Star. — London, England, 1829-05-23 00:00:00

were two (tonnes to be pursued. The one was to hear Counsel at the bar in support of the prayer of the petition ; the other, which was the course which he Meant to recommend, was, to refer the petition to the consideration of a Committee. He understood•tbat the greater part of the accounts required were already be fore the House, and that the Corporation would have no objection to produce the remaining accounts in the Committee er elsewhere. The question, therefore, to be considered was, whether there existed sufficient grounds for calling upon the Corporation to produce the ac counts in question ? He thought that the Noble Baron . opposite had been premature in his motion, and that the more proper course for him to pursue would have been to move in the Committee for the production of any evidence or documents which he might wish for. However, as the case at pietent stood, all that be (Lord Melville) could do was to move that the further consideration of the present petition be referred to a Committee on Tuesday next. The reason why he men tioned that day was, that the Committee would sit on Monday, and it was possible that what should occur there would prevent the necessity of proceeding any far- ther upon the Order which had been obtained. Lord DURHAM said, that he could not admit the propriety if the position in which the case had been placed by the Noble Viscount (Melville). The question at present was, not whether sufficient grounds existed or did not exist for calling upon the city of London to produce those accounts ? That was a subject for the deliberation of their Lordships at the time when be had moved for the production of the papers in question. Hia motion having upon that occasion been carried unanimously, he had a right to assume that the grounds on which he at that time rested his motion were deemed by their Lordships quite sufficient to support it. The question at present was, whether the Corporation had • laid sufficient grounds to induce the House to abandon the order which they had made after a deliberation upon the facts of the case? The circumstances under which he had moved for the order were—(and here he should observe that, if the order were such a one as was pot usually made, it was because applications for • such orders were very rsre)—but the fact was, that the present order bad been made in consequence of the course which had been adopted by the Corporation themselves. They had come forward and declared that the estates which they possessed were not sufficient to enable them to perform the engagements which they had made to the public in 1823 for the re-building of • London bridge, and constructing convenient approaches • to it. They now said that they were unable to redeem • that engagement, and asked Parliament for a grant of a million of money to perform the task. This inability of the Col potation was stated in the preamble bf the • Bill; but he (Lord Durham) did not believe the pre • amble, and asserted that the Corporation possessed • sufficient funds fin the purpose; and be• trusted that • the House would not, in a case of that nature, refuse to cell for any just arid necessary information upon so impottiat a subject. If their Lordships, upon the . present occasion, were to allow themselves to be bearded ' by these Aldermen and Common Council, they could never expect to obtain the information which tbcy may reqUire upon any future occasion. In the Acts which bad been passed at different times in Parliament, and , • especially in the 21st Geo. 11. it had been over and over • again said that the estates of the Corporation of London ' were insufficient to defray the expenses of certain wMks.for which provision was made by Parliament in . .....these Acts. If the Legislature made these assertions yeoncerning the estates of. the Corporation, they must have previously inquired into their accounts, and ascer tained the t , of the facts asserted in the preamble. • This was what the House was doing at present. The • Corporation of London had Come forward and requested a large grant, upon the ground of the inadequacy of their estates to the purposes ref the building of this bridge and its approaches. What the Huse had called for was the proof of this inadequacy, and that the evi dence may be 'submitted to their judgment. He knew that there existed a distinction between private and pub. lit estates; but what private estates could the Corpora tion of London possess ? He was not much of a lawyer, and did not, therefore, pretend to give any very autho ritative opinion upon this subject; but he conceived that a private estate was one which was granted by a donor to a donee for the exclusive advantage of the, latter. A public estate • was one which was granted for public purposes and the public advantage.— The case, therefore, before their Lordships was this— that the Corporation of London, describing themselves in the Bill as bankrupts, wished to keep some of these estates for their own private purposes, whether of hos pitality or extravagance, and, therefore, applied to Par liament for a grant to defray the expenses attending the construction of London-bridge, for which purpose they had already received a sum of 150,0001. He (Lord Durham) was ashamed to argue such a question as this before the House. Was there any body who doubted the power of their Lordships to make the order which they had made, or to enfer.e it afterwards? Was there any person who meant to assert that there existed any • power in this country greater than the power •f the high Court of Parliament? It may be said that the Court of Chancery would not order the production of the accounts which were to be produced under the present order. He thought that the cases in which the Court of Chancery would refuse to order the disclosure of accounts of private property were quite different film the present. if the present inquiry had been di tected when the Corporation were not before the House .there may be some grounds for objecting to the inquiry, but the present order had been made in consequence of the • Corporation having come before the House. The accounts which the Corporation had so great an objection to . produce before that House they had no objection to produce to their own members, and had actually, as was now stated, printed them for that purpose. He should say that the House had a right to receive the information, and that the Corporation had no right to refuse it; and he should. therefore, as an amendment upon the motion of the Noble Viscount, move that Counsel be heard upon the matter of the petition on,; Monday next. Lord MELVILLE said, that the Corporation did notl at all deny the right of the House to call for the infor- 1 'nation which they required, but only said that it was not the practice of their Lordships to make such orders as that which had been made on the motion of the Noble Baron. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that he agreed with what had been stated by the Noble Bunn (Durham) that their Lordships ought to have the fullest possible information upon the subject of the Bill. There ought to be the fullest proof of the facts stated in the preamble, and it the Corporation failed in the proof of the pre amble, they would, of course, lose their Bill. The roes ., min now was only whether the House should hear Counsel on the part of the Corporation on Monday or Tuesday ? His Noble Fr rend near him (Lord Melville) had recomnieoded that the further consideration of the Petition be deferred to Tuesday, because be hoped that the proceedings of the Committee on Monday might render it unnecessary to take any further steps upon the order. This was, in, fact, a public Bill, anti:l3o=ns the Corporation to levy money for a public purpose. But it was technically a private one, and had, as such, been referred to a Committee. He would put it to the House whether they would call in that place for information which, according to the regular and established course of proceeding, ought to be produced before the Com mittee ; and whether such a course would be either con venient in itself or in accordance with the practice of the House? The speech which had been made by the ,Noble Baron opposite might with sufficient propriety be addressed to their Lordships after they bad heard Counsel on the matter of the Petition, as it would be then the most convenient time to decide whether the accounts ought to be called for or not. The only ques tion now to be settled was, whether the House should follow a course which was certainly very unusual, and order the production of these accounts before they knew whether they would be brought before the Committee ? He had only one word more to say about the expression which the Noble Baron (Durham) had used about the bankruptcy of the Corporation of London. He (Lord Ellenborough) supposed that the Noble Lord alluded to the clause in the Bill in which it was stated that the Bridge-house estates were not sufficient to defray the expenditure attending the building of London-bridge (the Bridge.hcuse estates being supposed to be min sively dedicated to the purpose of keepipg the London bridge in repair). He thought that under all the cir cumstances the best course would be to accede to the motion of the Noble Viscount (Melville). Earl GREY said, that the Noble Lord (Ellenborough) had sad that the speech of the Noble Baron (Durham) may be more conveniently made when Counsel had been heard upon the petition. He (Earl Grey) was of• opi nion that the speech of Lord Ellenborough ought to have been made when the original motion for the order was made. The question to be now decided was, not whether it was convenient to the Corporation that they should be obliged to bring forth these accounts, but whether the House should enforce upon the Corporation the order which had been made? It was a question con cerning the privileges of the House, and the course which had been pursued upon it was so tar from being new, that it was the course adopted every day upon occasions of the same nature. The effect of adjourning the considera tion of the petition until Tuesday would be to refer a question of the privileges of the House to a Committee, and not to the House itself. It may, perhaps, not have been a proper course to institutethis inquiry if the City of London had not come before the House, and asked for permission to impose a tax upon coals, upon the ground that the funds which they derived from the estates were insufficient for the purposes of the expenses of the un dertaking. But as the tax which they asked leave to impose was to be laid upon one of the most important necessaries of life, it was the duty of that House to be satisfied upon the fact of the funds which the Corpora tion possessed not being sufficient for their purposes, An additional reason for this was, that the tax to be imposed was one very unequal and partial in its ope ration. The question was one of privilege, and, accord ing to the usage of that House, they ought to proceed to the decision upon that question as soon as possible.-- He had no objection to hearing counsel in the matter of the petition ; but be thought it ought to be done at the earliest possible day. Lord GODERICH said, that when the original Bill for the building of London bridge was brought forward, the Corporation asked for a grant from the Govern ment, and they, thinking the object to be of a public nature, gave the Corporation 200,0001. as a gift. This was 'ceded in the Bill, which gave the Government power to lend the Corporation any further sum which niay be necessary, the whole being estimated at about 1,000,000/. independently of the approaches, which were not then thought of. As a security for these ad vances the Corporation mortgaged to the Government the Bridgehouse estates; and when they said that these were not sufficient to defray the expenses of the woiks at present, they must be supposed to allude to the part of the estates which had been mortgaged to Government, and which amounted to about 40,00 W. a year; when, however, they came to ask for an addi tional million, which had not been'thought of at the commencement of the work, they ought to produce a strong case to entitle them to what they asked. As to the day on which Counsel were to be heard, he thought it of no great importance, except as it regarded the pri vileges of the House; and as the Noble Viscount did not object to Monday, he thought it would be the better course to hear Counsel upon that day. The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, that there was no reason for the delay required by the Noble Viscount, as it would be an insult to the House to suppose that the Corporation of London should pray to be heard by Counsel at the Bar, unless they were ready to proceed at once to support the allegations of their, petition. and he, therefore. should not have thought it unreasonable if his Noble Friend (Lord Durham) had moved that the Counsel of the Corporation be called in forthwith. The conduct of the Corporation itself had rendered it necessary for the House to see the accounts, and gave the House a right to see them ; and, without enforcing that tight, it would be impossible for them to do their duty— (Hear). The Corporation, it seemed, thought it would be a great grievance to expose their accounts to the House; but were quite ready to show them to a Committee, although the Committee con sisted of every Peer who had attended the House doting the Session. so that the House and the Committee were actually identical. But he doubted whether the Cor p:station could be at all heard upon the matter of their Petition. It related to the privileges of that House, and he (Loud Lauderdale) did not think that they could allow Counsel to addresi them either upon the practice or privileges of the House. Lord DURHAM said, that before he had made the motion which had led to the order of the House he sub• misted the question to the Noble Duke at the head of the Government, who told him that his Majesty's Ministers had no objection to the production of the accounts which he moved for. He inferred from this fact that there was nothing in the accounts themselves which it would beat all improper to submit to the inspection of the House. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that he had seen the paper in which the motion was drawn up before it was placed in the hands of the Noble and Learned Lord upon the Woolsack for the purpose of being sub mitted to the House, and that he told the Noble Baron that, as far as he then saw, theta was no objection to the production of the accounts. lf, however, the Noble Baron had done him the honour to communi cate the contents of the paper to him before he had come to the House, he would have inquired more, into the subject, and perhaps have been able to save their-Lordships all the trouble they were now taking. Begging the pardon of their Lordships, it seemed to him and the Government that there was no objection to the production of the accounts. but, if he had time to reflect upon the matter, he should hate con cluded that the House ought not, in regard to either its own dignity or the usual course of its proceedings, to have acceded to the motion of the Noble Batons Having, however, done am, the question now war, what ought to be done in the present circumstances of the case? The regular course. would be, to move that the Petition should be taken into consideration• on a future day. He thetefore thought that the motion of his Noble Friend (Lord Melville) was the better course to he adopted. As to the day on which the Petition should be taken into consideration, it was a matter of indif ference. The question itself was of importance, not only in regard to this Bill, but in reference to the general practice and privileges of the House. Lord DURHAM explained. The Earl of hl A LMESBURY thought that, when the City of London meditated a tax upon the public to the amount of £6O 000 a year, there was no impropriety in requiring a statement of their affairs. With respect to delay, be was of opinion that a question of privilege should Dot be kept in abeyance. Lord MELVILLE bad no objection to postponement, with the understanding that the matter should be considered upon Monday next. . _ --- The Marquis of LANSDOWN deprecated arriving at infor mation in an indirect manner. - Earl GREY thought that in a matter affecting their Interests the Petitioners could not be with propriety debarred from the privilege of being beard by Counsel. The Petition might be taken into consideration on Monday, it being understood that the Pea: tioners would then be prepared to proceed. The Earl of ELDON submitted that the Committee should i meet on Monday, with the intention of adjourning until Tuesday. After some observations from Lords hlgt.vii.i.a and Duaitass, their Lordships agreed to adjourn the consideration of the Petition until Monday, when the Committee should meet, with power of farther adjournment. TVS SIRS OF SCOTLAND AND SION COLLSOIL The Earl of MADDING VON ruse to postpone the presenta tion of a Petition respecting certain documents claimed by the Church of Scotland from Sion College, in consuquence of the question of privilege to be before their Lordships on Monday. The Noble Earl named Tuesday as the day on which he proposed to bring forward his motion. The Duke of RICHMOND observed, that his motion regard ing wool stood for Tuesday. The Earl of HADDINGTON conceived that the Petition would not materially interfere with the butanes, for Tuesday. as be proposed to present it at an early hour. 'Die Church of Scotland was about sitting, and be wa. anxious that an easly decision should be obtained en the matter in question. The Stamp of LONDON did not advocate delay, as he con. ceived that a statement would be made satisfactory to the Noble I Earl and the Church of Scutland.—Notise tor Tuesday. The Marquis of LA NSDOWN presented a Petition from Dingle, in the county of Kerry, praying that the provision. of the 39th Act of Geo. 111. to expire next year, might be renewed for the protection of the fisheries. BALE OF GAME BILL. On the motion of Lord Wttaaucu►►e, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bale of Game Bill. Several clauses of the Bill were then read and agreed to with out opposition. On the right of chase clause being read, The Earl of MALMESHUItY moved, as an amendment, that the words " all greyhounds" be left out. • Lord WHARNCIAFFE did not see why greyhounds should be excepted. The House divided on the motion of the Noble Earl, when there appeared— For the original clause 40 I For the amendment 31 I Majority 9 The remaining clauses were then read and agreed to, when t►e House re►umed, and the report was brought up, and ordered to be received on Thursday next. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and their Lordships adjourned, at Seven o'CLucrt, until Monday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAR= took the Chair at a quarter to tour o'clock. imme diately after which the House was summoned to the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given, by commission, to certain Bills.—On his return, the Sreacea acquainted the House that the House had been up to the House of Peers, and had heard the Royal Assent given, by commission, to the Silk Duties Act atid several other Hills (for which see Lords Report). A person from the Treasury presented various returns, which were laid upon the table. Mr. BELL moved chat there be laid before the House a return of ships employed in the Yeats 1826,1827, and 1828, between Ca nada and the United Kingdom.—Agreed to. Sir ROWLAND HILL presented a Petition from the iron. masters of Shropshire, paying that the trade to India might be thrown open. Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM supported the Petition. Mr. C. W. WYNN presented a Petition from the inhabitants of*Oswestry, praying for facilities in the Recovery of Small Debts. 111 r. BIRCH presented a Petition from the inhabitants of the parish of &. Mary, Nottingham, complaining of the amount of Poor Rate. Mr. HOLDSWORTH presented a Petition from the inha bkants of the borough of Plympton, praying for a reduction of the Duty upon Coals carried coastwise. Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL presented a Petition from the Merchants and Shipowners of Port Glasgow, praying that the trade with India might be thrown open. These Petitions were ordered to be printed. Lord F. L. GOWER brought in a Bill to continue an Act of George 111. for the prevention of improper persons keeping arms 'in Ireland, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday nett. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH gave notice that be should, on Monday next, move for leave to bring in a Bill founded on the re port relative et:kb. registrar of Madras. Lord NUGENT presented a Petition from Mr. Seymour, com plaining of the refusal by the Magistrates of a license to keep a public-litsme and praying that Magistrates should be ,obliged to state in writing their objections to granting licenses. The Noble Lord contended that an alteration in the licensing act was necessary from the arbitrary power with which it clothed the Magistracy. After a few words from air. GMAT Cava, Mr. EllTCUttat, and Mr. Strum the Petition was ordered to be printed. Lord WILLIAM PAULETT ruse to present a peti tion from Messrs. Moon . and Louie, the owners of a vessel called the Rosanna, that had been engaged in the coal trade, and which had been run down by his Ma jesty's ship Sapphire. In bringing the maker for ward the Noble Lord disclaio edany Intention to throw blame upon any of the . Right Honourable or Honourable Gentlemen opposite. The man at the helm was ordered to put the helm a starbard, but mistook ihe order. the result of which was, t h at the tgate came into Collision.l The crew of the collier were blamed for mismanage. ment, but were in realty innocent. The propjet. rs of the collier applied to the Lords of the Admiralty for I compensation, but receives! none. They then instituted legal proceedings to tecover damages, but,Lord Tenter den directed a verdict against them, on the ground that the commanding officers, having given correct orders on the occasion, were not responstb:e for the helmsman's mistake. Sir GEORGE COCKBURN said, that the principle on which the Admiralty refused compensation was, that they possessed no power to give away the public money for such purpi , se. When the Admiralty saw that the Commanders of King's ships caused injury to other ves sels by mismanagement, they obliged them to make good the repairs, or give a compensation to the injured parties. In the resent case the officers of the frigate had given generally proper orders, but the damage to the collier had Arisen fri.m the mutual collision caused by a mutual error. For that reason the Admiralty a °old give none of the public money, but let the appli cants resort to a Court of Law for compensation. The proprietors of the collier had demanded 2,0001. as the value of the vessel and amount of the damage; while the carpenter of the frigate, who examined the injury suffered by the collier, declared his opinion that, it she had been anchored immediately atter the accident, her damages might have been repaired for 1501. This statement was supported by the evidence of several other persons. Under these circumstances the Admi ralty could have given no compensation. Mr. SIKES said. that the shipowners had brought this case thfore Parliament on public grounds. The defendant's case had been proved only by .the pilot of the frigate, and such a person was not likely to be an impartial witness; yet it appeared from him that the frigate was in a situation in which she could have altered her course; but the collier could not, and that the acci dent arose horn tire beintsman's mistake cm board tit . f igate in disobeying orders. This !at a j ug g r .... for giving compensation to the proprietors of th e co r for their loss. Unless a remedy were to b e such cases pi) the injured, the present good ande,ll4 ing bet w_ean the King's ships and the meich aut could not continue. Sir J. SCARLETT was enabled to say, th y, if defendants had gone into their case oa 'be leis, t could have clearly proved the pettect prupriety ti conduct on the occasion. M. BROUGHAM had acted on the Dial for plaintiff., and could say that he had more eviden ecil • their favour than he had thought proper to prod The case had been decided against the pliintif, point of law ; it had become, therefore, unneces kty fot them to produce additional evidence. Dr. LUSHINGTON said,. it was a matter of importance to the mercantile interest that :p erc h vessels should not be subject to buffer dantase f King's ships without any means oforefdderedssotiir7ua,tikt complained of was, by the law of the land the owners the mercantile navy were liable to suffer any I nn • that way without any means being aff compensation.. It was u.eless to go into a C ulla Law, fur the Captain or Lieutenant of a King's ship i r not responsible for the damage. He did lint m eat t deny that the Captain of a King's ship should beallvayt obliged to make compensation for any acci.te nt W h ich might occur, but he thought the Government ough t nut to be placed in a better situation in thatrespect tha t the owner of a trading vessel. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH supported the Pttitiim, and the e * , from the circumstances of the case, that a Jury must give a te s t a in favour of the petiriuuers. Mr. ROM N SON said. that such measures should be :An ter would afford the petitioners redress. Lord MILTON thought such a case bad been made ou t knhe petitioners as required the greatest attention to their claim,. Mr. M. A. TA' Loft thought it a great hardship that 0 01 ,4,,, could be afforded fur an injury suffered from a King's ship. Sir GEORGE CLERK denied that there was no re dress in such a cave. It was unfortunate that sod a decision had been come to in this case, but if the Du er of the vessel had brought an action against the helmsnal of the Sapphire, be being the servant of the Knig.d a case had been made out to cunt e the petitioner, is compensation, the Admiralty would be justified, and without hesitation would make the compensation. The principle ~n which the Admiralty acted always was to grant the same remuneration for any such injury a t would be given under similar circumstances by the owners of fireichantme.i. They always made inquiries inio the ruticrilars of the case; if it appeared, frost those inquiries, that the owners of the ship were es. titled to compensation, it was imn ediately granted—af there was any doubt they allowed it to be referred to an) Court. Mr. BARING understood from the Hon. Members that the question would not be set aside in a Law Coon by any quibble, but would be decided on its oa n maim All the petitioners wanted were some course pointed out by which they could obtain redrela; and, if the forms of a Court of Lan , would enable them to attack the helmsman in that Court, and that the Admiralty would, in case of a vercict in favow of the petitioners, make the necessary compensation, they would then have no grounds of complaint. Mr. CROKER said, that the Courts of Law were always open to those who suffered an injury in such a case as the present. •Thete was neither in law nor is practice any diff.rence in such a case between a men chant vessel and a King's ship. In this case the Mai was interrupteA by a legal hitch, which might haws lin any cas It was only in case the Admiralty, by their inquiries, could sari the expense of a laiesuit, lb* they proposed to the party to make such a decisios as might, trod) the circumstances of the case, be expected from a jury.. If a case was made out against the helms. man of a vessel, it the injury had occurred through weir tunness on his part, and that he was able to pay, hems obliged to make compensation—if it occurred throve% accident, the Admiralty paid for him. Mr. BRIGHT said, that -notwithstanding what the Honourable Member had said of there being no differ. ence between knierchantman and a King's ship, in such a case, if the question was looked into, it would appeir that there were many technical obstacles in the way of recovering damages from a King's ship. It was ac knowledged, for example,. that unless the Captain bad directed the vessel with his own hand, or given then• press order at the instant, he was not responsible forte injury sustained. In his opinion there ought .to be u ,easy and plain.way for suing officers of the Crown is such cases, the laws being at present in a very unsatir factory state. The proper arrangement seemed to be, that captains in the navy and other public servants should be sued and recovered against in the same way that one private individual sued another. The LORD MAYOR thought it would be extremely odder tory if the Secretary for the Admiralty would say that, in cases*, the present, if an action was brought against a helmsman, mod Jr sieges awarded, that the Admiralty would think it their duty te pay the damages. Mr. J. W. CROKER could only say that such had bees tie practice in every case Awe be became conoected with the Adel. ratty. It was too midi to ask him to pledge himself as to the mariner in which the Admiralty would act in any particular cast. Sir JAMES SCAIILBTT thought it a very grave penile whether the Admiralty should pledge itself to pay any demurs awarded against its streams in the Navy. The effect of mini pledge on the minds of jurors would be very soon discovered. Ts explain what he had said before, he might be allowed to state,did he had given no opinion as to whether the law was correct it as he considered the queitioo merely was, whether the servos d the Crown had made out their case Ina Court of Law er net? lie begged not to be understood as wishing to throw any obelisk is the way of an alteration of the law. Mr. CitOK BR said, that when he spoke of the principle spa which the Admiralty acted, be only meant to state that the Ow ciple was applied to cases where there was clearly no negligence" misconduct on dad part of the Officers of the Kings ship. Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had been induced to depsn bra rule which he bad made, not to interfere in discussions is the House relative to cases In which be was professionally emehlede merely because his Honourable and Learned Friend the Moist for Peterborough had departed from the rule. Mr. HUME thought it was quite clear, from aU that bedroll on this subject, that the present state of the law was a great his 4 ship to the public, and that Government ought to be placed is tin same situation as private Individuals when King's ship' haPlomi trash, an injury to other vessels. Sir G. COCKBURN said, it was often a question with the Admiralty, whether they would pay without going into a awed law ; and to decide that question they were obliged to nudes their own officers, and, therefore, to act in some degree on MO parrs representation. It was sometimes a question, whether , * Of cer.should run his vessel ashore or damage another virseel;•o l in such cases the Admiralty sweetly paid the damage without VW to a court of law. If the Admiralty thought the Kiss's 0111 .5 was not wrong, the practice was to let the as.. go iota a ore"' law. As to any legislative enactment on the subject, it was plo time enough to discuss it when the measure was introdoced• Dr. LUSH! NGTON. said that the owners of machete etsull were responsible for the injury dune by their servants, la seemed only just that the Government should be re:erosible** injury done by King's ships. As to the case now brought hams the House, it seems impossible that any decision should WNW! on it, and his experience in the High Court of Admiralty Mew him that there were a vast Dumber of in which it 'silt possible to affix blame to either patty. It was usual in the 4 "1,_7 Court of Admiralty to call in th e Masters of the Trinity House f cases where there was any difficulty, and their knowledge a our gadon was often found most beselidel in enabling the Cows come to a decision. Mr. BARING thought It would be extremely advarmetell,„ all eases of this description mere submitted to the DWI" """ Trinity House. • After a few words tram Lad W. BMW; W. Salh bs dii sn L St Se sin - • 318 he fn nd : co / .ia f] edu irea eau cop the one ant Out. Or t C llfr 1 Ire! his aim any S caul ON sect the now corn if he arse: ft a Row Mr. 11 T 11 The ben 71 31 N that 600,1 end), of II surp tram tour N and j Th r i as more mitt' this Tb the L in ail DOI t, the •i Ali h cite the k Ni IP 7 °Pc 1411 vent strl); fit► MI clack princl make leblei