The Sun. — London, England, 1812-04-30 00:00:00

41/PER/AL _PARLIAMENT, HOUSE 0' PEERS. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29. • Counsel were finally heard reseeding the irish tPPeal Cause, " H ort v. Gifford, Bails.' viz. Mr. ~.art, as secon d Counsel for the Rtispondent, and 2 r. Richards, for the Appellant, in teply.—Judg 'ltem Was postponed till to-morrow. b Their Lordships proceeded to forward the various 41 ills upon the table. . . The Earl of LAUDERDALE direEled their Lord 3 blPs' attention to one of those, which was for the tegulation Of the Irish Duties on Toba , co, which he intended was of that peculiar and anom iloas na `llt.e, as at least to require printing, for the perusal °I their Lordships. One . of his objeCtions to this Pro Posed Ala was, that it went to fix the minimum N'vith respea to the price; and toe enactment for the ?„..,ecovery of th e p ena l t i es on o ff en di ng aga i nst th e 4 ) 11 , was such as, in its present language, he defied t he wit of man to comprehend. He iconcluded by moving that the Bill be primed for-•tlle use of their Lordships, The Earl of Ross thought such a proceeding quite n . °necessary ; the Bill was short and comprehensive .11111 its enattments, and the Noble Earl (Lauderdale) ad a copy of the clauses ; besides, it would lend to delay the progress of the Bill, whicteit was itnportat4 814 'uld pass soon. - The E ar l o f L A L TDE IIDALE replied, that through t he politeness of the Noble El'arl he was , furnished .wit h I copy of the clauses. He contended that s o me 0 , the provisions were of a novel nature, and P a rticularly that for appOrtioning the penalties was • linintt-slligiblc. The Earl' of Ross denied the novelly of the pro . alluded to ;iT was so far a continuation of a f orme, Irish Statute which the Noble Earl may read In the List) Statute-book. :ri , e Lad of LAUDERDALE rejoined, that he wish ed be excthed trom.ithe research; but he thought • L eh intelligibidity could scarcely be found in a British St atute. t . 'rile question was then put, and the last trien ithled Peer persisting in his motion, a division took Place—._ Contents 3 . Non Contents • 6 . . Majority against the printing —3 The Lond o n Dock s Impr o vem e nt, the Place and pe nsion Duly, and a numb-r of ptivate Bills - were brought up from the Commons, and kveially read a • Cit ih ne . The Ins Military Inquiry Bill wa, read a third li me, and passed. Th-. Tobacco D .ty Regulation Bills pas , ed th rough a Committee of the who'd House, and was ‘4ePoried without any pmendment. Earl FurturtLLlAM'3 motion respeding the various petitions 'Ton the table for rescinding the Orders CoUiltii, IA as, on tine of the occasions, when iistrlngers were excluded, postponed, we understand, .son* to-morrow, for which day it wood, until Tues. wa 'v nrxt. The remaining Bills upon the table being for. ly arJed, their Lorthi,ips adjourned till to,morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. TUESDAY, -APRIL 28. • The Call of the Houses ood for this day. Strangers ',ere not admittA al half past five o'clock. B • fore the door was open d, we undews.ood a discussion of l ionle length took place on t he subject of the Call ; the result of which was, the OrdLr was postponed to t his day month. Sir J. NEWPORT wished to call the attention of t he Hoase to !he (trawler in which mouey granted ~'" Trelaed for insertieg Proclamations, was laid out. • f...orn . . - !d to be expended, only for the purpose of 13,tting Papers to trumpet forth the praises of Go vernrnent through the country, and to excite ani nloalties among the people, and the most rancour , ts n 'as language; he moved, " that there be - laid uefare this House a detaAed Account of the Sum of '10,2051. t es. paid out of the Treasury for the Publi . ca tion of Proclamations, and Ara Newsppers in Ireland . " Mr. W. POLE said, he did not rise for the purpose .„ 4:4o Pposing the production of the account which the —non. Baronet had moved for, but he felt himself vatted upon to say a few words, in consequence of ~* t he manner in which the Right Hon.Batt.had prefac• ed the motion.. The House would naturally be led to B °Pnose from the Right Hon. Baronet's statement; that there was something unusolliy extravagant in t he grant made by Pat harnent this year (or this ser vice, or that he (Mr. Pole) had - shewn a disposition t o encourage a lavish expenditure of the public mo ney, for the publication of these proclamations ; it. became, therefore, necessary for him to state what the real fails were, and to recall the recollectiOn of the House to what passed when the grant in Tlestion was voted in the Committee pf Sup ply. It then appeared, that so , far from having encouraged a lavish expenditure at public money, he was the first parson who had reduced the stun • expended, within the amount 61 the sum granted . by Parliament for this service. It was, Ile tho6ght, a little singular that the Right Hon. Baronet should throw out this insinuation against him, who had effeaed so considerable a reduction in the expen diture ; when in the Right Hon. Baronet's ad , Ministration, the sum expended was between se venteen and eighteen thousand pounds. With regard to the Dublin Journal he could only state that the Proclamations had.been regulaily inserted in that Paper, he believed, for the last fifty years. He had given no direaions respeaing the insertion of these Proclamations, except that the sum expended should not exceed, the sum granted by Parliament.- - As to the Right Honourable Baronet's charge, that Newspapers ‘‘ ere employed by the Irish Government in trumpetting forth their praises, and frt spreading rancour throughout the country, he begged to state Most distinaly that it was wholly unfounded : if ever the Irish Government attempted to exercise any influence, it was to keep down and to moderate, and not to excite party spirit. It.was not, however, extraordinary, that when every species of calumny, When the rnot scurrilous abuse was daily poured forth against every person conneaed with Govern ment, that the friends and supporters of Government 'should sometimes express themselves warmly. But if the Right HOnOurable Baronet meant to insinuate or to assert that the" Irish Government either ep- P coLlraged or connived at 'the rise of rancorous lan. guage, or ' at all wished 'td excite any Orly a.ni mosities, he begged to give the Right Hon. Baronet the Most dire& and Unqualified contradietion. Mr. - PARNELL said, be would do the Right Hon. Gentled an 'Opposite to him the justice to say ; that since he had been in OffiCe he had sheWn the sirong est disposition to diTiniSh as much a's potsible the 'expenditure Of public money, and in cokitTatiicles 'considerable savings had been Made. Vle felt him self also bound in Candour to state, that that Right Hon. Gentleman, and the Irish Government, had shewn a uniform disposition to check party spirit— in that resped they had certainly done all that a Government ought to do. 'With regard to the Pro clamations, he wished merely to slate, that it had been admitted by the Right Hon. Gentleman's pre decessor in office that they were given to.different Papers in Ireland to keep them in the interest of Government. The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of Mr. W. POLE, the Order of the Day, tor ihe House resolving into a Committee on the Irish Sugar Distillation Bill, was postponed until to-morrow. -The Irish Partnership Bill, on the motion of Sir JAMES HILL, was read a third time, and passed. Mr. PAR NELL moved, that there should be laid before the House a copy of a Memorial from certain Citizens of Dublin, to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, complaining of thq condua of the Police Magisirateir. Ordered. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHRQUER postponed, till to-morrow, the measure, of which he had given notice, for putting local tokens out of circulation. While up, he stated, it to be his intention to propose to make the forging of tokens fehyny, and also to endeavour to put an end to the practice of printing papers to imitate bank notes, or papers which might be taken for bank notes, but which on close in speaion were found not to be such. A parcel of papers had been presented to him, which were exe cuted in such a manner, with white letters upon a black ground s &c. that any person seeing them across the table would be disposed to say they wete bank notes of 1001. 501. 201. or any other sums which might appear to be marked on them. These ~were so done as at fit st to escape detedion, and, in consequence the public had been imposed upon to a considerable amount before the cheat was disco vered. With resped to these, he would propose that the punishment awarded by the law, as it at present stood, which was six months imprison ment, should be increased to twelve months, and et the expiration of that period securities to be 'given for two years for the good behaviour of the party. 'For the second offence, the punishment of which was at present two years imprisonment, he should suggest the propriety of substituting trans portation: He would. propose to punish the coun terfeiting of Bank tokens by transportation for four teen years. He then obtained leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the counterfeiting of Bank tokens, and, al,O to prevent the 'minting of papers to re semble bank notes. The Tobacco Pipe-clay Bill went through a Com mittee, the Report of which was received, and the Bill ordered to be engrosse 1, and read a third time to-morrow. The Reports of the Woolmer, Holt, and Park hurst Forests Bills were brought up and agrerd to, and the Bills ord-red for a third reading to-morrow. WILBERFORCE presentei a Poition iron) the' Cutlers apd Manufattwers of Sheffield, against the East India monopoly, and also one on the same subject from Wakefield.—Ordered to lie on the table. The Order of the My was read for. the Ch3rita. hie Donations Bill being tend a third time. Sir W. CURTIS moved as an amendment, tkat it should be postponed to that day six months. Mr. WILBERFOR6E spoke in. favour of the Bill. Mr. LOCKHART said, that no petition appeared against the Bill but one from , the Merchant Tailors, and he thought it rather strange that the Gendemen of the City, who had so lately proved their anxiety to redress the pecuniary abuses of the Govr.rnment, should be adverse to the.redres sing of those which existed in Charitable Esta blishments. Mr. WRATTISLAW spoke in favour of the Bill. Sir JAMES GRAHAM.thought the Bill unnecessary, and calculated only to put money in_the pockets of those persons to whom the registt rii.g of donations was to be committed: After a few words from. Mr. Thompson and Mr. HERBEt, in support of the Bill, and Sir W. Curtis against it, the House divided. For the third reading - 32 Against it - - Majority -21 The Bi.lll was then read a third lime,' and passed. ORDERS IN COUNCIL. Mr. STEPHEN begged leave, before the House resolved itself into a Committee, to move that the petitions in support of the Orders in Council should be referred to the Committee. After a desultory conversation, in which Mr. Tierney, • the Chancellor of the Exchelner, • the Speaker, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Stephen, took pats, it w;s agreed ilyit the petition of the manufacturers of Glasgow should be referred to it, reserving the right to-moves at a subiequeut period for the referiing .of any other petitions which might be presented in favour of the Order§ in Council. On the motion of Mr. WHITBREAD, the Peti . - Lions of the Manufacturers and others 'complaining of distress, were referred to the same ; togedier with the Petition of the Mere', ants of Fhill, against the system of licenses, on the motion of. Mr. TtERNEY. • Mr. WHITBREAD wished - to know whether Mr. Ryland was now in England.? Mr. Rose said, he unders►ood by mere accident, totda?, that he was gone to-America. The SPEAKER wished to be inrormed by the House, whether witnesses should be allowed to hear the examination'of thoie who preceded them? After a conversation, in which Lord Stanley, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Ryder, Pi u d Mr. Bathurst took parts, it was agreed to resume the case until some in stance should occur to which exception might be taken. • . . On the question that the . House should go into a Committee, _ _ Sir T. TURTQN wished to know whether they were going into Committ.e merely to ascertain the cause of the..present distress-, without any doh of aflotding relief •by the repeal of ale Or der in Council ? He tvislierl also 'be informed, whether the declaratio n of his Majesty's Govern ment on that subje6.l was to be persisted in? If so, the inquiry was not only illusory but insulting. Mr. STEPHEN Saida few words in explanation of his former sentiments. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that; the going into a Cornmivee was illusory or in sulting. On the contrary, nothing could be more respectful towards the Petitioners. As to the De chration; it certainly spoke the sense of his Ma jesty's Government; and in his opinion, atter that Declaratiou, America' could not hold out in her demand for the repeal of the Orders in Council„ without making a common cause with France. Tile Declaration of the Government afforded no room for Parliament to refuse inquiry into the extent of the mischief. Mr. WHITBREAD observed, that the Petitioners would think from what had passed, that the House had compelled the Right Hon. G:nt. to do what he otherwise would'not have done-7-namely, gilt-1i the Committee. He thought the policy which bad been just discloged with resped to America, would lead .to a war with that country. Mr. WILBERFORCE hoped Gentlemen would go into the Committee with a desire to relieve the suf feriogs of the people, and purge their_minds of the prejudice apinst the Orders in Council. Mr. iiROUGLTiI.M declared his ready 'acquie sce n ce to the suggestions of the Honnurablt- Gentlemen. He had nu bias in his mind farther than to atiend"to the complaints, he would not say the distresses of the Petitioners. • After a few observatons from Colonel . Duck ETT, the House went into a Committee. Evidence was Wen heard for some time, after which the House adjourned. LAW REPORT. COURT OF CHANCERY, AratL HAY-MARKET THEATRE. MORRIS U. COLMAN. In this case (het Lorto CHANCELLOR observed, that it was a petty theatrical war which he could not terminate, since he knew not how to manage this or any other Theatre •in this Court, and of course would nof further interfere in the matters of the Petitions, but leave sthe parties to their own scrambles.—No order. COHEN V. LIPPED/. Sir SAMUEL Rom LLY moved for a writ to enjoin the.defendant not to quit the kingdom till he gave security to the plaintiff for a sum of 6,0001. a ba lance of account due to the plaintiff, on the credit of goods by him shipped for the Baltic, upon an ad venture or .peculation in trade, under the agency 01 the defendant, who was about returning to Russia without giving security to the plaintiff for that sum. —Motion granted. COURT OF KING's BLNCII, APR IL 27. THE KING V. PUNCHER AND .WATTS. The two defendants were brought up to receive judgment, having been couvide4 at the last Asszts for the county 6: Devon, of conspiring, together to procure a Stamp similar to those used id slacriping wrappers of paper, and of imprinting said Stali - p on certain outer sheets or wrappers of. paper, thereby defrauding the Revenue. The sett tence:ot the Court was, that Puncher (who was the Master) to pay a tine of tool. and be: im prisoned in the jail of Exeter for Twelve calendar Months ; and that Watts (rue servant) be imprison • ed in the same jail nine calendar•mont GORDON V: L,VELL. ,Mr. SCARLETT applied to have the judgment ar rested in this case, in which a verdict had bean found for the plaintiff, with one shilling damages. He moved this oa two grounds, first, that the offence for which damages were asked was stated to have been cOrnaiitied on an impossible day; or on a day without a year; secondly, that khe verdi& was taken generally on all the counts, and might be suppoed to extend to a count where special da mage was alleged, as to which, however, no - proof was ohered. The. Court being r.ganst Mr. Scarlett on the first point, be said he should then move to have the terms of the verdict amended, by the exclusion of the count for special damage. After that Was done, it would be in his client's power to remove the case by error into the Exchequer, there to abide the issue ,of a_case depending there, on .the point, whether words which. would not be actionable if spoken, become atiionable in consequence of being written. It being the praCtice, however, that this should 'be done by Summons at the Judges' Chambers, and not by motion in Court, it was recommended to Mr. Scarlett to adopt that course of proceeding, it being understood that the plaintiff should not be entitled to enter up judgment in the mean time. WEDNESDAY, ,APRIL 29, THE KING V. EAMER. In this case and another, which' were two con: viEtions on the. Game Laws for using. d .gs for the purpOse of killig:gatne, the first v. , .;ts -quash e d, be cause• I he information did not set out that the defen dant had no estate in rizia of his wife, which is one . of the -qualifications in the A. In the second case, the consiaion was against the defendant, who was hunting with - hi master, who was a qualified person, and who..appeareil and stated, that the defendant 'was his groom, and hunted with him by hi, command. The Justice thought proper, nevertheless, to convi& the defendant, under an ovi, nion that no person must join in the chase who was not qualified. Lord ELLENBOROUGH skid this was strange doe trine.---it Would soon reduce hunting to a solitary amusement, if all the grooms and whippets-in qualified sportsmen. Conviction quashed. Tile Rule was rnide absolute- against the Pro prietors of the Righton Remld, for a libel on gins Soturrset.. Mr. PARKE stated that the defendant had professed his willingness to give up the original letter, which contained the scandal, to-Lord Charles S. but he did not know froin,whence it cattle.. BATH V. TAYLOR. This caw stood for argument, in the peremptory paper, a role having been obtained ‘by M. Jervis, to sh‘,v cause why a new trial should not he grant ed, the jury having given a 'icierAla for ale li c la;n•i'ff - 1 on a bill which originally bore date on the Ist August, but had by the drawer, with a view to ac commodate the acceptor, the present defencletii, been post ,dated days, the date having, prey ions to the drawer's . (Mr. Ledger. of King-s!reet, Cheap side), putting the bill out of his. own possession, been, by the consent of the acceptor, changed in's twenty-first,_instead of first of August. Mr. GARROW and Mr. Arforr having argued the case on ttit part of the plaintitf, arid Mr. JERVLS and Mr. Str.wnton the part of the defenrfaut, The Court were unanimous' in deciding that the plaintiff could not here recover. Where the altera tion was attervvards made, in furtherance of the ori ginal ,intention of the parties, or where a (teed, or other writing, which origioally a nullity, was by such. alteration first rendered effectual, or brought into operation; in_ either of these cases a new,sinni) was not necessary . ; but, in all cases where the bill or other writing, was originally a ►alid secnrit v, and was agreeable,to the original intention of the parties ; no alteration could be Matte on any such do c ument without a new stamp. Mr. Justice BAILEY even held, that if it had been the original : intention of Ledger, the drawer, and Taylor, the' acceptor of tj:e bill in question, to vary the date olt time to time . , as it might suit the acceptor, that could n o t le ga 4 have been done.—Rule made absolute. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIi,29. THE RUMP AND DOZEN. HUSSEY V. CRICKETT. In this case, Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN had obtain: ed a Rule to shew cause,why the verdict loz plain tiff should not be set aside, an'd a non,uit emelt ' Mr. Serjeant BEST appeared, to shew caut,,t, against" the rule. Toe Loaf) CHIEF-JUSTICE, when he opened the notes which he had taken of the case, said ) 11)e , Coort had now to consider a wager of such a kind as he hoped would neverappear in the presence of a Court of Justice again. ,It happened, that;. Ole 29th of May, 1809, the parties in the case ; aciorn;- panied by several of their friends, had a nit-rly meeting at a tavern, and - a conversation taking pk , e between Hussey and Ciickett concerning their aLet,. it vas mutually agreed, that a day should be up - - pointed for the examination of their ages ) and w ever . should happen to be oldest was to"p6y fur ci certain kind of dinner, called the a Rump and zen ;" they parted, and a day being appointed, hy the iniervention of some of their comrades, the party met, to the number of eight persons, but Crickett di.i not appear, upon which the plaintiff produced.the certificate of his age; and, by the sii .pnlation of the bargain, the delei.dant wa, declared -to have foPferied the price of their entertainine,n,. ln . the evidence of Hurd', one of the party, it ap peared, that the Nic itness was very anxious for a .din tier, and acc , n - dingly ordered it, and paid 'he for which he was reimbursed by Hussey. They wtte: all'schoOkellows, and when the agreement 3V,:q made, it was signed by both parties. He consider d the " Rump and Dozen" to imply a good dinncr, with as - much wine to cool it as could be conve niently drank. The bill amounted to 181. including . the attendance of waiters. By the evid,..nce of Keen, another of he party, it appeared that he was dei)uted by Crickett ht a day .11,i place wiiere the party might meet, tor dinuer. It had been expressly stipulated that both partici were to appear at table with certiticatts of ag-s, and whoever was oldest, had to account to the landlord. Upon the whole of the.evidence his Lordship ob served., that Hurd had paid the dilte', %ithoui ii e approbation of Crickett, and when. the trial ap proached its termination, he had Ncruvles in hi 4 own mind upon the pr,priety of maintaining the s ouse" Mr. Serjeant BEST, iu S. ewing cause Apinst the Rule, observed, that the parties made the wager of such a nature, that it could not be known who shwa d pay the dinner, until the entertaiainent was over.— But upon consideration of his case, Crick ,- ;tt endea voured to shuffle himself from the responsibility, though it had been manifestly proved that he had assented to the.bargain, and also that he permitted the dinner to be ordered. Hussey, by partaking of the diuner, had rendered himself respousible ro pay it, though he certainly possessed the right to sue the defendant for the experses. The LonD CHt EF JUSTICE said, he did not alto• gether comprehend what a " Rump and Dozen" was ; by the evidence it appeared an indefinite en tertainment. Mr. Serjeant BEST said, " Why,. my Lord, we had a most . competent judge, the landlord, betwe us, who described it as a comfortable dinner, a here a roasted goose displayed herself smoaking node; the nose at one end of the table ; and as much good wine as a man could conveniently carry away with him. Coaccrning the law of the case, he would argue that it was not an unlawitil wager; • The 1.,0RD CHIEF JUSTICE said, he ought not to have tried such a ridiculous wager ; but it wcs needy less to repine, here it stood before him. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, in support of the applis cation, s.ficl, that the very name of " Rump and Dozen" smacked of immorality. Here an aksom 'uly of 8 hungry persons determined to make Crickets . maintain them for one day, in 'which thcy dronk no less titan fifteen lottles of wine. The bell, he would maintain, was illegal, because it wa, inde finite, and even the landlord himself could describe the, " Rump and -Dozen" as only a feast, where sr, much meal and wine was partAen of, - as they ct.o d conveniently carry away. Now, how was it po.st ble to gauge the belly, to discover what load it could carry away ? •By being a provocation to glut tony add drunkenness, the bet was immordl ; and, .besides, there, appeared three shilltngit its the bill for. anchovy toast, to provoke thirst, so that drunkenness might follow: Every person who knew Crickets, would describe him ak gentleman who bad furnished too many unnrcessi ry -" Rumps and Dozens" to people, but who t r 't himself in no wise disposed to pay for the meat and merriment of other men, who had run him in.° high expenses - during his absence from London. The case of a game of Hazard was thrown out 01 he; Court by Lord Loughborough, and the rea,.m wi,y the case of the move in the game of 13ackgamm. n was entertained in the Court, was, because it wa!, a wager made upon a lawful garde. Upon the therefore, he would asierr, that the case conic' 1,,,t be maintained, and that the ye:did should be nulled.—Rule refused.