The Sun. — London, England, 1834-10-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Ministerial press, not content with outraging public opinion by its eulogies on the New Poor Law Act, is daily laying fresh claims to public respect and -confidence, by turning into ridicule the heart-rending tales of wretchedness which the first workings of this their patrons' favourite measure is everywhere produc ing, And this, forsooth, is justified on the score of one or two instances of deception which have been prac tised under colour of distress. We do not envy the taste or feeling of those who can resort to such a miser able subterfuge as this, and, by substituting the excep tion for the rule, thus attempt to blend the miseries of poverty with the arts of one or two solitary impostors. How much more usefully and honourably would the press be employed in endeavouring to separate the chaff from the corn, in averting, by timely warning, the fearful scenes which may be looked forward to, should destitution be driven to despair, than in thus upholding error, insulting want, and enhancing an infliction, which, even in the present mild state of the season, has become already most appal ling. Besides, what period has there ever been, or is likely to be, when imposture did not exist ? And who ever contended that it was deserving of relief or consideration ? The Magistrate is armed, and so is the parish officer, with ample powers to discover and punish such delinquency ; but that the latter should contend, or the former assent to any thing so prepos terous as that of assuming imposition in all because it is detected among the few, and thus confound inno cence with guilt, is a novel doctrine, which would go to place poverty entirely out of the pale of the law. Instead of joining in the unseemly ridicule which is attempted to be thus palmed upon the public, people in general are beginning to inquire what the new well paid Commissioners are about that they do not promul gate their rules and regulations, and among them some method by which the scenes of misery which are now every day occurring, may be mitigated, if not entirely. obviated. One correspondent asks where these gentle men are ? and whether they are gone on a tour of in spection, as he sees the name of one of them as attend ing a public dinner in a town many miles from the metro polis? We trust they are at any rate aware of the heavy responsibility which rests upon them ; and that as the winterapproaches it becomes every day the more urgently necessary that the operation of the new law should, at least assume a milder character than its first effects as sure us of. But above all things let us hear no more of misery being turned into ridicule by those who pro fess to be the organs of Government ; of the members of which, as individuals, we should be sorry to think so ill as to imagine that such outrages on common hu manity and right feeling can have their concurrence, and who, on the contrary, will we trust, be found ready to call Parliament together, if necessary, to remedy the results of this new law, should they, unfortunately, con tinue to be such as its first operation exhibits.—Morn ing Herald. Nothing can well be more amusing than to watch the proceedings of two of the most important of the new-fangled Commissions, we mean the Corporation Commission and the Poor Law Amendment Commis sion. It is not only amusing in itself, but particularly diverting, as it enables the inhabitants of London and Westminster, where these two Commissions are at pre sent established, to judge of the value and extent of the labours of the innumerable little snug parties which are scattered over the face of the empire, all toiling with equal activity for the good of the country. Sir F. Palgrave and Mr. Ellis, the Corporation Com missioners, go into the city very frequently to transact business, and almost as regularly come out of it again in about half an hour. We yesterday gave a detail of their labours and their results on Tuesday, and we in sert to-day a not dissimilar description of their labours of yesterday. The busiyiess of the Commissioners on Monday consisted of receiving a letter to inform them that there would be nothing to do on Tuesday ; and the business of Tuesday consisted of their going into the city to make sure that there was nothing to be done. One would hardly believe it, but this farce is repeated three or four times in the course of a week ; and if laughing at the actors be a proof of suc cess we have no doubt it will have a long run. The Poor Law Commissioners act differently ; they do nothing ; but they stay at home to do it ; and after deliberating two or three hours about the business they are engaged in, they vary the sameness of inaction by directing their Secretary to write a circular to the parish officers all over the kingdom, directing them also "to do nothing whatever," but just go on as they are. And these two valuable Commissions cost somewhere about twenty or thirty thousand pounds a year. What makes the, ease and comfort of their labours the morel conspicuous just at this moment is the contrast it af fords to the active efficiency of the new Exche-1 quer, where the recently appointed Comptroller, Sir J. Newport (ietat 78), will be required to be in constant attendance twice a week from half-past one until two. We have heard of Commissions and sys tems " working well ;" for " doing nothing," as well as it possibly can be done, give us Messrs. Palgrave, Ellis, Frankland Lewis, Lefcvre, Nichols, Newport, and Co.—Morning Post. We insert elsewhere one of the most gratifying statements .in illustration of the beneficial operation of the Poor Laws Amendment Act, which we have ever had the satisfaction to publish. We allude, of course, to the statement of the expenditure in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, from Lady-day, 1832, to Lady-day, 1833, compared with the first half of the second year of the new system. The result is beyond all anticipation, and exceeds the most sanguine hopes of the most sanguine advocates of the new system. The whole time now occupied in the payment of casual poor is only one hour in every week ! —the saving in money-relief only, nearly 10,0001. per annum !—and the decrease in the assessment about 40,0001. These results speak for themselves, and must put to silence the foolish cackle of the geese that have made such in decent noise of late, respecting the objects and operation of the new law. It is also but an act of simple justice to mention, that they have been mainly realized by the indefatigable efforts of Mr. Leslie, the governor of the poor of the parish of St. George, to whose pamphlet on the subject we shall endeavour to advert in a day or two.—Morning Advertiser. We call the attention of our readers to an account from the populous parish of St. George, Hanover square, exhibiting the expenditure for the poor, from Lady-day, 1832, to Lady-day, 1833, compared with the first half of the second year of the new system, viz. from Lady-day, 1834, to Michaelmas, 1834. This parish, as many of our readers must know, anticipated the new Poor Law Amendment Act, and may be said to have paved the way for its success by the demonstration it afforded to a number of the most in fluential members of the Legislature, of the practica bility of the changes contemplated by the new Bill. One result of the new system must s t r ik e every one, at the very first inspection of the account, namely, the decrease on the sum assessed on the Late payers. The sum assessed on the rate payers, for the year from Lady-day, 1832, to Lady-day, 1833, was 67,336/. ; while the sum assessed for the year from Lady-day, 1834, to Lady-day, 1835, is 27,3911., being little more than one-third of the amount of the former year. An individual who paid 67/. of rates in the one year, pays now only 27/. Verily, this is a re form which comes home to men's business and bosoms ! It used to be said, when a case of reform like this was adduced formerly, this would be all very well if what one parish gained by strict management, another did not lose bythe influx of poor from the parish under the improved system. The improvement in St. George's, Hanover-square, has taken place, while all the other parishes have been improving their system. In the account there is a recapitulation of some of the effects of the altered system of parochial relief in St. George's, Hanover-square ; from which it will be seen at a glance that the expenditure has diminished two thirds, that the number of in-door and out-door poor have both decreased, and that such has been the relief to the Governors and Directors of the poor, from the simplicity of the improved system, that one hour every week is now sufficient for the „payment of the casual poor : while, under the old system, for many years, every Tuesday and Wednesday were devoted to the same object.—Morning Chronzde. The Edinburgh Review for October, 1834, which we have just received, contains an article on " the last Session of Parliament," of which no one 'can mis take the author; and another article on " the House of Lords,"—subjects of much political interest at this time. The Reviewer observes that " the great mea sure of the session was the Poor-law Bill," and. adds, " If any plan of legislation ever demanded the deepest regard from all rational men, this is that plan." He very properly says of the Bill, " that among reflecting men, who have made themselves masters of it both in principle and detail, there is but one opinion upon its nature and tendency ;" and he compliments the Duke of Wellington on the part he took on the occasion. With .a manly candour (says the Reviewer), which did him infinite honour, and acting upon the dictation of that excellent understanding, which on great questions of public interest always is his guide, when the urgent neces sity of providing against imminent dangers of the State, overpowering all other considerations, quells within him the spirit of a partisan —he declared that the subject which had baffled all the efforts of all former Ministers, had been boldly encountered and successfully handled by the present Government." This leads the Reviewer to notice the doing of the Press : " The natural misconceptions to which the Bill gave rise —the natural leaning of ignorance against it—were power fully seconded by the almost united efforts of the London press to excite the people, and raise an uncompromising opposition to it. There is not upon record any instance of a measure which the public press has made more inde fatigable efforts to blacken, from its first proposal, down to the day when the Bill received the Royal Assent. *•***•* * * * * * * * It is a remarkable fact, that after the united and daily efforts of the newspapers, arrogating to themselves the right to speak in the name of the public—efforts made with unscrupulous zeal and bitterness, with no inconsiderable talent, and with a presumption exceeding all bounds—only nineteen members of a popular House of Commons could be found to vote against the Bill, in a division of between four and five hundred ! The violence of those papers, their arrogance, their unseemly dictation, accompanied by the notorious character of some of them for being devoid of all principle, and only bent upon pandering to the feel ings and appetites of the community which they affected to lead—no doubt contributed largely to their signal failure upon the present occasion. For it is unquestionable that the indignation and disgust felt towards them by the House of Commons materially diminished the minority against the Bill ; many Members who felt disposed to vote against the new measure, being determined at any rate not to give any countenance to those journalists. Their efforts may thus have reduced a minority of fifty or thereabouts to one of nineteen ; and this is proved to have been the extent of the power possessed by the important personages who had for years been puffing themselves as ruling the destinies of the nation ! We believe that every true friend to the country, and its good Government, and, above all, every well-wisher to the reformed Parliament, will deem the victory gained •ver these men almost as important as the passing of the Bill itself." With respect to the Press, it is no doubt true that it, with few exceptions, disgraced itself very much on the occasion alluded to. The result ought to be a lesson both to Ministers and the Press itself. When Mi nisters bring forward good measures, they may safely disregard the abuse of the Press ; because the opposi tion excited by misrepresentation and appeals to preju dice and ignorance, soon yields to the influence of reason ; and the Press may see, from what has taken place in the poor-law question, that it is only formi dable when it espouses a good cause, and that a mo mentary success will not compensate for the per manent discontent which must result from the exposure of its abuse of power. It is necessary that Ministers should be influenced by the opinions and feelings of the nation ; but the newspapers ought only to be attended to when they adduce such arguments as are calculated to make an impression on reflecting minds ; and Ministers may be cer tain, that if their measures are judicious, and cal culated to benefit the nation, popular approbation can not long be withheld from them. The allusion to the conduct of the Times cannot be mistaken, and we are willing to admit that it excited much disgust in Par liament ; but they must have been very weak members who voted against their conviction merely to spite the Times. We think the Reviewer over-estimates the effects of that disgust in diminishing the minority. A great part of the article on the last Session is de voted to showing the danger which both Ministers and the liberal cause would sustain, from the former allowing themselves to be hurried by the impatience of the Reformers " into some rash measures of domes tic policy, all grounded upon liberal views, all well in tended for the people—but ill-considered, worse di gested, and brought forward in a haste, altogether un seemly and fraught with risks of miscarriage—when the bad working of the plan should be found remediless, and serious practical inconveniences should be sustained by the community." " First of all, those who urged the Government would (he says) be silent ; and above all, the newspapers will be carefully forgetful of their share in the urgent outcry." After illustrating this point at some length, the Reviewer approaches the subject to which, since the Edinburgh dinner, so much attention has been directed. This part of the article will produce considerable sensation, more espe cially the statement that Lord John Russell, and the rest of the Sub-Committee entrusted with drawing up the Reform Bill, reported in favour of a twenty-pound qualification : " The benefits of deliberately preparing the measures brought forward, and submitting them to a calm and full discussion—the incalculable risks of a rash and precipitate course of legislation—are so self-evident that they have never been stated, especially of late, without producing the conviction desired, and obtaining an explicit admission of the propositions founded on such considerations. But it had been remarked, that such concessions, being, as it were, extorted by the force of truth operating on those who were unable to answer the argument, were always accompanied with some statement, which either had no meaning at all, or operated as a retraction of the admission made—evincing the correctness of the old distich touching those who are convinced against their will.' " Of this an instance was afforded at the great National Festival' lately holden in this city in honour of Earl Grey, and the principles of liberal and reforming policy. They who were supposed to be hasty, impatient, and unre fleeting in views of improvement, allowed the truth of all that was said by the Noble Earl and the Lord Chancellor in favour of a cautious and statesman-like, but firm and unflinching, course of reforming legislation ; but they added, There must be no compromise with the enemy —no abandonment of principles—no clipping of ineasnre4 ;' and these phrases were more especially used by Lord Dur ham—though he only amplified what had been said by others ; and therefore, in what we now say on the subject, we do .not refer particularly to that steady and useful friend of reform, and of civil and religious liberty. But let us very respectfully ask whether these phrases are any thing more than words and sounds— whether they have any definite or sensible meaning— above all, whether they are even intelligible, when coming from those who, in the same breath, are joining to depre cate hasty and crude projects of amendment ? On this question we need not indulge in any remarks ; but let us ask, how Lord Durham, of all men, can object to what he calls compromise and clipping ;' he having, in 1817, brought forward a large plan of Parliamentary Reform, the result of much deliberation, held by him necessary to save the State, and so carefully prepared and elaborated, that he announced, from love of justice, the share which an early friend had taken in composing it with him, in order that no man might lose his portion of the praise due to so great a design—and afterwards, without ever having made another motion upon the question, or said another word re garding reform in either House of Parliament, acceded to Lord John Russell's plan, of a perfectly different nature, a plan not going a tenth part so far, but one more practica ble, and in which others, in and out of the Government, could be brought to concur, as assuredly as they never would have done in that of‘ the year 1817 ? Who blames Lord Durham—who even of the select few who voted and would have voted with him in 1817, complains of him as compromising with the e nem y, a b an d on i ng hi s p r i nc ipl e , or clipping his measure ? He acted like a wise and an honest man—one who really cared for his opinions, and was anxious to promete the success of the cause he espoused—and who, prizing this far above any paltry considerations of per sonal vanity, only desired to see as much, and as bene ficial, reform carried as he could. A ga i n , ne ith er L or d Durham, nor any of his colleagues ought to have at tended the dinnerin question—and above all, that dinner ought never to have been given in honour of Earl Grey, if compromise' and clipping' be a political sin beyond forgiveness ; for was there ever a measure more' clipp e d' th an the Reform Act ? and when did com promise' ever do more to change, and changing to pass a bill ? First, there was the twenty-pound qualification, which the scheme, as reported by Lord John Russell and the rest of the sub-committee, contained, and which would have destroyed a hundred rotten burghs, and created about twice the number? This was changed by the Cabinet to ten pounds, and Lord Durham made no objection ;—a change, however, which he may (though most incorrectly) represent as no compromise, because it was an extension, and not a clipping, of the plan. But what becomes of all the changes, in the precisely opposite direction, which the measure afterwards underwent, both before it was brought in the second time, and after it came into the House of Commons ? Why, if compromise be an abandonment of principle wholly unjustifiable, did Lord Durham accept the bill, shorn of its fair proportions' by Lord Chandos's amendment, assuredly made to give great landlords a pre ponderance in the counties ? This was, of all things, the most pernicious, and it sinned against every principle on which the bill was founded. Yet Lord Durham and the impatient reformers gladly accepted the measure, thus mise rably injured, rather than have no bill at all. But a vote of the House of Commons, they will say, carried this alteration. What compulsion of the kind made the Cabi net, of which Lord Grey was the head, and Lord Durham an active member, retain the right of voting in Freemen — the worst of all the franchises, and the one which engen ders and perpetuates corruption of every sort ? This change was made in the bill during the recess, after it was first thrown out—it was made during the period given for reflection and deliberation—it was made expressly to conci liate the adversaries of the bill. We venture, then, with all respect for Lord Durham, to suggest, that it was as plain an act of clipping'—as distinct a compromise'—as any man can figure to himself; and that it was a clipping and compromise made with the design of gaining over enemies ! and that advantage was taken of delay—of opportunity to deliberate—precisely in the way against which Lord Durham now so vehemently protests. Then why did his Lordship submit to this ? Why did he prefer the bill thus clipped' to no reform at all ? Because he was a man of sense, a practical statesman, a sincere reformer. But then, has he any right to deny the same titles to others who recommend, it may be, a like course ? Observe, no one, on the occasion alluded to, bad said a word about compromising to gain over enemies ; all that was urged was the wisdom of delibe rate and cautious proceedings. But Lord Durham, in his vehement love of whole and entire measures, and his impatience of 'every month that passes' without some thing being done, chose to read a lecture against clip ping,' and, above all, against making use of the time taken for digesting any measure, in order to make it acceptable to such a number of persons as may suffice to carry it through Parliament ; and this he did without reflecting that he used the time given in 1831 for deliberation, to change the measure in one of its most essential parts, with the hope (a vain one it proved) of conciliating the enemies of the reform ! Nay, he urged this topic, and fulminated his anathemas against all compromise—that is, if he meant anything at all, against taking as much reform a's you can get, though you may not get all you wish, and all you have a right to—at a festival given expressly in honour of the Reform Bill, and its chief author, Earl Grey ; this bill having been the result of a compromise, and being noto riously framed, as introduced in 1831, upon the very prin ciple so loudly decried by his Lordship, of taking what you can get, when you may not have just what you like. We might urge the same argument from other changes in the bill—all in the like direction—that is, contrary to its funda nsental principles, and operating unfavourably to popular rights —as, for example, the restriction of votes in burghs to those whose rates are paid up, and the requiring in counties a small fee to be paid on registration—both of which al terations were manifestly of a most mischiovous tendency to the franchise, and both submitted to for the purpose of reconciling adversaries. Why did Lord Durham, and other sincere reformers, accept a measure so clipped' —nay, so miserably mangled and cut to pieces ? Why, but that they had the sense to look at the prodigious good they gained by it, and not like silly, wayward, spoiled children, to reject it because they had been crossed in some parti culars. But yet the very same men have the assurance, and, at a dinner given in honour of those who so mangled the Reform Bill, and so suffered it to be mangled, and given in their honour, expressly because they agreed to it, and gladly accepted•it as mangled—the assurance to pro fess that, whatever others may do, they, forsooth, arc far too uncompromising gentlefolks ever to suffer any clip ping' whatever ; or to abate one single jot of their claims for the purpose of obtaining their object, or to accept one half-farthing in the pound less than the full amount of all their demands. They look down from this elevation of pure, rigorous, unbending principle, on which they are pleased to plant themselves, with an amazing self-compla cency, upon the rational, practical, and consistent men, who have disdained to commit no such vagaries ; Thanking God that they are not as others are—clippers—compromi sers—men of expediency." From the length of our extracts, we can merely at present allude to the very interesting article on the House of Lords. The Reviewer states, what we be lieve is quite true, that the body of the nation was op posed to the Revolution, and that we owe our liberties to the corruption under an oligarchy composed of great Lords and trading politicians. The Lords, however, have now little of the property of the country, and less influence. That influence is gone for ever. " After the accession of the House of Hanover, the Whig Lords acquired an ascendancy by the profuseness and magnificence of their expenditure, and by the resources they were enabled to draw from the public purse, in a country steadily advancing in wealth and commerce. The present Lords are, with some few exceptions, too poor and too much embarrassed in their circumstances to spend much money of their own ; and the Commons and people are too vigilant to permit the former drafts of the public purse to be continued." The remedy proposed is the creation of Peers for life. But we doubt its adequacy. However, we shall return to the sub, j ect.—Morning Chronicle. The subjoined statement from the Leeds Times is curious, and stimulates curiosity the more for being so meagre and imperfect : " In the township of Leeds the names of 418, and in the out-townships the names of 93, Whig voters, have been struck off the list, forming a total of M I votes lost to this party. " In the township of Leeds, the names of 219, and in the out-townships the names of 49, Tory voters, have been struck off the list, forming a total of 258 lost to this party. " Here, then, the Tories have gained an advantage over the Whigs tantamount to 243 votes. " But this is not all. " In the whole borough 45 new Whig claims have been allowed, and 76 Tory claims, giving the latter an advantage of 31 votes. " The whole advantage of the Tories, therefore, amounts to no less than 274 votes. " (The Leeds Times concludes its enumeration byad verting to this memorable fact—that the Whigs and Tories, in their mutual squabbling, have succeeded in disfranchising no less than 822 inhabitants of Leeds I)" Now, the unsatisfactory meagreness whereof we complain in the above five or six short paragraphs from our Leeds namesake, consists in the absence of every fact from which might be inferred the causes of rejec tion., as influencing the revising barristers in their treatment of the several claimants, whether Whig or Tory. It appears indisputably, if the account be cor rect, that on the new registration of voters for the township and out-townships of Leeds, a much larger number of Whig votes have been struck out of the list than of Tories ; also, that as respects new votes, a smaller number of Whigs have been admitted than of Tories, making a total difference in favour of the Tories of 274. One of our contemporaries alleges it broadly as a charge against the working of the Reform Bill, that so vast a body of constituents should under its operation have been, deprived of their vo t es ; an d so far we are disposed to agree with him, but not when he extends his grievance to the fact that the Revising Bar risters' Court llas in the present instance disfranchised a greater portion of Whigs than of their adver saries. The law of registration being the same for both parties, it is plain that the surplus of rejection falling upon one of them must have been produced by something extrinsic to the law, and arising out of the different conduct or circumstances of the individuals ; but nothing can be more obvious, without going into details, than the mischievous structure of the law it self, in the gross amount of the disfranchisement which it has effected, exceeding 800 inhabitants of a single borough, in a single year; and that without the slight est criminality or fault on their part, as regards the exercise of their franchise: but the truth is, that a very disputable policy has been exhibited in the fram ing of that portion of the Reform Bill which specifies the limitations to the enjoyment of the elective fran chise. It does not seem to us that any natural con nexion exists between a man's right of voti ng an d hi s punctuality in paying the King's or parochial taxes. Are there no means of enforcing the demands of the tax-collector but by making the deprivation of a high political trust the consequence of any delay, however short or unavoidable, in discharging them ? But it is riot the interest of the elector only which is i n j ure d by this oblique and insidious manner of working his disqualification. A vote, as we have said, is a trust. It is for the benefit of the communzty that all persons possessing the due qualification of property should be THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1834. at all times ready to execute their functions, and to ful fil their trust, by voting for representatives in Parlia ment. We are doubtful whether, without sufficient cause shown, any elector who withheld his vote ought not to be subject to a penalty. A law of Athens punished every citizen who stood neuter in a civil con flict, and that, moreover, when the arbitrant of arms, not of opinion, was to decide. A penalty , so directed would tend, at least, to stigmatise as disgraceful that indifference to public affairs which, when widely preva lent, never can be otherwise than injurious in a free country, and a melancholy symptom of the decline of national spirit. If no such thing as a distress-warrant were known to the law of England, or if the honest pride of voting were a more powerful agent in the re covery of a debt for Crown or parish than the dread of seeing one's furniture sold by auction, something might be said for this harsh innovation upon the usages of a free people. The question is not whether the tax shall be paid, or left unpaid. It is merely a question of punc tuality? whether the tax shall be paid a few weeks sooner or later, for its ultimate recovery is well enough secured already, and better by the old and acknow ledged law, than by this new-fangled political process. We ask, would it be no misfortune to the State if, through the crabbed and obtrusive intermixture of fiscal obligations with politieal functions, half the kingdom —as there is no difficulty in supposing—were to be disfranchised on the same day, and that day six months a dissolution of Parliament were to be desirable ? It is clear, and we do not deny, that some test may be necessary to prove the continued possession of a cer tain class of qualifications, but we are sure that proof of having paid a man's taxes, when by a hundred tricks of the tax-collectors, the payment might be most inno cently and unavoidably (on his part) delayed, is one of the harshest, most ill-judged, and unconstitutional. Why was such a thing never thought of before in Eng land ? Times. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Yesterday a young man named Robert Stocks, porter to Mr. J. W. Liggins, a silk manufacturer in Wood-street, was brought before Mr. Alderman BIRCH for re-examina tion, on suspicion of having robbed his master's premises of silk purses, India-rubber braces, and a gold watch, of the value of about 150/. ; a check for 1,1001., and bills of ex change for about 550/. Mr. Liggins went out of town on Saturday, and enjoined the prisoner to sleep on the premises, for the protection of the property. The warehouse was locked up and left about eight o'clock in the evening, and the prisoner ought to have returned for the night about ten o'clock. About six o'clock in the morning on Sunday the prisoner acquainted Mr. Bousfield, who resides near the spot, that he had not re turned to the premises till one o'clock in the morning ; that his candle went out as soon as he got in, and he therefore went to bed in the dark ; and that he had just discovered some thieves had entered while he was absent, and carried off the contents of the cash-box, and some silk purses. At eight o'clock the prisoner called in Henman, a patrol, and told him the same story, and said he had not brought home any person to sleep with him. Henman soon traced that this was untrue, and the prisoner ultimately admitted that he was playing at bagatelle in the neighbourhood with two other porters employed in Wood-street ; that he took them home to sleep with him on account of the lateness of the hour ; that when they entered the house at one 'clock they at once discovered the robbery, and he alleged that he was too frightened to alarm Mr. Bousfield, though he was so near at hand. This prevarication caused him to be appre hended. The two porters who were with him were questioned, and corroborated the prisoner's latter statement. As soon as the prisoner saw the state of the warehouse inner door, he exclaimed that the place had been robbed. Upon find ing a little leather bag on a stool in the counting-house the prisoner said a gold watch had been stolen ; and upon find ing the desk open he said the cash-box had been pillaged. One of them being rather intoxicated fell asleep, but the other and the prisoner remained awake talking of the rob bery. The prisoner was pale with fright, but still was calmer than might be expected. The premises were entered by skeleton keys apparently, and it seemed singular that a person should be prepared with these, and yet unprepared with any instrument to wrench open the desk and cash-box, for which purpose a pair of scissars were used ; but no part of the property was traced, nor did any other circumstances transpire to connect the prisoner with the robbery. On searching the lodgings of the prisoner's sweetheart, Jemima Marsden, of Collier -street, Pentonville, some un finished silk purses belonging to Mr. Liggins were found. Mr. Liggins said_ the prisoner used to give out the work to the women, and knowing his attachment to Jemima, he, to keep the prisoner out of temptation, forbade him to give her any employment. Upon one occasion, however, he consented to give her a job, but he was surprised to find on the following week that more work had been given to her without his leave, and that she had been paid ten shillings. Upon remonstrating with the prisoner he shed tears, said he would never do so any more, and declared that he had not wronged him. Mr. L. was satisfied Jemima could not have done the work, as she had earned 13s. at cotton winding that week, but he passed the thing over, and the silk purses now found at her lodgings were those which she had been paid for, as if they were finished and returned. A much larger quantity of silk had been given to her to work them up than was necessary. Jemima was in attendance to give some explanation, but she was not called. Mr. Theobald, the City Marshal, who is superintending , the investigation, praying for time to make further inqui ries, the prisoner was remanded till Tuesday. THAMES POLICE. FORTUNE-TELLING.—EXTRAORDINARY DELUSION.— Yesterday Ellen Morgan, a young woman very shabbily attired, of plausible manners and address, who has for some time imposed on the unwary by pretending to be gifted with a knowledge of futurity, was brought before Mr. BALLAN TINE, charged with obtaining several sums of money and some property from Miss Catherine Mather, a young lady aged nineteen years, the daughter of Mr. Thomas Mather, a respectable hosier and haberdasher, residing in High street, Shadwell, under pretence of disclosing to her the knowledge of future events. An old woman, named Ellen Lynch, was also put to the bar as parliceps criminis. Miss Mather, a girl of very interesting appearance, stated, that on Friday morning last the prisoner came into the shop, and asked her if she had any broken glass for sale. She said she had not, and the prisoner then asked her if she would have her fortune told, and began telling her some rubbish across the counter respecting events which she said would befal her. The prisoner went on for some time, when she (witness) said she was afraid her father would come in, and begged she would call another time and tell her her fortune. The prisoner said it was to be told then, or the planet would not be auspicious, and requested her to go down into the kitchen. Witness spoke to the servant, and complied with her request. Soon afterwards she joined the prisoner in the kitchen, and she told her to cross her hand three times with the largest piece of silver she had. She took half-a-crown from her pocket, and did as she was ordered. The prisoner took the money, and said, "it would have been all the better if the piece of money had been larger," and then made two knots in witness's hand kerchief, and directed her to cross each knot with three shillings, which she did. The prisoner said the money was for the planet, and she would return it again. The prisoner then told her she would go and consult the planet, and left the house. About half an hour afterwards the prisoner re turned, and said she must have five shillings more, and a shirt, silk handkerchief, and a pair of stockings, threatening if she did not give them she would acquaint her father with what had happened. She was frightened, and gave her five shillings belonging to herself, and the articles named, which belonged to her father. The prisoner on this occasion said that witness had been put in the planet, and she could not be got out again without money, but that everything would be returned at seven o'clock on Saturday evening, when the planet would be finished. On the same evening she saw the prisoner walking up and down the High -street in front of the house, but she did not speak to her at that time. On Saturday the prisoner, in company with the other woman Lynch, met the servant, and sent her to say she must have eight shillings more for the planet, which she was to return in the evening. She saw no more of the prisoner on that day. On Sunday the prisoner again made her appearance opposite the house ; witness opened the door, and the woman said she must have 10s. more to put on the planet. Mr. BALLANTINE-Why this was a very avaricious planet ; did you give her the money ? The Witness— yes, Sir, I did ; I was afraid she would tell my father. The witness then proceeded to state that after she gave the prisoner the 10s., she said she must have 41. more and a pair of black stockings, and she would not go without it. She gave her the 4s. and a pair of black worsted stockings out of her father's shop. She said she would return them by half-past nine o'clock that night, but she did not keep her word. On Monday the prisoner stopped the servant and asked for ten shillings more, which she sent her by the serv ant, when the pri soner sa id t h at wou ld comp l e t e ly finish the matter. On the same evening witness was stand ing at the door of her sister's house, a corn-chandler's, 190, Ratclif-highway, when the prisoner demanded 35., which she gave her. She then said she must have another ten shillings. Witness told her she had not got it, and the prisoner intimated that she could take it out of her sister's till. Witness said she could not think of doing it, when the prisoner said it would be a complete failure unless she had some silver to make all corm , rs of the planet rnect.— (This part of the c , , , derce caused great laughter in which the Magistrate could not help joining.)—The Prisoner said she would come the next morning for the ten shillings, and wait about the house until the money was procured. The prisoner kept her word and demanded the sum mentioned, but witness told her she could not let her have any more silver. The prisoner again threatened to divulge the whole transaction unless the money was forthcoming, and promised to call again in the evening. She did call, and her father havin heard of the f or t une - te ll er gave h er i nto custo d y o f the police.b Mr. BALL/iNTINE—Did you give this woman these things and the money under the apprehension that she would tell your father ? Miss Mather—l did, Sir. Mr. BALLANTINE-Or was it because you expected something very beneficial? Miss Mather—l was terrified by her threats, and I gave her the money because she said she must come backwards and forwards for it until the planet was finished. Mr. BALLANTINE—How could a girl like you persevere in doing that which your father was not to know. Were you afraid of being turned into a star ? Miss Mather—l was afraid she would do me some harm. Mr. BALLANTINE told the prisoner she was at liberty to put any questions to the witness. The Prisoner—Did you nrt desire me to come on Tues day night, and wait about ? Miss Mather—No, I did not. The Prisoner—You did, and you wanted to know who your husband was to be.—(Laughter.) Ann Lowe said she was servant to Mr. Mather, and had seen both prisoners about the house. She saw Morgan the first time on Friday, and she said she was a fortune-teller. Miss Mather asked permission for her to go down into the kitchen ; but witness advised her to send her away and have nothing to do with her. Miss Mather, however, took her into the kitchen, where they performed some ceremo nies. On Friday the prisoner stopped her and said some money was wanting for the planet, and she told Miss Ma ther, who sent her the money. After that she never stirred out but the prisoner met her, and said the planet must have money. Miss Mather became dreadfully alarmed. On Saturday she went out for some beer, and the pri soner met her and said she must have money, and would wait about for a month, but she would have it. She in formed Mise•Mather of the prisoner's threats, and she sent her Ss. The witness then confirmed several parts of Miss Mather's evidence, and said that on Monday morning the prisoner Lynch threw two oyster shells down the area, and said she wanted to speak to witness. She went into the street and saw Morgan, who said she wanted 10s., which she intended to return when the planet was full, and she would remain in the street until she got it. The woman got the 10s. from Miss Mather, who afterwards became so agitated that she could not stand upright, and she had ate nothing since. Mr:BALLANTINE said the foolish girl had been punished for her folly, but he was much surprised that the servant, who was older and more experienced, had not stopped the thing in its infancy, by acquainting her master. The servant said she was also afraid. Miss M. Bidnel, neice to Mr. Scholey, of High-street, Shadwell, said that Morgan had called upon her on Friday, and, after inquiring if she had any broken glass to sell, offered to tell her fortune, but she ordered her to leave the shop, and would have nothing to do with her. Mr. BALLANTEVE then called on the prisoner for her defence, and told her the offence with which she was charged was punishable with transportation for life. She need not say any thing if she pleased, as if she did it would be taken down. The prisoner said she did not receive any money on her own behalf. She merely acted as the agent of another for tune-teller, who promised to return all the money and pro perty when the planet was ripe, and she told the young lady so. A great many falsehoods had been told, as she had only received one payment of eight shillings, instead of two, as the servant had sworn to. Mr. BALLANTINE told the prisoner she was no conjuror, or she would not have admitted receiving eight shillings. That alone was sufficient to transport her. He inquired of the policeman if the abode of the prisoner was known. Mr. Young, the inspector of the K division, stated that they named George-yard, Whitechapel, and they belonged to a gang of fortune-tellers, who were continually making victims of inexperienced young women. Mr. BALLANTINE said the lodgings of the prisoners ought to have been searched. Barton, a policeman, said the prisoners had no fixed resi dence. They lived nowhere. Mr. BALLANTINE—Fortune-tellers have no terrestrial abode. Did you find the duplicates of the property among the 29 you took from Morgan ? Barton said he had not. She had made away with the property. Mr. BALLANTINE then ordered Lynch to be discharged, as there was no case against her, and fully committed Mor gan for trial foi obtaining the money and goods by means of threats. BOW-STREET. THE EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT AT GLASGOW.--,-YeS terday Thomas Rae, the young man charged with embezz ling moneys to the amount of upwards of 1,0001., the pro perty of Alston, Mather, and Co., merchants, at Glasgow, in whose employment he was as clerk, was again brought up. It appears that upon, the apprehension of the prisoner in London, information of that fact was sent to Mr.• Mille r , the chief-officer of Glasgow (or Messenger-at-Arms, as be is there called) at Liverpool, whither he had gone in search of the delinquent. Mr. Miller came immediately to London, and upon seeing the prisoner in the prison to which he had been remanded, he recognized him as the man whom he sought. A second man, named Robert Burgess, who ac companied the prisoner in his flight, and who is said to have instigated him to commit the robberies, is yet at large, and is supposed to be in possession of about 300/., part of the produce of the other's delinquency. He is described as having the appearance of a gamekeeper, and is stated to have lost the sight of one eye. On the search of the pri soner by Ellis when he apprehended him, a receipt for 50/., which he had paid for his passage out to Sydney in a vessel which was to sail on the following day, was found. Ellis happened accidentally to have had occasion to make inqui-. ries respecting some persons who had gone out in the same ship on a former voyage, and he proceeded to question the prisoner upon the subject, when he prevaricated so much that the officer had no doubt on his mind that he was the person he suspected him to be. He was in consequence of this at once taken into custody, and admitted his guilt. The prisoner, who appeared to be perfectly indifferent, was remanded until Saturday. CURIOUS QUESTION UNDER THE NEW POOR LAWS BILL.—Mr. Earl, one of the officers of St. Martin's parish, introduced to the Magistrates a young woman, named Eliza Thomas, who had an infant in her arms, and said he was in structed to apply for an order of affiliation against the re puted father of the child, but it was under curious circum stances, to which he begged their Worships' attention. The Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Laws passed on the 14th of August, and the child was born at a quarter before four o'clock on the morning of that day. A question had been raised amongst the parish officers whether, as the sta tute was not retrospective in its enactments in cases of bas tardy, and as it was well known that the Act could not have passed until the afternoon of that day, the father was or was not liable to be sued for the maintenance of the child. Mr. HALLS referred to the Act, and said that the words were " from and after the passing of this Act," and as the child was born at an early hour on the morning of that day, and the Bill was not actually passed until the afternoon, it could not be said to have been born " after the passing of this Act." He therefore, was of opinion that the father was liable for the maintenance of the child. Mr. MiNsuuLL said his opinion was quite different from that of his worthy colleague, for it was a well-known maxim in law that there was no fraction of a day. The Act was passed on the 14th of August, and a child born at any hour of that day must be considered as coming within the provi sions of the law. The worthy Magistrate read from several high law authorities passages in support of his view of the question. After rather a lengthened conversation, the Magistrates observed that the question was one of much importance, and required further consideration ; and they ordered the case to be postponed until Wednesday next. LAMBETH- STREET. Yesterday Mrs. Margaret Fry, a smartly dressed and good-looking young female, was brought before Mr. HARD WICK and a county magistrate, on a warrant charging her with having assaulted Louisa Harris. The complainant, who appeared advanced in pregnancy, and who is married to the husband of the defendant, said that on Monday evening, while walking arm-in-arm with her husband— _ Defendant (contemptuously)—Husband, indeed ! I never saw such a husband.—(Laughter.) Complainant—While I was walking with my husband, this female came behind me unawares and struck and knocked me down. The defendant in reply to the charge said that 10 weeks ago last Sunday the complainant, with a full knowledge that he was a married man, was united to her (defendant's) husband, at St. Andrew's Church, Holborn. Shortly after wards she had her husband taken up on a charge of bigamy, and brought to this office, but owing to the absence of the second wite, and his promising to allow her a weekly sum for her support, he was dischargod. On Monday evening she met her husband and the complainant walking arm-in arm together, and her passion overcoming her she struck complainant. MAGISTRATE. —Are you the person whose husband slept with you all night, and got up next morning and went to church with another young woman ?—Defendant.—Yes, your Worship, my husband came home on a Saturday • night, and after being quite comfortable during the rnjnj ni he got up from me at six - o'clock on Sunday '77t r.oe rt r*-Triol on the .19. Trio :lay to tl* , f'" t)in ), arid after his rrl:,lZ4' returnecl and had dinner with her. i ell. IVI.NGISTRATE.—I recollect the case pe rfee ' tc f Nothing could be more conclusive than the cha r g e bigamy against the husband, and had the second wife, it it appears i s a t p resent comp l a i nan t, co me forward, I 0 210 can be no d ou bt h e wou ld h ave b een transported. r extraordinary recollect i the extordinary defence-set up by the Pri s° T a t father, w no appeared a respectable man, whic h was' _ his of n n u s son was no t i n a sane state of mind, and that o propensities was that of marrying!in The complainant said she was six months advanc e pregnancy, and she really wen t i n f e ar of her life Nal t' defendant. • The defendant replied cotetV that such fears Were perfe raugt b' groundless, and add e d, th a t th e com pl a inant to void of all shame, or s h e wou ld no t h a ve bad th e face appear tl;ere. ' Mr. HARDWICK r emar k e d th a t, however strongitk: provocation, the co m pl a i nan t mus t be protected, arid she . swore she went in bodily f e ar, the defenda nt oho find bail. 'red I'3l The defendant subsequently put in the requt and was discharged. t xis A decent-looking fem a l e , w ith a n infant of abet ' ir months old in her arm s , a ppli e d t o th e magistrates for advice and assistance under the following circumstance tt i The applicant, who said her name was Franklin , e s t° a that her sister b a d un f or t una t e l y b orne twin bastards ring journeyman carpenter named Jourdan, and on s we3 o 4 them to the putative father at this office, an ordireek. made to him for the payment of four shillings a ethe r Some time since on e o f th e i n f an t s died, and th e t he being badly taken ca re o f, s h e ( a ppli c ant) took it t ,cbo parish officers of Bow, where the children were hor n i k f o r promised to give three shilli ngs an d sixpence a w e ! to n its keep. This sum th e y p a id f or a few weeks , uu , making application to them a day or two before, th e j o s fused to give her more than 2s. a-week. This she say u pre quite inadequate to its support and care, and she th e , re n ds, wished the parish officers to take the burden off her jarli but they refused to do so, unless the infant was r es ' passed from the pariih of Lambeth, where she lived. , ner Mr. HARDWICK observed, th a t the magistrates bad no Th e jurisdiction in suc stra h case. other magistrate said that the parish was n° t " c ed, to pay more for the support of the child than they re ce " da and if this was rejected, all they could be called on t° was to take the child and mother into the w orkbo ° t bot The applicant said that th e p ar i s h officers told h er , he r was to receive the difference between what they offeredo, 25., and 3s. 6d. from her sister, the mother of the in iv e Her sister, howe ver , was b u t a servan t, an d having °° It guineas a-year, it was no t i n h er power t o pay ls ** : t for the infant. O'e r The Magistrates having repeated that they had p ficc' P ' er to interfere in the bu s i ness , th e app li can t l e ft the ofe claiming that the case was a very hard one. - . CAPTURE OF A QUEEN FEMALE PICKPOCET SQUARE .—YesterdaY ,t dressed . respectable-looking female, named Ann Bo i l' 40 refused to give her address, was placed at the b ar , : ersi Mr. BURRELL, ch arge d w ith a tt emp ti ng t o pink 40 4 persons pockets at the Vict or ia Th ea t re o n the P res evening. It appeared from the evidence of the check-ta ker e r Ia also of a police co ns t a bl e , th a t th ey o b serve d the Pris °/1 14 ,11er the Victoria The a t re on th e p revious even i n g, and k e pt attempt to pick several p ersons ' poc k e t s . They - , - ;, e rP strict eye upon he r f or some ti me , an d saw her trY ° l ,'" ey at other persons' pockets, but without success, and t last took her into custody. Ipp The prisoner admitt e d b e i ng a t th e theatre, b ut , - f nantly denied having a tt em pt e d t o p i c k th e pocket person. I of" Mr. BURRELL i nqu i re d w h et h er any perso n in t '' e f th e knew any thing o f th e pr i soner ?-2Dawson, on e f i ° 11 6 officers of the establishment, knew her perfectly V' . e i q was ordered to be sworn, when he stated that not „,Toste r the prisoner was tried an d conv i c t e d a t the We sl t Sessions for picking p cc k e t s i n th e C ourt o f Recl lle 'h -s. r t lr The prisoner after this evid ence sa id no more t° " e o ptl' s fence, and Mr. BURRELL comm itt e d h er f o r &ea I ' l- to the House of Correction. CORONER'S INQUEST. An inquest was held a t St. G eorge ' s llospit-' f jalo Mr. HIGGS, the Coroner, on view of the body vili ° Painter, aged 52 years, a respectable married 1 00 13° ' threw herself i n t o th e Serpentine River. °'" Mr. Henry Hutchins, house-surgeon of the hosPi flit deceased was brought in on Sunday last, nbn ut a ft° o'clock. The body was lifeless, and every ende: ° 100 :1 made to resuscitate it. They found water upon r i' and there were e v id en t mar k s or cuts upon the art r iel' i deceased had a tt em pt e d b y th at means to d es troy' ' - t h He opened the body, an d f oun d h er i n t h e s i x th 113°P pregnancy. et , George Painter, of Hyd e P ar k- p l ace, O x f o rd-O r : de' valet to Lord Georg e Q u i n , an d was hus b an d to t T e frot ceased. Witne ss came t o town on Th urs day 155 " f eaP Worthing ; the deceased he had not seen for o'''Seil• previously to that day. She was lady's-maid to A ill ‘flO t ' He did not observe anything particular until Saturd)o4 when she appeared very l ow in spirits but did ° ra t rri ej anything serious would occur . Th e y 'h a d been seven years, and lived on good terms. , t upoo Mrs. Martha Glover s aw d ecease d on T ue sday ia% o dio; her arrival in Lond on , w h en s h e appeare d i n a ( I ,e'F - , e rol way. On Saturday l as t h er con d uct was t h a t of 3 r ole" in a disordered state of mind, and it had been re n ' d 3 10 that her night s h a d b een very restless ; a rope 115 been found tied to her bed-post. Mr. George L emon i s b ro th er to t h e deceased, she staying with her a b ou t t we l ve mont h s s i nce , when a s a y. H is subject to fits of gr ea t d espon d ency. f ather 3 trop po fered from mental aberration, and attempted to himself two or three times. Verdict—Temporary Insanity. The Mixed Cloth-hall at Leeds contai ns ,orti°, stands, of 22 inches . each in front, which are the P r ,i °, l 3 e 0 11 ' 1,780 manufacturers, 20 holding two stands each• boa t r t be kets are held every Tuesday and Saturday for on e j, n g 0 " is a quarter on each day, no one to sell before the rinsiLß..wio bell nor after, under a penalty, and the whole to b e i g oot t y rough stat e . I t i s aston i shing what a quantity (Vor'',.,, sold at this ma gn ifi cent b a ll , w i thout the least trat i ". o l, o ' fusion, a n d great l y to the advantage of the north ern - turers. .c ja 1010 ,AV There is at present in the Liverpool opht i n b - 00 firmary, under Mr. Neill's care, a case of very Fr e ,..." 8 A t o The patient is a little girl, who was born Dirr, e ye; d o three years ago Mr. Neill operated on the rign" she , d," operation was successful, and she obtained sigh 4th then in her e i g hth year . O n S aturday O last, the """ ree t Mr. Neill o p erate d on h er l e f t eye, in the Slater- tto , IS, tution, with a simil ar h a p py resu l t . Thi s little ere g a u blind, and for eight years in darkness, is now in ~ I d , eoti t er sion of the most p rec i ous sense ; s h e can distin ce, eLui and th e sma ll est o bj ects. Her knowledge o f do— ,rbe rot the first operation, was for a long time l imperfect' a ° object whi c h was p resente d to t h e eye was a ha f - e b n o of , weeks afterw ar d s every circular object, no matter 0010.80 or what colo ur , was called a halfpenny. Her res ide nook Dove-coutt, School-lane, and, when blind, eve r Yvihel l pfe s corner in the neighbourhood was familiar to ber',„ 00 8 'elle obtained sight she often used to lose her way, sc rA e oec urs biee close to her own door. The instant this viom„ 0 1 would shut her eyes, and feel round until some ',„, - o old !,. 0 01 was touched. Then, with her eyes closed, Al - home, guided by her accustomed sense of touch' ,„0 0 Journal. 818 TH S. _l3„rl ler On the 15th inst., in Dover- s tr ee t, the lady of Thom' f 4, 0 Esq., of a d aug h ter. lady the On the 12th inst , at Stevenso n , E as t Lothian, the the S. Stewart, Esq., Of a son. _A IDPI On the 11th inst ,at Usworth-h Gateshea d , - of lady of William ealethWentworth of a ° da nse ughter. , the ley On the 29th alt., in lace Mile-to a ' George Simley, - P ~ of a son. oci :Cl o i ech t L h ,i e fteo l o 4 Hf t e h 3lie n rn l s t ,. ., the Rev. RWRmlEFDailowfeild, c' t. O ld ~ F i til:tbo: On the 25th ult . Fop,' s. fourth slviddaoltn d e a r u pga t t e o r n o! E J s am q :s Bowden ? J-- 4 , et, land-place, London ,. to Mary (relict of theChl:trel°3ttler:lCa°Phell' 3d Guards), of Teviot Bank Cottage, near Kelso. 3 01 T to On the 14th inst., at Norwich, George Hyde, Esq .' , Angelica, daughter of the Rev. Robert Fountains Eblltp_sqol;; On the 15th inst., at St. George-the -Martyr, gr,; (it daag Colonel Pereira, of the Madras Army, to Charlotte, eloofrisburP ter of the late William Duff, Esq , of Red Lion-squa e, /_, of P r On the 15th inst., at Fulham , . the Rev. Hilman Stua , ~, , res ei# low, Bedfordshire, to Ann, widow of the late Anthony' ' Sampayo, of Peterborough-house, Fulham. w i lier, n On the Ist inst.. at Great St. Pancras, Smithson ouw- R. N., of the Grove, Kentish-town, to 3fiss Poole, of the e saw, DIED. I st Y e.° On the 13th inst., at Bawdrip Somersetshire, in her 7 i l „l o s , Betty, relict of the late Win Page, ' Esq., of Fitzroy -squr., , ;Icl o6 On the 12th inst ., at Sp.ye-park , Wiltshire, Elizabstos daughter of the late Rev. john-Starky, D.D. , aged 34 'xf 30 11/6 On the 12th inst., at Highgate , in his 85th years ..--r' formerly of Grosvenor-street. WO° On the 13th inst., at Edmonton, Mary the wife of Mr. Barker, of Bishopsgate-street. A n ekli gi On the 14th inst., at Greenwich, in her 59th year, •- .11 ' daughter of the late Henry Corney, Esq., of that place. .„_..4011, On the sth inst., at Dersingham, Norfolk, Joshua Itouroor Esq., of Newington-place, Kennington, and of the Arta I land and Brewer, High-street, Southwark, aged 7L thy, geleru On the 12th inst., at Bat h, a g ed 11 years and 6 mo p Lon go daughter of Mr. Rawlings, of Colet-place, C o rnmercial-rnan I oG Cti.....+. 1 .------, . London : Printed m - oid Published by MURD yolltli n at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. TH E 1 004 lid S AT TH, a 1, 1111, 8 ' 3A 1 , _aT e 141 'etur p aw n ~r it a ,:ngerl Thi s A Ay i ,, k . C" r ,t 4, r9—tVi 6 4 : 4 1 (11 P11 ° , 1 ". 7 El 'Llo . bit Ile •RED II , 9 . ITAI AlN is 10, ,I . Eric 11 • 'RS j' 1.0 4 d Av