The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-22 00:00:00

SE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

ssiaLL C).:(44.a b.—lehhAlie+,
Their Lordshi having • ' heir Am-
p' day for plying ti` ; .
tOrtani,judesiient in t'sp case of " Sinai,' V. Attwood," long
LFrrc ten 04_',1t.4":1 i.he es!'etal'4A "o.th.. ‘9 the oar rin !lie balje:;.,
ries of the House of Lords was crowded with most respeciao'e
persona; among whom we noticed many of the most eminent
iron-masters of Staffordshise. The case came before their
Lordships ttnoe appeal horn the decision of Lord Lyndhurst
then Lord thief Baron of the Extihequei; rescinding a eon=
tract entered lei° between Mr. Attwood slid the British Iroas
Corepany, to Outlive Certain iron mines at CorngreaveS, id
Staffordshire, ;Os the sum of 550,000/.
The Lords in attendance were the Lord Chancellor;,, the
Earl of Devon, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord 13rougham, Lord Tin•
ford and Lord lenyeit. Shortly after 10 o'cicck, Counsel were
called to the liar, When-
The E'a,l of DevoN said that it now becanee Ids dlty tH. call
the attention of their Lordships to the case of Small v Attwood,
a ( ase, he would *el.-tete to say, of the utmost importance,
and which in its circumst tnces and details, was foully unlike any
that had ever been brought before that House. Before he came
to the consideration of the merits of the case, it might be as
well to advert to a preliminary part of the decree of the Noble
Lord who bad decided the case in the Court below, in which
lie had ordered that the costs, which were to be paid by
Philip Taylor should be paid for him by Mr. Attwood. He
must consider that such a direction was totally against
all the proceedings of Courts of Equity, and Mr. Attwood
had as great a right to complain of it as all the other parts of
the decree. Ile would come now to the main point in the case,
and in doing so he trusted their Lordships would readily
believe that he approached it with much pain and anxiety,
when he stated that after complete and mature deliberation,
he felt himself bound to take a view of this important
question different from that taken by the Noble and
Learned Lord, then Lord Chief Baron. Having, however,
been one of the three Lords who sat to hear the appeal, and
having attended most closely to the able arguments of Counsel
at the Bar, he felt bound to offer his opinions, such as they were,
to their Lordships. The very full and laborious arguments
which bad been addressed to the House, and the great assistance
that bad been afforded by the voluminous papers that had been
printed, gave to their Lordships an advantage in considering
the case which Lord Lyndhurst did not enjoy. Addressing
himself to tho appeal in question, his first inquiry was, what
were the powers of a Court of Equity to set aside a contract
entered into by competent parties on the ground of fraud.
The principles upon which a Court of Equity acted were laid
down in a case of Edwards and —, decided by Sir Wil-
liam Grant, and afterwards upon appeal by Lord Eldon.
Those principles were, as laid down by those Learned Judges,
as well as by the Chief Baron himself, that where a misre-
presentation of material facts had been given by a person
knowing them to be untrue, that in that case an ac-
tion at law would lie, and a party might come for-
ward in equity for the purpose of getting rid of a con-
tract founded on such fraudulent representations. He
(Lord Devon) had no doubt that the' principles stated by
those eminent judges was the one upon which Courts of Equity
would act. Now what was the history of the present case ?
Why, that previously to the year 1825, various meetings and
discussions had taken place between Mr. Attwood and Mr.
Philip Taylor, the agent of the British Iron Company, with
a view to the purchasing of the iron works belonging to Mr.
Attwood at Corngreaves in Staffordshire. Those discus-
sions took place verbally, but their result was embodied in
certain written representations ; and the first question which
:arose, was whether those representations were to be taken
as actual facts, or merely as suggestions for the consideration
of the parties concerned. In the view which he (Lord
Devon) took of the present case, it was not material
:to decide that question ; but if it was, in his opinion there
was no proof of actual fraud on the part of Mr. Attwood, in
the papers which had been handed him. He thought, looking
-to those papers, it was impossible to say that a gross fraud had
been committed on the part of Mr. Attwood. The Noble
Lord, after reading some of the papers, said their Lord-
ships would observe that at one of the meetings that had
taken place, the papers that had been handed in by Mr. Att-
wood had been considered at very great length, and there
could be no doubt whatever that the attention both of the
directors and agents of the British Iron Company had been
quite alive as to what the property was. From the
results of some of the meetings that took place,
'a deputation of Directors was sent down to Corn-
'greases to satisfy themselves with respect to the state of
m the property. They were not satisfied with the statements of
.Mr. Attwood, but actually sent a deputation down to ascer-
tain the real state of the works before they fulfilled the con-
tract into which they had entered. Now, the object of that
deputation was to be taken from the statements made. Those
statements were, that they were to judge for themselves as to
the nature of the works, after the inspection of them, and were
r'to &cid° whether the contract should be fulfilled or not.
Three of the Directors went to Corngreaves, and they took
with them Mr. Phillip Taylor, who must now be taken as one
,of the Company, unaffected by fraud on his part, but as
one having an interest in the concern. Another person who
was consulted, was a gentleman who had been residing for weeks
at Corngreaves. A Mr. Morrison was also ordered to inspect
the mineral field. How, therefore, did the case stand with
,respect to evidence? Why, first, with respect to the mineral
field, it was stated in the evidence of Mr. Morrison, that hav-
ing been ordered in 1825, by Mr. Philip Taylor, to make a
strict examination into the state of the continuity of coal, he
stated that be believed there was some fault in the mine, but
altogether his evidence was in favour of Mr. Attwood. Then
there was the evidence of Mr. Brunton, who was also sent to
examine the mineral field, and he stated that by proper ap-
plication of capital, an ample return upon fire hundred and
fifty thousand pounds might be made. He expressed his
opinion also, that no mis-statements, in point of fact, with
respect to the mines had been made by Mr. Attwood. The
more important point was whether Mr. Attwood, in deliver-
ing in the representations he had made with respect to Corn-
greaves, showed such a case of fraud as entitled the Company
to be relieved. Why, even if those representations were false,
had not the parties taken the greatest pains to ascertain what
the real state of the property was ? Parties went out to ex-
amine the property, and if they had not made that examination
properly the fault was their own, and not that of Mr. Att-
wood. In answer to that observation, it had been said that
James and Edwards, two of the persons who had been sent
out to examine certain parts of the property, had made a
statement with respect to the yields of the furnaces which
was not correct. Supposing that even to he so, had
not the purchaser ample opportunies of correcting it ?
Could parties, therefore, call upon a Court of Equity
to set aside a contract entered into under such cir-
cumstances ? It might be true that the papers sent in by
Mr. Attwood contained misrepresentations, but in his view,
the papers did not contain any fraudulent misrepresentations.
The only thing that could lead to the belief that the papers
contained fraudulent misrepresentations, was what was
stated by one person, not in the presence of Mr. Att-
wood, but in answer to a question put to him by other perti( s.
Oa the 17th of October the deputation then proceeded to
Birmingham, and the queries they sent back to Taylor were
extremely minute—they had all their own notes and memo-
randa by them, but they were not satisfied—they sent a paper
to Philip Taylor, calling for further information on very mi-
nute particulars. The answer of Taylor was that since they
had left he had been constantly occupied in examining tho
books of Mr. Attwood, and comparing them with his state-
ments. That was important, as it had been alleged that he
was so much occupied with other matters that (he being one
of the plaintiffs, and a party about to make the
purchase of an estate) he had not time to make
the necessary inquiries. Mr. Taylor went on to state
that although it might be safe or prudent to estimate
the profits on the wholesale calculations of Mr. Attwood,
still it was unquestionally proved that the data were favour-
able. The deputation then went back to London, and made
their repert, which stated that, in accordance with the reso-
lution of the Board of Directors of the British Iron Company,
they had examined the books and other documents, and had
come to the conclusion that Mr. Attwood had essentially
proved that his statement was correct and well founded.
After that proceeding on their part the contract went on.
There had been some discussion with respect to the words
" waiver" and " acquiescence," but the whole course of the
proceeding showed that the Company had resolved not to take
upon trust any statement made to them, but to examine for
themselves. He was fortified in th e view of the case he had taken
against the Company, by the fact that the Bill had not been
filed for some months after the Company had been in posses-
sion. Within the first fortnight after possession, the acting
partners, or agent, musthave known the accuracy or inaccuracy
of the estimates upon which the purchase had proceeded.
With respect to the items of dead work and salaries, all of
which were ingredients in the price at which iron could be
manufactured, it appeared to him (Earl Devon) to be absurd
to suppose that any party would rely upon the statements of
the vendor, as it must be a matter of calculation which every
person conversant with the trade could make. Upon the
whole case, then, and without attempting to go through all the
particulars, he felt himself bound to come to the conclusion
that the plaintiffs in that suit, upon the Bill so framed and so
presented to the Court, were not entitled to the relief prayed
for. He was not aware that he had omitted to notice any
points deserving of importance. He certainly had not
willingly omitted any point relied upon by counsel, or
established, by any part of the case. They had had the
advantage of the most able and eminent Counsel, and he
(Earl Devon) need hardly say, that he had applied himself
to the examination of the evidence tendered, and he should
be ashamed of himself if he had not given to it the utmost
consideration, and he was quite sure, although differing from
his Learned Friend, that he would have condemned him (Earl
Devon) if, after having given that attention to it, and brought
his mind to that conclusion, he had not honestly stated it. He
should now have an opportunity of hearing ethers much better
qualified to form an opinion on the case; but if the judgment
of the house should be with him, he felt convinced that justice
substantially would be done, in conformity with the sound-
est principles of law, and in reference to time actual state
of the case, and the evidence before them.
Lord BROUGUA NJ, having heard the statement of the case on
part of the appellants at great length, and the outline of the
case on behalf of the respondents, felt it necessary to say a few
words. The case had been, then, postponed to another 305..
51011, it having been ascertained that they could not come to a
decision in the course of that session. The consequence of
that: adjournment was, that his (Lord Brougham's) indisposi-
tion, which he regretted, not so much on his own account as
because it entailed on their Lordships the necessity of re-
hearing so much of the case again, and of putting the parties
to the expence incurred a second time—the consequence was,
that his indisposition had prevented him hearing the whole of
the case. He would, however, observe, that it would depend
upon the iudgment of their Lordships whether he should again
have the honour of addressing them or. the case. It
might so happen that he would feel himself disqualified from

.„ .
taking a past in the discussieM, l'e't.rt he hoped their Lordships
would not consider, making allowances for ti'l'e prominent part
he had taken in the matter, that he had improperly intruded
8n \litir attentien
After. a few *Oros irdett the Fowl of Devox in explanation,
The Load CIiANCELi:OR said dials censidering the import-
an, s 0.4 e eds4C--elhYl oitaret from the dmodreitro:
in-
volved, and from the Stsirtility do'c'ernertts Which eiidst
be referred to before one could come to a pi
had induced him to devote as much time and attention to the
case ag It fit aired. Before he called their Lordships'
atteritioe to the fedi the grouuds upon which
had come to the conclusion lie ateilld pfeeently state, he
should first caSll their Lordships' attention to the staff! of the
record, and in particular ti; the Way in Which it stood after the
amendrngnt. It appeared that ore of the pm-chasers, named
Phillip Tay'ior; harl, as, it was alleged, so lent blreeelf to the
unjust purposes of Mr. Atteeseod. that.-it was proper for the
plaintiffs seeking to be relieved, not oaiv from the contract,
but froth the actual oak, to make him e defendant on the re-
cord. lle entered sot at present iuto the proptir!v of
that order, which enabled ties pie;ntiffe to remove Taylor
Lot has cosplaintiffship, and make a defendant.
He looked at the record only as it stood after its
amendment. He found the tpleintiff in a Court of IZtitlitYl
charging Phillip Taylor, one of themselves, with havinang
so far aoandoneil his duty as an active agent of the Company
as to have engaged in matters which would amount to a gross
fraud. If that allegation had Teen made out, the record
would have been most IR operly framed, and Mr. Att.wood
would not have been able to object to it. The allegation was
not made out, and the charge of fraud was negatived. Other
facts were also attempted to be brought to beer against Taylor,
but they had not been proved. Looking at those allegations,
he had not a moment's hesitation or doubt in saying that the
judgment of the Court belew was entirely right. That deci-
sion left the record with Taylor, the active agent and co-
partner of those who made the purchase. If Taylor was ac-
quitted why should he not be considered a party to those acts?
With respect to the practice of insking one of the plaintiffs a
defendant, it was not necessary for him now to call their Lord-
ships' attention to whether that was a proper proceeding in a
Court of Equity. To him (the Lord Chancellor) it had al-
ways appeared that it was a practice never resorted to ex-
cept for the purposes of injustice—it was borrowing from
the Criminal Law one of its most objectionable features.
He did not think any case was ever brought before him under
such circumstances as that he would think it safe to proceed
to an adjudication on the merits, where the plaintiff had pre-
vented those who were most able to speak to facts on the
part of the defendant from proving them. That circumstance
alone would have induced him before he sanctioned the judg-
ment as it stood to have thought it absolutely necessary to
have the matter put into such a state that the defendant should
have the advantage of proving his case. Entertaining these
feelings he had great satisfaction in observing the course their
Lordships' House took on the very important case of " De
Beavoir v. Rhodes," when his Noble and Learned Friend
( Lord Brougham) was on the Woolsack.
Lord BROUGHANI—Lord Eldon and Lord Pluakett agreed
to that decision.
The Loan CHANCELLOR could not conceive a case in which
ho should feel himself less safe in coming to an adjudica-
tion than where the plaintiff had, under pretence of
having security for costs, deprived his opponent of the means
of proving his case. Before going into a detail
of the allegations in the Bill, he would state what he con-
sidered to be the real matter in issue between the parties ;
and then he would state the course by which he thought it
was most likely their Lordships would be able to arrive at a
right conclusion, and meet the ends of justice in considering
what the matter in issue between the parties was, and how it
ought to be decided. Their Lordships were aware that the
property in question consisted of property partly leasehold
and partly freehold. The Company being desirous of pro-
curing property of this description, a negotiation was entered
into between Mr. Attwood, or his agent, and the Company,
or their agents. The plaintiffs alleged—and so far, undoubt-
edly, the facts proved they were correct—that certain repre-
sentations were made by Mr. Attwood as to the state of the
property, as to the productive powers of the property, and as
to certain circumstances material to be considered by those
who were to become the purchasers. Those representations
in the first instance were verbal, they were afterwards reduced
into writing; not by Mr. Attwood, but by Mr. Phillip Taylor,one
of the purchasers; and there was evidence that Mr. Attwood,
after seeing those papers, and after having seen the statement
as it appeared in those papers, he sanctioned the representa-
tion made upon it, and adopted it as his representation. The
negotiation having gone on for a considerable time, till the
day elapsed, the Ist of October, on which it ought to have
been completed, and there being still some question about the
title, the bill alleged the contract was actually at an cud.
That did not appear to be the fact. There was certainly some
difficulty in going on with it, and a doubt whether it should
be prosecuted or not. It ended, according to the evidence, in
the Company agreeing to go on with it, provided that was
done which formed part of the original contract or undertaking
—namely, that those representations, whatever they were, that
appeared on the papers should be proved to the satisfaction of
the Company to be correct, according to the books and docu.
ments in Mr. Attwood's possession. Accordingly a deputation
was sent, consisting of twelve members of the Company, and
three professional persons ; and the question turned on the
course of dealing at the time that deputation went down to
Congreaves. What was alleged to be the purpose of that
was material, and yet, singularly enough, on the face of the
record, that did not seem to him (the Lord Chancellor), to
have beers very accurately understood or accurately stated.
The object of that deputation, as it appeared to him was, not
to receive any new statement, not to receive any new
representation, except for the purpose of proving the
accuracy of the first representation 'contained in the
P. T." papers, and yet the bill exhausted all its
vigour against the "D " papers that were produced and
left untouched, except so far as it was to be decided from
circumstances connected with the "P. T." papers, the
question how far the "P. T." papers were proved or not.
l'he question was, what the contract between the parties
was ? Why, it was, to go on with the contract if the repre-
sentations in the "P. T." papers were proved. The parties
went down, and evidence was brought before them. What
passed on that occasion was one of those matters that, from
the course adopted by the plaintiffs, remained in doubt, be-
cause the plaintiffs had incapacitated those two persons who
were employed by Mr. Attwood from speaking with any
accuracy as to what took place. This was the issue between
the parties—the plaintiffs asserting that the " P. T." papers
and the " D." papers (that was the original representation,
and the papers produced for the purpose of authenticity and
proving that representation)—were representations of what
actually had taken place within a given time. The defendant,
on the other hand, said that that was not the object
either of the one representation or the other, but that the object
was to exhibit, not what had taken place, but to show those
who were to become purchasers what they might fairly cal-
culate upon as the result of the future working to be derived
from the experience of what had taken place before. The
course by which it seemed to him most likely to avoid any
error in testimony, and to try and test the accuracy of the
case made on behalf of the plaintiff and defeadant, was
not to rely entirely on what any witness might have said
as to what lie had heard pass in conversation, but to
refer to svhat he found in writing passing between the
plaintiff and their agents, and the defendants or their agents,
or, what was still more important, passing between the different
members of that Company which the plaintiffs represented.
If he found no doubt or difficulty left on his mind as to villa
was the real understanding of the parties, not only as to the
nature of the representations made or intended to be conveyed
by those papers, but as to their acting on that information,
and as to what they understood themselves, lie should not
think it safe to give any credit to a witness who might be
called to state something in conversation inconsistent with the
result of such evidence. Before he called their Lordships' atten-
tion to the written documents, he would notice some allegations
in the Bill. Their Lordships would bear in mind what was the
representation of one side and the other, with regard to the
information intended to be conveyed by those two descriptions
of papers; he thought their Lordships would consider this was
an important consideration, putting themselves in the situation
of the intended purchaser, what was the sort of information
they would naturally wish to obtain. The object of the
Company must have have been to know whether they
were safe in paying so large a sum of money, and
to ascertain as far as the nature of the case would
permit what were likely to be the fruits of so large a payment.
It would not have been satisfactory to the purchaser merely
to have been told what had been the result of any one fortnight
in any one year. That would not have enabled him to
form a guess as to what was likely to be the result of future
years under all the changes property of that sort was liable
to. He would now state what he considered to be the points
in issue, and which would be more or less affected by Cm in-
vestigation of the documents to which he was about to
refer. The points to which he thought it important
to put their Lordships in possession of were—first, whether
the representations were matter of fact, or whether they we e
speculative calculations ; secondly, whether those representa-
tions, whatever they might be, were acted on by the Com-
pany ; thirdly, whether they were true or false ; and, lastly,
whether anything had happened to deprive the Company of
the right of insisting upon the inaccuracies of those
representations if they were inaccurate. He would
then call their Lordship's attention to the P. T.
Papers. It was evident that they were partly speculative.
There were no furnaces at Congreaves ; yet the calculations
were made, that if six were erected there, so much metal
would be obtained at a certain cost. Then again they stated
that there were six furnaces at Dudley Wood Making 360
tons of pig iron for a certain cost ; there were six furnaces at
Dudley Wood, hut there were only five of them which had
been worked. To his mind it was clear that the representa-
tions contained in these papers did not refer to any particular
time, but were merely the results of former workings. In the
whole of them he did not find anything like an assertion that
the calculations were made referring to any parti-
cular time ? To his mind it was perfectly clear that
they were stated as the results from former experience. If
such were the case with the P. T. Papers, how was it possible
to suppose that the calculations contained in the D. Papers
could have reference to any particular fortnight—to any par-
ticular time. There was nothing on the face of them, except
their date, to show that they referred to any particular pe-
riod. On the other hand, the calculations were stated to have
been made upon averages—not averages for a fortnight, but
evidently from averages of times past. A question of much
importance was, how the parties considered the Papers to have
been calculated—whether upon the actual outlay, for the
purpose of producing a certain quantity of pig irou_.
or whether the calculations were intended to include
the dead work such as the opening of mines, &c. &e.
The dead work might be very expensive, and the question was,
upon what quantity of produce was it to be apportioned. From
the extreme difficulty of apportioning such expense—from the

_ .
dmost WO impossibility of doing so, he felt bound to conaid
the papers as intending merely to give an avenge of the past,
end that they were not intended to include the dead w ht.eig
'hs seenduct of Mr. Attwood (luring the transaction did not give
any signs df ecenseiousness of acting in any fraudulent manner-
The books of the concern were always open to the Conipany'a
inspection ; if those hooka had been able to slim the
fa;sity of the statement, they would net have been open to the
inepeetion of the Deputation at all times. A grave charge
seize made against Mr. Attwood—it eas considered that he
knew 'its hod made a good bargain because he so readily
gave up 50,94)0/., of the purchase money, when it was
fund that he had no power to renew on that part
of the property held at will. It was to be remembered, how-
ever, that the original contract ..vas entered into in June, 1825,
when everything was touch enhanced in value by the specula-
tions of so many Companies as were then formed, and that a
very great, a very considerable change bad taken place
all affairs by October in the same year, when he gave up thai!
sum. That might be some reason for the facility with wilier'
Attwood gave up the money. Philip Taylor and Mr-
llerrison were dots n at the works in October and November,
while the original contract was pending. It did not very
clearly appear for what purpose they were there ; it was, how-
ever, in evidence that they had access to the books
dorieg the whole time, which did not appear. as if
Mr. Attwood had any knowledge, of any fraud. The iNoble
and Learned Lord proceeded to state that from certain calcu-
lotions which were in evidence, it was clear the Compaq.
were availing themselves of opportunities they possessed of
making inquiries, and dint their investigations were not eon-
fi6ed to a single quarter only, but extended to the general
average, running over a long period. Now, as to the he
dence of Mr. Brunton, and it might be remarked that th
evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff was peculiarly va-
luable, Mr. Brunton stated that P. Taylor said the defendant
had thrown open his books,
,which afforded a certain confirms-
tion of all he had before stated. On the 29th October, 1825,
the deputation was appointed, with regard to which it was
hardly to he credited, as the plaintiff stated, that the deputa-
tion, which had been appointed to test the accuracy of Att-
wood's statements, that they trusted to his representations,
and did not inquire into the truth of the P. T. papers. Now,
from a letter of Mr. Mills, 2d November, it appeared
th
the deputation examined the books, and inquired into the
accuracy of these papers. All this, indeed, would go for
nothing if P. Taylor was to be considered as having con-
spired with Attwood ; but there was no proof of that. The
report of the deputation stated that Attwood soh*
stantially proved the accuracy of the information on
which the managing directors concluded the Con-
tract. It was not till the end of March following
that the first declaration of war was made by the Company
against Attwood. Now, upon the whole of the evidence, was
it not clear—Firstly, That the calculations of the Corripae3l
at
were made on the average of a long period past, and not on the
actual expense of a particular period ? Secondly, That they
did not rely solely on the information of Attwood, but that
they had examined into it, and fully satisfied themselves of its
accuracy. Thirdly, That with the full knowledge of thesse
facts, they entered into the contract. As to the parole:test':
mony. which had been adduced in opposition to the written
evidence, it was not to be relied on with so much confi-
dence, and having satisfied himself that the parole te'ti
mony could not be taken as throwing any doubt on feltthe
documentary evidence, he (the Lord Chancellor) ffa
bound to say that he did not think the plaint,il
had entitled themselves to the relief which they prayed.
(the Lord Chancellor) was convinced that no fraud had been
es proved arising out of circumstances which were not know,' to
the Company from the very commencement ; and he te,
therefore submit to their Lordships that the result of this len,f
and arduous investigation must be that the case must he .i
missed with costs.
Lord LreontiesT had listened with great attention to whiat
had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friends ; but .ee
regretted to say that he had arrived at a different cell;
elusion to that which they had come. He would not sie
his opinion in competition with that of his Noble Fricelg;
especially in a case on which he had himself decided. net,ll:o
owed it to himself and to their LordslOps to state distinctlY 'd.
grounds on which his difference of judgment was founde.
There could be no dispute as to the law upon this question,
he (Lord Lyndhurst) would thus take the liberty of statingi.
that when representations false, and false to the knowfedogc.f,
the party making them, were made with respectt
ur-
nature of property which was to be the subjert ,ef `hose
chase affecting the value of that property ir
representations turned out afterwards to be inconsistent 1-14
the knowledge of the party making them, there wlar
be a good foundation for an action at common law had
recovering the damage sustained by the deceit whichset fling
been practised, or in a Court of Equity, for
the
the contract. This law had been settled in cases both in
King's Bench and the Rolls Court, before Sir detail Gratnbe
The Noble and Learned Lord then proceeded
facts of the case, remarking that he had thought it would. •
by directing
well to refer the case to the decision of a jury. ow-se
an issue : but the Counsel were not favourable t) that courses
perhaps from feeling that it was a ease too
"11.nsP Noble
and difficult for the investigation of a jury. f
Friend on the Woolsack had spoken of the probability ot.
ey
case, he would most willingly put it upon that, for 110;
were all one way. The paper I). 1. was the Paper d
which the whole case turned, and Mr. Attwood characterise
that Paper as hypothetical. Was that so ? No, they had the
positive evidence of Mr. Harrison, who in the Court beloWt
to
be
was treated as an honourable man. That gentleman stated the
Paper bore actual reference to the time it was mad, his Noble
friends had said that the papers did not represent the actual
cost of making iron. Upon the evidence that took pieced
in the Court below, lie thought that he was entitlea
to say that: they did. What was the law, ‘ri
a man withheld documents, as had' been done But
why the law presumed every thing against him. Pllt l
fc's,
was said that this case was not to be decided uponeelinded
rential evidence ; why the lives of individuals were d than
upon such evidence, and that, too, far more slight
of the
that in the present ease. The Noble Lord then read part
evidence of Best to show what took place at the time the clhte)ontill'id
tion was at Congreaves, and remarked that no Merl.
sisian
be surprised upon that evidence, that he had come to the dec... cis
he had done, his wily surprise was that his Noble Frll:oaid
had formed the judgment they had done. He ;Is he
not set his judgment against those two Noble Lortas.e,veri,
might be biased by a former impression, former
body knewlhow difficult it was to get rid of riot
pressions, bu still he could not but think he eves
supposing that the statements made by Alf.tearlY
wood were not founded in truth. It had been - fed.
shown that iron could not be made at the price ot%ian
From all the evidence in the cause he was clearly of eP,lOOld
that iron could not be made for less than 51. a ton, which evarag
make a difference from the statement of Mr. Attwood of tip' the
of 18,0001. There was no doubt in his mind that.ico_
yields had been falsely stated. To that it was said, ne piaci
book existed; if there did not, stock-papers were IcePt' front
anything been done by the Company to prevent till tios
coming to a Court of Equity to complain ° tairdy
manner in which they had been treated ? Ccryfeeer,
not. With respect to Philip Taylor, 11° these
it was to be said, indeed, that previous to
ci yet
transactions, Mr. Attwood knew nothing of him, B,n Was
shortly afterwards Mr. Attwood advanced him 12,000Toler,
it likely under those circumstances that Philip tbiral
as the Agent of the Company, would do anY air.
in the negotiations that were going on detrimental re far,
Attwood ? How WS this sum advanced Why telooo/
niture Corogreays WAS made over to him' for
s 'rity•
for which his notee's were taken without any pertain
Again, 0,000/. was advanced to enable him to retain' able
shares, and in another instance money was advanced to /01
Mr. Taylor to manufacture boilers on his own premises, „lilt
this being kept secret, created great suspicion. Then el",j,
look at Edwards, who had been a servant of Atoc°-
Ile, through the interest of Mr. Attwood, was niadtchsat('?
countant ;to the concern. Was there nothing in that
It was said that estimates were made that were aso
denied by the evidence of Talbot. The works yield e .05
much less than was expected, that a deputation cod
sent from London to Crongrcaves, when it was disc°Vt;,en
that the Company had been grossly imposed upon. anda tben
it was thst the present Bill was filed. The Noble Ler wade
went at some length into the nature of the objectiou.,a,i,s
to the formation of the record, by having made
.1, re.
and other parties, but denied that he was at fault W. the
sped to that. There was some parts of the conduct rove
Court of Directors of the Company[; lie could not ;Pr not
but still that was no reason why they ghoul,' d on
have redress. Hte e had now said all he inten,u.icraself
the care, and what he had said was to do justice "co
On the suggestion of Lord BROUGHAM the further
deration of the case was adjourned to Monday.

t 104
FIRE ON CLAPHAM COMMON.--Las- e )(Aar
about eight o'clock the furze on the north-east part 0' -
ci to
ham Common, near the road to Balham-hill, was disecverstis-
bc on fire. One of the engines of the London Fife„Arieri
blishment soon arrived, but neither the efforts of the and
or those who lived in the neighbourhood, and who endear° ,05,
to extinguish the flames by thrashing
succeeded in stopping its progress. After burning, lictegra-
the furze with long :er.,
with great fury for neatly three quarters of an hour' *-jher
dually lost its strenr.tth, any communication with the se,
part of the Common being impeded by the cross rosels',,„kett
veral opinions were expressed as to its origin ; it having.".'d-tials
out in different places at the same time, some i'icllll that
suppose it was the work of a prar. tikel incendiary ; otberfinoor
it arose from spontaneous ignition ; and others that the 400
or • t neighbourhood, who are not allowed to cut the '
fuel, were the cause of it. Tz rl of
A grand dinner was given yesterday by the '''''a at-
Durham at his residence in Cle;eland-row, which “was A,
tended by Prince Esterhazy, Count Puzzo di' Borg°, 14r. arid
Stevenson Lords Melbourne, Lansdowne, Palmerston'
every
J. Russell; Sir J. Elohhouse ; Dukes of Norfolk, De*.
shire, and Cleveland ; Earl Grey, Lord Hll, Si '
t:
.1.
loughby Gordon, Messrs. liedworth Lambon, Ellice' .
Stanley, &c. Sze.
TIIE WEATHER p Tuesday
.—U to last e
riffel and
while the
Queensberry were still partially covered with snow, vil'i
Cumberland mountains on the preceding day were bite hod''
they have been during the whole season. 131°11gbingA cl°,ll
a goo.- .
ever, goes forward in the valleys, and every day
is done by teams that were never in better fettle. In the pad
rish of Kirkmahoe, and still nearer home, beans were planted
a short time ago ; and we could even name cases in which the
grain seedsman has been busy with the harrows at his 11... e ;
fishing has oece
Although our river is now open for salmon,
prevented by continued spates and cold ;
green, and
suspect will be done until the distant hills are again
and little good i
the " stiaw broo" they engender finally swept away: Lastet
night it commenced raining so heavily, that we may OP-
another flood.—Dumfries Courier. ,
. 1

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

HULL.

The Committee met at the usual hour, when Mr. Wrangham resumed
his argument in support of the vote of Robert Young. The room was
afterwards cleared, and the Committee deliberated. On our re-admis-
sion, the Committee had decided that the vote must be struck oil.
David Ross was objected to on the same ground. It appeared that he
was an inmate rf the workhouse, and that the average expense of main-
taining paupers was 'ls. 9d. per week. The Governor and Guardians
were, however, in the receipt of his pension, which amounted to 3s. 6d.
per week.
The Committee retained the vote.

SEIAFTESBURY.
Mr. GRAVES, the Revising Barrister for the Borough of Shaftesbury,
attended this morning, in accordance with the request of the Chairman,
and, being examined, stated, in contradiction to the evidence of Buck.
land (Town-clerk), that there was an adjournment of the Revising Bar.
rioter's Court last year ; upon which question it will be recollected no
less than thirty-one votes depend.

The Committee assembledDUßLlN. this morning at the usual hour, but
strangers were excluded until about a quarter to twelve, when the doors
were opened, and the Chairman announced that it was the opinion of the
Committee that the objection to the vote of Thomas Creevy, which was
under consideration when they adjourned yesterday, had not been sus.
taineel,
T'ne vote of James Ilatigan, 5, Mary-street, householder, belonging to
Uri same class of objections (No. 5), and standing No. 113 on the first
'days' poll, was next attacked.
Mr. A active produced the affidavit of registry.
Francis Salmon, collector of the parish of Mary's, South, was
next called, and stated that he received on the Bth Sept. 1837, the taxes
due for the entire of that year. Received no money on account of these
preWises, previous to that date.
'This closed the evidence against the vote.
Mr. Hurrox said that three questions arose in this case. He con.
tended first, that it was necessary to prove a demand for these taxes,
before the voter could he disqualified for non-payment of them. Se-
condly, that the last instalment of the tax for 1837 was not due or
Payable before the election, and he consequently only owed one-
half years's amount at the time of polling ; and thirdly, that
assuming the whole year's tax to be due at the election,
it became due within the six months previous, and the voter was en.
titled to a clear six months' credit in point of time, under the provisions
of the Reform Act.
Mend
lieaTixo said the inconvenience of the course takers by his Learned
d (Mr. Austin) yesterday, was now evident. Mr. Thessiger had
addressed himself to the five different objections suggested by his Learned
Friend, the Committee had, however, decided only one of thorn, and he
Would now be compelled to re-open the argument again. The three
objections taken by Mr. Hutton, were nearly similar in their nature,
and he would not, therefore, have occasion to trouble the Com-
Mittee at any length. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded
to address himself to the points in question, which were
argued yesterday at great length by Mr. Thessiger, and in
the course of his argument, quoted a decision of the former Dublin
Committee, and said that he supposed his Learned Friend, Mr.
Austin, when he came to address the Committee would comment se-
verely on that decision.

Mr. AUSTIN, in the course of his reply, said he did not feel himself
called upon to impugn the conduct of the Committee further than this,
that, looking as a lawyer at their decisions, he considered
them entitled to no respect whatsoever. He had no doubt that
every gentleman who had acted on that Committee had decided with
the most conscientious intentions, but he did impugn their judgment.
He remembered well the astonishment which the decisions of the Com.
mittee had created amongst lawyers at the time, and he could only say,
that admitting, as he did most fully, their conscientious intentions, it
Was undeniable that that Committee had had the strongest possible bias
against the franchise of Dublin.

This Com NE WRY.:
mittee met at eleven o'clock, when Mr. MERENVETHER
stated he shou!d rest the case of the petitioner (Mr. Brady, Liberal),
upon the non.qualification of the sitting Member (Mr. Ellis, Tory), lie
then called Mr. Ross Glenine to put in and prove the poll-books. The
witness stated that he was not the proper officer, but appeared on behalf
of his father, who (as Seneschal) had the legal custody of the poll
books, but was prevented from attending in person by a sudden attack
of illness, in which he had to undergo a severe surgical operation.
Mr. THESSIGEIR objected to the poll-books being received as evidence,
unless proved by the Seneschal in person.
The COMMITTEE, after a long consultation, decided that the poll-
books could Not be received ; and
Mr. Serjeant Mcamwe'rasn, for the petitioner, then withdrew his
ease, and the sitting Member is declared duly elected.

[To be concluded in a Second Edition.]

CORN AVERAGES.

GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN,
For ithe Week ended March 16, ,633, made up from the Returns of the
lespeetors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Wales, per
Imperial Quarter.
Wheat s6s. 3:1. Oats
Barley 2Bs. 10d..1 Rye ... ...... 31s iid. 1 I Pease '3s. Od.
DIPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGES OF THE SIX WEEKS
PRECEDING.
Wheat sss. 5d.1 Oats
Barley 2Ba. 9d. 1 Rye
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
Wheat......... 31s. Bd. 1
Oats
I
Barley l9s. 104. Rye
Out of the one hundred and fifty towns from which the averages are
taken, the highest weekly average of Wheat was at Guildford, where it
Was 645. 9d., the lowest at Haverfordwest, where it was 50s. Od.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)

HUNGERFORD MARKET.
Meat continues high. The supply and the trade good. Beef, 7d. to
to 834 d. ; Mutton, 7d. to 9d. ; Veal, Bd. to 10d. ; Pork, 7d. to 81/ad.
Fish dear rather, as they were every where else. Turbot, 6s. 6d. to
18s. and 19s. for large ; Soles, 9d. to 96. per pair, and higher for large,
Cod scarce of good quality, and high. Vegetables dear, and not plenti-
ful, In Hay and Clover no variation in value.
BILLINGSGATE MARKET.
To-day the supply was to a fair extent. Trade brisk, and prices
snitch as yesterday. Soles 9d. to 35. ; Turbot ss. to :Hs ; Lobsters still
clear; Mackerel 6,1 to Is. aach ; Salmon 2.5. to Os. 3d. Mackerel will
now contribute to keep the price of other fish down.
HAY MARKET.
The supplies to-day were not so large as they have been of any
description, but the demand is good; prices remain unvaried from our
last quotations.