The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-12 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS.

Joshua Taylor, draper, Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire, to sur-
render, March 22, at two, and May 5, at ono, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, and Soles and Turner,
Aldermanbury.
Albert Green, apothecary, Brighton, March 25, at half-
past two, and April 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry ;
Freeman, Bothomlev. and Benthall, Coleman-street ; Free-
man and Cornford, Brighton.
David Holdforth, grocer, Stratford, Essex, March 19, at
half-past two, and April 23, at twelve, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Baeingliall-street ; Wright,
Cook's-court, Carey-street.
Alfred Knott, miller, Brighton, March 20, at two, and
April 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham,
official assignee, Coleman-street, London ; Soles and Turner
Aldermanbury, Lond on.
William Hardisty, whitesmith, Wakefield, March 26, and
April 16, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young,
official assignee, Leeds ; Fiddey, Temple; Brown, Wakefield.
John Roberts, grocer, Liverpool, March 24 and April 23, at
twelve, at the Liverpool District Court. Cazenove, official
assignee, Liverpool ; Sharpe, Field, and Jackson, Bedford-
row, London ; Moss, Liverpool.

Thomas Griffiths, auctioneer, Blaenifed, Cardiganshire,
March 18 and April 15, at twelve, at the Bristol District
Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol ; Smith, Cardigan.

DIVIDENDS DECLARED.

J. L. Heathorn, ship owner, Abchurch-lane—first dic. of
Bs. in the pound, March 15, and any subsequent Saturday,
at the office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry.
J. Taylor, bookseller, Brighton—first div. of 2s. 4d in the
pound, Nlarch 15, and any subsequent Saturday, at the office
of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry.
'l'. and T. P. Trapp, tallow chandlers, Church-street,
Southwark—first div. of 20s. in the pound, and second div.
of Is. 3d. in the pound, March 15, and any subsequent Satur-
day, at the office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-place, Old
Jewry.
J. Mallalieu, woollen manufacturer, Saddleworth, Yorkshire
—first div. of 3s. Bd. in the pound, March 11, and any follow-
ing Tuesday, at the office of Mr• Hobson, Manchester
T. Sherwood, brick maker, Reading—first div. of ss. in the
pound, any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Pennell, Basing •
hall-street.

J. Robbins, bookseller, Winchester—second div. of 2s. 6d.
in the pound, any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Pennell,
Basinghall-street.

B. Wright, paint dealer, Liverpool—first div. of 10s. in the
pound, March 13, and any subsequent Thursday, at the office
of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
Jh. and Jn. Woodhead, worsted-stuff manufacturers, Brad-
ford—first div. of 4s. in the pound, March 12, and any sub-
sequent Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Freeman, Leeds.
G. Holdsworth, worsted spinner, Halifax, Yorkshire--
the creditors who have not yet received a former div. may re-
ceive a div. of 3s. 4d. in the pound, and those who have re-
ceived a former may receive a further div. of Is. in the pound,
March 12, and any subsequent Wednesday, at the office of
Mr. Freeman, Leeds.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
H. R. Stutchbury, bookseller, Theobald's-road, Bedford. row,
April 9, at eleven—.J. Stevens and R. H. W. Drummond,
road contractors, Rhodeswell-wharf, Mile-end, April 2, at
eleven—F. Blundell, grocer, New Sarum, April 9, at eleven
—J. Maynard, bookseller. Panton-street, Haymarket, April
9, at twelve—J. F. Barwick, Old-street, St. Luke's, April 1,
at half-past eleven. _ .

In the Country.
J. H. Heron and Sons, cotton-spinners, Manchester, April
12, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—G. and S.
Potter, calico printers, Chorlev, April 10, at eleven, at the
Manchester District Court—lL Hardie, commission agent,
Manchester, April 12, at eleven, at the Manchester District
Court—S. Parsons, paper hanger, Manchester, April 2, at
twelve, at the Manchester District Curt—W. H. and T. B.
Turner, cotton spinners, Blackburn, April 2, at twelve, at the
Manchester District Court—E. Sheppard, sen., and E. Shep-
pard, jun., clothiers, Uley, Gloucestershire, April 2, at one, at
the Bristol District Court—W. Rees and G. Edwards, gar-
deners, Wells, Somersetshire, April 4, at eleven, at the Bris-
tol District Court—T. and W. Withell, ship builders, Pad-
stow, Cornwall, April 8, at one, at the Exeter District Court
—J. Hall, cowkeeper, Willington West Farm, Northumber-
land, April 3, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District
Court—J. Tristram, beer housekeeper, Two Mile-houses, Not-
tinghamshire, April 8, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—
R. Jackson and R. Yale, engineers, Leeds, April 8, at eleven,
at the Leeds District Court—J. L. and T. Tabberner, auct ion ers,
Birmingham, April 3, at eleven, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court—E. Light, grocer, Hanley, Staffordshire, April 5,
at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court—H. Newton,
colour manufacturer, Derby, April 4, at half-past eleven, at
the Birmingham District Court.
ERTIFIC ATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
W. Dettmer, pianoforte manufacturer, Upper Marylebone -
street, April I—A. Francis, W. Davey, and M. Francis, iron-
founders, Bagillt, Flintshire, April 3—J. Hegginbotham and
G. Peck, machine makers, Manchester, April 3—T. Ross,
hosier, Leicester, April I—J. R. King, druggist, Bath, April
I—C. Strange and R. Parsons, merchants, Baglan, Glamor-
ganshire,
jaunnd.,Rco.
rPnrmocitloler,r,clolarachkepfiie-olpdr,iAetporrsil,
April I—J. Quinn, painter, Liverpool, pril I—A.
builder,C Irlar eo
nl
wich, April I—L. H. Folger, cabinet-maker, High- street,
Shoreclitch, April I—C. Dotesio, hotel keeper, Slough, April 1
—T. Baines, worsted spinner, Bradford, April I—A. Padbury,
jun., grocer, Epsom, April 1.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

S. Hutchinson and R. Binney, share brokers, Bradford—
J. Woollright, W. D. Chidson, T. Wait, and J. Lindsay, silk
mercers, Liverpool—J. Hilless and W. Todd, tailors, Bourn—
J. James and T. W. Richmond, linen drapers, Swansea—R.
Pitcher and P. Bates, tar refiners, Surrey Canal-bank, Old
Kent-road—W. Allen and P. Long, coach proprietors, Man-
chester—J. H. Cuthbert and C. S. Bailey, beer brewers, Ips-
wich—H. Roberts and M. Lawrence, boarding-school keepers
—J. Dunk and T. Baker, millers, Brighton—J. Ouston, R. C.
Ouston, and J. S. Ouston, wine merchants, Hull (so far as
regards J. S. Ouston)—J. Faulkner, J. Pollitt, and T. Taylor,
spinners, Stockport—J. Bayley, J. Bayley, T. Kitts, and J.
Kitts, cotton spinners, Bolton cso far as regards T. Kitts)—
C. Marshall, J. Mitchell, and }. J. Stones, edge tool manu-
facturers, Sheffield (so far as regards J. Mitchell)—J. Mor-
ley, R. Morley, J. Morley, jun., B. Morley, and S. Morley,
wholesale hosiers, Wood-street, Cheapside (so far as regards
J. Morley, sen., and R. Morley)—M. Hooper, C. W. llooper,
and B. Hooper, tanners, Grange-road, Bermondsey—T. Cross
and J. Barrett, chemists, Bury, Lancashire—J. Smith, jun.,
J. Smith, sen., F. A. S. Smith, T. Holmes, F. Hurst, and J.
Sayer, lace manufacturers, Chesterfield (so far as regards F.
Hurst and J. Sayer)—W. Higgins, J. Higgins, J. Higgins,
end H. Higgins, machine makers, Salford (so far as regards
W. Higgins)—T. Rudkin and H. Hemmings Paddington -
street, Marylebone—J. Weymouth and W. Righy, attorneys,
Chancery-lane.
• SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
'Thomas Roxburgh, smith, Glasgow, March 14, and April
4; at twelve, at the office of J. Fleming, Glasgow.
William Birnie, painter, Aberdeen, March 17, and April 7,
at two, at the chambers of A. and J. Webster, Aberdeen.
David Keith, merchant, Dundee, March 15, and April 5, at
twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Dundee.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF eOMMONS, March 11.

Mr. ORD presented a petition in favour of the Newcastle
sad Shields Railway._

BUENOS AYRES AND MONTE VIDEO.

Lord PALMERSTON said he rose for the purpose of
putting to the Right Hon. Baronet a question, of which he had
given notice a few days ago, with regard to the hostilities now
being carried on between Buenos Ayres and the State of Monte
Video. The House well knew that between these two States there
had existed for three years past a state of hostility more or
less violent; and that the British Government at one time
endeavoured, by an offer of mediation, between the two
parties to put an end to that hostility. The question which he
was going to ask was founded on documents which had been
published in the newspapers of Monte Video, in which had
appeared a correspondence between the British Minister at
Buenos Ayres, and the Minister for Foreign
Affairs at Monte Video. Founding himself entirely on
that correspondence, he learned that in the summer of 1842
the British Government determined to interfere, and
to put an end to these hostilities by foreign interference.
Now, without at all expressing any opinion one way or the
other upon the policy of the question, as to whether it was one
which should warrant the interference of the Government of
this country as a third party, he would say he was en-
titled to an answer.—(Hear.) It was quite true that those two
States had an undoubted right to quarrel amongst themselves ;
and, therefore, without saying which party was in the wrong—
whether either, or one, or both was to blame, he would still
contend for it that his question should be answered.
It appeared by a letter which he had read, and which had been
sent to Mr. Mandeville, the Monte Videan Consul, by the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that it was the wish
and the intention of the British Government to use every effort
to put an end to the war. However, in the year 1842, Lord
Cowley had an interview with M. Guizot, and the latter gen-
tleman concurred with the Noble Lord that there should be an
end to this war, and that he was ready to enter into any ar-
rangement that might be proposed for that purpose. On the
16th of December, 1842, an official note was sent to the Go-
vernment of Buenos Ayres, with an intimation to Mr. Mande-
ville, which he would now read. The letter appeared in a
Monte Video paper, and had been translated into Portuguese ;
he would endeavour to read it, making allowance for some ver-
bal inaccuracies. The Noble Lord having read the letter,
went on to say :--Ile wished to know what were the grounds
which led to that change, and whether that change was fully
communicated to the two Governments concerned. And ho
would also ask, whether there was any objection to lay on the
table of the House such papers connected with the matter as
might be communicated without injury to the public service ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the statement which had been
made by the Noble Lord with respect to that which had been
presented by our Minister and the representative of France to
the Government of Buenos Ayres was substantially correct.
He ( Sir Robert Peel) held in his hand the formal note which
had been presented, and although there were some variations
in expressions, yet still the Noble Lord was sub-
stantially correct. In December 1t:42, the representatives of the
two countries made communications to Buenos Ayres, to the
effect stated by the Noble Lord. In January, 1843, they
went further, and stated that the fleets of England and
France had sailed from Europe for the purpose of forcible
intervention. In June, 1843, he (Sir Robert Peel) was
asked, whether or not the representatives of this country had
been entirely justified by their instructions in making their
communications to Buenos Ayres ; and whether they had full
authority to inform that Government, that in case of amicable
intervention failing, there would be forcible intervention, for
the purpose of putting an end to those lamentable hostilities
which even then had so long prevailed. He stated that the
representatives of France and England had been instructed to
urge on the Governments of the two belligerent Powers the
policy of suspending these hostilities, and terminating them by
amicable negotiations. He stated at that time, that those re-
presentatives were not justified in holding out the menace
of forcible intervention. He thought the Ministers
of France and England had gone beyond their instructions.
The Noble Lord had alluded to the correspondence which had
taken place between M. Mandeville and the Secretary of Fo-
reign Affairs in France. There was now the most cordial un-
derstanding between this country and France with respect to
the terminatioe of hostilities between Buenos A) res and Monte
Video. Mr. Mandeville had road a communication from the
Secretary of State, and it was owing to that communication

that Mr. Mandeville drew an erroneous inference with respect
to the intentions of the two Governments; and though Mr.
Mandeville had exceeded his instructions—though he had done
wrong in stating to the Governments of Monte Video and
Buenos Ayres, that he had good reason to believe that hosti-
lities would be put an end to—yet, looking to Mr. Mandeville's
position, and the extreme difficulties he had to contend with,
he was yet bound to do justice to the motives of Mr. Mande-
ville. Certainly, after what had taken place, seeing
that Mr. Mandeville, the repn.sentative of this cowl
-
try to Buenos Ayres, had carried on a confidential com-
munication with the secretary for Foreign Affairs at Monte
Video, they thought that he had put himself in such a position
that he could not resume his office with efficiency in that effect
but at the same time there was nothing in the conduct of
Mr. Mandeville to disentitle him to the confidence of the
British Government. Acting as he did, on the best intentions,
he should be sorry to imply any strong censure upon the con-
duct of a gentleman placed in his position. As they were
about to renew their representations to the Government of
Buenos Ayres, acting in harmony with the French Govern-
ment on the subject, most earnestly imploring that they would
put a stop to their senseless hostilities, it was not the time to
lay on the table of the House the communications which had
taken place.
Lord PALMERSTON said he thought that Mr. Mande-
ville had been officially employed to negotiate a treaty with
Monte Video, and that it was necessary on his part that he
should be in communication with Mr. Vidal.

Sir R. PEEL said that Mr. Vidal was sick at the time,
and it was an act of treachery to publish his letter.
Mr. HUME moved for a ,‘ return, showing the total number
of pensioners received from the army, on the pension establish.
ment, from the year 1834 to the year 1843, both years inclu-
sive ; specifying the number received in each year from each
branch of the service, viz., from the Dragoon Guards and
Dragoons, Foot Guards, Horse and Foot Artillery, Corps of
Engineers and Sappers and Miners, Infantry of the Line, and
Marines, with the average effective strength of each branch of
the service, for each year, from 1834 to 1843. Also, the ave-
rage age of the pensioners when received on the pension estab-
lishment; specifying the average ages of the pensioners from
each branch of the service. Also, the average service of the
pensioners at the time when received on the pension establish-
ment; distinguishing the average period of service of the pen-
sioners from each branch of the service. Also, the number of
pensioners who have died in each year, from the year 1834 to
the year 1843, both years inclusive, with the average ages of the
pensioners at the time of their decease. Also the total nuraber
of pensioners of all branches of the army on the establishment,
in each year, from 1834 to 1843, both years inclusive."—
Agreed to. . _