must do equity, whereby purchasers would be involved in inquiries into the relations between husband and wife, their property, and means of maintenance." And this decision has been affirmed by the Lord Chancellor. The marginal note appears to state correctly the decision and the doctrine of the Court. The petitioner, Elizabeth Tidd, was, under her father's will, equitably entitled for her life to the income of freehold, copyhold, and personal estates. She married W. Tidd after her father's death, without a settlement. A bill was filed to have the estate administered, and a receiver was appointed, who, by a subsequent order, was directed to pay the balance of the income, after defraying certain outgoings, to W. Tidd and Elizabeth his wife, or to the wife alone, if she survived, until further order. In the meantime, Tidd and his wife had joined in a security, by lease and release, fine, and covenant to surrender the devised copyholds, which, for a pecuniary consideration paid by H. Begborough to W. Tidd, purported to charge an annuity in favour of Begborough on Mrs. Tidd's life interest. Afterwards a mortgage of Mrs. Tidd's life interest was made, by similar assurances, in favour of Mary Bassil. Subsequently Mrs. Tidd presented a petition, stating that for many years her husband had not maintained her; that he was then receiving parochial relief; and asking that the receiver might be directed to pay the whole of the income of the trust property to her, except as to the income arising from the freeholds, if it should appear that she had effectually conveyed her interest in the freeholds. The petition was dismissed, but, having regard to what fell from the Court in Wilkinson v. Charlesworth, (10 Beav. 324), without costs.

The case was decided on the authority of Elliott v. Cordell (5 Mad. 149) and Stanton v. Hall, (2 Russ. & M. 175), and on reasoning which may be thus stated from the Lord Chancellor's judgment:-" When the interest of the wife is a sum in gross, the wife's equity attaches for the benefit of herself and her children. There is no doubt or ambiguity about the principle; the relation alone gives her the right, and no purchaser can be deceived. The case is not the same where the Court has to deal with a life interest. As between the husband and wife, the Court never deprives him of the income of the fund with a view of making a settlement on the wife, but follows the course of the common law in giving the husband the fund. By marriage and duty he becomes the purchaser of that which is naturally applicable to their joint maintenance. If, indeed, he fail in the discharge of his duty-if he deserts her this Court will not help him to get at the fund. But this is done only because the husband has failed to perform his duties. Now, to involve a purchaser of the wife's life interest in inquiries how far the husband may be doing his duty in disposing of his wife's interest would be highly inconvenient." So far his Lordship seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the decision on principle; but he proceeded to hint that the distinction might not be altogether satisfactory, and finally relied on the inexpediency of disturbing the authorities.

But whether the authorities are in a perfectly settled state may be a question. Elliott v. Cordell and Stanton v. Hall fully support the decision and doctrine in Tidd v. Lister. There is, however, a case of Wortham v. Pemberton, (1 De G. & S. 644), in which the doctrine that the husband is entitled to receive or to assign his wife's life income, if he is not insolvent, was rejected. There a bill was filed by a married woman, legal tenant in tail, subject to a jointure term, seeking, as against her husband, a settlement of the income to which she was entitled as tenant in tail; and a settlement during the joint lives of the husband and wife, if the term should so long endure, was directed, without any question being made of the husband's solvency or ability

to maintain his wife. Sir J. L. Knight Bruce, V. C., said, “There is so much of moral justice, and so much fairness and convenience, in the Lord Chancellor's decision in Sturges v. Champneys, (5 My. & C. 102), that it would, I suppose, be a matter of general regret if it were held by the House of Lords not to be according to law." Here, then, is a decision that the wife has a right to a settlement out of her life income when she comes as a plaintiff, and not on the ground of her husband's desertion or insolvency, or by help of the rule that he who asks equity must do equity, which was the ground upon which, in Sturges v. Champneys, the wife's equity was enforced against the husband's assignees in insolvency, applying to have a term taken out of the way. Lord Cottenham, however, expressly recognised the authority of those cases in which the equity was allowed to the wife, claiming it as plaintiff. "Equity," said his Lordship, "though it follows the law, and therefore gives to the husband or his assignee the life estate of the wife, yet it withholds its assistance for the purpose until it has secured to the wife the means of subsistence." If this be the principle, and if, as is settled, this equity is enforced against the husband's assignees in insolvency, or even his assignees under a voluntary disposition for the benefit of creditors, (Pryor v. Hill, 4 Bro. C. C. 139), in the case of a life income, is it not absurd to say that there is a distinction between a particular assignee and creditors in the case of a life income, though there is none in the case of a gross sum? Surely the equity of the wife is as good as the equity of her children; or if it be not, then a wife without children, and past the age of childbearing, would have no equity against a particular assignee, even of a gross sum. Even in the case of a life income, the wife's children may be as much interested in its preservation as herself. And where can be the difference between insolvency at the time of the assignment, and insolvency subsequent to it? The presumption is, that the husband has exhausted his own means before he lays his hands by anticipation on his wife's income. His wife would be protected against the claims of his creditors generally, but not against one of those creditors claiming under an assignment made the day before the bankruptcy. "It would be inconvenient that purchasers should become involved in inquiries into the relations between husband and wife," &c. With all respect to the Court, we must say that such an argument scarcely deserves notice. If it were worth attention, it would have equal force against the wife's claim in respect of a gross sum. No doubt the wife's equity is an inconvenient obstacle in the way of dealings with her property; and it was intended to be so, in order to prevent a greater inconvenience-her own and her children's destitution.

This absurd distinction between a life interest and a gross sum is, in fact, a mere remnant of the distinction formerly insisted upon, but, after much fluctuation of authority, at length exploded, between the husband's general assignees for creditors and his particular assignee. (See 1 Rop. Husb. & Wife, 268 et seq.)

As between the husband himself and the wife, there is a shew of reason (or rather of consistency) in saying, that, so long as he lives with and maintains her, he shall receive her income. That reason ceases when, by assigning it over to a stranger, he puts that source of maintenance out of his power. But even as against the husband himself, not insolvent or deserting his wife, we have seen that a settlement of the life income will be enforced; (Wortham v. Pemberton); and it has never been pretended that the assignee can be in a better position than the husband was in at the time of the assignment. Again: if the husband is entitled to the wife's income as a fund for their joint maintenance, and is entitled to assign it, he should be equally entitled to assign the income of a gross fund belonging to

the wife. But the settlement directed against an assignee always includes the income.

In Wilkinson v. Charlesworth and Marsack v. Lister (10 Beav. 324) the doctrine was laid down in the only way in which, as we conceive, it can be laid down without inconsistency; and the Master of the Rolls distinctly asserted the existence of the wife's equity in respect of her life income-"It has been, as far as I know, the constant practice in this court to give effect to the equity of the wife in respect of her life interest." After referring to the argument, that the husband is a purchaser of his wife's life income, his Lordship said, "The whole argument is at variance with the ordinary practice of this Court. When a husband applies for payment of money, either principal or interest, to which he is entitled in right of his wife, the first questions are-whether the money for which he asks is subject to any settlement already made; and, if not, whether the wife consents to the payment desired being made to her husband. If she does not, the next question is, what settlement should be made; and if necessary, it is referred to the Master to inquire into the subject. Except under special circumstances, she has not been held entitled to have the whole of the capital fund settled upon herself and her children, or to have the whole of her income secured to be paid to herself alone, wholly excluding her husband; and there may be cases in which, under the circumstances, she may not be held entitled to have any settlement made out of the particular fund in question.

But the title of the husband having been considered subject to the wife's equity to a settlement, the matter is always inquired into." His Lordship then observed, that the observations of Lord Hardwicke in Bond v. Simmons, (3 Atk. 20), and of Sir T. Clarke in Sleech v. Torrington, (2 Ves. sen. 560), were probably founded on the notion, since overruled, that the life interest of the wife was not a subject upon which her equity for a settlement could attach; but it is now settled, that the husband is not entitled to his wife's life interest otherwise than subject to her equity for a settlement.

It thus appears that the doctrine in Elliott v. Cordell and Tidd v. Lister is not only wholly untenable upon principle, but also contrary to very respectable authority.

Correspondence.

INCOME TAX.

66

TO THE EDITOR OF THE JURIST." SIR,-I am not sure that this comes within the limits of THE JURIST, although the subject is one in which the Profession are interested, particularly now that we have an increased and increasing income tax in prospect; if it does, I shall feel obliged by its insertion.

In making my return for assessment to the income tax, I deducted the average loss on my law books. On appeal to the special commissioners, they refused to allow me any deduction whatever. Such, it appears, is their rule; but it is, I submit, unauthorised by the act.

By the third rule, sect. 100 of the act, for estimating the balance of profits and gains in the case of a trade, &c., and which, as far as applicable, is extended to professions, it is declared, "that no deduction shall be made for any sum expended for the supply, or repairs, or alterations of any implements, utensils, or articles employed for the purpose of such trade, &c. beyond the sum usually expended for such purposes according to an average of the three years preceding." That is, that the average sum so expended may be deducted. Now, what are law books but articles employed for professional purposes? and when old works or old editions become useless, and new ones are purchased, what is that but a supply or reparation for those purposes,

as strictly as a new boiler to a steam-engine is for the purposes of a manufacturer?

Take, for instance, those most useful and, in the present state of reporting, indispensable publications, the annual and other indexes to the Reports-they must be continually renewed. I have just replaced my Chitty's Equity Index; the old edition is not worth more shillings than it cost pounds; yet the commissioners tell me neither the loss upon the old nor the cost of the new is a sum expended for the purpose of my profession. It would puzzle any one to say for what other purpose it was expended. Everybody knows that upon a law library of moderate extent a hundred pounds is spent and lost in a very few years: to treat that loss as no diminution of professional profits is manifestly absurd; yet the commissioners so construe the act. A BARRISTER.

London Gazettes.

FRIDAY, APRIL 14.

BANKRUPTS.

THOMAS ASHLEY, Coleman-street, Camberwell, Surrey, licensed victualler, April 22 at half-past 12, and May 26 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. Dimmock & Burby, 2, Suffolk-lane, CannonWILLIAM HENRY DEAN, Fleet-street, London, aucstreet.-Petition filed April 3. tioneer and wine merchant, dealer and chapman, April 25 at half-past 2, and May 23 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sol. Levy, 14, Arundel-st., Strand.-Petition filed April 11.

DESIRE LEBLOND, Southwark-bridge-road, Surrey, hat manufacturer, April 22 at half-past 11, and June 3 at halfpast 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Baker & Parson, 9, Pancras-lane. - Petition dated April 11.

HENRY ANSTEY and WILLIAM WALTON, Birmingham, drapers, April 27 and May 25 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Christie; Sols. Motteram & Knight, Birmingham; Sale & Co., Manchester.JAMES RISDEN, Camborne, Cornwall, mercer, draper, Petition dated April 6. tailor, dealer and chapman, April 25 and May 15 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter: Off. Ass. Hirtzel; Sols. Rooker & Co., Plymouth; Stogdon, Exeter.-Petition filed April 4.

ROBERT ROBERTS, Liverpool, tailor and draper, May 1 and 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Cazenove; Sols. Thornely & Jevons, Liverpool. -Petition filed April 10.

JOSEPH MOSS, May 1 and 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Cazenove; Sols. Winstanley & Charnley, Preston; Evans & Son, Liverpool.— Petition filed March 18. WILLIAM SUTCLIFFE, Enfield, within Clayton-le-Moors, Lancashire, builder, dealer and chapman, April 27 and May 18 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sol. Hall, Accrington. - Petition filed March 29. JOHN WHITAKER ROWBOTTOM, (sometimes trading in the name of John Rowbottom), Halifax, Yorkshire, boiler maker and millwright, dealer and chapman, May 4 and 26 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Young; Sols. Wavell & Co., Halifax. - Petition dated JOHN ROBINSON, Hexham, Northumberland, currier and April 12. leather merchant, dealer and chapman, April 25 and May 23 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-uponTyne: Off. Ass. Baker; Sols. Fleming, Newcastle-uponTyne; Bell & Co., Bow-churchyard, London. - Petition filed April 6.

MEETINGS.

mingham, last ex.-John Huxtable, Frome Selwood, Somersetshire, silversmith, April 25 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, last ex.-L. D. Shields, Lime-street, London, merchant, April 29 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-James Roberts, Coal Harbour, Blackwall, Middlesex, wood merchant, April 29 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.; May 5 at 1, div.-John Taylor the younger, Charlton, Kent, builder, April 29 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-T. Eastgate, Churton-street, Pimlico, and Tothill-st, Westminster, Middlesex, shoe salesman, April 29 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.James Crofts, Threadneedle-st., London, mine share broker, May 4 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.— - Francis Paxon, Bloomsbury-square, Middlesex, scrivener, May 4 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Wm. Kidston and Filmer Kidston, North-street, Sidney-street, Mile-end, Middlesex, and Liverpool-st., Bishopsgate, London, medical and general fitters, April 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.; May 11 at 11, div.-Wm. Grand, Lower Tottenhamn, Middlesex, builder, May 9 at 12, Court of Bankruptey, London, aud. ac.-Charles Housley, Broad-street. Golden-square, Middlesex, surgeon, May 9 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.—. James Evans and George Davey, Britton Ferry Iron Works, Glamorganshire, iron masters, May 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.; May 19 at 11, div.-Wm. Ellis, Liverpool, printer, April 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.--Edward J. Inchley, Drayton, Leicestershire, corn dealer, May 4 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.—John Hodges and John F. Hodges, New Bond-st., Middlesex, hosiers, May 6 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.- Henry Whitmore, Stockport, Cheshire, tailor, May 6 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-George Winter and James Winter, Hastings, Sussex, builders, May 9 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Moss Samuel, Castle-street, Houndsditch, London, dealer in watches, May 5 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-James Gibney, Nottingham, currier, May 5 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Nottingham, aud. ac. and div.-Robert Lea, Grantham, Lincolnshire, draper, May 5 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Nottingham, div.-Philip Jones, Llangattock, Monmouthshire, banker, May 19 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, div.-Wm. Brunton, Bradford, Yorkshire, joiner, May 5 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div.-Wm. Thomas the younger, Haworth, Yorkshire, worsted spinner, May 5 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div.-Joseph Horne, Leeds, Yorkshire, dyer, May 5 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div. Luke Palfreyman, Sheffield, Yorkshire, scrivener, May 6 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, div.

CERTIFICATES.

To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting.

George Winter and James Winter, Hastings, Sussex, builders, May 9 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James Paul the elder, Southsea, Portsea, Southampton, brewer, May 5 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George Brooks, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, tailor, May 5 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London. - Benjamin Parfitt, Artillery-street, Bermondsey, Surrey, stonemason, May 5 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Charles Housley, Broad-st., Goldensquare, Middlesex, surgeon, May 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Evans, Manchester, ironmonger, May 8 at 12. (and not April 26, as before advertised), District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Robert Hammond, Ripon, builder, May 5 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.James Dowell, Birmingham, chemist, May 11 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.

To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Wm. H. Dee, Cambridge, plumber.-W. Hesketh, Blackburn, Lancashire, cotton manufacturer.-James M‘Colm, Manchester, waste dealer.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

Thomas Best, Aberdeen, merchant.-Angus Macgregor, Edinburgh, doctor of medicine.-Wm. Shaw, Kilsyth, Stirlingshire, manufacturer.—Robert Graham, Glasgow, boardinghouse keeper.—Curry, M'Farlane, & Co., Glasgow, commission merchants.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS

Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process.

Wm. Phipps, Bristol, coachmaker, May 11 at half-past 10, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Bristol.-John Sturt, Bristol, out of business, May 18 at half-past 10, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Bristol.-Thomas Elliott, Island of Portland, Dorsetshire, out of employ, May 11 at 10, County Court of Dorsetshire, at Weymouth. -John Watson Holtum, St. Dunstan, Kent, licensed victualler, April 25 at 11, County Court of Kent, at Canterbury.-David Rutherford, Blackburn, Lancashire, draper, May 1 at 11, County Court of Lancashire, at Blackburn.-John T. Seear, Hemel Hempsted, Hertfordshire, shoemaker, April 21 at 11, County Court of Hertfordshire, at St. Albans.-J. Holles, Hemel Hempsted, Hertfordshire, April 21 at 11, County Court of Hertfordshire, at St. Albans.-Francis John Pulley, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, watchmaker, April 21 at 10, County Court of Hertfordshire, at St. Albans.-James Cox, Macclesfield, Cheshire, fishmonger, April 27 at 11, County Court of Cheshire, at Macclesfield.-Alfred Thomas Plater, Thame, Oxfordshire, carpenter, April 26 at 12, County Court of Oxfordshire, at Thame.-L. Ashton, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, grocer, April 20 at 12, County Court of Lancashire, at Ashton-underLyne.-W. Wilkins, Burnham, Somersetshire, coach manufacturer, May 5 at 11, County Court of Somersetshire, at Axbridge.-Jas. Lawton, Oldham, Lancashire, grocer, April 21 at 12, County Court of Lancashire, at Oldham.-Thomas Harris, Corsham, Wiltshire, grocer, April 19 at half-past 12, County Court of Wiltshire, at Chippenham.-Joseph Taman, Boston, Lincolnshire, tailor, May 4 at 10, County Court of Lincolnshire, at Boston.

The following Persons, who were ordered to be brought up before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY, on April 26, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's-inn, to be dealt with according to the Statute, will not be heard on their Petitions on that Day, but on April 28 at 10 precisely :— James East.-Harry Guerin.-John Frederick Sharman. Richard Connor.-James Austen.-Charles Thos. Butterfield.-Henry Pimm. - Eliab Blacknell Breton. — Thomas Barrett.-John Foster.

Final Orders.-Peter Charles Burrell.-William Robert Wright.-Philip Kirkby.-Henry Crockett.-John Earle. Adjourned.-Isaac Smith.-John Pritchard.

The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection from Process, are required to appear in Court as hereinafter mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

May 1 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Thos. Vaux, Melina-place, Westminster-road, St. Georgethe-Martyr, Southwark, Surrey, house agent.-Wm. Charles Harris, North End, Croydon, Surrey, foreman to a coachbuilder.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

April 28 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Henry Houghton, Corrogated-row, Bermondsey, Surrey, out of business.-Thomas Bristow, Wardour-street, Soho, Middlesex, dairyman.-John Tench, Blacks-road, Bridgeroad, and Upper Mall, Hammersmith, Middlesex, engineer.

April 28 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY. Jonathan Bath, High-st., Camden-town, Middlesex, retailer of beer.-John Stone, Windmill-st., Finsbury-square, Middlesex, cheesemonger.-John Wallace, Hays-mews, Berkeleysquare, Middlesex, groom.-George Kitchen, Greville-street, Hatton-garden, Middlesex, cheesemonger.

April 29 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. James Knapp the elder, Summer-cottages, Wistenberggrove, Clapham, Surrey, out of business.-Charles Longland, Britannia-row, Hoxton; High Hill Ferry, Clapton; and Golden-lane, Middlesex, staymaker.-Thos. Davis, Princes-st., Bedford-row, Middlesex, milkman.-Berndt Farding, Jewry

bridgeshire, boot maker, April 28 at 10, County Court of Cambridgeshire, at Cambridge.-John Wihorkson, Harland, Derbyshire, beer-shop keeper, May 10 at 11, County Court of Derbyshire, at Chesterfield.-Wm. Linn, Brighton, Sussex, cabinet maker, April 22 at 10, County Court of Sussex, at Brighton.—Thomas Brown, Hove, Sussex, baker, April 22 at 10, County Court of Sussex, at Brighton.-Walter Triggs, Chichester, Sussex, whitesmith, May 10 at 11, County Court of Sussex, at Chichester.-James Bidwell, Chesterton, Cambridgeshire, tailor, April 28 at 10, County Court of Cambridgeshire, at Cambridge.

The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection from Process, are required to appear in Court as hereinafter mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

May 3 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. John Harrington, Grafton-place, Euston-square, Middlesex, dealer in toys.-Edward A. Bardouleau, Great Winchester-street, London, clerk to an attorney.-John T. Carey, St. Alban's-terrace, Vauxhall-bridge-road, Middlesex, statuary.

May 3 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY. Joseph Bates, Park-cottages, Old Kent-road, St. Paul's, Deptford, Kent, commission agent.-Wm. Wood, Denbighstreet, Pimlico, Middlesex, builder's clerk.-Richard Holland, Tower-street, St. George-the-Martyr, Surrey, chandler-shop keeper. John A. Reid, Tabernacle-row, City-road, Middlesex, tailor.-James W. Williams, Stonebridge-place, Dalston, Middlesex, merchant's clerk.-George F. Bennett, Southampton-street, Camden-town, Middlesex, seal engraver.-Wm. C. Curry, Mansion-house-street, Lower Kennington-lane, Lambeth, Surrey, engineer.-David Lang, King-street, Coventgarden, Middlesex, dealer in foreign fancy goods.-S. Bennett, Goldsmith's-place, Hackney-road, Shoreditch, Middlesex, car

penter.

Regent-square, Gray's-inn-road, Middlesex, clerk in holy orders in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.M. Bromhead, Leather-lane, Holborn, Middlesex, butcher: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John Dallor, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, auctioneer in the Gaol of Surrey.-George Thomas Hiller, Great Cambridge-street, Hackney-road, Middlesex, general merchant in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John Patrick Somers, Cambridge-street, Eccleston-square, Pimlico, Middlesex, in no profession: in the Queen's Prison.-Henry John Hirst, Grove-road, Brixton, Surrey, not in any trade: in the Queen's Prison.-Francis John Attfield, Waterloo-place, Shepherd'sbush, Middlesex, builder: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-David Cocksworth, Broadway, Ludgate hill, London, grocer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Edward Flanagan, Molyneux-street, Edgeware-road, Middlesex, out of employment: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Charles Nichols, Great Portland-st., Oxford-street, Middlesex, house painter: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Neocles Gaspard Mussabini, Hunter-street, Brunswick-square, Middlesex, political writer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William Thomas Lambert, Jermyn-street, St. James's, Middlesex, patent medicine vendor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-T. E. Roper, Trinity-square, Brixton, Surrey, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire, commission agent: in the Gaol of carpenter in the Gaol of Surrey.-J. Willis, Little Bolton, Lancaster.-E. Turton, Sheffield, Yorkshire, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-M. Siggs, Liverpool, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Joshua Porrett, Burnley, Lancashire, tailor: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-W. Morison, Everton, Liverpool, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster. -Samuel Hope, Little Bolton, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire, brass founder: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Joseph Fishwick, Hulme, Manchester, grocer in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Thomas, Upper Boat, Eglwysillan, Glamorganshire, draper: in the Gaol of Cardiff.-Samuel Thomas, Canton, near Cardiff, Glamorganshire, out of business: in the Gaol of Cardiff. -Herbert Lane Sampson, Yardley, Worcestershire, confectioner in the Gaol of Coventry.-Charles Collins, Coventry, builder: in the Gaol of Warwick.-Wm. Baldwin, Accrington, Lancashire, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster. publican: in the Gaol of York.-George Salmon, Durham, out of business in the Gaol of Durham.—John M'Mullen, Little Birch, Herefordshire, draper: in the Gaol of Hereford.

:

Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:(On their own Petitions).

Edmund Carter, Charles-street, Portman-street, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Rich. Samuel Jones, Hayes-court, Leicester-square, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Robert Dyer, Eden-place, Old Kent-road, Surrey, out of business: in the Queen's Prison.-Thos. Hobson Heigham, Abdy-street, St. John's, Horsely down, Surrey, builder in the Queen's Prison.-Catherine Mary Ladewig, Margaret-terrace, Harrow-road, Middlesex, confectioner: in the Queen's Prison.-Joseph Price, Barford-terrace, Liverpool-road, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William Fisher, York-place, Vauxhall-bridge-road, Middlesex, lodging-house keeper: in the Queen's Prison.-William Henderson, Canterbury-road, Ball's-pond, Middlesex, manufacturing chemist: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-James Wolfe Charlton,

Andrew Chadwick, Salford, Lancashire, licensed victualler: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Frederick Henshaw Cooper, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, commission agent in the Gaol of Stafford.-Jesse Crosland, Skipton, Yorkshire, traveller to a tobacconist: in the Gaol of York.-Richard Wrathall, Skipton, Yorkshire, grocer: in the Gaol of York.-S Broadbent, North Moor, Oldham, Lancashire, provision-shop keeper: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Dilnot, Herne, Kent, grocer : in the Gaol of Maidstone.-Edward Hawkes, Birmingham, tobacconist: in the Gaol of Coventry.-Henry Rooke, Rotherham, Yorkshire, out of business in the Gaol of York.Jas. Stansfield, Rotherham, Yorkshire, hairdresser: in the Gaol of York.-Thos. Williams, Strood, Kent, licensed victualler in the Gaol of Maidstone.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

May 2 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY, Peter Shonfeld, Croydon, Surrey, tailor.

May 3 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Thomas Green, Parker-street, and Drury-lane, Middlesex, greengrocer. Joseph Simpson, Brooksly-st., Liverpool-road, Islington, Middlesex, commercial traveller.

May 4 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIoner. Sackville Waller Lane Fox, St. Martin's-le-Grand, London, in no profession.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before a Judge of the County Court, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

At the County Court of Kent, at MAIDSTONE, May 2

at 12.

Wm. Humphryes, Milton-next-Gravesend, licensed vic