The Sun. — London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

i n crease d );ssed a iv re e' ( I been g where ket in °Per only frail substann.• setl' io ° Il e' t he 6 , e 0, 0 # [lon. t he J oe, 05 c ot ,oe t bles. 0) 0 t est Dego v r 4 00 13 d sb od ; er e ' e i r ni c . e lf a p I be o e a: , 0 0 1: c argo ay °a d, i r el ler ce ° l O '' , thi s n • ad ,t 1 fro lire 9 -s b I o t le' stir° 0 oe A y% Nei .. rip fo r ;1;1 0 b r e e r f s e(i t isesP be ger a dici oti• t ..,1 I for THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEN ENG, MARCH 14, _1846. e t sae 'lke] - ` - ' 4 OPE—I did not say the gentlemen of Ireland; 4r.theap,or of Ireland. (uVtltlEßS—Well, then, the poor of Ireland. ne e rr• Villiers) did not see that the poverty or % e l ° ef Ireland could be at all connected with that toy in and he asked 'whether it would not be neces- GteiJnY case to have a poor-law for Ireland ? The 4 sSit °PPOSed t o th at quest i on a d m i tte d t h e ne e tt Y Gf . that law. If t h ere was a L eg i s l ature embrac b Itais e of Commons and a House of Lords sitting the it ould lie at that momende would not the first law which „"gage their attention be a tax for the relief of t eree72 r ? The other reat argument which was e pea r to b y the Hon. Member or Limerick for the pr opri ef the union, was the absence of the landed toe r°:rse Absenteeism he would admit might operate 44 te i nJur inusly on the interests of Ireland, but ab could not be laid to the fault of the Legislature h ere▪ He w ou ld ca ll t h e attent i on o f H on . Mem s4,e thii fact, th a t th e estates o f some gen tl emen w h o latieabsentees were better managed than those of the 1e,..r who res id ed in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Ilos, 4 • SC ROPE explained. He begged to assure the te k4 ember and the H ouse th a t h e did no t w i s h for a POor f the union • he merely said that if he were a ki ttri t nae living in Ireland, and subjected to those to al ? under which that country laboured, he would be Kish t °cafe for the repeal of the union. He did not t hle 11, Underst oo d however as being himself favor ',,rPPeal of the union. th r s t e 'WDE ;ATE said it appeared that the ideas -:,,re• Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) ttele, Ico ncentrated upon one subject—that of free eight that he could not hear of any circumstances that 4) ti ditate against that doctrine; for instance, the lrod u ewer' stated that the exportation of agricultural „"tiel l — k /N,ln Ireland to this oountry was a grievous evil I' 4 te s i a ll times pressed upon Ireland, and he suggested • e „ () 'n of finding elsewhere the means of supply to Ztlity cL „trY, that Ireland might be relieved of that r`, 4 4 l ",„''''', and retain to herself her own agricultural R‘te . Re would not condescend to stoop to circum e 1; 2 ; 4 ' 41 ° 1 Was his ardour in the cause of free-trade. k „ . ! b ti .Pou us the advantage that Ireland would de b"y 1,,, manufactures established in that country, ke, ll Y rQtaining h er agr i cu lt u r a l produce, all of which , ould, as it had been said, be obtained by the 'ele ` the union. But if the repeal of the union were e cit !ee t 'Pen Ireland ' the loss of a market for her pro e'aete"„ t his country, it would only involve greater „71,‘ Y t Pna the people ; and he (Mr. Newdegate) must me, „ In his opinion the repeal in that sense would , 11 I,"%radeantage either upon Englard or Ireland. amidst cries of " Oh, oh," rose to say i 4 ee e r Terely wished to observe that the great griev ,i'taL'reland was, not that she exported so much of 411,11,,11t,U_ral produce to this country, but that the Gr th ! labour w as s o little.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, " greatest curses w h ic h cou ld b e inflicted upon , til ^ri e ,, w ''uld be the importation of the produce of ( Pry a nd Prussian labour into the markets of this w u▪ ieh would naturelly cause the demand for `(li e I n Ireland to be even less than it was at present. L '4, 4%.„ hea t.) And such would be the result of the et:7'ou " -l i- eas are of her Majesty's Government. He iA~• t uat he r M a j esty ' s G overnment were , h owever , "Ot% s : t ne steps to remedy this evil ,in Ireland by Ot is stalls of money for the execution of public ,711 1) : h 4 ° , 1 he must say that, differing from them as he t nally other occasions, in this, at least, he was th e th't they deserved the thanks of the country iNiketepellatst l u ti r g es which they had introduced for the pur an end, if possible, to the distress and I,:,that at present prevailed in Ireland.—(Hear.) Oh s t,,`'l'teit.eit then put the question, that leave be l es ; bri ng in the Bill. SirJu,as granted, and the Bill was read a first ',.., 0 R-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. time. t ~.,k-jRAHAAI then presentfr leave to bring in a ,44)t-tile amendment of the law relating to Lkl," ) ,`"teent of the poor in England, the main features trc, ns tears'ie the poor a claim to parochial re- Les "e y industrial residence in the country th ! : fi r s given to bring in the Bill, and it was then nst titae• kr. TIMBER DUTIES. ti tt , • lIINDE presented a petition from the ship -4r 1,7; ats ociation, in which the petitioners stated that i, t h": r i e- Prepared to give their assent to all the mea -1,;4,14,e1;nded in the Customs' and Corn Importation "tboi ta :"Z the exception of that portion which proposed tlie duty on timber. , L 4 4p t CORN-LAWS. l ' e' eo.b i.E relelCE, in the absence of the Noble Lord PEet; e r for London (Lord John Russell), presented ettt s i en from a number cf silk manufacturers, who 4 1 i i th at the silk trade was paralysed th ' c ite g ~t h e suspen s e in the measures now b le consideration of Parliament, and k ";l rr d ilaat the House would as speedily as b r a ss the Bill into ,in order that activity 44. w re stored to the trade of this country.—(Hear.) kte re , • ‹.LICE resented a petition from the manu etWo°,,,,f London P to the same effect. t, 14 . 63 . '„S AND CORN IMPORTATION BILL. ' lt sto r e l e`"'"ENE having brought up the report on the %11r, 60tesolutions th - ; ° ONER rose' to move that the report be re tbe,'s day six months—(Laughter)—and in pray- Pos s ;bldlgence or the House he would state as briefly ,_'Netfi; to the reasons which induced him to propose that ,'ked "It• By adopting the resolutions now under lii t i r e i Ntion, the House would abandon those principles k lter e ne thought were calculated to advance the Gantrho of all classes of society—(Hear, hear)—he 4 le k ,, t he principles of p ro t ect i on to nat i ve kndustry— hear)—be that indu s t r y agr i cu l tura l or menu • L:`g• Native industry h a d ever b een pro t ec t e d. It b a t 1,,, 5 ° the p o licy on which we h a d ever ac t e d, and it ; 1 4 bf a Close adhesion to that p o li c y th at t h e coun t r y mrl `en raised to that pitch of commercial greatness kleP a llufacturing renown, which it now . so justly s s , d • — (llear, hear.) It was also raised in . his t tki Under the' blessings of Providence, to that station t4 ss e '"dition. which it at a past period occupied, by t b tragpf that principle and by it they were enabled to 1 1' 1, 47 1 .'" against the effects of revolutionary wars. It was Pi ed th at principle that the colonies had pros !itc,,,Atlear, hear.) It was their commerce that the envy and admiration of Napoleon, and t 'le *. ,,`,"h he would have given half of his empire. He l' t ;," that if they abandoned the principles of protec tb,'; native industry, they would destroy the interest fi e rce s hipping trade, their colonies, and their com hgear.) And what were the reasons that '' , (i sa , l `"a given for abandoning this principle to native : 4 4 - t t r Y Why they had been told that past experi ireic,ll.ved that a protected article was not damaged by (7litisi;`,protection, but that the price of it alter the pro -I:Qad been taken away universally increased. — ''W e ar.) That was the statement of the Right Hon. ,14 11 Lt the head of the Government.—(Sir R. Peel `, 1i :(17, his dissent.) He most undoubtedly con -11,4e "gat , that was the view of the Right Hon. d; "le t i% - " The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to the 1,7 1 h e n ce of the last' three years —(Hear.) And what ,esl t "ell them ? He told them in the first place to 4,4 vet the importation of cattle since the duties had 16 a I 0 ov ed• Th t ground had been shown to be un thleorudnantabsweered and unanswerable speech of Member for Lynn—(l-lear)- 4 1 4'. irl „! l is ( 4 Mr Spooner's) opinion, was, of all Mem 'eat llou ' se the most able to speak upon that a T(tlearZhea'r.) Food .. was too scarce to feed the. • s e , that tune—(Opposition cheers)—and that was why they could not be kept. That fact 1:00 thew prices, and those low prices brought a panic hor f armers, and the natural consequence was . that 'e ti tt. 4 supply of cattle produced an increase in the lis'Zkcortiear hear ) But they were told that from ex- f j't;:it; they ' h d nothing to fear from the abolition o ) 's4ii t i 'a to a native industry. As a case in point he L'"te To te the glove trade. Before the abolition t of e ci ,,Rti e- "n, upon gloves, there were in this country the 4 a l ' t ! i 'Ve manufactories in Europe • but out of 41 1 n ufactori n es that then existed ' there were t e l t °1 40 ; and in his own immediate neighbourhood :Cvere now 800 houses uninhabited, which . before (:di tion of the duty on gloves were inhabited by 1 0 1 en gaged in the glove manufacture.—(Protec le:te e heer.) He knew a great number of glove Ilielitlaeturers, who at the time alluded to were opulent, ' Pkse vy ', ll l consequence of the great impoytation . of tit On e c l oves, they could scarcely maintain their families. t "ae;,,t'tne they contribed large sums to the national f ▪ r "lbut now, in consequence of the carrying out of 1 "'It th 'e trade principles, ciples, they were consigned to drag t ." l 4,„ r eaa.inder of their days in comparative poverty e litenrity, (Hear, hear.) He knew also that t . he ,` , 1,0! the country had been very greatly in "mule' that experiment. And the only capital of l t," 1 i• l t"," labourer was possessed, namely, his skill, knowledge of the trade in which he had h.q.o C en reUght was decreased.—(Hear, hear.) A up u te a particular trade finds it almost im • I p i t o abandon that trade and enter upon a new tel a a L e fact that it was almost impossible for a s ec up other trades than those to which he had the . 1 41 ,s i tetned was most ably and powerfully proved t 44 1 N oble Lord the Member the city of London, ape el ehrated work upon the British Constitution. at t h !ty,, O ther things, the Noble Lord had s howed the it Q t nat when a man was forced to abandon his er°llla ° l lld take up another; he told us, in fact, that tl i : t °t ; ,be done ; and he clearly made out this prin pei_ was not safe to be . guided explicitly by ge e %b e i n elples in measures like the present, but that t 'kle 441 look to the practical effect of proposals which . th~aft look • Now, with gykel the industry of this country. N o o e the silk trade. It had been clearly shown by s e 4 Ye s ord, the Member for Lynn, buyingth in at with re (tti ke d s'n,l„itlirtcle, the principle the cheap- N ` t ais g in the dearest was merely clap-trap.— th' e r.) He (Mr. Spooner) was prepared to bear Ale Lord in the able statements which had t 1 .% y ours e by that. Noble Lord, and he would reques t to study porti on o f the Hon. Members of that Ludy the interest of the silk trade since the M a givee n f, its protection, before they came forward le,' tele their support to the present measu which r e el, elated to undermine the interests not only 11 , wh o but of the commerce of this country. ot e a l Nir e ; a t next was the reasoning in favour f h vs lt had been said that the country was blessed_ t.e d o nne afe'nudant harvest in a particular year, and h ,t, Mister of the day said it was, in fact, too abun y A t4llo o 4nti b that a remedsh ou ld be applied in conse- Oe n -..ut there f d immediately a very wet , a „,,, owe tli s s":‘re the same Prime Minister was compelled to t,;" th e at the country was suffering in consequence ; L e n euei!nPelation was too abundant, and that emigra too t tto L nt Perti o be encouraged. That was to say, that the otlt 4 °f the population of the country was to be lee of i A t t ry w and that the blood, bone, and sinew of th_e . W aa t llat t i n , er e to expend their energies in a foreign land b t hii t 4 PPel e — t e e t we Committees were sitting—one of whic bk.f„ t 'ould - b " e : to, ascertain what were the best measures Dae," t tiff 3 adopted for preventing the importation of oilirose n to this country ; an d t h e ot h er sa t f o r th e q v , w or f ,deeisi ng the best means of emigrat i on, or, in co e „ -8 e are for devising the best means of sending out 4 the mouths that were to be fed by this hrrad.—(Hear, hear.) But the answer to all these evils was the one grand argument, which he would not tire the House by repeating in detail; it was the monster evil from which, he would say, arose all those distresses that had been complained of—an evil which the House was familiar with, but to which he might not, perhaps, more than dare allude to; he meant the Bill of 1819.—(Hear, hear.) That measure was one to which he ascribed all the evils that followed ; and until that was inquired into, no remedy could be applied. He looked upon the prin ciple that guided the acts of the present Government to be the same as the argument of the man who lost himself in a wood, and who fixed his eye upon the polar star, saying, that so long as he kept that in sight, he would be sure to get out of the wood ; and on he went until his course was stopped by a deep and rapid river, and he had to turn back again to the south.—(Hear, hear.) He would contend then that if the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government persevered in this measure, he would be compelled to come down to the House with another measure, the object of which would be to prevent the exportation of gold from this country; and the consequence would be, that this country would have to fight against the hostile tariffs of other countries, to which this gold was exported. If the Russian, or the Pole, or the German, sold his corn in this country, he would insist upon receiving gold for it ; and instead of expending that gold in purchasing the taxed manufac tures of this country, he took it to the Continent, where he purchased untaxed manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) On those grounds, then, he would say, that protective laws were essential to the safety of national industry, na tional prosperity, and the stability of the Crown. Be • fore he sat duwn, perhaps the House would permit him to show that the opinions he was then propounding were not new to the House. These opinions had been enter wined by the Right Hon. Secretary for the Hone De partment in 1827, and had been published to the world as his doctrines ; and so clearly, unanswerably, and dis tinctly-. had they been put by that Right Hon. Gentle man that nothing could remove them from his (Mr, Spooner's) mind. He then appealed to his Right Hon. Friend to ascertain whether he since had changed the opinions then entertained by him ; and if he had, la trusted he would explain to the House the reasons for so great a change.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He should say, that to his Right Hon. Friend he owed that adherence he tfien entertained, and which nothing conk induce him to abandon. If he were wrong in entertain ing these opinions, the blame lay with the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he should, therefore, explain. He called on all classes in society then, merchants ane manufacturers, if they realized an extended and profit able commerce, to compel the Ministry to grant the Committee required—a Committee that would coolly and dispassionately, and without abstract notions of political economy, consider the question in all its bearings. Mr. NEWDEGATE seconded the motion, On the question being put, Sir G. CLERK said that before the report was brought up more than one petition was presented, setting forth the inconvenience and loss of time to the various trading communities in the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now. what was the manner in which the motion at present before the House was brought forward, or what was its object ? Why, a postponement for six months. He (Sir G. Clerk) had expected that the Honourable Gen. tleman would have shown that the great nnmber of re ductions proposed to be made would be attended by serious loss ; but, instead of that, he had not instanced a single objection. Mr. SPOONER—I will do so by and by. Sir G. CLERK should then consider himself as troubling the House, such heir).g the case, and would. therefore, reserve his reply till and by, when the lion. Gentleman had fully concluded.—(Hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE made a few observations, which were inaudible in the gallery; after which, Mr. SPOONER informed the House that it was not his intention to press the measure to a division.—(oh. oh, and laughter.) He merely brought it forward for the :purpose of stating his opiiiions as to what its re sults were certain to be, and he then begged to with draw it.—(Renawed cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.) On the motion that the Tariff be read, Mr. SPOONER said that he would not trouble the House at any length, but he merely wished to say that the reduction of the duty on foreign bronze manufactures, from 15 to 10 per cent., would destroy that branch of valuable manufacture. It would throw a great many persons out of employment, and he therefore begged leave to move that the item might be struck out of this Tariff. _ _ _ Mr. MUNTZ said that he hoped his Hon. Friend would withdraw that motion.—(Laughter.) He did not believe that the native manufacturers would sustain no injury by this reduc.ion ; on the contrary, he believed that they would be seriously injured. He had only one fault to find, and that was, that all other articles were not included in a similar reduction, as the same principle applied to all things in the Tariff. He wished to ask th. Right Hon. Baronet if he intended to remove the duty from this branch of manufacture in 3 years ? Sir R. PEEL, in answer to the question of the first Hon. Member for Birmingham who says that if we re duce the protective duties on Birmingham bronze manu factures from 15 to 10 per cent., the manufactures wil be ruined. I can only state that with a protective dut) of 15 per cent., the quantity of bronze manufacture: from abroad, entered into this country during the past year has paid 781. duty.----(Laughter.) I will venture to say that the Birmingham manufacture of bronze will not be ruined under a 10 per cent. protective duty, but in th 4 course of a year or two will be benefited by it. With respect to the question put by the other Hon. Member, who, I think, dissents very wisely from the motion of hi: colleague, I was asked the same question the other night by the Noble Lord, and said in answer that I was not prepared to fix any period at which this duty is to cease. If the Hon. Member will come forward some years hence, and say on the part of the manufacturers that this duty should cease, I am not prepared to say that I will resist his appeal. Mr. MUNTZ said that the Right Hon. Baronet wa , not correct when he said that a reduction of so much per cent. would not affect the trade. He believed that it would have a most material effect. What the Right Hon. Baronet had said about the principle of free trade was right so far as it affected one cl ,ss of articles, but the duty ought to be taken off all classes. He was anxious that the duty should be taken off copper, and he hoped that the Right Honourable Baronet would consider that article. If the principle were not thoroughly carried out, they would never have free trade in the the true sense of the word. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the answer of the Right Hon. Baronet, and the query of the Hon. Member for Birmingham had come very nearly to him. He was bound to say, that although he had a large constituency in Birmingham he had not felt it his duty to take any part in this debate without consulting the great body of manufacturers. He had done that at any rate, and he could assure the House that this question had been con sidered day by day, and the more nearly they approached it the greater were their feelings of distrust. They felt that they would not be able to recover the first shock which the Noble Lord bad admitted would prevail to e great extent when protection was withdrawn. With respect to the statement of the Hon. Member for Bir mingham who had last spoken, he would read a letter he had that day received from a manufacturer in Birming ham, in which that very item was mentioned. His cor respondent stated, that in almost every case the manu facturer agreed that the proposed reduction would be injurious to the trad., as they would have to compete with France, Prussia, and Belgium, where the metal was as cheap as in this country, and there manual labour was much cheaper. The produce of Birmingham and Sheffield were forbid den in France and Belgium, and in Russia the duty was so high as to amount almost to a prohibition. The du ties on all English produce had been, within the last two years, increased in every country in Europe. Each country was endeavouring to be able to supply its owe wants. The writer of that letter was in every way corn petent to give an opinion, as he had consulted with others of the same class. He would conclude by say ing, that neither of the Hon. Members for Birmingham were at all aware that he (Mr. Newdegate) had received this communication. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he would ask his Hon. Friend not to divide on this question. There were two principles recognised in this tariff, and neither of them had been extended to the farmer. The main question was with regard to the differential duties in the import of raw materials. There were twenty-one differential duties, and more than 100 protective duties in this Tariff. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet how he hoped to maintain protection for the minor articles, when the principle of free trade was acknowledged with regard to the principle articles of comfort ?—(Hear.) It was said that the manufacturers had in large number: solicited the removal of protective duties. In this re 'spect they had Shown more consideration than the far mers, for the farmers had not advanced in procession to ask for the abrogation of protection. But he would ask the Right Hon. Baronet a question before sitting down, to show the distinction between buck wheat flour and flour made from the ordinary wheat? He challenged him, or if he could not answer, he would ask the Hon. Member for Grantham (Sir George Clerk), who could see as far through a mill-stone as any one, the distinc tion between these two kinds of flour.—(Laughter.) Mr. SPOONER, in answer to the call of several Hon. Members not to divide the House, said he would not withdraw his motion, though he would not press it to a The th m e o a t motion l w e a o s r then z negatived r w be i l t .n h g ou r t ea a d d , ivision. big ;ether. Ai t h e r. r. T. D thought BrUo thenNzeC O d Mu powdert duty 3E sa w id a shouldt his s ba w n e done an orntiecla a ew r t at i r c s l e e wd i i n tihn w a h lt i t c ho h e. manufacture of stained paper, and as the duty on paper hangings was proposed to be very much reduced, he had received representations from the trade, that if the home market was thus to be thrown open to foreign paper hanging manufacturers, all duty should be taken away from the raw materiel. The present alteration of th, duty on stained paper would only benefit the rich, as the duty still to be retained of twopence a yard would effec tually shut out the inferior kinds, while the superior kinds being admitted duty free would materially affect those who were engaged in this kind of trade. The manufacturers complained that in this matter they were hardly used, as they would have to enter into competi tion with the foreign manufactures, while they had the Excise duty to pay and this duty on bronze powder, which they used in many descriptions of paper. Already he had been apprised that several paper-hangers had intimated that if any loss arose from this tariff it should not be taken out of the profits of their business but from the wages of their workmen.—(Loud cheers from the pro tection benches.) One extensive paper-hanger in Isling ton, lately called his workmen together, and gave them notice to this effect. Another one he (Mr. Duncombe) had heard of, had kept back one-fifth of the workmen's wages until the tariff was passed, with the intimation that if it passed, any loss should •be deducted.—(Hear, hear.) It was unfair that the loss should fall upon the men. and, therefore, it behoved the Government to take care that all dutieson raw material were done away with, so that the cause, if such a course be taken, might be - . - done away with. If the reduction in the iiuty on stained paper was made to 23. the yard, they ought also to re- I move all import duty on bronze powder and metal leaf. —(Hear, hear.) Sir GEORGE CLERK, in answer to the Hon. Member said that the excise duty complained •of was but very trifling, being but lid. per lb. Now he would ask th Hon. Member, what was the weight of twelve yards of superior kind of paper ? Why, just twenty ounces, so that the duty was not quite id. a square yard.—(Hear, hear.) Against this they had a protective duty of 2d. a yard, while the duty on rags, and nearly every other article of raw material was done away with. Though there was still a duty on varnish ; very little of it was imported, it being made principally in this country, and the duty on the raw material, which entered into its composition, was done away with. Bronze powder was but used in a small quantity of paper, and he was told that buyers now provided them selves at Birmingham, where the article was so much unproved that they used it in preference to that imported. He might also state that the duty on ultra marine and other pigments had been done away with; and, there fore, he saw no reason why the paper-stainers of this country should not compete with those of any other country in the world. Mr. Alderman COPELAND complimented the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), for the able protection speech . he had made. He admitted that the tendency of the Tariff would be to reduce wages.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Alderman Copeland) was persuaded that not only would the paper-stainers suffer in this respect, but shoemakers, and many other trades. He vould go with the. Hon. Member entirely on the present secasion.—The subject then dropped. On the article buck• wheat being read, Mr. 5, O'BRIEN repeated the question he had put to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), about buck-wheat dour and ordinary wheat flour. Unless the Right Hon. 3aronet could tell them wherein it was different, and )ow it was to be distinguished from ordinary flour, he (Mr. S. O'Brien) considered the article should be struck art of the resolution. Mr. THORNELY said when he was in Anierica he had seen buck-wheat used. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the question he put to the Right Hon. Baronet was, suppose two samples of flour, ts.e of bnck-wheat and another of ordinary wheat flour, how could he distinguish between them ? , Sir R. PEEL replied by taste. He could not state my other certain means of doing so. On that portion of the resolution relating to butter ind cheese being read, Mr. GROGAN complained that the alteration pro pied in those articles would seriously affect the farmers engaged in making them. All experience went to show ,hat in this particular branch of agriculture, it was with _he gieatest difficulty the farmtrs could maintain their ;round in the market against home competition.—(Hear, 'sear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving that he butter be left out of the present tariff altogether, and thus leave the article still at 255. per cwt. Sir-G. CLERIC said, that considering the importance ,f this article, being an important component part of ~he food of the masses, he was inclined to believe that s duty of 25 per cent. was too high. Considering, also, that the price of butter varied in this country from 20s. to 100 s. per cwt., he was disposed- to think that 10 per sent. was a sufficient and ample protection against foreign tinpetition. Mr. TOLLEMACHE said .that, since the duty had -teen taken off butter, 150,000 casks of that commodity sad been imported from America '' greatly to the disad vantage of the British producer • .for It must be remem iered, that the price of land in ;his country, devoted to the produce of cheese and butter, varied from 101. to 12/. per acre ; land of the same quality could be got for little or nothing in America. Sir R. H. INGLIS said the duty paid last year upon , oreign butter was 247,000 L, and upon cheese, 147,000/. Chat duty would be, no doubt doubled, under the present rariff, and it would be so - much taken from the British armer. The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER agreed with the Hon. Baronet that the reduction of the duty would prove injurious to the • producer, but it was ins .tossible for Government to . look at this question without considering the consumer. • He admitted that they were (flaking a large amount of revenue, but at the same time ae confidently hoped that the importation of the articles would be so much increased as to render that reduction less in amount than it was at present supposed it would be. When it was considered that butter was an article which antered into the every-day wants of the people, he was sure his Hon. Friend would feel that it was the duty of he Government to take care that at no time there should ae any scarcity in the supply of that necessary article. tie therefore, for the reasons he had already stated, did 'tot anticipate that there would be so large a reduction in the revenue as some Hon. Members had predicted would follow this measure, while he was convinced the neasure itself would contribute materially to the benefit tf the lower classes, in so far as it would always keep at a steady and moderate pride. An Host. MEMBER declared that since the passing of the new tariff a great number of farms in this country lad been converted into dairies ; and he knew of his iwn knowledge that the present change proposed by the Government was looked upon with great alarm. Lord G. BENTINCK thought the arguments adduced ty the Right Hop. Baronet the President of the Board if Trade were sufficient to justify the House in adopt ng the amendment in preference to the original motion. the Right Hon. Baronet began by telling them that -tatter was the starle manufacture of Ireland. upon vhich it was now proposed to reduce the protection by fle-half ; and he followed up that statement by de daring, what might appear to be incredible to some [lon. Members, that there were annually introduced nto this country from the sister island up cards of one million hundred weight of butter. If they were going to release the protection to butter at he rate of 10s. per hundred weight, the amount that vould be lost to Ireland would be half a million sterling ‘nnually.—(" Hear, hear," from the protective portion ,f the House.) He should like to know if this would reduce the price of the article to the consumer ? —the contrary would be the result. If then they were tot going to reduce the price of butter by taking tff the duty, what advantage could result to %he country ?—(Hear, hear.) This was proved by he arguments of her Majesty's Government. This re !action then would injure Ireland in her most staple trade of produce, and this surely was not the Session if Parliament to do anything that could injure that ountry.—(Hear, hear.) Why in this very session they were called upon to vote 230,000/. for the relief of Ire land, and in the very same breath they were asked to pass a measure which would injure it to the amount if half a million sterling annually.—(Cries of " Hear, 'war, hear," from the Noble Lord's supporters.) What said a very excellent authority on Irish subjects? Cho Times Commissioner said, that the small farmers in the county of Kerry—the frieze-coated farmers of that place—had made deposits in the savings' banks to the tmount of 200,0001., which was an average of 341. for each depositor. Such, then, will be the injury to these men ; they will be injured to that amount each.—(Hear, sear, and No, no.) The protective laws upheld the in terests, of these men, and her Majesty's Ministers pro Nosed to do away with them. This large amount tf deposits was made by six thousand little 'armors, and it was now proposed to injure them to that amount.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") What ,aid the Right Hon. Gentleman?—why, that whatever was the duty on butter, it would have the same effect on the Dutch. Why not protect the 'producers of this coun try, and not look after the Dutch ?—(Hear, hear.) They were also asked to take off 70,0001. on cheese. The re -luction of the malt tax, would not be allowed because it would benefit the drinkers, and the brewers, so of course her Majesty's Ministers would not _allow of such a thing. —(Laughter.) If this measure was introduced for the benefit of the consumer, why not then propose the reduction of the duty on tea ? The reduction of that duty would be as great a benefit as another.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had not attempted ro take that off, because it was not the produce of Great Britain.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") For these tied other reasons, he most cordially concurred with his lion. Friend behind him in opposing this reduction.— (Divide, divide.) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment lll Against it Majority against the amendment --102 On our re-admission, we found Mr. NEWDEGATE addressing the House. He said he had received many letters besides the one which be had alluded to. The same post which brought that letter brought him also one from a manufacturer, who said he perceived it was but one step in the course of the Right Hon. Baronet. That letter ended with a fer vent wish that the measure before the House might be passed. Lord G. BENTINCK said that they objected to cheese as much as butter, but they would not divide the House, as they considered the question of butter carried that of cheese.—(Hear, hear and laughter.) Mr. SPOONER objected to the proposed reduction on copper. Sir H. HALFORD objected to the reduction on cot ton, as injurious to the stocking and frame-working manufacturers of Leicester and Nottingham. He would quote from an authority which had been often relied on in that House—Mr. M'Gregor, in answer to a question, whether it would be proper to admit the manufactures of Saxony ? His answer was, that he would admit them on an equitable duty, whether it would destroy the trade of Leicester and Nottingham or not—(Cries of " Hear hear")—but, if it did, it would be better for the whole country to subscribe sufficient to relieve the distressed than continue the tax on the property of the country. The Saxons, in the year 1815, had only 9,000 stocking-frames ; in the present year they had 25,000, which were all employed for the purposes of ex portation.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GISI3OR NE did not rise to contradict the state ments made by the Honourable Member who had just set down. He believed that what he had maintained re specting the wretched condition of the frame knit workers was but too true. He, himself, lived for ten years in a village in Leicestershire, and during that time the condition of this class was most miserable. He had also occasion to know the state of the poor-rates in many of the vil lages of Scotland, and he could bear testimony to the oppressive nature of those rates which, in a great mea sure, arose from the destitute condition of the frame knit-workers, and those who were dependent for their support on this department of industry. He had many opportunities of seeing this misery, and he could, there fore, speak with the more readiness and accuracy as to its existence. He now lived in a large place, where hosiery formed the staple manufacture, and he regretted to say that the representations he had made were too truly borne out by the hosiers in that city. It might be that they would not be more likely to flourish under the measure at present under discussion, but if anything could give them relief, it would be open ing their ports-to all parts of the world, and allowing a free interchange with all nations. He did not receive any instructions or any remonstrance from - his - consti tuents on this tneature. Bbth working men and mas ters seemed to think that their interest would not suffer by the proposed alterations, but that it would rather ire , prove under the influence of free trade. Colonel ROLLESTON could not agree with the in ferences which had been made by the Hon. Member for Nottingham on the condition of the frame-work-knitters. If this class had been reduced to such a condition, having the protection which they at -present enjoyed, surely the reduction of that protection one-half would not be the 'most effectual mode of improving their condition. How such a conclusion could be come to by his Honourable Friend he was at a loss to determine. So much he had to say with regard to the Hon. Gentleman's remarks. He would now apply a few words to the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in reference to what they would all allow was the greatest interest in this country. This was not, perhaps, the time to go into the subject in detail, but he thought that the Right Hen. Gentleman and the Noble Baronet should not interfere with that interest, unless after the most mature and grave deliberation. .He trusted that the House would enter into the consideration of the subject in a fair, full, and open manner.--(Hear, hear.) Mr. M. MILNES rose for the purpose of saying that if the Hon. Member for Leicester did not divide upon this question, he (Mr. Milnes) would—(Laughter)--and he would do so, because he considered that the present was a favourable opportunity for the landed gentry of England to clear themselves from the unjust accusations which had been made against them.—(Hear, hear.) Those accusations were to this effect, that because pro tection had been removed from agriculture, they were determined to make up the deficiency of their incomes by inflicting upon the manufacturing interests duties which would operate upon them most prejudiciously. He believed that the frame-knit workers' trade was at present in a most critical condition in consequence of the suspense as to the settlement of the prasent measure of the Government in favour of cheap food; and he believed that as soon as that measure was passed into a law, the individuals employed in that trade would so far recover themselves as to be able to compete with the foreigner. After a few words from Mr. PACK, which were in audible in the gallery, Sir G. CLERK said that Hon. Members had drawn a very melancholy picture of tho frame-knit-workers, but the House mu4t bear i mind that that state had been brought about by the present system of protection. The Hon. Member for Leicester had stated that, a very short time ago, that trade exported goods to the value of 1,000,000/. sterling per annum.; but that at present the amount was reduced to 400,000/. ; and he had also ad mitted that thedscrease was in a great measure attri butable to their character, which had been lost in the foreign markets by their dishonest practices. Now, the only method in his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion of improving the condition of that branch of manufacture was by ex tending their foreign trade, and the measures now pro posed by the Government had a tendency to increase the amount of their exports. Under those circumstances he was perfectly certain that he should not be actins right unless he resisted; the amendment of the Hon. Member. Mr. STRUTT rose for the purpose of stating that the object of the meeting of frame-knit-workers which had lately been held at Nottingham, had been misre presented. The object of that meeting was to petition for the repeal of the corn-laws and the general free dom of trade. The ground which those manufacturers took was this, they were placed in such a position by the operation of the corn-laws, that it was impossible to compete with the foreign manufitc tures, and the consequence was that they were reduced to their present lamentable position. Their object, therefore, in meeting was not to petition for any protection whatever, but simply to ask to be placed upon the same footing as the manufacturers of other nations, with whom , they would then be able to compete. Mr. W. ELLIS said that he entirely concurred in the observations that had been made by the Hon Member in reference to this petition. He (Mr. Ellis) was cognizant of many of the facts that had been stated in reference to this subject. He had himself canvassed' the town of Leicester, and during that canvass he had been told tales of distress the most horrifying that it was possible to conceive. Sir J. HOBHOUSE said there was not a year in which he did not hear those complaints of distress in Nottingham, and therefore he was compelled to believe that there must be something vicious in the system which prolonged such a state of things. Mr. MILES said he had heard the Hon. Member opposite state that the result of this measure would be that the people of this country would receive an abundant supply of bread. Now he had been many years in Nottingham, and he should say, as the result of his experience, that the Saxons would throw into this country such a supply of their manufacutures as would materially injure the manufactures of this country. Mr. DUNCOMBE said, that in his opinion, the Saxons had its much to do with the matter as the New Zealanders.—(Laughter.) Neither did he believe that the trade at present was in the bad state in which it had been represented. Nothing certainly could be more dreadful, more miserable, or more degraded, than the condition of the operatives ; for this reason, that they never got a fair share of the profits. Hon. Gentlemen might suppose that by raising the duty from 20 to 40 per cent. they would be bettering the condition of the opera tives. It was no such thing.—(Hear, hear.) He knew very well, that while the manufacturers were getting 18s. per dozen for hose, the operatives engaged in fabri cating them did not get more than Bs. per dozen, which, decidedly, was not a fair share of the profit —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, why was that the case? Simply because there were middlemen, who stepped in between the manufacturer and the operative.—(Hear, hear.) Let them do away with that system, and they would need no protection.—(Hear, hear.) Lord INGESTRE rose amid loud cries of " divide." He wished to ask if, in the meetings referred to, held at Leicester and Nottingham, there had been a single ope rative present ? After a few words from Mr. FaEwEN and Lcrd WORSLEY, which did not reach the gallery, owing to the loud cries fora division, Lord G. BENTINCK begged to be permitted to say one word in favour of the hose-weavers. Hon. Gentle men would have the House believe that part of their dis tress was owing to protection.—(Hear, hear.) Now he should like t.) know, if protection were the bane of the hose-weavers, how it came that the Saxons, who were also protected, not only maintained their position in the market, but were also driving the English article out of the market ?—(Hear, hear.) The accounts given by Mr. Mac Gregor with regard to the manufac ture of Saxony proved that they could there afford to make stockings at 3d. per pair. His Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had told the House, that in this country they could only make them at Bs. per dozen pairs ; ; and he (Lord G. Bentinck) wished to know bow the stocking-makers in Nottingham were to compete with the Saxons at a protective duty of 10 per cent. His Noble Friend (the Member for Lincolnshire) came to that House to seek for protection for agriculture, to benefit the English labourer, and yet he expressed his readiness to try an experiment on those half-starved stocking-makers of Leicester. Did not his Hun. Friend (the Member for Leicester) tell the House that there were more than 100,000 people in the stocking trade ; and was his Hon.. Friend prepared to try free-trade ex periments with the 100,000 poor stocking-makers ? After a few words, in explanation, from Lord WORSLEY, Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when there ap peared— For the amendment lO2 Against it Majority for the Government } _ B B proposition M r . BANKS considered it was not expedient that t h e y should proceed further that night , and, therefore, he should move the adjournment of the question. Mr. LABOUC 11ERE complained that trade and commerce were suffering in consequence of the Tariff they should postp one those, it e ms to which there was opposition, and go through ofthe Tariff. The the rest any being unsettle d. What he would suggest was, that former were very f ew, and this arrangement would do much to facilitate busine ss. Lord JOHN MANNERS p rotested against sa yi n g that the trade and commerce were suffering from the op position of 120 Members on his (the protection) side of the House. Sir GEORGE GREY coincided with the suggestion of Mr. LabouChere. Mr. TRELAWNEY was of opinion that the oppo sition of Hon. Gentlemen was only to occasion delay, so as to hinder the Right Hon. Baronet from getting the revenue. Sir R. PEEL said, all the consideration he had given to this measure was for the interest of the country. The arrangement made was, that they should take the second reading of the Corn Bill as early as possible, and he should wish, if it were possible, that they should commence the second reading on Tuesday. They would go on on Monday to complete the Tariff, as proposed with respect to the corn-laws. Having made that ar rangement, he confessed that he was very unwilling to depart from it, if they had any prospect of completing the debate on Monday'. He repeated that, as far as the public. interest was concerned, it would be the best that could be done to go on with the Tariff on Monday, and the Corn Bill on Tuesday. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that as far as he was concerned, he had not the least objection to the pro position of. the Hon. Baronet. He and his friends were not prepared to discuss the Tariff, and they had as yet allowed it to pass through the Committee without any objection. There were however certain articles to which he wished to state an objection, such as silks, spirits, and French brandy, and the debate would more than occupy the space of one night. and if they were able they Sir R. PEEL said that he trusted that it was possible finishctoonti e t this Tariff debate on n m l , ll m o d n a d y rty, at any rate they woubl , wou ld proceed with the Corn Bill on Tuesday. L o rd JOHN RUSSELL said that it seemed far more likely to be for the c ommer cial interest of the country, if the Tariff were cont inu e d as early as possible. He was pursuaded that many of his Hon. Friends, who had u motions for Tuesday, would readily waive their right, in order to allow the Right Hon. Baronet's proposition to he carried into effect. Lord SANDON made a few observations, which in the confusion slid not reach the gallery. OUT-PENSIONER'S PAYMENT (GREENWICH AND CHELSEA) BILL. On the question being put as to going into Committee on this Bill, Captain PECHELL rose and objected to their going through Committee at that late hour, and particu- larly as the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, had afforded the House no explanation on the sub ject of this Bill. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT hoped the Gallant Officer would not persist in opposing the committal of the Bill, for it was of the utmost importance that the Bill should pass at as early a peTiod as possible. It was not prq. posed to etnbote the sailors;, and he htified-,thi3 state meta would remo'v'e the Objectitin Of the Noble and Gallant Member.' Sir. C. NAPIER said that after the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he had no objection to the Bill passing through Committee. At the same time, how ever, it must be distinctly understood that the power of the Admiralty, in respect of the saibr pensioners, was not to be transferred to the Secretary at War. The Speaker then left the chair, and the House went into Committee on the Bill. On the first clause being proposed, Captain PECHELL expressed himself dissatisfied with the explanation of the Hon, Gentleman the Secre tary at War. If it„ was not proposed to embody the pen sioners who were sailors, why not amend the Bill ac cordingly? It was but natural for sailors to prefor being under the command of a naval rather than a military officer. After a few words from Mr. S. HERBERT and Captain PECHELL. The Bill passed through Committee proforma, and the House having resumed, the report was ordered to be brought up on Monday. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past One. ASSIZE IN TEL LIGENCE. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, March 12. CROWN COURT. James Baylis, George Lee, John Willis, and Henry Willis, were together indicted for a burglary on the Bth of Novem ber last, at Eldersfield, when nine cheeses and a quantity of eggs, meat, and bread were stolen. The facts of the case seemed sufficiently conclusive as to the guilt of the accused, but, strange to say, the jury, after a few minutes, returned a verdict of Not guilty. Mr. Huddlestone appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoners were defended by Mr. Beaden and Mr. Cooke. (Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.) George Hill was indicted for stealing a gelding, one cart, and a set of harness, the property of William Hill. Mr. Huddlestone conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Selfe defended the prisoner. It appeared by the evidence for the prosecution, that there had been some negotiation between a parson of the name of Southwell, and the prosecutor, for the purchase of this horse, but as they did not agree about price the treaty was broken off. A short time afterwards the prisoner, who was a ser vant of the prosecutor, drove the prosecutor's son to Stam ford, and, returned with the horse and cart safe, having re ceived instructions from the prosecutor's son to return to Stamford the following day, for the purpose of bringing him home. Accordingly, the prisoner on the following morning left the house of the prosecutor at an early hour with the horse and cart, but instead of proceeding to Stamford, as directed, he took the horse to Bridgenorth, having previously left the cart at a half-way house. At Bridgenorth he dis posed of the horse to Mr. Southwell, who had been in treaty for him before, and appropriated the money to his own use. Mr SELFE addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that if, when the prisoner left home in obedience to the di rections of the prosecutor's son, he had no intention of steal ing the horse, whatever subsequent dishonesty he might have been guilty of, he could not be convicted on the present in dictment. _ _ The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up, The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. There was another indictment of a like nature against the prisoner.—Sentence deferred. Worcester, March 13. CROWN COURT.—(Before the LORD CHIEF Bmtort.) Emma Crantnore, aged 29, was charged with having, on the 19th of February last, at Alvechurch, concealed the birth of her female child. Mr. Huddlestone conducted the prosecution. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Beadon, was a dress-maker, and the body of the child was discovered in a state of putrefaction by her mistress, under the bed, wrapped in a piece of black cloth and an old petticoat. The Learned JUDGE being of opinion that this fact did not constitute a concealment within the meaning of the Act stopped the case, and the jury, under his direction, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Daniel Willis, aged 25, a man of remarkably muscular frame and ruffianly appearance, was placed at the bar, 'charged with highway robbery, at Chaddesley Corbett, in this county. The prosecutor, an infirm old labourer, had met the pri soner at, a public 7 house, where he paid for his beer; and, in return for his hospitality, was the same night waylaid by him, thrown down, and robbed of his purse, containing two half-crowns and a sixpence. The prisoner nearly strangled him, and knelt upon his chest till the blood gushed from his ears; after which, leaving him in an in sensible state, he made off, taking also a stick and tobacco ' box belonging to the man who but an hour before had en tertained him. These facts having been proved by the counsel for the Crown (Mr. Whitmore), his Lordship summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner, who had been previously convicted, and against whom there were two other indictments, was sen tenced to ten years' transportation. stating that mail fidcipia only paid two shillings under simis lar circumstances; was tiled put In - and read; and this closed the case for the plaifitift • • • • - . - Mr. RUSSELL GtailEY/ in addressing the jury fir the de • fendant, characterised the action . as a most trumpery and unnecessary roneclobserving that if there had been any seduction in the matter, it was very probable that the de fendant himself was the party siduced. As, however, the 'present course had been adopted, he could not deny that the defendant had rendered himself liable, ' and the verdict must . pass against him, .but he trusted that under the circum stances the jury would feel that the smallest possible damages would amply meet the justice of the case. Mi. Baron ALDEasoN-having summed up, the jury after a short deliberation returned. a verdict for the plaintiff.-- Damages, 301. • 11'0 RTHE IiNCIRCUIT.—York, March 12. • CROWN COURT.—( Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.) Jacob Gregg, aged 29, who was said to be a Swede, and in the sea-serviee, was charg,ed with stabbing , cu ttin g , and ,wounding Thomas Rodgers at Hull, 'on the 7th of Jan. last. Mr. Rains and Mr. Dear:ley conducted the prosecution. The prisoner did not understand English, and an old lady, who could speak the Swedish, was sworn to be interpreter. The prisoner, on being called to plead, bad said that he , would like to have counsel ; but the case had proceeded some time without his being defended, the evidence for 'the prose cution being translated to Gregg as it was delivered by te witnesses. Finally, however, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins offered, in order to save the time of the Court, to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution, and to conduct the case for the prisoner. Thomas Rodgers, of North Frodingham, the party injured, stated that he is what is called a shopman, On the 7th of January last Witness was in Leadenliall-square, in Hull, at about five minutes past twelve at •night..'.llo and another man by the name of Joseph Lee, and some other young men, were at Jackson's public-house-in the square. The prisoner and two °titer foreigners were seen coining along the square at great speed, and apparently much excited. They stopped in the street for a 'while, and prosecutor and Lee stood near them, at about two or three yards off. The prisoner, and those with them, then went.towards Manners- street, leading into Broadly-street. Witness went in the same direction, and on getting to Broadly=-street, saw the prisoner and one of the other for6igiiers near to a considerable crowd. of per sons, where theyreemed to be engaged in arguing with some person. One of the foreigners (not the prisoner) held a drinking glass, and.an English sailor told him that "he must give the glass up s or that he wOuld'inalse him." One of these foreigners was Isaac Milian, another Swede, now to be tried here upon a similar • 'charges that of wounding Charles Saunderson. Prosecutor.• then. rejoined his, companion, Joseph Lee, and in a.minute or two, while they were stand ing talking at some distance from the crowd, a person said, " Here are some foreigners coming, with their knives drawn," Two of the foreigners then made their appearance, the pri soner and Inman. Gregg carried a knife. It was a sailor's common clasp knife, with a string of leather tied to it. The prisoner first struck Lee in the forehead, and directly after struck prosecutor several blows, one on the ribs,' near the heart, one behind the ear, and another across the cheek. By the latter blow a wound was inflicted; it was a wound of some depth, and caused much blood to flow, though the cheek was not cut through.. The .prosecutor, stated that he had been attended by a surgeon, and had suffered much illness in consequence of that wound. . Other witnesses confirmed all these facts, and stated fur ther details of the transaction. One of theM, however, proved that the prisoner:and the - other foreigner, Inffian, had been attacked with sticks before the prisoner wqunded Rodgers. Rodgers was shown to have had a stick handed to him just before the assault complained pf ; but it was not shOwn who it -was that had attacked the' prisoner and his companion, and there was nothing to indicate frOtti what motive the pri soner could have inflicted the wound upon Rodgers. Mr. WILKINS, in his address to the jury, remarked upon the want of practical charity prevailing among some people towards any who happened to be called " foreigners." He said it was clear these men must themselves have been aggrieved before they would have deemed it necessary to use their knives. It was proved that they had been the object of an attack, snd that they had been beaten with sticks only just before the assault was committed; and, under these circumstances, there was nothing to justify the supposition that the act of the prisoner was done with any other intent than that of insuring self-defence. The jury, after hearing his Lordship's summing up, agreed with the Learned Counsel in their view of the case. 'Thev left the bdx to deliberate, but ultimately found the prisoner guilty of the common assault only. NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Buntingdoit, March 12. The commission for this county was opened to-day at nine o'clock by Mr. Baron Parke, who arrived at that hour from Bedford, the scene of his exertions yesterday. The calendar, thoughit contains the names of twenty-two prisoners, is not of a heavy character. It embraces one case of arson, one of burglary, one of housebreaking, one of assault on a woman, one charge of sheepstealing, and a few of common larcenies. Of the contents of the cause list it is rather difficult to speak just now, for it has not made its appearance vet. Perhaps it awaits the arrival of Mr. Justice kettle, who has been detained at Bedford trviug pri soners but it is whispered that it can only contain that fabulous animal, the " single case at Huntingdon," un- I ess indeed it be referred before the arrival of the Learned Judge. CROWN COURT.— (Before Mr. Baron PARnE:) Eliza Maycock, aged 22, was charged with maliciously setting fire to one stack of corn, one stack of hay, and one of straw, on the 2d of January last, in this county. Mr. Gunning conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Prender gast the defence. The prosecutor in this case was Mr. Bridgfoot, a farmer, residing in Ramsey Fen, and at the time of the commission of the offence the prisoner was in his service, having entered it at last Michaelmas. In consequence of her misconduct it would appear that the prosecutor soon had reason to find fault with her, and to threaten to summon her before the justices. This occurred twice, the last time being a week before the day named in the indictment. About five o'clock on that afternoon the prisoner was out of the house, and in stead of attending to her duties, remained absent for half an hour. About six she came into the parlour where her master was sitting, and told- him in a very excited and alarmed tone that there was a light in the stack-yard. On this the prosecutor rushed out and found that the property named in the indictment was all in flames. There being no help at hand the three stacks wer.: entirely consumed, and, there being no possible ground for imputing the act to any stranger, suspicion fell on the prisoner, whose manner had of late at tracted the notice of her master and his family, but espe cially on the previous day, when she was very different from what she had been before. She was accordingly questioned, and her answers lent strength to those suspicions, for they were contradictory in themselves, and opposed to facts within the knowledge of the family. At one time she said she had been busy making her master's tea at the critical period just before the fire burst out, but his sister had herself performed that office for him in her absence. She then said she had been out to fetch sonic sticks for the fire with a lantern, and that in passing between the stacks she fell down and let fall, the light, and set fire to the stacks, after which she was too frightened to stop and pick up the lantern, and ran away. This, however, was no better than the other account, for it; was well known that there was not a stick on the premises,: the farm being a thorough fen one, and supplied with turf alone for fuel. After this she burst out into tears, and said she did it because her master threatened to summon her ; and when taken before the magistrate she finally admitted " the job" and said that "it would not have happened if her master had not threatened to ' prison' her." Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that the conflagration was not malicious, as it was the result of accident, arising from the nervous and excited state of mind into which she had been thrown by some unknown cause, perhaps the threats of her master ; while he endeavoured to explain away the effect of her ad missions and contradictory accounts by reference to the same all-powerful cause. Mr. Baron PARKE told the jury, that unless they thought the prisoner absolutely insane, they ought not to pay any attention to the accounts of her manner which had been ex tracted on cross-examination from the witnesses. These ac counts did not amount to anything like proof of such a state of mind as would admit of the prisoner being irresponsible for her acts, and if the jury saw nothing in the case to raise any rational doubt of her having fired her master's property maliciously, they ought to say that she was guilty of the charge imputed to her. The jury, without much hesitation, found the prisoner Guilty, and she was thereupon sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. Mr. Justice Maule reached this place at two o'clock, and immediately proceeded to try prisoners, the assizes having turned out a maiden one on his side. The cases brought under the cognizance of his Lordship were not of a character to call for any detailed notice. WESTERN ClRCUlT.— Salisbury, March 12 CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) Elizabeth Butcher was placed at the bar, and charged, upon the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of her in butild An indictment had been preferred aint her, the grand jury ignored the bill, at which som against s e surprise has been expressed. Mr. Hodges appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and stated the facts of the case to the jury. By .the statednibereietnofatphaeuLpeerarinnetdheCcourincskeila,diet aanpdpelavroeodtttchna ia t the prisoner i Bassett workhouse, and in December last was delivered there of an illegitimate female child. In the course of the next month she wished to leave the house, and accordingly give notice of her intention, as was required by the regulations of the house on her leaving. The unfortunate baby was stripped of the clothes it had worn in the workhouse since its birth, and the mother was obliged to take it away without any covering except a shawl, which the mother happened to have when she left. The child was quite well, but shortly after the mother had left the workhouse, the child was found naked and dead in a brook of water. It was, therefore, for the jury to say under all the circumstances l slieth or er w t h h e e th m e r o t t h h e e r ch h i a l d d been guilty of the crim e imputed to her, d died beenafte thenrivar cadstlllierdow—n into the stream by her. ha l'b e and h Learnedad Counsel Jane Cook-1 ant a nurse in the Cricklade Union, and was so in December last. The prisoner was there at that time, and was delivered there of a female child. She gave notice on the 9th of January that she wished to leave the house, and at that time she had no clothes to put on the bady, and I told the mistress of the workhouse so. She said that she (the prisoner) had better not leave the house until she bad obtained some from her friends, and told her that by the riles of the house if clothes were not brought in none were alloWed to be taken away. The prisoner said that she could not stop to get any clothes, but must go directly. I took the union clothes off the baby, and it was then naked. The prisoner wrapped it up in a shawl she had, and also put a handkerchief on its head, and a pair of socks on its feet. The matron of the union was present when I so stripped the child. The prisoner left the house at about eleven o'clock in the morn ing: I was afterwards shown the dead body of a child. It was the same child. • [At this stage of the case the gaoler stated that the pri s'ener had employed an attorney to instruct counsel to defend her, but no learned gentleman had, it appeared, received any brief. The trial then proceeded.] ; Ann Coward—l remember meeting the prisoner on the 9th of January. She was going on the road from Wootton- Bassett. She was carrying a child ; it was crying violently. I spoke to her, taking her for a person I knew. I did not know her before. [Here - Mr. Slade, the attorney of Devizes, came into Court and stated be had been employed to defend the prisoner'; but as the grand jury had ignored the bill against her, he had no idea she would be tried on the coroner's inquisition, and .therefore had not delivered any brief to counsel. He their handed a brief to Mr. C. Saunders to defend the prisoner.] , Charles Brown—On Friday, the 9th of January, I was going along the Trinity-road, which is a few miles from the union-house, and met the prisoner, who had an un rella and a small bundle with her. About a mile after I assed - t her I had to go over a little br id g e, and saw someth g in the water which looked like a child. • I went back to is cot tage near. Mary Ann Longley lived there. She returned with me, and brought a garden rake, and with it we drew out ( f the water the dead body of an infant child. t was quite dead. The child was quite naked. Mary Ann Longley confirmed the witness as to tak g thO, child out of the water. • i John King—l am a polic e m an, and apprehended the pri g Softer on the 10th of February. She had the shawl and handkerchief, the same; that had been wrapped round the prisoner's child's . body when she left the union. ' -•- ROME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 12. CIVIL SlDE—(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a Special Jury.) TIIE QUEEN V. WATKINS AND OTHERS. This was a proceeding arising out of the dispute between the proprietors of the Greenwich stone pier and the water men who have established the opposition floating pier at that place. The defendants were indicted for a nuisance, in having erected a pier or jetty in the river Thames, and by that means prevented its free navigation by the public. Mr. Sergeant Channel!, Mr. Sergeant C. Jones, Mr. Words worth, and Mr. Baddeley, conducted the case for the Crown ; and Mr. Sergeant Slice, with Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Peacock, appeared for the defendants. The case occupied the Court for several hours, and was not concluded until late in the evening; but as the circumstances have so frequently been laid before the public, it will be un necessary to go into a detail of the evidence that was adduced en the present occasion. The defendants named in the re cord were a portion of the owners of the watermen's or float ing pier, and tbe prosecution was instituted by Mr. Sutton and Sir Richard Dobson, two of the principal proprietors or directors of the stone pier. It was alleged that the floating erection abutting in front of the river, near Garden-stairs, and close to the stone pier at Greenwich, and A hich was used as a‘pier by the watermen's steam .boats, was a hindrance to the free navigation of the river, and prevented, particularly, any access being had by wherries to Garden-stairs. In support of this view of the case a number of witnesses were called, all of whom expressed their opinion that the pier in question was an obstruction to the river, and hindered the navigation. It appeared pretty clear, however, that besides the alleged inconvenience to the public, there was a very strong feeling on the part of the proprietors of the stone pier that the rival pier deprived them of a considerable portion of the pier dues which they would otherwise receive if it were done away with. Mr. Sergeant SHEE, on behalf of the defendants, made a very able address to the jury, and urged with considerable force that the object of the present indictment was not to abate a nuisance, but that, in point of fact, it was merely a struggle by the proprietors of the stone pier to get rid of their rival, and thus increase their own profits. The watermen had, by the change that had taken place in the traffic upon the river, and the introduction of steam boats, been deprived of their original means of livelihood, and they had been compelled in consequence to resort to the esta blishment of this pier, for landing upon which certain dues were demanded, upon which alone they depended for sub sistence; but so far from this being any nuisance or incon venience to the public, he said he should show, by the evi dence of a number of witnesses, that it was the greatest pas sible accommodation. _ . A number of witnesses were then called, many of whom expressed their opinion that the pier was no obstruction to the navigation of the river, and they considered it a very great. accommodation to be able to land from steam-boats at the pier at Garden-stairs. Upon cross- examination, however, it was admitted that before the establishment of the floating pier, pe r sons were enabled to land from wherries at the Garden-stairs, that barges and other craft could get to the adjoining houses and unload their cargoes, if required, which they were now pre vented from doing. One of the witnesses, who had formerly been a waterman, but who was now one of the proprietors of the floating pier, also stated that they received three far things from each person who landed at their pier, that their receipts during the year amounted to between twelve and fifteen hundred pounds, but the whole amount had hitherto been expended in litigation. Mr. Sergeant CIIANNELL, in replying to the evidence ad duced on behalf of the defendants, urged upon the jury that they had nothing whatever to do with the question whether or not this pier was to a certain extent an accommodation to the public, but whether in point of fact it impeded the na vigation of the river; and this, according to his view of the law, was the only point they had to decide. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then addressed the jury, and having intimated it to be his opinion that there had been no legal defence made out by the defendants, under his Lord ship's direction they returned a verdict for the Crown. Maidstone, March 13. In consequence of the pressure - of the criminal business, Mr. Sergeant Dowling, both yesterday and to-day, assisted in disposing of the prisoners, and in consequence of the valuable aid thus afforded by the Learned Sergeant, the busi ness on the Crown side was concluded to-day ; and Mr. Baron Alderson then proceeded to try civil cases. (Before Dir. Baron ALDERSON and a Common Jury.) GROOMBRIDGE v. GORHAM. This was an action brought by Elizabeth Groombridge to recover compensation for the loss of her daughter Harriet, by reason of her seduction by the defendant. Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Bovell were for the plain tiff; Mr. Russell Gurney and Mr. Locke for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, in opening the case to the jury, said that the plaintiff was a widow, and sinc e the death of her husband she had carried on a respectable business as a baker at Aylesford in this county. She had brought up a large family respectably, and Harriet, the unfortunate object of the present inquiry, was her younest daughter, and at the period of the transaction was about twenty-six years of age. The defendant had previously occupied a cottage belonging to the plaintiff, and he subsequently set up in busintss as a butcher in a shop opposite to the plaintiff's, and the)- dealt together, and were on terms of some intimacy, and the result was, that the plaintiff's daughter was seduced by the de fendant. There was not the aggravation in this case, that the seduction took place under a promise of marriage, but still there was no. doubt that a grievous injury had been in flicted by the defendant, and it would be for the jury to say what damages he ought to pay for his misconduct. Harriet Grbombridge, a good looking young woman, was then called as a witness. She deposed that the plaintiff was her mother. There were eleven or them in the family, and she was the youngest daughter, and was now 26 years old. Her fatAer.died thirteen years ago, and since then her mother had carried on the business, and she assisted her in it. The 'defendant, Ambrose Gorham, was a butcher, and lived oppo site to her mother, and they were in the habit of eealing with each other. In the autumn of 1844 she went to the shop of the defendant for some meat, and he laid hold of her and forced her into the parlour, and then committed the act imputed to him. In the December following she found that she was in the family way, and on her informing the defen dant of the fact, he at first said be knew nothing about it, but afterwards sent her a letter (produced), in which he 'ad vised her to go away from Aylesford for two or three weeks before she was brought to bed, and he would pay tbeexpense. In consequence of this she engaged a lodging at Maidstone, where she was delivered of a child in June last. The de fendant subsequently sent her, at different times, 5/. 105 . Cross-examined — The defendant had never paid any atten tion to her, and she had not spoken to him more than three or four times when this happened. It was between eight i-nd nine o'clock in the evening when she went into the defen dant's shop, and he laid hold of her directly, and forced her into the parlour, and acted in the way described. She did not gO to the shop again for a fortnight, and the same thing then happened again. Thomas Groombridge, the brother of the last witness, proved that upon his being informed of what had happened, he went to the defendant, who told him he was very sorry for what had happened, as it made it " so very unpleasant" for both parties. A letter from the defendant, in which; he offered to pay half-a-crown for the support of the child s , at the salllC. tune Cross-examined—The child was quite healthy when it left the workhouse. The child had no clothes but those belong ityr to the tiliotf•hovg.e. It is the custom of the house to tate away i:io clothes frOtti OA children when they are taken out of the house, even although they hale no other clothes, and were left naked. The child was called 2,lin Butcher. Henry Dikon—l am a surgeon, residing at Paris:lL I made an examination of the body of the child found in the brook by Brown. I opened the body. The appearance of the viscera was healthy, and there was nothing which was likely to cause sudden death. I even now cannot say what was the immediate cause of the child's death. I cannot say it was by suffocation by drowning. There is nothing to enable me to say it died from suffocation, or that it did not die of suffo cation. -....„... This was the case for the prosecution. Mr._ C. SAUNDERS then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and contended that there was no evidence to show that the child died from drowning, which was the cause of death charged by the inquisition, of which they must be perfectly convinced before they could convict the prisoner. The child might have died on the road, and as it was illegitimate, might then have been thrown into the water by the prisoner to pre vent her shame being known. Mr. Baron Roryv. E ln,summing up, told the jury to take all the eircurnstance_ , 1.415 e into their consideration and then say whether tkilleit.•!: . .ght the death of the child was from natural causes,: .e , drowning by the hand of the prisoner. It was not' .'h .use the surgeon could not dis tinctly say whether the child died from drowning or not that they were to acquit her, but they were to decide that ques tion looking at all the facts. The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted the .prisoner. . ADDRESS FROM ASTLE THE .DUKE OF NEWC " TO sly COUNTRYMEN; " Encouraged by your former kindness and consideration, I trust that it may not be mistimed nor unacceptable that I now again venture to intrude upon your attention. '.About this time last year I presumed to address you upon a subject of intense national interest then in progress. I then hazarded an opinion that the same ruthless hand which planned the elevation of Popery would not scruple to work the downfall of our agricultural system. You have now too much cause to lament with me, that my words have not proved untrue. You have witnessed with astonishment and detestation the hideous treachery and tergiversation of public men, which burst forth sudden l y upon your incredu lous viw in the full blaze of its trihant deformity, sup portede by a shameless effrontery u exampled in the annals of well-regulated states. "As virtue is proverbially said to be its own reward, so treachery may be said to be its own perdition,—and thus it is in this case. The Prime Minister expected that he had so contrived and so securely plotted his arrangements that suc cess 'lva; certain, failure impossible. No man was ever more mistaken in his calculations, no Minister ever more deceived in an estimate of his own controlling (if not despotic) power, and individual essentiality. Instead of dismay from the fear of losing him, he finds that no one desires to retain his services; and where he thought to raise entreaty, he has only raised a pitiless storm of scoffs and indignation. Faith and confidence in him have ceased, and his political sun is set. Under protective laws we have flourished, under them and by them observe well, not in spite of them Gi%lit Britain has grown into an empire of the first rank for wealth and power in the universe. Who, in truth, can deny this fact? Not the merchant, the manufacturer, the trades man, the shopkeeper, the artisan, or that humbler but most deserving class,upon whose industry andlabour the wealthiest merchants and producers depend, as in turn the work man depends upon his employer for ample remuneration in the shape f liberal wages—all of these must perceive that without protietion their prosperity will decline into abject poverty, and that a full protection is as indispensably neces sary to them,' as to the British farmers and labourers in husbandry. " Now, then, gentlemen of England, stand forward. The clergy, bold yearten, ,trusty farmers, worthy labourers — all those interested in the cultivation of the soil—stand forward. Must I stop here ? No ; general protection is a question of vital interest to you also, and you cannot, must not, shall not, be exclude d from the appeal. Without the grossest injustice to your high national feelings, and an un pardonable insult to your patriotism, to your acknowledged intellect, and comprehensive understanding, I cannot omit you. I call upon you, merchants, manufactu rers, and traders of England, to come forth frankly, boldly, , nobly, as an essentially component peat of our great English brotherhood—stand forward, join us freely, without any mental reservation whatsoever, a i ld unite with us, your British brothers, with all your heart :.end all your soul, in de fence and preservation of our Church aid Otate, for involved in and most intimately connected with Oen" , is the all ab-. sorbing question of general protection to B.' itioh industry . " I confidently call upon you, all and each, scr your assist ance. By your timely aid and determined supt.'G.rtu ves— yo may rs . el bring into power men who, I trust, think like rations men who have no party but their country , no as p .: sided but - for its solid and permanent welfare—who are idess, with you and your interests, and who, by their plain de., l '; ing, honesty, and English uprightness, will scorn all crooke. , ways, and will undeviatingly pursue those of equity wad truth. "You must be prompt and energetic. A general election may be near at hand. I have just witnessed in my own county a most extraordinary result of British virtue and moral courage, emanating from and conducied by the agri cultural interest alone, which may well be a model of action and an example to the whole country. " Believing, as I confidently believe, that we all most earnestly desire, the peace, welfare, order, and prosperity of our loved native soil, allow me to entreat you to adept the measures so successfully employed in Nottinghamshre. . " Then lose . not a day or an hour ; instant3Y and busily set to work to form and organise Wotife tion Societies in every county in England—especii.:ll, - make choice of a good and influential chairman and as working committee—associate with you all the friends' of protection to British industry, whether farmers 6r others—make yourselves acquainted with all your brother electors—pay the closest and most minute attention to the registers, and select and communicate with fit, and none but the fittest men, to represent you in Parliament ; leave nothing undone ; let your preparations be com plete at the earliest period ; and, the done, calmly, but most determinedly, await the hour of trial, and, when ever it does arrive, take into your own hands what is your own business ; regulate. execute everything for yourselves, with the energy, the intelligence, the just - - and fair, bnt unbending eettermination of Englishmen, and you may reasonably hope that, by God's blessing, you may be enabled to save your insulted and injured coun try from the most fearful perils which the machinations or infatuation of false men and treacherous statesmen ever de:- vised for the degradation and ruin of the land of their birth-- a land whose natives are worthy of all protection, and deserv ing of the most ardent exercise of your purest and most exalted patriotism. " Believe me to be " Your ever faithful friend, " NEWCASTLE. "P.S. I can scarcely anticipate that this revolutionary measure, now under discussion, can ever become the law of the land ; but if, most unfortunately, it should be so, as suredly a future national majority will at once decide that an enactment so atrocious shall no longer continue on the Statute book. " London, March, 1846." RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. MANCHESTER, Miami 13. STOCE EXcnaNGE.-The sales are -Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire, 3 p.-Blackburn, Clitheroe, and North Wales, 1 1 4 dis.- Blackburn, Danven, and Bolton, par-Bradford, Wakefield, and Midland, 11-16 dis.--East Lancashire, No. 2,3% p.-Edinburgh and Glasgow, Quarters, 174 --Fleetwood, Prestos, and West Riding, Is. p. -Grand Union, % dis.-Lancashire and North Yorkshire, h dis. -Leeds and Thirst, 3, (us. c.-Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester, 6% p. -Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Preston, 455. p.-Livcrpool, War wick, Manchester, and Stockport, 15-16 dis.-London and 31anclies ter (Rein.), 1% dis.--Manchester and Birmingham, Quarters (B), 7 p. -Ditto, Quarters (C), 636 p.-31anchester and Leeds, Sixteenths, 9'-Manchester, Midland, and Grimsby, dis.-Manchester and Southampton, 3s. p.-North Western, % p.-Preston and Wyre, Halves (B), 1 p.-Ditto, Extension, IA dis.-Sheffield and Lincoln shire Junction, 1% p.-Sheffield and Manchester, Quarters (No. 3), 2% p.-South Eastern and Dover, Halves (No. 4), % p.-Trent Val ley, 22 p.-Welsh Midland, 1 1 A dis.- West Riding Union, 2% p. LEEDS, MAacn 13. STOCX. Exciastior.-The sales are-Manchester and Leeds, Ex tensions, 356 p.-East Lancashire, No. 1, 31. Bs. 95. p.-Great Grimsby and SheffieldExteniions, 4s. dis.-Iluddersfitld and Shef field, 74 p.-Leeds and Bradford, 48 c.- Leeds and Dewsbury, 6 p. -Leeds and Thirsk, 17s. 6d. dis.-Liverpool and Bury, 11 p.- and Doncaster, ss. p.-London and York, 3/. • 3s. 6d.-Liverpool , Ormskirk, and Preston, 24 p.-West Riding Union, 4/. 145.-Am bergat e, Nottingham, and Boston, 17s. 6d.-Birkenhead, Chester, and Mold, &.e., 0 e., 275. dis.-Bradford , Wakefield, and Midland, 12s. . , n l d os. dis - Bed disL.,--edGsr,avvild,.AUndneioidn: and d3lisid.-1.1,,de,ed152.au6dd. dicer e tr a ford, 9s. dis.-M an chester, Buxton, 3 fati ock, and Midland, 31s. 6d. P re l c p s ir e e ct p.-North Western, 165. p.-Welsh Midlands, 275. dis. SHEFFIELD, MARCH 13. S TOC K .EXCILANGE.-The sales are -Grimsby and Sheffield Exten slot], 1/. t9s.-Ditto , Quar ter Snares, I/. 4s. 6d.-London and York, 3/. 3s. -Manchester, Midland, and Great Grimsby, IN -31anclaester and Lincoln Union and Canal, IL 175.-North Western, 1/. South Yorkshire Yorkshire Coal Railway, 11. 19s. 6d.- West Riding Union, 5. HULL, Mancu 13. STOCK EXCIIANGE.-The sales are-North British, Half Sitares, 834-Ditto, Carlisle, 21. 4s. 6d.-Armagk, Coleraine, and Porttusli, lbs.-Bradford, Wakefield, and Midland, 375. 6d.- Hull and Barnsley Junction, 275.-Ipswich and Ely (Cambridge and Ely), 10s. dis.- Lincoln and Wainfieet, 365. W.-Liverpool and Leeds, 21.35.-North Staffordildre, 51. 128.-West Riding Unioacu n, 41. 17s. YO, 31A 13. Brom Exenlamt.-The sales are-Grand Vnlon, 199.-Leicester and Bedford, 155.-London and York, 31. 35.-3.tenchester, Buxt(ln, 3fatlock, and Midland, 31. 14s. &1.-Newcastle and Berwick, 19% -Newcastle and Darlington Extensions, 94-North British, Car lisle Extension, 2f. 4s. 6d.-West Riding Union, 4/. 13s. 6d.-York and North Midland Extension, New (East and West Riding), 9%. 1, • BRISTOL, MARCH 13. STOCK Exemos.-The sales are- Bristol and Exeter, New, 10-Bristol and South Wales Junction, 2 1-16-Caledonian, 12%- Ditto, New, 2%-Eastern Counties, York Extension, % p.--Great Western, Quarter Shares, 16-Portbury Pier and Railway Company, 1% -South Devon, 33%. GLASGOW, Maacu 12. STOCK Exert/aim-The sales are - Ayr and Galloway, 355.- British and Irish Union, 425.-Caledonian, New, 50s. - Caledonian and Ayrshire Junction, 345.-Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junc tion, 395. -East Indian Railway, lls.-Edinburgh. Glasgow, and Dumbarton, 175.-Glasgow General Terminus, 8% -- Glasgow and Bel ast Union, 28s. 6d.- Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 71/.-Glas gow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan, 415.-Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monk land Junction, 385.--Glasgow Harbour Mineral, 365.-Great Indian Peninsular, U.-Kilmarnock and Ayr Direct, 355.-Manchester and Southampton, 455.-Scottish Central, New, 7 -Scottish Southern, 325. 6d.-Slamannan and Bo'wness, 555.-South Midland, 60s. fid. PASSENGERS' BAGGAGE.—The Commissioners of the Customs have approved of the following form of notice to passengers arriving from the continent of Europe by steam packets :—" Custom-house, London.—Notice to Passengers. The attention of passengers arriving from the Continent is drawn to the following regulations respecting the examina tion of baggage :—Attendance is given at the different bag gage warehouses in London, viz., Fresh-wharf, London bridge, the Custom-house, the St. Katharine-wharf, Tower, and the Brunswick-wharf, Blackwell, for the examination of baggage, from the Ist of March till the 31st of October, from eight o'clock iu the morning until seven o'clock in the even ing, and from the Ist November until the 28th February, from nine o'clock in the morning till five o'clock in the after noon. As soon as all the baggage shall have been landed, those passengers having single packages will be entitled to have them first examined, after which the remaining pas sengers will be called in and attended to according to the list furnished by - the captain. To insure regularity, passengers theare thatrleirstesdhetoelsdeetile v t e h e e e i e r l names are properly w,heh th e e i inserted in officers are not in attendance, the visiting officer to the ship w ill examine, and de liver to h passengersaggage, as codsiAing ms.y 'require the same, any trifling quantity such of b of wearing apparel only. Passengers are particularly letinested to notice, that all merchandise brought with theirOraggage is liable to seizure.' [ADVERTISEMENT.] --THE EARL OF ALDWHIGUGH IND BOLLOWAY m.s.—An astounding cure by this nieculous medicine, after every other means had failed. See extri Of his lordship's letter, dated Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. `z1,.1.845 : " To Professor gofloway,—Sir, I beg to acquaint you that your .pills have effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach, .which all the most eminent of the faculty, at home and al beer the t(intinent, had not been able to effect—nay, not even the waters of 'arlsbad or Marienbad.—(Signed) Aldborough.'' These vronderftd Tills will cure any disease of the liver or stomach, Sold (els° Hol loway's Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishmgnt, 244, Strand, and by all medicine venders throughout the civilised world. 't ).!'. - -:.•_'',VA'.'-:_.-.', I