The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-31 00:00:00

VIE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE PAPER DUTY. The Committee which has been appointed to search for precedents as to the practice of the Lords and Commons in dealing with Money Bills will scarcely add much to the statements which Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Cranworth had previously de rived from the only available sources. The general result of the labours of the Committee may be anti cipated with reasonable certainty, inasmuch as there is no conclusive authority to support either side of the controversy. It is the nature of precedents, as of analogies in general, not to run on all fours with the decisions which must from time to time be given on new and unforeseen questions. The fabric of English law is principally composed of judicial corollaries and deductions from particular rulings, which were supposed to involve some general prin ciple, and the original doctrine has often under gone strange transformations in tho course of the alternate expansions and contractions which were required to make it coincide with the equity of each successive case. The details of Parliamen tary jurisprudence have been settled by a similar process of grappling with special difficulties as they occurred in practise. The Standing Orders and Resolutions on Privilege in either House are neither more nor less extensive in their purview than the obvious embarrassments and irregularities which they are intended to avert. The points on which the two Houses have formerly come in col lision are settled by law or custom in so definite a manner that the same inconvenience is not likely to recur hereafter. The present dispute or uncertainty will possibly lead to some fresh resolution on the part of the Commons, if not to a change in their legislative forms. No such additional security would be required if there were a precedent precisely in point, nor, indeed, would it, in that case, ever have become necessary to appoint a Committee on Pre cedents. It is fortunate that the result of their in vestigations will tend to a pacific policy through its unavoidable vagueness. The zealous admirers of the Constitution, who are urging the people to rise, according to the conventional phrase, in what they call " its might," have probably forgotten that they are subject to the difficulty of having to prove a negative. Their opponents may demur to the in forence that the Lords are usurping a constitutional right, because their power had previously been only exercised at the cost of stone bottle dealers, and other secondary interests. There is certainly no instance in which a principal portion of the Budget has been rejected by the House of Lords; and, on the other hand, the House of Commons has never anticipated the occurrence so far as to take precautions against it. It is worth remarking that Mr, May, in the useful work which has been re peatedly quoted in the course of the discussion, never contemplates the very difficulty which now requires a solution. " The functions," he says, " of the House of Lords in matters of supply and taxation are reduced to a simple assent or nega tive." But it is evident that he refers only to bills for imposing a tax, and not to those whick provide for its repeal. The vote which has re tained the Paper Duty could never have been given in the days when the service of the Crown depended exclusively on the annual grants of the Commons. The modern practice of imposing taxes in perpetuity until they are repealed by Par liament enabled Lord Derby to prove that the House could not be accused of rejecting a Bill of Supply. The members of the Committee may con gratulate themselves on the opportunity of ex cluding from their consideration three-fourths of the cases which might at first sight seem to bear upon the question. The issue which they are to consider is whether the House of Lords has exer cised the power of protecting the consolidated fund against the improvidence of the Commons. The antiquarian portion of the inquiry, although it may interest Lord John Russell, will not occupy a prominent place in the report. It is not probable that any amount of research into old Parliamentary journals would materially extend the information - which is contained in " Hallam's Constitutional History." As early as the reign of Henry IV, it is assumed as a matter beyond dispute that all grants are made by tho Commons and agreed to by the Lords. Mr. Hallam supposes, with much proba bility, that the grants of the Commons alone im posed ao burden on the Peers, and at a still earlier period the Lords, the Commons, and the clergy made separate grants which were respectively binding on the three estates. It was not before the time of Henry VIII., that grants approximated to the form of Money Bills, although the rule that they must invariably proceed from the Commons to the Lords had already been fully established. Under Charles I. the Commons began to omit the name of the Lords in the preamble of Bills of Supply, and the practice, which has continued to the present day, has secured from all dispute the undoubted initiative on which the House of Com mons has founded its claim to the exclusive control of taxation and of revenue. Between the Restora tion and the Revolution the Commons resisted with varying success the claim of the Lords to make amendments in the Money Bills, which, as it was admitted, they might either pass or reject; and, although the pretensions had never been for mally admitted, it has long since been established by a custom unbroken for nearly two cenuries. It was only in the year 1859 that the Commons first waived, by a standing order on private bills, that portion of their privilege which referred to tolls, to dues, or to other payments for services per formed. If a Committee of the House of Lords makes the smallest alteration in the amount, the incidence, or the machinery of the most trivial local rate, the obnoxious provision can by no possibility escape the relentless vigilance of the Commons. The privilege of taxation is, thus far, wholly undis puted, nor will it be necessary for the committee to dwell on the precedents by which it is established, except for the purpose of illustrating the constitu tional theory which is supposed to be compromised by the recent vote of the House of Lords.. On one side it is argued that the acknowledged right would be worthless without a farther extension to the case in which existing taxes have been deemed by the House of Commons no longer necessary for the public service. The majority of the Lords main tain that a power founded on custom is limited by positive precedent; and they refer to the ancient practice of embodying grants of money in statutes as a proof that the house, which can neither origi nate nor alter the mode of supply, must have the power of refusing it. It is necessary, however, to carry the argument further, by applying it to the repeal of taxes as well as to bills by which they are imposed. In this instance also the power of assent gives a legal right of rdfusal ; and, notwithstanding the plausible analogies which may seem to bear en the question, the Committee will probably infer that the case has not been provided for in constitu tional legislation. The precedents in favour of the recent vote are too obscure to serve as the basis of a new system, and, on the other hand, it will be im possible to point to the rejection or defeat of any similar claim. It is a curious circumstance that, in their jealousy of financial interference, the Commons have habitually refused or evaded the request of the Lords for communication of papers and returns re latthg to the revenue and taxation. It was pro bably with reference to this practice that Lord Granville reminded the House that it could possess no official knowledge of the estimates which neces sarily furnished the Opposition with materials for argument. It is true, that the Lords may obtain the greater part of the same information by order ing returns for themselves, and the remainder by reading the newspapers, but the Commons have not thought fit to assume that financial tables can be of any use to a body which cannot alter a Money Bill, and which has generally not thought fit to reject one. The alleged innovation, which they are low invited to resent, seems never to have been fore seen, and consequently it has never been guarded against by any resolution or rule of proceeding The inability of the Lords to amend Money is so fully settled that the Committee will only be called upon to examine the earlier precedents for the purpose of discovering arguments, admissions, and vbiter dicta, which may indirectly illustrate the power of rejection. In the Conference on the tiyposed amendment of the Poll Bill in 1689, the pxiliiiinetry resolutions of the Commons declare that all money aids and taxes are their sole gift ; that the Lords are not to alter any such grant, gift, limitation, appointment, or modification, or other wise to interposein such bills than to pass and reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or amendment, though in care of the subject. They afterwards proceeded to illustrate the power of re jection by comparing it to the Royal veto, which had not then become wholly obsolete. The Com mittee will 'probably attach but secondary impor tance to a precedent drawn from a time at which the refusal of the King's assent to a bill was consti tutional, as it still continues to be legally possible. There can be no doubt that in 1689 the concurrence of the Lords in a grant of money to the Crown was regarded as something more than an empty form. The Commons had good reason for believing that the grants which necessarily originated with them selves would never be wholly refused by the Lords. The political and economical bearings of different systems of taxation had:not yet given rise to serious controversy, nor was it probable that when the re presentatives of the people had provided a certain revenue, the whole amount should be placed in jeo pardy by the House of Lords on secondary and in cidental grounds. The attempt to deal with the rate of taxation had been defeated by the perseverance of the Commons in refusing to accept any amend ment to money bills. In 1671 the Lords reduced a duty on sugar, and consequently the further pro gress of the bill was interrupted. After the Revo. lution the pretension seems to have been renewed, and a long interval elapsed before the repeal of taxes gave rise to any question of practical im portance. The appropriation of supplies, which is the undisputed privilege of the House of Commons, furnished an additional security against any inter ference on the part of the Lords with matters of revenue. The practice was first introduced in the time of James 1., and was adopted by the Long Parliament, and it was followed in many instances after the Restoration. The statute 9 and 10 Wil liam 111., c. 44, for the first time appropriated all the supplies of the session, and the precedent has since been regularly observed. It was on this ground that some of the speakers in the recent debate argued that the produce of the paper duty would be useless, unless the House of Commons thought fit to apply it expressly to the public service. The committee will not fail to attach due weight to the interference which was exercised by the Lords in 1789 and 1790 in favour of cocoa-nuts. Whatever may have been their motive for exempting that un pretending fruit from duty, it seems that the Com mons acquiesced in the rejection of a money bill, which can have affected but imperceptibly the ba lance of revenue and expenditure. It is necessary to observe that in cases of this kind there is no spe cial facility for raising the question of privilege. Under the Plantagenets the Commons had the means of asserting their right of originating grants, by refusing to concur in any proposal of the kind which might proceed from the Upper House. Their control over amended Money Bills in the 17th century was equally absolute, through their un questioned power of rejecting the amendments, but a measure which is thrown out in the House of Lords never survives to return to the place of its birth. When no political or financial importance was attached to the failure of a bill, the Commons might naturally be unwilling to raise a doubtful question of constitutional privilege. Their absti nence may fairly be drawn into a precedent, but the precedent itself ought not to be extended too far. In the matter of the cocoanuts the Lords certainly never intended to express a want of confidence in Mr. Pitt, or to set at defiance the majority which he commanded in the Commons. Their interference, as far it went, was in relief of the subject, and gene rally it may be said that great constitutional doc trines are not to be founded on over-sights. The Malt Duty Bill of 1807 was thrown out on the ex press ground that it was encumbered with a "tack," or irrelevant clause. At a much earlier period the Commons had attempted to encroach on the consti tutional rights of the Lords by including in the same bill grants of revenue and matters of general legislation. The usurpation was defeated by the standing order of December, 1702, which still regu lates the practice of the house. It was ordered and declared " that the annexing any clause or clauses to a bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the matter of the said bill of aid or supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the consti tution of this Government." If the smallest irrelevant provision is included in the most indispensable Money Bill, the Lords amend it by striking out the objectionable matter; the Commons consequently refuse to accept the amended Bill, and the whole process of taxation must be re commenced or altandoned. The Malt-tax Bill of 1807, relieved of its objectionable appendages, was revived, and passed through both Houses of Parlia ment without further impediment. The House of Lprds has so seldom desired to embarrass the Govern - ment, that the rarity of the occasions on which it has refused its assent to taxes by no means implies a deliberate renunciation of the legal rights which are said to be inconsistent with the modern Consti tion. Even when the Ministers of the day have been in a minority, the leaders of the House have necessarily been aware that the refusal of a tax in volved the responsibility of replacing it, while the power of supplying the deficiency rested exclusively with the Commons. In debate the right of rejecting Money Bills has often been expressly reserved, but rather with the rhetorical purpose of recommend ing that it should not be exercised than as a formal protest against any claim which might be attempted by the other house. After examining the journals and refreshing their memory as to the language used by constitutional authorities, the committee will probably come to the conclusion that the pre cedents throw but little light on the power of the Lords to refuse their concurrence in grants to the Crown. The far more formidable privilege of re jecting bills for the repeal of taxes derives counte nance from several precedents which are not to be wholly set aside, although they for the most part admit of explanation and distinction. In 1758 the Lords refused their assent to the sus pension of certain Customs' duties on Irish tallow ; in 1811 they threw out a bill for reducing the duty on molasses, and although they adopted the succes sive remissions of the corn laws down to 1846, it was undoubtedly admitted by all parties that if they had rejected the measures proposed by the Go vernment, they would have been guilty rather of a political error than of an interference with the privileges of the Commons. The other precedents which have been cited are of secondary importance, and some of them are inapplicable, inasmuch as the bills which were rejected were incumbered with tasks. The bill for regulating the coasting trade involved admi nistrative•provisions as well as relief from duties. The abolition of fees to Custom-house officers scarcely related to general taxation. The defeat of the bill for altering the Excise on stone bottles took place immediately before the proroga tion, and the measure may probably have been in tentionally withdrawn by the Minister who pro posed it. In the more serious cases which related to corn and to sugar—although the reduction of a tax formed the subject-matter of the bill—the object of both houses was to relax or to maintain protec tion irrespective of any loss or profit which migh accrue to the revenue. It is scarcely necessary to prove that similar considerations were involved in any legislation which referred to Irish tallow a hundred years ago. If in any of these cases the Commons had been conscious of an infringement on their privileges, they could only have provided a remedy at the cost of bringing into question the exclusive control over financial arrange ments which had never been practically disputed. More or less free competition with West Indian sugar, with Irish tallow, or with corn from the Black Sea was undoubtedly a proper subject for the deliberations of the entire Legislature, al though it could only be prevented or regulated by an appropriate adjustment of taxes. An exclusive privilege of regulating weights and measures would scarcely be thought applicable to the process of handicapping horses for a race. The Commons must take the consequences of their passive acqui escence in the rejection by the Lords of measures which were technically Money Bills. On the other hand, they may naturally rely on the abstinence of the ilouse of Lords from all interference on purely/ THE SUN,. LONDON, THURSDAY . EVENING, MAY 31, 1860. financial grounds with financial measures. Oa the whole, the committee will perhaps hold that the case which has recently occurred is one of the first im pression, and although they are only instructed to ascertain the former practice of both houses, they will probably report that the constitutional doctrine has never up to the present time been fully ascer tained. It is fortunate that there will be no pretext for using violent language against the House of Lords, and that there would not even be an oppor tunity of provoking a collision if the Commons were so unwise as to desire a quarrel. Any general reso lution which may be passed will only bind the house itself, and if it is desired effectually to pre vent a recurrence of the recent intervention, the ob ject can only be attained by an entire change in the original form of Money Bills as framed by the House of Commons. Mr. Bright's ingenious theory of the respective functions of the two houses seem to have been ex temporaneously produced for the instruction of an association of Lancashire reformers, who have not, perhaps, hitherto been admiring students of the con stitution. According to this novel doctrine, grants of money proceed exclusively from the House of Commons, while the Lords have only a voice in the selection of the machinery which is required for pro curing the supplies. There is no historical founda tion for the distinction between the substance and the form of taxation, and the admission that the Lords may regulate the machinery would be abun dantly sufficient to justify their refusal to rescind their previous decision. It is impossible by any legal quibble to explain away the legal right of voting as freely in the negative as in the affirma tive, at any stage of any bill which requires the assent of the house. Those who disapprove the recent proceeding can only appeal to the spirit of Constitution, as it may be deduced not so much from similar cases, as from the absence of contrary pre cedents. As the common law, before it was gra dually promulgated, rested in the bosoms of the judges, the unwritten portion of the Constitution consists in the general understanding which is re presented by the practice or inaction of the different powers in the State. In the present instance, the committee will net find that the Lords have ordi narily claimed a supervision over the revenue of the State, while on the other hand the Commons have made an attempt to prevent a proceeding which was obviously possible and consistent with the letter of the law. In all cases where prerogatives or privi leges have become indisputably obsolete, their re vival is rendered impossible by some security which would become operative as soon as the experiment was attempted. The veto of the Crown is prevented by the responsibility of the Minister, as the preten sion to earry on the Government in opposition to the majority of the house would be effectually con trolled by the power of refusing the supplies. As the House of Commons is wholly powerless to pre vent the rejection of a bill by the House of Lords, it follows that the constitutional monopoly of finan cial arrangements is either doubtful or incom plete. The committee will ascertain, for the satis faction of the house, that the exclusive privilege has been practically enjoyed, but that it has also been subjected, without protest, to several technical infringements. The report will leave a convenient discretion to the Ministers who are responsible for the further conduct of the dis cussion. It is not i m p ro bable that the house may be advised to adopt some general resolution for the purpose of reserving its future right of action if the Lords should, on future occasions, overrule its financial policy, instead of giving effect, as in the recent instance, to the real convictions of the large :majority. If a serious collision should unfortunately occur, ingenious draughtsmen would contrive forms of Money Bills which would leave the Lords little practical discretion in adopting or rejecting them. The House of Commons, under the influence of Lord Palmerston's prudent coun sels, will not be disposed to precipitate an unnes sary quarrel; and, on the other hand, it is the instinct and interest of the House of Lords to de precate all questionable experiments in constitu tional innovation.—Times. Nestorians, the Maronites, the Syrians, the Chal deans, the Jacobites, differ in communion, but not always in race ; and M. Poujade declares that they never would submit to be governed by the Chris tians of any other nationality. How is it possible to create a new authority, order of any kind, from this chaos of races, of re ligion, of traditions, and of opposing interests P The policy of the Ottoman Government has always been, instead of appeasing these divisions, to keep them alive, in order better to dominate them by alternately opposing one to the other. But, besides the difficulty of reconciling hostile races and hostile creeds, there remains the great question— Supposing the Sultan's power to be overthrown, to whom will fall Constantinople ? It is not ad missible that this great heritage is reserved for King Otho and his successors. The difficulty of giving a master to Constantinople is what has hitherto contributed most to save th© Turks. They are well aware of their advantage, they have often abused it, and still calculating that owing to the conflicts of the Western Powers their presence in Constantinople is indispensable and assured; they are slow to make any serious attempt at melioration and progress in the internal administration of their empire. M. Poujade professes to be animated by no hostile feeling towards the Turks as a people, quite the contrary; he recognises their claim to the possession of many estimable qualities, but lie is not blind to the fact that the fall of their power in Europe is in evitable, and merely a question of time. Though to gain time is a great point, yet he shows that it is not the less incumbent on the European Powers to direct their attention to the best means of filling up the void, and of reconstructing the edifice, the ruin of which appears imminent. He thinks that what should especially be avoided is the partition of this vast spoil between the great Powers of Europe. It would not only be unjust, because it would condemn to new servitude the populations that demand their autonomy and their liberty, and would produce a rupture of the balance of power in Europe, and it would be impossible to come to an understanding respecting the possession of Constantinople, which would be too rich a prize for any who should obtain it. The only solution possible, according to M. Poujade, seems to be in the organisation of a group of federative States, self-governing, like Servia and the Moldo-Wallachian Principalities, and having Constantinople as the federal capital, where a Diet should sit, and which should be the centre of the Executive power charged with the administration of the general interests. That this Executive au. thority should be entrusted to a foreign prince— German for instance—who might give guarantees to all. This solution is not formally set forth by the author of " Les Chretiens et les Tures," but it is the most obvious conclusion to which his reason ings lead. Besides these political and statistical views, the books contains several biographical and picturesque descriptions of much interest, particularly that which relates to the fortunes of Omar Pacha, who enjoyed much celebrity during the last war, and who proved himself the ablest of the Sultan's ge nerals. THE LATE STORM. ONE HUNDRED VESSELS WRECKED, AND LAMENTABLE LOSS OF LIFE. The terrific gale from the N.W. on Monday last, a most unusual occurrence at this season of the year, told with most disastrous effect upon the ship ping off the coast, and the destruction of life and property has been truly appalling. As far as the present accounts furnish, no fewer than 150 wrecks and casualties occurred during its ravages ; several steamers are missing, and one on an excursion trip foundered with 80 people on board. The steamers from the North Sea, which arrived in the river yes terday, report that the gale almost - equalled the hurricane which swept the coast in the latter part of last October. The cattle boats from Hamburg, Rotterdam, Flushing, and other Dutch ports, had most of their live stock washed overboard, amount ing to some hundreds; the decks were swept, bul warks stove, sails split, and boats carried away, and in some instances it is a miracle how the ship out lived the storm. It was upon the eastern and north-eastern range of coast that the gale produced such dreadful re sults. During the height of the hurricane on Mon day, about mid-day, eight ships, having from 40 to 50 souls on board, went down in the sight of thou sands of spectators on Yarmouth beach, and not a hand was spared of the crews. The fearful charac ter of the gale became unmistakably apparent be fore noon, and the sea rose and lashed with terrible fury. About 12 a fine brig was seen to drive upon the Sccrby sands, abreast of Yarmouth. She was almost instantly submerged ; the crew (eight men) were seen to take to the rigging, and to waive their caps to attract the attention of those on shore. Calls were immediately raised for the lifeboat, and several beachmen rushed to go off with it. Un happily, however, a wrangle took place as to who should have charge which detai ne d th e b oat on shore, and while this quarrel was going on, the poor fellows who were clinging to the wreck were observed to be washed one by one out of the rig ging and thus :hey all perished. Had the boat been put off when the brig first took the sand there is little doubt that the crew or some of them would have been saved. The spectacle created the greatest sensation along the beach, and an inquiry is to be instituted into the conduct of those who caused the delay in sending off the boat. Shortly after this catastrophe a timber barge beat over the sand and went down with all on board. In the course of an hour or so another brig and schooner were observed to be driven upon the Scroby, and in a few minutes the brig disappeared—her crew numbering nro bably about eight. The schooner withstood the fury of the sea far a quarter cf an hour and then went to pieces. Three or four of the seamen were noticed clinging to the masts. Three other brigs were seen to go down the Cockle Gate, with the whole of their crews, those on shore being unable to render the least aid. By the interference of the coastguard the Yarmouth lifeboat was eventually got off, but it returned without doing any good. The names of the ill-fated vessels which thus perished are not precisely known, but it is believed that two of them were the Useful, of Shields, and the Gem, of Exeter, as they were seen riding near the Scroby shortly before the bad weather came on. On the Hersey beach, in the vicinity of Yarmouth, the brig 2Eolus, Peet and Richards, bound to the Thames from the Tyne, coal laden, was dashed to pieces in a few minutes, and the whole of the crew were drowned, with the exception of the master and a man named Thomas Miney. The Maria, schooner, of and far Yarmouth, was also totally lost on the Hersey beach. A fleet of disabled vessels, with loss of masts, spars, &c., put into port for shelter and to repair damage. In the adjacent roadstead off Lowestoft there were hundreds of colliers and coasters, and the confusion amongst them to run for a place of refuge was most exciting and led to innumerable collisions. Upwards of 50 put into the harbour, with the loss of sails, anchors, cables, and other damage. Off Southwold a large brig was seen to founder eight miles from the shore, and the wor s t f ears are en t er t a i ne d f or the fate of the crew. At Lowestoft a portion of a guano warehouse was blown down upon the rail way just after a train had passed, and the country inland seems to have suffered severely. At Hulk ham-park, the seat of the Earl of Leicester, hun dreds of fine oak and other trees were torn up by the roots. Higher up the coast, to the northward of Flam borough. Head, the most serious havoc was occa sioned. The gale suddenly burst forth on Monday morning with the fury of a hurricane, and on the south shore of Filey Bay 13 fine yawls were driven on to the rock at Speeton, entailing a loss of upwards of £lO,OOO to the fishermen of the place. The cala mity, as may be imagined, has created the deepest sympathy throughout the district. It is stated that had there been a harbour of refuge in the bay, every one of these boats would have been saved. In the neighbourhood of Redan, at the mouth of Tees Bay, the gale raged with destructive fury, and about 25 sail were driven ashore. Amongst them were the Corra Linn, Captain Robins, laden with guano, from London to Stockton, the whole of the crew being drowned; Zion, of Grangeworth ; Betsy, of and from Yarmouth for Seaham ; Liberty, of Weymouth; Reuske, from Southampton for the Tyne; Percy, from Dieppe; Ant, of Scarborough ; Agnes, of Folkestone; Beeswing, of Whitby; Sole by, of Lowestoft ; Cornelius, of Scarborough ; Sir Wm. Chayter, of Sunderland; Abeona, of Colches ter, and George and Elizabeth. Between 7 and 8 o'clock on Monday morning, while the gale was at its height, a fine barque called the Jane Green, Captain Taylor, was driven ashore near the Black Hall Rocks, four or five miles to the northward of Hartlepool, and speedily went to pieces, the unfortunate master and six of her crew perishing•with her—five being saved. The barque was from London, bound to Sunderland. The names of those who were drowned, in addition to Captain Taylor, were William Keeley, of London ; Wil- Liam Blanco and Hugh Pottinger, of Hartlepool ; Henry Sutton and Paul Calvert, of London ; and John H. Plummer (boy), of Sunderl an d, Th e captain was much res p ecte d, and has left a family of eight children. A tug steamer named the Robert and Mary, belonging to Sunderland, is supposed to have foundered with all hands on board during the storm. She left Sunderland on Sunday night and has not since been heard of. Every port along this district of coast furnishes sad tidings of the severity of the gale, and it is feared that the full extent of the mischief is yet to be learned. The Belgian steamer which arrived in the river yesterday reports a frightful catastrophe on the coast near Flushing, where a Dutch steamer bound on an excursion from Rotterdam to Zwolle encoun tered the hurricane, and foundered with all on board off a place called Moerdyk The number who perished is stated to be about 80. Another steamer was lost about the same time at Schevening. She was the Theresa, screw steamer, on a voyage from Leith to Rotterdam, but no mention is made of her crew. It is feared that from the severity of the weather, other English vessels were wrecked on that (Dutch) coast. LAW INTELLIGENCE—May 30. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and Justices Williams, Willes, and Bylas.) WOOD V. THE EPSOM AND LEATIIERIIEAD AND THE WIMBLEDON AND DORKING RAILWAY COMPANIES -LAND TAKEN FOR A RAILWAY. The plaintiff in this case had held some land in the parish of Epsom, which was taken by the Epsom and Leatherhead Company, and afterwards used for their purposes, and also for those of the Wimbledon and Dorking Company jointly. Under these cir cumstances the present action of ejectment was commenced, it being contended that the first-named company had, by their act, power only to take the land for their own purposes, and not for the joint purposes of their own and of another company. The matter came before the Court upon a special case. The Court held that when the land was taken by the Epsom and Leatherhead Company the title to it passed out of the plaintiff, and, therefore, that he had no right to maintain this action. Judgment for the defendants. YAM'S V. NASH—AN INFORMAL BILL OF EXCHANGE. The question raised in this case, upon demurrer, was whether a bill of exchange was in such a form that it could be sued upon in a court of law. The bill in question was drawn at nine months, and made payable to "The Treasurer for the time being of the Commercial Travellers' Benevolent Institu tion." The Lord Chief Justice said, that although the payee of a bill might be described by his christian or surname, his office, or by any other description, yet the bill would not be valid unless, at the time of making it, the payee was a person capable of being ascertained. A bill could not be drawn upon a person who could be ascertained at a future time, but not when the contract was entered into. Judgment for the defendant. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Keating and a Common Jury.) PAXON V. COURTNAY—UNDERTAKERS' CHARGE'S. The plaintiff was a house agent and undertaker at Hampstead, and the defendant, the Rev. Dr. Courtnay, was the incumbent of St. James's, Pen tonville. Dr. Courtenay had employed the plaintiff to bury a lady named Mrs. Turner, who had left the Doc tor her executor, and the plaintiff now claimed the amount of his bill, £O4 35., and defendant paid £75 into court in satisfaction of all demands. Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and another learned gentle man appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Clerk for the defendant. The plaintiff was called, and in his evidence he said that when he first saw Dr. Courtenay upon the matter he told him that the kind of funeral desired would cost £5O or £6O, but witness at that time believed that the interment would take place in the neighbourhood of London. It subsequently turned out that the lady was to be buried at Hatherley, near Gloucester, and in consequence of this the amount of his bill was increased to £94 3s. The charges in his bill were reasonable. Cross-examined by Mr. James—He had not been called in until the lady was dead, but he had charged £1 he paid to the nurse. (Laughter.) It was a " compliment" which the Hampstead nurses always expected, and therefore he had paid it. He had no authority from Dr. Courtenay to make such a payment. One item in his bill was "To cash paid for two coachmen, eight bearers, two mutes, two coach pages, and featherman, £7 17s. 6d." Fifteen men were charged for, but thirteen only were employed. Another item was, "To cash for two black scarves, poles, and black silk covers for the same, £3 35." He had these scarves back, so that he charged £3 3s. for the use of the things. The men were, however, at liberty to k ee p or re turn them. nother item was, "To cash paid for 15 black silk hatbands and 15 pairs of gloves for mutes, bearers, pages, coachmen, and f e ath erman , £6 7s. 6d." He had the hatbands back, but the men who wore them expected a compensation of 4s. each for giving them up. He had charged for feathers and velvet for hearse and horses £4 4s. The usual price was zeta. There was also aguinea for feathers and velvet for the mourning-coach. Another item was, "To cash for silk scarf, two black silk hatbands for self and assistant, and two pairs of gloves, £3 18s." The assistant always found his own hatband. (Laughter.) He had charged for his assistant attending £l. He was one of the thirteen charged for, but then he was a featherman. (A laugh.) Mr. Justice Keating—So that you have charged for him twice over. Witness --Another item was "To fitting the Rev. H. W. Maddey, rector of Hatherley with rich silk scarf, hatband, and black kid gloves, £3 35." He did not have this scarf back. It was a " com pliment" to the rev. gentleman for not charging his interment fees. This was witness's usual charge. He could not speak as to the usual charge in the trade. He did not pay the clergyman his fees, but he did not know that the clergyman afterwards wrote to Dr. Courtenay for it and received a guinea. It was the practice to charge mere for silk for the clergyman than for anyone else. (A laugh.) This was not because it was more diffi cult to" fit" a clergyman. Mr. Foxwell, a hosier and draper, at Gloucester, was paid by witness £2 2s. for making " preparatory arrangements," that was for ordering the funeral. Mr. Foxwell had demanded as much as £5 ss. Witness had charged —as was usual-5 per cent. commission on the payments which he had made. Another item was, " To fitting the clerk, the sex ton, and the bricklayer—(laughter) —with silk hat bands and gloves, 1:2 55." He did no t ge t th ese hatbands back. He could not swear that the brick layer had the silk hatband and gloves charged for. (Laughter.) Witness left them for him in the church. (After some hesitation)—He could not swear he left them. He could not swear that he left any for the sexton—he was hurried so to get away. The clerk had on a hatband and gloves. Mr. Justice Keating—ls it usual to make these charges without knowing whether the things are supplied or not ? Witness—He left instructions, but he could not say whether the parties got the things. It was usual for him to charge for a hatband and gloves for the bricklayer, but he could not say whether it was usual in the trade. He had seen a bricklayer wear the things. Mr. James—Wearing black gloves when open ing the vault ? (Loud laughter.) 'Witness—The practice was to open the vault early in the morning, and afterwards the bricklayer attended in " full dress." (Laughter.) A working man opened the vault, but the hatband and gloves were for his master. Another item was, "To men's and own expenses and use of room at the Bell Hotel, Gloucester, £3 55." The hotel bill now in court amounted only to l9s. 6d., but there was 3s. more for the waiter and the. ostler. The bill in cluded three breakfasts, two dinners, sherry, brandy, &c. Mr. James—Showing, as somebody said the other day, that undertakers' men were more "liquids" than " mutes." (Loud laughter.) Witness—The 19s. 6d. charged in the bill had reference only to himself and two men, but then the other men expected their expenses, and he had every reason to believe he paid them. Ho would not swear as to his paying those other men: The silk scarves were very much spoilt by the wet, the funeral taking place on a very wet day. Mr. Carroll said he was in the service of Mr. Butler, an undertaker in Farringdon-street, and he spoke as to the fairness of some of the charges in the plaintiff's bill. Cr'oss-examin4-11e was the only man who went down from London with the plaintiff, although two were charged for. He supposed he was the " assistant," and the " featherman" too. (Laughter.) It was possible that a scarf which had been got back might be used 20 or 30 times afterwards. (A laugh.) Mr. Hawkins said he was cashier at Messrs. Bantings', and spoke as to the reasonableness of some of the charges. Cross-examined—For "fitting" a clergyman in first-rate style, the charge was £2 19s. The house he came from would certainly not get the things charged for back again. They might charge for "fitting" a bricklayer in a first-class funeral, and when the bricklayer was a "friend of the family." (Loud laughter.) Mr. James commented severely upon the enor mous charges made for the " mockery of woe," by persons whose business was— " Letting out their bodies by the hour, • To mimic sorrow when the heart's not sad." _ _ And after adverting in detail to the items of the bill, he said he should call witnesses to show that the £75 paid into court, was more than sufficient to remunerate the plaintiff. The defendant stated that when he first saw the plaintiff he told him that the funeral was to take place near Gloucester, and the plaintiff said the expenses would be about £6O ; £3O for his charges, and £3O for the expenses in the country. Evidence was then given by several persons in the trade, to the effect that the £75 was more than enough for what had been dine. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. POLICE INTELLIGEN6YE.-Ilfay 30. MANSION-HOUSE.--Henry Wilson, a man who has been under remand since the 14th of May, was brought before the Lord Mayor for final ex amination, upon a charge of misdemeanour under Lord Campbell's Act. Mr. Wontner appeared for the defendant. .... The main facts of the case have already been given. On the night of the 13th of May a metropolitan police-constable, named Davies, who was on duty near the Alinories, in consequence of information he received, got upon the roof of a stable in a mews at the back of the Crescent, and he there found the prisoner without his shoes, and ur on searching him he ascertained that in his pockets were two screw drivers, a skeleton key, a gimblet, and some li.icifer matches, and it turned out that the key opened a back door opening to the mews in question, which was connected with the premises of Mr. Trapp, a merchant, residing at 5, in the Crescent, Minories. The prisoner, when laid hold of, declared that he was a very respectable man, but he gave no ex planation of the leason for his being without his shoes, and he also declined to state where he lived. He was originally examined before Mr. Alderman Mechi, who was not quite satisfied with the pri soner's explanation, and he was remanded in order that the necessary inquiries might be made. Mr. Trapp was now in attendance, and he stated that in January, 1859, some thieves entered his premises by the door above-mentioned, and several coats were stolen. He said he knew nothing of the prisoner, and he had no business to be where he was found. Mr. Wontner put some questions to the consta ble Davies with reference to the key that was found upon the defendant, and he stated in reply that he would not swear that the key in •question was a skeleton key. Mr. Goodman (to the constable).—Does it appear that the wards of the key have been filed or altered ? The Constable said—Certainly they have, sir. Mr. Goodman—Then that, in definition of law, is a skeleton key. Mr. Wontner then addressed the Lord Mayor, and endeavoured, with a good deal of ingenuity, to argue that the articles found on the person of the prisoner were not housebreaking implements within the meaning of the statute, and he also pressed upon his lordship the suggestion that a summary con viction would meet the justice of the case. The Lord Mayor asked the defendant whether he himself wished to say anything, as he had made up his mind to send the case for trial. The defendant in reply said—No, I have nothing to say. It is no use saying anything. I went up to the top of the stable to look after a young female I was in the habit of keeping company with. (A laugh.) The Lord Mayor said he had no doubt whatever that the intention of the defendant was to commit a burglary, and although the chisels found upon him were undoubtedly tools that might be used for honest purposes, still they were very strong, and might be used for a very different object; and, under all the circumstances, he felt bound to com mit him to take his trial for the misdemeanour of being found at night in the possession of house breaking implements, and with the intent to com mit felony. It may be as well to explain that, as the law formerly stood, the utmost punishment that could be inflicted for an offence of this description was three months' imprisonment, but by a recent very useful statute, and one materially tending to pre vent crime, introduced by Lord Campbell, the offence is made a misdemeanour, and subjects any person convicted of it to two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, as the Court may direct. CLERKENWELL.—UTTERING FORGED NOTES. —Henry Smith, a baker, was placed at the bar on remand, charged with obtaining the sum of £lO from Mr. William Fysh, the landlord of the Tra falgar public-house, Southgate-road, Dc Beauvoir Town, by means of false pretences. The prisoner went to the prosecutor, and saying that he was sent by a neighbour, asked for change of a £lO note, at the sam• time producing a note for that amount which had been issued by the Windsor and Eton Bank. The change was given him, and the next day it was ascertained that no such firm was now in existence. A gentleman from the Marylebone Police Court examined the note at this court, and stated that the Windsor and Eton Bank had failed more than 40 years ago, and the partners had not as yet resumed payment. When the prisoner was apprehended by a police-con atable, 463 N, the whole of the £lO was found, and the constable also ascertained that the prisoner only a day or two before had asked a fellow-workman to lend him 10s. for the purpose of purchasing a flash note. The prisoner when asked to state how he became possessed of the note, said he had received it in payment for some bets that he had won, and afterwards gave a different account of it. The prisoner, in defence, said that lae was inno cent of uttering the note knowing that it was false. He had received the note for having rode a horse in a match. Mr. Mould (the chief clerk)—Perhaps you can tell us the owner of the horse, and the place where you rode the race ? Prisoner—Well, I don't know the man's name, and the place over which I rode the race was a soft piece of ground on the other side of Edgeware-road. (A laugh.) Mr. Mould—You had better tell us the name of the place, so that inquiry can be made for you. Prisoner—lt is somewhere on the other side of Oxford-street, but I cannot tell the name of the place. The prisoner was then fully committed for trial. LAMBETH.—A MORAL MAID, OF-ALL-WORK. —Charles Henry Russell, a beardless youth of 19, residing at Rosemary-place, in the city of Here ford, appeared to a summons to show cause why an order, of affiliation should not be made against him for the support of a female child, to which Jane Jones had given birth, and of which he was alleged to be the father. Mr. Codd, the barrister, attended on behalf of the defendant. Jane Jones, a young woman of diminutive size, deposed that in the early part of the year 1857 she went to live as " maid-of-all-work" to Mrs. Cowie, a widow lady, residing in Rosemary•place, in the city of Hereford, and shortly after an intimacy took place between her and Mr. Russell, which led to the birth of her child. In cross-examination the witness said that Mr. Russell was a lodger at the house of her mistress, and that another young gentleman, named Me atson, also lodged there, and acknowledged that Watson as well as Mr. Russell, and also the two sons of her mistress, had had connexion with her. She de clared, however, that from January, 1859, to June in the same year, none but Master Russell had " annoyed" her, and, therefore, her child h av i ng been born in. the November following, must be his. In reply•fo:the magistrate, the witness said she had receivecl:•monerou three occasions from the defendmil i the last being 325. on leaving her place. The 4tity corroborating testimony were the letters 'of . the defendant, which were read by the magistrate. Sir. Codd said that, as his worship had decided that the corroborative testimony was sufficient, he should call three witnesses and the defendant him self in to the witness-box, and their joint testimony would, he felt certain, satisfy his worship that the case was not one in which he could make an order on his client. The learned gentleman here called as witnesses, Thomas Houghton C ow i e an d A r th ur Frederick Cowie, the sons of complai nan t' s landlady, and Mr. William Watson, a young gentleman lodger, and all swore ;that their connexion with the com plainant commenced shortly after she had entered her service in 1857, and continued up to the time of her leaving in June, 1859. They further swore that it did not cease from January to June, 1859, as represented by the complainant, but was con tinued, and the money given to the young woman had been subscribed by all four equally, as they were all aware of her i n discriminate connexion. The defendant was called into the witness box, and gave similar evidence. Mr. Elliott observed that, according to the testi mony of all the witnesses, the case disclosed a scene of the most shameless profligacy, and was one in which he should make no order, but should dis miss the summons. WOOLWICH. ATROCITY ON BOARD AN AMERICAN SHlP.—Robert Williams, a seaman on board the American ship Gem of the Ocean, was placed at the bar before Mr. Traill on a remanded charge of cutting and wounding Daniel 1 1 1‘Evoy, a seaman, with intent to murder. The prisoner and he prosecutor both presented a pitiable appear ,nce, the prisoucT's under lip (to which was ,ttaelied a tuft of hair, known as an imperial) having been bitten completely off, was produced in court, preserved in spirit, and the prosecutor's features were scarcely discernible from the frightful wounds which had been inflicted. From the evidence of Captain Seth Williams, commander of the vessel, and other witnesses (taken at this and prior examinations), it appeared that the Gem of the Ocean left London on the 22d instant, the crew, with few exceptions, being in toxicated. The vessel anchored off Erith on the same evening, and a quarrel took place amongst the crew, who accused each other of " skulking." The prisoner was in the act of pulling the prose cutor out of his hunk, when a fight resulted, and the prosecutor bit the prisoner's under lip completely off. The prisoner then procured a razor, with which he attacked the prosecutor, and inflicted two deep incised wounds over the scalp, and a frightful wound six inches long across the face, completely dividing the temporal and facial arteries. The sufferer was removed to the acht Tavern, Erith, where he had since been under the care of Mr. Swayn, a surgeon, and he was in a very weak condition from the excessive loss of bloed. Captain Seth Williams stated that he believed both parties met accidentally on board the vessel, and that an old grudge existed between them. It was a common thing for seamen to take a vessel down the river whilst they were in a state of in toxication, and quarrels often took place. He had been stabbed himself twice. This experience led him to believe that drunken sailo r s are th e best. Mr. Traill—ln that ease, captain, you nust - hare a most excellent crew. The magistrate then observed, that it was evi dent that both parties had been severely injured, and still required medical care. He should remand the prisoner for a week. THE EASTERN QUESTION. After an interval of four years, during which Europe has not been without events of importance, it seems likely that the European Powers will have to turn their attention once more to the " Eastern question," which the treaty of Paris failed to settle. It is known that a modification of that treaty is the earnest desire of Russia, and it is supposed that it is with a view to give an opportunity of satisfying that wish that efforts are making to assemble an other conference, and probably to carry out the ob jects contained in the written engagement between France and Russia, half avowed by the latter, and not disavowed by the former, Russia seems to be casting once more a longing eye to the East. The Emperor of the French has not concealed his opinion of the decrepitude of the Ottoman Empire, and of the hopelessness of restoring the " sick man." A work which appeared some months ago, enti tled " Les Chretiens et les Tures," gives much valu able information on the internal condition of the Turkish empire, and the consequences of its dis memberment. The author is M. E. Poujade, who was for many years employed in the consular or diplomatic service in various countries of the East ; and few are more competent to speak on its present and prospective history. He signalises the danger which would accrue to the peace of Europe from the overthrow of the Ottoman supremacy over the divers races that really or nominally acknowledge it, and at the same time the difficulty of maintain ing it. He points to the jealousies and the rivalries which divide the Christian populations among themselves, for their common servitude has not effaced the memory of their bloody struggles before their subjugation, and they prefer the yoke of the infidel to the domination of any one sect over the other. We know that the Greeks have the pre tension to become one day the rulers of the emp;re, delivered ,from the Mussulman yoke and regene rated. Their intellectual superiority authorizes, in a certain degree, these pretensions ; but their nu merical strength does not justify them, and M. Poujade is of opinion that they would not easily . be accepted. The Serbs, the Bosniacs, and the Bulgarians are Slaves ; but, though of a common origin, there is no common understanding between them. The Serbs, M. Poujade says, are an energetic, warlike race, but they have no political bond with the Bul garians, who, laborious and peaceful, are looked upon by the former as devoid of the more manly qualities, and, if they keep up any relations with them, it is with the view of some day turning them to their own account. The Serbs have not only a strong desire for independence, but cherish the ambition of one day ruling over Bulgarians and. Bosniacs, while the Greeks would meet with the most formidable resistance if they sought to esta blish their domination in those countries of which Belgrade is already looked upon as the future capi tal. The Bosniacs, though Slave in origin, have, like the Albanians, embraced Islamism, and only a very small number are Catholics. Feudality still subsists in the Ottoman Empire and particularly in Albania, Bosnia, and Syria, in spite of the usurpations of the local tyrants, and of its partial destruction, to the advantage of these, by Sultan Mahmoud and his son. M. Poujade gives at some length an account of the feudal.system as it prevails in Albania and Albania, and of the im portance, the wealth, and the influence of the families that have survived the murders perpe trated by Ali Pasha and the Turkish Pashas. M. Poujade devotes a considerable portion of his work to the Danubian Principalities, and the events of which these have recently been the theatre. The population of these countries are proud of their Latin origin, and, while they approach the west of Europe by their tastes and their sympathies, though at tached to the Oriental Greek Church, form a group which divides the Slaves of the north from those of the south, and present a barrier against the dangers accompinving a gigantic development of Slavism. The Armenians he looks upon as little more than Christian Turks. They are of all the Christian races that which more nearly resembles the Ottomans, whose language they readily acquire, and whose gravity of deportment they imitate, at least in ap pearance. The Christian populations of Asia, such as the PUGILISIII. DAN THOMAS (TILE WELSHMAN) AND WILLIAM GILLAM, FOR £lOO A-SlDE.—This pugilistic en counter, which for some time past has created much interest, was brought to a decision yesterday, in a manner that reflects credit on the P.R. Gillam, who was backed by the Surrey division, was .con sidered to be one of the most promising stars of the day, being reckoned a quick and efficient left handed fighter, the style in which he disposed of Hawkes having, in a great manner, enhanced him in the estimation of his friends. Thomas, if not an accomplished boxer, had the reputation of being one of the toughest fellows that ever entered the ring; and, in the present match, these qualities were considered by his friends to be more than suf ficient to counterbalance any superiority his oppo nent might possess in tactics. Messrs. Tupper, Saunders, and Langham char tered a special train, which left the Great Western Station at a few minutes to five a.m. After a journey of some 50 miles from the metropolis, the ring was formed in a pleasant spot, and so much expedition was used that the whole of the arrange ments were made by half-past seven o'clock. Gillam, who had been the first to enter the lists, was waited on by Jemmy Welsh and Jerry Noon, while Thomas, who won the toss for choice of corners, had for his attendants Bob Travers and George Crockett. In betting, Gillam was the favourite at 6 to 4, and a good deal of money was speculated. By half-past seven o'clock the men were in readiness to commence the battle. As the contest progressed, Gillam found that he would not be able to ke the liberties with his opponent he had anticipated, and there can be no doubt that he at times felt completely bothered, as Dan would not throw himself open to an attack. Early in the contest, Thomas, in the cross-counter hitting, planted on to his man's left eye with tremendous force, and from this period of the contest Thomas may be said to have had the winning card in hand, although we were at times much surprised that he did not take advantage of the happy turn matters had taken in a more decided manner. In the whole 48 rounds, occupying two hours and 45 minutes, were fought, when the seconds of Gillam, finding he had not the remotest chance, very properly threw up the sponge, and Thomas was hailed the winner. Gillam was much punished about the -head, and deeply mortified at his defeat. COUNTRY MARKETS. NE WARE The show of wheat from the and a limited business was tilt] firm. Oats a moderate supply White wheat, new, 56s to 63s Red do. sls to 598 Old white sBs to 62s Red do s4a to 56s Barley, malting 38s to 45s -MAY 30. farmers to-day was tolerable, asacted at late prices. Beans A fair attendance. Barley, grinding 30s to 334 Oats, old, .. 2B. to 33s New do 26s to 29s Beans. 48s to 52s Beans, new 46s to 48s LYNN—MAY 29. The supply of wheat was limited, and theirs was a thin attendance. Trade ruled firm, at fully last week's rates. Beans and barley without alteration. Old white 50s to 56s I Old red 49s to 568 New white 50s to 55s I New red.... 48s to 528 HULL—MAY 29. There was very little business doing in wheat to-day, and prices at about late rates. A moderate attendance. Barley and oats a shade lower ; beans and peas were unaltered. Wheat.... Old white per qr. s4s Od to 59s Od Old red 2) New white .. „ New red .... , Dantzic, Konb , &c. old white 538 Od to 67s Od Dutch, Belgian, and French s3s Od to 54s Od Baltic and Hamburg, red St. Petersburg and Riga, old 4ss Od to 49s Od Barley.... English malting 3Bs Od to 42s Od Grinding 32s Od to 34s Od Saal and Oderbruck Holstein and Danish 348 Od to 38s Oil Grinding Oats English, old Archangel and Riga, per st Os 14d to 141 d Friesland and Dutch oBl4ld to 0815 d. Swedish and Danish osl4d to osl4ld Beans ....English, old, per qr. New pigeon 44s Od to 458 Od New tic Egyptian Peas Forei g n breakers P Grinding4ls Od to 42s Od 40s Od to 50s Od Tares .... Spring Indian Corn 4 Linseed, feeding B3 Od to 52s Od crushing Linseed cakes (Hull) Foreign Bl5 oto 9 5 0 Rape cakes 5 0 oto 5 5 0 Bones DUBLIN. With a dull trade to-day, I Friday's currencies. •MAY 29. he business done was at last s. d. s. d. Wheat, white 33 0 to 3 0 Do., red 3l 0 to 33 0 Do., new — 0 to -- 0 Barley Oats Do., black l5 0 to 15 6 s. d. s. d. Do., new . 0 to 0 Bere ... 13 0 to 14 0 Rapeseed 20 0 to 23 0 Oatmeal l5 0 to 17 0 Bakers' flour Indian corn BRISTOL SUGAR-MAY 30. The market has been very dull since our last report, and there has been little or no variation ►n the prices of sugars and rums. COAL MARK (Prices of Coal per Ton at a. d. Byass's Bebside West Hartley .... 15 9 Davison's West llart- ET—MAY 30. the close of the market.) Walls End. s. el. Hough Hall 16 0 Framwellgate l6 0 Whitworth , „15 0 Eden ....16 0 Acorn Close ..16 0 Eden Main l6 0 Cassop lCelloe l6 6 Hunwick ...16. 0 Thornley 14 6 firaddyll's Hetton l6 3 Hetton . South Whitworth...., 16 0 Haswell .. ... . . ....... 17 6 Thorpe Stewart's ......... .. 17 6 South Hartlepool. ..... 16 0 t, 71—Sold, 51. ley ....15 9 Walker Primrose 12 6 Carway and Duifryn Malting 22 6 Llangennech 2l 0 Howard's West Hart ley 15 6 Tanfield Moor 13 0 Tanfield Moor Butes —l3 0 West Hartley 15 9 Holywell 15 6 Lambert's West Hart- ley l5 9 Wylam l6 6 South Peareth 12 0 TynedaleWest Hartleyls 01 Ships at marker BIRTHS. GLADSTONE.—On the 30th inst., at 28, Leinster-gardens, On the 27th in s t., a t K ew, the wife of Dr. the wife of Dr. J. H. Gladston e , o f a d aughter. HooxEn..— Hooker, F.R.S., of a son. SEALE.—On the 29th inst., at Portland -place, Circus-road, St. John's-wood, the wife of Alfred Seale, of twin sons. MARRIAGES. ROBINSON—WARREN,—On the 29th inst., at St. George's, .Hanover-square, Frederic, son of Chas. Robinson, Esq., of 8, Chandos-street, C avendish-square, and Grandboro', Warwickshire, t o Lydia, daughter of the late R.Warren, Esq., of 87, Gl oce ster-dace, Portman-square. SANDIVITH—HARGREAVES.—On the 29th inst., at St. Stephen's, Paddin gton, Humphry Sandwith, Esq,; C. 8., D.C.L., to Lucy Robert Hargreave s , Esq of Accrington, Lancashire. Ann, youngest daughter of the-date of 6 T S. BAUGH.—On the 27th inst., at Burton, Much W en l oc k, Shropshi re , G . Baugh, Esq., solicitor, aged 29. Binns.---On the 27th inst., at the Rectory, Preston-on-the Wildmoors, Wellington, Salop, the Rev. Wm. T. Birds, rector of Preston, aged 61. BLAKEWAY.—On the 27th inst., at The Briars, Iranwell, Mrs. Blakeway, aged 60. HALL.—On the 30th inst., at The Grove, East Dulwich, Samuel Hall, E sq ., o f B u d ge - row, aged 70. ROBERTS.-0 n the 27th inst., Mr. George Roberts, of 19, Castle-street, Dover. WOODS.—On the 30th inst , John Woods, Esq., of Chig well, aged 37. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YO UN (..= of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in. the Precinct of the Savoy, in the oounty of bliddiesar, Thursday, May.3l, 1860. AC