The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-07 00:00:00

Board of Trade, tending to show that the Caledonian Railway, for
which he appeared, was the best that could be : elected for the
commercial and private interests of the people of Sc ',land.
Mr. Tats proceeded to examine Mr. Buchanan, seer.
chant at Glasgow. He said that the present population
of Glasgow was estimated at 322,204, and it was
still increasing. The number of British vessels which
entered the Clyde during the last year amounted to 221, which
3ielded a total of 41,834 tons. Of foreign ships entering the same
river, the number was 39, and amounted in tons to 7,950. The cus-
tom dues paid in 1842 were 562,100/., and the amount of harbour
dues was 36,0001., which amounts had been increased at the rate of
52 per cent. on the whole estimates to the present time. The principal
manufactures of the west of Scotlandwere in iron, woollen,cotton, flax,
and silk, and the principal trade was with London and Lancashire.
This witness was examined at great length, and his evidence tended
to show that, if greater facility for communication with London
and the western parts of England were afforded, the increasing
commercial importance of Glasgow w,,uld be still further improved,
and :its trade with London and other cities very considerably in-
creased.
Mr. J. G. Kinnear, Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce
at Glasgow, was then called, but his evidence was only corrobora-
tory of what was stated by the previous witness.
Mr. COWAN next called Mr. Easton, calenderer and packer at
Glasgow, who said he was habitually accustomed to send very large
quantities of dry and other description of goods to Liverpool,
Manchester, and London. He was strongly of opinion that
the proposed Caledonian Railway was by far preferable
to the Dumfrics and Carlisle line, as it was shorter, and the
terminus was more conveniently situated for the accommodation of
the inhabitants of Glasgow. If the traffic could be conveyed as
cheaply by railway as it was at present by steamers round the coast,
he would certainly transmit his by it in preference.
The witness was cross-examined, but his statements remained
unaltered.
• "

or, at all events, much less so than the W est
Riding line. The West Yorkshire Railway could be
worked at a considerably less expense than the West Riding. The
advantage, as regarded curves, was nearly three to two in favour
of the West Yorkshire lines. It was an absurdity to suppose that
a line with a severe gradient could be worked without extraor-
dinary expense, or witbout a stationary engine. For instance, in
the case of the Birmingham and Gloucester, which the Board of
Trade in one of their reports dwelt upon at much length, a
few days ago it took five locomotive engines to push the carriages
containing the Queen Dowager aid her attendants up the lickys.
The witness was cross-examined at some length, with a view of
proving that a stationary engine might easily be dispensed with on
inclines of a severe character.
Mr. R. Nicholson, C. F., of Newcastle, had gone over the esti-
mates for the West Yorkshire line, and fully concurred with Mr.
Bidder. He was engineer of the North Shields Railway, and was
fully of opinion that Is. 6d. a mile was a fair price for locomotive
power.
Cross. examined—The cost per mile on the North Shields was
6 d., exclusive of depreciation and interest. Was not sure that
the Manchester and Leeds could work this line cheaper than an
independent Company could. His estimate for coke was s.lEths,
or sd. out of the lSd., and his experience would lead him to be.
hove that Mr. Cubitt must have been wrong if he said that the cost
of coke was 1-12th of the whole.
Several other witnesses gave corroborative testimony, and the
Committee adjourned at fiNC o'clock.

Mr. ESTCOTT said that he believed it was not right
for tech a difference to be made between railways in
Ireland and England. A great error had been com-
mitted by the House, which was likely to work very in-
juriously to many proprietors on this side of the Channel,
and he should therefore wait for the second reading of
this Bill before he offered it any opposition.
Sir G. GREY said that there was a material diffe-
rence between the two cases, and there was a something
peculiar in the Irish railways, which entitled them to a
special reference to the consideration of the House. Fr, azn
the general nature of Irish railways, it was impossible
they could be regulated by the same standing orders as
English railways.
Sir R. PEEL said that he would not by any means
vote for this Bill, if by so doing he was likely to throw
the slighest reflection on the Standing Orders Com-
mittee. He thought there was a general impression
on both sides of the House that the standing orders
on this Bill should be dispensed with. There were
certain circumstances connected with this Bill, which
made it necessary that the rules should not be strictly
applied. He would be the last man in that House to
throw any r, flection on the Standing Orders Committc e,
for he thought they had done their duty with respect
to this Bill in the most praiseworthy manner,
and he should, therefore, support them. But
he thought that in respect to Irish railways,
some of those standing orders should not be
strictly construed. Many which worked well in this
country would be entirely inoperative and injurious
when they came to be applied to the projects
of Irish railways, and which would under the
circumstances of Ireland, work great injustice
to many parties there. Ile had understood
the Right Honourable Gentleman, that the peculiar po-
sition of Ireland should he consider( d, and that the ad-
vantages conferred upon them should be bona fide,
and if that were to be the case, this Bill
should ( njoy the benefit of an exemption from
the standing orders, and was entitled to the
consideration of the House. If this Bill worked any
pat ticular mischief in consequence of the disregard of
the standing orders, it would be easy to oppose its
further progress at some future stage. It was a great
work for Ireland which this Bill sought to ef-
fect, and he thought, therefore, it would be a great
injustice to its promoters, and, opposing the general
tense of the people of Ireland, if they threw this
Bill out for a non-compliance with the standing
orders, simply on account of some omission of a
solicitor or Parliamentary agent. But he did not
wish to throw the slightest reflection upon the
Standing Orders Committee, and he should reserve to
himself the line of conduct he might in future pursue,
and vote for the second reading or not.
Mr. .DUNCOMBE conceived that the feeling in
Leland, in reference to haling railroads in that country,
had had nothing whatever to do with this question. 1 hat
argument had never been used during the whole of the
discussion, except upon one occasion, by an Hon.
Member near him, who used it on the introduction of
the question. He could not see how the public could
have any confidence in the proceedings of this
House, if upon one day they decide that a Bill
should not be proceeded with, and upon another decide
that a question should be referred to a Committee, to the
elvect that an inquiry should be made to ascertain wile:-
U-1(r the decisions of this House ware erroneous, for that
in reality was the question.— (Hear, hear.)
The question was then put, and the motion agreed to
without a division.
CORNWALL RAILWAY.

MAN v. HORSE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—In your paper of last evening I noticed a report of
the match between Mountjoy and Mr. Counsellor's Cob,
your informant was wrong. It was the Cob that on,
beating the man by two yards, after a very sharp race.
'rime of the Cub twelve seconds.
P.S. The reason I Lave troubled you with this is, that the
wrong report has caused some slight altercation in reEpect to
paying over the bets made.—Tour's respectfully,
Charing-cross, May 7, 1845. J. H. P.

Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM proceeded to call Mr. Cogan, mer-
chant at Glasgow, who briefly said that he apyroved of the Cale-
donian line on account of its direct course, and the consequ( nt
diminished difficulty of the mode of conveyance, and also 6n ac-
count of the time that would be saved in the transit.
Mr. Anderson, manufacturer at Glasgow, was then examined,
but his evidence was precisely similar to that of the last witness.
Mr. Dixon, merchant at Carlisle, was next called—He said it
would be of very great advantage to the northern districts of
Scotland to have a direct connexion between the Glasgow and
Liverpool markets, as the existing modes of conveyance were ex-
pensive and tedious. He considered the Caledonian Railway
ought to have the preference, and he was supported in his opinion
by a large majority of the people of Carlisle.
Mr. Steal, the mayor of Carlisle, was then called to prove the
extensive advantages which would result to Carlisle and the
neighbourhood from the making of the railway. He was corrobo-
rated in his evidence by Mr. Mouncey.
At the close of the examination of this witness a messenger from
the Commons entered and announced that the Speaker was at
prayers.
The Committee adjourned till twelve to.morrow.

STATE OF TRADE Al 111ANCIIESTER.—Ow1flg tO the
near approach of the Whitsun holidays, and the expected arrival
of news from ludia and the United E.tates, the market, both for
goods and yarn, was quirt yesterday, but prices were perfectly
firm..- —RocrinALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, MAY s.—There
has been a better demand for flannels to-day, but no advance in
prices. Little has been doing in the wool market, as the dealers
are holding out for better prices.—Monehesier Guardian.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. FITZGERALD took his scat for Tipperary, in the
place of the late Mr. Otway Cave, deceased.
HUDDERSFIELD WATERWORKS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.

Group N.
WEST CORNWALL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Captain Moorsom, civil engineer, was examined, and said the
plans and sections had been executed under hts direction. The
line between Truro to Redruth would be best worked by
atmospheric power, but might be worked with equal safety by
locomotive. A train might be worked by the locomotive system
at eighteen or twenty miles an hour in perfect safety ; by the
atmospheric traction at fifty or sixty miles an hour, but thirty miles
an hour would be about the average. There are no peculiar
engineering difficulties between Redruth and Truro, except that
the ground is very hilly. Having regard to the character of the
county and the towns in the neighbourhood of the proposed line,
he was of opinion that it would afford efficient accommodation
to that district. There is no tunnel in the line. The line between
Trevascus and Penzance would be better worked by locomotion.
In that line there is no engineering difficulty. 180,0001. wi:l be
a sufficient sum to construct all the works in connexion with the
line, and to get it into working condition. The annual expense of
working the line when completed he estimated at 401 per cent. on
the traffic. He estimated the total amount which would be re.
ceived from the line as 24,3581. He had estimated this from
the existing traffic, and in doing so had rather reduced than
increased ir. 10,0001. a year would be required to maintain the
line in efficient condition, and there would be a net profit
of 7i per cent. on the outlay. The witness then described the
nature of the gradients and curves of the line, and stated that the
trade of Truro would be much benefited by carrying it to Garrad's
wharf, If it were made to the north of the town it would not be
so advantageous. It would be more expensive, and would not
accommodate the trade. The line would run at the back of Mr.
Thomas's house in an old cutting.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. BIRCHAM at great
length, as to the general construction of the line, the bridges which
would run over it, the weight of the engines, and their probable
effect upon the gradients.
The witness was under examination when the Committee ad.
;ourned.

RAILWAYS. -
Mr. GREENEmoved "That it be an instruction to the
Committee on the York and North Midland Railway
(Doncaster Extension), and Lewton and York Railway
Bills, to receive ar.d consider petitions from the prorrie-
tors of land on the north of the river Dun, against the '
London and York Railway Bill, and against the York
and North Midland Railway (Doncaster Extension)
Bill," which was agreed to.
Mr. W. PATTEN then moved, " That the Report of
the Sub-Committee on Petitions fur Private Bills, on the
Great Western (Ireland) Railway Bill, be printed,"
which was agreed to.
Mr. W. PATTEN also moved "'I hat it be an In-
struction to the Committee sitting on the Railway Bills
comprised in Group G and G 2, that they entertain and
consider the petition of the Company of Proprietors of
the Parrett Navigation, which was presented to this
House of the sth day of May instant, against the Bristol
and Exeter Railway Branches Bill."
Mr. GREENE said that this question had been re
peatedly asked him—viz., whether petitions against a
railway project should be presented three clear days
before the first reading, or three days before the consi-
deration of the Committee. It was important that a
decision should be made on this subject, as it would
materially affect the interests of many parties.
The SPEAKER said that if the petition was against
the project of the Bill the petition should be presented
three clear days before the first reading, but if the oppo-
sition was only to a portion of the project the petition
should be presented three clear days before the Bill went
before the Select Committee. _ _ _

Sir CHARLES LEMON presented four petitions in
savour of the Cornwall Railway.
Mr. M. GIBSON proposed the second reading of the
Manchester Courts of Review Bill, which was agreed to.
Mr. GREENE presented 14 petitions against the
Edinburgh Northern Rails ay.
Sir J. TYRRELL moved that six petitions which he
had presented on a former occasion be referred to the
Select Committee.—Agreed to.
Mr. DUNDASipresented a petition agains!, the Edin-
burgliNorthern Railway (as we understood its prayer.)
Mr. B. BALI)WIN presented a petition from Surrey,
against the London and Portsmouth Railway.
PUBLIC PETITIONS.
The SPEAKER called on the notices of motion.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that private business now took
so much time that it was almost impossible to present
public petitions within the time prescribed by the House.
He thought, therefore, that the public business had better
be, postponed for half an hour to admit of the public
petitions being presented.
The House acquiesced in this suggestion.
Mr. EVANS presented petitions against the May-
nooth grant.
Lord DALMENY presented two petitions, one from
Stirling and another from Inverness, against the May-
nooth grant.
Mr. TURNER presented a petition from a place in
Cornwall to the same effect.
Mr. 11. F. BERKELY presented a petition from trades-
men in Tewkesbury against the Insolvent Debtors' Bill
of last year.
Captain BERKELEY presented a petition from
Gloucester, against the Insolvent Act passed last ses-
sion, and praying that it might be altered end
amended. Also a petition from Nottingham against the
Maynooth grant.
Mr. SHAW presented petitions against Maynooth.
Mr. SIIARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from the medical practitioners of Rochdale in favour of
the Medical Reform Bill.
Mr. DUNCO MBE presented several petitions against
the grant to the College of Maynooth ; also a petition,
signed by 10,400 inhabitants of Lancashire, praying the
House to institute an inquiry into the regulation of
coal pits. The Honourable Member also presented a
petition from a female named Price, complaining
of the conduct of a Worcestershire magistrate, named
Briscoe, who refused to grant her a summons
against a common informer, who had assaulted
her, and who afterwards obtained a warrant
against her signed by Mr. Briscoe, under which
she was sent to prison, and otherwise ill-treated,
although she was far advanced in pregnancy ; and that
upon the case coming before two other magistrates and
Mr. Briscoe, although the latter gave evidence against
her, the two other magistrates dismissed the case.
It was his intention to-morrow to move that the petition
be printed with the Votes, and afterwards to found a
motion upon it.
Ar.).ncih and
COMPTONot presented petitions against the grant
to 1111arailway travelling on Sundays.
Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from the sur-
geons of Bath, praying
.the House to institute an in-
quiry into the manner in which the Royal College of
Surgeons was governed.
Colonel T. WOOD presented a similar petition from the
county of Brecknock. The petitioners, the surgeons of
this country, ought to have power to elect
their own governing body, and prayed the
House to inquire into the effect and operation of
the last charter 'granted to the College of Surgeons.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from a medical
practitioner residing in Bath, praying for inquiry into
the management of the Royal College of Surgeons.
Mr. WAKLEY presented petitions from the surgeons
of Wellingborough ; also from
; and from the surgeons
organshire, praying for
an surgeons residing in
rso ai
de
an inquiry into the effects produced by the last charter
granted to the College cf Surgeons.
inpglacieninsoNweeirpthiaarepit.onnGshiairme
Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual
named Johnson, aho was at present a prisoner
in the Queen's Bench. prison, for penalties incurred
by him for smuggling. Ile had been examined
before a Committee of the House of Commons, and a re-
solution had been come to that whatever. acts of smuggling
persons might have been guilty of, if they gave evidence
before that Committee they should be held harmless.
This witness had been examined, and had given evi-
dence, but notwithstanding that he had been attached
which
for acts of smuggling of he had been guilty. He
knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say
that he was not attached for acts of smuggling which he
had detailed to the Committee, but for acts of smuggling
of which he had previously been guilty. Still the case
was a hard one, and was well worthy the attention of the
House. The petition prayed fo,r,. inquiry into his case.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, but
was met with loud cries of " Order, order," in the midst
of which he sat down.
Mr. HUME gave notice that he would on an early
day draw the attention of the House to the subject, in
order to give the Right Hon. Gentleman an opportu-
nity of giving some explanation on the subject.
The HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN then presented
petitions from the shipowners of Durham against
certain clauses in a Bill for regulating the
shipping of the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne ;
also a petition from J. A. Wilson, M.D., praying for an
inquiry into the state of the law regulating the practi-
of medicine.

Group X.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

Mr. W. PATTEN said that as the petition had only
been presented on the sth of May he should withdraw
the motion.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. LEE.
Mr. Bishop, examined by Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE —He resided
at Hackney, and was conversant with the mode of taking traffic
tables. He had prepared the traffic tables for that part of the
line between London and Hitchin. He handed in his returns.

....- ---
GLASGOW BRIDGE TRUST.
Mr. P. M. STEWART, in moving the recommittal
of the Glasgow Bridge Bill, said, tl,at the object of this
Bill was to incorporate the trusts of three bridges over
the Clyde. On one of these bridges there had been an
outlay of 20,000 L, and there was a surplus revenue of
1,800/. a year. On another there had been a similar ex-
penditure, but there was an annual deficit of 1501. Both
these bridges had been built for the purpose of improving
the private property in Glasgow. The Bill had been passed
through Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman,
six of the Committee being for the Bill, and six against
it, and there were ten of the proprietors of one of these
bridges who wished to be heard on the Bill, and on these
grounds, he moved that the Bill should be recommitt,..d.
Mr. FOX MAULE thought that his Hon. Friend
had stated a very bad case very well.—(A laugh.) But
the louse ought to bear in mind that all the six Mem-
bers who voted in favour of the Bill were locally inte-
rested, whereas the opposing six Members were the
selected Members.
• Mr. lIASTIE thought that a fair opportunity had not
been given to certain parties to be heard in Committee
on this matter, and he should, therefore, support the
motion that the Bill be recommitted.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 27
Against it .52
Majority
The Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension-Bridge Bill
was read a third time.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND).
Mr. F. FRENCH moved for leave to bring in the
Great Western Railway Bill.
Sir. WARBURTON said that this Bill was one which
the Standing Orders Committee had reported against, and
the lion. Member for Roscommon had induced the House
to go against the Standing Orders Committee. It a as
proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed
to inquire how far the existing Standing
Orders with respect to Irish Railway
Bills should be dispensed with. It seemed to him that,
when the Standing Orders Committee had reported
against a Bill, and a Select Committee T.' as
appointed to consider the subject, they ought
to have the report of that Committee before they pro:
ceeded further. He should therefore move that the sub-
ject should be adjourned.
Sir G. GREY did not see why the standing orders

Mr. J. Badley, a cattle dealer, gave in certain re:urns of the
cattle traffic.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

Group U.
GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD, AND HULL AND

should be dispensed with. At the proper time it was
his intention to move for the appointment of a Select
Committee to inquire whether any, and which of the
standing orders in force with respect to railways in Great
Britain were unnecessary, and ought to be dispensed with
with respect to railways in Ireland. He thought
that the House ought not to adopt the pre-
sent Bill until the notice he intended to give
had been considered, and the Committee had come to
some decision upon the subject. He thought they should
read the Bill a first time, and then postpone the second
reading to a future day.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that all he wished was that the
subject should be fairly considered ; and for that pur-
pose he was anxious to introduce the Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it desirable that the
House should have the Bill before it. It was absolutely
necessary to ascertain whether or not the standing
orders which were applicable to English Railway Bids
were also applicable to Irish Railway Bills. Nothing
could be so absurd or so unjust as if there were standing
orders applicable to Irish Railway Bills not to adhere to
them. Under all the circumstances, however, he hoped
that his Honourable Friend would not press his motion,
but would permit the Bill to be read a first time, and
then the second reading could be delayed until after the
report of the Committee, to be moved for by his Hon.
Friend the Member for Devonport, should be presented. '
Mr. WARBURTON had no wish to give unnecessary
trouble, and he would, therefore, not object to the first
reading of the Bill, but before the second reading came
on, he hoped the House would exercise its jurisdiction
over it.
Mr. GREENE thought that great inconvenience
would result from delay. He thought it was hardly fair
to the promoters of the Bill to keep this threat of oppo-
sition hanging over them. Ile would rather that the
House should vote that all further proceedings should
be suspended until the report of the Committee to be
moved by the Hon. Member for Devonport should have
been made. He thought it would be much better to ad.
j.,urn this debate until after that report should have been
made.

Lord G. SOMERSET could not see how any incon-
venience could arise from permitting this Bill to ba reid
a first time. But he hoped the house would seriously
consider the subject before they consented to
the second reading of the Bill. Before the y
did that they should have it determined how far the
standing orders which applied to English railway Bill:
applied also to Irish Railway Bills, and the second read-
ing should be delayed until the report of that Committee
should have been made. If it were attempted to p:ess
forward the Bill to a second reading until that report
should have been made, he should feel it his duty to op-
pose any such motion.
Mr. WARBUIITON wished to be again permitted to
address a few words to the House. Suppose the Com-
mittee should report that certain standing orders did not
refer to Irish railway Bills, would it be regular in that case
to refer that Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee
to see if the modified standing orders had been complied
with. He wished to ask the Speaker if it would be al-
lowable to refer this Bill back to the Standing Orders
Committee after it had been read a first time. Ile
apprehended that it would be too late to do so,
and therefore he thought it would be better to suspend
the further progress of the Bill until the report should
have been made.
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought that if the Bill was read
a first time, they wculd be precluded from referring
it back again to the Standing Orders Committee. Ile
thought the proposition of the Honourable Member
for Devonport was hardly sufficient, and was
not of general application to Irish cases as
far as the standing orders were concerned ;
and he gave notice that in case the Right Honourable
Gentleman should succeed in obtaining his Committee,
he (Mr. Wortley) should move that the report of the
Standing Orders Committee on this Bill be referred to
that Committee.
arefiLa.Trarohshrateed
first G. SOMERSET apprehended that it would be no
breach of the orders of the House to refer this Bill back
to the Standing Orders Committee after it had been read
time.mSoPtitoiAmn Keoit w
Et
ha itibne threatu u flarfeltide
was
a satchk tlaet
oeßill
ihst
hat
dadnr beenadwitn. g
Orders Committee.

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY' EVENING, MAY 7 1845.

an opportunity offered. (Mr. Wakley's motion was :
" To call the attention of the House to the petitions
from members of the Royal College of Surgeons of
England, complaining of the unjust distinctions which
have been created by the charter of 1845 ; and, to
move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to in-
quire into the operation of that Charter, and into the
system of Government pursued by the Council."
Mr. COLLETT postponed, till the 22d :of May, the
introduction of the Bill for consolidating the dioceses of
Bath and Wells, and of Salisbury, at the death of
present Bishop of Bath and Wells, and in doing so,
observed that he hoped the time would soon come when
all these dioceses would be consolidated into nothing::
LEFT SITTING.]

TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
BANKRUPTS.
William Meeson, innkeeper, Aston, Staffordshire May 15
and June 12, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court.
Whitmore, official assignee; Bowen, Stafford ; Harrison and
Smith, Birmingham.
William Start, lace maker, Snainton Nottinghamshire,
May 16 and June 9, at eleven, at the birmingham District
Court. Bittleson, official assignee, Birmingham ; Cowley,
Nottingham ; Motteram and Knowle, Birmingham.
Henry Bent, chain maker, Brierly-hill, Staffordshire, May
14 and June 11, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court.
Whitmore, official assignee, Birmingham ; Rylands, Bir-
mingham ; Sharpe, Field, and Jackson, Bedford-row, London.
James Haigh, clothier, Hogley, Yorkshire, May 17 and
June 12, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Freeman,
official assignee, Leeds; Cumming, King• street, Cheapside,
London ' Brook and Freeman, Huddersfield.
John Ward Newton and Francis Jacob Newton, spirit
merchants, Rotherham, Yorkshire, May 17 and June 12, at
the Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee, Leeds;
Badger, Rotherham ; Blackburn, Leeds.
Christopher Hall, grocer, Sheffield, May 21 and June 9, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official as-
signee, Leeds.
John Brown and Alexander Urquhart, carpet warehouse-
men, Manchester, May 20 and June 6, at twelve, at the
Manchester District Court. Pott, official assignee, Manches-
ter; Johnson, Son, and Weatherall, Temple, London ;
Hitchcock, Buckley, and Tidswell, Manchester.
Moses Humphries, joiner, Manchester, May 20, at twelve
and June 6, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court.,
Hobson, official assignee, Manchester; Gregory, Faulkner,
Gregory, and Bourdillon, Bedford-row, London ; Bell, Man-
chester.
George Lawrie, chemist, Fleetwood-upon-Wyre, Lan-
cashire, May 15 and June 13, at eleven at the Liverpool
District Court. Turner, official assignee, Liverpool ; Sudlow,
Sons, and Torr, Chancery- lane, London.
Michael Cox, ironmonger, Weymouth, Dorsetshire, May
15, at eleven, and Jur.e 12, at one, at the Exeter District
Court. Ilirtzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Phillips, Wey-
mouth ; Combo, Staple Inn, London ; Terrell, Exeter.
Thomas Forsyth, hotel keeper, Dinsdale Spa, Durham,
May 15, at half-past two, and June 26, at two, at the New-
castle-upon-Tyne District Court. Baker, official assignee,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Griffith, Raymond-buildings, Gray's
Inn, London ; Trotter and Hodgson, Bishop Auckland ;
Hoyle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Edward Stone Darvell, colonial broker, Great Tower-street,
City, May 15, at one, and June 17, at twelve, at the Court o
Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee ; Lawrence and Plews
Bucklersbury.
David Ceaser, victualler, Woolwich, Kent, May 20, and
June 17, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards,
official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry ; Teague,
Crown-court, Cheapside.
PIVIDENDS DECLARED.
S. Bateman, factor, Birmingham—second div. of is. Sid. in
the pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Christie, Bir-
mingham.
M. Hadley, druggist, Walsall—second div. of Gid. in the
pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Christie, Bir-
mingham.
N. Beard, leather seller, Beech-street, Barbican—div. of
lid. in the pound, May 7, and any following Wednesday, at
the office of Mr. Follett, Sambrook-court, Basinghall-street.
E. Turmaine, porter merchant, Canterbury—final div. of
lid. in the pound, May 7, and any following Wednesday, at
the office of Mr. Follett, Sambrook-court, Basinghall-street.
S. Skinner, brewer, Thatcham, Berkshire—div. of id. in
the pound, May 7, and any following Wednesday, at the office
of Mr. Follett, Sambrook-court, Basinghall-street.
C. Dotesio, hotel keeper, Slough—div. of 4s. in the pound,
May 7, and any following Wednesday, at the office of Mr.
Follett, Sambrook-court, Basiugnall-street.
W. C. Thompson, merchant, Liverpool—second div. of
15-16ths of a penny in the pound, May 12, and any following
Monday, at the office of Mr. Turner, Liverpool.
Broughton and Garnett, bankers, Nantwich—fifth div. of
3d. in the pound, making with previous dividends 18s. in the
pound, May 24 and 31, and any following Monday, at the
office of Mr. Turner, Liverpool.
B. Sayle and T. Booth, iron masters, Sheffield—second div.
of 2s. 6d. in the pound, and, upon new proofs, a first div. of
7s. 6d. in the pound, May 6, and any following Tuesday, at
the office of Mr. Fearne, Leeds.
T. Burton, shoemaker, Bramham, Yorkshire—first and fin'll
div. of 2s. 5(1. in the pound, May 5, and any following Tues-
day, at the office of Mr. Hope, Leeds.
t. L. Aarons, oilman, St. James's-place, Aldgate—first
div. of Is. 10d. in the pound, May 3, and any following Sa-
turday, at the office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's -place, Old
Jewry.
D. Roderick, victualler, St. Martin's-court—second div. of
2d. in the pound, May 3, and any following Saturday, at the
office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry.
T. Berridge, tobacconist, Manchester—second div. of 84d.
in the pound,May 7, and any following Wednesday, at the
office of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
C. A. Bradbury, draper, Stockport—final div. of Is. 2id. in
the pound, May 7, and any following Wednesday, at the office
of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
J. Whitlow, laceman, Manchester—first div. of 4s. 6d. in
the pound, May 7, and any foll Owing Wednesday, at the
office of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
J. C. Johnson, merchant, Lawrence Pountney-hill, City,
May 29, at twelve—J. Johnson, builder, Abingdon, Cam-
bridgeshire, May 29, at twelve—A. 31. Soulby, wine mer-
chant, St. Mary-at-Hill, City, Mai 29, at twelve— S. Jackson
and T. F. Jackson, woolstaplers, Bermondsey-street, May 29,
at twelve—G. Winning, upholsterer, Dover-street, Piccadilly,
May 29, at half-past eleven—C. Teesdale and R. Toulson,
furnishing warehousemen, Westminster-bridge-road, May 29,
at eleven—H. Turner, cowkeeper, Theobald's-road, June 4
at two—H. Bundy, builder, Upper York-place, Portland'
Town, May 28, at half-past one—W. Meek, ironmonger,
Southampton, June 6, at half-past eleven.
In the Country.
J. Potter and W. Maude, calico printers, Manchester, May
28, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—W. Hegin-
bottom, cotton spinner, Ashton-under-Lyne, May 28, at
twelve, at the Manchester District Court—J. Jones, fell-
monger, Chester, May 29, at twelve, at the Liverpool Dis-
trict Court—H. W. Blackburn, woolstapler, Bradford, June
17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—J. Prior, brush
manufacturer, Hull, June 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District
court—J. Prior and H. Brady, brush manufacturers, Hull,
June 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—J. Wood,
W. Wood, J. Wood, S. Wood, G. Wood, and J. Wood, ma-
chine makers, Birstall, Yorkshire, June 12, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court—R. Elliott, merchant, Sheffield, June
12, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—W. Harris, Tut-
bnry, Staffordshire, May 30, at twelve, at the Birmingham
District Court—Mr. Ambrose, timber merchant, 'Awre,
Gloucestershire, May 29, at twelve, at the Bristol District
Court—W. Adamson, butcher, Hexham, Northumberland-
shire, May 29, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Dis-
trict Court—J. Brown, cooper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, May
29, at twelve, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be grauted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
J. Taylor, carpenter, Market-street, May-fair, May 29
W. Meek, ironmonger, Southampton, May 27—R. Kipling,
warehouseman, Wood-street, Cheapside, May 30—J. Bur-
rell and T. Hall, iron founders, Thetford, Norfolk, May 28—
11. Turner, cow-keeper, Theobald's-road, Bedford-row, May
28—W. Henderson, mercer, Sunderland, May 28—W. Fer-
guson, draper, Liverpool, May 27—J. Jones, fellmonger,
Chester, May 27—T. Robinson, lime burner, Eccleston, Lan-
cashire, May 28—E. Brown, merchant, Birmingham, May
30—R. Champion, furrier, Friday-street, May 27—J. For-
rester, barm manufacturer, New-cut, Lambeth, May 27—S.
Smeeton, cattle salesman, West Smithfield, May 27—C. S.
Haward, grocer, Colchester, May 27—H. Bentley, commis-
sion agent, Liverpool, May 27.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Williamson, H. Anderton, and P. Harrison' dyers,
Pendleton, Lancashire—W. G. Winnan and R. George,
woolstaplers, Penzance—S. Reed and T. Walton, goldsmiths,
Fetter-lane—R. Cameron and J. Dow, surgeons, Almond-
bury, Yorkshire—J. Fringe and G. Bland, wine merchants,
Change-alley—J. Jones and IL S. Marsh, apothecaries,
Liverpool—L. and A. Heyman, outfitters, Liverpool—E.
Charlton and J. Green, size manufacturers, Ardwick, Lanca-
shire—J. and R. S. Wilson, builders, Birmingham—H. P,
Fischer and F. Lous, merchants, Newcastle-upon-Tvne—
J. Lugg and B. Shaw, surgeons, Upper Queen's-road, Cam-
bridge-road, Mile-end—J. Bloxsome and J. S. Carr, linen
drapers, Woodridge, Suffolk—E. Simpson and J. Kendell,
cabinet makers, Lancaster—P. C. Toker and W. F. Gostling,
proctors, Godliman-street, Doctors'. commons—H. J. F.
Toplis and H. Butterfield, foreign merchants, St. Paul's
Churchyard—J. Cunningham and H. Robley, West India
merchants, Bristol—J. D. Bertolini and A. Christie, hotel
keepers, St. Martin's-street.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
John Davidson, painter, Aberdeen, May 9 and 30, at
twelve, at the Lemon Tree Tavern, Aberdeen.
Alexander APArthur, jun., merchant, Tarbert, Argyleshire,
May 15 and June 12, at two, at M‘Calma-n's Inn, Tarbert.