Star.
London, England, 1818-02-14 00:00:00

■

z

p.

. ' •

J , L 44! 101E.LLIGENCS.
•

•. .

' \CONFSINIT COURT, DOCTORS' COMMON&
LAT KIRKWALL D. LORD KIRKWALL.

W 1;. SCOTT gave judgment this day in the above
cause, being a suit of Divorce instituted by Lady
Kirkwall against Lord Kirkwall, on the ground of,
Adultery The Learned Judge observed, that the
facts of the adultery, with the identity of Lord Kirk-
wall, and the different persons with whom he coha-
bited at various places, not being any of them Lady
Kirkwall, were fully proved ; the Court therefore
pronounced for the separation sought.
COURT OF conukoN PLEAS.

CAM CON.-FRATICIS V. STIPURN (TEARY WILKES.
The plaintiff in this case is a Clerk in the General
Post Office, with a salary of 5001. a-year ; the defen-
dant, a Medical Practitioner.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff was married to his wife, whose maiden
name was Hannah Lester, at St. Andrew's Church,
Holborn, on the 24th May, 1812, of which marriage
they had issue two children.
Thomas Dean produced a copy of the marriage
register.--Joseph West was present at the ceremony.
Mr. George Caster married a sister of Mrs. Francis.
The plaintiff was twenty-five years of age when they
were married, and his wife twenty. Witness resided
with them a year and a half after their marriage.
Their conduct to each other was most affectionate—
Saw defendant at the house of th© plaintiff, where he
staid for six weeks. Does not know whether he boarded '
and lodged there. He was introduced to the plaintiff
by the recommendation of Mr. Owen; of whose Plats
be had professed himself a follower. Funding the
plaintiffs wife had eloped, witness made inquiry at
a house in Foley-street, where he got some intelli-
gence of her and Dr. Wilkes being together in Lon-
don, and had been seen walking arm in arm in the,
streets. Witness was present when defendant was in
custody, at .Union Hall on a charge of stealing a
broach, the property of the plaintiff, which was found
upon his person. The charge of felony was aban-
doned upon his giving up the broach, and Mrs. Fran-
cis was not examined as to the fact of her having
given it hint. • This was the 281 or 29th of Decem-
ber last. Witness requested her to go home with
him; but 'she pei3isted in her refusal, Was present
when a letter from the defendant, after his being ar-
rested for debt, was delivered to Mrs. Francis, direc-
ted." to Mrs. Seymour, No. 5, Joiner-street."
_ _

cross-esainixeil by Mr. Justice Daltas.—Does not
know whether Dr. Wilkes resided in the plaintiff's
house as a physician or as a lodger; but he attended
the lady during her illness. Mr. Francis was
upon
absent from home during Every day, attending his
duty at the Post Office. The parties were thus left
alone together, except one servant-maid.
Mr. -Henry Bankes was married to the sister of the
plaintiff. He latterly resided at Tunbridge Wells,
and was in town last October, when he, as usual,
went to No. 49, Charlotte-street, Portland Place : he
found the defendant (Dr. Wilkes) on friendly terms,
an inmate of the house : he understood him to have
got admission there as the friend and companion of
Mr. Owen, and as one warmly embarked in his plans,
and that he *as to remain there while Temple cham-
bers were fitting up for him. While witness was in
town, he was struck with the conduct of Dr. Wilkes.
Mrs. Francis was in a very weak state of health, after
a typhus fever: she appeared enthusiastic in Mr.
Owen's Plan, and at times seemed not quite sane.
The base and improper conduct that he attributed to
the defendant was an evident intention to flatter the
illusions of Mrs. Francis, when they evidently arose
from weakness, with a view to her ultimate seduction.
Witness stated his suspiciqn to Mr. Francis, and the
result was, that the defendant was immediately com-
pelled to quit the house. In the hope of bringing the
lady to a better state of mind, she was carried by her
husband for a few days down to witness's house at
Tunbridge Wells, where she soon recovered; but im-
mediately on her return to town she eloped with the
defendant. Witness cable up to town about the 29th
of December, and:accidentally met the defendant and
Mrs. Francis, walking arm in arm, in Pimlico—he
followed Viem—had the defendant carried to Union,
Hall, firs:, on a charge of stealing.a broaehhelong-
ing to Mr. Francis, but the charge was' relinquished,
because it was stated that Mrs. Francis gave it to the
Doctor; he was afterwards arrested for debt, and the
lady forcibly carried away from him.
It was then proved that Mrs. Francis and the defen-
dant lived together as man and wife for a fortnight,
in a house in Joiner-street, Westminster-road.
The following extracts from letters written by the
defendant were also put in in evidence:
" My dear Hannah—This absence only serves to chew the
horror I feel without you.—l will repay your devotion.—My
dear love, if I fall I will fall like Phzton, in a noble daring!"
Another has the following passage :
" How to see you, I don't know—or whether you can come
to me to-night. Oh! what have they done with you? I shall
apply to 11.— 0— for bail. Oh! what shall I do, my beloved
Dannah ?"
In another letter to a friend, the defendant de-
scribes himself as " residing in the bosom of a most
attentive and affectionate family."
Mr. ANDREWS, late in the trial, said he was unex-
pectedly instructed to appear for the defendant.
The COURT, after some hesitation, allowed the
Learned Counsel to put some questions to the brother-
in-law of the plaintiff, who admitted that Mrs. Fran-
cis was at present in her husband's house, where care
was taken of her, In consequence of the distracted
• of her mind.
"DRE*S addressed the Jury for the defen-
urged the impossibility of his paying any
his distressed circumstances. He also
that the injury to the husband was not so
when he could take his wife back again
domestic roof. •
istice DALLAS charged the Jury, and said
poverty of the defendant, though not to be
ad, "was yet no weighty consideration in a case
lad, for he must pay in person if he cannot
As to the charge that the unfortunate hus-
not abandoned the wife in her distracted
iod, but had ordered persons to take care
I last person that should urge that in we-
, Isis crime was the defendant.
Idly; after five minutes' consideration, man-
rdict for the plaintiff—Dan:ups, 5001.
examination of one of the witnesses it came
ie defendant is now in prison for debt.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY is.

Counsel were heard this day respecting the following Scots
causes—
" Gordon v. Majoribanks," in continuation, and finally.
" Hunter v. M'Govran," heard in full, On both thes.: cases
their Lordships' Judgments were postponed. '
" Sir W. Elliott of Stobbs, Bart. v. Pam" in this case Coun-
sel were heard in part. To proceed again.on Monday.
His Grace the Duke of Noaruustaracallo and Viscount
Gassvu.i.e- respectively presented Petitions, touching certain
private business before the House.
Mr. Merman, from the Treasury, presented the Annual Ac-
counts respecting the number, &c. of vessels cleared out from
the Scots Ports, foi the White Herring and Northern Whale
Fisheries. .

Mr. Sawatt, from the Stamp Office, presented an Account
of the number of Licenses for Promissory Notes, issued in the
years 1815, 1816, and 1817, pursuant to a recent order of the
House.
After waiting for some time in apparent expectancy of re-
ceiving some communications, their Lordships adjourned tdl
Monday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. HUTCHINSON (from the Bank) presented Accounts of the
Weekly Amount of Bank Notes and Bank Post Bilk in circu-
lation during the last year, with the amount of the whole, the
price of Bullion during the same period, the balances in hand,
arc.--Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. H. SUMNEIt presented a Petition for leave to bring in
a Bill for making a New Road from Greenwich toWoolwizii.---
Referred to a Committie.—He also presented a Petition for
leave to bring in a Bill to authorise the erection of a Bridge
over the Thames at Rotherhithe.—Referred to a Committee.

-.
Lord G. L. GOWER presented a Petition from certain Soli-
citors in Staffordshire, praying that persons not brought up to
the Law tyay be restrained from acting u CoorcyanciTs.—Or-
dered to he on the table- _ •

Sir E. BRVDGES.preeented a Petition from some of the
principal inhabitants of Maidstoue, praying for leave to bring in
a Bill for enabling Creditors more expeditiously to recover Small
Debts.--Refereed to a CODlRlaltee.-
Mr. DOUGLAS presented a Petition from Dumfries, pray-
ing that a Bill might be brought in for so regulating the Royal
Burghs in Scotland, that the espenditure of each should. be re-
gularly brought forward by the proper Authorities, that the
accounts might be audited. The Honourable Member, in irtro-
ducing the petition, -spoke at some length on the importance of
the subject, and on the advantages likely to result from the
'adoption of such a law.
The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND said a measure
of the nature of that adverted to, had been in his contemplation.
for some time, and he had meant to bringin a Bill on the subject
in the course of the present Session.
After a few words from Mr. W. DUMAS and Lord A. Ha-
, stilton, the Petition was ordered to lie on the tables
A similar Petition from the Merchant Burgesses of the Burgh
of Dumfries, was presented, read, andorderelto lie on the table.
Mr. MELLISH presented a Petition from artist Free-
holders of Middlesex, praying for leave to brinsfin ejill for she
erection of a New Bridge ever the Maine' from Haedixecturisita
Ordered to lie on the table. • • - *eh

A Petition was presented frotn Birmingham in favourofawl
Chimney-s Weepers Regulation Bill.—Ordered to lie ()tithe table.
The Chimney-sweepers' Regulation Bill was read a second
time, and committed for Monday.
On the motion of Mr. GORDON, AccOunts of the Sums
expended within the last ear on Plymouth Dock and Lines,
were ordered to be laid before the House.

Sir F. BRYDGES postponed his notice, respecting the Copy-
right of Authors, from the 17th inst. to the Sd of March.
Mr. C. WYNN presented a Petition from a Mr. James
Holmes, Curate of Sandacre, in the county of Derbyshire.--;
The Petitioner had Livings 'and Freeholds in several other
counties; and as it was inconvenient for him to travel so as to
exercise his elective franchise in each place, he prayed that some
provision might be made in the Bill before the House to lev-
itate Elections, for the accommodation of persons in his satiation,
who he suggested might be allowed to vote by affidavit.—The
Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
ELLCTION LAW AMENDMENT DILL.

The Report of the Election Law Amendment Bill 'svaltaken
Jaw forAlser c,onsidaratioila i 44 was Xe-c4=
Mr..Win.Cti hoped Gentlemen Who Cal any " to
propose in the au now before the Hoiiie,woulli take this op..
portunity of bringing them forward, as this was the stage in
which they could be most conveniently received. Besides the
Universities of Word and Cambridge, he wished to except the
City of London from the operation of the pros-lanais which it
contained for limiting the duration of Polk, as the reannerin
which the City Elections were always conducted made it W.
necessary to alter the law with respect to them. •
Mr. LOCKHART thought that clause of the Bill objection-
able which went to provide, that if a riot took place on any
day during the election, the Sheriff, or returntrg Officer, should
have power to adjourn the poll to another day. If it might
thus be adjourned from the second to the third, it might be ad-
journed in like manner from the third to the fourth, and so on,
land in some cases it might so happen that when a candidate was
satisfied he should not be able to procure 400 votes in the two
first days—the number necessary to keep the poll open—that he
would set his own party on to make a riot that he might thus
gain another day to bring up his forces. The claw was the
more objectionable as it did not say where the riot must take
place to authorize this adjournment, and consequertly a riot at
a considerable distance might be used as a pretext for doing so,
though it had nothing to do with the election. At present he
bad no remedy to suggest, but be had thought it right to throw
out these observations. _ _

Mr. WYNN said it appeared to him that In the cues supposed
the discretion of the returning Officer must be exercised, and if
he acted improperly, he would doubtlelebe liable to the severe
censure of that House.

Mr. LOCKHART knew of no remedy for the evil of which
he had spoken, but by suffering the poll, in the cases he had
supposed, to be kept open only for thine who should swear they
had been preveuted from coining up before by the riots.
Some further discussion took place on the other clauses of the
au, in which Mr. BAUM, Lord Leectuss, Sir M. W. RID-
Lay, Mr.Vl'vrat, and Mr. Banes participated, after which they
were agreed to, as was a new Clause proposed by Mr. Wring,
which went to give the Sheriff or Returning Officer, during the
time of an Election, the authority of a Justice of the Peace. The
House then resumed, .71fr. Bacsanza reported, and the Report
was ordered to be received on Monday, and to be printed.

BOARD OP AGRICULTURE:

Mr. D. GIDDY presented a Petition from the President and
Members of the Board of Airiewfrwrop praying for the asset of
a awn of money in aid of aiseir funds, in the present year.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated the
Petition to be recommended by the Crown.
Ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.

Mr. BENNET presented a Petition from Joseph Mitchell,
of Liverpool, one of the unfortunate persons lately confined un-
der the Habeu Corpus Suspension Act. Vittether this person
was or was not entitled to credit, he muse leave to those who
knew him better than he (Mr. Bennet) did. He, however, had
no reason to believe his statement other than pxrect; the hard-
ships he had suffered were great, and to him it appeared be had'
a claim to the protection of the House.- As the -Petition •was
very long, and only stated whet had bees previously brought
before the House; he did not wish the whole of it to be read.
The prayer of the Petition, which called upon the House not
to grant Slinistera a Bill of Indemnity to preclude the Peti-
tioner from seeking that redresem which he was entitled, was
then read, and the petition was ordered to lieou the Table.

On its being moied lay Mr. Barer tbatit should be printed,
The CHASCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked if there,
were nothing offensive in its language?
Mr. BENNET said, the Petitioner complained of the hard-
ships he had endured, but the language of the petition was not
disrespectful to the House. _
_ .

The petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. BENNET then presented a Petition from Thomastvarts,
another of the persons who had been eonfu:ed under the Suspen-
sion of the Habeas Corpus Act. This he did not desire to have
read, as it only recapitulated various petitions which- had been
presented to the House before. But he had to state, the Peti-
tioner expressed much astonishment at some of the allegations
of his former petitions having been denied. He had stated no-
thing that he was not prepared to prove at their Bar, and he
prayed for an inquiry into the whois Of * late proceedings.
Ordered to lie on dip Table.

lir. Samar laving moved thatthe petition should be printed.
Sir M. W. R/DEEY rose tenotice the conduct of the Chan-
allot au,' Exchequer en the la/4P/titian. The Right Hon.
Gentleman. after it bad been ordered to lie on the table, lead
asked if it contained any thing offensive, elk its being moved that
it should be primed. lie submitted to the House, that any
thing that was fit to lie on their table was fit to be printed.
Mr. W Yrraiuld not agree that because a Petition was suf-
fered ft/ lia on the table, that it followed as a matter of course It
was fit to be printed. Petitions were primed for the use of the
Members, and therefore he thought the I louse might be safely
and properly allowed to us- their discretion arta whether they
should or should not be printed. In many cases they might be
dispostd.to hear a complaint, though not to give it currency by
printing it.
Lord FOLKESTONE thought the strongest argument that
could be used for printing l'etitions, was the statement that they
were printed for the use of the Members of that Houle. How
Could the Members understand what these Petitions were,unkse
They were printed ;(Hear, hear, hear !)—Would it be said that
the Members might go one at a time and read them at the table?
Was this the way they were to become acquainted with them?
'Till within the last nine months, ab Petitions had been regularly
printed. Since he had been in Parliimein, it was common to
ptintall Petitions at fall length. Since it bad become usual to
abbreviate them, and now it was a question whether they should
be printed at *IL He thought it a great insult to the people,
whose servants and whose representatives they were, for them to
say that what they thought fit to lie on their table ought not to
be printed. He should be sorry to see that time arrive when a
motion for printing a Petition should be negatived by the House.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. RENNET neat presented a Petition from another person
who had been confined under the Habeas Corpus Suspension
Act, of the mane of Wiliam Ogden, amen 74-years of age. lio
complained of having been heavily ironed, and otherwise most
harshly treated during his confinement, in consequence of which
he feared he should never be able to follow his employment
again. He had been thus punished because he had been an ad.
vocate for Parliamentary Reform ; though he had paid taxes many
years, and brought up 17 children by his two wives. He de-
clared to GOD that he had done no wrong, and prayed the House
not to pass a Bill of Indemnity to screen Mini,ters, and preclude,
him from obtaining that redress to which he was entitled.—The
Petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
On the motion of Mr. ilr.swer, the. Petition of Benbow, pre-.
seated on a former night, was ordered to be printed.
Sir F. BURDETT said he had a Petition to present, and from.
. .

the scenes which bad lately been disclosed, he could almost fancy
himself living under the Government of the- lley of Algiers.'
The Petition he held in his hand, was from one of those persons
who had been so illegally imprisoned, and not leas illegally set at
liberty, without being first brought before any tribunal where
the parties might establish their innocence. Ile hoped these Pe-.
titians would not lie Idly on the table; but this he knew they.
mold not, as one notice had already been given of a motion on'
the subject. The Petition be now presented was fmrn Jobe
Stewart, a Weaver in Glasgow, who bad been apprehended byt
the Sheriff of Lanark in February last, and confined for seven
weeks and three days. The Petitioner described himself to have
been subjected to great hardships wkille in prison, and to have
,sustained much injury in his
,w
from the expenses
whirls the proceedingshad thiovrn on him. He prayed the House
_
afford men relief.—Tbe Petition rotas ordered to lie onthe table.
" Sir F. ISORDETT presented a Petition from certain inliabi-
tents el Abe parish of St. Georges, I iseover-oquare, signed by 20
names. The Petition prayed for a Bajerm in Parliament, cen-
sured the present Government, coeallisetted the Suspension of the
Habeas corpus Act, and decimal, their prayer were not at-
tended to, they would mist bytillot paying the taxes. •
Lore CASTLEREAGH tboldst at first the word" resist"
had been used but in a oonsdlaniletsal sense by the Petitioners.
But when they declared they Mould not pay taxes, a question
arose quite distinct from that elParliamentary Reform, and he
should now move that this Petition be rejected.
Sir F. BURDETT was dr opinion the parties only threatened
to refuse to pay taxes as the consequence of their not being re-
presented in Parliament. The filltnnet in which the word" resist"
was used did not nec.:ssarily imply unconstitutional' renstanci:
Lord CASTLEREAGH referred to the wdfds of the Pell-
non, which ran.thus .—" If your Hoplourable Weise will nee'
take into your most serious canaideroffon, and comply with out
prayer, by granting a Reform In Paritamens, your Petitionere
will most certainly resist by not paying taxes."—The Petition
was then rejected.
Sir F. BURDETT presented eye Petitions from Bath, mach
signed by 110 names, praying for a Reform.' In Parliament -r-Des
. -
dered to lie on the table.

Mr. BROUGHAM wished to know froth the Maisie Lord
opposite, when it was probable that the Report of Oho Secret.
Committee would be presented to the House ? ' .•.

FINAUCE.

Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the
thirty millions Exchequer BiUs Bill.
-Mr. TIERNEY wished to Mk the Chancellor a

the Exchequer a question. Of the 59,060,000 the.
Right Honourable Gentleman had -Moved for on a
former night, he now proposed IQ tilre but thirty
millions, and this sum he had stated would be enough
to carry on the public business till after Easter: • He
wished to know what was to become cif 'the six mil-
lions due to the Bank, which was to be paid early-in
the month of April ? He wished to know if in this
thirty millions any provision was made for payirag
'the Bank •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that unquestiodably the 30,000,0001. would be sit&
cieat, not only to cover the current expenditure, .but
also to pay, (if it were necessary to pay it in ode surd)
the 6,000,0001. due to the Bank. It was however.
expected, and indeed he took it for granted; that;this
would not be the case, but that the payonit's. w,otikl
be gradually made as should best.suit the tconyetki-
ence of both parties ? • • • - •
--...—_.

Mr. TIERNEY presumed it was one of tote least
considerations whether the payment should be made
in one sum, or in more than one. 11.1!skt, he wished
to know was, whether. it would be irrap *ay:
by the•period at which the bargain with the
should expire.
• .

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
no part of the 6,000,000/. was to be paid to the Bank
before the sth of April. By that time the Loan
would be in the course of payment.

Mr. TIERNEY supposed he was then to under-
stand, that on the sth of April the Bank was in
some way or other to be paid in money. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQXTR, did
not say the Bank would, by that time, bst paid the
whole in one sum, but the payments, when the sth
of April should arrive, would have commenced in
the way that might hest accord with the mutual con-
venience of the Bank add the country. As much
would be paid by the sth of April as the Bank ex-
pected to receive.
Mr. TIERNEY did not know how the mutual con-
venience of both parties could, be consulted in the
business. He should suppose payment at once would
be most convenient to' the party that was to receive
money. If he understood the aancellor of the Ex-1
chequer right, what he had now said knocked on the
head all that he had advanced on a former night. He
had endkavoured to tie him down on this subject to
something specific, by asking whether the Bank was
to be paid the 6,000,0001. it was to receive, in money
or in 'Exchequer 'Bills? The answer given to this
question was most important. It had been seen how
it affected the country, when it was stated, that the
payment was to be made in money ; but after what
had just fallen froni the Chancellor of the Exchequer
they were all at sea again. If out of the 6,000,0001.
which bad been borrowed, but one pound ihould be
given to the bank, it might be said tile paymeitbad

4commruded, and the rest was to be Eric:lo4,4
*barged at some time or other. But tiffs sra,;
portant to the country, as the Bank :Mould
net having been paid, an argument for not re 7
cask payments. Every body had undert-to,,i attl
6,000,0001. was to be paid in money. It
seen, that of the sum voted (39,000,0(04 141
90,000,0001. was taken by the Chancellor ,a• IE4
chequer, and the payment which was to be 2,34
ally made was in fact deferred. It was clitheui
say why he should have got the 39,000,010.,4
supply, and then declined taking it, to par ofi
loan which he had, called on the House to
He might have good reason for doing one of
things, but he did not see how the Right 110n54.4
Gentleman could feel justified in doing 15-.1
out of the 30,000,0001. he had said there
paid as large a proportion of
.the loan as
expected to receive by the time which 1,
nkmed. Was there then any understandii.
gag Bank and the Chancellor of the Erclie;Le,
the payment of the loan should be postp.*!
there were, he ought to let it be known, tlic
might start fair. He (Mr. Tierney) was the k
anxious for an explicit answer on this head. a /
mour was abroad—he had, indeed, hex d r •
tively asserted that day, that the payrnen! oft q
in money had never been in contempleion.
things were now in such a state that r.;1Y:21-
what the Chancellor of the Excliegner
at. It only required the simple
ing the English lapguage, to undet-,:_,l:iore
explanation of the Chancellor cf the 11:.1.tqur
other night, the direct contrary of rAr
peared to be his intention to do. What has
in the mean time to chungo those intent,trs
not. Only this was to be- learned inns :;:e et
ence in the present case—that latieWer
tion of the Chancellor of the Excheo.,.er,
a fortnight before he could expect to heat tl?.:
which it was really intended, to give—0h...,
and /auglatre.)
The. CHANCELLOR of the EX( lIEC
Notwitiuiamssng all that was said by the }LI
nonrable.Gendernan, he was pnwinced thy;
person in the Home could have misunderst,4
had said on the occasion adverted to

az 41„

on.bGentleman. On that occasion the it k:
Gentleman distinctly asked, whether the ns
was to be paid in money, or by an Excl.'s:viz., J
'chequer Bills? To that he as distinctly rel.zi
the payment was to be in money. No qua
asked as to the time. when the payment us;
made, whether on the sth April oe at any kr.e
andtherefore nothing as to the time was sai.:
in his irflivereter, hear, hear.) He sad;
even if the payment were made by an issue
chequer Bills, ns these would necessarily b
in money, his answer must at all events nue
tinctly implied, that at some time or other tir
meat would be made in money. The on'_y qaf
which he was asked was as to the nice o
meat—and as that was all that was asked. r
all that he could be understood to answer—
hese, hear.) As to the time when their p
would be made to the Bank,
tinetly that it would be such that
in _no_ degree be thereby prevented fo.
its Cash.P.iymetats ; and all that •::.c P.
forentlensan could be understood iii ear...rats:a.,
hire* been the effect of the time in
*teeth* the'resumption of Cash Par-rite:..l,..
TIEIiNEY said the Right
certainlytenly stated the que:tion
Tierney) had put ea a former evenir.o.
wheq'he asked that question, he held .
bill, whifh it was stated that the f:i r
to be repaid on or before the 51'.1
and he certainly thought, that when hi aSi
what shape the re-payment was to be ma 1.
could be only understood tb Mean the r:.?.:rt
:which was to be made on or before the Lth 01:3.1
and when the .Chancellor of the Exch.xite
aimed that the re-payment was to be in 'rico!
(Mr: Tierney) was certainly stupid encr,..7l".
stand hini as meaning that it was to be rade zi
time mentioned in the bill.
• Mr. SHARPE said that after all that
said on the subject, he wished to know eh.:"111
fix millions were to be repaid before the tiro(
the Bank wa6.10, resume its cash pavrre arc ?
• • The CHANCELLOR of the tXt'HEci.l
The repayments Mai •be made at such tine
Ainic may requite.—(hags, fear.)
•Mr. GRENFELL said, his understand:rig
ishe Chancellor of the Exchequer had said clx
tnes day, certainly was that the te-paysr,r:u
be made to the Bank, not in E:chequer
ie Bank notes, before the, sth. of April. He
'understood, •that if not before the sth of Aiir.:l
at least-the repayment would be made c1.:7;:7
lirilent Session. As to making the :i7ne.::".l
mentaccord with the time of resuming riti
ments,.it was to be observed that there s'.. V!'
Restriction Act, an option to keep it in rd!
three years, and if the option was to be cs
nuance of the Act for three years, weuld
for the re-payment of the six ',71
tionably extended ? He hoped the Chance.. ..7!I
Exchequer would condescend to answer ; s
was desirous of takin this opportunity
that Government had, for some time pp:. 74
suing Exchequer Bills at a premium of 2J. ix:
per diem, which was equivalent to about :3
per annum, even deducting the premium n •,J
the Bills issued at that rate. It was very
that Government should be able to rai,e r-zr
such moderate terms, but the most imp
was, that the tendency would directi) 1.. •
down the rate of interest throughout the o
He then descanted on the political ben,.ri:,
rate of interest being lowered—that it stor:;a:ril
commerce and manufactures, and enable: (4
men of landed property to borrow mom y
security of their estates. It was a comn:i;::,'.*:
to the benefits of a low rate of interest,
tendency to withdraw capital from the cry :'r•
the purpose of being deposited in the
reign states, or otherwise abroad, where s
rate of interest could 'be obtained. To I.•
that the badness of the security of any It
vernment would naturally crevent any consiao
part of the capital of' this country being i!tr,:l
employed elsewhere than in this Country.
that the rate of interest throughout the count!!
now so low, dust the Bank ought to loci'

n hat he
e Bank

state of her
Mr. AND
dant, and t
damag
contended t
irreparable,
under his d
Mr. Justi
that the pm
- • overlooked,
of this kind
in purse. /I
band bad
state of mh
• of her, the
nuation of 1
The Jul-)
ned a vordi
• In the ex
out that the
• ev.
•
a).
• .
• II • •

was done, it would be bei,e-
wrcantile interest, but to the
elf.

I of the EXCHEQUER said,
question of the Ilonourable
last, it would be enough to
it of the six millions was to
in the course of the present
incurred with the principles
urable Gentleman, but wonld
rther than merely to say, that
to his Majesty's Government
ime time past to raise money
!rest than had been paid for
a long series of years.
CH BUROHS.

N rose to make his motion re-
scotch Burghs, and began by
tibn between the subject of it
liamentary Reform. His mo-
Act and Warrant by which a
.ates had been granted by Go-
h of Montrose, and an altera-
wstitution of that Burgh. The
ate had lately declared, that
were satisfied with things as
) had observed what had pas-
the last six months, who had
ntry had teemed with Resolu-
: Burghs, stating the grievan-
t redressed, would find some
the Learned Lord's assertion.
neither the Noble Lord oppo-
Tiber of his Majesty's Govern-
Lade perfectly acquainted with
he Scotch Burghs, would vo-
system of fraud that existed
only one fact s' shew the state
glis—namely, that the inhabi-
cotland, who had no voice in
to Magistrates •of that Burgh,
heir conduct, was nevertheless
:tots they might in their magis-
t. Another abuse was the self-
a•ates—a practice contrary to
justice ; ' and one than which
an could not contrive a mode.
oduce the most abject .state of
r. In many Burghs in Scotland
ty chose, were self-elected in
the affair Was so managed that
to thing.: In !other Burghs, the
wand to reside, and, in fact,'
tese were abuses of the most
aions nature. It was not his
cite any unpleasant feelings on
3 means meant any hostility to
he Honourable Gentleman op-
very sorry if any thing he did
D the country, which he was
in his conscience, he believed
he more.effectually benefit it,
lisle effort's to effect the destruc-
elf-election of Magistrates, and
,ty of the Burghs to strict and
hat had. oceurred was this—ln
r, the period was passed by. et ,
e Burgh, of Montrose* Ake Ma-
h.
ongbt to haves tieendecMd4
rex. of subseqesim .
nroxigh the fiord Advocate to
what was called q poll election.
xi for she Burgh, crttainlY, of
r • but wb,at.he lained of,
tibeen done had not been.dope
t endeavouring to obtahainfor.
from profess i0n4,1 men at the
e could not and any ground of
easure which had been resorted
Lord and the Hon. Gentlemen
as a legal proceeding ? Would
to be done to other Burghs an.
tikes ? What had beim clone
more or less than this—that the
to alter the Constitution of a
, as.materially to alter the. re-
Uwe. Was the Noble Lord of
as any Burgh in Scotland fell
r to that in which Montrose had
gh might be revived by an act
was no argument in favour of
y that the new sett granted to
r to the old one. If the Grown,
uthority, could give a Consti-
e enlarged than that which ori-
ght, if it chose, give one worse
It was his object to bring the
;sae as might enable him meal'
House to a more extensive eon.
ect after Easter. What he called
power of the Crown to alter the
Burghs. Supposing that Parlia-
o consideration the gross state of
and should effect an amelioration
Lase would Scotland have to re-
if the moment afterwads Mini-
: all that had been done ? There
which he wished to advert. The
very well that there was a So-
alled the Convention of Burghs.
I actually altered the constitution
-ghs. how, if it had the right
-Majesty's Government had also
e begged to know to which of
Burgas most submit as supreme
which they must consider as sub-
nement many of the B•irglis of
erwliclrned with debt, that no
ed fur their expenses, and the
arable alarm for their property.
cording to the best authority on
sses were li able for the debts of
::hs were involved in the ereatest
and were threatened v. disso.
al interests were concerned, he
.ate of degradation and abuse
fallen, would excite the sym-
House. But he would not
r.al•er say too
)n this subject, as his (.1 acct v-as
1 net to proyoke any animosity,
!e. might lAjure the cure. The
:d with moving, that tio_.rc Lc
a Copy of the Act aid Wor-
n Council, in Septenther,. 1,47,
I Brethren and Inhabi'ant Bur-

gesses of the Burgh of Montrose to elect At persons
to serve as Magistrates and Town Council in that
Burgh, and ordering en alteration of the former
Constitutidh of the said Burgh, in electing the Ma•
gistrates and Town Council in all time coming.
Lord.CA4TLEREAGH said, the speech of the
Noble LOrd had been. marked with • every of
candour; and he was very anxious as candidly to
to
state the grounds on which he saw objections to pro-
ducing the document for which the Noble Lord had
moved. It was very true, the Noble Lord had stated,
that it was not his with to connect the particular re-
form which he wished,' with any general Reform in
the Representation—he had rather in view an im-
provement in the administrative than the representa-
tive character of the Burghs ; but though he bad not
opened the general question of Parliamentary Re-
form, he could not separate the subject from it., The
Reform which he wished would lead to an extensive
change in the Burgh Elections of Scotland, and,
therefore, would carry Reform into the representation
of that part. of the country.7..He would contend that
there were not . very strong-grounds for the produc-
tion of the document, evetocm, the more limited ground
of improvement in rho .6siminisie4on of the Scotch
Burghs. TZlere might he defects e 'that aditiinistra-
tion, as there were defects in every institution • but
in so far as his Majesty's Ministers, front being charged
with the peace of the country, were acquainted with
the-state of the country, he.could say that there was
no part of the country where the population was in a
sounder state than in the Burghs of ScotUnd--(Acar.)
-Order and decorum marked the national character
of Scotsmen, and no where was that order and de-
corom more conspicuous than in the Royal Burghs.
There seemed, however,.a defect in the Low of Scot-
land with respect to the Burghs—they had no power
to take cognizance of their pecuniary concerns, nor to
enter into the subject of the administration of the funds.
But this evil would be obviated by the Bill, of which
notice had been given. With respect to assuming a
right of taxation, he really could not conceive, that
in any of the Burghs the Magistrates and Town-
Council would think of setting up any such arbl-
tra.ry right of assessing their fellow-citizens, or that
there could be any difficulty in resisting an attempt
of such a nature. It was vain to think of separating
,
the question .of Reform, from
.givingto the
,Bur-
gesses the faculty of electing their Magistrates--the
Noble Lord could not state any practical utility in
the PrOlected change, except with a view to a Reform
in the Representation. The doctunents, moved for
could throw np light on the general questieniof
Reform. As to the queition of the legality of what
had been chine' he thought the lipase :were not
likely to be gocl: judges on sucha.subject=(kear.)
Whether the Charter was or was not legal according
to the Law of Scotland, was rather a question for the
decision of a Court of Law, han for the decision of
that.. House. Now, there was no individual of Mont
rose affected by the change who had not his legal re-
ined , and who might not ma Court Cou of Law question
the . ality of' the election of Magistrates under the
LA
new •after. The question milt aim be brought
forward in the Convention of Burghs—that Conven-
tion miglsCrefuse admission to the Delegate. from
Montrose, andtben the:Owls:l f'hether that Dele-
gate ha a. right of admiesion or net, might be agi-
tate& 114 i the Nob] had nit: uLdellat, though
' ''' Ministers
calit was,geoci in.i
.- via . erwards .. • •
at* arramias of a` Very., ' Brent character, to
favour pasiacular political '
views, But here, it ap-
peged„. *a the Act had groivn out of the eircum-
. . .
stancp of the suspension. of all the, powers of the
Burgh. The relief was generally solicited—there was
not one eomplaining party, ; and therefore it was
unfair to consider an Act called for under such cir-
cumstances,. the beginning.pf ap arbitrary- system of
interference with Consututioni of the Burghs. It
was epough to ;chew, that in the present case. the
Crown had not wantonly invaded the corporate rights
Of the Burgh. Ailci the questions whether the Crown
was authorised to act in this manner, it might came
before the House in a much more suitable way than
by the present motion. It was not impossible that
the election of the Member for the class of Burghs
to which Montrose belonged, might be questioned by
the unsuccessful candidate, and a Committee of the
House, acting on their oaths, under the Grenville
Act, might have to dispose of it.
Mr. ABERCROMBY contended this question was
completely separated from that of Parliamentary Re-
form. He did not consider that by his vote on the
present motion he was committing himself on the
question of Parliamentary Reform. He did not see
how it could be considered as connected with Parlia-
mentary Reform, except in so far as any question
1 which had reference to the . persons who returned
Members to Parliament could be considered a ques-
tion of Parliamentary Reform. Had the Crown in
this case only exercised those powers which were ne-
cessary to give activity to the administration of the
Burgh which was suspended by the non-election of
Magistrates at the proper time, then no complaint
could have been made, bat not content svith this, the
Crown had completely altered the sett of the Bergh.
The alteration seas, no doubt, very beneficial in this
instance ; but a precedent was established for a very
different exercise of power in future. The Noble Lord
had told them the question might be discussed with'
more propriety elsewhere. But it was not likely that
any of the inhabitants of Montrose, who were all
pleased with the alteration, would call it in question
in a Court of Law. A Committee, under the Gren-
ville Act, might decide on the merits of a particular
election, but could not with propriety decide the ge-
neral question. There could not, in fact, be 1 subject
more fit for the interference of the House than the
present. He could have wished that his Noble
Friend's motion had been more complete—that he
had also moved for the ad sett of the Burgh, that
the House might see the eitent of the alterations made
by the Crown in this case. If the Crown had exer-
cised a power which did not belong to it, this was a
fit subject for Parliamentary interference. In 'the
course of the present year, five or six Burghs would
be in the same state as that in-which the Burgh of
Montrose had been. As having some connection with
Scotland, he was glad to hear from 'the Noble Lord ,
a languai4e respecting that country so different from,
that which he had heard from Mitt. before—all was
now smooth and tranquil, there were no Secret Corn-
niittees . and it was all owing to the excellent Magi:-
rfiter ietheßurghs of.Sooland that %nags went on
so smooth! y.

The LO E/11 ADVOCATE contended, that no per-
son in that IfOese 'had ever charged Scotland with
being generally disaffected—it was only Glasgow and
its neighbourhood to whiCh the diarge of taking Me•
gal oaths applied. The Noble Lord (Lord A. Ha-
milton) had said, the Magistrates and Council of the
Burghs possessed an unlimited power of taxing the
property of persons residing in the Burgh. The No-
ble Lord had forgot, that in the Declaration of
Grievances, at the Revolution, to levy money with-
out the consent of Parliament was declared contrary
to law. He would ask the Noble Lord, if in any of
th9se Burghs which he declared to be in a state of
utter insolvency, a'single suit had ever been brought
forward against any one of the inhabitants for pay-
meat of the debts of the community. From thelle-
volution downwards, with one single exception in
appearande, which he should explain, no case had
occurred of Butgesses being liable for debts con-
tracted by their Magistrates. He renew that opinions
had been giveq that the inhabitants were liable for
the debts of the Burgh by Counsel—(Hear, hear,)
but though these opinions had been given years ago,
no suit had ever been commenced on them. Ile could
tell the Noble Lord that. the Magistrates of some
Burghs had attempted to levy petty customs for the
' defrayment of the peblic debt ; in Aberdeen, for in-
stance; but the question was ultimately decided, on
appeal to the House of Lords, that the Magistrates
of Burghs had no such pbwer to levy customs. The
Noble Lord had referred to a case decided by the
i s.of Aschequer, but he mistook it. By an old
Scots nStitive, it was alleged the Barons of the Ex-
chequer were empowered to audit the accounts of
Royal Burghs ; bet in the case in question, the Ba-
rons refused to sustain their jurisdietion. This was,
however, merely a question of audit. There was
hardly a year in which applications were not made
to the Legislature by Burghs, for a power of levy-
ing money to pay debt; surely, if an Act of the
Town Council wax a sufficient authority, they would
not have been so ill advised as to apply to Parliament.
—The Noble Lord had stated, that the inhabitants
of the' Scots 'Burghs were placed in. a stars of the
greatest servility ; but the power in Magistrates and
other Office-bearers of appointing their sarcessors,
was mot worse khan the power of holdiiig their'places
for life, In a great many parts-of EngTaricrihe'bra,
gistrates of Boroughs were appoiited for Fife.- The'
Noble Lord woulififind• the power exercised by the
Crown in thecasalof the Burgh of Montrose, was
virtually recognized in the Declar idon of Grievances.'
The complaint in that declaration against King James:
was not for altering the Constitutions of Burghs, but'
for having done so of his own a ithority, " without
jedgment, surrender, or consent." In the case of the
Burgh of Stirling, in 1782, a s'nfilav warrant had
been granted. • Counsel had bee h heard in that ease
before the new constitution was granted, and after-,
wards, though the affairs of that Burgh came befi'ire
the Court of Session three times, and isefofe five or
six Committees of Elections in the Houser.of. Cori"
mons, it had never been 'objected, that the warrant
in the case of that Burgh was void and null. jnl
4t119 hf 90, there was a motion respecting the'atate
((the Scots there
in tie ltepert of that Com-
mittee the modes Were diseneseittn which alteratioas
could be legally made by contsket time, by the
Burghs themselves, and by alinialscdt **Crown.—
The case of Stilling was alf-~lo;*attid„ the right
&altering the sett, as was done itil7SPor 2, was
not questioned. That alteration in Stirling was pre-
cisely the same as that in the Burgh-of Montrose.—
There was, therefore, no ground fdr the allegation
that this exertion of the prerogative of the Crown
was illegal. He had been asked' by-the-Noble Lorch.l
whether he intended tb propose 'the same alteration
in every )3uigb; which, by neglect, might be dis-
franchised? He should answer no: Every case
must stand on its owns merits--(heir, hear, hear 4--
The same Constitution could not possibly be applied
to all the Burghs, because electors, with the same
qualifications, could not be had in 'all 'of them, un-
less all the ezdasive prisiriiilers, which had existed
for ages, should' be abolielt was said that the
'question did tiououch on TarlbunentaTy Reform.—
This was true, if the queitiosNivre confined to the,
consideration of the particular if,' in defis
ance of the Act of Union, it stariatended
duce . a new system of election • ist ilrthe turght; -it
would have the same effect ag a sweeping measure
of Parliamentary Reform--(ffear, from the Oppo-
sition). The Gentlemen dpposite imagined there was
an inconsistency in this- argument ; but he contended
that the power which the Crown had enjoyed-before
the Union, was continued to it by that Act. His
assertion in the last Session, that the people of Scot-
land were satisfied with the Constitution of `their
Burghs, he would repeat. He did not mean that they
were unanimous. The Scots • Were, not famous for
unanimity, as it was alWays'samposed that an argu-
ment was a favourite amusement with that ancient
people. But he had no doubt the tnajority were sa-
tisfied, though great pains had been taken to excite
a ferment. In four-fifths of 'the Burghs there had
been no meeting, and in the others the meetings had
taken place among those sibordinate Corporate Bo-
dies, who wished to have the privilege of choosing
their own Deaconi. He was convinced there would
be a general feeling of alarm, if a general change
were apprehended.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, he should not
enter into the question of Parliamentary Reform, nor
'that of dry law, which was connected with the pre-
sent motion, because the present was an unfit time
to discuss the one, and the Hbuse of Commons was
an improper tribunal to decide on the other. lie
thought the motion of his Noble Friend had heenl
hardly dealt with, 'in being considered a motion sub-
servient to Parliamentary Reform. It was strange
that a motion which called in question the legality of
a change in any one Burgh should be vitaved as lead-
ing to universal change. This seemed a paradox,
which the Learned Lord had chosen for the purpose
of displaying his ingenuity; but in supporting it he
had forgotten his arguments. The Learned Lc ,rd
had used an argument connected with the question
of Parliamentary Reform, which he could not help
noticing. He had said, that it was strange that those
who should blame the Scotch Burghs did not blame
the close Boroughs in England. There were song..
close Boroughs, and some in which there were rights
of popular election ; but in Scotland there were none
of the latter description ; so that whoever supported
the English Constitution could not like the Scottish.
In England, though the system might be, in surni.

respects, Improved, there WAS ti Yktitti of Mocks n:
election, which had been falsely► blamed, as Tr 0-
,ducing an inadequate representation ; but which, op
the whole, produced a representation more complete
than any mode which should proceed on the basis ot
uniformity. (Hear, hear.) But in Scotland there
was the most perfect uniformity on an oligarchical
principle. He contended that any Uniform represin•
cation was bad. Universal Suffrage was, indeed, the
worst of all—(hear, hear,)—if not a monstrous incons
sistenty with all forms of human society. %Hea►s)
It never existed in this countrT, and if it had, be
should have thought its abolition the best plan of
Reform—(hear.) in Scotland there was an Uni■
fortuity of the opposite kind. There was no popular
election, or pretence to popular election. So that
Scotland, though it by the Union enjoyed the protc4•
tion of the free Constitution of England, did not in
the nobler sense participate in it. It was a gross
fallacy, therefore, to compare the state of the RM•
presentation in Scotland to that of England-7(hear.)
He did not, with to speak to the dry legal question,
but legal questions affecting the Constitution, and
particularly the rights of election, were peculiarly
subjects for the considenstion of that House, 'the
question now was, whether or not the Crown possessed
the power of reviving a Bergh, the charter of which
had been lost by intermission of elections, but whe-
ther it possessed the power of altering the constitu-
tion of it? This was a question over which great
doubt hung. He did, not mean to give an opinion on
it. The right rested on a single case, that of Stir-
, ling, which had never been decided on in a Court of
Lew, or in Parliament. I 4 such a case it was the
duty of the House to require information, and he
should therefore vote for the motion.

Mr. J. P. GRANT said, he should not give any
opinion on the points oflawdiscussed by the Learned
Lords, hut if the Crown had by lit,/ the power, in
case of the suspension of the functions of a Corpora-
tion by accident, which might frequently happen,
he suggested whether it would not be proper to sug-
gest some regulatiels on that subject. He thought
the Ministeis thErnselves, if-they saw that such cases
were likely to be frequent, would themselves be apt
to come to Parliament to request its opinion on such
a-subject. The motion, dAly, went to the production
of ti.clo.ctuvfnt, "aud'aitt3,lYe ktitcr not what horror,
syliielsjhe .Z 4111141 =N4l.lltlnd, of he knew not
#hirtlS-art °Nuked with the motion, it
was Sltdgeflief ujificanlfed.: At-to the quietness of the
people, under the present. system, he had very dif-
ferent informationfrorn that of the Learned Lord. Nu-
merous applications had heti made by the Court of
Session to set aside the lateelections, with a view to
obtain disfranchisement, °Flo get poll elections.—
He thought the question should be brought before
Parliament, as he did not see how it could properly
he taken conizance of in a Court of Law.
R. FI'ItGUSSON supported the motion. No
one who looked at the deplorable state of the Repre-
sentation in Scotland, could agree in the eulogies
which had been pronounced on it. The people wer.,
not in a state of fermentation, but of great an iiAy
for a better system, of which they, had..a good ex-
ample in the new constitution of Montrose. lie then
read the parting address of ..the late Magistrates of
Abercieeth who declared their decided opinion that
anew Ciatstitasian was necessary, for the sake both
of Ore litagistrates and people. This. address was
viiihtn-bytlernen who..had been in the uniform
habit -of supporting his Majesty's Ministers. The
hope of a change in the Constitution of the Burghs
had been fostered by the Commissioners at Montrose,
one of whom, the Sheriff of Perthshire, praised the li-
beral Constitution which the paternal Government of
the country had given them, and adduced it as a
proof that the Ministers were willing to effect Re-
form when Reform was necessary. He hoped his Ma-
jesty's Ministers would act up to the liberal ideas
whirl were thus praised -by their warmest adherents.
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON replied.—He
observed, that the Learned Lord, while he said that
the Burgesses were not liable for the debts of.the
Burghs, he had not said against what other persons
the creditors could, recover. That declaration would,
dhe had noouhr urge itie);tikh &editors to be more
sws4l Pressing. ferWara Vlelr Ciairni,. kid bring
the tlfirrs.of Some Birrkh? thrstoner toa.rritis. The
.oitis'stston. was. certainly wof thy'Of beiniesettleti, whe-
ther'the*Miivit. had a legal rower to-make alterations
in the Constitutitins of 'Burghs for if it' nithr be
done, the influence of the Ctsrwn was so-great; that it
, might het an application -made for any alteration
lichlels:its,Ministers conceived to be convenient. He
r4e'c'" oAsenended;no specific motion on the subject; hut
he wished -to•bring; br.the production of the docu-
ment he moved for,--the'subjeet before the House.—
Lord Archibald Hamilton then read a .statement of
the condition of Aberdeen, to prove the mismanage-
moot of the Burgh Funds. Aberdeen had beers one
of the richest Corporations in Scotland ; its fUnds
were now dissipated, and it was 230,000/. in debt.
They had, during a few years, borrowed 57,0001. to
ray the interest of their debt. The Magistrates were
c.r-lido managers of the Charities in the neighbour-
hood, and they had borrowed their funds—even to
the poors' funds—of every Kirk Session which would
lend them. They had debts as high as 25,000/. and
as low as 21.—}le appealed to an Honourable Mem-
ber present if this was not substantially correct. Simi-
lar facts, to a greater or less extent, might be ad-
duced in the case of half the Roy.d Huth s in Scotland,
as he could prove before a Committee of the House.
Mr. FARQUHAR observed, that the affairs of the
Burgh had lately experienced considerable -improve-
meat. So far from being in the state which the
Noble Lord represer.tcd, they hr.cl actually paid four
and a half per cent. on their debt, and were now in a
condition to pay five per cent. In addition to this
they had a sinking fund sufficient to discharge the
principal. They had expended nothing beyond the it
means, having at this moment in their po..sessicn
a surplus of about GO. or 70,00 C/. Undoubtedly
they experienced difficulties, but they had surmount-
ed them, so that upon any fair view of the case there
was nothing to call for inquiry.
Mr. 1:01:13F,S stated, in confirmation of what had
fallen from the last speaker, that the Burgh was in-
volvt'd in some difficulties by the purchase of a large
quantity of ground which.for•some years they could
not let out on buiLing leases, but lately they had
made a considerable number-of fens. .liven under
their difficulties they ',Kers+ only 1,400 rivals of the
whole interest on the sum Jim: = I Mere were general'.y
two sides to .IC:a the .No.