The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-05 00:00:00

BETTING ON HORSE RACES

In the bankruptcy court, London, yesterday, a bank-
rupt named Glen, described as of Regent-street, baker,
and of the White Bear, Piccadilly, licensed victualler,
came up before Mr. Commissioner Evans for his certi-
ficate. The most important ground of opposition was
that the bankrupt had betted extensively on horse races.
than .4'20 in one day, which involved
the certificate. The bankrupt
the
ed htaedtallosrte morefesal
pf
alleged that he did not bet on his own account,
but on commission, for noblemen and gentle-
men. His Honour, in giving judgment, said that the
charge of fradulently contracting a debt did not appear to
be proved. As to the charge of gambling. his Honour
said—The witness and opposing creditor swear that he
betted by direction of the bankrupt, and paid bets for
him mach exceeding 201. The bankrupt, in his exami-
nation, states that he does not recollect whether he did
what was stated by Cochrane, the opposing creditor,
but if he made the wagers it was on account of thitd
parties ; but he could not name the parti( s, and he could
not, or would not, produce a book in which he had made
such. I therefore fully consider that the bankrupt did
lose more than £2O in one day. and am obliged, under the
201st section of the 12th and 13th Vic., c. 106, to refuse
the certificate altogether. Protection was granted for
one week, to enable the bankrupt to appeal if so advised.

LONDON GAZETTE

BANKRUPTS.—WM. B F.NNETT, Margaret-street, Caven-
dish-square, victualler. DAVID LAY, Liverpool, flour
dealer. R. NEWTON, Birmingham, baker and provision
dealer. C. PARIS PooL, Lawrence-lane, warehouleman.
JAMES BAKER, jun., Exeter, linen draper. Jo EN
Hiscom, Brook-street, Holborn, boot and shne maker.
SAMSON BAZIBR, Twyford, near Winchester, grocer.
HENRY BRISBAND, Birmingham, butter manufacturer.
THOMAS JONES, Shrewsbury, draper. WM. HORNER,
Birmingham, publican and brickmaker. THOMAS HILL,
City-road, lincensed victualler. C. 11. JOSEPH CULYLITS,
Cullum-striet, merchant. ROBERT WELSH, Manchester,
wollen merchant. THOMAS WARREN, Knight Staunton,
grocer and tea dealer. C EDW. BIRD, Old Broad-street, City,
merchant. WM. M'Comuicx, Manchester, builder. JOHN
YOUNG Surrey-street, Strand, ale and porter merchant.
HENRY SMITHIES, JOHN SMITHIES, and JAMES SMITHIES,
Blackburn, Lancashire, ironfounders. WM. SMITH,
Bradford, and Yorkshire, grocer. JOHN TRAVIS, and
THOMAS DURDEN KERSHAev, Prestwich-cum-Oldham,
cotton apinners.

THE WILECK OF THE JOSEPHINEWILLI9.—DovER,
Marton 2 —The divers employed on the sunken wreck of
~
the ship Josephine Willis, off Folkestone, have been suc-
cessful in their opera' ions during the last few days. All the
spars, rigging, &c
have been cleared away, and they have
been able to penetrate into the chief cabin and remove a
quantity of luggage, bearing the name of Miss Logan and
Mr. Ray. They also secured a mahogany chest from the
cabin, which it was found contained the ship's plate, besides
many other articles of value. They expect in a short time
to be enabled to get all the property belonging to the
pmaasdseer:gsehrosulfdromthethweeletahbeirn.p
to get at the
roNveelt favourable,we
ekattempts will be
sarp.

THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH OF ENG-
LAND ON THE DUTY OF KEEPING
HOLY THE SABBATH DAY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—ln your paper of Friday last there was a letter from
"A Churchman," ent:tled "Sabbath defence," in reply to a
letter of mine, of February 20, 18.56. However much I
may feel compelled to differ with the writer, on the subject
under discussion, I think there can ba but one opinion as
to the spirit and goad temper which pervade the entire
letter.

I cannot bat regret, as a clergyman of the Church of
England, that the teaching of our church, on the Sabbath
question, should be deemed by "A Churchman," as" hardly
relevant to the main question." To my mind there are two
questions which lic at the foundation of the whole subject :
Ist. For every Protestant Christian : Does the Bible
teach • that the Sabbath is of permanent and uni-
versal obligation
2nd. For every member of the Church of England : Does
our church teach the same ?
Your readers will perceive that my opponent calls him-
self " A Churchman ;" that in the pamphlet on which I
made a few observations, he accuses Dr. M'Neile (in
defending the Divine obligation of the Sabbath) of assuming
a theological position not even recognised by the Church of
England ; and, in addition to all this, J. W., one of the
writers of the pamphlet, desires " that all honest hearts
should make a stand against those dismal superstitions
about the Sunday ... . • instead of the spirit of the
Gospel and the tenets of the Church of England." It does
appear to me, therefore, to be a question of very great
imp-lattice, to ascertain what is the teaching of the Church
of England on the subject of the Sabbath.
In the second paragraph of " A Churchman's" letter of
Friday last, I am informed that I unintentionally
misrepresented the views of the authors of the pamphlet,
when I said, that according to certain statements of the
pamphlet, the writers were of opinion that on Sundays " it
is lawful at any hour to buy and sell whatever a person
pleases, that it is a day for rational amusement, innocent
recreation, and pleasure." I never said that " according to
the law of the land, the writers of the pamphlet say,
that it is lawful at any hour to buy and sell on the
Sunday ;" but what I did say in both my letters and now
again repeat, is, that " the pamphlet does not teach that
there is nothing in the Law OF GOD which prevents
this." When I made this statement, it was
with the recollection of the following passage, amongst
others. At page 12, the writer, after informing his readers
that, on a Sunday evening, the publichouses and beer-
houses are crowded to excess, and that " the spirit and
beer-sellers are as honest and as respectable a class as any
tradesmen in this city," he adds :—" We are opposed to
any laws interfering with the freedom of this community,
in buying or in selling anything, at any hour it may suit
him ; because we believe such prohibitory laws to be false
in principle, and we know they have proved impossible in
practice."
It will be evident from this quotation, that I have not
misrepresented the views of the authors of the pamphlet,
and that the following passage, intended by my opponent
as a courteous rebuke, is more applicable to himself than to
me :—" From this, it is clear that Mr. Bardsley has not
read the pamphlet very carefully. His time has been em-
ployed. But it is hard that the authors should suffer from
his oversight."
We have, next in order, following my opponent, to call
attention to the latter part of the 7th article of our Church
which says, "no Christian man whatsoever is free from the,
obedience of the commandments which are called moral.'
If, as I said in my letter of Feb. 20th, the fourth com-
mandment be one or those " celled moral," it settles the
whole question, as to the teaching of the Church of Eng-
land, on the duty of observing the fourth commandment.
My opponent seems to agree with me in this, and, there
fore, labours to show that the fourth commandment is not
included. To prove this he gives us a definition of moral
and positive precepts, and endeavours to support his views
on this point by a reference to Barrow and Bishop J.
Taylor. Whether this view of moral and positive com-
mandments be right or tot, would be an interesting subject
for consideration, if we were discussing the 20th chapter of
Exodus. The question is not, whether the fourth com-
mandment he entirely, in the strictest and highest sense,
a moral commandment, hut whether it is included in those
which are eared moral ? The seventh article does not, when
speaking of the civil and ceremonial commandments, say,
which are called civil and ceremonial.

The compilers of the Book of Common Prayer, and
Articles, were perfectly well alquainted with the arguments
of those who declared that the fourth commandment is not in
the highest sense a moral precept, and hence the words,
" the commandments which are called moral." I think no
one will deny that the ten commandments have always been
so distinguished from the civil and ceremonial laws of the
Jews. In sapnort of this statement, as far as it respects
our Church, I respectively invite the attention of " a
Churchman," and of your readers generally, to a few
particulars. In the baptismal service the godfathers and
godmothers are instructed that they " shall chiefly provide
that the child learn the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the
ten commandments ;" and the same is repeated in closing
the service. In the Catechism we are told that the god-
fathers and godmothers promited for the child that he
should keep God's commandments, after which the child,
;n answer to the question, " Tell me how many there be?"
is taught to answer, " Ten ;" and the fourth is given in full
with the rest. I fear that the godfathers and godmother of
my respected opponent must have neglected their duty to
their godchild, for they promised at his baptism that he
should keep ten commandments, whereas he does not
hesitate to say that he, as a Christian, has nothing to do
with the fourth. In the confirmation service we again read
of ten commandments, which the candidate is required to
know. He also promises "to believe, and to do, all
those things which his godfathers and godmother under-
took for him." They undertook that he should keep the
tan commandments ; he therefore when he was confirmed
made a most solemn promise that he would keep the fourth
commandment. I would therefore submit for the consi-
deration of my opponent, whether he, rather than our
, Church may not be charged with having a "mutilated

Decalogue."
The ten commandments form part of onr Communion
service; here we have the fourth, as well as the other nine ;
after such commandment has been distinctly read, the
people are to " ask God's mercy for their transgressions
thereof for the time past, and grace to keep the same for the
time tocomee."agaAinftetrantghhetto p
ten commandments ,
&c., writehave
been
read, we are
all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee."
Before leaving this branch of our subject, I would ask
every candid reader,whether it is not abundantly clear that our
church teaches, that the fourth commandment is universally
binding, and that it is therefore one of the commandments
" called moral" in the seventh article. As my opponent refers
me to Burnet, on the 35th article, I will refer IA to Burnet
on the seventh article, who not only considers the fourth
commandment to be included, but writes as if no other
opinion had ever been entertained. Conclusive, as I con-
ceive the evidence must be—from the Book of Common
Prayer—that the Church of England maintains the Divine
obligation of the Sabbath, it may strengthen the convicti ,n,
in the minds of some churchmen' to know that this is the
opinion of our great Liturgical writers. Sea Mant "on
Common Prayer, Communion Service." Dean Comber and
Wheatly, "on the Commandments." I come now to examine
" A Churchman's" remarks on my arguments, drawn from
the Communion service. I hope I shall be excused for
saying, that had he not assured us that he is " a churchman,"
I
should:
reading h
certainlyis
have
remarksarrivedon th
at
ea very
introductiondi tre rent
o fh
t e conclusion,ten
after
commandments into the communion service. My opponent
argues that I have no proof from the communion service,
that the fourth commandment is binding, because-
-I.—ln this service there " is confusion, or worse."
2,—The church has mutilated the Decalogue, by omittirg
from the first commandment, the word., " which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage."
3.—Christians worship God, not on the Sabbath, bit on
the Lord's Day.
4.—To hold the Divine obligation of the Sabbath is a
doctrine of the Romanists, and not of the Reformers.
s.—That to pray, " Lord have mercy upon us," after
each commandment, is inconsistent and absurd, as it
would be:to acknowledge that "we are guilty of theft,
adultery, murder and the like."
Is it possible that these can be the arguments of " a
churchman ?" I shall endeavour briefly to reply to them

in order.

- - --- •
I.—l see no confusion in the Communion service, by intro-
ducing the ten commandments; I find, on the other
hand, that every churchman prays for grace to enable
him to keep th 3 fourth, as wel as the other nine.
2. The words, " which have brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," are no
part of the fifth commandment. From this mistake of
my opponent "it is clear that he cannot have read the
church catechism very carefully. His time has been
employed, but it is hard that the authors should suffer
from his oversight !"
But I think on reflection, my opponent will sac that the
omission of the words in the Communion service prove that
in the judgment of the compilers of that service, the Ten
Commandments are, in the main, of universal application.
The words in question, which form the introduction to the
commandments, furnished to the Israelites a powerful
motive for obedience; to the Christian they are not strictly
applicable ; therefore, in the Communion service they are
omitted ; whilst in the Church Catechism the words are
retained, but distinguished from the first commandment, of
which they form no part.
3. To the third argument I reply in the language of
Burnet on the 7th article—" But though it seems very
clear that here a perpetual law was given the world for
the separating the seventh day, yet it was a mere cir-
cumstance, and does not at all belong to the standing
use of the law in what end of the week this day was to
be reckoned, whether the first or the last. There being
in this no breach made on the good and moral design
of this law, which is all in it that we ought to nolo!'

sacred and unalterable." Fee also the passages quoted
in my last letter from Pearson and Hooker.

4. My opponent thinks that I shall be greatly surprised
that I am defending a doctrine held by the Romanists.
My sympathies with the Church of Rome are certainly
not very strong. I believe it is Hooker that some-
where xtdiciously remarks, "That we had better fellow
our enemies in doing what is right, than our friends
doing what is wrong." The English reformers proved
themselves to be men of great boldness, in openly
denouncing the errors of the Church of Rome, and in
rejecting what was essentially superstitious; they also
proved themselves to be men of great wisdom and
moderation in. retaining whatever they found to be
scriptural in doctrine, spiritual in devotion, and edify-
ing in practice. If, therefore, the Church of Rome
held, and does still hold, the Sabbath to be binding,
that surely is no valid reason why " A Protestant
Clergyman," should reject the fourth commantment,
which says, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sab-
bath day," and the observance of which, as " A Pro-
testant Clergyman," he is bound to enforce, How-
ever, Sir, I do not admit that Roman Catholics were
ever strenuous defenders of the fourth commandment,
except it be as enforced by church authority ; much
less do I admit that the English reformers, as a body,
ever denied the divine obligation of that command-

In proof of the statement of my opponent, I em referred
to Lingard, the Roman Catholic historian, yid. 7, note N.
On referring to the London edition of 1829, I find that the
notes only run in vol. 7, to note H. I failed also in dis-
covering any reference to the subject in the general index
I shall feel obliged if my opponent will inform me to what
edition he refers, and also furnish me with a quotation on
the subject. That the English Reformers could not have
been opposed to the Divine obligation of the Sabbath, is to
my mind clear and evi•lent, from the teaching of the Prayer
Book and Homilies; but if further proof be desired by
any one, let him read the following from the Catechism of
King Edward the second's Prayer book :—" Last of all this
ought we to hold steadfastly, and with devout conscience,
that we keep holily and religiously the Sabbath day, which
was appointed out from the other for rest and service of
God." (Parker Society, p. 497.) I refer the reader also to
the passage I quoted in my last letter, from Archbishop
Parker, the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, who
saes, that by consent of writers, the fourth commandment is
binding on us as well as on the Jews.
I cannot but express great surprise, that " a churchman"
should feel that to pray for mercy after each commandment

"is simply absurd." Our Saviour teaches us that the
Commandments require per feet love to God and perfect love
to man ; they extend to the thoughts, feeling;, and affec-
tions ; our Saviour teaches that an unclean thought is
adultery, that anger is murder •, and St. Paul declares that
covetousness is idolatry. We should remember, says
Archbishop Seeker, that " when any sin is forbidden in
them, the opposite duty is implicitly enjoined." My
opponent, on this point, quotes a passage from Mant "on
Common Prayer." Ido not object to a word of it; Ido
regret, however, that he did not real on, for, in the very
same page from which he quotes, I find the following :
" And because see have offended against them all, we must
kneel down as criminals ought to do, and diligently con-
sider, as the priest reads them, what sins we have done
against each commandment ; and whin we have found out
the particular transgressions, we must, at the close of
every command, most earnestly beg pardon for them, saying,
' Lord have mercy upon us.' "—Dean Comber; Merit "on
Common Prayer."
And again, in the same page :—" Though I cannot say
this prayer for mercy after every one of the commandments
was very ancient, yet surely it cannot be denied to be very
useful and pious; and, if there be any that think this might
be spared, as fitter for poor publicans than saints, let them
turn t) the parable of the publican and pharisee going up
to the temple to pray, Luke 18, and there they shall find
an answer."—Bishop Sparrow.
My opponent admits that the Homilies, " which contain
a godly and wholesome doctrine," teach the divine
obligation of the fourth commandment. I readily grant
that we are not bound by every expression in the Homilies,
but to use the words of Burnet,—which my opponent has
omitted, though they come between the former and the
latter part of the passage he has quoted, and therefore
should have been marked with a few asterisks,—" Upon
the whole matter, every one who subscribes the articles
ought to read them, otherwise he subscribes a blank ; he
approves a book implicitly, and binds himself to read it as
he may be required, without knowing anything concerning
it."

I shall conclude my letter by respectfully asking from my
opponent answers to the following questions :-
1. Does the Baptismal servic-T teach that it is our duty to
learn and keep all the ten Commandments ?
2. Does the church Catechism teach the same ?
3. Does the large Catechism, as found in King Edward
II 's prayer-book, positively enjoin the duty of keeping

holy the Sabbath ?
4. Does the Communion service teach that the fourth

commandment nay be transgressed, when she requires

us to pray for God's mercy ?
5. Can we transgress the fourth Commandment if it has
ceased to be binding ? "Where there is no law there
is no transgression."—Romans iv., v. 15.
6. Does the Homily, " Of the place and time of prayer,"
state and enforce at full length the binding nature of
the Sabbath ?

I remair, yours, &c.,
JOSEF'!" BARIY,LEY
29, Huskisson-street, March 4th, 1856.

POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY,

(BEFORE MR JAMES AIKEN

•
STRANGE.-3 girl, apparently about 14 years of age,
named Margaret O'Donnell, was charged with picking the
pocket of a person named John Mullins, of a box, les.,
and a handkerchief. The complainant said he was going
home from a steamboat, rather " fresh," when he met the
prisoner and another girl, who " attacked him." and took
his money and handkerchief. The • box which had con-
tained the money, was found on the prisoner, but there
was only 3s. 6d. left in it. The man's handkerchief was
also found upon her. The girl said the man had'given her
the money and handkerchief to induce her to go home
with him, but when she refused he gave her into custody
on the charge. The girl was committed for one month.
RUNNING AWAY FROM TILE BAILIFFS.—Maria Gaffney
was charged with stealing a variety of bed clothes from
the house, No. 16, Raymond-street. On Saturday night,
after 8 o'clock, officers Astic,. and Hargraves met the pri-
soner with a considerable quantity of bed clothes in her
possession, and on asking her some questions, she said
she was running away from the bailiffs, who had got into
the house. On inquiry, however, it turned out that she
had stolen the property. She was sent to jail for a month.
ASSAULT BY A FEMALE.—Mary Robinson, the keeper
of a house of bad character, was charged with having
assaulted an unfortunate girl named Mary Murphy, and
stealing her shawl. The complainant was entering the
house where she resided, about half-past twelve on Mon-
day night, when she was met by the prisoner, who, with-
out any provocation, struck her two violent blows on the
head with some weapon, cutting her severely. The pri-
soner then ran off with the shawl, which had dropped
from the shoulders of the proseentrix, when she fell from
the effects of the blows. The prisoner, who did not offer
any defence, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment
with hard labour.

(BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.)
ALLEGED ASSAULT ON A GIRL.—A girl named Elizabeth
Burns, 13 years of age, late an inmate of the West Derby
Union Workhouse, but now a servant at Mr. Brown's,
Boundary-place, charged a person named A. Signor
Spoia, LL. D., for having committed a criminal assault on
her. The defendant was described as "of Rome, profes-
sor of the Latin and Italian languages." It appeared,
from the evidence, that he lodged in the house where the
girl was servant. This was the only portion of the evi.
dence that can be published, and after hearing the whole
case, Mr. Mansfield said, the conduct of the girl was
very disgusting, and that it would be impossible for a jury
to convict. It would be useless to send the case for trial,
and he therefore discharged the prisoner.
CLAIM Pox WAoes.—John Shaw, late the master of the
ship Joseph Busby, summoned the Messrs. Sparks, the
owners, for £42 183 wages. Mr. Bluck was for the
claimant, and Mr. Riston for the defendants. The amount
of wages was not disputed, but it was contended that the
wages had been forfeited in consequence of the conduct
of the mate. In support of this view of the case, it was
shown that the log book was badly kept by Shaw, and
that for three months he kept no log at all. For this he
had been tried before the Local Marine Board, and his
certificate suspended for six months ; and it was there-
fore contended that this conviction disentitled him to his
wages. On the other hand, Mr. Bluck contended that
the punishment was for a certain offence, and therefore,
having suffered for that and paid the penalty, his claim
for the wages legally due to him was not invalidated.
Mr. Mansfield, after considering the case, made au order
for the amount claimed.

(BEFORE MESSRS. STITT AND AIKEN.)
ASSAULT ON A WlFE.—Anne Pollard, a respectable
looking person, summoned her husband, John Pollard, for
having assaulted and thrown a bucket of water over her.
Mr. Bluck was for the defendant, who was describwi as a
whitesmith. The complainant keeps a broker's shop in
Bolton-street, and she detailed a series of assaults com-
mitted on her by her husband. She said she was willing
to live separate from him if he allowed her sufficient sup-
port for herself and children. In reply to Mr. Bluck, the
complainant admitted that she was accustomed to " take
a drop,' but never too much. She used to be out late at
night, but that was in consequence of her business. After
some discussion, it was mutually agreed by the parties to
separate, and that a certain allowance should be given to
Mrs. Pollard. The case was then adjourned for a week,
in order to have the arrangements carried into effect.

ROYAL HUMANE SOCIETY.—A special general meeting of
the members of this society took place on Menday, at the
offices, Trafalgar square, when his grace the Duke of
Wellington, one of the vice presidents, was unanimously
elected president of the society in lieu of the late Duke of
Norfolk, who had held the office for many years.

TRADE REPORT.-TVESDAY.

--..-.-----

LIVERPOOL

COTTON : There has been a fair demand for Cotton to-day,
and an ample supply, and the market closes very firm.
The sales—including 100 Pernambuco, at 61d to 71d;
300 :Bahia, at 611 to 67d ; 150 Maranham, at 61-d to 6-I,d ;
200 Egyptian, at 6d to 81, and 700 Surat, 4id to 4;d—
are reported 8,000 bales, of which 1,500 are on specu-
lation and for export.—M ANCIIESTER : More cheerful feel-
ing here to-day, and althou. h not much more business
doing, prices arc a shade better.

SCOTCH PIG IRON : 68s 61 cash ; three months open,
prices quite nominal. Tons.
Shipments last week
„ same week last year .. ..
„ „ 1834

Aggregate shipments from I.t Jan. 1856 to date 59,878
for 1855 78,523

Decrease

18,645

Present estimated production per week • . tons 13,00(1
Same period 1355
Price to-day, 68s 63; Di t) same time last year, 565.

SUGAR. c3ntinues to be actively enquired for, with prices
ap•ain is favour of the sellp,rs; the transactions comprise
120 hhds Demerara, chiefly grainy, at 40; to 41s 6d, 3,600
bags Bengal, at 41s 6,1 to 433 61 for Benares, 43s for
Cossipore, and at 37s t) 373 91 for Dates, all faults, 950
bags Madras at 333 t) 34s 6d, 3,000 bazs brown Bahia at
22s from the quay, and 600 bags white Brazil at 253 34 t)
27s per cwt.

MOLASSES : There is nothing to notice.
Rum : Only a small parcel of Demerara sold at previous

COFFEE : 200 bags Madras are reported, but the price has
not transpired.
TEA : There is no alteration to notice ; the trade con-
tinue to supply their immediate requirements at firm
currencies.

Ricr.: The sales are confined to 30 tierces Carolina at
23s per cwt.

SALTPETRE: 32C) bags Calcutta have found hnvers, at
34s 3d to 354 for 31 to 3 per cent refraction, and 700 bags
Bombay at 17s to 21s per cwt

HENiP : At auction, 100 bales Manila brought Z3B per
ton from the quay. _ _ _

LINSEED : 1,500 bags damaged have been sold.
CORN : The market this morning was tolerably well
attended by local and country dealers, but the utmost apathy
appeared to prevail generally thronghout the trade, and the
transactions in any article were of the mist trifling charac-
ter. It is almost impracticable to give aca irate quotations,
but the following is an approximation to the redaction from
the rates of this day week, which would have generally been
submitted to by sellers, viz • Wheat 34 to 4d on the finest,
and fully 62 per bushel on all inferior qualities. Barley Si
per 60 lbs; Beans Is 61 to 2:, and Indian Corn 2s per qr ;
Oats Id to 21 per bushel; Oatmeal Is per load, and Flour
2s per sack and barrel. Arrivals and exports from the 26t',
February to the 3rd March, 1856. inclusive : From Ireland,
1,643 qrs wheat, 387 qrs barley, 20 qrs malt, 5.819 qrs
oats, 1.5 qrs beans, 2,870 sacks oatmeal, 1,951 sacks flour,
21 brie flour ; Coastwise, 780 qrs wheat, 392 qrs oats, 2 q-s
hears, 7 sacks oatmeal; United States, 6.737 qrs wheat,
7,077 qrs Indian corn, 9,927 brls flour ; Europe, &c., 80 qrs
oats; Egypt, 6,140 qrs wheat, 1,534 qrs beans • Into
Runcorn, 13 qrs wheat, 500 qrs oats, 868 sacks oatmeal.
Total, 14,313 qrs wheat, 387 qrs barley, 20, qrs malt, 6,791
qrs oats, 1,5.51 qrs beans, 7,077 qrs Indian corn, 3,745 sacks
oatmeal, 1,951 sacks flour, 9,951 brie flour. To Foreign
parts, 20 qrs barley, 2,451 qrs oats, 18 qrs beans, 12 qrs
pease, 60 qrs 'lndian corn, 42 sacks oatmeal ; Ireland, 479
qrs wheat, 10 qrs b rley, 25 qrs malt, 8,790 qrs Indian
corn, 630 brls Indian cornmeal, 767 sacks flour, 160 brls
flour; Coastwise, 1,625 qrs wheat, 10 qrs pease, 39 q's
Indian corn, 7 sacks oatmeal, 235 sacks flour, 406 brig flour.
R. MAKIN &SoNS.

LONDON,

SUGAR : This article continues to have confidence, and
the public sales are going off well. Refined is also in good
demand. Grocery lumps, 49s to 525.
COFFEE : There has riot been a public sale to-day.
TEA : The public sales are progressing heavily, and the
importers are buying in largely.

RICE: : 2,000 bans Bengal sold in public sale from 93 6d
to Ils 6(1, according to quality; 7,000 bags offered.
SALTPETRE : 500 bags sold in public sale. Refraction
111 t) 141,31 s to 31s 6d.
COTTON : 500 bales sold at a shade advance.
RUM remains dull.
lii other articles no material alteration.

TALLOW : The market remains quiet, at the following
quotations::—Petersburg Y. C., on the spot, 695; March,
/593 ; March to April, 64s ; April to June, 528 to 52s 6d;
October to December, 51s 63.

ITAT : Mr. E. J. Davis reports the snpply short ; trade
without alteration. Prime meadow hay, 1008 to 1054
superior ditto, 1103 to 115 s ; infererior ditto, 70s to 90s ;
rowen, 70s to 953; clover, 100 a to 130 s; second cut, 100.
to 1201 ; straw, 23s to 28..