The Sun. — London, England, 1861-06-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from High Wycombe in favour of this bill. ROMAN CATHOLIC PAUPERS. The Marquis of NORMANBY presented petitions from Torquay and other places, complaining of the grievances of Roman Catholics in workhouses. PETITION FOR DIVORCE. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had received a petition from Col. Mundy with reference to obtaining a divorce, and as he had obtained an Anglo-Indian domicile he prayed their lordships to grant him an act of divorce. The documents had been forwarded, and he should there fore call the parties to the bar in order that the handwriting might be proved. Witnesses were then called, who proved the handwriting to the different documents to be that of Col. Mundy. THE DEBATE OF LAST NIGHT. - The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had that morning seen a gentleman whose name had been men tioned in connection with the Galway mail contract, Mr. Daly. He proposed that, in order to prove that he had been greatly misrepresented, he should be examined at the bar of the house. The gentleman complained that Lord John Russell, in particular, and also Lord Palmer ston had misrepresented Mr. Daly's share in the transaction. Earl GRANVILLE thought it would be extremely in convenient, as neither Lord Palmerston nor the Irish members were present in that house, to enter in any ques tion in which they were concerned. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he was not trans gressing any of the rules of the house in mentioning the subject. Lord John Russell had said that Mr. Daly seemed to have been authorised to make the state ment he had ; now that gentlemen on the contrary said there was no ground for such a statement. Mr. Daly alto gether disclaimed having held out any threat that the Irish members would vote against the Government if Galway was deprived of the mail contract. Lord BROUGHAM said it seemed that certain Irish members had requested an interview with Lord Palmer ston, and his lordship had declined to see them till after Monday. It was said this would be of no use, as they meant to "take action on Monday." The subject then dropped. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Simpson's Hospital Estate, Mid-Wales Railway, Lon don and North-Western, and Manchester and Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railways (Manchester London Road Station), Llandloes and Newtown Railway bills were read a second time. The Kingston-upon-Hull Docks, Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway bills were read a third time and passed. GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill. After a few verbal amendments, the whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the bill was reported. MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. CONSOLIDATED FUND (£10,000,000) BILL. This bill was read a third time. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT. The Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was attended by several members of the City of Dublin Corpora tion, appeared at the bar of the house and pre sented a petition on behalf of that body, praying Parliament to restore the subsidy to the Galway Packet Company. The clerk of the house read the petition, which urged the usual grounds advanced in favour of the restora • tion of this subsidy. At a later period of the evening seve ral other petitions from different parts of Ireland to the same effect, including one of 40 yards length from Belfast, were presented. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Whitehaven, Chester, and Egremont Railway Bill were considered and agreed to, The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Bogner Railway, Kingston Improvement, Leven and East of Fife Railway Companies (Amalgama tion, &c.), Leven an East of Fife Railways (Extension, &c.), and South Wales Mineral Railway. The Rumney Railway Bill and Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill were read a second time. PETITIONS. Some petitions were presented in favour of and against the abolition of church rates; in favour of the Piers and Harbour Bill ; by Mr. Whalley, from several places in favour of the withdrawal of the grant to Maynooth College ; for the amendment of the Irish poor law ; against the Highways Bill, on the ground that it would remove the control of the highway expenditure from local bodies, and interfere with the principle of local self-govern ment ; in favour of affording facilities for the growth of cotton in India, in order to render this country independent of the supply of that article from America, &c. BREACHES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACT. Col. FRENCH gave notice that to-morrow he should move for returns to show the number of breaches of con tract committed by the Cunard Company and other com panies during a period of two years after they were first established, the amount of the penalty imposed, and the amount enforced. (Hear, hear, from the Irish members.) EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. Mr. DILLWYN gave notice that on going into commit tee of supply on the educational votes he would move that grants for educational purposes should be limited to those schools which were of an elementary character. WESTMINSTER NEW PALACE, &c. Mr. SPOONER moved for returns of the annual ex pense of lighting the Houses of Parliament, including the outside lighting of the courts, New and Old Palace-yards, the river terrace, west front, and other external parts, specifying the cost of gas, oil, or wax, and names of the departments in which they are severally used, and the ex pense of each, &c.—Ordered. POST-OFFICE (CANADIAN MAILS). Mr. HALIBURTON moved for returns, actual or esti mated,iof the gross postage accruing to the Post-office re venue of Great Britain during the years 18.59 and MO re spectively, on letters, newspapers, and other mail matter conveyed by the Canadian mail line of steamers ; separat ing the outward from the inward receipts, and distinguish ing the proportion accruing to international letters, &c., passing between the United Kingdom on the one side and the United States and Canada respectively on the other, from the proportion accruing on letters, &c. passing between foreign countries or British colonies.—Ordered. EAST INDIA COVENANTEDaSOCIETY. Sir J. PERGUSSON moved an address for copy of the report of a sp ec i a l comm i ttee of the Council of India to the Secretary.at State upon the subj ec t o f open i ng, upon cer tain conditions, the covenanted service of India,,with dis sents, if any, therefroin.---Ordered. EAST INDIA. (COUNCILS IN INDIA). On the motion o f Sir WOOD an address for copy of the despatches of the G ov7ior.. General of India to the Secretary of State for India dated the 9th of December, 1859, the 15th and 26th of January 2861, &c., respecting the constitution of councils in India, w as or d ered. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION Mr. G. DUFF asked the Secret ary of StatefoBr . the Home Department, whether the Government was ad vise her Majesty 0 issue her Roy a l Commission to inquire prepared to into the colleges of Eton, Winchester, and Westminster, as well as of Harrow, Rugby, the Charter-house, Christ's Hospital, and all endowed, colleg;ate, cathed ra l , and pre _ bendal schools in Great Britain and Ireland in which the Greek and Latin languages were taught, ,with a view to ascertain whether the great resources of these institutions may not be rendered more serviceable to education and learning? Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he stated on a former occa• sion that the Government were prepared to accede to the proposition for the appointment of the commission. Since the question had been previously asked he had communi cated with the authorities of the principal public schools, and they seemed generally disposed to afford the commission every information. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to ask Parliament to give the commission any compulsory powers. With reference to the Manchester School, from special difficulties, the Government had not come to a conclusion. GOLD DISCOVERIES IN NOVA SCOTIA. CAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received any authentic information re garding gold discoveries in Nova Scotia? Mr. C. FOR.TESCUE said that information that gold• had been discovered in that colony had been received by the Government, but in quantities too small to induce miners to go there. LONDON IRISH RIFLE CORPS. Colonel FRENCH asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any applieation:had been made to allow the Lon don Irish (28th Middlesex) Rifle Volunteer Corps to visit Dublin this year, and refused ? Mr. T. G. BARth G said that no such application had been made, but he thought it right to state that if it had it would have been refused. 'The Secretary for War was opposed to these excursions which imposed an expense on the members of the Volunteer corps, which they did not wish to decline and which they could not afford to incur. Besides, at a late excursion of the Volu nteer corps they came in collision with the militia, which was most undesirable.' REvEirTs or TB-r, ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS. Mr. G. BENTINCK asked the Secretary of State for the m om , D e janztment when the return, or d ered on the 4th day of March last, re lative to the receipts by th e Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, of revenues tlrived from the estates of 'the Dean and Chapter and Prebends of the Cathedral Church of St. Pau l, London , Would be l a id on the table ? i Sir (1, C, LE WIS said the return in question Was not finished, but he hoped to be able to lay it on the table before the end of the session. THE GRANT TO THE COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH. Mr. WHALLEY moved that this house immediately resolve itself into a committee to consider the acts for the endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endo virulent out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests. The hon. member commenced by stating that he felt his inability to do the same justice to the subject as the hon. member (Mr. Spooner) had done for so many years in bringing it before the house. He held in his hand a petition, signed by 7,000 Protestants, who represented the Protestant feeling of the country, against the continuance of this grant, and he contended that this feeling had attained to such a height that it would ultimately succeed in effecting this ob ject. He denounced in the strongest manner the doctrine which he said was inculcated in the minds of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, which was founded on the abominable Jesuit principle that the end justified the means. He maintained that the success of the Roman Catholic Church was the end proposed, and any means might be resorted to in order to promote that end according to that principle. The grant was made for the better education of Roman Catholics, not for the special education of the priesthood. He thought, considering the establishment of the Queen's Colleges and other facilities afforded for education in Ireland, that there was not the slightest plea for the continuance of the grant. He thought the religious scruples that prevailed amongst a powerful body in this country 'should in itself be considered ground sufficient for with drawing the grant towards an institution that was established for the dissemination of doctrines which were believed by the general community of this country as dangerous and blasphemous. The hon. member then pro ceeded to argue at much length in support of his motion, and concluded by an earnest appeal to the house. Sir W. VERNER seconded the motion. Mr. D. SEYMOUR said he could congratulate his hon. friend in having met with a seconder to his motion who united the zeal of English fervour to the Orange loyalty of the north of Ireland. But if any circumstance more than another gave a tone to the speech of his hon.friend it was that spirit of propaganda which that speech displayed, and which was calculated to arouse the feeling of the house. He stated that the grant to Maynooth had excited the unmitigated feeling of Protestants throughout the country. Now he (Mr. Seymour) did not yield to any one in his respect for Protestant feeling when it was sincere upon the platform, or when it was eloquent and pious in the pulpit ; but he did not think that Protestant feeling was a proper basis for the votes of legislators. His hon. friend had been led in the course of his observations to attribute to the Maynooth grant a great many consequences and results which he would not enumerate; but he could not agree with his hon. friend that the destitution of families in Ireland had any fair and legi timate connexion with Maynooth, or that the Puseyism of the English Church had any connexion with thezrant. He deeply regretted his hon. friend had referred to these topics ; but his hon. friend had thought proper to refer to him (Mr. Seymour) in a somewhat personal manner, and to a vote which he had given 17 years ago, when he was only 22 years old. If he had given that opinion in the warmth and zeal of youth, the experience of many years and a deeper ac quaintance with the subject had led him to the conclusion that it was not wise for the sake of the Protestant religion to maintain in Ireland a church in obstinate and obnoxious hostility to the feelings of the people. By his amendment he asked the house to oppose the Maynooth grant on the same ground as that on which it opposed the regium donum and the Edinburgh annuity tax. The hon. and learned member concluded by moving, as an amendment, after the words " consolidated fund," to insert, " and also to consider the expediency of withdrawing all other State endowments and grants for ecclesiastical and religious purposes in Great Britain and Ireland." (Cries of " Divide.") Mr. CARDWELL said he understood it as as not the pleasure of the house to continue at any length this discus sion, or rather, he should lay, now to reopen a discussion which by common consent, both in that and the last session of Parliament, had been closed. It would not be forgotten that in the former Parliament, at the suggestion of the right hon. member for Cambridge University, then Home Secre tary, who had then to answer the hon. member for North Warwickshire r Parliament declined to reopen this discussion, so full of angry feeling and so unprofitable in its results. This house had came to the same conclusion, and he hoped the hon. member for Peterborough would not suppose he meant the slightest disrespect to him when he (Mr. Card well) said he was sure, if that house could have been in duced to take such a course, it would have been by the argu ments of a member whom the house so sincerely valued as the hon. member for North Warwickshire. (Hear.) He was sure he was speaking the language of every member of the house when he said he deeply regretted if from any feeling personal to himself the hon. member had abandoned his motion, and he (Mr. Cardwell) should rather hope it arose from the fact that Parliament had shown itself unfavourable to the motion itself. It was only right to state that the com mission which had examined into this subject had acquitted the college of anything which was inconsistent with alle giance to the Queen, and the conduct of the pupils, gene • rally speaking, was marked by propriety and virtue. The hon. member seemed to think it expedient to open a new agitation, but he hoped the house by its vote that night would give no encouragement to the attempt. The hon. member, however, was not sanguine as to his success ; and like a cautious general he had prepared for himself a line of retreat. He proposed, if his Motion was unsuccess ful, to inquire and report whether the Commentary of Cab basatius or Devoti formed a part of the text-book—an in vestigation no doubt as useful as it would be profound, in asmuch as he (Mr. Cardwell) confessed his total ignorance of the contents of the Commentaries of Cabbasatius and Devoti. But if the house entered upon those subjects, and began to deal with the foundations of religion, he thought they would have abundant work upon their hands, and would, moreover, have difficulties to encounter and anxieties to meet which they might possibly not be pre- pared for. Mr. SPOONER could assure the house that he felt bound to protest against the house, but he was unable, on account of his health and strength, to continue the active course in reference to it which he had formerly pursued. He utterly denied that the question was a closed one, and felt a stroug conviction that in the long run the Protestant feeling of the country would demand the Withdrawal of this grant. He had never gone on any personal grounds, but he objected to the grant to Maynooth as unconstitu tional and in direct opposition to the oath taken by the Sovereign at the coronation. After a few words from Mr. SOMES, who was inau dible in consequence of the loud call for a division, Mr. NEWDEGATE explained that the cause why he had not taken up the question which had so long been ad vocated by his hon. colleague wag, that he had been afraid that if he did so it would appear to be too much of a party question. His opinion on the subject, however, had un dergone no change, and he should cordially support the motion. Ho could not in any way understand the amend ment which was proposed, and trusted that it would not meet tht acceptance of the horse. The teaching at May nooth was the teaching of the Jesuits, and he could not con sent to such teaching being carried on by means of a grant from a Protestant people. He was confident that those who had so often supported the motion of his hon. colleague for inquiry into Maynooth, would not fail to support the motion now before the house. Mr. V. SCULLY, amid cries of " Divide," said it would be impossible for him to support the amendment. He was opposed to all endowments, but could not agree to vote against them unless they were all included in one measure. The Trish Established Church would not be touched by the amendment. Mr. WHALEY rose to reply, but was met with loud calls for a division. He moved the adjournment of the debate. The SPEAKER said the right of the hon. member was to reply only. Mr. D. SEYMOUR , finding that the house wished to di vide on the original motion, proposed to withdraw his amendment. divided The A a ey m ue e s r t n h. ameendment al was m t e h ti e o n n. withdrawn, and the house Noes ................................... 1 19 14 1 BAll.l'olalij o rbt y E a t g a o i n D s E t ,thes PETITION.m . .-77 Mr. DENMAN moved that a select committee be a p.. pointed to consider the allogations of the petition of Baron de Bode, presented t o t h e house on the 13th Ap r il l as t , an d Ira report to the house th ereon, lie ha tee because the case was one which couldd not ad impartially decided unless by p ersons who h moved fora b for a commit- heard e all the facts of it. Anticipating the objectionswhich might to his motion, he den i e d that the claim of the Baron de Bode was a stale demand, or that it could be considered res *ltelicatu. So far from the decision of the house on the ques tionj in 1851 being a reason against the present motien, it that he had e am co in n e e d lu t s h ie e n cla claim of Baron de Bode, and had come was one in its favour. He had the good grounds for bringingthe am m e u n e t h , complicated by the delays that had tak s n Though the case was very simple case before it had been place, and by legal before Parli quibbles. This was not a legal case, or the courts of law would have been the proper tribunal. It was one o f those , cases which could not be brought under the .uria, where but in which the maxim appli e d, Sarum jus sunima ily moral and equitable right had be e n destroyed, and the law had failed to give relief. Th e l a t e B aro n de Bode, the claimant and father of the petitioner, who was a British sub ject, possessed, in 1793, a landed estate in France, which was in that year confiscated by the revolutionary Govern • ment of France. By the Treaty of Peace in 1815, the French Government agreed to pay over to the British Government 1 a large sum of money to meet the claims of British subjects whose property had been unduly confiscated, and in 1818 the British Government were in possession of that money, which NV charged with the duty of paying such claims, including that of the B aron d e B o d e. Th e ma i n groun d on which he id not rec e f ve it a t t h at ti me, was that i n an Act of 1819 it was recited c on t rary t o f act, t h at all Br i tish sub jects who Iliad entered their claims had been duly registered. The Act went on to provide that when all those claims had been satis :led, the control of the surplus should be absolutely vested in the Lords of the Treasury, to do what they pleased with it. Ii was not till 30 years or more from that time that the liousq ,-;f Lords ultimately decided against the claim of I the Barmat de Bode, We must, therefore, go back to 1818 to I THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5, 1861. examine the treaty,and see whether the baren was entitled at that time, because if he was entitled, and if he was deprived of rights by a false recital in an Act of Parliament, that was a grievous wrong which it was incumbent on Parliament to rectify. Mr. Denman then called attention to the 4th additional article of the treaty of 1818, by which it was pro vided that whereas there had been an undue sequestration of the property of British subjects, it should be taken off, and commissioners were appointed to examine claims and fix the amount of compensation. There were two or three other treaties, but this applied particularly to "irremov able," or what we call " real" property. He should first have to establish that the Baron do Bode was a British sub ject within the meaning of the treaty; secondly, that he was possessed of immovable, that is landed, property in France; 3d, that such property was unduly confiscated within the meaning of the treaty ; 4th, that money was paid to the English Government by the French Government which was to satisfy claims for property so confiscated ; sth, that after payment of a ll othe rs , th ere was a sur pl us w hi c h ought to have been appropriated to the claim of the Baron de Bode ; and 6th, that the present Baron de Bode's father, the claimant, had done everything that he could do to place himself in the position of a person entitled to such compen sation. He contended that the Baron de Bode, the claimant, was a British subject in the meaning of the treaty. He was the son of an English woman by a German father. His parents were married in 1755, and he was born in 1757, at Locksley, in Staffordshire, where he was baptised, and where he lived with his father for several years. According to the English law, the highest claim to be considered a British subject was to be a natural born Englishman. Lord Hall burton said in the House of Lords that he always regarded the Baron de Bode as a British subject. But it was con tended that he was a French subject, because he had resided a long time in France, and that he was not a British sub ject in the meaning of the treaty. However, the commis sioners having expressed a doubt on that point, an opinion was taken of an eminent authority, Sir Samuel Romilly, who gave his decided opinion that the Baron de Bode was an English subject. This opinion was forwarded to the commissioners, who were satisfied with it, and the French Government considered to this day that he was a British subject, and entitled to the money. When the case came before the House of Lords, it was strongly held by Lords Brougham, Lyndhurst,Truro, and other high autho rities that the Baron de Bode was an English subject, and was entitled to the compensation, and this view was in accordance with the current of the decisions of the Com mittee of Privy Council that a person born in England was a British subject, unless he had been solemnly naturalised in another country, which did not arise in the case of Baron de Bode. Then as to the question whether he had property in France. His father, the grandfather of the present Baron, was possessed of a town and castle in Alsace. Al sace had formerly belonged to Germany, but had been by treaty incorporated with France. It was a German male fief, equivalent to what in English law would be called an estate tail, which could not be cut off by him. The hon. and learned gentleman then entered into technical details as to the nature of the tenure, and also as to whether the ces sion of the property by the Baron Charles de Bode to his son (the claimant) was valid, or whether it should have been sanctioned by the Archbishop of Cologne, his feudal superior. He also discussed at considerable length the question whether the confiscation was undue in the meaning of the treaty, and expressed his surprise that any confiscation by the arbitrary act of the revolutionary Government could be supposed to have been regarded as due and legal by the restored legitimate Government, who made the treaty, or by the English Government, who had never recognised the revolutionary Goverament of France. Mr. Denman called attention to several cases in point, in one of which the claimant's father was ern in Ireland, but entered the French service at 19 years of ago, so that he was thus not a British subject in any sense in which the Baron de Bode was. He became a great dignitary of the army, a mar shal and a chevalier. The son was born in France in 1798, and on troubles arising he entered the service of the Prince de Conde. The case of Drummond, upon which reliance had been placed last year, and which would no doubt be again referred to this year, really had no more bearing upon this claim than any bill of exchange case tried at Guildhall this day would have. (Hear.) Count de Fainant had also claimed under the treaty, and he was held to be an Englishman, although he had resided only a few months in England, had lived in France for a great period, was known by a French title, and had even applied for letters of naturalisa tion; but the Privy Council held that they could not recog nise these letters of naturalisation, as they were not duly authenticated and sealed, and they held he was an English man by what had been ridiculed as the accident of birth. The hon. and learned member proceeded to refer to the re port of the Lords' committee on the claim, and argued that the claim of the baron came fairly within the articles of the treaty, which had reference to the indemnity to be paid by the French Government, and that Baron do Bode had com plied with all the conditions required by the terms of the convention of 1815, for the purpose of bringing his claims before the commissioners appointedby thetwo Governments to distribute the funds provided by the French Government. The next point referred to was that money had been paid by France to England for the purpose of compensating persons whose property had been confiscated, and, among other claims, that of Baron de Bode was admitted by the British and French Governments, and the letters which had passed between the Governments of the two countries on the subject were produced by Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords. The baron made application to the French Govern ment, asking for compensation, and they said they had paid money to the British Government sufficient to satisfy his claim, that they considered him a British subject, and that they had, therefore, nothing further to do with him. Throughout the reports of the Privy Council they held that persons situated as the baron was, were entitled to com pensation, and yet he had failed to obtain that justice which was his due. After the payment of all the claims made under the treaties, a large surplus remained in the hands of the British Government, and that surplus re mained still in the hands of the Government of the pre sent day, who were bound to satisfy the baron's claims. It was established by a trial at bar, and also by the assent of the counsel for the Crown, that there was a balance of £566,000 in the hands of the Government remaining due for compen sation. That balance had been applied in various ways. £196,000 was paid to persons who claimed under the conven tion of No. 7. These claims, which had nothing to do with the convention, were satisfied. Certain debts due to the French Government for maintaining French prisoners in England were paid, and a payment of £60,000 was made to the poor of the Midland Counties of England. In this way the whole surplus was said to have been exhausted, but £200,000 of that amount had not paid under the convention, and that sum ought in fairness and justice to be appro priated to the pay ment of the Baron. He (Mr. Denman) protested against au inquiry of this nature taking place be fore the whole house. If, however, a select committee were granted, he promised to establish his case. The Baron had done nothing to disentitle him to his right of compensation. In 1814 that right was unanswerable in law. The treaty was made in November, 1815, and on the 9th February fol lowing the then B aron de Bode presented to the Duke of Richelieu a written claim for compensation, the English Commissioners not having then arrived in Paris. That claim was objected to on the ground that the Baron was not a British subject, but Sir Samuel Romilly overruled that objection, pronounced him a British subject, and from that time no further objection of that kind was taken, although the Baron's name was not placed on any written list. Down to 1818 the Baron was pressing for a hearing. The English commissioners undertook to investigate his claim, and told him the nature of the evidence they would require. He was put to great expense in collecting his evidence, and then he received a notice from the commissioners that he must prove that the property was confiscated as the property of a British subject. The Baron told them that he could do nothing of the kind, because it had been confiscated as the pro perty of an emigrant. He then went on to collect evidence of The validity of the cession of the property from the father to the son. The award was then closed, and in that award his claim was rejected, upon the ground that the property had not been confiscated us the property of a British subject, :and that there was no proof of the cession. He made an appeal to the Privy Council, but was told that he must not produce any new evidence in the case. The Privy Council, having heard the former evidence, held that the validity of the cession had not been established. The Baron asked the Privy Council for a re hearing, but was informed that he was too late, their deci sion having been confirmed by his Majesty. He then ap pealed to the Court of France, and was informed that they had paid over all money which was to compensate him and other British subjects to the English Government. Tn 1826 the Baron presented a petition to the House of Com• mons, and Lord Stanley (now Lord Derby) ably sup ported the claim, and in 1828 moved fora select committee to inquire into the matter. That motion, however, was defeated, and it was argued that the cession, not having been by deed, was invalid. Dr. Twiss, on that occasion, a ay n tet o ae t rm h a er ncri n t e l :i e on fo treated the whole question as res judicata, and the cession as a fraud. Dr. Phillimore, a high authority, supported the motion. A year or two afterwards Lord Stanley made , w in as amhadoeus:o of f ri l 7 o m on em th be e r q s u , e a st s io el n e , ct bu co t m in mi t t h te a e t o li n ow t in he g su y b e j a e r et t . he Ahoguasine,wi,naslcBo3u2n, counted out. n 18 1 3 t 1 re-appointed applied i n t d forwas a defeated, m an da m u s In to theth was appointed, n o t w i t h standing the opposition of the Government. At the end o f that year the committee as almost ready to report, but in th e following year a motion yearthat I t B h 3 e 9 eo th m e m ß it a t r e o e n b d e o r ß e e Lords of the Treasury, but the Court of Queen's Bench held that the mandamus would not lie, inasmuch as the Crown could not command itself, and that there was not a liquidated matey demand. The Baron then put in a peti tion of right, which was granted, and which came in the ordinary course before the Court of Queen's Bench. That petition set forth fully all the facts of the case, and there was only one allegation in it which was not established by inquisition. The petition of right was directed to very learned commissioners, and a special jury found the facts proved, although, of course, that finding was, to a certain extent, exparte. It:was subsequently tried at law , and ever y allegation but one, which had since been establishe d, was found. The Crown thenplcaded the Statute of Limitations, and judgment had to be entered for the Crown. Then the case went before the Queen's Bench on the point of law. It had been argued that that judgment was altogether ad verie to the Baron de Bode, but that was by no weans the case. The ground on which the Queen's Bench decided was a very narrow one. The case then went to the Exche quer Chamber, and their judgment was founded on the single ground that the Treasury had full discretion in the matter, because the claim ;of the Baron de Bode had not been registered. lle contended that no adverse judgment had been given on the merits. In 1851 the decision of the House of Lords was given on the same grounds as that of the Exchequer Chamber. In 1852 Lord Lyndhurst was so shocked with the hardship of the case thathemade amotion for a select committee in the House of Lords, and that motion was successful. That committee was most carefully selected, and after full consideration, and going into the whole evidence which had been taken at the trial at bar, came to the conclusion that the case had been fully made out, and earnestly recommended the claim to the conside ra ion of the House of Lords. Were they, after that report, to be told that this was not a case to be brought before the house ? In 1853 there was a motion in the House of Lords to act on that report, but it was unsuccessful; but in 1854 Mr. Montague Chambers brought forward a motion in the House of Commons that the national good faith required that the just claims of the Baron de Bode, established after a full inquiry, should be satisfied. There was, however, the fatal objection to the motion that it was founded on a report of the House of Lords and not of the House of Commons, and he therefore, on the present occasion, contented himself with asking for an inquiry. It had been shown that the treaty of 1815 applied generally to wrongs done by confiscation, and, therefore, that it applied to the case of Baron de Bode. The hon. and learned mem ber then proceeded, at some length, to notice and to refute the arguments which had been urged against the claim by several members when it was brought before the house in 1854. One of the objections urged to the claim out of doors was, that it would amount to so large a sum—a million ac cording to some—that no House of Commons would enter tain it. He did not believe that the house would reject it on that ground. Even were it to amount to a halfpenny in the pound of income tax, he believed that the house would admit it, if a committee of the house reported in its favour, rather than allow injustice to lie longer at their doors. (Hear, hear.) Thanking the house for the atten tion with which they had listened to him, the hon. and learned member concluded by moving fur the appointment of a select committee on the subject. The AT T 0 RN EY- GENERAL said his hon. and learned friend had maintained in a speech of three hours and a quarter a case which he said was incontrovertible. When a case, however, admitted of controversy some time must un doubtedly be granted to those who had to meet the various topics which had been urged; and his learned friend, he must admit, had set his arguments before the house with great ability, but with expressions that were not deficient in modesty, as they had been remarkable for their pertinacity. (A laugh, and cries of "No, no.") The house would re collect that his hon. and learned friend had stated that the arguments brought forward on formeroccasions were marked by sophistry and casuistry and every topic which could mystify the house. The first time the question was brought forward was in 1828, by the present Lord Derby, and when Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor, and under the direction of the Government the motion was resisted, as not being one founded in justice. It was brought forward again, and again resisted ; and then brought forward under the government of Sir Robert Peel, and again resisted,with the advice of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the Crown. It was brought before the house in 1853, and the motion was rejected. In 1854 the matter was discussed at great length, and rejected by the house. It was a question for the house to decide how often claims like this—without any foundation in law—should be allowed to be brought forward. He supposed it would be brought forward as often as any young lawyer chose to take the matter up. (Cries of " Oh, oh.") In 1854 he (the Attorney- General) devoted much time and attention to the examination of this subject, and it was in consequence of that examination which now led him to state to the house the reasons why he should advise the Government and the house not to attend to the application now made. He felt very much for the pre sent claimant, for he believed his father—the late claimant— was led into the belief that he was entitled to compensation by the opinions of the lawyers in whom he placed his case. Those opinions were, however, delusive ; but no doubt they created in his mind the impression that he was so entitled. (Hear, hear.) The facts wero these. His hon. and learned friend said the late Baron de Bode was a British subject. It was true he was born in England ; but he would point out the fallacy of the argument where it was said he was a British subject, for as between France and England he was not a British subject. Suppose an Englishman and his wife visited Paris for a short time, and during such visit a child was horn, and after a month or five weeks all returned to England, and the child was educated in England and impressed with British ideas and feelings-- would they permit that child to be called a French sub ject? or would they allow that child to be claimed by the French Government for any political purpose ? Certainly not. That was the case, then, of the late Baron de Bode. Although born in England, he was shortly after birth car ried back to France, and there educated by his father, and for every political purpose he was a French subject. That el as the real point which laid at the foundation of this case. They were not to determine the question merely upon the meaning of the English law, but upon the principles of in ternational law. The question was not to be determined by the fact of birth being in this country, for that was quite immaterial in an international point of view. The question must be determined by the facts of where the person dwelt, where he was a citizen, and where he performed all the duties, and claimed the rights incidental to citizenship. (Hear.) When the French revolution broke out the French Government de facto had clear rights of govern ment over all those who were their subjects, and those who were resident in that country, and who had clothed themselves with the character of French citizens. On the other hand there were persons residing in France who were indisputably British subjects, and who had never clothed themselves with the character of French citizens and who were entitled to the protection of the British Crown. The language of the treaty was "his Britannic Majesty's subjects," meaning the persons within his allegiance, or who owed allegiance to the British Crown. Did Baron Charles de Bode, the grandfather, or the late baron, the father of the present claimant, recognise themselves LE owing allegiance to the British Crown ? Not one bit of it. (Hoar.) Well, if that were so, it was an idle thing to say theycame within the designation of British subjects. (Hear, hear.) The commissioners found that the grandfather of the present claimant was one of the French noblesse resid ing in Lower Alsace, where he had purchased a large estate, and in the entail of which his son, the father of the present claimant, was included ; therefore it was to his interest to consider, himself a French subject. Further, it was found that he was in the French service and belonged to the order of St. Louis, and was in every respect a subject of France. (Hear, hear.) The father and son, then, were French subjects. In 1791 the troubles of France begun. It was clear the father had adhered to the sovereign of France—he was in every sense a royalist. Anticipating the loss of his estate, he hit upon this device. The son was then a boy of 14 years of age, and had by acci dent been born in England, and the father thought that that accident of birth would entitle him to say he was an Englishman, and that it would enable him, by a transfer of the property to the son, to save the property from confisca tion. The property was accordingly made over to the son, the father of the present claimant; but that did not pre vent the de jaelo government of the country exercising their authority over it, and to that authority the subjects of the country were bound to yield obedience. The French Government saw through this device, which was merely delusive, and they confiscated the property as being still the property of the father. Whether they confiscated the pro perty as belonging to the father or to the son, they had a right to do it. The act might have been arbitrary and un jest, but it was a legal act. It was the act of a government existing de facto. First, the status of the father anc of the son at the time of the confiscation was confessedly that of subjects of France. Secondly, the property confiscated was confessedly French property, held by a French title, pos sessed by a French citizen, and the ownership of which placed the individual in a particular rank in France—viz., in that of sne of the noblesse of the country. What then was the aim for which the property was confis cated ? It was an act done by a French subject, which France had made an offence. They both, father and son, left their country, abandoned their property, and joined the Austrian army, which was then on the point of invading France. The result was that here was a law from which a subject of France could not appeal, which was only binding against a French subject, in respect of a crime which could only be committed by a French subject. Could the English Government maintain a claim against the French Government on account of the confiscated pro perty of one of its own subjects ? Could this be said to come within the often-quoted words, " unduly confiscated" in the treaty ? The treaty, the convention, and the Act of Parlia• ment were all passed upon this basis, that the property for which the French Government were to give compensation must be British property, held by persons who at the time of the forfeiture were subjects of Great Britain, and that the property so taken must have been unduly and illegally taken by the French Government. He was anxious to meet the merits, the honesty, and truth of the case. The truth lay in this—who were meant in the treaty by the description of " subjects of his Britannic Majesty ?" He said with great confidence they meant persons who at the time of the for feiture were de facto subjects of England, recognised in this country, claiming in that character, acting in that character, indisputably and notoriously subjects of the crown of Great Br itain. The truth was that a gentleman in the position of Baron de Bode, never meaning to be an English subject, and availing himself of that privilege, did one of two things — jec either p h il e ttitg imposed upon the French Government by as eurning a denominational charact e r to which ho was not entitled, or he tried injuriously to appropriate to himeeif a e dt l hr ia ce r a e m o t f the mo ne y d e di ca t e d for the benefit of British sub on the character of a British subj e ct, w hich he had no t at the time of the forfeiture, and which. but for purpose o f a sosfumakingg The th baronclaim, he and dhis would s neveron returned h a ve F to ren th ch e F eruant s re i n gr . ranch. army as French Royalists, as They joined the Russian service in 1814 ; and the son was unable to show that in word, deed, or even in thought, he ever dreamt of connecting him self with England until this forfeiture was made. Was it possible, he (the Attorney-General) asked, that this pro -1 perty could have been: held by anybody who was not a French subject? The owner of that property must have acted an important part in the political affairs of France, and could not havo so acted except as a French subject. If the house came to the conclusion that these persons were French subjects, that this property was French property, that the position of the baron and his son was one in which they owed allegiance de facto to the French Government, and violated that allegiance by joining the ranks of the Austrian army—then this claim must fall the ground, for then this property had not been " unduly confiscated." Let this house further consider what it was asked to do. It was a mere mockery to tell the house there was any need of a committee. The investigation had been carried on for more than forty years, and there was not a single fact remaining unascertained. He had hitherto reasoned the case on the facts as stated by the partisans of the baron in the report which had been laid before the house. When money of this kind was stipulated for by one Govern ment and paid by another the only title to the money was by the act of the party requiring the payment. Now the conditions of these claims were defined by the act of 1819, by which alone the right ta participate in this fund could be determined, and they knew that upon this ground the Baron de Bode had not the particle of a claim. Lord Lynd hurst said that under the treaty he could have no title to appear in a court of justice as a claimant, and they would be placed in a difficult position if they recognised a title which I would not hold in a court of justice. They could not take a step then to admit this claim without repealing the Act of Parliament. But if they agreed to repeal the Act of Parlia ment, could they repeal it for the benefit of the Baron de Bode only ? They must throw it open to all the other claimants—to 100 or 500 persons whose claims had been rejected because they had not been able to make out a title in conformity with the act, and they must call upon the Government to create a fund again, amounting to all that was left unappropriated, together with the interest thereon, to be scrambled for by all who might bring forward claims which they would say were as good as that of the Baron de Bode. It was a mocking expectation to hold out to the Baron de Bode that the question of the act of Parliament would be re-opened and all these claims decided upon on no principle of law, but upon what was called moral justice. These were matters lying at the very threshold of the in quiry, and it would be impossible to conduct any of the rest of the" questions that would arise if they were to establish a precedent of such a mischievous character as that which it was sought to establish. In confirmation of the arguments he had advanced, he might be permitt3d to advert to some points that were established in the legal proceedings, in order to remove another very fertile source of misappre hension. A great number of persons with whom he had conversed—and he himself, until he read through these voluminous documents—were under the misapprehension that the French Government had recognised the claim of the Baron de Bode, and had handed over a sum of money specifically on account of his claim. But this represen tation which was set forth in the petition of right was contrary `to the truth. The French Government never had recognised the claim at all, and had never paid over any amount specifically on account of the claim, and it was so stated in the finding of the jury. The British Go vernment had been charged with want of faith and honour in these transactions ; but while he did not wish to use unkind expressions with regard to the Baron de Bode, ho must say that the only thing inconsistent with good faith and honour in the matter was the Baron de Bode putr ting on for the purpose of the claim the character and status of a British subject, which he never dreamed of assuming or claiming until this pecuniary interest arose. He regret.• ted that when the claim first came forward it was not optnly, manfully, and honestly met upon the grounds he had endeavoured to place before the house, but though a technical objection was raised, the facts were made known and sub stantiated. The advocacy of Lord Lyndhurst had been alluded to, and made the foundation of much of the confidence in the claim ; but Lord Lyndhurst was not more distinguished for his learning than for his benevolence, and he had no doubt that in bringing forward the claim in the House of Lords, the noble lord must have been influenced by some feeling of benevolence. But he must oppose, to Lord Lyndhurst, out of office, listening to the dictates of his kind and benevolent disi osition, the resistance of the law officers to the claim in HA in 1835, and in 1843, under tb e authority of the noble lord. In the Privy Council, on two several occasions, the question came on whether a natural born British subject, but who had become natura lised in France, could claim under the treaty, and the decision in each case was that he could not, and the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench established this, that even upon the claimant's own.showing there had been given no proof that his property was unduly confiscated. He (the Attorney• General) had thrown aside all technical objections, and had treated the case as though it was unprejudiced by any decision, but was brought under the deliberation of the house for the first time. He had presented the facts fully before the house, and upon the grounds he had stated he must resist the motion for a select committee. Mr. DENMAN replied, observing that there was not a single objection stated ky the Attorney. General which had not been answered by anticipation in his observations introducing the motion. He did not ask the house to decide the case. He desired merely that a deliberate tribunal, which would hear the arguments on one side and the other, should be appointed to investigate the case. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that those hon. gentlemen who had not heard the arguments he addressed to the house would abstain from voting, and that they would not be led away by the argu ments of the Attorney-General--arguments which he had answered by anticipation. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MALINS said he had sat for three hours to listen with great pleasure to the very able speech of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Denman), and he could only regret that while his able arguments were addressed to about 30 mem bers of the house, the decision would be disposed of by about 150. Tho Attorney-General very dexterously took advan tage of the change of audience, and addressed himself to the statement that the Baron de Bode was not a British-born subject. But there was the opinion of a most influential committee of the House of Lords, to the effect that the Baron de Bode was bona fide a British-born subject; and he (Mr. Malins) said that the money for his claim was paid years ago by the French to the British Government—(hear, hear)—and though it might be inconvenient to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to find the money to pay this claim, he should certainly vote in favour of the motion. Lord PALMERSTON said he could not at all concur in the views of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down. He rested entirely upon the fact that the com mittee of the House of Lords had given an opinion favour. able to the claim; but he (Lord Palmerston) did not con cur that this house was bound by the decision of a com mittee of the other house of Parliament. It was said that very few members had heard the arguments of his hon. and learned colleague (Mr. Denman), and that they were about to decide upon the speech of the Attorney-General and the reply of his hon, and learned friend. In his opinion those speeches contained all the circumstances upon which they were called on to dicide. The simple fact was this— was Baron de Bode a British subject ? Nothing could be more clear than this, that it was a mere quibble to represent him as a British subject. His father was not British, the property was not British. The father lived in France as a French subject; he emigrated as a French subject; he took arms with Austria against France in the character of a French subject; and it was as a French subject that the confiscation was imposed upon him for having broken his allegiance to the Government of France. How different was this from those cases which his hon. and learned friend had quoted of persons belonging to British families, bearing British names, but who from some cause had resided in France, and had, if you will, become domiciled in France. Their property was confiscated, not because they were con sidered French subjects, but because they were considered alien enemies. (Hear.) It was not that the Baron de Bode's property was confiscated because he was a British subject, but because, being a Frenchman, owing allegiance to France, he joined an army going to invade the country to which he owed allegiance; and, therefore, it did not appear to him (Lord Palmerston) that there was a shadow of ground upon which they could treat the Baron de Bode as a British subject, or why he should come and claim an immense sum of money from the English Government. It was a very plausible thing to say, "Let us have a committee of in quiry." He (Lord Palmerston) said there was nothing to inquire into. The question was simply reduced to this— was the Baron de Bode, who was the claimant in this case, a British subject or a Frenchman. His hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General said ho was a Frenchman and not an Englishman, and therefore this house could not take a step which would be only the beginning of another step for the application for large sums of money. And then it was shown by the Attorney-General theta fraud was com mitted in this transaction. The father, who was not an Englishman, made over his property to his son, then a minor. He (Lord Palmerston) hoped the house would not give way to this plausible and specious cry for a committee, as theyhad all the facts already fully before them. (Hear.) Sir G. BOWYER said he would not detain the house more than a few minutes whilst he laid before them three points—(oh, oh)—which lay in a nutshell. The first was whether the son, at the time the property was made over to him by the father, was a naturalised British sub ject? (Oh, oh.) The house might be impatient, but they should remember that this was the case of a man struggling for justice against fearful odds. On the question of na tionality he would read the high authority of Sir Samuel Romilly, who was a great ornament of the party opposite. Sir S. Romilly gave it as his opinion that the Baron de Bode was a natural born subject of Great Britain, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of a British subject, and that he could not throw off his allegiance to the King of Great Britain, in conformity with the maxim, nemo potest exuern patriam. The conditional rights of the baron were exactly the same as those of a natural born subject, the son of an English father and mother. Then as to the second point, that of confiscation. On this ho would refer to the authority of Lord Lyndhurst. He must, however, first say he under stood that, whilst he was away, her Majesty's AttoTe.y- General had denied that the Baron de Bode was a British subject, and had said that although born in England, yet that by the rules of international law he was a subject of France, and that his allegiance was due to the Go vernment of that country. Now ho (Sir G. Bowyer) challenged this statement of international law by the Attorney-Ueneral, and he staked his own cred i t upon it. In whatever country a man was born, of that country he must remain the subject, because nemo potest exucre patriam, although, Ills alleguulco might b;) claimed by another country. Lord Lyndhurst, however, had said that the Baron de Bode's property was expressly confiscated on account of his emigration ; and that by a pro cess equally strange and invalid the proceedings instituted to ascertain his nationality were closed before they were complete. He denied that the law laid down by the noble lord at the head of the Government was correct, because it was sufficient that the property was confiscated, and that that property belonged to a British subject. He was sorry the noble lord had said that the property was fraudulently conveyed by the Baron de Bode to his son, as in doing so he cast a slur on the personal honour of the baron, who was a gentleman entitled to respect. The House of Lords had come to a distinct finding in favour of the baron on every point which it was necessary to establish in order to substantiate his case, and had, in fact, stated that he was an injured man, and ought to have justice done to him. Under these cir cumstances he was sure the house would not allow the in fluence of the Government to tell against right and justice. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he only rose for the purpose of pointing out the double incon venience in which they were involved. It was unfortunate, after hearing the mover of the motion and then his reply, after only a single speech had been made in opposition to it, that gentlemen friendly to the motion should, contrary to usage, address the house. (Oh, oh.) It was contrary to usage in the second place, that a member, as the hon. mem ber for Dundalk had done, should come down to answer the speech of the Attorney-General which he did not hear, and appearing at a late hour, after having been elsewhere per haps more agreeably engaged, make a solemn appeal in the name of justice. (Laughter.) The hon. member said that the Baron de Bode was a British subject. Now that was never denied. The baron was a British subject for certain purposes, but he was not a British subject as between Eng land and France, and the whole question turned upon the latter point. The declarations of the Privy Council in the case of " Drummond " showed that he was a French sub ject as regarded the relations between France and England. He was informed that the Baron de Bode was not entitled in reversion to this property. But this was not a matter that was to be dealt with by this house. It had been before the Privy Council, and by them solemnly determined, and these were the words of Lord Stowell, in giving the deci sion of that tribunal : "It appears that the complainant has completely failed in regard to the ownership of the pro perty. The cession to the son was a contrivance originating in the mind of the father to defeat the French Govern ment, in which he failed. Their lordships are bound to con firm the award." His hon. and learned friend had brought down on the house the authority of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham. He (Mr. Gladstone) appealed to their conduct when they were Ministers and responsible for con ducting the Government of the country. For 30 years all the law officers of the Crown, including the Lord Chancel lors, without a single exception, had refused to entertain this claim. They were asked to appoint a committee. He said it would be cruel to this gentleman to appoint a com mittee, to keep alive a claim of this description, and cause this gentleman to transmit to his children that which he had unfortunately received from his father as an inheri tance, the prosecution of a claim of this kind. He wanted to know how the report of a select committee could justify an executive Government in acting against the opinion of all the law advisers of the Crown for the last 30 years. His hon. and learned friend said the next step would be to pro pose a vote of a sum of money to this gentleman. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought they must have a special inquiry whe ther there was any surplus, and they must invite all the world to bring in any claim they might have. Ho trusted that the house would not agree to a motion which would not be beneficial even to the gentleman himself who was the object of the solicitude of the hon. and learned gentleman. Mr. B. COCHRANE asked if the Government had not a sum in hand applicable to this case? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they had not. The house then divided— For the motion Against it Majority —22 THE GALWAY CONTRACT. Mr. GREGORY postponed his motion for a select com mittee on the Galway contract till Friday. SHERIFF'S COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. CAIRD obtained leave to bring in a bill to enlarge the sheriffs small debt jurisdiction in Scotland. EAST INDIA. LOAN BILL. The report on the East India Loan was brought up, and the bill brought in and read a first time. SUPPLY. The report of the committee of supply was brought up, and agreed to, The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock. SIGNS OF THE TIMES IN ITALY. Nt , Recent letters from Florence and Rome repre sent a very hostile feeling in the Italian populations towards the priests, or rather towards the clerical hierarchy, on account of the injunctions of some of the bishops forbidding any notice to be taken in the churches of the grand national festival of June 2. Thursday last was one of the great festivals of the church—" Corpus Domini" day. " The pro ' cession," we read in a letter from Florence, "has gone off quietly, but shorn 'almost entirely of its usual splendour. Hitherto the municipality, all the state officials, and the troops, with their bands, at tended. To-day all these were absent and the pro cession was one solely of ecclesiastics. As they were returning to their separate churches, when the procession was over, I never saw anything so hang-dog' as the appearance of these priests. In order to make their absence from the procession still more marked, the National Guards are march ing through the streets without arms, and have bands playing at various places. The leading men appear to do all they can to check the expression of the popular dislike to the priests. All priests ;how ever, are not 'anti-national. Yesterday there was another great Tuscan commemoration hare, in me mory of the Tuscan Legion which was so cruelly cut up in 1849. There was an enormous gather ing—all the civil authorities, and all the mili tary—and a magnificent scene it was. But of all the bold speeches I have ever heard or read, none exceeded the boldness of the address of the priest on this cccasion. He claimed both Rome and Venice for United Italy, without any reserve or equivoca tion, and equally unreservedly spoke against the temporal power of the Pope. I understand that those who have left the Roman Church, but who are determined not to adopt any other ready-made church,are sanguine as to a gradual but large acces sion of members, and the formation, in due time, of an Italian Church. But I have been somewhat surprised to hear it said by those who have been watching, and are themselves converts, that at Rome itself the people are far more ready to embrace Pro testantism in some already fixed form than in any other part of Italy." The Utah correspondent of the New York Herald, writing from Salt Lake under date of April 26, states that the fall of Fort Sumter and the secession of Virginia had created intense interest among the " Saints." The news was read in the tabernacle by Brigham Young, and the disciples were asked to believe that this was merely the prediction of Joe Smith, about the breaking up of the American Union. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Out of 50,000 cures without medi cine, by Du Barry's delicious R eva l en t a A ra bi ca F oo d , we quote a few :—Cure No. 71, of dyspepsia the Right Hon. the Lord Stuart de Decies. Cure No. 49,832.—" Fifty years indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness at the stomach and vomiting, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent food.—Maria Joly, Wortham Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cure No. 4,208.—" Eight years dyspep sia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms, nausea, for which my servant had consulted the advice of many, have been cured by Du Barry's health restoring food.—Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk." No. 32,836. Three years excessive nervousness, with pains in my neck and left arm, and general debility, which ren dered my life very mi sera bl e , h a s been radically removed by Du Barry's health restoring food.—Alex.Stuart. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate ana perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment and expense may be avoided by using Du Fool which, at a few pence per day, saves SC times its cost in other remedies, removing e ff ec t ua lly, without and purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. ,We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Tire, MD., F.R.S Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer , Dr. Shorland, D r. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spa rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibit e d by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arablca Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent - street, in full, o n th e seal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must expect to bo distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 63. 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re. gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; Abbit, 60, Graceehurch-st ree t ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox bard-street; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate. street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street City; at 127 High Holborn: and all tamer,. [ADVE RTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills.—lmpurity of the Blood.—To ensure health it is absolutely necessary that the fluids and solids of the body should be kept, from those impurities which are continually getting admission into the sy s t em b y erron eous living, unwholesome atmo sphere, or disordered stomach. The only safe and certain way to expel all impurities is to take Holloway's Pills, Which have the power of cleansing the blood from all noxious matters, and at the same time remov i ng ' any irre gularities which their presence may have already produced in any organ. Holloway's Pills expel all humours, which taint and impoverish the blend, while they purify and in- , vigomte, and give general tone to the nerves, stomach, liver, lungs, heart, avnd kidneys, BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHIPPING. In some statistical particulars which appeared in The AS'un one day last week with reference to the position of the shipping interest, it was stated that it was with steam vessels that English shipowners had been most successful in grappling with the increased foreign competition to which they are now exposed. Thus in 1844 the British steam shipping which entered with cargoes and ballast at the ports of the United Kingdom was 507,549 tons, and the foreign 85,917 tons ; in 1849 the British total had increased to 734,763 tons, and the foreign to 151,312 tons, showing an increase of 45 per cent. in the former and 75 per cent. in the latter; in 1854 the British entrances had further increased to 1,358,524 tons, and the foreign to 176,309 tons, showing an increase of 85 per cent. in the former and 16 per cent. in the latter; and in 1860 the British aggregate entrances were 2,144,736 tons, and the foreign 404,275 tons, showing an increase of 58 per cent. in the former and 129 per cent. in the latter. Comparing 1860 with 1844, the British clearances increased 1,637,187 tons, or 323 per cent., and the foreign entrances 318,358 tons, or 370 per cent. As regards the clearances outwards of steam shipping with cargoes and in ballast, the British total was, in 1844, 491,115 tons, and the foreign 85,176 tons ; in 1849 the British clearances had in creased to 694,044 tons, and the foreign to 156,873 tons, showing an increase of 41 per cent. in the for mer and 83 per cent. in the latter ; in 1854 the British figures were 1,303,667 tons, and the foreign 181,512 tons, showing an increase of 87 per cent. in the former and 16 per cent. in the latter; and in 1860 the British aggregate had further increased to 2,041,694 tons, and the foreign to 376,868 tons, showing an increase of 56 per cent. in the former and 108 per cent. in the latter. Comparing 1860 with 1844, the British clearances increased 1,550,570 tons, or 316 per cent., and the foreign 291,692 tons, or 343 per cent. The yearly relative share of busi ness enjoyed by British and foreign steam shipping since 1844 has been as follows : British Foreign Yrs. Percentage. Percentage. 1844 .. 85.3 141 1845 .. 88 . 8 .. 11'2 1846 .. 85 . 9 14 . 1 1847 84.9 .. 15.1 1848 .. 83 . 9 .. 16.1 1849 .. 82.2 17 . 8 1850 81.6 .. 18.4 1851 .. 85.1 .. 14 . 9 1852 .. 15.0 .. 15.0 British Foreign Yrs. Percentage. Percentage. 1853 .. 87 . 6 .. 12.4 1854 88'1 .. 11.9 1855 86.9 13 . 1 1856 84.6 .. 15.4 1857 83.2 .. 16'8 1858 82.2 .. 17.8 1859 83 4 16.6 1860 84.3 .. 15'7 Thus, while the proportion of business done by British sailing and steam shipping combined fell from 71.9 per cent. in 1844 to 58.1 per cent. in 1860, steam shipping per• se only receded in the same period from 85.3 to 84.3 par cent. In other words, the British ordinary shipping entering and clear ing with cargoes and in ballast at the ports of the United Kingdom only advanced from 6,601,621 tons in 1844 to 8,728,493 tons in 1860, being an increase of 13 per cent.; while the foreign ordinary shipping entering and clearing advanced from 2,675,391 tons in 1844 to 9,993,226 tons in 1860, being an in crease of 274 per cent. Hence the lugubrious com plaints made from time to time by the old-fashioned section of the shipping interest, of which a further expose may be given in a future paragraph. COUNTRY MARK ET S. LIVERPOOL-JUNE 4. There was a good attendance of the town and country trade at this morning's market ; but we had a very inactive business doing in wheat, and sales only effected at a decline of ld to 2d per cental from Friday last. Flour nominally unchanged. Oats and oatmeal were at former quotations. Indian corn offered freely—American mixed 31s per qr— but no buyers. Barley and peas the turn cheaper. Beans also less inquired for. A dull market throughout. LEEDS-JUNE 4. Our market to-day was fairly attended by millers, and the trade in wheat was of a dull character, at a decline of is on last week's rates. Beans rather lower. Barley, oats,!and other articles unaltered. LYNN-JUNE 4. There was a moderate attendance. Ihe supply of wheat was middling, with a quiet business. Good sorts receded is on previous quotations; inferior 2s cheaper. Barley was in short supply, at barely the prices of last week. Oats were in slow demand. Beans in short supply, and less firm in price. Old white 56s to 60s Old red 50s to 54s I Barley. 2Bs to 42s Oats .22s to 26s Beans .425.t0 46s I Peas 4Bs to 54s NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYNE-JUNE 3. At this corn market there was a moderate show of wheat. The trade was slow, but the prices were no lower than the rates of last week—white making 60s 'to 68s, red .b4s to 625. The supply of barley was small, and not much 24 s s t t o e n a e d . y r ß e e q i u m e s st m , e w t i w th i t h a c fi h rm ang .sa e l d e7 in fro v m alu 2 e 4 . s to ° a 3 t 3 s s w p e e r r e a ready sale, from 44s to 58s per qr. NORWICH CATTLE. The show of store cattle to-day was good. Trade in favour of the purchasers. Nearly one•lourth remained un sold. Scots, 4s Od to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to 4s ; Irish, 3s Od to 3s 6d ; Devons, 4s to 5s 6d (estimated weight when fat). Fat beasts a small show, and sales firm, at 7s 6d to Ss Od per 141 b. Sheep—There was a good supply of sheep in the pens. Fat sheep, 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone ; prime, 10s Od. Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs, 16s to 20s ; fat pork, 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone. COURSE OF EXCHANGE..—YESTERDAY. Amsterdam Ditto Rotterdam — 12 01 12 1 Antwerp Brussels — 25 60 25 65 liamturgh Paris Ditto !,Tarseilles — 25 65 25 72f Frankfort on Maine — 119 119 f Vienna Trieste --- 13 90 14 0 Petersburgh Berlin Madrid Cadiz Legh0rn......... .. . Mila3 48$ 48/ 48a 48, 25 82/ 25 90 25 72f 25 771 25 72/ 25 77i 39,1 39/ 1161 117 i 1171 19! 52$ e 2! 621 52 m •••••••••••• .• Genoa • — Naples Palermo — Messina — Lisbon Oporto Rio Janeiro — New York — .. • • Foreign Gold in Bars (Standard)....per oz. £3 17 9 Mexican Dollars Silver in Bars (Standard)... „ 0 0 0 South American Doubloons VACCINATION.—In the year ending at Michael mas last the public vaccinators vaccinated 494,942 persons, 455,927 of them successfully. The successful vaccinations therefore of the public vaccinators alone were 70.5 per cent. of the births during the year. UNION WORKHOUSES.--The Poor Law Board state in their report that since 1834 at least £5,000,000 has been expended in building new union workhouses in Eng land and Wales ; and the sam , 3 report shows that the mean number of inmates in the workhouses averages as low as between 110,000 and 120,000. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine Invariably ag gravate and perpetuate diseases; their annoyance, dis appointment, and expense nay be avoided by persons in indifferent health sending only their address to E. S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' OWN GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex plnse, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound l ungs, an d refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints, nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation, cough, asthma,. consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrhoea, dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds, noises rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi. eria, in neuralgia, the ears, tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spasms, sinking, tits, broue.hitis.—"Unouestionably the safest Guide to health.", BIRTHS. BOIVER,—On the 31st ult., at Aubrey Villa, Southsea, the lady of Captain Bower, R.N., of a daughter. CUMMING.—On the 2d inst., at 20, Norfolk-street, Park lane, the wife of Captain Arthur Cumming, R.N., of H.M.S. Emerald, of a daughter. FULLER.--On the 30th ult., at Higlafield-house, Roupell• park, the wife of Charles E. Fuller, of a son. MARRIAGES. - HAsLEwooD—SHANNON.--On the Ist inst., at the parish church of Wenrien, Saffron Walden, the Rev. Charles Baker Maslewood, M.A., chaplain R.N., to Elizabeth Albina, the eldest daughter of the late Captain Rodney Shannon, R.N. SMITII—SomEs.—On the 29th ult., at St. Mary's, Horn soy, Wm, Cagle Smith, Esq., of 1, Gloucester-terrace, Regent's -park, to Ellen, youngest daughter of the late Samuel Francis Somes, Esq. DUATHS. BAYLEY.—On the 2d inst., the Rev. K. C. Bayley, rector of Copford, Essex, aged 62. _ _ BENTLEY.—On the 2d inst., at llitchin, Hells, William Bentley, Esq solicitor, aged 69. BERGER--Onthe 3d inst., at 4, Great Coram-street, Mrs. Elizabeth Berger, aged 73. BrANDrortD.—On the 2d inst., at Wincanton, Somerset, tqlas Blandforcl, surgeon R.N., late of Chester-square, London. DUNDAS.—On the 3d inst., at 13, New-street, Spring . - gardens, Vice-Admiral the Hon. Sir Richard Saunders Dundas, K.C.B. MONCKTON.—On the 31st ult., at Bath, the Hon. and Rev. Frederick S. Monckton, aged 50. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at ME Surf Office, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County or Niddlc,so3 l Wedilesday, June 5, 1561,