The National Register. — London, England, 1822-03-03 00:00:00

MEM 70 - ---- Imperial Parliament eontltatedi from paer 67. - he should on an early day move for a committee to Invest i gate the present mode of keeping the public recounts ; and that the subject now mentioned would be particularly re ft rred to such committee. After some remarks from Mr. Tierney and the Marquis of Londonderry, as to the proposed application of the sur plus ret entre, in aid of the sinking fund, the papers were ordered. reLy.—On the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER'S motion, that the House go into a committee of supply on the remaining navy estimates, &c. Mr. HUME opposed the inotiln, t hat the Speaker do leave the chair till further information was given respecting the application of sums hrretotnre granted to the ordnance, as well as the navy. Ile concluded with moving for further papers. Mr. CROKER hoped that there would he no objection to go into the committee. Every explanation should then be given that was possessed; and if that were not satisfactory, the accounts could he demanded. Sir LCOFFIN repeated what he had before said seve ral times, that if this system of petty warfare against the naval expenditure were to be continued—if the estab lishments were to be cut down as the hon. member (Mr. Mune) had desired, it would be better at once to blow tip our navy.—(A langli.) Mr. R. WARD also trusted, that there would be no objection to go into a committee—there was no disposi tion to withhold all proper information. After some further remarks the amendment was nege lived, and the House then went into the committee of sup irty, Sit J. OSBORNE moved that there be granted 57,0001. fur the board 01 admiralty. Sir M. W. RIDLEY opposed it, and proposed as an amendment, that the sum be 55,0001. deducting 2,0001. a year for tao lords of the admiralty. A division took place 011 the amendment. 'The numbers were—Fur the amendment, 182—Against it, 128—Ma jority, 31. The result was received with immense cheering by the opposition. On the motion for granting 31,3001. for the current expences of the navy pay-office for the present year. Mr. HUME objected to the grant of this sum as exces sive, and proposed as an amendment, that the sum should be 23,0001. The lion. member contended, that redaction to the amonnt of 8,0001. might he made in the office of the treasurer of the navy and those under hint. The office of treasury of the navy might, he contended, be done by a common banker. Mr. ROBINSON defended the original grant, and con tended that the office of treasurer of the navy was a most responsible one, and the duties attached to it were of a most important nature. There bad already been a redac tion of upwards of 7.0001. in this department upon the vote of last year. The reduction had been made at the expense of the comforts of many worthy and excellent individuals, who hail long been faithltil servants of the public, and he could not believe the gentlemen of Eng land would acknowledge themselves so distressed that they would not pay these persons for their services, or that the people desired not to give diem their just reward. He contended, that die salary of 3 , !001. a year for the treasurer of the navy was not sufficient to compensate him for the sesponsibility imposed on him. However, it the House was determined to make this reduction, he (Mr. R.) would rather the House should at once take away his salary, than impose on I the necessity of fur ther distressing the unfortunate individuals who held sub ordinate offices under Mr. ELLICE did not consider the salary paid to the right hon. gent. too great, but lie thought that reduction should be made in other quarters. Mr. BENN ETT suppoi ted die reduction. Lord LONDONDERRY defended the original grant, and called on the house to suspend their opinion till they were in possession of his right lam. friend's plan, by sable!' a great saving would be Made to the public. In his, the noble Lord's office, the expence of which was 21,0001. the reduction would be 7,0001. Lord ALTHORPE thought the house should proceed no further till in possession of that plan, and therelore moved, that the chin' man should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. On this the gallery was cleared for a division. During the time that strangers were excluded, five divisions took place as follow : First division—For delay, ;a—Against it, 101. Second division—To reduce the vote to 23,5001. —For it, 28—A gain- t it, 81.1. 'lltird division—To adjourn—For it,23—Against it,ol. . . Fourth division—To reduce to 23,0001. —Fur if, 21- Against it, 9/. Fifth division—To agree to the vote of 31,2011.—F0r it 91—Against The co 11111 l ittee then adjourned. The house then resumed, and tire report was ordered to be received on Monday. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned at half punt one o'clock. FllO.ll TUESDAY ;NIGHT'S GAZETTE. BAN KRU PTS. W. Stevens. Northumberland Street, Strand, baker. Solicitor, 'Mr. Tatham, Craven street, Strand. F. Dore, Berkeley Square, auctioneer. Sob:. Messrs. Richard son and Co. New Inn. J. Larhalestier, Angel Court, Throbmiorton Street, wine and spirit merchant. Sol. Mr. Taylor, Jewin Street, Aldersgate Street. J. and J.Thomlinson, High Hesket, Cumberland, innkeepers. Solis. Mr. Leudbitter, Bucklersbury. P. Soweiby, sen. and P. Sowerby, Jun. Liverpool, provision merchants. ul. Mr. Wheeler, Castle Street, I lolhorn. G. Burton, Knottingley, Yorkshire, vc.scl builder. Sols, Messrs. Fisher and Co. Thuvies Inn. J. Wood, Rugeley, Susalinushire, miller. Sots. Messrs. Lowe and Co. Temple. T. Salter, Guist, Norfolk, tanner. Sol. Mr. Harbor, Fetter Lane. T. Saintey, Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, dealer. Sol. Mr. Hohinscn, I 101 l Moon street, Piccadilly. J. Hedley and T. F. %VIHs, Sunderland, ship owners. Sol. 111 r. lies c! ley, 'f cm ple. .1. Hurgr..‘es, lieerpool, miller. Sol. Mr. Lowten, Lansdown Piace, ltrimsw:ek Square. T. Congdon, 'forqua:.•, Devon, merchant. Sol. Mr. NV Red Liun Squaie. L. Squire, Earith, Huntingdonshire, tanner. Sol.. MesLrs. Long and Co. Gray's Inn. 'l. H oyle and .1. Lind, Manchever, calico painters. Sol. Mr. Noais, Jo: - 1.1 Street, Istd;o7l It rw. THE NATIONAL REGISTER _ S. Field, Richmond, wine and spirit merchant. Sol. Mr. Gates, Cateaton Street. W. Ledden, Liverpool, merchant. Sups. Messrs, Slade and Co. John Street, Bedford Row. W. Rawe, Padstow. Cornwall, mercer. Sole. Messrs. Thomp. son and Co. Gray's Inn. J. Ansell, Filkihs, Oxfordshire. farmer. Sole. Messrs. Russell and Co. Lent Street, Southwark. DIVIDENDS. March 10, J. Richardson, Manchester, cotton dealer—QS. J. Lathy, Honiwn, Devcn, mercer-25, W. Smedley, Burton upon Teem, grocer-21, W., G., and R. Booth, Bishopweanuoutli, Durham, ship builder;-25, J. Raven, Burton upon Trent, saddler-23, W. Thomas, Tichbome Street, oilman-23, S. and H. Crane, Stratford, Essex, merchants-0, R. Miller, Old Fish Street, boakseller-20, M. Newton, Newcastle upon Tyne, cooper—April 8, A. W. Bellairs, Sturnfonl, Lincolnshire, and J. Bellairs, jun. Derby, bankers. CERTIFICATES to be granted March 19. - W. Warren, :Manchester, horse dealer—T. Bennett, Dedding ton. Oxfordshire. dealer—J. Scarrow, Carlisle, wine merchant— S. Chapman, Greenwich, linen draper—S. Todd, Southaml.ton, mercer—J. Howard. St. Martin's Court, St. Martin's Lane, cordwainer—W. Parr, Great Russell Street, Covent Garden, tailor—ll. Brittain, Sawbridgewurth, Herts, hay dealer—H. Gird, Park Lane, saddler—W. Whitesinith, Old Fish Street, grocer—J. Bennett, Greenfairlichl, Derbyshire, cattle dealer. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCIL MONDAY, FEB. 25. JONES V. WETHERELL. This action was brought by the Marshal of the King's Bench Prison to recover 4811. which he was obliged to Ry the creditors of a Mr. Crosby, who escaped front the oles of the said Prison. It appeared that Crosby, being detained within the wails of the King's Benet, said he would get General W. therell to become security for the Rules. inquiry was made, and the Marshal could not refuse the de lendant's security. The defendant wrote a letter to Mr. Jones, begging lie would let Mr. Crosby have the Rules, and he would sign security for the suns required, namely, 6001. any day alter the following Friday. Ihe letter was sent from Kensington Palace, where the defendant was attached to the Duke of Kent's Household, and dated 26th March, 1820. The plaintiff, satisfied with the undertaking, did nut send a bond to be signed ; and ' on the 16th of slay, he received a letter from General Wetherell, staling that he did not consider himself bound for Mr. Crosby, because Mr. Jones had not called upon him to execute a bond. On the receipt of the letter, Mr. Jones sent to take Crosby within the walls, and found he had escaped. Every enquiry was made, and diligence used to retake him, but without effect. The Solicitor-General for the defendant stated, that his client cmsented to become security for Mr. Crosby, ! on condition of receiving a counter security, but as he was not called upon to execute a bond, he Jrl not take counter security. lie contended that the General was not liable. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion the defendant was bound by his first letter, and the Jury, under all the circumstances, found a verdict fur the plaintiff—damages 4811. . ~ errr, pi two V. ALSO', M. P. This was a penal action against the defendant for alleged bribery at the last Election for Catne!lord, for which &Atm6ll Mr. Alsop was returned a Representa tive. An endeavour was made to prove that 6,;001. was lodged in the hands of a Mr. Ballet, for the purpose of bribing the Electors of Cainelford, but the failed in proving hi, Cabe. It did not appear that Mr. Alsop and Mr. klallet were at all connected, and the Jury, without the least hesitaunu, found a veitlict for the &lend:wt. TUESDAY, TEL 2t. ANOTHER DEFEAT OF TILE BRI DG E-ST It EET ASSOCIA TION.—THE KING U. DOLBY. Iu consequence of this case being fixed for this day, the Court was crowded to excess, at an early hour, bin only Iwo Spec:al Jurymen were in attendance, viz. Win. Fisher, l q. and Win. Kitnher, Esq. ; the panuel being, called over, several persons, whose names d.d not appear on the pond, stood up, and stated they had Li.-en mummified. The Chief Justice requested they would wait. Mr. Scarlett said, he could very well see the contriv ance, lil3t a number of persons had been summoned to supply the places of those who did not appear; he should, however, contend, that tie Act w telt gave such power to au officer, viz. 35 Henry V 11 1. cap. 6, only applied to criminal cases, that of Philip and Mary, en forced the Sallie law. Mt. Evans suppoiteil the same line of argument. The Coroner was then preparing to call over the Haines of the Jurors he bad su tttttt ed, to supply any deficiency that should arise in the non-attendauce of the Jurors, when 11 r. Scarlett objected. the practice, he said, of selecting Jurors by de tale. circunietantibus, was always dime instanter, and not that they should be or dered to attend, as in that case. The lo 111 l itog of a Jury was quite in the power o. an Officer, as he "night tak e care to strike at the Crown Office such a Jury as he knew would not attend, and order those to attend in Court whoa' lie might contrive to select without con troul. lit support of his objeetiou Mr. Scarlet' cued Hawkins's Pleas, and various authorities, together with the two Acts before referred to. Mr. Evans also cited caws frum many of the books, all of whicii supported Mr. Scarlett's objectiou ; he also referred to the -itlt and b:h of Pinlip dud Mary, which supported the saute principle. file Chief Justice said, it was true that there were a. riuus writers upon the subject, hut that they had follow ed each other; but the first of them had not ti.ken the clearest tiew of the suhjeet—at least that wa s his u pj. mune Auer a few words from Mr. Gurney and Mr.Tyndal, on behalf of tie prosecution, the Chief Justice con sidered the olijectitoi could nut be sustained. Ile then .read flow an old umuuscrie Or IMO; as follows :"•"" " Coroner, l desire you will cause a sufficient •number of able persons to attend, to supply any defi ciency that may arise in the pannels.' The Coroner (Mr. Strlitg) was proceeding, when Mr. Scarlett submitted, that there was only one Co roner in attendance—there ought to have been two.— (A laugh.)—The Learned Gentleman produced several authorities to that effect. Mr. Gurney was not prepay , ed to answer, and the Chief Justice held it to be good. Murray (the Attorney) went tip to Mr. Gude, the 13e puty Coroner, and having had some conversation with him, an apilieution was made ffir the case to stand over a short time, until the arrival of J 1 r. Litwin, the other Coroner. The Court would not, however, agree to this, and the trial was postponed. Alter the (It eision of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Scailett cliered to :11r. Curney to wave all objections and proceed to trial, provided he would sutler the tabs men to be taken, as in ordinary cases, hoot the panel of jurors appointed to try the tidier caries .111.1 e pillft.'l", stead of calling the persons returned by the coroner ; but this offer was rtjecnd ! The Chief Justice ordered the Special Jurors that were list in attendance to be fined 51. each. WEDNESDAY, FED. litibre a Special .1 ary.) THE KING V. Slit N. CONANT, COLLINS, AND MILLS. This was an indictment against Sir N. Omani, Mr. Collins, and :Mr. Mills, dove of the Justices of the county of Middlesex, lin- iitilawfully conspiring to refuse to grant a licence to /MIL'S Meek, a publican. Tile first count, after stating that James Meek, the prosecutor, kept a public-house, and had a licence granted to him on a lormer occasion, alleged, that the defendants conspired together, and refused to renew the said licence at the sessions in 1816, and also prevented such licence from beiug at any titne after granred, for and on the account of the said James Meek having ceased to buy and purchase beer front Mt ssrs. Menx and Cu. brewers. Another count alleged, thit the said justices, not rPgard ing their duty, did, maliciously, and without reasonable cause, refuse the said Meek his licence, hoot gross par tiality to persons carrying on the trade of brewers. I'he last count did not charge theta with conspiracy, and either of the defendanta might have been found guilty upon it according to the circumstancts. On the con spiracy count less than two could not have been found guilty. Mr. Scarlet' detailed the features of this case.—Mr. Meek purchased a publiclionse iii St. Joint -street, in 181.1, and expended a large sum upon improvements.— It had bier licensed as a puttlie-home many years; he enlarged the tap.room, and increased the draught from tive to ten butts. !le dealt with Meux and Co. for beer, but left them for Barclay aud Poi:ins. On the 3,1 of September, 1816, he attended the Justices, and ap plied for a renewal of his licence. Ile was told hit Case, with others, was to be considered nit the 18th. On that day he went into the Justices' room, and saw Mr. Seller and Mr. Cuticrell. One magistrate asked hum which brewer lie dealt with. Ile told him Barclay and Perkins. Alter he left the room the high constable told hint his licence was refused. He renewed his application in the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, and still his licence was withheld, without assigning any cause. Sir N. Conant, when requested to give a reason, refused, saying, it would be improper to declare the reason magistrates had for r. fusing, licences. Other publicans in the same neighbourhood had their licences suspended, but had them renewed again. One of the name of Dell, who had left Metsx and Co. had his licence renewed by the inHueuee, as it was alkged,, of Mr. %Vivant, one of the Howe of Meux, Reid, and Co. This favour was retleiyed iu consequence of Dell's consent to take beer again of Nleox and Co. Mr. Scarlet' called witnesses to his case. Mr. Mullah, clerk to Meux, Reid, and CO. stated that he was tuid by his employers that Meek would fall a sacrifice, and Barclay and Perkins be taught out to in terfere in their trade. The Solicitor General, for the defendants, contended that the magistrates had dune no inure than their duty, and he called the following witnesses : Mr. Wigram said he was a partner in the house of Reid and Co. He went to the sessions' house in the year 1817, to speak to Sir N. Conant, in behalf of a nun who had lived with him three years and a hall as coach man. lie understood the WWI applied fur a licence or a public house. 'lna witness stated what he knew of the man's character. He had seen Sir N. Conant not wore than live times prevassaly. Ile did out allude at that tittle to the case of Meek. He knew nuthiog about Dell. Cross-examined by Mr. Searlett.—He said he went iu consequence of the stion's licence b.ing suspended.— He knew none of the other magistrates except Mr. Collins, who was known to his partner, Mr Reid Ile did not recollect that \leek had ceased to deal with 116 house, lie had never tunnel a restnotion to make an example of Meek, as a lesson to teach Barclay and Co. never to itstcrteie with his trade ; had never said be formed that resolution. Ilad no recollection of Iltall.sit, his SePV:1811, having reported to him that Meek refused ti return to the house. lie could not answer particularly whether his business laid most in the !limitary division. It was most !triage's die east and west of the town. Mr. Richards, Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, stated, that Clark, a constable, told the mtgistrates that Meek's was one of those houses so fitted up that there were two entrances, and that the trade was carried on by Meek and anudter Certain resolu tions were agreed upon by the magistrates in sessions to restrain the licences of such houses. Cross examined by Mr. Deurnan.—He said the reso lotions which drew the attention of the magistrates to Luis subject were printed, the witness produced the copy. Mr. Chafe made a charge about Mr. Meek's Matte, and, in the course of inquiry, it came out lie aid not state the tap-room was capable of containing b 0 people. Mr. Hill was there. It was stated that the trade had been carried on by two persons. The witness produced the pint Vk ith the names of the 18 home's al=