The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JAN

ILLEGALITY OF TITHE COMMU-
TATION.
PARLIAMENT EXCOMMUNICATED.
(From the Western Lyininary.)
On Monday last, at a meeting held at the New Lon-
don Inn, for commuting the tithes of several parishes,
tlir following Protest was delivered to Mr. Assistant
Commissioner Louis by Prebendary Dennis:
Protest of the Rev. J ;nes Donnie, Prebendary-, Bachelor
of Civil. Law, and owner of the moiety of the benefi-
ciary interest in a lease, for a certain term of years, of
the rectorial tithes of the parish of St. David's, in the
County of the City of Exeter, and of the manor of
Rooksdon, in the parish of Heavitree, in, the County of
Devoie
The said Jonas Dennis protesting, declares, that having
been summoned to attend slivers meetings of proprietors
and payers of tithes, in. the aforesaid parishes, at the
New London Inn, in the months of December last,
and of Januar/ instaet, convened by George Louis,
Esq., Sub-Commissioner, as is asserted, for the com-
mutation of tithes, by the alleged virtue of a
certain provision of an Act passed in• the sixth
and seventh years of King William the Fourth, in-
titled " An Act for the Commutation of Tithes in Eng-
land and Wales," he cloth not voluntarily consent to anz
act, proceeding, or agreement, of the said Sub-Commis-
sioner, title-proprietors, or tithe-payers, to effect the
PruPostet unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful com-
mutation and annihilation of tithes, otherwise than by
noncurrence, compelled, and extorted tinder terror of the
plan and penalties denounced by the said Act.
First—Because the provisions of the said Act of Par-
liament are a direct violation of the English C.onstitu-
tion, and, therefore, form no part of the stringent law
of the land ; the said provisions not having obtained Me
previous consent of the respective convocations of Me
bishops and clergy of each province, notwithstanding that
such convocations having been convened and assembled
concurrently with the said Parliament, at the ti :-,e of
passing the said Act, continued toconstitute the first of
the three estates of the realm, to which function of
legislation, as to the disposal or moditleaanon of eacken
astical endowment with tithes, con:leinlay and primarily
pertaieed.
becendlY—Because the previsions of the said Act are
further demonstrable en an infraction of the English
Censtitution, and °'msequently form no. part of the
stringent h'w of t'ae hind, inasmuch as they are a direct
vio:ation of that fundamental law of the said Constitu-
lotion, the unrepealed Act of Henry 111., commonly
called Magna Charta, whereby it is enacted, that " the
Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her
whole rights aintLiaerfies
Thirdly---.T.,eeause by a statute of 37 Hen. 111., it is
enacted that the sentence of excommunication is de-
nounced against "all that secretly, or openly, by deed,
word, or council, do make statutes, or observe them
being made, and that bring in customs, or keep them
when they be brought in, against the said liberties, or
any o them, the authors, law-makers councillors, and
the executors of them, and all those that shall presume to.
judge against them, all and every which person, let them
know that they incur the said sentence ipso facto, i. e.
upon the deed done."
Fourthly—Because by a statute of 25 Edward 1., c. I,
it is enacted that " the said charter be confirmed," and
that "all justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers,
shall allow the same pleaded before them in judgment,
in all their points ;" and*by cap. 2 it is provided that " if
any judgment be given from henceforth contrary to the
points of the charter aforesaid, by the justices, or by any
other ministers that hold pleas before them, against the
points of the charter, it shall be undone and holden for
nought."
Fifthly--. Because, by a statute of 25 Edward I. "all
persons, of whatsoever estate they be,
.are enjoined to
maintain and uphold all the said articles of the said
Magna Charta, on pain. of the sentence of excommuni-
cation."
bixthly—Because, by a statute of 28 Edward 1., "it
IS enacted that the said statute of Magna Charta is ra-
tified and approved by the King, and confirmed and made
staoag for him and all his heirs perpetually."
Seventhly—Because, by 19 subsequent statutes,
harnely, 14 Edw. 111., cap. 1, 25 Edw. HT., cap. 1, 50
Edw. HI., cap. 1, 1 Ric. 11., cap. 1, 2 Ric. 11., cap 1, 3
Ilic. IL, cap. 1, 5 Ric. IL, can. 1, 6 Ric. IL, cap. 1, 7
Ric. IL, cap. 1, 8 Ric. IL, .e p. 1, 12 Ric. 11., cap. 1,
1 Lien. IV., cap. 2; 2,4, 7,:,f;, and 13 Hen. IV., 3 Hen.
V., cap, 1, and 4 Hen. IV., cap. 1, it is enacted, nearly
in the same words, " that all the privileges and franchises
granted 'heretofore to the said clergy, be confirmed and
holden in all points."
Eightly—Because, by I William and Mary, cap. 6.
the following oath is required to be taken by the King,
or Queen, as the condition of coronation, " Will you
preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and
to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights
and privileges as by law do, or shall, appertain unto
them, or any of them ?—All this I promise to do."
Ninthly—Because, by 16, 17 Car. 2, c. 1, and 22, 23
Car. 2, c. 3, in an Act fongranting a subsidy to his Ma-
jesty, by which the endowment of the Church with tithes,
previously exempt from Parliamentary taxation by
virtue of King Ethelwolph's charter, were first included
in the general taxation, it is " provided that nothing
herein contained shall be drawn into example, to the
prejudice of the ancient rights belonging unto the clergy
of this realm, by the force of which saving clause in the
reign of King George 11., Mr. Spealter Onslow reminded
the House of Commons, that an Act of Parliament affect-
ing the property of the Church, was not binding in law,
without the concurrence of the clergy assembled in con-
vocation having been first obtained."
Wherefore, fortified by such high authority, and on the
various grounds before enumerated, the undersigned
tithe. owner protests against the proposed, or accom-
plished annihilation of tithe by commutation, in the pa-
rish of St. David's, Heavitree, St. Thomas the Apostle,
St. Sidwell's, Kenn, Payhembury, or any parish wherein
he is tithe-owner, or either by himself, or by his tenants,
payers of tithes, such commutation being devoid of con
stitutional authority, therchre illegal.
JONAS bENNIS, 8.C.L., Prebendary,
Impropriate Rector of St. David's,
Parish of Rooksdon, Manor.
To George Louis, Esq., of
for Commutation of Tithes. - •
PClsloe-park, Jan. 24, 1842.

ANTI-COIN-LAW MEETING AT
T
A public meeting was held in the Trinity House,
Leith, on Monday, to consider the propriety of petition-
ing Parliament for the_repeal of the Corn and Pro-
vision-laws.

Provost Woof,' being called to the Chair, shortly ex-
plained the object of the meeting. lie thought they
were entitled, as members of an important and thriving
commercial town, to consider the working of these laws;
and from the same circumstances, they were naturally
called upon to consider what ought to be done to relieve
the present distresses of the country.—(Hear.)
Mr. BERRY moved the first resolution, to the effect
that, of all the protective duties, the Corn-laws were the
worst. Surely that law was the worst which taxed the
daily end necessary food of man more than his luxuries;
which aggrandized-the rich and impoverished the poor ;
which aggravated the wants of the cottage, impaired the
health of its inmates, and barred the education of their
children. —(Cheers.)
Bailie Muse seconded the resolution.

DANIEL ItPGILVRAY moved an amendment, to the
effect that the extension of commerce had not benefited
the. working population of this kingdom ; and that the
repeal of the Corn-laws would not be sufficient relief to
the working classes,' tvhi!e there are so many standing
laws equally hostile to ttiNt• interests.
JOHN MACRAE, another working man, seconded the
amendment, which was put and negatived ; the original
motion being carried by a large majority.
Mr. RUTHERFORD, M.P., then moved the second
resolution, to the effect that the aim and object of all
monopolies was to benefit the few at the expense of the
many, and were therefore always injurious to the people,
particularly so when applied to their food. In speaking
of the amendment which had been moved, he said, I am
sure it would be a great boon to all—to the working
classes especially—if these laws could be repealed or ab •
rog,ated,,or even if they could be reformed. The Hon. r h
Membo
- ming addreseci the meeting at some length,
ccncluded by movin his resolution.
Mr. D. Tno3i seconded-the motion, and it was carried
unanimously.
Other resolutioni were movcd and seconded by Mr.
Cassels,' Mr. Lawrie, ReT. Jame
and Mr. Mitch M• 3 Harper, Rev. I.Cul-
len,- and carried a,lmost unanimously ;
and a petition to Parliament, founded on the resolutions,
was ado tits on the motion of Councillor Gilley.

MONEY friAltliET;nd CITY NEWS.

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
POST.—In the course of the morning the Chairman
of the Spanish Exchequer, or Treasury-Bill Holders, had
an interview with Senor Borrajo, on the subject of the
payment about to be made to the English creditors of a
years interest on overdue interest ; the result of which
does not appear to have been otherwise satisfactory, than
as regards the acknowledgment made by Senor Bull of
the undoubted prelerrability of the claims of this class
of sufferers (the Treasury bill holders), of the pro-
priety of which acknowledgment he
_(the Chairman)
has from Senor Borrajo a full confirmation. It is fairly
conceded that the case of the Treasury bondholders
cannot, with any justice, be blended with that of the
coupon holders, a matter of comparatively recent date ;
but, with all this, it turns -out that Senor Borrajo has
no authority to pay one sixpence even of the
.niterest
accrued upon the advertised Ambassadorial money, bills
be evident
or Promissory no
to every one,tes due in 183 i% must Pow,.•kn;
if, indeed, there had leen
before a doubt upon the point, that the Three per"cent.
).

We understand thaTil,,, DUlieof Bu,s ,7
kinl,
has now an agent busied in waiting on his - fiu'ealrcns
Icsnclholtlin; tenantry, with notic,s, fur the'r
siuca-
tnres, forbidding Baron ItothF:,child, his
man, whippers in, &a., from hunting on or hulats-
uver
any of his Grame's lands. The tenantry are not
allowed to exercise their opinions in the matter, but
sign they must. We know several tenants who
have. signed it with reluctance. In one instance
which has come to our knowledge, on the person
in charge of the notices (one of his Grace's well-
pqi(l labourers), calling; at the house of a tenant
for the signature, the individual was not at home ; the

per4on in'-'4,.flrf!-e of the hooF,tl hcsitr:ted :is to the signing,
oil that " Grate will un,..',lT if 'taint
signA". suid the messenger. This was sufficient. The
signetore Was immediately at t4ebetl. —Aylesbury Neu%

he Spinish we proclaimed it to be in the first
SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
isrischtaemticee,isnajmusetly7
FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The Tory candidate for Dublin haa I
which arc
- .'
'
What
tother of the artful contrivances of
EX'anitive and their friends of the bolgu,
obtained a majority of 9,00 on the first day's poll.
,_.
n resorted to for the purpose of working up
i The almost frantic exultation with which this in- Lnices, and of paving- the way to further loans. Admit-
.,sed appre-
telligence has been received by the Torie.s.,, eon. ting the entire justice of Mr. Taslier's representations,
firms the already-sufficiently-disc:
r and consequent M. Borrajo undertook to write out to his Government for
instructions as to the proposed payment of 5 per cent. in-
hensions of the party, that det._,
in. . If the Polling-lists terest, for 1841, to the Treasury bondholders, as well as
destruction, awaited. _ the.;
to ascertain what course it is intended to pursue in the
:It 7.'1 t be seen that the triumph afjustment of that previously due, being for the period
four years, and • likewise. what will: be done with the
in-
be
ofe
the examined
o ra Iw,
~men and their patron
.Govern- o
inept is -
grem'ature. Instead of ministering. capital. If the Spanish Cortes would have their laws
hi. opP,, aud.justifying anticipations of final vie- respected by others, they should be careful to respect
story, the lists disclose their weakness, and prove
them themselves; but how is the fact ? While the de-
only the desperate means their agents have
cree of Gamboa, the automaton of M. Mendizabal, passed
been driven to employ, in order to obtain the in 1841, is to be acted upon, that of the great financier
temporary advantage to which they refer their
desponding adherents. The polling will con- himself, passed in - 1836, is to remain a dead letter—a
monument of bad faith the most unparalleled.
tinue litre days. It is, therefore, evident that CHRONICLE. —lt is believed, on the Corn Exchange
1 the state of the poll at the close of the first day on their
and in commercial circles, that the Cabinet have decided.
cannot possibly, in a Constituency so large as plan for altering the present fluctuating scale of
duties on foreign corn.
.The. new scale, as we stated on
that of .Dublin decide anything beyond the factt, Monday last, is to 'O3 a minimum duty of four shillings
that, with whichsoever of theartiestlie ina:o tiis found, that majority was, inpall probability, oby
tamed by the superior activity used in bringims
average price is at or below 565. per quarter
up the voters, aided by the superior facilities atean
d qauma ratxe ri
mwnhnieno
fthteweaivz
tevragij)irnigc3episer aetu
aorrt
earbno_ vhee
n 6
t4hs .e,
ua ; the dut
l
falling two .shillings Fir quarter for every rise of pne shil-
y
forded to that party in approaching the polling-
.booths. This view of the case appears to be fully
ling per quarter on the average price. The averages are
to be taken from the actual sales of the growers only, to
Justified by the circumstances attendant on the
be ascertained, under special regulations prepared for
first day's polling, by which Mr. Gregory ob-
the purpose, from the weekly returns to be made out
throughi the principal market towns of the United King-
thetaiued his boasted, but- fallacious majority. At by the district officer of. Excise.. London, Liver
last election the Liberals were in a majority Lprol, and Hull are not to be included in the returns.
on the first day's poll, equal to that obtained by
the Tories on the first day's poll of the present
contest—and yet were defeated. This we men-
tion as a sufficient answer to the exultings of the
Tories over a merely nominal and 0-enerally de-
ceptive advantage. But when we e'look to the
lists, and see of what that majority is made up,
there is enough to cheer, and nothing to dis-
courage, the Liberal party. By polling ticir
freemen emphatically theirs, because they
made and pay them—in numbers-greater than
they have been in the habit of doing on the first
day, the Tories obtained an early superiority.
This will sufficiently appear, when it, is stated
that more than two-thirds of the entire number
Of votes recorded for Mr. Gregory were free-
men, and that a considerable number of these
were created by the late Lord Mayor, a few
hours before he and the old Corporation became
defunct—a termination being put to the doings
of that proverbially unscrupulous body by the
Irish Municipal Reform Act. - As the law re-
quires a voter to be six months on the registry
hefitre he is qualified to exercise the franchise,
and as these last creations of corruption have
only been in existence two months, their votes
will, necessarily, be disallowed, shOuld the merits
of the election become the subject of inquiry
before a Parliamentary Committee.
STANDARD.—The late Oxford controversy
has left a legacy of inconvenience in the uncer-
tainty into which it has cast the meaning of cer-
tain important , words,--words rendered im-
portant by the arguments which it has been
attempted to deduce from their etymology: The
terms Catholic and Protestant,. though neither
is to be found in the Scriptures in the sense
in which thy have been applied, are
treated as if they had, like the letter in the
Gematica. of the Kavbalites, a specific and mys-
tic power, and the most violent deductions are
made from them. We need, however, scarcely
to remind our readers that " Catholic"
means simply universal; and that when it is ap-
plied to the Church it means neither more nor
less than the whole community of Christian wor-
shippers on the face of the earth. In this sense
—its only proper sense—it is not merely tlifr:-
rent from, it is contrasted to, the Church of any
particular country; there -can be such thing as
a Catholic Church of England, or a Catholic
Church of Rome, though the Church of England
belongs to the Catholic Church. As to the so-
called Church of Rome, it is, according to our ar-
ticles no Church at all; therefore it is neither
the Catholic Church nor part of the Catholic
Church, although, questionless, millions of Ro-
manists are members of the universal Church,
and, as such, good Catholics. There is something
curious, end not uninstructive, in the assump-
tion of the title Catholic by the Romanist com-
munity. For about eight centuries, that is, while
the west of Christendom lay in ignorance, and
rested in communion with Rome, "the Church,"
as it is called, of " Rome " was contented with
that title, it called itself the Church of Rome, or
the Roman Church. It was not until the Reforma-
tion warned the Vatican that it was likely to lose
large divisions of its votaries, that, among other
devices to retain its influence, the Papacy claimed
a monopoly of ChriStianity, by calling itself uni-
formly the Catholic,- that is,, the Universal
Church. This title, adopted for the very pur-
pose of excluding us from the name of Christians,
we have weakly sulimitted to • and now we have
this submission—the effect of good humour of
inadvertence—employed as an argument to wrest
from us the Christian liberty earned by our fa-
thers. We have more to say upon this subject,
though it is one to which we do not like to advert,
but we shall try to discharge ourselves of it once
tbr all.
COURIER.—The Morning Chronicle is sore
and wrathful that, as a matter of taste, Earl de
Grey should seem to prefer Mr. Gregory as the
candidate for Dublin over Lord Morpeth, the
patronized puppet of Lord Mayor Daniel
O'Connell. This may seem odd to the Chronicle,
which has one rule for its own party and
another for its opponents; but it would he more
odd still if Earl de Grey might not be per-
mitted to indulge a taste of his own, as well as
Lords Normanby and Fortescue his predecessors.
So long as the Lord Lieutenant does not,
like LordNormanby, openly canvass for the ob-
jects of his preference, or clandestinely connive
at the " death's head and bloody bones" system
for annihilating the freedom of election, and car-
rying the candidate of his private preference tri-
umphantly to the poll over the mangled car-
cases of hostile voters, by their violent abduc-
tion, or waylaying and assassination' by hired
gangs of ruffians, or by any other of the uncon-
stitutional and atrocious practices which were the
rule and not the exception of Whig-Radical ad-
ministration, under the Noble Marquis at least,
we cannot understand why the present head of
the Irish Government may not entertain in peace
his individual predilections and opinions, when,
as a singular phase in Irish history during the
last ten years, they are not allowed to interfere
with the impartial exercise of his public duty.
A trumpery charge is indeed alleged against his
Lordship that such impartiality has not been ob-
served, and that the light of the Vice-Regal
-countenance has beamed too favourably and
conspicuously upon the cause of Mr. Gregory,
and per contra withheld from Lord Mayor
O'Connell; for as to his candidate, the man is
not even in court or a consenting party. to
the suit carrying on in his name. The
primary proof; obstreperously vociferated
. by the Radical press on both sides-'the water
against the impartial bearing of the Viceroy, is
based on the fact that Lord Jocelyn, one of the
state officers of his Lordship's household, was ab-
solutely seen (tell it not in Gath !) arm la arm
traitorously promenading the streets, and `cold-
' ing criminal converse with Mr. Gregory, the
constitutional presentee of the city of Dublin.
No other overt act of vice-regal treason was
made out, or could be discovered, from this mon-
strous twin conjunction of old friends or ac-
quaintance, but a deadly plot was scented at
once to be in agitation as surely as that Irish
swine snuff the wind a-coming though afar off.
We chance to recollect, and 'in the latter days
of the late Ministry too, when Whiggery was
not quite so fastidious, and when Lords of'. the
Bedchamber were unceremoniously discharged,
not for the high crime and inisdemea,nou of
voting against their liege Lords of the Govern-
ment fitction, but absolutely for not voting at
all, and affecting neutrality, if not independence.
We can remember, moreover, when the Queen
Consort of England, now our excellent Queen
Dowager, was not tolerated in the retention of
her own Chamberlain, because in the consistent
discharge of his duty, and in consonance with
the public principles of his whole life, he
presumed to a will and a vote of his own, not
in unison with the acts and the sentiments of
the powers that were. What would have been
the fate of any officer of the household of Lord
Normanby, who should have refused to be
dragged in the mire of the O'Connell car, or
even have cut the honour of his personal ac-
quaintance' in the streets of Dublin, may be
readily conjectured from these significant ex-
amples.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 27.

The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster
and took appeal motions to-day.
THE BRISTOL CHARITIES.

This case came before his Lordship upon petition
praying the confirmation of the Master's Report, finding
that certain charities in the City of Bristol came under
the 71st section of the Municipal Act, and finding also
that the trustees of the other charities of Bristol would
be proper persons to be trustees of the other charities.
The LORD CH. NCELLOR granted the prayer of the
petition, confirming the report of the Master.
WALKER V. FLETCHER.
_

This case•came before the Court upon two appeal mo-
tions, the objects of which were to discharge an order
pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor of England, by
which his Honour refused to dissolve an injunction he
had granted restraining two of the defendants, Messrs.
Popes, the coal merchants, from proceeding with an
action-at-law, which they had instituted against the
plaintiffs, for the value of certain coals which had
been lost at se. From the statement of Mr. Richards,
who was in support of the application, it appeared that
the plaintiffs Messrs. Walker and Co., were in and
previous to 1841, the owners of a vessel called The
Hunter, and Joseph Fletcher, one of the defendants
was the registered owner of a vessel called the
Robert. The Hunter sailed in January 1841, from
London to Sunderland, and on the night of the 22d of
that month, she came in collision with the Robert.
The latter vessel sunk immediately, and the crew of
the Hunter abandoned her, she caught fire, and
ultimately went down. On board the Robert were coals
belonging to the defendants, the Messrs. Pope. In con-
sequence of the collision having taken place, Joseph
Fletcher, the registered owner of the Robert, brought
an action in the Court of Queen's Bench for the injury
sustained by the Robert against the plaintiffs. That action
was tried at the last Spring Assizes for Surrey, when
a verdict was entered by consent jor the plaintiff
Fletcher as the owner of The Robert, and the damages
were estimated at 5001. At the same Spring Assizes at
Liverpool the present plaintiff brought an action
against Fletcher, alleging that the Robert ran
down the Hunter, and claiming damages for the
injury. In that action Fletcher was also successful, and
obtained a verdict. Since then Messrs. Pope had brought
their action against the plaintiff for the value of the
c:,als lost ; and to restrain the proceedings in that ac-
tion the injunction had been granted which it was now
sought to dissolve,

The arguments had not concluded when the Court rose.

THE NEW JUDGE.
In the course of the morning, Mr. Cresswell was sworn
in, in his Lordship's private-room, as a Sergeant and
one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 27.
WILSON V. TINDALL.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this case this morn-
ing, and made the following order:—That on the first
hearing of the case the Court, not thinking there had
been a sufficient breach of the injunction to commit the
defendant, ordered the case to stand over, for the pur-
pose of inspecting an affidavit from the defendant, since
reading which the Court considered the breach of the
injunction to be founded on mistake, and therefore now
ordered the defendant to pay the costs of this application,
leaving it open to the parties to make an application to
the Lord Chancellor to have the injunction reversed.
The defendant to be restrained, in the mean time, from
vending the cocoa-nut oil candles for which the injunc-
tion had been obtained.

•
His LORDSHIP then proceeded to take motions, none o
which possessed any features of public interest.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 27.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
QUARRIDE V. COLSON.
This case came before the Court upon motion for an
• injunction to restrain the defendant, Captain Colson,
• from proceeding with an action which he had
brought against the plaintiffs, the executors of the
late Captain Tobin. It appeared that sometime
since Captain Colson and Captain Tobin met together at
Baden Baden, that a friendship sprung up between them,
that they travelled the Continent together, and that Capt.
Colson advanced several sums to Capt. Tobin, for the
purpose of paying his travelling expenses, and he had
also lent him money when they had been amusing them-
selves in the gambling-houses on the Continent. On the
return of these gentlemen to this country, they went
over their accounts, and Captain 'robin gave his 1.0. U. to
Captain Colson for the amount due to him. That amount
had been stated variously, the plaintiffs submitting that it
could not exceed 475/, while the defendant contended that
it was 5251. The plaintiffs submitted that inquiry ought
to take place into the manner in which the debt had
been incurred, and offered to pay the 4751. into Court
in consideration of obtaining the injunction ; on the
other hand the defendant urged that the question was I
entirely one for a Court of Law.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction upon
the terms of the plaintiff paying the 4751. into Court
within ten days; if that was not done he should refuse
the motion with costs.
- (Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
His HONOUR was engaged during the early part of the
morning in hearing motions of no particular interest.
OLIVER V. LATHAM.
The arguments in this cause were resumed to-day, and
were continued to the rising of the Court. The facts
shall appear when judgment is given.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
No case of any public interest came under the atten-
tion of the Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 27.
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF LICHFIELD.
This was a rule calling upon the defendant to show
cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directed
to. him, and commanding him to insert upon the muni-
cipal burgess-roll of the Borough of Lichfield, the name
of the applicant, George Alton.
Mr. WADDINGTON now appeared to show cause against
the rule. The application had been made linger the pro-
visions of the Ist Vic. ch. 78, sec. 4, and their Lord-
ships had held in former cases that they were to require
of the applicant to show that he was e::,itled to be
placed- on the burgess-roll ; because if the rule was
granted, the Mayor would he compelled to place the
name of the applicant on the burgess-roll. The affidavit
of the applicant stated that he had been for several years
an inhabitant-householder of the borough ; that he had
paid all the rates made for the relief of the
,poor ; and
all the borough-rates which under the provision of the
Act of Parliament had become payable by him in re-
spect of such house or tenement. He also stated that he
was not an alien, and had not received any parochial
relief, alms, or other public charity for a certain period.
It appeared that the Mayor, who now showed cause
against the rule, was -not the Mayor who presided at the
revision, but the present defendant believing that there
were two serious objections to the defendant's qualification
or claim, had thought it right to oppoSe the motion.
-The first objection was made at the revision of the list,
and he had then been duly objected to on the. ground
that he had been three years in arrear to a rate imposed
under the provisions of a local Act, the 46th Geo. 111.,
chap. 32, for lighting, paving, and watching the city of
Lichfield. The objection was twice heard before the
assessors, and the majority were of opinion that the ob-
jection was fatal, and the present application was now
in the nature of an appeal from that decision. The
other objection was, that the applicant had been receiv-
ing for several years relief out of the funds of a public
charity of the town, called the Wakefield Charity ; and
that objection was made upon the affidavit of Dr. Har-
wood, one of the trustees of the charity. Now, with re-
gard to the first objection, the 76th section of the Mu-
nicipal Corporation Act provided that the party shall
not be entitled to be placed on the burgess-roll, unless
he shall have paid all such rates payable by him in re-
spect of such premises. He submitted that the rate in
question decidedly came within the provisions of the
Act, and at all events it must be taken to be included in
the borough rate. With regard to the second objec-
tion, the questimi would turn upon what amounted to
ftuhnedr.eceiHpteofsuablmmistteo p
dr
tihibale charity
tithecha from any boroughrity,althotighnot
entrusted to the charitable trustees of the borough,"
caine within the meaning of the word " alms" in the
Act of Parliament, and it was shown that the applicant
had been for eleven years receiving relief from the cha-
rity on the ground Of his poverty. The Learned Coun-
sel concluded by submitting that the objections he had
urged must prevail, and that the rule ought to be dis-
charged.
The COURT was of opinion that the objections urged
by the Learned Counsel against the rule were not suffi-
cient to justify theta in discharging it. It was contended
that the voter was disqualified for non-payment of rates,
and the receiving of alms or charitable relief. When
they looked at the terms of the sixth section, the Court
was of opinion that they did not apply to cases like
the present in either respect. In the first place,
it did not appear that the rate for which the
applicant was in arrear, was a rate within the
meaning of the Act of Parliament. He was
required to pay poor-rates, and such other borotigh-
rates as were directed to be paid under the provisions
of the Act. It would certainly appear as if there. had
been some confusion in the wording of the clause,
but they did not think, on viewing the whole of the .

clause, that they could extend its meaning to rates like
the one under the consideration of the Court. The rate
was . a partial local rate, and its provisions had
not been extended to all parts of the borough,
and, therefore, it could not be said that its non-pay-
ment rendered a man disqualified. The relief which the
applicant had received was also more of a private than a
further,stee
sof
was not " any pension or
the borough, " for it
would appear that they had nothing whatever to do with
fund public e
n naturetru st
entrusted
d ;
to and
the tr u
it. On the whole, therefore, the Court was of opinion
that the applicant was not disqualified under either of
these objections, and his title being admitted to be g6od
in other respects, the rule for a mandamus must be made
absolute.

mitted by the bankrupt. As to the Statenient made by
Mr. Warwick, there must have been some mistake on
the one side, and it might have occurred without imput-
ing anything like blame to either. If Mr. Cook had
told Mr. Warwick that he held his brother's security
for 7,0004 the result might be that he would 'not then
have trusted the bankrupt.—(A laugh.) That laugh
was uncalled for, particularly with reference to Mr.
George Hitchcock, whose respectability he did not wish
for one moment to impugn. With respect to Mr. Wheeler,
the manner in which he gave his evidence to-day was full
proof of his undoubted respectability.—(Mr. Wheeler
here strongly complained of an allusion made to him in
the Times, that he sought to compromise his debt with
Mr. Cook. He denied that he ever had done so, or ever
intended to have done so, and he was sorry that Mr.
Cock shOuld in any manner have concocted. what passed
at a friendly meeting into an overture of a most unworthy
compromise.--(Applause.) Mr. Humfrey was glad that
he had permitted this interruption, as it gave Mr.
Wheeler a pulslic opportunity of giving his o n statement
fully to the world ; and thus far as to the only two gen-.
tlemen to whom Messrs. Cook and Gladstone had given
referenCes. They believed Hitchcock to be a solvent
man, and as such, they continued to supply him with
goods to the amount of thousands, besides lending
him money to take up the bills which he had accepted
for other creditors. Their debt was increased from
16,0001. to 20,0001. as the strongest proof of their belief
in his integrity. With respect to the rate of interest
charged to the bankrupt, it was upon a general average
—it was not more than seven and a half per cent. Why
was not Mr. George Hitchcock called here to-day ?
Have no other goods been concealed than those which
had been discovered ? No good reason could be sug-
gested for his not calling his brother or his clerks ;
but he supposed he dare not put his brother in the box.
He would now call Messrs. Cook and Gladstone who
were desirous of giving the fullest information respect-
ing the whole of their transactions with the bankrupt.
The Bankrupt (very warmly)—l can prove that what
you have stated is untrue:
Mr. HUMFREY—Then you shall have an 'opportunity
of doing so by and by.
Mr. Gladstone examined by Mr. HUMFREY—I am
the partner of Mr. Cook, and we had large dealings with
the bankrupt. In May, 1840, I saw him and William
Hitchcock together, relative to the bankrupt's affairs.
'We agreed upon that occasion to take the security of
George Hitchcock for 7,0001. on the condition that he
should first look into his brother's afthirs, to see that he
was doing well, and to Continue to do so from time to
time, and that the bankrupt should discontinue his small
wholesale trade, which we believed to be dangerous and
unprofitable. He did so, and we took his security for
7,000/. We continued to supply the bankrupt with goods
to the end of 1840, and in 1841 (the beginning of it) our
account with the bankrupt was 13,3001. independent of
the loan of 3,0001. by Mr. Cook. About that time he
showed us a statement of his affairs (that now produced
to me), and at the time I put the date upon it in the
bankrupt's presence.
What did he say about it?—He brought it to us at
our request, as we wished to know his circumstances be-
fore increasing his account, and answer any inquiry
which might be made respecting him. He said he had
been much occupied, and that one or two items in the
account were not furnished, but that the statement
would show his accounts within a few hundred pounds ;
and we were satisfied with it, and went freely into the
account. The total debts and credit in that paper show
a balance of nearly 4,0001. in his favour. He repre-
sented it as a true statement of his affairs within 100/.
either way. He called upon us again in a few days af-
terwards, and gave us an account of his monthly pay-
ments. I asked him how he could meet our account
during those periods, and he brought with him this pa-
per (exhibit B), and wrote it down in the margin ofeach
month, and I read it to him afterwards.
Now read to us what you so read to him:—" It has
expectation that all will be provided for by takings; but
there may be a deficiency of 2001. or 300/. besides the
bill of 1,2541. Bs. 7d." It was a bill of our own. What
I took down was from the bankrupt's own statement.
There is a memorandum upon the back of it in the bank-
rupt's own handwriting; at leastel believe it to be so—
" Wm. Hitchcock and Co.'s liabilities, after paying, Ja-
nuary 4th and sth, 1841, will be—," and then it breaks•
off. That was the endorsement upon the back of it, and
it contained a further statement, that by the " takings"
he wished to be able to pay. off a large amount—say
from 1,000/. to 2,0001., by the 4th of May, and a con-
siderable amount in June and July. At that time he
went into the state of his affairs with me ; but not
farther than the paper represents. He gave it (the
paper) to us as explaining the nature of his affairs, and
showing us his liabilities in the different months which were
thereafter to become due. Upon that representation we
continued to give him credit.--[A letter; dated May 1,
from Hitchcock to Cook and Gladstone (exhibit G) was
here read, and a minute of the answer to it, on the sth
of May, warning Mr. Hitchcock not to keep too large a
stock, and not abuse- the opportunity he then had of
doing well.] In consequence of a letter from him, of
May 15, he applied a sum of 863/. to his account and
the 28th of the same month the bankrupt stated that he
paid off their account upwards of. 3,0001., and begging
them to let 2,0001. remain for a feW days, and again re-
peating his promise to abide by their previous " warn--
ing" letter of the 15th of .May, 1841. Another letter of
the date of the 15th of May was written to us by the
bankrupt, and it had relation to Heel's bill for 8631. In
reference to that, I said, we should have a letter with
your check, and without being mixed up with other
matters. My recollection then carrying me back to the
letter of May the Ist, which contained other names, I
mentioned it, regretting that such an affair should be
mixed up with other matters, and the second. letter was
then written. On the Ist of July we sent a letter to the
bankrupt, saying—
Mr. MARDON—Have you that letter ?
Mr. HumFuEv—No ; I have not, nor a copy.
Witness proCeeded—That letter said that as his
buyers were frequently with 'us, contrary to our under-
standing with him on the Bth of May, we desired him
to instruct them not to come so frequently to us. In
consequence of that letter, he called upon us on the
following day ; he held a number of letters in his
hand, and complained in an imperative tone, that if
we did not give him sufficient support, so as to keep him
in good credit, it might be worse for him and for us.
I said we had given him sufficient support, that we had
answered all his references correctly and to the best of
our belief, and that we would do no more, as we would
not allow ourselves to lie under the imputation of his
having a large account with us being the cause of any
injury to him. I further told him that I would speak to
Mr. Cook, and he might call upon the following day.
He did call, and we told him that we had considered the
conversation of the previous day, and that we had an
offer to make to him, and begged .of him to go for his
brother before we mentioned the offer. He did so, and
lie and his brother returned. together. I then stated to
him that we had been much amazed by the complaint
which the bankrupt had made in saying that we had not
given him sufficient support, and that having a large ac-
eount with us was an injury to him in the market. I
told him we had no desire to injure his brother, and
that we had made up our minds to " write off" a liberal
amount from the account, provided he could obtain a
party or parties to take our unsecured . debt. I added,
that we would lend him the 7,0001., and that as the bank-
rupt had shown by his stock-taking in January that he
had a balance in his favour of nearly 4,0001., the amount
to be written off would enable him to carry on his busi-
ness well. The bankrupt then asked if he should receive
the money, or the party or parties who might take the
account, and we said that that was a matter for his own
arrangement. He then expressed his confidence that he
would obtain a party to take our debt, and requested to
have ten days for that purpose. We gave him ten days,
and they left. Shortly after the bankrupt called again,
saying that his brother had sent him to know what sum
we would write off, and we said 2,500/.
Did he call upon you on the 13th of July ?—He
did, and said he Would not avail himself of our offer, as
he had not succeeded in getting a party to take our un-
secured debt; but he said lie had a proposition to make
to us from his brother George, who held the lease of the
house No. 118, Regent-street. We asked why his bro-
ther had not come to make the proposition him-
self, and the bankrupt said his brother was much dis-
tressed and agitated in consequence of the extreme ill-
ness of his wife, who would never be better, and he
therefore could. not come. He added that his brother
would sell us his valuable lease for 2,0001., and to give
us an undertaking to buy it back (if we desired it), and
give us a guaranty for 1,0001, provided we relieved him
from the bill of 7,0001. He said his brother was very
uncomfortable about that bill, as he had not mentioned
it to Mr. Rogers, his partner. We rejected the propo-
sition. The bankrupt said he would speak to his brother,
and would call upon us again. He next called on the
16th of July, and found me alone. He said that he had
not seen his brother; that lie felt himself much over-
stocked with linens, and wished that I would receive a
parcel back from him for the purpose •of being " re-
finished," when I said that he might send them for that
purpose. He said he frequently bought very cheap
goods, and that he then had a parcel of the value of 5001.,
which he would be glad to sell to any wholesale house.
To that I made no reply at the time, and the next day
I sent him a note, desiring him to send us samples,
as we had buyers or them. Some patterns came on the
19th of July, but they were not suitable for us, and we
did not order them. The bankrupt called the following
day, and made a similar proposition as- to his brother's
lease as he had done on the 13th, and I believe he called
twice on that day. He urged us to exchange our secu-
rities, for if he were to fail, or be driven in the Gazette,
and only pay 10s. in the pound, we would scarcely lose
more than we had agreed to write off from his account,
provided he had been able to take it ; and, as we had
a claim against Heel and Co.for 863/., we asked him the
nature of hits account with that firm, and, after using
severe expressions respecting them, he said that they had
received bills from him, which they had applied to their
own use, and that they were in the hands of the London
Joint-stock Bank Company. Gandon and Co. and Cun-
liffe, and that he had been, or would be compelled to pay
them by those parties, and that closed the interview.
When was the next time you saw him ?—I think about
the Bth of August ; we had sent him a letter on the sth,
giving him notice of • the dishonour of three bills that
morning, and stating that if his account was not con-
siderably reduced, we would be obliged to proceed
against him.
• Was that letter written in any concert with the bank-
rupt ?—Certainly not.
Had you any communication with him directly or in-
directly about your writing any letter of the kind ?
None. That letter was written in the regular course of
business, and I. next saw him in, I think', two or three
days. He found nee alone, and said he had found that
he could not pay us any money, and asked me 'if the
linens had been sent to be re-finished, and I told him they
were not yet sent. He then wished me to place them to
his credit, which I agreed to do, on pondition that he
would allow a reasonable remuneration for want of con-
dition, or want a vataae to which lie consented ; stating
to me at the same time, that he had not entered them in
his books ; at millet; I felt surprised, find told him that

BAIL COURT, Jan. 27.
THE TRIBE OF WILLIAMS.
Mr. Williams, the Counsel, applied to Mr. Justice
Williams, on a point of practice in the case. of Williams
v. Williams, and grounded
.his application, which was
merely of a technical nature, on the affidavit of a witness
named Williams.

EX PARTE TEE COAL AND IRON COMPANY.
Mr. ROEBUCK applied for a rule calling upon an attor-
ney of the Court to show cause why he should not de-
liver up certain deeds and papers belonging to the Com-
pany,, and why he should not answer certain matters
contained in the affidavits. It appeared from the affidavits
that the party in question had been a Director of the
Company, and had also acted as their solicitor on behalf
of himself and his partner. The Shareholders had since
thought proper to employ another attorney,-and he had
applied to the party against whom the present applica-
tion was made, to deliver up the deeds and documents of
the Company, which the party in question had refused to
do, alleging that he had a lien upon them for his bill of
vests, amounting to upwards' of 9001. The affidavits
then proceeded to set forth certain charges against the
party in question, which we do not feel justified in
giving, as the application is an ex parte one.
Mr. Justice WxuAAms thought that such charges
should have been made the subject of an indictment
rather than of such an application- as the present • how-
ever, under the circumstances, he would grant a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 27.
JEWISON V. DYSON.
This case had been already before the Court on Friday
last. The question was as to the right to appoint a Co-
roner within the honour of Pomfret, which was claimed
by the plaintiff as nominee of the Crown in right of the
Duchy of Lancaster,'and by the defendant as the ap-
pointee of the freeholders of the West Riding of York-
shire. The case was tried at the last Assizes for York-
shire, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff ; but at the
commencement of last term a rule was granted to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted. Mr. Cresswell, who opposed the rule on
Friday last, submitted that, under the,Charter of Richard
the Second, the Crown was entitled to appoint a person
to execute the duties of Coroner in the locality referred
to, ,and that the verdict obtained by the plaintiff might
not be disturbed.

The case having been appointed for re-hearing to-day,
Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Martin were also heard in favour of
the right of the plaintiff, the nominee, of the Crown.
Mr. S. WORTLEY commenced his argument for the de-
fence, which, at the rising of the Court, was not brought
to a conclusion, and the further hearing of the case was
again postponed till to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 27.
THE NEW JUDGE.
In the course of the morning, Mr. Cresswell, the
newly appointed successor of Sir John Barnard Bosun-
(pet, lately a Justice of this Court, was made a Sergeant-
of-Law, after which the oaths were administered to him,
and he took his seat on the bench ; but shortly after-
wards he retired, and his place was taken by Mr. Jus-
tice Maule.

CRANE V. PRICE.
The special argument in this case, which is an action
for the infringement of a patent invention for the smelt-
ing of iron, being adjourned from Saturday, occupied
the Court again during the whole morning. This
was the third day, but the arguments were of great
length and are purely legal. The matter in dispute seems
sufficiently simple, as it relates only to the question, whe-
ther the defendants using the hot air,blast in a manner
somewhat different from that employed by the plaintiffs
is an infringement on the patent of the latter.
The argument having been concluded with Mr. Ser-
geant Bompas's reply,
- The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—This case involves
an important question, and we shall take time to consider
judgment.

•
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 26.

IN RE WILLIAM HITCHCOCK.
The examination of witnesses in the case of the bank-
rupt, William Hitchcock, was resumed this morning.
The Court was as crowded as at former examinations.
Mr. Hurnfrey, the barrister, and Mr. Ashurst, the
solicitor, appeared on behalf of Messrs. Cook and Glad-
stone ; and Mr. Mardon for the bankrupt.
Mr. i'vartnoN said that Mr. Wheeler was in Court,
and he propOsed to examine him.
Mr. William Whee!er, of Cheapside, warehouseman,
sworn—He stated that in the month of July ha applied
to Messrs. Cook and Co., as a reference for the bank-
rupt, "William Hitchcock. He called upon them and in-
quired for Mr. Cook. He was answered in the affirma-
tive, and was introduced in the private counting-house
t:, Mr. Cook. lle said " Mr. Cook, I have called to
make inquiry as to the respectability of Mr. Hitch-
cock, of Regent-street. We have a reference from
him to your house ; this reference we have had for
some short time, but the account being small, we did
not think it necessary to make the inquiry; as it is
now likely to become one of importance,.h having
just bought a large parcel of us, we are desirous
of availing ourselves of the reference, and shall be
obliged by your giving me your candid opinion of
Mr. Hitchcock." Mr. Cook replied, " The better way
will be to turn to his account in our ledger." He intro-
duced me to the clerk's office for that purpose. The ac-
count was exhited to me, and I went minutely through
it. It was a long and open account, such a one as it ap-
peared to me every honourable house would exhibit.
There were no interlineations or credits. Mr. Cook di-
rected my attention to one particular entry in the ledger,
which was about 2001. He said, " to show
you theopi-
nion we have of Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Wheeler, that
amount, entered in May, was dated forward as July."
He (witness) could not swear as to the date or amount,
but stated the truth, to the best of' his belief. He ac-
knowledged to Mr. Cook that his statement was quite
satisfactory. As I was retiring I said, " By the way,
Mr. Cook, do you know anything of the means of Mr.
Hitchcock ?" Mr. Cook declined replying to the ques-
tion. Did not press the point, thinking Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone were assisting the bankrupt with capital.
Did not ask him if they held security. Did not sell any
goods to Hitchcock after 21st July—not at least that he
was aware of. The -goods previously ordered were sent
in in July. The amount of that order was 2341. 9s.
4d. Mr. Cook said, in reply to my question, " These are
very ticklish times, and you will excuse my offering any
opinion on the subject."
Mr. HUMFREY said it was now his duty to address the
Court on the part 'of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone—
most respectable tradesmen who had been inculpated.
They had,been calumniated for weeks without any oppor-
tunity of reply, but he had no doubt he would be able to
show that they would'iretire from this Court in the roost
honourable manner. The bankrupt had already proved
himself to be an accomplice in a most nefarious transac-
' lion, and if he were before a criminal court he would not
be believed without being fully corroborated. Here was
a man supposed to have concealed his goods from his
creditors. Why did he not call his brother, or his clerks
to confirm his representation ? Why, because he dare
not do so. The Learned Counsel then entered into a
lengthened statement of the transactions between Cook
and Gladtitone with the bankrupt from the year 1537 to
the period of his bankruptcy in 1841, and as has already
appeared in evidence, Messrs. Cook and Gladstone cer-
tainly held some securities, one said to be for 8,500., but
for which they would now, or at any other time be given
up to the assignees for 1,500 L, thus benefiting the cre-
ditors by 5,0001., if there be one word of truth in Mr.
Hitchcock's statement. The utmost the creditors were
likely to get would be 4s. in the pound, and this
5,000/., if they would take his offer, would give them
a considerable addition ; but he was much afraid they
would not accept it. In Jan. 1841, the bankrupt brought
a statement of:his affairs to Cook and Gladstone, in which
he stated his liabilities at 23,0001., and his assets at 27,000/ ;
thus representing himself to be nearly 4,000/, above the
world ;_ and the onl manner in which the bankrupt at-
tempted to get out of this document was, that it re-
ferred not to 1841, but to the year 1839. If that state-
ment were true, as he represented it then to be, he must
have thousands to account for to, his creditors when he
came to pass his final examination, whenever that day
might arrive. As to his evidence with respect to Heels
cual Co., it was (the Learned Counsel said) a misrepre-
f;antation, as he could prove by referring to his letter of
the 15th May (which was here read by the Learned
Counsel, and appeared to be at variance with the pre-
vious testimony of Mr. Hitchcock in relating to it.)
What security could any tradesman have, if such per-
sons, in the face of their own hand-writing, gave such
statements as those already given by. the. bankrupt ?
Several other letters of a warning ' character
were also read, addreSsed by Mr. Gladstone to the
bankrupt, and one from the latter of the Ist of
May, stating that he would follow. the advice
which was given him of not having too large a
stock of goods, and that he would not be guilty of
any extravagance. In July, 1841, Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone believed him to be solvent, and hence
their representations to Mr. Wheeler.. Subsequently
they had reason to believe otherwise, and, naturally
and fairly they wished to obtain some security for their
heavy debt. On the 16th July tire bankrupt said to
them that he had too heavy a stock of linens, to which -
they
so sent. But it was alleged that they were sent in at
ss
they replica, " Then send
them to us," and they were
the " back " door of Mers. Cook and Co., in order
that the bankrupt might obtain
a temporary benefit.
What, however, was the fact ? Why that all the
goods taken into their large warehouse were taken in at
the " back " door, and no other. In September he be- I
came a bankrupt ; but let it not be forgotten that the
(locket was struck by Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, and
if they had been privy to the concealment of his goods
they never would have had the madness to have done so,
knowing perfectly well that the docket would have got
them all • back. Only shortly before he failed he paid
away 2,0001, the produce of forced sales, but not a
shilling of it to Messrs. Cook and Gladstone. Upon the
6th of October he admits himself to have been perjured
as
The.to th
Bankrupt—fro.
anything like perjury.
where. It was Mr. Cook
al-
was it 'that the concealment was ad-
inent of the lisru'aenrPykt—rifpNatl:si
Mr. IlmarnEy--.8, proved else-
.lglioslogtio:o:dnsytothhaistl, creditors.haveadmi:tnedd
ho
gave the information respecting it to the assignees,
then and there only

Tile first twelve lots comprised a variety of monkeys,
which varied in thcir prices from 30s. to 12s. ; lot 15,
puma, or silver mountain lion, 141. ; lot 'l6, handsome
Senegal leopardess, 91. ;'lot 17, a hyena, 71.: lot 18, splen-
did Barbary lioness, 241. ; lot 19, handsome Bengal
tigress, 90/. (Wombwell) ; lot 21, a white Polar bear,
supposcki to be the largest in England, 37/. ( Wombwell) ;
lot 23, a fine esquimaux sledge dog, 2/. ; lot 26, hand-
some gold pheasant, 21. Bs. ; lot 28, handsome silver
ditto, IL 3s. ; lot 37, handsome orange-crested cockatoo,
3/. 12s. 6d. (Wombwell) ; lot 40, handsome peacock,
1/. 2s. ; lot 41, handsome performing Barbary lion,
105/. (Oliver) ; lot 42, ditto, ditto, lioness, 941. 10s.
(Oliver) ; lot 43, handsome Senegal performing leopard,
34 guineas (Oliver) ; lot 44, ditto, ditto, 25 guineas
(Wombwell) ; lot 49, an Indian buffalo, 9f guineas ;
lot 50, a sagacious male elephant, about eight years'
old, and very docile. This lot caused great com-
petition, Mr. Wombwell commenced by offering 501. the
bidding increased until it reached 350/., at which sum it
was knocked down to Mr. Oliver. The travelling-vans,
&c., were then sold, and fetched high prices, It is said
that the-elephant was worth 500/.

UNION BANK OF AUSTRALlA.—Wednesday
a special general meeting of the Proprietors of this
Company was held at their office, 38, Old Broad-street,
and was fully attended. J. B. Smith, Esq., presided.
From the Report it - appeared that the accounts re-
ceived from New South Wales and Van Diemen's
Land since June last were highly satisfactory. The
amount of undivided profits to June last was
46,220/. Bs. 6d., to which add the profit of the last half-
year, less the expenses of the branches and in London,
amounting to 33,564/. 16s. 7d., which left a balance,
after further deductioi,s, of 54,785/. ss. ld. of undivided
profit. The result of the foregoing statement enabled
the Directors to declare a dividend of 255. per share on
the original shares, and in the second series 10s. per
share, which was after the rate of 10 per cent. per an-
num. The reserve fund balance to the end of Decem-
ber, was 15,1981. 6s. 6d. Mr. Borrodaile moved the
adoption of the Report, which was carried unanimously.
A discussion took place between the Directors and Mr.
G. R. Robinson, Mr. Mader, Mr. Nicholls, and others,
daring which the Chairman said it was their intention
to apply for an Act of Incorporation. After votes of
thanks to the London and Colonial Directors, two new
Directors were elected by ballot, after which the meet-
ing adjourned.

RELIC OF PRINCE RUPERT'S DEFEAT.—
In the course of last week, a cannon-ball was found on
➢larston-moor, by a person named Edward Clayton. It
was imbedded about eighteen inches beneath the surface
of the grouad.— York Courant' -