The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-28 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 27.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
- SLAVE TRADE (PERSIAN GULF) BILL.
_

On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. ANSTEY opposed the second reading of this
Bill. The Bill would certainly militate against our
existing treaty with the powers in that quarter,
as in the opinion of the Noble Lord this treaty was only
valuable inasmuch as it was calculated to secure the
obedience of the Arabian chiefs against whom it was
directed to the Shah of Persia. It would appear by this
that these chiefs were not independent, but that they
were in some way or other under the surveillance of the
Government of Persia. If such was really the case, he
feared that the effect of this Bill would be to increase
the difficulties in oar intercourse with those chiefs, which
at present was unsettled, and had not many years ago
proved both disagreeable and expensive. He was
not anxious to excite a vezata questio, but he
could sot help remembering that the officers of
the navy, able as they had always proved
themselves, were still only men, and he was the
more induced to remember the fact, because he could
not forget another, which was that there were innu-
merable complaints of the merchant service that these
slave-trade treaties continually interfered with their
commercial proceedings. After citing several instances,
which, from their technicality would be unintelligible in
a report, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that
seeing the perfect inutility of the system which had been
adopted on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the
slave trade, he deprecated above all things the carrying
of that system to the eastern seas. They had
a trade there which it was their indispensable
duty not only to protect but to encourage,
and feeling this ho conceived it to be his duty to move
that this Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Sir ZDWARD COLEBROOKE also deprecated this
attempt to carry into the eastern seas a system which
had so lamentably failed on the coast of Africa. It was
likely to involve us in most unpleasant altercations in
that quarter of the world. Then, if it was to be adopted,
who was to pay the expense. He surely would not
throw it upon the East India Company, who were quite
incompetent to bear it; but expense there must be, and
somebody must pay, and this, if not the other, was a
matter which well deserved consideration.
Colonel THOMPSON said that he, if any one, could
throw light upon the subject, for he it was who had ne-
gotiated the treaty with the Arab chiefs, in which the
slave trade was declared to be piracy. This was no new
matter, for it had been known and considered as long
since as the year 1820. Then, with regard to the cases
of conscience, which the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Anstey) had made out, he assured him that he might
make himself perfectly easy, for these Arab chiefs, of
whom he was so much afraid, were not slave dealers at all.
In negotiating with these chiefs he had hinted to them
with the greatest delicacy that it was the wish of the
English Government that the slave• trade in the Gulf
should be declared piracy. A ghastly laugh ran round
the circle of diplomatists, and they all exclaimed, " Ca-
pital! capital!" and he soon discovered that they who
never had been slave-traders considered it a capital joke
that the favourite pursuit of an old ally of ours, of whom
they were extremely jealous, should thus be declared
piracy. He had the treaty in his pocket, and could
produce it to the House if it were necessary. He should
support the Bill.
Loyd PALMERSTON said that the sympathy of this
country, withregard to the slaves whoso relief was con-
templated in this Bill was doubly called for by the fact
of their being principally
thAbyssinian Christians. With
regard to the chief with
concluded, it had been doubtedh whtehthee trretahteievs were
inbedeen
pendent or not. There was not the slightestwdoubt about
it. It was absurd to say that the feelings of Eastern
potentates
E stern
potentates were in favour of the slave trade when
they had the Shah of Persia, the Imaum of Muscat,
, and other Arabian chiefs_ joining in a treaty to put

it, down, and when the Sultan liad just abolished the I
slave-market at Constantinople, and sent witnesses
from Constantinople to Malta to depose against a
Maltese who had been tried for trading in slaves on the
coast of Tripoli. This measure would not entail any
additional expenses on the country, it would be only
necessary to give powers to the vessels on that station to
carry into effect the agreement which had been entered
into with the Imaum of Muscat.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether there
was any likelihood of a better understanding being arrived
at with the Court of Brazil with regard to the slave trade.
The instance of that country ought to be a sufficient
example of the inexpediency of interference by the British
Government with other countries to put down the slave
trade. He should support the amendment of his Hon.
and Learned Friend.
Captain PECHELL said that in all matters connected
with the slave trade he pinned his faith on the Noble
Lord's conduct, and he should certainly support him in
this Bill.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he certainly agreed with
the inadequacy of the means employed in putting down
the slave trade. He was certainly surprised to see the
present Member for Ycughal opposing any measure for
abolishing the slave trade, since one of his (Mr. J.
O'Connell's) chief recommendations to that constituency
had been an uncompromising hostility to that infamous
branch of traffic. He should support the Government in
this Bill.
Mr. E. DENISON appealed to the report of the
Committee of the House on the slave trade, which stated
that naval intervention was quite inefficient to put down
the slave trade. That, in his opinion, was quite suffi-
cient to justify him in opposing this Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not consider that the
passing of this Bat would at all commit the
House. The report of the Committee and the evidence
given before it would certainly form matter for serious
consideration to her Majesty's Government during the
next session. But he must also remind the House that
the report was not an unanimous report, that it was
only a majority of one which decided the report.
The difficulty on this subject in the Committee, whether
the means adopted were sufficient for the suppression of
the slave trade, and, in reply from the Committee, the
only answer the Government received were some vague
generalities, condemning the system. The Government
were anxious to put down this detestable slave trade,
and only desired to obtain such assistance as would re-
duce the expense and increase the efficiency of the sys-
tem which they had adopted.
Mr. HUME said that there were
.many objections to
yaguopnper.essinng
histh eosplianvi
opinion
n tradethat
fcaarrtrhyeirn
system, so far from lightening the miseries of the slave
trade, only tended to aggravate its horrors. And when
gthatnheit s 3
h.satdemalrefoard
they had the fact before them that not less than 500
human beings had during the last year been thrown
overboard, in consequence of the pursuit of our cruisers,
he was convinced that no efforts whatever could be suf-
ficient to mitigate the evil.

Mr. BERNAL said that, in his opinion, the question
respecting the system of putting an end to slavery on
the coast of Africa, and in the Persian Gulf, stood upon
a very different basis. In the Atlantic it was necessary
to blockade a coast some thousands of miles in extent;
whereas it was ouly necessary to close the mouth of the
Persian Gulf, and the whole of the object was ac-
complished.
Mr. ANSTEY was anxious to explain the way in
which his Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Colonel
Thompson) had misunderstood him, but was interrupted
by the impatience of the House, and strangers were
ordered to withdraw. The Hon. Gentleman, however,
declined to divide the House, and on our re-admittance to
the gallery we found him moving the first of the other
amendments of which he had given notice. None
of these amendments touched the principle of the
Bill, and were only intended to show the technical
effect of the phraseology of the Bill, and which
was, as explained by Lord Palmerston, proved
to be perfectly consistent with the object of the
Bill. The only one of any importance was the following:
—After " Admiralty,",in line 8, page 5, to insert, " Pro-
vided always that, in applying so much of the said Act
or Acts as relate to the indicia or evidences of slave
trading, regard shall be had by all such courts respec-
tively to the general habits and customs of the said tribes,
and of their respective countries, with reference to the
build and equipment of ships." He trusted that the Noble
Lord would assent to this amendment.
Lord PALMERSTON said that so far as the mere
build and outward appearance of vessels was concerned
there could be no objection to the motion, nor any
necessity for it either. The grand rule in those cli-
mates was, to ascertain whether there was an excess of
food or water on board any vessels for the supply of the
crew, allowing for all contingencies.—(Hear.)
After a few words frrom Captain PECHELL, the
amendment was negatived without a division.
The other amendments were also negatived, and the
Bill was then read a third time and passed.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.—CONSIDER-
ATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that before he pro-
ceeded with this Bill he would wish the House to have
the benefit of the Speaker's advice as to the course
which should be taken by that House with regard to the
Lords' amendments to this Bill.

The SPEAKER proceeded to state the practice of
the House. The rule was, that the Lords could delibe-
rate and propose amendments on any Bill sent up to
them by this House, provided that they did not
interfere with the amount or disposal of any rates, or
with the persons who had to collect such rates. This
rule had been strictly adhered to up to the time of the
passing of the Irish Municipal Bill of 1834, when a con-
siderable infringement of these privileges took place.
The Irish poor-laws of 1838, and of 1847, also furnished
opportunities for like infringement ; and it was for the
House to consider whether they would consent to accede
to these precedents, and waive their privileges, or
whether they would assert them.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that on the ground
of precedent the House was bound to assert its privi-
leges. He thought that the Legislature would be car-
ried on more amicably by the two Houses if this House
consented to waive its privileges in this case, and pro-
ceeded to discuss the amendments which had come down
to them from the other House.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was with very great
reluctance that he had ventured to differ from his Noble
Friend on a point involving a question of such import-
ance. But he could not discharge his duty conscien-
tiously if be did not state to the House his opinion on
this point ; and in doing so he thought it was right to
endeavour to separate the constitutional question en-
tirely from the merits of the enactment which had come
Sown from the other House. They had had a declara-
tion from the Speaker as to what the privileges of
the House were, and on what occasions they had been
interferred with. In the poor-law of 1848, the Lords
entirely changed their area of taxation, and caused the
rates to press heavier upon certain parties. The ques-
tion was now for the House, whether they would consent
to waive their privileges as they had done in the case
cited by the Speaker; but he would ask of them if they
consented to do so, what claim would they after-
wards have to resist the interference of the Lords
in a question of local taxation ? It would be
better, if they decided to waive their privileges
in the present instance, at once to give up all claim to
such privileges ; for they would never again have a
chance of asserting it. This question was not a new
one ; it had been referred to a Select Com-
mittee of the House last session, and the
opinion of that House had been decidedly
against any relaxation being given to the other House.
Now, did the alterations which bad been made in this
Bill, in the whole of the clauses which regulated
the distrainment for arrears of interest and the sale
of estates, justify this House in waiving its privi-
leges 1' Well, supposing they were to waive
thosetomshuteehrneedr
Government
caovd
taenuorrscrnmeiyet
niaonnkeftgnet
stho saandlota large
Parliament,eu Billur
aen fsdtaohorcufar
which
sacrifice?—(Hear,
undoubted
wouldtp(hr r vye majorityi
al
we after
ferhtsee ,e were
rarriea:cl lotHmh beee_
had no personal feeling whatever in the matter; but be-
fore they came to a decision on so important a matter
he trusted that the Noble Lord—and he was sure
their object was the same—would carefully consider
the result of the proceeding which he was
about to take—(Hear, hear)—for it was his impression
that the privileges which they possessed should not be
lightly sacrificed when the conjuncture of affairs was
particularly important.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that there could be no
question whatever as to the importance of waiving the
privileges of tire House upon any occasion, especially
upon this. But yet whilst asserting this, and while per-
fectly concurring with the lion. Gentleman opposite
(Sir James Graham) in the necessity of upholding their
privileges, he still did think that at this particular mo-
ment it was not, in his opinion, either wise or expedient
to assert them so strongly at the present moment.
Lord Canterbury, when he sat in the chair which
the Speaker now occupied, had laid down
the doctrine, that while no secession should
be made from the ground which they were entitled to
occupy on any matter which concerned money levied
for the public service, yet that on questions which merely
affected rates levied in local districts, for local purposes,
they might, without any constitutional danger, assent to
alterations which were made in the Lords. Yet he care-
fully guarded against the waiving of any general prin-
ciple, and, therefore, it was that he (Sir G. Grey) was
glad the general motion of the Member for the University
of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) had not been adopted. On
the present occasion, therefore, he thought there was no
danger whatever, and he trusted, therefore, that the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord would be adopted.
After a few words from Mr. F. FRENCH in support
of the motion,

Mr. HENLEY said, that as one of the members of
the Committee he felt bound to say that those alterations
of the Lords would be greatly detrimental to the Bill,
and if they were to waive their privileges now they
would
nyncfuuutt
umtrbeEeospgidoosutihnt
idautnaatl
as
oag theemt he
House
rob feu' irsoeomof
fut
hLnadoter
ord
sot. hme
mi
tfteeeet
he also felt bound to give his most strenuous opposition
to the motion of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell).
The Lords had reduced the area of taxation, and in
other respects had entirely taken the virtue of the Bill.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN said, that although the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had found fault with the
arrangement which was proposed by the Government,
he had provided no alternative whatever.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that, in his opinion, al-
though it was unwise to waive a privilege, which was at
any time inconvenient, it was just now expedient, if not
indispensable for the welfare of Ireland.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. E. DENISON put it to the Right Hon. Baronet
whether when this House was placed beside the House of
Lords, and a rivalry even occurring between the two
Houses,
anythingthe re wasto any
fearfrom the encroachments of
probability
have the
House of Lords?

Sir J. GRAHAM said that the course which he
should suggest would be to take precisely the course which

they had pursued yesterday in their two last votes. In
one case they had decided to take the Lords' amend-
ments into consideration that day three months—(Hear,
and a lsugh)—in the other, that of the Borough Bill, it
had been read a first and second time, committed, read a
third time and passed.—(Great laughter.) That was
precisely the course which he would advise them to pursue.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the
Borough Bill was for the purpose of relieving
some boroughs from certain local burdens when they
were subject to peculiar county-rates.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Sir J. Graham.) By an arrangement between the
magistrates of Warwickshire and the authorities of
the borough of Birmingham, the Bill was intro-
duced as a public Bill atter it had been thrown out by
the House of Lords as a private Bill, and that was the
reason why it was passed so hastily, the object being to
facilitate its course early in the next session.
Mr. V. SMITH totally differed from the whole of the
observations which had been made in favour of waiving
the privileges of the House, and if the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), divided
the House he should certainly vote along with him.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would not touch upon the con-
stitutional question; but the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-
site had suggested that the House should follow the
same course as it had done in the case of a Bill intro-
duced with regard to Birmingham. He must explain
that the cases were quite different. If the House per-
sisted in asserting their privileges, there was little doubt
but that the Bill would not pass this session.
Mr. SPOONER said that by waiving their privileges
he did not see that any delay would be saved.
The Lords would necessarily have to discuss whatever
amendments this House made, and there would be quite
as much time taken up.
Mr. SADLEIR should support the Right Hon. Baro-
net (Sir James Graham) if he persisted in a division.
Colonel DUNNE said` that the question for Irish
Members was, whether for the sake of a few clauses,
they should be content to sacrifice their privileges.
Certainly the whole Bill itself was not worth it, though
the Lords' amendments were certainly the best part of it.
Sir D. NORREYS thought that great thanks were due
to the Right Hon. Baronet for having raised this ques
tion of privileges. H.
,e did not think that any great
it
harm would he done this Bill were delayed until next
session. He should propose that these amendments be
di.scussed this day three months.
Mr. MONSELL would not touch upon the merits of
the Bill before the House, or of the Lords' amendments,
but he thought that if the House was determined to as-
sert its privileges it would be impossible for the Lords
to legislate on poor-laws at all.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the House must now de-
termine whether the House cf Lords should interfere
with the poor-law legislation or give it up altogether. It
the House determined to assert its privileges, he should
consider it hopeless to introduce any measure at all; fisr he
could not undertake to introduce any Bill which should not
be open to amendment in the House of Lords. As for
himself he thought that the Irish Pour-law did not re-
quire any alteration. He was quite satisfied with it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was very difficult to pre-
serve the unanimous working of two branches of Legis-
lature without some little concession being occasionally
made. He, for his part, would much rather come to
something definite as to the privileges of this House than
establish innumerable precedents, because in time
.the
other branch of the Legislature would assume as a right
the privilege of interfering with local taxation;
they would have to draw a line between
poor-law taxation and other local taxation, and
he would indeed be a clever man who could do it. And
they must consider that they were asked to surrender
their privileges after the head of the Executive had told
them that he considered the Irish Poor- law needed no
amendment. He should certain support the amendment
of the Member for Mallow.

Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR said that his impression
was that the Right Hon. Baronet had quite misunder-
stood the Noble Lord in his supposition as to that Noble
Lord's statement with regard to the poor-law of
Ireland. He stated his own impression that what
the Noble Lord intended to say was, that
although he was satisfied with the principle of the
Irish Poor-law, yet he believed that its machinery might
be very greatly improved, and that was the reason why
be asked them to agree to the amendments of the Lards.
And would they then interpose a vain plea of privilege
to intercept that advantage which the Bill was likely to
produce to the country? Let them remember that while
they mere talking of privilege there were parties for
whose benefit these privileges were sustained, and
whilst they were talking those parties were suffering.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said that he never up to that
moment felt the benefit of holding his tongue
(Laughter.) Why the Noble Lord had cut all their
throats.—(Renewed laughter.) He had intended to
have given, if not his vote, at least a gentle
opposition to the Government, but here, after five months
of legislation, they were told that the Irish poor-law
required no amendment. It was evident that they had
all been bamboozled, and that the whole of this matter
was a mere pretence—(Hear)—and he should give to
the motion his most strenuous opposition.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that he had intended
to speak in accordance with the view of Mr. Shafto Adair.
Mr. HUME said that they, the Members of the House
of Commons, were the representatives of the nation,
while the House of Lords only represented themselves,
and if either House gave way in a collision it ought to be
the House of Lord,.

Sir J. WALMSLEY said that if there was any dif-
ficulty in the two Houses working harmoniously toge-
ther, it was evident that that House required a reform,
and a very great reform too; and he trusted that the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would persevere
with his motion. He should certainly vote with him.
Sir /I. W. BARRON slid, that if the views of the
Honourable Member for Montrose were to be adopted,
it was a mockery altogether to send a Bill respeeting
poor rates up to the House of Lords at all, and by far
the better principle would be to adopt a resolution not to
send those 131113 up at all.—(Hear.)
Sir J. YOUNG said, that, in his opinion, the idea of
the encroachments of the Lords was a perfect chimera.
The Members of the House of Lords were, in his opinion,
from their position both as legislators and as large land-
owners, more fitted to deal with this question than the
House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSM AN said that it appeared by the Noble
Lord's declaration that after five months' legislation they
were called upon, for a supposed advantage, to give up
a great and important privilege. If there were to be a
large advantage to be gained by this, he would be
one of the first to assent to it.—(Hear, hear.) Such,
however, according to the intimation of the Noble
Lord, was not the case. They had had a tub thrown
to them, and a tub had been thrown to the Committee
up-stairs, and they had been amused during the whole of
these months' discussion for nothing.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the consideration of the Lords' amendments 111
Against it... ... ... 62
Majority for the Government —49

tajo. ••• ..•
The House then adjourned till Half-past Six o'clock.

The House re• assembled at a Quarter-past Six.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Lords
amendments in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, omitting
clauses 1 and 2 of Commons Bill, were agreed to.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that the
Lords' amendment, inserting clause 5 of Lords' Bill,

Mr. O'GORMAN MAHON said that he rose simply
to make an announcement, which he believed to be of the
utmost importance, and would fill with gladness the
hearts of thousands in this country and in Ireland. With-
out further preface he would read a communication he
had received from a distinguished chemist, Mr. John
Walker, M.D., of South•place, on the subject:—" I beg
to acquaint you, that a discovery has been made in Ire-
land which will materially enhance the value of landed
property in that country. It consists in the aptitude of
its millions of peat acres to produce at trifling expense
(little more than of manual labour) oil naptha, naptha-
line, parafine, muriate of ammonia, vicomar, pittical,
candles, pitch, tar, and other principles, by a new pro-
cess of distillation. These several materials were sub•
mitted to me some months ago by Mr. Owen, and from
what I have seen and tested, I have no hesitation in
pronouncing it one of the greatest discoveries of the
age, and one which will become a source of unbounded
wealth. I can easily let you have a list of the several
products derivable from the distillation; and you have
my permission to give this most important matter
whatever publicity you please. Some of the products
have been seen by, I believe, the Marquis of Lans-
downe and others here, and I know the Irish Court
are already cognizant of the discovery." The most
unequivocal testimony, both to the accuracy of the
science involved in this invention and the facility of its
practical application, had been furnished by Mr. Pei-
louse, of Paris (in whose laboratory the patentee made
his preliminary experiments and perfected his discove-
ries), whose reputation combined the highest attributes
of science with eminent skill in application. Similar tes-
timony had been afforded by Professor Leibig, Dr.
Hodges, Professor of Chemistry in the Belfast Institute,
and by many other eminent chemists who had been con-
sulted on the subject. Under the sanction of these au-
thorities the capitalists who preliminarily undertook the
investigation of Mr. Reece's invention, had within the
last three months erected experimental works in Ire-
land on a scale of sufficient magnitude to test its merits.
Their success had been complete in obtaining the pro-
ducts enumerated by the patentee, and in establishing
the practical value of the discovery.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman then produced what he termed a
spermaceti candle made from the oil extracted from the
peat, and handed it to Lord John Russell across the table
for examination. He appealed to a Noble Lord (Lord
Ashley) to state what he knew of Mr. Owen, the gentle-
man to whom they were mainly indebted for this inte-
resting information.
Lord ASHLEY said that he could bear testimony to
the high character of Mr. Owen. one of the gentlemen
upon whose authority the truth of these statements
rested, and who had practically carried out the experi-
ment. A more discreet, sober, and high-minded man,
or a person more capable of carrying out these experi-
ments, he did not know. To make sure that the infor-
mation conveyed to him (Lord Ashley) was correct, he
requested Mr. Owen to call upon him that morning, and
he repeated his experiments, so that this was not a mere
matter of theory, but of actual experiment.—(Hear,
hear.) He had invested considerable capital, and made
large
,profits, by his operations in these peat bogs.—
(Hear, hear.) All he desired was to do good to Ire-
land, and to show the people how they could make a
profit:of the soil. Out of 100 tons of peat,which would cost
81., with labour expended upon it, which would cost 81.
more, making in the whole an expenditure of 201., this
would be the issue of the operations. The produce of all the
processes would be as follows:—carbonate of ammonia
6301b5, soda 2,1181b5., naptha 30 gallons, candles 6001b5..
that was of ingredients out of which candles could be
made superior to spermaceti oil, 600 gallons common
oil, and other chemical ingredients to a large extent;
and he showed him by calculation out of every 100
tons of peat a profit of 311. 16s. Bd. He added, that
when the peat was cleared away, the oil was fertile

beyond description, being saturated with ammonia.
Even if one-half-of what he stated was true, something
very great was about to be effected, and persons now
owning 100,000 acres of Irish bog would find it far more
valuable than the whole region of California. He de-
sired to state again, that he had the fullest reliance as
to the high character of his informants.—(Hear.)
Mr. P. SCROPE said that if what had been stated
by the Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord opposite
was true, he should deeply regret his motion for taking
possession of the waste lands of Ireland had not been
carried, because if they had done so it would have been
easy to pay off the national debt.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the amendments under consideration, having
opposed the maximum rate, he could not be expected to
regret that it had been rejected by the other House.
But at the same tirae that being in the estimation of the
Government the best mode of aiding the distressed
unions, he wished to know what was to be done now
that the maximum clauses were struck out. He feared
that as the House had rejected all the constructive and
auxiliary measures he had proposed, that the striking
out of these clauses would inflict upon these unions a
vast and intolerable amount of misery. His opinions on
this subject had never varied. Twelve years ago be had
predicted what would be the effect of passing such a
poor-law as they had since done, and his predictions had
been fully verified by the actual working of that law.
He felt, therefore, justified in calling attention to the
measures he had so often recommended, namely, the re-
productive employment of the able-bodied poor in those
permanent improvements, such as arterial drainage and
similar works, which would open up the country to
labour and capital. If two millions instead of two
hundred thousand pounds had been spent on arterial
drainage, it would have been most beneficial, not only to
the people and landlords of Ireland, but also to the tax-
payers of England.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE expressed his regret that the Go-
vernment had given up the principle of the maximum
rate. He thought that principle was a just one, and it
certainly did surprise him to find, after supporting that
principle in common with a majority of the Irish Mem-
bers, that the Government had abandoned it. He could
not think this was an amendment on the existing law,
and the conduct of the Noble Lord in first taking the
subject out of the hands of the Irish Members, and then
abandoning the principle of his own measure, certainly
gave him as much surprise as regret. Ile felt perfectly
satisfied that the workhouse test could not be applied in
Ireland, and that if they were to give up the futile at-
tempt to enforce it, the cost of poor-law administration
would be much reduced. He protested against the with-
drawal of the clause, which contained a principle that
would have been extremely valuable in Ireland.
Mr. H. GRATTAN observed that one thing was per-
fectly certain, namely, the poor-law had been a complete
failure in Ireland. So far from having had the effect
they anticipated—that of causing landlords to employ
the people—it bad had the very reverse effect. Many
landlords had laid down their land in grass which
was formerly arable. They had, in fact, taken away
all stimulus to continue the usual agricultural opera-
tions in Ireland—butter, bacon, wool, and corn, had
follen in price, and they might depend upon it that
they were decidedly mistaken in supposing that the
poor-law would act as a permanent measure of relief.
For his own part, he believed that no measure whatever
would do any good to that country, except the plan he
had so ofte❑ urged, namely, a resident gentry, living
among the people from whom they drew their rents, and
spending their incomes in encouraging the industry of
the people and the improvement of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the Government would have done
much better if they had withdrawn the Bill altogether,
and have called the Irish Members together, to devise
means for sending back the absentees to Ireland.

Mr. F. FRENCH supported the proposition of the
Noble Lord for agreeing to the Lords' amendments, be-
lieving that those amendments were in accordance with
the wishes of the Irish people.
The amendments, omitting clauses 1 and 2 of the Corn •
mons' Bill, and inserting clause 5, were then agreed to.
Clause 6 was disagreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that they should agree
to the Lords' amendment, omitting clause 10, as they
had omitted the clause imposing a maximum rate.
Sir H. W. BARRON thought the clause ought to be
restored. The property rated to the support of the poor
was quite insufficient to -carry out the principle at-
tempted. lle begged to move that they should disagree
to the amendment.

Mr. SADLIER urged the Hon. Baronet not to press
the House to a division.

Mr. O'FLAHERTY thought the annuitants ought to
pay their proportion of the rate.
Mr. W. H. BROWN withdrew his amendment, and
the Lords' amendment was agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that they should
agree to the Lords' amendment, inserting clause 10 of
the Lords' Bill, with an amendment omitting the word
" resident" in line 6, page 8.
Mr. AUGUSTUS STAFFORD moved the omission
of the clause.

After a short discussion, in which a number of Mem
hers took part,

Mr. AGLIONBY said it seemed to him, after the
conflicting opinions he had heard expressed by the
Irish Members, that the best thing they could do would
be to omit the clause altogether.—(Hear.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
Fur the clause 60
Against it ... ... 25
Majority ... ... —35
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Sir G. GREY moved disagreement with the Lords'
amendments omitting clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19. no
hoped the Rouse would agree to retain these clauses.
After some discussion the House divided, when there
appeared in favour of the Lords' amendmen)ts to omi
clauses 16, 17, and 18—
Ayes
Noes

Majority ~.

... 22
... -59

Lord J. RUSSELL moire,' to agree to Lords' amend-
ment, inserting clause 18 of Lords' Bill, which was agreed
to; as was clause 19, with a verbal amendment.
It was then agreed to insert clauses 20 and 21 of the
Lords' Bill.

On the motion to disagree with the Lords' amend-
ment, inserting clause 22 of the Lords' Bill, some dis
cussion took place as to the difficulty of obtaining infor-
mation as to the rating under the clauses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that by the
17th Geo. 11. every ratepayer had a right, on the pay-
ment of a specified sum, to have a copy of the rate-book,
but this clause did not provide for such a copy, and only
gave the power of obtaining an account of what was due
front each ratepayer. In order to do this the rate-books
would have to be taken from the collector, and thus the
collection of the rates would be stopped.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but the motion
to disagree with the clause was ultimately carried with-
out a division.

The Lords' amendments, inserting clauses 23, 24, and
25 of the Lords' Bill, were agreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved to disagree with the
Lord' amendment inserting clause 27 of the Lords' Bill.
A conversation arose, in the course of which
Sir G. GREY stated that the clause would ope❑ the
door to colluSion between the boards of guardians and
ratepayers, by which the rates for emigration might be
substituted for the rates intended for the bona fide sup-
port of the poor. The rate for emigration was intended
to be additional, not supplementary, to the poor rate.
The motion was ultimately agreed to without a divi-
sion, as was clause 29 of the Lords' Bill.
On the motion to agree to so much of the Lords'
amendment, inserting clause 30 of the Lord,' Bill, as
was contained in the proviso, commencing line 10 of page
18, and ending line 31 of the same page, and to disagree
with the rest of the clause.

Colonel DUNNE declared his intention to divide the
House against the whole clause.
After a desultory discussion,
Sir H. W. BARRON said he should support the Hon.
and Gallant Member (Colonel Dunne), for this clause
was distinct and different from the English law.
Mr. MONSELL supported this opinion.
The House then divided:—
For first part of clause 30 ... 100
Against it 26
Majority for agreeing to first part —74
Colonel DUNNE moved that the House divide on the
31st clause

The division took place, when there appeared—
For the disagreement on this clause... 103
Against it 24
Majority for Lord J. Russell ...-79
The 32d clause of the Lords' Bill was also disa-
greed to.

The 33d clause of the Lords' Bill was agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

THE HUNGARIAN REFUGEES.—On Monday evening
next the members of the Apollonic Society will give a
Miscellaneous Concert, in the hall of the Literary
Institution, John-street, Fitzroy-square, in aid of the
fund now being raised for the Hungarian Refugees at
Folkstone, on which occasion they will be assisted by
the following ladies and gentlemen, who have generously
given their services:—Miss Norman, Miss Leslie, and
Mrs►. Jennings ; Mr. H. E. W. Bonner, Master
Frank Bonner, and Mr. J. Dobson Collet. The
Hungarian Singers will also be present, and perform
several of their celebrated national songs and churusses,
being their last appearance in London previous to their
departure for Ireland.
SUDDEN DEATH.—An inquest was held on Wed-
neiday, before Mr. Wakley, in the library of Middlesex
Hospital, respecting the death of Mr. John Robinson,
aged 67, of Nuneaton, Warwickshire, a gentleman pos-
sessed of great wealth, including large estates in the
counties of Leicester, Warwick, and Stafford, who died
suddenly in Regent-street, under the following singular
circumstances.—Deceased had arrived in London on
Monday last, in company with Mr. W. Shelton, one of
his tenants. They had during the day visited the Na-
tiocal Gallery, Westminster Abbey, the Polytechnic,
&c., having only partaken of a pint of sherry between
them. After leaving the Polytechnic, they had proceeded
as far as the Quadrant, when deceased suddenly fell
backwards ; on endeavouring to raise him he was found
to be dangerously ill, and on a police. constable coming
up, he was placed in a cab, and conveyed to the above
hospital. On arriving there, from the evidence of Mr.
Corpe, the house surgeon, he was quite dead, doubtless
from disease of the heart, called the breast pang. Mr.
W. Nason, of Fleet-street, surgeon, said he had known
deceased for many years. Witness's brother was his
medical attendant. Deceased was a healthy and tem-
perate man, and would, but for this melancholy affair,
no doubt have called upon him. Deceased was subject
to a pain i❑ the breast, with which he wes frequently
seized when out shooting or engaged in violent exercise.
There was no reason to suppose that his death had been
other than natural. Two nephews of the deceased,
who were present, concurred in the latter opinion, and
the jury accordingly returned a verdict of " Natural
Death."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
V/CP, • CHANCERY COURT, July 27.
(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.)

ATTORNEY- G ENEBAL V. GIBBS AND ANOTHER-ST.

STEPHEN'S, WALBROOK„

This was the petition of Charles E. Martins, of Back-
lersbury, and John Lucking, of Walbrook, who dc•
scribed themselves as being churchwardens of St. Ste-
phen's, Walbrook; and of B. Horner, of Bucklersbury,
of Budge-row, and Frederick Izant, of Bucklersbury,
who were described as overseers of the same parish. It
prayed that two sums, the one of 1,0044 13e. 10d. Bank
Annuities, and the other of 1,4611. 6s. 9d. cash, might be
paid to the petitioners as the churchwardens and over•
seers of the parish, to be applied by them towards pay-
ment of certain debts of the parish; that the receiver ia ho
had been appointed in the cause might be directed to pay
to the petitioners, as such churchwardens and overseers,
and to their successors for the time being, the whole of
the rents and profits of certain freehold premises, except
one-third of them, arising from the parsonage-house, to
be paid and applied from time to time by them for the
use and benefit of the parish in aid and relief of the
poor-rate; and that the petitioners, as such church •
wardens and overseers, and their successors for the
time being, might be at liberty to attend before the
Master, and upon all proceedings under the order of
the 11th of March last, for the appointment of
new trustees of the freehold premises. The pe-
tition was presented upon the information filed in
1844, in which Mr. W. F. Rock was the relator, and Mr.
Alderman Gibbs and the Rev. Dr. Croly were the de-
fendants. The petitioners stated that, in consequence of
the parochial liabilities, they had been obliged to levy
two rates for the poor, the one at is. 61 the other at
Is. 9d. iu the pound, and this had produced some ex-
citement and resistance in the parish, who were aware
of the sufficiency of the funds belonging to the parish
to meet their liabilities ; that the debt duo to the City
of London Union for the care of the poor, and to other
creditors, amounted to 3,000/. and that the City of Lon-
don threatened them with proceedings.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Biggs argued the case in sup-
port of the petitioners, and observed upon the rival
claimants for the office of churchwarden.

His HONOUR observed that there appeared to be
a very laudably ambition on both sides. It appeared
there were two conflicting vestries, two conflicting
vestry-books, and two conflicting sets of church-
wardens.

The counsel for the petitioners having been heard,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without calling upon the
respondents, said—There appears to be a substantial
question, hether the two petitioners, who allege
themselves to be the churchwardens of the parish
of St. Stephen, Walbrook, are or are not de
jure churchwardens ; and the Master in the
cause either has appointed or approved, or is
in the course of appointing or approving, new trustees
of the property, from the rents of which has arisen
money or the fund which is one of the objects of this pe-
tition. Without pronouncing any opinion for or against
the title of these two gentlemen, who thus allege them-
selves to be de jure and de facto the churchwardens, the
circumstances that I have stated are sufficient of them-
selves, without entering into any other matter, to render
it impossible, in my opinion, to make any order for the
transfer or payment of any part of the fund or any money
under this petition at present. The only remaining
question is whether, considering the position in which
Mr. Gibbs stands, it is reasonable that, under a reserva-
tion of all costs, both of this petition and also of the at-
tendance of the petitioners before the Master, or any
service upon them for that purpose, they should, without
prejudice to any question, and without the (!enial or ac-
knowledgement of any title, be allowed to attend the
Master, an allowance which, if given, cannot extend to
their successors, but must be confined to these gentlemen,
and until further order. If the Attorney-General, or the
respondents who have not been heard, wish to oppose
that, let the argument proceed.
Mr. R. PALMER, who appeared.for the relator, and the
parties who claimed to have been duly elected church-
wardens, was then heard upon the latter point, and con-
tended, that, as the receiver's accounts had been passed,
and the Muster had approved of gentlemen as trustees,
the attendance cf the petitioners before the Master could
only lead to useless expense and delay.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I am of opinion that, under
the reservation I have mentioned, the petitioners ought
to have liberty to attend the Master under the orders,
which are now before the Master, so far as anything re-
mains to be dune. The Court reserves the consideration
of the costs, and of all costs to be occasioned by means
of this order, and it is to be without prejudice to any
luestion, and there is to be liberty to apply. The Master
is to be informed that the Court does not intimate any
opinion whether he ought. or ought not, to release, or
go back, upon any proceedings that have taken place
before him.

Mr. Bites appeared, with Mr. R. Palmer. Mr. Lloyd,
for Mr. Alderman Gibbs, and Mr. Rogers, fur Dr. Croly,
took no part in the argument.
_

(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)

BROGDEN V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

(NORTH KENT LINE).
This case was again mentioned to-day. It was stated
that the parties had been unable to come to any amicable
arrangement ; that the Government inspector had re-
ported that the line was fit for working, and that the
It.iilway Board had given leave to the company to work
the line from and after Monday next, but expressing
their wish that the company would take such steps as
would ensure the restriction of the trains to a moderate
speed until the new embankments were completely con-
solidated.

WHISTON, CLERK, V. THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OP
ROCHESTER.
The Court has been engaged during the greater part
of the day with a motion for an injunction, restraining
the Dean and Chapter of Rochest°r from removing the
plaintiff from the office of master of the free grammar
h 001 of the cathedral church of Rochester. The case
turns mainly upon the construction of the deeds of
foundation in 1542, and upon a very lengthened corre-
spondence between the reverend plaintiff and the Bishop
of Rochester, as well as with the Dean and Chapter.
The Sol.c tor-General had not concluded his opening
of the case when the Court rose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 27.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
ALLEGED FRAUD.—IN RE DAVIES AND DAVIES.
To-day was fixed for a dividend meeting. The bank-
rupts were builders.

Mr. BROWN, for the London Gas Light Company, ap-
plied for a short adjournment of the case, and also for a
summons to compel the attendance of certain parties,
especially a discharged servant of the Gas Company,
who, it was asserted, had been in collusion with the
bankrupts in charging the company for work done five
times over. Messrs. Davies owed upwards of 3,0001,
and there were no assets (only 1241., the solicitors' bill
being 701. or 801). There was property to the extent
of 900/. in the hands of a third party, which was be-
lieved to belong to the bankrupts, one of whom (Daniel)
had absconded to Australia ; and it was feared that the
other would follow suit if a short adjournment were not
granted, which was asked upon public grounds, at the
expense of the Gas Company.
His HONOUR said that, under such circumstances, he
would grant the applicotion.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAR YLEBONE.

Mr. George Edward Lawrence, a well-known fre-
quenter of china sales, was brought bef ire Mr. Broughton,
charged with having stolen from No. 6, Kensigton»
garden terrace, two valuable Dresden china orna-
ments, the property of the executors of the late George
Robins, Esq.
William Chanter, a porter in the employ of Mr. John
Robins, depo3ed that during a sale which took place
yesterday at the residence of the late George Robins,
Esq., he observed the prisoner looking about a table in
the boudoir, on which was displayed a quantity of rare
Dresden china, amongst which wero the two china orna-
ments produced. Witness had occasion to leave the
room for a few minutes, and on his return the prisoner
had left the house, and as the china ornaments were no
where to be found, he suspected that the prisoner had
taken them. He immediately sent one of the other por-
ters after the prisoner, who was brought back in custody
of a police constable, who had taken from him the stolen
property. As several other articles were missing,
witness was instructed to apply for a remand till the sale
was over.

The prisoner, who seemed to feel deeply the degraded
position in which he had placed himself; was then re-
manded till next Friday.

WE:S TM IN STE R.

FennEnsEs.—A man and woman, who gave their
names as Joseph Pye and Mary Myers, were finally ex-
amined, charged. with forgery.
The circumstances are briefly these. On the 7th in-
stant, the sum of 25/. was deposited in the Westminster
Savings Bank, in the name of Joseph Pie, and on the
11th notice of withdrawal was given by the female pri-
soner, who was then informed that the depositor must
attend to receive the money. On the 18th the prisoners
both presented themselves at the savings' bank with the
depositor's book, the male prisoner personating the
Joseph Pye who had opened the account with them, and
signing that name in the receipt book; but owing to the
dissimilarity of his signature to that give at the time the
money was deposited the actuary refused to pay him.
The male prisoner declared he was the depositor, and
pretended that the writing differed owing to having been
drinking at the time he first signed; but after a detention
of some time the female admitted that the male prisoner
was not the depositor, but alleged that the money be-
longed to her. They were given into custody, but re-
fused to state where they lived, assigning as a reason
that they did not please to have their residences
searched by the police, and the male prisoner admitted
that he had assumed the name of Joseph Pye. His com-
panion, after giving three or four names at the station-
house, made her election in favour of the one in which
she was subsequently committed.
The real Joseph Pye now attended, and stated
that he had for three years resided in the house of the
female prisoner's mother, who died a few weeks ago,
since which he had continued to occupy a room under
the female prisoner, who became the landlady of the
house. He left his banking-book in his apartments, from
which it must have been taken during his absence.
During the time the last witness was giving his tes-
timony the female prisoner conducted herself in the
most OUtreg,.ous manner, abusing him in the most dis-
guting language, and declaring that he had made
her a present of the money in the bank. She then
threatened that if he said another word against her
she would have her revenge, and finding that this did
not deter him from continuilig his testimony against
her, which was grin n apparently in a plain aeel straight-
forward manner, she uttered scene iiiths.
expses-
shins, and mate a desperate at!€rnpt to rush from t:e
felon's dock towards him, hut was firmly pLioned by
the gaoler and prevented. In the course of the prose-
outor's testimony, he denied iu the most positive terms

that he had ever given the female prisoner or any other
person the money, or any authority to touch his bank-
book. He had, indeed, not been in town from the time
of the deposit being made until after the prisoners were
in custody. _

On th 3 accused being called upon for their defence,
the male prisoner doggedly replied that if he was gothg
to be sent for trial he should like to go to the Old Bailey;
while the female, on her part, expressed a preference is
favour of the Middlesex Sessions.
Mr. BURRELL observed that as there had been a fur-
fiery it would be his duty to send them both for trial At
the Central Criminal Court.

They were committed accordingly.
Mr. William Burrells, described as the proprietor of
the Paviours' Arms public- house, John-street, West-
minster, was charged with forging the name of a der-
Sitor at the Westminster Savings' Bank, fraudulently t°
obtain 201. 16s. 7d.

The first instalm ena" of the above amount was der
sited in 1847 by Henry Harrison, On the -:Bth instant
notice was given by a female, signing herself. C. Bari
rells, to withdraw 201. 163. 7d., being the arnount °f
various deposits, with the interest. On Wednesday the
pris,ner went to the bank with the depositor's book, and
appl eel for the money, signing the name of Harrison.
As it did not at all correspond with the former signature
the actuary told him that it could not be his money, 01,4
that he was not the depositor. He at first stow,„
affirmed that he was, and alleged that his wife had put
the first instalment, and signed his name for him, but vr'i
informed that that was impossible, as females were net
allowed to do so. Subsequently he admitted that be pas
not the depositor, and that it was not his mony.
lea
In defence the prisoner said there was not the
intention on his part to defraud. Mrs. Harrison
depositor), who was out of town, gave him the
boo
previous to her departure, and told him to take the
money out, and apply it to the use of her alarrisolfli
children during her absence, and keep the remainder tl
her return.
The prisoner was brought up again yesterday, $
nd
discharged.

WORSHIP-STREET.
George Andrew Bartlett, foreman in the service of i. 1::
Alexander Osborne, a bonnet-shape manufacturer, 11
Somerset- place, Hoxton ; Priscilla Sarah Bartlett, 1211
mother; Mr. Win. Bourne, also a bonnet-shape inanufac
turer Old Castle-street, Bethnal-green; and Mr. Thos.
Attie, a tradesman in the neighbourhood, were place" i t
the bar for final examination before Mr. Hawn?:
charged, the former with having stolen a large quant"lo
of stock from their employer's warehouse, and the tt.
latter with having feloniously received a portion of to'
property, well knowing it to be stolen.
The evidence received to day was corroborative of 030
which has already been published.
Mr. HANNILL said that it was clearly a case for the
decision of a jury, and though he must discharge the
woman Bartlett, against whom the evidence was insup!"
cient to insure a conviction, he should order the deP°sl:
tions to be taken for the committal of all the other Prl:
soners; but would extend the sureties already put in bolf
Attie, and accept substantial bail for the appearance
the two others.

LAMBETH.
Yesterday, Henry William Dewhurst, alias the Rev,
Dr. Dewhurst, the notorious begging letter writer lc?
ipostor, who has been remanded for a week, on a antrg
of stealing a blanket and two glasses, the propertffe
Thomas Bevan, was again placed at the bar, before te
Hon. G. C. Norton, for further examination. Web
Mr. Norton produced a large bundle of letters T/--I,d,
he had received from the victims and intended viethe
of the prisoner, in consequence of the publication of '"-f
proceedings at the last examinations; and the writers i
:e
all expressed a fervent hope that Dewhurst might yj
punished to the utmost extent of the law, for his grs'
hypocrisy and imposture.
Romaine, the officer engaged in the case, and who bad
,0.
been obliged to resort to the most extraordinary str•%.
gems to secure the prisoner, said that since the last eau;
amination a female who was present had been to ea
different places where the prisoner lodged, and had roe
both threats and entreaties to prevent the parties ,thoti
appealing against the prisoner. The same female, his
also threatened to write to the Commissioners aboto
(Romaine's) conduct, and to have, as she expressed
c, at taken off his back, for apprehending the prisoner's.
The female alluded to was here, by desire of the vitha
gistrate, placed in the witness box, and, ia reply t°,,esth
questions of Mr. Norton, said her name was Hotebwhee
that she lived at 9, New-street, Lambeth, and that "to
husband is a printer. She said she had heard o°, the
officer Romaine had sent a letter to the employer eL
ioo,
son of the prisoner, stating the fact of his appreheris
and this she thought was very hard. afr
Mr. Ftrgusson, the clerk at the Mendicity-cu,r'er'S
tended, and produced a large bundle of the prlself to
begging letters, in which he had represented hiruge,.ooo
be in the most precarious state of health from va
diseases.
men°
Mr. NORTON, after reading over several doc.°—„ for
by which it appeared that the prisoner carried I:3l`"soid
many years a most extensive system of imposture:3oi
that an end must be put to such a scandalous If tbe
and he most sincerely hoped that the publication °one/
fact that the whole of the enormous sums of ,rnaseo•
which he, the prisoner, had obtained from the veeot is
lent by his scandalous misrepresentations, was sPtiatt to
drunkenness, dissipation, and filth, would be a can sub'
the public, and prevent them for the future froreodea
scribing a shilling for such a rascal. He then reran
the prisoner until Thursday next.

THAMES.
a t
FELONIOUSLY WOUNDING.—John Barrett, -5b
•o 001/
residing in East Smithfield, was charged with fel°l/1°
wounding Edward Eustaoe. lagu
The parties had a quarrel about some ',voile"' :h
Barrett went to his lodgings, from which he brought
knife, ar d stabbed him in the eye.
Air. INGRam seemed at first inclined to send the cs!s. ro
for trial, but ultimately fined him 5/., or two months'
pris nment.
He WAS locked up in default.

HOP INTELLIGENCE. little
WORCESTER, JULY 25.—We have to report aA —the
improvement
„ j this week in some of the hop groUl'
bite rains having cleared away some of the verip4",,,fiebb
given vigour to the plant, which is throwing "to
shoots, and here and there showing burr; still,
.°h° to
whole, the reports are very unfavourable, and, witbe
most forcing weather, not more than half a croP c';,,ett
grown, a large portion of the plantation being Ps°,- ielt
a partial recovery. Our market on Saturday 'w'¢3 yet of
though prices were well supported. The duty 15 ()59
7,0001. New Worcester's, 755. to. 985.; choice,i(j'4
Worcester's, 1846'5, 425. to 655.; choice, 703.; 0,1",„-104
265. to 40s. This (Wednesday) is St. James's•osi'
as the old adage says—
Until St. James's-day is come and genet
There may be hops, or may be none."
—Worcester Journal.

RAILWAY SHARE itIARKA.
S.
BRISTOL, JULY 27.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market continues firm, thougu,„— pe'ry
The transactions to-day were principally confined to South
Fifties, which closed at 12.
LIVERPOOL, JULY 27.? Let
STOCK Excnertaz.—The business done in the share mope
day was rather more than for the last few days. Price,s' ho
arg t 3 ,ffat
still continue in a depressed tone. The sales are—D",3h
i:
Northern, 10% Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock,
(Lou ''7don
Northern (Preference, 5 per cent.), 2% dis.—Dittofermi:
York Extension), 1% dis.—Lancashire and Yorkshire, ;"'".titie.,
12% —Ditto, Halves (L. and B.), 9% dis.—Ditto, Fifths (iv eit'to,
Union), 86a. &I.—London and North-Western 133 c.—P;
Quarters, 33/4, p.—Manchester, Sheffield, and North-Western, 133
aril
ence, 1134—Midland, Halves, 12% dis. —York, Nevic kr. —J.
Berwick (Extension No. 2, N. and B.), 634 dis.—Ditto '
Purchase), 6 per cent. till 1850, 4 dis.—York and North
Preference, 6 per cent. till 1850, 2% c. dis.
3IANCHESTER, JULY 27. foll°`f re.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were Leeds, pi,
_
Manchester and Sheffield, Preference, 11%—Ditto and Le,!:," 9-
f?r:ence,. 1.2347:Ditt0,. Fifths, 3 3-16 dis.—Grimsby Decd

West Riding Union, 4 5-16 dis. .
10%f:
BIRMINGHAM, JULY 27. _ to_
SToca ExcnANGE.—The transaction.s to-day were 25,;mingtil,
el r—e
:cher, e
Birmingham i6nlg.hlar.
3adn.ddiSst.o—urpVitaltol,eyp,relf
shire, al. 3s. 9d. dis. xsbupry.—anxdoritt soop.

YORK, JULY 26. Pl'
n 0 -al
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day have been
~ ~.
low : —Great Northern, Preference, 3X—Shefneld, Rotherba..,:we
Goole (N. Div.), guaranteed 5 per cent., 13s. 9d. ex in.—Yorlg. ;;04
castle, and Berwick (G. N. B. Purchase), 3/. 18s. 9d. ex In.—yor.
North Midland, 3034—Ditto, Preference, 7% ex in.

GLASGOW, JULY 26.
STOCK Excrwsoz —The transactions to-day were as il°A9O.
Aberdeen, Preference,s —Glasgow and Greenock, Preference, "
—Great Northern, Preference, 5 per cent. guaranteed, 76g.

iso'
THE READING ELECTlON.—Appearances Prtar
a sharp contest for this seat. Besides Sir John ""'„Zre
Mr. John Frederick Standford, of Foley House, .joe
land-place, London, has announced himself enn,ulorge
upon " Moderate Liberal" principles. Mr. vie"„is,
Bowyer, of North-court House, Abingdon, and Thli°ol
trate for the county, is also in the field upon the L.'
interest.

01:1`-‘,
rADVERTISEMENT.]—THE EARL OF Als% 11l
COW
AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—An astounding cure by this 10$01 -
medicine, alter every other means had failed. See extract
21
Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb%l,o4t
Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you that yetir Prthe 03%1
fected a cure of a diSorder in my liver and stomach which au 701 Svar
eminent of the faculty, at home and all over the contineutA, of 1110
been able to effect ; nay, not ever the waters of Carls":,0111
rienbad. (Signed) " ALDBOROUGH." These wonderful Foss./
cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also /tut,
Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, str—
by e.ll medicine vendors throughout the eivillse3 world.

BIRTHS. Eddir
On the 25th inst., in Gr svenor-crescent, the Lady
bury, of a daughter. I,IIW
~.,.
On the 17th inst., at Wiesbaden, the lady of ~x. -
bert Annersley, Esq., of a son. We°NO' r.
On the 24th inst., the wife of the Rev, G. F.
..,,,bta,
vicar of Crosby Ravensworth, Westmoreland, of a 61-71(5. Vi‘
On the 25th inst., at Tavistock-square, the wife °
Lydekker, Esq., of the Inner Temple, of a son.
On the .:sth inst., at Turnham• green, the wife of 03° Seif,
E. C. Jenkins, of a daughter. Dif°'
On the 26th inst., at Holly-house, Turnhanrgre- '
John G. Lye, of a son.

iwocil
MARRIED.
On the 2:th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, ' Yorl‘a°
youngest son of William Rhodes, of Branhope.hall, w. p•
shire, to Charlotte Maria, eldest daughter of the lot°
Darwin, of lston-hall, ottinghamshre. areesi
At Blairhill, Perthshire N,
on the 18thi inst., Andrew' loge%
Esq., Captain 48th R,giment, to Alexandrine Ilaig'Y°
_,...
..---'
daughter of the late John Berry, Esq.
OW
DIED

On the :".3,1 inst., at Old-hall, East Bergholt, Susan
• Vir•
beth, Countess IX wager of Morton, aged 57. vOl „..
On the 21d inst., at Hillington-hall, Norfolk, JJ'avfolkw-
B. Ffolkes, Esq., eldest son of Sir William Browne " ,
Bart , aged 31
On the ,th inst., Jane, the wife of Edward Shepherd'
Esq., of Southamp on. 13t irci
On the 2 tth inst.. at Ealing, Henrietta RichardOn'
ViC
daugter of J. Ponsfor, Esqßev.'
onh tip. 26th inst., Hdephzibah, the wife of the Rev.
W alford, of Uxridge-common.
On the 24th inst., at Coolfham, Berks, Mr. D• gewardt of
Saville-row, Walworth______
•
Inn Yu I
radon : Printed and Published by bliiß.--- ~.._ No: .-2
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun ".7,; opoti "
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in *--
lkilddlooes, Saturday, July 28, 18491

men, when
brouglit

e
ad the
30/1039' iPY

litllB
ort 6, l
the
na
rOll
ertnio,t, ob
out 't he
on ttbe
Withbo
rop c-lipfett
Past
was 9uie
to
• sew
Y. is 1059';
ace, id%
• old °god
;s•claf,

911e1

BlIS•

,h not let,lol,
'nthPe'

rasrtetytelco
bovresoa
•nbtlrgh tit
j
Lon
006
Pre.ferßidia
(ivesi,— loft
_DittO• sof.
bire, Fr and
,castlez,
3 (G. 'cifsfich
rat 311

yy foll° .ire
LeeClS,nti,
)oCt°

0 vioul
B 1 foil° h
rata-tifford •
70, si

well al AO
herhar°,:loe
_yorlgt ••„ good

~ follooo.'''
:*ellee, ll'
76$

prorai"
09re'
port'
ise,ndidoe
ca
Georg°
air
011301
ie Libel.
a 0
nvr o-
o
wirscwoo
ct fron.loo
,b. 219
.e of•
ti"0,0o0,
tued o
305
bad 0+ op
a Put' 1111
11011°: I
;trot.

- v dir
gay-`1
1. I''''''

wegoo,
. hot.
daug." if.
/ of (1.

88''

Airy
tent

'0
F 7,-
ito "
1,
'

riv GreeS;
Y°
uage°
...--
01°11'4

ariA.-;„ , If'
r eg,
'E, ffoll‘

shephera'

third
on,

WV' IV'

eiv,ard, of

alo; ill
N
pity