The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nov. 16.

THE GRA 5719 JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY v. DIMES.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. STIJ ART having reed,
The VI .CE-CHANCEVLOR gave judgment, declaring
that the h eir, according to the custom of the manor of
Skudmore,„ was thva party who ought to be admitted
tenant upon the court-roll, and that when admitted he
would be trustee of such estate as hogot by the admis-
sion for the corporation. His Honour also directed that
the corporation should pay the fine and fees of admission,
and referre d it to the Master to ascertain what the
amount a the fee was, and also to inquire who was the
heir oli Thomas Skudmore. The costs were ordered to
be taxed and paid by the plaintiffs, and then recovered
over r.eg,ain from the defendant.
Tile Court rose at half-past three o'clock.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
lifter some unimportant motions had been disposed of
th(s arguments in the case of Blair v. Bromley were re-
seemed and continued till the rising of the Court.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
STEWART V. BUSHEY.
His HONOUR gave directions in this case to-day. He
said that there was evidence of the contract, and he con-
sidered that the proper order would be that an account
should be taken of the debts of Mulholland and Co. at
the time of the bankruptcy.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 16.

LIBEL--THE QUEEN V. THE REV. JOSIAH BARTLETT-

be would contend that the order and certificates upon
which this lady was received into the cr:stody of Dr.
Miilengen were insufficient and illegal. The order and
certificates were given under the Act Bth and 9th of
Victoria, chap. 100, and the sections (to which he
most particularly desired to direct his Lordship's
attention), were sections 45 and 46. The intention
of the Act was benevolent, but the sections
were two of the most restrictive upon the liberty of the
subject which could be found in any Act of Parliament.
The first point to which he would call the attention of
his Lordship was the order set forth in that return. It
appeared that a gentleman named Roavlack, the minister
of the parish, having had his attention directed to the
forlorn condition of this lady, felt it his duty to inter-
fere, although not related or connected with her. The
form of the order, as specified in schedule B of the Act,
required that a number of particulars with reference to
the age, sex, malady, condition, &c., of the lunatic should
be set forth upon the order, makinte, it evident that the
intention of the Act was, that the order should not come
from an utter stranger, but from a person related, or
intimately connected, with him or her. It did not ap-
pear on the order that this gentleman had ever seen
her more than five minutes together. Under the
same schedule there was a list of sixteen particulars
with reference to the lunatic, to which the person mak-
ing the order should make answers, or give good and
sufficient reason for not doing so. It was required to
set forth the nature of the lunacy, whether suicidal, or
dangerous to others—whether the party was epileptic— ,
the date and duration of the attack—whether it was the '
first attack—the former place of confinement, and other
circumstances, to which no return whatever had been
made ; and, for the absence of the returns, the only
reason alleged was, that the lunatic was watched by a
person whom she held in fear.
Sir J. BAYLEY here remarked that he saw the prose-
cutor of the present writ sitting next to, and holding a
conversation with, the unfortunate lady.
Mr. PARRY was not aware of the fact, or he would
not have permitted it. They did not require the lady to
wait in Court at all.
Sir J. BAYLEY—Sho is suffering acute pain from bodily
disease, and it will be better if she is not compelled to
remain.
The unfortunate lady, who appeared to be in consider-
able pain, was then supported out of-Court by two fe-
male attendants.
Mr. PARRY said, with reference to the two medical
certificates, he was about to bring forward an objection,
which, under the construction of the 45th section of the
Act, would be at once fatal to them. .Under the Act
2 and 3 William IV., chap. 107, the certificates were
only required to state that the person was of unsound
mind to obtain his introduction to a lunatic asylum ;
but, the Act of 8 and 9 Victoria, chap. 100, which was
passed as an improvement upon the old Act, required
that the person certifying should state, upon the face of
his certificate, the facts that led him to the conclusion
that the person was insane. In the certificate of Dr.
Wilmott the only facts which were put forward were,
that she was labouring under various delusions, and was
and dirty in the extreme. There were in that certificate
no facts, but merely the opinion of Dr. Wilmott. With
regard to the second certificate of Dr. William Griffiths,
that gentleman merely stated that he concluded that
this lady was insane from some conversation which he
had with her. He appeared to have a full conviction
that he was not about to state any fact, for he had
drawn his pen through the words " following facts,
videlicet," in the original printed certificate. As the
amended Act prescribed certain forms to be observed,
he (Mr. Parry) thought that they should be most impli-
citly complied with, especially in any document affecting
the liberty of any person. Under these circumstances
he submitted that the order upon the return and the
certificates were illegal, and that the lady should there-
fore he discharged from custody. The Learned Gentle-
man then proceeded to cite the case of Ftll, a lunatic,
in which a decision had been given in favour of his view
cf the present case.
Sir Jouzs BAYLEY, in support of the return, submitted
that Dr. Quail was not the party entitled to impeach the
present return. The writ was moved for upon ex parte
applications, and on four affidavits, to only one of which
he would call the attention of the Court, as the others
were valueless. Dr. Quail stated that he was a physi-
cian, and had known the alleged lunatic for five years,
(-hiring which time she had suffered from bodily disease,
bet not from any mental ailment. His affidavit also set
forth her forcible removal from his custody, and the fact
that he had not since been able to obtain access to her.
He objected to his power to impeach the return, as it did
not appear on the face of the affidavit that he was acting
under the authority of the supposed lunatic. The
Learned Counsel then cited the case of the Canadian
prisoners, 5 Meeson and Wellsby, p. 32, and the
celebrated case of the Hottentot Venus, in sup-
port of this view of the case. Dr. Quail had
stated that access to the lady was refused ; but his
proper course was to have applied to the Commissioners
of Lunacy, who had the entire and exclusive control of
all private lunatic asylums. He might have written, or
had his application answered in writing, but it did not
appear that he had taken any of these courses. He (Sir
J. Bayley) had affidavits which would establish facts to
the contrary of those adduced by Dr. Quail.
Mr. PARRY submitted that no affidavits could be pro-
duced in the case. The question as to the insanity of
the party was not under discussion ; it was as to the
validity of the return, and that would go by his Lord-
ship's judgment.
Sir J. BAYLTLY would show that Dr. Quail was the last
person in the world to whom the case of this lady should
be committed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE proceeded to pass the sen-
tence of the Court upon the defendant in the most
impressive manner. He said—Josiah Bartlett, you are
to receiv,e the sentence of the Court after a conviction
for the. publication of a libel, charged on a criminal in-
forireation, which was tried at the last assizes at Here-
ford, and you were found guilty. The libel consisted of
a letter which was sent by you to the wife of the prose-
cutor, Marianne Tolzer, and it is impossible for any one to
read that letter without seeing that it conveysimputations
upon the character of that lady such as would have
shown her to be valueless, because without virtue and
chastity woman is worth nothing. That letter was
sent to herself, at a time when she was from her hus-
band, and when she was in your neighbourhood with her
brother, and the occasion which had brought those per-
sons into that neighbourhood was a letter which you had
previously sent to your own wife, in which, after making
many statements of family unhappinesses, occasioned,
as you state, by the interference of your wife's rela-
tions, and in which you declared you entertained a
settled determination to separate yourself from her,
that letter contained no imputations against the
conduct of your wife in any other respect. It ap-
peared that she was the motherto you of
many children, and it spoke of some division that was
to be made with respect to the custody of those children.
In answer to that letter your wife stated to you that
her own family, to whom she had most naturally corn-
municated it, had sent her sister and her brother
.down
to you for the purpose of protecting and advising
her. The cause, therefore, which brought the
prosecutrix and her brother into your neighbour-
hood was not only perfectly justifiable,
it was
quite a commendable interference on their part,
and nothing appears in the conduct which they then
pursued that' could in the slightest degree justify any
illegal conduct on your part; but if there had been any-
thing in their conduct, or is the mode in which they
conducted; themselves, I would put it to you,
if I thought that it was likely that you were
capable of entering into such a consideration,
properly whether anything could have justified the
writing of the letter which you wrote to Marianne Tolzer.
It is true that letter was only written to herself, and it
was just possible that that letter might have been put
into the fire, and consequently seen by no other person.
But what could be expected from an innocent woman—
an innocent wife, but that, receiving a letter containing
such imputations as were there made, to show it at once,
and without reserve, with the boldness of innocence, and
in the confidence of affection to her husband ? It cannot
but be supposed that when you, as a reasonable being
in your senses, sent that letter you must have foreseen
that it would have been communicated to her husband, and
then it is impossible that you could be ignorant of the
misery which a letter of that nature might have caused
to the whole of that family. When this cause was
brought before the Court in the first instance, your
counsel, as you now state, retracted the whole charge,
and made, what you call, en abject apology. I think it
was impossible at that time for the counsel, on the
part of the prosecution, to do more thon he did
namely, to make the rule absolute. Bat the moment you
heard of this, whether it was that you supposed you had
now attained impunity, or for what other reason I know
not yet, although you had refused to adhere to the charge
you had made in the public papers, you retracted that
apology. You, therefore, put it forward to the world
a second time as a charge upon the truth of which you
were contented to stand. The case went to trial, and it
is not unworthy of observation that, in the course of
some of those letters which passed from you after that
time, having intimated to Marianne Tolzer that she
would be put into the box, and would be subjected
there to questions which it would have been
impossible for her to answer, it appears that she was
taken to the assizes for the purpose, but you did not
venture to call that person into the box and ask her any
questions.
The defendant—l was not there, my Lord.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—n;IFiariIIe Tolzer, on her
part, has dose evorythin4 that a woman could do to
avow her innocence of the imputations east upon her.
It is always usual upon occasions of this sort, and most
justly, to see after the act has been once committed how
the party conducts himself—to see whether there is any
true repentance for what he has done—anything like an
appreciation of his guilty conduct ; or whether, on the
otter hand, he adheres to it with tlic same malice which
he 'manifested when he was first induced to perpetrate
the act. I regret to say that in every step that has been
taken by you since the day of your conviction, the same
distinct malice has been manifested on the one hand,
and the same amount of—l think I must call
it cunning—a desire to shield yourself from the con-
sequences of your act most distinctly appears. One
particular letter written to your wife, and which oc-
casioned some delay in the proceedings of the Court,
and which you were so very desirous should
not be read, shows this more clearly. I wish
I could think that this act on your part was
becauseyou really repented of the act of writing it, and
not that you were afraid of the consequences which it
might have upon you. The Court thought, without
doubt, that the letter shoa'd be read, and therefore
at your own request, after the representations made of
the nature of its contents, the Court have looked into
it, and. have spared the public the pain of its appearing
in print. It is fit to say that, although that letter
contains nothing that could induce the Court to
believe the truth of what you state in it—that there is
nothing also in that letter which in the sl;ghtcst de-
gree, /bough no doubt the object of it we,.
to plant more deeply in your wife's mind a
sense of her sister's guilt —that the Court
consider that that letter particularises nothing that in
the slightest degree fixes Marianne Tolzer with any
particular specification—any charge of incontinency
whatever. In the course of my experience in
this Court I have never had to deal with la
case of private life so full of calumny as this appears
to be. It is very painful for this Court to have to deal
with transactions that go into the secrecy of private life,
but it is much more painful to have before it
a person who fills, and who has filled so long
the situation you do a minister of the
holy Gospel. In your person one cannot but feel
that the Church itself is outraged. From the manner
you have conducted yourself in the whole of this
case, and after the observations you have made
this day—in which, using the language of your
own affidavit you confess yorself guilty of nothing more
than an act of impropriety, and instance your own guilt
as something that may be palliated by a fine of the
smallest - possible amount—it is vain to suppose
that, as the organ of this Court, I can safely
address any observations to you whatever. I must
leave to another time to bring you to a state of
mind in which you will take a proper view of the enor-
mity of the offence you have committed. It remains
only for-me to pass upon you that sentence which, upon
a full consideration of all the circumstances' of
the case the Court think it right to impose
upon you, which is that you be imprisoned in
the Queen's Bench for two years on each count of this
indictment, each sentence to commence and end at the
same period ; and that at the expiration of that timeyou
enter into your own recognizences in the sum of one
thousand pounds for your good behaviour to all her Ma-
jesty's subjects, and especially to Marianne Tolzer, for
the space of five years:
The defendant was then removed in the custody of the
proper officer, and the majority of the auditory withdrew.

Mr. Justice KATTESON—You had better go on with
the other part of the case.
Sir J. BAYLEY—The only point then was, whether it
was competent to any party to come to that Court to
eek the discharge of any private individual without his
or her consent. The Cumwiasio►ters of Lunacy had the
control of all private asylums, and could discharge the
.uppused lunatic if in illegal custody. He would also
ask whether, supposing the certificate to be invalid, from
the circumstances mentioned by Mr. Parry, did that
make the custody of the lunatic illegal? The 45th sec-
tion of the Act stated that any person who received into
a licensed lunatic asylum any lunatic for whom money
was paid, under the forms stated in the Act, should be
punishable for a misdemeanour, and prosecuted at the
discretion of the Commissioners or their secretary, but
nothing was said as to the custody of the lunatic be ing
illegal. He, therefore, disputed the power of the Court
to discharge any person for an informality in the medical
certificates.

Mr. justice PATTESON—The language of the 45th
section i 3 very strong. It says that no parson shall be
received and detained in any licensed house, without the
form of medical certificate described in schedule C, and
that any person receiving a lunatic into such asylum
without such form of certificate shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanour. So the keeper might he punished as much
as he pleased, and still keep the lunatic in custody, ac-
cording to your view of the case.
Some further discussion then took place, after which
Mr. Justice PATTFSON said, that the case presented
many difficulties to his mind, and as it had been pretty
fully entered into before his Brother Erle at chambers,
he would retire and consult him. He had considerable
doubts as to the validity of the second certificate.
After some time had elapsed,
Mr. Justice PATTESON returned, and said that he had
had an opportunity of consulting his Brother Erie and
the Lord Chiet Justice. Mr. Justice Erle had entered
pntty fully into the case at chambers. They were
both of opinion that the ceracates were valid, and came
within the meaning of the Act. His own opinion was
not of a similar tendency, and he thought that the better
plan would be to have the case argued to-morrow in full
Court, and the lady to be remitted to her former custody
until then.

After some objection on the part of Sir J. BAYLEY,
Mr. PARRY pressed for immediate judgment.
Mr. Justice PATTEsoN—Such a coarse would be in-
convenient. My own opinion is, that the certificates
are not valid, but it bad better be argued in full Court
to-morrow.

This course was then, after some discussion, agreed on.
THE INHABITANTS OF THE PARISHES OF EAST STFEEN

AND MORTLAKE V. THE RICII3IOND ItkILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. CHAMBERS moved for a rule to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue directed to the Richmond
Railway Company, calling upon them to construct a
good and sufficient bridge for foot passengers,
where their line crossed a part of a public
footway leading from Mortlake Church to East Sheen.
The company agreed to construct a good and sufficient
bridge within the space of six calendar months, and to
maintain it afterwards, From the affidavits it appeared,
that some disagreement took place between the company
and the inhabitants, and in consequence of it some fur-
ther provisions were introduced into their Act. In March
last the company began the bridge, and constructed it so
that passengers by the pathway were compelled to turn
out of it to the left, up a sort of wooden ladder or steps, j
cross the bridge, and after having descended a similar '
ladder on the other side, they were obliged to take a
slanting direction to regain the path. As the path was
much used by the tradespeople, and by walking funerals,
it became absolutely useless as a pathway, and com-
pelled many to make a 'very circuitous route. The com-
pany having finished this bridge, resolutely refused to
make any alteration in it.
Application granted for a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. IG.
The Court proceeded this day with the cases set down
on the special paper. None of the cases argued were of
any interest except to the parties immediately con-
cerned.

BAIL COURT, Sou. 16.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
IN RE SIIETTLEIVORTII.
Mr. PARRY moved that the return to the writ of ha.
beas corpus issued in this case should at once be made.
Sir J. BAYLEY said that the lady was then in West-
minster Hall.
The return was then read. It set forth that on the
9th of August Maria Eliza Rhodes Shuttleworth was
delivered into the custody of Dr. Millingen, and that the
cause of her so being taken and detained was, that she
was at the time, and has since been, of unsound mind,
and incapable of governing herself or her property, and
was an unfit and an unsafe person to be at large. The
place of her confinement was a licensed house for the
reception of lunatics, called York House, at Battersea,
and at the time of her reception there, an order for her
reception, signed by J. C. Rowlack, the minister of St.
Peter's, Pimlico, was produced, in which it was stated
that she had been found in a most deplorable and in-
decent state. There were also two certificates, one
from Thomas Willmott, a medical man, who
stated that she was of unsound mind, and
that the facts from which he came to that
conclusion was, that she laboured under various
' delusions and was extremely dirty and indecent; and
another, Wm. Gifford, a medical
ro pronounced her
insane, and stated that he came to that conclusion from
conversation he had with her.
3lr. PARRY said he had to submit to his Lordship
ffi
that such a return to the writ was altogether insufficient,
and that this lady should be discharged from custoclyt:
He would state to his Lordship, on the threshhold
of the argument, that he did not intend to raise the
question as to whether or not the lady was insane, but

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 16.
BEENLEN U. nocsarg.—TllE BOROUGH OP DA.RTMOUTIL
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Lord Chief Justice WILDE said, that with regard to
the first point raised—that regarding :the date, clause 17
—in his opinion, as appled to it, did not admit of a:doubt.
That clearly showed that the Legislature intended that
the Year as well as the day of the month should be
set forth in the notice. Whatever inconvenience might
arise from the compliance with th© provisions of the
section, the Court was not at liberty to depart from the
evident meaning of the Legislature. The notice of ob-
jection must express on the face of it the year as well as
the day and the month; therefore he was of opinion the
notice in the present instance was bad, and that the
Revising Barrister's judgment must be reversed. Though
this was
.surficieut to dispose:of the appeal, it would
be convenient that the Court should also express its
opinion on the second point. The 17th clause directed
that the notice of objection should be served " on the
overseers who made out the list ;" and the 13th section
required that the overseers should make out and sign
the same. Did the clauses stand alone in this manner,
there might be some reason for holding the notice to be
bad, but the interpretation clause, 101, stated that any
act to be performed by the overseers might be done by
the majority of them, and then this became the act of
the whole. He was, therefore, of opinion that the notice
nowsigu e n,d eted he notlists
bes e
butser voend
aonny the poafr ttihc
eu l awrhoovl
ee,r spe:orysi
dwi
nhao
the statute was'in other respects complied with.

The rest of their Lordships concurred.
The decision of the Revising Barrister was accordingly
reversed.

WOOLLETT V. DA.VIS.-THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH.

This was a consolidated appeal (involving 83 votes)
against a decision of the Revising Barrister for the
county of Monmouth, by which the name of the appel-
lant was expunged from the register. The point raised
was the form of notice served by the objector on the
appellant, the latter contending that the notice on:which
the Revising Barrister had acted was _bad, because the
objector had not properly stated his place of abode.
Mr. COCKBURN appeared for the appellant, maintain-
ing that the notice of the objector was not in the manner
and form prescribed by No. 5, schedule)A of the Act.
Mr. K.EATING for the respondent, contended that all
that the law contemplated was such a description as
would convey the description of the objector's residence
as commonly known, and that this had been done in the
present instance.
The COURT took time to consider the judgment.
LAMBERT V. THE TOWN•CLERK OF THE BOROUGH OF

THE', SUNS LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 17, 180.

before him for the commission of outrages of this de-
scription, to commit them at once to prison without the
imposition of any pecuniary penalty, which would, in
fact, merely amount to a nominal punishment ; and, as
he saw no reason whatever to depart from that course on
the present occasion, he should convict the prisoner of
the assault upon the constable, and sentence him to be
committed therefore to the House of Correction for the
term of seven days.
In the course of the afternoon three solicitors attended
in Court in succession, by two of whom an earnest ap-
peal was made to the Magistrate on behalf of the pri-
soner, to procure a remission of the judgment, and the
imposition of a fine instead, but Mr. Bingham was in-
, exorable, and the prisoner was conveyed to his desti-
nation.

FLANDERS MAIL.

BRUSSELS, Nov. 12.—The Senate in a sitting to-d 4
was engaged in discussing the address to the Throne; the
whole was unanimously adapted by the thirty-three
members present.
The project of law received from the Chambers of Re-
presentatives relative to provisions, was referred to the
permanent Committee.
Between the 14th and 17th of this month, the Empress
Dowager of Brazil will pass through Belgium, coming
from Portugal, on her way to Germany. Her Majesty
travels incognito under the title of Countess of Mindollo.
She is going to visit her sister, the Duchess of Hopin
Zollen Sigmaringen.
The Chamber of Representatives was engaged to-day
in the debate on the project of law for the importation
of provisions duty free, till the Ist of October, 184'7.
The report was presented by M. Brabant, at the opening
of the sitting, and a debate commenced immediately.
The Committee adopting the principle of the law was
divided on the question whether tne free importation of
corn should not be prolonged till the Ist of Dacember,
1847. Two Members were of that opinion, and two
other Members bad supported the proposal of the Go-
vernment, which limits it to the Ist of October. _ _

M. Osy presented an amendment for prolonging this
measure till the 31st December, and extendinc, the ex-
emption from duty to horned cattle and to flour. He
then supported a second amendment, proposed by M.
Dela Ilaye, which differed from his own only in fixing
the limit of free importation to the Ist December.
The Ministers of the Interior and of Finance, and
some other members opposed these Amendments,
which were supported by their authors and some others,
but filially rejected, and the whole law as proposed was
unanimously adopted.
The Minister of Finance, when he yesterday deposited
the budget of Ways and Means for 1847, made a state-
ment respecting the condition of our finances. The
credit required for all the departments in 1847 amounts,
according to the budget presented, to f 1114,280,975 62
The probable receipts as estimated in
the budget of Ways and Means at 114,536,630

Surplus of revenue ... F 1.255,674 38
We shall publish the whole of this statement in a
supplement. The following are some important
statements in this document. It appears that
the land-tax is estimated to produce in 1847, as in 1846,
namely-18,339,750 francs ; the Customs are noted with
a reduction of 900,000 francs ; the revenue loses in con-
sequence of the free importation, &c., 500,000 francs ;
and yet it is calculated that, to complete its supply, it
must have imported during 1846, the large sum of
104,287,715 francs. The new law, relative to sugar,
has produced the effect which the Government and the
Chamber expected. In 1846, the revenue will amount
to 3 millions, and it is hoped that it will produce as much
in 1847 ; with the ancient laws, it would scarcely have
produced 2,500,000 francs. The probable receipt for
1847 is calculated at 14 millions of francs. At this rate,
it will produce rather more than 4 per cent. on the capi-
tal expended, deducting all the expenses.
Nov. 18.—The Senate had a sitting to-day, in which
it adopted unanimously, without any amendment, the
project of law for the importation and the prohibition of
the exportation of provisions till the Ist of October,
1847. The Senate then adjourned indefinitely.
The King received to-day the deputation of the Senate,
to present to his Majesty the Address, in answer to the
speech from the throne.
M. de Schierval read the address, to which the King
replied :—" Gentlemen, I always receive with pleasure
the address of the Senate. Its loyal concurrence in all
the measures which may contribute to the public good,
gives it a just claim to the gratitude of the country.
I thank you, Gentlemen, for the testimony you hear to
my devotedness ; it is a powerful encouragement to my
lively solicitude for the welfare of our common country,
BELGIAN FUNDS.—Bausms, Nov. 14.
Actual Debt, 2;4 per Cent
Rothschild's Loan, Five per Cent .• • • • . --
Loan of Thirty Millions, Four per Cent •• • .
Ditto Three per Cent ..
Ditto Thirty-seven Millions, ditto ••• • • •
Ditto,ditto,lB40. .
Ditto, ditto, 1842 .. .• .• 101%
Ditto, 1844. .
Ditto, 1836... ••.. •
Ditto of the City, 1832 • • • • ••• • • ..... • • 100%
Ditto, 1843 . • • • •
Bank ofßelgium • .... •••—•••••• • • • • • • 922
—Brussels Papers, Nov. 14.
AUSTRIAN FUNDS.—VIENNA, Nov. 7.
5 per Cent. Metalliques •• • • •• • • • • •• • ..... 108%
4 per Cent. ditto • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 99%
3 per Cent. ditto.• ••••••••••• • • • . • • • • • • 70
Loan, 1834 • 156
Ditto, 1839
Bank Shares •• • • ••••• • •• • ••••• • • • • • 1560
Esterhazy's Loan .... •• • • • •.•••• • • • • •
RAILWAYS.
The Northern, or Ferdinand .. •• • • . 16414
Vienna—Milan • • •• • • • • • •• • • ••• • • • •• • • 106%
Leghorn ••
Perth ..................
Sienna .•
Grosetto •• • • •• • •• • • •• .
Oldenburg .. ••••••• • .. • • • •
Apenninen .• .. • . • . . • ......
Pesth Bridge .. •
—.A.llgemeine Zeitung. Nov. 10.

. 861 i
• ••
*****
75

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD, Nov. 14.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford purposes to hold a con-
firmation at St. Mary's Church, on Monday, November
23, at 11 o'clock, solely for members of the University.
Those undergraduates who desire to be admitted must
bring with them a sufficient certificate signed by the
proper officer of the college, and must attend at St.
Mary's Church shortly before the time named.

BALLIOL COLLEGE.

An election to two open scholarships in this college
will take place an the 29th of this month. Candidates
must present to the Master, on the 23l instant, certifi-
cates of their birth and baptism, together with testi-
monial,: of character from the persons by whom they
have been educatQd.