 4O 50 24 26 16 20 23 30 ..... / Inverness 42 44 25 26 30 22 23 26 18 / ..- 4f Kelso .. 36 37 19 21 12 14 23 , Kirkaldy 4B 61 23 29 16 2i 45 48 .' ' Perth 5O 56 23 26 20 22 22 25 fr? , . The size of the measure varies throughout the country - EDINBURGH CORN MARKET.-Aug. 6. t o.( 1 ° 1 We had a large sunol v of Wh nn t tl.r. n-..-- ___, Th... 0. ANBURGII-... CORN _ ARKET —Aug. 6. irge supply of Wheat, Oats, Beans, and Pi fas small, and the sales were dull iu genera'. Wheat. Barley. Oats. rease. First 555.6d. —s Cd. 25s 4d. d Second 5O 0 0 22 0 34 0 Third Average price of Wheat 2l. lls. Od. PRICES OF PROVISIONS, &C. OS. 3d. to 08.6 I. Fresh &titer, lb. 0 4 0 6 Salt Ditto--.,, 0 4 0 7 Ditt ), per ce t. 0 3 0 5 Eggs, per doz. 2 0 4 6 OatStraiv(kp%)..... 0 37 0 Wheat Ditto...—. 0 0 7 Barley Ditto 8 0 0 Hay, ()erg— We had a la, ,hat of Barley w. 13e Ali c:i• S i S 0 Beef, per lb. ...v... Mutton.,,.,. U to 9 0 8 0 0 1 ) , 6 0 8 9 5 Cl 5 ti Lamb, per qr. Tallow, Puartern Loaf 0 otatoes. 0 EDINBURGH MEA There was a goosl supply of Oatm( were very heavy. rer Sack of 2801 b. Imp. First Oatmeal Second ditto ll2 6 Barleymeal ............... 1 7 11 Pe_ui meall 8 0 Pot liarlev—No 1. net ewt. 10, 21 L MARKE I.—Aug. sow" eal at this day's market, and t"h Per Stone of 141 b. lipPi 1 0 First Oatmeal.. X 0 6 Second ditto Barleynteal 0 I 6 Peasemeal 12s —. 8 1,1. 14s —4th, In 4 1)1 GLASGOW COHN There is little alteration in pri4 Wheat, per 240113. s. d. s. d. British, old 25 0 to 27 0 ' MA kt&E.T. —Aug. ti. ~,t ~ ices, the business being linn,.-4.4. Irish Oats, per L'o 9 41 b. s• 7'tx, 17,1 t, 0 British l7 0 n Beans, pet 2601 b. 0 .., English -1!) S cottish 0 0 Pease, Scottish o Oatmeal, per 1401 b 40 1 ' 0 1 4 2 Flour, per 28010 .4. Canada, fn I.flew e 27 0 29 0 Irish 21 0 25 0 'Barley, per 3201 b English — 0 C Scottish 22 0 210 Irish MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COI/ BASINGHALL-STREET, TO-MORROW' (From the London Gazette.) ft Pitman, saddler, Park-lane, Piccadilly ........................ .. ••0"' J. H. Arthur, wholesale-stationer, Garlick-hill T Dodson needle-manufacturer, St. Paul's Churchyard ........-. T. Smith, hosier, Edgeware-road S. Brady, grocer, Kingston-upon-Thames ••. J. B. Hawker, plumber, Montagu-street, Portman-square ...... J. Blenco, tailor, Knightsbriege .... A. L. Vogel, merchant, Finsbury-circus ........................... 0 1 11 ':3 I 1 f 3 l l 1 '.l MARRIAGES. Les e°°tl In Paris, on the sth inst., by the Right Rev. Bishop an d `- ' Elizabeth, A 1 lc Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Isaac Pittar, Esq., to , - A -e ca ieel eldest son of the late Monsieur Laya, member of the t) Fr. 7th ChtUlt On the 7th inst., by special license, at St. James's Elise Charles F. Mackenzie, Esq., of Kincraig, to the Hon. Fergusson. _ DE..4 THS. On the 7th inst., the Rev. T. Humpage, Dean-stree t, FortlaPi' square, Bristol, ag d e 51. "1 On the 9th inst., in Somerset-place, J. Baker, ill hi year. VIN London : Printed an d P u bli s h e d by MURDO Y- O at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. 1 I I th e tit the 1,