The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-01 00:00:00

11,a E SUN, I,ON Dols',
_WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCiI 1, 1848.

been suggested by some 1 for it was extremely hard I
that the aipp:)rt of the poor should f.‘.11 entirclyor
one class. It ought also to be borne by the place
holder and the fundholder. Another important
question for the committee would be the operation of
r, hat was called the " quarter-acre clause." Alto-
gether a strong ease for inquiry had been made out.
Mr. CLEMENTS had heard with deep regret ;
that the Government meant to refuse the Committee.'
The unions in Ireland were, on an average, three
times the size of those in this country; their extraor-
dinary size utterly prevented the proper working of
the law. He disappri.ved of the employment of the
paid guardians, and hoped they would be got rid of
as soon as possible.—(Hear, hear.) In some of
the unions there were as many as twelve relieving
officers, while in no union in England were there
more than six relieving officers. In the north of Ire-
land, where the unions were only half the size
of those in Connaught, the law was found to work
much better. The necessary effect of too large unions
was to diminish the stimulus for the employment of
labour, and to increase the rate in consequence.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Surrey had alleged
that as the cost of maintaining a pauper in Ireland
was only about half the cost in England, the aggre-
gate amount of the poor-rate would only be one-half
le proportion. But this was not the case, for while
the average amount of rate in Ireland was ls. Sid. in
the pound, in England it had only been ls. 71d. The
gross valuation to the poor-rate in Ireland was thir-
teen millions, in this country it was sixty-two millions;
and as the valuation in Ireland was much nearer the
net value than in England, the burden of the rate was
proportionally heavier. Last year the amount of
poor-rate levied in Ireland had been 970,0001., or
about ls. 6d. in the pound. _ _

Mr. L ABOUC HERE expressed his regret that
the Government felt themselves obliged to oppose the
motion for a Committee, supported as it was by so
large a majority of the Irish Members.—(Hear.)
They did so because they believed that if the motion
was carried it would have a tendency to paralyse
the exertions of those who were now endeavouring to
carry out the working of the poor law, on which the
subsistence of thousands was at that moment de-
pending. When the poor-law was in full operation,
and when its working had been tested by experience,
he did not mean to say that the ob;ect of those who
supported the present motion was not worthy of con•
sideration. He could not, however, help believing
that the wish to make the area of the unions-as nearly
as possible co-extensive with private property was at
the bottom of the present motion. To that principle
he had a most decided objection, because he believed
it would offer temptations to the system of clearances.
His opinion was, that the area of taxation ought to
be large enough to combine communities that would
not be too extensive, and that they should not be so
small as to make it rest on individual property. He
could not hold out a hope that the commission would,
as a principle, enter upon the task of revising the area
of taxation. _ _

The Earl of LINCOLN said he would support
the Government on the present occasion, because he
thought the granting of a Committee would be
likely to counteract the efficient operation of the poor-
law. He thought, however, that the Members from
Ireland had grounds of complaint against the Go-
vernment on this occasion, because every member of
the Government who had spoken had given a some-
what different explanation of the object of the Corn -
mission.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that a Com-
mittee of inquiry would only confuse the subject, and
lead to no beneficial result. Some members of the
Government would, he hoped, yet rise and tell the
House what was really to be the duty of the Com-
mission—what it was to do and what it was not to
do. If it was only to regulate boundaries—to take a
bit from one union and to add a bit to another—he
did not think that was any answer to the motion, and
he must say that it was a mere delusion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that what he stated
was, that the Commission was not to investigate with
a view to change the area of taxation as a general
principle ; but he did not deny that where the elec-
toral districts were inconveniently large, especially in
the west of Ireland, they would be diminished in
extent, and increased in number.
The Earl of LINCOLN resumed—Did the Right
Hon. Gentleman mean as a general rule to say that
there was to be no re-opening of the question as to
the area of taxation? —Because-if that-vote the'ease
the Government ought to speak out upon the subject
and let their intentions be known. As to altering
the Irish poor-law, in respect to substituting town
lands for electoral divisions, no real friend of Ireland
could have proposed such a measure. If the Com-
mission which the Government intended to appoint
was to be a working Commission, then it would effect
great good. But he hoped it was not proposed for the
mere purpose of passing the whole question by. First
let the Commission get into operation and show what
it was likely to do, and then if it was unsatisfactory
let the present motion be renewed. The promoters of
:the Hon. and Gallant Member's Committee would by
persevering only hinder their own views from being
carried out. He hoped, therefore, the motion would
be withdrawn, for if it was not, entertaining the same
wishes for the good of Ireland that were avowed by
the Hon. and Gallant Member, he should deem it his
duty to vote against him.
Sir G. GREY, in explanation, said that the Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Clare, was quite aware that
he had received 'an urgent application froin several
Members for Ireland, requesting him to nominate a
commission to inquire into the present electoral divi-
sions as regarded the administration of the Irish
poor-law, for the purpose of reducing their extent.
He had then told the Hon. Baronet that he had
always been most willing and ready to appoint such
a commission, but that, having recently been in com-
munication with the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on
the subject, he expected to receive from that Noble-
man a plan already marked out for the appointment
of a commission and the nature of its inquiries. Two
or three days ago he did receive that plan, and then
he bad informed the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Clare, that a division of unions might be desirable,
and that as he and others were not able to effect

that object, it might be done by means of a commis-
sion. But, at the same time, he stated that the Go-
vernment objected to any proposal to diminish the
area of taxation, as that might lead to extravagant
expectations which could not be realised. All the
Government could hope to effect was, to divide large
electoral districts where they were found to • be too
large ; but they could not undertake to lay down
rules for the observance of the Commission, and,

therefore, though he would not pledge himself to such
a step, he had no doubt but that the result of the in-
quiry would be to recommend a division of the
electoral districts.

Mr. WAKLEY said that the Right Hon. Baronet
had confined his explanation to the question of elec
toral divisions ; and the Noble Lord who had recom-
mended the motion to be withdrawn had also referred
only to the same point. He hoped, however, that on
the present, as on recent occasions, Ministers would
see the error of their ways, and relent so far as not to
oppose the nomination of a Committee. After the
statements that had been made that night there was a
greater necessity than ever to nominate a Select Com-
mittee. W hen so striking a phenomenon was exhi-
bited, as that of the Irish Members all agreeing upon
the motion, it was treating them with greatdisrespect
not to grant it. There was a precedent for the mo-
tion, for the English poor-law was only passed in the
middle of 1834, and at the beginning of 1836 a Com-
mittee of inquiry was appointed, which sat during
the whole session. One Honourable Member had
stated that there were thousands of Irish poor starv-
ing, and what did the Right Honourable Baronet
(Sir George Grey) reply to the statement ? why, that
the Irish poor law had not been enforced. Was that
a reason for refusing an inquiry ? Was it not rather
a ground for instituting an inquiry ? The House had
also heard of the extraordinary length of some of the
unions, extending to forty-six miles from one ex-
treme to the other. This could only be regarded as
a device for torturing the poor. It had also been
complained that the poor-law of England, and that of
Ireland, were unequal in their operation ; but from
all that he had heard stated respecting the Irish poor-
law diet, he should pronounce it to be the worst ever
yet invented. The test applied to the Irish, as it had
previously been done to the English, workhouses was
to render them as uncomfortable as possible.—
(Murmurs.) Yes, he repeated his assertion. The
real workhouse test in Ireland, as in England, was
excessive discomfort ; and in order that the test should
be most fully applied, the guardians of the poor had,
he was credibly informed, sought out the very worst
species of food that human beings could subsist on,
in order to provide that for the workhouse inmates.—
(Cries of " Name, name.") The gentleman from
whom he had this information was sitting in the
House and heard him make the statement, but not
having received his permission he could not name
him.—(The Hon. Member for Cork here spoke to
Mr. Wakley.) He was authorised to say that his
informant was the Hon. Member for Cork.—(Hear.)
Mr. FAGAN rose, and begged to be permitted to
state that he had been informed by a board of guar-
dians in Ireland, that as the English workhouses had
applied the system of adopting the worst possible
species of food for the poor, so they thought the
precedent was one which ought to be observed in
Ireland.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that he had visited
the workhouse at Cork, and he could bear witness
that he wished to God every poor man out of the
English workhouses had as good food to eat as the
paupers at Cork got. The bread served out to them
was as white and as good as that eaten at the table of
any gentleman in that House.
Mr. WAKLEY resumed. The Cork union was
not the one referred to by him, nor could it be, so
long as the board of guardians had amongst them one
so kind and so liberal hearted as the Hon. Member
for Cork. The question he would put upon the
dietary point was, what was the proportion of animal

food served out in the workhouses in Ireland? lie

ceuld annwer that questiee by averring .hat
bodied labourers were for weeks in the workhouse 11
without receiving an ounce of animal food. Was
that fit treatment for human beings, whilst the cattle
were all sent to England for sale ?—(Oh, oh.) It
might be unpleasant to hear, but what he said was
nevertheless true. He hoped the House would not
narrow the question down to the views expressed by
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), but that they
would look to it as affecting the welfare of many
thousands; and in his opinion the Government, so far
from opposing the motion, ought to seek to make the
inquiry as searching as possible.
Mr. C. BULLER said he had hardly thought he
should have had to interfere in the present debate
for the purpose of defending the English poor-law,
and he did so merely to show how little dependence
was to be placed on information held at second hand.
The Hon. Member for Finsbury bad deplored the
intolerable abuses of the Irish poor-law, because, as
he stated, the unhappy peasantry were put on a low
description of food, worse than they had been accus-
tomed to—the same, in fact, as had been given in the
English workhouses. There were many gentlemen
present who were conversant with the working of the
English poor-law, and they must be aware of the
truth of the Hon. Member's illustration.—(Hear.) It
had never been the policy of the English Commis-
sioners to encourage the use of -bad food, and when
he told the House that they were standing out at that
moment for four meat dinners per week in the work-
houses, he thought that very little dread would be
felt on that score. But it was a great misfortune
when gentlemen of quick imagination and eloquence
picked up the facts they had to state in the course of
the speech they were making. They had all heard
the prompting which the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury had undergone, and how an Irish union had, in
the course of his speech, swelled from 36 to 60 miles
in length.--(A laugh.) Before an Hon. Member
came forward in that House to complain of the dietary
in the Irish workhouses, he should remember what
the habitual food of the peasantry had been—(Rear,
hear)—in how many cases the honest and industrious
peasant had been unable to get as good.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member had taunted the Govern-
ment with having " harked back" on other questions,
and asked them to do so on the Irish poor-law. He
(Mr. Buller) wished to ask the House of Commons
whether it had so far seen the error of its ways in
passing the Irish poor-law, as to be ready to hark back
at the bidding of the Hon. Member ?—(Hear, hear.)
Ile asked the qnestion, because it was on that ground
the Committee was asked for—it was felt that its
appointment would be a heavy blow and discourage-
ment to the poor law.—(" Hear, hear," and " No,
no," trom the Irish Members.) Oh, yes, the Irish
Members of all religions and politics were unani-
mous on that point. The broad plain issue of
this motion was not to inquire into any particular
fact, or class of facts, connected with the poor-
law—it was to inquire into the working and efficiency
of the poor-law in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He
said and maintained that it was deliberately putting
the whole of the poor-law again in issue, and its
working would be completely paralysed during the
sitting of the Committee.--(Hear, hear.) The Go-
vernment did not refuse remedies when they were
necessary, or to make strict inquiry into the details
of the law, but that was a very different matter from
taking its administration out of their hands altogether.
He trusted that if inquiry were deemed necessary it
would be entrusted to those who had to administer
the law—(Oh, oh)—arid that nothing would be done
to inspire the Irish people with any doubts as to the
intentions of the British Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GROGAN said that the speech of the Hon.
Member for Liskeard was very happy, but it did not
-it all coincide with the statement which at an earlier
period of the evening had been made on the part of
the Government. But, to bring back the House to
the sober question, here was a point on which all the
Irish Members had called for inquiry, and he could
assure the House that all the Irish people were
anxious in the cause. If English Members wished
Irish paupers to be supported at home, they would
support inquiry into the operation of a law under
which the capital of Ireland was rapidly disappearing.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE explained.
Sir A. BROOKE could attest the lively interest
felt in Ireland on this subject. He felt it his duty to
Support the motion.
Colonel DUNNE, in reply, said that he could
not have made out a more complete case for his mo-
tion than that for which he was indebted to the Hon.
Members who opposed it. Nobody could deny that
the poor-rates of Ireland were rapidly absorbing the
property of the country.
Mr. WALTER did not rise to detain the House
by any observations on the Irish poor-law, with
which he was free to confess he was but imperfectly-
acquainted, but merely to congratulate the Govern•
merit on the fortunate appointment they had made in
the selection of a gentleman as President of the
Poor-law Commission who had had the boldness to
assert in that House that it was not the object of the
new poor-law to offer to the poor of this country a
worse diet in the workhouse than they could obtain
out of it. To say nothing of the famous document
which had been exhibited in the House, and which
was thrown out as a feeler as to what was the lowest
diet the poor could exist upon, had the Right Hon. Ge-
ntleman forgotten to what circumstance he owed his ap.
pointment ?—had he forgotten that it was to the
practice which was proved to have prevailed in the
Andover union, where, in consequence of the in-
sufficiency of the diet, the poor had had recourse to
gnawing raw bones to satisfy their hunger ?
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Walter) was glad to hear
that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had,
since his accession to office, been engaged in an
endeavour to improve the diet in the workhouses;
but whatever might be the case now,, that could not
affect the merits of the original object of the law, and
he should have been wanting in the duty he owed to
his constituents, and the respect he owed to that indi-
vidual who, while he lived, was always the determined
opponent of that law, if he had not risen in his place
to express his astonishment at the extraordinary state-
ment of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. C. Buller).—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. WAKLEY,
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion ..
Against it .. 165
Majority —64
TEN-ANT-RIGHT.

Mr. NEWDEGATE moved for the appointment

of a Select Committee to inquire into the law and
custom of different parts of the United Kingdom, as
between out going and in-coming tenants, and also
as between landlord and tenant, in reference to un-
exhausted improvements or deterioration of land and
premises occupied for agricultural purposes.
Mr. PUSEY seconded the motion.

Colonel SIB'HORP opposed the motion, it being
his opinion that these matters should be left to
arrangement between the parties concerned. He
moved that the question be adjourned till that day
iix months.

The SPEAKER, however, having intimated that
this amendment was informal,
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that the debate be
adjourned.
Sir G. GREY said that, certainly if there was to
be a debate on the motion, it had better, at that hour
of the night, be adjourned.
Mr. PUSEY thought that inquiry on this subject
would be useful.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER, on the contrary, was
clearly of opinion that legislation upon the relations
in question would be only leading the agricultural
interest still deeper into the mire.
Mr. W. MILES hoped the Gallant Member for
Lincoln would withdraw his amendment.
Mr. HEATHCOTE was as much against the sug-
gested Bill as any man, and hc: thought the clearest
way to settle the question would be to appoint a Com-
mittee.

Colonel SIBTHORP withdrew his amendment,
and the motion was then agreed to.
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
postponed the appointment of those Committees until
Friday.
ELECTION RECOGNISANCES BILL.

Mr. WALPOLE obtained leave to bring in this
Bill.

The House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

( From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of. Commons,
TUESDAY, FEB. 29.

The following Railway Bills were ordered to be
brought in:—
East Anglian (Ely and Huntingdon Railway Extension

of Titre).
Caledonian (Purchase or Lease of Wishaw and Coltness

Railway).
Caledonian, Lancaster and Carlisle, and London and
North-Westerr, (Lease of Scottish Central Railway)
Edinburgh and Northern (Roscobie, Keltyhead, and
Glencraig Branches, &c.)

SINGULAR SEIZURE OF SMUGGLED TOBACCO.—
Late on Monday evening, as Messrs. Bayford and
Lewins, officers of Excise, were proceeding up Great
Russell-street, Bermondsey, they observed a man carry-
ing a heavy burden on his back, and on reaching him,
Nfr. Lewins (having some suspicions of the contents)
placed his hand upon. the packrge, upon which the man
immediately threw it backward from his shoulders,
knocking the officer down, and the bundle falling heavily
upon him, at the same moment making a very busty
retreat. As soon, however, as the load could be removed,
the officers pursued the man for a considerable distance,
but he contrived ultimately to make his escape. On their
return to the spot where they first met with him, they
proceeded to examine the bale, which turned out to be a
large quantity (between 200 and 300Ibs) of leaf tobacco
of a very fine quality, which, of course, had been smug
gled. The officers then conveyed the prize to the Excise
warehouse.

PA RLIAMEN TARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Couvrody..)
TUESDAY, FEB. 29.
POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
_ _

Ill.tion ma:le, and Question put, " That a SJiet
Committee be appointed to inquire into the working and
eilioie,ley of the Poor-law in Ireland." The House
divided:

campany was owing to the misplaced confidence in its ad-
visers, not only by the ditec:ors'hut by the shareholders
themselves, Who had approved the contracts when they
were submitted to them by the directors. He trusted,
however, that the line, when completed, would prove
sufficiently remunerative to atone for their past misfor-
tunes. The local traffic was very considerable, and of
such a natare as to prove profitable to the promoters of
this railway.
The CHAIRMAN vindicated himself and the bcard of
directors from the charges brought against thrill of
neglect and culpability, as they had bestowed consider-
tible care and trouble upon the proceedings.
After some considerable discussion the repert was
agreed to. _ _

solutions authorising the forfeiture of a number of
shares held by defaulting shareholders; for authorising
a deviation in the line of railway as at present autho••
rised to be made; to increase the number and reduce
the amount of the shares into which the capital is
divided; to merge and re-issue certain shares subject to
forfeiture, and to amend the Act relating to the railway,
were also agreed to.
The thanks of the meeting were voted to the Chair-
man, and the meeting broke up.

CHARING-CROSS BRIDGE COM-

PANY.
The half-yearly meeting of this company was held
yesterday, at one o'clock, at the offices, Villiers-street,
Strand; W. Hawes, Esq., in the chair.
The clerk (Mr. LAWRANCE) read the following report:
"Your directors have the pleasure to report that the
tolls receivcd in the !est' six months, amounting to
3,1831. 10s. Bd., have exceeded, though to a small ex-
tent only, those collected in the same months of the years
1845 and 1846. This sum will enable the proprietors,
kfter discharging the current expenditure, to declare a
dividend at the rate of four per cent. per annum on the
Capital stock of the company for the six months ending
31st January, 1848. The rapid progress of the works of
the South-Western Railway, and the probable early
completion of the temporary station near the York-rood,
have induced your directors to give instructions for the
improvement of the access to the southern terminus of
the bridge, under the provisions of the company's Act,
Bth and 9th Victoria, for that purpose. The vast traffic
which will be brought to the York-road station, as soon
as the extension of the South- Western Railway is com-
pleted, cannot fail to produce most beneficial effects on
the receipts of the bridge. Your directors regret they,
have been unable, after repeated efforts in various chan-
nels, to procure a loan in the manner contemplated at the
last special general meeting, and other means must now
be adopted to raise the funds required to pay the pressing
liabilities of the company. Your directors regret to an-
nounce, that the offers they have made to the directors
pf the Market Company to refer the only point of dif-
ference now open between the companies to the decision
pf two directors chosen from each board, has been de-
clined ; and the question as to the claim of the Market
Company for compensation for the alleged delay in open -
ing the pier, still remains to be decided. By the half-
yearly accounts it will be seen that the capital account is
indebted to the revenue account in the sum of

1,707/. 15s. 9d., which cannot be repaid and distributed
in dividends as it ought to be, till new capital is raised.
By the revenue account for the half-year ending 31st
January, it appeared that the receipts bad been
6,6721. Bs. 11d., which, after discharging the following—
suudry charges for printing, petty cash, advertisements,
&c., &c., 651. 55.; interest account, one year Exchequer
Loan Commissioners, bankers, &c., &c., 1,3961. 14s. 9d.;
rates and taxes, 516/. 9s. 2d.; salaries, 1501.; works, toll
collectors, repairs of gates, gas, Hungerford Market
Company law charges, 660/. Os. Id.,—left a balance of
3,9831. 19s. 11d."

The CHAIRMAN briefly addressed the meeting. He
said their affairs were brightening; the toll had gradually
and steadily increased during the half-year, and he ex-
pected that as soon as the South-Western Extension was
carried to the opposite side of the bridge, that a further
itecession of traffic would take place. The most impor-

tant matter for their consideration was what was to be
done with the new quarter shares which they authorised
them to issue at a former meeting, for the purpose of
raising funds to discharge their outstanding and pressing
liabilities. More shares, it was understood, were not to be
disposed of until the shareholders had been further com-
municated with. He was now sorry to inform them that
the directors had been unable to raise the requisite funds
pn the security of their shares, although it was right to
state that they could have done so in the early part of
last year, when the shareholders refused to invest tht m
With the requisite authority.' The directors having
made this communication to the meeting, would use
the best means at their command to raise money
pa the shares. They would, however retain
as many as possible in the hands of the company.
Mr. STUTELEY, the chairman of the Market Com-
.panyv. regretted exceedingly that a clause had been in-
serted in the report, stating that the company which he
iepresented had refused to refer the only point of diffe-
fence now open between the two companies to the ch-ci-
sion of two directors chosen from each board, because
it could not fail to lead to the inference that a misunder
standing still existed between the two bodies.—(Hear,
hear.) On the 20th of May, 1847, a letter was received
from the Bridge Company, bearing the signature of Mr.
Curtis, the solicitor, stating that a difference of opinion
was likely to arise with respect to the float, and sug-
gesting that it should be referred to the arbitration of
two barristers. The proposition was acceded to ; but
since then, up to the 2d of December, nothing but pro-
crastination on the part of the Bridge Company bad
taken place.—(Hear, hear.) On the day he had men-
tioned a proposition was received from that company,
offering to refer the matter at issue to two di-
tectora of each company. Looking at the delay
of several months that had taken place, aad to the ap-
parent difficulty of bringing the matter to a satisfactory
Conclusion, (for they had experienced much difficulty in
the past by settling matters by arbitration) the Market
Company refused to accede, and actions had been corn-
Menced by the Market Company for the enforcement
4f their view of the understanding with respect to the
float.

The CHAIRMAN said the Bridge Company wished to
refer the matter of the float to arbitration, because they
believed it would be amicably settled, and that some
other matters of minor importance could be arranged at
the same time. The question what money, if any, was
due to the Market Company for the delay in opening
the float was really the only question at issue. The
Market Company not having appointed any arbitrators,
the Bridge Company offered in December to refer the
matter to an amicable settlement by two directors from
each board, which proposition was rejected. This
showed that they did not wish to get the shareholders
into law, though many charges to that effect had been
made against them.
Mr. FLADGATE (one of the solicitors to the Market
Comp-any) stated, in explanation, that an order for re-
ference was drawn up and dispatched to Mr. Curtis, who
after considerable delay refused to accede to it.
The CHAIRMAN said there were several special meet-
ings at the time in question, and that a reply was re-
turned at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. CURTIS said he felt it his duty to advise the di-
rectors not to accede to the propositions which emanated
from Mr. F.Fladgate. He objected to the proposition with
. .

respect to costs, which, if they had been returned at 60s.
would have saddled the whole of them upon the Bridge
Company. It was not visual for costs to abide the event
of arbitration, and that they should be settled by the
arbitrator.
,The Cli.intmAN stated, in reply to a question, that the
market company claimed nearly 1,00001. The question
turned upon the costs.
Mr. aural differed with Mr. Curtis with respect to
the practice of arbitration. The principle to which he
objected was becoming more into use every day.
After much discussion on the points,
Mr. BROWNE complained that the directors had made
it appear in their report that existed on the part
of the Market Company towards the Bridge Company.
Mr. FEW said if the dispute was carried into a court

of law that the liability of the company only would be
tried, as the judge would no doubt refer the amount of
compensation to a barrister.
A SHAREHOLDER—I think the best settlement we can
adopt is to take the whole matter out of the bands of the
lawyers.—(Laughter.) As long as they have got a
farthing they will not leave us, and we shall not get a
dividend for the next three years.—(Hear.)
In reply to questions from Mr. ELLINS,
The CHAIRMAN stated that they had paid the en-
gineer a balance of 5001. ; 2801. under the head of " bill
receivable" was owing by the clerk, who at first received
but a small salary. The directors had given him a little
temporary accommodation, in order to enable him to
pay up a few shares he held, which, owing to the bad-
ness of the times, he had been prevented from doing.—
(Hear.) The liabilities did not amount to so large a
bIIM as was stated in the last report. He was authorised
to state, though he had not been able to get a final ac-
count from Mr. Chadwick, that his claim would not be
so large as that mentioned in the last financial statement.
1,000/. would more than cover the suit of the Market
Company.—(A Shareholder—That is a pretty good sum
though.) The costs of the Bridge Company were 270.,
and of the Market Company 1751. 13s. 6d. The costs
of the sale of the bridge and the Parliamentary charges
for the last two sessions would be more than covered by
the interest saved upon the 1,000/. of Messrs. Jackson.
—(dear) The directors stated this two years ago. An
arrangement had been completed with the Messrs. Jack-
son to the effect, that they should seekino interest up to
let of January this year. Some time ago the claim of
Messrs. Jackson might have been paid by 9,000/. ; but
it could not now be settled for less than 10,000/.
Mr. BROWNE took credit to himself for offering the
payment of the 9,0001. The increase of the tolls was
gratifying.
The CHAIRMAN said the bridge had only been com-
pleted two years and a half. They might have wasted
money in various ways—(Hear, hear)—but they had
done the best they could for the protection of
.their pro-
perty. The Hungerford Market Company had, it was true,
lent their money, but they had had their quid pro quo.
They had had great difficulty in raising money. 500
shares were at one time put up to auction, but they
could not dispose of a single share, though they. after-
wards rose to 20 premium. Tbey had been driven to
raise money disadvantageously. They had wished to
refer hundreds of matters to the Market Company for
arbitration, but the Market Company had never done so.
The ordinary law expenses of the company paid to his
brother-in-raw were under 44/.—(Hear.)
Theon
of
the p
reportar
paragraph
p h received
respecting an And
tadopted,he
Hungerford with t
Market.he om is -
s i
The next resolution, declaring a dividend of ten
shillings upon each original share, and of sixpence a
share upon each fifth share in the company for the half-
year ending the 31st of January last, was also put and
carried unanimously.
On the motion of Mr. BROWN, it was resolved that a
committee of five shareholders
in the Charing-cross
Bridge Company, not being holders of shares in the
Hungerford Market. Company, should be appointed for
the purpose of investigating the claims of the latter

company in respect of the float, and to report thereon to
a subs, qutilt luteag. The following geutltmen were
appointed the committee, nu mely,—Mr. Cope, Mr. Eikins,
Mr. Muriel, Mr. Rudall, and Mr. Bro An. The 10;ove
resolutions were arrived at after a very lung and diffuse
conversation.

Another committee was subsequently appointed t,.
examine into the financial position of the company, and
the meeting- separated after a sitting of four hours. A
vote of thanks to the Chairman concluded the business of
the day.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE OF

TUESDAY.
DOWNING STREET, FEB. 28, 1848.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint Edmund
Murray Dodd, Esq., to be a Puisne Judge of the Su-
preme Court of the province of Nova Scotia.
Her Majesty has also been pleased to appoint the
Rev. William Abiah Newman, Master of Arts, to be
Chaplain for Cape Town, in the settlement of the Cape
of Good Hope.
WHITEHALL, FEB. 28.
The Queen bas been pleased to present the R. verend
Angus Logan to the church and parish of Tongue, in
the presbytery of Tongue and county of Sutherland,
vacant by the transportation of the Rev. Hugh M•h(n-
zie, late minister thereof, to the Gaelic church of
Cromarty.
CAMBRIDGE-HOUSE, FEB. 25.

The Duke of Cambridge has been pleased to appoint
the Rev. Edward Burney to be one of his Royal High-
ness's Chaplains.
CROWN OFFICE, FEB. 26.

IiFJPAIRER RETURATRD TO SINE IX TICS lIILLSINT PAR-

LLII.VENT.

Borough of Devizes Lieutenant• Colonel James
Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, of Estcourt, in the county
of Gloucestor, in the room of William Heald Ludlow
Bruges, Esq„ who has accepted the office of Steward
of her Majesty's Chiltern Hundreds.
WHITEHALL, FEL 18.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Richard Green-
wood, of Skipton, in the county of York, Gent., to be a
Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
WHITEHALL, FEE. 25.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Thomas Charles
Augustus Brine, of Wiroborn Minster, in the county et
Dorset, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the
High Court of Chancery.
WHITEHALL, FEB, 26.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Henry Jubb, of
Iferringthorpe, near Rotherham, in the county of York,
Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court
of Chancery.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Berwickshire.
Berwickshire Regiment of North British Militia—
Thomas Shairp, younger, Esq., to be Captain, vice James
Pringle, promoted, Feb. 25.
BANKRUPTS.
William Hurst, jun., licensed victualler, Bagnigge-
wells-road, to surrender March 9 and April 14, at one,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, assignee.
Basinghall-street; Lawrence and Plews, Old Jewry-
chambers.

William Henry Rains, wine and commission merchant,
Liverpool, March 17 and April 14, at eleven, at the Li-
verpool District Court. Bird, official assignee, Liver-
pool ; Sharpe and Co., Bedford-row; Banner, Liverpool.
George Wilkins, builder, Bristol, March 16, and April
11, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller,
official assignee, Bristol; Ayre, Bristol.
Stephen Bennett, teazle dealer, Bristol, March 16 and
April 11, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court.
Hutton, official assignee, Bristol ; Crosby, Bristol.
William Francis Chapman, corn dealer, Worcester,
March 15, and April li, at eleven, at the Birmingham
District Court. Valpy, official assionee, Birmingham ;
Rea, Worcester; Wright, Birmingham.
Daniel Daniel Ross and Edward Tatham, hat manufacturers.
Union-street, Southwark, March 10, at one, and April
17, at eleven, at the Court, Basinghall street. Graham,
official assignee, Coleman-street; Hartley, Southampton-
street.

George Farr Arnold, carpenter, Apsley Guise, Bed-
fordshire, March 10 and April 17, at half-past eleven,
at the Court, Basinghall-street. Turquand, official as-
signee, Guildhall-chambers; Gant, Nicholas-lane.
Charles Tottmau Chapman, livery stable keeper, Cam
bridge, March 10, at two, and April 4, at eleven, at the
Court, Basinghall-street. Edwards, official assignee,
Frederick's-place, Old Jewry; £horndike, Staple Inn;
Bevil], Cambridge.
James Lewis Kennaby, cork dealer, King-street, Snow -
hill, March 12 and April 12, at twelve, at the Court,
Basinghall-street. Johnson, official assignee, Basing
hall-street; Bickley, Moorgate-street.
John Atkins, wine and spirit merchant, West Cowes,
Isle of Wight, March 7, at halt-past twelve, and April 7,
at twelve, at the Court, Basinghall street. Penneil,
official assignee; Harper, Kennington-cross.
Joseph Beaman„' iron manufacturer, Southwick, Staf-
fordshire, March 15 and April 8, at eleven, at the Bir-
mingham District Court. Christie, efficial assignee,
Birmingham; Dudley, Dudley; Motteram and Co., Bir-
mingham.
William Wood, licensed victualler, Waddington, Lin-
colnshire, March 17 and April 7, at eleven, at the Not-
tingham District Court. Bittleston, official assignee,
Nottingham; Brown, Lincoln; Bowley, Nottingham.
Dovey Hawesford and John Hawesford, iron founders,
Bilston, Staffordshire, March 15 and April 13, at eleven,
at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official as
signee, Birmingham; Sparrow Wolverhampton; Mot-
teram and Co., Birmingham.
James Lewis, mercer, Herefordshire, March 14 and
April 18, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court.
Christie, official assignee, Birmingham; Davies, Here-
fordshire; Fuller, Birmingham ; Jones, Gray's Inn-
rquare, London.
Thomas Batt Shuttleworth, brush maker, Sheffield,
March 10 and April 22, at ten, at the Sheffield District
Court. Freeman, official assignee, Sheffield ; Nixon,
Clifford's Inn, London; Binney, Sheffield.
John Sankey, blacksmith, Birkenhead, March 17 and
April 14, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court.
Turner, official assignee, Liverpool; Tincent, Temple,
London; Atkinson, Liverpool.
William Carter, innkeeper, Exeter, March 9, at twelve,
and April 7, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Her-
naman, official assignee, Exeter; Daw, Exeter; Terrell,
Gray's Inn-square, London.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
R. H. Pugh, Aldermanbury, warehouseman, March
21, at eleven—J. M. Machin, Waterloo-place, Pall-mall,
wine merchant, March 21, at one—R. More, Nora ich,
coal merchant, March 21, at half-past twelve—E. B.
Smithies and J. A. T. Mathews, Great Dover. road, New-
ington, glass and lead merchants.
In the Country.
T. Avant, Dawlish, Devonshire, upholsterer and
cabinet maker, March 23, at one, at the Court, Exeter—
J. Wetherell, Manchester, publican and wine and spirit
dealer, March 23, at twelve, at the Court, Manchester
—T. Chatto, Morpeth, Northumberland, linen and
woollen draper, March 21, at twelve, at the Court,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne—T. Snaith and a Snaith, Bishop
Auckland, Durham, ironmongers and plumbers, Marco
23, at eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—
W. W. Spence, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, woollen draper,
March 23, at twelve, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
—G. Brown, Sbiffnal, Shropshire, banker, March 23, at
eleven, at the Court, Birmingham.
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.

W. D. Hay, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, baker, *d., on
Saturday, March 4, or any subsequent Saturday, be-
tween the hours of ten and three, at the office of Mr.
Baker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
li. Wanstall, Durham, grocer and tea dealer, Is., on
Saturday, March 4, or any following Saturday, between
the hours of ten and three, at the office of Mr.
akley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
S. S,tott, J. Stott, and W. Stott, Bacup, Lancashire,
cotton spinners, 6s. 2d., on Tuesday, March 14, and
every following Tuesday, between the hours of eleven
and one, at the office of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
J. Harford and W. W. Davies, Bristol, and Ebbw-
vale and Sirhowy, Monmouthshire, 2s. Bd., on Wednes-
day, March 1, or any subsequent Wednesday, between
the hours of eleven aid two, at the office of Mr. Hutton,
Bristol.

NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
G. Windle, Judd-street, Brunswick-square, haber
dasher and hosier, March 21, at twelve—T. Bromley,
Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, grocer, tea dealer, and
corn dealer, also at Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, brick
maker, March 21, at twelve--11. J. Hammon, Thread
needle-street, architect, and Greek-street, Soho, jewel
case maker, March 23, at eleven—T. T. Cattley, Cousin-
lane, Upper Thames-street, and Vimiera-place, Wands-
worth-road, colour merchant, March 23, at eleven— J.
M`George, !'ardour- street, Soho, ironmonger and smith,
March 23, at twelve —J. Sawytiir, Egham, butcher,
March 23, at half-past twelve—W. T. Rickard, Regent-
street, Mile end-road, manufacturing chy mist, March 23,
at half-past one—W. Giblett, New Bond-street, butcher,
March 22, at half-past one—G. Burr, East Farleigh,
Kent, market gardener, March 22, at halt-past twelve—
G. Garner, Noble-street, commission agent and ware-
houseman, March 22, at twelve—T. C. Medwin, Huh
land-street, Clapharn.road, and Borough-road, engineer.
March 23, at one—J. M. Lee, Cornhill, underwriter,
March 24, at two—F. Mackie, Southampton-row, Rus-
sell-square, tailor, March 22, at twelve.
In tke Country.
T. N. Benard, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, merchant, March
23, at eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—J.
Richards, ;Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorganshite, woollen-
draper, March 23, at half-past eleven, at the Court,
Bristol—T. Sartain, jun., Holt, Wiltshire, sheep and
cattle dealer, March 23, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol
---W. T. Morgan, Neath, Glamorganshire, draper,
March 30, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—T. Burley,
sen., Wolverhampton, grocer and tea dealer, March 22,
at eleven, at the Court, Birmingham—W. Sutton, Stock-
port, Cheshire, cotton waste dealer, March 22, at twelve,
at the Court, Manchester.
At the Court of Review, March 21.
W. Walker, Birmingham, hosier and tailor—E. Maude
and G. Maude, Northfleet, Portland cement manu-
facturers—J. Hughes, Fronhaulog, Carnarvonshire,
miller, corn factor, and quarryman—W. Trice, High-
street Stepney, grocer and tea dealer—T. Pope, Kid-
broke, Kent, cowkeeper and milkman—W. Bate, Bridg-
north, Shropshire, millwright—W. Jones, Liverpool,
merchant—T. Berridge, Manchester, dealer in cigars
and tobacconist—W. I. Barker, Sunderlaad, auctioneer,
stock and share broker, and commission agent—H. E.
Field, Mark-lane, eating-house-keeper—J. Russell,
Leamington Priors, grocer—W. Fitzpatrick, Walsall,
Staffordshire, railway contractor and brickmaker—W.
H. 'loading, Gloucester-place, Portman-square, surgeon
and apothecary—J. Hill, jun., Southampton, builder,
surveyor, and brickmaker—G. Miners, Winchelsea,
Sussex, wine and spirit merchant—T. B. Figgures,
Blockley, Worcestershire, corn dealer—J. Hills, Billeri-
cay, Essex, auctioneer and appraiser.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
C. E. Secretan and J. a Capper, Change-alley, Corn.