Star.
London, England, 1819-03-31 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES-Arm. 17.

I'. Caumont, Old 13rozol-. tro,t, merchant. H. Butler, Lem-
ington Priors, butcher. T. Atherton, Live. pool, farmer. John
Ilargis, Southampton-street, ornamental paper-manutlcturer.
J. Russell, Palace-Wharf, South-Lambeth, tintber-nterchant.—
J. (Beeson, Cork-hill, liateliff.-crow, potatot-merchaut. Bolt,
Bath, groct r. 11. Townsend the younger, Aldermanbury, mer-
chant. J. Burroughs, Great Hermitage-street, spirit-merchant.
R. Friday th.! y ger, Islovotth, barge-master. R. Taylor, of
Vl:tory, meaboan. It. Day, Crooked-lane. oil-broker.
Araa too.—M. Noble, Lancaster, chemist. E. Thompson, of
(:lobe-:hairs, Rotherhithe, ship-builder. J. T. Oxenham, Os-
ford-street, mangle-maker. William Kern, of Newcastle-under-
Lrme, maltster.
DISSOLUTIONS OF rAßT:gunsturs.

Brown and Co. coal-merchants. Marreco and Co. London.
David, aid Co. Craylord, Kent, calico-printer 6. lLsilnweli
and Co. Jlanchester, carriers. Yates and Co. Alartehcstrr, ca-
-li:s-printers. Da Fontaine and )fathieu, Worship-street, livery-
stable-keepers. lhment and Turner, M-ancltester, callenderers.
Shuttleworth and Stevens, Poultry, auctioneers. Ligh And
'lowan', Wandsworth, coal-merchants. Croxen and nodding-
ton, Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, butchers. Fletcher
and Gaskell, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, corn and flour-
dealers. Malins and Smith, Webber-street, Illactafriars-road,
bakers. Stephens and Salter, Bridport, Dorset, sail-cloth-ma-
nufacturers. John, James, and William Kershaw, and John
Atherton, Ilurst-within-Whitfield, I krbyshire, cotton-spinners.
Wilkinson and Co. Barbican, merchants. Watkins and l'etts-
berton, Queen-street, Oxford-road, tin and iron-plate-workers.
Car and Cutts, Sheffield, opticians. .1. and J. A. Thwaits,
1.-igh-s•-reet, Burton Crescent, artist,. Wat.iim and Warkinson,
Leeds, woolstaplers. Cardwell and Co. Manchester, silk and
cotton-manufacturers. Daniel and D lareland, Bishopsgate-street,
linen-drapers. Wilkes and Baker, Birmingham, clock-dial-ma-
rufacturers. Orbell and Baker, Great Henry, millers. Knight
and Barrett, Northamptortastreet, Clerkenwell, cabinet-makers.l
J. and M. Hodson, Leominster, Herefordshire, dress-makers.'
Wale andtOardner, Curtain-road, iron-founders. Witham and
Woodward, Free-school-street, Southwark, grocers. Sheasby
stcd Wilsor, Coventry, carriers. Petty and Co. Ifolbeck, near
Leeds, earthen-ware-manufacturers. Abbott and Viveash, Mark-
lace, atter:sirs. Forristall and Davey,. Black Rock Hot wells,
Gloucestershire, quarriers. Wade an( Green, Stourbridge,
Worcestershire, braziers. Mitchell and Co. Flland, Yorkshire,
dyers. Rodman and Douglas, Bath, free-stone-quarriers. Smith
and Co. Sunderland, brewers and spirit-merchants. Davies and
Groom, Welsh Pool, common-carriers. Fearnsides and Ilsr-
reps), Dewsbury, Yorkshire, linen-drapers. Browne and Banks,
Ririe, Isle of Melt, librarians. Barrows and Marston, ar-
ouse/ham, cestaserdiants.

'ION OF PRIZE-MONEY.
men slaves taken in the Givota, April 1,
.?t, Strand, and recalled there.
Blouoni, at Greenwich IfilopitaL

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 30.

The Loan Chter Juirtee sat upon the Woolsack in the fore-
noon, and heard ('nursel upon certain pending Appeals, which
lay over since the Learned Judge last attended for the purpose.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at the usual hour ' • after which a good de .d of routine and
private-business was disposed of.
The Earl of BEAUCHAMP presented a Petition from Nor-
wich against the continuance of the Insolvent Debtors' Act.
The Poor's Laws' Amendment Bill was returned from the
Commons, by Mr. S. tistraNE, with their acquiescence with the
Lords' Amendment thereto.

The Quarter Sessions Division Bill was read the second time.
Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from the town of
Nottingham, praying their Lordships, should a Bill for the esta-
blishment of Courts of Requests in that town come before them,
that they would not concur in the same. .

The peculiar prayer of this Petition gave rim. to some conver-
sation between the Noble Presenter, the Earl of Rowers, and
the Noble and Learned Loan on the Woot.same ; the last men-
tioned seeming to think that the Dill contemplated by the Peti-
tioners being of a local nature—such a Petition could not, con-
sister.tly with their Lordships' Orders, be received.
In the result it was agreed that the consideration of the ques-
tion should be adjourned.

hle degree of unpopularity, in
CIRCULATION OF THE OBSERVER. such t
public distress. The No-
like the present, of great
The Editor of The Observer submits to the Public said, that Parliament had granted the
ble Lord had
the following Statement of its Sale during the last rio
titsP4bilfringiane:;:rvjera-ard--- a proposition, at a petiod
Half Year, October 4, 1818, to 28th March, 1819:
the Kip P's ,son;pe and that therefore it ought now
Sunday, October 4, printed - 11,133
14to be • die Duke of York. That the grant to
Sunday, October 11, printed -11,092 given to
s. 'Um a-year to the late Queen, as the Custos of
t
_Sunday, October 18, printed - 11,187 ', late Majesty was not opposed at the time in that
day, October 25, printed - 11,330 .;
might be easily UC-
ouse (it was in the Commons) g
jeinday, November 1, printed - 11,450 1
counted for, from the great and
momentous ques-
Sunday, November 8, printed - 11,900
Sunday, November 15, printed - 11,190 Lions under discussion at that period, and which
Sunday, November 22, printed - 13,925
Sunday, November 29, printed - 11,850
Sunday, December 6, printed - .4,000 the measure alluded to was
mrniegethitngeawsiilthy
mpruecvhenctunatiqdeureasttiitonl. of £lO,OOO
hefluo.arns
present or not at the time
Sunday, December 13, printed - .1,890
Sunday, December 20, printed - :1,550 on his pat tin not op-
December 27, printed i 1,315 t -
Sunday, January 3, printed - 11,187 there w
before
etahsea house,n
yd dereliction
uailddnuottynow recollect ; but if
Sunday,
Sunday, January 10, printed - 11,207 the present grant. Were the allowances of
te
Sunday, January 17, printed - 11,850 poging that measure, it was no argument
a in
dn to
sit th favourthealat it
Sunday, January 94, printed - 11,675
Queen, as Custos, proper. he would
Sunday, January 31, printed . 11,400
thew'a spp
sorotOriteitly of the o
grantfl'"k ;
e
Duke
in the 'case of the late
but
.he utterly deLied
Sunday, February 7, printed - 11,650
Sunday, February 14, printed - 11,500 Queen (though there was certainly some difference
Sundry, February 21, printed - 11,506
between her Majesty's situation and that of the Duke
Sunday, February 28, printed - 11,506
Sunday, March 7, printed - 11,448
of York), and he equally denied the propriety in the
Sunday, March 14, printed - 11,375 case of the Duke of York. That the Duke of York
Sunday, March 21, printed - 11,380 was very properly constituted Cusios of the King s
Sunday, March 98, printed - 11,536
Person, he most readily admitted; and lie was satis-
fied that his Royal Highness had undertaken that
high and important office with the full determina-
tion to execute the duties of it with the most affec-
tionate zeal. But when they came to the question of
allowance, what was the ground alleged for it?—
Nothing but expense. And what were the expenses
of executing the office ? It was quite clear that
when his Royal Highness went to Windsor, there
could be no expense incurred there, because there
was a table expressly provided for him at the expense
of the King's establishment. What then remained
but travelling expenses--and could this be seriously
urged, when it was known that his Royal High-
ness's residence at Oatlands was not ten miles horn
Windsor? and if even he went from London, was it
not equally well known that the Royal Duke enjoyed
the advantages of the offices of Commander-in-Chief,
seldom allowed in time of peace—which were not
merely pecuniary, but consisted of the use of horses,
&c. which might be eerily employed to execute the
duties of this office? Ile agreed, that if such an al-
lowance was requisite, reasoning with regard to the
legitimate objects of the Privy I'urse would lead to
the conclusion, that upon that fund, if any, this al-
lowance ought to be charged • but he differed with
an opinion in another place, that the allowance ought
to be so charged, because they still came to the ques-
tion, whether the allowance was necessary or not ?
and for the necessity, no ground whatever had been
made out. The allegation of expense was altogether
untenable. It was absurd to all.ege that there could
be any expense incurred equivalent to any thing like
£1 0,000 a-year ; and unless it was to be affirmed that
no office ought to be given to a Prince of the Blood
without attaching a salary to it, he saw no possible
ground for sustaining such a grant. He said, a
Prince of the Blood, because he observed that in the
Act there were Commissioners appointed to take
charge of the King's private property (one of whom
was to be a Master in Chancery), an office of great
delicacy and importance, and perhaps of great trou-
ble and difficulty, and they were expressly to act
without salary, fee, or reward. Why then should
these iientlemen be thus called upon to act without
any emolument, and £lO,OOO a• year be given to the
Duke of York? It was a painful duty imposed upon
him, but he felt it to be a public duty, to oppose this
grant to the Duke of York, and that duty he must
fulfil. Ile, as he said before, respected his Royal
Highness for his public services, and esteemed him
for his private virtues, but a sense of public duty
compelled him to oppose the allowance granted by
the present Bill.
The Earl of LlVERPOOLobserved, the Noble Earl
had talked of the repeated propositions which had
been made for the reduction of the Windsor Esta-
blishment, which had been invariably opposed. He
(Lord Liverpool) challenged the Noble Earl to ad-
duce a single instance, previous to the last Session
of Parliament, in which any direct proposition had
been made for reducing this Establishment ; and he
would ask any man, whether last Session, when her
Majesty was at the point of death, was a fit time for
entertaining a proposition for altering entirely his
Majesty's Establishment?—( Hear, hear),—With re-
spect to the Grant to the Queen, she was entitled to
all she had received, living with the King, for had
she been separated from the King, she would, by
her marriage-settlement, have been entitled to a much
larger sum. With respect to the Windsor Establish-
ment itself, he had made every enquiry into it, and
he did not believe there ever was an Establishment
conducted with a more modest economy. The prin-
ciple of the reduction had been, what degree of re-
trenchment could be made in consequence of the
death of her Majesty, who, had she lived longer than
the King, would have been entitled to £lOO,OOO a-
yeal? Her Majesty's decease had left it open to con-
sider what reduction might be made in the number
of State Officers. The Noble Earl had said, he had
no objeztion to the Establishment, except to that part
which related to the keeping up Windsor Castle, and
the Grant to the Duke of York. With respect to the
first object, Windsor Palace was not the Palace of
the Regent, it was an additional expense beyond
what would have existed, but for his Majesty's in-
disposition ; the whole subject had been before Par-
liament, and it had been decided that this expense
was not to be thrown on the Regent, but that it
ought to be defrayed out of the particular fund ap-
propriated to his Majesty's Establishment. With re-
spect to the Grant to the Duke of York, he (Lord
Liverpool) contended, the Privy Purse being the pri-
vate property of the King, could not be made avail-
able to the purpose of paying the Custos. It was
the private property of his Majesty, who might will
it in the same manner as any one of their Lordships
could will their property. In• what had fallen from
the Noble Earl, on the subject of the Grant to the
Duke of York, he (Lord Liverpool) could not but
consider the Noble Earl had treated the subject very
unfairly. Would the Noble Earl say that he believed
the Duke of York, or any other person; could hold
that high office without incurring very considerable
expense, independent of travelling expenses ? Did
Noble Lords believe that the Queen with her £58,000,
and her £lO,OOO, .was getting rich? It was well
known what endeavours. had been made in other

•
........- ... -......
places to delude the people ou this. subject ; but the

The
toteenasullsen°r, Wangdoism:te;now vied; ktP:ne!ciaetect:
petty ate died possessed of. How had she spear's;
money ? Had she dissipated it in riot and extra,
gance ? He could answer that goestion.
state, from the letters and applications he had
ceived, the amount and extent of her almost bear,d."—
less charities, and the numbers of individuals r-sa
now mourned her loss in bitter tears of sor.„„
—( Hear, hear).—Previous to the King's indispose;,,
he frequently assisted her Majesty in her ch •
after his melancholy indisposition commenced, ti's
resource failed her, and not only that, but her
jesty took upon herself the burthen of many of
King's pensioners. This circumstance had tailed
much to straiten her Majesty, and the state in whici
her property was at the time of her death, was ac.
counted for by this circumstance. The Noble Lai
observed, that by the death of her Majesty, the Prig.
Regent might have appropriated the 4.35,000 os:d;
the Queen had enjoyed, to any part of the Civil Lit.
his Royal Highness had, however, liberally reiir-
quished it to the Puhlic, and all which was now7s.
quized was, that the Duke of York should too
£lO,OOO a•year to defray those expenses which ev.sid
attend the high and important office to which he had
bcoo appointed.
The Marquis of BUCKINGHAM said, t-at
intention of their Lordships had originally bean. to.:
the King, upon his recovery, might find his usathi;sl..
ment as nearly as possible in the same state as beftos
his indisposition. At present there was no rtonanFili:-
Officer about the person of his Majesty, and :he Cio.
tos ought to receive a salary that a responsible Officer
might be so employed. At present, should the King
be ill-used, it would be impossible to find out the
Officer cb.trged with the care of the Royal Person.
For himself he should have preferred making the
Council responsible, ard allowing them a salary. la
the present stare of tie country, he thought thst rot
a shilling shoal be spent uenecessarily, but the ao
rangement for the comfort of the King was the last
quarter to which the eountry.would look for econo-
my. As there was no responsible Offietr about tLs
King he must take the Custos as he found him, aad
he was not to be deprived of the salary becaase he
was the King's son. No person could s'er a memeo
suppose that the Duke of York was actuated by ars
sordid motive in taking upon him the care of tEe
Royal Person.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE observed, that tse
sum in question was not a salary, but an indemnE
Ication for expenses that would necessarily be incurred
by the Custos, and it was not proper that a charac:cr
so elevated should make out bills. The Grant sots
fully justifiable upon the same princisle that had
justified the Grant to the Queen. Many were of opi-
nion that the Grant would have been proper if made
from the Privy Purse. But in his opinion such a
proceeding would have been a violation of the rights
of private property. The Privy Purse had been re-
cognised by Act of Parliament as the private pros
perry of the King, and the savings out of it followed
the course of the common law. He would ask, whe-
ther, on the event of the King having contracted
debts, such a Grant could be made from the Privy
Purse? A proposition might with equal justice he
made to dispose of the property that had been left
by the Queen to her daughters. Some of the greatest
Lawyers of the age had been of opinion, that, in the
event of no will, the savings on the Privy Purse would
come to the Crown ; though, in some of his opinions
on that subject, he had the mortification to find that
he agreed with neither side of the House. There oas
meanness in the reductions that had been made in
the Windsor Establishment, particularly in throwing
upon the world persons who had served upon it from
30 to 4.0 years. Many had looked to the situations
they held there as a provision for their future days.
The details that had been gone into were disgraceful
to Parliament, and tended to undermine the digsOty
of the Crown ; nor could he see what connection the
death of the Queen had with the reduction that had
taken place. He should therefore support the Bill.
The Earl of DARNLEY thought that the interest
of the Duke of York would have been better con-
sulted, had he come down to the House, and in his
place declined the salary proposed to be attached to
the office. He should vote for the proposition of his
Noble Friend.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE stated, that at the
close of the last Session he had observed that the re-
duction of the Windsor establishment might supply
the expense of the Royal marriages. At the com-
mencement of the King's indisposition, a hope had
been entertained of his recovery ; and in that view
the Royal Establishment had been continued on the
same footing as before. There was then a good
ground for the reduction of that part of the Royal
Establishment which had been continued under
the idea that the King might recover. It he could
for a moment suppose, that such a proposal implied
any abandonment of the King, he would be the first
to take the sense of the House in opposition to it
The Bill before their Lordships was, upon the whole,
a fair arrangement ; but upon the grant to the Duke
of York, he concurred with his Noble Friend (Lord
Grey.) But could the services of the Duke of York
be recognized by that House, he should cheerfully
vote for any remuneration for those services. It
would have been better that the claim had not been
made, though at the same time no doubt could be
entertained that the duties would be most faithfully
and ably discharged. He could not concur with his
Noble Friend (Lord Lauderdale) that the Privy Purse
was the private property of the Sovereign. At the
commencement of the present reign it had been
merged in the Civil List, and the separation had ori-
ginated from Mr. Burke's Bill. But the real question
was, had Parliament made the Privy Purse private
property? Were that the case, Parliament could have
no right to enable the Duke of York to giant pen-
sions out it, and yet l'arliament had charged the
whole expense of the medical attendance upon the
Privy Purse. Parliament saw that two Privy Purses
could not exist at the same time, and accordingly the
Privy Purse of the Prince Regent was for his sole use.
He could see no impropriety in the salary or rern'-i-
-aeration of the Custos being defrayed out of t. .e
Privy Parse. The office could derive ao additional
responsibility from a salary being annexed to it, and
he should, therefore, give his negative to that part
of the Bill.
Lord LAUDERDALE, in explanation, observed,
that Parliament might make the same application of
the privy rune that had beett mask by thy hing,Wh°

nut]
The Creole, eight
at N. en, Arundel-err!.
The rioncer, tot the 1

medical auendants out of it ; and,
Parliament only carried into effect the.

;HANCELLOR observed, that the
, as much the private property of the
property of any. Noble Lord of that
own. A judicial opinion upon the
be obtained from Acts of Parlia-
, point was completely settled by the
39th and 40th of the King. By those
- was enabled to buy estates with the
those estates, and devise them, by will,
iroperty—(Hear). Like private pro-
liable to the payment of his debts,
taxation. The King's recovery was
li
.fired of; and it was but reasonable
that applied to the case of the meanest
ipply also to the Sovereign. The Act
1 character to the property till the
; and by the Act of the 57th, the
separated from the royal property. Every
-Ton the subject declared the pro-
erivate ; and Parliament in paying the
!rendants out of it, onl did what the King
bgore—(Henr). In the case of a Custos,
11e did not apply to the King, from
Lracter, that would apply to a private
Constitution had pronounced that
remain Sovereign till his death,
to exercise the functions of sove-
' in all judicial decisions, the possi-
was always supposed, and provision
dings of the party should be spared
,ible upon his recovery. Had the
:cepted the office gratuitously, that,
id have been an objection to his hay-
i had his cordial support. '
adverted to the number of the Cabi-
i, that each individual member of
.fifteenth part of the blame of any of
Those were the greatest enemies of
brought the question of grants to
ly so frequently before Parliament.
the grant as unnecessary, though
le rest of the Bill.
,f BUTE supported the grant on the
tth the Lord Chancellor.
tottly replied. He could see no ad-
incurred by the appointment, and
ippcse the grant. One Noble Lord
N% as impossible to state the expenses;
, that he could easily conceive them,
not explain them. He thought that
could be neither stated nor explained,
provided for by that House.
',lent wax then negatived without a
Nine o'clock the House adjourned.
LOUSE OF COMMONS.
occupied in balloting for the Lancaster Bo-
!ommittee till five o'clock.
- defaulters on the ballot were called over,
.i of Mr. W. Wrsx, those who came in after
ordered to be excused; but those who in future
• should not be excused.
moved that Mr. A. BARING, Sir F. Bun-
,TNCRST, be ordered to attend the baUot on
Ihdered.
:REAGII moved that Mr. ALBANY &mix
custody of the Serjeant at Arms, for not at-
, but an excuse of illness having been made
,Ivrea3h withdrew his Motion.
proposed, that in future, the doors should
btflot: , tmtil the whole of the names had
order the better to ascertain defaulters.
Canal Bill was teal a third time and passed.
'''YSON moved the second reading of Trelaw-

,YLOR said, this WAS the first Bill which had'
. the Lards, which had made no provision for
had induced the House, on several other ocean
order to prevent unfortunate women from re-
gorse courses ; and it. was his determination to
course.—The Bill was then read a second time,
- committed to-morrow se night.
presented a Petition from St. Dunstan 's in the
leave to be heard by Counsel, against the Lon-
-Referred to the Committee on the Bill.
ii presented Petitions from Whitechapel and
the insolvent Debtors' Act; and other Pea-
Parishes, for a reduction in the Duties on
to be laid on the table.
IN presented Petitions from the Eastern part
. Essex, praying for a revision of the Criminal
iplaining of its present severity. He wished to
se Noble Lord opposite, if it was his intention to
Gaol Committee a proposition for a more frequent
Between the Lent and July Assizes there was
accumulation of prisoners, which might by better regu-
-• diminished at least 30 per cent. There was scarcely a
England in which they were not put to the most enor-
' by the neglect of some meth,'d of clearing the gaols.
i'LEREAG 1.1 had nut intended to have brought
oefore the Committee ; but there was nothing to
Committee from enquiring into it.
• were then ordered to be referred to the Gaol

...LS presented a Petition from Colville, in War--
&phut any alteration in the Duties on Coals.—Or-
on the table.
NS presented a Petition from Truro, against
the Insolvent Debtors' Act.—Referred to the

ART presented a Petition from Donegal, praying
enetchnent of the Distillery laws of Ireland.
;LL gave notice, that to-morrow week he would
I to the House for an amendment of the Distil-

Ae Clerk of Election Committees, presented the
Ballot on the Lancaster Election. The names were
Iles
'MullA. K. Finlay,
bilvel:;1.
41.
'eve A. A. lioublon, Esq. '
Sir M. Sykes
Lei Lord Normanby
tgomery W. J. Drake, Esq.
a•
bourn Esq. W. E. Bootle, Esq.
Rates Application Bill was read a first time, and
' read a second time on Monday next.
Claims Bill was postponed for a second reading
next.

iIIitTENAY brought up an account of the Terri-
of the East lIICILL Company, and of their army.
on the table.
.SOX moved, that the letters delivered into this
.ten relating to the Hon. W. Quin, be returned to
from whom they were received.—Ordered.
taLtonorsa LICENSING SYSTEM.
:CTS BULtDETT said, he was about to
nitien from a very pour but very honest
was one of a widely extended class of
,sr eine deserved the gravest consideration
t C•The Petitioner complained of griev-
ottt of the present arbitrary system of
Incr Petitioner had a public-house, which
notice- person coming into the premises ran
lI a brewer, who was a principal Magis-
'own (Plymouth), to a large amount, and
PAr hirn ; in consequence of which the
usca to renew his (the petitioner's) license,
yo*:,l tllc debt, which he had tißthing to do

Dia the
1:115.. parlia
is 0 'kgligg' • a.
, of the .0110,..,„,
I,e LORD k;i11
, mole was as I
F: ' the proPe
ibg as his own
m...,,e was 1 , L
w"-- could only L
..1,:,.ct CO
d the pOlll
re.4fauthe 39th at
',,,,- °King was
oteey' the,
to sell those
$ his private prof
off they were ial
rod'subject to tat:
fe p
desaire
.t.....a Principle that
.4:tct should appl•
a personal ci
of the King ;
,ore was separate
.04 ir. the Act up
fis to be private
i/dical ztcndants
i done bofore—(
;.: same principle
political charact
iJvidual. Thc C
••e King should r
0-ever unable to
4:111)01%er ,
• • and i
iiiiiF of recovery w
7,ade that the feelit
much as possibl
)zke of York acce
.I.,:iirniiiil, would]
it. The Bill ha
Zara( KING adv
and observed,
- bare only one-tilt
-:- measures. 11
i !crown, who bi
• Royal Family
Jr s!ionld oppose 1
tiiiixwovcd of the
1..... e Marytis cif
Are groura, with
Earl G IiEY shul
iiitional expense ir
most therefore opi
nil said, that it W:
other had said, t
ralgh he could ii
ionises that coal
:111,1 not be prov
The Amendme
icon; and at N'
1101
The nose was OCI
7.71: Maims Comm
Tie names of the d
mi et the llction of
Is ballot, were order
41xted the ballot oh
in %V. WYNN in
er, and Mr. Dams
2-- :sday neat.—Ord
Lml CASTLERI
`mead into the cc
-hag the ballet, I
-bunt lard Castle'
Mr. W. WYNN i
sett oimed after b
km calltsi over in n
Tie Carlisle Canal
Ir. C. TENNIS'
:is Divorce Mil!.
Mr. IL A. TAIL
me down front th:
as Lady, as he had i
r.'s to make, in ord
ming to stilt worst
rued in that coors
.:ordered to be co
',I:. WILSON pr
Le, praying for lea
ix Clergy-BilL—R
Mr. MELLISI!
Wapping, against th
tam from the same
Cals.—Ordered to'
Mr. WESTERN
0 the County of Es
C.,.de, and complain
lee, front the No
ssbmit to the Gaol i
Crsol Delivery. Be
]treat accumulatio
L..ton In diminished
Lusty in England
tali rxpense by the
Lad CASTLE]
sb.s matter before t
der th Commit
The Petitions the
(Ansi:toe.
)Ir. C. MILLS
t4shi;e, against
isrd to he laid on
, err. TOMLIN]
Zt re-twal of th
isanni.t.se.
c e oral HART
4 :11 amer.dment
4 Mr. PA ILN EL
„.. Essasit a motion t
1 *l'll Lws of Irela
)I'. LEY the
i apa:: ei the Balk
'7 lvd Lascelles
V.:11 Knatchbs
k: W. Cosigns
rir J.Perriog
Mon. C. Paget
]*,?]. Montgon
il liaison Esq
431 CLulour
, .71* Poor Rate,
a
to be 1;1
n= Flitch CI
t2"oldsav next.
;i* T• COL/11
•
.1 ItCleillie 01
g ..tte.:,4 to tie
on
j . P" WILSI
..-lii Al muter
-I ems from
~. PURE
N.i. FRANI
seat a Peti
`144, wl,n tvi
itc9le, ts I.l.'ist
twit[ I iginiiit
t'sy!s anxin'.:
:iztsing, t
let; dnotl.
sildeim with
.ritt Q. the ti
0011,1 :tot n
tt, r
'el' refus
i-r: he izi