The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-02 00:00:00

CLERKEN WELL.

Yesterday, William B. IVewenham, who has been so
often remanded, charged with the abduction of Miss
Wortham, a ward of Chancery, was again brought be-
fore the magistrate.
The prisoner looked pale and dejected. His health
appears to be suffering from anxiety and confinement,
and be seems particularly anxious to avoid the stare of
a crowded Court, which invariably meets him.
Mr. CONDE ordered William Frederick Clane, the at-
testing witness to the deed, conferring the property on
Miss Wortham, to be called and examined.

Mr.lSouthee said he was not in attendance, as they
had not been able to serve the summons on him, he
!4aving removed from Royston, his late place of resi-
dence.

Mr. CoalßE—Then I shall be under the necessity of
remanding the prisoner again.
Prisoner in a most excited tone and manner—Re-
manded again! I have been most cruelly treated ; I
have been hampered and harrassed by these repeated
remands.
Mr. COMBE—I certainly understood the witness was
to be here to-day. I have nothing to do with these
remands.

Prisoner—More than you ought, a great deal ; there
have been private interviews. You have manifested
throughout a strong feeling against me, one not at all
consistent with the impartial discharge of your duty as
a magistrate, or with the fair administration of justice.
Mr. COMBE-Mr. Newenham, the insolence of your
language shall have no effect whatever on me. It is
seldom a prisoner is satisfied with the magistrate; and I
am so accustomed to hear such language from persons
placed in your position, that I always treat it with in-
difference. But I must say that lam surprised that a
man of your education and position should so far forget
himself as to be guilty of such indecorum.
Prisoner=l have not been indecorous, but I have just
reason to complain of these frequent remands.
Mr. COMBE-It was my anxious wish that the case
should have been completed before this. If I had not
been assured by Mr. Southee that the witness would be
here, I would have issued a summons for his attendance,
which I shall forthwith do.

Inspector Penny was then directed to obtain two sum-
monses for the attesting witnesses to the deed, one of
whom is a female 100 years of age, and to have one of
them in Court at eleven o'clock on Monday morning,
Mr. Combo observing, that the evidence of one of these
witnesses was absolutely necessary to complete the case.
At this moment Mr. Humphries, the prisoner's attor-
ney arrived, declared he considered the repeated remands
were very cruel, and he must add very persecuting to-
wards the prisoner. He did net mean to convey the
slightest imputation on the worthy magistrate, who was
not at all in fault.

Mr. Southee said it could not be avoided ; the delays
arose from unforeseen circumstances.

Mr. COMBE —This I know ; I will not send the case
for trial unless the attesting witness be here to give his
or her evidence, and I will use all the power the law gives
me to compel their attendance.

Mr. John Hawkins, who sat on the bench, deposed
that he was trustee to the property bequeathed by Henry
Hawkins, his brother, who died in January, 1843. By
his death Miss Northam became entitled to property in
Cambridgeshire amounting to between 4001. and 5001.
per annum. She was now the tenant entail in possession
of this property.

An attorney's clerk named Long produced in evidence
a judgment for a debt had against the prisoner, but Mr.
Humphries made a technical objection to its production,
which was considered valid by the Magistrate.
The prisoner was then again remanded.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 1.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from a place
in Ireland against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. M. BELL presented a petition from Yorkshire
against any alteration in the corn-laws.
Captain LAYARD presented a petition in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill.

Sir B. HALL presented a petition from the parish of
St. Pancras against the Masters and Servants Bill; also
petitions from the same parish against the New Poor-
law.

➢lr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire in favour of a Tell Hours' Bill.

Mr. WILSON FATTEN presented a petition from
Chorley, praying for the abolition of the duty on cotton
wool.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented petitions
from Carrickfergus, Donaghadee, Glascar, Baloo, and
Winterton, in Ireland, praying that a law might be passed
to render valid all marriages solemnised, or hereafter to
be solemnised, by Dissenting ministers between persons
of proper age and not within the prohibited degrees of
affinity.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition against the
Masters and Servants Bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved that Sir John Young be
added to the Committee on the Hull Docks Bill.

Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and the adjoining dis-
tricts, against the Common Lands Inclosuro Bill.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition from se-
veral ministers and inhabitants of North Wales, praying
that the 10th clause might be expunged from the New
Poor-law Amendment Bill ; and that the poor might
be buried in consonance with the wishes of their relatives:

Mr. ALDAM presented petitions against the Mas-
;er.i and Servants Bill.
ARCHES BILL.

The Court of Arches Bill was postponed to this day
month.

MASTERS AND SERVANTS BILL.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Mas-
ers and Servants Bill.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented twenty nine petitions
against the Bill.
On the motion that the SPEAKER do leave the chair,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of giving
effect, as far as it lay in his power, to the petitions that
he had just presented to the House, and he must say
that, as far as it was in his poe er to adopt it, there was
no form of the House he would not use as a weapon to
defeat an enactment which had been truly designated in
some of these petitions as one of the most insidious, op-
pressive, arbitrary, and tyrannical attempts to oppress
the working-el-asses that was ever made.—(A laugh.) It
might suit Hon. Gentleman to laugh at an attempt to
oppress the working classes— ("No, no")—but if the
House would give him its attention, he would prove to
it, and would satisfy the public, that this was the object—
and the sole object--of the Bill. He had reason to
complain that the Bill had arrived at this stage at all.
To the original Bill no one could object ; it
had a humane object in view, and though it
increased the power of the justices, yet it was for
the purpose of facilitating the recovery of wages. Under
that belief, the House passed the Bill through its first
stages, but it was under false colours and false pretences.
It was then proposed to go into Committee to make cer-
tain alterations ; those alterations were made, and the Bill
came out of Committee without a single word, from the
first line of the preamble to the last line in it, referring
to that object. Therefore, it could not be said that the
Bill had been read either a first or second time.
The Bill had been brought to its present stage under
false colours and false pretences. Now, what was the
reason assigned for this measure ? When his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Lambe.h, asked for some ex-
planation the other night, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department said he did not approve of the man-
ner in which the Bill was drawn, and he referred him
to the Hon. Member for Somersetshire. The Hon.
Member for Somersetshire said that the Bill Ras drawn
up by the desire of the Government.
Sir J. GRAHAM--The form of the Bill was ap-
proved by me, not the substance.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was the substance of the
Bill which he had to deal with—he cared nothing about
the shadow.—(Laughter.) Now, if • he went to the
Hon. Member for Somersetshire, and complained of the
provisions of the Bill, he said they were forced upon him
by the Government ; whereas the Right Hon. Gentle.
man said ho was not responsible for them. The Hon.
Member for Berkshire said it was a totally different Bill
from what he approved, and the Hon. Member for Not •
tinghamshire expressed a similar opinion. Now he repeated
that this Bill had not been properly read a second time.
Now what were the provisions of this Bill which were
so objectionable? A new principle was introduced by
the Bill unknown to the Legislature of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) The only legislatidi in reference to
labour which had heretofore taken place had been in re-
spect to persons hired for a certain term, and the Ma-
gistrates had power to fine or imprison persons who
had not fulfilled their contract. But this power was
never given in cases of piece or job work.—(Hear,
hear.) They were now going to confer a power of
this kind on the Magistrates. By this Bill a person
would be liable to be sent to the House of
Correction for two months on the single oath of a fore-
man.—(Hear, hear.) If this were the case, could they
be surprised that they had petitions on the subject from
every species of trade in the kingdom. This Bill
would affect every species of labour. The Right
Hon. Gentleman intended that the Bill should only
affect labourers employed in husbandry. But as it
stood now it would affect those employed in factories.
They might be imprisoned for two months upon the
oath of the foreman or overseer if they were only five
minutes too late.—(Hear.) In order to carry out this Bill
they proposed to repeal six Acts, and it would be well
before this iniquitous Bill received the support of the
House, that Hon. Gentlemen should know what those
Acts were. The first Act which was proposed to be
the sth of Elizabeth, c. 4 ; but
repealed was
on referring to that Bill it would be found in the
preamble
that the object of the statute was to protect
the labourer, and to secure to artizans wages of a
higher rate than were paid at the time, which both
Houses of Parliament affirmed to be too small. He wished
to -call the attention of those who were in favour of a
Ten Hours' Bill to the provisions of this Act, which was
now sought to be repealed. The Act of Elizabeth re-
gulated the hours of labour at fourteen hours,
from March to September, in thirty-two trades,
and ten hours from September to March. Be-
tween the months of. September and March the time
was still more limited; they were allowed th© same pe-
riod of time for their meals, and they were only to labour
from sunrise to sunset,: and no one was compelled- to
work- longer. Having limited the • hours `of labour
and settled the wages of the labourers by law,
it Av but right that the magistrates .should..have
the power of compelling parties to work, but

this Act was repealed, and nothing for the satisfac-
tion or security of the working classes enacted in its place.
The 20th George 11. was also to be repealed by that
Act, which was considered nearly obsolete. Any ser-
vants convicted of misconduct were liable to be corrected
and imprisoned. There was nothing in that Act relating
to piece or job .work. The 27th George 11. merely
r. pealed a proviso of the last-mentioned Act ; and
the 31st George IL, which was passed in 1757, made
the law applicable to husbandry servants hired for a less
period than one year. The Act of 4th Geo. IV., passed
in 1823, said nothing of job work, but related to the
violation of contracts for service, and enacted either that
such contracts must be in writing, or else that the ser-
vant must hare entered upon his hiring, which was to be
taken as evidence of the existence of a contract, in either
of which cases, if the servant violated his contract by
neglecting his work, he was liable to imprisonment. These
were the Acts which it was now proposed to repeal.
In this Bill it did not matter how much the master mis-
behaved himself, the punishment only related to the
servant.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Ferrand.) This
was nothing but a law for the rich and one for the poor
—one fur the employer and one for the employed. He
called upon the House not to sanction the principle which
was contained in this Bill. What had Sir Augustus
lisnniker said at the Suffolk Quarter Sessions lately?—
That if they sent down the whole body of police from
London they would not keep the people quiet, unless
they materially altered in their treatment of them.
Such was that gentleman's opinion—so great was the
discontent ; and he (Mr.Duncombe) would advise them
to take care that this feeling did not spread, that it did
not work its way into the manufacturing districts. The
other day when discussing the subject of the limitation
of the hours of labour, Sir James Graham had said
to those in the House favourable to limitation
that the working classes did not agree in
opinion with them—that they had forwarded no petition •
in its favour.—(Hear, hear.) Well, they would see now
what was the effect of petitioning, for against this Bill
nearly two hundred petitions had been presented.--
(Cheers.) He (Mr. Duncombe) asked him (Sir
James Graham) where were his petitions in
favour of it.—(Hear, hear.) Those petitions
against the Bill represented nearly two millions
of people asking the House not to pass this Bill. If the
House went into Committee upon it, he should feel it his
duty to read several extracts from these petitions •, but
he did hope he had made out such a case as would in-
duce the House to reject a Bill which would create more
discontent than any Act that, or any former House had
ever been guilty of. Therefore, he trusted they would
at once reject it, and so protect thousands, and hundreds
of thousands, who were not there to protect them-
selves.
Mr. P. HOWARD was understood to second the motion.
Mr. HUME, in the hope to put a stop at once
to this Bill, would appeal to the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir James Graham) to allow the order for
Committee to bo discharged, and either introduce
a new Bill, or send the matter to a Committee
up stairs, where it could be thoroughly examilied, and
then reported upon. The present Bill was not the Bill
originally introduced—it was altogether a new Bill.
The only proper principle in such a Bill was t 3 make its
provisions alike applicable to all, so that it might
equally protect the master against the servant, as the
servant against the master. This Bill did no
such thing ; and he could assure the Right
Honourable Baronet that it had created the
greatest excitement amongst the labouring classes.
He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would give them his
support, and not allow this Bill to go further. He did
not think that the House was in a condition to legislate
anew upon the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM had not the least difficulty in as
curing the House, that he had no desire to do anything
which which would interfere with the interests of the

working-classes. His impression of the existing law
was, that it operated injuriously to the workman,
and too favourably to the employer. Under
the present law a labourer might be commit-
ted to prison for three months, with hard labour
at the discretion of a single magistrate upon the com-
plaint of the master. On the other hand, if the servant
had a good ground of complaint against the master, the
magistrate had no power to adjudicate. But this Bill
gave to the magistrate the power of giving damages
against the master, and allowed the arrest of the
servant only upon warrant, issued in cases where
the servant was about to abscond, or had ab-
sconded. The power of imprisonment was limited,
and confined within the limits of the Bill introduced by
the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), called
the Arbitration Act. The only novelty in the Bill
was the question whether the House of Commons would
extend the operation of the Act of George the Second to
what was called piece-work. He thought that was a
very fair subject of discussion to the House. lie had
fairly stated to the House the present state of the law
and the alterations contemplated, and he should oppose
the motion of the lion. Gentleman, the Member for Fins.,
bury, and should vote for the measure going into Com-
mittee.

Mr. GRANGER opposed the Bill, for it would
place servants in a far worse position than they were at
present. The Bill bad excited from one end of the
country to the other a feeling of opposition, for it was
looked upon as a most arbitrary measure. The House,
in the present state of the country, ought to be very
cautious not to pass any Bill which might be considered
as militating against the interests of the working classes.
Mr. MILES had some difficulty in saying whether
this Bill was his, or whether it belonged to the Govern-
ment.— (Laughter.) Ile thought if Honourable
Gentlemen had looked carefully into this Bill,
they would have found that there was not a very material
difference between the present Bill and the former
one. The Bill he considered to be necessary, for
the present law was entirely against the servant.
He admitted that formerly no damages could be given on
either side, but now damages could be given on either side,
and it would be a question when they got into Commit-
tee, whether, in case of a refusal to pay damages, there
should not be a powerof imprisonment against the master.
If he were to have the Bill at all, he should hope to have
advice and assistance on every clause of it in a Commit-
tee of that House. But as to a Committee up stairs,
they all knew what that would probably end in.—(Cries

of Divide, divide.") He was aware it was a most un-
fortunate duty to bring so important a measure before
the House, but it had been postponed from time to tim',
and it was desirable to come to some decision upon it
with as little delay as possible.
Mr. BERNAL was quite satisfied of the kindly mo-
tives towards the working classes which influenced
the Honourable Gentleman who had .affiliated the
present Bill ; but, in his opinion, this was a Bill of
such vast importance in its provisions and in its conse-
quences that it ought to havo Leen introduced by the
Government, and on their own responsibility alone.—
(Cheers.) He did not see his way on the present
bill, as it now stood before the House, and he
repeated that it was a question that ought alone to be
brought forward by the Government, with the aid and
office of their law-officers.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ESTCOUIZT considered that the fourth clause
ought to be fatal to the Bill. It was no argument in
favour of this Bill that worse Bills had been passed in

more barbarous times:
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND opposed the Bill.
It would affect the relations between employers and the
employed in every branch of industry. It would place
in the hands of the employer an immense engine of
oppression.—(Hear.) There was no analogy between
the conditions of the two parties. The master could dis-
charge the servant without an hours' notice, and there
was no reason why his power should be increased.. He
felt, therefore, bound to vote against the motion.
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT was convinced from
what had been said by both sides of the House—
Whig and Tory—that there must be some-
thing essentially bad in the Bill. He had
been greatly surprised at hearing himself described as a
monster and a tyrant, because his na:ne was on the back
of the Bill.—(Laughter.) He believed that the oppo-
sition to the Bill in the House was owing in a
great measure to its being coincident with the
strike of the colliers in the North.—(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and laughter.) He believed that the Bill would only
effect such alterations in the law as would benefit the
working classes. If the Bill were thrown out, the existing
laws would press, as hardly as ever upon the colliers. The
Hon. Member referred to the evidence taken before the
Committee of the House on the subject of the colliers,
to show that the law as it stood at present was oppres-
sive to the workmen, and concluded by saying that he
would support the Bill.
Mr. P. HOWARD said it might be very wise and
prudent to consolidate the various laws upon one sub-
ject, but the House must recollect that they might have
even gold too dear.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) On a
subject like this, which required so much varied informa-
tion, and such a dispassionate judgment, he thought the
Government of the country was the only quarter from
which they could expect a sound and useful Bill.
his
must, therefore, give his support to the motion of hi
Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury.
Mr. COLLET, amidst continued criehsisoifuto"nDtioivnidoef,_
divide" and great confusion, announced
voting d
Addressedsix
mr.
R. PALMER,
rth,eiLcommEmritt,taaml
iodfstthegrßeialtl tuhpartoaary,
few words to the House, which were wholly inaudible in

the gallery.
The
FHoorutsheethßeinlidivided, when there appeared
For the Amendment 97
Majority against the Bill —43
The Bill is consequently lost.
DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on`this Bill,
Mr. COLVILE moved that it be committed that day
six months._

—Mr. LIDDELL supported the Bill.
Mr. M. SUTTON could not give support to the Bill
in its present shape, as it interfered with the franchise.
lie did not, however, oppose the principle of the Bill;
and if the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Scott) would
consent to alter it in Committee, he (Mr. M. Sutton)
would give it his support.
After a few words from Mr. Scorr and Lord H. VANE,
Mr. COLVILE withdrew his amendment, and the Bill
%ent into Committee.
On clause one being proposed,
Mr. M. SUTTON . moved the omission of certain
words, upon which the Committee divided, when there
appeared—
For the Amendment l9
Against it
Majority for the Amendment —4
An HON. MEMBER then moved that the House do re-
sume and be counted, and there being but 38 Members
present, the House adjourried at a Quarter past Seven.

GRAY'S INN, MAY I.—The undernamed gentle-
men were this. day called to the degree of barrister-at-
law by the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn—viz.,
William St. James Wheelhouse, Esq. ; Henry Willis,
Esq. ; Aldborough Henniker,- Esq. ; Edward Bennett,
Esq.- ; and Samuel Dare; Esq.

TUESDAY NIGEUS 0 ..," .- 1„
DIVI•,, . .
At the Court of Bankrupts Z t,....,..-i. :.. - ,
A
W. Gofton, pawnbroker, Gilbat....C4r. ,_, !P.:, . i. , lay
23, at half-past cleven—W. Armfisa4 . r .-:. , N - 1 47., „ ,ipay
23, at twelve—C. Tapp, eoatt kge, Wig , -e,et,
Nay 21, at one—C. Bouriot anf,...W•-•M'cht,,:li.„..V oisnct,
merchants, Coleman-street-buildiVs,'Ali4 .24, Irt welfe=-C.
Williamson, hosier, Regent-street oigayol .02-- -. 2 foam
id W
".::

'E.

aAgra
an, . Utton, coach-makers, Hattan-sTie,et, itagraksquare,
May 22 at two—E. Hodson, liner/kb:444We Itoti,lsiorth-
amptons'hire, May 22, at twelve -41. chant,
Lower Shadwell, May 8, at one. •
Country.
E. Everall, coal hautemer Liverpool, May 23, at one, at
the Liverpool District Court—J. Wright and J. Davies, grocers,
Liverpool, May 23, at half-past twelve, at the Liverpool Dis-
trict Court—J. Stott, woollen manufacturer, Rochdale. May
22, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—J. Brown,
jun., Bassalleg, Monmouthshire, May 21, at eleven, at the
Bristol District Court—W. A. Whinfield, draper, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, May 23, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne
District Court—J. Botcherby, iron merchant, Darli gton,
May 21, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court
—R. Dunn and R. D. Dunn, corn factors, Wakefield, May 23,
at eleven, at. the Leeds District Court—J. Knight, draper,
Preston, May 24, at one, at the Manchester District Court—J.
Goddard and H. Goddard, bankers, Market Harborough, May
22, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court—J. Rose,
ironmonger, Spalding, Lincolnshire, May 23, at* half-past
eleven, at the Birmingham District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the
contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
F. Hillam, ale merchant, Cambridge-terrace, Edgeware •
road, May 22—C. Tapp, coachmaker, Wigrnore-street, May
21—L Lumley, victualler, Cornwall-road, May 21—T. E.
Lubbock, licensed victualler, Butcher-hall-lane, Newgate-
street, May 22—E. Levy and A. S. Levy, fruit merchants,
13etolph-line, May 22--C. Swill, grocer, Romford, Essex,
May 22—J. Crump, miller, Stanway, Gloucestershire, May 22
—R. Lowe., innkeeper, Sunderland. May 21—J. Douglass,
rope manufacturer, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, May 21—T. Bent-
ley, calico printer, Eccleston, Lancashire, May 21—W. Jack-
son, baker, Liverpool, May 21—E. Rayner, merchant, Shef-
field, May 24—W. Smith, smallwareman, Nottingham, May
23—8. F. Franklin, merchant, Liverpool, May 24—R. Gent,
traveller. Manchester, June 4—A. Dakeyne, smallware dealer,
Bolton-le-Moors, June 4—W. Putt, silk thiowster, Maccles-
field, June 4—T. F. Clark, draper, Liverpool, May 23—H. S.
Hewitt, licensed victualler, Manchester, May 23 —R. Davesi-
port, jun., plumber, Birmingham, May 21,--H. Parker, 0.
Shore, J. Brewin, and J. Rodgers, bankers, Sheffield, May 21
—E. Minister, tailor, Argyll-place, Regent-street, May 21—I.
,
Hague, W. Millar, an I W. T. Grant, engineers, Wapping..
wall, May 21—R. L. Sturtevant, soap.manufacturer, Church.
street, Bethnal-green, May 21—C. W. Taylor, draper, Epping,
May 21—T. Norman, sailcloth manufacturer, Penketh, near
Warrington, May 24.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
W. hey and W. L. Henwood, ironmongers, Camelford,
Cornwall—W. Spence, N. Blundell, J. Blundell, and R. H.
Spence, colour manufacturers—J. F. Saville and J. Harroway,
lessees of the Brighton Theatre—J. and G. Siddall, linen
drapers, Doncaster— W. Hodge and J. Dovies, saddlers, Trurn
—J. Watson, sen., and J. Watson, jun., common brewers,
Wath-upon-Dearne, Yorkshire—NV. Fry and W. Kilner, en-
gravers, Sheffield—S. Thomas and R. Hinton, plumbers,
Market Drayton—J. H. Wood and G. Scholey, joiners, Wake-
field—A. Bush, C. Birkhead, and H. Henstock, edge tool
manufacturers, Sheffield—W. and E. Sharman, builders,
Spalding, Lincolnshire—J. and W. Goodale, Derby—J. Glover
and W. R. Elsey, accountants, Bucklersbury—H. Gibb and J.
Heath, engineers, Cobourg-street, Euston-square—F. H.
Nicholson and J. Hainsworth, linen drapers, Leeds—J. Brog-
den and W. Eastted, contractors—E. King and H. C. Lang-
ton, stockbrokers, Leeds—T. Smith and C. J. A. Melton, sur-
geons. Upper Seymour-street, Portman-square—J. Arnett and
C. Wilkinson, Custom-house agents, St. Dunstan's-hill—J.
Entwisle and R. Garnett, jun., merchants, Manchester—W.
Petree and J. Phillips, shipbuilders, Southwick, Durham—L.
H. and J. Newton, cabinet makers, Wardour-street, Soho—R.
W. and T. M. Peacock, shoemakers, Tooley-street—W. Marsh,
J. Marsh, T. Shepherd, and J. Marsh, jun., merchants, Shet.
field (so far as regards T. Shepherd and J. Marsh, .jun. )—C.
Belton and T. Belliss, chemists, Birmingham—G.,F., and J.
Rivington, booksellers, St. Paul's Churchyard (so far as re-
gards G. Rivington).
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
HUGH CAMPBELL, provision merchant, Glasgow, May
3 and 24, at one, at the writing-chambers of Messrs. A. and J.
Morrison, Glasgow.

THE WEATHER.—SUN OFFICE, MAY 2.
THERMOMETER, Lowest, 42 ; Highest, G 3 ; Noon, 62.
BAROMETER, 30.5.—W1ND, E.

NoTE.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the
Freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barometers fair is
uinally placed opposite 30, and rain at 29.