The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-15 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS,

John Bilton, Newman-street, Oxford-street, Lodging-
house-keeper, to surrender, June 18, at three, 22, and July
27, at the Court of Commissioners. Williams, Southamp-
ton-buildings, Chancery-lane.
William flume, Birchin-lane, London, clothier, June
22, 29, and July 27, at two, at the Court of Commis-
sioners. Burt, Mitre-court, Milk-street, Cileapside.l
Thomas Millgate, Friday-street, London, Manchester-
warehouseman, June 18, 22, and July 27,. at tWo, it the
Court of Commissioners. Davison, Bread•strect, Cheap-
side.

Richard Tucker and Thomas Tucker, Tower Royal,
London, whosesale-stationers, June 22, 29, and July 27,
at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Richardson, iron-
monger-lane. •

William Norcott, James-street, Covent-garden, wine-
merchant, June 22, 29, and July 27, at ten, at the Court
of Commissioners. Gale, Basinghall-street.
Thomas Hogg and Benjamin Hogg, Leeds, woollen-
cloth-manufacturers, June 21, 22, and July 7, at ten, at
the Court-house, • Leeds. Wilson, Southampton-street,
Bloomsbury-square ; Payne and Eddison, Leeds.

Peter Augustus Lautour, Welbeek-otreet, Cavendish-
square, dealer, June 25; at one, 29, and Julyl27, at two,
at the Court of Commissioners. Charaley and Barker,
Mark-lane, Fenchurch-street.

Hardy Flower, Welling, Kent, chemist, June 25, at
one, 29, and July 27, at two, at the Court of Commis-
sioners. Bostock and Younghusband, George-street, MLR..
sion.house.

Robert Whitaker, New Cavendish-street, Portland_
place, linendraper, June 18, at twelve, 25, and July 27,
at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Turner, liasing-
lane, Cheapside.

William Scott, Norwich, bomharine-manufacturer,
June 28, 29, at four, and July 27, at one, at the NorfOlk
Horwich. Winter, Norwich ; and Lythgos, Essex-street,
Strand, London.

William Leeson, jun , Nottingham; hosier, June 22, 2S,
and July 27, at eleven, at the Punehllowl Inn, Notting-
nam. Percy and Smith, Nottingham and Austen and
Hobson, Raymond-buildings, Gray's Inn,,Londcgs.
William Evans, Liverpool, grocer, Just 29, SO, and
July 27, at two, at the Clarendon-mina, Liverpool.
Williamson, Liverpool.

Robert Miller, Chester, brewer, July 6, at six, '7 and
27, at eleven, at tl.e Office of Messrs. Finchett, Maddock,
and Son, Chester. Phi'pot and Stone, Southampton-
street, Bloomsbury ; Finchett, Maddock, and Son, Chester,
Andrew Reid, Bishop Auckland, Durham, dryer, June
22, 29, and July 27, at eleven, at the Queen's Head Inn,
Durham. Taylor, Clement's-inn ; Mrrshall, Durham.
Thomas Owen, Gledrid, Salop, innkeeper, June 22, 23,
and July 27, at twelve, at the Bridgewater Arms Inn,
El'esmere, Salop. Blacklock and Bunce, Tetnpl ; Hat.-
per, Whitchurch, Slnopshire.
Samuel Hudion, Birmingham, apothecary, June 29, 30,
and July 27, at eleven, at the Royal Hotel, Birmingham.
Clarke, Richards, and Medcalf, Lincoln's-inn-fields; Col-
more, Birmingham.

Samuel Bartram, St. Mary-street, Whitechapel-road,
coach-maker, June 18, at one, 25, at ten, and July 27, at
twelve, at the Court of Commissioners. Hudson, Great
St. Helen's, Bishopagate-street.

John Fawley, Berwick-street, Oxford-street, painter,
June 22, 29, and July 27, at eleven, at the Courtof C 011).
missioners. Wilkinson and Lawrence, Bucklersbury.
William Fitze, Shepperton-place, New North-road,
builder, June 22, 29, and July 27, at eleven, at the Court
of Commissioners. Sheffield and Sons, Prescotte-street,
Goodman's-fields.

John Chadwick, Leeds, victualler, June 23, and' 27,
at ten, at the Court-house, Leeds. Hardwick and Guest,
Lawrence-lane, London ; Lee, Leeds.

William Walker, sen. and William Walker, jun., 'dra-
pers, July 1, at four, 2, at eleven, at the Brunswick Ho-
tel, Harrowgate, and 27, at eleven, at the Caatle of York.
Strangwayes and Walker, Barnard's inn, London ;
Knaresborough.

Joseph Priestley, Halifax, Yorkshire, stuf-merehant,

July 2, at seven, 3, and 27, at nine, at the Magistrates'
Office, Halifax. Evitt, Price, and Lucas, Haydon-square,
Minories, London ; Craven, Halifaz.
George Cromack, Armley, Leeds, cloth manufacturer.
July 2,3, and 27, at eleven, at the Court-house, Leeds.
Blacklock and Fiddey, Serjeants'-inn; Nicholson and Barr,
Leeds.

Richard Diver, Great Yarmouth, chemist, July 6, at
at seven, 7, at nine, and 27, at two, at the Feathers Inn,
Great Yarmouth. Swrin and Co., Old Jewry, London ;
Palmer, Great Yarmouth.

Thomas Haslop, Bury St. Edmund's, saddler, June 18,

at two, 19, at twelve, and 27, at nine, at the Ball Inn,
Bury St. Edmund'o. Walter, Symond's Inn ; Wayman,
Bury St. Edmund's.

Henry Ely, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, blacksmith, July
5, at six, 6, at ten, and 27, at one, at the Star Tavern,
Great Yarmouth. Palmer, Regent-street, Great Yar-
mouth ; Ay ton, Aliltnan-street, Bedford:low.

James Goodall; Monmouth, Monmouthshire, nursery-
man, June 29, 30, and July 27, at eleven, at the King's
Head Inn, Monmouth. Pugh,lKing's-road, Bedford-row ;
Phillpotts, Monmouth.

Charles Barnes, Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire, dealer
in earthenware, July 2, at five, 3, at four and 27, at two,
at the Union Hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire.
Young, Stoke-upon-Trent ; Barbor, Fetter-lane.
Robert Townshend, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, mast-
maker, July 6, at six, 7, at eleven, and 27, at two, at the
Feathers Inn, Great Yarmouth. Taylor and Roacoe,
King's Bench-walk, Inner-Temple ; Hickling Lowestoft,
Suffolk.

War-Office, June 15, 1830.
3d Regiment of Dragoon Guards.
Lieut. C. Teeidale, from the half-pay, to be Lieutenant,
vice R. H. Peel, who exchanges, receiving the difference,
dated June 16, 1830.
sth Dragoon Guards—Lieut. F. B. Knox, from the
BSth Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice R. B. Martin, who re-
tires upon half-pay, receiving the difference, June 15.
6th Regiment of Dragoons—Lieut.-Col. Lord G. Len-
nox, from the half-pay, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, paying
the difference, vice Keane, appointed to the '7th Light
Dragoons. June 15.

7th Regiment of Light Dragoons--Lieut.-Col. E.
Keane, ham the 6th Dragoons, to be Lientelaant-Colonel,
vice Sir J. J. Fraser, Bart., who retires upon half-pay,
receiving the difference, June 15.
16th Light Dragoons—Cornet H. Wardroper to be
Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Neale, promoted, !one 15.
W. Wilmer, Gent. to be Carnet, by purchase, vice
Wardroper, June 15.

I t or Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards—Captain
J. Marquess, of Titchfield, from half-pay Royal West India
Rangers, to be Lieutenant and Captain, vice G. Fitzroy,
exchanges, June 15.
J. S. 'vain Regiment of Foot Guards—Brevet Major
ow, who retires upon half-
wp•aiytl,to
June
npeulrcsi.
Ensign and Lie..iast? rantsin and Lieutenant-Colonel,
and G ptain, by put - ^tle to be Lieutenant
Ilastings Deot, Gent. to b June 15.
purchase, vice Pringle, June 15. &Lieutenant, by
3d Regiment of Foot Guard,--Ensignßrownlow William Knox to be Lieutenant sad ktc_lc
by purchase, vice Ongley, who retires, June 15
R. D. Willan, Gant. to be Ensign and Lieu.-
purchase, vice Knox, June 15.
:assistant R. H.
Foot—Hospital-
vice Poole, deceased,
jAu.2n Hunter,isß.egi mtoenbte Aossf

- -
3d Foot—Ensign P. G. Beers, from the 29th Foot, to
be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Barr, promotid, June 16.
9th Foot—G. W. Ogilvie, Gent., to be Ensign, by pur-
chase, vice Mylne, who retires, June 15.
J. W. 119binsan, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
Teesdale, promoted, June 16.
12th Foot—L;eut. NV, Dunn, to be Adjutant, vice
Clarke, who resigu4 the Adjutantcy only, June 15.
17th Foot—Assistant-Surgeon W. Newton, from half-
pay Sth Royal Veteran Battalion, to be Assistant-Surgeon,
June 16.

,
20th Foot—W. Heron, Gent. to be Ensign, by put,
chase, vice Crawley, promoted, June 15.
24th Foot—Assist.-Surg. J. Lorimer, 51. D., from half-
pay 1? Light Dragoons, to be Assistant-surgeon.
26th Foot—Ensign W. F. p. Wilson, from the Std
Foot, to b,.t Ensign, vice Consbe, promoted :in the 20,11
Fool, June 15. •
29th Foot—J. 0. Lucas, Gat: tobe Ensign', by pur-
chase, vice Boyd, promoted Fool . 15.

_. ~
y,. ~ _
__ r,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT.)

Sir A. GRANT and others from the Commons
brought up several private Bills.
The Clerk of the Journals of the House of Com-
mons presented papers connected with the case of
Sir Jonah Barrington.
The Marquis bf LONDONDERRY presented a
petition from Thomas Buxton against Hickson's
Marriage Annulling Bill. The Noble Lord described
the case of the petitioner as one of the greatest
hardship. The petitioner was the husband of the
lady who was called Miss Hickson in the Bill, and
be must say he thought she might have been called
by her proper name of Mrs. Buxton. This case
had been described as one of conspiracy and abduc-
tion; but in point of fact, it was merely the case of
mining away with an heiress; and he wished, there-
fore, that the petition had been put into the hands
of the Noble Earl (Westmoreland), late Privy Seal,
-or of the Noble and Learned Earl (Elden) who had
so long presided on the Woolsack—(A laugh)—
with so much credit to himself and advantage to the
country; for they would be more competent to do
justice to it, and would enter into the feelings of the
petitioner.—(Laughter.)
The Bishop of LONDON said, that the party
alluded to had been convicted of conspiracy at the
Lancaster Assizes, and that the marriage from which
it was sought to relieve the lady was irregularly and
illegally solemnized. To have called that lady Mrs.
Buxton would have been to concede the whole point
at issue.
The Earl of gLDON said, that the verdict of a
jury ought not to deter their Lordships from looking
into the case. He thanked the Noble Marquis for
the compliment he had been pleased to pay to him;
and with respect to the matter to which the Noble
Marquis had alluded, he would only observe that be
believed the project of his Noble Friend, (the Earl
of Westmoreland,) the late Privy Seal, had turned
out more beneficial than his, (the Earl of Eldon's)
—(A laugh.)—The petition was ordered to lie on
the table.
The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition,
praying for the repeal of the duty on coals carried
coastways.—Referred to the Committee on the
coal trade.
Lord DYNEVOR presented a petition against
certain parts of the Welsh Judicature Bill.
Earl CAWDOR presented a petition from the
county of Pembroke, praying that some arrangement
might take place, by which the benefits of the Eng-
lish administration of justice, by the superior judges,
might be imparted to Wales; but praying, also, that
this might be effected without disarranging the pre-
sent division of counties and assize towns. The
Noble Lord heartily concurred in the first part of
the prayer, but did not see how the latter could be
complied with.
The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from
the county of Cornwall, complaining of distress,
and praying for Parliamentary reform.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a
petition from Loughborough against the East•lndia
monopoly.—Referred to the Committee on the East
India Charter.
The Duke of RICHMOND (in the absence of
the Bishop of Chichester) presented a petition from
Chichester, praying that another Session might not
pass over without some measure for the abolition of
Negro Slavery.
GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL.
Earl GREY presented two petitions in favour of
this Bill ; the one was signed by the Grand Jury of
the county of Galway, assembled at the Spring
Assizes in 1830 ; the other by 14 Justices of the
Peace, by 12 of the Common Council, and by 52 of
the resident Freemen of the city of Galway. There
were only 10 resident freeholders who had not
signed this petition. He fully concurred in the
prayer of the petitions, and would now, if there was
no objection, move the second reading of the Bill.
Lord HOLLAND had a similar petition to pre-
sent leom a parish in the county of Galway. He
heartily concurred in the prayer.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had been in-
trusted with a petition to the same effect from the
Grand Jury of the city of Galway; but, not know-
ing that tne Noble Earl would move the second
reading of the Bill that day, he had not brought it
down with hint.
The Duke of WELLINGTON would rather the
second reading of the Bill were fixed for another day.
Earl GREY said he should move, on Thursday,
that the Bill be read a second time.—Lords to be
summoned.

such a state of things. He confessed, that, looking
at the entire transaction, as far as he was acquainted
with it, he did not think that Austria and Prussia
had been, or were now, sincerely co-operating with
the other Powers, or that they heartily approved of
the measures adopted by them. The Noble Earl
had referred him to a letter from Baron Miltitz, the
Prussian Minister at Constantinople, showing that
Prussia had complied with the treaty. In answer
to this he (Lord Londonderry) took leave to refer
the Noble Earl to the recorded sentiments of our
own ambassadors on the subject. It would be found
on a reference to those authorities, that the friendly
disposition of Prussia was not so apparent. After
a considerable time spent in debating the subject,
the Noble Earl got up and said that on his official
responsibility he took it upon himself to say that it
would be prejudicial to the public service to pro-
duce certain papers which were demanded. Had the
Noble Earl stated this at the outset, be (Lord Lon-
donderry) should have felt disposed to treat
the declaration with every respect, and perhaps
their Lordships might have been spared the
remarks that he, among others, had thought it
necessary to make. Certainly he did not wish to
prejudice the public service,by any act or word of his.
He now wished to ask the Noble Earl whether he
had any objection to lay before the House a copy
of Sir E. Codrington's letter, addressed to the Se-
cretary of the Lord High Admiral, dated 26th of
January, 1828, and enclosing the copy of a letter
to Sir H. Wellesley, bearing date 10th of October,
1827 ? It was his intention to move for the pro-
duction of this document if the Noble Earl saw no
objection to the adoption of such a course. His
object in doing so was to ascertain whether Austria
and Prussia, so long ago as previously to the battle
of Navarin, had or had not approved of the course
adopted by the other Powers. With a view to de-
termine this, he called on the Noble Earl to produce
papers which he (Lord Londonderry) conceived
would make out his case, and confirm the statements
he had made.
The Earl of ABERDEEN observed, that if the
Noble Marquis had previously communicated to him,
as it was usual to do in courtesy, the particulars of
his motion, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would have
been able to give the Noble Lord an answer at once :
but at present he was unable to say what were the
contents of the paper required, and therefore could
not state whether or not any objection existed as to
its production. On a former occasion the Noble
Lord had read an extract from a paper upon the
table with reference to the conduct of Austria and
Prussia, and at the same time desired further evi-
dence to enable him to see whether they bad com-
plied with the treaty. He (the Earl of Aberdeen)
showed, by the documents upon the table, that the
treaty had been complied with; when a Noble Baron
opposite rose, and said, there was a disagreement
between the Powers. He (the Earl of Aberdeen)
had certainly declared, that the production of the
papers asked for by the Noble Lord would be at-
tended with prejudice to the public service, and
upon that ground had refused to comply with the
motion.
Lord HOLLAND understood the Noble Mar-
quis to mean, that although the official assurances
of Austria might give rise to an idea that she cor-
dially concurred in the course adopted-with respect
to Greece, he (Lord Londonderry) bad reason to
think other papers were withheld which, if pro-
duced, would give a different colour to her conduct.
The Noble Marquis said as yet we had only an im-
perfect statement of these transactions, and, in order
to form a correct judgment, we should have all the
acts and proceedings of the Powers in question.
This was the original line of argument which had
been taken tip when the matter was first broached.
Since then he thought it would appear, on a narrow
examination of the published documents, that there
were good grounds to conclude from the papers
themselves, that the conduct of Austria had not
been satisfactory. In a despatch annexed to the
protocol of the 15th of June, 1828, and addressed
by Count Nesselrode to Prince Lieven, was this
expression—" Austria herself, by overtures of which
I will treat in a separate despatch, manifests a visible
tendency to draw nearer to the Courts which
have undertaken to restore peace to Greece, and
expresses no intention of supporting Turkey." It
appeared from this that Austria, in the opinion of
the writer, was not originally disposed to draw very
near to the other Courts in the matter; and it
would also seem from the phrase, " expresses no in-
tention of supporting Turkey," that she had once
entertained such a design. That placed what were
called the " assurances" of Austria in a different
light with respect to credibility, and we ought not
to have those assurances, if documents were with-
held which might show them to be insincere.
Again, in another despatch from Count Nesselrode
to Prince Lieven, it was stated, " We have already
had an opportunity of declaring, that if our Allies
should judge the independence of Greece necessary,
we shall not object to it." He saw the great objec-
tion to producing the memorandum here referred to.
He had maintained no decided opinions as to the
conduct of Austria; but when he heard the Noble
Marquis state that Austria differed from the other
Powers with respect to Greece, he must admit he
did think that there existed some suspicion on the
subject of the degree of conformity between the
acts and " assurances" of that Power.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY—With re-
spect to what the Noble Earl said as to placing the
motion in his hands previously to making it, he
(Lord Londonderry) did not see much advantage
to himself in that course, which, however, he had
adopted only the other day, when the Noble Earl
first told him that he would give the papers required,
but two days afterwards declared that lie would not.
—(Laughter, and cries of " Order.")
The Earl of ABERDEEN—The Noble Mar-
quis entirely misunderstood what had occurred. He
aAsured the Noble Marquis that be was quite mis-
taken ; there was no promise to produce the pa-
pers ; he (Lord Aberdeen) merely said that he
should take two days to consider whether or not it
would be proper to comply with the request of the
Noble Marquis.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said as there
appeared to.k; a misunderstanding with respect to
those ~papers, he should not press the remark
wt.-rich he hadfounded on what he conceived to have
-'been the Nobe Earl's conduct. With respect to
the letter of laron Miltitz, it was notorious that he
was strongly a the interests of Turkey. Was no
communication made at Constantinople with respect
to Prussian !o-operation ? He felt satisfied that
the subject o Austrian and Prussian cc-operation
did not appea fairly on the face of the papers before
the House. .f the Noble Earl consented to pro-
duce the documents required—of a motion for which
he (Lord Lordonderry) should give notice—Noble
Lords would le satisfied; but if the Noble Earl re-
fused to prodtce them, it was to be,hoped he would
offer a suffici?.nt reason fur doing so. One thing
was clear—nernely, that if those two great Powers,
Austria and Prussia, were not cordially co-operating
in the measures that had been taken, such a state
of things would probably be a germ of future dif-
ferences of which no man here could say what would
be the result. It was the great wish of a late-la-
mented relative of his to keep all the great Powers
of Europe united in a common bond, and to cause
them to concur in one sentiment as to the principal
transactions in which they were interested; but it
was to be regretted that they were now diverging
from that point, and it must be admitted that the con-
sequences were likely to be any thing rather than for-
tunate. He might not take the same view of thecase
as the Noble Baron opposite who had supported his
motion,—a support for which he was nevertheless
grateful. Indeed, he believed he differed from the
Noble Baron altogether. The Noble Baron, he
knew, was a Greek, and he (Lord Londonderry)
confessed himself a Turk, upan this question.—
(Laughter.) In that respect, then, he differed from
the Noble Lord. He thought the negotiations were
not such as ought to have been carried on, Having
placed his motion in the Noble Earl's hands, he ex-
pected the Noble Earl to inform him, as soon as he
conveniently could, whether or not he would furnish

documents which he (Lord Londonderry) main-
tained would make out his case.
(Here the conversation dropped.)
Lord Mountsandford's Estate Bill was read a
third time, and passed.
ABOLITION OF FEES' BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on this

Bill,
The Earl of DARNLEY said, he should pro-
pose in the Committee the introduction of a cause,
exempting officers of the army (particularly inferior
officers, who could ill afford the expense) from fees
for the renewal of their commissions on the demise

of the Crown.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Bill
having come up from the Commons, he had thought
it his duty to alter some of the clauses and add
substantive clauses of his own. He recommended
their Lordships to go into Committee pro forma,
the alterations could then be introduced, printed,
and become properly known and understood. He
had no objection to the Noble Earl's clause. He
took this opportunity to state, that his Noble Friend
(the Lord President of the Council) had abandoned
all advantage to be derived from the renewal of ap-
pointments to public offices. He had authority to
say the same thing with respect to the Lord Privy
Seal : and perhaps it was scarcely necessary to add,
that he (the Lord Chancellor) readily relinquished
any claims of this nature that he possessed. He
thought it his duty to protect individuals who had
distinct duties to perform, and who held renewal
offices : he had also introduced a clause protecting
persons at present enjoying vested interests in fees
by virtue of their offices, but which clause did not'
extend to individuals hereafter to be appointed.
The House having gone into a Committee on the
Bill, the Lord Chancellor's amendments were
agreed to.
On the Earl of Darnley's clause exempting
officers in the army under the rank of Captain (as
we understood) from the payment of fees for the re-
newal of their commissions,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, the truth
of the matter was, that those fees were at present
very trifling : exclusive of stamp duties, there was
nothing but the expence of making out the com-
missions.
The Earl of DARNLEY inquired what was the
amount of that expence ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that any
Noble Lord accustomed to see commissions must
know that the expence of making them out could
scarcely exceed a few shillings.
The clause was then agreed to.
The House resumed, when the amendments were
reported, and the Bill, with amendments, ordered to
be printed.
The Irish Bogs' Drainage Bill went through a
Committee.—Bill, with amendments, reported, and
ordered to be printed.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, a
message to the Commons was agreed to, for copies
of the report and appendix of the Select Committee
appointed in 1824, to take into consideration the
criminal law of England.