The Sun. — London, England, 1845-07-17 00:00:00

THE SOUTH-EASTERN COMPANY AM) THE BOARD OF ORDNANCE. EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. Members present—Lord Ashley, Sir Charles Douglas, Mr. Dun be, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Hayter, Mr, Olden, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Tancred, Mr. Vernon, Lord Worsley. Benjamin Hawes, Esq., in the chair. Francis R. Bonham Esq., called in and examined. Witness—ln making the application lam about to do to the Committee, I trust you will allow me to preface it with a very few observations. Cita IRMA you allow me to precede what you are going to say, by stating what the Committee have entrusted me to communicate to you? It is their wish that the whole of the evidence that is supposed to militate against you, in your public capacity, should be in your hands, and that you sh ould have the full cognisance of all that has been alleged against your public conduct ; if that has not been done, you are at perfect liberty to wait till you have full cognisance of all that has been said before the Committee, before you make any statement. Witness—l am exceedingly obliged to you ; I have had no papers. My object in appearing here may b 3 considered an improper object. I am told that I have forgone an ad vantage, and I am quite willing to forego that in the anxiety that I have of setting myself right, or at least of making such explanation, whether it be satisfactory or not, as in my cross-examination or the evidence of ethers will bear the test of truth. The object of my coming here is to pray that I may be immediately examined ; and one word I have to say upon that. It was late on Wednesday when I heard that a statement was made as to the cheque. I heard it -indirectly ; this Committee was sitting, and the immediate impulse upon my mind was to send in to beg to be examined at the moment ; but I felt that as you pro.. lrably were upon the other question, that is, immediately upon the petition, it would be impertinent and improper for me to occupy your time at that moment. It was only last night that I heard in a way that may readily occur by a gentleman that was examined, that the question of the cheque was gone into. I immediately deter mined in my own mind to appear before the Committtee; the advice of the only friend I consulted upon it was against it ; he said, " You forego an advantage ; you should hear the whole first." lam ready, however, to forego that advan tage, and I am perfectly willing to state the case, sub jecting my statement to the test of cross-examination afterwards, and the statement of other witnesses who may be examined. I am prepared to make a state ment of the .precise facts. The Committee will re member that the transaction was nine years ago. I have no paper of any kind or sort. I think, however, my statement will be so correct as to defy contradiction ; at the same time, up to yesterday, when I saw Mr. Wray after his examina tion, I was mistaken as to one point which I am extremely anxious to explain ; be set me right yesterday as to that. My statement must be very short: In the early part of the session of 1836, Mr. Wray, to whom I was under considerable obligations (it is not nec2ssary to state them with any explicitness), came to me and said, "I am very much interested in the success of the South-Eastern Railway, and I wish you would give us a lift ; and I want your advice upon some points." I said, " Nly dear Wray, I owe very great obligations to you, and I will do anything I can to serve you." He said, " I should be very much obliged to you if you would." And, npon that, I have not the least hesita tion as stating that I did all I could individually to assist Mr. Wray in the object he had in view; that is, in plain terms, I did what I could to assist him in passing that Bill, both in and out of Parliament. Mr. Wray never held out to me one word, nor did any conversation ever take place, as to any advantage of any kind or sort that I was to derive from it. I considered it a great personal advantage ; I mean personal, with reference to the debt of gratitude that I owed him ; I considered it a great pleasure to myself to do what I could for him. There were some questions upon the French lines where I gave them some advice, I will not say assistance, because they were well able to assist themselves. - I never had any communication in any way with any members of the South- Eastern Railway Committee. I never had from them directly or indirectly, or from Mr. Wray, directly or indirectly, any offer of any personal advantage to myself to be derived from it. After that Bill was passed, Mr. Wray .came to me and stated that the South-Eastern Railway Company felt that I had been of use to them, great use to them, I think he said, and that they had kept a quantity of reserved shares, which had not been disposed of, and that they liad determined to appropriate 100 shares for my benefit. Mr. Wraj said," I know it will not be convenient for you to hold these shares," Meaning, of course, what I do not deny, that I am pot a rich man.. " I will hold them for you, and I think I can derive some advantage from them ;" and Mr. Wray, I think, about three weeks after wards (he will be able to tell you better), came to me and said, " I have been able to make 3001. of those shares, which I will give you." From beginning to end, so far as I know of the transaction, I have no hesitation in stating that that is the whole transaction. It is nine years ago, and I had very mush forgotten it ; my impression was the other day, that I had not received the 3001., but that, in point of fact, as I owed Mr. Wray money, Mr. Wray had received the 300 i. for my benefit, liquidating the debt. That was any im ?session ; but the day before yesterday, when I stated this to Mr. Wray, he said, " You are wrong, depend upon it ; I gave you the money, either in a cheque or money." And I said, " If you did I have not the least recollection ; but as I never meant to suppose fur a moment that I had not had the benefit of it in some way, you are much more likely to know than I am, and therefore I take it for granted, under the circumstances, that I received the money." I have not the least recollection of receiving it, but I take it for granted that so it is. I cannot have the slightest doubt of it, and I must take it for granted that he did give me the cheque. I can only state again that, as to the transaction itself, there was never, at the time I assisted him, the smallest expectation on my mind of deriving any advantage from it ; and of eourse, when I state this, the Committee will most naturally and properly take care to ascertain that fact from other quarters. I think I can undertake to say, net knowing who the Directors of the South-Eastern Railway were at that time, so much as this, that all those gentlemen will tell you the same. I should hope so, for, upon my honour, I do not know their names, not all of them ; but I challenge them all, from beginning to end, to say that I had ever the slightest expectation of any kind or sort, Attui Mr. Wray also ; and the proposal as to these shares *as never made to me till after the Bill had passed, and the shares I never received, inasmuch as it would not have been convenient ;_ but the shares' worth, afterwards, I did re ceive from Mr. Wray; that is the transaction. Was that the only sum which you so received from the South-Eastern Company ?—Certainly, unequivocally the only sum. Have you read the petition which has been presented to the House from the South-Eastern Railway Company ?—I have. And, of course, therefore, you have read the letter, signed " J. Hignett," dated " February 3, 1845 ?"—Yes. I will read two passages in that letter :—" I spoke to Mr. Bonham on the same point," that is, the allocation of forth coming shares, " but he feels some difficulty, as there is to be an opposition in Parliament to your lines. You can send some shares to him or not, as you please, and mark your letter, Pri vate,' and state that you do so at my suggestion." Have you any explanation or observation to make upon that ?—Mr. Hignett never spoke to me on the subject in any way. I had never communicated with him upon it. I never heard of the ex istence of any letter written, as it appears, on the 3d February, up to the receipt of this letter from Mr. Fearon. Upon my honour, as a gentleman I was perfectly ignorant of the exist ence of such a letter till I received this letter from Mr. Fearon. The witness read the same as follows : " South-Eastern Railway-office, 35 a, Great George street, Westminster, June 26, 1845. " Fa:* isel it my duty to inform you, that under the advice of counsel, a letter addressed by Mr. Hignett, the solicitor of the Bard to which you are attached, to the late Secretary of the South-Eastern Railway Company, will be produced this day at the sitting of the Committee on Group A ; your name is mentioned in this letter, and it will no doubt appear desirable to you that you should be present.—l have, &c. ( Signed) " JOHNitP. FEARON, " Solicitor to the South-Eastern Railway Company. " Francis R. Bonham, Esq., Ordnance-office, Pall-mall." The 26th of June was Thursday ; Thursday is not a board day at the Ordnance. lam there every morning, but I had quitted the office, and by a mere accident connected with other matters, I went there to see somebody at a quarter to three; and if it had not been for that, I should not have found the letter till the following day. It was of course too late to go down to the Committee that day. I im mediately sent for Mr. Hignett, not having the least idea to what the letter could refer, to in quire whether he was in the House ; they said he was not ; soon afterwards Mr. Hignett saw me. I was a good deal embarraLed and astonished, and felt in a difficulty to know what to do. Neither of my colleagues, neither Colonel Peel nor Captain Boldero, was in the House. Very soon afterwards Captain Boldero came in, and brought a copy of the letter addressed to him, and two or three minutes afte:wards Mr. Hignett came in, in a state of great agitation. I said to him, "I am very anxious to know what this is. but I think all explanation had better be in writing." He went out of the room, of course, immediately, and I wept very soon to a club in the neighbourhood. I said, " 1 shall be at the Carlton for some time." In about an hoar or two afterwards I got a letter from Mr. Hignett ; it was a confused letter, certainly, but the main point of the letter was—. I de not like to put in the letter, because you will have evidence enough to show you that I could not have had anything to do with it. I will not put in that letter, but I may say that Mr. Hignett wrote me a letter, expressing his vexation, and so on, but saying that he was quite pre pared and ready to admit that he had never had any communi cation with me on she subject. The letter came about an hour after I quitted the Ordnance-office. It came to the club. I was in a private room in the club. I did not choose to remain at the Ordnance, because I was afraid Mr. Hignett would come op, I wished to be a*ay. The Committee wish you to produce the letter which you received from Mr. Hignett. The letter was read as follows : " Office of Ordnance, June 26, 1845. " Sir—l have perused a letter addressed to you by Mr. J. P. Fearon, solicitor to the South-Eastern Company, dated this day, adverting to a letter stated to have been written by me to the late Secretary of that Company, in which your name is mentioned ; and in compliance with your desire to be furnished with some explanation, I beg to state that I remember applying for some new shares four or five months ago, I having previously held some of the old shares in my own name for individuals of my family; but I have no recollection of having used your name in my letter to the secretary. Most assuredly I had no authority from you to apply for shares in your name, or on your behalf, neither had lever communicated with you on the subject. If I did so, it must have been inad vertently, and very improperly no doubt, and I deeply regret that the circumstance will occasion you much annoyance. " I have, &c., " J. HIONETT. " F. R. Bonham, Esq." Soon after, Colonel Peel came in from the House of Com mons, and said to me " What upon earth is this story ? There is a story down at the House about you?" and I im mediately pet the letter into his hands, and said, " My dear Peel, all I can tell you is, upon my honour I never heard one word open the subject. What is the matter? first let me know what the story is." He said, " You had better write to Mr. Lascelles to get a copy of the letter ;" and I had half written a letter to Mr. Lascelles, when it occurred to me that to write to Mr. Lascelles was perfectly absurd, inasmuch as the Committee had refused to receive the letter, and there fore I could not get from him a copy of it ; but as Mr. Fearon bad written to me a letter which, in the hurry of the moment, I had forgotten to answer, the answerirg of Mr. Fearon's letter would give me a. very good opportunity for in quiring for the letter ; I kept a hurried copy of the letter which I wrote to Mr. Fearon; probably Mr. Fearon would put in the original; this was the letter which I wrote to Mr. Fearon the same evening. The witness read the same as follows : " 35, Clarges-street, June 26, 1845. " Sir,— On my return to the Ordnance office this afternoon I found your letter, in which you state your intention of pro ducing a letter from Mr. Hignett to the secretary of the South- Eastern Railway, in which letter my name is mentioned, and I thank you for the courtesy of your communication ; and I have since heard the substance of its contents, but I should be glad to have a copy of the letter, in which I am, f course, deeply interested. In the mean time, I can only give the most solemn assuran ce that neither directly nor in directly was 111 r. Hignett authorised to use m y name, or make any application on my behalf, for any shares in any com pany, and that I had not the slightest notion that he had ever done so.—l have, &e. (Signed) " F. R. BONHAM. " J. P. Pearbis, Esq." THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1845. Perhaps the Committee would allow me to suggest that I should be very glad that the original letter, of which this is a copy, should be given in, and I will state precisely why. I have written thus far, but in the original leer to Mr. Fearon you will find this sentence—" I could not stBte the pre cise words; I did not think of copying it : but yo will find a sentence to this effect—' I shall be glad if you w I show this letter to any person to whim you may have sho7.n Mr. Hig. nett's letter;' that was in order to make my deal as public and unequivocal as the charge. The followinz morning, I found, of course, the answer from Mr. Fearon, and he en closed me this letter, which then, fur the first time, I saw. The witness read the same, as follows : " South-Eastern Railway Office, 35a, Great George street, Westminster, July 27, 1845. " Sir—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and beg to forward you herewith a copy of Mr. Hignett's letter of the 2d of February last to the secretary of the South-Eastern Railway Company. " I have, &c., "JOHN P. FEARON. (Signed) " Francis R. Bonham, Esq." Have you ever held scrips or shares in the South-Eastern Railway ? No—never in my life. I use the expression sub ject to the explanation about the shares of Mr. V 4 ray never held a single share, or applied for a single share, nor ever thought of applying for a single share. Permit me to repeat the same question with regard to the North Kent shares ?—I never applied for a single share. I have held shares and hold shares. I bought the shares in the market, and I hold them at this moment. In what company ?—ln the North Kent Company. Will you inform the Committee the date of the purchase of those shares in the North Kent Company ?—I could easily get it, but I cannot speak from memory, but it was very long since. I should be perfectly prepared by to morrow to state the time. I bought the shares in the market at a premium, and paid a deposit. Was the purchase of those shares suggested to you by any one 2—No, it was suggested by my own opinion that it was very good line, judging from what I had heard. Ido not pr fess to have much knowledge of engineering, but the company was a strong company, and from what I remembered and always thought of the advantage of having a direct coast line to Dover I thought that would be a good line. I considered myself as much entitled to buy shares in that as any other line in the market. Have you purchased shares in the market in many com panies, not with a view to investment, but as a speculation ?—I have not the least objection to answer the question. I have. Have you ever had any joint transactions in the purchase of shares with Mr. Hignett, the solicitor to the Board of Ordnance? —Never in my life. Whatever shares you have purchased in railway companies have all been purchased in the railway market, entirely at the dictation of your own opinion of the merits of the company of which you have purchased shares ?—Every share I ever bought has been purchased upon my own opinion, in the open market ; and certainly I have had no shares in any company, nor even any conversation which would lead to shares with Mr. Hignett, and I have had no shares with any member of the Board of Ordnance at all, or any person connected with the Board of Ordnance. . . _ _ _ Mr. TANCRED—You have had no conversation with Mr. Hignett as to shares?—No "conversation" is rather indefi nite. But I should say that I could have had no conversation with Mr. Hienett upon the subject; one is not in the way of seeing him very much. I think I might safely say that I had never any conversation with him upon the subject. Mr. ROEBUCK—You do not hold any shares in the North Kent Railway that you have not bought ?—I do not hold a single share in the Mirth Kent Railway that I have net bought and paid for. Mr. T. EGERTON—That purchase being a matter of invest ment, and not of speculation ?—I will endeavour to answer that question as nearly as possible. I wish to answer it cor rectly ; it is a mixed question. I would rather answer that question. I have no hesitation in saying that I had more shares than I could pay up in full; and the advantage that 1 contemplated was, to hold a certain number of shares, as I think the speculation a good one, and likely to be for my ad- vantage, and by selling some to pay for the others. CHAIRMAN—Can you state to the Committee the lines of railway which pass in or near the Ordnance property, upon which the Board of Ordnance have reported their assent or dissent ?—I really cannot ; and, extraordinary as it may appear to the Committee, I have never read one word of any of the papers connected with any one of the railways. I wish that answer to be put down. I have not read any of the papers connected with any one of the railways, sot con sidering it any part of my duty. Then, whether you have bought or sold shares in any of the lines so affecting Ordnance property, you cannot inform the Committee?—Yes ; I meant to state distinctly to the Com mittee that I had not bought shares in any other but the North Kent Railway. Mr. ROEBUCK—Nor held shares? Nor held shares. Mr. Linnenn—May I ask you whether you ever attended any meetings of the Board of Ordnance, where you pro nounced an opinion as to the merits of any particular lines ? —Never, upon my honour ; nor have I been called upon to do so ; nor still, further, have I had an opportunity of doing so. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say this; it will appear more distinctly if the Committee will do that which I think is due both to the public and to the mem bers-of the Board of Ordnance, viz., examine the highest authorities in the department upon the subject ; I should be most happy that Sir George Murray, Colonel Peel, and Mr. Byham, who has been Secretary of the Ordnance for forty years, should all be examined ; and I am sure they will all state that I could have had no opportunity of giving an opinion, or furthering or promoting the interests of any one of the railways. I believe you have documents from the office, and you will see my name signed to them. Many •f the documents contain this indorsement, " Refer it to the Inspector-General of For tifications for a report." When we have a report of the Inspector-General of Fortifications, it is submitted to the Master-General for approval. The papers will be before you; and I state it, subject to the possibility of stating anything in accurately, with all the:consequences before me. I have never had any opinion to give, and never been called upon to give one. In what capacity do you sign your name to these papers? —As a Member of the Board ministerially. I may make myself understood in this way : when a railway company applies to the Board of Ordnance for permission to pass through their property, Mr. Byham, the secretary of the Ordnance, not waiting for any communication from the Board, makes the minute : " Refer it to the Inspector- General of Fortifications for a report," the Inspector-General of Fortifications reports accordingly to the Board. In every case, and on all occasions, the next minute will be, " Submit it to the Master-General for his approbation." The Master- General, you will find, always enters somewhat at large into the question, and then he gives instructions to the Board to convey his approbation or disapprobation of the line. That is the re gular official mode of doing business. We never have an aye or nay upon the subject ; we have no opinion to offer; we can offer none. It is a military question ; and the Master-General states that, upon all:military questions, he reserves to himself the entire power of deciding. Then your signature, upon the occasions upon which it ap pears upon the papers, is purely in an official capacity?— Purely official. No discretion whatever is exercised on your part with re gard to the merits of any question which may come under the consideration of the Board in those papers ?—No question whatever on my part—no power of altering it in the minutest degree ; of advancing the interests of one, and retarding the in terests of another. Mr. HATTER—It is merely ministerial ?—Merely minis terial. Mr. SHE Tuna er—Are the papers read by the members of the Board ?—With regard to the other members, you will have an opportunity of having both Colonel Peel and Captain Bole dero before you ; but, for myself, I have never read a single paper connected with one railway, for I have enough to do without. Ido not understand engineering. Mr. ROEBUCK—Can you explain how it was that on one oc casion Mr. Hignett had to report ?—With regard to these three railways, there K ere three competing lines, the North Kent, the South-Eastern, and the Croydon, and the Master-General, you will find, has reported (for there is great misconception on the subject), his assent to each and all of them, subject to certain conditions ; that is, that a certain clause should be put in, which he dictates. This clause, of course, must be put in by the solicitor, and the solicitor is ordered to put in a clause for pro ject so and so ; for example, with reference to the North Kent Railway, the Master- General reported his appro bation of the line. (I am speaking with regard to Woolwich ; I do not remember what it was as to Chatham, but I remember that with regard to Woolwich from a discussion that occurred since.) The Master- General reported his assent to the North Kent Railway passing through Wool wich •common by a tunnel; he required that the whole extent of our ground at Woolwich should be tunnelled; that was the first condition; and I believe also that the stations on each side should be so far from the Arsenal as not ti produce incon venience by quantities of persons coming ; subject to those two conditions he assented. That assent is reported to the solicitor, and he is instructed to prepare clauses ; accordingly, Mr. Hig. nett had to prepare those clauses. What followed on the report being made by Mr. Hignett? He is required to report to the Board, for the benefit of the Master-General, how he has executed that duty. That report, and you will find it among the papers, is sent to the Board; and you will find a minute referring it to the Master-General for his approval ; but one word of it we are net called upon to read, because we have not the power to decide upon it. Mr. LIDDELL—With regard to the North Kent Railway, you have stated that you bought shares in the market, and paid for them a deposit, upon the impression that that was likely to be a successful line of railway?—Certainly. Has the North Kent Railway come under the consideration of the Board of Trade ?—The North Kent Railway came under the consideration of the Board of Trade, and the South- Eastern was preferred. In the report of the Board of Trade the South-Eastern was preferred ?—Yes. May I ask whether, from the transactions that had occurred at the Board of Ordnance, you had acquired any information respecting the line of the Noith Kent Railway which induced you to give it the preference?—Certainly not. Was it then the character that it bore in the market gene rally, and with the public at large, which induced you to prefer it when you bought those shares ?—I acted upon the advice of a friend of considerable engineering knowledge. You took that sort of advice which any person may legi timately take who goes into the market and buys shares?— Precisely. And that advice you consider to have been fairly given ? Yes. I pledge myself, knowing what the Committee cannot know, but what I am sure they will be satisfied of before the inquiry is concluded—l am content to let the issue rest upon this, with reference to any improper advantage that I may have derived, that I was as fully justified in buying North Kent shares as I should have been in buyin g Yorkshire shares, where the Ordnance have no property at all. I am content to rest my whole case upon the Committee coming to that opinion when they know how the business of the Ordnance is transacted. Mr. DUNCOMBE—How many members is the Board of Ordnance composed of ?—Three ; the Ma - ster-General is not a member of the Board ; we never see the Master-General. The surveyor-general, Colonel Peel ; the clerk, Captain Bol deco ; and the storekeeper, myself, are the three members of the Board of Ordnance. Have you any voice in anything which is proposed to the Board? —Many things; everything but military questions. The Master-General distinctly reserves, and states to the mili tary authority that he does, in those cases, act for himself ; I believe you will find a minute to that effect. All cases of ri utract, all commissariat cases, all store cases, many of which must occur, and various other thing., of course come before the Beard, and each member of the Board has a voice.® If there is a difference of opinion in the Board, does the ma jority decde?—Yes ; I have been four years at the Board, and there never has been a difference of opinion coming to a point, coming to what may be called a division, or anything of that kind, since I have be en there ; I have been in four years ; I never miss, and I have not been out of town during those four years for four weeks, and I have never known a difference. nance propert Supposing it is pr o pos e d to carry a railway across the Ord ; whether r d a a n yd content t e arises n t he am ong of the the membersßoaßoard o f the Board whe y shall be given to that railway, whether they shall appear as consent ing or dissenting parties ; how will that question be decided ? I answer iistinctly that the case cannot occur. That is not a military qu es ti on ?—l t i s cons id ere d so; in a certain sense it is not, but it is so, p rac ti ca lly cons idered ; and it never could occur, it never does occur, because all those questions are referred to the Master-General. Sir C. DOUGLAS--Any railway which went through Ord nance property would be under the military surveillance of the Master-General ?—Yes. And would not come before the Board ?—No. Mr. TANCRED-Mr. Hignctt says, " On the 30th of May the Board ordered me to have a meeting of the military officers with the solicitor, myself, and then on the Monday following we met near the Committee-room, in an ante-room, and dis cussed the matter, and on the 3d of June I made my report re commending the stations ;" did you not take that retort into your consideration ?—Certainly not ; we referred it to the Master- General. Then it passed merely ministerially through your office ? Clearly. I have endeavoured to exi-lain that no one case of that sort ever came before the Board for their consideration. We referred it to the Master-General. He says, " Tile minute submitting this to the Master-Gene ral is signed by Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero ?"—That is exactly bearing out my point; that minute is submitted to the Master-General. Does not that minute contain a general approbation or disap- probation?—Certainly not. Mr. SnxßlDAN—What is the nature of the report submitted to the Master-General where do you make alterations or amend ments or suggestions?—There are various questions of course upon which we make communications to the Master-General ; it is rather difficult to answer that question. In fact, upon many points of the general details of the Board the Master-General would rather require us to give an opinion : for example, as to the conduct of officers in various things. Very recently there was the case of a gentleman in one of the Arsenals whose conduct was complained of : we referred it to the Master-General ; we thought it wiser to refer it to him ; and the Master-General sent it back to us, and stated lie would be glad to have our opinion upon it; but upon military questions we never (I state that generally and broadly) presume to give an opinion to the Master- General—and all railway - questions arc considered under that category of military questions—and we never presume therefore to form an opinion; and I will venture to say that, having the documents before you, you will not find an opinion in any case offered by the Board to the Master-General upon military subjects ; but at the same time this will be much more satisfactorily explained by others ; and I do hope that you will have Mr. Byham, who has been in the office for half a century, or the Master-General; those gentlemen will tell you the routine of the office. Mr. PAKINGTON—Upon a railway question, after the Mas ter- General has given his opinion, is that opinion submitted to the Board, or is his opinion final ?—Final ; it is never submitted to the Board. Mr. T. EG ERTON—Your duty is merely to transmit it to the parties ?—Exactly ; and the answers to those three com peting lines were sent to the solicitors of the different com panies; to Mr. Fearon, the solicitor of one ; to Mr. Stephens, the solicitor of the other ; and to the solicitor of the Croydon ; we never offered our opinion upon it. Mr. ROEBUCK —SO that if, in your opinion, one of the rail ways was a very mischievous one, and the other a very good one, that could make no difference ; you could express no poi nion ?—lt would be totally out of my power to express any of ficial opinion. I might out of doors, if I was fool enough to criticise what had been done, express an opinion. Mr. VERNON—Is the decision of the Master- General upon the point submitted to him known to other persons as soon as the members of the Board ?—Yes, because to other parties in terested it must be communicated. V . .. .... Mr. LIDDELL—J❑ your official capacity, as a functionary of the Board of Ordnance, would it be possible fur you to pro mote the interests of this railway or that railway at the Board of Ordnance?—Clearly impossible. That answer I give most distinctly, and I abide by it, always supposing that you will take care care to have the parties connected with the Ordnance before you to examine them. - - Mr. TANCRED—The Master-General does not act, except through reports ?—Not except through reports, with the single exception of the case I alluded to, of the officer, whose con duct was brought before us. I have not occasion to see the Master-General for seven or eight months ; the clerk of the Ordnance has occasion to see him on many points. I believe he has occasion to consult him upon the question of the har bours of refuge. That is a case on which I know nothing ; and his seeing him is, I believe, rather with a view to questions coming before the House of Commons, that the clerk of the Ordnance shoald be prepared to answer any question that may arise. But they are Master-General's questions entirely ; and unless it could be supposed that the Master •General was likely to take my opinion upon a military point, it is totally impossible that I could have the slightest influence, or indeed any member of the Board, in the case of any single railway. CHAIRMAN—WiII you turn your attention to a letter dated " Office of Ordnance, the 24th of June" (the letter being shown to the witness.) That letter, signed by Mr. Hignett, the solicitor of the Ordnance, states :—" I am directed to add, that the Company are not to vary the level of the railway by raising the same ; but that the Master-General and Board consent to any necessary deviation of the level of the railway by lowering the same." Had the consent of the Master-General been formally obtained at that time?—l believe I c-tn give infor mation upon that. The question was raised before the Par liamentary Committee whether the Master-General's consent had been really given. 1 think a letter was sent up to Mr. Byham, Secretary of the Board, to know whether the Master-General's consent had been given or not. Mr. Byham went down accordingly, and was examined before the Committee : and he stated that the papers had been sent to the Master-General, but his consent had not been formally received. It was the board day, otherwise I should not have known anything about it. Colonel Peel and myself were at the Board when Mr. Byham re turned from the Committee. The moment he came into the room, a paper was sent up by Mr. Elliott, the chief clerk in the Mater-General's department, a different depart ment from the Board of Ordnance, containing the Master- General's report, and Mr. Byham said, " I am very sorry that this did not arrive before I went ; for being called upon, I stated, that the consent had not arrived, for we had sent to the clerk for it, and it had not arrived ; and it now appears that Mr. Elliott received it last night, and had net sent it up before I went." We told him that all he had to do was to forward it to the Committee that day. Indeed that was his own suggestion. He said, " The best thing I can do is to send this to the Committee." We said, " Certainly ;" and it was sent to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Lascelles, upon that day. The Committee was up ; it had adjourned at two o'clock ; and the following morning, the first step that the Chairman of the Committee took was to read the report of the Master-General of the Ordnance. --- C . Zld the solicitor of the Ordnance, without your know ledge, write a letter, staling that the Master-General had consented to a variation of the levels, without the formal consent of the Master-General ?—Certainly, without my knewledge ; he was instructed to prepare this; he would not come to the Board upon it, or have any communication with • the Board. Mr. ROESUCK—What is the meaning of the words, " The Master-General and Board consent ?"—Those words you will find always used ; in the, same way as you have an official seal, so you have the terms, "the Master-General and Board consent," to everything. Then the Board really have nothing to do with it?—The Board really and truly have nothing to do with all these ques tions ; but I apprehend generally, in any formal consent to the conveyance of property, or anything else, they put " the Board" as part of the formal words ; but it is, in fact, the Master-General in military cases. Do not you think that out of doors that is understood to mean the Board of Ordnance ?—No, I should think not; but if you consider that it is so, it is certainly desirable that you should have information upon that from a higher authority than I can pretend to be, or a more disinterested one ; that you should in that way obtain accurate information ; but the party to decide in questions of this kind is the Master-General; but the words must be used on all occasions in every lease, and so on, " The Master-General and the Board of Ordnance." Mr. TA Ncxxn—ln the letter of the 10th of June there is the same expression, " The Master-General and Board of Ordnance being of opinion that the two stations for the Lon don, Chatham, and North Kent Railway," and so on ; you have nothing to do with that 7—No. Mr. DeNcounx—The Board of Ordnance are only instru ments ?—They are only instruments, but they are necessary in strumente. Mr. ROEBUCK—If they were efficient, as they are supposed to be efficient out of doors, what would be the result of any one member of the Board being known to be a l•trge share holder in any railway passing through Ordnance property ? I hardly know how I can answer that question ; I understand what it is intended to convey, but I hardly know how to answer it. CHAIRNIAN—Do you not think that any member of the Board of Ordnance balding shares in a railway where the con sent of the blaster-General and Board of Ordnance would be necessary, would convey the impression that the consent of the Board would be obtained, and increase the chances of that line passing ?—I raust leave every gentleman to answer that ques tion ; all I can say is, that I, as a member of the Board, con sidered myself as much entitled to bay shares in the North Kent Railway as I should in any Oxford Railway. I may be wrong, but that is my impression. Mr. ROEBUCK—You came to that conclusion from the Board being not really efficient, but merely nominal?—Yes. Mr. LIDDELL—NominaI so far as these points are con cerned ?—Exactly. Upon military questions you are a nominal Board, but upon all other questions an effective Board ?—Yes. Mr. HAYTER—WouId not the knowledge on the part of the public that any members of the Board of Ordnance were holders of shares :in one of the lines passing through Ordnance property, create an undue prejudice against a rival line which had no such advantage ?—in the first place, I do not know that when a person buys shares in any line it will be publicly known what shares he has. Do von think that it oczes out through the brokers ? Possibly. Mr. DUNCOMBE—ShouId you think it right on the part of the Master-General to have shares in the North Kent Rail way ?—Certainly not. Mr. LlDDELL—Because the Master-General is the person to pronounce upon the adoption or rejection of the line ?—He has the absolute power in his own hands, and therefore, of course, he should not hold shares. . Mr. DUNCOMAE—What is the great use of this Board under these circumstances ?—ln the first place, the Board transact all contracts and commissariat business of every sort, and business connected with landed property. We are, in a word, if I may use the expression which was used by our old secretary, gene ral dealers. The India Company receive through the Ord nance their supplies of arms, clothing, and various things. The contracts are all made by tender, and they are made through the Ordnance. Why should not your decisions equally extend to matters con nected with railways ?—Simply because they are military ques tions; and the Master-General, who is always a high military authority, decides them ; and the members of the Board of Ordnance are not supposed to be military men. With the exception of two, the other two are military men ? —Generally, they are. Mr. %V. PATTEN—Two of the members at present are mili tary men ; but, on a late occasion, two out of the three were not military men ?—I should say that there is never more than one civilian at the Board ; at least, so far as lam able to speak to that; there is a great deal of business for a civilian. Mr. LIDDELL—During the time that Lord Mulgrave was Master-General of the Ordnance, Mr. War d was Clerk to the Ordnance for many years ?—l - le was. Mr. SHERIDAN—Were Mr. Hignett's letters submitted to you b..fore they were forwarded; for instance, this letter of the 10th of June ?—No, that would not be submitted to us ; Mr. Hignett receives instructions from the Master-General ; the Master- General approves of the proposition, and sends it to the Board " approved" so and so. I believe vou have the original paper, which would show it better than I can. Then it is rather incorrect for Mr. Hignett to say, " the tunnell and other railway works at that spot are to be executed to the satisfaction of the Board ;" he does nut there mention the Master-General?—But "the Board" means the Master- General. Mr. VERNON —I suppose that your attention was more directed to the merits of the North Kent Railway in consequence of the communications which have been made on the subject, and which had been brought under your knowledge in the pro gress of the applications to the Board ?—No, c..rtainly not ; I should rather say that my opinions as to the North Kent Rail - way were derived from one who is not a member of the Board, but who is a personal friend of mine. I again repeat what must sound very extraordinary, that I am persuaded, with re ference to this railway, I never read a single paper, for I was no , called upon to give an opinion • and therefore it was no use tor me to read any of the papers. I have plenty of occupation. Mr. LIDDELL—Has the Board of Ordnance always been composed of the same officers who now compose it, a surveyor, a clerk, and a storekeeper ?—Yes ; they may be military men, or naval men, or civilians; but there would not be more than one civilian at the same time, I should think. CHAIRMAN—WiII you state the number of shares you had in the North Kent Railway ?—I had 100. You purchased 100?—Yes. You still hold them?—Yes ; that is to say, I had 125 ; those 125, it seems, were sold upon a profit of somewhere about half a-crown, or it moy be ss. a share. Lord WORSLEY—You mean the whole 12> ?—Yes. CH A r RMA N—Tken you purchased again 7—Yes, I purchased again very recently 100, and those I have. Did you buy them in the market? I bought them, at least my friend who managed the transaction for me, bought them in the market at a high premium. They were not then bought in your name?—They were not bought in my name. Your name does not appear 7—No, it does not. Then they are, in fact, held by him at this moment ?—They are, in fact, at this moment held by him. Are they held by him in trust for you ?—Yes. You having paid the deposit and the premium?—He must have paid the deposit and the premium ; they are held by him in his hands for me. In point of fact, up to this time, you have paid nothing?—l have paid nothing upon those—they were bought only a few days ago. Was that friend any person connected with the Board of Ord nance ?—Not in the remotest degree. Was it any person connected with the promoters of the North Kent Railway ?—Not in the remotest degree. Mr. VERNox—What was the date of the first purchase ?—I cannot state the date,' but it must have been long ago, because they were purchased at par ; it must have been very early in deed, several months ago, and they were sold again at quarter premium. CHAIRMAN—Did you pay the deposit and premium upon those shares ?—Certainly. Of those shares did you hold the scrip in your hands?—l should say not—my friend held them in the same way. Mr. LIDDELL—Do yoa happen to know when Captain Boldero sold his North Kent Shares ?—I remember he came into my room (you remind me of that which perhaps, 1 ought to have stated), and said, " I think this question is likely to come unpleasantly before Parliament" (he did not mean before the Board of Ordnance) ; " a question has arisen about Woolwich-common, which is very likely to come before Parliament, in which I must take a part, and I shall therefore sell my shares." He said, " before Parliament," not " before the Board of Ordnance." I beg you to draw the distinction. That was early in June ; it was when the difficulty arose about the tunnel question. Was it the 9th of June?—Very early. It appears further, of which I was net aware at the time, that I told this to my friend, and he sold my shares also. The CHAIRMAN—The first one hundred and twenty-five shares were bought in the open market? All were equally bought, I apprehend, in the open market ; I can have no doubt about that, as they were bought at par. I shall be able to inform myself correctly upon that. The last I know were bought in the open market, and they were bought at a con• siderable premium ; that I can speak with certainty to. Your name appeared in none of these transactions?—No, I should take for granted, in none. Each time they were bought on your account ?—Yes ; not on a joint account. My name, therefore, would not appear. If on the papers to- morrow there should be any difference be tween them and what I have now stated, I trust I shall not have any disservice from it. To the accuracy of the papers I will pledge myself; the precise details I cannot vouch for, but I will pledge myself that those details shall be forthcoming. Was the person who was joined with you in the purchase of those shares in any way engaged in promoting the North Kent Railway ?—No, in no degree whatever. Do you feel any objection to mention the name of the party with whom you were joined in buying those shares?—l do not know that I shall have the least objection to-morrow morning to mention his name. Captain Henry George Bolder°, a Member of the House, examined. CHAIRUAN—You are the Clerk of the Ordnance ?—I am. Have you read the petition presented to Parliament by the South-Eastern Railway Company ?—I have. Has you attention been particularly drawn to the letter of Mr. Hignett of the 3d of February, 1845?—Decidedly. Are there any observations or explanations which you wish to make in reference to that letter?—The first intimation I had about that letter was a letter I received from Mr. Fearon. I received this letter from Mr. Fearon, dated the 26th of June, 1845 I docketed the time at which I received it ; it was half past three, but it might have arrived at the office sooner. The witness read the same, as follows : " South-Eastern Railway-office, 35 A, Great- George street, Westminster, June 26, 1845. " Sir—l feel it my duty to inform you that under the ad vice of counsel a letter addressed by Mr. Hignett, the Solicitor of the Board to which you are attached, to the late Secretary of the South-Eastern Railway Company will be produced this day at the sitting of the Committee on Group A. Your name is mentioned in this letter, and it will no doubt appear desirable to you that you should be present. (Signed) " JOHN P. FEA RON, " Solicitor to the South-Eastern-Railway " Company. " Captain Boldero." Having received that letter, as I have stated, at half-pas three, I immediately sent down stairs for Mr. Hignett to come up. He was not in the office, and I left word that he was to come up immediately he came in. About half-past four I went into Mr. Bonham's room, and there I found Mr. Hignett. I had the letter in my hand, and I said to Mr. Bonham, " Here is a curious letter ;" or something of that kind. I alluded to the letter from Mr. Fearon. Mr. Bonham told me he had received a similar one. I then said to Mr. Hignett, " What does this letter mean ?" because it was an ambiguous letter. I could not make anything of it. He said, " Sir, I do not know ; I have no copy of that letter." I said, " Very well, sir, you will take this," (I gave him the original letter), " and give me an explanation immediately." I mentioned also, (this was at half-past four), that I hoped to dine at the Carlton Club, where he was to send his letter. At seven o'clock the following letter was delivered to me. The witness read the same as follows : " Office of Ordnance, June 26, 1845. " Sir—l have perused a letter addressed to you by Mr. J. P. Fearon, solicitor to the South-Eastern Railway Com pany, dated this day, adverting to a letter stated to have been written by me to the late secretary of that Company in which, your name is mentioned; and in compliance with your de sire to be furnished with some explanation, I beg to state that I recollect having had some communication with the gentleman alluded to, but it was a confidential one, and he has just in formed me that he so considered it, and so indeed did Mr. Fearon so understand it from him. I remember applying to the Se cretary far some of the new shares four or five months ago, I having previously held some of the old shares in my own name, for individuals of my family ; but I have no recollection of hav ing used your name in my letter to the secretary. Most assur edly I had no authority from you to apply for shares in your name, or in your behalf, neither had I communicated with you on the subject. If I did so it must have been inad vertently, and very improperly no doubt, in a letter which was strictly private and confidential. I have, on the present oc casion, strictly conformed to the orders of the Master-General and Board, and am exceedingly sorry for the annoyance which this most unwarrantable breach of confidence on the part of Mr. Fearon will occasion you.—l have, &c., (Signed) "J. HIGNETT. " Captain Boldero, M.P., &c., &c." I had previously made an arrangement with Mr. Bonham to meet him after dinner. I met him after dinner : I should think at half-past nine, and I said, " Steps must be imme diately taken to get a copy of this letter." We discussed the question, and we mutually agreed that a letter should be written to the Honourable William Lascelles, the Chair man of the Committee, requesting a copy ; but when writing the letter (each was engaged writing his own letter), we received an intimation that the Chairman of that Committee (Group A) had refused to receive the letter; therefore, I naturally said, " It is useless to write, still something must be done." We discussed the question, and we thought that the only mode open to us was to write to Mr. Fearon. I drew a draft of the letter I intended to send : Mr. Bonham, of course, wrote his own. I came down to the House of Commons, and it was intimated to me that a petition was going to be pre sented that night from the South-Eastern Company. I went into the iihrary and I altered the terms in which 1 originally addressed the letter to him. I meant to have asked for a copy of the letter of the 3d of February, but when I found that a petition was going to he presented to the House, I had no doubt that a copy would be produced, and, therefore, I did not ask for a copy. This is the letter which I wrote. The witness read the same, as follows : " Ordnance, June 26, 1845 " Sir—l have received your letter dated this day, wherein you state your intention to produce before the Committee now sitting on Group A (Railways) a letter addressed by Mr. Hig nett to the late Secretary of the South-Eastern Railway, in which my name is mentioned. I thank you for the information ; I am ignorant of the contents of Mr. Hignett's letter, except as far as he has since communicated them to me, and 1 have to as sure you that he had no authority from me, direct or indirect, to make such an application. But, whatever correspondence has taken place between the contending parties, and sanctioned by the Master-General and Board, I, as a Member of this Board, am content to share the responsibility.—l remain, &c. (Signed) " H. G. BOLDERO." I think you came to me and stated that you wished to speak to me, and you then said, " Here is the petition." That pe tition you offered to me, and you said that the . petition you would not have presented, unless you had the original letter. You offered me the petition; I declined it, and asked for the original letter. That was my first knowledge of that letter. Will you now allow me to call your attention to a paragraph in a letter of the 3d of February, which is to this effect :—" I think you should not overlook Captain. Boldero (a member of this Board) in your allocation of the forthcoming shares ; you can address them to him at this office, and mark it private." 'I he Committee understand, therefore, from the letter that you have put in, that Mr. Hignett had no authority whatever to use your name ?—Not a shadow of authority. Are you a holder of shares in the North Kent Railway ?—I am not now ; I was. Did you buy them yourself in market?—l did not buy them myself in the market. Will you state the particulars of that transaction to the Com mittee ?—Decidedly. The date when you became a shareholder in the North Kent Railway, and the date when you got rid of those shares?—Until the beginning of this year I never held a railway share of any description ; my first transaction in speculating a little in rail ways commenced thus :—A friend of mine asked me if I would buy some shares in the Chester and Holyhead. I said " Yes, provided they are moderate in price." It was finally agreed between him and me that I should buy twenty shares of him, and he would deliver them in the course of four or five days, if I would give him a cheque for 1401. I sent for the newspaper, and I found the shares quoted in the market at tip. He said, " Well, if you will give me a cheque for 1401., that will include brokerage and everything ; and I bought the shares. On the 10th of March I asked Mr. Hignett to buy me ninety shares more in the Chester and Holyhead. I knew no broker; I was never on the Stock Exchange, and I therefore asked him to buy them for me. Mr. PAKINGTON—And you got those shares?—Yes; he bought them for me at my desire. On the 7th of March Mr. Hignett was at my room, and we spoke about the North Kent Railway ; he said he thought it was a good speculation; the premium was very low, and I requested him to buy me one hundred shares. He bought one hundred shares, and of course paid the premium and paid the brokerage, and I paid him for them; I kept them for a short time, and sold them. When did you sell them ?—ln a fortnight, I think. Mr. W. PATTEN—Do you recollect what the premium was? —No ; it was not a very profitable one. CHAIRMAN—You gained by the sale of them ?—I think I did ; yes, I may say that I did. Mr. ROEBUCK—Were the whole 100 sold ?—The whole 100 were sold; it was a heavier stake than I liked. Cuataata r;:---Can you state what the premium was ?—I will endeavour to ascertain by to-morrow at what the market price was; I forget what it was at this moment. What was the date of the sale ?—That I will make good to morrow. Had you a broker to sell those shares?—Yes. Do you reme tuber the broker's name ?—No, I do not. Mr. ROEBUCK—Have you got the note ?-1 do not know whether I have, for I had closed my transactions upon that point ; but I will look into all my papers for the Committee. CHAIKHAN— Were they sold in your name ?—No, I believe not. Mr. PAKINGTON—The whole bu'iness was transacted by Mr. Hignett ?—lt was • he bought and sold them for me. The next transaction was, I think, in April. I took up a paper, and I said, " Mr. Hignett, I have selected three lines, and I should like for you to buy tne twenty shares in each:" (I am stating things as they occurred: ) " twenty in the Man- ' chester and Leeds, twenty in the North British, and twenty in the Glasgow and Edinburgh," all six teenths. I think the Manchester and Leeds I hold now, and these are the papers. ( The witness produced the same. ) There was a premium paid in the market. And these are the North British. ( The witness produced the same.) The Glasgow and Edinburgh I have not got ;,I sold them in the market. CUAIRMAN — Did you at any time subsequently purchase any shares in the North Kent ?—I did. What was the date of that purchase, and the number of shares ?—That was in April ; the next and only other trans action that I had in the North Kent, som?thing occurred in getting the Bill through the Committee ; some objections were got over, and a friend advised me to re-invest in the North Kent. On the 25th of April I asked Mr. Hignett to buy me fifty or sixty shares. In the afternoon he came and said that be had bought one hundred and twenty North Kent shares. I said, " That is more than I want," and I took seventy. There was 2/. premium paid. I asked him also to buy twenty five shares in the North Kent for a connexion of mine, wl.ich he did, at 2/. premium. Sir C. DOUGLAS — Were these twenty-five over and above the seventy ?—Certainly. Mr. T. EGERTON—Did you pay a deposit with the pre mium ?—They were sold in the market at 2/. premium on the deposit ; the shares were, I think, at 1/. 15s. each, and 21. was the premium added to the deposit. I sold thirty of those shares in April, and I kept the remainder until the 9th of June. On the 9th of June I sent for Mr. Hignett, and de sired him to sell the whole sixty-five. Mr. PANINGTON—Your remaining forty, and your friend's twenty-five ?—Exactly. There were thirty sold first, and on the 9th of June I sold sixty-five. Here is the paper— " Sixty-five North Kent shares, 9th of June." I sold them at 2a premium. CHAIRMAN—You have ceased to be a shareholder in the North Kent Company ?—I have. You have not had any shares since ?—No. Your purchases and sales were made in the name of Mr. Hignett?—They were. Under your direction ?—Certainly. Your name not appearing in the transaction at all ?—I sup pose not. I told him,to buy and sell, just as I felt a disposi tion to speculate. The reason why I sold on the 9th of June I will explain. Finding that evidence was being received by the Committee contrary to the spirit and wishes of the Master- General, it struck me that possibly some question might arise in which I should be called upon to offer some explanation, and that induced me to sell. Mr. DUNCOMBE—Where did you expect that explanation would be called for ? In the House ; there might be some petition or discussion about it. I saw that as the matter was going on I had better be out of it. But previously to this, the Master-General having given his consent to the three competing lines, unqualified to one, and conditional to the other, which conditions had been accepted, I did not think it possible that any question could arise in the depart ment affecting the merits of either line. The Master-General having left it to Parliament which of the lines was the best, his assent being given to all three. CITAIRILAN—You have stated that a friend advised you to re-invest in the North Kent shares in April, you having sold those shares that you previously had in March ; was that friend any Member of the Board of Ordnance, or anybody connected with the Board?—Certainly not. Was he in any way connected with the promoters of the Bill ?—Not in the slightest degree. He was a man specu lating in them a little like myself; a connexion of mine. Neither connected with the office nor the Railway Company ? —No. Have you ever had joint-share transactions with any per sons, with the exception of Mr. Hignett, connected with the Board of Ordnance ?—I do not call those joint-share transac tions with him. He bought when I asked him, and sold when I asked him. . _ Have you had any similar transactions to those with any other person connected with the Ordnance ?—No ; and ex cept that he bought and sold for me in those two cases, with those two exceptions, I have never touched any shares in the North Kent Company. Mr. T. EGERTON—The reason that you employed Mr. Hignett was, that you had never had any dealing in shares?— Exactly. You said that you bought those shares after the assent of the Master-General had been given to one line, and the conditional assent of the Master-General had been given to the other; will you be kind enough to state when that assent had been given ? —The answer to that ought to have been, that I bought the shares after the assent of the Master-General had bean given to all those three lines ; the assent to them was given, and they were all before the House of Commons with the assent of the Master- General. Mr. W. PATTEN—Before you bought any shares ?—Yes. Mr. T. EGERTON—WiII you be good enough to give the date of the assent of the Master-General ?—The assent of the Master- General to the London and Croydon was given on February the 7th, to the South-Eastern on the 29th of January, and to the North Kent on the 20th :of January ; a conditional assent was given, and then went to Parliament. Mr. Liddell—The sixty-five remaining shares that were in your possession after the purchase, you directed to be sold on the 9th of June ?—I did. I understand you to say, that the reasons why you directed that the sale should take place were, that certain proceedings were going on before the Committee, in consequence of which you thought that the propriety of your holding those shares might be questioned ?—Decidedly. I had previously enter tained the opinion that no possible question could came before us. I thought that the present conditions of the Master-Ge neral, would, in this case, as in every case which we had had before, be insisted upon by the Committee to which the Bill went ; I had never known any instance to the contrary. Mr. TancitEn—Have you had frequent instances of Bills in which the consent of the Master-General was necessary ? —Yes, we have frequent instances of Bills that affect Ordnance property, and the Master-General makes one rule in such cases ; he will never throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of a public improvement, whether it is by a railway Bill, or a dock Bill, or any other; he decides all those questions; they are military questions. Mr. DoNCOMBE—The Board have not the slightest influence in those cases ?—Not the slightest. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July lei. CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice' COLERIDIE, and a Common Jury.) BROWN V. BREWER. This was an action brought by Mary Brown to recover damages from the defendant, William Brewer, for the breach of his promise to marry her. Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff, Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Bramwell for the defendant. Segeant CHANNELL stated the case, and said the parties in this action were persons in a humble condition of life, and the plaintiff sought compensation for a very grievous injury that she had sustained at the hands of the defendant by his break ing a solemn promise he had made to marry her. The plaintiff was the daughter of a beer-shop keeper, near Braintree, and the defendant had formerly been a footman and groom, but by the death of a relation he would come into the possession of a con siderable sum of money. It might be as well for him to state that the plaintiff was 44 years old. and he believed the defendant was not more than 33, but he was perfectly well aware of this disparity between their ages at the time he pro mised to marry her, and after going so far as to obtain a license upon the Wednesday, and have all the dresses and the wedding dinner provided, he without any cause whatever re fused to fulfil his promise, and the defendant, therefore, by the advice of her friends, was compelled to adopt the present proceedings. The Rev. Mr. Scale, the minister and surrogate of the parish of Braintree, deposed that he was acquainted with the parties, and remembered the defendant coming to him for a license to be married on the 4th of March, which was the day he fixed for the wedding. On being informed whom he in tended to marry, witness told bim Miss Brown was a very good girl, and she would make him an excellent wife. Witness waited until twelve o'clock on the 4th of March to perform the ceremony, but the defendant did not make his appearance. He came the next day, and paid for the license, and then said he did not intend to get married. Witness told him he had acted very wrongly, and it might have serious consequences. Cross-examined—Did not say anything to him about ec• clesiastical censure, or about a white sheet.—(Laughter.) Mr. CHAMBERS—How long ago is it since the plaintiff was a worthy, good "girl ?" Witness Well, I should think it is a good while since she was what may properly be termed "a girl." She is now about 44 years old.—(Laughter.) Mr. CHAMBERS—Yes, rising 45, is she not ?—( Renewed laughter.) Witness—She may be. The defendant did not come for the license in his footman's dress, but he was very smart. Did not hear that the boys were following and laughing at him. He gave as a reason for his not going to be married on the 4th of March, that he bad to receive a legacy of 6001. or 7001. on that day. Mrs. Mary Carter deposed that she had been acquainted with the plaintiff and the defendant for a good many years. The defendant used to live with a lady named Ratcliffe, who was his aunt. He was a sort of " servant of all work" to her.—( A laugh.) When this lady died, he became entitled to some !property. He used often to joke, and say that he should get married, but he did not mention any one in par ticular, and witness told him that Miss Brown was a very nice young person. Sergeant CHANNELL—What did he say to that? Witness —Why, he said he thought so too.—(Roars of laughter.) She told him that she was older than he was, but he said that did not matter.—( Renewed laughter.) After this they became intimate, and the marriage was fixed to take place on the 4th March. Witness was invited to the wedding feast at the plain tiff's mother's house, and she went there accordingly. A number of guests were invited, and Miss Brown was dressed in her wedding suit, and all the other preparations were made for the wedding.—( A laugh.) A post-chaise was sent by the de fendant, and it was waiting at the door to take them to church, but the bridegroom did not make his appearance. By Mr. Cuasirszas—Had known the defendant's family for several years. His father was a labourer. The defendant was brought up as a labourer, and when a boy used to be employed to frighten away birds, or anything else that he was asked to do. The joking about marriage was after he had received the legacy. Mr. CHAMBERS—I suppose as you were going along he said something about getting married, and you build, " Molly Brown is a nice girl."—( Laughter.) Witness—Yes, she happened to be standing at the door as we were going by, and I remarked to him that she was a nice girl, and he said, " Yes, I think she is."—( Roars of laughter. ) Mr. CHAMBERS—Pray, Mrs. Carter, will you tell us when you consider a woman ceases to be a girl ?—( A laugh.) Wit ness—Not until she is married.—( Roars of laughter.) Mr. CHAMBERS—Then they are all nice girls, I suppose, until they are married ? Witness—Yes—(Renewed laughter. ) The witness then went on to say that there was a good party invited on the wedding-day, and finding the bridegroom did not come they resolved to dine without him. They aid not have any dancing or singing, and, in fact, it was rather a dull affair. She did not hear anything- said at the dinner about losing the young man or the 7001. The plaintiff was there, but she could not eat any dinner.—(Laughter. ) Mr. J. Harrington proved that he was invited to the in tended wedding, and he added that he was to have given the bride away. The plaintiff was quite ready, but the gentleman did not come.—( A laugh.) Witness dined, had tea, supped, and stayed all night. Cross-examined—As the defendant did not think proper to come, they resolved to " keep it up" amongst themselves.— ( Laughter.) They ate up the whole of the wedding cake.— ( Roars of laughter.) They finished the wine and the brandy, and enjoyed themselves. Mr. CHAMBERS—Yes, and I believe you drank as toasts, " Absent friends," and " Better luck another time." Witness—Yes, we did.—( Laughter. ) John Brown, a brother of the plaintiff, proved that she had purchased some wedding clothes and furniture, in anticipation of the marriage. He also said that the defendant asked him to be " Daddy," and give the bride away at the wedding. James Digby, a post-boy at the White Hart, Bucking, proved that the defendant engaged a post-chaise to take his intended bride to church, and that on the sth of March he came and paid for it, and gave him ss. for himself. This was the plaintiff 's case. Mr. CHAMBERS addressed the jury, and after making some humourous remarks upon the nature of the evidence in support of the case for the plaintiff, urged that the action was one of a most trumpery description i; and that it was perfectly clear, from the conduct of the plaintiff, that she had no affection for the defendant, and that the only object she and her friends had in view was to get hold of the defendant's mousy. Ho contended that is point of fact th, plaintiff had sustained no real injury, and although she might be legally entitled to a verdict, yet that the smallest amount of damages would be a sufficient remune ration for the injury she had sustained. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having summed up, the jury found for the plaintiff—Damag '9 80/. CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.) Jant , s Jenkins, 21, was ind;cted for stealing a handkerchief, the property of Georp Howard. It appeared that the prisoner was in confinement at spring. field Gaol upon a charge of uttering counterfeit coin, and while under committal for trial at these assizes he to )k the oppor tunity, while the prosecutor, who is the schoolmaster of the gaol, was in one of the wards, to steal his handkerchief. A fellow prisoner, who happened to see the act committed, gave information to the turnkeys, who, upon searching the prisoner, found the handkerchief in his possession. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and it was proved that he had been before convicted of felony, independent of the other charge of uttering counterfeit money. Chief Justice TINDAL sentenced him to ba transported for ten years. OX1 7 01?D Oxford, .luly 14. CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chit f Justice DENMAN.) John Watts, aged 22, and William Neale, aged 19, were indicted for feloniously assaulting Henry Tebby, at the parish of Heath, in this county, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. Rickards appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Walesby for the prisoners. The prosecutor, who is a gamekeeper in the service of °Mr. Rousby, of Cottestord, was out on the night of the 12ils of Ja nuary last, between six and seven r-as., when he heard a hare scream. He was not watching the game, but merely on some business of his master's ; he, however, turaed and went towards the spot whence the sound appeared to proceed, and saw three men, one of whom was named Jesse Willis. The prosecutor asked Willis what he was doing there, when the latter struck him a violent blow and knocked him down ; as he was getting up he received from the other men several severe blows which inflicted serious and lasting injuries upon him; in fact, caused the loss of an eye, and also destroyed on one side of his head the senses at once of sight, hearing, and smelling. He was not so stunned as not to be able to recollect that he altogether re. ceived seven blows, nor was he so deprived of sense by the brutal treatment as to be incapacitated from swearing to the best of his belief that the prisoners were two of the three men. Willis was convicted of the assault, and sentenced to 15 years' transportation at the last assizes. The effect, however, of the blows was at last to render him insensible, as it appeared, the weapons used were hedge-stakes three feet long and about six inches round. On recovering himself he made his way to the house of the Rev. Mr. Maguire, the Roman Catholic clergyman at Heath, where he was most kindly treated. The brother of Mr. Maguire received him ; on reaching the door he fell down ; he was taken in and every kind of restorative administered, for his state was weak and his wounds apparently dangerous. Mr. Jones, a surgeon at the neighbouring village of Brackley, was very soon in attendance, and from his account it would seem that the left side of the head was broken, the left nasal and cheek bones fractured, the left eye grievously wounded ; and there was also concussion of the brain, the result of blows in flicted with a heavy blunt weapon. On the evening in ques tion, while at Mr. Maguire's the prosecutor named Willis as one of the men, but a few days after named the others. Severe as the injuries were, it would appear that he was not in any confusion of mind when he first sought assistance at the chapel house. A an named Adams, the brother-in-law of the con vict Jesse Willis, proved that he had been himself with the prisoners on a subsequent occasion, and that both of them, after acquitting Willis of any share in the transaction, re peatedly admitted that they themselves were the guilty parties. Nothing could be more perfectly explicit than this confession, or more convincing, if the witness could be relied on. It was also proved that the prisoners were seen in conversa tion with the witness on the evening and at the spot where he alleged the confession to have been made. Mr. WALESBY addressed the jury for the prisoners. The Learned Judge summed up, and the jury soon found both prisoners Guilty. Lord DENMAN, after commenting on the enormity of the offence, sentenced them to fifteen years' transportation, observ ing, however, that he would willingly have passed a lighter sentence on Neale (who by confession appeared to be less guilty), but that the statute was imperative, and he had no option. His Lordship seemed to intimate that from some other quarter a mitigation might be hoped for. The only case of any interest in the civil side had not ter. minated at the rising of the Court. YIMLzIND CIRC U IT.— No, tlrvton, July 16. , - CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chief Baton Ptn,Locx.) The only case of interest which occurred was the trial of two men, named Om Julyan and Freeman Starsmore, charged with having aided and assisted one Thomas Russell in wound ing and causing bodily injury to Solomon Rawson, with the butt-end of a gun, with intent to murder him. This case derived its interest from the reference made to it in the Chief Baron's charge to the grand jury, and the very peculiar circumstances in which the prisoner Julyan, by his own statements, had now placed himself. Mr. Miller appeared for the prosecution. The case arose out of one which was tried at the last assizes. Two men, named Mayes and King, were charged with an as sault while poaching on the grounds of the Right Hon. V. Smith, and the former was convicted. Circumstances after wards occurred which led the committing magistrate to think that Mayes was innocent, and he instituted an inquiry upon the subject. It appeared from the evidence to-day that Julyan, and indeed Starsmore, had since made confession; of their own guilt with a view to relieve Mayes from the punishment now awaiting him for the conviction of the offence. After hearing the evidence, The LORD CHIEF BARON directed the acquittal of Julyan, against whom he said there was no evidence, except indeed as to his presence in the field, for which he might have been indicted under the Poaching Act. With regard to Stars more, if the jury believed he told the story with a view to relieve Mayes from punishment, the story being untrue, they would acquit him. But if they believed the story, and that he did strike the blow, it would be their duty to convict him. The jury found both prisoners Not Guilty. This morning, in consequence of the nature of the cases to be tried, ladies were excluded from the Court. John Horn (aged 19), a private in a regiment of infantry, pleaded " Guilty" to a nameless offence. The LORD CHIEF BARON, without an accompanying ob servation, ordered sentence of death to be recorded. Richard Pearson (aged 32), was charged with having, at Piddington, near Northampton, on the 11th of March last, feloniously assaulted, against her will, Mary Ann Westley, with the intent to commit a rape. The grand jury had thrown out the bill for the capital offence. Mr. Wing conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Miller de fended the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, a girl not quite fourteen years of age, that on the morning of the day on which the assault was said to have been committed she met the prisoner, who was a dealer in rags and bones, at the house of a Mrs. Whitbread, who lived in the same village. She had previously known him, as he was in the habit of calling at her mother's house in the way of business ; but on that occasion the prosecutrix told the prisoner he need not call, as her mother was from home. She afterwards went to her sister's and thence home. The prisoner shortly after wards came to the house and inquired if her mother had any rags and bones to sell. The prosecutrix replied in the affir mative, and sold him some bones, for which she received in exchange some beads. This occurred in the " house-place," behind which was a parlour. The prosecutrix proceeded to shut the door which communicated between the two apart ments, when the prisoner, after asking her if she would like to be married, pushed her into the parlour, threw her on the floor, and committed one of the assaults of which she now complained. Prosecutrix then told him her mother was coming, when he let her go, and she ran into the house place. His basket was then upon the table. She removed it outside the outer door, when the prisoner pulled her back into the room, a second time threw her upon the floor, and committed acts, which, if true, left no doubt of the capital offence having been committed. After hearing the details of the charge, as given by the prosecutrix herself, The LORD CHIEF BARON said the offence was clearly a rape, or nothing. Mr. WINO observed, that if that was his Lordship's opinion, he did not wish unnecessarily to occupy the public time. The Court, however, would recollect that the grand jury had ignored the bill for the capitol offence. The LORD CHIEF 13mtort said he was aware of it, hut the Court had nothing to do with that circumstance. The pri soner was charged in the present indictment with an as sault with the intent to commit a rape. The evidence of the prosecutrix distinctly and clearly proved the perfect com mission of the rape, even according to the old law as it existed before the present. Whether the prosecutrix resisted by cries, complaint, or otherwise, was evidence with reference to a charge of rape, but of little consequence with refer ence to a charge of assault with intent to commit, &c. The capital offence being, according to the evidence of the pro_ secutrix, complete, the present was not the way in which the prisoner could in law be tried. It had beer, suggested by the Learned Counsel for the prisoner that the grand jury had thrown out the bill for the capital offence. No doubt they had, but why the grand jury did so they did not know, nor ought they to know, because it was a part of the oath taken by grand jurors that they should not disclose the " secrets" which in course of their inquiries were disclosed to them. With the decision of the grand jury they (the present Court) had nothing to do. The question was, could they find the prisoner guilty of the assault for which he was indicted, when, if the evidence were to be believed, he was guilty of the capital charge? Whatever wish he (the Chief Baron) might have to uphold the morals of the country, he did nut think he should be justi • fled in distorting the law of the land to punish an individual for one offence, when he was, if guilty at all, clearly guilty of another. The jury would therefore acquit the prisoner. In accordance with the directions of the Learned Judge (as the jury thought), they proceeded to consider their verdict; and, in consequence of the length of their deliberations, it began to be generally thought, that in spite of the Judge's directions, the jury would find the prisoner guilty. At length— The LORD CHIEF BARON interfered, and, addressing the jury, said they had really nothing to consider. He had ex plained to them the exact position of the ease, and he was bound to tell them that in point of law they could not find the prisoner guilty of the offence for which he was indicted. The prisoner was then acquitted. This was the last case on the Crown Side, and the Lord Chief Baron left the bench about half-past ten o'clock. NORTHERN CIRCUIT—York, July 15. CROWN SIDE.—( Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL. ) 7'honuis Higgins was indicted for a burglary in the house of John Heslegrove, at Kinsley-green, in the West Riding, on the 2d day of March last. Mr. Hall and Mr. Overend conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Blanshard. The prosecutor, it appeared, is a man of 85 years of age, who resider alone in a small house at Kinsley-green, at a consider able distance from any other habitation. The prisoner, who is a barber, occasionally called to shave the prosecutor. In one room of the house the prosecutor kept a box, round which was passed a chain, secured by a padlock, and which, no doubt, had the appearance of being the repository of some it valuable treasure. Its chief contents, were, however, ap peared a few silver spoons, a mourning ring, and a blood stone, the latter article especially being one on which the prosecutor seems to have set considerable value, and which he was in the habit of showing to his neighbours as a cer tain styptic when applied to a wound likely to be dangerous from excessive bleeding. The prosecutor was very decrepid, and it was necessary to assist him into the witness-box. He said, that on the evening in question, about dusk, he heard some person at his front door. lie was in the habit of sleeping on the hearth, and was probably asleep that even ing, but could not recollect. Ile looked through a hole in the door, and saw two men there. One of them spoke. He said they were poachers—men, as the witness expressed it, who w i n " game—and they asked to be allowed to come in to warns themselves, as it was very wet and cold. The witness said lie knew the voice of the man who spok e —it was th e pri soner Higgins. Witness said he would not have anything to do with poachers. They said th e y wou ld d o hi m no harm if he would let them in to warm themselves. He was afraid to let them in, as he saw there were two of them ; and told them to go to the village at Quarrel, where there were several houtes, and they would be let in. They stopped awhile at the front door, and he still refused to let them in, as he was alone. They then went round to the back door, and forced it open. They cams in. They f orce d hi m d own on t h e b e d, an d wrapped him in the bell-clothes, and one of the men called to the other to get a band and tie it over his fate. They did to. Witness thought they were going to murder him, a nd :Ae lbs/ what they meant by using him in that way ? They 01' r e d he wanted money. He said he had none. They declarthree had, and said they would murder him in two oaf that, minutes. He asked them what better they would be oe , as he had no money, and said they might search the be e the They talked awhile, and then broke open the box ibied, other roorn, and took the spoons, mourning ring, an d , o p stone, and •ny other articles they thought they conk' casse money of. There was a light from the fire when they foe in, and when they were getting the band to put round s he saw them. One was the prisoner, and the othero7ter taller man. They pp stopped about an hour. .Witness was oil noted," and thought to himself " These fellows are go°e'ool they have left all these things scattered about the place; ;146 my time to get out of the house, I think." Wen t to the silos of Quarrel. Had a lantern and a candle, but the candleied out. Two persons, of the names of Sykes and Clark, ijor him. Was very ill for some time, and hardly knew bit bourn. _ unf it On cross-examination he said that the prisone r came stcoi a fortnight after, and offered to shave him. Would MAI' —woud not trust bins wh hs throa The witness, however, it was i ' unable t . to point out tbe Prilsest as the party who had robbed him ; and even - when his fiber was particularly directed to him, and he was asked if tba v icea the person, he said he could not tell. His evidence w as .; tif with a great deal of ready garrulity, but his mind was eiLlise much weakened by age, and probably in some degree 17 alarm he had undergone. t It appeared that he was found the next morning, --°ll,ide, o', lock, near the village of Quarrel, sitting by the rivercisri drenched to the Ain. He did not recognise Sykes and or who found him, but begged earnestly for m ercy, as he was,i`till old man, and had nothing to give them. It was not Ile`i evening that he partially recovered his recollection. old The door, it appeared, had been broken open with a,,,t0l coulter, which had been taken from a plough be long : l %oM farmer in the neighbourhood. It was sought to show l",", rye prisoner had been seen the day before in the field Whet " plough was. „eel There was some other trifling corroboratory eircureslbif adduced in evidence, but too weak to be relied 00, sn Lordship directed an Acquittal. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS UPON 'CB S ' ENTERING PORTO ALEGRE. Aye' ......11:Ntsi . ... _ British Vice-Consul's Office, Porto of 26th April, 1845. i Ma It Sir,--I beg leave to acquaint you, for the nf or o e parties interested, that the restrictions imposes! on all t 0 40, coming from foreign countries entering this V r e be their inward cargoes, are now removed; and, in T utu r r 'ts' foreign and Brazilian vessels arriving from foreign Pt 0 10 1 admitted to entry at this Custom-house.—l have the " to remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, Colliel . BENJAMIN AVELINE, British Vice' To W. Dobson, Esq., Secretary, Lloyd's, London. TREATY BETWEEN ENGLA ND AND NAPLES. 00 Chief Secretary's Office, Valetta, 3d,JolY* Sir,—l am directed by his Excellency the Goof obP, acquaint you, for the information of the merchants, tb';:tor been officially intimated to him by her Majesty's I ° l . l 'o° Naples, that the treaty of commerce between Grea,bo9o, and the two Sicilies, which was signed at Naples on %zip; day of April last, has been ratified by his Majesty the O O4 the two Sicilies, and that the ratifications of this trestf oo o l exchanged at Naples on the 25th ultimo, from which ti, provisions contained in it will have come into operatioTio):: By the provisions of the treaty, which include Gibraltar, the vessels of each country, and the ree r „ c 0 1 ! A ° which they contain, being the produce of that courarPfoor, entering the ports of the other, are placed on the saute oe with respect to tonnage and other duties, as if they We re bear The i the nationl flag. ng diminution of ten per cent. enjoyed by the flt, co! remains in force, although it may be extended to ew e , to t* tries by the Sicilian Government.—l have the honour Sir, your most obedient humble servant, (Signed) WM. Acting Chief Secretary to the G°'' To the Chairman of the Committee of British Merchants COAL IYxA3LFf.ET. f g Prices per ton at the close of the market :—Ada ir 14 - • 1)8 DO 13s 4d ; Bates Hartley, 14s ; Chester Main, ; West Hartley, 15s ; East Tanfield, 1386 d ; Holy we 15s ; North Percy Hartley, 13s 9d ; Ord's Redlieugi'ss.l Ravensworth's West Hartley, 14s; South Pontop , Taylor's West Hartley, 14s 9d; Tanfield Moor , ,4,5 Townley, 14s ; West Hartley, 14s 6d ; West Wylalli , 1 555, Wylam, 14s 3d ; Wall's-end, Bewicke and Co., trrpevi Brown's unscreened, 13s 3d ; Killingworth, 14s 6d ; fie l i sol l d, 14s 6d ; Wharncliffe, 15s 3d ; Eden Main, 155 6 d ; Paola 16s ; Braddyll's Hetton, 17s 3d ; East Hetton, 155 15s S, 17s 3d ; Hetton, 17s ; Lambton, 16s 9d ; LumlePoo icje ? 13 Russell's Hetton, 16s 3d ; Richmond, 15s 6 d ;, ac tle eb 16s 9d ; Scarborough, 16s 9d ; Stewart's 17s 3d ; , 17s 3d ; Heugh Hall, 15s 6d ; Kelloe, 16s 3d ; 16s 6a; Barrett, 15s; Brown's Deanery, 15s 3d ; El cu potir:d Tees, 14s 6d ; Seymour Tees, 15s 6d ; Sout h 0000 15s 6d ; Tees, 16s 6d ; West Tees, 14s 6d ; Alloa, 1 35 '.. Hartley, 15s ; Hartley, 14s ; West Hartley Nethertoy' —Ships arrived, 92. _ . O ed , [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The Gentleman's ge e :481 of Hair, or Invisible V e ntilatin g Peruke, i 5 s° ° c 1 or. resemblance to nature as to de fy d e t ec tion ; enable any gentleman to see the effect, a large h iclif, meat is always kept for inspection, any one of sv r ro - ;IV approved of, saves the purchaser both time an These splendid specimens of the perruquean rior to anything to be obtained elsewhere , i r oirri Paris or London, have only to be seen to be ',-9 and are the sole invention of Ross and Sons' ,i ti JiP: v 120, Bishopsgate-street, London. N.B. SPl anu ie of cutting apartments on the ground floor, the 4 1° ,i, - - walls being lined with looking-glass, mod ov d , [ADVERTISEMENT.]—THE ORIGINAL .AX E - Ger TABLET STROP, WITH FOUR SlDES.—g r. gt A 4c l " / Saunders, inventor and manufacturer, No. 25,r,..-rt Ord This article has been in extensive use for 0 4 ' 5- h - 0 4r, years by the first cutlers, who pronounce it t° equal in producing a fine smooth edge to arbsild, necessary to shave with comfort. They n3aY ilt ; 1/114,' the following cutlers:—Lowcock, 38, Coral:l dr, 24, Fleet-street ; Davis, 69, and Looker, 42, hall-street ; Verinder, 79, St. Paul's Ch° e h illi, Millikin, 161, Strand ; Coleman, Haymarket ; -L;1011014 Whicker, 67, St. James's-street ; Warner, 25, 66 , - 4, street ; Paget, 195, Piccadilly ; Kingsbury , Durham, 201, Regent-street ; Einslie, 46, St. lane ; Robinson, 53, Bishopsgate-street ; Carte Lamprey, Dublin. The fact of their being a01 `; above makes it superfluous for the inventor 'l‘,/)c,,r further in their favour.—George Saunders, Strand. qo A l O 7 O [ADVERTISEMENT .] —DEAFNESS.—NO. marle-street, Piccadilly.—lnvisible Voice C°ll when fixed in the cavity of the ears, are not m all fortable nor perceptible than having a sn - -( 3 ",,,t . 0 11 „ wool in its place. They enable individuals t: i t vanced age, and of forty or fifty years' stana tv e 7 t ailli trerne deafness, instantly to join in general N 11 %10 1 ' 1 1 ,1 . and to catch the sound of a distant, low 5 P e 4,4 church, theatre, &c. They pour the convey ar. the ears to such an extent, that in most sc ve s i lfC;oi deafness cannot be ob serve d. Al s o original f a.) nets, French, German, and Spanish Artificial improved Hearing Trumpets of every descriptt;tie li ' of those instruments have received the apPr°, af7 the Royal Society and Royal Institution of lirteltl,t tain. The Newly Invented Spectacles, lo lls° .isi° they are placed before extremely imperfect:d $, A a s brought to its youthful, natural, and origi ll- Oo Also Achromatic Telescopes, Opera-glasset 1009 Optician &e.—Caution : Messrs. S. and 1. 3 . '"':01 41 . 0 1r )pticians and Aurists, are not in any way confl e l e ft:,ll l person el the same name in their inamet l 4 , l* ,; e pte A ' el aourhood, nor in any part of the country. nistakes, be cautious, and observe—Only to b e kfif ) ,.,r 19. Albeinartc-,treat, Piccadilly. opposite the.l„ [ADVERTISEMENT.] —A CERTAIN CURE ..., 14) 0," 5 ' 4 o' FULA, OR KING'S EVIL, BY HOLLOWAYS 11, OINTMENT.—Many of the hospitals, finding thtse s, ,./ ber of their patients, afflicted with ulcers, abscli-01r,,, sores, but more particularly from Scrofula, wh° discharged as incurable from various medical tr s ', - ,i11 4 :1 were afterwards soundly healed by llollowq,',:ari e Y ointment—this fact has induced several inur ti — o lle t ii i purchase by weight from the proprietor, 1- `„ - r itig i - ll ointment for hospital we, for the purpose of el," class of patients. All such would, therefore , ": 0 19: 0 e, have recourse to those famed remedies whe, ll ' o btrf,, trim aim far ailments. These medicines may u ` 2 ci of all mists and druggists throughout the ot,' world; ant at Professor Holloway's Evtablisli°3- Stran I. for 11 BRIGHTON, JULY 14.—The del artures „,, from here, are daily becoming more nurner ° ;tti , Baron Rothschild, Baron de Lawes, Count ( 3 1°` gag Colonel Schuster, left this day in the steamer for Ditppe. - - ___ BIRTH'.„ the On the 18th of April, at Rodenbosch, Cape TOl of Francis Edward Reade, Esq., Bengal Civil S ergi 9 °4 son and heir. I de, 1 i On the 12th inst., at the Royal Military Col'enlysl4 hurst, the wife of Captain H. Montgomery C 394 id ll e daughter, still-born. ROY' On the 12th inst., at Radway, the wife of the 1$ tlt Carey, of a daughter. oil On the 13th inst., the lady of Captain John i d' 15th Regiment, Bengal Native Infantry, of a sol i ' die On the 13th inst., at Aspenden Rectory, Ha ts ' ti o, the Rev. Edward VAUX., of a son. W O)5 .On the 13th inst., the lady of the Rev. A. daughter. it .. MARR. A .00 1 On the 10th hist., at Farling lED ton, Captain V i n 0 1 f t i late of the 46th Regiment, to Georgiana, widow' - I,i Rev. James Renville, M.A., of \Vvmering, ga nts iiir e ' ei i '" On the 10th inst., at Bletchington, Oxford.„6 AO Egerton Holmes, Esq., to the Hon. Matilda A: nip third daughter of the Right lion. Viscount Vale"- f tl' DIED. At e- . l On the 13th inst., at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Julia P` I ''-' of Henry Willis, Esq. 0 , f On the 4th inst., at Abingworth-in-Thakenbli „, t Charlotte, widow of the late Luke Upperton, Eol' ° f OP' i On the Bth inst., Mrs. Caroline Dent, rel ict t :1, Dent, formerly of her Majesty's 10th Infantry for, to , On the 11th inst., at Woolwich, John Adams 0 of Quarter-Master J. S. Forbes, P A. `Pa lle On the 12th inst., at Luton, Beds, Edmund d, chant, aged 62. ri ots On the 13th inst., at Brighton, Mrs. Louis3l . A . ~,ill'' Streatham, Surrey, relict of the late R. M0r,:10,, „ V ,' On the 9th inst., at Clifton-park, Clifton, JO' lA ti? " Esq., of Grove, Meath, Ireland. 1 dep t . t On the 13th inst., at South Lrunbeth, Esther , e e 4 , 0 1 ter of the late Mr. T. Gill. 11'5' 4 On the 14th inst., Raymond Robinson WOW' 4 , !f of G. M Stephen, Esq., of the Middle Temple. . 1 I%IP On the 14th inst., in Bernard-street, W. Morg, 3 „.\;ter ‘ On the 14th inst., Caroline, the youngest da m ' , 5 0' 4 Cubitt, of Clapham-park. cl' . Watif l On the 15th inst., William Blew, Esq., of - b ,r‘ Pall-mall East. Or e --, Cl' r On the 15th inst., Mrs. Ann Burt, of ~ev'r ~,Dte Camberwell, aged 73. t jolb On the 15th inst., Minna Rosalinda, the infant ,4sol/' Charles B. Spaeth, Esq., of Camden- read-vilW• 0 0V On the 15th inst., at Putney, Richard Mathe r ' , M. Dallett, Esq. _._,11$(111: 115RD9:1:15,''''4 • - , Sgn OM C' CO V 9tra , , , t, in the I'reci*st of iho * illsa Middlesex, Thuraday, July 17, 1845. 0 1 ' 5 1,. ' I 4tt i if k • 'tl, llrl 10141 ‘,,,, ~,„ ~°ll4 • eZ The )u th Ner e