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

been fixed by various Lord Chancellors. There was a scale of fees fixed in the reign of George the Second by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, which was remodelled in 1807, and from that time to the period of the passing of the Act the fees remained the same. He admitted those fees were very high, and that the whole of the arrangement in reference to those offices consti tuted a great abuse, and that it was necessary to do away with them before any reform could be effected. In the year 1840, Mr. Field, a solicitor, in a series of tables, called the attention of the public to this abuse, and he believed it was in consequence of the information presented in that gentleman's pamphlet that the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) obtained a return of the fees and emoluments of the six clerks, and the sworn clerks, from which it appeared that one of them a Mr. Getty, rece i ve d b etween 10,0001. an d 11,0001, others 9,0001, 6,000 L, and so on ; some received so small an amount as 201. a year. The subject was then brought before a Commission, consist ing of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, Vice- Ch ancellor Wigram, Mr. P em b erton L e i g h , and the late Mr. Sutton Sharpe. The clerks, on being con sulted with, stated their readiness to enter into any views of refor m , on t h e understanding that they should get compensation. A Bill was accordingly drawn up by one of the sworn clerks, Mr. Wainwright, which was submitted to a Committee at the Law Insti tution. The Bill, after their supervision, was intro duced by Lord Langdale into the House of Lords, and before its third reading Mr. Wainwright went through its vario us c l auses with Lord Cottenham ; and as those compensation clauses were passed without any oppo sition on the part of the Noble and Learned Lord, he (the Solicitor-General) supposed he approved of them. It then came down to that House at, he admitted, elate period of the session, but still at a time when there were several Honourable Members in attendance who wo uld have opposed it if it contained any pro visions that were considered objectionable. The Bill did not p ass t h rough the House su b si l entio. Th e le -eon- and Learned Member for Sheffield made a comparison between the remuneration for political and P r ofession a l services. The Honourable Member for Montrose stated that he had examined the Bill, and found that it was perfectly correct in its principles and rofictiirdseptroplao-sedThyo Hon. and Learned Member for Lis howeve in t compensate the agents of certain the Court of Exchequer. That proposal, into the' was tr not agr ee d to. The Bill found its way th e sa „ s , ; ' ° use of Lords, not clandestinely, but under quearein-t4'" and auspices of persons who were well ae with all the circumstances of the case, but who Fore not wining, eprive the sation b to d ' parties of their compen , e. ecause it was larger than was consistent with t he i d utes they h a d to perform. If there were any bl arne fl the matter, i t attached to the whole Le gieslature there was n o i n di v id ua l exempt . Wh a t w re the grounds of objection on the part of his lion. and Le arne d Friend? ln the first place he tho ught the pri nc ipl e o f compensation would be adm i tted fby all ; there co u ld not b e a doubt as to the j ust i ce an d o nriety of comp ensat i ng o ffi cers f or o ffi ces l ega lly held 1 1 ' 8° long a period. His Hon. and Learned Friend ob . - ected to the amount of compensation, stating that s a u s f . cient caution was not maintained for the purpose.ef fisted the proper sums. If that were so, the blame 4" ) ;''( 1 with those who passed the Bill. The grounds of ~,,- " e different charges, and the nature of the emoluments i ',.! re Perfectly well known in the profession. There was r"'" necessity, therefore, for guarding the return by any trlicular sanction. No discretion was left by the Act of (*parliament to the individual who was to administer the F r „. lll P t ensation. The rate of compensation was to be— e: t ne six clerks, three-fourths ; and 'for the clerks in + '.lrt and agent s , t wo - t hi r d s. I n one case — t h at o f Mr. itfordthe salary had been made the s u bj ec t o f t rus t t settl ement, and that was at the time particularly im essed on the attention of the House. It had e..!,11 stated that th ere were a great num b er o f rAs ° 11°n debts. H e b elieved that on that subject e 1 • Learned Friend was mistaken. e debtsand did not amou n t to more entirel than y a thousand r t . i nds, and that amount was deducted. His Hon. 1311 ) !! ld Was, perhaps, not aware of what was done by the Six Clerks by Lord Plunket in 1836, abolishing the n'3rix Clerks' Offic e in Dublin. That Bill was founded on r ee ee isel the same principle as the Bill under considera eesse 600/ The emoluments of the office were not more than p Per annum. They had 4,000/. paid to them as a -°°lPensation for the abolition of their office ; and upon au a veragesure d m of three years they received an additional of ee ing their life. This was a much stronger case the`44lPensation; and it afforded a complete precedent for 1.. coarse adopted on this occasion. His Hon. and Zarned Friend had endeavoured to excite the compas ;,.`"..° of the House by speaking of the poor suitors' fund. !u std that fund was burdened to the extent of a mil- Z fl i for these compensations. The only fund they had _ eal with was the Suitor's Fee Fund. That fund was 0 111 to eh , e amount of 77,0001., received by the six *li r s' he ► fee clerks, and the other clerks, u°se offices were abolished. Unless the Legis lbeetire h ad interposed, the fees could not have werea abolished. The compensations, he admitted, It being extended to between 46,000/. and 47,000/. h e /7 " agreed that it was just some compensation should knowthat tw that many to the persons who held those offices, and he Hon. Members opposite would agree t o b th e expense of defraying those compensations ought T . () a borne by the Consolidated Fund, and not by the ( 14 3 : suitors, and the object of the present Bill was to /V e ase th e c h arges w hi c h 110 W pressed upon the suitors. tw e e „,, Ili n awarded for compensation a moun t e d to be eetdown for teial those clerks were entitled to a fee of als o " which br oug h t i n a sum of 15,009 . /. There was tio n , a si milar fee t o b e pa i d upon every warrant of taxa • abolizehich amounted to 8,0001. These fees had been Fi of 23,000/. se 4 hY the Lord Chancellor, and therefore the SictehroefePaeicihcef-nlic c had to beprovided for and in lieu of that the half: 011 " w Under the old system the c opy as raised from three-halfpence 79°,0°17eirer centage .svas -4 7 '. 7,319/., under the . present it was was another - or 2481. in favour of the suitors. But there Tiestion of -as another point to be considered with respect to tins a e i)e venty compensation, and that was that before n . years had elapsed the necessity for this com theatlon would be at an end, and the dividend upon tee suitors' fund would give a further reduction of other * l , ep : Had hi s Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, or th a " the House, more information upon this subject thi s those excellent persons who recommended expo„; re, and wh o had s uc h ex tensive aur e ,ence? If it were n ecessar y t o p ass suc h a mea jesta ue trusted no p erson i n t h e H ouse wou ld f or an aotis tit refuse allowing fair compensation to those per 'thoutWhOse future prospects and hopes in life were Inent. beingllls injured by the repeal of an Act of Parlia a gu n li i s Hon. and Learned Friend in his speech left Withl behind, because he said there was some motive it e sste e parties who brought in this measure to pass offi ee ''Y and clandestinely But let them see how the li en ! had been bestowed. * His (the Solicitor-General's) 1e,5,...,nd Learned Friend was right in saying that the tied 7 of the Rolls had the appointment of the six clerks, cords clerks clerk s of the writs and the clerks of the re ete,7;vthe latter of whom, when appointed under this were a ieuld get salaries of 1,2001. per annum each. There vilth ti r six taxing officers, whose appointment lay That rightc Lord Chancellor ; but instead of exercising Cha ncey , the Noble and Learned Lord vested it in the told )! Co mmissioners, who selected three solicitors synod re e o p e , clerks of the Court. Had his Hon. and thi s il , -r riend satisfied the House that the framers of (Lo u d t had used no proper caution in the matter ? thee cri es of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition)—or fair Furtht°l4ifdt:ll:the repeal of the former laws, it was improper e compensation? He should trespass no exprel l ?°n the attention of the House than merely to s s tie ls hope that he had stated enough to induce' his % us° to Come to the conclusion that the motion of that tb ° ' and Learned Friend was perfectly useless, and k r. el Would oppose it. co tripee. R VlS said w ith respect to t h e nature o f t h e Isi s eie"•'ation to be given to the claimants and its amount added n * and Learned Friend who just sat down had *b elt nothing new, but had informed the House by br and tin , OUgh t i der what circumstances the Bill had been 7 th e 01 1 , 1, and had also stated the construction given charge ancellor to the Act. There certainly was no l'ord, but Co mmission against the Noble and Learned act F or :l. rather of omission, for he allowed others to self*, hit and to construe the Act, which, being him- All teciallY authorised to do, he was bound to look to. to es, e Profession knew that their clients were bound t e r 3' at least fi f th s fees and what his allied p per cent. f liliey, F riend near him wanted was to have an in pee .to lull the suspicionand distrust which he veil that nonegainst that measure, but they were told ash r e „ of the parties had the slighest Nei -- concealmentand yet they refused any ali k e, ( Inch I° n• He felt the House would not allow ; asure anteoduprecedent as this Bill would afford, to be now titte for the first • d • "terce ls. time. It would truly be a most iaes precedent, if fe °f ti le ~. the officers, who were the guar :trt iire esti Pu?lic purse, were to be allowed impunity 4 1 58 new pro g a _ t t° e tl• He thought those offices, which it se a n ce sw ept a P:: c . I to T e h bolish, ought to have been long t ent s : v e il° had byeen sixclerks originallyvnethreaPear a -• ° Mee, and admitted to those courts . ' P 'e it car • all solicitors who had business should th e , iv _ i. ried on in their name although they did all ei• the o.lt themselves Each'generally,• . in consequence ~ lncrease of business, ete„ 1 ,.. Hie s as m a ny as had ten assistants, and some son, an fifteen or twenty were allowed. His se t ei. _ -Learned Friend opposite had said, that those ap____erks had the • htof selling their (M rig it'ils) denied that, because by III 0 ., was declar * a statute of Edward • Tho se eon ea penal for any person to sell fleeted with the administration of justice. a m t , sixty clerks had clients amongst the attorneys, profi ts made bargains with them for a share in their ‘4.• • or -The waning clerks were mere common clerks t''us„2°o sixy clerks, and they had aatttion than any law stationer employednwohomworaesrttocoileal allowee°ll,l.7.—(llear hear.) The sixty s 3' °very 'es on the taxation of costs and got 6/ 8 n cause that , .s. for eoiaestood on the a er, though it did not th e . °c•—(l-lear, hear.) In P P • ' Le I, the time of Lord Eldon Ive: , sed to be a great number of causes, for each of cell they received es•Bd if 4Per? But what • . *, they only stood on the , dti-eie show at did Lord Lyndhurst do? What did cl er k s 1348 were supposed to have? llactually,before sl ng or th' Ae the to . is ct, made an order b • • , 6s. 8d 6) y which they were w as tried, thu s d. r a cause only on the:da.y on which it . ' s ( 4l ear, h depriving them at once of 10,0001. a-year. t e__ *1(.. , ear.) Would he do this if he considered n s h I vested rights ?—(Hear, hear)—or would the e e x:it have endured it?—(Hear hear •) Yet it ;:iiii grounds that claims for , • . was on log to 1,300 00 1 compensation were made ;alting clerks were ' 0 -- (Cheers.) The agents or q c they were .paiedeolvinagf clerks of the sixty clerks, v 1 i h the . folio out of the 10d. - a folio sixty clerks recei they to • yid. Why what right had , this? It was a bat more right had mere monopoly?—(Hear.) any Copying they to receive this money than .....( Rt*al. clerk who was able to do his business?— /v h° had' Was it right that the attorneys in London, set.,_interest in the matter sh ld be allowed to ou " with the sixty clerks, and that Mr. Wainwright, THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 15, 1844. who got 7,0002 a-year by the Bill, should be allowed to draw it up. It was said that it was hard to see men who held good situations turned out of their offices and walk through the streets in poverty ; but was the public to suffer for that ? Were those who were entitled to no compensation to obtain large sums from the public purse?—(Hear, hear.) The public had a right to com plain that they received this compensation without any inquiry. How was the Act of Parliament introduced ? It was said to be approved of by the Law Association in London, which was composed of attorneys, who must at least be - supposed to have an interest in the matter. It for the first time introduced a new principle.— (Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend had even gone to Ireland for a precedent. But he failed; for in the case he instanced thl officers compensated were officers under patent, and their offices were saleable by law.—(Hear, hear.) There were six clerks, and not sixty clerks.—(Hear, hear.) He said whether this Bill had been in the House for months instead of hours, it was the duty of those who brought it in to read it, and if they read it they must see that a new principle had been for the first time introduced. He was quite sure that the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer would say, on introducing the Bill, that it introduced a new principle of compensation if he was aware of it ; but the Bill was hurried on through the House with inde cent haste. It was brought into the House on the 29th of July, and it was read a first time on the same day. It was read a second time before the Bill was printed. On the 2d of August it was committed, when, for the first time, the compensation clauses were adde&--(Hear, hear)—and it was not till the third reading that those clauses were made known. He had, therefore, a right to say that the Bill was passed in indecent haste ; and he was quite sure that if the new principle intro duced had been pointed ont to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, or to the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, they would not have sanctioned it.—(Hear, hear.) If it had been said to them that it was desirable to abolish those offices, they would not, looking to the interest of the public, have allowed such a Bill to pass in such a manner.—(Hear, hear.) All his Hon. and Learned Friend wanted now was an inquiry. They did not want to alter the Bill altogether. All they wanted to see was, whether it was good. The six clerks were entitled to compensation, but there was no provision for pensions after, death. But who were the sworn clerks ? (Hear hear.) Was the nature of their office inquired into ? Was that an office that could be sold ? It never had been sold, unless by some evasion of the statute. Had they inquired into the amount of their fees ? What had been done with regard to those fees ? When equity business was transacted in the Court of Exchequer, all the officers of that court were paid from the public funds, and now, after their business was transferred to the side clerks in the Court of Chancery, the public was to pay again —(Hear)----that was, the public was to pay twice for the abolition of the same office.—(Hear, hear.) By the 12th section of the sth and 6th Victoria, chap. 103, the Lord Chancellor was empowered to inquire who were entitled to receive compensation. Did the Lord Chancellor do so ? Let them inquire if it was so. That was all they wanted.—(Hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General said the Lord Chancel lor was fettered, and that he could not give less than three-fourths. Who were to blame for this ? Was it not the Legislature who passed such an Act?—(Hear, hear.) Upon what principle were the agents to be com pensated ? If they were justly entitled to it, what a crying injustice had been done to the clerks in the Court of Exchequer. He defied any person to say that there was a legal claim for compensation. But it was said that it was but an act of justice towards those persons to pay them, and that it would be very hard if they were not paid. Perhaps he (Mr. Jervis) also thought it would be hard, but was this a ground on which those who were responsible for the public purse should act ?—(Hear, hear.) He would ask, therefore, whether they were prepared to say that any man, who was a mere writing clerk, liable to dismissal at a moment's notice at the will of his master, should be entitled to compensation by an annuity for life.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that this was a subject which called for inquiry in the House of Commons. If there had been inquiry in this case, the compensation would not have exceeded 20,0001. instead of 46,0001., which was now paid. In the meantime, the fees which were abolished, or to be abolished, were in creased in amount, even though they might be changed in form and in name. Were they to be surprised that the solicitors who had to charge these fees in the costs, should complain and require that the system should be altered, and that the fees should not be so heavily increased to pay these compensations ? The cost of passing the Act was charged to the Suitors' Fund. Had not the suitors a right to complain of that?—(Hear, hear.) Was it just of the Lord Chancellor and the Government to put the expenses of the Act of Parliament for granting that com pensation to the charge of the Suitors' Fund ?—(Hear, hear.) To say the least f it, he would insist that this was at least a subject for inquiry, and unless it were granted the public would not be satisfied. Mr. R. YORKE had been a Member of the House of Commons when this Bill was passed, and he cordially supported the motion, of his Hon Friend, the Member for Kinsale. - Sir J. GRAHAM was obliged to state to the House the reason why he opposed this motion. He admitted that time did not sanctify an abuse. But it was to be recollected that these offices had been held for a time ttating as far back as Charles the First ; and when Mr. Pemberton Leigh spoke from the other side of tha House, in 1840, which had been alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who now introduced the subject to the House, he (Mr. Pemberton Leigh) admitted that the officers to be displaced were entitled to large and libe ral compensation. When the Bill, which was prepared by Mr. Wainwright, was introduced, his Noble and Learned Friend now on the woolsack, acquiescing in all the statements of Mr. P. Leigh, laid it down that the officers were entitled to compensation. The Bill passed through the House of Lords, having received the appro bation of Lord Langdale, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and Mr. Sharpe, and was sent down to this House. The Hon. and Learned Member for Chester had said that, in the Bill there were provisions quite unexampled—that it gave compensation for the sale of offices in the adminis tration of justice. But, on referring to the Bill itself, it would be seen, from the fourteenth clause, that the object of the Bill was to put an end to the sale of offices, and the fact was that it had done so. The sums awarded to the six clerks in Ireland, under the sanction of Lord Cottenham, were expressly declared to be as compensa tion for the privilege which they bad enjoyed of the transfer or sale of office during life. The Act had not been unfairly obtained, or smuggled through Parliament. On the contrary, it had been pre pared and e xamined with the greatest care. It could not be said truly that this measure was smug gled through Parliament or surreptitiously obtained. The next question was, had the provisions of the Bill boon properly carried into execution ? The Lord Chancellor, on making the award of compensation to be given, called to his assistance the Master of of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and all the compensations that had been given received their sanction, and were, inva riably, the minimum of the Act of Parliament. 6,0001. a-year had already been remitted from the Suitors' Fund, and in the course of 20 years 45,0001. would be re mitted. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by hoping that the House would not accede to the motion. Mr. WILLIAMS announced the whole matter (as a scandalous job. It had been. said that his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had supported the Bill. He (Mr. Williams) was sure he would never . have done so had he been properly made acquainted with the provi sions of the measure. Unless there was a new system of management of the public business, it would be impossible, he was afraid, to prevent jobs of this kind. The public were entitled to protection from this system, and her Majesty's Government, in defence of the Act, ought to allow inquiry into it. Mr. C. BULLER was prepared to defend the vote he should give to her Majesty's Ministers against the first part of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale. The House, in looking to the great question of law reform ought not to be illiberal in compensation ' • pecuniary consideration ought never to interfere with. great practical good—(Hear)—and acting upon that prin ciple, he should vote against the motion. This measure had been denounced as a job ; now he knew the whole •f this measure proceeded from gentlemen who were among some of the most sincere law reformers in the country.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this Act no ques tion had arisen as to its working, while upon other Acts the greatest question had arisen. The latter part of the motion he thought was well worthy of the consideration of the House. That part of the motion which proposed an inquiry into the subject of fees in the courts of law and equity was entitled to sup port. In those courts one hundred persons had the control of 300,0001. Ninety-one of those were in the law courts, and they were subject to no check whatever with respect to that money. In the courts of equity the persons appointed to receive the fees were required to make an affidavit with respect to them. Many of the fee-takers in the law courts were small salaried men, and therefore there were great temptations before them. Another very important question was the necessity of taking fees at all in the courts of law.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the whole system required inquiry and re vision, and he thought the Government would do well to institute an inquiry into the subject. Mr. WARBURTON said he recollected reading in the memoirs of the Duke de St. Simon, that when a proposition was submitted to him for law reform, he said that it could never be accomplished, inasmuch as there were so many persons whose livelihood depended upon those law institutions. Thus was law reform frustated in the time of Louis XIV. Now his Hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard had fallen into this kind of tender heartedness, and would not give his consent to law reform unless an unlimited compensation accompanied it. In that respect he (Mr. Warburton) could not agree with his Hon. Friend. Why, if they gave this immense compensation to parties, whether they were entitled to it or not, it would only have the effect of disgusting the public with respect to all attempts at law reform. Now, with respect to these fees, about which there had been so much discussion. It must be recollected that these fees had been, on seven . ' occasions, altered and interfered with by several of the late Lord Chancellors, and yet the compenstion for these fees had been fixed at the highest point. This was a course of law reform which would disgust the public. No one would object to com pensation being given, provided that compensation was fair and just ; and, therefore, he thought the Govern ment ought to support a proposition for inquiry into the subject. Mr. WATSON, in reply, said that the Solicitor- General had stated that be (Mr. Watson) had no right to interfere in this subject. Now he was prepared to show that h e h a d thi s right, inasmuch as the Act of Parliament provided that the returns of these compen sations should be laid on the table of the House. Why was that provision made, if it was not to give the House the power of investigation? It now appeared that Mr. Wainwright--for..his. name appeared at last—bad re ceived 3,0001. for preparing the Bill for giving compen sation. They might as well make the felon pay for the gallows on which they hanged him as make the unfor tunate suitors in Chancery pay this amount. Heil said there had been no sale of offices. The Right Hon. Baronet said there had been a sale. Issue was joined upon that point, and a Committee ought to decide. —(Cheers.) The Irish case was perfectly different — there a patent office was in question—an office which was legally the subject of purchase and sale. The taxing masters in the Court of Chancery had 2,0001. a-year, while the taxing masters in the courts of common law, who had a great deal more to do, had 1,200/. a-year. When the Bill had been brought for ward, the Right Hon. Baronet had never told the House that the compensation would amount to 7,5001. a-year during the lives of the parties, and 2,5001. a-year for some years after their death. The Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard said that if the motion passed it would put a stop to all law reform. He should suspect for the future all persons who talked of law reform who did not vote for this motion. He had showed the House that these fees were not worth ten days' purchase. They had been altered by Lord Hardwicke, and one great fee had been entirely abolished by Lord Lyndhurst within one month after he had been first appointed to office. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority against the motion POOR LAWS (IRELAND.) Sir D. NORREYS moved the appointment of the following Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts — Sir Denham Norreys, Lord Eliot, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Mr. Young, Mr. French, Viscount Bernard, Mr. John O'Connell, Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir Henry Winston Barron, Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay, Mr. Vesey, Sir Edmund Hayes,.; Mr. Bellew, and Mr. E. P. Shirley. This question was in a very peculiar position, and he could not understand the grounds on which it was in tended to oppose the appointment of this Committee. The poor-law in Ireland was an experiment, and all that was asked for was inquiry. He denied that his object was to procure the repeal of the poor-laws. The alteration in the poor-laws in England was an experi ment. Some years after the experiment had been insti tuted the House had granted an inquiry. Why should they refuse an inquir' into the working of the poor-laws in Ireland P and yet they had virtually refused to do so. The conduct of the Govern ment had been most unstatesmanlike. They had, in the first instance, granted this Committee, because they had been badgered into it by his Hon. Friend the Member for Kildare, and then, because his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Dublin said " No," they had refused it. They were about to rescind their own act by re sisting the nomination of a Committee. Some half dozen of Members opp osed it, and therefore the Go vernment thought themselves justified in opposing it. If the Government thought the poor-law worked well and beneficially in Ireland, they should not have supported the appointment of a Committee; but if they really con sidered that the matter required revision, they should have granted it. The public mind in Ireland was so much engaged on another subject, that its attention was diverted from the consideration of the poor-laws; but there was a strong feeling in that country that many of the provisions of that law required remodelling. He looked upon the poor. laws as now established in a manner that would prevent their ever being done away with, but he thought that there were several defects that might be remedied. He wished that the Com mittee should be appointed, to consider the general work ing of the system, and see how far it was likely to meet the objects for which it was intended. Mr. BELLEW opposed the motion. He thought that at the present time no advantage would be derived from the proposed inquiry. He complained that the Poor-law Commissioners had not sufficiently studied the wishes of the inhabitants of the people of Ireland, and he regretted also that no attempt had been made to legislate on medical charities. But he thought that within a year or two from this time a Committee would be much more useful than it could be at present. Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member for Mallow having made his speech, he hoped he would now be somewhat more at ease, and not press his motion. The House would recollect that he had, at the close of the last session, given an assurance that if Irish Peers de sired inquiry on this subject he would yield to their wishes, and that he had given a similar assurance with respect to Irish Members in that House. A great number of the Irish Peers were adverse to the inquiry sought for by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow, as also was his Hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's County, and a number of other Irish commoners. He was decidedly of opinion that the proposition of the Hon. Baronet, for a Committee, would be attended with not the slightest (practical or beneficial result at this period of the session. The questions proposed to be entered upon in that Committee were so multifarious and difficult, that the more he considered the motion of the Hon. Baronet he was confirmed in this opinion. He was most anxious to allow a fair trial to the measure of last year, and to be influenced by the opinions of those Members of this House who were connected with Ireland. -16 Mr. F. FRENCH supported the motion of his Hon. Friend for a Committee. Such a Committee had been sanctioned on a former occasion by the Right Hon. Ba ronet, and he (Mr. French) certainly thought it was now rather a singular mode, when it suited his will and plea sure, to call upon the House to stultify itself by rescind ing the opinion they had expressed on that occasion. Would the Right Hon. Baronet (notwithstanding his vic tory last night) now maintain unaltered a lass, which tended by its operation to increase every existing evil of which Ireland hitherto complained, because some Hon. Members from Ireland said that amongst their con stituencies there existed no desire for a change with re spect to the Irish poor-laws? But he would challenge them to show that in a vast majority of the parishes of Ireland the operation of those laws was not attended with the greatest detriment.—(Hear, hear.) Such must be the opinion of any one who paid the slight est attention to the spirit and tone of the Irish press. (The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from a letter of the Rev. Mr. O'Malley, who had been an advocate of poor-laws, to show they had not worked well in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman then w e nt on t o s ho w that Mr. Nicholls was quite incorrect in his calculations as to the expense of building the poor-houses, and the number of persons who would be likely to go into them.) A petition presented to the House, from the guardians of the South Dublin Union, stated that the cost of each pauper in the Mendicity, before the establishment of the poor-laws, was 31. 13s. 10d., while, under the poor laws, the cost was 71. 16s. This law was not fitted to the habits and feelings of the people, and they would agitate against it from one part of the country to the other. Mr. SHAW said he would state a few simple facts which, he thought, would remove some of the erroneous impressions which, it seemed, had been taken up with regard to the working of the law. There was not one single member of the Commission upon either side that was not in favour of adopting the law. He, for one, had never thought that the system was perfect ; but he thought that some further trial should be given before any attempt to change it was made. Ina large pro portion of the unions the system was workin g satisfac torily—that was, the largest portion of the rates were collected, and the paupers were provided for. On the 25th of March last the balance against the unions was only hl3a,voeobole.en in liefatihronuegsahtstattheids, was and h a n fa r c e t en N ni Vh m lc e l n l ci n e ll d gh ti t ia t t o , in the present state of the unions , it was not desirable to do anything which would interfere with the efforts of those who were using their best exertions to carry the law out fairly. Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, had unjustly, and from his own imagination, accused him as one of the persons who opposed the introduction of any poor-law into Ireland. On the contrary, when he was a member of the Commission, he had not oppos ed the introduction of a system of poor-laws. But he syas in a minority in the Commission, in opposition to the report on which the present l J aw was founded. He never voted in favour of this law, although a Member of the late Government at the time . when it came before the House, and, rather than vot e for it, he had placed his office in the hands of his Noble Friend then at the Government, because he was convinced that the Bill was not suited to the feelings and habits of the people of Ireland, and that it would increase the evils which it was designed to remedy. But, when the measure became law, he never attempted to start any resistenco to it. Was it not rather too bad to tell him he was one of those who wished to upset the poor-law ? He wished to do no such thing ; but they might depend upon it, if they did not amend the present law, they would cause the upsetting of that which would prove worse than a poor-law. If the Government were deter mined not to grant the Committee, upon them must rest the responsibility ; for, if once they forced the people to resist the law, they might depend upon it they would have some difficulty to stop that resistance. Sir J. GRAHAM explained. Mr. REDDINGTON said that he could not conceive any grounds on which an inquiry could be refused. Great doubts were entertained throughout Ireland, but particularly in the west of Ireland, as to the operation of the law. But though he thought that a Select Commit tee ought to be granted, he admitted that much was to be corrected at home, particularly on the part of the guar dians, which legislation could not reach. Lord J. RUSSELL said his opinion was, after listen ing to the objections which had been urged for the refu sal of a Select Committee, that unless the principle of the law was entirely vicious, the best course to be adopted was to leave to the Government the question of inquiry into the abuses in the administration of the law —to send all complaints to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would investigate the charges made against the Commissioners, and who could be asked in the House what the foundations of those complaints were, and what was the result of his inquiries. Having so done, there might come a time when a Select Com mittee would be advisable ; but at present the objections made by the Honourable Gentleman confirmed him that the Government took the right course. On the part of those Hon. Gentlemen who spoke in favour of the Committee, there was an evident blending of two questions. Some spoke against the principle of the law, and others spoke against its administration. With regard to the appointment of a Committee, as the law was entirely new in Ireland, and as many of the persons who had to carry it into effect were unused to it, and as it appeared those who were hostile to the law were be coming more reconciled to it, he thought that they should wait for some time. With regard to what the Hon. Gentleman had said on what had always been a sore subject with him (Mr. F. French), he meant the appointment of Mr. Nicholls to go to Ireland, he would state the sole reason of that appointment. When the report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the q t p il l eI F n s li wo o no n r kol h fn a gs d e vo b ef e r e at nhl the n o first oi or p s- le r a e p‘ s yr e sa n c t ot e in d e ,a the hl h ye e had asked the o a s au j a e i e n t t e o d f withthat r no e rn ptao make t a n systemda t s h oar e t yis poor-lawsb had o a r l y l s f t io a nn t e nl d rdea t l h ta n a o t dn t . hf for ru r e et p ht o eh r e t ni a n l et o or n on eds considered r ud i oe l nd how best the report mi g ht b e mo difi e d. H e did no t th row it aside entirely, for it would be seen that many of its re commendations had been unbodied in the Act of Parlia ment; but in order to mdify it so as to found on it a practical working measure he had deemed it advisable to send to Ireland a gentiman who was well-acquainted with the working of the poor-laws in England ; and Mr. Nicholls had been sent, ti Ireland, where, although he had only remained a shirt time, he had collected a great deal of information There were, in his opinion, certain general principles of poor-law legislation, which would be found as effective in Switzerland and in Spain as they were in England tr Ireland, and those principles ought always to be kept Aeadily in view. He regretted that the Right lion. Genteman had not ascertained the sentiments of the Irisi Members before he had consented to the appointment of the Committee, but he thought that, under al. the circumstances, the best thing that could be done would be to rescind the order which had been agreed to without discussion, although he could not but wish that it had never been agreed to. Sir 11. W. BARRON thought that the House and country would be taken by surprise if the motion were pressed to a division. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet in the opinion which he had expressed as to the operation of the poor-laws in Ireland; and as he con ceived that the appointment of this Committee would lead to hopes which would never be realised, he hoped the Hon. Baronet would withdraw his motion. After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS, Sir J. GRAHAM moved as an amendment that the order be discharged. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared-- For Sir J. Graham's amendment . . 42 Against it 'lo IVnifority for Sir J. Graham's amendment —32 CLERK OFITHE CROWN. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the duties and emoluments of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.— Agreed to. Colonel SIBTHORP moved for returns relating to the improvement of the river Shannon.—Agreed to. Sir DENHAM NORREYS moved for a Select Com mittee, to inquire whether the present townland valua tion of Ireland, made by the Commissioners of Valuation under the Act 1 and 2 Vic., c. 52, can be made avail able for the imposition of poor-rate and other local rates in that country ; and also, whether it be not desirable to alter the principle on which the townland valuation is now constructed.—Agreed to. The County Rates' Bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be committed on the 31st inst. The Customs' Duties Bill went through Committee.— Repnrt to be received this day. The House then adjourned at One o'clock. TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. WHITEHALL, MAY 13, 1844. The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Knight of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto James Annesley, Esq. of the Madras Medic a l E s t a bli s hment. CROWN -OFFICE, MAY 13, 1844. MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIA MENT. BOROUGH OF ABINGDON.-Frederic Thesiger, of Bryan stun-square, in the parish of St. Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, Esq., her Majesty's Solicitor-General, in the room of Thomas Duffield, Esq., who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, MAY 11. Royal Regiment of Artillery.-First Lieutenant A. Benn to be Second Captain, vice Geary, deceased ; Second Lieute nant S. Robinson to be First Lieutenant, vim Benn, April 28. MEMORANDUM.-The dates of the promotion of the under mentioned officers have been altered as follows :-Second Cap tain H. A. Turner, Jan. 14 ; Second Captain T. B. F. Mar riott, March 30 ; Second Captain W. H. Elliot, April 1 ; Second Captain T. Ramsay, April 15 ; First Lieutenant D. M. Fraser, Jan. 14; First Lieutenant J. D. Telfer, March 7 ; First Lieutenant C. J. Strange, March 30; First Lieutenant C. Frye, April 1; First Lieutenant F. C. Standish, April 15. WHITEHALL, MAY 9. The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Henry Gimblett, Gent., of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. BANKRUPTS. THOMAS COURTNEY LANCEFIELD, builder, Au gustus-square, Regent's-park, to surrender May 24, at two, and June 25, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane ; Yenning, Naylor, and Co., Tokenhouse-yard. WILLIAM BURTON, upholsterer, King-street, Soho, May 22, at two, and June 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Ben nett, Bloomsbury-square. JAMES MICHEL POLAK, merchant, Coleman-street buildings, City, May 24, at two, and June 21, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms yard ; Maltby and Grant, Broad-street -buildings. JOSEPH HOWDEN, iron founder, Wakefield, May 25, and June 18, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee, Leeds; Willis and Co., Tokenhouse-yard, London ; Sykes, Wakefield. JOHN SUNMAN AUSTIN, builder, Bedford, May 21, at half- past one, and June 21, at one, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lombard street; Buchanan and Grainger, Basinghall-street, City. ELIZABETH HAYWARD, innkeeper, Castle Heding ham, Essex, May 22, at half-past one, and June 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street ' • Marston, Torrington -square, London. EDWIN REEVE, fruiterer, Liverpool, May 24, at twelve, and June 20, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Case neve, official assignee, Liverpool ; Holme, Loftus, and Young, New Inn, London ; Booker, Liverpool. JOHN BAKER, grocer, Romsey, Hants, May 24, at half past two, and June 21, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms-yard; Curtis, Romsey, Hants; Bower and Son, Chancery-lane. JOHN PLEDGE, carpenter, Vauxhall-street, Lambeth, May 24, at half-past one, and June 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane; Harpur, Kennington-aross. EDWIN FOSTER, tailor, Dover, May 21, at half-past eleven, and June 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, Aldermanbury ; Dods and Linklaters, Leadenhall-street, London. ELAH BRENNAND, ironmonger, Highgate, May 21, at half-past one, and June 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Graham, o ffi cial assi gnee , C oleman-street ; Bartholo mew, Gray's Inn. EDWARD BROWN, merchant, Birmingham, May 24, and June 28, at one, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birmingham. Birmingham ; J. W. and G. Whateley, JOHN TODD, sen., and JOHN TODD, ironmongers, Bury-street, Bloomsbury, Slay 28, at twelve, and July 3, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official as signee, Basinghall-street ; Roberts, Bride-court, Fleet-street. THOMAS HEWETT WETMORE, grocer, Worcester, May 22, and June 24, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittleston, official assignee, Birmingham ; Berkeley, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London ; Hare, Birmingham. RICHARD RICHARDSON, gambroon-manufacturer, Manchester, June 10, and 24, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stanaway, official assignee, Manchester; Reed and Shaw, Friday-street, London ; Sale and Worthington, Manchester. HENRY DRAKE, attorney, Barnstaple, Devonshire, May 28, at twelve, and June 26, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Hertzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Bemridge and Toiler, Barnst a pl e ; M oore, Exeter ; Toiler, Gray's Inn-square, London. JOHN WINDOW HARRIS, wine-merchant, Wolver hampton, May 24, at half-past one, and June 18, at half-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official assignee, Birmingham ; Phillips and Bolton, Wolverhampton. NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. J. Unsworth, butcher, Liverpool. J. Balls, jun., omnibus driver, Holloway-road, Islington. R. H. Talbot, Millbank-street, Westminster. J. Ball, plumber, Union-road, Clapham-rise. T. Bevins, beer retailer, Regent-street, Vauxhall-bridge-road. T. Adams, Blackman -street, Southwark. E. Russell, Oval, Kennington. J. Baker, grocer, Goudhurst, Kent. J. Taylor, painter, St. Alban's-street, Kennington-road. F. J. Foreman, licensed victualler, Seven Oaks, Kent. J. Harwood, tailor, Hatherleigh, Devonshire. J. Walker, King's Norton, Worcestershire. F. R. Williams, St. James's-place, Walworth-common. H. Mopsey, sheriff's officer, Baker's-row, Walworth-common. R. Blackhurst, auctioneer, Toxteth-park, Lancashire. H. Ward, blacksmith, Eckington, Derbyshire. J. Young, auctioneer, Durham. W. Canner, cabinet maker, Brighton. J. Sparke, Princes-street, Drury-lane. J. Dyer, innkeeper, Kingston St, Michael, Wiltshire. T. Clough, provision dealer, Bradford, Yorkshire. E. Hodson, clerk, Birmingham. J. W. Hentig, wine merchant, Hamilton-place, St. Pancras. E. Coxson, wheelwright, Sonthchurch, Essex. S. Short, boot maker, Berwick -street, St. James's. A. Thomas, clog maker, Oldham, Lancashire. H. F. Brown, veterinary surgeon, Bakewell, Derbyshire. H. W. Salisbury, goldsmith, King's-road, Chelsea. J. Bond, tailor, Manchester. W. G. Legge, accountant, Shaftesbury-street, New North-road. R. Duke, police officer, Henry-street, Pentonville. J. Griffin, miller, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. W. L. F. Tollemache, Hyde-park-place, Marylebone. W. Lillie, wheelwright, Deptford. J. Slade, carpenter, Bexley, Kent. R. Nas h, letter-carrier, Stockton, Durham. R. Oake, joiner, Leeds. J. B. Broomhead, Batley, Yorkshire. T. Braim, commission agent, Leeds. J. Jones, plasterer, Liverpool. D. Blair, boot maker, Manchester. E. B. Downing, commission agent, Birmingham. E. Kirby, jun., paper maker, Maidstone, Kent. W. Styles, butterman, Rotherfield, Sussex. W .. 43 Mat he w,an gacbero,ur, B. Watkinson, draper, Castleston , Derbyshire. H. W. Tunmer, clerk, Reading , Berkshire. ro l C e a r s , tl c ea o c y r c e b , ur Norfolk. eh, Glamorganshire. T R. Collins, plumber, Greenwich. W. Lys, hatter, Road-side, Mile-end-road. J. L y nos, Bloxham, Oxfordshire. J. Charlesworth, clothier, Almondbury, Yorkshire. W. H. Alsop, accountant, Manchester. J. H. Leathes, Norwich. S. Alcock, boot maker, Manchester. H. North, confectioner, Mousley, Leicestershire. F. J. Grace, tailor, Arlington-street, St. Pancras. SECOND NOTICES. W. Carter, pig jobber, Artillery-roar, Westminster, May 20, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. W. Young, servant, Norwood, May 20, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. W. M'Carthy, clothier, Portsmouth, May 18, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. J. Mathews, tallow chandler, Hammersmith, May :21, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. F. Whitehead, mail cart driver, Long Melford, Suffolk, May 21, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. M. Haynes, Weston-super-Mare, Sornersetshire, May 20, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Kynaston, official assignee. J. Barrett, surgeon, Bath, May 20, at half-past twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Hut DENDS.ton, official assignee. DIVI At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. Chap man-street, St. Georges East,- June 4, at half-past eleven J. Bridgman and W. D r y land, tallow melters, Upper -J. Sewell, money scrivener, Ely, Cambridgeshire, June 4, at twelve-J. Hague, engineer, Rotherhithe, June 4, at eleven -J. Farren, corn dealer, Nine-elms, May 7, at twelve-M. B. Evans and B. Eyton, army agents, N or th um b er l an d-street, June 4, at eleven-R. Baxter, wharfinger, Montague-close , Southwark, June 4, at twelve-W. Hitchcock, linen draper, Regent-street, June 4, at one-G . Simons, watch manufac turer, King-square, Goswe ll-r oad , June 4, at twelve. In the Country. W. Huskisson, linen draper, Birmingham, June 5, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court-X. Moncas, chronometer manufacturer, Liverpool, June 6, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court—J. Stuart, draper, Liverpool, June 5, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court—W. Farrell, cattle salesman, West Derby, Lancashire, June 7, at twelve, at the I Liverpool District Court—J. Evans, coal dealer, Liverpool, June 8, at half-past eleven, at the Liverpool District Court— J. Richardson, merchant, Liverpool, June 8, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court—G. and J. Wilkinson, curriers, Bi shop Auckland, Durham, June 5, at half-past one, at the New castle-upon-Tyne District Court—W. Bearup, joiner, New castle-upon-Tyne, June 6, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon- Tyne District Court—R. Paddon, chemist, Hartlepool, Dur ham, June 4, at one, at the Newcastle .upon-Tyne District Court—J. Price, money scrivener, Lanfoist, Monmouthshire, June 4, at half-past one, at the Bristol District Court—T. Rawlings, auctioneer, Cheltenham, June 6, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court—H. Jefford, builder, Lyme Regis, June 6, at twelve, at the Exeter District Court—T. and W. Reeves, coach builders, Claines, Worcestershire, June 5, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court—J. Warburton, miller, Brom yard, Herefordshire, June 5, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the contrary, on the day herein-mentioned. J. Haddock, printer, Craven-yard, Drury-lane, June 7 R. Webster, victualler, Oxford-market, June 4—J. E. Ri dont, woolstapler, Ringwood, Hampshire, June 4—H. M. Low and W. M. Westerman, merchants, Calcutta, June 6—W. Scott, wine merchant, - Regent-street, June 5—J. and G. Ewart, auctioneers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ' June 4—T. Born ford, hay dealer, Cheltenham, June 5—R. Turner, fancy cloth manufacturer, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, July 3—L Eckersley, victualler, Liverpool, June 4—E. Poore, druggist, Bampton, Devonshire, June 6—W. Whitfield, grocer, Bridgewater, So mersetshire, June 6—H. Mitchell, fellmonger, Nottingham, June 12—H. Grove, grocer, Birmingham, June 12—P. Sed don, coal dealer, Middle Hulton, Lancashire, June 5—H. Or bell, victualler, Romford, June 4—T. Fawcett and J. Muir, builders, Hollingworth, Cheshire, June 4—R. Freeman, builder, Ely, Cambridgeshire, June 4—R. T. Milbanke, sur geon, Burwood-place, Edgeware-road, June 4—H. Wickham, linen draper, Bristol, June 4—W. Bourne, woollen draper, Coleman-street, June 4-4. Sparham, miller, Troston, Suf folk, June 4—W. parr, merchant, Sunderland, Durham, June 4—R. Goodwin, ironmonger, Eton, Buckinghamshire, June 4 —H. Edwards, coal merchant, St. Alban's, June 4. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. C. Watson and J. Bell, jewellers, York—T. Earle and J. Pearce,eontractors, Horley, Surrey—P. Rogers and W. H. Box, strigeons, East Looe, Cornwall—F. Cross and T. G. Bond, 'attorneys-at-law, Crediton, Devonshire—S. Hadfield and J. Holme, jun., file manufacturers, Manchester—G. At kinson, J. Hozier, and C. MacGregor, merchants, Kingston, Jamaica—Chamberlain and Co., porcelain manufacturers, Worcester—J. Thompson, sen., and J. Thompson, jun., bricklayers, Scarborough, Yorkshire—C. A. Beetenson and J. G. Wilson, surgeons, Wem, Shropshire—T. Scott and W. Abson, joiners, Wakefield, Yorkshire—W. Hutchison and J. Morton, statuaries, Southampton-street, Strand—G. and A. Smith, flax spinners, Leeds—R. and T. Huskinson, boatmen, Gunthorpe, Nottinghamshire—F. Lees and J. Porter, lace ma nufacturers, Carrington, Nottinghamshire—J. Bettelley and n 14 ; gg a , ironmongers. Liverpool—J. Prost:on 2nd W_ Whit.- ley, cotton manufactuaers, Colne, Lancashire—l. Barber and E. Brookes, cutlers, Sheffield—W. Harrison ' sen., and W. Har rison, jun., drapers, Belper, Yorkshire—A. and W. Ryder, eurriers, Wakefield, Yorkshire—J. and R. Johnson, silk throwsters, Gutter-lane, Cheapside. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. S-AMES JACKSON, brazier, Glasgow, May 16 and June 14, at eleven, at W. Stimpson's, Globe Inn, Glasgow. COURT OF SEWERS. A special meeting of the Court of Sewers for the city and liberty of Westminster and part of the county of Middlesex, was held yesterday at the Sewers'-office, Greek-street, Soho, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the facts connected with the failure of about 820 feet of the new main line of the Ranelagh sewer, in Gloucester-road, Paddington. _ _ _ T. L. Donaldson, Esq., took the chair at 12 o'clock. On a previous Court day the following report had been presented to the Court by the surveyors : " We have to report that, upon examination of the Ranelagh main line of sewer in the Gloucester-road, Bayswater, we found the arch to be fractured in several portions of its length from Grand Junction-street to be yond Conduit-street, a distance altogether of about 820 feet. " We are not at present prepared to give a definite opinion as to the cause of this failure, but it would ap pear to us from the accompanying sections that the crown of the arch has been loaded to a great extent by the earth from the adjoining vaults and the material ne cessary for raising the roadway to its present level, and that the natural subsidence of this newly made ground has had the effect of forcing back the springing walls from their originally vertical position. By a reference to the drawing it will be seen that this pressure has been in every instance outwards. It is also probable that much of the weakness of the side walls may be attri buted to the disturbance of the ground behind them, consequent upon the building of the collateral sewers at their intersections near Conduit-street, Brook-street, and Gloucester Mews. " At present we are scarcely in a - position to state the exact extent that it will be necessary to repair the sewer, but from Conduit-street, southwards, for a length of about 200 feet, and from Brook-street for about 150 feet south of the church, it would appear to require the most immediate attention ; we would adcl i that whatever reparation may be considered necessary,.fill only apply to the arch and a portion of the abutthent walls, and the expense would be materially reduced if the Court would sanction the re-using of the present materials, which appear to be perfectly sound and available. " On the acompanying drawings are given a longitu dinal section of the sewer with the present and original levels of the ground, likewise cross sections showing the positions of the adjacent vaults, those portions the most defective, and the extent of deviation from the ori ginal form. " JOHN DOWLEY, Surveyor. " WILLIAM DOULL, Assistant ditto. " GEORGE HAWKINS, Ditto. Yesterday the surveyors presented a further report, in which they pointed out the different parts in the sewer that had been effected by the occurrences that had taken place, and recommended their reparation. Mr. LESLIE said that the last report was at variance with former ones; he wished to know from Mr. Bell whether any complaints had been made of the works during their progress? Mr. BELL said that he had no recollection of any statement being made of the badness of the works during their progress. He had no recollection of the Chairman stating that they were so badly constructed that they must be taken down. Mr. LESLIE said that the time had now arrived when it became the Court seriously to deliberate what course they should pursue. This was a matter of most serious and grave character. 3,4001. had been spent in building a sewer, with respect to which each Commissioner re ceived a communication, stating that, of that sewer, which was 1,200 feet in length, 820 feet were a total failure. The course that struck him (Mr. Leslie) as the best to pursue, and by the adoption of which the public interests would be best served, would be to follow out the line of instruction contained in the Act of the 23d of Henry the Eighth. There was a defect in a great part of their works, which they were called upon to inquire into, and in which case the Act provided' that a jury should be summoned, and by their verdict they were to say by whose default the damage had arisen. Now the question branched itself into three important points: the damage might be involved in the original design of the sewer, it might be faulty in its construction, or it might be faulty on account of the neglect of the officers of the Court. Now in any of those cases there must be inquiry ; and he (Mr. Leslie) thought the proper course would be to have a special Court held on the spot, say at the Crown Tavern, which was not twenty yards from it, and there to have a jury summoned to inspect the parts that had failed, and then to return a verdict as to the cause of the failure, and upon that verdict the Court could act. Suppose the damage had been occasioned by the Court itself, would it at once admit it ? Certainly not. It might be the fault of the contractors or the officers of the Court in not properly superintend ing the works, and if such was the case, it was but just to them that an impartial jury, which the Court could not be, should decide between all parties. Now it had been stated that these works had commenced in Septem ber, 1839, and that 408 feet was finished in January, 1840. Now he Mr. Leslie was prepared to show that the work was not finished or anything like it at that time, and that the chairman, in consequence of the defect in the walls, ordered them to be taken down, and yet the Court had been kept in the dark on that sub ject. Added to this, although the line of sewer was not measured till 1840, yet the balance of the contractors' account was sent in and paid in May, 1839. The CHAIRMAN said, that the great question they had to consider was, what was the cause of the defects ? He wished to know what course the Hon. Commissioner in tended to pursue ? Mr. LESLIE observed that they were about to insti tute an inquiry into the cause of the failures which had taken place in this extensive sewer, and he was about to show that the proper mode of doing so was to sum mon a jury, in order to view it, and give their unbiassed verdict upon it. What he would propose was, that a Special Court shold be held, say on Monday next, or any other day to be fixed upon, at the Crown Tavern ; that a jury should be summoned, who should inspect and inquire into the subject, and give their verdict upon it ; and on that verdict the Court might act. The CHAIRMAN thought the Commissioners them selves ought first to go and see it, in order that it might be ascertained whether there was any necessity for entertaining the worthy Commissioner's proposition. At the present moment the Commissioners could not be prepared to come to any conclusion. Mr. LESLIE said the conclusion lie had arrived at was to get at the truth, and he thought the course he had pointed out was the best mode. The CHAIRMAN observed that he did not see the ad vantage of a jury at present. He thought they had better reserve that till the next Court. Mr. LESLIE was satisfied the course he pointed out was a necessary one. He had seen the works ; and why they should have had such an immense sewer to carry through a mere puddle of water, he could not tell. It was his firm belief that the faults that had taken place in the sewer were attributable to its bad design; it was b a y 11 admit ted to be badly constructed, and nothing but a jury could settle the matter satisfactorily between the public and the Court. Mr. Leslie concluded by handing 6 in a notice of motion, to the effect that a Special Crown ourt should'be held near t he site of the sewer at Tavern, and that a jury should be summoned who were to inspect the sewe r, and give their verdict accordingly. As the Court appeared determined__ to go . and view the pl a ce themselves, he would merely hand the notice in, and the Court could determine at what time they would consider it when they returned. The Commissioners then proceeded to Bayswater to examine the sewer; and, after an absence of two hours, they returned, and discussed the subject for some time ; at the conclusion of which a resolution was propose& by Mr. Hawkes and carried, to the following effect : "That an examination of the Ranelagh sewer in Gloucester-place, the parts of the sewer 30 ft. and 60 ft., with respect to which it was stated by the report of the surveyors it was necessary they should be taken off and rebuilt, that they be forthwith rebuilt and taken off, and that the state of the work be reported to the Court on Friday next." It was then arranged that Mr. Leslie's notice, which he had handed in in the morning, should stand on the paper for consideration on Friday, to which day the Court then adjourned. COURT OF ALDERMEN. Yesterday a Court was held for the dispatch of public business. SCOTCH AND IRISH PAUPERS. Alderman COPELAND in rising to call the attention of the Court to the subject of the weekly payments made in the City of London on account of Scotch and Irish paupers, said his object was to check the rapidity with which some officers of the unions proceeded to remove the unfortunate paupers with whom the parishes abounded, and which was the cause of great injustice to those distressed objects, and of great and unwarrantable expense to the rate-payers. The returns for which he had moved showed that in the years 1842 and 1843 the expense of the removal of the Scotch and Irish paupers to their own countries had increased in comparison with former years from hundreds to thousands.—(Hear.) Sitting as a magistrate he had witnessed the injurious effect of permitting any case of removal of the kind to pass without strict examination. He was convinced that if his colleague had not, in many instances where they found that the claimants for relief were hard work ing persons, supplied them with the means of pur chasing tools, and thus given them with the means of supporting themselves, the charges upon the inhabitants would have been more heavy, and the pauperism more intolerable. A week or two ago he had observed painful anxiety upon the part of an officer of one of the unions to pass a poor woman who was not present during the application. He felt bound to refuse the order in her absence; and, upon seeing her afterwards by accident, he ascertained that he was perfectly justi fied in the negative he had given, for, upon being asked what assistance she had received from the re lieving-officer, she replied that, during five weeks, all the help she had was two shillings and two loaves, and that, for the last month, she had been with out the least relief, and merely dependent upon the contingent humanity of those who saw her in this destitute state. The relieving officer had, notwithstand ing this remarkable fact, the affidavits and everything else ready for the magistrate's signature, and if due cau tion had not been exercised the removal would have cer tainly taken place in the teeth of the law. He called upon his brother magistrates to exercise still greater vigilance upon the subject than they were in the habit of using, for he believed that if they relaxed in the per formance of the duty of vigilance the most unmerciful [injustice would be done to the poor. He believed that parties were employed by the unions of the City of London, who looked upon poverty as the worst of crimes, and would have it punished to the extremity.— (Hear, hear.) There were put on board steamers for Ireland, poor people who had not for thirty or forty years been once in the country, and who were without relations or friends there, and must in consequence perish of starvation in Cork or Limerick to which they might be, as it were, transported.—(Hear, hear.) He felt that he had ready advocates in his brother magistrates of any measure calculated to abate so serious an evil. He called upon them to take into consideration the heavy rates to which the inhabitants of the City were subjected by the too great promptitude to grant orders of removal. He believed that six or seven years ago the whole cost of removals was annually under 200/. In 1842, it amounted to 3,0001, ; and in 1843, it was 2,6661 General complaints had been of late made by those who would, if immediate measures were not adopted, call for a county rate. He (Alder man Copeland) wished the matter to be referred to a Committee, in order that some plan might be devised to remedy or, at least, to abate the evil, the existence of which was palpable to all. The time had arrived for trying the experiment, for the Poor-law Bill was about to undergo some change ; and it was the duty of that Court to suggest some means of preventing the frauds which were, under the circumstances to which he had called the attention of the Court, so frequently played off upon the magistracy of the City.—(Hear, hear.) Alderman Copeland concluded by moving that the whole question be referred to a Committee. Alderman WOOD seconded the motion. He agreed in the view which Alderman Copeland had taken of the question, and he instanced, as two of the frauds Which had been committed upon the magistracy, the cases of an Irishwoman and a Scotchwoman, who came to London to visit their respectable friends, and adopted the econo mical way of returning home by applying for passes.— (A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.') That was not the manner in which the power of removing was to be exercised. Another part of the system of imposition was that which related to the well-known practice amongst the lower order of the Irish, who came over in ' summer to work, remitted all their earnings to their own country, and then, without a farthing in their pockets, applied to be passed home.(Hear, hear.) It was most essential that abuses of such a nature should not be per mitted to exist. Now multitudes who came over and were passed back, came over again and again, and under went the same process as often as they visited London. Conduct of that kind, however, was punishable by law, and any person detected in such a violation of law, could be sent to the House of Correction.—(Hear.) Alderman KELLY confirmed by his evidence the accu racy of the statement made by Alderman Copeland, as to the ill effects of the existing system. The motion was then unanimously agreed to. THE THROWING OPEN OF THE MAYOR'S COURT. Alderman and Sheriff MUSGROVE presented a memo rial to the Court from Mr. W. H. Ashurst, the Chair man of the Secondaries' and the Officers and Clerks' Committee, praying that the Court would appoint a Sub- Committee to confer with the Committees of which he was Chairman, on the subject of the Mayor's Court, with a view to some arrangement, likely to be more be neficial to the public than that which existed under the present constitution of that tribunal. Mr. ASHURST, in supporting his memorial, stated that from the County Courts Bill, which it was expected would pass in the present session of Parliament, all England, with the exception of the City of London alone, would derive great advantage. It was, therefore, necessary that the Corporation should immediately take into consideration the necessity of making an attempt to participate in an improvement from which inattention or neglect might soon altogether exclude them. Alderman MuscaovE moved that the prayer of the memorialist be agreed to. Sir P. LAURIE seconded the motion. The matter had, he .said, assumed an entirely different shape from what it at first appeared to be. Upon the application of certain attorneys to practise in the Mayor's Court, acting on the advice of the Recorder, than whom no man was better qualified to judge, the Court had declined to admit the petitioners. Since that refusal a mandamus had been applied for, and until that question was de cided the Court would not be justified in interfering. He could not, however, see the least objection to a confe rence ; on the contrary, he was convinced that it would lead to the complete protection of the interests of the Corporation. It tappeared by Sir Francis Palgrave's report, that when an attachment was made in the Mayor's Court, and judgment went by default, the plain tiff's costs did not exceed 41., and when the action was defended, the costs, including the expenses of execution, did not exceed 15/. • and in ordinary suits, if the sum to be recovered was above 50/., the costs would be between 121. and 13/. When he saw such anxiety for the public amongst the attorneys, he was put in mind of the importunity with which the wolves asked leave to pro tect the sheep ; and he could not help declaring that he looked upon the application of the gentlemen who had appeared at the bar of the Court as a scheme merely for their own advantage at the expense of the public. He considered that it would be most dangerous to allow every law attorney to use the extraordinary powers of the Court. If such license were given the bankers in the city would very naturally make a move ment to the other side of Temple-bar. The RECORDER strongly advised the Court to agree to a conference, and stated that the Corporation ought to avail itself of every opportunity of sharing in the advantages intended to be bestowed upon the community at large. Alderman WOOD recommended that the prayer of theimemorialist should be granted, and said he could not see what possible objection there could be to go to the Legislature upon the subject. The motion was then agreed to, and, after the trans action of some business of no public interest, the Court adjourned. A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF ALL LIVING NAVAL OFFICERS.—Our readers will observe that a work of great interest and importance to the Service—" A Biographical Dictionary of all Living Officers"—is in course of preparation by W. R. O'Byrne, Esq., , ? . .f Doughty-street, Russell-square: The want of with the rl' of this kind has long been felt • and, in common profession generally, we hail ' Mr. O'Byrn wish announce ment with pleasure and satisfaction. We will him every possible success, and trust this very arduous evince their sense of the value of _ e:s eerely undertaking, by affording him every facilit y Gazette. information.—. Naval and Military ndon, Pegasusy next, THE DERBY.—B ell's Life in t s byin acquiring May 19, will contain : —Form_v r a o ril egy, —lndex Life of last Sunday, a_nd important pre liminary information. Co o n f te of sporting events. An epitome of to the Winner—The Derby Contents May 12, 16 folio columns news, and a hundred advertisements the week's miscellaneous. matters. The insertion of a with sporting chiefly connected inPP.Beell's Bell's Life may be equally beneficial advertisement . single 0 e in some journals. A sixpence, or six to that of h alf-a o -d iL n Clement, junior, 170, Strand, will at penny stamps, t a ll times ensure acopy of Bell's Life by return of po s t . Th e wee kly . sale . of Bell's Life exceeds 20,000 copies. It i s pub lished in time for the Saturday afternoon railways. DEATH or A HIGHLAND BARD.---Alastair Buidhe Mac- lodhair, the celebrated Gmlic bard, died lately at Gair -1 och, Ross-shire. Ile was poet to the lairds of Gairloch, from whom he had a pension, which he enjoyed up till the period of his death. Alastair reached the patriarchal age of eighty-four—a longer term of life than is usually allotted to the poetical tribe. Ile was at a wedding some years ago, when a miserly gentleman, observed that "the bards were extinct." " No," said Alastair, "but those who rewarded them are gone." He may be considered the last of the High land bards, with the solitary exception of the author of "Loch-Aic," Maccoll.—lnverness Courier. The bark harvest, as it is termed, is at this moment being prosecuted with great activity in most of the woods near Keswick, where vast numbers of people are employed in cutting down the young oaks and stripping the trunks and branches of their bark. A FEL&LE LABOURER.—At the corn mill in course of erection by Messrs. Potter, corn merchants, a woman is now working as a bricksetter's labourer. She was formerly a drawer in a coal mine, but is now prevented following that occupation by the recent statute prohibiting boys' and female labour in coal mines. The contractors and architect speak of the very great strength possessed by . her as equal to a man, an the ease with which she carries up a " burn" of bricks or d mortar on her head to the top of the building. The females residing near have expressed their indignation of the step by hooting, but she says she must do it or starve, — Manchester Courier. THE DIVISIONS ON THE FAC TORIES BILL. _ _ . -- - ---- Lord Ashley's proposition was sustained in a division on the 18th of March by 179 to 170, giving a majority of 9 in a House comprising, tellers included, 353 Members. On the 22d of the same month that decision was confirmed by 186 to 183, a majority of 3, when 373 Members voted. The clause having a similar object, negatived en Monday last by 297 to 159, was decided by an assemblage of 460 Members. In the divisions of March 18, or on that of March 22, Lord Ashley was supported by the following 88 Members, whose aid was withheld on Monday last, May 13 : Acland, Thomas Dyke Hollond, Robert Adore, Viscount Hope, Alexander Aldam, William Horsman, Edwa r d Antrobus, Edmund Howard, Hon. C. W. G. Archdall, Captain Mervyn Jocelyn, Viscount Barclay, David Johnstone, Sir John Baskerville, Thomas B. M. Knight, Henry Galls' Beresford, Major Knight, Frederick Winn Berkeley, Hon. Captain Law, Hon. Charles Ewan Blake, Ilfartin J. , Legh, George Cornwall Buller, Charles Leveson, Lord Butler, Hon. Colonel Lindsay, Hugh Hamilton Carew, Hon. R. Shapland Lowther, John Henry Cavendish, Hon. C. C. Macnamara, Major . Cavendish, Hon. G. H. Mahon, Viscount Chetwode, Sir John Mainwaring, Townshend Colville, Charles Robert Martin, John Copeland, Mr. Alderman Marton, George Cresswell, Baker Maxwell, Hon. J. Pierce Currie, Raikes Mordaunt, Sir John Curteis, Herbert Barrett Muntz, George Frederick Dalrymple, Captain Neville, Ralph Davies, David A. Saunders Newport, Viscount Douglas, James D. S. Newry, Viscount Duke, Sir James O'Connell, Daniel Duncombe, Hon. 0. Packe, Charles William Dundas, Admiral . Pakington, John S. Du Pre, C. George Palmer, George Eaton, Richard Jefferson Palmer, Robert Egerton, Sir Philip Pennant, Hon. Colonel Ellice, Edifard Polhill, Frederick . Emlyn, Viscount Praed, William T. Fellowes, Edward Rendlesham, Lord French, Fitzstephen Ross, David Robert Gladstone, Captain Round, Charles Grey Gore, Montagu Ryder, Hon. Granville D. Gore, William R. Ormsby Smith, Abel Goring, Charles Smollett, Alexander Gregory, William Henry Stanton, William Henry Grimston, Viscount Stewart, John Grogan, Edward Sturt, Henry Charles Hall, Sir Benjamin Taylor, James Arthur Hayes, Sir Edmund Trotter, John Hervey, Lord Alfred Vivian, John Henry Of the above list, the following 15 Members recorded Their votes directly in oppposition to the proposition which they had previously supported : Aldatn;William Barclay, David Chetwode, Sir John Currie, Raikes Gore, Montagu Grimston, Viscount Hope, Alexander Knight, Henry Golly Lord Ashley was supported 32 Members, who did not vote vious divisions : Archbold, Robert 'Jervis, John Barnard, Edward George 'Johnson, General Benett, John Lambton, Hedworth Bernal, Captain ' Langton, William Gore Blake, Mark ILay-ard, Captain Blandford, Marquis of iMaher, Nicholas Brisco, Musgrave (O'Connell, Maurice Browne, Robert Dillon !Philipps, Sir R. B. P. Chelsea, Viscount Pryse, Pry se Christie, William Dougal ißedington, Thomas N. Corbally, Matthew Elias ,Seale, Sir John Henry Dundas, David 'Shell, Right Hon. R. Lalor Esmonde, Sir Thomas Smith, Benjamin Heneage, Edward Somers, John Patrick Howard, Sir Ralph Tumor, Christopher Hurst, Robert Henry Watson, William Henry The Ministry were supported on the last division by 107 Members who had not registered their votes on either of the previous occasions. Legh, George Cornwall Martin John Maxwell, John J. Pierce Newry, Viscount Palmer, George Ross, David Robert Trotter, John "on Monday by the following with him on either of the pre- COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen and Prince Albert left Buckingham Palace at half- past three o'clock yesterday afternoon in a carriage and four, escorted by a party of Lancers, for Claremont. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal followed in another carriage and four ; and the Countess of Mount Edgecumbe, Lady in Waiting, Colonel Arbuthnot, Equerry in Waiting, and Colonel Wylde, Equerry in Waiting to Prince Albert, occupied another Royal carriage and four. Her Majesty and Prince Albert were conducted to their carriage by the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, Viscount hawarden and Sir Frederick Stovin the Lord and Groom in Waiting; and the Marquis of Granby and Captain Francis Seymour the Lord and Groom in Waiting to Prince Albert. The Royal Family were taken their accustomed daily air ings yesterday in the Royal Gardens of Buckingham Palace. Colonel Arbuthnot has relieved Colonel Buckley in the du ties of Equerry in Waiting to her Majesty. Her Majesty the Queen Dowager took an airing yesterday afternoon in an open carriage and four. Her Majesty was attended by the Hon. Miss Hudson. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge visited the Queen Dowager yesterday at Marlborough House. The Duke of Cambridge visited her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester yesterday. The Duchess of Cambridge honoured the performance of the French plays with her presence on Monday evening. A deputation of West India proprietors and others, con sisting of Lord Sandon, Sir John Rae Reid, the Agent for Jamaica, Mr. John Gladstone, Mr. Marryat, Mr. Neil Mal colm, Mr. Chlery, Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Miles, M.P., and Mr. Davidson, had an interview with Lord Stanley at the Colonial office yesterday. The Ecclesiastical Commission for England had a meeting yesterday afternoon, at their office in Whitehall-place. The Commissioners present were the Archbishop of Canter bury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop of St. David's, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of Here ford, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Ripon, the Bishop of Salis bury, the Bishop of Worcester, the Lord President of the Council, the Earl of Harrowby, the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Besborough, and the Right Hon. H. Hobhouse. The American Minister had an interview with Lord Stanley yesterday, at the Colonial-office. The Governor of the Bank of England, and the Deputy- Governor, had an interview with Sir R. Peel yesterday. The Bishop of Sodor and Man had an interview with the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone yesterday, at the office of the Board of Trade. Dr. Griffiths, Roman Catholic Bishop, had an interview yesterday with Lord Stanley, at the Colonial-office. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yesterday. Dr. Bayford was heard in reply on an appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone, " Christian Sohst, a citizen of Hamburgh, v. the Queen," relative to the ship Echo. Lord Brougham gave judgment reversing the decision of he Court below. Mr. Kmdersley, Queen's Counsel, was heard on an appeal from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, " Mackenzie v. Teo." Mr. Turner, Queen's Counsel, appeared for the re spondent. The Court rose at four o'clock. MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS. FROM TITS MORNING PAPNRS OF THIS DAY. CITY, TUESDAY EVENING. TIMES.—The premium on gold at Paris is 12 per milk, which, at the English Mint price of 31. 17s. 10/d. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 25 45 ; and the exchange at Paris on London at short being 25 55, it follows that gold is 0.38 per cent. dearer in London than in Paris. By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold is 435 per mark, whi4t, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s. 100. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13 10; and the exchange at Hamburgh on London at short being 13 10, it follows that gold is the same price at Hamburgh and London. The course of exchange at New York on London is 1081 per cent., and the par of exchange between Eng land and America being 109 23-40 per cent., it follows that the exchange is 0.83 per cent. against England. But the quoted exchange at New York being for bills at 60 dityir sight, the interest must be deducted from the above difference. SUN.—The Consol Market closes firmly, in the absence of much disposition to deal. The latest bargains were at 961 to 99i. The unfunded debt remained flat, and there was no alteration in the other securities. Mexican Bonds were 351 Spanish Five per sents. continued at 241 and the Three per Ce-trs.r at Newtaahan 351 ; Chilian Deferred were at 55, a nd - at 77. Portuguese Converted ad van c ed to 46 4 4 and 47f. Shares The additional transactions in Railway have been these :—Eastern Counties Perpetual were 1 ; Great Western Fifths, 9f.; Bi r mingham , 128 ; South- Western Eighths, 4 i ; Croydon, 44 . South-Eastern, 54 to 51 ; and Rouen and H avre, 9f premium. Green wich Preference we re 11 discount. Commercial Bank of London Shares were 25; National Provincial of Eng land, f ; and National of Ireland, 3f discount. London Joint Stock were 44, and London and Westminster, 61 premium. The exchange on Hamburgh was rather better, and also that on Trieste, but on the other leading cities of the Continent the rates were much the same. The following is the official return of the exports of bullion from the port of London for the week. endin g Thursday last : Silver Coin to China 5,000 oz. Bars to Hamburgh 6,000 " Gold Coin to New York 59 " COURSE OF EXCHANGE.-(YESTERDAY.) Amsterdam CF. 12 6 Gibraltar Ditto, at sight l2 4 Leghorn 3O 50 Rotterdam 2U. 12 61, Genoa 25 90 Antwerp 25 95 Milan — Elamburgh M.B. 13 14i Venice Altona l3 15 Naples 39 Paris, 3 days' sight... 25 65 Palermo, per oz ll7 Ditto, 3 months 25 85 Lisbon 531 531 Marseilles Bourdeaux 25 90 Frankfort on Maine 122 Petersburgli, 3Us 364 Berlin 7 Vienna, effes. IL 3 M 954 rieste, ditto Madrid 361 Cadiz 36 Barcelona 36 Seville Oporto Rio Janeiro 23 Bahia 23 Buenos Ayre5.... : ... NewYork,2ldys sight Philadelphia ......... PRICES OF BULLION, PER oz. Foreign Gold, bars. £3 17 9 Portugal Gold Coin 3 17 5 New Doubloons-- 0 0 0 New Dollars 0 4 9i Silver in ears 0 4 11 It is rumoured that the vacancy at the Board of Admiralty, occasioned by the appointment of Rear- Admiral it George Seymour to the naval command in the Pacific, will be filled by Rear-Admiral Bowles, now commanding on the coast of Ireland.. It is also rum oured that the Rear-Admiral will be a candidate for the borough of Launceston, i n the room of Sir henry Hardinge, the new Governor-General of India. TRAFALGAR-SQUARE.—TWO policemen now regu larly keep guard, and their presence checks every attempt at nuisance. The persons who frequent bhe square conduct themselves in the most ordbrly manner, and probably, in a short time, the/ will be able to .do without their keepers. The proprietors of Waterloo bridge would find it to their advantage to adopt the same system, and make 'the bridge, what it formerly was, one of the most delightful resorts in London. Lad the