The Sun. — London, England, 1833-02-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. It is fair to ,gilre the argument-of Ministe ts in fa, your of courtsmartial in preference to any otiher tri bunal; we, therefore, will condense into a few sen tences what we understand to be the Ministerial justification :—The reason for haxing court smartie] to judge the culprit is, that it was found under the Insurrection Act, and even in the a dministration of the ordinary laws, that the Magistrates became marked men, and were remembered and pointed out for vengeance to all future time. Thus, they were so intimidated that they dared not act, and crime wal committed with impunity. By substituting military men, who do not continue in the country, and therefore are not exposed to future vindictive recollections, you strengthen the arm of justice. There is no danger of officers being influenced by local feelings, like resident magistrates, to be guilty of partiality and injustice. If this statement were true in all its parts, it would be a reasonable defence of what appears to us the most objectionable part of the coercive Bill, but we have not seen any well authenticated instances of persons in the rank of Judges, Magistrates, and Grand Jurors, being inti midated, nor do we see how the present Bill will exempt any of the persons here enumerated from the exercise of functions of a nature quite as likely to be odious as any now exercised. The deeper crimes, the more flagrant outrages, are still to be tried before the ordinary tribunals.; and the most vexatious processes of the extraordinary powers created by the Bill which will originate in the class of magistrates and of grand jurors. It is the poorer class—the witnesses—who most require protection, and whom the Bill leaves totally unpro tected, unless the severest penalties for non-appear ance are considered as substitutes for protection. The argument that military judges are safer than civil judges, because they may leave the country in which the others are domiciled, implies that the coercive system will create a fund of hatred, which will be a permanent source of vindictive outrage to the residents (some of whom must at least be ac complices in the unpopular proceedings) after the temporary executors of the act have made their escape. Can we, under such circumstances, en tertain any sanguine hopes of any very useful, at least of any permanently useful, results from the measure? A stupid rumour is industriously pro pagated that some Irish Member exercises an influ ence over our opinions. There is no Irish Member who has the slightest influence, direct or indirect, on any gentleman in any way connected with the political, literary, or general management of this paper ; and any person who either publicly or pri vately pretends that he has such power is guilty of a deliberate falsehood.—Times. Some persons seem to think that they have made an amazing discovery in having ascertained, by an actual inspection of the statute (ay, by an actual, inspection of the statute 1 .) the unequal distribution of the stamp, legacy, and auction duties on d fferent kinds and amounts of property —a fact which every man, woman, and child who has 'ever paid for a stamp receipt, or has ever held a stamped instru ment, must have known before, and which every body who can read can ascertain by their yearly almanacks or pocket-books as readily as the fare of a London hackney-coach hired by the mile or the hour. These same persons have made the addi tional discovery, that the tax is in all cases heavier on the smaller portions of property to which it at taches than on the larger, and that at a certain amount, which of course is seldom supposed to be exceeded, it ceases to rise altogether. This important fact—which must now be considered a great dis• covery—is likewise open to all the world, and, we believe, is known to most of the inhabitants of this enlightened country, through the medium of those same veracious works, annually renewed, to which we have alluded. But the third great dis• covet) , for which credit is claimed—as the corollary of the two others, does not appear' to us to be supported on the same irresistible evidence, and, therefore, as partaking. more of invention or fabrica tion than of discovery, does not deserve the same profound attention or ready acquiescence ; we mean, of course, that part of the new system which ascribes this larger per centage of stamp duties imposed on small than on large sums to the parti cular position of our legislators—to their total want of honour in legislation—and to their selfish dispo sition to throw the weight of taxes from their own Moulders on those of their poorer countrymen. We have never contended for the perfection of our pre sent system of taxation; on the contrary, we believe that it involves multiplied errors in financial science; and that it embraces specimens of most of the de fects and blunders (short of mere arbitrary exac tion) which can be found among nations on whose ignorance we smile with contempt. Our taxes on industry,—on the raw materials, or on different stages of manufacture,—our taxes on the food and comforts of the people,—our taxes for commercial 1 1 monopoly,—our taxes which are expensive or vexa tious in their collection, and which yield little to the Treasury in proportion to what they take from the pockets of the nation,—are as impo litic as can well be imagined, and ought imme diately to be revised and modified. But we are quite certain that the sages who now come forward with their discoveries, or their nostrums, are not the per sous who understand or can recommend any exten zi,va or safe system of improvement. The best sys tem of taxation is a subject too large and important for us to enter upon at present, but as falling on pro perty actually accumulated, and passing by will or otherwise from the possession of those who had ac quired it into the - hands of successors, to whom no thing was due on account of their own labours, a moderate and equitable legacy or succession duty would constitute at first sight an unexceptionable im post it is difficult, however, to graduate the scale of duty on legacies, wills, and letters of administra tion, so as to render it most productive to the reve nue, without appearing to oppress certain classes of the people. The greatest part of the legacy or tes tamentary duty arises, of course, from property sworn much below 30,0001., and though the scale alters from 2 per cent. below that sum to 1 per cent. above it, it cannot be reckoned a great hardship to all who receive an inheritance between 10,0001. and 29,0001. that they pay proportionately a little more than the successor to a fortune of 30,0001, in the case of large fortunes, if the tax were to rise in proportion to the amount of the ityoperty to be disposed of by will, parties would have tern ;ltationii to alienate the surplus of their revenue Above the!c probable wants during their lives, and thus ascape the hands of the Exchequer altogether, rather than yield it a greater contribution. We Must, however, say that we can see no good reason why landed estates should escape altogether the pay ment of that duty oil 3 change of possessor which is imposed on the transmission of personal property. The omission, we are at the same time convilieed, slid not proceed from a desire, malignantly ascribed to our legislators, to save themselves from taxes which they laid on others, whatever credit ,for sel fishness we may give { a boroughmongering Parlia ment. The legacy duty, and the duty on probates of wills, was suggested by its facility of collection, and from the existence of a previous machinery to enforce its payment. In the succession to landed estates no will was required. But another conside ration of still greater importance, which tends to equalize the duties on real and personal property, is, that the duties on deeds, conveyances, marriage and family settlements, affecting land, fall exclusively on landed proprietors, while no similar tax exists on the transfer or disposition of personal estate. In looking at the Stamp -office returns for the year 1828 ( the most recent in our possession), we find that under this head was collected the sum of 2,056,3.58/., or nearly one-third part of the whole revenue from stamps, under all their different heads of deeds, law pro ceedings, and legal instruments, legaci es , pro bates of wills, and letters of administration, bills of exchange and promissory notes, receipts, insurances, newspapers, almanacks, and pamphlets, advertise ments, stagecoaches, postshorses, race-horses, and other smaller items. Mr. Humphrep, as quoted by Sir Henry Parnell, calculates that 1,800,00 0 falls annually upon land for these transactions o transfer, while only about 2,000,0001. falls upo personal estate, for that succession duty which landed property escapes. This calculation agrees nearly with the returns of 1828, when the legacy duty amounted to 1,066,0911., and the duty on nrnbates of wills and letters of administration to 838,2201. But it is absurd to suppose that, though tire tax on the succession even to personal estate does not affect directly the possessors of landed pro perty, therefore that landed proprietors altogether escape from it. All the provision which is made for younger children, for widows, for relatives, or for friends, by the wills of the aristocracy, or owners of freehold property, as well as by the wills of those who have no interest in land, must be registered, and on that part of their fortune they pay the same tax as others. Let anybody look at the wills proved, or the letters of ad ministration taken out, in Doctors' Commons, and they will find that a great proportion of the funds belongs to landed proprietors. At any rate, there never could be a more malignant falsehood, or a more stupid misrepresentation, than to describe this as a tax falling peculiarly on the poor and la bouring classes. The poor are seldom called to prove wills at Doctors' Commons, or to transfer estates—and if they are, the means of paying the tax are provided by the property which they claim. It is, in fact, property which they receive for which they had not laboured, and from which therefore the state may levy an equitable contribution, without any more injury to them than to the richest Peer in the land. Though this is no defence of an unequal scale of duties, nor meant to be so, it is a sufficient answer to that impudent piece of charlatanism which would represent the poor as injured by a tax on a kind of property by which they unhappily almost never can benefit. To the alleged charges of in equality in the stamp duties on mortgages, bonds, and other securities—on conveyances and leases— on annuities on promissory notes and bills of exchange—on insurances and receipts, as they affect different values of property—though we by no means think the scale correct, the same answer may be given. The object of the Legislature was to raise the greatest amount of revenue by in cluding the greatest number of transactions, and, except in the case of leases or conveyances, it does not follow that the tax on the smaller parcels of property transferred or connected for falls exclu sively on the middle or lower classes of the people. A nobleman may have a bill of exchange for 50/. as well as a plebeian, and may have a receipt to give on a twopenny or sixpenny stamp as well as his tailor or bootmaker. It is, besides, a gross delusion, or a wilful falsehood, to represent any of these taxes as falling upon the poor or the labouring classes, wlao never see bills of exchange, bonds, conveyances, or mortgages or settlements. It is no doubt de sirable that the scale of our stamp duties, if they are to be preserved, should be revised, and that re vision, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exche quer, has already proceeded so far as to enable him to promise the country Bills of amendment in the present session; but in the mean time let riot the ignorant and superficial run away with the idea that all is wrong because the tax ap pears unequal, or conclude that it was imposed by the rich to oppress the poor, while it almost never can reach the poor at all in circumstances of distress. On the subject of the auction duties, the ignorant declamations to which we have alluded are too stupid to deserve notice. Let those who ;pink that they have discovered a mare's nest in finding Out the inequalities or demanding a revision of the stamp duties, look at what has been said in every publication on the subject for several years past, particularly in a little work published in No vember last, called The Law and Commercial Daily Remenzbrancer, and in the reports of the House of Commons nearly three years ago. Even the alma wicks, from which some of our legislators perhaps derive their chief knowledge on the subject, omitted to give the stamp list in 1831 on account of the con templated changes. We, in consequence, find the following curious announcement in the Englishman's Almana ck for 1831, published in Noverriber, 1830: " By a resolution of the House of Commons passed in the session of 1830, it was determined that the stamp duties should he altered ; and as it is probable that this decision will be carried into effect early in the session of 1831, it might only tend to inconvenience were we to republish them in the pre flt almanack, particularly as we have inserted a very copious table of them in that for 1830."—Times. We can conscientiously bestow more praise upon Mr. Stanley's proposed measure for the reform of the Grand Jury system in Ireland, than upon Lord Althorp's plan of Church Reform, yet we are far from being able to give it unqualified commenda tion. It is a measure calculated to lop and prune the more luxuriant branches of corruption springing out of the great trunk of the upas tree of local taxation, which has grown into an overshadowing magnitude in proportion as it has impoverished the land—but it will pot uproot it. " Whatever," says pr. Johnson, " is worth doing, is worth doing Well." But it is not well to set about reforming the grand jury system of Ireland, and not to re 'strain the power of grand juries within the limits defined by the Constitution of England. There are ;several of the provisions of Mr. Stanley's Bill that deserve to he described as salutary regulations, pro vided it were right to continue at all the grand jury power of local taxation; but we say that it is not right that it should continue. The grand jury is a body instituted for the purpose of putting in inotion the penal justice of the kingdom, and for protecting innocence against frivolous and vexa tious prosecutions, by determining whether the bills of indictment preferred against persons for crimes or misdemeanors, are sufficiently sup ported by evidence, to justify the putting the accused parties on their trial. They have, by the immemorial usage of the common law, also the power of presenting nuisances within the limits of the jurisdiction of their respective Courts. They have claimed, in some instances, the right of inspect ing prisons—a right which has been disputed---:but which, if not clearly belonging to them by the Common law, ought to be conferred by statute, as being for the benefit and protection of the subject. It is not for the benefit or protection of the subject that Grand Juries should have the power of local taxation, defined by the limits of counties or other wise. A Grand Jury should have no temptation to jobbing thrown in its way, lest the fountain of kis ; Vice may be tainted at its very source. Accordingly the founders of the Constitution of England never thought of such a monstrous combination as that 'which associates with the proper duties of the grand inquest of a country, the office of a local oligarchy of taxation. It would be just as wise and con "sistent with sound principle to unite in the one person the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of Chief Justice of England. There have been several statutes passed, at various times, to preserve the purity of Grand Juries in England. In Ireland those bodies have, under an old system of misrule, been allowed to usurp the functions of tax-makers. What was at first abuse has subse quently become law; but it is law that never can be consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, or the interests of justice., We have said that Grand Juries have the power of presenting nuisances; but a Grand Jury which exercises the power of local taxation is itself a nuisance, and such are those jarldicofiscal bodies in , Ireland whose practices are the object of Mr. Stanley's Bill. As the Church Reform Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer omits altogether the- master-grievance of the Irish people, as far us the Church is concerned, which is tithes, so Mr. Stanley's Bill leaves the master-evil of the Grand Jury system to flourish in substantial power under a new form--we mean the taxing pre rogative of a body not elected by the people, but nominated by the Sheriff for the time being, and therefore not, in any way, representing the people %% horn they tax, but violating in all their fiscal pro ceedings (even leaving out of the question the gross practice of jobbing with which they are chargeable) tire great maxim of our constitutional law, that no man shall be taxed but by his own consent. The provisions of Mr. Stanley's measure may miti. gate the jobbing, but cannot destroy it—new shoots of corruption will spring up while the parent stock remains—and it is only by restraining the powers of Grand'Juries within the limits of the Constitution that the evil can be removed.—Morning Herald. There seems to be a general persuasion in the House of Commons, that Ministers are sincerely desirous of grappling with the diseases in the social system of Ireland. But the persuasion is hardly less general, that they have continually present to their minds the difficulty of gaining the assent of one House to measures of a thoroughly beneficial cha racter. Measures of severity will meet with no impediment in the House of Lords. But a great majority of the representatives of the people can only be induced to consent to measures of severity, on the understanding that they will be accompanied with a redress of the most crying grievances. Here is the difficulty of Ministers. Those measures which will meet with no obstacle in one House will be precisely those which will be most strongly opposed in the other. It must be borne constantly inmind, that where there are abuses they are always pro fitable to some; and it unfortunately happens that the chief of the abuses of Ireland are profitable to the aristocracy. No one can be so simple as to suppose that the establishment of the Protestant Church of Ireland is kept up for the good of the people. Were the Government of this country inde pendent of the aristocracy, and at liberty to consult only the good of the people, the funds applicable to re ligious purposes would never be bestowed exclusively on an establishment for 1-IGth of the people. But then Ministers must consult the aristocracy; arid so far from consenting to a distribution of the funds applicable to religious purposes on any equitable principle, it is ten to one that they will hesitate to sanction the very limited Reform which has for object merely the removing the most ugly of the deformities of the Protestant Establishment. It is for the sake of these very deformities that they are in love with that establishment. What are the crying evils of Ireland ? The first and foremost is the state of destitution of the great body of the people. The agitation is the necessary effect of that destitution; and to remove the effect, we must remove the cause. In the work of a celebrated political writer, speak ing of the attempt to persuade a great Sovereign that the disorders of his time were caused by agita tion, he observed, " They took care not to tell him that turbulent spirits can never move a people but when that people are unhappy, and that such a one who passes in his age, and with the crowd of his torians, for the author of revolutions, is merely a man displaced by the displacement of all others, and who becomes the incendiary of his country through the same qualities that would have rendered him its ornament and champion in better times." The same idea was well expressed last night by Mr. Richards, in the discussion on a petition from Maidstone, who observed that he regretted " that Ministers had not brought forward measures founded upon a large, comprehensive, and statesman-like view of the case for which Parliament was called upon to legislate. He could not but consider that a vast deal too much importance was attached to the agita tion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. —(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," in which Mr. O'Connell's voice was distinguishable.) That Learned Individual would seek in vain to attach the people of Ireland to a system of agitation, if Minis ters would in earnest apply themselves to the ques tion of a redress of grievances, and endeavour to allay the growing discontent, by giving those sub— stantial reforms which were required by reason, justice, and humanity—(Loud cheers)—by doing away with that most abominable system which en forced the payment of tithes, to support a Church in which the people were not interested.—(Cheers.)" He added that " though a young Member of that House, he hoped he should not be considered as taking too much upon himself in proposing a Bill (as at an early opportunity, he should do) for investing the tithes of Ireland in trustees for the benefit of the poor of that country—(Hear, hear.) He was no enemy to the established Church—he was not an e emy to the Protestant religion—by no means; but he thought the system required alteration ; though it should be managed in such a way as not to permit the tithes to pass into the pockets of the Irish landlords—(Hear)—but to contribute to the comfort of the industrious poor." What is the case with regard to the Irish landlords ? that they literally take the whole of the produce of the soil, with the exception of the potatoes, on which the wretched cultivators are fed. The very announce ment of the rental of Ireland, being sixteen millions, speaks volumes. If all the landlords of Ireland were sunk in the sea, the Irish nation would be no greater loser than if some fifteen thousand beggars were sunk in tile sea. They are merely consumers of produce; they have not the merit of English or Scotch landlords, of adding to the productive powers of the soil, by expending part of the pro duce in improvements. It is for the benefit of the poor that the property of the rich should be re spected ; but in no other sense are Irish landlords entitled to respect. They are protected, because it is necessary that they to whom the law gives a monopoly of the soil should be protected. But if any means could be devised for withdrawing a por tion of the produce from them to the actual culti vators, it would be a blessing to the nation. The English and Scotch farmers have been enabled to acquire capital from an improved cultivation, be cause they do not pay more than a third, at most, of the produce to the landlords. And the very first step in the improvement of Ireland will be the securing a greater share of the produce to the actual cultivators, as a fund for future improvement. The author of an able work, just published under the title of " An Inquiry into the Principles of Population, exhibiting a System of Regulations for the Poor, designed immediately to lessen and finally to remove the Evils which have hitherto pressed upon the Labouring Classes of Society," devotes a large portion of his book to Ireland. He justly ob serves that " the identical objections started by Irish proprietors against the poor laws, the dispas sionate inquirer would select as the most cogent reasons for their introduction. An entire change would be effected in the tenure of the land, and in the proportion of produce which goes to each class engaged in cultivation, the landlord, the farmer, and the labourer. * * # # * * Such is described to be the natural fertility of Ire land, that were improved modes of husbandry in troduced, bread might be substituted for the potatoe amongst the Irish people, and yet the export of corn to Great Britain be increased. The suddivision of holdings in land must unquestionably be charac terised as the origin of this imperfect husbandry ; . and though great changes have recently occurred, it is yet questionable whether the aeraran system has . received its final doom. It might be imagined that landed proprietors, seeking their own interest, would get rid of a confirmed nuisance ; but in extenuation, it is justly said that fear of direful consequences amongst a dispossessed and exaspetated tenantry prevents many from pursuing their inclinations, and adopting the ordinary remedies of effectual clearance. Were it really true thavnothing operated to obstruct this consummation but the dis positions of the tenantry, or laudable benevolence on the part of the landlord, we might leave natural amendment to its own salutary operation. But it is to be feared that, amongst some of the landlords or sub-possessors, there is still an itching palm to set u p small parcels of land to the highest bidder. and to keep their tenantry in abject dependence, in or der to reap large emoluments from their distresses. _When the natural resources are developed to a high degree, the land should be cultivated at a small outlay of , human labour; considerable capi talists will then become farmers, and avail them selves of skill and acquired resources, in pushing the soil to its most generous yielding. The capi talist necessarily requires a remunerating profit on his investment ; the larger his capital, the greater his share of the produce; and rents thus relatively fall, when compared with the entire return derived by the actual occupier. The chief part of the produce in this case is obtained by a person in the middle sphere of life of high utility, who spends it on the spot with a view to reproduction, and not by a landlord living on revenue who spends it unpro ductively. In place of this beneficial system of cultivation, let us attend to the existing prac tice in Ireland. No capitalist, no skilful and enterprising farmer, actually cultivating the land as in England, is to be found. With partial excep tions, two parties only exist—the lord and the vas sal. The redundancy of population occasions keen competition . for every unoccupied piece•rif land, of which the rent-receiver, in some of the gradations between the great proprietor and the lowest middle man, avails himself ; lie demands the highest rent; and, as a natural consequence, reduces the cultiva tor to the most prolific description of production— the potatoe." We shall add to our quotation an other, which may be said to contain the very mar row of the question :—" Constituted as society now is, it may be laid down as a broad maxim, that it is not possible for any people to enjoy order or hap piness, or any one of the perfections of civil liberty, unless the majority are comfortable in their worldly circumstances. This must be the commencement in every comprehensive plan of reforniation." A whole nation must not be abandoned for ever to all the horrors of destitution and its effect—violent out rage, merely because some ten thousand individuals are determined that they shall enjoy, without de duction, some sixteen millions of rent collected by British bayonets, at the expense of the people of Britain. Property is held on conditions, and one of them is, that the mode of management should not be incompatible with the well-being of the people, and the peace and order of a country. — Morning Chronicle. We wonder that no independent Member of Parliament has yet directed the attention of the country to the monstrous partiality with which Ministers have composed the Committee who are to report upon tile merits and demerits of chartered Corporations. We published their names but a few days ago. Upon a reference to the enumeration our readers will find not half a dozen Conservatives pitted in most idle conflict against a score or two of reckless Levellers. If it is intended to discuss a matter of most momentous interest with any sem blance of honesty and caution, why is not the Committee, from whom we are to have a report upon its merits, constituted with some show of fairness and propriety ? And if it is determined to make short work with the question—to abolish at all hazards the furred gowns and the gilded maces—to tear the seal from the parchment, and annihilate the town clerk for ever—why are we mocked with an inquiry upon a subject upon which his Majesty's advisers have fully formed their deter mination ? That Ministers should have resolved at this time to bring forward a measure for the Reform of all corporations would convince us, if we were not before convinced, of the absence of all practical wis dom from the Councils of the Government. They had enough of Reform, we all know, to occupy them for some time. Reform of the Church— Reform of the Law—Reform of Taxation—Reform of Expenditure—all these Reforms were demanded with more or less vehemence by one or the other sect of Reformers. But this Reform of Corpora tions was a Reform which had not as yet inspired the lucubrations of the pamphleteer, nor enlivened the symposium of the club. It was a difficulty which no man forced upon the Cabinet, a burden which the laborious shoulders of Lord Althorp most superfluously assumed. When, however, it was de termined to superadd this toil to all for which the House of Commons was already prepared, surely an upright Minister would have committed a matter involving the ownership of property, the preservation of the public peace, the administration of justice, to tolerably unprejudiced hands. We could point out some—several—of the Members of his Lordship's Committee, who, having been op posed at their respective elections by the influence of a corporate body, are ready, at any loss to the country, to destroy the strength of that influence. If the representative of the town of Cambridge is properly a Member of the Committee, why is not the representative of the city of Norwich sitting by his side ? We are far from maintaining that a re vision of the constitution of Corporations is to be avoided or condemned. On the contrary, it is because we think such a revision very desira ble that we reprobate strongly the spirit in which it is commenced. It is because we wish to see the municipal government of our cities and towns vested in the most responsible and respectable of their inhabitants that we anticipate with alarm the report of a Committee in whose eyes we are sure nothing that is respon sible or respectable can ever find favour. The sub ject assumes its most serious aspect when we recol lect that the Irish Corporations, as well as the English, are to be submitted to the scrutiny of these admirably selected inquisitors. The Irish Corpora dons have been exclusively Protestant, and the very purpose of their existence was to support and secure in Ireland the interests of what we used to call our National Church. We commend these corporations to the undoubted candour, the tried integrity, of Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Baldwin. We suppose that Lord Althorp has made up his mind that the re medy which is requisite for one island cannot but be beneficial to the other, upon the principle of the physician, who, " if Tom went sick to bed, Would clap a blister on Tom's brother's head." —Morning Post. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 20. VA NDIEST V. POLAND. Mr. THEssIGER stated that this action was brought to recover a compensation in damages for injury done to the plaintiff's stanhope, from the negligent driving of the de fendant's coachman. The amount of the damage claimed was 61. 12s. _ _ _ . ...., —...—. 7hese facts were proved, and the Jury found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 20. AYLWIN V. WILSON AND OTHERS. This was an action to recover a sum of 5,3001., alleged to he due to the plantiff on a special contract. Mr. Sergeant WILDE —ln 1825 a Mr. Benjamin was employed to raise a loan of 3,500,0001. for the King of Denmark, and by the intervention of the plaintiff, the de fendants, respectable merchants in the city, were intro duced to Benjamin, and ultimately obtained the contract. It was alleged, on the part of the plaintiff, that the de fendants previously agreed with him, that if through his introduction and exertions they succeeded in obtaining the contract they would give him 5,0001. for his trouble, and also their share of the profits on 20,0001. of the loan, which profits were 1 per cent. It was denied by the de fendants that they had 'ever promised the plaintiff any, more than the profits on 20,000/. namely 2001. which sum, together with 1001. for the expense incurred by the plaintiff in taking a journey to Paris in the course of the ne gotiitions, was paid into Court. In support of the claim for 5 . 0001., Mr. Benjamin was called, who de scribed the various negotiations which had taken place, and swore that in a conversation which he hal with one of the defendants the latter told him that they were to pay the plantiff 5,000/. for his services. - Sir JAMES SCAT:LETT contended that the statement of Benjamin was improbable, and ought not to be relied upon. The Jury returned a verdict for the plantiff, damages 1,0001., including the money paid into Court. CURTEIS V. MILLS. This was an action to recover compensation for the in. jury sustained by the plaintiff in being bitten by the de. fondant's dog.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 20?. CONSISTORY COURT, FEB. 20. BAGSTER (BY HER COMMITTEE), FALSELY CALLED NEW, TON, V. NEWTON. This cause is instituted by the Committee of Miss Bag ster for a nullity of marriage, which took place with Mr. Raymond Newton, on the ground of insanity. A good dell of curiosity was evinced by the appearance of " the Blacksmith of Gretna Green," alias Mr. Linton, who per forms the marriage ceremony to fugitive lovers. It ap pears that he refused to deliver up the original certificate of the marriage, on the ground that the Court of Session in Scotland would require him to produce the certificate if proceedings were commenced there. The COURT said the paper would be returned tolbim, if required. The certificate must be given in. The cause will be heard next Term. COURT OF EXCISE, FEB. 20. THE KING V. JOHN TEETGEN. The defendant was charged with bating sold adulterated snuff,'and upon the various counts under which the indict. ment was laid he was subject to penalties amounting to 5001. Mr. Hubert, who is generally called in this court to de cide upon the quality and component parts of adulterated snuff, received a sample of the snuff seized, which he pro duced. It was very bad snuff, about one half tobacco ; be examined it, and found herbs 10 per cent. and salt 10 per cent., and other ingredients not tobacco. Mr. Lloyd, the extensive manufacturer of snuff on Hol born-hill, said, had the snuff been in his possession he would have kicked it into the kennel ; he told the de fendant so. Witness had seen snuff so much adulterated that it required no analysis ; in fact no tobacco was in it. It was stated to the Court that snuff, or a villanous compound so called, was often made up of rotten wood, salt, flour, soot, and cheap pungents, without a particle of tobacco. After some further investigation, in which the Court commented upon the fraud practised upon the public and the revenue, the Commissioner pronounced judgment, condemning the snuff, and mitigated the penalty of 5001. to 501. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 20. WATSON V. COLQUITT. This was an action for an alleged libel, written by the defendant in the form of a letter, which appeared in the Albion newspaper, concerning the loss of the Rothsay Castle, to which the defendant pleaded a justification. The letter was written upon the loss of the Rothsay Castle, on the 17th of August, 1831, on the Dutchman's Bank, in her p tssage from Liverpool towards Beaumaris, when so many persons lost their lives, and was to the effect that the plaintiff's vessel was net sea-worthy, and that it was its crazy condition that occasioned its wreck. Mr. F. PoLLocic said the plaintiff's sole object in bringiiig the action was to vindicate his character from the imputation cast upon it by the unfortunate loss of the Rothsay Castle. The evidence would show the care and pains the plaintiff had taken to have the vessel properly repaired, and that the loss was not attributable to him. John Wright, Esq., Alderman of Liverpool, knew the defendant Captain Colquitt. He is a Captain in the Royal Navy, and lives in Cheshire. Witness was at Beau marls on the night of the 17th of August, 1831, and assisted in saving passengers. Did all he could. Went himself to the spot after the accident. Defendant did not accompany him. Witness saw the dead bodies ; exa mined the wreck ; 22 were saved, and 92 perished. Wit ness looked at the ship's bottom. Some of the timbers were branch timbers, such that they could not be squared. Of course that timber was small ; thought it too small for a vessel of that description. Great part was under water; some rotten. George Daney—Was an owner of steam-boats. Went to Glasgow to buy a vessel for trade between Liverpool and Wexford. The vessel was afloat, and was ultimately purchased by the plaintiff. Witness was to have bad, but in fact bad no share in her. The owners would not ac cept his offer. It was the Rotlisay Castle. Plaintiff gave her new decks. She was in very good condition. Cross-examined—The vessel was 16 years old. He did not know whether she was or was not built for river service. She was lengthened after she was built, and was at the time of the loss 110 tons burden. The deck was much worn. Nt•ver saw branch timber in Liverpool steam-boats. William Wilson—Repaired the vessel. When he first saw her he thought she was not sea worthy, on account of her bottom, which, in his opinion, was broken. Told the plaintiff so. He said he had such an excellent account of her that he thought she could not be broken. Repaired her three times ; his account for the first repairs was 2501. for the second 1501. In witness's opinion after the repairs she was seaworthy. Cross-examined—There is a great strain on steam vessels in rough weather. There was a week's interval between the second and third time of the vessel being in witness's dock. She had been leaking again very much. She looked as if she had been built for river navigation. She was a vet) , old vessel, with small timbers. Mr. Morrison, ship.carpenter—When she left the patent slip she was seaworthy. He would not have hesitated to have gone with her then. Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Did not you say when naked if you would go to sea with her, " No, for she will prove a coffin somebody?"for _ Witness, after much hesitation, I might have said so. When she first left the dock I would not have gone in her to sea. Captain James Spencer—Was appointed master of the Rothsay Castle in December, 1S30; superintended the last repair. When the last repairs were made she was per fectly sea-worthy, otherwise witness would not have trusted his life with her ; he went with her on her first voyage, which was to Wexford, from Liverpool. It was very bad weather. The passengers and cargo bore the sea very well. She was sea-worthy and made no water. The timber was sufficiently large; branch timber is better than square timber; small timber is better than large timber. J. Pile, master mariner—Was commander of the vessel on Spencer's leaving, in February, 1831. Went with her to Wexford. The vessel behaved very well. She came back in 37 hours. Had a very heavy gale. Only made that one voyage with her. She was sea-worthy. Edward Gore Taylor—Was supercargo between Liver pool and Wexford, in January, February, and March, 1831. In all the trips the ship behaved as well as a vessel could do. Witness was on board the St. David on the night of the accident. Saw the vessel to the leeward near Ormeshead. The weather was very bad and the sea very heavy. It was rough weather. Ormeshead is a dan gerous place. Saw her after the last repairs ; when turned out she was in a fit state. Captain Atkinson was drowned; he was a sober, steady, skilful, active man. Hugh Jones, mariner—Knew the Spit Sand and the Dutchman's Bank. It is a very narrow passage. The strongest vessel ever built could not have got off the bank on the night of the accident. William Jones, Liverpool branch pilot—l went on the voyage, when the vessel was lost, as a passenger. Got on board at Liverpool. She started five minutes before eleven. It was a very heavy sea. Captain Atkinson asked him whether it was best to go over Chester-bar, or td go outside the light-ship. He advised the latter. He was on deck while off the Great Ormeshead, but not there long; it was very coarse weather, blowing strong near ten o'clock. There was a moon when the clouds were driven off. She was going on very well. She made no water at that time. The pumps were not going. He was below when she struck. He was continually up and down before. She struck on the Dutchman's Bank. He was then down. It was about twelve. He came on deck. He saw Captain Atkinson a few minutes after. He spoke to him several times. He was sober, and doing his duty. He was rather in confusion. He gave orders to reverse the paddles, up jib and down jib, several times. We were on the ground, and could not get off. There was a very heavy sea. She was thumping heavy. The sea broke over her very much. Many were washed over board. He was on the quarter-deck. He held by the wreck of the quarter-deck for about live or six hours, when the life-boat took him up. Sne held together for two hours. If she had not been strong, she would never have bed together half so long as.she did. Evan Evans—Was seaman on board the vessel at the time of her loss. I was awake when she struck on deck. I looked down into the engine-room. There was no Water of any consequence at all. A quarter of an hour afterwards I went to the forecastle. There was no water there. After the striking, the wind kept at the same rate The sea was very rough, and ran over us moun tains high. The captain did not appear to me to be drunk. I did not leave her until the following morning, when we were taktn from the wreck by a pilot-boat. Had she been a weak vessel she would not have stood there half the time. _ _ _ Cross-examined—l can't tell whether she leaked be tween the Ormeshead and Puffin Island. I never said she leaked so touch between Ormeshead and Puffin Island that the steam quite failed. I have not said, " I think the captain and mate were not sober." A paper was handed up to witness, who said, after a loug hesitation, that is my handwriting. It was put in and read, and was the examination upon oath of the witness, taken on the 18th of August, 1831, in which he stated, " She leaked so much between Ormeshead and Puffin Island that the steam quite failed." He also said, "I do not think the captain or mate were sober." Mr. F. POLLOCK —I do not think, after the last wit ness's evidence, that it would be giving the cause a fair chance to try it now. I submit to be called. The plaintiff was accor din g l y nonsuited. NEGRO HEROISIVI.TiIC following anecdote is from the Rev. W. KNIBYS evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons:—" During the late insurrec tion in Jamaica, a runaway negre, on bein g di scovere d i n t h e woods, by a party of the military, and desired to re turn to his work , answered, ' No! F ree me an d I w ill work, e , b lle opened l h but Iwl l neveris breast,b e and w a slave as instantly more ; youm fireday shootat. m --,S'eotsinan. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE• • .NEWMARKET CRAVEN 40 I Wa MONDAY, APRIL 8. ll sik dlesworth Stakes,lof 200 sovs. each, h. ft. Ab'foolos; The Craven Stakes, of 10 sots. each. A.F..-.Theo, Mr. Thornhill's b. 1. by Emilius—Sal; Ld. Cobweb (31b.) ; Lord Lowther's f. by Trapp by Sultan—Filagree ; Lord Jersey's C. Lucius, by n a olt ti Stradbroke's ch. c. by Sultan—Arethissa ; Lord TAY' r; o il Anglesey, by Sultan—Mona ; Duke of Grafton's c. " 4 50 by Centaur—Pastille, (31b.) ; Mr, Wilson's C. by c hat e,t e e gaux, d. by Partisan (51b.) ; Lord Burlington's f. by $ -e p itld Barrosa ; Lord Orford's f. by St. Patrick—Selina ; ~ worth's c. Blank, by Lottery—Auburn (31b.) ; if eel' f. by Chatea Margaux—Redlock Mr. Stonebe. by Partisan— u Emma ; Mr. Payne's f. by Parti san -4° Sultan (31b.). h Sweepstakes of 200 each, h. ft. Colts, Sst. 1.-. • Sst. 41b. W Ol l Lord Exeter's c. by Mountebank—Ada ; Lord Lic jr _AAP by Sligo—Louisa; Duke of Rutland's C. by Bla ci r COO natic ; Lord Verulam's c. by Camel—Vitellin_ a ; .. — to r. ll9l o-. 1 br.f.Ulrica,bySherwood ; Lord Chesterfield's brother ' 4;l The Desert Stakes of 100 sovs. each, h. ft. Colts, Sit. fillies, Bst. 41b. A.F. el oil; m' Lord Conyngham's Brother to Blythe ; Mr. raYn y i reef f Wrangler— Duk e of Ric lV h l iss on S d t ep s c h . e K ns e o te n h ; up Lo , b r y d m C o b s e es st ; er Lo fie l r d d S Ta c. by Sultan—Phantom. lisot; TUESDAY. ell' fi B° l Sweepstakes of 150 each, tuft. Colts, Bet. 7113. ; - 41b. R.M. yr 00 1 Mr. Scott's ch. C. by Bobadil-Zoe, (31b.) ; Mr. -h c. 90: ch. c. by Merlin-Specie (31b.) ; Mr. Houldsworth's b r * gSfr pot, by Sultan (31b.) ; Lord Exeter's b. C. by So l " 191 0; nella (31b.) ; Lord Jersey's c. Janissary, by Partisso Mr. W. Chifney's f. by Emilius-Shoveler. Sweepstakes of 100 e ach, b. ft., For colts,Sst. 'Ow fillies, Sat. 41b. A.F. c.PI Mr. Batson's c. by Gustavus -J ess y ; Mr. Wilson's/16, Gustavus-Cervantes mare; Lord Lowther's C. bl Margaux-sister to Busto ; Mr. Stonehewer's e• by dsl o/1 Zany's dam ; Mr. Shard's c. Sir Thomas, by Catton , 00, Raphael ; Mr. Hunter's gr. c. Forester, by Gusts/ 14 ' f Orford's c. by St. Patrick-Bartonie. 0 9* Sweepstakes of 100 each, h. ft. Colts, Sst.l ll '" Sst. 41b. R.M. . 00 Duke of Richmond's f. by Sultan--Loe ; Mr. Lapdog-Effie Deans (31b.) ; Duke of Grafton's ch. c' by Sultan-Tontine (31b.) ; Lord Jersey's c. Janissary' tisan (31b.) ; Mr. Scott's c. Zeluco, by Bobadil-- -- P e , Mr. Shard's b. t. Falernia, by Chateau Margaux ( 311) ' , ' D The Oatland's Stakes of 50 sous. each, h. f t. v i s lY•el Mr. Oliver's Cock Robin, 6 yrs, Bst. 121 b. ; g r • eitt, Consol, 4 yrs, Sst. 101 b. ; Lord Exeter's Marmora, 4 i_ i ch p ; „ General Grosvenor's Sarpedon, 4 yrs, Bst. 31b. l' ° '' I - Beiram, 3 yrs, Bst. lib.; Lord Cleveland's Trustee; ' 7st. 91b. ; Lord Burlington's c. Mouse, 3 yrs, I s t- ~t , Gully's Lady Fly, 3 yrs, 7st. 31b. ; Mr. Walker's Tou ti " 7st. 21b. ; Mr. Wilson's Argent, 3 yrs, 7st, 21b. ; M r ' Hokee Pokee, 3 yrs, 7st, 21b. ; Lord Exeter's SP en ' - iiiin 7st. 11b. ; Mr. O'Brien's Revealer, 3 yrs, 7st ; Mr • .00 4 Rounceval, 3 yrs, 6st. 121 b. ; Mr. Ridsdale's Burg yrs, 7st. 61b. 11 V 1/ Produce Stakes of 100 each, h. ft. Colts, Sst.' v _lo lies, Sst. 41b. D.M. ,„ va ts's - n o Lord Exeter's c. by Sultan—Marinella ; Mr. 0, b1 — Whalebone, darn by Orville; Mr. Stonehewer's tavus—Veil. - • Bildeston Produce Stakes of 100 each, b• ft ' 01," Mr. R. Wilson's ch. f. by Wrangler—lsabella, eat" Wilson's b. £ by Albany—Caccia Platti's dam, 80-; nell made a wrong nomination. WEDNESDAY. ft; fig The Anson Dinner Stakes, of 200 soya each, colts, Bst 71b; fillies, Set 31b. A. ll ' Lord Exeter's f Mantilla by Sultan, Dulet e r . 's Exeter's c by Sultan, Emmeline ; Mr. Stoneh e- 0 7 1 T " Partisan, Emma ; Lord Jersey's Lucius ; Lord !0 .1 r4 fby Middleton, sister to B ene di c k (31b) ; Duke ° f : c Fidalgo, by Sultan (31b) f L or d Lichfield's fby Sbg 0 niature (31b). I ' The Column Stakes, of 50 soya each, h ft ; colt* Sot fillies, Set 41b. R.M. 8 0p °0{ Lord Verulam's cby Sultan, Tredville; TA*; , Revelry, by Reveller, Harriet ; Duke of Porb i roCh, 4 4 Lottery, Pledge (31b) ; Duke of Portland's f by Dpwd the Duchess; Duke of Portland's cby Tiresias , etelo Duke of Portland's f by Tiresias, Agatha ; LOT Mantilla; Lord Tavistock's Angle s ea ; Lord TaT`ny Middleton, sister to Benedick ; Mr. Thornhill's .; i% on, lius, Shoveler ; Mr. Wilson's c by Ch a teau 31 00- Dw r by Partisan (51b); Mr. Stonehewer's fby Partisan. 1 x ,14 /1 1 * Mr. Stonehewer's c by Tarrare, the Witch (3 11) ) i r d CO' ford's c by St. Patrick, sister to Moslem; et field's f Dirce, by Partisan, Antiope. b f t; The Bideston Sub. Stakes, of 100 sovs each , i colts, Sat 71b; fillies, Sst 411. D.M• Mr. Henry's c by Albany, Miss Lydia; Colonel • Young Rapid, by Stainborough ; Mr. It. Wilson's f 135 : a 1ef , Cacae Siatte's dam ; Mr. R. Wilson's ch c by Wz , Tears's dam. 1 11) 'lSt Sweepstakes of 100 sovs eacb, b ft; colts, fillies, Bat 410. D.M. Ifi y; ,1 Colonel Peel's b f Malibran, by Whisker, 03. .;:, ds Lichfield's b I by Sligo, Louisa ; Mr. Thornh io Merlin, Specie. ti,l 1(1 0 ;j1 Sweepstakes of 30 soy+ each, 20 ft ; rising 3-) r L I , i 4 Mr. Osbaldeston's Tutor, 7st 111 b; Mr. Wood's 1 1 - 011 V 7st 21b; Colonel Peel's Malibran, Est 121 b; Mr. 91). Emperor, 6st 101 b ; Mr. Turner's Lady Charlotte, 6st THURSDAY. kr' OF Sweepstakes of 30 sovs. each, 20 ft; for rising T. Y. C. g / 4 Mr. Chifney's Galena colt, Bst 61b ; Sir M. W°l^',;lo ; w oe dary, 7st 121 b; Mr. Thornhill's Enchantment, 6st "" 4 Grosvenor's Falernia, 6st 71b ; Mr. M. Stanley's c m , vale, 6st 71b ; Mr. Payne's c—Whiteboy's darn; 64 P The Forfeit Class of the Oatlands, of 10 sovs. ea "9/ Lord Cleveland's Emancipation, 5 yrs 9st 91b ; ''.,, r e ;lll l ; hewer's Variation, 5 yrs 9st 61b; Mr. Biggs's Little I ` B ol.o 5 yrs 9st ; Mr. Osbaldeston's Lady Elizabeth, 4 gee; Mr. Forth's Marvel, 4 yrs Bst 101 b ; Mr. Robinson' s - 9 0 ter, 4 yrs Bst 71b; Duke of Grafton's Oxygen, 4 3;%, 4 :, Lord Jersey's Ales, 4 yrs Bst 51b ; Mr. Kirby's gp Sst ; Lord Jersey's Blunderer, 4 yrs Bst ; Mr. S in " Ist' Witch, 4 yrs 7st. 101 b. ; Col. Peel's Sluggard, 3 511. Mr. Kirby's Dinah, 4 yrs. 7st 121 b. The fillies,C ar Claret s S t . ta 2 k l e b s . of p 2 .1 0 . 0 soya. secondhe e a c h, h t o ft Mr. Walker's Conrad ; Lord Conyngham's gin,„% te i rist7,4i B ; av e e Ol i t i : ~1? , Exeter's Beiram ; Mr. Vansittart's Perion ; Lor d I ,f . se Posthumus ; Mr. Richardson's Fang; Mr. Gully's Duke of Cleveland's Trustee. ce o Produce Sweepstakes of 100 soya each, 12 ft ; 71b ; fillies, Bst 41b. 01);,, Mr. Stonehewer's c by Tarrare—The Witch otle - Tnornhill's f by Emilius—Surprise ; Mr. Mills's Kate (31b) ; Duke of Richmond's Ketchup. Sweepstakes of 200 sovs each, h ft ; fillies, Bst. 3113, D.M. .. 0 11 4 1' Duke of Grafton's Fidalgo ; Lord Jersey's Is_tceStr Verulam's cby Sultan out of Tredille ; Lord "y -by Zealot (31b.) • FRIDAY. lb; 60 The Port Stakes of 100 sovs, hft Colts, 8 ,1 Sst. 41b. T.M.M. The second to save hi s ° Of.' Lurd Longford's Roue; Mr. Greville's Dry er ' son's Mixbury ; Mr. Walker's Francesci ; Lord C74s Blythe ; Lord Conyngham's Bassetlaw ; Colonel ?Mei ; d bald ; Lord Exeter's Byzantium ; Lord Exeter's f i Chifney's Emiliana ; Mr. Ridsdale's St. Giles; iess Gratis ; Lord Chesterfield's Olga ; Lord Lowther ' s ot ° D IM t The Ale Stakes of 100 sovs each, h ft. ies, S. .I. Lord Lowther's L fill azaron st e; 4 Lord D E xe ter's SP` Berner's c by Emilius—Rotterdam. t b l ; 1 14 Sweepstakes of 100 sovs each, h ft. Fillies , 94 l y Mr. Thornhill's by Emilius—Surprise 91 Mr. Cock's ch f Tarantila,by Tramp ; Duke of dc gr• bal, by Emilius ; Lord Exeter's sister to August ° ; ney's Shoveler f. Si t / 1 b ; Sweepstakes of 100 s o y a , h f t . C o lts, 94- Of' Sit 41b. D.lll. On i to' Lord Tavistock's A ng l esea ; L or d Exeter's D ya d " Lord Chesterfield's Elvaston ; Duke of Grafton's Ridsdale's Emperor; Lord Orford's Perchance - 1) , Y1 Sweepstakes of 100 sovs, Is ft ; for fillitt gio ull_: e i, Lord Lowther's S curv y ; D u ke of Portland' s ' - ‘ 74/1 1 ' Vansittart's Elisena ; Duke of Richmond's I ) / Mr. Stonehewer's Emma f. D )f' Sweepstakes of 100 sovs, h ft ; Elst. 611). 0 0019 Duke of Portland's Pledge c ; L or d Exeter's lo) b g ram ; Lord L ow th er ' s Maple ; M r . Wilson's e s ots' . tery ; Mr. Roberts's c (dead) by Emilius ; yord mcline c. P• Sweepstak e s of 100 soya each, Is ft ; S' t 4 ,-. lb ;tav e; Chesterfield'sof Portland's AgahlVe f. e per; Duke of Grafton's 1# BIBTHS. ~„ th e 1 . Bucks' 0 On the 17th inst. at the Vicarage, Willen. fti C" # the Rev. George Phillimore, of a son. gs sv- On the Ist inst. at Naples, the lady cif Tboino _,,, Auldjo, Esq., of a son. f N• ~ V• On the 19th inst. at Ramsgate, the lady o • tf Bee!-house, Amersham, of a daughter. th e / I MARRIED. ore, to On the 29th ult. at St. George's, lianover:6ol.,,eue; to George M. Fortescue, second son of Earl I f t r b ' e `'ES o Louisa Elizabeth Ryder, youngest daughter o rowhy. IJ e4l DIED. , ninth e '' ° na-col nin t ,el' of 0 0 s : l i r tt Gilberthh e e 2 Ol s t t i l l i i t in i l s sa t ti .. l c i; i S irl. a a c cr k t Li a l rg l cce-hssi,t4orsef.ect , I Gilbert )ha co. ! I On the 17th inst. aged 29, Frederic, eldest % , ,, g 3r 10 0 1 P.IW. Broughton, of Southampton-street, " t; VC'llian e°4 On the Ifith inst. at Cheltenham, Mr. N- citor, 01 that town, in the 41stIef2LI.LiLlg: -...... , PRINTED AND PUBLISHED MY M U 11 D 0 V 0 v SUN OFFICR, 1112, STRAND, LUNDONe C°N TRAI bE r Iy~ CV Oq th„,. will , 4uks, *nir '°l to Sr` OCI( 4 0 R 1744 0 117 1 , , 0