The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-19 00:00:00

Ile thought also that it would be expedient to appoint a committee up stairs to inquire into the causes of the diversity which still prevailed in many parts of the country, in order to provide a rem e dy for them. isle,E . p TEN NANT concurred in the motion. JEP HSON said some measure was req ui re d to make the Acts o f G en. IV. more effectual. He knew Mr. several counties wh ere no standard weights were kept. R. WALLACE agreed on the proposition for a co mmittee up stairs, and also in the suggestion of the hon. member for Bridport to extend the provisions of the bill to Scotland and Ireland. Much had been said about the repeal of the ce mented h Unio n , but be should like to see the Union -V weights and measures—(Laughter)—and every other measur e which would place the two countries on the same foiding. Lord E BRINGTON said he bad not sufficient local anowledge to ex t en d the prov i s i ons of the bill to Irelan d and Scotland. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. Th e LAW OF LIBEL. SOL ICITOR -GENERAL, in rising to move for a select committee to consider the present state of the at . v clf libel, and to report their opinion to the house, ' rid) that in bringing under the consideration of the a nn " a aubject of such vital importance, he begged to a• ve it understood that lie was 'not indulging in any tirful theory of his own. He was only anxious to have npk g n "tion fairly brought before the house, and to have fade With as might be deemed necessary or expedient ade with the advice and by the assistance of a select ofnil.:ai,tt.e. The startling incongruities of the present law ' ei had been long felt and acknowledged. The subject bad b • o ,,,een made a matter of complaint, but never yet of soap io any w ay w hi c h cou ld l ea d to t h e e ff ect o f a t h e practical reform of existing errors and abuses. In existing law of libel there were many matters of "Mee with the public Preseaffecting th ose personsconne cted b e Ail classes of his Majesty's subjects were liable to itataeffeetted by the operation of this law; . but . such . was the lion °` k'ciet now-a-days, that in considering this ques tion to eh house might almost exclusively direct its atten o„ - -ose individuals engaged in our periodical publi in 1--a * They very frequently bad occasion to feel the picatinvenience and injustice of this law. In the first th ete was the penal nature of . the law as affecting publication heeu a. A man, after a decision in the case had ntade, was declared to be guilty, although he might onsei,e4u3toitted no moral offence which would justify the a ftii r j, nati on of the term. Undoubtedly an author might 0 1 ' ' a nd properly be declared to be guilty if he violated 0e Principles of fair discussion. That no man could at . In like manner so might the publisher who, eith er Want i ,, n his own person, or by his agents, or from e ; ° L due care, gave circulation to libellous matter. ••••o:,kszear, hear. ) The interest of the public required Pub t lish h e e a . n " n uld be held responsible for what he parties • But the law as it stood involved all the puoncation guilt who might he concerned in the albeit they might he perfectly unacquainted wit e libellous matter. Now, this decidedly was a grievance, and occasionally worked great injustice. The question, however, was, how was this to he remedied ? neY would have to inquire whether, consistently with it fetY to the public, and with security to private character, trl alteration with respect to the operation of the law upon such parties as were not cognizant of the libellous matter !alight not be made. The subject was full of difficulty, arid ,would merit the most patient consideration, for it was evident that if one man might sell a publication, and sot be held in any way responsible tor ita content Means would be afforded by whi c h libels might easi s, ly be cir cu l ate d , an d a ll part i es concerned, the author and the conscious publisher included, would escape punish ent. This wa s a co u rse o b v i ous l y unsa f e . B ut was there not some middle course? Might not there be 'Otte such expedient as this made use of—might they not d o away with the extreme severity and unfairness °I the law by declaring that the simple act of publish ing, or assisting in the publication, should not consti iiLte a crime, but that it should be further necessary that "e prosecut or s h ou ld b r i ng some proof of knowledge o f 4's Publication upon the part of the accused, or of malice k i s ome shap e or f orm? Perhaps if some distinction of th i s no were drawn, the ignorant and the innocent might be suffered to escape untouched by the law, while the original autli ° , and the conscious publisher would be still ex posed to Punishment, Tnis, - too, would be a matter for tg co nsideratio n o f t h e committee. Another subject of orievance was, th at authors and publishers were subjected ttbttnueh hardship from the want of a good definition of wou l, d w e nf li bels To restrict libel within narrow limits bb el i o - e "e to foster and encourage the circulation of definit.s mat ter ; and on the other side, if they made the e ion very larg e , it would subject those connected with the press to infinite inconvenience, and manifold libellat'amnything that P a s and injuries. Learned judges had described a of an • might prove injurious to the feelings Wherlid. any beac.orreTC'tiB W" manifestly absurd. If it were diffi t e in g or publisb a in ri g o . autho r could be for a moment safe in ]'here was, accordingly, extreme all' in furn ishing a definition of libel in the fist Pthe consideration of the committee. He could not (be roc eeded to s a y) b e expected in the present instance to go into details, t o which, no doubt, the committee might hetieficiallv address themselves. There was one point t t i o Which at the same time he felt it necess aryt" vgt6 Tuld t „!_ l arlY ; it was one of . the most important nwei bly ccme under their consideration. He meant in what klatiner, how, and to what extent, truth should inbe brought under th e cons id era ti on o f th e j ury , whether criminal °r civil proceedings. Now, as the law stood in ctiminal r °ceetlings, the ti uth of the libel coold nut be taken Ito consideration at all, while in civil cases the al le gation of truth could he brought fat ward, and if Proved was conclusive. Now, he thought there was error on both sides. In the first case, malice was implied from the libel, and certainly, therefore, the consideration of truth or falsehood, as a matter of palliation, should not altogether be excluded. He was not prepared to say to what extent it would be well to admit the consideration of tr uth ; h e did not know how far it would be advisable in criminal proceedings for attempts to destroy private elm rjeter to admit truth as a palliation, much less a justifica tion of the libel. It was d,fficult to go to the extent that piereurvyidinedanonlityad a right to publish anything of any body, it were true. It had been suggested that spotizesautci:i rule as this should be established—tbat if the n charged as libellous should be proved to be trthu.e,.that ahould be an answer to the implied malice. As tatie law at present stood, a libel carried with it the impu. e n of malice. It was in vain for a defendant to Pined a of the publication, and that he never entertained maii a c il i cion of it containing libellous matter. If a man person, illy published that which was not true of another In man was was fit that he should he punished for so doing. Which Y eases it might not be right to publish matter li w as true, but i t never could he justifiable to pub po, w hat Was not true. Some such rule as that which s h ad adv erted to might possibly be adopted, and it was a this oi et worth y o f i nquiry. At present he was inclined to ik that if a jury should find that a defendant had Published a libel innocently that was to say, for a good purpose, or without express m alice --.the evidence of the truth of the publication should protect him from the implied malice.—(Hear, hear.) an proceeding by limple action the consequences resulting from the present l aw were really absurd. If the defendant could succeed in Pre u ying th e lib e l to be true, no matter how injurious or crel it might be, or how malicious soever the motives ,!light b e wh i ch prompted i ts pu b lication, the person li- V4ied h could obtain no redress. Was it ri g h t that a person ad Sustained the most serious injury to which he -a u'd b e the deprivation of his character -a.. e h ould obtain.sbpeosedveatin:y, redress, because the fact tvl'i' : l l ' h ad been published, and which perhaps had occurred at a - earl period of life, and under circumstances which p o li ated its „ Il , e would enormity, m a e p n p ti a o rent wo could be proved to be true? circumstances which would prove incoovenieueens two the existing law, as regarded ritninal proceedi and those by both simple action. ong since ers ngs a cused of publishing a libel which alleged thatair c er o t n ain w ind a i c vidual had been convicted of for gu,t,ry in F rance. The proceedings of the French court by we " r ich the prosecutor had been condemned to the galleys ana:ouProduced, and the defendant's counsel was very • jtid , 3 th at they should be read in evidence, but the thi s was course refused to permit that to be done. Now but na a ease in which it might have been excusable, bats,, to have published the fact of the prosecutor b4,ragh.cummitted forgery. Suppose the individual had c e „, pa u"ut to obtain a situation as confidential agent to a inei yid UY, in which want of integrity on the part of the tune that holding it would have been the greatest misfoi - of th, fa a e t could happen to the proprietors, the publication ful stud I,, t „°, f his previous conduct would have been a use. stute of n a ry a ble act. Was it then, he asked, a wholesome o f guilty ' w hich would compel a jury to find a verdict admitted in such a ?At events it must be • t i, a , ease , b itiquir e d ." this was a point which ought to should unt o ; and th ere f ore h e proposed that it colmaa, tee ' e "ine the subject of investigation by the a PPoint on, • f th e h ouse should think proper to w ou l d btr, He w ou ld now mention a case which la w us is 'ingly exemplify t h e i nconvenience of the libel ~,..,,,Iregardd proceedings by simple action. The trail. to which he wus about to refer occurred many ti)car:. time a Aoa but it had made a de e p imp ress i on on h i s oiled e , and therefore he bad no doubt that be should be able to state the circumstances connected with it cor rectly. A young woman had in early life been seduced by a man of title; but alter livina with him for a certain time she became a-liamed of Ile course of life she was pursuing, and taking the ()pint tuniry of e-caping from it, she retired into a distant part of the country, where her seducer was unable to discover her. She obtained a situation, in which she conducted herself with so much propriety that she not only g iined the goodwill of her employers, but was appointed to another situation in a public establishment. Several years after her seducer discovered the place of Her retreat, and having in vain made proposals for the renewal of their intercourse, he hit upon the expedient of depriving her of the means of sub sistence, thinking that be sheribl then succeed in his at tempt to possess himself again of her person. He there fore published in the town where she resided the his tory of her early life. The consequence was that the un fortunate woman lost the esteem of the friends her good conduct had procured her, and she was deprived of the ap pointment by means of which she obtained her livelihood. Was net this woman entitled to compensation?—(Hear.) ' Yet, if she hail brought an action against her persecutor, he would have justified and she would have been turned out of court, with the aggravation to her misfortuneof having in curred a useless expense. There was another point to which it was important that the attention of the com mittee should be directed. Much had been said on the ' subject of ex officio informations, and it must be admitted that the power which the law officers of the Crown ex ercised on this point, was calculated for had as well as ' good times. It would be for the committee to inquire whether this power could be altogether abolished; but his own opinion was, that it would not be safe to prevent the law officers from having recourse to it in certain cases. It was possible, however, that some arrangement might be devised by which the subject would be protected against any hardship in this mode of proceeding. Perhaps the course which was pursued in Ireland might be adopted in this country with advantage. In Ireland it was the practice, he understood, for the Attorney-General to call the parties before him previously to filing an information, which afforded an opportunity for explanation of the cir cumstances under which the publication bad taken place. This practice also operated as a protection against the adoption of proceedings by the Attorney-General without due consideration. There was another course of proceed ing which had been the subject of much animadversion, and he was rather surprised at that circumstance,because, as it was administered in this country, it was less objec tionable than any other mode of criminal proceeding—he alluded to criminal informations granted by the court. In such a case the defendant bad this peculiar protection,that the court would not grant the information unless the prosecutor was able to negative the truth of the libel, and thus the prosecutor was deprived of the advantage which he would obtain by proceeding by indictment— (Hear, hear, bear.) Another advantage attending this mode of proceeding was, that the court having all the circumstances of the case before it, could interpose its advice and probably terminate the dispute without the case proceeding to trial. No person who reflected on the subject for a moment could doubt that it was much more easy to get a grand jury to return a bill than it was to prevail upon the court to grant an information. The grand juiy examined only the prosecutor's witnesses, but the Court of King's Bench compelled the prosecutor to negative the truth of the libel before it would grant an intormatien. Another point to which it was desirable the attention of the committee should be. applied, was the construction which judges bad put upon Mr. Fox's act. That act constituted the jury the judges of the law as well as of the fact, and yet, until latterly, when the practice had somewhat altered, the judges seemed to think that they had a right to perform the duty which the law im posed upon Jurymen. In ea rly lif e h e h a d f requen tly their judges te ll j ur i es t h ey were b oun d to state that i n opi nion t h e publications which formed the subjects of prosecution were gross and scandalous libels. if any advis ablelegitd t o h t o at r e i . t s h T o h u e ld re b ur %s s e t a a t r ti est r b a y et s (Ma t h e e doubt exist e d w i th respect to Mr. Fox's act, it was enactment G o e f or t g h e lll.—one o f t h e Si x Acts e 6 t h of n — o tv 'e bich oleo required conside ration. By that act a very severe penalty was inflicted upon a second offence, and, as the law now stood, it was probable that the consequences of the second convic tion would fall on the innocent party. He hoped that an alteration would be made upon this point without being productive of any danger. The committee might also take into consideration another provision of the name act, which authorised the seizing of copies of the pub lication in the possession of the defendant after convic tion of libel. It might not perhaps be considered unjust to prevent the circulation of what a jury had declared to be libellous, but it would be the duty of the commit tee to suggest some plan by which the exercise of the power in question should be attended with as little danger as possible to the rights of property. The points to which he had adverted were those which bore upon persons en gaged in printing and publishing, but it must not be supposed that the inconveniences of the law were all on one side. Experience proved that, in many instances, the law was insufficient to afford protection to the public or to private individuals. Great difficulty was at present experienced in getting at the parties who ought to be re sponsible for libels. The writer of the libel was unknown, and some nominal and fictitious party was put forward to bear the responsibility. This was a grievance, not only to the party libelled and the public, but also to the re spectable part of the press—to those persons who intended honestly and honnurably to discharge the duties of the profession to which they belonged. If, by inadvertence, one of the latter description of persons should admit libellous matter into his publication, he must abide the consequences ; but in the other case the publishers of the libels enjoy impunity. Some plan might perhaps be devised to provide greater security for the punishment of persons engaged in the habitual publication of libels. At present the person who was proceeded against was usually either abroad or in prison. It might riot be an easy matter to place this part of the libel law on a more equitable footing, consistently with the just rights of all parties concerned, and with that freedom of discussion for good purposes which no suggestion of his should ever tend to abridge ; but he trusted that the committee would attempt to effect such a desirable object. He wished it to be understood that he was anxious to leave to those who were usefully carrying on the profession of writing, printing, and pub lishing the utmost freedom of discussion, from which the country had derived such great benefit, whilst he would deprive another class of the power of covertly libelling their fellow- subjects without being responsible for their proceed ings. He would briefly advert to another point connected with the present state of the law of libel—namely, the stamp duty on publications. The parties who evaded the law regarding stamps found a ready means of circu lating libels, and he was bound to say that libellous mat ter was principally found in unstamped publications. It would be for the committee to consider whether the present state of the law as regarded stamps on publica tions did not tend to encourage licentiousness, and whether it would not be proper to put all parties on a level. Although the notice which be had given was limited to the law of libel, it was obvious that it would be necessary for the committee to take into consideration the state of the law respecting slander, than which it was scarcely possible to conceive any thing more absurd. Ira looking over the catalogue of words which were slander ous, no reason appeared for their insertion, except that they had been decided to be slanderous. Why should an affirma tion he slanderous in the city of London, and not slander ous out of the city ? He w.or anxious not to detain the house longer than was necessary.—(Hear.) He had briefly adverted to several points which he thought would pro perly becom e th e su bj ec t s o f i nves ti ga ti on b e f ore the com mittee, and from whose labours lie sincerely thought that m • Lich good might result, nit only to those who were engaged in p r i nt i ng and pu b l i sh i ng b ut to t h e pu bli c, for whilst he was d es i rous o f protect i ng t h e u t mos t f ree d om of discussion within the limits in which it could be safely permitt e d, h e was at the same time desirous of re pressing that most odious system of persons obtaining their subsistence by the injury and which pain they in flicted on others. (Hear h a e l a i r.) . Whatever might . be said as to the necessity for the discussion of Political aff:aiwrsintghetlr ‘eas no utmostilatituber de of that house who did not look w i t h a b horrence on the system of private libels.—(Hear.) A t present it was alwaysimputed to a man who p roceeded against a li beller by a simple action that h e did so for the sake of obtaining compensation, and therefor e persons were forced, as it were , to proceed criminally, and th en t h ey laboured under this disadvantage—that they might come out of court with verdicts in their favour, b ut w i t h all the world believing the l ibels which they had prosecuted. The lion. and learned gentleman conclude;] with movin g that " a committee be app ointed to consider the present state of the law as regards lib el and slander."—(Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said that he did not rise to oppose the motion ; on the contrary, he was extremely glad that this important subject had 1, I been brought before the house in order to be deliberately considered , an d if the bill which he had bron .ht in had acted as a stimulus to the govern_ ment—he did not say that it bad—he should be very much gratified. By the hon. and learned member's clear and able statement one thing was put beyond doubt, and that was that nothing could be more atrocious than the present state of the libel law. It would be intolerable but that it was inoperative. The law was 40 atrocious that no one attempted to carry it into effect. The hon. and learned member had shown the defects of the law, but he had not pointed out how they were to be remedied. There was one thing of which he complained in the hon. and learned member's speech. The hon. and learned member seemed to be thinking more of the repression of slander—certainly a very good thing in itself—than of the establishment of free and unshackled discussion of political matters. The hon. and learned member talked of regulating the actions brought against the circulators of libels, meaning the newsvendors. At present an action might be brought against a newsvendor, and although the prosecutor should obtain only a farthing damages, the defendant might, unless the judge would certify, which he believed had never happened yet, be saddled with costs to the amount of 1001. or 2001. The only mode of putting stop to frivolous actions was to compel the prosecutor to pay costs in all such cases. The hon. and learned member had complained that there was no definition of libel, but had not endeavoured to supply the defect. Every other branch of the criminal law was defined, and why -,bould not the same principle be applied to this branch ? Nothing could more elucidate the state of the law than what had been said with respect to Mr. Fox's bill. By that bill it was intended that the question of law, as well as the fact, should be left to the jury ; but ever since then the practice had been that the judges laid down their opinion as to the law, and impressed the jury so strongly that the alleged offence was a libel, that there was little, if any, chance of acquittal. lie mentioned this fact to -how the ill effects of leaving the law almost wholly in the bands of judges, as it was at present. It "was of the utmost importance that the offence of libel should be well defined. All other offences cognizable by law were fully defined except that. Slander was well defined. It was slander to impute to any man the commission of a crime, or to state of him that he was unfit for his profession ; but in all his practice he had not met any adequate defi nition of' what was a libel. As to the discussion of public questions, he thought it ought to be as free as possible where no charge was made against any individual. If there was a charge of misgovernment in any particular instance, that must attach to some individual, and the party making it might be brought before a jury, but there the party ought to be allowed to prove the truth of his allegation. He admitted that it would be a monstrous proposition to say that the truth should be a justi fication in every case ; but it would be still more mon strous to say, that in no case should the truth be allowed to go to the jury. —(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the honourable and learned gentleman, that in such an instance as he had adduced, which, whether drawn from fact or from imagination, was a strong illustration of his point, a mere proof of the truth would be no justification of the libeller ; but that would not show the justice of excluding the proof of truth in every case. He would not follow the hon. and learned gentleman into all his details, but he must protest against his defence of criminal information. It was the worst possible way of eliciting truth, for it went on the principle of trying facts by affidavits. In such a case there was scarcely a chance of acquittal, for the judge, in allowing the information, pronounced on the libel before trial. As to cx officio informations, he thought that as a grand ' jury would be a sufficient protection against frivolous in formations, the crown ought not to have the power of tormenting defendants in that way. With respect to the practice in Ireland of the Attorney-General summoning parties before him against whom it was intended to pro ceed by ex officio informations, he would say that it was not general. It was done with the view of making terms with parties, but it was a practice which could not be applauded. In the general topics introduced by the hon. and learned gentleman he fully concurred, for no man could doubt that the law, as it now stood, required to be amended in most points. One object which he (Mr. O'Connell) had in view in his bill was to prevent vexa tious actions by allowing costs against the plaintiff in certain cases. In conclusion the hon. and learned gentle man expressed his full concurrence in the appointment of the committee, but he hoped that it would not be com posed of individuals who were all of one way of thinking on the subject. Sir F. VINCENT protested against the doctrine that ex officio informations were consistent with the princi ples of our constitution. Same of the most eminent of our lawyers bad laid it down that such precautions would not bear inquiry. He would support the motion for the committee, and he hoped the result would be found ad vantageous to the public. Sir W. HORNE would not oppose a motion so ably and temperately introduced as that of hishon. and learned friend. When he recollected the influence of the law of libel on public liberty and happiness, he was glad that there was a chance of having it examined in a fair and dispassionate manner, aril that it was likely to receive such improvements as it was capable of, and as were most desirable. Mr. PRYME hoped that the law relating to the truth as a ground of defence in cases of libel, might be so al tered as that a party really guilty should not be allowed to escape on a mere technical objection. He would mention a case in illustration of what be meant—a magistrate, before whom three very young children were brought, charged with pulling up a few vegetables in a field. The magistrate sentenced them to a punishment which was considered severe, out of all proportion to the nature of the acts of children of their tender years. S ime com ments were made on this in (we believe) a newspaper, The magistrate brought his action for libel, to which a justification was pleaded ; but on the trial, as it was proved that only two of the three children had been so punished, the justification was not admitted, and a ver dict passed for the plaintiff. This was a stats of law which should not be allowed to continue. Mr. SHEIL regretted that after the very luminous statement made by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in introducing this question, he had not at once moved for leave to bring in a bill, rather than the more tedious process of an inquiry. lie thought that so strong was the general impression as to the very defective state of the law of I,bel, that a previous inquiry was not necessary to induce parliament to consent to its amendment. He could not concur in some parts, particularly as to what was said with respect to libel in public cases. Was it intended .by the Solicitor-General that truth should be allowed to be given in evidence in cases of libel against public men ? As to private libels, he (Mr. Shell) thought that the truth of the alleged libel should he allowed to be given in evidence, leaving it to the jury to say how far the party was influenced by malice in publishing it ; but in cases of charges against public men, he thought that proof of the truth ought to be allowed ; and if the bill to result from the committee should have that effect, it would be a great public benefit. As to ex officio informations, he owned that he thought they ought not to be continued, for they afforded no fair substitute for a grand jury. Iu cases of criminal information for private libels, there was some substitution in the affidavit of the plaintiff and the discretionary power of the judges; but .in ex officio in formations there was nothing but th e will of the law officers of the crown. He woulri riot oppose the appoint ment of the committee, but be must again express his regret that the hon. and learned gentleman did not at once move for leave to bring in the bill. Lord ALTHORP said, that his hon. and learned friend (the Solicitorijeneral) had not stated any fixed point as to any intended alteration of the law. He had called the attention of the house to the defects of the law generally without pointing out particular remedies. He bad admitted that there was no definition of what libel was, and marked it as one defect in the law, but without pointing out what the definition should be. All he bad insisted on was, that on this, as well as on many other points, they ought to ga into an inquiry. As to ex officio informations, he (Lord Althorp) owned that he was not partial to them : but at the same time he thought the government should not be without the power of laying them. The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Shell) seemed to think that these informations left no substitute for the intervention of a grand jury. He thought they did. In the first place, it was not at all probable that any ex officio information would be laid, except in cases in which a grand jury would have no difficulty in finding a bill if it were laid before them ; though for many seasons it might in some cases be advisable to lay the information rather than go before a grand jury with a bill. Then it should be considered that no such information could be laid except on the responsibility of the advisers of the Crown, and that in itself was a substitute for the inter vention of a grand jury. He would not admit that this was so good a substitute, speaking generally, as that in the case of criminal informations for private libels ; but still, though net partial to its use, he repeated that he thought it was a power which the Crown ought not to be deprived of. With re spect to cases of libel against public men for their public conduct, lie should say that in almost every case the truth of the allegation ought to be allowed to be given in evidence, but still he could cite an instance in which such a course would not meet the justice of the case. In the last war a writer, at a time when an expedition was in preparation, stated, with reference to the transports used for conveying troops in a former expedition, that they were not seaworthy. That was the fact; yet, when the circumstances were considered that another expedition was in preparation, and that the object of the writer was to excite a mutiny in the troops about to be sent out, no one could doubt that allowing the party to prove the former fact would be no good justification This would show thit truth in every case even of public libel would not be a good justification, though he admitted that in ge •ne:al it ought to be allowed in public cases. The great difficulty was to say what was a public and what a private libel. He knew that it was actionable to say that a man was unfit for his station or business in private life ; but lie did not think it ought to be a libel to say that a public man WdS not fit for the office he held, yet he knew, as the law now stood, the contrary opinion was held. In the case which had been mentioned by an hon. member on a former evening, respecting Lord Hardwicke, he knew it had been held to be a libel to say that that noble lord was more qualified for breeding sheep and cattle than anything else. This showed the difficulty, as the law stood, of saying what was libel and what was not, and showed the necessity of an inquiry on the subject, and in the propriety of that inquiry he fully concurred. The motion was then put and agreed to, and the follow tog committee appointed : l'epys, C. Wynn, C. W. Clive, Robert O'Connell, D. Abercromby, Right Ord, W. • Vincent, Sir F. Hon. J. Lenna rd, ' l '. B . Horne, Sir W. Simeon, Sir R. G. Shaw, F. Peel, Sir R. Murray, J. A. Parker, J. Scarlett, Sir James Pollock, F. Cooke, W. Howick, Lord Tancred, H. W. Hill, M. D. Spankie, Sergeant Denison, Evelyn Homily, J. Perrin, Sergeant Rolfe, J. M. - Baines, E. highs, Sir R. H. Roebuck, J. A. Mr. O'COYNELL obtained leave to bring in a bill to i:nprove the internal navigation of Ireland. COVENTRY ELECTION. Mr. HALCOMB said that at so late as hour he would occupy very little of the time of the house in prefacing the motion he was about to make for further proceedings in the case of the riots at the Coventry election.—(Here the lion. member went most elaborately and minutely into all the immense mass of evidence that was taken before the Coventry election committee relative to the riots that took place at the contest for that city, and the whole of which was so often discussed during the last session.) The hon. member concluded by moving— " That a Select Committee be appointed to make further in quiry into the proceedings at the General Election for the city of Coventry in December, 1832, and to consider and report to this House thereon, and upon the best means of providing for the future prevention of riots, and for preserving the peace and freedom of election, at Coventry ; and that such Committee be chosen by ballot, two members being appointed by this house." Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, the chairman, to whose report the hon. and learned member had been adverting, stated, that the report having been laid on the table of the house, and published, it did not appear to him that there was any earthly reason for any further proceeding. With respect to the riot and outrages which had been described by the hon. and learned member for Dover, they had been occasioned by the circumstance that there was but one booth for the polling, and that one of the parties having taken possession of that booth, was very naturally attacked by the other party. This was the only cause of what had occurred. At the last election, booths had been erected at different places in the city of Coventry, and the election went off peaceably. In his opinion, the motion was ill-timed and unnecessary. Mr. HALCOMB disclaimed any intention of throwing the slightest imputation on the proceedings, or on the report of the committee. Mr. H. L. BULWER declare I that if he believed he held his seat in that house in consequence of such violence as had been described by the hon. member for Dover, he should be ashamed to stay there, and would walk out of the house immediately. The hon. member (Mr. Bulwer) proceeded to read various p trts of the evidence, in order to show that the statement of the hon. member for Dover was entirely an ex parte one ; and even that the witnesses who had been e xamined to prove the violence which had occurred, had given contradictory evidence ; some saying that that violence continued during the whole day, and others that it was over in five minutes. After some further observations explanatory of the real circumstances of the evidence, he concluded by expressing his hope that the good feeling of the hon. member for Dover would induce him to withdraw his motion. . Sir GEORGE GREY expressed his surprise that the hon. member for Dover, who professed himself t) be of no party, should call for the opinion of the house by stating only the evidence on one side of the question— keeping Itie evidence on the other side totally out of view. The hon. member (Sir George Grey) proceeded to refer to other evidence contained in the report, and also to docu mentary evidence in the report, in order to show that the actual facts were very different from what they had been represented to be by the hon. and learned member for Dover. Mr. HALCOMB denied that he had stated only one side of the question, or that he was desirous to make an unfair impression on the house. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS attached (in accordance with the report of the committee) the blame to the Sheriffs as Returning Officers, for not taking necessary precautions. He (lid not see, after the evidence of the peaceable election which had taken place i❑ April, and the precautions established by the Reform Bill, any necessity for special legislation with regard to that borough. Mr. WYNN objected to the decision of a S:lect Com mittee being re—opened. He regretted that a teport, con veying such strong censure as this, should have ben allowed to be on the table of the house without being taken up, and the Returning Officers called to the bar. If the house passed over the gross violence which had taken place at the election for this city, it would be as injurious to the cause of purity of election as if it had passed over in stallers of gross corruption. After a few words from Mr. H. BULATEK and Lord SANDON, Tire SPEAKER put the question, when the motion was negatived without a division. Mr. HALCOMB then moved that his Majesty's At torney-General be directed to prosecute Richard Randall for an offence proved against him, as appeared by the re port of the select committee on the Coventry election. Mr. RUTH VEN seconded the motion. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when there appeared— _ For the motion • Against it Majority CAPTAIN ROSS 20 Lord SANDON, in the absence of Mr. C. Fergusson, moved for a select committee, on the petition of Captain John Ross, to inquire into the circumstances of his expe dition to the Arctic Regions, with a view to ascertain what reward was fitting to be bestowed upon him by the house. The motion was agreed to, and the following committee appointed : Fergusson, It. C. Peel, Sir It. Inglis, Sir 11. 11. Graham, SirJ. It. G 'Gladstone, W. Mackenzie, J. A. S, Talbot, F. Brothertoa, J. Bannerman,Ewar Evart, W . Agnew, Sir A. A. Tennent, J. E. Stewart, E. Young G. F. Robinson, G. R. Hughes, H. Warburton, }l.a Sandon, Viscount Stuart, Lord D. C. Labouchere, H. llutt, W. Aglionby, H. A. Chapman, A. Hardinge, Sir H. Codrington, Sir E. The Bribery at Elections Bill then went through corn tnittee, and the report was ordered to be received o❑ Man day next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at two o'clock. The Duke of Wellington again proceeded on Monday from Apsley House, to resume the diversion of bunting, at Stratbfieldsaye, with Mr. Fellowes's hounds. His Grace has not received company at his chateau during the List three weeks, but he has invited a party to spend the Easter recess with him. Mr. Valpy's illustrated edition of the " His tory of England " cannot fail to attract the attention of the reading community. In size and price it corresponds with his new edition of " Shakspeare," which it greatly excels in the style and execution of the embellishments. In noticing this economical and elegant edition of our National History, the editors of some of the public jour. nals appear to imagine that the work will be limited to a reprint of the volumes of Hutne and Smollett : it should therefore be generally understood that the History will be continued from the reign of George 11. to 1835, by the Rev. T. S. Hughes, of Cambridge, whose talents and im partiality eminently qualify him to become the historian of the most eventful period in the annals of Britain. The work will be comprised in nineteen monthly volumes, at ss. each, and thus form the most complete History of Eag laud every yet published. This new mode of periodical publication consults the convenience of all classes, and may induce many to peruse a volume monthly, who would shrink from the ta,k of reading the work, it compelled to await the completion of the whole series. THE SEVEN TEMPTATIONS.—A book, full of verse, from the pen of Mary Howitt, is one of the few intellectual treats which these days of dull utility afford. It is like a new-born delight to be beckoned out of the town, as it were, into the green fields of poetry by one so familiar with the spells of nature. This volume is a bold attempt—the boldest in which the authoress has yet adventured. We need not examine these animated pictures in detail ; they are profusely loaded with beauties, and replete with dramatic interest. The pictorial com binations of the scenes, the vigour of the dialogue, and the general effects of the contrasts of character, justly entitle them to the name of dramatic poems—a class of coinrosition in which they will take a high rank.— s. FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. LIST OF TH. Of 94, who voted in favour for the diolition of F ENGLAND. Aglionby, H. A.—Cockermouth Baillie, J. E.—Bristol Bainbridge, E. T.—Taunton Baines, Edward—Leeds Beauclerk, Aubrey Wm.—East Surrey Beaumont, T. W.—South Nor thumberland Bish, Tncrnas—Leominster Blake, Sir F.—Berwick Boss, J. G.—Northallerton Briscoe, J. I.—East Surrey Brocklehurst, J.—Macclesfield Buckingham, J. S.—Sheffield Bulwer, H. L.—Coventry Buxton, T. F.—Weymouth Chichester, J. P. B.—Barnstaplel Clay, W.—Tower Hamlets Cartels, E. B.—Rye Curteis, H. B.—East Sussex Dashwood, G. H.—Bucks Dawson, A. E.—South Leices tershire )ivett, Edward—Exeter Evans,lWm. De Lacy—West. minstcr Ewart, %V.—Liverpool Faithful, George—Brighton Fancourt, Major.—Barnstaple Fielden, John—Oldham Fryer, ft.—Wolverhampton Gaskell, Daniel—Wakefield Goring, H. D.—New Shoreham Grote, G.—London Guest, J. J.—Merthyr Tydvil Hall, Benjamin—Monmouth Hoskins, K.—Herefordshire !fuglies, Hughes—Oxford Hume, Joseph—Middlesex Hutt, W.—Kingston-on-Hull Leonard, Sir T.—South Essex Leonard, I'. B.—Maldon Lister, E. Cunliffe—Bradford Lushington, Dr.—Tower Haml. Marjoribanks, S.—Hythe Mildinay, P. St. John—Win chester Parrott, Jasper—Totnes Pease, Joseph—South Durham Plumptre, J. P.—East Kent Potter, R.—Wigan MALT DUTIES. E - MINORITY of Major Fancourt's motion ' the Army. Pulter, J. S.—Shaftesbury Bilion, C.—Gateshead Robinson, (5. R.—Worcester Roebuck, .1. A.—Bath itomilly, J.—Briclpott Romilly, E.—Ludlow Rotch, B.—Knaresborough Simeon, Sir IL—lsle of Wight Strutt, Edmund—Derby Talmash, A. G.—Grantham Tennyson, Right Hon. C.— Lambeth Thicknesse, R.—Wigan Thompson, Ald.—Sunderlani Todd, J. Ruddell—Honiton Tooke, W.—Truro Turner, W.—Blackburn Vincent, Sir F.—St. Albans Walter, John—Berks Wason, Rigby--Ipswich Warburton, H.—Bzidport Warre, A. J.—Hastings Whalley, sir S.— Marylebone Wigney, I. N.—Brighton SCOTLAND. Ewing, J.—Glasgow Gillon, W. D.—Falkirk, &c. Johnston, A.—St. Andrews Oswald, J. - Glasgow Oswald, R —Ayrshire Parnell, Sir H.—Dundee Sinclait, G.—Caithness.shire Steuart, R.—Haddington, &c Wallace, R.—Greenock IRELAND. Bellew, It. 14.—Louth Blake, Martin—Galway Jacob, E.— Dungarvom O'Connell, Daniel—Dublin O'Connell, Morgan—Meath O'Connell, Maurice—Tralee O'Connell, John—Youghall O'Dwyer, A. C.—Drogheda O'Reilly, W.—Dundalk Roche, William—Limerick Ruthven, E. S.—Dublin Ruthvcn, Ed.—Kildare Shell, R. L.—Tipperary Sullivan, Richard—Kilkenny Tennant, J E.—Belfast Vigors, N. C.—Carlow LIST OF THE MINORITY Of 61 (Tellers included) who voted :in favour of Mr. Cob• bett's motion, " That it is expediew that from and after the sth ~f October next, all duties on malt shall cease and determine." For the Motion 59 Against 142 Majority —B3 Total in the House 0 01 Trevor, Hon. G. R.—Caermar. thenshire _ _ ENGLAND, Adams, E. H.—Carmarthensh. Aglionby, H. A.—Cockermouth Astley.,SirJacob—WestNorfolk Attwood, Thos.—Birmingham Barnard, E. G.—Greenwich Bell, M.—S. Northumberland Bowes, John—South Durham Buckingham, J. S.—Sheffield 3urton, Henry—Beverley Tyrrell, Sir J. T.—North Essex Tyrell, C.—West Suffolk Vincent, Sir F.—St. Albans Walter, John—Berkshire Wason, R.—lpswich Wigney, J. N.—Brighton Wilks, John—Boston Winnington, 11. J.—W. Wor. cestershire Chando's, Marquis of—Biicks Chaplin, Colonel Stamford Clayton, Colonel—Marlow Crawley, S. Bedford Curteis, E. B.—Rye Faithfull, G.—Brighton Fancourt, Major—Barnstaple Fielden, John—Oldham Foley, E. T.—Herefordshire Folkes, Sir W.—Norfolk Gaskell, D.-,Wakefield SCOTLAND. Ferguson, G.—Banmilire Maxwell, Sir J.—Paisley Oswald, R. A.—Ayrshire Sinclair, G.—Caithness-shire Wallace, Robert—Greenock IRELAND. Jacob, E.—Dungarvon O'Connell, Maurice—Tra lee 0 Connell, Morgan—Meath O'Connell, John—Youghall Ruthven, E. S.—Dublin Ruthven, Edward—Kildare Sheil, R. L.—Tipperary Hume, J.—Middlesex Ingilby, Sir W. A.—Parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire James, W.—Carlisle Keppel, Hon. G.—East Norfolk Leech, J.—West Surrey Lennard, Sir T.' I.ister, E. Cunliffe—Bradford Kies, W.—East Somerset Parrott, Jasper—Totness Pigot, R.—Bridgewater Plumptre, J.—East Kent TELLERS. Cobbett, Wm.—Oldham Curteis, H.—East Sussex ItickfOrd; \V.—Aylesbury Robinson, G. R.—Worcester Shawe, R. N.—East Suffolk Simeon, Sir R.G.—lsleof Wight : Trelawney, W. L. S.—Fast ) Cornwall PAIRED OFF IN FAVOUR. Goring, H.D.—New Shoreham Tynte, C. J. K.—West Somer setshire SHUT OUT. Kennedy, J.—Tiverton FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, Msacii 17, 1834, His Majesty has been most graciously pleased to command, that the Honourable Band of Gentleman Pensioners shall be in future called, his Majesty's Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S.OFFICE, INIARcit 17, Si rJohn Mark Frederic Smith has been appointed Gentle man Usher of his Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Chamber in Ordinary, in the room of John Beaumont, Esq., deceased. FOREIGN-OFFICE, MARCH 18, The King has been graciously pleased to approve of the Chevalier de Cussy as Consul at Dublin for his Majesty the King of the French. DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. ELIZABETH ANNE BEECR AFT, embroiderer, Curzon. street, May-fair, BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. GEORGE AUGUSTUS BROWN, baker, Dock-head, Shad Thames, from March 28 to April 8, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. JOHN WHITESIDE, merchant, Whitehaven, BANKRUPTS. FRANCIS PARRY, tailor, Brighton, to surrender March 25, at one, and April 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Edwards, Pancras.lane, official assignee ; Archer, Featherstone-buildings, Holborn. THOMAS WARL A ND, silk-manufacturer, Steward.street, Spital-fields, March 24, at eleven, and April 29, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Burfoot, King's Bench-walk, Tem ple ; Whitmore, Basinghall.street, official assignee. JOHN JONES, cattle-salesman, Plasnewydd, Carmarthen.. shire, March 26 and April 29, at eleven, at the White Lion Hotel, Carmarthen. Crowder and Maynard, Mansion House place, London ; Jones and Jeffries, Carmarthen. THOMAS JONES, collar-maker, Birmingham, March 22 and April 29, at Radenhurst's New Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Norton and Chaplin, Gray's Inn-square, London ; Richards, Birmingham. THOMAS JENSON, druggist, Coventry, March 26 and April 29, at eleven, at the Craven Arms Hotel, Coventry. Fy son and Beck, Lothbury, London; Carter and Dewes, Coventry. STANLEY GARNER, inn-keeper, Liscard, Cheshire, April 1 and 29, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Norris, Allen, and Anthony, Great Ormond-street, London ; Toulmin, Liverpool. DAVID WATKEYS, dealer, Swansea, Glamorganshire, March 31 and April 29, at eleven, at the Commercial-rooms, Bristol. Stevens, Gray's Inn-square, London; Perkins, Bristol. GEORGE STOCKER, grocer, High-street, Whitechapel, March 25, at three, and April 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Abbott, King's Arms-yard, Coleman-street, offi cial assignee ; Allingham, Hatton-garden. EDWARD KNO WLES, grocer, Barking, Essex, March 25, at twelve, and April 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Overton, King's Arms-yard, Coleman-street. JAMES CA WT EIRON, colourman, Bolingbroke-row, Walworth, March 27, at half-past two, and April 29,at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gibson, Basinghall-street, official assignee ; Turner and Son, Percy-street, Bedford_ square. PETER LOWE, merchant, Upton, Cheshire, April 2 and 29, at twelve, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manchester. Kay, Barlow, and Aston, Manchester. PETER CLARKE, merchant, Kingston.upon-Hull, April 15 and 29, at one, at the Kingston Hotel, Kingston-upon- Hull. Hicks and Marris, Gray's Inn-square, London ; Holden and Galloway, Hull. JOHN PARR, corn-dealer, Jenny Hole, Worcestershire, March 28 and April 29, at eleven, at the Black Horse Inn, Kidderminster. Michael, Red Lion•square, Holborn, London; Bird, Kidderminster. THOMAS WRIGHT, victualler, Northallerton, Yorkshire, April 17 and 29, at eleven, at the Golden Lion, Northallerton. Hall, Bishop, and Mourilyan, James-street, Bedford-row, Lon don ; Hirst, Northallerton. HARROP WIGHT, grocer, Sunderland, April 1, at one, and April 29, at eleven, at the Londonderry Arms Inn, Bishop Wearmouth. Miller, Furnival's Inn, London; Davison, Bishop Wearmouth. DIVIDENDS. S. Hannam, carpenter, Oxford, April 10, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—R. J. Fayrer, mariner, London, April 10, at half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy— J. Lawrence, woollen-draper, Hatton-garden, April 8, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—W. Austin, ironmonger, Woolwich, April 8, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Beauchamp, silversmith, Holborn, April 15, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—R. Delves, lodging-house-keeper, Tun bridge Wells, April 10, at half-past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Hawkes, silk-mercer, Pall_mall, April 10, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—W. Hornhlow, mariner, Acre-lane, Surrey, April 10, at twelve, at the Court of Bank ruptcy—J. C. Hartsinck, J. Hutchinson, and W. Playfair, bankers, Cornhill, April 10, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy—T. Ratcliffe, builder, Ramsgate, April 9, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Gomersall, umbrella-maker, Bur- lington-arcade, April 10, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy—J. Wildman, merchant, Fen-court, Fen-church-street, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—R. Fenner, bookseller, Paternoster-row, April 9, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy—T. Dodd, ribbon.manufacturer, Coventry, April 10, at eleven, at the King's Head Inn, Coventry—F. Casey, mer chant, Manchester, April 9, at three, at the Commissioners' Rooms, St. James's-square, Manchester—B. Barker, grocer, B r idli ng t on , Yorkshire, April 16, at eleven, at the Ge orge I nn, Ki ngs ton -upon-Hull—R. W hiteside, miller, Pilling, Lan. cashire, April 9, a t eleven, at the Royal Oak Inn, Lancaster_ J. Barnett and J. Dewey, factors, Wolverhampton, April 1., at three, at the Red Lion Inn, Wolverhampton —J. Thompson, merchant, New York, United States, April 14, at one, at the 4 t....;- - # 3 r:- - 1 - - - P- 4.7) ,;,\ ..) C 'arendon-buildings, South John.stree ~.t. r Vqpopl---*. Pofoote3 '.4 SAP . ( and J. M`Creight, corn-merchants, Li ettool . ,. April 9, atone, 3 Q at the Office of Mr. Bards,,,,i, solici taj,,,\Liverpool-A. Conz ; stantine, draper, Bolton-le-Moors, Lalp \ tirc., April 11, at. '.,./.'", two, at the Commissioners' Rooms, St. kinicles.squ'are, Mati-:', *V chester—E. Bevan and M. Yates, merchant Aiistol;_April , J2;' ,/ .. , ; at one, at the Commercial Rooms, Corn2Stre‘i,fltriat"9l - „--A.,_, Matthew, ironmonger, Shaftesbury, April 9, at one(at;..ihe Commercial Rooms, Corn-street, Bristol—R. Harrison, drug gist, Birmingham, April 15, at twelve, at Radenhurst's Royal Hotel, Birmingham. C J. Slater, coal'Stamford-bridge, merchant,Elt'PlF I C s A t '.l' John'sE— A Wharf,et tlt 8 Fulham—E. Walkinshaw, merchant, Liverpool—S. Livesey, victualler, Manchester—G. White, victualler, North Wharf road, Paddington—lt. Marshall, merchant, Newcastle-upon- Tyne. ' PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. W. and W. R. Gatliff, blanket-merchants, Leeds—W. and J. Richards, maltsters, Tiverton, Devonshire—J. Craven and W. Smith, cabinet-makers, Leeds—J. and R. Shackleton, maltsters, Holbeck, Leeds—W. Giles and H. Oakley, tailors, St. Dunstan's-passage, Tower-street—G. Barlow and J. Jones, calico-printers, Woodend, Chester—W. and D. Price, ware housemen, Pilgrim-street, Ludgate-hill—T. C. Harris and Co., drapers, Coventry—T. Heapy and H. Silvester, button-makers, Rushton, Staffordshire—W. New and J. Lee, coach-proprietors, Liverpool—J. and J. Fawcett, wheelwrights, Wakefield, York shire—R. and G. Stagg, curricrs, Carlisle—J. Rose and Co., hop.factors (as far as regards J. Rose), Three Crown-square, Southwark—J. Wright and J. Backhouse, boat-builders, Gain. son-side, Kingston-upon-Hull—T. Russell and Co., worsted spinners (as far as regards T. Russell), Catteral, Lancashire— F. Heald and C. Phelps, sherry wine.merchants, St. Mary's, Xerez, Spain—J. Hughes and J. Robinson—J. Steel and J. Clough, ironmongers, Liverpool—R. Clough and Co., iron mongers, Manchester—C. Meyer and J. Steiger, watchmakers, Brighton—J., T., and D. Archer, cloth-manufacturers, Ossett, Yorkshire—W. T. and H. Wrigley, silk waste-spinners (as far as regards H. Wrigley), Holmfield.mills, Halifax—B. C. Tyzack and Co., anchor_smiths (as far as regards A. Crighton), Low-lights, North Shields. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS, THOMAS PENDER HANDYSIDE, wine.merchant, Edinburgh, March 19 and April 3, at one. FRANCIS LEGATE and ROBERT WATT, merchants, Glasgow, March 19 and April 2, at two. PETER BPDOUGALL and JAMES MWOUGALI„ ca lico-printers, Glasgow, March 21 and April 4, at one. COURT CIRCULAR. The Duke of Cumberland returned to town on Monday after. noon from his residence at Kew. M. Van de Weyer, the Belgic Minister ; the Chevalier de Vial, the Spanish Minister; and M. de Moraes Sarmento, the Portuguese Minister, visited Viscount Palmerston yesterday at the Foreign Office. M. Araujo Ribeiro, the Brazilian Minister, transacted busi ness yesterday at the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. A deputation of the city of London, headed by Alderman Wood, and accompanied by the City Remembrancer, had an interview yesterday with Viscount Althorp. The Austrian Ambassador visited Prince Lieven yesterday. The Earl of Ripon, Sir James Kempt, and Mr. Colquhoun, the agent for St. Vincent, had interviews yesterday with Mr. Secretary Stanley at the Colonial Office. The marriage of the Earl of Kerry with the Honourable Miss Ponsonby was solemnized yesterday by the ReV. Mr. Guthrie, at the residence of Viscount and Viscountess Duncannon (the father and mother of the bride), in Cavendish square. The Marquis and Marchioness of Lansdowne and some of the rela tives of the two noble families were present at the ceremony. —The Earl and Countess of Kerry left town soon afterwards for the seat of the Marquis of Lansdowne, at Bowood, Wilts. THE MARKETS. couN rRY CORN MARKETS DURING THE WEEK. Wheat. I Barley. Oats. 1 Beane. Per Quarter. 302t0n ...,............., S. to S. 40 50 S. to s. 25 32 8. to s. 8. to 0. 14 19 32 40 18 40 17 21 3C 34 Ft 16 32 36 17 21 28 30 13 20 32 40 10 18 32 38 16 24 38 40 15 21 28 38 Gainsborough 57 Grantham 46 50 42 48 H0rnca5t1e—........... 44 49 Lincoln •Nowe.•••••owewro 42 50 44 48 . . - 34 26 30 26 28 24 28 27 31 24 28 iiamfOi York— 45 50 126 29 45 54 22 30 NORWICH, March 15, Wheat (per qr.) 40s. 325. 60s. Beans (per qr.) 335. 345. Barley 23s. 265. 365. Pease, Grey 363. 475. Oats Wheat, white. CANTERBURY, March 15. 57e. to 635. ...M. Old —s. 48s. to &Is. 01d.—... —s. 265. to 325. Grinding.. 225. 20s. to 255. Old--- 20s. 3ls to 355. Old —s. 308. to 365. -- Grey-- 30s. Barley, INialtißg Oats —.. -.- Beans .----,—. Pease ..-.........—.....,,,,,.. to —S. to —s CO `M. to '2BS. to --s. to 345. MANCHESTER, March 15. Wheat, per 70th. Bs. Od. to Bs. 2d. Red 7s. 9A. to Ss. 3d. Barley, per 60th 5 0 5 6 Oats 3 2 3 2 Beans, per Imperial quarter Pease, White, per Imperial bushel 5 0 5 3 Malt, per 6 Imperial bushels 'lB 0 42 0 Flour, per Sack of 2801 b RKETS. l'E.—Fßtn From 1,222 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 15 0 60 Bete l6 stone 10 9 624 16 stone 10 9 4,023 Oats 12 stone 6 6 11,764 Cwt. Flour 9 stone! 5 0 723 Oatmeal 8 stone 9 0 IRISH MA] DUBLIN MARKET NOT Sold to bakers only. 11,911 Cwt. Flout 13 6 lAN', March 14. 1 'l'o Average. 27 0 22 0 —0 0 13 6 II 5 II 0 8 2 19 0 0 13 0 I 10 10 19 0 Average price of Wheat and Flour 3g., 4d. per Heceipts of Flour, 13,575 Firsts, from 17s. (d. „ Seconds, from I2s. 6d. ''a l es f Do. . 7 Thirds, from 53. Od. PRICE OF BREAD, :Nd. I Half Quartern..,...... I if, ;ack. Quartern Loaf. CORK MARKETS.—March 15. Wheat (per 20st.) Barley (per 16st.) Oats (per 14st.) Flour (per cwt.) 5 0 15 . . ._ .. .. to ISs. Od. to 163. Od. to 92. Od. Oatmeal (per cwt.) lO 0 11 0 Beef, sd. to 6d. ; Mutton, sd. to 6d. ; Veal, 6d. to Stl. ; Pork, 2d. to ;:ad. ; Fresh Butter, 10d. to 12d. per lb. PRICE OF BUTTER. To the Merchants. To the Country First Quality l6s. Second 72 6O Third 52 4l Fourth Fifth 3O 2O Sixth CLONMELL MARKETS.--March 14 Per Cwt, s. d. s. ii. s. d. s. 0. New Butter 72 0 to 73 0 Hides (raw) '32 0 to 0 Oatmeal 11 0 11 3 Bacon Pigs .4 0 25 6 Rendered Lard 36 0 0 Heads 17 0 0 Per Bag. O 30 01Flour, Thirds 25 0 O 28 01— Fourths 14 0 Per Barrel. O —01 Barley 11 6 0 11 0 Coals 3 Per Stone, Flour, Second .... Household— Rapeseed 20 Bern 10 o - 0 o Wheat 1 Oats 0 3 4 0 1 3 Tallow (rough) 5 6 5 9 st 081 Potatoes U 3 0 0 Per Pound. Fresh Butter 1 0 i 2Mutton 0 4 05t Beef 0 3 0 4lVeal 0 0 0 b KILKENNY.—Butter 78s to 78s. per cwt. ; Wheat 20s. to 245. per barrel ; Flour 135 to 1295. per bag; Oats lOs tolls per bar rel ; Barley lls. to 13s. ; Beef 3d. to 34d. per lb.; Mutton 411. to NI. ; I'otatoes 4d. per stone; Coals Is. ld, per cwt.; Bacon Pigs 225. to 245. al. per cwt. SCOTCH MARKETS. HADDINGTON CORN hi A RKET.—Match Wheat. Barley. Oats. Pease. First sss Od 2Ss 6d 28s 04 328 ed Second sls Od 243 Od 19a 6cl 25s Od Third 48s Od 22s Od 188 Od I 27s Od There were 254 qrs. of Wheat in market,237 whereof 17 Unsold.-0 Grey. ~..21. 10s. 11d. 2-121115 Beans. 30, Od 283 Od 27s Od were sold. A verage, DALKIETH CORN MARKE' Wheat. Barley. Oats. First s7s Od 29s 6,1 2Ss Od Second s2s Od 27s Od 19s 6d Third 39s Od 21.. s Od 18s Od T.—March 13. 1 !'ease. Beans. 32s Od 30e k 1 28s Od 28: Od 27s Od 127 s 0,1 GLASGOW MARKETS. (From the Glasgow Herald of Monday.) Svc:Am.-The transactions in Raw Sugars this week have been very limited. The sales are only 88 hhds. and trs. Brown Trinidads 495. 6d. a 515.; brown Demeraras 518., mid. 525. a 535. 6d. Several parcels of Demerara Molasses have been sold at 225. 9d. a 235. in the warehouse. Refined Sugars are without any alteration in demand or value ; brown loaves 705., up to 80s. for fine; very fine Sls. a 85s. Candy 9;d. a 100. Crushed Sugars are selling steadily at former prices ; browns and yellows 555. a 595., mid. and good mid. 60s. a 638., good and fine 645. a 675. Treacle dull, at 17s. 6d. a I7s. 9d. COFFEE.-305 bags Demerara Coffee were sold; good triage and broken 725. a 775., ord. and good ord. 80s. a 85s. \ o e , ts 245. and Pearls .6s. selling in small parcels at 468. PIMENTO ♦ND EAST INDIA RICE.-No sales. RUM -Nothing worthy of remark done in Rum; Jamaicas 16 over proof, 2s. 86. a 2s. 9d. ; Leewards 2s. id. a 2s. 2d. for OI ' hale 18/., Pale Seal 201., and proofs.A"sh ETarL.::_ol. . h:C N is. s o aTrs s ate a el l lfla e oda s i m ;i; s a y I d s e Cod I Si. per tun, old measure. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COURT, 13AS1NGHALL-STREET (From the London Gazette.) TO-MORROW, Mulct' 20. M. H. 1. Ely, commission-agent, Mark-lane 1 at 12 DIVIDENDS. H. 11. Baylis' printer, Johnson's-court, Fleet-street at 10 W. 1310 fie10, carpenter, Hosier-lane 12 E. Cussell, sem, coal-dealer, Croydon DEATH OF THE DEAN OF ROCKING.—On Thursday last died, in the 69th year of his age, Charles B:rton, D.D. The deceased was instituted to the Deanery of Bucking in 1816 ; pan on, the Archbishop of Canter bury.—. North Devon Advertiser. 3 '1