The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMIRONS.—TiILBSDAY, MAY 30.
IN the House of CommoNs, yesterday, Lord
STANLEY, in reply to Mr. MONK, stated that he
had toceived no confirmation of tic telegram which
had been published that Juarez had ordered the
Emperor Maximilian to be shot.
The house having gono into committee on the
11.4'rusentaton of the People Bill,
he CHANcELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved to
postpone clause 8 (which disfranchises Tuttle', Rei-
gate, thud. Yarmouth, and Lancaster), and said he
intended to move an amended elicase at a future
time.

completely blotted out as if they were expressly
disfranchised. The apprehended evil of democracy
was that particular classes would swamp the others,
but under this plan that could not happen, fur no
considerable minority would remain unrepresented.
In that way it would have a conservative effect.
It would also have a democratic effect, because
every man would be represented, which at present
was nut the case ; for how could an elector be said
to by rep resented by a man against whom he had
voted Without some plan of the kind it was im-
possible to have a representative system applicable
to the exigencies of modern society.
Lord CeaNeoaNe said he should not be accused
of sy inpathy with the views of Mr. Mill, but ho
protest•:a against the levity with which his speech
had been received. With respect to the plan itself,
they all knew instinctively that it had no chance
,of success. Nevertheless, he thought it was one
that was worthy of attention. Thu evil that the
i hon. member had pointed out was real, but the re-
: wetly he proposed was impracticable.
Mr. MorcitisioN thought there were many objec-
tions to the plan. 011 the other hand, it carried
the principles of democracy to their logical con-
' elusion.

After sonic discussion on the pint of order, in
the course of which Mr. AYKTON said that the ob-
ject of the postponement being merely to introduce
a preamble reciting reasons for the proposed
disfrunchisement, he suggested that the clause
should not be postponed, but that the preamble
should be moved at once ; and Mr. Unions- sug-
gested that the whole subject of distribution of
seats should be dealt with in another bill,
The CHANCELLOK of the Ravin-kr La withdrew
his motion for postponement, and moved a pre-
amble to the clause, reciting that thecommissioners
appointed by her Majesty to inquire into the alle-
gations of bribery in those boroughs, had reported
that bribery had extensively prevailed in them.
11.1 r. W. D. BAXTZR would have had no objec-
tion to disfranchise these constituencies if they had
remained unchanged, but the house must recollect
that they had been creating a new constituency,
and Great Yarmouth and Lancaster were large
places. At a future stage he would move that one
member only should be taken from these boroughs.
Sir G. liowven said the preamble raised the
whole question, and as he had given notice of his
intention to move the omission of the clause, he
objected to the insertion of the printable. He
oppeasi the chaise on constitutional grounds. It
was a clause of pidgin and' penalties, and there was
no precedent for such a clause being inserted in a
bill which was for a general purpose. Thu matter
ought to be dealt with in a separate bill. By this
proposal they punished not ouly the electors but the
town. Moreover the bill created a new consti-
tuency which was free from bribery.
Sir R. KNICHTLEY protested against the propo-
sition to take only one member from Lancaster
and Great Yarmouth. He sat on the committee
for Great Yarmouth, and he was convinced that no
man had the smallest chance of being returned for
that borough without having recourse to bribery.
Mr. t: Laiihrox it said the clause was no more a
clause of pains and penalties than the clauses in the
Reform Bill which disfranchised the rotten bo-
roughs. He thought the local connounities ought
in cases of this kind to be held responsible for the
acts of a large portion of those conuni.nities, and
that the distranchising of those boroughs would
have the effect of creating a public opinion adverse
to bribery. He could nut conceive a worse plan
than to deal with a corrupt borough by taking
away only one member. Whatever punishment
they inflicted on the borough should be one that
would step the practioe of bribery.
Mr. BAILLIS observed that they were not living
under the Mosaic dispensation,when the Enrol the
parents were visited on the children to the third
and mirth generation, and he suggested that
instead of totally disfranchising the boroughs, they
should suspend the writs fur ten, fifteen, or twenty
years.
Mr. Lowe said if the case had stood as it was
before the introduction of this bill, he should have
had no hesitation in voting for the disfranchise-
ment of Great Yarmouth, but since then they had
gone through a revolution. They had virtually
changed the principle on which the franchise was
conterred. It was formerly a trust, but now they
had declared that every citizen who had got a
settled residence, and even if he had not, had •
right to be represented in parliament. The con-
stituency of Great Yarmouth was now 1,600. Under
the bill it would be about 6,000. Was it to go
forth that they had no confidence in the new con-
stituency I
Mr. Howes then moved to omit Great Yarmouth.
Mr. Balmer thought it an unfortunete thing that
the question of toe disfranchisement of four
boroughs should be brought forward in a bill of
this magnitude. The government had made
arrangements for the disposal of the seats, and
would necessarily be influenced by that considers-

'glen. There had been two cases' of disfranehiee7

meld since the Refurin'Act, those oft St. Albans and
Sudbury, but they would not have been disfran-
chised if they had not been so small that they
ought not to be represented. The proper and just
course was to disfranchise the persons, who were
well known, who had bribed or been bribed in
these boroughs; bat to disfranchise 5,000 persons
in Great Yarmouth because 500 had been bribed,
was a proposition so monstrous that lit should be
amazed if the house sanctioned it.
Lord Cast+ imams observed that the consti-
tuencies of these boroughs would not be really
disfranchised, inasmuch as the voters would be-
come county instead of borough voters. If con-
stituencies showed by their conduct for a series of
years that they were not fit to send members to
parliament they ought to lose the privilege of
being specially represented.
The CUANCILLOR of the Exeunt:Ea said the
observation of Mr. Bright, that the government
were influenced in this matter by their having
made arrangements to give the seats to other
boroughs, was not founded in justice. On the
contrary, unless the proposition of the govern-
ment were carried, not by a majority obtained by
party discipline, but by such a majority as virtually
to show it was nearly the unanimous opinion of
the house, the government did not wish to carry

the clause. The government were ready to listen
to any modification of the clause which would lead
to a general concurrence.
On a division the preamble was agreed to by 325
to 49.

Colonel Parree then moved to omit Great Yar-
mouth and Lancaster, with a view of moving at
the end of the clause that the writs for those
boroughs should be suspended for ton years. This
he submitted would be punishment enough.
Mr. ACLAND suggested that the period of sus-
pension should be 30 or 30 years, and Mr. Breit
that it should be lb years.
Mr. GLansrosa observed that if mercy were
extended to any of those boroughs, it ought to be
extended to Reigate. If the suspension were to be
continued till 1&37 ho should support it.
Lord CRANUORNE pointed out that by suspend-
ing the writs they would not turn these electors
over to the county constituency, but they would
not be represented at all.
The discussion was continued for some time
longer, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Gurney, the
Solicitor-General, and Mr. Cardwell arguing in
support of the clause, and Sir 0. Bowyer, the Mar-
quis of Hartington, Mr. Gilpin, and Mr. Dillwyu
supporting the amendment. Mr. Read protested
against the constituency of East Norfolk being
contaminated by that of Great Yarmouth being
added to it, and Mr. Wyld suggested that instead
of disfranchisement they should try the ballot.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER contended
that the policy recommended by the government
was the right policy. The mere suspension of the
writs would be looked upon by the country as mere
trifling. He believed a great effect would be pro-
duced by disfranchising those boroughs.
On a division the amendment was rejected by
109 to and the clause as amended was agreed to.
On clause 9, which enacts that the boroughs
mentioned in Schedule A shall return one member
of parliament,

Mr. B. Howe objected to the measure on the'
gro,:nd of its impracticability.
Mr. Scrjeallt GARELER said ho did not know
whether the hon. member wished the house to be a
house of philosophers ;if so, God help them ! He
hoped the house would go to serious business.
Thu Citsvem.ton of the EXCHEQUER said he was
glad the subjevt had been brought forward. It
was one which would, no doubt, in future have the
attent;on of parliament ; but he supposed the hon.
member did not intend to divide the house upon it.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the
Chairman was ordered to report progress.
The house then went into committee on the
Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill, in which some
progress was made.
'llw Exchequer Bonds (1,700,0001.) Bill was
read a second time.

The Metropolitan Police Bill pissed through
conuuittee.

The Railways (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Metropolis Subways Bill was read a second
time, and referred to a select committee.

Mr. Hu.ui obtained leave to bring in a bill
to atuend the Industrial and Provident Societies
Acts.

Mr. 261`Ecov moved to nominate the select cum-
mittee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

Colonel GILPIN said if this question was pressed
it would be found that the protestant feeling of the
country would be against it. He moved that the
committee be nominated that day six months.
Lord NAAS supported the motion.
Mr. ANC objected to the composition of the
committee, and suggested that it should be nomi-
nated by the committee of selection.
On a division the amendment was rejected by
08 to 42.

Another division took place on the motion for
the adjournment of the hove, which was moved
by Sir B. Brydgea, and was negatived by 70 to 39.
Another motion for the adjournment of the house
was then made, and after some disctuision this was
agreed to, and the house adjourned accordingly, at
ten minutes to two o'clock.

Mr. J. 8. MILL moved a series of amendments
to enable minorities to elect candidates. This he
proposed to do by enacting that those who declined
to vote for the candidates of the locality should have
the power of bestowing their votes on one who was
&candidate for anywhere ; and if there were found
in the whole country a sufficient number who had
fixed their choice on the same person, he would be
elected. The plan, he said, was known as Mr. Hare's
plan ; and there was not really any difficulty in it.
At present the representation was imperfect and in-
sufficient, inasmuch as there was a great minority
who were not represented at all. They were as

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1867.

country shall recover from the fearful Rrostration in
which the calamities of the past year have Involved it, if
railway mama rrsaiu their normal state, and the wonder-
ful elasticity of commerce gives us reason to suppose that
such will be the case, the receipts of this company in a
little while will spin be found steadily on the increase.
It will I. the duty of your committee to advise with the
board, and with those of it, officers most al le to assist in
' the work, in what way the income of this company may be
further developed.

Mu futtllliStlTCt.
EQUITY COURTS.-MAY 30.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
PRIOLEAU T. CMITEI/ STATEN OF AMERICA.

This suit same on slain on exceptions to the answer of 1
the defendants, the United States of America. The case,
it will be recollected, has reference to the right of the
plaintiffs to certain cotton, formerly the property of the
Confederate States ; and the plaintiffs' claim to the cotton
is met by the answer that these goods were from the be-
ginning, and still continue to be, the property of the
United States • and that having been wrongfully acquired
in the first instance daring a period of rebellion against the
sovereign power of the United States, the plaintiffs have
no sight to claim either property or discovery from the
defendants. To this the plaintiffs' reply is, that by the
law of the United States bona racantia do not belong to
I the Federal Union, but to the state in which the goods
are found ; and that if this cotton, by reason of its being
seised during rebellion, is not the property of the plain-
tiffs, it belongs, not to the United States, but to the
state of Texas, in which the property was found.
It is to this point especially that the discovery sought by
this bill (which is a cross suit to a former bill filed by the
United States) is directed ; and the answers now excepted
to were answers to interrogatories seeking to obtain
from the defendants a statement of the propositions of
American law upon which they intend to rely.
Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., Mr. Kay, Q.C., Mr. Charles
Roll, and Mr. Benjamin, for the plaintiffs, supported the
exceptions. Sir it. Palmer, Q.C., Mr. G. Si. Gifford,
44. c., Mr. Druce, Q.C., and Mr. Wickens, for the defen-
dants, the United States, supported the answer.
The Vice-Chancellor overruled the first exception, ob-
serving that the interrogatory, by asking ' whether
there was any law of the United States whereby
money or property contributed by inhabitants of the sove-
reign states forming the Federal Union for any purpose,
legal or illegal, vests in such Union," called upon the
defendants, infact, to set out their own title. It would

be the same thing as saying that the defendant has no
title to his property, as will appear if the defendant will
produce the deeds and documents by which he claims.
That could nut be allowed, and he must therefore over-
rule the first exception, and also the fourth upon similar
grounds ; but as to the second and third exceptions, the
case stool thus. The third interrogatory asked whether it
was not the fact that by the law of the separate sovereign
states, and in psrticularof Terms, all property in the na-
ture of bona vacantia belonged to the government of the
separate states, and not to the Federal Union, and
whether the Federal Union did not claim this cotton as
bons vacantia ? To this the answer was, that in
1541 Texas ceased to be a sovereign state,
and thenceforward became part of the United States.
The defendants denied that by the law of each separate
state all property in the nature of bona vacsntia belonged
to the government of the separate states and not to the
Federal Union, and said that if the cotton might be in
any sense deemed bona vacantia, it was bona vacantia of
a rebellious and unlawful armed organisation against the
authority of the United States, and that on the cessa-
tion of such rebellion such bona vacantia did not
met in the state of Texas, but were from the
beginning, and still continued to be, the property of the
United States. The fourth interrogatory asked whether
the United States insisted or disclaimed that they had
any right or interest in the cotton, as successors of the
government called or known as the government of the
Confederate States of America, and whether they insisted
or denied that the Confederate government was a de facto
government exercising authority over the state of Texas.
To this the answer was that the defendants claimed the
cotton as being the sovereign power, in opposition to
which certain persons in rebellion collected the same.
They did not claim or disclaim the cotton as successors to
the " Government of the Confederate States." for no such
government existed, or ever did exist, in the intendment
of this court, seeing that no government could plead in
the courts of England till they had been proclaimed or
recognised to exist by royal authority. They further said
that the plaintiffs had no right to call upon them to
make answer relating to any imaginary government ; and
that certain persons unlawfully calling them-
selves the state of Texas did rise in rebel-
lion, and falsely pretend, in sasociation with
others, to be a government, but of their pretended
quality as a government this court had no power to take
judicial cognisance. Now as to the third exception, his
Honour thought there must be a further answer. It was
of the essence of the ease that the plaintiffs should know
whether in fact certain persons did or did not violently
exact contributions from others by force of arms, or
whether there was not ade facto organised authority. A
similar em had occurred in English history in the reign of
Charles IL, and it might be a matter of grave importance
to ascertain whether the rights claimed by the present
plaintiffs were derived from persons engaged in a rebellion
like that of Jack Cade, or from the authority of a settled
government, however unlawful, such as that of Oliver
Cromwell during the protectorate. The question was
whether or not the plaintiffs had obtained the answer
to which they were entitled, and his Honour thought
they had not. The defendants might deny that the per-
sons from whom the plaintiffs' rights were deriver' ever
had authority over the state of Term. But it was to be
observed that they had gone a long way in admitting that
they were ade facto government when it appeared that
prisoners of war had been in their custody upon parole,
that a proclamation had been issued declaring that there
was no intention of interfering with their established
right., and that the state of Texas had in fact, after •
time, submitted to the authority of the United States.
On the other hand, it was open to the plaintiffs (in the
first suit), by 'unending their bill, to admit that ade facto
government, called the government of the Confederate
States, had exercised authority over the state of Texas,
and that by force of that authority contracts had
been entered into. His Honour quite agreed that
the United States were not bound to adopt
the language of the pleader, and to speak of
these states as " sovereign states ;" but they could not
escape from answering the interrogatory as to the facts.
It was to be observed that the answer carefully avoided
stating whether thisanthority was ever exercised, and that
was a point on which a further answer was required. His
Honour thought it was a mistake in law to allege that this
court had no power to recognise a de facto government.
The court had power to take judicial cognizance of
such a government, and without pretending to decide
whether or not its acts were legal according to
American law, it was bound to ascertain whether
its acts were carried on by a constituted authority, and
not by a body of rebels acting in a sporadic and fitful
meaner. Then as to the second exception the answer
was also insufficient. They might deny that by the law
of each one of the separate states bona mouths belonged
to the government of the separate states; and yet the
proposition might be correct with regard to Texas. The
general denial might be quite true, but the plaintiffs were
entitled to a specific answer to the particular inquiry. The
second and third exceptions must, therefore, be allowed.
Three months would be given to answer, and there would
be no costs on either side.

&HARE LISTS.-(THIS DAY.)

ktiii.Lsl

Si 1
SO
10
100

Bon. Bar. &C. la. gip
Do. 7 Nutria
Buffalo aLake Baron I

,Doff.,Drsat.,lloodseledi
I rsar coot D 0244
IDAL &S. liastarnsp. ag.
,CapsT..t Doak. p).l
Denoris=o.
tlsst ga.V7.
Do. do. sdo
last Indian ga. f do
Do. L Shares
proud Traakot Caaads

COURT OF PROBATE.—MAY 30.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
LINGWOOD V. RAVAGE AND !SAVAGE. _

The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Swabey for the plaintiff ;
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for the defendants.
The testatrix, Mae Elizabeth Savage, of Tetbury.lodge,
Cheltenham, died at the age of 88,in November last, leaving
• will dated May, 1860, and • subsequent codicil. She had
executed a deed by which she had given to her brother the
principal of her property, amounting to 15,0001. or 16.0001.,
ho covenanting to pay her • yearly allowance. From this she
had saved about 7,0001. By her will she bad given bar
brother 2,000/., and constituted • Mr. Lingwood, an
attorney at Cheltenham, and bet man of business, her
executor and residuary legatee. By the codicil, however,
she had revoked the legacy to her brother. Probate was
resisted on the ground that the deceased did not know and
approve of the contents of the will, and that in particular
she was not aware of the nature of the residuary clause.
There was no defence, and the court decreed probate.

Suss BROKERAGE. —A case was decided in the
Lord Mayor's Court. Guildhall, yesterday, in which the
question for decision was the liability of the owner of
certain shares sold by section for the amount of com-
mission fixed by the auctioneers as their brokerage, with-
out his consent. The London Stock and Share Com-
pany (Limited) was employed by a foreign broker to sell
by auction some overdue coupons on the Atlantic and
Great Western Railway which realised 60f. The company
wished to deduct from this sum 121. 10s. as commission,
and pleaded that such commission was charged in accord-
ance with the terms of their circular that was extensively
circulated. The plaintiff contended that 5 per cent. was
the customary and proper rate instead of 22 per cent.,
which the defendants sought to charge him by deducting
that per ccntsge from his receipts. He swore that defen-
dant's circular had not been brought to his notice. The
jury decided that 5 per cent. was • reasonable and suffi-
cient payment for the sale, and found a verdict for the
plaintiff accordingly.

CRYSTAL PALACE.-ONE SHILLING DAY.-THURS-
DAY, MAT 30.—Adinisaions c payment, 2,168 ; ditto
by MAIIOII &dots, 1,299 ;total viaitors, 3,467.

[Advertisement.]—Hou.owAy's OINTMENT AND
PltW.—Hoallcg not Ilarrolul.—No application has met with the
same universal approbation for curing all external ailments as
that which this unguent has received. Skin sores, deep ulcers,
fetid discharges, burns, blistered surfaces, and many similar
affections are at once soothed and put on the road to soundness
by Holloway's Ointment. With his Ointment and his Pills the
wealthy may save themselves much suffering, sod the poor may
help themselves to health. since these medicaments are reason-
able in price, and can be purchased In every hamlet. They have
effected curse of stiff Joints, swellei legs, and ulcerated limbo,
sad opened out the prospect of a happy future after every hops
of recovery had been Wen up.

Do. Istpid. Bonds ..
Do. bd pre! Bonds.
Do. Ind pref. Rock..
Do. slit pest Stock..
Seat Lava tialssuslal

66 U
103 103.

—at —4191
e a

16 TO

60 6S
99 191
102 163

Do. i per cowl.
Do. New do.
Do. Now
(It. 5.0 t Indtwg. op. et
Do. 5i pee ant
Gt. Welders et Canada
Da3e.lsdapay.lB7ll
do. do. 16774.
to rench(Lirolied)
Madras roar. 6p. mat.
Do. de. 41 de
Do. Mt* Tatenetos
Meth. wad HoteoWellay
Do. • p. at., pey.lBBo
De. f p. pay. 1866
N.E.olren.ep aletp&
asst.
Do. do. do.— --
Do. Ponjewb do.
Do. Indus Elt.

10:I
17i 18
86 67
64 U
4$ 66
86 87
80 It
110 11l
qgi
1011 1647

161 111
93 96
36 SO
il
1021 103
33 96
111 90

1014 1
Itli

;41-1

JOINT en= Llll3l.
Wu. lid I CCi

20
111 10t

1021

mono 1141, =Bank (Lir) A 11 11 as =
1181.11Balses-LlMiied.- " 10 10 9 dis -
i 110 Angle Ansirlen 6ll 151: 11
1111 Angle Impptiaa (La) all 121 14 141 1
10, 10 Aggio Italian (Linear) LS 41 10
110. 40 AnetraMala . - ...
1 10 Mara &Mr uP 11 13 -
-.
19 De. Now, road I pm. I 6 4 die -
10, 16 Beek of rapt . . all 83 86 34
U, 10 Bank of Utego(LUYAssialid. 10 41 NY& 0
111, 10 1 Brket Vkterts. 1111 N IN -
M, 111 I Boat et Now Zoolood lO 8 9 1116 .-
90, 001 Brilialt2Californian(L) 11 21 Ildle ...
10, 10 British N. America ..- al( 51 63
00, 10' C. Bk. India, Ans., Clilaa all 18 19 -.
-
30, 65 Chart. Mr. of Lod* *c all ' 30 32 311 1
60,000 10 City
10 1 13 14 -
110,0001110 Colonial -
050000 10 Consolidated Bank (L ) 4 1 fpm 4 12-16
60,000 10 I Do. do. New -
10, 50' Deihl and Lorca (L) l6 - - -
60000 60 Zrt London tadi 1 11 ledls -
000 SO ENNooltoisego(l6nO(Llts. I Se 1141 s -
10,000 30 , Inglitt cad Araerican . 10 8 4 die -
60,000 10 Ing.Banklt.delanalroL 10 lf %die -
13,01001 20 , Ing.ScottlAusL Clued ell 18 19 -.
90, 60 EngUaltandBwedieb (L.) 16 10 BMs -
*OOO 100 ' baperialßank(Lindted; II 21 310 m 421
102,600 101 Imperial More
4,000 26 loran -
6,000, 26 ' Do. New
121,000 10 , Land Mort. Bk. India(L), 4 11 2 die 11
1000001,100 , D0.6p.c.Deb.,11034,110yral all 82 85 -
10,000 60 , Lon.BLMMersoota.(L), 10 12 10 dl. -
11441001 London and Bregillas- 41%
10 17 es -
IL to Do. New
1,000 100 London& BlverllsArdl4 eg 8 10 pm -
110,2110, 26 Do. New, lr at lepga 10 1 21pai -
d.OOO 26 Do. 4.. do lO 1 11pm -
00,000 to , Loath Bank of AturL as 24 26 -
87,600' 60 , London and County * MI 67 i
11,60010 Do. do. New 1 - - re
71,0001 40 Load= Joint Orr ..
NON II Leaden ok SouthArligan as 111 111 121
10,000 100 Loa. MB Westent(lAr) SO S 1 dig -
1,000, SO Loudon & V enexuala(l.4 171 8 d 1 -
60,000100 Leaden & Wertmtnater.' 10 106 111 •
10,000 100 Merchant Bank (lim) .IS 16 16 -
6,000 100 Do. New lft 12 10 Ms -
111.000 SO Mereantilealhcar(L)l 12; 9 7 dl. -
10,000 10 Metropolitan (Walled) all 7 8
-
1,000100 Mkiland Bank (Lim.)
55555555ia
-
ID,OOO 4 National of • 6 1 2 pas
90,001100 Nricoal of Liverpool l6 8 1 tilii -.
10,000 200 N. Pro. of Arland - - 1454
scoa se Do. acts Ird Iwo ll - - 421
60,000 SO Nader* Bank
60,000 a it.. Boar Wales- -
66,099 10 Nora Wolin -
*3,000; 66 Omaha Bank Corpora aff 63 44 1 431
*lle' SO Provlabalfis9Oar..(4lll 04 14414 -•
M,OOOlOO Proving. et Wand
10,000 10 Do. ft. Now I all - - -
10,000 16 Meath Amapa Iml 26 ff -
17,061 100 /Mad. of B. 8 Africa ; 116 14 12 -
10,000100 Do. do. las. at 6pm lO 7 6 .-
110400 U Urea
of
Anidralia_ - -
110,000 100 Maks ad Deland (Ur): 21 0 7 die -
*KO 60 Urea et Lair 16 402 414 414
• 1111 F 14 16.
10111101 &ULM APS.
61.1 N. I ZAILW426. I Closing pries& I Halm
10 all Antwerp 2 Boaterdant 91
10 su BeldarirraLEp.a. 12 1.4 131
6 all Belgian Z. 3 1 3 -
M all 8.Ayr0g,f1.8.47p.M.(1) 144 161 -
M 1111 Central Argentlno .... 9i 1416 -
IM ali CoMapo - - -
10 all Do. Irtesselon . - -pm
100 80 Danab=ltpk (1 ) - - -.-
II 16 Dr* 3/ elpm, -
M all Do. -
40 18 &worm Central (L) l6 13 Ms, -
M all Great Lumerabourg .
10 a Imperial MOlkali (19 4 6 -
21 aD lemberg-Csernowl (L) 134 141 -
20 all Nain.allege 1
_By the 91 10 -
21 611 D0.69.c.111. I 3416. goo 19 14 -
16 all Northav of Prance -
lb all N.Rall.Boatyregt7.p.o 2 5 ....
10 a/2 Do. - - -
10 all Norwegian Trunk Prof - - -
10 all Ottoman Oliammaidin If
fat
-
00 all Part LyoniteadMedlL 831 -
10 all IParls ar Were . -
M all Amite 411 [armada (.1) 111 121 -
JO 10 'Royal ilardndati - - -
8 all !Bevil Swell& -
4 .11 ' Do. 7 per eat i I
-
UaU ,fiembre and Maur -
6111 Do. 61 wooer Prat 01 -
20 all ,San Poulo(L) r. 7 per ct. la 17 -
110 all Sitar& Loos. Venetian 151 114 16 161 161
10 16 lloatle Zest. of Portugal - - rib -
M all 'Southern of halms_ -
10 all Tads and Savona -
H all Wed Flanders s -
II all Do. 11 per amt. Pat 9 4 -
• all 1194•62116. R. of Triad 111 11/ -

ici 'il
is
les
111 all
is
se

81

r. Istrone. bee,
ILL
--.-. r--
Nairn 30.045 X.Z. A.A.W. see - 1
Aberdeen 10.13 &ILL I 14. L .bra - 6
Leith 29.90 Z. Lel 1o- 2
Ardroman . 30.01 65 A.A.W. I.W. bo - 2
Oreenceetlei 29.911 8.3.1. W.W.I. bo - 2
Valencia W. 78 &LW. A.A.W.or 10.441 4
Cape Clear 29.00 & a. bm 0.06, 5
30 le Z. W. lob - 1
1111:= - 6
Penzance.- 30.1257 &&W. &W. co - 3
Bred 30.20 84 A.W. S.E. 0 •.-
Laciest 30.1567 &N.C. W.S.W. b - I
Rochefort 30.10 87 N. &L et 8.28 1
Plymouth 30.14 56 A.A.W. S.W. co - 3
Weymouth 30.1760 W.&W. A.W. Si - 1
Portsmouth 3813 57 W.&W. W.S.W. ro 11.01 2
London
_ 30.13 56 WILT/ W.I.W. elm - -
Yarmouth 30.09 54 N. N.Z. 158. W. ' ro - 1
Bautoroo2h 30.13 53 N.I. I 10.11. : d 0. 2
Shields 30.1540 Z. lI.W. cm i- 2
Balder - - - - - -