The Sun. — London, England, 1845-07-09 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1845. an immense field for the profit from this traffic. The slave dealers of Cuba thought themselves fortunate if they could secure one cargo out of six. Since 1814 great efforts had been made by the blockading the rivers, and no doubt great benefit had arisen from the energy which had been used in the course of humanity. They had failed to a certain extent in carrying out the treaties which had been made with other countries. Treaties had been entered into with Holland, Spain, Portu gal, and Brazil, and with several of them negotiations had been eminently successful; had the treaty been carried out to the fullest extent, there would still be the evil of smuggling. Sweden, Denmark, and he was happy to say Portugal, had fulfilled their engagements in the best possible manner. But France, he had no hesitation in saying, had lately entered into a treaty with the Imainn of Muscat for the transferring of slaves to the island of Bourbon. The Brazilian Government had evidently winked at the practice, and it appeared by the return of the colonial authorities, that large numbers of slaves had been imported into the United States. Portugal, by a spontaneous effort, had effectually reduced the number of slaves imported into the colonies. The distinguished man, of whom the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had spoken as exerting his authority when Governor of Cuba, was a noble exception to the general rule, for, excepting him, the Spanish authorities had entirely failed in carrying out the terms of the treaty during twenty-seven years. The efforts of the country would seem to have been feeble, if not altogether useless ; but, since the correspondence that had taken place in 1839, the progress had been consi derable ; and the years 1841 and 1842 showed a large reduction in the negroes transported to the South American districts. There had been a very beneficial change in the Brazils, he was aware, since the measures of the Govern ment, of which he had been a member, had been carried out. But still much care would be requisite to effectually reduce the evil of which all united to complain. Yet he had no fear but that, with even common regard to the general interests of the world, the suppres sion of the slave trade would be almost, if not entirely, accom plished. It was unfair to say that their measure had failed, for at various times causeshad arisen which hadled to the removal of our slave cruisersfromtheirregular stations; and this practice had tended to give an impetus to the slave trade. Our operations in China in 1839 and 1840 led to the removal of the squadron engaged on the coast of Africa, and the present engagements or Government in the River Plate had compelled them to divert their cruisers from the coast. All these things had tended materially to interfere with the full operation of our naval police, and therefore it was that he did declare that the system had been fairly tried and found to be defective. The fact was it was their rickety cruisers that were defective, and not the system, for they had vessels upon the coast which were such slew sailers that they could catch nothing. Unless, there fore, the naval police was inspected by constables who could run, instead of those old charlies, who could do nothing, in fact, unless they applied the new police to Africa, he was afraid it would be in vain for them to think that the country would place any confidence in our cruisers engaged in sup pressing the slave trade. The country now held treaties with foreign Powers, binding them to discountenance the traffic— treaties sanctioning the right of search, and treaties binding foreign chiefs not to sell slaves, but the late Commission had entirely denied to the country the privilege of enjoying the power of the right of search. This was the result of a ne gotiation between this country and France, which ne gotiation had led to the appointment of th e Commission to which he had just alluded. The Commision examined naval officers connected with both countries touching this matter of the right of search, and it was evident the examination took place with a view of seeing whether this right was or was not essential for the effectual suppression of the slave trade. But be that as it might, the Commission did examine officers, both English and French, and he knew nothing of what those officers said, except what he had gleaned from the common rumours of the day. He had, however, been informed, and, he believed it, because it was natural that many of these officers, beth English and French, had stated to the Commission that they considered it material that the right of search was indispensably necessary to render the naval police engaged in suppressing the slave trade effective. He said, then, as a treaty was to be based upon this evidence, they had a right to have it produced, and he could conceive nothing which could justify the Government in withholding it from the coun try. At all events, however, whatever reason s they might urge against the production, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the matter. It might be said, however, that the production of the evidence would be injurious to the public bat he confessed he could not agree in such an opinion; and, without meaning any disrespect to the Government, he must say he did not believe such a declaration would be believed by anybody. Now, in what way was this evidence likely to affect the country? It might, in the first place, contain state ments and facts relative to the stratagems resorted to by traders in slaves. Well, bad not the papers which had been annually published on the subject done the same, and instead of injuring the public service it had benefited it? In the second place, this evidence might contain suggestions from these officers as to the means which ought to be adopted for defeating these stratagems, and he for one denied that these suggestions could prove injurious in the slightest degree to the public service. 'Then, in the third place, these officers might have entertained strong national feelings, and made statements which might, if published, give rise to the existence of differences between the two countries. He did not think, however, that such serious consequences c mid result from the production of this evidence, and still he thought that the House had a right to know what was the opinion of the officers who had been examined. They had a right to know what were their feelings with respect to this treaty. The Government may feel a great reluctance to pro duce that which may give them an opportunity to condemn them, but still they ought to feel it their duty to produce that evidence. The treaty abolished now and for ever the whole right cf search. They were giving up a most useful power for the accomplishment of that purpose which both England and France professed to desire, namely, the abolition of the 'slave trade. It had been given up without obtaining an equivalent measure. In the fifth year of the ten years during which this treaty was to continue the skill and dexterity of the French was exercised to put an end to the treaty. He thought that Iheic skill and dexterity was deserving of praise, but he was sorry that it should be exercised in so bad a purpose. So that at the end of ten years, unless the feelings and opinions of France should entirely change, and unless France should come back to the desire to engage in a mutual right of search, there would be an end to the engagement. The right of search was not of any value whatever to England for any object except for the suppression of the slave trade. The agreement was an inconvenience that they willingly submitted to on both sides, because they thought it conducive to the great object of humanity. But as to the idea of its being conducive in any way to the English interest, ex cept to the interest of abolishing the slave trade, it was per fectly absurd. The clamour of the Government abandoning this right of search, was a clamour arising from the slave traders not only in France, but in the Brazils and in Cuba. It was stated that in Cuba the slave-traders raised subscriptions fn. abusing the English in the French newspapers. It was a clamour raised for interested purposes, by parties who were inclined in favour of the continuation of the slave trade. He thought that all the clamour arising out of this matter attached to the Government. The Right Hon. Baronet would not inquire who was to blame, or to whom it was to attach. The Duke of Wellington, in his address in 1841, said that he quite concurred in the course which they had adopted, and that there would be ne diffi ulty in carrying out tha policy. They had the approval of the rest of the Gevern meet. The French and English agreed to form two squadrons. one from each country, fur the suppression of the slave trade on certain parts of the coast of Africa. The right of search was then more extensive, as it comprised the West Indies, the coast of Brazil, the western coast of Africa, and a radius round the island of Madagascar. They were to have twenty six vessels each. He (Lord Palmerston) called for a return, some time ago, of the vessels of each country having warrants for the suppression of the slave trade, and found that the num ber of French vessels having warrants from the English Government for that purpose, amounted only to the number of fifty-two, and the English vessels having warrants from the French Government amounted to fifty-four, and those fifty-two vessels were not equal to fifty-two vessels of the old style. These vessels were of no use except for their own country. The slave-traders had the opportunity of obtaining flags and papers from any country they wished. When a French cruiser met one of those traders, the slave-trader then produced her English flags and papers, and it was supposed by the French vessel that all was right, and it passed on after having seen the papers. In the same way the slave-trader could deceive the English trader by hoisting French colour: and ex hibiting French papers, so that, unless the French and Eng lish were like the Siamese twins, and hunted in couples, it was impossible that many of these slave-traders could not escape. And there had been lately a treaty entered into by the French Government with the African Princes on the eastern coast for the transmission of slaves to the Isle of Bourbon. He did not know to what extent the treaty entered into by this country with the Imaum of Muscat, who was our friend, was interfered with by the French treaty with the I iaaurn. Much had been said of the horrors of the middle pas sage. Certainly the middle passage was horrible. Its horrors were not exaggerated in the description. But they were nothing to be compared with the horrors of the slave trade on the east coast. The Noble Lord read an extract from returns relating to the east coast of Africa, of which we could collect no snore from his reading than that they were in all respects frightful to humanity. Out of one hundred miserable captives, not more than eight reached their distination.—( Hear, hear. He asked why it was that France in making this treaty was not required to abandon her participation in this branch of the trade? In his ( Lord Palmerston's) negotiations, that slave trade by the coast was made by the French authorities a par ticular exception.—( Hear, hear.) He could not understand how her Majesty's Government, with all these facts before them, had not taken measures to repress this horrible traffic. The'Noble Lord then read extracts from a report in which it was stated, that the slaves who had been so much weakened by the voyage, as to be unable to prosecute the land travel to the utmost, were left upon the shore until the waves of the sea would clo them that mercy which man had denied them, by shortening their sufferings.—( Hear, hear.) He considered that the treaties bound France not to enter into any treaties with chiefs in latitudes between 15 N. and 16 S. He did not think that the French had faithfully followed out that part of the treaty. Although he did not approve of that portion of the treaty, he would have felt s wne satisfaction if he had found that the French had acted upon it. They had not done so.-- (I Lear, hear.) He objected also to the clause which enabled a cruiser of the one country to prevent the mercantile vessels of the other to enter into the bight or bay, whilst the cruiser re mained there. He contended that, in the whole of the treaty, he found little to satisfy him. The Noble Lord then read the preamble of the treaty, in which, he said, it was stated by enfesence that the t British flag was used for the con tinuance of the slave trade. That statement was a foul calumny upon the British flag and the British people.-- -(Hear, hear.) He never would put his name to that treaty which cast so calumnious an imputation upon the British name, .and 30 foul a stain upon the British flag. The clause 9 stipu. lated that her Britannic Majesty would not allow the slave trade to be carried on in her colonies. The meaning of that clause was that there was a probability that slavery would be renewed in her Majesty's colonies.—( Hear, hear.) He, for ,one, would have died before he set his hand to a treaty so dis gracefel to the country. He had stated so far his reasons for objecting to the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) He would now refer shortly to the Parliamentary papers, with which Honour able .Members must be familiar. He was sure that those papers would show, on the part of the Go vernment—not to say neglect—but, at least, great apathy. The Governors-General of the colonies were in possession of the facts relating to the landing of negroes, the arriv a l o f s l ave vessels, and other such practices, in contravention of treaties, but though cognisant of their existence they took no steps to prevent them. The Governor of the island of St. Jago de Cuba, when informed of the continuance of the most illegal practices, finding the representations of the Consul-General rather irksome, looked into some old laws enacted about the year 1760, and announced that colonies allowed Consuls only to act commercially. When, therefore, he heard the complaint, he replied he was sorry to hear it, but that the Consuls had nothing to do with it. The Consul at St. Jago de Cuba, however, chose to do his duty, and reported to the Government at home, who passed their censure upon him for not informing the Government of the province. Orders ewer. sent out to that Government to receive the documents of the Consul ; but it being the fashion to treat Eng. 3and with contempt, both that and the parent Government at (pain merely replied by reference to the old law of Consulate is Spain. Thos, the Consul had applied to the Government in England, the Goverment in England to that of Madrid, the Covernment of Madrid to that of Cuba, and the result was a reply from the Governor-General of Cuba that the circumstances had occurred a year ago, and yore entirely forgotten, To that rude answer by the Spanish Government no reply had been made by the British Govern- , ment, which had, in conseque nce, become the laughing-stock of the whole island of Cuba. With regard to the practices at Surinam, five or six thousand s l a ves who had hien carried there for sale were entitled to their freedom. Th Chief Ad vocate denied their assertion, but he affirmed it, and though it might seem presumptuous to dispute the opinions of a law officer of the Crown, he would fearlessly declare it was as bad in law as in principle. A demand had been made of the Dutch Government for inquiry into the practices resorted to at that island ; the reply, although more civil than that of the Governor-General of Cuba, and though the officer did not return the letters of the Consul, the judge de clared that the latter had nothing to do with the judicial circumstances of the country. The Government of the Hague, when referred to, had taken no notice of the affair. He (Lord Palmerston) would not trouble the House by multi plying instances of a similar character, all evincing the feeble ness in remonstrance, and apathy in representation, by the Government. The Right Hon. Baronet would probably ask why he did not specifically accuse the Government of bringing forward a resolution of censure. It was very well for a Minis ter, with a majority of one hundred in a full, and a propor tionate preponderance in a thin House, to meet a question of such importance, by defying the minority ; he (Lord Palmer ston) did not, therefore, appeal to the House. The majority could not be persuaded by argument, and though occasionally expressing their dissent from the views of their leader on any question where party was materially concerned, would rally in a phalanx and support the Administration.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He, therefore, addressed himself to the people of this country. He appealed to the nation at large. They entertained a reciprocal feeling on the slave trade ; and let them reme mber the lessons taught in history, that the crimes of nations seldom failed of meeting with their just punishment.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir R. Inglis.) Men in general attributed disasters to immediate cause or effect contiguous to the times ; the more philosophical mind traced such visitations to a just and retributive Pro vidence, punishing national crime.—( Cheers.) The people of England would not be doing their duty if they did not urge and encourage the Government, without endangering the peace of the country or perilling a failure, in putting down those abominable and accursive crimes connected with slave traffic. Sir R. PEEL said, towards the close of his speech the Noble Lord opposite doubted the utility of taking a vote of that House. As he had done him the discourtesy of saying he should disbelieve the statement which he (Sir R. Peel) would make in reply, he would return the compliment, and unhesitatingly tell the Noble Lord that he did not believe the reasons assigned for his declining to take the sense of the House.—(Loud laughter.) It was not from a fear of being vanquished by a Government majority, but from a knowledge that many who were his usual supporters would desert him on the present occa sion. —(Cheers.) And he would state, moreover, and prove that a better means of putting an end to the odious system of the slave trade had been effected by the convention entered into by the present Government, with the second power in Europe, than by the convention of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord began by stating that the treaty lately entered into enabled France to take the subjects of the Imaum of Muscat and bring them into slavery, and that the reason of the refusal of France to enter into the treaty of 1841 entirely arose from the circumstance of that treaty putting an end to the abominable traffic. He thought the Noble Lord should not deal in such insinuations. He thought that they would not tend to allay that irritable state of feeling which had for some time unhappily existed be tween the two countries.—( Hear, hear.) He should not, in referring to the Imaum of Muscat, make statements. He ad mitted that great precautions were necessary, and those pre cautions were taken. From Zanzebar they learned that slaves were removed in large barges. Every inquiry, however, would be made whether such conduct on the part of France was com patible with the treaty which had been lately entered into. The Noble Lord ought to have read on further. He took only what suited his argument, and left out those passages in the pamphlet which bore against it. Lord PALMERSTON denied that he omitted anything. Sir R. PEEL begged the Noble Lord's pardon. He did not read the passage which referred to the slaves being taught trades. He was not sufficiently acquainted himself with the subject to pronounce a positive opinion on the various circum stances of the case, but the conclusion which the Noble Lord wished the House to come to, in reference to it, was very different from that which the actual state of the case warranted. Then the Noble Lord referred to the conduct of the Government in its negotiations with Spain. The Noble Lord said that they showed tameness in those communications. Now he would read them a specimen of the tameness with which they were charged. The Right Hon Gentleman then read an extract from a dis patch which Lord Aberdeen wrote to Mr. Bulwer, the Am bassador at Madrid, in which he tells him to convey to the Spanish Government that the Government of England were well acquainted with the bribes which the authorities in Cuba were receiving for their connivance at the infamous traffic, with the sum that was received for each slave—that if such conduct were persisted in, the treaty of 1835 would become void, and that General O'Donnell must be re-called. Now, he would ask, was that an instance of tameness ? Having now disposed of Surinam, the case of the Imaum of Muscat, General Donnell's conduct, and the indignity evinced to our own Consul, he would now proceed to address himself to the main point aimed at in the Noble Lord's (Palmerston) speech—he meant the treaty lately entered into with France. His belief was, that a more wise or prudent, as well as a more effectual mode, could not be adopted for the suppression of the slave trade. Was the Noble Lord prepared to say that the refusal of France to enter into the treaty of 1841 was in c insequence of a desire to encourage the slave trade ? The Noble Lord said so. He agreed that it was an imprudent act. The Noble Lord challenged him to an in quiry as to the cause of that refusal. In 1842, 1843, and 1844, the objection to that ratification was recorded by the Chamber of Deputies of France. How, then, could the Noble Lord state that it was the clamour of the slave trade which brought about that refusal? He thought that the right of search was objected to from the irritable state of the public mind. The Noble Lord referred to the aid which he received from himself and the gentlemen on that side of the House for the suppression of the slave trade. He should not then make that support a matter for reproach to them now. For his own part he did not want to inquire—he gave his full concurrence to everything that might put an end to the ini quitous traffic. He must, however, do the King of that country the justice to say that he did not believe he approved of the course which the constitution or representatives of France had adapted en that occasion. He thought that the question would have been materially al tered if the Executive Government, having signed the treaty, had sought the means of escaping from the obligation of that treaty. The question was, was the reason assigned for the non ratification an honest one, namely, the control and influence exercised by a popular assembly. He believed that it was, al though he thought they had a decided right to remonstrate. After the debate in the French Chamber M. Guizot proposed that the protocol should be left open, and that modifications should be made in the treaty. This Government peremp torily declined acceding to that proposal, as far as the modifications were concerned. The Noble Lord had said that they had tamely yielded without a remonstrance. Lord Aberdeen, in writing to Lord Cowley, on February 12th, 1840, said that the recent decision as to the non-ratification by France of the treaty appeared to her Majesty's Government to injuriously to pregnant with mischief , an d would o p erate more to the lawful exercise of the royal prerogative of France than any event which had taken place for many years, and that it would be the means of distrust being engendered against France by the other three Powers who were the contracting part'es in the treaty. This was what Lord Aberdeen said, and yet the Noble Lord said that there had been no re monstrance. Then, as far as regarded the modifica tions, Lord Aberdeen said, " the proposed alterations in themselves are confessedly of little value." It was proposed by France to make slight modifications for the purpose of con ciliating the public feeling in France. The answer of Lord Aberdeen was, " the proposed alterations are confessedly of little value, but they involved a great principle." Now, he ( Sir R. Peel) thought that he had demonstrated that the ac cusation of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) was clearly without foundation. The French Government refused to ratify the treaty of 1841. The treaty, however, was ratified by the other Powers, and it was now binding upon them. The refusal of France to ratify that treaty left the relations of this country and France, as far as regarded the slave trade, depending on two conventions which were entered into, the one in 1831, and the other in 1833. He need not for his present purposes allude more particularly to the treaty of 1833, as it was supplementary to the treaty of the year 1831. The treaty of 1833 merely defined the zsnes within which the right of search was to be exercised. The treaty of 1831 did not give such a right of search. He felt most strongly that the provi visions of the recent convention were more effectual fur the suppression of the slave trade than those of the treaty of 1831. He presumed it would be admitted that the right of search per se was not a good thing for the country. The value of it depended upon its efficiency for the suppression of the slave trade. It was required for no other purpose. It was not asked for the purpose of giving an advantage to our co lonies, nor was it asked as a triumph over France. All that it was asked for was, as an efficacious instrument for the sup pression of the slave trade. What was the convention of the year 1831 ? That convention established a reciprocal right of search. It was not a universal right of search, as the right was limited, on the west coast of Africa, to that part which extended from Cape Verde to about 15 of north lati tude to 10 of south latitude. That part of the coast of Africa was not the only point where the slave trade was carried on. The slave trade was carried on between Africa and the Brazils several degrees below the tenth. The convention, therefore, was not perfect. It gave no right of search in certain parts of the coast of Africa. The Imaum of Muscat could be reached for instance. Captain PECHELL—There is Madagascar. Sir R. PEEL would state the whole effect of the treaty. The right of search was given to twenty leagues from Mada gascar. The treaty did not stipulate that France should keep up a number of vessels, and France might therefore refuse to keep up any vessels. This country, therefore, under those cir cumstances, was almost powerless in the right of search. The warrants authorising the right of search were annually renew able. In 1831 the Noble Lord asked the French Government 'o consent to an unlimited right of search, but they refused to do so. The Noble Lord proposed upon that, that each Govern ment should furnish a number of cruisers, and that the cruisers of each country should furnish the others with warrants to be in force for the search of vessels for three years. The Noble Lord had said it appeared that this partial and tem porary experiment might prove extremely useful. Instead of three years' duration of warrants, the time was limited to one year. The French Government was to limit the number of cruisers employed by the English Government to their own number. The convention was dated on the 7th April, 1831, and was signed on the 30th. The Noble Lord approved of the substitution of one year for three years. The Noble Lord did also at the same time make a most important communication to the French Government, to the effect that, if they would not consent to a general right of search , they should send cruisers to the coast of Africa to co-operate with the Engl sh cruisers. There could be no reason to doubt that the united efforts of England and France would be attended with success. The Noble Lord told the Government of France that the con vention of 1831 was a partial experiment, to be held within the control of both Governments, and he also informed the French Government that if they would seed a sufficient number of cruisers to co-operate with the English cruisers, there was little doubt that the united efforts of the two countries would speedily put an end to the slave trade. Now he (Sir R. Peel) wished to contrast the advantages which would be derived under the present convention with those which had resulted from the old convention. He admitted, with the Noble Lord that, when their new treaty should come into operation the right of search was nominally relinquished. He would mquire for what was the right of search made ? Was it in order to search French ships ? It could be truly asserted that no French subjects carried on the slave trade in French ships. If they did, he admitted that they had lost the right of search, under the new convention. But he would maintain that the carrying on of the slave trade by subjects of France was virtually at an end. He made this assertion on the statement of Mr. Homily, who had made a return of all the vessels belonging to all na tions engaged in the slave trade since 1819. They amounted to 6,398, and of this number there were only 13 which were French vessels, employed by French subjects ; and, further, of these 13 vessels there were eleven which were included between the years 1819 and 1831. Since the year 1831 there had been only two cases, according to Mr. Romilly, of French vessels carrying on the slave trade. The two vessels to which he had alluded were named the Sennaar Sambre and the Marathon ; and those were the only two vessels belonging to French owners which had been condemned in any court as having been connected with the slave trade. He therefore consi dered he was justified in saying that the right of search, for the purpose of preventing the occupation of French vessels in the slave trade, was no longer necessary ; but this did not extend to the abolishment of the right of search with regard to vessels of other nations bearing the French flag ? He would proceed to compare the convention of 1845 with that of 1831. The convention of 1831 was limited in its operation along the coast of Africa from Cape Verde to the 10th degree of south latitude, whereas the present convention included the whole of the west coast of Africa in which the slave trade was carried on, from the 15th degree of north lati tude to the 10th degree of south latitude; consequently, we had under this treaty, six degrees more of the African coast subject to the operation of this convention than that which had been subject to the convention of 1831. The instructions which the English Government had given to the cruisers con ♦eyed distinct authority to exercise that right of visit which had been sanctioned by the law of nations. These instructions were confirmed by the present convention. It contained an admis sion on the part of France that the English cruisers had a right to visit those vessels falsely bearing the French flag, perfectly unaffected by the convention, to ascertain the national cha racter of those vessels. He would now address himself to the question whether, under the present convention, there existed efficacious means of preventing the abuse of the French flag by other countries. With regard to this matter the French law was a much more stringent one than the English. He was speaking now of the power to visit vessels bearing the French flag. He had admitted that right under the present treaty. The French law distinctly authorised any French officer who should descry a vessel under suspicious cir cumstances, bearing the French flag, in boarding that vessel, in order to ascertain the nation to which it belonged. The persons engaged in the slave trade were generally persons who committed acts of piracy. Under the French law it was con sidered piracy for any vessel to have double sets of papers. Other small ineongl cities are held under the French law to constitute acts of piracy. The instructions of the French Go vernment authorised French officers to apply this law of piracy to vessels engaged in the slave trade. There were now 54 vessels on the coast of Africa engaged by the two Govern ments in the suppression of the slave trade. He admitted that the French cruisers had not the same powers as the British cruisers as respected the right of search. The French Government did not possess the power of visiting vessels belonging to the Spanish and Brazilian ' Governments, and therefore the British cruisers in this respect have greater authority. The French cruisers with regard to vessels belonging to Spain and Brazil would remain precisely the same as respected their right of search as before. He would ask, would not the assistance of 26 cruisers, co-operating with the English cruisers, be taking an effectual precaution to the assumption of the French flag by the slave-traders of other countries ? The Noble Lord had said he approved of that part of the convention which provided for the destruction of the barracoons on the African coast. He had expressed his ap. probation of that part of the treaty. The whole burden of the expense of putting an end to the slave trade had fallen hitherto on this country. The Noble Lord had said that this constant burden borne singly by this country had tended gradually to diminish our force on the African coast, and that in consequence the slave trade had increased, and had received a stimulus which now rendered it difficult to be restrained. They took the precaution, with the consent of France, that there should be never less than fifty-two cruisers to blockade that part of the coast of Africa where the slave trade was carried on, and otherwise to give effect to the treaty entered into between the two greatest and most powerful maritime nations of western Europe. The Noble Lord had asked a question as to what was the meaning of the preamble of the treaty of 1845, and had expressed an opinion that it was disgraceful to the country. He ( Sir Robert Peel), in answer to that, would say that the preamble of the convention merely set forth that the old arrangements for the suppression of the slave trade between France and England being found inefficacious for the suppression of that trade that therefore a new convention had been agreed to. The Noble Lord denied that the treaty which had been agreed to had anything to do with the suppression of the slave trade. But what were the terms of the treaty of 1831? In the con vention of 1831 the conditions were precisely the same as those contained in the convention of 1845. Whatever difficulty might be found in the latter the chief responsibility lay with the Noble Lord, for he had made the difficulty in the arrangements he entered into in 1831. The convention of 1845 was not necessary for the suppression of the English slave trade. That was suppressed long ago ; but it was required for general purposes—for the object of putting down the slave trade sanctioned by other countries. The Noble Lord, in the treaty of 1831, set forth that the Courts of Great Bri tain and France, considering that measures were necessary for the more effectual suppression of the slave trade, agreed to con elude a convention for that salutary purpose, so that French vessels should be allowed to search English vessels that might be suspected of being engage' in the slave trade, and that English vessels should he allowed to do the same in return. The provisions of this treaty were the same in their general purport to the one now concluded, and of which the Noble Lord complained so much. The Noble Lord wanted him (Sir Robert Peel) to explain the third article of the convention. The object of that article was, that certain stations on the coast of Africa should be supplied by French and English vessels, according to the proximity of those stations to the colonies of these two countries—English vessels to he placed contiguous to the stations belonging to the English Govern ment, and French vessels to those belonging to the Govern ment of that country. But it was further necessary that power should be given for English cruisers to enter French stations, as they had more efficacious means of suppressing the slave trade. Spanish or Portuguese vessels might be engaged in the traffic, and these the French vessels had not the power to search, whereas the English vessels had, and hence it was that a provision of this sort, was necessary to give effect to this object of the con vention. He trusted that this explanation would be satis factory to the Noble Lord. It was only to enable them in certain stations in the occupation of the French to enter at discretion, and to exercise superior powers, which did not belong to the other country. The whole convention was based on the dis tinct understanding that neither country should be engaged in the slave trade. The Noble Lord had endeavoured to show that France was engaged in the slave trade, and yet he objected to a reciprocal engagement between the two countries that the slave trade should not be entered upon or encouraged by either. So far from the convention implying any dishonour on this country, it was the contrary. It was entered into solely from the merciful and humane consideration of suppressing the slave trade ; and they had the assurance from France of its cordial co-operation in that important object. For this purpose the powers agreed to were such as to supply a more extensive line of coast with cruisers, and to give greater powers of search than were provided for in the old treaty ; and for this purpose the present convention was entered upon with the cordial goodwill of France, and from the consideration that it would prove a more efficient instrument for the sup. pressioa of the slave trade, and provide a more full and valua ble remedy than what had been provided in the instrument of 1831. ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord bad asked why the evidence on which the treaty was founded had not been pro duced and placed in the hand. of Honourable Members. He (Sir R. Peel) could assure the Noble Lord that it had not been withheld, except upon the most mature consideration. The evidence had been given by French and English officers who had been engaged on the coast of Africa, and as it referred to matters connected with the whole proceedings of the slave trade, which he considered it impolitic to make public, his duty to the public compelled him to adhere to his declaration in an swer to a question put by the Noble Lord, to withhold the evidence altogether. The convention had been concluded on the part of the two countries by two men of high standing in their respective conventions —men of the greatest integrity, worth, and honesty of purpose both in their public and private character, but above all in their opposition to the disgusting slave trade—men who throughout their lives had been engaged in continued efforts to put down the detestable trade in slaves. —( Hear, hear.) Dr. Lushington, who throughout his life had been opposed to the political views of the present Ministry, had, nevertheless, been chosen as the one party, from his known an 1 consistent opposition to the traffic in question ; and the Duke de Broglie, who stood equally high and consistent on the other side for his long, tried, and highly honourable exertions. These were the men chosen to make the regula tions for the suppression of this nefarious traffic, and they had signed the treaty between the two countries, which, in his opinion, was the most powerful ever yet devised for the suppression of the slave trade.—( Hear. ) He thought the convention had been recommended to the House, so far as authority was concerned, by the highest which could give it weight. It was also recommended to the House by the application of reason to its provisions, and contrasted favourably on this head with previous conventions. But it was still more powerfully recommended by these considerations— that they had every assurance of carrying it into full effect, they had the cordial consent and co-operation of the most power ful maritime country in the world, with the exception of Eng land. if they wished to rely on the letter of the treaty of 1831 let them depend upon it they could net have that cordial co operation which was the life and soul of engagements of this kind; they certainly had a right to expect the literal execu tion of that treaty, but, in his opinion, the example of a con cert between France and England would add great force and weight to the execution of measures for the suppression of the slave trade, such as they would look for in vain in the letter of treaties—they would have with them the feel ings of a great people and their legislature—the feelings of the public mind on the one band, whereas, were the strict letter of the treaty to be enforced, the national sympathy would be thrown, not on the side of the suppressors of the slave trade, but would be excited in favour of those who carried it on. Those feelings, he repeated, which would be under present circumstances excited in favour of humanity, would be neu tralised by stirring up the question of the right of search. The treaty of 1831 might be maintained—might be executed, but he looked forward with confidence to the cordial and harmo nious concert of the two countries, rather than to the mere letter of an engagement, which seemed opposed to the general feeling of the people of France. That treaty might certainly be carried into effect, but in the present state of the public mind it could not be with that unanimity and determination which could alone give force to engagements of this kind. Mr. SHEIL said the question before the House was, whether the names of those who gave evidence before the mixed British and French Commission was to be produced. But much collateral matter, chiefly referring to the Imam of Muscat, had been introduced, as well as the state of the slave trade in Cuba. The Right Hon. Gentleman, who twitted his Noble Friend that he had not read the documents relative to the Imaum of Muscat, did not himself seem to have perused a portion of it closely referring to the allegations of the Noble Lord. These were the concluding words of that document : " It appears to us that the treaty, as far as regards the sup pression of the slave trade may do mischief (the treaty with France) as it will keep up the coasting trade in slaves." This passage must have escaped the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet, otherwise he would no doubt have read it to the House. But the Right Hon. Gentleman should read the dispatch from the Earl of Aberdeen, which was couched in strong, almost peremptory language, and which referred to General O'Donnell, whose conduct, whose habit of acquisi tiveness characterised him. That dispatch was dated Feb. 1844. But General O'Donnell was still Governor of Cuba, so that the remonstrance of Lord Aberdeen had not yet been at tended with any practical efficacy. He did not see the use of the threat of Lord Aberdeen, unless it was followed by some practical effect.—( Hear, hear.) But he turned to the real question before the House. He had been greatly struck by one assertion made by bis Noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) and waited with impatience for its confutation. He stated that not only was it currently reported, but universally believed that the officers who had been examined before the mixed Commission had stated that a surrender of the right of search would be most prejudicial. He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet would have endeavoured to answer that statement ; but no contradiction had been made. His Noble Friend was entitled to call for evidence relative to that part of the case. He only asked for extracts. He (Mr. Sheil) had read his notiee with attention. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that much of the evidence taken referred to the coast of Africa—to the relations between England and France in reference to Africa, and that it was inconsistent with the public service to produce that part of the evidence—it was not inconsistent with those relations to exercise the right of search, which was the real point at issue.—( Hear, hear.) And instead of that ratiocination of which they had heard so much—instead of the comparison between the treaty of 1841 and the convention of 1845, instead of passing encomiums on the Duke de Broglie and just praises upon Dr. Lushington, it was better to give the evidence of the officers on which it was pre sumed the convention had been founded.—( Hear. ) In the course of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman a Gallant Friend behind him (Captain Pechell) repeated the words " West Indies."' The treaty of 1831 extended to the West Indies. The convention was limited to the coast of Africa ; but on that part of the case he did not touch. The treaty of 1831 gave the right of search in the West Indies—it gave it to Cuba...to the whole coast 0 the Brazils—it gave it to those points where the slave trade raged.—( Hear. ) The treaty extended to Madagascar, from which a large supply of slaves were obtained, and where that traffic was carried on to a frightful extent. Between the treaty of 1831 and the conven tion of 1835 there was a great difference, as the latter treaty gave greater geographical advantages to those with whom it was contracted. In the treaty of 1842 the right of search was introduced, and the Queen, in a speech delivered by her on the 3d of February, in that year, said it gave her great satisfaction to inform the Legislature that she had concluded treaties with the Emperor of Austria, the King of the French---(Hear, hear) —the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, for the prevention of the slave trade ; and Lord Dalhousie, a member of the present Government, expressed a hope, in a speech which he made at that period, that the consequence of the treaty with France would be the extinction of the slave trade. Instead of sub mitting to alterations in the treaty of 1841, they should not have allowed the superstructure to be touched, yet they allowed the base on which that superstructure was raised to be rooted out. The Duke de Broglie, the French Minister, stated, in 1843, in a speech in the French Chambers, that he was the party who had signed the treaties of 1831 and 1833, that the French, in return for these obligations, asked no more than that she should not extend this odious traffic. The Duke de Broglie said the treaty was just—that no evil could arise—and that it would be of the greatest good. The name of Lushington was allied with great learning, high-minded ness, benevolence, and humanity, and he could not mention it but with respect.—(Hear, hear.) When they found that the treaty of 1841 had been successful, why was it to be aban doned? This was his (Mr. Sheil's) answer to what the Right Hon. Gentleman urged with regard to the comparative merits of the treaty of 1831 and the convention of 1843. There were also objections to that treaty. They stipulated that France should maintain a squadron of twenty-six ships on the deep, whose quarter-decks wore to be constructed into floating ports of the Admiralty. But his great and prominent objec tion to the: convention was this : by the convention, an Eng lish sloop-of-war might seise a French sloop, confiscate her and her cargo, give light and liberty to the human beings con fined in it. But what was the case now ? After the treaty of 1845, what would happen ? From the topmast of an English frigate a barque is seen in the dis tance. Her purpose is observed; she is pursued, despite her swiftness. She is overtaken, she is almost doomed, when suddenly the tri-colour is raised. She will pursue her course uninterrupted to Cuba or Havannah, and the mariners of Eng land, struck with enthusiasm, will have to deprecate the con tract by which a crime so monstrous has been allowed to go un punished ?—( Hear, hear.) This would be the result of their convention, and it would lead other nations to say that the treaty would be incompatible with their honour. Not even the treaty of Utrecht would relieve them from the stigma which had been cast upon them.—( Hear.) Sir ROBERT HARRY INGLIS complimented the Noble Lord for the able and satisfactory way in which he had brought forward the subject. In diplomatic relations between independent nations, a single word in the preamble of a treaty must compromise a principle which no statesman ought to con cede to another power. He felt with the Noble Lord the Mem ber for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) that the words in the pre amble of the treaty justified the construction which he had put on it—( Hear, hear) —simply that the con vention of 1831 and 1833 was to prevent the flags of England and of France from covering the slave trade. The Noble Lord had actually been active in spreading that slave trade, which he termed "odious," in several parts of the world ; and as to the Imaum of Muscat, he was the individual who had first signed any treaty for the suppression of slavery, and he trusted the example set by that potentate would be followed by the ministers and sovereigns of other countries. With re spect, also, to the island of Trinidad, evidence could be ad duced to show the necessity for the supply of labourers, or the unscrupulousness with which they might be supplied. He had made these statements for the purpose of showing that his as sertions were well-founded, and he said something like the slave trade was now going forward.—(" Hear, hear," from the Treasury Benches.) Two Right Hon. Baronets had cheered that sentence. Well, he would request their attention to a letter which he had received from Gloucester, a village near Sierra Leone, and dated April 23, 1845, a letter, he might premise written subsequent to the receipt of the discussion of the subject in that House. In that letter, among other matters, they were told that the free labourers were inclosed in a great stone-yard, and that the agent on entering was greeted with loud cheers, so degraded were the feelings of these unhappy persons. Their friends, and many of them, might be waiting outside and not allowed to see them. He did not know whether these statements had reached the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, but he supposed they had reached him at the same time they had been received by himself, and, if so, he trusted and expected that some explanation would be given. Sir C. NAPIER fully agreed both with the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) and the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat dwelt, that the present system of the slave trade and its virtual recognition, if not support, by the treaties—plausibly, but fallaciously, denominated the " right of search"—demanded investigation. What had they given up—the right of search, so that the main business of the treaty had been lost sight of. What, then, had they got in return for the right of search. They had got 26 vessels from France to act in concert with 26 vessels from Great Biitain on the coast of Africa, and to teach the French, as the Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon had very eloquently stated, all those arts by which naval superiority is attained, and to make there a home upon the deep. But did they not think that the right of visit would be as great a source of difficulty as the right of search. What could an officer do if he saw a vessel on the coast of Africa but send his boat and overhaul that vessel, whatever might be the colours which he carried? Now, what were the instructions which had been given?—they were, in his opinion, much more fit for a drawing-room than for the cabin of a man of war. The Gallant Commodore then read the in structions, one of which was to avoid anything like a collision, but, if the weather would permit, to send a boat ahead in order to ascertain whether the colours she carried were really those under which she ought to sail. It might be Brazilian, or Spanish, or Sardinian, but she was to know without overhauling the ship. Nobody could possibly tell what should follow. He would illustrate this by what had occurred to himself on the coast of Syria. An officer in command of one of the ships on that station, had, without much consideration, boarded a French vessel. On discovering his mistake, he, of course, immediately retired, but the fact had been observed, and the commander of the French vessel, in order to relieve himself from the false position in which he had been placed, requested him ( Sir C. Napier) to write him a letter to his Government. This was got hold of by the French papers, and it was trumpeted through the whole of the country that the French corvette had compelled a British 84 ship to make an apology. Of course he was the greatest man of the day. The fourth and sixth articles of • the treaty stated that the officers appointed should negotiate with the princes on the coast of Africa. How could the officers whom they appointed negotiate with ieences whom they saw infringing the treaty ?He did c o st also understand why the Frer.ch vessels should not assist them on the east coast of Africa as well as the west coast. He would much sooner see the English Govern ment undertake the whole expense of fifty-two vessels of war on the coast of Africa than see them depend on the French Go vernment, or any other Government. Mr. HOPE repudiated the notion that the Government had encouraged slavery under the guise of free labour. It was the duty of the Government to protect the African from slavery, and they had done it by every fair means. The negroes were enable d to earn high wages, and enjoy many comforts in the West Indies, and, when they were emancipated from slavery Government gave them the option of going to work in the colonies, or return to their native land, and it was quite erroneous to suppose Government would apply any force or compulsory power whatever to them. Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the de bate.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," and Go on, go on.") Captain PEC HELL congratulated the House, and thanked the Right Hon. Barnet himself for the support which the Member for Oxford invariably gave the Noble Lord (Palmer ston) in the discussions upon the present question. But while he admired the gallant stand thus invariably made by his Honourable Friend, hs was sorry to see the va cillation evinced respecting the right of search. M. Guizot had dec l ared in his place in the French Chambers that it would be a degradation, a humiliation, to receive a re fusal, while his Government acceded to the demand. The Duke de Broglie had also said he saw no necessity for the exercise of the right, as the abuses were greatly exaggerated, even if they existed at all. It was manifest that though collisions m might take place, yet if they asked the commercial classes they would say that more danger was to be apprehended from the French settlements on the coast of Africa than from any evil resulting from the right of search. No naval officer could be indifferent when such sacrifices were required, and he could not. consistently with his duty preserve silence on this occasion. Lord PALMERSTON was aware that it was an arrange ment with the Government that foreign parties should be represented in that House.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir R. Peel.) He ( Lord Palmerston) knew it, and it was the desire of every sensible man in that House, that France and England should always preserve a friendly footing. The reason the Right Hon. Baronet assigned when he accused him of having spoken dis paragingly of France was, that they had allowed the slave trade to be continued on the coast of Africa. By the treaty of 1831 the Crowns of England and France had determined to unite for the suppression of the slave trade ; and the Right Hon. Baronet defended the Government from the charge which he (Lord Palmerston) had brought against it for want of vigour ; and he added, that the Government had remonstrated at the breach of the treaty of 1831. He thought it unfortunate that the ratification of the treaty of 1841 was not accepted, for if it had, the late treaty, he was sure, would never have been called for. The Right Hon. Baronet quoted a dispatch from him to Lord Grenville previous to 1831, from which he argued that the negotiations proposed were only temporary ; but he thought that if he had examined the correspondence he would have found that it was not an experimental or temporary arrange ment which was then proposed, but one which was subsee quently to be embodied in a treaty. He had now touched on most of the points which had been referred to by the Right Hon. Baronet. He hoped his amendment, in its modi fied state, would be now agreed to, which was that the names of the witnesses should be produced, and extracts from that portion of the evidence which related to the operation of the right of search ; otherwise, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it. Sir R. PEEL intimated his refusal to do so. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ...... 5l Against it Majority against the motion —43 IRISH COLLEGES BILL. Mr. WYSE moved, on bringing up the report of the Com mittee on Colleges (Ireland) Bill, That it is the opinion of this House that, whereas the Act of Settlement enacts that 'a col lege be annexed to the University of Dubli n in ad d it ion to the college of the Holy Trinity, under the name and title of King's College, and the Act of 1793 provides that all future colleges that may be annexed to the University, after the passing of that Act, be open to Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters equally with Protestants in all their honours and emo luments, as well as studies ; the colleges proposed under the present Bill be annexed to the said Uniuersity under the condition which the Act of 1793 prescribes. He hoped that the Government, in their future arrangements, would not forget to take steps to open the University of Dublin to the public generally, not only for the purpose of advancing academical education, but also collegiate education. He would not offer any opposition to the further progress of the Bill, which he considered a step in the right direction, but rather propose his motion es a general resolution. The Hon. Member concluded by reading the resolution. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he believed the Hon. Gentle man had merely made his motion, not for the purpose of dividing the House, but of recording his sentiments on the sub ject he had introduced. He was glad that the Bill had been so amended as to satisfy the Hon. Member so far as to induce him to withdraw his opposition to the Bill. Mr. SHAW briefly replied to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse) respecting the University of Dublin. Mr. BROTHERTON said they had now been thirteen and a half hours sitting, and if any opposed motion were brought on he would move the adjournment of the House. FIELD GARDENS BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. Je The other orders of the day were then-disposed of, and the f.) House adjourned at Two o'clock. al a BOILED LETTUCE.—Lettuces boiled and used a la cabbage, make an excellent dish. We have been told that boiled radishes are also very toothsome, but we have not yet made the experiment. The boiled lettuces we can answer for.—Liverpool Mercury. Aberdeen • • • • • • ••• • • • Armagh, Coleraine, ts) Portrush •••••• • • • • i Birmingham & Gloster Ditto, New, iss. dis. Do. Half Shares • • • • Brighton, Lews,& Host. Bristol and Exeter • • • • Do. New • • .. Ditto and Gloucester Caledonian . . • • Cambridge and Lincoln Chester and Holyhead Chichester & Brighton Churnet Valley .• • • • • • Coventry, Bedworth, & Nuneaton • • • • • • • • • • Coventry and Leicester Cornwall •• • • •• • • • • Direct Northern • • • • • • Direct Norwich ••• • • • Diss, Beccles, & Yrmth Dublin & Belfast June. Ditto aad Galway • • Do. and Mullingar . • Eastern Counties .• • • • Do., Perpetual, No. 1 Ditto, ditto, No. 2. • • Eastern Union Do. Extension • • • • • • Edinburgh & Glasgow Ditto, Quarter Shares Do. New Quarters • • Ely and Bedford .•• • • Grand Junction •• • • • • Ditto, Half Shares • • Ditto, Quarter Shares Gt. Southern & Western Do. Extension • • • • • • Do. Additional.. • • • • Great North of England Ditto, New .• • • • • • • • Do. New ••••• • • • • • Great Western .••• • • • Ditto, Half Shares • - Ditto, Fifths.. • • ....1 Guildford, Farnham, & Portsmouth .• • • • • • • Harwich • • • • • • •• • • • • • Hull and Gainsborocgh Hull and Selby .• • •• • • Ditto, Quarter Shares Do. Half Shares •• • • Kendal & Windermere Kentish Coast • • • • • • • • Lancaster and Carlisle Leeds and Bradford. Liverpool & Manchestr Ditto, Half Shares Ditto, Quarter Shares nondon & Birmingham Ditto, New Thirds Ditto, New 14 Shares London and Blackwall London and Brighton.. Do. Consolidated Bths [l,ondon and Croydon • • Ditto, Guarntd. 5 p. c. London and Greenwich Ditto, Pref. or Priv. . • London and S. Western Do., New Cons. Bths Ditto, New . • • • • • • • Do. New • • • • • • • • • • London and York . • • .• Lndonderry & Coleraine Do. & Enniskillen • • Lynn and Ely .. Do. & Dereham • • • • M anchester and Leeds Ditto, Half Shares • • ' Ditto, Quarter Shares Ditto, Sixteenths . • • Manchestr & Birming. Ditto, Quarter Shares Midland . • • Ditto, Fifths .• • • • • • Do. New ...... Ditto, Birm. Sr, Derby Newcastle & Berwick Newcastle & Carlisle • • Newcstle & Darl. June. Do. New Brandling' Newry & Enniskillen • • Newark and Sheffield. - North British . ..... Do. New .. •••• • • • • Northern and Eastern . Ditto, Scrip, 189.51. d. Ditto, Quai ter Shares North Kent ••••• • • • • • North Wales • • • • • • • • • • Norwich and Brandon . Ditto, New • • Oxford & Worcester • • Preston and Wyre • • • • Richmnd & W. E. June. Rugby •.• .. Scottish Central • • • ••• Do. Midland • • • . ! Sheffield and Lincoln Sheffield & Manchestr! Ditto, Quarter Shares' Shrws.,Wolv.,Dud.,Bir. South Devon .•.• • • • • • South-Eastern & Dovr. Ditto, New iss. 32/.dis. Do. New, No. 2 • • •• ' Do. New, No. 3 • • •• \ South Walee .•• • • • • • • Staines and Richmond Trent Valley Trent Valley and Holy head Junction • • • • • Waterford & Kilkenny West Cornwall• • • . - • • Yarmouth & Norwich. Ditto, New York & North Midland Ditto, Half Shares • • Do., Scarbro' Branch Ditto, Selby Scrip • • Ditto, Extension .... Bordeaux and Toulouse Do. and Cette • • • • • • Boulogne and Amiens. Dieppe and Paris Junc. Gt. Northern of France Lyons and Avignon.. • . Orleans and Vierzon • • Orleans & Bourdeaux Paris & Lyons (Laffitte) Do. (Ganneron's) • • • • Do. (Calon's) • • • • • • Paris and Strasbourg • • Paris & St. Quentin • • Paris and Orleans. • • • • Paris and Rouen •• • • Royal North of Spain .. It urn and Havre • • •• I Sambre and Meuse • • • • Strasbourg and Bale • • Tours & Nantes (Mac kenzie's) Do. (Levevres) .•• • • • 25 0 100 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 100 0 50 0 50 0 25 0 50 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 6 13 4 6 13 4 50 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 40 0 0 30 0 0 160 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 Bs. per sh. 2/. 5s p. sh. l Is 3d pr. sh 10/. per ct. 101. per ct. Mi. per ct. 6/. Os. p. sh. U. p. sh. U. per et. 8/. per ct. 8/. per ct. 50 0 0 20 0 0 25 8 0 h 0 0 0 12 10 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 150 0 0 125 0 0 31. 10s. pr. sh. 17s. 6d. pr sh 9/. per cent. 9/. per cent. 91. per cent. 101. per ct. 101. per ct. 10/. per ct. 6s. IV. Os. per sh 32 0 0 25 0 0 16 13 4 50 0 0 50 0 0 13 15 9 9 0 0 12 15 4 18 17 2 41 6 10 40 0 0 50 0 0 40 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 6 5 0 40 0 0 10 0 0 16s. per sh 41. per share 10s. pr. sh. 1 5 1 5 3 0 2 10 1 0 1 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 14 16 0 6 13 4 0 13 4 10 0 0 1 10 0 50 0 0 12 10 0 2 10 0 1 5 0 ,00 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 100 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 80 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 2 10 0 1 0 0 1 7 6 50 0 0 12 10 0 2 0 0 1 10 0 1 7 6 20 0 0 5 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 Stock. 2 0 0 2 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 0 2 10 0 2 0 0 2 10 () 2 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 1 7 6 73 0 0 32 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 0 40 0 0 4 0 0 Stock. 2 0 0 2 0 0 Stock. 1 10 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 2 10 0 1 10 0 12 10 0 1 0 0 45 0 0 30 0 0 12 10 0 2 15 0 1 5 0 S/.l2s.persh, 2/. 2s. per sh. 121. per share, 61. per cent. 11.125.6d.p.c. 141. Os. per sh. id. per share. 11.145.10d.p.s 2i. ss. Iss. 1/.105.6d.p.5. 2s. 10d. p. sli 40 0 0 25 0 0 [OO 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 12 10 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 10 0 50 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 10 0 1 10 0 1 5 0 95 0 0 8 0 0 2 10 0 15 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 [OO 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 33 2 4 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 4s. 6d. 101. per et. 101. per et. 8 0 0 7 0 0 2 10 0 2 10 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 10i. per et, 1914 16% 8% 5% 18M, 113 57 54% 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JOINT—STOCK BANKS. Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price Annum. Share. £ s. d. s. d. Australasia ...... 6/. per cent. 40 0 0 40 0 0 32 Britsh North American 41. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 49 Commercial of London N. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 22 Colonial ..• .• •• • ...... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 15% Londe and Westtainstr 61. per`cent. 100 0 0 20 0' 0 27 1 4 London Joint-Stock .• . 61. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 14% Metropolitan ••.•• • • • • 25 0 0 710 0 Provincial of Ireland • • 81. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 51% Ditto, •••• • • • • 81. 8/. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 20 National of Ireland •• Si. per cent. 50 0 0 17 10 0 20% Nat. Provncial of Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 35 0 0 38 Ditto, •••• • • • • 51. 5/. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0 Union of Australia— • • 25 0 0 25 0 0 25N Union of London.•• • • 51. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 13 DOCKS. Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price, Annum. Share. £ s. d. s. d. ommercial •• • • ~.t and West India ,----- I £ s. d. ' 'Z s. d. Jommercial .• • • fast and West India East Country - London • • St Katharine •••• • • • • 5 per cent. Stock. Southampton ••••• • • • ; 4/. per cent. ' 50 0 0 50 0 0 1 118% INSURANCE COMPANIES. Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price. Annum. Share. -- - X a. d. X s. d. Albion ••••• • • • • ..... 31. 10s. 500 0 0 50 0 0 72% Alliance Brit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 20 Ditto Marine....... 61. per cent, 100 0 0 50 0 6% Atlas .•••• • • • • ..... .. 13s. 6d. pr sh. 50 0 0 5 0 0 17 British Commercial .. 7s. per share 50 0 0 50 0 7 Clericl,Med.&Gen.Life 51. per cent. 100 0 0 210 1 6% County .. •••••• • • • • • • W. 100 0 0 10 0 0 r 9s. and / I 6/. ss. bs. j 40 0 0 5 0 0 10 Eagle • 6s. 50 0 0 50 0 5% Economic Life ... ..... i 58,p3eors.cbt..1 1000 0 0 250 0 0 Eng.& Scot. Law Life.. 51. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 3 European Life-- -.. 5% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 20 Freemasons' .......... 51. per cent. 20 0 0 3 0 0 Globe - 143 Guardian • - .... ••• • • 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 50% Imperial Fire .. ••• • • • 121. per cent. 500 0 0 50 0 0 230 Imperial Life..... •• • • 12s. 100 0 0 10 0 0 16% Indemnity Marine •• • • 1/. sh. & be. 100 0 0 513 1 29% Law Life .. ••••• • • • • • I/. ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 45% Legal and General Life - 50 0 0 20 0 6% London Fire ••••• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15% I ti ondon Ship ••.•• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15% Marine ... ..... ••• • • • 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 10% Med. Invlid & Gen. Life - 50 0 0 2 0 0 3 National Loan Fund• • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 2% National Life. Palladium Life M. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 2/. 2s. Phoenix - - 195 Protector Life •••• • • • • 5/. par cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 1/. 2s. Provident Life. ••• • • Rock Life •••••• • • • • • • 4s. 50 0 010 0 41i Royal Exchange 5/. per cent. Stock. - 188 Sun Fire • . • • .• • • • - - Ditto Life 11. 6s. - - 615 0 18 Universal Life LIST 01' SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PRICES. Dividend Amount Name of Company. per of Paid. Price Annum. Share. ---- .£ a. d. £ s. d Bank of Scotland • • ... 6/. per cent. - 100 0 0 177 Royal Bank of Scotland 61. per cent. 100 0 0 171% British Linen Company 8 /' p er cent. 100 0 0 230 Commercial Bank •• • • 61. p er cent. 100 0 0 174% National Bank 6/. per cent. ..... 10 0 0 16% Union Bank of Scotland 7% /. pr cent. 50 0 0 98 1 / , 2 Western Bank • • • • • • 61. per cent. 50 0 0 85 • • North of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. 50 0 7% Clydesdale Bank.• •• .. 61. per cent. 10 0 0 15 y. Eastern Bank •••• • • " 3/. per cent. 15 0 0 11 3 X -, Caledonian Bank ••• • • 61. per cent. 210 0 3% Edinblk Glasgow Bank 5/. per cent. 50 0 7% City of Glasgow Bank . 5/. per cent. 815 0 153¢ Scottish Union Ins. Co. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 PA Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 14% Incur. Co. of Scotlnd.. Si. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 10 North British Insur... 9/. per cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 28% Caledonian Fire Incur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 24% Edinburgh Life Insur. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 19 , 4 Edin. & Giasg. Railway 51. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 7334 Ditto, Shares.... 51. per cent. 12 10 0 All paid. 18 Edin., Leith, & Grantn 20 0 0 20 0 0 15% Glasgvr & Ayrshir Rail. 5/. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 69 Glasgw&Greenck Rail. 2/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 20% Gis;, , wB.,Garnkirk Pail. 51. per cent. 145 0 0 All paid. 37 % Dundee& Axbroth Rail. 5/. per cent. [25 0 0 All paid. 36 Standard Life Assumce.l 5/. per cent. 150 0 0 I 2 10 0 I 8 LATEST PRICES OF SHARES IN RAILWAYS, BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COMPANIES' STOCK. From the Official List, I'ITBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING. LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 8. RAILWAYS. Dividend per Amount Name of Company. Share. Z s. d. Paid. Z s. d. 2 10 0 Annum• 41. Os. per sh 1 11. .21.165. per sh Name of Company. Price. X s, d. Si. 100 0 0 Si. 46 13 4 21. 10s. 100 0 0 ..... 51. per cent. 100 0 0 . 41.165. pr et. 63 12 9 East London •••• • .. Grand Junction ...... Kent• • • • • - • . Vauxhall .... West Middlesex ... CANALS. . . n . Names of 1 Dividend Names of A Dividend Com p anies. A per C om p anies. 21 Annum Price. Names r- , per . Price. : rn 1 Annum.' I) -- ! --- , £ , £ Ashtn& 0161 h 97 51.55. p c 72 Monmouthsh 100 91. 160 Ashby-d-la-Zlll3 4/. 70 Mntgomrysh 100 51. 98 Barnsley.. ..1160 12/. 180 Macclesfield . 100 - 15 Basingstoke.. 100, - 5 Neath .. .. • • 100 201. 365 Brknk&Abrg 150, Si. 85 Nottingham . 150 121. 260 Cromford .. • • ,100 18/. 160 Peak Forest .78 3/. 40 Dudley , .. •. • • 'loo', 4/. 80 Regent's .. . • 33 1/. 244 Derby •• • • -100 81. 103 Rochdale ... •85 41. 54 Ellsmre&Chs l l33 l 4/. 58 Shropshire • • 125 Si. 120 Erewash . • .1100 321. 440 Somrset Coal 150 71. 10s. 123 Forth & Clyd,loo 4/. 105 Do.Lk Fil St 12 6/. p. c. 11 GrandJunctn 100 71. 124 Stffrd &Wore 140 281. 440 Grand Union 100 1/. 10s. 25 Shrewsbury.. 12 , 151. 230 Glamorgnsh . 172 13%1. 210 Stourbridge .. 145 201. 360 Olstr & Brklyi 00 - j 8 Strtfrd on Av 79 1/. 10s. 27 Grantham • .1150 12/. 100 Severn and I 26 11. Bs. 29 Huddersfield. 57 - 2 0 Wye Rail. Kennt & Avn 39 7s. 63. 7 Trnt 8c Mr-1 50 30/. 445 Lancaster ... • 47 1 11. 10. 40 sey, IA sh. 10 Leeds& Livrp' 100 341. 560 Thams &Med 19 - 50 Leicester .... 140 10/. j 105 Worcstr & I 78 4/. Leicstr & Nth 83 4/. I 60 Binning. 11 Loughborogh,l42 701. :1050 Wilts & Biks 67 11. 4s, LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 8. ( Nisi Prius Sittings in London, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and Special Juries. ) ANSTED AND OTHERS V. ARNETT. The plaintiffs are eminent merchants in the City. The de fendant is a well-known Custom- house agent, and the action was brought to recover 1811. from the defendant, which the plaintiffs alleged had been paid by them to a former confidential clerk of theirs, who committed suicide in 1841, and by him to the defendant for clearing from the Custom-house a certain quantity of goods belonging to them, which, however, were removed without the payment of duty, and the duty on which the plaintiffs were afterwards obliged to pay over again. After a great deal of evidence had been gone into, the Lord Chief Baron recommended the case to be referred, as it was impos sible for a jury to do justice between the parties. HAYW'OOD V. 31'DOWALL. Mr. Sergeant Taltourd, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. Flood, ap peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin for the defendant. This action was brought nominally for a fortnight's wages, but in reality to determine between the master printers and the compositors of the metropolis two points—first, whether according to the custom of the trade a fortnight's notice is necessary to determine the contract of service on either side, and, secondly, whether Parliamentary " appeal eases" should be paid for at the rate of Bd. or of 7d. per thousand letters. At the commencement of the case, Mr. MARTIN said he did not intend to dispute the first point, and would, therefore, admit that the plaintiff was entitled to a fortnight's notice be fore he was discharged. The only question, therefore, now to be determined was the rate of payment. The defendant is the well known printer, carrying on busi ness in Pemberton-row, Gough-square. The plaintiff is a compositor. The defendant is honorary secretary to the Master Printers' Association. The plaintiff is supported by the body of London compositors. In January last the defendant, who had not before had much Parliamentary business, got an order to print an appeal case, " Ranger v. the Great Western Railway Company." As all business done before Parliament, or in connexion with it, is paid for at a higher rate than business done elsewhere, compositors charge more for Parliamentary than other work, and require Bd. per thousand for " appeal cases." 4 Thej defendant offered only 7d. per thousand. This ‘4the companionship," i.e. the body of compositors in the defendant's employment, for this kind of business refused to take. Though there was plenty of other work in the office, the defendant ould not give any employ ment to them, and they thereupon gave him a fortnight's no tice to leave. During this fortnight they were wholly unem. ployed, and this action was brought by one of them for about 41., the snm which, on the average, he would be supposed likely to make by piecework during the fortnight he was so employed. After a few witnesses had been examined for the plaintiff, the case was adjourned till to-morrow. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT. (Before the RECORDER.) Mary Anne Salisbury, alias Salisbury, who pleaded guilty to three charges of larceny at the May session, but whose sentence was respited, was brought up for judgment. It will be recollected that the prisoner, when before the magistrate, told a rather romantic story about her having been seduced by a gentleman who brought her to London, and then deserted her, the whole of which statement turned out to be a fabrication. The RECORDER sentenced her to six months' impri sonment, to commence from the period of her conviction. (Before Mr. BULLOCK.) Margaret Tiggell, 28, James Dunn, 23, and John Col iers, 28, were indicted, the first mentioned prisoner for stealing a dressing-case, a ring, and other articles, the properly of David Kiehl, and the others with feloniously receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. Ballantine conducted the prosecution, Mr. Payne appeared for Tiggell, Mr. Doane for Collins, and Mr. O'Brien for Dunn. The case was one entirely devoid of interest, except from the circumstance that the principle evidence against the prisoners was the testimony of the female prisoner's own sister, who spoke positively to her guilty share in the transaction. There was, moreover, very little corroboration of her evidence, and she admitted, on being cross-examined, that she had herself been twice convicted of felony, and sentenced upon one occasion to be imprisoned six months, and upon another to be trans ported for seven years. Mr. BALLANTINE, at the close of the case for the prosecution, admitted that there was not sufficient evi dence against the prisoner Collins, and the other Learned Counsel having addressed the jury for their respecti% e clients, the jury eventually found them all Not Guilty. Emma ifiaot, aged 26, was indicted for stealing some articles of silver plate, value 101., the property of Wm. Paxton Jervis, in his dwelling-house ; and Sarah Vick, aged 28, was charged with feloniously receiving the pro perty, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Doane appeared for the prisoners. It was proved, in evidence, that the prisoner Wilmot was in the habit of going to the house of the prosecutor, to visit one of his servants, named Chamberlain, and she took the opportunity thus afforded her to purloin the property. The only evidence against the other prisoner was, that she had, shortly afterwards, pawned the plate, but denied the fact when she was questioned by the police constable. It was admitted that Wilmot had been very respectable and well-conducted up to this transaction, and it was suggested that she had committed the offence under a sudden impulse, and from the pressure of tem porary circumstances of distress. The jury found Wilmot guilty, and acquitted the pri soner Vick. They recommended Wilmot to mercy. She was sentenced to be kept to hard labour for eighteen months. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) MANSION-HOUSE. Capt. Wm. Mackay Heriott was summoned before the Lord Mayor, by Mr. William Vincent, wine merchant, of No. 45, Lime-street, for assault and battery. The complainant, who was in a state of very palpable excitement, stated that on Wednesday last, while in his cffic', he heard an uproar in the street opposite to the window, and he saw Capt. Heriott acting in an unjusti fiable manner towards his (Mr. Vincent's) cellarman, and told the captain that he was not behaving like a gentleman, but more like a blackguard. Capt. Heriott felt, no doubt, indignant and insulted at the language, and was disposed to use personal violence, for there sprung up hot and angry words upon both sides. The LORD MAYOR—And you told him he acted more like a blackguard than a gentleman ? The complainant —Certainly I did. I considered his conduct to my cel larman, who was quarrelling with another man, very unwarrantable, and I did not conceal my opinion. Capt. Heriott sent for a policeman to take my cellarman into custody, and continued the uproar ; but the policeman did not take the charge, and the captain followed my partner, and in fact demanded an apology. The LORD MAYOR—WeII, come to the assault. The complainant—The assault did not take place till next day. I then observed from my office the servant of the gentleman, whose man had been quarrelling with mine, go frequently in and out of his office, and when I was going away, about three o'clock, to start by the coach, carrying with me a parcel of the weight of 15 lbs. under my arm, and having my gloves on, and an um brella in the other hand, out came the captain from the opposite office, where he was lying pe'du, and struck me a violent blow on the neck with a cane or whip. I thought I was cut with a knife, or other sharp instru ment, the blow was so severe. The LORD MAYOR —Did he say anything to you be fore he struck you ? Complainant—l heard something. but I cannot exactly say what, for really my senses were taken away at the time. I had not time to turn my head, when I recived the blow. The LORD MAYOR—How did you proceed then ? Complainant —I went back to my office. I still con sider my life in danger from Captain Heriott's violence. I admit that at the time we were both very warm. City policeman, 519, stated that he was called to in terfere when Mr. Vincent's man, and a person in the employment of another gentleman, were quarrelling about a wine basket. Mr. Vincent came down, and Captain Heriott asked for his card, and the former said the latter was a blackguard, and refused to give him his card, and declared that he cared no more for the captain than he cared for the stones in the street. The LORD MAYOR—And you swear that he struck you, Mr. Vincent, on the following day ? The com plainant—l do, and lam still afraid of his violence. Captain Heriott—You need not be in the slightest degree afraid, upon my honour. The LORD MAYOR—WeII, Captain Heriott, the assault is distinctly sworn to, and I shall bind you over in your recognisances to the amount of 201. to appear at the quarter sessions to answer any charge Mr. Vincent may think proper to bring against you. Captain Heriott said the fact was he interfered, when he saw the two eellarmen disputing about the interest of their masters, to prevent a breach of the peace, and the consequence was that he was grossly insulted, as he could prove by the statements of several gentlemen who were present, and Who heard the unprovoked lan guage used by Mr. Vincent. Here some gentleman showed an anxiety to be allowed to speak. The LORD MAYOR, however, objected to hear them, and said that Captain Heriott might, if the matter went further, call forward his witnesses elsewhere. The duty of the mugistrat,o was quit- plain in Eli , ,h a case. Captain Heriott—The provocation was, as I can show, very great. The Lox) MAYOA—The assault took place on the Price. 2 1 ,6 134 57% 11' 4% 15% 21% I%p. % pm. 21% 2% 224 9N 2% 242 62Y. 3 1 ,4 11 4 1% 07 2 1 y 2 47% 21% 242 47% 35% 9% 75% 3i 3% 2% 171 78% 25 1 ,E 9% 9 , 4 187 29 1 A 147 191 A 54% 37 3% 2 25% Dividend 1 Amount per of Annum. Share. day after the alleged provocation was given. I can nel alter my decision. Evan Erans, who was some days ago charged with having presented a forged cheque for the sum of 7301, for payment at the b a nkin g -house of Messrs. Jones Loyd and Co., was brought up for further exarnination. Mr. Mumaris, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, soli citors to the Committee of Bankers for Protection against Frauds and Felonies, said, he had no Co do to consent to the discharge of the prisoner from custll. at upon entering into his own recognisanees to a pp ear any time he might be called upon. Mr. HUMPHREYS, upon the part of' the prisoner, et once acquiesced in the condition, and the prisoner. wee liberated upon entering into his own recognisances in t he sum of 501. A man named Baker, was brought up for final e%e' urination upon a charge of bigamy. John Tucker stated that he was present when the prisoner married Sarah Alsworth, at Bath, thirteen years ago, and he produced a copy of the notice of the marriage in the books of the church there. Prisoner—Then you are quite sure that Nome? (painting to the female who had him apprehende d) the person I was married to. Witness—Ye e. swear she is. The prisoner's marriage with another woman subse' quently having been likewise proved, The LORD MAYOR committed him for trial. COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. Yesterday a Court was held specially for the purpose, of receiving and taking into consideration the r e p ort . l the Committee relative to the Charitable Trusts Pot now in its progress through the House of Commons THE CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. After the disposal of some of the ordinary basir.ess c l the paper, Mr. 1)E JERSEY (the Chairman of the Parlirimentag, Committee) brought up the report on the subjec t of tvv Charitable Trusts Bill. It stated that the Bill was tremely exceptionabl ~ and that if its provisions vie' carried into effect much mischief would result to tt! public, and it recommended that the Court should petlf Lion against the measure, and apply to the members na the Administration immediately for the purpose of p ro ; curing its postponement. Mr. 1)e Jersey spoke in ter strongly condemnatory of the Bill, which had been r pidly hurried through the House of Lords, and sto for a second reading that night in the House of ps CO: mons. He considered it to be unjust in its provision' unconstitutional in its principle, and capable of bell made an instrument to serve bad political purposes. be the opinion of Lord Cottenham the Commissioners to the appointed under it would have more power than Lord Chancellor possessed in the Court of CbaueerS As to its unconstitutional tendency, the enormous incroi sitorial authority which it would place in the hand?, l , o these officers was sufficient evidence of that fact• se very working of the scheme would occasion an expel s ruinous to the charities with which the Commi ssiooe might think it necessary to interfere. He concluded IV moving that the Court should agree with the reports rt Mr. It TAYLOR said the Committee had, in the rel).°.% before the Court, deprecated the principle of the Pl d although they had, in the former report, thought Pr°,l " to approve of it. Now he considered that they ougn",bo show that the Charitable Trusts Bill would place , charities in a worse condition than that in which t'let:s 4 stood at present. Nothing, in his opinion, could bo • worse than their existing state. They all knew thati2liif trusts had been most flagrantly abused, and that the Pof to which the Committee recommended the opposition, the Court was a measure produced by men of experi envy and character. Mr. WIRE warmly advocated the report. He obje ct/la y to the extraordinary powers with which the C orn T l ejf sioners to be appointed by the Bill would be lost and the private Star Chamber manner in which t'.o) would exercise these powers.—(Hear, hear.) It did Igo signify whether the evidence upon which the CoroTbe sioners chose to decide was true or false ; there would no from their decision. sal Mr. ANDERTON confessed that he could not Ve al t such objections to the Bill as seemed to dismay ° d to people. On the contrary, although it was ca lculate%a injure men in the profession to which Mr. Wi re be himself belonged, the measure appeared to him tOlef, calculated to remove a great deal of existing reis c iihe and he should vote against the recommendation ()- Committee. „glf Mr. PRENDERGAST opposed the report, and strovai, supported the Bill. He contended that if the Coulb. sioners were only called judges, all prejudice we ° ;fl i n ete at an end against them ; but so many Commies"„," had been recently appointed, that the name of Cen l- 0 1. sinner was a bad one, and every one knew what vvit s o ..) ways the effect of giving a dog a bad name.—(Laug u , ol o He had seen nothing in the Bill to lead him to ht no that the tribunal would be a secret one ; and, in fa c . A 7bol had not heard a word of argument against it. 0; could be more proper than the appointment of two 0"111.9 ters in Chancery, and a member of the bar of ten Yelp standing, to fill the situations ? He believed the . 0 , 3 6 public would have as much reliance upon the deeisiiiatc of such officers as upon those of the Lord Chlo e° e et for certainly they were as little likely to be influeloa by improper motives.—(Hear.) The Governreel l , t p re' observed the monstrous abuses which existed in t'd gulation of charitable trusts, and had d e terfoin e ,,peci come forward upon a measure of reform ; and IVA be that the Court, the majority of the members of w"„1-eado believed to be alive to the interests of the conel" c i a iene. would approve of the Bill, and support the 0 0 , 1 1 ° titer He should propose that the Court Iroceed to business on the paper. d old Deputy STEVENS seconded the amendment, 0 ,,• ae tha: the Bill would substitute a very lazy and o be° " ° and depraved system. ~s om bel4 Mr. WILLIAM JONES and several otherPSr opposed, in the most rtsolute tone, the measure in liament, and called upon the Court to petition lei diately against it. The Court finally agreed to the report of the ioai mittee, and refi rred it back to them, with instrocd to to prepare a petition to the House of Commons, en ri . take such other steps as might be considered necessa The Court then adjourned. a 14 v‘-flq Di IW YAL T he a , leave La" ust , can be bow the 8 45 ti ttrther y eniversalso 44,1 co., n, AsYi THE lne taniri, m en uultnii Isrxx. 2 08# [..A.DVERTISEMENT.]—DEAFNESS.—No. 39, marle•street, Piccadilly.—lnvisible Voice Conduccote is when fixed in the cavity of the ears, are not more , fortable nor perceptible than having a small Pl.„0011 wool in its place. They enable individuals at ""fes' vanced age, and of forty or fifty years' standing °01011: treme deafness, instantly to join in general enliven: l , l ' 1 ., o' and to catch the sound of a distant , low sPere a/s°, church, theatre, &c. They pour the conversation, the ears to such an extent, that in most severe V; deafness cannot be observed. Also original Bas , 09 ne t s , French, German, and Spanish Artificial Eatoei improved Hearing Trumpets of every description. o of those instruments have received the approbatiolo; the Royal Society and Royal Institution of Grea; o tell, tain. The Newly Invented Spectacles, imt en , u ; o o, l ' they are placed before extremely imperfect vs' 's brought to its youthful, natural, and originalsicie Also Achromatic Telescopes, Opera-glasses , scopes, &c.—Caution : Messrs. S. and B. Jpticians and Aurists, are not in any way connactel"eigle 1 person of the same name in their immediate 1:1‘,/en$, oourhood, nor in any part of the country. To 1 i; nistakes, be cautious, and observe—Only to be Iliote's 19. Albemarle -street, Piccadilly, opposite the Yer l ‘ [ADVERTISEMENT.]—BOTANIC WATER AND ~-10010 GREASE.—When the hair is becoming thin, and Id: off, the only effectual remedy, besides shaving th i e . e a S I is the use of the two above-named articles, apP ,l frog tcrnately—the botanic water to cleanse the r OO l9 0 scurf and as a stimulant, and the bear's grea se f till nourisher. If any further evidence was required °O4Ol virtues of bear's grease for renovating and POI di . , the hair, Mr. Catlin's account of the quantity Llsv-;vo,-, the length of hair obtained by some of the North s 4 0 rican Indians, would be a sufficient answer. W 1.% Sons, 119 and 120, Bishop , gate - street , w ho firs' la o duce(' the use of bear's grease in this country, a ° plo,, fat and kill the animals, recommend the public O d der i • chase none other but with their names and a jog printed on the pot, or the chances are the ir obtain Dr spurious article. All vegetable oils applie d to al° are worse than useless. [ADVERTISEMENT.] THE EARL OF A c ROUG H AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.--AD aStOOn di l by this miraculous medicine after every me dated ns —See extract of his Lordship's letter, d,„des Messina, Leghorn, February 21st, 1845.—T0 Holloway.—Sir, I beg to aeluaint you that rt e ll have effected a cure of my liver and stomach ofh", the most eminent of the faculty at home and o ' Iv, the continent had not been able to effect, nay, not el" waters of Carlsbad or Marienbad. (Signed) Aldboreafir These wonderful pills will cure any disease of the li y° ,l l°l' stomach. Sold (also Holloway's Ointment) at ProfessTslie, loway's establishment, 224, Strand, and by all vendors °' , tine throughout the civilised world. 19° t e DARING ROBBERY. — Monday afternoon, A four o'clock, the following daring robbery was commit residence of Samuel Winslead, Esq., in the Nov-W u : n th i ll I Winstead had called in a female hawker of stove ornatn; li e fr o j ; the purpose of purchasing one, and the woman w as left ir i ee . do Abe whilst the servant carried the articles upstairs f or the iroP v ie I her mistress. In the meantime the woman contrived parlour table, which was laid for dinner, of the whole of ,s i t is e t tents, consisting of silver spoons and forks, as well as t' silver cruet stand, with which she got clear off, the e being missed till some time after her departure. - - of On the 7th inst., the lady of Cecil Fane, Esq , ' Brook-street, of a daughter. ell' On the 7th inst., at Cambridge-place, Carnberss' road, the wife of Mr. Lewis W. Moncriet',of a son. „ n or On the 7th inst., at Hammersmith, Mrs. Peter `1" ham, of a daughter. e On the Bth inst., at Hambleden Rectory, Bucks, th Lig et the Rev. W. H. Ridley, Rector of Hambledon , of a cla MARRIED. CaPl , On the Ist inst., at Rugby, W. C. Western, Es ( l'',/ G in the 323 Madras Native Infantry, to Jane Hann .01 only daughter of the late Donald Maclean, Esq. On the sth inst., at St. James's, Piccadilly, 116111.J jell fr Rolle, Esq., of Park-road, Stockwell, to Sarah youngest daughter of the late M. Jones, Esq., of Bo"' DIED.bI rßa On the sth inst., at Larkhall-lane, Clapham/ wife f Mr. C. Iles. let On o the sth inst., at Camberwell, Miss Leake. 4004 On the 6th inst., in Bedford-square , Mr. Sergeanit,'Wloo On the 16th ult., at Bedford, the Rev . W. 110 .°‘ M.A., late of Trinity College, Cambridge. haw , , On the 3d inst., at the Imperial Hote l, Chelte° ituarY,eol Charles Johnson, 3d Regiment Bombay Native la,'lo On the 4th inst., Ann Washbourne, w ife of Wi' „ s e son, of the Old Kent-road, aged 68 . Gto`i Sopn the 4th inst., at the Rector, St. Martin hia Ann, eldest daughter of the y Rev. R. Potengi:ge On the sth inst., in Nicholas - lane, Lom bard-stree Poulton. o f On the 6th inst., at Pusey Rectory, Mary, wide Poore, aged 70. • Lando,: : rrmted anu Yublishert by AMMO° ;40 "1 % 4 0f No. 112, Strare', Printer, at The Sus Ofli,ce'ceao Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, In tu n Middlesex, Wednesday, July 9, 1845.