The National Register.
London, England, 1822-02-17 00:00:00

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.

BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED.
R. J. R. Jenkins, Axbridge, tiomersetshire, clerk, from Feb.
16 to Feb. 26.
BANKRUPTS.
H. Threlfall, Blackburn. Lancashire, draper. Solicitors,
Messrs. Milne and Co. Temple.
J. Kendall. Mile Eud, cow keeper. Sols. Messrs. Burnley
and Co. Walbrook.
R. Hobson. Maidstone, Kent, haberdasher. Sol. Mr. Ashurst,
Basinghall Street.
W. and J. Wilkinson, Bell Court, Mincing Lane, wine and
spirit merchants. Sol. Mr. Clarke, Warnford Court.
J. J. Watkins. New Crane, Shadwell, butcher. Sol. Mr.
Townson, Ratcliff Highway.
T. W. Andrews. Stamford, Lincoln, cabinet maker. Sol.
Mr. Wright, Temple.
T. Small, Alnwick, Northumberland, common brewer. Sols.
Messrs. Meggison and Co. Gray's Inn.
W. !limey, Bristol, brewer. Sol. Mr. Dix, Symend's Inn.
J. Taylor, Franc, Sussex, shopkeeper. Sols. 'Messrs. Jones
and Co. Mincing Lane.
J. Morton, Parsons Street, Ratcliff Highway, victualler. Sets.
Messrs. Oakley and Co. Cannon Street.
E. Rostock, Earl Shilton, Leicestershire, bleacher. Solt.
Messrs. llolnie and Co. New Inn.
W. Smith, Galin Street, Shadwell, dealer. Sol. Mr. Grace,
Ferichurch Street.
T. Tulin, Cluindos Street, Covent Garden, cheescraonger. Sol.
Mr Hutchinson, Threadneedle Street.
J. Price,. Little :Malvern, Worcestershire, dealer. Sol. Mr.
King, Sergeant's Inn.
DIVIDENDS.
March 23, E. Tollervey, Weatbourne, Sussex, miller-9..1.
Langford, Milk Street, Cheapside, wholesale Iraberdasher--;), G.
and J. Woolrich, Spits! Square, silk manufacturers—Vl, A.
Anderson, Salter's Hall Court, Cannon Street, merchant-9, W.
Bowler and J. Warburton, Castle Street, Southwark, hatters--
13, C. Grinsted and J. Lanham, Horsham, Sussex, bankers--
12, T. Mead, Sandwich, Kent, victualler—lL J. Murdock, W.
APGirr, and P. Brown. Nottingham, drapers-23. T. Jones,
St. John Street, West Smithfield, stationer-30, S. Miller, Ems-
worth, Southampton, rope maker-11, J. Booth, Chapel en le
Frith, Derbyshire. common brewer.
cmiTiFicATEs to be granted March 9.
D. Manson, Throgniorton &.treet, dealer--'l. Davidson, Li-
verpool, merchant -G. Turner, Liverpool, merchant—T. Cart-
wright, Okehampton, Devonshire, innkeeper—J. L)ray, Great
Windmill Street. Haymarket, dealer--J. Ward, London, dealer
in foreign fruits—E. Wilson, Newcastle upon Tyne, merchant.--
J. Ilmley, Wanton Underedge, Gloucestershire, clothier—T.
Till, Whitgreave, Staffordshire, dealer—ll. J. Northcote, Lime
Street, merchant—R. Monkhouse, New Shoreham, Sussex,
timber merchant.

------------
THE LANDHOLDER versus THE FUNDHOLDEH

- -
In contradiction to the assertion which is now so
general, that the freeholder has, and has had fist the
last SO years the advantage of the landholder—the
following statement founded on iovantrovertible
facts has been made. A gentleman died in 17S
possessed of 2,0001. per annum, leaving behind him
two sons. To James, who was the elder, he left
his funded property of 1,0001. a-year. To George
he left his landed property, then on lease, at a
rental of 1,0001. a-year, which leases expir,:d in
the year 1793. Each was satisfied with the arrange-
ment, and from the advance that hx)k place in the
price of stocks from 1788 to 1792, James was
thought by many to have the best of the arrange-
ment : but in 1793, the war broke out, and things
took a different turn. James's income continued
the same, and as all articles of consumption during
the war advanced to double the price, and his 1,0001.
a-year, could purchase no more than 5001. woeld
have done in the year 1788, it was virtually a tax
of 50 per cent. upon his income. George was a
prudent man, raised his rents when the leases ex-
pired in 1793 at once 50 per cent. which he let en
lease for 7 years, and before the 7 years were ex-
pired, was importuned to grant an
advance
extension
of the term of 7 years more at an of
.50 per cent. on his then rental of 1,5001. a year,
making his income 2,2501. a year. When these
leases expired in 1807, such was the dentand for
laud, and such the ithat that the war was intermin-
able, that he actually, at that period, let at in
1788 was 1,0001. a year for 3,0001. a whatea 14
years ; and from the high prices obtained during the
war fir agricultural produce, for the first seven
years the rents were paid without a murmur: but
in 1811, and since, as the prices fell, the farmers
began to complain, and George has been under the
necessity of making abatements: yet he stun
much more than his original rental of 1,0001. a year,
besides the savings of what his income has been bt-
yond his brother's. llow, then, does this account
stand in comparison with his less fortunate brother,
the fundholder, for the year 1814,
Seven years increase of £5OO from 1765 to 1500 ...... DAM
Seven year; ditto of 1,250 flan Iwo to 1807 ... 8,750
Seven years' ditto or .2,000 limn 1507 to 1814 ... 14.G0U
£26,250
and having had the prudence to invest this increase
in the funds, he has a better income by 3001. a year
than his elder brother from the tnnds, besides los
estate, the rental of which is more than in 1793.
—What is the inference from these facts? The
case of James is the case of the fundho.er,
who is no better off than he was in 1793; and d
can
he purchase any one article from the agricultural
interest at a cheaper rate now than he could have
done then? Taxation and other articles of expense
press equally on the fund and landholder
boss
James James receive more than 1,0001. a year nuw
his funds? anti does nut George receive, notwith-
standing his abatements, more than he did in t 793?
If he were to allow a reduction of 50 per cent., hi.
income would still be 1,5001. a year.