The Sun. — London, England, 1856-10-23 00:00:00

NOTICE. In! consequence of an accident at the moment of going to press, we are compelled to use matter in this page that has already appeared. We sh all make all right for the Third Edition. LYCEU' THEXTRE, ROYAL, Lessee, Mr. Charles Dillon. Tilts EVENING, BELPHE(3OR• &lOW Or, Mr. Chas. Dillon; Madeline, Mrs. Chas. Dillon. Followed by THE KING'S MUSKETEERS, D'Arta; ;non, Mr. Chas. Dillon ; Constance, Miss Woolgar. To conclude with The B 4;LLET from the Burlesque of the " Winter's Tale." ROYAL THEATRE ADELPHI proprietor and Manager. Mr. B. Webster. Directress, Psadanze (Veen*. 'THIS EVENING, IRELAND AS IT IS. Followed by DOMESTIC ECONOMY. After which, THE IRISH TUTOR. To conclude with OUR (}AL. STRAND TEEATRE. Manager, Mr. T. Payne. T IPS EVENING, THE OLD COMMODORE. After which, OUT ON TFIE LOOSE. Followed by an original Purlesque, entitled BELPHEGOR. Me',dames Cuthbert Woollidge, and E. Jacobs; Messrs. H. J. Turner, Henert, Clarke &c. To condole with The Ballet of POLICHIOELLE. ROYAL OLYMPIC THEATRE. Leases and Manager, Mr. Alfred Wigan. TIII3 EVENING, RETRIBUTION. To conclude with THE rittST NIGHT. ASTLErS ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE. Lessee and INfanater, Mr. Win. Cooke. THIS EVENING, • 170th N !ght !) Shakspere's Tragedy of RICHARD THE THIRD with Equestrian Illustrations by Mr. W. Cooke's stud of trained Horses. Atichard, Mr. James Holloway. After which, The SCENES in the CIRCLE. To cortclude with a Pot Pourri of Amusing Entertainments. Comme? ice at Seven. Box-office open from Eleven till Four. Stage Manage*, Mr >W . west. Equestrian Director, Mr. W. Cooke, inn, .11G3 WATER. AT LoN•noN aItIDGE. Hid De z--Morn. 50 min. aft 9—Evening 33 min. aft .1 Try-Moßrow—Morn. 12 min. aft.ll—Evening 43 min. a ft.ll THI. I : WEATHER—Stm 01110 E, OCTOBER 22. THERMOMETER, IN THE SHADE. 63 —highest sines noon yesterday. 60—lowest this morning and during the night. 62 —this day at noon. BABOMICTLIS, 30'44. WIND--S. to S.S.E.—Light, with very fine weather. STAMPED EDITION OF " THE SU N The Latest Edition of The Sun, Stamped, in time for Post, may always ba had from half past 5 till ; o'clock every evening. Subsoribers in the Country will please to observe that the heading " THIRD EDITION" is always to be seen on the papers containing the latest news. If any difficulty be experienced in obtaining that Edition, a communication to The Sun Office will remedy it. Sun Office, 112, Strand. 41111, tt... ttn. 11, • X": 4 -I, l j , - Cbt L9NDON, THIIRSDA.Y, OCTOBER 23, 1356. The wags of Naples that arch-wag, King BOMBI, included—would probably be delighted to learn that English Literature holds forth a model from which they may construct a lasting memorial of what seems likely to be the story of the interference of France and England with Neapolitan affairs. The department of literature in which this model may be found is the ballad, and when this is said the reader will have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the " Doleful Tragesly of Guy Fawkes" is alluded to. The opening stanza informs us of the subject matter of the song ; it is-- "Guy Fawkes, the prince of sinisters, Who once blew up the House of Lords, The King and all his Ministers the conscientious minstrel immediately afterwards, however, with a laudable regard for truth, softens his rather over-bold announcement by the quail- fication— "That if!, he would have blown them up, But a little accident prevented him :" the little accident being his capture before he could put his design into execution. What the design of the two Governments ori ginally was we won't undertake to say ; but the general opinion both here and at Naples is, it was something more than figuratively to " blow up" King Bound and his Government. If so, that amiable and discreet Monarch has had a narrow escape. "A little accident" has "pre vented" the catastrophe. The little accident being the appearance of the policial as well as political, and impudent more than either—circu lar of Prince GORTSCHAKOFF. That Boatel and his satellites should, under all the circumstances, be merry does not in the leant surprise us. Their merriment is quite natural, and will doubtless be shared by wiser and more discreet individuals than themselves. Indeed we look with confidence to a wider theatre, and count on England and France being the laughing-stocks of Europe and America. The story is so redolent of the ludicrous, and tends so much to divest the Allied Powers of the respect due to their position, that constituted as human nature is, more especially in that aggregate, o r rather segregate, ph ase o f nation. .we should rather wonder if it were otherwise. The memory of " the oldest inhabitant' of the British Islands, or of France, we fancy, would be tasked in vain to " find a parallel humiliation to ' that now infficted by Governmental folly on the two nations. The dignity of either demands that they shall not threaten, unless prepared and deter. mined, in case of obstinacy, to carry their threats into execution. What the precise terms employed in the communications with the C ourt of Naplea we re, as already intimated, we do not know—but it is pretty certain King BOM BA was frightened, and expected nothing short of a bom bardment of Naples, if he refused to comply with the requests made to him. The Ambassadors of the two countries were to be withdrawn, and an Allied fleet was to appear before Naples. The interests of humanity and the well-being of Europe were at the very least to be vindicated and rescued from peril. The subjects of BOMII.I were to have the opportunity to do what they liked, or rather what they could, with him. An Italian kiUgdom was to be res cued alike from tyranny and anarchy. Great things w ere to be done, and ad equa t e mean s were provided to do them. Austria sneaked as usual when she does not swagger on to the scene. The King understood what Austria meant, however much it might differ from what she said. H e plucked up fresh courage and went on strengthen ing his fortresses, and, adding to the number of his troops, actually retorted the admonition h e had isoeived with every circumstance of insult The Ambassadors still remained, and the fleet lay in port, at all events kept out of sight of Naples. Time passed on, and when action seemed imminent out came the Russian Circular. Never wai asto nishment greater than that of the two Govern ments. It fairly took away their bre Oh. So soon as recovery set in they refreshed themselves with " humble pie," and announced their deter mination to go on as they had threatened, taking good care, however, to define their intentions within the severest limits. The fleets were to be despatched towards, but not to Naples, nor by way of intervention, but for the protection of English and. French subjects. The measure was simple ; partook in no degree of the nature of an interven tion or of a threat, and could not be "considered as a support or encouragement offered to those who seek to shake the throne of the Two Sicilies." BOMBA, of course, does not believe any more of this than suits his convenience. They meant to coerce him, to say the last of it, by bully ing, and theyhave caught a Tartar. That is his view of the matter, and a sensible one it is. For our part we never believed that any more was intended, or that what might be done would be in the interests of liberty. But for the degradation of this country we should say matters are none the worse for the appearance of the Russian Circular. Had anything good been intended it would by this time have been achieved. Better tyranny in its loathsome deformity than patched and salved' for the sake of appearance. But a heavy culpa bility rests with those who have betrayed England into a proceeding unworthy of her greatness, and her position in the van of Freedom—who have made her the jest of a baboon, the sneer of tyrants, and the object of mingled contempt and indigna tion to the oppressed. The name of CHISHOLM ANSTEY is not yet for gotten in England. Few men gave greater pro mise of eventual success, when he had sobered down from the intellectual intoxication thai attended his first admission to a seat in the Im perial Parliament. There was unquestionably at first a grievous lack of discretion, but his errors were those of a high-minded and enthusiastic young man, aiming at more than he could by any possibility hope to accomplish. But at any mo ment of his career there never was the slightest doubt cast upon his political integrity and honour. After a few years, when the early illusions were &spelled, Mr. ANSTEY was justly regarded as a consistent and energetic reformer, ready to lend his aid in the removal of every recognised griev- ance. There were at that time few more efficien members. To great natural shrewdness and con siderable knowledge he united indefatigable in dustry, and never for a moment swerved from that honesty of purpose, which was at all times un impeached and unimpeachable. He had by that time learn Ted to distinguish between the practical and the Utopian—to discern where he might render essential service to the popular cause ; and it is but an act of simple justice to state that no amount of personal labour or annoyance deterred him from steadfastly supporting the cause which in his soul and conscience he believed to be well founded. Previous to the last dissolution he had earned for himself the reputation of a very hard-working and efficient member, one who would do honour to any constituency by which he might again be qualified to take part in the • political affairs of the nation. But, unfortunately, high deserts do not invari ably insure success at the hustings. Mr. ANSTRY VMS not returned' at the last general election. But the nation was not thereby deprived of his services. He was appointed to the honourable but comparatively barren position of Commis sioner for codifying the law, and in that capacity, by his extensive learning and indefatigable indus try, gained golden opinions from all with whom he was brought into contact. Lords LYNDHURST and BROUGHAM were, we believe, to be reckoned amongst the friends and admirers whose respect and friendship he had gained in that capacity. There was still reason to hope that the services of Mr. ANSTEY would at no distant date be again available in the representative branch of the Legislature, when, unfortunately for himself and the country, the Attorney-Generalship of Hong Kong became vacant. It was offered to and accepted by the learned gentleman, and he was speedily consigned to what can only be consi dered as honourable banishment, in what has been appropriately designated as " the noisome scandal of the East !" We cannot, of course, enter into the motives that induced a man of such high promise to accept an appointment so far inferior to others to which he might fairly have aspired. He went out, however, to the pestilential climate, strong in the hope o being enabled to purify the moral atmosphere— t) cleanse the Augean stable, and, so far as prac ticable, to render Kong Hong worthy of being a British dependency. His attempts, however, at improvement have been met by the most virulent and systematic opposition. Every effort was made to vilify and crush the honest reformer, who used the broom too strenuously for those steeped in corruption. Not only did he meet with unexpected obstructions in every stage of his progress, but he was made the target at which many envenomed shafts were aimed ; not only was the most bitter and unsparing abuse aimed against his devoted head, but sundry civil actions were instituted against him, for acts which he considered essential to the due discharge of his official duty. Under such circumstances, it is by no means surprising that his health should have broken down between the combined influences of the climate, and; a combination of vexa tions such as those above alluded to. The last accounts state that " dysentery and low fever have brought him to the verge of the grave." It may even at this moment be too late to save him. 1 The faithful reformer may perish before a helping hand can be extended on his behalf. But surely something should be done while ithere is yet hope. It would be a graceful act on the part of the Government that would be duly appreciated by the Reformers of Great Britain f and we may add, of Hong Kong. From , Lord PALMERSTO N it would come with peculiar charm, inasmuch as Mr. ANSTEY had once been a strenuous and indefatigable opponent, although he had reason subsequently to change his views. Let Lord PALMERSON, then, come to the rescue. Surely he has it in his port er to bring home, or at least to chancre to a more wholesome destination, the victim, before the last sad sacrifice has been consummated. He may be assured that he never did a wiser or more politic act. We shall hope that it is only neces sary to direct attention to the subject, and that at least an attempt will be made to preserve a valuable life—one that may yet render important service to the country, if timely precautions be taken. When the Metropolitan Board do agree, their unanimity is wonderful. Unfortunately, their chief point of agreement seems to be the rejection of the only scheme whereby the metropolis can be effectually drained, and the Thames rescued from its state of pollution. To insure this, we believe they would give up any of their little vagaries, save that of hearing themselves talk. It is a strange spectacle. A. body of men mainly called into being to accomplish a particular ob• ject, unanimous in frustrating it. Of course, they are not without a plausible excuse for their conduct. Who ever heard of a knot of incapables who were ? They are afraid of the unnecessary depletion of the pockets of the ratepayers, and to prevent this are content to sacrifice the health and be accessories to the death of numbers of the population ! What a detestable sham ! 'What they really are afraid of, is tht appearance of submission to the desire of the Board of Works, which notoriously is the outfall of the sewerage at Sea Reach. So, to gratify a miserable vanity, they having unanimously decided on the adoption of the Erith Marsh plan, leaving Government, if it chooses, to furnish the means to carry the drainage further. The result of which, it is by no means improbable, will be the loss of an entire year—the period when plans, &c., can be lodged in order to Parliamentary action terminating in November. What will the population of the metropolis say to this ? What will the rate payers ? The time seems really to have arrived when this noisy, quarrelsome lot of incapables should be called on to resign their trust, and give place to sensible business-like men. All the vices, with, perhaps, one exception, of the innumerable cliques they supplanted, seem to have been taken up by them as an inheritance. They are half a century behind the provincial Boards of Health, and incapable, to all appearance, of dealing with great questions. Where is the likelihood of Parliament voting a large sum of money to be spent by men like these ? Had they adopted the Sea-Reach scheme, reduced to the minimum, of necessary expenditure, there can be little doubt Government, under all the circumstances, would have lent the weight of its influence to secure them a grant from the Consoli dated Fund. As matters are, a veto on the Erith scheme must be looked for—that scheme not merely failing to meet the necessities of the case, but also being sure, if carried out, to involve the metropolis in a sea of litigation. Thus, unless our suggestion to the ratepayers be adopted, and a period of grace be accorded by Parliament, or and Act be passed compelling the existing Board to carry the sewage to Sea Reach, and prescribing the modus operandi, too, another session will pass away, and nothing will be done ? The more the bugbear of expenditure is examined, the more ridiculous it will appear. What is an extra million or two, to have the work properly and finally done, among so many ? Besides, the expenditure might be spread over a period of fifty or sixty years. A hundred millions of money were ungrudgingly spent over a practically-useless war, and the Metropolitan Board are not ashamed to pretend they grudge a million or two to promote the health of between two and three millions of the population I DISCOTERY OF SAXON GRAVES. A discovery of considerable interest, throw ing much light upon the funeral rites of our Saxon ancestors previous to their conversion to Christianity, was accidentally made during the past week in the garden attached to the resi dence of Mr. Charles Carill Worsley, at Winster, Derbyshire. While lowering a bank of earth for the purpout of making some improvements in the pleasute ground the labourers uncovered two gra , :es at the depth of upwards of four feet from ttie present surface, each containing a human eke ' leton, lying on its right side with the knees drawn up and the head pointing towards tne north-east. A careful examination of the place and the objects there discovered affordsevidence of the intermen is having been made in the following manner :—A wood fire was in the first place lighted on theground, in or around which some large stones were put so as to be come calcined ; this being burnt out, the place it oc cupied was cleared for the reception of the body, which was then deposited in the position before mentioned, along with the implements and weapons of the deceased. The calcined stones were next piled carefully over the corpse, and finally earth was heaped up above the whole, probably while the ground was still warm. The first skeleton was accompanied by a small spear-head or knife of iron, I much corroded, and the lower stone of a hand mill, anciently used in every household for grind ing corn ; the latter had passed the fire. With the second interment was found the upper stone of the same mill, very neatly wrought in sandstone, but split to pieces by the great heat to which it had been exposed. Some pieces of a very coars3 vessel of plain earthenware were found near the head of this skeleton, and behind it lay a large spear head of iron, 2 feet 10 inches long, a curved instru ment of the same metal, five inches, originally fixed in a wooden handle, the bone ferule of which still remains, and a ring-like head or decoration of light-coloured porcelain, about one inch and a-half, in diameter, The whole of the articles exhumed from these graves (which may be assigned to the Teutonic or iron period, including the time from the end of the fifth to the eighth entury, A.D.), by the kind permission of, Mr. C. Carill Worsley, have been deposited in Mr. Bateman's museum of antiquities, at Lomberdale-house. EMIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA.--LIVERPOOL, Tuesday.— The owners of the White Star line of Australian Packets (Messrs. Pilkington and Wilson) despatched their fine new clipper Merrie England, Captain Kelly, to Mel bourne, yesterday afternoon, with 280 passengers, and about 900 tons of valuable cargo on board, and to.da) the splendid clipper Star of toe East, under the com mand of Captain Gaggs, sails for the same port this afternoon, also under the White Star flag, with above 300 passengers and about 1,000 tons of cargo. Mr. Smith O'Brien, in a letter to the Nation, contra dicta the statement that the massive gold cup which was presented to him by the Irish and others in Australia, and which is now in Belgium, whither it was transmitted to him after his return to Europe, has been suffered to remain there because he declined to pay a duty charge able upon it on its removal from the Belgian territory. MILFORD-HAVEN AND WATERFORD.—Since the re cent establishment of the steam transit between these ports in connection with the South Wales Railway, the importations of cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry, bacon, but ter, &c. ' have been very important, and now that pas sengers from London reach Ireland in one day by this route, the amount of passenger traffic is largely extend ing. Additional steamers are at once to be put on, the two already plying being quite inadequate to the de mands. The works at the Neyland terminus are rapidly progressing, and the pier completing with much de spatch. SALE OF LITERARY PROPERTY. —On Monday Mr, Lewis, at his auction rooms, Fleet-street, concluded the sale, by public auction, of the seventh portion of the literary property of the late Mr. Pickering, when the copyrights of the following works were sold at the price affixed to each :—Physical Theory of Another Life, the copyright 511. 9s. ; Dyce's Edition of the Dramatic Works of Green, Marlow, Peel, and Webster, 12 vols., the copyright 1151. ; Herbert's Works, the copyright of notes, &c., 611. ; Holbein's Dance of Death by Douce, and Holbein's Bible Illustrations by Dibdin, the copy right and woodcuts 68/. ; Montague's edition of Lord B.Ncion's Works, 17 vole., the copyright and engraved copperplates 101. ; Mitford's edition of Milton's Works, 8 vole., one half share of copyright in the life, &c., 241. ; Dibdin's Library Companion, the copyright 61. 63. A letter received from Berlin of the 19th announces the arrival in that city of General de Kisseleff, the Rus sian ambassador at Paris. It says also that the Grand Duchess Constantine of Russia intends to leave St. Petersburg on the 20th to make a tour in part of Ger. many. The Diamond returned to Corfu on the 2d, having been absent five weeks in the Gulf of Corinth with the Lord High Commissioner of the lonian Isles, his lady, and suite, to visit the interesting places on the borders of the gulf. THE CHARGE AGAINST STOWELL.—Yesterday at the Surrey Sessions true bills were returned by the Grand Jury against Stowell the informer, and was called upon to plead in the usual way. Ashe did not answer to his recognisances, they were entreated, and returned by the Clerk of the Peace to the Sheriff. CRIME IN WlLTS.—Notwithstanding that there has been a great increase in the population during the past 15 years, there has been a very great diminution in the number of offences committed. The total of offences in 1841 was 1,133, cost to the county, 4,3421. ls. Bd. In 1856, 601 ; cost to the country, 2,4741. 15s. 4d.— Wilts Standard. THE RIGHT MAN.—The man who was "struck with astonishment," without resisting it, has been sent to the next peace convention. THE CASE OF ARCHDEACON DENISON. BATH, Oct 21. The Nurt tOlistituted to try the suit 'nri+UrAad y the Rev. J. Ditcher, vicar of SeutlN. Somerset, against the Ven. G. A. De - ra'son, Archdeacon of Taunton, icir preachin g acAl-,ublishing doctrines relating to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper alleged to be repugnant to the Thirty nine Articles, sat to-day in the Bath, by ad journment from 12th Augrat last. It will be recollected that at the last tilting Dr. Lushington, on behalf OI the Archbishop of Canterbury, read a deelaration containing the contltsions of his Grace se c t his assessors on the ques tions at issue. His Grate Therein pronounced the doctrines of the Arch.d.noott to be contrary to the 28th and 29th Articles of the Church; and called upon him to revoke his errors before the Ist inst. on pain of deprivation. The Archdeacon having allowed the period of grace extended to him to expire without lodging the required retractation in the registry of Bath and Wells, the Court re-assembled to-day to deliver judgment. The Guildhall was densely crowded with spectators long before the proceedings com menced, the clerical element preponderating in the audi tory. The dimensions of the hall are extremely limited, and large numbers of applicants were refused admission. In court we observed Bishop Carr, PrebendaryOmmanney, and Captain Scobell, M.P. The Archdeacon was again accompanied to court by the Right Hon. J. W. Henley, M.P. for Oxfordshire. Dr. R. Phillimore, M.P., acted as counsel for the Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Bayford for the Rev. Mr. Ditcher, the promoter, who was also pre sent. His Grace the Archbishop, Dr. Lushington (his assessor), Dr. Travers Twiss (the Vicar-General), and Mr. F. H. Dyke (registrar) having taken their seats, Dr. Lushington opened the proceedings by stating that two papers purporting to emanate from the Archdeacon of Taunton bad been delivered into the registry of Bath and Wells on the 30th of September. The one was a statement and the other a protest, and the Court now wished to know what course the Archdeacon wished to pursue. Dr. Phillimore said he thought it would save the time of the Court if he were permitted in the first instance to argue for the protest, which bad for its object to show that the 29th article of the Church especially was not one to which the 13th of Elizabeth, chapter 12, applied. If he failed in sustaining that point, which he confidently hoped would not be the case, then he would endeavour to prove that the paper put in by his venerable client was such a practical compliance with the order of the Court as the statute of Elizabeth required. _ _ Dr. Lushington said that the Court would first dispose of the protest ; but if the objection it took was a valid one, the Court was at a loss to understand why it was nos raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, and would be glad if any satisfactory explanation could be afforded on that point. Dr. Phillimore should have have felt it his duty, even if such a demand had not been made on him by his Grace's learned assessor, to state at the outset why the objection contained in the continued protest was not taken in limine —an objection which, if valid, was certainly fatal to the condemnation of the doctrines of the Archdeacon. In the original criminal articles filed against the Archdeacon by the Rev. Mr. Ditcher his client was charged with offending against four of the 39 articles of the Church—viz., the 25th, 28th, 29th, and 35th. By the conclusions come to by his Grace and his assessors, and promulgated at the last sitting, his client was practically acquitted of any offence against the 25th and 35th articles, because the censures of his Grace were confined to the interpretation put by the Archdeacon in his sermon on the 28th and 29th articles. If, therefore, the objection as to the 29th article had been raised in limine, and it had been sustained, his client would still have been left exposed as regarded the other articles, to which that objection did not extend. He had had great difficulties to contend with, owing to the indisposition of his client to allow him at an earlier stage to take objections in bar of any judicial inquiry at all. Those objections had been overruled by the Court, but there still remained the question whether an objection should not be taken founded on the fact that two of the articles mentioned in the charge ' against the Archdeacon were not in the 13th-of Elizabeth. His attention had indeed been drawn to the allegation in the present protest, that the 29th article was not comprised in the book refe rre d t o by that stat u t e ; but the weight of the prima facie ev id enc e against th a t proposition had in duced him at first to refrain from urging it. Since then, however, he had had an opportunity of examining cer tain authorities which led him to a different conclu sion. Among these authorities was a work recently published, which was very scarce, and a copy of which it was extremely difficult to procure, namely, " Dr. Lamb's History of the Thirty-nine Articles," taken from the records of the College over which that learned author presided,and including far-simile copies of four or five different editions of the articles. That book had never before come under his notice, and its perusal had thrown an entirely new light upon the subject, to his mind, at least. And when it, was considered that the Statute of Uniformity, the authority of Lord Coke, and the judgment of Lord Stowell, in Stone's case, all took for granted that the whole of the 39 articles were binding under the 13th of Elizabeth, the oversight of which he had been guilty was, he could not but think, very pardonable. His Grace having acquitted the Archdeacon in respect of two of the articles, and condemned him on two others, it then became his duty, whatever might be the scru ples of his client, to prevent him, if possible, from falling under so severe a penaltyas deprivation, being convinced, as he was, from a long and laborious investigation of books and documents to which few had access, that the 29th article did not come under the statute of Elizabeth, It was an acknowledged maxim that it was never too late to urge a plea in arrest of judgment, and he felt that he should hay been doing wrong if he had allowed sentence to be pro nounced and had kept this objection in reserve for a court of appeal. He was therefore now prepared to maintain the position set forth in the protest. Dr. Lushington—His Grace is anxious to hear all that can be reasonably urged in a case of this importance, and desires you to proceed. Dr. Phillimore said that the statute of Elizabeth, under which this proceeding was taken, required the clergy to declare their assent and to subscribe to all the articles of religion which concern the confession of the true faith and the doctrine of the sacraments as comprised in a book entitled, " Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch bishops and Bishops of the Provinces and the Convocation of the Clergy of the Year 1562." According to the law of the Church of England for avoiding diversities of opinion and the establishing of consent, if any priest taught any doctrines repugnant to the articles he was to be " con vented" before the bishop,-and if he then refused to revoke his error he was to be deprived. The'propositions which he (Dr. Phillimore) had to sustain therefore were—let, that a clergyman was required to subscribe the articles contained in a book; 2d, that it must be a printed book; 3d, that it must be a book with a particular title; 4th, it must be a book put forth with the Queen's authority ; and sth, it must be the book put forth with the Queen's authority in 1562. But for the strong current of authority the onus of proving that these articles were in that book would lie with the Rev. Mr. Ditcher. Ha (Dr. Phillimore) knew of no other statute in this realm in which any person, civil or ecclesiastical, was threatened with penalties for an of fence not distinctly specified, but merely referred to as in tended to be gathered from a book ; and he undertook to satisfy the Court that the 29th article, which his client was charged with contravening, was not in the book so imprinted and referred to by the statute of Elizabeth—he undertook to show that there was no such book in exist ence when that Statute was passed on the 29th of May, 1571—n0 book answering the requisitions of the statute which contained the 29th article. When the facts came to bo carefully examined he maintained that no judicial mind could arrive at any other conclusion save that this article and another that he would mention were not inserted with the 39 articles by the 13th of Elizabeth, chap. 12, but were placed there by an authority--whether that of the Crown or any other—totally deh,ors the statute, and after the sta tute had become the law of the land. If he succeeded in establishing these propositions he was sure his grace would decide that the 29th article could not be included by any thing which took place subsequent to the act of the 13th of Elizabeth. No doubt, it was assumed in every ordinary work of their divines that the 29th article was included in that statute ; and - there was also a recital in the 17th of Charles ll.—the Statute of Uniformity—to the effect that certain ecclesiastics—viz., the governors of colleges and halls, should subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles mentioned by the 13th of Elizabeth. This was, however, a misrecital, the act of Elizabeth not mentioning any Thirty-nine Articles, but referring to a book that might have contained 39 or any other number of articles. This showed how care lessly from an early period it was taken for granted that the 13th of Elizabeth had done what it really never did. He contended that even the Act of Uniformity, by a mis taken reference to another act, could not enforce the sign ing of articles not actually included within that other act. Lord Coke, 4th Institute, chap. 74, referred to the case of a clergyman who claimed a right to subscribe to the arti cles "so far forth" as they were warra nted by Scripture. The case came before the Chief Justic e of the King's Bench, and, it being held that the act was passed for the avoid ance of diversity of opinion, it was decided that the sub scription must be unconditional. The Thirty-nine Ar ticles, it was true, were there mentioned, but by reference only. The decision was not that thirty-nine articles of religion were enacted by the 13th of Elizabeth, but simply that that statute rendered an unconditional sub scription imperative ; and no question was then raised as to whether the 29th article was included in the statute of Elizabeth. Next, there was the judgment of Lord Stowell in Stone's case ; but there the case was that of a clergyman advisedly holding doctrines at variance with the 39 Articles and Lord Stowell defe nded the statute of and contending that he had a right to do E 0; and, althou Elizabeth and the articles, there was nothin g in his deci sion to show that 39 articles were enforced by that statutc; and even if there had, it would have been nikil ad rent as far as the case was concerned. The only question was whe ther a clergyman might maintain doctrines contrary to the Articles, and it was decided that he could not. These emi nent authorities, indeed, believed that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was binding, but the point as to the number of the articles was never raised before them. The learned counsel then entered at great length into the history of the articles of the Church, with particular reference to the introduction of the 29th article. The 42 articles of Edw. VI:, he said, did not contain this one: the Statute of Elizabeth refeiied to the articles itgfeea iitiOn in 1502. Archbishop Parker added the 29th to the otter artie'leSi making in all 42. They were introduced to convocation, which reduced them to 39. Whether these articles ever received the Royal assent might or might not be a matter of doubt; but beyond all question the printed edition of 1562, put forth by Royal authority and purporting to con tain these articles; did not contain article 29. In siippott of this i'..SSertion the learned Counsel quoted from the works of Drs. Lambe, Cardwell, and Bennett, and continued — On the sth of December, 1566, a bill was brought into Parliament, with a little book, printed in 1562, appended to it, and which did not include the 29th article. Lambe's book, in a note, stated that there were no copies of this little book published till 1563. Its contents were the articles agreed upon by Convocation in 1562. The bill of 1566, with the book annexed, was progressing through the Legislature, but its course was then arrested by Queen Elizabeth, on the ground that it encroached on her prerogative. The Puritan members of the Legislature resisted the clause in the 20th article, asserting the church's power to determine controversies as to ceremonies and doctrine ; and as Queen Elizabeth in 1566 stopped her Par liament for, as she alleged, denying her supremacy, so in 1571 she was not likely to scruple to add an article of her own accord, and without their authority. Dr. Lambe's work gave a fac-simile of the imprinted book referred to in the 13th of Elizabeth from a copy in the library of St. John's College, Cambridge, and which did not contain the 29th article or the first clause in the 20th. Convocation itself took no step in 1566 for framing articles of religion, but it petitioned the Sovereign to pass the bill of that year. This showed that that body did not wish to press upon the clergy the 29th article or the beginning of the 20th. Then comes the year 1571. Parliament met in April, and on the 7th of that month the measure was introduced which eventually became the famous statute the 13thlof Eliza beth. This bill was invariably called the bill of last se sion—that was of 1566. Sir Simon Dawes, a high autho rity on the Parliamentary history of this period, exactly identified the bills of 1566 and 1571. If there was any evi deuce of the existence of a printed book containing the Thirty-nine Articles it ought to be found before the 29th of May, 1571, on which day Parliament was dissolved. Now, these was nothing to show that Convocation had ordered any work to be published in which the 29th article appeared. In support of this view the learned counsel quoted as authorities the works, of Lambe and Bennett. He maintained, first, that there was no edition of the ar ticles before 1571 which included the 29th article and, second, that the first known edition which contained it was a quarto edition, which could not have been published before the 4th June, but which was perhaps in type on that date. The uncertainty in which the whole point as to the 29th article was involved was made more apparent by the conduct of convocation, which, by its 36th canon, passed in 1604, and making the articles binding on the clergy, took no notice of the 13th of Elizabeth, but made the quarto copy the basis of its deliberation. The learned coun sel then quoted from a correspondence between Archbishop Parker and Lord Burleigh, with reference to the 29th ar ticle in connection with a marginal note (viz., Sup. Johan tractat., 26) from St. Augustine, to show that the article was still sub ju.iice on June 4, 1571. Archbishop Parker afterwards struck out this note, and the article was printed without it. This point was the more important, as the Archdeacon of Taunton had all along maintained that his interpretation of this article was strictly consistent with the authority of St. Augustine. If an imprinted book was made binding on the clergy by one of the severest acts which Parliament ever passed, inflicting deprivation on those who put an erroneous interpretation on the articles of the Church, it was most important to inquire whether this tremendous weapon was to be wielded against the clergy in respect of all the articles, or only in respect of a certain number of them. If this article had formed part of the statute of Elizabeth on the 29th of May, 1571, how could Archbishop Parker have canvassed the possi bility of altering it on the 4th of June, the date of his letter relative to the marginal note from St. Augustine ? Having referred to the authority of Hallam's Constitutional history as to the famous dispute respecting the first clause of the 20th article, which Laud was accused by the Puritans of having forged and foisted into the articlel, and contended that that clause wanted confirmation of the Legislature, the learned counsel in sisted that the principal part of the 20th article must have been introduced by the Royal authority alone. In fact, the 20th and 29th articles, to use a common expression, ran in couples throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's reign, both being either omitted together or included to gether ; and nobody could suppose that the monarch who did not scruple to put in the important part of the 20th clause would have hesitated to insert a clause of such infe rior significance as the 29th article was in those times con sidered to be. Bennett did not assert that there was, on the 29th of May, 1571, when Parliament dissolved, a book containing the 29th article; What that authority con tended for was that Parliament, when it separated, knew that the Convocation intended to print such a book, and that, therefore, the article had &binding authority. That position was, however, wholly untenable, and the only in ference could be that the article was put in by the Queen's authority. In winding up kis elaborate and intricate ar gument the learned counsel observed that the penalty of the 13th of Elizabeth could not fairly be visited on his client for the misinterpretation of an article which the whole current of authority showed never to have belonged to that statute. He deliberately defied any judicial mind calmly to weigh the authorities on the subject and not admit—whichever way the balance of evidence might in cline—that there was the greatest possible doubt whether the 29th article was, or was not, in the book referred to by the:statute of Elizabeth. He might say it was demonstrable that that article was not in the book, but he would content himself with taking lower ground and saying that there was at least the greatest doubt upon the point; and he put it to the Court with confidence that this most severe penal sta tute ought not to be awakened from its sleep of ages—not against a clergymen claiming to hold doctrines opposed to the articles of the church, but ,against one who said he advisedly maintained and was ready to subscribe all those articles—against one who said, bona fide, "I think this a correct interpretation of the articles of the Church of Eng land; and, if I err, I err in the company of the greatest divines of that church." To defy all the high authorities he had cited on this question, and to smite such a man with a sentence of deprivation, would be to act in contravention of the spirit, and, he humbly but boldly added, in contra vention also of the letter, of the statute. A short adjournment then took place. On the return of his Grace and the assessors into court, Dr. Lushington said—Dr. Bayford, his Grace will hear you. Dr. Bayford then rose, and, after expressing some sur prise that all the arguments had not been exhausted on the former occasions, observed that he now found an argument had been omitted which had been embodied in a protest, and which had now been elaborately brought before the Court. Numerous references had been made to Bennett and to Dr. Lamb, but nothing had been advanced from Cardwell, whe was an equally eminent authority. Without pretending tod any of the research of his learned friend h e had anticipated that the point now brought forward would be raised, and was prepared to have dealt with it on the hlaisethven o h c a c d as h i e o e n n . Before proceeding to answer the arguments w h e adduced he would refer t o the protest of tvenerable archdeacon, respecting wh ich Dr. Phillimore had said very little. This was a proceeding under articles by authority of the 3Gth canon as well as under the 13th of Elizabeth, and that canon , it was admitted, embraced the 29th ' article. Objection was taken that the archdeacon had maintained doctrine contrary to the articles of the Church of England, agreed upon by the Convocation of 1662, and words upon which the artiCle was founded were thet taken from the 36th canon, and not from the statute of Elizabeth, which was only referred to in the next article of the suit, as pointing out the punishment to be inflicted if the case of the promoter were made out. This dis tinction prevailed throughout the articles which had been drawn up in the suit. It was true that it was a proceed ing under the statute of Elizabeth, but it also charged a breach of the articles as certified by the canon, about which there could be no dispute. Supposing it were made out, that the articles under which the offence was alleged were not the articles referred to by the statute of. Elizabeth, his learned friend had not attempted to show what would: be the result of establishing that fact. He totally ignored the articles recognised by the 36th canon. Supposing, s pi v. , that the 29th article was got rid of, no doubt the finding of the Court was that the archdeacon had preached doctrines contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th articles, and about the 28th article there was not a shadow of doubt that it was included in the statute of Elizabeth. The pro test blinked the real question, and made no reference to the fact that the Court had deliberately expressed an opi nion that the archdeacon was guilty of preaching doctrine contrary to the 28th article ; but if the case were exactly as Dr. Phillimore had argued it, it would only amount to this, that the archdeacon wa s gu i lty of preaching doctrine 'con trary to one instead of two articles. He was, consequently, undoubtedly amenable to punishment, and the only effect he protest could have would be to omit all reference to the 29th article in the sentence passed by the Court. The real, true matter at issue in the cause remained untouched by the protest and by the argument of Dr. Phillimore, which seemed to amount to this, that, under the statute of Eliza beth, there were only 31 articles. The matter thus seemed to be reduced to a rule of arithmetic. Dr. Phillimore said under the statute of Elizabeth the articles were not numbered. He would take this opportunity of asking whether th e C o art would now allow Dr. Bayford fur the first time t o say th at the proceeding was founded upon tho 36th canon as well as upon the 13th of Elizabeth ? Dr. Lushington could not advise his Grace to stop Dr. Bayford after Dr. Phillimore had been allowed to put in and argue his protest. Dr. Bayford resumed, and pointed out that in the little book referred to by Dr. Lambe, and which had been so much relied upon, there were only 37 articles enu merated ; and he asked what number of articles the clergy were required to subscribe in the time of Eliza beth so as to arrive at identification. He cited cases to show that the recognised number of articles in that time was 39, and he challenged his friend to point out any number which had been subscribed from 1571 to the present time. On the authority of " Comyn'a Digest" he argued that, under the statute of Elizabeth, 39 was so it was clear -11 con , the numter of aitieled, fctiti if that that the little book referred to 1:1Y Dr: lambs, tined only 37 articles, was not the one Alai vasan flexed to tEd 4tPUte. He produced copies of the Artioie published in 1571, cones - Pct.:ling in every particular with those now in use with the exceptlun of the omission of that demi-semi article of which so much had bon said by his learned friend. Dr. Lushington—What is the " demi-semi article ?" Dr. Bayford—The first sentence or paragraph of the 20th article. There was no pretence for saying that from the time the statute of Elizabeth came into operation the 29th article did not form one of the 39 which the clergy were required to subscribe. After going over the history of the Articles, and especially that of the 29th, as detailed in Dr. Lambe's book, Dr. Bayford. argued that at the time the statute of Elizabeth was passing the Houses of Convo cation were engaged in drawing up those articles which it was understood upon all hands should be made binding by and annexed to the statute. Dr. Phillimore asked permission to reply on the new matter urged by Dr. Bayford. Dr. Lushington expressed the concurrence of the Arch bishop, and The Court adjourned till 10 this morning. BANK RETURNS. A.n Account, pursuant to the Act seventh and eighth Victoria, cap. 32, of the Ayerage Amount of Bank Notes of the several Banks of Issue in England and Wales, in Circulation during the Week ending Satur day, the 4th day of October, 1856 PRIVATE BANKS. Average Amount. Andover Bank, Andover—Heath and Co. Ashford Bank, Ashford—Jemmitt and Pomfret 14,431 Aylsham Bank, Aylsham—G. and T. Copeman 4,196 Aylesbury Old Bank, Aylesbury—Z. D. Hunt 33,026 Baldock Bank and Baldock and Biggleswade Bank, Baldock—Wells, Hogge, and Co 10,671 Barnstaple Bank, Barnstaple—Marshall and Co 10,772 Basingstoke and Odiham Bank, Basingstoke -- Seymour, Lamb, and Co. Bedford Bank. Bedford—T. Barnard and Sons 33,349 Bewdley Bank, Bewdley Nichols, Baker, and Co Bicester and Oxfordshire Bank and Oxford Bank, Bicester-11. M. and Tubb 14,657 Birmingham Bank, Birmingham —Attwoods, Spooner, and Co 23,980 Birmingham and Warwickshire Bank, Bir mingliarn—J. L. Moilliet and Sons 9,615 Blandford. Bank,' Blandford—Oak and Co. 7,000 Boston Bank, Boston—Garfit and Co 75,241 Boston Bank, Boston—H. and T. Gee and Co 14,838 Bridgwater Bank, Bridgwater—J. and J. L. Sealey Bristol Bank, Bristol—Miles, Miles, and C 0... 36,953 Broseley and Bridgnorth and Bridgnorth and Broseley Bank, Broseley—Pritchards, Boy cott, and Co. Buckingham Bank, Buckingham—Bartlett, Par- 24,167 rott, and Co. Bury and Suffolk Bank, Sudbury Bank, and Stowinarket Bank, Bury St. idmunds— Oakes, Bevan, and Co. Banbury Bank, Banbury Gillet, Tawney, and Co. Banbury Old Bank, Banbury—Cobb and Son 28,472 Bath City Bank, Bath—G. Moger and Son Bedfordshire Leighton Buzzard Bank, Leighton Buzzard—Bassett, Grant, and Co ............. 34,840 Birmingham Bank, Birmingham—Taylor and Lloyds 28,301 Bradford Old Bank, Bradford, Yorkshire—H. A. and W. M. Harris and Co Brecon Old Bank, Brecon—Wilkins and Co 62,933 Brighton Union Bank, Brighton—Hall, West, and Borrer Burlington and Driffield Bank, Burlington — Harding, Smith, and Co Bury St. Edmunds Bank, Bury St. Edmunds — J. Worlledge Cambridge Bank, Cambridge—Mortlock &Co 12,259 Cambridge and Cambridgeshire Bank, Cam bridge—Messrs. Fosters 49,422 Canterbury Bank, Canterbury—Hammond and 32,032 Co Carmarthen Bank, Carmarthen—David Morris and Sons 23,374 Chertsey Bank, Chertsey—La Coste and Son 3,245 Colchester Bank, Colchester—Round & Green 18,386 Colchester and Essex Bank, and Witham and Essex Bank, and Hadleigh, Suffolk, Bank, Colchester—Mills, Ba,wtree, and Co 36,469 Cornish Bank, Truro—Tweedy and Co 48,329 Coventry Bank, Coventry—Little & Woodcock 8,430 City Bank, Exeter—Milford and Co 19,420 Craven Bank, Settle—Alcocks, Birkbecks, and Co Cardiff Bank, Cardiff—Towgood and Co Chepstow Old Bank, Chepstow Bank, Mon- mouth Old Bank, Monmouth Bank, Brecon Bank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank, Chepstow—Bromage, Snead, and Co 8,546 Derby Ralik, Derby—W. and S. Evans &Co 9,373 Derby Bank, Derby—Samuel Smith and Co 43,946 Derby Old Bank and Scarsdale and High Peak Bank, Derby Crompton, Newton, and Co Devizes and Wiltshire Bank, Devizes—Locke 77,089 and Co Diss Bank, Diss—Oakes, Fincham, and Co Doncaster Bank and Retford Bank, Doncaster —Cooke and Co Darlington Bank, Durham Bank, and Stockton on-Tees Bank, Darlington—Backhouse & Co Devonport Bank, Devonport— llodg. and Co Dorchester Old Bank and Dorsetshire Bank, Dorchester—R. and H. Williams East Cornwall Bank, Liskeard—Robins, Fos ter, and Co East Riding Bank, Beverley—Bower and Co Essex Bank and Bishop's Stortford Bank Chelmsford—Sparrow, Round, and Co Exeter Bank, Exeter—Sanders and Co Fakenham Bank, Fakenham—Gurneys, Birk beck, and Co Farringdon Bank and Bank of Wantage, Far ringdon—Barnes, Medley, and Co Farnham Bank, Farnham Messrs Knight Faversham Bank, Faversham—Hilton and Co. Godalming Bank, Godalming—Mellersh and Keen Guildford Bank, Guildford—Messrs. Haydon.. Grantham Bank, Grantham—Hardy and C 0... Hastings Old Bank, Hastings—Smith, Hilder, and Co. Hereford City and Count Bank, Hereford — Matthews and ............ Hull Bank and Kingston-upo-H C 0............................. Hull, Smith, Brothers, and Co. ... .... .... Huntingdon Town and County Bank, Hunting don—Rust and Veaseys ...... .................. Harwich Lank, Harwich —Cox, Cobbold, and Co. .......... . ....................................... Hertfordshire, Ilitchin Bank, Ilitchin Sharpies, and Co. Arcfield Bank, Seref ord , a Ro9Band Archenfield hen Bank. Her ford d Morgan and Co Ipswich Bank, Ipswich—Bacon and Co. Ipswich and Needham Market Bank, Suffolk, Hadleigh Bank, Manningtree and Mistley Bank, and Woodbridge Bank, Ipswich— Alexanderi and Co. Kentish Bank, Maidstone—Mercer, Randall, and Co. ....................................... Kington and Radno ga r h s n h tko i r n e a—nd ß Dß a a n i vpki Ripon ns K oa n i n dd g Ct.. Bank, n D a vies and Co. .... n i . k. ...................... 1 1 1. n n h e s t b o n o r Ban ough k K l d n ß i Kendal n a r e B s baonrko Kendal—Wakefield, d ll a r ks v o a n k efi and 74,119 and Co. Kettering Bank, Kettering—J.C. Gotch and 50n5............................................... Lane End Staffordshire Bank, Lane End —C Harvey and Son ..................... Leeds Bank, Leeds—Beckett and Co. Leeds Union Bank, Leed,a--W Williams, Brown and Co. Leicester Bank, Leicester—Pagets and Kirby Lewes Old Bank, Lewes—M o li neux and Co Lichfield Bank, Lichfield—Palmer and Greene Lincoln Bank, Lincoln—Smith, Ellison, and Co. Llandovery Bank, Lampeter Bank, and Llan tido Bank, Llandovery—D. Jones and Co Loughborough Bank, Loughborough—Middle ton and Cradock ................................. Lymington Bank, Lymington—St. Barbe and Co. ...................... Lynn Regis and Lineolnshire Bank, Lynn Regis—Gurneys and Co. Lynn Regis and Norfolk Bank, Lynn Regis — Jarvis and Co Macclesfield Bank, Macclesfield—Brocklehurst and Co. Manningtree Bank, Manningtree--Nunn and Co. .................................................. Marlborough Bank, Marlborough and. Wilts Old Bank, Marlborough Old Bank, Marl borough Old Bank and Hungerford Bank, and Hungerford Bank, Marlborough—Tan ner and Co Merionethshire Bank, Dolgelly—Williams and Son Miners' Bank, Truro—Willyams and Co Monmouthshire Agricultural and Commercial Bank, Abergavenny—Bailey and lank, Monmouth Cld Bank , Monmouth Bre con Bank, Chepstow Bank, Chepstow Old Bank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank, Monmouth—Bromage, Snead, and Co 'Newark Bank, Newark —Godfrey and Riddell Newark and Sleaford Bank, and Sleaford and Newark Bank, Sleaford—Handley, Peacock, andCo Newbury Bank, Newbury—Bunny & Slocock Newruarkt Bank, Newmarket—Eaton, Ham mond,Nonvic and dC n o Bank and Norfolk and Suffolk Bank, Norwich—Harveys and Hudsons Norwich and Norfolk Bank, Norwich-- Gur neeek N o ttinghamottinghamshire B an k, Not tingham, Hart, Fellows, and Co Nuneaton Bank, Nuneaton—Craddock and Co Naval Bank, Plymouth, Plymouth—Harris and Co. New Sarum Bank, Sarum—Everett and Co Nottingham Bank, Nottingham —Samuel Smith and Co. Oswestry Bank and Oswestry Old Bank, Os westry—Croxon and Co ' Oxford Old Bank, Oxford—Robinson, Parsons, and Co. Old Bank, Tonbridge, Tonbridge and Ton bridge Wells Old Bank, Tonbridge and Ton bridge Wells and Sevenoaks Bank, Ton- H. and S. Beeching Oxiodsi l ir6 Tj.tney Bank, Witney—J. W Clinch mid. Co. Pease's Old Bank, Hull, the Hull Old Bank and Beverley Bank, Hull—Pease and CO Penzance Bank, Penzance--Batten and Co. Peterborough Bank and Onnd le Bank, Peter borough—D. Yorke and Co. Pembrokeshire Bank, Haverfordwest—J. and 14,96 5 W. Walters Reading Bank, Reading—Simonds and Co 30,915 Reading Bank, Reading—Stephens, Blandy, and Co. .................................... Richmond Bank, Richmond — Rop er and C 0............ 30,201 5, 39 Rochdale Bank, Rochdale—Clement, Royds, 4,576 and Co. Rochester, Chatham ' and Strood Bank, Roches ter—Day and Nicholson 7,817 Royston Bank, Royston—Fordham and Sous 14,811 Rugby Bank, Rugby — A. Bu tlin and Son 10,288 13.496 Rye Bank, Rye—R. C. P omfret, & Co ..... Ross Old Bank, Heredfordshire, Ross ...... 3914 Allaway and Macdougal Saffron Walden and North E ssex Bonk,. Saf fron Walden—Glbsons and Co .............. Salop Bank, Shrewsbury — Burton, Lloyd, 14,693 and Co. Scarborough Old Bank, Scarborough—Wood all and Co . ........................... Shrewsbury Old Bank and Shrewsbury and Ludlow Bank, Shrewsbury— Rocke, Ey tons, and Co Sittingbourne and Milton Bank Sittingbune. 2,`" ,„1 —Vallance and C0........................... Southampton Town and County Bank, South- 13 407 ampton—Madison and Parce Southwell Bank, d Southwell—x e . Wylde and Co.. 13,51 Southampton and Hampshire Bank Southall -1 P - 30 d Co t on —Atherley, Fell, an o. ................... 1 340 Stone Bank, Stone—W. Moore Stafford Old Bank, Staiiord—Stevenson and 111 813 Co Stamford and Rutland Bank, Stamford—Eaton ' 30 , 415 8,855 11,894 47,87 5 11,033 10,813 62, 312 24,604 :7,1 79 Cayley and Co. Shrewsbury and Welshpool Bank, Shrewsbury 1 23 —Beck, Downward, and Co. ............... %'"6,67g Taunton Bank, Taunton-11. and R. Badcock 2 4 0 8 Tavistock Bank, Tavistock—Gill and Rundle Iy, ' gl3 Thornbury Bank, Thornbury—Rolph and Co. lvf Tiverton and Devonshire Bank, Tiverton — Dunsford and Co. Thrapston and Kettering Bank, Northampton- 11,048 shire--Thrapston, Yorke and Eland Tring Bank and Chesham Bank, Tring—Rtft cher and Son Towcester Old Bank, Towcester—Percival and 7,446 0,62 8 13, 713 Co Town and County of Poole Bank and Ring wood and Poole Bank, Poole---G. W. Led gard and Sons ....................................... - Union Bank, Cornwall, Helston—Vivian and 16)665 10, 969 Co Uxbridge Old Bank, -Uxbridge—Hull, Smith, 13,941 and Co Wallingford , Wallingford—Hedges , 7, 630 Wells, and Co Warwick and Warwickshire ickshire Bank, Warwick— 25,5 01 K. Greenway and Cit . Wellington Somerset Bank, Wellington—Fox, 6 , 028 Brothers, and Co West Biding Bank, Wakefield, and Pontefract ,0 96 Bank, Wakefield— Leatham, Tew , a nd Co 3' Whitby Old Bank Whitby—Simpson, Chap- 631 man, and Co Winchester, Alresford, and Alto n Bank , 20, 341 Wi- chester—Bulpett and Co Winchester and Hampshire Bank, Winchester —Wickham and Co Weymouth Old Bank and Dorchester Bank, 16, 060 Weymouth—Eliott and Pearce Wirksworth and Ashbourne Derbyshire Bank, 37, 666 Wirksworth—Arkwright and Co Wisbech and Lincolnshire Bank, Wisbech-- Gurneys and Co Wiveliscombe Bank, Wiveliscombe—P. and 7, 0 W. Hancock Wolverhampton Bank, Wolverhampton---Good 13 ,0 4 ricke and Holyoake Worcester Bank, Worcester—Farley, Laven- 6, 0 der, and Co Worcester Old Bank and Tewkesbury Old Bank, Worcester—Berwick, Lechmere, and 72714 __---- Co Worcestershire Bank, Kidderminster —Farley, 7,70 Turner, and Co Walsall Old Bank, Walsall—Charles Forster and Sons Wolverhampton Bank, Wolverhampton — R 11,61. and W. F. Fryer Yarmouth and Suffolk Bank, and Halesworth and Suffolk Bank, Yarmouth—Gurneys , 4 7,0 Birbeck, and Co Yarmouth, Norfolk, and Suffolk Bank, Great Yarmouth—Sir E. H. K. Lacon, Bart., and 6 3/ Co tor ea s ,11,5 5 York Bank, York— Swann, Cough, and Co JOINT-STOCK BANKS. 8, 256 Bank of Westmorland, Kendal 9 ,00 Barnsley Banking Company, Barnsley 60 ,931 Bradford Banking Company, Bradford Bilston District Banking Company, Wolver• 9, 040 hampton ************************************ Bank, " . ... . • . Carlisle. . . . . . .****** * Bank Of Whitehaven, Whitehaven • • Bradford Commercial Banking CompanYl 1 9,84 0 Bradford Burton, Uttoxeter, and Staffordshire Union ~, 14 1, Company. Burton-upon-Trenwt.o.:—. : o Ch ß es a t n e k rfi in e g ld and North Derbyshire 11 .. an 1 " .... n ! /0, 300 Company, Chesterfield ...... Company . Cu i m ngt be o r n la . n .. d ... U .. n .. i ...... 8 ... a . n .. 1 .: in .. g ... C .. 0 n. m ici. p_ .n. a .g n ..c y .. , 0m...pany; 44,4 0 Coventry and Warwickshire . 5 .. a..... ............. _,,, A 0 ... n 4 / 4 Coventry ............... .......... Coventry I`lf k Banking n a g n C m o m g p a c n o v m , p C a h n e y l : 0 Coventry Union B 6 5_ 0 8 118 k' County Catrelishlea in o a f d: Gloucester.c..o Cumberland Carlisle ..... District _ 0, ' p i DCEauaprsculatinseloyyeiaECnDindtagyWrllaaiennnsgtddt Bromwich Banking Company, .g 0 Dudley Derby and Derbyshire Banking Company, 20, 268 Darlington Distri ßo c n t an J k. o ., in .N. t . ........................ ~.). 7.- . iiii 06 .1,,,,,. „, 4 Halifax Huddersfield Gloucestershire Joint Bs at noßanking Banking kingß an Company, ,Company, Halifax Hull Banking Company, Hull 4 I / / 1 4 , 14 Halifax Commercial Banking Company, Hali fax Iluddersfield i 87,0: Halifax and Huddersfield Union Banking Com- BO pany, H a lif ax 1, 4 Helston Banking Company, Helston Herefordshire Banking Company, Hereford ..- Knaresbo roug h and Claro Banking CompanYt $ 5,1. Knaresbo roug h 3 ,11° Kingsb r id ge J o i nt -S toc k B an k, Ki ngs bridge..- 3 '6`12 Lancaster Banking Company, Lancaster ;2 ,9 3 56 Leeds Banking Company, Leeds Leicestershire Banking Company, Leicester , 634 Lincoln and Lindsey Banking Company Leamington Priors and Warwickshire Banking ~78, 0 Company, Leamington Priors 10, 41° Ludlow and Tenbury Bank, Ludlow Moore and Robinson's Nottinghamshire Bank- $8, 65 4 ing Company, Nottingham Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Banking 26, 71 1 Company, Nottingham National Provincial Bank of England, Birming ham, Head-office, 112, Bishopsgate-street, 430, 61: London .... .47,° Ngrth Wilts Banking Company, Melksham ..... 4444 Northamptonshire Union Bank, Northampton u Northamptonshire Banking Company, North- 0, 60 1 ampton 61,2 North and South Wales Bank, Liverpool Pares's Leicestershire Banking Company, 46, 591 Leicester Saddlcworth Banking Company, Saddleworth. A O Sheffield Banking Company, Sheffield Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Banking Corn- 0, 0 8 pany, Stamford Stuckey's Banking Company, Bristol Somerset shire Bank, and Somersetshire Bank, Lang- .1,3 31 ; port 35 ,114 Shropshire Banking Company, Shiffnall Stourbridge and Kidderminster Banking Com- ~ 7 49 pany, Stourbridge o t, Sheffield and Hallamshire Banking Company, 64, 021 Sheffield Sheffield and Rotherham Joint Stock Banking 65, 001 Company, Sheffield Swaledale and Wensleydale Banking Company, 0, 84 6 Richmond Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking $7, 15 3 Company, Wolverhampton Wakefield and Barnsley Union Bank, Wake- 14, 611 field Whitehaven Joint-Stock Banking Company, 87, 54 0 Whitehaven Warwick and Leamington Banking Company, 30, 0 3 Warwick West of England and South Wales District 0, 85 3 Bank, Bristol 76,946 Wilts and Dorset Banking Company, Salisbury West Riding Union Banking Company, Hud- . 4 5/0 dersfield • ' Whi+.church and Ellesme re Ban king Company, 6, 01 0 Whitchurch Worcester City and County Banking Com- Worcester 6 19t pany , 72: °9 6 ; York Union Banking Company, York 01,' , 0 York City and County Banking Company, 12 1 , 69 'Oil , Yorkshire Banking Company, Leeds I J. MICHAEL, Acting Registrar of Bank B et Inland Revenue, Somerset House, Oct. 11° !t 11 ' THE REDBREAST : A ND HI S LOVE OF MANEIND. — ;, a curious fact that the l o ve of our race is so inn s— oy the robin as to rend er hi m un happy when he is i 0 - ge s' other society--excepting only during the breeding s son, when all bird s are n aturally ally and suspioi c t,l l the welfare of their offspring. Go into any wood) 7. 8 e1f down any shady l ane , e n ter any cemetery, seat yotiol in any country c h urc hy ar d, perch yourself on ail • fe style—within a few moments you will assuredly 1 : 15 0 0 0 robin beside y ou ; an d he will as assuredly intro hips himself by a song . It is in vain for yon to say t,..ott " nay." H e f a i r ly f a scinates you. He woos your."ilig and wins it. How many of our successes, in 01° 0 50 human hearts, are attributable to the hints affo r, n f ivg by this in gen i ous , bold, open-hearted, all-cong a bird !—Kidd's (TV.) Treatise on the Robin. 8,930 9,924 Y 9,549 88,592 1,883 0,866 92,912 51,867 50,523 28,090 8,150 13,023 6,518 4,978 14,911 29,987 27,628 18,176 21,594 58,820 5,096 32,402 22,084 21,481 .3,662 25,966 20,664 45,939 9,037 5,362 53,354 37,512 28,237 27,697 93,996 32,219 7,761 3,546 42,26 13,554 16,025 8,119 9,647 19,126 27,556 16,360 25,864 52,187 21,474 21,071 49,916 99,048 10,295 2,614 20,929 10,079 33,763 12,517 I