The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-30 00:00:00

OUvnin_t

LONDON, MONDAY, JUNE 30, 184.5.

The pending " privilege question," between the
Courts of Law and the House of Commons, is every day
assuming a more grave and unsatisfactory aspect. We
cannot deem so lightly of it, in common with some
of our Contemporaries, as to regard it as a
mere question of smart practice between the So-
licitor appointed to act for the Sergeant-at-
Arms and the Solicitor HOWARD, who is the plaintiff
in the action. Neither is our interest limited to the
consideration whether the law laid down in this matter
by the Judges of the Queen's Bench, and especially by
the Lord Cbief, was, as some contend it to have been,
most dangerous to the independence of Parliament, or,
as others consider it, most valuable as an exposition of
the rights of the people. The prospect of any colli-
sion between the Common Law Courts and the High
Court of Parliament, at any time, and under any
circumstances, is calculated to excite in every
reflecting mind much uneasiness; and the very many
difficulties that must attend the issue at stake are by no
means to be disposed of by the ordinary rule of solution
we apply to litigated questions in this country—" Let
it be determined in the ordinary course of law "—for
that course is not applicable to it. The privilege itself is
an anomaly, by the very confession and argument of its
advocates, overriding the law ; but no Englishman can
honestly deny that the law exists, at this day, in its
strength and integrity, mainly by reason of that privilege
exerted in darker and more stormy periods of its
existence for its protection and support. And it may
be safely affirmed that whatever objections may have
attached, from time to time, to the privilege of Par-
liament in the abstract, that privilege has worked
practically to the signal benefit of the people. Were
there no other considerations but these to rest it upon,
upon these we would found our earnest appeal to the
two parties in the House of Commons and among
the public, who advocate, the one the most extreme
amount and exercise of the privilege, and the
other, its reduction within limits which would neutralise
its effective action altogether,— to dismiss all heat
and passion in dealing with the subject. If they are
rash and unreasonable, who would stretch the cord of
privilege to the tension it had attained in the days of the
Long Parliament, or of the Convention Parliament
which enforced forfeiture of the Crown against one
dynasty, and established its succession in another ;
they are neither more reasonable nor less rash who
denude the House of Commons of all privilege beyond
that possessed by any individual subject of the QUEEN
in her courts of law. The second report of the Select
Committee of the House of Commons appointed to in-
quire into the proceedings of the action of HOWARD U.
GOSSETT, is a document to which it is not difficult to pre-
dict a character of both historic and legal importance
At the present moment it suggests some reflections that
powerfully confirm us in the appeal we thus make to the
good sense and good feeling of all parties.
The Committee, in considering the course which, in
the present stage of the proceedings, it may be most
desirable for the House to pursue, admit that they have
found the case to be one of great difficulty. The facts
of the case it can scarcely be necessary to bring in de-
tail before the reader. Let us suppose them to arise
out of the service of a Speaker's warrant, and an entry
upon premises in virtue of that warrant, in the absence
of the party against whom it had been taken. He brings
his action against the officer of the House, and in a court
of law a verdict of damages is returned, upon which
proceedings are taken and a judgment obtained. Prior
to a levy under this judgment, the question arose—
should the House interfere to prevent, by its own au-
thority, the execution of a judgment so granted by a
court of law, or seek to reverse that judgment on a writ.
of error ? The Committee declare " that they
feel it to be of the utmost importance that
the House should maintain the entire privi-
leges which are essential to the discharge of its
constitutional functions." This may sound like beg-
ging the question, but it does, at all events, very fairly
raise it, and it is of a two-fold character. 1. What is
this privilege of Parliament ? 2. Is it expedient to vin-
dicate it ?

With regard to the former of these branches, it seems
to us obvious that the privilege is an adjunct naturally
arising out of the free exercise of the roper
to a representative body of this description. It this were
even to he disputed, the fact of prescription could not be.
Sir EDWARD Cox says that " the power and jurisdic-
tion of Parliament are so transcendant and absolute, that
it cannot be confined, either for persons or causes, within
any bounds. It bath sovereign and uncontrollable au-
thority in making and repealing laws." In the large-
ness of this estimate they may find an answer to their
objections who insist that the privileges which Parlia-
ment claims as inherent in itself ought to be defined.
The very first step towards such a definition
would not only destroy the salutary principle
on which it exists, tamely, an exclusive power
in the fountain of the laws to " control," as
COKE has it, their course according to the par-
ticular exigency) and of which it alone can be permitted
to judge) ; but it would subject its own action to in-
cessant Interruption and impediments, invoked under
the general authority of any specific law, of which it
might seek to modify or to repeal the enactments.

As to the latter branch of the question, may we not
well ask, if, on the authority of CoKE, this transcendent
privilege is indispensable to the theory of an indepen-
dent Parliament, its practical necessity has been less
strongly shown in all our experience of its working since
the reign of EDWARD I. ? On how many occasions, dur-
ing that interval, has Parliament exercised this privilege
to protect the vassal from the rapacity of his lord?
When tenures by grand and petit-sergeantry were
abolished, it was argued that there could be no further
necessity for the maintenance of Parliamentary privi-
lege. In how many subsequent cases, occurring in how
many subsequent years, and down to our own times,
has the same privilege been extended as a shield over
the subject, to protect him from the aggressions, or
the threatened violence of the Crown ? But were we
to attempt to assign a tithe of the reasons that may be
adduced, to show why it is expedient to vindicate the
privilege of Parliament, we should be oppressed with
their number. If it be a salutary aid to support the
popular branch of the Constitution against the en-
croachments of the Throne, it is fully as important in
protecting the popular branch from the too stringent
pressure and irregular passion of its own constituency.
Perhaps it is this very " privilege" in the Commons of a
limited Monarchy which makes the popular Member of
the State the very ark of the monarchical Constitution ;
whilst, he want of it, in pure republics, leaves their coun-
cils so open to external,but direct influences, so much at the
mercy of the impetuous and intemperate purposes of the
democracy, as too frequently to entail the decay and
ultimate ruin of the Commonwealth. On a large and
general view of the subject, therefore, we are clearly of
opinion that the privilege of Parliament ought to be
upheld. Its abuses, particularly if you will have trien-
nial or shorter Parliaments, are sufficiently guarded
against by the powers of reconstruction vested in the
electoral body who return the Commons. Descending
to particular objections, we come to one very candidly
re-stated in the Select Committee's Report. 'We allude
to the tom, of emphatic depreca,tioniu which any pus,wie
collision between Parliament and the courts
,of law is

spoken of. To the mischiefs of any such col-
lision we are fully alive ; but we cannot think
that the same danger or inconvenience could attach
to it now, which might have been reasonably appre-
hended from it prior to. 1761, when GEORGE 111. first
created judges by patents for life. That is to say, so
long as judges held their high and most exalted offices
under the Crown, only " durante bene-placito" (as their
appointments then ran), the policy of the State should
have been what the spirit of the Constitution adopts--
namely, to uphold the authority of decisions of the
courts of law against all privilege beyond the law,
claimed by the councils of the Crown, in which there
would probably sit venal judges, its own creatures.
But now, when the tenure of the judge is quamdizi se
bone yesserit, there is nothing to fear, whore other cir-
cumstances justify Parliament in resorting to its pri-
vilege for the protection of its own officers—from its
enforcing that privilege against the decision of courts of
law. Now we can imagine no cases stronger to
justify the assertion of this privilege than that
before the House, or its immediate predecessor, " Stock-
dale v. Hanszrd." The publication of evidence taken
before the Committees of Parliament, is perhaps one of
the most unqualified public benefits the Legislature con-
fers on the country. If the publisher of so notorious
and scandalous a work as the " Wilson Memoirs," could
induce a jury to befit ve that he had really been libelled
in one of the depositions printed by order of the House
of Commons, among a hundred others, he was a lucky
fellow. But we do not see that, therefore, the writ of
a court of law, in which a verdict of damages had been
taken by such a plaintiff, ought to defeat the exercise of
so vital a power as the privilege of Parliament. Udder
other circumstances, and as against a private defendant,
it would have mattered not one straw to the public
whether an attorney—Mr. SMITH, or Mr. HOWARD, or
Mr. JONES— did or did not make " a good thing"out of his
action, or how light or how heavy damages he could in-
duce a jury to give him. But it matters much, indeed,
whether Mr. HOWARD should be allowed, by the capricious
event of an appeal to a court of law, with the benefit of
his own technical management, to make the House of
Commons change places with him, and sue it, by its
officer, as a civil delinquent. From one paragraph in
the report before us it would appear that others are
emulous of the successful experiment of Mr. HOWARD,
" Three other actions are pending at present against
officers of the House for arts done under its authority, in
one of these actions the damages have been laid at
100,0001. (1 !) and they have all been brought in the
Court of Queen's Bench." Of course, they have been.
We will undertake to promise that Court an enormous
accumulation of business in similar actions, if the Par-
liament do not interpose to put an end to the prevailing
fever of Parliament prosecutions. But when some of
these gentlemen are so m..clest in their estimate of the
damages they shall go for, as to " write down "
100,000/. upon the record, the House of Commons must
interpose to bar it ; if in no other character, surely in that
of guardian of the public purse. But what is the proxi-
mate cause of a condition of things thus false and
complicated ? As it appears to us, the ill-judged in-
structions given by the House to Mr. Attorney-General
to plead to the action. Nothing can be more moderate,
yet dignified, more temperate or reasonable, than the
language of the " Report," which we published on Sa-
turday. But we cannot help deploring the step thus
taken in this remarkable business. The Committee state
(and no doubt with perfect truth) that the probable in-
tention of the House, in permitting its officer to plead in
this case, agreeably to the precedents of " Burdett v.
Abbott," and " Stockdale v. Hansard," was not to sub-
mit its privileges to the judgment of a court of law, but
merely to bring within the cognizance of the Court, in
the most formal manner, the fact that the acts com-
plained of by the plaintiff had been done by officers of
the House, at the instance and under the authority of the
House. The Committee naturally contend, in this view
of the case, that the pleas ought at once to have been
admitted by the Court as a sufficient answer to the ac-
tion. The Court did no such thing, and this is just one
of those cases in which success alone can excuse an
error in judgment, whatever were the grounds it went
upon.

We do not pause to inquire wherein the analogy con-
sists, that pointed out to the SOLICITOR-GENERAL the
utterly different casts of Burdett v. Abbott and Stock-
dale v. Hansard, as precedents to guide the House in
its dealing with this action of "Howard v. Gossett."
But with every respect for the Committee, we dissent
from the doctrine affirmed, in relation to its "First Re-
port," that " as the levying of the plaintiff's execution
" would, in no respect, prejudice the proceedings in the
" Writ of Error," therefore " they did not deem it ex-
" pedient to advise the House to interpose to prevent
" the levy." Let us give the Committee and the House
full credit for moderation in wishing to proceed by Writ
of Error to set aside judgment obtained by the plaintiff.
It by no means followed that the vindication of the
privilege of Parliament would be established. It is now
evident that it did not, in fact, ensue on this permission
of the levy. What have they gained by this course ?
A loss. They are damnified, not bettered. The Com-
mittee postponed the distinct assertion of a great principle
to a choice of proceedings which, at the best, migh t obviate
the necessity for putting that principle immediately in
issue. Which was the more important point for them to have
established ; that which would have inhibited, in limine,
any challenge in a court of law of the privilege, or that
which might indeed, for this time, keep the great issue
of its vindication out of the law courts altogether ; but
could only do so, by invoking in a specific form the re
medial, and, therefore, the protective, and, therefore, the
superior authority of those very tribunals ? We shall
ever deem it a fatal mistake to have pleaded ; because,
on every principle recognised by the canon, the civil and
the common law in this country, to appear in a jurisdic-
tion under its own form or citation, is to acknowledge
it ; except, indeed, the appearance be under specific pro-
test. Hen, there has been no such protest. And if
there had been one entered in a former stage of the pro-
ceedings, you tear off your own seal from it by going
elsewhere fir a writ of error—unless, indeed, you make
your application SO PROTESTING. And this, as laymen—
but earnestly solicitous for the integrity of those privilege.
which we infirm all parties concerned in maintaining
them are held on sacred trust for the highest service of the
public—we say this modification t,f the recommendation
of the Committee the House of Commons will find it yet
essential to adopt.

It is with great pain that we solicit the attention of
our readers to the melancholy account we have pub-
lished of the conflagration at Quebec of the 28th of
May last. By this desolating calamity no less than
12,000 persons are said to have become homeless, un-
sheltered, and destitute ; and the 2.000 houses which
they had previously occupied have been consumed by
the flames. One hundred human beings, it is feared,
have perished in the burning ruins of their homesteads,
or as the helpless, bed-ridden patients of a hospital, who
had been purposely removed to a dwelling in another
quarter of the city, the distance of which from the area
of the fire, it was vainly hoped, might protect them from
its ravages. But sparks and burning fragments, wafted
n that direction by a furious wind, accomplished the
destruction of the dwelling, and they perished in it.
The loss of property sustained has been variously esti-
mated, but probably exceeds 700,000/. sterling.
A disaster more appalling has not often been recorded
even in the annals of colonial fires. Much as Quebec
has been of late years improved by the introduction of
substantial masonry in the construction of Government
works and of the superior class of private dwellings, it
is still essentially a city of wood. The great mercantile
stores established there, many of the landing piers,
quays, &c., aro of that material. Wooden shingle
forms, for the most part, the roofing of the tene-
ments ; and it is, of course, one of the greatest
depots in the world for stacked timber, the produce of
the forests of Canada ; deals, battens, staves, logs, &c.
All these appear to have formed fatal elements fur the
action of the fire, although its extinction in one quarter
was happily accomplished by the sudden hurling down
of these piled masses. The writer of one account which
has reached Hs states, that at its broadest point the
breadth of the densely-crowded area, over which this
sudden devastation has swept, is nearly one-third of a
mile. We remark that Lord METCALFE, with his cha-
racteristic energy, and his prompt humanity, has for-
warded 2,000/. ; the Roman Catholic Bishop, 5001., for
the relief of the sufferers ; the Hotel Dieu, 500/. As

VT animosities between the hierarchies of the Roman
Catholic Church and our own Establishment, which
vent themselves nearer home with so much unbecoming
rancour, are happily modified in Canada by feelings of
reciprocal respect and Christian charity, " our good
Bishop " as he is called, d• ies not cast ungen roux reflec-
tions upon, or impute unworthy motives to, his mitred
brother, as a Bishop of EXETER would deal with a
Bishop of WORCESTER, but frankly and assiduously
emulates his example. The Protestant Bishop of QUE-
BEC embarks with ardour in his pastoral labour of soli-
citing charity for the distressed, and sets in moion the
active agency of all his clergy for the same benevolent
purpose. In Quebec itself about 3,000 of the inhabi-
tants attended at a public meeting, at which between
3,000/. and 4,000/. were subscribed. In Montreal a
similar meeting was about to be convened with a like
object ; and we have no doubt that the inhabitants of
the Western will COMP fOr.‘ird Tnriproilo, in rid r.£
their compatriots of the Eastern province. In the mean-
time we would earnestly commend the afflicting case of

these Quebec sufferers to the humanecoueideratiort of
the English public. It is a case of pt,culiar claim Upon
their sympathy, and one which pres,es urgently fur im-
mediate relief. Those who consider how short is the
duration of the warm season in Lower Canada, bow
rapid the approach, and how excessively severe the
rigout s of a Canadian winter, will at once appreciate
the necessity for immediate exertion on behalf of the
ruined victims of this calamity. Those who cannot
withdraw themselves from the habit of regarding all Ca•
nadian questions under their political relations, and with a
certain degree of political excitement, will feel that the
sooner a social evil—a domestic misfortune—of this mag-
nitude is repaired the better it will be for the welfare of
the colony at large. These are not times in which, set-
ting out of view considerations of humanity, and appeals
of private misfortune, it would be expedient to leave the
metropolis of our most important possessions in America
weakened by the protracted existence of unmitigated
suffering among its population on this gigantic scale-
Such a neglect would amount to a dangerous presump-
tion of national apathy and public weakness, the moral
influence of which, in depressing our own subjects on the
shores of St. Lawrence, and raising the hostile preten-
sions of some among their neighbours on the other side
of the United States' frontier, it is not difficult to calm"
late, though it would be invidious to dwell upon. We
confidently trust that public meetings will be held in our
own metropolis, and in the other great mercantile sol
manufacturing capitals of the United Kingdom, to Cow
tribute a liberal fund to the relief of our fellow-country.
men in Quebec. It will be gratifying to find, too, that
in an exigency of so awful a nature the Colonial Depart-
ment here can shake off its customary indifference or
indolence, and vigorously employ both its Parliamentary
influence and its executive powers to prompt and reme-
dial measures for the succour and re-establishment of
the surviving sufferers by this calamity, and the faililies
and representatives of those who have perished in it.

If we may credit the accounts brought by the Great
Western from New York, and the authority of letters
published in that city, said to have been received from
Vera Cruz, the knotty question of Texas independence
re-
sented
man e n ta settlement,intimated The
tMexicanheir consent Congress t
o
would appear to be making good progress towards a pe
cognizing Texas as an independent State, on tertes
honourable to Mexico, and advantageous to both the
contracting parties. This result is alleged to be
owing to the exertions and good management of the
English Minister accredited to Texas, who lost no
after being fully in possession of the views of the 'fess'
Government, in putting himself in -commuuicatiou with
a 1a
the authorities of Mexico,and obtaining the acquiescence
for
ree
of their Cabinet in the basis of such a treaty w we's
that the
finally negotiated. It was further understood
independence of Texas has the joint guurantee of flg
,1 prO"
land and of France, on condition that she rejects
posals of annexation to the United States or any other

g.vderearTr.thueektiteneotnelligence to this effect from Mexico appears Power whatsoever. to
Uuited States.bfiorint
a Cruz. If it be borne out by facts ac
shall eon-
Vera
to be dissipated,
hat,tiriolhnee
pob;lytlieet;tearytsoinotfhweahipecr;:tphi(ae:usm:isacati;eifvrtto)husine
chance of inducing
was delusion of TYLER'S unprincipled
the citizons of 1
by putting
United States in the wrong ; ft.r that is the, only
to gratify
on a proposition too well calculated
wtahse,m
to r:asa io, nen xciaitsipoans',on:tt schemehe
their
v a
nn
ce
e,
sh
the
e puty
mbYt-a
national vanity at the axed to
cbhearaeteristic shrewdness, so long as, there alVe— , ..
no disposition in other Powers to resist their desgrio"
doßut Texas,
the United. eUtttnoi inTtgeedxhSaestrastetelfos
iiritrdthoh:eo washreorsnhgte.c)
bTheo haso: :801;
member of the Federal Union, proceeded on the assump-
tion—openly avowed—that the Government of Texas
desired that incorporation with the States of the Union•
expense of there
In
vindicating her own independence and integritft
Texas, instead of being absorbed as a component ele-
dm.ent into an unwieldly federation, secures her own in-
tvidual position under the auspices of the two most
powerful nations of Europe. Perhaps, under the court
relations which the Texas question was in'l4
assuming, with regard both to the United States sad to
this country, no course could be suggested so well calcu-
lated to obviate the probabilities of hostile frontier ol-
lisions between Mexico and the United States, and
serious ill-will and heart-burnings between the United
States and this country at some not remote period' 8°
s
that of which we, are thus apprised, and which we trust
has been adopted.

Madrid journals of the 22d instant state, that on thel2oth
a meeting had been held in the Saloons of Senor PAcnEO"
relative to the abdication of Don CARLOS and the marriege
of the QUEEN. It was composed of thirty-one Pe°
puties and three editors of Madrid journals. Speen",,
were made, and it appeared to be the unanimous opinion tbal'
both the Count DE TRAPANI and the Prince of As•ruglAs
should be rejected as suitors for the hand of her gaiestl.
•
But ISTURITZ opposed any expression of public opilllo° •
the subject, as the initiative should come from the (NM;
and to this the meeting unanimously assented. A circ"—c
had been addressed on the 19th, by NARvArz' at
no
Barcelona, to the commandants of the didere°
provinces, warning them that " the rebel Don Affl'a.
and the whole of his family have been declared outlio._'
strangers to the kingdom, and excluded by the
of the State, and by special laws, from succession to.thto
crown, and deprived of the rights which bad belonged
theM as infantes of Spain, and that this law must be enforcetu
inexorably upon those who, either directly or indirectly., a
the
tempt to overthrow the fundamental institutions of
country, and derange the order of succession to the COssro"
by deceitful promises and lying sacrifices, which the 11 ILO
as the supreme head of the State and nation, openly dined
It It is generally believed that Queen CHRISTINA ia
c_onstitoo:
to take a very different view of a question which ,liTbeen
tates the whole kingdom. MARTINEZ DE LA ROM I's d that
taken ill on his way to Barcelona, but it was expecte arid
tu
in a short time he would be able to continue his jelieY'
reach that place on the 24th. b and
The Three per Cents. closed at 32 5-16 for OS 03
32 3 16 for the 25th of July ; and the Five per Cents at
at 60 days

---vice------
The French Chamber of Deputies, at the cloSe °fete.ir,
husiness last week, after having passed all the other
.‘,,,11f
.
mates,tofi proceeded to consider the Bill for granting 10, :‘,uu:ca,
in t out the squadron to be stationed on the coast of
of the
,ivirtue of the late convention for the supPressie.n.nns re-
:l.7e trade. Admiral Micicau gave some exPhinsti-t-ed to
. ,r. to the sth article of the treaty, villlcil sPl'e3ti ad-
give satisfaction. M. GUIZOT and M. DUPL."( also brie Y de.
dressed the Chamber, and M. DEsrsas tried to get ,Idlifronx
bate on the question, but was incessantly interruP.• ,_„,,p.
all sides, and was at last obliged to desist. A division,.oP:t it
ever, took place, when there were for the Bill 248,3014214
only 1. Tile Journal des Debats, on referring to the result,
thus points out the vast services of M. BILLATILT, ill eatioa
ing the treaties of 1831 and 1832 :-" The 13"' hC:riVie 110
did not give rise to any further discussion. The -ttdiffillg
not begun fromwant of combatants. On seeing this edifying
not
of the Oppocition, we asked ourselves whit!
papery
come of the celebrated M. BILLAULT and his bundle elO,Ph-t NMI
He it was who concluded the treaty-he it was w"eltposiag
carried in triumph to the capitol. He is no doubt '1 ~, cow
on his laurels, for the whole world knows it wash e who
Mall
ducted the negotiation. Let US leave to thle g,r-n the
l - innocent consolation ; it is fully due to biro jorart
of s
evil he has done. Let him continue to BlaY the Pbrought
ininysterious Egeria ; as long as his political idea ere 11 reli-
to execution by M. GuizoT, we shall War 410130:
ance both on their tendency and their results." 14', ~,.'OO 01
after some discussion on the appointments to the "Ileboll
Honour, urged, " that every nomination for the Presentfutar
be published in the Moniteur." All the Mioia
pledged their words that they would publish ell troop,
minations recommended by their respective dePsr
__eiga,
but the motion was intended to apply also to the Sov:fr
ove.
and on a division, it was carried by a msPritY,,ble, and
The accounts from Algeria are not very favour4 ;ft
for
it was understood there would be a necessitysiitabai
creasing the number of troops in the colony.
tars
b:00
BUGEAED had been attacked with fever, and Wetlid Pero:
the r
bably be compelled to return to France for
die, 20th
very of his health. Tile .illoniteur Algerien of ',. Algiers
for the
states that the Duke DE MONTPENSIER erilbarkedt:i'
on the preceding day, in the Gomer steani-frigs
_:A a eir•
Levant. The Minister of the Marine has addre7_oyr is
cular to a great number of officers in his departme t, "'lto,
Paris, ordering them to repair forthwith to their P(.'s_taof Dort
reported at Paris that on the news of the abdicatt°D idea of
Canws reaching Naples, the KING had
otillitilsiedf:eftsA.ttlicei
on all f„,
the marriage between Contit nE Taarasl an
given cy Queen "--
cording The strike
t o a carpentersGoefntehveaiournai,
te
na t
DELLA.
expulsion o d
will vote at the approaching Diet for the .
ht ere Weill
Jesuits, and should the canton of Geneva join,
be a majority for their expulsion. Cents,
srtaarteiss
closed on the Paris Bourse on Saturday at s
at Llif.
The Bourse was exceedingly flat. The Three 14rf. 70c;
stillaria ctown
the New Loan at 841. 90e. ; the Five per Cenotti•co. 1,0• )7f
60c.; ()dean= Railroad Sham,. 1,162 f. 50e• •R, a 957 f.
23f ' Avigoo .
1,
5.
50c. ; Vierzou, 7271. 50e.; Havre, 8• • Ditto
a
50c.; Basle, 252 f. 50c. ; Spanish Actives, 38; "'
sives, 7%. 10 •
Boulog e.
Orleans and Bordeaux, 165 f. pre.mrium. ;,,,irk
a:(.1 j,,y-oi
di, ~, ; rro;‘ (~ at:d .)tont Preav, 27t. o'h' . I' ' tGaguetOV'
ditto. k
The following are the quotations for the new lines :--- 5f
(i.Alitft ), 20f. ; ditto (Caton), par ;to (Resared;
6f. 50c. ; Tours and Nantes (Alackenzie), 1
'ditto (Jaerteo
( Drouillard), par; ditto (O'Neill), 2f. ?De.; itg. 50c ;.--t •
sf. ; Northern line (Laffitte), 32f. 50; dit,.. 50e. ; dit ,
Lsfevre), pat--; Lyons and Avignon (Leeeint.edl'ii,i,), 6f. oul'i:,
• an ..-,aris
a alabot),36f. 25c. ; ditto
Bordeaux and Toulouse (Mackenzie), 50e• , . , „or; r 1,
(Lspeleta), 3f. 50c.; Creil and St. Que_r. Fair' ithi
ami Str,botlrp• (G•inner,,n) 4f 50, : V)! "
.ItlC. I 0071'
Li,..,,,„: 1"" i ~,Fee .1.(.1
MARSEILLES, JUNE 24.-Marseilles ana . : lrierz"
(Compagnie Men o
ditto _A ce .
Boulogne, 620 f.; Orleans and Bordeaux, 700 f. •