The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-05 00:00:00

OV TILL PUBLIC JOURNALS.

It is announced in the Paris Papers of Wednes-
day, which arrived yesterday, that the Royal ordi-
nance was expected to appear on the following day,
nominating the Presidents
.of the electoral College,
for the ensuing elections. At the same time a Royal
proclamation is anticipated, pointing out to the elec-
tors the nature of their duties, directing their choice
to candidates whom the Court recommends, and ex-
horting them to resist all the solicitations of the
enemies of the throne and the altar. The Minister
of the Interior is simultaneously to address his cir-
culars to all the Prefects, while the heads of the dif-
ferent administrations connected with the Treasury,
or the collection of the revenue, are to second the
general movement. The prelacy, the clergy, and
the congregation, will not be backward in lending
their aid to the good cause. The Keeper of the
Seals will call upon the different advocates and
attornies-general in the different royal courts
spread over France, to exert their influence with
the members of the bar, and the inferior officers
of the tribunals entitled to exercise the elective
franchise, to induce them to vote for the friends of
the Ministry. The electoral campaign will be con-
ducted on the part of the Cabinet with an active
vigour, if not with an unscrupulous violence, pro-
portioned to the importance of the crisis, to the
opposition which they are sure to encounter, and the
magnitude of the disgrace which would follow de-
feat. The telegraph for the next month will be as
active in communicating orders and conveying intel-
ligence, as if foreign enemies had effected au inva-
sion on every part of the French frontier. The
power which is vested in the Crown of nominating
the Presidents of the electoral colleges would appear
in this country an alarming interference with the
freedom of election. Nor would a closer inspection
of the circumstances which are usually connected
with their nomination, and the mode in which they
exercise their functions, remove our objections.—
These Presidents may be either Peers or Com-
moners, but it is generally contrived that they
should be the latter, and moreover candidates
for the suffrages of the very colleges whose
proceedings they are appointed to open an-I
direct. As there are no hustings for the can-
didates—as no public discussion is allowed on the
merits or principles of those who claim the support
of the electors, the President, who is allowed to
make an opening address, has thus a great advantage
over his competitors. He can expose their preten-
sions, traduce their characters, and excite abhorrence
of their alleged principles, without the possibility of
explanation, refutation, or reply. It is true that the
electors are afterwards empowered to appoint their
definitive President, and may dispense with the
King's nominee ; but the evil may be already done,
the calamity may be already spread, the panic of a
Liberal pestilence may be already created, and no
opportunity is allowed of counteracting the inflam-
matory or incendiary address of the provisional Pre-
sident, who may be the Court candidate, and must be
the Court advocate. The other arts and stratagems
by which the Ministry may act on the electoral
colleges through the medium of their armies of
public functionaries—the direct menace of persecu-
tion held out to the refractory, and the profit.
able favours of power presented to the hopes of the
selfish,—are so numerous and so recklessly employed
that the return of a majority of Deputies against
the Administration, would seem a miracle of per-
sonal independence and civil virtue in the French
electoral body, did we not find a motive probably
stronger than either in their party alarms arid poli-
tical antipathies. Arm extraordinary evidence of the
force and blindness of these latter passions is to be
found in a discussion which has commenced between
the liberal and ultra Journals, respecting the cause
of the conflagrations, or the character of the incen-
diaries, in Britanny and Normandy. Extensive da-
mage has been done by burning in the arrondisements
of Bire, • Falaise, and other districts. The houses
of the peasantry both at solitary farms and in villages
have been set on fire an.' consumed; even the dwell-
ings of the rich have been attacked, and a general
panic has spread over the country. Such an exten-
sive, simultaneous, and apparently systematic range
of conflagration cannot be ascribed to accident; yet
no incendiaries have yet been discovered. The po-
lice are said to be on the alert, and additional troops
have been sent to the alarmed districts; but none
of the incendiaries have been apprehended. In
this state of ignorance as to the real authors of
calamities inflicted, and crimes perpetrated, with no
apparent object, who would believe that party jour-
nalists could ascribe them to their respective political
opponents ? Yet such is the case in France. The
Conititutionnel broadly insinuates that Government,
and their friends the Royalists, have taken this
method of attacking the charter, and wreaking disir
vengeance on the Liberals; while the Gazelle de
Prance, with a factious absurdity no less revolting,
accuses the Liberal directing Committee of the
Elections, of hiring and employing this body of in-
cendiaries. If such be the prelude to the electoral
contest, what can be expected from its issue ? In
this country no party as an election manoeuvre would
accuse another of hiring ruffians to set villages and
districts on fire. Our political squibs, though
often annoying, are never lighted at the torch of
the incendiary.—Times.
We have always thought it disgraceful to our-
selves, and disgusting to our readers, to notice the
barbarous, filthy, and swindling exhibitions called
prize-fights ; but we do now summon general atten-
tion to the fatal effects of that which took place on
Wednesday last. One of the poor wretches, it ap-
pears, hired for the sport, Mackay by name, a
Scotchman, has died of his blows. As to the other
miscreant who worked for hire, and has therefore
accidentally come under the denomination of an
assassin, we say nothing; but we do hope, however
he might be spared by Royal clemency, if the matter
be as represented, and law and justice be not mere
terms of mockery in this country when applied to the
rich, that an example will be made of the more
wealthy monsters in this affair of blood—the san-
guinary cowards who stood by and saw a fellow-
creature beaten to death for their sport and gain
Times.

We are glad to see that the late ex-officio pro-
ceedings against the Press—so disgraceful to the
age of intellect," and to a liberal Administration,
have again become a topic of Parliamentary animad-
version. On the resolution moved in the Com-
mittee of Supply, last night, that there be granted
15,0001. for law expences, an animated and pro-
tracted discussion arose respecting the recent State
prosecutions for libel, and the conduct of the Whig
Attorney-General, by wham they were instituted.
Mr. R. Gordon designated them by the name of
" persecutions," and said he should like to know
whether any portion of the sum demanded of-Par-
liament went to pay the costs of the Lord Chancel-
lor's case. The Attorney-General complained of his
well-meant proceedings to purify and elevate the
Press being desciibed as " persecutions," and asked
if they were deemed ground of Parliamentary com-
plaint, why was not a distinct motion on the saject
submitted to the House ? Sir James knows
that nothing is more regular or constitutional than
for a Member to complain of grievances previously
to voting supplies; but, besides that, in the
present instance, the subject naturally arose
out of the resolution then before the House,
which went to take large sums out of the
public taxes -to pay for the paltry triumphs
which had signalized the ex-officio crusade of Crown-
Lawyers against the Press--triumphs, which had
the effect of crushing one adverse Journalist, and,
in his fall, wrought more mischief to the present
Administration than all the talents of all the lawyers
in their service
. can ever repair ! We thank God
that we live m an age, and a country, in which the
vindictive exercise of power inevitably draws upon
itself the corrective re-action of public opinion. If
the Government were attacked by some newspapers,
in no very measured terms of reproach, they were as
wildly and as immoderately eulogized by others.—
Surely, their avidity for fame, if offended by the
harsh language of their political adversaries, ought

to have been fully compensated by the fulsome flat-
tery of their sycophants. We recollect, that on the
trials, the Attorney-General stated that the Press
being degraded by licentiousness, his object in
instituting the prosecutions was to render it re-
spectable. He forgot, however, that the licen- •
tiousness of flattery is as degrading as the licen
tiousness of vituperation. His friendly dispo-
sition towards the Press only led him to attack
the latter—he left the former in all its un-
pruned luxuriance. There were some who were
ill-natured enough to suppose that his notion of the
freedom of the Press only meant its being free to
flatter and to play the parasite to the fortunate oc-
cupants of power—free also to abuse, in the grossest
terms bad taste and worse feelings could suggest,
all who were not smitten with equal admiration of
the virtues, the wisdom, the statesman-like qualities
of the rulers of the nation, and refused to join in the
Paeans of idolatrous praise which is pleasant to the
ears of those earthly divinities who hold the golden
key of honours and preferment. To return to the
discussion, the Attorney-General gave a reason for
preferring a distinct motion to the interlocutory
judgment pronounced upon his proceedings in a
Committee of Supply. lie said such a motion
would enable him to answer remarks. We do not
see why he could not answer them as well in one
case as in the other ; but we imagine it is difficult
to please him now, by any mode of adverting to a
subject which is the only part of his official
life likely to be long remembered. To this plea
in bar of the Attorney-General, Mr. R. Gor-
don replied that so long as he held a seat in
Parliament, he would exercise the freedom of
speech, and would call those prosecutions, as
they were before called, " persecutions :" he con-
sidered them to have been such, and he believed
his constituents and the country admitted the cor-
rectness of the description. After various com-
ments, Mr. Hume made a speech, in which he ad.
ministered severe castigation to the Attorney-Gene-
ral. Among other things, he said, Now I will
return to the subject before the Committee, and to
the censures cast upon my Hon. Friends for styling
the proceedings taken against the Press as persecu-
tions. Now, I say they were persecutions, and I
state this fairly and openly. The imagination, per-
haps, of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General
became perverted, and the situation to which he
has been raised may have changed his views from
what they were while he sat on this side of the
House; for here I have heard him with pleasure,
and looked upon him as one of the truest friends of
freedom. He has forgotten his opinions, and I will
say that the opinions he has changed are those
which earned for him the character of one of the
leading Liberals, and a true Whig—that is, if any
Whigs be left in our days. I appeal to all around
me—l appeal to every one in the House—if there
has been one Whig—or, if there has been any one
amongst the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's for-
mer friends that has ever applauded his con-
duct. I may be mistaken; but I have never
heard any one individual, be he Whig, or
be he Liberal, who has not regretted the
change that the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man has undergone, and that he should have be-
come the prosecutor of those liberal opinions of
which he was formerly the advocate." These ob-
servations were received with great cheering by the
House. After this Sir Edward Knatchbull rose,
and said he wished distinctly to know whether the
expenses of the prosecution for the libel on the
Lord Chancellor were included in the sum now de-
manded. Mr. G. Dawson answered in the affirma-
tive. It was thereupon declared by Sir C. Wetherell.
that the prosecutions were unconstitutionally con-
ducted, and he added that, if no one else moved,
he would propose that so much of the amount in
the estimate as consisted of the prosecution of the
libel on the Lord Chancellor be deducted. The
Attorney-General complained of those attacks being
made without any previous intimation having been
given that it was intended to discuss his conduct,
and he, at considerable length, attempted to defend
himself ; but, like a man who has a bad cause, did
not make it better by losing his temper—so irri-
tated, indeed, did he become, that be frequently
spoke in broken sentences almost unintelligible, and
was sometimes bereft of expression by the fervour of
his excitement. The motion which Sir C. Wethe-
rell had threatened, was not eventually made, but
it was understood the discussion of this subject is
to stand over until the bringing up of the report of
the Committee.—Morning Herald.
The following article appeared in a Morning
Paper, and was, no doubt, published with the lau-
dable intention of relieving the Legislature from the
reproach of not having done any thing to afford the
public protection against the most dangerous nui-
sance that can infest society :
" A correspondent suggests that neither the police nor
the Magistracy need to be very apprehensive of the conse-
quence of ordering dogs running about the streets to be
shot, for though an action lies against any person that
detains a dog from another, or unlawfully destroys it, yet
this redress endures only so long as the dogs are domites
nature,' and the property in them ceases the instant they
are out of possession. Our correspondent refers to vol. 2
Black. Com. p. 393, and to the case of David v. Sex-
ton,' 3 Term Reports, p. 37."
As the above paragraph has been copied into other
Journals without comment, and as it is calculated to
lead the public into error upon a most important
question, and to ensnare Magistrates and others into
acts of awkward responsibility, we take the trouble
of showing how ignorant the writer is of the legal
bearing of the question which he undertakes to elu-
cidate, as he would soon find, to his cost, if he at-
tempted to carry his .own interpretation of the law
into effect. lie says that " though an action lies
against any person that detains a dog from another,
or unlawfully destroys it, yet this redress endures
only so long as the dogs are domitce nature, and the
property in them ceases the moment they are out of
possession. There is, no doubt, a great deal of
novelty in telling us that a person is liable to answer
in law for unlawfully destroying a dogbut the
public want to know when a dog may be lawfully
destroyed. The writer says he may be killed when
he is;out of the possession of his master, for then all
property in him ceases. A dog, therefore, according
to this intelligent commentator upon the laws, may
be destroyed when he is running about the streets;
for then he is out of his master's possession. To
show the absurdity of this position, we ask whe-
ther a person stealing a dog so running about the
streets would not be liable to indictment for
theft, or whether a person who found a dog so run-
ning about.and detained him, after demand, would
not be liable to an action of trover ? We say he
would be liable to the criminal proceeding in the
one case, and to the civil action in the other ; how,
then, can a dog be lawfully destroyed in circum-
stances under which he can neither be stolen nor
detained ? The dog may be out of the sight, and
out of the actual possession of his master, and be in
his legal or constructive possession. If the pro-
perty in a dog ceased the instant he was out of the
view and actual possession of his master, he could not
be the subject of the theft ; for no theft can be com-
mitted of that in which there is no property ; but
dog-stealers do not steal dogs when they are in the
presence of their master—they watch for them and
carry them off in places where they ramble, and
where their owners have no immediate possession
of them, and yet they are liable to the penalties of
the law; arid, we presume, it will be admitted that
a man cannot lawfully kill an animal which he can-
not lawfully reduce into his possession alive. We
are aware that by the common law a man could not
be criminally proceeded against for stealing a dog.
This violation of the right of property was only made
penal by an express statute ; but the existence of
the right was always recognized by a civil remedy,
for the unlawful taking away of animals donata:
nature, which dogs kept either for pleasure or for
use are, until they return to a state of savage wild-
ness, which is evinced by their escaping from the
dominion of man, to prowl about and prey, without
any intention of returning to a master—or, as the
law has it, without the animus revertendi. It is
clear, from what we have stated, that a dog, walk-

ing or running about the streets, cannot be lawfully
destroyed, unless he betrays the usual symptoms of
madness, and then any person may kill him, because
he is fere nature, and any animal, fence nature,
at large in the public streets, may be killed. But
the writer refers us, in support of his opinion,
to Blackstone's Commentaries, p. 393, and to
the case of " David and Sexton," 3 Term
Reports, p. 37. Now what does Blackstone say ?
Here are his words—" Our law apprehends the
most obvious distinction to be between such ani-
mals
as we generally see tame, and are, therefore,
seldom if ever found wandering at large, which it
calls domite nature, and such creatures us are '
usually found at liberty, which are, therefore, sup-
posed to be more emphatically force nature, though
it may happen that the latter shall he sometimes
tamed and confined by the art and industry of man;
such as are deer in a park, hares or rabbits in an
enclosed warren, doves in a dove-house, pheasants
or partridges in a mew, hawks that are fed and com-
manded by their owner, and fish in a private pond
or in trunks. These are no longer the property of
a man than they continue in keeping or actual pos-
session ; but if at any time they regain their natural
liberty his property instantly ceases, unless they have
the azzinzum revertendi, which is only to he known
by their usual custom of returning," a maxim which
is borrowed from the civil law, revcrtendi animum
vidcntur desinere babere tune cum revertendi con-
suetudinenz deseruerint. The law, therefore, extends
this possession farther than the mere manual occupa-
tion, for my tame hawk that is pursing his quarry
in my presence, though he is at liberty to go where
he pleases, is nevertheless my property, for lie bath
animum revcrtendi; so are my pigeons that are
flying at a distance from their home, &c. which re-
main still in my possession, and I still preserve my
qualified property in them." We believe it is cus-
tomary with dogs in general that run about in the
streets to return to their masters, and the onus of
proving that they had no intention of returning
would be thrown upon any person► who destroyed
them, and who wotdd probably find it difficult to
establish this proof of their having returned to a
state of natural wildness. So much for Blackstone!
As to the Term Reports, they contain no such
case as " David v. Sexton," but there is the case
of " Dand v. Sexton," for which, perhaps, the
other was a misprint, and that case, if it prove
any thing connected with this question, proves
in favour of the liability which persons in-
cur by destroying dogs. That silts an action
of trespass, vi et arntis, for heating the plain-
tiff's dog, whereby the dog was hurt, and the plain-
tiff lost the use of him ; the defendant pleaded the
general issue, and there was a verdict against him,
with Is. damages. Now in an action of this nature
damages of the lowest amount would carry costs,
unless the Judge certified under the 43d Eliz. cap.
vi., that the damages were under 405., which would
have the effect of depriving the plaintiff of his cost,.
We do not know what the merits of this case were,
as there is no note of the evidence, but Lord Ken-
yon, being of opinion that it was a frivolous action,
under all the circumstances, exercised the privilege
of certifying, and deprived the plaintiff of costs. It
was afterwards moved that the certificate should be
set aside, On the ground that the Statute in ques-
tion did not apply to this description of, action, and
a rule Nisi was obtained ; but the Judges, on cause
being shown, discharged the rule, thereby establish-
ing this point, aiid nothing more, that if the plaintiff
in trespass vi et armis, for beating the plaintiff's dog,
recover less than 40s. the Judge may certify under
the 43d Eliz. cap. vi., to prevent his recovering
more costs than damages. We cannot tell whether,
in this case, the dog was beaten in his master's pre-
sence or not—nothing turned on that point—but let
it be under what circumstances it might, there was
no doubt expressed that the plaintiff was entitled to
a verdict—and he had it, though it was not a case
in which the Jury thought that he had established
a claim to more than nominal damages. Thus we
see that the writer of the paragraph in question is
wholly mistaken as to the law, and the application
of the legal authorities to which he refers. We re-
gret that the law is so. We think it a mischief to
the public, and a disgrace to our police system, that
dogs are allowed to go about the streets of towns
and villages unrestrained while hydrophobia is pre-
valent, and that a magistrate cannot give orders for
their destruction without subjecting himself to a
civil action. This omission of the law is calculated
to give a dreadful increase and circulation to the
most appalling distemper that can afflict mankind.
It cries aloud for immediate alteration.—lllorning
Herald.

Our readers will perceive by our Parliamentary
Report that there are at length some hopes of the
formation of a New Street from Waterloo Bridge
to the British Museum. Lord Lowther thought
that he could recommend the Government to go to
the extent of perhaps 25,000/. upon the undertak-
ing ; but Mr. Hothouse, who followed, expressed
himself sorry that the Noble Lord did not feel au-
thorised to go further, and hoped that the higher
powers would give the Noble Lord permission to
hold out some expectation that Government would
lend its aid for this great national improvement.
Other Members expressed the same hope. The
subject will probably be again alluded to ere long.._
Morning Chronicle.
In our remarks yesterday upon the observations
made by Mr. Spring Rice on the preceding evening
in the debate on Dr. Phillimore's Motion, we were
led into a great error; which, although entirely un-
intentional on our part, we most s'ncerely lament.
lhe facts are these :—Our Reporter had written his
report of Mr. Spring Rice's speech as we quoted
it. In the course of the night, however, having
reason to apprehend that he had misunderstood the
Honourable Gentleman's meaning, he consulted the
report of the speech made by a brother Reporter,
which confirmed his apprehensions ; and he accord-
ingly re-wrote his own report ; which re-written
report is the report that appeared in our account of
the Parliamentary proceedings. In the mean while,
however, the original report had unfortunately- been
sent up to the Editor, who remained entirely unac-
quainted with the subsequent correction ; and hence
arose the remarks in question, for the appearance of
which we repeat the expression of our unfeigned
regret.—Morning Chronicle.
The Four and a Half per Cent. Duties was again
brought before the House last night, by Sir James
Graham, who proposed a sort of compromise. His
proposition was—

" That his Majesty's Ministers should undertake, with-
out loss of time, to bring in a Bill to limit the preroga-
tive of the Crown to import commodities free of duty to
such commodities as were for the use of the Crown, and
not allowing it to import commodities free of duty for sale,
particularly the tutor which was sent here in payment of
the Four and a Half per Cent. Duties from Barbadoes and
the Leeward Islands."

From Sir Robert Peel's answer we should sup-
pose him to have been lately studying Buseubaum,
or some other casuist.

"The proceeds of these duties" (the Four and a Half
per Cents.), he said, " though evidently belonging to the
Crown, were not appropriated to any personal objects, but
to public objects; they were applied to diminish the
charges on some other public funds. At the same time
he was not prepared to contend that the Crown could im-
port commodities for sale in the market, except on pay-
ment of duties, like other persons. Neither was lie prepared
to say that the prerogative, though existing constitutionally
to this extent, might not lead to public inconvenience.
He was not prepared to say that the prerogative, if wholly
unlimited, might not lead to abus-e. It was, therefore,
the intention of Ministers to place the prerogative under
such a limitation, that the sugar for sale should not be
brought into the market without payirg the duties, leav-
ing those duties to be appropriated by die Crown, as if it
had disposed of the sugar without paying them."
How do the duties evidently belong to the Crown?
The Crown's right to West India duties ; the
Crown's right to the revenue of Gibraltar; the
Crown's claim to Molts of Admiralty ! Are we
never to have done with this nonsense ? The King
of England is the first Magistrate of the country,
who is supported, like other public functionaries, by
taxes raised from the people. He ought to have

►what is fitting for his expenditure, and not more
than what is fitting for his expenditure. But how,
in God's name, can it be known whether he receives
enough or too little, or too much, if the subject is
magnified by a number of inroads into the revenue
such as those above alluded to. The King can have
no West Indian duties for himself, but for the public,
whose representative he is; and the separation of such
like petty branches of revenue from the remainder,
can merely have for object the misleading the public
►with respect to the appropriation of the revenue.
Are we in the year 1830 to be told that the
whole amount of the revenue, and the whole amount
of the expenditure, ought not to be placed clearly
and distinctly before the public ? The English of
the transaction which led to the recourse to prero-
gative law on the case of the West Indian Duties,
►was, that the fund for disgraceful payments, or at
least payments of a kind not calculated to bear exa-
mination, had been exhausted by the West Indian
Church Establishment, and the ravens were calling
for their accustomed food. But let us see how Mr.
Peel places the matter. He was not prepared to say
the Crown would import commodities for sale, ex-
cept on payment of duties, and though the preroga-
tive existed constitutionally to this extent, he was
not prepared to say it would not lead to public in-
convenience. Then the Right Hon. Baronet has
recommended an exercise of the prerogative leading
to public inconvenience. The sugar hereafter,
therefore, is to pay the duties, leaving the Crown
to appropriate the duties as if the sugar had been
disposed of without paying them. The source of
corrupt expenditure is not to be diminished in the
least; but the great improvement is, that the sugar
shall pay the duties at the Custom-house, and that
the amount shall be transferred from the Customs
to the hands by which it was to be ultimately dis-
tributed. This would be all very silly, if it were
not very profligate. The Crown can and ought
to have no funds unknown to the nation.—
The nation enables the Crown to make conquests,
and pays the deficiencies of the Colonial Esta-
blishments; and yet forsooth, the Revenues of our
conquests and Colonies are to form a fund distinct
from the funds of the nation for the disposal of the
Crown, that, is,of those who possess political power.
Iluskisson pointed at an inconvenience from this
precious prerogative law which had not before been
adverted to. " A person," he said, " went into the
market and bought some of this sugar that was sent
here in payment of the Four and a Half per Cents.;
he would buy it at the market price, and he would
pay for it, ►which was called the long price, which
included the duty ; the broker who sold the sugar
would hand over the proceeds, duty and all, to the
agent for the Four and a Half per Cents., but the
purchaser might go immediately afterwards to the
Custom-house, and if he exported that sugar de-
mand the whole drawback." In fact, the public
may thus be cheated out of the duty and out of the
drawback ; for the agent of the Four and a Half per
Cent. and t he purchaser may be in an understanding,
and the whole sugar may be exported. Such are the
consequences of having recourse to these disreputable
shifts. And yet the Right Hon. Baronet was com-
plimented on all hands for his readiness to place the
prerogative under some restriction, as if he had not
persisted in the practice as long as he could. So
much for prerogative laws. If the Hon. Gentlemen
will stand out for prerogative, they ought to abandon
taxation.—Morning Chronicle.

FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT,

White!,A, May 31, 1330.
The King has been pleased to appoint the Right Hon,
Charles Lord Farnborough, General Sir William Keppel,
and Major-General Sir Andrew Francis Barnard, to be his
Commissioners for affixing his Majesty's signature to in-
struments requiring the same.

Office of Ordnance, June 3.

Corps of Royal Engineers—Captain J. M. F. Smith
to 1;e Lieutenant Colonel, vice Smart, retired, March 16.

Second Captain J. W. Pringle to be Captain, ♦ice
Smith, promoted, March 16.
First Lieutenant H. R. Brandreth to be Second Cap-
tain, vice Pringle, promoted, March 16. _
Second Lieutenant S. H. Knocker to be First Lieu-
tenant, ♦ice Brandreth, promoted, March 16.
R0y.,1 Regiment of Artillery.
Second Lieutenant A. H. Frazer to be First Lieutenant,
vice T. U. Walker, resigned, March 1.
Second Lieutenant T. G. Marlay to be First Lieutenant,
vice Dawson, deceased, April 11.

Office of Ordnance, June 3.
Ordnance Medical Department.

Second Assistant-Surgeon Henry John Lucas, M.D.,
to be First Assistant-Surgeon, vice Chisholm, placed on
half-pay, Jan. 1.
A. P. Mahon, Gent. to be Second Assistant-Surgeon,
March 11.
J. E. T. Parratt, Gent. to be Second Assistant-Sur•
geon, March 11.

Commission in the Oxfordshire Regular Militia, signed by
the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Oxford.
Ensign C. J. Preedy, Gent. to be Lieutenant, vice Dal-
mar, deceased, May 7.
Commission in the Worcestershire Regiment of Militia,
signed by the Vice-Lieutenant of the County of Wor-
cester.
G. Atkins, Gent. to be Ensign, May SO.
Commi.sion in the Forfar and Kincardine Regiment of
Militia, signed by the Lord-Lieutenant of the County
of Forfar.
Ensign J. Smith to be Lieutenant, vice Bryiner, de-
ceased, May 22.
Commission in the South Salopian Regiment of Yeomanry
Cavalry, signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county of
Salop.
Lieutenant R. Burton to be Captain, vice Leighton, re-
signed.
Whitehall, May 29.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Edward Barry, of
the city of Bristol, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary
in the High Court of Chancery.

Whitehall, May 26.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Richard Thomas
Wiggins, of Sevenoaks, in the county of Kent, Gent. to
be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
Ann and Thomas Rivers, Egham, Surrey, coal-mer-
chants.

BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.

Thomas Hussey, High-Holborn, hat-manufacturer.