The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-29 00:00:00

RNINA JAWITARY 29

ceived that the law of Enland admitted every descrip-
tion and form of words, and every decription of acts
and ceremonies, which might be necessary , according
to the religious belief of the swearer. He contended
that the Acts of Perliameat to which he had refdrred
were to be construed with reference to the reischief
which the Legislature intended to remedy, and he would
ask whether that mischief was anything but the hosti-
lity of the Roman Catholics and others who favoured
the claims of the Pretender to the throne of Eng-
land? If their Lordships held the words "on the true
faith of a Christian," to be part of the thing sworn to
in the oath, it must follow that the Legislature intended
that, besides swearing allegiance and abjuration, all
persons who took the oath should swear themselves to
be Christians. If that were not the intention of the
Legislature, the words in question must be mere words
of asseveration, by which the party taking the oath
pledged his conscience to the truth of his declaration.
The only remaining point on which he would address
the Court was that arising under the statute Ist and
2d Victoria, chap. 105, which was entitled "An Act to
remove Doubts as to the Validity of Certain Oaths," and
the first observation he would make on that statute was,
that it was declaratory of the law as it then stood.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—I take it that if the defendant
had been elected, and he-I taken his seat when the 9th
George I. was passed, he might have taken the oath
under the 10th George I. without the words on the
true faith of a Christian."
Sir F. KELLY—That would, no doubt, have been so,
but he would not further advert to the construction of
those statutes. The present object of his argument was
to show that under the Ist and 21 Victoria the de-
fendant was relieved from the necessity of taking the
oath with those words. That Act provided, that "In
all cases in which an oath might lawfully be adminis-
tered to any person in any court of law or equity, or on
appointment to any office, or on any occasion whatever,
such person was bound by the oath, provided the same
should have been administered in such form and with
such ceremonies as such person might declare to be
binding." The only construction which this Act could
fairly receive was that oaths ought to be now adminis-
tered only in such form as was binding on the parties
taking them, and that it was competent to all who were
required to take any oaths so to take them. This statute,
then, virtually repealed the Acts imposing any particular
form of oath, and that would entitle the defendant to the
judgment of this Court.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Is not this point which you
are now arguing the same in effect as that which you
have just concluded, Sir F. Kelly? The question is—
What is an oath? and whether certain words are part
of it?

Sir F. KELLY—That might be so, certainly; and
under that view of the matter he felt relieved from the
necessity of dwelling at any lenisth on this statute. He
would, therefore, without recurring to the points already
urged to the Court, bring his argument to a close. He
felt it to be quite unnecessary to dwell on the vast im-
portance of the questions now raised for the opinion of
their Lordships, but he might state that he should be
much surprised, indeed, if his Learned Friend Mr. Ser-
geant Channel! should succeed in persuading them that
the statutes discussed bore any other construction than
that for which he (Sir F. Kelly) contended. He could
not do so without persuading the Court that the Legis-
lature had committed the enormous crime of forcing all
the subjects of this realm to take an oath which some
could not take without incurring penalties of a most
fearful character. That oath was to be taken by every
one at the requirement of two justices of the peace, and
it would be for the Court, looking to the form of it, to
say whether the Act and the oath should be read so as
to favour liberty of conscience, and thereby to do jus-
tice, or so as to introduce into this country the most in-
tolerable tyranny which could be devised. For these
reasons, therefore, he submitted that Mr. Salomons was
entitled to the judgment of the Court, and that these
penalties could not be recovered.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL then replied, and at the
outset remarked that he did not feel it incumbent on him
to cccupy much of the time of the Court in so doing. It
was not necessary, nor would it be proper for him to
follow his Learned Friend into all of the argument he
had addressed to the Court, for much of it was of a cha-
racter which would have been better suited to another
place and another assembly, and would have come with
perfect propriety from Sir F. Kelly, when returned as
Member for the city of Exeter. Hera such topics were
inappropriate, and he should not further notice them.
He should recall to the recollection of the Court the
principal points which he had submitted to them in his
opening. These were twofold. He first objected that
the oath was not properly taken on the Old Testament;
and, secondly, that the oath was a Christian oath, and
that, not having been taken in its entirety, it had mot
been taken at all as required by law. He had sug-
gested that these questions should be viewed in the
spirit of the times when the oath was imposed on
Members by the Legislature, and, having ascertained
that spirit and the nature of the oath, the Court
should then proceed to inquire whether the oath had
been altered or repealed by subsequent legislation.
Much stress had been laid on the case of Omi-
chund v. Barker by the defendant; but the Court
would do him (Mr. Sergeant Channel]) the justice to
remember that he never flinched from that case. He
knew the use to which it had been put elsewhere and
what had been said about it; but all that was answered
by the fact that that decision applied to a country and to
a state of things where no precise form of oath existed,
and yet where it became necessary to administer an oath
in some form to a witness. That could not be better
done than in such form as that witness should declare to
be binding on his conscience, and the case was so de-
cided. But it presented no authority for saying that an
oath couched in a form devised and prescribed by Act
of Parliament with a view to Christianity could be taken
legally in any other form and with any other ceremonies
than those prescribed by that Act of Parliament. Such
was the substance of the argument for the plaintiff, and
the question it raised was, whether the 6th of George
111. was to be considered a dead letter or not, or
whether " Victoria" should be substituted for the
word "George." Now, every Act on the subject spoke
of kings, not as individuals, but in their corporate
capacity; and it was most absurd to say that these
Acts did not so relate to them. The Act for the re-
lief of the Roman Catholics of George IV. spoke of
the oath of abjuration as being. " now by law required;"
and the 3d and 4th of William IV., which relieved
Quakers, also contemplated its existence under a Wil-
liam; so that the argument as to the cessor of the oath
fell to the ground. Authorities, too, showed that this ob-
jection was a futile one. They were, " Regina v.
Green," Ventris 171, and 12 Coke Rep., 350. Then
same the question, was this a Christian oath required to
be taken in a particular form? and, in considering that
question, he wished broadly, distinctly, and clearly to
claim the right to examine contemporaneous Acts of the
Legislature. He had a right to see what was done just
before and after the passing of the Act requiring the
oath of abjuration in its integrity, as a means of testing
the meaning of the Legislature in passing that Act.
That had not been used elsewhere, nor had Sir F.
Kelly attempted to meet it here to-day. We must look
at the spirit of the day to determine what the Legis-
lature meant. Such an inquiry was all-important on
the question whether this oath was or was not meant to
be a Christian oath. Those contemporaneous statutes
showed that the oath was required to be taken on the
holy Evangelists; that it contained the test of the
" true faith of a Christian," and was accompanied by
the necessity of subscription to the declaration against
transubstantiation. All these things taken together
showed to demonstration that the oath was saeant
to be a Christian oath, and, unless we are to be met by
the assertion that there is no such thing possible, we
say that it is impossible to deny that the oath is such.
Assuming that it is such an oath, the more important
question remains, whether it can be taken without the
words "on the true faith of a Christian ? " Now those
words are part and parcel, and are of she essence of the
oath, which is a statutable one. Sir F. Kelly contends
they are not part of the oath, because the Legislature
never could be suosed to have coespelled any man to
commit blasphemy; but the answer to that is that the
Legislature does not impose on Jews any obligation to
take this oath. All that they say is, if you presume to
sit, without taking a particular oaths certain conse-
quences shall follow. It is impossible to advert to the
legislation of those days without recognising in it the
spirit of persecution. Penalties were imposed on all who
refused to take oaths in the abstract, and also on those
who abstained from the parish church, and did not take
the secrament ; and, though these restrictions were gra-
dually altered, they evince the spirit of the age, and
throw light on the meaning of imposing a particular
form of oath.
Mr. Baron MARTIN—Does not the declaration against
transubstantiation rather make against than for you ?
It was imposed as a test, and is now repealed.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL—That was a fallacy. It did
not follow, because one test was repealed, all others were
also.
theseMr words
sn
haAdLDbEeßenSONi—ntrYhOdUurcedarginutinoisanht
we should look at the law as it now stands in
struing that oath, and that, by the same reasoning,.st.was
introduced look at the law as it stood when this o
introduced ?
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL—Yes,
om taking that
meet. Though the Jews were relievedoft
ligatory on all
oath at quarter sessions, where it ss's oisa:ththuanotownif.,
followed that the oath
persons to take it, it by no means
I and not obligatory,
of a Member, which was optional,
well that the that was
was also to be altered. It might be
which was to
Legis-
lature, in dealing with the 1 the argu-
under. a Protestant succee-
govern a Protestant country.
n oath on Members, select
when imposing a
sion, should,
a form which could only be taken by Chriss`tans, and an
examination of the loth George I. showed tild at the
was only
al-
teration "for
the purposes of tb at Act;" so
that the exception there really proved the ;stile. For
these reasons it was contended that the oath was a
Christian ,
oath, and must be taken in its entirety;; and
assuming that the Court would give judges et t for the
plaintiff, it only remained for him (Sergeant Ch annell)
to say that, as to the 2d and 3d counts, he s'lonlo' enter
a nolle prosequi. The declaration went for t hree penal-
ties; but, as the finding of the jury
in the special' ver-
dict was distributive, and the three votes were ' son
only liable one day, the defendant could give'
for c see
penalty.
The Learned Barons havinc, deliberated a short time,
The CHIEF BARON stated' that the case had been
very well argued on both sides, and that, as it involved
questions of great importance, the Court, with reference
to that and to the great length of the argument, would
wish to consider its judgment, in order that they might
have an opportunity
of looking over the Acts. The
judgment, without d
s esg•;
ng themselves to any particular
day would bo given shortly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 28.
(Before Mr. Commissioner iONBIANQUE.)
IN RE SOLOMON SOLOMON.
The bankrupt was a tailor of No. 1, Strand. This was
the certificate meeting. His mounts, from August, 1841,

~. =~v,

to November, 1851, show the following iteati:—Credi-
tors, 3,083/.; debwrs, good, 137/.; douAful, 1721.; pro-1
perty surrendered, 90/.
Mr. LEWIS (who supported the bankrupt) wish( d to
make a few observations in answer to the report of the
official assignee. In 1845 the bankrupt had been be-
fore the Court, when ho immediately passed his exami-
nation, and the parties, who were creditors to the
amount of 5,000/., were so satisfied with his conduct that
they trusted him again. For the last eighteen months
the bankrupt had not got into debt at all; when he
found himself unable to go on, he did not then seek to
obtain credit. There was no creditor who sought to
charge any fraud against the bankrupt; there was no
opposition, either by the assignees or creditors.
The CommissroNEß—What was the dividend under
the former bankruptcy?
Mr. LEWIS—The dividend was about Is. 9d. in
the pound. The bankrupt received an immediate cer-
tificate.
The solicitor to the assignees offered no opposition.
His HoNouu said there had been a previous failure,
and under the former bankruptcy there was less than 2s.
in the pound paid upon debts to the amount of 5,000/.
The bankrupt had again failed, having creditors to the
amount of 3,-000/., and it was very doubtful whether
there would be 300/. to distribute among them, after de-
ducting costs. The trade and personal expenses had ex-
ceeded the profits by about 1,600/. It was said that ho
had paid off old debts, but he ought not to have done
that till he had satisfied all his existing creditors. He
(the Commissioner) stated it as a warning to other
bankrupts, not to pay old creditors at the expense of new
ones. It was a principle of common honesty not to rob
one man to pay another. The accounts were not satis-
factory, but they were not very bad; they were not so
good as they ought to be, but they were better than the
average of persons in the same position as the bankrupt.
There was a point very much in the bankrupt's favour,
that for the last 18 months of his trading he did not
incur new debts, and that would make a difference whe-
ther he should grant a second or third class certificate,
and he should give him the benefit by granting a certifi•
cate of the second class, after three months' suspension.
Protection was granted.
IN RE JOHN CLARKE SANDFORD.

The bankrupt was a stationer and bookseller of Pater-
noster-row; his accounts, extending over two years,
show debts, 1,4221.; assets, about 1301. This was the
certificate meeting.
Mr. Linklater supported the bankrupt. Mr. Innes ap-
peared for the assigness, and did not oppose.
Mr. LINKLATER said there was no creditor complain-
ing, and he trusted his Honour would grant a certificate
of the second class.

His HoNouß granted a second class certificate, after
hree months' suspension.
Protection was granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
BO W-STREE T.
Alfred Cowne was re-examined before Mr. Henry on
the charge of forging and selling orders of admission to
the theatres.
The prisoner had been in the habit of visiting public-
houses, and tendering the orders to servants or othars
with whom he could get into conversation. He described
himself as a chequetaker at the various theatres, and
very freely guaranteed the genuineness of the tickets, to
which the names of " Thompson," " Williams," &c.,
were generally attached. He obtained from 6d. to 2s.
for the pit orders, which, on being presented at the
theatres, were detained as forgeries.
Mr. HENRY, after expressing his surprise that the
managers of some of the theatres did not take up the
prosecution, instead of leaving it in the hands of a con-
stable, ordered the prisoner to be committed for trial.
Mr. George Churchill, the publisher of the Lancet, ap-
peared on a summons to answer the charge of having
neglected to forward certain copies of that publication
to the British Museum.
Mr. A. Panizzi, the keeper of the printed books.
stated that the defendant had omitted to send the Lan-
cet regularly for some time, and it was desirable to let
all publishers know that they were bound to supply the
Museum with a copy of each of their publicatious with-
out being first requested to do so. It was no part of
the business of the officials to apprise the trade of their
obligations in this respect. Publishers were bound by
the Copyright Act to furnish them, as a matter of
course.
Mr. Churchill explained that the omission on his part
was merely accidental. He was aware of the obligation,
and had every desire to attend to it; but from indisposi-
tion and a pressure of business, the matter had escaped
his memory. He would undertake to supply copies with
regularity for the future.
Mr. HENRY, under these circumstances, imposed only
a nominal penalty of Is. for each of three omissions spe-
cified in the summons.
WORSHIP-STREET.
James Turner and John Lye were charged with
having, in conjunction with two other men not in cus-
tody, committed the following outrageous assault and
robbery.
Mr. Joseph Moses, a tradesman in Holywell-row,
Shoreditch, was busy in his shop at half-past two on the
day preceding, when upon looking out he saw one of
the men not in custody lift up the prisoner Turner upon
his shoulders, and Turner immediately pulled down the
sign over his door and commenced breaking it in pieces.
This was evidently done to facilitate their operations at
plunder by keeping him employed, and he ran out to
rescue his property from being destroyed, but the instant
he got to the door the third man dealt him such a heavy
blow between the eyes as to bring him to the ground,
and inflict a serious contusion and swelling which he
now presented. Upon recovering from the stunning
effects of the blow he grappled with his assailant, be-
tween whom and himself a violent contest ensued, and
in the course of it he felt his coat forced open, the
pocket of his waistcoat torn out, and two sovereigns
and a half which were in it were grasped by the third
man, but not sufficiently tight to secure the whole, one
of the sovereigns slipping through his fingers, and
dropping at his feet. This was immediately caught
hold of by the prisoner Lye, who attempted to
dart off with it, but was seized hold of by the
prosecutor's wife, who held him with such determina-
tion that he first thrust the sovereign into his mouth
and swallowed it, and then flung her to the ground in
the middle of the road. The woman, however, with
spirited courage still clung to the prisoner, who could
not shake her off, and both rolled on the ground strug-
gling together, when the prosecutor caught sight of the
position his wife was in, relinquished his grasp of the
man he was engaged with, and seized Ley by the neck.
Lye called out to his confederates to assist him, and
Turner and the two other men not in custody exerted
themselves to make the prosecutor release him; but the
prosecutor retained his grasp with such pertinacity, that
they were obliged to cut the prisoner's neckerchief
through with a knife, and they were all four about to
take to their heels when the prosecutor flung his arms
round the waists of Turner and Lye, and, in spite of the
most desperate attempts at escape on their part, clung to
both men until a constable came up, when they were at
length captured by the officer, the two confederates at
once disappearing, with the remainder of the money in
their possession. The prosecutor, on concluding his
evidence to the above effect, complained that he had
been severely injured in the course of the contest, and
that, in addition to the appearances which his face pre-
sented, he was still suffering from several other serious
bruises on other parts of his person.
The prosecutor's wifo fully confirmed her husband's
statement, and having sworn to Turner as the man who
cut Lye's neckerchief while the prosecutor was endea-
vouring to hold laim, deposed to distinctly seeing the
latter prisoner thrust one of the sovereigns into his
mouth, while one of the confederates who had escaped
retained the other gold pieces in his hand.
Both prisoners wished to make it appear that the
whole transaction was nothing more than a drunken
piece of folly, and Lye denied that he had ever seen the
sovereign referred to; but a bookbinder named Scott, re-
siding in the Commercial-road, who was accidentally
passing at the time and gave the prosecutor his address,
swore positively to seeing Lye thrust it intodin a rob-
and that, suspecting the man had been engage firm
hold he called out to the prosecutor's wife to keep
hold of him.
Mr. HAIKMILL was about to commit both prisoners for
trial, but it having been intimated thatnoious character
one of the men
who had effected their escape .vas a tor
well known to the police, who it was thou
reght would not
g his apphension also
have much difficultyin en,
Lye and Turner were committed that day week,
e
that the whole might be sent for trial together.
LAMBETH-
The young
woman who described herself as Mrs,
Caroline Bishop, the wife of a clereyman of the Esta-
blished Church, and who had,been previously examined
on a charge of illegally pawning a quilt and blanket be-
longing to her landlady, surrendered to her bail and at-
tended before the Hon. G. C. Norton.
Mrs. Geohegan, the prosecutrix, a decent poor woman,
said, that on the last examination the prisoner's husband
had promised to pay her a sovereign off the debt which
was owing for rent; but, instead of this, he had only
given her 10s.
the in reply to
The prisoner,Magistrate said the last
time she saw her husband he toleher he was ,going
be
to
St. Albans to get some money, shet expected
would have been in attendance tand
the court.
Mr. NORTON observed, that he was anxious
prisoner's husband, and as Mr. Elliott had sat on the
nanr to see the
day Mr. Bishop attended, he should allow the case to
stand over to a future day, and allow the prisoner in the
interim to be at large on her own recognizances.
At a late hour in the evening Mr. Bishop presented
himself before the magistrate, and complained of the
report of the last examination of the case in the news-
papers as being most injurious to him, and calculated
seriously to damage and injure his character. The reve-
rend gentleman declared he was not aware, when he at-
tended before Mr. Elliott on the former day, that the
young woman charged with the offence of illegally pawn-
ing had represented herself as his wife,
else he should
then most
positively have contradicted it, as she was not
lflewcitfeed perfectly well
neer
vtehde
that
rhaec treere
eo
justified in assumi
Mr. NORTON Obi
that the young woman had distinctly stated that she had
been married to him (Mr. Bishop) three years ago, at
Lyieengton, and that he was in bed at the time she took
the blanket from off it, for the purpose of pawning it to
procure them a breakfast.
Mr. Bishop denied this, and said it was as untrue as
Tier' assertion about her being married to him. He said
oust a representation had gone forth that he had been
at 'owed as much as Si. and 3/, a week for his support,
but this was untrue, as these sums were merely pro-
mis es to him, but the promise was never fulfilled. His
prop erty, and which, he said, was in the hands of his
assignees, amounted to 23,0001., while his just debts did
not el cceed 5,0001.; but he got so entangled in the hands
of the s 'awyers that, though 13,0001, was actually due to
him, ho could not get a pound, and so straitened was
he in per 'uniary matters that he had been compelled to
take the c twit from his back, and pawn it for los. he paid
the Wadi* 137-

Mr. Noserum remarked that he had read the trial on
the prosecution
,of Mr. Bishop at the Old Bailey ou
charge of pea jury in obtaining declarations on some guns
pawned by tetra, and he believed him t Lihocent of
the charge imputed, and this circinestance and his be-
having with great kindness and magnarqnity in a case
in which he was before him (Mr. Norton) as a corn-
plainaur, though he had been grossly ill treated, gave
him a favourable opinion of his character, and he was,
therefore, anxious to see him that he mi'ht endeavour
to bring about a reconciliation between him (the rev.
gentleman) an•d his mother and sisters, who were, be
understood, highly respectable, and naturally much in-
censed at his irregular mode of living.
Mr. Bishop replied, that he should feel most grateful
for his Worship's kindness, and said that, as it had not
been the wish of his mother and friends to see him, ho
did not wish to intrude on them. As regarded the pro-
secution to which his Worship had adverted, it occurred
entirely through his not consenting to a friend of the
prosecutor being his assignee to his insolvency ; and
even the prosecutor's counsel admitted he had been
hardly dealt with. In reply to the questions of the
magistrate, the reverend gentleman admitted that he had
slept at the house of Mrs. Geohegan, and supported the
young woman who had so improperly assumed his
name, and who, he said, he had first met with at Guy's
Hospital.
Mr. NORTON thought that, while his property was in
abeyance, the reverend gentleman should look out for
something to do that would support him. Upon which
he replied that a college life had ill fitted him for busi-
ness; and his irregularities had been such, that he could
not think of looking for a curacy.
In conclusion, Mr. Bishop promised to be in attendance
on the day on which the inquiry is adjourned to, and
thus the matter stands.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
DIRECT EAST AND WEST JUNCTION.

Yesterday a meeting in this matter was held before
Master in Chancery _Ferrer.
Mr. Speed appeared for Mr. Jeremiah Clarke, of
Macclesfield, one of the managing committee, and
contended that his client ought not to be placed on
the list, which would have the effect of making him
liable to pay debts, inasmuch as the committee of
management held a deed of covenant from two of the
parties who had brought in claims against the estate,
and by which the committee were held harmless from
liability, and that the parties ought to look for par
ment to the funds of the company only.
. .

Mr. Roxburgh and Mr. \V. Galii.worthy having
been heard on the other side, for Mr. Jay, the official
manager,
The MASTER, in placing the name of Mr. Clarke
upon the list, said the object was not now to settle
the general list of the contributories with the view of
making a call, but simply to ascertain who were the
parties responsible for the company's funds con tri•
buted by the various shareholders, to whom they
would be called on to account as trustees and as the
acting committee.
The Earl of Harrington, Colonel Elrington, Major
Croft, and Messrs. Tyler, Spyers, King, and Can-
berledge were placed on the list in that capacity, thue.
completing the settlement of the list of provisional and
acting committee, leaving the general list of share-
holders to be proceeded with, and the charge o .the
official manager, calling on the managing committee
to account, to be brought in before the Master.

NEWPORT, ABERGAVENNY, AND HEREFORD.---The
works on this line were formally commenced on Wu:
day by cutting the first sod at the intended cutting at
Abergavenny and at Llanvihangel in the presence of
a large number of persons amidst considerable rejoi'
cing. Three of the directors ; Mr. Pritchard, the
secretary; Mr. Bachelor, the late mayor of Newport:
Professor Gordon; Messrs. Rennie, Logan, °et;
took Newport; the contractors ; Mr. Davis, the maye`
and Mr. Sayce, the resident engineer,
part in the ceremony. The line is to join at roar
pool the Newport and Pontypool line, which is nor,
completed and nearly ready for opening. The neW
line will pass through Abergavenny and Llanvihaw,
gel to Hereford, a distance of 32 miles. Thera will
be no tunnel on the whole line from Hereford to Pon'
typool and Newport. The works are to be completed
in September, 1853, and the line opened for traffic,
The works were originally contracted for in 1847
with the present contractors, when the price of every'
thing connected with railways was exceedingly high,
but subsequently the contractors, in a very conside-
rate manner, agreed to modify the terms in accord-
ance with present prices, and they also fulfilled their
part of the origimal agreement by taking shares in
the company to the amount of 50,0001. A splendid
banquet was given by Mr. Rennie, the contractor, at
the Angel Hotel, Abergavenny, to about 70 gentle-
men interested in the undertaking. Several toasti
were drunk, and the proceeding of the day ended 10
most satisfactory manner.
SOUTH WALES.—The Vale of Neath .Railvv¢l
Company are proceeding with the necessary prelim
nary surveys for securing railway communicstie
with the rich and important mineral valleys of CW/31,a;
dare and Cwmamman. The Taff Vale Company
projected branches to these places, but it is now tie;
derstood that they have been abandoned, the stencil
orders of Parliament not having been complied itsass
A fatal accident occurred on the latter line a few
o
ago, when a workman was killed by the passeegr
he
train from Merthyr passing over him, whereby
was literally cut into two.
LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND.—YeSterS
the standing orders were complied with in the cose.
this company's Bill, to enable the Eastern Couoti.ob,
and Blackwell Railway Companies to constructing
with a pier or jetty into the Thames and fic'en..
stage at Southend and Tilbury, and a steam collate d,
nication connecting the railway with Greveseii h
rt
Mr. Fowler, the engineer to the company, set
f on
the estimated cost at 400,0001, to be rainseciort'
shares, with power to borrow 133,0001. oPe- in are
gage. Four directors of the respective coroPeniesder'
to be a joint committee for carrying out the on
taking.
standing
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE.—Yesterday the been
orders of the House were declared not to have "-for
complied with in respect of the plans and sections ,es
this company's Bill, to make a railway and brano°_,
from Colwich to Wolverhampton and WednesburilY;
and to establish the mixed gauge thereon, and on cl to
North Staffordshire, with running powers, on, so
make arrangements with various companies, al'i.ol
estimated cost of 395,0001., power being sought oi,
the company to use the Oxford, Worcester, and
verhampton, and Great Western Railways.
MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSIIIII
The standing orders were complied with in this ors
for limiting the tolls now leviable upon the Tri!.,
arid Mersey navigations and Macclesfield
.Canal,
c:lmanmehoedsatteiro,n
Sheffield,onsuch naanvdi ga ions
Lincolnshiret o b e goinv epnaytot /3:t
of the tolls demandable by the North Staffordshire.

THE COUNTRY MARKETS..II
LEEDS, JAN. 27.—We were moderately supplied ,vv 1:s;
the advance demanded checked busliwip
hwohledaetr' and
holders,, were generally firm, and price:)atj
higher from Friday's rates. Barley was steady. •00.
and beans quite as dear. Other articles without alteratl-io
Enisrctraom MEAL MARKET, JAN. 27.--There rbeitig
the meal market to-day 9 sacks oatmeal, each 1 oclf
2801bs. imperial, which sold thus :-7 at iv.chol°
1 at I/ 9s 6d, and 1 at 1/ NOd ; average
sold a the epriceotf
119 s 10d 0-12ths. 1 sack pot-barley, 261. i
EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW' which
MARKET, JAN. 2tro
barleyr em e •
Oat straw, from 8s 6d to lOs Ode
ditto, k I of 16 stones
0 •
wheat ditto, 7s 6d to 9s d '6s Od t° 713
Hay, from 9d to lld per stone.

COAL MARKET.—YESTIRDAY.
....,
Prices of Coal per ton at the close of the market ..,,, sd
Bate's West Hartley.. 13s 6d Lumley ................. 1,7 s 3d
Carr's Hartley ..... ... 13s 6d Russell's Hetton ..... 160 1
Howard's W. H. Neth. 13s 6d Scarborough ........... . 175 6,1
Longridge'sW.Hartley 13s 6d Stewart's —.— •••• " 15s 90
North Percy Hartley.. 13s 6d Whitwell • " ......... ---
I,' 33
ranfield Moor Butes... 12s 9d Kelloe
Townley..
Triornley
Wall's End, Su).
Gosforth ..
Eden Main ......
Bell ...........• 16s 9d Tees
Belmont ................» 16s 9, Cowpen Hartley ......
Bradd . 17s 3d Nixon's Merthyr Ana os °I
yll
Hetton —........................
....... 17s 6d Cardiff ..... -
Lambton ............. . 17s 3u
Ships at market,