The Sun. — London, England, 1835-02-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The notification which we copy from last night's Gazette will be read, we are sure, with feelings of high approval and gratification by all true friends of the Church of England, and of the religious, including all the other most valuable interests of this great Christian people. The fiat of the Sovereign has gone forth, and the Commission for laying- the groundwork of a large and effective reform of the Church of Eng land, temporal as well as spiritual, has been actually appointed by the Crown. The heads of the Church, of the Law, and of the State, are included among the Commissioners for this important purpose. The two Archbishops, the Bishop of London, Dr. Kaye (Bishop of Lincoln,) and the Bishop of Glocester, are the members of the national priesthood to whom the task has been confided. Sir Robert Peel (Prime Minister,) Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, Lord Harrowby, Mr. Goulburn (as Secretary for the Home Department,) and Sir Herbert Jenner (an able civilian) with Messrs. Wynn and Henry Hob house, constitute the lay body of the Commission. The subjects to which the Commission are to direct its attention are as general as can well be conceived, and the Commissioners as competent to the task as could have been selected. The incomes of the Bishops—the more equal distribution of episcopal du tiesthe abolition of commendams—the better appro priation of the Dean and Chapter revenues, including a due attention to the state of Cathredral and Collegiate churches, and the enforcement of residence by the clergy in their parishes, form the great objects of this proposed inquiry. We take for granted that some re straints upon the privilege and practice of episcopal translation will be introduced as a consequence of this inquiry. Undertaken, as unquestionably this impor tant measure has been, with a full determination to render it at once advantageous and satisfactory to the people of England, we cannot forbear to congratulate the clergy, the Government, and the country, on the announcement in last night's Gazette. But, Bis dat qui cito dat, says the trite proverb : we do not appre hend that a long time will pass before the report will make its appearance.--Times. The following important announcement appeared in the Gazette of last night :—(For which see Gazette.) The issuing of the above Commission, and the de signation of the duties which it has to perform, remove all doubt as to the outline and extent of the plan of Church Reform which the present Government have resolved to carry into effect. In the first place, it is intended to consider the state of the several dioceses in England and Wales, with reference to the amount of their revenues, and to the more equal distribution of episcopal duties. The inequality of the duties and revenues of Bishoprics has long been objected to, as a glaring fault of the Church Establishment. Hence , the occupants of the poorer Bishoprics were tempted rather to cultivate acquaintance with the personages who had the influence or power to translate them to richer ones, than with the flocks placed under their pastoral charge, and whose spiritual wants it should be their constant endeavour to supply. It often hap pened that the Bishop, before he had time to cultivate the spiritual vineyard of one diocese, was removed to another, and perhaps to a third, to the great de triment of religion and the interests of the Church. If it be practicable to make a complete equalisation of the dioceses in revenue, it ought to be done, for the purpose of putting an end to the practice of translation, and the episcopal solicitations of Government patro nage to which that injurious practice gives rise. Bishops will then no longer be like birds of passage, for ever either on the wing or looking out for the time to take flight from one diocese to another. They will be resident spiritual overseers of the Clergy and the laity under them—faithful shepherds ivatching over their flocks in all seasons, instead of seeking the sun niest spot of Ministerial patronage wherein to bask, as too many have done, while the prowling wolf of infi delity or fanaticism preyed upon the flock. The Com missioners have, also to consider how to prevent the necessity of attaching by commendant to Bishoprics benefices with the cure of souls. It would follow as a natural consequence of the equalisation of the revenues of Bishoprics, that the foul blot of holding livings in commendam would be removed from the Church ; for as every Bishopric would in that case, have a sufficient re venue without attaching a benefice to it, there would be no excuse whatever for a practice so injurious to the spiritual concerns of either the Bishopric or the be nefice. In the third place, the Commissioners are em powered to examine the state of the several collegiate and cathedral churches, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church. This branch of their duty enables them to suggest the abo lition of sinecures, and the appropriation of their reve nues, to the augmentation of small livings, or the better providing for the curates and other working clergy. A large portion of prebends and canonries may be made available for such purposes, leaving still suffi cient to provide for so many clergymen attached to each cathedral as are required for the daily perform ance of cathedral service. Lastly, the Commissioners are authorised to devise the best mode of providing for the cure of souls, with special reference to the residence of the Clergy on their respective benefices. This part of the Commission strikes at the root of that great evil called pluralism, by striking at the other abuse of non-residence ; for it does not require any elaborate logic to prove that if permanent residence be an essential condition to the possession of a benefice, no clergyman can have twd benefices, as he cannot permanently reside in both. if this outline of Church reform be well filled up it will, inc!tteil, be a great, a magnificent work of reform. Nor can fail to satisfy all, except those whom nothing can satisfys,' , .ort of the utter destruction of the Church.—Morning Herald. The Tory papers have been instructed to deny the truth of the assertion made in the Advertiser of yes terday, that there is a division in the Cabinet, and that that division is likely to be the death of it ; and, to do them justice, they not only buckle on their armour with alacrity, but fight the battle of their patrons manfully We yesterday," says one of them, " with ;Wended vagueness, contradicted certain rumours confidently circulated for two of three hours of the day. These rumours have died the death of their ephemeral race, and therefore we can now have no difficulty in stating that they related to divisions in the Cabinet and resignations, the whole being most absolutely false, and without a shade of foundation at any time. The public must be prepared for a repetition of the device, but all may be assured that there never was an Administration sc., little likely to afford ground for rumours like those of yesterday." Another observes, in a still more compli mentary strain, that—" Some idiotic tattle about a split in the Cabinet' found its way into two or three newspapers yesterday evening, and is repeated in one of those we have seen this morning. We need not further notice the silly trash." The more strenuously, however, that the journals in question deny the asser tion, the more thoroughly are we convinced of its truth ; and our readers, if we mistake not, will think with us that it would not have been deemed worth while to contradict the report in such urgent terms, had there not been a very substantial foundation for it. Be the fact, however, as it may, the result—the gratifying result—will be the same six months hence. If not already divided—which we have every reason for believing that they are—they will be divided or destroyed both as a Ministry and a party before that time. As a party they are devoid of numbers— in point of principle, they are entirely destitute of any other shade of it than that of holding place, while the country will permit them to hold it. Their usurpa tion of the reins of Government was a gross attack upon the liberties of the people—their professions of Reform, a disgust to all honest-minded men. An enemy in unwilful error becomes not unfrequently an object of respect from the mere fact of his persevering in it— ' the "- •ers and turn-coats—waver and turn how Lye never inspired any other feelings than nript or disgust.—Morning Advertiser. ;-Radical journals flatter themselves that !quent presentation to the public mind, an tIl men of moderation and intelligence re as an extravagance, may in process of endurable. Hence their pertinacity in pretensions to the Chair of Sir Charles pn and Mr. Abercromby. The mere allocation of these two names in the same paragraph, or even in the same column, of a newspaper is uni versally felt—felt equally by the friends of both--to be an elevation to the one and a degradation to the other ; and it is to this, we are persuaded, that we ought to ascribe the endless dissertations which the Whig and Radical •journals devote to the comparative merits of Sir Charles Manners Sutton and Mr. Aberciomby, as it is undoubtedly by this consideration chiefly that we have been restrained from enlarging much upon that subject. Nor will we now enter upon a comparison which six months ago all the world would have pro nounced to be ridiculous ; which is still as ridiculous as it would have been then ; and at which the public have only ceased to laugh, because a fit of laughter on the same subject cannot last above a month. Of Sir Charles Manners Sutton's qualifications for the Chair it is needless for us to speak. They are not unknown to any of those who, during the last seven teen years, have paid any degree of attention to the proceedings of the House of Commons. As some of our Radical contemporaries, however, are striving to agitate the lowest and most ignorant classes of the electors of Westminster upon the subject, and to incite them to an attempt, which would be equally hopeless and unconstitutional, to bully the Hon. Baronet who represents that City out of his personal independence and consistency, we think the present a fit opportunity to recal to recollection the tennis in which Sir Charles Manners Sutton was described by Sir Francis Burdett on the 29th of January, 1833, in the speech in which the Hon. Baronet seconded the motion of Lord Mor peth, that the Right Hon. Gentleman do take the Chair : " He would take this case upon its merits, upon its merits alone would he put it, and the question was who of the Mem bers of that House was known to be the fittest to discharge the important functions of Speaker? At a time of great difficulty in the eyes of many persons—a time of embarrassment and danger in the eyes of many—in his of nothing but of hope, and to be looked forward to with satisfaction—at a time when undoubtedly it was highly important that the Chair of the House of Commons should be filled by a person of abilities, not upon a speculation of what any Member might be capable or willing to do, but possessing. experience, and bringing for ward the most solid grounds of competency—who could pos sibly be put in competition with the Right Hon. Gentlennan, who had for sixteen years pursued a course of conduct in that Chair that had called forth the universal approbation of the Members of that House during many successive Parliaments, in which the Hon. Member for Middlesex had invariably joined ?" And again— " The House would recollect the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman during the great struggle for Reform, when he made no distinction between one Member and another of that House. It was not only his conduct in the House which en titled him to commendation, but it was his great services in regard to private Bills, which were far more important and laborious. It seemed, indeed, to be trespassing unnecessarily on the attent'on of the House, to repeat those feelings of ap probation which were expressed on all hands. He (Sir F. Burdett) was in a situation something like that of the man who was reproached at a public meeting at Rome while prais ing Hercules, and who was cut short by a person exclaiming, Quis vituperavit?'" Such were some of the terms in which Sir Francis Burdett spoke of Sir Charles Manners Sutton in 1833. Yet the latter is now to be insulted it seems by a small faction of his constituents calling upon him to vote against the pretensions of the same Right Honourable Gentleman, who, in character and qualifications, is precisely what he was then, and whose position has undergone no other change than this, that he now stands in the way of a Whig-Radical job, got up for the factious purpose of embarrassing the King's Government, and for the mercenary purpose of giving an additional in come of 3,0001. a year to Mr. Abercromby at the expense of the country. Sir Francis Burdett, by no means an incompetent, and certainly not in this case a prejudiced, judge, has told us what are the merits which give to Sir Charles Manners Sutton a claim to the office of Speaker. Who can tell us what are the peculiar merits of Mr. Abercromby ? To say the least he is untried, and is, therefore, for what anybody knows, just as likely to make a bad Speaker as a good one. It is a matter merely of conjecture and speculation.. Mr. Abercromby is principally known to the country as the recipient of an unearned and unmerited pension of 2,0001. a year ; as the man who foisted himself into a sinecure Judge ship.in Scotland, which he knew would very soon be abolished, and thus, by doing nothing for a few months, secured to himself a handsome income for life out of the public pnrse. The zealous advocates of Mr. Abercromby talk fluently of his unspotted reputation. To be o'ire his reputation is unspotted, for it never was of a colour upon which a job of this description could imprint a spot. There is another reason besides our reluctance to derogate from the eminent reputation of Sir Charles Manners Sutton, why we should refrain from any eomparison between his ability for the due dis charge of the duties of Speaker and that of Mr. Aber cromby ; and this is, that the fitness of Mr. Aber cromby for the office has been compared by his own friends and party, and compared to his disadvantage, with that of men who are by the common consent of all mankind immeasurably the inferiors of Sir C. M. Sut ton. Mr. Abercromby is not the candidate whom the Russell section of the Opposition wished to bring for ward. It is notorious that Mr. Abercromby's pre tensions were never thought of until it had been fully ascertained that there was no chance, of a decent mi nority, even, in favour of Mr. Littleton or Mr. Spring Rice. For the latter gentleman Mr. O'Connell pe remptorily refused the votes of himself and tail, and these votes were indispensably necessary to the cause of faction. Accordingly Mr. Abercromby was re sorted to as a pis oiler. He is the Opposition candi date for the Chair, because, and only because Mr. O'Connell preferred him to either of the favourite men of the Whig party. Should Mr. Abercromby be elected, Mr. O'Connell may fairly boast that he, and lie alone, had given a Speaker to the House of Commons. One of the Whig-Radical journals ventured yesterday to reproach Sir Charles Man ners Sutton with the offence of canvassing mem bers of Parliament for their votes. This imputation is f a '''qe and absurd. It is co rbined however with ano ther ass'.:'rtion, which as it is intended to convey cen sure, ought -.;•!‘ prudence to have been withheld. We are told that great interest is made to secure the re election of Sir Charles-Yranners Sutton. This is pro bable enough ; for every m cnber of the House of Commons who knows the importaned to the House and the country of having an able, accompLhed, and honourable Speaker in the Chair of that Asseni,',ly, and who is free from the influence of factimis motives, must feel bound to exert whatever influence he possesses to secure so desirable a result. But if making in • terest be an offence which ought to.be visited upon the candidate in whose favour it is made, whom will this affect so deeply as Mr. Abercromby ? It is not great interest truly that is made for him ; but it is, nevertheless, all the interest, most unscrupu lously exercised, that the miserable faction which has brought him forward can make. We challenge our Whig-Radical contemporaries to adduce any pre cedent for the formation of canvassing committees in a contest for the Chair of the House of Commons. And we challenge them to deny that twp Committees have been constituted to conduct the canvass in favour of Mr. Abercromby—a Whig Committee and a Ra dical Committee—the former consisting of Lord Dun cannon, Lord John Rusk% and Mr. Spring Rice, three of the late Ministers who are the most eager to force themselves back into office, together with Mr. Methuen, who lends them the sanction, such as it is, of his name ; while the latter comprehends the follow ing eminent Senators, viz., Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hume, Mr. Warburton, and Mr. Gillon. Until this challenge be fairly met, we trust we shall hear nothing more, at least in the tone of reproach, of the great interest that is made to secure the re-election of Sir Charles Man ners Sutton.—Morning Post. We yesterday stated that we should this day give an exposure of the scandalous falsification of facts with respect to Mr. Abercromby, contained in an article of the Times of Monday last. We now proceed to re deem our promise. We derive the facts from a source on which we can place implicit reliance ; and, at the hazard of displeasing Mr. Abercromby, whose reluct ance to occupy the public with himself is such, that his friends awe persuaded he would rather suffer under a calumnious imputation like the present th an s t oo p to refute it,' we lay the following statement before our readers ;....-Before the meeting of Parliament in OM, Mr. Abercromby, while at the house of a dis tinguished Nobleman, a member of the late Cabi net, received a letter from the Duk e o f Welling ton, requesting an interview on public business the next day. He was even at a loss to con jecture the business to which the interview requested could refer. The place of Judge Advocate was then vacant, or on the point of being so, and it occurred to Mr. Abercromby that it might be intended to offer him that place ; and he obeyed the summons with a deter mination to refuse it. He found, however, to his sur prise, that the object of his Grace ;n seeking the inter view was to offer him the judicial situation of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland ; and he was assured that it was with a view of his assisting in, and facilitating great reforms, both judicial and financial, in that branch of Scotch judicature, that the offer was made to him. After consulting with his friends, Mr. Abercromby somewhat reluc tantly gave his consent ; stating that he did so chiefly with the hope that he might be able, with the co-operation of Government, to render the Court more efficient, and the burdens on the country less expensive, by sundry projected improvements in the constitution of the Court and in its procedure. Mr. Abercromby accordingly accepted the situation, partly as a judicial office, and in the firm hope that he would be able to make it more efficient, .and at the same time less burdensome to the country. Before, however, - he had presided a year over the Court, he discovered that all the improvements he had projected were impracticable ; and that, with the preservation of its machinery, it would always be an excrescence and a burden, and the office of Chief Baron a mere si necure. It is well known to the friends of Mr. Aber cromby that he was uneasy at the thought of re ceiving public money for an office not only not benefi cial, but positively injurious and burdensome to the country ; and he urged on Government the necessity of instituting an inquiry, with the view of suppressing the whole Court; and he signified, de proprzo niotu, his willingness to accept as an indemnity for the 4,0001. per annum for life, and the retiring pension annexed thereto, the lowest income which any Reformer might fix. It is certain, that when the in quiry was established, Mr. Abercromby was active and eager in furnishing both facts and araumehts in favour of the reform, and he earnestly pressed on Lord Grey's Government the abolition both of his place and the Court itself, with as little delay as possible, from a conviction of its uselessness and expensiveness ; and that he left to the Government and Parliament the fixing the amount of compensation to him for his salary of 4,0001., and his claim, after serving a certain num ber of years, to a retiring pension of 000/. A Com mittee was accordingly appointed ; and its report strongly recommended the immediate suppression of the Court—acknowledged the full right of the Chief Baron to his entire salary during his life, and his equi table claim on retiring,whether after a period of years at his own desire, or immediately for the convenience of the public, to a pension 0f3,0001. a year. But when a Bill was introduced in pursuance of 'the report, Mr. Abercremby, from considerations of delicacy, would neither express an opinion, nor make an inquiry, as to the amount of compensation - he should receive. He confined himself to - earnest recommendations to his friends to save the public an unimessary expense, by passing a law for the suppression of the Court as speedily as possible. The Bill was brought in by Lord Althorp in 1831 ; but owing to a variety of ac cidental circumstances, it had not passed the Com mons when that Parliament was dissolved, which led to a delay, which, though obviously advantageous to Mr. Abercromby in a pecuniary sense, he . was not a little impatient under. The bill was reproduced in the next Parliament, and virulently opposed both in the Commons and the Lords, but more especially in the latter. Mr. Abercromby was more arraigned by the Opposition for recommending the suppression of the Court, for pushing the notion of Reform and Re trenchment too far, and for lending himself to the abo lition of an office and Court of high antiquity in Scot land, and secured to that country by an article of the Union, than for any pecuniary advantage derivable by himself from the bargain. If the opponents of the Bill did not actually acknowledge, they manifestly felt and thought, that Mr. Abercromby had made large and disinterested sacrifices for the accomplishment of what they deemed his favourite crotchet. Perhaps, too, the indirect censure of the Duke of Wellington's Govern ment, for not suppressing the Court, when the subject came under their consideration, somewhat embittered the resistance made to the Bill. They were clearly dissatisfied with Mr. Abercromby for having reported so unfavourably of the utility of the Court over which he presided. The result is that lr. Abercromby has given up 4,0001. per annum, to which he was legally entitled on certain conditions—that he has surrendered a claim to 3,0001., to which he was contingently and virtually entitled after a term of years—and that he has accepted 2,000/. ; by which the country is enabled to save not only immediately 2,0001. per annum, and sub sequently 1,0001., but ultimately the whole expense of the Court, amounting to not less than from 25,000/. to 30,0001. per annum. We have thus repelled the calumnious imputations thrown out against Mr. Aber comby by the Times. We might have borrowed from the columns of our contemporary, at the time to which these transactions refer, abundance of confirmatory statements ; but as it might plead that it lied then to gratify the Whigs, as it now lies for the sake of the Tories, we have deemed it more advisable to dispense for the present with that authorify.—Morn. Chronicle. but the wavere / they may—ha , (1/` , those of contet .x The Whig- `'` • 'pit of freq QW, • .P : 1 ; ;ph all first 0 . .; , e , he Cf - c •• • ers aut.4 THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1835. ROLLS' COURT. His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS proceeded to-day with his petition paper. MANNING V. THESSIGER. This was a petition to confirm a Master's report. A tes tatrix by her will bequeathed 50/. a-year to her sister Eli zabeth for her life, and to Elizabeth, the daughter of the said sister ; the sum of 1,0001., to be paid on her arriving at the age of twenty-one, or marriage, in case her (the tes tatrix's) husband died without issue. The question now to be decided was, whether or not this bequest vested in the legatee, who survived the testatrix, but died before twenty one, unmarried. Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for various parties against the petition. Mr. BICKERSTETII appeared in support of the petition. • After Mr. PEMBERTZti4 had replied, His HONOITIL said that the bequest of 501. to the mother ought to be considered as the income of 1,0001., the period of the payment of which was to depend on the continuance of the tenancy of life. Consequently, he should confirm the Master's report. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Several cases were struck out of the list at the sitting of the Court, the parties not then being prepared to try them. Some undefended causes were also disposed of. -- V. PRINCE. Mr. BALL applied, towards the close of the day, to have this case restored to the paper, alleging that it was through a mere accident that it had been allowed to be taken as an undefended cause. The Learned Gentleman stated that he had now a brief to defend it, Mr. ERSKINE PERRI, as counsel for the plaintiff, said that when the cause came on in its regular turn in the morning, there was no one instructed for the defendant, and he submitted that the Court would not permit a man to have a cause tried twice over, by allowing him to give a brief after the first trial, and then to get it called on again. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE refused the application. EXCHEQUER COURT. PALLISER V. HART. This action was brought by Mr. Palliser, a sadler, in Coleman-street, against the defendant, who lived in Peck. ham New Town, for 32/. Os. 3d., the amount of a bill for certain saddler) , and harness goods forwarded to Belgium in May and August, 1832 and 1833. The question for the Jury to decide was the liability of the defendant to pay the money, to which he objected, alleging that the goods had been ordered in the name of; and were payable by, his son, Mr. George William Hart, who resided at Liege, in Belgium. Mr. HILL stated the above facts ni) behalf of the plain tiff, and called a number of witnesses. Mr. THESSIGEU appeared for the defendant, and read several letters, dated May 10, 1833, Neb. 16, and July 8, 1834, from plaintiff to defendant, urging the remittance of the money for the property which he (defendant) had or ilPrO for his son. Mr; s paron 4 f 7 FIE y summed up, and the Jury retired to consider their verdict. 4ft,er !9#fd p for two hours they returned into Court, aPa to I , P,vPr tp a ques- tion from a Juror, Mr. Baron ORrivy that it aIT idi c t were fond fgr the defendant s. an action might be bruught 4gaiPst the Qp the Ffrpsitioil 4 ! 3 0 wadP to recover the sum in dispute. This answer seemed to determine the Jury, who in a few minutes gave a verdict for the defendant. SHERIFF'S COURT. KING V. TAYLOR. Mr. KING stated that this was an action to recover from the defendant, William John Taylor, the sum of 10/. 10s. 6d. under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff was pro ceeding down the Pancras-road to attend the summons of a Judge, in the case of King v. Guatier, when the defendant, a Marshalsea officer, pounced upon him from a house near, and arrested him close to the Old Church. He told the defendant that he was protected from arrest, and dared him to take hith, but the latter persisted. He then tendered him fourteen sovereigns to cover the arrest, but that was of no avail as he insisted upon taking him to prison. The consequence was that he was obliged to sue out a writ of habeas corpus, and be brought before Judge Parke, who made certain orders upon the defendant for paying the costs of the illegal arrest, upon the understanding that no action for false imprisonment should be brought. The plaintiff observed that the orders had in part been disregarded, and the sum he now claimed was in obedience to the rule of Court made by Judge Parke, and in mercy to the defen dant because he had a large family ; but yet he did not expect to obtain the money even if he obtained a verdict, for the defendant had said, I will not pay him a mag, I will go to prison first." After considerable discussion, in which it was contended by Mr. KNOWLES that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, and the plaintiff, on the contrary, that he was entitled to a ver dict, The SHERIFF thought the justice of the case would be better met by taking a verdict for the plaintiff of 5/. 3s. 4d., subject to the opinion of the superior Court, whether the Judge's order should be construed into a legal promise, as set forth in the declaration ; and secondly, for the plaintiff, with leave to amend the declaration, in case the opinion should be in his favour. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff on those terms. CONSISTORY COURT. WALKER V. WALKER. In this case the wife commenced a suit against the hus band for a separation on the ground of cruelty, which was met by Mr. Walker with a counterplea, alleging that Mrs. Walker had been guilty of adultery. The cause has pro ceeded, and 50/. alimony allotted to the wife, penaente life. Application was made to the Court to-day to allow the husband to sue in forma pauperis. Dr. PIIILLIMORE read an affidavit, setting forth that Mr. Walker had been compelled to assign all his property to his creditors, and prayed that the husband might be al lowed to sue as a pauper. He had formerly been Counsel for the husband, and had felt bound to make the present application. Dr. ADDAMS considered the proceeding as very extraor dinary. The Court would never allow the prayer, espe cially as it bad already allotted alimony ; and the Court had before rejected a motion that the husband be allowed to sue as pauper. Dr. LUSHINGTON had no recollection that any such mo tion had been made. Dr. ADDAMS said the assignment of the husband's pro perty had been made after the Court had allotted alimony. If such a proceeding was sanctioned it would be impossible for wives in other similar cases to obtain justice. Dr. LUSHINGTON was clearly of opinion that the Court could not admit the husband to sue as a pauper. It was the practice of the Court, where parties carried on trade, whatever might be the result, not to admit such parties as paupers. He should, therefore, reject the motion. On behalf of the wife a monition for alimony up to this day was moved for and granted. Mr. Walker asked if he could not be allowed to take the oath that he was not worth five pounds, after paying his debts ? Dr. LUSHINGTON said certainly not. He had heard all Counsel had to state in support of the motion, and he was bound to reject it ; but he expressed no opinion as to the course he should adopt on any future stage of the cause. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. Mr. James Stride, the late boxkeeper at the Olympic Theatre, applied upon his petition to be discharged. His application was not opposed by his creditors. The case afforded some amusement. The insolvent had inserted in his schedule a statement respecting Madame Vestris, his detaining creditor, which the Learned Chief Commissioner read. She was stated as " Eliza Lucy Yes tris," and as a creditor for 391. 12s. The statement was in the following words :—" I was employed by Madame Vestris in the season 1831 as box and book keeper at the Olympic Theatre, at a salary of 11. 12s. a week. The se cond season she reduced it to 205., and continued the next season at the same rate. The following and last season she took off the 20s. a week, and stated that if I held the situa tion I must pay her 2/. 12s. a week as rent, observing at the same time that I was entitled to the keeps' (which is the term for receiving the shilling for keeping the places,) but as the public had never paid' any keeps' in the previous seasons, a very trifling sum was paid to me for the same. I paid the seventeen weeks' rent, and at the close of the season it appeared I was indebted to her 271., for which I gave her a promissory note. She afterwards sued me and took me in execution ; the remainder is for law costs." The Learned Commissioner inquired of the insolvent whether the statement, the reading of which occasioned some laughter, was correct ? The insolvent answered in the affirmative. CHIEF COMMISSIONER—It appears then that retrench ment and economy has reached the Olympic Theatre as well as other public boards.—(A laugh.) Mr. COOKE observed that it went a little further, it made the insolvent pay.—(Laughter.) CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Instead of receiving money from Madame Vestris you had to pay for the " honour" of opening her boxes ? Insolvent—Yes, Sir. - • - CHIEF COMMISSIONER—And you are now in prison at her suit? Insolvent—l am, Sir. CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Pray when did you last officiate for Madame Vestris ? The insolvent said the season before last, when he quitted the " profession." The insolvent was ordered to be discharged. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. John Phillips was convicted of stealing a cushion fro.n a carriage, the property of George Adams. , The carriage was left standing in the street without any person being left in charge of it, and the prisoner, watching an opportunity, opened the door and took the cushion. The CHAIRMAN said the Court could not allow the ex penses of parties who left property exposed in so careless a manner ; it afforded a temptation which, to persons like the prisoner, often proved irresistible. The Court had de termined, in all cases where property was exposed in a man ner which tempted persons to commit a felony, not to put the county to the expense of a prosecution. The prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. W. cook, a lad only fourteen years of age, but who has already been six times imprisoned in the House of Correc tion, was transported for seven years, for stealing a piece of beef from the shop of Mr. Henford, a butcher, in Spi talfields. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Yesterday about forty of the masons employed in repair ing Blackfriars Bridge came before Mr. Alderman WIL SON, to hear his decision on a case which had been investi gated at considerable length the day before. The complaint was made by the men against Mr. Rad ford, the superintendent of the works, for refusing to pay them their wages, with a view to have the question what price should be paid for their labour arbitrated by persons who are acquainted with the work, according to the Act of Parliament. Mr. Tyrrell attended with Mr. Radford and Mr. Boyes as solicitor to the workmen. The statute em powers the Magistrate to decide the question when the arbitrators cannot agree, but in this case the parties agreed to tako the Magistrate's decision in the first instance. Mr. Alderman WILSON therefore proceeded to bear evi dence as to the nature of the hiring, the sort of work done, and the fair value of it. On the first point the men claimed to be paid by time, at ss. per day, because a strict account was kept of their hours of labour ; but it was pretty clearly shown that the hiring was to be paid according to the quantity of work performed. They were chiefly told, when they applied for a job, to go to work next morning ; and when they went, they were told they would be paid by the piece, but that the masters had not settled what the price should be. And when they were told, two or three days afterwards, that they were to be paid 6d. per squaro foot, 4d. at the end of each week s and the other" 2d. when the job wag NO-loci, they. struck and came before the -. mvistrates. The nature of the work was to chip away all the unsound stone under the arches of the bridge, cutting inches ; y es a s a d n e ( p l tli; v a i r n lnt i f7 l l f l i r tl eAf ti ou ct r: l l : lB t 'h Work atsli,llwee, eQs.arllY * l 9l4Pr 4114 mare tiring til4q woricing upoß ao yp right surface, as from the etirvatore of the arch the man is e must work with his hands :feoi),toteietti.fi r : e ta i roo e i:eg d tgryi aneciwaribat:;:tv:oesih:af4ipi man price t.t a cr.hc d i :cs.lntdeeedcivenglihicr at iibndoorgsditf:rt;bm4e claimedtt h t wa b ol a 2f e ae k se. w pt tda r ot c . l i backwards. With r n at that price, and one marl a dW c t t yr u k, a m l a l y n 94 0 h Wt i h ; e ri rr e : d t6grll e ei i i it cl; feet an M id ay th¢ five hohfld urs boforo drones' time." • 'The witneafies for the men ultimately reduced their value of the labour from 2s. 6d. per foot to Is. 3d. or Is. 2d., upon the ground that no man could get I over more than five feet per day on an average. They put in a paper, however, which stated that three men working from the centre to the base of the arch (including therefore the most difficult as well as the easier parts of the work) had completed seventy-seven feet in four days, giving an average of about six feet per day per man. Mr. Alderman WILSON took this paper as his ground for adjudging that the men ought to have 9d. per foot. As he 'ryas called upon to say what was just between the mas ter and man, because they had neglected to settle that themselves in the beginning, he should say that the mason should be able to earn 30s. a week, and if masters made contracts that would not allow such wages, it was their own fault. He thought 9d. a foot was as little as the men ought to have. Mr. Tyrrell said it was impossible to comply with the Magistrate's decision, as the average rate of wages of all the men employed about the bridge was only 4s. a day ; and if higher wages were paid to the complainants, it would dis turb the whole. He, therefore, gave notice, that he should appeal against the Alderman's decision. The men were very well satisfied with the price allowed by the Magistrate. WORSHIP STREET. Yesterday afternoon, just as Mr. TWYFORD, the Sitting Magistrate, was about leaving the bench, Mr. William Dennis, a most eccentric character, residing in Lamb's lane, Hackney, was brought into the Office, in custody of several police constables of the N division, and placed at the bar, charged with having attempted to shoot Charles Farrant and William Franks, officers to the Sheriffs of Mid dlesex, under the following circumstances : The prisoner is the same person whose name appeared in the public prints two or three months since. It may be recollected that about that time he had a child, who died, and a Coroner's Jury was impannelled to enquire into the cause of the death. When the Coroner (Mr. Baker), and the Jury presented themselves at the prisoner's house, to take a view of the remains of the dead child, the prisoner refused to admit them, and appeared at the window armed with fire-arms, and threatened to. discharge them at the first person who dared to make a forcible entrance into his premises. After a great deal of persuasion on the part of the Coroner, the Jury were ultimately ad mitted. . The prisoner, who, ,it appears, is a widower, kept no servant. He had, he said, since the death of his wife had a great aversion to• females, and never allowed any to enter his -house except his children, who were of tender ages. His place, although it was well stocked with very valuable furniture, presented a-scene of wretchedness for want of proper attention, and the children were in a most miserable dirty state. Over the fireplace in every room of the house were suspended several cutlasses and fowling-pieces. The fire-arms were loaded and ready for use, and the neighbours were frequently alarmed in the dead of the night by the prisoner discharging them out of his windows. The Jury, after a very few minutes' inquiry, however, found-that the child died a natural death, and not from any violence ; and some of the parish officers of Hackney subsequently waited upon the Magistrates at this office to know whether they were not empowered to give directions for the immediate interment of the deceased's remains, as the prisoner, who it was evident was labouring under an aberration of mind, persisted in having them kept in a leaden coffin by his bedside. The Magistrates, however, decided that they had no power to interfere. There was no law that cowld compel him to bury the child ; and he and every other man had a right to keep the body of a relative in their house if they thought proper, even till it rotted away. The prisoner, who is a very stout middle-aged man, had on a great coat and an oilskin cap covering his eyes, and wore spectacles, and when placed at the bar he. asked for some writing paper and a pen and ink, that he might take down the names of the witnesses and- their evidence. There were several writs out against the prisoner for heavy amounts. They had been innumerable times to take the prisoner, but be always evaded them by answering them out of a window, and pointing a fowling-piece to their heads, threatening to shoot them if they attempted to force their way in. Yesterday they were watching his house all the fore part of the day, and between one and two o'clock they succeeded in getting an entrance by stratagem. They then proceeded to a room where they found him washing himself, and in a " sort of friendly" manner " tapped" him on the shoulder. The prisoner offered great resistance, and being more powerful than the officers got to the fire place and.took down a loaded gun. The officers perceiving their danger called loudly for assistance and again rushed towards the prisoner. The prisoner struggled with them for some minutes, but got the better of them and discharged the gun, but its contents fortunately lodged in the wall. Several police constables were then called in by the officers to assist, and by taking the gun from the prisoner the stock was broke off. Mr. TWYFORD asked whether there were any shots in the gun, and whether it might not have gone off by accident in the scuffle ? The gun, the stock of which, as before stated, was separated from the barrel, was produced to the Magistrate, and the officers said it had been loaded with large-sized bullets when it was let off at them. There were many of the bullets now in the wall. They saw the prisoner pull the trigger, and it must have been wilfully dis charged by him. Mr. TWYFORD-It is a very serious charge, and may perhaps amount to a capital offence. Mr. Dennis, what have you to say ? The prisoner, who expressed himself in a very incoherent monner, said that all the witnesses had spoken falsely. The fellows entered his house by decoying his children away while he was engaged in his domestic duties. They walked directly into the room where he was washing his hands, and considering them by their looks to be thieves, he took down the gun, but it was the wit nesses who discharged it, and they afterwatds bre l. , e it over his back, and he had the bruises to show it '. proof o f his statement. The officers again swore that it way the prisoner fired the gun, and it was broke in taking n. from him. Mr. TWYFORD (to the r , risoner)—l shall take time to consider whether I shall t; cat this as a common case or send you for trial on the capital offence, and you must be brought before me again on Thursday. The prisoner, in a very wild manner, and greatly en raged, ejaculated, " If you consider I am not worthy of my liberty take away my life, I'm ready to die ; only let my children be with me when I do die." Mr. TWYFORD asked what would become of his chil dren ? Prisoner—Why they must be with me to be sure in prison, for I keep no servant, and they have only me to do for them, and they will famish without me. The gentlemen of the parish undertook to take care of the children, and the prisoner was then removed to the lock-up cell, and in the evening conveyed to prison in the prison van. Q UEEN-SQUARE. Yesterday one of the inspectors of the A division of po lice brought before Mr. BURRELL, the sitting Magistrate, a remarkably pretty and fashionably-dressed female, about eighteen years of age, who had been found the night pre vious wandering about St. James's Park, which it appears she has been in the habit of doing for some time past. The inspector stated that the female had given her name Emma Hart, but refused to give her address, and upon being questioned told a wild and strange story about her seeking for a child who had been murdered and thrown into the canal, and it was supposed she was labouring under an aberration of intellect. The Magistrate asked her several questions, but she did not return any answer, and Mr. BURRELL directed the over seers of St. Martin's to take her in charge until it can be ascertained who she is. The female is of very lady-like appearance and manners, and speaks with a slight Irish accent. _ George Colley, the informer, charged lVilliani Geach, a newsvender, residing in Vincent-square, with vending un stamped publications. It appeared from Colley's statement that he met the de fendant in Regent-street, carrying a parcel of papers (the Weekly Police Gazette and the Twopenny Dispatch), which he was selling in the streets. Mr. BURRELL asked him if he had purchased any of the papers ? Colley replied that he was too well known for them to - serve him ; the defendant was selling the papers, but he could not swear that he had seen any money re ceived by him. Mr. BURRELL refused to convict under these circum stances, but informed the defendant, who made an applica tion for his papers to be restored, that they were forfeited. Amongst the night charges at this office appeared John Kingsbury, a most eccentric character, well known ir_ the neighbourhood of Westminster for some years by ti:Ae desig nation of the " Lord Chancellor ," in coliser_v tierice o f his fondness for litigation, and his Pride d as jud ge f or some years at a public-housein ti! ..e vicinity of the office, was charged by the constable of We s t m i ns t er Abb ey w i t h drunkenness and asking alms in the church-yard of St. Margaret's. It seems that. nos Lordship formerly held rather a lucra tive sittiMiolt about the House of Commons as " Master of Aliterse," as he termed it (holding gentlemen's horses) ; but from being rather too talkative and meddling he has within the last twelve months so completely " fallen from his great estate" that he has been compelled to sleep at the parish workhouse. His Lordship, in reply, denied the act of begging most indignantly ; but admitted that since lie had been com 4polled from poverty to resig n hi s s it uat i on, an d no l onger io officiate at the Houses of Parliament, he had been in duced to take " potations pottle deep," to drown the re memllrtmeo of former times. Mr, BuRRELL said that he must be compelled to fine him ss. for drunkenness. His Lordship most strongly protested against the deci sion. He was totally unable to pay the fine, in consequence of having been out of office for such a length of time and he had been so hard up, that he had been compelled to pawn both his wig and gown. His Lordship's remonstrance was in vain, and he was removed in custody until the fine could be raised. The Chancellor did not say whether he should write to the King by the post for the money. LAMBETH-STREET. Yesterday John Duffey, a private in the Scots Fusileer Guards, and who has acted as confidential servant to Col• Standen, of his regiment, was brought before Mess". HARDWICK and WALKER for further examination, on 3 charge of plundering his master of upwards of 601. worth of massive plate, and also obtaining on his account, by false pretences, property of various descriptions. The prisoner was remanded until this day week, to give . time to the police to make fu r the r sea r c h as t o the property' missing, and also an opportunity for Colonel Standen's at tendance, as his testimony will be absolutely necessary to complete the case against the prisoner. ST. MARTIN'S-IN-THE-FIELDS. Last night a very numerous meeting of the householders' Parochial Association of St. Martin's-in-the-fields was held at the Two Angels and Crown, Upper St. Martin's-lane , Mr. Weston in the Chair. The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed, after which Mr. SIMPSON, Jun., Churchwarden, stated that he 'had, had frequent occasion to congratulate the parishioners of St. Martin's upon the success of their efforts. They 11 8 .4 obtained a saving of 7,0001. a year by laying down their own gas—they would in a short time have an accumulate d fund in hand ; and they had abolished church-rates for ever.—(Cheers.) He had now to congratulate them 1 1 the information, that since the promulgation of their report in reference to their Clerk in Orders, the Rev. Arehdee' con Hamilton, that gentleman will not contend his right to that office.—(Hear.) On Thursday next they will meet Vestry, when they would have to assert their right to now nate and elect a Reverend Gentleman to fill that office' He understood that there was an intention to dispute their right of nomination, and that their Vicar, the Rev. 1 0 Dunkenfield, intended to claim the privilege to nominat e ' but which privilege he (Mr. Si m p son ) cou ld s h ow be ha d no title to. In the history of their parish there were r ecords to prove that the right both to nominate and elect 1 4 ' 35 vested in the parishioners, and to which they were entitled previous to the passing of the Ecclesiastical Canoes.' (Hear, hear) The Canons were passed in the year 10 after which period the Reverend Vicar grounded his to.nominate the Clerk in Orders. The parishioners she'll' resist the attempt ; but, if it be persisted in, he was able t° show that there was once a time when the parishione r ' elected their own Vicar. Mr. Simpson, after proposing various measures which the parishioners should adopt 0 Thursday next, recommended them to attend early:" (Applause.) Messrs. WILLIAMS, HOWARD, &c., followed it s i m ilar strain. Dr. BAINDRIDGE, in supporting the course proposed b i Mr. Simpson, suggested, that as they had the power o f de terminiug the salary of the Clerk in Orders, and a s th salary was now 334/. a year, they might reduce it to vit t it formerly was, should there be a det erm i na ti on t o poi' in the right to nominate. Various other gentlemen addressed the Chair, when the meeting separated. MARKET INTELLIGENCE COUNTRY CORN MARKETS. Wheat. Barley. I Oats: 1 Beans. reff; , , l'er Quarter. S. to s. s. to v. 8. to s. s. to s. 8 . lt c l. 110. , 1011 Gainsborough — 40 30 20 31 .„ Grantham - Grimsby Horncastle 3B 44 24 38 18 24 116 42 Lincoln.. Spilsby 36 40 28 32 19 24 36 40 Stamford 33 39 27 30 .0 25 40 41 York 46 56 !24 30 115 22 23 43 AN.% ) N DING From To 19 0 0 9,J 4 13 t 1 0 ° 15 6 10 0 15 8 , 11 0 13 0 1 5 ' 5 0 17 0 10 0 13 0 I 12 2 1,316 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone.-- 63 Bere lll stone 478 Harley R,;37 11x1 s 11,31V1 Flour, per cwt 823 Oatmeal. stone Sold to Bakers only. 9,754 Cwt Flour 11 6 Average price of Wheat and Flour 35, Receipts of Flour, Firsts from Secondsl2,Bs9 from Sales of Do. 11,336• Tnirds PRICE OF BREAD. Quartern Loaf 6 , 1 4 d. I Half Quarter 17 0 LI. per se( 15..411. t 4 Ils. 01. ti 54. Od. ti 12 I7s. 13‘. 8.. 04 rn 3FI CORK MARKETS.—Jan. 31. ~,. 9 1 ' Wheat (per 2.05t.)...12s 6d. to 2tis. Od. 'Oats (per 14st.) 9a. Od. to 1.- 0 Barley (per 16st 1,,.11 I 2 14 6 Flour (per cwt) 5 0 la Oatmeal (per cwt.) 1 s. Od. to I4s. Od. Beef, sd. to Id. • Mutton, sd. to 6d. ; Veal, 6d. t. 63. ; Pork, 2d. to :I'd. ; Fresh Butter, 10d. to 12d. per lb. PRICE OF LII , MiR. To the Merchants. To the Cotlld f l First Quality Second 59 Third Fourth 44 Fifth 34 ..., ,„ 24 Sixth CLONMELL MA It KETS....jati, 30. Per Cwt. tl• s. d. s. a. s. d. II• 6 New Butter 72 oto 01 P.des (raw) 32 oto ax , 0 Oatmeal 0 11 6 Bacon Pigs °2O 2 $ 0 Rendered Lard 0 Heads -"" :'... 0 31 17 0 I Per Bag. it Flour, Second —. b 2 , 3 0 I Flour, Thirds ' , O •0 •:' 0 --Household, -_ 0 26 01 Fourths 12 0 ' l4 Per Barrel. ' 6 RaPeseed.% 2O 0 —0 I Barley 11 0 19 i ere.... 5 1 .- Per Stone. 0 .. heat 0 10 1 1 1 Tallow (rough) 4 0 „ 0 Oats 0 9 ONI Potatoes U 21 " Per Pound . Fresh Butter 0 9 it I i M 03/ utton Beef U 4/ 0 6 1 Veal 0 4 _L./ KILKENNY Wheat (per barrel) ISs I kt to 'ls d MA RKE N. 4ti• Beef (pet lb. Mutton Pork ~ 1 Veal 0 6 s, t 0 Fresh Butter 0 10 Salt Ditto Potatoes (per st.) 0 2 0 Ilarley 13 0 J 0 II U Flour (per bag) l.l 0 20 0 Butter(i)ercwt ) 75 0 78 0 Bacon Pigs 22 0 23 0 Coals 1 0 1 1 SCOTCH MARKETS. HADDINGFON CORN MARKET.—Jan. 30. Wheat. Barley. I Oats. Pease. First 46s Od 34s 04 22. 04 30; Od Second 4ls lid 2.'is Oil QIN Oil 29s 04 Third There were 459 qrs. of Wheat in market, 409 whereof w II Unsold —0 Grey. V. Os. 14 Bran I :100 •28 , 234 th• ,re sold. 'erage 6,l2ths. First Second—, A LKEIT. CORN MARKET. Third .—Jan 29, Wheat. Barley. Oars. l:ase.. Rea l ,l l ; 49t; 6d I 31s 011 ' 22s £3,1 32s 0.1 32 , 42s (ki 26s Od 20s Od 28, 04 28. 04 33s 61 `2.3s 6d , 17s 4d 26' 0.1 26. °J MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COUP BASINGHALL-STREET, TO-MORROW. ( the London G a Miles, clothier, Stroud, From Gloucestershire azette.) 1 at l Letters from Rome, dated the 10th of Jaml a : announce the death of the learned archaeologist Visconti, younger brother of the celebrated Euniles Quim Visconti. 01 SMUGGLING TEA AN D TOBACCO.—On qm „0 last, on the arrival o f th e L on d on M erchant steam-ship Ifro, Hamburg, she was overhauled by the Custom-house offic e o who discovered a great q uan tity o f to b acco and tea which , not been entered, secreted in various parts of the ship. ; 0 0 veral papers of tea and toba cco were f oun d a l o f t i n the top, and about the mainmast ; a wooden fender, knock ) ; about the decks, was discovered to be hollow, and. withi ll 4 nine papers of foreign manufactured tobacco were discove l o , The steamer uas laid under seizure by the revenue offiC e 4 A waterman named Hogan, an old offender, was seen I ° ll o l the vessel, and upon him five pounds of tea and tobacco 0 0 , found. He was give n i n t o t h e custo d y o f the Thames p4}, - BIRTHS. On the 30th ult., at D rove , i n S ussex, t h e l a d y at Colonel Ge Wyndham, of a son. 'bo li On the 31st ult., at P ar i s , th e l a d y of COonel Sir Arch ) Maclaine, of a son. Yr On the 2d of November, a t sea , o ff the tape de Verd Islan di, lady of Gilchrist Whicker, Esq., o f a tkmghter. cket' On the 30th ult., at Camberwell the lady of William .- 11 Commander of the East India.sh,p Malabar, of a son. ,te, On the Ist inst., the wife of James A. Mur r ay, E s q., of P) lenburgh-square, of a dae:ghter. On the 2d inst., 41' r'- - riar's-place, near Acton, the lady off B. Curtis, Esq., of of a daughter. _.....---•'" MARRIED. 1014 0, the 21st ult., a t St. G eor ge's, Gilbert Abbott 44 of the Hon. Society of Grays Inn, to Mary Anne, Inf , daughter of Joseph Gl osso p, E sq ., o f Berkeley-street, DIED. ~e, On the 3d inst., in Grosvenor-place, aged 24, Wm. Mod l o f youngest son of the late Majo r -G enera l Si r M on t ague Burg - 0, Bart., of Sutton Park, Bedfordshire. On the 31st ult., at Wrockwardine, in the county of Salk' her 73d year, Anna Maria, widow of the late William Cluddet .. . . of Orleton, in the same county. On the 2d inst., a t Brompto n , F rances M'Kenzie, wife o f 6" 1 . Ogle, Esq. k-Or On the 30th ult.., Mrs. Sarah Booth, of the Wandsworth-os(b relict of the late Mr. Thom as B oo th, f ormer l y o f th e Alien aged 60. O; On the 22d silt., at Montreuil-sur-Mer, in his 55th year, C he tli Foster, Esq., of Lancaster E s tat e , i n th e parish of St. Eliz x Jamaica, and only s on of the l a t e S amue l Warren F05ter,...7 . 44 On the 31st ult., aged 73, Mrs. Morley, of Dishforth, a,. On the 6th of August last, on her passage to India, 1V 193. ' - ' of Captain Pace, 52d Regiment of Madras Native Infantr/,ipr ()n the let inst., Ruth, relict of the late Mr. Thomas of White-street, Finsbury. f A ft' On the 20th ult., at Hensill, H aw kh urs t, L y di a , th e wife ° Hugh Andrews, of Clar emon t- square an d F r id ay-s t ree t. ed , On the Ist inst., at Walworth, James Horwood, Esq. ! sg fir" On the 31st ult., Edward, infant son of James William of Welbeck-street, aged nine weeks. St' • On the let inst., Mr. Joseph H arwoo d , marine pai nter( ,f John's, Southwark, aged 57. MIIIIKV,M•••• • G o London : Printed and Published by MURDO Y 491114 at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. IRISH MARKETS. DUBLIN MARKET NOTE for the WEEK pout "(1 Cr ,uPeri o v ery Cu h. ° °°(l -,tto s GPeri ni ttxini I ‘ lo tils' s Th e B V es Very G_ Ihe best is an, p atent s t irent W l e Old ghly tnßio ottles, 1 1 / 4 ,.wed gw b f, kitta„'eerde aP"a l full• `iktoi r tAtt i Itqtf' a p u A N 471tisr] ,be h 1,01 Ti