The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAR.LIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTEItDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA. The Earl of ALBEMARLE, in presenting a petition from the landowners, planters, and others connected with the trade of Bengal, complaining of the construction of the Legislative Council of India under the provisions of the India Act of 1853, and praying for an enlargement of the Council by the admission into it, either by ap pointment or otherwise, of persons selected from the In dian communities, without distinction of race or creed, said it appeared no person was eligible to serve in the Legislative Council but officers who were in the service of the East India Company ; so that 112,000,000 of her Majesty's native subjects, be they Mahomedans, Hindoos, or Christians, were wholly excluded from the Council, as well as those 10,000 Europeans, who were neither in the service of the Crown nor the East India Company. The Council was as remarkable for its ignorance and inefficiency as it was for it 4 exclusiveness, and the members of it were not to blame for this, for they were called upon to legislate for eight different nations and communities without being afforded the assistance of any of the natives. The noble earl having read some extracts from letters in proof of the facts, observed that the India Act of 1853 was passed in ignorance of the general character and conduct of the East India Company. _ EVIDENCE IN FOREIGN SUITS BILL. This bill, on the motion of the LORD CHANCEL LOR, was read a second time. DWELLINGS OF THE POOR (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second reading of this bill. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE • objected to cer tain previsions in the bill, and said, when their lordships went into committee on the measure, he should move some amendments. The bill was then read a second time. EXCHEQUER BILLS (4,000,0001.) BILL. This bill was read a second time. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL . On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, The LORD CHANCELLOR said before this bill was read a third time he wished to move the omission of a proviso introduced into the bill last evenin:, on the motion of the right rev, prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), which declared illegal any marriage between the adulterous parties. It was his opinion that the proviso, instead of discouraging thecommission of adul tery, would have a• contrary effect. He did not intend to divide on the subject, but merely moved the omission of the.proviso as a protest against the bill. The amendment was then negatived without a divi sion, and the bill was read a third time and passel. DRAINAGE ACr AMENDMENT BILL. The report of the committee on this bill was received. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL. Their lordships then went into committee en this bill, . and the first five clauses were passed without remark. . On clause 6, Lord LYTTLETON moved two amendments, the first that the limit requiring the members of the council should be eieutel from the electoral roll should he re moved, and the object of this amendment was to as eirnilate this bill to the Oxford act. The electoral roll in the Cambridge bill corresponded with thecongregation in the act relating to the sister university, and id -that act there was no limitation requiring that the hebdoma, dal council should be members of congregation, but simply that they shl;uld, be members of the senate. It had fur ther been suggested to him that there was a safeguard against the non-residence of the members of the se"nateirt . the Oxford act, which it might be well to adept in the present case, and if he carried his amendment in reference to the electoral body, he should move to add the proiise from the Oxford act, which enacted that if any member of the senate other than the chancellor should reside at the university for a less period than 14 weeks in. any one year, his seat should be declared void and become . vacsnt. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amend meat as involving complications in the clause. The , amendment was negatived, and the clause with a se - iond (verbal) amendment, was agreed to. • Clauses 7to 30 inclusive were agreed to without dis cussion. On clause 31, • Lord LYTTLETON moved the omission of all the words that went to the alteration or modification of the Lady Sadler or Mr. Wort's trust'. _ . The committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Content 2ti . Not-content - 5l Majority The words were accordingly struck out. On clause 32, Lord LYNDHURST moved the restoration of all the words which had been struck out on the third reading of the bill in the House of C.sramous, excluding Dissenters from seats in the senate of the university. Ile said that the change which had been made in the House of Com mons would, if allowed to remain, have an important in fluence on the religion of the country, and implored tbeir lordships to vote the restoration of the words which had been struck out. Their lordships should recollect that the words were struck out by a small insj wity and in a thin house ; indeed, he believed that the division was altogether a surprise. The Government itself hal been taken by surprise. With respect to the question itself, be would troub:e the house by reading a few observa tions which had been made in the other hOtise. An hon. member said, "The effect of the amendment will be to confer on Dissenters who take the higher degrees the right to interfere in the affairs of the university, and to vote for /members of Parliament ; and I fear it will mar the use fulness of the bill by exeitiug a feeling of alarm in the minds of those whose co-operation is necessary for the suc cess ul the measure. It is not to be doubted that there is a strong and intimate connection between the Church of England and the universities, and a proposal to allow dissenters to interfere in fixing the theological studies will excite alarm. The amendment will therefore tend to impair the usefulness of the university." He (Lord Lyndhurst) concurred entirely with these Observations, which Were ascribed to a member of the Government— he believed the gentleman who in the other House of Parliament had the conduct of the bill—snd he inferred from them that the Government was hostile to the change. Taking these words in connection with the fact that the Government was taken by surprise in the }Luse of Commons, be felt sure that their lordships would eon cur in his amendment, which was that the words omi ted in the last stage of the bill in the other house be re stored, for, the purpose of preventing dissenters from taking any part in the government of the university. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was quite true that when the bill left that house. two years ago it contained the restriction alluded to by his noble and learned friend, and it was equally clear that they were in the bill when it was re-introduced in the other house during the present session. He should have been ma iS. fled it matters had so remained, but unlesu it could be shown that the omission of these words reaily did great in jury, or cause real appreheneion to the Courch, he would submit whether it was advantageous, on questions of this sort, for their lordships to a54U(1143 au attitude antagonis tic to the other house of Parliament. Lord LYNDRURST—The restriction was in the Ox ford Bill. -25 The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that these fre quent antagonisms were not creditable to their lordships, and he must remind then. that it was only a fortnight since that that argument had been used by his noble and learned friend on a subject quite germane to the present. Their lordships would recollect that his noble and learned friend had occupied tft emt. on a question on which he re gretted to say his noble and. learned friend was defeated, but which was very like the present. Andlie (the Lord Chancellor) must say that if it was not dangerous to the Christian religion to introduce Jews into that house, neither did he believe it would -be dangerous to the . Church of England to introduce a few dissenter, into the nut versities. H e b e li eve d the proportion would be very small. [Lord Lyndhurst—l cc , : your pardon.] He believed it would be infinitely small, and the likelihood was that the proportiOn would be absorbed by the Church. He clid• not know whether it was Mrs. Barbauld or Dr. Aiken who bad said that there was no instance of dis senters preserving the character for t .vo greneratiole. The Earl of DER tiY said he had a great respect for Mrs. Barbauld—(a laugh)—but he hardly thought the noble and learned lord's sarcasm worthy of the time or the place. He could net understand why a law was to be made for Cambridge which hart been retn , ed to Ox ford. Neither could he understand why one principle should be enforced one session and another in another. He was as unwilling as any one to be in antagonism to the House of Commons ; but in a case like the present, when an important principle was involved, he trusted that ther lordships would act on their own unbiassed jThlg. merit Bath Government and the Hou4e of Commons were inconsistent with themselves in this matter. Two years since the House of Comm e s dtc:ded in a full house for the principle advocated by his noble and learned friend, and Government acquiesced in that deci. sion. The words proposed to be restored by his noble and iearne I friend were struck out in a house of 130 members, whereas two years !befcre they were affirmed by a house of 400 members. Ho trusted, therefore, that theirierdships would hot allow themselves to be in by what . he must look upon o 3 oely a casual nil stolen vote). Lord AtoNT LAG LE Fupported the bill as it stood, as being consi-dent with the soundest principles of legis lation. H6took the liberty of separating the cases of Oxford and Cambridge ;'they were entirely dissimilar. In the days of queenEtizabeth there was nothing which prevented the admiA%ion of Dissenters at Cambridge.' Even afterwards a Dissenter could attend the course of education afforded by the university ; it was only. upon his going, up to take hie degrees that he was refused the honour to which bis,indn , try and talent entitled him. Ent at Oxford the prohibition against dissenters took p effect in limine—it occurred upon a candidate rsent in.:4 himself for the rnatricula.tion examination.- °Mat was now proposed to be done was no inors Clan had been done in Ireland by'Mr. Pitt in 1793, and he defied any one to say that that step had not been attended With the happiest result;. Ito denied that this matter had taken .the member of the other house by surprise ; solemn no tice was given of the amendment - which made it part of the bill, and, in fact, two divisions of the house took place upon it. The noble lord opposite (Earl Derby) hail, when a member of the other house, expressed an 4bpinien'directly favourable to the principle of this bill. • • The Earl of DERBY explained that the speech of his to which the noble lor.l referred had reference only to the - aireiwion of dissenters to the benefits of a University education. TES still retained the on'n'ons which ho thrn expressed •on that subject. But th., question then under considezitiou mai; the 4firgisictli of dissenters among the g werning body of the university ; that was an entirely aifftrent matter, and one upon which he bad already stated his views to the house. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S thongbt that in refusing to the Dissenters a share in the government of the uni versity, no actual practical advantage was denied to them. The committee divided.— For the amendment Against it 25 Majority The bill then passed through committee. GRAND JURIES BILL. This bill was read a third time. SURVEY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL. This bill was read a third time. SMALL DEBTS IMPRISONMENT Aer AMEND. MENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. The house adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. COAL WHIPPERS' BILL. The Sheriffs of the City of London presented a peti tion from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council against the Coal whippers' Bill. The Lords' amendments to the Monmouth Roads Bill were considered and agreed to. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. HAYTER, a new writ was ordered to be issued for Colne, in the room of the Rug of Shelimn", who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. INCOME-TAX COLLECTORS. Mr. GLADSTONE wished to put the following question to the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely—Whether it was his intention to increase the salaries of persons employed in the col lection of the income tax ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was his intention to do so. TROOPS IN THE WEST INDIES. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD asked the Under Secretary for War whether the three' regiment., the 36th, 67th, and 69th, which had now been about five years stations in the West India Islands, were shortly to be relieved ? Mr. F. PEEL said the regiments destined for the West Indies were now on their way to this country. He could give the hon. gentleman no information rola t:ve to the destination of certain regiments. THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND. On the motion of Sir d:GREY, that the house at its rising adjourn till Monday, SirJ. PAKINGTON rose and said he could not per mit the session to close without calling the attention of the house to this subject. When the bishop wao first appointed, there was no distinct understanding that the salary was to continue for life, and he hail been for the last two years deprived of it. He thought it was neither creditable nor honourable that this state of things should contantie ; and if the sa'ary was not restored he should feel it his duty next session to bring forward a measure for its repayment: He therefore begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was the intention of the Government to make any arrange• ment for restoring to the Bishop of New Zealand the moderate and necessary incmie ,of 600/. per annum,' which was provided for him when he .. first accepted the p )sitioa he bad so well filled, and was continued till the last two years ? Mr. LA.BOUCHERE said he approached the ques tion with pain, and concern, believing the bishop had been hardly treated ' and that pain was aggravated by tire high-minded and disinterested conduct of the right rev. prelate. The salary had been •disemtinued for three ,years. The bishopric of Now Zealand was founded in 1841, and he was placed on the civil list at a salary of 6001.: per annum. Since 1852, when the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) was Cdonial Se-. cretary, the salary had been omitted from the estimates. On that occasion, in reply to a question from Ur. .W. Williams, the right hon. baronet said that after that year the grant of 6001. for the Bishop would not beaskedj ..fOr in the estimates, because the - colony would in future provide the necessary funds for paying the bishop, and the salary had, in consequence of that pledge, been omitted from the estimates. This country had endeavoured to induce the colony of New Zealand to pay the. 600/. per annum, but the Government of that country refused to do so. He (Mr. Labouchere) should be sorry to find the right rev. prelate was a sufferer from the regu lation 'he bad referred to, and he thought he would not, becaus:e the Churchmen of New Zealand were raising funds for the establishment of- fresh bishoprics, and he supposed they would make the necessary provision for the present *bishop before establishing the new ones. The Bishop of New Zealand left this country without , any stipulation that he should continue to receive this money, but he had reason to expect it.. He (Ur. Labouchere) thought ,that after the pledge given by the right hon. bat. the Government could not propose the continu ance of the payment of 6001. per annum to the Bishop. Mr., GLADSTONE thought that under the circum stances the house ought to empower the Government to renew the grant rather than let the Bishop depend on voluntary donations for support: Mr. W. W/LLTAMS protested again-t this question beint, so continually brought before the house, and ob jected p to this country being called on to support the relgieue establishments of the colonies. ' Mr. DISRAELI said the case ought to be considered with regard ti the claims of the individual rather than en the, principle of their supporting the Colonial Church. The question the house ought to consider was whether any engagement was made with the Bishop of New Zea land at the time he accepted the office, because, if so, it ought to be carried out. A mistake appeared to have' arisen with regard to the * statement of Sir J. Pakir , gton in 1852 ; and on a reference to Hansard be found that the right hon. baronet, so far from making a distinct pledge that this vote should not be repeated, he foUndthe right hon. baronet commenced his statement by saying he " was averse to giving any distinct pledge," and further on, that " probably after this year no further grant would be required." Sir G. GREY' supported - the views of the Colonial Secretary (Ur. Laboucliere) with reference to the iin plied if not actual pledge of the right hon. bart. that this salary should not be continued. _ Mr. ROEBUCK gaiithaiii;;;Oble z lord (Lord Johil Russell) fir,t appointed . the Bishop and then came to the hotue t his salary. It being granted for 12 months was no reason why it should be continued, and as the ruble lord appointed the bishop it was his place to pay his salary. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He condemned the principle of endeavouring to spread he English Church over th e wor ld a t th e expense of this country, and said there cluld be no doubt. the right bon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) when he made the statement referred to in 1852, wished it to be taken at the time as a pledge in order to get the amendment then before the house passed. - After 'Horne remarks from Mr. rriLbyARD, the subject dropped. MILITARY SURGERY. , Bin COWAN asked what the intention of the Ge vernmenk was with regard to the professorship of military surJery in the University of Edinburgh, which became vacant about s:x months ago by the death of. tee then professor? . Mr: F. PEEL said it was not the. intention of the Government to suppress the chair of military surgery referred to, but he as unable to say when the vacancy would be filled up. Arrangements had been made to prevent any incouvenience arising from the de:ay. PAYMASTERS OF IRISH CO , NSTABULARY, Mr,; Sergeant O'BRIEN called the attention of the house to the case of the late paymasters of Con stabuln,ry in Ireland, and to the compensation allowed to them on the 'abolition of their oli . ce. In 1836 these paymasters were appointed at a salary of 2001. per annum. In 1851 the offices were abolished, and receivers appointed, and a pension was reran: mended by the Lord-Lieutenant to be granted to the paymasters of 150/, per annum to some, 1201. to others, and 1001, to those who had been in the . service from 6 to 10 years each. The Government, however, instead of concurring in that rec.immendat ion, gave pensions of oily 421. per annum to the first 36/. to - the secOnd ; and gratuities of 1041,, 771., 63/., .51/ , and 31/., to the youngest class. He asked for an explanation of the award. ' Sir D. NORREYS believed that this was an - exceed ingly bard case. At the time it firet occurred he at tempted-to obtain justice for 'the pnrtles, but failed ; and he hoped the present appeal would be more successful. Nothing could more illustrate the necessity for adminis trative reform than ,this case, for it was impossible that the civil service of the country could be well performed if any part of it were unjustly treated ; and here they had an instance that such iojustice'could ari.:e. Now that feeling should be removed, if the state expected to be well served. "Lord - MoNCKSaid it was not in his power to hold out any hope that the decision already .clue so in this case would he departed froin. The case was decided, by the rreasnry as far 'back as 1351, and he need not refer to., the obvious inaonvenience that must arise • if one Trea sury B , ard were to reverse the decision of its predeces sor. Under the act passed in the reign of Win. IV., 9.1 perannuation pensions were authnri,ed to be granted to certain departments of tbe public service, the officers of those departments contributing annually a portion Of their salaries to keep up a f un d out of which the pens ions shout] he.partly paid. In 1848 it Vr;ls proposed to place these officials under the schedule of that act, but th,yde 7 . Mined the offer, and when, some years after card, their offices were abolished, the state made them all the com pensation it was in their powertogrant. The house would take an unwise step if it did anything which should, be at all calculated,to distUrir that arrangement. Lord 'NAAS .protested against thi l question being ,treated as one for superannuation ; it was. not a super annuation case' at al:, but purely one of abolition of offi ce , and for that abolition no adequate compensation had yet been awarded. (Hear, hear.) • • The subject then drooped. gr. WILKINSON reminded the hon, gentleman that all • tte Brea reforms which had been effected of late. years; had been carried in opposition to persons of eiperienee, 'and therefore-be did not' think We hon. gentleman's re inarke on the Board of Trade- were well 'feunded. Free trade and the penny poet hid' beerroptiosed, the one by the . grewers. of corn, and the other by the 'officials of the - Post-office ; but both ineaSureshad• proved of the groat-- j e - 4 benefit to the community, notwithstanding the pre dictions of-those *hese (Minion might - have boon sup ee;ed deierving of attention. He thought the bill would" turn out to be a moat" Valuable measure, and it was ca.- mainly one generally 'desired by the trading °emu - tunny. Mr. BIGGS, so far froni agreeing with the hone gen , ' tlernan (Nile Mintz), thought the bill the most valuable one of the' session`"; and 'he enpealed to the house whe ther there was not a universal feeling in its favour. He' regarded the Present laW a,s antiquated and eemi4marharic —(s laugh)—and 'he must consider the BirMingham school very doubtful authorities in monetary matters.' . :tic. SPOONER, for his own pert, had conversed With no one on the subject - of the bill who had not denoonced it in the'term4 whi . ch'itThed been so preperly described by the:hon. gentleman the member for Biriningbarn. He might illustrate the working Of - the measure by suppositmg , a case which -waa very likely to occur if the bill beeamel law e Three persons entered into partnership, two openly and the third secretly: The two first had. no money, and the fonds. were advanced by a third, who thus gave them a. status and a 'credit which they could never with : out hie assistance have obtained. The secret partner, having, tree access to the . books, diecovered that the thing .wae e net going on well, and began cautiously to,with draw fol.; capital little by little. In that way he might get back all he had advanced In addition to the sums .he bad WithdraWnin the shape of profits. The part nership would then collapse, and the creditors who 1 1 . d been seduced into trusting the firm on the faith of a ppearances arising from the advances of the secret partner _ would thus be defrauded of the money. If the house went into committee ho should propose a clause compelling any secret partner to refund ail he had -withdrawn during the 3 years, previrms to ,the insolvency of the firm of which be had been a member. (Cheers.) . .Jr, ROEBUCK thought thatthie was not a bill tube rejected in •the summary manner proposed., rie thought clauses might be inserted' in committee, which by afford-, ,inn publicity with regard to the amount advanced-by the e teeret partners, would at once secure the advantages or oombination e and at the same . time to prevent the'possi bility Of collusive partnerships by which the publiemight be.eibeilited (Hear, hear.). , . • • - '-• Mr.tGLYN,eatri the suggestion jest made' wasnue of • the greate,t importanoe, and ii. the right loon, gentleman. (Ur. Loire) would, promise to adept it he would,not else j.-es-to the bill, otherwise he would use every effort in his power to get rid of this most obnoxious measure. .He • considered,that the evidence taken before the commit tee which had sat, on this subject clearly established three Peinte. First., they undoubtedly proved that legis lation was necessary in consequence of the, repeal of the usury laws. 2dly, They showed that an alteration in the law of bankruptcy ought to be made contemporaneously with the change is the law of partnership. Ofehatthe bill before the house contained no trace. Lastly, the evi dence demonstrated the net essity there was for securing publicity to these partnersEip contracts, to effect which he (sir. Glyn) saw .no mode except registration. The simple fact that the bill did not carry out the suggestions of the-committee was a sufficient reason why he should give it his opposition; bet that was not :all. . The right "hon. gentleman told the house that his object was nut twalter the law of partnership, but only to correct the ffeet of , certain legal decisions. Now, as he (Mr.-Glyn) had alWays looked upon the law of partnership as one of the very fundamental principles of our commercial code, he must say that that statement of the right honegen tlemani had very greatly astonished (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman 'said that, if encouraged by the house e he would bring in a more extended bill on the sub-. js:ct. [Mr. Lowe—l said I would move-for a select com mittee], The very thing. Let the right hon. gentleman move for a select cornmitres, but let him 'not attempt to force the present bill noon the house. In the potnenercial circles io„which he (gr. Glyn) moved, whatever might be thopght of the law of limited liability or the Joint Stook Companies Act, there was but One sentiment; and that an adverse one, with•regard, to the present bill. In 'every country where there was a law at all like the pre sent measure,. the bankruptcy law was mach more strin gent-tharieMr-otvii ; and he regarded an alteration in that-law - oie a necessary -preluninaire before any attempt' wag made - to 'relax the law of Partnership. • Mr. 'MALIN - 5 said the speech:of the hon, gentleman was a rettegrade one ; for up to the present time be had 'alWaya come forward in support of the law of limited liability. - The present bill he regarded as embodying. that principle---a principle which he must remind the 'hon. eentleinan three out of five of the witnesses before the Parliamentary committee were in favour of adoptibg. AS - `fer the case put by his hon. friend . (gr. Spooner) he would appeal to him whether instances of exactly the seine Character were not of daily occurrence even under the present law ? (Hear.) At present a man might lend money at 30, 40, or even 50 per cent.; and be might at any moment eome forward and sweep away all th e pro: 'petty of the firm, an well as imprison the members of which it was composed. Was the house prepared to go bank, and re-enact the usury laws? If not, theyhad no carte whatever against Alie bill. (Hear) The bill ern isOdied three principles--first, it permitted a person to lend money to a firm and receive a porsion - of the profits instead of a fixed interest, without making him a part nee., Secondly, iteenabled a man to remunerate a en.- vant by a share. of the profits without making, him ti member of the firm—ean enactment to which he believed there was no objection at all (Hear, hear ) Lastly, it enabled a partner to withdraw, leaving a portion a his capital in the firm,' without thereby eontinning,,liable. He (qr. Matins)`thought that all those prineipies . weee ieaeonable, and he hoped the house woold at once go into coininittee.-• (Hear, bear.) Mr. CROSSLEY 'denied that the bill had any cone itsetion whatever with the princleireof limited liability, for a parteerunder its provisions would have no liability a t an.' (Loud cheets.), It was said that a man might lend money at any rate of interest ; but there was this o 'ilerencEtin-the. two cases, that • a oreditor,..unlike•a. partner, had no right to examine the books. (Hear.) Mr. Bs% SS said that the hon. members (Mr. Spooper and Glyn) bad no doubt correctly expressed the .feeiinge ofruillionneires. He, hOWever,xvas aceneinted with a large numbei of small capitalists, and they were all in faVeur'nf the hilt (Hear, hear.) ' • Mr; 0, BUTT Wes really surprme'ipd,tO hear his:learned friend' (%.mtend that Oh bill' embodied the prinCiPle * Of limited liability. Its prineiple, as lia - d• been truly ob SFrverl, was no liability. (teems, ' ht , he.) - Ile would put a vaee. SnpiiOve man adVancdd . to'a trader 1,0001. on - condition of receiving :even-eighth's of the prefite he• n- weld receive his money batik over and over again ; and when the trader failed he would still he a creditor for hon. the amount. • He wee as friendly to limited liability 'as ,ne ac- any one; but this' bill enabled persons to teke away the ()which .profits of bueieees without incurring airy liability at all. .derstand Under the second clau,e, an agent.or factor who took a was only share of profits was exempted from partnership liabili or, and the ties. The 'result of this would be that men. would en, such eventie gage as agents, servants, ' or fact - Ors, On snail 'terms 'as to tand that the receive time greater share of the profits, arid' would 'eScape the actual oc- liability m p ther. The thiM'elaiisr; 'was 'no less tiii - indication that chiesteuee'Woeld eertele . ' retirieg - partner's' to' pay Awcen the . Dutch theruselcee, iu the shape of prefit; , ,"the capital they pto • THE CAPE. Mr. LIDDELL wished to put a question to the noble lord at the head of the Government upon a matter in which he took a deep personal , interest.. By th e l a t est .ac counts from the Cape there were sinister rumours of an approaching outbreak by the Kafirs on the - frmatier, and he should be glad to learn whether or not the Go vernment had received any information tending to con. firm that report. Lord PALMERSTON said certainly his right "hon. friend the colonial minister received-yesterday some ac count of theapprehended outbreak on the frontier to which the hon. gen , Leman alluded, but he did. notionderstand that any actual outrage had taken place ; there was only an apprehensio n that an outbreak might occur, and the amplest provision bad been made to meet such eventu , ality. (Hear, hear.) He did not Understand that the accounts received contained any report of the actual oc corrence of an outbre a k, but simply An indication that e 1141. ber 31 a *light ai6tur a_ce between the Dutch settleis and the native,s, which it was apprehended might extend: to open hostilities. The motion that the louse at its rising should adjourn until MondaY was then agreed to. SUPPLY. The report of the committee of supply was brought up, ard on the question that it be received, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY requested some member of the Government to state how it was that delays had taken place in the distribution of the rewards due to the militia for extraordinaty services. Lord PALMERSTON apprehended that if there had been any delay in the distribution of the extra allow. arces and gratuities due on the militia, it must have originated in some mistake, and perhaps the best course for the parties to pursue would he to put themselves in communication with the War-office. The report was then agreed to. CHURCH BUILDING COMMISSION BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, Mr. lIADFIELD.urged the necessity for consolidat ing the whole of the church building acts. At the same time, he strongly objected to the compensation clause which this bill contained. Originally the com mission was intended to continue only ten years, but the time had extended to thirty-eight years. Neverthe less it could hardly be asserted that the parties who had served under the commission received their appointments under the expectation that at the expiration of the com mission they would be entitled'to compensation for life. Sir G. GREY admitted that it Was desirable that these numerous church building acts should be con solidated, and he hoped the attention of the commissiop ers would be directed to the point. The bill was then read a third time. On the question that the bill do pass, .Lord R. CECIL complained that the allowances under the bill had been transferred in committee from the Con solidated Fund to the annual estimates. Mr. 'HADFIELD moved that the second clause, which relates to the compensations, be struck out. Mr. SPOONER was at a loss to understand how com pensation could be claimed in this case, seeing that the commission when appointed was only intended to be of a temporary nature. Sir G. GREY contended that the long and continuous services of the officers attached to the commission en titled them to compensation. _ _ The SYEAKEti then put the question, that the se cond (31aue be retained. And some amusement was caused by hearing Mr. Hadfield himself call " Aye." The amendment was negatived without a division, and tho bid passed. PARTNERSHIP AMENDLIENT (No. 2) BILL. • On the motion for the committal of this bill, Mr. MUNTZ said that instead of a " Bill for the Amendment of the Law of Partnership," it ought rather to be entitled a "Bill for the Encournement of Fraud, Collusion, and Robbery." (Laughter.) The cominercial community did not want the measure, and he protested against the house being dragooned by the Board of Trade, which, notwith , tanding its name, knew very little about trade. (Hear) What would be said of him if he were to 'bring forward-a-bill for the reform of the Courts of Chancery I Should he not be called a conceited, imorant fool ? (Loud laoghter.) And what was the difference' between this and the Bard • of Trade interfering in a matter like this ? (Laughter.) He bad had very eaten , ,sive fireitvn dealings, s and he had paid dearly for the se . 6 .. eret transactions which were allowed abroad. It might he said that the evil to which the bill would give rise had already-been- • created by the repeal of the usury laws. That might be so,-but that was no reason why theyshould make-a worse law in order to cure a bad one: (Hear.) He begged to move -that the bill be committed that - day six months, THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA. EVE ti N CI, JULY 5, 1856, feesed to leave in the c mcern over and ever again. Where, then, was the principle of limited liability ? Tois was an act to enable pereons to share in the profits of • business without being liable for a single farthing. It would give facilities for all sorts of fraud. Viscount PALMERSTON said that most of the ob jections which had been raised against the bill were more objections for the' committee than to the principle of the bill. It was said that the bill was not founded upon the principle of limited liability. At all events, it was founded upon .the principle of doing away with un liMited liability. Several hon. gentlemen had given in- I stances of the operation of the law as it stood ; he would only mention that well-known instance of Sir Walter Scott, who was a dreadful sufferer from the application of the present unlimited liability laws. It was said that merchants in general were opposed to this bill ; on the contrary, he believed that public opinion was strongly in its favour. The public opinion had been convinced that the present law of partnership required funda mental alteration ; and he was confident that nothing would tend more to the relief of a large pertion of the community from those impediments which now 'pre vented them from turning their small capital to a pro fitable account than the bill proposed by his right hon. friend. It was singular that the great opponents of the .bill were chiefly great capitalists, or those connected with and having dealings with great capitalists—(hear, hear)—while, on the cemtrary, the advocates of. the, mea sure were connected with that great number of persons who pcsseesed small capitals. (Hear, hear.) The prima facie inference was that the bill must be a good one. (Hear, hear.) It was opposed by thosehe would not use the word monopolists, it was an odious and offensive term—but it was opposed by a email number of persons who, -by their great capital, had a command of commer cial operations ; and it was supported by those capitalists who would be let loose by a bill of this sort, and thrown into the general market. (Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped .that the boase would go into committee, and tbat when the bill was discussed in committee it would be found worthy of the acceptance of the hoase, as tending to the advancement of commerce and industry. (Hear.) Mr. T. BARING said the noble lord had stated that the question was between those who had the command of capital and those who had very little. He regretted that the Prime Ministe, and the leader of that house, should have sought to excite a cry of numbers against property. (H ar.) The noble lord said that the objections t the bill would be-beet--dealt with in committee. But same of them were objections to the principle of the bill. For instance, the bill would encourage perfect secrecy ; it would never be known when capital went out of a firm. (Hear, hear.) This proposal was one which had never been received as law in any country ; it was also dis tinctly opposed to the bill that had been brought forward by the Government two years ago. The general credit of the country must be affected by such a meamre. (Hear.) Considering bow important it, was to rnain•ain that credit, he looked with suspicion on a change which was not called for, a n d w hi c h mus t t en d t o diminish confidence. On these grounds he should vote against the bill going , into committee. There was no want of capital under the present system.' Both the cola: missions were opposed to . the provisions of this measure ; and though the evidence embraced many opinions in favo ur o f a c h ange , th ere were as many against it. But the whole of the witnesses were opposed to a system of limited liability without any re gistration or publicity of any kind ; the witnesses from America and France were all opposed to this. • Mr. MITCHELL said the house had now to deter.' mine on the principle of the bill, which was in fact that' of limited liability, without regietration, publicity, Or any other eafeguard. .He wished to know whether the pro, rooters of the bill would consent to intreduce such safe guards committee as existed in the Joint Stock Com- panics Act ? Sir J. GRAHAM said. his vote on this occasion would depend' on the answer which the Vice-President of the Board of Trade might please to give to the 'qaestien asked by the last 'speaker. This bill was opposed to the report of a commission and of two,cenunittees--(hear, ,hear)-and though it • rested upon evidence, that evi dence was not borne out by the bill in its, present shapes, The .great, weight of evidence in favour of a bill of this description was accompanied with a statement of the necessity of : publicity and various safeguards. (Hear.) It was quite apparent to him that there was a broad distinction between a creditor tending at usuri ous interest and a party being admitted to a share of the profits. (Hear.) A creditor ateistirieus interest was. attracted by the high rate of that interest,' and was wil ling to bear great risks ;' but he had no access to the accounts, and did not know the state of the profits A party receiving a share of the profits was entitled to the accounts access, and was cognisant of all the secrets of the concern. He did not run the risk of the usurious creditor ; he knew the state of the con cern,, and might. chooee his opportunity for either im mediately or gradually withdrawin g his capital. (Hear, hear.) He' entirely agreed with Mr. Hadfield thrt the whole matter turned upon the question whether there sheeeld. be Publicity or not as a test of these transactions. If Mr. Lowe would state that he was prepared to entertain in committee propositions for ensuring that publicity and giving these safeguards, he would vote for the bill. If, on the other hand, the right hon gentleman regarded any such propositions as at va riance with the principle of the measure, and would re sist their introduction, as the time of the house was pre cious at that period of the session, he (Sir J. Graham) should certainly j in in opposing the further progress of the bill. Mr. LOWE said that gold might be bought too dear. The conditions which were sought to be imposed upon him were a sort of price which'he could note msent to pay. This bill had already been twiceread a second time, and he should have thought it unnecessary to fatigue the house with a further discussion, bet being challenged to state the course which he meant to pursue, and the last words of the right hon. baronet sounding as though 'ne thought the bill was doomed te rejection (and he was a good judge), he.(Mr. LOwe) felt it his duty again to call ••the attention of the house te the provisions ot the,mea- Sure before them. The bill did not deal with partnership. eroperty; properly so celled. He thought it extremely doubtful Whether the law of limited iiability ought to'bu carried out in the way some persons wished in' reference to 'partnerships. Therefore this bill did not touch the law of partnership, but eimplY regulated the terms on which, • capital might be advanced. It would be a most useful measure, as tending to facilitate the uniMief capital and Went. Unless it' were passed, a great injury would be done to individual traders by the Joint. Stock Companies Bill being passed. He was no advocate of'monopoly in anyform, and on that accou it he wished to see this bill , become law. Its principle 'was that of lending on profits, which he thought an extremely benefiCialaitateof things. Re was told that the bill ought not to pass without safeguards.. He feared that such safeguards as were de sired would render the bill a dead letter. Recently two very great changes in the law had taken place, the re peal of the usury laws, and the Joint-Stock Companies 'Act c and if they declared registration or publicity ne cessary under this bill, who would take advantage of it at all ? Would not persons who had money to lend pre fer to advance it. as under the present system ? .He 'thought it .an injurious plan for capital to be supplied,, fir Short periods, by ptreoias who.dwelt in it; he should 'prefer to see ieplaced on a more permanent and regular footing. While the wideSt facilities were allowed to the regular 'money lender, why should the person who lent 'on profits be tied up by all sorts of restrictions ? Ile, denied that persons advancing money. in that way would be entitled to go over the books; all they could do would be to have an account taken, if necessary, under a court Ofequity. At present a creditor. Might not only stipulate fir exorbitant interest, but also for security, and might have the stock taken ones a week .if he chose. Why should. a perscn who lent on profits be' subjected to greater restrictions ? He should be inexcusable if he con ' tseeted to introduce into this bill a provision for registra tion.' Such 'a provision would be a cruel trap, a miserable delusjen, and would inflict more hardship, and lead'to more fraud, than any species of iniquity. If there were `the slightest informality in the register; the party would he rendered liable to his uttermost farthing. With such provisions as were proposed by Mr. Hadfield, it would be far better to have no bill at all; and.-he could not un deretand how those who professed to be in favour of the principlwof the bill could give their sanction to such :mane and. pitfalls. 'lle.sliould stand on the bill in its present - forth. Its object was not to alter the laws of partnership, but to enable - individuals to advance capital without incurring those heavy penalties to which they were now subject. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CALDWELL complained that the same princi ciples of publicity which was considered to form the chief merit of the Joint-Stoelt Compinies were declared in this bill to be impracticable and illusory. He went at some length into the state of the law Upon this subject in other countries to show that in every case publicity was an essential featore of all these transactions. The kiffect of the bill as it stood Might be this :-A gentle.' man hat leg 10,000. to speculate with, send two men, down to Liverpool, with 5,000/, each, to speculate on some article, in which speculation might run high. One ltkheeler fortunet o t tail, was to specul a t e f or a r is e, and the other for a fall. The one bii was t i es the other make a fortime. By .Toasnscpe then t e firstmo n money. Imlweri'vuhidae!cl'a:tsluotoegfdtf;aoiiltnuhrteetenithaneilec'xrictehtploilt4oac'ed:s:,. lie bad stood as'a creditor for the 5,000/. he had ad venced, and in the third place be would be a creditor with means of nowledgo which - no other creditor. pos sesited. 'Under those circumstances ho would oppose going into committee. ,Teo LORD-ADVOCATE defended the bill, contend ing that it placed the law.of lender . and hot rower on a proper fooling. The case which Mr. Cardwell had put would not apply. In the first place, he doubted whether thee speculatiim would be a good one ; but if it were, the . fact that the Speculator had sent instructions to his men Elf straw would make him out to be a partner: All this bill would do was to describe a creditor as a creditor — a principle which . had first been departed from in cense qiience.of the usury laws, Mr. LINDSAY thought that in the course of the de. bete letr . z.. members who had argued against the bill had appeared to overlook the fact that the creditor acted in a'perfectly voluntery mariner, and be thought it would be fur better:to-leave this creditor alone to his own exertions and indhietre. He looked, upon it a 3 perfectly impossible fot 'any acts, of Perliament to prevent fraud, and he thought that cominercfa,ltransmaimis ,ought not to be left. too free from legislative interference. He thought that the proposed en stern of registration would be falla cious, and would fail to secure the ends for which it had I een 'proposed. : Mr. M. CHAMBERS lookethipon the question with which the bill proposed to deal as one of extreme dill hillier, and one which required great caution in dealing 'with..• lie thought that some system of checks ought to be , previdedin connection with the ,alterations pro- I I)se to be made in the law of partnership by this bill. He ehoitici vote for going into committee, in the hope that some imeans might be provided for giving facilities to commerce and trade, and f , r preventingimpunity in fraud. The house divided, when there apim. - ,red— For coing into committee Avant it Majority —l4 The house then went into committee on the bill. On clause 1, Mr. CRAUFURD proposed the following amendment —To leave out clauses 1,2, 3, and 4, and in lieu thereof insert the following clauses : -The advance of capital or money, to :be used is any trade or undertaking, not being the trade of a banker, upon a contact with the person carrying an such trade or undertaking, that the person making such advance shall receive a share of, or a rate of interest varying with, the profits of the trade or un dertaking, shell not, of itself, render the person making such advance a partner. in such trade or undertaking. Toe- person making such advance shall be entitled to call r an account of the profits of such trade or undertak ing, but•shall not, as against creditors, have any right or title to the property or assets of the trade or under taking ; 'Mad in Case_of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the 'periiin carrying on such trade or undertaking, the person making such advance shall be c ,mpellable to pay to the assignees any share of capital or money which he has undertaken to provide.. Any such capital or money withdrawn by the person making such advance shall, if withdrawn within six months prior to the bank ruptcy or insolvency of the person carrying on such trade or tindertaltmg, be recoverable by the assignees. No con tract for the remuneration of a servant, or agent of any person engaged iu any trade or undertaking, by a share of the profits of such trade or undertaking, shall of itself render such servant or agent a partner therein, but such servant or agent shall:be entitled to call for an account of the profits of such trade or undertaking. The hon. member observed that those who were brought up under the old system would never get it out of their heads that persons touching the profits of a concern must necessarily be. partners in that concern: As re garded registration, the law of America had been referred to. The principle of that law was analogous to the French law, where'some partners were active and some dormant, but all were subject to registration. But in the proposed bill the lenders of money were not to be considered as partners, so that the analogy did not ap ply. Toe clauses which he should propose were drawn up by the committee of the Law Amendment Society with the exception of a single clause. The effect of his clauses was, that white a lender only took a share in the profits, and took no part in the management, should not be considered a partner, but in cases . of insolvency or bankruptcy he should not be allowed to take out his money till the other creditors were satisfied—that he should, in fact, be postponed to the other creditors. He was a friend to the bill as it, stood, if he thought it could be carried ; but he proposed his amendment with the view of enabling the bill to pass in the present session. He moved that the clause be omitted. The c'au4r, however, was agreed to without a division. Oil clause 3, Mr. GREGSON moved the following addition "But no p6rtiOri of such loan as aforesaid shall be re „coverable until after all other creditors shall have been fully sa•iFfied as to theirlawful clairus,on said business." Mr. LOWE opposed the motion. Mr. MALINS said that this was reverting to the old idea of partuership, that participation in profits involved participation in loss. If the addition were adopted they might as well throw•out the bill. The object I.)f the bill was to enable the fair trader to obtain loans without ex posing the lender. to the risk of sharing in the losses of the concern. Mr. lIINDLEY approved of the aldition. Mr. SPOQNEII bad no objection to the addition if it were made, to apply only to cases at insolvency. He should move an amendment to the addition to that effect. The, suggestion was .adopted, and the ,- a,ddation, ai amended by Mr . ,_ Spooner, was.put from the' chair. AIITCLIELI4. said that under this bill men might be made,partners unawares,, as they without knowing it might commit some act which- woul , l put them into the position of partnership. The Government should clearly define whar - constituted a partner. Mr. VANCE said, in corroboration of this view, that firms often c trried on a totally' different busibeis from that which they,professed. Firms might 'lend money to each other under the act, without any of them doing any act to constitute a partnership ; so that no partnership in effect would exist in the business. Mr. M. CHAMBERS said that' the bill constituted a partnership between two men--one of whom having money and the other skill—the first proposed to lend Money to the other. , By this, unless there was some restriction, the' ca pitalist would be enabled so to lend his money, that he might gain when there was gain,: and lose when there was loss. The amendment proposed that he should run soma risk Corresponding to his chances of gain, and he thought the principle only what was fair. Mr. LO WE had been asked: what constituted a - partner. He was not an authority on law matters, but he thought that joint owner hip of property, or the parties being joint contractors, or the 'existenceof the " delectus personae," when there Was the power of claeize or refusal of those Who were to enter into the concern, constituted a partnership. Besides this, there mist be share profit. This was the only one of the conditions of partnership which was affected by the present bill: It had hitherto been commonly ,consi 7 dered the criterion of partnership to share in the profit, and the object of the bill was to remove that Criterion. Mr.,IINDLEY said that his Objections were not re moved by the definition of partnership just given. Mr. WILLIAMS thought that frauds under the bill vvonld prevail to an alarming extent, and that it would be useless for the purposes for which it was intended. Mr. E. BALL said that the simple question was thisL- Whether a parson advancing' money to another person to enable him to carry on trade, was to be in a worse position than other creditors ? - It would be a very hard case if a man who should lond a farmer money to extend his farming were, if hard times should come, to be deprived of his claim to repayment in his due proportion on that account. The 'amendment would deprive the tradesman of his proper chance cf obtaining capital. Mr. WILKINSON said. that the amendment was sup posed to be in favour of creditors. Now, he could not 800 how creditors would be, injured by any tradesman having the means of obtaining necessary capital to carry on is business. Mr. BA.RROW said liat„tbe proper principle Was,, that a-man who claimed an 'extraordinary amount of profit and who did not enter the concern as ,a mare ordinary trader, should also run the risk of loss. • The committee divided, when there appeared— For the amendmern, B3. Against it Majority Mr. SPOONER then moved, as amendment, the fol lowing proviso :—That any person making a loan to any tractor, and 'receiving a share of the profits as compensation for such loan shall, in the event of the trader becoming in solvent, repay to the estate of such insolvent trader all moneys drawn out by him either on account of the principal of the loan so made as aforesaid, or on account of the pro fits received as aforesaid, Within the three years immedi ately prec .ding the insolvency of such trader. Mr. MALINS said it was scarcely worth while, after the division tbatharl taken place, to "discuss that amendment. The committee had already decided that if a man borrowed of two peisons, , one at 20 per cent. and the other upon a participation of piofitsi the former got his money, hut the latter might bo entirely deprived of his remedy. The re sult was that, the bill was rendered entirely valueleSs, and it was notworth while devoting any more' attention to it. Mr. MITNTZ.. quite agreed with his lion. and learned friend that'the bill was not now worth a single farthin,g. Why could they not follow, the example of their friends on the other side of the Atlantic, and advertise the per s. n: ir w .ily h i:b o ogo • were io‘:rujcsEl ,t -p geo partners; the o t tgw ir , hd e eerr: a eoa n liodrtiteet. contraryttw h wo e ou y dtos things gni b noo s g c i r d i a b tdch e oo d aouttn i th n ehi , ld him the . period - for which they were liable. s e d as S eo ion arrived at as a reason for giving up the bill: Mr. HASTIE said that the principle of 'the aniendthent of the hen. member for Warwickshire ( \tr. Spooner) . had been embrelied in every charter for li m it e d li a bility th a t •bacl. beed granted, and the law had wisely Exed threeyears as the time that should be allUwed to ascertain the liabili- . ties of the parties. He should •therefore vote for the :amendment. • Mr. GLYN Reposed that one year should he inserted instead of three years. - • . Mr. SPOONER, intimated that he had no objection to that alteration. - Mr, WILLI A.MS supported tho amendment of Mr. Glyn. 31r, M. CHAMBERS propesed that sir months should be substituted fur one year, and that if the concern were solvent the partylending money should be allowed to with. draw it at any time. Mr. SPOO NEB, thought that this would lead to litiga tion, in short to decide where the solvency left off and the insolvency bevn. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the real question was whether a man who advanced, money was to be con. .sidered 14 partner because he advanced money upon the consideration of receiving a share of the profits. The principle of the bill was that instead of receiving a certain fixed rate of interest he should receive a certain share of the profits. Now, if he were not to receive a fixed rate of interest nothing would be more unjust than to place him in a worse position than the man.who advanced his money upon interest. . Mr. CARDWELL said that the late division had mate rially altered the principle of the bill with regard to per sods who had advanced money to private firms, because the sums advanced were to be left in as tweets. He sup ported the proviso limiting the time to one year. • Mr. HA NICE/. said he entirely agreed with the hon. member for. Wallingford that the bill as originally pro posed would be most useful, but if fettered by any condi tions putting loans, on a different footing from partner it.wns perfectly useless. Mr. MIeLINS said that-the house had-now thrown upon the lender of money the most penal consequences of being a partner, namely, a total forfeiture of his capital, and if that clause were to be carried, he hoped the house would see that it was useless-to proceed further with the bill. Lord PALMERSTON said that the amendment making the lender a partner must entirely defeat the principle of the bill, and upon the result of that amendment must de pend the fate of the bill. Tile committee divided. The numbers were — For the amendment lO5 125 20 Clau A se g 3 ai n ni • s a, '"j s °i t ti li .it e Y' n agreed to: Clauses 4 and 5 wereagreed to. . The followiug clauses were added In cases where any lender, agent, or servatit, or any annuitant, has con tracted (vith trader to receive a .portion of the profits made by such trader in his business, and as• part of such' contract has agrootr that the amount of profits made by such trader, alai any other matterarising out of his such contract, is in case of disputo.to be settled by arbitration; such prevision as to the settlement of - the di pute by arhi- . tratioralhall be imperative.. upon the, parties to the con tract ; and no court of law or of equity shall, as between the parties to such contract, or any persons claiming through them, take any account.of such profits or cogni sance of any matter within the scope. of-such arbitration. 7. In cases where the parties themselves have made provi sion as to tfie manner in which the Arbitration is tabs con ducted, the arbitration shall he conducted accordingly; but in cases where no such provision has been made, arbitra tions shalt bedOnducted in manner directed by the Rail way Clauses Consolidation -Act, 1545 ; and all- the Provi sinus of such last-mentioned act, with respect to the settle.l went of disputes. by arbitration,: except the sectione num bered '129 and 131 respectively, shall be incorporated with this act. g. In cases. where the arbitrators appointed under this , act refuse, or for seven days after the request of either , paity.to the arbitration neglect to appoint an umpire, any judge of her Majesty's superior courts sitting in chambers, or the judge of the county court which has jurisdiction over the district where the trade is carrigtl on in respect of which the dispute has arisen, may appoint an umpire. The bill was then reported. THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, Sir M. S. STEWART moved that the bill be read a third time that day three months. The bill, as it stood, would sever the schools from the Church. He did not think that should be done. But if it were, some security should be taken for the religious opinions of the teachers. This was not done by the present measure, which abolished all tests, and thus left the Church of Scotland utterly withoit safeguards. Mr. BLACK denied that by this bill the parish schools would be separated from the Church. Indeed ha believed that the superintendence of the church would be rather fortified than weakened. The minister of the parish would still retain the same power as he had before. The power of the Presbytery as to removing the schoolmaster was at present a mere delusion.' He held that all tests were either delusions or snares. A schoolmaster's signature to a test was no indication either of his opinions or his moral character. Hume himself would have signed any test that they could devise. It was a mistake to sup• pose that the test had been abolished to favour the Free Church party. For the test which bad been pro posed on the other side of the house would have admitted all Free Churchmen, while it would have excluded other classes of dissenters. That was a proof of his impartiality, and of the absence of any intention to favour a particular p Mr. NEWDEGATE supparto 1 the amendment on the ground that it would entirely abrogate the power of the Church of Scotland over the schools which she had created. The house divided, when there were— For the third reading Against it Majority -70 The bill was then read a third time and passed. MILITIA BALLOT SUSPENSION BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on Monday. DEEDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. COMMONS INCLOSIIRE (No. 2) BILL. . . This bill went through committee. POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL. The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and agreed to. COALWHIPPERS (PORT OF LONDON) BILL. The order for the second reading of this bill was read and discharged. WAYS AND MEANS. The house went into committee on ways and means. In reply to a question from Mr. I. BUTT, Mr. WILSON said he hoped this would be the last com mittee of supply this session. The resolutions for the disposal of surplus grants were agreed to, and the house resumed. REVENUE (TRANSFER OF CHARGES) BILL. This bill was read a second time. The other sr ders of the day were then diiposed of, and the house adjourned at a :quarter after 1 o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—JULY 4. PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. Order for Third Readina read ; Motion made. and Ques tion proposed, " Thaethe Bill be now read the third time :'—Ameadment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months : Question put, " That the word ' now' stand part of the Question :"—The House divided ; Ayes 149, Noes 79. - AYES—I 49, Acton, Joseph .. . Ferguson, Sir 11.. ' Murrough, J. P. Agnew, Sir A. - • Ferguson, J. • • North, Col. J. • Anderson, t•ir J. Fitzgerald, J. ' O'Brien, P. Antrobtis,'E. . Fitzroy. Henry O'Brien, Sir T. Atherton, .W. Foley, J. H.' - •• - O'Brien, J. • Baines ' Rt. Hon. M. Forster, Charles O'Connell, D. Baird, J. Forster, John Osborne, R. Ball, J. • . Fox, W. J. - - • Paget, Lord A. - Barnes, T. ' - Frcestun, Colonel Palmerston, Viscount Bass, M. ' '- Gaskell, J. ' Peaeocke. G. Baxter, W. Glyn, ii. ' • Peelle% Sir G. • ISeamish, F. • ' iitoderich, Viscount • Peel, Sir It: •• Beaumont, W. . -.- Gordon, A. - Peel, F. • • Berkeley, F. Greene, John Phillimore, J. G. Black, Adam • • Gregson, Samuel - Pilkington, • J. Bonham-Carter. J. Grenfeli,.Chari • Ponsonity, A. Bouverie„Hon. E. P. Grey, lit. Hon. Sir G. Price, Sir R. Brand, p ° B. W. Grey, It- . , Ricardo, S. .Brocklehurst, J. ° Grosyenor, Earl .. Richardson, J. Brotherton, J. Hall, Sir Benjamin Ridley, George Bruce, Lord E. Hankey,, T. . Roebuck. J. • Buckley, Gen. Hastie, Alex. Sandon, Viscount Butler, C. S• - - Hastie, Archd. Seymour, W. 1). Byng, G. H.C. ,Heard, J. • .. ' Shee, Sent. W. Cardwell. E. „ Heywood„ J. bmith, J. B. Castlerosse, Vis. Higgins. G. 0. . Smith, ft. -.lavendish, C. C. Horsman, E. - Marquis Stafford. Chambers, M. Howard, C. Sutton, J. • . Cheetharn,"John '. Ilughe.., W. Talbot, C. Clinton, Lord It. Jackson, W. .. Tancred, H. • . Cohbett, J. H. - Kershaw, J. Thompson, q. Cockb:an, Sir A. J. E. Kinnaird, A. Thomhill, W. Cowan, C. • Labouchere,Rtllon.H Tite, W. Cowper, W. , ' Langton, U. G.. : Traill, G. Craufurd, E. 11. J. Lee, Vf. •• Villiers, C. Crossley, P. Lewis, Sir G. C.. Walmsley, Sir J. Davie. Sir Ii R. F. Lindsay, W. - Warner, E. De Vero, S. E. 'Lowe, R. Watkins, Col. Dillwyn, L. L. M'Cann. J. Watson, W. Drumlating, Iris. Maguire, .T. F. Whatman, J. Duke, Sir 3. Martin, P. Whitbread, S. Duncan, Viscount Massey, W. Wilkinson, W. Duncan, George Matheson, Sir J. , Willcox, B. bunda.3,'F. Miall, E.. Williams, W. Dunlop,•A. Milligan, It. Wilson, J. Esmonde, J. Mitchell, T. A. Wilmington Sir T. Ewart, W. Mouck, Vie. , , Wood, Sir d. Ewart, J. . Moncreiff, J. Feilden, M. Monsell, W. Fenwick, H. Morris, D. Ferguson, Colonel Mostyn, E. TELLERS. Hayter, W. Mulgrave, Earl of NOES-79. Arbuthnott, Gen. H. Greenall, Gilbert Palmer. Robert Saline, H. Grogan. EdWard Robertson, P. Ball, E. Haddo, Lord Rust, James Baring, T. Hamilton, Lord Claud Sandars, G. Barrow, W. Hamilton, R. C. N. , Seymer, H. Blackburn, Peter Hayes, Sir E. Sniljth, Sir W. Makemore; T. ' Hill, Lord - A. E. Smith, Abel Bruce, C. L. C. lliitham, Lord Sm,ollett, A. Buck, Col. ,Irton, S. , Spooner, R. Buller, Sir .1 . ; Johnstone, .1. Stafford, A. Burrowes, Robert Joiliffe, Sir iNr. Starkie, Le G. Cayley, E. S. Kendall, N. Stirling, W. Cecil, Lord ' • , Stuart, Captain .Chelsea Viscount Lacon. Sir E. VAnce, John • . Liddell, 11. G. Verner, Sir' W. dole, H. A. ' Llndsay, dol. J. Waddington, H. Dalkeith, Earl' Lockliart; W. Walcott, Admiral. Deedes, ' 'McGregor, James Warren, S. Denison, EL .•.. Malins, Richard Welby, Sir . G. buncombe, Hon. Col. Masterrnan, J. Whiteside, J. Dttndas, G. Meux, Sir R. Whitmore, H. Dunne, Colonel , Montgomery, Sir:G. Wo..idd, B. Parnham, E. Mowbray, J. Wynne, John Forester, Col. Naas, Lord Galway, ViseoUnt Nader, J. Gladstone, W. Newark, Viscount Goddard, A. Newdegate, C. Stewart, Sir K. Graham, Lord .t. Palk, L. Luqknart, A. E. RAILWAY TRAFFIC RETURNS• TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE WEEK. Receipts. 1856. 1855. Miles er.)ened. NAME OF RAILWAY. 1856% BSITIs 1. 115 37% 17 Aberdeen ...: .... qiclland Great Western (Irtsia) •.... • Monklands ........................ Belfast and fiallyenena •• •• •"• ••'• Belfast and County DOWn•• •• • • • • •• •• Birkenhead, Lancashtre, and Chesl•.ire Bolton,tslacieburn, and West York Bristol and Batter •• • • • • •••• •• •• • • • • Caledoni an. .•••• • 7: • '•'•'• • • • • • • Chaster and llolyheau.•• •• •. Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Cork and Bandon.. •• ...... • • Dublin and Belfast r unction •• Dublin and Droghoda•• ...•• .• Dthlin and Kingstown ,••• .........• D ;trice and Arbroath •• •• •• •• •• •• •• Dundee, Perth, and Aberdeen Junctiot. Dundalk an•: Enniskillen•..... •• •• East Anglian.... • ••,•• •• •• East Lancashire •• ....• •• •• •• •• .• Eastern Counties and N0rf01k..... • Eastern Union.• •• •• •• •• •• ••• •... Ed'nburgh an d ellns; , an•_,••• • •• •• Editfiturg,b,, Perth, and Dundee ...... Exeter and Creditors— • •• Furness Railway •• •• Glasgow, and South-Western........ Great Northern.• • .. Groat Southern and Western (Ireland) Great Wotan Irish South Eastern Lancaster and Carlisle."... .Lancashire ttnd Yorkshire.. •..... Leeds Northern . Li v erpool, Crosby, and Southport... London and North Western .... London and• London, Brighton, and South Coast London and South Western..... Londonderry and Enniskillen Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock,&c. Manchester, Sheffield ,and Lincolnshire Manchester and South Junction.... Nlaryport and Carlisle .........•ldi and •• . •••, •••• • • • • •••• • • M Newcastle and .Carlisle.. • • .. •• • • .. • • North British • • • • • • •• '• • • • • • • • • • • • • • North Staffordshire ~..... North-Western Scottish Central Scottish Mi nand Shrewsbury and Birmingham Shrewsbury and Chester Shropshire Union ilouth Devon South Eastern.• •• . • South Wales ............ South York., Doncaster, and Goole Waterford ft.nd Limerick ............ West Cornwall ...... Whitehaven Junction ............... York and :Cowcastle, and Berwick & York and North Midland & Leeds.. FOREIGN. • Dutch Rhenish .. Lyons and Mediterranean •• •••• •• •• Montereau and Troye3 . ....•• Namur and Liege „ Northern of France Orleans and Central Paris and Lyons Paris and Rouen. v. •• • •••• •• •• •• v. Paris and Strasburgh •........... Rouen and Havre •• ... .. •• • •. Western of France •• . •••• •• 26% 117 191 9414 6774 93 183% 283 203 1 ,4 365 25► 90 2861 A IGa 553% 183% 267 17314 9g 2S 498? 126 g 52 78g 149 233 874 32 294, 57% 269 171% The Chalons journals reenrd the death of M. Ivonnet, Ike peasant who won the gold: ingot of 400,000 francs in the famous lottery of the Ingot d'Or, which made so much noise some time ago. From the manner in which he employed „his money, mostly in charitable works, very little of it remains to his heirs. [ADVERTISEMENT ]— Holloway's Ointment, and undoubted Cures for Ulcerous Sores.— , Mr. Joseph Barnes, of. Sandy, Biggleswade, suffered for many years from the most virulent ulcers and sores over all parts of his body, but especially in hi face ; indeed a small p 1- ton of his nose was quite eaten away. After all other re-nedies- had failed • he was induced to try Holloway's Ointment and Pills, and after a very brielemployment of them he became completely restore 4 to health, and has.continued so ever since a period of t wo'yearS.Seld by all 'medicine vendors IhroUghout• the world ; 'at Professor Holloway's Establi6•hments, 244, Strand, London, and at 80, Maiden-lane, New York ; by A. Slatupa, Constantinople; A Guidicy, SmyrUa; and . E, Muir, Malta, . • TE LpEas. 6,341 2,399 4,717 1,484 1,259 68 402 Couatry Iv7Pzicts. LIVERPOOL-JULY 3. At to•clay's market the attendance was mo lerate. Good qualities of wheat not properly lower, betng- scarce, but a decline of 2d to 3d per bushel on ordinary deco.•iptions was acceded to on last Tuesday's price. Flour was also fully 6d per barrel and sack lower. Indian corn was more in favour, and the price was fully is to is 6d per qr. higher than on Tuesday; this advance, however, applied more to white than yellow corn. In o tts, beans, peas, and barley full prices were commanded, but no alteration in quota tions was observed. WAKEFIELD-JuLy 4. The fine weather had the effect of cousin buyers to give the high price lately rulin g , and though there was a 'poor show of fresh wheat, rather lower rates were taken. The chambered parcels sold at a decline of is per qr. Beans 'dull of sale. In barley, oats, and shelling no change. EXETER-JULY 4. CORN.—In our market wheat may be quoted from 8s Od to Os M. Malting barley; 4s 9d to 5s 3d ; grinding do., Os Od to Os Od. Oats, 3s 3d to 3s 6d. Beaus, Os Od fo 0 , Od. Peas, 00s Od to 00s Od. FLOUR.—Fine, ..)9s Od to —a 0.1 ; seconds, 57s 0., to Od per sack. • CATTLE.— Fat beef was sold at from lls al to 12s Od per score ; fat calves, 5d to lid per lb ; barrenners; 6s Od to Os 6d. rAr score ; cows and carver, 11/. to 161.; s ; butchers' Calves, 6d to —d per lb., rearin calves —a to s each. Sheep, owes and lambs, 11-. 14s to 2/. 5s per couple; ewes, Od. to 61d ; wailers, Gid - to • lambs, 0/ Os each. Pigs, large size, 45s to s;a ; secon d siza, 24s to 30s 16s to 20s ; suckers, Os to 12s. Rough fat. 30 per lb Pork carcases from 10s Od to lls Od per score. BRISTOL SUGAR-JULY 4. The demand for refined continues inactive. Ita*s have been more in demand, and some rather larger tran'shationei have taken place , in Havannah for arrival. Rum is "still only saleable in retail, at barely previous rates. 004.1, RIARK KT.-JuLy 4. the close of the In/tricot Prices of Coal per ton at & d West Riding Hartley l5 6 Byass's West Hartley .. 16 3 Howard's West Hartley Netherton 16 0 Tanfield Moor l3 6 Taufield Moor Butes 13 6 Bate's West Hartley 15 6 South Derwent 14 0 Victoria Hartley l5 6 Grey's West Hartley :„ 15 6 W allsend , nie. - - Wallsend, &c Hedley ..... .•15 0 Bell's Primrose .... 14 0 Fratnwellgate l5 0 Kepier Graingo . l7 0 Thorp . l5 3 Braddyll l6 6 lietton l7 6 Russell's Hetton 16 6 Larabton l7 0 south Hetton 17 3 bough Hall 15 6 Pensher 15 3 Tees l7 6 Whitworth l5 6 Cassop ' l6 0 Eden Maier l6 0 Hartlepool l7 6 Gosforth l5 0 Riddell l5 0 Harvey Wylam 14 0 Kelloe 16 6 itewart'il . 17 6 Has Well - l7 Montague 15 3 South Liartlepool l6 6 Ships at market... 60 I Sold • . 45 LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, JULY 4 BTocs EXCHANGE.-The market has been doing a very buoyant business to-day, closing quiet at the following 'quotations :—London and North-Westerns, 1094—Ditto, I shards C, 13s. 9d.—Midlands, 811 4—East Lancashire, 22—Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire, 20- North Eastern- and Berwick, 22i i—South Eastern, 23 2/ ii— Manchester,. Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 354—Eastern Countici, 10 —Lancashire and Yorkshire, 984 North British, MANCHESTER. JuLY 4. STOCK EXCEL/INGE. - The market has been doing a fair business to-day., with lower prices, and closed rather weak. Cheshire Junction, 20. f - Easteln Coun''":, 10i — Leeds, F, is.—Midland4:B4--Sheffields, 354--Rovers, 22 13•16—great Wester)), of Canada, 26$—• East Lancashire, 22k—Blackburn Pref., 20—London and North Western, 109,3 BIRMINGHAM, JULY 4. STOOK EXOHANGE.-Thi , market was active to-day, and prices tolerably firm, at the following quotations London and North-Westerns, 09 A Great Western Bir mingham Guaranteed Stock, 76---Midlands, 844 85. BEABORNI? MAILS. (21 slgialLes that tho mails are sent from the General rest who. 9y the night—Ana M by the morning—let:patch.) yypen n Genera.: koi, • COnN . From wt.* Port r. Office, London.* ~aerfi F idaF - kmoricadvßrit,paCtOi . : tinnier. tt:iy United 4i4 tiverpool (Weekly packet 4 imerica (by U. Siam! packet) ' ii.nstralia (via Liver pool) Ditto (vla alarsellles) Ditto (via Cape of Gooe Hope) •• .• •• •••• ifrlca ( Wes t' Coaet ) Ajeasndri a Bahamas ..... Belgians ......... Bra.7il Buenos Ayres Cape of Good II op cape of Good Hope . , Cade de Verde Ceylon (see India) Ivery 1 uesday ,lottthanlut et Lioerpol 4th and 19th .... !Liverpool . • • ouvisr • 1 , 4 ,, t ,, " montl . 10th 26th or: o. 11. I.:oth of 47th of the rnoriti t '9th of the month Uncertain Plymouth .. Dover ..... Southatnpt, Seathamptoa Dover Southampto) .gouthampto, Various pot louttLampte, Ceylon Channel Taos Chili. •• -••—• " China .. • . Conitantlnople accrtantinople Oont. of Europe M Ogypt (see Innla) Fra.= • • • s •hi Gibraltar .. • ....... M ilreoce (see ladle) lreytown .• liamburgh Gavannah .......... M .30-land • • t• •• •• • • •• bt flonduras ......... India (vinFoutharript.)M trulia (via Marseliles)M lonian Isles (see India) irsland & 1.7 edadeira galeira NE•Uta (see India) , 110th and 26th.... 4th and 20th .... t • SI7I, of mow, 4th and 10th r. Oth and 26t1i.... 4th 20th US '1 11. rwice daily .< , . Sonthamp 4,1, Southamp o. D over.. Southaroplo• Dover rwfue. , 4,7, 17, 20, 27 , f rr !Dover ..... Elouth.mpto ',lto ft 17th of mom South ampt, Load on ... " Southana Dover .. I2nd of the mulit,. Datiy.... .... 17t of the month 4th 20th of tom, 10 Mc:6th of mord Eil_outhamptei Plymouth .- Dover.; Holyhead Twice daily • • • .• 2d of r. o 9En of th , uroii• 23A of month .... Souihamptonl Southampton' Liverpool . P&alta ............. Stauritine (see India) tflurit.lufl Prexico es •• •• M Naplcs . • New 4;rAnsdn .• •• • • Flew Zealand.. •• ire • • t,te.tcß ~ • Polinsnla Peru Port Natal ~N •• •• • • •• , . N Tanany •• •• „, _NT Vonezueli Van Dlerri?ri'sL.nd (nT. Austral!a) Worn 14, 10, 20, and 26.. Dover reekly (Twice mo • Ince rtn n 6th n , lv ;cl 6 1 1 9 6 th 4 t . ..1,±11 .y July :6. ITwicadally 1 6. 7, 24,2 . 16th n' 15 9th 14 & 2ith Is u.T►i.- at. landl6 i 4 and :9 2 and 9 'I and 24 120 of the woe' :try; of the montt 44 X. rithof month E Twim a month .. 1 and 16 1,,t ,2d •,+ Inv 14 and 21 ni 15 ec .9 ni 1 6, 16 mo. '4, 21,15,99 115 '49 ist 3outhamptAn Dover •••• Fonthampto), V vious port Dover •••••• kgithanlpt., , n - 4outhfimptc/.l] - t & 16th Vo s port r Do - or - ,, outharript,tn Ath of men. .. ..1 1Dai1y,........,.. Ar 27th of ram , . S' Drivnte Every Saturday.. Daily.• .. • . id 44 .7th otrno, th IJuly 16 !4 weekly I & 'no "'""r .11.1;•,,tor Monthly Ilit and 16 When any of these dates fall on a Sunda), the mane wll be dc. spatched on the fallowing day. will: , the excrplir•n of the Ink „. !lOtitharapton), and the Malta, both of which will be despatch ' * Feuding, day. THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COUnT,—The July session commences on Monday next ; but, owing to the short interregnum of the last session, there will not be more than 60 persons for trial. There are, however, several cases out on bail, the most important of which is the charge of manslaughter arising out Of the ill treatment of a patient in the Wandsworth Union Lunatic Estab lishment. The jurlg,s on the rota are Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and Mr. Justice Williams. The session, from the paucity of the cases to be brought be fore the court, it is expected will not extend further than Friday evening. ROBBERY AT THE MANCHESTER POST-OFFIOE.—A robbery of a somewhat serious, and also mysterious eba m has recently been committed in the post-office, Brown-street. The money received at the money order office in King street is each evening conveyed to the post-office, and there locked up in a safe by one of the officials, who gives a receipt for the ascertained amount. This was done on Saturday night last, hut, on Monday morning. it was discovered that this bag, containing about 300 sovereigns, had disappeared. How the rate was opened, as well as other circumstances connected • with the robbery, has for the last few days been the sub ject of anxious inquiry by the principal of the establish niollt. —.3f anchester Examiner. BIRTHS. OP It BON. On the 33 inst., the wife of Sir Justin Shell, K.C.B. On the 3tl inst., at 122, Leadenhail-street, the wife of Charles W. Howell, Esq. OF A DAUGHTER. On the 3d inst., at 14, Queen's-road, Regent's-park, the wife of Lient -Colonel Lyell. On the 4th inst., the wife of Townley Filgate, Esq., o f Westbourne-terrace, Hyde-park, and Lincoln's-inn, bar rister-at-law. MARRIED. On the 3d inst., at St. George's, Hanover•square, Mr. Thomas Horn, engineer, Westminster, to Julia, daughter of Mr. G. Stone, of Deptford. On the Ist inst„ at St. Andrew, Westland-row, Dublin, R. D. Lyons, M.D., son of Sir W. Lyons, to Mary Pigott, daughter of the Right Hon. the Lord Chief Baron. -DIED. On the 3d inst., Alfred Lewis, Esq., of 102, Piccadilly, only son of John Lewis, Esq., of Southampton -place, Euston-square, and 59. On the 2d inst., at Hereford-read North, Westbourne grove, wife. of W. Bone, Esq., of the Stock Exchange, aged 22. On the 3d inst., at 11, Marlborough place, St. John's. wood, Frederick Hervey Garraway, Esq., late of Dominica, West Indies, aged 66. On the Ist inst , at Cheltenham, Jane Oliver, relict of the late Major F. R. Eager, of the 31st Regt., aged 73. On the 3d inst., at Brighton, Mary Anna, the wifo of Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke, Bart. • On the 3d inst., at Northampton-square, Robcrt Ragg, Esq., aged 75. On the 2d inst., at Westham, Hants, Chiistopher Ewd. Lefroy, Esq., and 71. On the 28th b ult., Mr. John Cartwright, outfitter, of Holly House, New Kent-road, and Lower Marsh, Lam- • bath. EfikDoN: Printed and Published by hiITEDO YOUNG. of No. 112, strand, Printer, at The Stet Office, No. 112, ~tray), in the Precinct of the Savoy, to the county fa_ Aliddlekoz, Saturday, July 5, UN. THE C( ,4 04 of the INDIA theslh June, a kQ e 1 5th July% That the Wa 4 e 51 h July,i ca p. 85 , will 36 rt °N - 1)( `UURISTS' TI( yleake6. avatla pl a. g or retura ulna. The Fir Coed bY such Le to no 21 ford • ete i. .-I is -' I.' .1 84 , s -1 1 :1:-)11 Ili:.e.':3t'k TOOi 1 e al it v 2": ford l ti t i: ) ri to have:l ihthYa o ar ni ';E g aa h BfiSrt:ll((4 1 tit rixjr°4 g ll TO r , to W. Irrimingham t nOlVerhampti To Ta n } LY THAMB tra lk o et3, aW7III a (4 - , 4 i s f the c o the Second nt orn London Oxford Peterbe '• Birmint Waiver] ._ e r e or n Fieetwc .pted) for It Zer Pack, Tl e k tr arallo itt,l",,arY trains Wages and t attached " Ql lngton • . 110. p ee -.Rowa A FI III1 4 4 „ellsk qd 16,—' ,11 0R017 el ms, 35 tot, I I , II TRI and , Ns 355. Vi. 1150. 16,219t1NGT, th,C" Tickets t ,„,,eetUrn Jour or the Stal t):.ve Places, ex renmi, -- I .ng on 44111.1 ; mta blefo n r do 0: London Oxford . 111111 in 4t. Cove trout the T.:ses* tickets t7ary_ile Mouth fre l "ceed to C Itb D ublin ti Iti ttien n tem m Qiue l e the ef 'lee by the clop d mos 06 t r e 4 nCrl tuote l klasti oitz ore its Foy of qUeet s it; b 4 de l ttb ~tor 47 1 ; Pt or p i n 4 ‘ 4 1 11 4 0A1,147. and B 7,291 12,237 6,338 207 1,365 6,108 21,5 ,8 7,596 30,567 6,200 25,525 59,042 1,737 18,417 19,351 728 923 30,921 4,552 2,x63 20,703 38,095 3, I•is I,OGB 3,235 763 7,018 12,206 5;6:39 229 1,007 1,434 1,334 550 9,4 861 6,100 26,037 4,807 5,949 957 6,287 20.403 7,399 27,532 6 151 22,307 58,569 1,731 17,678 17,738 6(h) 9,650 9,247 7,9 1,045 28,246 3,603 4,909 7,647 90b 3 497 6,656 999 1,921 3,391 1,017 3,376 1,736 37,098