The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

COLD/ 3/L.

SUGAR.—The market lOiiirristiPlantation continues
stea iy, in consequence of the extreme firmness of
holders and the limited quantity offering. The sales are
270 hhds, at an advance of fully 6d since this day week.
The quantity lauded last week at the East and West
India Docks was 808 hhds 92 tierces; there were taken
for home consumption 1,438 hhds 76 tierces 248 barrels.
The stock in the same places is 12,745 lihds 1,985 tierces
4,187 barrels.

COFFEE.-320 bags 20 casks Plantation Ceylon sold
readily at an advance of 2s to 3s per cwt; from 40s to
49s 6d for good triage, to f fine ord; 1,400 bags common
very good ord Native Ceylon brought 344 to 36s 61, being
a further improvement of 6d to is per cwt; 2,100 bags
Java sold with spirit at 35s to 47s for good ord pale to
f fine ord coloury, being an advance of 31 per cwt since
the last public sale, and 700 bugs damaged Ilavannah
also sold at higher rotes, chiefly from 294 to 365. Pri-
vately 4,800 bags good first Rio sold at about 296 9d.
Rum.—The quantity landed last week at the East and
West India Docks was 159 puns 7 hhds. There were
taken for home consumption 168 puns 26 hhds, and ex-
port( d 72 puns 155 hhd3. The stock in the same places
is 19,564 puns 2,729 hhds.
RfcE.-2,000 bags Bengal sold steadily, at 91 to lOs
for low to good mid white.
TALLOW.—P.Y.C. is 38s to 38s 6d per cwt on the spot,
and Town 39s 6d.

TEA.—The market is steady, and the deliveries last
week ware fair. Congou, ord to good ord, 8,1 to Bid;
Pekoe kind, is 6i to is 10d; Twanksy, good ord to but
mid, 6d to 7d; Canton kind, 3id to sd; Ily son, good ord,
10d to Is; and add to good mid, 1,9 d to 3s 63 per lb.

QUEEN'S BEA CII.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nibi Prins, before Lord DENMAN and a
Special Jury.)
THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. HARMER.

This was an action brought by the Duke of Bruns-
wick against James Harmer, Estp, the proprietor of the
Weehly Dispatch, to recover compensation in damages
for a series of alleged libels.
The libels complained of alleged that the Duke of
Brunswick had been expelled from his dominions, be-
cause he was a tyrant, and had outraged the feelings of
his subjci, trampled on the laws, had the letters in his
post-office opened and plundered, and had been guilty
of so much atrocity that his subjects had expelled him,
and burned his palace.
The plaintiff denied that there was any truth in
these allegations, and held that they were published in
order to injure him publicly and privately.
On the other hand the defendant pleaded the statute
of limitations, as regarded the first alleged libel, and
justification.
The Duke conducted his own case.
Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and
Mr. Martin appeared for the defendant.

Tile Duke of Brunswick read a long speech, setting
forth that during his residence in this country he had
been grossly libelled, by the Satirist and other paper 3,
when Lad followed him into society and rendered his
existence most unhappy. But the libels, for the pub-
lication of which he sought compensation, partook mire
of a political than of a personal characti r, though not
devoid of the latter, since they had reference to
evcrits in Brunswick, as contrasted with that at Lucca,
The plaintiff then read the libels, and called upon the
jury to award him ample compensation for the injury
he had sustained in consequence. lie then called the
following witnesses :
Mr. J. W. Jones, a libratian at the British Museum,
produced copies of the Weekly Dispatch, of the 18th
September, 1830, and the 17th of August, 1845.
Mr. Debenhatn, of the Stamp-office, produced copies
of the paper of the 3d and 10th of October, 1847 ; the
12th of March, 2d and 9th of April, and the 25th of
June, 1848.

Mr. Juhu Harrison, clerk to Mr. Warnford, the plain-
tiff's attorney, proved that from 1830 up to 1847 the
defenr?ant and Mr. Robert Bell were proprietors of the
Weekly Dispatch.
eapviin Reinhold proved purchasing the Weekly
Dispatch newspaper of the 19th of September, 1830.
Porch:lsta the p%pers in March, 1848.
Cross-examined—He was a teacher of languages, and
lived at No. 10, Oakley-street, Lambeth. and had known
the Duke ten or twelve years. He purchased the paper
by the Duke's direction. He had to call the next day
for them in order that they might search for them.
This the plaintiff intimated was his case.

Sir F. MESMER then proceeded to address the Court
on behalf of the delendant. He said it was usually sup.
posed that when a person appeared in a court of law
without counsel that he was under much disadvautsge,
but he confessed that on this occasion the defendant had
been allowed considerable latitude—he had been allowed
indulgences which would not have been allowed to a
practised advocate. On such occasions an advocate on
the other side did not like to interfere. Therefore on
that occasion the plaintiff possessed an advantagp
over the defendant. The case was a remarkable one
as presented to their notice, for it began with
a charge of libel alleged to have been published so far
back as 1830. Now one would have imagined that if
there was anything in that alleged libel that outraged
the feelings or assailed the character of the Duke, so as
to render the matter one for inquiry in our courts of
justice, he would have resorted to such a course—re-
sorted to it when the publication first appeared, and
that he would hardly have waited nineteen years, when
probably the person who penned the article was dead,
and when, as stated in the letter that had been read to
them, "many of those now connected with the paper
were little boys." Indeed, his course was not a little re-
markable. lie said, " It is true that from 1830, down
to 1847, nothing appeared in the columns of the Weekly
Dispatch of which I have a right to complain, but in tee
year 1847 I find the words • outraged and indignant
subjects.' In 1848, I find the words ' ruthlessly hurled
from his throne.'" lie (Sir Frederick Thesiger) found
in the same paper that it was stated that other exiles
had favoured this land with their presence; but the in-
genious way in which the publication of 1830 was made
to speak, at the present day, since it was raised as the
means of making out the publications of 1847 and 1848.
This was the most remarkable mode of making a person
accountable for libel that be had ever heard in a court of
justice. If the action stood merely upon the articles of
1847 and 1848. there would be no pretence for alleging
that they were libels, s,p that it was only by snaking
them point to what had; appeared in 1830, and making it
interpret what had been published in the latter years,
that the Duke could seek damages at their hands. In
deed, the course the Duke had adopted was altogether
unfair to the proprietors of the paper; fur the paper of 1830
would never have seen the light, it would have been
consigned to the dust of the Stamp-office, if the Duke
had not directed his emissary to obtain a copy, and if
they wanted any evidence to prove that it had been con
signed to oblivion, it was to be found in the fact that a
search had been made for it. It had not been repub
fished, and so far as the proprietors of the paper were
concerned, the matter had been entirely forgotten. In-
deed, but for the anxiety of the proprietors to oblige
every customer, for the sale of the copy for which the
Captain had applied, they might have pleaded the statute
of limitations. It might be true, as the plaintiff had
alleged, that he had been compelled to bring a great num.
bur of actions, and that he bad been successful to a very
considerable extent. Ile had alluded to certain news-
papers, and had insinuated that the Dispatch had fol-
lowed the same case of extortion; that it had marked
him out, assailed his private character for gain. Of the
result of the actions to which he bad alluded, he (Sir F.
Thesiger) might express his satisfaction; twice he sought
compensation for libels on his private character, and
indeed he held that man a public benefactor who, when
he was unjustly and unworthily assailed in his pri-
vate capacity by the public press, brought the
matter before a jury of his country, and he
would not for a moment stand up and
assert the right of a public journal to assail private cha-
racter. But he thought, if they were to consider the
article of 1830 as making part of this inquiry, they would
be much mistaken, since the question they would have
to decide would be one of a very, different character.
They would have to say whether a journalist was or was
not entitled to discuss matters of public and general im port-
Sauce. 1/e asserted and vindicated the right of the public
press—a right to attack the public characters of public
men, and to express its strong and honest opinion
upon all public events. They were matters of history
upon which every man had a right to form, and to ex-
press his independent opinion in this free country; and
he would venture to say, that if they looked carefully
into the columns of the newspapers that were pre-
sented to their notice, they would see nothing but re-
marks upon the public conduct and public character of
the Duke, which, he asserted, the public press of this
country had a right to animadvert %on in any
terms, however string, provided they were satisfied
that it was not done with any private malice
or with the view of assailing his private reputation
through the medium of his public one. Now the events
with which the Duke of Brueswisk was mixed up were
events of great public and political importance, and had
become, therefore, part of the common property of the
history of Europe. It was porfcctly clear, from the
letter of Mr. Oddy, which hid been put in, that he was
compelled to leave his country, as a revolution took
piece there, that his palace was setup fire, and that he was
obliged to escape, that, his brother was now seated upon
the throne trent which this journal asserted he had been
driven. The public journalist took different historicalnion
t vents into his consideration, and expres,td his opinion
how revolutions were effected of an unexptehceted cha-
princi.
racier, and his opinions upon those who were
the
WeehN
pal actors in them. If the pro
Dispatch believed that the DOJO
excited the
that he had rßtorursnswick had aced
the part of a traitor,
dis-
gust and hatred of his subjects, that they

rose indignantly against his oppression, that they hurled
him from the throne, was there anything in the consti-
tution of this country er m law, as applicable to the press
of this country, which could restrain the expression of
those opinioes and feelings which he might thiak proper
to express upon the occurrence of such events? How
many eueccesfill insurrections had they seen within the
last few years; monarchies shaken to their foundations,
and the rulers of thozo States becoming exited in
!oreign countries; and how often had they read
the opinions that hd been given expression to
with regard to tee characters and conduct of those mo-
iinrelis who had been so driven from their countries.
Take, for instance, the case of Louis Philippe whom this
paper, called " the ex-traitor of France." Let them re-
member how his conduct had been animadverted upon.
It was impossible to imagine any attacks upon character
more serious than those directed again ,t him. Take,
again, the opening observations made wieli regard to the
conduct of the Pope, Charles Albert, the King of the
Two Sicilies, and with regard to other princes—for in-
stance the King of Sardinia, the Emperors of Russia, of
Prussia—all of them allies of this country—and
all of them just as much entitled to maintain
actions against the editors of other newspapers
as much as the plaintiff was entitled to bring
this action against the Weekly Dispatch. Did they
believe that these public persons would have any
right to assail the public press, or indeed take any legal
proceedings because the newspapers, confining their at-
tention to the public acts of public men, and having
better opportunities than most men of estimating their
characters, chose to stigmatise one as a wretch, another
as a monster, and another as a tyrant. He apprehended
if the editor of a paper appealed in his remarks entirely
to pubic conduct, to historical incidents, and did not
assail the private character of individuals, he appre-
hended that they had a right to do so—to speak in the
strongest manner without being assailed by legal pro-
ceedings. He now came to the real question
between the plaintiff and the defendant, and
the liberty of the press in this country
He denied that the defendant had published any attack
whatever on the private character of the Duke—he de-
nied that the Weekly Dispatch had directed its attacks
to anything except the public events in which he was
concerned, and his conduct during that time, and he ap-
prehended the Editor bad an undoubted right to view
such acts, and to present them to his readers in the tight
in which he viewed them. The Duke, by his secretary,
said he was not sent away—that he left voluntarily, and
that his subjects in order to show their regret made a
bonfire of his palace.—(Loud laughter.) But the
Weekly Dispatch took a different view—it thought and
said that his palace was not set fire to in order to light
a beacon to guide him on his journey.—(Laughter.)
But the Duke, in his secretary's letter, had libelled anti
slandered the dead and living members of the
dead saying, that George IV. hid enough of sins of
his own to answer for without taking the additional
weight of his (the Duke of Brunswick's). The
Duke knew that the letter could not be produced in
evidence, being written to the editor of the
paper. He, therefore, commenced his action
and made the purchase of the very paper in which the
letter had appeared the ground of his proceedings. Such
a course was unworthy and ungenerous, and had he ob-
jected to its production be should have been told that the
letter was evidence against the person to whom it was
addressed; and if he had attempted to show
that its contents were false, he should have been told
that that was not material to the present inquiry whe-
ther these libels were published or not, and whether
they were libels. They could have no doubt that this
action was brought in order that the letter assailing the
characters of the living and the dead should be produced
—otherwise why was the matter allowed to slumber for
nineteen years. Ile contended that the editor of the
Dispatch could not be held liable for a publican in of a
letter of the plaintiff's. A letter sent to a
private individual could not be held a publication
unless sent with the view of committing a bleach of the
peace. What was the argument used? Why, because
the articles of 1847 and 1818 contained the very com-
mon word " outrage," which also occurred in the article
of 1830 ; that the writer of the latter article:
most have had the former letter in his
mind. Such . was the slender foundation upon
which this supersti uc:ure was based. The alleged libel
likened the plaintiff to the " village despot" and "com-
mon•pelted sovereign" the Duke of Lucca. But the
Duke of Lucca had not thought proper to bring
an action. It went on to say that the
plaintiff carried off his jewels, and it must be
said that such an act was one of a private rather than of
a public nature, and therefore it was a libel ; but nith
Dogberry he might say " Comparisons -are odious."
Again, his depostism was likened to that of M•Deu-
gal, the master of the Andover workhouse,
That, be held, was a fair ground of comparison, namely,
the machinations of a petty Prince. Then another of
the alleged libels consisted in a long article, in which the
name of the plaintiff was not mentioned, except that he was
"driven from his throne by his outraged and indignant
subjects." The Duke said be was not. The Weekly
Dispatch said he was. It says, " I look to all the cir-
cumstances—to the firing of the palace, and the yells of
your subjects, and we say your subjects, who were
indignant, did rise, and they expelled you." How often
had these very wards been applied to the ex-King of
the French and other fallen sovereigns, and yet they had
brought no actions. They were not there to try the
merits of the revolution in Brunswick, whether the
Duke was driven away by his misrule, by the popular
indignation, but they had to say whether a public
journal bad a right to remark upon public object., and
whether it had a right to assert its views
for the benefit of those to whom the pub
lication was addressed. But if they fettered
the press in the expression of its judgment on
matters of this kind, the liberty of the press must be at
an end. The remark with respect to the crimes of
Geo. IV., showed the dexterity the Noble Duke had
acquired by his practice in our courts. He held that
the sale of the copy of the paper was a re-
publication of an old libel ; and upon this logic
the Dispatch was to suffer. The Dispatch said in
reply to one of the letters addressed to it, "It he fights a
battle with us, it will be a political, not a personal one.
We shall rake up no filth to pelt him with.
Is may be worth the while of certain in-
famous publications to seek out miserable sources of
private scandal—ours is a public concern, built upon
public character, rewarded by public support, exercising
public influence," which showed that the defendant
did not intend, and had no wish, to deal with
the private character of the plaintiff. Now those were
the grounds on which he took his stand, and showed
that the Weekly Dispatch was justified in making use of
the expressions it had; it spoke favourably of the
damages which the Duke had rceived from
papers that made a trade of extortion, and he
should be rejoiced, if he over and over again re-
covered damages whenever his private character was
assailed; but he insisted, upon public grounds, that
journalists had a right to deal with the
public characters of public men; and they might
congratulate themselves as, indeed, did the Dispatch,
that monarchs and other exiles had found a safe
asylum here. If the Duke was a tyrant, he was
righteously hurled from his throne—if he, was guilty
of misrule and misgovernment, it was right that he
was deposed. He held that the plaintiff was a lair object
of criticism, and that the Weekly Dispatch
had steed properly in what it had dune.
lie should like to know where they were to stop if the
Duke of Brunswick was to be allowed to come into an
English court of justice to gig the British press, and to
prevent its expressing its opinions, honestly and fear-
'. ssly, with regard to the public events that happened
in his kingdom, and to the circumstances which led to
his being driven from it. Wh,re were they to draw the,
line? The Duke of Brunswick was not to have a mono-
poly in those actions; he was net to be the only public
person who was to be exempted from the attacks of the
press. The same principle which applied to
the Duke of Brunswick to-day would apply to
every other reigning or exiled monarch to-
morrow; and the result would be that it would
be quite impossible to express any opinion on public
matters, except in that mincing and diluted way which
was far from desirable in a public journal. He therefore
stood upon this ground: he utterly denied that there had
been anything like the publication of an article in the
year 1830, for which the defendants were to be held re-
sponsible to the Duke of Brunswick, or that in the
article of 1847 or 1848 there was anything which, in the
smallest degree, reflected on the private character of the
Duke of Brunswick. He (Sir F. Thesiger) did most
earnestly and anxiously assert the right of this or any
public journal to express fearlessly its opinion of the
Duke's public conduct, if it thought that conduct was
obnoxious to public comment; and if the jury, by their
verdict, should lay down a contrary principle, they
ould do more to destroy the liberty of the
press than had been done for many many years before.
He thought this public journal was completely defended
in this action ; and he certainly looked with some
anxiety to the result of this investigation, but not with-
out a most sanguine hope that that result would be the
acquittal of the defendant.

Lord DENMAN then summed up the case to the jury.
He said the Duke of Brunswick, who was the plaintiff
in this case, complained of several libels which had ap•
peered in the Weekly Dispatch at various times. The
question was, whether the jury thought that the articles
in question were libellous, and if so, what damages the
Duke of Brunswick was entitled to. [I lere the Learned
Judge read the article from the Dispatch of the 26th
December, 1847, in which the expulsion of the young
f hima t h e rtf
outtrothem-
0.13.
u:e'rbll: George
Duke of Blucher from his dominions was spoken of in
d
disparaging terms.] The proper observation seemed to
him (Lord Denman) upon that article to be, that that
term was used rather as a bye•word, and that
the Duke was spoken of Ets a person who
had improperly governed his country,
uphoen
Duke
taken refuge in this country. Thenb and
written t
they had immediately a long letter
l YOddy, and
of Brunswick's directions by Mr.
1 i i Wollfiatmlie description
addressed to this paper, comp.a.n.ngismis,al front his
given in the paper of the Duke (1 that
expla-
nation was that the Duke was
leave.
his country Men he
country; and he (Lord Denmau
6,3,...., hen Sovereign
subj.cts, but being about, to)otu_'sdir,diveztuaowdyth
froth
o in
b lsmob rising against him_
was prevented doing so y
~, to England and ep: nd his
on to „st fiohting at W
st't fire to his
snd at last I.— )
11.,(,, D hispalace,
manodnedyesi!lg there;
the Yurt , then Prince Rigout of
Charles; u eh:'ftratil:telnu In;
That letterG.el.gnet
. „r.ne,,,, doom warimsta,adleed4fohrishemwitaids
soEl iludni rgirbi aaan bnue Idees9 : :privatee I z ''l
upon
fortune
moment this helplesS 1 1
to keep P"'sessl'", of the Duchy and •
only ten Yet,rs '.'l age,
private fortune of
2111atil?e Duke of BI UMWiti did what
Charles, anti never to let bite
Duke
vininotuhtantfrhei.specCA thate
must o ut
hes.
aNpopwcahreed(LtourhdimD.thut
aura);
in, giving directions to Mr.
Ow adsd Y to highly
write r PareLl et
tn:ri b 'of that kind ititcting in those
he had no right whatever
terms On George, the F
-

to cite the case of George the Fourth for publication
in this paper in the manner in which he ri fLoted on that
monarch. It was an attempt to publish a libel, with
respect to the late King, who possibly might or might
not have been justified; uut, certainly when a man com
plained of being libelled in a newspaper, he ought to be
the lust to take that opportunity of publislg in a
newspaper a libel of another. [Here the Learned
Judge read the remaining articles charged as libellous.
fie roust observe that it was c!esr that on the part of the
Weekly Di,,patch, erd of the Duke of Brunswick
also, that the Duke of Brunswick had been
subject to very atrocious libels in a certain
infamous newspaper ; this the It' eddy Dispatch
wde perk ctly awe! e of, and in one part of the articies
complained of as libellous the editors of the Dispatch
seemed to have drawn a distinction between their own
conduct and that of the newspaper in question, lie
(Lord Denman) agreed fully with the Learned Counsel,.
that the most ample liberty ahau!ci be given to
the public journalists in obaerviag on known facts,
either public or private, and with respect to the Govern-
ments of foreign countries, they had a perfect right to
state any opinion they might entertain, unless it re-
ft.cted on private character; but then the personal cha-
racter of a man might be such as to be affected greatly
by his public acts, and he might chow himself to be in-
famous and cruel, and to deserve the name of traitor and
tyrant; but no parson had a right to charge those public
acts upon him, unless he could prove them. Now, itdid not
appear to him (Lord Denman) that the publication fell
at all within the question, tither of historical statement
or political remark. There were several publication*
and he was of opinion that the first publication was not
protected by the Statute of Limitations, because it was
sold at the otlice, though not in the ordinary way, and
any one anixht have brought it there. He thought that
that publication was one for which the defendant was
answerable. It had been stated in the Dispatch, and
told with great eloquence by their counsel, that " it ise
after all, a proud reflection to the people of the island
of Britain, that it is this haven of repose and secu-
rity to which the barque of the political exile
invariably speeds, in order to escape from storms,
and commotion at home," and then the cases of the Kivg
of Fiance' and the Duke of Brunswick were referred to
in illustraf oa of that sentiment. But unee the notion
of the liberty of the press, it must net b.:: a 1 wed to
public journalists to assail the character ut public indi-
viduals who came to seek a haven of repose
in this country by stating facts must highly discreditable
and unwarrantable, and Ivan cruel, on their parts, and
which mould subject them to the higtust punishment if
they were brought into a court of law. It appeared
to him dist he had gone through the facts of this case,
and it was entirely fur the jury to
,say what damages,
if any, the Duke of Brunswick was tntitled to, if they
thought those publications were libellous, and he left the
matter entirely in their hands.
The jury retired, and, after being absent for about 20
miuu:es, returned into court, and stated they found for
. the plaintiff—Damages, 500/.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings gat Nisi Pritt3 at Westminster before the LOW

CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
NOTTIDGE V. RIPLEY AND ANOTHER.

This case was resumed to-day.
Mr. MILNE, a commissioner of lunacy, proved having
seen Miss Nottidgc at Mr. Stilwell's asylum on two oc-
casions in company with Dr. Pritchard when he con-
versed with her, and came to the cenclusion that she w. 49
of an unsound state of mind. Dr. Pritchard had since
died, but he entertained the same opinion. She endea-
soured to avoid or to evade all questions respecting her
own peculiar religious opinions, which circumstance W&
of itself a ground of suspicion as to her sanitY•
only delusion was upon religious epiniotsi and she
spoke reasonably upon other subjects. Delusion upon
a particular subject was sometimes called monomania,
and persons who were under the influence of it were
sometimes harmless, and were allowed to go at libertylt
:Mr. Proctor, also a commissioner of lunacy, said r
gions delu4en was a common form of insanity, and
persons under the influence of it were periletly sensihe
and reasonable upon other subject,. He thought thei
fact of her having, immediately on leaving the atlluni!
given all her money to the person who was the subjea
of ter delusions was a proof of her insanity.
A clerk from the Bank of England stated that 5,7 w
7,4 7d. in Three-and-a-Quarter Cent. Annuities had
bi en transferred by the plaintiff to Mr. Henry James
Prince in May, 1848.
Air. COCKBURN then addressed the jury in reply. Thet.e
Learned Counsel ciAnmented at great length upon t",.
address-of Sir Frederick Thesiger and the eTicleccu
which had been produced in the case.
The trial bad no, coneluded when we went to press.

PURSUANT to a Decree of the High Court of
Chancery, made in a cause \TKINSON v. PARKER, the
Cr,ditors of 3,11,; TA \-;: , Lite of Victrr.a Ni'w
Charlton, fa th, county oi• ( who the rionth
September, 1 44), are forthwith to come in and prove • tht-ir
Debts before RICIIARD TORIN KINDERSLET, Esq., one of the Masters
of the said Court, at his Chambers, in Southamptni-huillings,
Chancery-lane, London, or in default thereof they will be excluded
ha benefit of the said Decree.
The said John Taverson was (es it is believed) boln at Shadwell,
in the cottn'y of Middlesex, awl in the early part of his life followed
some seafaring occupation, which he gave up on his marriage, and
It is not known that be afterwards follov ed any occupation. He re-
sided in Charlton-terrace, New Charlton, and Plumstead-com-
mon, in the county of Kent, and afterwards in the Marche-aux-
Herbes, Brussels, and latterly at Antwerp. where he died.
F. SMITH, STENNING, end CuOFT, 3, Basinghall-street,
London, Acents for Alfred Rhodes Bristow,-, Greenwich,
Kent, t'laintifl's Sol:cItor.

PURSUANT to a DECREE of the HIGH
COURT of CHANCERY, made in certain causQs, ATTOR-
NEY-GENERAL v. WILSHERE, WIL'iIERE v. lIARMOOD,
the creditors of the Right Rev. MATTI-11VA' HENRY THORN-
HILL LESCOMBE, late of the line de Vignes, Paris, in the kingdom
of France, Protestant Bishop and Chaplain to her Britannic 31a-
jesty's Embassy (who died at Paris in the month of August, 1846),
are forthwith to come in and prove their Debts before RICHARD
ToRIN KINDERSLET, Esq., one of the Masters of the said Court, at his
Chambers, hi Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London ;or in
default thereof, they will be excluded the benefit of the said Decree.
HALE, BOYS, and AUSTEN, 6, Ely-pace.

June 20, 1649.

FREEHOLD ESTATES-01,D MALTON AND HUITONS
ANDO, YORK.
TO be SOLD, pursuant to a DECRE orf the
HIGH COURT of CHANCERY, made in a causePRES-
TON v. ET fY, with the approbation Of RICHARD TORIN KINDERSLEY,
Esquire, one of the Masters of the said Court, at the Talbot Hotel,
New Malton, in the county of York, some time in the month of Sep-
tember next, of which due notice will be given,
A close or parcel of FREEHOLD GROUND, containing about 3
acres. Another close or parcel of FREEHOLD GROUND, containing
about 2 acres, 3 roods. and 13 perches, respectively, si uate in the
manor cod parish of Old Mallon, in the county of York, and now
In the occupation of Mr. John Warwick. And also two closes of
FREEHOLD ARABLE, MEADOW, and PASTI7RF, GROUND,
containing about 9 acres, situate in the parish of Huttons Ambo, in
..sl,l county of York, and in the occupation of Mr. Samuel

ra,Lteulars and conditions of sale are in the course of preparation,
and may shortly be obtained (gratis) at the said Master's Office, In
Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London; of Messrs. 3liJaqoettons,
,
Scott, and Ed .vards, No. 23, Southampton-buildings ; Messrs.
Edwards. Jaques, and Layton. No. 8, Ely-place ; and Messrs. Em-
met and Knight, No. 14, Bloomsbury-square, London, solicitors; of
Ilessrs. Smithson and Jackson, New Malton ; Messrs. nesp and Up-
pleby, Scarborough ; and at the place of rale.

---------
GUILDHALL, JUNE 16. 1849.
rill IFIE COMMITTEE for LETTING the CITY'S
it_ LANDS will MEET at GUILDHALL on WEDNESDAY the
27th June instant, at One o'clock precisely, to receive TENDERS
for LETTING on LEASES. for twenty-one years from Midsummer ,
1849, a House, Igo. 14, on the no th side of Broad-street-bui:dings ;
a House, No. 28, on the south side of Ilroad-street-buildings ; and
a House No. 38, on the south side of Upper 'Thames-street ; and a
House, No. 50, on the north side of Skinncr,treet, Snowhill.
Also. to receive TENDERS for LETTING on LEASE, for lil%
years (lees three days), from biklsummer, 1849, a House, lio. 9. Ar-
,,„`tillery-.4aoe. 01t7-xoad, , .-. _
___.„,_. t.-..
t - Further particulars anll'ulane-initY De seen, :a pores of teUder
Obtained, at the Office of Works, Guildhall.
T IONIAS SAUNDERS, Comptroller.

MORTGAGE LOANS.
LANCASHIRE and YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY,
The Directors of this Company aro prepared to receive TENDERS
for LOANS on Mortgage, for periods of Thre , Five, or Seven
annum
e years,
for which interest at the rate of four-and-a-half per cent. pr
will be allowed, payable half-yearly.
Further particulars may be known on application to Mr. S. W.
Itulteel, Finance Department, Company's Otlices, Hunt's Bank, Man-
Chester. By order,
J. S. HERON, Secretary.

CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY.
LOANS ON DEBENTURES.
The Directors of this Comp .ny are nrepared to receive (under the
powers of their Act of Parliament) Tenders for Loans of Money on
security of Debentures, bearing interest at the rate of Five per Cent.
per Annum, the Interest payable half-yearly, viz., 10th January and
10th July.
Tenders, stating anaourt and term of years for which it is pro-
posed to be Lent, to be addressed to the Secretary, Euston Station,
London.

By order.
ANDREW G. GIFFO:ID, Secretary.
Euston Station, June 14, 1849.

ASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
EGRA.NI) REVIEW and SIEGE OPERATIONS at
CIIA.TEI AM, on SATURDAY, 30th Jun., 1849.
An EXTRA. TRAIN will leave BishoPsgate Station for North
Woolwich at a Quarter-Past Sevea in the Morning, and a Steam-
packet star. theme to Chatham direct.
Fares from Woolwich to Ch-thatn and
Nor Bark, 33.
Woolw 6.1.
for
An Extra Stettin-Packet, will a'so leave th ich
Gravesend on arrival of t..e S 15 A.M. Train from BiAlopsg,ate.
By order,
C. P. ELONEY, Secretary.

Bishopsgate Station, June 25,1849.