Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-19 00:00:00

' IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY. The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at five o'cleck. COUNTY MAGISTRATES. The Marquis of Londonderry called attention to a circular letter which had recently been addressed by the Lord Chan cellor of Ireland to the Lord-Lieutenants of Irish counties respecting the appointment of County Magistrates. In that letter, after referring to the necessity of filling up vacan ties on the Bench, occasioned by death, removal, or other eeellpations, the Lord Chancellor said in his circular that other instances of equal force may perhaps occur to you ill which you may think such revision applicable, which You Will be good enough to notice in your reply to the c om unication, with ou t suspec ti ng e ith er i mproper politi cal motives to the letter. He hoped that some explana nation would be given of its real intent and purport. %The Earl of Donoughmore said that he was assured that the C hancellor was not actuated by any improper motives 1 , 11 NVriting this letter and he undertook to make an imm olate couu , mmication with him on the subject. Some remarks were made by the Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord St. Leonards, and Earl St. Germain, After Which the subject dropped. THE LAND QUESTION IN DUDE, The Marqu of Clanricarde called attention t o the Prg is ol amation and despatches of Lord Canning, relating to the settlement of the land question in Oude. He wished to aw what was the intention of the government relative to t he question in the East. Lord Canning had never contem- Plated or enacted those measures of confiscation which he Was supposed to have entertained. The Earl of Derby said that the government had never objected to the acts, but only to the expression of Lord Call ning. The effect of the Queen's proclamatio n h a d b een to establish a complete pacification and submission among th e nati ve land-owners i n Oude: The most complete harmony existed between the home and the Indian govern h n '. Lord C ann i ng h a d rece i ve d th e G ran d C ross o f th e bath, and it was h er M a j es t y ' s i n t en ti on t o ra i se hi m t o a higher grade in the peerage. Earl:G ranville, the Earl of Ellenborough, and the Earl of il ardwiek e h aving spoken, the subject then dropped. The house adjourned at twenty minutes past seven., 110ITSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY. The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock. Mr. 11,1, THE REFORM BILL. 14-AllCk THE that the House, at its rising, adjourn 1111 exi i ti r i es —nu nY, for the Purpose of enabling the members to comino s their opinion on the course to be pursued on the greforna bill. City The noble lord the member for the secondf London readi n had given notice of an amendment to the bill its - 6 e of th e b ill, which was in reality a nega lf. tive dissol This would probably bring about a f or t uti°ll of parliament , and postpone reform altogether next he pres ent year. Th ey wou ld h ave to wa i t f or tie Y e ar, and th en get nothing but a similar % e a" Ire would therefore suggest to the noble lord propri et _ n nd pro yof adopting a precedent of his own, ref erenee pose the sa me course as t h at i ssued last year in f to the E as t I n di a Bill , v i z., th a t o f b r i ng i ng :rward r esolutions on which a measure for reform might of h subse qu Y entl founded. He would also ask the Ch ance ll or h , t : 'lchequer whether, in that case, he would fo r eg o his bill and bring in another, based on such resolu had4 as should meet with the approval of the House. They last nd , „ year, placed the present administration in office, and '4e 7 were now called upon to replace their predecessors. Would he was by no means disposed to do, as the change t h e ° `" 4 be the signal for an European war. He hoped that . a noble• lord would endeavour to avoid such a calamity, and n° party feeling or motives to ambition would alreadype -11 " Il ini from now pursuing the same course which he 3.r Pursued in the case of the Indian resolutions. r. °°/, who had a motion on the paper to the same effect, said that f or havi he w as muc h o b l i ged to the hon. gentleman The ng he him th e t rou bl e o f pu t t i ng th e ques ti on . amendm ent of Lo r d J o h n R usse ll did no t go f ar en ough to please the Radicals, of whom he was oue, they !old nevertheless be forced to vote for it. What would th e noble lord kinii,e su Pp st do for th e b a ll o t if th ere was a c h ange o f t '7 ? Unless h e did something he could not count on Gels_ort of th e Radicals, who would not be made the for placing any party in power. r rirn r * T. Dunc om b e made some statements in defence of a of vieus com plaint he had ma d e, respec ti ng th e appo i n t men t m ni agistrat es i n Huntingdonshire. Vheth r * 33. lope asked th e F i rst Comm i ss i oner of W or k s er the Government intended to take any steps for the couce ntration o f the Courts of Law and Equity, in pur suance of th e recommendation both of the Incorporated Law Societ La w the Societythe Amendment of the Y) and _. LOrd M Oa_ 8 • miners said th a t th ere were grave diff erences on übject. course under $e could n o t p l e d ge t h e G overnmen t t o an y present circumstances. pr .,0 14 .e0 : e, r e d aina J ohn Russell said that the question of the mode of on the w Reform Bill wou ld i nvo l ve a di scuss i on ni would be both contrary to order at that time, and la :us when they were to di scu s s the whole subject ZioMonday, whether the Ministry would dissolve Parlia nt or ,not. This, and other matters raised by Mr. Roe k, were far too grave to be discussed upon a motion ;_ adjournment. The Ministry had done right in bring hoforward a Bill, and he hoped to be able to satisfy the use that he too had been right in bringing forward his resoluin. As to the ballot, he should be trepared to give his vote when the subject that brought forward, and, if necessary, to defend t "e) but he would not make his conduct as - b this,ballot he a matter o f p rev i ous b arga i n. Hav i ng sa i d a question which h e h a d p u t u p on th e PniacPuetr:nsP,,assed to etel_pToeplo y s , e vyhether it w as th e i n t en ti on o f th e govern liorda vote of thanks to Viscount Canning and / d e. He should have left this to the government if hes.t7 n ot reaso n to fear that there would be an undeserved ce r4 l ,, a a ti en on th e i r part as far as Lord Canning was con of 1)--:* lienlber, referred es p ec i a ll y t o th e d es p a t c h o f the 9th dist rks e t tnb er) which b y it s co ld an d sneer i ng t erms , continued Mr. t, felt, - ought to be openly expressed. tlnetiol° Al unaird d eman d e d th a t s o m e special mark of dis h should b e co n ferred on S i r John Lawrence. al read y Sta nley said th a t th e serv i ces o f Si r J. Lawrence had been recognised, both as to remuneration and Positi on it was • With regard to the question of Lord John Russell, thank s he intention of the government to propose a vote .of offito all those who had been engagedin the pacification ei va nclia, in which both the Governor-General and Lord 4 4 ' " e Would be included. The only reason why such a vote w as "t b een prop ose d at the beginning of the session coo; that the p ac ifi cat i on of India was not then acepleted Re sh ou ld b e ready at the proper time to nd the c onduct of th e G overnment w i t h regard to Lord Canning' What had 1 : passed that evening on another I— 'geal subject seemed to have induced the noble lord Year ile sell) to ma k e this allusion to the Indian debate of last Z Lord Palmerston said that Lord John Russell had made eri_eference to the debates of last year, but he did refer to wis te and feeling of the despatch of last year. He could , o ` . allow the noble lord opposite (Stanley), then, to escape the lirae nsequence o f hi s sneer i ng an d i ron i ca l reply to le explanation of Lord Canning. Mr. D. TEE QUEEN'S MESSENGERS. -4CII called attention, at some length, to the re m — LLner ation of th e Q ueen ' s messengers. T o w hi c h Mr. f 2 ti ons 'APTIOUT Fitzgerald replied, making some explana , and promising information. I,II3:TEE ROYAL COMMISSIONS IN DECIMAL CURRENCY. r. 1/ea mish asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer n eurr the rep or t of the royal commissions in decimal „,_ '""Y, u p o n the a ppo e. inted in 1865 , might be expected to b e laid tabl The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was as , much surprised as any one that the report . had not been issued. The commissioners were three, Lords Mczteagle and Overstone, and Mr. Hubbard. Lord Over stone had, he knew, already made his report. Why the others had not made theirs he did not know, and hoped that the question would have the effect of quickening their movements. Mr. Brady called attention to the case of Mr. Barber, to which Mr. S. Northcote replied, that a sum of money would be given him, not in compensation of his wrongs, but in re cognition of his sufferings. Mr. Rich gave notice that, in committee on the Reform Bill, he should move, in reference to the disqualifications of small boroughs, that the test should not not alone be the number of the population, but that the amount paid in direct taxation should be taken into account. THE HOST. Sir A. Agnew gave notice of a resolution to the effect that soldiers in foreign services should not be compelled to salute the Host. THE SUPERANNUATION BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. S. Northcote explained,, at length, the reasons which . rendered it necessary to alter the unjust and anomalous provisions of the existing law. Sir H. Willoughby objected to the expense accrued by the bill, and moved, as an amendment, a resolution to the effect that all deductions from salaries in order to form a fund for superannuation having been abolished, it is not expedient to add to the amount of public charges by an increase in the scale of superannuation. Mr. Gladstone thought that the cost of the alteration should be known before the House came to any decision. Mr. Williams objected to the bill on economical grounds. Mr. Wilson defended it. Above all things it was necessary to establish a uniform scale. Colonel Sykes and Sir F. Baring approved of the bill. Sir G. Lewis did not see why the scale of allowances should be reduced. He thought the distribution might be altered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Bill only legallised what was before the practice of the Treasury and other public offices. He did not believe that the increase of allowance would affect more than 7,000 or 8,000 persons. There was no substantial increase in the scale of superannuation ; they had increased the minimum and decreased the maximum. The House then divided, when the amendment was negatived by 131 to 29. The House then went into committee on the Bill. A division took place on clause 11, permitting the civil servants to retire at 60 years of - age. Sir G. C. Lewis moved to amend the clause by substitut 7 ing sixty-five. The amendment was negatived by 166 to 100. Several other clauses were agreed to, after which the House resumed. BILLS. The Petitions of Right bill passed through committee. METHCAL CHARITIES IN IRELAND. Lord Naas obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws in force for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, and to amend an act of the 14th and 15th years of her Majesty, providing for the better distribution, support, and management of medical charities in Ireland. The other orders were disposed of, and The house adjourned at half-past one. MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR WORKS BILL. [FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.] HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY. The case for the promoters closed yesterday afternoon, with the evidence of Mr. Smith, agent to the Bridgewater trustees. Mr. Calvert, Q.C., addressed the committee in opposition to the bill, on behalf of the Great Western, and the Birken head and Cheshire Junction Railway Companies. After adverting to the provision in the Mersey Conveyance Act of 1867, for the nomination of four members of the Mersey Dock Board by the Crown, he said it was no small criterion as to the nature and objects of the bill now before the com mittee, that not one of those four members appointed by the Crown had expressed an opinion in favour of the bill. On the other hand three of them distinctly dissented from it when the subject was under discussion by the board, whilst the fourth, although his opinion of it was not shown by his vote, was known to be decidedly opposed to it He contended, then, that this bill was purely a Liverpool bill, and its objects the promotion of Liverpool interest, as against the Birkenhead docks, and the general interests of the public and the Mersey Dock Estate. He thought he should be able to satisfy the committee that the Liverpool interest in the Mersey Dock Board was now endeavouring to accomplish in detail what in 1855 they failed to accomplish by another bill known as the £4,000,000 scheme. The same arguments had been used before the committee, and the same suggestions made as were resorted to on the occasion when the bill failed. He believed the committee would find that practically the £4,000,000 scheme would be carried out within a few thousand pounds if the promoters of the present bill obtained the borrowing powers they were now seeking. The £4,000,000 scheme would have enabled the Dock Board to expend nearly that amount on the Liverpool north docks in the space of ten years ; and, if the bill now before the commit- tee was sanctioned, the Board (having in 1855 gbtained powers to borrow £850,000 for works, and £266,000 in 1858), with the £300,000 they now sought to raise, would have got the sum of £1,400,000, which was about the sum that would have been expended within the same period had the £4,000,000 scheme been adopted by parliament ; so that in point of fact, they had the £4,000,000 scheme repeated, and the committee were now asked to sanction that which, in 1855, was distinctly refused. No doubt, these gentlemen at Liverpool were wise in their generation. They failed in 1855, because at that time the timber interest was not strong enough in their favour. But, now, what had the Dock Board done ? They had granted leases of this land, at the north end of Liverpool, to certain gentlemen connected with the timber trade, and the consequence was, that nearly every one of the gentlemen who had been called before the committee were personally interested in the property on which the sum now asked for was proposed to be laid out. By granting these leases, therefore, the Board had secured the interest of the gentlemen who had been cited before the committee. The learned counsel next urged that the revenue of the Board, and the general financial condition of the dock estate, rendered it undesir able that the powers now asked for should be granted. According to the evidence of Mr. Turner, the chairman of the Board, the revenue was £580,000, and the expendi ture £500,000, leaving a surplus of £BO,OOO, but out of this £BO,OOO what more was there to come ? There was the interest on the sum of £1,400,000' additional bor- rowed, which must be provided for, and if this further sum of £300,000 was granted, it would amount to £1,700,000. There was therefore a surplus of £BO,OOO, and a prospect of something like £90,000 of increased lia bilities, When Mr. Turner came to reflect on the evi dence which he had given befora the committee on Tues day, he must, no doubt, have seen that he was coming before Parliament to borrow a sum of money for which he had no corresponding income, and, therefore, very naturally, he desires the next morning to explain his evidence, and endeavour to make it appear that the surplus was £120,000 and not £BO,OOO. But this sur plus of £120,000 assumed that the trade of the country was to go on with uninterrupted and continued pros perity, an assumption which was unsound, and which no man would depend upon in dealing with his own THE NORTHERN Tlll/tES, SATURDAY, MARCH 19 1859 private affairs. In endeavouring to ascertain the actual surplus. The average returns for a number of years should be dealt with, and not any particularly advantageous year, such as had been selected by Mr. Turner. What, then, was the surplus, as shewn by the average returns extend ing over a period of nine years. He had it before him, and the surplus was £37,750. The Chairman : That average includes the years before the town dties were added to the revenue, Mr. Calvert : No doubt of it, but the town dues had to be paid for annually by instalments. But further. In Mr. Turner's calculation of surplus, nothing at all was taken into calculation about the possible rating of the docks, when it must be clear to every man that it was more than probable that the docks of Liverpool would ultimately be rated, because if an act of parliament should be passed for rating all public property, was it likely that they would be exempt ? In that case, taking the amount of securities, the value of the property to be rated might be set down at £12,000,000, and, according to the rates in Liverpool, which were from 3s to 4s in the pound, the rate upon the annual value would not be less than £79,000. There were also other charges, and to meet them there was nothing in return for this proposed expenditure. The Chairman : There would be the additional dues on the Birkenhead side. Mr. Calvert : No doubt there would, but what he said was, that they should wait until they got their income from Birkenhead, and then it might, perhaps, be found wise to adopt the proposed outlay, but until they had got an income at Birkenhead, it was too much to ask for all this expenditure at Liverpool. Referring to the two par ticular branches of trade, for whose accommodation the sum proposed to be borrowed—the timber trade, and the steam carrying trade—the learned eounsel contended, that as regarded the timber trade, the accommodation at Birken head would in every respect be better than at the north end of Liverpool; whilst there would be greater safety for vessels in a storm, and the depth of water at Bir kenhead was greater than at Liverpool. It had been attempted to show that there were the most pressing necessities for increased accommodation for the steam ship ping trade, but the committee would remember that what ever, accommodation was afforded at Birkenhead, would necessarily relieve Liverpool. The board were applying to parliament for money when they were straitened in their means, and when they had not an income to meet it. But why, he would ask, did they come now ?* Because this time next year the Great Float at Birkenhead was to be opened, and their great object was to concentrate all .at Liverpool. If they had not come before next year, the Great Float would have been opened, and that would have prevented the strongest possible argu ment against the application for extended works at Liverpool. The Great Float would be open in March, 1860, and thus out of 212 acres of water-space, at Birken head, 160 acres would then be ready. Under these circum stances, it would be unreasonable to allow the board to raise the sum proposed. They did not pretend that they could complete the proposed works in less than eighteen months or two years, and thus, before they could do so, they would have the very accommodation at Birkenhead which they said they so much needed. He concluded by stating that the promoters had not made out their case, and he thought the committee would pause before they sanctioned the bill. Mr. Webster said that as Mr. Sergeant Ballasis (who with himself represented the Birkenhead Commissioners,) was unwell, and not able to address the committee, he (Mr. Webster) did not propose to trouble the committee. Mr. Calvert having intimatedintimated to the committee that he did not intend to call any witnesses, The Chairman said in that case the committee knew noth ing of the opinions of anybody averse to the bill of the pro moters, and the learned council's statement only went for so much argument. Mr. Calvert thought that there was enough detailed in the evidence:of their own witnesses to elicit an expression of opinion from the committee against the bill. Mr. Merewether did not think it necessary to reply, but asked the committee if they would clear the room. Mr. Turner having put in the returns, which the chairman asked for on Tuesday, The Chairman said the returns would be left in the hands of the committee, when some points might possibly arise on which Mr. Turner could give an explanation, after which the committee would decide. The committee then adjourned until to-day. The committee re-assembled at noon to-day, the Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis in the chair. Mr Turner having been re-called and examined by the chairman in explanation of the statement of the financial condition of the dock estate, which he handed in yesterday, the room was ordered to be cleared, and, on the re-aimission of strangers, The Chairman said that, before announcing the decision of the committee, he wished to call their attention to a passage in the report of the Board of Trade. }laving read that portion of the reportof the Board of Trade which stated that it would be in the consideration of the committee whether definite plans should not be submitted, considering the large powers possessed by the Mersey Board, he proceeded to say that the committee understood the meaning . of that suggestion to be that it was doubtful whether it was the intention of the Board to execute the specific works on the plans, or whether, after obtaining the £300,000 they might not construct docks on some other portion of their land. Mr. Merewether : We shall be prepared to insert a special clause that it is for these particular works. The Chairman : With distinct plans ? Mr. Merewether : Yes, and they would be defined in clause three. The Chairman said, that on the whole the committee did not doubt that it was the intention of the Mersey Board to construct works according to the plans submitted. They had no doubt as to the good faith of the Board, and believed that they would execute the works, therefore they were not pre pared to insist on the insertion of the present plans in the bill. The report of the Board of Trade went on to say that, considering the magnitude and importance of the Mersey docks the conflicting interests which had been apparent, and the large surplus revenue that might be expected, spe cific plans for the future should be insisted upon. The com mittee had taken this passage in the report into considera tion, and they agreed in the general spirit of the remarks, but they were not prepared to adopt precisely the sugges tions with regard to compelling them to come to Parliament with plans, but looking to the financial state of the trust, shown by the balance-sheet which had been submitted by the chairman of the board, and the large debt as compared with the income, and looking also.to the fact that the chief part of the Mersey Dock Board's revenue arose from taxes levied on the trade of the port, he thought it would be desirable, after all the charges arising from the interest on the pre sent debt, and all the charges necessary to maintain the docks now in existence, or to be executed, 'should be ful filled, there should be imposed on the board by the present bill an obligation for the reduction of a certain annual por tion of the principal of their debt, of which all the charges that he had named should have the priority, but that it should be required to create a sinking fund to a certain amount, and subject to such a clause the committee would be prepared to find that the preamble of the bill had been proved. Mr. Sergeant Bellasis, as representing the Birkenhead Commissioners, said he intended to have suggested the introduction of such a clause. Mr. Merewether said, he had listened with much atten tion to what had fallen from the committee, and received the suggestion as it ought to be received ; at the same time, it was a consideration on which some important matters might result. Without saying anything in opposition to the sug gestion, the committee would perhaps pardon him for saying, on the part of those whom he represented, that the report of the Board of Trade did not find them altogethar unpre pared for the suggestion which had been made. What they said was this, that being a public body and a public trust, exercising duties for which no one received a farthing cf benefit, they had not the same feeling as to dealing with surplus that a private company would have. The Chairman : Of course, you have no proprietary. Mr. Merewether: No; and therefore to the abstract proposi tion that, after doing all that was right to be done, the surplus should to some extent be made to provide for a sinking fund, they had no objections. The learned counsel, in continua tion, was going on to say that such a clause could only be acceded to with certain qualifications, and was endeavouring to show that without them the board might be undesir ably crippled and restricted, when The Chairman said the opinion of the committee was that their suggestion would be less restrictive than the suggestion of the Board of Trade. They wished to give an ample discretion to the Mersey Board. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the debt was getting large, and that the interest on it was levied in :taxes on the trade of , the port, and therefore the trade of the port was interested in the reduction of the debt. What the committee wished to do, was to leave all reasonable discretion to the Mersey Board, but at the same time to see that the rule that parliament was in the habit of applying to all subordinate bodies like this trust, who borrowed money on the security of rates, should be enforced, and that they should provide an annual sinking fund. They did not wish to press unduly on the trust, but they thought that this principle should be adopted. After some discussion between the respective counsel and the committee, and an expression of opinion by Mr. Salis bury, M.P., chairman of the Birkenhead Railway Company, that a sufficient time should be given for the railway com panies to consider the nature of the proposed clause, the proceedings were adjourned to Wednesday, on which day the promoters undertake to submit the clause. AMERICA. SOUTHAMPTON, Friday.—The Fulton, Captain Wootton, arrived here this morning from New York, with the mails and advices to the sth instant. She brings 68 passengers, and $536,000, but only $75,656 are for England. On the 2nd inst. Congress passed a bill authorising an issue of $20,000,000 Treasury notes. The vote which defeated the Ocean Mail Service Bill was reconsidered and the bill again rejected. A fire occurred at Memphis, Tennessee, on the night of the Ist, destroying property of the value of $150,000, including five newspaper establish ments. The Overland Mail arrived from California on the 3rd inst., bringing advices to the 7th ult., two days later than those previously received. Business brisk, with large demand for merchandise from the interior. . . News from Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, to the 14th ult. Tranquility prevailed throughout the entire republic. From. St. Thomas we learn that the question of the annexation of Cuba to the United States was looked on there very favourably by the people, and it was also hoped that the United States would be able to purchase St. Thomas from the King of Den mark, so that the condition of the people might be improved. A despatch from St. Louis reports the defeat of some United States troops by the Appacha Indians. The 35th Congress terminated on the 4th inst., but immediately after its adjournment the Senate com menced its extraordinary executive session, in accordance with the proclamation of the President, but nothing important was done. Advices from Mexico show that the British and French consuls at Tampico had humiliated General Garry in a most signal manner at that place. Echegarez had, it is said, pronounced against Miramon at Puebla. Anarchy, intrigue, corruption, and insecurity of life prevailed at all points. The Europa had not arrived out, but was passed by the Fulton on the 6th inst. The ship . Vanguard, belonging to J. W. Phillips, of New York, took fire at New Orleans, on the night of the 3rd, and it was feared would be wholly de stroyed. Her cargo consisted of 41,000 bales of cotton, and she had just cleared for Cronstadt when the fire broke out. The cargo is, doubtless, insured in Europe. No further particulars of The Washington tragedy. Mr. Sickles is confined in the jailor's room, and some of his friends almost always in attendance upon him. COMMERCIAL, NEW YORK, March s.—Cotton firmer • sales about 4,000 bales. Flour and wheat firm. dorn in better request. Coffee and sugars active. Freights moderate, and rates unchanged. Money as cheap as ever-4 per cent. being the rate at which all new call loans are being made. In the stock market there was a better feeling, and higher. prices. YOUNG AMERICA ON SLAVERY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES . Sir,—My " goodnatured lecture" to " Young America," evidently did not produce much effect, but was very much like water thrown on a duck's back. Nevertheless, if only to correct some of his mis apprehensions, I must fain give him a second edition. In my last, while admitting much he had said from conviction, for arguments sake, I admitted that all he had said might be quite true (in order to show that it was quite irrelevant to the subject), and fell back upon what is, and always must be, the back bone of the question, viz., the inherent right of the subject, whether the thing itself is right or wrong, or whether - it is not, per-se, a gross violation of all justice. Now, " Young America" takes credit to his side that I admit so much, and then very summarily despatches what is left in the following words : " Non-prejudice is obliged to fall back upon the timeworn argument of the equality . of all men. That:equality I deny. As one brain is larger than another, so one race will command and govern another race." As though he understood me to be absurd enough to say, that all men are intellectually equal, that the Anglo-Saxon, and the aboriginal Australian, stand on the same mental footing. No ; I quite agree with him that there is a great diffe rence, though I disagree with him in thinking that that difference must necessarily continue, for what were our forefathers but savages, 1500 years ago ? But what I mean is simply that they have an equa lity of rights ' • that what is a lie to one, is a lie to another ; what is robbery to one, is robbery to another ; that there is one universal law of justice to which every man, be he black, white, or red, is equally amenable. If the fact that " neg . roes always have been and always will be slaves " is a justification of slavery, the fact that selfishness has always existed, and that in all ages men having the oppor tunity to do so have fleeced their neighbours, is equally a justification of cheating. For myself, I don't believe the former statement concerning the future of the African to be a fact, because I believe in the ultimate triumph of the Gospel. But, as I said before, if proved to be a fact, it no more justifies slavery, than an argument drawn from the existence of vice from the creation till now is a justification of vice. There are certain moral laws, which, if there is such a distinction as right and wrong at all, none can violate without self-conviction; and all that Messrs. Beecher and Parker meant to say in the statements quoted in to-day's article was simply this : that if it could be shown that the Bible, instead of being founded on those laws, taught us to violate them, that would prove to them that the Bible was not a divine revelation, and they would discard it. " Young America " deserves credit for his generosity to those gentlemen in not desiring to take advantage of what he conceives to have been an unguarded admission ; but I believe that either of them would willingly endorse their statements to-day ;at any rate, I would do so. I will only refer to one other point in my letter that " Young America" notices. He says : " Let Non-Pre judice ' change the word slave to servant and it will sound less harshly." Of course it will ; but my moral perceptions are not quite so blunt as to mistake the one for the other. To my mind there is as great a difference between a man becoming my servant and his becoming my slave, as there is between my making a bargain for the contents of a man's wallet and my knocking him down and appropriating the contents ; and all comparison between what " Young America " erro neously calls slavery in England and slavery in America, is made without distinguishing this differ ence. He says, " that servitude, like happiness, is only comparative." So is generosity. Money may be cheerfully given for some charitable object, or some inferior motive may induce a selfish man to grudgingly give it, but I conceive that there is as wide a difference between the most begrudged voluntary sacrifices and robbery, as there is between the hardest forms of servitude and slavery.—l am, your obedient servant, NON-PREJUDICE. March 16, 1859. YORK ASSIZES.-WEDNESDAY. ACTION FOR LIBEL.—HARRISON v. LEADER. — This case was heard this day. The plaintiff and the defendant are newspaper proprietors at Sheffield, the former of the Times, and the latter of the Independent. The action was brought to recover damages for a series of alleged libels contained in the report of a meeting which were published in the Independent on the 13th of November last. The plaintiff had had a dispute with his workmen on account of belong ing to the Printer's Union ; and, owing to what had appeared in the Sheffield Telegraph in connection therewith, he brought an action in the Court of Exchequer, against the proprietor of that journal. A verdict was then found for the plaintiff for £5OO. Whilst that action was pending, viz., in November last, a meeting was held at the Town Hall, Sheffield, when speeches were made relative to the conduct of Mr. Harrison, which were characterised as libellous and calumnious. Some of the speakers recom mended that the plaintiff's papers should not be brought until the action was withdrawn. A report of these speeches was inserted in the Independent, and it was for this publica tion that the present action was brought. It was sub mitted that owing to this publication the plaintiff had suffered considerable injury in his busines s, and that in fact he had been obliged to give up the publication of the Daily Times. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Verdict for the plaintiff for- is. PUBLIC BATHS FOR EVERTON. Yesterday evening, a public meeting was held in the Schoolroom, Mill-road, Everton, for the purpose of adopting a petition in support of a memorial already presented to the Town Council, on behalf of the erection of baths for the working classes of Everton and vicinity. The chair was taken by Adam Hodgson, Esq. There were also present — Messrs. T. D. Andersen, - D. Crosthwaite, T. Chilton, jun., and J. J. Stitt ; and the Revs. Hindley, Kelly, Lester, and Macnaught. The Chairman said he responded to the call to preside over the meeting with pleasure, as he had always felt a deep interest in all that related to the comfort of the inhabitants, and especially the working classes of Everton, and he be lieved that the object of the meeting was to effect that com fort. In fact anything that was connected with sanitary purposes were well known to be such. To expect that they could have morality and religion where it was hardly possible to have the common decencies of life from the way in which the people were huddled together, was very foolish. If they sought the welfare of the country, they must begin at the beginning, and make the habitations of the working classes fit for them to live in, and give them an opportunity of cleansing their bodies. There was no local or national representative that would ask them for their votes without being in some degree ready to assist them to health and comfort. That was the, object of the meeting, to have public baths in Everton, as there were in the town of Liverpool itself. He saw by the newspapers, and he had also been told, that a memorial had been presented to the Town Council from the Workinc , Classes Association, and that it had been referred to the Baths b Comnittee, but he thought it would be better if the whole township would unite and express themselves on the matter to the Council, by petition. Such was the object of the meeting at which they had done him the honour to make him chairman. The Rev. W. Lomas moved the following resolution : " That the establishment of public baths in the northern and southern districts of Liverpool, has materially con tributed to the comfort and well being of the working classes, by inducing habits of personal cleanliness and healthful exercise, as well as by dissuading, to some extent, from objectionable and injurious pastimes." This resolution was seconded by hir. Chilton, - and passed . _ the meeting .unanimously. The Rev: , Mr Kelly moved the next resolution, which was---" That this meeting regards with satisfaction the memorial recently presented to the Town Council, on behalf of the erection of baths within the township of Everton, where the population has so largely increased as to demand prospective attention to provisions for the main tenance of the public health." This resolution was seconded by Mr. Stitt at considerable length. The following resolution was then moved by the Rev. Mr. Ilindley : —" That the following petition be presented to the Baths' Committee of the Town Council :—To the Baths' Committee of the Town Council of the Borough of Liver pool. The petition of certain ratepayers and others, resi dent within or adjacent to the township of Everton, respectfully sheweth—That your petitioners beg to support the prayer of a memorial for the establishment of baths in Everton, as referred to your consideration by the Town Council of 9th March. That your petitioners observe with concern, that a gradually increasing density of popu lation within some portion of this district tends to the encouragement of habits detrimental alike to heath and to - morality. That your petitioners re gard public baths, accessible at a low charge, as a most important branch of that agency , which, under existing circumstances, is best fitted to promote the most social well-being of the working classes. That your petitioners a i ) are informed that an eligibl situated piece of land, pur chased several years since by t e Council with a view to the erection of baths, is still ava le for that purpose. Your petitioners, therefore, pray that in such report. to the Council as your jnkment may suggest, due regard may be paid to the present circumstances and prospective exigencies of this neighbourhood, and to the wishes of its inhabitants." Dr. Chalmer, in a few remarks, seconded the resolution, which passed the meeting, and the petition was signed by the Chairman. _ The Rev. Mr. Macnaught moved at ()Teat length, " That the thanks of this meeting be given to Adam Hodgson, Esq., for his services in presiding on this occasion ; and also to those members of the Town Council who have rendered their valuable aid." The Rev. Mr. Lester seconded the above resolution. The thanks of the meeting was given to the Rev. Mr. Macnaught and the committee of the schools for the use of their premises on the occasion, and the meeting broke up. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. WESTERN CIRCUIT. - EXETER, MARCH 'l7. (BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CROWDER.) HOOPER v. Row E.- Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon ; counsel for the defendant, Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Cole. This was an action for breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was Miss Ann Hooper, the daughter of a farmer at Chagford, Devonshire, aged 28; and the defendant, Mr. Andrew Rowe, is a yeoman residing at the same place, nearly twice the defendant's age. The defendant commenced paying his addresses to the plaintiff before the year 1854—at that time he said he could not marry the plaintiff until after the death of his aunt, with whom he lived, and from whom he expected property. In December, 1854, the defendant's aunt died, upon which he came to the plaintiff's father and said that his aunt had left him sole executor of her property—had given him £1,900 in money, an estate worth £5O a year for life, and all the stock on the farm and that the marriage should take place imme diately. The defendant, however, continually put off the time for the marriage • and in the year 1857 the plain tiff's father went to him and asked him if he intended to fulfil his promise ? He replied that he did ; but that, he wished to pay off legacies, &c., so as to make things comfortable before he got settled. Afterwards he promised to marry at Michaelmas, 1858, but had not fulfilled his promise, and had subsequently denied even having given any promise of marriage. The plaintiff's sister, Mrs. Brewer, stated that all the wedding cloths had been prepared,with the exception of the cape and bonnet. Her sister wished to have a white cape, but defendant expressed a wish that she would dress more in the style of his age. (Laughter.) Defendant purchased a blue satin handkerchief, which ho brought to the plaintiff and requested her to make out of it a wedding necktie. (Laughter.) The defendant and her sister were on affectionate terms, for witness had seen him kiss her hun dreds of times. (Laughter.) In cross-examination witness admitted that the plaintiff had been previously engaged to a young man, but that was when she was of very tender age. Mr. Smith said that he had consulted his client, and he had agreed to give the plaintiff £2OO, which his learned friend had agreed to accept. There was not a breath against the young woman, but his client was an old man, and he could easily understand his thinking it to be a rather serious matter to marry a woman of her age. (Laughter.) Mr. Collier : That excuse is not on the pleadings. (Re newed laughter.) A verdict for plaintiff, damages £2OO, was then entered. DEATH OF A CENTENARIAN. At Leeds, on the 14th inst., died Mary Wright, aged 103 years, a member of the Society of Friends. For the last few years she has been blind, but with this exception she retained her faculties to the last. She suffered from no disease, but passed away in the greatest tranquility from exhaustion of the bodily powers. A HUNGARIAN PLOT.—WC read in a Vienna letter : There is a rumour in the city which is so " ugly " that I cannot venture to repeat it. It may, however, be stated, that it arose from the circumstance of a young Hungarian having attempted to shoot himself in a hackney coach The wounded man was taken to the hospital (as is said, to the hospital in the city prison), where he made com munications which have led to the arrest of several persons in Hungary. POPULATION AND VOTERS. —A good many returns have been made within the last fortnight of great use in forming a just estimate of the claims to representation of counties and boroughs. The one at present before us gives returns of the annual value of property rated under schedule A, in England, Wales, and Scotland, the present population, computed by adding to the census of 1851 the pro bable increase of the population since that time, the number of voters and the number of members. Disregarding the details of each county and looking at the total numbers, it appears that the value of pro perty under schedule A, for all the counties of England and Wales, is £60,501,167, and the present population 10,495,930. Of these ten millions, 506,654 are voters • The boroughs and cities of returning 159 members. I England and Wales possess property under sc g h e e , dul ve e oatc A ehr of an annual value of £42,995,086, with a present popu- I lation of 7,431,679, an electoral body of 435,604, eachand 1 337 members. On making a few rough calculations from these figures we find that, on the average, county member represents 3,200 voters, each voter repre senting about 22 of the whole population, and £l2O annual value under schedule A. In the borollis member represents roughly 1,300 voterseac and cities ilO7. representing 20 of the population and In the counties of Scotland the annual value under schedule A is £8,013,005, the present of property possess pro perty 1,726,620, the electoral body popu lation population of 101'5 4 6 9 9 ;6 7 6 4 8 4 ; and 23 memberF. 50,403, and the members 30. The boroughs p l, e l rt 3 y 6,l o 2 f 2 r an an e n l u e a c l tor v a a l lu b e o o d f y On treating these statistics in the same way as those for England, we find that each county member represents about 1,700 voters, each of whom in his turn represents about 34 of the population, and £l6O annual value under schedule A. the representing 2 boroughs 3of h ea t ch e member represe n t s 2,100 v oters, each population, and £94. It will thus be seen that the county members of the most we a lth y represent the greatest number voters.—Parliamentary paper. BANKRUPTCY COURT.-THURSDAY. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. IN THE MATTER or ELSDON PRINGLE, SHIPOWNER, SOUTHPORT. - This was an application by the assignee of Elsdon Pringle, who became bankrupt on the 28th of Octo ber last, claiming as against Miss Jane Thomasine Pringle, his daughter, the property in certain furniture, iu a house occupied by the bankrupt, as tenant under a lease for bo fi fa v n e yea. lrctlp r b s t a an nk T dr u h hp i i s tsc l yd e ,a a us but ub . ad httetrh resided x p expired r daughter i at t L th advda ehafido house 8 herself r sa l etlsf theBb. e ct iL m he ee tenant of it frpm Ladyday, 1858, under an agreement dated the 14th of June last, an d h a d h erself paid two quarter's rent previously to the bankruptcy, out of an income pos sessed by her, independent of her father, of £lOO a year. The house was, by the daughter's directions, advertised to be let furnished in July last, by means of a board on the premises, referring to a Mr. Hargreave, the agent from whom she had taken the house ; but though visited by several per sons with the avowed purpose of taking it, it remained unlet at the time of the bankruptcy. The furniture was assigned by way of mortgage for £3OO, with interest at £lO per cent., by a deed bearing date the 17th day of June, 1858, t o Mr. Palgrave ' the solicitor, as trustee for the daughter, who had advanced to her father £2BO on the 24th of November, 1857, and who had frequently, from January until June, applied for security for her money. The mortgage extends also to secure a further sum of £3OO to Mr. Palgrave, for money lent by him, and it is registered under the Bills of Sale. Act. The furniture is described in a schedule to the deed. It is admitted that this deed was executed at a time when Mr. Pringle was embarrassed in his circumstances. Mr. Conway appeared as counsel for the assignees., and Mr. Deighton as counsel for Miss Pringle, and it had been agreed that in place of a vesting order being granted, with a view to a trial of the right of property in the furniture before a jury, the whole question of the property in the furniture should be decided by this court. Mr. Conway, though not questioning the bona fides of Miss Pringle, contended that nothing had been done to alter Mr. Pringle's position, that she allowed him to r emain in the house, and to have the use of the furniture just as before, and. that her possession was concurrent with that of her father, and therefore was within the reasoning in the case of Woodall v. Smith, 1 Com. B. R, 333, where a servant of the creditor was put into possession, and remained there conjointly with the assignee. lie said that Mr. Ilargreave was the only person who was aware of the change of ownership. He argued that the furniture was in the order and disposition of the bankrupt at the time of the bankruptcy, with the consent of the true owner who was, he contended, Miss Pringle, and cited Stansfield v. Cubitt, 27 L. J. 27, and the observa tions of Lord Justice Turner in support of the position that the registry of a Bill of Sale does not affect the order and disposition clause in the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act. He cited Twine's case ' 3 Coke 81, up on th e statutes 13 Elizabeth c. 5, and 27 Elizabeth C. 10. Edward's v. Harben, 2 T. R. 587, in which latter case the creditor who took an absolute sale of goods of his debtor, agreed to leave them in his possession for a time. In the interval the debtor died. The creditor was held liable to be sued as executor de san test, for the debtor's continuing in possession was inconsistent with the deed. That case was also cited for a dictum of Justice Buller that " unless possession accom panies and follows the deed it is fraudulent and void." Now as to this dictum, we find Justice Dallas in Jezeph v. Ingram, 1 B. Moore 193, denying that Edwards v. Harben lays down a general rule, that in transferring chattels the possession must accompany and follow the deed, and Baron Parke also, in Martindale v. Booth, 3 B. and Ad., which was cited by Mr. Deighton, says, " the dictum of Justice Buller inEdwards v. Harben, has not been considered in subsequent cases, to have that import. The want of delivery is only evidence that the transfer is colourable." Mr. Conway also relied on Wilkins v. Bromhead, 7 Scott N. R. 921. There Smith and Bryant had constructed a green-house for the plaintiff, and had been paid for it. He requested them to take care of it until wanted. They packed it up and placed it with a glazier, Waite, who was informed that it belonged to the plaintiff. On the bankruptcy of Smith and Bryant, it was claimed by their assignees and delivered to the messenger under the petition. The plaintiff brought his action, and the judge on the trial refused to nonsuit the plaintiff, who recovered in the action, and the court subsequently refused a rule to enter a nonsuit. That case does not, therefore, on examination, prove to be an authority in support of the assignees' contention in the present case. Lingwood v. Messiter, Barn and Cresswell, 308 was also cited. I do not think that that case is of much authority now, and I will shortly give the reasons for it. There the property in question was machinery, which had been conveyed by bill of sale, but left in the possession of the bankrupt until his bankruptcy, he paying a rent for the use of it. The creditor's initials were marked on all the goods. It was held that there was no evidence of the notoriety of the change in the property, and therefore no evidence to go to the jury that the bankrupt had ever ceased to be reputed owner. In Bell v. Hamilton, 24 L. J., Ex. 46, which was cited by Mr. Deighton for another purpose, Chief Baron Pollock says : Lingard v. Messiter may have been rightly decided at that time, but would not be so decided now, for it is notorious that machinery is often hired, and, therefore, it is no presumption that machinery in the possession of a manu facturer is his own. In the same case, Baron Alderson said : " That occurred in Somersetshire, where, perhaps, there was no such practiced as is now common in Lancashire for machinery to be hired." Baron Parke says : " I do not quarrel with the decision in Lingard v. Messiter, although had it appeared that it was the custom to hire machinery, the decision might be questionable." Mr. Deighton con tended that the furniture was not in the order and disposition of the bankrupt with consent of the true owner; that it was in a house of which Mr. Pringle was originally the tenant, under a lease expiring in March, 1858, and that he had borrowed money of his daughter in the November previous, on an undertaking to give security, that every thing had been done which could be done to transfer the possession; that so far as any consent of the true owner is required, that is not given. In support of this last position, Mr. Deighton cited Jarman v. Wollaton, 3 T. R. 619 ; where the trustee under the wife's settlement was held the legal owner, and the wife only the agent of the trustee. There the husband, the bankrupt, had paid the rent of the house in which the furniture was placed. The court said, "it is sufficient to say, that the husband had not the order and disposition of the property with the consent of the true owner." In further support of this view, exparte Dale, Buck 365, might be cited, when it is said, "By the true owner,' here is to be intended the person who has the legal right to the possession and the power of dealing with the property, and such a person is the trustee." Mr. Deighton cited also, Fraser v. Swansea Canal Company 1 Adol. and Ellis, and in accordance with these authorities, contended that Mr. Palgrave was the true owner, and his consent to the possession by the bankrupt had not been given. Mr. Deighton also referred - to the note on Twyne's case in Smith's leading cases. Ido not assent to Mr. Deighton's view of the observations of the , Lord Justice Turner in Stansfielcrv. Cubitt ; and I do not think that his lordship will see fit to re-consider them. The question, whether the order and disposition clause is affected by the registry of a bill of sale, has been the subject of decisions in Ireland and England - by Mr. Commissioner M'Cann in Ireland, and by Mr. Comm hp i set ss alL i pe o ra n ;o_w er ” Holroyd in England. The latter has said , in 25 Law t Times : " I have looked through it, and it a pp ears to me vtcoi Consolidations in b os n e o sl i c d l oa e f at rothe t Act a a c ct t t the r t l t 2 ha s ef r t e h rc et ge s d e i s c ti t rn i a o t r itihoinosfrespect ky of bills of ru t A h g e a b in an : ko ' rf ' u l pb f ti l t il h sa e wo legislature ou ut elhaddd restrainoiwnntecnd ownership, sh ed ipt t fi h i a t ot wouldp e t r h a e regis tration i o nha vohave expressed its intention clearly, as it has done with regard to transfers of ships, both in the proviso to the 125th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, and "in the Mer chant Shipping' Act, 17 and 18 Vict., c. 104, sec. 77 reasoning to which I give a ready assent. I would add that, in Manton v. Moore, 3 T. R. 67, where a bill of sale was made of goods to the Oakum Canal Company, and the goods remained on the premises of the canal company, t o whom the conveyance was made, it was held that the deed was not fraudulent. In the case before us, Miss Pringle was the tenant of the house previous to her acquiring an interest in the furniture, and the circumstance of her father living in the house with her, does not, in that case, affect her right to retain the furniture assigned to her trustee who, and not Miss Pringle, is the "true owner" within which o h hr e m ei c,ht e hi a sa n ti i n n mc g l ui o sd f s e t dp h e loinn l2 gt h f e t e h iss s e e he e en t d i t o di n t le . June, 1858, held fo r h er benefit,e id.nlttahme opinion ,boillofsa l eo t f h l e 7 r t e i - i and as h a a ve se t c h u e rit f y 7n a i t ture all assignee, events, furn furniture f t o o r Lre2dB.eoema,nd interest ; and as I presume that the a in b g sol a u t t the evidence of value given by Mr. .argreave, who estimated it at £230 or £240, would not be :e the to to orde r Miss w Pringle, e that r thheeiv trustee, d o convey a t her cost, in satisfation of her debt. The costs of the motion must be paid to Miss Pringle by the assignees. YESTERDAY. In re THOMAS HlLL.—This was a last examination sitting, which stood adjourned from Thursday. The bankrupt formerly carried on business in Liverpool as a broker, under the firm of Balmain and Hill. Mr. Norris appeared on his behalf, and Mr. Deighton for his late partner Mr. Balmain, who is the assignee. The bankrnpt was examined at some length by Mr. Deighton d , enute : eeito l in n t reference to his accounts, which it appeared had not a res b t er th e e d d l correctly ar e to in h th i s e l sheet,abtael'apnacretner, alsop a r a t s i c t u oit hi ma r , Mr. Anderson. His Honour sa b id e , fo ae re the balance-sheet were necessary debt due t t h h e e s b e ankrupt passed, tehpepeienasteed thehad better st h April fo be adjourned j ( the next t f os r it t t h i a n t g. purpose, and he The Baron de Steinberg, Hanoverian Minister in Paris, had a conference on Tuesday, with Count Walew:-ki, on the subject of the last note in the Moniteur.