The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-15 00:00:00

been fixed by various Lord Chancellors. There was a who got 7,000/ a year by the Bill, should be allowed to scale of fees fixed in the reign of George the Second by draw it up. It was said that it was hard to see men Lord Chancellor Herdwicke, which was remodelled in who held good situations turned out of their offices and 1 807, and from that time to the period of the pasAng of walk through the streets in poverty ; but was the public the Act the fees remained the same. He admitted to suffer fur that ? Were those who were entitled to no those fees were very high, and that the whole of the compensation to obtain large sums from the public arrangement in reference to those offices consti- purse?—(Hear, hear.) The public had a right to coin tilted a great abuse, and that it was necessary plain that they received this compensation without any to do away with them before any reform could inquiry. How was the Act of Parliament introduced ? be effected. In the year 1840, Mr. Field, a solicitor, in It was said to be approved of by the La w A ssoc i a ti on a seri es o f tables, called the attenti on o f th e public to in London, which was c o mpos e d of a tt erne y e , w h o this abuse, and he believed it was in consequence of the must at least be supposed to have an interest in the information presented in that gentleman's pamphlet matter. It for the first time int ro d uce d a new p r i nc i p l e. — that th e Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) (Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend had even obtained a return of the fees and emoluments of the six gone to Ireland for a precedent. But he failed; for in clerks, and the sworn clerks, from which it appeared the case he instanced the offieers compensated were that one of them, a M r. G atty, received between officers under patent, and their offices we re sa l ea bl e s O,OO Ol. and 11,000/., others 9,000/ , 6,0001., and so on ; by law.—(Hear, h ear .) Th ere were s i x c l er k s, and not subjtime received so small an amount as 20/. a year. The sixty clerks.—(hear, hear.) He said whether this Bill ect w as then brought before a C omm i ss i on, cons i st - h a d b een i n the House for months instead of hours, it IN' of the M aster of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, Vice- was the duty of those wh o b roug ht it i n t o rea d i t, an d Chancellor Wigram, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and the late if they read it they m us t see th a t a new pr i nc i p l e h a d Mr. Sutton Sharpe. The clerks, on being con- been for the fi rs t ti me i n t ro d uce d. H e was qu i te sure M ated with, stated their readiness to enter into that the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer would any views of reform on the understanding that they say, on introducing the Bill, that it introduced a new tishraould get compensation. A Bill was accordingly principle of compensation if he was aware of it i but Which up by one of the sworn clerks; Mr. Wainwright, the Bill was hurried on thr oug h the House with inde was submitted t o a C ommittee at the Law Insti- cent haste. It was bro ug ht into the House on the 29th te tion• The Bill, a f ter their supervision, was intro- of July, and it was read a first time on the same day. duced by Lord Langdale into the House of Lords, and It was read a second time before the Bill was printed. before its third reading Mr. Wainwright went through On the 2d of August it was committed, when, for the eits__various c l auses with Lord Cottenham; and as those first time, the compensation clauses were added—(Bear, e‘,),lnep ens ation clauses were passe d w i thout any oppo- hear)—and it was not till the third reading that those id on on th e part of the Noble and Learned Lord, he clauses were made known. He had, therefore, a right eine Solicitor-General) supposed he approved of them. It to say that the Bill was passed in indecent haste ; and he intro stoelil,renteirliai me down to that House at, he admitted, a late period was quite sure that if the new principle ntijosiiuielnds have se ssion, but still at a time when there were duced had been pointed ont to the Chan- Honourable Members in attendance who cellor of the Exchequer, or to the Right opposed it if it contained any pro- Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, di d were were considered objectionable. The they would not have sanctioned it.—(Hear, hear.) If . it T he „e n d not 'sas s I' through the House sub silentio. had been said to them -that it was desirable . to abolish ' I • and Learned Member for Sheffield made a those offices, they would not, looking to the interest of eclnestrison between the remuneration for political and the public, have allowed such a Bill to pass in such a p r ofessio na l fo r m e , services. The Honourable Member manner.—(Hear, hear.) All his Hon. and Learned found that stated that he had examined the Bill, and Friend wanted now was an inquiry. They did not want i n its kearddetailsenr: tit was perfectly correct in its principles and to alter the Bill altogether. All they wanted to see was, __The Hon. and Learned Member for Lis- whether it was good. The six clerks were entitled to efficersPri proposes 10 . compensate the agents of certain compensation, but there was no provision for pensions h ewever, 4 the Court of Exchequer. That proposal, after, death. But who were the sworn clerks ? into t h e tas not agreed to. The Bill found its way (Hear hear.) Was the nature of their office inquired th e seeet euti °use of Lords, not clandestinely, but under into ? Was that an office that could be sold ? It never quai nted 1°1 ? and auspices of persons who were well ac- had been sold, ualess by some evasion of the statute. Were not with all the circumstances of the case, but who Had they inquired into the amount of their fees ? What sati on b w illing to deprive the parties of their compen- had been done with regard to those fees ? When equity th e duti e cause it was larger than was consistent with business was transacted in the Court of Exchequer, all bla me .es they had to perform. If there were any the officers of that court were paid from the public funds, gi s l ato in the matter, it attached to the whole Le-. and now, after their business was transferred to the side wer e r e there was no individual exempt. What clerks in the Court of Chancery, the public was to pay of hi s 1,91 e grounds of o bj ect i on on t h e part again —(Hear)--that was, the public was to p a y twice th ou , 101 1. and Lea rne d F r i end ? In the first place he for the abolit i on of the same office.—(Hear, hear.) By by tt the principle of compensation would be admitted the 12th section of the sth and 6th Victoria, chap. 103, proprieyhere could nonbe a doubt as to the justice and the Lord Chancellor was empowered to inquire who for se ley of compensating officers for offices legally held were entitled to receive compensation. Did the Lord Jetted n' a period. His Hon. and Learned Friend ob- Chancellor do so ? Let them inquire if it was so. That f i e ten to the amount of compensation, stating that suf- was all they wanted.—(Hear.) His Hon. and Learned eert a • t ea lltion was not maintained for the purpose of as- Friend the Solicitor-General said the Lord Chancel restedtatng the proper sums. If that were so, the blame for was fettered, and that he could not give less than the dee with those who passed the Bill. The grounds of three-fourths. Who wore to blame for this ? Was it H ere luerent charges, and the nature of the emoluments not the Legislature who passed such an Act ?—(Hear, no P er fectly well known in the profession. There was bear.) Upon what principle were the agents to be com- V a r r n t i i i e eEt e e e i s sitY, therefore, for guarding the return by any pensated ? If they were justly entitled to it, what a ar sanction. No discretion was left by the Act of crying injustice had been done to the clerks in the Court ee tupe tnent to the individual who was to administer the of Exchequer. He defied any person to say that there for th e nsl tion- The rate of compensation was to be--- was a legal claim for compensation. But it was said that tou rsettie 4 si x clerks, three-fourths • and for the clerks in it was but an act of justice eovvards those persons to pay l‘litf erd 4 d agents, two-thirds. In one case—that of Mr. them, and that it would be very hard if they were not me --the salary had been made the subject of trust paid. Perhaps he (Mr. Jervis) also thought it would be pr essed rat, and that was at the time particularly im- hard, but was this a ground on which those who were nee e s , on the attention of the House. It had responsible for the public purse should act ?—(Hear, bad eated that there were a great number of hear.) He would ask, therefore, whether they were Li - nebts. s H oe He believed that on that subject prepared to say that any man, who wars a mere writing The d e b' and Learned Friend was entirely mistaken. clerk, liable to dismissal at a moment's notice at the will p oems, ts did not amount to more than a thousand of his master, should be entitled to compensation by an Pri en d and that amount was deducted. His Hon. annuity for life.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that this bill iutrns, perhaps, not aware of what was done by the was a subject which called for inquiry in the House of biz el er Tt!ced by Lord Plunket in 1836, abolishing the Commons. If there had been inquiry in this case, the Pre e i sei " Office in Dublin. That Bill was founded on compensation would not have exceeded 20,0001 . instead tio n. ,Y, the same principle as the Bill under considera- of 46,0001., which was now paid. In the meantime, the 6 00 e p : he emoluments of the office were not more than fees which were abolished, or to be abolished, were in comp": an emoluments They had 4,000/. paid to them as a creased in amount, even though they might be ittl aye ....atioll for the abolition of their office ; and upon changed in form and in name. Were they to be s d,'. 4 .ge of three years they received an additional surprised that the solicitors who had to charge s a le eo ern tre e. their life.. This was a much stronger case these fees in the costs, should complain and —Pensation; and it afforded a complete precedent for require that the system should be altered, and that ee coarse titttreed 1 , adopted on this occasion. His Hon. and the fees should not be so heavily increased to pay ten of th e r k n u d s h e a b d y endeavoured to excite the compas- these compensations ? The cost of passing the Act was li e sat thatspeaking of the poor suitors' fund. charged to the Suitors' Fund. had not the suitors a t on for t h,, fund was burdened to the extent of a mil- right to complain of that?—(Hear, hear.) Was it just t; deal W i t i t se co mpensations. The only fund they had of the Lord Chancellor and the Government to put the to to was the Suitor's Fee Fund. That fund was expenses of the Act of Parliament for granting thatcom elerks, the t h e amount of '7 000/ received by the six pensation to the charge of the Suitors' Fund ?—(Hear, Z i llose efne fee clerks , ' ' and the other clerks, hear.) To say the least of it, he would insist that this , ere h es were abolished. Unless the Legis- was at least a subject for inquiry,. and unless it were ete l) , ,„ 1 , aid posed , inter the , fee could not have granted the public would not be satisfied. Ive re - ' l4lsh ed• Th ere bo n , e compensations, he admitted, Mr. R. YORKE had been a Member of the House of be zla.vsettligeeedexthtealtidi:dwatso between 46 000/ and 47 000/. Commons when this Bill was pasted, and he cordially .11e w cis . the just some compensation . should supported the motion, of his Hon Friend, the Member that the Ina Persons who held those offices, and he for Kinsale.. to 1, Be ex many lion. Members opposite would agree Sir J. GRAHAM was obliged[ to state to the House ue bo re P e i nse of defraying those compensations ought the reason why he opposed this motion. Ile admitted d oor suitors oy the Consolidated Fund, and not by the that time did not sanctify an abuse. But it was to ''esea , and the object of the present Bill was to be recollected that these offices had been held for a time 'l' se th e he s chyr which now pressed upon the suitors. gating as far back as Charles the First ; and when Mr. t w tue a ,.. ges B ,,, e en 45, 00 d4td for compensation amounted to be- Pemberton Leigh spoke from the other side of the 6 ' down fore ,and 46,000/. In every case which was House, in 1840, which had been alluded to by the Hon. 41 s ; Bd., whieksial those clerks were entitled to a fee of and Learned Gentleman who now intr o d uce d the subject ti,,h e a similar f brought in a sum of 15,000/ There was to the House, he (Mr. Pemberton Leigh) admitted that pri,, . , 00/. had tobe oli s h ed b a mounted to etoLboerdpaid upon every warrant of taxa the officers to be displaced were entitled to large and libe -8,0001. These fees bad been ral compensation. When the Bill, which was prepared by 44 4 1; 4 1 1: 2 11 : 0 11 e t: Ch!inc d el f lor and therefore th e Mr. Wainwright, was introduced, his Noble and Learned ,vhel!eepetiee-hal'enyn to thf ea ch folio Cop pros es i ora , ndin lieu of that the Friend now on the woolsack, acquiescing in all was raised from three-halfpence the statements of Mr. I'. Leigh, laid it down that the h old system the officers were entitled to compensation. The Bill passed 19, 0 t 7 e l yer centag;`Pw 77,3 Una. 1, er nd the resent it was through the House of Lords, having received the appro. N s en slier 2481 i . n o a _f s avr l . 9 of u the e s r uitor p s. But there bation of Lord Langdale, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and ( l ti esia °. " e r Point 4 44 11 Year t be . considered with respect to th , s Mr. Sharpe, and was sent down to this House. The Hon. Den s Y , pensation, and that was that before and Learned Member for Chester had said that, in the te e atteu wo old elapsed the necessity for this corn- Bill there were provisions quite unexampled—that it k e :ett ors , i ,_ old be at an end, and the dividend upon gave compensation for the sale of offices in the adminis eon referring to the Bill itself, ev en Had hi d would give a further reduction of other tration of justice. than th e le i_os Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, or it would be seen,. from ' the fourteenth clause, that the thi s th ost Zuase, more information upon this subject object of the Bill that sto put an end to the sale of offices, tee, . raeaso_eXcellent persons who recommended and the fact was . it had done so. The sums awarded le; r lene e ? r .• and who had such extensive to the six clerks in Ireland, under the sanction of Lord ie ht4 l ,,he tra st "a it were necessary to pass such a mea- Cottenham, were expressly declared h to d be as compensa tees t ref us e d no person in the House would for an tion for the privilege which they had enjoyed of the IIL, Wh os e allowing fair compensation to those per- transfer or sale of office durirg life. The Act dent bei4 in fujur e in life had been unfairlyobtained, or smuggled through prospects and hopes a stie Ili // Jared by the repeal of an Act of Parlia- Parliament. On the contrary, it had been pre- With "g b e s h i e n. and Learned Friend in his speech left pared and examined with the greatest care. It h a the parlld, because he said there was some motive It could not be said truly that this measure was . smug ekec,sstil3, tor ,oes who brought in this measure to pass gled through Parliament or surreptitiously obtained. The 11 0 heti beenpasternnbvtow. ed. His (the Solicitor-General's) properly . carried into execution ? The . Lord Chancellor, N er of th e / 1 e " Friend was right in saying that the on making the award of compensation to be given, N s tee clerks olls had the appointment of the six clerks, called to his assistance the Master of of the Rolls and Act ' the i s ,, of the writs and the clerks of the re- Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and all the compensations that a's re ' W ould ' L Lr of whom, when appointed under this had been given received their sanction, and were, inva with also slit fetes alaries of 1,2001. per annum each. There riably, the minimum of the Act of Parliament. 6,0001. Cat is; t he Lp a ta r , x ing officers hose appointment lay a-year had already been remitted from the Suitors' Fund, \-lia,l•lllt,.th:,'‘-cellor • ' but instead of exercising and in the course of 20 years 45,0001. would be re ttd t e rY Ot o ' Nodeand Learned Lord vested it in the mitted. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by hoping L, s , re, o,,tnrnissioners who selected three solicitors that the House would not accede to the motion. tei a rnee p r r clerks of the Court. Had his Hon. and Mr. WILLIAMS announced the whole matter [as a th(t eut l i ill h a d satisfied the House that the framrs of scandalous job. It had been said that his Hon. Friend at, „eries Of no proper caution in the matter ? the Member for Montrose had supported the Bill. He f ur reter the re " - dean hear," from the Opposition) —or (Mr. Williams) was sure he would never have done so certhkler fair Peal of the former laws, it was improper had he been properly made acquainted with the provi toettloti tiie°lll4Ptensation? He sho ' uld trespass no sions of the measure. Unless there was a new system ~e ]lo u ghs h e attention of the House than merely to of management of the public business, it would .be 'in lee to Pe that he had stated enough to induce impossible, he was afraid, to prevent jobs of this kind. t hat tia'n• and -- e ille to the conclusion that the motion of The public were entitled to protection from this system, ee ke ,1 37 " t w, s our d e : r r. n .s e_d Friend was perfectly useless, and and her Majesty's Government, in defence of the Act, Op en _ sW_ te reuse it. ought to allow inquiry into it. l '' It 'atto et " r e u s e it. respect to the nature of the Mr. C. BULLER was prepared to defend the vote he tie d en o be i e e ed a nd L e ,g en to the claimants and its amount should give to her Majesty's Ministers against the first illeet et a fig newallied Friend who just sat down had part of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member t ree m e t tl i d ut7der.,h but had informed the House b for Kinsale. The House, in looking .rb to the great question etl e t r il e Ci: l u. ' a nd had also a t s circumstances the Bill had been of Law . reform ought not to beilnieveera to in compensation; with. 1 -er,F e of Ileet kr to _I o stated the construction given pecuniary consideration ought . interfere . kt '' but egtni nissio • the Act. There certainly was no great practical good—( Hear ) — and acting upon thatpnn le, fo r L. rather, e n against the Noble and Learned ciple, he should vote against the motion. This measure ISt, "an and of omission for he allowed others to had been denounced as a job ; now he knew the whole Ali reci t e' - to eo construe the . nstrue the Act, which, being him- of this measure proceeded from gentlemen who . were Itsl3llthbe proiest?l:_tnliorised to do, he was bound to look to. among some of the most sincere law reformers in the file,e.eNlJiett_lea_s";'° new that their clients were a bound country.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this Act no qu9s "ty 4 Friend Per cent for those fees, and what his tion had arisen as to its working, while Il re t ° 1 near • th veil ed all th e him wanted was to have an in- upon other Acts the greatest question had arisen. eiltlit netsgai nst s,teepicion and distrust which he The latter partof . the motion he thought was well worthy se e q, fo r of ',._at measure, but they were told of the consideration of the House. That part . of the f tape < cone en h e L ae parties had the slighest motion which proposed an inquiry into the subject of tu t a e n. li e f e nt, and yet they refused any fees in the courts of law and equity was entitled to sup- . ,k(, Proced,,,, felt sure the House would not allow port. In those courts one hundred persons had the v i ••eed , ..i. as this Bill t li4 e rou e " )1. t he first J would afford, to be now control of 300,000/ Ninety-one of those werein the 1 1 ,, ,,. 5 .et - th _nre eedent, ~.iine. It would truly be a most law courts, and they were subject to no check whatever wk,ati invent p ublic ~‘uri t the officers, who were the guar - with respect to that money. .In the courts of equi ty . flues()w Igati,, k' se, were to be allowed impunity the persons appointed to receive the fees were required sops, Prop ose ,. He thought those offices, which it to make an affidavit with respect to them. Many of the , w eet ae , "u to abolish, ought to have been long fee-takers in the law courts were small salaried men, and s' 4 't w e tiedY. T 1 • ‘i t er e The six clerks originally were per- therefore there were great temptations before them. lv- • once , een admitted to those courts with a pa- Another very important question was the necessity of t e ' lt earr ? ' "d all soi' • . r if tha , k til led on in th Titers who had business should taking fees at all in the courts of law.—(Hear, hear.) tit s e le er en:elees, eir E n ame, although they did all He thought the whole system required inquiry and re- Vs as man ease oe business' ach generally, in consequence vision, and he thought the Government would do well sikil• and a s fi._ n , had ten assistants, and some- to institute an inquiry into the subject. !Isrk s 4 ,-"arn ed Vfe__ . .or twenty were allowed. His Mr. WARBURTON said he recollected . reading in lids) ae .i.a(-1 th e r'i:le,nctopp9site had said, that those the memoirs of the Duke de St. Simon, that when a , ( 4e, l ves ' t i l ed tha t, of selling their offices. He (Jr. proposition was submitted to him for law reform, he said eLes u eclar e d ee 1, ,, it i: 1 111 , for because by a statute of Edward 111. that it could never be accomplished, inasmuch as there as t re si x e t a nected any person to sell were so many persons whose livelihood depended upon 14 rie th ee ti 3: cle rks had the administration of justice, those law institutions. Thus was law reform frustated Wthts. he b argain clients amongst the attorneys, in the time of Louis XIV. Now his Hon. Friend the k 4 tio, clerks an - pease si st e waiting e _ s with them for a share in their Member for Liskeard had fallen into this kind of tender lerks wer noere common clerks heartedness, and would not give his consent to law ;grer,aerah. great a i r ll . ) NI 44 0 Li th an a , . cl they h admore right to com- reform unless an unlimited compensation accompanied it. , f3 tvee r f ney.---._re n eY law stationer who was employed b • In tole cau se 1 1 the taxation of costs , sixtyand t 3::: 4 ell e s t e s t t e lt ak;r:aes ood on the The clerks were with his Hon. Friend. Why, if they gave this immense 1 0 ne ed ---. ( 1 1e t and got 6/. Bs. for compensation to parties, whether they were entitled to it what ea 6s. Bd., if Pape!, though it did not or not it would only have the effect of disgusting the public . iii b ,;! .. th e , 0 be li n inh t , he time of Lord Eldon with respect to all attempts at law reform. Now, with ii.e t, s 13 .r ut re ce i y _ , erof causes, for each of respect to these fees, about which there had been . so , 4 , 4 of thpposed to have? He they only stood on the much discussion. It must be recollected that these fees lit i ke e ttl e sh his d i ot, d ; Lord Lyndhurst do? What did had been, on several occasions, altered and interfered uh., re 3 ,, r nnio n of the aade_e_% on _ order He interests those with by several of the late Lord Chancellors, and yet e -e e • . is A e t , ev e 6 _ eta, made actually,. before the the compenstion for these fees had been fixed at the t (trefa, 4 8(1 - forby which they were highest point. This was a course of law reform which ti,, , ekr, h ea r _deprivin:%em aliToonneethe;day on which it he oat once if he considererd. 3: h ad .) would of 10,0001. a-year, would disgust the public. N . o one would object to corn tqts h ave en d right e air n s a a n t i d o n j ü b s e t i n ; g a n egi i iv , en, therefore rovi d , e d h. e. that th 0 n compensation v er n was v trou t944da that •—(Hear, hear.) ent ought to support a proposition for inquiry into the Yet it l if t[ tig to , claims for corn • was on subject. rl ken 1,300 000/. pensation were made Solicitor ‘i. t 4 irks w _ • —(Cheers.) The Mr. WATSON, in reply, said that the _ sX ti ); w ere .7e copying clerk s of he .agents or General had stated that he (Mr. Watson) had no right S : I I . Y t, e sixt; l e t d 10 ' a folio out of thesixty clerks, to interfere in this subject. Now he was prepared to t ^ dot el ) thi s? it clerks received. [mono _lod. a folio show that he had this right, inasmuch as the Act o . f . °re right was merewhat right had Parliament provided that the returns of these compen of t? NYirig clerk l iad they to receive th —p ) (Hear.) sations should be laid on the table of the House. Why (, tv e) Iv ,who was ,able is. money than was that provision made, if it was not to give the House li e en au . " it right that the to do h • is business? wi., interest i 1 at the attorneys in London , Wainwright — for . • the power of investigation? It now appeared that Mr. wl the • nt se matter h d his name appeared at last—had re six ty clerk , s oul be allowed to calved 3,0001. for the Bill for • ' en s, and that AIL Wainwe • preparing ight, satton. They might as well make 'the felon pay for the THE • SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 15, 1844. gallows on which they hanged him as make the unfor tunate suitors in Chancery pay this amount. He] said there had been no sale of offices. The Right Hon. Baronet said there had been a sale. Issue was joined upon that point, and a Committee ought to decide. —(Cheers.) The Irish case was perfectly different— there a patent office was in question—an office which was legally the subject of purchase and sale. 'The taxing masters in the Court of Chancery had 2,0001. a-year, while the taxing masters in the courts of common law, who had a great deal more to do, had 1,2001. a-year. When the Bill had been brought for ward, the Right Hon. Baronet had never told the House that the compensation would amount to 7,5001. a-year during the lives of the parties, and 2,5001. a-year for some years after their death. The Hon. and L!arned Member for Liskeard said that if the motion passed it would put a stop to all law reform. He should suspect fur the future all persons who talked of law reform who did not vote for this motion. Ile had showed the House that these fees were not worth ten days' purchase. They had been altered by Lord Hardwicke, and one great fee had been entirely abolished by Lord Lyndhurst within one month after he had been first appointed to office. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there.appeared— For the motion 68 Against it commendations had been embodied in the Act of Parlia ment, but in order to modify it so as to found on it a practical working measure, he had deemed it advisable to send to Ireland a gentleman who was well-acquainted with the working of the poor-laws in England ; and Mr. Nicholls had been sent to Ireland, where, although he had only remained a short time, he had collected a great deal of information. There were, in his opinion, certain general principles of poor-law legislation, which would be found as etTective in Switzerland and in Spain as they were in England or Ireland, and those principles ought always to be kept steadily in view. He regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not ascertained the sentiments of the Irish Membors before he had consented to the appointment of the Committee, but he thought that, under all the circumstances, the best tlinl,l that could be done would be to rescind the order which had been agreed to without discussion, although he could not but wish that it had never been agreed to. Sir 11. W. BARRON thought that the House and country would be taken by surprise if the motion were pressed to a division. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet in the opinion which he had expressed as to the operation of the poor-laws in Ireland; and as he con ceived that the appointment of this Committee would lead to hopes which would never be realised, he hoped the Hon. Baronet would withdraw his motion. After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS, Sir J: GRAHAM moved as an amendment that the order be discharged. manufacturer, Liverpool, June 6, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court—J. Stuart, draper, Liverpool, June 5, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court—W. Farrell, cattle salesman, West Derby, Lancashire, June 7, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court—J. Evans, coal dealer, Liverpool, June 8, at half-past eleven, at the Liverpool District Court— S. Richardson, merchant, Liverpool, June 8, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court—G. and J. Wilkinson, curriers, Bi shop Auckland, Durham, June 5, at half-past one, at the New castle-upon-Tyne District Court—W. Bearup, joiner, New castle-upon-Tyne, June 6, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon- Tyne District Court—R. Paddon, chemist, Hartlepool, Dur ham, June 4, at one, at the Newcastle•upoa-Tyne District Court—J. Price, money scrivener, Lanfoist, Monmouthshire, June 4, at half-past one, at the Bristol District Court—T. Rawlings, auctioneer, Cheltenham, June 6, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court—H. Jefford, builder, Lyme Regis, June 6, at twelve, at the Exeter District Court—T. and W. Reeves, coach builders, Claines, Worcestershire, June 5, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court—J. Warburton, miller, Brow yard, Herefordshire, June 5, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the contrary, on the day herein-mentioned. J. Haddock, printer, Craven-yard, Drury-lane, June 7- R. Webster, victualler, Oxford-market, June 4—J. E. Ri dont, woolstapler, Ringwood, Hampshire, June 4--H. M. Low and W. M. Westerman, merchants, Calcutta, June 6—W. Scott, wine merchant, Regent-street, June 5—J. and G. Ewart, auctioneers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne June 4—T. Bom ford, hay deal er , Ch ' eltenham, June 5—R. Turner, fancy cloth manufacturer, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, July . 3-1. Eckersley, victualler, Liverpool, June 4---E. Poore, druggist, Bampton, Devonshire, June 6—W. Whitfield, grocer, Bridgewater, So mersetshire, June 6—H. Mitchell, fellrnonger, Nottingham, June la—H. Grove, grocer, Birmingham, June I2—P. Sed don, coal dealer, Middle Hulton, Lancashire, June 5-11. Or bell, victualler, Romford, June 4—T. Fawcett and J. Muir, builders, Hollingworth, Cheshire, June 4—R. Freeman, builder, Ely, Cambridgeshire, June 4—R. T. Milbanke, sur geon, Burwoed-place, Edgeware-road, June 4—H. Wickham, linen draper, Bristol, June 4 —W. Bourne, woollen draper, Coleman-street, June 4—J. Sparham, miller, Troston, Suf folk, June 4—W. Carr, merchant, Sunderland, Durham, June 4—R. Goodwin, ironmonger, Eton, Buckinghamshire, Ju ne 4 —H. Edwards, coal merchant, St. Alban's, June 4. Majority against the motion... POOR LAWS (IRELAND.) Sir D. NORREYS moved the .appointment of the following Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts — Sir Denham Norreys, Lord Eliot, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Mr. Young, Mr. French, Viscount Bernard, Mr. John O'Connell, Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir Henry Winston . Barron, Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay, Mr. Vesey, Sir Edmund Hayes, - Mr. Bellew, and Mr. E. P. Shirley. This question was in a very peculiar position, and he could not understand the grounds on which it was in tended to oppose the appointment of this Committee. The poor-law in Ireland was an experiment, and all that was asked for was inquiry. He denied that his object was to procure the repeal of the poor-laws. The alteration in the poor-laws in England was an experi ment. Some years after the experiment had been insti tuted the House had granted an inquiry. Why should they refuse an inquiry into the working of the poor-laws in Ireland ? and yet they had virtually refused to do so. The conduct of the Govern ment had been most unstatesmanlike. They had, in the first instance, granted this Committee, because they had beep badgered into it by his Hon. Friend the Member for Kildare, and then, because his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Dublin said "No," they had refused it. They were about to rescind their own act by re sisting the nomination of a Committee. Some half dozen of Members opposed it, and therefore the Go vernment thought themselves justifie.l in opposing it. If the Government thought the poor-law worked well and beneficially in Ireland, they should not have supported the appointment of a Committee; but if they really con sidered that the matter required revision, they should have granted it. The public mind in Ireland was so much engaged on another subject, that its attention was diverted from the consideration of the poor-laws; but there was a strong feeling in that country that many of the provisions of that law required remodelling. He looked upon the poor• laws as now established in a manner that would prevent their ever being done away with, but he thought that there were several defects that might be remedied. He wished that the Com mittee should be appointed, to consider the general work ing of the system, and see how far it was likely to meet the objects for which it was intended. Mr. BELLEW opposed the motion. He thought that at the present time no advantage would be derived from the proposed inquiry. He complained that the Poor-law Commissioners had not sufficiently studied the wishes of the inhabitants of the people of Ireland, and he regretted also that no attempt had been made to legislate on medical charities. But he thought that within a year or two from this time a Committee would be much more useful than it could be at present. Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member for Mallow having made his speech, he hoped he would now be somewhat more at ease, and not press his motion. The House would recollect that he had, at the close of the last session, given an assurance that if Irish Peers de sired inquiry on this subject he would yield to their wishes, and that he had given a similar assurance with respect to Irish Members in that House. A great number of the Irish Peers were adverse to the inquiry sought for by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow, as also was his Hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's County, and a number of other Irish commoners. He was decidedly of opinion that the proposition of the Hon. Baronet, for a Committee, would be attended with not the slightest 'practical or beneficial result at this period of the session. The questions proposed to be entered upon in that Committee were so multifarious and difficult, that the more he considered the motion of the lion. Baronet he was confirmed in this opinion. He was most anxious to allow a fair trial to the measure of laSt year, and to be influenced by the opinions of those Members of this House who were connected with Ireland -16 Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeard— For Sir J. Graham's amendment 42 Against it lO Majority for Sir J. Graha m ' s amen d men t —32 OLERK ol"ruE CROWN. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for a Selecb Committee to inquire into the duties and emoluments of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.— Agreed to. Colonel SIBTIIORP moved for returns relating to the improvement of the river Shannon.—Agreed to. Sir DENHAM NORREYS moved for a Select Com mittee, to inquire wh e th er t h e present townland Alua tion oflreland, made by the Commissioners of Valuation under the Act 1 and 2 Vic., c. 52, can be made avail able for the imposition of poor -rate and other local rates in that country ; and also, whether it be not desirable to alter the principle on which the townland valuation is now constructed.—Agreed to. The County Rates' Bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be committed on the 31st inst. The Customs' Duties Bill went through Committee.— Report to be received this day. The House then adjourned at One o'clock. TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. WHITEHALL, MAY 13, 1844. The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Knight of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto James Aunesley, Esq., of the Madras Medi ca l E s t a bli s h ment . CROWN.OFFICE, MAY 13, 1844. MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIA MENT. BOROUGH OF ABlNGDON.—Frederic Thesiger, of Bryan stun-square, in the parish of St. Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, Esq., her Majesty's Solicitor-General, in the room of Thomas Duffield, Esq., who has aczepted the Chiltern Hundreds. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, MAT 11. Royal Regiment of Artillery.-First Lieutenant A. Benn ebe Second Captain, vice Geary, deceased ; Second Lieute nant S. Robinson to be First Lieutenant, vi Benn. April 28. MeatoeAwnUM. -The dates of the promotion of the under mentioned officers have been altered as follows :-Second Cap tain H. A. Turner, Jan. 14 ; Second Captain T. B. F. Mar riott, March 30 ; Second Captain W. H. Elliot, April 1 ; Second Captain T. Ramsay, April 15; First Lieutenant D. M. Fraser, Jan. 14; First Lieutenant J. D. Telfer, March 7 ; First Lieutenant C. J. Strange, March 30; First Lieutenant C. Frye, April 1; First Lieutenant F. C. Standish, April 15. WHITEHALL, MAY 9, The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Henry Gimblett, Gent., of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Ch ancery. BANKRUPTS. THOMAS COURTNEY LANCEFIELD, builder, Au gustus-square, Regent's-park, to surrender May 24, at two, and June 25, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane ; Yenning, Naylor, and Co., Tokenhouse-yard. WILLIAM BURTON, upholsterer, Ki ng - s t reet, Soho, r ll u l p a t y c3 2 ,! , at two, Whitmore, and official assignee, Basingh a ll- street ; Ben- June 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bank nett, Bloomsbury-square. JAMES MICHEL POLAK, merchant, Coleman-street buildings, City, May 24, at two, and June 21, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms yard ; Maltby and Grant, Broad-street-buildin gs , JOSEPH BOWDEN, iron founder, -Wakefield, May 25, and June 18, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee, Leeds; Willis and Co., Tokenhouse-yard, London ; Sykes, Wakefield. JOH N 1 SUNMAN AUSTIN, builder, Bedford, May 21, at half- past one, and June 21, at one, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lombard street; Buchanan and Grainger, Basinghall-street, City. ELIZABETH HAYWARD, innkeeper, Castle Heding ham, Essex, May 22, at half-past one, and June 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street • Marston, Torrington-square, London. EDWIN REEVE, fruiterer, Liverpool, May 24, at twelve, and June 20, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Caze nove, official assignee, Liverpool ; Holme, Loftus, and Young, New Inn, London ; Booker, Liverpool. JOHN BAKER, grocer, Romsey, Hants, May 24, at half past two, and June 21, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms-yard; Curtis, Romsey, Hants ; Bower and Son, Chancery-lane. JOHN PLEDGE, carpenter, Vauxhall-street, Lambeth, May 21, at half-past one, and June 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane; Harpur, Kennington-gross. EDWIN FOSTER, tailor, Dover, May 21, at half-past eleven, and June 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, Aldertnanbury ; Dods and Linklaters, Leadenhall-street, London. ELAH BRENNAND, ironmonger, Highgate, May 21, at half-past one, and June 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Coleman-street; Bartholo mew, Gray's Inn. EDWARD BROWN, merchant, Birmingham, May 24, and June 28, at one, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birmingh am; Birmingham.J. W. and G. Whateley, JOHN TODD, son., and JOHN TODD, ironmongers, Bury-street, Bloomsbury, May 28, at twelve, and July 3, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official as signee, Basinghall-street ; R oberts, o- Bride-court, Fleet-street. THOMAS HEWETT WETMORE, grocer, Worcester, May 22, and June 24, at e l even, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittieston, official assignee, Birmingham ; Berkeley, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London ; Hare, Birmingham. RICHARD RICHARDSON, gambroon-manufacturer, Manchester, June 10, and 24, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stanavray, twelve,Bar Barnstaple; st a l a ) ined; Moore, e 2, official assignee, Manchester; Reed and Shaw, Friday -street, London ; Sale and Worthington, Manchester. HENRY DRAKE, attorney, Barnstaple, Devonshire, May 26, atone, Court. Hertzel, official assignee, ' Exeter ; Bemridge and 2 T 8 I:11 c a r t , London. r ay Exeter,s Inn - square, District JOHN WINDOW HARRIS, wine-merchant, Wolver hampton, May 24, at half-past one, and June 18, at half-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official assignee, Birmingham ; Phillips and Bolton, Wolverhampton. NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. J. Unsvrorth, butcher, Liverpool. J. Balls, jun., omnibus driver, Holloway-road, Islington. R. H. Talbot, Millbank-street, Westminster. J. Ball, plumber, Union-road, Clapham-rise. T. Bevins, beer retailer, Regent -street, Vauxhall-bridge-road. T. Adams, Blackman-street, Southwark. E. Russell, Oval, Kennington. J. Baker, grocer, Goudhurst, Kent. J. Taylor, painter, St. Alban's-street, Kennington-road. F. J. Foreman, licensed victualler, Seven Oaks, Kent. J. Harwood, tailor, Hatherleigh, Devonshire. J. Walker, King's Norton, Worcestershire. F. R. Williams, St. James's-place, Walworth-common. H. Mopsey, sheriff's officer, Baker's-row, Walworth-common. R. Blackhunt, auctioneer, Toxteth-park, Lancashire. H. Ward, blacksmith, Eckington, Derbyshire. J. Young, auctioneer, Durham. W. Canner, cabinet maker, Brighton. J. Sparke, Princes-street, Drury -lane. J. Dyer, innkeeper, Kingston St, Michael, Wiltshire. T. Clough, provision dealer, Bradford, Yorkshire. • E. Hodson, clerk, Birmingham. J. W. Hentig, wine merchant, Hamilton-place, St, Pancras. E. Coxson, wheelwright, Sonthchurch, Essex. S. Short, boot maker, Berwick -street, St. James's. A. Thomas, clog maker, Oldham, Lancashire. H. F. Brown, veterinary sur geon , Bakewell, Derbyshire. H. W. Salisbury, goldsmith, King's-road, Chelsea. J. Bond, tailor, Manchester. W. G. Legge, accountant, Shaftesbury-street, New North-road. R. Duke, police officer, Henry-street, Pentonville. J. Griffin, miller, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. W. L. F. Tollemache, Hyde-park-place, Marylebone. W. Lillie, wheelwright, Deptford. J. Slade, carpenter, Bexley, Kent. R. Nash, letter-carrier, Stockton, Durham. R. Oake, joiner, Leeds. J. B. Broomhead, Batley, Yorkshire. T. Braim, commission agent, Leeds. J. Jones, plasterer, Liverpool. D. Blair, boot maker, Manchester. E. B. Downing, commission agent, Birmingham. E. Kirby, jun., paper maker, Maidstone, Kent. W. Styles, butterman, Rotherfield, Sussex. W. Gant, grocer, Castleacre, Norfolk. T. Mathew, labourer, Coychurch, Glamorganshire. B. Watkinson, draper, Castleston, Derbyshire. H. W. Timmer, clerk Reading, Berkshire. 11. Collins, plumber, Greenwich. W. Lys, hatter, Road-side, Mile-end-road. J. Lynes, Bloxham, Oxfordshire. J. Charlesworth, elothier, Alraondbury, Yorkshire. W. H. Alsop, accountant, Manchester. J. H. Leathes, Norwich. S. Alcock, bent maker, Manchester. H. North, confectioner, Mousley, Leicestershire. F. J. Grace, tailor, Arlington-street, St. Pancras. SECOND NOTICES. W. Carter, pig jobber, Artillery-row, Westminste r , M ay 20, at eleven, at the Courtßankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. W. Young, servant, Norwood, May 20, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. W. M'Carthy, clothier, Portsmouth, May 18, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. J. Mathews, tallow chandler, Hammersmith, May : 1 21, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, o ffi c i a l assignee. F. Whitehead, m a il cart driver, ong Melford, Suffolk, May 21, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. M. Haynes, Weston-super-Mare, Somersetshire, May 20, at eleven, at the Bristol District Cond. Kynaston, official assignee. J. Barrett, surgeon, Bath, May 20, at half -past twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official assignee. DIVIDENDS. Mr. F. FRENCH supported the motion of his Hon. Friend for a Committee. Such a Committee had been sanctioned on a former occasion by the Right Hon. Ba ronet, and he (Mr. French) certainly thought it was now rather a singular mode, when it suited his will and plea sure, to call upon the House to stultify itself by rescind ing the opinion they had expressed on that eccasien. Would the Right Hon. Baronet (notwithstanding his vic tory last night) now maintain unaltered a lass, which tended by its operation to increase every existing evil of which Ireland hitherto complained, because some Hon. Members from Ireland said that amongst their con stituencies there existed no desire for a change with re spect to the Irish poor-laws? But he would challenge them to show that in a vast majority of the parishes of Ireland the operation of those laws was not attended with the greatest detriment.—(Hear, hear.) • Such must be the opinion of any one who paid the slight. est attention to the spirit and tone of the Irish press. (The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from a letter of the Rev. Mr. O'Malley,- who had been an advocate of poor-laws, to show they had not worked well in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to show that Mr.. Nicholls was quite incorrect in his calculations as to the expense of building the poor-houses, and the number of persons who would be likely to go into them.) A petition presented to the House, from the guardians of the South Dublin Union, stated that the cost of each pauper in the Mendicity, before the establishment of the poor-laws, was 3/. 13s. 10d., while, under the poor laws, the cost was 71. 16s. This la y was not fitted to the habits and feelings of the people, and they would agitate against it from one part of the country to the other. Mr. SHAW said he would state a few simple facts which, he thought, would remove some of the erroneous impressions which, it seemed, had been taken up with regard to the working of the law. There was not one single member of the Commission upon either side that was not in favour of adopting the law. He, for one, had never thought that the system was perfect ; but he thought that some further trial should be given before any attempt to change it was made. In a large pro portion of the unions the system was working satisfac torily—that was, the largest portion of the rates were collected, and the paupers were provided for. On the 25th of March last the balance against the unions was only 13,000/. He thought this was a fact which ought to have been in fairness stated, and he recommended that, in the present state of the unions, it was not desirable to do anything which would interfere with the efforts of those who were using their best exertions to carry the law out fairly. Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, had unjustly, and from his own imagination, accused him as one of the persons who opposed the introduction of any poor-lawinto Ireland. On the contrary, when he was a member of the Commission, he had not opposed the introduction of a system of poor-laws. But he was in a minority in the Commission, in opposition to the report on which the present law was founded. He never voted in favour of this law, although a Member of the late Government at the time when it came before the House, and, rather than vote for it, he had placed his office in the hands of his Noble Friend then at the Government, because he was convinced that the Bill was not suited to the feelings and habits of the people of Ireland, and that it would increase the evils which it was designed to remedy. But, when the measure became law, he never attempted to start any resistence to it. Was it not rather too bad to toll him he was one of those who wished to upset the poor-law ? He wished to do no such thing ; but they might depend upon it, if they did not amend the present law, they would cause the upsetting of that which would prove worso than a poor-law. If the Government were deter mined not to grant the Committee, upon them must rest the responsibility ; for, if once they forced the people to resist the law, they might depend upon it they would have some difficulty to stop that resistance. Sir J. GRAHAM explained. Mr. REDDINGTON said that he could not conceive any grounds on which an inquiry could bo refused. Great doubts were entertained throughout Ireland, but particularly in the west of Ireland, as to the operation of the law. But though he thought that a Select Commit tee ought to be granted, he admitted that much was to be corrected at home, particularly on the part of the guar dians, which legislation could not reach. Lord J. RUSSELL said his opinion was, after listen ing to the objections which had been urged for the refu sal of a Select Committee, that unless the principle of the law was entirely vicious, the best course to be adopted was to leave to the Government the question of inquiry into the abuses in the administration of the law —to send all complaints to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would investigate the charges made against the Commissioners, and who could be asked in the House what the foundations of those complaints were, and what was the result of his inquiries. H av i ng so done, there might come a time when a Select Com mittee would be advisable ; but at present the objections made by the Honourable Gentleman confirmed him that the Government took the right course. On the part of those Hon. Gentlemen who spoke in favour of the Committee, there was an evident blending of two questions. Some spoke against the principle of the law, and others spoke against its administration. With regard to the appointment of a Committee, as the law was entirely new in Ireland, and as many of the persons who had to carry it into effect were unused to it, and as it appeared those who were hostile to the law were be coming more reconciled to it, he thought that they should wait for some time. With regard to what the Hon. Gentleman had said on what had always been a sore subject with him (Mr. F. French), he meant the appointment of Mr. Nicholls to go to Ireland, he would state the sole reason of that appointment. When the report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the question had been first presented, he had asked the opinion of several of those practically acquainted with the working of the poor-laws on the subject of that report, and they had all stated that the report alone would not make a satisfactory foundation for the introduction of a system of poor-laws in Ireland. Ile then considered how best the report might be modified. He did not throw it aside entirety, for it would be seen that many of its re At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basingball- street. J. Bridgman and W. Dryland, tallow melters, Upper Chap man-street, St. George's East, June 4, at half-past eleven —J. Sewell, money scrivener, Ely, Cambridgeshire, June 4, at twelve—J. Hague, engineer, Rotherhithe, June 4, a t e l even —J. Farren, corn dealer, Nine-elms, May 7, at twelve—M. B. Evans and B. Eyton, army agents, Northumberland -street, June 4, at eleven— R. Baxter, wharfinger, Montague-close, Southwark, June 4, at twelve—W. Hitchcock, linen draper, Regent-street, June 4, at one—G. Simons, watch manufac turer, King-square, Goswell-road, June 4, at twelve. In the Country. W. Huskisson, linen draper, Birmingham, June 5, at eleven, at the 13irmingham District Court—J. Moncas, chronometer that the state of the work be reported to the Court on Friday next." _ _ It was then arranged that Mr. Leslie's notice, which he had handed in in the morning, should stand on the paper for consideration on Friday, to which day th 3 Court then adjourned. • COURT OF ALDERMEN. Yesterday a Court was held for the dispatch of public business. SCOTCH AND IRISH PAUPERS. Alderman COPELAND in rising to call the attention of the Court to the subject of the weekly payments made in the City of London on account of Scotch and Irish paupers, said his object was to check the rapidity with which some officers of the unions proceeded to remove the unfortunate paupers with whom the parishes abounded, and which was. the cause of great injustice to those distressed objects, and of great and unwarrantable expense to the rate-payers. The returns for which he had moved showed that in the years 1842 and 1843 the expense of the removal of the Scotch and Irish paupers to their own countries had increased in comparison with former years from hundreds to thousands.—(Hear.) Sitting as a magistrate he had witnessed the injurious effect of permitting any case of removal of the kind to pass without strict examination. He was convinced that if his colleague had not, in many instances where they found that the c l a i man t s f or relief were hard work ing persons, supplied them with the means of pur chasing tools, and thus given them with the means of supporting themselves, the charges upon the inhabitants would have been more heavy, and the pauperism more intolerable. A week or two ago he bad observed a painful anxiety upon the part of an officer of one of the unions to pass a poor woman who was not present during the application. He felt bound to refuse the order in her absence; and, upon seeing her afterwards by accident, he ascertained that he was perfectly justi fied in the negative he had given, for, upon being asked what assistance she had received from the re lieving-officer, she replied that, during five weeks, all the help she had was two shillings and two loaves, and that, for the last month, she had been with out the least relief, and merely dependent upon the contingent humanity of those who saw her in this destitute state. The relieving officer had, notwithstand ing this remarkable fact, the affidavits and everything else ready for the magistrate's signature, and if due cau tion had not been exercised the removal would have cer tainly taken place in the teeth of the law. He called upon his brother magistrates to exercise still greater vigilance upon the subject than they were in the habit of using, for he believed that if they relaxed in the per- ' romance of the duty of vigilance the most unmerciful injustice would be done to the poor. Ile believed that parties were employed by the unions of the City of London, who looked upon poverty as the worst of crimes, and would have it punished to the extremity.— (Hear, hear.) There were put on board steamers for Ireland, poor people who had not for thirty or forty years been once in the country, and who were without relations or friends there, and must in consequ ence perish of starvation in Cork or Limerick to which they might be, as it were, transported.—(Hear, hear.) Ile felt that he had ready advocates in his brother magistrates of any measure calculated to abate so serious an evil. He called upon them to take into consideration the heavy rates to which the inhabitants of the City were subjected by the too great promptitude to grant orders of removal. He believed that six or seven years ago the whole cost of removals was annually under 2001. In 1842, it amounted to 3,0001, ; and in 1843, it was 2,666 L General complaints had been of late made by those who would, if immediate measures were not adopted, call for a county rate. He (Alder man Copeland) wished the matter to be referred to a Committee, in order that some plan might be devised to remedy or, at least, to abate the evil, the existence of which was palpable to all. The time bad arrived for trying the experiment, for the Poor•law Bill was about to undergo some change ; and it was the duty of that Court to suggest some means of preventing the frauds which were, under the circumstances to which he had called the attention of the Court, so frequently played off upon the magistracy of the City.—(Hear, hear.) Alderman Copeland concluded by moving that the whole question be referred to a Committee. Alderman WOOD seconded the motion. He agreed in the view which Alderman Copeland had taken of the question, and he instanced, as two of the frauds which had been committed upon the magistracy, the cases of an Irishwoman and a Scotchwoman, who came to London to visit their resrectable friends, and adopted the econo mical way of returning home by applying for passes.--- (A laugh, and criesof" Hear, hear.") That was not the manner in which the power of removing was to be exercised. Another part of the system of imposition was that which related to the well-known practice amongst the lower order of the Irish, who came over in summer to work, remitted all their earnings to their own country, and then, without a farthing in their pockets, applied to be passed home.—(Hear, hear.) It was most essential that abuses of such a nature should not be FT milted to exist. Now multitudes who came over and were passed back, came over again and again, and under went the same process as often ts they visited London'. Conduct of that kind, however, was punishable by law, and any person detected in such a violation of law, could be sent to the House of Correction.—(llear.)• Alderman KELLY confirmed by his evidence the accu racy of the statement made by Alderman Copeland, as to the ill effects of the existing system. The motion was then unanimously agreed to. THE THROWING OPEN OF THE MAYOR'S COURT. Alderman and Sheriff MUSGROVE presented a memo rial to the Court from Mr. W. H. Ashurst, the Chair man of the Secondaries' and the Officers and Clerks' Committee, praying that the Court would appoint a Sub- Committee to confer with the Committees of which he was Chairman, on the subject of the Ma)or's Court, with a view to some arrangement, likely to be more be neficial to the public than that which existed under the present constitution of that tribunal. Bfr. AsuunsT, in supporting his memorial, stated that from the County Courts Bill, which it was expected would pass in the present session of Parliament, all England, with the exception of the City of London alone, would derive great advantage. It was, there're, necessary that the Corporation should immediately take into consideration the necessity of making an attempt to participate in an improvement from which inattention or neglect might soon altogether exclude them. Alderman Musonovn moved that the prayer of the memorialist be agreed to. Sir P. LAURIE seconded the motion. The matter had, he said, assumed an entirely different shape from what it at first appeared to be. Upon the application of certain attorneys to practise in the Mayor's Court,' acting on the advice of the Recorder, than whom no man was better qualified to judge, the Court had declined to admit the petitioners. Since that refusal a mandamus had been applied for, and until that question was de cided the Court would not be justified in interfering. He could not, however, see the least objection to a confe rence ; on the contrary. he was convinced that it would lead to the complete protection of the interests of the , Corporation. It .appeared by Sir Francis Palgrave s report, that when an attachment was made in the Mayor's Court, and judgment went by default, the plain tiff's costs did not exceed 4/., and when the action was defended, the costs, including the expenses of execution, did not exceed 15/. ; and in ordinary suits, if the sum to be recovered was above 50/, the costs would Le between 121. and 131. When he saw such anxiety for the public amongst the attorneys, he was put in mind of the importunity with which the wolves asked leave to pro tect the sheep ; and he could not help declaring that he looked upon the application of the gentlemen who had appeared at the bar of the Court as a scheme merely for their own advantage at the expense of the public. He considered that it would be most dangerous to allow every law attorney to use the extraordinary powers of the Court. If such license were given the bankers in the city would very naturally make a move ment to the other side of Temple-bar. The RECORDER strongly advised the Court to agree to a conference, and stated that the Corporation ought to avail itself of every opportunity of sharing in the advantages intended to be bestowed upon the community at large. Alderman WOOD recommended that the prayer of the:memorialist should be granted, and said he could not see what possible objection there could be to go to the Legislature upon the subject. The motion was then agreed to, and, after the trans action of some business of no public interest, the Court adjourned. A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF ALL LIVING NAVAL OFFICERS.—Our readers will observe that a work of great interest and importance to the Service—" A Biographical Dictionary o f a ll Li v i ng Officers"—is i n course of preparation by W. R. O'Byrne, Esq.s'orokt Doughty -street, Russell-square. The want of a t ‘ l . the of this kind has long been felt; and, in common an i 1 announce ment generally, we hail Mr. O'Byrne. ment with pleasure and satisfaction. wish him every . possible success, and trust very arduous will evince their sense of the value of this n acquiring undertaking, by affording • him every facility "theastilloctne—. since rely THE DERBY.—Bell ' s Life information.—Naval and Milita lL ry o G nd a o z i e: o te f . Sunday next, a p s o u r s t;; l t ndex to the Winner—The Derby P May 19, will contain : —Forewarnings Contents of Bell's Life of last Sunday, pre liminary information. b a y n d P i e i g n and a hundred advertisements the week's miscellapeo May 12, 16 folio c olum u n s s n o e cs ,s p , orting events. An epitome of g advertisement - .Bell's life may be equally beneficial chiefly connected with . sporting matters. The insertion of a to Mr. Clement, junior, 170, Strand, will at tsoinfhlaetof half-a-dozen in some journals. A sixpence, or six penny stamps, all times ensure a copi of Bell's Life by retu rn o f post. The wee kly sale of Bell's Life exceeds 20,000 copies. It is pub lished in time for the Saturday afternoon railways. DEATH OP A HIGHLAND BARD.--Alastair Buidhe Mac-lodliair, the celebrated Garlic bard, died lately at Gair -1 och, Ross-shire. He was poet to the lairds of Gairloch, from whom he had a pension, which he enjoyed up tin the period of his death. Alastair reached the patriarchal age of eighty-four—a longe r t erm of life than is usually allotted to the poetical tribe. He was at a wedding some years ago, when a miserly gentleman, observed that " the bards were extinct." " No," raid Alastair, "but those who rewarded them are gone." He may be considered the last of the High land bards, with the solitary exception of the author of "Loch-Aic," Maccoll.—lnverness Courier. The bark harvest, as it is termed, is at this moment being prosecuted with great activity in most of the woods near Keswick, where vast numbers of people are employed in cutting down the young oaks and stripping the trunks and branches of their bark. • A FEMALE LABOURER.—At the corn mill in course of erection by Messrs. Potter, corn merchants, a woman is now working as a bricksetter's labourer. She was formerly a drawer in a coal mine, but is now prevented following that occupation by the recent statute prohibiting boys' and female labour in coal mines. The contractors and architect speak of the very great strength possessed by . her as equal to a man, and the ease with which she carries up a " burn" of bricks or mortar on her head to the top of the building. The females residing near have expressed their indignation of the step by hooting, but she says she must do it or starve.— Manchester burier. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. C. Watson and J. Bell, jewellers, York—T. Earle and J. Pearce, contractors, Holley, Surrey—P. Rogers and W. W. Box, surgeons, East Looe, Cornwall—F. Cross and T. G Bond, attorneys-at-law, Credlton, Devonshire—S. Hadfield and J. Helme, jun., file manufacturers, Manchester—G. At kinson, J. Hozier, and C. MacGregor, merchants, Kings Con, Jamaica—Chamberlain and Co., porcelain manufacturers, Worcester—J. Thompson, sen., and J. Thomps on , j un ., bricklayers, Scarborough, Yorkshire—C. A. Beetenson and J. G. Wilson, surgeons, Wem, Shropshire--T. Scott and W. Abson, joiners, Wakefield, Yorkshire—W. Hutchison and J. Morton, statuaries, Southampton-street, Strand—G. and A. Smith, flag spinners, Leeds—R. and T. Huskinson, boatmen, Gunthorpe, Nottinghamshire—F. Lees and J. Porter, lace ma nufacturers, Carrington, Nottinghamshire—J. Bettelley and B. Higgs, ironmongers, Liverpool—J. Preston and W. White ley, cotton manufactuaers, Colne, Lancashire—l. Barber and E. Brookes, cutlers, Sheffield—M. Harrison ' sen., and W. Har rison, jun., drapers, Belper, Yorkshire—A. and W. Ryd er , eurriers, Wakefield, Yorkshire—J. and R. Johnson, silk throwsters, Gutter-lane, Cheapside. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. JAMES JACKSON, brazier, Glasgow, May 16 and June 4, at eleven, at W. Stimpson's, Globe Inn, Glasgow. COURT OF SEWERS. A special meeting of the Court of Sewers for the city and liberty of Westminster and part of the county of Middlesex, was held yesterday at the Sewers'-office, Greek-street, Soho, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the facts connected with the failure of about 820 feet of the new main line of the Ranelagh sewer, in Gloucester-road, Paddington. T. L. Donaldson, Esq., took the chair at 12 o'clock. On a previous Court day the following report had been presented to the Court by the surveyors : "We have to report that, upon examination of the Ranelagh main line of sewer in the Gloucester-ioad, Bayswater, we found the arch to be fractured in several portions of its length from Grand Junction-street to be yond Conduit-street, a distance altogether of about 820 feet. • • " We are not at present prepared to give a definite opinion as to thi , cause oithis failure, b u t it wou ld ap • pear to us from the accompanying sections that the crown of the arch has been loaded to a great extent by the earth from the adjoining vaults and the material ne cessary for raising the roadway to its present level, and that the natural subsidence of this newly made ground has had the effect of forcing back the springing walls from their originally vertical position. By a reference to the drawing it will be seen that this pressure has been in every instance outwards. It is also probable that much of the weakness of the side walls may be attri buted to the disturbance of the ground behind them, consequent upon the building of the collateral sewers at their intersections near Conduit-street, Brook-street, and Gloucester Mews. " At present we are scarcely in a; position to state the exact extent that it will be necessary to repair the sewer, but from Conduit-street, southwards, for a length of about 200 feet, and from Brook-street for about 150 feet south of the church, it would appear to require the most immediate attention ; we would add that whatever reparation may be considered necessary will only apply to the arch and a portion of the abutment walls, and the expense would be materially reduced if the Court would sanction the re-using of the present materials, which appear to be perfectly sound and available. " On the acompanying drawings are given a longitu dinal section of the sower with the present and original levels of the ground, likewise cross sections showing the positions of the adjacent vaults, those portions the most defective, and the extent of deviation from the ori ginal form. " JOHN DOWLEY, Surveyor. IVILLIAM DOULL, Assistant ditto. " GEORGE HAWKINS, Ditto. Yesterday the surveyors presented a further report, in which they pointed out the different parts in the sewer that had been effected by the occurrences that had taken place, and recommended their reparation. Mr. LESLIE said that the last report was at variance with former ones; he wished to know from Mr. Bell whether any complaints had been made of the works during their progress? Mr. BELL said that he had no recollection of any statement being made of the badness of the works during their progress. He had no recollection of the Chairman stating that they were so badly constructed that they must be taken down. Mr. LESLIE said that the time had now arrived when it became the Court seriously to deliberate what course they should pursue. This was a matter of most serious and grave character. 3,4001. had been spent in building a sewer, with respect to which each Commissioner re ceived a communication, stating that, of that sewer, which was 1,200 feet in length, 820 feet were a total failure. The course that struck him (Mr. Leslie) as the best to pursue, and by the adoption of which the public interests would be best served, would be to follow out the line of instruction contained in the Act of the 23d of Henry the Eighth. There was a defect in a great part of their works, which they were called upon to inquire into, and in which case the Act provided that a jury should be summoned, and by their verdict they were to say by whose default the damage had. arisen. Now the question branched itself into three important points: the damage might be involved in the original design of the sewer, it might be faulty in its construction, or it might be faulty on account of the neglect of the officers of the Court. Now in any of those cases there must be inquiry ; and he (Mr. Leslie) thought the proper course would be to have a special Court held on the spot, say at the Crown Tavern, which was not twenty yards from it, and there to have a jury sum mone d to inspect the parts that had failed, and then to return a verdict as to the cause of the failure, and upon that verdict the Court could act. Suppose the damage had been occasioned by the Court itself, would it at once admit it ? Certainly not. It might be the fault of the contractors or the officers of the Court in not properly superintend ing the works, and if such was the case, it was but just to them that an impartial jury, which the Court could not be, should decide between all parties. Now it had been stated that these works had commenced in Septem ber, 1839, and that 408 feet was finished in January, 1840. Now he Mr. Leslie was prepared to show that the work was not finished or anything like it at that time, and that the chairman, in consequence of the defect in the walls, ordered them to be taken down, and yet the Court had been kept in the dark on that sub ject. Added to this, although the line of sewer was not measured till 1840, yet the balance of the contractors' account was sent in and paid in May, 1839. The CHAIRMAN said, that the great question they had to consider was, what was the cause of the defects ? He wished to know what course the Hon. Commissioner in tended to pursue ? Mr. LESLIE observed that they were about to insti tute an inquiry into the cause of the failures which had taken place in this extensive sewer, and he was about to show that the proper mode of doing so was to sum mon a jury, in order to view it, and give their unbiassed verdict upon it. What he would propose was, that a Special Court shold be held, say on Monday next, or any other day to be fixed upon, at the Crown Tavern ; that a jury should be summoned, who should inspect and inquire into the subject, and give their verdict upon it ; and on that verdict the Court might act. The CHAIRMAN thought the Commissioners them selves ought first to go and see it, iu order that it might be ascertained whether there was any necessity for entertaining the worthy Commissioner's proposition. At the present moment the Commissioners could not be prepared to coma to any conclusion. Mr. LESLIE said the conclusion he had arrived at was to get at the truth, and he thought the course he had pointed out was the best mode. The CHAIRMAN observed that he did not see the ad vantage of a jury at present. He thought they bad better reserve that till the next Court. Mr. LESLIE was satisfied the course he pointed out was a necessary one. He had seen the works ; and why they should have had such an immense sewer to carry through a mere puddle of water, he could not tell. It was his firm belief that the faults that had . taken place in the sewer were attributable to its bad design; it was by admit ted to be badly constructed, and nothing but ajury could settle the matter satisfactorily between the public and the Court. Mr. Leslie concluded by handing in a notice of motion, to the effect that a Special Court should be held near the site of the sewer at the Crown Tavern, and that a jury should be summoned who wete to inspect the sewer, and give their verdict accordingly. As the Court appeared determined to go and view the place themselves, he would merely hand the notice in, and the Court could determine at what time they would consider it when they returned. • The Commissioners then proceeded to Bayswater to examine the sewer; and, after an absence of two hours, they returned, and discussed the subject for some time ; at the conclusion of which a resolution was proposed by Mr. Hawkas and carried, to the following effect:— That an examination of the Ranelagh sewer in Gloucester-place, the parts of the sewer 30 ft. and 60 ft.,. with respect to which it was stated by the report of the surveyors it was necessary they should be taken off and rebuilt, that they be forthwith rebuilt and taken off, and THE DIVISIONS ON THE FAC TORIES BILL. Lord Ashley's proposition was sustained in -a division on the 18th of March by 179 to 170, giving a majority of 9 in a House comprising, tellers included, 353 Members. On the 22d of the same month that decision was confirmed by 186 to 183, a majority of 3, when 373 Members voted. The clause having a similar object, negatived on Monday last by 297 to 159, was decided by an assemblage of 460 Members. In the divisions of March 18, or on that of March 22, Lord Ashley was supported by the following 88 Members, whose aid was withheld on Monday last, May 13 : Arland, Thomas Dyke Hollond, Robert Adare, Viscount Elope, Alexander Aldam, William Horsman, Ed war d Antrobus, Edmund Howard, Hon. C. W. G. Archdall, Captain Mervyn Jocelyn, Viscount Barclay, David Johnstone, Sir John Baskerville, Thomas B. M. Knight, Henry Gally Beresford, Major Knight, Frederick Winn Berkeley, Hon. Captain • Law, Hon. Charles Ewan Blake, l‘fartin J. Legh, George Cornwall Buller, Charles Leveson, Lord Butler, Hon. Colonel Lindsay, Hugh Hamilton Carew, Hon. R. Shapland Lowther, John Henry Cavendish, Hon. C. C. Macnamara, Major Cavendish, Hon. G. H. Mahon, Viscount Chetwode, Sir John Mainwaring, Townshend Colville, Charles Robert Martin, John Copeland, Mr. Alderman Marton, George Cresswell, Baker Maxwell, Hon. J. Pierce Currie, Raikes Mordaunt, Sir John Cnrteis, Herbert Barrett Muntz, George Frederick Dalrymple, Captain Neville, Ralph Davies, David A. Saunders Newport, Viscount Douglas, James D. S. Newry, Viscount Duke, Sir James O'Connell, Daniel Duncombe, Hon. 0. Packe, Charles William Dundas, Admiral Pakington, John S. Du Pre, C. George Palmer, George Eaton, Richard Jefferson Palmer, Robert Egerton, Sir Philip Pennant, Hon. Colonel Ellice, Edward Polhill, Frederick Emlyn, Viscount Praed, William T. Fellowes, Edward Rendlesbam, Lord French, Fitzstephen Ross, David Robert Gladstone, Captain Round, Charles Grey Gore, Montagu Ryder, Hon. Granville D. _ Gore, 'William R. Ormsby Smith, Abel Goring, Charles Smollett, Alexander Gregory, William Henry Stanton, William Henry Grimston, Viscount 'Stewart, John Grogan, Edward . Sturt, Henry Charles Hall, Sir Benjamin. ITaYlor, James Arthur Hayes, Sir Edmund • !Trotter, John Hervey, Lord Alfred - - I Vivian, John Henry Of the above list, the following 15 Members recorded th e i r votes directly in opppo s iti on t o the proposition which they had previously supported : Aldan], William Barclay, David Chetwode, Sir John Currie, Raikes Gore, Montagu Grimston, Viscount Hope, Alexander Knight, Henry Gally Lord Ashley was supported 32 Members, who did not vote vious divisions : Archbold, Robert !Jervis, John Barnard, Edward George Johnson, General &nett, John !Lambton, Hedworth Bernal, Captain 'Langton, William Gore Blake, Mark Layard, Captain Blandford, Marquis of !Maher, Nicholas Brisco, Musgrave O'Connell, Maurice Browne, Robert Dill on Philipps, Sir R. B. P. Chelsea, Viscount !Pryse, Pryse Christie, William Dougal IRedington, Thomas N. Corbally, Matthew Elias Seale, Sir John Henry Dundas, David Sheil, Right Hon. R. Lalor 'Esmonde, Sir Thomas Smith, Benjamin Heneage, Edward Somers, John Patrick Howard, Sir Ralph Tumor, Christopher Hurst, Robert Henry .Watson, William Henry The Ministry were supported on the last division by 107 Members who had not registered their votes on either of the previous occasions. 'Ugh, George Cornwall Martin, John lfaxwell, John J. Pierce Newry, Viscount Palmer, George Ross, David Robert ,Trotter, John on Monday by the following with him on either of the pre- COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen and Prince Albert left Buckingham Paluce at half. past three o'clock yesterday afternoon in a carriage and four, escorted by a party of Lancers, for Claremont. Their , Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Princess ' Royal followed in another carriage and four • and the Countess of Mount Edgecumbe, Lady iu Waiting, dolonel Arbuthnot, Equerry in Waiting, and Colonel Wylde, Everry in Waiting to Prince Alb er t, occup i e d another Royal carriage and four. Her Majesty and Prince Albert were conducted to their carriage by the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, Viscount Hawarden and Sir Frederick Stovin the Lord and Groom in Waiting ; and the M arqu i s o f G ran b y and Captain Francis Seymour the Lord and Groom in Waiting to Prince Albert. The Royal Family were taken their accustomed daily air ings yesterday in the Royal Gardens of Buckingham Palace. Colonel Arbuthnot has relieved Colonel Buckley in the du ties of Equerry in Waiting to her Majesty. Her Majesty the Queen Dowager took an airing yesterday afternoon in an open carriage and four. Her Majesty was attended by the Hon. Miss Hudson. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge visited the Queen Dowager yesterday at Marlborough House. The Duke of Cambridge visited her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester yesterday. The Duchess of Cambridge honoured the performance of the French plays with her presence on Monday evening. • A deputation of West India proprietors and others, con sisting of Lord Sandon, Sir John Rae Reid, the Agent for Jamaica, Mr John Gladstone, Mr. Marryat, Mr. Neil Mal colm, Mr. Chlery, Mr. M‘Gregor, Mr. Miles, M.P., and Mr. Davidson, had an interview with Lord Stanley at the Colonial office yesterday. The Ecclesiastical Commission for England had a meeting yesterday afternoon, at their office in Whitehall-place. The Commissioners present were the Archbishop of Canter bury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop of St. David's, the Bishop of Exeter ' the Bishop of Here ford, the Bishop o f Lichfield, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Ripon, the Bishop of Salis bury, the Bishop of Worcester, the Lord President of the Council, the Earl of Harrewby, the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Besborough, and the Right Hon. H. Hobhouse. The American Minister had an interview with Lord Stanley yesterday, at the Colonial-office. The Governor of the Bank of England, and the Deputy- Governor, had an interview with Sir R. Peel yesterday. _ The Bishop of Sodor and Man had an interview with the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone yesterday, at the office of the Board of Trade. Dr. Griffiths, Roman Catholic Bishop, had an interview yesterday with Lord Stanley, at the Colonial-office. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yesterday. Dr. Bay ford was heard in reply on an appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone, " Christian Sohst, a citizen of Hamburgh, v. the Queen," relative to the ship Echo. Lord Brougham gave judgment reversing the decision of le Court below. Mr. Kindersley, Queen's Counsel, was heard on an appeal from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, " Mackenzie r. Yeo." Mr. Turner, Queen's Counsel, appeared for the re spondent. The Court rose at four o'clock. MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS. FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. CITY, TUESDAY EVENING. TIMES.—The premium on gold at Paris is 12 per 4p t mill. , e , whi ch, for th e at the e standardxe h ang egold, English atA,lai gives p o ri price e f Le G oxned 3 ho / a. London exchange e l s fh o " 02 ( r l i ris being 25 55, it follows that gold is 0.38 per cent. dearer in London than in Paris. By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold is 435 per mark, which, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s. Mid. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13 10; and the exchange at Hamburgh on London a t s h or t o• bein 13 10, it follows that gold is the same pri ce a t Ham t burgh and London. The course of exchange at New York on London is 10E4 per cent., and the par of exchange between Eng land and America being 109 '23-40 per cent., it follows that the exchange is 0.83 per cent. against England. But the quoted exchange at New York being fur bills at 60 days' sight, the interest must be deducted from the above difference. SUN.--The Consol Market closes firmly, in the absence of much disposition to deal. The latest bargains were at 99i to 994. The unfunded debt remained flat, and there was no alteration in the other securities. Mexican Bonds were 35i Spanish Five per Cents._ continued at 24i and the Three per Cents. at 35t to 35i ; Chilian Deterred were at 5 5 , and Brazilian New at ens in Railway Shares have The 77 been these :—Eastern Counties Perpetual were 1 ; Convertedt a u e g e u a e l s t e ransaeti advanced to 464 and 474. • South-Eastern, South- Western Eighths, 4-2 t ; Croydon, 4 4 0 , Great Western Fifths, 9 4 ; Birmingham, 128 ; :0- to • and Rouen and Havre, 94 premium. Green wich Preference were 1 discount. Commercial Bank of London Shares were 25; National Provincial o f Eng land, ; and National of Ireland, 34 discount. London Joint Stock were 44, and London and Westminster, 6 'l l). h r e emim. exchange u on Hamburgh was rather better, and also that on Trieste, but on the other leading cities of the T C h e o n fe t e c l n v t i e t g h e i s r at the e e s ewffieerien lmuch return the of sa Th e e' exports of bullion from the port of London for the week ending Thursday last : Silver Coin to Chi na 5,000 oz. Bars to Hamburgh 6,000 " Gold Coin to New York 59 COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—(YESTERDAY.) Amsterdam CF. 12 6 Gibraltar Ditto, at sight l2 4 Leghorn 3O 50 Rotterdam 2U. 12 6.4 Genoa 25 90 Antwerp 25 95 Milan Hamburgh M.B. 13 144 Venice ....... ........... 7 - 7 Altona l3 15 Naples ........ .......... 39 Paris, 3 days' sight 25 65 Palermo, per oz ll7 Ditto, 3 months 25 85 Lisbon 534 Marseilles Bourdeaux 25 90 Rio Janeiro 23 Frankfort on Maine.. 122: Bahia 23 Petersburgh, 3 Us... 361 Buenos Ayres — Berlin 7 NewYork,2ldys sight Vienna, effee. fl. 3 M 954 Philadelphia .......... Trieste, ditto Madrid Cadiz 36 New Doubloons-- 0 0 0 Barcelona 36i Foreign Gold, bars. £ 3 17 9 36 New Dollars 0 4 91, Seville — Silver in Bars 0 4 116 it)ohientnmaveanit command f ra ß rn e a a i r mi - It is rumoured that the vacancy a t t h e Board of in the Pacific, will be filled by Rear - Admiral Bowles, A A d d m m i i r r a aN ir oc G e e a o s now commanding on the coast of Ireland. It i s a l so g n e e Seymourt a o p ru moured that the Rear-Admiral will be a candidate for the borough of Launceston, in the room of Sir Henry liardinge, the new Governor-Genetal of India. TRAFALGAR-SQUARE.—Two policemen now regu larly keep guard, and th e i r presence checks every attempt at nuisance. The persons who frequent the square conduct themselves in the most orderly manner, and probably, in a short time, they will be able to do without their keepers. The proprietors of Waterloo bridge would find it to their advantage to adopt the same system, and make the bridge, what it formerly was, one of the most delightful resorts in London. any bad ;fiat ging aded