The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-02 00:00:00

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the committal of this Bill
pro forma, and in doing so took occasion to contradict the
statement which had been put forth to the public, that
he had brought forward the Bill to provide an office for
himself.

After a few words from the Bishop of Lorinox and the
LORD CHANCELLOR, the Bill was committed pro Amine.
BISHOPRICS OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
The Earl of POWIS moved the third reading of
this Bill.

Lord VIVIAN said he had just returned from North
Wales, and he knew that the inhabitants of that part of
the country cared very little whether the union of these
sees were maintained or not. They, however, had a
strong feeling as to the appropriation of the funds of
those bishoprics to the establishment of a bishopric in
such a rich place as Manchester.
The Bishop of BANGOR denied that the feeling of
the inhabitants of North Wales was against the repeal
of the union of these bishoprics. He trusted their
Lordships would not negative their former decision.

The Duke of -WELLINGTON said this Bill with-
drew the foundation from all those measures which had
heen adopted upon the recommendation of the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners, upon which recommendation the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor had been
proposed. He had stated, on a former occasion, that he
had not received her Majesty's sanction to this Bill.
This Bill touched the prerogative of the Crown, and ho
recommended to their Lordships' consideration the ex-
pediency of passing such a measure. It was a measure
too which very materially affected the revenues of the
Church. He felt, that if their Lordships were to fully
consider this subiect, they would see that they were
establishing a dangerous precedent, inasmuch as hitherto
it had always been a rule, of Parliament, that no Bill
which affected the royal prerogative should be passed
without the consent of the Crown having been first ob-
tained. He would only say, that if they allowed the third
reading of this Bill, their Lordships must take the re-
sponsibility.'
Lord MONTEAGLE repeated his former suggestion
that to provide morelargely for the spiritual condition of
the working classes in North Wales would do more
good to religion itself than the restoration of the
bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor. If they passed
this Bill, how could they resist an application to dis-
solve the union which had already taken place between
the bishoprics of Bristol and Gloucester? He moved
that this Bill be read that day six months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought he had no
power to put the question, seeing that this was a Bill
affecting the prerogative of the Crown. He would
suggest that a Committee be appointed to search for
precedents.
_ _ _ _ _

Lord BROUGHAM did not see how the disunion of
these sees could damnify the interests of the Crown,
seeing that in the case of two bishoprics the Crown had
a greater chance of receiving the temporalities than in
the case of one.

The Duke of WELLINGTON explained.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped their Lord-
ships would acquiesce in the suggestion which had been
made by the Noble Lord on the Woolsack.

The Duke of RICHMOND would support the third
reading of this Bill He believed that if they were to
search the precedents they would not find that a Bill
had ever been rejected because it had not first received
the sanction of the Crown.

Lord LYTTELTON apprehended that there was no
difference between this case and the case of the bishopric
of Sodor and Man, and in that case the consent of the
Crown was not first given.
The Earl of RIPON said that in that case there was
no disposal of the revenues of the diocese.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that in the case
of the bishopric of Sodor and Man the power of the
Queen making an order in Council was not interfered
with ; in the present case it was.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought a Com-
mittee should be appointed.
Lord COTTENHAM thought the case of the bishopric
of Sodor and Man was a case in point, and ought to be
taken as a precedent.
Lord CAMPBELL said that many cases had occurred
in the other House of Parliament in which the Speaker
had refused to put the question on the reading of a Bill,
because the consent of the Crown to that Bill had not
been previously obtained.
Lord VIVIAN thought the amendment, that the Bill
be read that clay six months, might be put, and if carried
that would get rid of the difficulty.
Lord KENYON thought the opinion of their Lord-
ships ought to be taken upon the merits of the Bill.
Viscount CANTERBURY thought the suggestion of
his Noble Friend on the Woolsack deserved the most
serious attention of their Lordships, and, was one which
ought to be adopted.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE could not see why the
Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack could not put
the question on the third reading of this Bill as well as
on the second. He thought the Noble and Learned
Lord on the woolsack had been guilty of an unworthy
manceuvre to get rid of this Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had found him-
self in considerable difficulty in putting the question,
and he had, therefore, appealed to the House; but he
had been guilty of no manceuvre.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE disclaimed any intention
of being disrespectful to the Noble and Learned Lord.
After a few words from Lord CANTERBURY and
the Duke of WELLINGTON,
The Earl of POWIS replied.
Lord CANTERBURY moved that the debate be ad-
journed.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took place. The third reading was postponed, and
the question of prerogative referred to a Select Corn-
mittee.—The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 1.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.

Sir R. PEEL said, with respect to the period
of the session at which the Bill was proposed,
he begged to observe that the second reading of the Bill
was fixed, at a period when it would have been com-
petent for the Hon. Member for Cork to be in his
place, and that he postponed the second reading at
the express wish of the gentlemen at the other side
connected with Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
the second reading was fixed for the first day after the
Easter recess. That Bill provided the same
general system of registration for Ireland that

prevailed in England, and it was important
that her Majesty's Government should know
whether thy: Home approved the principle. The Bill
provided a new franchise, and he must, therefore, perse-
vere in insicing the House to pronounce its opinion on
the principle of the measure, reserving themselves as to
details. believed if the Government had abandoned
the Bill on -the former occasion, they would have been
taunted there with offering an insult to Ireland. He
hoped the House would not consent to the motion of the
Hon. Member; but that it wGuld allow her Majesty's
Government to have the sense of the House and the
opinions of Members connected with Ireland, on this
Bill.

Mr. V. SMITH said he had no doubt that the Govern-
ment was asked to postpone the second reading of the
Bill. But that w.as not the question raised by the Hon.
Member for Finsbr..ry ; the question was whether it was
fair to ask the House to enter into a discussion which
could be of no use ? The Bill had been printed and
circulated, and had excited great dissatisfaction in the
country to which it was to be applied. Every information
with respect to the Bill had been given. The advice he
should tender to the Irish Members was that they
should not say a word on the subject of the Bill—
(Hear, hear)—for, if they should pledge themselves to
any part of the measure, and next session think
proper to vote against it, they would certainly be
" Hansarded" out of their opinions.—(Cheers and
laughter.) They had made no progress with the County
Courts Bill, with the Poor-law Bill, and there were
complaints from the country gentlemen, loud upon this
Fide of the House, and, if not loud, deep upon the other,
at being kept in town from their magisterial business to
attend a useless discussion.

Lord ELIOT called upon the llon. Gentleman to
state what clauses in the Bill were an insult to Ireland,
The object was to increase their franchise and not di-
minish it.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL had come to the House pre-
pared to discuss the Bill. He came there not to defend
statements made out of the House, but in discharge of
his duty as a Member of Parliament. The Goternment
had ruled that House during the present session with
such a'rod of iron that it had not occurred to him that
the course that had been adopted would be pursued.
The Bill, instead of being a benefit, would be a great
injury to Ireland. He thought the best course would be
for some deputation to attend the Right Hon. Gentle-
man out of the House, and to state to him their objec-
tions to the measure. He thought he should best con-
sult the interests of all parties if he voted with his Hon.
Friend the Member for Finsbury for proceeding with
the other orders of the day.
Mr. VILLIERS STUART thought it would be use-
less to discuss the Bill now.

Mr. SHEIL considered that it was to be regretted that
the Bill had not been brought forward at an earlier
period of the session. The GoVernment had allowed
three years to pass without bringing the subject forward.
Last year they were told that the registration of arms
was of much more importance than the registration of
electors. If the Government were really anxious to
know the opinion of Hon. Members with respect to
this Bill, he thought there could be no harm in their
entering into the discussion of the measure. _ .

Mr. BERNAL said that they were called upon to do
something more than have an amicable discussion.
They were called upon to discuss a Bill that they had
been told would not pass during the present session.
What advantage could the Right Hon. Baronet derive
from this discussion, for many of the Irish Members
had declared that they would not be present during the
discussion, and therefore he could not by any possibility
obtain the opinion of the Irish Members?
Mr. SHAW thought it would be better not to provoke
angry discussions on the subject, when the measure was
not to be brought forward during the present session.
Lord PALMERSTON thought it more expedient not
to proceed with the discussion on the second reading of
the Bill, as it was likely to create a
_warm discussion, to
use the lightest term, and there was no use of raising
party spirit, unless it produced some practical and useful
result.—(Laughter.) The course which the Government
proposed was an unusual one. There were two courses ge-
nerally adopted ; one was to read a Bill a first time, and,
then allow it to stand over, that the sense of the coun
try might be expressed upon it ; another course was to
bring in a Bill, and to discuss the principle of it 'on the
second reading, the details were then discussed in Com-
mittee, and after being committed, it was allowed to
stand over until the next session. Such a course was in-
telligible, but he could not understand upon what prin-
ciple the House should be called on to waste one or two
evenings in angry discussion upon the details of a Bill
upon the second reading.—(Hear, hear.) It was incon-
venient, and, probably, next session, the same thing
would have to be gone through again. Very many im
portant Bills had been postponed in consequence of the
advanced period of the session to which they had ar-
rived, and now they were about to devote one or two
evenings to what could produce no result. It would be
better if gentlemen would suppress their speeches and
reserve them for another session. The Noble Lord op-
posite had spoken of the manner in which the Bill had
been discussed by the Irish press. Probably during the
recess the Noble Lord could arrive at the real opinion of
the people of Ireland on the subject.
Mr. COLLETT said that if the second reading of the
Bill were proceeded with, he should take no part in the
discussion, and would leave the House.

Mr. CURTEIS thought the Right Hon. Baronet ought
not to proceed with the Bill. While he was speaking
there wag a flash of lightning outside the House, and
what was taking place within the House was rather
ominous of the storm which the discussion was likely to
produce.—(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL thought that the Hon. Gentleman
had no reason to complain of a flash of
lightning, as he came from an agricultural eounty,
in which rain was so necessary. The object of
her Majesty's Government in proceeding with the
second reading of the Bill, was that they wished to re-
move some erroneous impressions which were enter-
tained with regard to it. When his Noble Friend intro-
duced the Bill, there was only a very short discussion,
as it was understood that Hon. Gentlemen would have an
opportunity of stating their opinions with regard to the
Bill on the second reading, and removing certain objec-
tions made to it. If he had postponed the second read-
ing of the Bill, he would be told that he had offered an
insult to Ireland.(No, no.) He said so, because there
was a meeting of Irish Members on Saturday to consider
what course should be taken with regard to the Bill, the
opposition to which was to be led by the Hon. Gentle.
man opposite. If he had at once stated that it was not
the intention of her Majesty's Government to read the
Bill a second time, gentlemen on the other side would have
said that he had acted unfairly by Irish Members by de-
priving them of the opportunity of making statements in
opposition to the measure, and by depriving the Govern-
ment of the opportunity of considering these objections.
At the same time, if he were assured that it was the ge-
neral wish of the Irish Members that the second reading
should not be proceeded with, he would at once give way.
If the Irish Members wished the Bill not to be discussed,
he would have no objection to give way to their wish,
although he would not postpone it in deference to the
wish of the English Members. If he understood it was
the wish of Irish Members on both sides of the House
that the discussion should not take place, he would not
press it.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said it was true that he
had been present at a meeting yesterday on the subject
of that Bill. It had been his intention to have spoken
against the Bill, on the ground that it took away the
franchise which had been given to Ireland by the Re-
form Bill. He had not been aware of the intention of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury until within the last half
hour, and he understood the Hon. Member to protest
when there were several English measures of importance
before the House, against their going into an unavailing
discussion on an Irish subject. Now, he must say that,
every session, except during the present, Irish subjects
had occupied a large portion of the time of that House;
and ho would also say that in general Irish questions
had received a fair hearing. Trusting most sincerely
that in another session a measure so important would re
ceive an impartial and an attentive hearing, he would,
as it appeared to be the wish of the House that the mea-
sure should not be proceeded with, vote for the motion
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. BELLEW had been anxious that a discussion
should take place, because he had thought it not im-
possible that the Government might avail itself of the
objections of Members on that side of the House to
amend the measure. He hoped that during the recess
the Right Hon. Baronet would carefully consider the
objections which had been urged to the measure. He
had not understood that they were to go into the de-
tails of the measure on the second reading. It was not
usual to do so. He would, however, follow the example
of the Right Hon. Member for Kildare, as the English
Members did not wish to press the discussion. He hoped
the Government would take advantage of the recess, to
review the Bill, and to alter its provisions in such a
manner as to meet the wishes of the Irish people.
After a few words from Mr. Grogan, Mr. Lefroy, and
Mr. M. J. O'Connell, . _ . _

Sir R. PEEL said he thought he was entitled to infer
that it was the predominant wish of Members connected
with Ireland on both sides of the house, not to proceed
with the second reading of the Irish' Registration Bill,
and that being the case, he would not ask them to enter
into the discussion. .

The O'CONOR DON said he believed it was the
wish, not only of Irish, but also of English Members, that
this Bill might not be discussed in the present session.
Mr. WYSE said that the greatest hostility existed
against the provisions of the Bill, as they were under-
stood in Ireland. The franchise in Ireland ought to be
dealt with, not on political or party grounds, but with
a sincere desire to give a full and efficient representation
to the Irish people.—(Hear.)
Lord CLEMENTS said he came down to the House
expecting, like many other Irish Members, to have a
discussion on the provisions of this Bill, and was much
disappointed that discussion had not taken place. lle
had come from Ireland under the impression that the
Bill would have been proceeded with.
Sir R. PEEL said it should be distinctly understood
that it was entirely in compliance with the wish of the
Irish Members that he postponed the Bill, and from no
other motive.

After a few words from Mr. M. O'FERRALL and Mr.
F. FRENCH,

Sir R. PEEL said that the Irish Municipal Franchise
Bill, as well as the Irish Registration Bill, would be post-
poned to next session.
The other Orders of the Day were then proceeded with.
The second reading of the Railways Bill was postponed
to Monday next.
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL

Lord ELIOT moved the second reading Of the Unlaw-
ful Oaths (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL suggested certain amend-
ments. The present Bill was eminently calculated to'
encourage informers—a dangerous race of persons, in any
Community—and to implicate innocent persons, as was
proved by the recent trials in Ireland, in which police-
men and informers were clearly convicted of the grossest
perjury.

Mr. M J. O'CONNELL agreed with the Hon. Get
tleman in thinking the Bill a most injudicious one,sad
calculated to produce the greatest social evils—gam ,
still if possible than the existence of secret societies.
Mr. SHAW supported the Bill in its presentform•
Mr. T. B. C. SMITH thought the objections tirge
against the Bill on the other side very strong, but ye
the objecti, nable clauses were withdrawn, how could tb:
Goverment obtain cognisance of those illegal societies.
The Government could only obtain cognisance of th'i
existence of those societies through informers, an
though he thought the greatest caution was necessity
in order to prevent the inculpation.of innocent persee''
he considered that the exercise of due discretion, on,lbe
part of the Executive, as well as the exemplary pull.
ment which such informers would receive, would be sus
cient to prevent the evils complained of. He must stir
port the Bill in its present form.
Mr. BERNAL thought it very serious that a per'`'
should be convicted for having a pass-word knowing,',
in his pocket. He thought it better that the clan's
should be omitted alto,ether.
Mr. SHAW thought the word "knowingly" Iva, tij;
best protection that could be given to the accused.
he could suggest another word he would do so.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that this measure was ail
lutely necessary, and if they rejected these words in
clause, they would reject the whole measure. Comil,
ing the quarter from which this measure emanated, t
high constitutional authority by which it was support
e
and the causes which led to its continuance, he entreat
the house not to reject, it. The object of the Bill ,
common to both sides, and as it was of importance tb
the measure should be passed unanimously. He b°
the Hon. Gentleman-would think twice before he dive
the Committee under these circumstances. •
Sir D. NORREYS though the Right Hon. Gentlen
had• very adroitly confounded a portion of the Cla'
with the whole clause. As to the clause itself, the °k
Gentlemen on his.side of the House were as much is
your of it as gentlemen opposite, but he did not Null'
necessary that the. whole clause should be rejccte be
cause there were two words which, in his opinion, O°F,
to be thrown out. • 11
Mr. ESTCOURT thought that the word" knowlag,
operated favourably for the prisoner, because it sh°"o
that the mere possession of the pass-word was not 511,
cient to constitute guilt, but that something additi°
must be proved.
0
Mr. MORE O'FERRAL thought that this Bill
,0
necessary when it was introduced, but he did not we,
it was necessary to the same extent now. Many canine
persons had been convicted under the Bill. 'He belied
there was no necessity for the Bill. He should the'
fore move that the Chairman now report progress.
Oa the question being put,
Mr. SHELL said that he thought the possession of 0,
document ought to be made evidence of the crime,
not the crime itself. He did not wish to shelter sit
societies, for they were the curse of the couat"
no matter to what party they belonged.
Lord ELIOT said that he believed the measure ‘/51
necessary, and that he never before heard that secret
cieties did not exist in Ireland.
Mr. MORE O'FERRAL explained.
Sir J. GRAHAM begged the Committee to re 2
that the Right Hon. Gentleman had said this me it
was necessary when the late Government had the
sponsibilities of office, but now that her Majesty's l°7o
Government was in office, the Right Hon. Gentlema°
not think it necessary.
Colonel RAWDON said the Right Hon. Barollet.s,
hardly justified in throwing all the responsibility o 01?
side of the House.—(Hear, hear.) They had come °iv
for the purpose of discussing the Registration Bill, ty
they now found themselves engaged in discussing fik
Unlawful Oaths Bill, to which h entertained stroafoi
jections.—(Hear, hear.) Yet they were told,
called upon to discuss the Bill thus unexpee',Y
that if it were thrown out, they must take 0
responsibility. He threw back that aspersild
the strongest language the forms of the Pop
would permit. They had heard a great deal °to
about Ministerial responsibility. He must say that (k
the conduct of her Majesty's Attorney-General he
not place much reliance on that responsibility. of,
should cordially support the Hon. Member for lii
In reply to a question from Sir D. NORREYS,,a
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Government woo'
consent to the proposed alteration, because they
it would render the Bill altogether inoperative. 1,4!
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL could not understand id
if that were the case, it was only proposed that they
should exist for one year ?
After a few words from Mr. V. STUART, , $
Sir R. PEEL begged the House to recollect o°o
the present state of Ireland the Government had e,
for no new power ; all they asked for was the coatls sti
tion of the existing law as a precaution agaio
disturbance of the public peace ; and whilst their Poe
cessors took this power for fire years, they °tilt°
for it for one year.
The Reuse then divided, when there appeared*
For reporting progress
Against it
Majority against reporting progress
The Bill then passed through a Committee.
PRISONERS' (SCOTLAND) 81LL.,,f,
On the motion for going into Committee on I..°'
sonar's (Scotland) Bill,
Mr. WALLACE said he objected entirely to 14
tem of prison discipline now existing in Scotland•eod
minals of all kinds were subjected to the sYsttet
solitary confinement, and he believed the greater
arose from it. If it did good in any case, it
only be in that of young persons• or
opinion prevailed very generally throughout Se° $1),
that the present system of prison discipline i°
country was an entire failure, and he thought dle,erf
ject deserved the serious consideration of the c',.°6o:
ment. lie hoped the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J'
ham) would state whether he was aware that there,
prisoners in Glasgow and other parts of Scotlan,,t
were in such a state of debility that the sentetwo*
transportation pasted upon them had never been
execution ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he did not think that wt et`'.
best occasion to discuss the general question, whet' se°
not the system of separate confinement was Mier/
system of prison discipline ; but certainly his exPeloit'
of the prison at Pentonville led him to the cone 011.
that upon the whole it was an admrtrable systel°V
highly conducive to the reformation or prisoner,. I
case of Perth was an experiment of the If
kind on a more limited scale ; and he belie; 'colt
Honourable and Learned Friend, the Lord Itei'bjec'
who had considerable acquaintance with the Ijot
would be able to state that it was not a failure.--1 troy
With respect to the convicts under sentence 01 eV!
portation, that was not the case of prisoners 5u,,,10
long imprisonment, but the case of prisoners wry oar
been recently convicted, and who, on examination bet
found to be in such a state of health they could 0..,°i0 t
the execution of the sentence. It was not pec,w,
Scotland, but extended to this country. The 01:
expense of maintaining such prisoners was no'soit'
one; counties had long been subjected to a id
burden. lie hoped the Hon. Gentleman woo
object to the Bill going through Committee. „,
After a few words from Mr. P. M. STEWARV,
The Bill went through Committee ; the Chao to
ported progress, and the Report was ordered
brought up to-morrow.
On the motion of Sir R. PEEL,
THE BANK CHARTER BILL. 1.10„
The Report on the Bank of England Charter Y's,
further considered, and, there being no amenda3en ,
Bill was ordered to be read a third time.
The Education Bill was read a third time and r4l',
The other Orders of the Day having been disP°:s6
Mr. M. SUTTON moved for and obtained be IV
bring in the following Bills:—Bill to continue
relating to the removal of poor persons born in 'd,
and Ireland, and chargeable to parishes in Englandv,
to continue certain Turnpike Acts. Bill to susPefor v„
making of lists and the ballots and enrolments ue
Militia of the United Kingdom. Bill to conti° sr,
exemption of inhabitants of parishes, townsl4„s:4l'
villages, from liability to be rated as such, in re,'Yrt‘,
stock in trade or other property, to the relief of
The Bills were accordingly brought in and real'
time.
The House adjourned at Half-past Eight.

Dispatches were sent off last evening fr,°,ll
Colonial-office for the Governor of Jamaica,
for the Governors of the other West India cololo

SIX POUNDS of TEA, and upwards, sent, carriage 11,74/7.-
part of the Kingdom, at the Wholesale Price, on receipt 01
tame, or Post-office order. 50*
Black, 2s. Bd., 35., 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 4s. Bd.
Green, 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 55., ss. 4d. 65.,
Coffee, 9d„ Is. Is. 2d., Is. 4d., Is., 6d., 16.8 d., Is. 10"'':1
'l' G. T. MANstILL and CO., Wholesale Tea Dealers, .t
LERSBURY, CHEAPSIDE. Agencies will be 'given to re•
parties.

BIRTHS.
At sea, on the 7th of May, on board of the shiPopy
the lady of W. Vansittart, Esq., Bengal Civil Service' ctie6
On the 19th ult., in the Victoria-park, near M3,01'
the lady of Joseph St. John Yates, Esq., barrister-at to
a son. i
f
On the 25th ult., at Torrington-square, the lad}foily
Johnson, Esq., of a son. coo
On the 25th ult., at the Parsonage, St. Thonnortod
wark, the lady of the Rev. William Dee y, 0
, of a dati,g
On the 28th ult, at Hyde-park-square, Mrs. "
~JJ
of a son. Pr"
On the 28th ult., at Maidstone, the lady of Captaio
Scott, late of the 4th Light Dragons, of a daughter. GeF
On the 28th ult., at Belmont-hill, Lee, Kent, 1$111"
Debenham, of a daughter. f
On the 29th ult., at Goswell-street, the lady 0
Gordon, jun., Esq., of a son

MARRIED. i'7,‘
~.„„ru
On the 27th ult., at St. Pancras Church, Eor-„e V3l"
Chapman, Esq., of Manningham, Yorkshire, to 11-4.
Cogan, only child of the late John Cogan, Esq.,
Northamptonshire.
On the 27th ult., at Chesham, J. N. Walker, Esq.,,,''eo9 rye
tonville, to Ann, eldest daughter of the late Ja`' 4'
Esq., of Chesham-vale, Bucks. cog, '
On the 27th ult. at Ludstone, Salop, • Edmund %oil?'
Master of the Royal Grammar School, High 17....c:y
Miss Lea, of the former place.
DIED.
21 der' On the 29th ult., Rebecca Greenwood, agedvors
cousin of Mr. G. Tennant, Westminster Arms, eto'
road, 'Westminster, much lamented. 1)/P C 2"
At sea, on the 25th of May, on board of the s. e. bet,
the wife of W. Vausittart, Esti., Bengal Civil Servlcilie
On the 23d ult., at Cole Muse, Devonshire,,, "."00:1
Maria Georgiana, youngest daughter of the late (.4
Payne, of Nutwell, near Lympstone.
On the 27th ult., at Richmond, Surrey, Fran
Lep aor%
vercr, wife of Colonel the Hon. Henry Edward Butgr.P
On the 27th ult., Harriet Sarah, the wife of ,
Dixon, of Circus-street, Greenwich.
I•l•ll...eMiftmaarliarteaMankn

0
illS(11/1
I
London: Printed and Published by MURDO o'
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun ONce-'00"
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the
Middlesex, Tuesday, July 2, 1844.