The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-01-28 00:00:00

c ;F.XF.RAL JOINT-STOCK COMPANY -oil THE PROMOTION OF FRENCH INDUtATRY. N. hsfitte, by his relations with England, and an ~,,..t i ve observation of what passes there, hail conceived a vi tt :des. the results of which might be immense. He had f r wol the project of an Association of capitalists, who pau i,t wt apart a sum of a hundred millions of franca, to branch_of industry. - This Association, uce . . p.-.)cr.ete every brancn f , l ,,,rishere, would have been of incalculable advantage to Frarce, where capitalists are over cautious, and do not, as to England, embark their money in every new invention in which it may be required. Dawning enterprises would ro t hare feared perishing for want of being supported, but might aiways have reckoned upon a powerful society, con ststalv disposed by its institution to aid them. This society, connected at the same time with all branches of industry, bad nothing to fear upon the question of its funds, because the success of one enterprise would n recompense them for the failure of another. A capitalist may fear to embark in an sittetprise because it may fail 31 well as succeed ; but if he shares with all he can have nothing to fear, because the labours of a whole country must be productive of a favour able result. Because one manufacturer becomes a bank rupt, all the others will not do so also at the same time. The idea then of M. Lafitte had this advantage—of making each branch of industry surety for another, so that the capital embarked in any one was, as it were, insured by all the rest. From that instant capitalists would - have dismisied all their fears ; and with the credit of the state esotbsr credit much more vast and useful would have been raised; v s. the credit of industry, which can never be employed fur evil, nor serve any purpose but that of pr.aluction. The funds, the regulations, every thing was prepared for this great Institution. M. Lafitte had been chosen as President. and Messrs. Casimir Perrier and Ternaux as Vice-Presidents. The most honourable names had come creed to be added to the list with those we have own tweed, and mode a party it. so fine a project ; but they had reckoned without their host, and M. Corbiere had yet to be prevailed upon to approve the plan which had been formed. it was a national plan; that was no reason why it should b.• ministerial : it was , however, hoped that an idea with which every body was taken, and which appeared so use ful to induatty, would not be repelled by the ministry, and that it would not venture to oppose the opinion already universally pronounced. Such, however, has not been the fact; and they have sent, it iv said, the authors of the plan who prayed the authority of the Council of State, the following ohjactions. In the first piece the Ministry, aided by the Council of State, have thought that commercial enterprises offer so many chances of failure, that their importance cannot be too much diminished, and that the capital of each must be reduced as much as possible, in order that the failures may be less considerable. How much ought we not to fear for an undertaking whose funds amount to a hundred mil lions? The whole of this objection amounts to this—that, for fear we should not succeed, we should not even try to work ; that for fear of shipwreck, we should not go to sea ; that tor fear of no harvest, we ought not to sow : in a word, that we must remain immovable, in order not to expose ourselves to danger. Such a doctrine does not surprise us from the present Administration : but that Administration, whose principles we do not hope to enlarge, ought to have perceived that the object of the Joint-Stock Company was to provide against the fears they express. The Joint- Stock Company, by employing its capital in all branches of industry at ot.ce, escaped the peril which threatens each individual enterprise. The Ministry, even with their present principles, ought to have rested in safety upon the organization of the Company. In consequence of their mode of viewing the dangers of enterprise, the Ministry, it is said, propose the reduction of the capital from a hundred millions to twenty-five mil lions, and also to prohibit their engaging in any commer cial enterprise. The Ministry have besides proposed a precaution ; anti this was to throw the weight of every en- terprize upon the public funds ; a piece of advice which the Joint-Stock Company stood in no need of, and which would have been well if kept to themselves. The Ministry, who have shown a great esteem for the system of tutelary administrations, who have a great affection for Communes obedient to the Sous-prefers in the administra tion of all their affairs, besides wished that the Company should be organised like one of our municipalities, It wished the Government Commissioners, appointed for the Company, should not only have the power to watch over the regulations, but also to oppose such enter pri,e as should nut please them. So that nothing would be done in this council of industry but what pleased the Ministry, just as in the Councils of the departments. They say, there is a hundred millions to be employed, but don't employ more than twenty-five. You are about to employ your capital, but first consult us ; and if the use yeti want to put it to displease us, abstain from so using it. Trade as little as possible, and let that be when anti how we shall please. Such is the language of Ministers, and such thtir objections. But since they wish to interfere in alt the operations of commerce, they ought also to share in the proceeds--and, if there is loss, make it up. We will not push further the examination of the objec tions addressed by ministers to a great and benevolent en terprise. If it becomes impossible to execute it at present, it will be an additional obligation France will owe the pre sent ministers. M. Laffitte, and the gentlemen who joined with him, will always have the merit of having started a fine idea with the noblest intentions, and they will gain credit fur the good which it will not have been permitted to them to disseminate.—Constitutioanel. VIVO BAY UNDERTAKING. [From the 36 - rwiNg Nereid.] TO TILE EDITOR OF THE MORNING HERALD. bia--llartng learned on my return to London from Vigo that the operations carrying on in the Bay of that City under my direc tion, and pursuant to a contract entered into by me with the Spanish Uovernment, have been made the subject of various misrepresent ations, I consider it a duty to truth and to my own character, to stare • few facts. To these facts 1 shall strictly confine myself, without directly exposing, and, after the explanations which I have received, without characterising a single one of these misrepresent. The Vigo Bay unde,rtaking was commenced, and is carried on, not by a Joint-Stock Public Subscription, but out of the private funds of a few persons who associated themselves in a partnership for that nutmeat. It wits never expected or intended to make any material progress in the work during the last year. but the contract rendered it obli. gantry to commence operations within the year ; and so far are the partly engaged from being disappointed or discouraged, that they are providing additional machinery on a scale of unsparing expense, to be sent out—not because the machinery already tried had ptoved inadequate, but for the purpose of expediting and concluding the work, the number of vessels discovered and to be worked on exceed. tog expectation. 1 shall enter into no statement of the grounds of success upon which the parties to this undertaking are proceeding, that being the cone.rn of those only who are immediately interested; but I think tt tight to submit the following letter received by me, from my friend Mr. Menendez, British Vice-Consul at Vigo. to show that the accounts which have reached London by private letters, or through some of the Paris Papers. of a correspondence between the A yuntamiento or Corporation of Vigo and the Spanish 31in i ster at )Madrid, are mere fabrications. In justice to 31r. .Menendez it should be observed that his letter was nut intended for publication. " Vigo, Dec. 28, 1825. "My dear Friend—l had this pleasure on the 17th and 21st in. slant, and have now very little to add, but of some consequence to you. I have seen a letter from Madrid to a person that you know here, stating that he heard from sonic person about the Secretary of Slate. that the Ayuntansiento (('orporation) of this city had re. toned officially to the Minister of State, that it appeared on refer ence to the papers the Corporation is in possession of, little or no money ceuld be expected to be left in the galleons when burnt and sunk at Ramie. As soon as I kernel this sews I waited upon some of the members of A yuntamiento to make an inquiry about the business , and they assured me that the Corporation had never received any communication on this point floor the Minister of State, and that they never wrote to him any thing privately or offi cially to this erect, with which news I was very much pleased, as you may consider. We know how some people work against the er.terprise. Tha post starts, and on gives me time ton sure you, I am your r.ast a irectionate friend; " I. Dickson, Esq. London. L. Al EMENDS:Z. " In conclusion, I repent that I will not notice any of the mis. representations an3l absurdities which have been industriously forth respecting this undertaking ; but confine myself to these facts. 1. DICKSON, January 24, Cooper's-rnw, Trinity-square. lln reference to a pernicrsph of our Stock Exchange correspond ence, we disclaim imputing any delusive or disreputable tnou csa or purposes, or meaning atiy thing injurious or disrespectful to the 'character of the contractor of the Vigo Bay undertaking.l 87'. OLAFt...ti, HABT-STREET. A Vestry Meeting on the subject of Tithes wss held yesterday, for the purpose of taking into cooN:leration some important cm. respondence between the Tithe Ceuln.:tlee and the Bishop of London t but bttore rite txtrnmeneement of business, Dr. Owen, the Hector, entered the room. Air. Nonni mowed that one of the Churchwardens should take the Chair. Before this motion could be put, Dr. Owen seated himself in the Chair, and entened the vestry book. Mr. NODlW—l.suppowe then that you consider yourself enti tled to take the Chair, under the Act of Parliament? Dr. Owete-7b be sure I One of the pitiabioners addressed Dr. Owen in a tone of re monstrance, and said it would be necessary in the course of the proceedings to laveatigate hi. emeluct. Dr Ow EN—I slim t understand you ; why, we are friends ;we are rowing in the same boat; we have agreed upon every thing, and t h e ordy opponent to your wishes is the Bishop. Mr. None x said the Rector had so often gone from his word that they could not trust him. Mr. Owww—lf you soonest my intentions I will immediately sign any paper you wish. that will bind me to, the sum we have agreed upon. Mr. Nonis—The pariah will not run from their words; they will pay what they have resolved upon, if the intended Bill gets through Parliament. Dr. Owes—011! if try annuity is to depend upon the Bill getting through Parliament, that is another question. In that case my agreement is void. Mr. Tu Laotian said it was impossible for tie parish to depart from its agreement, and he wished to inquire of the Rector, whether, it they instated a clause to secure him an annuity, he would oppose it. or interfere. Dr. the —C eriainly not, unless the Legislature should inter fete, to fix mole other sum. Mr. MOROAN. of Cnochedfriars, then addressed the meeting in defence of the Rector. The persons who opposed him might be divided into three climes: the first were thine who could not be supposed to have any interest in the waive of the Church, since they never attended it; the second was, of those who dis sented from its thereinto, and who were Its enemies, and surely they were not the persons from whom the sentireents of the parish att large could be supposed to emanate; the third was, of those of the congregation, who, for the gratification of their own vindic tive spirit of personal revenge, lied dared to turn their becks on their altar, their religion, and their God. Thoy hail afterwards disseminated a namphlet in the shape of a false arid scandalous lever. in which it was falsely asserted that the income of the Doctor was 2,2001. Hoerr contended that the majority who opposed the ex . actions of the Rector were members of the Establiehed:Church. As to the charge of turning their backs upon their religion, it was untrue During the late Dr. Owen's life-time (and he was Rector for 33 I years), the highest Wary that he received was from 23411. to 3001. per annum. Waa it reasonable. therefore, to suppose that the pa rishioner' could be content with the exorbitant rate levied by the present Rector The father of the present Rector (Dr. Owen), ac cording to Malcolm. was so virtuous and learned. that the parishion en and the public generously subscribed 10001. for a posthumous volume of his sermons, which was published in 1797, for the be nefit of his daughters. " Think you," said the speaker, " that the public would subscribe 100 W. for the evidence delivered by the present Rector, before a Committee of the Howie of Commons, in 1821, on the Vagrant Laws?" (Wear, hear, anti cheers.) Dr. ()wee (with great warmth).—What do you mean by that, Sir ? Explain yourself ; I'll not submit to it. Mr. Rosso—l shall give no explanation ; I have stated facts, and leave the meeting Is/ draw their conclusions. Dv. Ow E li—Voit are a paltry fellow. That evidence did me immortal honour ; Mr. Chetwynd and Sir Thomas Baring told me Mr. Roeee—Well, I did not say it did not; I merely wished the gentlemen to read and judge for themselves ; but if it did you immortal honour, Doctor, why be offended with me for mention ing it ? Dr. Owes—Vou are a paltry fellow. (Great tumult.) Something like order was at length restored, and Mr. Rolfe continued his speech. In conclusion he conjured them not to be overawed by any insolent domination ; but as they valued their own property, and the welfare of posterity, to resist with all their might the efforts to perpetuatel so unjust and intolerable a burden. (Cheers.) The Secretary to the Tithe Committee then read a long letter which had been sent to the Bishop of London. In settling the disputes of this parish, his Lordship had stated his intention to adopt the rental by which the Rector of Ilishopsgate had been determined. The letter from the Committee to his Lordship went into a series of calculations to show that the comparative rental of this pariah, in comparison with that of Bishopsgete, had been greatly misrepresented to his Lordship. To this letter the follow ing answer had been retuned (COPY) " Fulham, Jan. 19,1916. "Stn,—The rental, by which the payment to the Rector of Biehopegate was determined, is that on which lie received his tithes. I take the same standard of value with respect to St. Olave's ILA-street, and am satisfied that an arrangement, framed on this basis, would be much for the advantage of the parishioners. But as you inform me that they are of a different opinion, and the benefit to be obtained is altogether prospective, it may perhaps be advisable to let the matter rest, more especially considering the difficulty of satisfactorily explaining in Parliament the very unusual proposition of reducing the value of the Living to future Incum bents below the sum actually received by the present Incumbent, and secured to him for the term of his Incumbeuey.-1 remain, Sir, your obedient humble Servant, I. W. LONDON." " E. U. Jones, Esq. Chairman of the Committee." A long and stormy debate then ensued. A letter was read from the Committee to the Bishop. stating their willingness tc fulfil every con dition that bad been proposed by them as to a settlement, on terms similar to those or Ilishopsgate parish, when taken at a proper ren tal. This letter was approved of by the Vestry, and ordered to be amt. It was also resolved, that every effort to prevail on the Lord Bishop to Interfere, anti thereby settle the disputes that agitated the parish had been, uneuecteeful, although the parish were willing to secure to the Rector the enormous income which he at present re ceived, provided the I revisions for the future incumbent was placed on an equitable basis, consistent with the extent and population of the parish : that nothing was left to them but an appeal to Parlia ment, and they requested the tithe committee to prepare a peti tion for the purpose. These proceedings were carried with only two dissentient voices. Thanks were given to the Tithe Committee, and the Meeting se. 'nated without paying the usual compliment to the Chairman. THE INTENDED NEW VICTUALLING ESTA. BLISIIMENT AT DEVIL'S POINT. (From the Plymouth Journal] On Tuesday afternoon last, advantage was taken of the I lowest spring tide which has occurred during the last six months, for the purpose of laying the foundation of the sea-wall connected with the intended new Victualling Establishment at Devil's Point. The atone was a mass of granite, from the quarries of Messrs. Trenary and Co. of Penryn, and weighed about two tons. It was lowered down by ropes, and fixed in its situation eleven feet below low water-mark, by the aid of the diving bell. The rock on which the foundation is laid has an inclination of nearly 45 degrees, consequently it will be necessary to cut into the solid cliff to effect a lodgment for the stones forming the basement of the wall. 'I his is done by blasting the rock with gunpowder under teutrr in the following manner : A hole is made in the rock by means of the diving bell, which is charged with gunpowder. A metal tube is then introduced into the cavity, communicating with the surface of the water, through which tube a red hot spill is dropped, which ignites the gunpowder. The concussion which takes place in the water is very great, and dead fish have fre quently been observed to rise to the surface shortly after an explosion. The wall will stretch, when finished, from De vil's Point to the present Slaughter-house, and thence in a N.E. direction to the new Military-road hailing to the Marine Barracks—a length of about 2,000 feet. The base will measure in breadth 7 feet 9 inches, the top 5 feet 9 inches, and the height will be about 30 feet. As two diving bells will be constantly employed, it is con fidently expected that the whole of dui wall will be seen above water before the elate of the present year. About 5,000 tons of granite and limettone are on the ground, quite ready to be lowered into their situations. We under stand that the frame work, piles, &c.. which have been erected for the building of the sea wall alone cost bet ween 3,000/. and 6,000. The mortar used in this work is of a peculiarly strong anal binding nature. It is composed of one part of Aberthal lime, one of Poizolara Ca kind of lava brought from Italy) and two of sand. Phis mix ture becomes, in a short time after it is laid on, al ' most as firm as the rock itself. The whole of this grand national undertaking, consisting when finished of steam corn mills, slaughter houses, brewery, bakehouse, storehouses, &a will cover sn area of twelve acres of ground. It is calculated, however, that it will require a period of ten years to effect its entire • completion. An extensive basin will be constructed within the walls, in order to give every possible facility to the unloading of vessels. The water for the use of the esta blishment is to be supplied from the Plymouth Leat, and will be conveyed through iron pipes, from a reservoir in Five Fields, into another about to be constructed in the field at the extremity of Devil's Point. It is worth the while of persons possessed of leisure to spend an hour or two in inspecting the works at this spot. The diving-lolls are constantly in operation, and so curious a triumph of art cannot fail to interest the beholder, who will also be pleased to remark the regularity and extreme order which pervades all the operations connected with this extensive undertaking. THE BRITISH PRESS. LAW NOTICES. COURT OF CHANCERY. STFORIC TEN IFICZ-CHANCLLLOII CAI*SES TO ■E HEARD THIS DAY. Bankrupt Petitiors—tx.parte Fitch, Wyatt. and Porter, In re Dter Ilatikins • M ilea, 3larqul.ofSalisbury I A t.-0 en. v• M orland nut heart: • Jackson I Same • Corporation Bonaker v Bennet Marshall ♦ Dermer of Tomes Jerninghant • Her. l'eo • Yen Same v Sedgwick beet Hanks r Hanks GriarsonyStaniforth, Jackson • Hankcy Weider • Richards to show cause ROLLS COURT. CONSENT cArsrs. re:Dilifil•D - 111 - E - CTIONS. AND PETITIONS TO DE HEARD THIS MORNING. Drown v Wing.. tut- Jll,lngsmill • Hulbert, Ex-mirte Mount, pe. . ther directions 'Otiose . tit ion Finidw v Gibbons 9 Roseseell flier., Sutton v Rouble, cause ' , petition' , OHM In re Windus, pet-. Stone • „Stone. ditto Baillie • Denman, Lion , , Price v Pumell,ditto petition Hay v Fairlie, fur..... Bach • Sillitant, Etrington v Elting. ther direction. •- itktO - - ton, ditto Lewes v Idingineed, ..leiterias• Adonis, Sowerby • Sowerby, petition , ditto Thomas • Montgo, , Sandwich • Corn. Darlington v Co. may. ditto . within,' ditto • drington, ditto Robertson v Cave, • Weatherall • Clay, Fisher v I)avis, ditto ditto further directions Gower v Gower,ditto Squire ',Squire, ditto Co: • Cockerel!, Gilbert v. Royds, Colt/tome v Cal. . ditto ditto that's*, ditto l in re Market-street • .Same r Same, ditto Act COURT OP EXCHEQUER. CAVALW TO RE HEARD THIS DAY. AttorneyMenrral r INtartw—Excepuuna by onler. ManstieCt v t beNlyn—Exception by order. The Lord Chief Baron will sit on Tueaday and NVednesday mt. LAW INTE I. LIG ENCE. VICIE-CHANCF.ELOWS COURT, Fi VOA", 27. PADLIpt AND OirDERSN. MANN AND °Mtn, Mr. HORSE, on the part of the plaintiffs, moved for an in junction to prevail John Dupree.. Bag. High Sheriff of Bucking• hamshire, from paying over to the other defendants a sum of money between 9004 and 1000/.' sore in his hands ; also to restrain the defendants from proceeding by action or any other mode at law, against the plaintiffs; and to restrict them from negotiating or proceeding on a bond passed by the first elaintiffJohn Paulet, Esq. From the meter:sent of Counsel it appeered that in the year 1017, Mr. Paulet became embarrassed iu his circumstances, and went to reside at Abingdon House, in Buckinghamshire. He then had some conference with the defendant Mr. Deane, who ultimately undertook to arrange matters satisfactorily with the creditors. Lord Nugent and Miss Panlet, sister to Me. Paulet, having agreed to become securities.* warrant of attorney was given by Mr. Peale! to Mr. Deane. The latter subsequently stated that more money was requisite to satisfy the claims of . the creditors, and that there was a lady of the name of Catherine Cecil.residing at Sloane-street, Chelsea. who, on getting proper security, was ready to advance 700!. The security being accordingly given, Mr. Paulet under stood that the money had been received by Mr. Deane, and appto priated to the settlement of the original debts. Subsequently Mr. Deane applied to Mr. Paulet (who was on the eve of departing or the Continent), in order to procure payment of cash to the amount of 1161. to which he alleged lie was entitled, partly for remunera. don, and partly for the balance of money expended In the service of Mr. runlet. For the purpose of arranging this affair, Mr. Paulet prevailed upon his sister to join him in a bond to the amount required, to pay the demand of the defendant, Mr. Deane. An account of the different Items was then asked from Mr. Deane, but though a long correspondence elated between him and Mr. Paula's solicitor on the subject, Mr. Deane has not to the present period furnished the particulars. Mr. Paulet afterwards learned that the money which he had supposed to have been converted by Mr. Deane to the payment of the creditors was never so appro priated, and that the charges mode by Mr. Deane, for which the joint bond was passed, had consequently not been incurred.. Not. withstanding these circumstances, the defendant, Mr. Deane, entered judgment on the one bond, arid delivered it to the High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire for execution. The High Sheriff levied the amount on the goods of Lord Nugent, and has now in hands. on this account, money to the amount of between 9001. and 1000/. Notice was served on the High Sheriff to the effect that, as soon as the practice of the Court would permit, an order would be applied for to oblige him to pay the money in his hands into the Court. Miss Cecil. to whom the bond, as already stated. bad been pouted, is understood not to be a person possessing the pecuniary means which she was represented to have. It would therefore be unsafe to permit any of the money to fall into her power. Under these circumstances Alt. Home trusted, that as nothing unfair was intended by the present application, his Honour would grant the threefold injunction for which he prayed. The VICE-ruaOcr. LLOII was clearly of opinion that the pre sent was a case which required a compliance, and lie accordingly granted the injunction in all its points. WIIITTON V. PIDENIX OAS AND COZY COMPANY. Mr. HART in this case was instructed to move for an injunction, in order to prevent the continuance of injury which the property of the plaintiff, situated at Camberwell-grove, was sustaining front the proceedings of the defendants. From the statement of Counsel it appeared that the plaintiff possessed a messuage at Camberwell. grove, which he had leased to a person of the name of llalliday and another. In front of the premises there is a long avenue of elm -trees„ under which the Phomix I.lae Company, acting by virtue of a power vested in them by the trustees appointed by Act of Par. lianient, hail caused pipes for the conveyance of gas to be laid down. In June last the works were commenced, and a notice to desist was served on the defendants. They accordingly ceased to prosecute the offensive operations for some time, but subsequently renewed them with increased vigour, tearing up the ground in all directions, until they had laid under the grove a train of pipes ex. tending to the greater part of its length. No injurious result was apparent befOre November, when about thirty of the trees lost their bark. and exhibited other sudden symptoms of rapid decay. Those appearances were at first imputed to causes different from the one now alleged, but when the increase of injury induced a stricter exa mination of the origin of the mischief. it was imputed to the escape of the gas, and to the manner in which the pipes through which it had been conveyed were laid down. The trees had been inspected by two nursery gardeners on the 3d and the 10 th of the present month. The affidavits of those persons testified in the strongest manner that the decay of the trees was caused by the cutting and grubbing of the roots, when the place was under preparation for the reception of the pipes. In addition to this testimony, an operative chymist stated, in the most uneqiiivocal terms, his belief that the gas which constantly escaped from the pipes produced the detriment which the bark of the trees experienced. The avenue in question was one of the greatest ornaments and most beautiful features on the face of that part of the country. The progress of the present evil threatened inevitable ruin, to prevent whtrh he (Ale. Hart) prayed tin an immediate injunction to restrain the Company from prosecuting the nuisance of which the plaintiff complained. Mr. SUODEN, on behalf of the Company, conceived that the plainte's application was reprehensible, as the object of its prayer was to involve the entire neighbourhood in utter darkness. His clients had not transgressed the power* deputed to them by the trustees, who had been appointed for the purpose by Act of Parlia ment. But under the present circumstances the motion could not be granted, as the trustees (in the capacity of agents to whom the Company acted) had r ot been included in the bill, and brought under the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Mane entertained sanguine hopes that his Honour would net permit the property of the plaintiff to be destroyed, root and branch, by an objection such as had been advanced. Delay was dangerous, and in the present instance would be attended with effects of irreparable injury. Mr. SCGDEN observed, that the apprehension of the mischief likely to result from delay must vanish, when it was considered that lamps had been already lighted in the place during the last live months. When the alteration in the bark of the trees was first remarked, it was ascribe,[ to the pranks of some idle boys who had indulged themselves in peeling off' the bark. This opinion was not abandoned until advertisements offering rewards foe the detection of the offending urchins had proved fruitless. Then, in despair of tracing the injury to an adequate source, the plaintiff waled the Gas Company of being the origin of that mischief, with which the naughty boys had been previously taxed, and which might perhaps ultimately be discovered in the quality of the soil, The Viec-Clianceeroa decided that the objection taken by Mr. Sugden was valid. The necessity of an injunction was to be deduced from the certainty or great probability that immediate injury would ensue if it were refused. In the present instance, huwever, even from the facts adduced by the plaintiff himself, the probability of such an injury as came within the principle on which injunctions were granted could not be contemplated. His Honour should therefore refuse the injunction, as the trustees were not in cluded in the bill. The motion was ordered to stand over until the bill should be amended. COURT OF SING'S I%ENCII. WESTMIYITIR, FRIDAY, JAN. 27. BIEMOIRS OF HARRIETTE WILSON. STOCKDALE V. owwttvg. This was an action brought by J. R. stockdale, the bookseller of Pall-mall, against the defendant, a bookseller of Catherine -street, Strand, to recover compensation in damages sustained by him in consequence of the defendant having pirated the copyright of the first number of the Memoirs' of Harriette Wilma, of which the plaintitlalleged himself to be the owner. The cause was tried be fore the Lord ChielJustics at the last Sittings for Middlesex, when die plaintiff' was nonsuited. Mr. BROUGHAM now moved for a rule to s ho w cause w h y the nonsiiit should not be set aside nail 11 new trial had. The two wants on which the Learne I Judge directed the mimic were— first, that the property of the plaintiff in the work had not been proved ; and secondly, that the work itself wits of a libellous and licentious tendency, in which the law could not recognise a pro petty. With regard to the first point, the Learned Counsel ob. served, that prima facie evidence of the copyright being vested in the plaintiff"was adduced, for he proved the manuscript to be in the plaintiff's possession, in which he had made several alterations this was certainly sufficient evidence to go to a Jury as to tbs right, of the plaintiff It appeared that the doctrine as to there being no property in works of a libellous and licentious tendency, was founded upon a dictum of Lori (Thief Justice Eyre, in a case which was tried at NVarwick. This dictum was referred to, sod, as it seemed. recognised in the case of Wolcott v. Walley, 7 Vesev, and also in that of Southey Sherwood, in 2d Merrivale 431. Had there been ary other authority on the s u bject than this dictum, no doobt Lord Eldon, from his great legal learning and research, would bite teterred to it when giving judgment in the last mentioned case, On the hearirg of that case, which was an ap plication to the Lord Chancellor to restrain the defendant by a.l Injunction trout publishing a poetical work called " Wat Tyler," of which the plaintiff was the author, thy late Sir Samuel Remaly most accurately stated the dictum in question. It appeared from what that learned and eminent person said, that De. Priestley bed brought an action against the hundred to recover compensation fee the serious lose he sustained during the petiod of the riots that took place at Birmingham, when a great many valuable works be longing to him were destroyed. On the trial of the ramie at 11 erwick. Lord (Thief Justice Eyre, in summing up to the Jury, observed that the defendant's COUIPICI had charged Dr. Priestley with being guilty of publishing works of a ten&itcy . injurious to the Government. No evidence, however, had been given that any of the works that were destroyed were of that nature, nor had it been proved that the Doctor was in the habit of publishing works of such a tendency.. He (Lord C. J. Eyre) admitted that such a circumstance, if it had been proved, would have gone very strongly against the justice of the plaintiff's claim for compensation. This doctrine, hoverer. the Learned Counsel submitted, could ndt be sustained. There was another case not referred to in that of Southey v. Sherwood; which appeared to have acme relation to the present question, though it dal not actually apply to it. It was the awe of Form v. Johns, 4 Espinasue, p. P 7. That was an action brought by a prhuseller against Mr. Johns, to recover the value of certain prints. It appeared that the defendant gave the plaintiff a general order for the purchase of caricatures, who, in pursuance or that order, had purchased and sent to the defendant several which were of a libellbus and immoral description. The question was, whether the order extended to authorise the purchase of prints of that kind. The case, however, was not decided by the Court, it being referred to arbitration ; but if it had not, he thought the decision must have been upon a principle difireat from the one against which he was contending. It was material so observe upon what ground the doctrine was founded, that no pro perty could be maintained in works of a libellous or licentious tendency. He would suppore a case of larceny, where a man should have stolen a hunk which contained some passages of an immoral kind ; could it be asserted that the party stealing it was not liable to punishment ? And yet such must be the fact if the owner of ;he book had no legal property iu it. Mr. Justice t.Ermr.e raid, that the principle applicable to larceny was altogrher difkrent from that which applied to the case before the Court ; for there the value of the covers and paper of the hunk would he taken into consideration ; while here the contents only were to be estimated, and which were merely of an lug value. Mr. Bnorollaw would suppose that the paper was not worth a shilling, and yet the value ot the property in the contents was a great deal. Would it be se . :(l Mr. Justice BAYLEY —That. ilr. Brougham, is a peritio prin. cipli. It is the duty of the party not to be found to have its hie possession an Immoral hook. Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that this argument would equally apply to the property in the paper, for the paper ought not to be used for an immoral purpose. In his opinion, the most effectual way to give currency to libellous anal licentious works was by en abling persons to publish them at a cheap rate. The work in question was originally sold at 7s. fid., but the pirated edition was published at half that price. If it was to be maintained that no person could possess a tight of property in a bock, any part of which might be of an immoral tendency, the maxim, ohs plum intent, would never hold good in law. Mr. Justice BAYLEY —Before you can have a property you must take out all the obnoxious passages. Mr. Justice 110 t. Ito v n—ls not the ground of action an injury done ? but how can an injury be done to the property for work which it is criminal to publish ? Mr. BnotrollAM observed, that by such reasoning a man could not by law publish a hook that contained one single passage of a libellous or immoral nature any more than he could a whole book filled with passages of such a description. It was clear that if a 1 part of a work was libellous it subjected the publisher to a prose cution ; but was he on that account to have his property in the whole work taken teoin him 1 Ile would now refer the Court to the case of Byrne v. Dale, ..lil Campbell, which was an action re lating to the right of property in a single song. Mr. (Jarrow (now Mr. Baron Darrow) on that occasion produced one of the stanzas of the song, which he asserted to be a libel upon the administra tion of justice ; as indeed it was, for her Ministers were there ac cused ot taking bribes. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Did the accusation apply to any particu lar individual ? Mr. BROUGHAM—No, the accusation was general; but Mr. Justice Lawrence, who presided at the trial, observed, that the same objection would equally apply to the Beggars' Opera, where many similar passages occurred ; but his Lordship not only held that a libellous passage occurring in such a manner, in the course of a work. could not des,roy the author's right of property in the whole of it ; but declared, that the supposition of its having so destructive and extensive an operation was absurd. This in his (Mr. Brougham's ) opinion clearly showed that that Learned Judge did not consider that the copyright of the Beggars' Opera could be destroyed on account of some few improper passages it might contain. No doubt many parts of that Opera were such as could not be looked upon as of a very moral nature. It was, in fact, the history of some of the lowest women of the town, and yet `the Lord Chamberlain hail not prohibited its exhibition. Another work was shortly afterwards published by the author of the Bre gars' Opera, called Polly, the performance of which was prohi. biter) by the Lord Chamberlain, but Polly was nevertheless pro tected by the Lord Chancellor. (A laugh.) It was quite clear that Polly was worse than her namesake in the Beggars' Opera, from the Lord Chamberlain refusing to give her a license ; but Lord Chancellor Talbot nevertheless granted an injunction to pro tect the copyright. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Perhaps his Lordship thought the worse the work was the more likely it would be to promote its circulation were he to place the parties on equal terms by refusing the in junction. Mr. Ileos-critaat observed that at all events it was quite clear that it was a worse work than the Beggars' Opera. But there was another case to which he would reter their Lordskips, which was very similar to the present. It was that of Bell v. Walker, Ist Brown's Chancery Cases. There an injunction was applied for to restrain the defendant from pirating a work, which was certainly of a licentious character, as was shown by the very title-page of it, which set forth that the book contained The Memoirs of George Anne fkllonly, including her Intrigues, &c. &c. ; but Lord Kenyon granted the injunction. It could not be deeded that that work was at least of as bad a description as the Memoirs of Her rave Wilson, and yet its copyright was protected. On one oc casion Lord Ellenborough bad said that If a publication INS so gross as to affect the public morals, it would, in his opinion, be ad visable, in the case of an action for piracy, supposing the copy. , right to be proved, for the jury not to give any damages. This was evidently au admission that a right of property in such works ex hated, although its Infringement did nut entitle the owner to more l than nominal damages. Mr. Justice Ito i.ROTD—I do not see how a right of action can arise upon that which the law punishes criminally. Mr. BROUGHAM thought that the statute of Anne was not meant to protect property in any description of works, but to pre vent piracy of kinds. Piracy MO made punishable by that statute in two ways--either by the defendant's giving up the sheets of the work he had pirated to the original proprietor, or by an action by the owner for the loss sustained, which was to be estimated at so much per sheet. But then, in a subsequent clause of the Act, it was provided that an action should not be maintainable for the da mage, nor the sheets be recoverable, unless something should be done by the real owner to establish his right of property. Their Lordships having consulted together— The Loan CH r Er J yin ICC said that this was an action brought to recover compensation io damages for the loss the plaintiff had sustained in the profits of publication, in consequence of another bookseller having pirated his copyright. At the trial it was clearly proved that this work professed to be the history of the amours of a courtesan, and diet it contained much matter highly immoral, and of a very slanderous and calumnious description concerning many persons of high rank and character in the country. Such was the general character of the cork. The question then was whether the plaintiff hail a right to come into a Court of Law to recover compensation in damages for some supposed low of profit in the sale ot a work of this description. Before lie could recover he first must show that he had a right to sell, for if he had not such right he could not maintain an action at law. But no lawyer could say that the plaintiff had a right to sell such a work as this; but every lawyer and every man must admit that the sale of each and every copy of a work of this kind was an offence against the law. Were they then to recognize a right the exercise of which would be a vM lotion of the law ? lie was of opinion that upon the plainest prin ciples of the common law of England they ought not to do so, for DO man could have a property in what was an 'illegal work where they had no authority to guide them, they must look to the principles of common sense and common justice, for the principles of common sense and common justice were the feundation of the common law of England ; and he was clearly of opinion that those principles required them to refuse to sanction the publication of such a work as this, by giving protection to the' copyright that the plaintiff claimed to have in it. He required no authority for this judicial opinion, for common sense dictated ks With respect to the cases in Chancery which had been quoted, be should merely observe that those cases proved only a difference of 1 opinion among the Lean fi l Judges whose names had been t mentioned, as to what wasbest mode to prevent the circulation of those publications. It ad been said that one individual of high rank and talent thought that the circulation of publications of this kind would be better prevented by acknowledging a right of property, and thus check their extension by means of piracy : while 'another individual of equal rank and equal talents was of opinion that these works would be best restrained by refusing any protection to them ; because it was thought that a person would be deterred from embarking a Large sum in purchasing the manu script and publishing of such a work when he knew that any other individual might the next day have a right to put forth the same work in a cheaper form ; for gain was the only induce ment its getting up publications of this kind. The object, there-. fore, of both those Learned Judges was to restrain the circula- tion ; which of the modes were the best it wss not for him to de cide. Ile thought it fit to say thus much hi reference to what hath. been, said to have taken place in a Court of Equity;. pull such de: cisions were not, properly speaking. any authority in a Court of Common .Law ; because a Court of Equity would act upon the Principle of whirr-was the Common Law, and would he guided, id its decision, by considering whether the party could Or not maim. tain his right at law. MI *as clearly of opinion that this actical was not maintau.nble. and that it would be a disgrace to Alit . country if any Judge were to sanction it. Mr. Justice BAYLEY .greed in every thing that had been N ably said by the Lord Chief Justice,• and would only observe. that in the case of Southey v. Sherwood. the Lord Chanceljer laid ib down that the -Court of Equity could not grant an injucetion, because the plaintiff had no property *filth would be tocogulsed lit a Court 01 bar. Mr..lustice Horitbvn was 61 the same opinion. He thought it would be a most preposterous thing if the Court were to erect into a species of property that which the law would punish erica , . M. r. Justice LITTLEDALE ,concurred with the other Learned Judges. Mr. Justice BAYLEY would add one nhservation. which wee. that there would be no objection for a Court of Equity to restrain the piracy, if the Coen; in •granfing the injunction, would at the same time require an undertaking from the author that he would not himself publish the work. Rule for a new trial refused. In consequence of a very offensive efilovium being experienced it Court this morning, arising from the bad state cf thisewers, theft Lordships were compelled - to adjrfurn to the adjoining mom, which occasioned considerable inconvenience both to couosel and attorney* in attendar.ce, Miring to the very confined 'space allotted to them. If the tietessity should exist for the eittingeio be continued there. it would be &great accommodation if the Counsels' table were to be placed mote le the centre of the room, snatch Might be easily dotal without at all incommodiniftreir Lordebipa. COURT OCO NI MON P West mutt TRII 4 FRIDAY, JAW. 27& /GCS!. TOOTS, DTI &X D Alf alititsJoHle tt.aciarett.. walll'A 'this was a proceeding by writ of right, in try thmelaim of des mandant to certain premises Whiteceosa-crest, Middlesex. now in the posseasioa of Bagwell. Although the property: ie smell, the question or right to • it involves dia fide to posimmatons of (Anal* derahle extent. The novelty of the proceedings attracted a full Court It may be necessary' to state. that when a petsonotnits to elakrt his fee simple property for more than 11, years, he le debarred front the usual proceedings by ejestntect and other ordinary rouses; hie only alternative is a writ of fight.' Bye A.et •or Porlianient he is allowed, in certain.cmes. 30 years to heitig this writ, but in some cases, such, we believe, as the present, he is allowedoo years. The trial takes place at bar, before the four Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, and a tiesnd Assize, consisting of four Knights and a certain number of . Esquires, chosen after a particular form. After the officer of the Coon had called the cause, the Jury were called over, and some eecused through illness. Among those *he were absent one the ground of illness, was one of the four Knights, Sir George Alderson, for whom, a physician attended, and mole that Sir George was ottableto appear, in consequence of an indis. position which made. it uncertain when or whether he could eve! attend. The Sheriff also made a airtMar return. Mr. Sergeant ROssKQuET now moired the Court that the pro. eel. which had been ismied should be taken off the roll, .and a new venire issued, with an entry of contingencies, to summon four Knights to choose a (:rand Amaze or that the demolition( should enter a suggestion, stating the inability of Sir 'George Alderson to attend, in consequence of' illness and bodily infirmity, and that the said Sir George Aide/von should be discharged from attendsnee, and that a venire be issued to smitten, another Knight to attend. , and also that a di:friar:l should issue to compel the other Knight* and Jury to attend. The Leerned sergeant, on behalf of demand. rut. contended that the Court had a right to outvote either course. and that the equity of the case required such alternative as would give justice in this important question. His client was anxious to go at once to the merits of the case, and he hoped the Court would not allow any technicalities to prevent or delay the final decision. Mr. Sergeant VautattAll, for the tenant, would avail himself of any legal objection to impede the course of this vexatious proceed. ing. Was it to be tolerated that those who had almost slept " the sleep of death" over the quiet occupation of this property by his client, should now be allowed to disturb that possemion by this most novel proceeding ? He therefore would not wave any part of the establishel form. He contended that the attendance of the roue Knights was essential. and that the Court could not suffer the trial to proceed without them. It was not shown to the Court that sir fieurge Alderson could never aaend ; he hoped his health would enable him to do so, and that he (the Learned Sergeant) might have the opportunity of seeing Sir George and the other gallant Knights and Esquires in good health assembled here on a future occasion. It never was the onlicy of thin Court to give any facility to disturb a long and peaceable possession. and there was no ground for a departure from their practice upon the present occasion. No precedent had been shown to warrant such departure, and he cone_ ceived it imperative on the Court to adhere to established forms. The COVHT expressed a hope that this antiquated proceeding by writ of right should undergo a legislative revision; it was not suited to the lee al practices of the present day. The Court would not adopt the first proposition of the Learned Sergeant (Ilosanquet). and although there were no precedents to direct their decision ore this occasion, they would be governed by the rule of common sense, which was the best principle or law. They would adopt the second suggestion. mid direct the Sheriff to strike the name of Six George Alderson oft' the roll, and to place that of another Knight upon it, and then the four Knights stall attend with the present Jury to form a Grand Amin. This course would prevent untie. ceseary delay, and meet the justice of the case, which was %belt great object. The trial was then fixed for I;th April next, and the Court or. dered the present Jury to be in attendance; adding, that it would be necessary for such of the gentlemen as wished to be excused from appearance to renew the application to that effect made this day. Ihe Court regretted giving them so much trouble, but it was rift of their power to dispense with it. Sir Richard liimie, the Foreman, addressed their Lordship., complaining of the delay, which occasioned three days' attendance of the Jury, and hoped the business would be-concluded on the 17th April. The Low) Justict would give every facility to get rid of this question mill* day dud. COURT OF =CHEQUER, Fainair, Jax. 27. THE KING V. THE 11111Ar1ti OP st.toa. Mr. Tierict made an spplicade, to the Onirt that the bearing of this cause, which was fixed foe thie day, Might be deferred to Friday next, the documents connected with the cause being vety numerous and of great length. Mr. Baron Huttocs said that the dortimente in question were not forwarded to him until late lest night, and that, from their voluminous extent, be had nor been' able to read them through, and therefore thought it quite • proper that the application of tho Learned Counsel should be complied with. The hearing of this rase consequently stands over to Friday next. GREF.NWICII HOSPITAL—TX4ARTE STOWE. Mr. CA hirnt in consequence of the • absence of the Solicitor. General, who was to have appeared on the part of the Governors of Greenwich Hospital, applied to the Court to appoint some future day for hearing this cause. Mr. Baron BULLOCK said he wis well aware that the attend. ance of Mr. Campbell in another place on this day was of great importance to that gentleman, and that as he was very well disposed to afford the Learned Cot ntel every convenience, he would be glad to know what day would best suit him. Mr. CAMPBELL said that Saturday week would perfectly meet his convenience. and he wouldtherefore thank the Court to appoint that day. The CotrAT, in compliance with this request, appointed Saturday next for the'hearing of this case, THING V. JOHN PEACHEY AND SIR HENRY HUBBUB'S'. When this cause came on for bearing. Mr. Martin, who was Counsel for the defendant, was absent from Court t when that gen tleman (after an interval of some length) made his appearance, The LORD CHILI* BARON observed that though the Court had bot little business to occupy it, yet sniffing as it was it could not be got through unless gentlemen would - attend punctually the sit tings of the Court. Mr. 11 ART1N said that it had been intimated to him last night that the Lord Chief Baron would not sit to-day, and that he did not in consequence contemplate that the cue would have come oh so soon. Mr. Baron Ganeow said that he could not imagine what cause could have given rise to such an intimation. Nothing had yester day fallen from the Court to warrant such a notion. 111 r. EAGLE said that every member of the Bar was fully eersi ble of the necessity of early attendance, and he was quite confident therecommendation of the Court.to that effect would in future be strictly attended to. Mr. M ARTI N then made a motion to file a supplemental bill so amend certain admissions made to the plaintiff in this cause in ig. norsnce of the existence of a deed subsequently discovered by the i defendant. Mr. Martin said that Sir 11. Bunbury we* the pro f prietor of certain closes situated in the pariah of Minden Hall ; a bill was filed against Mr. Feachey, who occupied part of the pro. perty in question. Mr. Feachey, in his answer, stated that the Four closes which were claimed by the plaintiff in dile cause were partof 13 old closes, which were decided by are award of the Commis sioners of Enclosures to be no part of those which Sir Henry Ban bury possessed. Those closes were situated in Hollowell.row, and to those closes the right of the plaintiff we* admitted in an answer to a bill filed in this Court by the plaintiff. A deed of 109 was subsequently discovered among genie papers of Sir Henry Bunbury, which proved his right to the lands in questtoo, as those lands bad been conveyed by a person of the name of Poker to another individual named Puce's'. UAL by him to Sir Thomas Haunter, tinder slum Sir Henry Bunbuiy claims. The Sulthlk estates of Sir Henry's family were in herited from the flamers. This deed was discovered by Mr. Holmes. the solicitor of Sir Henry Banbury ; and it by an affidavit of Mr. Eagle, a member of the Bar, that a rra d di mentioned in the deed we the same adverted to In this same. It was also, he said, swept that silken this adobe : m e made, Sir Henry Bunbury was, lineman that the BUI of was /a existence. There was afro to tallith eta poem Dennis, who swore that Its was well asquabited with tba pork* a( Waden ttall that be boom peen* *spiral. 112 quesuramo sad that, to the best of his itnewhelpt, no *ha were ever paid Mr them. Those clan, be laid, were let by 81e Henry Danbury tithe haat . awe therefore, upon the whale appearance of the ease, the pktiatie in this MUM had no right to the tithe,. The perception of they tithes wire not in Trigg, hot rather fn the bandrof Sir Decry • Banbury. The iluptepriation of the tithes of thee. close* were ep ~, *t. 1