The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-13 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

DOE DEM. PRITCHARD V. DODD. 000 i!
The Couttx was occupied the whole of the foreto
hearing the arguments in this case. It was a Oepter
set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, and t°
nonsuit. tome
The action was by ejectment, and the question
on the construction of a lease. °P
After hearing Sir JAMES SCARLETT in oppoiti
and Mr. Por.Locx in support of, the rule,
The COURT made it absolute.

BAIL COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Pr s, before Mr. Justice Lirra"DO)
TYLER V. O'I:ELIA', ESQ. 1101 ~e
Mr. BUSBY stated the case for the plaintm. -1)J0
an action brought by a gentleman residing in tbe de:(
street, Berkeley-square, to recover damages fronioil,
fendant, a gentleman of fortune in the neighbour',"
the Regent's-park, 2501. upon a bill of exchange' del
on and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed 1,/',ol°
son named Gunn, to the plaintiff. The learned roc',
said lie understood it was intended to be set up in /00°1
that the bill, with another, bad been parted with
consideration ; and from some proceedings which 'O6l
ready taken place between the parties, it would be jot o'
nary to adduce more than ordinary evidence in act
this kind. _
vio
. .

The admission of the defendant's acceptance • 11104
put in and read. The bill was also read. It Ott fdr
payable to the order of Mr. William Douglas,
months' date from the 11th Sept., 1832, at
Wrights, Henrietta.street, Covent-garden.
John Thomas Gunn stated that be was a CO bo,'
in Foley-street. On the 11:h of September, Olt
he received the bill in question from Doug,, 0.4 r
drawer, and be gave full value for it. He afteroo°l,
was in want of money, and he got the plaintiff to di, P.
it. He received the amount (deducting 21. 10s•
interest) in two payments of 1501., and 911.
Witness had taken from Douglas another bill on 'lO
fendant, the two making 5001., and he gave Dougiaso'
in cash, a new carriage at 2001., a phaeton and 1,01,°, too'
45/., and a painting by Reubens, at 1501. Whentbd
the bills ha got from Douglas a letter addresseri.art
person, and signed by the defendant, the rirr,oo
which was as follows :—" I hereby authorise
neociate the two bills, and I declare that they are,lo3l'
way connected with any gambling or usurious Lrof
tion." That paper witness iriowed to the
satisfy him of the respectability of the partiesss,
podness of the bill in question. When the
dishonoured, the plaintiff wrote ,o witness fur PLO:
Witness had applied to the defendant, who at fir'tt-bglh
had received nothing on the bills, and afterwards
had only 1001.
0 '

Cross-examined by Mr. WlLLfam--Afr•
stited that he had been swindled out of the v 1,00;
Douglas. Had not known Douglas before thin
,triciel
tom, and was then introduced to him by a mutual
a 3
who said he was the sun of a lady to whom witae-C/1
sold a carriage. Douglas said he lived in Carlton ,o'or
berg. Witness called there once, and found they 'jefj
Douglas and Lynch on the door, but he saw 114,,,e
those persons there. Had made inquiry for Doug
understood he had absconded to Calais.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Ab ! a very cot.venient Pl3oCegsl9ll3tl
'1
there happens to be a ditch between there sad """

—(A laugh.)
do
Witness could not tell what Douglas wanted to do r
th- chariot and phaeton, but supposed toey were (:,e,
friend, Mr. O'Kelly. Had kept the painting fiver
and originally gave but 35/. for it. Bougot it a 0410
and understood it was worth 5001. Ch, rged o°cl,oll
1501. Understood Douglas to have beer. defePsi/ll'
agent. Was occasionally iu the habit of disct,untiog
Had done business fur plaintiff, but never got Wel ,tclot°,
count a bill before. When witness discovered Do .be
be not so good as be ought to be, and when Mr. voitall:
said he had been swindled out of the bills,
did not communicate those facts to the plaintiff, Ile
consider it necessary to do so, believing then, as dlpl
now, that the defendant was a responsible man, spel v 0
the bills were good. Witness had been threale, ;if%
plaintiff with being arrested on this bill. Had Pet,
plaintiff's attorney some business to do, in order tovec
him quiet.—(A laugn.) It was " a little bit of debiolf't
in which be (witness) succeeded. Expected by (alro
dence to-day to keep the plaintiff quiet alseled no
laughter.) If this action failed plaintiff intePpi:o
to arrest him. The plaintiff was a gentleman, 4°ol'
business. His father was a Colonel in the army' bill
brother a Major of the 97th Regiment. lye
The plaintiff's attorney proved the dishonour of •
when presented at Messrs. Wrights. era 0
Mr. WILLIAMS, in defence, said it was pretty dor- ,
client had been swindled out of the bill, and be cirr0
14,
considerable length on the variety of auspicious ptli I
stances in the whole of the transaction betweelfP, 001
and the witness Gunn, the latter of whom lilee
deeply interested in fixing the defendant with the
the bill.
His LORDSHIP was about to Wm up, when lbti°,ol‘/I
said they would save him that trouble, as they °-
the plaintiff for 2501., and 101. 7s. for interest.
COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY
(SITTINGS IN NISI ?RIDS.)
Mr. Justice J. A. PARKS sat at Nisi Prins' 0"
Middlesex Jury, in No. 11, Committee-room of
of Commons.
efi
COLLINS V. BENNETT.
This was an action upon thecase to recover colli„te
iot0)0
in damages for an assault under the following cirrol-j,
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Arab° tr
conducted the plaintiff's case, that the plaintiTj, /:‘,l
labouring man, of advanced years, and nearly bliirlfroi
obtained possession, some time ago, of a small 0140
waste land in the parish of Beaden, in the C!ipit'p
Sussex, upon which he erected a small cottage' 00
for some time he resided, until the land came
possession of the defendant, a wealthy farmer, r,e6,
s 0 b
the same neighbourhood. The defendant in ortie'ocl
the plaintiff out of possession, untiled the roof' otPsot
sequently let the premises to a man of the oply
Richardson. In the month of May, 1831, the 'righ
under the impression that he still had some odlog
the property, entered the house, stating that berpige'ho
take possession. On his refusing to leave the Pte ioiVe
defendant was sent for, and the plaintiff persist etio
refusal to quit, the defendant seized him by trotir,
dragged him out of the house across the garde°'
him several severe blows on the head and
eventually with the assistance if a man named
violently threw him over the stile into the (eV'
The defendant bled profusely and was in othe'ot ,
severely injured, and for these injuries the pose ee
was brought.
so"

Several witnesses were examined, and pro'- , j,e;
dence the case as stated by the plaintiff's Countteiefeao°,,)
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE, who appeared for the aps4,4l Ird
contended that his client was sent for in his ch—ol'lrt
constable to remove a trespasser, and that be,",v V 0;
so doing in any degree exceeded the autbornb°
invested in him. he plaintiff was himself
600tp,t,
aggressor, for though he might have ' icyge
afforded him a means of enforcing them by °illy
ejectment, and he was not justified in perB43,°-0e "Pij
i
upon himself a forcible possession. Having Oitli vive
constable was justified in removing him ; and 1:0 ti
to the alleged injuries, he (Mr. Sergeant spay will,-
tbe
be able to prove they had been much exag..g er tb- )
witnesses for the plaintiff, and he maintained, t 7
plaintiff was entitled at all to a verdict, it 1130 t
be
r-
O
amount of the smallest coin in the realm.
Several witnesses were called and exantioetAtiill (
testimony rather went to corroborate the Pl° Glebe
than to mike out a defence. ;A 3 cftoAl4
Mr. Justice PARKE, in summing up, oh,""ilit 'dr°
the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, 104 ,fi-eiatk 1/
Jury to say what amount in damages was a
for the injuries received. rest
The Jury, after a few momenta' deliheratol4 •
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 504

Y.)

io
; fore;
a 19°t;pter
ci to
estioo
to
ppoo

0)
tro°

r.
in 1)h dr
froatiboei
Ilboarbotoo,
,angel
ied
-np
ed
ae vf, et,
:hnOl
With ''l4,lol'
/hid' 'wer
aid be 'Ol
in aCti°
6rfl
nce Itslodje
[t
glas,
at 16 1 ,

)A`l')
j
of the

SCHOOL OP NAVAL ARCHITECTURE,

' Itrom the Metropolitan Magazine for November.
IC APOLOGY FOR ENGLISH SHIP-BUILDERS ;
SHOWING THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THE
COUNTRY SHOULD LOOK TO THE NAVY FOR
xc
E 'AAL
ang ARCHITECTS. Effingham Wilson, 88, Royal
he.
t' The First Lord of the AdMiralty stated, in the House of
o„n'inoos, that he was advised and firmly persuaded, that a
;1-1 captain more competent than any individual he
icould
‘s bly select from the Ship-building Department, tn fi lv the
of Surveyor of the Navy."—Vide " Debates on the Navy
-Altnates," June 29, 1832 (page 5.)
" This is a plausible and well-written pamphlet, as-
14tning a mask of humility to obtain its ends, and a defe-
tetial respect to the First Lord of the Admiralty, which
it completely at variance with the whole tenor of its ar-
Ruments and assertions. It has evidently been submitted
Mr to the scrutiny of many, has been carefully revised and
recto", and its sentences weighed previous to publica-
tio
tn We think we could put our finger upon several
Pits
ages, and ascribe them to the true writers. We can
!e'aea ggestions from the ex-navy board, ex-surveyor,
at School of Naval Architecture, separately and on-
Jointly,A in this little work, which we consider it our duty
"refute, because it is well, apparently temperately written,
f has, we know, produced a greater sensation than these
ltd has,
in general do.
a"
We have before strongly advocated the cause of
`ap,',l7tain Symons, who, after all, is, himself, his be,t
°cate, as every day proves the advantages which are
erwed from his appointment to the office of Surveyor of
thhe NavYl and the injury which has accrued to the country
1Y the inefficiency of Sir R. Seppings. Every new ship
ethched by Captain Sy monde adds to his reputation, and
Mt u es all the malignity of hi
s opponets. Deeds, and
Ar),
acatp Words,' should he the motto over that officer's crest;
.
t.r or those who were most opposed to him have ac
cowledged their error since the qualities of the Vestal
.ave been known ; while the errors of Sir R. Seppings
t'te becoming every day more gl 'tingly apparent. During
b°! whole period of his holding the situation, he never
onelgood ship—the only one approximating to merit,
'ae the Castor, whose lines after she was laid down, were
altered so as to steal upon the models of Captain Symonds ;
hut, not only has Sir R. Seppinge never built a good ship,
he has spoilt many which were good previous to his
terations. We have a floating evidence of this fact in
she Caledonia, which always was considered as one of the
'nat vessels in our service. What is she now ? She
*as taken into dock to be thoroughly repaired, her beam
V't, 41 increased one foot, to render her more buoyant—of
,t-°tltse to raise her lower deck ports higher out of the
bu'rte.c. It was found that, in her new construction, one
wendred and thirty-eight tons more of wood and iron
re employed than in her former, and the expense of the
,1 tePair was enormous. She is now afloat again : instead
Cot arrying her lower-deck ports higher out of the water,
thewithstanding her increased width of beam, she carries
f lower, They are now five feet five incites, and
i•ajrnerly they were five feet nine inches, or five feet ten
I.:ltss, we do not exactly know which, above the water
pet In In fact, the Caledonia, which has cost the country
ijuaPs two hundred thousand pounds, is spoilt. But, as
5,„14, not our object in this paper to enter upon the de-
s,ffri:te of Sir R. Seppings,we shall leave him for the present,
iv'," the remark that Sir James Graham acted most
-Irii,,4sly in removing him from his situation.
Svic This pamphlet attempts to prove that Captain
itcoods is unfit for his situation, and that the students
evittkhe School of Naval Architecture have been treated
great injustice, Icy a Surveyor of the Navy not
gu4vl4 been selected from their body. To a series of ar•
t kents are attached a series of calculations, which, of
lip,'4;4e, to the major part of its readers must be unintel-
p,;,T:;e• We have examined them. The three first pro-
fl,;rns we can disprove, and therefore we went no
ariti"er• The fact is, that these are not in their place,
ptlb:ut the writers of the pamphlet calculated that the
tie would exclaim
` As to what's incomprehensible
And We dare be sworn 'Os full as sensible.'
I) We should have passed over this portion of the
Ptsehlet, had it not been that there is a wilful miscom-
Isdpeasion of Captain Symonds's principles. We acknow-
larht that Captain Symonds has not a facility of express•
withltriaelf lucidly, but this is more frequently the. case.
tett; men of talent than with others. After all, it is a
l'ht-7 of opinion what is and what is not hearing.'
Co -","1"ioal terms may be misunderstood, but there can be
17, "ulstake in the practical qualities of the Vernon, the
athistdrlt and the other admirable models which have been
Surveyor t° our navy by the superior talents. of the present
!lu''eYt,°r• But we consider that Captain Symonds re-
llttjairne: advocate : we must at once come to the pith of
bel,fllcPhlet, which is,—whether, in the appointment of
rsain Symonds, the School of Naval Architecture have
treated with injustice; and whether, in future, the
-„teYors of the Navy are to be selected from that body.
Captain Symonds, it is stated, when he first built
did not know how to make his own calculations.
bee Will grant it, whether it be true or not. He had not
thin accustomed to it—but what then ?He knew how
ittla Were to be built; he detected the errors of others,
the felt Practically that he was right. How often is this
th,:tete ? How often do you find the greatest talent in
the -:,Who cannot write or read, but who, nevertheless, by,
ti;`rength of their genius, obtain that practical calcula-
-0:;° Which enables them to produce the most extraordi•
thy!, results, unassisted by theory. There is no great
tob-`etY in these calculations. The rules are simple and
%,,,4tard, and easily acquired. We presume, that Captain
tome ads knows them now ; if he do not, and he will
1%4;4' lar he shall be master of them all in a very few
Pathitiltet Captain Symonds, it would appear by this
ti:!;ulet, is not a builder. He is ignorant of all the
tt4iLts of construction—don't know how to fasten his own
letZte"...-clon't know how much a matey ought to
Ae 11l a day—cannot measure their work, &c. Granted ;
Itith'ore not exactly sure that we know how to pudding an
ia th rtbut still we may not be a bad officer nevertheless; and,
„a boatswain has been brought up to it, we allow him
%rerforen the task. It is ridiculous how the writers of
ets pamphlet jump from one extreme to the other. At
IlietiltaCtnent it is all theory, in the next it is all p.ractice►
tirpt 1g absolutely necessary. A want of either Ps sufi-
atith; and as Captain Symonds, by their account, has
her must be doubly disqualified. Before we pro-
e 'oth, let us examine how their own arguments
Mhs„4°l3 Sir R. Seppings, whom they would defend.
onaesert that a person not able to make his own calcu-
-14 is not fit for the situation of Surveyor. Could Sir
IPOeitht,,SePpings make his own calculations when he was
itod ?We remember him a dock-yard matey, of
ktitinPotnise, in Chatham Yard, never dreaming of ever
to be Sir Robert Seppings, Surveyor of the Navy.
!kit" not this to his disparagement, far from it ; but at
his calculations were limited to his chalk and
ttst We still think Sir R. Seppings would, if controlled,
Illotiatoved a very efficient master builder.; there he
trend have stopped. But a man who has arrived at his
climacteric without troubling his bead with a deci-
ill°,,t vulgar fractions, would find much more difficulty
Ittp "grain Symonds, who always had the powers of
Ohl elleulation although he had never applied to the spe-
-7t Piles neceasary in calculating the line of flotation.
i'4l."(4lbt if Sir Robert ever made his calculations to the
Old dogs don't learn new tricks, and an infinite
IS in algebra is infinitely puzzling to a man who has
NI":"1 the age of forty. Upon these two arguments,
tree Sir R. Seppings was no more fit for the situa-
bs 4%1 Captain Symonds. In fact, the arguments of
ittarnPhlet remind us of the battle of Waterloo, in
thke French assert that the English were beaten, but
now it—not knowire°lting it, they marched to Paris.
naPPears that Captain Symonds, being neither prac-
,,tear e°' theoretical, cannot build a ship—but not being
Goo his deficiencies, he has, in his ignorance, built
t It iat vessels which ever graced the English navy.
till-41:14 fact, as notorious as
.it is true to the principles of
Lerit attire, that a technical education is the. v.ery
ta'svei:ll which to ground hopes of those splendid im-
?tig-"ietattts: which have an effect so stupendous upon the
Ot of °' posterity, and winch appear to be more the
463 heavenly intuition than the result of unwearied
tient reasoning. Centuries may roll away in in-
i4d lahot°il to obtain some gramd secret, and the efforts
I.,!tht t of men prove vain; but when the Deity thinks
liLtl ae4,i'a,Y, "Let there be light," there is light, not be-
te taat light is generally produced in the very oppo-
teearter from which it was expected. To a certain
la4„tht may he accounted for. For instance, those
Oit,e been for a series of years employed in Naval
rttio,etore, labouring at all the details, burdening their
rule With what others have discovered, finding a
th!tall,e: and perhaps a reason for each fixed rule, are
41ch 1,4 out the transmitters down to posterity of that
id Z'a been already discovered. Should even a bril-
hy Preaent itself to their imagination, it is instantly
oters, founded upon prescription, and drilled
altht, tatb"Y h
core of the brain by practice, which soon
6,411 "
b e original conception, and the man plods on as
•c. 51:0
on taught, and as others have plodded before
t 4 41 is tools are in his hand, and be reasons with
q oreesve.. than with his understanding; to a suggestion
i,,
his pencil and a calculation ; the compass
Sl qhere"I
asaie-, are with him arguments irrefutable. A man
or rather so trammelled. by education, is well
'eic, e practical the conceptions of others, but to
e •
°he'
Would be in him a species of heresy at

which he %you'd shudder. But let us look back, let us
contemplate the registered events which have gradually
lifted society from barbarism to our present state of refine-
ment, and we shall perceive the truth of the above obser-
vations, by finding that almost every discovery of import
.nee, every brilliant production of genius, have almost
invariably been the offspring of those not possessed of that
technical education, which at first sight might reasonably
be supposed to have originated them. These remarks
have the character of universality. The lawyers, the
oractical lawyers, are the very worst body to whom may
he intrusted the revision of a nation's jurisprudence.—
For the heat poems, the best plays, or works of fiction, we
are not indebted to those whose life bas been one of con
iimied education. The universities, as a body, have given
us fewer people of literary renown than any other class of
men. Milton owed but little to them; Pope less; and Shake-
peare—the immortal Shakspeare—absolutely nothing.
The first idea of a steam engine originated not in a pro-
f ssed mechanist, but a reflective nobleman. The loga-
rithms were not discovered by the professors of a college,
hut by Baron Napier, of Marchintown. The spinning-
jenny, that prolific parent of all the vast machinery which
now benefits the nation in her unbounded cotton manufac-

tories, was the invention of a barber. Every department
of science has gained more from those who have not been
trammelled by technicalities, although they have been
guided by general laws; and why? because they had
nothing to unlearn—they stood upon the eminence of reason,
and viewed the whole subject at once ; they reflected for
themselves, respecting but not worshipping authority, and,
Aided by practice, their theory was crowned with success.
" Bearing in mind the above remarks, we will put it to
any candid reasoner, whether, of all persons existing, a
captain of a man of war is not placed precisely in that
situation most likely to discover the merits and demerits
in Naval Architecture—whether be is not likely to be the
best judge of what a ship is, and what she ought to be—
and, knowing all this, the best able to furnish such a
model as will remedy existing defects, and combine those
advantages which he has practically proved ? The naval
architect builds the ship, the captain of her ascertains her
qualities ; he has time for reflection, opportunity for ob-
servation to the utmost extent, and, by long practice and
experimental working, he brings her under that control,
which almost verifies Byron's sublime idea,
She walks the waters like a thing of life.'

He finds out exactly what she caa do, where her powers
fail, and why ; and if there be a remedy for any deficiency
in her construction, he can apply it. Sailors have an
intuitive knowledge of ships, and can almost tell, by the
eye, what their good and bad qualities may he. Habit
has produced a discrimination which is almost equal to
science ; and the lines of a vessel, which the builder
imagines are only to be found in the draught in his pos-
session, are as clearly traced upon the retina of a practised
sailor, as if the drawing were before him. The fact is,
that the great duty of an officer in the command of a ves-
sel now a-days is to remedy the defects of the builder, and
to make the best of a bad bargain ; and had their advice
been attended to, instead of having been scouted with
contempt by the late Navy Board, our naval architecture
would have been greatly improved.
" Although seamen have never been permitted to offer
their advice upon ship-building, their practical suegesrions,
pertinaciously repeated, have been attended with more
success; and what has been the result ?—that all the late
improvements have originated chiefly from naval officers ;
but in no instance, that we can recollect, from the dock-
yard. Let any one look at the fitting out of a man-of-
war from the dock-yard—what sort of a vessel is she? A
disgrace to the service. No sooner is she in the hands of
the officers, than she is equipped anew, at a great expense
to the captain, and then she appears as a man-of-war
ought to be. Are we indebted to the dock-yard, or to
naval officers, for the iron tanks for water—Truscott's

pump applied to them—the chain cables of Captain
Brown—the capstern and compass of Captain Phillips—
the rudder of Captain Lehon—Rodger's anchor—Harris's
rope—and the numerous other improvements which have
emanated from scientific officers ?

" The writers of this pamphlet charge Captain Symonds
with not having invented a new system of ship-building,
but having returned to the old system which had been
abandoned, and which they acknowledge to have been cor-
rect. If so, how disgraceful has been the conduct of our
Surveyors of the Navy, to depart from that which was
right; and how satislactorily does it prove the superiority
of Captain Symonds, and his fitness for Lis situation!
We agree with them to a certain extent. Captain Sy-
monds has evidently based his models upon the old Gib-
raltai. ; but, at the same time that he has availed himself

of her good qualities, he has carefully remedied her defects.
Captain Symonds appears to be led by a❑ unerring grand
principle, which is, that, by repeated experiments, he will
eventually produce a model which will require no iron
ballast ; that is to say, that the provisions and stores, when
complete, shall be sufficient for her ballast, and she shall
only require filling up as she lightens, to keep her suffi-
ciently down in the water. If Captain Symonds suc-
ceeds in this grand desideratum, we think he will then,
with the other qualities which lie has already realized,
have brought the building of men-of. war to the highest
state of perfection which we may reasonably anticipate.
" We shall proceed to investigate the claims which the
School of Naval Architecture so arrogantly (for their pre-
tended humility is nothing but arrogance) bring forward.
And here we must stop one minute to condemn that poli-
tical animosity which induced Sir Byam Martin and his
confederates to extol the parties to an excess which has
laid the foundation of their grievous error. To oppose
and find fault with the measures of Sir James Graham,

they found it necessary to prove datnagee, and this could
not be effected but by elevating the School of Naval Archi-
tecture to a height which was as unwarrantable as it wss
untrue. Sir Byam Martin eulogises them as highly gifted
young men. Does Sir Byars Martin know the meaning
of highly gifted ? It is difficult even in these days, to
find one highly gifted man in a thousand ; and yet, Sir
Byatn Martin has discovered that the whole School of
Naval Architecture are highly gifted young men. We
have no wish to depreciate their talents, and have no
reason to doubt, but that after the education they have

received through the bounty of Government, that they are

well informed, and have a good knowledge of the theory
of naval architecture ; but, as to putting them on a level

with the present Surveyor of the Navy, the idea is pre-
posterous. But let us examine the present situation of
these persons, and see if they have any ground for complaint
—whether any provision has been made for them, after
Government has been at the expense of their education.
We subjoin a list of the whole School of Naval Architecture,
with the situations
.they hold, and the salaries attached to
their office.

Salary.
Richard Abethel ... Assist. Master Builder, Deptford £4OO
Thomas Pretius
William Morgan
Francis Lan e Foreman .... Ditto 250
John Major Ditto Ditto 250
William Parsons
Samuel Reid Ditto Chatham 250
William Rice Ditto Ditto
John Williams Ditto Portsmouth ... 250
Isaac Watts Ditto Plymouth 250
Henry Chatfield
James Bennett Ditto Portsmouth ... 250
William Henwood Ditto Ditto 250
James Peake Ditto Ditto 250
George Cutfield
John Sheffield Ditto Chatham 250
John Allen
Augustus Creuze Ditto Portsmouth ... 250
Jeremiah Owen Student
Thomas Lloyd
Archimedes Shaw Ditto Ditto ISO
Henry Craddock Ditto
John Hancorn
W. R. Lang
Joseph Large Ditto Ditto

£62230
" It appears, then, that all the school have been pro-
vided for, and at an expense of 6,250/. per annum—no samll
sum in these days of necessary economy; and we must
say, that when we consider the situation of the junior
officers in our own service, when we call to mind that there
are now about 2,000 young men of family and education,
who, after having served ten or twelve years as mid-
shipmen, after having dedicated their youth up to man-
hood to the service of their country, are now remaining
on shore without a fraction of half pay, these highly_
gifted personages should feel most grateful. The economy
so imperiously demanded by the country, and which has
prevented Sir James Graham, who feels and acknowledges
the unfair situation in which the junior officers are placed,
but who cannot assist them—this urged economy appears
to have been overlooked in providing for the School of
Naval Architecture. Yet these persons represent them-
selves as neglected—not only neglected, but unjustly
treated : they assume that they have been induced by pro.
miseravn gt to entere eaf
uil
fulfilled,
da, profession,thattheir prospects in life have been and these promises not
h
blighted. This is a serious charge which we must
refute ; and we must observe th it, in our refutation, wt
are not stimulated by malevolent feelings. If there is
exposure, ti,e parties must thank themselves and Sir Byam
Martin.

" The first question which naturally presented itself,
when we beard of the grievous injustice to which they
had been martyrs, was, who are these people, and what
have they lost? What are the prospects in life which have
been thus blighted? To obtain this information, it was
necessary that we should make some inquiry into the
means possessed by their parents to have forwarded them
in life, through other channels. To obtain the whole
information we found was impossible, for nobody knew

.

from whence the major part of them sprang, and some,
it appears, cannot legally make claim to any father. We
now subjoin a list of all that we could collect, from which
the original prospects of the remainder m iy be fairly esti-
mated.

Richard Abethel, his father, Reduced Measurer of Dock-yard.
Thomas Pretious, ditto A caulker in Woolwich-yard.
John Major, ditto A mercer in London.
Samuel Reid, ditto In the Carriage Department,Wool.
wich.yard.
William Rice, ditto Lieutenant in the navy.
Isaac Watts, ditto Custom-house officer.
George Cutfield, ditto Master in the navy.
John Allen, ditto Quarterman in Dock-yard.
Augustus Creuze, ditto French teacher at Naval College.
Archimedes Shaw, ditto Clerk in the Dock-yard.
John Hancorn, ditto Clerk in Ordnance Department.
W. R. Lang, ditto Assistant in Deptford-yard.
Joseph Large, ditto Shoemaker, Chatham.
James Peake, ditto The late Surveyor.
" Now, there are only two upon this list whose
parents can be considered as respectable. Mr. Peake, the
son of the late surveyor, stands alone ; and the next to
him is Mr. Rice, the son of a lieurenant in his Majesty's
service. Mr. Rice is better off than his father, who
probably supporta a family upon a half-pay of 901. per
annum, while his son is in the rec Ipt of a salary of 250/
But, taking them all, have they lost or gained in life by
their present situations ? What would they in all probability
have been, if the Government had not educated and pro-
vided for them ? In every probability, journeymen manu-
facturers and mechanics. And yet they complain of
injustice, because they are not made surveyors of the navy,
land, of course, because they are not also knighted. It is
really too preposterous. Even a student receives a sti-
pend equal to the half-pay of a post-captain in his Ma
jesty's navy, who has served his country for thirty years,
and is covered with medals and honours. Richard Abe-
thel and Thomas Pretius, sons of workmen in the dock-
yard, cry out because Government have educated them,
and put them into situations of 4001. per annum, with a
good house and allowances.
" We should strongly advise these highly-gifted per-
sonages to be cautious—to write no more pamphlets; but
to eat their pudding with thankfulness, and hold their
tongues. We will tell them a secret. There Lever was
6,250/. per annum, which could be so well saved to the
country. Instead of being victims of injustice, their in-
troduction has been an act of injustice, towards the old
servants of the public, occupied in the dock-yards, who,
at their own expense, have educated their children to fit
then. for those situations now held by the School of Naval
Architecture; we must also tell them that they are of
little or no use, too much puffed up with their own con-
sequence, and too much above their business, sauntering
about the yards, and picking their teeth with chips; and
further, that if the major part of them were dismissed, the
work of the dock-yards would go on much better than it
does at this present moment. The founding of the school
was ill-advised, and we trust that no more students will
be admitted, or, that Government will never again put
itself in the situation of a man in the fable, who, as soon
as he had cherished to life, by the warmth of his breast,
the frozen serpent of the dunghill, was gratefully rewarded
with its sting."

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.

THE PAVILION, BRIGHTON, Nov. 5, 18.13.

The King was this day pleased to confer the honour of
Knighthood upon Lieutenant-General Phineas Riall, Knight
Commander of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order.

WHITEHALL, AUGUST 19.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Robert Hillman, of
Lyme Regis, in the county of Dorset, Gent., to be a Master
Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.

Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Scttth.

ampton.

W. H. S. Stanloy, Esq., Oct. 10; the Hon. W. H. Ashe A
Court Holmes, Oct. 26, to be Deputy Lieutenants.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Sussex.
J. D. Gilbert, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant, Nov. 6.
Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Surrey.
2d Regiment of Royal Surrey Militia.

Ensign R. W. Chadwick to be Lieutenant, vice L. B. Sharp,
resigned; H. D. Perrott, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Chadwick,
promoted, Nov. 1.

Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Worcester.

Worcestershire Yeomanry Cavalry.

The Hon. R. H. Clive to be Colonel-Commandant, ♦ice the
Earl of Plymouth, deceased, Nov. 4.

DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY.

MARY ANN KERLY, lapidary, Red Lion-street, Clerk-
enwell.
HENRY OWEN, tailor, Monmouth street, Seven Dials.
JOHN BURDON, ship-builder, Bishop Wearmouth.
HORATIO NELSON PO WELL, scrivener, Chipping
Sodbury, Gloucestershire.

WILLIAM TURNER, common.brewer, Harlington, Mid.
dlesex.
AUGUSTUS LINES, grocer, Aylesbury.
BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED.

HENRY LATHAM and RICHARD THOMAS, iron.
mongers, Chester, from Nov. 8 to Dec. 6, at eleven, at the
White Lion Inn, Chester.

BANKRUPTS.
HENRY THOMPSON, merchant, Blackheath-Park,
Charlton, Kent, to surrender Nov. 22, and Dec. 24, at eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Haynes, Change-alley, Corn-
hill ; Clark, official assignee, St. Swithin's-Lane, Lombard.
street.
SAMUEL WELLS, carpenter, St. Alban's, Hertfordshire,
Nov. 19 and Dec. 24, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Belcher, King's Arms-yard, Coleman-street, official assignee;
Bagster, Sise.lane, Bucklersbury.
GEORGE KING, coal-merchant, Norwich, Nov. 27 and
Dec. 24, at twelve, at the office of Mr. Holt, Yarmouth. Holt,
Yarmouth; Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pearse, and Hunt, Fre-
derick's.place, Old Jewry, London.
EDWARD PEMBRY, innkeeper, Chester, Nov. 27 and
Dec. 24, at ten, at the Feathers Hotel Chester. Bower, Chan-
cery-lane.
THOMAS EDWARDS, tailor, Hatton-garden, Nov. 19, at
two, and Dec. 24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Hanley and Southee, Ely-place.
JAMES HOLLOWAY BIDDLE, carpenter, Grays, Essex,
Nov. 22, at twelve, and Dec. 24, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Green, King's Arms-yard, official assignee;
Flower, Austin-friars, London ; Slerry, Romford.
DANIEL JERMYN, ship.agent, Yarmouth, Nov. 27 and
Dec. 24, at twelve, at the office of Mr. Holt, Yarmouth. Holt,
Yarmouth ; Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pearse, and Hunt, Frede-
rick's-place, Old Jewry, London.
ROBERT SEABROOK, miller, Thornborough, Bucking_
hamshire, Nov. 19 and Dec. 24, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Abbott, Coleman-street, official assignee ; Jones
and Ward, Bedford-row.
EDWARD CHEW, chymist, Manchester, Nov. 27, at four
and Dec. 24, at ten, at the Commissioners' Rooms, Manches.
ter. Bower, Chancery.lane, London; Walton and Green.
wood, Preston ; Owing and Gill, Manchester.
DIVIDENDS.
J. Griffin and J. M. Adams, goldsmiths, Strand, Dec. 2, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
R. Stephens, victualler, Newgate-street, Dec. 4, at twelve, at
the Court of Bankruptcy.
R. H. Arderne, cabinet-maker, High-street, Southwark,
Dec. 4, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
T. Thoinpson, merchant, Camomile-street, Dec. 4, at two,
at the Court of Bankruptcy.
W. Oaks, coppersmith, Houndsditch, Dec. 4, at three, at
the Court of Bankruptcy.
W. Wilkinson, woollen draper, Holborn-bridge, Dec. 5, at
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
H. Carter, chymist, Hastings, Dec. 5, 't half-past one, at the
Court of Bankruptcy.
J. Callow, silk mercer, Birminghatn, Dec. 5, at half-past
one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
T. Greenhill, flour-dealer, Great Dover-street, Dec. 5, at
half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
C. F. Woolcott, plumber, Tunbridge, Kent, Dec. 5, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
J. Stead, colour-manufacturer, King-street. Clerkenwell,
Dec. 5, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
J. L. Gardner, wine-merchant, Little 'lsmer-street, Dec. 5,
at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
J. Abbott, bookseller, Cannon.stroet-road, Dec. 5, at eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy.
G. R. Tempany, tailor, Holler-street, Cavendish square, Dec.
4, at half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
R. H. Brown, hackney.coachmaker, Regent-street, Dec. 4,
at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
J. D. Stainbank, grocer, Honiton, Devonshire, Dec. 3, at two,
at the Court of Bankruptcy.
R. and T. Coulthard, woollen-drapers, Queen-street, Fins-
bury, Dec. 3, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
H. Bell, shipowner, Crown-court, Threadneedle-street, Dec.
3, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
W. Caf£all, sen., butcher, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire,
Dec. 3, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
J. Clarke, tavern-keeper, Greenwich, Dec. 5, at two, at the
Court of Bankruptcy.
D. 0. Blyth, merchant, Colchester, Dec. 5, at twelve, at the
Court of Bankruptcy.
S. Castleden, baker, Three Colts.street, Limehouse, Dec. 3,
at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
H. Hunt, druggist, Brook-street, Grosvenor-square, Dec. 5,
at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
G. Dean, tallow chandler, Maidstone, Kent, Dec. 5, at one,
at the Court of Bankruptcy.
W. E. J. Neep, silversmith, Norwich, Dec. 4, at eleven, at
the office of Mr. C. S. Gilman, Norwich.
G. May, shoemaker, Clay Cross, Derbyshire, Dec. 4, at ten,
at the offices of Messrs. J. and R. G. Hutchinson, Chesterfield,
Derbyshire.
T. lat.tituonffit,cetsaonfnei‘ri,esNsVrhs.i.tjt.ianngtdonn,.
GD.eHrbuytschhirine,soDn,ecc.he4B,t
ear!
field.

R. Nell, bookseller, Grantham, Lincolnshire, Dec. 4, at four,
at the Guildhall, Grantham.
J. Emmerson, shoemaker, Chalk Foot, Cumberland, Dec. 4,
at eleven, at the Crown and Mitre Coffeehouse, Carlisle.
T. Lockwood, jun., and J. Cockburn, woollen-cloth-mane.

facturers, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, Dec. 6, at eleven, at the
offices of Messrs. Jacomb and Tindale, Huddersfield.
E. Jarvis, sailmaker, Richmond Walk, Devonshire, Dec. 5,
at eleven, at Elliott's Royal Hotel, Devonport.
J. Ridsdale, snuff-metchant, Springfield, Yorkshire, Dec. 7,
at eleven, at the Court House, Wakefield.
J. Jones, grocer, Chippenham, Wiltshire, Dec. 14, at two,
at the Commercial Rooms, Bristol.
J. Hart, tailor, Liverpool, Dec. 7, at twelve, at the Clarendon
Rooms, Livernool.
A. Aspinall, dealer and chapman, Birmingham, Dec. 4, at
one, at the White Horse Inn, Birmingham.
J. Mercer, joiner, Liverpool, Dec. 16, at one, at the Claren.
don Rooms, Liverpool.
CERTIFICATES.—Dec. 3.
D. Cockerill, cattle-dealer, Edmonton.
W. Mold, saddlers'-ironmonger, Walsall, Staffordshire,
C. Snuggs, cabinet-maker, '.tint-street, Borough.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Tegg and Co. (so far as regards J. Tegg.)
J. Yarde and R. Medland, attorneys, Crediton, Devonshire.
L. A. L. Mansion and S. L. Eschauzier, lithographic en.
gravers, Old Brampton._

J. Davies and D. Houldin, coach proprietors, Liverpool.
E. and J. Earp, wool-staplers, Melbourne, Derbyshire.
C. Gutteridge and Co., milliners, Hertford.
J. Straker and C. Hunter, seed-crushers, Hillgate, Gateshead.
B. Brown and J. F. Rose, surgeons, Great Surrey-street.
R. Lansdale and F. Galloway, attorneys, Temple Chambers,
Fleet street.
J. Moss and P. B. Le Hunt, attorneys, Derby.
J. J. Broster and A. W. G. Dow, shipbrokers, Liverpool,
M. Lane and A. Rankin, attorneys, Backing, Essex.
W. Bailey and Co., chymists, Wolverhampton.
COURT FOR THE RELIEF OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS
The matters of the Petitions and Schedules of the Prisoners
hereinafter named (the same having been filed in the Court)
are appointed to be heard in the Court.house, in Portugal.
street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, on Friday, the 15th of November,
1833, at nine o'clock in the forenoon.
Burrell, Charles, late of Northumberland-place, Commercial.
road, grocer and cheesemonger.
Street, Frederick John, late of Regency square, Brighton, Sus-
sex, following no business.
Brown, Jane, late of Abbey.street, Bermondsey, Surrey, baker.
Hopkiti, Richard, Late of Downham, in the Isle of Ely, Cam-
bridgeshire, farmer.
Humphries, Richard Oram, late of Mead's row, Westminster-
road, Lambeth, coach-smith.
Strube,iFrederiek Rodolph, late of Marble-court, Webb-street,
Bermondsey, journeyman currier.
Rose, William Edmund, late of Old-road, Stepney, journeyman
cooper.
Tanner, Thomas, late of Lower Thames-street, Custom-house
agent.
Draper, John, late of Grenada.place, Old Kent-road, Surrey,
general and commission-merchant.
Downs, Gorge, late of Gunpowder-alley, Shoe-lane, Fleet-
street,
carver and gilder.
Easterbee, Joseph, late of Richardson's-mews, Warren-street,
Fitzroy-square, livery-stable-keeper, and horse-breaker.
Deane, Anthony William Johnson, late of Park-terrace, Green.
wich, gentleman.