The Sun. — London, England, 1832-11-28 00:00:00

OF TUE PUDLIC JOUINALS• --- Both factions are fluttered by the notice .we have drawn to their proceedings. They may depend upon it that the public attention shall not be allowed to nag. The • Times, as both parties know, will un flinchinely discharge its .duty. A system has been got up by certain mountebanks, under the operation of which no such thing as cool deliberation, or in dividual opinion, can henreforth have the slightest influence in directing the vo tes of Parliament, but the whole body of measures for- the next seven, or five, or three years, or what ever may be , the dura tion of that assembly, not merely in their outline, but in all their progressive and intermediate stages, down to the most minute details, are , now, on the eve of the election, to be handed: over by paltry knots of busy and conceited meddlers, seizing the dictatorship upon every hustings throughout the e mpire, handed over, we repeat, ready cut and dry, by these Jack Cade grandees, who assume to give orders to every candidate, in - the name of his constituents generally, though without one particie of authority from them ; in default of an entire-sub serviency to which commands no candidate must dare to - hope for any thing but a contemptuous re jection of his claims, and a rancorous persecution of his polit:cal character. The treatment expe rienced at the hands of such mob-jobbers by some of the ablest and most upright members who have ever maintained the rights of the people . of Eng land in Parliament, is a disgrace to the . nation, and if not res , sted and put to confusion by the collective efforts of all reasonable Englishmen, must render " representative government" itself a laughing-stock to those nations which have not tried it, and a curse to this, which it will have disappointed and de frauded. Sir Francis Burdett and Sir J. C. Hob house are well rewarded for the courage and con sistency of long political lives, by this notable en deavour of a slice of the rump of Westminater to substitute for one of them a military man, whose pretensions as a senator or statesman are not to be named in comparison with the long services of the old Members. The former Hon. Baronet well ehatacterized the pledgemongers who are ready to swallow whatever extravagance is proposed to them as the condition of their seat in Parliament,as promis ing to cut short all discussion in a deliberative assem bly, by " declaring themselves either ao thought less or so wise as to have come beforehand to an unalterable opinion on various difficult subjects." It appears from the statement of Sir Francis, that two persons whom he named, two forward bottle holders of Colonel Evans, and stout in their cham pionship of the pledging practice, were not long since Anti-Reformers themselves ! Pretty partisans these of a form of obligation which binds a man never to change his opinions, or never to act upon them if he does! The dishonest man, the hypocrite, says the Hon. Baronet, will gulp down pledges ad infinitum, while the man of high principle will reflect long before he makes a promise, feeling himself bound to the discharge it. And who are they that draw so freely on their neighbour's conscience ? Men who i2,equently, in their natural state, enjoy the happiest insignificance, and only emerge from it when they strut up to a candidate, and make a merit of putting to him questions which no gentleman who regards his own independence ought to answer, As for the opposition to Sir John Hobhouse , because eshe is nice," what does it amount to ? Why, to a de claration that there is no difference between an Anti- Reform Government and a Government which has carried the most extensive and valuable Reform that ever was proposed or contemplated. He who ob jects to a colleague or fellow-labourer of Lord Grey, on the same principles on which he would have con demned an officer of a boroughmonger Cabinet, al leges, in fact, that Reform is worth nothing to the country,—that the clamour for it by these same per sons who now reproach Sir John Hobhouse was vile hypocrisy on their part,—and that at all events, and under all circumstances, to be concerned it, administering the affairs of this country is a stigma upon the functionary who conducts them. The very statement of such a proposition is its refu tation. A letter in this day's Times makes men tion of the meeting summoned for to-day, to resolve against the house and window-tax. We are no friends to the window -tax, which is an outrage on mankind in irs principle, nor to the house -tax, which, if les objectionable in principle, is in practice most ini quitous ; hut we like not some hints which have reached us with regard to the proceedings of some actors in this anti-window-tax meeting. What bu siness has Mr. Hume to announce himself as chair man of a meeting which has riot yet taken place, and which has not yet therefore declared its sense upon the question of who ought to be chairman ? This single fact smells of the insolence of certain " rump" dictators. These people have nothing it, their conduct fair and manly. They get their half dozen pates together in a corner—scrawl the out line of what proceedings they desire to have car ried—pack. the hall, or other place of assembly, with tools of their own faction—hoot and bellow down every man who has spirit enough to speak or think for himself, and then impudently palm upon die world the result of their own miserable machina tions, as a free-will offering of whole bodies of respect able Englishmen upon the altar of their country. It seas but yesterday that a gentleman, who is a candi date for a new borough, received a proposal whiel, was designed to entrap him into a participation in the demagogue practice of mating up self-constituted " provincial committees" on public questions, and arrogating for their members the honour due to the freely elected depositaries of a imbue trust. The Hon. Candidate very properly rejected the solicita tion, knowing well that a cause so unworthily managed can never eventually prosper. We shall watch these" Destructives"—these worst and mos! malignant enemies of all free Government, and it will not be our fault if the people of this country be not taught how to estimate--how, moreover, to render them harmless. We are nevertheless bound to add, that the Conservatives are worthy of such magnanimous allies. A correspondent, " Justitia," describes the resolutions of a Dutch anti-English meeting at Norwich. From 60 to 70 saersons attended; no public voice,—no dissen ;ienS therefore was heard within their strictly onarded walls. The haters of war were no other than the patriotic supporters of Lord Stormont, and the " public" of Norwich was, by a trick, con ducted to a different place of meeting. The poor devils are working hard for signatures, It is with great pleasure we turn from the oppressive or im pertinent proceedings of the two miserable factions here described, to the account of a meeting fairly and regularly assembled, and calmly and deliberately discussing the means of constitutional rebel. A, the meeting of the deputations for the various pa rishes of Westminster last night, we see no as =lllation of power, no attempt at dictation —no in solent messages issued to independent men, to obey their summons and adopt their opinions,—but re spectable and experienced householders rationally executing the undoubted right of English subjects— the preparation of a remonstrance against what they feel to be a grievance,—Times. Did we not know from other sources the factious motives of the Tories in the treasonable support which they are at present lending to the obstinacy of the Dutch against their own Government, it would appear to us a mystery how any set of British men or British merchants should have cho sen the very time of countenancing the fling of Holland when that King was opposing the interests of their own nation as well as those of Belgium and of justice. We have again and again asked those Conservatives who profess to know anything on the subject to say, " would they abet the Ki ng of Holland in his design of closing the Scheldt ?" They have never dated to answer our question, be cause they well know that if they did so honestly, the illusion which they wished to create in favour of Holland would insurntly vanish, and that their hoodwinked supporters would desert them. For them, therefore, we need produce no facts, because, though ignorant enough of all political or commer cial history, and therefore requiring information, they will noo . profit by any statements which are op nem to their direct interests or party prejudices. They even effect to think that the Dutch are ma king no unreasonable demands on Belgium, and that the close of - the - Scheldt is not the bribe which King William holds out to tempt the cupidity of the merchants of Amsterdam and Rotterdim, who have opened their purses to support the war. The• fed lowing details will undeceive their followers, as they will show the importanee which the Dutch have at all times attached to the question of the Scheldt, the measures which they have taken at different epochs to interrupt . its navigation, and their alarms lest the trade of Antwerp, under an independent Government, should materially injure that of their . own commercial capital. The rivalship between Antwerp and Amsterdam, it is well known, began in their youth, and under their subjection to the same Government. • Towards the end of the 15th century they both shared in the spoils of Bruges, which was then the richest emporium of Europe, and which could only be suddenly checked in its career of prosperity- or reduced in its magnificent wealth by a rebellion against its Sovereign, and by the assistance which he received in punishing its disobedience from the merchants of the two hostile cities. 4 Antwerp being better situated for trade than either Bruges, Amsterdam, or any town in the Netherlands, soon outstripped them all in extent of traffic, in amount of shipping, in activity of business, and in the accumulation of wealth. The accounts of its riches and magnificence in the zenith of its power and prosperity, though well au thenticated, almost exceed credibility. Guicciar dini's description of the Netherlands (quoted in An derson'. History of Commerce), we find it stated that " about 2,500 ships were sometimes seen lying at anchor in the Scheldt before the city,—that it was usual for .500 ships to come in and go out in one day, and 400 to come up the Scheldt at one tide, that 10,000 carts were constantly employed in carrying merchandise to and from the neigh bouring countries, besides many hundreds of wag . eons daily corning and going with passengers, and 500 coaches used by people of distinction," Wa have then an enumeration of the different nations which had their factories in Antwerp, of the kinds and amount of articles in which they traded to all countries, and of the variety of professions practised in the city, with the persons engaged in each,—a -pecies of statistic which tends to give credibility to the more startling anti apparently exaggerated parts of the description. The date to which this immense prosperity is referable is from 15-10 to 1560, but its destruction was at hand. In the troubles of the Netherlands, which began a few years afterwards, it took part with the side of tole ration and freedom. It was in consequence sacked by the Duke of Alba's barbarous soldiery in 1576, when, as is stated by Camden, " this most excellent of cities, this most flourishing mart town without exception in all Europe, was plundered by the Spanish garrison, who mutinied for want of pay." But this was nothing to what it endured in 1585, when it was entered after a siege by the Duke of Parma, arid was plundered by his army three successive days—when more than 3,000 of its inhabitants were put to the sword, and as many more were burnt in the conflagration of the city or thrown into the Scheldt. Even this blow it might have recovered, but having been retained by the Spaniards when the seven Dutch provinces asserted their independence, its trade was as cruelly perse cuted by its Dutch rivals as its rights were de stroyed by its domestic oppressors. The Dutch soon became powerful at sea, They every where attacked the maritime dominion, and interrupted the maritime trade, of their former masters. The Fle mings were stripped of all their commercial im portance, which was transferred to Holland ; and Dutch ports, though inferior in all respects to Antwerp, deprived it of all its trade. Am sterdam, which cannot be compared with Ant werp for advantage of position, soon rose to be one of the greatest trading ports in the world, and w a s destined to maintain its superiority for centu ies, chiefly by the continued oppression of its rival. " Although," says Sir William Temple, " Amster dam triumphs in the spoils of Lisbon and Antwerp, it is a very incommodious haven, being seated on s uch shallow waters,—so as that ordinary ships cannot come up to it without the advantage of ides, nor great ones without unlading, the entrance into the Texel and the passage over the Zuyder Zee being more dangerous than a voyage to Spain, lying all in blind and narrow channels; — so that it is not a haven that draws trade, but trade that fills a haven, and brings it into vogue." The treaty,of Westphalia, which, after a war of half a century, made a new arrangement of Europe as remarkable as that made by the treaty of Vienna established the independence, the naval power, and the commercial prosperity of the Dutch United Provinces on the new basis of universal recog uition. These seven provinces had long been as independent of Spain, as Belgium now is of Hol land. From the year 1570, when they laid the toundation of their liberties, till 1648, when Spain acknowledged their independent existence, they had made wars,—they had formed alliances,—they had discovered and engrossed new channels of trade,—they had effected conquests in the new and old worlds, and had established colonies in both,—they had treated on equal terms with the greatest States of Europe, and had even been applied to to assist by their ship ping the very Monarch who offensively regarded them as his " rebel subjects." But no sooner did they secure their own independence than they re solved to destroy the pretensions of any commercial Poe er which might become a rival. Accordingly, as they were in a situation to dictate the terms of the treaty of Westphalia to Philip IV., they resolved that Antwerp, remaining under the dominion of his House, should not be allowed to rise final the ashes :n which it had been buried by the civil wars, and in which it had been kept enveloped since the rise of the Dutch republic. By the 14th article of the treaty, therefore, they stipulated for the perpetual close of the Scheldt, together with that of the canals of the Sas and the Swyn, and all the other mouths of rivers discharging themselves into the sea in the neighbourhood of Zealand. Thus was the trade of Antwerp effectually destroyed by the jealousy of the merchants of Amsterdam and _Rotterdam, and thus, amid all the wars anti revolutions which happened during 1.50 years, Dutch jealousy kept one of the great rivers of Europe hermetically sealed against all commercial intercourse from abroad. To show the inconsistency of the trading spirit, as well as the fanatical rage of commercial monopoly which distinguished our Dutch friends at that period, we need only mention that they refused to admit the Grand Duke of Oldenburg into the treaty of Westphalia as a sharer in its commercial rights, be cause he had demanded a toll upon the Weser, while they actually guaranteed for the total close of the Scheldt ! Another instance of the same exclu sive commercial bigotry is to be found in their stipulations at a subsequent period to abolish the Ostend East India Company. The Scheldt, thus closed by the treaty of Westphalia, was lost to ma ritime trade under the dominion of the house of Austria, till the Austrian Netherlands were overrun by the Freneh in 1793 and 1794. One of the first acts of the French conquest was to declare the na vigation of the Scheldt free, and hence the opening of the river was one of the necessary charges which, as the allies of Holland, anti the supporters of ex isting treaties (even the treaty of Westphalia), the British Government brought against the French as a justification of the long war which ensued. The treaty of Vienna, which opened to the commerce of all nations all rivers dividing or traversing different states, would have revers, d, of course, the provi sions of former restrictive treaties with regard to the * " The fisheries and manufactures of Holland," says the Pensionary De Witt, " increased more and snore with the traffic by sea to Bruges, which lasted to the year 1432, when Flanders had wars with the Archduke Maximilian about the guardianship of his son and his dominions, which continued for 10 years ; meanwhile Sluri, the seaport of Bruges, being for the most part infested, those of Antwerp and Amsterdam, in order to draw the trade to their own cities, assisted the Grand Duke . in his unbridled tyranny and destruction of the CountrY, and thereby pined their ow n ends It will be recollected that, a few days ago, seve ral of the inhabitants of the out-ward (Pimlico) of St. George's, Hanover-square, were summoned to Queen-square police-office by the collector of the paving, lighting, and watering rates, under the local statute, commonly called the Grosvenor Act, for the non-payment of the rates. We have since looked into the Act of Parliament, and that such an Act should have been allowed to pass through the Legislature, without exciting the patriotic ani madversion of those who have undertaken the great trust of watching over the people's interests, is in itself a pretty strong practical commentary upon the efficiency of the representation of IVestminster. We do not hesitate to say that this local Act, which does not appear to have excited any of the indig nant remonstrances of Sir Francis Burdett or Sir John Hobhouse, establishes as snug a system of ar bitrary power, within the limits to which it applies, as can be well supposed capable of existing under the protection of the " free Constitution" of Eng land; nor can we wonder that such things con tinually occur, and that the people of this country are plundered of their substantial rights, while they are more captivated by the nicknames and pro fessions of party than attentive to the principles and actual practice of public men. It would ex ceed the limits which we can at present spare for the purpose to go into marry of the objectionable provisions of this very prolix and most clumsily drawn-up Act of Parliament. We shall have op portunities of recurring to it again. At present we shall principally confine ourselves to the parts of the Act which bear upon the proceedings at Queen square office, premising that the principle and foun dation of the Act are bad, in giving such an extraor dinary power to a few trustees by a local authority, in derogation of the general law of the land. By his Statute all the powers vested in the trustees, of whom, we observe, a M r . H enry H o bh ouse i s one , may be exercised by the major part of them present at the meetings, the number of trustees present at such meetings not being less than five. Now the majority of five, according to Cocker, being three, the whole district to which this Act applies is, in reality, placed under the almost absolute authority of a triumvirate, for the important purposes of mak ing rates or contracts, granting annuities, borrowing money, &c. The trustees may sue or be sued in the name of their clerk; and the clerk, when sued or sueing, is allowed to be a witness, which is the same thing as the plaintiff or defendant being a wit ness for himself. Nor is there an exception made when the action or suit arises from the neglect or wilful default of the clerk, though in that case he is personally responsible for costs and damages, and so is directly interested, in a pecuniary sense, in the result of the action or auir. As to the proceedings at Queen-square Police-office, our readers will remember that one of the persons sum moned was a Mr. Collett who said that his objection to the rate was two-fold; that in the first place the trustees had not fulfilled their duty ; and in the next place be was over-rated. As to the former plea, it is not a sufficient defence for the non-payment of a rate, nor in other mutters, unconnected with the rate, do we know whether the trustees fulfilled their duty or not. They may be, for what we can tell, " all honourable men ;" but we have more to do with the Act of Parliament under which they profess to act than with themselves, and certainly we would not trust any junta of men in England with such powers as they are invested with by this job-en couraging Statute. As to being over-rated, Mr. Collett said that, when he first took his house, he was rated by the trustees at the rent of 2201., but they had now rated him at 2601. He added, that the Act of Parliament enacted that no person should be rated at more than four-fiths of the rack rent." He contended that it was most unjust and unfair that they sould rate him at what sum they pleased : for aught he knew, they might next year rate him at 3601. per annum. He went on to say that he thought the Magistrate (Mr. White) had the power to withhold a distress-warrant against him, as the claim was so monstrously unjust ;—he only paid 2451., per annum for his house, though the trustees had thought proper to rate his house at 2601., being 121. per annum more than the rack-rent, instead of being one•fifth less. In supposing that the Magis trate had the power to refuse the distress -warrant, either on account of the injustice or the illegality of the rate, Mr. Collett was mistaken. The Magistrate has no such power—he is, in this instance, what the law calls a ministerial ojicer, who has no judicial discretion. He cannot inquire into the justice or injustice, the validity or invalidity, of the rate. The law provides another tr.bttnal for that purpose; but first let its see what the mode of rating under this Act really is. The 76th section of the Act provides that no rates to be levied or assessed shall exceed, in any one year, the several sums of money next hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, for paving, stoning, gravelling, repairing, and keeping in repair, cleansing and !ighting, the several roads, streets, and places, 1.5. it hin the limits of this Act, after the rate of two shillings in the pound, according to the //early rent or varue of such houses, shops, ware houses, coach-houses, stables, lands, tenements, &c.; for watching the said roads, streets, and places, after the rate of ninepenee in the pound, according to the yearly rent or value of such houses, shops, &c.; and for the watering of the said loads, streets, and places, after the rate of threepence in the pound, according to theyectity rent or value of such houses, &c. Here the rating is clearly on the yearly rent orvalue,l eav i ng it optional wi t h th e trustees to go upon either, which is ' highly objectionable, and admits of a latitude of taxation which may be most oppressively and par tially exercised. The 82d section, however, which allows the compounding of rates in certain cases, enacts that when the yearly rent or value of any house, tenement, or hereditament, shall not exceed 2 01., or where any house, &c., shall be let to any weekly or monthly tenants, in separate apartments, furnished or unfurnished, and the rents thereof shall become payable, and be collected at any shorter period than quarterly, then, and in every such case, it shall and may be lawful for the trustees to com pound with the landlords, owners, or lessees of surh houses, &c., for the payment of the rates at such a reduced yearly rental as the said trustees shall think reasonable, so that no house or tenement be rated at less than two-thirds or more than/our:fifths of the rack-rent at which the same alien be then let, or of the annual value of the i said pr em i ses re spectively. Thus we see that t is in th e case of houses of which the yearly rent, or annu a l va l ue, does not exceed 20/., or are let in lodgings, and which are compounded for by the landlords, the maximum of rating is fixed at four-fifths of the yearly rent or value. But it is worth observing that in the 10th section, which speaks of the qualifica - tions of persons eligible to be appointed trus tees, one of the qualifications laid down is, that th e person so appointed, if an inhabitant householder re siding within the limits of the Act, must be, either in his own right or in that of his wife, in the actual possession or receipt of the rents and profits of some building, land, tenement, or hereditament, situate within the limits of the Act, of the clear yearly value of 1501.; and must also be assessed to the rates hereby directed to be made for the purposes of this Act at the rate of 120/. per annum or up wards, which is an assessment of rates, in the case of a trustee, in the ratio of only four-fifths of the clear yearly value. Mr. Collett was perfectly correct in stating that by this statute it is enacted that all untenanted houses should pay half-rates—and if, as he says, there are a number of untenanted houses on which no rate is paid, that, we think, would be a valid objection to the rate which he was called upon to pay ; for, if those landlords who should pay half rates are not assessed to any, other persons must be over-rated to make up the deficiency. This brings us to the point, what is the remedy against a bad rate ? The 121st section of the Act provides that if any person shall think himself aggrieved or over-rated by any rate or assessment, or any matter or thing to be made or done in pursuance of this Act, he may ap peal to the trustees, at one of their meetings, within four calendar months of the rate or cause of grievance arising, and the trustees may examine the appellant and witnesses on oath, and grant or refuse relief. Here we see the appeal is from the trustees, in their rate-making character, to the same trustees in their appellate jurisdiction, being judges in their own case. Mr. Collett asserted that, when he went to the Board for redress, they were sitting, and they told him to leave the room. Mr. Tuck stated that he made a similar application when six of them were sittitig, and they used him worse than they did Mr. Collett—they fairly barked him out of the room. Whether these statements are over-coloured, we know not, but we do know that the appeal ought not to be to the party that makes the rate. There is also another appeal given to the Westminster or Middlesex Sessions within specified periods, but then we find it enacted, by the 119th section, that ail such trustees as are Justices of Peace may act as Justices in all matters under the authority of the Act, notwithstanding their being trustees—so that they make rates as trustees, and confirm them as Justices. Have we not stated enough to show that this Act must be repealed ?—]Horning Herald. A meeting took place last night at the Quadrant Hotel, of the inhabitants of a number of parishes of Westminster. Our readers will see a report in another column. There can be no question that the assessed taxes press with undue severity on the middle classes ; and that their severity is greatly heightened by the partiality with which they are levied. We are glad to see the determination now evinced to obtain a remedy for this crying evil. There can be no valid reason why the inhabitants of the metropolis should he forced to pay one-half of the assessed taxes of the whole island. Of one thing, however, they may be certain ; namely, that so long as they are willing to submit to the injustice, it will not be remedied. Some other means must be devised for raising the funds necessary for the service of the State. We know very well that the higher orders will not submit to be placed on a foot ing of equality with the middle classes. They will call out, wa cannot keep our country mansions if we are to be made to pay at the rate of the middle classes. This may be a very good reason for the substitution of some other tax for the assessed taxes; but it cannot surely be a reason for continuing to oppress the middle classes, because they have been hitherto subjected to the most flagrant injustice and oppression. To show how much even the best of men are influenced by their particular interests, we may observe, that Sir Henry Parnell, in his excellent volume on Financial Re form, would hardly have spoken as he does of as sessed taxes, had he, instead of being an Irish landlord, not subject to them, been one of the suf fering middle classes. " It is natural and becoming (he says) to feel deeply for the sufferings of the poor; but to overlook all rules of science, and to neglect, in dealing in matters of finance, all esta blis`sed principles, and to act on feelings, and not on reasons, as the ground-work of legislation, will never fail to be followed by great loss of revenue, without any adequate public good. The effort which was made in 1825 to obtain a repeal of the assessed taxes, was founded on a total misconcep tion of the comparative effects of different kinds of taxes on the interests of the people. No ad vantages would have arisen from the repeal of those taxes beyond the mere relief from so much taxation ; while, on the other hand, the repeal of the taxes on raw materials and manufac tures, arid the reduction of the enormously high duties on tobacco and foreign spirits, would be pro ductive of considerable benefit to the consumer, would put an end to smuggling, and would increase the employment of capital and labour, and foreign commerce. Lord Goderich is entitled to the greatest praise, for having had the firmness, in 1825, to resist the temptation of sacrificing a sound principle to the acquisition of temporary popularity ; he has the merit of being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who reduced to practice those principles which are the only secure basis of national prosperity." Sir Henry puts out of consideration the severity with which the assessed taxes, press on particular classes. But if we are to disregard feeling, and to look on unmoved, while constant revolutions are taking place in the fortunes of numerous individuals, from inability to bear up against the burdens on them—if we are to view with an eye of unconcern the decent tradesman stripped of his little all to meet the demands of the tax-gatherer, and consigned to a prison or a workhouse—because these revolu tions in the fortunes of individuals do not affect production or prevent the employment of capital— we may ask Sir Henry, if production would be at all affected by what would, no doubt, be hard to wards many deserving families, namely, exactina one-half of th e ren t o f a ll t h e land in the kingdom'? This would be merely an affair of feeling ; merely an affair of injustice; for assuredly production and commerce would go on as well as before, whether Lord A. or Sir John lived in a prison or a palace. But the middle classes have, we trust, more spirit than to submit any longer to see themselves singled out as the victims of unequal taxation. If the assessed taxes must be continued, let the Nobility and Gentry, at all events, su',rnit to their fair share. That they will not du; and, therefore, the assessed taxes must be annihilated.—Morning Chronicle. We hear with pleasure of the decisive proofs which Mr. Hume has everywhere received of the de termination of the electors of Middlesex to insure his triumphant return. The foul attack made upon his character has been duly appreciated, and now meets with its proper reward. It has stirred up friends in the remotest parts of the kingdom, where ever there was a Middlesex voter. We have seen a letter from a highly respectable gentleman, at the advanced age of 79, residing in Shropshire, who, though old and infirm, avows his determination, if his presence be required, at his Own exp ense t o come up to render his vote effective. We understand that powerful body of Quakers, in the metropolis, held, last week, a meeting on the subject of Mr. Hume's return, at which they passed resolutions approving of his conduct, and avowing their determination to support him. This alone speaks volumes. Nothing has tended to disgust the electors of Middlesex so much as the interference of the clergy in this affair. As usual, their zeal has greatly outrun their charity. Again : although Mr. Byng himself has not di rect l y coalesced with Lord Henley, yet, whenever Mr. Byng's friends were to be seen, they were canvassing for Lord Henley. The dirtiest and paltriest means have been resorted to, in order to frustrate and im pede the object of Mr. Hume's friends ; for instance, the innkeeper at the Black Dog, at Bedfont, where the Tories met with signal a defeat on Friday last, announced to Mr. Hume's Committee, that the room they had engaged to meet at on the following day, he could not let them have. This, no question, proceeded from the instructions he had received from his landlord, who lives close by, and is a " thorough paced Conservative." However, notwithstanding this notice, Mr. Hume's friends persisted in their de termination to hold a meeting of the Committee, and the tenant saw the prudence of not attempting to resist them.—Morning Chronicle. ROLLS COURT, Nov. 27. Scheldt, had not the union of the Belgic and Dutch provinces rendered its application unnecessary in this instance. But no sooner did the separation take place in 1830 than the new principle obtained its applica tion. During the last 17 years Antwerp has become one of the most flourishing commercial cities in Europe. It is not only the great emporium, but almost the sole port of Belgium. By it chiefly are 4,000,000 of Bel gians, and a considerable body of Germans, sup plied with colonial produce and other foreign com modities. It receives annually about 200,000 tons of shipping, the greatest part of which is British. Great interests have arisen under the new order of things, and immense disasters would be occasioned, as well as great permanent injury sustained, by the barbarous and inhuman policy of blocking up Its noble navigable outlet. Six or seven states on the Rhine demand the extended navigation which that outlet affords in connexion with their own glorious stream. To Belgium it is the great artery of trade, —to England arid all trading nations a means of fa cilitating their commercial intercourse, and extend ing their manufacturing prosperity. Is there an Englishman—is there a friend of a beneficial inter course among nations, who would support the King of Holland, as the organ of Dutch monopoly, in closing the Scheldt against trade, either by prohi bitory tolls, by batteries of artillery, or by ship loads of stones P If there be, we shall leave him to his own meditations and to Dutch friendship, and shall not think him worth an additional argu ment.— Times. TAYLOR V. DAVIES. This was the petition of the plaintiffs, and prayed that a bill filed by them, as executors of the late Duke of York, might he dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs. In a suit instituted for the administration of the estate of his late Royal Highness a reference was directed to the Master to take the usual accounts. Under that de cree Davies, the defendant, being executor to his father, carried in a claim as a bond-creditor of the Duke to the amount of 2,7001., which, circumstances of suspicion at taching to it, as having been given in respect, not of a legal debt, but of a gambling transaction, the Master had disal lowed. An exception being taken to the report, an action at law was directed for the purpose of trying the validity of the bond, and the Jury had found in its favour. After the action at law had been directed, and before the trial, the Duke's executors, considering that no account of the consideration had been given, and that the defendant could not state upon oath that no part of it was in respect of a gambling transaction between the Duke and his father, thought proper to file a bill for the purpose of having the bond delivered up. The object of the present petition was that they might be at liberty, after the finding of the Jury, to dismiss the bill without costs, in consequence of the death of Mr. Greenwood, the attesting witness to the bond, and the difficulty there would be in the way of a new trial ,1 at law. Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. STEWART appeared in sup port of the petition. Mr. BICKERSTETH opposed it. His HONOUR said the Court would make the executors, as in the ordinary case of a bill of discovery, pay the costs which had been incurred. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27. MARCHANT 2'. DODOIN AND OTHERS. This was an action on a bill of exchangeio;lsol. The handwriting of the parties to the bill 'having been proved, the defence set up was, that it had been tainted with usury, and evidence was adduced to show that it had been discounted by a Mr. Flight, of Walworth, under cir cumstances from which it was intended to he inferred that it had been negotiated to take up a former bill, which had been discounted upon usurious terms. The evidence, how ever, did not support the defence. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. PRICK V. WOODCATE. This was an action brought by Dr. Price, of Cannon street, against the defendant, a publican, residing in Friar street, Blackfriars-road, for the alleged publication of a libel, in the shape of a handbill, imputing to the plaintiff gross cruelty and oppression, exercised by him on a tenant named Marshall. A similar action was brought some time ago by the same plaintiff against a defendant named Ives for the pub lication of the same libel. On that occasion a justifica tion was pleaded, but the evidence having failed to support the plea, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for 5/. damages. On the present occasion no justification was pleaded, the fact of the publication alone being denied by the plea. Ou the part of the plaintiff a Miss Campbell, a young lady of rather pleasing appearance, was called, who stated that she was the daughter of a captain's widow, residing at Chelsea, and occasionally visited the plaintiff's daughter, in Cannon-street. On the appearance of the handbills and placards in question, reflecting on the plaintiff's con duct as a landlord, she went by the plaintiff's direction to the house of the defendant, and on entering the passage, which opened to the bar, she perceived a placard stuck up, stating that subscriptions would be received there " for Marshall, the victim of oppression and cruelty." She then went to the bar, and asked the defendant's wife for one of the handbills, which the latter gave her, in her husband's presence. This was on the 22d September. She could not say whether or not any person accompanied her from Cannon street, but she was certain no person went into the house but herself. For the defendant several witnesses were called, who stated that as soon as the handbills in question came out referring to the defendant, amongst ethers, as a receiver of subscriptions, the latter, on being applied to to receive subscriptions, refused to do so, saying that his name had been used without his authority, and that he would have nothing to do with the matter. It was itdmitted that the placard was seen behind the defendant's (boor in his passage, but the witnesses, some of whom frequented his public house several times a day, denied that they had ever seen any of the handbills there, or that the defendant had ever, io their knowledge, given any countenance to their publi cation. One of the witnesses was a servant in the defend ant's employ at the time. The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE told the Jury, that if the wife of the defendant, in her husband's presence, delivered this handbill to the witness, Miss Campbell, they might in fer that she had done so with his acquiescence, in which case she must be taken to have acted as his agent; but not so if the husband were not privy to and assenting to such publication. On the other hand, they would say whether or not the evidence of the defendant's witnesses went to weaken Miss Campbell's testimony, although, as they did not speak to the same day as she did, their state ments were not directly conflicting. The first question which the Jury had to decide was, whether or not the pub lication of the libel by the defendant had been proved ? If not, they must find a verdict for the defendant. If it had, then, secondly, they were to say to what amount of damages he was entitled. The Jury having retired for two hours returned a ver dict for the defendant. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27. THE KING V. WILLIAM CORBETT. This was an excise information by the Attorney-Ge neral, charging the defendant with having knowingly in his possession spirits that had not paid duty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The de fendant was the viewer or overseer of a colliery near Shil bottom, about three miles from Alnwick, belonging to the Duke of Northumberland, and occupied by Mr. Taylor, and he lived near the colliery. It being suspected that he had some smuggled Scotch whisky, his house was searched by an Excise officer in last March, when a cask containing two gallons was found, for which no duty had been paid, and various empty kegs and casks were found, such as were used by smugglers. The penalty for the whisky discovered was 1001. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 27. WESTMEATH V. WESTMEATH. This was an alb-gation of faculties on the part of the Marchioness of Westmeath, for the purpose of obtaining an allotment of permanent alimony from the Marquis, her hu,band, from whom she had been separated by an eccle siastical sentence. The allegation was objected to on be half of Lord Westmeath, because it went into the history of the deed of separation of 1918, by which her Ladyship was allowed 1,300/. a year, but which had been pronounced invalid by the House of Lords, and because it was alleged that her Ladyship had been obliged to contract debts to the amount of 10,0001. These, and other allegations, it was cont,nded, would lead to unnecessary litigath n. Sir Joni's - Ntenot.t. directed the allegation to he admit ted, but again urged the propriety of this matter being arranged by the mutual friends of the parties. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 27. William Pickard, late of Paragon-mews, Kent-road, hackneyman, was opposed by Mr. WOODROFFE, for Mr. °Anent and Mr. Skinner, and supported by Mr. COMM The insolvent had taken the benefit of the Act in 1817; his debts were then 500/. ; lie now owed 7291. Ac cording to his own statement, there was little or nothing for the creditors, Ile had been arrested on the Ist of October last, had gone to prison the same day, and im mediately lodged his petition. It appeared in the course of the case, that his landlord, to whom he was in consi derable arrear of rent, had put a distress into his pre mises, and taken pos+ession of his carriages, horses, &c. His landlord was willing to give up every thing he had distrained to the general cre litors, provided his legal de mands were satisfied. It was stated by a witness, that a cart had been employed in removing goods from the pre mises shortly before the distress, and that a valuable por trait of the insolvent, which formerly decorated the wall of his parlour, and was considered an inveterate likeness had been displaced. There was also a defective account, given as to a chimney-glass, and some other articles of furniture. The Learned Commissioner HARRIS observed, that as :he creditors bad already obtained possession of the origi nal, it would not he nece.sary to produce the copy of his rountenance; but the case must he adjourned for the pro duction of his sister, his servant (Martha Tassey), and for a fresh valuation to be made of his effects. George Stapleton, a miserable.looking old man, whose debts were little more than 401., who has two daughters to support, and whose wife is now lying in her coffin pre vious to her funeral, was opposed by a creditor (Joseph White), a little shopkeeper, near Bethnal-green, on a cog novit of 41. 7s. ld., on which he had neglected to pay the instalments. Mr. White expressed his willingness to re ceive his debt by small instalments, and it was ultimately ordered by the Court, that 4/. a-year be set aside for the ci editors, and the insolvent immediately discharged. ADMIRALTY SESSIONS, Nov. 27. (Trial of Robert Chalons concluded from our Paper of yesterday.) The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence, the Jury retired at two o'clock to consider their verdict, and after an absence of one hour and three quarters, came into Court and returned a verdict of Guilty, but strongly recommended him to mercy. Sentence of death was then passed in the usual manner, —to be hanged on Thursday morning and buried in the gaol, in irons. - The prisoner wept bitterly: his appearance seemed to indicate a mild and inoffensive disposition. An objection was raised by Mr. AnoLentTs, who said that the law of England required that a man should be tried by 12 Jurors sworn upon their oaths; one of the pre. sent Jury was a Quaker, end bad only given his affirmation. The point will be reserved for the consideration of the 12 Judges ; and, in consequence of this, judgment will be respited until the 29th January. PIRACY. Jose Eliav, a Portuguese sailor, about 20 years of age, was indicted for mutiny on board the brig Jane, of Bristol, and piratically sailing off with her on the sth of December, 1831. The jury after a short deliberation acquitted the prisoner. There being no more cases the Court adjourned. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. _EPSOM MEETING, Nov. 27. FIRST CLASS FOR THE Cur.—Mr. Ladbroke's Lottery beat Mr. Collins's Cygnet; Mr. Wells's Wowski beat Mr. Hope's Hermit; Mr. Ladbroke's Legacy beat Mr. Reeve's Romulus; Mr. De Burgh's Nonpatiel beat Sir W. Jol liffe's Extacy; Mr. Hope's Hector b , at Sir W. Jolliffe's Eleanor; Mr. Knight's Coquette beat Mr. Reid's Rebecca. lIEADLY STAKES.--111r. Wells's Whimsey beat Mr. Pouchee's Ploughboy; Mr. De Burgh's Nonsuch beat Mr. Hope's Heroine; Mr. Reid's Rainbow beat Mr. Knight's Adelaide; Sir W. Jolliffe's Meteor beat Mr. Collins's Clara. UNION STASES.—Mr. Reeves's Rufus beat Mr. De Burgh's Noble ; Mr. Knight's Harpy beat Mr. Hope's Hornet ; Mr. Reid's Roger Bacon beat Mr. Wells's Wel. helmina ; Mr. Floud's Nettle beat Mr. Pouchee's Pungent. THE EWELL PUPPY STAKES.—The Ashstetd Stakes and two matches were net run. The coursing was on. Epsom Downs. NEtYMARKET COURSING MEETING. ALLINGTON.HILL, Nov. 21. FOR THE CUP.-Mr. Dobede's blk d Deptford beat Mr. Finch's b k d Gameboy ; Mr. Dobede's blk d Diamond heat Mr. Vipan's br d Victor; Mr. Inskip's y and w d Index beat Mr. S. Tharp's br and w d p Newton ; Mr. Inskip's r d Imbel beat Mr. Fryer's br and w b Catherine; Mr. Fyson'e blk and w d Farmer beat Mr. J. King's blk d Ruler; Mr. Edwards's br d p Archibald beat Mr. Mar shall's 61 d Monarch ; Mr. King's bik d Rubini beat Mr. Dunn's blk d Bluster ; Mr. Searle's r d d Snake beat Mr. Gillett's bik d Godolphin. ALLINCTON-1111.1. PUPPY STAKES.-Mr. Inskip's bik d Ink heat Mr. Finch's br b Ginger ; Mr. Searle's bik b Streamlet heat Mr. Marshall's bik la Minna; Mr. Vipan's br b Vivid beat Mr. Fryer's r b Clara; Mr. Dobede's bik b Daisy beat Mr. Gillett's f b Giddy. CHIPPENHAM PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES.-Mr. Dobede's hr d Dragon beat Mr. Gillett's f and w d Gratis; Mr. Inskip's f d Interlude beat Mr. J. King's br d Rapid Mr. Edwards's hr d Arthur beat Mr. Finch's br d Glory; Mr. Fyson's r d Fireaway beat Mr. Vipan's bik d Venom. NEWMARKET PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES.-11r. Dobede's br b Dance beat Mr. Fyson's blk b Fanny; Mr. Searle's blk asd w b Snowdrop received forfeit from Mr. Finch's r and w Glowworm ; Mr. Gillett's blk d Gamble beat Mr. Donn's bik d Blinker. PORT STAK ES. —Mr. Dobede's blk b Dm - ling beat Mr.. Fyson's blk d Fearnought; Mr. Searle's r b Souvenir beat Mr. Inskip's r b Ivanhoe ; Mr. Finch's r b Grisdale beat Mr. Gillett's hl d Gayhurst ; Mr. Marshall's blk d Mem non beat Mr. Thurnall's r d Thunder. CHIPPENHAM FIELD, Nov. 22. FOR THE Cup.—Mr. Inskip's r d Impel beat Mr. In.. skip's y and w d Index; Mr. King's blk d Rubini beat Mr. Searle's r d Snake ; Mr. D9bede's blk d Diamond beat Mr. Fyson's blk and w d Farmer ; Mr. Edwards's. br d p Archibald beat Mr. Dohede's blk d Deptford. ALLINGTON-HILL PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES.—Mr. Vipses , hr b Vivid beat Mr. Dobede's blk b Daisy ; Mr. Inskip's blk b Ink beat Mr. Searle's blk b Streatnlet. CHIPPENHAM PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES.—Mr. Dobede's hr d Dragon beat Mr. Edward's brii Arthur; Mr. Fy— son's r d Fireaway beat Mr. Inskip's F d Interlude. NEWMARKET PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES.—Mr. Searle's blk and w b Snowdrop beat Mr. Gillett's blk d Gamble; Mr. Dobede's hr b Dance ran a bye. PORT STAKES —Mr. Dobede's bik b Darling beat Mr._ Finch's r b Grisdale ; Mr. Searle's r b. Souvenir beat Mr. Marshall's blk d Memnon. SNAILWELL SWEEPSTAKES•-Mr. Vipan's bl b Vireo rine beat Mr. Marshali's r b Myrtle; Mr. Fyson's bik Fickle agst Mr. Searle's blk and w d Sovereign—to be run on Friday. MArcn.--;Mr. Searle's blk d p Sultan beat Mr. F ro n's b d p Fully. ALLINGTO.N-HILL, Nov. 23. Fong THE Cur.—Mr. Inskip's r d Impel beat Mr. King's blk d Rubini; Mr. Dubede's blk d Diamond beat Mr. Edwards's br d p Archibald ; Mr. Inskip's r d Im— pel beat Mr. Dobede's blk d Diamond; and won the Cu 2, —Diamond the Goblet. ALLINGTON-lIILL PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES...4IIP. Vipall ' e br b Vivid beat Mr. Inskip's blk b Ink—and won the Stakes. CHIPPENHAM PUPPY SWEEPSTAKES.-fir. Dobede . * in d Dragon beat Mr. Fyson's r d Fireaway—and won the Stakes. NEWMARKET PurPli SWEEPSTAKES.—Mr. Dobede's br b Dance beat Mr. Searle's blk and w b Snowdrop—and won the Stakes. Poar STARES. —Mr. Dobede's blk b Darling beat Mr. Searle's r b Souvenir—and won the Stakes. Souvenir broke her leg in running. SNAILWELL SWEEPSTAKES.—Mr. Fyson's blk d Fickle beat Mr. Vipan's bl b Victorine—and won the Stakes. MATCHES.—Mr. Searle's r and w d Sligo beat Mr. Edwards's r d Acccident ; Mr. Marshall's blk b p Minna brat Mr. Dunn's blk d p Blinker ; Mr. Inskip's y and W d Index beat Mr. Dobede's blk d Deptford ; Mr. J. King's ilk d Ruler agst Mr. Edward's d d Andrews—no course ; Mr. Searle's blk b p Streimlet heat Mr. Dobede's b'k b p Daisy ; Mr. Finch's hr d p Glory beat Mr. J. King's l b p Rivulet ; M r. Searle ' s blk d p Sultan beat Mr. Vipa n' s blkd p Venom; Mr. Dunn's blk d Bluster beat Mr. Vip An's. lir d Victor; Mr. Searle's blk and w d p Snowball beat Mr. Gillett's blk d p Gamble ; Mr. Weath,rby's f b Wag tail against Mr. King's blk and w d Rodney—undecided. MEETING OF CREDITORS, BA SINGHALL-STREET, (From the London Gazette.) TO-MORROW, Nov. 29.—DIVIDENDS. T. Rudd, tea-dealer, Lura.place, Clapton at I?. J. Bond, underwriter, Lloyd's Coffee- home A. Lopez and Co., merchants, Copthall-court BIRTHS. On the 26th inst. Lady Isabella St. John, of a daughter. On the 23d inst. at Baggrave Hall, the lady of Edwin BUJ, naby, Esq., of a daughter. On the 2lst inst. at Ambleside, the lady of Benjamin Harkin son, Esq., of a daughter. On the a7th inst. at Dulwich, Mrs. Francis Tuke, of a son. I MARRIED. On the 27th inst. William Kipling, Esq., of Cheapside, to Mis 4 Ann Langford, of Maidenhead. On the 27th inst. at St. George's, Bloomsbury, the Rev. Ed ward Jenkins, Vicar of Billinghay, Lincoln, to Susan, daughte r of J. Whitsed, Esq., M.D., Southampton-row, Russell.square. London. On the 26th inst. at Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, Me' Barber 'Fuck, of Blackheath, Kent, to Sarah, third daughter of David Dully, Esq., of .% ellingborough. DIED. On the 23,1 inst. at Twyford Lodge, Sussex, in the 84th year ) , his age, William L u th er Sewell, Esq., many years one of the Sl' Clerks in Chancery. On the 26th inst. in Bernard -street, Russell-square, M t ' Richard Wrangham, in the 55th year of his age. On the 26th inst. at Petworth, Anna Maria, wife of Beni. Rickards, Esq. On the 24th inst. at Norton, near Worksopp, Notts, aged Edo. Ephraim Pote, Esq , many years in the Civil Service of the East -India Company, as Resident at Patna in Bengal, an' t formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. On the 26th inst., after a few hours' illness, Marion tie Medina , infant daughter of Robert Walter Carden, Esq., of Hunter-street , Brunswick-square, aged seven weeks. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY MURDO YOUNG, A T THE SUN OFFICE, 112, STRAND, LONDON,