The Sun. — London, England, 1817-06-19 00:00:00

setptent law,t, and enittcuded, that under torte or them, irnt mine pioikolatly siiiee the Act of )791, hail the Secretary of State. any riiot to inteifere vvi:h Ihe treameni of persons detain— t :1 in county prisons, the:it:et - RI . living in all cases nosvVerable for the body of the prisoner ; therefore 'this act of the Secretary df State was an extension 'of the law, and att.eoutdcr pioreeding timid not liossild'y I. -Fur supposing the jailer refused trbedicucc, what power had the Secretro y ot -State, except r9rder the Suspension of the 11ithen,, Cor 'pus Act, to ptiniSh unless he impriSumed butt in his iiwn jail ?—(liear, hear !)--Ou,the in his opinion, the letter of the Secretary 't . as an illegal mandate ; for if Ministers had stIVII a pre rogative, it was done away by the 31st of the Killg• lie hoped the noose would consider this subject to be worthy of the twist grave and Ferious consideration. The Justices we sppoiuted to see that no tibuscs trete catred on to prisons; and it was u curious t bat when a system of espionage %Val patronised by Alini3fers—(klear, hear, heir !)---t hey should interfere to prevent the persons appointee) by the Crown and Parlia ment front Ascertaining whether abuses exilted or not. !must be suppoed that the Magistrates were' . not tit persons to be entrulte4 with the, charge of visiting such persons ; but ,f they Were not fit 110 their ditty, tvhy were they left in the rontmii(intt of the peace So laid its 0- „fiable a proceeding was serious to the prisoners, but it was witch snore serious to the patine, as it iya s bvilio-t:ly dispensing with the NU of Rights, He sit 011111 its.tke no further observations at pre ient, hut ghoul(' only, tliorefor copies oriusri tloits scot by the Secretary of State loi the [Wine Der lilment to ali jailers and other nelsons, in ta - hose custody persons were detained, suspected. of conspiring again it hiS Majesty's Government ; stint also of all correspondence between any, Ma gistrates and the S , ...crt taty of Statelespecting for the treatment of prisoners, I r e. The ATTOHNItY-GENEtIAL obsetved,, , that: the Nolde Lf).(t had stated rf:olloSit itn) that be WaS not 'it dined to 'OOl, IlAtmely, that. the Croien had r „ wrr o to f i q p e -, se wiltt the laws, But the Nnble Loi".(1 in'the course of his *peech,.had • Itesel,:ed to the effect, as he hel;eved, that the Se. eretary of State had in!rtninced a new practice at a peculiar timeditst when•N.rSOIIS had been taken up whn were shown innocent by a verdict of a 311ry • (Softie hriet explanation took place, which Could no! be distinctly heard, but in which Lord Folk , ttlne was lindcrSt6ild to say he bad tint used those preci , e words.) lie would, however, con tend, tharthe Secretary of State had not dyne any thing more than bad uniformly been done towards tit rsons who had been :taken up on sos picion of High Treason, ant! who were always committed to crow custody'. From the earliciii times; persons were denied all. aCCC6S 1.0 by orders trout Government, though • conttanr and repe;Oed a:,plicittions had been made to vigil tlnem. Proofs of this would be found.in a vast .variety of in n c sia ei in the Reportsof the State Trials, previous to and ),itnte the Re volut ion t and ibis tight bad been nutintained by Judges who were as ow fri e nds to the Cat:slit tit ion as the Noble Lord,. or any other _man. Chief Justice Pratt, in particular, in the case Of Lynn, refused an application made to the: whole Court, at Bar. A rule was only granted for the admission of his 'wife, ands it wa, intimated, Oar if the prisoner wished for any other-indul-' gence, he must apply elsewhere. The . Pt ivy '.Council and the Secretary at State have had the pnwer, from the earliest cime, to grant or. refuse permission to skit State ptisoners. .The• Sheriff tvos undoubtedly the person who Watt responsible for the sr fet y of the prisoner, and be admitted that - no other person had it right to • be keeper at a connty jail but the Sheriff; but that would not decide the question, whether those who commit persons' to their custody charged with offences agaioit the. St ate, had not a right to the !Twilit tions, respe(ling sod) prisoners. lle would say, itt coutradici firma to the o pinion o f the No4le Lord, that every iii the kingdom Was the Ring's although a subject may have the custody of the jail. Previous 14 the Act of 1791, an.objec. lion nets er was taken, and there was never less indulgence as to access. 'The management of Such persona charged with crimes against the tate was always 'deemed to be a prerogative of the Cio.xn. Respecting perjury, the Noble Lord was Wrong in saying that the prerogative of par.. 'doping was taken away by any Act. lie denied It was the consequence only that was taken pway, becaOse the Act said that no person should he admitted to give his evidence on oath without Obtain - big 'a' reversal of judgrnent, alms the poWer of pardoning was not interfered itod,the object of the Act was for another and quite a different purpose • Bit ler it be re-' collecied altar the object of the Art of 1791 principally was. it was with respect to, jails used its penitentiary-houses, that thc people might be set to work, and that the- inlerferenee of the Alkigiitrates might cause them to be kept in a state of employment. But if the Act authorised I\lagistrates to go into the prisons at any time and bold converse with the pLisoners,. certainly it au thoriser! tiny thirtg. Ittagrskrates might go to the p r isons and imptire and report, but it Was not Ile. cessary that they should hare - private eomuntni cations with the prisoners ; and he was quite sure the prt'SCilt qinlitionneVer was in contemplation when the present Oct was passed. Therefore, finless it could be said thia no more precaution ry'tr lit to b e t a ken with 'regard to such prisoners 6:m towards of hers, there could ire no just' grounds for complaint for portning a critirae • that bad been minified: sitiee the tallies', times: finless it were for ,the y purpose o f stgu i u k ern the question, the Noble Lord had rite right to , 1111 , 4 1 1 e: that . any 'persons had been wrongfully taken Imp , at . ltl he ('1 Attorney , i3eueral) had a light, for diet sake of lergtiing the case, to sup pole thAt 5t00...! ii ttl b , Cli take!) np such' sus e apPreht.intled.--(1-kar, bear I).--- in his humble opincitt, a no:re dangerous con sti - oction never , e ntibi be put Ott any Act than was entklaYOltreo 11, be pett y „ nil [llk Statitte ; -nod it was Ainge.hr that trim was tire hest time such , an oldect legit hail been 41'1;0. ' the different s oir ; c , l79l, iw•Which the Habeas Corpus A(:t it, constant applications were made to dim them, and orders as to who should of should not be ad uaitted were always given by the Secretary .01 S'tate, 11e c' , .•attid cemtenil thil the rigist to 'ordt the manlier in which sods, prlsonera sl ould kept, was a n,rerogative tit the Crown, which had bee'n eoustautly exercised by the Catineil and the Secretary of State ever since the passing of the Act of '1791, wit boot tiny objection being' made. The question in short was, whether the ituportanee apt! neceftsity of keeping ;tate Pri ;one's in rlost ,custody.aras to he, done away by giving apower ta visit them by pel•situi Who might wish , fo Converse with them. 11 . c did not untier. stand the differetice made by the Noble Lord 'be tween the Towa; as th'e King's p'tison, tool other When the Act fat sospouling the Habeas Corpus had eiveit the Secretary ni State the po..ver cif coofit'sing a prisoner in Any jail of the kingdom, it made that jail x State prison. There was, therefore, nothing in the law .which prohibited the Sectetary of State:froth doiog that which : lord been &roe at all times, and, therefore, there was no ground made out for laying belore the House his instructiolis and correspondence. Lie should consetpiently , oppOse the ;notion, as what the-Se cretary of State had dane . lie bad been fully war. ranted in doing. Sir S. R1)1411.1.1' declared, he had never beard doctrines of law which were 16 hint more novel than those at the (ientleman opposite, who held Such a high situation tinder the Crown. The question was simply whether, since the p a ssing of the Act of 1791, the Secretary of State had a right . to gi,Ve directions to a jailer respecting the treat ment of any prisouer and this rpsestion Was one of the greatest lin - init.:Once. It wits, in fact, whe iher the ererogative of the Crowti„in respect to the regulation of prisons, could be taken aWity, except by the. express words in an Act This never was applied to any subject that retembles the present. There were many acts for general regulations, in which the prerogative was not af fected: It Was ton ilifeCted by the Bankrupt-Laws; btit was it' ever held, that in Acts of general re gultilion, the power of the Crown was not taken away without express words ? Why it had beet' expressly decided that the power had been taken away, in regard to the question of ;Maud lin College in the time of Queen Elizabeth, ss a matter not met ely relating to property, but one of general regulation and it tv;:i un animously agri•ed that the King was not to be excepted, because be was the fountain of ; justice and common right. It Magistrates were not to be permitted to see even the dungeon in which a prisoner is placed, because be was denied all access to how could be ascertain whether opines jinn was exercised towards bins or not. The Act was passed to prevent improper conduct in jails, and it was necessary to look with a jealous eye ,ever all who had their fellow subjects under their control. It was •no question whether •any such arrests were or not in contemplation when that Act was-passed.; the question was, what had been done by the, Legislature; and he shoeld be asto nished if any other Gentleman should follow on the same ground as the Attorney-G' neral ; fur if there , was any troth in such dovrine, it would place the Crown above the whole Legislature.— (Hear, hear !)—Whoever would maintain such a doctrine must be sure that it would be expected of them to produce some authority for what they asserted. The SOLlClTott,.GlittEltst ippreltendetl,.that all which had been maintained was, that it was the right of the Crown to , inferfere with the trelt meld of State Prisoners, and that this right had not been taken'away by the Act'ot 1791. The Noble Lord was mistaken in-what be bad sta;ed with respect to jails. All the law writers nedo tained,-that all jails were the Kiug's, they being for the custody of persons at the suit of the King, ar s d It never was eottrentled that the wood and walls were only the King's. Since 1791, this au thority had been exeteised without any Aiestion. The lion. and Learned Gentleman supported the arguments of the Attorney-General as,to the Act itf 1791, and maintained that it only went to en act that certain visiting Magistrates should ex amine into, the state of such prisons as Peuiten tiary Houses, where people were kept to iadostry, and to report to the Qiiiater. Sessions such mal practices as they might discover, on the part of the jailers. It 'lever Was in contemplation that Magistrates should go to converse with. Prisoners of State ; and it was borne out, without produc ing any authority, that this Act did not take away the right of interference on the part of the Secre tary of State, with regard to such prisoeete. The argument went only to this—lf they had a right ter . communicate with such prisoners, the Jailer had no power to restrain the Magistrates end the pri soners as to any subject they might choose ro.con vers,.e about. Ile would s a y, tiiaa t those who coo. ' ,denuted the regulations ought to proditai proofi that the. power of the Crown hail heels takers away in that House, which he would contend. had not been the case. Mr..l3ooUGnaAt would insist that thisreaseralk ed for the-immediate interposition of the Muse. Ile would say there never was in t kat House, an Any complaint at the same kind before, a More feeble and :untenable defence made by the Law Officers at the- C to wo than that which had just been heard. Bot he would , do them the justice: to say, that it was the fault, of their case, and not of their talents anti skill, for it .suits .one which, with all their ahilities, they were linable to giVe a colour to. .NVlrat was the purport bf the lion. and' Learned. Gentitindn'S argtimons hot !hi, fleadthitied thrstiolintry confinement was ti part of the law of England, and that. the CLown had the power to makeit as solitary as it pleased. GOod God', when suss it thought that 'an Act of Went govt: a power to the Crown of inflicting a punishment, which no Englishman, tsar any omit of anyconntry, could think of without sthborreke? Tint the present question was not 1151'601e right of the Crown to indict solitary Confinement, or prevent access to prisoners, bin ie was, whether in the teeth of 3 specific ACT 9ti, Parliansent, a tiling on Magistrates to and giviog Silen t power to imptire into the tre4lolcut of all pri toilets, the King's misiiccr has the powet to isMil•;! WS arbitrat y matolete, and say that Certainpti *otters shall nit be wisittl at all ? He WOlati siy, drat. tit Hooljtv0:90 there- ever equec ion, for iett. sous tots obvionl to be mentioned, that deserved deeper or inure immettlatu consideration. -fle 'vas well pleased with the admission that. I h e jails treat • the King's jails. Hillis were so,. to what did the Act Preto l 'llYait'ilsYe hilt Sto t ect. l s 'e : rsctislttru;lillicof the the g Act t o K tr i e n 4 i: s tut the better preventing of abuses io common jl.ls as well as in houses ot correction. It was for the Purpose of 001:11%ling the eye oh the. Magistracy to other prisons than homes of correction. The tectiou stated, that they should examine into tits treatment' of prisoners, and at sock times its they Might think pro Per. Now, he would ask how were these aboset to be detected by examining the . \vans or the err;und on ',Odell the prison wos 'milt, or it the Magistrates were only to have the power of opening a (loin anti taking it wink, and tin H walking; ont again ' The section soffit! Oman butt cne thing, and Ono was, that the Ma gistrates Were to il iye the power to exarnioe Its i stoners as to any Moises exercised towards them. The Act futther said, that 01l prisoners sitoold he ikatnined. What statute was there, what book, what data, teat nude State prisoners a separate case?—How long was it since the King bad beet) considered more interested with regard to State prisoners than any other class ? The fact was, the King was the party for till prisoners. It was in Ins Toone that all processes against theirs were made out ; it was in his name that all prisoners were brought to trial ; and it was unworthy the legal acuteness of his Learned Friend, as much as it was a mockery of mankind, to divide prisoners into two classes, and to call one of them Pristiners of State. %%ruts it not the interest of the Crown that prisoners accused of murder, of forgery, or any other atrocious crimes, should be brought to justice, as well as those accused of conspiracies against the Government ? There was one thing, however, that he must not pass over. This Was the first time that two' Lawyets- bad got up in that House,. and made a speech, as contrary to justice, as its principles were utterly utaknown to the• practice of the scriminal laws of this Country•—(Hear, hear, hear I .)—li the Ma gistrates abused the confidence and trust re- , posed in them, they were amenable to the proper authorities, and might be . prosecuted criminally. His honourable and Lennie(' Friend ' seemed to consider a State Trial as a matter of very long endurance--(the loud Cheering fromJhe. Oppetaitioh Benches- presented this passage from being Italy beard)---but God forbid it aloorld be competent to arty' man to say What might be the, resttlt. Ile would say, that to have men art aim). ed on a charge of High Treason, and to give theM lists of 2.10 wit uesses sell() were summonetd. to appear ag,drist them —(heer, hear, heat' !) —to have their minds bewildered, and their hearts airicted, by a dreadful suspense, was seri ous enough ; but it was worse to have them kept day after day, denied all access to, till a bungling prosecution had' been brought against them, which ended in their acquittel. He did not tan pate putty 'blame for this proceeding to his Hon. and Learned Friends opposite. They bad done Ito more than their drily in proceeding on the ma- teriAls with which they were furnished ; bat the preparation for that proceeding was beyond their departmenl, and the .%• hole train laid for it was a disgrace on their employers, and vilified an.! de graded that which never before was any thin , - hot n subject of admiration—the ii dministration of h the criminal justice of . the coontry God forbid he should argot:, ak it had in effect been argued, that a Secretaey of State hod power to dispense with the prerogative of the Crown, in older to serve the purposes of a patty. larch CASTLEREAGH was sure . the House would agree, that 'no special ground had been made out tor the Motion, :as theie..was no charge against ',the Secretary of State of acting in ally other man ner. titan what uniform practice had authorised hint to act in, There Was no allegation against him for an abusive or novel exercise of this measure : no suggestion that the law of 1794 .liall been con travened. The suggestion was, that ,that law meant to alter , the general criminal law of the country, and to take from the.Seeretary of State all those powers that were the necessary effect of his warraia. lie apprehended, however, that it tell not merely competent to the Secretary of State to issue his warrant to keep persons in close custody charged with offences against the State; and that •theriestion did not grow out of particu lar circumstance,' of the law at present, but equally arises out Of a warrant issued, by any Magistate in the ordinary course of law: Any Magistrate might commit for High Teensort ; and if he committed under any warrant ; which did not state that the prisoner must be held in safe and dos e ctstody, he would not do his duty, The Holt. and Learned Gentleman had scented to philoso phise on this question, but what had been dime from all times down to int, only shove& that the laws cif En g land, which were wiser than the Learned Gentleman, bad seert the , distinction thaf ought tb be made bet :wren prisoners, and had des . termined 'that that distinction shoold'be taken as it was meant. He apprehended that previous to the Statute of 1791, it never We, thelwention of the latv to relax pus to the question of close cos tody for prisoners of state ; and it was an :attempt to set up the right of the Crown against time rights of the subject. No' charge of abuse-'or oppres sion wits made against' the Secretary of .State.— The whole turned on ri simple point of law, whe , thee the statute, intended to regulate houses ot correction indirectly, made any 'alteration in the general administration of the laws: , Heald ample justice to the Magistrates of the conotrylor their goOd conduct; but he could not allow rtheta to ... ...„ break down the great principles of jurisprotletice. lt . theAlagistratesthought they hall been wrongly obstructed in the itentling case, their business was amt with the House, hut with thd contts Cif I.IW. Let them apply to that quarter, and have it de cided, in a solemn manner, whether the Act at 1791 - abrogated the pOwer of the Crown to kccp prisoners in close - anti 'vitt! custody. As to tire other inats of the lion. and Leaatied Gentleman's' . peeell, never hall a more unfair effort been at. icinpiitl to - produce o wrong .impression on the I,ht)lie mind with respeetto the Int - claw trans- Iletitinc. Never had a inure unfounded view I , t.ctl taken of any . subject ; ehu.rge mew with undertaking a buoglin4 prosecii ;jou complain or the number of Joys which' , it liK,t hist, il; wits most titicandid and: unjust, He certainly latnented that the I,tte ,, Sta-te ttials hart continued so Ling, tool hart carried .sodir ; but ought Government to be aceosetit when the nature of the chafe agr.inst the 1111"Vd if ~t crt.,,. • .• s.-,_ . ,' .'"'2. .. . - iflms regimen to De sunstant:t:ec. t•iy !o hia.ly ""..i I N ? Tut I. : .h tat. OR' tri S:Ryilal )t; 1;. . puled to -111.1 i citclualtttitce, PM} tft tile Widi of , he Court to gire every rillrili- lute ma!: fvery ?0,.• %die ii.!tiiiitiige .to the, risottos. 1 3 1:t I h t 3 '.: 3 , 1 ,- " 11 1 Y rtuillter ..pvcitnen of tire ratoloitr kiith n' i si c , :' , lte ottacl,, the Learned C.l Illtedidd wcre gene* rally Itld k. tigAillit hi. Nioje.ty:s:i‘F:llliari. hl t Ilia ea.,:; Ittiwerei - , the at tempt tVtt ‘iiiArine,t,l of 11l 1)0111I, k ind iietrWri,4l w.iillti Prod,ice as vine impress:oil u hroatt, fib it tOitl ots tt,e I.Y.titie% .no* Letril A. If AiIILT-0. co ntrnartt, ri,zit.ii 0.:0 ili"sible to know wheib'er the Secre tar y tit Stal . ttad trot been goilti of a 6tase in t he roe ~list kl!, ' ll', Uislte all cointitbnicatsolii with the prinottft ' were forbidden. * - Air. C. %I'. ‘‘'yx,t;r., thOtight .that Jilt ex words at nn Act Of i'ditlicilltrltt Cldthl ;tit he voir,, trolled by an alleged 'prero,i.itivu. The l'" )1 1 • Lard bad said that z!te- Maeii.troi.tes iuy,it t.ier.r to the Courts of Law ; htit'....whett-.llinisfers IV'', directions contrary to the t.s:prti...it %voids of An Ad of Prirliament,thids "loose bail a right to tai'` ul), : . . the subject. -, -: , Y--;..'76.:, ~,' 'The !louse tben divided-- . ~,,-...,:-.;'..,i i'. Fur the Motion .. ... . .............. 55 " Th 41 :: Ag4intt it.. ............. • ........ i 5 :',•,: --• :4 Majogity ilgaitt,t th e :ration •• .-0 0 , 'i BOXOUG1•1 OF'IIAZLEMERIi• On being rebadmittcd, sve lountl-- ! • ‘ ,,i * :.: , ikir, IS AN Kes couttClitling, that A new peon, ~. presented by Sir F. B.,ritet t . from the twisty' ittl i ,J. ntin'utigh 01 Bettie:title (to:•witotti.Lintl I.OlP° -:' ' ~ w 3 s stole I to have conveyed certaiu psolterti..l'.': triable lint to gi‘e his vole) itioihi i lot lic ftc4t7..,.., eel, as proceedings %sere depetnittig upent it til l ' Courts helot v. , fl i th I) l l ) ,.e b e I ! Li e ; l i t i o c r i i i. it . :i - : l o cl t: t. c ri . * * l a l o : L .l l , i . ) l o l v til e , l : l: l l e D i t t e l B il4 ' i r cie l i l le : tur s : c l : 6 o, l ci l u tr il ict i i i i g : s t i .:gi ret l ; l l l ll l 4 : ei r nti l lc: ls iep h rp. : : :: :. l r ' l l:r ;: ci i : l l : : : : ::::: t i t l u i l il :: , inquiry slittold he made lot° the s,hject• .1 miircpresentattoo Of what ki 1..i1 I:sliact;::zictiti::',J4ol,l` ~,,hich Brill coeitt iFitto sotUe gut the plyerl . 14 ,160 ' , been represented to have said, that he wits!; l- 1 .,,,' 'the 14 an• Barone' opposite iotentled to Inin,g, -, fi0.,..' warti a 01011011 Ilia the SiatiCCl of Mt. Itc , Yl' ll lol ~,1 after ii:RlAtif y, bi: s'onild be tibie to $lO 4, 1 ' i i i ,,, , , that huts been said against that litr 9 ‘ )l ‘ t . i ' li : fat, 1"111(1,:ti. Ile bad never said any ttltch ti,"":",",.',,ie., he knew nothing whatever of Mr. Ittl""'',:i,,' s,t",tile N6tik LOOl alltided to. i9l" '.`lor. c it o e ri il i a .e t y i c le gi 3;iit.front l• kit; tbat to far fl"' il - jv r i a „ ila t eli becuttql the feriOn to it hunt die prol erl) 1 - 1 ,1 he' d be dia trot kitow thAt 0" 4 W' j'a erti" taken on the occasion. Ile (Nit. 1. , ) bar ) ( , I ,,,ice et! ti letter from that persoo, askilli.; l :// i trill io p o! a sum of moneyi_and exPressiog' ad" — foo rer i °" that cimelitibil, to retorts the pal'e rt ? Ike , ',leek*. Ot that letter be loot t a ittli Ito " 1 " 4 ter I'l r. K. ‘raisn stated, that, a Col'i jut co: pint bud beett.foitud, by whirl: it apeal ttli 6 ,' 1 i ii , ' '''l perty lull been con:4eveil to the iter" ) ." ), .., I'. ;tiv to by the Nolth, ',nisi f 8 in,mtbi bcf,,,,e 1,..rf ~,„ ~,.„ sot' . : election, atol not, t ti.etettol., as it I ° ll i) ;,be ii , ; eta,a :l l 4 i l : 411:11 e 1 16 ' s r i t r atetl:telvol;e1PHt1:111:11.1:1!;4ts;:til'11neti'lei:Illt:Iihec't,'‘IIII::'::1:i:(7:1;4:::iteli;,11::::11:3):;:11;1:1':i:''t: :111 (I'l4 relit, root it was f tic i4ree t'""''' 0 slic jr that rent, scut no: to In ike hint g' ''' 1 lb*, "Id* that he ‘Vas prosecuted. , poll( , ca Alltr a few Obv..rviitiot:.s i oro ,''' g leitt %"" ‘V in. Smith, the S k - 1 'ir v % -ut‘ Iluttse d vitied.-: pen cr,,,A , t. II }',... recd: in; the reitino.. ..... ••• ' ' 41 . Against it ............. . . •••••••'' g i.iust the Petition ••••••'.O4.iL Mr* LustElNGTot.t htutight ill ibe ',"v„,,,41;!4. Daffy,P..letritittiti:9ll.lAL7ll:r---4.1.11.11cal;:"."id t firs B t s.' t . l lil ' ::s';l:l t';l4l4 o:c for it second leading ro.lookroty. •Mr.: u ' f oot i'l . ...., , 611INGVOS presetilVti 8 11 •Itej, , 6,;14!• !Mather ot . L;retlies granted for '''" l ," iO lOl/ Laid rte: the table,' sold opierrti to arc; l". Adjotteuttl. PEDEST 1 c m, a , l i ve 7 4 i st tri r. day,. , E. gone forty-60A miles allti p oc evf.ni"A&F-ti rested at a guar rust te u t lid fill t occult-10191)rd forty-eta-. 000' j a ou tti . at day. 13. Khrt stalled yoier!,,Y, et 5"1 web, having then tree} '":,t),10(;!), which at hvatl "ccnotpiitikvd 30-01 quarters.-"'" "is `)l)Pornlit f)l,. nine toile4 colltioned to travtl °"', 11)11. tim".lllll4l)jett to; RACER two mites 0 01 :lo rt t(' tee :91112:11''ttl'irlii:edril t,,re on the grown l to wit vets the tttli'i'lj:).'cl.iCt.j! ::15grent contest♦ it commenced At tl.O t h e d.CritnOti of the 7ch i>t mairtY"v° (Lays. After the iertnitiatioi) 'toed f 44," pedestiidiis “tiit 114.4 051,09' Provitietti°otolletik:Citiite'ce,:aavttrt On the eth ;cwt. at the c ll nn ig t lit taile , i • Soi ti ' l II"' Lady of Gorges 1.,0wtt,,„1-,F.-(1 44 J''''4"l' ili fi'. On Fed 1 the On r0,,..1.ty last, at the V:eiralt.nott.ie, St 1' 1 _ 1 ,,1:. ' ,./ I' ~..,,,rvitateity. uarlltsii,...ne. intki! OW i..:JiAeJ l -1,, , , '' A ei , Ggii"*(4‘ the 1.04; a the Rev, 11. K, Cr,e'lt '4,3, -..' ...--. . ; ---- , 1,4 StAnltthii• .14 12"',,,e Ott Saturthty hist, at paty.le.k. ate SOY i-71:4.111.. '3 6 0 %31 , fl,,T4nester, eit:ro ,on fa' ;ti: 11,..tol'etttri, ..!:::liiiierv• 1 , w.tne.litsex. C. Fanny FL het), 1,01,:e ' t ° .i: t',,lii` ilat,'Willitut, El.tnw.i.:sl4. 4 Once' Aritotr:le vof On Niatid‘r wort:init., at the is:4.w (II," d;:i ~,,,,,,iliN,'d,,il ;f„itot.T Deitoy. 1,..01. ~,,n of the tote itrv.. 4 t ,re 1. m , .11, rsf;; , ''' VblTCltiti, l cv.1•4:1 Oi i.vri:., to Oa itoo• 4 0 ,10 1, . ."""Cett tirtnithreil:f the Lc, it ~..ht .111,,,,,, Party l) no the ICtli fA*l' • . ' 1 C.`l'l3iik " 1 ock , t ,, 4: —Tort .nt I put .1 oh i t •'• ' -lista% N m•ke, of ti n : 114 ki I:figtato,. ,o. itisit'l ,I 1)" 1•0011‘.' hit, at CI os ~. r) , WAt,c'iTi. ilel-4" I A 'tilt r. r..11:40 iy‘of 1.-04-$) 'id-Y.' 1;e1, Dettli"ll 4. 1 'l# no . ill; "to, i, ; . 4 : '' A l,, .A *.arlr ti.tr , :tV ' ' 1 i . COl*'.l I" ..'1 °at ~%,11,4 ett. (4on 1.4.,*4.. 4\ r , RI:li Horce i, •ii • -1 G ' i tly PoP" i hat 1.1..5e. . 11•. o y, atb. ?r,IIIOC 1.1 . . , e . ,ll li ' 0 • ' / ".lati4r 130. io fif.l.Verl.rl,lo,. ''il 60 wan'4"ter 0 .I.lr. woi T. 4415. r, meta P...„,,'-'.4,10,, ;,.., ivtii of N1...5, at ',t. J,.tso*s; .01;-„,`,0! ,' . 7rl'.. 1,,1. a. 14.) 71t 8. ,ir•, a 11,,ti,ier ot ~.,•;01,.."10/ 14 . ats, ao,i f=aaterty its his Aajestr's ii•v.'' ...........................--..........-.......-- ......... -..... --....1.177: ...1, ) ' '''''''"" ' 'o , i'' (k . ,e L(MTION- po i te 4 t f t v J. )I„,CARSiie, • I iji :v 4 tttilitind-ttEt 4,4, .0.:,,e siail* iell 1 poik'l" 1,114 / if•,:"trl'S .'t N't,. ' 1. .4 17 :ktit AjoltiliVilter. 3t lii. --:•ce, ill, ;:ilj, nl.4rt. Adrettisectlells LA t 00111 d t"ri, "r". .L..0;;•414a,i,' . .