The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1841.

EXCISE OFFICE, OLD BROAD-STREET,
FEB. 22, 1841.
FOR, SALE, by Order of the Honourable
the Commissioners of her Majesty's EXCISE REVE-
NUE, in a spacious Room at the Chief Office, Old Broad-
street, on Faxnav, 12th March, 1841, at One o'Clock in the
afternoon precisely,
About 15,000 Gallons of. FOREIGN BRANDY and 3,000
Gallons of GENEVA, which have been regularly condemned
and re-distilled; now in vats at the Excise Distillery, St:
Cat herine's.
Catalogues may be had, and samples seen, at the Excise
Warehousekeeper s Office, Old Broad-street, three days pre-
ceding, from Ten till Two o'Clock, and on the morning of sale
from Ten till Twelve o'clock.

HOPS.
MIL W. W. SIMPSON has received direc-
tions to SELL by AUCTION, at the New Corn-
Exchange, Mark-lane, on MONDAY, the Bth day of March
next, about 700 POCKETS and 75 BAGS of KENT and
SUSSEX HOPS of the growths of 1835. 1836, 1837, and
1838, in excellent condition, which will be lotted to suit the
trade as well as others.
Samples may be seen on the Saturday preceding the sale at
the large room of the Corn-Exchange, and the Hops may be
viewed at the Warehouse, three days prior to the sale, on ap-
plication to Mr. W. W. Simpson, 18, Bucklersbury, of whom
Catalogues may be obtained on Monday, the Ist of March.

TO CHYMISTS AND DRUGGISTS.
r HE COMMITTEE appointed at a Public
1 Meeting of CHYMISTS and DRUGGISTS, held
at the Crown and Anchor Tavern on the 15th inst., beg to in-
form the Members of the Trade, that Mr. HAWES has
WITHDRAWN his " BILL on MEDICAL REFORM,"
for the present. But as other Medical Bills are to be intro-
duced into Parliament during the present Session, the Commit-
tee will continue to meet ; and whilst they have given instruc-
tions to their solicitor, to watch and oppose any Bill that may
be detrimental to the trade and interests of Chymists and
Druggists, they are desirous of supporting any measure which
shall preserve the existing privileges and rights of the trade,
and, at the same time, protect the public from inexperienced
and incompetent persons dealing in or recommending Medi-

eines.
The Committee solicit the co-operation of the Chymists and
Druggists throughout the kingdom, and request that Subscrip-
tions be forwarded to the Treasurer R. H. Pigeon, Esq., 31,
Throgmorton-street.
R. A. FARMAR, Secretary.
London, February 2:1, 1841.

IjONDON AND BIRMINGHAM
RAILWAY.
On and after MONDAY the Bth of March, the following
ALTERATIONS will take place in the times of DEPAR-
TURE of the TRAINS.
9 A rt. Down Train will be al A.M. (arriving in Birmingham
about 2 P.M. )
9i A.M. Down Train will be 91 A.M. •
64 A.M. Up Train (from Wolverton) w,ll be i A.M. (arriv-
ing inLondon about 91 A.M. )
2 P M. Up Train (3d C'ass) will be 2h. 20m. r.M., and cor-
responding alteration will be made in the times of departure
of the same Trains from the several intermediate Stations
By order, R. CREED, Secretary.
Euston Station, Feb. 20, 1841.

THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGA-
TION COMPANY'S splendid sod powerful first-class
STEAM SEWS are appointed to sail for—
MIN BURGH, from Brunswick-wharf, Blackwall, every
Saturday Night, and alternate Wednesday, at Ten. The CL A-
RENCE To-night, the LEITH next Saturday, and the MO-
NARCH, Saturday, March 6th.
NEWCASTLE, from Downe's-wharf, every Saturday Night,
at Eight. The ATTW OOD next Saturday.
SUNDERLAND, from Downes's-wharf. The TOURIST
on Friday next,
.at Seven in the Evening, and March 5, 16,
and 26.

~IPSWICH, from ditto, the ALBION every Wednesday
and Saturday morning, at Seven.
YARMOUTH, from London-bridge-wharf, the RAMON A,
every Saturday Evening, at Six.
To secure berths, and fur all information, apply at the Offices
of the Company, 69, Lombard-street ; 37, Regent-circus ; and
35, Leadenhall-street.
Small Packages and Parcels are received at the Offices, and
heavy Goods at the respective Wharfs.

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN
COMPANY.
DutEcToKS.
WILLIAM HUTT, Esq., M.P., Chairman.
JOHN CHAPMAN, Esq., Deputy-Chairman.
Thos. Hektsworth, Brooking, I Jacob Montefiore, Esq.
Geo,,Robert Smith, Esq. M.P.
Henry Buckle, Esq. Captain Mark Halpeu Sweny,
Chatles Enderby, Esq. R. N.
James Irving, Esq. Edw. Gibbon Wakefield, Esq.
The DIRECTORS of the ESTERN AUSTRALIAN
COMPANY hereby Give Notice, That they are ready to
DISPOSE OF LAND, consisting both of Town and Rural
Sections, in the New Settlement of AUSTRALIND.
Terms and conditions may be had, on application to the Se-
cretary of the Company, either personally or by letter.
By Order of the Board,
• C. H. SMITH, Secretary.
Western Australian Company's Office,
33, Old Broad-street, February 12, 1841.

pi-1E MODEL OF THE ARCHIMEDES
STEAM VESSEL at Work on the Water, with Three
other beautiful Models, showing the Propelling Power of the
Screw. Osler's Anemometer. Numerous Models in motion.
The MAGNIFIED DAGUERREOTYPE PICTURES,
and the PANORAMA of CANTON, ILLUMINATED.
Continual Novelties ; Popular Lectures, including the Elec
trotype ; varied Experiments, Microscope, Diving Bell and
Diver ; and the Buds Light in the Eveningss
The Band of Music performs from Three to Five, and from
Half-past Eight to Hatt past Ten o'clock.
Admission, One Shilling.
ROYAL. POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION,
REGENT-STREET.

ANORAMA of the BOMBARDiVIENT
of St. JEAN D'ACRE, LEICESTER-SQUARE.

NOW OPEN, with the Explosion of the Magazine, distant
Views of Mounts Cannel and Richard Cceur deLion, with an
extensive view of the surrounding country.
NOW OPEN, a splendid VIEW of DAMASCUS, com-
prising the Grand Cemetery. Mosques, the Garden of Eden,
the Desert, &:., and the distant View of Mount Lebanon.
Admittance to each view, Is. Books, 6d. each.
N.B. The Circles are warmed for the season.

FURNISHED HOUSE, STOREY'S-GATE,
ST. JAMES'S-PARK.
WELL-FURNISHED HOUSE, con-
taining Nine Rooms and Two Kitchens ; may be had
for the Session of Parliament, or longer of necessary. It is
not two minutes' walk from both Houses of Parliament.
Terms, Five Guineas per Week.
Apply to Mr. Trollope, Estate and House Agent, Parlia-
ment-street; or Messrs. Clarke and Lewis, Crown-court,
Threadneedle-street.

COURT OF ALDERMEN.--Yesterday a Cour
wns held for the dispatch of business; Alderman Copeland
presided
as locum Wiens for the Lord Mayor, who is in-
disposed. A petition was presented from Mr. Cont
and Mr. Taylor, two inhabitant householders of Coleman-
street Ward, against the return of Mr. Cousins, on the
g
The petition was ordered to be taken into
consideration at the next Court. Alderman Humphery
presented a petition signed by a great number of the in-
gerrvouenad
lot. of non-residence, and not having paid scot nor
in-
habitants of the borough of Southwark for the restitution
of the Union.hall Police-office. The petition was or-
tiered to be taken into consideration when that relative
pt:eatrirttiihonengd agnßo7ijn\ir t the return of Mr. Wells, for the Ward of
usg Compter should be brought up. A
'ithout, excited a lengthened discussion,
which was a ijourned to a future day, and the Court
broke up.
ntii:eedDubeyln.t.shseofßolliacihmlo'anmdi,lyLuke of Newcastle,
36, OLD BOND-STREET. AND 1, OLD JEWRY,
her Majesty the
late Duke of Buckingham, the Marquis of Wel.
Anderson, M.D., 11, New Burlington.street ;
f
M.D., F.R.S., Bulstrode-street,
C4121e:::
Duke
e:
oss
coft
Leeds,;
Sir P
Hanover,t
Jt :r theo
ICRio'oper, Esq., F.R.S., Surgeon to
Sir Benjamin C. Brodie, Bart., F.R.S. Saville row ; Sir Anthony
k ,IG3tauar,
ay's ;,uraL ;ea
;inNvg
rljia.o77.)b-ctply:tl
lia;nicl ;14 J.
D. T. .
.oint
.qcu. Conquest,
14,M.D.,
0.
hRa. Si,
a.
place; James Johnson, M.D., Physician Extraordinary to the late
King ; R. Ktate, Sergeant Surgeon to the Queen, 15, Albemarle.
street; C. Aston Key, Esq., Senior Surgeon to Guy's Hospital;
• Martin Ware, New Bridge-street ; J. G. Andrews, Senior Surgeon
to the London Hospital. The above and numerous other Medical
Practitioners of pre-eminent standing have given the most flatter.
ing certificates to the superior value and importance of E. Solomon
and Co." Patent Spectacles, testifying to their
peculiar power of
softening the light to weak and irritable eyes, and the immediate
and continuesl relief that its chastened transmission affords—their
freedom from the pernicious attributes of ordinary glasses; in short,
to a combination of properties which render them superlatively
pre-eminent in preserving the powers of vision unimpaired to ex_
t r e m
relief c
e old age.se Their Voice Conductors extend the most effectual
of Deafness.
in
and additional satisfaction is derived
from the fact that they are worn entirly unseen. In consequence
of thp mistakes arising from a similarity of names, the P &TEO/TEES'
address should be particularly noted, 35, Old Bond-street, and 1,
Old Jewry, City.
as

COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST-
MINSTER AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A Special Court of Sewers was yesterday held at the offices
eitthe Commissioners, in Greek-street, Soho. T. L. Donald-
Sidi, Esq., in the chair. The first business before the Court
;was—To make decrees for rates on the Ranelagh and Counters
Creek districts, on houses, &c. at 6d., and on land at 2cl. in
she pound ; and to sign the rate-books for the new rates, per
min:, to the said decrees, and the abstract of the rate books-
of the rates made 15th November, 1539; or to take such
Other proceedings as the Court may then consider necessary,
upon which Mr. Leslie had given notice of an amendment.
A long preliminary discussion took place as to the manner in
which the question ought to he put.
The CHAIRMAN in answer to the obsereations as to the al-'
terations made in the presentment by the Traverse Jury, stated
that the decree had been drawn up by Mr. Smith, under the
superintendence of Mr. Ogle, in such manner as to meet the
altered circumstances of the case.
The CLERK suggested that there were two decrees, in one of
which, the case of the Counties Creek sewer, there had been no
alteration, and, therefore, he suggested that that decree should
be read first. .
The CHAIRMAN thought the best way would be to read the
decree, filling up the blank, and that on some Commissioner
moving that the decree be signed, Mr. Leslie could bring for-
ward the amendment of which he had given notice.
Mr. WILLJUGHBY thought that previous to the reading
the decree they ought to consider in what situation they were
placed by the alteration which had been made in the present-
nient by the Traverse Jury. He considered that on points of
law the Court possessed the same power as the Court of
Queen's Bench, in altering the verdict of a jury, and that
the Traverse Jury had exceeded their powers in considering-
the question of occupation, which ought to be lett out of con-
siderationaltogether, and therefore that portion of their ver-
dict ought to be set aside by the Court, and they must fall
back upon the previous presentment, in those cases where
there was no evidence to guide their determination.
They had decided in the case of the church, that the church
was not liable, but that the land whereon it stood was liable.
Now there was no evidence to vvarrant a Jury in making any dis-
tinction between the land and that which stood upon it. and
their verdict in legal understanding determined that the church
was assessable, as in legal language the land included every-
thing that was attached to the freehold. He, therefore, con-
tended it was the duty of the Court to disregard the distinction
the Jury had drawn as surplusage. It was impossible to carry the
verdict of the Traverse Jury into effect, and, therefore, they were
thrown back upon the former presentment. They were acting
now as Judges, not as the mere ministerial officers of a
Jury, and they were to make a decree as such. He submitted
they ought to decree upon the presentment of the first Jury.
The Court had not given up their powers into the hands of
the assessor, therefore were not to be bound by his decision.
He moved that the presentment of the original Jury be rati-
fied and confirmed.
Mr. BEACH seconded Mr. Willoughby's motion.
The SOLICITORS, being called upon by the Court, said it
appeared to them as the finding of the Jury had been recorded
it was impossible to avoid being guided by it. Mr. Ogle ad-
vised that all those matters which had been altered by the
Traverse Jury should be omitted from the decree altogether.
Mr. BEACH dissentedfrom the verdict of the Traverse Jury,
severing as it did the land from that which was standing on it,
which was contrary to law, being also contrary to evidence.
He was surprised the decree should have been drawn up with-
out some precious consultation with the Court. He regretted,
however, that the right name of the person deriving the emo-
lument from St. Luke's Church had not been entered in the
original presentment, but the Court possessed the power of ad-
justing the name to the fact.
Mr. Anew considered that the difficulties they were placed
in was owing to their legal advisers ; those who had drawn up
the draft of the decree seemed to have been anxious to bitch
the question altogether.
A Commissibeea—To what?
Mr. ADEr —To bitch it, to throw it overboard.--(Great
sensation.) The decree did not contain the finding of the
'I reverse Jury. The motion now before the Court was an
attempt to deprive the traverser of the benefit of his Traverse
Jury altogether. The decree should have confirmed the finding
of the Presenting Jury, excepting such portions as were
altered by the Traverse Jury, and that the finding of the Jury
should have been confirmed.
The SOLICITOR said that such was the case.
Mr. Anew denied it.
The SOLICITOR said that Mr. Ogle had decided to omit
those parties from the decree altogether, and that they were
not liable.
Mr. Anew said that was contrary to the finding of the
Traverse Jury, which had found them liable. He would
never sign a decree from which the finding of the Traverse
Jury should be omitted.
Mr. SALE thought that in this land the finding of Juries
should be treated with that respect which they deserved.—
(Hear, hear.) Setting aside the presentment of the Jury
was going far beyond the duty of an assessor. They ought
not to delegate to an individual the powers of the Court, even
though lie were my Lord Chief Justice Denman without his
wig. There was a plain course which would settle all difficul-
ties. Let it be settled, aye or no, are churches assessable ?
Mr. A'BECICETT could not support Mr. Willoughby's mo-
tion, nor could he sign the decree. All land was rateable, and
it was not a rate on persons but on things. The question
was who was to pay that rate. The Juries, however,
had not found that the land was not rateable, but were after-
wards found charging the very properties in the original pre-
sentment, and went on to except certain property. Property
to the amount of 1,2321. found was here excluded entirely. He
(Mr. A'Beckett) thought that if Mr. Willoughby would turn
his attention to that point he would see that his motion was
inconsistent with itself.—( Hear.) Whether churches should
be rated or not, perhaps they ought not then to inquire ; but
the reason why churches were not originally rated was this—
that the community were all rated in respect to the lands of the
parish, and as all went to church in those days, it was not
thought necessary to rate the church. Another reason was,
that it would have been held a violation of the sanctuary'. In
times when men possessed but one religion the rate tell upon
the whole community, and if the church was not
specifically rated it amounted to the same thing.
He thought the presentment ought to go back for
revision.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Jury said the land on
which the church stoOd was rateable. They all knew that
everything attached to the soil and freehold became land in
the legal acceptation of the term. He (Mr. A'Beckett) had
every wish to support what was suggested by the Learned As-
sessor, but he thought he hadmistaken the matter—(Hear)—
and that the latter part of the decree was not warranted by his
own results. What then was the course to be pursued? He
could not say with Mr. Willoughby—let us confirm the origi-
nal presentment—because that would be flying in the face of
the Jury. He (Mr. A'Beckett) would, therefore, neither
vote for the motion nor against it.--(Hear. )
After a few words from Mr. FULLER,
The CHAIRMAN said if they were to carry out the former
presentment how were they to. do it ? They would incur a
great weight of odium if by a stretch of power they set aside
the presentment of the Jury. If they wished to assess the
churches upon the Traverse Jury how were they to do that?
Could they by an act of their own apportion the sum to be
raised upon the ground on which the church stood? Suppos-
ing this should be resisted how would they stand before a
Jury? He believed according to '23 Hen. VIII. they could
only return the lands assessable, and not apportion the value of
it, and this he thought would be the best course they couldnur-
sue. Theywould thus avoid great difficulty, great expense, and ir-
ritation.—( Hear, hear.) And if a party objected to pay his
assessment because the church was not assessed, that would
not overset the presentment; the church might be assessed,
and the party would only gain his point, that the church
should be assessed, and was not released from his own assess-
ment. They had a choice of difficulties, and it was for them
to decide which they would adopt.
Mr. LESLIE said, his amendment would release them from
all difficulties, if they would adopt it. He did not offer them
the opinions of counsel, but judicial decisions. He thought
he should produce such strong reasons for doing so, that they
would set aside the whole proceedings on the ground of irre-
gularity. He believed the question one of the most important
that had ever occupied the attention of the Court. They were
embarking in a sea of trouble, and were wrong in toto
on the matter, as he would show them from the statutes. Mr.
A'Beckett said putting the name of the occupiers was a mere
surplusage.
The CHAIRMAN said he had an amendment given him to
propose, but Mr. Leslie had the precedence if he thought pro-
p r, having given notice of one.
Mr. LESLIE thought he was bound to wait until the decree
was put from the Chair.
A COMMISSIONER thought if Mr. Leslie could do all he
promised, the motion had better be put..—( Hear, hear. )
The CHAIRMAN said the usual mode of procedure was to
ask if it was the pleasure of the Court to sign a decree.
Mr. LESLIE thought the order of the day should be moved
as a parliamentary proceeding, and that Mr. Willoughby was
entitled to reply.
Mr. AnEir said if Mr. Willoughby's was an original motion,
Mr. Leslie should then move his amendment, or he would be
precluded from doing so.—( Hear, hear. )—On appeal to him
the Chairman ruled that it was an original motion.
Mr. Anew said it being ruled to be an original motion, he
thought it could not be supported. It would be paying little
respect to the Jury, having called them together, to set aside
their presentment. It was his opinion they had got into their
present difficulty through their Assessor not being sufficiently
acquainted with the law.—(Hear, hear.) He thought they
could make a correct decree, without naming the value of the
land ; and then an , important question was, whether such a
decree could be set aside ? He thought not. Were they to go
on in this way for ever, bringing, as perhaps they were, ruin 1
on many respectable individuals, who required the payment of
their bills. He thought they had the power of calling in sur-
veyors as to the value of the land, which the Jury had returned
as assessable. The best way would be to confirm the findings
of the Jury, except as to certain property which had been tra-
versed, and to sign the decree.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. WILLOUGHBY thought the disposal of his motion in
one point would not prevent any motion being made on the de-
cree at large.
Mr. Anew then moved that the !elicitor be directed to alter
the decree to meet the finding of the Traverse Jury.
Mr. SALE seconded the motion.
Mr. Minutes thought it impossible to speak upon the
amendment, until they knew what that alteration would be.—
(" No, no.")
Mr. LESLIE said this difficulty arose from gentlemen com-
ing in when business was half done.—(Hear, hear.) He
could not understand why they could not come to a decision
upon the motion, because the question whether they should
sign the decree would come afterwards.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY said he should feel considerable repug-
nance to addtess the Court, after the opinions which
had been expressed, did he not feel the great im-
portance of the subject, and did he not entertain
a strong opinion on the subject. He would again entreat the
Court to consider that they were not acting Ministerially—
( Hear, hear)—and, whatever might be the finding of the
Court, he hoped they would put their own construction upon
the matter, and not leave it to the finding of a fury. He
thought the proposition of the amendment open to the
gravest objections. The findings of the Juries would become
a nuisance instead of a benefit, unless they were properly con-
trolled. The traverse did not produce any evidenced at all
upon which the traverse was founded, and it was not, here-
fore, surprising that the Jury should err. Were their then,
to
to confirm the findings of the Jury which they.
(I,neuvinder
have been formed without evidence?
ell pee stal to the
such circumstances, it was no
Court to fall back upon the
Were they to confirm a p
,:oringdtiininsraelns-t ent,mviei nil
they found so manifest an error, thatriascnillzasthloivabglhet,
ibtutthat
the structures upon it were not liable?
essen-
tial to the use of Juries that tlieroaiuseihoorfitthyefirropmolwv-ohri.ch
This
emanated should control the ex
was done by the Court above, and should be done there. If

For the amendment
Against it ... 5
Majority against amendment 2
Mr. Willoughby s motion was then put, when there ap-
peared-
For the motion
Against it
Majority against motion ...s. -2
The CHAIRMAN then said he had to call on the Court to
instruct its officers what they were to do with the decree.
With respect to the Counters Creek Sewer, there was a decree
without alteration ; "was it the pleasure of the Court to sign
the decree ?
Mr. WILLOUGHBY moved that the decree should be signed.
The Chairman called oirMr. LYSLIE, who said,-Sir, on the
Bth of May, 1840, I had the honour of submitting in this
Court the following motion-" That in consequence of the ab-
sence of all custom, the exceeding difficulties, and expense at-
tending the assessing and recovering the proposed assessment-,
and the prospect of a great expenditure of the Sewers'-rate in
litigation, it is inexpedient to depart from the established cus-
tom in making the Sewers'-rates under this Commission."
Seven voted for, and eleven against. The original motion
having been again put, a further amendment was moved-
" That the following words be added to the original motion,
except the following classes of property, viz., parochial
churches, chapels, burial-grounds, not being proprietary.
Royal palaces, courts of law, Westminstei•-hall. Houses of Par-
liament, and committee-rooms, and prisons." This amend-
ment was also lost, and the original motion to assess all the pre-
ceding. properties was carried by eleven to six.
'eon. AGAINST.
AGAINST.
Mr. Beach, - Mr. Willoughby,
Coles, W. White,
Gutch, Leslie, '
Lowe, Goldicutt,
Mayhew, Fri me,
Crace, Bourdillon.
Griffiths,
Jacobs,
Lock,
IJnwin,
John White.
Sir, the effect of that unfortunate decision has been one of
great pecuniary charge to the rate-payers, the present inhabi-
tants of the districts. The sum for the professional valuations
is nearly 1,0001. ; what the amount of law expenses up to the
present time may be, I can hardly venture to imagine ; besides
which, almost every palish has in conseouence been compelled
by the proceedings of that day to employ solicitors, and take
the opinion of counsel, so that with the law expenses of the
Commission, and the parochial law expenses, all of which must
be paid by the rate-payers, I think 1 may say it was a most
unfortunate decision. I now proceed to show cause
why this Court ought not to sign this decree,
" because the proceedings of the Court which have led to the
said presentments, and the presentments, are veid, being con-
trary to the statutes, to the Commission, and the oath taken
by the Commissioners." The authority of the Justices of
Sewers is derived from the Commission founded upon and in
the words of the statute 23 Hen. VIII. c. 5. Before they can
act as such, they must take the oath prescribed in the filth
section, " to truly and indifferently execute the authority to
you given by this Commission- of Sewers, without any favour,
affection, corruption, dread, or malice to be borne to any man-
ner of person, &c., for the due redress, reformation, and
amendment of all and every such things as are contained and
specified in the said Commission, to the best of your know-
ledge and belief." Then follows after the oath in these unusual
words, " And over that be it enacted Section 7, that the Com-
missioners hereinafter to be named in any of the said Commis-
sions, according to the purport and effect of the same Com-
missions, have full nower and authority to make, constitute,
and ordain laws, ordinances, and decrees, and further, to do all
and everything mentioned in the said Commission, according
to the purpoit and effect, words, and true meaning of the
same." And it is laid down by Sir Edward Coke in the Chester
Mills case, " That always such construction ought to be made,
that one part of the Act may agree with the other, and all to
stand together." Passing over for the moment the doubtful
question that the Commissioners of Sewers have any authority
to precede the opinion of a Jury in a large outlay of money
for valuing, according -to Mr. Poulett Scrope's Paro-
chial Assessment Act, various descriptions of property
for which no owner or occupier, or inhabitant, in the
the legal sense, can be found, I proceed to the main objec-
tions. First, I deny the authority of the Commissioners to issue
any precept to the Sheriff, except it be in the words of the statute,
and they are " to inquire by the oaths of the honest and law-
ful men of the shire." Now, it is notorious that this Com-
mission has been advised to frame their precept for the Pre-
senting Jury, upon Sir Robert Peel's Act, 6 G. 4, c. 50, and •
in conformity therewith, inserting in the precept the words
"of men qualified to serve on juries." I submit that Sir Robert
Peel's Act has nothing whatever to do with the 23d Henry
8, c. 5, it is never once mentioned in his Art, although it re-
peals the whole, or portions, of between 70 and 80 statutes re-
lating to jurors for " the trial of issues joined." And Mr.
Sergeant Hill, in a note in the 4th edition of Canis, p 108,
states that the qualification of a jury for sewers is not altered
by 44Anne;c. 16, s. 6, or the '24th George the 2d, c. 18, s. 3,
which extend only to trials on issues joined; both these latter
Acts being on the same subject as Sir Robert Peel's " Issues
joined," are repealed by this statute. Secondly I contend
that a Jury for a Sewer's presentment, under this Commis-
sion, must be composed of freeholders, none others at the pe-
riod of the 23d H. 8, c. 5, 1531, could form a jury of any
kind but freeholders ; by 13 Edward Ist, C. 38, passed
in 1285, the qualification of a juror was forty shillings
freehold, increased by statute in 1585 to 80s, by the 27th Eliza-
beth, cap. 6, and increased in 1664 by tho 16th and 17th Car.
11., cap. 3, to 201. per annum freehold. Copyholders were ad-
mitted in 1692 by the 4th and sth Will. and Mary, cap. 24, s.
15, and then the joint qualification was freehold or copyhold
101. per annum. Four years after this, 7th and Bth Will. 111.,
cap. 32, sec. 4, it was enacted, " That all Sheriffs of counties
may be better informed of persons qualified who are to be re-
turned for trial of .issues joined." Then provides the ma-
chinery by which the Clerk of the Peace was to make the Jury
Book at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions in each year. The
qualification, as before stated, freehold or copyhold, 101. per
annum. This was the originjof the. resent Jurors' Book for the
trial of issues joined ; and there is a remarkable fact in the
history of this Commission, five years after this Act had passed,
March 15, 1701, the Commissioners of Sewers for Westminster
had to complain of the disrespectful conduct of the Sheriff of
Middlesex in not attending the Court of Sewers, and also that
the Jury he had returned were poor men, and unfit to be
hindered from their employment for any length of time, but
there being an immediate occasion for a Jury, they were sworn.
and directed to make their presentment at the next Court, and
be discharged. The Court then fined the Sheriff of Mid-
dlesex 51., issued a precept for 48 freeholders, and the Sheriff
appeared with them, and from the records it appears
they were from Isleworth. Teddington, " Twitnam," Hampton,
Hanwell, Old Brentford, Acton, St. Giles, and Marylebone.
The Court remitted the fine upon the Sheriff. We are now
to examine whether there be any thing of importance in this
objection as to the precept. I must trouble the Court by re-
ferring to a recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench,
viz. on the 11th December, 1827, Birkett v. Crozier, an action
of trespass for levying and taking away the plaintiff's goods,
justified under the authority of the Commissioners of Sewers
for the Tower Hamlets. The present Lord Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, Tindal for the plaintiff, and the present
Lord Chief Baron Scarlett for the Commissioners of Sewers,
he proved for the Commissioners that a jury had been impan •
neled-that the jury had made a presentment, that public
notice of it had been given, that the plaintiff's solicitor had
been supplied with a copy, and he proved-what will delight
some Honourable Commissioners, because it has been urged in
this Court, that it always looks well in the Superior Courts to
have been guided by Counsel-he proved that the Commis-
sioners of Sewers had had a legal crutch to enable them to
hobble, instead of walking erect under the guidance of the
statutes, the Commission, and their oaths, and that their legal
crutch was Sir Vicary Gibbs. Now mark the important evi-
dence. The Commission was read, the form in 28 Hen. 8.
The precept for the jury was the second document,
It required " 48 good and lawful men of your county and resi-
dent within the Tower Hamlets." The precept was signed by
six Commissioners. Tindal objected to it. This precept is
bad ; the Jury ought to come from the body of the county ;
and submitted that if the precept is bad the presentment and
all subsequent proceedings are corum non judice. His objec-
tion prevailed, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict, damages
31. 6s. I submit that the Commissioners of Sewers for the
Tower Hamlets departed from the authority of the statute; the
Commission and their oaths bound them to the words. Al-
though every one of these 48 men were qualified as Jurors
under Sir Robert Peel's Act, yet the Commissioners departed
from their authority in signing such a precept. I rely with
perfect confidence on the fact that no subsequent statute has
absolved the Commissioners from the obligation of their oath,
and they must strictly confirm to the words of the 23d Henry
Bth in such important documents, otherwise they are but
mere waste paper, as this case of Burkett and Crozier shows.
My next objection is that you suffered twenty-three persons
to be sworn upon the Jury, for which there is no authority in
the statute. If Sir Edward Coke was any authority when lie
said, in the Chester Mills case, " that always such construction
ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with the
other, and all to stand together," then, Sir, this statute ta'ks
of a Jury of 12, vide llth section; and that this is the correct
view of the subject, Icite Commins v. Massam, 18 Car. 1-
March's Reports, page 196, when it was held that the pre-
sentment ought to be by the oaths of twelve men. But what.
is the judicial interpretation of the statute of Henry VIII, '1;
modern times, on this point, Duke of Newcastle v. Clarke
his
others, 8 Taunton,page 602, et seq., Mr. Justice
Park
judgment, in going over the powers given to Comte,:
el cobe-
Sewers under the statute, says, " they may
linsecnousideration of the
Ind , ea
nn
de ea
ttoor
ythe
writsi ordersin; tinhoeny
amjauyr
Jury
command mi; n d the Sheriffs hteebrei ffpubryp
purpose of
inquiry." This I submit deserves the serrtio,ei
nt thc Jury into pri-
vateCourt.llly next objection is that this.
were to make the presentment,Thp
room to hear the evidence sureecpraert; d
forn ettec h.itut
ray,y,
c well-known case of the
under the orders of this Court: f
paid,
Sowers for Somersetshire, 7
"But this is not a judicial
KEainstg7vl..
method of making the be sworn
.• inquiry; the Jury ought to
thLooredoEntimiciusbsi?ornoeur;b
by evidence, to be delivered upon oath, upon
be conducted before the Commissioners, before whom theinquir7 is to
hearing which the Jury are to make their presentment." Sir
Frederick Pollock, in his recent opinion, also expressed the
proceeding;.
same. The Commissioners, therefore,- in a mt.ipshtroiiteni
point, are acting against a judicial decisien, in which the very
any question of point firmed partofthien jugdusnasnbeinngt,
tabienlwinbowlehic whole
Court were unanimous b.
Because the doctrine laid down to tshsetJouuryn,d'e‘mthtpalt..thhe Cogei-
missioners impose the tax upon the land, and are not bound to
judicial cases andowararinie
whoseur
pepaartdoi potenhr.et,
statutesi tI ias
at
or the
regardltohe
uld
Athsealssho itore,inwqhueirree
personown-
ership inquire
ocro
en of
bsyucthhedeofaatuhlto:
athned
at such a conclusion. What does the statute 23 Henry VIII.
annoyances be, as
hc.onsCsstaaynd laSew?utliomn
well within the liher ies •
as without (by whim
the truth may the rather be known), thr
ough whose defaults the
said hurts and damages have happened, and who hath or holdeth
any lands or tenements, or common profit of
fishing, or hath or may have any hurt. or pasture, or
paces, as well loss, or advantage in r"
said near to the saidlet.: impediments
ins or dwelling thereabouts by the said walls, ditches, banks,