The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-16 00:00:00

A1n...1111 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110 USE OF LORDS, JULY 15. The LORD CrimicELLowtook his seat on the Woolsack at the usual hour. The Judges Chambers Bill was read a third time and passed. Lori KENYON presented a petition in support of the priv;. l ieges of the House of Lords. Lord SEFTON presented a petition from Manchester, in favour of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a similar petition from Clontarf, county of Dublin. Lord HADDINGTON presented a petition from the town of Haddington, against the Scotch Universities Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions against Stephenson's Brighton Railway line. On the motion of the Noble thike, the,petitions were referred to a Select Committee. On the motion of Lord GLENELG the Punishment of Offences Cape of Good (lope Bill went through a Com mittee. A Message from the House of Commons brought up the Constabulary (Ireland) Amendment Bill, the Personal Tithes Bill, and another Bill. Lord CARBERRY presented a petition from Dublin in favour 4 the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from Brighton in favour of their Lordships' privileges. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Several petitions were presented in favour of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE rose to move the se cond reading of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. It had long been desirable to devote the unemployed capital of Ireland to speculations of that sort, and .he believed the line had received the sanction and approbation of the most eminent engineers and scientific men. A large subscription had been already entered into to promote the undertaking, and the majority of the landowners and landed proprietors were in favour of it. The project had also received the support of the' mercantile men of Liverpool and Manchester, and was every way a most useful and desirable work. It was in tended to continue the line to Dundalk and Belfast, so as to give all the northern parts of Ireland the benefit Of this mode of communication, with the capital. • The Duke of LEINSTER seconded the motion, and presented a petition in favour of the Bill. The Marquis of HEADFORD opposed the motion, as he understood there was an inland line surveyed, which was much more advantageous. The present line, he also under stood, would seriously injure the property of Col. 'Verner. The Bill was then read a second time. SOUTH DURHA.M RAILWAY. Lord RA.DNOR.presented a petition from the sub scribers to the South Durham Railway, complain ing that after the Company had ;one to a great deal of expense, the Bill had been thrown out on its second reading. He (Lord Radnor) thought the parties had g reat reason to compl a i n o f t h e manner i n which they had been treated ; it had been rejected on the motion of Lords Londonderry and \Vharncliffe, without any ground or reason being assigned for such a p rocee di ng , and without any enquiry into th merits of the question. Lord W ARN CLI FFE defended the conduct adopted by him on that occasion. He tad distinctly stated that he op posed it, because the object of the speculation was to work a vein of coal, without having obtained the sanction or consent of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the pe tition. He denied the assertion of the Noble Lord oppo site that the railroad was not a public benefit. It was, on the contrary, a great public benefit, and he Must say that the general impression abroad was that the opposition to the Bill had arisen from a desire to support a monopoly.— (Hear.) He contended that the Bill should have been submitted to the decision of a Committee, and he would say that it was - the general opinion that two Noble Lordi, who were deeply interested in the Bill, and in maintaining the present price of coal, bad come down for the purpose of throwing out the Bill in so extraordinary a manner. Lord HATHERTON vindicated the vote he had given against the Bill, and concurred in the principle laid down by the Noble Lord (Wharneliah) opposite, that no Bill should be forced through Parliament against"the.con sent of the local proprietors. He believed if all the coal. proposed to be raised was sold at cost price,, there would not he a demand for it. 'The 'Marquis of LONDONDERRY supposed the Noble Earl ( Radnor) had some shares in the nndertak ine, for which he evinced so much anxiety.--(A. laugh.) He did not think it neeeszary, after whatbad been said, to prolong a ,discussion upon a question which bad. been al ready decided by a very large majority of that House. lie would add, that he fully concurred is the• observations o!' the Noble Berms (Hatlivrton) who had spoke last, and al though the present question might affect him personally, it equally on principle affected every large landed proprietor. Earl RAiDN,)dt, replied. He had felt it his duty, coin cidiic; with the tenth - I - lents of the petitioners, to lay :their case before the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He repeated that it was unusual and irregular for a Noble Lord, opposed to a Iliil, to.get up on its second reading and oppose its going into Committee. He begged, before be sat. down, to ask whether the Noble Marquis opposite in tended to move the second read ng of the Tremoutha Har hour Bill ? The Marquis of LONDONDERRY had_ undertaken the conduct of the Bill, and Would move its second reading on Monday next. Messengers from the Commons brought ❑p the London and Blackw•ail Commercial Railway Bill, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Agriculture. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND) AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the reasons of the House of Ccrnm4as to the amendments made by their Lordships to the Municipal Act Amendment Bill, was read. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that thew Lordships do agree to the first amendments made by the Commons. Lora LYNDHURST complained of the difEculty of discgssing these amendments until they had been printed. After a desultory conversation, in which the Lord chan cellor, Lords Lyndhurst, Ellenborough, and Itadnor took a part, _ _ Viscount MELBOURNE said, would it not be better to have these arneodnients printed at once.—(Hear, hear.) The motion was agrced to. ' SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL. Viscount MELBOURNE postponed the second read ing of the Scotch Universities Bill t o Th urs d ay next. Several petitions were presented for and against the North Durham Railway Bill. Lord HOLLAND objected to so irregular a pro ceeding as presenting petitions upon a Bill which had been already decided upon by their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) The petitions were withdrawn. Lord LYNDHURST said it would be desirable that a day would be fixed for the• discussion of the Commons' Amendments to the Municipal Corporations (England) Amendments Bill. Viscount MELBOURNE worild-,fix Monday next for that purpose. CANADA TIMBER. Viscount STRANGFORD presented petitions from the Legislative Council of Lower Canada in Provincial Parlia ment assembled, from the Shipowners of London, and from the British and North American Association of the Port of Liverpool, against' the proposed alteration in the Timber Duties. He would ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department what course the Government in tended to pursue with reference tq this object ? Lord GLENELG said that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to propose any measure this Session. Viscount STRA.NGFORD said he hoped due notice would be given before the alteration was made, for it should be recollected that the trade of this country in Timber was a trade of barter. PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. This Bill, on the motion of Lord LYNDHURST, was read a third time. The Earl of RADNOR moved that the second clause be restored. The House divided— Contents l4 Non-contents 24 Majority The Duke of RICHMOND then moved that the clause giving to prisoners free access to the depositions taken be fore the magistrates be restored. Lord ABINGER objected to the motion because it might give to prisoners tho opportunity of making up a case. After a few words from the Earl of RADNOR, Lord WYNFORD, and Lord HOLLAND, The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the debate be adjourned until Monday, that a clause might be drawn up to meet the circumstances of the ease. The motion was agreed to. 'I he House then adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Juzr 15. The SPEAKER resumed the Chair a few minutes before five o'clock. Sir A. L. HAY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for constructing a pier, to be called.the Trinity or North Lieth Harbour. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt it his duty to oppose this motion, which was of an•unprecedented nature. This was a Bill for the construction of Docks—a private Bill, which required a certain number of subscribers —which required notices to be given, and contracts to be , entered into ;—yet leave was asked to bring in the Bill without any of these things having been done, the former Bill havi n g been thrown out i n ano th er Place. If the Bill were allowed to pass, persons' property might be taken away without there being any funds from which to obtain compensation.—(Hear, hear.) He stood upon the orders of the House and upon the regularity of the proceedings, and then he was sure that the motion could not be agreed to. Sir A. L. HAY said he was surprised at the speech of his Hon. Friend the Attorney-General. By it it was made to appear as if the Bill had been thrown into in another place upon its merits ; and that there was no precedent for its re-introduction. The real situation of the case was this—the Bill had passed the Committee of the other House, but with such amendments as would have invalidated it altogether if sent back to the Committee—therefore the Noble Chair man of the Committee had moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, with the intention of its being introduced again. The Honourable Chairman cited a case in 1827, and the Glasgow Gas Bill, as in stances in point, and precedents for the re-introduction of the Bill. Under these circumstances he would take the opi nion of the House upon the question, in order to see whether theywould deviate from the practice upon previous occasions. The measure he asked leave to propose was the same as that formerly passed, and which bad been thrown out upon a mere technical objection. It was not a Bill which would require discussion, or one which would be likely to receive any opposition in the other House. Under these circumstances he hoped they would permit him to bring in the Bill as a matter of justice and right. Mr. WI LKS said the question was whether the House would deviate from its uniform practice, and create a precedent which was wholly unknown in the annals of Parliament. • The amendments were merely formal, and did not at all alter the circumstances under which the Bill was passed before. Nothing could be so graceless as the opposition now offered to the Bill, and he hoped it would be fruitless. Sir GEORGE CLERK thought the opposition to the Bill was most disinterested. Was it not a most astonishing fact that no person connected with commerce had any .connection with it? He did not mean to say anything against the promoters of the Bill, hut he thought the names of those persons were far better known in 'Change Alley than in Scotland. He trusted that though whilst the question was uncertain, the Government would take no part in the dis cussion of a private Bill ; yet that now, under the altered state of the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would, for the sake of the public interests, stand forward and oppose this Bill. He hoped the House would not permit a second Bill to be brought in. Sir E. CODRINGTON thought the objection of the Earl of Shaftesbury had been made at an extraordinary period, and he considered it was not very fair for the Hon, Baronet to make the objection, he himself having been the cause of the objection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") There was the opinion of two Admirals besides himself in favour of the locality of the harbour. It was a good harbour not only in point Rf locality, but as a refuge for men of war. He therefore hoped they would be permitted to bring in another Bill. Mr. HUME considered that the Honourable Ba ronet was not justified in accusing the promoters of the Bill of blunder.—(Hear, hear.) The real truth was this : a copy of the clause that had been objected to was sent to the Noble Lord to know whether he approved of it? He had approved of it so long as he thought the Bill would not pass the House.(Hear, hear.) But when the Bill had passed the House in spite of all opposition, then came the objection.—(Cries of " Order, order," and " Chair, chair.") He did not impute motives ; he was only giving his interpretation.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was merely a question whether they would adopt a certain harbour which would give that fair protection to the trade of Scotland which it required. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For leave to bring in the Bill 73 Against it Majority for leave to bring in the Bill Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. SCOTCH MUNICIPAL BILL. -17 • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, seeing the Lord Advocate of Scotland in his place, wished to ask whether it was his intention on the Scotch Municipal 'Corporation Bill to include Edinburgh ? His constituents in that city were most anxious to know the determination of the Learned Lord. The LORD ADVOCATE said that it was not his in tention to include Edinburgh in the Bill, but a separate Bill would be introduced for the purpose. DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. CLAY then rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Danish claims. He should occupy the attention of the House for but a very short time. The facts lay in a very small compass, and they were, moreover, of such a nature that he felt quite satisfied a bare statement of them would suffice to answer the purposes of his motion. The bare statement of the case of the petitioners would, in his opinion, be quite enough ; and he could not enhance effect which a simple and un adorned statement of the petitioners' case would produce. The case of the petitioners involved the cases of a great number of British subjects who suffered severe losses in 1807. A large portion of that body had already received from the bounty or the justice of that House compensation for their losses. Money was voted in the miscellaneous estimates for 1835 and . 1836, but those who now claimed had hitherto been admitted to no participation in those funds. The Government, no doubt most honestly, bad supposed that there were certain grounds of distinction be tween the different classes of claimants, and they had de cided that the petitioners had not a fair and equitable claim upon the fund. It' the House would honour him with its attention for a very short time, he would satisfy them that such a conclusion was unfounded, and that the petitioners had a good claim to have been admitted to a participation in the money which had been so awarded. He would advert to the ground upon which the Government had re jected the claims of the petitioners, but first he would call the attention of the House to the history of the case. In 1807 the British Government, either having, or supposing they had reason to believe that the French were about to take possession of the Danish fleet in order to be used in acts of aggression against this country, sect out a fleet under the orders of Lords Gambier and Cathcart, who were instructed to ask for the fleet as a deposit. which was refused.—(Hear.) They were however, fully empowered, and enjoined to get posses sion of the fleet at all events. The fleet left in August, 1807 ; all negotiation failed, and in September Copenhagen was bombarded and set fire to in many places. A capitulation was entered iuto, and the fleet and town was given up to the Engli s h. In consequ ence o f th e stipulations then made, the Danish fleet, and the whole of their naval stores were given up, and he entreated the attention of the House to a state ment of what was given up as somewhat material.—(Hear.) In the dispatch of Lord Gambier it was stated that in con sequence of these stipulations there were delivered up to the British fleet, 19 sail of the line, 9 frigates, 14 sloops, with all the large shipping, cont6nine with the rest 92 car goes. On the 3d of October the British armament came away, and the British commerce in the Baltic was thus left totally unprotected. The Danish Commandant then issued a proclamation to the effect that hostilities having been commenced on the part of England, he declared, by virtue of the highest authority, that all English property should be placed under sequestration. In the meantime there was an Order in Council of the 2d of September, 1827, to the effect that all Danish vessels in ports of England should be laid under an embargo, and orders were directed to all captains in his Majesty's service to brin g in all vessel s b e l onging to D enmar k , t h at s h ou ld be found on the high seas, and coming from the Colonies, or other ports, and that such vessels should be placed under an embargo. It happened that at this time the commerce of this country and of Denmark was in a state of unusual activity. Under that Order in Council 300 Danish ves sels, some of which had admirable cargoes on board, were taken. The claims of British subjects to be reimbursed out of the proceeds of, Danish vessels condemned, was re peatedly urged to the Government. At length, on the 16th of May, 1834, his Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield brought forward the case of the British subjects who had suffered loss by the confiscation of property in Denmark. He had brought forward the subject in a very able speech, and although the House had come to no formal decision on the motion, yet' the opinion of Parliament was so clearly expressed, that Lord Althorp said ho should he should no longer oppose the compensation to parties who had suffered loss, and the matter was in consequence referred to the Board of Commissioners who were then sitting to investigate the claims of British subjects under the Conventions of 1815 and 1816. He was bound to state that his Hon. Friend principally insisted on the pro priety of compensating those persons who had suffered loss by confiscation and sequestration of book debts. At that period the matter had not been thoroughly looked into, yet the feelings of the House were excited in favour of the claims which were granted in justice and equity. The Government having thus had the authority of the House for submitting the claims of persons under these circumstances to investigation, referred them to the Com missioners appointed to consider the claims of persons under the Conventions of 1815 and 1816. On that first reference the Commissioners had been told that no claim should be received or entertained or enquired into by the Com missioners, but such as were indisputably for loss occasioned by the confiscation and sequestration of book debts. Subse quently the Commissioners had been authorized to receive all kinds of claims whatsoever. Under those powers the Commissioners had made a Report, dated the 28th March, 1835, i n w hich they stated that, in obedience to the in- structions they had received, they bad proceeded to ar range the claims arising from the confiscation of book debts, goods actually landed, and of all ships and cargoes seized. His Majesty's Government had, in the estimates of 1835, voted a sum of 125,000/. on the first head. They were subsequently disposed to concede the claims of persons who had sustained loss by confiscation of goods absolutely landed, not remaining as cargoes in the ships in which they had been brought to Den mark, but goods that had been absolutely landed on the coast of Denmark. Upon that second class, in the esti mates of this year, the Government had recommended the vote of the House for a sum of 78,0001. With regard to the third class of claimants, namely, those persons who claimed for loss occasioned by the confiscation of ships and cargoes in the ports of Denmark and on the seas, prior to any declaration of war on the part of Denmark, the recog nition of those claims had been refused. It appeared for tunately, however, that they knew the grounds on which his Right Hon. Friend refused to recognise those claims. In answer to a memorial that had been sent to the Lords of the Treasury, there was a letter from the Treasury dated tl.e 6th of October, 1835, in which it was stated the confiscation of ships and cargoes, whethei on land or on the high seas, was in conformity to the practice and usage of war prevailing among the nations of Europe, and that upon these grounds their Lordships had come to the deci sion which had been communicated. In answer to the second application, a copy of the Treasury Minute had been communicated to the same parties, dated 1836.—( Hear.) He need not trouble the House with reading them over, but he begged leave to assure the House this was a matter of no small moment as it regarded the parties themselves. ( Here the Hon. Member read two letters from the Trea sury, refusir 6 a the demand.) We have thus in these two documents both the fact of the refusal and the grounds on which it was made. The first ground was, that the present claimants did not stand in the same circumstances as the confiscation of book debts did ; and secondly, that it would be establishing, a dangerous precedent. Now he had not the slightest doubt that he should prove to the entire satis faction of the House that those objections were good for nothing, and that no sufficient reason had been shown why these parties should not partake of the compensation which it had pleased Parliament to award. First, with regard to the confiscation of book debts being contrary to the law of nations—now it had been decided by Lord Ellenborough that the seizure of hook debts was contrary to the law of nations, and after that decision it would not become any .gentleman in that House to assert what ought to be the interpretation of the law of rations, and therefore he must take it that the confiscation of book debts was con trary to the law of nations. The parties, then, who had suffered in that way, had a demand upon the Danish Go vernment. The parties however here did not know that England was at war with Denmark. Not only had no cau tion been used, but he would state distinctly that there were recommendations on the part of the British Government— that there was a sanction given on their part to the British subjects to pursue their peaceful intercourse with Denmark, and which led to the losses they had sustained. If there be one thing more remarkable than another in that transac tion, it was the care with which the British Government had all through escheazed the character of belligerents. In the first place, it was quite notorious there was no decla ration of war previous to the sailing of the armament under Admiral Gambier. In the next place, that armament sailed with sealed orders, and the best proof that there was no hostility intended towards Denmark, was that the river Thames was at the time crowded with Danish vessels.— ( Hear, hear.) There was another point to which he would refer, and that was the proclamation issued before they landed. The Hon. Member here read the proclamation. He would beg the House to remark that no hostile act was charged against Denmark in that proclamation. There was a constant strain of authority in the documents issued about that time, spewing that the British Government did not consider they were in a state of war with Denmark, and it would appear as if they were particularly anxious to make it manifest that they were riot so. With respect to the vessels laid under embargo—but he should first trouble the House by reading an extract from a still more remark able document emanating from the English Cabinet in September, 1820. [The Hon. Member here read the Order in Council of that date.] He would request the House to observe that this docuMent went to justify the expedition to Copenhagen on one sole ground—namely, to prevent the French taking possession of the Danish fleet. There was every presumption that this country had no intention to make war upon Denmark. With regard to the claims of the 800 un fortunate vessels which had been seized, there were a number of Orders in Council, which can be taken only as intimating that these vessels•were to 63 ultimately released. The first Order was dated the 2d of September, and which had reference to all vessels taken before that date.—[The Hon. Member here read the Orders in Council of the 2d, 29th, and some other dates.] He would say, without a moment's hesitation, that the only rational inference that, could be drawn from these successive acts was, that there was no intention to act in a hostile way towards the Danes. During the same period he should also state that licenses were granted to vessels under the Danish flag to trade to the enemy's ports. But was it merely by indications of that sort that British subjects were led to believe that we were not at war with Denmark ? So far from that, the British subjects had a clear and distinct assurance that they might go through the Baltic, and go on with their usual avo cations in peace.—(Hear, hear.) He held in his hand the statement of a person, named Hale, who, being in command of the brig John and Elizabeth, Of Scarborough, sailed from the Humber, and on the 27th September, went on board the flag ship of Admiral Gambier for the purpose of tendering his vessel as a transport.. The Admiral stated that the fleet did not require any transports, and on being asked whether he might go up and down the Baltic w ith s afety, th e Ad m i ra l as s ured him that be could. All differences with Denmark having been satis factorily settled, the brig accordingly proceeded towards Stockholm ; but it coming on to b)ow hard, he came to an anchor, and his vessel was immediately boarded, and himself and his crew overpowered and seized, although he had ac• wally been encouraged to proceed in such an expedition by the British authorities. He (Mr. Clay) would assert dis tinctly, that if they were not compensated they had been most shamefully entrapped, ensnared, and entangled into the Baltic ; and no British cruizers being left to protect them, escape was impossible, Denmark being hostile, any more than Danish vessels in the Thames could escape had the guns of the Tower been loaded. At that time the only passage known was that through. the Sound and under the guns of the Danish forts ; and no British cruizers being left in the Baltic to protect them, lie would reassert that escape was impossible. Not only were the British merchants justified in.beheving that we were not at war, but they were led by the positive declarations of the British Commander and Admiral to go into a position in the narrow seas of the Baltic, from which escape was impossible. Under these circumstances, fifty-seven British vessels, some with va luable cargoes on board, were seized—about twenty-six of them in the ports of Denmark, and others on the shores and coming down the Baltic. He should also state that it was impossible these vessels could have guarded against these losses, for when any thing like apprehension arose, orders were instantly sent home to effect insurances upon the vessels and their cargoes ; but by that time it was as certained that a declaration of war had been issued, and no insurances could be effected at any premium. In 1794, the neutrality of the Baltic had been guaranteed, and was officially notified by a note from the Danish Minister to Lord. Grenville in the year 1801. That neutrality had been observed and was acknowledged by all parties until Denmark, at the period to which he had alluded, felt her self justified in breaking through that convention, from the insidious aggression, and perfidious hostility of England. It might be asked what right there was on the part of Den mark to invade the neutrality of the Baltic which she was herself the first to break ; or it might be asked why did not England, in 1814, insist upon a restitution of the pro- perty which was so seized upon before any declaration of war was announced. The Danish ladened vessels seized upon by this country produced a sum exceeding a million and a half—that sum was paid into the Admiralty. The naval stores seized at Copenhagen were worth one million more.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It had been, and might again be said, that there was no precedent existing for the payment of such claims. He believed that there might not be in existence a precedent resting upon exactly similar grounds, but there was one not very dissimilar. When the war broke out between this country and Spain in 1796, Spain laid an embargo on all British ships in Spanish ports. In the war of 1805, which broke out with out any declaration of war, we compensated not only those who lost their property before the declaration of war in 1805, but those also who lost theirs in a similar mannner in 1796, to the amount of 296,000/. ; that was a precedent in point, but he preferred, to rest, not upon precedent but upon jus tice. He did not think they required a precedent in this case, nor ought the House to be afraid of creating one, for it was almost impossible that there could ever be a similar case. He hoped there never would ; but if, unfortunately, there ever should, lie should say that all persons were en titled to compensation who lost their property ; and he said so in the present case. It was true that none of the parties had any legal claim upon the Government, but they had an equitable claim_one founded in justice. He rested his claim upon intelligible, fair, just, a n d equ it a bl e groun d s . The petitioners sufered a severe loss of prope'rty in conse quence of an Act almost without a parallel in the history of civilized warfare—of an Act which could only be jus tified on the ground of its being essential to the welfare of the whole community—that being the case, he held that the petitioners had an indisputable claim Y ; they should not be the single forsuupffeonrertshecountry the benefit of all. It might be proper for this country to do all in their power to stop the career of Buonaparte in his colossal scheme of warfare against this count: - •4. 1 11 E SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 16, 18M. a friendly power was almost . indefensible ; it was a base, a pitiful, a traitorous, a robber-like transaction. He said so without hesitation ; it was a disgrace to the country. There could be but one excuse for it, and that was, that the Government should, out of the proceeds of the property so seized, reimburse our fellow-subjects whose pro perty had been seized in retaliation.—(Hear, hear, hear.) if they refused these claims, they deprived themselves of the only excuse for the darkest transaction which had ever taken place in the history of England. lie held that they were bound to repay British sufferers under such circumstances, even if we had not taken any property at all—then, why should they hesitate now, when they had upwards of two millions and a half in hand ? He did not blame the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he only thought he was acting in accordance with his duty ; he would not part with the public money, without the autho rity of Parliament. He hoped he would now have such authority, and that the House would do itself justice by doing justice to these claimants. He hoped such would be the case, and that that would be the last occasion upon which the House would be troubled with the matter. • He then moved that the petition be referred to a Select Com mittee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed ' that there was no part of the duty he had to perform which occasioned him more pain, but also no part which it was more .important should be executed with fidelity, than that of resisting pecuniary claims on the public, unless he conceived they were founded on justice. He wished to bring the case fairly under the consideration of the House. He should be quite willing to include these claimants in the number of those for whom Parliament had provided compensation for the losses they had suffered by the con fiscation of their property by the Danish authorities, if he did not demonstrate that by admitting them the principle on which their admission was founded was liable to an indefinite extension, and that such an acknowledgment could not fail to have the effect of acting in an injurious manner upon our diplomatic relations. The book debts which were con fiscated amounted to ,112,000/. ; the goods to 78,3271., and the amount of the claims now under consideration for the loss of ships and cargoes was 6,641/. Parliament had already provided 112,000/. for the first class of claimants, and 75,0001. for the second ; and now it was asked to grant 6,641/. for the third. He would tell the House the rea sons for the distinctions which had been made. The opinion of the Crown Lawyers and of the civilians as to the point whether hostilities were justifiable under the circumstances had been taken, and they said that the confiscation of ships and cargoes, whether in port .or on the high seas, was in conformity with the established laws and usages of nations. His principle was, that if a subject of his Majesty was injured by an act done by a foreign Power contrary to the law of nations, it, would in such case be the duty of the Government, by war or negotiation, to obtain redress for individuals so injured, and if not redress at the hands of the offenders, at least to indemnify the parties injured ; but he never could consent to the establishment of the principle, that for an act done in a manner pronounced to be not contrary to the law of nations, a party ought to he indemnified. The parties now before the House had re ceived full information, not only of the decision of the Government in respect to their claims, but also the grounds of that decision had been communicated to them. A se cond interview had also taken place, and he (Me. Rice) at that interview agreed that the petitioners' own statement of their case should be submitted to the same law autho rities of the Crown to whose opinion he had already al luded. This was done, and the law officers reported that they saw no reason to change the opinion they had already expressed upon the matter.—(Hear.) It was no argument to dwell upon the origin of the war, which had led to the events forming the cause. of the subject now under consi deration. He himself was of opinion that the origin of the American and the French revolutionary war was unjust ;but he held as in this case that their unjust origin afforded no reason why a future Government should be called upon to make indemnities to individuals for injuries consequent upon that warfare.—(Hear.) He had hoped, that having come forward with votes for 112,000/. and for 78,000/. to indemnify the first and second classes of the parties injured, and after the full investigation which had taken place as to the claims of the parties forming the third class, and now before the House, he should not have heard this matter again urged upon the attention of the House or the Government. For the reasons he had stated, he felt it to be his duty to resist the proposition of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, that he felt himself called upon to support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Mem ber for the ToWer Hamlets. The transactions which had given rise to this cause of grievous complaint were a stain upon the records of this country. He warned the House not to be guided by the opinions of the high law authorities cited by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for he (Mr. G. F. Young) understood that one of the highest law functionaries in the coutry,wholiy dissented from that opinion, and held that the transaction in question was in direct contravention of the law of nations. Mr. HUME said, he: should support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He regretted that his Majesty's Government had determined to oppose a proposition which, in his judgment, was based on justice.--(Hear, hear.) Deipite the autho rities whose opinions were relied upon, he maintained that at the time these occurrences took place, Den mark was not engaged in any war, and the best proof that the fact was so, was afforded by the circumstance that par ties in this country trading to Denmark, and being about to despatch cargoes to that country, applied to the Government to know whether the warlike preparations then on foot were directed against Denmark, and that they were distinctly answered in the negative. Now, after these indi viduals had taken so much precaution, he thought it was most unjust that they should suffer, as had been their mis fortune. On the principle that every British subject ought to be p . rotected in the exercise of his lawful commerce with other countries, he gave his support to the motion of his Hon. Friend near him (Mr. Clay), and he trusted the House, would extend the same justice to the third class of claimants which it had already shown to the first and second classes, and by so doing make them reparation for the in juries they had sustained. Mr. HUTT, in a low tone of voice, was understood to express a hope that the HouSe would not give its sanction to the techical objection taken by the Right Hon. the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to that which was neither more nor less than an act of common justice. He bore testimony to the accuracy of the statement made by the Hon. Mem ber for Middlesex as to the application made by the parties now claiming from the Government in respect to the posi tion of Denmark, and added that similar applications were made by them to the Danish Ambassador, and that from both they had received the fullest assurance that they might with perfect safety engage in commercial traffic with that country. Under such circumstances, common justice demanded that relief for the injuries they had re ceived should be afforded to them. Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that though he concurred in many of the arguments which had been urged by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he drew from them a very different conclusion from that to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had arrived. He (Dr. Lushing ton) was one of the few members still in the House, who nearly 30 years ago, had expressed a strong opinion on the subject of the attack upon Copenhagen in 1807, and how ever right or wrong that attack might be, he still thought the claims of the individuals now before the House stood on a just and solid foundation. He regretted that this country should have set the nations of Europe the example of such transactions in the instance of the seizure of the Spanish ships in 1804, a course which if pressed would lead to a total disregard of treaties, and tend to injure that safe prosecution of commerce which was the strength of the na tion. He hoped that for the sake of the sum claimed, the present, or any other Government, would not stop short, and by refusing indemnification commit an endless wrong upon private individuals circumstanced like the present pe titioners. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed, that having been one of the paties consulted by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he begged to state that it had been the opinion of those with whom he had advised that nothing had been done at all in contravention of the law of nations. However desirable it might be-thought to alter and change those laws, and however hard they practically might, under circumstances, press upon individuals, still they were the laws existing, and being so must be obeyed. Sir J. R. REID expressed his gratification at the calm spirit with which the question had been discussed, and thought that the best course for the House to adopt wouli be to grant the Committee. Mr. J. PARKER was understood a speak in support of the motion. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that after what bad fallen from the Hon. and Learned Solicitor , General, it became neces sary to remind those who voted against the present motion, that they voted in favour of that abominable system of plunder on the high seas which it had been argued was strictly in accordance with the law of nations. That system never could have been tolerated by this country had it not been the greatest naval power ; and having found an advantage in the system, it felt bound to sanction it with regard to others. Mr. GOULBURN felt so strongly the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the various demands made on a person in his situation for compensation, that he conceived it to be his duty to rise and declare that the present was not a claim which, in his opinion, the House ought to comply with. He felt it the more neces sary to make this declaration after what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Kil kenny. The doctrine laid down by that Hon. and Learned Member would, if admitted, not only establish the right of the Danis claimants to compensation, but would justify every narann in malrincr n domnncl An AA Crnv Prnmant fnr --- - money, who, no matter ktr,v/i torie , ago, might have had their property seized-on the higri ' by .the ships of Powers in hostility with us before they were that any declaration of war had been made. After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. GOULBURN in mutual explanation, the House divided, when the numbers appeared— For the amendment Against it Majority CHURCH OF IRELAND. On the motion of Lord MORPETH the Church of Ireland Bill was read a third time. In reply to a question of Mr. F. BUXTON, Lord MORPETH was understood to say that be should do his best to enforce the rules made, keeping exclusively Catholic books out of the schools. The Bill was then passed. SUPPLY. Oa the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, and agreed to resolutions proposed by him, which were inaudible in the Gallery. The House then resumed. CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND). On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be reported. In reply to a question of Colonel PERCEVAL, Lord MORPETH was understood to say that all bona fide transfers of corporate property in the nature of fair and honourable transactions, which had taken place since the Ist of June, would not be included in the operation of the Bill. CHARITABLE TRUSTEES. Mr. V. SMITH moved the further consideration of the report of the Charitable Trustees Bill. Sir R. PEEL objected to its being proceeded with, as he had some observations to make on it generally, but es peCially on the principle of connecting charitable trusts with political bodies. The Noble Lord the Secretary of State for ‘ the Home Department was not in the House, and be (Sir R. Peel) did not choose to make these obser vations in his absence. He, therefore, hoped the Hon. Member would name another day for taking the discussion. The principle of the Bill, in point of fact, had not been debated, and it was only right that an opportunity of de, bating it should be given. Mr. V. SMITH was inaudible in the gallery, but he was understood to decline the responsibility of naming a day, en the ground of the Noble Lord's absence at that moment. He denied that the Bill connected charitable trusts with political bodies. On the contrary, its object was to dissever them from one another. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that, under all the circumstances, he should take upon himself to move that the Bill stand over till Tuesday next. ELECTION EXPENSES. On the motion of Mr. HUME, the Election Expenses Bill went through committee. GRAND JURIES (IRELAND). Lord MORPETH moved the committal of the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill. Clauses 139 to 166 were agreed to, with verbal amend ments. On clause 167 being proposed, Mr. F. FRENCH and Colonel PERCEVAL objected to the despotic power which it placed in the hands of the Judge or the Chief Secretary for the time being, to order the county treasury to pay a sum for purposes for which the Grand Jury had, on consideration, refused to levy a rate. Mr. F. FRENCH proposed an amendment to the clause, on which a division took place : For the original clause For the amendment 35 Majority While strangers were excluded a discussion took place, which led to another amendment being proposed by Lord Clements : For the amendment 35 Against it Majority Several new clauses were agreed to, without discussion. Mr. LE ROY proposed that the county of Tipperary should be divided into two ridings, for the purpose of hav ing two assize towns in- that county ; .the power of such division to rest with the Lord Lieutenant. The clause, as we understood, was agreed to. The report was ordered to he received. The Order of the Day being moved for the recommit ment of the Stannaries Court Bill; Sir J. Y. BULLER proposed that the Bill should be postponed to the next session. Lord EBRINGTON also wished the Bill to be post poned. Sir C. LEMON said that the present state of Devon shire imperatively required that the measure should be gone on with. After a short conversation the Bill went through a com mittee pro forma and was ordered to be printed. On the motion of Mr. LYNCH the Civil Courts (Ire land) Bill was read a third time. COUNTY ELECTIONS POLL BILL. On the motion that the report on this Dill be received, Mr. FORBES opposed the motion. So important a Bill ought not to be brought on at so late an hour. Mr. A. TREVOR also opposed the motion. He bad very strong objections to the Bill, and it ought not to be brought on at so fete an hour. Lord J. RUSSELL defended the Bill. When it was before brought forward it was at five o'clock, but it could not be passed through its stages so early. Mr. R. TREVOR had strong objections to the Bill. It would have the effect of disfranchising a large body of county electors—the out-voters ; and it was moreover an attempt to introduce by a side-wind a measure which had much better, if agreed to at all, be made the subject of a separate Bill. Why hadnot the Noble Lord brought for ward some specific measure earlier in the Session Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had always intended, when be introduced the Reform Bill, to introduce a Bill for limiting the polling at county elections to one day, and as this measure practically carried out that intention, he could not see what foundation there was for the observa tions of the Hon. Member (Mr. R. Trevor) ; at all events there could be no objection to the report being received. Lord EBRINGTON denied that there bad been any attempt to introduce the measure by a side wind. After a conversation the report was received, and on the motion that the amendment be agreed to, Mr. FORBES moved the further consideration of the report on Monday next. The House then divided, when the numbers were— Ayes lB Noes 47 Majority The report was then received. • POST-OFFICE COMMISSIONERS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, breught in a Bill to enable his Majesty to appoint Com missioners for executing the duties of Post-Master Ge neral, which was read a first time. He begged to give notice that he would move the second reading of the Bill on Thursday next, in order to afford his Hon. Friend the Member for Greenock an opportunity of stating his views to the House on the subject, and which he (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) hoped would not be adverse to the views entertained by the Government on this most im portant question.—(Hear, from Mr. 'Wallace.) The other Orders of the Day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—ABOLITION OF FEES. —The following written notice is affixed to the wall at the top of the staircase leading from the Members' waiting-room to the lobby of the House of Commons The doorkeepers, messengers, and all other officers of the Sergeant-at-Arms department, are prohibited from receiving any fee or gratuity whatever." And over the entrance to the strangers' gallery there is also a written notice posted up as follows Admit tance by a Member's order only." The general opinion now is, that Parliament will be prorogued about the sth or 6th of August. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.—There was a very numerous meeting of this body held at the Corn Ex change, Dublin, on Saturday. After some discussion on the Dublin Roads Bill, Mr. French read Mr. O'Connell's letter to the National Association of Ireland. A spirited discussion ensued, and after several resolutions had been proposed and adopted, the meeting separated. - - DETERMINED SUlClDE.—Thursday forenoon an inquest was held at the King and Queen public-house, Hare street, Bethnal-green, before Mr. Baker, the Coroner, and a respectable Jury, on the body of John Williams, aged 27 years, which was picked out of the Regent's Canal on Sun day last, with his throat cut in so frightful a manner that the head had been very nearly separated from the trunk. So deep and serious was the wound on the throat, it was the opinion of the police and others that it was impossible the deceased could have committed it himself before getting into the canal, and that, therefore, he must have met with some foul play. But alter a prolonged investigation, the Jury returned a var. diet—" That the deceased was found drowned, with his throat cut, and they had no doubt, from the testimony adduced, that he had inflicted the wound himself while labouring under tem porary insanity." LIVERPOOL, THURSDAY.---The demand for Cot ton to-day llbeen rather brisk, and the sales will reach near 5,000 bags, about 1,500 of which (of the lower qualities of American) have been taken by speculators, and about 600 for export. RABID DOGS.--The following ex t ra ct is from the Act of Parliament in force against the owners of dogs who let them go at large, to the peril of the public, the existence of which is not by any means generally known :—" If any per son shall keep at large any cur-dog, mastiff or bull-dog, within fifty yards of any public rood or street, without a log of wood of the weight of five pounds attached to his neck, such person for every such offence shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings, and PvPry ennstahl. Tref v Irill curb clop_ BANKRUPTCY COURT-FRIDAY. DtTK . t.TT, AfORLAND, AND CO.'S BANKRUPTCY. A meeting of the creditors under the separate estate of Sir r: B. J. Morland, Bart.,. one of the partners in this banking firm, held to-day for tliie proof of debts, and the declara tion of a divi&md,. The amount already declared on the se parate estate is 64. ad. in the pound, and a further dividend was announced to-day of 13s. 9d. in the pound, making a to tal of 203. in the pound. The dividends already declared ora the joint estate arc Bs. 4d. in the potiod, and before the close.; of the year a further sum will be paid to ,;he general creditars.. ASSIZE IN TELLIGEN CE. OXFORD CIRCUIT, JULY 14. The Commission was opened yesterday, and business bega this morning. fa both Courts it is very light, there being: only seven causes entered at Nisi Prius, all of a trifling de— scription ; and the only two serious cases in the calendar (which contains the names of 29 prisoners) the Grand Jurr have thrown out the hills; they were both charges of infanti—' cide. Mr. Justice PATTISON presides at Nisi Prius, and Mr.. Justice LITTLEDALE in the Crown Court. _ _ _ Thomas Hawkins, aged 52, was indicted for having on the ist of May, 1836, at the parish of Watlington, feloniously ad vanced the rate of postage upon a certain letter from sd. to Bd., he then being postmaster at that place. Witnesses were called for the prosecution. On being called on for his defence the prisoner declined to• say anything ; but several highly respectable witnesses were called, who said they had known him for the last twenty years, during sixteen of which he had kept the post-office at Walling ton, and he had always borne a very excellent character. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having summed up at great leng'tb, the jury found the prisoner Not Guilty. The business at Abingdon did not conclude until eleven•. o'clock on Wednesday night, the whole day having been occu pied in the trial of a watercourse cause, which was of no public interest; but a melancholy circumstance attended its termina tion. Early on Thursday morning the body of the plaintiff's wife was found in the very stream which was the subject of dis pute, into which she had fallen in the night, it is believed accidentally. NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—BUCKINGHAM, JuLr 14. The Commission was opened here on Wednesday by Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice Bosanquet. The calen dar is unusually light for this county, there being only sixteen prisoners for trial. Several of the offences are of a highly criminal nature. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.-NORTHAMPTON, JULY IS. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-SMITH V. MLLES. This was an action to recover compensation in damage for injury done in not fulfilling a promise defendant had made.. The defendant is a chemist and druggist, carrying on that bu siness at Spalding, and is 27 years of age ; the plaintiff is a young lady, the daughter of a farmer living near to the same place ; and in 1833, being on a visit at a friend's in Spalding, they became acquainted, and there the defendant paid his ac dresses to her. Thomas Wilson examined—Lives at Spalding. Is ac quainted with Miss Smith, who is now 25 years of age. Was on a visit at witness's house in 1833, where she met the defen dant. lie paid her particular attentions, and they frequently went out together. The defendant is a chemist and druggist, and has the best business in Spalding. When the acquaint ance was brokers off, he was told by Miss Smith that it wit, on account of some objection made by th e d e f en d an t' s mother.. The defendant has since married. The Learned Sergeant (ADAMS) then put in a letter con taining the following passage, which was the promise alleged On reading your last letter over and over again, I am fully convinced of your worthiness, and feel confident I shall find you a prudent and happy wife. Should it be our happy lot to be so related, I do here most solemnly declare, S ce . ,, Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN, for the defendant, contended that, even supposing the above to amount to a promise, it at least was only a conditional one—conditional on the consent of his friends ; and, such consent never having bccn obtained, therefore not binding. The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the Jury instantly returned a verdict for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN thought it but fair to his client to. state that, although he was entitled to costs from the plaintiff, he had instructed his Counsel to state that he would not take them. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHAL Yesterday a middle-aged person of respectable appearance, named John Dennis, was brought up in the custody of Wm. Springate, a City policeman, charged with having uttered a bill of exchange for 701,, bearing a forged acceptance and. endorsement.—The prisoner was remanded. HATTON-GARDEN. Monday evening, Mrs. Susannah Jane _Rau:Nilson, the wife of an extensiVe lace manufacturer, of No. 37, Cateaton-street., City; Miss Sarah Hextall, her sister, and Mrs. Susannah: Hextall, their mother, about seventy years of age, were brought: to this office in a hackney coach, in the custody of Inspector Purring, of G. division, charged by Miss Julia Newman, of No. 3, Goswell-street-road, Clerkenwell, with having stolen a considerable quantity of jewellery. After the examination of many witnesses, Mr. LatNo hav— ing expressed strong doubts as to the strength of Vie case got up against the prisoners, immediately dischsrgel Mrs. and Miss [level], and took the bail of Mr. Rawlinson, the husband, and Mr. Simpson, a jeweller, for the sum of 1001., for Mrs. tlasslinson, to appear at the office on Thursday. Accordingly on Thursday most intense intei eit was mani- " rested, and long before the arrival of Mr. LAING, the avenues leading to the Justice-room were excessively thronged by pe r .. sons,of the greatest respectability who were anxious to gain admission. On the arrival of the Magistrate, the officers had considerable difficulty to keep the crowd from forcing their way into the Court prior to the examination. Miss Nesvmatt and Eliza Barrett, the servant to Mr. Elderton, in whose house the robbery was alleged to have beets committed, were in attendance in the clerk's office, and before the case was entered into they, as well as Inspector Penny, and Barnard cf the G division, the apprehending officers, were privately ex amined b 3 Mr. LAING. Mrs. Rawlinson and her husband, accompanied by Mr. Simpson, jeweller, of Hatton-garden, her bail, came into the office shortly after eleven o'clock, surrounded by friends, many of whom are persons of title. She appeared calm and collected. At twelve o'clock Mrs. Rawlinson was conducted into the magistrate's presence, and was immediately accommodated with a seat at the clerk's desk. Mr. C. Phillips and Mr. Flower, of the firm of Alderman [farmer and Co , attended to conduct the defence. Miss Newman was then called and sworn. She is an et tremely well-looking girl, about nineteen years of age, and wp very smartly dressed. She said she lived in the house of Dr. Elderton, No. 3, Goswell-street-road, Clerkenwell. The prisoner and her husband also resided there. (The jewel case alleged to have been stolen was here produced.) Mr. Lasso—ls that and the contents your property ? Miss Newman—lt is a part of the property I have been robbed of. Mr. LAlNG—Enumerate the various articles you missed. Miss Newman—l missed a locket, a pair of fine gold earrings set with diamonds, eleven pairs of other earrings, a cornelian, brooch, two rings, a silver snuff-box, and many other things, besides a purse containing two five-pound notes, a sovereign,: and three shillings. Mr. LAING—NOW tell inc when yen saw them safe, and the time you missed them ? Miss Newnssm—About half-past two o'clock I had occasion to go to my bed-s as am for the pur pose of obtaining an ornament. All my jewe:.7 were then safe. I went afterwards to my dinner, and returnOg to my bedroom again, between three and four o'clock, I first kissed a miniature, made of solid gold, and presently discovered t;:at my jewel-case had been broken open and plundered. Mr. LAING—What did you do on ascertaining that to 150 the case Miss Newman—l came down stairs, but made no' accusation against any party. Mr. Phillips—Did you mention the circumstance to your landlord Mr. Elderton ? Miss Newman—l did, but he did not interfere. Mr. LAING—Did he say anything ? Miss Newman-110 merely expressed much surprise. Mr. LAING—Was Mrs. Rawlinson in the house ? Miss Newman—No, she had dressed herself and gone out. It was suspected she knew something of the robbery. (Hesitatingly) —ln fact, we did not know what to do. Inspector Penny was called and said—l received informa tion of the robbery fi om Barnard, 110 G, one of my men, antD. I proceeded with him to the residence of Mr. Elderton, who , said he suspected Mrs. Rawlinson, and he gave her and her mother and sister into custody. At the time I called upon: Mr. Elderton, neither of these three ladies were in. They came home soon after five o'clock, and when I informed them. of the offence laid to their charge, they appeared excited, but it was not the excitement I should expect to witness in a guilty person. I requested Mrs. Rawlinson to take me into her apartments, which she very readily did, and at my solicitation she turned down the bed, about which I found the jewellery produced, and a purse owned by Miss Newman, containing 2s. 6d. These ear-rings (showing a pair) the prosecutrix's mother said cost 371., and were set with diamonds. John James Barnard, 110 G division, produced several arti cles of jewellery, and stated that he picked them up in Mrs. Rawlinson's bed-room. Mr. H. Elderton, surgeorf, No. 3, Goswell-street-road, wa s informed on Monday afternoon by Miss Newman of her loss. She did not accuse any particular individual of the theft. Miss Newman recalled, and examined. Mr. Phillips (holding up a pair of car-rings)—Pray, Miss Newman, are these brilliant ear-rings ? Miss Newman— They are, Sir. Mr. Phillips—Who do they belong to? Miss Newman-- M e . They were a present from my guardian, Mr. Roberts, a merchant in the city. Mr. Phillips—Wh w at did they cost? Miss Newman—Thirty seven pounds. Mr. Phillips—That you swear to ? Miss Ncwmau (hesitat ing)—My guardian certainly made me a present of them - two years ago in America. _ Mr. Phillips—You are positive of that ? Miss Newman Mr. Phillips—Pray bow long ago is it since you were in America? Miss Newman—l have arrived from there twelve. mouths, and was educated there partly, and fir s t left tha t country when I was six years old. Mr. Phillips —Now let me find out how you have, passed your time since you last left America. How long have you been in Mr. Elderton's house ? Miss Newman—A month. Mr. Phillips—Who was your landlord before then ? Miss Newman—Mr. Bright, No. 20, Judd-place, West. Mr Phillinc Whut nntinr; worn unit ;n hie Timm , Miss