The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-11 00:00:00

jlaitnAlla
4
e 5;!•,

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1846.

The house of Commons last night came to a deci-
sion adverse to that at which it arrived on the 30th
April last by a majority of 18, and again frustrated
the just expectations of the unfortunate Danish
claimants, whose demands, five times sanctioned and
affirmed by the House, have again been postponed.
We confess as Englishmen that we feel deep humilia-
tion in recording the vacillating conduct of one of the
branches of our Legislature, this truckling to the ipse
dixit of any man. Hope deferred, it is said, maketh
the heart sick. What can be said of those persons
who, for no less than thirty-nine years, have been
calling on the Legislature to accord to them that
equity and justice to which they are so fully entitled ?
Why is it that persons in a public capacity will be
guilty of acts of meanness and injustice, at which they
would blush if perpetrated by themselves as individuals?
Why should persons rush in, at the beck of a Minister
to swell his majority, to vote on a difficult and compli-
cated question of international law, of the real merits of
which a vast proportion of them must be wholly and
entirely ignorant; and that against the recorded opi-
nions of some of the most able lawyers, and in the
significant absence of the legal advisers of the
Crown, whose especial duty it was to have been
present, and to have enlightened the House
with their honest opinions on this important legal
question? Was not that very absence evidence as strong
as any that could be adduced that their opinions were
hostile to those entertained by her MAJESTY'S Go-
vernment on the point in dispute, that they felt, as
lawyers, that they could not support the view put
forward, when they leave the defence of the Ministry
to a gentleman, who, whatever may be his talents,
cannot claim much weight as an authority on a
question of pure law or equity ? Is it not certain
that if they could have conscientiously voted with
the Government, . they would have given them
their support, which would be vastly more impor-
tant than that of any other individuals in the House ?
Is it not a singular thing that gentlemen, who before
they accepted office pledged their high characters
to the justice of a claim, by giving it
their disinterested sanction and support, should
afterwards, when in office, shrink from avowing
their opinions on so grave a subject ? We find
that the Attorney and Solicitor-General have already
on former occasions given their votes in favour of
compensation being granted, and this, coupled with
their remarkable absence both on the 30th of April
and last night, testifies that the Ministry have taken a
legal view different from that of their law advisers,
and have argued a legal point in opposition to the
opinions of those by whom they should be governed
on the subject.

The case of the Danish claims is a remarkable one,
and a short recapitulation of the grounds on which
they have been brought forward cannot be uninte-
resting on the present occasion.

In the year 1807 it was considered indispensable
to the safety of England that measures should be
taken to prevent the Danish fleet co-operating
with BUONAPARTE against this country ; for that
purpose an expedition was dispatched to
the Sound, and an envoy to the Danish
Court, to demand that the fleet should be delivered
over to the English admiral as a security against
its falling into the hands of France. That demand
was refused, and the consequence was that what had
I been refused to be peacefully yielded up was taken
by force, and in October, 1807, the Danish fleet,
munitions of war, naval equipments, &c. &c., to the
value of 1,300,0001. sterling, were brought toEngland.
The Danes, on their part, were not idle, and
much injury was done to the property of
British subjects, who, without having been warned
by any public act on the part of the Government of
the day, had yet: been exposed to most serious losses
in consequence of the policy adopted by that Govern-
ment for the general welfare. The English Ministry
have generally adopted a high and honourable course
of conduct towards those who have been sufferers
under such circumstances; and we find that Mr.
PERCEVAL allowed that the property so taken
possession of, amounting, as we have said,
to over 1,300,0001. sterling, should be reserved for the
claims of those who had lost their property by con-
fiscation or seizure. These claims were threefold,
viz.-Ist, of those who had book debts due to them ;
2dly, of those whose property had been seized on
shore; and, idly, of those who had ships and car-
goes afloat, which were seized by the Danish Go-
vernment.

In 1834, a Treasury minute was at length ob-
tained, referring it to Parliament to decide whether
all or any of those claims should be admitted
for compensation ; and accordingly, in 1835
and 1836, the two first classes were dis-
charged (after only twenty-nine years' suspense
and delay), but to an amount far less than the
1,300,0001. which had been obtained ; so that a sum
remained in hand far exceeding the amount of the
claims of the third class, which alone remained,
and which the Legislature yesterday again post-
poned. The third-class claims were brought forward
in 1838 and 1839, by an eminent lawyer, now one of
the brightest ornaments of the judicial bench, and,
although opposed by the Government of the day, were
sanctioned and approved of by the House of Commons,
in consequence of which Commissioners were ap-
pointed to inquire into the legality of these claims,
and to report judicially respecting them. The
parties were accordingly put to all the trouble and
expense of proving their claims before those Com-
missioners. They did so, and on the 12th of May,
1840, a report was made, reducing the amount to
nearly one-half ; in other words, from 425,0001. to
25,000/., and, large as the latter sum un-
doubtedly is, we do not think there
are many Englishmen who would permit
a stain to rest on the honour and integrity
of their country for such an amount. In 1841
an address to the Crown was again carried for the
settlement of these claims, but in vain ; the parties
entitled, who considered themselves safe in the vote
in vain and fruitless expectation ;
of a British House of Commons, were still left to pine
de-
mands, sanctioned
constituted by the
by whom they were
held ; four timestheir proved
aGnodveeronnmfinned by the tribunal
did the House
. appointed,
tedfor the time being,
ofwere still with-
held Commons sanc-
tion by their vote the justiceap and the equity of the
claim. In 1844, it was for the fifth time brought for-
ward, and all the strength of the Government, at that
time one of the strongest which had ever ruled the
clear
On the 30th of April a
country, having been exerted against it, it was defeated
by a majority of four.
mwaajso
yr ietsyt
eorfdeaiyghrteejcteensegdain affirmed which
;
such
are not creditable to the House. It has been saidcontradictory decisions
the principle
that no person would refuse to advance money on a
vote of that House; but, if such exhibitions are re-
peated, will not a well-founded distrust of the House
take place ? Who will depend on a vote which
without hesitation may be rescinded and altered ? Are
subjects of policy to be laboriously worked, like the
web of Penelope, for the sole purpose of having the
original labours undone on a subsequent occasion ? We
have not alluded in this article to the strong legal
points of the case, but merely to the proceedings which
have already taken place thereon. We cannot, how-
ever, conclude without commending to an attentive
pausal p, letter on the subject /yhich will be found

in our columns, and which speaks of the conduct pur-
sued in a just tone of indignation.
We shall only say to the claimants, persevere in
your exertions—
" Magna est veritas et prwvalebit."

Their case is only postponed, and final success must
attend that of which the foundation and basis is truth,
equity, and justice.
_

The consideration of the Corn Bill will be resumed
this evening in the House of Lords. This is, there-
fore, a seasonable moment for offering a few observa-
tions upon the recent speech of the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON, which closed the discussion upon the second
reading. This speech has been much commented
upon, as well by our own as foreign journals. It has
been observed that the speech was an exceedingly
meagre one, only remarkable for the dictatorial tone
usually assumed by his Grace whenever he addresses
his hereditary colleagues, and also, that it aimed at
securing a majority by working upon their fears.
We differ from the whole tenor of these observa-
tions. The speech in question was short, effective,
and full of sound counsel.

We admit that, habitually, the Duke couches his
observations in terms of decision, savouring almost
of command. On this occasion, however, the advice
which he tendered, whilst it left no doubt as to the
conviction on his own mind, was offered in a modest
and becoming manner.
We have heard it stated, that the late Marquis of
WELLESLEY, whose mind was so gifted, and whose ac-
quaintance with and experience of mankind was so ex-
tensive, remarked that, throughout his long political life,
he had never met with any man possessed of strong
common sense—the true foundation for all the other
valuable qualities of the mind—to the same degree as
his brother ARTHUR. Prince TALLEYRAND was once
asked, when Ambassador in England under LOUIS
PHILIPPE, what he thought of the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON. He gave no direct answer, but related an
anecdote. At the celebrated Congress at Vienna,
where such large national interests had to be arranged,
and when everything seemed, after much discussion,
to be in a state of inextricable entanglement, the
Duke gave his advice in a few terse sentences, and
immediately every difficulty appeared to vanish. The
same masculine strength of mind, as is easily discernible,
pervaded his speech on the important measure for
bringing the corn-laws to a final settlement. He took
a solid and practical view. It was not to be expected
that a man of his ripe years, rising at between three
and four o'clock in the morning, to speak upon a sub-
ject, which had been statistically exhausted, and which
did not fall within his own peculiar department,
would minutely enter into the merits of the Bill.
They had been sufficiently substantiated by antece-
dent speakers. He therefore assumed them at once
to be, as far as reason and experience were concerned,
placed beyond the reach of further controversy. An
attentive listener to the entire debate, he had, with
his usual acuteness, observed, that the sum andsubstance
of the arguments of the Opposition, duly analyzed,
rested upon the propriety and necessity of forcing an
appeal to the country. From first to last this was
the chief gun his adversaries kept continually firing.
The Duke determined to silence it. He made a
constitutional speech, and completely dismantled it.
Lord STANLEY had said the constitutional value of
the Upper House consisted in interposing a salutary
obstacle to rash and inconsiderate legislation, but it
had never resisted a continued and deliberately-
formed public opinion, and that their Lordships
always had, and always would have, to boy to the ex-
pression of such an opinion. His Lordship also
added, that, though the constitution had not
provided for such a contingency, it was the
duty of the Peers to protect the people
against the treachery of those whom they
had chosen to be their leaders. The Duke and his
colleagues had resigned office. The two other parties
—the Liberals and the Protectionists—had sub-
sequently had the opportunity of forming an Admi-
nistration, which was respectively declined. These
facts at once destroyed the charge of treachery.
Besides, in the commencement of his speech, Lord
STANLEY passed the highest encomiums on the cha-
racters of the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir R.
PEEL. If these two are not, par excellence, the
chosen leaders of the people, as appertaining to the
Government, we should like to know who are.
Again, if treachery had really prevailed, one would
naturally have expected the House of Lords to have
been inundated with petitions preferring the charge
from all parts of the country. But such, we know,
has not been the case.

Sir ROBERT returned to office, and announced
to the Duke his deterrninatim to submit to
Parliament the identical measure upon which
he had recently failed to secure the approval
of his Cabinet. Sir ROBERT, no doubt, pointed out
to his Grace, that, as he had, after re-
signation, in his private capacity of a Member
of Parliament, given Lord JoEN RUSSELL
to understand he would support him in any similar
measure, he could not question but that Lord JOHN
RUSSELL would, in turn, aid his own endeavours to
carry a gradual abolition of the corn-laws ;
that the measure, statistically recommended by
the experience of the last three years, would
therefore pass the Commons ; but that, without
the co-operation of the Duke, it might fail to
pass the Lords, in the first instance, though it would
do so eventually, the current of public opinion having
so strongly set in in its favour. We can conceive,
moreover, that Sir ROBERT adverted to the period of
the Reform Bill, when both himself -and the Duke
had, in the language of Lord STANLEY, learnt the
lesson, that the House of Lords could not resist
a continued and deliberately-formed public opinion,
but must bow to its expression ; that then
he enlarged upon the impolicy of embarking the
Upper House in a hopeless struggle, which would
neutralise the happy effects of the moderate course it
had pursued for the last fifteen years, under the
especial auspices of the Duke himself. The Duke
was convinced, and was gained. Persuaded that the
measure would pass, his sense of duty to his SOVE-
REIGN dictated the desirableness that it should be in-
troduced by a strong Government, so as to insure to
it the best chance of its being harmoniously supported
by the separate branches of the Legislature. Much
of this, and more, is embodied by the Duke in a few
pithy sentences. To those who read the speech, to
which we are referring, without bearing in mind
political antecedents, we can readily fancy it would ap-
pear meagre enough ; whereas, to such as are mindful of
preceding facts, the effect will be quite different.
"My Lords," said the Duke, "I have already, in
this House, adverted to the circumstances which gave
rise to this measure. In December I considered my-
self bound, in duty to my SOVEREIGN, not to with-
hold my assistance from the Government, knowing
that the First Lord of the Treasury could not do
otherwise than propose to Parliament this very mea-
sure, stated at the Cabinet previous to the period at
which it resigned early that month. It is not neces-
sary I should say more on that subject. The course
I felt myself bound to take I would take again to-
morrow."

Adverting to Lord STANLEY'S statement (in which
he concurred), that it was the duty of the Lords to
protect the public from rash and inconsiderate
measures, his Grace disposed of it in a way that
clearly indicated his belief of the measure
itself, and of the manner in which it had come up
from the Commons, to be such, that, regard being had
to the consequences of rejecting it, rashness and in-
considerateness were terms which would be fairly
applied to those who looked to produce such a result.
"My Lords, it is the duty of each to place himself
in the situation of the House before he determines to
ll
gaNt
tres
heohecti
csocai
s‘rf•icoooultnierno.,:svt andarr thecht
circumstances,
cuwort nsahessei
hdacee
consequence
mnr wseaethycit au tbes
etilv
significant
iofifl
ude
t:
3hhudiliannoo
tdu
cest
nedor
to
their Lordships to be guarded aaingygst bein
by a feeling of personal interest, and to confine them-
selves alone to what a sense of constitutional duty
should dictate. "Look," continued the Duke, "ya
little to the measure, to the manner in which it has
come before you, and to the consequences likely to
I a myselfnie measure rne prevailed
itulipiochn
rany words telling his hearers
follow flrolniis awrasejv eoi
net
et islfnum.
by former
itl:he hfiadousieirotonounced positive opinions
votes."
to recollect the history of the Catholic Relief Bill,
and
no doubtespecially that of the Reform Bill, when
„influence swayed the vote
desire to preserve a borough-
la riog ring Ai,
a

of many a Peer, in opposition to a measure, crowned
by a commanding majority of the Commons; to
remember how degraded was their position when
Earl GREY, backed by his Sovereign and public
opinion, threatened to swamp them ; and how, to
avoid a revolution, they had bees ignominiously com-
pelled to beat a retreat. When the Duke begged
them to consider the manner in which the Corn Bill
had come before them, he meant them to bear in
mind how long this great question had been agitated
by the public, and how large was the majority by
which it had passed the other branch of the Legislature.
Here was another hint to an enlightened, though
unwilling listener. True it was, the House of Peers
had rejected, during the last fifteen years, many mea-
sures sent up from the Commons, but those were
measures not to be compared with the magnitude of
the Corn Bill, had been initiated by a weak Admi-
nistration, and passed by very slender majorities.
The Catholic Relief Bill and the Reform Bill were
historical precedents, which every practical statesman
would study at the present hour. The Duke had had
ample knowledge of the working of each. His mind
had received a fruitful lesson. It would have been
naturally distasteful to him to have enlarged upon the
past. He, therefore, only took a hasty glance, satis-
fied that his audience would perceive he drew his
counsel from the fountain of all wisdom—enlarged
experience.

The Duke mildly rebuked Lord STANLEY when he
told him that, constitutionally, their House could not
take into consideration the inconsistency of the votes
of Members in the other House. Nothing could be
more dangerous than for either House to enter into
such an inquisitorial proceeding. Lord STANLEY,
however, preferred to take the decision of the House of
Commons of 1842 to that of 1846. For ourselves,
we respect the latter decision, as being infinitely more
valuable, having been arrived at after a four years'
further proof of the noxious operation of the corn-
laws, and with all the advantage of the enlightened
consideration which has been interveningly bestowed
upon them. We must bring these remarks to a
close. As a modest, temperate, and well-reasoned
answer to Lord STANLEY, and those who urged an
appeal to the country, we hold the speech of the
Duke of WELLINGTON to be most valuable. It was
judicious and practical. In a constitutional point of
view, admirable. " I beg to remind you, my Lords,
that you ought not to take a position on which you
cannot stand." His Grace was anxious that the
Peers should not place themselves in a false position.
" The object I had in view in resuming my seat in her
MAJESTY'S Councils will not be attained if your
Lordships reject the Bill." We rejoice that the
Duke has thus far succeeded, and certain we are his
political compeers ought to feel deeply indebted to
him for the course he has adopted and the advice he
has given them. We hope the Duke will yet live lung
to guide the counsels of the Upper House.

The Emperor of RUSSIA has just published a ukase
ordering all the Jews in Russia to place themselves
before January 1, 1850, in one of the four following
classes :—l. Amongst the burgesses of a town by the
purchase of a piece of land or a house. 2. In one of
the three corporations of traders. 3. In a corporation
of artisans, after having given the proofs of ability
required by law ; and 4. In the grand body of tillers
of the earth, whether on their own property or under
another owner. Such Jews as have not placed them-
selves by the appointed time in one of the four classes,
are to be subjected to such restrictive measures as
the Government may think fit to employ.
According to the Cologne Gazette, the extradition
of the ex-Dictator of Cracow, M. TYSSOWSKI, at pre-
sent a prisoner in Saxony, has been demanded by
Austria, Russia, and Prussia, but positively refused
by the Court of Dresden.

Madrid papers of the 4th inst. have been received.
On that day there were contradictory rumours circu-
lated in Madrid on the subject of the affairs of Por-
tugal. According to one account, the juntas had
sent in their adhesion to the Palmella Cabinet, and
tranquillity was restored ; according to another ac-
count, however, the juntas were at variance with each
other, the Ministers had resigned, the QUEEN was
without advisers, and anarchy was at its height. We
think this last account must be greatly exag-
gerated. The Palmella Government had not re-
signed at the time the last official accounts from
Lisbon had been received, for it had caused a formal
note to be delivered to the Spanish Government, de-
manding an explanation of the intentions of Spain
in assembling a corps d'arrne on the frontiers,
and at the same time desiring the recal of M. Gopt-
ZALES BRAVO. This worthy Ambassador it appears
openly interfered in support of the Cabral party,
and escorted the CABRALS through the streets
of Lisbon to the ship, on board which
they embarked for Cadiz. After having thus
exhibited himself in the character of an ac-
tive partisan, M. GONZALES BRAVO became
apprehensive of the consequences, and, hoisting the
Spanish flag over his residence, armed a number of
Gallegos to act as his body-guard, and informed the
Portuguese Cabinet that the slightest insult offered to
him would be followed by the advancing the Spanish
troops into Portugal. The Spanish Cabinet, in answer
to the note of the Duke of PALMELLA, had assured
the Portuguese Government of its pacific intentions,
and M. GONZALES BRAVO had at the same time re-
ceived orders from his Government to observe the
strictest neutrality with regard to the internal affairs
of Portugal.

MADRID BOLSA, JUNE 4.—The Three per Cents.
were not quoted. The shares of the Bank of San
Fernando sold at 385, and those of Isabel at 196.

We have received the Paris papers of Tuesday.
It appears that during the secret deliberation of
the Peers as to the sentence to be passed on LE-
COMTE, the Chancellor, Duke PAsulEa, made a most
unwise and ill-judged allusion to the case of Marshal
NET. The Constitutionnel of Monday alluded to the
circumstance. In the Constitutionizel of Tuesday we
find the following detailed account of the circum-
stances :

" The grave incident to which e have alluded was yester-
day the general subject of conversation in the Chamber of
Deputies, where it produced a deep sensation. The follow-
ing, according to the accounts in circulation, was the way as
already stated, in which it occurred. At the moment when
the sentence on Lecomte was about to be pronounced, one of
the Peers, M. Teste, demanded that his degradation as a
member of the Legion of Honour should be formally declared.
Upon this, M. Pasquier, the President, is said to have re-
marked that all punishment of an afflictive and infamante
character involved the degradation as a matter of course.
He is said to have added, Besides, gentlemen, the Court of
Peers has its precedents. Thus in a celebrated trial, that of
Marshal Nay, the degradation took place without any men-
tion being made of it in the sentence.' We may imagine the
effect produced by this inconceivable comparison between the
glorious victim of an abominable reaction and the wretched
assassin who has just been condemned. If we are well in-
formed, an almost universal murmur greeted the words of
the Chancellor, and warned him that certain proprieties
could not be forgotten with impunity. For our parts, we do
not believe that M. Pasquier had any intention to insult the
memory of the illustrious Marshal ; but it is impossible not
to see in his language a frightful symptom of the reaction
which is now leading us away. A few years back the Cham-
ber of Peers thrilled when the name of Marshal Ney was pro-
nounced, and avoided with care all that could remind France
of that terrible event. At present the President does not
hesitate to invoke as a precedent the execrable process which
produced the death of a hero by French bullets. Let the Pre-
sident to-morrow be called on to render an account of his
words, and whilst protesting against all insulting thoughts,
he will, without doubt, establish that the new peerage is re-
sponsible for the old one, and that the trial of Marshal Ney
preserves its place in the archives, like that of A. libaud or
Fieschi. We hope, for our parts, that public opinion, in de-
fault of the peerage itself, will treat as it deserves such a
doctrine."

The Siecle comments upon the conduct of the Duke
PASQUIER in these terms—

"At the moment these inconsiderate words were pro-
nounced, M. Pasquier had before him the Prince de la Mos-
kowa, the son of the illustrious victim. A painful sensation
was immediately felt by all present. Every one endeavoured
in vain to conceive how a man in such a high station, so
long accustomed to measure his expressions so as to render
only what he thought and felt, should have suffered him-
self to fall into such a grievous forgetfulness. The Chan-
cellor, we are fully convinced, had no deliberate intention
of wounding the 'Prince de la Moskowa by such a cruel
allusion ; but such is now the course of ideas, that in the
ir.inds of the men who govern us such references are not
impossible, and perhaps are natural. It is said that the
Prince de la Moskowa has suffered so severely from au emo-
tion to which no generous heart can be an alien, that he has
determined to demand an explanation in the Chamber of
Peers. Should the Chamber, which we are far from believing,
render itself a participator in the sanguinary acts of 1815, the
Prince, it is said, will feel himself bound in honour to resign
his seat in it. We cannot tell under what form, nor on what
occasion, such an explanation can be called for; but we can
never blame even the exaggerated susceptibility of a son
wishing to enforce respect to the memory of his father—above
all, when that son bears a name which is among those that
have invested France with glory."
The National is equally indignant in its comments
on Duke PASQUIER.
In allusion to the execution of LECOMTE, both the
Journal des Debats and the Gazette des 2'ribunaux

state that he expressed great repentance for the crime
which he had attempted.
The Progres du Pas-de-Calais states that General
Count DE MONTROLON has been informed by the Go-
vernment that he will be set at liberty as soon as the
judicial inquiries respecting the evasion of Prince
Loins NAPOLEON shall be at an end.

A Toulon journal mentions a rumour that an ex-
pedition is about to take place, under the command of
Marshal BUGEAUD, against the tribes on the frontiers
of Morocco. This rumour, however, does not accord
with an announcement in the Echo de Vesone that a
letter, dated the 27th ult., has been received from the
Marshal by his family, in which he states that he will
probably come to France next month, no more to re-
turn to Algeria, and that he had already received a
mongd to be acted upon when he pleased. The Mar-
shal, adds the Echo de Vesone, entreats his friends to
declare that he is more than ever desirous of continu-
ing deputy for Excideuil, and that it is false that he
intends to offer himself as a candidate for any other
place.

We have received the Akbar and the France
Algerienne of Algiers of the 2d. There is nothing
positive in them as to the movements of ABD-EL-
KADER, and nothing to confirm the hope which had
been expressed, that other French prisoners, besides
the man who had arrived at Lalla-Magrhnia, and
from whom the account of the massacre at the
Deira was obtained, had also succeeded in making
their escape. The Akbar states from Dellys
that the Kabyles are quarrelling amongst
themselves. The Flisat-el-Bahais have assas-
sinated the Amin of the Pit-Zeraras, and the tribes
are snaking razzias upon each other. An Algiers
letter of the 3d announces the arrival there on that
day of his Royal Highness the Duke D'AumALE. It
was said that the Prince would embark in a few days
for France. It had been previously reported, how-
ever, that he intended to go to Oran. Marshal
BUGEAUD was to leave for Oran on the evening of
the 3d.

The Three per Cents. closed on the Paris Bourse on Tues-
day at 83f. 25c. ; the Five per Cents., 120 f. 40c. ;
the Orleans Railroad Shares, 1,256 E 25c. ; Rouen, 1,028 f
75c. ; Havre, 752 E 50c. ; Great Northern, 750 f. ; Avignon, 908 f
75c. ; Vierzon, 642 f. 50c. ; Bordeaux, 615 f. ; Boulogne, 485 f. ;
Troyes and Mon tereau, 385 t: ; Basle, 221 E 2.5 c.; Dieppe, 420 f.
Paris and Strasburg, 507 f. 50c. ; Tours and Nantes, 520 f. ;
Paris and Lyons, 547 f. 50c. ; Belgian Two-and-a-Half per
Cents., 57f.; Spanish Three per Cents., 38.
The following are quotations for other railway shares:
Lyons and Avignon Definitives, 522 f. 50c.; Bordeaux
and Cette, ditto, 507 f. 50c.

BUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE, JUNE 10.
Boulogne and Amiens, Il—Dutch Rhenish, 7% —East Indian, %
Namur and Liege, 3% —Northern of France Constituted, 14—Orleans
and Vierzon, 14% —Paris and Lyons Constituted, 6%—Sambre and
Meuse, 4% —West Flanders, 2.

EXPRESS FROM PARIS

(From the Times.)

We have received, by Extraordinary Express, a letter
from our Paris correspondent, dated yesterday (Wednesday)
three o'clock P.3t., which states that "at half-past two
o'clock that day the Paris and Lyons Railroad, with a branch
to Grenoble, was adjudged to the company represented by
M. Talabot.

" The first tender opened by the Minister of Public Work:,
was that of il. Ganneron, banker, which proposed for the
line at a reduction of nine months from the fifty years—the
maximum declared by the law of July, 1845—that is, offering
to take the line on a lease of forty-nine years and three
months.

"The Minister next opened a sealed parcel, which proved
to be the tender of M. Talabot, Chief Engineer of the Roads
and Bridges, which offered to take the line at a reduction of
5 years and 67 days from the aforesaid maximum; that is,
on a lease for 44 years 298 days.
" A third tender, that of M. Chastelleux, was to have
been made, but the preliminary formality had not been com-
plied with.

" The Minister, therefore, declared that, as the tender
of M. Talabot offered the more considerable reduction from
the fixed maximum, it was to be regarded as the most ad-
vantageous for the public, and was accordingly accepted."
The effect expected from this adjudication was a consider-
able improvement in the prices of shares, but the contrary
was the fact, as will be seen by the subjoined lists. We must
observe, however, that the general heaviness of the market
is ascribed by our correspondent to the leading article in the
Times of Monday last.

The Paris papers of Wednesday received by this express
contain no news of importance.

We have also received by extraordinary courier the intel-
ligence of the adjudication of the Lyons anal Avignon Rail-
road. The biddings were as follows :—Talabot and Co., 44
years 298 days; Ganneron and Co., 49 years 90 days. In the
case of the Count de Leige the preliminaries were not com-
plied with.

COURS AUTRENTIQUE.—PARIS, JUNE 10.—Five per Cents.,
120 f.; Three per Cents., 84f. 40c. 83f. 82f. 95c. ; Bank ac-
tions, 3,480 f.; Rente de Naples (Rothschild), 102 f 70c. 65c. ;
Romans, 100%; Belgian Five per '
Cents., 1840, EVA ;
Ditto, 1842, 1021 A • Ditto. Two-and-aiialf per Cents, 56f, ;
Spanish Three per Cents., 1841, 37941. 3Rc. Exchange on
London, one month, paper, 25f. 621ic.; Money, 25f. 60c.;
three months, paper, 25f. 45c.; money, 25f. 421-Ac.

BOURSE, JUNE 10.
LAST PRICES.—Five per Cents., 120 f. 20c.; Three per
Cents., 83f. 5c.; Belgian Bank, 1001/a.

ASCOT RACES.

(THIS DAY-BY EXPRESS.)

Her Majesty's Plate of 100 gs. ; three years old, 7st 21b,
four, 9st 21h ; five, 10st ; six and aged, lOst 51b ; to start at
the new mile post, and go once round.
Bold Archer
Ruff

Sweepstakes of 50 sous. each, h ft, for three yrs old colts,
Bst 91b; and fillies, Bst 61b. Swinley Course.
Sir G. Heathcote's b c by Hetman Platoff, walked over
The St. James's Palace Stakes of 100 soya. h ft, for three yrs
old; colts, Bst 71b; and fillies, Bst 41b. Old Mile.
Free Lance
Joinville 2
Three started.

HOUSE OF LOILDS.—(THIS DAY.)
The House of Lords sat to-day to hear Scotch appeals.
The peers in attendance were Lord Brougham, Lord Cotten-
ham, and Lord Campbell.
ALLAN V. GLASGOW.
The arguments in this appeal from the Court of Session
occupied their Lordships the whole morning.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor, after having disposed of the unop.
posed lunatic petitions on his paper, proceeded with the fur.
ther arguments in the part-heard appeal of Mitford v.
Reynolds.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Petitions of no general interest occupied his Lordship, the
Master of the Rolls the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
( Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of England.)
His HONOUR heard unopposed petitions, short causes, and
cause petitions to•day. The Court in the course of the
morning made several orders in railway cases for the payment
of the deposits out of Court, the schemes having failed before
Committees of the House of Commons, and the Speaker's
certificate to that effect having been produced.
( Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)