The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-19 00:00:00

ERE -SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE 19, 1844.

REPEAL iIEETING IN EDIN-
BURGH.

A meeting took place in the Merchants' Hall, on I
Thursday evening, for the purpose of expressing sym-
pathy with O'Connell, and to aid the cause of repeal by
contributing to the funds of the Association. Although
the meeting had only been advertised a day or two be-
fore the Hall was crowded, and numbers were unable to
procure admission. Charles M'Caull, Esq., was called
to the chair.
The CHAIRMAN, in a brief speech, explained the ob-
jects of the meeting, and then introduced Charles Glen-
donwyn Scott, Esq., who was to peopose the first reso-
lution.
Mr. SCOTT was received with rapturous applause.
After alluding to the unavoidable absence of Dr. Grib-
ben, of Glasgow, and craving the indulgenceof the meet-
ing, he thus proceeded :—Sir, in the policy of the pre-
sent Ministers towards Ireland, they have exhibited the
greatest amount of tyranny, injustice, and egregious
folly of which the vilest Tory administration could be
guilty. Is it necessary for me to remind you of the me-
morable day at Clontarf ? It was then that the first
daring act of despotic power was perpetrated.—(Hear.)
It was there the dearest right of the people was invaded
—the undoubted constitutional privilege of public
meeting and free discussion was denied and trampled
on—and this too in a manner the atrocity. of which
it is impossible to describe. Meetings similar to
that at Clontarf had been held during the pre-
vious summer in every part of Ireland, and their legality
had been tacitly acknowledged by the Government—the
highest authorities had pronounced them legal—the
most perfect peace had everywhere prevailed, and there
was not only not the slightest pretext to suppose it ever
would be broken, but the experience of the past gave
ample assurance of the invincible determination of the
people to preserve the most perfect order and tran-
quillity.—(Cheers.) The meeting at Clontarf was an-
announced for weeks before the day appointed, and yet
no whisper of its prohibition was breathed or dreamt
of. Hundreds—thousands—of persons, not only from
all parts of Ireland, but from England also, were on
their way to attend it ; when, as you are aware—
on the evening of the day preceding, at an hour
when darkness rendered it impossible to be read—
the memorable proclamation was issued, and the meet-
ing was prohibited.—(Hear.) The morning came, and
thousands and tens of thousands, anxious to evince their
zeal in the cause of their country, ignorant of that pro-
clamation, or if they had seen it, very naturally consider-
ing it a hoax—(Hear, hear)—assembled on the plains of
Clontarf. Was O'Connell there to receive them ? No !
an insulting array of military force, of mounted cannon
and bristling bayonets, supplied the place of him they
had travelled weary -miles to see.—(Hear, and cries of
" Shame.") I can fancy, or rather I cannot imagine, the
feelings of that great multitude—of that people who,
keenly sensible of the many wrongs under which they
suffered, then beheld the last remnant of their liberties
—their undoubted constitutional privilege—torn from
them by that arm of despotic power which had, for cen-
turies inflicted so many outrages upon their common
country. It is said that Ministers must not be charged
with any deliberate design of hurrying them into a pre-
mature rebellion ; but they cannot be acquitted of the
awful ,oenilt of hazarding that dreadful risk, and I
myself have heard some of the supporters of Government
give utterance to the fiendish, the damnable, the cowardly
wish that the people had given some pretext on which,
defenceless as they were, the British bayonets might
have been employed in a general massacre.—(Cries of
" Shame, shame.") But that people were mindful of
their great vow of peace—O'Connell commanded, and
they quietly dispersed.—(Loud cheers.) A prosecution
followed this first act of tyrancical oppression—a trial
which in the annals of law stands, I believe, without a
parallel. It is not my intention to go through the
details of that trial—the facts connected with it are so
Universally known—they have excited such universal
disgust and reprobation, that it is unnecessary
for me to do so. The trickery that was so unblush-
ingly resorted to, the dropped list—the exclusion
of Catholics and Liberal Protestants from the jury—
the packing of it with O'Connell's open and avowed
enemies—the indecent, the virulent speech of the Chief
Justice, a speech that has never been defended even by
his own party—the verdict thus obtained, which the
whole world has pronounced unjust and unfounded—the
monstrous decision against the motion for a new trial—
the sentence, and the incarceration of O'Connell and his
fellow-patriots pending upon the writ of error; these
cireumstances, and many more I have omitted to men-
tion, all combine to render this trial the greatest legal
farce ever enacted—the Most palpable mockery of jus-
tice ever witnessed=one of the vilest pieces of tyranny
ever perpetrated.-;-(Coatinued 'cheers.) Sir, are these
proceedings to be allowed to stand as precedents for
the adoption of the present or future Administrations?
If so, there is an end of. pur vaunted freedom ; there
is -an end of free discussion, and: the, right of public
meeting- and petition ; our liberties. and our lives
will be at the mercy of packed-juries and
reekkss judges.—(Hear, hear.) Permit all law and con-
stitutional principle to be thus outraged, and then no
bilger dream of healthful agitation to ameliorate the
sufferings of-the people. Prepare to become a degraded
People ; ,to see your dearest rights and boasted liberties
one by onetorn from you by despotic power, and only to
be regained through all the horrors of /evolution.—
(Loud • and continued' cheering.) No.! the , people of
Great• Britain—not only. from ,selfish motives, but for a,
generous sympathy for Ireland, whose caseis -now ex-
citing their attention—will indignantly protest against
the conduct of this atrocious Ministry. Sir, it is a sacred
duty
.for every friend to human freedom, to the great
principles of justice, to the dearest interests of humanity,
to raise his indignant voice to swell that universal shout
of execration which will teach Peel and Wellington
they can no longer set their heels upon the con-
stitutional rights and liberties of the people ; that
they can no longer be permitted to endanger the
peace and stability of the empire.—(Cheers.) Let
Scotchmen, proverbial for their caution and their fore-
sight, be now warned in time.(llear, hear.) Let
Scotchmen, remarkable in every age for their love of
liberty, now show their sympathy for Ireland. O'Con-
nell is in prison !He commands peace—he is implicitly
obeyed ; but who does not see that Ministers have placed
the awful hazard of a dreadful and sanguinary revolution
upon the slender thread of an old man's life ? Oh !
should that venerated martyr for his country's freedom
die in a felon's cell—(Great sensation)—should he, the
champion of universal freedom—should he, whose long
and glorious life has been devoted to the happiness and
redemption of his native land; should he expire through
the tyranny of those who, by all the means that
human inquity could invent, have cast him into
prison, what human power could stay the wild,
the universal outbreak that would ensue.—(Loud
cheers.) Could the Ministry, then, for one moment,
depend upon their Irish troops?—(Cries of " No, no.")
Could they depend upon their gallant English ones?
Do they not know that the Irish people would, to a man, i
rise to the :great conflict for justice and revenge, that
then, as Augustus O'Niel. has told us, O'Connell's grave
would be the rallying place for the sons of freedom.—
(Immense cheering) Then, Tara, thy countless thou- j
sands—no longer assembled under the banners of peace
longer to listen to him who preached its hallowed
doctrine, but to avenge his death, warmed by their
country's wrongs, maddened by the fate of him, their t
chosen leader, their idol and their chief—then, Tara,
thy countless thousands would nobly die in that great
and., last strife for liberty and vengeance, or plant
their standard of triumphant victory, crimsoned
with the blood of the:: usurper and the tyrant,
upon thy summit of ancient glory.—(Tremendous
and long-continued cheering.) Sir, my last proposition is,
that Ministers have been guilty of the most egregious'
folly—they have wished to crush repeal—have they done
'so? Why, -the repeal rent this week is upwards of 3,200/
—(Cheermg.) Is your ardour abated ? Is your confi:,
dence and veneration for O'Connell diminished ? No ;'
they are increased a hundred-fold—l have never before]
seen your enthusiasm so gloriously evinced. Has not'
'the determination of the Irish people placed repeal onl
such a vantage ground that no Government can now con-
=tend against it ? Repealers, let us show onr feelings on
O'Connell's imprisonment by our renewed, redoubled,
"enthusiastic exertions in that cause for which he now
-suffers. Persevere, for the peaceful victory is now within
our reaeh. -
Dr. Tvrtlx proposed the next resolution, commenting
'severely on the wrongs of Ireland, particularly. the State
-Church. Hey made an allusion to the determined stand
of the Covenanters, when a similar injustice was
attempted to be inflicted on Scotland ; and called upon
the meeting practically to show their sympathy with
Ireland, by subscribing to the funds which were to be
applied to work out her regeneration.
Mr. AITKEN followed. In proposing the third resolu-
tion, he remarked on the unfair treatment extended to
Ireland, eentanding that the meetings held in Edinburgh
,pirious to the passing of the Reform Bill—with their
ilags,'death's heads and cross-bones, their inflam•
..'lnatory-harangues and intimidating proceedings—might,
perhaps, have, justified the interference of Government-4
vonlyit did not suit their purpose, hut they now attempted
to ernsti the Liberator of Ireland, because he had held
, meetings' the leading characteristics of which were the
_ immense Multitudes which attended, and the peaceable -
manner, in which the proceedin were conducted.
The address to Mr. O'Connellg was then read by Mr.
}LARKINS, which, with all the resolutions, was carried
amid the most unbounded applause. Frequently the
. speakers were interruptedly the whole of the auolience
rising and joining in cheers. -
• After the address jtad been: ado
pted,it was announced,
amidst much cheering,' that Mr. Scott would convey it
• to Dublin, and present it to the Liberator at Richmond
• Penitentiary. the receipt 'of the
rent then com-
menced, and in a short time the amount exceeded 50/
which, being announced, elicited applause. -
• Three cheers were then given for the Queen, three
for
O'Connell and repeal, and three groans for the Emperor
oftßussia; and the meeting dispersed in the most orderly
manner.—Catedonian Mercury.

DEATH OF JOHN LAINEON, ESQ., LATE ALDERkAisi
or 13READ-STRELT WARD.—thi Monday morning at an early
hour, and after a most protracted illness, died John Lainson,
Xsq, at his residence, No. 58, Euston-square.. The deceased
gentleman for :'nearly 10 years filled the office of Alderman
of Bread-street Ward, in which lie hid carried on business
under the firm of Lainson, White, and Co., for nearly half a
. century,. He succeeded the late Mr. Alderman Atkins, in
1830 ;. and served the office of sheriff in 1838. In 1842, the
period (owing to the rejection of Alderman T. Wood) for his
being chosen as Lord Mayor arrived, he being the senior
• alderman ;. but feeling himself incompetent to perform the
: duties of that office; on account of ill-health, he resigned the
alderraanie own, and Alderman 'Humphery was elected
, Lord Mayor In his stead. His resignation caused one of the
,v-most Severe contests known in the City for the vacant gown,
A.exininated in Mr. Hughes being elected, after a
t..,:icr,4l42lthich lasted several days. The deceased gentleman
Or'sraa‘- 4136: a magistrate for the comity, and was highly re-
.. .apacted bq. all who knew him. He has left a widow and
4i• ! family.
-9tIIivAILE.---., Lately two smart shocks of earth-
earaathkewwaaerferleltweast.teomrie and Crteff—the motion of the
t o east.—Scotch Paper. -

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS..
?ROY THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The vote of Friday night on the Sugar
Duties, by which the " strong Government" of Sir
Robert Peel was left in a minority of 20, in a full
House, if it] did not take the country by sur-
prise, at least roused it from the state of apa-
thy in which it has too long indulged re-
specting public affairs. All kinds of rumours
were rife during Saturday, Sunday, and yesterday, as to
the course which Ministers would take under circum-
stances at once humiliating and embarrassing— so
strongly condemnatory of their policy by their
own supporters, and consequently portentous to
their existence as a Government. Cabinet Coun-
cils were held daily. The Carlton Club was
convened by special summons. Its drawing-room was
crowded. Consternation was strongly depicted in the
countenance of many of its Members ; by whom the
possibility of a dissolution of Parliament was re•
garded with dread—an event not merely fraught with
the loss of legislatorial privileges, but involving an
abandonment of the pleasing hopes of more substan-
tial advantages, by which they have been sustained.
As the hour at which the House of Commons com-
mences business approached, the neighbourhood of the
House became the scene of considerable attraction. A
long double line of well-dressed persons from Palace-
yard to the door at which the Members enter the
House, was formed early ; while groupes of ten or a
dozen were seen in warm debate as to what was likely
to be the result, or listening to some one who pretended
to a clearer insight into things to come than those
around him. An unusual number of police were in
attendance—a precaution that was deemed necessary
by the authorities ; but their functions were wholly un-
called for. The crowds were perfectly peaceable, and
indeed good-humoured. Some Jokes were indulged in at
the expense of the Government, which recently appeared
to bid defiance to assault, but now seemed tottering to
its fall, from sheer inability to keep its professed sup-
porters [together. Whatever might be the feelings of
those within the House, those assembled without ap-
peared to anticipate the disruption of the Ministry rather
with satisfaction. Scarcely an expression of regret was
uttered for its position. All seemed to concur in opi•
nion that an early termination of its career was inevi-
table ; and to glory in its supposed inextricable diffi-
culties. Within the House of Commons the scene was
interesting and even impressive. The strangers' gal-
lery was filled immediately the door was opened. At
least a hundred, who had obtained Members' orders,
were compelled to remain in the corridor, where they
waited, in hope that by the retirement of some who had
been more fortunate than themselves, they might get
'admission before the debate at which they desired to
be present had come to a close. The lobby was inconve-
niently crowded ; and the police in attendance had con-
siderable difficulty in keeping a passage for the ingress
and egress of Members. The seats under the gallery
were early filled with gentlemen who had obtained
Speaker's orders ; among others, we observed Lord
Morpeth, who, we are happy to say, appeared in good
health. His Lordship took a marked interest in the
scene. By half-past four the House was filled. By a
quarter before five it was inconveniently crowded in
every part ; the Members' galleries not less so than the
body of the House. The reporters' gallery was also
filled, several of the editors of the public journals having
obtained admission thereto, that by personal observation
of what passed they might form a more correct idea of
the actual state of the Ministry, its intentions—the
disposition of the House—and the probable effect upon
the country, than a mere perusal of the debate could af.
ford. Precisely at five o'clock Sir Robert Peel en-
tered the House. He proceeded to his accustomed
seat with a slow step ; and evidently under the in-
fluence of subdued, if not depressed feelings. His coun-
tenance indicated—at least so we thought, and the im-
pression was confirmed by the expressed opinion of
those more familiar with his appearance than
ourselves—intense anxiety. Not a solitary cheer
from the Ministerial benches greeted him as he
passed. He took his seat in silence. After a pause,
the Premier moved that the House resolve itself into
Committee on t the Sugar Duties Bill. This was
carried pro forma. The Speaker left the chair, and Mr.
Greene, the Chairman of Committees, took his accus-
tomed seat. The Premier then rose, amid a silence in
so large an assembly truly impressive. Every eye was
fixed upon him. His manner was embarrassed and
his voice tremulous. For what he said we refer to the
ample report of his speech, which we give in the
accustomed place. The only passage of interest, in a
speech of more than an hour and a half, was reserved for
its close. The oration was dull, stale, and unprofitable.
It was a mere recapitulation of what had been much
better said in support of the Government proposition
Of Friday, which had been negatived by the House,
and was now re-urged as a justification of the Go-
vernment, in adhering to their plan, and calling upon
'the House to re-consider and reverse its decision.
The humiliation of Sir Robert Peel was not com-
plete when he closed his disjointed and dull oration.
'The silence with which it was listened to, unbroken by
a single cheer to exhilirate his depressed spirits during
its delivery—if we except one from Colonel Peel,
which, though evidently given as a hint as to what was
;expected, was not responded to—was but the precursor
of severe reproof's, cutting sarcasms, biting reproaches,
'and significant warnings, from, Members who rose in
succession on his own side of the House, interspersed
with, and relieved by, crushing arguments, and blistering
reminiscences, from the Opposition benches. Lord
John Russell, in a speech of no ordinary excellence,
vindicated himself, and the Opposition generally, from
the futile charge of combination which Sir Robert
Peel had brought against the majority by which his
proposition had been negatived on Friday evening.
, The Government obtained a reversal of the vote of
Friday night, and carried its proposition ; but in a way
which has abated nothing of the sting of the defeat
which its scheme originally sustained. A majority of
twenty-two adopted its plan. The most extraordinary
efforts were employed by the Government to gain this
majority. The character of several of the Mem-
bers of the House has been stamped with in-
consistency, and has received damage, past all
hope of repair, in the estimation of the coun-
try. Nor is this all. Eleven Members of the Op-
position benches—the leaders of the Anti-Corn-law
League—conceiving that the Ministerial plan promised
to advance with greater rapidity the abolition of all
import duties voted with the Government. These
eleven gentlemen, ultra free-traders, reckoning twenty-
two on the division, constituted the precise majority by
which " the strong Administration" of Sir Robert Peel
was saved from defeat, and consequent dissolution!
And yet the Right Honourable Baronet had the indis
cretion to talk of unnatural combinations of parties
hostile to his Government! Can any imaginable com-
bination be more unnatural than that by which he is
preserved from the necessity of putting his threat of
resigning office into immediate execution?
STANDARD.—In the House of Commons, last
night, Sir Robert Peel stated at great length the reasons
of the course which he had proposed with respect to the
sugar duties, and the line which he had resolved to pur-
sue if the House should persevere in maintaining the
vote of Friday night. It is wholly impossible to do jus-
tice in an abridgment to either portion of Sir Robert
Peel's speech. The proof of the sound policy of
the Ministerial arrangements, and of the mischief
that must follow the adoption of Mr. Miles's resolution
was complete. The Right Hon. Baronet's treatment of
the political bearing of the late vote was not less success-
ful. Sir Robert Peel, as a Minister of the Crown, pro-
poses an arrangement in the gravest part of his duties
as a Minister, which arrangement he thinks the best for his
Sovereign and country; and which, as he proved last night,
is in strict conformity with all the opinions that he pro-
fessed when a leader in opposition, and when the party
to which he belongs recommended him to the favour Of
the Crown. Mr. Miles, and a few of the Right Ho-
pourable Baronet's professing friends, fancying that
this arrangement might " touch their breeches pockets,"
make themselves strong by an alliance with the old de-
clared enemies of their party, and, by a surprise, steal
a vote against the Minister. The Minister declares
that if this vote be not rescinded he will not remain in
office ; and what unfledged biped, except a Whig, would
submit to the ignominy of remaining in office without
power ? Yet this is called tyranny on the part of
Sir Robert Peel. Now it seems to us, that the
tyranny is all on the other side, all on the side of
those who, by concert and arrangement with their
own and his political enemies, would compel a
Minister to act according to their will. Mr. Miles
and his friends they were who placed the question
in the position that the minister must obey the party, or
the party the minister ; and the minister would be, in-
deed, unworthy of his station if he should submit to them.
There are a great many circumstances essentially dis-
tinguishing this case from the cases of the Factory
Bill and the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, on both which
we think the Government might have yielded without dis-
credit. The Factory Bill and the Dissenters' Chapels Bill
were not measures necessarily within the routine duty of
the Government ; any Member of either House of Par-
liament is free to bring in such Bills—to abandon
either, therefore, would not be to neglect an official
duty. The reverse, in all respects, was the case with the
Sugar Bill. The opposition that the Government met
with upon the Factory and Dissenters Chapels Bills was
not factious, was certainly not intended for the purpose
of either displacing, or bullying the Government,
or working any private job. The names of the
leaders of that opposition prove the perfect purity
of the motives which urged it. Lord Ashley and Sir
Robert Inglis are not men to soil themselves with
the mire of faction ; and the hundreds of thou-
sands of petitions out of doors, even without the
vouchers of such high and spotless names, must
acquit the opposition to the Factory and Dissenters'
Chapels Bills of being the effect of hostility to
the Government or of any unworthy intrigue. Mr.
Miles's resolution had no high names to vouch for
its honesty, had no support out of doors to prove its
national popularity ; and so ill concealed had been the
disgraceful intrigue which led to the coalition move-
ment, that it was known in the early part of last
week on Friday we ourselves copied from the
the trick, at leasta
Morning Herald vesrixyteeanngrhyouarrstiebleefodreenoirciwnug
playfd. This was a kind of hostility to which no
Minister could submit, and to which no Honourable
party could suffer itself to be permanently committed ;
accordingly last night Mr. Miles's resolution was, upon a
j ority of 255 to- 233. The debate was animated.loonesainriarditi:elselra,
motion of Sir Robert Peel, in effect rescinded, by a ma-
clear light, by a
; but Mr. Kemble
We have already spoken of the speech r •
sLoinrdanStaadt eiyr'asbly
e
effect. Mr.
which will not
putne next tt
hbee
wholebest se
questioneh w a
made a speech few words whichh whichpr
surprised
ias
edgresaotmeeff,
truly appreciates this empty
astonish any one who ever-
puffed person. He, Mr. Benjamin .1) 11, was pleased
to talk of the servility of the Conservative party—of men
(as the Chancellor of the Exchequer happily remarked)
"at least Mr, D'lsrael's equals in point of rank,
station, and birth, and. in the ponsi eration of the
country." They had need to be- OA 01141kah

if they did not first see the light in Houndsditch,
obtain their education in an obscure attorney's office,
and seek to win a discreditable livelihood by writing
wretched novels. But enough of this person ; we hope
that last night has finished him. We congratulate the
country, and more particularly the honest Conservative
party, upon the result of last night's debate. The dis-
cussion and the explanations leave no longer any doubt
of the just and free relation subsisting between the
Ministers and the Conservative party.
TlMES.—Thanks, we must say, to Sir R. Peel, Mr. Miles's
motion seems to be bringing the political world again into
" inextricable confusion." All was going on as smoothly as
a Gravesend steamer—the Conservative Ministry swinging
along with fair wind and fine weather, and suddenly we are
in the midst of a thunder storm. First comes a flash from
the House of Lords, then a clap from the House of Commons,
and now we don't know what black cloud may burst on our
heads. Inauspicious rumours of resignation are heard and
are contradicted; mysterious meetings of the Cabinet Couu-
cil, and quarrelsome meetings of the Carlton Club, appear
and disappear, and Sir Robert Peel utters grave and signifi-
cant sentences, not wholly easy of interpretation, but which
appear to indicate a determination to carry his measure, or
retire from office. "Be the consequences what they may,"
he says, " the Government will abide by its original propo-
sition." Sir R. Peel seems suddenly to have found out how
much more difficult it is to give up his own present will than
the past principles of a party. Twelve years ago, in spite of
the determined opposition of that Right Hon. Gentleman
and those who adhered to him, the Reform Bill shifted
the whole basis of political power in this country. Sir
Robert was among the first to proclaim and exemplify
the necessity of adaptation to the new state of things.
What others impatiently bemoaned he accepted without loss
of time as a "fait accompli." Nothing was more remarkable
than the skill and rapidity with which he divested himself
of those " old Tory" associations and rules of policy to
which less pliant spirits clung with unavailing affection, but
which were palpably incompatible with any permanent
tenure of power under the new order of things. While
others were indulging dreams of reversing the past he was
engaged in adapting himself to the future—in ridding himself
of the now obsolete principles among which his youth had
been passed—in framing his thoughts, words, and arguments
in accordance with the fresh basis of Government and the
will of the new constituency. And what is this new order
of things to which Sir Robert Peel so promptly transferred
his allegiance? The Reform Bill has almost annihilated the
ancient battalion of pure Ministerial boroughs. The Reform
Bill supposed every voter to be a politician, and every repre-
sentative directly responsible to the judgments of his consti-
tuents. In part it has made them so, and a large frac-
tion at least of the Mouse of Commons can no longer
plunge through thick and thin at the dictum of a party
leader. The Reform Bill has broken up and equalised par-
ties. The great Liberal and Conservative parties are, after
all, so nearly balanced in the House and in the country, and
each is composed of materials so heterogeneous, that it is
impossible to foretel what secession of a particular interest or
party the circumstances of the day may produce, or how
such a secession may affect the ordinary Ministeral majority.
This may be very troublesome to Premiers and whippers-in,
but it is an unquestionable and unavoidable fact ; and, as
such, those who administer the affairs of the country must
submit to it. They must obey to rule. They must " stoop
to conquer." This necessity of conciliating "the public,"
as represented by the House of Commons, Sir Robert Peel
saw clearly enough at a distance, and he modified his own
course of policy and compelled his adherents—very much
against the grain, to modify theirs accordingly. His conces •
sions at the expense of his friends have been only limited by
his apprehension of losing their support. As far as their
interests and feelings are concerned he has shown a
most determined anxiety to adapt his administration
to the altered circumstances of the country and the House of
Commons. But now comes his own turn. An adverse de-
cision of the House of Commons—of that body of whose pri-
vileges he is the unfailing champion—to whose regulations
he exacts the most implicit deference—to whose service he
has consecrated his life—whose authority he identifies with
that of the British nation—this decision comes to test the
genuineness of his devotion, and to try whether he is as ready
to sacrifice to its authority his own crotchets as the principles
and prejudices of his party. What does he say? " That, be
the consequences what they may, the Government will abide
by their original proposition." And why? Because, unim-
portant! though the question may be, it may prove a prece-
dent of future independence. It is no conscientious scruple—
no generous compassion—no ancient party tie— no great
national interest which arms the hand of the Minister
against his former idol ; it is simply this—that he
will not allow the House its way now, for fear it
should ask to have its way again. He will yield nothing,
simply because he is determined to be absolute. Truly
said Mr. D'lsraeli that there was at least one slavery from
which Sir Robert would admit of no emancipation that
which existed on the Ministerial benches. He again de-
mands that the House of Commons should stultify itself. He
again demands an abject recantation as the price of having
dared to exercise against his will a right of judgment given
—nay, rather enforced upon them—by the constitution which
he recognises. He seems wholly to have forgotten all that
the last twelve years should have taught him—to imagine
himself again transported to the days of Pitt or Liverpool,
and to enact the same crouching deference that a Walpole
could fairly require from one whose constituency had its mar-
ket price in gold, and his vote in sinecures. And what is
worse, the House appears to acquiesce in the demand, and
patiently to atone for its short-lived assertion of independence
by a double portion of such penance as its master enjoins.
This may do for a moment—nay, possibly for a Parliament ;
but it is for the Members of the House of Commons to con-
sider whether their constituencies will take exactly the same
view of their docility as the Premier, to whose menaces they
are so sensitively obedient.
HERALD.—Sir Robert Peel last night explained in full
the course which Ministers mean to take with regard to the
sugar duties. It is, in a few words, to leave the colonial
duties to be discussed next year, when the Property-tax
.Bill shall have expired. Sir Robert Peel, when he asked for
the property-tax as necessary to restore the finances of the
country, and to secure public credit, asked for the tax for
three years only. The limitation implied a promise that, as
far as should depend upon Ministers, the Parliament would,
at the end of three years, be in a condition to dispense with
the property-tax, if it should think fit ; any measure, there-
fore, on the part of the Government calculated materially to
diminish the revenue of the country, so as to render a renewal
of the property-tax indispensable at the three years' end,
would be a gross violation of faith ; the reduction of the
tariff does not come under this description only because the
tariff and property-tax were proposed and adopted together,
making parts of one financial system thoroughly understood
in all its parts when the implied pledge was given. This is
quite plain and indisputable as regards the pledge and its
accompaniments. Now the vote of Friday night is a direct
surrender of 600,0001. per annum of revenue, and, to deal
impartially, a surrender of equal amount must be
made to each of many other interests. What,
then, would become of Sir Robert Peel's pledge
not to - cause the renewal of the property-tax to be
indispensable in 1845? Men may complain that the resist-
tance of the Ministers to the vote of Friday is arbitrary and
imperious ; but every one has a right to be arbitrary and
imperious in resisting a call to sully his personal honour, and
the Minister who would break faith with Parliament and
with the country must sully his personal honour. Sir Robert
Peel, no doubt, compassionates the condition of the West
India planters, and would gladly relieve them ; but justice is
due before generosity, and to keep faith is an essential part
of justice. And what are the claims of the West India
planters to a surrender of 600,000/. per annum of revenue?
They were paid 20,000,000/. sterling for their slaves, and if
this payment was inadequate, it was not the fault of the
British Government or of the people of England, but the
fault of the planters themselves ; and since the passing of the
Emancipation Act they have largely participated in every
relief extended to the distress of the people. No
class of the Queen's subjects benefited so much as
the West Indians did by the provisions of the tariff To come,
however, to the true cause of the decay of "West India pro-
perty. Up to the period of the abolition of the slave trade in
1807, the plantation trade of the 'West Indies was carried on
upon the" hypothesis that any quantity of slave labour might
be had for money. Little care, consequently, was bestowed
upon the lives and health of negroes, and none upon their
morals. The abolition of the slave trade struck the first
blow at the plantation trade. The produce of the islands
began to decline, and in a few years after the abolition it was
necessary to admit East India sugar into competition. This
ought to have warned the planters, that as they were de-
prived of the foreign supply they must endavour, by reform-
ing the morals of their slaves, to provide a native increase of
labour. They, however, neglected the warning, and things
had become so much worse, that in fact when they received
20,000,000/. ten years ago, it all passed into the hands of cre-
ditors. Let it not, then, be pretended that the Emancipation
Act caused the ruin of the 'West Indians—the seeds
of ruin were sown long before. One fact is decisive. In
1832 the West Indies exported about 450,000,000 cwt. of
sugar to Europe ; in 1842 but 250,000,000 cwt. ; this decline
occurring when the West India trade was protected to a
complete monopoly by a differential duty of 635. the cwt.
Now, we ask every man of common sense what reduction Qf
duty can save a country so circumstanced? Sweep away
the last farthing of duty, and the progress of decline must
continue, recording to the present tendency of the popula-
tion, until the West Indies shall not send a single hogshead
of sugar to Europe. The strangest part of the late coalition
is that some agriculturists seem to make common cause with
the West Indians, though the case of the agriculturists is not
merely different, but a contrast. The agriculturists claim
protection, and justly claim it, because in their case protec-
tion is proved to promote both population and production ;
and the very moment when, by the accident of the seasons,
their produce becomes insufficient then protection disappears.
For the agriculturists to make common cause with the West
Indian is to embark their stock wantonly and knowingly
in arl ing ship.
POST.—Last night the Government 'proposition, which
was negatived on Friday by a majority of 20, was virtually
affirmed by a majority of 22. The numbers were-233 for
Mr. Miles's motion, and 255 against it. This decision will
create no astonishment. It appears to be the established
rule, that, when the Minister threatens to resign, the en-
lightened men who compose the present House of Commons
shall on Monday vote that to be white, which, on the pre-
' vious Friday, they voted to be black. This rule has been
followed now, and the fact settles the consistency of tha
House of Commons as satisfactorily as Sir R. Peel did his
own in his speech oflast evening. What the constituents of Hon.
Gentlemen may think on the subject is another question.
In the natural course of events they will, at no very distant
period, have an opportunity of expressing their opinion ;
and it is just possible that their consistency may also be
shown in a reversal of their former votes. We are quite
satisfied to bide our time ; we have not the vanity to think
that anything we can say will be half so effective as what
the electoral body can do. In the mean while, the fate of
the West Indians is sealed by the triumph of the Minister.
They have no longer the poor satisfaction of thinking that
" another such triumph will ruin him." The deed is already
done.
____

LAUNCH OF HER MAJESTY'S
STEAM-VESSEL PORCUPINE.
The interesting event of launching the Porcupine, the first
vessel built at the royal dockyard, Deptford, since its re-
establishment, took place yesterday afternoon, at half-past
two. There a large assemblage of spectators, and a great
number of ladies were launched in the vessel. She was named
with the usual ceremonies, by Miss Lucy Hill, the daughter
of the gallant Captain Superintendent of the dockyard, Sir
John Hill, and went off the stocks in easy and graceful style
amidst the prolonged cheering of the company. Imme-
diately after she was afloat she was warped from off the slip
wherein she was built into dock, where, from the excellent
accommodation provided, the ladies were enabled to walk
ashore. As the construction of the Porcupine is on a novel
and peculiar principle, the following account may be interest-
ing to our naval readers. In appearance she is clean and
handsome for a steam-vessel, with the unsightly paddle-boxes,
and presents no remarkable difference from other vessels of her
class. The frame of the vessel is on a new plan, introduced
by Mr. 0. Lang, the master shipwright of Woolwich Dock-
yard, similar to that on which he is constructing the Prince
Albert, 120; and the Porcupine is the first ever completed
on that principle of " dowling " and bolting the timbers in
separate pieces instead of one solid block. Her planking
also is on a new plan—a modification of the diagonal plank-
ing of boats (brought forward some years since at Devon.
PO4. by Ur. Johns, late foreman of that yard) by Mr. 0.

Lang, jun., the acting master- shipwright of Deptford Dock-
yard, under whose superintendence the Porcupine has been
built. Instead of the old plan of fore-and-aft planking, with
a single three-inch thickness, she has three one-inch planks,
two of which are diagonal, dossing each other at:right angles,
and the third or outside one is longitudinal. She has been
exactly six months building. The following are her princi-
pal dimensions : ft. in.
Length between perpendiculars ..... 141 0
Ditto of keel for tonnage .. 124 7i
Breadth, extreme
Ditto, for tonnage
Moulded
Depth in hold
Burden in tons,, old measurement
Ditto ditto, new ditto 293
In launching she did not break a quarter of an inch, and
her light draft of water was afore 4ft. 1 lin., abaft sft. 1 lin.
She was originally intended as an armed sloop, for service on
the coast of Africa : but subsequently it was ordered that
Captain Bullock (who very. much liked her appearance)
should have her as a surveying vessel for the Thames, in
which operation he is now engaged in the borrowed mail
steam-packet Myrtle, from the Dover station. She will be
coppered and sent to Woolwich, where it is expected she
will be fitted in about six weeks. She is to have the engines
which were taken out of the Black Eagle steam-yacht, of
130 horse power, with new tubular boilers.
The Spitfire, steam-vessel, is ordered to be laid down im-
mediately on the slip whence the Porcupine was launched,
and is to be 50 tons larger than the latter. The Spitfire and
the Terrible steam-frigate, the largest in the service, build-
ing on the adjoining slip, are both to be launched before the
commencement of the next financial year, April 1, 1845.
Deptford Dockyard has much improved in appearance
since its re-commission on the Ist of April last. We under-
stand, among other improvements, it is in contemplation to
build a new roof over the large slip whence the Queen Char-
lotte was launched, and a new mould loft, to replace the old
sheds with new ones, to repair the two slips, in such dilapi-
dated condition, and to convert the small dock into a slip.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 14

EDWARD RAILTON, APPELLANT, AND THOMAS GADD
MATTHEWS AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
This was an appeal from the judgment of the second
division of the Court of Session, in an action at the suit
of the appellant, for setting aside a surety bond for
4,0001., which he had granted to them for the fidelity of
their agent or clerk at Glasgow, a person of the name of
Hickes. The cause was tried by the Lord Justice Clerk,
at Edinburgh, in August last, under the issue, " whether
the pursuer, Edward Railton, was induced to subscribe
the said bond of caution or surety by undue concealment
or deception on the part of the defenders, or either of them ;"
and the Judge having directed the jury, " that under this
issue the concealment must be, Ist, of things known to the
defenders, or which they had strong and grave ground
to suspect ; and, 2dly, that the concealment, therefore,
being undue, must be wilful and intentional, and with a
view to the advantage they were thereby to receive," ex-
ceptions were taken to the charge, and they being disal-
lowed by the Court, the cause was brought up here by,
appeal, which, being heard, was sustained, and the fol-
lowing opinions delivered :
Lord COTTENHAM—My Lords, this is an appeal
from a judgment of the Court below. Entertaining an
opinion against the judgment pronounced there, if I had
felt any doubt upon the subject, or had considered it a
case which required more investigation of the facts than
it has received, I certainly, should have been unwilling
to dispose of it without: taking time for further con-
sideration ; but the facts are so simple, and the points
are so free from doubt, that I see no reason why the
the House should not at once dispoSe of this case.
My Lords, thi.real question is, whether the way in
which the arkiTe'cl Judge put this _case to the jury, and
described to theta the duty they had to perform, was or
was not consistent with, and properly applicable to the
question and the issue raised for their consideration. The
issue in my opinion very clearly describes the point
which the Court wished to have investigated. The terms
of the issue must of course be construed as they stand,
but it is not material to look to the points raised
in the pleadings for the . purpose of construction. If
there were any doubts upon the meaning of the terms
used, I would look to the summons for the reduction of
the instrument of suretyship, and I find several facts ap-
pearing as having passed between the party who was the
subject of the suretyship, and those by whom he had been
previously employed, and I find the matter stated in these
terms :—" That the parties totally failed to communicate
the said circumstances, or either of them, or the existence
of any balance on the agency accounts then standing
against the said George Hickes, to the prisoner, or to
the said Henry William Ilickes, and on the con-
trary, while they accepted and took possession
of the said bond, they fraudulently suppressed
and concealed the said whole facts and circumstances
regarding the conduct and irregularities of the said
George Hickes." There is an imputation made of
direct fraud, or fraudulent intention, influencing the acts
of the parties, and there is a direct statement of such con-
cealment. It has not been contended, and it is impossible
to contend after what Lord Eldon lays down,
in the case of " Smith v. the Bank of Scotland,"
that a case may not exist in which mere non-
communication would invalidate a bond of suretyship.
Lord Eldon states various cases in which a party
about to become surety would have a right to have
communicated to him circumstances within the know-
ledge of the party acquiring the bond, and he states that
it is the duty of the party acquiring the bond to com-
municate those circumstances, and that the non-commu-
nication, or, as he uses the expression, the concealment
of those facts, would invalidate the obligation, and release
the surety from the obligation into which he had entered.
Now, when the issue in this case was tried, such being
the points raised between the parties, we have nothing
to do with the evidence in the cause, or the facts proved,
_or the conclusion to which the jury might or might not
have come under the circumstances; hut with the question
whether the charge which was made them was such a
charge as we conceive ought to have been made
to them. The issue for their consideration was
as a matter of fact, "whether the pursuer, Edward
Railton, was induced to subscribe the bond of
caution or surety by undue concealment, or decep-
tion, on the part of the defenders, or either of
them," raising these two propositions, which were raised
on the pleadings in the cause, either f which, if found in
the affirmative, would lead to the conclusion of the
the cause. The question, looking at the terms in which
the matter was . left to the jury, and the mode in which
the Learned Judge informed the jury they ought to
perform their duty, is, whether there may not have been
a ease brought before the jury for their consideration, of
improper and undue concealment, which I understand to
mean a non-communication of facts which ought to have
been communicated, which would lead to the relief of the
surety', although the non-communication might not be
wilful and intentional, and with a view to the advantage
which the party was thereby to receive. That which I
find here extracted from the charge of the Learned
Judge, I understand to be one proportion. The Learned
Judge lays it down distinctly, that the concealment to
be undue must be wilful and intentional, with a view to
the advantage they were thereby to receive. In my
opinion there may be a case of improper concealment, or
non-communication of facts which ought to be communi-
cated, which would affect the situation of the parties,
even if it was not wilful and intentional, and with a
view to the advantage the parties were to receive.
The charge, therefore, I conceive, was not consistent with
the rule of law. I think that it narrowed the question for
the consideration of the jury beyond the limits which
the rights of the parties required to have submitted to
the consideration of the jury. Without going further
into the law which regulates the rights of these parties
than that which was stated by Lord Eldon, in the case of
" Smith v. the Bank of Scotland," we find that in a judg-
ment of this House, in the case of an appeal from
Scotland; and, therefore, one peculiarly valuable in
the case now under consideration, that has been
declared to be the law. The terms used by the Learned
Judge in directing the jury, having limited the question
for their consideration much more than the rule of law
would justify, it appears to be quite clear that this case
has not been properly tried, that the exceptions were
properly taken, and that the House is bound to pro-
nounce such a judgment as ought to have been pro-
nounced by the Court of Session.
Lord CAMPBELL—My Lords, this case has been very
satisfactorily argued on both sides with great brevity,
but everything has been urged which could be for the
advantage of the clients, or the assistance of your Lord-
ships; and having listened to all which has been urged
on both sides, very attentively, I, without the smallest
hesitation, come to the conclusion that the bill of excep-
tions ought to be allowed, and that there must be a new
trial. The question really is, what is the issue which
the Court directed in this case—" whether the pursuer,
Edward Railton, was introduced to subscribe the said
bond of caution or surety, by undue concealment or
deception on the part of the defender, or either of them."
The material words are "undue concealment on the part
of the defenders"—what is the meaning of those words?
I apprehend, my Lords, the meaning of those words
is, whether Railton was induced to subscribe the
bond by the defenders having omitted to di-
vulge facts within their knowledge which they were
bound, in point of law, to divulge. If there
were facts within their knowledge which they were
bound in point of law to divulge, and which they did
not divulge, the surety is not bound by the bond—there
aro plenty of decisions to that effect both in the law of
Scotland and the law of England. If the defenders had
facts within their knowledge which it was material the
seunrdeetyrsshdoiudlsi not
te
disclose,acquaintedin wmityh, aonpdinwiohnichthtehe de-con-
cealmentf of those facts, the undue concealment
of those facts, discharges the surety ; and whe-
ther they concealed those facts from one
motive or another, I apprehend is wholly immaterial.
It certainly is wholly immaterial to the interest of the
surety, because, to say that his obligation shall depend
upon that which was passing in the mind of the party
requiring the bond, appears to me preposterous ; for that
would make the obligation of the surety depend on whe-
ther the other party had a good memory, or whether be
awta
tshae p
me ros
mo ne
no
tf goodi
nhis
ss
mind,
o , r
owhether
ehre
hhea dw
at
sh ea fwa ca
rt
es
that those facts ought to be disclosed. My Lords, the
liability, of a surety must depend upon the situation in
which he is placed, upon the knowledge which is com-
municated to him of the facts of the case, and not upon
what was passing in the mind of the other party,
or the motive of the other party. If the facts were
such as ought to have been communicated, if
it was material to the surety that they should be
communicated, the motive for upholding them, I appre-
hend, is wholly immaterial. Then we come to the
direction given by the Learned Judge. The Learned
Judge says, " The concealment, therefore, being undue
must be wilful, and intentional with a view (that is,
with reference to the motive) " to the advantage
they were thereby to receive." Now, according to my
notion of the issue, that is an entire misconception of it
according to this direction, although the parties acquiring
the bond had been aware of the most material facts which
it was their duty to disclose, and the withholding of
if they wilfully
had
iwn ht
eine htiewn d
ally waivtho
hi do
ltdh et
hheomn_d ,
tihf
at
th
isy
tdoidsnayot,
forgotten them, or, if they thought, by mistake, thq in

point of law or morality, they were not bound to dis-
close them, then, according to the holding of the
Learned Judge, it would not be a concealment. But the
Learned Judge does not stop there ; but he goes
on " with a view to the advantage they were
thereby to receive, introducing those words conjunctively,
and in effect saying, it was not an undue concealment
unless they had their own particular advantage in view.
That appears to me a misconception. I will suppose
that their motive was kindness to Hickes, to keep back
from those who it was material to him should
continue to have a good opinion of him, the
knowledge of those facts, that it was a pure
kindness on their part to preveLt those parties
entertaining a bad opinion of him, and not from any
selfishness this concealment took place ; although that
might be the motive, yet the fact that he was in arrear,
and had been guilty of fraudulent conduct, and that he
was a defaulter, were facts which it was most material
for the surety to be acquainted with. If those were
held back merely from a kind motive to Hickes,
and not at all from any selfish motive on the part
of those to whom the bond was to be executed,
the effect, in point of law, would be the same
as if the motive were merely the personal benefit
of the parties to receive the bond. It appears to me,
therefore, that the Learned Judge has misunderstood
the meaning of the issue, and that having told the jury
that a concealment to be undue must be wilful and in-
tentional with a view to the advantage which the parties
were to receive, that was a misdirection, and that it had
a tendency to mislead the jury, that it was wrong in
point of law, and that the exception to the direction
ought to be allowed.
Interlocutor complained of reversed, Bill of excep-
tions allowed, and a new trial directed.
For the A ppellan t—Mr. Sergean t:Tal fourd and Mr. Fle-
ming. George Parsons, 4, Manchester-buildings, agent.
For the Respondents—Mr. Kelly and Mr. Anderson.
Deans, Hope, and Dunlop, Fludyer-street, agents.

PRICES OF SHARES

IN CANALS, RAILWAY s, BANKS, ASSURANCE
AND OTHER COMPANIES' STOCK.

Dividend
per
Annum.

bi per cent.
11.

er cent.
4/.
40/.
81. 151.
71.
IL ss.

31 12s. Bd.

1. 10s.
341.
101.

171.
301.
3%
17s. (d.

Hy.
6 percent.
28
151.
217.
11. 10s.
151.

321.-10 s.

104
81. 10s.
41.
N. Is.

LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 19.

S per cent.
% per cent.
4 per cent.
4 per cent.
Si. 10s.
5 per cent.
5 per cent.
Ij per cent.
4 per cent.
4 per cent.

Names of Corn..
pantos.

Canals.
Ashton and Oldham
Ashby-de-la-Zouch_av
Basingstoke
Bi ecknock & Ahcrgay
Birmingham, I.l(ith sh
Do. and Liverp. Jui.c
Chelmer & Blackwater
Coventry
Crom ford ...............«
Dudley .....
Derby •
Danube and Mayne
Ellesmere and Chester
Erewash ...••..•••
Forth and C1yde.........
Grand Juncti0n.........
Grand Union
Grand Surrey
Grand Western -
Glamorgansh., ay. cost
Gloucester & Berkeley
Grantham
Huddersfle,d
Kennet :.ad Avon av
Lancaster 31,
Leeds and Liverpool...
Leicester
Leicester & Northamp
Loughborough ........av
Monmouthshire
Montgomeryshire
Molten Mowbray
Mersey and Irwell
Macclesfield
Neath
Oxford
Peak Forest av
Regent's (or London)..
Rochdale av
Shropshire
Somerset Coal
Do. Lock Fund Stock
Stafford and Worcester
Shrewsbury,
Stourbridge
Stratford .on.Avon...av
Swansea
Severn & Wye & Rail
Trent & Mersey, 14 sh
Thames & Medway-ay
Warwick and Birming.
Warwick and Napton
Worcester & Birming
Wilts and Berks av
Wisbeach
Wey and Arun."...

Amount

Share.

£ s. d.
97 18 0
113 0 0
100 0 0
150 0 0

100 0 0
Stock
Stock

147 9 0

Stock

5000

50 0 0
63 2 8
50 0 0
100 0 0

IN per cent.
id. Os. Sd.
IBs. Id.
per cent.
11. 7s.

St. 101.
4 per cent.
6 per cent.
6 per cent.
136.6 d. pr sh

51. Ss.
4 per cent.
Is. per share
5 per cent.
31.
6s.
5 per cent.l
lc 30s. bds.
sit per cent.
5 per cent.
per cent.
8 per cent.
5 per cent.
4s.
2s. 6d.
per cent.
'l2s.
I sfi. & bds.
11. ss.

10s.
:10s.
per cent.
per cent.
5 per cent.
11. ss.
4t.
5 per cent.
5. per cent.
IL 4s.
5 per cent.
10% ter cent

R per cent.
6 per cent.
5 per cent.
5 per cent.
tiller cent.

per cent.
per cent.
9 per cent.
6 per cent.
21s per share
6s. per share

10 per cent.
per cent.

16s.
11.55.
1/. 7a.
5/. and ba.
4341. and bs.
per cent.
scent.
101.
101.
Si per sh
Ms per sb
21.
6 per cent.
5 per cent.
6 per cent.

5 percent
6 per cent.
414 per cent.
31.
12i.1

21.:101.
21.105.
21. 10s.
6per cent.
4/. 16s-
IL 14s.

10s. per sh
IL 4s.

per cent.

S. per sh.
W. ss. per sh
19 per cent
1% per cent.
N. 6s. per sh
2%1. per eh.
12s. per sh.
4 per cent.

10 per cent.
10 per cent.
1%6 per sh

104 per sh.

11.141.
3/.per *hare
. Ss 4d por sh
SL 17s. pr oh
113 s per sh
IL

11.10 s.
U. ss.
15..

11. 117. 10d.

15 per cent.

per cent.
10 per cent.
10 per cent.

11.
1/.
3/.
17s. 6d.

70 10 3

500 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
250 0 0
250 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
1000 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0

Stock
100 0 0
25 0 0
25 0 0
500 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 9
25 0 0
20 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
100 0 0
5 0 0
Stock

100 0 0
100 0 0
29u 0 0

40 0 0

50 7 o

100 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
20 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
60 0 0

20 0 0
40 0 0
20 0 0
77 10 0
50 0 0
N 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
100 o 0
Ivo 0 0
75 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
N 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 •

25 0 0
100 0 0
41 13 4
190 0 0

38 0 0
100 0 0
13 12 9
100 0 0

Paid.

X a. ci.

100 0 0

41 13 4

leo ---O
0

100 0 0

All paid

Price.

.250
80
:107
31%
65
460
142
0.214
25

38)4
650
141
73
Irs
153

365
562%
40

100 0 0
100 0 0
;°0 0 0
50 0 0

120
130
11
4ge
4230
3,4)

70
38
112%

72%
18%
6%
17

IL I-3s.

25 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
2U 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
10 0 0
16 13 4
12 15 4
100 0 0

3200
41 6 10
13 15 9
100 0 0
50 0 0
70 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
20 6 0
20 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0

5 0 0
15 0 0
100 0 0

'142%
M
149
'l9O
1534
27

5
15(
15N
2
40s.
225.

4 l7B %
205

100 0 0
100 0 0
70 0 0

5 0 0

12%
lba

150 O o

kl.
11. 15..

35 0 0
2500
20 0 0
100 0 0
20 0 0

Q 0 0 0
55 0 0
20 0 0
50 0 0
10 0 0
60 0 0
25 0 0

50 0 0
25 0 0
40 0 0

eper cent.
6 per cent.
Ales. and/
11166(1. bs.

196
15%
2o3fi

5 0 0
50 CI
1100 0 0
1100 0 0
75 0 0
50 0 0
12 0 0

75 0 0
100 0 0
25 0 0

10 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0

15 0 e
5 q 0
5 0 0
10 0 0
10 0 0

Ever cent.
',per cent.
64i per cent
()per cent

50 -0
0