The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

' lend yos:V 3asion , t must . I am, :ations ~, the rill %) o bject g ht to let in• e Bill there which rat ion id de leave there that quo nd by to not goes glad entle goes. ie re :rico and 16.10 and ;in of sible• ache , side, as- lavf lllti S per' , , an d , v in 'pr o t wa g loco • felled to by ! pre= blur, efore any tuaY sub in the .lass• t he de ,ffect ciuld )0 0 )and El h° .111 1 Ihii Ices you 110 not Ltle ,ose lose )10' and ;est e nt •ce , 14 ap t 15 1 3 e rt a'a 33' cr i t of nu he • 1 of • ti !el - MORNING ED ITION.* —.,---. :11amitous struggle for inclependerce. Happily it . failed, but if 41.,0rd Dunea n h ad not lalen - in with the T exe l fleet—(Cries of "h , oh," fr om t h e Opposition.) There was such a man and such a f l eet. If a great Fren:l army had landed in Munster, t t . s 'ruggle would h ave tasked us to the utmost. But from fat struggle we were preserved by the grea t, b u t ill-merited vour of Divine Providen c e. B ut st ill th e e vil mot small, it was not a small evil when the French armies were conquering beyond the Appe ,nines and the Rhine, the English troops were not resisting ;ilirono,,lpnarstuebiseneds!lti(cipating Waterloo, but mitring war u P.- n Cheers.) It was no small evil that while Diassena, 2% aedonald, and Moreau were marching . at the head ti)ifstwheeriresd.iicsp.ola:iyi4ounsgtroops, our own Abercrombie and Cornwal glenave led to victor y t . heir talents and long experience against very men whom, under a better system, theSr would The retribution was just and natu ral, and necessary, for a power greater than the power of parliament has de:-reed, that a Government which theiri, t m veari;. seeks tranquillity and safety though injustice shall seek Let not us fall into that error ; let us listen to Let the people are imploring us as one man not . to rola to brand them, not to strike the iron deeper into abject souls:, not to drive them to despair . by injustice, not to Itnazoinect them to the worst kind of injusticethe ty- LetY of caste over caste and creed over creed. tithus reject the evil consequences which follow in the steps e oppressor, an d b y so doing, wrest the most formidable i n -a Poa out o f t h e hands of the agitator.—( Vehement cheer twig 7:o: both s id es.) Let us cement the unity of feeling be g, . the sister island, and give a perfect security to that Le- Union, which othing can endanger but our own unbgovernrnent.—( Cheers.) Let us convert that part of the empire which has so often been a source of weakness and dis gra,e into the means of glory and of strength—(Cheers)—and wsthrike terror into the hearts of men in all parts of the world tw,° envy our greatness, or would insult our honour, by uniting il'li`dreqsven niiilions of British hearts in one great cause, and twid r "e parental Crown. (The Hon. Gentleman sat down , st loud cheering from both sides of the House.) ; Un the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the debate was ad ;uivrened, and 'immediately afterwards the House adjourned, at Minutes past Twelte o'Clock. SP URTING INTELLIGENCE. A CROXTON PARK RACES, 1841. listfor the Granby Handicap. —The Potentate, tl,!tlllst 81 b—Northenden 6 yrs, list 1 Ilb—Aladdin, 6 yrs, ell " • ru---Q„„ (ma, 6 yrs, Ist 91b—The Currier, 5 yrs, list nom ,'" r ge , 6 yrs, I Ist bib—Prince, aged, list Yrs, I Ist 61b—Tamburini, 5 yrs, list 5113—.Matadore, Alcot 4l b — Hamlet, aged, 1 Ist 21b—Hazard, 5 yrs, I Ist— •-41:' 4 YTS, list—Brother to Riddlesworth, aged, lOst 121 b 4, loll ntairs Sylph, 4yrs, lOst 121b—Seveniy.four, age( . l, cuti l4 "-Brother to Prize-flower, 5 yrs, lOst 121b—Colchi lOst 1 115—Wings, 5 yrs, lOst 11113—Fat Jack, list ior k t I ,. ll b—Haveldar, aged, 10st 101b—Mustard, 5 yrs, Nb.,m7,"- 1 Honesty, aged, lust 101b—Lady Ann, aged,l9st itilshi,)`lneux, 4 y rs , tOst 71b—B runette, 6 yrs. lust I b t; Yr; f,L S YTS, lo st 71b— S pec i men, 5 yrs, l Ost 7 1b— S pang l e, colt, 4 "' 71 b—Isaac of York, 4 yrs, lOst 71b—Lambtoman yes Yrs, lOst 41 b —Defence colt, 4 yrs, lOst 41b—Priamus, 9st 21b"st 111 b—Mundig colt, 3 yrs, 9st 71b— Hatred, 3 yrs, Ac e BenonePtances for the Gold Cup. —Prizellower, aged, 12st-- 4N1101;61;lb list 101b—George, 6 yrs, list 71b Matadore, l ust 1 2 1 H ist 41b —Leonidas, aged, Oat 121b—Haveldar, 4 aged, Quickshver, aged, lOst 121b—Molineux, aged, yrs, lOstoi b — c !saac of York, 4 yrs, lOst bib—Splendid, kr. 7 ,-- "Pecimen, yrs, 1 Ost 51b —Tormentor, 6 yrs, !Ost i :f . l v b e . Paid • - 7 . 4 , • Smith's (Handicap) Plate. —The following l a 444 j' ae rurab, St. Lawrence, Zethus, the Fickle colt, P uto, Tar. tw g COURSING. She A AI IKET.--W EDNESDAY , T HURSDAY , AND FRIDAY. tk, l i ng,ten Hill Stakes fur Bitch Puppies.—Mr. Vipan's illett's bk. ti beat Mr. Inskip's bk. Iris, b r ' Kitt en ll r Finch's bk. and w. Go-it, Captain Daintree's 1 ). S ae t en beat Mr. Dobed.ee s bk. Dormouse, , P Mr. Saberton's s'redec'aaline beat Mr. King's w. Rarity, Tyson's bk. Dell a i ra beat Mr. Inskip's bl. Indio, Mr. Dobede's bk. fat Ar r at Mr. Fyson's Fly, Mr. Gillett's br. and w. Go-ahead gge's bk. Tagrag. '‘itt 4 %- b e ".e 2 .--Deli ! . beat Vivid, Frederica beat Go-ahead, 'S.scoma,t,.Saecharine,. Chita ran a bye. beeid ; l es , —Frederica beat Delia, Kitten . beat Ghita. The t ."g Course.—Kitten beat Delia, and won the stakes. hr ' d. Vipan's w. b. Violante heat Mr. Inskip's ,45.,,,,,,4'44der Mr. Batt's b. and w. d. p. Cadland beat i ir. r r ss r. d. p• Atlas, Mr. Dobede's bk. d. p. Dante . beat ash I. d Rioter, Capt. Daintree's Kitty Fisher N s r• br • and w. d. Cadiz, Mr. Thorp's bl. d. Na cl,_ate Damon •a ) beat Mr. Bryarit's Euphrates,.Mr. and w. b. p. Fairy beat Mr. Gillett's w. b d t Ni p ; kP s 41 ) Saberton's bk. and w. b. p. Souvenir, •"1g R° Saberton's Mr. Dunn's bk. and w. d. Burwell beat ea Air. „,kenwi .s g Dante beat Napoleon, Kitty Fisher beat SecVio ,, -`l,,Attvenir beat .Fairy, Burwell beat Caciland. Ti es. —Souvenir beat Burwell, Dante beat Kitty bee r i di C ourse.—Souvenir beat Dante, .and won the cup. b" l ' Ind,-."'PPeriham Stakes for Dog Puppies.—Mr. 'llll.l.ran beat Mr. Saberton's w. Sesqui, Mr. Fysons bk. tir ea • l 4 best Mr. Vipan's bk. Vagrant, Mr. Fyson's r. , 41 1e z -4.°1 beat M r DObede's bk. Dunkirk, Mr. Edwards s . b ua.t A v' t , - ' beat Ca ‘ pt: Daintree's br. Kimber, - Mr. Gillett's , bk. ti'lia. 4 ' 4e beat - alr Bagge's bk. Tallyho, Mr. Brya.nt sr. 'tit () tra at Mr • Bagge's bk. Trustee, Mr. Dunn's bk. beat Mr Finch's bL Gift. —lndian beat Briton, Allegro beat Fireaway, Ganym ede Fantail ran a bye. Deeidi pptrh Ties..—lndian' beat Allegro, Fantail beat Ephraim. i ( uurse.—Fantail beat Indian, and won the ( Th e I ) , s takes. Scak M a.bert(;n's w. d. Slyboots beat Mr. k 'lk 4 ". ad w e Busy, r•' Captain Daintree's br. b. Keep-. ' Nlll r b. ' mbau Captain Daintree's r. d. h..'ibe q - 14 ' beat Air.ant D a o k b l eg a . e'i le l e )e; . w o b n e , rry Mr. Inskip's f. b. t 5 1r. i 111 ' r. Fyson's r. d. A T P Ntr. b b k: and w. d. Gilpin, Mr. Edwards's f. ,ithe at Mr. D ' unn's f. and w. d. Bustle, Mr. King's r. Fnsb,''..vl.ver beat Mr. Finch's bl. d. Gladiator, Mr. Vipan's t na beat NI • Finch's bk. Gibraltar. rd i r :t'Z' e • — t V is. !?•be i na beat n Slyboots, Keepsake beat Red p Antar best Follett„ 1411,3 Ties! Verbena iPe- b i e; t Keepsake, Idol beat Antar. . v g Course Id I beat Verbena, and won the stakes. 4 , 4 11 . "1, 4 , stl and Sjie ° Saberton's w. d. Shark (late aa• 4 r• br. d. Kimber, Mr. Vipan's lii r ' . 4 stl e, A shptt_ll.4u (late Vincent) beat Mr. Dunn's f. and w. Deh e ., Nash 's br. and w.. d. Cadiz (late Frank) beat . 'all (h. 8 bk. and w. b. Darling, M Fyson't bl. d. Elam l'''''nallen) beat Mr. Inskip's b r r . . d.. Intr a u t d s er. ar.. betiVlArnbeau beat Van Amburgh, Cadiz be the k 44 ' Cl )ur se• —Cadiz beat Flambeau, and won e stakes. ect i , pOl L ANCASHIRE CLUB.—FES. 17 AND IS. (in the Od Cup was won by Mr. Clark's Lottery, beat de `Zsd_ei idin . ,„o. - course) Mr. Slater's Sheridan . ; the Ros on by Mr. t's Euclid, beating (in the eg p `‘',,,,"urge 1 Mr. Robinsonnn's Cob Coal; the C . hurchtown i din k woil by Mr. Robinson's Tyrant, beating (in the t kei " 41 c) Whitehead's Quiz ; the Consolation ' • were wonb Mr. Edwards'. Manfred; the Bold Stakes Wit k d '• tzjd eh , arns s. Priam, beating (in the r r-xeis eman ; and the Crossland Stakes by Mr. 1(1, be" , ating Mr. Eden's Echo. ' , ) 1 1 .1:), O lt „, G rip MEETING.—Fes. 15, 16, AND 17. t ` t e;s 'f. d. Aid-de-Camp beat Mr. E. t, So.rd r- /lantine Mr. W. EtwaTs bd. d , . West-wind ° l.° l ( albot's bd. d. Tambour, Mr. Cripp sy. d. t; Al b at M Ettwall's d. Enford Lad, Sir. Goodlake's e k ei lantly beat Mr Baildort's f. b. Blush, Lord Strad- Musquito beat Mr. Loelce's bk. d. La b sn s es,}% o l r r, I.,,,,,Pirlkk„l:;_,Bullion. beat Mr. Agg i 's e A s r Arquebus, u initm d , 1 34,Valba t . s bd.d2i T al a:l a ;u n rin e i at bett r. Mr. Raildon's bk b. Pi; l ' la th ti . li, 6.".--A id-de-Camp beat Meal ban, Bullion beat 144sQuito beat Al - y Granny, West-wind beat Cole- Ai ' d e rt'd • usqui .. to beat Westwind, Bullion beat lh P. e " - rse--- Ar e Musquito beat Aid-de-Camp, and won 4, 4 11 1)7. et Stalces.=-Lord btradbroke's r. d. Murray (late . barath l :' ) eat Mr. Locke's bd. b. Lovely, Mr. Ao's f. d peei;to Lord Talbot's r. b. Testa.. _ a . es 1 -4 1 1•8 1 . st rse• - -Murray beat Amurath, and won the . tk . . C '`kti ' ' e at Ni - ", ct a.vell•—illr. W. Etwall's bk. b. Wiltshire 14 -ro be at • CriPp's bk. d. Climax, Mr. Goodlake's bk. s b. kik 4 t(le Air. Locke's bl. b. Bonquet, Mr. Bowles f. b. , 9. liji t eat Mr. Etwall's y. d. East.vard, Lord Str . adbro . ke s beat Lord Talbot's bd. and w. b. Timbrel. ing c.Tes beat llomficle, Minerva , beat Wiltshire Lass. °11(.1 la s 'lrse.-- Minervab ea t Ganges, and won the stakes. o n 'iaildoo,sBCraven.—.lllr. E. Cripps's hk. b. Extacy , beat _ 13' 4 t bk d• Burgundy, Lord Stimdbroke s bk. d ;eiditi„a Goodlake's f. d. Guizot. 1 ) , e,a, c.,(411•'5e.---Extacy beat Melton, and won the stakes. t beat 51c. A 'akes.—Lord Stradbroke'a bk. Mid . sum!ne co gj tb. Ada, Lord Talbot's bl. d.. Timepiece th e t e t e i l '!in g C o tak e's Geneva. Th:". I.lrse.•-.lllidsummer beat Timepiece, and won Cri„ —t ° l l Stakes —Mr Baiblon's hk. b. Bashful beat tbl it i t .r. Eglantine Mr:. Goodlake's t. b. Garonne A.-`4l4l(e's Y. d. ' Gallopade, Mr. Etwall's War-Cry ttaol,gg's Arquebus, Mr. - Bowles's Beggar Girl beat .)4 l : s k la s s i c, : f 4 u t . I-ad. srs ' tiaild bat War-Cry, Beggar Girl beat Garonne. ktl ev st l and Bowles divided the stakes. Lk, Stak es gees were won by Mr. Bowles's Benledi, the Il t b ,„ ur 'le by e V; e won by Mr. Etwall's Eastward, and tpe .P.t „i r i • A gg's Ajax. •Ss —• and Goodlake divided the Ashdown Stakes , and 'Messrs. Etwall and Locke the White Horse E:• and tp.iatltt , bate h for 1004, between Lord Eglinton's Water (2oedlake's Gracchus was won by the former; 's \l,•ii,?-;.`1., between Mr. Bowles's Bonafide and Mr. Et antre WaS won by the latter. 00, I l i t i k r xt tw dogs) . was rfc!,.. \l'• At.fsi°llbs'oriEll,;%l,!•;Thd (sixteenaelsoCZthe second prize (of ?, Ifi°3.' with hi ; Rase/;4'Th; A;: . 4zed Stakes (eight dogs, 2 b b it e x l4 `' ) were won by Mr. Cooke.B ToPer" by Mr. J. Ntl,4v CLon, FEU 15 —Th e Cup N.'" won li • % tierdSl2l U. • • Th. —The All A ke . PF,v'r,, ex •VracToar.a. Cr. Is, FEB. 15 AND • , the se e°ll4,.l)ll) of 251: Wa s WO by ll Me. Elmore's Hinds ; , 44; tze of 1 0/. by Me.nBpooner's.Sultan. 'ks 1 ,, t Atte. (Epsom) Cturs FM 12 AND 11.—The . 11,! . ' „h, Y Mr. Williams's Elfin, and the Goble (second Fue. t:iolltitilaylor's s Nimble. 104 si,-L"!., FEB 16.—T6 Ombersley Stakes were won e stl; e , - " v eaf 's Percy, and the 'second prize of 3 sous. by Mr. tislrtitst.," k. 1g5),„0., A,;,..v CLuz. PEs. 18 AND 19.---The Cup (sixteen b __ r thl4 l : , pee s At," hy . Mr. Eley's Trinket, and the Goblet yrill,s ks Attarnicht The Wyke Stake s by Mr. Thack all , v , the'. * .',olsw stake' Stars by Mr. Williams's Whiskey ; and 00d„,.........._es Grove's Cobweb. —.„„................, ............. 44:lit ,Wti4::linttOn.e time expected that the appointment ri e,tv.___ ef the Royal nursery " would have l'4*slo'rrvd open the Baroness Lehzets, who at pre`een.t. i:,_cit, ; ree?enised situatit,n in the household of . the S . 0,1 elr,'", whatever henteniions of he 011,,, --4, gilt b y th y have it Is said, been :t!. kien;l..,st tbe inst.;-..setiosloi the e- King 'of th.le7l37lBgtYilioni; o(l,taeotlycY, In dot rence to the judgment of othe!s s 0 • It 4 th "UP all idea of conferring the aPP"ttnien 4,4 e 11 . , r, us has air co been se ll, t o fi ll -- 8. The lady who rl ', 4 (~,„ th.? office is a highly -respectable widow, I,,,t'lliet, fme',sX, the sister-inlaw cf tie celebrated Dr. of e C:4' l) , . IS rg at Cants rhos y Her husband was the . 11 14 1 ., !lr' .tathey., io the 'FL • ol navy. The arroint till'illte) (,114siatIstcd '-o be 3094' perLnun . .. h 4 if to tra,l°W, Paisley, atA Greencck GRaele:acyk It) s ta y ' e , - , Tfa'e Gla..gqtr, Ni ley, and r an +d A ~/ Q ' t 44 'to ' f c a money , a ``` .sets, a rid •v rat e on r. um . ~ ns of the 44d 4'4", t 4'..L!e tle Pnwe's a nd Pr"''" ted and 4 ka t ,', 0 the sai i Rsilvvay" was preset.. e ' ries and ordered to be read a second tun • r p Al I N, ~ , ‘ COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST MINSTER AND PART OF MIDDLESEX. A Special Court of Sewers was yesterday held at the offices of the Commissioners, in Greek-street, Soho. T. L. Donald son, Esq., in the chair. The first business before the Court was—To make decrees for rates on the Ranelagh and Counters Creek districts, on houses, &c. at 6d., and on land at 2d. in the pound ; and to sign the rate-books for the new rates, pur surer to the said decrees, and the abstract of the ratio books of the rates made 15th November, 1639; or to take such other proceedings as the Court may then consider necessary, upon which Mr. Leslie had given notice of an amendment. A long preliminary discussion took place as to the manner in which the question ought to be put. The CHAIRMAN in answer to the observations as to the al terations made in the presentment by the Traverse Jury, stated that the decree had been drawn up by Mr. Smith, under the superintendence of Mr. Ogle, in such manner as to meet the altered circumstances of the case. The CLERK suggested that there were two decrees, in one of which, the case of the Counties Creek sewer, there had been no alteration, and, therefore, he suggested that that decree should be read first. 'she CHAIRMAN thought the best way would be to read the decree, filling up the blank, and that on some Commissioner moving that the decree be.signed, Mr. Leslie could bring for ward the amendment of which he had given notice. Mr. WILLIUGHBY thought that previous to the reading the decree they ought to consider in what situation they were placed by the alteration which had been made in the present ment by the Traverse Jury. He considered that on points of law the Court possessed the same power as the Court of Queen's Bench, in altering the verdict of a jury, and that the Traverse 'ury had exceeded their powers in considering the question of occupation, which ought to be left out of con sideration altogether, and therefore that portion of their veer diet ought to be set aside by the Court, and they must fall back upon the previous presentment, in those cases where there was no evidence to guide their determination. They had decided in the case of the church, that the church was not liable, but that the land whereon it stood was liable. Now there was no evidence to warrant a Jury in making any dis tinction between the land and that which stood upon it, and their verdict in legal understanding determined that the church was assessable, as in legal language the land included every thing that was attached to the freehold. He, therefore, con tended it was the duty of the Court to disregard the distinction the Jury had drawn as surplusage. It was impossible to carry the verdict of the Traverse Jury into effect, and,therefore, they were thrown back upon the former presentment. They were acting now as Judges, not as the mere ministerial officers of a Jury, and they were to make a decree as such. He submitted they ought to decree upon the presentment of the first Jury. The Court had not given up their powers into the hands of the assessor, therefore were not to be bound by his decision. He moved that the presentment of the original Jury be rati fied and confirmed. Mr. BEACH seconded Mr. Willoughby's motion. The SotterToas, being called upon by the Court, said it appeared to them as the finding of the Jury had been recorded it was impossible to avoid being guided by it. Mr. Ogle ad vised that all those matters which had been altered by the Traverse Jury should be omitted from the decree altogether. alr. BEACH dissentedfrom the verdict of the Traverse Jury, severing as it did the land from that which was standing on it, which was contrary to law, being also contrary to evidence. He was surprised the decree should have been drawn up with out some previous consultation with the Court. He regretted, however, that the right name of the person deriving the emo lument from St. Luke's Church had not been entered in the original presentment, but the Court possessed the power of ad justing the name to the fact. Mr. ADEY considered that the difficulties they were placed in was owing to their legal advisers ; those who had drawn up the draft of the decree seemed to have been anxious to bitch the question altogether. A CO SIMISSIONER— To what? • Mr. ADEY— To bitch it, to throw it overboard.—( Great sensation.) The decree did not contain the finding of the '1 reverse Jury. The motion now before the Court was an attempt to deprive the traverser of the benefit of his Traverse Jury altogether. The decree should have confirmed the finding of the Presenting Jury, excepting such portions as were altered by the Traverse Jury, and that the finding of the Jury should have been confirmed. 'The SOLICITOR said that such was the case. Mr. ADEY denied it. The SOLICITOR said that Mr. Ogle had decided to omit those parties from the decree altogether, and that they were not liable. Mr. ADEY said that was contrary to the finding of the Traverse Jury, which had found them liable. He would never sign a decree from which the finding of the Traverse Jury should be omitted. Mr. SALE thought that in this land the finding of Juries should be treated with that respect which they deserved.— (Hear, hear.) Setting aside the presentment of the Jury was going far beyond the duty of au assessor. They ought not to delegate to an individual the powers of the Court, even though he were my Lord Chief Justice Denman without his wig. There was a plain course which would settle all difficul ties. Let it be settled, aye or no, are churches assessable? Mr. A'Beeicezr - e,ould not support Mr. Willoughby's mo tion, nor could he sign the cle • Cree. Athland was rateable, and it was not a rate on persons but on things. The question was who was to pay that rate. The Juries, however, had not found that the land was not rateable, but were after wards found charging the very properties in the original pre sentment, and went on to except certain property. Property to the amount of 1,2321. found was here excluded entirely. He (Mr. A'Beckett) thought that if Mr. Willoughby would turn his attention to that point he would see that his motion was inconsistent with itself.—( Hear.) Whether churches should be rated or not, perhaps they ought not then to inquire ; but the reason why . churches were not originally rated was this— that the community were all rated in respect to the lands of the parish, and as all went to church in those days, it was not thought necessary to rate the church. Another reason was, that it would have been held a violation of the sanctuary. In times when men possessed but one religion the rate fell upon the whole community, and if the church was not specifically rated it amounted to the same thing. He thought the presentment ought to go back for revision. —(Hear, hear, hear.) The Jury said the land on which the church stood was rateable. They all knew that everything attached to the soil *and freehold became lard in the legal' acceptation of the term. He (Mr. A'Beckett) had every wish to support what was suggested by the Learned As sessor, but he thought he hadmistaken the matter—(Hear) and that the latter part of the decree was not warranted by his own results. that then was the course to be pursued? He could not say with Mr. Willoughby—let us c' ntirm the origi nal presentment—because that would be flying in the face of the Jury. He (Mr. A'Beckett) would, therefore, neither vote for the motion nor against it.—(Hear. ) After a few words from Mr. FULLER, The CHAIRMAN said if they were to carry out the former presentment how were they to do it ? They would incur a great weight of odium if by a stretch of power they set aside the presentment of the Jury. If they wished to assess the churches upon the Traverse Jury how were they to do that? Could they by an act of their own apportion the sum to be raised upon the ground on which the .church stood ? Suppos ing this should be resisted how would they stand before a Jury? He believed according to 23 Hen. VIII. they could only return the lands assessable, and not apportion the value of it, and this he thought would bethe best course they couldpur sue. Theywould thus avoid great difficulty, great expense, and ir ritation.— ( Hear, hear.) And if a party objected to pay his assessment because the church was not assessed, that would not overset the presentment; the church might be assessed, and the party would only gain his point, that the church should be assessed, and was not released from his own assess ment. They had a choice of difficulties, and it was for them to decide which they would adopt. Mr. LESLIE said, his amendment would release them from all difficulties, if they would adopt it. He did not offer them the opinions of counsel, but judicial decisions. He thought he should produce such strong reasons for doing so, that they would set aside the whole proceedings on the ground of irre gularity. He believed the question one of the most important that had ever occupied the attention of the Court. They were embarking in a •sea of trouble, and were wrong in toto on the matter, as he would show them from the statutes. Mr. A'lleckett said putting the name of the occupiers was a mere surplusage. The CHAIRMAN said he had an amendment given him to propose, but Mr. Leslie had the precedence if he thought pro p r, having given notice of one. Mr. LESLIE thought he was bound to wait Until the decree was put from the Chair. A COMMISSIONER thought if Mr. Leslie could do all he promised, the motion had better be put.—(Hear, hear. ) The CHAIRMAN said the usual mode of procedure was to ask if it was the pleasure of the Court to sign a decree. Mr. LESLIE thought the order of the day should be moved as a parliamentary proceeding, and that Mr. Willoughby was entitled to reply. Mr. ADEY said if Mr. Willoughby's was an original motion, Mr. Leslie should then move his amendment, or he would be precluded from doing; so.—( Hear, hear. )—On appeal to him the Chairman ruled that it was an original motion. Mr. ADEY said it being ruled to be an original motion, he thought it could not be supported. It would he paying little respect to the Jury, having called them together, to set aside their presentment. It was his opinion they had got into their present difficulty through their Assessor not being sufficiently acquainted with the law.—(Hear, hear.) He thought they could make a correct decree, without naming the value of the land ; and then an important question was, whether such a decree could be set aside ? He thought not. Were they to go on in this way for ever, bringing, as perhaps they were, ruin on many respectable individuals, who required the payment of their bill. He thought they had the power of calling in sur veyors as to the value of the land, which the Jury had returned as assessable. The best way would be to confirm the findings of the Jury, except as to certain property which had been tra , -ersed, and to sign the decree.—( Hear, hear.) Wittoucannt thought the disposal of his motion in one t would not prevent any motion being made on the de cree at a vge• M r. A D. er then moved that the Solicitor be directed to alter the decree to meet the finding of the Traverse Jury. m r. S ALE s econded the motion. Mr. Alu ttir.rs thought it impossible to speak upon the amendment, until ti:ey knew, what that alteration would be.— (" No no.") Mr. No, said this difficulty arose from gentlemen com ing in when business was half done.—(Hear, hear.) He could not understand why they could not come to a decision upon the motion, because the question whether they should sign the decree would come afterwards. Mr. WILLOUGHBY said he should feel considerable repug nance to add; ess the Court, after the opinions which had been expressed, did he not feel the great im portance of the subject, and did he not entertain a strong opinion on the subject. He would again entreat the Court to consider that they were not acting ministerially— gear, hear)--and, whatever might be the finding of the Tt, be hoped they would put their own construction upon x. 4 .ter, ,rind not leave it to the finding of a fury. He ' ne ,the t i roposition of the amendment open to the hen' " t s • The findings of the Juries would become ;rave of a benefit, unless they were properly con nuis. " 3 ' - st ticr a s c i ',Verse did not produce any evidence at all rolled. The ti. v upon N chick the trkverse was fouoded, and it was not, there ,;„ that the Jury should err. Were they, then, fore, su, Tr l Z h - e .b •fi n - c u, gs of the Jury . which they knew to to confirr have be en Formed w i t ho u t evidence? He said, under v ices, disrespect to the such ci rcumst it was' the original presentment. Court Ito fall back confirm presentment in which Were t ley to an error, that land was liable, but that they foul id so manifes. a vere not liable ? Hs thought it essen the strut tunes upon it . authority &mu which they tial to the use of Jurt. thectheatexerciseoftheir power. This emanated sh ould control . and should be done there. If was done by. the Court abov• c' .vllthe would value, y go against they e2clirded from the decree . se in an appeal fur that bothlt „. 3.5 no , excuse preaeonnt 'nts. fthe Jury. The to sbeke r their own igniWance under that e t a judgment, and he thought should Count ould exercise its ow. should fall. bad :on the previous preseotment. The qu estio n being put, there apps; red on tho ;h ow of hands— , . For tt 'le original motion ... For ti e amendment' 4 Mr. Lt :SLIE t of having voted on the question, c alled upon the Chair man t o give th e cas ti ng vo te, which he declined to d o ; he called for a see and division, the parties voting moving to the right and left of tl4. ‘ e Chair, the greater portion of 01# commis -1 • sioners going below the bar and out of the room. The result was— For the amendment • 3 Against it Majority against amendment —2 Mr. Willoughby's motion was then put, when there ar peared— For the motion Against it Majority against motion —2 The CHAIRMAN then said he had to call on the Court to instruct its officers what they were to do with the decree. With respect to the Counters Creek Sewer, there was a decree without alteration ; was it the pleasure of the Court to sign the decree ? Mr. WILLOUGHBY moved that the decree should be signed. The Chairman called on Mr. LESLIE, who said,-Sir, on the Bth of May, 1840, I had the honour of submitting in this Court the following motion-" That in consequence of the ab sence of all custom, the exceeding difficulties, and expense at tending the assessing and recovering the proposed assessments, and the prospect of a great expenditure of the Sewers'-rate in litigation, it is inexpedient to depart from the established cus tom in making the Sewers'-rates under this Commission." :Seven voted for, and eleven against. The original motion having been again put, a further amendment was moved " That the following words be added to the original motion, except the following classes of property, viz., parochial churches, chapels, Curial-grounds, not being proprietary. Royal palaces, courts of law, Westminster-hall, Houses of Par liament, and committee-rooms, and prisons." This amend ment was also lost, and the original motion to assess all the pre ceding properties was carried by eleven to six. FOB. A GAINST. Mr. Beach, Mr. Willoughby, Coles, . W. White, Gutch, Leslie, Lowe, Goldicutt, Mayhew, Frame, Crace Bourdillon. . Griffiths, Jacobs, Lock, Unwin, John White. Sir, the effect of that unfortunate decision has been one of great pecuniary charge to the rate-payers, the present inhabi tant_ of the districts. • The sum for the professional valuations is ra lily 1,000/. ; what the amount of law expenses up to the pre :‘,rit time may be, I can hardly venture to imagine ; besides whi h, almost every parish has in consequence been compelled by the proceedings of that day to employ solicitors, and take the opinion of counsel, so that with-the law expenses of the Commission, and the parochial law expenses, all of which must be paid by the rate-payers, I think I may say it was a most unfortunate decision. I now proceed to show cause why this Court ought not to si g n this decree, " because the proceedings of the Court which have led• to the said presentments, and the presentments, are void, being con tra.-.y to the statutes, to the Commission, and the oath taken by the Commissioners." The authority of the Justices of Sewers is derived from the Commission founded upon and in the words of the statute 23 Hen. VIII. c. 5. Before they can act as such, they must take the oath prescribed in the filth section," to truly and indifferently execute the authority to you given by this Commission of Sewers, without any favour, affection, corruption, dread, or malice to be borne to any man ner of person, &c., for the due redress, reformation, and ainendment of all and every such things as are contained and specified in the said Commission, to the best of your know ledge and belief." Then follows after the oath in these unusual words, " And over that be it enacted Section 7, that the Com missioners hereinafter-to be named in any of the said Commis sions, according to the purport and effect of the same Com missions, have full power and authority to make, constitute, and ordain laws, ordinances, and decrees, and further, to, do all and everything mentioned in the said Commission, according to the purport and effect, - words, and true meaning of the same." And it is laid down by Sir Edward Coke in the Chester Mills case, " That always such construction ought to be made, that one part of the Act may agree with the other, and all to stand together." Passing over for the moment the doubtful question that the Com Missioners of Sewers have any authority to precede the opinion" of a jury in a large outlay of money for valuing, according to Mr.. Poulott Scrope's . Pero chial Assessment Act, various descriptions of property for which no owner • or occupier, or inhabitant, in the the legal sense, can'be found,' I proceed to the main objec tions. First, I deny the authOrity of the Commissioners to issue any precept to the. Sheriff, except it be in the words of the statute, and they are " to inquire by the oaths of the honest and law ful men of the shire." Now,, it is notorious that this Com mission has been' advised to frame their precept for the Pre senting Jury, upon Sir Robert Peel's Act, 6 G. 4, c 50, and in conformity therewith, inserting in the precept the words "of men qualified to serve On juries." I submit that Sir Robert Peel's Act • has nothing whatever to do with the 23d Henry 8, c. 5, it is never once mentioned in his Act, although it re peals the whole, or portions, of between 70 and 80' statutes re lating to jurors for " the trial of issues joined." And Mr. Sergeant Hill, in a note in the 4th edition Of Callis, p 108, states that the qualification of a jury for sewers is not altered by 4`Anne, - c. 16, s. 6, or the 24th George the 2d, c. 18, s. 3, which extend only to trials on issues joined ; both these latter Acts being on the same subject as Sir Robert Peel's " Issues joined," are repealed by this statute. Secondly, I contend that a Jury for a Sewer's presentment, under this Commis sion, must be composed of freeholders, none otherS at the pe riod of the 23d H. 8, c. 5, 1531, could form a jury of any kind but freeholders ; by 13 Edward Ist, c.' 38, passed in 1285, the qualification of a juror was forty shillings freehold, increased by statutein 1585 to 80s, by the 27th Eliza beth, cap. 6, and increased in 1664 by the 16th and 17th Car.. 11., cap. 3, to 20/. per annum freehold. Copyholders were ad mitted in 1692 by the 4th and sth Will. and Mary, cap. 24, s. 15, and then the joint qualification was freehold or copyhold 101. per annum. Four years after this, 7th and Bth Will. 111., cap. 32, sec. 4, it was enacted, " That all Sheriffs of counties may be better informed of persons qualified who are to be re turned for trial of issues joined." Then provides the ma chinery by which the Clerk of the Peace was to make the Jury Book at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions in each year. The qualification, as before stated, freehold or copyhold, 10/. per annum. This was the origin of the present Jurors' Book for the trial of issues joined ; and there is a remarkable fact in the history of this Commission, five years after this Act had passed, March 15, 1701, the Commissioners of Sewers for Westminster had to complain of the disrespectful conduct of the Sheriff of Middlesex in not attending the Coort of Sewers, and also that-, the Jury he had returned were poor men, and unfit'to be hindered from their employment for any length of tithe, but there being an immediate occasion for a Jury, they were sworn, and directed to make their presentment at the next Court, and be discharged. The Court then fined the Sheriff of Mid dlesex 51., issued a precept for 48 freeholders, and the Sheriff appeared with them, and from the records it appears they were from Isleworth. Teddington, " Twitnam," Hampton, Hanwell, Old Brentford, Acton, St. Giles, and Marylebone. The Court remitted the fine upon the Sheriff. We are now to examine whether there be any thing of importance in this objection as to the precept. I must trouble the Court by re ferring to a recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, viz. on the 11th December, 1827, Birkett v. Crozier, an action of trespass for levying and taking away the plaintiff's goods, justified under the authority of the Commissioners of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets. '1 he present Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Tyndal for the plaintiff, and the present Lord Chief Baron Scarlett for the Commissioners of Sewers, he proved for the Commissioners that a jury had been impan • neled-that the jury had made a presentment, that public notice of it had been given, that the p'aintiff's solicitor had been supplied with a copy, and he proved-what will delight some Honourable Commissioners, because it has been urged in this Court, that it always looks well in the Superior Courts to have been guided by Counsel-he proved that the Commis sioners of Sewers had had a legal crutch to enable them to hobble, instead of walking erect under the guidance of the statutes, the Commission, and their oaths, and that their legal crutch was Sir Vicary Gibbs. Now mark the important evi dence. The Commission was read, the form in 28 Hen. 8. The precept for the jury was the second document, It required " 48 good and lawful men of your county and resi dent within the Tower Hamlets." The precept was signed by six Commissioners. Tindal objected to it. '1 iris precept is bad ; the Jury ought to come from the body of the county ; and submitted that if the precept is bad the presentment and ail subsequent proceedings are carom• non judice. His objec tion prevailed, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict, damages 3/. 6s. I submit that the Commissioners of. Sewers for the Tower Hamlets departed from the authority of the statute ; the Commission and their oaths bound them to the words. Al though every one of these 48 men were qualified as Jurors under Sir Robert Peel's Act,. yet the Commissioners departed from their authority in signing such a precept. I rely with perfect confidence on the fact that no subsequent statute has absolved the Commissioners from' the obligation of their oath, and they must strictly confirm to the words of the 23d Henry Bth in such important documents, otherwise they are but mere waste paper, as this case of Burkett and Crozier shows. My next objection is that you suffered twenty-three persons to be sworn upon the Jury, for which there is no authority in the statute. If Sir Edward Coke was any authority when he said, in the Chester Mills case, " that always such construction ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with the other, and all to stand together," then, Sir, this statute talks of a Jury of 12, vide 11th section; and that this ,is the correct view of the subject, Icite. Commins v. Massam, 18 Car. 1- March's Reports, page 196, when it was held that the pre sentment ought to be by the oaths of twelve men. But what is the judicial interpre!ation of the statute of Henry VIII., in modern times, on this point, Duke of Newcastle v. Clarke and others, 8 Taunton,page 602, et seq., Mr. Justice Park, in his judgment, in going over the powers given to Commissioners of Sewers under the statute, says, "they may compel abe d ence to their orders ; they may command the Sheriffs by their mandator) , writs to summon a Jury of 12 men, for the purpose of inquiry." This I submit deserves the serious consideration of the Court. My next objection is that this Court cent the Jury into a pri vate room to hear the evidence in secret, upon which they were to make the presentment , "prepared"- for the Jury, under the orders of this Court. The well-known case of the King v. the Commissioners of Sewers for Somersetshire, 7 East 71. Lord Ellenborough said, " But this is not a judicial method of making the inquiry; the Jury ought to be sworn before the Commissioners, before whom also the inquirj is to be conducted by evidence, to be delivered upon oath, upon hearing which the Jury are to make their presentment." Sir Frederick Pollock, in his recent opinion, also expressed the same. The Commissioners, therefore, in a mast important point, are acting against a judicial decision, in which the very point formed part of the judgment, and in which the whole Couri; were unanimous in quashing the whole proceedings. Because the doctrine laid down to the Jury, " that the Com missioners impose the tax upon the land, and are not bound to inquire whose property it is, or to regard any question of own ership or occupation." lamat a loss to usiderstand how any person could read the statutes or the judicial cases and arrive at such a conclusion. What does the statute 23 Henry VIII. c. 5, say ? Section 3-" As also to inquire by the oath of the honest and lawful men of the shire, where such defaults and annoyances be, as well within the hirer ies as without (by whom the truth may the rather be known), through whose defaults the said hurts and damages have happened, and who bath or holdeth any lands or tenements, or common or pasture, or profit of fishing, or bath or may have any hurt, loss, or advantage in the said places, as well near to the saidlets impediments as inhabit ing or dwelling thereabouts by the said walls, ditches, banks, gutters, goles, sewers, trenches, and other the said impedi ments and annoyances, and all those persons, and every of then, to tax, assess, charge, distrain, punish, Sze." Sectio n 8 -" )rovided always and it is enacted, that if any person or persons being assessed or taxed to any let or charge for any lards, tenements, or hereditaments, do not pay the said lot and. chsrge &c," So much for the " Bill of Sewers." Lard Coke's Reports supply the earliest and most important judicial decisions on the Bill of Sewers, and in the Isle of Ely case, the seventh year of James the First. The Judg men t o f the Court is thus laid down (10 Coke) It was also re sol-ved that none could be taxed towards the reparation b u t those who had prejudice , damage , or disadvantage by th e said nuisances or defaults, and who might ha ve b enef i t and profit by the reformatio n o r• re m o ving of them ; also, the t ax assessment and charge ought to have these qualities :-First, it ought to he according to the quantity of their lands, tene ments, and rents, and by the number of acres and perches. S scowl, according to the rate of every person's portion, tenure, •gr profit, or of the quantity of the common of pasture, or of fishing or other commodity. And, therefore, it was clearly re-' rsived that ;hp said tax, generally of a several sum in gross u particular, according e4U their commission, but i t to the exp r e ss wor d s, qu p B on ht a to town, have b is ee n n of w observiss/ the ojwclitm afereatud,celebrated me of upon .every owner or possessor of lands, tenements, rents, The &c., THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 184 E. .Commins against Massam, in Marsh's Reports, page 196 which determined (18th Charles the First) that orders and proceedings of Commissioners of Sewers can be removed into the Court of Queen's Bench by writ of certiorari, and in that important judgment it is laid down " that they may charge the lessee or lessor at their discretion, for the statute saith owners or occupiers.' " Lord Chief Justice Dallas, in the celebrated case of the Duke of Newcastle against Clark and others (Taunton, vol. 8, p. 602), thus spoke in the judg ment—lhe Commission describes the persons who are to con tribute to the charges." In the case so much talked of in this Court, Netherton V. Ward, Chief Justice Abbott held that the plaintiff was liable, because he was the occupier of a house in the district, and so did Holroyd. Best also held that the statute Henry VIII. had for its object to tax all persons equally. In the King v. Commissioners of the Tower Ham lets, B. and C. 9, p. 17 et seq. , Lord Tenterden, in delivering the judgment of the Court, held " That it is competent for persons acting under this Commission to subdivide their dis tricts and rate the inhabitants of separate parts separately, so that the inhabitants of each part may contribute to the ex pense of maintaining those works only by which they derive benefit." The principle has always been laid down that no person is to contribute to the expense except those we benefit; and in reference to Rooke's case, in 5 Coke's Reports, he showed that it had been there determined that the tax was to be there laid upon the occupiers of the 800 acres. A very admirable summing up of these important judgments which I have quoted was recently delivered in the Court of Queen's Bench by Lord Denman, in the ease of Emmerson and Saltroarshe and others. He commenced by reading the words of the commission to inquire by the oaths of the honest and lawful men of the shire, &c., down to the words " to be had in the premises."—He then cited the Isle of Ely case, that the tax ought to be on the owner or possessor. He then cited the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Popham.—" That they cannot lay a tax or rate upon any hundreds, towns, or the inha bitants in general, but upon the first presentment and judg ment to charge every man in particular according to the quan tity of his land or common." he referred to several cases de cided in the King's Bench from the year 1609 to 1649, in which the same rule guided the judgments of the Court. It is upon such solid foundations as these commencing 310 years ago, with the solemn decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench down to the present period, that I take my stand in op position to the doctrine " that the Commissioners impose the tax upon the land, and are not bound to inquire whose pro perty it is, or to regard any question of ownership or occupa tion." Having, as I think, irrefragably proved the affirmative of my proposition, I will endeavour to overturn the foundation upon which the legal advisers of this commission do affirm the doctrine. They cite two great cases, Bow v. Smith, 9 Mod. 91, and the Level of Hull case, 2 Strange 1114. The first of these a few words will be sufficient to show is no authority at all, and in order that the legal gentlemen shall not say that a layman misquotes the case, I will read the whole of it. IN CHANCERY, Vol ix., pages 94.5. 1795. Easter 10 G. 1. Modern Reports Anno Dom. 179.3. Fifth Edition. By Leach. Bow v. SMITH.—The Commissioners of Sewers. assessed all ti e lands from such a place to such a place, in the Level, to raise money to build a new sluice, and by warrants directed to the plaintiff, ap pointed him to collect the money of the owners and occupiers of the said lands, who, by virtue therefore, made several distresses, and levied money of the defendant's tenants, for which lie brought several actions against the now plaintiff in their names; and the said assessment being not strictly legal, because it should be as sessed on every particular tenant, proportionable to the damage he might sustain, therefore the warrants and distresses were not good, And so the plaintiff could not defend himself at law, but a verdict passed against him. And thereupon he exhibited his Bill to su. persede those actions suggesting this matter, and that the said actions were vexatious. The defendant insists that the Commis sioners had no power to tax him, for that there was an old sluice near the place where the new one was intended to be built, which was sufficient to secure all the Level ; and that the new sluice, when built, would be of no manner of advantage to him, and consequently he ought not to be contributory to the charge of building it, and therefore that both he and his tenants had good right to bring actions for the money extorted from him.—The Lord Chancellor would not help in this tase : for if he did, then the orders of Commissioners of Sewers, and of the , Sessions, would be made in this Court. Now, here the assessment was wrong, and money was levied by means of a wrongful assessment, which ought to be refunded, and a new assessment made; and the right way of making it, is to assess the particular lands according to the danger they lie in, and that it is not necessary to name the owner or occupiers of such lands, for the Commissioners may not know them; for if not nam ing the owners should make the assessment void; there would be an end of all assessments by the Commissioners of Sewers ; therefore, if that was the fact, it might be proper for this Court to interfere. Note in Index to the volume " Commissioners." They made a wrong assessment, and the complainant by their warrant distrained, for which he was sued. This Court would not relieve. 'fhi; ease presents extraordinary features. It has been dis covered that it was a case in a Court of Equity, seeking relief from the consequences arisinc , from the construction of the Statute of the 23d Henry VLI., by a competent tribunal, the Court of King's Bench. The Commissioners of Sewers had made a tax upon all the lands from such a place to such a place, and they enforced the payment of this tax upon land upon the owners and occupiers of the lands taxed. It was re sisted, and several actions were' brought, in all of which the Commissioners were defeated. The Commissioners of Sewers applied to a Court of Equity for relief. 'f he Lord Chancel lor (Al acclestield) would not help in this case, for if he did then the orders of Commissioners of Sewers and of the Ses sions would be made in this Court. I submit these few words were`his judgment in the bill filed, and all the rent a mere obi ter dictum, and which was not judicially before him ; and if it were, he had no authority to decide a question of law. The second case relied upon by the legal advisers of this Com mission was the level of Hull case, and so strongly was it con sidered to support the case against the Royal Hospital at Chelsea on the traverse of a presentment by which an utter stranger in law is charged for the whole property, if you sign this decree, that when he cited this case the Learned Gentle man said he did not think he need carry his case any further. Again, to avoid the charge of misquoting this case I submit it to the Court. Strange, vol 2,p. 1114, case of the Level of Hull. An order of Sewers was made for levying 9d. on 1,312 acres, to be paid to the clerk to he applied towards defraying of charges in and about the execution of the commission, and though it was objected that this should have been on the occupiers according to 10 Coke, 139, yet the Court held this good, for the words of the statute do not require it. Very few words will destroy this as an authority. A rate is made on 1,312 acres, removed by certiorari into the Court of Xiiig r i Bench, what is - the "objection? It (night to have'been on the occupiers according to 10 Coke, 139. The Court would not quash the rate on that objection, because the words of the statute did not require it. But.even supposing (and it is but mere supposition, for it does not appear) the owners' names were not on the rate, what would that avail when in the very last case quoted, actions were maintained, and da mages given against the Commissioners fbr enfor:ing a rate made on the land without any owner or occupiers being rated. I think I may now safely proceed to my next propositiod, That the necessary consequence of the preceeding erroneous doctrine was another, the Commissioners having made a Sewer-rate, without any regard to ownership or occupation, a legal distress for the same can be taken, and any person's goods found thereon may be sold for such rate. And this is so contrary to law, that it is extraordinary how it could be so often and so confi dently repeated in this Court. I will take a very early authority, and a very late one. The first, Callis, says, p. 192 :—" Yet, herein 1 am of opinion that the bailiffs which distrain, cannot, ex officio, without a special warrant first di rected to them for that purpose from the Commissioners, make sale of goods distrained for a lay-tax, or cess of sewers ; and I take it, it were a good warrant for the Commissioners to make an ads ised special law of Sewers for sale of goods dis trained upon a just occasion, before they tired any warrant ex subito to the bailiffs for any such purpose. But now herein follows a matter of some consequence, and worthy the hand ling, that if by the laws of S ewers goo d s may b e so ld towar d s t h e repair of these works, as in my opinion they may, then whose goods may be sold, is the question next to be decided; wherein, to be brief, I am firm of opinion that no goods can or ought to be sold by the power of these laws of Sewers, but only the proper goods of the party sessed and taxed, though the goods and chattels of other men be levant and couchant, on the ground cessed to the repairs ; for I hold it not consonant to reason, nor that it stands with any rule of law, that the goods and chattels of a stranger should be absolutely taken away from him, and sold, for the debt and default of another man." To the like effect is Callis, m. p. 125:—" So, in our case of Sewers, if the goods of one which was not subject to the tax or sess imposed were taken, he might have his action of trespass against the distrainer, and should recover his damages thereby." Let us now pass from the year 1645, when Callis first appeared, to the present time, and learn the judgment of Lords Denman, Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge, in the case Pocock against O'Shaunessy and others, Adolphus and Ellis, Vol. 6, page 807. Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's shop and premises, and seizing and converting a sack of flour of the plaintiff's, plea by O'Shaunessy and Smith jus tifying under a Coitimission of Sewers, according to the statute 23 Henry VIII., c. 5, pleas by Francis and Bacon, not guilty, and a justification as above, replication to the special pleas de injuria. Joinder. The cause was tried at the Middlesex sittings after term Michaelmas 1834. It ap peared that the goods svere"the plaintiff's, and were distrained for a Sewers'-rate in a house rented by him of Tebbutt, the attorney in the record in this action. The house was one of four, let out by Tebbutt, and jointly rated to the Sewers'-rate in the sum of 1/. 4s. Tebbutt was the party assessed. Being called upon for the rate for the four houses, he tendered 6s. as the rate for No. 3, the house occupied by the plaintiff. The collector refused to accept this separately, and Tebbutt was required by summons to show cause why the 11. 4s. was un paid. No cause being shown, the defendants, Francis and Bacon. issued a warrant to levy the 11. 4s. upon Tebbutt's goods, under colour of which warrant, O'Shaunessy, a col lector, and Smith, a Broker, seized a bag of flour, the property of the plaintiff, in the house occupied by him. The que.tions in dispute were whether or not the rate on the four houses could be levied as a joint rate on the premises held by the plaintiff, and whether, under the present warrant, or any other, goods bein ,, on the premises, of which Tebbutt was the land lord, could be distrained for this rate, though they might be the property of another person. The plaintiff had a verdict for 151., subject to the opinion of this Court on a specific case, the question in which was whether or not this action could be maintained under the circumstances against the defendants, or either of them. The Court held (Nov. 19, 1836) that the warrant did not justify O'Shaunessy and Smith in seizing the plaintiff's goods, but that the Commissioners who had acted regularly in the exercise of their functions were not liable. The Master taxed the plaintiff's damages and costs at 1031. a pretty expensive affair to the rate-payers who were thus made the innocent victims of bad legal advice. My next proposition is very short, because th e C ommissioners, during these proceedings , have been made aware t hat the opinions of the Attorney-General, and Solicitor-General, and I am of opinion that the Royal Sir Frederick Pollock are against them. If you reject my this , Commission, dated 13th Nov amendment to day, and determine to sign the decree, you rate s alion of the Sovereign are not liable the Royal palaces in the sac4uajlobocncutpaatmiapnbeollf, tbliaeovereign. given his o T p h in e io A n t , to a r n n d ey p - r G in e te n d era b b y em pabeira,cleBs3i9n, t i i n ie w a li ct ic u h al h o e cc s u a p y to be rated to the Sewer's-rate." The Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Wylde, in his opinion , d ate d April 2d, 1840, an d printed by this Commission, says, " I am of opi n i on t h at the palaces are not liable to be rated un der the Bill of Sewers." And Mr. Justice Best, in Netherton, and Ward, 3 B arnewa ll and Alderson, p. 21, "I de not think that the remedy by dis tress is applicable to the case of the Crown, or that th e stores of Government can be taken by that means." Probably Buckingham Palace or Kensington Palace can be decreed away from her Majesty by this C omm i ss i on. Sir Frederick Pollock has also given most decided opinions upon important parts of the proceedings of this Court as to sending the Jury out of court to take the evidence in secret ; upon which this presentment is founded, and also against the power exercised by the Commissioners (in the most capricious way) in altering the presentments of the Jury. In two cases almost fo lowing each other, both upon the valuations upon oath of the professional valuator!. I allude to the Dissenting Chapel on Paddington Green, in which the person who ap peared was sworn as to the cost o f the building, and rated outlay, added upon 5 per cent. cost upon the to the ground rent actually paid. The next, the West London C emetery, returned to the Court upon oath by the professional valuators at an annual rateable value of 2,320/,, -laced by this Court upon evidence not upon oath, to 245/ per annum. There is another anomaly in these extraordinary, proceedings, the professional valuators returned on oath that Hyde -park and Kensington-gardens were worth 301. per acre rateable value ; the Jury in secret struck off five-sixths of this valuation, leaving Hyde-park and Kensington-gardens at aan acre. But these proceedings destroy all equality in the rating of pro perty for the first time assessed ; because the two surveyors must, when put into the jury -box, support that which they have sworn to, and admit that these alterations by the Jury, and the Court itself, have destroyed the principle upon which they proceeded, and also destroyed the equality of the rate. There is one more fatal objection to this Court signing this decree, and that is, the Commissioners have had the fact upon oath presented to them, that in rating churches and Dissenting chapels of equal plots of ground, in equally eligible situations, the erection of which costs the same sum, the principle which guided them in form ing a rateable value was, that as the Church property was ina lienable, and the Dissenting property alienable, they took one third off their rateable value of churches ; thus upon oath, declaring that a taxation in presenti shall be laid upon a pro perty valued in futuro. And if the Court should be so ill-ad vised as to sign the decree, they sanction this monstrous absur dity in rating. Mr. WILLOUGHBY said the distinction was not between Dis• senting Chapels and Established Churches, but between Dis senting Chapels and Parochial Churches.—( Hear.) Mr. LESLIE proceeded. My last proposition is, that if the er roneous advice given to the Commissioners be still further acted upon to the signing of the decree, such prooeeding w ill b r i ng her Majesty's C omm i ss i oners of Sewers into contempt, as being a final judgment of a Court of Record which cannot be carried into effect, either as to a distress upon, or sale of, premises charged by such decree. The absurdity of this doctrine has been carried so fsr, that pew-openers of chapels are charged in the presentment ; that Richard Hall, the labourer in trust, or clerk of the works, a servant, not of Chelsea Hospital, but of the Office of Woods and Forests, stands in the presentment as liable for a rate upon the chapels and wards of the Hospital, ar.d 57 acres of land. I need not repeat what. I have urged upon the consideration of this Court, but I ask this Court se riously to consider whether they dare issue a warrant of dis tress upon consecrated buildings or ground, or attempt to sell under the statute of Sewers, 23 Henry VIII., c 6, the consecrated land upon which a church stands, or violate the sanctity of that ground wherein repose the ashes of the dead? Then I ask if you sign this decree do you not affirm my proposition, and bring her Majesty's Commission into con tempt ? Then I ask, dare this Court attempt to sell Chelsea Hospital because Richard Hall refuses or neglects the cess or tax you may choose by this decree to charge him with ? No land can be sold without a person is expressly charged. What says Callis after quoting the statute, " Provided always that if any person or persons being assessed or taxed to any lot, or charge for any lands," &c. And he says page 205, "if an as sess or charge of payment be laid . upon certain lands without mentioning the owner, the lands cannot be decreed from him by this law ; for the words of the statute be, that if any person or persons assessed to any lot or charge do not pay.' So that I shall take it that no decree for the sale of land can be made but where there is a person certainly assessed by name." Let me call the attention of the Court to the definition of the Decree given by Callis, p. 285. He says, " A decree is neither a 'law nor ordinance in proper definition, but is only a sentence of judgment in a course of justice, delivered or declared by the Judges, thereby and through the power and strength of a general form, for deer a turn est sententia lota super lege= So, that a law is a gene ral direction for a multitude. An ordinance is a subordinate direction, proceeding out of a more general power. And -a decree is a sentence delivered for or against a particular. person, grounded upon the said la ws a n d or d inances ." If this decree should be signed, this Court would be neglecting a most important point, which arises, in the 23d Henry VIII., on the words "inhabitant or dwelling thereabouts by the said said walls, ditches, banks, gutters, goles, sewers, trenches, and other the said impediments and annoyances, and all those per sons and every of them to tax, assess, charge, distrain, and punish." This being a penal clause must be construed lite rally. Who is an " inhabitant" in a legal sense ? Coke, Inst. 2, 702—" Inhabitants of a vill are the householders of a vill." And so construed the Legislature when, by " the 52d Geo. 111., c. 48, local and personal," the powers of the Commissioners of Sewers for Westminster and parts of Middlesex were enlarged. " And whereas great difficulty has arisen to the Commissioners of Sewers for the limits aforesaid in laying an equal rate from time to time upon the several inhabitants within the limits of the said Commissions, occasioned by their not being autho rised by any of the statutes now in force concerning sewers to call for and inspect the poor's-rates of the several pin-isles within the limits aforesaid ; be it therefore enacted that it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners of Sewers for the limits aforesaid, from time to time, as the said Commissioners shall see occasion, by an order in writing, to direct the clerk for the time being of the said Commissioners, or any other per son on their behalf, to inspect and take a copy of the last rate or assessment for the relief of the poor of any parish or parishes within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioners of Sewers, &c. &c. In order to enab!e the said Commissioners of Sewers to lay an equal rate or assessment on the several inhabitants within the limits of the said Commissions or any portion thereof." And there has been a judicial decision on this Act of Parliament, and Lord Denman, in the case of Soady and Wi!son, 3 Adolphus and Ellis, 248, thus spoke : This is an action for trying the validity of a Sewers -rate, im pose 1 on the plaintiff as occupier of the Audit-office, in the caste n wing of Somerset House. The plaintiff contended that such rate was improperly imposed on him as the occupier, even if it could be imposed at all in respect of that building, but that he also denied. A case was agreed upon, stating the particulars from which the pla , ntifF's occupation was inferred by the defendant. On the effect of them we do not find it ne cessary to give any opinion, because the 52d George 1II„ c. 48, gives the power to rate those persons as occupiers, who arc de facto assessed to the Poor's-rate ; and the plaintiff filling the latter character with respect to the premisses, is clothed with the former by the statute referred to. I submit, sir, that as we have thus the power by statute, and by the judicial deci sion just quoted we have, &:,t as these inhabitants do willingly and cheerfully contribute all the expenses for the repairing of the sewers,and the necessary expense of the Commission, that it is a duty which this Court owes to them, not to be embarking in surveys and valuations of property which has neither owner nor occupier in law chargeable, however advantageous such a course may be to the two professions thereby benefited ; for these reasons, I submit the amendment of which I have given notice " That the Commissioners do not sign the Decree for a Rate on the Counters Creek and Ranclagli Presentments ; because the proceedings of the Court which have led to the said Pre sentments, and the Presentments, are void, being contrary to the Statutes, to the Commission, and the Oath taken by the Commissioners : because the doctrine laid down to the Jurors, That the Commissioners impose the tax on the land, and arc not bound to inquire whose property it is, or to regard any - question of Ownership or Occupation,' is contrary to the Sta tutes: because the necessary consequence of such erroneous doctrine is another ; that haling made a Sewers Rate without any regard to ownership or occupation, a legal distress for the same can be taken upon the premises so rated, and any person's goods found thereon may be sold for such tax : because, during these proceedings, the Commissioners have been made aware that the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor-General and. Sir Frederick Pollock are against them : because if the erro neous advice given to the Commissioners be still further acted upon to the signing of the decree, such proceeding will bring her Majesty's Commission of Sewers into contempt, as being a final judgment of a Court of Record which cannot be carried into effect, either as to a distress upon or sale of premises charged by such decree." Mr. EDWARD MULLINGS seconded the amendment and briefly supported it. Sir GEORGE FARRANT and Captain BAGUE moved that the Court do now adjourn, which was carried by Bto 4. Thus, throwing the whole question overboard by a side wind. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE WHITEHALL, FEB. 22, 1841. The Queen has been pleased to nominate, constitute, and appoint the Right Honourable the Earl of Chichester, the Right Honourable Viscount Duncannon, and the Right Ho nourable Sir George Grey, Bart., to be three of the Ecclesi astical Commissioners for England. bOWNING-STREET, .FEB. 23. The Queen has been pleased to appoint Willoughby Short land, Esq., to be Colonial Secretary at New Zealand. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. WILLIAM EDMONDSON, tailor, Liverpool. EDWIN SPARROW, iron -dealer, Rushal, Walsall. BAirKRUPTCIEa SUPERSEDED. HENRY 410 WE, wine -merchant, Great Tower-street. EDWARD WOOD, iron -merchant, Nottingham. BANKRUPTS. JOHN 'MORGAN KNOTT, stationer, Camphill, War wickshire, to surrender March 9 and April 6, at two, at the New Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Chaplin, Gray's Inn-square, London ; Ingleby and Wragge, or Arnold and Haines, Bir mingham. EbWARD YOUNG, scrivener, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, March 18, at eleven, and April 6, at two, at the Bankrupt Commission-room, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Bell, Brodrick, and Bell, Bow Church-yard, London ; Seymour, Newcastle _ ARBUTHNOT EMERSON, THOMAS TRIPP, and JAMES BENN, distillers, Brookfield county Antrim, Ireland, March 16, at two, and April 6, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee ; Loaden, Great James-street, Bedford-row. _ _ PE 13LACKBUBN, builder, Salford, Lancashire, March 4, and April 6, at eleven, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manchester. Higginbotham, Buckley, and Lord, Ashton under-Lyne ; hickards and Walker, Lincoln's Inn• fields, London. JAMES GAWEN, Irish provision merchant, Lower Shad well, March 5, at twelve, and April 6, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, 13asinghall-street ; Jordeson, St. Mary-at-Hill, London. WILLIAM GEORGE, musical instrument maker, Fleet street, March 3, at one, and April 6, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, offic►al assignee, Basinghall-street ; starling, :ackville-street. ROLVERT APGREGOR, grocer, Chester, March 5, and April 6, at eleven, at—the Green Dragon Inn, Chester. Phipps, Sise-lane, London ; Roberts, Chester. EDWARD BENNETT, builder, Cambri&,e, March 5, and April 6, at eleven, at the Hoop Hotel, Cambridge. Nicholls and Son, Cook's-court, Lincoln's In n , L on d on ; Fetch, Cam bridge. JOSEPH DUCKHA S 11, carpet dealer, Piccadilly, March 3, at twelve, and April 6, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Basingliall-street; Rush, Austin friars. JOHN STEPHENS VIRET and THOMAS RECKITT KITCHING, linendrapers, Ludgate-hill, March 5, at half past twelve ' and April 6, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Fasinghall-street ; Reed and Shaw, Friday -street, Cheapside. THuMAS BARNETT LOADER, map publisher, Wal worth-road, March 2, at twelve, and April 6, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gibson, official assignee, Basinghall street ; Lewis, Church -court, Clement's-inn, Lombard-street. WILLIAM MASON, cotton spinner, Heywood, near Bury, Lancashire, March 16, and April 6, at eleven, at the Swan Hotel, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire. Clarke and Medcalf, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London ; Grundy, Bury. STEPHEN GRAINGER WHI FELIOUSE, coal-mer chant, Northampton, March 19, and April 6, at eleven, at the Peacock Inn, Northampton. Vincent and Sherwood, Inner Temple, London. _ _ _ JOHN PROFFITT, jun., buckle-manufacturer, Dar laston, Staffordshire, ..larch 5, and April 6, at eleven, at the Swan Hotel, Wolverhampton. Rushwor:hs, Staple Inn, Lou don; Watts, Wednesbury. • JONATHAN GUNTON, butcher, Cambridge, March 5, and April 6, at one, at the Hoop Hotel, Cambridge. Ravens croft, Guildford-street, Russell-square, London; Cooper, Cam bridge. COURT OF ALDERMEN.—Yesterday a Court was hold for the dispatch of business; Alderman Copeland presided as locum tentilS for the Lord Mayor, who is in disposed. A petition was presented from Mr. Coast and Mr. Taylor, two inhabitant how ehelders of Coleman street Ward, against the return of Mr. Cousins, t,n the ground of non-residence, and not having paid scot nor served lot. The petition was ordered to be taken into consideration at the next Court. Alderman Humphery presented a petition signed by a great number of the in habitants of the borough of Southwark for the restitution of the Union-hall Police-office. The petition was or dered to be taken into consideration when that relative to tie Borough Compter should be brought up. A petition against the return of Mr. Wells, for the Ward of Farringdon Without, excited a lengthened discussion, which was adjourned to a future day, and the Court broke up. -~L.__. _._ _~ SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. (From the Morning Chronicle.) " If it was just that the principles of the Reform Bill should be applied to England, it was no less just that they should be applied to Ireland. If the Reform Bill conferred only that which was their right upon the people of Eng land, why should the same rights he denied to Ireland ? Could such rights be withheld without danger? If they were withheld, would not that be a fair reason wherefore the people of Ireland should demand a repeal of the Union, seeing that the interests of England were looked upon in that House in a different view from that in which they re garded the interests of Ireland; that in Englaud the opi nions of the people were attended to, whilst in Ireland the voice cf the people was stifled ?" Such were the words of Lord Stanley, on moving the second reading of the Irish form Bill. And now, alter nine years have elapeed, the same Lord Stanley comes forward, at the head of the party which he then denounced, to demand the virtual repeal of his own measure ; to wrest from Ireland the right conceded to England; to furnish the argument in favour of the repeal of the union deprecated in his eels speech; to stifle the voice of the people of Ireland, and provoke the danger which he them thought too formidable to be encountered. It is idle to conceal from ourselves that an important crisis has arrived. Upon the issue of the debate which comas on this evening are staked, to an extent which almost makes us tremble when we reflect on the nicely balanced state of parties, the peace of Ireland and the future destinies of the British empire. If Lord Morpeth's Bill is rejected and Lord Stanley's obnoxious measure passed into a law, the die is cast. Hencefor ward Ireland is hostile. The experiment of the Eman cipation Bill is virtually pronounced a failure, and a retiirn made to the old system of governing Ireland in defiance of the wishes, and feelings, and inte rests of her Catholic population. " From the date of the Act of 1929," to quote once more the words of the same Lord Stanley on the same ceca, ion, " the position had been laid down that all iel.gious distinctions lied been done away in Ireland. If the House admitted the general principle of referm, and if it had admi.ted that no distinction any longer exi,ted between the Church of England and th eCatholics, upon what ground could they turn rouud and say that they would net extend the light of returning Memters to Par liareeet, because the Catholics must participate in that ex tension? If this e ere to be the case, then he would say, that there was a Catholic question left Lehind, and to be settled, and that a broad political distinction between the e igions still existed." And now it is sought to revive the, soli ical distinctior, to cut down tee consttuencies of Ireland to a point which renders the name of popular representation a mockery and why? avowedly because the Catholics have participated in the extension. Yes, Lord Morpeth's Bill has produced this effect. It has ob lwed its opponents to avow, what every one in the slight est degree acquainted:with the political world knew before, that the teal motive of their hostility is the desire to wrest political power from the hands in which it was placed by the policy of the Emancipation and the Reform Acts. As fir as the correction of abuser, the prevention of fraud and perjury, are concerned, Lord Morpeth's Bill is the better Bill. This even the Tories allow. But there is a fatal objection to it. It proposer, frankly and honestly, to confirm the principle of popular ret resenta- I tion promised by the Reform Bill ; to place it on a clear, intcll:gible, and unassailable basis ; and to crush for ever the hopes of reviving the old system of Orange ascen dancy. Lord Statiley's Bill, on the other band, ateks to revive that system and to remodel the practical working t f the Irish Reform Bill, so as to decide the long battle fir political power between the Orange aristocracy and the Irish nation, finally and decisively in favour °ill the former. What nonsense is it to wrangle about the petty deteils of Registration Courts, and diepu'e on the strict legal con struction of ambiguous clauses, when every one sees that this is the real question ? What matter whether the fres chise be defined at 51. or at 101. ? The thing to look to is the practical result. The practical result contemplated by Lord Stanley, when be introduced the Irish Reform Bill in 1832 war, that it would enable the Liberal party in Ireland to return, on an average, somewhere about two-thirds of the representatives. The practical re sult contemplated by Lord Stanley and his Tory asso ciates by their Bill of 1841, is to enable the Orange patty to return, on an average, the two-thirds, and to reduce the Liberal party to one-third. The practical result contem plated by Lord Morpcth is to preserve the proportion which has actually existed under the operation of the Re form Bill. The question lies in a nutshell. The Liberal party in Ireland campsites the whole Catholic population, no inconsiderable proportion of the large.t landed pre pri:tors and most influential Noble r en, a majority the middle classes, a formidable minority among the Protes tants thernselves—in a word, at the very lowest computa tion, five-sixths of the Irish nation. The Orange party is confined to the aristocracy and squire:li coy, who, in the un happy social relations of Ireland, have always constituted a drat not and hostile caste, and to the inhabitants of a few towns and districts in a single province. If the same proportion existed between the Liberal and Tory parties in England, old party spirit, inflamed by the recol. lections of centuries, ran to the same height, it is not too much to say that, under the existing franchise, the Libe rals would return three-fourths of the representatives. In the boroughs of Scotland, where a somewhat similar divi sion of parties exists, the Liberals do at the present moment, although political feeling is, as compared to Ireland, dormant and inert, return twenty•two out of twenty-three of its members. Ir; then, the Irish Reform Bill is to be made to work so as to deprive the Libe ral party of the power. of; returning a majority of re presentatives, as long as they constitute a decisive major ity of the nation ; and if this privilege is to be denied them avowedly on the ground of its extending political power to Catholics, and enabling seine forty or fifty Ca tholic Members to sit in the house of Commcns among 600 Protestants, what becomes of the prineip'e of the Emancipation Act, what becomes of Lord Stanley's asser tion that religious distinctions had been done away with in Ireland ? We will quote once more from Lord Stanley. " If this," said the Noble Lord, in describing the constitu ency which he created by the Irish Re form Bill if this is a dangerous constituency, it would be better to say at once that Ireland ought to have no constituency at all." We hold him to his word. Yes, if the principle covertly asserted in Lord Stanley's present Bill is to be affirmed-- if the principle of the Emancipation Act, of the Reform Act, and c f Lord Morpeth's Bill, is no longer to be the guiding principle of our Irish policy, let Ireland be al once disfranchised. In our conscience we believe it would be the safer and wiser, as well as the more manly and ho nourable plan. (From the Morning Post.) On a late occasion we described Lord Morpeth's Bill as embodying two leading principles—one is the reform of the present vicious mode of establishing the right to be put upon the register; the other, which is made essential to the first, is the repeal of the Irish Reform Act, by tc tally changing the property qualification for the franchise. We complained of the gross unreasonableness of this. We described it as a legislative sophism, pluriunt interrogatio- WWI, to which it is unjust to demand au answer ay or no. The just mode of dealing .with such a sophism is to take the questions separately, and to say ay or no according to the truth of each. From this we infer that if Lord Morpeth were willing to deal honestly with the House—we mean honestly as a politician_he would have two Bills instead of one. First, a Bill to amend the acknow leged abuses of r gistratior, in the principle of which Conservatives agree ; and secondly, a Bill to repeal the Reform Act, which the Conservatives would undoubt edly oppose. But his Lordship, although he must be morally certain that such a Bill as he has prepered has no nicre chance of being carried than his Honourable and Learned Friend Mr. O'Connell has of being made Em peror of Chita, will put the two principles t zetlaer, and render it imperative upon every man who thinks the settle ment of the Constitution in 1832 ought not to be disturbed .to say " no" to the second reaeing of the Bill. The Globe has put forward a strange doctriee that, as " the second reading is the time for affirrnieg one of the propositions of the Bill, therefore the Con servatives are bound to vote fur the second reading." We answer that the second reading is also the time for giving a decided negative to one of the principles of the Bill, and therefore the Conservatives are bound to vote against the second reading. It is no fault of the Con servatives that a principle which they approve has been mixed up with another utterly opposed to Conservative principles. It is not consistent with either the morals or the politics of Conservatives to consent to evil because some good is mixed up with it. This philosophy of the Conservatives would indeed seem foolish:seas at St. Omer's or Clongowes, or Maynooth, the morality of which semi naries may possibly have reached Lord Morpeth at second hand. But Conservatives have not had this disadvantage, and we do not apprehend that any cf them desire to prae ti-e the morality cf the Jesuits, "by way of a change." Unless they do this they are bound to reject a Bill which proposes to effect a great revolutionary evil, fur the sake of remedying moral delinquency in the political practice of the people. (From the Meriting Herald.) In relation to the engrossing subject of " Rail •Y " those lines of communication which exercise so w va d st B an influence on the social habits of the community in this countey---we are not a little jealous of every Legislative interference with their control and management, which is not most distinctly avowed aad explained, and for which an exigent necessity cannot be shown. On the ether hand, that the public require some more effectual protec • tion against the recklessness of drivers and engineers, against the occasional denial of the most reasonable al.- commodations, and against the wanton abuse of the mono polising powers which railway companies do assuredly possess, of net only putting off all existing horse and coach travelling on adjacent high roads, but of even preventing any from coming on again, or being re established upon them,—that the public require, at least to this ex:eat, protection more absolute than any which railway companies, of their own motion, are likely to afford therr, cannot, w e think, be doubted. There is one case so materially affe cted b y the mode in which a Railway Company may exercise the power above alluded to, of driving sff and extinguishing all other carry ing trade but its own between given points, that we hope, in the Committee on Railways, Honourable Members wilt be found who will devise sonic efficient restraints upon a control, which we fear the great Railway Companies have a disposition to exercise selfishly and oppressively. It i s either the fact, or the Diretters of those Companies affect to treat it as such, that it is quite contrary to their wishes to have " short stations," as they are called; that is to say, stations et localities not very populous themselves, but bit rmediate, say, between the metropolitan terminus and some principal station 20 Er 30 miles down the line. The practice of stopping at these short stations (we were our selves assured very recently by the Secretary f o- one of the great lines) " distresses the Iccornotive power by straining th e small staff fo rh of officers t h e machinery, and occasions a most irksome: o feeling to y s . tatio Nnso, have considering a v very . sm to those passengers w ho are hound f or longer trips, part, th een th ti e r s e e jo sh u o rt r i t e o r servants attached to them, and are almost destitute of every accommodation for passengers, it is a little ungra cious to hear the companies complaining of the neces sity they are under" of m aintaining th em " at all"—uuless MORNING EDITION in instances where it can be demonstrated that they abso lutely lose money by them. We happen to know a case in which one of these short stations returns sufficiently over 2,0001. a year to make that sum about its net revenue, aft er payment of all its staff and contingent expenses. Y e t t h e resident gentry in its neighbourhood, who ate compelled to travel on the line from the almost total extinction of every other public conveyance, are treated very frequently to worn-out engines, intolerable delays, and all the charming vicissitudes of broken axles, tenders off the tram, steam not got up, fires blown out, &e. To remon strances made at head-quarters, the answer has been en cavalier :—" The first-rate engines are wanted for the long trains, with few or no stoppages ; and the Directors had the question before them whether they would really keep up much longer any of the short stations." To say no thing of the unreasonableness of this mode of treating those who have thought themselves entitled to complain, the capriciousness of the disparaging view taken by their " high mightinesses," the Directors cf the " little go," or short-station passengers, is one of the most whim sical things in the world. If fur short distances the Cotnparties charge very much more in proportion than for long ones (for eight or nine miles two shillings, for twenty eight or thirty but five shillings) —o ne should have sup posed that the additional per centage of charge against the short distance was sufficient canslderation to the sensitive machinery for any " distress" they occasioned to it, and to the still more sensitive Directors, for any " irksome ness" entailed on their long train passengers, by the ," dropping in " and " dropping out " of the short trainers. But it is not so, practically speaking. The porters, the guards, the engineers, and the stokers, all after their several fashions, snub the short trainers. If they arc getting into a first-class carriage, ten to one but the door is closed upon the skirt of a coat or the flounce of a gown. If into a second-class carriage, the most prompt dexterity scarcely retrieves the fingers from the crush of the door. On striving at their destination, the second-class people are shelled out with no other invita tion or. attention, but injunctions to make haste, and their luggage is flung out to the fortune of the road It may go to meet its owner:, or its owners may go to meet it. ,That is no ;Hair of the guard, tor r the porter. In the same in stant the engineer puts on the whistle, the stoker puts on the steam, and the first-class short trainers find themselves oblige] to take a fl:. ing leap rather than a deliberate step out of the carriage on t t the landing. Happy the man who is to travel eighty miies. He may calculate upon the civdity of the guard going all lengths with his jous t:cif,. e to the man who takes a ticket for an eight miles' trip. He is not looked upon as worth " his steam 1" Nobody who is about to travel 40 miles in the next hour can afford 20 per cent. of his civility or sym pathy to such a plodder. But since short-distance tree have as ranch right probably, to have their wishes and con venience consulted as long-distance men; and since, where 20 or 30 coaches ran to Harrow or Uxbridge, Hounslow or Stanmore, Broxbourne or Kingston, scarcely the ghost of ore can now be triaintained on four wheals with two titiog (quadruped) skeletons to d:aw it; it will be quite incumbent on the Committee t 3 protect the shoat-station tram e le:s. To do this, Ist it be compulsory on Railway Companies not to set up a short or interme diate station without a twelvemonths' previous notice, duly pubiihed and advertised. This course would give some chance to cuachmasters and others who may be already running public carriages in the %icinity, to get out of their engagements and the business with a less ruinous loss of money and property than they are expose] to at prevent, when a " di:cc ion" calls a new station into ex istence. Let the Companies be equally bound to a similar notice in the event of their proposing t e discontinue an already existing station of this kind, Why should the public in its Ircinity, after being deprived of the conveni ence and benefit of the former modes of t-avellisg by public horse and coach conveyance:, be left without even a railway substitute for it (except at the expense and trou b!c of going miles out of the r way to take their passage from some more distant station), at the whim or caprice of rails, ay directi ? It is really a monstrous pot er this, of putting up end taking away again intetossediate sta tions ; and we know that where it is not absolutely acte.l upon., the threat of exercising it has been resortel to with effect in order to suppress complaints, or escape from the duty of redressing detects and gt icvances of arrangement on the "Lincs." (From the Globe.) The &Luta of last night, on the order of the day for the second reading of Lord Morpeth's Bill for de fining the franchise and amending the registration in Ireland, was one of surpassing interest—not merely as a conflict in which the competitors for place and power were prepared to put forth their utmost efforts to attain the object of their aspirations, to be met with correspondent resistance by those who possess tbe,e advantages—it was more. In tact, and it is so regarded by the nation ; it was a con test involving issues of higher moment than a mere struggle between political belligereetf. The peace of an entire nation—the continuance of a country's adbe- I Hsion to British interests—possibly of continued con nexion with Britain, as an United Kingdom, are perilled by the blind ambition of Lord Stanley in the part he has been induced to take on this question. Whether the Noble Lord is impelled by the headlong impu:se of his own nature, or prompted by those who would employ him as the appropriate a;ect for effecting.. their own designs (too long delayed, as they assert, by tbe tardiness of their nominal leader), it is net worth while to inquire. The production of his genius, and the results it has already wrought in the country in which his name was already associated with recollec tions of former attempted coercion and oppressior, sufficiently attest his capabilities to destroy any party which resigns itself to his counsels, and to throw into tumult any country on which he may be allowed to try his p,culiar system of legislation. The impetuous Tory underlings have long shown their disapproval of Sir Hobert Peel. Wearied with waiting fir that consummation of their hopes, tl a advent of their party to official power, they have given significant hints of their wish for a bolder leader. Last night the new aspirant to the Premiership in the Ministry to be formed, showed himself in powerful contrast to the leader he would depose. Throughout Lord Stanley's speech in opposition to the Bill there was that desti tution of even the semblance of candour toward the minciure it was his object to damage in the estima tion of the House and of the country—that thorough abandonment of recollection of what had passed in for mer debates on similar taeasures—so convenient an ob liviousness of what he had himself uttered in those de bates, when the expressions he had used were quoted against him, in illustration of his flagrant in cons i s t ency —combined with such admirable heroism of as sertion, unsupported by the semblance of proof —as can. leave no doubt of his eminent fitness for being Prime Minister in any cabinet in which defiance of principle is the essential qualification of membership, and the alienation of Ireland from England the end to be at tained. (Flom the Courier.) We say it with unaffected sincerity, and casting utterly aside any feeling of partisanship which might un duly ir.fluence opinion, that the speech of Lord StAn ley last evening, on opening his case against the Bill of Lord Morpeth, was, perhaps, as an exhibition of the highest and most finished powers of ratiocination, re lieved with happy illustrations, in which fallacy and contemplated deception were brought to the grindstone of sarcasm and ridicule, and embellished with the chaste and severe graces of a fervid eloquence, the most per fect specimen of statesmanlike oratory which, even within the walls of Parliament, has resounded for years. In reading it, mind, truth, temper, earnestness, and the most elevated conceptions, will be found to pervade its every line. Without pretending the presumption of illustrating further those topics upon which that speech must flash apprehension and conviction wherever perused, we may be permitted to resume some of the more salient points of the debate, and to state the general results of the impression they will produce. MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS. FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF TISTERDAY. CIIRONICLE.—The M oney M ar k e t p re sents little oppor tunity for remark. B us i ness on t h e S toc k E x change has been very limited, almo s t, i n d ee d , at a stan d s till to the probable to-day. The chief occupation of the jobb ers h as b een i n discussingon the debate of strength of the Mini s t r y an d their o PP° an d it is possible to-night on the Irish Registration Bell: expected to be developed, balanced state of parties which is now enough that speculation has been w acjording as the division and the results which may take p - laeside or the other. may terminate in favour of the 0 checked by the nearly ( h ) n C ha mb e rs The proceedings of the Frene w ith nearly so much intensity the hopes or fears of speculators Guizot's accession to office, and the as during the earlier days oefTreaty of Commerce between this country and France si ti l tion, the be reacd on until actually signed commercial interests of France, that we cannot however, is so eminently advanta raielpdosreteadledeo.mpiltesteioxi: geous to the comrnn ie desire of Statesmen now in power in that coun try healthy aspect The breaking up of doubt the itinto early effect. The foreign exchanges have ascaLled l. a o removed the obstructions which the ice on the lately y a - blocking up of the roads by snow created against the canals and internal transport of goods. The spring season seems the have begun, affording good grounds for expecting that our to will increase, ur ex ports will increase, and that an influx of the precious o metals will follow, to strengthen the position of the Bank, and allow some relaxation of the cramped state of the currency. frost has HERALD.—The home Stock Market was heavy to-day, and the quotations gave way slightly. An impression begins to prevail in the City that an early dissolution of Parliament may be expected, and the anticipation of such an event gene rally acts in the way of rather depressing prices and specula tion, as large money sales usually take place by holders intend ing to be candidates f or seats for election expenses. ' It would hardly seem however likely that. so strange and extreme a measure should be resolved Upon at the ofcommencemen r t ecLo a r Session, with tk e supp li es unvoted, the budget unprepared, in the a any one a c t o f l eg i s l ation promised and pointed out speech from the Throne accomplished as yet. t meeting of Proprietors of the South irestern to _ d in a state so flou rishinglt is noticed as a singular circumstance t n h a a ii , w ‘ a v y he c re om as pa a n t y t o h n e Saturday last, that concern was rep e n t o t t h c a e t r taainrely specially brilliant, at the rate of 305.. perp more capital by the issue solutibn also was passed for calling as to justify the de c larationO e f s a ea di s v h i a d r e e n , d y , making 9 10,0001. Would it of 4 4 ,000 scrip shares of 5 fit n s es w a iiilst expenditure exceeds income, I. each , like and straightforward to have . ra what are called profits to the capital isiaoitdhtahveerebecaeini be e o t r i e o p busi and so to have carried ~ stock or working fund: . HER MAJESTY' S NAVY.--By a statement is sued from the Admiralty on the 13th instant, it appears that there will be required to be voted, in order to defray 2,6941. 11=. rtiTat.s 2d.f t t h ile e yeexacresesodoefdthmet n r c a h v a 31 . 1 71 expend i t t h u e r e s ü b m e y o o f n 2 d , ai.d fe r the year ending March, 1841, the sum of 161,500?