The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-03 00:00:00

offers of rewards for the apprehension of parties guilty savage assaults, one of which we shall introduce as an additional proof of the cowardly disposition of the blood-thirsty Papists : Whereas I have received information that at or about the hour of ten o'clock on the night of the 17th of July instant, a party of men, consisting of about twenty in number, one of whom was armed with a pistol, the others with bludgeons, attacked the house of Michael Smith, of Kilamoonev, parish of Annagelliff, and barony of Upper Loughtee. The party broke in Smith's door, dragged him out of his house, beat hint in a most savage and unmerciful manner, and inflicted seven cuts on his head. Now, for the better apprehending and bringing to justice the perpetrators of the said outrage, I do hereby offer a reward of thirty pounds to any person or persons who shall, within six months from the date hereof, give such information as shall lead to the apprehension and conviction of all or any of the persons concerned therein. Cavan, July 28, 1838. JAMES LITTLE, Resident Magistrate, County Cavan. For the present we shall only draw the attention of our readers to two more cases. In our next we shall have more room, we hope, at our disposal, when we shall have an opportunity of enumerating a list of atrocities committed in the present week, to which the history of England for a whole year can scarcely pro duce a parallel. We close our present account with the following : COUNTY LEITRIM. MURDER.--The body of a man named Peter Shanley was found murdered on Saturday last, within a hundred yards of the town of Mohill, from the market of which place he was proceeding home. His skull was fractured with several blovr s of a hatchet. The body was found covered up with weeds. Six persons are in custody on suspicion of being concerned in this sanguinary deed. - A man named M'Manus is also m i ss i ng from tie same neighbourhood. COUNTY WATERFORD. D isnotacm, COMBINATION. —Some infamous wretches, in order to their base designs of ruining an honest and industri ous citize n who had the manliness to resist t heir vile combi -I:L6°u, to force him to part with an efficient operative in his t - 1 7°Yment, have had placards printed , and p osted in • e mast conspicuous parts of the city, and circulars exten sively issued of a most offensive nature, which, were not his i - „ ar aeter too well known, and the respectability of his estab .7meut too firmly confirmed, would have a tendency to t d uJure -mu materially in besiness. Mr. Wilson, the indivi (C` alluded to, has offered a reward for the apprehension of e miscreants, or information relative to the " respectable" P ri nter concerned in the conspiracy; and we are certain :Try Well disposed person in the community will willingly t h e )4 the matter if possible. It is but another step to ondct . vitriol thrower of Glasgow, or the Billy Welters of Dub lin, in Waterford, and most cheerfully would the authors of s uch seile a production, we have no doubt, lend themselves to any their interests, matter how vile or murderous, did they imagine .r interests, however trivial, affected by it. The orderly "gasmen of the city should at once clear themselves of any f...lu!sieipation in thi s a ff a i r , an d ass i s t in bringing to justice if ,. ll °.a us who ar e a di sgrace to an y c l as s of operatives.— aterford Mail. °wing to the number and length of our local re ports this day we are obliged to defer several original articles until Tuesday next, when we shall be enabled to bring up our arrears. The same cause has rendered it necessary for u 4 to omit a large mass of miscellane ou's intelligence already in type. THE IRISH TITHE QUES ___ .____ TION,-INCREASE OF PROTESTANTISM. (From a Correspondent.) According to promise we proceed to lay before our readers the true state of this question. In the first place we have to remark that th ere i s a l amentable misapprehension, as to the tendencies and result of the proposed measure, visible in the conceptions which most thinking and intelligent' Englishmen Whether oral or written have made public. They appear to legislate for Ireland as they do for England. They place in one respect and one alone the Irish Protestant church upon the same equality with that of England, and they imagine the security of the one must necessarily involve the perma nence of the other. Now there is no analogy whatever be tween them save in doctrine. Their temporalities are ren dered wide as the poles. Where is the minister of England who would have the hardihood to deprive the episcopal mitre of his country of ten of its chiefest jewels? And yet such has been clone in Ireland. Political pirates have been long with the Irish church establishment, and their chief plunder has been of the defences of the sanctuary. Economy, has been the leading profession of the present ministry, and they began well by beggaring the Irish church as an earnest of their saving disposition. This brings us to ask a question which we wonder has never before occurred to the minds of the speculators upon ecclesiastical matters, it is this—whence arises the necessity of the distinction of the " Irish church?" Why are the two establishments to be placed in contra-dis tinction? What need is there of erecting a rivalry or rather a divorce between them ? Are they opposite in doctrine? Are they schismatics in theory? Are they aliens and exiles from the faith and hope which bound their ancestors together? Has the Irish church, taken in a collective sense, forfeited its character, compromised its purity . or earned by its perver sion this worse than papal interdict, which has been thun dered against it? Is the spiritual creed of the Irish church different from that of her legitimate sister? And is the bas tardy of her connection to extend to the deprivation of her hope hereafter as well as security here? If aplainfree-spoken negative be the reply to these interrogatories, w h a t is to be said of the principle, which, to suit the purposes of a party, is industriously circulated, of a separate ecclesiastical polity for Ireland, and the necessity for a description of legislative expediency corresponding thereto. For our own parts, and we profess to know much of Ireland, we can answer the question, that the very admission of such an anomaly in a Protestant state like England, is putting in the right hand of the incendiary, the most destructive weapon he can wield. Reason with him on the point and be meets you at once with the plausible assertion "that it is unjust for the majority of the population to pay for the religious comfort of the mi norrly." He will probably go further. He will tell you of the monstrous injustice of supporting, in a forced ascend ancy, a church, foreign to the feelings, prejudices, and na tional chatacteristics of the great bulkl of the population! Can such a man be answered with effect while there is the very implication of such an inconsistency as a division of the church? No! grant him but this and he is triumphant. He cannot be beaten back from his ground of assumption when you place millions at his back to urge battle against a few isolated thousands. But fling to the winds the nation that there is anything like an Irish church polity. Make the protestants of Ireland, as they ought to be, an integral portion of the fellow-believers of th e em pi re . Destroy their existence as a sectary, and sum them up in the calculation of the aggregate tenants of the nation; do this, and vou can toss back to him, with satisfaction, his theories of "injustice" or "partiality." hitherto Protestants have pat i T e d in th te e g t r v i a t ; fur the march of their enem i es b y compromising t of their church. Th e y h ave assoc i ate d a d i v i sion in name , without a separation in rea li ty , o f a b o d y whose whole strength is union and indivisibility of purpose. And what has been the consequence? The agitators of Ireland have hurled the fiercest defiance again s t th e b reac h which has been thus created. We have shown them a sidealoor in the sacred edifice, and it will not be their fault if they do not make the portal good. We ourselves have presented our vulnerable side to the enemy, and it can be no wonder to find them stabbing at the sore. Thus it is, that in all the debates on the Irish Tithe Bill, there has been neither allusion or reference to the growth or spread of the faith, which ought to be the primary object of • an English cabinet. The dictates of 111 r O'Connell are obeyed implicitly. The petitions of every brawling political Section of a discontented province are taken into considera tion., ,There is not a beardless swaggerer, whose tongue is busy with what his head cannot understand, who, if he speak about the Irish Tithe question, that is not listened to with applause and attention; that is, by the ministerial party. But where shall we find a combater for the future hope of Protestant Ireland? Where shall we find one to stand up iu the assertion that in legislating fur the temporalities of the Irish churl h, English ministers are considering the positive amount of present popularity, not the anticipation of Prospective good. " Expediency" is the letter and the spirit of their law. Years ago, the celebrated patriot of Irish hiStory, GRATTAN, said—"expediency is a word of implied and tyrannical-import," he spoke with a spirit of prophecy, if We refer his lan. , nage to the acts of the present official poli ticians. It is expe 7 dient for them to maim the Irish church— it is expedient for them to lop off its branches—it is expedient for them to hew and hack at its root in the vain hope of check ing it* growth. But it is nut expedient for them to encourage Protest autism. Our present ministry discard the notion. It i* not the fashion of the day. 'Pope, y, more vicious and in tricate than in its worse dais of Italian ascendancy, has poi soned the palates of our statesmen; they have no stomach for any dish that has not the flavour of a Roinish seasoning. But slit Englishmen endure this with impunity to the (ag gressors ? Wit' they t ame ly l oo k o n while the very vestibule : . f r4 their re li g i ous consistencyie profaned by the tread of t tigers? Are their owl) hands like like those of the Roman girl, to u n b ar t h e gate of their count 's citadel, to be rewarded like her, by a death from the shi e ld s of the invaders? For bid it Ju s ti ce , and deny it Hope ? The spirit of a Hampden and a Latimer is n n o l t , et extinct in En g l an d. The fire upon the n a ti ona l altar i)%•lild esmouldering, h u t it i s not yet ex tinguished. if man . for the t emporalities of the Irish brr c t h e t t i i r i c r s h i d t re they haaret, butin legislating consulting the necessitiesorpe fth se eNresent time ; an d t h at the whole end proposed and aim o f th e tneasure is to restr i ct and contract, rather t han expand i promote the verty of their Christi a n security; then, bh ind ee d , Hope wo y ul vita h li ave a staff to lean anupon, while • e would "lif t h er radiant' another and a b etter condition of things}et But the bi tterness of the t and o ld fashioned. English men think the se not i ons ob soletenovelty, and i t i t must needstnatleislhriosiiiiinreiopnuicoannisamtoausriotsf finger"to n co t e o is . chartered guide. We conclude for the present. Miss SHIRREFF.--MISS Shirreff's benefit at the Theatre- Royal takes place this evening. The bill is a very attractive one. We hope this charmingsongstress will have a bumper. We beg to call the partienlar attention of shipowners, car penters, &c. loan advertisement in another page, " Improved patent felt, for sheathing ships, &c." We are assured by the patentees, that since the Ist January this year only three vessels have been sheathed in London with any other de scription. - Th e second o f a ser i es of Balls took place on Monday last, at the Castle Mona Hotel, Douglas, Isle of Man, which w as most n umerously attended by all the fashionables in the Isl an d. Dancing 1 0 the morning, was kept U p with great spirit until early Phillips's Band was re-engaged for the , occasion, and played a number of Musard's Quadrilles, and Strauss's Waltzes-. During the evening the same band per formed, the Victoria Grand Concertaute March with military instruments. ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS.—A grand gala is announced to take plac e at these garden s on Monday next, under the pa tronage of the Worshipful the M a y or . A very magnificent display of fireworks will be exhibited : the illuminations are he vot up in regular Vauxhall style. The eruption of fount Vesuvius will also take place. As the pyrotechnic department is to be under the direction of Mr. D'Ernst, who stands unrivalled in the mysteries of his art, a very rich treat may be a n ti c i pated, while the fashionable company expected will give the gardens a most animated appearance. LtvEaroot, ASSIZF.S.—The Assizes for South Lancashire will commence on Friday next, the 10:h instant, in this town. The Judges, Sir E. n.Alders.wn and Sir John Williams, are expected to arrive on the preceding afternoon, when the Court s will be opened in the usual form. Sir John Williams, though he practised so long on the northern circuit as a bar rister, has never before been here as a judge• The foll ow i ng extract from a communication by Captain Wheeler, relative to the return to this port of the brig Lamina, for Vera Cruz, with her outward cargo, will be interesting to mercantile readers. Ido " On the 2d i nst. 1 arrived off the port of Vera Cruz, when my great di sappointment, 1 found the harbour strongly ickaded b v a squadron of nine or ten French men 'of war. I was soon bearded by an officer from one of them, a brig, who demanded the ship's papers, which he endorsed to the effect th at all the ports and harbours of Mexico are in a state of blockade, and if I touched at any of them I should be subject to captur e of ship and cargo. After this note he concluded this unweicoine visit with ordering rue off immediately."— Brig Laurina, dated 24th June, in Ist. 24, lon. 81. " Crays, Anderson,* Co. MEETING OF THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY PROPRIETORS. On Wednesday the =atm! meeting of the proprietors of the Grand Junction Railway was held in the Cotton Sales Room, at which about 200 proprietors were present, for the purpose of declaring a dividend and electing three directors, in the room of Messrs. Charles Lawrence, William Ritson, and William Rotheram. Mr. Moss, the chairman of the directors, occupied the chair, and he commenced the proceedings by calling upon the sec retary to read, first, the notice calling the meeting, and next the directors' report. Afterwards the treasurer's accounts were read, detailing the receipts and expenditure, and like wise a statement of the expenditure on the capital account. There appeared to be some anxiety to prevent these accounts finding their way into the newspapers, and therefore we can not give the particular items as in another coluain from the accounts of the Liverpool and Manchester Company. It is a work of great difficulty, if not altogether impracticable, to take down the separate items as they ape read, and as this was the only means we had of procuring for our readers the requisite information of the state of the company's affairs, we prefer rather not to make the attempt than to misquote the company's documents, especially as we hope at au early day to be able to procure the information we desire. _ The mode in which the proprietors were ptit in possession of the statement of accounts was commented upon by Mr. COG LAN, who asked the chairman whether it would not be de sirable to print the accounts, as the proprietors with the most retentive memories could not carry away the mass of figures read over, and it was not practicable to take them down du ring the reading. The CHAIRMAN replied that the publication of such ac counts had been found injurious, and therefore the directors would give to them other publicity, but if desired, they should be again read over. Mr. War. EARLE, in reference to a portion of the report re commending the creation of half-shares to pay off certain loans which they company had obtained, inquired whether there was not an attempt in the new project, to give a greater apparent dividend to the proprietors : he objected to quirks of any sort, and he thought if they could not give the propri etors five per cent. fairly, they had better not give it at ali. The CHAIRMAN said the directors had stated the facts fairly in their report, and it was for the proprietors to give their opinion, and to adopt or reject the proposal. Mr. MortEy rose, and observed, in the hurried way in which the accounts were read, he had not found it possible to take down all the figures—he had, however, taken some of them and he desired to ask a few questions thereon. He, in the first place, wished to ask the chairman and the other directors whether the statement of figures read came to the proprietors as a statement of figures authenticated by•the board of di rectors? what course was adopted by them in the auditing of the accounts? whether the,stated expenditure was the amount really and bona fide paid during the half-year ' whet her the payments were all collected from vouchers, and whether the sums mentioned were the real net receipts ? He wished, then, first, the proprietors to be informed what course the directors adopted previous to the bringing of the accounts there, to be adopted wholesale by that meeting. The CHAIRMAN replied that the accounts were first sent to a committee of directors, to whom they were sent for exami nation, but as Mr. Chorlev was better acquainted with the subject than he was, probably he would answer the question. Mr. CHoil LEY stated that the receipts were made up weekly, and at the end of the half-year the results were collected to gether. The payments were made from vouchers and from accounts sent to the directors, and by them to the sub-com mittee, by whordthey were examined before paid. Mr. MoiLEy.—Then the sums were taken from vouchers• sent in during the current half-year for work done during that period ? The CHAIRMAN said it was so. Mr. MOZLEY said his next question was as to the locomo tive power. He did not understand, on the reading of the report and the statement of accounts, the meaning ofi a divi sion of expenditure , recommended by the directors. Did they not, he inquired, contract for the manufacture of their engines ? The CHAIRMAN replied that originally they did. . . Mr. Mom,Ey then remarked, that suppose a given num ber of engines was sent in, and they were not equal to what they ought to be, at whose expense would they be repaired? The CHAIRMAN said that would be better answered by somebody in the engineering department, but he should think the expense would fall on the company. Mr. MOZLEY asked whether that would be so, when the non-performance of the work of an engine arose from the engine not being manufactured sufficiently effective fur the purposes intended ? The CHAT AN thought it would. Mr. MOZLEY remarked, that during the last half year the company, in consequence of engines not being effective for the purposes intended, had lost £14,000. (Several voices, " £10,000.") Mr. Mozley repeated his statement. The CHAIRMAN said the loss was on engines ordered pre vious to the last half year, which, he believed, were ex tremely defective, and not such as the company ought to have had. But he did not understand locomotive power himself, yet he could see they were not such as the company ought to have, nor such as they would order now. Perhaps Mr. Earle, or somebody that understood the subject would give some explanation. Mr. MOZLEY was sure Mr. Hardman Earle would give any explanation in his power, when asked the question, but at present they had better confine themselves to the course which they had been pursuing. The CHAIRMAN said Mr. Mozley was asking him as chairman, questions which could be better answered by others. Mr. MOZLEY remarked, that the chairman had answered very satisfactorily. He then continued to observe, that he believed it was stated that their engines had caused a loss by the non-performance of the work for which they were in tended, of £14,000 in actual cost of £36,000. Several PROPRIETORS said £12,000. Mr. Mozi,Ey said he could not catch the firrures, as they were read with much rapidlty, but at least there was a loss of E 12,000. A PROPRIETOR.—No doubt of if. Mr. MOZLEY.—Then he took it that the working with steam power had really cost what they bad positively paid for it, £36,000. They could not take it in any other way. The CHAIRMAN said, all the 25 engines first ordered broke their axles. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE said some one way and some another. Mr. BOOTH BY was desirous of making a few observations respecting the expenditure in the locomotive department. The CHAIRMAN said the expense in that department could not be all called the half-yearly disbursements. The direc tors were of opinion that much of it' might have been saved if they had had different engines; and they were of opinion also that much expense thereby incurred was the same as the expense incurred by the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, in laying down new, in the place of defective rails, wh►ch was charged on the capital, and not on the cur rent accounts. Mr. BOOTHBY again remarked that they had contracted for certain engines; but if those engines were valued to tha company at £12,000, and they were not worth so much, he could not understand why they should throw that charge on the stock of the company, and pay a dividend of £5 per cent. It was a dead loss to the concern. The directors had tried an experiment which had failed; another might be tried next year, and instead of £36,000 they might expend £46,000 in the succeeding half year, though they were led to expect greater perfection in their engines; and he would ask how such an expenditure as the £12,000 could be justly charged on the capital stock, to which it added no value. (Applause.) As other matters would occupy their at!ention, he would move at once that the £12,000 be added to the disbursements of the half-year , and that a divid e nd b e p a id accor di ng ly. MT. LAW RENCE HEYWORTH differed from Mr. Boothby in tote. The engines had cost £36,000, but that they ought not to call that capital, b ec a use they,were not worth £36,(X)0, by £12,000, was no argument at all. A railway might cost EGOO more than another of equal value in usefulness, and ,who would not say that that was capital expended, or that they ought not to call it capital ? In ordering engines they ordered th e b est according to their opinion at the time, and they cost £36,000 , and if they could now order like engines for £24,000, they would be so much the more benefitted for the future. But they had now laid omit the money, and to make the engines work they cost £36,000. It was as palpa ble as noon d a y Mr. Boothby, in the flights of his imagina tion, would seem to have supposed that that expense was to go on, and that therefore it must be added to the current expenses of the half-year, or some such nonsense; but were they to perpetuate disadvantageou s circumstances ? The sum expended was part of their capital, aqd as such he would propose that it be added to the capital. Mr. JAMES HEYWORTH said Mr. Boothby seemed to assume that they were to appropriate a portion of the capital ; but the directors had merely stated all the facts, and they left the proprietors to deal with them as they pleased. The CHAIRMAN also said they had stated two plans, and they left it to the proprietors to adopt either as they ;night determine. Mr. LAWRENCE HEYWORTII again indeed that the £14,000 be added to the capital, and Mr. BooTtißY asked whether they ought not to adopt the same principle as in their mercantile concerns? Before they made up their accounts, they took the value of their stock, and in their account of capital they ought to take the value of their engines in the amount of their stock, before the dividend was declared. If they had improved their stock by what they had laid out, that ought to be added to the capital; but if their stock was of less value in June than in January, notwithstanding all the money laid out upon it, it was only fair that it should be so taken—that was the only fair way their accounts could be made up. Mr. COGLAN wished, before it was determined whether the £14,000 should be carried to the capital or to the current expenditure, to ascertain on whom the loss would fall. They had ordered locomotive engines from contractors on a certain principle, and it appeared that when they came into opera tion the axletree broke, which must be attributable to a want of strength or to some defect in the axle, which would be clearly traced, he hoped, to the contractor. If so, was not the contractor liable to make up the loss? But if the defect was traceable to the directors not giving a clear statement and description with the agreement, then it would fall on the company. If, however, there was a clear specification of the mode in which they should be made, and the contractor had not made them according to the specification, then the item should fall on the contractor, and the difficulty about which they were debating would be removed at once. He begged that they might clearly understand that part of the subject before they proceeded. Mt. HAtioxiari EARLE regretted that that discussion had taken place in the absence of their engineer, whose reputa tion it affected. He went on to state that the specifications when given were considered sufficient and ample, and before signing they had undergone a good deal of discussion, and the engines were made according to them. But the con tractors had each their ()an fancies, some of which had proved advantageous, and for which they were much in debted ; but others were bad, and had altogether failed. But they were much in want at the time, and they had taken them knowing them to be bad—(hear) —conceiving that a bad engine was better than no engine at all. Some were required for the completio❑ of the road, and they were used before it was opened, and then required a good deal of repair before they could run with a train. Some of the axles were not of sufficient strength, and many broke; but some were running now, having run from the commencement 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 miles; and as they were made of good iron, he believed they would not break. With respect to some that broke, he knew they were made thicker than required by the specification; but the shapes of the axles differed, and if they could only have made up their minds as to the shape, he believed they would have saved a good deal of money; that, however, was a question not yet settled. With respect to the sum of inonev mentioned, his opinion was, that the mischief and loss to the company was not so great in its extent, and ought not all to be attributed to loss on loco motive power; for those that had been repaired, he believed, were able to stand their work, and some of them had run 20,000 or 25,000 miles, and kept their time admirably. He also believed that some part of the loss was attributable to the difficulty of getting coke; their demand at first was greater than could be conveniently supplied, and they had consequently taken it at almost any terms, and had not taken the precaution to have it weighed; and of whatever blame was due, he acknowledged that he ought to take his full share. The Chairman said, that their engineer (as we understood) had stated, that all the axles of their engines were too weak, whether crank or otherwise, and had all in consequence broken. Mr. HARUMAN EARLE.—llid he say that of all the first contract? The CHAIRMAN.—Of the first twenty-five. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE wassare it Was not so, The CHAIRMAN said he (the engineer) had not seen the specification, and could not tell whether they were made ac cording to it. And he (the chairman) was of opinion that there had been great irregularity in the engineering depart ment, and much looseness In the m anagement; and lik ew i s e in the receipt of so much coke without its being weighed. They had received £lO,OOO worth of coke, and not one wag gon of it had been weighed. {Expressions of dissatisfaction.) A PROPRIETOR observed, that in the earlier stage of their business they had not had time to weigh it, but it was weigh ed to them, and he believed they were usually satisfied with the ticket sent with the coal, which they individually brought for their own use. He inquired whether the chairman meant that the coke should be stopped at Preston Brook and re weighed? If some explanation were not given, an unplea sant impression might be left on the minds of the proprietors. Mr. NOZLEY said, the discussion had taken a different course than he had anticipated. The proprietors bad come there to receive an account of the Directors' trust—they had heard read the items of the receipt and expenditure, and they were then to say whether the accounts should pass in that slip-shod way in which accounts at general meetings were often allowed to pass. It would be uncomfortable to the Directors themselves to allow them to pass if they knew there was anything wrong, and unsatisfactory to the proprietors; and therefore he should press his question, which was one of pounds, shillings, and pence. If the engines were made on a certain principle and cost .£lOOO, and that was found defective, and another cost £l5OO, that belonged to the capi tal account—there they paid £l5OO for what they had before paid £lOOO, but he could not understand, if, after expending £lOOO, they were to put the engine in dock, as he believed it was called, and put in new wheels, cranks, and otherwise re paired it, how that expenditure could be added to the capital account. They might carry it to the current expenditure account, or the profit and loss, but certainly not to the capi tal. That was the view he should take as an arbitrator. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE differed from Mr. Motley. Sup pose a bridge had fallen, to what account would Mr. Mozley carry the rebuilding of the bridge ? Mr. BOOTHBY said, to the current expenses. (No, no. Yes, yes, and applause.) Mr. H AubmAN EARLE said, certainly the capital account. Mr. BOOTHBY said, the principle was merely the same when a rail broke, and would they carry the expense of replacing a rail to the capital or wear and tear? Mr. HARDMAN EARLE said, that the Liverpool and Man chester Company carried a similar expenditure to the capital account. Mr. MARSHALL st•conrled Mr. Mozley's motion. Mr. HOYES observed he had understood there had been bad management alleged by the chairman, and he inquired whether he had heard aright. 'the CHAIRMAN said there' had been great irregularity in the accounts, and a check ought to be given to it—there had been a great laxity in the system. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE.—llid you find any thing that showed there had been fraud? The CHAIRMAN.—That is an awkward expression. We certainly have been laid open to imposition. Mr. HOYES asked to whom they were to impute the mis management—whether the board would bear the imputation as a board, or whether it was chargeable upon a sub-commit tee, or upon any manager. Several directors, among whom were Mr. EWART, Mr. J. HORNBY, and Mr. RITSON, said they must each take a fif teenth share of the blame. Mr..LAwaENcE HEYWORTH said it was clearly understood that they had been inexperienced in these matters, and could not he expected to act as well as they would with experience, but in future they might look for a brighter prospect. He did not care that the directors had made mistakes to the amount of -11 E12,000. ; it was possible they should err, but lik e repentant sinners they had confessed their faults, and he now hoped they should be forgiven.—(Laughter.) Mr. BOOTHBY reiterated his arguments against the pro posed charge of 1.12.000. upon the capital account. Mr. LAWRENCE HEYVORTH also pressed his motion, which was now not only to the effect that the £12,625. be carried to the capital account, but that a dividend of £5. per cent. be 'declared. Mr. MOZLEY asked why the two were coupled together. Several PROPRIETORS also objected to the union of the two questions in one resolution. Mr MARSHALL, who seconded Mr. Heyworth's motion, objected likewise. A SHAREHOLDER thought it was a strange principle to lay this amount to capital account. He could almostthink there was an intention of deceiving themselves or the public. Some other preprietors, including Mr.- COGLAN and Mr. BARNETT, addressed the meeting, the latter in support of Mr. Boothby's motion, and then the motions were put, when there appeared a great number of hands held up for Mr. Heyworth's motion, and but about 30 for Mr. Boothby's. CREATION OF NEW HALF SHARES. The CHA IR stANistated that the next question was the cre ation of new half shares, which the directors had thought de sirable, to provide for the repayment of loans. Mr. LAWRENCE HE YWORTH moved that new half shares be created, and he thought by the adoption of his motion they should show to the public, as Mr. Boothby desired, what was their real state. A PROPRIETOR seconded the motion. Mr. Mozr,Ev though that this was a question of great im portance, and on which they should not come to a decision half -yearly only twelve on months s t in gr e e x a i t ste d n e c li e b , e a ra n t d ion h had which there had been declared, by a mauwuvre, a dividend T t h w e o y of ten per cent.; but still he had the fullest conviction on his mind of the injudiciousness of the step. He had already been beaten on a principle; yet, while he bowed to the ma jority, his opinion was unchanged. By manoeuvre they bad endeavoured to pay five per cent. on the half year, and now they went on to adopt a mode to raise an addition to their capital which would be charged with additional dividend. If they wanted money, he thought it was not the best way to obtain it to add 50 per cent. to their capital, thereby adding a large annual sum to pay year by year. If he thought that anything in that undertaking was so bad, he would use his best exertions to raise its value; but he believed the Grand Junction Railway was so large, so magnificent, and so gi gantic that even bad management it could surmount. With those feelings he was disposed to nurse it as a pet; keep down its expenses and not pay proprietors nine or ten per cent. when money could be had for four or four and a half. Before they came to a hasty decision, he really thought it de sirable that they should adjourn, to give each person an op portunity to ponder over the accounts, and then to come to a conclusion quietly. If they were determined to create half shares he would receive them as the rest, but he did not think that in twelve months they had had that experience that would enable them to take the step safely. The CHAIRMAN said he might state that this was perhaps the only company that ever finished its undertaking without w y thh h ey a c d hh h t a o ed, p e a bx y epsei e l d . o tee r sa stations ebd a e xidwsaonm owanted, d engines , farno dm t t i h a t t eh e w c 'e o r r e making new shares. H e a dd e d, th at t h ey owed £ 50,000, p w cn o l d i r i e a c t r 4 j e o d t n h ; : ques tion of creating quarter or half shares arose_ as a means of enabling them to pay off the £lOO,OOO, for which a call would soon be made. Mr. MOZLEY said that explanation had put him in posses sion of information which he had not had before. He was not aware that they were so much indebted. • 111 r. HoYas spoke in favour of an adjournment. Mr. HEYWORTU replied, after first inquiring whether any other proprietor wished to speak on the subject. He said he was a large proprietor, and he had always had great confi dence in the directors, but his confidence had that day been. confirmed. When directors openly told them of their differ ences among themselves, their property was safe; but when there was an apparent unanimity the proprietors might tremble (Applause.) If he sent a ship to sea with her sails set, if there was no wind, she could make no progress; and he was heartily glad that th ere was th e ex hib ition w hi c h he had seen that day, for, in the commotion which they had observed, they had their security. Mr ALSTON rose to make an observation, but was inter rupted by Mr. LAWRENCE HEYWORTH, who said, "I do cry order, order; I (lid desire any gentleman to get up and speak before I gave my responding answer." (Laughter.) Mr. At.srox did not sympathise with Mr. Lawrence Hey worth, but merely wished to bear testimony to the judicious, prudent, and intelligent conduct of the directors, and if they had had a loss of 14,000, it arose from the novelty of ma :age ment. (Question, question.) Mr. MOZLEY thought the hon. proprietor (Mr. Heyworth) had been a little too hard with him; and in applying the word nonsense to what he had said, he thought the hon. proprietor had gone a little too far. His object in the course he had taken was to unveil every thing that was hidden, and impro per and injurious to them or the concern at large, and he thought he ought not to be stigmatised for what he had done. They had heard read, in a rapid manner, the treasurer's ac counts, and he asked him (whether the chairman or Mr. Heyworth we did not understand) as abanker or a merchant, whether accounts so hastily read, unless they had great con fidence in them, ought to adopt and receive the report and thank them for it. He was not willing to receive his dividend, and his half and quarter shares, but as his due out of his pro perty in which he had made a speculation. He believed the concern to be good, and that the directors might bring out its good qualities; but when he found dissensions spreading on the right and on the left,—(no, no, and yes, yes)—and then accounts brought to the t e st, he did not think he was talking nonsense when he asked for explanation of the way in which the accounts had been made up, how authenticated, and how passed, before they were called upon to adopt them. After some other observations, The CHAIRMAN said the directors were desirous to give every explanation to the proprietor s . A PROPRIETOR asked what Mr. Mozley had meant by the expressions he had used, when he said he desired to "unveil what was secret," and elicit what was true and correct ; and he hoped he did not imply that the directors desired impro per secresy, or to do what was incorrect, or state what was untrue. Mr. MonEv.—Certainly not. A PROPRIETOR said that the directors had already in what they had stated done a work of supererogation. (Question, question.) Mr. LAWRENCE HEY WORTH said he was sorry if anything he had said had given pain to Mr. Mozley; he had no wish to throw discredit on Mr. Mozley's abilities, which were so well known.. It was then understood that the creation of half-shares was approved of, and as it was necessary to call a special meeting to agree to a resolution to that effect, the 9th of August was fixed for that purpose. _ _ _ . The CHAIRMAN then said that the only question that re mained was the adoption of the report, when ➢lr. BOOTHBY rose and said, before that was done he would move a resolution, which he handed to the chairman. Mr. BUCKHURST seconded the resolution, which was to the effect, that previous to each half-yearly meeting there should be a valuation of their stock, rails, &c. A PROPRIETOR said that such a valuation was always made by the'Liverpool and Manchester Company. The resolution was not pressed. The CH AIRMAN said that it was necessary that the common seal should be fixed to the list of proprietors, which was or dered. Mr. L. HEYWORTII desired that the book containing the list should lie in that room for the inspection of the proprie tors. The CHAIRMAN 'Said the act of parliament gave the .pro prietors the right at all times to the list, but in the book in question the number of shares of the proprietors were attach ed to their names, which it was not usual to exhibit. NEW DIRECTORS. The election of persons to succeed Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Ritson, and Mr. Rotherham, in the board of directors, was the next business. Mr. Thomas Ripley was proposed in the place of Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Lewin Mozley in the room of Mr. Rotherham, and Mr. Thomas Booth in lieu of Mr. Ritson. Mr. Gilfillan and Mr. Wm. Smith were also pro posed. The balloting commenced at the close of the meet ing, and was adjourned till yesterday. THE DISSENSIONS AMONG THE DIRECTORS Mr. HoyEs rose and said, if the other business was dis posed of he had several resolutions which he desired to pro pose. He regretted that there should be such unseemly squabbles amongst the directors, of which every proprietor was doubtless made acquainted by being furnished with a copy of a certain correspondence. His resolutions had reference to those' squabbles ;—the first regretted that the shareholders were called upon to advert to the feeling dis played at a late meeting, and in a document which had been circulated amongst the proprietors ; the second averred, that unless a spirit of conciliation were adopted, the most disas trous consequences could not fail to ensue;—and the third went to express the opinion of the proprietors, that, while they had the best opinion of the private worth of Mr. Hard man Earle, his continuance in the list of directors was inimical to the best interests of the company. Mr. MAXWELL seconded the motion. Mr. LAWRENCE HEYWORTH repeated his statement, that such men as Mr. Earle were necessary in a body like the board of directors. He was a gentleman of talent and ability, and however injudicious he might be at times—and he (Mr. Heyworth) would not justify all Mr. Earle did—he should be sorry to see him go out. He would, however, give Mr. Earle advice to let what had taken place restrain his impetuosity. He thought, before such charges were made, evidence should be given of the injury. Mr. lloyLs said, if an adjournment were agreed to they might find out what injury had been caused by Mr. Earle, Their chairman had said that their friends had been turned to enemies, and their enemies had become more embittered. If a committee were appointed, they might find out the effects of such squabbles. A Paoraiaroa, after some observations, moved a resolu tion to the effect that the meeting was not disposed to enter further into the subject, which was seconded and commented upon by a proprietor. The CHAIRMAN said he felt placed in an awkward position dying that discussion ' • and especially as he had not receiv e d any directions from the board to make any statement on the subject to that meeting. There had, however, long been a want of union which made him think that it was impossible further to go on. (Applause.) He did not wish the, ques tion pressed that Mr. Earle should go out, but he thought it desirable that somebody should go out, and he would be obliged if they would let him be that person. (No, no.) It was impossible for them to go on as they were. Nobody had greater respect for Mr. Earle than he had, but the time had arrived when the proprietors should take the matter into their own hands, and he appealed to Air. Lawrence to state whe ther he thought the board could go on harmoniously as now situated. Mr. CHARLES LAWRENCE, 'though painful to him to do so, confirmed the statement of The CHAIRMAN, who added, that that was the opinion of the majority of the directors, and he only wished they would allow him to retire. (No, no, and yes from Mr. Earle.) He thought it would be desirable if some gentleman would move that both he and Mr. Earle should retire. Mr. W. EARLE.—I hope Mr. Earle will not. The CHAIRMAN continued.—The company could do well without their chairman or Mr. Earle, and if they would allow them both to retire, as far as he had the means, out of the board, he would render them all the service in his power; but Mr. Earle and he differed so much in principles—and on locomotive power—that they could not act together. The board would work well if they were both to retire. He hoped they would not think he was saying too much. Mr. HOYES said his motion was not so much to cause Mr. Earle's expulsion, 'as to cause unanimity. Mr. Earle was entitled to their regard and respect in private life. Mr. BOOTHBY wished to ask one or two questions from Mr. Earle. Mr. Boothby then went into some statements, in the course of which he remarked, that good feeling and unanimity were not only desirable as respected the welfare of their own concern, but disunion amongst themselves affected the cordiality which should exist between them and the Lon don and Birmingham Company; and any director who could express a hostile feeling to that company, was unfit for his situation. it. however, was reported out of doors, and it was fit that Mr. Earle should di sc l a im or avow it ; for on that disclaimer or avowal his vote would depend, if his vote were necessary. He (Mr. Boothby) had not only an interest in this, but also in the London and Birmingham Railway, of which he had the honour to be a director ; and he hoped a mutual good feeling would exist between them. Mr. Boothby then stated that a communication had been made and ac ceded to, that the books of one company should be open for the inspection of the directors of the other for their benefit, and a reciprocity was expected ; but it was reported that Mr. Earle, who, it was notorious, was not on the very best terms with some of the Liverpool and Birmingham Company's officers especially one of the secretaries, had declared that they should not act unless he was one of the ;arty to go over to make the inspection of the books, and of the line. He hoped that threat was not truly reported, and that Mr. Earle would contradict it. Another question which he wished to ask was, whether Mr. Earle, as was currently reported, had stated that he did not care for the opinion of the proprietors, and that though 19-20ths should desire him to withdraw, he should continue a director another year, as he had the power to do, in defiance of them. (Shame.) That was language which no gentlemen could tolerate; and, unless he could deny it, he was unfit to continue a director. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE was glad that Mr. Boothby had ,brought the question forward. With respectto the London and Birmingham company he had no ill-feeling towards them, and in proof of it he mentioned that he had proposed at the board that they should ruts to the same station, which he be lieved was a great accommodation. He had also proposed that their carriages should run throughout when the line was open and that would also be a great accommodation. (Hear, hear.) And whenever any measure was proposed for the good working of the two lines he had always supported it. 'With respect to the committee proposed to make the inspection al luded to it was wished to prevent any person who should be a director of the London and Birmingham or the Liverpool and Manchester lines from being appointed. He knew that was levelled at him, and he did say then he would go himself, and Mr. Sandars said that he would accompany him. The CHAIRMAN made some observations which we did not catch, and Mr: HARDMAN EARLE (with some warmth) replied that the chairman was constantly interrupting him. The CHAIRMAN said Mr. Earle had appealed to the chair. Mr. EARLE denied that he had, he had appealed to Mr. San ders, but this was the way he was treated. He then went on to state that on another occasion a committee was appointed to prepare their report on their locomotive power, and again he was excluded, and why ? Because they wanted a one-sided report—one that would not elicit the truth. Ifhe had had the opportunity, he should have put the question respecting the axles in a different point of view; but he was not one of the committee. indeed, he considered himself very ill-used, and many falsehoods have been circulated about. It had been said that he had declared he did not care for the opinion of the proprietors; but he, as well as others, must be amenable to public opinion; but when he knew that he was in the right, though he were the victim of falsehood—though he were ma ligned—and though the failure of the engines, and even the ele ments themselves, which were alone the cause of the failure, were charged upon him, and he did feel those accusations were not true, and when he did feel that he was right, be would say that he had great respect for the proprietors, but no body of men should coerce him. He could and would withstand it, and he desired the strictest investigation into his conduct. Som'ething had been said about him taking the engineer's department upon himself, but he never did give a single order ; he had made suggestions to the committee, and they had sometimes been adopted, but that he ever gave an order was untrue. But what disadvantage could there arise from a gentleman going into the workshops, as he did every day? He claimed no great merit for his attendance, but those gentlemen that sat with him knew that he brought useful suggestions, and they were of great advantage to a concern in which, he must state, he had a great stake. On looking over the list of proprietors, he found that there were only 27 that had a greater interest t4an he had. Respecting the difference between him and the chairman, he admitted they did differ about the axles. Now, the chairman had this day admitted, that he knew nothing about locomotive power, and yet he expected his opinion to have greater weight than any other person's. He (Mr. E.) did not object to let their locomotive power. He was aware there were advantages in it, but he still felt that some investigation should take place as to what would be the real expense, and whether any contractor was likely to come to take the road, for it would be supposed that their expenses were reduced to the lowest point, while they last week made a reduction of 65 men at their engine-build ing establishment, and the men that were left were doing double the work consequent upon their machinery. He therefore had no doubt that any person wishing to take this line would take it with more confidence when it was seen what reductions were commenced. The next object was the engines, and he really should wish a little more time to be allowed. It had been said that the London and Birmingham showed great results: the Grand Junction did for the first six months, when they received nearly £17,000. I Mr. Bo OT LIB Y.—XQAOOO. Mr. EA RLE.—WeII £20,000. at 16d. a running mile while the London and Manchester was 2s. He wished a proper inquiry to be made from every railway in the kingdom to find what they had done. He had no private feeling in this mat ter and if he spoke to the chairman warmly, as he did on one occasion; he bad taken occasion before he left the room to express his regret, and he would take care for the future to conduct himself with temper. He bad before made that pledge, and he there again repeated it, that he would endea vour to make the business work harmoniously. His visits to the shops were for the purpose of giving information, and he appealed to Mr. Lawrence whether be did more than suggest and get information, and there was souse advantage in a per son who understood something of those thiugs being there t o report from the engineer to the board, which he had oppor tunities of doin g . He had yet to learn t hat that was a dis advantage. H had stated to the board when the subject of negociat ion came before it, his willingness to withdraw him self from the board but it was certainly some what presump tuous to say, that sinless he did retire that they would not ne gociate ; but to remove any difficulty he would now repeat that offer. After some other remarks, be said ne was uncon scious of doing wrong ; and he knew, whilst there were many there against him, there were many also for him. The CHAIRMAN asked for some explanation of the words used by Mr. Earle respecting the getting up of falsehoods against him, and whether any individual was alluded to ? Mr. EARLE said he had spoken of false reports, distilled through so many individuals, but he charged uo person with falsehood. The CHAIRMAN explained why it was desired to exclude directors of other railways from the committee of inquiry of which Mr. Earle had spoken; lie said he knew how preju diced all men were when inquiring into that which concerned themselves. Mr. EARLE said, at that time he was not a director of the London and Birmingham line. CHAIRMAN.—You had been. Mr. EARLE assented. And lie said, when be declared that he would go with the committee he did nut want his ex penses paid. The CHAIRMAN said there was no person he differed with less in private matters than Mr. Earle; but in the board they differed on principle, and he (the chairman) had told Mr. Earle that he would not sit with him again; but if Mr. Earle would only be satisfied with the decision of the ma. jority, and not argue the question after, he (the chairman) would contribute his part to the general unanimity. (Ap plause.) Mr. EARLE did not think they differed on principle, they only differed as to time. Mr. LAWRENCE HurwoaTn was gratified that the affairs had taken that ttitn. Some other remarks were subsequently made by several proprietors, the resolutions proposed by Alr. Noyes were withdrawn, and the meeting broke up with a general recon ciliation. Mr. LAWRENCE and Mr. HEYWORTH were appointed to take the votes during the ballot for directors. BURGLARY NEAR BOLTON.--011 Monday forenoon, Mr. Diggles, deputy constable of Salford, who was passing along Chapel-street, in Salford, observed a man having a large bnndle in his hand, stood by a pawnbroker's shop, as if wait ing for some one. He watched him a little, and soon saw another man come out of the pawnbroker's • and the two went together into a public•houee. lie followed them, and asked them where they came from, when one of them said he came from Wakefield, and the other that he came from Warring ton. He then examined the bundle, and, seeing that it con tained wearing apparel, he asked them where they had got it; and they said it was their own. As, however, he had heard that the shop of Mr. Hopwood, plumber and glazier, of Tong Moor Gate, near Bolton, had been broken into on Friday night last, and a quantity of wearing apparel stolen, he thought it not unlikely that these men were concerned in the robbery; and he accordingly took them into custody. They were brought up at the New Bailey yesterday, when their names were stated to be John Brown and Henry Wilson. Mr. Diggles detailed the above facts; and Mr. Hopcvood's son stated the articles found on the prisoners were the same as were stolen from his father's shop. The prisoners said they knew nothing about the robbery, and the clothes were their own. They were committed for trial at the assizes.—Man. chester Guardian. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.—A man named John Hensbrough, in the employment of Messrs. Phillips and Co., merchants, Church -street, in this town, as salesmen, were brought up at the New Bailey yesterday, charged with obtaining goods by false pretences, under the following circumstances :--It appeared, from the evidence, that on the llth of May last, the prisoner went to Messrs. Syddall and Waterhurst, silk manufacturers, High-street, and said he wanted some silk for Miss Johnson, milliner, of Newport, near Liverpool; that she dealt largely with Messrs. Hanson and Sons, linen check manufacturers, where he was formerly employed; that she was a good customer, and would pay in six weeks. In consequence of these represen tations, they let him have 8-1 yards of Bros de Naples, the value of which was about £ll, and he was to send it to Miss Johnson. At the end of the six weeks, however, no Miss Johnson came to pay fur it, and Messrs. Syddall and Watchurst wrote to her; but no answer was received, and, on further inquiry, they found that there was no such person living at Newport near Liverpool, but at Newport, in the county of Mayo, Ireland. They told him there was not a Newport in the county of Mayo; but he persisted that there was, and referred to a directory; but, on looking into it, there was no mention of any such place. The prisoner then ap peared confused, and did not know what to say. Messrs. Syddall and Watchurst waited some time longer • and as no Miss Johnson came forward to pay for the silk, they ob tained a warrant against the prisoner on Monday last, for ob taining the goods by false pretences; and he was apprehended by Smith, the beadle, the same day. The prisoner was de fended by Mr. Taylor. He was committed for trial at the sessions.—Manchester Guardian of Wednesday. ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY Yesterday the adjourned meeting of the shareholders of this company was held at the Cotton Sale-room, at 1 o'clock . Mr. SWIFT, the secretary of the company, stated the result of the ballot for new directors, had been in the appointment of M r. Gilfillan, Mr. Ripley, and Mr. Mozly, in the room of the retiring directors. THE SQUABBLES AT THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT. Mr. M‘GREGGoa, wished to understand if he had rightly understood the arrangement come to the day before, that the chairman and Mr. W. Earle would bow to the wishes of the majority of the board, and resign if a resignation should be required of them. The CHAIRMANsaid be had promised to do all in his power to make the board work together unanimously, as it was the pleasure of the meeting to withdraw the resolution. But as to his giving any pledge either for himself or Mr. Earle he was quite sure be did not, Mr. BOOTHBY said,' o far as he understood, the arrange ment on Wednesday was, the ample assurance of the chair man, and other directors tbat they would endeavour to act harmoniously together, and that the system of locomotive power should be changed, and that they would endeavour to benefit from the experience of other railways. On that un derstanding the mover of the resolution withdrew it, not putting it to the vote. But it was highly desirable that the board should work harmoniously together, they never could work well if they were continually squabbling among them selves, and appealing to the proprietors. He would say, that the board did not work harmoniously till these proceedings were done away with. And if the majority of the board expressed a wish that any individual should retire, whether Mr. Earle or Mr. Moss, or any other individual, they ought to retire without troubling the prom ietors. He thought they should have some more specific pledge from Mr. Earle to this effect, in order to terminate the matter. If Mr. Earle would state now, that if those difficulties did again occur, and a majority of his own board requested him to retire, that he would do so, it would be satisfactory. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE did not expect a renewal of this discussion ; he had hoped it was concluded. The CHAIRMAN was sure be did. Mr. H. EARLE said, he had had• a very satisfactory and conciliatory conversation with the chairman ; but as to giving an answer to a hypothetical case, he declined it. He hoped such a case might never arise, and he did trust he should be excused till it did. They had begun now on a different foot ing. lie had stated it should be his endeavour to work hal rnoniously and properly. Their differences were not irrecon cilable ; and it"was only a question of time as to when certain things should be done; but he did hope the meeting would trust to his good feeling, and permit the question to drop. He did not doubt but that in future he should conduct him self in a proper manner. The CHAIRMAN said, that what he had referred to on Wed nesday was, that all personal objections were removed; and that if the gentleman would withdraw his resolution, he would endeavour to work harmoniously with Mr. Earle; he could give no pledge for what was to take place hereafter. So far as going out went, he wanted to go out; he was most anxious to get out. He did not lik e M r . B oo thbv's term of "squab bling," because it implied a personal thing. They differed on a question which he considered as of vital importance to the board, which Mr. Earle did not so consider. Mr. Boi)THBY did not mean personally to speak of Mr. Moss as chairman, but as a director; but what he meant to say was, that they disagreed, and continually appealed to the proprie tors. He thought that when a director could not agree-with others, his first call was to tender his resignation, and then come before the proprietors; and if they approved of his con duct, they would re-elect him, But it was quite unusual'for one part of the proprietary to come before another to justify him before a majority of the board. He sincerely hoped an other occasion would never present itself. But he did think they were entitled to have the pledge of Mr. Earle to bow be fore the majority. He had always an appeal to the proprie tors, and they would set him right; but he did not like this continual appeal from the board to them. He had differed always from Mr. Earle on the principle of undertaking a con cern like this. He was of opinion that it ought not to be undertaken on private responsibility, and under the direction of separate directors. It ought to be under an executive . They had ample funds to pay proper officers,and the respon sible interference of a director in a great concern like this must be very prejudicial, be he ever so efficient. He could not be lord, and, therefore, he hoped that this would put an end to personal interference out of court, and that no instruc tions would be given except through 'the proper quarter— their secretary. Mr. HA RDMAN EARLE said the observations of Mr. Booth by were directed against him, no doubt. This sort of inter ference in the Grand Junction Railway was much the same as Mr. Boothby's on the London and Birmingham Railway. He had been very active and taken much trouble with the detail. His (Mr. Earle's) services were very inferior, but pretty much of the same description. There must be a cer tain sort of interference, but his had not been a mischievous one, and with respect to orders he had never given any. Mr. M'GREGOR said the meeting had separated on Wed nesday with an understanding that, if called upon by a ma jority of the proprietors, Mr. Earle would resign. Was that the case ? Mr. IlorEs said he did not understand that • but he sup posed that there was a distinct understanding that Mr. Moss and Mr. Earle would endeavour to make the management work harmoniously in future. He certainly understood no pledge from Mr. Earle, but it would certainly be conducive to the establishment of a good understanding if he would make that statement. . The CHAIRMAN said he had made no pledge; what he had stated was an abstaining from all personal feeling. Mr. MAXWELL said the chairma❑ had certainly stated on Wednesday that he did not think the board could work together harmoniously. Did the chairman think that the difficulty as to its harmonious working together was removed? The CHAIRMAN could not say; he would do all in his power to make it work harmoniously. Mr. MAXWELL.—Because you stated yesterday that the board could not so work. The CHAIRMAN.--i did say so. Mr. CHARLES LAWRENCE thought going over this ground a second time, was hardly fair to the proprietors, who had thought on Wednesday that all was arranged. But he could not deny, that when Mr. Earle had given a pledge to act harmoniously, he had hoped that such would be the case. He thought they ought not to go into the matter again. Mr. ItursoNsoncurred in what Mr. Boothby had said. He did think after the manner in which Mr. Earle had laid himself open, the spirit in which his promise hae been given, and the spirit in which it had been taken by the assembled shareholders at large—he did conceiYe'that an end had been put to the matter on Wednesday. And, although he gave Mr. Boothby credit for what he had stated, his impression was that they ought to let the question rest where it was, and see how the directors in future act. The CHAIRMAN said, that he must say he would not again come before the proprietors on this question; this was his. last appearance. He would not be brought forward in this way. If they could not agree it was better to separate. He should not feel disposed to serve after all that bad passed, because it was extremely unpleasant to him that Mr. Moss's name should be brought forward in opposition to Mr. Hard man Earle's. if such was to be the case again, Mr. Moss would walk out of the room and not go in again. He would not come before the proprietors again where a difference was spoken of between Mr. Moss and Mr. Earle. He never would again appear in that room with any difference. It should be a qyestion between the board and Mr. Earle and Mr. Moss. Mr. Horns said they understood it was now a question between the board and Mr. Earle, and Mr. Moss. The CHAIRMAN said it was a, question for the board, pro perly speaking, and he did not know any right why his name had been mentioned on Wednesday. He should be very glad if the board would bring forward another chairman. To have his name brought forward in that way was extremely unpleasant to his own feelings, and he would not have it on any occasion repeated. If he thought there was a majority of the directors against him he should resign, as he was perhaps too thin skinned on these occasions. He wished distinctly to say that he would not quarrel with Mr. Earle again; be would have no more quarrelling. Mr. BOOTHBY had come merely to hear the result of the scrutiny, and the questions put to the chairman had led to the discussion which had occurred, but without any pre-con certed intention. Mr. M`GREGoa begged to ask, for his own satisfaction, whether this was nut an adjournment of the Wednesday's - meeting. He wished a distinct pledge from Mr. Earle. Mr. EWA RT thought it better to leave the question to the gentlemen themselves; and if the proprietors did nut think Mr. Earle did his duty in the way he ought to do, he would do what any gentleman would do. It was quite wrong to ask him for any pledge. Mr. BOOTHBY should subscribe to that doctrine under or dinary circumstances. But they were given to understand from Mr. Earle that he would not resign under ordinary cir cumstances. He should quite agree in the statement just made, but Mr. Earle was under peculiar circumstances He ' did not think there had been an instance at any board in Liverpool where so much squabbling and bad feeling, and appeals to the proprietors, and injury to their property, had resulted as in this. (Hear.) Mr. H. EARLE should wish each case to rest on its own merits; and when another occasion should arise of his squab bling, it was quite time for him to give an answer. He would endeavour in future to avoid quarrelling. The CHAIRMAN wished to be understood. Any conversa tion he had had with Mr. Earle had nothing to do with set tling the question. If the proprietors would endeavour to settle it, he would do his best. Mr. M‘GREGoit said, how different the situation of the proprietors was to what was understood. Mr. Moss said if any differences occurred, he would not be a party to them. They had no such pledge from Mr. Earle. They ought, as men of business, to have that pledge. (Hear.) Mr. HARDMAN EARLE did not think he was called upon to give any pledge of the kind. He considered that the case was finished on Wednesday. He considered it rather per sonal to himself to revert to it again that day. Mr. M'GREGoR begged to say, he did not wish the pledge on his own account personally, Mr. HARDMAN EARLE said it was very difficult to define what they meant by difference of opinion. It was not to be supposed that the whole board should be of one opinion on any subject. If he were to endeavour to circumvent the opinion of the whole board when against him, that would be very unworthy in him, and he should be quite unworthy of holding a seat at that board. But as to the divisions which took place, he hoped they would not degenerate into personal squabbles. He thought he was competent as a director to give his opinion on those matters; and he did not think he should go to the extremity of dividing the board, unless he saw a very strong party in his favour. All he could say was, he should endeavour to conduct himself properly, and not differ with the chairman. The CHAIRMAN.—You will never differ with the chairman again; I never will su ff er i t. Mr. H. EARI.E.—But by difference you don't mean differ in opinion. The CHAIRMAN. —If we differ on essential points of manage ment iu the concern, from that moment I will resign. Mr. H. EARLE.—Suppose the board decide in your favour, there is an end of the question. The CHAIRMAN.—I will not stay for it to be decided, for I shall never appeal to them. Mr. HoYEs said, the difference of opinion at the board was not all; but when those differences were carried out so that other boards would not meet them ' as the shareholders w e r e distinctly inform e d was t h e case, h e thought it was quite time for the shareholders to look after their own property. Mr. BOOTHBY did think that Mr. Earlestanding there as a director, should not hesitate to pledge himself at once; that when a majority of proprietors had lost confidence in his management, or in the system which he advocated, he should, without the least hesitation, say he would retire He could not see on what ground he could retain his situation, against the opinion of the proprietors. Mr. C. LAWRENCE thought this principle ought not to be applied to Mr. Earle alone, but to any director. He for one would retire in an instant if the majority required him. But he did not think that Mr. Earle ought to be called upon, un less they made a direction that when any director was called upon he should retire: Mr. HoyEs always understood they had such a tacit un derstanding with any other director; but Mr. Earle had said he would not retire. And if any other director would make the same assertion that he would not retire, he should not hesitate for an instant in coupling his name with Mr. Earle's, and demanding the same pledge from him. (Hear.) Mr. SANDARS thought the best plan would be to call on every one of the directors to resign. He should be very happy to do so as one, and then it would be competent for the pro prietors to elect whom they would. The peace before had been a truce—it was a holloW peace. What was the conse quence ? There had never been a meeting since when there had not been angry discussions painful to hear. And he would tell them that constituted as the board was their inte rests would never be looked after. (Hear.) Mr. HARRISON thought the call should be on all the di ctors, and not on Mr Earle. Mr. HOYES thought the retirement of any director should not rest with the determination of theimajority of the board. Mr. EWART thought it not rigbt to insist on pledges from the directors, if they should not agree, to retire. He thought that if they insisted on pledges they at once told them that they had no proper confidence in them, which they ought to have. (Hear.) If he had gone into the board expecting this he never would have become a director. He should al ways act harmoniously if he could, and if not he should know his duty. Mr. HARRISON said, he had given a pledge, that if he found he could not act harmoniously with the majority of the directors, he should retire. Mr. HoyEs said, if MI. Earle had not made a distinct assertion, that he would not withdraw, he should not have required that he should give that pledge. He thought they were only consulting their own interests in insisting upon it. Mr. BOOTHBY really thought that Mr. Earle should give the pledge if he wished for the future confidence of the pro prietors. If not, it would go further, and lead to further dis cussions. It was a common pledge; he did not call on him to retire at the request of a majority of the board, but at the request of the majority of the proprietors, of whose property he was a trustee. He could not see on what ground he re fused it. He thought that if it went forth, that he had re fused it, the proprietors would be very much exasperated, and the matter would not end. Mr. HARDMAN EAl2l.E — lllought it was a pledge the pro prietors ought not to require him to give. He distinctly stated, that he would give no pledge of the kind. When the case aroseit was quite time enough. Mr. BOOTHRY.—It has arisen. Mr. HARDMAN EARL E' thought it had not arisen. He hoped the matter would not be further pressed. He must positively decline to give that pledge. The proprietors had no right to ask such a pledge till the occasion should arise. Mr. HoyEs.—Then I beg to propose a resolution, "That the shareholders of the Grand Junction Railway are of opin ion that the unanimity of the board would be much perfected by the retirement of Mr. Earle, and tend to the advantage of the undertaking." Mr. M'GREGOR said, before that question was put, he wished to ask the secretary in what situation the company would be if all were to resign ? Mr. SWIFT, the secretary, said that if any one director were not to resign, that one would have the power of appoint ing all the rest. HaanisoN.—Aye, there's the rub. Mr. MAXWELL would second the resolution. As this was a small meeting he would move in addition that. this iesolu tion go to the ballot, that every proprietor might have an opportunity of recording his opinion.—(Hear, hear.) The CHAIRMAN wished to know if there would be any ob jection to adjourn the meeting to that day three weeks. There must be another meeting for the allotment of shares. Mr. WGREGOR thonght it was better that the sense of the proprietors should be taken at once. Mr. tiOYES would do anything which would tend to the harmony of the board. He had no hostility against Mr. Earle. He was quite in the hands of the meeting, whether his resolution should now be withdrawn and brought forward at the next meeting if necessary. Mr. MAXWELL thought after what had been unqualifiedly stated by Mr. Sandars, that the harmony of the proprietors could not go on as the board was at present constituted, that the enquiry should be instituted forthwith. (Applause.) A DIRECTOR cordially agreed in what Mr. Sandars had stated. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE thought that the new directors ap pointed would contribute to harmony. There was no know ing what the infusion of new blood would do. He did not know what Mr. Sandars had to object to him. Mr. SANDARS said, he had no had opinion of Mr. Earle; quite the reverse: but, in his opinion, Mr. Earle's judgment was not a sound one. The CHAIRMAN.—WouId it not be less offensive that Mr. Swift should take an opinion as to the possibility of the whole batch of them retiring rather than that Mr. Earle should retire? Mr. HOYES was quite willing to yield to a postponement of the resolution, but would not be responsible for the post ponement. Mr. RITSON thought, after the pledge of Mr. Earle, that he would restrain the irregularities of his temper, that har mony would continue. Mr. M‘Guanou said, if that should not be the case, they had the determination of Mr. Earle, that he would not retire; and they had the opinion of the chairman, that if it did occur, he would not remain iu the direction; that they would be de cidedly minus of a very valuable direction. The CHAIRMAN again said that nothing should ever induce him to appear before the proprietors on such a question. Mr. WGREGOR said, they were not then in the situation they had believed themselves to be on Wednesday. They had a distinct statement from Mr. Moss, and not from Mr. Earle; and as a matter of business, he required that state ment. Mr. H. EARLE said he could not draw any distinction be tween himself as Mr. Hardman Earle and a director. He had already given his opinion on giving pledges. Mr. EwAar thought it desirable to adjourn the question for three weeks, and then determine to settle it, or not. It was rather too bad. He was sure when he had left the meet ing on Wednesday and talked with a great number of gentle men on 'Change, and they had been of opinion that this question was settled. He was very sorry to see it revived, and he thought if it was adjourned for three weeks it would be more satisfactory. This was seconded. Mr. Horns must press his motion. He also had thought it settled on Wednesday, but had been deceived. They had that day additional proof afforded to them that the undertak ing would be very much prejudiced by the continuance of Mr. Earle in the direction. He therefore moved that the votes be taken by ballot, and that the decision of the share holders be declared that (lay week. Mr. MAXWELL was sure, from the statements of Mr. M`Greger and Mr. Rotherham, that as long as this want of harmony existed it would be injurious to their interests. Mr. HOYES said they understood that that was the opinion of the majority of the board. Mr. SANDARS had no hesitation in saying that it was. Mr. Ewn RT said such a question as that had never come before the board. Mr. SANDA RS said the chairman had stated it on Wednes day. The CHAIRMAN said he had not wished to state it, but he was authorised to state it. Mr. HAItDMAN EARLE said it appeared to him that the chairman did not view it in that light. . The CHAIRMAN was quite unprepared to be called on that day. Ou Wednesday-he-had agreed to accept the orange branch presented by Mr. Earle, and to promote harmony to the utmost of his power. Mr. BOOTHBY said, they had no alternative but to go to the vote on the motion of Mr. Hoyes; they were assured that the board could not work well. lie should have been satis fied with the assurance of Mr. Earle ten minutes ago; but now it was stated that the board could not work well unless Mr. Earle left it. Mr. HovEs said he would withdraw his resolution if Mr. Earle would withdraw his expression, that he would not resign. Mr. BOOTHBY said he should vote for the resolution of Mr. Hoyes, and Mr. Earle must go to his trial, on the statement that the board could not work with him. Mr. HEY«•oon said this had formerly been the case, but he hoped it would be different. . . _ Mr: SANDAkS had no confidence in the past, and no hope for the future. (Applause.) Mr. Roves said an opinion had been expressed three weeks ago on Mr. Earle's conduct; but since then, instead of having altered his proceedings, he had followed those measures which were objected to before, and they had no confidence in the future from the past. (Hear, hear.) Mr. H. EA R LE.—What were those measures ? Mr. HOYES said he was not prepared to state; but he would say candidly what his impression was, that refusing to ork on account of Mr. Earle's interference, was prejudicial to the company. Another cause of complaint was, that Mr. Earle sought for himself a great deal too much power as a director. And another complaint was, that his mode of pro ceeding had been deemed by other boards as unconciliatory, and they refused to meet them or have anything more to do with - them. If he was wrong he referred to the letters of the chairman, wherein he had distinctly given his opinion that the mode the board had adopted, had lost them their friends, and made their enemies more hostile—he allud e d t o th e hostilities of the Manchester and Birmingham Company, and the Chester and Crewe Company. He had merely brought for ward this question as the general opinion of the proprietors. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE denied that he had done anything which should deserve the hostility of these parties. "There was one powerful individual whom he had offended three years ago, who he dared say entertained very hostile feelings towards him. Very likely that hostility had arisen from the part he had taken in getting Mr. Locke appointed in the place of Mr. Stephenson, as engineer. He felt he was not obnoxious to the charges made against him. He should be happy to meet any charge; but it was impossible to grapple with these general rumours. Mr. Hoyes must press his motion. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE thought if they came to vote on it, their votes ought to be backed by reason. Air. Hoyas said, there could be no hardship in the case, as he was perfectly ready to withdraw his resolution the mo ment Mr. Earle stated that he was in the hands of the pro prietors, and would resign when called on, as the other direc tors did. Mr. M‘GREGOR said that Mr. H. Earle had said, in order to promote harmony when conferences were held with other companies, he would withdraw from those companies. It ap peared to him very extraordinary, that a gentleman should say he would withdraw from these conferences, in order to have his services retained, where his services were most required. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE said he had made that offer volun tarily. Mr HOYES would be very anxious to retain Mr. Earle's services, if they could do so with safety to themselves. The reason he made a distinction between Mr. Earle and the other directors was, that he said he would not withdraw if required. Would Mr. Hardman Earle disavowthat assertion. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE would neither affirm nor deny it. Mr. HOYES.—" Then I must press my motion." - Mr. BooTusY said they had now as their enemy in another company a very powerful individual, and they all knew how his influence had been exerted to their prejudice on account of Mr. Earle. He thought if Mr. Eai le truly felt as he ought, and felt for the interest of this great concern, setting aside all the differences of the other directors—he thought on that ground alone, being obnoxious to certain individuals, be it right or wrong, it was injurious to the concern, and he ought to retire from the direction. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE denied that rival lines had been started on his account. Because powerful individuals took an objection to an individual on a board was he to be called on to resign. He thought that was most tyrannical, and was rather a reason why he should remain. Mr. BooTuay said the chairman and another director had stated that they could not and would not act VritCtlis board so long as Mr . Earle remained on it. Whether justly or un justly intended, be did think that Mr. Earle, feeling this ob jection, should resign for a time. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE did not think that was the real ob jection. Mr. COGLAN, who just here entered the room, expressed his surprise on the opening of the question, and went over the grounds of argument gone over by the early speakers. He thought it most unjust and un-English that Mr. Earle should be condemned without a hearing, and suggested that an enquiry as to the charges against him should be instituted. At present they were forming their opinions on mere reports. The reasons which had led the meeting to this determination were then explained to Mr. Coglan. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE thought the conduct pursued to wards him was most unfeeling. The general impression must be if that resolution went forth, that he should be unfit to sit on any board; and all that was stated against him was founded on mere report. Mr. HOYES said he could only form his opinion from ru mour that he could not sit at the board. Mr. JOSEPH HORN BY here entered the room, and also expressed his surprise that the charges against Mr. Earle should be again gone into. He wished to know what the charges were which were brought against Mr. Earle. Mr. BOOTHBY said the present charge against him was, that he was obnoxious to a powerful individual, who had exerted himself to the injury of the company. The other charges were, that the other boards could not act with him. Another charge was, that Mr. Earle refused to give a positive pledgelthat he would bow to the majority of the pioprietors, and submit to the majority of the board; when it had been understood that if any future disagreements should occur he would at once retire on a requisition from the board without putting the proprietors to the disagreeable necessity of dis cussing this question again. Mr. HoRNBY said it was a pledge that no man of spirit or honour would have demanded of him; but if any body of people came forward and demanded a pledge of bins on this subject he should at once tell them to get somebody else as director, he cared not who. Several SHAREHOLDERS.—That is all we wish. Mr. HARDMAN EARLS.—That is become directors. Mr. HORNBY said as to other opp. got their acts of parliament, and had begun their works, and would not now diminish their hostility. Mr. BOOTHBY.—Unquestionably they would. Mr. HORNBY.-But will they work less against our in terest ? Mr. BOOTHBY.—Unquestionably. Several other shareholders entered who renewed the dis cussion de novo, ignorant of what had taken place. Mr. BOOTHBY said it was evident the discussion would never end at that rate; it had been carried on long enough; they had better come to some determination. Mr. EWART moved an adjournment, sine die, and the amendment was put "that the meeting do generally adjourn." Mr. M'GREGOR here said—is it fair to Mr. Earle that he should be left with these charges unanswered? Mr. H. EARLE.—I am much obliged to Mr. M`Gregor for his sympathy, but I can stand it. The amendment wes then put and negatived on a show of hands by a large majority. A poll was demanded that they should go to a ballot on the the division. The question was hereupon again opened and fully dis cussed, and alter repeated attempts to bring about a recon ciliation. Mr. H. EA RLS agreed to withdraw his statement that he would not resign, but would not give a pledge that he would resign if called upon as circumstances might arise to induce him not to do so, thus placing himself in the position of the other directors, with the tacit understanding that if obnoxious to the interests of the shareholders and requested to resign he would do so. . Upon this, after a rather warm discussion of considerable length. Mr. Hoyes withdrew his motion, and the meeting broke up at three o'clock, without arriving at any very defi nitive understanding, other than thata great want of general unanimity prevailed. et. fig, A "" 1,7 , r 4 ✓ 'of • • • . • • Z: -;`• all ver msition.railways they had COURT OF PASSAGE, The Court of Passage for the 'trial of causes for the borough commenced on Wednesday, in the Sessions House, Chapel street, before CHARLES CROMPTON, Esq., assessor. The cause list contains 74 demurrers, issues, inquiries, and writs of trial, but they, as usual, are of trifliug importance. ' 111‘CORMICK V. - 111`CO - RMICK. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the de fendant, who stand in the relation to each other of sister and brother, to recover the sum of £2l for the plaintiff's services as domestic servant to her brother, who is a grocer or huck ster in this town. The case was supported by Patrick M'Cor mick, brother of the parties, who are all Irish ; and from his statement it appeared, that the plaintiff was sent for from Ire land by . her brother the defendant, to serve in his house, he promising to remunerate her at the rate of 2s. per week—and hence her claim arose—during a period commencing four years ago. In his cross-examination by Mr. VENABLES, he said, when in Ireland the plaintiff was the governess ofa house—she cooked the praties and cleaned the house; but she had not sold pota toes in Liverpool, nor lived in other service than her brother's. Other witnesses showed that the defendant afforded the plaintiff a home when not in a situation, and that she was not his servant; that she had lived in service, and at other times had travelled the country with a basket for the sale of small wares, and that she had also sold potatoes in the market,—the defendant at all tithes affording her a home when she required it. Mr. VENABLES, in his address to the jury, characterised the action as scandalous and abominable, brought merely t o put costs in somebody's pocket, who had fomented Wilily quarrels for his own interests. The learned ASSESSOR briefly recapitulated the evidence. and, after a short consultation, . . . The Jury-found for the defendant, and the assessor intima ted his concurrence in the verdict. OWEN V. COBHAM This was an action to recover the sum of £l6 16s. Bd., al leged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff for wages, as a domestic servant, during the period of four years and seven months, viz., from October, 1833, to May, 1838, at the rate of £3 per year for the first and second years, and £4 per year for the third and fourth years and the last seven months. Mr. MANSELL, for the plaintiff, stated the case and called Helen Ross, who proved that she badmade an engagement to the above effect on the 16th of October, 1833, on behalf of her daughter, Catherine Owen, who was then thirteen years of age, with Mrs. Cobham, whose husband—Mr. John-Cob , ham—keeps a respectable eating-house in Liverpool, with liberty for her daughter to leave at any time she thought proper. Mr. WiticiNsoN, for the defendant, told the jury that if the last action was discreditable, this one would be found to be equally so, and that it reflected dishonour on the party who had concocted it. He should be able to prove that Mr. Cobham had a number of w a it ers employed in his business; that at the time the plaintiff came to him she was in so abject a state of poverty, that she was actually receiving parish re lief, and was taken into his service without any stipulation as to wages, and merely for her meat and clothes ; that another girl came there a week afterwards, and then a question arose as to the wages to be given t o each of them; that a book in which the wages paid to all the servants were entered was free of access to them, and its contents often discussed in the kitchen ; that the defendant, being unable to read or write, had often inquired what wages she was to receive, and ex tressed herself satisfied with them; that she hadoften had money on account, and had asked repeatedly how soon she should be before b) her work she could make up the money advanced by her master for clothes. He called several wit nesses, and produced the book in question; some of the en tries being in pencil. In one case, where .E2.'2s. had been charged to her, the £2. was inserted in pencil and the 2s, in ink. This was accounted for by one of the witnesses, from. the ink being occasionally dried up i n the bottle when 'left in the kitchen. Mr. MANSELL, in reply, commented on the impropriety of dealing with the child with ou t th e k now l edge of the mother, after the agreement made with the latter. He also hinted at the suspicious nature of the entries in the books, and the ab sence of several persons who were stated by the defendant's witnesses to have a knowledge of the transaction. The Asshssott, in summing up, said the three questions for the jury to-decide were-Ist, whether there had been any money due-2d, whether it had been fully paid—and, 3d, whether so much as 40s. were still owing. The payments in the book were stated to amount to £l6. 12s. 10d. and Ils. and 2s. paid were said not to have been entered. There were also £l. difference in the statement of the wages to be paid for the third year, the plaintiff's witness asserting—it to have been LI and the defendant's £3. The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a ver dict for the defendant. • _ _ _ _ The Assassoa told them it must be for the plaintiff on the first count, which would entitle her to some amount of costs, as the defendant need not have pleaded that there had been no contract. lie thought it a very improbable story that the wages should not have been paid. The great majority of the cases brought on for trial at this court arise out of petty squabbles fomented by what are called "low practice" attorneys; who, whether their clients win or lose, make sure of their costs. It is lamentable that people will not exercise their common sense and learn to make mu tual concessions. But above all, to avoid seeking out attor neys to settle their disputes, as they would avoid the gentle man in black with the cloven foot. The King of the Belgians is understood to have postponed ais visit to his illustrious relatives in this country until after re prorogation. _ _ THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN GLASGOW.—We understand that, on Sunday evening next, the Rev. Robert Montgomery will preach a sermon in St. Luke's Church, in aid of the Episcopal Church in Glasgow. This eloquent minister preached a sermon on Thursday week at St. Chad's, in Shrewsbury, when a collection, amounting to upwards of £7O, was made. In our next we shall give a notice of this sermon. PUBLIC DINNER TO Mn. SPINKS.—Last evening, the friends of Mr. Spinks, of the Black Bull Hotel, Haymarket, gave that gentleman a public dinner as a testimony of respect and in commemoration of his recent triumph in being acquit. ted, at the Quarter Sessions, of a gross charge of assault i n upsetting a tea-kettle, full of boiling water, on an individual named Brindle, who was persuaded by certain " low practice" attorneys, whom it is needless more pointedly to specify, to cook up the charge, which was instantly dismissed by the learned Recorder and the jury. The dinner was one of the most excellent we ever sat down to, and did much credit to Mr. Latham, the professional cook engaged, and the wines were superb. A select party of friends were assembled, se veral excellent speeches were made, and the convivialities of the evening were kept up till a late hour. The company were particularly enlivened by the wit, the lively sallies, and the songs of Mr. Evans. We c an on ly, a t thi s l ate hour, say, that if anything could add to Mr. Spinks's former triumph, in being acquitted of the charge (-rot up against him, it was in the greetings of his assembled friends last evening, and in their warm wishes for his success. RAISING THE WIND.—A man named John Mlienna was placed at the bar of the Police-office on Tuesday charged with having obtained goods from several individuals under false pretences. The prisoner, who looked like a serving man, was dressed in a green livery, on which were buttons bearing a regal crown, surmounted by the rose, sham roc k, and thistle. Charles Newnes, son of Ali.. Newnes, tea and coffee dealer, Castle-street, stated that on Friday last he vtas sitting in his father's shop reading the Liverpool Mercury, when the prisoner walked abruptly in and asked him if he were asleep. " I replied," said the young man, " No, lam not asleep, lam only reading the Mercury. He put a note into my hand and said, There, I want these things for Mrs. Miller, of Bootle Castle.' The note specified that Mrs. Miller wanted two pounds of tea and one for the servants, a quarter of a stone of sugar, and eleven pounds of lump sugar. I asked him what sort of tea and sugar he wanted. He said, the same as usual. I referred to the books and found that Mrs. Miller usually got eight shilling tea for herself and five shil ling tea for the servants. He said the soft sugar was to be sevenpenny. I gave him two pounds of souchon g ,. flowery pekoe, hyson, and gunpowder, and one pound of congou for the servants. I gave him three pounds and a half of moist sugar and eleven pounds of lump, and he told me to be quick as he had to get some hot rolls for breakfast." (Laughter.) The note was handed in to Mr. Hall, and afterwards submitted to Mr. Miller. The latter stated, that it was not his handwriting, nor that of his wife. The prisoner hall lived with him five years ago as servant.—Mrs. Freer, who keeps a circulating library in Byrom-street, stated, that the prisoner came to her shop on Friday last, and asked for a set of books for Mrs. Miller. She asked him what Mrs. Miller, and he replied "little Mrs. Miller." She asked him what sort of books he was to take. He replied, that Mrs. Miller said she was to choose whatever books she thought proper, something new and interesting, for she knew Mrs. Miller's style of reading. She took down a set of books, three volumes, and he departed with them.—Mr. Hall: And pray, ma'am, what did vou make choice of ?—Mrs. Freer: I gave him " The Robber," a romance, in three vciumes!—A pawnbroker stood up in the witness box, andsaid the prisoner had called at his shop on Saturday, in a state of intoxication, and Offered the books for pledge : In reply to questions that were asked, he said they were his own property. The pawn broker detained the books, and refused to Jena anything on them. He sent them to Mrs. Freer, and she claimed them. Constable ' Thomas Ainsworth said the prisoner had also ob tained confectionery to the amount of seven shilli ngs an d sixpence f r om Mrs. Holt, in Castle -street, in Mrs. Miller's name. It appeared that the prison e r had gone t o th e office of Messrs. Bevan and Smith, wine merchants, in Castle street, and bad endeavoured to get some wine. Here, how ever, some suspicions were excited and he was detained. Thomas Ainsworth was sent for, and he was given into custody. The prisoner said he was sent over from Ireland on Thursday last with three horses belonging to a gentleman of Dublin. He had lodged the horses at the Repository of Mr. Lucas for sale. He happened to run short of cash, and, as he had nothing to feed upon, he obtained the goods in question for his support. He confessed that be had written the note in question to Mr. Newnes. His intention was to pay for all the goods as soon as Mr. , the gentleman who owned the horses, arrived to give him some money. He begged bard to be released, as this was the very first time he had ever been before a magistrate, and he promised, if Mr. Hall would overlook this one offence, he would never be guilty of the like again.—He was committed for trial at the next borough sessions. The Forester, Lieutenant Nott (late of the "Etna), has recently captured a Spanish schooner, with 300 slaves on board. - Stone mangers for stables, instead of oak, are now gene rally used and strongly recommended. They have been long used in the Netherlands. FRIKNDLY KISSING IN l'Auis.—Ladies kiss, and don't shake bands, in Paris. Gentlemen kiss too, but only on great occasions. I was kissed the other day by a man, for the first time. It was one of the most trying situations of my life. I felt like that personage who was strangled by Hercules. See the picture in the mythology.—The American in Paris.