The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MARCH 15, 1845.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COUR7; March 14.

(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE ISAAC SLIPPER.

In this came the insolvent had kept a public-house at Romford, and
having become a bankrupt he was compelled to appeal to this Court.
About a fortnight since he was heard in this Court, on an application
to be bailed, when the Learned Chief Commissioner finding that all
the insolvent's property had been seized upon by a frien I of his,
named Potter, under a warrant of attorney for an alleged loan of
money, and not being satisfied that money had been advanced,
and concluding that the warrant of attorney was nothing
more than a ruse to defraud his other creditors, refused to
allow the insolvent to be discharged until the matter was
inquired into more closely, and the body of the creditors were present.
Not having complied with the orders of the Court, the insolvent was
confined in the Queen's Bench until this day, when he again came
up for hearing, and the Learned Chief Commissioner seeing none of
the creditors present, instituted a most semrching investigation into
all the facts of the case, after which he said he said he should not
allow the insolvent out upon bail, because he considered the conduct
both of him and Potter to be most unfair and fraudulent.

The Insolvent was acconlingly removed back to the Queen's Bench
Prison.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, Mach 13.
CIVIL SIDE.

(Before the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
NAMARION •. THE SOUTHEASTERN AAILWAY COMPANY.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the
defendants the value of certain stacks and farm-buildings 6e-
longing to him, and which were destroyed by fire, owing, as he
alleged in the declaration, to the servants of the Company neg-
ligently oonducting a certain steam-engine upon the line of the
railway, by which means a spark from the chimney fired his
stack. and so caused the damage.
The defendants pleaded that they had used due care and cau-
tion, and therefore that they were not liable.
Mr. Sergeant CNA NNELL, in his address to the jury, said
that the present action involved a point of very great import-
ance to all persons who had property adjoining a railway, as
the question to be decided being whether they were to be sub-
jected to have that property totally destroyed through the
working of the railway, without being entitled to compensa-
tion for the loss they so suffered. He then proceeded to state
that the plaintiff was a farmer, residing at Sallinge, near
Dover, and at the time of the projection of the South-
.Bastern Railway, the Company, under the provisions
of their Act of Parliament, purchased from him some
portion of his land for the purposes of the railway, which
passed quite close to his barns and homestead. The plaintiff
had frequently complained to the Company of the danger
arising from the trains passing so close to his property, and
requested them to adopt some measures to protect it, but
without effect, and at length, in the month of May, in
last year, while one of the trains was passim:, a piece
of burning coke or coal was driven out of the
chimney of the engine, which lodged on the top of a barn,
the thatch of which ignited, and before the flames could be
extinguished, property to a considerable amount was totally
destroyed. The important question to be decided wan,•
whether, although the Company had an Act of Parlianient
which entitled them to work upon this railway, and which of
cause they c,,ald not do without the aid of locomotive en-
gipes, yet if thise engines, by reason of their emitting fire,
"Could not be used without danger tc the property of others, the
using them under such circumstances, does not amount to neg-
ligence, and render the Company liable for any damage that
might be thus occasioned, and he submitted that it was not
necessary to prove any specific negligence. The Learned
Sergeant went on to say that he should be able to prove, that
means had been taken upon other lines of railway by placing a
wire guard over the top of the chimney of the engine, or by
having a plate perforated with holes is front of the smoke box,
to prevent burning coals or ashes coming from it, but upon
this line these precautions had been altogether neglected, and
this he submitted was another proof of negligence, and under
all the circumstances he expressed a confident opinion that the
jury would consider his client entitled to a verdict.
The agreement for the sale of a port on of the plaintiff 'a
land, consisting of two acres and some odd roods and poles, to
the Company, for 3501., was then put in.
The Learned Counsel then called evidence to prove his case.
The plaintiff's case being concluded,
Mr. Sergeant Suez then addressed the jury, and said that
all the Company for whom he had the honour to appear de-
sired to have, on the present occasion, was, that there should
be a fell and fair discussion of the merits of the case, and
that nothing more than justice should be done. They only asked
the same protection to which any other class of her Majtity'
subjects was entitled, and he was satisfied that upon the evidence
that had been adduced, the jury would be of opinion that the
plaintiff had not made out any case, and that the defendants
were entitled to a verdict. He submitted that the accident was
chiefly to be attributed to the carelessness of the plaintiff in
placing his stacks se near the railway, and to his neglecting to
cover his barn with tiles instead of thatch, which he could have
done at very trifling expense, and which would have entirely
protected his property from any injury of the
character now complained of. The plaintiff in
his declaration charged the Company with having
caused the mischief by the negligent and careless
manner in which their engine had been worked upon the line,
but he contended that this had not only not been proved, but
that. it had been absolutely negatived; and he submitted that
upon the declaration of the plaintiff the Company were entitled
to a verdict. The Legislature had given the Company the
power to use the engines upon the line—they were authorised
to do so, and they were merely following their lawful occupa-
tion in a proper and lawful manner, when this occurrence took
place ; and there did not appear to be the slightest pretence
for saying that there had been any negligence on the part of
the servants of the Company. It was perfectly well known to
the Legislature at the time .they granted the power to this Com•
pany to work the line, that the suede by which they purposed
to do so was by the use of engines, propelled by
steam which was generated by Sr. ; that there must be vivid
combustion, and that the engines must pass along the high..
way made by the Company, and by the side of the property
along the line ; and he submitted that it would be monstrous
to make the Company, under swill circumstances, liable for
the result of an accident which had occurred in the lawful
carrying out of their undertaking, and without the least
proof of any negligence or carelessness on their parts, er for
which they were responsible. The Learned sergeant, on be-
half of the plaintiff, had attempted to urge that it was not
necessary to prove any specific act of negligence; but he must
be well aware that in the case of Aldridge a the Groat
Western Railway Company, it was distinctly laid down be Lord
Chief Justice 'Tindal, Mr. Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice
Coltman that, in a similar case to the present, the plaintiff
could not recover unless negligence was proved. The Learned
Sergeant proceeded to state that it had been attempted to
show that the Company had been negligent in not providing
the wire guards or plates that had been referred to ; but he
submitted that it was very doubtful, upon the
evidence, whether those contrivances were of any
real service, as it appeared that although a trial
had been given to them, they had on most of the lines
been entirely discontinued, and he concluded by again ex-
pressing his opinion that, under all the circumstances, the de-
fendants ought to have a verdict.
The Loan CHIRP Jusxzcz then summed up.
The" jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, eOOl.
TAYLOR V. THE SOUTH-RASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action of a similar character to the last, and it
will therefore be unnecessary to go into the details.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
8941. Us.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worrester, March 13.

THE CROOME MURDER.
The trial of the ten men for the murder of Thomas Staite,
at Croome, on the night of the 19th of December last, was
resumed this morning, before Chief Baron Pollock. At the
adjournment of the Court last night, the jury were locked
up for the night, provision being made for their accommoda-
tion at the county Courts. The trial was resumed at the
early hour of eight o'clock this morning, at which time, on
the Court being opened, there was again an awful crush for
places, and the Court was crammed to excess throughout
the day.
The day's proceedings commenced with the examination
of witnesses called for the purpose of showing that several
of the prisoners had, during their incarceration, expressed a
desire to make confessions to the officers of the gaol. Mr.
Stables, the clerk to the county prison ; the Rev. W. Ad-
lington, the chaplain ; T. G. Curtler, Esq. onoof the visiting ma-
gistrates; and one of the turnkeys were called for this pur-
pose, and separately examined. These statements by the
prisoners were, under the direction of the magistrates, subse-
quently taken down in writing, and were now produced as
evidence against therm.
The prisoners' Counsel (Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr. Hud-
dlestone) objected to the admission of these documents, on the
ground that the statements were made in the hope and ex-
pectation of pardon.
Mr. LEE and Mr. WHITEHOUSE argued contra, and a good
deal of discussion ensued, which ended in the Judge ruling
that the statements might be read.
They were accordingly read by Mr. Bellamy at length,
and being of a very voluminous nature a good deal of time
was occupied thereby. It would be impossible to give any-
thing like a sketch of these statements within reasonable
limits; suffice it to say, that the several confessions impli-
'sited the whole of the prisoners in the transactions of the
fatal night of the 19th December.
The examination of the other witnesses for the prose-.
cution was then proceeded with.
Joseph Hooper, a gamekeeper, regularly employed on the
Earl of Coventry's estates, and who was out with the
watchers on the night of the affray, proved that the unfor •
tunate deceased was brought to his (Hooper's) house about
midnight, in an insensible state, and (as he described it)
" with his head beaten all to pieces."
Mr. Pritchett, surgeon, of Kempesy (near CrOome), who
was called up to the deceased, was next examined, and his
evidence was followed by that of Mr. Pierpont, one of the
surgeons to the Worcester Infirmary, where the deceased was
afterwards takes, who minutely described the nature of the
injuries which the deceased had suffered, and which caused
his death. The chief of these were severe fractures of the
skull, through which the brain protruded. The operation of
trepanning was performed at the infirmary, but Stake died
a day or two afterwards, without an interval of sensibility.
This, with the testimony of R. Temple, Esq., one et the
trustees of the infant Earl of Coventry, who was called to
prove Hooper's appointment under the trust, completed the
evidence for the prosecution.
Mr. Gonsox then addressed the jury for the whole of the
prisoners in a long and able speech. He contended that
there had been no evidence adduced throughout the whole
of the trial which would go to prove the existence of such malice
aforethought as was necessary to constitute the crime of
murder. Even if the jury considered that malice had existed
aforethought, they would then have to consider whether
there could be any malice implied by the law which could
affect more than one of the ten prisoners at the bar.
H:s LoDDSHIP summed up in a very careful and compre-
hensive address to the jury, which was listened to with the
profoundest attention.
The jury consulted together, and returned an unanimous
verdict of " Guity of Manslaughter" against the 5% hole of
the ten prisoners, Joseph Turvey, Samuel Turvey, Francis
Dingley, George Brant, Thomas Hooper, John Cook, Joseph
Tandy, Thomas Collins, William Cosnett, and William
Bromfield.

LORDSHIP said he would pass sentence to-morrow
morning.
The Court then adjourned until nine o'clock to-morrow
morning.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(Y E STE DAY.)
111 A NSI ON-HO VS E.
John Crellier, a licensed victualler, in Mark-lane, was charged
with a violent assault upon an omnibus conductor.
Chapman, the complainant, stated, that after ten o'clock on
the preceding night, the defendant assaulted him several times,
without having received the slightest provocation. The de-
fendant, who was accompanied by a drunken man. hailed the
omnibus in the Poultry, but the complainant observ,ng the
condition in which his companion was, refused to give them ad-
mission. The defendant was exasperated at this refusal, and
struck the complainant, accompanying the blow with abusive
language. That offence, however, was permitted to go with
impunity, and the omnibus passed on till it reached Cheapside,
when it was hailed by a gentleman, who wished to put a lady
inside. The defendant took the opportunity to call to the gen-
tleman not to allow the lady to go with such a ♦agabond ; bat
the complainant having stated the facts, the lady entered,
whereupon the defendant knocked the complainant down, and
was then handed over to the care of the police.

The principal} parts of the statement of the complainant were
confirmed by a witness.
The defendant said that he had been abused and strack by
the complainant before he raised his hand. He had also been
kicked in the stomach by the complainant, who took advantage
of the elevation of the footboard to make the attack. He most
positively denied that his friend was at all drunk, and declared
that it was quite impossible to endure the insolent conduct of
the conductor. _

The Loan MAYOR asked whether the person who accom-
panied the defendant was present ? The .defendant— No, my
Lord, he knows nothing about it; but I can prove by three
witnesses that I was struck first.

The Loan MAYOR—Your witnesses should have been here.
X have the evidence upon oath that you struck the complainant
repeatedly,
The Lord Mayor and Sir John Pirie having conferred to-
gether'
His LORDSHIr said that he and his brother-magistrate were
of opinion that the conduct of the defendant was exceedingly
reprehensible, inasmuch as, being a publican, he had endea-
voured to obtrude a drunken man int. an omnibus, and re-
sented the very proper refusal of the conductor to allow the
passengers to be di gusted and insulted by a person in such a
condition, The sentence upon the defendant, therefore, was,
that he be fined the sum of 31., and, in default of payment, that
he be imprisoned for one month.
The fine was immediately paid.

COURT. ,OF COMMON COUNCIL.
On Thursday a Court of Common Council was held for the
dispatch of pubic business.
THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.

Mr . Loir having complained of a breach of the privileges of
the Court, involved in the arrangements made by the Pi esi-
dent and: Treasurer of Christ's Hospital, for the reception of
her Majesty at Christ's Hospital on Sunday evening last,
The Linn Maynn read the whole of the correspondence
on the subject,• from which it appeared that although the chief
magistrate asserted his station as head of the City hospitals,
and claimed to be joined with the President and Treasurer in
the ceremony of receiving the Queen, the application was in-
effectual. _

Some of tbe members of the Court expressed much dissatis-
faction, at the proceedings adopted by those who superin-
tended the arrangements, and evidently considered that the
Corporation of London were treated with indignity upon an
occasion on which it was most necessarythat so essential a privi-
lege as that of the violation of which they complained should
have been acknowledged and respected.
The subject Was ultimately referred to the Royal Hospitals
Committee.

The CITY RXMEMBRANCER announced that a Bill had been
brought into Parliament for the removal of certain disabilities
under which the Jews were labouring.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ANDERTON gave notice that he should move, at the
Court, that petitions be presented to both Houses Parlia-
ment to pass atkAct to-regulate_• the interment of the dead in
churches and church-yards, in large towns and cities, and pre.
Vent the violation of graves. Also to pass an Act to prevent
nuisances arising from the smoke •f steam-engines and fur-
naces in -manufactories and buildings situate in and near the
Cities'of London and Westminster, and steam-boats on the
river Thames.

LATEST PRICES OF SHARES

IN RAILWAYS, BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND

OTHER COMPANIES' STOCK.

F om the Olicial List.

I'UBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING,
LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 14.

RAILWAYS.

Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. SI are. 1
£ s. d. X s. d. 1
iberdeen .• ••• • • •• • • - - 210 0 ; 2%
Birmingham St Gloater Si. Fe. per oh. 100 0 0 100 0 0 , 131
Ditto, New, les. Ti die. 15s. 25 0 0 17 10 0 3234
litigliton,Lews,& Hast. - 50 0 0 10 0 0 10
Bristol and Exeter 21.165. per sh 100 0 0 70 0 0 824
Ditto and Gloucester - 50 0 0 30 0 0 . 58
Caledonian ••, • .. - 20 0 0 5 0 0 8%
::Ambridge and Linooln - y 25 0 0 110 0 634
Chatham & Prtomouth - 20 0 0 1 0 0
V/ester and Holyhead' - 50 0 0 9 0 0 : 04
Chichester k Brighton - - sooi 5%
Churnet Talley .• • - 20 0 0 2 0 0 ; 7
Cornwall .... ••.. .. - - 3 0 0 ; 4
Direct Northern. ••• • • - 50 0 0 210 0 1 4%
DAreet Norwich ••• • • • - 24 0 0 1 0 0 ; 1%
Dias, Beoules, & Trmth - 15 0 0 110 0 1 94
Dublin & Belfast Juno. - 50 0 0 2 10 0 6
Ditto and Galway • . - - 210 0 , 3
Humeri' Counties ... • . 41. per ph. 35 0 0 14 16 0 , 21%
De.,torpettuti, No.l 51. per et. 613 4 313 4"14 p.
Ditto, ditto, No. 2. • • - - 0 13 4 Wstn.
Eastern Union - ino 0 10 0 0 ; 19
Kdinburgh & Glasgow 21. ss. p. oh. 90 0 0 50 0 0 j 91
Ditto, Quarter Shares I ls. 3d. p. sh. 12 10 0 12 10 0 F 16
lilly and Ite4ford .•• • • - 25 0 0 1 5 0, 234
Grand Connection • • - 50 0 0 210 0;.
Grand Junction .... • • 10/. per et. !00 0 0 100 0 0 224
Ditto, Half Shares lOl. per ct.. :0 0 0 50 0 0 ; 112
Ditto, Quarter Shares , 101. per ct. 25 0 0 25 0 0 '
Gt. Southern & Weotern - 50 II 0 5 0 0 ! 12
Great Northof England 31. Is. 100 0 0 100 00 ; 189
Ditto, New.• • - 40 0 0 5 0 0 ; 42
'rent Western :.. •
Ditto, Half Shares 7l. per cent. 50 0 0 60 0 0 ; 1004
Ditto, Fifths..• ••• • • Tl.per sent. 20 0 0 20 0 0 • 3934
Guilford JunctlOe. •• • • - 50 0 0 36 0 0
Harwich ......... -• • - 70 0 0 1 0 0 , 1%
1
M all and Selby
Ditto, Quarter Shares - 12 10 0 12 10 01 204
Kendal & Windermere * - 25 0 0 1 10 0 6
Lancaster and Carlisle - 50 0 0 15 0 0 35
Leeds and Bradford - 50 0 0 8 0 0 21%
Liverpool & Manehestr 101. per ct. ,00 0 0 100 0 0
Ditto, Hal: Shares lOl. per et. 50 0 0 50 0 0
Ditto, Quarter Shares, 101. per et. 25 0 0 t 5 0 0
nendon & Birmingham 101. per et. -- Stock. 131
Ditto, New Thirds lOl. per et. 32 0 0 2 0 0 41
Ditto, New 14 Shares. 101. per ct. 25 0 0 2 0 0 30%
london and Blackwell - 16 13 4 -7%
London and Brighton , .1. Os. per sh. 60 0 0 50 0 9 63%
Ditto, Loan Notes 5l. per sent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 13%
London and Greenwich - 12 15 4 - 10%
flit to, Pref. oPriv 5/. per cent. 18 t 7 2 - 2414
London and S. Western 31.55. per sh. 41 610 - 80
Do., New Cons. 'Bths - 40 0 0 6 0 0 23
Ditto, New - M) 0 0 210 0 12
-.ondon and Croydon 10s. perch. 13 Di 9 - 18
Ditto, Git arntd. sp. e.. - 9 0 0 4 0 0 .6
Lomlon and York - • - 50 0 0 210 0 8%
Lynn and Ely ...... - 25 0 0 210 0 5%
anchester and Leeds 41.7 x, 6d. p. s. 100 0 0 70 0 0 145
Ditto, Half Shares.. 11.175.6d.p.5. 50 0 0 32 0 0 6434
Dit• o, Quarter Shares 4s. 25 0 0 2 0 0 16
Ditto, Sixteenths ... - 6 5 0 1 5 0 7%
Manehestr & Birming. 21. per share 40 0 0 40 0 644
Ditto,Quarter Shares - 10 0 0' 4 0 0 12
Midland ............. 41. O. per sh. - - Stock. i 130
Ditto, Fifths .••• • • • - - 20 I 3'4
Ditto, Binn. fe Derby 21.135. perch, - Stock. 108
Newcastle & Berwick - 25 0 I 110 0 13%
Newcotic & Darl. June. 61. 25 0 0 94 0 0 474
North British •••• - • • - 25 0 0 10 0 0 I 1714
Northern and Bastern . 21. ss. t 0 0 0 45 0 9 62
Ditto, Scrip, iss. 51. d. 15s. 50 0 0 2S 0 0 493(
Ditto, Quarter Shares - 12 10 0 12 10 0 18
North Kent..........- 60 0 0 215 0 374
Norwieh and Brandon. - 20 0 0 10 0 0 17%
Ditto, New ..... •• .. - 10 0 0 100 1 1 4
• ertsin uth Direct • ... - 50 0 0 2 10 0 2
Preston and lyre .... - 50 0 0 SO 0 0 1 304
Itiehmnd& W. 14 June. -
Rugby - 20 0 0 10 0 3%
20 0 0 lo 0 3%
Ditto, 2d Prof., 184 s - 25 0 0 25 0 0
Sheffield and Lincoln.. - 25 0 0 1 5 0 , 1%
Sheffield & Manchestr V. per eent. 100 0 0 82 10 0
Ditto, Quarter Shares - 25 0 0 8 0 0 1 13
Shrws.,Wolv.,Dud.,litir - 50 I 0 2 10 0 6
South Devon 1 - 00 0010 0 0 1 174
South-Eastern k Dow 11. ls. 33 2 4 - I 424
Ditto, New 168.321411 b - 60 0 0 0 0 0 . 17%
South Wales ... ••• • • • - - 2 10 0 634
Stevenson's Prtsmouth - - 2 10 0 24
Thames and Medway.. - 19 5 8 - 1 174
Trent Talley • . - 20 0 0 2 0 0 ; 22
Yarmouth & Norwich - 20 0 0 'A 0 0 1 283
Ditto, New .., - 20 0 0 8 0 0 1 15%
York & North Midland 10/. per et. 50 0 0 50 0 0 1 103
Di-Jo. Half Shares • • 101. per et. 25 0 0 25 0 0 1 51
Do., Scarbro'Brancli - 25 0 0 20 0 0 414
Ditto, Selby Scrip - 50 0 0 20 0 0 66
Ditto, Extension .. • • - 25 0 0 1 6 0 14%
Boulogne and Amiens. - 20 0 0 2 0 0 ll%
Gt. Northern of Franoe - 20 0 0 4 0 0• 6
Orleans and Vierzon . • - 20 0 0 2 ,0' 17'4
Orleans & Bourdeaux - 20 0 0 2 0 0 104
Paris*, Lyons(Laffitte) - 20 0 0 2 0 0 3%
Paris and Strasbourg - 20 0 0 2 0 0 2%
Paris and Orleans.... - 20 0 0 20 0 0 51%
Faris, and Rouen
&men and Mane - 20 0 9 14 0 0 92

JOINT-STOCK lULNIES.

Amotuit
of Paid.
Share.

X s. d.
40 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 •
100 •
60 0 0
25 0 0
toe • e
10 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
20 • 0
25 0 •
50 0 0

.4 s. d.
40 0 0
50 • 0
20 $ 0
25 0 0
20 0 0
10 0 •
Y 1$ 0
25 0 0
10 0 0
17 10 0
35 0 I
10 0 0
25 0 0
10 0 0

WATER-WORKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of I raid. Price.
Annum. Sharo.
£ 0, d.
Mast L0nd•a...... •• .. SI. LOO 0 0 230
(fraud Jtmotion ...• • V. 46 13 4 --90
Kent ••• • • 2/. 108. 100 0 0 66
Vauxhall •• .. bl. prr cent. 100 0 0 60
West Iliddiesox ••• • • • 41.165. pr et. 62 12 9 127

LIST OW SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PRICES
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Pali. Price,
Aunnm. Share.
X a. d. A s. d.
Balk of Scotland ... • • 01. per cont. - 100 0 0 172
/loyal Bank of Scotiaad 61. per ocnt. 100 0 0 168%
British LinenCompeny 61- per cant. 100 0 0 226%
Commercial Bank •. • • 61. per cent. 100 0 0 167%
National Bank 6l. per cent. 10 0 0 IS%
Union Bank of Scotland 7%1. pr oeut. 50 0 0 05
Western Bank ...... • : 161. per cent. 60 0 0 76%
North of ileotland Bank 61. per cetit. 6 0 0 7
Clydesdale Bank •,
Eastern Bank.. ...• • • 111. per cent. 15 0 0 11%
Caledonian Bank ...• • 61. per cent. 2 10 0 3%
Iddiab.de Glasgow Bank 61. per cent. 6 0 0 7%
i,11,7 of Glasgow Bank . Si. per cent. It 15 0 13%
Seobtish Union Ital. Co. 11. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 1%
Horeults Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 14%
!astir. Co. of Scotind• • 61. per cent 10 0 0 All paid. 10
North British Imam • • 91. per cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 27
Caledonian Tire Incur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 24
ildinburgh Life Incur.' 61. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 183'
&lin. & Ghtsg. Railway 4%1. per cent. 50 0 0 58 0 0 65%
Ditto, 4 Share • • 4%/.percent. 12 10 0 All paid. 16%
Min.. Leith, & Grantn 20 0 0' 20 0 0 15
Glasgrr & Arreltir Rail. 44 I. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 65%
Glitartv&Greenek Rail. 2/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 15
CllsprisGarnkirk Rail. U. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 28
Dundee & Arbroth Rail. Si. per cesit. 25 0 0 All paid. 32%

aCZir CANALS.
of .
~....
~.....
Names of I !Divide n 4 Dividend
Companies. ' per Price. Companies. 4 ''. ....'`,
35 I Annum. i Annum.
1 X
! X
.A.ehtn Br, 0141 h! 97 5/.5e. p c 72 onmouthsh 100 81. 160
Ashby-d-la-Z'll3' 41. 70 Al utgotnrysh 100, U. 98
Barnsley •• • • 160! 121. 180 Macclesfield. 1001 - 15
Basingstoke 1001 - 5 . eath ••. • • - 100 201. 365
Brkuk&Abrg 1501 6/. 85 ottlngham . 150 121. 260
Cromford lOO 181. 164 Peak Forest. 78 3/. 40
Dudley lOOl 41. 80 Itegent's .. .. 33 1/. 24
I
Derby .. .• • .1100, 81. 103 Rochdale .. •. 85 41. SS
EllsturetcChs,l33l 41. 58 Shropshire . • 125 8/. 120
Erewash • • •I 100; 321. 440 Somrsct Coal Ir.() 71. 10s. 123
Forth Sr, Clydilool 41. 105 Do.Lk Fd St 12 61. p. c. 11
Grtuul.Tunetnilo4l' 71. j 140 tlfrd &Wore 140 281. 480
Grand Uuion•100; 1!. 10s. 2i hrewsitry.. 124 15/. 230
Glantormsh 4179. 14%!. 210 tourbridge.. 145 201. 360
Glstr& Ilrklyi 00 - 8 SU-DI-don Av 79 11. 10s. SO
Grantham . •Il 50' 121. 100 Severn and] 26 11. Ps. , 30
Haddersfleld. 57, - 20 WYe Roil.
Kennt & Avid a Is. 6d. 18 Trat & Mr-1 50 30!. 450
Lancaster ... 471 11. 10. 40 sey, M sh..l
Leeds& Livep 100 W. 670 Thami &Med 19 - 10
Leicester .... 140 i 101. 110 Worcetr k 7 , 41. 00
LeinissSilti 831 41, 70 Binning. j '
thl [
LoughbOrogh 1421 701. 1030 to & grb 07 11.48.

!,131T1T of the I 1:131 IC JOE RNA LS.
FROM THE EVPSING Pari.:7;s OF YESTERDAI.
STANDARD.—We hope that some Member of the House
of Commons will move that the petition presented last night
by Mr. Sheil, on the part of certain Italian refugees, be
printed. We do not express this wish from any respectful
feeling to the petition or the petitioners, but from an opposite
feeling. We look upon ;be whole proceeding as one of most
unjustifiable impertinence on the part of the petitioners,
and of indiscretion at least on the part of the
Right Honourable Gentleman who presented such
a petition from such persons. The petition, ae far as we can
understand it from the account given by the reporters, un-
plaches the veracity of Lord Aberdeen or Lord Seaton, or
both. Now, such a mode of replying to a Minister, even on
the part of Englishmen, would be held to be uncourteous.
An Englishman, wronged by a mis-statement, would
be expected to state the wrong to some Member of Par-
liament, and leave the subject to his management and
discretion; he would not dare to offer an insolent libel to
either House of Parliament under the pretext of a petition,
even were he himself concerned, much less where he had no
personal interest whatever in the matter. lint here are a
knot of Italian fugitives, living on sufferance in this country,
about whom nobody knows anything, and whom, therefore,
we will not call vagabonds any more than we will
admit them to be necessarily respectable persons.
Here are these persons, presuming to take liberties with the
character of the public servants of the coantry, such as no
Englishman would take, and such as no Member of Parlia-
ment would aid an Englishman in taking. Surely the House
of Commons ought, for the sake of its own character, to
look carefully into the affair—let the petition be printed—
let the petitioners be ascertained to exist (for even this
is doubtful)—let their character and original status be
inquired into, and the nature of the crime for which
they were driven from their own country, and then let them
be required to support the allegations of their petition at the
bar of the House. It may be relied upon that we shall have
plenty more such petitions, if the House does not take some
order in the affair.
.` . .

GLOBE.—The Customs Duties Bill will be proceeded with
this evening; in the order in wh ch each item is found in the
list the entire removal or modification of the import duty
upon the respective articles included in the Bill will be brought
under the consideration of the House. In connexion with the
reduction in the sugar duties, the • appeal of the sugar re-
finers for a drawback on so much of their stock in band as
shall be remaining in their sugar houses at the time
the reduced duties come into operation, will be brought, by
petition, before the House of Commons. A copy of the case
and of the petition founded on it are before us. If the facts
stated be supported by evidence—and the sugar refiners offer
to adduce evidence to substantiate their statements either
before a Committee or at the bar of the House—there, is a
case embodying serious loss and positive injury to the parties,
which the House of Commons is called upon to prevent ; and
which, if not averted, will render the houses engaged in the
sugar-refining trade victims to the financial policy of the
Government. The grounds en which the sugar refiners rest
their case are, generally, these :-1. The operations of sugar
refining are slow; the refiners are therefore compelled to
hold large quantities of duty-paid goods in process. The
stock in hand will be depreciated to the extent of one ;
and this diminution in the value of the stock of refined
sugar in the several stages of refining, will, if the draw-
back be not allowed, inflict upon a comparatively few
iudi-
viduals an aggregate loss of many thousand pounds.
Two members of the deputation who recently waited on Sir
Robert Peel are threatened with. a loss of 10,0001. each. 2.
That this loss would have been prevented had the announce-
ment of the inteeded change been made in June when the
sugar duties are annually voted; or in April, when the finan-
cial measures of the year are ordinarily brought forward. If
the Government deemed it necessary to conceal their plans,
and this year to anticipate the period when ti:e Budget is
nsually brought forward, the sugar refiners—who were in-
duced to continue their operations, unaware of the financial
plans of Ministers—should, at least, be protected front the
serious—in many instances ruinous—consequences with wlaeh
they are threatened by the large reduction in value of their
stock in hand. It appears to us that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in his financial exposition, has conceded the very
point on which the sugar refiners rest their case. " It;
said Mr Goulburn, "as in 1830, the reduetion of duty
were made without notice that the duty would be altered
at an early period, the grocers and refiners would be entitled
to such redress as was then afforded to both." The refiners
deny that any such notice was given to them. They dial-
lenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the proof.
They are content to rest their case on the grounds
on which he has placed it. The onus probandi is with
the Minister. When ?—Where 7—How I—By whom ?
—was the notice given. The appellants cannot be called
upon to prove the negative. They simply deny the imputed
warning. That the notice was given is matter of official
knowledge, and is capable of official proof. The petitioners
call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for evidence. If
it be not forthcoming, the case of the petitioners is admitted by
the Right Hon. Functionary himself. The large amount which
would be required to meet the claims for drawback has been
' also adduced as a reason for rejecting the sugar refiners' appeal.
The reason assigned by the Government is manifestly an argu-
ment for the claimants. If the sum required be large, then
the refusal will involve the loss of that large sum among the
' refiners—few in number ; and therefore each must suffer to an
amount which individual ability will be unable to bear. Never
before was the magnitude of a just claim converted into an
argument against doing justice. ' In the case of glass, Sir
Robert Peel expressed himself against allowing the draw-
back on the stock in hand. The manufacturers met,
and determined. on seeking an interview with the Right
Hon. Baronet. He heard their case; inquiry and recon-
sideration produced a change in his opinion ; and the
manufacturers of glass will have the drawback allowed
en their stock in hand. The Government has here
conceded the principle of allowing a drawback of
the duty paid on stock in hand. The rule which is set up, in
bar of the claim made by the sugar refiners, viz. It is
almost the invariable practice, with respect to Customs
Duties, not to allow a drawback on a reduction of the
duty"—implies that exceptions sometimes occur. By
allowing the drawback on glass, the Government
has placed an interpretation on its own rule favourable
to the claim of the sugar refiners. It will be for the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to show that there is anything in
the case of the latter which can be justly and equitably
urged as a reason for their not beino• dealt with on the same
principle as that applied to the glass manufacturers. The
sugar refiners ask nothing more. They ought not to
have leas.