The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Our contemporary of the Globe, in noticing the observations we onWednesday offered with respect to one branch of the Scotch Judicial Reforms, forcibly remarks that " some better reason should be showi , than they (the Scotch Reformers) have yet given for transferring a large class of important causes from a Court where proceedings are simple, cheap, and expeditious, to one where they are complicated, ex pensive, and ludicrously tedious and dila'ory. The Reform seems a plan to deny justice to the poor. The denial, where they have been used to do with out the thing denied, may be not felt as a great grievance; but where justice has been habitually within their reach, it is scarcely allowable to deprive them of it by way of an experiment." The reasons do not seem very convincing to our contemporary ; but the Lord Advocate addressed them to an in fluential body which he wished to conciliate, and to which they will be most 'convincing. We scarcely ever heard the a2gumentani ad crumenam more directly urged than it was by his Lordship, who seemed to think that if he only put a little more money into the pockets of the Barristers, he might, by brib ing them to silence, be enabled to do what he pleased Nv it h the people. Fees are most conriecing arguments. Bur our contemporary makes rather too much, we think, of a passage in our observations. Alluding to the grossly defective state of the Law of Eng land with regard to Divorce, as admitted by the very Judges who administer it, and to the pal pable injustice of assimilating indirectly the Law of Scotland to that of England in that respect, at a time when the defects of the latter were made so evident, we had observed—" If the English mem bers (printed by mistake writers) have not the courage or the honesty to place the people of Eng land on the footing with regard to this class of ac tions of the people of Scotland ; let them not, on the principle of the fox, who had lost his ta:l, seek to lower the Scotch to the level of the people of England. The Institutions of Scotland are not in general so perverted from their ends as the Insti tutions of EnOand ; principally, we firmly believe, from their having hitherto escaped English inter ference." On this passage our contemporary re marks : " The Chronicle throws out an unjust suspicion that the plan is one of English maliguants, acting on the principle of the fox who has lost his tail, to lower the Scotch to the level of the people of England.' This we do not believe, and it is at varience with the motive for the scheme which he adopts fram the author of the pamphlet. Of the two conjectures we prefer the latter— that it is a plan for lengthening the tails of the foxes of the Court of Session to an equality with those of the kindred animele on this side of the Tweed, whose fur and feeding naturally excite the envy of the northern rods, who, though more numerous, have a smaller poultry-yard subject to their jurisdiction." Our observations hardly bear the construction put on them by our contemporary. We did not mean to insinuate that the plan to deprive the body of the people of Scotland of redress is an English one, het knowing that the head of an English Aristocrat is a receptacle for all sorts of absurd prejudices, among which that of excluding the poor from Courts of Law, by niultingjustice expensive under the pre text of checking litigation, is notoriously one, we thought it by no means an unnatural supposition that, under the influence of such prejudices, they might lend themselves to the corrupt views of the Scotch jobbers, and really imagine that in making the class of actions hitherto conducted before the Commissary Court very expensive, they were actu ally conferring a benefit on the Scotch. We have the lowest opinion of the capabilities for Legislation of the British Parliament, and dread the application of the notions current in Parliament to a country to which they are so little adapted. There is one case in point which exemplifies the danger of allowing men actuated by English prejudices to interfere with Scotland. We allude to a late decision of Lord Wynford in the House of Lords, which, if we may judge from the language in which it is spoken of in all the periodical papers of Scotland, has led to much discontent. In EnglanCt, an unpaid Magistrate is the god of the idolatry of the Aris tocracy, and the aim and object of all the recent de cisions of the Judges, and all the recent Statutes, is to place this personage utterly beyond all contrail]. Lord Wynford, judging in a Scotch case, applied to it the notions current on the English Bench, that unless malice can be proved against a Magistrate, it 5s in no ease to be inferred ; so that, except a man be a downright fool as well as a knave, he may actually commit the greatest oppression with per fect. impunity, The Scotch, however, resent this attempt to innoculate their system with notions hitherto foreign to it. A spirited writer in the Edinburgh Evening Post, of Saturday last, observes : " Perhaps the most ridiculous arrangement of which the Union was the consequence, was that of making an English lawyer the ultimate Judge and supreme a uthority in Scotch law. The Chancellor of England, as our readers are aware, constitutes in himself the Court of last resort, in till eases, from this country. It is no imperative part of his duty to make himself acquainted with the principles of our law ; and with regard to its practice, Le confessedly knows nothing. It is literally by a fundamental method of instruetion that he is expected to render himself in the remotest degree competent to the task. Intuition, and tie woolsack, are his only instructors. The thousand difficulties which the collision of theory and practice must naturally suggest to every native lawyer, his thorough in expesienee cannot even imagine; and his mind involun • tsrily teeeys for relief from any dilemma into which his ienoranee only have placed Litn, to that law to whose study Me whole life has been devoted. And yet this is the person whose single opinion is to outweigh that of fifteen of the most erainent lawyers of Scotland ; and who, from his being held by the Constitution as the supreme authority in all cases relating to our jurisprudence, has, from the natural and inevitable tendency of his mind, cor rupted the whole pure principles of our law, by engrafting upon it the abominations of the jurisprudence of England. The country has for a considerable period viewed with iu creasing suspicion the inroads which the legislative mea sures of those English Judges, who are merely entitled to interpret, have mode upon the liberty of the subject ill re ference to the Law of Libel. Scotland had too early con gratulated herself upon her exemption from the conse quences of thes, unwarrantable measures. If it had been proposed to have made Serjeant Spankie, or Serjeant `sould or our friend Sir Charles Wetherell , President of 7 rise Co; 7t of Session, the idea, would have been scouted as . and yet i is neither considered t by utterly prepemiterous ; the Le be injurious nor inexpedient to consti gislature tei' tute pet feern p. bi. whole habits, is equally in o•additional duties, is more unfit .esampetent to „ 1, and, from hie f or , t h e , accom plishment o f the . !7ask, so much a superior authority in the law of Scotland to 'his officer, that his opinion is sufficient to outweigh the unanimous voice of tie whole Court of Session." After a detail of the particulars of the decision in Boswell and Allardice against Robertson, the writer goes on lo observe— .' It is neither founded in law, nor justice, nor expedie ency. It is seentrary. to every legal, as well as every rational principle. The very facts which it assumes are contradicted by tie ineaziable principles of judicial- inter pretation, and, above all, it is perfectly contrary to every doctrine of that jurisprudence whieh he was bound to ap ply to the interpretation and decision of the case. " The first principle involved in the deeisioo of the greatest authority recognised by the Constitution in Seoteli law, is, that a Jwlge is entitled to declare iu open Court, that which our jurisprudence unequivocally declares to be a positive falsehood, and which, at the same time, may be entirely ruinous of the character of tile most respectable, nay, the best born individual in the kingdom, without being in the slightest degce amenable for such au action. )t dues not matter that his averment is afterwarde established to be utterly without foundation, or that he himself sloes not make the slightest egort to prove it ; it is a circumstance of no consideration that the effects of this sharneleeir falsehood are to destroy the whole peace of tabu:Land temporal fortunes of entire families. A Judge curl an idiot are placed by Lord Wvnford upon exactly the same footing; neither of them ie to he liable or ac countable for their actions. In,one respect, indeed, they are different. The madman is secured to prevent him from doing mischief; the Judge is continued in hie s'tna tion in order to enable hint to do more. It is impossible to prescribe limits to the operation of so monstrous a prin ciple. Itt the case before us, indeed, its extremity is 800. ficiently apparent. In the course of a trial for an insig• niticant and venial malpractice, the defendant is made A thousand times worse than he could be by the infliction of the utmost penalty of the offence of which he wa s ac cused ; be is charged with a crime, which is all hu:- capital one, without the remotest corroboration of the accuser's assertion. If such conduct as this is for our moment to be tolerated, a litigant can never be safe, even in the Court of ,S,!ssion itself. He may gain his cause, and, upon moving for costs, his judge may give for answer that he does not deserve them, for he has been informed by one scoundrel, who crag told by another villain who was hanged last Wednesday, that he, the litigant, was a high:: wayman and a murderer. This is unquestionably an ex treme case; but it is strictly within the principle of the while at the same time the averment of the Judge would be entitled to exactly the same degree of credit, according to the law of Scotland, as the evidence upon which Mr. Boswell declared Robertson to be a thief. Every lawyer, except Lord Wynford, is perfectly aware that, in the decision or consideration of any case, he is only entitled to judge of it by the evidence before him. Ile cannot employ his private information in considering of his verdict. Nay, he cannot even supply a legal principle which the litigants have failed to bring before him. This is not the course that has been pursued, however, by Messrs. Allardice and, Boswell. They think it no sin to wander out of the record ; they feel no compunction at ap plying some private gossip to a case which appears in a perfectly opposite light, according to the evidence regularly and legitimately placed before the Court. They feel them selves, as Judges (who ought merely to have decided be tween the statements of parties), fully entitled, of their own accord, to introduce graver matter into the case than the accuser himself, and to punish with a far heavier penalty than the utmost extent which the law admitted of, the crime of which the culprit was accused. We do not know what may be the interpretation of legal terms in England. In this country, it is certain that a Judge who travelled out of the record, or diverged into something which was not in the proof laid before him by the Fades, would be considered as having spoken upon subjects which were foreign to the case. Of the pertinence of Mr. Boswell's observation, however, the Chancellor appears to have been abundantly satisfied." Lord Wynford repeated the usual cant, respect ing the obligation under which the country was to gentlemen who consented to administer justice gratuitously, and the necessity of coaxing them by impunity. Our Scotch contemporary observes on " But it it absurd to contend that a Judge, whose statements are received with the greatest weight, and who, ex-officio, should be above all others the most cautious in tampering with the character of those persons among whom he has imposed upon him the sacred office of dispens ing justice, ought to be the only individual exempted from the laws which he himself administers. The duties of a Judge are completely defined by prescriptive ex ample. Upon this subject a sort of customary law seems to have been instituted. It is the most important office, in regard to the prosperity of the country, which any sub ject can be called upon to discharge; and he who has the presumption to undertake it without being aware of its solemn duties, ought, unquistionably, to suffer the con sequences of his presumption. The country has been too long persecuted by the evils consequent upon an unpaid Magistracy. Justices of the peace are notoriously the must ignorant, stupid, passionate, and prejudiced Judges that ever persecuted and too tured the poor of any country. That their office ought to be abolished has long been the opinion of the reflecting and enlightened. But while the nation continues to suffer under their incompetency, it ought certainly to have the miserable satisfaction of some slight protection against their rashness and stupidity. To say that they are to he let loose upon a community, to destroy the character of the most amiable, the most respected, nay, it may be the most eminent, individuals, by the ;tosse•t calumny and the most unfounded aspersions, is what the subjects of the realm will never submit to on account of the mere dictum of Lord Wyncord, when op posed to the verdict of two Juries, and the opinions of the most eminent Judges of that law upon which it is pre tended that his decision is founded." Another Paper,the Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle, reprobates the decision of Lord Wynford in equally strong terms :—" We will venture to say that an lawyer of common sagacity will concur with his Lordship in holding that a Judge is entitled to wander out of the record, and to found his state ment and his judgment upon facts which are not contained in the evidence before him." Speaking of this favoured class, the writer in the Weekly Chro nicle observes— " They are not required to le even decently educated. They may he as ignorant as dirt,' and as ' dull as a ser mon,' without the slightest objection. They are ri ot re quired to possess the most remote knowledge of the very laws they are appointed to administer. There is no pro vision against their bring bribed and corrupted. They re • ceive no such judicial education as removes other Judges from prejudice, passion, or partiality in their decisions. They are permitted to take the most active pat t in all po litical contentions or provincial disputes, and the people whom they are appointed to judge are those with whom in a peculiar manner they constantly and naturally come in collision. Their conduct has brought them into sovereign contempt among the enlightened and rational portion of the population." It was pretty clear that the Lord Advocate, in making his observation as to the benefit that would result from making divorce cases expensive, was ad dressing himself to English prejudices, and we think that our warning, therefore, was not out of place.— Morning Chronicle. Having frequently raised our voice against the disgraceful policy which permitted, or at least con nived, at the b•irbarous practice of burning widows alive in India, it gave us great pleasure to be enabled to publish, the other day, the order of the Governor-General in Council, abolishing that most revolting rite of the darkest and most depraved superstition that ever afflicted human nature. But, while we have pleasure in acknowledging the triumph which humanity has at last obtained by the influence and power of public opinion, we cannot but express our regret that the history of British dominion in India should so long have been stained by the toleration of a custom so detestable and sanguinary ! But not only was the practice tolerated by an English and Christian Power, exercising a despotic Government over our eastern dependencies, but there were apologists found for that policy in England, who attempted to defend it on the ground that the East India Compauy had no right to inter fere with the religion i of the people of Hindostan, and that it would be dangerous to make the attempt. That the attempt has been made with perfect safety, at last, disproves the latter assertion ; arid the former was a falsehood. There is no authority for the immolation of widows to he found in those books which are the source of the Hindoo doctrines. Cor rupt and superstitious as those doctrines are, they inculcate no such violation of the laws of nteure and humanity. It is the cruel —or, if we would use a more appropriate epithet, the diabolical invention of more recent fanaticism, or sordid priestcraft, working, for its own temporal advantage, upon the excitable imagination of an , ardent people, sunk in the lowest state of religious ignorance. Indeed the introductory part of the Governor-General's order is as strong a condemnation of the previous policy of the Indian Government in this respect as can well be expressed, We are aware that,•for some time past, the British authorities had placed this in human practice under certain regulations, which, while they were intended to dir,nish the number of sacrifices, by restricting them, we her eve, to those which were purely voluntary, had the effect of iv coguising the legality of the custom. This was the natural consequence of putting such a practice undo' regulation. of police, instead of abolishing it alto gether. Now, what does the Governor-General say upon this subje!,l? The following are his words —and we request the apologists for the tolera tion of this system of superstitious bathe. rism to mark them, and discover, if they can, whether we ever expressed ourselves upon this questiop in terms of stronger reprobation :-lle says, " The practiee of Suttee, or of burning alive the widows of Ilindoos, is revolting to the feelings of human nature. It is no where enjoined by the religion of the Ilindoos as an imperative duty. On the contrary,' a life of purity and retirement on the part of the widow is more especially and preferably inculcated ; and, by a vast majority of that people throughout India, the practice is not kept up nqr Observed. In some extensive districts it does not exist ; in those in which it has been most frequent it is notorious that, in many instances, acts of atro city have been perpetrated which have been shock= rug to the Thaws themselves, and, hi their eyes, nult 4 `Niut and wicked. The measures hitherto Adopted to discourage and prevent such acts have failed of succese, and the Governor-General in Council is deeply impressed with the conviction that the abuses in question cannot effectually be put an end to without abolishing the practice altogether." If these enlightened sentiments had been acted upon years ago, as they ought to have been— for this view of the subject is by no means new— what a quantity of human suffering, what a multitude of human sacrifices, what a repetition of tragedies disgraceful to British power, and criminally respon sible in the sight of man and Heaven, would have been averted—and averted, too, not in defiance of the religious prejudices of the people, but in con formity with the feelings of the vast majority of the Hindoos But though the Suttee is thus denounced, the no-less dreadful and sanguinary rites of Jugger naut remain. It is necessary also to interpose here, and vindicate insulted humanity, before the Govern ment of India can receive much credit for adopting a more enlightened policy. Do they aot derive re venue from this horrible superstition ? Is that to be balanced against the crimes which it encourages ? The priests of our Pagan ancestors, the Druids, made burnt-offerings of human beings to their in fernal gods. The Romans, who did not enjoy, like us, the lights of Christianity, on making a conquest of Britain, forcibly put down those revolting practices, as abhorrent to nature and humanity ; they disdained to make such sanguinary fanaticism an instrument for either raising a revenue or extending their domi nion. They were not a people accustomed to perse cute for difference of religious opinions ; and their intolerance of Druidism arose, not from its being a different form of Paganism from their own, but from its unnatural and inveterate barbarity. They emi nently observed the maxim, before the degeneracy of the empire, that " all classes of people be secure, in the observance of their religious usages, so long as their system could be adhered to without violation of the paramount dictates of justice and humanity," .as it is well expressed by the Governor-General in the order in question. But Druidism did violate both justice and humanity ; and, therefore, the no- I mans were so far from wishing to conciliate the de grading system, that they extirpated it by force of arms; nor did they thereby alienate the affections of the people who had been its dupes and victims ; on the contrary, they- facilitated their conversion to habits of civilisation, and by so doing strengthened their own dominion. They would have acted in the same way towards the Juggernaut of the Hindoos which they did towards the Moloch of the Druids. Would that the Christian rulers of India would imi tate their Pagan example Morning Herald. An outcry having been raised in Ireland against the plan of Ministers for assimilating the Irish stamp duties to those of Great Britain, and for increasing the tax on Irish spirits, while that on rum was left untouched, we took occasion to throw out a remark last week on the comparative lightness of the taxes levied on Ireland as compared with this and other countries, and judging by the amount of revenue raised from each. We do not blame the Irish news papers for their zeal as anti-taxationists ; and having helped, however innocently, to provoke the war now raging in Dublin against even the smallest addi tion to the taxes, we feel it but honest to let the people of Ireland have the benefit of what their own champions allege the opinion we promulgated (From the Dublin Morning Post, April 20.) TAXATION OF IRELAND-" THE TIMES." In the article which we copied into our publication of yteterday, from the Times, and upon which we offered some observation•, the reader will find the following ex traordinary statement : " Mr. O'Connell's oppressed' countrymen not only pay less to the State, than the other parts of the British empire, but suffer less fiscal exaction than any other people of Europe. Though he were to traverse every kingdom, from Lisbon to Constantinople, he would not find eight millions of people lower taxed than his conntt ymen." " Now, in defiance of the unsupported proposition here set forth, we venture to assert, and we hope, before we have done with the subject, to prove, that there does not at this moment exist a country, which, in proportion to its means of paying taxes, is sn heavily burdened with them as Ireland. As a general proposition, the Times, we apprehend will not be disposed to deny that the taxes of England are heavier, and its revenue proportionably larger, than those of any other state in existence. Let us then inquire what arc the burthens levied in England, from which Ireland is exempt? " The public taxes colleettd throughout the empire are divided into five distinct heads or classes, viz.-1. Cus toms ; '2. Excise ; S. Stamps ; 4. Assessed Taxes ; 5. Post-office. " In two of these departments, the Customs and the Post-office, a perfect assimilation has been already for se veral years past established. In the third department, that of Stamps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to carry the same measure into effect, and he calculates that the increase of revenue consequent upon it will be about 110,000/. yearly. In the fourth department, Ireland enjoys one of those exemptions which the treaty of union guaran teed to her. As to the value of the sacrifice made by the Treasury in this instance, some opinion may be formed from the fact, that subsequent to the repea l of the window tax, the whole of the remaining assessed taxes on clerks and shopmen, servants, coaches, chaises, gigs, ktunting-ears, horses, and dog., although they were levied with the utmost rigour, did not produce to the revenue more than 100,0001. a year. We state the fact as well from reference to the finance accounts, as to the testimony of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, who distinctly recommended the abo lition of this source of revenue in Ireland. " Exclusi✓e of the assessed taxes, the exemptions which Ireland enjoys are all in the department of the Excise; in cluding the repeal of the beer-duty, the following will be found a correct list of them, together with the amount of revenue produced from each, in Great Britain, in the year ended sth of January, 1828. We select that year as being one which was not marked by any extreme, either of ele vation or depression, in regard to the revenue:--• Exemptions in Ireland. P ro duce in Gt. Britain. " Bricks and Tiles £368,538 " Candles " Printed Goods 662,141 " Soap " Starch " Total £2,800,334 " In the year to which we now allude, the net amount of the taxes of Great Britain paid into the Exchequer was 46,085,886/. ; and in Ireland 3,495,689/. The revenue derived from malt in Great Britain, we tvill incidentally observe, was 3,109,807/. It will consequently appear that the revenue drawn from the various taxes we have enumerated, from which Ireland is exempt, is not equal to the malt duty in Great Britain. We will assume, how ever, that if these taxes were imposed in Ireland, they would produce an amount equal to the malt duty iu this country, although we are perfectly aware that they would not, in point of fact, realize half the sum. We find That the malt duty in Ireland produced iu the year to which we refer 229,335/. " Prom these documents we can ascertain, with accuracy sufficient for a practical view of the subject, the increase which might be expected to arise to the revenue in Ire land, from a complete assimilation of the taxes of the two countries. " The Net Revenue in 1827, was £3,495,699 0 0 " The proposed assimilation of Stamp Duties llO,OOO 0 0 " Assimilation of the Duties of Excise, calculated as oqual to the Malt Duty 229,335 0 0 .£3,835,02.4 0 0 " If to this sum we add 400,000/. 2 the largest yearly amount which the window and other assessed taxes pro duced in Ireland, under the most rigorous system of col lestion which could be adopted, the whole revenue of Ire land, under the most perfect system of assimilation, would still produce only 4,235,0001. " We have gone into this question with a minuteness which will, to many appear tiresome; but we wish to expose the system in all the nsked deformity of its injustice. " The population of Great Britain, consisting of tburteen millions, are taxed at certain rears, which fall substantially upon the consumption of the necessaries or the luxuries of life; and on such consumption they pay to the state a revenue of 46,000,000/. yearly: the revenue paid being' a perfect comparative measure of the consumption. The pop ulation of lrel Ind may be taken a s one -h a lf t h e popu l at i on • of Great Britain : they are taxed in like manner and at the same rates, upon the eoasumption of the necessaries and the luxuries of life ; but these, owing partly to their po verty, and partly to the excessive taxation, they are un able to purchase or consume, save in a very small propor tion. The consequence is, that seven millions, of which the population of Ireland consists, consume of these luxuries and necessaries so small a share, that the revenue raised in Ireland at the same rates of taxation which are imposed in Great Britain, is only 4,000,000/. sterling yearly, when it would be—if the people could afford to purchase and to consume those luxuries and necessaries of life, which are the objects of taxation, in the same pro portion that they are purchased and con,urned in Great Britain—upwards of 28,000,000/. sterling. " Be it remembered, that to impose and to apply these excessive, and, to the poverty of the people of Ireland, these prohibitory rates of taxation, with an alleged view to in crease the revenue of the Stite, and to promote the prospe rity of Ireland, was the policy adopted in the 31st year of the 19th century by the Government of Great Britain ; and let it not be forgotten, that the Government was cheered on in this work of justice and sound policy by the Times newspaper."— Times. NEW STREET from WATERLOO-BRIDGE. A public meeting of the inhabitant householders of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, and its immediate vicinity, took place last night at the rooms of Mr. George Robins, Piazzas, Covent-garden, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of presenting a petition to Parliament to carry into effect the projected communication from Waterloo bridge to the northern part of the metropolis. In the absence of Mr. George Robins, who was to have presided on the occasion, but who was pre vented by fatigue, Mr. WINSTON, of Charles -street, was called to the chair, and explained to the meet ing the object for which they were assembled. In a pecuniary point of view the measure would be nefit the parish, for while 400/. a year would be lost by the removal of houses that now stood, 1,000/. a-year would be gained by those that would be erected in their stead. The CHAIRMAN observed that the inhabitants of Russell-square, Bloomsbury-square, and the streets adjacent, were so favourable to the proposed mea sure, that they were preparing a petition to Parlia ment to forward it.—(Hear.) Mr. FEW (the solicitor, of Henrietta-street) ob served, that as the parish would benefit 6001. a year by 'the measure, the meeting had only to consent.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. PHILLIPS said be did not consider the pro posed plan of such advantage as it had been re presented. Mr. FEW observed, that small as that parish was, there was seldom any subject started in it on which the inhabitants could agree. The gentleman •who had last spoken was experienced in local squabbles, but thank heaven this was not a parish meeting.— (Hear, and laughter.) Mr. POWELL, surveyor of Waterloo-bridge, and secretary to the company, eulogized the proposed undertaking, and said that Government waa anxious to promote it, not only because it would be a great public convenience but that it would benefit the Waterloo-bridge Company who had expended so large a capital and were receiving such a small return. Mr. HARROW asked Mr. Powell if he were an in habitant householder of the parish. Mr. POWELL—I freely admit that l am not. Mr. HARROW—Then you have no right to speak here. It is a job altogether. Mr. YOUNG observed that the observation of Mr. Harrow was rude and ill bred. If the sense of the meeting was against the proposed petition, let an opinion to that effect be expressed, but let the pro ceedings be conducted with propriety and temper, and above all, let not the term " job" be ap plied to an undertaking of such great national im portance.—(Hear, hear.) The CHAIRMAN observed that Mr. Beazley, the architect, was present, and would explain to the meeting the nature of the proposed measure. • Mr. BEAZLEY accordingly came forwarded, and said that the origin of the projected improvement was literally owing to the voice of the public, which had so repeatedly called for it. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests were friendly to the measure, and the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Bedford, the Marquis of Exeter, and others whose property would be affected by it, had give.] the plan their decided approbation. The Duke of Bedford, in deed, had done more, for he had generously con sented to give up the ground-rent of such of his houses as it would be necessary to remove.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was at first proposed that the undertaking could be managed without the interference of Par liament, but owing to the peculiar feeling of the House of Commons ut present, the Treasury had determined that Parliament should be first consulted upon the subject. As to the term" job," he con ceived it was completely misapplied in the present instance. With regard to the particular line in which the proposed improvement was to run, no thing had as yet been definitively settled. The ex pense of the first opening from the Strand to Charles street had been estimated by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests at 43,000/. The estimate which he (Mr. Beazley) hail made amounted to 70,0001., but in his plan he had proposed two openings in stead of one. Mr. Beazley concluded by saying, that if Government assisted the iindotakinpi in the first instance, there wonid be no doubt of its ulti mate success.--( Hear.) Mr. THIRSTON, of Brydges-street, complained of the injury which his business was likely to expe rience by the projected measure. Mr. Dow also complained of the injury which the undertaking would produce to those who carried on trade either in Brydges-street or York-street. Air. CRIBB spoke in praise of the undertaking. After some further discussion, Mr. FEW proposed the following Resolution : " Resolved, it is the opinion of this meeting that it would be very desirable that a communication should take place between Waterloo•bridge and the northern parts of the metropolis, and the meeting: cordially concur in opinion that a petition to that effect should be forthwith presented to Parliament." Mr. YOUNG seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously. Mr. CRIBB then proposed that the petition to Parliament should be read and adopted. The petition,.whichAS brief and well expressed, was then read, and unanimously adopted, after which thanks were voted to the Chairman, and the meet ing separated. OLD BAILEY, APRIL 22. Peter James Bossy, who pleaded him in the morning to an indictment charging him with wilful and corrupt perjury, was brought up to receive the judgment of the Court. The RECORDER, after remarking on the enormity of an offence which militated against the life, liberty, and property of his Majesty's subjects, sentenced the prisoner to be transported beyond the seas for the terni of seven years, remarking that the Court could have prefixed to that sentence bodily pain, or a term of imprisonment. The prisoner bowed, and was r.i,dut to retire, when Mr. ALLEY, the Counsel for the prosecution, said something to the Court. The prisoner was forthwith called back, and the RECORDER informed him, that in addition to the sentence of seven years' transportation, he was to be imprisoned in Ne.vgate for six months, and during that period to stand in or upon the pillory for the space of one hour. Mr. Wontner then reminded the. Court, that be fore the expiration of six mouths the prison of New gate would in all probability be crowded. The COURT then changed the sentence from New gate to the House of Correction. The prisoner implored to be heard. lie said he had been induced to crime by another person ; he had not attempted to conceal his guilt, as his plea • would prove. The RECORDER would not hear him; but on the contrary assured him that the sentence should be fully executed. William Horne, a carman, aged 29, was indicted for breaking and entering the wareho Ise of Charles Hancock, Esq., of Leadenhall•street, the Secretary to the East India Company, and stealing therein 6 cwt. of tea, value 1001. and upwards. He wa! , found guilty, and sentenced to be transported for the term of his natural life. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL 22• HART AND OTHERS V. PELLEY, ESQ. AND OTHERS. This was a feigned issue, directed by the Court of King's Bench, between the plaintiffs, as pro prietors of lands in that part of the country through which the Lea runs in the neighbourhood of Strat ford, in Essex, and the defendants, John Henry PeHey, Esq., and five others, Commissioners of Sewers for that district, three of them being owners or occupiers of certain ancient mills on the river Lea. The object of the issue was to ascertain whether the occupiers of the mills were exclusively liable to the expences of constructing and maintaining certain movable machinery, recently erected, for the purpose of carrying off the water more quickly than had been before done by the old outlets, or whether that expence was to be borne generally between the millers and the proprietors of lands at large, having an interest in the drainage within the district in ques tion. The Jury found for the defendants. ROWLANDS V. GARGRAVE. Mr. BROUGHAM stated that the plaintiff, Mr. Rowlands, was a jeweller and silversmith in Coven try-street, at the top of the Haymarket. The de fendant, Mr. Gargrave, was an attorney, keeping a respectable establishment in Leicester-place. The action was brought to recover 168./. 25., the balance of 2291. 7s. for various articles of plate, jewels, and trinkets, supplied by the plaintiff. The articles, with the exception of one which formed the first item in the bill, had been furnished on the order of the defendant's wife; and amongst them were various trinkets which had been purchased by that lady for her own personal use. The other articles charged for were for the most part plate for the defendant's table, such as silver forks and spoons, a sugar-ladle, tea-pot, silver pint mug, &c. These had, no doubt,' been used at the defendant's house.• There was also an or-mole eight-day clock. That was the first item in the bill, and the defendant was with his wife at the time it was selected. For all these articles the defendant Was clearly liable; and there could be no doubt that he was liable also for the trinkets supplied for the use of his wife, as she was living with him at the time,and it was to be inferred that he authorized or knew of their purchase. The plaintiff's son proved the delivery of the greater part of the articles. Mr. Jones, a wine and spirit merchant, had sup plied the defendant with spirits upon the order of Mrs. Gargrave, and the defendant had himself paid witness. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the defendant. His client was a respectable man, was in good practice as an attorney, and pos sessed a moderate fortune, It gave him great pain to be obliged to defend this action, because the cir cumstances which he should have to lay before the Jury would necessarily expose the imprudence of his wife. Ile (the Attorney-General) did not mean to deny that a wife had an implied credit from her husband, to purchase all such things as might be useful in his house and suited to his station; but he was sure the Learned Judge now presiding would not tell the Jurv, that the law made a husband liable to pay for jewellery and other expensive articles purchased by a wife without his authority or know ledge ; on the contrary, his Lordship would tell them that the law would not operate to bind the husband in a case where the tradesman did not think proper to ascertain from the husband that he was in want of the articles ordered, or that he had given his wife authority to purchase them. The law im plied a credit limited to necessaries suited to her station anti degree, and the wife possessed no authority beyond that. The Learned Counsel should show that the defendant, at the time the plate in question was purchased by the wife, was in no want of such articles, having been long fur- Dished with every article of that kind necessary for his table and the accommodation of his friends; and that his wife possessed as many trinkets as, con-; sidering her station, she was entitled to wear. He' should show, also, that all the articles, with the ex ception of the clock, and some others paid for at the time of purchasing, were supplied without the authority or knowledge of the defendant, and were never used by him or his wife, or seen at his house, and in addition to this, he should prove that the, plaintiff declared that he was in the habit of sup plying articles of plate and jewellery to married women, without the knowledge of their husbands, and that, in this case, he, on one occasion, told Mrs. Gargrave that he would not look to her husband for the money. No doubt he did mean ultimately to have recourse to the defendant ; but the Learned Counsel contended that he had no right, by law, to give such a credit to the wife. John G. Craigs, a nephew, and articled clerk of the defendant, stated that long prior to March, 1828, his uncle had a sufficient quantity of plate for the purposes of his family. Witness never saw at his house any of the articles mentioned in the plain tiff's bill, with the exception of the eight-day clock. Never heard it mentioned in the family that Mrs. Gargrave had any dealings with the plaintiff. John Coleman, the defendant's servant, had been in the habit of cleaning the defendant's plate, and never saw any addition to it subsequent Ao March, 1828. The defendant did not appear to 16 in want of any prior to that time. The plaiatiffii. son first called at the defendant's house to see Mrs;:Clargrave in June, 1829. She was not in town. Witness told him so, but said Mr. Gargrave was in town.— He said he wanted to see Mrs. Gargrave,, as Mr. Gargrave knew nothing about it. homas Dinhatn, a clerk of the defendant, stated that until the present transaction the defendant al lowed Mrs. Gargrave 101. a fortnight for housekeep ing expences, and 101. a quarter for dress, with oc sional presents. Witness used to pay the money to Mrs. Gargrave. Never saw her wear any of the fine things supplied by the plaintiff. Mr. Baoun,ttam having replied to the evidence, the Jury observed to the learned Judge, that there was no occasion to trouble him to sum up--Lthey had made up their minds. Lord TENTERDEN would recommend them to hear his observations upon the case. His Lordship then told them that a husband was answerable for articles supplied to his wife, provided they were suitable to her estate and degree : in other words, if a jeweller or other tradesman, exercising a sound discretion, reasonably presumed that the husband had given his authority, or knew that the wife had the articles; but a husband was not liable for articles his wife tnight thing fit to purchase, unless there was reason to believe that he was cognizant of the order given. it might be a hardship, in some cases, for the tradesman to lose the value of his goods ; but it might be equally hard upon a husband to pay for articles supplied without his knowledge or consent ; and therefore, without considering to which party the hardship was greatest, the Jury should decide according to the law on the subject. - While the Jury were deliberating, . His LORDSHIP said, " Gentlemen, there is no proof that the husband ever bud possession of any of the plate, or even saw it; much less did he see the trinkets, which were never worn by the wife in his presence." Verdict for the plaintiff for the whole• amount of the balance claimed. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Aram 22. MOUNT V. LARKINS. This was an action on a policy of insurance for 2,0001. The subject of the policy was the freight of the ship Agzalliar, on a voyage to Sincapore, %rith liberty to cull at various places on her return voyage. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The damages were to be settled by arbitration. CALAMITOUS FIRE IN FETTER-LANE.--. ADJOURNED INQUEST ON SEVEN OF THE SUFFERERS.-- After carefully investigating all the evidence in this case, the Jury yesterday returned the following verdict : " That the deceased JOHN HOWARD, MARY HOWARD, WILLIAM HOWARD, MARGARET SYRETT, MARY CANEY, MARY-ANNE BURGEN,: and CHARLOTTE BURGEN, came by their deaths by burning, but how the fire originated cannot be determined upon by the Jury." THE MARKET S. SOUTHA LL MARKET.—ApriI 21. .1 This day's supply of Beasts and Calves were litztitetl, Sheep, Lambs, and Pigs, tolerably gooey; the trade very dull throughout, at the following prices per stone' Slb. to sink the rails of , Beef 3s. Od. to 3s. lOd. 1 ss. 13d. to ss. Mutton 3 0 4 0 Pork 3 6 4 " Lamb 6s 0,1. to 7s. 2d. The foregoing quotations are, Beef and Mutton 2d. per sl,.A° l/r lower; Lamb 2d. higher than on this day se'nnight ; m pnr,. of Veal and Pork no alteration.—B eas t s , 147 ; Sh eep and L a gs" 3,713; Calves, 34; Pigs, 140.—A considerable number of Shel and some, but not a great many, Beasts left the market unsolt. HAI LSHAM MARK ET.—April 21. 3s. Od. to 3s. Rd. I 4s. 4,1 to .Is. 64 " 4 0 4 6 I Perk . 3 6 0 0 ' A limited supply, and a dull trade. ARUNDEL MARKET.—ApriI 20. 28.10 d. to 3s. Rd. I 4s. at. to 44. 0 Mutton 3 4 4 6 3 4 3 9 ss. 6d. to 6s. 6d. A good time of year supply, and a dull trade. CHICHESTER Al ARK ET.—April 21. 2s. &3. to 3s. Bd. Veal w . 4s. od. to 4s. 6 , 4 '1 -- Mutton 3 6 4 6 I Pork 3 0 3 Lamb ss. 4d. to Os. 4d. Couples (Ewes with thrir Lamb) 31s. to 455. each ; in Ste Beasts Huh! doing. Supply good, :and trade dull. • RUMFORD MARKET.—ApriI 21. s. d. to s. d. Reef 2 8 3 6 Veal B4. d. O a 5l Mutton 2lO 4 2 Pork 3 0 4 Lamb Suckling Calves from 14s. to 325. ; Quarter old Pigsl2s.to 16s. eac h ' A moderate supply, and a dull trade. (70UNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING THE WEEK Wheat. .7, Barley. Oats. Beans Per quarter. s. to s. s. s. s. to s. s. to fi Blandford 59 29 23 63 68 27 33 17 24 34 Cambridge--- t 7 27 19 Chard Huntingdon Long SUtton 60 68 IS 24 32 1 6 6 Louth 63 67 28 32 20 23 32 Lynn 54 70 28 34 16 26 32 41 Newark 68 71 32 40 16 29 37 Nottingham 61. 73 27 46 21 27 32 1 7 t Peterberough 56 70 37 40 18 25 37 'l 3 Plymouth 58 70 27 31 22 27 33 40 60 32 21 Sleaferd 65 70 28 34 18 24 36 Uppingham 62 73 30 37 18 26 30 4 4 Wisbech 56 70 20 26 3 0 3b, LI VERPOOL CORN EXCHANG-April 20. This morning's market was thinly attinded,74aid as the whole only a very moderate business transacted. Fin ( Irish Wheats were scarce, and a few purchases on cnuntri account' nearly cleared the market of this descriptiesi, id° decline of about Id. per bushel; other qualities were full,' 2d. -cheaper. Though there were few sellers of Oats, Ye t those offering exceeded the demand, and they must b e noted :W. per 451bs. lower. Flour was very dull of silk' and was offering rather below the relative value of Wheat. Oatmeal brought scarcely so good prices. Wimyr, English, White, per 701 b. Red ---i Scotch, Welch, and Manx Irish, White ' 9 6 10 0 -- Red 9 0 10 ° ----- Foreign lO 6 II (2 OATS, English, W . 5 1u Welsh, and Scotch, per 451 b 3 8 • . - Irish - Foreign BARLEY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter 36 0 38 ~ ------. Scotch and Irish, per 601bs. --.--• Feeding 4 6 4 ° BRANS, English, per Imperial quarter '3B e, 44_ 0 ;-...-- Irish, &c. Foreign 18 0 - 40 " PEASE, English, per Imperial quarter 46 0 48 0 0 ---- Foreign 00 Elwyn, English, per 2801 b. 511 0 63 - Irish OATMEAL, English and Irish, per 2401bs 27 0 3 2 t i INDIAN CORN, per 4401 b. Rye, per Imperial quarter '34 0 36 ( .1 NIALT, per Imperial quarter 57 0 61 - IMPORT or GRAIN for the Week ending April 19. Wheat.l Oats. Barley Flour. Oatll o3l Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. 1 IForeign, Brls.lrtsh, &c. Seks. La:o s . 8,985 15,673 415: 9,042 3,833 5,71.1 LEEDS CORN MARKET.-April 20. We have had a good supply of Wheat and Barley up to this day's market, but that of other kinds of Grain 0. small. Fine Wheat with difficulty has supported it price of last Tuesd a y, an d o th er d escr i pt i ons may be n°t Is. per quarter lower, if sales have been effected. Malting Barley being scarce has obtained Is. per V 3ll l advance, but other descriptions dull sale. Oats 31V 3 Shelling in bett e r d eman d, an d th e l a tt er 61 per 1 03 1 higher. Hard Beans have maintained their price, b u those that are (Limp go off slowly. In Nase no alteratio n; the same may be said of Malt and Rapeseed. There bad e been several samples of New foreign Wheat, of good (P'' lity, offering at from 70a. to '72s. but the bulks not being at hand, few sales have been effected. Wheat, Norfolk and Sufolk, 60Ib. York. and Lincoln. 601 b. Barley, Norfolk and Sullblk Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Grinding Beaus 63lb. " 27s 'to 38s. IS Oats, Potatoe --bleating, Foreign 1130. to I2d....English 1 td. to 13d. per Shelling . 325. to 355. per 100' Rapeseed, English, 27/. to 29/. ',Foreign, —/. to per iabl.l BIRTHS. On the 21st inst. at Chacombe Priory, Northampton shire, the lady of H. J. Pye, Esq., of a datigiihter. On the 20th inst. at the Grove, Highgate, Mrs. V . . Abut], of a son. MARRIED. • On the 22d inst. at All Souls, Marylebone, by th e ! Rev. Pooley Roupell, Thomas-Drake Bainbridge, of Croydon Lodge, Surrey, to Hester Macpherson, sec° daughter of Robert Rickards, Esq." of Wimpole-stree t and Brickwood-house, in the cOnntyof Surrey. q On the 20th inst. a t Ileadington, by the Rev. Marsha l l Hacker, of Iffiey, Maria, eldest daughter of the ROI William Oddie, late Fellow of Magdalen College, O x fotu; to William Gray, Esq., of the same, and of the TOO Temple. On the 22d inst. S. Langton, Esq.. of Bedford-row, Margaret, daughter of Walter Leal - month . , Esi of Rue sell-square. DIED. .On the 17th inst. at Alva, N. 8., chines Raynao . Johnstone, Esq. of Alva, aged 62. t At Ranfurley-house, Ro ss t revor , I re l an d, J ames V is cou° , Lifford, in his 130th year. He was the eldest son ofJameli first Viscount Lifford, formerly Lord High Chancellor Ireland ; and is succeeded by his eldest son the Hon. JO Hewitt, one of the Corrimissionetts.of Excise. • At Rome, the Marchioness of Notthampton. On the 21st inst. Sir Win. Parker, Bart. of Wild' hall, Colonel of the West Suffolk Militia, in the 60th year of his age. On the 22d inst. in Great Charlottesstreet, BliCkfoor road, James Alder, E sq . i n hi s 66t h year, and lite'of , Majesty's Customs. On the 21st inst. at his son's residence, East Acton' Middlesex, the Rev. Thomas Daviii;'Prelyendary-nrj li.thury, Rect or o f S t . M art i n ' s , in that city, and Vicar o f Fisherton Delaniere, Wiltshire. EAST ND It o — n D H E ut A ch T in t Esq. of so , At Calcutta, Sept.l2, tangunge, aged 55. At Calcutta, Sept. 21, Mr. C. c esse x u , sen ior, li t the advanced age of 77. At Calcutta, Sept. 27, Mr. 11. Middleton; aged 27. At Benares, Sept. 16, T. Yeld, Esq., S ur g eon on th e Bengal E•tablishnrent. At Cannanore, Aug. 29, Capt. T. R. Manners, 2 0 Regt. Madras Native Infantry, aged 33. At Secunderabad, Aug.(;apt,, J. Otway, of 110 Mijesty's 46th Regt., aged 43. Aug. 28, on hoard the Amiable Creole, in the Mat lol Roads, after a lingering illness, Wm. Wellington, Eltr' Assistant- Surgeon, aged 44. On board the Mountstuart Elphinsione, ,hoxnewarf., bound, from Bombay, Li e ut. J. G or d on , 24th R eg t. N' dras Native Infantry. At Mirzapore, Nov. 2, Miss Lawrance, eldest (laugh° of F. Lawrance, ,Esq. of Benue,. " At Kidderpoor, Oct. 31, Charlotte Georgiana; the of Mr. J. M. Forth, aged 30. . At Meerut, Oct. 14, Lieut. T. Carstairs, 29th Bee' Native Infantry. At Dum-Dum, Sept. 16, Major R. M. 0. Gramsha gl ' of the Bengal Artillery. Drowned off Berhatnpore, in August last, on his waY Calcutta, Lieut. A. L. Ds:ie, of the 31st Regt. Nati' ? " Infantry, aged 27. At Calcutta, Dec. 9, R. Paterson, Esq. M.D4Sarge° 26th Regt. N.I. At Singapore, Sept. '7, Eliza Wallace Saunders, the wife of Robert Saunders, Esq., of the Bengal Civil Set' vice, aged 28. At Madura, 'June 13, A. G. Anon, E,q. Lieut. in Ld Majesty's 11th Light Dragoons, eldest son of Gen. Sir 0 ' Anson, K.C.B. M.P. .At Chittagong, Nov. 4, Lieut. and Brevet Captain Runyon, 74th Regt. N. I. At. Calcutta, Dec. 17, Mr. J. Douglas, aged 31. At Madras, - Oct. 25, the Rev. A. Webster, Seolof o Minister of St. Andrew's, and Chaplain on the Company Madras Establishment. .1 At Calcutta, Nov. 19, Mrs. Catherine limb'', Allypore, aged 18. PAINTED AND PUBLISHID ST MURDO YOUNG, 7NZ STYX Orrxes, 112, STRAND, LONNINII• T' Mk Cortipi be deli TOT 10, ........._ will 1 Conn Trish Const Foi Univt FIRS no oh No. sion 1 Cc hiy ac also t ticnla ASY 70, Color Foste Willi Johu Freau Capt. Sun. for t servi • Ia lieu:, pang ST( new ti.ive kioi throv liani NMI that No. Ch• Dr. ON: an vor the az* as to I wh for , tte At 1 tht str, tin . 0 st-j ~.~ e,-z.