The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-11 00:00:00

SATURDAY.

Match, 200, h. ft. D.M. —Lord Lichfield's c. Tableau, by Eman
cipation, out of Sister to Portrait, against the Duke of Portland's c.
by Taurus, out of Thebes; Bst. 71b. each.
match, 200, h. ft. R.M.—Lord Lichfield's c. H. 8., by Bedla-
mite, out of Terry Alt's dam, against the Duke of Portland's c. by
Priam, out of Manto ; Bst. 71b. each.

POST-OFFICE INCONSISTENCIES.—The postage
from Brompton to Loughton, 15 miles, 3d. ; to Epping, two
miles further, on the same road, 17 miles, 7d. A letter
directed to Epping, and posted at Loughton after four o'clock
e. 51, is delivered at Epping in 42 hours, the distance two
miles and a half, the postage 7d. This letter remains at
Loughton, till the following morning, is brought to London,
remains tnere till eight the same night, arrives at Epping at
10, and is delivered at half-past 8 next morning, and travels
28 miles. The mail passes from Epping and through Lough-
ton whilst the letter is lying at Loughton, besides not less
than four coaches ; but the Post-office prefers a costly Hum-
phrey Clinker on a half-fed, lame, slow beast, to a cheap,
speedy coach, for the carriage of letters !—Post Circular.
CAPTAIN IVIARRYAT.—It would be worse than
useless to say a word as to the merit of these stories, which
are now familiar to almost every reader, and are universally
acknowledged to be sterling portraitures of character and
mariners, especially of life afloat. But the style of the present
publication (the Standard Novels) must recommend them to
every one, for they may be taken in the pocket on a country
excursion ; or, better still, on a voyage by sea, where they will
enhance the enjoyment in a ten-fold degree. Each tale is
comprised in a single volume, and they arc elegantly embel-
lished with frontispieces and vignette titles of some of the most
interesting scenes, engraved in a first-rate manner by Great-
bach. The two stories last published are " Japhet in Search
of a Father," and The King's Own," which form the latest
volumes of " The Standard Novels and Romances."— Cale-
donian Mercury.
SN°lv•—April has brought us showers (some of
them of snow), but the sunshine, if we are to have any, is yet
all to come. So far as the month has yet gone, the weather
has been extremely cold. On Monday morning we had a
heavy fall of snow, and since then a good deal of snow has
fallen.— Carlisle .Tournal.
Some of the Brighton boats brought into that town
on Friday a few mackarel, which sold readily at ninety-five
shillings per hundred.

LAW OF COPYRIGHT.

(From the Morning Papers.)

In the iliorniny Post of last Friday we entered into the
consideration of the proposed amendment of the law of
copyright by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's Bill. We then
stated what the present law of copyright is, and what are
the changes proposed to be effected by the new Bill, in
order to afford additional encouragement to authors. We
also gave our reasons for considering the present law ano-
malous in its operation as respected the public generally,
and unfavourable to those who produced literary works of
great and lasting merit, and we cited examples in illustra-
tion and support of our opinion. We have now, according
to our promise, to consider the objections which publishers
and printers have started to the proposed amendment
of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and which they are taking
pains to render as formidable as possible. Not only in
London, but in distant parts of the country, we find filet
publishers and printers, believing their interests to be seri-
ously endangered by the proposed " additional encourage-
ment to authors," are actively bestirring themselves against
the Bill, and writing letters to Members of Parliament, to
bespeak their hostility to it when it shall next come before
the House of Commons. We have already stated—and
here, too, we have had the satisfaction of resting upon
the authority of one of the greatest men that ever
adorned and dignified literature, by the devotion of
exalted mind to the praise and the promulgation of
exalted virtue—we have, we say, already stated that, as
friends of literature, we look with respect and gratitude
to its commercial patrons, the publishers, and we are
heartily sorry that, upon the present occasion, we are
obliged to take the opposite side to that which they have
chosen. We most readily and cheerfully acknowledge that
emong those publishers who are now actively opposing the
Bill for affording addititional encouraerement to authors
are to be found not only es honourable, but as liberal,
commercial men as ever lived—men to whom all the
authors of the present day, and especially the most
eminent authors, are greatly indebted for the large
and liberal spirit in which they have carried on their
business—but we think that, however willing they
may be to afford justice, and more than bare jus-
tice, as individuals, they lose sight of jurisprudential
justice in their views of the Bill now before Parliament.
We have received a good many printed papers of remon-
strance against Mr. Talfourd's Bill, some of them authen-
ticated and some anonymous, and more than one of them,
we regret to say, evidently prepared by persons with much
more temper for abuse than talent for argument. We
shall, however, at present confine ourselves to one authentic
remonstrance, which certainly deserves all the respect that
any statement coming from a body of men eminent in
their class, and unimpeachable in their character, is en-
titled to. This remonstrance issues from a meeting of
booksellers and publishers, which was attended by
Counsel and Solicitors. Mr. Longman was in the chair ;
and when we add that Mr. Murray, Mr. Whittaker, Mr.
Knight, Mr. Colburn, Mr. Bentley, Mr. Seeley, Mr. Rive
ington, Mr. Fellowes, &c. &c. &c., were present, we need
not add that the meeting was as important as the eminence
of its members in the publishing world could make it. At
this meeting a petition to Parliament against Mr. Tal-
fourd's Bill was proposed and agreed to ; and it is to some
parts of the remonstrance contained in that petition that
we mean at present to address ourselves. The petitioners
say that " of the books and works published during the
last fifty years and upwards the copyright of the great ma-
jority of the same has been sold and assigned absolutely, by
the authors of the same, previously to publication, for
valuable consideration, and such books and works
have been first published by the assignees under such as-
signments, and not by the authors, at a very great outlay
and expense to such publishers, very few authors having
either the capital or the courage or connection to embark in
such expensive and extensive speculation as the introduc-
tion to the public of new works." All this we grant is very
true, but it is to be remembered that those absolute sales
and assignments were, and could be, only sales and assign-
ments of that amount and degree of property in the crea-
tion of their minds which the law of the time allowed to au-
thors. If the amended—or, lest that word should be dis-
pleasing, if the altered—law should give an additional pro-
perty to authors in their works,is it reasonable or conformable
with the general analogy of law that such alteration should
have a retrospective effect, and connect itself with an as-
signment made ten or twenty years before such alteration
was ever thought of ? We submit that it is not. If A,
being the owner of a lease of premises for twenty-eight
years, assigns the same to B for a valuable consideration,
and if thereafter, and during the continuance of the lease,
the freehold or fee of the premises becomes the property of
A, it is never dreamed of that because B has bought all
the interest which A formerly had in the premises, lie
therefore becomes entitled to the new and additional inte-
rest which a change of circumstances has vested in A.
We submit, therefore, that instead of complaining that the
new law proposes to vest the copyright in the authors of
works, at the expiration of the term which the present law
makes the absolute term of that description of property,
the publishers should comfort themselves with their own
statement---viz., that " authors have not the capital, or
courage, or connection" to embark in publication on their
own account, and therefore they will he very glad to treat
with the publishers for the sale to them, on fair terms, of
whatever additional property in the coinage of their brain
the law of the land shall happen to give them. If the Le-
gislature shall happen to give any such additional property,
to authors, we are sure that the publishers, upon consi-
deration, will perceive that it is not reasonable that they
should reap all the advantage. The petition goes on to
state that the professed object of the Bill before the Com-
mons is, " to extend to authors, not merely of all books
thereafter to be published, but of those already published,
an extension of the term of copyright for sixty years
more than is now allowed by law, to the total exclusion of
all existing copyrights, and in breach and violation of all
subsisting contracts between authors and assigness."
Now, with all deference to the barristers and solicitors
who appear to have drawn up this petition, the professed
object of the Bill before Parliament is, we believe, here
mis-stated. It is not (as we understand the Bill) to extend
the term of copyright sixty years beyond what is now al-
lowed by law, but to extend it sixty years from the death
of the author, and in most cases part of that sixty years
would belong not to the author but to the present assig-
ness of the copyright. Thus, supposing a work to have
been sold absolutely to Mr. Longman last year—supposing
the author of it to die next year—and supposing that in
the meantime Mr. Talfourd's Bill becomes law, without
any alteration from its present terms—what would be the
result ? Why, the assignment to Mr. Longman will last
for twenty-eight years, that being the term now allowed by
law for copyright. It will be his until 1865, and in
1865 it will revert to the representatives of the
author, and be theirs until 1899—that is sixty
years from his death, which by the hypothesis,
takes place in 1839. The new law would give this
author bnt thirty-four years more than the pre-
sent law, and the assignee would have all that,
according to law, he could have calculated upon
having when he bought the work in 1837, viz., the
copyright for the life of the author, or for twenty-
eight years. How then can it he complained that the new
law would " violate subsisting contracts ?" We beg leave
to affirm, on the other side, that it carefully respects exist-•
ing contracts, and only suffers a new interest to spring up
at their expiration. The petition complains that publishers
having purchased the copyrights of works have made very
expensive additions to them, and that the operation of the
proposed extension of term will be, that at the expiration of
the assignees' present interest the original works only will
belong to the representatives of the authors, while the cor-
rections, alterations, and additions will belong to the as-
signees ; and the (feet of such operation will be, that the
assignees will either entirely lose all benefit arising from
their labour and expense in making such improvements, or
may be driven to stE-purchase of the representatives of the
authors their extended term of copyright. Now we grantthe
truth of this statement, but we respectfully submit to the
parties concerned that there is no such hardship in this re-
purchase as they seem to think. 'We cannot indeed admit
that in strictness it could be called a re-purchase. It would
be a new purchase of a thing which was not in legion na-
tura at the time the first purchase was made. All that
the publishers of these improved and corrected works can
have bought is a copyright for the life of the author or 23
years. That copyright they will have though Mr. Tal-
fourd's Bill were passed fifty times over in different shapes.
But if his Bill creates a new property beyond the 28 years,
that they will not have without purchasing it from the
author's representatives. If a man buys a house in the
Regent's Park, or in Belgravc-square, and makes ever so
many and ever so expensive " corrections and additions,"
he will be, or his representatives will he, at the end of a
term of years, just in the condition which is contemplated
in the publishers' petition. No man can buy in the Re-
gent's Park or in Belgrave-square more than a term of
years, just as no publisher can at present buy more than a
life, or twenty-eight years' duration of a copyright. The
man whose lease expires thinks it no hardship that he must
either dissever his improvements, and depart with them,
leaving the original property in the hands of the owner, or
purchase another term over and above that which it was
possible for him to purchase in the first instance. He is
not horror-struck at the idea of " re-purchase" in such a
case, and neither—as we venture to submit—should be
the publishers. No doubt they would obtain the enlarged
term of copyright, in such cases as they describe, at a low
rate ; for if they who possess the improvements, and cor-
rections, and additions did not purchase it, it is probable
I that no one else would. We have now gone as far as the
limits of a newspaper article will allow, but there is much

more to be said upon this subject, to which we shaL ad-
dress ourselves hereafter.—Morning Post.
SERGEANT TALFOURD'S COPYRIGHT BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST.

Sir,—Your able article in Friday's Post on Sir. Sergeant
Talfourd's Copyright Bill cannot fail to bring conviction to
every unprejudiced mind.
The copyright of Milton's Paradise Lost became ultimately?
the property of that " left-legged genial-gentleman-book--
seller," Jacob Tonson. By it Tonson realised a large part of •
his very huge fortune ; and so fond was he of having known
the means by which he attained much of his income, that lie
has even let posterity know it, by portraits of himself, still
preserved, where he is holding a copy of his duodecimo edi-
tion of Paradise Lost in one hand, and a bag of money in the
other.

Milton and the family of Milton got in all twenty-eight:
pounds for Paradise Lost. Now let us suppose that the
poet's widow had reserved to herself and family the copyright
of her husband's work, and Mir. Talfourd's Bill had been in
force, in what a different condition of life had the descendants
of Milton been ? There had been no necessity for a benefit
play for his daughter, or of seeking to obtain the humble office
of a parish clerk for his grandson.
It has been calculated that since Burns's death there have
been between ninety and a hundred different editions of his
works. Now suppose that only fifty editions had appeared,
the remuneration for the publication of such editions to the
widow of Burns and his children would have added, if not to
the luxuries, at least to the comforts of life. A moderate
price would not have diminished the demand for Burns's poems.
The widow of Bloomfield applied in vain, it is said, for
parish relief. There is no copyright in The Farmer's Boy,
it has been the property of the public for some years. Surely
if Mr. Talfourd's Bill had been in force Mrs. Bloomfield
would have enjoyed from the sale of that which she has in
justice a right to, enough to keep body and soul together
without soliciting relief from a workhouse.
Mr. Lockhart states, that the passing of Mr. Talfourd's Bill
Hill free the house of Abbotsford from all its incturibre.nee.s!
Where is the estate which poets inherit after death. Is
that which is denied to them to be denied to their children ?
Are authors to be the only unprotected class of men in the
kingdom? Are robbery and piracy to be permitted on the
high seas of literature ? Is fame of itself sufficient reward—is
it food—is it clothing ?
" In lieu of all patrons," writes the author of the Seasons,
" that have been, or are, or will be i❑ England, I wish we
had one good Act of Parliament for securing to authors the
property of their own works. And can it be that those who
impress paper with what constitutes the best and everlasting
riches of all civilized nations, and of all agea, shall have less
property in the paper so enriched than those who deal in the
rags which make that paper."—Letter to Aaron Hill, May
1736. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

P. C.

In another column our readers will find an abstract of
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's proposed Bill on the subject of
copyright, the second reading of which was appointed for
this (Wednesday) evening, though, for some cause which
we cannot explain, we do not see the order in the vote-
paper. Judging from the paragraphs, pamphlets, and
petitions, which the measure has already called forth from
various quarters, we find that the opposition to it is such
as few Bills, in ordinary circumstances, would have any
chance to survive, especially when we look at the reason-
able, determined, and extensive co-operation with which
that opposition is conducted. At this moment our table
is literally covered with the hostile documents alluded to,
emanating variously from booksellers, printers, bookbinders,
paper manufacturers, typefounders, nay, even authors them-
selves—all concurring in the opinion that the learned Ser-
jeant's Bill, though generally admitted to be well
intentioned, cannot pass into a law without pro-
ducing the most serious injury, not only to the parties more
immediately engaged in the mechanical production of hook
property, but also to the very class whose literary labours
it specially professes to protect, and still more to the public
at large, the most paramount interest of all. To Mr.
Serjeant Talfourd, as well as to his opponent: upon this
question, it is highly creditable that not the slightest at-
tempt is made to treat either his measure or his motives
with any thing but respect ; and if, after having given the
matter our most deliberate and dispassionate consideration,
we feel constrained to add our own conscientious dissent
to the learned gentleman's proposals, we trust that, while
expressing our sentiments with all freedom and firmness,
nothing shall escape from us to disturb the good spirit in
which the discussion has hitherto been carried on. At
the same time, the public must be distinctly apprised
that the opposition to this Copyright Bill: among. the
persons best qualified to judge of its merits, is of the
most earnest and serious kind. They deprecate it as au
experiment which will not even bear a trial. They fore-
see in its provisions a most calamitous disturbance, not
only to the vast interests and relations of literary com-
merce as regards demand and supply, but to the in-
vested capital and daily livelihood of many thousands
of our countrymen ; and even with all the reserves
interested
parties which the representations of these
parties must naturally be viewed, cur conviction is that
their reasonings and apprehensions as to the coulmon
injury which this project will inflict upon writers and
readers in general are such as demand loudly that..
Mr. Serjeant Talfourd should abandon his plan, or
not, that the Legislature should peremptorily interdict
The objections adducible against the details of the Bill are
both numerous and insurmountable ; hut, independently of
this, we hold that the fundamental principle upon which it
proceeds is essentially a vicious one, involving not only the
evil of partial legislation in favour of a particular class
(whether for their real benefit, or otherwise, is not at pre-
sent the question), but the establishment of a precedent
which, in its general application to analogous cases, as
equity would require, could only subserve the supposed in-
terests of a limited portion of the community, at the ob-
vious expense of the whole. That the learned author of
lon may work up a very affecting tale respecting the in-
sufficient remuneration received by some of our elder
men of genius for works which now rank among the impe-
rishable literature of the country, occasions us no further-
surprise than that such obsolete cases should be pleaded by
him as an argument for enlarging protective enactments to
later writers, who being already enabled to dispose of their
productions, either wholly or in part, under statutory ad-
vantages and popular demands, unknown to their earlier
predecessors, are neither subjected to injustice nor peti-
tioning for a Parliamentary remedy. It is right that au-
thors should be paid according to the red value of their
publications ; and as that value is not always ascertainable
until their several works shall have been before the public
for some years, it is also right that their exclusive property
in such works should be extended to such a term as, while
furnishing sufficient scope both for establishing their popu-
rity and for reaping its fair profits, shall yet be so restricted
as not to operate injuriously upon the literary enterprise and
advancing intelligence of the country. Now, precisely of this
description is the existing law of copyright, which, without
leaning to extremes in any direction administers equal j ustice to
the individuals who write books, to those who manufacture and
vend them, as well as to the public at large. That under
the present statutes Serjeant Talfourd may be able to pro-
duce certain hypothetical eases, or even a few real ones,
wherein authors have sustained peculiar hardship by the
ultimate harvest of their labours having been reaped by
second hands, is a very good argument why such authors
should exercise a shrewd circumspection in turning their li-
terary rights to the greatest possible advantage, both pre-
; sent and prospective ; but considered as a reason for invest-
ing them with a Parliamentary license, first to feel their way
I to a profitable popularity, and then, by an almost indefinite
monopoly, to spunge an admiring puhlic, as well as to
encroach upon the just rights of parties whose mecha-
nical skill may have been scarcely less conducive to
their eminence than their own talents—this, we say, is pre-
posterous in the extreme. With the sufficient protection
already enjoyed, an author, like any other producer, should
be left to dispose of his articles at the best market price he
can get. If he think his work will be highly prized by
posterity, let him make his bargain, and print copies ac-
cordingly ; and if he deem the terms of an offering nur-
chaser inadequate, let him try the entire trade ; failing all
of whom, the speculation of giving his book to the world
may either be disposed of in part, or retained exclusively
in his own hands. For 28 long years no bookseller or
printer dare venture to invade his copyright. Gene-
rally speaking, the merits of a work are ascertained,
and its principal profits reaped, within the half of the
period ; nor can it be denied, as far as general justice is
concerned, that the rare instances in which the efforts of
talent or the investment of capital have failed to be suitably
requited under the existing law of copyright, are circum-
scribed evils not to be compared with the preponderating
benefits, the literary competition, the fair remuneration, the
extensive mechanical industry, the cheap reading, and the
consequent diffusion of knowledge, so universally and
beneficially prevalent in the present state of things.
Two pamphlets have been published upon this sub-
ject which eminently deserve Air. Serjeant Talfourd's
attention—the one by Mr. Tegg, the experienced
bookseller in Cheapside ; and the other by Mr. Robert
Mudic, whose interest in the question, as the author of
various popular works en moral and physical science, en-
titles his hostility to the Bill to very considerable weight.
Both of these parties condemn the Bill in iota, chiefly
on the twofold ground, that while it must inevitably ope-
rate as a great discouragemeut to cheap and useful
reading, it will utterly fail to benefit the literary pro-
ducers, whose advantage it aims to secure. There is in
Mr. Mudie's pamphlet a good deal of curious information,
though by far the most important part of his remarks is
contained in its latter pages, where he dissects and exposes
the unsoundness of the entire
m ay mpeoasssiubrle
prl.enseanfuture
readers
article,
should the Learned Serjcaut persist ha project, which
is scarcely probable,
. ; but the mean time, as
with some
le of
Alr.
the objectionable nature of the 13111 in some of its pros-
pective operations is shown up with greet conciseness and
precision, both in a Parliamentary petition by the master-
printers, and alsoin a small fly sheet entitled Serjeant
Tal-
fourd's Copyright Bill and the Printing Business, we pre-

fer making a quotation or two from the document last
mentioned and recommend the whole of it to the serious
consideration of the Legislature :
" Not content with the present judicial settlement of the
law of piracy, Mr. Talfourd, in a Bill professing to extend the
term of copyright, declares
.selections, compilations, and
abridgements to be piratical, thus sadly reducing the number
of cheap and really readable books.
" The result in this case is obvious. Cheap and elegant,
because legal, literature will become obsolete, and the hap-
pily obliterated works, from old type, on coarse paper, and in
shabby binding, will be revived. Respectable booksellers will
be ashamed to acknowledge injury from such trashy produc-
tions, and the contraband trader will flourish on the ruins of
the fair dealer, who, by competition, would become the dicta-
tor of taste, and the diffuser of refinement.

" Almost every clause might be proved to be injurious in
itself, and many of them contradictory of each other. One
instance, at present, may suffice to show the injustice that
will be inflicted on the printing business. Clause 19 pre-
vents the free printing, in this country, of any book in copy-
right ; clauses 3 and 4 make the term of copyright to ex-
tend for the author's life and sixty years more, during all
which time only one edition may have been printed ; clause
9 authorises an application to the Court of Chancery, five
years after the present 28 years of copyright (33 years), as
before noticed ; and clause 20 permits the importation from
foreign parts of any book which has not been printed in this
country during any 20 years ! Thus we may have 13 years,
supply of a book from abroad before it can be printed or pub-
lished in any part of the British dominions ! The injury to
printing business is here sufficiently obvious; the advan-
tage to authors, however, is not clear."

Upon the whole, we earnestly protest against this
measure being further proceeded with. It is vicious in
principle, and it is both absurd and unjust i❑ many of its
details. Mr. Mudie, speaking for himself and his brother
authors, says—
" Let Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, if such be his pleasure, pour
out the full vials of his wrath upon us : but for the love of all
that is dear to a heart which can be warmed by science or by
song, let him spare us the honey and the oil' of his most
sedative and sickening commiseration. Let him plead for
'his clients in any style that he lists ; but let him leave the
literary men of his country to that public which are at once
their pupil; and their patrons, and not seek to botch that
which he cannot better."— Times.

A. petition from the Printers and Bookbinders of the
Metropolis is to be presented to-night, against the exten-
sion of Copyright proposed by Mr. Talfourd's Bill. It is
presumed by the petitioners tLat the extension to 60 years
of the vested right of authors in their literary property
from the present limitation of 28 years, will be injurious to
themselves specifically, and generally to the public at large.
We do not concur with them in either proposition. We
have before stated our conviction that the idea
.of any in-
jury resulting either to the public generally, or the trade
individually, from the extension, is equally groundless and
fallacious. But we will close at once with the real merits
of the question. Why is the property of the literary class
to be limited to twenty-eight years ? Why is its posses-
sion to be limited to any number of years ? Is it because
it is so easily acquired? That there is less " wear and tear" in
its acquisition than in that of any other property ? Such
an argument would be intelligible—we should know
how to deal with it. It is not even pretended. It
is admitted that there is as much ingenuity and in-
dustry
employed in its acquisition as of any other
property whatever. Then why is it not to be equally
protected ? We " pause for a reply." The large estates
vested in the landed Aristocracy have been generally
earned by the sword. The estates in copyright, earned by
the intellectual class, have been earned by the pen. Let us
suppose the means of acquisition equally meritorious. Let
us suppose that the energy, the skill, the address, the intel-
lect, the industry, shown by each class, have been equal.
Let us suppose that the estate in copyright or land is
the representative of those rewarded qualities. Then, we
ask of those who propose to limit literary property to
twenty-eight years, to limit the landed property of the
Duke of Northumberland, the Duke of Bedford, the
Duke of Newcastle, the Duke of Buccleuch, and other
magnates. Let them propose that limitation, and we shall
be contented. The idea of injury to the public from the
non-limitation of copyright is ridiculous. The literary pro-
prietors are no more likely to keep their copyrights in
their escritoires than the landed proprietor would be to
let his land became fallow, and refuse to let it on
profitable lease. The fair inference is directly the re-
verse. The public benefits by all encouragement to
improvement. Who would improve his works, or who im-
prove his land, if he were under the conviction that the
capital (or time, which is the same thing), employed on
the improveritents were to be employed for the benefit of
others, into whose hands it was about to pass, and about
whom he cared nothing ? We shall return to this subject.
We shall vigilantly watch the progress of the motion to be
brought forward by Mr. Wakley this evening. We see
no ground for the curtailment of the right of literary men
to the possession of their own hard-earned property, but
one, and that is the ground stated by some Members o f
Patli,:ment on the subject of Mr. C. P. Thomson's mea-
sure for international copyright ; it is, forsooth, for the
benefit of society that the literary classes are robbed. We
admire the morality and modesty of the plea. We see no
other shadow of an argument. They have been helots
and serfs hitherto, and they are to remain so. They are
not to be permitted to realise the profits of their labours.
They are to be visited with the curse upon the Jews :
" This is a people robbed and spoiled, for a prey, and none
say deliver ; for a spoil, and none say restore." It is for
us, and the whole of our brother labourers in the literary
vineyard, to show whether we shall deserve the designation
and the analogy in future, by our own craven submission to
the long-continued perpetration of a derogatory and sub-
stantial wrong.

We have seen nothing and heard nothing to cause
the slightest variation in the clear and perfect conviction
we entertain as to the equitable merits of the question.
The question in reality lies in a nut-shell. The property
gained by the intellectual class through their exertions,
and which is vested in copyright, is as much their property
and ought, according to all the plain dictates of common
honesty ailed common equity, to be equally protected as
the property vested in land or in any other security. So far
from ccncurring with those who are now clamouring against
the extension of this right of property to sixty years, we,
on the contrary, think that there ought to be no limit what-
ever to the right of authors in possessing and transmitting
the property which they have earned. They ought, by every
fair legislative analogy, be enabled to hand it down, unshackled
and unimpaired, to their children and their heirs. If their
equitable right to this extent is to be restricted or
obstructed by any enactment which the Legislature may
dictate, or which the selfish interest of any class or classes
may claim, then we say, let the principle be universally ap-
plied, and let a similar limitation be inflicted upon all
funded and landed property. Fair play is a jewel. We
want to know from the various clamourers for literary re-
striction, whether they will consent to this?—whether they
will propose this ?—and then we will consent to a similar re-
striction on our property, and that of the hard-working and
socially beneficial class to which we belong. Any honest
man must see instantly that there is no more shadow of pre-
tence for limitation in one case than there is for limitation in
the other. The only shadow of pretence that can be alleged
is thatof the footpads who are modest enough to return some
of the stolen property to their victims. It was a law in
ancient Egypt to allow the ingenious robber a third of
the spoil as an encouragement for his ingenuity, provided
he returned two-thirds to the despoiled proprietor. We
have employed the argument ab absurdum in thus calling,
for the cotemporary limitation of funded and landed pro-
perty, in order to bold the glass up to the clamourers for
literary restriction, and to shew them the real dishonesty
of their proposal. Let us come from theory to practice.
We will take two past and two present instances (out of
many examples) in proof of the truth of our argument
as to the injust►ce of limitation ; Sir Walter Scott and Dr.
Southey, Milton and Goldsmith. The heirs and family of
the two last have starved while the copyright of their
works has been making enormous fortunes for others. Is this
endurable, or reconcilable with any principle of honesty ? Dr.
Southey has been labouringfor forty years in the literary vine-
yard. He is understood not to be rich. Is it tolerable that he
should see his own property pass out of his bands after
twenty-eight years, in the middle career of his exertions ?
It is painful barely to refer to the case of Sir Walter
Scott ; we shall merely touch upon it ; but this we are
bound to say, that he need not have broken his heart, as he
did, in honourable exertions to pay his creditors, had not
the depreciation of his property—caused by the limitation
of copyright—prevented a due remunerative relief for the
benefit of his creditors and of his family. Since the above
observations were written, we have received a pamphlet,
" A Proposed New Law of Copyright, of the highest im-
portance to Authors, in a letter to Mr. Seijeant Talfourd,
;by a Friend to Authors." We shall probably make
it the theme and vehicle of some further observations on
this important subject.—Morning Advertiser.

THE LATE ROBBERY AT THE RUSSIAN Am-
BASSADOR'S.—The greatest mystery still envelopes this rob-.
bery, which has created great suspicion, from the difficult and
r7mote situation of the apartment from the entrance in Dover-
street. The domestics have respectively undergone rigid
questioning by the police, but nothing has been elicited that
can implicate any person in the establishment. The stolen
property (besides Bank of England notes and foreign money
to upwards of 230/.), of which erroneous accounts have been
circulated, consists of a small gold snuff-box with a landscape
painting under a glass, a small Russian gold and steel snuff-
box, a reading glass with gold slidings, a gold opera glass, the
maker's name " Denepas, a Paris ;" a small chain with deco-
rations attached (a star of the Order of St. Ferdinand) three
thrquoise shirt-buttons,two ffold epaulettes, likewise a quantity
of papers, memorandums of particular interest to the owner,
Count Charles, his Excellency's nephew. The property
stolen is solely the property of Count Charles.

I SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.
In again adverting to the proceedings reported in yester-
day's Morning Advertiser of the adjourned Court of the
Middlesex Magistrates, " to consider the expediency of
recommending her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill
to limit the opening of houses for the sale of spirituous
liquors to the hours prescribed for coffee-houses and beer-
houses, and to forbid the opening of such spirit-houses
altogether on Sunday mornings, and to empower the Ma-
gistrates to license certain houses for the sale of tea, coffee,
and other unintoxicating refreshments, to be open in the
night time, in situations where they may appear to them
necessary for the reasonable accommodation of the public,
and to suggest such modifications of the existing laws in
regard to public-houses as may appear to them to be ne-
cessary," we are actually at a loss to know in what terms we
can characterise them. That they are inconsistent in every
Possible respect no one can dispute—that they are exceed-
ingly foolish is apparent upon the face of them—that they are
unjust, in drawinga distinction between the rich and the poor,
is self-evident—and that they are calculated to increase
vice, instead of improving the morality of the working
classes, every fifth form school-boy couldprove. The lastre-
solution passed at the previous meeting of the Middlesex
Magistrates was that—
" Your Committee, therefore, submit that it be respectfully
recommended to her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill
to limit the hours for the retail sale of strong beer, wine, and
spirituous liquors, to between six o'clock in the morning and
eleven o'clock at night, and that such houses be cleared of
their guests before half-past eleven o'clock at night ; but on
Sunday mornings that such be not opened before one
o'clock, P. il.
Which, as our readers will remember,' was carried almost
without opposition ; but this resolution required to be
carried out by another, namely—
Provided always, that any person, whether licensed to
sell exciseable liquors in any inn or victualling-house, wherein
the sale of spirituous does not form a prominent part of the
businws therein, or not so licensed, may supply ready-made
tea, coffee, and other refreshments, not of an intoxicating
kind, on his premises on Sunday mornings."
This is one of the most glorious specimens of
attempted legislation that we have ever met with. It
is truly a jewel in its own way. What the " promi-
nent part" is no one can discover. The landlord of a
public-house may sell, were this resolution to form part of
an Act of Parliament, tea, coffee, and unintoxicating
liquors during the whole course of the night, and, during
the day, beer, spirits, and wine ; but who is to be the
judge of which these different ingredients forms the " pro-
minent part" of the business of the house ? Mr. Barber
Beaumont, in allusion to this matter, observed, that " the
Committee, in recommending the resolutions, had proposed
certain measures to put a stop to midnight drunkenness,
often elongatod to the next morning, and that all dram-
shops and tippling-houses should not be opened on a Sun-
day morning." Vain illusion ! Instead of putting a stop
to drunkenness, it would increase it—instead of promoting
morality, it would increase the amount of immorality.
The beer-shops both in town and in country are most noto-
rious receptacles, not only for the sale of spirits, but also
for the smuggling of them, and the reception of thieves
and other disreputable members of the community ; end is
the evil to be increased by joining the less respectable portion
of the coffee-house keepers of London to the vast mass of
beer-shop keepers who are now demoralising the coun-
try ? With regard to " opening on Sunday morning,"
we are aware that there is a difference of opinion in the
trade—one portion of it being for closing public-houses
until one p. m. upon Sunday, and another equally adverse.
• The point is therefore neutral ground ; we have no reason
to find fault with the decision of the Committee, except
that in doing so one law is established for the poor and
another for the rich. To the 7th resolution we make no
objection. It is imperatively called for, and forms a re-
deeming quality in the character of the other resolutions :
" That if any person persists in remaining in any victual-
ling-house, beer-shop, or coffee-house, beyond the times
limited by law, or if in consequence of any disorderly conduct
therein committed, or reasonably apprehended by the keeper
of such house, he be desirous of clearing his house, and any
person refuse to depart on being required so to do, it shall
be lawful for any such victualler to procure the aid of one or
more police constables, or other peace officers, when, if the
said person shall still refuse to depart, it shall be deemed a
breach of the peace, and he shall be taken into custody to be
dealt with according to law."
It is true that the law gives the abovepower, and that any
Licensed Victualler may exercise it, without even the aid
of a direct Act or declaration ; but nothing can be better
than that the authority should be declared. The con-
sideration of the remainder of the resolutions we must defer.
Those upon which we have now commented form but the
minor portion of them.—Morning Advertiser.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved in Com-
mittee on Monday night, that provision should be made for
payment of the pensions that have fallen due during the
last quarter, Mr. Harvey rose, and directed some of his
customary sarcasms against the operations of the Pension-
list Committee, and against the spirit that had animated
Mr. Spring Rice's preliminary inquiries. Mr. Harvey
has, undoubtedly, done good service in directing public at-
tention to any abuses that may exist in the system of
awarding public pensions! There exist, at the same time,
strong reasons for questioning the soundness of the general
views by which Mr. Harvey has been guided on this im-
portant question. The greater or lesser amount of the
Pension-list seems to us a very imperfect test of the merit of
the men, with whom it rests to regulate that particular ap-
plication of the public money! The worthiness, or un-
worthiness of the recipients of the public bounty is, of course,
a matter of ir finitely greater moment. Yet even if we were
at liberty to assume that the larger portion of the money
now voted annually for the purposes of the Pension-
list, was imperfectly merited—still we should not be at
liberty to forget, that reforms, such as those recommended
by Mr. Harvey, in reference to this question, are, at best,
of a delusive nature, in so far as relief to the public is con-
cerned ! If the whole pension list, in fact, were admitted
to he an abuse, the admission would only prove the pen-
sion to be the result—the consequence—of some compre- '
hensive system of abuses. The partial abuses of the pen-
sion list prove, on the same principles, that they spring front
causes operating beyond the circle of the pension list it-
self. Until these general causes of abuse shall be removed,
—to remove, partially, their results, can signify little. If
Mr. Harvey were to succeed in reducing the pension list
within the limits that may seem fitting to his Whig-radical
wisdom, could he prevent the Whigs from squandering,
1 next day, treble the amount saved, in creating and carry-
ing on some jobbing Commission ?—Mr. Harvey is, not-
withstanding, entitled to credit for trying to remove, or
lessen, any proved abuse. If the public bounty has been,
in times past, unworthily bestowed, let it be withheld in
future—or (if such a decision should be found, in some
cases, too harsh) let similar misapplications be avoided
hereafter. Conceding so much, however, to Mr. Harvey,
we can, by no means, concede to him that the exist-
ing pension list is too large in amount—or that it would
be consistent (as he contends) with the truest prin-
ciples of policy, to reduce it from 140,9001. to 70,0001.
annually. In a mighty country like England, with an annual
expenditure of fifty millions, there must always exist large
classes of public servants, for whose modest wants in old
age, it must ever be true economy, on the part of the pub-
lic, to provide. The country will be sure to gain by a
system that tends to check the mean, mercenary, money-
getting spirit that affects more or less keenly, all mercan-
tile communities :—the country will be sure to gain by a
system that tends in short to check selfishness, and to ge-
nerate a purer state of public opinion. No community
ever lost by encouraging a spirit of self-devoting enthusiasm
in its more active members ! There are yet other classes
of men—not exactly public servants in the ordinary accep-
tation of the phrase—even while they minister to the high-
est necessities of the public—for whose wants, it ought to be
the pride of a great countrylike England to make suitable pro-
vision. We allude to men of the higher order of genius—men
for whose peculiar talents there may happen to be no effec-
tual demand amongst their Contemporaries—men, whose
fate it is to live more for posterity, than for the age which
gives them birth. With this highest class of human intel-
ligences must be ranked many great mechanical inventors,
many of those who have discovered the means of creating
boundless wealth, and yet have lived and died in helpless
and unpitied poverty. For these men, it ought to be the
pride of a country like England, to make honourable provi-
sion. The community would
gain mightily by the arrange-
ment—would gain, not merely by the diffusion of a loftier
style of sentiment throughout all ranks, but by solid addi-
tions to the general funds of intellectual and material
wealth. Advocates as we are for all honest economy, still
it seems to us that, providing the objects be worthily se-
lected, the Pension List might be indefinitely augmented, ,
with advantage to the public.—Morning Herald.

By the report which is published in our Supplement
of the " Jamaica Education Society" under the management
of the Baptist Missionaries, it will be perceived that instruc-
tion is imparted by this body of Christians to 2,337 Day, 992
Evening, 7,702 Sunday Scholars, and to 70 Scholars in an
infant school, making in all the grand total of 11,141 persons.
It must be gratifying to all individuals who are interested in
the future welfare of the Colony to observe that among one
class of Ministers alone, so much good is doing; and when we
remember that other Schools, under the fostering care of the
Established Church, the Moravians, and the Wesleyans, have
also been already established, and that the number is to be con-
siderably increased, we rejoice while we contemplate the good
work, and fervently hope that, by God's blessing, the efforts
which are now making to enlighten the minds of our sable
brethren, may be crowned with unlimited success.—Falmouth
(Jamaica) Post.

A public meeting is announced to take place this
day at Alfriston, for the purpose of promoting petitions to
Parliament for the repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act.
Alfriston is an adjunct to the Eastbourne Union, and the
meeting is enpected to be numerously attended..—Brighton
Patriot.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

(From our Second Edition of last night.)
HULL.

Robert Lee, sen., merchant, George-street, was objected
to as having given a bribe to W. Baker.
Baker deposed that at the last election he was working at
Knottingley, and went to Hull for the purpose of voting, taking
a note to Mr. Lee, which had been given to him by another
person at Leeds. He called on Mr. Lee, and asked about his
expenses. Mr. Lee told him he could say nothing about them
until after the election. Witness went to Mr. Lee's house
again the next morning, and received three sovereigns for his
expenses.
'The Committee struck off the vote. _ .

Robert Sargeson, of Cottingham, was objected to, as having
been treated. The voter stated that in the course of the week
before the election two gentlemen from Hull attended at the
house of Mr. Mutch, at Cottingham, and treated the voters of
that place with ale and grog. On the morning of the election
they breakfasted at the same house, and afterwards were con-
veyed to the poll in a coach. In the course of the day they
had some bread and beef at the house of Mr. M'Clennan,
publican, Mylongate. Nothing was paid by the voter for any
of these refreshments.
The Committee thought the evidence insufficient, and re-
tained the vote.
Robert Gibson was objected to on the ground of having
been treated. The case was proceeding when the Speaker
was announced to be at prayers.

KINSALE.
The Committee retained the vote of William Warren.
Harris Fudger was next objected to by the sitting Mem-
ber. on the ground of being a tide-waiter in the Customs.
The vote had not been decided when the Committee ad-
journed.

WICKLOW.
The Committee, after a long deliberation, decided that,
under the Irish Reform Act, they had no power to go into any
investigation of the registry.
Mr. KEATING then said that after that decision it was quite
useless for the petitioners to proceed, and the Committee
then resolved that the sitting Members were duly elected, and
that the petition was not frivolous nor vexatious, nor the oppo_
sition thereto.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 10.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at
Four o'Clock.

SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was brought up frovhe Commons; as was a!so
the First Fruits and Tenths Bil
NEW ZEJLAND.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
South Sea merchants of London, praying for some protection
for the trade to New Zealand. He believed there would be
no such security till an adequate force was stationed there for
the purpose in a man-of-war. He moved that it be referred
to the Committee on New Zealand.—Agreed to.
SLAVERY.

The Marquis of SLIGO presented several petitions from
Stockport, and other places, playing for the unconditional
emancipation of the negroes.
NEW POOR-LAW.

The NOBLE ..argots also presented a petition, praying that
several unions might be allowed to join in building one work-
house.

SLAVERY.

Lord DURHAM presented several petitions, praying for
the emancipation of the negroes.
SLAVERY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord GLENELG after pointing out the alteration made
in the House of Commons on this Bill, moved that the amend-
ments be agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON did not approve of the
omission in one of the clauses of the words " with the advice
of his Council," because he thought it necessary that should
be a check on the Governur. He, however, did not wish to
throw any impediments in the way of the Bill.

After a few words from Lord St. VINCENT, the amend-
ments were an-reed to.

The Bishop of LONDON brought in a Bill for amending
the Act passed for conferring the perpetual patronage of
Churches in the persons by whom they were built. The Bill
was read a first time, and ordered to be committed.
. __

CANADA. - •
Lord GL ENE LG presented a petition from the owners of
estates residing at Montreal, in Lower Canada. Although it
was not numerously signed, it represented, he believed, the
sentiments of a large portion, or nearly the whole of the
British and Irish population of Lower Canada. The petition
which would have been more numerously signed if it had been
thought expedient, expressed the deep regret and indignation
of the petitioners at the late insurrection in that colony. It
stated farther the grievances which the British population
experienced from the Constitution of 1791. The peti-
tioners prayed, as the only effectual remedy against those
grievances, the union of the two provinces of Lower and
Lipper Canada. He (Lord Glenelg), in presenting
the petition, did not hold himself bound by every ex-
pression that it contained. With some of them he
could not agree, but he certainly felt it his duty
to present the petition, both on account of the great import-
ance of the subject and the petitioners themselves. With re-
spect to the union of the two Provinces he had already stated
his opinion on that point upon the discussion of the Canada Bill.
It certainly was true that the separation of the two Provinces
had led to inconveniences to which all were sensible ; and it
V% s true that commercial inconveniences in both Provinces had
followed the separation. At the same time whether a union was
proper or not he would not express any opinion upon it. If
the subject could b., satisfactorily arranged by both Provinces,
he had no doubt that it would meet with the attentive consi-
&ration of Parliament. The petition from Quebec was entitled
to the same tribute of praise, both on account of the characters
of the petitioners, and the importance of the subject. The peti-
tion expressed the same sentiments as the petition from Mon-
treal, and prayed the same remedy. The Noble Lord
begged to recommend the petitions to their Lordships' consi-
deration.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the Protestants and Roman Catholics of a parish in the
County of Cork, prayine. the House to make some enact-
ment on the subject of? tithes in Ireland. The state of
the law with respect to tithes was at present extremely incon-
venient. 'The Noble Duke also presented a petition from a
congregation in Lincoln, for the immediate abolition of
slavery.

PETTY SESSIONS.
The Earl of DE VON brought in a Bill to make further
regulation for the holding of Petty Sessions, and to provide
for the more speedy trial of offenders in certain cases of larceny.
The Bill was read a first time.

Lord LORTON presented a petition from the Protestants
of Cavan praying for the re-establishment of the ten sup-
pressed Bishoprics.
The Haileybury College Bill was read a second time, on
the motion of Lord GLENELG, who said it was a decla-
ratory Act, to continue to the Board of Control the power of
making regulations for the management of the College.

POOR-LAW BILL.
The Earl of DEVON gave notice that shortly after the
recess, his Noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) would bring in a
Bill for the amendment of the Poor-law Bill.
The Bills on their Lordships' table were then forwarded a
stage ; after which the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 10.
The SPEAKER entered the House at the usual hour, but there
being only thirty-eight Members present at four o'clock, the
House adjourned till to-morrow.

It will be seen from a report, which will be found
elsewhere, of the proceedings of the Middlesex Magistrates,
that all the resolutions originally moved in their High Court
of Jurisdiction were carried, with scarcely the shadow of a
shade of opposition. We are not astonished at any thing that
they either do or think of doing; and cannot, therefore, be
surprised that they have set an example of ignorance, and
despotism, and injustice, which their brethren elsewhere will
be but too happy to follow ; but we beg to tell them, that in
passing their resolutions they have assumed a power to which
they have no rightful claim, and that in point of law, as well as
of justice, every Licensed Victualler may drive a coach and four
through them. The report of their proceedings reached us at a
late hour, and we cannot, therefore, for the present, expose
their absurdity in all their grossness—but to-morrow, we shall
endeavour to lay them bare to the public—" naked as they
came into the world"—and despised as they are certain to
leave it.—Morning Advertiser.

LA MORGUE AT PARIS.—YOU pass at once
from the street into a small square apartment, white-washed
and well lighted ; having on one side an open grating, behind
which are three broad planks, supported by trestles, each form-
ing an inclined plane, in order that the countenance of the
)rp3e should be fully exposed ; while along the wall the gar-
ments in which the unhappy victims of murder or suicide were
clad on their reception, are exhibited, for the purpose of iden-
tification. The apartment, or cell, is scrupulously clean, and
even cheerful ; and it is impossible to imagine an establishment
of so melancholy, and indeed awful, a description as La
Morgue, more thoroughly divested of gloom. —The River
and the Desert.

An intimacy of the closest nature had long sub-
sisted between the clerk of a merchant in the Rue Saint
Denis
urgedand
young
ger woman of respectable family. Having in
vain to fulfil his reiterated promises of haeyr
lo
mar-
riage she ceased to hold any communion with him, and con-
tracted a legitimate alliance with a gentleman of honour and
fortune. After her union the young man repeatedly assailed
her by letters, endeavouring to seduce her to violate her vows.
She, however, remained firm to her duty, and repelled all his
advances, till, alarmed that his correspondence might be de-
tected, she wrote last week by the hands of a confidante of
their former intercourse, urging him in the most affecting
terms to desist from his importunities. Through the same
channel the infatuated young man replied that, in order to
comply with her request, he was on the point of putting an
end to an existence which he could no longer endure. The
secret messenger was sent back in all, haste to prevent the
catastrophe, but she arrived too let e--the young man was
found lifeless in his room, having shot himself through the heart.
There are several native lepers in Calcutta, who
follow the occupation of confeet:mners. The public should,
therefore, be cautious in purcb asing sweetmeats, or they will
be apt to bring this loathsome distemper on themselves.—
Parbury's Oriental Herald.

PRICES Or i,ANALS,DOCK STOCKS,

ASSURANCE COMPANIES,&c. &c. &c.

LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 10.
lumber Dividend Price
of per CANALS. per
Shares. Annum. Paid. Share
1,766 7 pet cent. Ashton and Oldharn....Average 97/.188. sh. 135
1.092 4/. Ashby-de-le-Zouch Average 113/. sh. 65
1,260 Basingstoke lOO/. sh. 5
1,005 51. Brecknock and Abergavenny 1501. sh. 100
8,000 1-16 sh. 9/ 6s. Birmingham, 1-16th share 811. & 711. 220
4,000 Ditto and Liverpool June-1301. sh. 100 pd 24f
600 34 Bridgewater and Taunton ...JOU oh. all pd 64
400 4i. Chelmer and Blackwatcr 100/. sh. 102
500 481. Clventry 1001. sh. 745
4.545 Croydon Beverage 311.25.10 d. sh. 3
2,0601 4!. Os. Dudley .., lOOl. sh. 83
..
600 144. Derby 1001. sh. 133
20,000 4 per cent. Danune and Mayne 4ll. 13s. 4d .pd 234
3,575/ 21. Ellesmere and Chester Average 1331. ids. 77
231 46/. Erewash 1001. eh. 700
1,297 281. Forth and Clyde Average 4001.165. oh. 580
.1,600 12/. Grand Junction 1001. sh. 212
4,849 E 1/. Grand Union 1001.3 b 25
1.500 Grand Surrey
20,000/. 4/. per cent. Ditto (optional) Loan' 100/. 70
3,096 Grand Western 1001. oh. all pd
600 131.12 x. 3d. Glamorganshire, Average cost 172/. 13s. 4d. 230
749 101. Grantham 150/. sh. 202
6,238 21. Os. Huddersfield Average 57/. 6s. 6d. sh. 3:
100 Kensington 100 sh. all pd. 10
25,328 11. ss. Kennet and Avon, Average 39/.lBs. 10d. sh 253
2,8973 251. Leeds and Liverpool 100/.3h. 610
545/ 131. Leicester l4O/. sh. 225
1,897 31. Os. Leicester and Northampton...AN er i 3/. 10s. 91
2.400 101. hlonmouthshire 1001. sh. 210
150 10/. Melton Mowbray 1001. oh. 200
500 251. Mersey and Irweli 1001. sh. 565
3,000 11. 10s. Macclesfield 1001. sh. all pd. 52
247 17/. Neath 1001. sh. 325
- lOO/ sh. 630
1,786 30/. Oxford
2,400 5/. Peak Forest AN, ci.ge about 781. sh. 104
1,418 12s. Regent's (or London) Aver. 33/. 16s. Bd. sh. 16
5,669 61. per cent. Itochdale Average 85/. sh. 111
500 6/. Shropshire /251. sh. 138
800 9/. 10s. Somerset Coal 150/. sh. 151 f
3,f001. 4} percent. Ditto bock Fund Stock l2/. 10s. sh. 111
700 40/, Stafford and Worcester l4O/. sh. 710
500 9/. Shrewsbury 125/. sh. 260
300 91. Stourbridge
3.647 21. Os. Stratford-on-Avon ...Average 791.9,. 00. sh. 50
533 15/. Swansea 1001. sh. 250
3,762 11. 15s. Severn and Wye and Raihvay ...AT 35/. sh. 35
2,60018 n. 321. 10s. Trent and Mersey, 1 share 100/. sh. 560
8,140 ... ...... Thames tnd Medway... Aver. 19/. ss. 3d. sh. 2
qooosh.} 100/. sh 265
15/. Warwick and Birmingham
1,000/sh.
9tiO Ile. • Warwick and Napton lOO/. sh. 200
6,000 41.03. Worcester and 13irmingham...Av.78/.81. oh. 794
5,000 255. Wilts and Berko .. Average 67/. 108. Bd. sh. 22
SOO 31, Wyrley and Essington 1251. 811 75
.en Wisbeach lO5l. sh. 45
905 h. Wey and Arms llOl. sh. 224
DOCKS.

t,6008t 33p. c Commercial ,.1001.5h. 56
1,06515 h
495,0671/. ot)e r cL East India Stock 112
3,239,310“. 50s. p.ct. London Stock 01
Ditto Bonds 9'l
1.3.50,000/. 41/. p. ct. West India Stock 1001
2,209 2/. 19s. Bristol
65,3241. 51. per cent. Ditto Notes, various amounts ll3
4352,752 5 per cent. St. Katharine Stock 100
500,000 4i per cent. Ditto Bonds
200.000 4 per cent. Ditto Bonds for 10 years lOO-4
2.500 , .... Deptford Pier •'Ol. sh. 201. pd 11
BRIDGES.

...._
1,000 ll's. Harnmerstmtt ...
50/. sh. 224
7,2:31 Southwark, Old Av. nr. 2s. Bd. sh. 2
1,700 11. 158. Ditto, New, of 7&. per cent. 5Ol. sh. 14
5,000 ......... Waterloo
5,000 18s. Bd. Ditto, Old Annuities of 81. 6O/. pd 18
5,000 16g. 4d. Ditto, New Ditto of 71 40/. pd 174
00,0001. 51. per cent. Ditto Bows llB
5,848 lis Vauxhall Av'rage 701. 10s. 3d. sh. 20

AS,:URANCE COMPANIES.
'2,000 31104 Albion ',t3o/. sh. 501. pd S')
•
50,000 [5.),,e,r, cle51:1 Alliance, British & Foreign 100/. sh. 101/. pd 13-1
50,000 6 per cent. Ditto, Marine 100/. sh. 5/. pd Cf
24,000 gl. per sh. Atlas 501. sh. 5/. pd 14j
1,200 Oh. Si. Birmingham Fire
20,000 41 percent. British Fire 250/. sh. 50/. pd 40
12,000 61. per cent. British Commercial 504 sh. 5/. pd 6
5,000 51. percent. Clerical, Medi, al,&c. Life, ICO/ sh. 2/10s pd 4
4,000 2/ les County 1001. eh. 101. pd 42
20,000 ss. Eagle 5O/. sh. Si. pd 51
200 [IS,NA-3(jielbl:l Economic Lite lOOO/. sh. 2501. pd 375
2,271 225. per cent. European LI t • 00/. sh. all pd 22
50,000 2s. Ditto, New 2O/. sh. 21. pd 1;
1,000,0081. 71. per ct. Globe Stock 151 i
20,000 31. Guardian lOO/. sh. 27j/ pd 34
40,000 Cs. (3d. Hope
2,400 5!. 7s. 6d. Imperial Fire 500/. sh. 501. pd 127
7,500 91. Imperial lite 1001. sh. 10/. pd 10
13,458 4/. per cent. Indemnity Marine 100/. sh. 8/. pi 22
2,020 3! 10s Kent Fire 50!. sh. all pd 82
31. Ditto Life 7O
10,000 !FA. Law Life 1001. sh. 10/. pd 251
5,000 10s. London, Fir.) 251. eh. 12/. 10s. pi lo
3,9(5) 108. London, Ship 25i. sh. 121. 10s. pd 16
1,0e0,0001. ••• ..... Minerva Lifa 100/. sh.
30,0 A :,1. per cent. Palladium Lite 501. sh. 21. pd 218 s 04
50,000 41. per cent. Protector Fire 2O/. sh. 2/. pd 17, Od
2.500 11. Provident Lite 100!. sh. 10/. pd '2O
100,000 ss. Rock Life 20/. ah. 11. pd GI
689,2'201 5/. per cent. Royal Exchange Stock..! 225
6,000 5 per cent. University Life lOOl. ah. Si. pd bi
50,000 4 per cent. United Kingdom Life 2l. pd
JOINT S'IOCK BANKS

25,000 8 per cent. Agric andCumm. of Ireland 251. eh. 10/. pd 14
5,000 Australasia 4Ol. eh. 401. pd 70
10,000 10 percent. Bank of Birmingham sfl. sh. 101. pd 13
10,000 Ii per cent. Birmingham Bank 5Ol. oh. 51. pd 164
0,000 5 per cent. London and LVestminster...loo/ sh. 201. pd 20,
3,000 4 per cent. Lancaster 100/. eh. 104 pd 30
25,000 Liverpool 1001 sh. 10/. pd 23
50,000 74 per tent Manchester and Liverpool] 1001. sh. 15/ pd 194
Discount
20,000 7 per cent. Manchester. 1001. eh. 251. pd 27
20,000 Provincial Bulk of Ireland...loo/. sh. 25/. pd 42
20, 00 National Bank of Ireland ...591. sh. 174/. pd 164
10,000 5 per cent. National Provincial Eng. ...1001. eh. 331. pd 34
10,000 ......... Gloucestershire 5Ol. sh. 104 pc! 20
6,000 10 per cent. Hampshire 501. sh. 5/. pd 9
GAS LIGHT AN 1) COKE COMPANIES.
2,500 115 s 6el Bath 2O/. sh. 101. pd 24
5,01,') ...... ... British 4Ol. sh. 161. pd 214
,n, r 5/.percent./
2,""' hand Br, ss. j Ditto Provincial 90/. sh. 19 d 224
928 5/ lOs Birmingham 5Ol. sh. 93
4,250 `2los Bristol "0 . sh. 36
1,500 3, lOs Brighton 2O/. sh. I
:50 31 IDs Ditto, New 21/ sh. 18/. pd 9
2,471 44 per cent. Brighton General 20/. sh. all pd 17
4,000 41. Continental Consolidated lOO/. 621/. pd 110
1,000 10/. City of London lOO/..h. all pd 198
',WO 61. Ditto, New
11,000 41. 108. Equitable 50/. pd 304
10,1100 24 per cent. Imperial
800 5/. per cent. Isle of Tnatiet 251. sh. 201. pd 20
2,350 6/. per cent. Independent 3O/. sh. all pd 49
9,000 3/. per cent. Phrenix 50/. sh. 39/. pd 214
1,000 41. per cent. Ratcli of
4,000 South Metropolitan 5O/. sh. 101. pd 17
6,200 Si. per cent. United General 5O/. sh. 461. pd 294
240 5/. per cant. Warwick , 501. sh. 50
__. ,_.

400 .5/. per cent Wakefield 25/. sh. 221
12,000 3/. Westminster Chartered
6,000 12s. Ditto New
BCO Yarmouth 201. sh. 18/. pd 9