The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-17 00:00:00

Charles Taylor, brush manufacturer, Birmingham—firs
div. of 9d. in the pound, on any Tuesday before May 31, at
the office of Mr. Whitmore, Birmingham.
Thomas Peirson, money scrivener, Warwick-court, Holborn
—first div of 4s. in the pound, on any Saturday, at the office
of Mr. Green, Aldermanbury.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
J. '1 itley, woollendraper, High-street, Southwark, April 7,
at half-past eleven—R. Satchel!, jun., brewer, Winsley-
street, Southwark, April 21, at one-11. Wilkinson, cabinet.
maker, Watford, Hertfordshire, April 21, at twelve—J. Clark,
merchant, Cresent, Minories, April 21, at twelve.
In the Country.
D. W. Acraman, W. E. Acraman, and A. J. Acraman,
merchants, Bristol, April 9, at twelve, at the Bristol District
Court—A. Birchall, share broker, Manchester, April 9, at
eleven, at the Manchester District Court—J. Roberts and
H. Hughes, linendrapers, Manchester, April 9, at eleven, at
the Iklanchester District Court—J. Roberts, linendraper,
Manchester, April 9, at eleven, at the Manchester District
Court—H. Hughes, linendraper, Manchester, April 9, at
eleven, at the Manchester District Court—A. S. ]'Laurin,
warehouseman, Bradford, Yorkshire, April 9, at eleven at the
Leeds District Court—J. Wintzr, Stoke-under-Hamdon,
Somersetshire, April 7, at eleven, at the Exeter District
Court—J. Winter. Stoke•under-Hamdon, April 8, at one, at
the Exeter District Court.

UEL.TIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be snown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
P. J. Luntlev, druggist, Bread-street-hill, City, April 8—
A. S. M'Laurin, warehouseman, Bradford, Yorkshire, April 8
—J. Bickerton, hat manufacturer, Castle-street, Southwark,
April 14—T. Yates, cotton manufacturer, Bolton-le-Moors,
Lancashire, April B—W. F. Brand, draper, Wigan, Lan-
' cashire April 6—J. Sutcliffe, cotton spinner, Ilabergham
Eaves, Lancashire, April 6.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. S. and A. Westbro-a,ficense7cFvietuallers, Fecemans'-
court, Cheapsizle—F. Allen and J. W. Byrne, manufacf uring
chemists, Bow-common—H. Jenkinson and NV. 11. 1l•Dowell,
coal inerchants, Liverpool—J. Booth and J. Ward, surgeons,
Penistone, Yorkshire—J. Brown, D. Crighton, and J. Holden,
spinner, Pendleton, Lancashire (so far as regards J. Brown)
—II. Ball, W. Cumley, and W_ Ball, calenderers, Manchester
—A. Currie, C. Tanqueray. and J. S. Tanqueray, rectitiers,
Vine-street, Bloomsbury—A. Graham, R. Graham, A.
Mounsey, It. Jackson, J. Monkhouse, and M. Falcon,
brewers, Carlisle—T. Gorst and W. Owen, grocers, Warring-
ton—W. and W. Weighill, tanners, Whitby, Yorkshire—J.
Rosbettom, J. Wane, and T. Moon, colliers, Eccleston, Lao-
cashire so far as regards J. Resbottom—W. Gregory and C.
B. Williams, map sellers, Cheap,ide—T. Cope and J. Charhis-
worth, linen manufacturers, Barnsley, Yorkshire— EL and S.
Wake, school slate manufacturers, Lombard-strect, South-
wark-bridge-road—R. Learoyd, J. Learoyd, and J. Learoyd,
cotton spinners, Halifax, Yorkshire—C. A. de Liancourt and
L. Castelain, oil clarifiers, Battersea—A. S. Stocker and C.
11. Whitfield, wine merchants, Middlesex-passage, Bartholo-
mew-close, City.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION'S.

Stewart Duncan, Robert Dunn, and David Whyte, ware-
housemen, Edinburgh, March 23 and April 9, at two, at the
chambers of Mr. Muir, Edinburgh.
Alexander Stevenson and Sous, stock brol-ers, Edinburgh,
March 22 and April 22, at one, at Stevenson and Sons'
Edinburgh.

THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH TERMINI.—At a
meeting of the Commissioners of Sewers, held yesterday, the
secretary of the Electric Telegraph Company applied for
permission to lay down the wires of communication through
the City, from the various electric telegraphs, to unite 111 one
centre in Lothbury. The secretary said that the Company
intended to bring the electric telegraph into the City by the
way of London-bridge, King William- street, and Princes-
street, into Lothbury, where the terminus of the Company
would be, and from thence they intend to proceed along
Moorgate-street into Finsbury. The object of the Company
was to bring the electric line of the South-Western and
Dover Railways by the above line into the laity ; and from
the terminus at Lothbury to unite them with the Eastern
Counties, the London and Birmingham, and the Great
Western lines, so as to form one general communication with
the different railways throughout the kingdom. The Com-
pany proposed to lay down the pipes alongside of the kerb,
and in a line with the gas pipes, so as to prevent any nuisance
or stoppage arising to the traffic, or annoyance to the foot
passengers. The question that the Company be empowered
to lay down the wires of the electric telegraph was carried
unanimously.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 16.

BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD RAILWAY.

Lord L YNDHURST said that in addressing the House, he
was quite sure that when their Lordships were advised of all
the circumstances of the case, they would be of opinion that
the facts stated in this petition, so tar from at all contradict-
ing, to a great extent confirmed the case, and strengthened all
the facts which had already been stated to the House. There
were many points of controversy between them, but with re-
ference to the least important facts he should be silent, for the
Committee of their Lordships should appoint a Committee who
would investigate the facts upon the examination of witnesses.
It was not a dispute as far as he was concerned, for he did not
interfere in these matters unless the public interest was deeply
concerned, which it certainly was, in these measures. He bad
no right to expect their Lordships to accede to his motion, un-
less it were affecting the public interest. He did consider that
interest deeply concerned in the course by which the North-
Western Company had forced these circumstances before the
consideration of their Lordships. There were several Noble
Lords then present who were not there eu a former occasion,
and if the House would allow him, he would state
to them the several facts connected with the case.
Last session of Parliament a Bill was agreed to, sanctioning a
line of railway branching out of the Rugby and Birmingham
Railway, and proceeding to Birmingham. This was agreed to
as a rival or competing line to the old London and Birmingham
Railway. As might be expected, a great amount of opposition
was experienced by the promoters of the line, but it was
carried, As he had stated. en presenting the petition on this
subject on a former night, the principle en which the Commit-.
tee proceeded in agreeing to the Bill, was that the line would
be one of great importance to the public as a rival and com-
peting line, and because of the overwhelming amount of
business on the other line. The Bill was carried through,
notwithstanding the opposition of the Birmingham Company,
and the Great Western Company was empowered to purchase
the company if they saw fit and came to terms with the
directors of the new line. The Birmingham Company had
no right to purchase the line, as, by so doing, the
advantage of a competing line to the public would be taken
away. Negotiations were entered into subsequently, which
ended in an agreement with the Great Western Company to
purchase the line. To make the agreement valid, according to
the provisions of the Act, a meeting of the shareholders,was re-
quired, aria on the 4th of December this was accordingly held.
At this meeting the agreement made by the directors was con-
firmed. The shareholders confirmed that agreement. At that
meeting a gentleman attended of the name of Moseley, who was
the avowed agent of the Birmingham Company, and offered a
much higher price than that offered by the Great Western.
Considerable discussion ensued, but the proprietors declined to
accede to the offer, as they had authorised the directors to enter
into an agreement with the Great Western. The Act of the
company did not authorise them to enter into an agreement
with the Birmingham Company. They therefore con-
firmed the original proposition for entering into an
agreement with the Great Western. On the 16th
o December Mr. Glyn, the chairman of the Bir-
' mingbam Company, wrote a letter to the chairman of the
Oxford Company renewing the offer made at the meeting, but
it was again rejected. A meeting of the Birmingham proprie-
tors was called about that time, for the purpose of approving of
the conduct of Mr. Glyn and gr. Moseley ; so that this was
purely a transaction of the Birmingham Company, who were
desirous to net possession of this Oxford Company, obviou•ly
for the purpose of preventing that competition which it was
the wish of Parliament to establish. They would agree with
him that no public company could be guilty of more improper
conduct. Immediately after the 16th of Dscember, when the
Oxford Company had given their final answer, the purchase of
shares by the Birmingham Company commenced ' • he said by
the Birmingham Company, because he was ju,tified in saying
co, from reasons which he should adduce. They purchased
4t1,000 shares out of the 50,000, in order that they might ac-
complish their object by unfair means, when they found that
fair means had failed to effect it, that they might have the
direct control of the line. They were purchased in the course
of a month or six weeks ; not, certainly, in the name of the
company, but in the names of their agents. For instance, Sir.
Burdon, an agent of one of the Manchester banks, which
was connected with the Birmingham Company, purchased
3,000, not, it was true, on his own responsibility, but in con-
sequence of an indemnity which he had received from one of
the directors. What, then, was the next step pursued by
the company ? They proposed to raise the number of the
directors to eighteen, and they also proposed that four ol
them should go out. They appointed six of their own directors,
but some difficulty arose as to the mode in which the direc-
tors should go out, and the solicitor to the London and Bir-
mingham Company, in order to meet the difficulties of the
case, had actually summoned another special meeting for the
purpose of reducing the number of the directors.—(Laugh-
ter.) Thus, by means of all this complicated machinery, the
company had obtained the entire possession of the railway, and
would adopt it to suit their own purposes, notwithstanding
that this line was passed as a rival line to the North-Western,
and passed especially for the purpose of competition between
the two lines, and thus to tend to the benefit of the interests of
the public. He contended that air. Moseley was the
acting agent of the London and North-Western Company,
and the whole transaction had been carried on through Mr.
Moseley's solicitor. His Noble Friend Lad asked why not refer
the matter to the Railway Commissioners. He objected to
such a reference, because the Commissioners had no power to
examine witnesses; while he equally objected to the matter
being referred to the Committee on the Bill in the other
House, because that Bill had no reference whatever to the Bir-
mingham and Oxford line. Under these circumstances he
must press his motion for a Committee of Inquiry. He had
no interest whatever on either side, and it was solely on public
grounds that he had made the motion.
Lord STANLEY begged to correct a statement made by
his Noble Friend. He (Lord Stanley) was sure there never
was any intention of reducing the number of directors. But
what did the Noble Lord propose to do? Supposing that the
evidence taken in the House substantiated the statements of his
Noble Friend, what could he do then? Why, nothing; therefore
he thought that his Noble Friend should not press the motion.
He maintained that there was no monopoly sought to be main-
tained by the London and North-Western Company against
the Great Western Company. The Bill which was authorised
last session authorised the use of the line freely by the Great
Western Company. They could, if they thought fit, run
trains from Oxford to Birmingham and from Birmingham to
Oxford. But what did the Noble and Learned Lord seek to
do? He seeks that the Great Western Company should ob-
tain possession of the line against four-fifths of the share-
holders, who were opposed to it. So far from the Londan and
North-Western Company seeking to exclude the Great
Western Company, they had Lot the power to do so, as the
Act provided for the concurrent use of the line. If the)
thought proper to go into an investigation, he considered they
would be losing valuable time, but if they did agree he trusted
that the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) would state
what end he had in view by the inquiry.
Lord H ATHERTON would trouble the House a few
minutes while he stated the reasons which had led him
to support the Oxford and Birmingham Railway Bill.
The proptietory and directors were almost the same. Their
object was to serve the same districts, and as they were sup-
ported by the same evidence, these two lines were the crea-
tion of public, wants and opinion ir. that part of the kingdom.
His Noble Friend had Old him that the Grand Junction was
originally the promoters of this line, and took an active interest
in it. They did so from a sense of the necessity of establish-
ing a competing line; with the London and Birmingham, be-
tween Birmingham anti Oxford. The lines were supported by
all the principal towns of Birmingham. and so overwhelming
was the evidence given by these gentlemen in favour of the
line, as one likely to accommodate the manufactures of the dis-
trict, that the Committee both of this and the other House
unanimously sanctioned the railway. If the Great Western
simeld no., however, pnrel ase the line. they were to he em-
powered to run trains iu time line, no other company to be al-
lowed that privilege. If the North- Western Company
became the proprietors of the line they would
effectually] destroy that competition with the
.Great

Western which Parliament wished to create, as the
might by crowding the Birmingham line with hear,'
mineral traffic prevent the rapid passage of passenger traffic on
the Oxford line. Both the Birmingham and Oxford and the
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Companies refused :
to accede to the proposition of the Birmingham Con3pael. ,
Then came the ctier of Mr, Moseley, a gentleman extensively
engaged in share transactions in Manchester and L verpool,
as .d well acquainted with railway matters. He would not call
him the " mouth piece" of the Birmingham Company, as t hat
term had much displeased him at one of the meetings, but
be
certainly appeared to be the agent of that company, as he took
a paper out of his pocket and offered certain terms in the name
of the North- Westera Company, if they would consent to lease
their line to that company and to repudiate the Great western. But the proposition was scouted by the meeting ; and it ass
most remarkable that a man of Mr. Glyn's standing, and°
his experience, should have so far forgotten himself as to tale,
repeated the offer. He would not enter into the legal view Ts
the whole transaction; but to show the difficult positiullit
which the Oxford Company was placed he should state tP.!,,
they had to deal with 40,C00 shareholders, who repretenter
the North-Western Company, and who were determined ed
abrogate the agreement with the Great Western, which has
been entered into in accordance with the Act under which the
line was to be constructed.
Lord BROUGHAM said that ho was not disposed to Peri;
suade their Lordships to postpone or put cif this inquiry,
the sole ground that he was not able to see his was, clear I°t,is
remedy. It appeared to him that great irregularities bad te,,le
place, not to say fraud, between these two companies, and
thought that it was due to their Lordships, to the public, aiinke
to the companies themselves, that the inquiry should t
place in another House, and that there would be no necesU
for their Lordships troubling themselves about it. W
respect to the language of the petitir,ners,
courted inquiry, he had never yet heard of any athbautse,tPl
parties to which did not always pretend. to court iequhreb.
Then it was said that there was a Bill in another place, w"
might come down there, or rather, he should say, come 1,
there—(A laugh)—and which also might not come there; ~t
but, said the Noble Lord, what signifies that, if it dees_au",
come up here it will be inquired into elsewhere. lie had r„-s-at
confidence in that other place. He had the greatest ecaAr;ts
that it was possible to entertain towards that other place
proceedings, When he considered how it was made up ashen!
holders who could not sit on this Committee but could on t‘haiti
and remembered the courtesies and compliments that P
amongst themselves, he must confess that he had not confitletbitit
in the proceedings, he would net say of that other plane' .ok
of some other place; and that opinion had induced him to do
that they ought to keep the inquiry in that place.—( Hear elit
laughter.) lie thought, however, that the Committee Wig
to be named by the Committee of Selection.—(Hear.) ;( the
The Marquis of LANDSDOWNE wished to know
Noble and Learned Lord who made the motion had any nul
tion to allow the Committee to be named by the Committee
Selection ?
Lord LYNDHURST said he had no objection to the eau°
proposed. that
Earl FITZ WILLIAM thought it was most desirable
they should have an impartial Committee, but he doubted 'fly
proper Committee could be selected in the ordinary waybt
thought such a Committee would be too small. They 70
to have a large one, embracing as far as possible the vaal'os
conflicting views on the subject. It was a most imPotitio
question, as he plainly saw what the end of all this wont,*
that the executive government would have, in a great meow
to take the control of these great lines of communication_li
their own hands. It was not to be borne that all the 85,
means of intercommunication in this country should fall
the hands of three or four great companies. He was gladdi
notice the feeling of their Lordships on this subject, as his ~0
desire in proposing to enlarge the Conarnitte was to make
effective as possible. el
Lord CAMPBELL asked Lord Brougham if he sw
L
other cases to ring for ward
ord BROUGbHAM said he had some other petitions
present. better
Lord CAMPBELL suggested that the petitions had
be presented, and the Committee appointed afterwards. be
Lord LYNDHURST said that the authority on eall'e
had made certain statements in his address was that door
Moseley, the agent of the London and North-Nester'
pany. a el
After a few words from Lord STANLEY, in explanatifed
the Act of Parliament under which the agreement he re`e.
to ire his sneech had h"en made,it
Lord BROUGHAM presented two petitions of a nee
character to the one presented by Lord Lyndhurst, in cerloy
to the Bristol and Exeter and Crediton and Exeter Ita'

Companies.
The motion for a Select Covnmittee on the several se
named in the petitions was then agreed to.
CANAL NAVIGATION. cer
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from tot
tain canal shareholders, complaining of the difficulties
00,
now laboured under in regard to opposing railway coral's
and praying for a remedy.
LOAN BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED BILL.

This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
IRISH POOR-LAW. eek
Lord MONTEAGLE gave notice that on this day ,`lbe belt
would move for a Select Committee to inquire into
mode of administering the puo:•-laws in Ireland, and elf
regarding out-door relief.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HO USE 01 Cf.),11,11 UN S. March 16. OF
ADJOURNED DEBATE.—ANNEXATION
CRACOW.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate 4)11
Cracow being read, the
Sir JOHN W.A.LSEI rose and said in addressi.ng, 1,0
House he would apply himself first to the .partlsoo.
of the question arising out of the motion of the
Member tor Montrose, and inquire what was the Pr Z;s
cal and immediate question before the House. The l
question for them to consider would be whether they .01
any legal right to free themselves from the obligs...ir;
of that treaty to continue the payment to nos:
whether it would be consistent with the fatt
ear
treaties, or with their own character, to
tinue that payment. The second question I'm"
of
whether, the other being assumed, it would be vile'
whether it would be politic, whether it would be coo
fe:
sistent with their national status in the P:d
sent condition of Europe, to pursue such a couro4l
When he entered upon this question, he met
ay that he felt considerable dissatisfaction ijr
the mode in which the Honourabll %en.
for Montrose had introduced his motion, not 00 ,
had stated what was not literally true, but any perusuli
who was not acquainted with the whole question, w°_,,
be led into a very erroneous conclusion. The eonv
P
tion of the 19th of November, 1831, was merely sup le
mental measure, to supply a Parliamentary deficiency:
was contended that, in equity, England could not avail ";d,
of the treaty of Vienna. It was, however, subsequentitebst
mittel that Parliamentary sanction was requisite:ol'oo
treaty bore date May, 1815, and the treaty
.iaf fed' to
merely a subsequent and technical treaty, C'We'.--t- then, 01
effect to the former one. What was that trea
eenYeland wasi
1815, and what were the obligations by which —4 tend, bound under that treaty ? The treaty to which the nd, by
1815 referred was one between Holland and Russia' Bible for
the treaty of 1831, England renders el herself resOohißosite
the obligations into which Holland had entered fjeto
In order to show what the nature of that treaty was' t.,bich it
Baronet read the preamble of the treaty of 1815. by "cieeed b 1
appeared that, in consideration of the assistance ren
.0 0,0
the allied powers to Holland, fshe agreed to pay cent ply
for the expenses which had been incurred. It was P!°'" O.
dent that this sum was te be paid for the restorationl ell
kingdom of Holland. At the conclusion 'OOO
speech on Thursday last, the Right "'final Ai°
el
Baronet the Member for Tamworth had taken ';afere*
remind the House of the services which England Led reed sliej
to Europe during the great struggle of the last war; wae.
of the obligations which : he had undertaken when she 5,,,,,°0060
—when she took up —the responsibilities of the treaty it oettle
Holland and Russia. He rejoiced to hear such sen,hoebt
from the lips of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he,' 00
England should be reminded that she was not the only tilStlo,
in making those arrangement!, and he thought some Sneer °'
was due to Russia, as she was the first that broke the Y-
Napoleon, and helped to effect the deliverance of Eerie' pre
Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth 01°00
tested against a doctrine in one of Monsieur Guizot'sdelilligs',
that the breach of one article of a treaty dissolved the lie
lion of the treaty itself on all who were parties to its A ,r
not think that Mons. Guizet was correctly understo"'ooo.
though he was not sorry to see the protest of the Righet,
Gentleman, he thought that he had put a wider latitulle
the phrase than the writer of it intended. He should fie,
know, however, how they should act in the event ,enee
adopting the resolutions of the Hon. Member for
If they acted in this manner, they would be affirming theiree,
ciple that the infraction by Russia of one particle of the obe
would justi4 them in releasing themselves from all thou
gatiens which they owed to Russia, on entirely others Viitee„'
The Member for Montrose had made the question 5-401°"
judicial character, and he had called upon the House t°_,l foe
whether, under certain considerations, they were releaw;poilli
obligations otherwise binding. This was a very delicateed.,,,
tion to be in, namely, to be judges of their own case, .11 10"
was, therefore, doubly necessary for them to consider bed
bearings of the case, and to see how far they sverejtistide,sol
attaching weight to the allegations which bad been 01%-osel
how far matter had been urged in defence of the partioellor,,
He said the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for vo
had expresed a strong opinion of the necessity of a fo.„er-esito"
England,—ef all the great Powers according a full "',00e.„
of p-otection to the smaller states. His expression 0140.0 0'
thing to the effect that they were in a position to Po, ot,
anxiety as to such a Power as Prussia absorbing 11'55eseig,
Bavaria, Prussia ; but he did feel that it was the one Pr'to
of the body of international law to afford protectianed 4iP;
weaker States, He (Sir John Walsh) entirely Orr.. polite'
the Right Hon. Baronet, that that was the duty and O. d to;
of the great States, and that it would be the policy %POP
special interest of England to do so, for England had neeeitil
to gain from territorial aggrandisement, or from ce°.'est-,
and if she absorbed any weaker State, she would d°,so tb-
a sacrifice, and the loss would be entirely hers. But awhile b'
entertained that opinion, he hoped that every Minigetnelsl
British empire would bear it in mind. Still, he o°,"ety
that, among those smaller states there was a recipr°"; slo°
duty, that if they had a right to protection they `cete-eec
bound to observe strict neutrality, and to avoid giving 7; in
casion for aggression from the larger States. He did* loon'
the smaller States ought to pursue such a course sn
ot
secure them peace, which to them was so valuable. t 4!.
pose they should take an instance. They all knew t e
portanee of the noble city of Frankfort, one of the o°s/abet
emir
nent of commercial cities ; they had all seen her palacest„, the
merchants, the prosperity which existed in her etreeb. 001
vital spirit of commercial enterprise which had given lie tb,0,1
nence to that town. Suppose, then, it were poso
rriterir,
France were suddenly inflamed with the lust of te ciifi
possession, and with a wish to obtain that fair ity
that she was to set her armies in motion and invade the °
Frankfort. If such took place there would no doubt__ or
burst of indignation throughout Europe. But let theuL.ereit
pose, that instead of pursuing the quiet avocation of coo'
be,
that she was obliged, by some unfortunate eircurristancue.
' °1
ae
come a political point. Let them suppose that Fran l
that
to become what Coblentz was at the commencement rieice'
century. Thut she should become the point from wheFrsO°9
enemies of France might issue. It would be easy for
uititoi
to state that an infraction of a treaty had taken place. .-17,„,ve
mutandis, he did not see the great difference between tleora7,;,o
thetical case of Frankfort and the real case of ye dtba
to the
In making these observations he must call the attentioPd
House to the fact that this insurrection was not entitlr
n. esi
For t
sympathy of the House, as was the insurrection of 183 v teif
this insurrection there was no Kosciusko at Cracow. Nee
movement there ryes none of the countenance of those Noe
Poles who were foremost in the great struggle of 165!'eeer
stepped forward with f 0 much gallantry, men who were wisb,
ready to promote the interests of their country, and welt. of
so much ardour were ready to encounter the whole Pc7a
Russia—men who sacrificed property, relatives, bone' 1004'
that man holds dear, for the int:ependerce of their tO,OO.
These were not the men who gave counteuaece to the 'well.
rection of Cracow. lie believed, indeed, that it was teectle
known fact that none of these men had, either ne"_;;00;
or indirectly, taken part in this Cracow insurr.__%:',o
but they had, on the contrary, withheld all their colionteh
;rem that disastrous enterprise, He perceived from a aPt"