The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-21 00:00:00

JANITA"RY 21, 1848.

fortune-teller told her that that was the person who
had stolen the watch and chain. This circumstance,
added to her former suspicion, perfectly confirmed
her in her opinion that Miss Turford wis the guilty
party, and she therefore, notwithstanding the injunc-
tions of her father, gave her into the charge of a
constable fur stealing the property. Turford was
subsequently tried for the offence at the Old Bailey,
convicted, and sentenced to six months' hard labour
at Brixton House of Correction.

In her cross-examination, Mrs. Ward admitted
that she was the chief witness, first against the young
woman Mary Ann Turford ; next against her own
son, who pleaded Guilty to the charge, and was sen-
tenced to seven years' transportation ; now prosecuted
her own brother; and all for the same watch and
chain. She positively denied having had any infor-
mation of the innocence of Turford and the guilt of
her son, until after the conviction of the former, and
sail, that the next day after she became convinced of
it she gave her son into custody.
In reply to the questions of Mr. NORTON' Mrs.
Ward said, the prisoner had seen the watch and chain
at her house on the night before they had been stolen.
She then produced the watch to settle some argument
between the prisoner and her husband, about the
difference between opening an English and a French
watch. The prisoner on that occasion book the watch
into his hand, and attempted to open it, but she (wit-
ness) requested him not to do so, observing that it
appeared somewhat difficult, and told him it belonged
to their father, who had left it to have a glass put in,
adding, that he (the prisoner) knew what a particular
man their father was.
After the examination of some of the witnesses
called on the preceding day, John Ward was sworn.
He deposed that he was the husband of Harriet
Ward, was a shoemaker, and resided at No. 40,
Brandon-street, Wal worth. Recollected the prisoner
being at his house on the night before the watch and
chain had been missed, and saw the watch in his hand
when his wife produced it to settle the argument
between them, and Mrs. Ward then told him it
belonged to her father. The watch was of so peculiar
a description that any person seeing it once must
know it again. Witness recollected the prisoner
coming to his house on the night of the 28th of Octo-
ber, and, in conversation, asking "How do they get
on about the watch affair ?" Witness replied that
on that day the young woman, Turford, had been
committed to take her trial on the charge. The pri-
soner then said it was a had thing to punish any one's
child ; that his sister had children of her own ; and
asked if he agreed with his wife in the course she had-
adopted in prosecuting Turford. Witness replied
that he certainly did—that if persons were guilty of
such offences they deserved to be punished for it
The prisoner then said that Turford would get
seven years of it for the offence ; but he
(witness) said that her punishment would
not at the most exceed six months, and they made a
bet of a pot of ale on the result. He (witness) did
not see the prisoner again until the night of the 15th
or 16th of November, when he called at his house.
On that occasion his (witness's) wife sent for him,
and, on his coming down stairs, she told him, in the
prisoner's presence, that her son " Jem" had stated at
the station-house that his mother had parted with the
watch and chain herself, and then charged Mary Ann
Turford with it. The prisoner upon this observed,
that this was about right, and that the things had
passed through his hands. Mrs. Ward begged of
him to state all he knew about it, and the prisoner
said that the fact was the boy had taken the watch
and chain and brought them to him, saying that his
mother had sent him with them to him to sell, for
that she wanted the money worse than them, and he
(the prisoner) had disposed of them for 50s , handing
over the money to the lad. His (witness's) wife was
much affected on hearing this, upon which the prisoner
observed that they had better keep the matter easy,
and the boy might go to sea. His wife said she could
not allow a person to be punished innocently when
she knew the guilty party, and said her son " Jem"
should never sleep under her r2of again. The boy on
that night went to the house of the prisoner, and the
following morning was given into custody.
For the prisoner two witnesses were called, one a
woman, who, it was alleged, lived with him as his
wife, and the other her mother. The former said she
was at the prisoner's house when the lad Ward came
there and acknowledged he had stolen the watch and
chain, and that they belonged to his grandfather, and
the latter said she was present when the prisoner paid
over to the boy Ward the sum of 505 which he had
received for the watch.

Mr. Solomons submitted that there was nothing in
the evidence adduced that could lead any jury to
convict the prisoner. The case was evidently got
up on the statement of a convibted person, and with
the intention, no doubt, of getting a commutation of
the lad's sentence by implicating the prisoner in his
guilt.
Mr. NORTON observed that he had before him the
statement of the boy Ward, made, as far as he (Mr.
Norton) could see, without the slightest motive, in
which he declared that he had been induced to take
the property by his uncle, and that all he had re-
ceived out of what they had been sold for was ss. He
(Mr. Norton) was aware that there would be no
probability of convicting the prisoner on the unsup-
ported testimony of the boy, but he found that the
statement was corroborated in many important points.
Lord Denman's Act admitted the testimony of con-
victed felons, and he (Mr. Norton) should take the
necessary means to have the boy brought before him
to hear his testimony on oath. In the interim he
should remand the prisoner, but had no objection to
accept good bail for his aopearance on a future day.
THE SPRING CIRCUITS.

Yesterday morning the Judges met and arranged
their respective circuits as follow :
Home—Lord Denman, Mr. Justice Coleridge.
Midland—Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, Mr. Justice Maule.

Norfolk—Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Coltman,
Northern—Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Baron Rolfe.
Oxford—Mr. Justice Matteson, Mr. Justice Cress.
well.
Western—Mr. Justice Wightman.
North Wales—Mr. Justice Erle.
South Wales—Mr. Justice Williams.
Mr. Baron Parke will remain in town.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL:
•Ye!terday a Court was held for the dispatch of
public business. The committees for the ensuing
'year were appointed.

ABOLITION OF GRAND JURIES.

Mr. flumritunrcs rose to move " That it be re-
ferred to a commit tee to consider and to report as to
the expediency of presenting a petition to Parliament,
for an Act to give power to the Central Criminal
Court to try persons charged with offences within its
jurisdiction without the intervention of a grand jury;
and, further, to consider and report whether such
trials could not be most beneficially had by informa-
tion, or by some, and what other mode than
by indictment." He said his object was to get rid
of what was neither more nor less than a complete
nuisance to the community, and to propose some-
thing to supply its place with security to that com-
munity. It was well known that grand juries were
instituted at a time when the administration of jus-
tice made the introduction of such a system ne-
cessary. The argument in their favour no longer
existed. Formerly there was no police magistrate
before whom a charge could be brought. The pre-
sentment of the gran 1: jury was sufficient authority
for putting a man upon his trial. The evil was that
after the remedy has been applied to the correc-
tion of the system, the system was itself in full exis-
tence. Under our present criminal legislation
everything connected with the accusation of an
individual took place before a magistrate. The man
was charged, taken to a station-house, accused pub-
licly before the k nagistrate, and all that could be said
against him was publicly brought forward and sup-
ported by evidence, which determined the magistrate
either to discharge or commit him. What followed ?
An inquiry took place before the grand jury in
secret upon evidence merely in support of the prose-
cution. It was brought forward behind the back of
the accused, who was denied the advantage of the
presence of a single friend, professionally or other-
wise, to aid him in the monstrous difficulty of a
secret attack made before an irresponsible tribunal,
sworn not to divulge the facts sworn to before them.
—(Elear, hear.) Now, if sufficient evidence were
given before the magistrate to send a party for trial,
what safeguard to the accused, or what advantage to
the public, could a grand jury, whose inquiry was
regulated upon the dangerous principle of concealment,
afford ? If he could not show that the institution
was wholly useless as regarded the public or pri-
soners, he would at once give up the question. The
time was come when the profession of the law and
the , people themselves thought there should be a
change. The press exercised its powerful influence
in the complaint that nothing was done. An inquiry
had taken place before a Committee of the House of
Commons into the subject of the institution, and two
out of three of the numerous witnesses examined had
given evidence in favour of the complete abolition,
while several had expressed themselves the advocates
of an accommodation or modified plan. He wished
to have the question before a committee, because in
a committee the whole merits could be considered,
and a deliberate recommendation could be given to
the Court, upon the result of the most minute inves-
tigation.—(Bear, hear.) The injury inflicted by the
operation by grand juries was very extensive and. very
material. There were, as was well known, to pro-
fessional men especially, numbers of persons in this po-
pulous metropolis, who were constantly employed
in deriving pecuniary advantage from false charges,
which they prepared themselves to support by false
evidence. With that sort of evidence these wretches
were ready to go before the grand jury at Clerken-
well, and accuse innocent persons of keeping gambling-
houses or brothels, or of other offences to which great
opprobrium was attached, and bills were suddenly
found without the ceremony of notice.—(Hear, hear.)
In such cases the first intimations received were from
the warrants upon which the individuals accused were
apprehended and taken before the judge or magis-
trate, who had no alternative but to commit. In
various instances that horrible species of intimidation
led to pecuniary arrangements. An individual got a
hint to inquire whether an information was not laid
against him, and finding that such was the fact,
although there was not the slightest ground for
accusation, he was glad to get rid of the charge
by satisfying the sordid demand of his unknown
enemy. In other cases, by the intervention of the
grand jury, justice was altogether defeated, and
guilty parties escaped. He spoke of facts con-
stantly occurring. It was only last year that a re-
spectable female was charged with keeping a house of
an infamous description. The grand jury found the
bill, but her friends would not listen to any terms of
compromise; and what was the consequence ? She
came to take her trial, but no prosecutor appeared.
There was no charge whatsoever against her.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, if that resolute course had not
been adopted, the proceedings would have been
stopped by compliance with an extortionate demand.
—(Hear, hear.) The mischief he described arose
from the practice of preferring indictments without
investigation before a magistrate, and there were
numbers of men who profited by the vile practice
which this obsolete institution promoted and fostered.
If magisterial inquiry took place, the very magis-
trates who presided at the investigation would be
present at the trial, and have before them the
witnesses upon whose evidence they committed,
and who would be deterred from prevarication.
But the grand jury forming the intermediate
authority, and bound to find upon the evidence
before them, are frequently obliged, by the inten-
tional absence of the most important witness, to
ignore a bill, at the same time that the committing
magistrate and every one who heard the case, were
convinced of the guilt of the accused.—(Hear, hear.)
It was clear, then, that the grand jury undid what
was well done.—(Hear, hear.) He was anxious that
the question should nndergo the strictest and most
public investigation, and he therefore had altered the
terms of his original motion. Indeed it was his
desire to have the investigation made by the whole
Court; but he knew that, from the very nature of the
subject, it was impracticable. With respect to the
second part of the motion, he would say, that bad as
grand juries were, he would not ask for their removal
without pointing out a substitute. He would suggest
a constitutional remedy, which was known;to the law
and to the country. If a man had to complain of a
grievance aumunting to a misdemeanour, he could go
to the Queen's Bench without the intervention of a
grand jury, and proceed by criminal information.
What could be the difficulty of adopting a similar
course in all matters connected with the Central Cri-
minal Court ? The clerk could prepare the information
with the necessary formality, and all that would
be necessary to be done then was to step from the
magistrate to the court, and with the strongest proba-
bility of justice. He could not, however, help allud-
ing to a case which occurred about 18 months ago, in
which a party was charged with having forged a
cheque for 5,000/., and although the magistrate, and
every one else who heard the evidence, believed the
accused was guilty, the bill was thrown out by the
grand jury.—(Hear.) Upon the subject of expense,
he did not think that where justice was to be ren-
dered that ought to be any object, but he thought it
would be an additional argument in favour of his
position if it could be shown that a great nuisance
could be got rid of, and that ten shillings in the pound
would be the profit to the country upon its removal.
(Hear.) Instead of waiting about the Central Crimi-
nal Court from day to day, as was the inevitable lot
of prosecutors and ,A itnesses under the existing sys-
tem, they would be directed by a list of cases regu-
lated by the clerk of the court, under the authority of
the judges, as to the particular periods fixed, and their
time would not be wasted, nor their ears offended, nor
their health injured, by their obligation to wait
amongst crowds of the lowest of mankind, in a place
little better than a cold, damp, underground cellar.—
(Hear, hear.) Mr. Humphreys' speech was through-
received with the most unquestionable evidence of
approbation.
Mr. WIRE seconded the motion. He knew that in
advocating the removal of grand juries he had to con-
tend against the prejudice which attached to a very
ancient institution ; but he knew, too, that that
institution was formed when it was absolutely neces-
sary for the protection of personal liberty. The
times and circumstances had essentially changed.
When the grand jury system was esatblished, the
object was to protect the innocent--to prevent any
one from being put upon trial in the absence of a
prima facie case of guilt. Such was not now the
case. Grand juries were now used for the gratifica-
tion of revenge, or the base purposes of extortion.—
(Hear, hear.) What could be done for an innocent
person when prosecutor and witnesses, all prepared,
went before a secret tribunal with statements unexa-
mined, and, necessarily, uncontradicted ? As Mr.
Humphreys had said, a bench warrant was often
the first intimation which a man had that he as
charged with an offence. The case, then, was
precluded from coming before a magistrate for in-
vestigation. The magistrate's duty was limited to
the absolute, unconditional committal of the accused;
so that the tribunal, instead of operating as a
shield over the innocent, became a delusion and
snare.—(Hear, hear.) The police magistrates super-
seded the grand jurymen by the performance of more
essential duties. If, upon the examination of the
evidence brought forward in open court, under the
eye of the magistrate, and in the presence of all ac-
quainted with the grounds of a charge, it appeared
that those grounds were not substantial, an iruodiate
dismissal of the case was the consequeneesesno com-
mittal took place. Before the grand jury, who were
obliged to decide npon 0.; parte evidence, the ends of
justice, were on the contrary, completely defeated.
Grand juries were constantly throwing out bills in
cases were guilt we: as certain as innocence was in
many instances in which true bills had been found.
In his under-shrievaity forty-seven bills, all of which
ought to have been found, had been ignored, and thus
a numerous gang of pickpockets and ruffians of all
descriptions was let loose npon the publice—kflear,,)
lie had seen thp deposigilnsl and rum his experl-

enee, he was cpulii.-A to judge that they were all
guilty of the v,itti which they were
charged. It nowever, that the fore-
man of the grand jury thought himself a lawyer, and
in every case in which the demeanour of a witness
did not hit his fancy, the bill was thrown out. In
other, cases it was well known that witnesses, whose
evidence was conclusive before the magistrate, were
bought off before they appeared before the interme-
diate tribunal, and lit was no unfrequent complaint
that grand juries were made, unconsciously, the in-
struments of injustice.—(Hear, hear.) Who could
for a moment doubt, that for all the purposes of jus-
tice, a public examination before a public magistrate
was not superior to such a secret, irresponsible tri-
bunal ? He contended that by the existence of grand
juries a denial of justice was inflicted upon the public.
Who, he would be glad to know, after having once
prosecuted at the Old Bailey, after having undergone
the contaminating trial of attending in the avenues to
the Grand Jury-room, did not regret that he had not
allowed the offender to escape ? Mr. Wire then
called the attention of the Court to the useless con-
sumption of the time of the public, to the inconve-
nience visited upon the Judges, and to the enormous
expense occasional by the system of which he com-
plained, and which, if it were abolished altogether,
would lead to a rapid, strict, and economical adminis-
tration of justice.—(hear.)
Mr.. Low said there was only one point on which
he agreed with the mover and seconder on that most
important question. He agreed with them that it
was objectionable to allow bills to be laid before grand
juries unless the parties accused had ken previously
examined before a magistrate, for such parties had no
opportunity of defending themselves.—(Cries of
"Hear, hear.") All the rest of the objections were
perfectly fallacious. He did not believe that the wit-
nesses in cases would, if no grand juries existed; hang
about the court just as was their practice at present.
The grand juries were obliged to wait for bills of in-
dictment, and were not themselves the cause of delay.
It was true they ignored bills, and very justly ignored
them.—(Hear, hear). They never did. so, however;
without the strictest examination of the evidence, and
the strongest grounds ; and he trusted that a power so
beneficial in its operation would not be discontinued.
—(Hear, hear.) He had no objection to the inquiry,
for in the committee the true state of the case would
be developed, and all the fallacies exposed.
Mr. ANDERTON said the inquiry was the more ne-
cessary, as the' City Solicitor had given notice in
Parliament of his intention to propose a change in the
system. Ile instanced cases in which eVidence which
had been given before magistrates was reversed before
grand juries, whom he considered to be a tribunal
sitting in judgment:upon the committing magistrate.
Mr. H. TAYLOR supported the motion, from a per-
suasion that the members by whom it had been brought
forward would, from their full acquaintance with the
subject, be able to bring before the committee
abundant matter to assist the judgment of the
Court. Grand juries had been viewed merely as
a safeguard against the Crown for the protection of
the innocent; but their history showed that they
were originally intended for the opposite purpose of
bringing the guilty to trial ; and a Learned Judge
had pronounced it to be a popular mistake that they
had been intended "in favorem vitm." It was no
doubt an evil that the innocent should be put upon
their trial; but it was also a great evil that the guilty
should escape, as they too often did, from the inter-
vention of a grand jury.— (Hear, hear.)j There
was a strong feeling in some minds in favour of the
grand juries as an ancient institution, but in the state
in which it existed at present, it was not ancient, but
had been greatly changed from its original purpose.
Besides, formerly, until 1819, there existed a remedy
against the evil to which he had referred, in the risht
of appeal, against the abolition of which that Court
had then petitioned. That form of procedure gave
the party injured the power of claiming redress, not.
withstanding the ignoring of a bill, and had been
held in high estimation by Chief Justice Holt, Lords
Ashburton and Camden, and' by Horne Tooke sitid
Bentham. That the power of grand juries might
be abused to favour the escape of the guilty bad been
fatally manifested, and in the case of the affair of the
Manchester massacre, where the squires who had led
on the yeomanry formed the grand jury, that frus-
trated all attempts to obtain justice.
Mr. HALE said he was for inquiry, but he -would
not take for granted what had been stated in Court
against the principle and practice of grand juries. •
Mr. HALL, as one who had served on grand juries,
was surprised at hearing what had been statediagainst
them.(L
to see hear.) He should, indeed, much
regret power of ignoring a bill, by which
—lear
the,
they could save an innocent .person from danger and
disgrace, taken from them.—(Hear.)
Mr. EAGLETON defended grand juries from the charge
of improperly ignoring bills.
The motion was then carried, and after the- trans-.
action of some business of no public consequence the
Court adjourned.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS..
BRISTOL, JAN. 20.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market was firm, and prices
were well maintained, although there was not much business
done, except in the new shares of the Great Western Com-
pany. The sales are—Great Western, Quarters, 2 5-16 p.
—Ditto, New 171. Shares, 1 7-16 p.—North British, Ex-
tension, 1 1.16 p.

LIVERPOOL, JAN. 20.
STOCK EXCIIANOM—The sales are—Birkhenhead, LancaT
shire, and Cheshire Junction (late C. and B.), 5 per cent.
in 1847 and 1848, and 6 per cent. in 1849, 16;%4 —Ditto, 221.
Shares, 5 per cent. in 1847 and 1848, and 6 per cent. in 18491,
7% dis.—Birmingliam and Oxfiird Junction, 24'A--Glasgow
and Dumfries, VA —Lancashire arid Yorkshire, Halves (late
L. and B.), 9 dis.—London and' North-Western, -15 N
Manchester, :8.1--ffield, and Lincolnshire, Preference,
Midland, 115—Ditto, 401. Shares, 4436—Dittoi Halves, iq
dis.—Ditto. Consolidated Birmingham and Derby $8
North British, New Halves, par—North Staffordshire, % p.
—North Union (A), 209—South-Eastern and Dover, 31—
Ditto, New, N 0.4, 1% dia.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick
(G. N. E. Purchase), 13/4 p.
MANCHESTER, JAN. 20,
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are--Birkenhead, Lan-
cashire, and Cheshire Junction, 5.4 i dil.—Caledonian, 25%
—Great Northern, 6 dis.- Lancashire and York Shire wit
Union), 2;,—Ditto (Preston and W , yrc) Halves
(A), 2% c. p. —Loud( n and North-Western (Manchester
and Birmingham), 60%—Ditto, Quarters (B), 4 —Man-
cheater, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 2k dirp..-31*.
cheater, Sheffield. and Lincolnshire, Preference, 1-
North British, Thirds, ,—North Staffordshire,
South-Eastern and Dover, No.'l, 37/8 dis.—Ditto, No. 4,1%
dis.

EEDS, .tw.
STOCK ExcHANGL— L
The saleJs are— 20.
Ambergate Notting-
ham, and Boston, 265. n. dis._Eastern Counties,l6—Great
Northern, dis. —Mahon and Driflield Junction, 43/ dia.
—North British, Halves. 1214—Ditto, Thirds, 2s. 6d.p.
Ditto, Extension, h. dis.—North Staffordshire, 33.
Northern Counties linkti, 8/. 18S. dis.—North-Western,
4/. I ls. 9d. dis.—South Yorkshire, Doncaster, 2%
York, Newcastle, and Berwick,..No. 2 (Now Berwicks),46ll.
3d. p.

BIRMINGHAM, JAN. 20.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—So little business was transacted
to-day that no official list has been published. North. Sta-
ffordshire closed at IA p.
YORK, JAN. 19.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—North British, Thirds.
21. Is. 6d.—llitto, Quarters, 41. I Is.-- York, Newcastle, and
Berwick, 34%—Ditto (Original Newcastle and Berwick).
31N—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), 93A ex iet.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, JAN. 20.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The only sale was—North . British,
Thirds,. is. p.

- EDINBURGH, JAN. 19.
Srocx EXCIIANGE.—The sales are—Caledonian, 36—Edin-
burgh and Northern, 16/. ss. —Ditto (Newport), New, 1/.
103.—Great Northern, 87s. 6d.—North British, 26/. ss--
Ditto, Quarters, N. ss. 6d.--Ditto, Thirds, 418.—Scottish
Centrals, 29—Shrewsbury and Cheater, 8 per cent. Prefe-
rence, 71. 158.6 d.

L, JAN. 19.
STOCK EXCITANG
GE.A —SGOW
The sales are—Caledonian, 5%
Dunblane, Donne, and Callender, 138.—East Indian Railways
17s.—Edinburgh and Perth, 13s.—Glasgow, Kilmarnock.
and Ayr, 100—Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan. 31s.
—lllonkland and Kirkintilloch, 181.10 s. 6d.—Scottish Grand
Junction, 10s. 6d.

SERIOUS -FIRE AT BERAIONDSRY.--LaSt night,
shortly before twelve o'clock, a fire, involving a serious destruction of property, and nearly atteneed with a
lamentable los; of life, broke out upon the premises in
the occupation of Mr. Crago, a linendraper and silk-
mercer, carrying on business in the Spa-road, Bermond-
sey. After considerable trouble the resident; consist-
ing of two children and an aged female, were aroused,
but not before the whole of the contents of the front
shop were wrapped in sS general blase. The engines' of the parish taiti London 13riga:_le were quick in their
attendance, and under tho aireetton of Ar.,lienderson.
the foreman of the district; they were worked until
nearly one o'clock this morning, . when the flames were
extinguished, but not until the whole of the stock in trade
was destroyed.
DESTRUCTIVE -FIIIR.—Tne. extensive cotton-mills
at Stanley, near Perth, belonging to Messrs. Dennis-
tau, Buchanan .and Co., of Gldsgow, took fire on
Sunday evening,.and a great' part of the mills have been
destroyed.. The premises are Said to be fully insured,.....
Scotsmas.

BIRTHS.
On the 14th inst,, at Chichester, Pia lady of Captain G. T.
Johnson, Coldstream Guards, of a daughter.
On the 17th inst., at turn-hall, Durham, Mrs. Marina,
duke Salvin, of a daughter.
On the 17th inst., hi Albemarle-street, Mrs. Reid, of the
Node, near Wtlwyn, of a sou, still-born.
LeeOn the 18th inst., 111 Cadogan-p1 P.a, the wife of John B.
, Esq, ot assn. Ors
tL4 19L1i the INiio of John Blurdoch, Esq., of A
1-
bion Cottage, 1-11:!:.oway, of a daughter.'

MARRID.
•
•
On the 18th inst., at St. JohnE
's, Hampstead, James Skaife,
Esq., of Edinburgh, to Caroline Matilda, eldest daughter of
the late G. Niblett, Esq., of Bow, ,Middlesex.

DIED.
On the 15th inst., cf Influenza, Anna Moses, the beloved
wife of Mr. G. Johnston, aged 22.
On the 13th inst., Major John Staunton, of the Ist Royal
Veteran Battalion, aged 71.
On the 18th inst., Mr. James \Yhitelaw, of Lichfield-
street, Soho, aged 68.

Lop4op ; Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at
No, MI, Stand, Printer, at The Sun Qiiree, No. 114
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy,- is the county- of
Middlesex, Friday, January 21, 1848

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
YORK EITENSIOW SHARES.
The Holders of these Shares upon which 41., 31. 55., 61. 55., er 71.
1.8. per Share have keen paid, are required to pay to the Company's
Banters, on or before the 22d of January next, all arrears upon the
said Shares, and also to deliver their Scrip Shares when so paid up,
at this Ogice, in order that they may be exchanged for Consolidated
Mock Certificates, otherwise, they will net be entitled to receive the
Dividends en the A Quarters, or the Interest on the B Quarters,
Which will be payable ander the Resolutions of the next Nalt-yearly
fleeting if the Company, to be held in February next.

By order of tke
C. P. 1201YE7, Secretary.
Aishopsgate Station, Deeember SI), 1841.

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
TENDERS FOR LOANS.
The Directors are ready to receive TENDERS FOR LOANS is
sums of not less than 1001., for fixed periods, at the rate of 31. per
Cent. per Annum.

_
By order,
Bishopsgate Station, Aug. 12, 11147.

C. P. RONEY. Secretary.

NATIONA.L LOAN FUND LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
25, COUNIIILL, LONDON.
Capital £300,000. Empowered by Act of Parliament.
This litstitxtien embraces important and substantial advantages
With respect to life assurances al& deferred annuities. Tke aseured
!'/A3. en all occasions, the power to borrow, without expense sr ler-
zelenre of the policy, two-thirds of the premium paid (see Table) ;
• "leo the option of selecting benefits, and the conversion of kis in-
terests to meet other couveniencles er necessity.
Assnrances for terms at years en the lowest pesslile rates.
DIVISION OF PROFITS.
The increasing prosperity of the Society has enabled the Directors
at the anneal meeting held on the 12th May, 1847, to declare a Ifth
varying from 35 to 85 per cent. on the preutiams paid nu each
boy erected ea the profit scale.