The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-10 00:00:00

MARLBORO UGH-STREET.

George 11lorris, an apprentice lad, just entering
into his seventeenth year, was brought before Mr.
C:ONANT, the sitting Magistrate, by Mr. Stevens,
one of the officers of St. George's parish, to have a
child affiliated upon him, which Ann Gardner, a fe-
male apparently upwards of forty years of age, had
sworn he was the father of.

The parties had been before the Magistrate pre-
viously ; but owing to the disparity of ages, and the
strenuous denial of the boy, the case was adjourned
for the purpose of making further inquiry, and
obtaining professional assistance. From questions
which were put to the woman by the Solicitor who
appeared on behalf of the boy, it transpired that
they both lived at Mr. Bowtall's, a farrier, the
one as an apprentice, and the other as servant of
all-work. The woman, however, could not state
any day or date when the connexion took place,
but contented herself with affirming that it had
occurred in the drawing-room of her master's
house, somewhere about the time of the Coronat ion;
end that if " George was not the father, then her
child never had a father." On being closely ques-
tioned, the solicitor drew from her that she had a
child before, and that the father to whom she had
sworn it, was a lad under twenty. She admitted
that she was on terms of friendship with Mr. Bow-
Mire groom, and had been with him in the stables;
but she denied that any improper familiarities had
taken place.

Mr..CoNaNT said it was evident that Ann Gard-
ner was a woman of loose propensities, and it was
impossible to conceive otherwise than that she had
been the seducer in place of the seduced. He
therefore considered he ought to request the officer
to suggest to the parish the propriety of taking the
necessary steps to punish her as a lewd woman.
Mr. Stevens promised to make this representa-
tion ; and as the Magistrate had no other alterna-
tive, owing to the imperative nature of the law,
than to make the order, the boy was directed to
pay 2s. 6d. a week for the future maintenance of a
child which he denied being father to.
UNION-HALL.
Yesterday the three lads, who were remanded
last week on a charge of having endeavoured to
extort money from a person who called himself Mr.
Cousins, and represented himself as the son of a
banker, were brought up for re-examination. It
was stated by Mr. Chandler, landlord of the com-
plainant, that he had clandestinely absconded with-
out paying his rent. Upon this the boys were dis-
charged.

Such is the increase of the shipping trade in
, is more than
the port of Neath this year, that the amount of tonnage,
as appears from the Custom-house returns
double the quantity
as compared with the same period last
year.— Welshman,

Mr. GORDON presented a petition from Brainsford
against the annual grant to the College of Maynooth.
Mr. WILRRAHAM presented a petition from the
county of Chester, complaining of the amount of the
taxes levied by the magistrates, of the expense of the sys-
tem on which the county gaol is at present conducted, the
same of the county lunatic asylum, and of the general ex-
pense of the county. One thing he would particularly
notice was the Local Constabulary Act, which was passed
on the recommendation of the Magistrates about four
years ago. That Act added greatly to the expense of the
county, without in the least doing any equivalent good.
He was told that it was tried as an experiment for the coun-
try generally, but why should the county of Chester be taxed
for that purpose? He thought it would be of incalcula-
ble service to the public if Magistrates were obliged to do
the business at the Quarter Sessions in an open Court.
Lord GROSVENOR defended the conduct of the Ma-
gistrates. Though the petition purported to be the peti-
tion of the county, it was not, like many that had lately
been presented, agreed to at a meeting of 6,000 persons.
He would undertake to say that not sixty attended the
meeting. It was, in fact, merely the petition of Mr.
Davis Davenport, the only Magistrate who attended the
meeting. The House would come to the same conclusion
as him, when they knew that there were only five resolu-
tions agreed upon at it, and that the first, third, and
fourth were proposed by Mr. Davenport himself, while
the fifth was merely a vote of thanks to him.
Mr. LAMB, in answer to a question which had been
put to him, said he could not determinately say whether
or not the General Police Bill would be extended to
Cheshire; it would, however, be considered.

Mr. WARBURTON had been requested to support the
petition. It was most desirable and necessary that the
people belonging to the different counties should not only
have the county expenditure properly regulated, but that
they should know that it was so.

Mr. PAGET and Mr. C. PELHAM also Supported the
petition.

- 'Mr. WILBRAHAM begged to observe that he wished
to convey no imputation whatever upon the Magistrates,
and with regard to the interference of Mr. Davenport at
the meeting, it was very common for some one person to
act a prominent part. The petitioners felt themselves much
burdened, particularly in regard to the expense of the con-
stabulary, and they had a perfect right to come to this House.
So far from their statements being exaggerated, he showed
by documents that they had understated their causes of
complaints. As to the constabulary, they should not
solely be appointed to protect the mansions or game pre-
serves of the great, but also to protect the property of the
public generally.

Mr. HUMS asked whether individuals should be ap-
pointed to the magistracy having no interest in the county,
but who should have the power to tax the people. It
appeared to him that it was so in Cheshire, and it was a
great evil; another point was that the appeals were disposed
of by the Magistrates with closed doors. That he con-
conceived was a heavy grievance, and one which ought to
be redressed. Another point was that the clergy were so
busy with their Magisterial duties, that they could not
discharge their more sacred duties. On those three
grounds the Hon. Member supported the prayer of the
petition, as he had been requested to do by the petitioners.
The petition was then read and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILBRAHANI then presented a similar petition
from another hundred in the same county.
POLAND.

Colonel EVANS gave notice of his intention, on Thurs-
day next, to move a resolution of the House to the effect,
that unless Russia performed her part of the Convention
of Vienna, it was no longer binding on this country.
CHANCERY.

Mr. SPENCE rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill
to diminish the expenses and delays in Chancery, and was
left speaking.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. BERNAAL and other Members of the House of
Commons brought up the Boundaries Bill with the amend.
ments made by their Lordships agreed to.
Mr. EWART and others brought up a message frem
the House of Commons, stating that the Commons did not
insist on their disagreements to the Bill, entitled an Act
for the abolition of punishment by death in certain cases.
Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Metropolitan
Cemetery Bill with the amendments agreed to.
The Custom Wharf Sale Bill was read a third time and
passed.

Lord KING presented a petition from a place in the
County of Lanark, respecting the Boundary Bill.
The same NOBLE LORD presented a petition from a
parish in Ireland, praying for the abolition of the Tithes in
Ireland.

The Report on the Anatomy Bill was brought up. The
Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday next,
and the Lords to be summoned for that day.
The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice, that he will
move that the Remedies Bill against the Hundred be com-
mitted on Friday next.
The Marquess of WESTMEATH inquired whether
the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack had any ob-
jection to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill being brought on
at this period of the day ? He considered himself en-
titled to ask this question, because the Noble and Learned
Lord had brought on the subject of this Bill (upon the re-
port) at a late hour last night, and, indeed, so late and so
snugly was it done, that he believed it had not been noticed
by any one of the newspapers. He moved that the Bill
be now brought upon the third reading.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Noble
Marquess had began what he had to say by asking a ques-
tion, and ended by making a motion.—(Loud laughter)
—rather a comical sort of statement. He (the
L. rd Chancellor) bad intended to move that the
House should proceed further upon the Scotch Reform
Bill immediately, but if it were a matter of consequence
to the Noble Marquess, he would not object to the bring-
ing in of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill just now. He

DECLARATIONSOF INSOLVENCY,
THOMAS RUM) Bishtipsgate=street, tea,dealer,
JOHN DEUDNEY, Brighton, hatter.
BANKRUPTS.

FREDERICK WELCH, St. James's-street, bill-broker,
surrender July 18, at twelve, and August 21, at eleven, at thc
Court of Bankruptcy. Dods, Northumberland-street, Strand ;
Lackington, Official Assignee, Basinghall-street.
JAMES BULLOCK, Southend, Essex, printer, July 20, at
twelve, and August 21, at aleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Edwards, Official Assignee, Old Jewry ; Fladgate, Queen-square,
Westminster.

RICHARD I3ELL, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, joiner, July 27,
and August 21, at eleven, at the Turf Hotel, Newcastle. Gals.
worthy, Cook's-court, Lincoln's Inn, London ; Dove, Newcastle.
WILLIAM WITHERS, Loughborough, Leicestershire, lace-
manufacturer, July 18, at four, and August 21, at eleven, at the
Rutland Arms, Leicester. Hohne, Frampton, and Loftus, New
Inn, London; Bond Leicester.
JOHN KINGSLEY, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, corn-factor,
July '24, and August `22, at twelve, at the Cross Keys Inn, St.
Neots, Huntingdonshire. Bays, Potion, Bedfordshire; Price
and Wakeling, St. John's-square, Clerkenwell.
EDWI N SHUTE, Bristol, wine-merchant, July 25 and Aug.
'2l, at one, at the Commercial Rooms Bristol. Clarke, Richards,
and Medcalf, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London ; Palmer and Son,
Bristol.

JOHN HALL, sen., JOSEPH HALL, and THOMAS
II A LL, Burslem, Staffordshire, earthenware-manufacturers,
Aug. 11, 21, at one, at the Leopard Inn, Burslem. Harding,
Burslem; Smith, Basinghall-street, London.
JOHN LAWRENCE, Birmingham, coal-master, July 19,
'2O, and August 21, at twelve, at the Union Tavern, Birming-
ham. Holme, Frampton, and Loftus, New-inn, London ; Bart.
lett, Birmingham.
JAMES GIBSON., men., Norwich, dealer and chapmau,
July 18, at four, and August 91, at two, at the Norfolk Hotel,
Norwich. Hammond and Sharp, Hatton-garden, London ;
Daveney, Norwich.
JAMES TAYLOR, jun., Manchester, currier, July 2:3, 24,
and August 21, at two, at the York Hotel, Manchester. Johnson
and Wetherall, Temple, London ; Booth and Harrison, Man-
chester.

EDWARD MEREDITH, Liverpool, victualler, July '23, and
August 9.1, atone, at the Clarendon-rooms, LiverpooL Chester,
Staple Inn, London • Finlow, Liverpool.
RICHARD CHAFFEY, fhorncombe, Devonshire, clothier,
August 7 and 9.1, at eleven, at the George Inn, Crewkerne.
Holme, Frampton. and Loftus, New Inn, London ; Murly,
Crcwkcrne.

Jut-IN BROOM, St. Mildred's-court, Poultry, carpet-manu-
facturer, July 19, at the White Hart Inn, Hartlebury, July 21,
and August 21, at the Star and Garder, Worcester, at eleven.
Dangafield, Linepin's Inn-fields; Brinton, Kidderminster.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 9.

(Concluded from our Second Edition of yesterday.)
Sir F. BURDETT then presented a petition from
John Fieldmore, praying for further compensation, in con.
sequence of the loss he had sustained in the army, and be.
cause he had been the means of finding out great frauds
that were practised on Government in pensions, by which
the country had saved a large sum
Mr. A. PELHAM presented a petition from an asso-
ciation of Unitarians, in favour of the Government plan of
education in Ireland.

Mr. STANLEY could not assent to the, no doubt,
disinterested statement of the Hon. Member for Mayo.
He was ready to admit, that were Ministers about to frame
a new system of representation in Ireland, there were
towns at present enjoying the franchise right which it
might be expedient to disfranchise, and towns that did not
return Members which it might be expedient to enfran-
chise ; but as that was not their object, and as the present
Bill was framed on the principle that there should be no
disfranchisement, he saw no reason for adopting the Hon.
Member's proposition. The Hon. Member had made out
no case, in the first instance, against the boroughs he
would disfranchise, and in the next, his statement with re-
spect to the places to which he would transfer the franchise
was very exceptionable. Take, for example, his own
county, to which he would—no doubt disinterestedly—add
so additional Member or two. It was very true, that
Mayo contained a numerous population ; but it was equally
true that it contained a very limited constituency as com-
pared with its population. This fact was placed beyond
the reach of cavil by the allocation returns of the fund sub-
scribed in July last year for the relief of the famishing
poor in that county. That return showed that, out of
360,000 inhabitants in Mayo, not less than 224,b20
sought relief from that fund.--(Hear, hear, hear.) He
need not say a word more as to the constituency of
that county. Then, admitting that Dublin con-
tained upwards of 200,000 inhabitants, it did not fol-
low that it should receive an additional representative ; fur
hesides that, that city was situated in a very sm ill county,
which returned two Members of its own, Lambeth, Tower
Hamlets, Manchester, Glasgow, and other large places,
containing a population very nearly equal to that of Dub-
lin, and a commercial importance far higher, and which
would not return more than two Members, would have an
equal claim to a third representative.
Mr. D. BROWNE would not press his motion to a
division, his object being merely to put on record his opi-
nions of its expediency.

Mr. STANLEY said that might be done on the bring-
ng up of tilt report.

Mr. O'CONNELL would have voted against the Hon.
Member for Mayo, had he pressed his motion to a division,
s he was convinced that the boroughs he proposed to dis-
franchise would return as independent Members, and would
possess as unbiassed a constituency, as the places to which
he would transfer the franchise. If the motion were so
shaped as to add to the number of the Irish representatives
without any such disfranchisement, it would have corn-
manded his cordial support.

Mr. JEPHSON and Mr. M. O'CONNELL laid a few
words to the same effect.

Mr. O'CONNELL proposed an amendment, for the
pug pose of allowing persons to register for property, which
they might sell, sub-let, alienate, or otherwise dispose of,
pr. vided they retained a yearly interest of 101. in it.
Sir .1. BURKE supported the proposition.
At the suggestion of Mr. STANLEY, the amendment
ss-is postponed until the bringing up of the report.
Mr. CALLAGHAN proposed an amendment, for the
purpose of assimilating the Irish to the English Reform
Bill. Its object was to enable joint tenants in counties of
cities, to vote, provided the property which they occupied