The Sun. — London, England, 1835-05-15 00:00:00

to the Noble Lord at the time ; and the Noble Lord never got up to deny that any part of them was not perfectly true. Why, good God 1 had it been otherwise, what might the Noble Lord have done ? He might have got up and repelled with indignation the observations which he (Doctor Lushington) had made ; but the Noble Lord remained erfectly silent. Yet if the observations which he (Doctor Lushington) made were not well-founded—if they were not strictly correct--if they were not an exact echo of what the Noble Lord had stated, the Noble Lord would have been bound in common justice to himself, in common justice to his own character, in common justice to the truth, in common de cency to the character of Lord Gosford, to have risen and Lave said—" The charges you have attributed to me I never made. "—(Cheers.) Instead of that, what had been the course pursued by the Noble Lord? He had suffered his statement to go out to Ireland for six whole weeks without any opportu nity of contradiction—without any means being afforded of elucidating the truth, and during that period had suffered Lord Gosford's character to remain exposed to all the conse quences of the charges he bad brought against him. He (Dr. Lushington) should now proceed to meet those charges, -which, he again repeated, were utterly destitute of all foun dation. In the first place, he would state that there were thirty-seven resident Magistrates in the county of Armagh. A letter, dated the 24th of January, was addressed to the Earl of Gosford, directing him to institute an inpuiry into the burning of the houses in question, and also, if necessary, of investigating the cause. In compliance with the directions contained in that letter, the Earl of Gosford immediately summoned the whole of the thirty-seven Magistrates to at tend the investigation ; out of these thirty-seven Magistrates, twenty-four were opposed to Lord Gosford in politics; six were not of the same politics, but more properly speak ing, were neutral; the remainder—all who could have been of the same party as Lord Gosford, were seven.—(Cheers.) The investigation lasted seven days. On the first day, twenty-six nagistrates attended, of whom sixteen were Tories ; on the second day, fourteen attended, of whom nine were Tories ; on the third day, the proportion of Tories was ten to five ; on the fourth day, ten to four; on the fifth day, thirteen to four; on the sixth day, fifteen to four ; and on the seventh day, ten to one.—(Loud cheers.) So much for the packing of the ma gistrates. The Noble Lord had stated that no notice was given to the magistrates previous to the time that their at tendance was required. Upon that point, ho (Dr. Lushing ton) must be allowed to observe, that the letter of Sir Henry Hardinge directed that the inquiry should be immediate. Sir Henry's letter was dated the 24th of January, it was received on the 25th; and in compliance with the injunction to use dis patch, Lord Gosford issued a circular on the 26th, requiring the attendance of the magistrates, and of all persons interested in the matter, at the Court-house in the town of Armagh, on the 28th. Lord MANDEVILLE had spoken only of the shortness of the notice given to the magistrates. The notice was given only the day before that appointed for the inquiry. He had spoken only of the shortness of that notice. Dr. LUSHINGTON—And I am speaking on precisely the same subject ; so that, thank God, there is not the slightest misunderstanding upon this point, at least, between the Noble Lord and myself. . __ _ Lord MANDEVILLE—The notice to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has referred, is not that which was given to the magistrates. Dr. L USHINGTON—If the Noble Lord meant to say, technically speaking, that this was not actually the public no tice given to the magistrates, he was ready to admit it—(hear) but he (Dr. Lushington) was showing that Lord Gosford, without one moment's delay, made public to the whole world his intention of holding the investigation on the 28th. The Earl of Gosford next caused a letter to be delivered person ally to all the magistrates; but, said the Noble Viscount, the notice was too short, considering the urgency of the question. In truth, two or three magistrates did express their sorrow, that the notice was so short, and the Earl of Gosford said he was ready to postpone the investigation if agreeable to the bench of magistrates, but the bench negatived any such post ponement. The Noble Viscount had complained that the in vestigation was of a more limited nature than what was re quired by the letter of Sir Henry Hardinge ; and that the Noble Earl concealed the extent of the requisition made by Sir H. Hardinge. Now, the first letter of Sir H. Hardinge to the Earl of Gosford, dated the 21st of January, 1835, stated that " his Excellency the Governor General considered it ex pedient that all the circumstances should receive the fullest investigation, and that it was the desire of his Excellency that the inquiry should extend, if necessary, to the period of the races, three months ago, when the quarrel was said to have commenced." In a second letter, dated the 24th of January, 183 b, Sir Henry Hardinge Mated, that " his Excellency concurred in the opi nion that Armagh was the most convenient place for the in vestigation, and was desirous that the inquiry should be com menced at the earliest moment at which it was practicable."— ( Hear, hear.) There were two questions on this part of the case--first, Ought the inquiry to have gone back farther ? and if so, secondly, Was the Earl of Gosford free from blame for not so extending the inquiry ? Having read the evidence, he (Dr. Lushington) was of opinion that it was not necessary to extend the inquiry back beyond the point to which it was ac tually carried. But if it had been necessary, still the Earl of Gosford was not to blame : he did not limit the inquiry.— ( Here Lord Mandeville was understood toexpress his dissent.) Did the Noble Lord say " nay" to this? Then he (Dr. Lushington) would meet him on that point. He had the as sertion of the Earl of Gosford in support of this fact, that after mature discussion it was determined by a majority of the magistrates, and not by the Earl of Gosford, that the inquiry should not go back further than the limit to which it was really carried. Another charge made against the Earl of Gosford was that he acted partially and unfairly in the production of witnesses. Now, first a general notice was given to all per sons to attend to give evidence ; secondly, the police were directed to serve summonses upon all witnesses ; and thirdly, Sir Frederick Stoman (the chief of the constabulary force) sent a list of the witnesses to be summoned, the most of whom were Orangemen. He (Dr. Lushington) would aver that Lord Gosford caused every witness to be summoned whose name was delivered to him for that purpose, and he did not refuse to examine any whose evidence was offered. Of the witnesses, twenty-six were Protestants, and nineteen were Ca tholics. The next point made by the Noble Viscount was as to the manner in which the evidence was taken. But what did Lord Gosford do? Being desirous of the utmost pos sible accuracy, he applied to the Clerk of the Peace to ob tain a person to take notes. The Clerk of the Peace, who was no Catholic— no follower of the Noble Earl in po litics—employed a Mr. Blair for that purpose. This Mr. Blair was himself an Orangeman, and the editor of a high Orange paper—the Newry Press.—( Hear, hear.) At a subsequent meeting of the magistrates, Lord Gosford proposed to read Mr. Blair's notes. They were read and collated with the notes of the magistrates themselves, and even the Noble Viscount (Mandeville) himself suggested alterations to be made in them.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Viscount now complained that the evidence on the cross-examinations was omitted. Did the Noble Viscount, when present, require such evidence to be taken down ? He did no such thing. It was therefore too much for the Noble Viscount, having had an opportunity of doing this, now to bring forward a charge against the Earl of Gosford, because such evidence was not reported. He would now read some letters which had been addressed to the Earl of Gosford by several of the magis. trates who attended the investigation, all of whom most dis tinctly denied the truth of any one of the accusations that had been made by the Noble Viscount against the Noble Earl. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read a letter from Sir Frederick Stoman, the Chief of the constabulatory force, who called upon the Noble Earl "to denounce and destroy such infamous and false statements" that had been made against him—a letter from Mr. Jones, a stipendary magistrate, who stated that he had seen the reported speech of Lord Mande ville, and he observed—" To all these charges I beg you to give the most unqualified contradiction. Being present offi cially, and having attended—and abstracted from all local feelings—l can assert that a more open inquiry I never wit nessed, and further, that your Lordship evinced the greatest anxiety to extract from the various witnesses the truth, and the whole truth." After reading two or three other letters, the Honourable and Learned Gentleman read one from the Reverend James Blacker, which he (Dr. Lushing ton) humbly commended to the consideration of the Noble Viscount and to his recollection hereafter. The Noble Viscount had charged the Noble Earl with the breach of an engagement, inasmuch as that, after having promised the magistrates that the evidence should be transmitted simply to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, without note or comment, he bad nevertheless made a report upon the evidence. Now he ( Dr. Lushington) would deny that any such promise was made.--( Hear, hear.) He called upon the' House to read the letter written by Earl Gosford, and he maintained that in that letter there was not one syllable which was not justified by the evidence on the table--one statement destitute of foun dation, or one assertion untruly made.--( Hear, hear.) A more moderate report, or one couched in softer language, could hardly be conceived. He would conclude by saying on the part of the Earl of Gosford, that be challenged all inquiry into his conduct ; the most searching investigation, the most ample production of documents, and the most scrutinizing ex amination of every act he had done or ordered to be done. Whatever course the Noble Viscount might pursue, to that House and to the public be now appealed with perfect and en tire confidence. Colonel VERNER contended that the investigation which had taken place, could not be considered a fair or impartial one—the blame rested somewhere--where, he would not under take to say. His own character had been assailed by the sti pendiary magistrate, Mr. Jones. He hoped, in justice, the Government would call upon him to state on what grounds he Lad designated him (Colonel Verner) as the leader of the party by whom the outrages were committed, and afford him .an opportunity of justifying himself. There was no one word in the evidence to bear out the assertion of the lion. Member for Armagh (Mr. Dobbin), that the houses had been burnt by Protestants ; and though letters had been read from several magistrates who had been designated as Orangemen, the fact was that they were opposed to that party in Ireland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— The lion. Gentleman who had just sat down had put the House in Possession of one very material fact —namely, that he did not mean to charge the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Ar snagh with any improper conduct.--(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had, in the course of the few words of mitigation and npology which he had felt it his duty to utt er on th occasion, thought proper more than once to express his regret at having ever made use of offensive terms. He retracted the words, hut he adhered to the fact. Why, where was the fact to which be did adhere ?---(Cheers.) Where was the single fact which had not been taken from him by the irresistible state ment of facts made by the Hon. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington)? If the Noble Lord thought there remained one shadow of a fact by which to sus ttin his refuted accusation, all he could say was, that no one unprejudiced person in that House, or out of it, could accom oany him in the conclusion at which he arrived.—(Hear.) Had he produced. or could he produce, evidence to support his statement ? If he could not, would it not have been a more manly as well as a more Christian proceeding to have come forward and done justice to an injured man, instead of making at the latest moment an insufficient and inadequate apology ? ( Cheers.) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would say that that was not a condition in which any man coming for ward as the Noble Lord did as a public accuser, but who now appeared as the party accused, ought to be placed--it was not a course which any honourable man was bound to take.-- ( Hear, hear.) He was sure that the friends of Lord Gosford, and the friends of good government, would not regret the hands into which the defence of the Noble Earl had fallen. As for the Government, they were in no way concerned in this matter, excepting so far as it was proper that justice should be done to a public Magistrate, and he was glad that the defence had fallen into the hands of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. If the Noble Lord was con vinced of the truth of the charge which he brought against the Earl of Gosford as Lord Lieutenant of Armagh, it was not by a motion for papers that he should have brought the charge forward.—( Hear, hear.) As the character of the Noble Earl was involved in the charge, the Noble Lord was bound to come forward with a distinct resolution upon the sub ject; and had he done so, he (the Chancellor of the Exche quer) would tell the Noble Lord that the House would have viewed with just indignation any such resolution, as there was not even the shadow of truth in all the imputations brought against the Earl of Gosford.—( Cheers.) But the Hon. and Gallant Officer who spoke after the Noble Viscount had brought a new person into the field, and brought charges against Mr. Jones; but after the failure of the charges brought by the Noble Viscount against the Earl of Gosford—a failure which he believed to be unexampled in Parliamentary history —( Hear, hear)—a failure so complete that there was not even the smallest ground upon which the charges could be rested— (Hear, hear)—he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not feel inclined to make any further inquiry into the charges brought against Mr. Jones.—(Cheers.) It was enough to say that Mr. Jones had been sent by and acted under the au thority of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He wished to keep to the charges brought against the Earl of Gosford, and in the first place he would beg the House to observe that some of the Magistrates who came for ward were not connected with the political party which the Earl of Gosford supported. There were only two other points to which he would refer ; one was as to the entire openness of the tribunal in question, and the other as to the mode in which the Magistrates were summoned. Now as to this last point, the Magistrates were summoned in the only way in which they could be summoned by the Lord-Lieutenant. The Lord-Lieutenant wrote to the Clerk of the Peace, and directed him to summon all the resident Magistrates with out exception.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Then as to those who thought that the Earl of Gosford had carried on the investiga tion in a secret meeting, he only thought it necessary to men tion that among the magistrates present was the Rev. Morti mer O'Sullivan, whose presence was a sufficient guarrantee against any such charge. The House had heard the charges brought by the Noble Viscount, and the answers made to them by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he would ask if there was a gentleman then present, with the single exception of the Noble Viscount him self, who would rise and state to the House that the tribunal in question was a secret one, or that the Noble Earl had either refused or cast aside any evidence—(Cheers)—and having done so he would congratulate the Noble Viscount upon the painful pre-eminence which he had attained in being the only person to bring forward this charge, and when:he had brought it forward in being the only person in that deliberative assembly who persisted in maintaining the truth of the charge. —(Cheers.) He appealed to the honour and justice of the Noble Viscount to retract the accusation. The Noble Vis count had but two alternatives : he must either retract the accusation, or he was bound in justice to go on with the inquiry, and bring the charges home to the Noble Earl. Hear, hear.) If he would not retract, let him ask for a Committee of the House to inquire into the charges, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would support him. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) regretted that the House had not an opportunity of coming to a distinct vote upon the subject, for it was withheld from doing so by the manner I.: which the Noble Viscount had brought it forward. He would feel inclined at once to negative the charges by a vote of the House, and he was restrained from making a motion to that effect only by the feeling that it might be said he had taken the House by surprise. Mr. DOBBIN then rose, and made some explanation in answer, as we understood, to Colonel Verner, but we were not able to gather the purport of what he said. Lord ACHESON would trouble the House only while he read three lines of a letter from the Rev. James Blacker, in reference to the charge made by the Noble Viscount against his Noble relative. Mr. Blacker said, " I distinctly heard you say that you were ready to summon any witnesses, and go as far back in the investigation as was necessary, in order tho roughly to sift the matter."—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord then said, that he viewed the part taken by the Noble Viscount more in sorrow than in anger; at the same time he could not but complain of the manner in which the charge was brought forward. He considered that the Noble Viscount was placed in the predicament of either retracting the charges, or going forward with them. Mr. SHAW said that his Noble Friend bad retracted the accusation that the Earl of Gosford had garbled the evidence. In fact, he had retracted all that he could retract with honour. But it should be remembered that his Noble Friend was placed in a very peculiar situation.—( Cheers.) He was pre sent when the investigation took place, and left the court under feelings of irritability, conceiving as he did that the investiga tion was not fairly conducted. It was a fact admitted, that some magistrates had not been summoned.—(No, no.) Dr. L USHING TON—AII the resident magistrates were summoned. Mr. SHAW believed that some were not summoned.— (Loud cries of " Name.") He would name one. He was informed that Mr. Greene was not summoned. An HON. MEMBSR—He is not a resident magistrate. Mr. SHAW said it was true he was not resident in the district, but he was on the borders of it, and was only sepa rated from it by a stream.—(A laugh.) His Noble Friend said that there were two or three more who were not sum moned, and that circumstance annoyed him. He was annoyed, too, that the magistrates would not carry back the investigation to the period of the Armagh races, and though he now re tracted the charge of having garbled the evidence, he was satisfied as to the correctness of the other charges, and he still adhered to them. At the same time that he (Mr. Shaw) could not but regret that the charges had been brought for.. ward at all ; he could not but express his sorrow at the lan guage used in regard to his Noble Friend, especially as he had retracted all that he could retract with honour. Mr. HUME then rose and said, that during the whole time he had had a seat in the House, he had never heard such a charge brought forward as this.—( Hear, hear.) If ever there was a complete refutation of serious charges, and there could not be a more serious charge than that of a magistrate perverting public justice, it was in this case.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) was surprised at the counsel given by the Hon. and Learned Member, that those who opposed the Noble Viscount should rather endeavour to conciliate than to irritate him. Did the Noble Viscount deserve conciliation ?—( Hear.) He (Mr. Hume), on the contrary, had to charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with using language which was too conciliatory, when he counselled the Noble Viscount to express that regret and confusion for having brought such unfounded charges, which his own sense of honour and justice should have induced him to do, without any such admonition. He thought also that the House, for its own character's sake, should state its decided opinion on the subject. What object would be attained by having the chief constable's Report ? What would be the use of the dying declaration of the man M'Whinney ?—( A laugh.) But it appeared after all that this man was alive and well.—( Laughter. ) Would the papers moved for by the Noble Lord throw even a shadow of light on the subject? He was surprised at the pertinacity of the Noble Viscount ; and whether he persisted in his motion or not, of this he (Mr. Hume) was satisfied, that the House ought to de clare its opinion on the conduct of the Noble Viscount.— ( Cheers.) It appeared to him that the Noble Earl (Gosford) had acted in the most upright manner—and would to God that all Lords Lieutenant manifested a similar independent and im partial conduct !—( Cheers.) He hoped that the House, in vindication of an impartial Lord Lieutenant, and an upright and honourable magistrate, would at once reject the motion, and at the same time adopt such a course as to mark the sense it entertained of the conduct of the Noble Viscount in making such charges.—( Cheers.) He concluded with moving " That it is the opinion of this House that the conduct of the Earl of Gosford in the recent investigation in Armagh, did not afford the slightest ground of complaint, and that the imputations made against him by Viscount Mandeville were entirely with out foundation."—( Cheers.) Mr. SHAW observed, that if this amendment was persisted in and carried, it would be evident to all, and the public would be convinced, that it was the act of a tyrannical majority.— ( Hear, hear, and loud cries of " Oh, oh.") He appealed to the Speaker whether the amendment was not contrary to order. Mr. HUMS remarked, that if there was any thing disor derly in his amendment, he would strike it out. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think that there was any thing disorderly in the amendment of his Hon. Friend ; but there were two points involved in it. Ih would suggest that the real issue they had to try was the conduct of the Earl of Gosford as Lord Lieutenant of Armagh, and it would be improper to mix up any extrinsic matter in the motion. If the latter part of the amendment was continued, it would be unintelligible hereafter. lie recommended his Ilon. Friend to confine his motion to a declaration that the conduct of the Earl of Gosford had been faultless as Lord Lieutenant of Armagh. The SPEAKER thought that if the amendment was adopted, it would be liable to considerable difficulty. He would suggest to the Hon. Gentleman, that the motion should in the first place be disposed of, ay or no, and that the amend ment might afterwards be brought forward as a substantive motion. Mr. El UNIE would alter his amendment as follows : " That the conduct of Earl Gosford, as Lord Lieutenant of the county of Armagh, in the recent investigation in that county, afforded not the slightest ground of complaint, and that the im putations made against him were entirely without foundation." After a few observation from Dr. Lushington, Mr. G. F. Young, and Mr. Hume, Mr. O'CONNELL expressed his anxious hop© that his Hon. Friend would persist in his motion. After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Col. Perceval, Col. Verner, and Lord Mandeville, in reply, The original motion was put and negatived without a di vision ; and the amendment moved by Mr. Hume, declaring that the charges against the Earl of Gosford «ere unfounded, was agreed to. This decision was received with cheers from both sides of the House. STEAM CARRIAGES. Mr. CA YLE Y moved the le-appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. Goldsworthy Gur ney, as recommended by the Committee of last session. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the King's sanction not having been obtained last session, which perhaps was unnecessary, as there might be other means than a grant of money of remunerating Mr. Gurney, and a grant of money not being a necessary consequence therefore of this motion being agreed to, he should not object to the re-appoint ment of the Committee. Mr. HAWES objected to so many grants of money on merely speculative grounds. Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the same view. The motion was then agreed to. PENSIONS OF EX-LORD CHANCELLORS. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the names of the several ex-Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland who now receive or are entitled to receive, pensions as having been Chancel lors ; stating the date of appointment or several appointments as Chancellor, the time each actually held office, the dates of resignation or loss of office, the dates from which respec tively each received, or are entitled to receive, their pennons ; the amount of such yearly pensions, and from what fund paid ; stating also the Acts of Parliament under which they respec tively receive their pensions. The Hon. Gentleman observed, that there existed now four or five ex-Lord Chancelllors, who were receiving each four or five thousand pounds a year, and in the course of the next two years they might have, for aught he knew, as many more.—( A laugh.) He thought it ex ceedingly objectionable that for a few months' service the country should be called upon to pay such large sums. He was altogether opposed to the principle of the Pension List : he was rather disposed to pay individuals at a high rate for the time that they rendered services, and let them take their chance of making a proper provision for themselves. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the state of the law was, that whoever was appointed Lord Chan cellor was entitled under the Act to receive for the time being the salary attached to the office. The individuals, there fore, who had been appointed the Commissioners, would re ceive their proportion of the salary under that Act. This was what he had intended to convey when on a former eve ning he stated that the present arrangement, which was only provisional, would not throw upon the country any additional charge. Mr. HAWE S had hoped that the Hon. Member for Mid dlesex, when he alluded to this subject, would have urged on the House the propriety of a division of the political and judi cial functions of the Lord Chancellor, by appointing a per manent equity judge, and a Speaker of the House of Lords. --(Hear, hear, hear.) Seeing the Hon. Gentleman the So licitor-General in his place, he would ask him whether any Bill was in preparation for carrying such an arrangement into effect ? _ . Mr. D. HARVEY said, that what appeared to him to be objectionable was, that the sum of 10,000 L, the salary of the Lord Chancellor, should be divided amongst the three Learned Individuals who were acting as the Commissioners, and who at the same time were receiving ample salaries as judges, on the presumption that the whole of their time was required for the discharge of their judicial duties. One of the Commis sioners was the Master of the Rolls, another was the Vice- Chancellor, and the third was a Judge of the Court of Com mon Pleas. The, Master of the Rolls received 7,0001. a year; the Vice-Chancellor, he believed, obtained nothing less; to the Judge of the Common Pleas was paid 5,500/. a year. These were salaries that afforded a remuneration abundantly adequate, and that gave the country a right to demand from the individuals so paid the whole of the time which, consistently with their mental and bodily labour, they could afford.-- ( Hear.) Now, if the sum of 10,000/. further were to be dis tributed amongst them, they would be receiving that amount in addition to the liberal salaries which they were paid as the price of their full services to the country. If they had any time to spare for the administration of the high duties of the Great Seal, they must have time to spare as judges of their respoctive Courts, whence it followed that as judges they were paid too much. The noxt vio•-• +n the ir-infroment tl,e patronage miner the Great seal. 'the Chief Commissioner,who, he understood, was to possess the patronage, had, as Master of the Rolls, and might again have, a seat in that House. In point of fact, then, they might have the Lord High Chancellor of England sitting in the Commons House of Parliament, with all the mighty patronage of the office at his disposal.— (Hear, hear.) That in itself he felt to be a formidable objection which might be urged, but which he abstained from urging at present, because he understood the existing arrangement to be only temporary, and to have been made in order that time might be afforded for another arrangement, by which the Seals were to be separated from the Speakership of the House of Lords. Such a separation was known to have been recommended by a Noble and Learned Lord in the other House (Lord Brougham), who had declared that the Lord Chancellor ought not, in his opinion, to be a political office—that the office of judge, in order to secure the independence of the individual, ought to be a permanent ap pointment, and free from political influences. If, then, such a change were contemplated, it would be well for the suitors in the Court of Chancery, and for the country; but if it were not, and if it were intended that the existing arrangement, instead of being provisional only, should be permanent, then he must say that he could not conceive a state of things more unsatisfactory, or so assailable on every constitutional princi ple. After the explanation, however, that had been given by his Majesty's Government, he thought it unnecessary to say more at present than to renew his declaration—that if, at no distant period, another arrangement were not made, he should consider it his duty to bring the subject under the considera tion of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. YOUNG thought that a better course might have been taken than one which must occasion an abstraction from the time of the judges, which they would have devoted to the performance of their own duties. A loss of this kiud was one which he would not attempt to estimate by any money consi deration. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Act un questionably provided that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, amounting to 10,0001. a year, should be paid out of the Suitor's Fund. This was clearly the law ; and if the Act was an improper one, the proper course to pursue would be to ef fect an alteration with respect to it. He admitted, however, that if the putting of the Great Seal in commission were any. thing but a temporary arrangement, the distribution of the sa lary of the Lord Chancellor amongst the Commissioners might perhaps, form a fit subject for inquiry. Under existing cir cumstances he was satisfied that no inconvenience would arise from the appointment of Commissioners ; and with respect to the expenses which the arrangement would entail upon the public, he had been informed, in a conversation which he lately had with one of the Learned Commissioners themselves, that the amount of fees and the other expenses to be defrayed by them upon their instalment would fully compensate for the amount of salary which they would receive during the period for which they might hold the Great Seal.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There was another topic introduced in the course of the discussion ou which he was anxious to say a few words. It had been thrown out that the time necessarily consumed in discharging the duties of the Lord Chancellor would prevent the Commissioners from sitting in the Courts to which they belonged, for such a time as would enable them to discharge the duties which respectively devolved upon them ; and it had been further asserted, that if they were found able to get through the business which belonged to the Court of Chancery as well as that of their own Courts, it might fairly be said that their ordinary duties did not entitle them to the amount of salary which they received. Now the fact was, that the Vice- Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls sat every day in the week five hours; and he, without any hesitation, left it to any one conversant with the nature of the usual proceedings in these Courts, to say whether it was possible that the human mind could be usefully employed in the inves gation of those matters which formed the general subjects of their judicature, for a longer period than that which he had mentioned.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The late Vice-Chancellor (Sir John Leech), who was most anxious to devote all the faculties of his powerful mind to the consideration of the questions which were brought under the cognizance of his Court, declared that the mind could not be advantageously kept on a stretch in the discharge of such du ties as he had to perform, for a longer space of time that that to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.) The judges, then, to whom he had referred, usually sat from ten o'clock till three, which, for six days, amounted to thirty hours a week. But although these individuals professed their inability to sit for a longer time than five hours each day for a lengthened period, they declared themselves willing to sit six hours for five days in pursuance of a temporary arrangement, thereby continuing to transact business in each of their courts for ex actly the same space of time as that during which they sat be fore their acceptance of office as Commissioners.--( Hear, hear.) The House was aware that the former Lord Chancel lors sat only two days in the week in the Court of Chancery, and were engaged for the other three days in the House of Lords. The Learned Commissioners (as we understood the Hon. Gentleman) sat one day in the week in the Court of Chancery, and were now employed for three or four extra days'during the vacation in disposing of the business --which had accumulated in consequence of the change which had been effected with reference to the office of Lord Chancellor. He trusted he had\shown, that under this temporary arrange ment, the minds of the Learned Judges who had been ap pointed his Majesty's Commissioners, were devoted as closely, and with as little loss of time, to the subjects brought under their consideration, as they well could be.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. PEASE would content himself with merely calling the attention of the House to a list of the salaries paid to re tired Lord Chancellors and Commissioners. It contained the following names, with the sums which each received annexed To Lord Eldon ......... , £-1,000 Lord Lyndhurst Master of the Rolls . Vice-Chancellor Puisne Judge Lord Brougham, as Chancellor )0,000 Ex-Chancellor Lord Chief Justice ... B,OOO Speaker of the House of Lords 4,000 Total £54,500 pect of economical redactions.—( t ( o f . l The motion was the:' agreedhat he should move to-morrow for This certainly held out to the s. c_out . % . 7 very cheering pros. Mr. HUME a return of the fees and stamps p- Commissioners, as well g av e n° t i cb - , id on the appointing of Com missioners ;of the duties which those t o p er f or m, togc as the Speaker of the House of Lords, him; -clesiastical, thcr with an account of the patronage, Lay and t; od , which they were to enjoy. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the ) House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock. dor', MEDICAL EDUCATION. EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE THE COMMIT- TEE appointed to INQUIRE into and CONSIDER the LAWS, REGULATIONS, and USAGES re garding the EDUCATION and PRACTICE of the MEDICAL PROFESSION. PART I. [This Part relates to the Royal College of Physicians.] The first witness examined was Dr. Hawkins (Re gistrar of the College), the only important part of whose evidence is, that though a statute was enacted in 1772, qualifying " any Licentiate of 36 years of age and seven years' standing," as admissible to an exami nation for Fellowship, yet no Licentiate has ever been elected under this law ; Drs. Wells, Sims, Stanger, and others having been rejected on the putting of the mo tions. The next witness was Sir H. Halford, from whose evidence we make the following extracts and summary : Sir Henry—being asked the origin of the bye-laws of the College which restrict the admission into it almost ex clusively to the graduates of the English Universities, although that practice is not according to the original bye laws of the College—replied that he thought that practice had originated from the original connection between the Universities and the College. The first founder of the College, Linacre, established lectures at Oxford. The successor of Linacre founded a College at Cambridge, Caius College, and there has been a natural connection between the University and the College of Physicians ever since. 54. Has the College any reason to doubt the legality of confining the choice of the electors to the Graduates of the two English Universities, there being no mention of any such restriction in the Charter and the Act of Parliament confirmatory of it ?—I apprehend the College is convinced that it does not necessarily confine itself to the members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ; there is a cer tain preference of those members in the mind of the Fel lows of the College, fur they are people who have under gone a moral and intellectual trial in the Universities from whence they came, to which they are not subject at the foreign Universities. They are domiciliated at Oxford and Cambridge, but not at Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or any other Universities from whence they may come ; and the reason, I apprehend, for the probation of ten years is, that those people who have not been so domiciled may have an opportunity of giving a proof of their moral qualifications, as well as their intellectual ones. That is the reason of the preference of the members of the English Universities in the minds of the Fellows for the election of Licentiates into their body. 96. How do you account for Licentiates having been admitted according to the statute on the proposal of the President, and none having been admitted under the statute on the proposal of a Fellow ? I know not any reason, excepting that on the proposal of a Fellow the Licentiate is to undergo an examination, on the proposal of the Presi dent he is not examined. 99. Did you exercise the privilege as President of recommending a Licentiate for admission last year ? No, I did not last year. I have done it within this last fortnight, and I will state fairly before the Committee that if I had seen a person of extraordinary eminence, who was entitled to that distinction, I would have done it last year. 101. Was not Dr. Wilson Phillip (the person you have selected for admission into the College this year) as cele brated for his discoveries in physiology last year as he is this year ? I believe he was ; but there was a controversy going on at the time with an eminent person with whom he was en gaged—and perhaps it was better to let that be determined before he was proposed. In answer to the question as to whether pains are taken by the College to inform itself of the course of medical eritic7t:on which the ffraduates of Oxford and Cambridge, soliciting admission into th::, Coll?ze, have passed through ; or whether they merely go through an examination into the three departments of physio logy, pathology, and therapeutics,----Sir Henry stated that they were examined in two dead languages, in anatomy, physiology, pathology, and the practice of physic ; but that the College did not require that they should have gone through any regular curriculum of study, nor that they should produce testimonials from Professors of the courses of lectures they had attended ; nor to have attended any course of hospital practice ; because if the candidate " is. well acquainted with the theory of physic, it affords a good presumption that he will acquire practical knowledge in time." Neither is the candidate examined as to his knowledge of mid wifery (though he is expected to know the diseases of women and children), nor upon the practice of surgery. 201. Have the bye-laws ever been suspended for the purpose of admitting a King's Physician to be a fellow of the College ?—No ; there was an instance, some ten years ago, of the King desiring to make a Licentiate his physi cian, and he spoke privately to me, and said " You had better make him a Fellow of the College." He was pro posed by me as'President, and was elected. 203. The preamble of the statute for the admission of Fellows into the College by the President is this—" Quando quidem fieri potest ut inter permissosnumerentur viri quidam egregiis et de re medicii preclare meriti, quos statutum, nos trum de sociis in ordinem seciorum cooptari vetat." Was the principal point in which the candidate was one of the " egregii et de re medicii, preclare meriti," that he was Phy sician to the King ?—No ; I beg pardon, I do not know that we have a more intelligent or able Fellow of the Col lege than this gentleman is. It might be so far a recom mendation that he was a Physician of the King. He was a PhysiCian of a considerable hospital at the time, and he had acquired a certain degree of eminence in the country before ho came to London, and was living in the good es teem of the whole medical profession. 204. How did it happen that his qualifications had not already recommended him to attention, and occasioned his being admitted a Fellow of the College by the exercise of the President's privilege ?—There might have been others who appeared to the President, short-sightedly perhaps, even more talented than that individual—elder men. 225. Does the statute of the College still exist that none engaged in the practice of midwifery shall be admitted as Fellows of the College ?—Certainly. 226. Therefore none of the censors of the College whose business it is to examine those who claim a license can have a practical knowledge on the subject of mid wifery ? That does not follow ; they have attended in their studies through the hospitals as well as others. It does not follow that they are ignorant of that ; they have every knowledge of the homine nato et non nato. The reasons the College gave, I presume, were satisfactory in the eyes of the Secretary of State, who referred it to the College. 231. Since, according to your own statement, mid wifery forms one of the subjects of the examination of the College, would it not be desirable to repeal that bye law which excludes from admission into the College any person engaged in the practice of widwifery ?—No, I do not think it is expedient. 232. Will you state your reasons ? I think it is consi dered rather as"a manual, and we should be very sorry to throw anything - like discredit upon the men who had been educated at the Universities, who had taken time to ac quire their improvement of their minds in literary and sci entific acquirements, by mixing it up with this manual la bour. I think it would rather disparage the highest grade of the profession to let them engage in that particular branch which is a manual operation very much. As to all the knowledge of the diseases of women and children it is expected of us, and we hope we are thoroughly informed of them. 234. If the admission to the fellowship were restricted to those of good moral character and of good education, would it, in that case, tend to lower the character of the College ? I think it would be better not ; it has never been done. It has always been objected to. There is a sort of manual operation, a sort of surgical operation, with the practice of physic, which, we think, does not quite ac cord, and we are sure it is not necessary." The whole evidence before the Committee agrees in the opinion that there should be an uniform standard of qualification, and a general Board for conducting the examinations of those about to enter upon the practice of the profession. The honours and the ap pointments should be afterwards distributed according to individual talent, merit, and experience. It may be perceived that the expense of becoming a surgeon in London is at present ample to the attainment of the highest qualifications, but from the over-reaching spirit of monopoly, neither the student nor the public receive a n adequate return. The following occurs in the evi dence of Sir Astley Cooper, Bart. :- 5506. What is the present expense of hospital attend ance in London ?—There are three classes : the first is the apprentice, who usually pays 5001. or 6001. to be boarded and lodged in the house of the surgeon to whom he is at tached. 5507. Do you mean of the hospital-surgeon ?—Yes. The second is the dresser, who pays 501. for the advantage of dressing for 12 months. The third is the pupil, who pays 261. ss. to be considered as a perpetual pupil, but, in reality, to enter only for twelve months ; because it was thought right to hold over him, if he did not conduct him self properly, the power of disposing of him at the end of the year. 5510. Would the 5001. or 600/. include the whole ex pense he would have to pay for the run of the hospitals ? No, he has to enter for lectures of different kinds besides. 5512. What is the minimum expense incurred by a sur gical student studying in London ?—As an apprentice, it "iuld cost him 2,0001. for the six or seven years of educa . --A he could embark in practice. That is about the sum which a man ought to calculate that his son would spend under such circumstances. 5513. What class of practitioners is it whose education would cost that sum ?—A person designed to be a surgeon in London, a surgeon of an hospital in London, and a lec turer. 5514. Can you give the items of which that sum would be composed ?—The board and lodging, if he be appren ticed, is paid for at once upon his entrance ; that is 600/. The going to Edinburgh would cost him a considerable sum, and the going on the Continent, according to my sys tem of education, a further sum. 5515. Then the 2,0001. includes the cost of the year at Edinburgh, and the year at Paris, &c.—Yes. 5516. Supposing him educated for a general practitioner, and in London, what would the expense then be ?—I should say from 2001. to 3001. 5517. Including the expense of the licence of the Apo thecaries' Company, and of the diploma of the College of Surgeons ?—No, I do not include those ; but 300/. would cover the whole if he were a prudent man. The suppression of irregular practice and empiri cism would be a desideratum to the profession and the public ; but as experience has shown the best educated men in society to be the greatest patrons of quackery, attempts at its suppression by legislative enactments might serve only to render it of greater importance. The Charletans of London derive great advantage from the opposition of medical men. It would, per haps, be advisable to lay a heavy duty on secret medi cines, and inflict, according to the offence, fine or im prisonment on those who practise under a false title and without due qualification ; or, as Mr. Guthrie proposed, to make them take out a licence for the de struction of their dupes, similar to that for shooting game. In this way, if the state should suffer in its members, it would gain in its revenue. The regulation of fees is a subject which must be attended with extreme difficulty, as well in proportion ing them to the experience and standing of the practi tioner, as to the circumstances of the patient. On this account, much must be left to individual discre tion ; but it is essential to the respect necessarily due to men taking charge of human life, that they be paid in fees like gentlemen. The apothecary is at least as honourable a member of society as the attorney, and should, like him, be legally entitled to his fee. The present practice of charging for the quantity of drugs, for the most part needlessly forced upon the patient, is an abomination. In most cases the drugs are of mere fractional value, and though an attractive colour be given to the useless contents of the phial, on paying of the bill, suspicion, disgust, and are fre quently excited towards the medical attendant. Were the system of paying the practitioners an annual salary, instead of occasional fees, more generally adopted, it would tend much to harmonize the profession with the public. The following extracts, from the evidence of John Scott, Esq., deserve attention. 6387. Ought the education of the Surgeon and the edu cation of the Physician, to run pari passu to a considerable extent ?—I think, throughout the whole extent, from be ginning to end. No man ought to practise surgery that is not qualified to practise medicine. 6388. Is the distinction, undefined as it is, that is made between the two departments of practice, a useful one ? Yes, to attain eminence, in any particular branch, a man should devote a considerable share of attention to that branch. 6389. Though, the education of the Physician and of the Surgeon should be the same, you think that science and prac tice will be brought to greater perfection, if some profes sedly devote themselves to physic, and some to surgery ? Yes, after having each thoroughly studied the whole. 6390. Were Surgeons and Physicians to be united in one common profession, would not the public, unaided by any distinction of professional title, be able to discover who the parties were that were best able to operate, if necessary— and who to advise, as to the nature and treatment of any internal complaint ?—They do so now ; and I believe are equal to do so. . 6391. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Council of the College of Surgeons ?—No. 6392. What alterations ought to be made in its constitu tion ; or, if you contemplate some general Board to superin tend the whole of the profession, state your views upon that subject ?—I think there should be an amalgamation of the three divisions under one superintendance. 6394. I consider that the science of medicine is one and indivisible, and that therefore it is proper to unite, in the way I have suggested, the Boards who examine upon it. It seems to be wrong that the Physician should be examined only in physic, the Surgeon only in surgery, and the Licen tiate apothecary only in medicine and pharmacy. They ought all to be examined on all the three subjects. The feelings which the regulations of the College of Surgeons generate in the profession are thus plainly expressed by J. C. Carpue, Esq. 6722. To what sort of practice is a professional man re quired to confine himself, in order to be eligible as a Mem ber of the Council ?—I know nothing of the College ; I am so disgusted with it altogether, that I have not been near it for many years. 6723. The following is the description contained in the bye-laws of the College :—" No member of the College, whose professional practice is not confined to surgery, shall be elected a member of the Council." And again, " Any member of the Council that shall not confine his profes sional practice to surgery shall be liable to removal from the Council." By reading over the list of the College, would you be able to say how many of the members actually come under this description ?—There are 10,000 names to read over, and I am not acquainted with many of the members. There are 10,000 members governed by 21. 6724. Would any come under this description if inter preted strictly ?—I almost doubt it. 6728. But if they were to act strictly according to their own bye-laws, most of them would be found disqualified to sit upon the Council ?—Most of them I think. Whatever differences of opinion may exist with re gard to minor questions, there are certainly leading re forms in our medical institutions, the necessity of which the impartial reader of our report will at once admit to be of self-eVident demonstration. 1. The abolition of restrictions of the College of Physi cians in favour of the English Universities. 2. The demolition of the inzperium in inzperio, which the Fellows have established in the mode of electing the mem bers of their own body and their President. 3. The establishment of a Board of Examiners, whose members, chosen equally from the three departments of physic, surgery, and pharmacy, should investigate the can didates' knowledge of each, and leave to circumstances and his own discretion the choice of that he would pursue in practice. 4. The equalization of the qualification of the three Me tropolitan Colleges—London, Edinburgh, and Dublin ; and the privilege to their several members to practice in any part of the United Kicgdom. 5. The institution of annual examinations in each branch to which a student may profess to apply himself, in order to withhold his certificate when found deficient. 6. The limitation of hospital appointments to a certain number of years, so that experience might be diffused through the profession. The, elections to be decided by merit, not by patronage. 7. The preliminary education to be tested by exami nation previously.to the commencement of studies purely medical. 8. The professional attendant to be paid for his advice and skill, not for his drugs. As the advantages which the public and the profes sion would derive from these changes scarcely admit of question, it is needless for the present to enter upon the discussion of their merits. We are prepared, however, for a further exposition of mal-practices, and also the suggestion of remedies in detail when the important subject of medical reform will be debated in the legisla ture. The existing medical, like other corporations, are the strongholds of injustice and fraud—they must be reformed altogether. Institutions must conform to the times, or be overturned by the weight of that in telligence which is at present pervading and penetrating society to its depths. The inhabitants of Camden Town are about to erect a noble column of granite, to commemorate Lord Camden's sacrifice of his pension as one of the Tellers of the Exchequer. CORONER'S INQUEST.—On Tuesday evening an inquest, which lasted several hours, was held at the Elephant and Castle, Pancras-road, before Mr. Stirling and a respectable Jury, on view of the remains of a new-born female infant, which was discovered on Saturday last in a dusthole of a house in Sussex-street, Bedford-square. So great has been the destruction of unfortunate babes in the parish of St. Pancras for the last few months that a very painful feeling has been manifested by the inhabitants, and on the discovery of the hap less infant forming the subject of the present inquiry the parochial authorities interfered, and suspicion being attached to a young female named Jane Thomas, residing with her parents in the house where the remains of the child were found, as being the mother of the infant, she was apprehended, and underwent an examination before the Magistrates of -i-latton-garden, and remanded until the result of the inquest was known. The Jury returned a verdict, "That there was not sufficient evi dence to prove that the child was murdered, but that the Jury were of opinion that Jane Thomas is the mother of the child, and that she is guilty of the concealment of the birth." A warrant was' in consequence issued by the Coroner for her commitment, to take her trial for the offence. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1835. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE• TATTERSALL'S. DERBY. • Igtioa i g . At the commencement of the betting, the new favourite, ..,•„ was backed at 11 to 2, and for some time after the highest tier Tl ee 5 to 1 ; subsequently he declined to 6 to 1 (taken) • at which r, Coriolanus was aleo backed. 2,000 to 1,100 was taken about the him ; and 1,400 to 200 about Ascot, and other bets, averagliA 00 same odds. None of the other horses in betting were so goaa 1" Monday. Closing prices : 20 to 11 agst Lord Jersey's Ibrahim (taken) 6 to 1 agst Mr. Bowes's Mundig (taken) 6 to 1 agst Mr. Ridsdale's Coriolanus (taken) 7 to 1 agst Lord Orford's Ascot (taken) 11 to 1 agst Duke of Cleveland's Pucelle colt (offered) 18 to 1 agst. Duke of Richmond's Leopoldine (taken 2 0 to 20 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Silenus (take 22 to 1) 31 to 1 agst Mr. Grant's Knobstick (offered) 50 to 1 agst Mr. Batson's Luminary (offered) 25 to 1 agst Knobstick and Luminary (take to 150 1 0 500 to 200 agst Mundig and Coriolanus (taken) 500 even on Ibrahim and Coriolanus agst the field un clip i ll. Five pounds were given for choice of Coriolanus agst 1% 1 a bet of 500 even. OAKS. Nothing done. The only offers were -5 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Eva 9to 1 about Mr. Mostyn's Queen of Trumps the ~,_nerbi 9 to 2 offered that Ibrahim and Preserve do not win and Oaks. ST. LEGER. Mundig was backed to a small sum at 20 to 1 LIVERPOOL CRAVEN MEETING, Vi r si' l llo3 4 ' The Formby Stakes of lb sovs. each, 10 ft., and 20 so"' Mile and half. Sir J. Boswell's Masetto, 4 yrs, Bst 41b Holmes 1 Sir R. Bulkeley na. Intriguer, 4 yrs Bst. 41b........• 3 Mr. S. Fox's Mrs. Oakley, 4 yrs, Set . lib ............... Mr. Mostyn's L'Hirondelle, 3 yrs, 6st. )lb .............•• sto 4 agqt Intriguer, and 2to 1 agst Masetto. Won lu 9 01* The Derby Stakes of 20 sovs each, h. ft., and 20 added. Lord Derby's Verbena walked over. ad p/' Ws i The Trade Cup, value 100 sovs., with 100 in specie, - 01 0/ 0 Handicap of 20 sows. each, &c., second horse to receive d" Two miles and a distance. 36 subs., six of whom decleren'i Sir J. Boswell's Gen. Chasse, 4 yrs, test 91b...Holut ee Mr. G. Cooke's Red Rover, 4 yrs, 7st. 111 b ............ ; Mr. S. Fox's The Count, 4 yrs, 7st 121 b ...... ea* The following also started, but wore not placed:— Mr. Barrow's Catharine, 5 yrs, Bst. 131 b. Lord Westminster's Touchstone, 4 yrs, Bst. 101 b. Sir T. Stanley's Speculator, aged, Bst. 41b. Mr. E. Mostyn's Birdlime, 4 yrs, Bst. 31b. Mr. R. Lucas's Rust, 5 yrs, Bst. Mr. R. Turner's Miss Golborne, 4 yrs, 7st. 21b. Mr. J. Robinson's Aratus, 4 yrs, 7st. 11b. 0 6.3; Betting-7 to 4 agst General Chasse ;sto 2 apt Too and 4to 1 agst Birdlime. Won cleverly. o hoi th The Maiden Plate of 80 sovs. was won in a canter, in t 41 047 by Mr. Robinson's Solon (Darling) beating Mr. Barr° W i l , riri v colt, Mr. Thompson's ch. g. by Octavian, and Mr. Twilit rose colt. LENTS FOR AuGu .3 . 1 T . 8 . 1 Winchester ............... Worcester y BW T Dlr G sr h toooi e vrglckov d hk P netr o . .. . ..................... 4 IStourbri nt a d e dm g r 1 1 : r 1511165° Weymouth... .................... Newport Pagnel ............. SITTAILATA. , .. o' Warwick ....... .. . ........ 1 p Lichfield ........................... 14 Leicester ...... 0 Doncaster ..................... .......... Heaton Park ............ Newmarket First Octob° OCTOBES,,. . „ Newmarket Second 1/G"' .... Newmarket Hought°"' ...... THE MARKETS. TURF APPOINZ MAY, Newmarket Second Spring ... 19 York Spring St. Alban's King's Meadow JUNE. _ Epsom South Shields Manchester Reigate Ascot Newton l7 Bibury Club Buxton Nottingham JULT. Bath Ludlow Liverpool July Newmarket Wenlock Cheltenham Lancaster I 11..r4 .01.11..“..a..r.a 1 0. ---.08..--- t iv. iviS Cl' COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING T..— reso . • Wheat. Barley. Oats. 1 nelL, n). •••• 0 1 ------ 6. 00 Per Quarter. s. to s. s. a. s. to s. S. to 4'o/, Blandford ............... 40 43 31 23 --...,.. 35 4 io Brigg 4O 52 30 36 15 22 a. 3 0 Cambridge.—..—... 38 29 --24 —' 40 3/3 ' Chard 36 42 28 32 20 24 0 6 40 1iuntingd0n.......... 42 50 29 34 19 24 .7 37 ' c 4 Long Sutton....—... 34 44 22 24 35 915 Louth .—....—.... 35 43 28 32 18 23 3 2 5, Lynn . 34 49 26 32 23 24 32 3 5 -- - Newark ...—.........., 34 42 26 35 18 24 32 -,, 42 Nottingham 40 45 28 37 19 28 35 A ~ .... t'etcrborough 30 40 28 37 21 26 ,' Plymouth ..—..... 40 50 30 34 20 23 -- 43 Pontefract.......—... 67 43 27 .-- 0 Sleaford ..... 65 70 36 38 22 28 41 46 ...' ' Uppingham .....—.... 34 39 25 29 20 30 36 VI ". Wisbech 45 —, 20 •-"' 4, DEVIZES CORN MARKET.—MaY 1 4 . i d o Per Sack. s. d. s. d. 1 Per Quarter. .. t cl , 0 to a ' , 0 Best Wheat 22 oto 24 01 Barley ............... ;41 0 Q 4 , 11. MARKET.—MaY 14 , d. 4 Per Quarter. F 3 0 l',o1 0 Barley ................. 0 Oats ............... 0 ; 0 Beans (per sack).** 30 0 Flour (per a_t2l Bread (per gaili"" Second l9 0 21 0 Thirds ..... 15 0 17 0 1623 Sacks of Wheat sold] 19 8 at the average of 01 4 LEEDS CORN MARKET.- May 12. t o n Wheat, Norfolk and Sutti•lk, 601 b. - York. and Lincoln. 6olb Barley, Norfolk and &Alblk - Yorkshire and Lincolnshire 0 ,... t 0,,,, - Grinding - tO''' Beans Oats, Potatoe llB, .t.d. Pe rjlot -111ealing, For. 12d. to 13d Eng. 9d. to -s.r - ,lo_ Shelling ....4. 2 .... ... ..../. to Rapeseed, English, 25l to 27, m .11 54. 6 LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE.—m . ' , 01, . 0 1 v WHEAT, English, White, per 70Ib. Red -- Scotch, Scotch, Welch, and Manx Irish, White 5 6 1 g Red 6 9 9 4 - - Foreign OATS, English, Welsh, and Scotch, per 451 b. 6 3 3 0 0 ---- Irish Foreign -8 0 i 9 BARLEY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter Scotch and Irish, per 60Ibs. --- Feeding 39 0 0 0 BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter Irish, &c. Foreign PEASE, English, per Imperial quarter ..... .. ........... •5B 0 0 0 Foreign FLOUR, English, per 2801 b. 8 ,2 0 • 9 ------ Irish OATMEAL, English and Irish, per 2.tollis ................ ..: „ 6 25 0 , 0 INeIAN CORN, IR r 4401 b. r................. —..... ' 2 0 311 Ilvig, per Impeual quarter a 0 e l MALT, per Imperial quarter IMPORT OF GRAIN for the Week ending gaY 1 i ps Wheat. 1 Oats. 1 Barley Flour. seltil• 0 • 45 Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. Foreign, tlrls.l Irish, &c• 3 379 :9,525 209 _ I I,' 9 f ost' $ I l 3. 44 1 0 i SOUTHALL CATTLE MARKET .- 5 . 3 , thio _. v.,i6 The supply of Beasts, Sheep, Calves, and Porkers, !, o _,Alv d t r ket was moderately good. There was a moderate at_t7 9 ooo." 0 0 and country buyers, and the trade was dull, at the 4 4'0 per stone of Sib. to s ask the offals : fit. ' I d ac Beef _ .400 Mutton 3 2 4 2 [ Pork ............... 0 Lamb 5s Od. to lis. Od. A 000 r Beasts, 126 ; Sheep, 5,115; Calves, 60; Pigs, 5 9 . " the supply left the market unsold 1 . ROMFORD ARKET.—May 1 3 . t. 0 s. i. to s. d. 5 4 6 .. a 6 Beef 2 8 3 10 I Veal ..................... Mutton 2 8 4 0 Pork . .......... 1 4 " Lamb - 4s Sd. ;o .... SO ° Suckling Calves, 7s. to 205.; Quarter old Store A 1 05 ' Milch Cows, with their small Calf, W. 05. t°," Supply moderate, and trade rather del. 6 4 ' ,0 1 4 HAILSHAM MARKET —May 1 3 4 , It l . —a s Beef 3s. 10d. to 4s. 4d. Veal ............... ..1 - 0 IMutton 3 8 4 4 Por., .. ... .......... fe Lambs ss. 2d. to 5s 6d per stone Supply short, and trade a little alive. -------- 044. CHICHESTER MARKET—MAY 13 4 , Oa. t°, 11 Beef Mutton 3 0 4 2 I Pork .. . .... . . ,:•.• . ' A O I ainb Supply of fat stack moderately good, and trade la -- ' / ...... 0 . .---- 111,4,1 stio LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET/ '''' toil' ill tri°' We have had very fair business doing to-day, and 4,000 bales have been sold at steady l;s1516:0 ri , 20 Egyptians, 22d. ; 120 Pernams, lad.:,' I°° A •pder It ,: 2s. and 2s. 6d. •50 Surat, Sid. to 81d. Ise° l-1 jo' can lad. to 12d. ' r Itte ll/ A B f t he , The celebrated red mullet, a fish 01 e- „icor , ' ii ` cacy, and among gourmands denominated the so eh pc% cbs ocean, generally very scarce and dear, were in 91 / 50 111 t 0 0 Billingsgate Wednesday morning, that they Irt re t hey o r ,, i tte e/ fishmongers at less than 4s. per dozen, although, • Dor in the greatest perfection. The fishmongers al charged yesterday 2s. and 2s. 6d. each ! 94 .' in our C°t_iceviii, On the 13th of November ß , ItihieTwflifse'. of LeW' d e 9141.1 P— All ' of a daughter. On the 13th inst., at Woolw C. ich, the lady of *l. • 1 * V J. ° P°l* 9 4' Esq., Royal Marines, of a son. ,-, by, j un' o f On the 12th inst., at Brighton, the lady of me' . wii the ~ M of a daughter, still-born. On the 13th inst., in Hanover-crescent , Bright°' „ Cs l)' - t ‘ i. arlow Sidney, Esq., of a son. igl f J On the 12th inst., at Stoke, near Guilford, the l i 0 Wetherell, Royal Sussex Militia, of a son and li/ '4 9'11 MARRIED. z . fec lerl _Ater On the 13th inst., at St. Mark's, Kennington, I_,' t dal* , Esq., of Clapham-common, to Eleanor MarY, el ues JO 1 0 the late Major Robert Clarke, R.M. of TOeil3 ' l oii ge ' to p arAt es Farleigh Church, Luck, Egl'Cour' P4' 0 W riet t , only daughter of Joseph Jackson, Cube io' mi, the former-place, and of Blencogo and Beck. o r d oe On the 12th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-si s o elc v Wood, jun., of Homerton, to Anna Maria Scott, 0 4 ' Hammersmith On the 12th inst., at Lewisham Church, of Dartford, solicitor to Louisa, youngest daughter °f flil, Esq., of Blackheath-hill. wet/I%O'lOA On the 13th inst., at St. Stephen's, Coletuart-s _ r gr. Foster, of Bread-street, to Maria, fourth daughter 0' Watson, of Christopher-street, Finsbury-square, Alfred Ili uo5See011:0100, London : Printed and Publishe d by _o. tie 112, Strand, at ?he Sun Office, Y .. 11% of Middlesex. i ~ ~ ~~1 Foster, of Bread-street, to Juana, .. -- Watson, of Christopher-street, Finsbury-square. lo t '" 1 1 D lED. he 11 09$ .1, On the 12th inst., Mrs. Martha Salter, of t es tree Covent-garden. „klbOd On the 12th inst., Miss Susannah SamPeY , 0 91 '''' s ole 0 , Regent's-park. l otus CO t v On the 10th inst., a Paris, George Edwar d Att.retd, Il e On the 7th ult., at Dower La Chine, nea r 1%1 •ce, V l' Stafford B. Price, Esq., eldest son of Stafford Pr' iv e, don, Middlesex. Lo ndon . a ci On the 13th inst., Miss Kelly, Custom-house,sr. ifreo, On the 7th ult., at Philadelphia, aged . 1 . 6 2.1, o f Eng ial formerly Principal of the Will-office in the P."'^ t o f I Sg f , CO ° .