The Sun. — London, England, 1835-08-10 00:00:00

iECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven n'cloc. THE PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) 110 USE OF CO 11.3/ GT /VS. The SPEAKER entered the House at a quarter to four o'clock, but as forty Members had not arrived till it was within one minute of the hour, it was four o'clock before he took the Chair. BOGNOR IMPROVEMENT BILL. Lord G. LENNOX moved that the House do agree to the amendments introduced by the House of Lords into this Bill. Mr. POTTER wished to know what those amendments were ? Lord G. LENNOX--The only amendment was one by which those who transgressed the provisions of the Bill were to be sent to prison and kept to hard labour. Mr. POTTER—Such a provision was quite unusual on improvement Bill. He thought it too much that 7.ersons should be sent to prison, and kept to hard labou7 for trans gres;ing, the enactments of ,uch a Bill. Mr. EWART complained of the mlisterious manner in which these amendments were introduced. Ile suggested that the amendment should be 7 - ad. The Clerk unrolled the iSill amidst some laughter. Upon a moderate computatio: i we should say that the Bill was up wards of 150 feat length. Mr. POTTY...tt submitted that many of the offences specified in this Act rpere not such as ought to subject persons to be sent to the tre'ad-mill among felons. He moved that the amend mew.: be printed, and taken into consideration on Wednesday. Lord G. LENNO X—These persons would have no com munication with the other prisoners, as the silent system was adopted in the gaol. It would be extremely hard if this Bill, after it had been in this House since February, should be now thrown out, and he would certainly take the sense of the House upon it. Mr. WARBURTON disclaimed any intention of throwing out this Bill. There were new offences occasioned by these amendments—at all events there were new punishments, and when this was the case it was only fitting that they should know ,what these punishments were before they passed this Bill. It was not a sufficient authority for them to pass these amendments that the House of Lords had thought proper to introduce them. Mr. 'O'CONNELL suggested to the Noble Lord (Len nox) that he had better consult those who had entrusted him with the care of the Bill, in order to see whether or not they should omit these objectionable clauses. If these clauses had been introduced with their assent, there must have been something wrong that they were not introduced in the first instance ; . and if tk - oy had been introduced by the other House of Parlir:nent, without the parties' assent, why, then, they might be disagreed to, and upon a conference with the House of Lords, it was not likely that their Lordships would persist retaining them. The SPEAKER made some observation which was not heard in the gallery. Mr. WILKS thought the objection of the Hon. Member for Wigan perfectly right, and if he divided the House, he most certainly would support him. He thought, however, the matter might 'oe arranged without any division by con sulting with the promoters of the Bill. Lord SANDON thought the House ought not to consent to inflict new penalties before they were enabled to know the offences, to which certain penalties were attached. Lord GEORGE LENNOX observed that no new penal ties, were inflicted by the Bill. After some observations from Mr. EWART, on the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the debate was adjourned till to-morrow. Sir EDWARD HAYES presented a petition from Do negal, complaining of the Excise Laws. Also a petition from Cork, against the Irish Church Bill. Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from a pa rish in the county of York, to the same effect. The O'CONNOR DON presented a petition from the late Paymaster of the Forces' of the Sixth Dragoon Guards, complaining of his being dismissed the service, in conse quence of a false statement, with respect to his accounts. It had been stated that he was in debt to the regiment, while the fact was that the regiment was indebted to him. The peti. tioner prayed that enquiry might be made into his case, in order that justice might be done to him. Mr. C. ROSS objected to the petition being received, as it claimed money alleged to be due. The SPEAKER said it appeared to be an application for a settlement of money due to the petitioner. The O'CONNOR DON said the petition merely prayed for further inquiry. The SPEAKER suggested that the Hon. Member had better withdraw the petition.—Petition withdrawn. LIGHT HOUSES. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, complaining of the Light House Bill at present before Parliament. The petitioners objected to the system pursued by the Trinity Board, and suggested that a much more efficient Board could be selected in London, and upon more liberal principles. They thought it extremely hird that the shipping interest should be compelled to pay the whole of this tax, and recommended that the Government vessels should pay a portion. Or, on the other hand, that the dues should be collected at the Custom-house free of expense. The Hon. Member then presented a petition against the Con vention of Royal Burghs in Scotland. Mx. RUTH VE N protested against the doctrine laid down in the petition relative to Light houses. The Irish Light houses were conducted upon a system which combined great efficiency with economy. He suggested that the Hon. Mem ber for Middlesex should withdraw his Bill until next session, as the present sitting was'fast coming to a close and the wea ther was extremely hot.—( Hear.) Let the Hon. Member transfer the Scotch Light Houses to Dublin, and they would be much better taken care of.---( Hear. ) Mr. LE FR OY bore testimony to the efficient manner in which the Irish Board had conducted the affairs of the Light Houses in that country. Mr. A. CHA PMAN begged to know if the Member for Middlesex meant to pass the Bill this Session? Mr. HUSIE certainly intended to do so. It would effect a saving of at least 30,0001. per annum. Whether Ireland or Scotland submitted to be put under the wing of England it was for the House to decide, but at all events he was determined to press the Bill so far as regarded England. Mr. O'CONNELL merely asked for a dash of the pen to scratch out Ireland. So far as that country was concerned, any alteration would not be an amendment, as the present system had worked extremely well. Mr. H. GRATTAN suggested that the Irish system should be transferred to England. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. WA RBURT 0 N presented a petition from Bridport, in favour of an unshackled Press. The lion. Member then prp,_ rented a petition from the medical men of Glasgow, r.gainst the proposed Scotch U n i vers i ty Bill. Al so a petitionfrom the Medical Practitioners of the Province of Ulster, complaining of the Apothecaries' Act, as it regarded tile regulation of County Hospitals and Infirmaries. Mr. IZ L T FIVE'S presented a petition from an individual from Dromore, in the County of Tyrone, complaining of op pressive treatment at Petty Sessions, under the law relating to summary convictions. HAND-LOOM. WEAVERS. The HON. MEMBER then, brought up the analysis of the evidence taken before the 'Committee on hand-loom weavers. Captain PE C El E L L presented petitions from Roehampton, Oxford, and several ot h er p l aces, against the tithes exacted on turnips used fc,r feeding sheep. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, The Marquis of CHANDOS rose to present a petition of which he had given notice, from certain freeholders of the county of Middlesex, :resident in the parish aryleb on g, complaining of undue interference in the registration of elec tors. The petitioners complained, that after the list of voters had been completed, signed, and printed, under the authority of the proper officers, 425. were paid over to the the'beadle, and 42 names were inserted in the list, amongst whom was the name of one of the Members for hlarylebone, claiming a vote in right of a certain freehold. The Noble Marquis observed that he had not the sli?,litest connection with Marylcbone, but as the petition came from so large a parish, it was important. Sir S. WHALLEY said that, howaver willing he was to afford every facility for the right of petitioning in the House, he felt disposed to oppose the reception of this petition. Hear, hear.) The vestrymen of Mar v l e b one b y law had the custody o f the rate-books, to which the overseers had no accesii; and were therefore unable to perform the duties re quired of them by the Reform Bill without the assistance of ._ that vestry, and .this had been the course adopted for the last three years, during which time not a single suspi cion of a name being omitted was raised. He denied the allegations of the petition most positively, and asked the Noble Lord, who had kept his pledges amidst the general wreck of pledges on that side of the House ?—( Loud cries of" Order.") He asked the Noble Lord how he could reconcile it to his high sense of honour to bring forward a petition in that House, which was calculated to prejudice certain claims which were to be adjudicated upon before a legal tribunal.—(Hear.) Mr. C. ROSS explained the purport of the petition. Mr. HUME said the whole question was one which was fit only for the Court of the Revising Barrister ; and he protested against the time of the House being taken up with undecided cases as these riere. If the House were to decide upon this case it would be prejudging the case, which was to go before the Revising Barrister—the law had in fact provided for the case. Mr. MIK INNON wished to know whether the name of the lion. Member for Marylebone was. not in the list, and the tomes of others were not left out ? Mr. RO EB LTC K protested against such a question being put—that House was not in a Court of Appeal from the legal authority, the Revising Barrister. The case ought to go be fore them, and the petition ought not to be received. He would move that the petition be not received. Mr. O'CONNELL could not agree to such a proposition —any petition should be received which came from any part of the population. If claims were good, the Revising Barrister was endowed with power enough to decide upon the claim, and therefore it ought not to come before this House. Mr. GO ULB URN said that this petition did not complain that certain persons had been placed on the list of voters who were not duly qualified, but the petitioners com plained that, after the list of voters had been made up by the overseers and sent in to be printed, certain persons had got their names surreptitiously introduced iota the list of voters which ought never to have appeared there. He hoped the House would not reject the petition, but order it to lie on the table. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the prayer of this petition could not be granted, as the House ought not t, interfere with the right of voting unless where there was a gross violation of the law. It might be said of this petition that carte cub judice lis est. If the names were improperly inscribed, they Would be rejected by the Revising Barrister; and if any names had been improperly omitted, they would he inserted. The House ought not to interfere to violate the privileges of the people. An LION. ME>u o said that the overseers knew nothing at all of the names having been inserted in the list. He would not go into the subject, but he thought it rather odd that a burying ground should have furnished fifteen claimants, amongst whom the Member fur Marylebone was 07. - , to vote for the county of Middlesex. The Ca were never so prolific.--(Great laughter. \ -H (I nean teeth He supposed that henceforth they would be called :de spectre -voters, and the Hon. Member opposite "7:utd be called the Spectre Member for Marylebone. — Great laughter.) 4 The C P _.:tNCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saw no ob , "":,ton to the receiving of this petition, as the House allowed a a reat latitude in receiving petitions, but what they should afterwards do with it was a totally distinct thing. • Lord SANDON hoped some explanation would take place. It appeared that parties not overseers had contrived to thrust in names for publication, which none but overseers had a right to do. Mr. H. L. BULWER said the only question was, had these persons claimed to vote in an Mega' and improper man ner? And he thought no evidence of that had been laid before the House. Mr. WA KL E Y said it seemed to excite surprise that 15 persons should register out of a burying ground in Marylebone, but in Westminster there was a pretty building in the Strand, called E'etdr Hall, out of which no less than 63 Conservative votes had been registered.—( Hear, and a laugh. ) Sir T. FREMA NT L E said the question could have been set at rest in five minutes, if any of the 42 persons alluded to bad come forward and stated that they had sent in their claim, to be registered. None of them having done so, he must say that it was evident the names had been introduced illegally and surreptitiously. The petition Was then laid on the table. The Marquis of CHANDOS presented a petitif;„ f rom a parish in Buckinghamshire against the Poor 1.7,,rs Amendment Bill. Mr. WA KLEY supported the - prayer of the petition. Mr. ROBINSON postpor:. e d his motion relative to the Rus sian Treaty to Thursday - ,,ext. UNSTA:APED NEWSPAPERS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted the House would allow the lion. Member for Bath to present a petition of wl'f, e h he had given notice, and in which a direct charge was made against the Government. The petition could !lot oc presented in the usual course, as several other matters had precedence; but as it involved a charge against the Go vernment, he hoped that charge would not be allowed to re main unanswered. Mr. ROEBUCK then rose to present the petition which was from an individual named William Lovett, complaining of the seizure of his press and printing materials. He should state the circumstances as briefly as possible. It appeared that two persons named Hetherington and Cleave, had judgments issued against them, arising out of convictions for selling un stamped newspapers. These judgments had remained some months hanging ovcr,when the government took active steps and its officers entered certain premises which they be lieved belonged to certain individuals—seized and carried off the press, types, and printing materials, which in fact belonged to the petitioner. He did not complain of the Government carrrying the law into execution—he did not complain of the law heing enforced for the protection of stamped newspapers, but what he complained of was, theat the Government, wishing to punish persons for one Act, had had recourse to the law enacted for the punishment of another. In the year 1795, a law was passed for the suppression of cor responding societies, which enacted that all printing presses not registered by a Magistrate of the district were liable to be seized upon. It happened that the parties to whom this press belonged had not registered it, and the Government wishing to reach Hetherington, and Cleave, said, we will take p o s sess i on o f thi s p ress i n vir tue of the law which had been passed in 1795. He (Mr. Roebuck) had been given to understand, but he would not vouch for the fact, that a large portion of the printing presses of the metropolis were not registered . It appeared then that the law had s l e pt, an d t h at t h e Government, wishing to punish the persons who bad broken the Stamp Act had seized upon this press which had been employed in print , ing unstamped publications, and had punished parties for one act by a law passed for punishing another. The Act might be legal, but it was not justifiable, for it was his (Mr. R's.) opinion that no person should be punished until he had been tried and convicted. Here was a law passed in unfortunate times by an unfortunate Minister—one who cared nothing for the liberties of England, and who had done more to disgrace and dishonour the country than any other individual. Here was an Act, passed by Mr. Pitt for the suppression of discussion and the establishment of despotism, which after having slept for 36 years, had been called forth and vivified and brought into action by a liberal government. This law he (Mr. R.) contended was not in accordance with the jurisprudence of England. In his opinion it was more in accordance with that of another country, where a monstre proces now disgraces humanity. He should . be the last person to compare his Majesty's Government to a French Procureur-Generale ; but it was an act emanating in si milar feelings, and somewhat the same spirit--( Hear.) The seizure in this case was one, not in the viudica tion of the law, but as a punishment. The Right Ho nourable Chancellor of the Exchequer had been led into a difficulty, as now he was obliged to be incon sistent, because he was not able to put the law into full force.—(Hear.) In the same Bill there was a clause which subjected the lender of every newspaper to a penalty. Every day this law was broken, and yet the Right Hon. Chancel lor would talk of vindicating the law. He was prepared to hear such a statement made, but there was something still more in this case. There was in the same Bill a clause which required that every lender of a stamped newspaper should be licensed, and it was therefore the law that all clubs should be licensed. He had been in the constant habit of breaking the law every day, and wherefore was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Attor ney-General, should have been so long quiescent? Were they consistent in letting the law be broken in one instance, and let it go on in any other instance. The Honour able Gentleman knew as well as he did, that the laws of Pitt were not made for the prosecution of the unstamped, but for the punishment of the stamped newspapers, which spoke in any way against the wishes of the Government—that was a fact well known. Ho believed that the present Ministry was in a position to do more good to the people of England than an , y other class of persons eristing. For this he suppo r t e d them. numble as that support might b e , an d anyt hi ng which should diminish their power > would give him great pain, as it would diminish their usefulness. Ile therefore pressed upon their consideration not to throw away the support of the people, by which alone they could carry their good intentions into effect, by which alone they could withstand the immense force brought against them—by which alone they could stem the tide that was setting indirectly against their very existence as Ministers—when they wanted popularity more than ever—he implored them at this moment not to cast off the great body of the people and deny them justice. They might be cramped and crippled from the belief that the Exchequer would suffer; but he believed that if they did away with the whole of the stamp duties the Exchequer would then be quite as full as ever. Ile pressed this subject the more upon their coonsideration when the people—he meant the poorer part of the people—were deprived by the Corporation Bill, which he hoped soon to see returned to that House, in the shape in which it had left, from mixing in the manage ment of Corporation property.—( Hear.) The people at present were willing to support his Majesty's Govern ment, whilst their enemies were powerful, constant, and ever arrayed against them. He again pressed upon them the, evil of grinding down those who supported them, and by whom alone they were able to maintain their places—he meant the people. He implored them not to sever the tics that bound them to the people, but to take their petitions and their wants into con sideration. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after a few observations, which were inaudible, said, tkat with respect to the question before the House, he wished to distin. gtnsh it from the great question of the policy or impolicy of the Stamp Duty. (LEFT SPEAKING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Earl of SHAF rEsaray took his seat on the Woolsack a ten minutes before live o'clock. MUNICIPAL REFORM. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from a place, the name of which we could not catch, against the Mu nicipal Reform Bill. The Duke of G RA FTON presented a petition from Bury St. Edmunds in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill. THE WESTSTMINSTER PETITION. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said he had a petition to present from the inhabitants of Westminster in favour of the Municipal Corporation Bill. The petitioners expressed an anxious desire that the Bill should not be mutilated, or its effi ciency taken away. The moment the petitioners heard of any thing like an appearance of delay in the progress of the Bill, they met at the British Coffee House, and they had scarcely announced the meeting before the Room was crowded to excess, and hundreds of persons collected out side, so anxious were all to testify their approbation of the measure. Their Lordships, he thought, in determining to hear evidence had lost a great deal of time ; they had been doubt lessly much amused by the statements of Counsel, and also by the manner in which the Town-clerks of the different boroughs had given their evidence. He (the Marquis of West meath) thought that they were the very last persons that Counsel should have advised their Lordships to call to give evidence. They were the persons of all the most inclined to give favourable evidence for the Corporations, because upon the existence of the Corporations their own existence depended. He could not for the life of him sec any necessity for hearing evidence. It must be in the recollection of their Lordships that they did one of the most important things they ever could do, namely, suspend the Habeas Corpus Act without hearing a single witness.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis in conclusion stated that so important a measure should be allowed to pass without any further delay. The Duke of WELLINGTON, after looking at the peti tion, observed that it was only signed by the Chairman. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER was aware of that fact, but be begged to state that thousands attended the meeting. The Duke of WELLINGTON—That might be so, but still the Noble Marquis must know, that in that House the THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1835. petition was only the petition of the individual signing it. The Duke of CUMBERLAND observed that the Noble Marquis was in error, as to the number of days the House had been occupied in evidence. ,I",!The Marquis of WESTMINSTER—At any rate great delay has taken place in the proceeding of the Bill. liThe Duke of WELLINGTON—The delay is only from Monday to Saturday. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER—The Bill would have been through the House ten days earlier, had it not been for the course adopted. The Duke of WELLINGTON thouebt of such public importance ev • u a 111CaSure essentially j step ought to be taken that was - , * 46 " ... SCOTCH CHURCH COMMISSION. IThe Earl of ABERDEEN, after presenting a petition from Paisley in favour of the Church of Scotland, begged to call the attention of the Noble Marquis opposite to a few facts connected with the Church Commission appointed to enquire into the Church of Scotland. The nomina tion of that Commission bad been received by the people of Scotland with great alarm, many of its members being persons who professed what was called the voluntary system, who bad published works recommending those princi ples. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) thought Mini , qers were not friends of the Church to appoint such men, and he trusted the Noble Viscount would take the subject seriously into consideration. Lord MELBOURNE defended the conduct of the Com missioners, and observed, had not the Commissioners been corn posed of such men as the Noble Lord had adverted to, he should Clink it ill calculated to discharge the duties it had to perform. The Earl of MINTO was attached to the Scotch church, and supported the petition, believing that church to be as safe as ever she was. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that many persons had expressed their alarm at the eottipnition of this Corn iression, and he trusted the Noble Viscount would liy the A C F report of that Commi ss i on upon the shortly. o F l o t PAR A T I Lord S (. .)1 ,- 4 REFORM. Tit presented a petition from Poole in favour of the C- ,,.potation Reform 13i11. The petitioners coin plained tl• the Corporation of Poole consisted of a Mayor 7..:1 four Magistrates, who were permanent, self-elected, and all related, and partners in business. This petition was signed by 700 persons. Lord EL LENBOROUG H said, as their Lordships had declined hearing any more evidence against the Bill, they should not hear any more in favour of it.—(Laughter.) Lord RA DNOR could not see either the wisdom or the justice of the remark made by the Noble Baron who had just sat down, and he hoped their Lordships would abstain from discussions upon every petition offered in favour of the Bill, for they would be so numerous, he believed, that if their Lord ships wished to put off the Bill by delay they could accomplish their purpose that way. The petition he rose to present was from Gravesend, in favour of the Bill, signed by 360 persons, of whom 10 are members of the Corporation. The Noble Lord also presented another petition to the same effect from Rochester, signed by 1,162 individuals, at a public meeting held on Friday, which the opposite party attempted to defeat, by publishing a hand-bill, about an hour before the time of meeting, stating that it was postponed. Among those who :signed it were 104 Municipal Freemen. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY brought up the 15th report of the Comm!ssioners for building Churches. Lord LONSDALE presented a petition from Carlisle against the Corporation Reform Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the city of Oxford, in favour of the Bill, and complaining of the state ments made by the witnesses at the bar of the House, which they were ready to rebut and disprove. It was signed by a great number of tradesmen, booksellers, printers, paper manufacturers, watch makers, &c. The Noble Lord also pre sented petitions to the same effect from Beverley, Warrington, Newport (Isle of Wight) and Bristol. Lord DACRE presented a petition from Yeovil to the same effect, and explained that a petition from Devizes, pre sented last week, was in favour and not against the Bill, as had been erroneously stated in some of the public papers. MANCHESTER PETITION. Lord MELBOURNE then rose to present the petition of which he had given notice, from Manchester, in favour of the Municipal Corporation Bill. The Noble Viscount stated, that the petition had been signed by upwards of 22,832 persons in the short space of ten hours. His Noble and Learned Friend had stated ample reasons why in the presentation of petitions their Lordships should confine themselves to stating shortly the facts connected with them. The petition was signed by the greater portion of the respect able inhabitants of Manchester, which, to his mind, and which he thought to the mind of their Lordships, would show the ne cessity of this great and important measure. Lord BROUGHAM had been requested to support the petition. The reason, and the only reason, why the peti tioners did not adopt that, which certainly was the beat and the most usual course, namely, calling a meeting, was than there was not time to call or give notice of a public meeting.—(Cheers.) So urgent did the petitioners consider the case. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that as the Noble Lord seemed to have attached so much importance to the petition by giving notice of it,.he thought it right to read a letter he had received from a good Conservative of Manchester, stating the improper manner in which the petition had been got up. The letter stated that the Radicals of the town were getting up a petition in favour of the Corporation Bill, in consequence of the spirited majority of the House of Lords, The petition was got up by putting tables at the corner of the streets, and persons who could hardly sign their names, men and boys, were requested to sign, and if they stated their inability to do the person who stood at the table signed for them. The writer then went on to say, that he trusted his Grace would state the circumstances to the House of Lords. Such, continued the writer, had been the effect of the con duct of the blessed House of Commons.—( A laugh.) The Noble Dnke observed that the writer was not a great scho lar—(Laughter),—but still his statements were to be relied upon. (LEFT SPEAKING.) The Memorial from Manchester (which will be found in another column) was presented to Lord Melbourne this afternoon, at three o'clock, by the De putation who brought the petition from Manchester to the Lords, praying them to pass the Corporation Reform Bill without mutilation or delay, and were most graciously received. They were accompanied in the presentation of it by the Right Hon. C. Poulett Thomson, M.P., Mark Philips, Esq., M.P., Joseph Brotherton, Esq., M.P., Richard Potter, Esq., M.P., Charles Hindley, Esq., M.P., and C. J. S. Walker, Esq. • PRICES OF CANALS, DOCK STOCKS, ASSURANCE COMPANIES, &c. &c. &c. LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 7. Number Dividend Pece of rcir CANALS. per Shares. Ann Um. Paid. Snare. 1,71 , 0 61 per cent. Ashton and Oldham...:Average 97g. 18s, sh. 160 1,482 61, Ashby de.le-Zouch .. Average 110/, sh, 65 4'261 Basingstoke l6O/. sh. 51 1,0)5 54 Breeknock -rn) Abergavenny 110 . sh. P 5 4,00 tish. EY. 101. Birmingham, i share 171. 10s. 248 4,00 q Ditto and Liverpool Junct....it.o/. sh. all pd Be) Bridgewater and Taunton ...,1001. sh. all pd lit • 400 . ti. Chelmer and 13lackwater .. lOOl. alt. 102 SOO 421. Coventry 'ON. sh. 4,5'6 Croydon Avertvge 311.45. 10d, sh. 2,06411 31. 10s. Dudley 61,0 6/. Drtby 1001. sh. 120 3,5751 Ellesmere and Chester Average 1331. sh. 69 231 4 , 1:. Erewash O ,l. sh. 483 1,3,7 c-W.: Forth anti Cl)* . t ..... Average 1004 l! , s. sh. 6th 11=1„501 ,,, 121; , lkantl - .Tnnetionti.....:,. 'ii 12' 4 str. - F-2,1, .- sTir• '• ' Grand Union ' ' ' .. . • littsh. -24 1.5 1' Grand Surrey 120,0001. 4/. per cent. Ditto (optional) Loan lOO4 73 3,1 , 06 Grand Western 600 134 Es. 58. Glamnrgansh i re, Average cost 172/. 13s, 48. 280 1,1160 Gloucester and Berkley 19114 at!. 141 719 10s. Grantham -1504 eh. 2(1 6,238 1/. 10s. Iluddersti. Id Average 571. 6s. 68. sh. 34 100 Kclieltigt.,n 25,333 I/. K.crinct and Avon, Average 394 Bs. 10d. sh. 201 2;8161 21 , 4 Leeds and Liverpool ..... . o ...... ~101, 1 . sh, 525 515 124 Leicester 907 41, Lett:Teter and Northampton... Aver 634 11)s. SO 550 54 per cent. Liskeard and IA)oe Union 25/. sh. all pd. 25 70 1411, Lought.orough Average 1421. 17s. oh. 1020 2,409 11. Monmouthshire ...........................1011(, eli. 180 250 94 Melton Mowbray IN/ sh. IS :0 5 1 '0 2.34 Mersey and Irwell lOO4 sh, 56) 3,1 . 00 Macclesfield lOW. oh all pd, 56 247 - 15/. Neat h 100/, sh 100 Nene Navigation Bonds ...11411. sh. UT/. pd. 100 1,7,4; 3.24 Oxford lO4, sh, 610 522 2/. Oakharn l3O/ Mi. :,8 2,400 41. Peak Forest .. Average about 181. sh, 106 21,418 14s. Regent's (or London) Aver. 33/. 11$. ed. sh, 151 5,n , 11 M. per cent. llochdale Average 851. sh. 541 500 84. Shropshire 1251. ..b. 110 800 104 Somerset Coal 1504 sh. 1(13 45,1004 61 iwr cent. Ditto Lock Fond Stock ..... ....... 12/ :Os. sh. 121 700 36/. Stafford and Worcester l4 1 sh. 690 500 114 Shrewsbury ,.,,,1251 sli, 2421 300 84 Stourbridge 3,6-17 1/. IN. Stratford.on.Av .I.... Average 79/. 9s Sd. al. r,tl 533 134 Swansea 100/. oh. 206 :1,762 14 Severn and Wye and Railway ...Av IV. sh. 2,60. 2 st ,, 324 10s. Trent anti Mersey, 1 share Mt sh. 6 25 8,110 ... ...... Thames and Medway...Aver. UPI. ss. Bd. sh. 2 1;000:11.7 , s , Warwick and Birmingham 100/. sh. 2,80 "(6::::.5 3i s . 10. Worcester and Birmingham...A v. 7811. t. s s 1 1 : . 218 86 040 12,. Warwick and Napton 21, ea) hs• Wilts and Ben .. Average 101. 17$. 84.1. sh. 5 to) 6/. Wyrley and Essington 1254 sh 75 126 Wisbejch lO5/. sh. 45 905 l/ Wey and Arun llO/. sh. 221 DOCKS. 2 ' 600 8 ' I3p. C. Commercial ' 100/. sh. CO 1,065;5h Stock 4 Stock 571 . ' 1 .3 9 ;238 '( ,:37( 1 )i. '..!/ . ..g . ..);. ct. L E Ditto Bonds o as n t d l o n n clia 103 1,390,0004 54 per ct. West India 2,109 3/. 6s. 4,1. Bristol Average 1471. L , 2. sh. 61,3241. 51. per cent. Ditto Notes, various amounts ..., ........... ii , 1.952,752 3 per cent. St. Katharine Stock 70 500,000 41 per cent. Ditto Bonds .................. 1041 200,000 4 i•er cent. Ditto Bonds for 10 yea is. .......................... 104 Shoreham Harbour BRIDGES. 2571 ~60) 14 Hammersmith 5Ol, A. 23 7,231 Southwark, Old Av. 63/. ' - 'B. 8 t i - . • 611, , 24 1,700 1/. 15s. Ditt o , N ew , of 71 per cent. ......... . 504 sh. 15 5,000 .... . 4 t 1.... Waterloo lOO l. sh. 24 5,000 Is. Ditto, Old Annuities 0184 ,(504 ix) 425 5,000 193. :3d. Ditto, New Ditto of 71 404 pd 22 Albion 60,0004 51. per cent. Ditto Bonds ........................... . ........ ... .. 118 6,000 14 Vauxhall Average 701. 103. 3d. Id,: 221 , ASSURANCE COMPANIES. 500/ sh • • 504 pd 76i 50 2 ,^^^1 ° L C 5 a Pe3i n r d i°' 7: l . t: } Alliance British & Foreign 1004 sh. 104 Pd hp. 50,000 6 per cent. Ditto, Marine 1004 sh. 54 pd 51 24,000 I'. per s h. Atlas 1,200;54, 44 Birmingham Fire r, 12,000 514 per cent. rritish Commercial pd 6, j 5,00() ,5/. per Cent, Cl er i ca l , kttsdieel, kc. Life...looi j5Ol 611 2110 s pd 31 SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Doubtless, when the Duke or Wellington cried " Hold, enough," and proposed to close the evidence against the Municipal Reform Bill, he perceived the double blunder which his Rarty had rot - 11;1 1 .40 1 0 lb sisting on tlie hearing. With very Carious dexterity, by the same proceediil, they exposed the virulence o f their De— - anti the rottennW of their c.ese—they thusL pee. the peOpkl Warning of 'Melt eVil intentions, and time to make such demonstrations of opinion as might defeat them, The old soldier was the first to see that this h a d b een a false manceuvre, the 'Fabian tactics being quite unsuited to the case of a hostile people mustering into masses. The Duke had the sa gacity to discover, that ‘vhile the Town Clerks were prating to no purpose but to make the Lords ridicu lous, the gathering cry "to the rescue,'' had gone forth, and the toiiiitry was stirring. The great Cap talli Must too late have seen that the vastly ctinn . ng device of his party had just had the effect of serving for a beat to arms to P. hostile population. The expe dient fot delay had no other effect than to call out the people against the spirit it manifested. The Duke would now fain close the opportunity for the expression of public opinion in favour of the pending measure ; but the people will see the wisdom of following up their success, and making the most of the time before them. They may be assured that the Duke was not so soon sick of hearing town-clerks, but of hearing the loud and imposing voice cf the people at the public meetings, which were so promptly held. The town-clerks would have been suffered to laud their Corporations till Christmas, but for the voice that was rising out of the House. Had the country slumbered, the evidence would have been pro tracted till the moment arrived when, emboldened by the appearance of public indifference, the Lords felt that they could venture to fling out the Bill. The ac tivity and zeal already displayed by the people have made this experiment recoil, as we foresaw it would ; but we must not stop here ; there must be no repose, no relaxation of exertion upon this partial success. The enemy falters—there is division in his ranks—and some more spirited charges of public opinion might now secure the victory, with its important fruits. Meet, we say, and manifest opinion up to the very last hour, and everywhere do what can be done quickly. —Morning Chronicle. A strong case of partiality, to give it the mildest term, has been established at the bar of the House of Lords last week, by the evidence adduced there against the Municipal Corporations Commissioners, in their mode of collecting information. In many cases it has been proved that statements charging Corporations with corrupt practices, have found their way into the Commissioners' reports, without any coatradiction, al though they were flatly and unequivocably denied at the time they were advanced ? Is this fair ? Why should the Commissioners seek to feed prejudices, which are already prolific enough ? But it would seem that they had some end in view, which could scarcely have occurred to each and all, unless their at tention had been previously directed to it. Abuses in abundance exist in all human institutions, without having recourse to fancied ones ; and had the Com missioners confined their inquiries to the former, they need not have dwelt so much upon the latter. As the matters now rests, the Commissioners stand committed. Let any impartial person look through the evidence of last week, and such, we are persuaded, will be his conviction. Then, with respect to the allegations that were strikingly put forth by parties favourable to the Bill with its present provisions, accusing the House of Lords with endeavouring to retard its progress, or get rid of it by a side-blow ; let the facts be fairly stated, and these charges will scattered to the winds. The Duke of Wellington's candid avowal of the object which lie and those who thought with him had in the course pursued, is a refutation of such calumnies. From what _we stated on a former day, our readers will be prepared to learn that the evidence was brought to a termination on Saturday, notwithstanding some " oracular" statements which had been industriously circulated, that the investigation then carrying on at the bar would continue for months, and the Session would be prolonged to a very unusual period of the year. Much yet, however, remains to be done in Committee, but the progress of the Bill will not be impeded, more than requisite to effect those improve ments which it is presumed will be made by their Lordships. Of the principle of the Bill, we have nothing to add, " Nihil dictum quod non dictum pries;" and as to its detail, some of the objectionable parts will be lopped off, no doubt, in the next stage of the Bill—viz., in the Committee, which is fixed for Wednesday.—Morning Herald. The Government, so called Constitutional, of Louis Philippe is said by all those who take an interest in [ its continuance, to have originated in an experiment made by the monarchy which preceded it, and of which the purpose was to try how much insult and oppression the people of France would endure from their go ' vernors without effectual resistance. But Govern ments are known to be imitative animals, and we find accordingly that Louis Philippe and his counsellors, encouraged as well by the example of Charles X., as by the continued proofs of popular confidence and favour which they have been in the habit of expe riencing from the only recognized organ of opinion in their country—to wit, the public press—have an nounced their intention of turning to account the recent .attack upon the lives of the King and his family, rejecting the proffered affections of the people, which seem to have been resuscitated by that event after a long suspension, and trying how much more extensively than ever they can create and spread among the people such sentiments of implacable hatred and disgust as those which might have been supposed to provoke the criminal enterprise of the assassin Fieschi, and how slender a safeguard they can leave themselves against treachery in the respect, esteem, or gratitude of the nation. We have already our opinion, that the in tended but disappointed murder of the King was a golden opportunity for reconciling the Royal Govern ment to the liberal portion of the Erench people, for endearing the dynasty of Louis Philippe, and esta blishing him and it in - the hearts of the whole Torrimu nity. A different course; however,' has tie•.i pursued. The confidence of Frenchmen has been repelled, their affections have been spurned, their fears have been ap pealed to, their dignity as rational creatures is to be outraged, and the first right of man as an intellectual being—that of freely expressing his thoughts, and communicating his opinions to his fellow-citizens in society—is to be inexorably crushed. The pro visions of the law against the press, which were detailed in the Times of Friday last and Saturday, arc perfectly frightful for their despotic and atro cious violence. A powerful and civilized people are treated as if no man among them could open his lips without betraying a secret on which depends the ex istence of the Monarchy. All discussions of the affairs of Government arc capable of being construed into an attack upon the principle or form of the Government, and made punishable by an enormous fine, and by perpetual imprisonment. All advantages derivable to the subject from the publicity of trial by jury are abo lished—nay, the offences, or what the Government may please to call offences, of the press, are withdrawn from the jurisdiction of a jury, and at the option of the Courtiers turned over to an inquisition of Peers, com posed of Ministerial creatures. An editor, convicted through such machinery of one offence, is to be incapa ble ever afterwards of exercising his literary profession. To deride (that is, to joke about) the King or his au thority may be punished with 4001. fine, and with a five i mprisonment. A censorship is to be restored for emblems, and theatrical pieces. A person p .s • tran sportedyerial7' may be sent to Africa or elsewhere. The King's name must never be introduced in any pe.- 11601 discussion. The mere verbal expression of a republican or Carlist sentiment subjects the party to imprisonment. It mere endless to go on. No English agine a state of things like this ; ti al pposed that a people like the French, who Government of Louis Philippe on the ruins of a less 05ensive tyranny than that of which established t i n n a we have now hinted o , in their own creature an aggra vationl a few of the characteristics, will e o nti of e to th e t o: y e s ra te t i e nt i l k i - ey oised him to the Throne ? wi :ose entire overthrow was the 1) 1 1 ' i c s ba li en e d the Tl . be thus annihilated, will solo with equal efficacy to epd for whipl Ilut if writing and spat cb: thesponge or gag be applicl pas,!ien and tc thought If clamour be silenced, will the low whisper' of .!/e_ stifled through the same, pressure ?If the lips be closed, the ba n d b e irrecoverably paralyzed ? It is vain, it argues l'ttitM stupidity to expect it. The effect of it will be to iHreotti ir‘to a thousand—to make twelve Julys in the year instead rate impulses throughout the whole mind of France which never can be satiated but with blood in torrents. If dpintoii put tivwn, if r.accition be withered, if national pride be outraged universally, and force be, as it is announced to be, the sole remaining principle of dcrttit!ir_i!! 3 why then a state of civil polity is thrown back into a state of sdifriguntlo3re ; and when the many arc told that the strongest only has t. rigllt to govern, will they not exclaim, " Then let us try who the strongest ?" The sword is a game that more than one can play at, and none are better aware of the truth than Frenchmen, who have gam within =l5 years seven or eight successive Governments, each essaying to rule by force, and each destroyed ky it in turn.—Times. Whether from alarm, causal by the movement of the millions—from shame at the contempt and ridicule winch their proceedings were exciting throughout the empire—from their weariness of the task they had im posed on themselves—or from all causes combined— the Lords have apparently, for the present, closed the evidence of the Corporators, as may be seen by our report. of Saturday's debate. Lord Brougham informed the House that he had a petition from a most nume rous and respectable body of persons in Bristol, pray ing permission to be heard at the bar, and pledgin , ' themselves to disprove the allegations of the Counsel, and the evidence which had been brought forward in favour of the Corporation of that city ; but his Lord ship stated he would content himself with reading the petition, as otherwise were the prayer granted, there would be no end to petitions of a similar kind. The tone of the Tory Lords was immediately changed, and though in a previous part of the sitting a hope was audibly expressed that " Melbourne would cut the concern"—Lord Ellenborough—Earl Wicklow —and the Duke of Wellington—assented to the Bill being committed on Wednesday next. There are numerous rumours afloat with regard to amendments which are to be proposed, such as pre serving the franchise to all the existing Corporatore— preventing Dissenters from interference with matters concerning the Established Church—introducing or thodox tests, &c.—but nothing is positively determined on. In fact, the fate of the Bill in the hereditary por tion of the Senate does not rest on its intrinsic merit, but on the effect which external pressure may make on the Peers. The following meetings about to be held in favour of the Bill, must no doubt have a salutary operation. The Electors. of London meet on Wed nesday ; Lambeth this day ; Liverpool this day also ; St. Pancras Wednesday ; Tower Hamlets, 'South wark, and the parishes of Clerkenwell, Chelsea, St. George-in-the-East, St. Andrew,. Holborn, St. Giles in-the-Fields, &c. &c., have also resolved to muster against the corporate plunderers.—Morn. Advertiser. The report of the proceadings on Saturday in the House of Lords will show our readers how little respect the present Ministers of the Crown and their most active supporters have to the solemn obligation of an oath, or to the legal liabilities which are involved in that solemn sanction, when lent to any statement which can be proved to be untrue. Of all the features of the atrocious proceeding of the present Go vernment with respect to Corporations, perhaps the most disgusting is the attempts, cowardly and in direct as they have been, to bolster up the Report of the hired Commissioners in opposition to the evidence of honest men, given* under a sanction .the most solemn that religion - can supply, and the most awful that law can require. Why have not the Lords Melbourne and•' Brougham had the manly candour to avow that, after the evidence given at the bar of the House of Lords, the volumes of slander published under the authority of the Corpo ration Cominissioners must pass for nothing ? Why have they endeavoured" by little dirty manoeuvres during the progress and at the conclusion of the examination, to skreen the Commissioners who cannot be rescued ? Why have they acted as if they had lost all sense of the distinction between legal evidence for which respec table men have made themselve responsible, and the idle tattle of country towns for which nobody is responsible ? The reason is plain enough. The Commission was a profligate job, and Lord Melbourne, who was Secretary of State for the Home Department at the period when it was issued, cannot acknowledge its real character—the Commission was an illegal job, and Lord Brougham, who was Lord Chancellor at the period when it was issued, and who is more strictly responsible for its legality than any other man, cannot bring himself to acknowledge frankly that he was ignorant or careless of the law. The House of Lords, as it appears to us, have now a duty to perform anterior to that of entering upon any public discussion of the Corporation Bill. They have closed the examination of witnesses upon the express ground that what they have heard is sufficient. Sufficient for what ? Not, perhaps, to induce them to throw out the Municipal Corporations Bill altogether; not, perhaps, sufficient to compel them to despair of making out of that Bill a useful and beneficial measure ; but suf ficient at least (for otherwise it is entirely insuf ficient) for the purpose of convincing their Lordships that the report of the Corporation Commissioners now upon their table, and which was certainly placed there in order that it should influence more or less the de cision of their Lordships, is utterly discredited and overthrown ; that it is worth positively nothing : that their Lordships cannot justly or conscientiously enact anything with that report before them which they would not equally have enacted liad no such report and no such Commission ever been in existence. The first duty of their Lordships, then, appears to us to be to clear away all ambiguity from their future course ; to let the world know upon what principles and with re ference to what description of evidence they mean to proceed ; to mark their moral disapprobation of syste matic jobbing and systematic falsehood ; to record upon their journals, in short, the opinion which they cannot but have formed, that the Report of the Corporation Commissioners is in no respect, and in no portion of its contents, worthy of the least belief ; that it ought to be regarded as a non-existent thing, or a thing which, if remembered at all, ought to .be remembered as a document the language of which is to be construed in a sense the most opposite to its apparent meaning—in which censure is to be read as praise, and praise as censure. Such a declaration on the part of the House of Lords would he a fitting conclusion to the evidence it has heard, and an appropriate homage to the cause of truth, justice, and honour. A declaration to the effect we have just stated is the more necessary, as some one or two of their Lordships—Lord Melbourne and Lord Brougham, for example—affect to believe that petitions which they have to present, and which they say con tradict some parts of the evidence given at the bar, ought to be regarded as an equipoise to that evidence. Lord Brougham and Lord Melbourne know how peti tions are got up ; they know that their contents are prepared much in the same manner as the testimony out of which the Corporation Commissioners have manufactured their ponderous and costly volumes of Report. Is it candid, just, or honourable on the part of these Noble Lords to speak as they do of the petitions which they have to present, and which con tradict the evidence given upon oath attheir Lordships' bar—evidence unopposed, evidence of which the House prohibit the further accumulation, with the full concurrence of Lord Melbourne and Lord Brougham, on the express and simple ground that their Lordships as a body are already satisfied by what it has proved ? What man, we will again ask, that attaches any value to the obligation of an oath, what man that pays any regard to legal or moral sanctions of any kind—what man that is not prepared to disorganize the country, and demoralize its population in the gross—could for one moment, or for any purpose whatever, compare the'au thority of petitions (knowing, above all, so well as Lord Melbourne and Lord Brougham cannot fail to know, how petitions to Parliament are manufac tured) with the sworn testimony of respectable witnesses, solemnly given at the bar of the House of Lords ? The outrage upon public decency and public morals to which we have alluded it behoves the House of Lords to repel, and, if that also were pos sible, to resent. But their Lordships cart at least repe it. They may declare by resolution that the evidence , given at their Saar, is the only evidence in respect to the. character and past conduct of Corporations to which, vr,ity..lstcntly with their duty, they can pay any atten tion, or to which they can permit reference to be made in the course of awl!. debates. It is, in truth, the only evidence in existence. The slanders which the Commissioners were hired tocollect against Cor porations, and which have been printed, by order of Government, at the expense of he conntry, pos sess none of die characteristics of evidence. The sllegations contained in petitions, by whcinsoevet got up nod signed, and still less the allocations contained in petitions got up and signed by the very men who in. the different towns of England and Wales assisted the Corporation Commissioners in the o.Aection of their slanderous and worthless volumes , possess none of the characteristics of evidence. There is, we repeat, no evidence whatever Oil the subject other than that which has been received at the bar of the House of Lords. There is in this case no con flict of testimony, for the evidence is all on one sine. But there is an attempt to set up in opposition to this evidence the irresponsible and reckless slanders of Commissioners, and of mobs equally regardless of truth., and equally unworthy of belief. This attempt is made in the House of Lords, and their Lordships will do less than the duty which they owe to the laws, the morals, and the institutions of the country, if they neglect to show by a prompt and decisive reso lution that, to whatever shifts individual Members may be driven by the wretched peculiarity of their position, the House of Lords, as a body, respect the principle of evidence, the virtue of truth, and the sanc tity of oaths.—Morning Post. THE MARKETS. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING LAST WEEK• Bean;, Pease •. to s 3t To 34 _ -- 7_ 40 i. 0 0 0 0 on u 0 00 0 0 00 Ot) ° 9 00 0° 00 00 70 BCI3 00 ° n 0 Otf W heat. I Barley. I Oats. Fer Quart?r. C I I,xlLon.-----.. M irneth Pon ri th S'r (field Winchester 35 41 29 34 :25 23 Per Bushel. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. ! S. d. s. d. Carmarthen 5 6 6 0 3 2 3 3 2 0 2 8 Cowbridge —.—. 0 0 7fi 2 8 ou, 2 6 0 0 Newcastle (Stall.) 8 0 8 9 4 0 50, 3 . 0 3 4 Northallerton 7 0 9 3 3 6 461 3 3 4 0 Stone , 80 8 6 4 0 48, 30 34 Swansea ----.—. 6 6 6 9 3 0 3 4 2 9 3 n Warwick 3(1 90 30 4 (ii 2 03 s. to s. 5. to s. ! 15 , 31 4.1 132 $3 4C 45 26 !..`3 , 411— s. to s. - Per Roll. Barnarticastle 9 6 11 6 Durham----. 9 6 10 6 Richmond 9 6 13 0 Stockton ----- 9 0 10 ti 8 0 861 9 80, 80 86 8 9 /I I 1:5 .26 23 27 S. ki 36 - 4R 5(1 49 73 44 8 it 40 54 32 ;;; 42 44 s. ti. B. d 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 50 s :;' 5 6 6 60 6 ; 00 00 56 60 8 6 10 e 77 90 9 6 10 (11 80 BCI WAKEFIELD CORN mARKEr —Aug. 7 . Wheat, Bed, Norfolk and ,:,'tflolk s. 3(s. to —s. fine 43, ------ Lin. and Cam...: —6. Mi. to —II fine 425. ----- Yorkshire -s. 375. to —s. fine 435. %V Rite -- Foreign, Red • .... —s. —s. to —s. fine —l. White —S. —B. to —s. nne --11. Barley, Norfolk and Suflblk .... ..„ 30s. to 324. tine 345. Lincolnshire Yorkshire Wold Foreign -e. to —B. fine —1 Beans, Ohl 37," to 41s. fine — 4 . -New Oats, Potato —s. to .2:4. fine 1.13 i. Poland —s. —s. to 245. 4ine 2114. Frieziand and Sma'.l --•:- Mealing Shelling Malt —1 365. fine 425. tier Load. Rapesved ....., SCO' Os 36/. Os. 40!. 08. - per Last. The ; Appli monger• Ll 9 yd, 4 Proar Solieito Kenton. %milk Hall; the ofE, July, Abertican Berwick Coldstream Cupar (Fife Dundee Elgin Inverness Kelso ........ Kirkaldy Perth The si, We had a very rather heavy. First Second Third Wheat. 35 to 40 28 32 25 28 46 56 48 58 40 50 40 41 31 35 37 42 50 56 of the in DINBURG. small suppl) Wheat. 52i. Od 4S 0 43 0 te sales wee RKETS Beans. I Oatme 22 to '25 I - o OM/. `..),) I 9.:1 20 25 16 20 24 26 , 19 21 20 23 20 22 ic s through, MARKET. Is of Grain tc 22 to 37 '" -- -- - 30 31 -- 23 30 32 33 IS 24 25 45 98 43 22 25 ... put the country. .—Aug. 3 D-day, and thi Oats. Pease. Beau , 30a sd. 395. (ki 395. e d ' 27 0 37 0 37 0 . 25 U 31. 0 2s. 7s. 0.1. • Average price of Wheat PRICES OF PROVISIONS, & Beef, per lb. its. 4,1. to Os. 6.1. Fresh Butter, Mutton 0 4 0 6 Salt Ditt0,,.,,,, Veal 0 5 0 8 Ditto, per cwt... 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eggs, per 0 8 Lamb, per qr. 1 6 4 0 OatStraw(kp'.)—... 9 6 0 30 6 Wheat Ditto...— 8 6 Quartern Loaf U 6 0 6-,1 Barley Ditto 6 6 Potatoes, ;lb. 0 5 0 0 Hay, per st.---- 011 lb.-8 10'. to s 10. U 8 0 9 - - ti EDINBURGH MEAL There was a middling supply of U sales wereral her heavy. lil n 0 . 10 a 9 6 7 6 I 0 Per Sack of 28011). First Oatmeal Second ditto., flarleymeat,... ..... I 8 6 Peaseineal 1 8 0 I'ot !owl cwt. GLASGOW CORN N A 'moderate business doing in Wheat, per 2401 b. s. d. a. O. British, oh! 220 to '25 0 new !22 0 25 0 Canada, Free 23 0 26 0 Irish Barley, per 3201 b English — Q Scottish 2511 28 0 Irish L MARKE: F.— Aug. 4. latmeal at this day's market, and the Per Stone of 141 b. Imp. , First Oatmeal £o 2 I' Second ditto ......... 0 11 ~.2 ISarteraleal Peas,ineal 12,-3tl. 14s —4t h, Ili;..—Nta tl, I 8 trAllKEl'.—Aug 5. :rain ; little alteration in pricy. Oats, per •26416, s. a. s.' l ' , Irish lB (0 91 u British l9 0 '-'26 Beans, per 2001 b. English -. 0 -- 0 Scottish Pease, Scottish Oatmeal, per 1401 b lB 0 . .„,:m.' Flour, per 28011) .. 330 ;.A 1 • CORNWALL MARKETS. Calculated at 24 gallons to the bushel.) Wheat. Barley. Oats. , s. d. to s. d. s d. to s. d. s. d. to s. 1, Truro 0 17 0— 0 10 0 0 ' ,- 0 Helstone St. Austell — 0 17 0— (1 9 0— 0 1: Ilodmin Liskeard 0 17 0 0 9 0 0 8 Launceston 0 19 6 0 9 0— 0 0 Camel ford l9 0 21 0 II 0 0 8 0 9 a l Penzance l6 6 18 0 0 II 6 0 8 M I NTI NG INTELLIGENCE. Tons. Cwt. Q rs• ouanti:v of Copper Ore sold 2,804 0 1 P Quantity or f 'le Copper 213 4 0 ouanti:y of CcTpe, Quantity of frle Cf Average Produce, Amount of Sale, 1' 17,522/. Us. Od.—A • 8 verage Standard, 108/. Bs. 01 MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COURT, BASINGHALL-STREET, TO-MORROW. . (From the London Gazette.) H ...t 12 W. Barton, silk-manufacturer, Steward-street, yitaledds . ..... .,,- W. L Grace, orange-merchant, Eastcheap 2 11 .1. Somers, cheesemonger, o , .ford.street c, I . 12 F. Shepley, hop-dealer, Farnham, hop-dealer J. and J. Burrows, cork-cutte s, Piccadilly .1. Me•sley, iringe-manufacturer, Cratibonrne.street 0 11 G. Jones, auctioneers, Leicester-strcet, Leicester-square ..... KEAN'S FIEST SEASON.—In the Course of the season (1814) Kean played sixty-eight nights. The tota l amount of money received at Drury-lane Theatre, on th e sixty-eight nights of his performance, was 32,642/. 12s. 6u ,' (This includes a calculation of 1,700/. only for private boxes .) When he came to the Theatre, the receipts averaged 21 21 per night. During his nights, the general avage was 509/. Pg'. per night ! The largest receipt on the representation of Shylock W2S £s3l 2 0 Ditto of Richard 111. Ditto of Hamlet Ditto of lago 573 6 Dito of Othello And the number of persons who visited the Theatre, on th e sixty-eight nigillo of his performance, was 166,742. The 11- e' suit of the calculation; is, that (subject to Kean's own salasY l the Theatre cleared, by his services alone, during those nigitt 99 upwards of 20,0001-11lirror. - - (AnvERTIsEmENT.)—T. COX SAVORY, GoldsOth' &c., 47, Cornhill, London, informs the Public, that he (AP° DESSERT FRUIT KNIVES and FORKS, with plain jot,' handles, silver ferrules, plated on steel blades, at Three Guines s per dozen pair, or with solid silver blades, at Eight Guineas Atid Half per dozen pair. N.B. Carved ivory handles at 13s. 6(1. extra per dozen pair. B IR Tll. On the 7th inst., at Church-street, Stoke Newington, the w►i B of Mr. Charles Law, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 9th inst., at St. John's, Hoxton, Mr. J. H. Pottle. of the New North-road, surgeon, to Ann Raffe, second daughter of Hinxman, Esq., of Shoreditch. On the 6th inst., at Epsom, Mr. James Butcher, to Eleanor , daughter of the late G. Graham, Esq., of Thornton Heath, n ° Croydon. On the 6th inst., at St. John's, Lewes, the Rev. Theod ore Eclialaz, to Susan, aughter of Thomas Tourle, Esq., of Landport' near Lewes, Sussex. On the 6th inst., at Constantine, Cornwall, John Vizard, of Hampstead, Middlesex, to Mary Leigh, daughter of Char' e- Scott, Esq., of Trewardreva. DIED. On the 6th inst., at Tunbridge Wells, aged 82, Emma, the widow of the late William Chaloner, Esq., of Gisborough, Clete, land, Yorkshire. On the Bth inst., aged 74, John Danvers, Esq., of Burton-stre et ' On the sth inst., at Courland, Wandsworth-road, Jonaths° Sparrow, Esq., in his 85th year. On the 4th inst., Charles Joshua Smith, the son of Mrs. Bartle tt ' of Camberwell-grove. On the 3d inst., Henry, eldest son of the late Henry St. J Ol4 Esq., of Hornsey. On the 3d inst., Mr. Edward Chester, of Mount-row, 3 1 a °11- gate, Lambeth, feather.bedmanufacturer, aged 37. of On the 7th inst., at Lewes, in his 56th year, John Rickman , that place, late of Edinburgh. On the 19th of May, at Zacatecas, Mexico, John Henderson, Esq., of that city, aged 32. On the 7th inst., at Fishponds, near Bristol, Ann, widow of th e late Retc Nathaniel Trotman, aged 81. On the 25th ult., at Ridgway Castle, the seat of James fi de ' Esq., Frederick Stretton, Esq., in his 26th year. On the Bth inst., at Hampstead, Cyril Harrison, the you'l e6 k child of S. George Gardom, Esq., of Hunter-street, Brunswic square, aged 17 months. London Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of 1 4 °' 112, Strand, at The San Office, No. 11`2, Strand, in the coun t / of Middlesex. TCH MA Barley. 2 to 28 18 21 17 18 - 31 30 33 24 26 27 '2B 22 23 31 23 26 , ?azure vari. Ii CORN ] y of all kind; Barley. 24s 6d. 32 0 !28 6 at Cam River to the c of Elie Capital 1. T 1 in Aar, beyond obtainec tive shy of the b the expl Plying f Engine 4 G E 0 Which fc or Irelai this, viz than hot of the a( affixed t N. B. thereby Infori of` bli ART BEAU lz•nth, vcithout tra te , urn th Ptirio se , „C UL 0 ITN ivaininß i ut and Chtr i from In T. tte s of LlQui Dresses, diseolou texture evt.i . 0 Nri lest, nit, and Si bI 5 ( . 14. tre ps no w rurgi, %crof t wh en fully of tai tone IZSp