The Sun. — London, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

I k' otilil move the amendment on the bringing up <of the r' sport of the committee. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in rising to r cove for the purpose of asking leave to introduce a bill for the pre vention of bribery at the election of members to serve in Parliament for the city of Canterbury, stated thr h t he in tended to follow up that motion with similar ruotions in respect of the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, King ston-upon-Hull, and Maldon. There was a manicnst neces sity for the measure which he was now asking leave to introduce, but it would perhaps save time and trouble if he at once called the attention of the house to the whole subject as connected with these boroughs as -a whole, in stead of going in detail into each particular case. (Hear, hear.) The reports which had been made by the commis sioners appointed under the 15th and 16th of Victoria to investigate the subject of bribery and corruption in these boroughs had now been some time in the hands of hon. members, and he doubted not most hon. members were well conversant with the contents of these reports. It was Rat necessary, therefore, for him to advert to them in de tail, and he should do no more than merely call the atten tion of the house to those parts which had a local bearing upon the matter under consideration. He first, then, took - the case of the city of Canterbury. It appeared from the report of the commissioners that in that city there was a population of 19,000 and a constituency of 1,583 persons, of whom. 637 were householders, and 946 were free men. The comrnissioners reported that corrupt practices prevailed e.t the last election and at previous elections. They stated thifit a system had prevailed in the borough of brib ing and corrupting electors by issuing colour tickets ; in addition, they reported that direct bribery on a l arge sca l e had prevailed at most of the elections, and the result had been the ge,neral demoralisation of the electors. At the election in YB4l the two candidates spent no less a sum than 11,0001. in bribing and corrupting the electors. At the ele(stion in 1847 5,0001. was spent in th e same way, 3 , 0001 . be' mug on one side, a considerable po r ti on o f which went in 4:l 4 ,xect bribery. No less than 500/. was ex p en d e d i n a efirect money b r ibe, while of th e 1,500 odd electors no less khan 155 voters received direct bribes as the price of their -votes. In 1852 it was not quite so bad, as there was only 'bribery on one side; but even then not less than 2,3501. was expended in corruption, of which at least 1,0001. was spent in direct bribes. Besides the indirect bribery, it was proved to the commissioners that there had been 79 direct cases of bribery, of which 67 were freemen, and 12 were householders. That was the state of things in the city of Canterbury. The report of the Barnstaple commission gave a lamentable picture of the corruption which pre vailed in that borough. It appeared that the population. -was 11,371 , while the constituency numbered 754 per sons. At the last election the number of voters polled was 696, and of that number no less than 256, being upwards of a third of the whole, received direct bribes for their votes. It was clear, therefore, from the re port of the commission, that in the case of Barnstaple the election was invariably obtained by bribery ; thbugh he was bound to admit, that with regard to Barnstaple the case was not so complete as that of the other boroughs, and for this simple reason :—it would be remembered that an amendment was introduced in another place into the act under which the commissioners acted, by which it was provided that the inquiry should not extend back beyond the election where no bribery had taken place, or been complained of ; and inasmuch as in 1847 both parties to the contest mutually agreed to abstain from bribery, tha researches of the commissioners were necessarily con fined to election of 1852. In 1819, however, it was found that bribery and corruption so extensively prevailed in the borough that a bill was brought in to correct the evil, the bill passed the Commons, but was thrown out by the House of Lords. So much then for Barnstaple. With re gard to the borough of Malden here also the report of the commissioners showed a lamentable state of corruption. It appeared that the population was 5,470, and the consti tuency 845, of whom- 235 were registered as occupiers of 101. houses, and 620 as freemen. At the election in 1826, the only electors were freemen who had dwindled down to 50, but by corrupt means the number was raised to 2,000, and at this election no less than 18,0001. was spent on one side, and 12,0001. on the other, making together 30,0001. The two elections of 1830 and 1831 were without contest, but at all elections down to that of 1841, large sums of money were spent in corrupting the electors. In 1847 there was a contest, and of course considerable bribery and corruption were resorted to, no less than 2,1501. be ing expended in beer alone. It was proved to the com missioners that at the election in 1852 something like 75 persons received direct money bribes for their votes, and they came to the conclusion that bribery had extensively prevailed in the borough for many years past. That was the state then of the constituency of Maldon. He must now advert to the case of Kingston upon-Hull. From a short abstract of the report of the com missioners, he found that the constituency of that borough numbered 4,678 electors, of whom 3,184 were occupiers of houses and 1,491 freemen. Well, then, with only that con stituency, at the election in 1841, there was spent no less a sum than 10,5401., of which sum the commissioners had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that 4,0001. and up wards was expended in direct bribes to the freemen. A sys tem had in fact prevailed in the borough of paying " head money," 41. being paid for a full vote, and 21. for a split vote; but it being found that this system would not do, it was changed for a system of giving the voter colourable em ployment, and in that manner the bribery had been carried on up to the last election. At the election in 1811 the elec tors polled numbered 3,583, and of that number no less than 1,300 received direct bribes for their votes. In the year 1847, there was a short contest, but short though it was 6,8401. was expended upon it, of which sum the com missioners said 1,6501. was spent in direct bribery. The electors polled at this election numbered 3,618, of whom 1,175 were bribed. At the election in 1852, the expenses on the one side were 4,9201. and on the other 3,631.1. while for the purp oses o f di rec t b r ib ery on the orange 8id:2,235/. was spent, and on the blue side 1,3001. The commissioners stated that out of 3,983 electors, 1,350 were paid for their votes, and of these 1,050 were reported by name. The next case in , his list was that of the notorious borough of Cambridge. The population of that borough was 28,000. The number of constituents was 1,887. Of these, it ap peared, from 150 to 200 never voted at all, lest by so do ing they should injure their interests—so that the vot ing constituency was between 1,600 and 1,700. At the first four elections after the passing of.the Reform Bill, no corruption existed; the franchise was exercised in a straightforward and legitimate manner. But the elections having gone four times the same way, the opposite party determined to have recourse to corruption, and they sat down and organised a most complete system of temptation, details of which were given by the commissioners. A Mr. Samuel Long, who was notorious in the annals of Cam bridge bribery, appeared to be the master mind and spirit of the whole. There was one man whose business it was to sound or tempt the voters. This man insinuated him self amongst the poorer voters whom he found in the public houses, telling them it did not signify how they voted so that they could make money, and when he found that they were persons who might be worked upon, he put down their names as p ersons w h o were to be furtheri tempted. Then there was an individual whose business it was to act on that suggestion by seizing a suitable opportunity of offering a bribe. If the man swallowed the temptation he was set down as a safe person, and then Mr. Long com menced. The commissioners reported that after the first election it was not necessary for Mr. Long to make an offer of a bribe ; a look, a gesture, or the fact of a man's having called upon him, was sufficient. The voter was sure to get the reward. The commissioners stated that they had ascertained that an unbroken chain of corrupt prac tices had existed from 1839 ; that in 1840 8001. was dis tributed in bribery ; that in 1841 Mr. Long distributed between five and six hundred pounds. In 1843, the re port said, a very curious incident occurred. A Dr. Bart lett received instructions to come from Cambridge to Charing-cross, where some one would recognise him by a signal ; Dr. Bartlett came, and was not deceived in his expectation ; an individual appeared, who gave him a bag containing 1,000 sovereigns, which he took back to Cam bridge, and the whole of this money, with 3001. more which was also obtained mysteriously, was spent in bribing the voters of Cambridge. Another election took place in 1845. The candidate, who was examined, stated that he had nothing to do with the providing of any money ; nevertheless some individual put down the sum of 8001., the whole of which was spent in bribery. On this occa sion Long spent as much as 1,0001. At the election of 1847, in consequence of the very excited feelings which prevailed through the agitation of the corn law question, the idea of turning the scale by means of bribery was deemed hopeless, and consequently no extensive corrup tion was practised. He now came to the election of 1852. At that election 1,6001. was contributed by the two candi datei who were returned. In addition to that, 1,2501. was supplied from local sources, the whole of which was applied for bribery. Of 1,540 voters who polled, 111 re ceived direct bribes. In reference to that occasion, the commissioners spoke of the utter uselessness of the bribery oath. It appeared that while all this bribery was at its height, it was the custom in Cambridge to put the bribery oath, and the only voter who refused to take it was a per son who had conscientious scruples against the taking of any oath. The commissioners stated that many of the bribed voters whom they examined stated that they bad no political opinions at all ; they were no scholars, they hardly knew which was which, and they voted according as they were directed by the persons to whom they sold their votes, the 101. being of Snore service to them than anything else. Of the 111 voters bribed in 1852, 30 signed their names with a mark. Now these were the parts of the reports of the commissioners, Nr, bich he had thought it neces sar y t o b r i ng b e f ore th e h ouse . 'a Was quite clear that the state of th e cons tit uenc i es t o which he bad referred was a reproach and a scandal, not Z l , l / to the c ons tit uenc i es th emse l ves, b ut to the country -' 4 rge and to that house—(hear, hear—and if anything r 3 1 ,1,1 be done to purge and purify such ) bodies, it was the sallbr of i arhament to do it. (Hear, hear.) Then came the e ght be ' an —what course ought the house to pursue ? It tion ti lai, that they , should rely upon general legisla which sub ject, either that which now existed, or thatl He did nottPed* He could not concur in that opinion. to b r ib ery sure Liony general legislation in reference' "lament had beecaarirupwould cure the mischief. Par turies ; it had acc egislating forthis purpose for nearly two o ath to oath, mud 1 ;dated statute upon statute, added Penalties and forfeitures—with what result let the e f ec Z on of 1852 declare. (Hear, hear.) There were, indeed, bills then before that house. His moble friend the lead er house proposed to make every payment w i l l - a loe was not made through an • acknowledged and authoris e d agnt ; while the hon. mem ber for Suffolk proposed that s al e pr ent should be made 3 through an authorised election o How would any such legislation as that touch the ea „ cer. hear.) I of the borough of Cambridge ? (Hear, . t raight reach the sitting member, but it would not preven t friends - and partisans their money. At theime of ff n reov i me n r yb l e B c s g. , from subscribing its mselve s two gentlemen went to t ' l vn w t i o .th t i j n uatihrie the law, position to keep stric taking every precaution to prevent the One of those gentlem an implicated in bribery. hon. friend Mr. Macaulay, who, like the other -candasidaliteis agreed to pay 60(31, towards the expenses, and wh o he Was bound to say, was keenly solicitous that nothing the election should be done that could give to character. This gentleman, who would, no doubt , at no distant day, have been an or nament to that hou se, after being returned, had a peti tion presented against bi l l% and, without any fault of his own, had the misfortune to lose his seat. That was a lamentab le position for any gen tleman to be placed in, and they ought measures to put a stop to such a state of to adopt vigorous ofth g in a g n s e . ral (Hear, hear.) He repeated that he did not be lie ve legis lation would suffice. General legislation might pr ev ent th e introduction of corrupt practices in a const i tu enc y , a bu t _ a when the whole or a large portion of a constituency ha d become corrupt, general legislation would not mee t the case. He thought they must have recourse to Epeelal le gislation applicable to special circumstances. The e ruption wa s total or very extensive, they must e ither r g ricliof th e cons tit uency , as suc h , a lt oge th er, or p u rify it b y Where e r t . (as was understood) joining it to other bodies. Well, then, with regard to the cases to which he had referred, if the house should concur with him in thinking that they wen . THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1854. MURDER AND SUICIDE AT BIRMINGHAM. BIRMINGHAM, Saturday.—Murder and suicide seem to have become epidemic in this locality. Within the last few days three persons have been murdered, and the life of another is placed in imminent peril. Scarcely had the excitement caused by these occurronces subsided, when the public were shocked by rumours of a still more sad and frightful tragedy, which was unfortunately too well founded. The scene of this second murder and suicide is in Lis ter-square, Gi eat Lister-street—a small court of houses situated near St. Matthew's Church. In one of these houses resided Mrs. Speak, the widow of a band master, who died while with his regiment in Gibraltar some time ago. Her son, Samuel Speak, a youth of little more than 20 years of age, resided with her—both, in fact, living with her brothers, Messrs. John and Thomas Dodd. It was this poor woman and her son who were almost in stantaneously hurried into eternity yesterday morning. lit appears that the youth Speak got up very early and went to his cousin, John Dodd, a pistol finisher, employed at Mr. Dineley's Whittal-street. While there he produced a pistol which he had borrowed from a com panion on the previous day while they were out shooting about Aston, and wished to cast some bullets in a mould. He found, however, that the mould would not fit the pistol—an ordinary pocket pistol—and thereupon he cut up some lead into slugs and went away, saying, " Now I'll go and have a good shot; there is some good waste ground near our house. Nothing particular was observed about him then, and shortly afterwards he arrived at home. There he had breakfast with his mother, one of his uncles, a niece, and his grandmother, and every thing went on as usual. At length Mr. J. Dodd went to work (Mr. T. Dodd, having a rheumatic affection, was lying ill in bed in the attic). His grandmother then went out, after he had assured her he was going to work immediately, and no one was left in the room but his unfortunate mother and his cousin, Mary Dodd. That young person, however, also withdrew into a small pantry adjoining the sitting-room, leaving the door open, and the youth Speak standing conversing with his mother. She had scarcely left the apartment when she heard the report of a pistol ; instantly the place was full of smoke, and in a moment after, when she ruined into the room, she saw her aunt falling from her chair, covered wish blood. The youth Speak was standing close beside her. " Oh ! Sam," cried the girl, " what are you doing ?" but he made no reply. He merely turned and looked at her for a moment, and ran up stairs. The girl on proceeding to her aunt's assistance found her lying on the floor, with a stream of blood flowing from a frightful wound in her head. She screamed in alarm, and her cries having been heard by Mr. G. F. Dodd, a relative, who resides in the house opposite, he immediately ran to her assistance, when his brother, Mr Thomas Dodd, descended from the attic, having been alarmed by the report of the pistol. Before, however, he got to the bottom of the stairs another report of fire arms was heard, and on the bewildered relatives pro ceeding to the front bedroom on the second floor, they found the unhappy youth who had murdered his mother lying dead by the side of the bed, shot through the bead by his own hand. Intelligence of the frightful event spread with amazing rapidity and in a few minutes Mr. Yellowley, surgeon, and Mr. Davis, surgeon, had been sent for, and arrived without delay. Their services, however,were of no avail. Both the mother and her son were dead. In both cases death must have been instantaneous. The youth must have placed the pistol close to the right ear of his un fortunate parent, and thus blown out her brains. The wound is of considerable extent, part of the skull being blown away and shattered. The pistol he must have had concealed in his pocket, as no one saw it until after the fatal deed had been committed. After terminating the existence of his mother, who never spoke one word, the youth seems to have proceeded to his bedchamber, reloaded the weapon, and, sitting down upon the edge of the bed, put the muzzle of the pistol to his right temple, and, pulling the trigger, lodged several slugs in his head. He could not have lived for one moment after. The weapon with which the fatal act was perpe trated was found lying by the body on the floor. The youth Samuel Speak, as we have said, was little more than 20 years of age. He was a gun engraver, and had been employed up to Christmas by his uncle, Mr. G. F. Dodd, Sand-street, and since then by Mr. Lewis, engraver, Lench-street. He is represented to us as being a quiet, sober, steady youth, but "never reck oned over sharp." There are various rumours as to the cause of this awful tragedy ; but of course it would be impossible to attach any importance to them. It is charitable to infer that such a crime could only be the result of madness ; and in confirmation of this view of the subject it is stated that shortness of work lately had preyed on a mind even at the best of times none of the strongest ; and that the fear of seeing his mother re duced to want had led to its commission. The unfortu nate woman was about 50 years of age, and was respect ably connected. For a packet of Parliamentary Proceeding not exceeding half a.-pound in weight, 6d. For a packet of Parliamentary ,Proceedings exceeding half-a-pound and not exceeding one pound, is. For a packet of Parliamentary Proceedings exceeding one pound and not exceeding two pounds, 2s. and so on, increasing one shilling for every pound or fraction of the pound. The following conditions, however, must be carefully observed— Ist. Every such packet must be sent without a cover, or in a cover open at the ends or sides. 2d. It must contain a single publication only, the several sheets or parts thereof, when there are more than one, being sewed or bound together. 3rd. It must not exceed two feet in length, breadth, width, or depth. 4th. It must have no writing or marks upon the cover, or its contents, except the name and address of the person to whom it may be sent. sth. The postage must he prepaid in full, by affixing outside the packet or its cover, the proper number of stamps. _ _ If any of the above conditions be violated, the packe must be charged as a letter, and treated as such in al respects. To prevent any obstacles to the regular transmission of letters, any officer of the Post-office may delay the transmission of any such packet of printed votes and pro ceedings for a term not exceeding twenty-four hours, from the time at which the same would otherwise have been forwarded by him. cases which required special legislation, what course was to be pursued ? They had not here so simple and easy a case to deal with as that of Sudbury or St. Albans. The case of Sudbury or St. Albans was one in which, though the whole constituency was not corrupt, the corruption was so extensive that if the corrupt portion had been taken away there would not have remained a sufficient number of voters to exercise the right of returning a member ; and consequently in those cases Parliament did not hesitate to disfranchise the whole body. If, however, the thousand corrupt voters of Hull were disfranchised, there would still remain three or four thousand who were not corrupt ; a similar remark would apply to Canterbury and Cam bridge; and even in the case of smaller boroughs, if they took away [the corrupt part of the constituency, there would still remain a considerable number who were not tainted with bribery. It would, he thought, be highly inexpedient to disfranchise such places as Hull, Cambridge and,Canterbur y. He could no t , i n d ee d , a ll ow any con sideration ofjustice to intervene. The question was not one of justice or injustice ; if it were, they would not ' have been justified in sacrificing the innocent portion of the electors of St. Albans. (Hear, hear.) The only way to look at the matter was this :—it is consistent with the commonweal—is it consistent with the national good as regards the representation that particular consti tuencies should exist ? (Hear, hear.) If, however, they were not justified, on grounds of general expediency, in disfranchising such places as hehad referred to, what were they to do ? Were they to leave such places, as they had been, a reproach and a disgrace to the country? He thought they could deal with those cases in a very simple manner, and that by removing the corrupt portion, and leaving the sound residue, taking away the shattered limb in order that the body might be sound. If they did any thing, that, as it seemed to him, was the simple, plain, and obvious course to pursue. There was, fortunately, no difficulty as to the parties who had been guilty of corrup tion in the boroughs to which he had referred. They had the reports of the commissioners naming the individuals who had either been guilty of bribery, or had been bribed themselves. He proposed to deal with this class of per sons. They had their own statements as to the facts, an d he did not see why they should h es it a t e t o d ea l w ith per sons who, on their own admission, were unfit to exercise the important functions of an elector. A difficulty had, however, been suggested to him—he confessed he did not feel it himself—from a quarter for which he entertained the most sincere respect. It was said they could not deal with these parties, because, before they were examined, they were promised indemnity (Opposition cheers.) He quite understood those cheers ; and he fully admitted that if such an indemnity as was supposed had been given either by the provisions of the act or virtually by any promise which Parliament held out, however grave and serious might be the mischief with which they had to deal, it would be a less evil that corruption and venality should escape than that Parliament should set the example of a breach of faith, even towards the lowest and most con temptible of mankind. (Hear, hear.) He could not how ever see the slightest difficulty in the matter. It ap peared to him that all Parliament had promised was im munity from personal and penal consequences. (Hear, hear.) The indemnity offered was similar to that given in the case of St. Albans and Sudbury. (Hear.) The ninth section of the act, which authorised the appointment of commissioners, provided that any person who gave evidence should be " freed from all penal actions, forfei tures, punishments, disabilities, incapacities, and criminal prosecutions," to which h e would otherwise have been sub ject. Did those words apply to penal consequences then existing, or did it oust Parliament of its power and autho rity to legislate specially with reference to such cases as were reported upon ? He entertained uo doubt whatever that it was limited to the first. Further, he found that after a witness had given his evidence he was to receive a certificate from the commissioners, and the act went on to provide, that on the production of such certificate he should have protection against—what? "Against any action, information, or indictment which may at any time be preferred against him." He (the Attorney General) therefore entertained no doubt whatever as to what was intended by the aot. He did not wish, however, to look at the matter with the narrow view of a lawyer. (Hear.) If Parliament held out any expectation that witnesses should not be made to suffer any consequences besides provided against, Parliament ought not to punish them even for the purpose of getting rid of corruption. He did not admit, however, that Parliament had done anything of the kind. What right had these parties to suppose that Parliament meant to grant an immunity which it did not grant ? The provisions of the statute were the same in the case of St. Albans and Sudbury. Why should an immunity be en joyed by a minority when it is not enjoyed by a majority? (Hear, hear.) Besides if Parliament really meant to leave cases of ascertained corruption out of the general law on the subject why were the commissioners directed to in quire ? (Hear, hear.) Above all, why were they directed to name all those who had been found guilty of bribery? He apprehended that the simple object was to enable Par liament to deal with those particular cases. (Hear, hear.) Now, these were the observations which suggested them selves to his mind. Standing in the position he had the honour to hold, he had felt that hi ought not to shrink from expressing his opinion ; but at the same time, if the house should come to the conclusion that Parliament had, either directly or indirectly, entered into a compact with these persons, that in the event of their giving full infor mation they should suffer no injury whatever, he would be the last man to wish to take advantage of what they had done. He did not think, however, that such a construc tion of the act was warranted. He thought it was the duty of Parliament to grapple with the evil before them to the utmost of their ability, by special legislation applied to special cases, and under this feeling, he now felt it his duty to ask leave to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Canterbury. Mr. CAIRNS took a different view of the act under which the several commissions were appointed, and con- ' tended that indemnity was provided for those who should give evidence. The proposal, therefore, to disfranchise the persons mentioned by the commissioners was adirect breach of public faith and public honour. Mr. Cairns called upon the house to negative the motion. Sir J. HANMER thought Mr. Cairns' advice was better than that given by the Attorney-General. He repelled an accusation made against himself, in the Kingston-upon- Hull report, of having countenanced foul practices when a candidate for the representation of that borough in 1841. Sir John's election experiences, as detailed by himself, I seemed to afford the house much amusement. Mr. PHINN deprecated the introduction of personal matters into the discussion. The question should be argued upon general grounds, namely, having received the reports of the commissioners, what is to be done with them? In his view, the course taken by the Attorney-General is the correct one. The indemnity can only be construed as ap plying to exemption from disabilities which then existed. At St. Albans and Sudbury the indemnity was given, and yet both boroughs were disfranchised. Mr. NAPIER said, the ground on which he would take his stand was, shortly, the clause of indemnity. (Hear.) That clause went upon the old-established principle, that no man was bound to criminate himself. (Hear.) No man was bound to answer a question that would expose him to forfeiture of any nature whatever. Such was the law, as laid down by the best authorities ; yet here, upon the con fession and answer of the witnesses, it was proposed to make them forfeit their franchise. The words of the act were, that such persons shall be freed from. all " penal ac tions," and "from forfeiture," &c. To deprive a man of his franchise was a forfeiture and permanent disability. This was the hard and rigid construction of the law ; but taking the clause in its spirit and intention, he would say that there could be no manner of doubt that the object of the Legislature was to indemnify the voter in such circum stances as these. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KENNEDY said he understood that evidence had been given of the fact of bribes having being received be fore recourse was had to the electors themselves ; and that the object of calling the electors was to give them an op portunity of defending themselves, if improper evidence had been produced against them. In these circumstances, he thought a boon had been conferred upon the parties rather than otherwise, and the house had, unquestionably, a right to see that justice was duly done to the honest and respectable portion of the constituency. Mr. MASSEY believed it was avowed on all sides that, unless the indemnity stood in the way, there was really no substantial argument against the proposal of the Attorney- General. Could it ever be intended by Parliament to go to the extent of giving a man who had been guilty of cor rupt practices immunity for life ? It appeared to him that it would be absurd and unconstitutional to pretend that any act of the Legislature could or would confer on a voter any immunity to that extent. (Hear.) The immunity promised in the act was to protect him from legal conse quences, but it was not to be a title-deed for corruption all the rest of his life. (Hear, hear.) What was this right of which it was proposed to deprive the corrupt voter? There were gentlemen in that house who looked upon the fran chise as an indefeasible right, but the constitution of this country did not say so. A man might be in possession of this franchise, and that house, from high reasons of policy, might deprive him of it. In this way whole constituencies had been deprived of the franchise, and could it for a mo ment be said that the house had not the same right in the case of individuals? (Hear, hear.) What would be the effect if they did not pass this bill ? Writs would go down to all these places, and they would have persons who, on their own confession, had abused the electoral trust, but who had this immunity conferred on them, returning members to that house. (Hear, hear.) On grounds of public policy, then, as well as on grounds of common sense and common decency, they were bound to pass the present bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE said, in considering the principle of this bill, the question came to be, could they by law in this country act on a man's confession? There were parts of the world where they might extort confession from a man, and act upon it ; but by the law of England that could not be done. It occurred to him that they ought to interpret this statute as those persons who had been affected by it would read and understand it. It was distinctly laid down that no testimony given by a voter before the com missioner should be used hereafter against him. The voter, having been examined, received his certificate, and could not be proceeded against at law, and his vote still remained. On what principle was it that they proposed to deprive that person of his right to vote whom they could not sub ject to a criminal prosecution ? (Hear, hear.) The words of the act were, that the person examined as a witness touching such corrupt practices " shall be freed from all penal actions, from forfeitures, from punishment, from disabilities, and from incapacities." There he would stop, for that, in his opinion, settled the question. The clause then went on to say that he was also to be free from all criminal prosecution to which he might be liable at the suit of her Majesty. The fair reading of the act—for they were not to quibble in that house as to the meaning of acts of Parliament —was, that no persons were to be punished after having been induced to confess. He believed this country would always act according to the principles of strictjustice. (Hear, hear.) The object of the act of Parliament was to enable them to get evidence to warrant them to do what they did in such cases as St. Albans, and to furnish them with the means of framing a general law against bribery, but it did not empower them to get all they could out of witnesses, tempting them to tell all they knew, and then to turn round upon and punish them on the ground oftheir evidence. He did not catch from the Attorney-General for how many years he intended to go back with the bill. Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he proposed to in capacitate those who were proved before the commissioners to have been bribed. [An hon. MEMBER - How far back do you go 11 There was but one report on which he went back beyond the past year. Mr. WHITESIDE thought it would be satisfactory to know whether they were going back to the beginning of the century or not ? (Laughter.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—If that question was put to him, all he had to say was that he would not conde scend to answer it. (" Oh ! oh !" and laughter.) Mr. WHITESIDE must say that he was not aware of having put an improper question to the learned Attorney- General. —ear.) He did not quite understand, and neither did the hon. gentleman behind him, one part of the Attorney-General's proposal, and a question was put on the subject; but the learned Attorney-General would allow him to say that it was no answer to tell them that he would not condescend to reply. (Hear.) The ATTORNEY•GENEBAL said the reason why he gave that answer was, that he believed the question put was one of an offensive kind. (Hear, and No, no !) Mr. WHITESIDE would only say that, in common with several of his friends around him who were in the same predicament with himself, he wished to know how far the Attorney-General went back with his bills. He had therefore tried the Attorney-General, but had been unsuccessful with him. According to the principle on which he went, it might be inconsistent with official dig nity to reply, but he had nevertheless a right to know how far it was intended to carry legislation in a wrong di- Stadion. He would ask the house if it was correct, when they could not obtain in a town or borough independent evidence to proceed with this kind of legislation ? He thought it a right thing to put down corruption, but it was of more importance still, in his opinion, to adhere to a prin ciple which would be more satisfactory to themselves, and which would prove of more advantage to the country. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted these conflicts of legal opinion in the house, which tended very much to diminish the confidence of the public in the sincerity of lawyers, and he hoped the house would endeavour not to decide, as an hon. member had observed, on a legal quibble, but if possible to make out the true meaning of the statute as far as the wisdom of the house could determine it. The act was intended to suppress bribery and corruption, and at the same time to furnish them with the materials of fu ture legislation. It was an act to enable them to legislate about that which the law had distinguished from private property, of which a man was absolute owner, and with which he was entitled to do what he willed. It was an act that legislated about the conduct of persons in the exercise of a great public trust—(hear, hear)—and those gentlemen who desired to adhere to the rules that should govern a deliberative body would do well to emancipate them selves from all considerations of a legal quibble, and endeavour to determine the distinctioa that existed between the use made of private property, for which a man was not responsible, and a public trust, for the exercise of which he was morally responsible. (Hear.) He was quite willing, in dealing with this question, that the house should confine itself to the legal meaning of the particular clauses in dispute, and, in the construction that it was necessary to put upon them, he felt quite assured that the house-would have no desire to put fetters upon itself. The clause to which the hon. and learned member for Enniskillen more particularly referred was best ex plained by the concluding words of it, which went to show not only what was the meaning to be attached to the clause, but what protection was extended from any penal conse quences which might otherwise be attendant on its being carried out. (Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the hon. and learned member for Enniskillen as to his reading of this clause, inasmuch as he considered such reading, how ever original and independent it might be—(laughter)—not according to these grammatical rules which generally pre vailed, at least in this country. (Hear, hear.) To read the clause as the hon. and learned gentleman proposed would, in fact, be doing violence to it, and ruthlessly destroying its meaning, than which nothing could be more clear and explicit. (Hear, hear.) The sentences of which the clause was composed must be read altogether, and not dismem bered and disjointed, to support particular or speculative notions or constructions. (Cheers.) Mr. WALPOLE said that the house ought to hesitate and well consider the matter before it gave its consent to a measure of so great and vital importance as the present, and one which might be so serious and momentous in its consequences and effects. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member the Solicitor-General had more than once stated that the object of this statute was to put down bribery. What such object really was could only be tested and ascertained in two ways—namely, in the first place, by referring to the preamble of the act ; and, in the second place, by going back to see what the intention of the framers of the act was, what particular meaning they wished to be attached to its clauses, and whether we were acting up to such intention and in furtherance of and ac cordance with such meaning. (Hear, hear.) If he referred to the first mode of testing the object of the act, he found that it was simply one for the purposes of inquiry, and nothing more, as could be clearly seen from the words of the preamble, which distinctly and expressly stated that such was the object of the statute. If he wished, on the other hand, to ascertain the object of the act from the intention of its framers, we should remember the par ticular occasion on which it was found to be neces sary, and that it referred immediately to the two boroughs of Sudbury and St. Alban's. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the first of these boroughs, it had been proved that out of 280 voters 220 had been bribed, and, further, that a sum of 3,000/. had been sent down to the borough for the purposes of bribery—had been made use of for such purposes, and upon a calculation that such a sum would be more than sufficient, at the market price of the day, to bribe such 220 voters, and so, in fact, implicating a still greater number in the sus picion of corruption. With respect to St. Alban's, it was proved that out of a number of 217 186 were bribed ; and out of a number of 280 no less than 240 were bribed. Mr. Coppock had said of this place, that to deal with it in auy way it must be " bribed and bled ;" and Sir Robert Car den, one of the candidates for its representation, had re ferred to it as a place " possessing no other principle of action except such as might be found in the breeches pockets." (" Hear," and laughter.) The commissioners also had spoken of the place as wholly and completely cor rupt. (Hear.) The present measure, he believed, would be far more dangerous, because more general, and less effective, because less explicit than the statute of inquiry to which he was referring, and which did not, as it ap peared to him the present measure did, violate one of the great fundamental principles of our law—namely, that no man should be called to condemn himself. (Cheers.) In St. Alban's and Sudbury the bribery committed was of two kinds, general and systematic. He had always contended that, unless the corruption of any borough could he proved to be both general and. systematic, Parliament had no right to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. (Hear.) The Attorney-General said the House of Commons could not disfranchise these boroughs, and the only question was, whether, as the Solicitor-General somewhat incautiously seemed to admit, you could deprive the electors of a right which belonged to men whom, by the law of England, Par liament could not have called upon to convict themselves, except under an assurance of indemnity ? (Hear.) What was the great principle at stake in this question ? In other countries men were punished upon their own evidence ; but in this country the courts acted upon the principle so often laid down by Lord Eldon, that you were never to put a man into a position in which it would be to his interest to commit perjury rather than tell the truth. Parham enthad said to these electors, " We will indemnify you, so that it will be no longer your interest to commit perjury ;" but if the present act were passed and persons were disfranchised who had been indemnified from all the consequences of giving their evidence, he should like to know where they would get witnesses in future to give the evidence that was to deprive them of that right, which ought not to be taken away from them except by evidence from other quar ters? (Cheers.) The commissioners themselves, in their aeport to her Majesty, spoke of the importance of the act of Parliament giving the indemnification, because it appeared that the very witnesses who had been examined before committees of the House of Commons, and upon oath, had not told the truth before those committees, but had told the truth to the commissioners, because they were indem nified. (Hear, hear.) But when future commissions should be sent into the country, and when witnesses saw that they were no longer indemnified, but that they would be visited with disfranchisement if they spoke the truth, was there not great danger that perjury would be again committed ? Why, he wanted to know, was the Attorney- General about to deal with all these cases of individual bribery, because they came before him in a mass, in a different way from that in which cases had been dealt with that had been reported upon by committees of that house? (Hear, hear.) What could be the object of the Legislature in passing the acts of Parliament relative to an inquiry into these boroughs ? One object was, that they might deal—as they had dealt with St. Alban's and Sudbury—with any boroughs where they found them in so corrupt a state that they could no longer be trusted with the right of returning members. The other ob ject was, that Parliament should have a mass of evidence with reference to those boroughs accused of bribery and corruption, so that Parliament might be enabled to deal retrospectively with the matter by some general law. The noble lord (J. Russell) had thus acted upon the evi dence so obtained ; for in this Bribery Prevention Bill, brought in during the present session, he called upon Par liament to enact that where a person had been convicted of hribery-he was to be dis qua lifi e d f or lif e f rom aga i n vot i ng in elections of members of that house. (Hear, hear.) That was right legislation, and he should never complain that parties guilty of bribery should be disqualified after due notice. But he protested, in the most earnest and solemn manner, against violati ng th e l aw b y i n d ucing parties to give evidence against themselves, upon the assurance of an indemnification, and then taking away their votes which they thought they should not lose by reason of that in demnification. (Hear, hear.) He could not shut his eyes to the difficulty of dealing with all these boroughs. He was afraid Parliament must deal with them in some way, but he could not see the distinction between dis qualifying any one of the voters of these boroughs, and not having disqualified one voter during the last century who, by the committee of the House of Commons, had been declared guilty of bribery. (Hear.) It was in his judgment more important to keep faith with those who had been induced to give evidence by the solemn promise of an indemnity than to punish the great mass of bribery com mitted in those boroughs by a retrospective law. Nor ought the house to lose sight of this fact—that these voters ought not to be deprived of a locus penitentice. (Cheers.) It was said that unless these persons were disfranchised Parlia ment would give an immunity for future corruption. Far from it. There was the bill of the noble lord (J. Russell), which enacted that if these or any other parties committed acts of bribery in future, they were to be deprived of their votes. (Hear, hear.) He had not read these reports for some weeks, but in one of them—he believed in the Hull commission report —a schedule was given in which cases of bribery were mentioned as having been committed by parties during the l as t f our or five elections. In other boroughs the same parties had been guilty of these acts at two or three elections. Now, was the Attorney-G eneral going to disf ranc hi se par ti es w h o h a d been guilty of bribery at two or three elections, but not at the last ? The Attor ney-General shook his head, but if the objection were confined to those who had been guilty of bribery at the last election, the objection was just as strong that this was a retrospective law. (Hear, hear) If the Govern ment replied that it was necessary to punish the persons who had committed these acts, he had shown that if they occurred again they could be punished under a general act. But not even for the great object of condemning and punishing these acts would he consent to violate the funda mental law of England, or induce the feeling that Parlia ment had been guilty of a breach of faith, and that gross in justice had been committed. (Cheers.) Mr. WARNER thought that the house had been some what taken by surprise by the nature of the measure. He thought they ought not to reject at so early a stage any bill which had reoeived the sanction of the Government. He should vote for the first reading without pledging him self to the principle of the bill, because he could not but feel that very serious objections had been urged against it. (Cheers.) Mr. SCOTT held that the house would do better if they extracted evidence by torture or by the thumbscrew rather than by violating the faith of England, given under a sacred promise to those persons who had afforded all the informa tion Parliament could desire to have, because they had been assured that if they so gave information they would not be visited with any penalties. He would read the indemnity clause of the act of Parliament in a lay sense, and then the house would see that these parties had been fairly inveigled into giving evidence under false pretences. (Hear, hear.) Having read the indemnity clause of the act, he contended that any person looking at it in a general sense would come to the conclusion that such individuals giving evidence should be free from all incapacities. He asked whether, for the sake of purifying boroughs, the house would do a thing more corrupt than that of which they complained—violate their faith to those individuals who had given their evidence on that faith? Mr. W. O. STANLEY thought, if the present measure Were not sanctioned, the sooner they repealed the act for appointing those commissions the better. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, expressed some regret that the debate should have been interrupted by any thing like an exhibition. Nothing could be further from his thoughtsthmany wish to be offensive, and he certainly took credit fcr not exhibiting either within the house or out of it, an3thing like what an hon. and learned gentle men had been 'leased to term "official dignity." (Cheers and laughter.) Perhaps, by way of excuse, he might be allowed to reply that that hon. and learned gentleman was not himself always in the mildest humour—(laughter)—and there was occasbnally something in his manner not exactly calculated to exeite the blandest feelings (renewed laughter) —however if he (the Attorney-general) had said anything that had given offence to any individual, he very sin cerely withdrev it. (Cheers.) With respect to the pre sent measure, it did not appear that the hon. members who opposed it denied the proposition that it was essential to do something to improve the constituencies to which the bill referred, and the whole question was, whether any act of Parliament had been passed which limited them either in point of law or good faith, for he most eordially concurred that :f that act by a fair construction implied a eompact with the persons in question, Parliament was bound in good filth to leave them in the exercise of their franchise. e ßut le did not see such was the case ; certainly it was not upon the construction of the hon. gentleman who had read the clause ; for he had omitted an essential part and added something not in it at all. He (the At torney-General) regretted, considering how many hon. members of the legal profession had addressed the house, that one of the most distinguished lights and ornaments of that profession, and one perfectly conversant with the act in question—he meant his hon. and learned friend oppo site, had taken no part in the discussion; and he attri buted his silence to the fact that he could not, as a lawyer, stand up in that house and controvert his (the Attorney- General's) proposition. There might have been some ground for argument if the commissioners had given to the voters any reason to believe! that not only would they be protected by the act of Parliament against any legal or penal consequences, but against all future legislation. There was no evidence of anything of the kind ; indeed, he would ask, how could they impose restrictions on the house, and what was the reason for calling upon the commissioners to report by name every man gailty of bribery unless the Legislature contemplated their disfranchisement ? With respect to the question which had been put as to how far back he intended to go, he would say, speaking generally, not beyond a single election, although there were in some cases special reasons for going back two elections; and he believed it would be found that the commissioners them selves had not gone back beyond one or two elections. He submitted the present measure was no violation of faith on the part of the house ; if it were, he would be the last per son to bring it forward. Sir F. KELLY expressed his thanks for the handsome eulogium passed on him, but he was afraid it might be the occasion of his inflicting a speech on the house, which would not otherwise have been the case, as he should have been content to leave the case in the hands of his right hon. and learned friend the member for Midhurst ; but, having been, as it were challenged, he must say that this was the very first time on which a bill had ever been brought forward in either house of Parliament to inflict pains and penalties and disabilities on a number of indi viduals who had been convicted by no jury, and yet who were, under the sanction of the house, to be deprived of a franchise which the law conferred upon them, upon an cx parte report, against which they had not even had the op portunity of being heard. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Walpole) had put a question to the Attorney-General which he (Sir F. Kelly) thought was not an unreasonable one. It was whether this bill, which had for its object the disfranchisement of a largo number of persons, sought only to disfranchise those who appeared to have committed bribery at the last election, or whether it included all who had committed bribery at the numerous preceding elections which had been inquired into by the commissioners? (Hear, hear.) The commissioners re ported not as to one or two, but six, seven, and eight elec tions, and in the case of Maldon their inquiries extended so far back as the year 1826. Surely, then, it was not un reasonable to ask the number of persons to whom it was sought to apply this bill of disfranchisement. Taking the first case—that of Canterbury—the bill proposed to disfran chise as many as 100 or 150 individuals, and supposing the individuals proposed to be disfranchised should hereafter petition both houses of Parliament, and claim to be put upon their trial before they suffered the consequences of a conviction by law, how could the house refuse to hear them ? (Hear.) He challenged his learned friend opposite (the Attorney-General) to point out a single instance in the whole history of our Legislature in which any man sought to be disfranchsed by a bill in Parliament, except a bill of pains and penalties, where the person sought to be punished by that bill was not entitled to be heard with all the protec tion of the forms of a judicial prosecution. He could say, without fear of contradiction, that this was the single and unprecedented instance of a bill of pains and penalties against a great number of individuals who had never been put upon their trial, and had consequently had no oppor tunity of being heard in their defence. With regard to the act of Parliament itself, as he had been called upon, al though he did not think this a fit arena for arguments of this nature, he had no hesitation in stating his views. If the act of Parliament were a penal act, and were so to be construed, then he thought it was sufficiently ambiguous in its terms to entitle the persons convicted of the offence complained of to the indemnity insisted upon on that (the Opposition) side of the house. First of all, the actprovided that, upon evidence being given by any accused person, the persons so giving evidence should be proteeted and in demnified against actions, disabilities, forfeitures, and a number of other pains and penalties. If the act stopped there, no doubt, all such persons would have been fairly entitled to indemnity, but it went on to say that they should be indemnified from all penal pro secutions to which they might be liable or become sub ject at the suit of her Majesty or any other person. If the words, " at the suit of her Majesty or any other person," referred, as in ordinary grammatical construction they would, to the last antecedent—namely, to " all penal prosecutions to which he may become liable or subject," then the person giving evidence was indemnified from all pains and penalties whatsoever. But if, on the contrary, the final words overrode the entire sentence, then, no doubt, the construction insisted upon by the Attorney-General was the true construction. The act at any rate was suffi ciently ambiguous in its terms to entitle any man to say he had a fair reason to expect to be indemnified against pains and penalties. (Hear, hear.) But whatever might be the strict legal meaning of the act of Parliament, was it not in substance a direct violation of all honour and justice if these pains and penalties were inflicted? (Hear, hear.) If, instead of bribery, the offence had been the crime of high treason, and the parties had given evidence suffi cient to convict themselves of high treason, would it be proper for Parliament to step in and say, "We will not indict you for high treason, but we will bring in a bill of pains and penalties and inflict on you the punishment awarded to high treason, upon your own confession ?" In such a case, would not the parties thus visited be entitled to ask, " What is the meaning of your act of Parliament ?" The bill was nothing more nor less than a bill of pains and penalties, and a bill against any subject of the realm, for any offence whatever, ought to entitle that subject to be heard by counsel, and to undergo a trial with all the forms of law. (Cheers.) He considered the bill a delusion and a deception, and he thought he should not be charged with using too strong language when he characterised it as a fraud. (Cheers.) The parties who had given evidence before the commissioners had been led to believe, and had in fact been told, that they would not expose themselves to disfran chisement, and they therefore gave their evidence, under that assurance, freely, fully, and candidly. They were now, however, to be told that they would be liable to no action at law, and would suffer no action for pains and penalties, but that at the same time they would be punished in some other way, and would be disfranchised Hear, hear.) The house then divided : The numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority Leave was then given to introduce the bill Mr. WALPOLE said, that after this division, he would not oppose the other bills of which the hon. and learned Attorney-General had given notice. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL leave was then given to introduce bills for the prevention of bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Malden. ... 189 ... 118 -71 ... LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS. Mr. EWART obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend and extend an act passed last session for enabling town councils to establish libraries and museums freely open to the public. A principal object of the bill was to extend to Ireland and Scotland the powers granted by the existing act with regard to the establishment of libraries and museums. _ . Sir J. YOUNG obtained leave to bring in a bill to en able the Collector -General of Rates and Taxes in Dublin to levy money to repay a certain outlay by the corporation for preserving and improving the port of Dublin, in and about repairing the quay-wall of the river Liffey, and for the future repairs thereof. Sir J. YOUNG then moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Dublin Carriage Act. After a few words from Mr. WHITESIDE and Mr.VANCE leave was given to bring in the bill, which was read a first time. On the motion of Mr. MIIRROUGH, returns were ordered of the names or short titles of all causes and suits, or other proceedings or matters relating to the distribution of cha ritable funds or bequests in the High Court of Chancery in England, to which her Majesty's Attorney-General has been made a party, either as plaintiff, defendant, peti tioner, or respondent, within the last five years ; together with the several amounts of all fees paid to her Majesty's Attorney - General in all such causes and matters during such five years • stating the nature of the proceedings on which such fees been paid ; also, (where practicable) the fund out of which, or the names of the parties to such suit or matters by whom such fees have been paid, or ordered t o be paid or are in fact payable. The house then adjourned at a quarter to 12 o'clock. Mr. WHITMORE has paired for a week with Lord MONCIC. Mr.BENTINCK paired in favour of the second readin g of the Ministers' Money Bill with Mr. PHINN against. Mr. DUN NE was shut out on the division of Ministers' Money. RAILWAY TRAFFIC RETURN. --w--- LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY.— Traffic return for the week ending March 18, 1854 £10,648 6 9 Corresponding week last year 8,729 8 4 Total of the half-year to this date, 1854 106,281 9 9 Total of the half-year to this date, 1853 90,710 13 5 LONDON AND SOUTH-EASTERN RAlLWAY.—Traffic re turn for the week ending March 18, 1854 £14,298 3 6 Corresponding week l a st year 10,921 7 11 Increase in 1854.. .. £3,376 15 7 THE PARIS BOURSE. —The final quotations from the Paris Bourse yesterday evening showed a further fall of nearly a-half per cent. The letters describe a slight improve ment in the rate of exchange on London, and it is be lieved that the hea v y re mittances of gold from this side will now in a great degree be checked. The amount taken from the Bank of England was again about 50,0001. The whole of the gold brought by the Sydney steamer will, of course, be sent, as it gives a slight ad vantage over that obtained from the Bank. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The Earl of Aldborough and Holloway's Pills.—An astounding cure by this miracu lous medicine after every other means had failed. See extract from his lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845. To Professor Holloway. Sir—l beg to acquaint you that your pills have effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach, which all the most eminent of the faculty at home and all over the Continent had not been able to effect—nay, not even the waters of Carlsbad or Marienbad. (Signed) Ald borough." These wonderful pills will cure any disorders of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Holloway's oint ment) at Prosessor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London, and by all medicine-venders through out the world. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE TATTERSALL'S.-YESTERDAY. The betting was marked by a few important changes. FOR THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE STAKEs.—Defiance was the lion of the day. After 5 to 1 had been taken to some money, he sprang to 4 to 1, taken to upwards of 1501. Lamprocles, against whom 10 to 1 had been laid in the City, was backed for about 1251., at Bto 1. Pancake rose to 12 to 1, taken. GREAT METROPOLITAN STAKES.-7 to 1 was the high est price obtainable about Jonathan Martin ; 11 and 10 to 1 betted against Virago, to a small amount ; and 400 to 20 taken about Lamprocles. Ariosto was out of favour. CHESTER CUP.—A strong commission was in the mar ket to back Baalbec, most of which was executed at 30 to 1. Towards the close 2,000 to 70, and 1,000 to 35 were taken ; the latest quotation was 25 to 1. New minster had a strong downward tendency, which no one seemed disposed to arrest. DEnnY.-:-The shade which for some time past has been on Autocrat and King Tom, was somewhat deepened by 7 to 1 being laid in ponies against the former, and 9 to lin fifties against the latter. 1,800 to 100, 1,700 to 100, and 1,000 to 60 taken about Wild Huntsman ; and 50 and 45 to Ito various sums about Old Noll. Ruby was quite friendless. Further comment is unnecessary. CLOSING PRICES. TRIAL STAKES (WARWICK). • Even on Rataplan. WILLOUGHBY HANDICAP (WARWICK.) Even on Bourton. 3to 1 agst Stamford (taken). WARWICKSHIRE HANDICAP. 3to 1 agst Cleveland (taken). Bto 1 agst Contentment (taken). ANNUAL STEEPLECHASE. 7to 2 agst Trout (taken). 4to 1 agst Oscar (taken). 4to 1 agst Needwood (taken). Bto 1 agst Burnt Sienna (taken). NORTHAMPTONSHIRE STAKES. 4to 1 agst Defiance (taken freely). Bto 1 agst Lamprocles (taken). 12 to 1 agst Pancake (taken). METROPOLITAN. 7to 1 agst Jonathan Martin (taken). 10 to 1 agst Virago (taken). 15 to 1 agst Ariosto. 20 to 1 agst Lamprocles (taken). TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS STAKES. 3to 1 agst Boiardo (taken). CHESTER CUP. 25 to 1 agst Brown Brandy (taken). 25 to 1 agst Baalbec (28 to 1 taken). 40 to 1 agst Lurley (taken). 50 to 1 agst Black Doctor (taken). 50 to 1 agst Horatio (taken). 50 to 1 agst Duchess of Lorraine c. (taken). DERBY. 7to 1 agst Autocrat (taken). 9to 1 agst King Tom (takea). 9to 1 agst Dervish. 16 to 1 agst Wild Huntsman (taken). 20 to 1 agst Marsyas (taken). 30 to 1 agst Acrobat (taken). 40 to 1 agst Bessus (taken). 45 to 1 agst Canute (taken). 45 to 1 agst Old Noll (taken). 50 to 1 agst Grey Plover (Bro. to Chanticleer),l 50 to 1 agst Phaeton (taken). OAKS. 4to 1 agst Meteora (taken). Bto 1 agst Sortie (taken). DERBY, 1855. 10,000 to 100 agst Brother to Autocrat (taken). RACING PIXY MA.: Warwick Spring 21 Catterick 27 - RES FOR 1854. ;CH. Northampton 29 Abergavenny 30 AP Croxton Park 4 Epsom Spring 6 Cheltenham Spring 12 Newmarket Craven 17 RIL. Catterick Bridge 19 Abergavenny 2O York Spring 25 Malton 27 AY. M. Newmarket F S Chester Spring 9 Lothians & Edinburgh 11 Newmarket S S 16 Shrewsbury lB Lothians and EdinburghlB Lewes l9 Bath 23 Liverpool Hunt Spring 24 Epsom 3O NE. Bibury . . ................... 23 Stockbridge .............29 Ludlow ..................... 30 IWinchester ...............30 JULY. Manchester Ascot Heath. l3 Newcastle-on-Tyne 20 Hampton 2l Carlisle 26 Newmarket Worcester 4 Lancaster 6 Mansfield ll Liverpool l2 Ipswich 13 Stourbridge l7 Stamford 18 Nottingham 2O Goodwood 25 Ripon 31 AU Brighton 2 Brighton Club... 4 Wolverhampton 7 Yarmouth 8 Reading 9 Odiham . 9 North Staffordshire 9 Wolverhampton l4 TJST. Egham 22 York 23 Hereford 24 Eccles Chelmsford 29 Derby 99 Plymouth 30 Lincoln , Ul REDUCTION OF POSTAGE . ON LETTERS TO CERTAIN COLONIES. General Post-office, March, 1854, On and after the 23d inst., the postage upon letters conveyed, whether by British mail packet or private ship, between the United Kingdom and the following British Colonies and Possessions :—Canada, Prince Ed ward Island, Bermuda, British West Indies (Barbadoes and Turk's Island excepted), Britisb Guiana, Bahamas, Belize, Malta, and Gibraltar, will he reduced to a com bined British and Colonial rate of— Os. 6d. for a letter not exceeding half an ounce in weight ; is. Od. for a letter exceeding half an ounce, and not exceeding one ounce ; 2s. Od. for a letter exceeding one ounce, and not exceeding two ounces ; and so on, increasing one shilling for every additional ounce or fraction of an ounce. The postage upon these letters may be paid in advance, or letters maybe posted unpaid, at the option of the sender. The reduction will not at present extend to the other provinces of British North A merica, viz. :—Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, nor to Barbadoes nor the Turk's Island, the Governments of those colonies not having yet signified their acquiescence en the arrangements. To the reduced rate of 6d., a United States' transit rate of 2d. per half ounce must be added in the case of all letters forwarded to Canada by British mail packets, and not specially marked "via Halifax," making the totaLcharge upon a letter for Canada, not so marked— Os. Bd. when not exceeding half an ounce in weight ; is. 4d. when exceeding half an ounce, and not exceed ing one ounce ; 2s. Bd. when exceeding one . ounce, and not exceeding two ounces ; and so on ; but when the letter is marked " via Halifax," no additional charge will be made. In like manner a French transit rate of sd. per quar ter ounce will be chargeable upon all letters for Malta, which are not specially marked "via Southampton," making the total charge upon a letter for Malta— Os. 11d. when under a quarter of an ounce in weight ; is. 4d. when weighing a quarter of an ounce, and under half an ounce in weight ; 2s. 3d. when weighing half an ounce, and under three quarters of an ounce in weight, and so on. Letters for Gibraltar specially directed 4 via France" will also be liable to a French transit rate of sd. per quarter ounce, in addition to the British rate of 6d. per half ounce. The whole of this combined postage must be paid in advance. In the mails made up for Demerara is included the correspondence for Surinam and Cayenne, and the mails made up for Belize comprise the correspondence for Hon duras and Guatemala. All letters, therefore, addressed to Surinam, Cayenne, the States of Honduras or Gua temala, will in future be chargeable in this country, with a rate of 6d. only per half ounce, which rate must be paid in advance. Alt must be observed that the foregoing reduction can not be applied to letters conveyed by a mail packet be longing to the 'United States, or by a French mail packet in the Mediterranean. Letters, therefore, for Canada, despatched by the United States' mail packets, as well as letters for Malta sent by the French Mediterranean packets, will continue liable to the existing rates of post age. On letters conveyed by the Canadian mail packets be tween Liverpool and Quebec, the reduced rate of 6d, only will be chargeable. The following table shows the conditions under which letters may be sent to the several places specified for the reduced rate of sixpence the half ounce, viz. : Canada {lf addressed "via Halifax," or " by Canadian Mail Packet," or " by private ship." Prince Edward Island Bermuda British West Indies (Barbadoes & Turks Island excepted) British Guiana Surinam Cayenne Bahamas Belize Honduras Guatemala Malta Without any special address, or i: marked " by private ship." If addressed "via Southampton,' or " by private ship." Without any special address, or ii marked by "private ship." Gibraltar PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. On and from the same dated, the rates of postage now chargeable upon packets containing printed Votes and proceedings of the Imperial Parliament, sent through the post to any of the Colonies above specified will be repealed, and all such packets will be subject to the rates of postage which are levied on printed books sent to the Colonies, viz : _ SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. NOTICE TO MARINERS. NEW BEACON ON KJODVIG FJELDET, THE N. E. POINT OF THE ISLAND OF SORO. A Beacon has been erected on Kjodvigfjeldt (the moun tain of Kjodvig) on the north-east point of the Island of Soro, at the northern entrance to Hammerfest. This bea con is 24 feet broad at the base, and 32 feet high, the last 12 feet on the top formed in steps, it is of a dark colour, and its largest side is towards the N.W. (true). It is situated in lat. 70 52 N., long. 23 21.1 E. of Greenwich. The feet of the beacon is 940 feet above the mean of high and low water, and it can be seen at the distance of 20 English miles. Christiania Posen, Dec. 31, 1853. CUSTOM HOUSE, MARCH 20. ENTERED INWARDS.—The Ace of Trumps, from St. Michael's ; Frau Christine, Wych ; Vergissmeinicht, Wis mar • Carolinda, Cherbourg ; Poul, d o . ; A zor i n , St. Michael's ; Rubis, Leghorn ; Trientje, Leer ; Wubbina Venema, Groningen; Graff von Bulow, Rostock; Stanislas, Bordeaux ; Sophie Heinriche, Emden Agneta Juliano, Allow. ; Speculant, Burgertiefe • Johanna Christine, Landscrona ; Helkea, Hamburgh; Christine, Emden ; Helkea Johanna, do. ; Catharina, Leer ; Fortuna, Altona ; Nueva, Guadeloupe, Havannah ; Margaretha, Carolinen seil ; Hoffnung, Ditzum ; Harkaway, Demerara; Genius, Hamburgh ; Dido, do. ; Twee Gebruider, Grossenseil ; Haabet, Nestved ; Electric, Cadiz ; Malvine, Kiel ; Alli ance, Fehmern ; Hedwig and Thelda, Malmo ; Fortuna, Wismar ; Argus, Aarhuus ; Peter Bang, Hoibeck ; For tuna, Aarhuus ; Anes Minde, Nestvid; Caroline, Faaboig ; Louise, Hamburgh ; Emanuel, Altona ; Clara Catharina, Carolinenseil ; Emanuel, Emden ; Christopher Hage, Stettin; Wave, Medemblek ; Tenth June, Stettin; War rior, Jamaica ; Tonkea, Leer ; Hoffnung, Emden ; Janette, Leer; Elizabeth, Trieste; Polly, Odessa; Edith, Lisbon; Anna, Rotterdam ; Cambria, Moulmein ; Othello, Gothen burgh ; Susannah, Emden ; Kennet Kingsford , Trinidad ; Hero, Emden ; Lily, Patras ; Sydney, Melbourne and Ade laide • Farslet, Aarhuus ; Hilka, F aa b org ; J ane F rances, Kertche ; Patriot, Hamburgh ; Pomona, do. ; Solide, Landscrona ; Juliano, Norden ; Red Port, Oporto ; Ama lie, Norden ; Frau Elizabeth, Homersiel ; Niord, Bremen ; Gloria Deo, Leer ; Frau Maria, do. ' • A. Catherina, d o . ; Friendschafts, do. ; Sippe Visser, Worcum ; Friesland Boomtje, do. ; Wilhelmina, Hooksiel ; Wilhelmine, do. ; Venus, do. • Ida, Carolinenseil ; A nna M ar i a, d o. ; Wil helmine, Tonning ; Hermanns, Amsterdam; Weldood- Groningen ; Lady Macnaughten, Maims ; Protomedia, Bombay ; Magic, Ancona ; Latim er , S myrna ; S ea G u ll , Genoa ; Mary Welch, Leghorn ; Celestine, Havre ; Ennig, keil, Bremen • Sophie, E m d en ; H e i nr i ch, Ham b urgh ; Jonge Antge, *orcum. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING.—The Pacific, for Nassau ; Paul et Annie, Havre ; Thetis, Lima ; Van guard, Bombay ; Anneziena Jantina, Dantzic ; Fidela, Bilboa ; George Robinson, Trinidad ; Northumberland, Hobart Town ; Harbinger, Melbourne ; Arrow, Rio Janeiro : New England, New York ; Quickstep, do. ; Blune, Rotterdam ; Warrior, Jamaica. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO.—The Edward and William, for Port Adelaide ; Gezina Jantina, Amsterdam ; Ere Chrosyad, Mauritius; Earl Mulgra,ve, Constantinople, &c. ; Faith, Africa ; Llwellyne, Launceston ; Euphrosyne, Madras and Cape ; Alma, Dantzie ; Tejaretz Mior, Alex andria; Cleopatra, Oporto ; Lord Nelson, Gibraltar. AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING. AI ELBOUENE.—Arrived the Dolphin, Dec. 3, from Bos• ton ; Gazelle, Scilly ; Alexander, Mauritius ; Queen, Lon don Fame, Glasgow ; Lieut. A. Stillingwarf, Batavia ; Maria Cbarlotta, Hong Kong ; Twee Godpieds, 4th, Lon don ; St. M ar ti n , sth, L on d on • Dispatch, ' Liverpool ; Coila, Alb an y ; P rov id ence , Bordeaux ; Lady Harvey, Bombay ; Siroc, Boston ; Industry, Liverpool ; Aberfoyle, London ; Eliza, Singapore ; Ravenscraig, Leith ; Ber mondsey, London ; Henry the Fourth, Reunion; Pilgrim, Algoa Bay ; Hydroose, 6th, Bombay and the Mauritius ; Hindoo, Now York; Alfred, Hamburg ; Misses Claudine, William and Jane, Banca, and Launceston, London ; Banner, Bristol ; Reliance, Hobart Town ; Vivid, 7th, Glasgow ; Saladin, London ; Adolphus , B th , Liverpool; Strive and Persia, London ; Ringdove, Liverpool and Bahia ; Henry Woolley, London ; Ocean Wave, Boston; Rob Roy, 9th, Greenock; Oriental, 10th, London ; Elizabeth Wilthew, Newcastle ; Emily Milner, 11th, San Francisco; Esther, 12th, from Chatham Islands, with part of the crew of the Randolph (wrecked) Lyra, 13th, Glasgow ; Nelson, 14 th , H artle p ool ; Orestes, Adelaide ; Herculean, 15th, Liverpool ; Marquis of Bute, London ; the Suffinatoola, Bombayi; and the Aim, Ade laide. Sailed the Australia and Ann Hood, Dec. 4, to Callao; Speculation, Bth , Madra s ; Mid- Lothian, Singa pore ; Rialto, 7th, Mauritius ; Anglesey , Sydney ; Baron of Bratuber, Mauritius • Pondicherry, to P on di c h erry Thane of Fyfe, 11th, Hobart Town ; United, 12th, Laun ceston. • SYDNEY.--Arrived the .Sevea, Dec. 2, from Oporto; illgapore ; O r i on Hebe, sth ; Futtay Itabootaoni, 6th, •••••=l/1 and Myrtle, 6th, London ; Queen of the Seas, : Boston. Aurora, Hong Kong ; Valiant and Cronkeane, Melinourne; Cheapside and Branscombe, London. ADELAIDE.—Arrived the Iris, Dec. 5, from Clalcutta ; Nina, from Guichen Bay ; Irene and Harriet Humble, from London ; Elizabeth Ross, from Batavia ; Clipper, 7th, from Melbourne Athelstone, from Liverpool ; Dur' ham and Chilian, 12 ; Dreadnought, 14th, from bourne ; Colibri, 15th, from Hamburgh ; Havilah (&) 18th, from Melbourne ; Bengal, 20th, from Glasgow.-- Cleared, Robert Clive, Dec. 14th, to Sydney ; Caroline, 17th, to Callao ; Thames, 19th, to London ; Leonidas, 20th, to Sydney.---Departures, Slighbury, 17th, to Lon don ; Sophia Moifttt, to Singapore. HOBART TOWN.—Arrived the Australasia and Tasman, Dec. 3, from London; William Melville, from Singapore; Gulnare, Dec. 6, from IVhampoa. Sailed the May Queen, Dec. 3, for Portland Bay. LAUNCESTON;—Arrived the Pet, Nov. 30, from Batavia; Cadet, Dec. 5, from London cleared the Ann LockerbY , 8, for Mauritius. PORTLAND BAY.—Arrived tho New Zealander, Nov, 30, from Liverpool. OTAGO. —Arrived the Rajah, Oct, 5, from London. GRELONG.—Arrived the Mary Smit.h, Dec. 8; Croix du Sud, from Hong Kong and Adelaide; Island Lady, 7tll from Bristol and the Cape. ,NEW YORK, March 3.—J. J. Hathorn, from Li verpeel to Philadelphia, ran ashore on Hamburg Flat?, in. the De' leware, with a pilot on board, Feb. 27, and rern3int charging her cargo into lighters ; neither vessel nor eeal, had received much damage, a nd she w as e x p ec ted t o float next day, at high water. The Gladiator, cleared at 8a ,,. timore, Feb. 18, for Liverpool, but put back 28th, "Q" some injury to her upper works, having b een i n con t a ct the bay with the Appleton, from Boston to Baltime she will be obliged to discharge some of her cargo, to repe, r ' The Albina, from Wilmington to Li ver p oo l, p u t bee ). Feb. 29, leaky. HARWICH, March 18.—The Gezina Hendrika, fro 1, Oporto to Ipswich, Newcastle, and Leith, encounters'': severe weather on the passage, and had pumps choked and five feet water in the hold, which was subsequently t he; duced to two feet, and having temporarily stopped leaks, reached Ipswich on the 11th inst., where she die" charged part of the cargo , and is now repairing. INVERNESS, March 16.—Intelligence was received Leith, on Thursday, from Rotterdam, of the snivel a that port of Captain Currie, of the Dolphin, from Ab el ' dour to Stromness, which was abandon e d on th e ,sth of February, in lat. 50, long. 2, in a very leaky state, ,b 1 511 her crew, excepting himself.—(See paragraph, lltl I an d 12th February). DINGLE, March 17.—The Hercules (brig); of and frora, Havre, for Senegal, was abandoned Feb. 18, off Sybil I le*OP on this coast—crew saved. WESTPORT, March 18.—The Flor stated to be bounil Cork, was brought in hero yesterday, a derelict, hav been abandoned the previous day to a crew of Innista., men, her own crew landing on the island. From w e damaged state of the ship and cargo, the latter is recap' . mended to be disc, arged. BRISTOL, March 20.—Wind E. Sailed the Ajax Trinidad. The Island Lady, from Bristol, has arrived 0 Melbourne. HONG-KONG, Jan. 21.—The Wilhelmsburg sailed hen' for San Francisco, on the 19th inst., and put back. yester" day, with rudder broken, having struck upon a rock. , The Golden (s), in leaving San Diego harbour, grounds ( ' on a quicksand bar' and remained, and a sudden storm springing up the aid then available could not take her off; assistance was sent to her from San Francisco, and she vas got off, it is believed, much damaged, and has gone to Sail Francisco to repair. The S. J. Roberts, from Marseilles to this port, which went ashore on Aancom beach Feb. 20, was going to pieces on the 27th, and her cargo is washing Rebore. The Atar Gull (Tuscan brig), which sailed from Boston Sept. 14 for Leghorn, with wheat, &c., has been lost a the coast of France or Spain. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. The Westbrook, from London to Ceylon, Dec. 22, lat 19 S., long. 22 E. The Susannah, from Christina, March 11, lat. 46 N. , long. 12 W. The Phenicien, bound west, the same day. The George illiam, bound to Arracan, Dec. 25, Ist 3 N., long. 94 E. The Bernhard Castle of Exeter, March 18, 20 miles NS of the Start. COUNTRY MARKETS. ORETATSFORD--MAROH 17. There was a large supply of wheat on offer to-daT, an e the millers and factors not being disposed to purchaseei . cept on lower terms, very little business was trams'w In the sales effected a reduction of fully 2s to 3s per 4 1. ' took place. Batley is to 2s cheaper. Beans and peAS dull sale. Oats the turn dearer. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, white, old 6S*.' to to 83s Od, new 68s to 83s ; red, old 56s to 78s, new 5??_ . ,7 78s ; barley, 28s to 36s ; chevalier, 34s to 39s ; grillaw" 21s to 30s ; malt, 61s to 65s ; chevalier, 64s to 70s ; oats , 23s to 29s ; peas, partridge, 40s to 45s ; white, 48s to WI, boiling 55s to 61s ; dun, new, beans, 40s to 438 ; tick, to 41s; Harrow ticks, 37s to 43s ; Mazagan, 37s to 4Cs. COLCHESTER -MARCH 18. The supply of wheat moderate. Sales could only b e made to necessitous buyers at 3s to 4s per qr. under last week's prices. Barley was also is to 2s per qr. cheaper' The same remark applies to beans and peas. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, white, 76s to 80s ; red, 72s to 76s ; barley, 36s to 38s ; oats, 28s to 30s • beans' Mazagan, 36s to 38s ; middle and small, 38s to 44; ; peoo white, 56s to 60s ; grey, 38s to 445. Official Statement of the Quantities of Corn ; in the port of London, from the followin tho 13th to the 18th March, both inclusive • '1 ply Colchester Harwich Leigh Maldou 149 29 7401 658 60 496 278 30 - 828 t 368 350 KIRKCALDY—MARCH 18. Here, to-day, we had a large supply of oats, but r ather small of both barley and wheat. Sales quick for barley► and prices 6d per qr. in favour of sellers. Oats sold yell readily, but in some instances were 6d per qr. cheaper• Wheat was fully as dear as last week. Wheat. Barley. Oats. I Beans. I First Second I Third 64s Oct 33s OctOd 2ss Od Os Od Oatmeal, per bag of 801bs imperi d, 44s Od to 00s Od :T.—Memcn 20. ho close of the market :- 1 Wallsend, &c. 5. d. Ffetton 2O 6 Haswell 2 ll 6 Lambton 19 ° Pensher 18 6 Stewart's 2O 6 Whitwell lB n 6 Plummer l9 Cassop l9 6 Heugh Hall . 19 0 South Kelloe 19 0 Whitworth lB Tees 2O ° Co cypen , 20 0 Derwentwater Hartley 19 'I A Grey's West Hartley l9 v COAL MARK Prices of Coal per ton at t: s. d. Bate's West Hartley 19 0 Cookson's Hartley lB 6 Carr's Hartley 2O Davison's West Hartley 19 6 Hasting's Hartley l9 0 Ravensworth Hartley l9 6 Tanfield Moor l7 6 Tanfield Moor Butes 17 6 Walker Primrose l6 6 West Hartley 19 6 Wylam 18 0 Wallsend, _ Gosforth 18 6 Harton lB 6 Lawson lB 6 Bell's Primrose 16 0 Edon Main [ADVERTISEMENT.]—SIGH T AND HEARING. Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe—opposite the Yoll Hotel. The Royal Exhibition. A valuable, newlr invented, very small powerful waistcoat-pocket 0,05, _ the size of a wa l nu t, b y w hi c h a person can ou seen and known one mile and a half distant ; thel answer every purpose on the race-course, at the °per° houses, country scenery, and ships ar e c l ear l y seed 12 to 14 miles. They are invaluable for shooting, doe r stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeeper* and tourists. Telescopes—A new and most importan t invention in telescopes, possessing such extraordinarl, powers that some, 3i inches, with an ex t ra eye - p i ece , show distinctly piter's moons, Saturn's ring, and th e double stars ; with the same telescope, weighing only ounces, can be seen a person's countenance three mile° and a half distant, and an object from 16 to 20 miles' They supersede every other kind for the waistcoat-pocket. and are of larger and all sizes, with increasing power°, accordingly. Opera and race-course glasses, with wonderfw power; an abject can be clearly seen, from 14 to 16 raga° distant. Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, opticians, have in vented invaluable preserving spectacle lenses. Imme diately they are placed before imperfect vision, evert object appears clear and distinct; the most aged, de' fective sight becomes bright and brilliant, is brought to its youthful, natural, and original state. Deaf ness New Discovery—The Organic Vibrator, an ex traordinary powerful and newly-invented instrument, for Deafness, entirely different from all others, to surpass anything of the kind that has been or pro. bably ever can be, produced. Being of th e same colour as the skin, it is not perceptible ; it ena,bleo deaf persons to hear distinctly at church and at public as semblies ; the unpleasant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely removed ; and it affords all the assist' ance that possibly could be desired.--S. and B. Solomons, Aurists and Opticians, 39, Albemarle-street, Pi cca dillY. Observe, opposite the York Hotel. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 20th inst., at 81, Piccadilly, the Lady Catherine Ca jln neg e e. l9th inst., Mrs. S. Begg, at 31, Mecklenburgir square. - OP A DAUGHTER. In Eaton-square, on the 19th inst., the Viscountess Enfield. On 19th inst., at Perry-hill, Sydenham, Kent, the wife of Henry James Brown, Esq. _..... MARRIED. - - On the 17th inst., Mr. R. F. Hill, of Oakley-terrace, Old Kent-road, to Maria, youngest daughter of Mr. Thomas Osborne, of Great Newport-street, Leicester-square. , On the 18th inst., a St. James's Church, Gravesend! William Price, Esq., of Lee-place, Leo, Kent, vu Alice, youngest daughter of J. Baker, Esq., of Darnley' road. DIED. On the 19th inst., at Ashford. Kent, in the 81st year of his age, George ule, Esq., formerly of Guilford-stree t, Russell-squnre, London. On the 19th inst., at Princess street, Mile-end, Mr. Pete r Redford, age d 87. On the 19th inst., a t 26, Q ueen ' s - roa d, B a y swa t er , use Harriett B o lt on , i n h er 81 s t y ear . On the 20th inst., on board H. M. S. Boscawen, Lieu" tenant Lord Gilbert Grosvenor, in his 22d year. LONDON: Printed and Published by MITRDO YOUI O, o' 'To. 112. trand, Printer, at The o+-BrP , No. 11:?, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county id Middlesex, Tuesday, March 21, 1854. receivea Its, frolli kg pa the Co rate of im ores " T[L] more, office o entitle of the 12 The ani v, 'CELE! Dancin R,` SPLI nesdg 111AGN Dl LECTI DEC LECTI TYNE' DESCI and SUN Open Childre: Eight of the efforts Nation! new So each e , Afetropi Wednet Intro Aria, (1 Quadril —"Bay stand," Baps (I PR of slim cite co mei aft be too t Skin E: lieadac meet o None in whit round ton, " on the Sold Fall dit Sold Sons, } nay an( respect, ON TL C titulars New E Tr excesst inetvut towed I preven "'ERR street. row, al Kion, 14 Bow C PAR' organs dulge;n merits.' Inc,apa Pis the prl their t trigs. PAR Simple P - An The es enbJec TEI than next the this Sore , East quesi ape ~ 4. Prop of Oc for tt the o by Pr Tb: the Q held a 22d ir " T nova "T nes -of the LI have I for thi and in All co Mina' reques wheal ~ 1 81511 A' ON T INP Just I riage, origin climsl twent, Debili Urine c Condit CtO Ur. The sequel whkt hood, other panic their the tu F ; Brotl by pc deuce At XX I •