The National Register.
London, England, 1821-04-08 00:00:00

THE 'NATIONAL REGISTER

The house then divided ; the numbers were—Ayes 86,
Noes 120—Majority against Mr. Creerey 81.
A remarkable peculiarity in this divkion was, that Mr.
Tierney, Sir J. Macintosh, Lord A. Hamilton, &c. voted
wilt the ministers Ott this motion. . . .

Mr. HUME also, before the Speaker kft the chair, next
moved a long resolution—that it be an instruction to the
committee to take into consideration the recommendation
of the finauce committee of 1517—t0 revise all the civil
offices, Arc. and as they became vacant, to adopt new re-
gulations respecting them, where they should be deemed
necessary.
Lord A. HA NIII:FON seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the resolution, and coutesnlcil that considerable seduction
hail taken place in the last two or three years. Whenever
a vacancy occurred, inquiry was stride if the place could
be abolished entirely and where that could be done, the
salaries had in most instances been 'educed. He de-
fended the system of remuneration I r public servants and
their widows. which, he comentl.ll, were beneficial to the
public• services.
Sir J. NEWPORT condemned the allowance to many
of the retired officers, as too large, and particularly that
to Lotil l'arawley.
Mr. I). Brune and Mr. W. Pole defended Lord Ta-
rawley.
A lung dlscnssion followed.
Mr. HUME ultimately withdrew his resolution, and the
house went into a committee.

Lord PALMERSTON, alter stating that the first reso-
lution referred to the War Office, moved that' 50,1181.
leis. Bd. be granted to his Majesty to defray the charge of
allowances fur the office of the Secretary at War.
Col. DAVIES observed, that dui ing the war, when the
duties of this office were ten times greater than at present,
the whole cost of the War Office in 1806 was 37,3551. and
to confine the expeueliture of the present year to that slim
would scarcely be unreasonable : he, however, was dis-
posed to be satisfied with a smaller reduction, and lie
should therefore move, as an amendment, a vote of
45,0001. instead of 50,1181.
Lord PALMERSTON would be content to take for
the present year the War Office estimate of 1806; the
charge of 1806 being, not 37,4551. as the lion, and gallant
member apposite had stated, but 59,83,21. some hundreds
above the estimate now demanded. It should be remem-
bered, however, that in 1:A16 the constitution of the War
Office was adapted only to the transacting of the current
business ; and that it was not until the year 1809 that the
department for the settlement of arrear accounts, the
charge of which for the present year was 17,0001. was
established by the Treunry.
Col. DAVIES was ready to stake his credit that the
estimate fur 1806, as it appeared from the papers in the
possession of the house, did not exceed 37,:;501.
Mr. HUME insisted that the noble lord opposite (Pal-
merstun) had increased at every point the expellee of his
department, and was prepared to prose, that if 20,0001. a
year more was voted to that deportment, the noble lord
would find employment for every shilling of it. In 1814,
when this country had 236,000 men under arms, the esta-
blishment of the War Office, the superannuation list, cost
32,130. and it had gone on increasing, I rein year to year,
until the cost of 1821 was laid at 64,6901.; so that the
economy of the noble lord had effected all increase, since
1814, of about 2,5001. He did believe that by attention
and economy the expense of that office might be reduced
nearly one half; but as half a loaf was better than no
bread, he should support the amendment of his hon, friend
near him (Cot. Davies) fur the reduction of 5,0001.
Sir H. PARNELL complained of the amount of the
superannuation list, and particularly referred to the esta-
blishment of cominissiouers of military accounts in Ireland.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Irish board of com-
missioners were appointed by act of parliament.
Mr. W. Smith mist Col. Davies enforced the necessity
of economizing tne military establishment.
Mr. H. G. BENNET ridiculed the idea of any saving
having been voluntarily made by the noble lord and Ida
Majesty's utiuisterle. In fact, whatever saving had been
effected in the military establishment was forced from
them by a sort of gentle ravishment. (A laugh.)
Mr. MABERLY objected to the peseta system of
"agency," and contended, that 15,0001. por einem (the
belief the charge) might be saved, if government took
the agency into its own hands.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the present agency
system, on the pound that it afinrded considerable faci-
lilies to officers, when, fur instance, they wished to ex-
change from one regiment to another, which, were it dif-
ferentll• couducted, they could not possess.
Mr. WILSON expa essed his determination to vote
.for she saving of 5,0001. which he conceived could be
'fleeted under the item of agency.
Lord rALNALICSION said the present vote had nothing
to do with the agency, which was included in the vote for
land forces agreed to some days ago.
Mr. CREEVE.Y said, he found that they were indebted
to the Secretary at War, 2,5001.; to a first clerk, 1,4001.;
and to a principal clerk, 1,2001. His idea was, that they
ought to leave those gentlemen before the honse. (Hear.)
He should like to see a clerk with 1,4001. a year. (Laugh-
ter.)—An officer in the army purchased his cominission at
a great espence; after much service, and many gallant
exploits, he was, perhaps, made a peer; and wheat did he
receive to support his diguity ? Why, 2,6001. a year.
And lei re came a elei k utile 1,4001. per annum! He
should be glad to see how this gentleman went to his
office, whether in a curticle or tilbury (a laugh); lie
should se ish to know what time lie passed at his office.
For his owes part, he was convinced the business could be
Julie as well at 7001. as at 1.4001. a year.
Alter a desultory cunveisation, the committee divided,
—For the amendment, e7—Against it, 106—Majoiity, 39.
The house then resumed. Report on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjoin lied.

A revolution took place at St. Michaels on the
Ist of March. The governor was deposed, and
placed under arrest; the island declared independent
of Terceira, and only subject to the government and
Comm of Portugal.
Four persons were committed from Hatton-garden
office on Friday evening, on charges of uttering
forged •ank notes. A gentleman, who attended on
behalf of the Bank of England, stated that after
the Ist of May no more one or two puuud notes
would be issued.

FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
BANKRUPTS.
J. Moberly, Welbeck Street, Marylebone, coach manufacturen
Solicitors, Messrs. Bartlett and Co. Nicholas Lane.
J. Bigsby, Deptford, brewer. Sole. Mesas. Osbaldeston and
Co. London Street, Fenchurch Street.
C., R., F., and K. Coupland, Leeds, spirit merchants. Sol.
Mr. Wiglesworth, Gray's Inn Square.
P. Dewsbury, Altrincham, Cheshire, corn dealer. Sols,
Messrs. Brundrett and Co. Temple.
P. Cope, Bridgnorth, grocer. Sole. Messrs. Benbow and Co;
Lincoln's Inn.

W. Holding, Devonshire Street, Queen Square, wine merchant.
Sols, Messrs. Waleson an.l Co. Austinfriars.
B. and J. Troughton, Wood Street, silk throwsters. Sol. Mr.
James, Bucklersbury.
DIVIDENDS.
April 28, S. George and R. Webb, Bristol, sugar refiners.-
14, T. Austin, J. Gregory, and J. Russon, Bath, haberdasher--
26, T. Story, Hunworth, Norfolk, miller-26,5. Copland, Holt.
Norfolk, miller-95, R. Hodgson, Bishop Wearmouth, Durham.
baker-26, C. Seaman and G. Etheridge, Norwich, goldsmiths
—Y4. J. Grover, Hastings, Sussex, linen draper-28, J. Peters,
Dorking, Surrey, lime burner-28, A. Kelly, Colonnade, Pall
Mall, jeweller-28, R. Fancy, Bread Street, Chcapside, ware-
houscman-28, .1. Blackburn, Witham, Essex, corn factor-27,
W. Winans, South Shields, clothier—May I. H. Burgess and
J. Hubbard, Miles Lane, Cannon Street, woolstaplers-5, I'.
Worth, Talbot Court, Gracechurch Street, haberdasher.
CERTIFICATES to be grunted April 24.
T. C. B. Pryer, Fenchurch Street, saddler—J. Bryaunt.
Liverpool, merchant-W. Wildman, Whiteeltapel Road, plumber
Altlersgate Street, jeweller--J. Watson, Leyland,
Lancashire, farmer—J. Lome, Coventry, builder—J. Rutter,
Winterton, Lincolnshire, merchant—T. Tipping, Warrington,
Lancashire, miller—S. Trehane, Exeter, silversmith—J. Ander.
son, West Smithfield, bookseller-I'. Wotton, Bristol, leather
factor.

ASSIZE INY ELLIGENCE.

-410-
SURREY.

COLTON V. NELSON.
KINGSTON, APRIL 2.—This was an action of assault
and Like imprisonment. The defendant pleaded a
justification.
The case was this :—The plaintiff keeps a broker's
shop in Snow's-fields, Sloane-street, and the defendant
at the time of this transaction, kept a gin-shop in Black-
friars-road, near the bridge. On the 18th of October
last the plaintiff stopt at the defendant's house to take a
glass of porter, and by accident he broke the tumbler,
from which he drank the liquor. The Nailer told hint
he must pay 2s. for the glass; he demurred to the demand
but gave his address, promissing to call next day and
produce another glass, or the price of one. The waiter
took the address to the defendant, who was in the bar.
The latter insisted that he must then pay the money, or
leave the value of the glass, and immediately snatched
his hat, in which was a silk handkerchief, off his head
and laid it a one-side. The plaintiff remonstrated
against this conduct, upon which the defendant said, if
he was not satisfied he must go to the watch-house; and
instantly called in a night patrole and gave him in
charge.
No evidence was offered for the defendant, and the
Jury, under the learned Judge's directions, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.—costs 40s.

TABLING V. TAYLOR.
The cause of action arose out of a public•house dispute
at Carshalton, which ended in the defendant's striking
the plaintiff on the nose, and producing a copious he-
morrhage. There was much abusive langsage between
the parties.
The case went to the jury under the learned judge's
direction, and a verdict was found for the rlaintiti—
Damages 40s.

EDWARDS V. LUCRECY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants a compensation in damages for an
injury sustained by the overflowing of the head of water
belonging to the defendant's mill, over the garden ground
of the plaintiff.

It appeared that the defendants were, in March 1819,
proprietors of a tide-mill, situate upon the Thames, at
Itotherhithe, in this county. This mill was worked by
a head of water admitted by the flood tide into a mill-
pond appropriated to that purpose, the regress of which,
during the ebbing of the tide, worked the mill. The
mill pond was protected by artificial banks, which it was
the duly of the defendants to keep in repair, and the ad-
jacent low lands were laid out as gardens, in the posses.
slim of many different occupiers, ul whom the present
plaintiff was one.
The case set up by the plaintiff was, briefly, that on
the morning of the 4th March, 18 t 9, in consequence of
some negligence in the management of the flood gates
nearest the river belonging to the defendant!, the water
in the mill pond ruse to au extraordinary height, ran
over the whole course of the banks, and flooded the
gardens on the other side in all directions, by which the
plants and seed growing in the plaintiff's garden were
completely washed away, and some damage was done to
his dwelling-house. It appeared that on this occasion
the engineer, who had been in the habit of superintend-
ing the gates, was absent, and he deposed that if those
gales had been properly managed, the alleged injury
could not have occurred.
The jury, under the learned judges direction, found
a verdict fur the plaintifi—Damages iGi.
XERXES V. THE COMPANY OF THE SOUTH WAtiiit-

%vomits.
This was; an action by the driver of the Gudalruing
coach, against the defendants, for not repairing a road
in the parish of St. Mary, Newington, through which
their works were carried, in consequence of which the
plaintiff was thrown off the box, and broke his thigh.
In consequence of a mistake t:ic description of the
parish in which the accident happened, the plaintiff was
nonsuited.