The Sun. — London, England, 1831-08-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Irish Lord Lieutenant's Bill was read a thir time on Saturday. Mr. O'Connell moved that it bt read a third time that - day six months, but he did not press his motiOn to a division. We observe that the Bill is a favourite in the House, though we cannot exactly understand why. The object of the Bill is to assimilate the two countries. It is a very common, though a very 'Vulgar mode of reason ing, because two things co-exist, to infer a necessary connection between' them. Thus, because England is . a rich and industrious country, and borough mongering has grown with its growth, it has been inferred that boroughmongering is the cause of the wealth and industry. On the same principle some steak people have supposed that the unpaid magis tracy are the cause of the greatness of England, and of this opinion the unpaid magistracy themselves are, naturally enough. England has Lord Lieutenants and Magistrates, and the - Lord Lieutenants recom mend the Magistrates; therefore, Lord Lieutenants are beneficial. If the object be to stifle complaint, the English Lord Lieutenants are, no doubt, an ad. mirable institution, because the recommendation, by one of the most powerful and influential individuals in the country, of a Magistrate, binds him up in some degree with the Magistrate, and disposes him to cover him with his shield. Mr. O'Connell said, " he had received information that the Lord Lieutenant's system was far from working well in England, and that Tory Lord Lieutenants had been multiplied in a most undue degree 'under the, late Tory Administrations. There was at present in Ireland a rough kind of responsibility in the Loid Chancellor, and public opinion bore upon him in some degree; but no public opinion would bear on a Lord Lieutenant, who would always get his own partisans appointed, and partisanship was the crying evil of Ireland." Mr. O'Connell touched Ministers for their notable weakness of preferring their op ponents for the most valuable appointments. It is but too true that they appear rather more anxious to stand well with their opponents than their friends. This is not undeserving of notice; but we have not at present either time or space for it.—Morning Chronicle. Great indignation is, we believe, generally felt throughout the country that the House of Commons should have submitted to the desperate efforts at de lay of the Aristocratic party. We are not of the number of those who feel much alarmed on account of the majority for giving votes to the tenantry at will, though there is no denying that this vote has created considerable alarm. But the people are most alarmed at the extraordinary want of energy displayed by fte majority in allowing themselves to be baffled by a desperate minority. No man of sense, ss ho looks at the proceedings of the Commons, con avoid a feeling of shame that the good cause is so woefully betrayed by its supporters. The op ponents are chuckling at the imbecility of the advo cates. Never in the whole history of deliberative assemblies was there such an instance of mockery of deliberation. It is impossible to convince any dis passionate person that it can be necessary to con sume months in discussing the details of any mea sure whatever. An ending must be put to this mockery. The country has been too long patieri . t. No wonder that the Opposition should be indefa t;gahle, encouraged- as they are by the yieldingness and disposition to concession so invariably displayed by the supporters of Ministers. The Reform Mi nistry and their supporters must change their course, if they wish to preserve the respect of the people of England, who are becoming heartily sick of their folly and imbecility.—Morning chronicle. The Council of the University of London cut but a sorry figure in the report of the meeting of Pro prietors on Saturday. The meeting was, indeed, adjourned sine die, so that no decision respecting Mr. Pattison was pronounced; but the speaketa, with hardly an exception, considered him the inno cent victim of the imbecility and bad management of the Council. After the subject had been intro duced to the meeting by the mover and seconder, Lord Ebrington said, having been President of the meeting of the fistula which dismissed Professor Pattison, it would naturally be expected that he should say a few words on the subject. His Lordship might, however, have as well held his tongue, for he said very little to the purpose. "In the University (he said) there was no power over the students, and therefore the Professors must be popular or else the University could not flourish. It had been proved to the Council that .Professor Pattison was not popular, and therefore the • Council thought it was not discharging its duty to the institution and the public, in not dismissing Professor Pattison." This is the sole defence of the Council. They dispute none of the damning facts of Professor Pattison, showing, that if they had dismissed themselves, the unpopu larity would not have existed; that they are the aut hors of the ruin of a ma n whom, in . the same breath, they pronounce deserving and without fault. As Colonel Stanhope happily observed, " The Pupils were in a state of mutiny, and the Council, who were in a state of imbecility, instead of punish i„.,: the students, punished Professor Pattison. It wee a cabal against him that caused his unpopu larity; for till that cabal he was popular. It was a case of monstrous injustice." Mr, Fearon said that " any Proprietor who would take the trouble to read the paper which he held in his hand, would see that the Council did receive from those pupils a doeu. meet such as no body of gentlemen, in the situation of the Council, ought to have received without ex pelling every man of them.--(Much applause.) He was a friend to free government, but not to that state of insubordination which leaves the exe cutive without authority, and deprives the law of all force. He considered Professor Pattison the victim of their bad management." Few people will envy the Noble members of the Council the situa s tion in which they placed themselves. They stand convicted before the public of notorious im becility, which, if it only affected themselves, would, perhaps, be no great matter, but imb. cility having had the effect of ruining a man whom they them selves pronounce meritorious and faultless, and in the ruin of that individual levelling a blow at the institution itself, from which it can with difficulty recover—they have in his instance violated every principle of justice, and no man can hereafter have the smallest confidence in any arrangement with men, who first by their misconduct deprive him of his popularity, and then make the want of popularity a ground of charge against him. We are unwilling to say anything harsh of Lord Ebrington, who is generally accounted a good well-meaning man ; but really it were to be wished that Noble Lords should ; before placing themselves at the head of important institutions, inquire whether they are really fit for the trait; because the effects of their ine.csacity may involve many worthy and meritorious individode in ruin. This good will, at all events, have been done: by the exposure. The silly and ridiculous figure cut by these Noble Lords will have the effect of de terring thoughtless people like them from rs.shly ex posing themselves to similar consequences. If they possess any feeling, the fate of Professor Pattison will haunt them the longest day they hive to live. •—Morning Chronicle. Under the head of the of Dutch Papers will be found another proclamationthe Emperor of Russia, addressed-to the Poles , chiding I • them, in his usual gentle manner, for ha ' ;in e gl i a s d v o in l d g ong resisted his arms, when they might have killing them by a more sp e o e submission—accup'ng b him the trouble of themvoliting tbena of a fatal blindnes4B4re sovereign pleasure--assuring him t to Prov b idenee against his had favoured his cause by enabling provi mi nee i s upte their brothlr rebels in the insurgent forming them that the Russian forceii, employed. in keeping down the insurrection in those provinces, were now free to crass the Vistula to attack War saw, and beseeching them once mere, in the name of peace and of clemency, to kiLecgpt his tender of the former, and -to rely on his promises of the latter. The Poles will no doubt he ar this invitation ,?ngagements, and these men voice corning f aces, with the se feßt• ,rig as they have heard every same fet as they have heari! every voice OflP from the Government orSt s -Petershurgh since the middle of , ast December. The present document is even nore 'vague in its declarations, arid more limited •ti its promises, than . any of the rest. His Ma jesty, indeed, tells his Polish revolted subjects, . hat if they throw away their - arms,. and ,übmit'to his justice, he will neither massacre, nor enslave, nor banish 'the whole` nation. "This Ss all the comfort which .is held out to t h e m .— The "Czar takes . .especial ',case not to hint a word about national existence, or a constitutional Govern nents--the repair of former wrongs, or the establish ment of fliturefreedorn. HedoesnoreVen make known •o the Poles whether he intendsto incorporate their conquered country with Russias or to leave them the same shadow of nominal independence which existed under his deceased brother. His procla mation, however, decides one point which must put , he subjects of the National Government on, their guard against all - his advances. He tells them that Lithuania, Volhynia, and- the other Russo-Polish provinces are again replaced under his iron sceptre ; and though this is not altogether true, it is a suffi cient indication of what is intended with themselves. Why the Emperor has published this revolting pro duction at the present moment we cannot under stand, unless it be for reasons at which humanity shudders. Is his army prepared for assaulting Warsaw, and repeating the horrors'of Suwarrow s attack ? and is this hypocritical offer of clemency an anticipated justification of all the atrocities which may follow resistance ? We. are afraid that such is the hope of the Emperor, and such is the design of his manifesto. This is the more likely from the Imperial appeal to Providence, which in the Russian system is generally the prelude to a massacre. But we must wait fur the commentary of events; leav ing in the hands of that Providence, so blasphemed, the cause of that noble and afflicted people.—Tines. There is no doubt that the supplementary amend ments moved by Lord Althotp on Friday and Sa turday last may, so far as they go, have a tendency to restrain the evil consequences of the preceding vote, whereby the electoral qualification was given to agricultural tenants at will, a class of persons from whom the Reform Bill, in its original construc tion, had carefully withheld it. His Lordship pro posed that tenants at will of houses and garden land should enjoy the elective franchise as-well as tenants of farms merely. He also recommended that both the original devisees of lands or houses, for the term of sixty years, to the value of 101. per annum, and their (immediate) under-tenants,to the value of .50/. per annum, if on the terms of not less than twenty years, should be entitled to vote. Further, that if any matt occupied a house in one part of a county, and a farm or other premises in anotber quarter of it,—neither separately, but both con jointly held at the rent of SW. a year,—such tenant should he an elector. These additions, however, to the constituency, go comparatively but a little way towards indemnifying the people of England for the serious mischiefs produced by the two grand triumphs of the aristocracy—the divi sion of counties, and the enfranchisement of a numerous body of dependent vtpsals. The tenants at will of 50/. houses throughout the country are not, it is obvious, as 1 to 40 in proportion to the tenants of .50/. farms ; nor, if they were so, can we consider them in any respect so desirable a-consti tuency as those who have fixed interests either in house or land. They are nor, in short, so much free agents. To meet the exigency a great deal more ought to be done. We have already stated what an enfeebling effect cannot fail to arise, as against the popular interest of counties, from the large draughts Made upon it for the sake of furnishing an adequate number of votes for boroughs of the description of those in schedule D, and even for many of the towns to which it is designed to grant more than one representative. So heavy is the defalcation that must be created by this method of abstracting the natural county votes, for the enlargement of borough constituencies, that it seems a ques tion whether, in some counties, the whole ad dition from copyholds and long leaseholds will be sufficient to supply the loss. Various re medies present themselves, or at least pallia lions of the evil-1. The whole body of erec tors, thus withdrawn from the county, might be re stored to it with advantage, adding variety of cha racter no less than force of property and number to the county votes. A consequence of this diminu tion in the mass of town and borough voters, quali fied according to the actual conditions of the Bill, must be a reduction in the qualification of house holders, from ten pounds (a standard which we find by the Parliamentary returns will diminish the gross amount of the town and borough electors, compared with their present appregate, in places which are to retain the right of representation) to a rent of five pounds or six pounds, which it is known by well informed persons would not let in an unworthy class of electors. By this means all non-resident voters would be excluded from the poll for towns anti bo , roughs, and the choice of their respective Members would be confined to the inhabitants themselves, un questionably the fittest judges of those who were to act as guardians.of their political interests. If fasti diousness of taste must be indulged at the expense of five-pound householders, as a class of citizens less indisputably independent than agricultural tenants at will, and therefore not so well entitled to the favour of generous legislators like Lord Chandos, let the device for affording an adequate con-tituency to towns and boroughs continue in operation as at present ; but, 2. Reinforce the county *lectors, by admitting to vote for knights of the shire all those residents of non-represented towns or villages, who, if they had possessed dwellings within enfran chised boroughs of their respective counties, would have been, by virtue of tire projected qualification, entitled to vote for the town or borough represen tatives. The case of this large mass of intelligence a nd property, as determined by the Bill, would justify a reconsideration of it, on the soundest prin ciples. Midhurst, for instance,—or Callington, for instance,—is no longer to enjoy the right of repre sentation ;—that is, neither of those places contains a sufficient number of inhabitants, having property enough, to entitle it to a representative for itself alone. But that is a very different thing frOm as serting that every individual inhabitant of Callings ton or Midhurst, thus deprived of his vote for the pirticular borough, shall be excluded likewise from all right of beingrepresented in his other quality of lea-eholder for Cornwall or Sussex as the case 'may be. Now that- so much : has been given to those who, in our judgment, and in that of. Ministers also, ought never to have enjoyed the elective frau. chive, it is surely not too much to ask, that all poli tical right of every sort should not be be taken away" from large bodies of persons possessing the full qua lification es to property, or that they shall be re, garded as outcasts from that order of their country men to which, in right a property and station 'and community of interest, they confessedly belong, be cause of the mere accident of not fixing their resi dence within the streets of a particular tolvis Or bras rough. If leaseholders of houses paying ten pounds rent be a class of the King's subjects qualified to choose a representative in Parliament for. Rye, in Sussex, wily should the ten-pound householder of any unrepresented tpwn in Sussex be precluded from giving a vote for the county Members? The mere hazard of location ought not to depide that M. has stake enough is; !he country to be an Oarror, and not stake enoitgh, Olen both are individuals of precisely the same rank, prokerty, and education, the circumstance ni place, which has.no reference so any one of these banes of political Otness, being the oaiy thing in whidi they di f fer. We repeat, then, that hare are two sources of remedy for the vices or i iacenv e sniences . engrafted on the orie nal Dill.. I. Give &melt ,to the - counties WPlnt hes been taken from them in tire. ersons of fully quOfieC t s though non-resident town and borough , vote's, ins from damnifyin gam ong the their o boroughs wn i am b l y ,it a a n nt s in ; cr o e r as 2 e . of u e r ec t ers the counties by a well -qualified class . Or electors from the inhabitants of unrepresented towns. We have . years vvaa already said that, in one judgment, severs ton a'term - v,henCe tes draW the qualifictition .of a leasehold elector, and that tenancy at will is ' something a good deal worse. One pernicious con saquence Of these intrusions upon the Bill has, it seems to us, been overlooked by all parties,—we .mean its probable effect upon Br►tish agriculture. There is 'noihing better understood „than the utility .of giving farmers a certain, tutd : riokfcshort, interest in the soil which they cultivate, beciuse,-without7a legal, or at least a reasonable, assurance that he will be repaid for his outisiY,'.noite but a fool will. think of spending money upon another man's land,-- , -that is to say, he will never put it into a wholesome or pro luctive condition: • Landlords have heretofore been influenced to 'grant leases of a compensating dura tion to their tenantry, or to make equivalent engage ments with them, for the sake of hiving their estates improved, or not deteriorated in value. But henceforth a'new interest arises, a political interest, at direct variance with that which would induce them to look to the advantage of their property, and through it to the public good. Tenants of all kinds are made voters, and it will become the object of the English, as it was that of the Irish, landlords (of glorious_memory), to make as few independent or long-leased tenants as possible, or, in other words, as few bold and systematic and productive cultivators of the earth, and as many as possible of that descrip tion, whose tenures being absolutely dependent upon the landlord's pleasure,- (in order that their votes may be at his disposal), will shrink from any liberal or useful outlay, and keep the land in a state of penury and sterility, corresponding to the precarious• ness of their own helpless position. There is no doubt that such a change in the state of the tenantry, and in the productiveness of the land, must bring with it a reduction of rents exactly-or very newly in the same proportion. In the same ratio, indeed in which the landlord's ambition pre vails over his cupidity, or maintains a struggle with it, to that same degree may we anticipate an abridgment of leases, a degeneracy of the soil, a decay of agricultural produce, and—what, as the re sult of such causes, must be deemed calamitous,—a fall of rents in many parts of England. But there is yet time to cure, or much alleviate, the evils me naced by these departures from the principles of the Bill : the mere rescinding of the county-splitting clause would go a great way towards a remedy.— .Times. A correspondent, who, if we may judge from the spirit of his communication, has a " vested interest" under the Beer 1111, is very indignant with the Bishop of London for the part which he has taken, in exposing to the House of Lords the mischievous effect of that Bill upon the habits and morals of the working population. He says, " I was really asto nished on reading-your Parliamentary report of yes terday, at the expressions of the Bishop of London with regard to the new beer-traders, in which he broadly charges them with havir ° s increased the de pravity of the lower orders." If our correspondent had read the Bishop of London's remarks aright, he would have seen they were directed, not against the beer-traders, but against the Beer-Bill; that it was not the individuals but the system which he attacked —a system which he considers must, by its natural and inevitable consequences, lead to an increase of immorality and licentiousness among the lower classes of the community. If our correspondent had also read the debate of Monday night, in the House of Lords, relative to the Beer Bill, he would have seen that the Bishop of London, did not confine himself to general statements and unsupported assertions of the injurious operation of this Bill. On that night the Learned Pi elate presented a petition, signed by ninety-five clergymen of the county of Stafford, in which the petitioners stated, in the strongest terms, the demoralizing, consequences of the Bill. His Lordship, in confirmation of the statements of the petitioners, referred to a letter re presenting that at a meeting held in a part of that county, the persons present were unanimously of opinion that the great increase of vice and profane ness lately observed was attributable to the number of houses licensed for the retail of beer. The peti tioners recommended that the price of licenses should be raised, and that no beer should be allowed to lie drank on the premises. The Learned Prelate added that he knew a ca,•e where the father of a young man, who stayed out to a late hour on a Sunday morning, went to search for him between twelve t slid one o'clock, and found no less than twenty beer hops ope hich gambling was going on. Who can wonder b at, open at that improper hour, in sixteen of with such inducements to depravity and crime, spread abroad in every direction by the Legislature itself, under the advice of the Ministers of the Crown, our sanguinary laws should never want an abundant supply of victims? The restrictions of the old law as to licensing alehouses, if rightly exe cuted, would have the effect, as far as the nature of the thing would allow, of a principle of preventive police. The Beer Bill, being totally independent of those restrictions, seemed to be devised for the special encouragement of disorder, gambling, immora lity, and crime. That such are its effects, at least all who know its practical operation agree, however their opinions may differ on political questions. In place of restoring those restrictions—we mean those as to proofs of character, and of the necessity o f licensing the house as a matter of public convenience —Lord Melbourne proposes .to arm the hands of constables with new powers, and to enact new pe rialtie, ,to repress disorder—that is, he proposes to substitute for a preventive. police a punishing police; but every One - who understands any thing of the right principles of legislation would infinitely prefer the former. Our correspondent informs us of a hat we were perfectly aware, that disorder and licen tiousness were not unknown to some of the old public-houses. Is this an argument why the old wholesome restrictions should have been removed, arid houses for the sale of an intoxicating beverage, be estabtished all over the kingdom, without restric tion or limit ? The trade hi intoxicating liquors, whether distilled spirits or fermented drinks, 'must always, even under the best system, have some tendency to produce immorality, because the stimulating nature of the beverage when not very temperately used, strengthens the pas sions at the expence of the reason. Any Go vernment, therefore, that sets a value on the moral .condition of the people will never think it right there should be a perfect " free trade" in in toxicating liquor?, as there ought to be in bread and cheese, in soap and candles. The restrictions of , the old law could not prevent ail disorder and licen tiousness. Nay, some houses-in the heart of the metropolis were _and. are 'coodUcted in a way per fectly disgraceful to the authorities that have a con trout over them. Is this a reason why the system of preventive police with regard to public-houses should be abolished ? To,arguo in this way is the same thing as to contend, that because no system of moral controul can altogether prevent vice, there fore there should be no restraint upon immorality. 'There is one mode of procuring for the poor a cheap and wholesome beverage; we recommended it be, fore; and if the Government that passed the Beer bill were sincere in their professions of wishing to give relief in this respect to the labouring class, they would have adopted itr•ave mean the repeal of the malt-tax.—Morning Herald.. I remember, witi; great pleasure, the ten (lave I spent at Munich. There is no city in Europe, thrOs times the size of Munich, that contains so much that is worthy of observation; and if it were for nothing else tilan to see the dress of the women, I would advise the traveller to include Munich in his way. Take the follow ing portrait of the washe,rwoman who came to receive my commands at the Black Eagle. A aiivew 147.ad.dress, con fining nil the black hair and forming a tiara in front; 4 blue satiu brocaded 7.7aist and shiri of ilowei-ed misiin'; a worked muslin apron; blue gloves; in one hand 'a blue satin bag, depending lipra a silver chain, api a handsome parasol in. the ether. I.need scarcely say,. after this, tkat the women of paiaria Ave extravagantly fond of dress. The girl wlio waited at,the t!thip d'hote, in the hotel, Wore a gown the waist of which Ives entirely of silver. Costumes like these give greet life and beauty to the picture of a population : nor is it easy to fdrget the brilliant effect of these tiaras and silver. waisted gowns when, on a Sunday evening, at Munich holyday is held in the Royal Gardens."—Monthly /lap:mine. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 20. REFORM BILL. ( continued from our Second Edition of Saturday.) Lord MILTON tai -T 8 he would take the case of the borough of Chippenham,' which- had undergone considerable discussion already in the House. Ghippenham was a burgage tenure !borough ; the owner of a house in that borough hitherto en joyed the• right of voting for two Members to represent the borough, as well as two to represent the county.— By being placed in schedule B it would lose one Member, and by the present clause the owner of a house would be deprived also of the privilege of voting for the county. This was a monstrous act of injustice.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) It was- au. injustieewhiels the.voters did not deserve, not having committed any offence which could justify so great a deprivation of a franchise:. which they had hitherto enjoyed.—(Hear.) The Noble Lori/ stated that his objections. to the clause were, how. ever, of a:unich'niore fundamental nature. The clause proceeded on the most false politiCal View that could be taken.— (Cheers from the Opposition.) It proceeded on a principle of separation, instead of a principle of tinion.—(Hear.)_ Theywere told that the towns should not have too great an influence in county elections. He begged the Hotisetolook* at the conduct. of the philosophers who framed, the clauses L.-philosophers who were not only found in theribinet; but in this House—(Laughter)—they took a most erroneous view of the subject. They must surely have had an idea that the population of England consisted not of one community, but of two communities—one consisting of the population of towns, and the other of the population of counties —forgetting, no doubt,lhat a man who lived in town one day was probably the' next day in the country—a population who had concordant and not -discordant interests.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to the clause, because it proceeded upon a principle of separation, which was not a wise view to take of a political community. He admired the Reform Bill as a whole—(Hear, hear)—he admired its object—(Cheers)—he admired its principle —(Renewed cheers)—and he admired the honesty and indepen dence that had heel shown by Noble and Right Hon. Gentle men who had introduced it—(Continued cheers)—but what he found fault, with was, that - Ministers had not based some of its details upon the. ancient institutions of the country.— (Hear, hear, and loud cheers, from the Opposition.)— The attempt to balance one interest against another was not a wise or a practical plan, and his wish was that every freeholder—every member of the ancient county court—should retain his right to vote-at county elections. It was must desirable that all the real property in the country should be represented as it had been formerly, in whatever -way it might be vested. It was not a wise thing to teach the people that their institutions were of yesterday— and it was necessary that every freeholder should know that he derived his right from 600 years ago.—(Hear, hear.) He would not vote for the disfranchisement of any freeholder in England ; although he had upon principle voted for the disfran chisement of the rotten boroughs. The freeholders of England inherited their rights and privileges from the lesser Barons of .this country, who lived at the same time with those in a higher station than themselves, who fought for the liberties of their country, and who gave proof that whilst they were secur ing themselves against the arbitrary mandates of the tyrant, they did not forget the interests of those who were beneath . them. He would, however; not vote for the dis franchisement of any bona fide freeholder in England, and therefore he would not vote for this clause, which was one of injustice, devoid of political wisdom, which separated, instead of uniting, the entire interests of the country ; and which taught the different CUM'S of the community to be lieve that their's were discordant and conflicting, instead of con cordant interests. • Mr.-F. LE WIS _then withdrew his amendment. Mr. PEMBERTON said, that the only argument that had • with him .the slightest force in favour of the measure now before Parliament, was that it had received the sanction of the public . approbation, that they were satisfied with with its provisions, and were determined to have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill Now he would say, that if the people of this country had any knowledge of the real prin ciple and practical operation of the measure, was it possible that their approbation of it could continue, if it was at all well founded, when the very principle on which it proceeded was, as he contended, by the effect of this clause to be essentially changed? That clause would be most pernicious in its influence; it was in itself most inconsistent and anomalous, and amounted to a breach of that tacit compact which had been held out to the people, and on the faith of which their approbation had, as tar as it went, been given to the Bill. If the English Constitution was to be sacrificed as the price for the satisfaction of the people, let them at least have that for which they paid.—(Loud and continued cheers from the Opposition.) Lord ALTHORP had much diffiEulty in replying to the va rious objections that had been made to the present clause, as amended. First, his Noble Friend objected that all persons having freeholds in the borough should have a vote for the county; next, there was the objection of the Hon. Member for Oxford ; then came the Hon. Member for Bridport, who said he would object to the clause, after what had been proposed by the Noble Lord and the Hon Member for Radnor, who would exclude all not possessing more than five acres. Now he confessed he found some difficulty in attempting to answerthose several ob jections; for, when replying to one, he was in danger of saying something that might seem to support some of the others. With regard to the observations of his Noble Friend, they did appear to him to amount to arguments against the BilL He could not un derstand the separation of interests which had been spoken of; there ought, in this country, to be no separation of interests, and he was sure, that in the view which his Noble Friend took of the cmestion, he would not find many supporters in that House; nei ther did he anticipate that the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, founded upo'l an assumption that the Bill went to destroy vested rights, would have much weight ; for he conceived it to be not possible for any man or body of men to frame a measure, effecting such important changes as the Reform Bill did, without affecting vested rights much more extensively, It had been on the other side contended, that all rights existing in counties should be extended to boroughs. That, he thought, would be scarcely consistent with the simplicity which ought Ao be preserved in all matters relating to boroughs. One of the most prominent causes of complaint against the borough system was the great expence which theronveyance of non-resident voters entailed. Even in counties, were it practicable, it would be a great advantage were the privileges of non-residents abolished. Upon the whole, he thought, in the course of the present discus sion there had been more arguments founded upon extreme cases than ought to enter into the consideration of an assembly legis lating upon such a question. Sir R. PEEL understood the Noble Lord to say, that he ob jected to destroying the simplicity of the measure, and also to letting in non-resident voters. In all cases he would give the right of voting to freeholders resident in electoral districts, and not give them the right of voting for the county. The effect of the Noble Lord's amendment was, that a small freeholder, not resi dent, would have a vote tbr -the county ; whereas a freeholder, however large his possessions might be, would lose his vote for the county, if resident on his property. He had another objection to the arrangement—namely, that it would greatly facilitate the practice of frauds to a much greater-extent than if the scrutiny were confined to one person. If the number of small voters in towns were increased, it would save the necessity of going out into the small districts to search for persons sufficient in number to make up a good body of voters. The argument which applied to non-resident_ freemen tdid by no means apply to non-resident freeholders ; the former might have no property anywhere, and no connection with the places for which they voted, but the latter had at least the connection of property. Mr. C. FERGUSON could- not support the amendment in any point where it differed from the original clause ; and he could not refrain from strongly urging his Majesty's Ministers to leave the_ clause. as it stood, permitting freeholders in towns to possess their votes for counties. He thought that no pains should be spared to render the voters for counties independent and re spectable. He himself voted for the division of counties; but after the.vote of last night, which gave the franchise to tenants at will, he must say that he regretted having supported the divi. sion ; and upon the bringing-up the report, if a question were raised, and the House divided, he should retract his.vote, and de. clare against the division of counties. He did wish to see the great landownera lose somewhat of the controul they.had hither. to exercised over the freeholders —a controul which constituted one of the greatest vices of the system which the Reform Bill was intended to-remedy. Mr. WARREdid not think that the scheme of the Right Hon. Baronet would work well. - - Mr. VVASON was desirous of having a clause introdued, which should give the freeholder, under the circumstances which hadheen described, the option of voting for the town or for the county. Mr. WARBURTON repeated his former statement, that the balance between the towns and the counties had been destroyed by the proposition of the Noble Marquis, making landed tenants at will of 501. a year qualified to vote for counties ; and he denied that that proposition would be countervailed by the proposition of the Noble Lord for making house tenants at will of 501. a year qualified to vote for boroughs. The Hon. Gentleman moved an amendment to give freeholders and copyholders, although the same individuals, as occupiers, a double vote for town and county. Colonel SIBTHORPE again warmly asserted his right to the clause which, on Thursday evening, had been introduced into the Bill, on the motion of the Noble Marquis. He might quote, with reference to the subject, the line of Virgil, somewhat modified— "o. l e a g u n g h Y e .) H rsicue was losfeeintoUtlgitetihteebuNreoblweblteltair,eqruiist a h o o e n g o i res t : ( A loud be " foci" or " scripsi." He believed that it should be " scripsi ;" for " feci" was short. [An Hon. Member observed that " foci" was long.] Well then, he would so repeat the original line : " Hos ego versiculos feci tulit alter honoree." He wished to ask the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer why he treated voters in cities of counties in the same manner as if they were voters in other boroughs ? Lord ALTHORP was a loss to know why voters in cities of counties should be placed in a difthrent situation from voters in any other borough. Colonel SIBTHORPE said it appeared by the answer given by the Noble Lord, that freeholders in counties corporate were to vote for the counties, but the cities so situated as counties of cities, were to be part and parcel of the counties in the exercise of voting; as to freeholders, they were not to participate in the same enjoyment as others in counties ; as to copyholders, and leaseholders, or tenants at will at 5.3. rent, this he pronounced unjust and partial. Why annex them to counties, unless you gave them the same full right of voting in all the branches ; or rather, why deprive them of the full exercise of the right of voting 9 The Gallant Colonel advocated t he cause of the hitherto deprived _citizens as to the full exercise of the right of voting. Lord ALTHO RP maintained that there was no inconsistency in his propositions. Colonel SIBTHORPE contended that his constituents had been treated most unjustly. Mr. PRAED would gladly, in consonance with the original principle of the 13111, exclude persons who had votes for towns from voting for counties. He begged to advert to the speech of the Noble Lord (Althorp) at the commencement of the pro ceedings of the Reform Bill, wherein he stated that the voting for boroughs should not interfere in the representation for the counties; he (Mr. Praed) now asked whether or not the Bill, as it was now framed, did not interfere in the representation for coun tiesy The only answer to that must be the affirmative. It was a bad thing to say that the interests of a town should be distinct from the county, although it might in some instances occur that the interests of a town might Intp fere with those of the county gene rally. If thepresent Lord Chancellor was in the Homo, he wo u ld voter av have given an answer to a Noble Lord opposite (Milton) similar to that which he gave on a former occasion, when speak ing of the influence of towns in counties. Lord Brougham then uld t g h bb r ea V own said that when he canvassed Yorkshire, he did not canvass the squires, he canvassed the large towns, such as Leeds, &c., for he depended more on the towns than on all the rest of the count representation. It was said that tbe balance between the towns and counties was y. to lie dealreYedr point of representation. He would advert to a few facts to sho the hultielsce poSsosed bythe agricultural interest ii} . tbd represen anon.' Out of eeVentyjeur"Meriabers now about to return 'Members ? It appeared by the originalretnni that sixty ow, in which a naaiority of the pild only six boroughs of which there would be in the f : o s srtti yt t u o . fie vn b ec e P y r b n e wo P doors boroughs two-thirds of the constituency would be agricultural;agric b ti e w l t o u f b rr of into htichg andboroun. ghseo consistinguwtleehrems concluded by expressing his intention to vote h The ot the e i a t s h the putq and.usti question , the c n lause form part of the'Bill' , claAutstee.r afew word o s f f a r g o r m icu i lt i u:a r l . without amend menta division. " • . mr. Warburten's amendment was To a question drum Sir THOMAS 'FREMANTLE audible in tlfegallerY d ), (which was not ThetoC the HA original lst:l7 Mr.'CARTER sal , that if a person purchased mope y borough of a nature that did'not give him Elvote forth rt- in a he would be entitled to vote for the County. ' ,borough, The CHAIRMAN then put the original amendment, was carried Without a division. • . which Mr. HUGHES moved that the words " or any other person," be left out of the clause, for assimilating the cases of copyholders and )e4sehOlOers•with that of the freeholders in voting for towns The Hon. Member stated his determination to divide the House upon it. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the leaving out of the words 1 Against it lB7 Majority against the amendment —lB6 The other parts of clause 18, with a few verbal amendments, were then, carried without a division. The CHAIRMAN then put the question that clause 19, dis pensing with the payment of the land tax in the case of voters for towns, stand part of the Bill which, After a few observations from Mr. WYNNE and Lord ALTHORP, was carried without a On the CHAIRMAN putting the question that clause 20, which enacted that no person was to be eligible to vote for county Members unless he had been fora certain time registered, stand part of the Bill, Lord G. SOMERSET rose for the purpose of asking the Noble Lord to postpone its consideration, as it was impossible at the present time to enter jnto the question of registration. Lord' ALTHORP thought the discussion on the subject of re gistration might take place upon another clause; but he did not see why the other parts of the clause should not be proceeded with. Mr. WYNNE wished it to be understood, if they allowed the discussion on this clause to proceed, that they were not pledged to support the registration as postponed. Mr. ESTCOURT also wished the discussion of this clause to be postponed. • • Lord ALTHORP thought no convenience whatever could arise from the discussion of this clause being postponed. An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not hear, observed that clause 21 contained the regulations for the registry of voters, and therefore by agreeing to this clause the House was by no means pledged to support the registration. Lord G. SOMERSET, with thst understanding, would not object to the present clause being adopted. After a few words from Mr. O'CoNNELL and Lord AuruoitP, The CHA I RMAN read the clause, with the blanks filled up, z.nd some verbal alterations made that had been proposed, and on the question that it form part of the Bill, it was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the House resumed. DUBLIN ELECTION, Lord STORMONT said he had informed the Right Hon. Se cretary for Ireland that he had a question to ask him in his place that day, and had received a communication from the Right Hon. Gentleman, stating that it was impossible for him to attend in the House that day, but that any Member of his Majesty's Go vernment would be happy to give sum any information in their power. From accounts he had received from Ireland that day, he understood that the same system of interference on the part of the Government of Ireland that was practised at the last Dublin election was again going on; and he wished the Noble Lord to disclaim it, and put a stop to it at once. Lord ALTHORP said he knew nothing of any interference on the part of the Government of Ireland with the election of Dub lin. He had not heard the subject mentioned before. Mr. O'CONNELL said he bad letters from Dublin the last hour of post, which enabled him to say that there was no inter ference on the part of Government. Ile Anti-Reformers, in deed, had resorted to an extraordinary proceeding; they hacfpla carded Dublin with assertions that the present Ministers were immediately to go out of office, and then the supporters of the Corporation candidates were to be high in favour with the Anti. Reforming Ministry.—(A laugh.) Lord STORMONT said, he remembered on the last election for Dublin it had been deniedby Government that there was any interference on their part, and yet it was afterwards proved before the Committee. He thought some Member of. the Government should write to Dublin to.night, to put a stop to the interference that was going on.—(A laugh.) Mr. LEFROY said he had intended to put the question that was just, put by the Noble Lord. The interference on the part of Government was notorious. A police magistrate had been written to, to come from the country to propose one of the Government candidates ; and the Under-Secretary of State, Sir William Gosset, was actively canvassing for the Government candidates.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would immediately make some declaration that would put an end to such proceedings, which he was confident must be their wish should not be persevered in. Mr. O'CONNELL said he could explain what was called inter ' ference with a police Magistrate. The Committee of Mr. O'Loughlin and Mr. Latouche waited on Alderman Darley, who had voted for the Reform candidates, and proposed one of them I on the last election ; and this was what was called interference. He hoped Government would not say that they would net inter fere, as proposed by the Noble Lord, for that would be to admit his charge, that they had been interfering. What the Secretary for Ireland had said on the occasion of the former election was not as stated by the Noble Lord, that there had been no inter ference, but that there had never been an election in Dublin in which there had been so little interference. What was really asked by the Noble Lord was, that Ministers should interfere for the Corporation candidates. They had, no doubt, often heard of such interference, and even of considerable sums of money hav ing been so exnded. Lord MILTON thought Government should keep wholly free from any interference ; and if they were to write such a letter as proposed by the Noble Lord, the effect would be to interfere. Mr. CRAMPTON said, this was a mere election trick, resorted to for the purpose of injuring the Reform candidates. He was confident :the Noble Lord, and the Learned and Hon. Gentle man, were but instruments in the hands ofothers, by whom they were misinformed. 'The Hon. Member for Kerry had answered one part of the charge, and of the facts. He was confident the charge against Sir Wm. Gosset was unfounded, and he thought the name of his calumniator should not be concealed.—(Hear.) Mr. LEFROY asserted lie had his information from a private friend, who was incapable of misrepresentation ; and his state ment was perfectly consistent with what was Said by the Hon. Member for Kerry, respecting the application of Alderman Dar ley; but he stated more—that Sir Wm. Gosset had written to Alderman Darley to come to town to propose one of the Govern ment candidates, and that he went about Dublin canvassing for the Government candidates. When this statement was made on such testimony, he thought it quite unbecoming to call it an electioneering trick. Mr. CRAMPTON was far from intending to cast any imputa tion either on the Learned Gentleman or on the Noble Lord who had introduced the subject ; but he must persist in considering the letters the Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord had re ceived as an election trick on the part of the Corporation can didates. Alderman Darley was a consistent Reformer, and there fore it was quite natural, and in accordance with his own prin. ciples, that he should he called on to propose a Reform candidate. Lord STORMONT said he would give the authority on which he made the statement. It was that of a Noble Lord, one of the candidates for Dublin, late a Member of that House. No one who knew that Noble Lord's character would suppose that he could be a party to an electioneering trick, or that he would allow himself to be a tool in the hands of others for such a purpose; and he (Lord Stormont) would be equally incapable of allowing himself to be made a tool of. _ _ Mr: CRAMPTON must still believe and sav it was an election triCk; but he didnot believe that the Noble Lord alluded to, or the Noble Lord who had mentioned the subject, could, to use the Noble Lord's own expression, allow themselves to be made tools of in the hands of the Corporation ; but certainly they might be imposed on by misinformation. Mr. O'CONNELL said, the purity of Lord Ingestrie's mind would keep him from suspecting that he was made a tool of. He little knew the men he had deal with.—(A laugh.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had charged Sir William Gosset with being a party canvassing for the Government candidates ; that must be a public fact, and yet it was positively denied. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman also charged him with having written a letter to Alderman Dailey. How could that fact be Known, but by a breach of confidence ? Mr. LEFROY said that was but one fact : it was highly pro bable that the House would hear more of it. Mr. SHEIL observed that the Noble Lord, who had only made a general charge, gave his authority. The Learned Gentleman made a particular charge, and gave no authority.—(Hear.) Dr. LUSHINGTON said, he could not help observing that the whole of the conversation was most irregular. The Noble Lord's question was contrary to all the rules that governed their pro ceedings i and if the conversation were continued, it could not but be injurious. Such a discussion ought not to proceed. Sir T. FREMANTLE thought the subject was vital to the pri- vileges of that House; and if the interfCrence attributed to Sir William Cosset was brought before the House, it would be ne cessary to take steps for the vindication of their privileges.— (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) If the Hon. Gentlemen opposite sat on his (the Opposition) side of the House, they would not treat the matter with the levity they now did. He knew Sir William Gosset, and hoped the charge against him was exagge rated ; but he thought the House might take up the question, and send a message to Sir William Gosset; requiring him not to interfere.—(A great laugh.) It would be in vain to send when the mischief was done—to shut the stable door when the steed was stolen.—(A laugh.) Mr. WARBURTON asked, did the Hon. Gentleman mean that the House should act on anonymous information, and call Sir William Gusset before it ?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. WYNN certainly thought that enough had not been stated to make it proper for the House to call Sir William Gusset to its bar; but Warty Member of the House, on his own responsibility, preferred a charge against any public officer of having interfered at an election, the House would entertain it.—(Hear, hear.) After some further observations by Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET and the Arroarsav-GENERAL, the conversation dropped, and at Half•past Six the House adjourned. SALE OF SIR WALTER SCOTT'S MANU SCRIPTS.—ibis sale took place on Friday at the rooms of Nlr. Evarrs, in Pall mall. The sale commenced with the autograph MS. of The Monastery, three volumes in one, warranted perfect, and bound in green morocco ; the few erasures, alterations, or additions, which occur from the first conception of their illustrious author to their final transmission to the pres , , are very remarkable in this cu rious manuscript. After a spirited competition it was knocked down to Mr. THORPE at 181. The second lot was the manuscript of Guy Mannering, three volumes, wanting a folio at the end of the second volume, bound in green morocco. The alterations in this manuscript were more numerous. It was purchased by Mr. THORPE at 271. 10s. The third lot was Old Mortality, three vo lumes, perfect, bound in green mororco. It was knocked down to Captain BASIL HALL for 331. The Antiquary, three volumes, warranted perfect, was also bought by Cap trio B. HALL for 421. Lot the fifth was the MS. - of Bob Roy. This was in three volumes quarto, complete, though the second volume was wrong paged. After great competition it was knocked down to Mr. WILES, M.P., for 50/., the highest price brought by any of the MSS. The sixth lot was the MS. of Peveril of the Peak, four volumei bound up in two, green morocco, and was sold at 421 . The seventh lot was W'averley, three volumes, very imperfect, purchased by Mr. Thes, M.P., for 181. The MS. of The Abbot, three volumes, imperfect, was sold for W. Ivanhoe for 121., bought by Mr. RusuroLo, M.P. The tenth lot was the MS. of The Pirate, imperfect, and sold for 121. to Mr. Mor.Terro. The eleventh lot was the MS. of The Fortunes of Nigel, sold for 181. The nest lot was the MS. of Kenilworth, which was imper fect, and was sold for 171. to Mr. WiLxs, 31 P. The last lot was the MS. The Bride of Lammermoor, and was knocked down at 141. 14s. to Captain B. HALL. The total snip reali•ed by the sale was 3161. 4s. CAPTAIN BEECHEY , S VOYAGE.--" The land expeditions of Captain FRANKLIN in the Arctic re gions," says Blackwood's Magazine, " will never be for gotten by any one who has read the vivid account of the suffering*, dangers, and fatigues, •which he and his com patriot)* underwent, and the feeling which every one en tertains in regard to that gallant officer would communi. cote itself in some degree to a voyage undertaken to co operate with, and assist him in, his second great attempt. BUt apart from all collatera l caus e s of p le as ur e , Captain 13Exotiv's hnok contain s withi n i t self much both to please and delight—scene s which must alW aYs be ' full J the attractions N u m erous beautiful engravi ngs o f the interest to those persons who have not witn essed them, for (t they l b l afford . e y Fstiltlßupisto)thheeteiyirgigohi;vietenytl3 imag i nation, . has just appeared in a new and cheaper form. WILL OF MR. ELLISTON. (Extracted from the Registry of the Prerogative Cou r ' t Canterbury.) Robert William Elliston, of No. 84, Great Surfer 10 , street, Blackfriars'-road, in the county of Surrey, do 10 t publish, and declare, this to be my last will and testarne° I desire that, at the time of my decease, as soon as C ODs r nient, it may he ascertained by my executors hereinn to lie mentioned, what sum in reamly money I rortY P or possessed of, whether lodged in bank security, bond;%, balance in hand at my bankers, Messrs. Coutts and and it is my will, that the aggregate of the said sty° divided into nine parts, and be distributed in equal.pr o ill tions between the nine children begotten of my kte 10v ott wife, Elizabeth Elliston, and in case of the decease o f e, _ , l of the said children previous to nik own decease, the ft ,4 in that case, that all the ready money I may die on of shall be equally divided amon g st the said legitil3 dren being alive at my death. To my eldest son, li , Gore Elliston. I further bequeath the whole of nlYli b id t the silver-gilt cup in my plate-chest, and all the marked with his initials, which he had at the Uni o 7:,o To my second son, Henry Twiselton Elliston, I beq u "l, my best watch (called the chronometer), chain and '13),:o and the residue of plate. To my third son, Charles 8 " ,1 Elliston, I have by agreement covenanted, that in caste my decease, he, the said Charles Robert Elliston, sha lj come possessed of whatever term may be remaining co trs lease of the theatre, commonly called the Surrey The_ i a It is therefore my desire, that be shall become possoni, the same, with the entire gift of all the scenery, niaellinevi properties, decorations, dresses, music, manuscripts, i which I have collected during my management; and thsor' trust that be.will not think that the gift of 1504 1 )6 ,,,,,t. num, to he divided into equal proportions between hid 19,j sisters, Albinia Jane Martin EllistOn, tucy Mary Ann Elliston, will be too much to. be pfacA - 0 , 0 1 lien on the theatre, fur their use, so long .1 1' e may c9 1 ,! 5: 1 possessed of the said theatre. It ii also my desire, 4 1 1 j my furniture, orivbetever other property I may die po 9 • ° ;4, of, shall be converted into ready money; as early as CO nient, and the sum raised thereon shall be put best use by my executors hereinafter inentioded, equally divided, with the accumulation of the 1, thereon, between my two last-mentioned daughter" , Elliston and Mary Ann Elliston, as they ni respecPa arrive at the age of twenty-ene years. Anil for the P i " ( peenrmance of the bequests, hereinafter-mentioned , spectfuily request my two friends, William Moore, P'4B of Bond-street, Piccadilly, and James Winston, Charles-street, Covent-garden, that they will unclert; the charge respecting the expenses of my funeral. I t sire they may be of the most unostentatious kind; b u j should wish to be buried in lead, and an oak coffin , }Pts ot nails, and no other ornament except the centre plate inscription in Latin—" Robertus Guglielnius (sic) ;;4, ston, natus septinio aut octavo die .Aprilis, I ft obiit--.." The funeral to be walking ; and that al " : - be may be placed where my friends may choose, so tha t ; i be secure; arid that the expence. attending the same tal' ito il first deducted out of the ready monies left behind. to now, having appointed my executors, and distribuT, trq. ,'0 the best of my judgment the property which I , behind me, I declare this to be my last will and t i e f Le went. In witness whereof I, the said Robert W i1. ,,0t Elliston, have set my hands and seal, this eighth 4, July, 1530. R. W. ELLI-- „ er Signed, sea!ed, published, and declared, by the sai u „ . o i ta:or, Robert William Elliston, as and for his last testament, in the presence of us, who, at his requeitto, his presence, and in the presence of each other, have scribed our names as witnesses thereto. 14 0 GEORGE WAT B. FAIRBROTI - 4'_ , ,,iti Proved at London, the 6th of August, 1831' hf; e iti. worshipful Jesse Addanis, Doctor of Laws, and SU . s e by the oaths of James Winston, Esq., one of the extl o rt to whom administration was granted, being first to t, duly to administer, William Moore, Esq., the other 01, having renounced the probate and execution of the CHARLES DYNELEY JOHN IGGULDEN, Deputy D'" CHARLES BEDFORD , The personal property is • sworn 'under 3,000 1 ' signature, " R. W.. Eliistim," is writienin mixer"' a hand as to be hardly legible. HORRID MURDERS. (Abridged from the Cork Mercantile Chronicle 4 " ) Wednesday.) Last night, about seven o'clock, the south part Of f l city was thrown into alarm by the report of 4 T . which occurred in Abbey r str ee t. Th e outwit, a PT, the name d Duggan, a carpenter, was shortly broug" the Bridewell, followed by crowds of infuriated Per'' and lodged there for the night. This morning an inquest was held on the bodies 11 Coroner. _ . Denis Donovan, a boy of 19 years Of age, a n d s tep and apprentice of the prisoner Duggan, deposed that, mother, the deceased, was married to prisoner about years and a_half ; that she was about 45 years old; that the infant, Robert Carberry, tilsci deceased, Tv o l two years old ; that on the last e v e ning, about 1'3'1.1, six o'clock, his step-father came in, and asked dinner ready ; it was not, but it was made ready an hour; he had not been at work that day, for w 74 saw him between three and four o'clock previontqf b the time be came in (half-past six o'clock) Nis. I I berry, the mother of the murdered child, went nt ! in about 20 minutes after the prisoner desired r o be called back, and she was called back, and IT O to the room, bringing with her the child: The dinn er o about this time ready, and there were in the room Duggan, the deceased, wife to the prisoner, and ruot1:0 the witness, Mary Ann Donovan, her daughter by a I ' l , husband, Eliza Duggan, daughter to the prisoner former wife, and witness himself, wirlt prisoner inch Eliza Duggan, prisoner's daughter, sat to table 'Y e father's desire to eat her dinner, but she was not 0 0 0 minute, when he asked her suddenly whether she hado and then desired her to get up. She did so ;he P O, y tt her out of the room, and locked th e d oor . M r s. Car; on seeing him do this, asked him what he meant ' made no reply to her, but took a half:inch gang e d his pocket and rushed on her with it ; she put,!lV child which was in her arms, as a shield to preser ve d self, and the goug e went into its belly and let out the The prisoner, all the while, spoke not a word. W, : 11 ,5 1 had stabbed the child, h e ru s h e d at his wife, E"..0 Duggan, the deeased (witness's mother) who WO 91' down at work (glove making,) and stabbed her I:1 breast ; she fell at once from the chair on which she ling, never spoke a syllable, and died in less thaf:, minutes. He then mad e t owar d s Mary Ann Dorie s :" step-daughter, daughter of his deceased wife, an j t iii to the present witness, and st a bb e d h er t wo or three,'of in the arm, the chest, and the hip— s h e was e ndeaino l to escape him by running f r o m one p ar t o f the r ts) V the other, and he (his step-father, Duggan) puisiril Mrs. Carberry meanwhile, with her wounded .obil," 01 1? gone into a second room, and held the baby ou t :eV, window screaming loudly, for help', but the pris out or into that too, and stabbed her with the gouge in the to) Witness during the transaction had taken up a c,}-sir t ub fend himself in a momentary expectance of hisi own but ere that came, the prisoner, alarmed by time 001 curie one ascending the stairs, unlocked the door, key in his plcket, and walked down quietly. tb - This' witness deposed, in addition - to these faet 9 ' r yo l the prisoner andthe deceased (his wife) had lived f t , happily together; that he was discontented with r ely he (witness) believed, through jealousy, though b e l :00 spoke of the subject till he was either drunk or be cause that there was to his (witn ess ' s ) k now l e d g e and b e cause for such jealousy. I' 4 The Jury return e d a v er di c t o f Wilf u l Murder in cases against the prisoner Wan. Duggan. t The CoitoNaa then isssued his warrant aga! be and we underst an d h e h as b een s i nce l o dged ID ' t o? gaol. The wretched man had been for the Ni t .. „ o o years (we are given to understand) in the emP 1 0,77,p1 Sir Thomas D e an e and Co., and with the excep ti° 7 casional drinking bore an excellent character. .S - BIRTHS. 13rO ff On the 18th inst. the Right Hon. the Countess a i , of a son. f 51 On the 19th inst. in the Regent's-park, the lady a 1 Johnstone, of a daughter. ~,, of ° On the 19th inst. at Mill-hill, Hendon, Mrs. Rhodes' MARRIED. .11e f l On the 16th inst. at St. Hillier's, Jersey, by the Veilpiii,, Dean, 'fomyns Brown, Esq. to Julia, daughter of Cl„. ji , vers, B.M. Portsmouth, and niece to Major-General "" , Travers. 13 0vVf Es ? e n x th t a i t i lLin; : t liz a a t I co .am ic h h e e t s l t i e , , A , l o r f . Is%luit.hPaLainine,boe_it.b, yooo daughter of the late T. Colchester, Esq. of Chathal'! . ., i‘qe On the 20th inst. at St. James's Church, CaptV of Sub-Inspector of lonian Militia, to Miss Emma Gria' g ' 4! Hempsted, Herts. ~,„ r °f c 1 On the 18th inst. at Bath, the Rev. J. Olive, ..- -t° -e ' . St. Laurence, Herts, to Ellen, eldest daughte: 0 . 4. b t !', , . 4 seph•Thomas. Brown, Esq., of. Winifred-house,' Pa'. a o '' biED. - On tbe 20th inst. in Upper Seymour-street, Cecili a co" P - 01, infant daughter of the Rev. R. . Hamen. ~... Fors the 15th inst. at Southwell, D Notts, pd Lieut. I'' the Hon. East India Company's Service. r 1 ........---..-----.- MU TIDO 1' ou - s Ot '4 PRINTED" AN D PDBIASIIED ble STN th , FICP, STRAND, 112, LON n" w IN' V ‘ 'l l C a T e s U t ~ ., 4 1 ; n g 0 , : or : 1: :::.Ty_ ta, hiii , Fen 1 I ,_ i condition at. 'ruts ') A i !, s , I Y, th ,e 'ead)' to recei treat 14 th e st IRISH SALT 11,'e Tenders all to i" red seven e . 1 11:7, Victuallin 611)naoutil, in so 0.. one half the 'her haircut 1 paid , or a or after ' for usual v." or b y app , to calling e mt _ at C in, 4na b at Lit 4 to the Seen ro'Pectively. ~ ,No tend er for f ated, and of Beef, ' t i t ed, and each a lt e n.. - ' a g ed , and h t witl , and r the vespectabie 1 ti le P ar ty tend ktn :lnount of th It is to b or . be e ti are to . -b . . The Person o ie behalf, mort :T: In - a f SERivi'3l pica S° l (.l by Ham P A ROCHIA th Edition. E c tI ) RAIONS P° l ll 2 vols. 14,c, SELECTI 282:)( 41,1, NEM uays 4 lose!), ph SysT: . By Profeisc tl Print e d for I l'i ?,°° , l, Ec A lso, rece I' A tit " OUT CTRICII Statenn of Cher NI ,An n ATI t Y th e , NCAIPLES t____le. ITREA the Lib o rary f IRw of r Baldly of ** The wr all Ntries th e Treat cl ef , printed for the El ( i i i Z ' eae b publ ti,r r e , "f •• (r el€ 1 !( - of t ers. thr„ an n of umb the attle umbers Numb er 15 Ztuldislied 0 Pr avirl e ' Ga N FRAM • p or , tetized tli tleppu fon Porililiog thi re Ntrk :, the ] 's' I st T . —ook ♦ of ‘111 , •,, Th.~tP , j fu ke, H Aia 'rt e Ro h 72, rt,i" , at 9, t et ,g l lam • (..,4 t 4,1- 1 • I 'Pri(i ge Al♦tt' Goi tind b k4l(l tt, s,"