The Sun. — London, England, 1822-01-22 00:00:00

t )t.l tet • . . - _ , '• . •• • , • •• . -- - • •.' • , ''.., :, l, ',"• :1 :. _ ,_ F 7- 7.7 . i ..• Vi iir.x.:, .. .. • , ~.. , • . •.t ')' -4 ' _ ,- A., -,:__, , t,,,..._----- .....,,,,;. • , A ( 7. , t 4 4 4 1 ~.. // tqf P l , 4 7 , ~. ~... ...• • _ • • .. i- 1 . :..s).'''.,k-L- i , - T-sE , 7 - " wfw .. . 6 • • / J J _ .. • .04 UMBER 9176.1 TUESDAY„TANU,kRY 22, IS2 , . PRICE SEVENI'EI4CE. ViC 7774 LI, I 11 1 G-OFFICE, Jan. IS, 1822. E CaatiVISSIONERS - for VICTUAL LING His ALIJESTY 'S sViIVY do hereby give Xo tice. That on Monday, the .28th instant, they will be ready to receive Tenders -in writing (scaled up), and treat for Che Hundred Thousand Gallons of WEST INDIA RUM, of the strength of S per cent. under proof by Sikes's hydrometer. One Hundred Tonss of MUSCOVADO SUGAR; F ifty Tons of BLACK SMYRNA RAISINS; to be an operable to samples of not less than twu pounds weight each, to be produced with the Tenders': - brnt Thousand Quarters of flew ENGLISH PEASE ; i 4 "d One Th ousan d Sa c k s o f ittsKET MEAL; deliveri'd into His Majesty's Victualling Stores at tPlArd in the s pace of One Month (the Biskd Meal and v,, kill by equal u , rekly proportions), and to be paid for by „, 4 14 'Poyable,withoutinterest, sixty ..4(10 after date; '4C,,,zditions of the Contracts may .be seen at the Seers ta r 'Y O f fice. h A'n r egard, will be had to any Tender in which the Price 1 : 11 nbt be inserted in words at length, or that shall 21 " t be d e li vere d to the llo , ird before One o'Clock on the said the 28th instant; noritidess the Person who makes h e render, or saute Person on his behalf, attends to answer W.4olealled for. . LORD J. RUSSELL'S SECOND LETTER TO THE YEOMANRY AND FARMERS OF THE COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. WOBURN-ABBEY, JAN. 4, 1822. LAW INTELLIGENCE. soundest principles,. show that these premises' werenot worth half the ,aim 'oStimatecton the part of the plaintiff - - Mr. Samiiel Cochrane, the'architect ,Otthe. East lndia,Com a parry, estimated the value.of „these premises, carefully applying • the principles of valuation laid down by a:0 Vice-Chancellor. His valualion of the i' ! 'atehouseis en. Cutler:street - was, 4,9701.4 the houSes there 3001., and the warehOuses flaydon. , squara 3001.. making . a total,of 45701. a year —that he thought the real value at a fair market price.- a - In his .coaiscience • he believed he could not have get more than 5;5701. year for these prethises4 • from any ordinary' tenant in the market. • Mr. John Shaw, Sura*yor, knew these warehouses, and with • reference - to the principles laid down in the Vice.-ChancellOr'a' judgment, had considered their year y.• 'value, which'-eXacalp „ corresponded with that gtven by the last • witness, and upon the, same principle. I • • Mr. Pilkington, . architect, :estimated the value of these..; . premises with the ttvo preceding witnesses; and this value'c actly corresponded with theirs. „ Mr. J. Winstanley, anctiOneer,,Was Well acquainted-with the" 'l4 general value of the warehouses, and had surveyed the prerni44 . in question..- His estimate Of their value was an annual renLof 5,025.; taking an average from 1803 downwards, drawn from his knowledge of what other property of a similar kind let for • in the market: He should have been satisfied with such a rent, had he had them to let in the ordinary way. . . -'lllr. G. Shuttle Worth, auctioneer, was conversant in the value of warehouses i l n general ; had surveyed these, and estimated their annual va.ue at 5,4531., deducting 151. per cent. for vari, ous contingencies, which would reduce the annual rent to 4,6671. Be thotight the height of these particular warehouses was ini jurious ; and his estimate was.merely formed • with reference to the ordinary and useful height. - Mr. Charles Iltigart, - auctioneer, had also surveyed these premises, and his valuation . was 4,1501. annual rent; but this • sum merely applied to its value last year. Such eXtensive pre mises could not be brought all at once into the market, without a depreciation of their real value. His estimate•'`had no re ference to the value of this property for a series of past years. 111.. Lucas knew these warehouses, and valued them at 6,300 annual rent. The dock-acts bad certainly materially de pressed the general value of warehousing property. The de pression commenced in 1302, but was more sensibly felt in 1805, - when the London Docks opened. The, valuation of 6,3001. a year, he really- deemed excessive, and could not, h e thought, have been easily got for them betweedthe'years-1804 and 1821. Had he them to let doting that period, he Should - haregladly closed with such an offer. • Mr. John Drinkall estimated the value of this property at 4 ; 7001. average annual rent. - • • The evidence being closed on both sides, Dlr. Sergeant VAIJOHAN was heard in reply. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS summed up the evidence to the Jury, who retired at half-past four, and after remaining out for a few minutes, returned with a verdict that the annual value of all the premises was 7,0001., from the year 1804 to the yeat 1821. COURT OF CHANCERY. JAY. 21. EX-PARTE CARROLL, IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD AND The LORD 'CHANCELLO R p os tponed his judgment in- this case until Thursday next. • BILIMAII Y. MORDAN• Mr. AGAR applied for an injunction to restrain the defendant from making, or causing to be made, any pens according to the . patent of the plaintiff: The late Mr. Bramah, whose son the plaintiff was, had obtained a patent for a peculiar manne r o f dividing quills, by which he was enabled to make ten or twelve pens out of a single quill, instead of one according to the usual Method. The late Mr. Bramah carried on his business, in partnership with his—sbn,,until . the time of his death; and when that occurred, his son took out the' administration of his effects, and therefore became entitled to the benefit of the patent, of which he had been in possession up to that moment. The de fendant had been an apprentice to Mr. Bramah, and was dis charged frthn his service in 1819. .The facts were verified on affidavit.--Injunction granted. •fid oa od COURT OF KING'S BENG% JAN. 21. STEPHENS V.. BROGEEY. UNI D FRATERNITY OF ANCIENT FREE AND ACUEPTED MASONS. THE ANNIVERSARY FESTIVAL in ho notr trof the BIRTH-DAY of the M. W. GRAND f 4‘ER of ENGLAND, his Royal Highness he DUKE j,USSEX, will b e c elebr a ted a t FREEMASONS' HALL, 4 , 1 0 n, on MONDAY; the 28th January inst. lin t its , Fifteen Shillings each, to .be had of the Stewards, at Freernasons' Hall, until Friday, the 25th January 8 t) after which date none will on any account be issued. •By Order of the Board-of Stewards,- • H. LEWIS, Secretary. P o , , Will clear out this week, "aN DIEMEN 4 S LAND and NEW SOUTH %VALES, With Liberty to call at Cork,. .. „ t ; THE fine fast-sailing new-coppered SHIP MACCLESFIELD, JOHN MOORE, 14,t , \• • Connuandei. Burthen 385 tons, lying in '4',"` the London Dock. Has only accommoda tioll3 two Cabin Passengers. ST winch, or for Freight, apply to BUCKLES, BAG and BUCHANAN, 33, Mark-lane. PUBLICATIONS. This Day was published, In One Volume, 1211 w. (price 7s. Gd. sewed), RAMMAIRE de la LANG U E ITA LIENNE, snirie d'un COURS tie THEMES. Par G. POLIDOR!. tl of S ( o l d , ) Y It. Hunter, St. Paul's Church-yard ; and at the Au 't No. 33, Great Pulteney-street, Golden 7 square. Lf)o e . Where may'lte poet; ..NZO, on Italian Novel (price Ss. Gd. sewed); a " t•s . ' 4l Translation of Milton's Comus, Lycidas, Allegro and 11 ; ;Z" 0 s and of the Laurent of 'lasso, by Lord Byron, with wer by Leonora. .. . 1 This Day was published, An erne tarer Volum, A•cr. vrios 120. in boards, COURSE of SERMONS for the FES -I:IVALS and FAS I - S of the CHURCH of ENGLAND. Ar ch , -By JOSE do n PUI BOLDEN purr, A.M: " e neott of Lon, and Vicar of St. Martin in the Fields. Cy st f or F. C. and J. Ilirington, No. 0., St. Paul's tch- Yard, and No. 3, Waterloo place, Pall-wall. ' .1. Of whom may be had, .by the sante Author, Ltii,' ( ' Fourth Edition of a COURSE of SERMONS for the 11. ,'":S DAY, throughout the Year. in 2 vols. BVu. price ......2.:1n hoards. Iu the Press, and will speedily be published, prit‘,New Edition, carefully corrected thrOughont, of 11 E CLERICAL GUIDE, or ECCLE kezi , SIASTICAL DIRECTORY; containing a complete A Civr of the Pre!Mrs and other Dignitaries of the Church : 4 11,1,1 1 7 of all the Benefice* in England and Wales, arranged t4„ . .l l "etically in their several Counties, Dioceses, Arch(lea -111,':,.", &c. The Names of their respective Incumbents, tar - r t . ,i., 41 ' wherein they were instituted, the Population of the 'cc, '`, Cs r Value of the Livings, Names - of 'the Patrons, &c. 11 )4 "mil an Appendix, containing Alphabetical Lists of t he Plenefices which are in the Patronage of the Crown, I) 6 , ls ,hoPs, Deans, and Chapters, and other Public Bodies. Yilre'ed for F. C. and J. Rivington, 62, St. Paul's Clrurch .,<Lnul 3, Waterloo place; Pall-mall. 114 tki Thiswas:published, 11) "'tly printed in One Volume, so. price 18s. in boards, the Second Edition, of 4 ACTICAL LECTURES upon the GOS- PEL of ST. JOHN. Part I. comprising the Six Fit st Chapters. Alt er 4 Y the Rev. JOHN ROGERS PITMAN," M.A. t i els• -at e Morning . Preacher at . .l3elgrare and Berkeley Cita sqltg:i.lnll alternate Evening Preacher at the Foundling and 4 N,Cdit' I3ucpitais. D r • l 'l a, ‘ V' P. C. and J. Rivington,62, St. Paul's Church-yard, 04,1;„ 4 terloo-place, Pall Mall; -Cadet!, Strand ; Hatehard, o"ltot . ,'J; Ogle, Duncan, and Co. Holborn; and Rice, f wh 4 treet, Berkeleuare. °l4 'nay be had,. by the same Author, price 7s. bound, t ) ''',X(.;p l ,„ -the S:eond Edition, of -1- 417"rl'A. ex variis ROMANIS . POE TIS qui in Scholis 'cantor. '4l.s 1- D a y lt, Av„s p u bli s h e d, pri c e in•board,, 2i. 2s. 4- Th The Seventh Quarto Volume of LWORKS of the late Right Honourable !' r gist er — ,,LiMUND BURKE, containing Speeches in West '' hi 'lall on the impeachment uf Mr. Hastings, Wlth u duction addressed to Lord Viscount Milton. P r i v , te By the Bishop of ER. I til.". for F. C-and J. ltivin'tun, 62, St. Paul's Church ‘ W 11 . 4" 3 , Waterl oo -pl a ce, Pall-mall. t ntl 4.; 1 11 Octavo Editi on is in the Press, forming the 13th li tl d ei lk ",' Volumes of Mr. Burp e's Works. The 4th, sth, eql 'Atilarto olumes may be bad to complete that Edi- Cl ' ' 4 " tl Works ' ' ' hoards A re le in 1 2 Octavo Volumes, price, in, ;'iti o 1 W opies of VolumesX. iOctavo ' t it 11 ' on Royal Paper, may be C had to complete that ...,...z4. N This Day were published, 7,%Printed in a small Volume. price 3s. half-bound, ii s pe LIAR DIALOGUES on interesting ' üb . ••All of Jects, intended for the Amine...slept and Nome ,., Y°ling Ladies in their HOuts of Leisure on Sundays. r , v t i ro greh * • . and .. ..tring - , . i i ‘ ed f ° P C V St Paul's 'Yard; and N 0. 31 3: a LADY. \Valet too-place, Pall-Mall. . MR. LOVEDAY'S DAUGHTERS. , T his Day was published, with Ten Cuts, price Is. , -11 . F. MIRACULOUS HOST TOR- T „ 12„'43RED by the JEW, under the reign of Philip le Be!, tiri,?o: heing the Legend which converted the Daughters of \-"uGLAs ,-,iri LOVEDAY, Esq. under the reign of Louis the •'e Collet", of ''Y ti 'n 1 821; from the original French Work authorised Theolo ,, v Paris,at - in the Publisher's pos &slur, „7., TEN . ~.,,,,. tiz '—'rh " ith GUIS. copied from the . same . Work. i bil l „,,,___ e Arms—Bar g ai ning —i lteceiving—Delivering—Sta i in.:, llagellating—Lancing ~..Boiling—Recovering— Burn-3io 3io which is' adrli,d, • • ' Pri n , ed R. LOVED'S NARRATIVE. e2_ „ , fur William Hone, No. 45 2 Lurigate-hill, and No. 4 ateruoster-row. GENTLEMEN—Let us now pass to other plans of relief po pularly agitated. It is said, that as we cannot raise corn to the price required by taxation, we must bring down taxation to the price of corn. But how ? The borrowed money was in a de based currency, it is said, and we ought not to pay it in a cur rency of higher value. This is easily said ; but to .make the distinction thus laid down, - I conceive to be, in impos sible. Half of the debt was contracted before the Bank-notes were depreciated, and the interest upon that part was paid, dur ing the latter part of the war, in the debaSed money ; the other half was contracted when money had sunk in value, and we are now paying the interest in the restored currency; so that some (4 the public creditors get too little, and others are getting too much. But the diflizent e parts arc so mingled and confounded together, in • the course of trade and bitsmess, that to separate themis quite impracticable. • There are persons who advise a large reduction of interest on the whole debt. But this is a measure to be resorted to. in a case of extreme necessity. The nation thereby declares itself bankrupt. Consider what it is for a country, whose greatness is mainly founded upon commerce, to proclaim itself insolvent. Reflect upon the national dishonour ; the extensive ruin ; the embarrassment of all dealings between man and man ; the dif ficulty of restoring credit ; the danger to the peace of society; that a bankruptcy implies ; and I think that you will then agree with me, that every other • resource ought to be tried. Among these resources there are two very obvious—The first is a severe system of retrenchment—a spare regimen for all who live upon the public money. When an individual is unable to pay his debts, he does not, or ought not to say—" My carriage and horses are necessary to me, I must keep them ;" he says—" I have no money, and cannot keep my carriage and horses."— In the same way the Government ought to renounce every species of lux ur y. M r . H ume stated last year that we might save by economy 3,000,0001. yearly. 1 will suppose only 2,000,0001. of this retrenchment to be practicable, and 500,0001. to be saved in other ways that Mr. Hume did not contemplate. We have thus 2,500,0001. taken off our expences. The other source, from which-some relief may be obtained is the sinking fund. The operation of this fund was very clearly explained in a paper written by the Earl of Lauderdale some time ago. During r the war an artificial prosperity was creat ed by an immense expenditure of capital, which raised the prke of all produce : since the peace, on the contrary, the Go vernment, instead of raising 30 or 40,000,0001. a year, by a loan to be laid out in food, clothing, and pay of our army and navy, have been raising as much as they could collect beyond their 'immediate wants to repay the holders of stock. Thus capital or money, instead of being expended with profusion, has been col lected and accumulated in the hands of capitalists or monied men ; and inasmuch as the one excess created artificial prospe rity, the. other tends to produce artificial distress. I know, in deed, that Mr. Vansittart, and the Agricultural Committee after him, have held, that the accumulation of money, and the low rate of interest consequent thereon, will enable the land lords to relieve themselves, in part, from the heavy burden of their mortgages. It is unnecessary to say, that to encourage men to pay their money in taxes, that they may afteewards bor row the same money from merchants and brokers, paying inte rest for the use of it, is but sorry comfort. It is indeed merely a scheme for making one set of landlords come to the relief of another set, through the agency of the monied men, who are to be enriched by the transaction. But, dark as such a hope must be, in point of fact, the landlo r d s are lik e l y to b e d eprive d even of this resource. Instead of lending their money at a low inte rest to English landholders, the monied men find it more pro fitable to get 7 and 8 per cent. by the purchase of Danish bonds, Prussian stock, shares of the Neapolitan loan, &c. But the money which is extracted by the hard gripe of the Exciseman, from the English farmer and labourer, is placed in the hands of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, -who buy stock with it : the seller of the stock purchases with his cash a share in Mr. Rothschild's Neapolitan loan, and the Englishman's tax is then sent off for Naples to pay the Austrian troops for pre serving the Yeapolitan nation from the horrors of a free Go vernment. And this is the manner in which Mr. Vansittart and a Committee of the House of Commons propose to relieve the distresses of the farmers of England. I think you will agree with me, that it would be better to abolish the Sinking Fund, and repeal the taxes which go to its support. With re spect to the amount, in 1819 the House of Commons voted that there ought to be 'an effectual Sinking Fund of five millions ; but it cannot fairly be taken at more than two millions and a half. In twenty years of peace this Sinking Fund would pay. but a small proportion of our debt. It would be much better certainly to relieve 'our present embarrassment, and provide for the debt by other means. If we add the two millions and a half which we had before saved by retrenchment, to the two millions and a half of the Sinking Fund, we have five millions that may be taken off the taxes. The next question is, what taxes ought to be taken off? For my own part, I should clearly say, take off the taxes on salt, candles, leather, soap, and part of the malt-tax, which press upon the farmer and agricultural labourer. Political economists will tell us that these taxes do not affect agriculture more than any other taxes, if they are all paid by the con sumer. That is indeed very true, if you can persuade people to consume; but the difficulty lies in this—that men will not be consumers of an article that is overtaxed. Thus, if A, a fanner, wishes to sell his corn to B, a consumer, B, having no longer the same. quantity of paper-money . at command, has re trenched the quantity of puddings and pies with which he re galed his friends, and has laid down two of his horses. Thus A, the farmer, is unable to sell his corn at the price which would pay him for the taxes and wages he has. laid out in pro ducing it. But if these taxes are taken off, the farmer can af ford to sell his wheat at a lower price, and even if he does not obtain any great profit, yet his cem is always of a value to inaintsin himself and his family, and some surplus willremain to lay out on manufactures. To resume what I have said, then, it appears to me that your exertions, if directed to petitioning for a Corn Bill, will cer tainly fail of success, and in all probability drag you into a worse situation ; it appears to me likewise, that nothing can be done with justice or true policy to lighten the pressure of the debt. The only safe remedies that are at hand seem to consist in a retrenchment of the public expences, the abolition of the Sinking Fund, and the repeal of som e o f the most obnoxious taxes. I have advised you, without any factious motive, not to look for relief from measures .that the - Ministers are likely to originate ; still more strongly would I advise you not to place your reliance upon what is called a discussion in the House of Commons of your grievances, your interests, and your prospects. Too often have you looked to a debate as an occasion from whence some specific cure for your disorder was to proceed : but what has been usually the event ? In an assembly which is on these occasions " A mob of gentlemen who speak with ease," one member gets up after another to state his peculiar views and his peculiar nostrum ; but even though each of these nostrums were endowed with incomparable virtue, the mixture of so m a ny produces nothing but confusion. It is the Minister alone who can pass a measure, and he must be compelled to do it. I, too, have my nostrum, but I see no use in proposing it to the incre dulous. I shall, therefore, conclude by adyising you to re solve for yourselves, after patient mediation, what measures are likely to be of service to . you, and when you have done that, to embody your wishes in a petition, firm; strong, and resolute. I cannot conclude without reminding you e however inflam matory it may be thought; that the expenses of the country are closely connected with the question of, Parliamentary Reform. In 1816 and 1617, motions for the reduction of the army and the appointment of en efficient Finance Committee were sup ported by a great majority of county Members, and nega tived by a large majority of the House, consisting . almost en tirely of Members for small boroughs. The few county and city Members who supported extravagance on these occa-. sions, only retain their seats from the great expense of elec tions. 13 not this a practical proof of the necessity of Re form ? I have the honour to be, your faithful and obliged servant, J. RUSSELL. This was an action of assault and battery... The defendant suffired judgment to go by default, and upon an inquisition of damages before a Special Jury at the Secondary's Office - in Tri nity Vacation, a verdtct was found .for the plaintifF—daniages 80)1. In .Michaelmas . Term a rule Nisi was granted for saung aside the inquisition, and granting a new writ of inquiry on the ground of excessive damages. The particulars of this case have already been fully before the public. The plaintiffis a respectable wo r ki ng silversmith and i the defendant s, a respect a bl e arid wealthy whole sa l e jeweller, and a member of the Common Council of the City of London. At a meeting of the trade, at which both parties were present, for the purpose of considering the subject of - stamp duties on mourning rings, it became a matter of inquiry who was the in former against a particular individual who was supposed to have violated the law. It was stated by. some person pre sent, that the defendant was the informer, of which there was not the slightest proof ; and conceiving from what then passed that the plaintiff had circulated the report, so in jurious to his feelings and reputation, he became highly in dignant. Before, however, 'he came to the decided 'conclusion that the plaintiff was the author of the calumny, he sent him a note, desiring a conference upon a matter highly. inte resting to them both. Within an hour after this note reached the plaintiff; he attended at the defendant's counting-house. In the mean time the defendant had just written a letter to Mr. Lambert, the Chairman of the Meeting at which the calumny was circulated, in which he exculpated himself from the im putation, and in doing so had wound up his feelings to the highest pitch of indignation against the author of the slander. Immediately after he had sealed this letter the plaintiff en tered the counting-house, and, heated and, irritated by his own feelings, he taxed the plaintiff with having circulated the re port. The plaintiff uttered a few words, which the defendant supposed were the Commencement of an avowal and justifica tion of what he was supposed to have said, when, in the heat of the moment, he seized a light gig ivhip which hung up in the counting-house, and committed a violent assault upon the plaintiff: The whip was broken on his head, and he sustain.. ed a very severe personal injury. After the unfortunate affray, the plaintiff was accommodated - with water to wash his wounds, and was sent home in a coach. This was the general outline of the case, and the Jury gave the damages above-mentioned. Mr. C. l'Hiatirs now shewed cause against the rule, and in able and eloquent argument contended that the rule for setting aside the inquisition must be discharged. lie referred to a variety of cases, in which the Court had been slow to interfere with the province of juries, even in cases where the damages were apparently excessive. Unlctss the damages were so glar ingly vindictive and outrageous es to be against the common sense and feeling of mankind, he insisted that the Court ought net to interfere. This was not such a. case ; and he took an able review of all the circumstances to shell that the Jury were perfectly warranted in the verdict they had given. Mr. SCARLE TT and Mr. DENMAN werebeardein support of the - rule. They urged that the motive of their respectableclient, in seeking to have this case submitted to the consideration of a second Jury, was not so much with a view of lessening the da mages, asof vindicating his character from the supposition that the intemperate act into which he was unhappily betrayed, had been the result of deliberation and a malignant feeling towards the plaintiff, with whom he had never had the slightest misun derstanding previous to this trancaction. Conscious that he hal been mistakenly led to believe that the plaintiff was the author of a most Injurious aspersion on his character, he deeply lamented the error into which he had fallen, and e soon as he was undeceived, helook the earliest opportunity of ex pressing his sense of contrition. It was not a pecuniatee object which influenced him in the further agitation of this nnhanpy dispute, but having through lif e borne an - irreproachable cha racter amongst his fellow-citizens, he was most anxious to res cue his conduct from that inflammatory and exaggerated com plexion which had been given to it by the in g enuity and tor tui ous colouring of an eloquent advocate, who had stated eir.. cumstances, in pursuance of his instructions no doubt, which were not borne out in evidence. The unfortunate acts of Violence committed on the plaintiff were the effect of mo mentary irritation, excited to the highest ignition by the equivocal manner in which the plaintiff demeaned himself when accused of being the author of the slander. They further urged, that at this time the defendant was labouring under the influence of a severe domestic calamity, well calculated to destroy that equanimity of mind which generally marked .his behaviour through life. At that moment the wife of his bosom was on her death-bed, and in a few days afterwards he actually carried her to the grave. Complaining that the case had not been fully and fairly laid before the .fury—that the defendant was left without Counsel, contrary to his positive instructions to his then attorney-- a that he had not the opportunity of making an adequate defence—that the tribunal itself was not of the first order, and urging that there was enough in the case to shew that the result was not satisfactory, they trusted that the Court would send the case to a secondinquisition. The CeitinT were clearly of opinion, under nil the circum stances, that this was not a case in which the decision of the. Jury ought to be called in question. They were by to means satisfied, that if the case went to another Jury, the result would be dif ferent; and seeing nothing in the case to warrant them in the conclusion that the Jury had acted from any undue or impro per motive, they not feel themselves warranted in disturbing the verdict. —Rule discharged. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,Ian. 21. REVS MIL NYNAsToN, V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. CLAIM CP TITHES. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN - stated to the Jury, that this case came before them by an issue f:om the Vice-Chancellor, to as certain the value of certain warehouses in the occupancy of the East India Company, that was the letting value for each and every year from Lady day, 1804, to Lady day, 1821. The facts of the case were these :—Mr. Kynaston was the impropriator of the tithes of the parish of 'St..l3otolpb, which property desoerid ed to him as an inheritince, having otiginally been purchased for 12,0001. or 0,0001. by one of his ancestors.. His grand father had been for years embarked in litigation upon the same subject, and although the fortner dispute had been adjust ed, yetit was the lot of the present plaintff to be .nain embroiled with the East India Company respecting the amount of tithes which these particular warehouses 0401 to pay to him as 'rec tor of the parish. Ile was glad that the jury had seen the premises, and-were therefore better able to estimate the differ ent valuations which they would this day hear applied to, the particular premises in question. As brig ago as the 37th year year of the reign of Henry VIII. in consequence of some dis putes between the citizens of London awl particular rectors, an Act of Parliament was passed which established a commission or the great officers of State to affix a permanent scale at which the London tithes should be paid for the future. The regula don then established, and ever since tcted upon, Was this—. that for every 10s. of annual rent paid by a tenant for his pre mises, the tithe Payable was fixed at 13.4 d. ; and forevery 20s. rent, the sum of 2s. 9d. The East India Company not being tenants, but in point of fact landlords thmiselves, denied the pay ment of tithes altogether upon these ?remises, on the ground that they were not tenants, and therebre without the operation . of the Act of Parliament ; but after a long course of litigation, it was decided in the House of Lords, that they were bound to pay the tithe, in the same proportice as if their warehouses were under a different occupancy. Inthepresent case, the liti gation between the parties arose out of disputed estimates of va luation upon the fair stowage which tie premisescontainedtlar ing their occupation in the years dready mentioned. The -Learned Sergeant concluded by statng generally, the amount, of tonnage which his witnesses would prove these warehmises were capable of containing. The estimate of valuation, he begged to - say, was intended in this case. to be affixed retro spectively., and not prospectively . . A document was put in, shewing the rate of stowage charged by the East India Company to private merchants for storing their <veal& • Lord Chief Justice DALLAS,. before the. case proceeded far ther, begged to submit generally to the jury the main points to which he thought they ought throughout the trial to direct their Attention, First, what would these premises produce, if let to tenants annually from the .year 1804 to 1821, having reference to the prime cost of the building ? He did not mean that the prime cost ought to be considered as a conclusive rule, the Vice4;han cellor did not. think it was ; still it would, perhaps, baas well to consider that point also. Secondly, what would these Warehouses have produced, having reference to the general market price of warehousing in the city of London, for such a quantity of stowage as they were capable of containing ? Thirdly, was that quantity of stowage obtained with more convenience, and therefore ad vantage, to the tenant in this particular spot, than it was generally obtainable elsewhere? Was the value to the tenant thereby increased, and what ought to be the additional. price in eonse, quence ? Fourthly, if the substantial character of the building was such as to afford greater security than in the ordinary way against fire, robbery, &c. ; and what addition ought on that ac count to be allowed; and, lastly, if they were, from their pecu liar character and advantages generally, superior in value to common and ordinary property of that description, and what ought on that account to be-allowed ? , A Juror begged to observe, that he could not see how the prime cost couhl affect their present valuation ; tbr were he to take stores, he should . merely consider present value, and not what they might have cost. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS concurred in the opinion of the Juror; but said that it would be as well, after the litigation which had taken place upon this question,_ to make the estimate in a variety of w a ys, so a s to convey the best information to the Vice,Chancellor. The first witness was Mr. John Barrow, in the house of Sut ton, Halliday, and Co., East India brokers, who deposed that the schedule of rates charged by the Company were upon an average with the general charge for warehousing in the city of London. The premises in Haychton-square - were, in- his judg ment, the best in London. Moses Brandon, warehousekeeper, was well acquainted With the. East India Company's warehousing rates, which were upon an average with the general charges for the same in the city of London. .- , William Perry, clerk to Mr. Montagne, the surveyor, ex amined, said that the measurement of the warehouses in ques tion was 3,325,245 cubic feet; this included nothing but storage. The Ilayilon-square premises measured,in addition to the above, 220,951 feet, 9 inches, cube. Cross-examined.-.-This calculation did not include counting houses, or any.part not applicable to the stowage of goods. • Joseph Sill, a warehous-keeper and wharfinger, said that he thought the premises worth in June 1819, (then forming his estimate from the external appearance of the buildings, for he did not then obtain permission to enter) 11,0301. annually. In 11121 he obtained permission to inspect them internally, nail had examined them in detail under an order from the Court of Chancery, and he then confirmed his former valuation, stating, froWever, that he thought them' worth more; but, he made no addition, having been desired. to be moderate in his valuatio)t. Six shillings for every 100 square feet would make 11,4751. 12s. inclusive of two houses which adjoined the 'warehouses ; and 6621. 14s. was his valuation. of the Haydon-square premises. His estimate was not made upon any peculiar advantages which the-East India Company might derive from stores so situated, for their chartered trade, but-upon what he considered the an nual-rental which there would be no difficulty of obtaining for them generally, if to be publicly let for the purposes of trades The Lords of the Treasury had very wisely, as he thought, ap pointed these warehouses as the receptacle of : private trade—he had no doubt that if the Company gave up these warehouses, they would again be taken by the Treasury for the same pur pose. But he formed the above value intrinsically, and not upon,external or contingent. circumstances. Ile could not s a y whether in the yearslBlB and 1819 he should have found it easy to get tenants at th e ra t e h e m e ntioned ; but the sum he h a d set down was, in ibis opinion, the fair average valve from .1844 to 11;21, • taking the good and bad years together. The rent charged by the East India Company to private Merchants, for warehousing, amounted to double the sum he had set down in his present valuation. Cross-examined—He had no doubt that the value he Lad esti mated would he practically obtainable in the market. if they did not bring this price, he should say the trade of London was annihilated. his valuation fairly applied to the Average of. the last 17 -years :. he, could not speak to the value with . -precision for each and every year. Lord Chief JuStice DALLas.The issue to lre tried here, must, if possible, find the value for each and every year. Mr. Robert Smith, wharfinger and warehouseman, had valued these warehouses. His estimate was '11d; per ton per week, according to the East India Company's rate of charges for warehouse rent ; but he had no doubt that singe 1804 these warehouseS were worth from 10,0001. to 11,0001. a year, at an average - of years, between man and man, forming his opinion upon the articles usually contained\ hi them. -Their valnatats enhanced by their, capacity to 'contain a great variety of goods. He estimated the value upon the peace establishment ; were he to limit it to the years between 1804 andlBl4, it would be much higher. Cross-examined.—A warehouse of five floors, each 12,feet high, was more Valuable than one of six floors, each If; feet high, because of the intervening beams choking a proportion of the room. The efi'ett of the establishment of the London and West India Docks in 1804 did certainly depress the value of up-town warehouses, hut not below the estimate of iis. for every hundred cubic feet, liable to all taxes, &c. He made his calcu lation subject to all depression. He had not made a calculation of the value of such premises to an ordinary tenant, without re ference to the goods tit be stored ; but were - the Company to have been about to dispose of the premises in 1804 for a term of 21 years, he should have valued them at from 10,0001. to 11,0001, a. veal'. 1111- Prederiek Prirdey, a West India broker, acquainted-With 4.;!'2 value of warehouses, said, that in the years -1813 and 1814 these premises : would bring a rental of 13,0001. or- 14,bovi. year. The deprssion was the. loweSt from . lBo4 to 180, at which period they would not have - brought more than 10;0001. a year. In 1314 he had' no doubt they would. let on lease 14 years for 13,0001. a year. Mr. Richard Heald merely proved that the 'rate of rent for, stowage charged by the E7;st India Gonqiaoy eorrespondLd with the general market price. lie knew there was a deprqsion of value fur warehouses iionl 1804 to 1800, but not since that. period. Mr, Wm. Goold proved the rent which the East India Com pany paid for some stores to Mr. DaMberg to be 1,3421 a year ; but they only took them for ma temporary purpose, and d ey had the use of the crane, rope, and tackl?, and were exempt from all 'taxes and repairs. :They hav6 occupied them :at the s.une rent, from 101 7 to the present period,.ao y:ewly tenants. Mr. Perry was recalled,' and he said,. that according to the ratepaid by the Company for the last mentioned premises, which ''he knew, the value of those - .now under consideration would amount to 20,0001. a year. ' • ;Mr. Joseph Gwian, anyaNhiteet and surveyor, estimated the Value of thei,e warehouses at 1 1,9831: yearlx rent, and described the particulars o; which his valuation 'was -composed. _Froth -1801 to 1821, year by lear, he thought this their value to any tenant. Mr. Lang valued theni at the 'same yearly rent •as the last witness. • • . • • • The plaintiff's cr.se.v,:as here closed. Mr. Sergeant 14135 s then addressed the . Jury for the (blend ants and said . -that the teal question here was, what vain( these premises would have brought if let to any ordinary tenant is the general market during the nara between latarill 1821. N.;it' er party was, he thought, required to specify the actual yP sum for eac4 of the 17 years; the general_ average miaow it he, thought, satisfy all parties, if ascertained upon a safe and reasonable rtile'Of Calculation—not such as the east-India - pany ought to pay for the convenience of Their particular . gotx.s, and with their'peculiar privileges and advantages: but such as any ordinary tenant could pay in the market, were t?:. s.• to be let, as others, for private use. lie shOuld produie nesseS who; 'not acting in their estimate of valuation' upon. ante- cedent-hYpothesis, but upon plain practical a:Feet, wau l ,4 state more reasonable and applicable conclusions Which ukcy drawn from:the ori occurrencesin bnary - mark.t in' _ _ , ting of common warchou'ses in the city of i,ondtin. •:1I e e.r.tpied that: what the Company paid under particular circupstane%s fot warehouses was a fair criterion ; 'neither was their'n.ri rate of charge for warehouse becat'te 7 the it.b a d. a ti the adlamage of their Kootlg tieing available for the liAt Ile should ucw call witiwsscs, w.:10 would, ADMIRALTY SESSIONS. Yesterday these sessions commenced before the Right Hon. Lord STOWELL, who delivered the following address to the Grand Jury:— - • • . Gentlemen,—lt is my duty to address you respecting the duties- you are called upon to perform. It is the duty pf this Court to inquire into all offences committed on the high seas. . It is a jurisdiction of great importance, inasmuch as it extends to wherever the sea rolls in any quarter of the globe; It is Matter of great surprise, and of great credit. to those persons engaged on that element, that so few cases of human depravi ty occur within that jurisdiction. On the present Occasion - there • are-but two cases for your consideration, both of which are of a ' very serious nature, and will require your serious attention. The . first that will be preSented to you is a charge of a capital na.. tore, and one of very unpleasant occurrence. The charge is of rape, alleged - fa - have been committed upon a Married . woMan; the wife of another seaman serving in the same ship. In the • shape under which the case first reached us, it appeared one likely to give rise to a question of law; for it was re:. presented as one in which the accused had introduced him. self into the 'bed of the woman in the character. of husband ,• and, availing himself of that : deception, that he • had perpetrated the offence : lint upon looking et the deposi. tions, although in the-first instance, befOre he had completed MS intention, he was discovered, he afterwards, however, 'con. . Summated the act with violence. If the casehad stood as Was - at first represented, then a question .would have arisen whether, the offence having been committed by fraud, and without the ingredient of force, this case came within the descriptioft of . • rape, which must always be perpetrated with riole.nce .;. bnt'aS , • the case now Stands, you will consider it one of an ordinary de•,. scription,. and pursue your inquiries in the -visual Manner,. - There will he another case presented to you of a singular .na tare, and ora very grave description. You are aware of the use of certain vessels denominated .life-boats, which are often highly instrumental in the preservation of. human life when ships are-stranded. The offence charged was, that upon a taro occasion, when one of these boats had approached a vessel in distress, the prisoners went out to plunder her, and in order to effect this purpose, cut away the rope by which the life-boat' • • was attached to the distressed vessel ; and by that means ear. wally prevented its approach.' The result was, that the lives of the captAin and three of the crew were unfortunately lost. You will. feel that this is a transaction which calls for the most Serious inquiry, and I have no doubt it will receive at. your ' hands the attention due to it. I have no further remarks to of- .•: fer, and therefore I recommend an immediate application to - , business." • The Grand Jury then retired • they soon afterwards returned, having found a true billk,•=ainsf CHARLES BENwETT, for fe loniously committing a rape on the body of Jane Newman, on the high seas, 300 leagues off the coast of Sierra Leone; on 'the 3d June, 1021.• The prisoner was brought - up and arraigned ; he pleaded Not Guilty. From the nature of the offence we abstain from publishing a detail of the evidence, which occupied a considerable - time. The Jury found the prisoner Not. Guilty. • • The Grand Jury again entered the Court, having found a true bill against John Stebbings, alias John William Stebbings, William Butcher, jun. Thomas Ellis, John Denny, and liam Butcher, for having on the 6th December cut away the tope by :which a life-boat had been fastened to a vessel in dis. tress, and thereby preventing the said life-boat from succouring the said vessel. Mr. Griffiths, the Foreman, in presenting the bill observed,' that he had been desired by the rest of the Jury to intonate to the Court-the high sense whicri they entertained of the'exer tions of two Lieutenants in his Majesty's service, Lieutenants Palmer and Carter, who had nobly risked their own lives in the a:tempt to preserve others. It was the wish of the .Jury that the circumstance should be made lenoWn to the Admiralty Board. _Lord STOwEr.r. said, that the Court would have an oppor tunity of hearing the evidence of 'thoge gentlemen, and would . attend to the. suggestion of. the Grand .Jury. • The . prisonersast mentioned wire then put to the bar and arraigned. They all pleaded Not Guilty.. litlng asked whether they would he tried_now or at the net ? - they all replied tbat they would be tried now. • • Mr. Justice BAYLEY inforthed the: Jury that this trial ryas likely to last. icowlidemble tiine, - and that as a'pro/onged ab nee _froth:home might be .inconvenient to themselves, aiid •4:agreeible to all parties to adjourn the trial :viler it haa,Once commenced, it was 'judged that it would be ,,ttier •to .dtfer the trial until an eaxly,..bour on the, filllowing • morning. . . • The Jury assented; and the.case s'aCructingly.deferred. ATeste'rday a 14ardniote was helo - 4Cthepitirch of se. Nicolastole Ahhey, Old. Fish-street, bti , - • fore'th6 Right *WorAipful defpid; for the ele'Cti - On of; a ComrtiOn inn for .'-the 'Ward of - o,ueenliithe; ht . the 'rOottt . . C:1 rriltiuAs: 111:6:11 WA • duly eletpd I:vith otkly •one voice. ; • air" 163 iii , c I ~ 09 I 05