The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-18 00:00:00

'Alembcr had given of himself, he (Lord Althorp) looked
upon as a case of residence lea Lincoln. The Hon. Member,
though he might be several months absent from Lincoln,
hvpt a house and an establishment there. If he shut up
his house and removed his establishment, then he would.
become a non-resident in the sense of the Bill.
Mr. HOPE did not think that the freehoirters who at
present possessed the right of voting in borough towns
were more connected with agriculture than they were wi'h
the trading interests of the towns where their franchige
existed. He did not sea 'such merit in the Bill, and the
whole Bill, as to induce him to act upon the advice of the
Attorney-General and to support this clause.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN rose, and was proceeding to
address the Committee upon a comparison between the
I.ltit and 18th clauses of the Bill, when
Lord ALTHORP rose, and stated that the 18th clause
had b: en materially altered, and until it was before tl e
Committee, it was a waste of time to discuss it. He had
altered the clause to the effect that no person should he
deprived of his vote for a freehold in a county unless that
freehold should confer upon him the right of voting for a
town. A second alteration was, that if a man should let
his freehold to a tenant who by his lease should acquire a
right of voting, the landlord should not like his vote fat
the county.

Sir E. SUGDEN maintained, that by this arranee-
ment the Noble Lord had deserted his own principle.
Towns, such as Brighton and Southwark, for iestente,
contained many freeholds, the owners of le-Melt Would be
thrown into the constituency of the coontive, and thus the
aristocracy, particularly if a county were divid.d, would
lose their just influence. The effect of dividing counties
would he to give additional weieht to towns, end he could
never be persuaded that cutting counties Into two could
make either part of the nature of a nomination return to
that House. If he thought that such would be the effect,
he would oppose the clause, for he was a friend to a full
end free constituency. He found particular fault with the
Bill, for it was a system of errors and compromises, and
if one clause created votes, or deprived persona of th&r
votes, there was sure to come some other clause which did
the very reverse. Miserable would be the country that
laboured under such a changeable Constitution as this till
would introduce. He objected to non-residente being pre_
vented noting for towns, when the same regulation was
not to be observed in counties. He should propose to the
te'unmittee that those who held freeholds in towns that
were counties of themselves, should not.be alloeeed to vote
in right of those freeholds for the county at large, and he
would introduce a clause into the Bill which would pre-
vent the fabrication of fraudulent freeholds. Ile was an
advocate fir a real representation of the people, but the
only question with him at that moment was, what would
heat secure the rights of the aristocracy. He was anxious
that these rights should be protected, not so much for the
benefit of the aristocracy as fur the people at Imre. He
should decidedly oppose the proposition that the Commis-
sioners should have any power in fixing the boundaries of
those towns which were counties of themselves, for all
such boundaries were already ascertained and registered.
Lord ALTHORP reminded the Hon. and Learned
gentleman that he had suggested nothing in his speech
that bad not been suggested before. lie could not think
of occupying the time of the Committee by going into
the 18th clause, before the clause was regularly before it ;
am/ he should now only observe that the Bill g ,oe no new
rights to freeholders in towns; whilst the admission of
copyholders and leaseholders to county elections would di-
minish the b+lance which was in favour of towns. All
chit the Bill hid done was to place the freeholders in
towns which were counties as much as possible on the
tame footing as those of towns that were not counties.
He was himself sorry to give the Commissioners a power
to alter the limits of towns which were counties, but he
had not yet heard anything suggeetrd that could enable
him to dispense with this arrangement. The report of
the Commissioners was to be laid upon the tables of both
Houses of Parliament, and he would confess that it would
be desirable that the report should in no case be considered
:alit! until it was approved of by both Houses.

Sir C. WETHERELL slid that tie Noble L,wd bad
now given up a point which he had formerly refused to
concede. It was the constant vaunt, the great boast, of
the originators of the 161 l that its characteristic feature
was, that it was, and would be final ; and yet the Noble
Lord -now came forward with a propOsition which he
only a few days ago strenuously resisted, and which
would, to all intents and purposes, effect an entire
alteration in the principles and wotkings of the
(Hear, hear.) It aprearrd that the town freeholders
were to be separated from the towns, and thrown into the
counties. Whence this change, so destructive to the rural
electors ? If they thus disconnected, for mere Parliamen-
tary purposes, the freeholders from towns, on what grounds
could they call upon those freeholders to pay the several
town-rates and taxes to which they were at present.
liable? And what would be the effects of their thus over-
whelming the county electors with town freeholders?
Why, simply to destroy the landed representation alto.
gether.—(Hear, hear.) In Staffordshire, for example,
they would have an irruption of 600 or 700 of these town
freeholders from Lichfield alone, not to say any thing of
other places, and so far there could be no agricultural re-
presentative from that county. The Noble Lord's bonus
to the landed interest would then, after all, act as a
subversion of that interest : it was, in fact, a specks of
ignis fatuus, accustoming the country gentlemen to po-
litical fraud, and which would inevitably lead them to
destruction.

Sir A. DALRYMPLE al•o considered, that the gene-
ral effect of the Bill would be injurious t the landed in-
terests. If they drew a line in 'Warwick-hire, for example;
which was to return four county Members, they would
tied that Birminghem would return two of these Mem-
bers, besides its own two, and Coventry the other two ;
that is, that the representation would be completely in the
hands of the town electors, to the cost of the county or
lands d interest.---(Hear.) Indeed, at the last election,
the Birmingham Political Union was so influential, that
no Anti-Rolormer durst present himself to the meeting ;
and he was in'ormed that it might, if it so thought tit,
have nominee.' the candidates.

Lord ALTHORP was surprised at the inconsistency of
the Hon. Member who spoke last. The Hon. Member
said that, in point of feet, the Birmingham Political Union
did return the four Members which Warwickshire sent to
that House, and yet taunted Ministers with their Bill as
being likely to produce the elf ct already in existence.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member hit. Bo-
roughlat idge, in his usualerratic mariner, told them that be
eared not whether the electors belonged to the towns or to
the counties. He believed the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man—he believed it was a matter of perfect indifference to
biro how the Bill or its clauses were worded, or whether it
passed into a law or otherwise.—(Hear, hear.) Otherwise
he could not account for his taunts at Ministers for having
yielded to the suggestions of expediency, and consented to
submit the report of the Commissioners on the county di-
visions to the ultimate decision of the House. He should
have rather expected the commendation of the Hon. Mem-
ber, as the proposition had emanated from his side of the
House, and had been adopted by Ministers for its intrin-
sic merits, regardless of all imputations on the score of
change.—(Hear.) But, after all, what did this great
change amount to ? Certainly it affected not the principle
of the Bill, and was a mere questio❑ as to the point of its
machinery.—(Hear.) But thus it was that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was magnifying every mole-bill into
a great mount tin.—(Hear.) Of this disposition to ix-
aggerate they had a striking instance in the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's allusion to Staffordshire. The Bill,
said he, will have the effect of pouring in five, nay, six,
and as it was, 700 town freeholders from Lichfield alone,
among the county electors. Now, what was the fact?
Shnply, that there were but 210 such freeholders in the
whole district—(Hear)—and out of those they would have
to deduct those voters whose freehold bestowed upon them
a vote for the representation of those towns
Mr. HOLDSWORTH considered that the Bill would
bestow a prepobderating influence upon the towns over
the rural electors. Indeed, the last election showed that
such was too much the case, even under the present system.

Mr. KEMP would not deny the influence of the Bir-
mingham Political Union in Warwickshire, or that a
'thong feeling existed in the late election of that county
against Anti-Reform candidates, but yet would maintain
that that influence, and that feeling, were not carried to
such an extent as to deprive Anti-Refurniers of a fair

Mr J. E. DENISON said the simple • •
which representation should the freeholders
toowt e counties
guesft'hin was,
for.
for the of towns have votes for the tuture, or
,for
.the
county at large. This question did not affect t 11).
of the Bill, nor would it, perhaps, be
of
any
geneerl3llinciple
impor-
tance on which side the vote of the House that ev.-nio
should preponderate. But it was a matter of considerable
local importance, and on that recount he called the atten-
tion of the House to its operation. One of the effects of
the Bill before the House, was to divide into classes the
various interests which entered into its composi-
tion, and at least for the purpose of the present
discussion to devote to each class the protection
of some distinct interest. For instance, additional Mem-
bers were to be given to counties to maintain the interests
of the land, and to the esisting Membeis fur counties the
land looked for its protection in the present discussions.
It was on this account, as Member for a county, that he
called the attention of the House to this clause—nut that
personally he was attached with too bigotteti a partiality

to thy exclusive interest, or was 'trot ready most fully to
acknowledge the nsef‘al effects with which all the
great interests act -d and re-acted mutually one
upon the other. What, then, should guide the House
t.tl tt right decision on the present question ? Surely great
weight should be attached to the Character of these
voters themselves, and to the consideration of theit own
peculiar and intrinsic interests. His Honourable and
Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) had stated that in
his opinion, these votes generally partook rather of the
character of rural than of town votes; and in speaking of
these votes in Nottingham he said that a large proportion
of them had been manufactured for the purpose of balanc-
ing parties in timer; of strong political excitement, that
they were not resident, and many had never :ten the free-
holds in right of which they Vot6l. tie thought his Hon.
and Learned Friend could not be quite correct in that state-
ment. He did hr."; pretend to compare his local acquaintance
with the politics of the town of Nottingham to that of his
Honourable and Learned Friend t but in looking at
a paper which had been laid oh the table of the House,
he saw that 7t+o of these freehold voters were resident
in the town, awl there could be no doubt that the
interests of these 750 residents Were tuttcia more closely
identified with the town than with the county at large.
Would it be a br;al-1 to these voters, who had through the
whole ea:l'm of their lives exercised their franchise in the
tmvn, who had formed attachments to parties and to can-
didates, who were many of them warmly devoted to his
Hon. and Learned Friend, now suddenly to remove them
from thin snore limited sphere; and to transplant them
into the larger and less congenial mass of the
county representation ? Certainly not. He would net be
misunderstood on this point; no one more willingly ac-
knewledged the value of that part of the county constitu-
ency which resided in towns; but this laud went to take
away the right from the bankers, the merchants, the
principal tradesmen, because they would vote for the town
in the right of their ten-pound houses, while it continued
the privilege to the smaller class of freeholders, who pro-
bably had more circumscribed and purely local interests.
The tlause, indeed, attempted to do too much ; it tried
to avoid a seeming anomaly, and created a substantial
grievance. It might easily be awlified, but if he were
called upon to vote for it as it now stood, or for the amend-
ment; he must prefer the amendment, and vote against
the original clause.
After a short reply from Colonel DAVIES, the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—

For the clause
164
Against it l!4
Majority for Ministers --40

On our return to the gallery we found Mr. BERNAL
and Lord ALTIIORI' busily employed in filling up the blanks
in clause 16. After this task was accomplished, and be-
fore the clause was put from the chair,
Mr. D. GILBERT proposed an amendment, but not a
word of his amendment, or of the speech which preceded
it, was audible in the gallery.
Previously to the CIIAIRP.IAN'S putting the question on
Mr. Gilbert's amendment, he said that he wished for the
directions of the Committee how he should proceed.
There were already • three notices of amendments to be
moved on this clause, and he was at a loss to know how
he ought to proceed in point of order.
Mr. D. GILBERT was understood to apologise for his
irregularity.
Some conversation then took place between Sir R.
PEEL, Sir E. SUGDEN, and Mr. D. GILBERT, but its
object was not intelligible in the gallery.
Sir E. SUGDEN suggested that the proper time for
discussing the Hon. Member for Bodmin's amendment
would he at the close of that on the clause itself.
Mr. D. GILBERT, we believe, acceded to the recom-
mendation of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.

Lord ALTHORN then moved as an amendment, that
the word " bad" should be inserted in the clause instead
of " seized." _ _ _

Sir E. SUGDEN said it had been repeatedly ruled in
Courts, both for law and equity, that " seized" was the
correct legal word.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL replied, that the word
" having" occurred in an old statute, and as the present
clause gave a right of voting to a new class, namely, copy-
holders, it had been deemed preferable to use a word
which would apply to both. The objection was merely
technical, and if it appeared valid to the Committee, he
presumed that Ministers would make no diffietalty of as-
senting. It was the object of the clause to give a power
of voting to lessees and sub-lessees, who had a permanent
and sufficient interest in the land (that is, a lease in pos-
session) for a certain number of years. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, we believe, specified sixty years. He
also added, that it was not intended to affect the right of
any existing freeholders, but the Bill would merely place
copyholders on a common footing with leaseholders.
Sir E. SUGDEN observed, that the word which at
present stood would he better adapted to embrace both
classes than that proposed. This clause, he found, would
actually give four votes under different tenures out of the
same property—(Hear, hear)—and was otherwise so objec-
tionable that it was impossible it could work well. He
should therefore have no hesitation in opposing it.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON was decidedly averse to the
clause, because it would have the eff-ct of giving lessees
and landlords a power of creating votes ad libitum ; and
should a clause of the same tendency be introduced into
the Scotch Reform Bill, he would infinitely prefer abiding
by the present system of representation, pernicious as that
a)stern had been found in its operation. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman went on to contend that no person
but the tenant in possession ought to vote. The vote of
the intermediate party should not be allowed.
Sir C. WETHERELL said the object of the Noble
Lord was, that the lessee should, under particular circum-
stances, lie placed passibus equis with the freeholder, but
in this clause the lessee went a step farther than the free-
holder. There could he but one vote out of the same free-
hold, but there might be two out of the leasehold. He did
not object to the principle of the leaseholder voting in par-
ticular instances, and of certain value, but lie did object
to any person voting but the tenant in possession.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not object to derivative votes,
provided the parties had profitable interests to the amount
named in the Bill ; but according to the terms of this
clause, a man who had land for a term of two hundred
years might create one hundred and forty votes out of it.
Letting it out to one man for one hundred and ninety-nine
years would create one vote ; then that man underletting it
for one hundred and ninety-eight years would be the
second, and so on till it came down to sixty years ; for
each of the lessees or assignees to whom it was to be so
leased or assigned would, according to the wording of this
clause, be an assignee or lessee of the " original term." If
this were not the clause, it should be so stated in the clause
itself. But the be.it cure fur all these anomalies would be
to make profit, and not rant, the criterion of the franchise.
Let no man vote on any lease or assignment who -had not
an interest of 101. a year profit on it.
Lord MILTON complained of the principle of extend-
ing the. franchise to leaseholders. He did not object to
eopyholders, but he had a decided objection to giving the
franchise to leaseholders, because he believed that its ten-
dency was oligarchical. It introduced a class of men
who were more dependent on their landlords, and who
were likely to overbalance the, independent interest in
counties. If this was intended as a sort of compensation
to the landed interest for the less of influence they were
supposed to sustain by the slaughter of the small boroughs,
then ire must say that it ' as quite at variance with the
avowed principles of the Bill. This extension of the
franchise to 10/. leaseholders would have a material effect
upon the division of landed property, injurious to agricul-
ture, as that property would have a tendency to run into
those divisions and tenures which gave the franchise under
' the Bill, rather than unto those masses which best pro-
moted the interests of agriculture. He would, therefore,
move that that part of the clause extending the franchise
to leaseholders be annulled.
The CHAIRMAN reminded the Noble Lord, that they
had not yet come to that part of the clause.
Mr. WESTERN said, that the proposition of the Noble
Lord would have a direct tendency to exclude the great
mass of the tenantry of England from the franchise, to
which he (Mr. Western) could not consent.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL contended that there
was no more anomaly in four persons having a right to
vote out of the same property, if they had a 101. interest
in it, than there would be in allowing twenty persons to
vote out of the same property with a 40s. interest each.
As to profit. and not rent, being the criterion of the fran-
chise, he contended that the only certain criterion to go by
was rent. It would be impossible to go over a tenant's
accounts to see whether he had a profit of 101. or not,
but the rent was always certain, and it was fair to assume
that no man would take a lease of a property to lose by it ;
or if he did lose, he was still the representative of pro
perry, fur int
if he hadu „ n
he roust ussta:,:t that
esecapital to enable him to go on
he could not go on,
and tF,en,
itself.
Gentleman
w went woonutl cd
on-
tend that the yeomanry of England too
the
francielirsee and
dmportant a
body to be excluded from
. pendent to make them unworthy of trer trt°us3t indelf
-
; I there was any doubt about
the meaning of the
words
lessees or assignees ()film migiaal term," these words
would set the mater right.
Sir R. PEEL pot it to the Committee, whethe'r the
difficulties which had been started, on the instant, did cot
prove that the chain wan open to very valid objections._.

(Hear.) If the Noble Lord wished to tender the Bill ter-
fed, Considering the advanced state of the session, c( n-
sidering the defection of some of the Members, and co• -
sidering the condition of the Bill, he (Sir R. Peel) would
propose to the Noble Lord an adjournment of three months
in order that they might give to this important measure it
fit consideration —(Cheers from the Opposition.) If it
was the object of the Noble Lord to make the Bill pet feet,
and it *as no imputation upon his Majesty's Govern-
ment
that a measure of this kind was not perfect,—no.
thing would more conduce to that end than to release the
House, at this period of the year, from these protracted
sittings, in order that his Majesty's Government might ap-
ply their attention to matters of importance—matters of
foreign as well as of domestic policy—( Hear, hear)-3,0
that the House might have an opportunity of considering
the operation of the Bill, instead of urging them night
after night to come to a decision.—(Hear, hear.) In his
opinion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-
General) had not touched the real difficulties of the
case, and the objections of his Learned Friends remained
unanswered.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord bad admitted
I that great abuses existed in respect to freehold interests,
and yet the Bill tended to introduce the same abuses
in leasehold interests.—(Hear.) In the present state
of the clause, it appeared to afford every opportunity to the
operation of electioneering influence. He would not enter
into the questions which had been mooted in anticipation
until the clause to which they related came before the Com-
mittee. He repeated that, as it at present stood, the clause
would make the abuses in respect to leasehold property as
great as those which related to freeholds; and lie implored
the Noble Lord not to press the Bill with such haste, but
by a long adjournment to give the House an opportunity of
properly considering its effect and operation.—(Cheering
from the Opposition.)
Lord ALTHORP said that the Committee would not
expect that he should consent to the proposal of the Right
Hon. Baronet.—(Hear.) He admitted the difficulty that
had been suggested by the Hon. and Learned Member fin•
Coekermouth (Sir James Scarlett), which must be re-
medied. The object of his Nlaje-ty's Ministers in framing
this clause was this,—they thought that the landed
te-
nantry of this country ought to have a power of voting in
county elections. He did not think the difficulties sug-
gested were a reason why they should adjourn the Parlia-
ment for the purpose of considering an amendment which
could be so soon made.—(Hear.)

Mr. Serjeant WILDE observed, that the object of a
great many swzgestions which had been made like that of
the Right Hon. Baronet was to get rid of the Bill altoge-
ther.—(Hear.) The question with respect to this clause
was,—first, whether a right was given to those who ought
to possess it; and secondly, whether or not it was given
in such a way as rendered it liable to abuse. In both
these respects the Hon. and Learned Member considered

the clause defensible. The alteration which had been
made in this clause, from " who shall be seized of and in
any lands or tenements for an estate for life," to " who
shall have any lands or tenements for life," was justified
on the ground that the word have was used in all former
election statutes, and its meaning was sufficiently defined.
It had been said that the clause was unintelligible; but he
thought it free from doubt. The lion. and Learned
Member read the clause, contending that there was no
ambiguity. though it might go further than was intended.
With respect to the abuses that had been suggested, he
thought it very unlikely that persons would part with in-
terests, and render themselves liable to covenants or other
obligations, merely to create votes.
Sir• J. SCARLETT suggested the expediency of di-
viding the prts.,nt clause, containing three distinct sub-
jects, into three different enactments.
Mr. HUNT said, that the mechanic who earned 21. or
Si. a-week, would feel aggrieved at being deprived of the
elective franchise, while property of 101. a-year might be
so divided as t 4 give the right of voting to three different
persons.
Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the clause, as it stood at
present, because it tended to create such votes as Scotch
superiorities. He hoped that a franchise of value. would
be adopted instead. •
Lord ALTHORP did not anticipate much difference of
opinion with respect to the question 'of giving the elective
franchise in counties to copyholders, and he therefore pro-
posed to go on with the clause to night, until such part of
it as related to copyholders should be disposed of.
Colonel SIBTHORPE was of opinion that the House
ought now to adjourn.
Colonel Woon and Mr. WYNN thought that copy-
holderit ought to be placed on the same footing as free-
holders with respect to the right of voting. They sug-
gested that copyholders of 40s. should possess the elective
franchise.

The CHAIRMAN then read that part of the clause which
gives the right of voting to copyhOlders posse.;sing pro-
perty of the value of 101. a year.
Colonel WOOD thought it was time for the House to
adjourn. (It was nearly one o'clock.) If the House pro-
ceeded with the consideration of this clause, he should
move that copyholders posse-sing property of the value of
403. a year should he entitled to vote at county elections.

(Cries of " Go on.")
Lord ALTHORP was not favourable to the suguested
amendment. He thought that the number of bond fide
copvholds of less value than 101. wrs very small.
Colonel WOOD thought that copyholders ought to be
put on the same footing as freeholders for the purposes of
this Bill. He wished to give every encouragement to the
lower classes to aim at independence; and, in his opinion,
no better mode could be adopted for producing that effect,
than that of enabling them to exercise the elective fran-
chise. It was a privilege calculated to stimulate their
feelings of pride, and to make them anxious to avoid any
application for parochial assistance ; because, as gentlemen
well knew, the vote of him who received parochial assist-
ance would not be received. The Noble Lord might
smile ; but such he believed to be the lac, because he
who received parochial assistance must have given up all
his property, and could then have no right to vote. In
the year 1785 Mr. Pitt wished to enfranchise the copy-
holders; and he did not think that at this time of day
he could be censured f,r taking the same coutse. In
doing this, his great object was to raise the lowest class
of society from the state of degradation in which they
must see that too many of them were plunged, and
to give to them that interest in the welfare of the state
which at the present moment they had too many
reasons to believe did nut exist. If his amend-
ment (which was to substitute forty shillings for ten
pounds) was rejected at one o'clock in the morning, when
he had been forced to bring it forward—if the case of the
forty-shilling copyholders was to be neglected—whilst that
of the fifty-pound renters and sixty-ye trs leaseholders bad
been discussed irregularly during the while evening, be
would only say that in bringing the subject before the
House he had done what he conceived to be his duty,
and those who were interested would form their own
opinion of the manner in which their claim had been
dealt with.

Lord ALTHORP opposed the amendment ; but he en-
tirely denied that he or his colleagues wished unjustl) to
exclude forty-shilling voters. On the contrary, they were
desirous of bringing the franchise 'as low as they could
with propriety.
After a few words from Mr. CRESSET PELHAM and Mr.
TaEvort,
Colonel WOOD stated that he did not wish to divide
the Committee on his amendment.

The amendment was then negatived, and the clause was
filled up with " ten pounds."

The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported pro.
greys, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and at a
Quarter before Two o'clock the House adjourned.

We arc sorry to state that the colliers in the
employ of the Earl of LONSDALE, at Whitehaven, are at
present off work, in consequence of an attempt to form a
Union or Combination Society. We understand that in
the course of the past week two delegates in the form of
Banter Preachers, and occasionally acting as such, arrived
here from Lancashire, to aid the men to carry their plan
into effect.— Whitehavat Packet.

AWFUL TERMINATION OF A CASE OF
CHOLERA MORBUS.-It is our painful duty to state that
the cholera morbut has appeared in this city, and thrt one
case which occurred last week has exhibited a most ag-
gravating termination. A yourg woman residing in
South-street was seized with a violent spasmodic affection,
to such a degree as left no doubt in the minds of the
beholders of the dreadful character of the malady
medical gentleman was instantly sent for, but the fitst
application was vain as the practitioner himself was too
is to attend. A swift messenger was despatched to a
second doctor, but alas! lie was absent. The imagina-
tion in vain attempts to describe the alarm that instantly
took possession of South-street. A quarantine was laid
on the house into which the pestilence had entered, in
hopes that it might be kept there, and a third application
for medical advice, having proved successful, the hapless
patient was visited by a compett•nt judge, who pronounced
her to be labouring under the cholera, and hastened to pro-
cure certain specifics. But the disease had assumed a
formidable aspect, and it was evident that the invalid
Was sick, « past all surgery," -fur shocking •to relate, in
less than ten minutes after the departure of the doctor,
she was delivered of a fine female child !-- Woofer's Exeter
actecne,