The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS—(This DAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Border Counties Railway Bill and the Border Union Railway Bill were considered as reported, and ordered for third reading. Purdy's Disabilities Removal Bill was read a second time. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented praying that measures might be taken to prevent the opium traffic with China ; against the Ministerial Reform Bill ; against rating Literary Insti tions ; against the Local Assessments Bill; and against military salutes to religious processions. QUEEN'S COLLEGE (IRELAND). Mr. BEAM ISH moved for a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the presidents of the Queen's colleges in Ireland and the Irish Government, in reference to the residence of the presidents in their respective colleges. —Agreed to. NATIONAL EDUCATION. On the motion of Mr. KIRK, the following returns were ordered :—Copy of the minute of the Commissioners of the Board of National Education in Ireland, dated the 7th of August, 1848, dismissing William Kenealy, then master of a national school at Churchtown, county of Cork, for hav ing written an anonymous inflammatory placard ; together with the letter or letters of Mr. Gould Adams, and the report of Head Inspector Butler, and of all other docu mmts and correspondence having reference to the said miinute : And, of the verdict of the jury in an action for libel, brought by William Kenealy against Durham Dunlop and James Baxter, and tried at the Kilkenny assizes on the 13th day of March, 1859. TRIAL BY JURY (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. DUNLOP, in moving the second reading of this bill, stated that the measure which was thrown out last night in the House of Lords was quite distinctive from his mea sure. The jury system in Scotland was different from the Er iglish system as regarded unanimity. Five years ago he introduced a bill providing that a verdict might be received from nine jurors out of twelve, and this system had been foi tnd to work very well in Scotland. The object of the bill introduced into the House of Lords was to apply this system to England, but it had been rejected on the ground that the fe( fl ing in this countrywas favourable to unanimity. In a case of difference of opinion it was the majority that gave way to the =Enmity, or if the majority were not induced to give way, the minority being generally crotchety men, it led to the jury being locked up. Now the object of his bill was, in the ca se of Scotland, to alter the six hours allowed for delibera tion to three hours, and he hoped that the house would con se: at to read it a second time. Mr. MONCRIEFF agreed that in most cases, where, after long deliberation, a verdict had been given by a ma jo city of nine to three, the same result would have occurred if the time for deliberation had been shorter. The present sritem in Scotland which had existed for five years gave • ie to the risk of jurors anxious to get away by a particular train to give way to the minority, and though it was quite* right to empanel a jury for a sufficient time to provide for due consideration, he considered that:three hours was suf floient for the purposes, and he was sure the bill would be productive of great benefit. The LORD ADVOCATE assured the hon. gentleman who moved the second reading of the bill, that he had earned by the change which he introduced in the jury sys tem four or five years ago, the gratitude of the people of Scotland, and he (the Lord Advocate) was prepared to give his cordial assent to the measure now under consideration. The question before the house was not whether or not an unanimous jury was the most appropriate for the trial of causes, but whether the time for confining jurors for deliber ation should be further limited, and the change proposed met with the approval of the Lord Justice General. Mr. JAMES said he had moved for certain returns in reference to the bill which was discussed in the other house, , but they had sufficient security by the observations of those who have spoken on this question against any evil arising in Scotland from the' change now proposed. But he was of opinion that to extend the system of Scotland to England would be decidedly bad. Mn; BUCHANAN remarked that the prejudices of the people in Scotland were in favour of a bare majority in juries, and he thought the introduction of a system, pro viding that a majority of three-fourths should return a ver dict, would be a desirable change in the law. Mr. MACKIE said he had introduced the system of three-fourths of the jury giving a verdict in civil cases in New South Wales, and the change had worked exceedingly well. Mr. MELLOR said the unanimity in civil cases was more apparent than real, and he should have been glad to have had an opportunity of discussing upon the bill which was introduced into the Lords, of the means of giving the Inry a method of escaping without a violation of their con silientious opinions. Mr. COWAN thought that it was time, in the nineteenth century, that they got rid of the present practice of compel ling a jury to return an unanimous verdict. Mr. S. WORTLEY said his present opinion was against any change in the law of England of unanimity in criminal cases, but he believed that some change might be made in the law in relation to juries, to get rid of the absurd sys tem of starving and freezing. He thought that if they gave refreshments to jurors they would be much more likely to agree in their verdict. i‘ The bill was then read a second time. LAW ASCERTAINMENT BILL. Mr. DUNLOP moved the second reading of this bill, and explained that its object was to provide for the settlement in Scotland of different points of law requiring the opinion of foreign courts. Mr. MALINS believed that the bill would have a most beneficial effect. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD thought this measure if car ried out would be a substantial improvement of the law. 4 ' The LORD ADVOCATE also expressed his approval of the principle of the bill. Mr. BOUVERIE considered that the bill was much too general drawn. The power proposed to be given might be advantageously applied to the superior courts, but the bill as it stood would extend it also to courts of inferior juris diction. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL quite agreed in the ob jection, and pointed out other defects in the deta il s of the bill, but expressedhis concurrence in the principle. After a few words from Mr. DUNLOP in reply, the bill was read a second time. - - TRAMWAY (IRELAND) BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill. The clauses up to 39 were agreed to. To clause 40, which provides for the seizure or detention of persons trespassing on the tramway, Mr. DE VERB objected on the ground that the words "wilfully or wantonly" were not inserted, and there might be no separation between the tramway and the public road. Mr. Sergeant DEASY suggested that the clause should be negatived. After a brief conversation the clause was negatived ac cordingly. The remaining clauses were afterwards agreed to. Sir R. FERGUSON moved the addition of a clause pro viding for the repayment of deposits during the progress of the work on security being given. The clause was agreed to. - The following clause was also added to the bill on the motionof Sir R. FERGUSON :-" Whenever it shall be neces sary to move any of the officers orimen of her Majesty's forces of the line, ordnance corps, marines, militia, or of the consta bulary or police force, by any tramway the company, shall and they are hereby required to permit such forces respectively, with their baggage, stores, arms, ammunition, and other necessaries and things, to be conveyed at the usual hours of starting, at such prices or upon such conditions as may from time to time be contracted for between her Majesty's Prin. cipal Secretary of State for the War Department or the Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland, or either of them, and such tramway company, for the conveyance of such forces, on the production of a route or order for their conveyance signed by the proper authorities." The house then resumed., and the bill, with amendment, was reported. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that so many amendments were to be proposed upon this bill that he was inclined to agree to the motion which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bon_ verie) had placed on the table for referring it to a selec committee. He thought that this measure, and the ou t which had come down from the House of Lords, should be investigated by the same committee. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL approved of this course, and stated that when the Government bill came on for second reading on Friday next, he should move that it be read a second time pro forma, and take the opportunity of explaining the course the Government proposed to take in respect to it. He apprehended, however, that there would ,be no objection to refer it to a select committee, with the bill of the noble lord the member for the city of London. Mr. BOUVERIE was satisfied that the only way in which this question could be properly dealt with was by referring the Government bill and the bill of the noble lord to a select committee. After some remarks from Mr. CRAWFURD, Mr. HEADLAM said there was a general feeling throughout the country that a bill on this subject should be passed in the present session, but if the committee called witnesses no measure could pass this year. Mr. MOFFATT thought they had the full facts of the ease before them to enable them to legislate upon this ques tion, and he objected to the committee calling witnesses, on the ground that it would indefinitely postpone legislation. Mr. MALINS quite agreed as to the inexpediency of calling witnesses before the committee. A commission investigated the subject in 1856, and he thought the com mittee should consider the evidence taken before that com mission and the reports of other commissioners as affording sufficient information to legislate upon. Mr. VANCE having offered some observations, Mr: S. ESTCOURT reminded the house that the ques tion, whether or not evidence should be taken, was a ques tion which should be left to the committee to decide. Mr. LOWE observed that there might be points in the inquiry upon which evidence must be taken. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL remarked that they had got nearly all the information that could be required by the committee in the library of the house, and if they required, as they might require, to take evidence upon certain points, it wo uld then be time enough for them to come to the house for leave to call witnesses. Lord J. RUSSELL agreed that the committee should not haie power in the first instance to call witnesses. The bill was then ordered to be referred to a select committee. ADMIRALTY COURT BILL. Mr. HADFIELD, in m ovin g t he second reading of this bill, stated that its object was to throw open the Admiralty Court to the legal profession at large. The proc tors had received £72,000 a year as compensation for loss of practice by the passing of the Divorce and Ma trimonial Causes Bill; but if they were to receive a com pensation of £lO,OOO for the loss of practice in the Admi ralty Court he would recommend that the monopoly should ontinue. Mr. MALINS said there would be no objection to th e principle of the bill, but he explained that, for the compen sation paid to proctors for loss of practice by the Divorce Bill, a fund was provided from fees, through which no burden was imposed upon the public. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not oppose the second reading of the bill, but declined upon that occasion to enter into a discussion upon the question of compensa tion. He stated that the subject to which the bill referred was now under the consideration of the Government, and he suggested to the hon. member that he should not pro ceed further with the bill till the Government had an nounced their intention. The bill was then read a third time, and ordered to be committed this day fortnight. CHARITABLE USES BILL. Mr. lIADFIELD moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which he stated to be to give cheap, easy, and effectual means for making charitable bequests for schools, institutions, and places of worship. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there were diffi culties in details of the bill, which would have to be consi dered when it got into committee, but he should offer no objection to the secomd reading. The bill was they read a second time, and ordered to be committed this day :three weeks. MARKETS (I RE LAND) BILL. The house then - went into committee on this bill, and clauses up to 28 were agreed to, with a very verbal amend ment. On clause 29 being proposed, Mr. COGAN moved its omission, as he thought it ex tremely unjust to compel a person to bring his produce into a certain market-place, in order that tolls might be levied there. He did not see why a person should be precluded from selling where he could get the best price for his corn, or other articles he might have to dispose of. 'Lord NAAS could not consent to the omission of the clause. A discussion ensued, in which Mr. Fitzgerald,Mr. M'Cann, and several other gentlemen took part, in which it was con tended that the clause in question interfered with free deal ing between man ilud man. The house then divided, when there appeared— For the clause 123 Against it 35 Majority —BB The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill. Mr. FITZROY then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. LUNACY REGULATION ACT AMENDMENT --- BILL. This bill was read a second time. PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS BILL (IRELAND.) This bill was read a second time. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at six o'clock. NORTHAMPTON RACES. (THIS DAY). [BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.] EARL SPENCER'S PLATE. Tiara Accurate King at Arms Thirty-four ran. £3O HANDICAP PLATE. Joan. of Arc Childrey Kate Six ran. ALTHORP PARK STAKES. Midame Eglentine Rattlebone Cheesecake Sixteen ran. ST. LIZ HANDICAP. Pan Artless Spiteful Dick Ten ran. ... 3 JIO.N.EY MARICET AND CITY NEWS. CITY, Two o'CLocK. The demand for money continues active, but the requirements of the commercial community are readily supplied at previous quotations, the re sources of the bankers and brokers being still exceedingly abundant. Until the bills due on the 4th of the month are paid the increased inquiry noticed during the last few days will probably be maintained, as, in addition to the capital required for that purpose, some heavy instalments have to be provided for in connection with the new deben tures of the East Indian Railway Company and other undertakings. The settlement of the half monthly account in foreign stocks and railway shares has also stimulated the demand for accom modation at the Stock Exchange, but the charge for loans on Government securities is still very moderate. The Foreign Exchanges yesterday afternoon exhibited a slight advance in the rates on Amster dam and Hamburg. About £32,000 was withdrawn from the Bank of England yesterday for transmission to the Con tinent. The Silver Market is less active, and bars have receded to 624 d. per ounce standard. In the Liverpool Cotton Market yesterday, business was moderately active, and 8,000 bales were sold at very full rates. The Railway Share Market closed steadily, and prices were unaltered. The meeting of the Ottoman Railway Company has been held this day, when the chairman, Sir M. Stephenson, gave a satisfactory explanation of the position and prospects of the undertaking. It appears that the first section of the railway was being proceeded with in a vigorous manner, and it was hoped that the line from Smyrna to Ephesus would be completed by the autumn. The accounts showed the total sum received to be £204,584, and the balance in hand £45,398. The report was adopted. Although the demand for silver has partially subsided, it is generally expected that extensive remittances will still be made to India; and thus a large proportion of the gold arrivals will be diverted to the Continent, where sufficient supplies of silver can alone be obtained. Business at the Stock Exehange continues in a very unsatisfactory state. Speculation is checked by the uncertainty felt with regard to political affairs. The Reform Bill here, and the Italian question abroad, stilt agitate the chief markets of Europe, as it is impousible to tell what turn affairs may take, and the operators are consequently un decided how to shape their speculations. Consols remain at 95.1 1 for raoney and account, and 951 to 96 for the May sottlement. The Government broker continues to - make small investments on be half of the savings banks. • India Loan Debentures remain steady, at 981. ; and Exchequer Bills at 325. to 355. prem. Business in Foreign Securities is rather inactive; prices, however, in most instances, are slightly firmer. Turkish 6 per Cents. being 93 to 93 1 4 ; ditto, New Loan, 79t0 7 7 9 k ; Dutch 22 per Cents. have improved to 651 ; Sardinian to 82, and Mexican to 21-2- ; Russian 4-} per Cents. have receded to 99-1; The New Austrian Loan is 1 dis. to par. --_._.. Business in the Railway Share Market has been dull. A few of the principal undertakings have been dealt in, but the variations have not exceeded Ito Iner cent. Caledonians declined ss. ; Eastern Counties, Great Northeins, and North Westerns, Ms.; South Western and North Eastern, Berwick, improved 55., and Great Western, Midland, and North British, 10s. The Foreign lines are exceedingly quiet. Lom bardo Venetian realise 9/, 91, and the New shares, 81. In the Colonial Market prices remain steady. Great Western of Canada, Geelong and Melbourne, and Grand Trunk of Canada brought former rates. East Indian are firm at 1021. The Debenture Bonds are quoted to 1 prem., and the New Shares . ; to -1 prem. _ _ _ Joint-Stock Bank and Miscellaneous Shares con- tinue very inactive. London Chartered of Australia and Provincial of Ireland brought former rates Electric Telegraph improved 10s. ; and Peel River Land brought former values. BRITISH FUNDS—CLOSING PRICES. 3 per Cent. Consols Annuities India Stock Ditto Debentures 9Bi Ditto Bonds, £l,OOO ' lO Consols for Account 9si Jime. March. Exchequer Bills, £l,OOO, 2d. & lid 35 33 Ditto £5OO Ditto Small, lid. FOREIGN FUNDS—CLOSING PRICES. Mexican 3 per Cent. 2ll 1 Russian, 1822, £ St., 6 per Cent " - Ditto 4i per Cent. Sardinian, 6 per Cent B2 Turkish 6 per Cent. 921 31 21 Ditto Account ' 93 Ditto New Loan Dividends on the above payable in London. Dutch Exchange, 12 Guil. 21 per Cent 65 1 THREE O'CLOCK. Consols, Money 95 Consols for Account (April 7). • • . 95 i ir PRICE OF GOLD.—The quotation of gold at Paris is about at par, and the short exchange on London is 25.10 per £1 sterling. On comparing these rates with the Eng lish Mint price of £3 17s. lOtd. per ounce for standard gold, it ap p ea rs that gold is about 3-10ths per cent. dearer in Paris than in London. By advices from Hamburg the price of gold is 423 per mark, and the short exchange on London is 13.21 per £1 sterling. Standard gold at the English Mint price is therefore about 6-10ths per cent. dearer in Hamburg than in London. The course of ex change at New York on London for bills at 60 days' sight is about 1091 per cent., which, when compared with the Mint par between the two countries, shows that the ex change is slighly in favour of England ; and, after making allowance for chrages of transport and difference of inte rest, the present rate leaves a trifling profit on the impor tation of gold from the United States. In the Court of Bankruptcy yesterday a trade assignee was chosen under the bankruptcy of Richard Bed ford Allen, insurance broker and underwriter of Lloyd's. The liabilities are widely estimated at from £20,000 to £60,000, while the assets amount to only £7OO The bank rapt has absconded. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 30, 1859. SHAME ILIABEET.-(THIS DAY.) ORDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS. Share ; Paid. I Closing 1 Business ! Railways. 1 • Price. 1.4.10 Amberg., Notting. Bost. and Eastern Julnwon 10 6 64 50 Belfast and Ballymena all 13.14 Bin, Wo'., and Str.Val all 7 4 8 4 Stock Birk., Lane., and Chesh Junction lOO 62 64 25 Blackburn 25 Blyth and Tyne all 32 35 Stock Bristol and Exeter Stock Caledonian Stock Chester and Holyhead - 50 Cork and Bandon all --- 20 Cork, Blkrock,&Passage all 20 Cornwall all 5 54 10 DE,OO: B A f A ' , eves. no div { a ll 0 until6p.c.per an. all hasbeen pd.toß. 50 Dublin andßelfast June. all 25 Dun.,Perth,& Abr.junc all 8 9 Stock East Anglian lOO 15 161 Stock Eastern Counties lOO 5 601 59 4 Stock Eastern Union A Stock 100 45 47 Stock Do. do. B Stock 100 30 32 25 Do.Nw.A.(lte.E.U3ds) 84 25 East Kent all 13 15 Stock East Lancashire lOO 9 2 93 92 4 20 East Suffolk 10 Do Stock Edinburg and Glasgow 100 72 73 Stock Edin.,Perth, & Dundee. 100 27 271 10 Forth & Clyde Junction all Stock Furness Stock Glasgow & South Westn loto 93 94 10 Great North of Scotland all 10 101 Stock Great Northern lOO 10 24 103 Stock Do. do. A Stock lOO 86 88 Stock Do. do. B Stock lOO 132 134 Stock Gt. South.& Wstn.(lreld) 100 105 106 Stock Great Western Stock Do.Str.Vl.Rail Gua.Stk lOO 56 68 12 Irish South Eastern all 50 Lancaster and Carlisle all 83 87 164 Do. Thirds 1613 4 Do. New Thirds l6 11 121 p Stock Lancashire & Yorkshire 100 94 :II • 16 Do. do. F £l6 6 Id 9 Do. do. £9 shares 7 3 Do. West Riding Union 1 -- 20 Do. Southport Stock London and Blackwall all 67 69 6 74 Do.Newiss.at £slosp.sh — — Stock Lon.,Brighton &S.Coast 100 112 113 Stock London & North Westn 100 94 4 05 944 1 121 Do. Eighths Stock London& South-Westn lOO 924 921 924 25 L'derry & Coleraine 25 L'derry & Enniskillen all —, Stock Man., She., & Lincoln lOO 3 8 384 10 Metropolitan Stock Midland lOO 101 1011 101 i 4 i Stock Do. Birming. & Derby. 100 74 76 50 Mid. Gt. West. (Ireland) all 25 Dhares all 100 N estle and Carlisle all 25 New., Aber., & Herefd all 11 12 10 Newry & Armagh (def.) 9 20 Newry, Warpt., & Roe all Stock Norfolk lOO 60 604 61 50 North. Counties Union 3l 31 I d Stock North British lOO 60 604 60 4 it Stock Nor.Dev.Rail.&Dk. Stk lOO Stock Do.A Stk.— Arec.no div with 6p.c.hasbeenpdß 100 Stock Do. B Stock Stock North-Eastn.--Berwick 100 921 121 25 Do. do. G.N.E.Purchase 1613 4 11 11 d d Stock Do. Leeds lOO 46 4 1 7t Stock Do. York lOO 76 4 7 6 1 Stock North London lOO 102 104 1031 10 N. &S.Westn., Hampstd and City Junction f3 is. 20 North Staffordshire l7l 41 41 d 20 North-Western 10 No. & Sou. W. Junction all 7 8 Stock Oxford, Wor.,& Wolver lOO 331 341 10 ' Peebles all -- 20 Portsmouth l9 7 5 d 10 Rhymney lO ;took Scottish Central lOO 110 112 ;took Scoth. N.E., Aber. Stock 100 261 27 itock Do. Scottish Mid. Stock 100 84 85 ;took Shropshire Union lOO 46 48 10 Sittingbourne & Sheer all 31 21 d I >took South Devon lOO 391 401 ;took South-Eastern ' lOO 71.4 MI 701 ;took South Wales 20 SouthYorks.&Riv.Dun all 6 0 6 6 20 Do. do lB 20 Staines, Wok., & Wok all 8 11 25 Stockton & Darlington all 361 371 25 Do. do. 1855 7 25 Do. do. 1858 4l Stockton & Hartlepool 161 ;took Taff Vale ' 100 Itock Do. Preference, No. 1 . 100 25 ThamesHavenDk&Rall 22 ltock Vale of Neath lOO 65 08 ;tuck Waterford & Kilkenny 100 50 Waterford & Limerick all 20 West Cornwall 10 W-end Lon. & Cry. Pal all 5 Do.A.—Arecv.nodiv.till 7 p.c. has been pd. to B all 2 3 5 Do. B all 6 61 20 West London all 10 Do. Ist Class all I 20 Do. 2d Class all Stock Stock Stock 12 Stock Stock 10 Stock Stock 20 ' Stock 50 Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock 25 Stock Stock' , Stock Stock ) Stock Stock Stock. Stock, Stock Stock Stock Stock 1 Stock Stock Stock PREFERENI Sharet Railways. stock Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock stooki Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock 26 13t 20 Stock Stock Stock - Stock Stook Stock Blythe and Tyne 1(.. per C. pref. (issued at 1.50)' Brie. & Exet.4p.ct.Stock Do. do. do. Shares Caledon £lO, 41 per cent Do. Quar. Shares, No. 2. Chester & Holyhd, ape Do. do. 5 p. et. Cork & Bandon, 5/ p. c. Dun. Perth,& Aber. Jun. E.Angn. Class A 7 & spc !Do. do. Class B 6 pc Do. do. Class C 7 Pc • • • • E. Coun. Ex. 5 p et. No.l Do. do N 0.2 Do. New 6 per et. Stock Eastern Union, 4 per ct. East Lanc. 6 per et E.& W. York. Jcn. fifths Edin.&Glas. 5 pc shares Edin. Perth,& Dun. 4 pc. Furness, 5 per cent Glas. &S West. a. 5Pc Great. Northern, 5 p. ct Do. 5 pc Redm.,lop.c.pm Do. 41 p. o. do. do. Do.sp.c. Redm.,s pc. pm Gt. Nh. of Scotld, Ist Df 5 Gt. Sn.& W (Ireland) 4 p. et. pref. Stock Great West. (Berks and Hants) Ext. 5 p.ct. . Do. Redeemable, 41 Do. Redeemable, 4 p. et. Do. Irredeemable, do.. . Do. 5 p. ot. Redeem. Pref. Do. Birm. Pref. Shares Gt. West. Ches. 8 p.c.pf.l Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock. Stock Stock shares Do. do. 5 p. ct. pref Do Birming. guar. stock Do. Chester guar.shares Do. do. do Do. do. do. ILan. & York 6 p.c. stock Lon.&Brig.spc.,gu. No.l IDo. pref., 5 p. c. ...No. 2 Do. New gua., 6 p. ct. Do. do. 5 p. c. No. 9 Lon. & N.W.Cov. 8.11: ur - caton, 5 p. ct. Lon. &S. W, 7 p.ct. stock, I ate 3d shares Londondy & Cole, shs Londondy.& Ennis sh Man.,Sh., & Lin., 6 p. ct Do. £6 Do. 31 per cent. 31aryport & Car., 4 p.o. Do. 4 per cent Stock) Stock Stock! Pk giock Stock Stock Stock 10s. 10 1.0.6. Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock 25 ) 25 f 1 stock, ARES. P . ; , 4. 1 Closing Business Price. Done. all 1 100 6 Do. Mid. Con. 6 p. c. Stock Do.Con.Bris.&Bir.6p.ct Do. 4i p. c. pref. stock Do. with option till 1860 Do. Leic. & Hit.pref. Newport,Aber,&c. p. c. redeem, at 5 p. , ,,,r tni Do. Perpet, 6P. ‘..). w ith option till 1866 Norfolk D....eb.ip.c.shares Do. sp. i..xt.Stock,lB46 Do. 54p. c. Pref. do. 1847 Do. W AV. VM.Ex. Sk 1847 Nort;ft British, 5 per cent Do. New, Rua. 5 per cent Nth.Dev.Rail.& N-East. irred. 4 p.c. Deb. Do. Berwick, 4 p. c. Pref. Do. do. do. Do. Leeds, 6 p. c. No. 1. Do. do. Quarters, 1846. . 80. York, H. & S. Thirob. North Staffordshire & Wol. 6 pc. lst ')o. do. do., 2 , 1 g•ua Do. 4i p.c. Ts..:u.stk.in perp Scottish. Central, new in Scottish N.-Eastern deb Do. 34 per c. pref. stock Do.Aberdeen.gua.6pc. Do. 7 p. c. pref. stock. South Devon, Ann. 10s. Do. Fixed 44 percent. South Eastern (Reading Ann., 1.0.6.) Do .4.i per cent Do. Fixed 4i p.c. Ist is Do. New do., 2d issue South Wales, gua. 4 p.c Do. 1/ per cent S.-Yorkshire, 4 p.c. gua Stockton and Dar. 5 p.e l.p per. do cei virarero Kilkenny, I 6 per cent.- LINES LEASED 100 100 100 100 all all 100 100 100 100 100 124} T FIXED RENTALS. Railways. 'p a id . Leasing I Closing Business Co.'s. Prioe. Done. Bedford and Bletchley Buckinghamshire Clydesdale Junction . Colchester, Stour Val. E.Lineolnshire,g.Bp.e. E Union,HarwichShs. Do. Woodbridge Gls.Barr.&Neils,Drct Do. New Gloster& Dean Forest Hartlpool.Dck.&Rail Hull and Selby ILndc N.W Ln tic N.W Caledonin' E.U.&E C Gt. North. E.Counts. Caledonia Do. 98 100 ' 102 104 17 18 142 144 4} 44 Do. Shares • Do. Shares London&Greenwich Do. Preference .. • • Lon.,Tilby.&Soutend. Do. Barking Shares Lowestoft, gua. 4p. ct Do. 6 per cent Manc.,Buxtn. & Matk Midsb. & Redcr, g.6p.e Mid.BradfordPrf. Stk. Newmarkt.,BuryEx I guaranteed 5 p. c. ) Northn.& Eastn. 5 p.c. Do. do. 6 Der cent Do. Fixed 5 per cent. Preston and Wyre. I Do. shares A. Roystn,Hitch.,& Shep Shf.Roth.&Gol.g.sp.e, Shrewsbry& Hereford South Staffordshire .. Woar Valley, g. 6p. c. Do. do Gt. West. Yk.N.&Br Yk.N.Md. Do. De. S. East Do. Peto &Co Do. Norfolk Do. LN W&M Stk.& Dar Midland . E.Counts. Do. Do. Do. L&N SY) & L.Yk. Do. Gt. North. Lan.& Yk T Brassoy M'Clean Stk.& Dar Do. Gt. West L.&Brgtn liou 111 1094 54 64 65 115 120 93 94 24- 31 96 98 i if ) 57 59 1137 140 91. 11 n loi Wilts and Somersei:: Wimbledon& Croydn. DOCKS. 90 92 8 9 i Paid 1 Closing Price. 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 102 104 18 -• Business Done. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from Haverford - west, complaining of the exclusion of Dissenters from ad ministering trust funds of grammar schools. The Duke of SOMERSET presented similar petitions. SECOND READINGS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following bills were read a second time :—Falmouth Docks and Harbour, Much Wenlock and Severn Junction Railway, Norwich (City) Water Works. THIRD READINGS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : National Fire and Life Assurance ; Price's Patent Candle Company; and Trinity House cf Leith. THE ITALIAN QUESTION. The Earl of MALMESBURY-IVfy lords, I beg to offer a short explanation on the subject of a report which appears in some of the papers, of what I stated last night with re spect to the Congress. It is very seldom that any of your lordships have cause to correct the reports which are made of your lordships' speeches, for they are almost always ren dered with an accuracy that is most extraordinary. But, my lords, it is reported that I stated last night that on the 18th of this month, the Russian ambassador called on me and gave me notice that his Government world propose a congress of the Five Powers. Now what I said was, that on the 18th inst. the French ambassador called on me and informed me that the Russian Government intended to pro pose a congress; and that upon this statement, made to me by the French ambassador, we anticipated the intention of Russia, and sent a proposal to St. Petersburg, on the basis of which the proposal of Russia to us was formed. I think it is right to make this statement, because it relates entirely to a matter of fact. (Hear, hear.) [This explanation has no reference to the report in 2he:Sun, which gave the noble lord's words correctly.] JURIES IN CIVIL CASES BILL. Lord CAMPBELL movd the second reading of this bill, in a speech of great length, but as scarcely a single sentence reached the gallery perfect, it is only possible to give a very meagre outline. The noble lord commenced by alluding to the srhallness of the attendance, and admitted that there was a very great attraction elsewhere (referring to the speech which Mr. Gladstone was delivering in the other house) — but he contended that the bill was one of great importance. He did not propose to interfere with the unanimity of juries in criminal cases, with regard to which the present prac tice undoubtedly worked well. At the worst it only led to .the acquittal now and then of a guilty person ; and it would be far better that 10 guilty men should escape than that one innocent one should be condemned. But with regard to civil trials, the case was very different. In criminal in dictments there was seldom more than one issue sub mitted to the jury ; in civil suits there were often several ; and their lordships must bear in mind that a wrong decision involved not a mere failure of justice, but a positive wrong to the party in whose favour it ought to have been. Now the principle of unanimity was of comparatively recent in troduction. The common law went back to the reign of Richard the First, and trial by jury went to the time of the Anglo-Saxons; but in the reign of Henry the Third there was a case in which a verdict found by 11 of the jury only was received. There was a still more remarkable case in which there were only 11 jurors, 10 of whom found a ver dict which was held to be good. In the reign of Edward the First there were two modes of dealing with a refractory jury. One was " compellere conconFain," by keeping the jurors "sine cibo et potu" till they agreed. The other was to add other persons to the jury so as to raise the number on one side to 12 ; for at that time it was held with regard to petit juries, as it was held with regard to grand juries, viz., that it was only necessary for 12 persons to concur in a ver dict. In later times the number of the jury was restricted to 12; an arrangement for which the old writers gave some rather singular reasons. They said that jurors were 12 be cause there had been 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 apostles ; because there had been 12 stones in the high priest's breast plate; and because there were 12 judges; to which Lord Coke added, "Because there were 12 Caesars." (Laughter ) If the concurrence of a majority was only required of their lordships even in their judicial capacity, he did not see why unanimity should not be expected of jurors. The evils that arose from the present system were very serious. A single wrong-headed or corrupt man in a jury was often able to defeat justice. (Hear.) The manner in which juries were still treated was very remarkable in an age which had abo lished press-gangs and so many other abuses. They sum moned jurymen from their avocations and kept them for days in the court, to their serious pecuniary loss. Then if they did not agree they were locked up without meat er drink, or fire ; and they were forced to endure all this until at least one of them was in peril of his life. The old law with respect to military flogging was that the culprit must be flogged until he fainted before the surgeon could interfere ; and in like manner jurors must be starved until some one of their 'Lumber wa9 in danger of his life, before the judge could • relieve them. At assizes the strict law, according to Black stone, was, that a jury who could not agree must be put put into a cart and carried about the circuit with the judge until they found a verdict. (A laugh.) Another authority said they ought not to be carried out of their own county, but that they were to be shot into a ditch on the confines of the county. New, if unanimity were required, they must have compulsion ; they could not obtain unanimity without, and if this bill were not passed, he hoped that the old laws to compel unanimity would remain untouched. Recently a case came before Lord Justice Turner and Lord Justice Knight Bruce—it was not a question of law but a question of fact. They heard all the evidence, and when they had done so they were—not locked up without food and without fire, but they each went home, had an excellent dinner, and slept in a soft bed, and ten days afterwards, when they had talked the matter over, they gave their verdict. If they had differed and had been subject to the jury law, they would have been locked up all night, taken round the circuit and shot into a ditch. He believed that by the present system the consciences of men were forced. It was a struggle whe ther nature or conscience should give way. They did not know what passed in a jury room after the jury had retired, as they did not permit inquiry into that subject; but they had heard of juries tossing up as to which way the verdict should be, and judges had been obliged again and again to set aside verdicts which were evidently compromises be tween the different members of a jury. A cause came before him lately in which the case for the plaintiff was that the railway company had been guilty of negligence, and if neg ligence were proved he was entitled to some hundreds of pounds as damages; but the jury found a verdict for the plain tiff, damages one farthing. He said to them that that was a strange verdict, and that they must reconsider it. They said they could not agree. He directed them to be locked up but at length he was obliged t o di sc h arg e them. He believed that where it was a question of damages cases had been known in which each juror had put down the amount he thought right, and then they had averaged the amounts so put down. A. NOBLE LORD—That is the practice in Dublin. (Laughter.) Lord CAMPBELL proceeded—One great evil of the pre sent system was, that where juries could not agree, and they were discharged, without coming to a verdict, all that had taken place went for nothing. A trial might last for a week, and after all the expense had been incurred the jury may be discharged without having come to a verdict. On one occasion there was a trial before him which was the third trial of the same cause, and he was obliged to dis charge the jury without obtaining a verdict. He was afraid he should have little assistance from his learned friends, but he would quote some authorities which might perhaps have some weight with their lordships. The first was Mr. Hallam, the historian, who, discussing the system of trial by jury, spoke of " the imposture of requiring unanimity." The next authority he would name was Mr. Forsyth, who asked " why should the perverseness or dishonesty of a single juryman invalidate the verdict of the other eleven? It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will much longer tolerate such an anomaly." He now came to a very important authority, that of the Common Law Commis sioners, who were appointed by the Crown in 1831. They said, " The jury are not allowed to be discharged unless by consent of the parties until theirunanimous verdict has been returned. It is difficult to defend the justice of this practice. It seems absurd that in cases of a doubtful and complicated nature the plaintiff's success should depend on his being able to persuade 12 persons that ono particular state of facts is the true one." They went on to say, " The necessity of delivering an unanimous verdict before they separate fre quently leads to an improper compromise between the jurors. There is reason also to apprehendthat when any of. them has been actuated by improper motives it has led to corrupt verdicts." And they recommended that after a jury had been 12 hours in deliberation the verdict of nine might be accepted. In 1831 there was another commission, consist ing of judges and eminent counsel. They condemned unani mously the existing law, but they did not recommend the measure which he now recommended to their lordships. They proposed that the jury should have every comfort, and at the end of a given time if they had not agreed to a ver dict they should be discharged. He brought in a bill by which it was provided that the recommendations of the com mission of 1831 should be carried into effect. That bill passed that house, but it was thrown out in the Commons, and yet strange to say the Commons passed a measure ipsisszma versa for Scotland. Previous to that time unanimity was required in civil cases in Scotland, but that bill, which was introduced by Mr. Dunlop, had worked well in that coun try, and he had no doubt would work well in this country. (His lordship here read a letter from a Scotch judge, whose name the reporter did not hear, in which he spoke of the great satisfaction which Mr. unlop's measure had given in Scotland) That bill provided that juries should be dis charged at the end of six hours, but there was a bill now in the House of Commons which reduced the six hours to three. The Faculty of Advocates were convened to consider the matter, and they were unanimously in favour of the proposed change. They expressed the opinion that Mr. Dunlop's bill had worked advantageously, but they thought that the period of time might be advantageously reduced. He was told that all his learned brethren on the bench were against this alteration. He should be deeply grieved if that were so. Some of them certainly were of that opinion. There was his brother Erie, than whom a more distin guished judge never sat in Westminster Hall, who ex pressed to him that opinion in conversation ; but it so hap pened that the following day, at nisi prius, Mr. Justice Erle had to discharge two juries who had not given their verdict, and that circumstance had somewhat changed his views. (The noble lord then read a letter he had received from a puisne judge, as the reporter understood, which was to the effect that he had discharged a jury after they had been locked up many hours, that the cause was tried at a former assize by his learned colleague, and he had been under the necessity of discharging his jury. In another, a special jury case, the jury had also to be discharged.) His lordship concluded by saying that by this bill no refreshment would be allowed to the jury while they were deliberating, but if at the end of six hours they had not agreed the verdict of nine would be taken, and if nine were not agreed they would then be discharged. Lord LYNDHURST said the object of the bill was to change one of the most important fundamental laws of the kingdom—trial by jury. That law had existed in its pre sent form for nearly 500 years, and with one or two excep tions, and during the whole of that period, had been admired and applauded by the most eminent lawyers who had ad vised the legislature and the tribunals of the country, A very clear, distinct, and satisfactory ease, therefore, ought to be made out to justify a change in that law; and it was because no sufficiently satisfactory reason had been adduced in favour of the proposed alteratiou that he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of the bill, (Hear, hear.) His noble and learned friend had effected several changes in the law, and had shown himself an advocate for an alteration of the law of Parliament by advocating the ballot. The bill dad apparently been introduced in consequence of a trial resulting out of a railway accident by which ten persona had been injured. Lord CAMPBELL remarked that he had given notice of his intention to introduce the bill before that trial took place. Lord LYNDHURST—The question for the jury on that occasion was one of extr e me difficulty. One o f the jurymen differed from the rest, and his noble and learned friend was . dissatisfied with that juryman's conduct, and said so in very . strong terms. He understood that five juries had tried the same question, and arrived at a final result. His noble and learned friend had great influence with juries. He might find some difficulty in cases where unanimity was the law; but if the decision should be reduced to a majority, or to 9 against 3, juries would be almost directly under his influ ence and control. His noble and learned friend was fond of introducing a little pleasantry, for the purpose of enlivening the dulness which pervaded courts of justice. In the case to which he (Lord Lyndhurst) was now referring the jury were summoned into court in the morning, wretched, hag gard, pale, exhausted; and then it was that his noble and learned friend enlivened them with a little history of the law with respect to the unanimity of juries, stating that accord ing to ancient tradition at assizes, if a jury differed the judge ordered them to be taken round the circuit in a cart and thrown into the next ditch. (Laughter.) That state ment, no doubt, afforded the spectators in the court some amusement ; but it was not a laughing matter to the broken down jury. (Hear, hear.) Now there was no instance to be`foundiin.the history of this country in which a jury had been carried round in a cart, much less shot into a ditch. (Laughter.) In the year 1368 a case was brought before the Court of Common Pleas from the assizes, in which a verdict had been given by 11 jurymen, one juryman dis senting. The person who reported that case appended a note, from which it appeared that in the course of. the dis cussion the judges said that, as the jury had not ag-reed, the judge should have taken them with him in a cart until they had agreed. With regard to shooting the jury into a ditch, he defied his noble and learned friend to quote any autho rity to justify that statement. The only authority with respect to the other part of his noble and learned friend's statement was the note to which he had just called the attention of their lordships. Blackstone referred to that very note. Any person would suppose from what his noble and learned friend had said to the jury, that the judges meant to inflict some indignity upon the jury. The ex pression was in French, and had been mistranslated by his noble and learned friend and his predecessors. It meant "on horseback, or if not on horseback, or when a person was sick and could not travel on horseback, in a covered waggon." (Laughter.) In such cases the judge was to take the jurymen along with him in a covered waggon until they came to an agreement. Lord CAMPBELL—In Blackstone the translation is Lord LYNDHURST—The word was C-A-R-R (laughter)—which meant a waggon going on four wheels and covered with a cloth. His noble and learned friend had referred to a number of old cases. In the reign of Edward the Third three of these cases were cited by counsel. And what was the answer of the court ? Why it was this--that all the cases had been disproved, and the courts had de cided directly the contrary from that time down to the pre sent without any exception. (Hear, hear.) He had made some inquiries into the manner in which the law now ope rated, and had found that in 19 cases out of 20 the jury never retired, but came to a conclusion at once. And when they did retire, what followed ? Each juror lefethe box with some impression on his mind, and stated his opinion, and after dis cussion a conclusion was arrived at. His noble and learned friend considered such conclusion somewhat in the nature of a compromise. But such a course of proceeding had not the appearance, character, or the nature of a compromise. No doubt in a certain class of cases something approaching a compromise took place—such as cases of damage, where no certain test existed. But that objection would apply equally as strongly to a verdict by nine jurors as to a verdict by twelve. No nine men could agree at once as to the precise ' amount of damage, so that no advantage would arise from a reduction in the number of jurymen necessary to give a ver dict. (Hear, hear.) Now, what was the consequence in the case of a jury disagreeing and being discharged ? Nothing more than a new trial. And what proportion would such cases bear to the number brought up from every circuit ? Why they did not amount to more than two or three in the course of a year. For a considerable period, as Lord Chief Baron, he sat in London and Westminster, and went circuit ; and during the whole of his experience in that capacity not one instance had occurred of the discharge of a jury. (Hear, hear.) He had presided in Wales, where the people were not very apt to abandon any opinions they might have formed—(a laugh)—but even in Wales he had known no in stance of a jury holding out and being discharged. He remem bered one remarkable instancewhichc,ame before the Court of Common Pleas, where one juryman held out agaitist eleven. That was a special jury case and one of great importance. over which Mr. Justice Dallas presided. It was brought before another jury, and the result was an unanimous ver diet in favour of the opinion entertained by the dissentient juryman, and that verdict was never disturbed. If his noble and learned friend's measure had been in operation at that time, great injustice would have been done. He believed that during the last ten years there had been no instance either in the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, or the Ex chequer, of any jury ha' ing remained out the whole night in consequence of disagreement ; nor had any such case occurred during that period on any of the circuits, with one exception, and that was in the principality of Wales. (Hear, hear.) An hon. and learned gentleman, Mr. Best, who had written a very excellent article on the subject, stated that he had communicated with one of the most eminent nisi prius lawyers for the purpose of ascer taining what proportion of juries had been discharged in consequence of differences of opinion to the whole number tried, and he said, " I believe that nineteen out of twenty are decided before the parties in court; and of those that leave the corn t I am persuaded that in not more than one in five hundred cases aro juries discharged in consequence of non-agreement. With reference to criminal trials the proportion is about the same." His noble and learned friend had mentioned two or three instances of new trials ; but if the law should be so altered as to allow a majority of 9t03 to secure a verdict applications for new trials would be multiplied to an enormous extent. (Hear, hear.) If the decision depended upon numbers there would be an end to discussion among the jury, for should nine be of one opinion and three of another the matter would be at once decided. No verdict was satisfactory to the losing party, but it would be infinitely more unsatisfactory if only nine decided against him and three were in his favour. Such a decision would promote litigation to an enormous extent. (Hear, hear.) The English jury system was practised and cherished in the United States, where the population was now absut equal to that of this country. His noble and learned Mend did not propose to extend this change to the criminal law. And why ? What was the object of a jury ? If a majority of 9 to 3 was sufficient for the civil, why not for the criminal law ? Take the case of an indictment for libel. To convict a man and impose a penalty, the verdict must be unanimous. But if an action should be brought in a civil court for the very same libel, the verdict of 9 to 3 would be sufficient. (Hear, hear.) His noble and learned friend had referred to the opinion expressed by the Common Law Commissioners in 1831, who came to the conclusion embodied in the present bill.—" The necessity for the unanimity of the jury carries with it one most valuable advantage. In the event of any difference of opi nion, it ensures a discussion. Any one dissenting person can compel the other eleven fully and calmly to recon sider their opinion." The principle of discussion was therefore the great principle acknowledged by the com missioner. Since 1831 the subject had been much agi tated among the profession, many pamphlets had been written respecting it, and another commission, appointed in 1855, had come to a directly opposite conclusion from that of 1831. (Hear, hear.) The last commission was presided over by Chief Justice Jervis, and amongst the commissioners were the Attorney-General (Sir Alexander Cockburn), Mr. Baron Martin, and two other learned judges. The commissioners in that report expressed their opinion that a verdict pronounced by a majority only . would not give satisfaction to the public, while the con sciousness that a portion of the jury were in his favour would tend to increase the dissatisfaction felt by the de feated party. Every divided verdict would be urged on the courts as a ground for a new trial, and would not un reasonably be entertained as such. But the strongest ar gument in favour of the present system, observed the com missioners, was that by requiring unanimity full and com plete discussion was ensured, the minority being naturally led to resist a conclusion from which they differed, until the prolonged discussion of the subject had led to altered convictions, instead of yielding too readily to the views of the majority, and so purchasing ease and relief from fur ther trouble, as would probably in many instances be the case if, by the system now proposed, the whole re sponsibility of the verdict could be got rid of. After a few concluding observations, the noble and learned lord, who appeared much exhausted by the effort he had made to speak so long, sat down amidst the cordial cheers of the house. BRITISH POSSESSIONS, . „ Share' Railways. Paid. Closing I B al d ness Price. Done. 100 Atlantic &St Lawrence all 8.5 88 Leased at 6 per cent 18 Bom.,Baroda&Cent.lnd 134 i d gu. 5 percent 18 Do • all 18 Do. Addit. Capital A 6 1 d 18 Do. Do. B 1 d 201 Buffalo and Lake Huron all 64 7 201 Do. New l6l d 100 f Buffalo,Brant&Godrich 100 85 90 6 lOO t D o: do. p. ct. bds. 1 1 Ju ly Aug., , 1872 1873 100 82 86 190 Do. do. 1 June, 1874 100 SO 84 20 Clcutta.&S.Eastrn.Lim. 1- 3- 0. par IF. 20 Cape,Eastn.Prov.(Lim.) 2s. 20 Cape Town & Dock Scrip 25. 1 1 20 Central Oude (Limited) 2s. 6d. 20 Ceylon Guaranteed 6p.c 2 1 P 171 Demerara 20 Eastern Bengal.g - u.sp.c 5 1 11 d Stock East Indian , gu. sp. e lOO 102 103 121 20 Do. C Shares all 20 Do. E Shares Ext l5 pa 20 Do. Jubbulpore 5 100 D 0.41 p.c. Bds. pay.'s9 all - 20 Geelong& Mel.gua.s p. c. all 19 20 1 91 1 sto. I Geelong Corporation 6 } 100 per cent. Bonds Stock Grand Trunk of Canada 100 35 3 7 100 Do. 6 p.c. Deben.,pay.'7B all 76 78 74 cent. 100 Do. 6 per Pre lOO 93 94 0. 20 Gt.lndiaPenin.gua.sp.e all 1001 1011 1011 i 1 20 Do. New, gua.s per cent 4 par 20 Do. do 4 20 f Gt.S.of Ind.Lim.—Scrip 2a. ___ ( guaranteed 5 per cent. ) q Gt. W. of Canada Shares all 151 16 16 151 2 201 Do. New 100 j Do. Bonds pay. 76 with } all 103 105 / opt. till '6O 100 Do. do. '73 till '6O all 103 101 100 Do. do. 73 without opt all 103 105 100 Do. 51 p. c. do. '77 do 20 Madras, guar., 41 p. c all 17 171 17 20 Do. do. 5 per cent. all 19 20 19 1 20 Do. 41 p. c. Extension.. 15 1 18j 18 20 Do. Third Ex. gua.s.p.o. 10 20 Do. Fourth do. Stock Melb. Corp. 6 p.c. Bonds 100 20 {Newßrunswick&Canda. Ry.&Land(Lim.)g•.6pc 10 Class ACapitl.Share. • Do. do. Land do .. 20 Do. do. B. Capital do lO d Do. do. Land do. 20 {Northof India Tramroad Limited, Scrip 2s. 20 Oude (Limited) 20 Seinde l5 1 1p 15 20 Do. 20 Do. New ca 8 10 1 d par 20 Do. Punjaub F., 5 / 1 d 20 Do. Indus. St. Flo. 10 '1 d par 20 St. Andrews & Quebec A 18 10 ,Trinidad(Limited) Scrip 1 Id par FOREIGN RAILWAYS. 10 Antwerp & Rotterdam all 41 51 20 Ardennes all 20 Bah.&S.Fran.,Lim.7n.e 3 I d 5 Belgian East. Junction all 1 20 Beziers to G-raissessaa. all 5 Carmeaux Mine & Rail all 1/ 21 20 Dutch Rhenish l5 5 41 d 6 Eastern of France all 26 261 20 Euphrates Valley 2s. p 20 Great Central of France all 20 Gt. Luxem., Con. she all 64 7 10 Italian Junction 8 20 Lake Constance & Bale all 20 Lierre and Turnhout all 20 Lombardo Venetian 8 11 lip 91 20 Lucca &Pistoja, 5 p.c.pf all 20 Lyons and Geneva 331 Maria Antonia all 20 Do. do. New 20 Namur and Liege all 84 E 84 20 Do. do. 6p. c. Pref all 20 20 16 Northern of France 20 Do. New Shares 10 Norwegian Trunk Pref all 81 91 20 Ottoman, gua. 6 per cent 7 - 20 Paris. Lyons, and Medit. all 331 - 331 20 Paris and Orleans 20 I Recife& S. Fran. (Pena )1 9 1 d gua. 7 p. ct. (Lim.) 20 Riga and Dunaburg 4 10 Rome and Frascati 20 Royal Danish all 5 Royal Swedish 4 Do. 7 per cent. Pref all 20 Sambre and Meuse all 61 7} 10 Do. 51 per cent. Pref. 20 Southern of France 81 West Flanders all 5/ 6 1, 10 Do. 51 p. c. Prefe r e n c e 20 W. & N.W. of France all 23 21 20 Western of Austria 20 Westei nof Switzerland all 6 Wiesbaden 6 Do 8 per cent. Pref all 20 Zealand all BRITISH MINES. Mines. Paid \ Closing I Maine's Prim. Done. Alfred Consols (Philack) 2.11.10 6 7 2b tritish Iron Condurrow (Camborne) 2O • 10 Devon G. Cons. (Taoist.) 1 465 475 East Bassett (Illogan). 30 215 225 -- Great South Tolgus l7s 14 16 G.WhealAlfd.(Phillack) 11.18.8 21 31 24 G. Wheal Vor (Helston) 91 4 Lady Bertha North Frances (Illogan) 81 74 8 North Wheal Crofty 7.9.4 5 7 N.Wh'l Basset (Illogan) 94 101 Par Consols (St. Blaxy) 11 14 15 Porkellis Unit. (Wend.) 9 Sortridg - e Cons. Min. Co. 6s / SouthCaradon (St.Cleer) 21 46.5 475 Sorth C. Brea( Illogan). 2 21 3 S Wheal Fran. (Illogan) 18.18.9 200 210 5 Tamar Silver and Lead Mining Co 4l 14 2 10 Tin Croft 9 4 41 UnitedMines(Gwennap) 40 - -- Vale of Towev (Carm ) 12s 6d 1 4 West Basset (Mogan) l4 21 23 214 W. Caradon (Liskeard) 2O 771 821 Wheal Basset (Illogan) 5l 190 200 Wheal Buller (Redruth) 5 130 140 Wheal Edward (Cal s.) 54 21 3 Wheal K ittv (U. Lelant) 1.7.2 11 12 Wh'l Ma ryAnn (Menhe) 8 47 49 Wh'l Trelawney (Lisk ) 41 30 32 FOREIGN MINES 20 Australian 74 I 1 1 Bon AccordCopper,Lim lOs par 1 p 35 Brazil. Imp. (is. at .e 5 p ) 27 1 11 20 Do.St.Johndelßey,Lim l5 11 12 114 5 Do. Land and MiningCo all 11 2 1 Clarendon Consols Min ing Co. of Jamaica d 40 Cohn. Copper all 36 38 36 Cepiapo l6 10 12 1 DunMoun.Cop.Mio4.Co all I 2 Fortuna 20 General 3 Linares .. 5 Lusitr:„i an 1 MsAaoita all 4 1 ;ew Granada all 1 N.RhineCop.of S.Aus.L 10 • 1 I P .40 Pontgibaud Silver, Lead Mining and Smelt..., all 4 5 5 Port Philip 1 30 Santiago de Cuba 164 111 28.2.84 United Meiican all 21 2 COLONIAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. Share Securities. Paid. Closing Busin ess Prim. Done. Can.Gov.6 p.c.Ja. & July 100 115 116 1151 11 1 Do. 6p.c.Fb.&Aug. 100 113 115 Do. 6 p.c.Mr. & Sep. 100 113 115 N.8.G0v.6p.0. Ja. &Jtily 100 1111 1121 112 , Do. 6p.c.Ap. & Oct. 100 - - N. S.W. Gov. sp. c. Deb. • 100 103 104 NovaScotirGov.6 p.c. St. Deb. redeemable, 1875 100 111 i 1121 1121 S.Aus.Gt.6 pc.Jan&July 100 111 i 1121 Vict•Gov.6p.c.Jan&July 100 JOINT-STOCK BANKS. Share) Joint-Stock Banks. Paid. Closing I Bushtess Price. DOne. 100 Agra&UnitedServiceßk 50 68 7 0 682 40 Australasia all 25 Bank of Egypt all 242 25 100 Bank of London 5O 40 Brit. Col. Bk. & LoanCo all 60 British North American all 20 Chtd. Bank of India, &c 10 11 1 d 100 City 5O 62 64 100 Colonial 25 20.11 Com. Bank of Canada all 100 Commercial of London 2O 20 Eng., Scot., & Aus. Ch all 151 161 20 Gen. Bk. of Switzerland all 20 Lon.Char.Bk.otAustral. all 231 231 232 50 London and County 50 London Joint Stock 100 London & Westminster 2O 100 Nat. Prow. of England 35 20 Do. new lO 50 National Bank 25 20 New South Wales 25 Orient. Bk. Corporation all 20 Ottoman Bank all 211 211 Provincial of Ireland 10 Do. New all 70 692 25 South Australia 25 Do. New 25 Union of Australia all 25 Do. New 2O -- 50 Union of London lO 100 Unity Mutual 6O - -- 100 Western Bk of London 50 211 204 d MISCELLANEOUS. • Shari Miscellaneous. 1 Paid.l Closing p r i o e liminess done 10 Anglo-Mexican Mint .. all 13 14 1000 Atlantio Tel. (Limited). all 220 250 25 Australian Agricultural 19 32 34 10 Australian Royal Mail . all 1 10 Berlin Water Works all 22 ai 10 Do New, issued at £5 dis 3 50 British American Land 40 6 1 2 Brit. & Irish Mag. Tel.A. all 35 37 20 Do. B, 7p. c. till 1862.. all 19 21 20 Do. C . 100 Canada Land 322 121 126 10 Chan.lslands Tel.(Lim ) all 9 10 Stock Cop.Min.of Eng.&Smltg all 25 Do. Preference 71 per ct all 24 25 5 Crystal Palace. 5 Do. Preference all 5 5 20 Eastern Steam all Stock Electric Telegraph lOO 102 104 -- 5 Eng. & Aust. Cop.St.Co all , 2 1 p 10 Europ. & Ind.Junct.Tel lOB. # d 9 Europ.&Am.Stm.(Lim ) all 1 1 20 Gl.lron ScrewCol.(Lim all 15 Gen. Steam Navigation. 14 20 London Discount 5 12 11 .' 4 Lond.Gen. Omnibus Co all 11 11 10 Mediter. Electric Teleg all 10 Med. Exton. Tel. (Lim ) all 5 6 25 National Discount Co 5 I I d 10 Netherlands Land 6 -- 10 Do do all 5 Do 8 p.c. Pref.,' ss.atl di s all 1 12 100 N.Br.&NovaScotiaLand 80 1 N. B. Australasian (Lim.) all 1 1 20 North of Europe Steam all 1 Oriental Gas 1 Do. New Shares lss. 1 die par 75 Peel River Land & Min all 21 3 50 Pen. & Oriental Steam all 83 85 50 Do. New lO 13 14 p 20 Red Sea & Ind. Telegr lO n 50 Rhymney Iron 15 Do. New all 7 100 Royal Mail Steam 6O 61 63 1 Scot.Austrin.lnv.(Lim all 1124 125 25 South Australian Lan. a ll at 37 1 Submarine Teleg. Script all 1 I 1 Do. do Registered all 20 `Tr.& Ln.Co.of.Upr. Cam 5 PO Vag Diemen's Land . 9 II _. ,-,rte ....~~ 49 51 95 99 1103 105 5 1 6 1 98 101 112 116 108 112 114 116 112 114 129 131 82 84 71 73 110 112 117 110 110 112 103 105 63 65 11 11i 96 98 87 n 88 90 100 102 10 10a 161 17 Of 101 72 74 181 191 Of 9/ 14t 144 140 142 1118 120 1160 165 123 125 70 1 721 P 11 .:39 141 1 101 103 P 94 96 91 10 4 11 9 1 1 911 [ll 1-13 97 98 I id 4 d 231 2 3 } 123 125 118 120 99 101 101 24 241 102 104 102 104 ; 8 21 233 53 58 Share Docks. Stock Commercial Stock Do 4 perCent.Prcf. Min Stock East and West India , Stock London Stock St. Katharine Stock Southampton Stock Victoria 20 DO NOW • ft um ? a. Share' Earl GRANVILLE supported the bill. He remarked that in many civil cases a jury was dispensed with altoge ther ; the innumerable small cases tried by the county courts, and the most important cases decided in the Court of Chancery and in their lordships' own house, were diSposed of ordinarily without the intervention of a jury. One advan tage of the jury system in civil cues, however, was that it caused a great many persons who served as jurymen to receive a kind of practical education, and obtain some know ledge of the law. But it could not be good that after having sworn, so help them God, to give a verdict according to the evidence, they should be forced to belie their own opinions and agree to a compromise. It would be said they did, nevertheless, in most instances, come to an unanimity, but he could not believe it was a wholesome unanimity, seeing how difficult it was even for men of trained intellects, and with the best information, to agree in opinion. After having formed opinions on the evidence they heard, and had their opinions strengthened by the arguments of the counsel, they could not become unanimous except on compulsion, which was unsuited to the age in which we live ; they were often shut up during thewhole night, and their imprisonment was aggravated by their being deprived of food and fire. This was, as Mr. Hallam had justly said of it, a preposterous relic of barbarism; the judges knew it, and tried to avoid such an extremity. Not long ago there was a juror who said he:felt faint, and wanted a little water ; the judge said, " I am afraid the law is against you : the law forbids you to be supplied with meat or drink, but as I do not think water is meat, and as I am quite sure it is not drink, you shall have it:' laugh.) Throughout all continental Europe, wherever juries existed, they decided by the majority. In Scotland the system of compulsory unanimity became so unpopular that they were obliged to alter the law, and give the verdict to the majority,. and it had since acted well. In ' the colonies, especially in Van Diemen's Land and New South Wales, the same system was going on with perfect s uccess. With the greatest defer ence f or th e sagacity and ex perience of the noble and l earne d lord epp°site (Lyad hurst), he could not think th e e ff ect o f the proposed change would be such as had been d escr ib e d . I t to hint, with regard to one point which had been raised, that dis- cussion among the jurors would be sufficiently ensured by that provision in the bill, which required that six hours should elapse before any other than an unanimous verdict could be given, f or it was impossible to doubt that. if nine were of one opinion, they would think it worth while to dis cuss the matter with their three fellows, in order to get an unanimous verdict earlier, instead of idling their time away in confinement for six hours. He believed this bill, so far from being destructive of the ancientinstitution of the jury, was likely to strengthen and preserve it. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the noble and - learned Lord Chief Justice, who had introduced this bill, was of course a veryhigh authority ; but he thought that on this particular subject his (the Lord Chancellor's) experience was only second to that of the noble and learned lord, who naturally regarded it from the height of the judicial bench, and desired any alteration which would render juries more tractable, whereas he (the Lord Chancellor) regarded it from his long experience as an advocate. His noble and learned friend (Lordlyndhurst) was correct in attributing the origin of this bill to the trial alluded to, at which the Lord Chief Justice presided; for when the jury, miserable and dejected, as they had been so graphically described, came up weary of the night's confinement, the noble and learned lord, ate; the little soleasantry he was guilty of, explained to them the pre sent law as to unanimity, and added that it was his inten tion to bring in a bill in the next session to alter the law on the subject, for he thou ht in civil cases the ver di c t m i g ht be given either by a majority or by a certain number of the jury, and he should submit some such measure to the legislature. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought it would be extremely desirable that a judge on the bench should not make such observations, for he was informed that in conse quence of the observations made by the noble and learned lord on that occasion, jurors had become very refractory, and they had since on two or three occasions sent down the judge to know whether the verdict of a majority could be received. The circumstances under which that action originated were peculiar. A crop of actions had sprung up out of an accident on the Great Northern Rails's/IT—OA actions were brought against the company. In the first no trial took place, and the record was withdrawn; in the second there was a verdict for the plaintiff, but a new trial was moved for • in the third case there was also a verdict for the plaintiff, but Mr. Justice Erle, who tried the cas was dissatisfied with the trial, and a motion for a new trial was made; a new trial was granted, and the next case was ordered to abide the event of that new trial. The fourth case` ras tried in the Court of Exchequer, mad lasted two days and a half, but the jury could not come to any agree ment, and were discharged. The fifth case was also tried, bat the jury could not come to a verdict, and were dis charged. The case which was tried by the noble and learned lord, the Lord Chief Justice, was the sixth of those actions. The question was confessedly a most difficult one ; it was whether the company, which had clearly not been guilty of any general negligence as to the construction of the railway or of the carriages, could be charged with any particular negligence in driving an express train, which, going at a very considerable speed, at night, came upon a mass of rubbish that had accumulated in consequence of a landslip caused by a flood, near Newark. In that case the jury were unable to decide whether there was negligence or not on the part of the company. According to his experience a public company generally appeared in court with a considerable weight of prejudice against them. The jury, however, could not make up their minds satisfactorily, but they considered that it was a case in which there was so much doubt that they were entitled to give a verdict which would make each party pay his own costs. This verdict was brought into court to the Lord Chief Justice, and he remon strated with the jury upon that verdict. Perhaps he was right so flee; he might be entitled to point out to the jury that it was a verdict which, if a motion for a new trial should be made, could not stand. He sent the jury back again, but just at the rising of the court the jury came again into court; they then said that they adhered to their verdict, and could come to no other verdict. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) must say, with great deference to his noble and learned friend, that he was bound to receive that ver. • diet. The counsel on each side could not insist on that verdict being received, but his noble and learned friend was bound to receive it ; and when he sent that jury back to their room, and locked them up for the night, if there had not been a decision of the courts by which the judges of the superior courts were protected from responsibility in respect of their proceedings in court, he was in very considerable jeopardy of having twelve actions brought against him for false imprisonment. However, the jury remained there till the morning, and were then discharged; and that was the moving cause of the introduction of this bill. Now, the noble and learned lord had said that the unanimity of juries was not established , by the common law of the coun try. It certainly was not by the statute law, and it had existed nearly 500 years, when it was established by a deci sion of the Court of Common Pleas overturning the bad precedents which had been going on for some time pre viously. Some deference ought to be shown to such an an tiquity as this, and strong reasons were required to justify an alteration. He had conversed with some of the judges on this subject, and found them uniformly of opinion that the law ought to remain as it was. One judge told him that hav ing been eighteen years on the bench he had only known two cases in which the jury was discharged ; and he himself (the Lord Chancellor), speaking from an experience of nearly 40 years, had no clear recollection of more than one case in which the jury was discharged. That was a case tied be fore the noble and learned lord himself, and one to which his bill would not apply. It was an action brought against the General Steam Navigation Company for running down. A verdict was given against the company, and set aside for misdirection. On the second trial there were five special and seven common jurymen. The jury retired, and said they could not agree. The noble and learned lord, anxious, as he always was, to obtain a verdict, asked the counsel to consent to take the verdict of the seven; but he (the Lord Chancel lor), knowing that the five special jurymen were more likely to take a correct view of the case, declined to that verdict, and the result showed that he was perfectly right, for the case was tried a third time before Mr. Justice Erle, and a verdict was then given for the company, which no one who understood the matter could doubt was a fair and just verdict. The noble and learned lord had shown a glimpse of his motives when he complained that jurors were now more independent than they used to be, and more diffi cult to deal with ; but if the system of unanimity were to be altered, it was to be feared that the judges of strong will would obtain more influence over juries than was desirable. He (the Lord Chancellor) was not for continuing the bar barous restrictions which had been talked of. He thought that the jurymen ought not to be deprived of proper refresh ment, or restricted in the absurd manner that was now pre scribed, because everybody must know that the oath was never administered to the bailiff in open court without ex citing laughter. There were, no doubt, great difficulties and diversities of opinion about this matter. Then they had the opinion of the commissioners of 1853 opposed to that of the commission of 1831. His noble and learned friend did not propose to extend his bill to criminal cases. The commissioners on criminal law differed with his noble and learned friend, for they said that they thought that there should be some alteration in the law which required unani - nifty in juries, at any rate as regarded acquittals. Was it possible for his noble and 'mined friend to stop short and say that his principle was a good one for civil cases, and could not be extended to criminal cases ? Many civil cases were quite as serious in their consequences as criminal cases. Take a case of libel for accusing a man of an infamous crime, and a justification pleaded • that man was as much on his trial for the offence of whi ch he was accused as if he was indicted in a criminal court. Take also the recent case of a lady of rank, against whom an action was brought for a cit ing anonymous letters. In that case the trial differed little from one on a criminal charge. In these cases his noble and learned friend's plan of 9 to 3 instead of unanimity in a jury would apply. Unanimity imposed on each juryman responsibility which made him careful in forming his opinion ; and more, it made him important and respectable to his fellow jurymen who did not number him, but were obliged to reason with him in order to bring him to their opinion. It was said that unanimity implied compulsion, but it was only the compulsion of listening to reason. If a jury went out to consider their verdict and there were three dissentients they would refuse to trouble themselves any more and would give their verdict at once. A striking illustration of what this proposal would lead to had been called to his attention by a noble lord. An action was brought against a schoolmaster for an alleged cruel as sault on one of his scholars. On the jury were three special jurors, of whom his noble friend was one, and nine common jurymen. A strong appeal was made to the feelings of the jury, and surgeons were called to speak to marks on the boy's body, which, however, they said could not be ascribed to the punishment he had received ; and they said they should not have objected to their own sons receiving such a punishment if they deserved it. When the jury re tired, the three special jurors were for a verdict for the defen dant, and the nine common jurymen were in favour of the plaintiff. The special jurors reasoned calmly with the others, and brought them to their own opinion, and a ver dict was returned for the defendant. Suppose that his noble and learned friend's bill had been law, they would not have listened to the reasoning of his noble friend and the other special jurors, and the result would have been ruin to the defendant. His noble and learned friend was rather apt to look to Scotland for his law, and he seemed to have built his case on an act relating to juries in Scotland passed in 1854. Now juries in civil cases were not indigenous in Scotland, and they were not introduced until 1815. Sir Archibald Alison had, however, stated that they were con sidered a curse in Scotland, and jury cases had dwindled down to twenty or thirty a year. The act of 1854 was passed to get rid of an uncertainty which existed in trial by July in Scotland, and it allowed that, after three hours' deliberation, the s sernight return a verdict by a majority. In criminal cases, in which a verdict was given by a plurality, the number of jurymen was fifteen. His noble and learned friend seemed to admire this system. There was one thing in favour of the unanimity of juries, and that was the confidence it gave to the suitor in their decisions. If a losing suitor, who iras of course always dissatisfied, was able to say t hatl perhaps three men on a jury were in his favour, it would shake all confidence in the administration of justice. His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had alluded to the manner in which this bill would operate in new trials. The courts were reluc tant to disturb verdicts on matters of fact, even where they had doubts as to the propriety of Verdicts. But suppose in doubtful eases it was known that the verdicts were given by majorities only of jurymen, the courts would always grant new trials. With regard to the objection made to dis charging juries without their giving verdicts, all cases were not,so clear as that juries were able to decide them, and it was no great hardship, when they did not agree, that a s uitor should be obliged to resort to an o th er jury for a ver dict. The institution of juries was rooted in the habits of the people of this country, and ought not to be lightly distitthede and he would ask the house whether his noble and learned friend had shown sufficient reasons for changing a s" which had obtained for 500 years, and to induce the house to commit itself to an untried plan foreign to the constitu tion and to the feelings of this country. He hoped the house would not be persuaded by the endeavours of his noble and learned friend, instigated as he was by , a feeling that juries had become too independent to allow judges to direct them as they wished, and he did hope that their lordships would stand on the ancient ways, and not suffer an insti tution like this to be tampered with. Lord CRANWORTH said he must admit that his opinion on this subject had fluctuated for some time. It was said that his noble and learned friend had introduced this bill on account of what had occurred at mo t%ree g ent trial. That in cause ; but his might have been the imm edia te noble and learned frien d h n t gle e n la n w ot . ice ll i e n (ILBso4rdthCarat alterationho - ttention to what had been done by Cran worth) wished to call l a had inquired into the criminal and the commissions common law. Twhigec fi rsth w as appointed theun nim t i y n o l f B j 3 u l ;.i s and o u they came to the conclusion ion was appointed, and they came to a supported, the recommended accordingly. In s no s t conclusion system could not be supported, • different to their predecessors, but they concurred i n s aying that the p resent oallnother commiss ion jury ee cha ng e t , h t a h t ey if s a h ft o e ta r d l2 i h m oura de lib era tion a aid they recommended oul as d a change dis charged. The Government in 1854, when he (Lord Cran worth) was on the woolsack , introduced a bill to imp rove bill the common law procedure, and ado pted the recommenda tion of the commissioners. Thel was referred to a select committee of their lordships' house, and in that com mittee a proposal was made not to act on the recommenda tion of the commissioners without extending it to something like that which was proposed by the present bill. The question in the committee was not as to the principle, but whether the majority should be 9, 10, or 11. This was adopted by their lordships' house, but it was altered in the other house, and it came back in so objectionable a shape that the provision was struck out altogethet. Then it was that his noble and learned friend said he should introduce a measure on the subject in a future session. Ile (Lard Cranworth) thought that the deduction from the recommen dation of two successive commissions at intervals of 20 years was that some change was necessary. If such a change was necessary, what could be looked to as a final change but that proposed by his noble friend With re gard to criminal cases, he could not help feeling that the principle must be extended to them. The question was whether the doing away of unanimity of juries in such easel would be an unmixed evil ; but in some cases he thought it might be an advantage. It often happened that j e ur ors i t : capital cases found persons not guilty because th y opposed to the remedy that evil. He did not deny that there might be punishment of death. This alteration m . ig a h n t namely, tha t where in capital cases juries were not unani m ous , sen tences would evil in criminal cases of an opposite char acter, thepres sure on the Home-office for remission o be so great as not to be resisted. It way a (potion of I j , On sly 'Oll au uel six TO tho ler ild tea )rd we 'he nd