The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-01 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would take the op-
portunity to ask a few questions of the Noble Viscount ( Mel-
bourne) upon a subject of very deep interest. He did not
wish to originate any discussion upon this important
affair, but if the Noble Viscount had no objection, he would
feel it as a favour if he would communicate whether—
since his last accession to power—( Hear)—any thing what-
ever had been done by his Majesty's Government to
interfere in the affairs of Spain ? Whether any instructions had
been given to the cruizers on the coast of Spain to support the
Queen of Spain's Government? Whether any arms and stores
had been furnished to her from this country ; and if so,
whether they had been paid for and in what mode, and finally
whether any vessels had been fitted out, and at whose expense?

ViscountMELBOURNE said no such instructions as those
stated by the Noble Marquis had been given to , the
cruizers. With respect to the other questions, he could
then give no answer. If the Noble Marquis had given
him notice of the questions be had asked, he (Viscount
Melbourne) would have informed himself upon the subject;
as it was, he would do so, and state the result of his inquiries
to-morrow.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented petitions
from Durham, Gateshead, and other places, in support of the
Church of Ireland.
ISLINGTON MARKET BILL.

The Bishop of LONDON having been requested to
present a petition upon the subject of this Bill before its
second reading, and finding that he would not be able
to attend in his place to-morrow, when the. Bill stood
for a second reading, would take the liberty of presenting the
petition then, and expressing his anxiety that this Bill might
pass. The petition came from seventeen hundred and thirty-
four inhabitants of Islington, who, from long experience,
were aware of the intolerable nuisance arising from Smithfield
market as at present conducted. He had himself had some
years experience as a resident of London, of the evils that
arose from the present state of Smithfield market, in a moral
as well as a political point of view. It was not, however,
part of his duty to look at the case in the latter point, or consider
what the graziers lost by the injury done their beasts, but it was
a part of his duty to feel a deep interest in the moral evils that
resulted from the manner in which Smithfield Market
was conducted.—( Aear, hear.) The great part of these
evils would be removed if the Honse would pass the
Islington Market Bill. The main objection against this Bill
was, that it conferred upon an individual the power of levying
certain tolls upon the beasts higher than those which were
levied by the Corporatien of London. It was quite ob-
vious that this evil. would speedily correct itself. If the
graziers were not satisfied with the charges made at the
new market, they would continue to send their beasts to the old.
He should have preferred himself if some public body had
come forward to support this undertaking, and had offered
similar conveniences; but as such had not been the case, be
thought that the individual who had done so was entitled to
great credit. He trusted that their Lordships would approve
of the Bill.

A NOBLE LORD, whose name we could not learn, presented
a petition from the parish of St. George, Hanover-square,
against the Grand Junction Water Works Bill.
THE MARRIAGE LAWS.

Lord L YNDH LTR ST presented a Bill for the purpose of
regulating the Laws relating to Marriages which were now
invalid, from the parties being too nearly related. By his Bill he
proposed to enact that where a marriage was contracted within
the limits of consanguinity—if not disputed—if a suit was not
instituted within two years from the date of the marriages,
or within six months from the passing of the Act in re-
gard to marriages which had been contracted then the
marriages should be held inviolablethat no party should
Le at liberty, after that period, to call them in ques-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) As the law at present stood, a
man might arrive at the age of twenty-five, might then
marry, and have a family without the least suspicion
of his being illegitimate ; but if - the parents of that
man were within the degree of affinity allowed by law—
( Hear)--it was in the power of any party, even from
motives of envy or malice, to institute a suit, and have
him declared illegitimate. That was an evil which he wished
to see remedied as speedily as possible. He moved that the
Bill be read a first time.

Lord BROUGHAM said the House ought to feel obliged
to his Noble and Learned Friend for the Bill Bill he had then
presented. He ( Lord B.) was only sorry that it was not more
comprehensive. He was sorry that the Noble and Learned
Lord had taken an example from modern acts of limitation,
and given six months for the commencement of suits.
He was of opinion that the old principle was much bet-
ter; and it would greatly improve the Bill, to say in it
that from aril after the Ist of June, 1835, no suit should be in-
stituted for the invalidation of any marriage that had been con-
tracted. lie trusted that the Noble and Learned Lord would
consider the point.--( Hear, hear. )
Lord LYNDHURST said if the House was of the same
opinion as the Noble and Learned Lord, he would be very
glad to give in, and amend the Bill.—( Cheers.)
The Bishop of EXETER suggested that the Bill should
be so framed as to embrace marriages of the kind embraced
in the sill, which were contracted in a foreign country.

Lord BROUGHAM said there would be no difficulty on
that head.

Petitions in favour of the Church were presented by the
Earls of CAMDEN and HARROWIIY, and the House adjourned
till to-morrow at ten o'clock.

BAIL COURT.

SILK V. - HUMPHREY, ESQ., AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff, Miss Mary Agnes Silk, sought to recover a
penalty of 30/., imposed by the 32d Geo. 11. upon Sheriffs of
counties for the negligence of their officers. The Act ex-
pressly provides that any person arrested shall not be carried
to gaol for twenty-four hours, if conveyed to some safe and
convenient dwelling-house.
The ATToma T- GENERAL was for the defendants (the re-
sponsible person being Richard Hulland, an officer to the
Sheriff of Middlesex), and Mr. KNOWLES for the plaintiff.
The defendant Hulland it appeared had, in June, 1833, ar-
rested Miss Silk at her lodgings in Charlotte-street, Portland-
place, and, according to the evidence of Joseph Hulford, his
assistant, had remained with her two hours while she sent for
bail, as she was anxious not to go out of the house. No per-
son came to her; but a Mr. Copeland, to whom she sent, had
returned an answer that Mrs. Copeland would come to her.
However, Hulland at length said he could wait no longer,
and recommended two houses as being near to her lodgings
and to the plaintiff in the action against her, viz., Mr. Mor-
land, in Dean-street. She at length consented to go to Levy's
lock-up house, in Newman-street. A coach was called, as
she was too ill to walk, and she willingly got into it, and was
conveyed to Levy's, and from thence, at her own request, was
taken to prison.
Several witnesses were called to show that Hulland had not
complied with the terms of the Act, and that he would not
take the plaintiff to a safe and convenient dwelling-house, but
insisted upon her going to prison.—The Jury found a verdict
for the defendant

COMMON PLEAS.