The Sun.
London, England, 1803-04-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PA RLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF PEERS.
THURSDAY, APRII,

Ttr I Order of the Day being lead forthe second
reading of Markham's Divorce Bill, Counsel and
Evidence were called, from whose statement it ge-
nerally appeared, that the Petitioner was elle Rev..
Dr. George Markham, Dean of York, and son to
the Archbishop of that Province—that•he was mar-
ried in June 1759,. to his. now wife Elizabeth Eve.
lyn Sutton., and
.daughter of the' late Sir Richard
Sutton, Bart. of NOo.vood, in the county of Not.
tingham ; that they lived and cohabited together
until the month of Odober 1801, when it was dis-
covered that a criminal and .adulterous intercourse
had taken place between the'Lady andiohn Faw-
cetr, Esq. of Facehy, in the county of York, who
was a Captain in ithe
In consequence of this discovery, the Petitioner
Dr. Markham brought his a&ion in the Court of
King's Bench, Westminster, against.Captaio Faw.
cett for criminal conversaticn with his wife, and
obtained a judgment against him for 70601. damages.
The usual proceeding fora Divorce a mensa et
thorn were afterwards instituted on. the part of,the
Petitioner in.-the Consistory Court of the Arch.
bishop of York,' where a sentence to that elle& was
obtained. Ihe issue of the marriage was ten chi].
dren. The important fad of thq. adUltary was
abundant]; proved by the narratiVe of the tyldence
at the Bar, a derailed exposition of which we are
precluded, for obvious 'reasons, from- giving.
The hearing at the Bar was not concluded, the
evidence which was ready at the time.to prove "the
celebration of the jnarriage was, it appeared; riot
adequate for the purpose, it being required in the
course of their Lordships' usual proceedings that.
persons who were present thereat shout() come for.
ward ; the names of His Grace the Archbishop of
York and of Captain Markham, very near rela-
tives to the Petitioner, were mentioned as wit-
oesses who could prove the solemnization of the
marriage in the way above mentioned ; but on ac.
count of some apparent mistake, or other cause,
these persons were then not present;
Another consideration was, with resped to the
property which, had accrued to the 'Lady since mar-
respeding which some inquiries were made
by one or two of their Lordships, of the Counsel,
&c. with a reference to a proper adjustment of the
relevant clauses of the Bill.
In consequence of the above, and to enable the
Counsel to he prepared with evidence, &c. their
Lordships adjourned the further hearing of the case
till to-morrow.

Lord Viscount DUi.KELEY was sworn and took
his Seat.
The various Bills Wore the House were for.
warded in their respeCtive stages, among which
were the three Irish Private Bills, to which the at-
tention of the House had been drawn by Lord
RcowsnAt.c., which were read a third time and
ravied ; and their Lordships, in'a Committee, went
through the Sugar Duties Drawback Bill, and the
Innkeeper,.' Subsistence Bill, which were ordered to
be reported to-morrow.
Some private business was then d:sposed of; after
Which an adjournment took place.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THURSDAY, APRIL 28.

THE House tnet at an early hour, and proceeded
to ballot fur Committees to try the merits of the
Petitions complaining of undue Elections for Taunton,
and Roston.•

Names of the Committee upon the Taunton Elcc-

ti!ln :
i' . Boller, of IVoit-Loe, Esq.
ohn Lowther, Esq.
onati►a►t Maine, Esq.
Henry Peirse, Esq.
Walter Nik,-Esq. .
James lirogilen, l
Win. Sturgess, Esq.
Richard Kenyon, Esq.

George Smith, Esq.
Walter I.
I. I-Lnrilvn Wit'taint, Esq.
Lord William Stuart, -
Win. Burroughs, Lsq.
GW.:3, Esq..
Rowland Burdon, Esq.

. _
Names of the Commit tee for the Boston Elcc-

tion :

Henry Holland, Esq. Geo—Pocock, Esq.
j. B. Walsh, Esq. . Geo. WlNlay' Esq.
Samuel Scott, Et q. 'l.lc I lOn. lA. Finch,
Win. Middleton, Esq. Lord Arch. Ilawilton,
I. Blackburn, of Newport, john Atkins, Esq.
Esq. J. lion. F. West,
The Hon. lohn Scott, Thornas'erever, Esq.
1. P. Bastard, Esq. flcnry loddrel, Esq.
When the Gallery was opened,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved,
that the House should be called over on Thursday
next, which was agreed to, and also the other Lou!
Motions.