The National Register. — London, England, 1821-04-08 00:00:00

110 (hap - real Parlionart configured pan page it; ) NNW INGTON it 11.1,,..5tr it. W 1 LSO ,11 moved that the report of the committee be referred to the set •ct v estry bill committee. •Mr. 11. SUMNER said, Ord most esti nortlinat y conduct had token place—that much violence had occurred,regarding which he al Id snake a communication. to the heire when the attendance was fuller—and that he pledged himself to bring the ;natter before the house. After some scroll, conversation the question was put; the house was by this time soy lull, there being about 100 members ..resent. The motion that the report of the committee be ordered to be referred to the committee uu the N.wingion sett et vestry bill was then carried. Mr. HUME then rose. lie brouzht forward what he vatted the violent coeds( t of the chat. man, ( Mr. le Smutty') is the commitiee4 that gentleman lia•ing refused to take the voles of menthol, Mr. Sikes, Mr. Ciiall Mr. G. • Bennett, &c. who entered the committee-room ;I, ,f‘ Angers were withdrawing.— He ( Mr. II.) added, that he had been In touch company at many meeting., both high and low, hut never befwe had seen such conduct as that of Oat mild chairman. (Cheers.) The diri • was then called for, but the chairman threw away the paper of time tellers handed by the clerk, saying he would not even rend it.—(Hear, bear.) He brought forward this motion, because the lion. chairman had failed to redeem his pledge. He concluded with moviug that the conduct of the chairman had been MIMI indecorum and disorderly, and loud led to riot and conies' . The SPEAKER observed, that there must exist minutes of the proceedings of the cu iiiiii ittee, and would the house proceed without darts? The charge was of a personal elm gluier, and would t..e house proceed without the best evidence /—( Hear, hear!) Sir J. MACKIN'fOII said, the criminative charge was of a most extraordinary nature—and it wars without any in struction of the committee. It originated in the threat of the chairman, the member for Fawley (Mr. Sunnier) to bring forward a criminal charge against CCllltill members of the cosoneittee—a most indiscreet pledge or ducat, and one which originated in the pectihar habits of the limi. meinher's s temper. He thought it would be for the credit of the house, as well as the individual, to buffer this business nut to proceed further. Mr. H. SUMNER wished to know in what character he was to proceed, whether as accused or accuser ? Mr. G. BENNETT observed, that there had been beats on all sides, but he had forgotten them; however, he knew not what result could take place, because there were 50 gentlemen who had put themselves in a passion; 25 being uo one side, and 25 being pond-blank tau the other. Would it be creditable to the house, to have it known, wherever the English language was read, that 50 gentlemen of the house of commons hind put themselves in a passion on a private bill ? (Hear, hear!) The SPEAKER said it might facilitate the business, to delay to ascertain the real facts of the case. Ile added that the individuals who had endeuvoured to vote, atter the question had been put, had done so improperly. The doors ought to be locked before the question was put; but if that did trot take place, the introduction of fresh members utter the question had been put could nut be justified. The SPEAKER then very promptly called on the next member, Sir E. Harvey, who had some business before the house; and the matter was then got rid of, amidst the ehemitigi of the house, sod must of the members imme diately leaving their seats. A message from the Lords required the attendance on theitr Lordships of Sir M. M. Lopez, in order to his helot eta• mined on the Granipoimd bill before a committee of their Lordships. Mr. R. MARTIN moved the second reading of the Irish Coroners' Bill. Agreed to, and ordered to be committed on Mouday. Mr. LITTLETON moved the second reading of the Church Briefs Bill. Mr. CURWEN approved of all parts of the Bill—except those which went to impose charges on the churchwardicus and the poor-rates. lie hoped they would be amended. Mr. LITTLETON observed, that as the objections that bad been made, they could be considered in a commit- tee. He did not want to make it imperative on church.' wardens to go from door to door. Bill read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday next. Mr. D. GILBERT moved the second reading of the Bill for consolidating the turnpike roads' trusts' acts. He ad verted to the COX" iu otber countries, where the governments Lad taken the management of the roads into their own hands; there the leading roads were magnificent, but the smaller arms were not attended to. Private laws might have their uses, but, like human productions. they had their defects ; and therefore he considered this bill would be useful. Ile hoped they would sutler the Bill to be read at second time, and then the 11l ill ute arrangemente could be more propel!) considered in u committee. The roads within ICII miles of London were not what they ought to he, examples to the rest of the empire ; but he did not want to extend the bill to E 9649/ for he understood the roads were good there. Under all the circumstances he trusted that there would be uo ob jection to his motion, that the bill be now read a second time. Sir C. K NATCHBULL opposed the Bill. He contended that it was unnecessary. He hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn; but if it were persevered in, lie must move that it be read this day six mouths. Mr. DLNISON concurred in what had fallen from the hon. hurt. The hill was hot called for by the state of the roads; and it cast it stigma on those who had conducted themselves in their trusts. The individual who was to be promoted was now the servant of the trustees; it would he to make the servant the master of his emplu)ers. Mr. CUR WEN also opposed the bill. It went to esta blish • very dangerous precedent, by a must mischievous interference with the property of pi irate individuals; and as to Mr. hl'Adatu, lie had already been amply te warded. Mr. F. LEWIS said lie should be sorry if the bill welt: disposed of in so st ttttt tasty a way ; but he thought that the bill required considerable modifications: After some further discussion, the house divided on the question, and the bill was carried by a division of 83 to 16. ARMY ESTIMATES.—The further consideration of the Arn.y Lstiniates was then brought forward. On the ques tion, the Speaker du leave the chair, Mr. CREEVEY pi uposed, as an amendment, a strong resolution, adverting to the Milliner in which ministers conducted affairs—to the expenditure--811(1 to the dis missal of Lord Fite, fur the vote which he bail deemed it his duty to give in that house, on the new malt duty re peal bid. lids called for th some warm discussion, in which Mr. Midmost ' Mu. Calmat!, Lord tastieigagli e Ur. 'Liu lay, and Mt. ittitUtt, took pelt. THE 'NATIONAL REGISTER The house then divided ; the numbers were—Ayes 86, Noes 120—Majority against Mr. Creerey 81. A remarkable peculiarity in this divkion was, that Mr. Tierney, Sir J. Macintosh, Lord A. Hamilton, &c. voted wilt the ministers Ott this motion. . . . Mr. HUME also, before the Speaker kft the chair, next moved a long resolution—that it be an instruction to the committee to take into consideration the recommendation of the finauce committee of 1517—t0 revise all the civil offices, Arc. and as they became vacant, to adopt new re gulations respecting them, where they should be deemed necessary. Lord A. HA NIII:FON seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the resolution, and coutesnlcil that considerable seduction hail taken place in the last two or three years. Whenever a vacancy occurred, inquiry was stride if the place could be abolished entirely and where that could be done, the salaries had in most instances been 'educed. He de fended the system of remuneration I r public servants and their widows. which, he comentl.ll, were beneficial to the public• services. Sir J. NEWPORT condemned the allowance to many of the retired officers, as too large, and particularly that to Lotil l'arawley. Mr. I). Brune and Mr. W. Pole defended Lord Ta rawley. A lung dlscnssion followed. Mr. HUME ultimately withdrew his resolution, and the house went into a committee. Lord PALMERSTON, alter stating that the first reso lution referred to the War Office, moved that' 50,1181. leis. Bd. be granted to his Majesty to defray the charge of allowances fur the office of the Secretary at War. Col. DAVIES observed, that dui ing the war, when the duties of this office were ten times greater than at present, the whole cost of the War Office in 1806 was 37,3551. and to confine the expeueliture of the present year to that slim would scarcely be unreasonable : he, however, was dis posed to be satisfied with a smaller reduction, and lie should therefore move, as an amendment, a vote of 45,0001. instead of 50,1181. Lord PALMERSTON would be content to take for the present year the War Office estimate of 1806; the charge of 1806 being, not 37,4551. as the lion, and gallant member apposite had stated, but 59,83 , 21. some hundreds above the estimate now demanded. It should be remem bered, however, that in 1:A16 the constitution of the War Office was adapted only to the transacting of the current business ; and that it was not until the year 1809 that the department for the settlement of arrear accounts, the charge of which for the present year was 17,0001. was established by the Treunry. Col. DAVIES was ready to stake his credit that the estimate fur 1806, as it appeared from the papers in the possession of the house, did not exceed 37,:;501. Mr. HUME insisted that the noble lord opposite (Pal merstun) had increased at every point the expellee of his department, and was prepared to prose, that if 20,0001. a year more was voted to that deportment, the noble lord would find employment for every shilling of it. In 1814, when this country had 236,000 men under arms, the esta blishment of the War Office, the superannuation list, cost 32,130. and it had gone on increasing, I rein year to year, until the cost of 1821 was laid at 64,6901.; so that the economy of the noble lord had effected all increase, since 1814, of about 2,5001. He did believe that by attention and economy the expense of that office might be reduced nearly one half; but as half a loaf was better than no bread, he should support the amendment of his hon, friend near him (Cot. Davies) fur the reduction of 5,0001. Sir H. PARNELL complained of the amount of the superannuation list, and particularly referred to the esta blishment of cominissiouers of military accounts in Ireland. Lord PALMERSTON said that the Irish board of com missioners were appointed by act of parliament. Mr. W. Smith mist Col. Davies enforced the necessity of economizing tne military establishment. Mr. H. G. BENNET ridiculed the idea of any saving having been voluntarily made by the noble lord and Ida Majesty's utiuisterle. In fact, whatever saving had been effected in the military establishment was forced from them by a sort of gentle ravishment. (A laugh.) Mr. MABERLY objected to the peseta system of "agency," and contended, that 15,0001. por einem (the belief the charge) might be saved, if government took the agency into its own hands. Lord PALMERSTON defended the present agency system, on the pound that it afinrded considerable faci lilies to officers, when, fur instance, they wished to ex change from one regiment to another, which, were it dif ferentll• couducted, they could not possess. Mr. WILSON expa essed his determination to vote . for she saving of 5,0001. which he conceived could be 'fleeted under the item of agency. Lord rALNALICSION said the present vote had nothing to do with the agency, which was included in the vote for land forces agreed to some days ago. Mr. CREEVE.Y said, he found that they were indebted to the Secretary at War, 2,5001.; to a first clerk, 1,4001.; and to a principal clerk, 1,2001. His idea was, that they ought to leave those gentlemen before the honse. (Hear.) He should like to see a clerk with 1,4001. a year. (Laugh ter.)—An officer in the army purchased his cominission at a great espence; after much service, and many gallant exploits, he was, perhaps, made a peer; and wheat did he receive to support his diguity ? Why, 2,6001. a year. And lei re came a elei k utile 1,4001. per annum! He should be glad to see how this gentleman went to his office, whether in a curticle or tilbury (a laugh); lie should se ish to know what time lie passed at his office. For his owes part, he was convinced the business could be Julie as well at 7001. as at 1.4001. a year. Alter a desultory cunveisation, the committee divided, —For the amendment, e7—Against it, 106—Majoiity, 39. The house then resumed. Report on Monday. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjoin lied. A revolution took place at St. Michaels on the Ist of March. The governor was deposed, and placed under arrest; the island declared independent of Terceira, and only subject to the government and Comm of Portugal. Four persons were committed from Hatton-garden office on Friday evening, on charges of uttering forged •ank notes. A gentleman, who attended on behalf of the Bank of England, stated that after the Ist of May no more one or two puuud notes would be issued. FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. BANKRUPTS. J. Moberly, Welbeck Street, Marylebone, coach manufacturen Solicitors, Messrs. Bartlett and Co. Nicholas Lane. J. Bigsby, Deptford, brewer. Sole. Mesas. Osbaldeston and Co. London Street, Fenchurch Street. C., R., F., and K. Coupland, Leeds, spirit merchants. Sol. Mr. Wiglesworth, Gray's Inn Square. P. Dewsbury, Altrincham, Cheshire, corn dealer. Sols , Messrs. Brundrett and Co. Temple. P. Cope, Bridgnorth, grocer. Sole. Messrs. Benbow and Co; Lincoln's Inn. W. Holding, Devonshire Street, Queen Square, wine merchant. Sols, Messrs. Waleson an.l Co. Austinfriars. B. and J. Troughton, Wood Street, silk throwsters. Sol. Mr. James, Bucklersbury. DIVIDENDS. April 28, S. George and R. Webb, Bristol, sugar refiners.- 14, T. Austin, J. Gregory, and J. Russon, Bath, haberdasher-- 26, T. Story, Hunworth, Norfolk, miller-26,5. Copland, Holt. Norfolk, miller-95, R. Hodgson, Bishop Wearmouth, Durham. baker-26, C. Seaman and G. Etheridge, Norwich, goldsmiths —Y4. J. Grover, Hastings, Sussex, linen draper-28, J. Peters, Dorking, Surrey, lime burner-28, A. Kelly, Colonnade, Pall Mall, jeweller-28, R. Fancy, Bread Street, Chcapside, ware houscman-28, .1. Blackburn, Witham, Essex, corn factor-27, W. Winans, South Shields, clothier—May I. H. Burgess and J. Hubbard, Miles Lane, Cannon Street, woolstaplers-5, I'. Worth, Talbot Court, Gracechurch Street, haberdasher. CERTIFICATES to be grunted April 24. T. C. B. Pryer, Fenchurch Street, saddler—J. Bryaunt. Liverpool, merchant-W. Wildman, Whiteeltapel Road, plumber Altlersgate Street, jeweller--J. Watson, Leyland, Lancashire, farmer—J. Lome, Coventry, builder—J. Rutter, Winterton, Lincolnshire, merchant—T. Tipping, Warrington, Lancashire, miller—S. Trehane, Exeter, silversmith—J. Ander. son, West Smithfield, bookseller-I'. Wotton, Bristol, leather factor. ASSIZE INY ELLIGENCE. -410- SURREY. COLTON V. NELSON. KINGSTON, APRIL 2.—This was an action of assault and Like imprisonment. The defendant pleaded a justification. The case was this :—The plaintiff keeps a broker's shop in Snow's-fields, Sloane -street, and the defendant at the time of this transaction, kept a gin-shop in Black friars-road, near the bridge. On the 18th of October last the plaintiff stopt at the defendant's house to take a glass of porter, and by accident he broke the tumbler, from which he drank the liquor. The Nailer told hint he must pay 2s. for the glass; he demurred to the demand but gave his address, promissing to call next day and produce another glass, or the price of one. The waiter took the address to the defendant, who was in the bar. The latter insisted that he must then pay the money, or leave the value of the glass, and immediately snatched his hat, in which was a silk handkerchief, off his head and laid it a one-side. The plaintiff remonstrated against this conduct, upon which the defendant said, if he was not satisfied he must go to the watch-house; and instantly called in a night patrole and gave him in charge. No evidence was offered for the defendant, and the Jury, under the learned Judge's directions, found a ver dict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.—costs 40s. TABLING V. TAYLOR. The cause of action arose out of a public•house dispute at Carshalton, which ended in the defendant's striking the plaintiff on the nose, and producing a copious he morrhage. There was much abusive langsage between the parties. The case went to the jury under the learned judge's direction, and a verdict was found for the rlaintiti— Damages 40s. EDWARDS V. LUCRECY AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants a compensation in damages for an injury sustained by the overflowing of the head of water belonging to the defendant's mill, over the garden ground of the plaintiff. It appeared that the defendants were, in March 1819, proprietors of a tide-mill, situate upon the Thames, at Itotherhithe, in this county. This mill was worked by a head of water admitted by the flood tide into a mill pond appropriated to that purpose, the regress of which, during the ebbing of the tide, worked the mill. The mill pond was protected by artificial banks, which it was the duly of the defendants to keep in repair, and the ad jacent low lands were laid out as gardens, in the posses. slim of many different occupiers, ul whom the present plaintiff was one. The case set up by the plaintiff was, briefly, that on the morning of the 4th March, 18 t 9, in consequence of some negligence in the management of the flood gates nearest the river belonging to the defendant!, the water in the mill pond ruse to au extraordinary height, ran over the whole course of the banks, and flooded the gardens on the other side in all directions, by which the plants and seed growing in the plaintiff's garden were completely washed away, and some damage was done to his dwelling-house. It appeared that on this occasion the engineer, who had been in the habit of superintend ing the gates, was absent, and he deposed that if those gales had been properly managed, the alleged injury could not have occurred. The jury, under the learned judges direction, found a verdict fur the plaintifi—Damages iGi. XERXES V. THE COMPANY OF THE SOUTH WAtiiit- %vomits. This was; an action by the driver of the Guda lruing coach, against the defendants, for not repairing a road in the parish of St. Mary, Newington, through which their works were carried, in consequence of which the plaintiff was thrown off the box, and broke his thigh. In consequence of a mistake t:ic description of the parish in which the accident happened, the plaintiff was nonsuited. CROWN SIDE. Solomon Joseph vvaT indicted for stealing, at New ington, on the ts3d of August laid, 4th) gold 4uvertigr.s, the property of llessr s. Whitmore and Co. There writ, other counts, layin Mr properly to be in tither persons. This case excited eutisidcrAle interest. It appeared in evidence, that un the 23d of August