The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-10-28 00:00:00

GUILDHALL, 0:r. 21.

•
WEST-MI& uucs:s.
deism Wmurn serf 01. v. ibe W esT-INDt A nom
Curet s N v.
The Right Hon. the Loan MAYOO. the RE-
-001012a• and a Bench's& Aldermen Attended, and a
Special Jury was immediately sworn.
This was an anion Istought by Messrs Manning
and Anderton, /Tat respeauhle merchants in the
West-India tredd, against certain Cornmissiocers, to
recover a compensation for damages rui.tained by
the Plaintiffs, in imotoquence of the strewn' of the
West-India Docks and Warehouses. From the im-
portance of the decision, and the great number and
variety of the yet unsettled claims arising from the
same cause, it excited considereble Attention, and
filled the Court with a most respefiable auditory at
an ear hour.
Mr. Serjeant Rail', on behalf of the PleintifTs,
opened the case in an able, compreher.ive, and
eloquent address. He felt it unnecessary in that
Court, and particularly before the m-n impannelled
to investigate the claims of the Plaintiffs, to enlarge
upon their characters. They were men de edly
high in public estimation, and of considerable
consequence in the commercial world. In the
present case, they appealed to the justice of the
Court, for that fair and liberal compensation which
the AR of Parliament entitled them to demand, and
the nature of their own sustained loss warranted
them to expet'). At the period when the stetnte
under which the present adios was brought, passed
the Legislator., Messrs Manning and Andeit
were tne lessees of certain premi-es on Tower-hill,
designated the Uptown Warehouses, for the depo.
siting of sugars, imported from the West India
Colonies. From the housing of those sugars,
they derived a considerehle annual profit, which.
on the opening of the West India Docks, alio-
p,ether ceased. In the year 1794. they first
got possession of those Warehouses, under a
lease of 21 years, at an annual rent of 2401.
taxes included. I: pion these premises they had ex-
pended, in improements, a sun' of 10601. The
Court and Jury would in the course of the trial have
produced accurate vouchers from the books of the '
Plaintiffs, both of the expenditure and the profits
arising ft,rm the warehousing of those sugars, for •
tile tour years preceding and the tour years subse-
quent to the passing of the ad, uinl,r which this
cumpensetion was claimed. The ad passed in the
year I 79;), arid tire watchers would take in the ac-
courts fr )m 1795, to 99, previously, thence to
1803, subsequently. Anxious for the suißest jus-
tice, Messrs. Manning and Anderson had given the
Commissioners of Compensetion.appointed by the aft,
the same accurate copies of the profits and exi,,en-
dame, in order that they might be enabled to tote
a fair Average upon which to sound the just and libe-
ral comp msation which the Plaintiffs sere entitled
to: sprit. However, it has happenedthat thosesCortr- •
ni.ssioners, supported by the weighty opinion of his-
Learned and able Friend, the Attorney General, •
had determined, in estimating the value of there
premises, and of the loss sustained, not to Lite
into their consideration the very great rise in the
price paid for the housing of the West India sugars
since the year 1739. the year of the pacing, of stirs
Act. Or that considerable advance in toe price .
paid for warehousing. and of course the advance
in the value of the premises, the state of the account.
as taken from the books of tne Plaintiffs. was une
answerable evidence. From its it would appear
that the amount of the annual profits (torn theiyita4
1795 to 96 was 4541. Its. 114. ; Crom 96 to 9'7,
2151. Ss. 2.1 I Irons 97 to 96a16e1.61. 9.d.t•froms
98 to 99. 2:101.35. Id. ; Vnalllcatala toe .imir sib.
sequent years, the amount of the profits had .4 cots+
side' able increase; thus, from Wei Ibuo, it amount-.
ed to 2431. 1 s 2J.; from I tiusi to ItiOl , to Mtg. .
and upwards ; Irons I SOl to 1141. and upwards; 1
and from 1302 to 3, to 1:;511. This visitation in
the subsequent years might ac first view appear
extraordinary, but it wee 4o be accounted for in a
variety of ways. Mt .less prominent reason was,
that the amount of the warehousing rent• received
upon the goods hi the on'tlYear was included in the
profits of the nest, and therefore it happened that
the profits were s:naller in those years. when tha ex-
penses were gri....:est, which accounted for the differ-
ence in the attual pro fits made one year over the oilier.
In addressing men so intimately acquainted with
the mercantile history of the country, it was unne-
cessary to comment on the nature of those circum-
stances, which tended, by an increased importelion
of West ludia produce, to advance the profits
arising from the housing of those articles. Those
circumstances first began to operate in the year
1793, and it is 110 idle supposition ti assume, that
they will continue, at least, for the remaining that-
teen years, calculating from the period of opening
the West India Docks, an interval, comprehending
the remaining term of the interest, which. by the
lease of twenty-one years, the Plaintiffs had in these
premises. The peculiar and improving cultiva-
tion of the British West India Islands justified this
assumption of an increase of importation ; and un-
lot tunately the want of sale tot this produce. arising
from circumstances with which the Jury were well
acquainted, warranted the conclusion, that whilst a
glut of these articles c intinued, the demand for
warehousing. it not iikely to increase and rise in.
value. was 111, 14[4 danger of thatinotioa. Under
such a statement of the CAM. the Plaintiffs have
• brought forward their claim, ccnceiv:ng that they
have a right, under the mean:tent of the legislature,
to the value of an annuity of 7301. averaged on tile
tour years of adtual profit, commencing from the in-
creased importation in 1799, and ending on the open-
ing of the West India Docks isi ISM. This Amu;
ity of 7301. calculated at the rate of nine years and
a half purchase, for the thirteen years, the rentasn-
ing term of the lease, gave them. in his opinion, a
just claim, allowu g the full interest for the stun
granted, of compensation, i 4 tile amount of G,57Jt.
From ties sum, a dedisSion should be made of
1,5001. the price paid by V., perten to whom an
assignment of these premises was made by Messrs.
Manning and Anderton, in she 'year 1409. rhe
Ad of Parliament enjoins, that a• .fail,llZier4l, and
just compeeation should be made. • 3tiere is its
meaning arid dire& interpsetation ; contrasted wi
that ineanrrag. Use literal limitation to the time of
passing the att. is downright n• eisenste—Sach n n-
Vfifie as too often farts its way in the wording 0

.31unr,::11PatIteldittilipnennt.t!dctorlrrhecctiek::11bliaid•• Wage— nil
What opinion would be fortnfd of a jdr7 of write
rreetcial men, in the first commercial sorry of the
world, when the Newspapers should an:thence to the
machents of foreign countries, that in esionsting
the putts upon the warehousing of colonial pto-
duce in the year I Sul, the average WAS taken on the
amount of the profits in the four yeais preceding the
year 1799? The statute which direfted such als.
venation, was extreme nonsense, and there *as
neither common psetice, nor common sense, in suf-i
feting it to regulate a decision. What was the true
mode of estinsatiog the loss sustained ? In no other
way than by 2-,yreciating its value at the time the
property Was Pot. And the compensation was
less than just, in proportion as the estimate by
which it Was regulated was lower than the amount
of the profits at the period when the impediment to
their continuance commenced. 'l'l:is was the sound
construdion of the aft, and was to govern the cases
unfettered by any limitation of the time when it
passed. But Xe demanded far his Clients nc:hing
new or unprecedented. Ha claimed for them the
otme. principle and measure of justice teed 'deco,
compensation, which was :fled upon in the decibiou
on the legal Quay, where the aserege was esti.
mated net only from the years subsevent to the
passing of the aft. but was taken from the three
best years ; a demand which the present Plaintiffs
w_re unwilling to make. Under such circumstances
he appealed for the alleged compensation fur them
of five thousand and seventy pounds, the balance
which would remain after subtraEting the 15'...0L
from the gross valsre of the annuity of 7301.
Mr. Hodson proved the assignment of the pre-
mises to Messrs. Manning and Anderton. for the
term of twenty-one years, at 2401. per annum.
Mr. William" Dowd.ng, clerk in the house of the
Plaintiffs, examined by Mr. Pa axe, deposadvthat the
' accounts ;No:Weed of the profits and expenditure of
these warehouses, were accurate copies from the
original books. The premises were ge3era:ly used
for the housing of the sugars of the consignees of
the firm of Manning and Anderton. They derived
considerable profit from them, and must have em-
ployed others, if they bad not those premises. They
were capable of holditig 1500 hogsheads of sugar
at a time, and the average numb.r of hogsheads
housed in them, for 'settee mouths, was 9 000.—
The usual allowance paid for housing, from the
years 1799 to 1401, was four-pence per cask per
week ; in the last two years, it was seven pence per
ton, a rate of allowance !argot than the burn of
four-pence pa cask. The alvance arose from the
increase of importation of We't lied a p•o sate
at that time, and the greater diffieu'ty to • rocure
warehouses. These premises were m :re cs nvement
to Messrs. Manning and Anderton Loan any whets.
because they were near their conitiog-house, were
easy of ac ens, and contiguous to the market;
there was less expense in the charge of carting. and
consequently the consignees were charged less e.-
.der that head.of demand. He dil tato live in the
Plaintiffs employment at the time they first got
possessionof these warehouses; hut from the touch-
ers of the builder, he knew that they expended on
the improvement of them, a sum of 10601. ; 10001.
by contra.% with the lessor, and 6t.e. extra work.
On his cross-examination, by the ATTOR. IYis
GLNIIRAL, be said, that the scam it made out foe
the consignees was for the gross sum of rent. cart.
age, &c. but that from knowing the time whin this
sugars were insperted, and %hen sold, they could
,calculate the amount of the rent chart d for ware.
housing. In the:accounts produced or toe profits,
fs%r the different years, there was some change in the
terms of expression, but there was no Fos sale Yea-
, ion for it. It the premises were three times as
Narge, Messrs. Manning and Co. could have hlkd
• (hem with sugars. From 1303 to 1804, they de-
rived no profit.
Mr. Iktomas Bannirg, a cooper, knew the pre-
mises on lower-hill, tney came under the descrip-
tion of Uptown Warehouses, in contradistinction to
those on the waterside. He was well acquainted
with the eVest India trade, and knew that the price
for housing, in 1799, was foie pen e per cask, and
latterly sereapence per ton. Witness was cooper to
the Pl.iinuffs, and to other persons in that Basle.
He would have had no hesitation, in CA.A die
Welt India docks were not built, to give 5001.
year far the Plaintiffs' premises, and was certain of
gaining a good livelihood lay the profits. There
w is not a qu,stior, but that even at the rate of 4d.
per cask on the one thousand six hundred bogs.
heads which they could contain, he would receive
a return of a gross sum of 7001. per annum. Wit.
ness would have charged 7d. per ton, the ordinary
price paid to all the waterside ware:weses.
Mr. Holding, examined by Mr. W•esems
WAS well acquainted with West India produce; and
from his own accounts was able to ascertain the
annual amount of the imports cf sugar, from this
tear 1796 to 1803, which were as fallow :
From 179 a to 1796, 100,,10 Hogsheads.
1796 to 1797, 191,674 ditto
1797 to tree. 107,113 ditto
1796 to 1799, 1411,760 ditto
1793 to 11100, 196,314 ditto
1800 to Int, 167,734 ditto
18 .1 to lath, 6t2,687 ditto
Itiog to OW, 238,018 ditto
within the port of London.
Mr. Frederick Purdy corroborated the testimony
of the fermer Witnesses, relative to the advance of
the price of housing sugars in the yeas 1799, but
attributed it to the increased price of labour.
The case on the part of the Plaintiffs having been
closed. the Arrorm sr Cssissa•s. then addressed
the Jury. In the first place he impressed upon
them, that they had no authority to grant any
compensation, except under the previsions of that
Att of Parliament, which had called forth such
severe animadversion from his Learned Friend;
whatever grant which that Statute did not justify,
was so much money unjustly taken from the pub-
lic. His Learned Friend had contended, that to
place the crnettentiou which he (the Attorney Ge-
neral) had pat upon toe Statute, was tei deal out
to those who sought far compensation, a measure
of the most ex:ravagant injustice. Still, however
high•his reline for the autnority, he could not, in
the absence of all argument, change his opinion .f
the Spirit and meaning of that eosiement. Isis Aft
went to afford compensation for such losses as had
actudiy oc,uard previous to is pa s og. 111- Leo
equate And made this liart, because it well knew

'~-