The Sun. — London, England, 1849-02-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 21. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) AREA OF TAXATION. Mr. RAWES presented a petition from Kinsale, Praying that the area cf taxation for the purposes of the poor-law may not be reduced. CASE OF THE REV. MR. SHORE. Mr. COWPER presented a petition from Hertford calling the attention of the House to the case of the Rev. Mr. Shore, and praying that religious liberty may be extended to clergymen seceding from the Established Church. TAXATION. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Leith, signed by a vast number of the inhabitants, praying that all useless offices under Government may be abolished, and that in the present state of the revenue no more taxation may be levied than is requisite to support the really useful establishments of the country. THE GAIIE-LAWS. Mr. COWAN presented a petition adopted at a meet ing of certain of the citizens of Edinburgh, calling them selves the National Anti-Game-law Association, pray ing for the total and unconditional repeal of the laws relating to game. THE IRISH POOR-LAW. Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from the board of guardians of Dungarvon, praying for certain alterations in the poor-law. MINISTERS' MONEY IN IRELAND. The Horn. BARONET also presented a petition from Drogheda, praying for the abolition of ministers' money in Ireland ; and also a petition from the same city praying that no toll-gates may be erected in certain localities of the town. INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH AND FRENCH ASSOCIATION. Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice that to-morrow he would put a question to the Hon. Member for Tewkes bury, to the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, to the Hon. Member for Pontefract, to the Hon. Member for Macclesfield, and to the Hon. Member for South ampton, respecting an International English and French Association. THE COAST OF AFRICA. Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he would ask the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in what state:the negotiations"with the French Government are with respect to keeping a squadron on th© coast o Africa. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, in rising to move the second reading of the Bribery at Elections Bill, said it was necessary for him to make some statement of the views which he entertained upon the subject to which the measure bad reference. He could assure the House that he was fully aware of the importance of the subject, but he was no less sensible that after the notorious corruption which prevailed duriiag the general elections of 1841 and 1842, the subject assumed a aew degree of most pressing importance. If the House would be kind enough to grant him its attention, he would be enabled to show that the present law against bribery was quite insufficient for the object which it sought to accomplish. • He was desirous to solicit the attention of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who had given his praiseworthy attention to the subject and un derstood it so well, and he begged to assure him that he did not desire to undervalue or depreciate his exertions. The Noble Lord had introduced two valuable Acts against bribery, one in 1841, and another in 1842, but they had proved altogether insuf ficient. He did not mean to say that the present law was not severe, but he wished to show to the House that a great deal of it was quite inoperative, and for the reason that under it punishment for bribery was actually dependent upon the presentation of election petitions--(Hear)—and wherever extensive bribery prevailed there were such powerful combina tions that parties were deterred from presenting them. lie would briefly call attention to the existing law against bribery and corruption. Towards th end of the reign of Charles 11. and James 11. attempts were made to legislate on the subject, and in the 7th year of the reign of William 111. an Act was passed which was known as the Treating Act, under which the present system of Election Committees originated. An other Act was passed in the 2d of George 11., which was known by the name of the Bribery Act, and was very stringent in its provisions, but it was virtually a dead letter upon the statute-book. On those two Acts they had mainly depended until 1841, when the Noble Lord brought in one of the two Acts to which he had referred, and which gave Committees power to take evidence of bribery before agency was proved. The other Act was introduced in 1842, and it was di rected particularly to compromises. But both those Acts, however good in themselves, did not come into operation unless a petition was presented to Parliament. It provided, that after the presentation of a petition no compromise should be entered into; but, with regard to any ...promise previous to that, it took ao aetiee.--(llear, hear.) There was, by another part of that Act, power given to electors, in certain casee, to petition that House against instances of bribery ; but in the first place, in consequence of parties so petitioning being required to enter into recognizances of 1,0001. to substantiate the charge, and, in the next place, that if the charge was not made out before the Committee those parties were liable to the costs, the Act of the Noble Lord—taking also into consideration the odium that usually attached to such petitions—became quite inoperative. At the present moment there was a Bill pending in another place on the subject, and the same defects that he had pointed out existed in that Bill which were in the measure that had been introduced last year, namely that of appointing a Commission to put down bribery and corruption; and it had the same detect that he had pointed out in the Bills of the Noble Lord, that you must not only have the petition presented, but you must have the Committee appointed before the provisions of the Bill could be brought into operation.—(Hear, hear.) Heswas in a condition to give the House something more than a mere opinion upon this subject. He must ask lion. Members to repose in him a certain degree of con fidence. The particulars of some contests at the last general election had been placed at his disposal, under a promise that he would not divulge the names of the parties or of the boroughs. He would give the House his honourable assurance that he would not state any fact which he was not able to establish. In the first borough, which he would call borough A, there were between 1,000 and 2,000 electors—he avoided naming the exact number, for a reason that must be obvious — and he could state that nearly all the electors were ac cessible to bribery.—(Hear, hear.) The exceptions consisted of the banker, the clergyman, some lawyers (Cries. of " No, no," and laughter)—and a few other respectable inhabitants. The usual amount of the bribe was from four to five pounds a head. He had some very curious papers in his possession; among them was an ad dress to the candidate, signed by several of the electors, openly asking him what were the terms he intended to give. After the election the voters went to a particu lar place and received a certain sum, or double that sum, according as they had given single or double votes. At the recent election many hundreds of the electors were polled on one side, and the votes of 13 out of every 14 so polled were bought with money. At the election of 1841 the sum expended in that borough for the cor ruption of voters was 7,000 L, and in 1847 the amount so applied was 8,000/. His informant observed that " the effects of corruption at were most demoralizing. The hospital was filled with men maimed and bruised and maddened with drink." He would mention another case. In that borough which he would call B the con stituency was also between 1,000 and 2,000. At the general election in 1847 out of every 28 persons that polled 17 sold their votes. The average rate of the bribe w as 1 0 1., 12 1 ., an d 15 1 . a- h ea d ; b ut l ater i n the a Y the price of a vote rose to 501., and before the close of th e po ll one or two individuals received 100/. for their votes.—(Hear, hear.) To show the contami ntetip.g . and demoralizing influence of this system of corruption where it extensively prevailed, be was sorry to state that master tradesmen and professional gen tlemen were not above taking a price for their votes. The aggregate sum p a id at that election for the purchase of votes was 13,0001. He had received some general in formation with respect to two or three other places -where the same system notoriously p reva il e d . He asked the House whether such a state of things ought to con tinue, and whether ho had not made out a case for the measure he was now proposing?—(Hear, hear.) Was . this vile system of bribery to continue unchecked and uncontrolled?—(Hear, hear.) In no one of the ease* he had mentioned was any petition brought before the House. How could it be expected? The losing candi date avoisid not petition because he would be involved in the same circumstances which he would be seeking to theaw on another; and the electors would not petition, be cause they had a common :interest in concealing t ) se common guilt. He (Sir J. Pakington) was 'Perfectly convinced that if it were their desire to put an end to this system they must turn to arnzle'othf.r remedy than that of petitioning Parliament. It had been said that wholesale disfranchisement was the only rentedyfor this disease, he could not agree with any such proposition ; it had been tried, and it had been shown that it h a d not ac t e d as a warning to He o those who h a d b een g uilor of bribery. spoke upo n t hi s su bj ect with great deference to those experienced statesmen who had sanctioned that !system ; but it had long been his opinion that disfranchisement was an unjust and an unwise course. It was unwise be cause the tendency of the present day was to increase popular rights; and it was unjust because it punished the innocent with the guilty; and it punished posterity for the sins of those who were now alive. And how was it attempted to be justified? Why, upon the ground that they were holding out a warning to others. But had it ever been effectual as a warning? He believed not. How !veld it be expected when a poor man beheld the tempts t.on of a bribe in the hands of a rich man that he would pause and consider that in some distant county at some remote period bribery had been punished as a crime? Last year Yarmouthwasdisfranchised because 16 voters of bribery. had been guilty H a nd he (Sir J. Pakington) been in the Ho use at t h et against the inju s ti ce of that nie proceeding.ewonld havlenp the r protested pre ceding year Sudb ury was disfranchised for bribery. row, Yarmouth was in Norf o lk, and Sudbury wasn Suffolk. If disfranchisement acted as a warning, why w as not Sudbury a warning to Yarmouth? But no, the example and warning of Sudbury, although in the ad joining coun ty, was forgotten. Th e y must not trust, then, either to disfranchisement or to election petitions as a remedy, but if they were earnest in their efforts to stop these practices they must legislate in a new three tion. Instead of aiming at the poor voter they must aim at the more guilty party, those by whom the voter was corrupted.—(Hear, hear.) In ,the cases which he had mentioned, would any one tell him that the candi dates were innocent of tha bribery committed? No man could think so ; and he would tell the House plainly that it was not so. It was impossible. He admitted that cases might arise, such as where a father brought forward his son, or a political leader his partizan, in.which THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING-, the candidate might be ignorant of what occurred ; but those instances were few, and in the great majority of cases it was notorious that the candidates had the power, if they chose, to analyn the details of their election bills, and ascertain whether there had been bribery or not.—(Hear, hear.) The Legislature, there fore, must direct its efforts to check the conduct of the candidate and not merely the conduct of the voter. It was for these reasons that he had ventured to propose that no man should take his scat in that House without making a public declaration at that table, before the House of Commons and the country, that so far as he was concerned he was personally guiltless of all these corrupt practices. He was aware that this decla ration might be considered only as a trap for tender consciences. He trusted no Hon. Member would vote against his Bill on that ground. If any doubt was en tertained upon the subject, then let them look to the declaration itself, and then they would see that no such danger was likely to arise. He was aware that the subject was surrounded by many difficulties, but he thought that some such rule ought to be adopted, even if it were only for the protection of the candidates themselves.—(Hear, hear.) If the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, he would propose that it be referred to a Select Committee, because he was quite aware of the great difficulty of the subject. He was told yesterday, by a gentleman extensively con nected with elections, that the principle of the Bill was the cnly one by which they could hope to stop the practice of bribery. It never would be suppressed until the feelings of the parties who bribed were excited, and until they were impressed with the conviction that their own honour and character wore involved in the course they took. He would appeal to the House whether, for the protection of the candidates themselves, this measure was not desirable? Gentlemen of honour and character went as candidates to boroughs where these practices of bribery had long prevailed ; and they soon discovered that they had no option between complying with those practices or at once retiring from the place. But, protected by such an enactment as that now pro posed, those gentlemen would be placed in a different position, and they might say to their agents — If you practise corruption you must do it at your own peril; I have this declaration hanging over me." and believing that the malpractices to which he had al luded had brought a great scandal upon the country, he felt deeply impressed with the necessity of adopting some such plan, and he should, therefore, only now propose that, in addition to the declaration in the House, there should also be a right, vested in the electors themselves, to demand from the candidates on the hustings a similar declaration, so that when men of respectability and standing went down to any place, they should find it prudent to abstain from bribery altogether, lest they should be placed in the position either of acknowledging their guilt, or of perjuring them selves.—(Hear.) The next enactment was, that where parties had been reported to the House by name as having either taken or given bribes, ?hese parties should be disfranchised for life. Constituted as Election Com mittees now were, it might be justly assumed that no person would be so reported unless the case was clearly established. This was the only disfranchisement he contemplated. The only remaining material enactment in this Bill was in another direction—he proposed that the bribery oath should be altogether repealed. He re garded that oath as being entirely a trap for the voter. It was most unfair that a man who, in the first instance, was corrupted by a temptation which he could not resist, should at the time of the election, in the face of the whole constituency, be called upon either to confess his guilt or perjure himself. He was sorry to say expe rience proved too strongly which was the alternative preferred. He would not trouble the House further with regard to the details of the measure. Some objections he naturally expected to hear, but he entertained a san guine hope that they would not be such as that the Select Committee would not be able to remove them. He had been told by some persons that the only remedy against bribery was an extension of the franchise. For his own part he was in no degree op posed to an extension of the franchise, but until he saw that what his Hon. Friend, the Member for Buck inghamshire, the other evening very happily termed a proper sense of the dignity of exercising the franchise, he could anticipate but little benefit from any extension of the franchise. He was anxious that the people should regard the possession of that right as a great public privilege, and not as a marketable commodity. But could they trust to the enlargement of the consti tuency as a means of preventing bribery? Experience and reason both told them they could not. Experience would point to the cases of Nottingham and Norwich. It was a matter of notoriety that, in days not long gone by, the large constituencies of Nottingham and Norwich were among the most notoriously corrupt bodies of electors in the country. And did not reason tell them that whether they were dealing with thousands or with hundreds, if the parties were nicely balanced , there would still be the temptation to the candidate to buy and to the corrupt voter to sell, where a limited number of votes would turn the scale one way or the other?—(Hear.) Yet he would wish it to be understood that he was by no means unfriendly to an extension of the franchise, so soon as it could be shown to him that it might be safely ceegeled to more numerous hands. It might be said that the severity or 10‘ , R decisions of the Committees of last session would put an end to bribery. Some of those de cisions were in his judgment too severe, but although they would have their effect he did not believe they would check bribery ; they might prevent the presenta tion of election petitions. It had been pointed out to him as a defect in his Bill that it did not touch the of fence of treating. In dealing with one difficult subject he naturally avoided encountering another; but the sub ject of treating could be considered in Committee, and, if thought proper, could be included in the BT. He appealed to the House not to reject this Bill; but, at all events, if they did so he should have the satisfaction of knowing that he had made a single-minded attempt to check what he believed to be a great growing and increasing evil, which was sapping the very foundation of our representative system, which had been the boast of England and the admiration of the world. They were justly proud of the purity of public men. Colonel SIBTHORP—Oh, oh ! Nonsense, ridiculous. Sir J. PAKINGTON proceeded—But let him warn the House that if they valued the purity of public 'men in public offices they might endanger that purity if they did not maintain an equal degree of purity amongst the constituent body.—(Hear, hear.) Now he asked the House to give this Bill a second reading. He did not hold out to them that this was a measure by which bribery would be prevented in all cases, but if they adopted the principle of the Bill it would put an end to all those gross and wholesale cases to which he had to-day di rected attention, and he did hope that the House would pass some legislative measure upon the subject. They were bound to make an effort to remedy the existing evils, and it was to give the House an opportunity of making that effort that he moved the second reading of the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP said, when he gave notice of his intention to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, of course, he was not led to expect, but certainly, he did not know that the Hon. Baronet proposed that the Bill should be referred to the consideration of a Select Committe.—(Hear, hear.) He now knew what the Hon. Baronet's intention. was, and as he had no objection to the course the Hon. Baronet proposed he should abstain from moving his amendment, but certainly not from saying a few words upon the sub ject.—(Hear, and laughter.) If he entertained objec tions to the Bill when he gave notice of his amendment, they had been increased tenfold by the speech which the Hon. Bennet had made in support of it. Where the Honourable Baronet obtained his information from he could not for the life of him make out. He presumed it was not from Droitwitch, nor could he believe that the Hon. Baronet had given the informa tion upon the ipse diva of individuals. It appeared rather to be the result of some secret inquiry, and he should always oppose a Bill which was based upon in formation derived from secret sources.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet then talked about the purity of public men. Good God ! the purity of public men, where was it?—what was it?—(Hear and laughter.) He had always thought and now boldly declared that the Trea sury bench was the seat where, above all others, the grossest corruption prevailed.—(Laughter.) But he had heard with infinite satisfaction that the Honourable Member for Hull, who now occupied a seat on the bench, had refused to take office if he were not permitted to pursue what course he thought proper in reference to the navigation-laws, and they had received an intimation from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government — the Member for the city of London, which was all purity—(Laughter) —that he had absolved the Right Hon. Gentleman from voting against the repeal of the navigation-laws, libervtovoteas bu h t h e t li e N ked o u be Lord p l one very did oth n e o r t q g u iv e e sti h o im n. No, the Noble Lord was too cautious for that. He said the navigation-laws was an open question, but ques tions might b e open out of doors but not in the House. An open question out of doors was a very different thing to what was considered an open question in Downing -street.—(Hear, hear.) The purity of public men, indeed ! Faugh ! Stuff 1 Itwaswas mere moon shine.—(Hear, and laughter.)impossible for them to be pure. Bribery and corruption was part of their system, and their impunity was ;as noto rious as the sun at noon day.—(Hear, and laughter.) He could not help thinking that the Hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill would have done much better had he delayed the second reading of the Bill until the House had seen the information which the Hon. Baronet said he had read. Besides, there was a Bill coming from another place, and he should like to know before they disposed of this one what that Bill would be. A Bill was also introduced last session into the House upon the subject, to which great attention was paid, and which incurred a great amount of expense—a waste of time, printing, and paper—and yet it all ended in smoke.—(Hear, and laughter.) And then the Noble Lord followed it up with another Bill, which he managed to get through the House ; but when it got up to another place, the other place wanted to shut up them selves, and they kicked out the Bill.—(Cheers and laughter.) But now it seemed another Bill was rising in the other place out of the ashes of the Bill they had knocked on the head last session. Now he would not say anything against the other place, but he always understood that the House looked with eyes of jealousy upon intermeddling of the other place ; but, be that as it might, he for one did not like this interference of the other place. Why did they not mind their own business? But it might be possible that there was not too much purity in the other place, although it contained a mitre.— (Hear.) What had bishops and priests to do with this question? What had Christian members of the Church to do with it? Why, nothing at all; and he hoped they would (though he hardly expected it) abstain from voting on the resuscitated Bill. If this Bill were passed it would destroy that good feel ing which had so long existed between the higher' and the lower classes, and it was well known what care the wealthier classes bestowed upon their humble dependents.—(Hear, hear.) If, however, there was to be a searching inquiry into all their acts—if secret machinations wore to exist, no man would be sac°. Bribery and corruption had existed, and, doubtless, would exi:A. He ;hoped at least, however, that he had never been guilty of - a:;y such acts ; he was, therefore, altogether free from the charge, but if eight or !pine Bills had been introduced since 1841, for the purpose of altering the present state of things, and yet had proved inoperative for that pur pose, he should like to know what chance the present measure stood of success. He hoped the Bill would be rejected, because he believed that every man ought to do what he liked with his own.—(Laughter.) At least allowing a man that permission was but carrying out the much vaunted principle of free trade ; but he supposed a free trader (a hair of whose head he would not hurt) could not bribe; it was quite impossible • he was too pure a being to do so.—(Laughter.) He believed the Bill to be absurd, to be full of equivocations, and that it would prevent the purest and most honourable men from coming to the House and conscientiously taking the usual oaths. Nevertheless, as the Honourable Baronet had consented to have the matter re ferred to a Committee up stairs he should not oppose the Bill in its present stage not wishing to thwart fair investigation. He trusted, however, when it came down again, if it came down at all—(Laughter)—that it would do so in a far different shape. He saw no reason why they should pass a Bill of this character, because Mr. Tompkins or_Mr. Jenkins was dissatisfied with the result. It was an attempt to catch them sleeping, and he advised the House to take care that its silver spoons were not stolen.—(Laughter.) Sir J. HANMER said it was perfectly true that former attempts had been made, as had been stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member who had just resumed his seat, to suppress the corrupt practices which had been so long carried on at elections. He hoped, however, that the present attempt of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), though he (Sir J. Hanmer) was not able to give his support to all its provisions,would be successful. He was glad he had expressed his readiness to refer this Bill to a Select Committee up stairs, and trusted, through the searching investigation and praetical„suggestions of that body, that the House would be enabled to pass a mea sure to put an end to those evils which threatened, unless at once checked or restrained, to sap the foundations of Parliament itself. It was true that, heretofore, the attempt of unofficial Members to stop the evil had proved abortive, but he assured the House that unless a remedy was devised without delay that the day of vengeance was at hand. After the vast quantity of evidence that had been collected on oath, he confessed that he was at a loss to understand why a Bill of this kind should have to encouunter so manydifficulties. As the Committee was to take into its consideration the subject of treating, the motion of the Hon. Baronet should have his support. The Gallant Member had said, that if the Bill were passed, no one would be safe. Had he been in his place he should have asked him if aay one was safe at the present moment. No one, in his opinion, would be safe until the law with respect to bribery and treating, and their punishment, was placed on an intelligible footing. The difference between treating and bribery was by no means clearly defined—(Hear, hear)—and a va riety of opinions existed on the subject. He need not go any further back than last session to find instances of this difference of opinion. No less than three dis crepancies of opinion occurred last session on the subject of treating. Mr. Hodgson, who had been elected for Carlisle, was unseated because treating had been carried on by his agents, but without his knowledge and consent. It was thought he had a right to contest the seat again; he did so and was elected, and no doubt sat in that House with great advantage to the city. The other cases were North Cheshire and Horsham. Mr. Cornwall Legh, who had been elected for South Cheshire, and Mr. Fitzgerald, who had been elected for Horsham, were unseated for treating by ; their agents, though they declared they had nothing to do with it, and that they, therefore, were not reponsible. The Committee said an action at law could not be main tained against Mr. Cornwall Legh, and therefore he was most tightly permitted to retain his seat. The very same question occurred at Horsham, where all the elements vent to show that Mr. Fitzgerald did the very same thing when he stood in 1847. The Committee declared there that he was not duly elected, and not capable of sitting. Therefore, on the very same question having been referred to a Committee in room A, concerning the North Cheshire election, a gentleman was now sitting a Member of the House, and on the very same question bring referred to a Committee in room B, a gentleman was not sitting a Member of the House; and he was, be (Sir J. Hanmer) believed, incapable of sitting again in the present Parliament. Surely it was time for the House-to define what was the law, or what ought to he the law. There was another, though an incidental, question arose in the Horsham Committee. They not only decided that Mr. Fitzgerald, who had the majority of votes, should be deprived of his seat, and was incapable of sitting, because at a previous election !some treating had been carried on against his instructions and without his knowledge, but the Com mittee decided that another Noble Lord, who bad the minority of votes, was duly elected. Now that question arose incidentally, but it was a very important question, and he hoped that if the Bill of the Noble Lord was to be referred to a Com mittee up stairs, the terms of reference would not be small and narrow, and that the cases in which existing decisions of Committees of the House conflicted with the decisions in the courts of law would be submitted to that Committee, and that the House might arrive at a state of things such as the Hon. Member for Lincoln so much desiderated, viz.—when the country would get a good, plain, and in telligible law on the subject of bribery. He had fault to find with other parts of this Bill. On account of the very great and pressing importance of the subject, and be. cause he was well aware that the attention of the country was directed to this great and crying evil, and that the House ought not and should not be content with the present state of the law, he did hope that the Bill would be referred to a Committee, and that gentlemen would not be too anxious to find fault, but would say hero was a great evil, here was a Bill that proposed to amend that evil, and let them take it into their whole consideration. But, at all events, only for God's sake let us have a Bill in the present session, by means of which the election of members to an important branch of the Legislature might be pure and satisfactory. Lord MAHON thought that the course which the Honourable Baronet had taken in referring this Bill to a Committee up stairs was most pro per, though he (Lord Mahon) thought there wire difficulties and doubts connected with the Bill which he was anxious to suggest, not in a spirit of hostility, but with a view to amendment. At the third clause he found it proposed, that any Member who should, by a report of a Committee of the House of Commons, be declared to have been guilty of bribery shall be for ever hereafter incapable to be elected a Member of Parliament. Now he wished the House to consider how dangerous was such an enactment. Let the House just consider how it would have operated in former years, when the great party leaders were in array against each other, when the exclusion of one of those great party leaders would have been considered an object to one of the opposite parties. Let them take the case of Pitt and Fox. Would it have been right for this House to put it into the power of any five of its Members to declare that any of those great party leaders were incapable of ever again hereafter sitting in Parliament? Let the House consider what a temptation they held out to party spirit; and let it consider this case, not in reference to the present moment, but in reference to those periods of great political excit eme nt. By the second clause it was enacted, that any person whom a Com mittee of the House of Commons should declare to have been guilty of receiving a bribe shall forfeit his right of voting. He (Lord Mahon) was a member of the Committee which sat on the Borough of Lancaster Election Petition. It was proved on the clearest evi dence that several voters had received bribes, and the Committee were in the painful position, that the writ had to issue and the election be determined by the very persons whom the Committee bad to report to the House as having been guilty of bribery.—(Hear, hear.) There, again, as in the former case, there might be a danger of party spirit intervening. With respect to the gene ral subject of declarations, it was one on which he wished to reserve his Opinion. The Noble Lord con cluded by saying be would have the greatest satisfaction in vcting for the second reading of the Bill, and for referring it to a Committee. Mr. AGLIONBY would vote for the second reading of the Bill, but he was afraid that, like all that had preceded it on the subject, it would be found to be inefficacious. The only proper course to pursue was to disfranchise the ancient freemen and enfranchise them as householders.—(Hear, hear.) Give them vote by ballot, and then matters would be put upon a proper and sound footing. The matter should be met boldly, and the country would be with them. Sir G. GREY gave great credit to the Right Hon. Bart. the Member for Droitwich for the motives that had induced him to bring forward the measure, and be should be exceedingly sorry to throw any objections in the way of such a measure; but beforuhe consented to the second reading of the Bill, ho felt bound to make some observations upon it. If the House agreed to the appointment of the Select Committee it would, as ho understood, be assenting to its principle. The question was, with respect to this measure, whether it was desirable on the one hand to repeal the existing law, and whether the House was at the same time entitled to impose on Members of Parliament before they took their seats the necessity of taking an oath or making a declaration couched in the same terms as the bribery oath, which he considered would tend more to the com mission of perjury than to the suppression of bribery.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said there were three main points in the Bill; first, the declaration imposed upon candidates before they took their seats been fo f r ou e n v d er gu o il f t that they had not been guilty of bribery; i secondly,n the the House disqualification who iad to sity a of M br e i m be b r e y r by a court of law, or by a Committee of the House of Commons; and third, the repeal of the Bribery Act. With regard to the first point, he had beard nothing to convince him that it was necessary to impose such a declaration. It would not prevent the commission of bribery at elections, and would have the effect of shutting out some of the most honest and best Members from taking a seat in that House. The l,lon. Member said if the House assented to the prin ciple of the oath or declaration by Members, he was willing to amend it in the Committee up stairs; there fore ho (Sir George Grey) wished it to be understood that the declaration was open to serious objections, and that he was not prepared to sanction it. With respect to the second point he enter, tained the same serious objections, and thought it most dangerous thing to impose a penalty which would disqualify Members for ever sitting in the House again, however desirous constituents might be that they should represent them.—(Hear, hear.) He had no objec tion to the clause which altered the present law on the subject of bribery, and therefore that would not meet wish his opposition. He entertained a great objection to the perpetual disqualification of elec tors. He would be sorry to oppose the general wish of the House to refer to the Committee up stairs the Bill in question, but he should he happy to aid in introducing some more effectual cheek to the commission of bihery, and he thought it his duty at present to warn the House against sanctioning the main principles of the Bill. Mr. G. J. TURNER said he could not agree to the sending of this Bill to a Committee up stairs. He would just point out to the House with what ease this declaration might be avoided. Why, a scrupulous man would go to his agent and inquire whether any bribery had been practised before he made any declaration, whereas the unscrupulous man would make no inquiry at all. If the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department divided the House, he should most certainly divide with him.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. COCKBURN conceived that this Bill contained so much that was good that it ought to go through a recond reading. Whether there was the extent of corruption and bribery at elections alleged,' or whether there was not, they had at least this assu rance, that it was an attempt, and a wise attempt, to stop an evil of very serious magnitude. Was not this worth the while of a Legislature to stay? Why, what was the case which the Hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had adduced ? He had asserted that in a constituency amounting to three thousand every one voter in twenty-eight had been bribed to the amount of tan pounds. Surely, then, this was a matter which re quired the instant exertion of the authority of Parlia ment to put down—(Hear.) By doing this they would be bringing the conventional usage into harmony with the strict rules of morality, and they would be doing away with a mischief which was fast sapping the root of all public virtue.—(Hear, hear.) By this declaration a Member of Parliament would voluntarily incur the risks of condemning himself, 'and thus expose himself to all the risks of ignominy and disgrace .—(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the penalties which the Bill pro posed to impose, he, for one, thought that they were by no means too severe. The Bill proposed to render the making of a false declaration an act of felony. —(Hear, hear.) Let them believe him that all their legislation had hitherto been in the wrong direction. They had only now begun at the right end. If they had hitherto attempted simply to bring the tempted to justice, surely it was but, wisdom to endeavour also to place the tempter in the same predicament.—(Hear, hear.) It was useless to make laws for the object of abolishing an evil, the subjects of which had placed before them a sum:which it was almost beyond the power of a poor man to resist, in accepting which, the gain was present and certain, while the pu nishment for receiving it was at the least remote and very contingent.—,(Hear, bear.) Let this declaration be made and the man who made it would have a right to separate himself from the evil thing, and take his part in investi gating the conduct of those by whom it had been com mitted.—(Hear.) They all remembered the severity of the inquiries of the Election Committees last year, and certainly he was not one who complained of that severity. All he wanted was a judge and jury, and when convic tion followed, he was prepared to permanently disqualify the person so convicted from ever sitting in Parlia ment. The recent decisions of Election Com mittees had entitled them to the respect of the House; but in times of strong party ex citement it was not unlikely they might be induced thereby to act in favour of the party to which they be longed. The House should, therefore, be very cautious how it extended the power at present possessed by Election Committees. He doubted not that this part of the Bill would be modified in the Select Com mittee. He trusted the Bill would receive the assent of the. House.—(Cheers.) Mr. HENLEY said, if two Learned Members, like the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had last spoken and the Hon. and Learned Member behind him (Mr. Aglionby) could not agree as to the terms of the de claration to be made by Members at the table on taking their seats, how could they expect unlearned Members to make up theiri minds,,upon the matter?—(Hear, o f f ro th m e Bill, he sending hear.) If the Committee , a s he be li ev e d, was could dy notto disagree t o: h d n leadingtage could it to them. The Bill was so ob j ectionable that the leader of a party might be u nseated in conse q uence of the acts of two or more parti es utterl y unconnected wi th ae result him. Believing the Bill to be useless, he should vote against it. Mr. HUME had had a good deal of experience of the inutility of these Bills, but he wanted the law to be simplified. Throw the responsibility and punishment on the really guilty party, and where they found an agent guilty of a dishonest a ct strike him or the rolls if he were on any, or disfrancise him if he were an elector.—(Hear, hear.) t igft ds Mr. HEADLAM could n ot support the Bill, Al though he was most anxiou s to put an end to the system of bribery and corru ption which pre• veiled at elections. It was a continuation of a vicious course of legislation on the snbject doefclbarraibteiorn at the hustings,y.ltwasun so that fair to comp be 4 : ili h s t n afterwards to make a be indicted for the crime of bribery, ecause that system involved a principle that was unknown to the common law of the. land. The law wisely said that no man could legally criminate himself, and until the House established a different mode of putting down bribery the crime would never be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) 'Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD cordially agreed with the principles of the Bill. He could not under stand upon what principle of equity or justice they re fused to inflict upon the Member the severe oaths and declarations they imposed upon the elector, and he, for one, trusted that the Hon. Baronet would persevere in this measure.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR thought the principle of the Bill was good. It assimilated the law of bribery to the law applicable to other crimes, and that was the only means by which they could purify the elective system of the country. The Hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill had made some allusion to the former corruption of Nottingham. No doubt Coventry was corrupt once, for when he put up for that borough at the last election a deputation of publicans waited upon him to know if he would pay the expenses of the former contest on behalf of Sir John Hobhouse. He was told that the arrears amounted to 20,0001., but as it was his rule to pay nothing for his return, he refused to accede to the proposal, and of course incurred the direful hostility of the publicans. The Hon. Member for Coventry had warmly supported the freemen of this country, but the House must permit him to say that he had no confidence in the purity of that body, and he would tell them why. He re membered on one occasion, when he was addressing a crowd of electors from a waggon in the market- place, when he deprecated bribery and corruption during the coming election, 500 of' the freemen came down in their flannel jackets, and asked him if he was going to destroy their freedom and their inheritance. Mr. HODGSON defended the constituency of Carlisle against any imputations of bribery. With respect to the principle of the measure it was a matter of indifference to him whether the Bill was read a second time or not, for he would forego the honour of a seat in that House rather than make a declaration such as was proposed to bo taken by this Bill. He would, nevertheless, vote for the second reading of the Bill. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON spoke in reply to the arguments that bad been adduced in the course of the debate. The principal observation he had to ma k e upon the debate was, that it appeared to him, that excepting those objections which had been made to the principle of Members being called on to make a declaration on this subject ; the other objections partook of the nature of verbal criticism rather than serious objections to the Bill. The Hon. Baronet then briefly reviewed the objections to his Bill, and concluded by stating that the main principle of the Bill was the security which such a declaration could give against bribery at elections, and called on the House to sanction the second reading of this Bill, re minding them that the eyes of the country were looking to them with some anxiety for a measure which would put an end to the corrupt practices at elections. Col. RAWDON begged to assure the House that, as an officer in the army, he had received several commis sions in his life, and he was never asked to make a de claration, and he certainly never made one. He believed every other officer in the House would bear him out in that statement. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading . 110 Against it • • ••• 60 Majority ••• ••• --•...-30 The Bill was then read a second time. CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL. The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill passed through Committee, and the report ,was ordered to be received to-morrow. LIGHTHOUSES. Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the report of Cap tain Bayfield, R.N., on the necessity of erecting a light house on Cape Pine, Newfoundland, and statement of the measures that have been adopted by the Govern ment in consequence;; a statement of the progress made in the erection of the lighthouse on the Island of Barbadoes for which the Assembly of Barbadoes has voted money, and for which, in the miscellaneous esti mates of last year, the House voted the sum of 2,0001. also, statement of what measures have been adopted respecting the erection, management, and superintend. ence of lighthouses in the British colonies and pos sessions. Lord BERNARD complained that the want of light houses in the north, western, and south-western coast of Ireland was the cause of many shipwrecks. After some observations from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Anstey, Mr. Herbert, and Lord John Russell, the mo tion was agreed to. UNION OF KENMARE. Mr. NAPIER postponed till to-morrow, the following motion of which he had given notice :—Copies of the accounts of the union of Kenmore, from the date of the last audit until the removal of the local guardians, to show the state of the accounts as between the several electoral divisions, and the actual debts of the union; similar accounts from the removal of the local guardians to the present time; entries in the ledger since March, 1848 ; registers of persors receiving in-door and out door relief, with their residences, as set forth in the register kept in the workhouse ; entries on the re gister showing the number of paupers in the union work house, on the Ist of January in the present year ; en tries in the clothing book of the workhouse, and pro vision account books for the year 1848 ; and all entries showing the state of the union during the year 1848. The House adjourned at Six o'clock. a ONE OF THE LATE Intsu LEADERS.—Mr. Eugene O'Reilly, the young gentleman who Sgured rather pro minently in the councils of the late Irish Confederation, has entered the service of his Majesty the King of Sar dinia as a lieutenant of Lancers, with pay at the rate of 180 f. a month. During the sitting of the National Assembly on Tuesday, after the discussion on the Electoral Law had closed, M. Ledru Rollin ascended the tribune, and begged leave to address a few questions to the Cabinet rela tive to the affairs of Italy. A grave fact, he said, had jrtst taken place in Italy. A Republic had been pro claimed at Rome, and the temporal power of the Popes was at an end. This was glorious intelligence for the friends of liberty.—(Loud murmurs. " No! no!" " Yes ! yes !") M. Ledru Rollin wondered at those interrup tions from a quarter (pointing to the Left) which had so enthusiastically joined in the cry of " Vive la Repub lique!" Sinister rumours were in circulation which afflicted the hearts of the sincere Republicans, at the same time that they caused a rise in the funds. Various projects of intervention were on the tapis; but, if he was correctly informed. Piedmont was to invade Romagna, whilst Na ples was to enter the Pontifical dominions on the other side. In the meantime, a French and English squadron would give moral support to the Sardinian and Neapo litan armies, and another naval force would be stationed at Genoa to awe the Piedmontese patriots, who would naturally take arms. M. Drouyn de Lhuis, Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that M. Ledru Rollin had wondered at the mur murs of a portion of the Assemby, when he stated that the proclamation of the Republic at Rome was good news for the friends of liberty. No sympathy need exist between the French Republic and all the insurrections and revolutionary movements through out Europe. Before he cried Vive la Republique, he shoud ask what republic was meant.—(llere a member exclaimed from the extremity of the hall, " You would prefer crying Vive le Roi !"—Murmurs.) "We knew our republic," added the Minister ' " we will defend it, but we must be allowed to wait before we give our approbation to certain republics. As respected the intervention of Piedmont in Romagna, he would observe to M. Ledru Rollin, that Ro magna and Piedmont are not contiguous. and that they are separated by intervening states.—(Laughter.) The Pope possessed a double power, spiritual and temporal, and when he was obliged to quit his dominions all the Catholic Governments and others resolved to interfere in order to restore to him the enjoyment of his double authority. France would not remsin indifferent. Such was the opinion of the Go vernment, which had sought with the utmost solici tude to remedy the evil and re-establish peace in the Catholic Church. It had accordingly concurred in the plans suggested for the re-establishment of that peace and order. France could not approve the Italian Con stituent. She would bide her time, and, it obliged to act, the Cabinet would first apply to the National As sembly. This was the only reply he could return M. Ledru Rollin." M. Ledru Rollin, who followed, endeavoured to draw a distinction between the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope, and maintained, amidst the indignation of a portion of the Assembly, that Pius IX., as a tem poral Sovereign, had forfeited all rights to the esteem and affection of his people. Re then told the Cabinet that it was bound to prevent all intervention in Italy by the Constitution, the manifesto of the Provi sional Government, and the order of the day of the Na tional Assembly of the 24th of May, which had pro claimed the principles of the emancipation of Italy. M. Coquerel, a Protestant minister, rendered full justice to the Pope, and contended that if the French Republic restored him to the enjoyment of his temporal power it would be with his entire approbation. The un grateful Romans had not only banished the Pope—it had banished the first friend of Italian liberty. M. Poujoulat occupied the tribune at post hour. It was rumoured yesterday in Paris that Prince Schwartzenberg, the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, had directed Baron Thorn, the Austrian Mini ster at Paris, to lay before the French Government a protest against the pretensions of the King of Sardinia. In this protest Prince Schwartzenberg claims, on the part of the Emperor of Austria, the full and complete possession of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, as secured to him by the treaties of 1815. The protest adds further, that inasmuch as the Austrian troops in Lombardy had been attacked without a shadow of jus tice by the King of Sardinia. and that victory has crowned the Austrian arms, the Emperor considers that he is entitled to be paid the expenses of the late war by Charles Albert. FIRE IN A COTTON-MILL. (From the Manchester Courier.) About twenty minutes past one o'clock this (Wed. nesday) morning, a fire was discovered to have broken out in the cotton-mill of Mr. Charles Pooley, in Temple-street, Chorlton-on-Medlock. The alarm was brought to the Town's.vard, in Clarence-street, by a policeman in a cab, when Mr. Rose was quickly on the spot with four engines and a body of the fire brigade. When first discovered, the flames were seen bursting out of the end window of the third story, at that end of the mill which abuts on the South Junction Railway, and they were confined to the blowing•rooms, which are situated immediately over the engine-house. When Mr. Rose arrived the fire had extended to the two upper rooms, and threatened the destruction of the whole mill, but by the judicious exertions of the firemen, the flames were very soon checked. Fortu nately a wall cut off the communication between these rooms and the rest of the mill, and when the flames reached the top story it was only to penetrate a cis tern on the roof, a rush of water from which mate rially assisted to check their further progress. Had not this been the case, the entire mill must have fallen a prey to the destructive element, when the loss sus tained must have been a serious one, as the mill is a tolerably large one, being some 25 yards long, and five stories in height. How the fire originated it is dif ficult to say, as the mill was closed at eight o'clock on the previous evening, when all appeared to be quite safe. There is little doubt, however, that the fire must have been burning for a considerable time, from the progress which the flames had made when first noticed. As there was no private watchman employed on the premises, it is possible that the fire may have been smouldering since the time the engine stopped. From all we could see and learn, we believe con siderable damage will be done to the engine -house, whilst the machinery in the blowing rooms will be totally destroyed. Owing to the brief time allowed us, we were unable to ascertain whether or not Mr. Pooley is insured, or what the damage may be estimated at. Superintendents Saynor and Taylor were both in attend ance, with a body of police, but so few people were pre sent their services were scarcely needed. LORD ALFORD. Talking of family matters, what a slice of good luck has at last befallen Lord Alford, the nephew of your Cheshire neighbour, Sir E. Cust, by the death of the wealthy and amazingly old Countess of Bridge water, whose heir tho Noble Lord is by the terms of the will of the late eccentric Earl. What these terms are have been explained here en a former occasion when speaking of the Custs ; but as a good many errors are " going the rounds" iu con nexion with the story of the inheritance, it may be as well to repeat our former particulars, with come few addi tions. John William Egerton, seventh Earl of Bridge water, Viscount Brackley, and Baron of Ellesmere (hus band of the Countess), died without issue in 1823, and on the death of his next brother, half-a-dozen years after wards, all the titles became extinct, some of them, as you are aware, being lately revived in the person of the present Earl of Ellesmere, who, as second son to the late Marquis of Stafford (first Duke of Suther land), succeeded to his granduncle's, the last Duke of Bridgewater's, immense estates, and to that portion of the famous Stafford Gallery which is about being con veyed to Bridgewater House, now building near St.. James's Palace, and which pictures were valued at 150,000/. The Earl willed that on the death of the Countess (just deceased), his grandnephew, Lord Al ford, the Tory Member for Bedfordshire, and son and heir to Earl Brownlow, should succeed to his great estates for five years, and if at the expiration of that period he had not advanced in the peerage beyond the degree of earl, then his next brother, Lord Charles Henry Cust, an officer in the Guards, married to the daughter of the Chief of Clanranald, is to succeed on precisely the same conditions, failing which, the head, whoever he may be „at the time, of the Egertons of Tatton succeed. Here, then, are the materials for a real modern romance of the peerage. Lord Alford is not much of a conjuror, at all events in the political world ; and how is he to get the requisite marquisate or dukedom without the thing being a too palpable contrivance for securing the inheritance? If such bo attempted, all eyes will be turned to it by the notoriety that attaches to the will ; and what Minister in these days will venture on any performance of the kind without being able to justify it, especially as there are at least two sets of individuals, Lord Charles 11. Cust and his family a❑d the Egertons, who have the deepest interest in see ing that the spirit as well as the letter of the will is complied with ; fir of course the deceased Peer meant that his heir should earn the honour whose attainment is the condition of the retention of the property. However, here, no doubt, will come in the value of the Court favouritism of the Master of the Cere monies with his old employer, Leopold, the Queen's uncle, and the favouritism of Lady Charlotte Cust with the Queen's mother; so that if Lord Alford be the fa vourite nephew of the proprietor of Leasowe Castle, the chances are that the Crown will make a Marquis of him, irrespective of the Ministers of the day alto gether, before the five years are up. That there will be counterplotting and intriguing there can be small ques tion. The Brownlow family extend to three times the length of the O'Connell tail when it was at its fullest stretch. The late Earl had three wives, and three large families, almost every member of whom has also had numerous offspring, extending, in the three generations, to not far short of 200 individuals, without touching the cousins, at all. To suppose that all these, or the quarter of them (putting the multitudinous Egertons out of the question), will acquiesce in the propriety of Lord Alford being left in quiet possession of his good fortune, would be to fancy a state of domestic bliss which the proprietor of the original " Happy Family " himself would declare to be purely ideal. Alford has al ready pretty well illustrated the futility of human calculations, for he is now not far short of forty ; and every one expected he would have come into at least his five years' tenure on reaching his majority, by which time the Countess was passed seventy. However, he is quite young enough yet to turn mat ters to account for himself and other people, amongst whom, it is to be presumed, will be his Cheshire uncle, to whom it would not be very respectful if he allowed him to receive a miserable 3001. a year, for going through an amount of Court ceremonial gymnastics which necessarily entail an annual three months' lumbago on any man attempting them who doesn't happen to be born with a gutta-percha backbone; and Sir Edward, to all external appearances, does not look as if he had a particularly flexible vertebrae—much to his inconveni ' once a; this present juncture, seeing all the levees and GAS—LIGHT AND CORE COMPANIES. Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price. Annum. Stare. IZ. s. d. A. s. d. 11. 140 0 0 IS 0 0 14 Ditto Provinctal.• • • li. Ss. 20 0 0 19 0 0 18 Atrlstol .............. 101. per cent. 20 0 0: ` Brighton ...... •• • ... 51. per cent. I 20 0 0 16 City of London .. .• • • 101. 100 0 0 100 0 6 250 Continental Consolidat. 925. pr share' 50 0 0 39 5 0 , 45 Equitable. •••••.. • • .. 455. pr share 50 0 0 50 0 0 34 Imperial ••....• • • • • • 6/. per cent. 150 I 0 50 0 I I 67 Independent ... .. .. • • 61. per cent. ,40 0 0 40 I 0 ' 64 London.. .. .. .••• • • . • 1 50 0 0 90 0 I 50 0 0 50 0 Phcenix. . ............ 51. per cent. 150 0 0 46 0 I 30 Ratcliff .... •..•• • • • • 5/. f 100 0 0 90 0 0 77 United General .... .. 4%1. pr cent.! 50 0 0 50 0 I 12% WeAtmiuster Chartered 31. 50 0 0 49 Ditto, New •.•. . . 12s. ,50 0 0 10 0 0 9% FEBR UARY 22, 1849.: FRANCE Dividend per Iran 0 of Company. Annum. drawing-rooms, and other state pageants which her Ma jesty, it seems, is to institute this season, with a view to give the tribe of Howell and James and the modistes of Belgravia a preliminary taste of California.—Corre spondent of the Liverpool Albion. PRICES OF SHARES iN BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COM- PANIES' STOCK. LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20. From the Official List PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY A =MAY EVENING. XOTNT-STOCK BANKS. Amount of Share. Paid, Australasia ........ .. it ritsh North American ............. . C unntercial of London C)lonial.• •• •• Gloucestershire .. lonian • • . • • • .. • • • • • • Londn and Westminstr Loudon Joint-Stock... Provincial of Ireland.. Ditto, New......... National of Ireland Nat. Provncial of Eng. Ditto, New. • • • ..... South Australia •• • • •• Union of Australia.. Union of London... •• Union of Madrid lATSUg, Name of Company. Albion • • • • • • • • • • • • Alliance Brit. and For. Ditto Marine. • • • • • • :atlas Britisti Commercial .• Clericl,Med.&Gen.Life Crown .. •• .• •• •• •• •• Nagle .• • • • Eng.& Scot. Law .... European Life ••• • • • Family Endow= t Soc. Freemasons'. • • • • • • • • Globe G3ardian ...... • • • • • • Imperial Fire • • • • • • • • Imperial Life • Indemnity Marine.... Law Fire ............ Law Life • • • • • . • • • • .. Legal and General Life London Fire ........ London Ship t.farine .• •• • •• • • • • Sled. Invlid & Gen. Lifo Rational Loan Fund gational Life.. • • Palladium Life Pelican .. • • • • • • • • .. • • ... Phoenix PI elector Life • • • • • • • • Provident Life • • • • • • • • cock Life • • • • Royal Exchange San Fire Mite Life .•• •• Universal Life...... •• Victoria Life .... Name of Company. Charing-cross .. .. .... Southwrk, Nw Sub. Av. Ditto Nw of 7)4 p.c. Waterloo ............ 51. per eent. 71. par cent. 61. per cent. 51. pa cent. 151 per cent. 61. per cent. 61. per cent. GI. per cent. 81. per cent. B''. per cent. 51. per cent. G/. per cent. 51. per cent. 51, per cent, 61. per cent. 61. per cent .NCE 31. 10s. 61. per cent. Cl. per cent. 13s. 6d. pr eh. 7s. per share 1. pr ct...3t bs. 14s. 6s. 51. per cent. 5% per cent. 4/. & bs. Cl. per cent. 61. per cent. 51. 121, per cent, 12s. 11. ■h. & bs. 11. 165. 4341. per et, 51. per cent. bl. per cent. 51. per cent. 2/. p. sh. bs 51. per cent. It. ss. & bs. ss. 5/. per ceat. 61. 10s. 1/. 6s. 10% pr cnt. SI. per cnt. £ 9. d. 500 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 100 • 0 20 0 0 Stock. 100 0 500 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 50 I 25 0 25 0 toe 0 50 0 20 0 100 0 50 0 20 0 0 100 0 0 5 0 0 Stock. 100 0 0 X s. d. 4000 50 0 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 60 0 0 100 0 0 10 0 0 SO 0 0 100 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 40 0 0 £ 1. d. 40 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 13 0 0 10 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 22 10 0 35 0 0 10 0 0 22 10 0 25 0 0 2 10 0 10 0 0 40 0 0 oTVIPALNIES. Dividend per Annum. Amount of Share. BRIDGES Dividend per Annum. Amount of Share. 1355. per cent. £. s. d. x 632 12 $ 50 0 0 100 0 0 Paid. X s. d. 50 0 0 11 0 0 5 0 0 5 6 8 5 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 2 12 6 All paid. 4 0 0 3 0 0 36 10 0 50 0 0 10 0 e 5 13 1 2 10 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 12 10 • 12 10 • 15 0 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 L. x. d. 25 0 0 6000 40 0 0 Ditto Old Ann. of Si. Ditto Nw ditto of 71. Vauxhall . .. . •• Av. 11. ss. 4d. 11. 2s. 2d. 11. 17s. 70 10 3 WATER.-WO KS Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price, Annum. Shure. . £ s. d. X a. d. Birmingham. •••• • • •• 18s. 25 0 0 25 0 0 East Loncion..• •••• • •• 81. 100 0 0 171 Grand Junction ••• • •• 21. 108. 41 13 4 79 Kent.. •• •• •• •• ...... 31. 10s. 100 0 0 New Rivr Lndn Brdge 21. 10e. 55 Vauxhall .. •• • • ...... 1 51. per cut. 100 0 0 10• West Middlesex . . . 61.05. pr cut. lit DOCKS. Namo of Company. ammercial .• •• East and past India East Country London ••• • • • Ditto Bonds.• • • • • •. St.Kathatrino •• .• .. .. l)itto 80nda•....... Southampton •• .. •• •• Dividend per Annum. 41. per cent. 61. pr cent. 409. per ek. hi. pr cent. 41. per cent. 4 per cent. 4)41. pr cent. 21. per cent. Amount of Share. X a. d. Stock. Stock. 100 0 0 Stock. Stock. 50 0 0 Paid. 8. d. 50 0 0 CANALS. vie e d r nd Names of Dividend , Price. Names of Di Companies. Is, per Companies. 2 _lina Price. Lum. cc Annum. , Ashtn k Oldb 97, 71. p e - Macclesfield . 100 21. 10s. 40 Barnsley •• • • 160 , 121. 180 Neath •• •• • • 100 18/. 340 itritnitStAbrg 1501 51. 85 Oxford.. •• • • 100 201. 190 Birmingham 35 41 80 Peak Forest. 78 31. 18s. 17 Coventry... • 1001 25/. 210 Regent's ...• 33 11. is. 18% Derby ••• .• 100: 61. 63 Rochdale.. 85 41. 04 EllsinrekChs 133' 565. 40 Somrset Coal 150 71.105. 131 Erewash • 1011 321. - Do.LkFdSt 12 61. p. c. - GrandJunctn 100 1 51. 76% Stffrd&Worc 140 281. 310 Grand Surrey 100, 21. 30 Shrewsbury.. 125 151. - Grand Union 100, 11. 10s. 24 Stoltrbridge.. 1 45 201. 285 Grantham • • 1501 - - Severn andl Kenut & Avu 39, 7s. 6d. 5% Wye Rail. 3 2 6 11.8 s. 24 Leeds& Livrp, 100 301. 320 Warwick& 1 Leicester ..•. 140 101. 100 Idirming. 100 41 . be f,eicstr &Nth 83 41. 40 Wanvick& l 100 31. 41 Lough bomb 142 701. 650 Napton.. Monmouthsh 100 81. - Worcstr &J 78 21. 40 Mntiromrysh 100 - - Birming. MelttiMwbry 100 - - Wilts & Brks - 11. HI isIST OW SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PR.ICX 8 Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price. Annum. Share. X s. d. s. d Bank of Scotland British Linen Company 81. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 191 Caledonian Bank .. • • 8 per sent. 10 0 0 2 10 0 41. Os City of Glasgow Bank . 61. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 n Clydesdale Bank •••• • • 6% per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0 12% Commercial Bank •• • • 71. per cent. 500 0 0 100 • 0 150 Eastern Bank •••• • • • • 61. per cent. 25 0 0 1$ 0 C 91. 7s Edinb.k Glasgow Bank 61. per cent. 50 0 50 0 5% Exehangoßnk of Scot.. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 60 0 $ Isle of Man. Company 71. per cent. 10 0 0 7 I 0 - National Bank 6% per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 I 13% North of Sootlandßank 41. per cent. 20 0 0 6 11 0 31.175. North British Bank • • 50 0 0 10 0 • 405.0 d Royal Bank of Scotland 51. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 116 Union Bank of Scotland 81. per cent. 100 0 0 00 0 0 80 Western Bank- • • • • 81. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 74 Aberdeen Fire and Life 121. per cent. 12 10 0 20 0 2U B. Accord•Lifeand Fire 20 0 0 011 0 9s 6d British Guarantee Ins. 10 I 0 1 0 0 lls 6d Caledonian Fire Incur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 21 Church of England Ins. 50 0 0 2 • 0 2 City of Glasgow Life 6l. per cent. 25 0 0 2 0 • 2/. 8 2 Edinburgh Life Insur. 61. percent. 100 0 • 12 10 0 17% East of Scotland Life.. 10 0 0 0)5 0 85.6 d. Eng. & Scot, Law Life 51. per cent. 50 0 0 217 6 46s 6d Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 • 0 10% Insur. Co. of Seetlnd• • 11. per cent. 100 0 0 1$ 0 0 7 Life Assoc. of Scotland 51. per cent. 10 0 • 1 0 0 1/. 6s Mercantile Life 10 0 • 010 0 ,9s. 6d. National Fire and Life 5/. per cent. 10 0 • 1 0 0 1205.6 d North British Insur. 5341. pr cent. 200 0 • 20 0 • 22U North & West of Scot. 61. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 175.0 d. Scottish Life and Guar. 20 0 0 0 11 0 is. Scot. Mag. and Gen. Life 1 • 0 0 15 0 '105.0d Scottish Union Insrace. 61,1. pr sent. 2$ 0 0 1 0 0 N. Es Standard Life ...... • • 51. per cent. 50 0 0 4 6 0 9U United Dep. Assurance 51. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 I 11.63.0 d MISCELLANEOUS. Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price. Annum. Share. X. 5. d. X. a. d. Australian Agricultnrl 100 0 0 30 • 0 li Anglo-Mealcan Mint ll. 41. 10 0 0 10 I 0 - Ditto, Half Shares 2lO 0 -. Canada ... •..... • . Gl. per cent. 100 0 I 33 10 0 2814 Uppr Canada Bonds Si. per cent. - 88 City Bonds .. - 79 Comp •Cppr Mars Eng 5l. per cent. 100 0 I 70 0 I - Gen. Revers. & Invest sp. c.& bs, 2/ 100 0 0 100 0 0 - Equitable Reversienry , 0,. pr cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 94 Gen. Steam Navigation 11.8 s. 15 0 0 14 0 0 21 London Institution 78 15 • - Russell Institution 26 5 0 3 Penlnslr& Orient•Stm Bl. per cent. 50 0 0 50 • 0 65% Reversionary Int. Soo 4141. pr cent. 100 0 • 100 0 0 90 Royal Mail Steam 6l 18..4. p. c. 100 0 0 60 0 0 bO5 South Australian • • 11. per share. 25 0 I 25 I I 16 Van Dleman's Land lOO 0 0 23 I 0 1 STATE OF TRADE. MANCHESTER, FEB. 20.—Tho diminished . aetiv, in cotton, together with some liittle giving way in its price, has rather cooled the excitement which our market recently caught from that of Liverpool, and manifested to the latter end of last week. But beyond this, sad a slight moderating of ex cessive demands, as to prices, in some few articles, there cannot be said to be any appearance of a retrograde move ment in yarns and goods. Sellers have lost little be sides a trifling excess of heat and animation; they con tinue firm, at the average quotations. Through these circumstances, however, aided by the accounts received this morning from the United States, which add to the previous estimates of the cotton crop, there has been an increased wariness on the part of merchants, and the business of the day has, consequently, been of limited amount. Goods have gone off rela tively better than yarns. ROCHDALE, Firs. 19.—We have had a very good demand again for flannels, and the manufacturers have been asking better prices for their goods, in order to meet the rise of the raw material. There has been rather more doing in the wool market, and purchasers have been obliged to give higher prices. lIIIDDERSFIELD, FEB. 20.—Every description of goods adapted for the forthcoming spring trade was bought up within two hours after the opening of the Cloth Hall. There was a large attendance of buyers, and several lots of old patterns were purchased for shipping orders. Not much has been done in new wools. The great advance in price causes con:Womble circum- VectieU amongst the hgluitAteturors. _-`~~~` HALIFAX, 17.—Both plain and farce good g were very much in request in the Piece Hall today, but not so many were disposed of as this day week. The merchants zr.-,ze uuwilliug to give prices equal to the cur rent 01' yarn, and the manufacturers are reluctant to scil or to take orders, except at a corresponding advance. The spinners are still full of orders, and they hold out stiffly for irnprovcd rates on all Lew orders. Another rise has taken place in wool, and considerable quantities are changing hands; but the spinners do not willingly accede to the advanced prices. LEEDS, FEB. 20.--Our market to-day has not pre sented, any new features; business continues sound, and the improved tone holds good. Thera has been a good deal doing in the warehouses these last few days; but at the Cloth Halls very little, for reasons often alluded to.—Alanchester Guardian. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE OF TUESDAY. DIVIDENDS. At the Court, Basinghall-street. J. Russell, jun., Whittlesea, Isle of Ely, Cambridge shire, builder, March 16, at one—M. L. Bensusan, S. L. Bacsasan, J. L. Thnsusan,' and J. L. Bensusan, Magda len-row, Great Prescott-street, Goodman's 'fields, mer chants, March 13, at eleven—W. Iloole, St. James's walk, Clerkenwell, metal tool merchant, March 14, at twelve—T. Ridgway, Huddersfield, wool merchant, March 15, at hall-past one—R. Dutton, Sambrook-court, Ba.singhall-street, wool broker, March 15, at two—G. Hilton, Hithe, lifitt, grocer, March 13, at one. In the Country. . . Anne Evans, Raglan, Monm - outhshire, victualler, March 16, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—J. Philp, Bristol, wholesale stationer, March 16, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—B. Fen wick, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, linen draper, March 15, at the Court, Newcastle•upon- Tyne—J. Berkley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, March 15, at half-past ten, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—T. Dalton, Darlington, Durham, rope manufecturcr, March 15, at one, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—T. Nesbitt and R. C. Nesbitt, Sunderland, Durham, brewers, March 15, at twelve, at the Court, Newcastle-uren- T)ne—C. Cradock, Darlington, Durham, ropemaker, March 15, at eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne —G. Atkins, Liverpool, brewer, March 19, at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—W. Croudson. Wigan, Lanca shire, iron-merchant, March 14, at twelve, at the Court, Manchester—R. Ellerbeck, Pilkington, Lancashire, cot ton spinner, March 14, at eleven, at the Court, Manches• ter—J. Coop, Radcliffe, Lancashire, timber merchant, March 14, at twelve, at the Court, Manchester—J. Rans ford, Leamington Priors, Warwickshire, coal merchant, March 22., at twelve, at the Court, Birmingham—J. Brett, Spilsby, Lincolnshire, grocer, March 21, at half past ten, at the Town-hall, Kingston-upon-Hull—W. Ellam, jun., Birmingham, patent cock founder, March 14, at twelve, at the Court, Birmingham—T. Lay, Dudley, Worcestershire, grocer, March 14, at twelve, at the Court, Birmingham. PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS. P. J. Antill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, wine and spiri. merchant, 9d. (in addition to ls. 6d., previously & Glared), any Saturday, between the hours of ten and three, at the office of Mr. Baker, Newcastle upon-Tyne. C. Allen, St. Ives, Cornwall, ironmonger, 4s. 6d., any Tuesday, between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hirtzell, Exeter. _ H. W. Hayes, Teignmouth, Devonshire, 3s. 4d., *Ol Tuesday, between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hirtzel, Exeter, G. Goddard, Leicester, tea dealer and grocer, 2s. 5 , 1. , any Wednesday, between the hours of eleven and two , at the office of Mr. Graham, Coleman-street. J. Roberts, Liverpool, ironmonger, 2s. Bd., Wedges' day Feb. 28, or any subsequent Wednesday, between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Morgan' Liverpool. W. flignett, Liverpool, tobacconist, lid., Wednesdtti , Feb. 28, or any subsequent Wednesday, between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Morgs o, Liverpool. R. Roberts, Denbigh, innkeeper, 4d., and first and second dividend of 3s. Bd., and 4d. on new proof? , Wednesday, Feb. 28, or any subsequent Wednesdeif between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of PR' Morgan. Liverpool. T. Bishten, Kilsale, Shropshire, ironmaster, 3s. WI any Thursday, between the hours of eleven and three, o' the office of Mr. Christie, Birmingham. J. B. Browne, Newcastle•under-Lyme, wine and 801 merchant, Is. Bd., any Thursday, betwe e n th e hours eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Valpy, Bireninghse 3. NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES. At the Court, Basinghall-street. W. Abbott and W. Abbott, jun., Bermondsey-stre et ; patent hair felt manufacturers, March 16, at half-Pa s ., eleven—G. T. Saltmarsh, Houndsditch, wine and sPi r i , / ' merchant, March 16, at twelve—C. Story, jou„ street, Bow, and High•street, Poplar, hatter, March 16 " at eleven. In the Country. J. T. Bourne, Dithorn, Staffordshire, earthenwa re dealer, March 20, at eleven, at the Court, Birminghao At the Court of Review, March 13. G. Benda, Camomile-street, City, importer of foreig o goods—W. Wood, Waddington, Lincolnshire, licensed victualler —A. Butterfield, Hitchin, Hertfordshire , builder—W. Evans, Sheffield, table knife manufactur er —S. C. Aaron, Brighton, auctioneer—H. Searle, 130, E . 11 ' mont-street, Oxford-street, tailor and draper—;j; Harrison, Haydon-street, Minories, cooper—E. G. Liverpool, licensed victualler. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. Harriet Cockroft and Jane Batley, Huddersfield, ° li g' . liners and dressmakers—J. Peacock, E. C. Jepson, j• *". Copley, and G. Copley, Gainsbrough, Yorkshire' wharfingers (so far as regards J. Peacock and E. C. Jel : son)—C. R. Huxley and E. Huxley, Vere-street, Cs°,,;l dish-square, shirt and surgical stocking makers—N t ' ° ;, Mary Langridge and Amelia Langride, Bristol, 0 ,11: manufacturers—W. Watt and T. H. Watt, p r o . "l, apothecaries—H. Beattie and W. Briggs, Liverp o contractors—T. Poole and T. Fenson, Nortb - st r / Edgeware-road, greengrocers—J. Grower and W. Kingston-upon-Hull and Leeds, linen and vvoolle0; drapers—J. Parker and H. Parker, Shipston-upon - S te , li Worcestershire, joiners and builders—J. Broadh. and W. Green, Stoke- upon- Trent, Staffordshire, ear theo ware manufacturers—A. S. Evans, D. Evans, B. Et i e : and H. Wigans, metal and colour dealers (so far a s ' O , gards B. Evans)—S. Loxton and C. Loxton, ham, japanners—J. Tilson and J. Monkman, Scar :. borough, Yorkshire, cabinet makers and upholstere r ! T. Allen and M. A. Simpson, Aisgarth, Yorksilf, joiners and cabinet makers—W. Coulthurst an d „ u ct Fogget, Higher Broughton, Lancashire, joinert.: R builders —R. Channon, jun., T. Channon, and . 1 1. non, Bristol, livery stable keepers (so far as regarta , Channon, jun.)—W. Cooper and E. Crickmay , N O, wich, surgeons and apothecaries—R. Witty anr,„,be Dodds, Great Driffield, tailors and drapers—B- ~ h ire, and W. Millward, Moor-lane Colliery. Stafferu s ea coil masters—J. Thorne and J. Keevil, Bristol, drapers—Hannah Hackitt, Sarah Darnill, and 3 . die Darnill, Reading, milliners and dressmakers —T. Bro. , and J. Forsyth, Berwick-upon-Tweed, s hi p and t surance brokers—H. Hoyle and G. Hardman, RI, dale, cotton manufacturers—G. Roe and C. Wall,t, omnibus proprietors—J. Hatchett, sen., and J. Hatelle' jun., Savage-gardens, ship and insurance brokers. INSOLVENT PETITIONERS. er John. Sergeant, Barrow-upon-Humber, Lincolaso ir farmer. Henry Slater, King's Norton, Worcestershire, unibt furniture-maker. Philip Mann, Birmingham, dealer in ironmongery. Richard Deakin, Birmingham, baker. 'OS John Westwood, Brampt on , H unt i ngdonshire, d i ss eo minister. William John Benni son , Ki ngston . upon-Hull, v i o to-- J et Thomas Gibson, Kingston. upon-Hull, auctioneer. as' William Wilki nson , Ki ngston - upon - Hull, f u ro" broker. f O b' John Batty, Kingston-up on -H u ll, su p er i n t en dent 0 lie baths. Benjamin Russell, Kingston-upon-Hull, grocer. James William Bogie, jun., Woodchuroh, Cheshire:, Thomas Webb Gilson, Kingston-upon-Hull, butche r Henry Ibbotson, Sheffield, brace-bit manufacturer. John Russell, Sheffield, watchmaker. John Hague, Sheffield, brush manufacturer. John Bishop, Birmingham, boatman. Henry Clark, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, journeymaa " layer. s e i ti John Howard, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, hair ar e David Mounsey, Birmingham, commission a gent- Thomas Cropper, Linton, Derbyshire. James Edmund Currey, Newchurch, Isle of Wig ht " SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. th e J. Lyell, Aberdeen, ironmonger, to meet Witu l oo , Royal Hotel, Aberdeen, Feb. 24 and March 20, 0 ,.,t;00 1 , P. Brown, Edinburgh, printer, to meet within 1 7, son's Sale-rooms, Edinburgh, Feb. 24 and Marc h twelve. s l ‘ f T. Gray, Glasgow, surgeon, to meet within the Hotel, Glasgow, Feb. 23 and March 16, at one. tb g J. Cameron, Dingwall, printer, to meet Wi tm t i o ro., Caledonian Hotel, Dingwall, March 1 and 22, aie°l J. Pattison, Edinburgh, writer to the signet, 2 6 to within the Waterloo Hotel, Edinburgh, Feb. ; March 19, at two. f e e in D. and Jessie Hannah, Irvine, merchants, li,fae ° within the King's Arms Inn, Irvine, Feb. 24 and 19, at twelve. , J. Pearce, Edinburgh, dealer in railway 9 P' $1:1 1) " meet within the Royal Exchange Coffee-hou se, burgh, Feb. 19 and March 21, at two. C 1 A g S ' PRINCE'S THEATRE ROYAL, GLASGOW." ori military ballet d'action, founded upon the popillo r ,, IL get ° o Jeanette and J eannot , was pro d uce d h er e ivi t " o f t . success a few ev en i ngs b ac k, an d h as p ro ved on most ris most successful hits of the sea s on. Miss Lone dti re ssi? y , senates Jeanette with so much sweetness of OP as to gai n th e p l au dit s o f a ll parts o f t h e HoUs e ' Massell, as Maria a vivandiere , was ron'„giot, sprightly ; h e r s pirit e d ex ecu ti on o f the Creciib e , proved quite exhilarating. mock polka w nplis °s s , Lloyd she is also very clever, and receives much et 010 0; She is a great favourite with the good people e ci j e oe gow. Miss Fairbrother sustained the part very excellently. The business here is exeelle" on t? 0 A large number of the police-constable s j..riogifo Great Western Railway have been discharged 7,triet;‘, past week, in pursuance of a system o f th dee economy, which is being carried out in eve ry went of the establishment. CLASSICAL CLERKS. One day 0 1.5 We s el‘t g e a pi Miller, the official assignee, mentioned to Al r :„ en ce %It Ludlow a " fix" in which he was, in consett! 00 -0 0 0 1 bankrupt, an apothecary, having made out r ob it ° Jo / in that wretched jargon—medical Latin, VI equalled by the barbaric absurdities of the, law, —Norman French—used in our courts o f d geld ,a 4 Learned Sergeant laughed at the dilemma, zw re eee ."'1 thought that the B a nkruptcy Act should ha v _„,i 0 10 it compulsory on o ffi cial assignees to have gyv" scholars for their clerks.-.-Bristol Journal. ' Price. Price -- 01 CA paper: the 19 Moult Calcu We vices i troops still h able r howo Paid. Price 2% 42 41 10e. 13% 13% 14. 21,4 1119 s Price. 124 20i unten or, if Open ccedii aioge bay or. tured issue- consi; speed 1a vis are lit