The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

THE TROUTBECK CASE.

Mr. WARBURTON then rose for the purpose of detail-
ing the facts of the petition, which he had given notice of
presenting, and for which the House sat purposely this morning.
The petition might he considered as having been presented
yesterday, as it was printed and in the hands of Hon. Mem-
bers. The petition was one of great moment to the parties,
who were poor and indigent people ; on the other side, how-
ever, was the powerful influence of the Crown, and where
poor and indigent people stood on the one side, and the great
power and influence of the Crown on the other, where those
poor suitors had been engaged in litigation with the Crown
for twelve years, and where in the opinion of great
authority justice had been denied to them, he did not think
he need say more .to the House of Commons, the representa-
tives of the poor as well as the rich, than to entreat them to
give their grave and deliberate attention to the subject. The
circumstances of the case were these :—ln the year 1785, a
merchant at Madras, of the name of Samuel Troutbeck, died
at the advanced age of 85 years, having beer, a resident mer-
chant at that place for a period of upwards of half a century.
After his decease the executors in India removed the proceeds
of the estate to England, and at the only period at which he
could obtain an account of what the proceeds of the estate were,
in 1815, they amounted to 3,764/. cash and 139,000/. 3 per cent.
annuities. By the will of the testator the greater part of the
estate was left to a charity in St. John's, Wapping, but after
proceedings on the part of the executor ansi of the officers and
overseers of that parish, the will was set aside, as being con-
trary to the statute of mortmain, and the proceeds of the estate
remained in the possession of the executor. The Crown then
commenced proceedings against the executors, and by a decree
in the year 1814, it was decreed that the proceeds of the estate
should be vested in nominees of the Crown, and it was decreed
that as there was no next of kin and heirs apparent, the property
of the testator vested in the Crown. Almost immediately
subsequent to this decree, the House was informed, by a copy
of' a Treasury Minute, laid before the House in 1816, that
the Stock forming part of the estate of the testator was to be
sold, in order make good the deficiency of the Civil List.
By another part of the same Minute, it appeared that 20,000/.,
or the proceeds of the droits of this estate, were vested in the
purchase of land contiguous to the Royal Palace at Brighton;
and 50,000/. for furniture is the same Palace. Thus it ap-
peared that the proceeds of the estate were appropriated, and
the Crown was to be responsible to the rightful owner, if ever
one should appear to claim the property. Between the time
when the bequest of the charitable estate took place, and the
more recent period I am now approaching, only one claimant
appeared, but he could not substantiate his claim, as it was
proved that the person whom he represented to be the father
of the testator, died nearly twenty years before the testator
was born. He then came to a more recent period, viz., to the
year 1816, in which this property was appropriated to the use
of the Crown. A gentleman of the name of Derby, whom he
understood to be a sort of deputy to the Treasury Solicitor,
Mr. Manic, having mentioned in an accidental conversation
with a gentleman at a dinner party, that there was a very
large estate belonging to a person of the name of Ti outbeck,
winch was about to pass into the possession of the Crown, a
gentleman of the same party being acquainted with persons of
the name of Troutbeck, in the north of England, reported to
the family iu the north the conversation that had taker, place;
and the consequence was, that he was put into possession of
a certain document, to which he (Mr. Warburton) would
hereafter have occasion to refer. It was the narrative of
John Troutbeck, and was forwarded to Mr. Derby. Thus it
appeared that in the very year in which this property was ap-
propriated to the Crown, the deputy of the Treasury Solicitor
was put in possession of this very document on which the pre-
sent claimants founded their claims. This document re-
mained in the possession of Mr. Derby for three years.
After the period in question, some indirect connections of the
family, two gentlemen in London, of the name of Walton,
hearing from the family in the north of England that this large
amount of property was decreed to the Crown, and hearing at
the same time that the narrative of this family was in the pos-
session of Mr. Derby, they were induced to institute inquiries
into the subject, in the first instance believing themselves to
be next of kin. The result was, that they made application to
Mr. Derby, and got authority to receive the narrative, and in
1819 they were put in possession of it. This, together with other
circumstances threw a great light on the subject, and after
prosecuting the enquiry, they ascertained that not they but
the two present claimants and their brother, since deceased,
were the real claimants. From 1819 to 1824 they were en-
gaged actively in deciding upon this resulteand no person who
knew or had experience of the difficulties, trouble, and delay,
that attended making researches into pedigrees, would be sur-
prised at the length of time that had elapsed.—( Hear, hear.)
In 1824 a memorial was presented to the Lords of the Trea-
sury stating the case, which memorial was laid before the
King's Advocate, who returned for answer that there were
strong probable grounds in support of the case, and that it
ought to be referred to the Law officers of the Crown. In
1825 the parties were told that if they petitioned the Court of
Chancery for permission to go belore the Master in order to
make out their claim, the Crown would not oppose the petition.
The case was accordingly referred to Master Trower, and a
long and lengthy investigation took place before him. Ano-
ther claim in the mean time had been set up by another party,
but it could only be supported by proving that the registry of
\Yapping was wholly erroneous, and that the name should be
Benjamin Troutbeck, and not Samuel Troutbeck, therefore
the second claim advanced by other persons proved to be nuga-
tory. However, such as it was, it gave rise to great delay,
and the Counsel for the Crown who was before the Master said
" it was too bad." In June 1817 the Master reported
against the claim of the present claimants on the ground that
the principal document relied on, the narrative of John Trout-
beck, was not evidence, and that, if it were evidence, it was
contradictory to the contents of the testator's will. The Mas-
ter's report was excepted to on the sth of July, 1827, and on
the 13th of December, 1828, the exceptions came on for argu-
ment before Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, who confirmed the
Master's report, on the ground that the narrative of John
Troutbeck was not legal evidence, and he accordingly refused
to direct an issue to ho tried before a jury. On the 14th of
March, 1829, the claimants again memorialised the Treasury,
acid prayed generally for relief, but their prayer not meeting
with attention, in • the course of the same year
they lodged an appeal to the Lord Chancellor. which
came on for hearing, on the 15th and 17th of January, 1831.
before Lord Brougham, who reversed the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor, and pronounced the narrative to be evidence, and
directed an issue to be tried at York in the following Spring
Assizes. The issue was tried at York before Mr.. Justice
Littledale, in April, 1831, and the verdict was for the Crown.
He would endeavour to state what the case was the claimants
bad brought before the Jury. Perhaps he ought to apologise
to the House, that not being of the legal profession himself
he had ventured to take up this case, but he was a Member of
the founded.gr
ea
t
Parliament--( Hear, hear),—and. be considered it his duty to
take up the case of every poor person who left one, like'
the present, in his hands, and which he felt to be well
—( Hear, hear, hear.) Therefore, notwithstanding
difficulty under which he laboured, the Honourable and
Learned Gentlemen, the law officer of the Crown, being
opposed to him, he should not scruple to enter into it.—
( Hear, hear.) The case of the claimant was this. There
was no doubt as to the legal origin of the testator. He
described himself in his will to have been born in Wapping, in
the year 1700. Upon examination of the parish register in
Wapping, it appeared there was a Samuel Troutbeck, being

the name of the testator, born in the year 1700, of a Samuel
Troutbeck, mariner, and Sarah, his wife. The testator
described himself to have been educated at a school in St.
John's, Wapping; that school did not now exist, and, there-
fore, it was not possible to confirm' that part of the statement :
but the reason he assigned for giving a large sum of money to
build a new school was, that it was to be contiguous to, and to
form an additional part of the school in whichhe had received
his education. lie then stated, which was almost a romantic
part of his history, that he went out in the year 1719,
on board an Indianian with his only brother ; that that ship
was wrecked on the Coromandel coast, at Sadras, near Madras ;
that his only brother and the greater part of the crew were
drowned ; and that he, with five or six other survivors escaped ;
that he then settled at Madras as a merchant ; and by the
sweat of his own brow, and his own exertions, he arrived at
that opulence which the extent of his estate fully proved.
The probability was, that a sort of Jewish marriage had taken
place in the family, that Benjamin, who died on board a King's ,
ship in 1697, had married Sarah, and that a younger brother,
Samuel, had married the widow of Benjamin. That would ac-
count for the third son being registered as the son of Samuel
instead of Benjamin, which strictly described him, he being
his uterine-brother. There were in the parish of Wapping
two Troutbecks in the year 1690, but no family of that name
antecedent to that period. The narrative of John Troutbeck
threw some light, however, upon the progenitors of the testa-
tor. John Troutbeck went as a surgeon to Madras, and be-
came acquainted with the testator, who made a will in his fa-
vour, although be was no relative of his. John, on leaving
Madras, gave a power of attorney to a person named Bromley,
who incautiously mentioned the circumstance, which coming
to the cars of the testator, so , irritated him that he made a
new will. The testator having no relations in India, made in-
quiries in England as to his nearest relations, and the genealogy
of a legion of Troutbecks was sent out to him, but he denied that
any of them were his relations, and made a will in favour of
the parish of St. John's, Wapping, and in that will he dis-
claimed all connection with John Troutbeck. That disclaimer
however, he (Mr. Warburton) would observe, went for no-
thing.—( A laugh.) His Hon. and Learned Friend opposite
doubted his (Mr. W.'s) law, but he 'contended he was right.
The Lord Chancellor admitted the narrative as evidence, and
directed an issue to be tried, sending the narrative down to go
before the Jury, that they might put what value they pleased
upon the statement. The question raised at the trial was,
whether George was the brother of the testator's father Samuel.
One of the witnesses at the trial stated that it was believed
that all persons who came from Ireland were able to destroy.
all reptiles with their touch, and the reason she thought George
came from Ireland was, that it had been stated of him that
upon one occasion on a toad being put into his hand, it imme-
diately died. The Hon. Member supposed this gift had been
given by St. Patrick.--( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The
Honourable Member then proceeded at some length to go
through the pedigree of the ancestors of the petitioner.
Without longer dwelling on the facts of the, case he would
state the effect which they had made, and the impressions they
had made on the minds of Calm and impartial men. The Hon.
Gentleman here referred to the opinions of the King's advo-
cate, and the different judges before whom the case had been
discussed, to show that they all concurred in opinion, that the
case made out by these claimants was a strong one. Sir F.
Pollock, who, he must say, had acted with the feelings of a
man in this case, and who had come forward on every
occasion to defend the claimants, had stated the im-
pression made on his mind by the Judge's charge was,
and he believed that was the opinion of several gentle-
men in, the circuit, that this had been the very case in
which the Learned Judge had made up his mind. Lord
Brougham had stated that the impression left ou his mind from
a conversation be had had with the Learned Judge was, that
the Learned Judge could not say he was dissatisfied
with the verdict, although he would have been as well
pleased if it had been the other way, and that he had little
or no moral doubt the case of the claimants was right.
Again, great prejudice bad existed le the minds of the jury
from the circumstance of another claimant living in the neigh-
bourhood of York, and lie (Mr. W.) found this passage stated
upon the authority of his Hon. and Learned Friend Sir
Frederick Pollock in the memorial of the Lords of the
Treasury : " That a recent personal communication
has been made to one of your Lordships by Sir Frederick
Pollock, who conducted the case at York on the part of the
claimants that are of the Special Jurors who resided in York,
( the Jurors most of them coming from York, or its immediate
neighbourhood), admitted to him ( Sir F. Pollock) after the
trial that there was a claimant to the property, living in 'or near
York, whose claims had been the subject of much conversa-
tion, and who was supposed and believed by many persons in
York to have a much better claim than your memorialists,
and that some of the Jury were well acquainted with such
claims, and believed them to be well founded, and that such
belief operated much to the prejudice of the claimants, and
that in order to have had a fair trial, the cause ought not to
have been tried at York, but elsewher-e." He also begged to
state, the Learned Judge was inaudible in the greater part of
his summing up, so that the claimants had not had the benefit
of the effect it might have produced on the minds of the Jury.
There were evidently their local prejudices on the part of the
Jury, which would satisfactorily account for the failure of the
claimants on the trial at York. Another irregularity was,
that two of the Jury had improperly made themselves ac-
quainted with the disclosures and other statements contained
in the will. The Hon. Member here read a conversation which
took place between some of the Jury and the Attorney-General
at the time to substantiate this assertion. He hoped he should
hear no arguments on the other side, that the money was not
to be paid to the real claimants, because, by a decree, the
property had been vested in the Crown. He was sure the
House of Commons would not recognise or sanction any such
proceeding. The Judge at York stated that morally the claim
of the petitioner was right, and the only difficulty that remained
in the case was that certain evidence could not be received,
because, according to the rule that had of late years been
adopted in the Courts, no persons could make declarations
without they were relations of the testator.—( Hear, hear.)
In the present case he was sure it was utterly impossible,
and therefore the Crown was to rush in and take the property,
although moral justice gave it to the petitioners. In his
opinion it was derogatory to the honour and dignity of the
Crown to resist this claim, and to take the objection they
had done to the reception of the evidence of Mr. Dent.
He maintained that there was sufficient evidence clearly to
establish the petitioners' claim. He wished to know on what
footing Mr. Derby stood as Deputy to Mr. Maule, Trea-
sury Solicitor? Did he receive a portion of Mr. Maule's
fixed salary, or was he paid like ordinary solicitors?
He was sorry to detain the House so long, but the
facts of the case were so various and complicated that
it was impossible to compress them into a shorter compass.
He had omitted to state one fact, namely, that during
the progress of the case in the Master's office,
the Counsel for the Crown stated he was authorized
to offer 50,0002. as a compromise to the claimants, which, in
his mind, showed what opinion the Crown then had of the me-
rits of thecase. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that
he asked on the part of the claimants for an inquiry into the
case, and if the Committee were convinced there was ground
on which to found a new trial, he would ask them to recommend
not that money should be granted, but to recommend, on
the ground of the great moral proof adduced in Mr.
Dent's evidence, that a new trial should be granted
to the . parties, and that they might have the benefit
of ad legal and technical objections to the admission of Mr.
Dent's evidence being waived,so that the whole merits of the case
might go before a Jury. He was sorry to have detained the
House so long, although he felt there waa a great deal more
he ought to have stated. The Hon. Gentleman then moved
that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the case of
Catherine Robson, and Isabella Ainslev, claimants of the
property of the late Samuel Troutbeck of Madras.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The Hon.
Member had stated, when he gave notice of his intention to
present the petition that he meant to impugn the conduct of
Government; and it was to vindicate Government that he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) rose thus early, for the
purpose of meeting each and every assertion made by the
Hon. Gentleman. He would show that essential points in his
statement were adverse to the facts of the case, and that he had
abstained from bringing under the consideration of the House
other facts and particulars, which would have materially al-
tered the view the House might take of the subject. The
• Hon. Member had done no more than his duty in bringing for-
ward the case, and all who had witnessed his (the
Right Hon. Member's) readiness in bringing forward similar
ones, and giving them the weight of his character and
talents, would admit the same. Like others, however, the
Hon. Gentleman had taken his impressions from the state-
ments made to him, and Was therefore liable to be swayed by
those
r thatp a r
t there
statements._ nt(Hear, hear, hear.) Ile com-
plained a scandalous betrayal of private
e stat
a confidence on the part of the petitioners, but even
giving the parties the benefit of that betrayal, he would say
e
that it did not assist their case in any way.--( Hear.) He
would not follow the Honourable Gentleman in his com-
mentary on the evidence, as a few simple facts would be
a sufficient justification of the conduct of the Treasury.
He eared not whether the sum was 300,0001. or 300,000
pence ; but let the House decide according to the jus-
tice of the case, whatever the amount was.—( Cheers. )
The issue was the justice of the case.—( Cheers.) In 1824
the petition of the parties was referred to the Treasury,
and it was supposed that the Treasury had acted with
harshness. He contended that the Treasury bad acted
with justice, and that they would have been guilty of a dere-
liction of duty if they had acted otherwise. The moment the pe-
tition was received, they did not shut the doors of justice against
them, but gave them the benefit of going into the highest court
in the land. It was referred to the Court of Chancery, which
had adjudicated upon the ease. It had been said that the
Solicitors of the Treasury had rigidly opposed the prosecution
of the claim, and held the petitioners to strict legal proof
of their pedigree. Was not that, he would ask, the duty of the
Treasury, when there were several other claimants ?—( Cheers. )
The Crown, in such a case, held the property in deposit for
the rights of other persons, and it was, therefore, its duty
to watch rigidly proceedings on the part of the claimants.
The Hon. Member asked them first most modestly to let in

His Majesty, we are informed, conferre:l the day
before yesterday. at the Levee, the Grand Cross of the Ortior
of the Guelph of Hanover on the young Princes William and
Alexander of Holland. No day has been yet fixed for the de-
parture of their Royal Highnesses.

Lord Hill's Levee yesterday, at the Horse Guards,
was attended by Lieutenant-General William Keir Grant,
Major-General Sir Frederick Whittingham, Colonel Codring-
ton, Colonel Wemyss, Colonel Despard, Sir Charles Caote,
Bart., Colonel Briton, Colonel M‘Dougall, Major Mercer,
Captain Robertson, and some other officers.
KING'S THEATRE.—Last night I Briganti and
other entertainments were given at this theatre for the benefit
of Mademoiselle Assandri. The theatre was attendad by a
numerous and fashionable audience ; and we have no doubt
that when the merits of Mademoiselle Assandri become more
generally known, she will rank, according to her deserts, high
among the foreign favourites of English playgoers. The
Queen honoured the performances with her presence.
AN AFFAIR OF HONOUR.—Between the hours
of six and seven o'clock Yesterday morning, a hostile meeting
took place in a field at the back of the Eyrc Arms, St. John's
Wood, Regent's-park, between a gentleman residing in Park-
street, Grosvenor-square, and Lieutenant S—, It. N., resi-
ding at Kensington. The cause of the meeting arose front
some money transactions on the Stock Exchange on Tuesday
last. When the parties arrived on the ground areconciliation
was attempted by the seconds, but was indignantly refused by
Lieutenant S--. The ground was then measured twelve,
paces, and the hostile parties fired, but missed each other. An
amicable arrangement was scans proposed, but was again re-
ieeted by the Lieutenant. On the second lire, the contents
of the-gentleman's pistol took effect upon the thick part of
Lieutenant S—'s thigh. The Lieutenant immediately fell,
when the gentleman advanced to him, and requested to shako
hands with his antagonist, which be immediately agreed to.
The wound having been bandaged up, Lieutenant 5-- was
removed from the field to a carriage waiting in the North- -
road, and he was conveyed in it to his residence.
The Grand Assembly at Stafford Hons::, held on
Wednesday evening, was numerously attended by the /rut ton,
and we do not recollect an entertainment which- eNcited a more
lively interest. At midnight, St. James's-sqnsre and nil the
neighbouring streets were nearly blocked up with equipages.
Tne visitants began to arrive before ten, and by midnight the
mansion Was crowded. The concert, as noticed yesterday,
was given in the grand hall at the foot of the great staircase.
Previous to the commencement of the first piece, the Russian
horn band, occupying a post in the lantern, or roof, of the
immense pile, played some new and very pleasing German
airs. At one o'clock a most superb banquet was set out.
Yesterday forenoon much alarm took place in the
New-road, Chelsea, in consequence of a large dog, appa-
rently in a rabid state, rushing along at a very furious rate, in
its progress snapping at everything it came in contact with.
Although a number of children under the charge of nursery-
maids were in the animal's track, we did not hear of any hav-
ing been bitten. The hue and cry caused a number of per
to pursue the dog with sticks and missiles, anxious for its
destruction ; but it succeeded in making its escape. The
practice of allowing dogs to go at large in the streets is becom-
ing more alarming every day.
Yesterday the East India Company issued their
de-
claration for the sale of teas in September next. The decla-
ration amounts to 4,000,000 lbs., and comprises 500,000 lbs.
of Bohea, 2,770,000 lbs. of Congou, Souchong, and Pekoe ;
600,000 lbs. of Twankay, and 130,000 lbs. of Hyson. In the
present declaration there is 100,0001bs. less of 13ohca than in
the June sale ; 100,000 lbs. less of Twankay ; an increase of
170,000 lbs. of Congoti, Souchong, &c.. and 30,000 lbs.
more of flyson. The whole amount of Bohea teas entered
under the Treasury Minute, for payment of the duty of ls.6d.
per lb. until the Ist of August next, is above 12,000,000 lbs.
MELANCHOLY Loss OF IAN'ES.-IZrblyireod a boat,nSUn
Sun-
day morning week a party of five young
in which they set off to visit the floating light. A dispute
arose as to whether they should go further or turn back, a
relosotnntohte
scuffle followed, the boat was upset, and four of the young
men were drowned. We understand the boat was the same
loCnghesslitliircee'sidree;
tTureintgonfilrommean encounterwelv‘vulioilisatrice drowned are Frederick Hergat,
from which so many persona
joiner, James Frodsham, boat builder, Edward Cadland,
joiner, and Thomas Wynn, tailor. . The survivor is a shoe-
maker, named Daniel Rogan.—Liverpool Courier.
LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET, JULY 13.,-Our
cotton market continues very heavy, though without any mate-
rial change in prices. The sales to-day have amounted to
about 3,000 bags,

By accounts from Algiers we learn that there had
been a great increase in the commercial affairs of that Re-
gency. From July, 1830, to December,'lB34, the number of
vessels entering the Ports of the Regency averaged 1,200 an-
nually, while in 1835 upwards of 2,000 vessels entered. The
exports, which in 1832 were of little moment, have increased
most remarkably, and the exports for 1835 were 17 millions of
franbs.

Tuesday next will be the anniversary of the birLit-
day of the Princess Augusta Caroline of Cambridge, on which
day she will have attained her fourteenth year ; and the Mon- •
day following will be the birthday of her illustrious mother,
her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, who was horn
in the year 1797. •
It will be recollected by our readers that about four
years ago the second sister of an Earl met her death by a me-
lancholy accident. Her son, who is a Member of Parlia-
ment, and married to the eldest daughter of an Earl, is, we
to say, at present in a state of mental derangement,
almost beyond hope of recovery.
The tax upon dogs in Berlin, which has been ap-
propriated to the expense of laying down causeways in the
capital, has been so productive that every street will have
such pavements in the course of next year.—Prija,i,„ paper.
The Milan Privileged Gazelle of the 4th of July,
acknowledges that the cholera has invaded Austrian Lom-
bardy, and that the Pontifical Government imposes a quaran-
tine of fourteen days on arrivals from this kingdom, as well as
from the States of Parma.
FRENCH HONESTY.--.The week before last, two
individuals, belonging to Edinburgh, were on a visit to the
Parisian capital, and in returning stopped a night at Houle:zee.
One of them, when nearly across the channel, discovered he
had left his money at the inn where they last slept. Upon
landing, a messenger was instantly despatched to Boulogne,
with a note to the landlord stating the circumstance. Mine
host, however returned for answer that the money had been
found ; but to prevent any mistake as to the credentials of the
special messenger, be had remitted a draft upon a London
bank for the amount, to the address of the gentleman, there,'
which arrived in due course, and was honoured accordingly. •.-.
Scotsman.
On Wednesday last, was exhibited, at the Board
Room of the Agricultural and Horticultural Society cf Jersey,
a Cabbage of the Battersea variety, weighing 16 Phi., and Inca.
suring near four feet in diameter.
We understand that the Very Rev. the Dean of
Jersey has most liberally given 5004 to All Saints' Chapel..
This is in addition to the previous sum of loot, which Ile pre-
sented to that establishment some time since.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

E LONDON GAZE PTE

THIS EVENING.

ST. JAMES'S PALACE, JULY 13, 1836.

This day had audience of his Majesty, General Count Sebastiani,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of
the French, to take leave for a short time ; and Andrew Stephen-
son, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from
the United States of North America, to deliver his credentials : to
which they were respectively introduced by Lord Viscount Palmer-
ston, his Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign affairs,
and conducted by Sir Robwrt Chester, Knt., Master of the Cere-
monies.

WHITEHALL, JULY 14.
The King has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed
under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, for presenting the Rev. Francis Hodgson, A.M., to the
Archdeaconry of Derby, void by the promotion of the Right Rev.
Father in God Doctor Samuel butler to the See of Lichfield and
Coventry.

WAR-OFFICE, JULY 15.
Ist Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Cornet R. Hollis to be Ad •
jutant, vice Hill, promoted, July 8.
2d Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Sergeant J. Haviland, to be
Regimental Quartermaster, vice Dyer, deceased, July 15.
3d Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieut. C. W. IL Balders, to
be Captain, by purchase, vice Phillips, who retires ; Cornet W.
Wernham to be Lieutenant by purchase, vice Balders ; Gentleman
Cadet John Wyld, from the Royal Military College, to be Cornet,
by purchase, vice Wernham, July 15.
7th Regiment of Light Dragoons.—Lieut. A. Shirley to be Cap-
tain, by purchase, vice Owen, who retires ; Cornet R. James, to
be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Shirley ; A. Helyar, Gent., to
be Cornet, by purchase, vice James, July 15.
14th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Cornet H. E. Doherty to
be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Bayntun, who retires ; A. Ro-
bertson, Gent. to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Doherty, July 15.
17th Regiment of Foot—Lieut. J. J. Fenton, from the 38th
Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Herbert, appointed to the
88th Regiment of Foot, July 15.
76th Foot—R. T. Scott, Gent., to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice
W. Cannan, who retires upon half-pay, July 15.
85th Foot—Captain J. K. Pipon, from the 94th Regiment of
Foot, to be Captain, vice Knox, who exchanges, July 15.
87th Foot—Second Lieutenant C. H. F. Vigors to be First
Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Walsh, who retires; A. Rush,
Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Vigors, July 15.
88th Foot—Lieut. H. F. Herbert, from the 17th Regiment of
Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice H. F. Way, who retires upon half-
pay of the 38th Regiment of Foot, July 15 ; Lieut. E. A. Hawker,
from the half-pay Unattached, to be Lieutenant, vice E. 11. Hutchin•
son, who exchanges, July 16.
94th Foot—Capt. C. Knox, from the 85th Regiment of Foot,
to be Captain, vice Pipon, who exchanges, July 15.
UNATTACHED.

Major F. Copland, from the 2d Dragoon Guards, to be Lieute-
nant-Colonel, without purchase, July 15.

Commission by his Majesty's Lieutenant of the County of Brecon.
J. J. E. Hamilton, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant, July 8.
Commission by his Majesty's Commissioners of Lieutenancy for
the City of London.
Regiment of Royal London Militia—Sir W. 11. Richardson,
Knt. to be Captain, June 8.

BANK R UPTCY SUPERSEDED

WILLIAM ELTON, dealer-in;O011en-C-1C;t1-1,—B—asinghall-street

BANKRUPTS.

GEORGE SCARLETT, jeweller, Birmingham, July 22, am
Aug. 26, at Twelve, at the Union Inn. Birmingham. Chilton.
Cliancery-lane ; Suckling, Union-street, Birmingham.
MARTIN CHARLES GRAFTON, tanner, Alcester, War-
wickshire, July 28 and Aug. 26, at two, at the Red Horse Inn,
Stratford-upon-Avon. .Jones, Alcester ; Adlingtou, Gregory;
Faulkner and Follet, Bedford-row.

JOHN EDWARDS, carver and gilder, Shepherd's-market,
May-fair, July 23, at one, and August 26, at twelve, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee. Pancras-lane, Cheap-
side ; Orlebar, George-street, Hanover-square.
THOMAS ROE, draper, Fenny Compton, Warwickshire,
Jul 2f), and August 26,• at eleven, at the Red Lion Inn, Banbury,
Oxford. Aplin, solicitor, Banbury.
RICHARD 'FLEMING, lodging-house-keeper, Pembroke-
place, Vauxhall Bridge-road, Middlesex, July 28, at two, and
Aul•-wt 26, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gibson, Ba-
singball-street, official assignee ; Hildyard, Furnival's Inn.
ISAAC ARCHER. tailor, Regent circus, Piccadilly, July 2S,
at eleven, and August 26, at twelve ; at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Belcher, Official Assignee ; Egan, Waterman, and Wright, Essex-
stract, Stsand.

COURSE OF EX C lIANGE.—I THIS DAY.)
Amster tini C.' I". 12 1: Leghorn...
Ditto, at ~ight
11.1t.terriArn "U. 12 6 141i1a.).... ...
Au,werp...
Ilviiliurg . 11.1: 13 1:1 ! 'zaples
Alt ,11,1.....
..`7, 55 i I.i•hon
'U. 'l5 85 ()porn)
•'S 8.4 j Itio .lan: irn .
Ftiril.f.-at on 31filiw, Ex. NI. 154 i ,iallil
Pcter..linigh, ruble 3us iR) a m,,,,,,s Ay,
berllii

:s s'giv

~ia:;cillr

effective it
...... ‘lltto

Cafti

83

to r.4!zar ........

7 '2l days' sight
II) 10 ! Cork
io II

2f

; P7IICE OF BULLION, PEIZ 07.
! Portugal cold, 0
:1;34 :-orergn (:.Id, in bars 9 17 9
Ntni 1)001,111011S i IS 0
•!tiqi Nuw Dolnarti .......... 0 4
... 48 ;Silvor, bars. s!antlarti 0 5

I_Al,

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Loan CuANcELLuit took his scat on the Woolsack
at the usual hour.
The Judges Chambers Bill was read a third time and

pa•-•:ed.

Lord KENYON presented a petition in support of the
privileges of the [louse of Lords.
Lord SEFTON presented a petition from Manchester,
in tiwour of die Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a similar
petit:on from Clontarf, county of Dublin.

- Lord HADDINGTON presented a petition from the
town of Haddington, against the Scotch Universities Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions
against Stephenson's Brighton Railway line. On the motion
of the Noble Duke, the petitions were referred to a Select
Committee.

On the motion of Lord GLENELG the Punishmen
of Offences Cape of Good Hope Bill went through a Com.
rnittee.

message f,-oni the House of Commons brought up
the Constalau:ary (Ireland) Amendment Bill, the Personal
Tithes Bill, and another Bill.
Lord CARBERRY presented a petition from Dublin in
favour of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from Brighton in favour of their Lordships' privileges.
DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY.
Sevaial petitions were presented in favour of the Dublin
and Drogheda Railway.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE rose to move the se-
cond reading of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. It
had lung been desirable to devote the unemployed capital of
Ireland to speculations of that sort, and he believed the
line had received the sanction and approbation of the most
eminent engineers and scientific men. A large subscription
had been already entered into to promote the undertaking,
and the majority of the landowners and landed proprietors
were in favour of it. The project had also received the support
of the mercantile men of Liverpool and Manchester, and was
every way a most useful and desirable work. It was in-
tended to continue the lice to Dundalk and Belfast, so as to
give all the northern parts of Ireland the benefit of this
mode of eommuaication with the capital.
The Duke of LEINSTER seconded the motion, and
presented a petition in favour of the Bill.
The Marquis of HEADFORD opposed the motion, as
he understood there was an inland line surveyed, which was
much more advantageous. The present line, he also under-
stood, would seriously injure the property of Col. Verner.
The Bill was then read a second time.
SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY.
Lord RADNOR presented a petition from the sub-
scribers to the South Durham Railway, complain-
ing that after the Company had gone to a great
deal of expense, the Bill had been thrown out
on its second reading. He (Lord Radnor) thought the
parties had great reason to complain of the manner in
which they had been treated ; it had been rejected on the
motion of Lords Londonderry and Wharncliffe, without
any ground or reason being assigned for such a proceeding,
and without any enquiry into the merits of the question.
Lord WH ARNC L IFFE defended the conduct adopted
by him on that occasion. He had distinctly stated that he op-
posed it, because the object of the speculation was to work a
vein of coal, without having obtained the sanction or
consent of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the pe-
tition. He denied the assertion of the Noble Lord oppo-
site that the railroad was not a public benefit. It was, on
the contrary, a great public benefit, and he must say that
the general impression abroad was that the opposition to the
Bill had arisen from a desire to support a monopoly—
(Hear.) He contended that the Bill should have been
submitted to the decision of a Committee
and he would say that it was the general
opinion that two Noble Lords, who were deeply interested
in the Bill, and in maintaining the present price of coal,
had come down for the purpose of throwing out the Bill in
so extraordinary a manner.
Lord HATHERTON vindicated the vote he had
given against the Bill, and concurred in the principle laid
down by the Noble Lord (Wharncliffe) opposite, that no
Bill should be forced through Parliament against the con-
sent of the local proprietors. He believed if all the coal
proposed to be raised was sold at cost price, there would
not be a demand for it.

The Marquis of LONDNERY suposed the
Noble Earl (Radnor) had some sDharesß in the p
undertak-
ing for which he evinced so much anxiety.—(A
He did not think it necessary, after what had been said, to
prolong a discussion upon a question which had been al-
ready decided by a very large majority of that House. He
would, add, that he fully concurred in the observations of
the Noble Baron (Hatherton) who ttad spoke last, and al-

~'

though the present question might affect him personally,
it equally on principle affected every large landed proprietor.
Earl RADNOR replied. He had felt it his duty, coin-
ciding with the sentiments of the petitioners, to lay
their case before the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He repeated that it was unusual and irregular for a Noble
Lord, opposed to a Bill, to get up on its second reading and
oppose its going into Committee. He begged, before he
sat down, to ask whether the Noble Marquis opposite in-
tended to move the second reading of the Tremoutha Har-
bour Bill ?

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY had undertaken
the conduct of the Bill, and would move its second reading
on Monday next.
Messengers from the Commons brought the London
and Blackwall Commercial Railway Bill, and the Minutes
of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on
Agriculture.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND)

AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion of the LOBD CHANCELLOR, the
Order of the Day for taking into consideration the reasons
of the House of Commons to the amendments made by
their Lordships to the Municipal Act Amendment Bill,
was read.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that their
Lordships do agree to the first amendments made by the
Commons.

Lord LYNDHURST complained of the difficulty of
discussing these amendments until they had been printed.
After a desultory conversation, in which the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lords Lyndhurst, Ellenborough, and Radnor took a
part,
Viscount MELBOURNE said, would it not be better
to have these amendments printed at once.—(Hear, bear.)
z.The motion was agreed to.