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

MORNING ED ITION.*

—.,---.
:11amitous struggle for inclependerce. Happily it.failed, but if
41.,0rd Dunean had not lalen-in with the Texel fleet—(Cries of
"h, oh," from the Opposition.) There was such a man and
such a fleet. If a great Fren:l army had landed in Munster,
tt. s'ruggle would have tasked us to the utmost. But from
fat struggle we were preserved by the great, but ill-merited
vour of Divine Providence. But still the evil
mot small, it was not a small evil when
the French armies were conquering beyond the Appe-
,nines and the Rhine, the English troops were not resisting
;ilirono,,lpnarstuebiseneds!lti(cipating Waterloo, but mitring war uP.-n
Cheers.) It was no small evil that while
Diassena, 2% aedonald, and Moreau were marching. at the head
ti)ifstwheeriresd.iicsp.ola:iyi4ounsgtroops, our own Abercrombie and Cornwal-
glenave led to victoryt.heir talents and long experience against
very men whom, under a better system, theSr would
The retribution was just and natu-
ral, and necessary, for a power greater than the power
of parliament has de:-reed, that a Government which
theiri, t m veari;.
seeks tranquillity and safety though injustice shall seek
Let not us fall into that error ; let us listen to
Let
the people are imploring us as one man not. to
rola to brand them, not to strike the iron deeper into
abject souls:, not to drive them to despair .by injustice, not to
Itnazoinect them to the worst kind of injusticethe ty-
LetY of caste over caste and creed over creed.
tithus reject the evil consequences which follow in the steps
e oppressor, and by so doing, wrest the most formidable
in-aPoa out of the hands of the
agitator.—( Vehement cheer-
twig 7:o: both sides.) Let us cement the unity of feeling be-
g, . the sister island, and give a perfect security to that Le-
Union, which othing can endanger but our own unbgovernrnent.—( Cheers.) Let us convert that part of the
empire which has so often been a source of weakness and dis-
gra,e into the means of glory and of strength—(Cheers)—and
wsthrike terror into the hearts of men in all parts of the world
tw,° envy our greatness, or would insult our honour, by uniting
il'li`dreqsven niiilions of British hearts in one great cause, and
twidr "e parental Crown. (The Hon. Gentleman sat down
, st loud cheering from both sides of the House.)
; Un the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the debate was ad-
;uivrened, and 'immediately afterwards the House adjourned, at
Minutes past Twelte o'Clock.

SPURTING INTELLIGENCE.

A CROXTON PARK RACES, 1841.
listfor the Granby Handicap. —The Potentate,
tl,!tlllst 81b—Northenden 6 yrs, list 1 Ilb—Aladdin, 6 yrs,
ell " •
ru---Q„„ (ma, 6 yrs, Ist 91b—The Currier, 5 yrs, list
nom ,'"rge, 6 yrs, I Ist bib—Prince, aged, list
Yrs, I Ist 61b—Tamburini, 5 yrs, list 5113—.Matadore,
Alcot4lb —Hamlet, aged, 1 Ist 21b—Hazard, 5 yrs, I Ist—
•-41:' 4 YTS, list—Brother to Riddlesworth, aged, lOst 121 b
4,lollntairs Sylph, 4yrs, lOst 121b—Seveniy.four, age(.l,
cutil4 "-Brother to Prize-flower, 5 yrs, lOst 121b—Colchi-
lOst 1115—Wings, 5 yrs, lOst 11113—Fat Jack,
list iork t I,.llb—Haveldar, aged, 10st 101b—Mustard, 5 yrs,
Nb.,m7,"- 1
Honesty, aged, lust 101b—Lady Ann, aged,l9st
itilshi,)`lneux, 4 yrs, tOst 71b—Brunette, 6 yrs. lust I b-
t; Yr; f,LS YTS, lost 71b— Specimen, 5 yrs, lOst 71b— Spangle,
colt, 4 "' 71b—Isaac of York, 4 yrs, lOst 71b—Lambtoman
yes Yrs, lOst 41b—Defence colt, 4 yrs, lOst 41b—Priamus,
9st 21b"st 111b—Mundig colt, 3 yrs, 9st 71b— Hatred, 3 yrs,
Ace
BenonePtances for the Gold Cup. —Prizellower, aged, 12st--
4N1101;61;lb list 101b—George, 6 yrs, list 71b Matadore,
lust
121 Hist 41b —Leonidas, aged, Oat 121b—Haveldar,4aged,
Quickshver, aged, lOst 121b—Molineux,
aged,
yrs,
lOstoib —c!saac of York, 4 yrs, lOst bib—Splendid,
kr. 7,--"Pecimen, yrs, 1 Ost 51b —Tormentor, 6 yrs, !Osti:f.lvbe.
Paid • -7. 4, • Smith's (Handicap) Plate. —The following l a
444 j'aerurab, St. Lawrence, Zethus, the Fickle colt, P uto,
Tar.

twg COURSING.
She AAIIKET.--WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, AND FRIDAY.
tk, ling,ten Hill Stakes fur Bitch Puppies.—Mr. Vipan's
illett's bk.
ti beat Mr. Inskip's bk. Iris,
br' Kittenllr Finch's bk. and w. Go-it, Captain Daintree's
1). Sae ten beat Mr. Dobed.ee s bk. Dormouse,,P Mr. Saberton's
s'redec'aaline beat Mr. King's w. Rarity, Tyson's bk.
Della ira beat Mr. Inskip's bl. Indio, Mr. Dobede's bk.
fat Arrat Mr. Fyson's Fly, Mr. Gillett's br. and w. Go-ahead
gge's bk. Tagrag.
'‘itt4%-be".e2.--Deli!. beat Vivid, Frederica beat Go-ahead,
'S.scoma,t,.Saecharine,. Chita ran a bye.
beeid; les,—Frederica beat Delia, Kitten
.beat Ghita.
Thet."g Course.—Kitten beat Delia, and won the stakes.
hr' d. Vipan's w. b. Violante heat Mr. Inskip's
,45.,,,,,,4'44der Mr. Batt's b. and w. d. p. Cadland beat i ir.
rrss r. d. p• Atlas, Mr. Dobede's bk. d. p. Dante
.beat
ash I.
d Rioter, Capt. Daintree's Kitty Fisher
Nsr•br • and w. d. Cadiz, Mr. Thorp's bl. d. Na-
cl,_ate Damon•a ) beat Mr. Bryarit's Euphrates,.Mr.
and w. b. p. Fairy beat Mr. Gillett's w.b dt
Nip;
kPs 41) Saberton's bk. and w. b. p. Souvenir,
•"1g R° Saberton's
Mr. Dunn's bk. and w. d. Burwell beatea Air.
„,kenwi .s
gDante beat Napoleon, Kitty Fisher beat SecVio-
,, -`l,,Attvenir beat .Fairy, Burwell beat Caciland.
Ties.—Souvenir beat Burwell, Dante beat Kitty
beeridi
Course.—Souvenir beat Dante,
.and won the cup.
b"l' Ind,-."'PPeriham Stakes for Dog Puppies.—Mr.
'llll.l.ran beat Mr. Saberton's w. Sesqui, Mr. Fysons bk.
tirea•l4 best Mr. Vipan's bk. Vagrant, Mr. Fyson's r.
,411ez-4.°1 beat Mr DObede's bk. Dunkirk, Mr. Edwards s .
bua.tAv't,-' beat Ca‘pt: Daintree's br. Kimber, -Mr. Gillett's, bk.
ti'lia.4'4e beat -alr Bagge's bk. Tallyho, Mr. Brya.nt sr.
'tit() tra at
Mr • Bagge's bk. Trustee, Mr. Dunn's bk.
beat Mr Finch's bL Gift.
—lndian
beat Briton, Allegro beat Fireaway,
Ganymede Fantail ran a bye.
Deeidi pptrh Ties..—lndian' beat Allegro, Fantail beat Ephraim.i
(uurse.—Fantail beat Indian, and won the (
The I), stakes.
Scak M a.bert(;n's w. d. Slyboots beat Mr.
k'lk4 ". ad we Busy,r•' Captain Daintree's br. b. Keep-.
'Nlllr b.
' mbau Captain Daintree's r. d.
h..'ibeq-14' beat Air.ant Da okblega.e'ilele)e;.wobne,rry Mr. Inskip's f. b.
t 51r.
i 111'r. Fyson's r. d.
ATP Ntr. bbk: and w. d. Gilpin, Mr. Edwards's f.
,ithe at Mr. D'unn's f. and w. d. Bustle, Mr. King's r.
Fnsb,''..vl.ver beat Mr. Finch's bl. d. Gladiator, Mr. Vipan's
t na beat NI • Finch's bk. Gibraltar.
rdir:t'Z'e•—tVis.!?•beina beatn Slyboots, Keepsake beat Red
p Antar best Follett„
1411,3 Ties! VerbenaiPe-bie; t Keepsake, Idol beat Antar. .
v g Course Id I beat Verbena, and won the stakes.
4,4 11. "1,4, stland Sjie ° Saberton's w. d. Shark (late
aa•4r• br. d. Kimber, Mr. Vipan's
liir'.4stle, A shptt_ll.4u (late Vincent) beat Mr. Dunn's f. and w.
Dehe., Nash 's br. and w.. d. Cadiz (late Frank) beat.
'all (h. 8 bk. and w. b. Darling, M Fyson't bl. d. Elam-
l'''''nallen) beat Mr. Inskip's brr.. d.. Intrautdser.ar..
betiVlArnbeau beat Van Amburgh, Cadiz be
the
k
44'Cl )urse• —Cadiz beat Flambeau, and won e stakes.
ecti,
pOl LANCASHIRE CLUB.—FES. 17 AND IS.
(in the Od Cup was won by Mr. Clark's Lottery, beat-
de
`Zsd_ei idin.,„o. -course) Mr. Slater's Sheridan.; the Ros-
on by Mr. t's Euclid, beating (in the
egp`‘',,,,"urge 1 Mr. Robinsonnn's Cob Coal; the C.hurchtown
idink woil by Mr. Robinson's Tyrant, beating (in the
tkei "41c) Whitehead's Quiz ; the Consolation
' • were wonb Mr. Edwards'. Manfred; the Bold Stakes
Wit
kd'• tzjdeh, arns s. Priam, beating (in the
rr-xeis eman ; and the Crossland Stakes by Mr.
1(1, be",ating Mr. Eden's Echo.
',)11.1:), Olt „,
Grip MEETING.—Fes. 15, 16, AND 17.
t`te;s 'f. d. Aid-de-Camp beat Mr. E.
t, So.rd r-/lantine Mr. W. EtwaTs bd. d,. West-wind
°l.°l( albot's bd. d. Tambour, Mr. Cripp sy. d.
t; Alb at M Ettwall's d. Enford Lad, Sir. Goodlake's
ekei lantly beat Mr Baildort's f. b. Blush, Lord Strad-
Musquito beat Mr. Loelce's bk. d. Labsnses,}%olrr,
I.,,,,,Pirlkk„l:;_,Bullion. beat Mr. Aggi's
eAsr
Arquebus,
uinitmd,
134,Valba t.
s bd.d2iTala:la;unrineiatbettr. Mr. Raildon's bk b.
Pi;l'
lath ti .
li, 6.".--A id-de-Camp beat Meal ban, Bullion beat
144sQuito beat Al-y
Granny, West-wind beat Cole-
Ai'dert'd •
usqui..to beat Westwind, Bullion beat
lh P.
e"-rse---
Are Musquito beat Aid-de-Camp, and won
4,4 111)7. et Stalces.=-Lord btradbroke's r. d. Murray (late.
barathl:')eat Mr. Locke's bd. b. Lovely, Mr. Ao's f. d
peei;to Lord Talbot's r. b. Testa.. _
a.
es
1-4 11•81. st rse• --Murray beat Amurath, and won the. tk. .
C'`kti' 'eat Ni-", cta.vell•—illr. W. Etwall's bk. b. Wiltshire
14-ro beat • CriPp's bk. d. Climax, Mr. Goodlake's bk.s b.
kik4t(le Air. Locke's bl. b. Bonquet, Mr. Bowles f. b.,
9. lijiteat Mr. Etwall's y. d. East.vard, Lord Str.adbro.ke s
beat Lord Talbot's bd. and w. b. Timbrel.
ing c.Tes beat llomficle, Minerva , beat Wiltshire Lass.
°11(.1 las'lrse.--Minervabeat Ganges, and won the stakes.
on 'iaildoo,sBCraven.—.lllr. E. Cripps's hk. b. Extacy, beat _
13'4 t bk d• Burgundy, Lord Stimdbroke s bk. d
;eiditi„a Goodlake's f. d. Guizot.
1), e,a, c.,(411•'5e.---Extacy beat Melton, and won the stakes.t
beat 51c. A 'akes.—Lord Stradbroke'a bk. Mid.sum!ne
cogj tb. Ada, Lord Talbot's bl. d.. Timepiece
the teteil'!ing Cotake's Geneva.
Th:". I.lrse.•-.lllidsummer beat Timepiece, and won
Cri„—t°ll Stakes —Mr Baiblon's hk. b. Bashful beat
tbl it it .r. Eglantine Mr:. Goodlake's t. b. Garonne
A.-`4l4l(e's Y. d. 'Gallopade, Mr. Etwall's War-Cry
ttaol,gg's Arquebus, Mr. -Bowles's Beggar Girl beat
.)4l:sk lassic,:f4ut. I-ad.
srs' tiaild bat War-Cry, Beggar Girl beat Garonne.
ktlev stl and Bowles divided the stakes.
Lk, Stakes gees were won by Mr. Bowles's Benledi, the
Iltb,„ur'le byeV; e won by Mr. Etwall's Eastward, and tpe
.P.t „iri• Agg's Ajax.
•Ss —• and Goodlake divided the Ashdown Stakes , and 'Messrs. Etwall and Locke the White Horse
E:• and tp.iatltt ,bate
h for 1004, between Lord Eglinton's Water-
(2oedlake's Gracchus was won by the former;
's \l,•ii,?-;.`1., between Mr. Bowles's Bonafide and Mr. Et-
antre WaS won by the latter.
00,

Ilitikrxt tw

dogs)
.was rfc!,..
\l'• At.fsi°llbs'oriEll,;%l,!•;Thd (sixteenaelsoCZthe second prize (of ?,
Ifi°3.' with hi; Rase/;4'Th; A;:
.4zed Stakes (eight dogs,2
b bit exl4`' ) were won by Mr. Cooke.B ToPer"
by Mr. J.
Ntl,4v CLon, FEU 15 —The Cup N.'" won
li • % tierdSl2l U. • •
Th.
—The All
Ake.PF,v'r,, ex •VracToar.a. Cr. Is, FEB. 15 AND • , the se-
e°ll4,.l)ll) of 251: Was WO byll
Me. Elmore's Hinds ;
, 44; tze of 10/. by Me.nBpooner's.Sultan.
'ks 1,, t Atte. (Epsom) Cturs FM 12 AND 11.—The .
11,!.' „h, Y Mr. Williams's Elfin, and the Goble (second Fue.
t:iolltitilaylor's s Nimble.
104 si,-L"!., FEB 16.—T6 Ombersley Stakes were won
estl;e,-"veaf 's Percy, and the 'second prize of 3 sous. by Mr.
tislrtitst.," k.
1g5),„0., A,;,..v CLuz. PEs. 18 AND 19.---The Cup (sixteenb__r
thl4l:, pees At," hy. Mr. Eley's Trinket, and the Goblet yrill,s
ks Attarnicht The Wyke Stakes by Mr. Thack all ,
v , the'. *
.',olsw stake' Stars by Mr. Williams's Whiskey ; and
00d„,.........._es Grove's Cobweb.
—.„„................,
.............
44:lit ,Wti4::linttOn.e time expected that the appointment
ri e,tv.___ ef the Royal nursery " would have
l'4*slo'rrvd open the Baroness Lehzets, who at pre`een.t.
i:,_cit, ; ree?enised situatit,n in the household of.the S.
0,1 elr,'", whatever henteniions of he 011,,, --4, gilt b y th y have it Is said, been
:t!. kien;l..,st tbe inst.;-..setiosloi thee- King 'of th.le7l37lBgtYilioni;
o(l,taeotlycY, In dot rence to the judgment of othe!ss 0 •
It 4th "UP all idea of conferring the aPP"ttnien
4,4 e 11.,r, us
has air co been se-
ll, to fill -- 8. The lady who
rl',4 (~,„ th.? office is a highly-respectable widow,
I,,,t'lliet, fme',sX, the sister-inlaw cf tie celebrated Dr.
of e C:4'l), . ISrg at Cants rhos y Her husband was the.
11141., !lr' .tathey., io the 'FL •ol navy. The arroint
till'illte) (,114siatIstcd '-o be 3094' perLnun .
..
h4if to tra,l°W, Paisley, atA Greencck
GRaele:acyk
It)
stay' e , - , Tfa'e Gla..gqtr, Ni ley, and r
an +d
A ~/ Q't44 'to ' f c a money, a ```
.sets, arid •v rat e on r. um .
~
ns of the
44d 4'4", t 4'..L!e tle Pnwe's and Pr"''" ted and
4 kat ,', 0 the sai i Rsilvvay" was preset.. e
' ries and ordered to be read a second tun •

r p
Al

IN,
~ , ‘

COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST
MINSTER AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A Special Court of Sewers was yesterday held at the offices
of the Commissioners, in Greek-street, Soho. T. L. Donald-
son, 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 2d. in
the pound ; and to sign the rate-books for the new rates, pur
surer to the said decrees, and the abstract of the ratio books-
of the rates made 15th November, 1639; 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 be put.
The CHAIRMAN in answer to the observations 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.
'she 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. WILLIUGHBY 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-
ment 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 'ury had exceeded their powers in considering
the question of occupation, which ought to be left out of con-
sideration altogether, and therefore that portion of their veer-
diet 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 warrant 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 SotterToas, 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.
alr. 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 previous 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. ADEY 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 CO SIMISSIONER— To what? •
Mr. ADEY— To bitch it, to throw it overboard.—( Great
sensation.) The decree did not contain the finding of the
'1 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. ADEY 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. ADEY 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 au assessor. They ought
not to delegate to an individual the powers of the Court, even
though he 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'Beeicezr-e,ould not support Mr. Willoughby's mo-
tion, nor could he sign the cle•Cree. Athland 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 fell 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 lard 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. that then was the course to be pursued? He
could not say with Mr. Willoughby—let us c' ntirm 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 bethe best course they couldpur-
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'lleckett 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. ADEY 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. ADEY said it being ruled to be an original motion, he
thought it could not be supported. It would he 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
on many respectable individuals, who required the payment of
their bill. 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-
, -ersed, and to sign the decree.—( Hear, hear.)
Wittoucannt thought the disposal of his motion in
one
t would not prevent any motion being made on the de-
cree at a vge•
Mr. AD.er then moved that the Solicitor be directed to alter
the decree to meet the finding of the Traverse Jury.
mr. SALE seconded the motion.
Mr. Alu ttir.rs thought it impossible to speak upon the
amendment, until ti:ey knew, what that alteration would be.—
(" No no.")
Mr. No,
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 add; ess 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—
gear, hear)--and, whatever might be the finding of the
Tt, be hoped they would put their own construction upon
x.4.ter, ,rind not leave it to the finding of a fury. He
'ne ,the tiroposition of the amendment open to the
hen' "t s • The findings of the Juries would become
;rave of a benefit, unless they were properly con-
nuis. "3' -
st ticrasci
',Verse did not produce any evidence at all
rolled. The ti. v
upon N chick the trkverse was fouoded, and it was not, there-
,;„ that the Jury should err. Were they, then,
fore, su, TrlZh-e.b •fin-cu,gs of the Jury. which they knew to
to confirr
have be en Formed without evidence? He said, under
vices, disrespect to the
such ci rcumst it was'
the original presentment.
Court Ito fall backconfirm presentment in which
Were t ley to
an error, that land was liable, but that
they foul id so manifes. a
vere not liable
? Hs thought it essen-
the strut tunes upon it .
authority &mu which they
tial to the use of Jurt. thectheatexerciseoftheir
power. This
emanated sh ould control .
and should be done there. If
was done by. the Court abov•
c'.vllthe would value, y go against
they e2clirded from the decree .
se in an appeal fur that
bothlt „.3.5 no, excuse
preaeonnt 'nts. fthe Jury.
The to sbeke r their own igniWance under that e
t
a judgment, and he thought
should Count ould exercise its ow.
should fall. bad :on the previous preseotment.
The qu estio n being put, there apps; red on tho ;how of
hands—

, .
For tt 'le original motion ...
For ti e amendment' 4
Mr. Lt :SLIE t of having voted on the question,
called upon
the Chair man to give the casting vote, which he declined to do ;
he called for a see and division, the parties voting moving to the
right and left of tl4.‘ e Chair, the greater portion of 01# commis-
-1 •

sioners going below the bar and out of the room. The result
was—

For the amendment • 3
Against it
Majority against amendment —2
Mr. Willoughby's motion was then put, when there ar-
peared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against motion —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 on Mr. LESLIE, 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 assessments,
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, Curial-grounds, not being proprietary.
Royal palaces, courts of law, Westminster-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.
FOB. A GAINST.
Mr. Beach, Mr. Willoughby,
Coles, . W. White,
Gutch, Leslie,
Lowe, Goldicutt,
Mayhew, Frame,
Crace Bourdillon. .
Griffiths,
Jacobs,
Lock,
Unwin,
John White.
Sir, the effect of that unfortunate decision has been one of
great pecuniary charge to the rate-payers, the present inhabi-
tant_ of the districts. • The sum for the professional valuations
is ra lily 1,000/. ; what the amount of law expenses up to the
pre :‘,rit time may be, I can hardly venture to imagine ; besides
whi h, almost every parish has in consequence 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 I 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 void, being con-
tra.-.y 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
ainendment 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 power 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 purport 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 Com Missioners of Sewers have any authority
to precede the opinion" of a jury in a large outlay of money
for valuing, according to Mr.. Poulott Scrope's. Pero-
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 Act, 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 Callis, p 108,
states that the qualification of a jury for sewers is not altered
by 4`Anne,-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 statutein 1585 to 80s, by the 27th Eliza-
beth, cap. 6, and increased in 1664 by the 16th and 17th Car..
11., cap. 3, to 20/. 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, 10/. per
annum. This was the origin of the present 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 Coort 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 tithe, 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. '1 he present Lord Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, Tyndal 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 p'aintiff'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. '1 iris 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
ail subsequent proceedings are carom• non judice. His objec-
tion prevailed, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict, damages
3/. 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 he
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 talks
of a Jury of 12, vide 11th 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 interpre!ation of the statute of Henry VIII., in
modern times, on this point, Duke of Newcastle v. Clarke and
others, 8 Taunton,page 602, et seq., Mr. Justice Park, in his
judgment, in going over the powers given to Commissioners of
Sewers under the statute, says, "they may compel abe-
d ence to their orders ; they may command the Sheriffs by their
mandator), writs to summon a Jury of 12 men, for the purpose of
inquiry." This I submit deserves the serious consideration of the
Court. My next objection is that this Court cent the Jury into a pri-
vate room to hear the evidence in secret, upon which they
were to make the presentment, "prepared"- for the Jury,
under the orders of this Court. The well-known case of the
King v. the Commissioners of Sewers for Somersetshire, 7
East 71. Lord Ellenborough said, " But this is not a judicial
method of making the inquiry; the Jury ought to be sworn
before the Commissioners, before whom also the inquirj is to
be conducted by evidence, to be delivered upon oath, upon
hearing which the Jury are to make their presentment." Sir
Frederick Pollock, in his recent opinion, also expressed the
same. The Commissioners, therefore, in a mast important
point, are acting against a judicial decision, in which the very
point formed part of the judgment, and in which the whole
Couri; were unanimous in quashing the whole proceedings.
Because the doctrine laid down to the Jury, " that the Com-
missioners impose the tax upon the land, and are not bound to
inquire whose property it is, or to regard any question of own-
ership or occupation." lamat a loss to usiderstand how any
person could read the statutes or the judicial cases and arrive
at such a conclusion. What does the statute 23 Henry VIII.
c. 5, say ? Section 3-" As also to inquire by the oath of the
honest and lawful men of the shire, where such defaults and
annoyances be, as well within the hirer ies as without (by whom
the truth may the rather be known), through whose defaults the
said hurts and damages have happened, and who bath or holdeth
any lands or tenements, or common or pasture, or profit of
fishing, or bath or may have any hurt, loss, or advantage in the
said places, as well near to the saidlets impediments as inhabit-
ing or dwelling thereabouts by the said walls, ditches, banks,
gutters, goles, sewers, trenches, and other the said impedi-
ments and annoyances, and all those persons, and every of
then, to tax, assess, charge, distrain, punish, Sze." Section 8
-" )rovided always and it is enacted, that if any person or
persons being assessed or taxed to any let or charge for any
lards, tenements, or hereditaments, do not pay the said lot and.
chsrge &c," So much for the " Bill of Sewers."
Lard Coke's Reports supply the earliest and most important
judicial decisions on the Bill of Sewers, and in the Isle of Ely
case, the seventh year of James the First. The Judgment of
the Court is thus laid down (10 Coke) It was also re-
sol-ved that none could be taxed towards the reparation but
those who had prejudice, damage, or disadvantage by the
said nuisances or defaults, and who might have benefit and
profit by the reformation or• removing of them ; also, the tax
assessment and charge ought to have these qualities :-First,
it ought to he according to the quantity of their lands, tene-
ments, and rents, and by the number of acres and perches.
S scowl, according to the rate of every person's portion, tenure,
•gr profit, or of the quantity of the common of pasture, or of
fishing or other commodity. And, therefore, it was clearly re-'
rsived that ;hp said tax, generally of a several sum in gross
u
particular, according
e4U their commission, but it
to the express words,
qupBonht a
to town,have
bisee nnof w
observiss/ the ojwclitm afereatud,celebrated me of
upon .every owner or possessor of lands, tenements, rents,
The &c.,