The Sun. — London, England, 1833-12-12 00:00:00

TO THE AGRICULTURISTS OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND, Gentlemen,—The letter which I lately addressed to you, relative to the unjust and unequal terms on which you are now competing with the Irish grower in your own markets, has, I am p'eased to find, attracted very general attention. Were it a matter of less intense im portance, I should be satisfied with having au far suc ceeded, and leave to others the task of defending my views, and of sifting the truth from the quantity of chaffy falla• cies that some commentators have mixed up with the question. But it is of such ♦ast moment that public opt pion should not be misled on this point, that, however reluctant to put myself again so prominently forward, I will not abstain from answering the most plausible objec tions that I have seen urged against the arguments of my former letter. The objectors divide themselves into two classes—the Xr4h and the English. 1. The organs of those Irish landholders who look upon a poor law (most erroneously, as I conceive) to be tanta mount to a confiscation of part of their rental, exclaim against what they are pleased to call the " doltishness" of supposing that the exemption of Irish land from poor rate enables them to extract a larger rent from their estates, or supply the English markets on much better terms. Upon this point I think I may safely appeal to you whe ther, if you were wholly relieved from poor rate, and could hire labour at 6d. a-day, you could not afford to sell your produce at a cheaper rate, and pay a higher rent to the landowner. Some Irish writers, however, assert that Irish land is in no (it gree favoured by the Legislature, for that it is burdened by heavy Grand Jury and Police Rates. Very true. But they seem to he ignorant that similar rates are levied on you for the same purposes, under the name of Highway and County Rates; both parties are equally bur dened so far ; but this still leaves the 5,000,0001. per annum which you pay in Poor Rate wholly uncompensated by any counterpoise whatever on their side. Next, I am told it is rank ignorance to suppose that the farmers who grow any of the corn, cattle, and pigs for exportation to Englal - 01, are the little renters of ten acre lots, who live ;11 turf cabins on potatoes and butter. milk. If We are to believe some Irish writers, such in B ". ,- ,s are rare exceptions; and the farmers generally o f . Ireland are thriving capitalists, rapidly improving in every way, growing turnips, mangel-wurzel, and other refinements, in the best style of Norfolk husbandry, and making nothing of giving 200 guineas for a breeding bull.• I will not depend on my own observations for an answer to this highly coloured picture of Irish farming, bough I may mention, that in a late tour of 300 miles through the south and west of Ireland, I could not count half a dozen barns, nor observe a single specimen of what deserves to be called a range of farm buildings. There may be, and in the county of Wicklow especially I am told there are, model farms established here and there by a spirited and benevolent proprietor, and some im proving tenants occupying considerable holdings ; but unless all the evidence produced before Parliament and the public of late years is an imposition, these are the exceptions, scarcely worth taking into account in a ge neral view of the state of farming in Ireland. The fol lowing is the evidence of Mr. Sandars, a large Liverpool corn-merchant, well acquainted, and in constant commu nication with every part of Ireland, as given before the Agricultural Committee of last session : " 4358. What are the towns in Iteland whim the speculators go and buy the corn to export to England ?_ Everywhere. I cannot single out one. It is generally done. _ "1105. Have you drawn large supplies of grain from all pars of Ireland ?—Yes, every part. " 1172. What do you conceive to have caused the great increase of grain imported from Ireland ?-1 con ceive the cause to be that the Irish farmer can produce corn much cheaper than the English farmer. When I look to the fertility of the soil, and the miserable state in which those who till it live, I can have little doubt that Ireland can produce corn as cheaply as either France or Holland. _ . " 4198. Is the land on which the corn is raised in large or small farms?-1 think in small farms; small pieces of land. " 4199. Is it raised on lands in such small portions that the tenant does not eat any part of it ?—He neither eats the oatmeal he produces, nor the flour he produces, nor the cattle he produces ; he gets only potatoes and buttermilk. The pig even pays the rent. A very large proportion of the persons connected with the land seldom or never taste animal food. I know that all the produce of the soil goes to pay the rent, with the exception of the potatoes and buttermilk on which they live." (4227.) Mr. A. Clendining, an extensive land agent and valuer in the west of Ireland, asserts, in his evidence before the same Committee, " that in the entire province of Con naught there are scarcely any arable farms above ten acres. The great majority of holdings are much less" (7579). He says too, " the great majority of the occu pying tenants of Ireland eat nothing but potatoes and but termilk throughout the year." (7620). Thomas Linsay, Esq., speaking of the west of Ireland, says, " The labourers or small farmers—for they are one and the same—have, generally speaking, nine-tenths of them at least, little farms, varying from three acres to seven or ten acres, among themselves and family." (7121.) Do the small farmers eat any of their pigs?—They always sell the whole of their pigs except the offal." Mr. W. Armstrong, speaking of the north eastern parts of Ireland, with which he is well acquainted as a large land surveyor, says—" The great majority of the farms are from five to ten acres." (9079.) " 9129. Are there not very few farms of more than ten acres ?.---Very few." These extracts (and they might be multiplied) will prove that I did not exaggerate in the picture I drew of the kind of rival you are vainly struggling to compete with, and who will shortly drag you—the respectable te nantry of England—down to his level, if no steps are taken for elevating his condition towards yours. But give the small farmer of Ireland the vantage ground of a poor law ; let the law provide for him some resource, however mean, against starvation, and you will see him make a stand against the exactions of his landlord, and insist on terms which will leave him some larger share of the pro duce of his industry than the pittance described above— terms which will admit of his consuming a portion at least of his corn, butter, and bacon, which he raises, instead of selling it all for exportation to England, on his landlord's account. At present the Irish farmer has no power to make a beneficial contract. He has no choice; he must accept his landlord's terms, however exorbitant, or starve. The law refuses him any alternative. t 11. The objections raised by English writers have chiefly consisted in a denial that prices are influenced in Ireland by the wretched condition of the grower and the lowness of the wages of labour, or that the English poor rate enters into the cost of cultivating English land. The first negative is extraordinary. Does not the price of corn and bacon in Ireland depend on the quantity offered for sale? And if the producers were placed in circumstances which enabled them to consume more of what they grow, would not less be offered for sale, and consequently a higher price obtained? Suppose all the farmers and labourers of England reduced to a potatoe diet, would not the price of wheat and bacon be apt to fall in consequence ? It may be said that the prices of the English corn market are determined by the quantities of foreign corn admitted for home consumption under the existing corn laws. Granting this, it remains clear that the only important question—that, namely, whether these prices, however de termined, are remunerative or not to the English farmer— will depend wholly o he amount of his t ut.goir g.. the English corn grower, paying besides rent and taxes (and even whether any rent can be paid or not), a high poor rate and a rate of wages which the poor laws keep up to a high standard, must be mined by the same range of prices which is sufficient to repay the cost of growing corn in Ireland, where there is no poor rate, and where wages are at one-third of the English rate. Under these cir cumstances, and the increased facilities given to Irish im portation by steam navigation, all the poorer soils of Eng land are fast going out of cultivation (the farmers on them being first ruined, and the landlords losing all chance of a rent), because their produce will not pay the costs of cul tivation ; and the similar soils of Ireland are as fast being brought into cultivation, because their produce will pay the comparatively small expenditure, anti a high rent into the bargain. Thus it is that Irish landlords are thriving on the ruin of English landlord, anti cultivators ; and since the advantage powerased by the form er i s ow i ng so l e l y to their exemption from a legal burden exclusively imposed on the soil of this island, the latter have good reason t o complain of so unfair an anomaly in the law. iLd the * See the letter of Mr. Weld, of the county of Wicklow, in the Times of the 'nth of November. t I ha%'e been abused in Ireland for describing the Irish farmei* " Worse off than a Russian serf." I maintain that the latter is incomparabl,rbetter treated by the law of his ktmntry than the fortplA an his condition proportionately imore comfortable. The It n landowner is by law obliged to allow his serf land own maintain his family, for which the only return made is thr ys' labour in the week. Ilow happy would the Connaught an be with such a claim The Russian serf is often very willthy in cattle, stock, houses, fur. nature, and *yen jewels worn by his wife and daughters. \ ~ ~ { Irish landowners legislated exclusively for both kingdoms, they could scar cely have imposed harder terms. But, again, it is said that poor rate is paid out of rent, and does not affect the tenant. If this were so, if the anomaly injured the English landlord only, it would not he the less unjust. But this is a mistake. The poor rate is levied on the tenant, and though he eventually may get his rent reduced in proportion to its increase, it is only after having suffered considerably from it himself in the first instance. Let me ask those of you who are tenants whether you would not feel the benefit of a reduction in the poor rate ? Let me ask whst has ruined the tenantry of Cholesbury, in Bucks, as well as the landowners, and caused every acre of land in that parish to be thrown out of cultivation ? What but the increase of the poor rate, till it swallowed up both the farmer's profit and the landlord's rent ? If the millions of Irish who have been driven over to settle in this country of late years, by the absolute denial to them of the means of exist ence in their own, and who have filled all the situ ations of the great towns of Britain, which would other wise have been available to the surplus labourers of our agricultural districts—if these had remained at home (as most of them at least would have done in case a poor law had guaranteed them a maintenance there), Choleshury would have felt no redundancy of population, nor the other parishes of Bucks, Berks, Kent, Sussex, &c. The hands that were not wanted in their parishes would have got employment in London, Manchester, Bristol, &c., as paviors, hodinen, and weavers, and the farmers of the South of England would still be driving a remunerative trade, and the landlords receiving an ade quate rent, even at the present prices. As it is, Choles bury has become a waste; and since the process which has reduced it to that state has a strong aptitude for spread ing with accelerated rapidity, the landlords and farmers of other districts would do well to look about them, before the plague reaches and devours them in turn. The tendency of the present state of things is to give the entire supply of our provision market to the Irish grower, and of our labour market to the Irish immigrant, leav ing the land of England to be parcelled out by law among its native paupers. We are marching at no slow pace towards this happy consummation. The extension of the English poor law to Ireland would greatly relieve the rates of this country. The supposed redundancy of labour here, which alone gives an oppres sive character to the poor rate, is wholly owing to the immense transfusion of Irish labour. Check this (and it is nonsense to say it would not he checked, if not stopped entirely, by a poor law ; even now there is no immigra tion from the east of Ireland, where the poor are a degree better off than in the west, in spite of its greater proximity) —check this process, by which our labour market is kept saturated by Irish poverty, and we shall find ample employment for all our native labourers, now so heavy a burden upon the poor rate. If, then, the prices of pro duce did not rise in our markets, their cost of production would be lowered to the English grower, which would be as beneficial to him as a rise of price. He will be enabled to increase his produce without raising its price— to cultivate more largely, and retain the supply of his own markets, now glutted by the comparatively untaxed Irish landowner. These are some of the arguments in favour of an Irish poor law, which I hope I may address to you, the agriculturists of England, without incurring the im putation of craftiness myself, or listening that of selfish ness upon you. We are all struck most strongly by those points of a question which bear upon our own interests, and therefore I have dwelt particularly, in the present instance, on those which specially affect your welfare. But it were easy to show that all classes of the community have a com mon interest in this great question. As tax payers, for exam ple, we are all interested in reducing the enormous expense of coercing Ireland (that is, of gagging and tying down that country, to enable its landlords to extort an exorbitant rent from a starving peasantry. This reduction can never be effected until justice is done to the body of the people of Ireland—until the law afford them some security for existence, and guarantee them the means of living by honest and orderly industry. We are all interested in pre venting the repeal of the Union, or even its continued agi tation ; but that cry can only be appeased by a measure which shall bind the affections of the Irish people to the Imperial Parliament by the strong tie of gratitude—which shall take away the true cause of all dissatisfaction, mi sery, and idleness—which shall exhibit the law as a thing of love and justice, not of terror only and oppression. Would that an interval of calm allowed the Irish peasantry and their friends and instructors, the pastors of Ireland, to consider and discuss the question among themselves. In stead of petitioning for useless or unattainable objects, they might then demand, in irresistible union, from the United Parliament of 1834, that act of justice which no College-green Parliament ever hinted at, but which the British Legislature accorded to the British peasantry so early as 1603. Even the Irish landlords, if they would listen to reason (and there are not wanting Irish writers who will prove this to them), might be convinced that it is fur their in terest, beyond that of all other classes in either island, that a due measure of protection be extended by the law to their wretched countrymen—that employment be everywhere secured for them by methodical arrangements —and the vast resources which their country possesses (hitherto undeveloped) in the primary elements of all wealth, land and labour, be systematically set in motion by an Act of the Legisliture, commanding the appropriatio❑ of the island, and the employment and sustentation of its inhabitants. Call it a poor law, labour rate, or any other name you will ; but this should be its object. 1 am, Gentlemen, your very obedient servant, Castle Combe, Dec. 8. G. POULETT SCROPE. . . 46, • -- SIR WALTER SCOTT AND THE AUTHOR OF EUGENE ARAM. The following interesting literary anecdote is contained in a letter from a friend at Rome to the Editor of the Literary Gazette:— " When Sir W. Scott arrived at Rome, he asked me for a book. 1 enumerated the few I had got, and be imme diately pitched upon something by the author of Pelham.' I accordingly sent him Eugene Aram,' which be re turned me in a very few days, saying, that since he left England, he had not enjoyed so much amusement. He talked a long time about Bulwer and his productions; and I sincerely regret not having made a minute of his remarks. I recollect, however, distinctly his saying, Oh, that is a man whose name always puts me in mind that I must look about me;' and after expressing his high approbation of the tale he had just been reading, be added, I can hardly conceive a greater proof of talent than this, that a writer should take for his subject Eugene Aram,' a story well known to almost every one of his readers, and that he should be able to work it up in so artful a manner as to produce such intense interest. For this,' he said, laughing, is the fault of the book. I read late—l could not lay it down; and twice it has spoiled my night's rest.' " We believe it was the last work of fiction the illustrious bard ever perused ; for after this, a hurried journey, a fatal illness, and death, con cluded his great career. It is reported that P. M. Stewart, Esq., M.P. for Lancaster, will be invited to fill the chair at Lloyd's. DEATH OF THE BISHOP OF LIMERICK.- Died, on Monday last, at East Hill, Wandsworth, in the 59th year of his age, after a long illness, the Right Rev. John Jebb, D.D., F.R.S., Lord Bishop of Limerick, Ardfert, and Aghadoe. For nearly seven years he had suffered under the' effects of a violent paralytic attack, which compelled him to withdraw from the more active duties of his see, and to reside i❑ this country for medical advice. But his mind survived his body ; and, while an invalid, scarcely able to move about his room even with assistance, he continued an anxious and watchful care over his diocese ; and employed the hours of languor and sickness in the preparation and publication of works, original or these of other great divine., for the benefit of the Church of Christ. In private life he was among the most amiable and beloved of men, with a singular faculty of attaching all of every age to hint ; in literature he was among the most distinguished Biblical scholars of the age ; and in personal humility and piety he was worthy of his office as a Christian Bishop. A new edition of Captain Skinner's very lively and descriptive " Excursions in India" has just been published. This work, like the " Tours" by Major Archer, abounds in details of hunting and shooting ex ploits, and comprises admirable sketches of native scenes, of native portraits, picturesque, amusing, and impressive. Indeed, Captain Skinner paints so well, that we almost seem to be present at his hurried marches. Indian fairs, Oriental ceremonies, British encampments, with all the ♦arieties of traits with which be improves and embellishes these agreeable delineations. A more pleasant work has not, for a long time, occupied our attentioe. Private letters from Naples announce the dangerous illness of the young English nobleman, Lord de Tabley, from the effects of a coup de soleil and pleuresy. His Lordship' s recovery had been despaired of; but at the tritest date be was considered out of danger, and gradually improving. Lady de Tabley (the young and newly mar ried daughter of Lord de Salis) was slightly indisposed, horn her unremitting attendance on her invalid husband. LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 111, 1833. In consequence of stormy weather in the Channel, we have not received any Foreign Mails to-day. There are eight now due. No official account has been received at the Portuguese Embassy of the object of Colonel HARE'S mission to the head-quarters of Don MIGUEL. It is understood, however, that the chief object was to require the departure of Don CARLOS from Portugal, and that he would avail himself of the opportunity to propose terms and terms of accommodation between Don M the DUKE REGENT. We understand that General Sir JOHN MIL LEY DOYLE, the Aide-de •Camp of' Don PEDRO, who arrived a few days ago in England, has already made considerable progress in his ar rangements for establishing a regular communi cation by steam vessels between Liverpool and Lisbon. M. VAN DE WEYER, the Minister Plenipo tentiary of the King of BELGIUM, has left Lon don for Brussels on business connected with the Belgian question, and is not expected to return for some time, fresh and important ob stacles to an arrangement having been started by the Dutch King. M. WALLEz, the first Secretary of Legation, has been appointed by the Belgian Government Charge d'Affaires during the absence of M. VAN DE WEYER. The Marquis of FuNcifAL, the late Portu guese Ambassador, who died at Brighton, about a fortnight ago, was interred this morning. The body was followed to the grave by most of the diplomatic corps, and by a large number of the friends of the deceased. The long duration of stormy weather and con trary winds, has caused serious inconvenience to merchants and ship owners. It is said that nearly 270 sail are now lying wind-bound in Ramsgate harbour. We understand that the Foreign-office has notified to the parties interested, that instruc tions have been sent out to Lord WILLIAM RUSSELL, at Lisbon, to demaltd the immediate release of the Caroline merchantman, from New foundland, lately captured off Oporto by the cruisers of Don PEDRO. The following has been received at LLOYD'S this morning : Copy of a letter from the Secretary of the African Inland Commercial Company, dated Liverpool, Dec. 10. " I have the pleasure to inform you of the safety of the Quorra, Alburkah,and Columbine, which vessels arrived at Fernando Po early in September. I have also the heartfelt gratification to add that Mr. Lander and Mr. Laird were in good health. The Columbine was preparing to return with them to this port, and she may he expected in a few weeks. Our letters have not yet reached us, but this is the substance of the information I have received from the George Canning just arrived from Fernando Po, anti I hasten to communicate it to you." We have so often advocated the adoption of some temporary system of Poor Laws in Ireland which should give the Irish labourer some as surance of employment till education and the enjoyment of some of the comforts of life have had an opportunity of teaching him providence, that we shall not be suspected of arguing against that great measure in some observations we think ourselves boind to make upon a second letter from Mr. POULETT SCROPE to the agricul turists of the west of England, given in another column. Poor Laws, of some kind or other, should be tried in Ireland, but not for the rea sons stated by Mr. SCROPE. We should not have deemed it worth while to notice those reasons had they proceeded from any but an opponent of the principle of the Corn Laws. Nearly all that Mr. SCROPE urges to the farmers of 'Wiltshire to induce them to press upon their representatives the necessity of establishing Poor Laws in Ireland, might be urged just as strongly against admitting foreign corn. " The Irish are not burdened as you are," says Mr. SCROPE, " therefore they are able to sell their produce cheaper than you who have Poor Laws ; this is an injustice to you, therefore we must force Poor Laws upon them." Mr. SCROPE will find by and bye, that some of the corn monopolists to whom he will find himself opposed will use precisely the same language with respect to foreign corn, merely substituting a Corn Law for Poor Laws. Fortunately, however, much of Mr. SCROPE'S present line of argument may be suited to the capacities of those whom he addresses ; it must be held as utterly untenable by any man whose ideas have extended beyond the fattening of an ox, or killing a pig. The question is, whether the farmer of Ireland would not cultivate at a dearer rate, from being obliged to pay poor rates. It was urged from several quarters, when Mr. SCROPE'S first letter appeared, that a poor rate would be a deduction from the landlord's rent, and would not affect the price at which the Irish farmer would sell his produce. What says Mr. SCROPE to the West of England farmers in answer to this ? " I think I may safely appeal to you whether, if you were wholly relieved from poor rate, and could hire labour at sixpence a day, you could not afford to sell your produce at a cheaper rate, and pay a higher rent to the land-owner ?'' No doubt they could afford to do so, but the question is, what would take place? A West of England landlord is able to get, say, a pound per acre for a particular farm. The competition of several farmers enables him to ask and obtain that rent. If other charges upon it, in the shape of tithe, of poor rate, or of labour, were after wards reduced a pound per acre, it is clear that at the next letting of the farm the same competition would raise the rent to two pounds per acre. It is very true the landlord could afford, perhaps, to take less, but if he could get a good tenant to give him two pounds, he would be a fool to take less. So also in the interval before the expiry of the first lease, although the diminution of the charges of tithe, labour, and poor -rate, would enable the farmer to sell his produce cheaper than before, he would be equally a fool to sell it for less than the market price ; and un less the field of production had been enlarged so as to bring other corn into competition with his, that market price would be unaltered by the di minished cost of cultivation on the same extent of soil. The case, therefore, which Mr. SCROPE puts to the Wiltshire farmers is a mere delusion. But then he asks whether they would not be be nefitted by the diminished supply of food from Ireland, in consequence of the peasantry being better fed through the operation of Poor Laws ? Another very good argument for the parties ad dressed ; but do you see where it will lead you, Mr. SCROPE ? The food that is brought from Ireland is not, we suppose, burnt or buried. It is brought, we venture to think, because people want it to eat. lf, then, it be not brought, if the peasantry of Ireland, represented to us as being now half starved, eat it them selves, under your proposed Poor Laws, one of two things must happen. Either the bellies it now goes to fill in England must remain half filled, or they must get a supply for their money from elsewhere. Now, if they get a supply from elsewhere, the case of the Wiltshire farmers is not mended, for it clearly cannot matter to him whether the corn which competes with his in the market comes from Ireland or the Baltic. If, on the other hand, no supply is to come from elsewhere, the argument goes the length of telling the agriculturists of the west of Eng land that they are justified in taking measures which shall half starve their fellow subjects, or, at the least, that they, the sellers of corn, have a right to take measures to compel the buyers to pay a price for it which the latter would not pay if they were in the full enjoyment of their natural rights. If we could suppose that Mr. SCROPE saw the full bearing of his own argument, it would be impossible not to come to the conclusion that he wishes to have Poor Laws in Ireland, not for the benefit of the people of that country, but for the benefit of English landlords, by giving them higher prices for their produce ; that is to say, by robbing all who have to buy bread. We would observe, by the way, that Mr. SCROPE'S reference to the case of Chorlesbury, in Buckinghamshire, where the people have all become paupers, because taught to depend upon the Poor Rates instead of their own exertions, and have caused the land to be thrown out of cultivation as involving loss, is rather unfortunate, for it is one of those strong cases which the opponents of Poor Laws in Ire land justly rely upon as proving the badness of' the principle on which they rest. ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.) \\ PKICES STIWKS THI !kink St(cK 1 pe• Cent. Hell. 87%14 3 per Cent. Cons shut 314 per Cent — Ditto Red 964 i Nevi 3% per Cent. I rer Cent. Ann. 1726 — I per Cent. 1826 Rank Long Ann. to expire Jan. 5, ;MD — Oot. 10, 1859 l6 15-16 Y. Jan. 5, 1860... ......... ... Jan. 5, 1880 — April 5, 1880 — Jan. 5, 1870 — titN New 5 per Cent. India Stock Ditto Bonds 24 22 pm. South Sea Stock ............ Old Annuities ............ ... New Ditto 3 per Cent. Ann. 1751 Ex. Bills, 4:1,000 ...... 4.1 44 Pm. (Ditto .50e...... 43 44 pm. iDitto Small ;Ditto Commercial ....... Pm. Ditto Advertised ........ IBank for Account ......... llndia for Account ..... ..• Cons. for Account ...... 8834 PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS Austrian Bonds 94 1 Belgian Bonds 95; 4 Ditto Account 95% Brazilian Bonds 66% Ditto Account 66%% Buenos Ayres Bonds 2l Ditto Account — Chilian Bonds ....... ..... ...23 1 ,4 3 nus DAY AT ONE 0 CLOCK. Peruvian Bonds I9IA Portuguese Bonds 5714 Ditto Account...... 57% Ditto New Bonds Ditto Acconnt s'i 6% 7 Prussian Bonds ............ 101% Ditto Bonds, 1822........ 1(1:3 Russian Bonds, 1522... 162 . '4% Ditto Acc0unt............ 102% Ditto 111 Spanish Bonds, 1821 ......... 2:3% Ditto Acc. 23304 Ditto Bonds, 18953 ......... 21 Ditto Account French Rentes, 5 p. c. —c. i— Exchange ...... —f —c. per cent....... —f Exchange...... —f —c. ,Dutch, 21 p. c. ............ 50% 50 Ditto Account ...... Ditto, 5 p. c ................... 114 1‘ Ditto Account ............... 94 !e French Scrip pm. Ditto Account Columbian Bonds Ditto Account Ditto Bonds, 1824 22,4 3 Ditto Account 00% Danish Bon s 7 9% Ditto Accrunt 72% Greek Bonds Ditto Bonds, 1825 Ditto Account Mexican Bonds, 5 per cent 29 1 4 Ditto Account /Mt o, 8 per cent 1814 Ditto Account YIN Neapolitan B9 PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAT AT ONE o'cLocr. Paid. Per Share. Alten Mining Company £7 754 Anglo Mex. Min. AA. lies. at W. pm ) £lOO 10 Bolanos Mining Company £l5O 4 Brazilian Mining Company £s 1!. 61 Brazilian Imp. Min. Co. (iss. at 5/. pm.) £2O Ditto National A% 2214 3 Ditto St. John Del Rey Ditto Cocaes 5 I Ys Cata Branca Mining Company I.lritish Iron Mining' company ..£50 21%34 Columhizn MininA Co. 'is. at 5/. pm.) 51 1 4 2 1 4 english Mining Company l2}4 96 1 .‘ . General Mining Association Hibernian Mining Co. £lo . 4 kiexican Mining Co. .E4A 1114 Real del Monte Mining Co....(unreg.) 52 , % United Mex. Min. Co. (its. at 21. pm.) 40 I 2) Ditto New Scrip 5 1 Alliance Fire Insurance Comp lO IN Protector Insurance Comp. ...... Australian Co Canada Company l7 46 General Steam Navigation Co. l3 National Provincial Bank of England 5 Rio Doce Provincial Bank of Ireland • 25 PRICES OF IRISH STOCKS, DUBLIN, nrc. 9 47d% Imi 39 \ Bank Stock —iSt. Patrick 1 nsur.(perShare Consols, 3 ner cent Gov. Stock, :3'i per cent. 95 1 4 ;National Ditto — Ditto, New .. ......... ....... 95% 'Patriotic Ditto — I per Cent — i Hibernian Rank — Gov. Deb. 3 percent.... 88 1 ,4 Provincial Ditto ....... Royal Canal Stock ...... ... 39 1 4 Royal Irish Mine — Grand Canal Stock — Imperial Mine — City Deb. 4 per cent. — Mining Co. of Ireland Ballast Office Deb. 4n. c. Commercial Buildings ..... Arrived. MAILS. Due. I Arrived. O America 0 0 Hamburg n O Brazil O Buenos Ayres 0 0 Jamaica 0 O Carthagena 0 0 Leeward Islands ... 0 I Dublin 0 I Lisbon 0 O Flanders I 0 Malta 0 0 France 1 I 0 Sweden 1 Guernserfc Jeree v.. 1 1 Waterford HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Morning.. 2.9 minutes after 3. I Evening... 46 minutes after 3. Due. LOMAS V. WRIGHT. In this case a person of the name of Wright, having several illegitimate children, executed a deed by which he settled certain leasehold and freehold estates for their benefit, and also (or the benefit of any other illegitimate children which subsequent to the date of that deed, might be horn to him of the same mother. The children then in ease had been declared entitled, and the Master had found that there was one after-born illegitimate child, who had also attained his age of 21, who had afterwards died. The question was, whether his interest in the property should pass to the King, or to the settler's heir, under the circumstances that occurred. Mr. WRAY appeared to support the claim on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. TINNEY and Mr. KINDIRSLT on the other side. His HoNoul said if a settler by deed, or a testator by will, gave an estate to an illegal and void purpose, the Court treated it as if there bad been no gift whatever : the estate remained in the settler or in the testator's heir. If the void purpose were a partial purpose, to that extent the gift or devise was also to be consideretd void. The policy of the law did not for the sake of morality recognize or permit a gift or devise in favour• of an after born illegitimate child—it was wholly void, and there was a resulting trust for the heir of the settler or testator, as it might be, by deed or will. In the present instance, the gift was to the after-born illegitimate child, ani then there was a limitation over to 01ler Lomas, if there was no such child, or if he did not attain 21. The parties now claim ing the void interest were the Crown, the settler's heir, and:oller Lomas; but in order to take the interest from the settler's heir, it was necessary to prove that the event on which the testator meant 0 ler Lomas to take did not happen. An after-born child, however, having been born, and attained 21, all doutst was removed, and there• fore the heir was clearly entitled. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MORELAND. In this case the testator, in the year 1724, gave all his real property to trustees in trust for sale, and thereout to apply certain sums towards the discharge of prisoners in the Marshalace Prison, Southwark, whose debts amounted only to the sum of 4/. ; anti also towards the founding of alms-houses, and a school, in the pariah of Goring, in the county of Oxford, for the maintenance of twelve poor men, and the apprenticing of the parish orphans. The funds having become considerably productive, the information was filed for the purpose of establishing the charity, and that a scheme might be adopted for its future regulation. A reference having been directed to the Master, with this view, and his report baying now been made, the present application was to have the scheme which was set forth by the Master adopted by the Court, and the augmented allowances to the objects of the charity finally confirmed. No opposition being offered, His Horroux made the order, as prayed. VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.) GARDNER D. LACJLAND. This case came before the Court upon motion on behalf of the defendant, praying that the Lords of the Admiralty might pay a sum of 8001. odd to him, and that he might he at liberty to pay it into Court. A pet son of the name of Scott, a shipowner, in 1831, appointed the defendant Lackland his agent, to conclude an agreement with the Lords of the Admiralty, for the use of a vessel called the Princess Royal, for the purpose of carrying out emi grants to New South Wales. The amount in question became due in that respect from the Admiralty. Scott sub sequently became bankrupt, the plaintiff was his assignee, and in that character insisted that he was entitled to the money in preference to the defendant, who was only an agent. Mr. KNIGHT, with whom was Mr. JACOB, contended that as the contract was made by Lackland with the Lords of the Admiralty, he was the proper person to receive the money, the Admiralty knowing nothing of the rights of the owner of the vessel, except through him. Mr. PEPYS and Mr. KOE, for the plaintiff, submitted that the Lords of the Admiralty having notice of the assignment from Scott to him, he was entitled to receive the money in preference to the defendant. His Holiona. granted the prayer of the motion, direct. ing Lackland to receive the money and pay it into Court. KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.) (Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.) IYODONNEI,I. V. BARTLETT. no SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. Maule and Mr. Richards) stated the case for the plaintiff. It was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was the master and owner of the Good Intent, a schooner, against the owner of another vessel called the Elizabeth, to recover the amount of damage incurred by the defendant's vessel, by means of negligence, running foul of the plaintiff's. Having stated the circumstances of the case, the Learned Counsel called the following witnesses : James Quin stated that he was a seaman on board the Good Intent, and acted as helmsman on the occasion in question. At four o'clock on the morning of Sunday, July 8, 1833, while on the voyage from London to St. Mi chael, and not far from the Lizard, they saw the defendant's vessel the Elizabeth on the lee bow, about six miles dis tant, steering in a course that it appeared would bring her within a mile and a half to leeward of the Good Intent ; she, however, changed her course, and bore towards the latter vessel with the signal for speaking flying When about half a mile distant only she hailed and asked the longitude ; the master of the Good Intent, who had in the interim calculated the longitude, gave the information. The Elizabeth kept bearing down fast towards the Good Intent, and when about three ships' length from them the master of the latter hailed the Elizabeth to luff, but the notice was not attended to, or it was too late to enable the Elizabeth to do it, and she ran foul of the Good Intent, carried away her shrouds, broke the foremast off close to the deck, and stove in the quarter. After getting clear of the Rlizabeth the Good Intent bore up for Falmouth under a jury mast. Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLETT—Nobody told witness yesterday " mind you stick to it the brig ran into you." Had not seen Captain Macdonnell (the plaintiff) for eight weeks. He was at Milford. The witness was examined at considerable length as to the technical parts of navigation. John Norris, mate of the Good Intent, stated that he had been a mariner 30 years, and had commanded vessels 24 years. He described the course the vessel was taking during the night previous to the accident, as a proper one. While he was below in his berth he heard some one on deck exclaim there was a sail ahead. The Captain called out to him " Come on deck, for they will be aboard of us." On going on deck he saw the Elizabeth about a frigate's length from them on the starboard bow ; the Good Intent was steering the same course as before ; the Elizabeth had her jib and foresail set and her sheet aft. The Elizabeth came foul of the Good Intent, as described by the last witness. The Good Intent's head was carried off a point and a half, which in some degree eased the blow. The Elizabeth then had the wind, which be calmed the Good Intent's head sails. If the latter had not cased off, they would have come foul bow by how. The Elizabeth did not at all alter her course, which she might have done easily, and so have gone astern. Witness then described the extent of the damage. The moment the vessel was aboard of the Good Intent some person on board the Elizabeth asked the longitude. After the vessel got clear and the Good Intent got a little sail up she passed the Elizabeth. Had seen land ou the Friday previously, and was about 140 miles from land. Witness had hove the log and calculated the longitude. Even after witness came on deck the Elizabeth might with a little activity had eased off. About a minute before lie came on deck his Captain called to the Elizabeth to luff. According to the state of the wind it was the Elizabeth's duty to have gone astern. The rest of the crew of the Good Intent were either abroad or dead, and could not be brought forward. The crew consisted of six hands in all. Cross-examined—When witness afterwards passed the Elizabeth, which was two or three hours after the acci dent, witness was putting a jury mast up ; he hailed the Elizabeth, and had an offer of assistance from the latter. Witness had not been much asleep that morning. Hove the log at two o'clock that morning. Re-examined—On arriving at ialmouttip a pro Pest was entered. Mr. Walter Hunt, a passenger, on board the Good Intent stated, that he was in his berth on the weather side of the vessel, when the Captain came down to take out the log-book and reckon the longitude. He then went on deck again, and witness heard him call out, "Luff, luff !" Shortly afterwards he heard a tremendous blow on the side of the ship, where his berth was. It was blowing fresh, but the vessel had remained on the same tack all night. Witness got on the deck in time to see the mast go overboard. The Elizabeth was then astern, having got clear of the Good Intent. He then heard a strange voice cry out, " What is your longitude?" but did not hear the answer. Mr. Thomas Hill stated he was brought up to the sea, and was master of a ship for many years. Had heard the evidence of the mate and semen of the Good Intent, and, in his judgment, the Elizabeth was very improperly managed. His LORDSHIP interposed, by saying this was a new bead of evidence, and if allowed, in all cases of accidents on the road coachmen would be called to prove whether a coach or gig was properly driven or not. After hearing Counsel on each side, His LORDSHIP said he thought the plaintiff was entitled to prove what were the known practical rules at sea. Witness—lf a vessel to windward asked to speak another vessel, she should alter her sails, hauling some up, and then she might go as near as she pleased without danger. That was the rule observed at sea, the foresail should be hauled up and the jib down, so as to be inoperative, and the ship would be more under the power of the helm. The value of a vessel like the Good Intent being detained a month would be about 801., the current expenses alone being about 60/., anti the hire of the vessel 201. Cross-examined--801. a month was but a moderate charge; but to give a profit a vessel of her size should bring 1001. per month. Mr. William Broad was agent at Falmouth for the Good intent, and was agent to Lloyd's ; be recollected the Good Intent putting in there on 10th July, and while under repair, he now and then went on board ; she had a jurymast, and had great damages ; she appeared to have been run foul of ; was present when she was surveyed ; she was repaired at an expense of 1501. 7s. 61. ; those repairs appeared necessary from the damage she had sus tained ; witness paid that sum on behalf of the plaintiff : the charges were fair and reasonable ; the vessel was detained at Falmouth about five or six weeks ; witness had been master of a ship 18 or 20 years; according to the relative positions of the two vessels, as described by the two first witnesses, he said the .Elizabeth ought to have hauled up her foresail, and hauled down her j b. lie never knew a vessel speaking another with her foresail set ; it was ❑ot seaman-like to do it. Cross-examine:l—The first five guineas in the bill was witness's charge for commission, and three guineas were paid to the surveyors ; the bill had been all paid. T, e time the repairs occupied depended on the state of the weather, as the vessel was at anchor ; the repairs 'night have been dune in less than a ►nonth, but not in a week ; she was caulked all over. The expense of caulking lit r would be 401. The shipwright's bill alone would be 311 She might have been repaired in a fortnight. Did net know that the crew, except the master and mate, were discharged. Dill not know the age of the vessel. She was built in America of pine. She was now worth 400/. or 500/. Would not give that for her, but would give 250 k Re-examined—Did not wish to speculate in ship fH She was worth to the plaintiff 4001. or 5901. N° unnecessary expense was incurred in repairing her. Norris was recalled, and stated that the only ona of the • crew that left the vessel was Quin. Just before they sailed they discharged the rest of the crew and shipped other men. There was no unnecessary delay in repairing the vessel, and as there was a cargo on board, she could only be repaired when she was dry. It was nearly a month before the repairs were completed. She did not leave Fa'mouth until October, because the voyage to St. Michael's was entirely broken up. Mr. Hercules Jenkins, an old master mariner, 5 10 deposed to the improper conduct of the master of the Elizabeth, taking the situation of the twe vessels as de' tailed by the two first witnesses. Sir JAMES SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defen dant, and contended that the accident arose from the plaintiff's negligence. He stated that the Elizabeth had come ft om Miramichi with a cargo of timber, and seeing the Good Intent, hoisted the signal to speak, and ascertain the longitude from her. It was very usual for homeward bound vessel to inquire that of an outward bound vessel, in order to ascertain if the former's calcula tion was correct. The usual course was to chalk the figures on a board, and exhibit it on the sides of the vessels nearest to each other. It appeared that no one was on the deck Of the Good Intent but Quin the helmsman and a boy. The Captain of the latter was below. The Elizabeth, as would be proved, hauled to, in order to allow the Good Intent to come nigh enough. To his surprise, instead of the Good Intent coming alongside the Elizabeth, she bore up, and ran across the bows of the latter—got thereby entangled, swung round, and then the Good Intent received the damage in question. It would be proved that the accident was occasioned in that way, and that the plaintiff might have prevented it. The Learned Co c un ap se t l ai t n hen j. ca L lle a d rnb th , e m fo a l s lo te w r i o n f g t w h i e tnesses Elizabeth, — stated he had been 32 years at sea. She was, on the occasion in question, loaded with timber, from Mirarnicbi. The crew consisted of eight. Their berths were in the cuddy. When lie hoisted the signal to speak, the Good Intent did not answer it; he then hauled down his jib, hauled up the foresail, and hove the mainsail up : the helm was hard down. That hid the vessel a•back stationary; she so continued about half an hour ; he directed a board to he held up tin the foretopmast back stay on the starboard side, with "29 West" marked on it; the schooner came on, and witness expected her to pass close by his stern ; 5 5 she neared he observed but one man at the helm ; another man went on deck with a speaking trumpet; the schooner could then have passed astern, or, by alter ing her helm, she might have gone to wind ward as witness's vessel was stationary; she however went across witness's bows. Heard the person with the speaking trumpet call " Luff," viz., to put the helot down. His helm had been down for half an hour. When he came across witness's bow, his anchor stock came across the plaintiff's main rigging. The witness then described the damage to have occurred by that accident. Witness's head gear was damaged. The plaintiff ought to have afterwards put her helm up to have worn round, and then to have repaired the damage, instead of which he hoisted his peak, and so occasioned the loss of his mast. Witness offered to give him assistance if he wanted anything. and the plaintiff said " I want every thing ; I don't know' what I want." Re-examined—His damage was about 201., but be made no protest when he arrived at Torquay. The wind was fair for witness. If witness had altered his course be would have gone to leeward of the Good Intent about a mile and a half. While he was lying to he had five sail! set. The Elizabeth lay like a log on the water. His bowsprit got in the schooner. Jacob Hoare, the last witness's mate, gave similar testi mony; as did William Northay, the second mate. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 230/. COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.) (Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and a London Common Jury.) BERRY V. FLINN. This action was brought to recover damages for a breach of contract. Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN appeared for the plaintiff, so said his client was a young man in the coal trade, a nd in 1832, being about to enlarge his business, he took a wharf from the defendant, at 47, Lower Shadwell, where be intended to carry on business by Laving craft of his own. He was to have a frontage to the water, but when he entered upon the possession, he found the tenant of the next wharf claimed a right to the use of the whole frontage, an 4 ac tually used it, so that, up to the moment the plaintiff bad not been able to use any craft of his own, and was obliged to take advantage of the time that the wharf was clear, An that it cost him much more to carry on his business than it otherwise would, so that be was obliged to charge more to his customers. That the frontage was valuable was proved by the defendant himself actually receiving 181. a year from the person who enjoyed the privilege of land ing at it. He then called Sarah Russell, plaintiff's mother —Went with him in January, 1832, to li,ok at the premises in question, when they saw the defendant. Some barges were before the wharf, which she noticed, and defendant said, if the wharf was let, they would be removed, for Mr. Floyd was rather encroaching. He was then told that the premises were intended for the coal trade. Hail been frequently on the premises since her son took them, and the barges were still nearly two-thirds over the whole frontage. Charles Berry, a flour-factor, father of the d. fendant, was present when the agreement between the parties was drawn up. He also confirmed the testimony of the former witness as to the understanding about the bargee, and also that they were still moored there. His son had not room to land any goods. Mr. Robert Floyd, coal.merchant, resided next wharf to that of the plaintiff, and his barges were constantly moored across defendant's premises ; one of his barges filled the whole of it, and there was no room for him to land anything ; he claimed a right to moor his barges there under an agreement between him and Mr. White. Had paid 18/. per annum to Mr. Flinn, the defendant, as rent for that privilege. Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT-When he made that agreement with Mr. White, he did not see Mr. Flinn. When he paid the money, he paid it to Mr. Flinn in witness's counting-house. Had seen the plaintiff unloading hit goods, but ould not say from whose" barges. That was only as he could find space left by witness's barges. It certainly was not a free use of the wharf. Charles Berry recalled—Had given his son the greater p irt of his business for the last two years. He paid hint 6d. a sack for landing. At other places he got it done for 4d. The reason was that they had access to the crane. Cross-examined—His son had no craft of his own, nor any carts. Re-ex imined—His son had the means of purchosint craft if he could use it beneficially, and could du so had ha room to land the goods. William Kinchin, a lighterman, had been employed by the plaintiff frequently. Many wharfs charged 6d., but the greater part only charged 4d. The plaintiff's situation was a good one, and the charge there should only be 4d. He had lightered for him 300 sacks of flour in a week, and if he had craft of his own be would save ld. per sack. On the coals he would save nearly 7s. upon a barge of f lateen tons. John N.cholls, another lighterman in the coil trade..a On one occasion he took a punt of coals for plaintiff, b t a barge was lying before his wharf, and be was oblige t to take them away again. Another witness proved that the plaintiff lot nee . ly 3001. a-year by the want of the wharf in his coal trad Mr. PLATT made many objections in point of law. He contended that the written contract had been varied, and that there was no evidence to support the other coun's in the declaration. His LORDSHIP overruled the objections, but gave the defendant leave to move the Court upon the points. Mr. PLATT then addressed the Jury for the defendant, and after commenting strongly upon the evidence, a afed that the question was, whether the defendant had any know.. ledge of the agreement existing between Mr. White and Mr. Floyd. He had acted as agent for Mr. White, and there w as no proof that at the time of his making the agreement i n question he knew anything whatever of t he former agree ment as to the frontage, which was proved by his signing it, not as an agent, but in his own name. He called upon the Jury to look at the time the action was commenced, the very day after a year's rent became due, which was not paid to that day. His LORDSHIP left it to the Jury to say the amount of damages that should be given for the loss that the pl Mita had suffered. There was no doubt that he was entit'ed to. some for the breach of the agreement, which he considered clearly proved. It had been said for the defendant, that' he knew nothing of Mr. Floyd's right at the time of making the one in question, and only knew of it by letter' the mottling that he c died upon Mr. Floyd for the rent. If that were so, he could at once have put an end to , he action by putting that letter in evidence. The Jury, after a short consultation, retuned a rot' lik for the plaintiff, damages 2001. lIPPING DIAL, DFC, t :d the Diane trothers, F4ndremai F ATsmouTl with L Yuouzx, hea 1,1 f , MBROKF, ' f rom Queb L -AGATE, 1 4 POre ; frc L'AstsaATE, Read, fr LOVER, DE 1 Batavia. !ES, 13 1 Hatnbuni )4R.ThIOUT .tlifaronma; Bat,l lkszy,DE Russell, ge , Dup 1 4 e, from I rootE, Di ';t Lisbon. IttisToL, I 'trierarti , • 7 , 'lch frorr Pqto. kiLFORD, ' 4l l Queb.e. 00: Perna! inah ; TI Ites, West 41 Bengal • _ _ 4el), — fr 'arks, fro a Minerva RE . 1 - 1 N 0 C ► Demei d, from Arrow, The Earl is on 8 The F;iei "te near I The The ,tteked in the crew The Ails , ‘ttelted on The Mic ' I l Bar on lI. RO woul The Sel 4 11. M. '°e charge 7% of tt "Arcion Pray hi ° h PPonenta 4 /ing act 'town ot 6 k tding y ! 4 ottt to 4 lay and I am etude ti IQ be, Sii NI. D. ar b °t the 11 %nttitue Up t< Inails, p By ti th,,e Nor t( oveall bar e a follows , W, t I Y, as, 44 4 pry to the c r ejoicin Nrenci 44. th 4 nd Qt To ii, The erntra 41 The rem 0 terd t d desire are Us amend abuses Ttc th e B Th () Pent Accot Th 4kEne Eii raain has r, genes IR tb Spar 6 0 tl